Thank you, everyone, for your patience.

Welcome to Mesa City Council meeting, September 22nd.

All of our council members are present.

This is the last call for blue cards to be turned in for this meeting.

If you have a blue card that has not been turned in, please turn it in to the clerk.

Thank you.

We'll begin this meeting with a invocation by Pastor Jared Moore with the One Life Church, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.

Looks like Pastor Moore is not here.

We'll have a moment of silence.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the United States of America and to the Republic for Stance.

Okay.

Thank you, everyone.

Before we begin tonight's agenda, I want to share some updates with everyone that's here, and it's great that we have a great crowd tonight.

From now on, when cards are submitted in support or in opposition of an item, our city clerk will tally the totals from each side and read those numbers into the record.

This will allow us to acknowledge community input without reading every individual name aloud.

The list of the names will still be made available online the following day.

In cases where we receive any cards on the same topic, which is like tonight, city clerk staff should have spoken with you and when you've completed your card about selecting a spokesperson.

To avoid repetition, we'll ask that one spokesperson speak on behalf of those who share the same position.

If you submitted a request to speak but do not have the opportunity tonight, I would encourage you to share your comments online and the council reviews those published the following day.

Finally, I want to remind everyone that this is a business meeting and to main proper decorum.

Please refrain from capping clapping sharing or other disruptions.

These interruptions make it harder for us to move through the agenda and hear each speaker.

But let's keep this meeting respectful and orderly, and so every voice has a fair opportunity to be considered.

The mayor or anyone conducting this meeting has the authority to adjust as they deem necessary.

So with that, I think it's deemed necessary.

I'm going to hear first from citizens present.

So that would be the last agenda item.

However, I'm going to move that to the front to give those who wish to speak the opportunity to do so tonight.

That way, if you want to choose to leave the meeting and go about your business instead of uh continuing all our zoning things, uh, you're you're welcome to leave.

So with that, our first three speakers.

Uh, I would invite uh Betsy Soderquist.

Uh, she's opposed and to item 12.

Betsy, would you come forward?

Thank you.

Following her, I always put somebody uh on deck.

That's Alisa Owens.

Alisa, uh, you're on deck.

You're opposed to 287G.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Betsy Soderquist.

I've lived in Mesa just a bit over 50 years.

I believe in democracy, so that's why I'm here to share my beliefs with you.

I want to clarify the four aspects of the 287G program for the community and express my concerns about potential government overreach within it.

We know that 287G is an agreement between federal immigration authorities, DHS and ICE, and uh law enforcement departments.

There are four ways to implement the uh the agreements.

Number one is the jail enforcement model.

This is what Mesa Police Department has used since 2009.

It allows local enforcement to identify non-citizens who have been booked for criminal offenses.

This model operates from our local detention center and it isn't invasive in our law enforcement infrastructure.

So we haven't raised concerns for the past 16 years.

The warrant service officer model.

This is also confined to local detention facilities, but on ours.

Number three is the task force model.

This was reinstated this year after being halted for a while.

It allows deputized officers to enforce immigration laws during routine policing.

Officers using this model can make arrests for civil immigration violations without requiring a separate criminal charge.

This endangers our due process of law, our con and uh our constitutional right.

Number four is the hybrid model.

This is the task force model on steroids because it includes the jail enforcement model with it.

An ominous storm is brewing.

If Mesa police should expand to the task force or hybrid models.

According to the Brennan Center for Justice, the recent congressional budget allocates 170.7 billion dollars over four years for border and interior enforcement.

That is more money than the yearly budget for all local and state enforcement agencies combined throughout the country.

Austin Coker of Syracuse University warns the staggering expansion of 287G, and specifically the revival of the aggressive task force model means that this administration is building an army of deportation officers out of state and local law enforcement agencies at a scale we have never seen before.

Full stop.

Thank you, Betsy.

Alisa.

After Lisa, we have Dr.

Erica.

I'm sorry, but Dr.

Erica, you're next.

Thank you.

Elisa.

Hi, uh, my name is Alyssa Lamontang Owens.

I am a United States citizen.

I have been a resident for Mesa for the last eight years.

I live in Dobson Ranch.

Uh I am also here in opposition to the 287G.

Um for clarification, we don't actually oppose uh, you know, putting people who have been charged with violent crimes into removal proceedings.

And we do understand that that is, you know, ostensibly the the scope of the jail model.

However, we do know that these agreements and cooperation and collaboration with ICE have shown policing to become less effective as communities refuse to reach out to police because they are unsure whether their constitutional rights under the U.S.

Constitution or the Constitution of Arizona will be respected.

We have seen time and time again this last year reports from community members directly, both in our city and outside of our city about racial profiling, about uh ICE being brought along uh with PD to intervene uh if someone should, you know, happen to have an accent or uh otherwise appear like they could potentially be an immigrant.

And I think if I had not naturalized last year as an American citizen, and I say lost my wallet or I lost my purse.

I don't know that I would call Mesa PD.

And some of you might be looking at me and saying, Really her?

And if you are, then you understand what the problem is.

Thank you.

I ask you to oppose 287G and also oppose any policy of collaboration or cooperation with ICE.

Thank you.

Thank you, Lisa.

Okay, Dr.

Erica Lynn Handel.

Doctor, are you here?

Um, I don't see her moving forward.

All right.

Is there another blue card I could read?

Are you the doctor?

Um, no, but can I speak in behalf of her?

Uh that's are you the family?

No.

You're not you're not.

Um, I'm a citizen.

I'm not sure.

Are you her family that the Bill Barcing?

No.

Okay, so I need to have a blue card from you.

I don't have one.

I turned in a blue card.

Are you speaking in behalf of her?

Yeah.

Yeah.

You are.

Yeah.

Okay.

You have three minutes.

Okay.

My name's Adela.

Today I come as a concerned resident of the city of Mesa.

I am here to express my deep concern about the agreement 287G that exists between the Mesa Police and the ICE department.

In my community, this agreement has shown enormous fear.

My neighbors, my friends, my parents, and people I don't even know are afraid to have any contact with the police because they think they think that they could take them to ICE.

Young lady, I I need to cut you off.

You're not speaking on behalf of the Billware Singh family.

They had a memorial service for their father who was killed.

I understand that, but please sit down.

Can I continue?

Please sit down.

Can I continue?

Please sit down.

I have an I have another card here.

Everybody be quiet.

I have a blue card.

Sit down.

I'll ask you to leave.

Families no longer feel safe to report a crime when they witness something for fear of being arrested.

Okay.

With Adela.

Adela.

Teresa Vargas, would you like to come forward and speak?

Adela.

Are you Adela?

All right.

I pulled your card.

Well, you should join the lottery.

I should.

Okay.

I think everything's worked out.

Everybody, relax.

All right, Adela, we'll hear from you.

You have three minutes.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

My name's Adela.

Today I come as a concerned resident of the city of Mesa.

I am here to express my deep concern about the agreement 287G that exists between the Mesa Police and the ICE department.

In my community, this agreement has shown enormous fear.

My parents, my friends, my my neighbors, people I don't even know are afraid to have any contact with the police because they think that they could take them to ICE.

Families no longer feel safe to report a crime or testify when they witness something for fear of being arrested.

That puts the whole city at risk because if people don't feel free to talk to police, the real criminals remain on the streets.

The most painful thing to see is the fear in children who and youth who go to school.

They should feel protected, but instead they are afraid that they're that they're that the police could separate their families at any time.

Even I, a 13-year-old, have witnessed the presence of ICE in my community.

And now we believe that the police could do the same things to our loved ones and and family.

No child should live in fear like this.

I recognize that the police have responsibilities to reinforce the law, but they must also have a res a relationship of trust with the community.

And as long as as long as this this agreement with ICE exists, that trust can never be built.

Especially if they're racially profiling us, taking everything from us, like our liberty, our justice, our dignity, our family, our loved ones, and our peace.

Just for looking a little different.

Immigrants are not illegal aliens.

We are not criminals.

We are humans just like you guys.

You guys were just lucky enough to be born in the U.S.

Therefore, I ask you with all due respect to consider canceling the agreement 287G in our community.

Our community deserves to be safer, have confidence in our authorities, and not live in fear.

Thank you for listening to me.

Thank you, Adelaide.

Okay, thank you.

That's all the blue cards we have tonight.

If anyone wishes to leave, you're welcome to do so.

We'll go ahead with our city business.

So with that, if uh Miss King, you want to come forward and read the agenda.

What I have currently is 5D.

Off consent.

I have uh 8B and C, 8C, and uh 10 A.

10 A and B.

10B.

You have all those, correct?

Correct.

Uh 11 A and B.

Hold on, everyone, before you leave.

I'm gonna ask the city clerk to read.

There's some blue cards here.

If you could read some of the numbers, I think you have uh Holly.

Mayor, I well, I have a hundred and thirteen blue cards received in opposition of a two eighty-seven G.

All right, thank you.

Okay, mayor and then I have 11A, 11B.

And again, 11B.

Is that what you have as well?

Yes.

Okay.

Okay.

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 on with one motion.

There will be no separate discussion unless a council member or citizen requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered on as a separate item.

Item two, approval of minutes of previous meetings as written.

Item 3A, act on liquor license application for Gin Smokes Shop, 1927 North Gilbert Road.

Item 3B, Act on Liquor License Application for Lisa's Restaurante Italiano, 5251 East Brown Road.

Item 3C has been withdrawn by the applicant.

Item 3D, act on liquor license application for 711, 7226 South Ellsworth Road.

Item 4A, approve three-year term contract with two-year renewal options for fabrication and installation of parks and facility signs for park recreation and community facilities department.

Item 4B, approving 11-month use of corporate term contract with renewal options for a new distributed tennis system for the Mesa Gateway Airport as requested by the Department of Innovation and Technology.

Item 4C, approving five-year term contract for industrial plumbing supplies for the water resources and park and recreation and community facilities departments.

Item 5A, approving resolution to enter into contracts for the purchase of firm natural gas supplies for the City of Mesa natural gas distribution system for a period of up to five years.

Item 5B, approving resolution to accept proposition 202 funds from the Gila River Indian Community and an administer awarded funds.

Item 5C, approving resolution to enter into a fourth amendment of intergovernmental agreement between the City of Mesa and the Arizona Board of Regions on behalf of the Arizona State University for crime analysis assistance.

Item 5D has been removed from consent.

Item 6A, introduction of ordinance for zoning case 22-890 for property located at the northwest and southwest corners of Ray Road and Hawes Roads.

Rezone with a planned area development overlay and site plan review for an industrial development and future commercial development.

Item 6b, introduction of ordinance amending sections 10-4-4 and 10-4-5 of the Mesa City Code to reduce the speed limit from 40 miles per hour to 55 miles per hour on extension road between baseline and southern avenue as recommended by the Transportation Advisory Board.

Item 7A and 7B are a resolution and ordinance pertaining to the development of 4062 East Main for property located west of the northwest corner of Main Street and North Greenfield Road.

Item 7A is a resolution for zoning case 25-366 for approval of minor general plan amendment to change the place type from urban center with an evolved growth strategy to urban residential with an evolved growth strategy.

7B is an ordinance for zoning case 25-25 for approval of a rezone with new planned area development overlay and site plan review for a 137 unit attached single resident development.

Item 8A, approving ordinance for proposed amendments to chapters 14 and 86 of Title 11 of the Mesa City Code.

The amendments including repealing and replacing Chapter 14, employment opportunity district, and modifying section 11-86-1, purpose and accountability.

Lily, can I ask you to read 6B again?

6B.

6B.

Oh, 6D?

Yeah.

I do not have 6D in here.

6B, as in boy?

Oh, okay.

Yes, 6B.

Did I uh item 6B, introduction of ordinance amending sections 10-4-4 and 10-4-5 of the Mesa City Code to reduce the speed limit from 40 miles per hour to 35 miles per hour on extension road between baseline road and southern avenue as recommended by the Transportation Advisory Board.

Very good, thanks.

Okay.

Apologies if I said that incorrectly.

Uh mayor and council members, these are oh, item 8B and 8C have been removed from the consent agenda, and these are the items on the consent agenda.

Thank you.

Council will entertain uh a motion to approve the consent agenda as read.

Thank you, Miss Spilsbury.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

Please cast your vote.

Passes unanimously.

Thank you.

We'll move over to 5D.

5D is provide recommendation to the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors on a neighborhood request for the City of Mesa consent for the formation of a Mesa Vista Estates Irrigation Water Delivery District, also known as an IWDD, generally bounded by Jensen Street, uh East Mesa Vista East Mesa Vista Lane on the south, North Mesa Drive on the west, and North Dresden on the east.

With that, we have one person who'd like to speak.

Robert Blinkle.

Robert, if you hear you're in support of this.

Thank you, sir.

I'm Robert Blinko, a citizen, district one.

Uh our whole neighborhood has appreciated the irrigation system that SRB put in several decades ago, but now it's aging.

And uh we are going to have to find a way to pay for the repairs that are uh larger and larger every year.

And so we have submitted to you a proposal here that we might organize ourselves into an irrigation district, and in this way begin to pool our money, be ready for the what seems to be uh a larger and larger expense in keeping up this wonderful system of irrigation that we enjoy.

Thank you, sir.

I'm a firm believer in IWDDs, and uh we'll send your request on to the Maricopa County Supervisors, which finalizes it.

So thank you very much.

Uh-huh.

So with that, uh Council entertain a motion to approve item 5D.

Thank you, Mr.

Reddio.

Thank you, Mr.

Adams.

Please cast your oh passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Uh next we'll move over to item 8B.

And we have 8B and C right now, 8B.

We'll talk about 8B, which is proposed amendments to Chapter 36 of Title 11 of the Mesa City Code pertaining to legal, non-conforming uses, lots, parcels, and structures, and sites, and legal procedural conforming uses and structures.

These amendments repeal in its entirety, Chapter 36 on non-conforming uses, structures, and lots adopted.

Adopt a new chapter 36, non-conforming and procedural conforming citywide ordinance 5963.

Um council, what's your discussion?

Vice Mayor.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh, we've had considerable discussion about the issues uh downstairs, but the the long and the short of it is let's just stick to the short of it, is that we don't have enough information about this, whether this is specific to uh a BES or battery uh energy storage system, or is this going to be something that applies to the entire city?

We've heard two different answers downstairs, and I would like to get some more information about if it is going to affect the entire city, what the consequences might be.

I don't want to pass something unless I am fully aware of what's in it.

I want to prevent any more unintended consequences.

So what I've asked for, and I would like to make a motion is to continue this to the October 6th uh council meeting for approval.

Okay.

Council, any discussion.

Well, hearing none, then I'll entertain a motion to have a continuance.

Thank you, Mr.

Adams.

Thank you, Mr.

Summers.

Please cast your vote.

Thank you.

Passes six to one.

Uh next, we'll hear on item eight C, which is uh zoning case 25-00304 called Price Manor 2, a six and a half acre development located northeast corner at East McKellups Road and North Center Street, single rezoned from single residents uh nine with a planned area development overlay to RS9 pad, small lot single resident uh with a pad overlay.

With that, uh we have some speakers on this.

Um first I'll hear from uh Mario Diaz.

Mario, you're in support and you wish to speak.

Mario, would you come forward?

After Mario, we'll hear from uh Tim Brown.

Mayor, Council members, I'm here in support uh Brighton Holmes and Jared.

So I'm at 219 East Cleveland Street, and two houses in from the property is going to be developed.

And so what I want to state to you guys is that we are wanting that property to be developed.

Most of you, if not all of you received an email from me that has photos of this property becoming a dumping ground.

We were in support of the manor one.

We're in support of manor two.

Now, we understand that nobody wants extra traffic in their neighborhood.

Nobody does.

We don't want extra traffic coming down Lee Leeland Street.

However, we understand that that property is going to be developed.

It may be now, it'd be maybe in the future.

You guys have an individual who was born and raised here in Mesa.

He has a business, he develops.

You've already given him the opportunity to build the manor one.

Mayor, Councilmember Adams, I understand you're opposing this.

I understand you gave your word.

I appreciate the email and the responses.

However, I don't agree with that.

I think that you guys should vote to allow this property to be developed, because it's just gonna continue to be a dumping ground.

Mayor, you said it in the downstairs.

This is like a checkerboard of all types of different zonings, right?

And so to have the property of Manor One adjacent to Manor Two and all of it be one, I think that's a good thing.

The gate that's there is gonna be an emergency gate.

We hope it stays that way.

We understand that we're gonna get some traffic.

I don't disagree with the people in Lehigh proper, but I'm sure that when Lehigh Shadows was established, there was probably a lot of opposition.

And Lehigh Shadows is a great neighborhood.

All of us in that neighborhood know each other for the most part.

We treat each other well, we're good neighbors, we keep our property up, and I do believe that if the opportunity is given for this to pass, you may have another good property there for people to build on.

There's a park across the street.

I remember that the city council put out many years ago uh a survey, and I believe that everybody in Lehigh Shadows and everybody in Lehigh didn't want to park there, but we did one in a question center.

That didn't happen.

Okay.

However, allow this to be built.

We're in favor of it.

My neighbors who are closest to this property couldn't be here today, but they did speak at the planning and zoning, and they also agree that this should be uh developed because of the things that are going on there.

So Pasadena, Leland Street, in that corner, we live right there.

So we ask that you please vote yes on this, and we ask that you allow Brighton Holmes to move forward with that development.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Diaz.

Uh Mr.

Brown.

Good evening.

Um my name is Tim Brown.

I live 243 East Leland Street, um, five five houses in from uh the proposed development.

Um we've been there for 25 years.

We've been looking at that property, you know, it's it's supposed to change hands multiple times.

Um never nobody could ever come up with uh uh a plan to make it work.

Um currently it's planned to uh uh to have uh rental units on it, 18 rental units.

And uh if this property doesn't, if this development doesn't get approved, we're I'm concerned about that.

I'm concerned about the future of the property because uh I'm more I'm worried about higher density than the 41 lots that are currently on uh or proposed.

Um we've had uh we've had good communication with Bryant Holmes, and uh you know we we approved the the price manor, or you approved the price manor, and we all agree with with it.

He uh he reduced uh um density on that one to accommodate, he went from townhomes to single family residences to accommodate the neighborhood, and uh and uh and we think that the the transition on to the proposed price manor two will be a good transition um for the neighborhood in that area that it backs up this street called Pasadena.

We're to the east of that.

That street is a very remote street, no no street lights, and it backs up to a very uh very low-income trailer park, a couple of them, and there's been crimes that have been back there.

Um one of the neighbors had a uh cattle uh was shot back there.

Um we've had I've chased off gangsters, I've seen MS-13 back there.

We've had a number of different problems back there, drug deals.

There's been cars that have been wrecked in the back, abandoned cars in the back.

I feel like if the development gets approved, it's gonna it's gonna improve that situation.

It's gonna put some some um stri it's some um oversight on on what's happening back there, and I I think the net it would be a good uh progression for the neighborhood, and it'll take care of some of that problem.

Um, and that's all I got.

Thank you, Tim.

Thank you.

Thanks for wearing a cowboy hat.

Uh with that with that, we'll hear from uh Marilyn Crosby, followed by Michelle McCrosky.

Marilyn, are you here?

Good evening.

And I just like to take a minute to tell the men and women in blue that we're proud of them and we're grateful for them because I feel like sometimes they don't get the just deserves that they have.

Um I believe that it should matter with regard to this uh development that's proposed that uh the residents of Lehigh are not opposing it being developed.

They're opposing broken commitments, broken promises, and lies.

That's what they're opposing.

That's very different.

I also think it should matter that if a property is unsightly, that is the responsibility of the owner of the property to maintain it.

The owner of this property is attempting to sell it for between three and four million dollars.

They didn't buy it for that many digits.

Okay.

This is a huge money-making venture.

It should also matter that we have been willing to talk to people and discuss.

I still to this day have not received a phone call.

We spoke briefly after the last council meeting out in the hall.

Still haven't heard anything.

Yet we were not included, as it is required in any of the public comments.

So we were never reached out to.

It is required that we are.

So those things should matter.

Due process and process within the city should matter.

We submitted a rebuttal to the report that each of you have received, and all of those things are substantiated that are in there.

You can have the audio report if you would like it.

You can transcribe it if you want.

It's available to anybody who wishes to have it.

It should matter that uh if we're hearing reports of gang activity, that's a police and law enforcement issue.

And I'm sure they would like to know that if that is the truth.

Should also matter that we uh that we were committed to R9.

We haven't opposed R9 on that property.

We would like to see someone actually try that.

But there has been no discussion.

Should also matter that they are claiming that it's a step down in density.

Well, if 500 square feet in a lot means that it's a step down, then I suppose you can say that's true.

But when you're coming from R 43 and you're going to R 4.5, then to R4, that doesn't seem like much of a step down.

So I believe that it would also be rational to assume that if the project were to go forward, that the traffic low should be shared.

Because you'll notice the Lehigh Shadows is okay with the project.

But just don't send any of the cars through our neighborhood.

That doesn't seem very right.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Marilyn.

Uh, Michelle.

My name is Michelle McCrosky, and I live at 3021 North Chestnut Circle.

Give my address.

Okay.

Um, hey, I to be very clear to everyone, it's not that we don't want the lot developed.

This is an issue of density and traffic.

I serve two roles in the Lehigh community.

I'm on the Lehigh community board, and in that role, it's my job to help protect Lehigh, to protect our lifestyle.

Um, it's our job to watch out for any development that might come next to our neighborhood or worse yet within that would impact our lifestyle negatively.

So in this particular case is traffic, and that's why we've asked for a left turn only exit on Center Street.

And then we also feel like hey, um, we should share the load of traffic.

There are still going to be people that are gonna try to buzz through Lehigh Road, and we feel like we should share that with the other neighborhood, Lehigh Shadows.

The other concern is you're inviting new residents that don't value our love of agriculture, livestock, which by the way brings flies, it brings dust, um, and it brings mosquitoes sometimes for the irrigation.

And so we're gonna have people right next to us that don't value that at all.

And for that reason, we've asked for some type of disclosure that they would sign when they when they purchase property, acknowledging that they're next to an agricultural community and that they're waiving their rights to suddenly come up and oppose um the lifestyle that we have in Lehigh.

But the second thing is I'm a Lehigh 4-H leader.

We have about 60 kids, and what you may not know, but I'm hoping we have an opportunity to show you soon.

We have our kids not only ride their horses back and forth, they have two riding meetings on Lehigh Road, and our kids ride over to the meeting and they ride home, hopefully very safely.

But we also have kids that walk their pigs, their goat, their sheep.

Because in 4.8, that's part of what they're doing.

Um, they're exercising their animals and they're learning to show them.

So I have a responsibility in that role to protect our kids.

And that's why this probably won't be the first time we talk about it.

We'll continue to talk about traffic.

We will continue to ask you to protect Lehigh Road because that's where all the kids go up and down.

Thank you.

Thank you, Michelle.

I'm gonna read into the record.

I have some other blue cars, but they wish not to speak.

Tom Warren is in support, wishes not to speak.

Bonetta Warren is in favor, wishes not to speak.

Spencer Price, also in favor, wishes not to speak.

And Mike Kotoski.

Did I mess it up real bad, Mike?

Not of the head is good enough for me.

Okay, is in in favor and supports this.

So and all of these look like they live in Lehigh Shadows or right next to the uh development itself.

Uh with that, I would like to invite the applicant to come up and uh you've listened to some of the concerns, and then I know council has some as well.

Mr.

Lake.

Yes, sir.

Were you part of the rezone uh back in the day in the R9 or no?

Back in.

I was in 2005.

In 2005.

So you were the zoning attorney in 2005 or R9.

Let me what's the button I pushed to get it to go right there?

There we go.

Thank you for your patience.

Mayor, uh, Sean Lake, 1744 South Val Vista Drive, Mesa, Arizona, here on behalf of Jaren Sweeney.

Uh Mr.

Sweeney uh is Brighton Holmes.

He and his family have been developing homes in Mesa and in the East Valley for decades.

Uh Mr.

Sweeney's family, they're Mesa people.

Jaron went to Mountain View High School.

Um the Sweeneys live in Mesa, and so they are local people looking to do high quality projects in Mesa.

They're looking to build projects that we need in Mesa.

The recent housing study talks about this.

So let me just kind of walk walk through the project and then I can answer specific questions if that's okay.

Um, as staff has pointed out in previous presentations, uh, this area is just outside of the Lehigh sub-area.

And I don't want to get into an argument of what's in Lehigh and what's not Lehigh, but the Lehigh sub area, this is just outside.

So you can see on the screen, it's on the lower left-hand corner.

Between Lehigh to the north, between this side and to the north is the A dot retention basin.

So if you've driven down Center Street on your way to get rid of your paint or um wherever you're going to the sand and gravel up uh all the way up center street, that A dot retention basin is right there.

That will never be developed on the north side.

This uh council recently adopted the Lehigh's historic neighborhood designation, which expanded the Lehigh area, the Lehigh sub area a little bit and included the A dot retention basin.

But again, this property sits outside of that mapped area.

So as staff pointed out, uh this project is directly north of Price Manor, which was approved by this council unanimously January 22nd of last year.

Um that project directly to the south, it was approved for an RSL 3.0 single family detached for sale homes.

We are proposing on this site RSL 4.5 for single family detached homes.

So larger lots, the same or slightly larger homes, and then we are proposing because Brighton's doing both of them to combine them into an HOA so that we can have more units or more people that make up the HOA to make it more sustainable over a long term.

We all know that having 100 people part of your HOA is better than having 50, because you have more people paying into the pot and more people participating.

To the right, as you can see, is the Lehigh Shadow Subdivision, or to the east.

That's a lot of the neighbors that you've seen speak here this evening.

Mr.

Sweeney's gone door to door, and we've really focused our efforts to try to outreach to the neighbors directly to the east.

That's the Lehigh Shadows, and then there's a mobile home subdivision uh directly to the east, and then to the south of Price Matter 1 and Price Manor 2 is a R V park that's been there for some time that's zoned R4 or RM4.

So here's how this would look as you look at the surrounding community and does it really fit into the neighborhood?

As you transition from a mobile home park, R4, RM4 zoning, to Price Matter 1, Price Matter 2 to A dot retention base into the north.

You look to the east, you've got 10,000 square foot lots, 7,000 square foot lots, and then a manufactured home subdivision to our east.

Lehigh would be up along Lee the along Lehigh Road.

So is it near?

Yes, it's near Lehigh.

People coming and going from this property.

I'm not going to speak for people's traffic patterns.

We all know if you live in this area, you're gonna shop at Fry's, or you're gonna shop at the neighborhood market on Horn, and you're gonna get on the freeway to go to the airport, or you're gonna get on the freeway to go to work.

And the closest freeway on ramp is at McKillop's and country club, both have freeway album ramps, just a hop skip and a jump from here.

If you're gonna go to Fry's Sean Lake, I'm not gonna speak for other people.

Sean Lake would go out to Center Street, straight to McKillops and shoot down McKellops to go to the Walmart neighborhood market or Fries.

That's just what I would do.

Um there is concerns, but that were expressed by several of the individuals who spoke here this evening at the neighborhood meeting in May, that people would go through the Lehigh neighborhood and go up Center Street to Lehigh Road and then wind through Lehigh Road over to either Mesa Drive or other streets to get back to McKillops to get to this commercial shopping center.

I'm not gonna say that they're not, but that's that's not what Sean would do.

Sean would go out to the easiest path, which would be to McKillebs.

Let's look at the general plan for this area.

Again, the traditionally the Lehigh sub-area is low density residential.

This area is not low density.

This is uh traditional residential.

It's yellow, as most of the city, uh most of the property in the city of Mesa is yellow.

So this is consistent with the general plan density.

The zoning, as you see, we've got R3 and R4, R16 and RS9.

We think it fits well within the immediate developments around the area as far as density and transition to the A dot retention basin on the north.

I think you've seen some of these pictures.

The problem is this property was zoned in RS9 in 2005.

It's gone through three different property owners.

They've tried to make it work at RS9.

They haven't been able to make it work.

They went so far as to put in a road and do some improvements, and they still couldn't make it work.

That's why we're here because they couldn't make it work at RS9.

We're here to change the zoning to RSL 4.5, which Mr.

Sweeney can make it work.

He can make this happen and provide for sale homes for this community, not only benefit this area, but benefit a lot of us who live in Mesa, who have children who want to buy homes, but can't afford an 850,000 or a million dollar home.

But they can't afford something like this, and they want to live in Mesa.

And so we think this is a good use for this property.

The layout goes east-west, and a point of clarification at the neighborhood meeting.

Uh, this does have an exit only to the east to Lehigh Shadows.

So we're you have you had different groups at that neighborhood meeting.

Some wanted no traffic going east to Lehigh Shadows.

And then the other people were like, no, that will force traffic through our neighborhood.

And then they said, we'll allow all traffic to go east.

And then the neighbors in Lehigh Shadows, so you couldn't make either both of them happy.

So as a compromise, we have an exit only, but not an entrance to the east.

So there's full access off of center and an exit only off of to the east, which was an attempt to compromise to have some of the traffic that might go towards to the east of the Lehigh Shadows, but not all of it go to Center Street.

I guess when you try to compromise, nobody's happy.

Um but we're we still think it's a good plan.

Uh as far as development standards, you typically see a lot of development standards with smaller lot development for four-sale housing.

We don't have any other than we want to put an eight-foot wall around the SRP water facility there on our property, and we want to have a private street for a gated community.

Here's some elevations of the home.

They are beautiful homes.

These are front yard, backyard, homes where you can drive in your driveway and raise a family.

We think this is a great addition of something that the city of Mesa needs.

We need more inventory of this type of product, and we think this will benefit the city of Mesa overall.

So with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Um, but let me just point out a couple of things that were raised by the neighbors.

Sorry, Mayor, I apologize, I should have gone over this.

Disclosure.

In the neighborhood meeting, there was concerns about animals and flies and disclosure.

We've agreed to provide in our CC and R's and disclosure to anybody that purchases the property that they're within the proximity of agriculture and horse and and there could be flies.

We're we've already agreed to do that.

Um we've put that in our CCNRs in our public report.

Um we agreed that there not be rentals.

There was a concern about people not having rentals uh for Airbnbs or VRBOs, those type of things.

So we've agreed to have limitations in our C C and Rs for rentals.

Um we agreed to put a DG trail, horse trail, along the frontage of our property, so that there'll be one along Price Matter one and one along Price Matter 2.

Um we agreed to work with the city of May uh Mesa on speed tables.

They wanted to speed humps on Lehigh Road.

That's not my call.

That's your call.

Um, but we'll write a letter of support.

We'd be okay with that, but we can't make that decision.

That's up to this council.

Um restricting traffic, we're willing to work with the transportation department on restricting access out of this project to go to Center Street, but that's something we could work with during uh the final plating process.

Uh we're even open to installing white fencing along Lehigh Road.

I mean, we're willing to work with the community, uh, but we just we want to do a project that we think is gonna meet a need that we need in this community for four-sale homes.

And so with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions and request your support.

Council, any questions, Miss Billsbury?

Um, so to clarify that that retention lot to the north cannot be developed.

Is that what you said?

Correct.

That is an A dot retention basin.

So there will always be that.

As long as there's a freeway draining water, that will be there.

Okay, and then on Price Manor One is there, um what are what are the exit entrances on Price Manor One?

So the exit sorry going east.

There is an exit, there is an entrance off of center, and there's an exit off to the east.

So it's it's a crash gate only on the east.

Oh, it's a crash gate only on the east.

Because it circles, you people can drive around the circle and get back out on center.

So for those that aren't at the microphone, and and for the record, price matter one has a crash gate to the east, and so all traffic goes out to center.

For this project, there you have an ingress and egress, an entrance and exit off of center, but an exit only uh to the east, so that some traffic can go east.

And the concern was by Lehigh residents is that that would all go to center, they take a ride on center, go to Lehigh Road, and then go drive through Lehigh Road to go wherever they're going.

Okay.

So we kind of split the difference.

Okay.

You got that.

You're good.

Okay.

Any others?

Uh I'm sure Mr.

Adams.

Well, thank you, Mayor.

I I have a question or two from Mr.

League, but I also have some additional remarks.

I imagine we'll make those after the question period.

Sure.

You're a hard act to follow, Mr.

Lee.

Thank you, sir.

Um let me ask you a question.

So I'm looking at your site plan, and I've I've made this larger, and I'm looking at this gate that exits to the east.

And what I'm reading here is it says emergency and trash access perenni, emergency egress only, close perennial.

To me, that means the only way you go east is if you have an emergency.

Am I looking at an old site plan?

I think you're looking at old site plan.

I will affirm at this meeting today, a vow, if you will, that that will allow an exit only.

Well, my I guess my question is I think there's a difference between an exit only and an emergency exit only.

I apologize.

Thank you for bringing that up.

This east side will allow emergency vehicles to come and go, regardless of whether just just like price matter one.

And then we're gonna have solid city vehicles like solid waste can come and go.

So residents only can exit only.

They can't residents or visitors or people driving in the area can't enter from the east, they can only exit to the east.

Well, I I still am I'm a little confused there still because if I buy a home there at lot twenty-one.

Yes, sir.

And I decide I like to go east.

Yes.

You drive emergency ex egress going out only.

To me, that means it's a crash gate, or I have to have.

You see what I'm saying?

Yes, sir.

So if you live in lot twenty-one and you want to leave and go east, you would drive up to the gate, it would sense your car is there, and the gate would open.

So is that Mary?

Is that what we consider an emergency gate?

Uh Mayor, Councilmember Adams, I think that the the label on this map may be misleading because the intent is that residents would be able to leave that way.

So that's something that council could clarify as they move forward on how that exit would work.

Jerry's automatic.

Sean.

I had for the record, I had the same question actually, and I reached out to Peter Vargas, who's the head of transportation or one of the heads of transportation, because that seemed confusing to me as well.

And he was under the understanding that what Sean is explaining is what that says, but I read it the same way you did.

So it can be changed or worded slightly differently, however the city wants it, but it is meant to be emergency access like Price Manor One.

Yes, as well as allow people to exit if needed.

Um that way.

I guess what I'm trying to put into the record is if if I live there or someone else lives there, I have a choice as to whether I can exit to the west or to the east.

Yes.

Without any emergency.

Yeah, I agree.

Okay.

All right, thank you for that.

I that's the that's my only question by comments later when we before we go.

Okay, by me.

If there's no other questions for the applicant, Miss GoFord.

I guess Mr.

Lake, what I can't sort of reconcile, I can't get, I don't understand.

My issue is with the process, because the citizen participation process is very important.

If if our residents can't count on that, they can't trust our decisions up here.

So to me, even if ultimately they got to voice their concerns, that process is really, really important that it that it's carried out thoroughly and transparently.

How is it that you can tell me you sent it to the required people and neighborhoods, registered neighborhoods, and and people within the radius, and yet they are up here saying I didn't receive anything.

And we have an email from several, a handful that says, I didn't get it.

I I don't know, I I don't know how to reconcile that.

Mayor, I council member go for I wish I could stand here and say I watched as Marilyn or Kim's letter went into the mailbox.

I can't.

I have staff that we get we get mailing, we get labels or a list of people to send notice to, and my staff, those get put on mailing labels, and then they sit in our conference room and they peel mailing labels and they put them on envelopes, and then those envelopes get stuffed, and then those get rubber band up and they get taken to the post office.

That's all I know.

I can't.

I guess I could see one or two getting lost, but the whole group, and and and that seems to me you you signed an affidavit that said that you did it, so you should be able to verify that it got done.

I mean, I don't know.

All right, go ahead.

I just I'm curious because Mary, maybe you can answer my question.

This has happened to at least two properties in my district, the same exact thing.

And I thought that we changed it that our staff was going to send out neighborhood participation letters because of this.

Um, Mayor, Councilmember Spillsbury.

We what we what the staff does is we generate a list of labels, and it is common practice that the applicants in other jurisdictions around us, best practices is that the applicants are the ones who are sending out the the letters.

There was a time when we as staff would have the applicant bring the letters to us, but I will say we never went through and did a check of the letters that were in the box against the labels that were provided to us, and then we would walk them over to the post office.

So what we've done now is we've changed that that process so that the applicant, we provide the list again, because we generate it through our GIS system through the tax assessors uh office.

We generate those mailing addresses, we provide them to the applicant, they're required then to do what Sean had had um talked about, putting the labels on the envelopes, getting them to the um post office, and then they send and they have to sign an affidavit with a list that we've provided to them saying we have sent letters to these people.

Okay.

The only other comment I would add is that I have sent four different children's wedding announcements out, and every single time, all four times like 40 or 50 of them don't make it there or get returned for no reason.

So only to say that I think there are sometimes, like you said, how did it happen to that many?

My daughter just got back 40 of her wedding announcements for no reason.

I I can't explain it.

I'm just I this has happened, so I don't want to accuse anyone of lying.

I'm just saying this is kind of crazy.

And Mayor, Councilmember Spielsbury, if I can, it's one of the reasons there are different ways to notice the public.

So it's the letters, it's the newspaper, it's the posting on the site.

Um, so that there are those different opportunities in case something does get lost in the mail.

I hate to use that pun.

Can I say one more thing, Mayor?

If that's that's okay.

But the point is so that people can participate in the process.

And so really, I think Marilyn, who was up here and spoke, said we didn't get anything, but Jaron emailed Marilyn to let her know about this project on November 22nd at 146 p.m.

That's even before we had anything.

A lot of the people who sent that letter this weekend were in attendance at the neighborhood meeting.

A lot of those people who who um sent that letter were in attendance and participated, not only neighborhood meeting, but the planning and zoning board.

They're also here tonight.

And so if the point is to provide notice through letters, through signs, through word of mouth, through post posting in the newspaper, it's so that people can participate.

And so we should focus on they have participated.

Now, we may not have agreed on what everything that they would have liked to see, but the point is I think they have participated, both in the neighborhood meetings, or meeting, and in the planning and zoning board.

So people are aware.

And so I would hope you would take some solace.

It may not make, you know, solve the problem, but take some solace that the people did have an opportunity to participate in the process, which I think is really the goal of what we're trying to do.

Any more questions for Yeah, well, I would just push back a little bit to say that that you can't really, I don't think, justify um and and shore up the process by saying, well, a few a few participated.

I mean, I I think those are two separate things.

We we don't know who didn't get it, right?

That's we know who did, and those people know you, you know.

I I mean they have they have access.

That doesn't that doesn't include other people that maybe maybe should have gotten it and didn't.

Again, that that's an important, that's a very important piece.

We we have to get that process right because people won't trust the decisions we make.

That that to me, um that's what I'm focused on in this in this case.

So thank you, Miss Gold.

There's nothing else for you have something for real quick.

Uh Mary, what's the uh the distance that you have to send a mailing towards because sometimes you know you have people that are farther away that are not within the distance that we require a developer to send uh a mailing to.

So you're sure sure.

Mayor, uh, council member Herria, the uh state statute is 500 feet is the distance, but in some cases, and I believe in this case, we will extend ask an applicant to extend that to a thousand feet, or some cases 1500 feet.

And I believe in this case we did a thousand feet.

Thank you, Mr.

Lake.

Counsel, uh I know there's uh gonna be some further comments.

So, Mr.

Adams, you want to kick it off, or uh sure.

There it goes, sure.

Um Thank you, Mayor.

Um first of all, I would just like to comment that I I think it's refreshing that the discussion on this particular item has been respectful and reasonable in a conversational tone.

So uh I've I'm very much appreciated that and thank uh everyone involved here for that.

Um I'm I'm not supportive of the of the project, and I'm going to provide my reasons because I I think that's very important.

I don't like to vote one way or another without explaining my reasons for it.

Um I ran for this seat a year or so ago, I made a commitment to the residents of Lehigh who reached out to me, who contacted me, invited me to meetings, other gatherings, and the constant thread through those meetings was we want to know if you will protect the rural lifestyle of Lehigh, and will you oppose higher density?

Constant.

Same thing.

All the time.

And I said, yes, I will.

No one, no one up until this point contacted me and say, we want higher density in Lehigh.

Never happened.

So that's point number one.

This is a commitment made and a commitment I will stand by.

There are arguments made, and Mr.

Lake was kind enough to show pictures of trash and tires and various other junk on the property.

I'm not going to accept that as a reason, a sole reason to pass on this property because we hold people who own property responsible for junk on their property all over this town, and we cite them and we find them and we demand that they remove it.

This property is no different.

That is the responsibility of the owner.

And to use that as a reason, I I don't I don't accept that.

I understand that once it's developed, it won't happen anymore.

But it's not a reason.

There's an owner there, they need to take care of that.

Put up a good fence, whatever.

Um as far as various other nefarious activities that are handling there, um that are happening there, um, yeah, I hear I hear that.

Not good, but I wonder if in every one of those cases we've contacted Mesa PD and allowed them to respond.

They can put that helicopter over an area pretty fast.

So I I don't know, but I would I would offer that as a counterpoint.

If that's a problem, are we calling PD every time we see something going on there?

So I I'm I'm not really that doesn't really weigh a lot with me there.

The citizen participation outreach issue uh is of concern to me.

I said earlier today downstairs that uh uh I think we have two two two two different uh uh factions here, all are honorable and honest people who feel that they either did what the law asks them to do or that what the law asks them to do was not done.

And how do we know?

Maybe it was the post office.

May we don't know, and I'm certainly not going to point fingers, but I will point out I think the process is broken.

If it wasn't broken, we wouldn't be having this.

So that that's a matter for another day.

What I do know is that we can't pick and choose.

Uh sometimes we want to hold to the letter of the law, other times we want to say, well, that's not so important, but they found out anyway.

Well, it either matters or it doesn't.

So that that's a that that's another issue for me.

Um I have heard from numerous Lehigh residents who feel that over the course of time, and I I'm not gonna delve into the history of this.

I have lots of paper about it, that going back to the 2005 rezone, there were uh certain assurances given about step-down zoning, various other things, and uh there are two sides to this argument, and some folks have documentation to support it, others say, Well, I remember hearing this.

The point is that's out there, and there is a feeling among some folks that we've said one thing, and as time passes, and I recognize time passes, things change.

Back in 2005, we didn't have quite the need for affordable for purchase housing as we do today.

I get that.

Um I I support housing for ownership.

Not a fan, certainly would never support rentals in that area, wouldn't support high-density housing, but in trying to weigh this as the district council member, all other things being equal.

It's a nice project.

Great looking project.

Beautiful homes.

In my opinion, wrong place.

But in any other circumstance, I could be very supportive of this.

I just don't think it's in the right place.

But the primary reason I come back to at the end of the day, when all is said and done, is I gave people who reached out to me my word, and I said, if you elect me, this is what I'll do, and that's exactly what I'm going to do.

So that's why I don't support the project.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Adams.

Any comments?

Yeah, um, the project isn't in Lehigh.

It's outside the boundaries.

Um, and I think there we have the people who are abutting next to this development, the high shadows, we shouldn't ignore their support to say that that doesn't matter.

And and there's opposition and there's support, and the high shadows is right next to it.

I think it's a good project, beautiful homes, as you said.

Um thing I like to see as we transition in zoning is being able to have options, housing choices in where you live.

And why I believe that is because these are huge lots in Lehigh.

They're huge.

But if you are going to downsize because you're older and decide it's just too much property for me to manage, you're gonna have to leave the community.

Or if your kids want to go out on their own and they want to buy something, they're gonna have to leave the community because most young people starting out cannot afford multi-million dollar homes.

They need these rights.

So it builds community so that you can stay in your community, whatever your phase of life is.

Your church, the stores you go to, the coffee shop, your neighbors, that that community that builds, and throughout our phases of our own lives, whether we're young or a young professional or have a family or getting older, um, we transition our living.

And I wouldn't have to want to start over in a different community because I don't have any housing options where I live.

Also, I look at the retail along McCallops, and I I know how beautiful Lehigh is, I love it, it's gorgeous.

But I look at the supporting retail around there, especially around center, that supporting retail is supporting the trailer homes, the manufactured homes.

It is not supporting, there's a good will, and there's a dollar tree, there's a circle K, there's a gas station, a pool supply.

I nothing wrong with any of those, but you need a certain amount of people living within a vicinity to be able to bring the amenities nearer to your community, to have maybe the coffee shop or the restaurant or the retail that you want.

But the current retail is serving only what abuts to it.

And I think with more density that you'll be able to have a community that offers a little bit, and why does that matter?

Well, it's more enjoyable, yes, but then we're getting into walkability of neighborhoods because you have amenities within a short walk or bike ride or whatever.

You're building communities.

Um that needs density.

It's it's been an issue in our city is that in areas that are on near busy streets or whatever, we have very we don't have the retail selection that we want.

And it is because of the way we build, we're not mixing it up.

We are doing one segment or another, and it doesn't provide what a retailer needs.

Anyway, I support the project, I think it's a good project.

I'd like that it's for sale, these are great family houses or young professionals to grow into families, and it supports the multi-generational living that I'd like to see in a community.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Duff.

Any comment?

Ms.

Goforth.

Yeah, um so my issue, I think you as you can tell is with the citizen participation process.

We have to get that right.

And I can't quite whether you know, in this instance, whether it was letters not received or um summary of concerns not included, I can't, I I'm not getting satisfactory answers from that.

And we have to have a process that's consistent and transparent, and that our residents can count on every time so that they trust these decisions that we make.

And um I I can't support, I would like to see the process, I would like to see it sent back and the process done in a consistent, transparent manner.

So for that reason, I won't be supporting tonight.

Thank you, Miss Goforth.

Vice Mayor.

We're just out of curiosity, sent back where.

What do you mean?

Well, you said you you want it back because it's so here here's my call.

Yeah.

Oh, you want to start the whole thing.

Okay.

Just I I agree with you on the process portion.

And uh look, I supported the uh the mayor when he was the council member for district one.

We didn't have anybody come forward.

I know there was some concerns, but nobody came forward to this council meeting and say, you know, that we don't feel that the process was handled correctly.

And I'm torn because the mayor lives literally in the Lehigh area, but the council member for District One, Mr.

Adams has some significant concerns that the process was not followed as Councilmember Goforth mentioned.

I uh my position would be if we're gonna if we're not gonna approve it because of a process issue, I would rather see it continued so that the process they don't have to start over.

We just continuous to the date uncertain to allow the process to to work through to see if there's any more will go room to make some deals make because I I do think there's a lot of good things about this project project.

I am concerned about the pro and in the council members concerned about the process.

So if that's gonna be the action, I'd rather rather than reset the whole thing and start over, I would rather give the uh afford the opportunity to try to fix what can be fixed.

Because uh, I'll be honest, I don't think we can get to a hundred percent agreement on this, and it may be that this kind of comes back very similar.

Uh but to to scrap it and start over, uh rather not do that, but I do support your position on this as well as uh council member uh for the district.

I just want to say one thing about that is that we're setting a precedence.

So zoning cases, every every council meeting, and if someone wants to stall it, if they want to not happen, just say you didn't get them on a notice.

That's what we're doing.

So I'd be very careful about denying a project based on someone said they sent it and someone said they didn't, and because it'll be a very good tool to go forward, it's very dangerous.

The male process is the male.

But um, second of all, we work very hard with our development services and planning and zoning, and our planning director on the efficiency of getting through projects as quickly as possible and and minimizing processes, being accurate and efficient so that we can get housing projects out the door as quickly as possible.

We put a lot of pressure on our staff, but as council, the wind's blowing the wrong way, we'll continue it or deny it or whatever.

The continuance if we are interested in passing housing in a productive amount of time, we have to own that process ourselves.

Do I think if we continue it and we go through the process all over again six months from now, will it have a different outcome?

If you think it'd be in a different outcome, that'd be fine.

But when you hear from developers and people who are saying, what's wrong with the housing?

Why can't it be built quick enough?

We gotta own part of that.

And saying we'll take as long as we want.

A year, two years is not unusual at all.

And our planning process is moving it up to weeks.

At what point are we gonna own the continuance, continuance, continuance?

Thank you, Mr.

Adams.

You know, this is uh I I hear that, you know.

Oh, let's just throw up an objection.

The difference here is, and I think we all get to know people as we uh settled into our our role as a council member.

The people who are organized in Lehigh, the Lehigh Community Association, I absolutely believe they're telling the truth.

I'm taking the time to get to know who they are, what they're about, and what their concerns are.

This is not some cheap stall tactic.

I I I would not buy that for a moment.

I understand that people use those tactics.

Um I hear that concern.

The problem is when we do infill, and I consider this infill, and it's on the true, it's not in Lehigh proper, but it's on the borderline, and what it's going to do is no matter how long we talk about pork chops and left-hand turns and right-hand turns and berms and all this other stuff, this will result in more traffic down center to the north and right on Lee High Road.

Let's be realistic.

Some are gonna go south to McKellups, some are gonna go north, some will use that key code or whatever and go east into the other neighborhood.

So this is a situation where we have some genuine people who have organized over many years to protect their community, and they're here saying, in all sincerity, we don't feel the process was done correctly.

And I have no reason to suspect that what they're saying is false.

And I've also known Mr.

Lake for many years, and I think he is an honest and truthful man.

So again, we come back to the process, but the process isn't working as is evidenced in this case.

Something's wrong, something's broken.

And to me, honestly, if I were sitting out there or not sitting up here, it would kind of look to me like, well, the deck is a little bit stacked.

We're the little guys, and they're the big guys.

So I think we need to do something.

Um I don't think for one second that Councilmore Duff was suggesting that this group of people were doing this on purpose.

That's not what she was saying.

She's saying I'm speaking for you.

But what she's saying is it sets the precedence that people could then use it for that.

So I want to make that clear because I know I know that Jen was not saying that.

So I I was gonna do that as well.

So thanks for doing that, Councilor Adams.

Um, I will just say that um looking at a map of this area, driving through this area, it seems very clear to me that these homes fit the surrounding area, they fit with the um mobile home parks right there.

Um they've they fit with the feel.

I love that that North property cannot be developed, so you have a built-in buffer there that will not be developed.

Um this is not Lehigh, and I appreciate Rich that you want to stand firm on those campaign promises you made.

This isn't Lehigh.

Um and speaking from five years of experience, all we do is deal with NIMBYism.

It's really hard.

Everyone, every single person I've ever talked to agrees we need more housing in our city, and no one wants it anywhere near them.

So when this is these are for sale houses, these are not rentals, which is what everyone's afraid of.

Like why I don't understand, but um, so I feel like this type of product is very much what we need.

We know that because of our housing plan, and this is something that we need in Mesa, and this feels like especially knowing and getting all of the emails and hearing from you tonight that we have neighbors right next to this development that want it developed, and they're not fighting it, and I need to honor what they're saying as well.

And then just on the process part, I hate that that we have this issue with the process.

Uh again, I'm part of the reason why we changed it to have staff be a part of it because I didn't know who to believe.

Do you believe that the um attorney that says they their staff did it, or do you believe the neighbors that say they didn't hear anything about it?

I mean, then you're just in this really hard.

We all know we have children or spouses that throw mail away that we never got to see.

Like so many things, or I got my neighbor's SRP bill yesterday, right?

Like things happen with the mail.

I've already I've already belabored that point.

But um, so to me, I don't like that it was done this way.

It's does not in any way, I think, require that we go back to the beginning, start it over, start the process.

I don't think we'd end up anywhere different than we are right now.

Um, knowing that one of the main neighborhood leaders got an email in November.

And how tight knit their community is, that could have spread.

They they would have known.

And I don't think it took very long if there, if some of the people didn't get the letter, I don't think it took very long for that to spread, so that they did all feel like they have a voice, and we've gotten lots of emails, so I know that those voices have been heard because I have heard you.

Even if we don't agree at the end of the day, we heard your voice.

Um, so I do think that even though we need to make sure that we're doing what we need to do to make sure the neighborhood process happens, um, and looking at procedures and processes.

I there's to me, there's just no reason to go back on this one.

Thank you, Miss Spillsbury, Mr.

Reddit.

Odds on the conversation as well.

Because I'm the the last one here, but uh I I just I go back to um, you know, hear the concerns on the process.

I think we're we need to tweak some of the the uh pieces on the mail, but that's why we have layers of other uh announcements as well, right?

Like uh Mary's mentioned and some of the staff mentioned that the different types of notices that go out.

Um I go back to the quality piece, right?

Uh, as far as uh a this development.

I think I heard everybody say, even Mr.

Adams uh who's a district council member that it's a quality development, right?

Like it's a quality development.

This is what we want to see in Mesa, right?

Like the quality development that we that is for sale, right?

Especially in West Mesa, uh, where we don't have a lot of options to build for sale product anymore because we are built out mostly um and we see a lot more rental opportunities coming to to the uh to the to the council.

Um, and so this is that that's where I I support this uh this project because it the quality, um, you know, it's it's even an hoa um for sale product, and and just hearing the opportunities to to redevelop uh a piece of land that is blighted.

You know, I've seen a lot of blighted uh land in my uh district that we took an opportunity to redevelop and now they're flourishing, right?

We see the Alma School and Southern, uh that was blighted for 20 years, uh gated, they did everything, there is crime all there uh all the time.

Now it's flourishing with new opportunities.

There's a sprouts going up uh across the street now.

It's all like we we have to look at uh at these uh these things and how we uh uh look at info and do that correctly, of course.

But uh when we see this type of quality development uh be introduced, uh I think we we gotta make sure that we uh look at these uh opportunities for our families moving forward in the future, right?

So that's my comments, mayor.

Thank you.

Well, thank you.

I'm gonna wrap it up here.

Um I think in the early 2000s, Ms.

McCrosky and myself, we developed the sub-area plan.

And I specifically asked these landowners if they want to participate in our Lehigh sub-area, and they said, well, what does that mean?

So we talked about the optics of how the sub-area would be and what it would protect and preserve Lehigh.

I consider this part of Lehigh.

I live there generationally, and I've tried everything I could to protect our Lehigh area.

The landowner said I do not want to be in the Lehigh sub-area.

Consequently, we drew a line, not including them as part of the sub-area, because they wanted some redevelopment and development as landowners to gain as much, you know, financial income they could as a family.

And for disclosure, I've known them my whole life, and my parents as well.

What I really like about the process, everyone that's spoken here tonight has known about the process from our planning and zoning meeting.

It was a vote of 7-0 to approve Price Manor 2.

When I fought for Price Manor 1, it was the appropriate thing to do because we needed attainable housing in our community.

We're missing a broadband of attainable housing.

Yes, it's close to Lehigh.

Yes, is there gonna be traffic?

Yes, there is.

So uh I like the the reasons that was talked about, Mr.

Lake and Mr.

Sweeney about having no short-term rentals in this parcel.

That kills an area because it really degrades an area by having uh short-term rentals.

You know, we can work out some of the semantics on okay, a left turn to on Center Street, you go towards uh McKelops.

I have set night after night when the Lehigh Sports Park has been in play and watch 99% of the people turn south to McKellops to exit an egress the area.

There's no reason to go through our Lehigh area unless families choose to buy these homes and their family members live in the Lehigh area, they're gonna go visit them.

They're gonna take their golf carts.

That's what they do in Lehigh.

I mean I'll somebody laugh, but yeah, that's what happens at Lehigh.

And there's some horse traffic, but our stables are leaving today.

There's not as many horses as there are today.

However, there are some, and we have our swine for each group that does swine uh down Lee High Road is pretty fun to see that, as well as our horse as equestrian groups.

I find this as a viable project to fit uh find our middle housing that we need in our Mesa area.

Um being outpaced by multifamily by 10 to 1, and that's uh unacceptable.

We have to put some guardrails on that.

With that, I think I've indicated which way I'm gonna vote on this, but I'm going to, unless there's no other comments from council, I'm going to entertain a motion for approval.

We have a motion for Miss Spillsbury, a second by Miss Duff.

Please cast your vote.

The yeses have it.

Thank you very much.

Motion passes.

Okay, if any wants to leave, we still have quite a few on the agenda.

However, I I need a backup.

I I want to, Mr.

City Manager, with all due respect.

There are some that are sitting here for quite some time.

Uh counsel, if I have about domestic violence.

Mayor, we're yeah, we're they had to they had to leave.

Uh, but we will we'll get them rescheduled for the next meeting.

Uh next month is actually domestic violence awareness month, so we can have them back at the October 6th uh council meeting.

So is it something we said?

What's that?

Is it something we said with the volume?

Child care.

Okay, well for those in the audience that are remaining, so October is domestic violence month, and so we will have a proclamation and a picture for that.

So and everyone can wear purple that day.

Pardon?

And everyone can wear purple that day, Mayor.

Oh, yeah.

Yeah.

Uh Ms.

Spielsbury, you can wear purple that day.

Very excited about that.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

Uh moving on.

I have, if I haven't missed anything.

Uh 10B.

Is that what I have here?

98.

Oh, I miss a 9A.

Uh I'll entertain a motion for a 9A.

That would be a continuance, correct?

Correct.

Mayor and Council, I think it's 9A and 9B.

Okay, 9A and 9B.

Copy that.

Is there a motion for continuance on 9A and B.

This is zoning case 24-00708, also known as Park North Multifamily Development.

Mayor.

Yes, sir.

So we we've discussed this project at length in our June 2nd council meeting.

I provided uh rather detailed information why why I was not in support of this project.

That project was continued to today, and we haven't seen any changes to that based.

The what's before us is the applicant has requested another continuance to date uncertain.

And I am willing to uh support the applicant as long as he's addressed the concerns that I have raised in those comments, which since this has been a long meeting, I'm not gonna repeat them.

There are about two and a half pages, by the way.

Uh but I also want to ensure transparency in the process that we have public participation, and I would value the planning and zoning board's perspective on any revisions to the project or future project that the applicant brings forward.

So with that, I'd like to make a motion to continue items 9A and 9B to date uncertain, and with the requirement that this project go back to the planning and zoning board for its review and recommendations.

Okay, Miss Spillsbury.

Um Councilmore Summers, did you say that the two and a half pages were from you from the neighborhood?

Who did you say that?

No, no, they they they were that was my statement that's Oh, you're thank you.

My statement was two and a half pages, and I'm happy to do it again, but I don't think you want to do that.

I thought that you were saying you gave them two and a half pages.

So uh No, no, no.

I'm just I'm a little bit um unsure that anything's going to change.

So do you have do you have some sort of confidence that something's going to change?

So it's not, it's not, you didn't send them a list of things that I don't know why I misheard you, I guess.

So there is a considerable list of things to change, and in conversations with the city manager who I'm sure will uh he's confident that there will be changes to this plan, that it that really this isn't viable.

So Mr.

Butler.

Yeah, um absolutely.

I think the applicant is here.

Um, yeah, and so he he may want to say this, so I'm not speak on their behalf, but I was contacted by um by Rose Law Group on on Friday requesting this continuance with the desire that they wanted to work on potential changes that might be acceptable to give this project approved to council.

So I don't I don't want to go as far and speak for them as uh Councilmember Summers uh Vice Mayor Summers alluded to that I'm confident there'll be changes.

I'm just alluding to what uh the request was.

So I guess that's what I just wanted to make sure that came then from the applicant and not because Mr.

Summers thinks it's correct.

It was the applicant necessarily.

Okay, okay.

Yeah, the applicant reached out to the office.

Okay.

Can we have the applicant speak?

Because I I'm still confused if we're stopping the show because of reasons unknown.

Come on up, applicant.

Thank you.

Good evening, uh, mayor, counsel, Chris Webb with Rose Law Group.

Um, yeah, so to try to answer everyone's questions, um we have had some some recent conversations.

Um, and it is clear that some changes still need to be made.

So we requested the continuance.

Um we uh we have uh Vice Mayor Summers list from from the June 2nd hearing.

Um it is our intent, yes, to make changes.

So I just want to confirm that.

Um, our hope is that we can bring back something that the entire council can support.

Thank you, Chris.

The community correct, yes, sir.

This is on an agenda before our our our summer break.

So it's been what already four months.

Yeah.

Okay.

And you believe that this is not time will tell.

Thank you, Mr.

Webb.

All right, we have a motion by Vice Mayor, second by Mr.

Adams to have a continuance for this.

Cast your vote.

It's approved.

Thank you.

Moving on.

Uh items 10A and 10 B are presentation on proposed utility rate adjustments and adoption of the notice of intention to adjust utility rates.

We are just want you to know we are not uh approving anything about utility rates.

We're opening up public discussion for that, and that vote will take place in November.

So, Mr.

Richel Brian.

After the presentation, uh we I'm gonna go through some blue cards and council as questions.

Okay.

Brian Richel, Office of Management and Budget Director.

Tonight, I just wanted to go.

I know we've had uh discussions with the audit and finance committee, uh detailed discussion with uh the council itself also on the utility rates, but for the notice of intent, what I want to do is just briefly go through a presentation on in recapping some of the items that were discussed during those meetings and some of the recommendations from both the audit and finance committee and also the city council.

So just a quick overview of the our financial principles.

These are our financial principles.

You've seen them before.

Uh there are a few of these that uh we'll go in that were kind of main focuses for the audit and finance committee and the council.

Those main focuses were the equity between residential and non-residential uh rates, growth that pays for growth, also uh conservation of discretionary water use, and then smooth rates throughout the forecast.

Also, what was discussed is some of what are the other municipalities are doing, and as I mentioned in the study session with council, the philosophy for the the city of Mesa has been, as I mentioned, is some of the principles is smooth rates, rate adjustments throughout the forecast.

Also reviewing and doing uh incremental rate adjustments on a yearly basis and taking a review.

As I mentioned, there's a few other cities that are now looking at that process and seeing the benefit of that process that the city of Mesa has been doing for years.

So just a recap this is the financial forecast that was presented to council during the uh adoption of the budget for fiscal year 25-26.

And the two concerns that the the city has is highlighted here in red to where the net sources and uses were negative almost throughout the forecast.

Also a big concern was the percentage of reserve fund dropping below the eight percent.

As you see in the last three years, fiscal year 27, 28 through 2930, we had 4.9, 4.6, and then 7%.

So that was a concern during our budget and during that budget time.

Uh we mentioned that we would be reviewing that and coming back with our during the rate discussion.

So what was recommended at the audit and finance committee, this is the financial forecast that was recommended, and there's a few things that the city reviewed and made a few changes to that forecast.

One of them is the restructuring of our debt.

As mentioned in the study session, we looked at uh instead of paying off 35% of our principal for debt in the first 10 years, we reduced it slightly to 30 percent.

That helped with reducing some of the uh the debt payments in the near future.

Also, what we did is working closely with the water resources, we deferred 180 million dollars of repairs and maintenance to our water and waste water system outside of the forecast.

So that is not in there either.

What we also did too was looked at one of our principles, which is equity between residential and non-residential.

And what we did there was we wanted to bring that forward and try to get residential and non-residential rates and revenue and consumption or the revenue equal.

So in this forecast, it was equal in fiscal year uh 29 and 30.

So, with this presentation to audit and finance, what they recommended was accelerating the equity between residential and non-residential.

So, what we did is we do reduced residential uh rate adjustments, but then increased the non-residential rate increases.

And with that, we were able to move it forward as I'll show, and then also what we uh were looking at was non-residential landscape usage rate adjustment for current recommended rate adjustments.

So, what we were doing current recommended was at a 15%.

And with that discussion, they asked us to look and see about raising it for, as I mentioned, one of the forecast focuses was conservation of discretionary uh water use.

The other one was reviewing residential user uh tier rate adjustments.

So this shows that what we were able to do was from going be uh from 15 percent in landscape commercial or non-residential to 20 percent.

We were able to move the equity up a year.

So currently we're in fiscal year 25-26.

So when these rate adjustments go into effect, it's really only for a half a fiscal year.

The next full fiscal year, so it'd be really about two and a half years instead of three and a half years of that equity.

And as I mentioned before, as you see here in the top uh in the top, which was presented to audit and finance, residential revenue compared to non-residential revenue currently is 55 to 45.

So residential revenue coming into the fund is 55 percent, and 45 percent is non-residential.

However, the residential consumption is 49 percent compared to uh non-residential, which is 51 percent.

So non-residential is consuming more of the water, but the revenue coming in is less than um what their equal share is for the consumption.

So that was a concern, and we wanted to move that up to from fiscal year 28-29 to fiscal year 27-28.

Brian, I I just might want to add that uh we have found that the water usage for residential is dropping and commercial and industrial is increasing, and therefore that's the parity in equity to help do that.

I know Miss Uh Goforth, she chaired that committee and requested that action item.

Yes, thank you, Mayor and Council.

So as you see, yes, the it's only been the past few years to where previously the city of Mesa was heavily residential.

And as it is it grew, the city started diversifying and bringing non-residential commercial uh businesses and development to the city.

As they did that, commercial started consuming more and more of the water, and that equity just in the past two to three years has now become commercial, non-residential, consuming more of the water.

However, the rates, the way the rates were, it was more dominant on the not on the residential side to where more of the revenue was coming from residential, even though they were not consuming as much as the non-residential.

Very good.

Thank you for that explanation.

So I correct Miss GoFord.

It is, and thank you, Brian, for I appreciate you all moving that up a year.

I think it it's important that we get that done faster.

Get that get to parity and and and then beyond, which is you your the rate of revenue brought in equals that of your consumption.

So thank you.

So with the recommended rates in the notice of intent, uh is on the left hand side.

So what I wanted to briefly show you here is what the impact would be on the current bill of a residential, multi-unit, commercial, and commercial landscape.

And then on the right hand side is what the next item that council will be considering is a capacity fee.

So if the council uh moves forward and adopting a capacity fee, the um the rates for residential would uh drop a little bit.

And so there's the effective uh percentage.

So for residents, it would be a 4.3, if is as is, if there's a capacity fee, it would be a combined of 4.2.

So it would be roughly about uh a dollar eighty nine to a dollar eighty-four impact.

This is a monthly impact uh for the resident um for that.

And then down at the bottom, as you'll see the commercial landscape.

This is where council uh asked us to look at that landscape.

So in this, it was we raised it up to uh 20 percent, and so the effective rate would be a 13.6 percent increase uh across the board.

And then same with the wastewater, the impact, uh an eight percent effective increase for a resident and a nine percent for commercial.

Should a capacity fee be adopted and move forward, it would drop about a half a percent.

So with that, the typical customer, if you have three of the our main uh utilities, the water, waste water, and solid waste, you would see roughly about almost just less than a six dollar monthly impact on your uh utility bill, and then down below is if you have electric and natural gas.

So the notice of intent that is uh in front of you for adoption today.

This is the forecast, should that notice of intent move forward.

And so, as you see that our net sources and uses um with those adjustments that has moved forward to positive from uh the fiscal year was I think 2930 during the budget process is now a year earlier at 2829.

But also, if you look the residential uh water residential, the top one is at four percent, that was at six percent previously.

So we're able to lessen the impact on the residents, but bring that burden to the non-residential commercial side due to us trying to get the the equality between the two accounts.

Should the council move forward with the capacity fee, as you notice, we are able to um lower make it even lower for the residents, and some of the um non-commercial also on the usage rates for water and wastewater.

What I wanted to show you here is with the uh net sources and uses, they do increase.

However, what this gives the city the opportunity to do to do is review uh extensively with water resources, the projects that have been deferred.

So, as I mentioned before, 180 million dollars projects were pushed out of this forecast.

What this does is that we'll be able to move those repairs and maintenance up into the forecast, we're able to make those fixes and maintenance a lot quicker than what we were able to do.

So here's a comparison of the rates.

So water uh for water residential, water commercial.

The non-capacity is on the left-hand side, and then if the council moves forward, it's on the right hand side.

So it would drop a little bit for the residents.

Also, water commercial would drop a little bit and for um wastewater also.

So this is just a comparison side by side, should a capacity fee move forward.

What I wanted to show you here is this is an updated homeowners comparison.

Um it does say estimated of April of 26th.

This does include some of our neighbors' adjustments.

For instance, the town of Gilbert is moving forward with their three-year plan.

This is their third year of a 25% increase in water.

The city of Chandler has also uh mentioned that they are looking to do a 15% increase on water, 15% increase on wastewater, and a six percent on solid waste.

That is also included in here.

So, what this shows you is that even with these with these adjustments, the city is still third from the bottom of the most affordable.

Um we are one of the most affordable cities within the valley.

And so the next steps would be tonight, uh, council action on the notice of intent.

And just as what was mentioned, this is the notice of intent.

So, what this does is just sets the maximum rate adjustment that the city can do.

It can always lower it, but it just can't go any higher.

So that's why we have what we have here is the highs of that was discussed with the the city council, and should the city want to reduce or able to reduce.

If the city council wishes to go any higher, we would then start the process over again with the notice of intent, and it would extend um into probably next uh calendar year.

So November 17th would be the introduction of the utility-rated uh ordinances, and then December 1 is when the council would take action on those ordinances, and these rates would go into effect January 1.

Thank you, Brian.

Could you go back to slide 15 and just leave it up there?

Uh council will entertain any discussion.

Julie, Miss Fieldsbury, sorry.

Um Brian, sorry.

Can you stay up here for a sec?

Um last year we did five percent for water.

Am I remembering that right?

I think it was four and a half when it's all every year starts to blend together, right?

So last year for water um the usage charge, we did a six percent for residential.

So and then this year we're proposing if we if we did the capacity fee 3.5.

If we did a capacity fee, yes, it would be a 3.5% adjustment.

So I know last year the average impact to a homeowner was five dollars a month, and I feel like we're lower this year, but yet it's 596 or whatever.

Is it just that there the other things that are in there are maybe a little bit higher?

Yes, Mayor, council member spillsbury, I'd have to look to see uh how that comparison also what you're looking at too is as the um as you raise rates a little bit, that percentage, even though if it may be a four percent, it's gonna be a little higher compared to what it was previously on a lower dollar amount.

So it's kind of like if you do a four percent increase on seven dollars, that's a bigger increase than if you did a four percent increase on five dollars.

Okay, so it does kind of compound a little bit, and that's one of the reasons why the city of Mesa has done that on an annual basis, doing increments, smaller increments because of that compounding effect, and that's where some of the utility the municipalities in the valley are seeing that and seeing the benefits of that.

Okay, and so instead of getting not doing anything for a few years, then getting hit with the big one.

Um, I know we're doing this a couple of months early this year so that we can have the public be able to have more of um some input and say so how are we educating the public on this and making um making this a little bit clearer and easier to understand and helping people understand why we do have to do utility rates each year.

So, yes, council member uh mayor, council member spillsbury.

We have started this uh much earlier.

Uh we used to just do the public hearing in December when the uh utility rate adoption was going, but we decided to move this up to um spur that conversation as part of the notice of intent.

Um they're more than welcome to uh contact the Office of Management and Budget, but also water resources or any of the utilities to discuss those those rates, and we're more than welcome to.

We wanted to start this because previously we really didn't have any of those discussions.

So I think this year, and then working with the city manager to see how this works, and then maybe improving the process uh next year.

Okay.

Um there's there's some accusations out there that we didn't let people know, but this is how we let people know, right?

Is this meeting tonight is how we're letting people know?

Mayor, councilmember spillsbury, yes, that is, to let people know that we have started the process.

There is a 60-day notice, so we will not take action on this for another 60 days, uh, which would be November 17th, uh, of introducing those ordinances.

And then in between that time, we can have that discussion.

Residents consumer uh customers can have that discussion with city staff with city council and begin those to um then have that uh decision made in December when it comes.

Okay, great, thank you.

What I'd like to do is uh read some blue cards and then have some uh input from our residents here.

So I have some blue cards uh that are opposed to this, and that would be uh Lisa Pena opposed, Debbie Brassel, opposed, Jeff Clusman opposed, David Smith, L Smith, opposed, and Patricia Book opposed, read into the record.

Next we'll hear for those that would like to speak.

Uh Rick uh Swalback is Rick here.

Rick, come forward, please.

Thank you, sir.

Thanks for your patience.

You picked a great night.

First time.

Uh thank you, uh City Mayor, Councilmember, and staff.

I urge you to delay the notice of intent to adjust the utility rates until we Mesa residents have clearly information about our utility bills.

Here are three areas where transparency is needed.

Utility payment breakdown.

Many residents don't realize that 30% of their utility bill funds funds general government purposes, not just water, wastewater, or trash services.

This practice is in place since 1946, and it isn't clear.

I propose utility bills clearly show how much goes to utilities versus government uses.

The second is utility rate system clarity.

The purpose rate hike aims at to raise 40 million uh 8% increase, only 5.4 million, 2.4% covers operating costs, which seems reasonable.

However, 12 million goes to general fund transfers, and 18.5 million covers debt services from prior bond approvals.

Decisions made in June or earlier.

Those accounts, these account for 76% of the increase.

But this connection isn't clear in the proposal.

Residents deserve to know how past budgets and bond decision rate drive rates spikes.

Excuse me.

The third is use median customer data instead of reinf reinferring referrence of typical customer use of a median customer.

Where 50% of the customers use use or pay more and 50% less.

This gives us more accurate picture of the resident impact.

Please project please proprietize these transfer transferral measures before moving forward.

Thank you.

Thank you, Rick.

Next we'll hear from Scott Webster.

Mr.

Webster, followed by Will Stasik.

Is that right?

If Will's still here.

Scott, thank you.

Mr.

Mayor, Council.

Appreciate the opportunity to address you.

I'm going to second what was just said and really without re-redoing this or with without restating what was said, and also understanding that I don't mean to relitigate the 30% as I understand it.

I'm fairly new here.

And as I understand it, that was a big area of contention for a while.

I'm not asking to get into that argument.

What I'm asking is, can we put that on our utility bills?

Can we show that?

My uh what I'm recommending is is that you change the name of the utility bill to utility bill and government supplements, since it seems like we do pay for both on that bill, and that that be broken out.

And uh I I think that would help in going that would go a long way in helping people to understand that uh that that's what's that that's what's truly happening.

My basis for doing this, like I said, I'm fairly new.

I was surprised to learn that this is how things are arranged.

And again, uh you you have to have money to run a city, and I understand that.

But just wanting to understand why it was arranged, I'm trying to learn that.

But I did tell I've talked to a number of of residents uh in and around where I live, and they're also very much unaware of the fact that that there is that 30 percent transfer that goes over.

So I just like to uh I guess what I'm asking is is it potentially you defer this conversation until some of that information is able to be disseminated at disseminated out more, and people who apparently aren't aware, but should be given I guess the the fight that took place uh a couple of years ago over this.

Um, you know, they they need to be aware.

So thank you, sir.

Uh Will is Will still here?

Okay.

I think I butchered his name, but uh regardless, he is opposed to and he wished to speak.

Uh council discussion.

I have just one question and it came to me over the weekend.

I was reading some article and I can't find it right now.

Um, but it was showed the amount of CAP water that we use, the amount of um on project water and then wells and you know, uh groundwater, you know, whatever.

And it basically was showing that like almost 60 percent was CAP and then you know, on project with SRP uh sources were like Chris closer to 30 some percent.

Oh, yeah.

And I always thought it was the other way, or is it because of the increased water demand of our industrial users that that has flipped?

Um Mayor, Councilmember Delph, if I understood your question, you were looking for our allocation breakdown percentage.

Chris, could you say who you are?

Yeah, sure.

Um Christopher Hazard, Water Resources Director of City Mesa.

Uh 55% of our water is is cap water, and uh about 35%, uh 30 to 40 percent is SRP, and then the root the balance is groundwater pumping.

And has that changed over the last couple of years?

Because I thought it was inverse.

It's been pretty static for several years.

Okay, all right, all right.

Maybe it was just my memory.

Okay, thanks.

Miss Pillsbury.

Yeah, I um I would just make the comment.

I didn't know about this either until I started like when I ran for council, I found out about the utility fund transfer, and I've lived in Mesa my whole entire life and have paid water bills for 28 years.

You know, I've been married for 20 years, so I've been paying my own bills and didn't know that.

So I definitely agree with you that it's not widely known, but it is not because the city's trying to keep that information from people.

And so I like I think sometimes that's the assumption.

We don't have a primary property tax.

We're the largest city, I think maybe I'm wrong.

We're like the largest city in the country that doesn't have a primary property tax, right?

So it is unique, and I think people don't understand that part either.

Um I don't think the homeowners comparison is still on the screen.

Is it still on the screen?

It is.

Oh, is it?

Okay.

Um I I just think if you look at that, even without the primary property tax, we still are the third lowest when compared to other cities.

So I do think there's definitely education that needs to be done.

There's a great video on our city website.

I keep telling them to put it like on the main page because it's so helpful.

Um, I think to kind of explain why we have the utility fund transfer, what we use it for.

Um it's so hard to compare like city to city because we do things so differently.

So I I get that.

I don't um I think if it if utility bills all of a sudden said utility bill and general fund supplemental, I think it would confuse even more people, and then they'd be like, what does this mean, right?

So, but but is there more education that should be done?

Absolutely.

I I think we need to do a better job.

We're I um on five years on council.

I'm stunned at how transparent the city is.

And we're accused often of doing things behind closed doors or under the table or whatever the different phrases are, when actually everything is incredibly transparent, and there's layers and layers and layers and levels of of um checks and balances to make sure that things are done transparently.

So I would just you know say that too that I appreciate the sentiment that we need to do a better job of education, and I agree.

Um, but I think some of those points get lost sometimes in the conversation.

And and also just that this is the start of this discussion.

So I to me it wouldn't be like let's not delay the start of the discussion, because this is the start of the discussion.

We're not gonna actually vote on this till the dates are gone now, but November 17th, is that right?

Yeah.

Oh, November 17th's the introduction, and then still two weeks later is when we would actually vote.

And so I I don't think it makes sense to delay the start when we're already doing this a little bit further ahead of time than we normally would.

Vice Mayor?

Yeah, uh I think Julie made a lot of the points I was gonna make.

Um clearly you've done some homework, right?

So you you know, is in the 1940s at this 30% transfer.

Nobody knows that because what other city does that?

It's just a very unique decision that the council back in that day decided this is the way that we're gonna fund this city rather than a property tax, we're gonna use the a transfer from the utility fund to fund general expenses, and that's what they decided.

There's been at least two votes, public votes to replace that with a primary tax down in flames.

People aren't very comfortable with the transfer, but what they hate more is a primary property tax, and I'm one of them.

So I I don't I think of all the bad systems to the fund, this is probably the the least worst of those things, but that's a conversation that our community needs to continue to have because I think it's a fair fair assessment.

Um, by the way, we don't have a tax on food.

Yeah, we don't have a tax on food, so we do we do have that.

But this is really about this is about the utility fund and how we keep this healthy to make sure that we have enough water, we can do our wastewater sewer and those type of things.

What you heard a little earlier about how much uh we get most of our supply from the Colorado River water, that that can be an expense.

That's probably our most expensive source.

Would you agree?

The cost is doubled.

Yeah, the cost is doubled.

One of the projects that that we undertook, and and there was a question about bonds and how much debt we have.

There's been a lot of projects to ensure that we have water.

One of those projects is a uh central reuse pipeline that goes from our plant down to the Gila River, and the Gila River then gets our non-potable water to use on their crops, and what we get in exchange is a trade of their Colorado River share, which comes A with their priority, so that that community uh is higher in priority for their water rights, so we get the step in line for that, and at their preferred rate, which is much cheaper.

The issue is the sale of bonds, makes sure that we can make that exchange happen.

So we we save some operational costs for a uh for a bond project that's gonna be paid off.

Do you remember it's a return on investment?

Seven years for the return on investment.

So that's a pretty good return on investment.

There are also several other projects we're replacing, um, we're replacing leaking pipes, we're getting uh we're updating uh signal butte water treatment plant, which will supply drinking water.

Uh and and um there's another project that escapes me for the moment.

But when we sell bonds for those things, we don't we don't throw them all at our ratepayers, myself included, at the same time.

We issue bonds over time so that we can level out how much we pay at any given moment.

So let's say 25 million this year in new bonds, but we also pay off old bonds.

So we avoid this up and down of of what the rates could be, because if we have a hundred million dollar project, we don't want to issue a hundred million dollars in bonds and then have to jack our rates up like some other cities are doing right now because they deferred the maintenance of their utility for a long time.

These kind of discussions that we're having, and at the end of the day, you might not agree, and that's great, but these are the kinds of things that we need to have for that transparency component to it.

So I so one of the things, and and I'll close the comment because it's been a long night, but is part of transparency when you look at, and please don't pull this back up, but I I I encourage everybody to go to our website and look at these slides.

And what's interesting is you'll see things like the adopted budget with uh forecasts over the next four years at estimate a six percent increase, and then that's a five and a half percent increase, and and then it's a four three and a half.

That's confusing.

And Mr.

Butler, the more we could simplify this and tell you know, how do we get to these numbers?

Butler, the more we could simplify this and tell you know, how do we get to these numbers because people see a six percent increase in a couple of years and panic and think that's locked in.

But the issue we're gonna talk about next, hopefully more briefly, I'm talking to myself, is is there are there are adjustments that are made over time that can positively impact and drive down the number.

So rather than another six percent increase, it might be three or three and a half.

And those little incremental increases make it far more manageable for people than wild fluctuations in the bill.

So the simpler we can make this and understand, and it and it can be complicated.

Uh I think that goes to better transparency of what we're trying to accomplish and talking about how important these bonds are as well.

So thank you.

Anyone else?

Mr.

Adams, please.

I'll be very brief.

Um this is a complicated process.

And uh I think that having now had a chance to look deeply into the budget process and what have you.

Um I'm comfortable that if uh someone looks, they can find the transparency for what we're doing.

Um as someone who's always looking for a way to see if we can minimize the impact on the residents primarily.

Um I'm encouraged to see that the projections are starting to move in a more favorable direction.

So that's uh that's uh something I'm very encouraged by.

I I I'm not seeing because we have uh this this 60 days uh until we go into November to continue this conversation for people to ask questions.

Um I'm not sure if this council will have an opportunity to debate this between now and then, but certainly we will then while information's gathered.

I don't see again as as someone who doesn't like increases.

I don't see any advantage to postponing um setting this date at this point in time.

We don't set it now.

We just delay the conversation, we delayed the debate, we delay the uh inspection and investigation and discussion.

So if it's if it's simply a delay game, uh that doesn't get us where we need to be, and it doesn't get anything resolved.

And in my opinion, this 60 days between now and November is an adequate amount of time for this to have its due hearing.

So that's that's those are my comments.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Adams.

Anything else?

Miss Goforth.

I'll just chime in real quick and and agree with um not really seeing uh the purpose and value in delaying this because this is what starts the conversation, and this is what we want to have.

This is this is what we want to do from here until the final vote is to talk to you all, talk to our residents and find out what they think about this, educate them on.

I won't uh you know, go into all the different points, but I I think um I think the more that we do get information out and we educate our residents about what we're doing to secure the future of water and energy for the city of Mesa, the more they will understand the the investment that we're making and the cost of that.

Again, I think we can go back and forth on the philosophy of whether you have a primary property tax or whether you do a transfer or not.

Um, but I think the the point is that we're making the right investments to secure our water and energy future.

And um we're not even keeping up with our costs.

Uh I don't think that slide was shown that our costs have gone up exponentially more than what our our rate adjustments have been.

Um, and they've been below even CPI.

So we really do try to keep that steady, smooth um adjustment each year so that we do we we have we don't have to make those giant spikes to cover um those unexpected increases.

So that's all.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Miss Spielsbury.

I just one more point that I um think is helpful that we we're all residents of the city too, so we're all paying these rates, and we're all feeling pinched from every every direction.

And so already through this process, the audit and fans committee lowered a little bit, then our city council um could discussion lowered it a little bit, right?

Like we've already lowered that residential water rate um a couple of times throughout this process to get it down to that 3.5.

So we're just we're very very aware of that and what how it feels to your wallet as well.

Thank you.

I'll I'll just uh my comments are about seven years ago, Mr.

Reddy and I uh we chose not to increase water utility rates in the city of Mesa.

We chose to vote against that.

Consequently, the next year we had a seven and a half percent increase in our water rates just because of everything combined, and we found that that was not the right thing to do.

So incremental uh increases are something that we do consider.

Uh we're very transparent.

I would say to Rick and Scott, if you want to learn more, please meet with us.

We have we're one of the few cities that you can go one-on-one with us and and find out and get as deep as you want.

You get neck neck deep in water, okay?

So water is one of our most expensive components.

Or wastewater.

Or wastewater, yeah.

Okay.

I don't want to go with that place.

But what we're doing today, we have a 95-year lease with the Heela River Indian community for their priority water, and that's because we're gonna take additional cuts in 26.

I sit on different water boards.

I know exactly what's going on, and we know the Colorado River is not producing any more water.

In fact, the uh outcome is very uh is not desirable.

And Arizona has low priority water compared to other base lower basin states.

So, with that said, costs us more money.

We want to serve you wisely, and we do have a geographical area where from everything east of say Valvista and the Roosevelt Conservation District Canal, everything east of there and to the south is a whole different water game, and we have some of the best mines and engineering around to make that happen.

Regarding the 30 percent transfer, those monies are going to our public safety.

So we've we've carved that out because several years ago, Mr.

Reddy and I, we heard our residents and Mary Giles, and we all work together to help because you could just use this money willy-nilly, is people thought on our transfer.

But we took 30 percent of that to reinvest in our public safety, police and fire.

That's what 30 percent of that money does.

And the other part of it is I think we're reinvesting in our infrastructure every time we pay our bills, our pipes, our employees, our equipment, top notch, so we can respond appropriately to any emergency or need in our city.

I respect that.

And so, you know, we have a fiduciary responsibility as a council to make sure we keep our rates low.

We want to be competitive.

We know how hard it is out there, we know families are struggling.

We struggle too, and we have the debt service, we have everything involved, but we want if you as you look at the homeowner comparison, I think is essential.

So I would ask anybody listening, meet with your council member, we'll grab in a staff member, we'll uh show you all the numbers.

So I appreciate that.

Just as a reminder, September 22nd is today, November 17th is introduction of utility rate ordinances.

We don't vote on this until December 1st.

Uh City Council action on utility rates with the effective date, January 1st.

So we said as been said, we set the rates up high.

We can always strive to come down lower, you know, quarter, half percent, whatever it might be.

We strive for that.

Now the next topic agenda item may not be a real popular item, but we're gonna get through this one here, and we're gonna talk about capacity fees for everybody.

So I know there's some waiting for that.

So council, there's nothing else.

I'll entertain a motion for uh the notice of intent for items 10A and B.

Thank you, Miss Spielsbury.

Thank you, Mr.

Reddy.

Please cast your vote.

Motion passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Again, item 11A and B is a notice of intent and setting December 1st as a date for a public hearing.

Uh, we'll have a presentation and discussion on proposed water and wastewater capacity fees.

Um Mr.

Hassart, are you gonna come up?

And then also the adoption of the notice intent to establish water and wastewater capacity fees.

I do have some blue cards, so once we're done with the presentation, uh we'll have the blue cards and then uh council discussion.

Um breakfast.

Dinner.

Thank you, Andrew.

Mayor Council members, uh Christopher Hassard, Water Resources Director, City of Mesa.

So this is the presentation that we looked at uh both an audit and finance and more or less the same presentation at a council study session.

I won't go through every slide.

I really just want to pick out the key slides.

So what is it?

The capacity fee, it's it's been mentioned earlier tonight.

It's really new development paying for the expansion of the infrastructure we need in our water and wastewater systems.

Um the capacity fee is model of uh the revised statute 9 51101.

So that statute gives cities authority, water providers authority to impose fees for water and wastewater.

Um the fee, the capacity fee itself, the methodology we use is actually from the American Waterworks Association, Manual M1.

It's very thick manual, it gets into rates and fees uh in the water industry and wastewater industries.

So nationwide, this methodology is used as a capacity fee again for new development to pay for itself.

I'll go back a couple slides.

Um this is not for all customers, it's for new development as a uh set of new meter for new growth.

That growth puts demand on the system, water and wastewater.

Um, as it stands today, if we just used our existing customer base, water and wastewater, we would not have to expand any plants, we would not have to build new interceptor sewers, we would not have to build any booster stations.

Um the existing customer base is covered with the existing infrastructure.

Uh, but as it stands, uh through our master planning process, which we started in 2022, um there's about 400 million dollars identified in new projects that are strictly to add capacity to the system, both water and wastewater.

Um half of that 400 million is the expansion of the signal but water treatment plant that is under construction today.

Um, if we weren't entertaining any more growth in Mesa, we would not be expanding this plan.

So this plan is really to accommodate growth.

And I could go down a long list of projects, building new wells in Southeast Mesa, uh large interceptor sewers to extend in the areas that um have yet to be developed.

Um all that infrastructure is necessary to support new development.

So this fee would um be imposed on any new development or any upsizing.

So there could be redevelopment where you have a parcel that maybe today has a one-inch meter, but there's gonna be a uh a newer use to that property, more dense perhaps.

Uh, that could uh require the use of a two-inch meter, so that upsize would then pay an impact fee.

What I want to do is first of all, I'll show you the map.

So this is right out of the master plan, the integrated master plan that we just finished this year, earlier this year.

All of those colored areas uh represent well, first of all, the different colors represent different land uses in the city of Mesa, and any area that shows up in color is either a vacant or underdeveloped parcel.

Uh as it stands, we're about 90% built out.

Um, actually about 85% built out.

Um, but 90% of the remaining development is commercial, and only about 10% of the those vacant parcels that you see left to develop are residential.

So, by and large, what's ahead of us uh on this map is commercial development with about only about a tenth of that being residential.

I think the slide that really we won't go through the math because we did that before, but we start with the 400 million dollars, and then we look at all the vacant parcels.

We look at the capacity that we need to build with that 400 million dollars, and then we break that down and distill it into the least common denominator, which is a three-quarter inch meter.

That's the smallest meter we have in our inventory.

We start the fee there, and then as you go in bigger meter sizes, um there's an exponential amount of more water that's that's put through, say a four-inch meter versus a three-quarter inch meter.

So the the we go to that least common denominator, which is the three-quarter inch meter, and you can see the water and the wastewater capacity fee is about 9,500.

And then as you go larger in size with meters, it's strictly just based on the flow rate that you can get through those bigger meters.

Um, a 10-inch meter, you can count on one hand, maybe there's only one or two in the entire city.

You're talking about really large facilities like a data center that would be a 10-inch, even an eight-inch, um, even down to a six-inch, that's a pretty big meter.

That's a lot of water use.

Um, so you can see that's commensurate with the dollar amount.

A lot of water use is going to translate into a higher capacity fee.

This really tells the story in terms of where Mesa sits right now in the environment.

Um, if you look at a lot of our neighbors, existing Mesa, we're that bottom line right now.

There's no mechanism in place right now where new development pays for expanded infrastructure for new development.

Um, there's nothing in place.

Uh, other cities either have a capacity fee or an impact fee.

Mesa used to have an impact fee, our wastewater impact fee, uh daylighted, not daily, but um it it's sunsetted, that was the word I was looking for.

Thank you.

Yeah, it's sunsetted the wastewater in 2023, and then just late last year, the water impact fee sunset.

So as we started our master planning process in 2022, and we worked through that, and we looked at that map that we showed you.

We knew that we had a lot of a lot of big cost ahead of us to expand the system to make way to pave the way for that new growth.

Um, so with that, that pointed us in the direction of a capacity fee.

We first brought this to your attention a year ago uh in this very process.

It was one of the slides we had um just to foreshadow the work we are doing and that we would be coming back to you, and then again in the budget process uh back in April when I presented uh that was one of our slides at the very end that we covered that aside from the budget process, which is very important, the OM budget, this capacity fee was also something we took very seriously and we were working on, and that we wanted to bring to you when the time came, which is now during the rates process.

And that's all I have to really present.

Um I take any questions.

Um council, any questions right now?

If not, we'll move over to the blue cards.

Thank you, Chris.

Um I I think for clarity, if we could talk about this, but if we adopt the capacity fee, then for the residential uh residents, then the fee would be lower percent wise.

And I think that there might be some that think, well, it's gonna increase my residential uh water bill, wastewater, but that's not the case.

Is that how council feels?

Okay.

Okay, so with that, uh, I'm just saying these names wish not to speak on our opposed to it.

Jeff Closman Klusman and Elaine Kusman are uh opposed to this item.

With that, we'll move over to the speaker cards.

Uh Mr.

Ashley, James Ashley has been here patiently all this evening.

You could add dinner somewhere and then showed up, but thank you for your diligence.

That's all right.

Very happy to be here.

And thank you very much, Mayor Freeman, members of the council.

I am James Ashley.

I appreciate this opportunity.

With the home builders association of Central Arizona, we represent the single-family residential construction industry and all the associated trades.

Our member companies employ tens of thousands of workers throughout the region and invest hundreds of millions of dollars annually here in Mesa through new home construction.

I do appreciate this opportunity, and we are here this evening to convey opposition to adopting these fees for water and wastewater under ARS 9511.01, or in the case of this evening, the notice of intent.

The city can and should adopt the fees under ARS 9463.05, which is the development impact fee statute.

This is about the process.

I'm actually working with the city of Mesa on an unrelated issue as a result of outreach, and we're having great conversations and we're making good progress.

So we were disappointed that we only found out about this proposal by seeing it on your September 11th study session agenda.

There was no outreach to home builders, which is contrary to outreach and other jurisdictions.

I initiated a meeting with staff here, which was held.

And there's now also a planned and scheduled stakeholder meeting to discuss our concerns.

We'll work through that process with staff and then hope to achieve a positive resolution or end up back here to voice our opposition and our continued concerns.

We haven't had an opportunity to fully review how the fees were calculated, so we may have some additional commentary on that aspect as well.

But I want to make clear as I wrap up, our opposition, it's not rooted in the need to provide water and wastewater capacity to our builders to accommodate growth.

We understand the growth pressures on a city.

We understand the growth pressures for water and wastewater on Mesa.

It's the process.

It's the process that removes the certainty of the timelines and the other protections and provisions that builders experience in other municipalities throughout the valley.

And then previously in Mesa as well, as you heard, and that certainty that exists in the development impact fee statute.

And with that, I'd like to thank you very much for your time.

Thank you, sir.

Appreciate that.

Next we'll hear from David L.

Smith.

If you're still here along with on deck is uh Scott Webster.

Mr.

Smith.

Hi, my name is David L.

Smith, and in full disclosure, I'm a resident of Dreamland Villa for the almost nine years here in November.

However, I do pay a city water bill every month.

So I would like to speak to this issue.

Thank you.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Um city council members and city staff.

I I speak tonight to support the proposed water wastewater capacity fee because those who benefit from new infrastructure should pay for it.

Currently, Mesa residents and water ratepayers subsidize new development by covering the cost of water and wastewater infrastructure.

This is no longer necessary or fair.

City staff estimates the supplying Mesa's remaining available space at a cost of about 400 million dollars, as we heard just heard.

An excessive burden for residents and ratepayers.

Well, the capacity fee for a typical single family home is significant.

It aligns with state law and fees paid in other valley cities and towns.

Without this fee, ratepayers would face higher utility bills over time to cover these costs plus interest, which is unfair.

Please approve the notice of intent to establish these capacity fees and ultimately to adopt the fees.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

With that, um I just want to uh circle back to Mr.

Ashley.

Mr.

Ashley, you know you're working with staff, so uh again, uh Mesa stands ready to help work through this process.

Um is there one more oh yeah?

I'm sorry, Mr.

Webster.

Okay, yeah, Scott, thank you.

Uh Ms.

You get kind of excited.

I will uh just second a lot of what was just said.

Um the end of my remarks basically say this.

I've lived in several other cities where this issue comes up, and it's at all it's always a philosophical one.

And I appreciate the fact that you're addressing this.

You call it unpopular, but I really think it's necessary.

I certainly support it.

Um I hope that everything's being looked at.

Water, power, roads, all of that with regard to new development.

One of the things that happened uh where we lived in California was is that um most of the housing going in tended to be high-end, uh, and so it was much more expensive.

And and I guess you'd say the individuals who are going into that housing were capable of absorbing some of that.

Um provisions weren't made for these capacity allowances for this capacity fee.

And what happened was is that people, especially elder people living in in older, smaller homes, wound up absorbing a significant amount of uh of that infrastructure hit because it was not placed on these these new developments.

And so I'll just uh second what was said and leave it at that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And I think for clarity, Mr.

Butler, Mr.

Smith, uh, this only pertains to water and wastewater because that's what we're limited to with this capacity fee.

Mayor and council, that's correct.

Under the state statute, uh the capacity P can only be for water and wastewater.

If we could do more, we would, Mr.

Webster, but we're constrained by those uh guardrails.

Um anything else, Mr.

Butler.

Mayor, counsel, I just you know, in response to Mr.

Ashley's comments, and we we've always to his point had a good relationship with our friends uh stakeholders' groups in the private sector, and we're committed to working with them.

I I do think it's a bit unfair, and I've seen it from you know multiple stakeholders of applying the statutory framework of impact fees, and it's and then using that as a uh you know, as some kind of testament that we're not following an open uh process when we are following state statute, and we are uh adhering to what's laid out uh in statute as far as adoption of a capacity fee, uh a fee that's been upheld all the way up to the Arizona Supreme Court.

And so this is uh certainly something we want to work with our stakeholders with, but uh going back to your point.

I mean, staff feels strongly that growth needs to pay for growth, and every day that we don't have this, current ratepayers are subsidizing the new growth that's happening in the city.

And I I just don't think that's acceptable.

And um, and we're we feel you know strongly that we'll we'll work with uh industry.

We want to find a reasonable solution on on this, and and so um that's why we're uh glad through this process tonight.

Again, you're you're starting this discussion.

We have 60 days as was alluded to.

We do have stakeholders, um stakeholder meetings set up, and we're we're you know, the mayor participated in in uh a discussion to today with an interested party, and so um we're gonna continue to have these discussions um between now and and December, and and hopefully can can find a good place where we can all feel good about um the end product.

Very good.

Thank you.

Vice Mayor, anybody down here?

Thank you.

I I just hope those meetings are productive in that it's this isn't we shouldn't do this at all because ultimately who who should pay for growth.

And we we see it in these rates.

If we don't adopt this for residential consumers, it's a half a percent more on their utility bill every month, just to offset the cost of growth.

And for for commercial users, it's one percent.

And you can go up and down on the on the wastewater too.

So you grow growth really should pay for growth.

How we implement this, I think there's some discussions that could be made to you know help there.

But as we heard from staff, um the old system is died.

So we have to adopt a new system to make sure that growth pays for itself.

And I will take exception too, because I do remember having this conversation last year about starting the process for putting this together.

So if folks weren't paying attention, um, granted we didn't have any public meetings, but now you have 60 days to have those one-on-one meetings.

I'm really glad to hear you're doing that.

But we have to protect our ratepayers.

So I'm looking forward to having these discussions in the future.

Thank you.

Miss Goforth.

Yes, I would just say again, this notice of intent starts the process to receive feedback and the conversations.

That's what this does.

So now is the time to have those.

We haven't skipped them, we've just begun them.

Tonight begins those.

Um, and uh frankly, as as Vice Mayor said, we did mention it.

We it has been mentioned um in at the previous discussion.

Um so anyway, this isn't the first time that it's been brought up, but definitely reiterate growth should pay for growth.

You heard Chris Hassard say the existing infrastructure that we have with the existing custom ratepayer base, we wouldn't have to change a thing.

We wouldn't have to change a thing.

It covers um maintaining the infrastructure and the capacity that we have.

So when we increase the capacity, those that are increasing and adding stress to the system should have to pay for that.

That's that is something I I feel strongly about, and I cannot look at my constituents and continue and say to them we should all cover um this new stress on the on the system and this increased capacity.

So uh I think we'll have some good discussions from here that you know it we may learn a thing or two from the feedback and and tweak it a little bit, but uh the the general concept I think is a good one.

Thank you, Mr.

Adams.

I'll just say at this time that I think this is a very uh uh interesting and appropriate discussion to have.

I look forward to feedback from staff as these conversations with stakeholders go on.

But uh at this time uh it seems to me like uh uh anything that we can look at that reduces the burden on the residential ratepayer, and this seems to fit that bill is something that I think is well worth pursuing.

Um as was mentioned, we have 60 days in front of us for a robust discussion about this, which I look forward to.

But uh again, if this is one vehicle we can use to reduce the amount that we ask residential ratepayers to pay, then I think that's a very positive thing.

I look forward to those discussions.

Thank you.

And I just want to bring up the fact there's a difference between capacity fees and impact fees.

So we may be shooting something over the bow, Mr.

Ashley, that we might look at impact fees in the future.

So with that said, uh, we'll move forward.

So I will entertain a motion for 11 B.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

Second by Miss Goforth.

All in favor say guess your vote.

Sorry.

It's unanimous.

Thank you.

Uh with that, we kind of jumped around a little bit.

Uh Miss Mosley, was there anything that I missed so far?

No, Mayor, you did wonderful.

Oh wow.

Okay.

Mr.

Smith, are we good to go?

Okay.

I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.

So moved.

Okay.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Okay, we're adjourn.