Thank you for being here this evening.

Welcome to the Mesa City Council meeting for November 17, 2025.

Councilmember Heretti is unable to attend as excused from this meeting.

All other council members here are present, including our newest council member, uh, Councilmember Taylor.

So welcome, Dorian.

Appreciate you being here.

With that, as we always do, we'll begin with an invocation by Reverend Dr.

Derek Elliott of the Derrett Desert Heritage Church, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Sergeant Dan Stratton from the 101st Airborne Army.

Mr.

Stratton earned two purple hearts in his duty, tour duty.

So if you please stand, and Reverend, if you'll come forward.

Thank you.

Before I offer this prayer, I invite each of you to pause and pray in the tradition that grounds you as I pray in mine.

Holy one.

We gather this evening, mindful of the people who call Mesa home.

As we move into the season of Thanksgiving.

For the people who carry our stories.

For the young people who hold our future.

And the neighbors who cares for one another in steady and uneasy times.

Oh God, God, this council and our mayor with steady hearts and clear judgment.

Remind them that their authority they carry comes from the trust of this community.

Remind them that their calling is to listen well, protect the vulnerable, and make decisions that honor the dignity of every resident.

Bless this meeting, oh God.

Help us to work toward solution that strengthen our neighborhoods and support the common good.

Give each leader the wisdom to serve with humility, the patience to hear every voice, and the courage to choose the right, even when it's difficult.

May the peace of God surround all of them and this city.

I pray this in the name of Jesus Christ.

Amen.

And to the Republic for which stands one nation under God with liberty with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you, Reverend and Sergeant Stratton.

You can leave now, Sergeant Stratton, if you'd like.

It's your choice.

With that, uh item one is the consent agenda.

Mr.

Christopher, if you'll come forward and read the consent agenda.

But before you do, um Reverend Sandy Johnson on item four C.

That's the uh what we're doing on the uh fixtures furniture.

Uh that's going to be a continuance, Reverend Johnson.

So do you want to speak tonight or come back at a later date?

I would like to speak if that's all right.

Oh, yeah, it is.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

Okay, Mr.

Christopher.

Good evening, Mayor and Council members.

These are the items of the consent agenda.

All items listed with an ask risk will be considered as a group by the city council.

And we'll be enacted with one motion.

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

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

Item 3A, Act and Electoral License Application for Mesa Drummer, 1211 North Country Club Drive.

Item 3B, Act on Liquor License Application for Mojo's Smoke Palace No.

Item 3C, Act on Liquor License Application for Inspiration to Mesa, 6220 East Broadway Road.

Item 3D, Act on Liquor License Application for Toroko Sports, 1738 West Rio Salado Parkway.

Item 3E, Act on Liquor License Application for Rapid Refuel, 6951 East Southern Avenue.

Item 4A, approving use of a 31-month cooperative term contract for Hack Original Equipment Manufacturer Equipment, Parts and Services for the Water Resources Department.

Item 4B, approving one-year term contract with four-year renewal options for pad-mounted insulated switch gears for the Energy Resources Department.

Item 4C is for continuance to a future city council meeting.

This is for a cooperative term contract for furniture and related services for the Sun Air property.

Again, this item is for continuance to a future city council meeting.

Item 5A, approving resolution to enter into a subgrant award agreement with the Arizona Department of Public Safety to accept grant funds from the Victims of Crime Act, victim assistance grant program.

Funds will be used for personnel expenses at the police department's Mesa Family Advocacy Center.

Item 5B, approving resolution to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with the Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community for receipted distribution of Proposition 202 funds.

Under the agreement, funding going to the City of Mesa will support programs in fire and medical, Falconfield Airport, Library Services, and Parks Recreation and Committee Facilities.

The remaining balance of funds will be distributed to other local community agencies as pass-through grants.

Item 5C, approving resolution to enter into an amendment to the telecommunications license agreement with level three communications.

Item 5D has been removed from the consent agenda.

Item 5E, approving resolution to enter into the third addendum to the agreement for museum and exhibit services with the Mesa Historical Society.

Item 6A has been removed from consent agenda.

Items 7A through 7J involve resolutions and ordinances for various utility schedules of terms, rates, fees, charges, and schedules of rules and regulations.

Item 7A has been removed from the consent agenda.

Item 7B is for introduction of ordinance for electric utility services.

Item 7C is approving resolution declaring proposed titles and schedules for natural gas utility services to be a public record.

Item 7D, introduction of ordinance for natural gas utility services.

Item 7E is approving resolution declaring proposed titles and schedules for water utility services to be a public record.

Item 7F has been removed from the consent agenda.

Item 7G is approving resolution declaring proposed titles and schedules for wastewater utility services to be a public record.

Item 7H is introduction of ordinance for wastewater utility services.

Item 7I's approving resolution declaring proposed titles and schedules for solid waste utility services to be a public record.

And item 7J is introduction of ordinance for solid waste utility services.

Mayor and Council members, these are the items on the consent agenda.

Thank you, Mr.

Christopher.

Uh Mr.

Smith, have we covered everything as far as what's off the agenda?

I thought that the one item that you just mentioned and asked the person who wanted to speak would be taking it off, right?

So that's correct.

Yeah.

The removed ones are 7 F and 7A.

Yeah.

I heard 7A was removed too.

Yes, 717F.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right, with that, I'll entertain a motion.

Thank you, Mr.

Summers.

Second by Miss Go Fourth.

Cast your vote.

Okay, it's unanimous.

Thank you.

All right, we'll move over then to 4C.

4C is again use of cooperative termic contract for furniture and related services for Sun Air property for the community services department, funded by ARPA.

And we have one person, uh Reverend Sandy Johnson.

Thank you, Reverend.

You have three minutes.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor and members of the City Council.

My name is Reverend Sandy Johnson, and I'm pastor at Red Mountain United Methodist Church in the East Valley.

I'm also a leader with Valley Interfaith project, and we are a broad-based organization representing 25 institutions here in Maricopa County, representing over 20,000 people.

And I have a gang with me.

Would you we originally came to speak on this issue?

Mostly we'd like to express our appreciation to the council for your ongoing support of Sun Air Off the Streets Housing and to recognize and honor the hard work that you've put into this project.

Your commitment to this project will make a vital difference in the lives of our families.

As economic pressures continue to grow, our congregations have firsthand experience of members struggling with housing and homelessness, and we know the pain that brought this project forward.

In my own church, we have had increased number of people coming for rental assistance because they cannot afford their homes.

Two years ago, we stood with you with this project and to approve the development of the multiple residents at the former Grand Hotel, now known as Sun Air, and we recognize that the pain of this project has begun to heal.

But today we are encouraging the fulfillment of this project.

We know this is one step of many, and we look forward to collaborating with you to address this issue in the future.

Valley Innerfaith would also like to welcome Councilwoman Taylor to the council, and we look forward to working with you and benefiting from your experience and perspective as we continue to combat this and other pressure pressures facing Mesa families.

And finally, with the council's permission, we would like to have a meeting with you at your convenience with representatives of Valley Inner Faith to build a working relationship with you and to discuss ongoing and future strategies to expand and improve the housing opportunities here in Mesa.

We are eager to collaborate with you, with all of you, and share ideas and work together to ensure that all the members of our community have access to safe and affordable housing.

And I thank you again for allowing me to speak, particularly since it was removed.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for coming.

Appreciate that, Reverend.

With that, is there any comments from uh the council, otherwise as a continuance?

Uh Ms.

Taylor.

Thank you for welcoming me.

I appreciate it.

With that, I'll entertain a motion to approve item 4C.

For continuance?

For continuance, yes.

Thank you.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

Second by Miss Goforth, cast your vote.

Okay, thank you.

Uh it passes.

Motion passes.

With that, uh, we're gonna go over to 5D now.

5D is uh micromobility.

Make sure the right language here.

Approving and adopting the downtown Mesa micro mobility and parking plan covering the area generally located from University Drive to the north, Broadway to the south, country club on the west, and Mesa Drive to the east.

We do have some public comments.

First is Mary Adino.

Mary, if you want to come forward, appreciate that.

And after Mary is Kathy Carlson.

Thank you, Mary.

Hi.

My name is Mary Mabineau.

I'm live off of Brown and Wrecker Road in District 5.

Mayor and Council members.

The parking and micromobility plan for downtown Mesa are two separate issues.

Why are they both included under one plan?

The parking plan as a stand-in-alone option might have some merit, but if this is passed, you're giving a green light to both.

It was stated in a study session that this is a planning and policy document that has recommendations for downtown parking and recommendations for micro mobility.

This micro mobility is concerned with streets within the boundaries of Mesa Drive, Country Club, Broadway, and University.

Yes, and that includes Center Street.

It is based on the premise that walking, biking, and scootering should have equal equity with cars, even though most people get around in cars.

To accomplish this, it involves removal of traffic signals, road diets, bike lanes, roundabouts, and relocation of curb lines, to name a few.

This is proposed on the belief that people will flock to downtown Mesa and create vibran as a result of all this multimodal activity.

I would suggest this only applies to a few residents and certainly to an even lesser few during the four to five months of Arizona summers.

I would also suggest car drivers will be frustrated and negatively affected by redesigned streets as if they're not already negatively affected by the light rail.

This plan is a guide for moving forward with a longer-term plan, one that is not required, but that's a little disingenuous.

So it's like wink wink, it's not required, but it's laying the initial legal groundwork for totally changing streets in and around Mesa Downtown.

Again, don't be confused.

This plan anticipates implementation.

And a quote if this plan passes, it will be used as justification on voting yes for passing the next steps of implementation.

And if that implementation passes, then that serves as a precedent for messing with more and more streets around Mesa, all in the name of equity, of course.

If you want to have a parking plan for downtown Mesa, fine.

Present that without all the other repercussions.

Please vote this down.

You will only make this more of an area to avoid instead of frequenting.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Mary.

Next we'll hear from Kathy Carlson, and followed by her will be David Winstanley.

My name is Kathy Carlson.

I'm from District 5, and I am also against the plan.

The first point of the study, I saw it as twofold, but the first point seems to be they wanted to provide the residents in the area of downtown the ability to walk, ride bikes, or scooters to their destinations by changing the roads, curbs, and all of that.

First of all, residents already bike and ride now.

All the downtown stores are close to each other and just and it just concerns a few blocks.

Second, this group of people are.

Thank you, Kathy.

Uh Mr.

Winstanley, and followed by Mr.

Winstanley is Tim Sprague.

Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council, Councilwoman Taylor, good to see you on the dais.

Um I'm speaking, and I actually, Mary, you did such a good job.

I don't have to say much.

Um I'm asking that you uh disapprove this plan because it's a plan that has a commitment to money that you don't have and that you aren't ready to commit to.

I agree with what Mary said.

If you want the parking, which looks terrific, separate it from the rest of the plan.

But you're putting road diets and roundabouts on the plan and making commitments to them.

The most commonly expressed one is the center street change for seven million dollars.

That seven million dollars can be used for other things.

I recognize you're not approving that amount of money, but you're committing staff to work on it.

So please separate the two if you want to pass the parking and and do a better um job of looking at the plan.

Lastly, I'm quite surprised that this has never been through your transportation advisory board for review and comment.

Thank you for your time, and I hope you'll listen.

Thank you, David.

Uh Tim.

Mr.

Sprig, and followed by Mr.

Sprig will be uh James Grafe.

Or it could be Graf.

Mr.

Sprague.

Good evening, Mr.

Mayor, members of the council.

My name is Tim Sprague.

I'm here wearing two hats tonight.

One is that of a property owner, and the other is chair of the downtown MASA Association.

I first of all want to thank the city for at least at this juncture planning.

Very seldom do cities look into the future and see what should be done or what could be done or what may be done.

This plan looks at that.

Things have changed a great deal in the last five years.

We have Waymo.

We have all kinds of share ride activity.

One of the things that this plan would do would be to look at how that type of transportation is facilitated in downtown.

The other thing that this plan does is to provide for good signage, good wayfinding as it relates to parking.

One of the most difficult things coming from an old merchant family is parking for your retail customers, making sure people know where to go and how to get there.

And listening to the comments before, I absolutely support the growth of our retail in downtown Mesa.

This will look towards that.

It will help.

This is a planning session to do that.

The other thing it does is to improve the integration of micro mobility.

So what is micro mobility?

It's being able to walk on a street, side, sidewalk safely.

It's being able to ride your bike from point A to point B.

Look at Mesa right now.

The amount of multifamily development that has taken place, starting with what the LDS church did on its property to one that we built to another 300 plus units that are just completing and another 300 plus units that are starting.

Downtown is changing.

There's going to be a lot of foot traffic.

And make Mesa grow.

And lastly, we have ASU making a very strong commitment to be in downtown Mesa.

And this is something that we need to plan for.

This is not yes or no.

This is planning for the future.

I ask that you adopt it.

Thank you, Mr.

Sprague.

James.

Followed by James will be Jonathan Bush.

Hi, Mayor and Council.

My name is James Grafe.

I live just uh down the road in East Tempe, and I work for Cal de Sac, who's developing Cal de Sac Mesa a few blocks away.

And I'm here today to support the City of Mesa's micromobility and parking plan.

I have the opportunity to, we have the opportunity to build on the already vibrant, walkable, and people-friendly downtown Mesa.

And this plan will do three important things.

First, the investments will make streets safer for everyone.

Well-designed micromobility routes and predictable curbside management, reduce conflict points, and will lower crash risk.

I know this plan will make it less stressful to be outside of a car on downtown streets.

I biked here today.

I have my helmet.

And even I even bike during the summertime in the evenings.

Um and I said I know that firsthand.

I want the 11-year-old kids living in the neighborhoods around downtown to have the freedom to bike down to a business or to their friend's house without the fear of anything happening.

Second, I think this plan will help make visitor experience in downtown even better, and it'll let small businesses thrive.

And I think something that's very underrated is noise.

This plan will lead to lower noise from tires, and it'll allow me to enjoy the conversation at dinner even better.

And I know the same is true for the people living in the surrounding communities to have quieter streets.

I know the people driving will also appreciate that clear awayfinding signage as well for parking.

And overall, I think the plan will be great for downtown businesses.

And finally, the plan extends transportation freedom.

At Cul de Sac Tempe, we've seen that providing a portfolio of transportation options allows residents to choose the best mode for each trip.

And downtown Mesa is blessed with plenty of room on its streets for everyone to have enough space for their mode.

I want to emphasize again, there is plenty of room on the downtown Mesa streets for everyone to have room.

I know increasing options in town downtown will be good for existing residents and for the future residents of Cal de Sac Mesa.

Thank you for your continued leadership to make Mesa a model for safe, innovative, and people centered streets, and I urge you to approve and adopt the plan.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jonathan.

I don't have your blue card, sir.

Mr.

Bush.

Okay, yeah, I do.

Thank you, Mayor.

I guess I too much going on up here, you know.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jonathan.

Okay.

Uh Marion Council, good evening.

Uh, my name is John Bush.

My family has lived in Mesa since 1998.

And I currently live at 151 East First Street, just down the road.

I often run down First Street to get to the other side of downtown to get to all the restaurants on Robson, Arthur Carnes Cerio and Country Club.

I run in first because of all the horror stories that I've heard on Maine, uh, drivers following too close, passing too close, forcing bikes into the door zone, uh, even drivers trying to fight some cyclists.

Umly has no bike lane.

Uh, and last month, while passing through the traffic light at Centennial, I was almost hit by a woman taking a left turn.

We both stopped on time.

Uh crisis averted, luckily.

Uh, if that light were a stop sign, as suggested in this proposal, I would have been stopping as she completed her turn.

Uh, and if there were a well-marked bike lane, she might have known to look for me sooner.

Uh, in June, while I was walking on Pepper Street, just here behind the City Hall, I noticed a boy, uh probably 11, 12, 13, uh riding a kick scooter, waiting to cross center.

When he got the walk signal, a Jeep approached uh from the other side and pushed into the crosswalk a couple of times until the boy was forced to stop in the middle of the center, and the Jeep made it all of three car lengths uh before stopping in traffic on center after cutting the boy off.

So I entered the street, knocked on his window, and asked why did he cut the child off on a crosswalk?

And he, of course, had no idea what I was talking about.

I tell you these stories uh as anecdotal evidence that AZ has a bad driver problem.

Uh everyone in this room has experienced a bad driver.

They've been in the news recently as well.

Tempe has given 21,000 tickets to speeders and red light runners in just six months of their new cameras.

Uh without stepping up enforcement, another way that we could deal with bad drivers is by building places that encourage biking and walking.

Studies show that the more people walk in an area, the more drivers are aware and shift their behavior.

The better behavior from drivers and the more people feel safe to walk, uh, the better behavior from drivers encourages more people to walk, which makes more people uh as examples for drivers to pay attention, and it creates a virtuous cycle.

Uh I urge you to support this plan to encourage biking and walking downtown, and please support it in the name of public safety.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jonathan.

With that, uh Mr.

Butler, I maybe it'll be a good time for either Jimmy and Jeff to come up and just give a slight overview, and then maybe our transportation director too.

Yeah, absolutely.

We can both come up and mayor handle.

Eric, you want to come up as well.

I see you down out there.

Come up and or Jeff, can you handle it all?

Give us give us uh an overview.

Sure.

Uh Mayor and Council, uh Jeff McVay, manager of urban transformation.

Happy to give you an overview of the micromobility plan.

Um and parking plan.

So there is two, there are two separate efforts here, but they are kind of aligned.

Um, first is micromobility is the was the number one um goal of this plan.

And the reason we talk about micromobility is not um to prioritize one mode of transportation over another, it's to give the prioritization to all modes of transportation.

The lucky thing about our downtown is that we have super wide right-of-ways.

We have right-of-ways such as First Street that is wider in right of way than Country Club Road, which is a six-lane um arterial.

So we have a lot of room to be able to work with.

So when you look at the micromobility plan and the recommendations as it relates to streets, much of the recommendations are about striping the streets.

Um the transportation department starting later this year is going to start what is already a budgeted and a budgeted payment preservation program.

It's something they do throughout the city all the time.

Um, this was already in the books and planned um in advance of this uh uh in advance of the micromobility plan.

But what it allows us to do is as they go and mill and re and and replace the asphalt in downtown, we're able to implement the striping plan that's included in the micromobility plan.

That striping plan is going to maintain two lanes of traffic in each direction, as all the streets currently have, but it will give us the ability to add some more on-street parking where we don't have on-street parking today by converting parallel parking to uh angle parking.

And it'll also give us the room necessary to provide on-street protected bike and pedestrian um infrastructure, again, without impacting traffic flow.

So currently, with the exception of center, um, and again, um Councilmember Adams asked this last week during study session.

The micromobility plan does include a recommendation for Center Street.

Um, and it does include a recommendation for Center Street to go down to one lane in each direction and include on-street parking and the roundabout.

But what is clear in this plan is that it does not include any recommendation for implementation of Center Street.

We are very well aware that that is an effort that is standalone that transportation is working on today and that has to come back to council for directions as there is no funding for it today.

What it does provide though is the ability for us to go in and do significant amount of implementation related to all the other streets, the the local streets, the first avenue, the first streets, the the third place, the McDonald's, those that exist today, um with and we can make significant implementation just through striping on the street.

Um again, those streets from the most part, they carry a uh a traffic count of under 3,000 vehicles per day.

One lane of traffic in each direction with left turn lanes can accommodate up to 10,000 vehicle trips per day.

So from a from a congestion perspective, we see no concerns with congestion from a vehicle perspective or from a pedestrian or bike perspective.

We think that this will actually give us a lot of room for growth into the future, as well as growth for people in cars.

Um I I wholeheartedly would invite all the folks in this room to come to our downtown outside of a Monday evening and visit our downtown on a Thursday, Friday, Saturday evening and see the amount of traffic that does come here, the amount of foot traffic that is here.

There, there are um in the last 10 years, we have added 15 new 1,500 new residential units to downtown, and we're working on another 2,000 residential units.

Those folks, you know, we don't we don't want to force somebody that live lives at Pepper and McDonald to get in their car to drive to Mesa Drive and Main Street.

We would like to give them the ability to make a choice to be able to get to their destination and take advantage of the of the great businesses that we already have today.

Um we see this as a as a as a plan that will support uh the existing businesses we have as well as attract new businesses.

As it relates to parking, much of what the recommendations are include that restriping to get more additional on-street parking spaces, but much of what you see as recommendations is to standardize our parking regulations.

We have crazy amount of one-hour, half-hour, three-hour different parking time limits, and we're gonna be able to standardize those by zone so that if you're on Main Street, you're gonna have a two-hour time limit.

If you're on the parking lots between Main Street and the first, you'll have a three-hour time limit.

Outside of those areas, we have no time limits.

It also gives the will give us the ability to standardize some of those things that other downtowns have found very beneficial, like where does the Uber pick you up so that we can geofence and make an Uber or uh an Uber Eats or a Grub Hub pickup zone so it doesn't impact or or or impact the existing parking for folks?

And you know, also we don't have people parking their car and double parking out in the middle of the street just to run into a restaurant.

If we can identify those locations, then we'll geofence those in, and those those um car share people will have to, or car shower folks will have to go to a designated spot for pickups.

It also has recommendations for um including some additional infrastructure like bike racks, um parking places that can support the people that are riding light rail or or or using um their bikes or scooters to get to the downtown businesses.

Um Jeff, can I ask you if there's discussion about removing traffic lights on First Avenue, especially?

So uh mayor, council members, there there are there are three levels of recommendations included.

The plan there are the short-term recommendations, those are generally the parking signs that I talk about, and also the restriping.

If council adopts this plan, transportation would move forward with the pavement preservation to do and include the restriping plan on all streets over the next four years except Center Street.

Um, I started answering your question and I got my train of thought and I've tried to traffic lights.

Thank you.

Midterm goals, midterm plan or the mid-term recommendations and long-term recommendations are ones that do not have funding identified today and will require us to come back to council as part of a capital improvement program.

So it'll be part of our capital improvement program um planning going into the future, and that includes the traffic signals.

So on those streets, such as the intersection, if you think along First Street, there are traffic signals at Robson, McDonald, Center, Hibbert.

No, I'm sorry, not at Hibbert.

Centennial.

Three of those four traffic signals do not help the flow of traffic.

There is not a uh enough of a traffic volume to actually warrant those signals, and traffic will flow faster through our downtown if we remove those traffic signals because it's just that simple stop go.

And if there's no car there, you get to move forward directly.

If you're there at a traffic signal and you're the only car at that intersection today, you're waiting, you know, upwards of a minute for the traffic signal to turn over.

So again, we believe that removal of non non-essential traffic signals, essentially all those that don't enter into center street, will actually improve the flow of traffic through downtown.

Thank you.

Looks like you have back up.

I I would like a transportation engineer.

Steph actually did a great job uh doing that.

So um I just I want to follow up with that.

The um as the transportation department, um there is cost to removing traffic signals.

And so before we do anything, we will we'll bring those costs to city management and get that approval if we choose to move forward, then we'll bring it to to council as either part of a the budget process or or the CIP process.

Um but removing the the the traffic signals that have been identified in this plan uh is something we've talked about in my 10 years here.

There are there are there are many traffic signals in downtown that that aren't needed that actually um I try to avoid driving north-south in downtown because uh you know you're gonna get stopped for 30 seconds to 45 seconds at a lot of those.

So um I think that that that's our commitment uh to that is something we'll continue to look at, and as we uh explore projects and budget, we'll bring that back to the council.

Very good.

Thank you.

Uh questions, council Ms.

Taylor.

I have questions.

I don't know if these would be directed.

Thank you, Jeff, by the way.

Um so I understand that we've added 1,500 unit or units, and we're looking working on another 2,000 residential buildings.

But you say you don't have to worry about congestion, but we're adding a lot of new residential buildings.

So I would understand that there would be more congestion because you're adding more buildings.

So along with that, isn't are we assuming those are just bike riders and and walkers, or do we understand that they're gonna be car owners as well?

Um mayor, uh, council member Taylor, certainly.

Uh I have been working for the city now for 20 years, and then where I started was in our planning department, and and I was uh the planner um that got the got to work on what we call our central main plan, which is the overall general plan for downtown.

And one of the things that we had as a tagline is you know, place for people with choices, right?

So our goal is to not choose somebody's mode of transportation.

Our goal is to make it so somebody has the choice for their mode of transportation.

So, yes, um, every every place is going to have parking.

So, like our call to sec uh call the sec project instead of a tempee model where it is a car-free development, ours is a car light development.

We recognize that that not all places are are equal and that um that people are still gonna want to have cars um until we have an environment in which you can completely live work and play in our downtown, it is likely that you'll need to have a car.

So, yes, the additional 2,000 units will provide additional congestion or additional vehicle trips, but the capacity of our streets is well greater than those vehicle trips that would be generated by those additional 2,000 units.

Can I keep asking?

Okay.

Uh do we anticipate more units coming into downtown Mesa?

Um I would I I guess that is a there is a policy direction.

Uh that is 2,000 is what we're working on now.

And yes, I I fully anticipate that the council's strategic priorities are going to continue to support redevelopment in downtown, include including more residential.

Thank you.

And then you mentioned that you you said that Main Street has two lanes.

You said the majority of our roads have two lanes, but when I drive down Main Street, it's generally one lane until I get to a turn lane or there's a bus lane.

So I'm concerned about the congestion there too, as we may divert it from one area to another.

Mayor Councilmember uh Taylor, I think I'm maybe it's just I misspoke.

When I said two lanes, I meant one lane in each direction.

Uh yeah, not two lanes on each side.

Sorry.

And then, and you'll have to pardon me, but um maybe someone else needs to answer this question.

What you you said midterm and long term, we don't have the funding for what do we have the funding for for today in this plan?

So as I mentioned before, the the transportation department as part of their ongoing pavement preservation program over the next four years has budgeted the mill and replacement mill and overlay of all the asphalt in downtown.

So that is that is already budgeted today.

The the ability for us to go and replace existing parking signage that's included over the next um year, while it's it we we maintain a certain amount of budget for signage replacement as it is today.

However, the amount of signage change that we have recommended is not significant enough that we wouldn't be able to accommodate within our existing budget.

Okay.

Thank you so much.

I appreciate it.

And then I just had one last question.

So if we anticipate there to be more traffic in general, foot traffic, car traffic, bike traffic.

Um would it be prudent to remove what we consider a superfluous stops, uh stop lights?

If we have more people coming into the city in the future.

I would think that we would want to have that safety in line for people so that there are more routine stops as we see more traffic coming into downtown Mesa.

Uh Mayor, Council Taylor, we will continue to those stops will still be there.

I mean, even if going forward, if we remove the traffic signals, there would still be a it'd be a four-way stop.

So there would still be the uh the requirement for somebody to stop and enter this the intersection safely.

Um having said that, where the recommendations are to remove those traffic signals will continue for the most part to be low volume intersections.

Similar, so if we think about Mesa McDonald and First Street um coming out of the West Second Historic Neighborhood, the West Second Historic Neighborhood is built out and will not will not increase.

So that intersection will continue to be fairly low volume intersection going forward.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Thank you.

Any other comments, Council?

Mr.

Adams.

Thank you.

Um I may have a question or two for you, Mr.

McBay in a minute, but just a couple of observations.

It seems to me that there's a disconnect here.

Um I started questioning this this issue last Thursday morning at study session, because I recognize that we have parking issues downtown.

It's it's confusing.

Uh not only is it confusing to me, it's confusing to people that I've just taken a straw poll of.

The signage is all different.

So maybe maybe I'm the person who hasn't paid close enough attention here, but what what I what I see us dealing with here tonight is downtown parking.

Um perhaps uh a space or two for um Uber and Lyft pickup and drop off, um, place to park your bike.

And this in the normal course, you know, we maintain our streets on a regular basis.

We take up the old asphalt, put down the new.

It's a it's a maintenance process and it's in place.

We do it all over the city.

So my understanding is, and Mr.

McVay, correct me if I'm wrong here.

Um we were gonna do that regardless of this micro mobility and parking issue as a matter of maintenance.

So all that really changes is some striping.

Nobody's touching any curbs, nobody's putting any roundabouts, nobody's doing any of this stuff, and frankly, if we were talking about that, I would be strongly opposed.

I do not support a roundabout on center.

I don't uh I'm vaguely familiar with this 15-minute city thing.

That's nothing I support.

Um as for the traffic lights, I think that can be argued either way.

Um I come up off of Maine on Centennial Way, and I sit for up to two minutes for that light to change green so I can cross and go to my office right across the corner.

Same thing of the light at Harrison Brown, by the way.

We have those lights with these intermittent timing things, and they're frustrating.

So, but but getting back to my point, I think there's a disconnect here that if we act on the parking issue, we're committing ourselves to the rest of this stuff in the plan, second and third phase that isn't funded, and if it were to be a part of it today, I I wouldn't be supportive, but it's not.

These are issues for the council to take up at a later time, and any one of us is free to either support or oppose.

So it's not baked in.

Maybe I'm the guy that just doesn't get it here, but what I see before us right now is a necessary parking plan and an already planned resurfacing plan that involves some different striping to help with parking.

We've talked about making downtown successful.

I've lived here for 63 years, and I've seen more downtown revitalization things than I can recall.

I think we're closer to making something like that happen now, but we have to make it friendly for people to come down here and park.

As far as walking and riding a bike, I'm a mountain biker.

I've never had a problem riding a bicycle on a street in Mesa.

However, that's me.

It's been many, many years since I've had little kids following me on their bikes, and maybe I would feel differently.

So I I get it.

I try to I try to consider everyone's point of view here.

Um just because Rich Adams doesn't have a problem riding his bike up center, maybe other people do.

I've heard from bicycling organizations or cycling clubs who don't like the idea of that.

Many do.

I've heard from a couple who don't.

So that's an issue for a later day, and that's an issue I am not presently supportive of.

But I think we need to fix the parking.

And I don't see this as a vote in support of this issue to do with parking and the restriping as automatically approving anything else because that's not where I'm at, and that's not what I'm in favor of.

So thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, Mr.

Adams.

Vice Mayor.

I have one question of staff, something I heard.

The transportation advisory board wasn't involved with this.

What was the community outreach, public outreach, and engagement of our uh advisory board?

Mayor, Vice Mayor Summers, we had a a standing internal stakeholder group, our stakeholder uh team that comprised of downtown stakeholders, our downtown Mace Association, Transportation Library, and certain staff that would be directly impacted that helped guide the development of the plan.

Once the plan was during the development plan, we also held uh a neighborhood meeting, community meeting that in which um all the downtown stakeholders were invited to participate and f provide their input in the development of the plan.

Following the development and the completion of the draft of the plan, we held another neighborhood meeting to present the recommendations of the plan to the neighborhood.

Um Councilmember Duff hosted a community meeting on the 27th of last month that also was in all of the downtown stakeholders were invited to.

We also, during throughout the course of the development of the plan, we had uh uh Mesa Listens webpage um where um anybody could provide their input and feedback on the plan um during the development as well.

So what about our own transportation advisory board?

Yeah, I I don't we did not take this plan to the transportation advisory board, and it and honestly uh it's nothing more than an oversight that we thought we went ahead and we were working through the the outreach that we had with our internal stakeholder committee and the neighborhood outreach.

Were board members involved in the process at all, or did you I don't believe we had any tab board members on that committee everything that council member Adams said I I can concur with.

Well, there is one thing he said that I would disagree with, but it if we're gonna have advisory boards, they should be part of this.

And I I think the the community outreach sounds like it was very well done, but when we have internal boards and this we've talked about this, we don't utilize these some of these internal boards to the extent we really should.

I think this is another example of that.

It's an unfortunate oversight, but I think the gentleman that made that point has a good point that this should have been run through them as well.

I don't know that there's what we can do about that at this point, but certainly I would hope at least that the elements that are within this plan before they come back to council for any type of funding or discussion that the Transportation Advisory Board has an opportunity to weigh in on those.

So that's my point right now.

All right.

Thank you.

Ms.

Steph.

Is there okay?

Are you saying you speak?

Okay.

Oh.

All right.

Um this has been a long process.

Um, I live in downtown.

And um it has been the desire of downtown residents and businesses that we had more walkability, bikeability, and we're building in more and more volume down here, which makes it the streets more uncomfortable.

And when you live in a dense area, live in a downtown, your streets are your living room.

They are the place that you walk down to the coffee shop and see several several neighbors, and and you have all these interactions, the downtown businesses, the downtown residents, um, and the developments that are in line and ASU, they all see the merit and having our downtown be a downtown.

The downtown businesses, the downtown residents, and the developments that are in line and ASU, they all see the merit and having our downtown be a downtown.

Or you have multimodal ways of being here.

And yes, you yes, our downtown is going to grow.

But when you have people who have the option to walk or bike or scooter or all these other multimodal means that are coming, it takes it frees up the street.

There's less congestion.

For children who are living in multifamily to say you can't go, you know, to the end of the block.

You can't go down the museum, you can't go down here.

Because you got to watch out for the driveway, and you can't take your bike, and it is just very confining.

It is also an economic development move for our businesses.

They recognize the more you have people on the streets, the more retail dollars per square foot that they realize.

There's been studies on this is an economic boost if you have more people interacting with those businesses, walking by checking one business after another after another.

So this is a lifestyle in downtown choosing this other places.

We wouldn't want to say, hey, let's go do this in Lehigh, let's go do this in the desert upland, wherever.

No, this is a downtown.

And if you think of downtowns that you travel to around the world, you see multimodal, you see transit, you see bikes, you see all this because that's the only way to deal with a number of people coming together.

This isn't something we invented.

In fact, um, we employed one of the best organizations to do a walkability study in downtown, Stantec, Jeff Speck.

He's a guru on it.

We said, we love our downtown.

We've had over a billion dollars worth of investment, and we still have more to go.

And we don't want to be one of those downtowns that's just so congested, and you don't know how you're gonna get from one place to another, and you just avoid going there all together because it's just a mess.

We need to have options and have it be orderly and safe for everybody.

They came in, they did their study, and then we knew parking was an issue, so we said while we're doing the study, do the parking plan.

So this isn't these ideas are not generated from our own devices or own minds, although we have very talented people here in and staff, but this is from one of the top firms in the nation that has done this study to look at best practices so that we can handle our growth.

Um so this has been in the work since 23.

We did the study in 24, we had a plan draft in 25.

We had a presentation in late 25 on that.

Um, I had we've had so many meetings after meeting and public meetings, council meetings, is an extensive amount of outreach.

And every meeting that I've gotten to, and it's been a lot.

When those public meetings, very positive.

Just two weeks ago, we had 35 people who are downtown residents, business owners, property owners, people who are looking to invest in in downtown, and they were very, very supportive.

I know this is the right move for downtown.

Um just looking over a couple other.

I I'd love that we get started on this plan, and it has the three stages.

The first stage is something we need to do anyway.

Many of the streets around here need to be resurfaced.

I get a lot of complaints about that.

So we're gonna resurface because we need to do it, print and down paint.

Let's say the worst thing ever happens in this one cord quadrant in northeast of downtown, which is actually near where I can watch the interaction.

Oh, that's 90 feet wide there, man, it's wider than anyway.

Um, let's say the worst happens, and everybody hates it, and it's just creating confusion, and we regret it.

You know what we would have to do?

We just have to repaint it.

That's the risk.

There is no risk to give this opportunity of a plan that has order and safety for everybody.

Um just to give you some comparisons.

Um, and this is in the study, Mesa Drive is 57 feet wide.

Broadway and university are both 63 feet wide.

Country Club is 93 feet wide.

We have multiple streets in downtown that are 90 feet wide, the same as country club.

So when you think about as a pedestrian, I've been on those streets, it's pretty scary.

I look both ways, but someone comes out and you you can't make it across the street in enough time.

Um it divides neighborhoods to go from one, it divides a downtown where you want to have this go to this business and then that business.

It it is not a good design for business for residents.

Um a walkable neighborhood, a walkable downtown is highly desirable.

You will find the most expensive homes, the most desirable places to be, the places you go vacation are very, very walkable.

And so it's going to add a lot to the downtown.

And it's at for all ages, like the kids, all abilities.

My dad, I don't want him driving anymore.

Please, if I had um a safe way for him to get around in a wheelchair around here, it's not safe.

It's not safe.

Um we want people to hang out here.

And they are starting to in downtown, but we needed a lot more options.

They complain about the parking.

This plan adds 250 spaces.

But the grand thing is about parking, is people say, oh, it's too far because it's a block away or two blocks away.

But how about if that block away was so beautiful and shaded and comfortable and desirable?

Right now we say no because it doesn't feel good.

Is it's it's just cars going by, maybe a parking lot.

There isn't a lot to do.

Being more walkable is also gonna draw more businesses.

Um I just hope that we can the down the council has been very, very supportive in the growth and development of downtown, and I appreciate that.

The arts we have plans for that, the convention center, more ASU schools, more living units.

We could be like the best downtown of all of them.

We already are on our start, the historic downtown.

We have so many great businesses, but we need the streets to be the infrastructure to continue to build a downtown that is a welcoming and desirable, a wonderful to be on the streets.

We really need that.

We don't want to be a congested mess that no one wants to walk walk around.

This is our opportunity, and I hope just by taking the first step of doing some resurfacing and striping that we can uh move forward on this.

Um see if I have any.

Oh Mesa, well, Arizona in general doesn't, but Mesa doesn't have a good.

Do you know that half of our street fatalities are from pedestrians and bicyclists?

Half of the people who die on our streets are bicyclists, and because it's really not safe.

And as we have more traffic, we need to think of the about protecting to have a way for to have it.

We're not taking away anything from drivers.

Our streets have so much capacity.

We could triple the amount of people here before we even think about needing more streets.

Um we're just giving more parking, a protected way to have drive a bike, great sidewalks with some shade, so that we can be the downtown that we deserve to be.

And I hope uh we can support this.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm gonna roll over to Councilmember Adams first.

He wants to circle back.

Councilmember Adams.

Thank you.

I I do have a question for Mr.

McVay.

I don't know where he where he went.

Oh, there he is.

Mr.

McVay, um, I I would like just so that we we state it into the record, if you will.

My understanding is the vote we are being asked to take this evening.

Only commits us to the first phase, if you will.

The the parking signage, the striping, uh the phase one.

It makes no commitments to tearing up curbs, putting in roundabouts, altering center street or any of the major stuff that comes later.

So is that 100% absolutely correct?

Mayor, Councilmember Adams, that is a 100% absolutely correct.

We can't put into place something that doesn't have funding, and we can't have funding without council's direction and council's approval of that funding.

So what we have funding for today is a pavement preservation program that's in the books every year.

There's a certain amount of pavement preservation that transportation does as part of the their overall ongoing maintenance and and the replacement of parking signs to be consistent throughout downtown.

Okay, and the reason I ask you this just for the record is I can be supportive of phase one because I see the wisdom behind the parking primarily.

Miss Goforth.

Thank you, Councilmember Adams for that clarification.

And thank you all to the people that spoke about this issue, especially those from District Five.

I appreciate everyone's comments.

For me, this is about the kind of downtown that we want.

A vibrant downtown is one where people naturally want to gather.

It's where local businesses thrive, public spaces feel active and inviting, and residents and visitors can move comfortably and safely.

What makes a downtown truly come alive is a mix of walkable streets, accessible parking, reliable mobility options, and the feeling that you can easily get to the places that you want.

A successful urban core depends on smart transportation choices that serves everyone.

By improving how people park, walk, bike, roll, and ride transit.

This plan strengthen strengthens the foundation of a lively, economically strong, people-centered downtown.

These improvements help connect our shops, restaurants, arts, and cultural destinations and neighborhoods, turning our downtown into a place where community life can flourish.

Additionally, we've heard on the council from many folks who live and work in downtown.

I've personally talked to many of them.

They believe this plan makes it a bit safer and more comfortable for them to get around outside of a vehicle.

They are the people who are most closely affected by any changes that may that we make.

And as you've heard, this plan does not limit the capacity of vehicles.

We our streets have more than enough capacity to support all modes and to add parking for people to visit.

For these reasons, I'll be voting to approve this plan.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember.

With that, I'll just summarize some of my thoughts.

Uh you know, I want to blame the pioneers who came here and made Mesa with the wide streets.

Can I say that?

So your answer.

It was my great-great-grandfather who did that.

So, you know, the reason they did that was to so the horse-drawn wagons could turn around the street and go back and forth.

And I remember growing up, our Native Americans on the Salt River Reservation would take their wagons and horses and come up here to Center Street and go over to Bashes and get their groceries and go back home.

With that, we do we do have a parking issue in in downtown area.

I was just down here uh Saturday for an event, and it was bustling.

A lot of people downtown having a great time over at the restaurants.

One of the problems we have is I think we have 6,000 parking places.

Uh okay, give or take.

One third of those are permitted parking.

So if you're not careful and you park in a place you're not supposed to, this little blue car will come around and give you a ticket.

And after hours.

And after well, you can park after hours, they won't catch you.

But uh they're still catching you after hours.

It's free after hours.

Well, it's free after hours, right?

So we we need a better parking designation for our community downtown.

I come down almost every day and to the businesses at Linhart's and others for supplies.

And and so I've found that again, our parking garages are not being filled to capacity, people don't know where to park, striping, uh, all the issues.

So I agree with this plan moving forward, and I think it's been well said by some of the council members about plans two and three.

So with that, council, that's all my comments here.

One last comment.

I think developments here in the downtown area need to appeal to all users.

And so if you want to just ride your skateboard or your scooter or use Waymo, Lyft or Uber and others, then that's an option for you.

So uh regardless, uh, that's where I'm at on this.

Uh council, I will entertain a motion on gosh, which one?

6A.

No.

Uh 5D.

5D, sorry.

Okay, we have a motion by Miss Duff, a second by Miss Go Forth.

Please cast your vote.

Thank you.

Motion passes.

Uh, with that, uh, we'll move forward over to item 6A is off consent.

6A is a water capacity fee.

I have one blue card, Mr.

Wynn Stanley.

You still here?

Yes, I am.

All right.

Come forward, please.

Mr.

Mayor and Council, you'll be tired of seeing me shortly.

Um I'm speaking because I want to reinforce that this is a good idea.

I don't always come here with some being negative.

This is a good thing.

Um, our city is changing, it is almost completely built out.

We're no longer a growth city.

We no longer need to help grow and help support development the way we did in the past.

We do need to still grow.

I love the mayor's letter and in the Mesa Tribune.

We're open for business.

Absolutely.

But it's time to have the growth pay for growth.

And therefore, I'm speaking in favor of this um proposal to change and actually remove 400 million dollars from our utilities, 400 million dollars in bonds from our utilities to be paid for by this fee.

That's the right thing to do.

Uh and it will become it's really obvious when you look at the growth of the um debt debt service transfers over the next five years.

It's very impactful.

This is the right thing to do, and I ask you to approve it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Mr.

Winstanley.

Oh, do you got more speakers?

No.

I'll entertain a motion to move forward with that.

If I may, uh Mr.

Winston, I'm gonna take slight difference to it to your saying.

We are no longer growing, maybe not so much population, but we have incredible capacity for industrial and commercial growth.

And that growth should pay for itself.

That should not fall on the residents that are currently living here.

So we have the similar idea, just ever so slight change.

All said and I agree.

Yes, sir.

And I'll make a motion.

Okay, we have a motion from Miss Go Forth, second by Vice Mayor.

Please cast your vote.

All right, thank you.

Motion passes.

Next is item 7A.

7A is the resolution to carry declaring uh proposed titles and schedules of term rates and fees and charges for electric utility services to be a public record.

I have two cards on that.

One is Mr.

Winstanley again.

Welcome.

And then followed on deck is Mr.

Davis Kerry Davis.

As I said, you'll be tired of seeing me in a few minutes.

Um first I want to uh Mr.

Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council, and staff.

I want to praise the city staff for answering all of my questions.

Thank you.

Uh second, using five-year plan, they want to thank them for using five-year plans to project into the future both utility rates and budgets.

This is really forward thinking.

Not all cities or companies do it.

Thank you.

Second, I'd like to thank you as the city council for changing your approach to utility rate adjustments.

When I started attending city council meetings two years ago, the meetings, including utility rate adjustments and budgets, lasted seven to ten minutes.

There was no discussion of significance.

I watched last Thursday's study session on video.

What a difference.

Thank you.

There are, however, a couple of items that you did not discuss Thursday or in earlier sessions.

Two speakers at your September 22nd meeting ask you to update the utility bills to us your customers to reflect what is being charged for, namely 70% for the utility, generally water sew and trash, and 30% for other government services, in particular police and fire.

I'm asking you as the city council to direct your staff to change the bill to be completely transparent about what we are being charged for.

Please do not leave tonight without addressing this issue.

Next, I would ask you to stop permitting automatic tax increases.

By that I mean the rigid application of the 30% general fund transfer, where every time there's a utility increase, there's a corresponding tax increase.

I have proposed holding the general fund to last year's value, the general fund transfer to last year's value of 137.8 million dollars instead of increasing it to the 147 million dollars.

No, that will not affect police and fire funding because a simple 1% adjustment in the general fund spending will fully fund fire and police.

But at a minimum, I do ask you as city council to direct your staff to stop using the 30% rigidly in five-year plans for both utilities and budget, and instead hold the future value constant and report the resulting percent for the general fund transfer.

This will stop the automatic tax increase and force a more robust discussion during the budget season.

Mr.

Adams mentioned this briefly on Thursday, but I'm asking you to give it specific, I'm asking you to give specific direction to your staff.

I would like to point out to you and to my conservative friends that why my water bill under this proposal will go up a dollar twenty-five or two and a half percent.

My HOA fee for landscape water will go up seven dollars because you've shifted the cost there.

So for me, you aren't you are just changing who I pay, you're not changing my bill.

You're not changing the rate that I'm paying.

This is especially true when you include the increased cost of wastewater, two dollars and eleven cents, trash a dollar eighty-two.

So altogether, my increase is twelve dollars or eight point four percent.

That is not in keeping with where we're headed.

And my time is up, so I will thank you for your attention.

Thank you, Mr.

Winstanley.

Uh next, Mr.

Davis, Kerry Davis.

Honorable mayor and city council, like to congratulate council member Taylor for her successful election to the city council.

My copy was an earlier version.

And so when I put on my card 7A, it's turned out that that's actually 6A.

And so that capacity fee I support, but I have a question about it, and that is who actually will pay the capacity fee.

Um we could have Mr.

Butler, the developers will pay it.

Yeah.

Yes, Mayor Council's uh Mr.

Davis, that that's correct.

The developer.

So if it's a private, if it's a private business putting that in, that that business will pay.

If it's a home builder, um, the home builder will pay.

Now how that is how a home builder then chooses to disperse those costs will be you know developed by each home builder, I'm sure, but for each business, they will pay um as as they add that capacity.

Okay, so for instance, on page 13 for a three-quarter inch meter, the total for water and wastewater is $9,528.

That's going to be paid by the developer, but the developer then likely will pass that on to the home purchaser, correct?

More than likely, yes, Mr.

Davis, that's correct.

So um 7A, which is the item that's on the agenda for now, I uh support the change that uh David Winstanley's put forward to not include in your rate increase the amount for the transfer to the general fund.

Leave that at this current uh rate that it is that I and then that would then reduce the amount of the total uh utility rate increase.

And so I concur with his comments regarding that and would encourage you to uh include in your uh uh voting that the you make that change to eliminate that from the rate increases.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

I believe we will have that conversation when we have our budget discussion coming up about the transfer and and the cost, the 30 percent, so we can when we have our budget discussion.

I'm sure Mr.

Winstanley and Mr.

Davis will be back.

So with that, too.

This is for introduction only, and we know that.

So we have two more weeks uh on December one, we'll actually be voting on on this.

Uh yeah.

So that the transfer is not part of the utility rate adjustment um language that we're resolution that we're voting on.

Correct.

Okay.

Mayor and council, it's not part of this resolution.

That would that would come back as a separate budget.

That would come back in the budget discussion.

I have a question.

I'm sorry.

So, based on what Mr.

Winstanley and Mr.

Davis said, even though that's not necessarily part of the water rate increase, it is affecting it, it's impacting it when we do talk about the budget, so they are inextricably intertwined in that comment.

Am I correct in understanding that in stating I'm sorry, mayor and uh council member Taylor in stating that what that rate would be, is that intertwined to the transfer.

Um, let me have our OMB director, um Brian Richel, come up and Brian's coming up as we speak, and he can he can get into some better detail on that for you.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor and Council, Brian Richel, Office of Management and Budget Director.

So Mayor, Councilmember Taylor, the transfer is a byproduct of the rate increases.

So it is a calculation of the operating revenues.

So the ordinance is up to 30% of the operating revenues is transferred to the general fund to support public safety and also some general governmental.

So it's really a byproduct a calculation of the operating revenues of the utility fund itself.

So usually when we look at that uh budget and that transfer, we do that during the budget process to see if how the fund is doing with the budget wise, and also when we forecast out the revenues with the rates that are set by council uh during the fall process.

So this really kicks off that review of when the rates are adjusted.

Then we take a look at how the rest of the year is going for the utility fund with all the rates and with all the revenues coming in, and then we adjust the budget in the spring to correspond with that.

Okay.

So we're bringing in more money through the utility fund, the rate increase, and then we're transferring apportionment over to the general fund, correct?

And we're talking about council member taylor, that is correct.

Okay, and so we're just talking about offsetting a portion of how much we're taking over.

That's Mr.

Winstanley.

Am I correct in understanding that's what you were asking for?

Okay.

So we're just talking about offsetting a portion of that income and not necessarily pouring that into the general fund so that we reduce the number of dollars going into the general fund, therefore reducing the burden of the rate increase.

Is that correct?

So, mayor, council member Taylor.

If the council and city management decided to freeze the transfer, then yes, it would reduce the uh the transfer going into the general governmental fund, which would reduce the support for the general governmental fund.

So the amount currently that Mr.

Wynn Stanley is talking about is roughly 12 million dollars.

And so that 12 million dollars would reduce revenues going into the general fund, which already has a projected, I believe, net sources and uses of about 55 million dollars negative.

So that would increase to about 70 million dollars or negative, yes.

That's budgeted projected.

However, when the actuals come in, we usually do much better.

That 55 million is uh some set asides from one-time revenues that we have received.

Okay, thank you.

And I think again, this is a budget discussion when when we move forward with that in the in the springtime.

So the agenda item is about the uh 7A and utility rate adjustment.

One thing I heard is I think we can be clear on graphs on the utility bills and help uh our residents know how they're paying and how it's being structured, so we can we can do that as well.

Um next, I'd like to any more discussion on 7A?

Next we'll go to 7F Alex your up, Alex Franc.

And that's our Mr.

Smith.

Is there any other item pulled off?

Just okay.

Alex Thank you, Mayor, Council members, just want to congratulate Dorian Taylor on a successful campaign and election.

Congratulations.

Um a year ago, we were in the different chambers, but same spot utility debate kind of conversation, and the community was rather motivated for the very first time.

Some of you addressed why are you so upset and frustrated this time around?

Why not before?

Well, we knew a little bit more about it, a little bit more time in advance, and so we showed up.

We even had petitions, over 2,000 petitions.

We came to both meetings, we pleaded, we asked, and that city council, some of you were on that council, two of you were not, or yeah.

You didn't even throw us a bone.

Not even one of you voted with the people that begged you to keep the rates the same.

And the worst part of it is, in my opinion, is you use the public safety as the scapegoat to increase the cost to the citizens, and then the slap in the face was in the new uh at the beginning of the year on a consent agenda item.

So, first of all, you asked for 31 million increase with the utility increases.

And then a consent agenda item in the next session, the beginning of this year, you gave away 16 million to the Cubs for a new locker room and batting cage.

So half of that money, because it's all you can move it around the buckets and all the stuff, but you asked for 13 31 million, you got it, you passed it unanimously, and then you gave 16 million away to the Cubs.

And I don't blame the Cubs, I would take it too.

Do you not see how this looks to us, the citizens out here?

How frustrating this looks.

And so we're here, the city council looks different because somebody spoke out and people saw the fire and passion, and somebody that would represent the people.

And so we are back here, and we're going to ask you again.

Do you hear us now?

Please.

And so we'll have that conversation again in the budget conversation in the next year that we're going to ask you, and you've heard it, you don't have to increase the cost, and it will not affect public safety.

Please hear us this time.

Otherwise, this city council could look differently in a year from now.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um please hold your applause.

Uh Mr.

Smith, uh if we uh combined uh a motion for 7A through 7J, would that be appropriate?

Do you want to do each one individually?

No, most of those were already read into the consent agenda.

Agenda other than 7A and 7F.

Um, so those are the only two that were not already voted on.

So you only need to vote on 7A and 7F.

Can I clarify one thing just for everyone?

That this vote is to schedule the vote for December.

Is that correct?

Right.

That's correct.

Mayor, Councilmember Taylor, that's correct.

This is just for the introduction.

The the final decision will be December.

December 1st.

So um yeah, go ahead.

Ms.

Goford.

I was just gonna say, do you want do we want to respond to Mr.

You can if you like.

I do we have um, I think I don't know if Mr.

Hirschberg wants to talk about the Cubs expense and why why that was I don't know if that Jim, legally, we can respond to that, but there I mean that was a decision not made by anybody on this council.

But back into the 10 years ago.

When we entered into an agreement with the Cubs to build the stadium.

Yeah, mayor council, I mean it's responding to some of those brought up so that you can have context for the state.

Yeah, I think that would be helpful.

Yeah.

Mayor Council, and as Mr.

Hirschberg comes up, because he can he can add um anything to this.

Let's let's go back though.

The Cubs to keep the Cubs, that was a voter approved effort.

The voters had the choice on whether we were going to maintain the Chicago Cubs and uh construct a stadium um to house them.

Along with that came the obligation that um we were going to have to upgrade and modernize the facilities.

That was contractual obligation, just like when you buy a house and you have the obligations to repair the roof and you have the obligations to make enhancements to that facility, that is no different than what the city's obligation was uh in the item um that was referenced.

So um that again, I just want to stress, I mean, we can we can pick through a a budget and talk about well, you spend on this item, you spend on that item.

And I understand, I understand the point that he's making, but again, that was a voter-approved effort um on keeping the Chicago Cubs that um that obligated the city uh for the facility and for that future upkeep and maintenance of of the facility, part of which was that item that was referenced um as well.

So um, I don't know if Mr.

Hirschberg needs to add anything to that.

Uh mayor council, Mr.

Butler, I would I would say just to echo that in that agreement, a lot of um the city's previous responsibilities when the Cubs were at Hookam were shifted where the city managed and maintained the fields, maintained the entire facility.

So whether it was painting, air conditioning units, carpet replacement, tile replacement, fixture replacement in the locker rooms, or throughout the stadium.

Um, all of those are now responsibility of the Cubs.

The trade-off was they keep the revenue, they get the expenses, with the exception of agreements to maintain those facilities at peak operating conditions, as Mr.

Butler said, at milestone years of those agreements.

30-year agreement, every 10 years, the city's required to make a significant investment to keep those facilities at the top of the Cactus League and Major League Baseball.

Unfortunately, it's part of an arms race amongst all of these teams.

And so while we and it took us multiple years to get even to the point of where the city and the Cubs both agreed on what those improvements would be.

Last year the community came out.

And this year you've asked the residents have asked again.

And I I guess what I would remind you, we started the proposal that came to us was at six percent adjustment, and we're at two and a half.

The council has pushed staff and pushed staff to go as lean and lean as they can go.

But I think we have done a good job at getting it at the absolute lowest at what is necessary to continue to operate those utilities.

The transfer, that's that's absolutely up for discussion.

Um at the budget.

Thank you.

Mr.

Adams.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh just a few thoughts, if I may.

Um let's let's go back for a moment to the the Cubs issue.

Mr.

Smith, was that a contractual obligation to the city that we expend those funds?

Mayor and council member Adams, yes, I was then it would follow, would it not, that if the city had said, no, we're not gonna do it.

Would it Cubs could have sued us for breach of contract?

Mayor and Councilmember Adams, yes.

And is it is it fair to ask you what the likelihood of them prevailing in that civil action would be if we simply just said, well, we're not gonna pay it.

Maybe an unfair question, you have to speculate, I understand.

Yeah.

Mayor and council member Adams, I I think um, I think the city has uh also a long tradition of honoring its contracts, and so um, and so um I haven't given a great thought.

Um it would be a very difficult case to defend.

So, bottom line is if we'd have said no, we're not gonna spend it, we'd have been sued.

Judgment would have been had in the Cubs' favor, attorneys' fees, costs, various other things, and uh what was the number?

16 or 12 or 16 would likely increase by uh exponentially, and there we are, we have to pay it anyway.

So thank you.

Um so I I understand what that looks like and what the optics are, but if you if you have a contractual obligation, you just what are the what are the other options?

You fulfill your obligations.

Um I'd like to comment a bit also on as a follow-up to Councilmember Goforth's comments.

Yes, when this first came to council's attention for discussion, the proposed rates were much higher than what you're looking at today.

Because we chose to debate and wrestle with this issue, um, I'll I'll remind the audience that that my recommendation was zero to residential ratepayers.

I didn't expect that to go anywhere, but I had to ask for it, so as part of a negotiation, now we have a lower number.

Let me assure you, the business community is not happy about that.

Nobody wants to pay more, but we have to start somewhere.

We have to start the discussion somewhere, and that discussions result thus far is a lower rate proposal than originally would have likely passed in this council member's opinion.

So if you will, the needles moved a bit.

Um I'm uncomfortable from a business perspective of looking at something as detailed and important as these rates, which generate this 30% transfer without considering it in the scope of the overall budget.

So I agree with the mayor, this is a budget discussion and um and needs to be thoroughly wrestled through at that time.

But um I I'm always open to additional thoughts and ideas and recommendations, but I think the deal in front of the residential payer is better today than it was two weeks ago.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Any other comments from council?

Ms.

Taylor.

So I just want to make sure I understand the Cub Stadium is a people's vote.

It was voted yes on.

Last year we collected 31 million dollars.

Did we use 16 million of that collected 31 million to do the contractual upgrades to the Cub Stadium?

No, we we did not.

Okay.

Yeah, Mayor and Councilmember Taylor, um, and and I I get the point that was made.

He's saying, you know, you can move funds between, but the way that the the council ordinance reads of that transfer, um there the percentage that goes to public safety is the vast majority.

There is a portion uh that goes to to general um governmental operations that's the non-public safety portion of that.

So it's not it's not it would be disingenuous to say it's a dollar for dollar uh situation.

I I understand the point Alex is making about well, you can shift things to different funds, but it's it's also not black and white of that it's uh we raised a certain amount and then we paid the cubs a certain amount.

We were we were going to be paying the Cubs uh that contractual obligation that we had entered into under any circumstances, council member Adams alluded to.

Okay.

So for the sake of the group here, can we have just a very succinct explanation of with this proposed increase?

What are we looking to pay for?

Sure.

And uh Brian, feel feel free to come up and and uh add to this.

When when we look at this, we've seen all of our costs continue to increase, just like everyone has, you know, as each each homeowner has, unfortunately.

Um you know, we're we're seeing the same consequences of inflation and other market conditions that have caused um all of our prices and all of our costs to increase to stay competitive even on the public safety side, we had to make some adjustments to our police officers and firefighters in order just to stay uh competitive with neighboring communities in that regard.

So we have seen um those increases throughout continue to increase.

And so, Brian, if you'd like to uh expand on that as well.

Yes, Mayor, council.

So the total budget for public safety for 25, 26 is 400 million dollars.

So the transfer is about 12 some million dollars.

So only 32 percent goes to the total budget for public safety.

So with that, the city manager also indicated what this transfer goes towards also is the uh the sworn when we did the benchmark for the sworn, it added 20 million dollars ongoing to the general governmental fund budget.

So that uh 136 million that I think that was quoted for the transfer for this year will go towards the increase, but also to support the public safety.

So that's where that transfer goes for, and then also other general governmental um increases too for the small portion that is transferred for general governmental, I believe around seven million dollars was for the rest of the city for their benchmarks, because the city did a complete benchmark for all of their positions, and so roughly about 27 to 30 million dollars ongoing increase for uh salaries for the and then everything else that has gone up with inflation.

And Mayor Brian, I'm I'm sorry, Councilmember Taylor.

Um, just wanted to make the point too that even these increases that are being proposed don't even cover what our cost increases have been in for to run the utilities, right?

So we're not even uh covering all of those costs with our proposed increases in order to try to be responsible for um keeping the numbers as low as possible for the for the ratepayer.

That is correct.

Uh mayor council.

So the net sources and uses for the um the utility fund uh is a negative right now.

So we are drawing down on the fund balance for the utility fund, even with these rate increases, and that is for the next couple of years until those uh rate increases start catching up, the revenue starts catching up with the expenses.

But for currently, for projected for 25 26, 26, and 27, those fiscal years, we will be drawing down on our fund balance, and there is a negative net sources and uses.

And and mayor, I I would just add too.

I mean, we we don't take any increase lightly, uh which is the point that's been made, right?

It's we understand that times are tough for everybody, and so the notion um that we have to go increase rates is is never uh anything that we look forward to.

But the fact of the matter is there are still rising costs uh within our utilities, within our um government services that inevitably we have to we have to pay for one way or the other.

And thankfully, this council uh historically has been responsible.

And the fact uh to council member Adams' point that we're we're talking anywhere from two to six percent.

You know, that I mean we're we're we're arguing having a great debate about you know where it started and where we're at now.

Most of our neighboring communities would love to be having a discussion with numbers of that amount because why?

Because they haven't always done the responsible thing with the steady consistent um increases that allows um allows us to minimize the burden on the ratepayer on an annual basis and avoid that sticker shock, and it's because we have been disciplined uh historically in our in our effort to to do that.

And because of that, I mean you see neighboring communities with 25 percent, 50 percent, uh sometimes even higher increases um that uh some of their ratepayers are having to absorb, and uh and we we really believe that the incremental steps that we've taken have ensured that our our ratepayers don't have that sticker shock when we do have to uh unfortunately raise rates to keep up with cost.

Thank you, Mr.

Butler.

Mr.

Summers.

Um to bounce off council member Doreen Taylor's uh question because I think there was a piece missed.

So of the 16 million dollars, where was did that funding come from and uh Brian, maybe you know Mark's getting up to answer.

Mayor, council member um Summers and Vice Mayor Summers.

That comes from the that comes from the general fund.

Uh it does not come from the transfer, as I mentioned.

The transfer is supports public safety.

That was that came from um excess or what the one-time revenues of the yeah, so yeah, part, Brian.

No, I think the bigger part of that that the vice mayor is trying to get to is 7.5 million dollars of that funding came from uh the Arizona State Tourism Authority, which is part collects the rental car tax.

Um and it's a wooden fall.

What effect that each community it spreads through.

So Mesa share that was 7.5 million.

So that came from that.

In addition, uh since the facility opened, we've been reserving funds each year to put that aside.

So that's where it comes from the the balance comes from the um general capital fund.

Yeah, it and and that's the one piece I didn't hear from from staff.

So okay, thank you, everyone.

If it's okay, council, I'd like to combine 7A and six.

I feel left out, you know.

This does we don't have anywhere to go tonight, Doug?

Okay, just real quick.

Um I just want to point out on the item 7E, we're talking about the water utility that we were at a three and a half percent, and that was taken at a two and a half percent for residents.

So they were at a dollar eighty-four a month and now a a dollar seven, so there's a 77 cents a month savings in that, or nine dollars and twenty-four cents a a year.

But that um nine dollars and twenty-four cents is picked up by our um the uh difference, the savings are picked up um by our businesses.

So we were at 13 percent uh water use rate um for our businesses, and now we're at 20 percent.

So they are will this is an introduction.

So to meet our time limits, we're introducing the ordinance at a 13 percent for our businesses, but then we'll have to come back later um and take the additional seven percent, bringing them up to 20 percent.

But we are hitting them, which originally was five dollars and eighty cents a month increase to nine dollars and twenty-four cents.

So I don't think this is a business-friendly move.

Taking a 20% increase to any cost that you have to a small business is detrimental.

I mean, you're used to today's economy, and maybe you get a five-10 percent, but going to 20 percent is huge.

So we're taking 13% now, and then there will be another introduction of resorbing the other seven percent, I think in January.

Um 90% of our businesses in Mesa.

Um, I think it's even greater than that, are less than a hundred employees.

So this is affects our our residents, our businesses in Mesa.

Um, by shifting a huge burden to them.

I support the introduction.

Um, but when we come back, I think whenever we reintroduce our businesses, I cannot support a further hit on our businesses.

We are in a jam that we don't, as residents don't want to take on that extra 77 cents a month for six Kigal.

Um but uh we're shifting that to uh you know um 924 a month for our businesses.

So it's very unfortunate.

Mesa is business friendly.

This move is not support the introduction tonight.

I'll be voting yes on it in January when it comes back for a reintroduction to pick up the additional seven percent, I'll be voting no.

Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Duff.

With that, I'll entertain a motion to approve items 7A and 7F.

Is that correct, Mr.

Smith?

Okay.

Is there a motion for that?

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

Second by Mr.

Adams, please cast your vote.

Okay, motion passes.

Thank you.

All right, moving on.

Item eight is from uh citizen present.

Uh our first blue card is by Reggie Braun.

Reggie, if you'd like to come forward.

Following Reggie would be uh Ryan Gerard Birch.

So, Ryan, you're on deck.

Thank you, Reggie.

Hello, thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, City Council for seeing me.

And for all everyone for contributing time here.

First time talking here, so let me know.

We'll start already.

All right.

So we're gonna talk about Mrs.

Bottom Line, right?

Stewardship, safety, fiscal responsibility.

We've got a situation where we're putting ourselves in a oh, I'm sorry, you should know about me.

I also don't think that you should never listen to anybody who you wouldn't go to for advice, you shouldn't listen to their criticism.

So I've had about 20 years in data analysis, they've also done some training and stuff with a lot of law enforcement, a lot of local uh organizations and nonprofits or veterans.

So I have worked with a lot of people like voted for you, Freeman, because of your background.

My family were also farmers.

Is your mic on, sir?

I don't know, is it?

It should be on if you speak into the mic.

Is this okay?

Yeah, there you go.

Thank you.

Great.

So if you could move your move to the speaker so you can speak into the microphone.

All right.

So everyone's concerned about crime, right?

Everyone's sort of about uh what they see as a threat to uh to themselves, and that's justified.

Mesa doesn't have the best crime statistics.

Um but you guys are working on that.

You put a lot of money towards emergency services and our police.

However, I think adding more to that would be bad, a bad deal.

The idea that you're adding agents who won't identify with masks to do unconstitutional actions.

Possible actions that Mesa oath includes that we're all supposed to do.

Reasonable and in fact a part of their own code.

HCFR 287.8 requires all officers to identify themselves when it's safe.

It's not happening.

Last month has been a rise in ICE impersonated criminals.

This makes it an impossible position for someone like me.

I'm a second amendment guy.

I understand use of force.

I understand the immediate threat.

If I got a couple guys roll up in a van that are masked and jump out and grab somebody on the street, that is preventable crime.

That is kidnapping.

I want to jump through a few things here, specific for law enforcement.

These ICE agents aren't able to pass a physical test.

Look at our guys here.

We've got SWAT, we've got guys we depend on.

ICE can't do 15 push-ups.

And they're supposed to take the lead.

They're running people off the road in cars.

We have to clean it up.

And then what?

The city pays millions of dollars in legal suits.

Because ICE is not a good idea.

Reggie, you just have about 30 seconds.

I appreciate your time.

Thank you.

Finally, this is going to be a bad cost for defestrial residential costs.

People don't want to see people in vans went across the streets.

I've got more.

I probably will talk about more.

I'm gonna jump just a few other things here.

If you haven't noticed, I'm a brown person.

It's been allowed now to profile.

Now here's my situation.

I'm a brown person in a beat up pickup truck, and I get stopped by an angry dude who can't keep up his physical stuff.

I'll say yes or no, sir.

I'll tell him I have a firearm.

He grabs somebody another deal.

What am I supposed to do?

Reggie, I'm sorry, your time's up.

That was your 30 seconds, so you got three minutes and 30 seconds.

I'll see you guys again.

I appreciate your time.

All right, one last thing.

I'm the good shepherd.

The good shepherd lays down his life of the sheep.

You are our shepherds.

I appreciate that.

Thank you, sir.

Whether the voters make it or not, you are our shepherds.

Thank you, Reggie.

Uh, next is uh Ryan Jarra Birch.

Ryan hope I said your name right, but probably not.

Jara Birsch.

Okay.

Good evening, Mayor Freeman.

Good evening, council.

Um I am here to speak about the 287 G agreement.

Please, I oppose this.

Please end it.

There's been talk that it is for removing dangerous criminals from off the street.

But how do I console my congregation when they're reporting that their family members have been taken and disappeared?

No more criminals than I am.

Any member here in this audience, good people who work hard at small businesses.

Together, Mesa, or is it terror, Mesa, from a routine traffic stop?

Is it always cool in Mesa?

Or is it IC from the reception of the public?

This contract has been in agreement and has existed for many, many years.

Marvelous.

Ended.

What's changed?

ICE has changed.

This administration's ICE is unlike anything this country has ever seen.

And the agreement that was made with ICE is not the same organization that's out on the streets now.

I would like to see more people attend Mesa events, go downtown, use the light rail.

But a fair number of people are very concerned about being out in public for being the wrong color, speaking the wrong language.

I don't think that the agreement between Mesa PD and ICE publicly smiling, shaking hands, sets a precedence that the perception amongst 40% of Mesa, and just to remind you, 40% of Mesa are people of color.

They don't see this as smiling and shaking.

They don't see this as personal safety on the streets.

So I ask for this to end.

End this agreement, please.

We have many people who are ready to stand up and participate, pay taxes, do everything that Mesa needs and requires to thrive, but are afraid to do anything but go to work in the grocery store.

Thank you for your comments.

Next we'll hear from uh Brian Eckerly.

Brian, if you'll come forward, you have three minutes.

Mr.

Mayor, uh, council members, and I'd like to congratulate uh council member Taylor on her uh election to the city council.

Uh I am a support of 287 G, and I would ask you as the city council to continue, and the mayor to continue to support 287G.

I've been in this uh the Mesa resident for nine years.

Uh this is a wonderful place to live.

Uh I feel safe, and I appreciate the work of our police officers here in Mesa.

Uh obviously we have a great presence here in the uh uh the city council chambers, and I appreciate that.

And uh I appreciate the new public safety uh facility on Power Road near where I live.

That's uh gonna be also helping to make that area safer.

Uh I appreciate the tool that 287G is that it gives to the police to do their jobs more effectively.

Uh obviously we have a great presence here in the uh uh the city council chambers and I appreciate that and uh I appreciate the new public safety uh facility on Power Road near where I live that's uh gonna be also helping to make that area safer uh I appreciate the tool that two eighty seven G is that it gives to the police to do their jobs more effectively um that is all to make this a safer community I had a c I had the opportunity to hear the new chief of police uh a couple of months ago talk about uh where we are with the uh Mesa police department I was very encouraged to hear what he had to say I was very encouraged to hear about the training that they receive and the staffing levels of the city of Mesa that's very encouraging to me as a as a resident here safety is paramount I have uh young adult children but they're still my kids uh I have two two girls so uh their safety is very important to me and I appreciate that they can go about their business in the city of Mesa and be safe and 287G is a part of that uh those tools that our police have uh to use to keep us safe so I would again encourage you uh to maintain that agreement uh 287g thank you thank you Brian uh with that I'll turn to Miss Anderson is there anything else that we missed this evening any other cards or anything nope that's it all right well this is all the items we have for this meeting I'll entertain a motion to adjourn thank you Mr.

Adams Duff all in favor say aye we're adjourned