For December 1st, 2025.

Council members Duffin Heredia are unable to attend and are excused from this meeting.

Other all other council members are present.

With that, we'll begin our meeting with an invocation by Pastor Corey Moore from the Holy Trinity Community AME Church, followed by a pledge of allegiance.

Would you please stand?

Pastor Kemp Ford.

Would you join me in a moment of silence?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

We have some youth here to do that from the Mayor's Youth Committee.

Thank you, ladies.

Start us off.

And to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you, ladies.

Item one is the consent agenda.

Mr.

Christopher, if you'd like to come forward with the consent agenda.

And I know 7A and 7B.

See.

9A.

And 10A.

Is that what you have so far?

Yes.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor and Council members.

These are the items of the consent agenda.

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

And I'll be removed or it would be enacted with one motion.

There will be no separate discussion unless a council member or 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 three A, approving three-year term contract with two year renewal options for legal processing services for the Mesa Police Department.

Item 3B, approving 10 month use of a cooperative term contract with renewals for heavy duty fleet, construction and agricultural industrial parts, service and accessories for the fleet services and Mesa Fire and Medical Departments.

Item 3C approving use of a cooperative contract for the purchase of one asphalt paper for the fleet services and transportation departments.

Item 3D, approving five-year term use of a cooperative contract for the purchase of library equipment maintenance and support for the library services department.

Item three E approving two year use of a cooperative term contract with renewal options and dollar limit increase for HVAC services for citywide facilities for the facilities management department.

Item 4A, approving resolution to execute a waiver of ADOT's four-year notice provision for right-of-way abandonment as required by state law.

This will allow ADOT to proceed with the abandonment and transfer to the city of previously identified traffic interchanges along the Super System Freeway between Krisman Road and Signal Butte Road.

Item 4B, approving resolution to execute a project agreement with Meg for the Mountain Road, State Route 24 to Pecos Road Project and related reimbursement.

The city is eligible for reimbursement of 70% of the project cost.

Item 4C, approving resolution designating the authorized applicant agent and alternate agent for filing applications with the Arizona Department of Emergency and Military Affairs for disaster relief funding.

Item 4D, approving resolution to enter into a memorandum of understanding with the FBI to participate in the Central Arizona Safe Trails Task Force.

Item 4E, approving resolution to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with Panao County Sheriff's Office for cooperative law enforcement training.

Items 5A through 5S involve resolutions and ordinances pertaining to the 2024 editions of technical codes with international family of codes and amendments to those codes and introduction of ordinances pertaining to Mesa City Code, Title Four for Building Regulations.

5A is introduction of ordinance amending chapter 1 Mesa Administrative Code.

5B's approving resolution declaring 2024 International Building Code and certain dependencies to be a public record.

5C is an introduction of an ordinance amending chapter 2 Mesa Building Code.

5D is approving resolution declaring 2024 International Residential Code and certain dependencies to be a public record.

5E is introduction of ordinance amending chapter 3 Mesa Residential Code.

5F is approving resolution declaring amendments to the 2023 National Electric Code to be a public record.

5G is an introduction of ordinance amending chapter 4 Mesa Lighting and Electric Code.

5H is approving resolution declaring 2024 International Plumbing Code and certain dependencies to be a public record.

5i is introduction of ordinance amending Chapter 5 Mesa Plumbing Code.

5J is approving resolution declaring amendments to the 2024 International Mechanical Code to be a public record.

5K is introduction of ordinance amending chapter 6 Mesa Mechanical Code.

5L is approving resolution declaring the 2024 International Fuel Gas Code and certain dependencies to be a public record.

5M is introduction of ordinance amending chapter 7, Mesa Fuel Gas Code.

5N is approving resolution declaring amendments to the 2024 International Existing Building Code to be a public record.

5O is introduction of ordinance amending chapter 8, Mesa Existing Building Code.

5P is approving resolution declaring 2024 International Energy Conservation Code and its appendix to be a public record.

5 Q is introduction of ordinance amending Chapter 9, Mesa Energy Conservation Code.

5R is approving resolution declaring amendments to the 2024 International Swimming Pool and SPA Code to be a public record.

5S is introduction of ordinance amending chapter 10, Mesa Swimming Pool and SPA Code.

Item 6A is a resolution declaring the 2024 International Fire Code and certain dependencies to be a public record.

Item 6B is introduction of the ordinance amending Mesa City Code, Title 7 Fire Regulations pertaining to adoption of the 2024 International Fire Code and its amendments.

Item 7A, 7B, 7C, and 7D have been removed from the consent agenda.

Item 8A, introduction of ordinance proposing amendments in chapters 5, 8, 31, 32, 86, and 87 of the Mesa City Code pertaining to middle housing.

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

Thank you, Mr.

Christopher.

As well as 9A, 10A, and 10.

And I think that's it through the TIDs.

Mayor, um, all those items, and I'll just point out all of item 10 is off consent.

So even if they hadn't, even if you didn't list them, they're all of ten is off.

Great, thank you.

All right, we'll entertain a motion for the consent agenda.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

Thank you, Miss Gilforth.

Please cast your vote.

Okay.

Motion passes with Ms.

Duff and Mr.

Auretta absent.

With that, we'll move over to item 7A, which is the um battery energy storage system.

We have some people that wish to speak.

It's a resolution declaring the document title 11-3137, uh battery energy storage system known as BESS.

Option one to be a public record uh with the city clerk.

So with that, we're going to first uh hear from Mary Maybino.

Mary, if you want to come up.

Thank you.

And then following Mary will be uh Jeff Crockett.

Mayor, do you want to mayor do you want to take these combined seven A, seven B, and seven C and seven D as one item?

Is that all right?

So Mayor and Council, yeah, you can take all A, B, C, and D as one item, and then you can decide whether or not you want to vote on them as one item for introduction, or 7A and B go together, and 7C and D go together.

Yeah.

Um, they're really there's really sort of there's four items, but it's really sort of two options because it's adoption by reference.

Um, there's a resolution on 7A and 7C, um, and then the corresponding uh ordinances that go with the A and the Um C resolution.

So um, but you can call all of them for discussion purposes, and then we can figure out how you want to.

And since A and B go together in C and D if there's no objection, I think we just take each one of those as an item.

So it'd be two items 7A, 7B, and 1, 7 C, 7D, 2, and then anybody here to speak on A and B can speak on it.

I think it might be best that this hear from the blue cards, and then we'll decide on the council whether we want to move forward with combine them all together.

Uh deciding we have two council members that are not here, and I we'd like to invite them for the conversation.

So, Mary, go ahead.

Thank you.

So I can speak on two different ones at different times, correct?

Mm-hmm.

Okay.

We're gonna do item seven A right now.

All right.

Okay.

All right, Councilman, mayor and councilmen.

This is regarding the proposed resolution relating to battery energy storage systems or best, as it's called.

This proposal it passed is opening up a can of worms.

First the resolution, then the amendments.

This plan gives the outline and wishes to establish best as a principle or accessory use.

So everyone here understands this.

The principal use would be for general industrial and heavy industrial districts in which battery capacity is greater than or equal to 5,000 kilowatts.

This would have to be, this would have to have the approval of a planned area development or PAD pad, and must comply with all of BES and BESS's facility standards.

The second use is an accessory use, would be permitted in agricultural, residential, commercial employment in downtown districts for a storage capacity of less than or equal to 5,000 kilowatts.

And it does not have to comply with best and best facility standards.

So if it stores 4,900 kilowatts of energy, that could be coming next to your friendly neighborhood.

And by the way, the Mesa Planning and Zoning Committee recommended only 400 feet from a residential area.

This is the general overview of where these things would go, and I'll be speaking afterwards on an amendment.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, Mary.

Mr.

Crockett.

Following Mr.

Crock will be Autumn Johnson.

Mayor Freeman, members of the council, my name is Jeff Crockett.

My business address is 40 North Center Street, Mesa, Arizona, 85201 across the street.

I'm an attorney, and I regularly represent companies that plan, build, and operate renewable energy systems, including battery battery energy storage systems.

Renewable energy projects have become an indispensable part of the energy portfolios of our Arizona utilities.

And battery energy storage systems are critical in making those systems and the electric grid operate more efficiently and at a lower cost to those who pay electric rates.

So I'm here today to urge you to set these items for consideration in a vote at the December 8th council meeting.

But I would urge you to set all of the uh item seven uh resolutions for discussion and vote at the December 8th meeting so that we can have a fulsum uh discussion on the the separation requirements.

Uh and for the record, I support uh 7C and 7D.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, Mr.

Crockett.

Uh Ms.

Johnson Good evening, Mayor and Council members.

I'm also uh to speak to C and D.

Would you like to hear my comments now or later?

Uh you want to speak on C and D?

Correct.

I have you speaking on 7A.

I just put down seven.

Uh I'm happy to do them now, if that's fine.

If you want to speak on C and D, I'll call you back up.

Okay, thank you.

Let's do that.

All right.

Nichols, uh, is it Conan?

Or Connell.

Ms.

Mr.

Connell.

It looks like Court Rich to me.

Mayor, council members.

I'm sitting next to Mr.

Connell, and he said I don't need to speak on this, but sent me up uh for him.

I do have a blue card in there.

If it's okay, I I'd be happy to address you now, or I can sit down so you call my name.

No, you can go now.

It just says that he wished to speak as well.

So appreciate it.

Um Mr.

Mayor, members of the council, my name is Court Rich uh with the Rose Law Group.

I had up our energy department there and work on behalf of IPA Power and others.

Uh IPA is a developer of a battery energy storage project in the city of Mesa.

And I'm I'm just here today to frankly to thank you all, thank your staff.

We've worked very closely with them on this ordinance.

Um we've worked closely with your fire department.

Uh we feel like I will admit um this is a rather strict ordinance when you look at it across the country, and and would I rather you um be more permissive and and less restrictive?

Yes, but I'm not here to ask you to do that.

I think that you've you've done a good job, and I'm here just to encourage you all to move forward with with this ordinance uh and approve it.

I think as a highlight, you do retain the use uh the ability for all future projects.

They all have to come in here to get a PAD approved.

Nothing can happen without your consent.

Um, and your your fire department has been uh very very engaged um and up to date on the latest in this business, and that's reflected in the ordinance.

So again, I'm here to ask that you approve these, and I appreciate it.

Thank you.

And I'm happy to also be a resource if you all have any questions.

Um I'm happy to answer those or call on some experts that we have here too as well.

Thank you, Mr.

Rich.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Uh, next we'll hear from uh I'm sorry if I mispronounced Seepund Alzeda.

And you can correct me when you come to the Thank you, sir.

All right, thank you very much, Mayor.

Um I'm here to comment on 7C and 7D.

So I could also come back.

I know I put seven, but uh, I could also come back if that's okay when we uh get to 7C and 7D.

We'll do that.

Okay.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, members of council.

Next, uh Linda Patrick Hayes.

Lydia.

I put on the pardon you didn't wish to speak.

Okay, thank you.

That's what it says right here.

Thank you.

Uh 7B.

Uh we'll move over.

Is there any discussion on 7A, Council?

If not, I'll just wrap them all together, go through all the different, and we'll do it that way.

Okay, 7B.

Uh, Mary, I have you back up here for 7B as well as uh Linda Patrick is opposed and but does not wish to speak.

I got it right that time.

Thank you.

Okay, Mayor and Council members.

Um, I'm Mary Mabinow.

I forgot to say I live off of Wrecker and Round Road.

And um, this covers these amendments, this covers the amendments related to BESS.

I understand there's upsides to BES.

Obviously, the upside is it stores excess solar energy.

But there are also downsides, and I'd like to enumerate some of those.

Number one, they have unique fire hazards.

They say these newer lithium batteries are lower risk.

But if they do catch fire, they are extremely difficult to put out.

So difficult, in fact, generally they let it burn itself out.

The link attached to this says containing a fire is the best way to protect first responders and communities.

Because reignitement may occur hours or days later, and that containment best protects against explosives, which releases harmful gases.

But if an explosion does occur, what's the blast radius?

Who knows?

I don't think anybody knows.

Says in the link, successful, and now this is says in the link quote successful suppression of a fire does not guarantee an underlying thermal runaway event has been terminated.

Whoa, that sounds like a scary thought.

Okay, number two, our nine are noise considerations.

Bess says it will do a noise study because these units do create a constant humming noise.

Neighbors in East Mark already complain and still complain over the constant hum of data centers, which I assume did a noise study, also.

Number three, don't know how many environmentally friendly all this is in the long run because the batteries that have to be disposed of are still ignitable and classified as hazardous waste.

So my question is.

Well, my question is, would any one of you want to live 400 feet or even a thousand feet away from a rather ugly development, even if a fence is built around it, it's not visually appealing, one that has a risk of uncontrollable fire and possible air pollution hazards, and it has noise pollution all the time.

You know, I would think that I I do know that there are some upsides to this.

Same thing I have, but data centers locate them well away from residential areas, and that way you solve a lot of these problems.

Neighbors don't want to be near this stuff.

It's dangerous and um potentially um devastating.

So that's what I would recommend.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Uh next, excuse me.

Next we'll hear from uh Sipand Alzeda's crazy mayor, members of council.

Uh thank you all very much.

My name is Sepan Allazata, and I'm a government relations specialist with the Arizona Technology Council, 2800 North Central Avenue, suite 1530.

And I'm here today to speak about the proposed separation requirements in the text amendments impacting battery energy storage systems or best facilities in the City of Mesa's updated zoning ordinance.

Before I begin, sorry.

Before I begin, I need to thank the City of Mesa staff, including those in the development services and the city attorney's office for the tremendous amount of work devoted to updating this code.

Thank you for adjusting the size threshold to five megawatt watts within principal usage.

Also, I want to thank each one of you and your district administrators for acknowledging receipt of letters on this matter from the Arizona Technology Council submitted in late November.

I re-watched the video of the October 22nd, 2025 planning and zoning board meeting over the Thanksgiving weekend.

We not only heard from residents, but we heard from renewable energy industry leaders such as battery energy developers, utilities, organization heads, attorneys, a former Arizona Corporation Commissioner, and others who advocate for best facilities of all sizes daily, stating that the proposed separation requirement of 1,000 feet of best facilities from residences should be re-examined and reduced.

I learned two key things.

First, Mesa has a great track record of embracing renewable energy technologies, and the city doesn't want to jeopardize future projects.

Second, Mesa needs the energy and the jobs that come with it as utilities must double or even triple the energy that they are going to need over the next 10 years.

What stood out to me most, however, were the astute comments provided by the City of Mesa's fire marshal Sean Alexander.

Fire Marshal Alexander spent time discussing in painstaking detail how safety protocols have evolved for battery energy storage systems in Mesa thanks to the code development process.

He also clarified that the city's own fire and building services departments are updating their plan review standards to include hazardous mitigation analyses, decommissioning requirements, and fire and explosion testing reviews.

Simply put, the permitting process for battery energy storage systems is extremely rigorous and exacting to ensure resident safety.

Emergencies are occurring less frequently, and Mesa is well positioned to mitigate the risk of emergencies thanks to technological advancements, extensive permitting requirements, and stringent code implementation by the Mesa Fire and Medical Departments.

So I urge all of you not to move forward with an excessive 1,000-foot separation requirement in the name of safety.

Let us move forward with a change that is more reasonable.

What the NFPA 855 recommends, and that's a standard that's been developed with help of engineers, architects, insurance professionals, and others.

By doing so, we'll ensure that Mesa remains a hub for renewable energy innovation and has the energies it needs for decades to come.

Thank you all for your service.

Thank you.

Next we'll hear from uh Miss Johnson, Autumn Johnson, followed by Matt Quinn.

Good evening again, Mayor and Council members.

Autumn Johnson on behalf of the Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association or Aresia.

I'd like to just highlight the fact that the original draft ordinance that called for comments was 400 feet.

And all or the majority of the written comments at that time before planning and zoning were an objection to the 400 feet and felt that it should be smaller.

When the matter was considered before the planning and zoning commission, it was then moved to 1,000 feet.

This is a significant topic of conversation at the planning and zoning meeting.

As Mr.

I'm also gonna mispronounce his name, Sipand um said.

So they recommended it go back to the 400 feet as opposed to 1,000.

We submitted comments on this last week.

We believe that the 400, we still believe that the 400 feet is too big.

It would be the largest past ordinance for best setback in the state if you move forward with even the 400, let alone the 1000, which would be an extreme outlier.

We recommend that you move forward with something more aligned to national standards.

So according to the American Planning Association, 50 to 100 foot, 150 feet setback is the national average.

As you just heard, the NFPA 855 recommends 100 feet.

Maricopa County just uh moved their ordinance through planning and zoning, and they didn't include either of those.

They we recommend that you either approach it as Maricopa County did, where they rely on the fire code, or you use the NFPA 855 standard, or we recommend that you move forward with the standard like Buckeye has adopted, which is 150 feet.

We believe that the city's proposal of a thousand feet is arbitrary and not supported by any national standards and will impede energy development within the city, which in aggregate will impact grid reliability and affordability for everyone, including the residents of Mesa.

I agree with the comments that you previously heard that the matter should be taken up in full uh next week, and that the 400-foot setback specifically should not be removed today.

And we recommend you not move forward with only the 1,000 foot option.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Johnson.

Mr.

Quinn, Matt Quinn.

After Mr.

Quinn, uh, Mary, perhaps you can give us an overview and staff's perspective.

Good evening.

My name is Matt Quinn.

Um a fire protection consultant.

I'm here with Fire Risk Alliance.

I'm working with uh IPA Power, and Mr.

Richard spoke earlier.

Um, I just wanted to offer my area of expertise is in battery energy storage, fire safety, and emergency response.

My own experience is in chemical engineering and in fire service.

I'm a career firefighter.

Uh I just wanted to kind of echo what the last two speakers had to say regarding the the clearance requirements.

I train fire departments throughout the country and internationally, and the a thousand feet, there's no uh justification for uh a clearance of that of that size.

What we teach as as we go around, we train firefighters for even containers that are involved in fire, it's a hundred feet that we teach as a standoff distance, and we would I would offer encouragement to adhere to the 855 standards.

They're rigorous and they're they're well informed by experts throughout the field.

Um with the rest of the people I'm here with, I'm definitely available to offer any any other inside I can thank you, sir.

Okay, that's completes all the blue cards that we have.

Uh, Mary, can you give us an overview of staff's perspective and how the P and Z board move forward and all throughout the process?

Sure, they are council.

Uh thank you.

Um, I'll start with the principal use versus the accessory use and how we got to the five megawatts as a principal use.

Really, what we're looking at in this ordinance is to regulate utility scale best.

So we want to allow an office building, we want to allow a multifamily residential project to maybe have battery storage if they have solar on site to collect that energy and use it on their project.

And when we did some additional research on that, what we were finding was the one megawatt that staff had originally recommended to the planning and zoning board was probably low, which is how we got up to the five megawatts.

It's important to realize that as an accessory use, they're still required to follow all of the requirements of the zoning code in that base zone.

So it's not that they're unregulated, it's just they have a different set of development standards and and regulations that they have to follow.

Um as it relates to the setback, I know there the separation um requirement.

We had started with an ordinance that was 400 um feet from any uh residential district or any uh what we call sensitive receptors.

So a church, a park, a school, those those types of uses.

And then after we have stakeholder engagement, we had heard from several different stakeholders and some of the leaders that maybe 400 feet wasn't enough.

So we went to planning and zoning board with the 1,000 foot separation from residential only.

The sensitive receptors are still at that 400 feet.

So the schools, the churches, the parks, those things are still at 400 feet.

The 1,000 foot separation is from the perimeter wall around the battery storage to the either a residential district or a residential use.

So that thousand feet was what we took to planning and zoning board.

Planning and zoning board came back and recommended that we go back to the 400, which is why you have two different resolutions and two different ordinances in front of you today.

I want to talk a little bit about the battery disposal and the the um how that would take place.

So they are required through the fire code, and I'm gonna ask Sean at some point to come up and talk about two of the items that were also brought up, if that's okay, Mayor.

But the battery disposal will be addressed through the decommissioning plan, which is going to be a requirement.

So any time a BESS facility is put in place, they will have to develop a decommissioning plan and they will have to submit that as part of their requirements to the fire to the fire marshal.

We also I'll talk a little bit about the noise.

We are looking at um noise from a perspective of there is noise in every neighborhood.

So what the best would have to do is at the property line of the residential use or the sensitive receptor, they would have to identify what the ambient noise level is.

And what the requirement of the code is doing is saying you can't increase that noise level.

So if you're putting in a battery system that's going to create noise at the battery system, you will have to identify mitigating measures to make sure that the ambient level at that residential property or at that sensitive receptor is maintained to the level it is today, so we're not increasing that noise.

Um, and then I think the last thing is I'll ask Sean if he could come up and talk about the unique fire hazards and the thermal runaway events, if that's okay, Mayor.

Yes.

Our fire marshal, Mr.

Chief Alexander.

Good morning, Mayor and Count or good evening, Mayor and Council.

Um, as to the disposal of uh these uh incidents once they're done, our fire department trains on managing incidents from the start of the incident through the termination of the emergency, and then we work collaboratively with the business owner to make sure that um any hazards are properly disposed of.

Given this um for these particular premises that would likely involve a hazardous waste company, but um the fire department handles those emergencies today.

We handle, we're used to dealing with thermal runaway events.

Uh granted, we have not had a utility scale project of this size to this point, but we um have had dozens um and dozens of um battery involved fires uh in the last several years.

We've seen this increasing um as batteries become more popular.

Um we are we have several facilities in the in the valley here that can actually take a damaged cell and uh dispose of it, grind it and turn it back into its component parts so that there is no longer a hazard.

But uh once these batteries do go into thermal runaway, there is a potential, and we have seen it, although um the technology is changing and it's uh this newer technology of batteries are less likely to go into extended thermal runaway like we've seen in the past.

But we have had extended uh multi-day events involving these battery fires that um and we're used to dealing with them and disposing of them appropriately.

Mayor, if I could, there's just one more thing I wanted to add um about the separation from those residential uses.

Back in October, we did receive a draft of the surprise um zoning code amendment, and it did have 1,500 feet.

I don't know if they've adopted that yet, but I just wanted to say that in Arizona there are other people up looking um beyond just that 100 feet.

The challenge that we have is there is no standard.

There well, there is the NFPA standard, but beyond that, in terms of the separation from those sensitive users uses, it really is kind of all over the place, which is how we've come to the 400 and the thousand.

Chief, I haven't heard the NFPA 855.

What what is the is there a separation standard for best systems?

There is, Mayor, that is uh part of uh one of the items that was just introduced on the consent agenda as part of our upgraded uh fire and building code uh ordinances that have been proposed.

Um, along with those code adoptions would include adopting the latest standard of NFP 855.

That is where we got the hundred feet of uh setback from the property line to the first battery, and uh that has been put into the standard to address not only the fire hazard, but also the explosion hazard.

A comment was made earlier.

Uh we don't know how far these go.

Um we don't know, but we have seen in past incidents, and it's my understanding that the 100 feet setback requirement was largely due to fire and explosion testing that has been done on these uh types of facilities and and products.

So that that's where the hundred-foot setback from the property line into the premise from the first battery, that's where that requirement lives.

Okay, and that's different from the 400 and the 1,000 foot setbacks that are being discussed tonight.

Okay.

Council, any questions, sir?

Uh Chief, you just to clarify your statement.

You weren't making a statement on the decision on 400 versus a thousand feet.

You were just saying that your department is prepared to handle the emergencies from the incipient stage all the way through decommissioning.

That is correct, sir.

My my comments tonight have nothing to do with the uh 400 or 1,000 foot uh issue that is before council right now.

Okay.

And is it fair to say then NFPA standard is a minimum standard?

It is, sir.

Yeah.

All right, thank you.

Mr.

Adams.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um I just want to be clear, Chief, that when you speak of the uh building codes we've just uh acted on, that 100 feet is from the I'm gonna use layman's terms.

The the containment fence to the equipment inside the facility, yes.

Correct?

Has nothing to do with distance from the fence to anything adjoining that that facility.

Is that my understanding is correct?

I'm I'm sorry.

I would would you please repeat the second part of your question?

So the hundred feet is from the the actual best equipment to the fence that encloses the best facility.

Yes, sir.

Has nothing to do with the distance from the fence to residential schools or anything else.

No, sir.

Those are two separate items.

The 400 versus 1,000 foot uh separation distance, which uh Rachel put up on the screen here, um, kind of demonstrates that the the item I was discussing is what's labeled on the screen as the setback distance.

That's from the the property line to the nearest battery.

The issue that is currently being discussed is the separation distance from that property line to the uh other land uses.

Okay, Chief Alexander, thank you for the clarification.

It's a good thing.

Mayor Council member Adams, if I can just clarify the separation distances from the perimeter wall, not the property line.

So it's the perimeter line to the residential property line, just for clarification.

I think I just got confused.

Let's let's let's let's back up a minute.

We have a fence around this facility.

The 100 feet is from the equipment to the surrounding fence inside the best facility, correct?

The other issue, entirely separate, the 400, the thousand, whatever, is from the fence to either the school, the residential.

Okay.

Thank you, Chief, for clarifying that.

I think we're no, um I'm I'm sorry.

Okay.

If I if I could correct, and and on the screen we have a diagram.

So the the fire code that set back, that 100 feet, it's from the battery equipment to the property line.

And then the separation requirement is from the external site screen wall to the property line of the residential zoning district or use.

Thank you.

Thank you, Rachel.

So, but but theoretically, the fence could sit on the property line.

Maybe maybe not.

It there if it was only three and a half feet tall, but considering this is gonna have to screen the equipment, there's has to meet setbacks, so it would be at least 15 feet from the property line in that case.

Okay.

But it could be greater depending on um the classification of the road.

Okay, thank you for displaying this this diagram and for clarifying that.

I do have one additional question, uh, and this this may not be for you, Chief Alexander.

Um, it might be a Jim Smith question, city attorney question.

We talk about decommissioning, and in some of our conversations prior to this meeting, I've raised the issue of requiring a decommissioning bond.

Is that part of anything we're talking about here?

Because you know, the theory being maybe the company that establishes the best facility is long out of business 15 years from now when it's time to decommission.

So are we going to require decommissioning bond, or is that a conversation for a later time?

Uh mayor and council, I I think that's only ultimately gonna be a conversation for a later time.

We have started to look into it.

Um I'll say this, we we could not find they're not sort of readily available, at least we we're not familiar with those markets.

Um and so the the fire code, um, and Sean can correct there, there is um they're allowed to add requirements for for the decommissioning.

And so what those requirements are dependent on sort of the the the fire marshal and sort of those requirements.

Whether that bond, sort of in light of potential cost or availability is reasonable under the circumstances.

I you know, I just can't answer that question because we don't even know, we don't have a sense of the the availability of that type of bond.

Okay, but it is something that could come back to the table for further discussion and consideration.

Yes, Doug.

Uh that's all I have for now, Mayor.

Okay, Miss Taylor.

Thank you.

Uh Mary, I just had one question that maybe you can answer.

So I know that we're talking about the distance being 400 feet or a thousand feet from the best to a property line.

But you mentioned their sensitive, like church locations, parks.

I guess I'm a little confused as to why we have a proposal for a thousand-foot setback from a best system to a residential property line where humans are residing, but we don't have that same option for those sensitive areas because a church would have people in it, a park would have people in it.

I mean, can you help me understand that one a little bit?

Sure.

Um mayor, council member Taylor.

One of the things we were looking at is from a residential perspective, this is where people spend a lot of time.

They're in their home day after day.

It's something that they're gonna be exposed to on a on a consistent basis, where if you're in a church or at a park, you're at a school, it's a more intermittent type of use.

So we still wanted to get that separation to be able to make sure that noise level things like that were considered, but it's that quality of life for people as they're saying using their backyard on a day-to-day basis, which is why the original 1,000 feet went in as a as a recommendation.

So then could we still potentially propose to have a thousand-foot setback from those sensitive areas as well?

Because I'm thinking in a school, that's five days a week on average.

You've got children there, teachers.

I'm just thinking of it from a safety perspective as well.

Not sure if that was supposed to be directed to you or Jim.

No, I appreciate that.

I'm gonna ask Jim about the thousand feet because right now it's 400 feet to the sensitive receptors in both ordinances.

So mayor and council, if you wanted to, we could we'd have to introduce yet another version, right?

And so we'd have to go back um and introduce that.

Um we were prepared to try to read into the record if you went from 400 to 500 on locations, but realize it's you know, it's uh actually it's almost a page of me reading for me to make that that simple amendment.

So to do this tonight, um, it would be amending one of the two options and knocking that one out.

So realize someone would have to say we're not gonna, we're not, we don't want to uh introduce one of them tonight, and you want me to try to quickly write down the the motion that would take me a few minutes to read into the record to change it to a thousand feet on the sensitive sites.

I would recommend if we're gonna do that, we introduce these two, and we can introduce another one next council meeting, right?

And so um, and you can see if either of these two pass at the next council meeting, if they don't, then this third option could come in would come in January.

Let me know your thoughts, vice mayor.

I'll share mine just a minute.

Uh can we get clarification?

What what is it that you're asking for?

The which setback?

I'm wondering if we can make equal the thousand-foot setback from residential to also include those sensitive areas, particularly schools.

I'm thinking of the safety of people at schools where you have a battery storage center.

Okay.

I don't want to be so here here's my perspective on that, and why I'm not as bothered with 400 feet from sensitive uses versus the residential uses.

The sensitive uses, schools, churches, some of the others typically are daytime use.

Books are awake, they're alert as a firefighter myself, not retired.

I've had the opportunity, unfortunately, to have to do evacuations of various buildings to evacuate a church to evacuate a school.

Well, not something you want to do.

Well, people are awake, they can get them on buses, they can move them away from the hazard a lot faster than trying to evacuate a neighborhood, which takes a very long time and a lot of personnel to do it.

Um, in addition, I feel that when it the difference between a house is something that we all invest in, it's arguably the largest investment that a person makes in their life up until they retire.

That's where the most of their money is.

And to have that exposed unnecessarily to toxins and chemicals, I I think is a different level of risk, and you may not agree with me on that.

But if we just took it from a public safety perspective, evacuating some of these other facilities much easier to do than trying to get people out of their homes in a neighborhood, particularly two in the morning, two in the morning, there's no school, there's no church, right?

Those things aren't gonna happen.

Thank you.

Ms.

Goford.

Mary, I'm curious about existing neighborhoods that would be affected by either the 400 or a thousand.

Are there potential zoning districts where a best development could take place under the 400 under the thousand, but not the the 400, or under the 400, but not the thousand, sorry.

Meaning there's an existing residential neighborhood, there's homes already built, and if it's 400, the best system can't be built.

I mean, can be built, but if it's a thousand, it can't.

Because I guess I guess what I'm getting at a little bit is if the system is there before, right?

If the system is there prior to the neighborhood, uh what I'm trying to avoid is existing neighborhoods that now we put a best system next to you when you you're already inhabiting your home.

Uh, thank you, Councilmember Goforth.

Mayor, counsel.

Um, so as you're aware, we have one existing best that's been built on Signal View.

It is um with it it's near a residential project, I believe it's um at least 400 feet away.

There is another one proposed on an on a lot that is um near that that the thousand feet likely could be met.

The 400 foot for the um sensitive receptor because there's a church in that area, will be probably more of a challenge for that site.

The second site where a best is being considered.

There is a multifamily residential zoning district within 400 feet of that site.

It would not meet the thousand feet and would probably be more challenging for development of that bath.

But again, it's not billed.

It's just zoned.

That's correct.

Resident multifamily.

That's correct.

Okay.

But but a zoning district, it would that separation distances from a zoning residential zoning district or use.

Okay, and that's the only one.

Right.

That's correct.

Okay.

So, Ms.

Taylor, I'm gonna ask answer your question.

So tag it on to the vice mayor as a retired firefighter.

There's some options we have when we respond to an incident.

Number one is an evacuation zone.

So typically the emergency emergency response guide, our evacuation is 330 feet from any incident.

So we'll monitor the air, monitor the water, do all the components associated with that.

The other component is shelter in place, so we can shelter the individuals until the incident subsides, or as vice mayor said, we can transport them out of the area.

So those are typically, you know, uh nursing homes uh that we would either uh shelter in place or evacuate them out as far as school.

Uh a lot of people there, we would probably just uh shelter them in place until the incident the wind may change.

We don't know all the all the dynamics there.

So uh I I'm supportive of just how the ordinance is written right now, and if we need to make some changes in the future, we can.

But I just just to remind everybody, you know, there's a standard that uh public safety personnel, this is nationwide, 330 feet of emergency response and uh um sheltering in place or evacuation too for incidents.

So uh with that, uh Ms.

Gofort.

Well, I guess may I suggest, I mean, this is all introduction, and since we're we have we have no consensus right now, should could I could we move to just introduce all of seven?

Well, I would I would like to entertain a motion to do all four of them, and then we have the other council members in place because we don't know where a best system may go in each of our districts, and so you know I'll entertain a motion to move forward um 7A and 7D, and we'll see where the motion goes if we have uh a motion and a first and a second uh make that motion and uh you have a comment?

Yeah, I'll I'll make a comment and uh again let's let's stress this.

This is just an introduction.

It is an introduction.

I will not support 400 feet.

I've listened to the industry, I've read your letters, I haven't seen a darn thing that would suggest 400 feet.

NFPA standard is a minimum standard.

We could establish through any zoning, whatever distance we feel is necessary for the safety and the health of our my community, and all three of these are in my community.

So I'm standing up for them.

Who in this room has fought a fire on the scale of a best system with that many batteries?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

I've seen these things.

I've fought these fires.

I know the toxins that they put through.

To tell me that 400 feet is too long because an NFPA committee said it should be a hundred feet.

Well, I could pull up any number of cities and states and counties that have it from a hundred feet to uh a mile in separation.

Everyone's different.

I can pull up at least half a dozen communities that have put a prohibition on these in their communities.

It's up to the community what they want to accept.

Now, I think a thousand feet is reasonable distance from somebody's home.

I think that battery operated systems, you're right.

We need the power.

This is a stop gap measure until this state can figure out how to generate more energy because we're seeing tremendous and positive growth in economic development, and we need the energy for that.

But I don't want to put these up against somebody's fence.

I uh I just don't.

So and I also want to stress one more thing.

The NFPA stand, I hats off to the NFPA.

I've done some work for them.

I've been on one of these committees, I've seen that process.

It is sausage making.

It's not technology, it's not math.

There are there were about 45 or 46 members of the NFPA.

855 committee of those, a baker baker's dozen represented the industry.

They were solar, they were batteries, or there are power systems.

Where do their allegiances lie?

Is to make sure that more of these can get in.

And again, there's a balance.

What is that proper balance?

So you heard me.

I will support 400 feet away from the sensitive uses because I think we can manage that.

But I believe that a thousand feet from houses is the right thing to do.

And if we find out that there's been more studies or tests, safer batteries, we can always bring that back down.

But once we say it's 400 feet, we've just given them the right to do 400 feet, period.

Can't change it, can't go back.

Oops, made a mistake.

Let's make it a thousand.

Let's make it 1500.

Their rights are in that property.

So if we're gonna take these 7A to 7D as one motion, I will oppose all four.

Uh however, I will support 7A and 7B, right?

Alone, because those are a thousand feet.

So if we took them at two separate motions, I'm open to that.

But again, whatever council decides, this is only introduction.

We can have another argument uh next week.

In a week.

So I've asked for a motion to move all four forward if there's someone to make a motion.

If not, we'll move differently.

Thank you, Miss Gold.

I'll second the motion.

I'll call for a vote.

Please cast your vote.

Okay.

Motion does not pass.

All right, is there another motion?

I'll make a motion to approve 7A and 7B for introduction.

Is that right?

Okay.

There's a motion to 7A and 7B.

Thank you, Mr.

Summers.

Ms.

Taylor, please cast your vote.

The eyes have it.

Thank you.

All right.

We'll move forward with that.

Mayor and council, do you want to do a vote of 7C and 7D, or do you not want to do that?

You don't have to.

Would someone like to make a motion for seven uh C and D.

I think we've had uh a conversation on it.

So I think we're gonna have to appear.

Okay.

All right, thank you for your votes.

Uh next we'll move forward to item 9A.

Uh we have a blue card here.

Umah James.

You want to come forward and speak?

You have three minutes, Noah.

Uh that was a lengthy conversation, Mesa.

You guys complain a lot here.

Aloha mayor and to the rest of the city council.

I would like to talk about 9A and 10A.

Can I do that now?

It's okay, right?

Let's do 9A.

Well, what if I want to do both?

Why don't you talk on 9A?

Because we're gonna make uh have to vote on it.

Okay.

Middle housing is desperately needed and Mesa, so you guys need to build more here.

Because I can hear a lot of this complaining right now here at Mesa.

I'm saying sorry, is we are we talking about 9A or 8A?

We're off to we're off the item.

No, a 9A is uh adoption of the title capacity fee for wastewater, water and wastewater.

Oh yes, okay, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Um is that what you wish to speak on?

The water utility.

Right?

Is that the one?

It's a water and wastewater capacity fee.

Yes.

Yes, I got it.

Um yeah, I would like to talk about the water and how the drought does affect Arizona.

And people that don't think we have a lot of water or yeah.

I don't know, like I don't know what you guys are looking at.

Um because we don't have a lot of water.

Um but we need to do better if we think that God is real, um, because Arizona just we we have to wait for God to come back to save us.

Um because there's gonna be no more water here.

So um, yeah, Mahalo and thank you for listening to me tonight.

All right, thank you, Noah.

I don't think or not yet.

Okay.

Say that again.

Do I talk about 9A or 10A, whatever it is?

I'll call you back up for that.

Thank you.

All right, council, is there a motion to approve item 9A?

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Gilfort.

Second, Mr.

Summers, please cast your vote.

Motion passes.

Thank you.

Uh next is item 10.

And we've got quite a few blue blue cars on our utilities, but uh before we do, we'll have uh Brian Ritchill.

Brian, you want to come up and give us an overview of our utility rate increases, why we are making the recommendations.

Good evening, Mayor and Council Brian Richel, director of Office of Management and Budget for the City.

Here I'd like to do a pre uh brief presentation on the main focuses uh that were discussed throughout this rate uh setting process.

So there are four of them.

One the first one is equity between residential and non-residential rates.

So previously discussed as we uh discuss is that with between the residential rates and the commercial rates, that revenues being brought into the utility fund were higher throughout the residential than the commercial, but the commercial was using is consuming more of the water.

And so what we want to do is bring that equity into focus.

Also, as we discuss growth pace for growth, so the council just passed the capacity fee, but also we wanted to take a look at um the rates for commercial and also residential with that in uh in focus because with the growth pace for growth, what that does is it takes some of the uh it takes the burden of capital projects off of residential and puts it onto the commercial side.

And then also what we focus on was conservation of discretionary water use, and the fourth one was smooth rates adjustments throughout the forecast.

So I wanted to show here is back in August, uh staff presented to the audit and finance committee, and the impact to the typical customer that we presented was a uh five and a half percent uh increase to the typical customer for residential when we went to the audit and finance, and then multi-unit was eight and a half percent or eight point six percent with commercial 7.7, and then landscape was 12.1.

The audit and finance committee recommended that we move uh the equity up a little bit, but then also low uh adjust some of the other rates.

So when we came back to council with the capacity fee, also what we recommend was a 4.2 percent increase for the typical customer, and then also the multi-unit was 8.7, slightly above, but we're trying to get the multi-unit equal to the residential, and then also general uh the commercial general and then general landscape uh was a little bit lower due to the capacity fee um on those rates, but we were also focusing on the commercial landscape.

So with that discussion, council asked if we could lower the residential and put more burden on the commercial, and so what we did is we came back with the residential and multi-unit with a two and a half percent.

And so with that lowered uh also putting the burden on the commercial, and what we're trying to do is what I mentioned before is get that equity in line a little bit sooner.

Council asked that we can move it from I believe it was fiscal year 2728 up to 2627, so move it up a year.

So with that, we're able to do that with these with these rates, and as you see, it's uh about a so typical customer for water is about uh just over a dollar uh per month, so that's about 12 dollars per year for residential, and then a dollar three dollar three for the multi-unit.

With that, what I wanted to show here is that with those rates, uh we the utility fund is projected for 2526, the year we're in, still has a negative net sources and uses projected of about almost 29 million dollars.

So what that means is that the revenue annualized revenue that these rates will be bringing in still less than the expenses that the utility fund is uh is having for the increased costs of chemicals, water, and operations and maintenance of the system.

Here, what I wanted to show you is one of our principles is smooth rates uh throughout the forecast.

And as you see Mesa up on top uh with the water, we're consistently three, four, and then two and a half.

We lowered it to two and a half, but we're trying to do every year incremental increases to be able to sustain our system.

As you see, why we do that is some of the our neighboring municipalities, for instance Chandler and Gilbert, what they would do is one year they would do a seven percent, for instance, in Chandler.

They wouldn't have to do one, but then they came back and did a 15%.

And that is because you lose that compounding of the growth and the revenue coming in from those increases to sustain that.

So what happens is now you have to increase it even more that following year to catch up.

And same with Gilbert, they went from 48%, then 25 and 25 because the previous 10 years they didn't do a rate increase at all.

And then same with over on wastewater.

Uh Gilbert, they did zeros, but then they had to do a 55%, and then they're doing a zero, so the following year, they may have to do another uh significant increase.

And same with Chandler.

They had an eight percent, then a zero, but now they're back up to 15% to be able to catch up and be able to do their uh maintenance on their systems.

So moving to solid waste, similar, we try to do a forecast, a smooth forecast as you see some of the other ones.

Gilbert did a 44%, did a zero, but then they decided they had to do another two percent to catch up.

And then with Mesa with the natural gas and electric, we benchmark ourselves to the private companies, so Southwest Gas.

Um, we tried to keep ours consistent throughout.

They did a zero, now a eight point nine, but then a zero.

So the following year, uh they may need to do another increase to be able to catch up.

Also, same with electric uh with SRP and APS.

Uh they are able, they had did a significant increase of eight percent.

We're sitting at 2.1 for 2324, 1.9 for 2425, and then 1.7, where the private companies are eights and 14 percents.

So with that, I just want to give uh um our next steps.

So should council um adopt or approve these rate adjustments, the next steps for December 8th.

Would council take action on a notice of intent for the additional increases that were above the notice of intent uh that were adopted.

So for instance, with the commercial, the notice of intent had the 13 percent.

However, throughout this process, uh it was raised up to 20 percent, so that seven percent would be coming back on December 8th for notice with an introduction on January 26th.

Uh council would take action on the water rates on February 9th and a implementation date of April 1st for the non-residential rates.

Thank you, Brian's.

All right, council.

Any questions for Brian while he's here?

If not, I will go to the blue cards.

So items 10A through 10E involve fees and charges for electric natural gas, water, wastewater, and solid waste utility services.

I will call first call the public hearing on all these items, and then we can vote on the items individually.

Uh first uh Linda Patrick Hayes uh is opposed, but she wishes not to speak.

Uh next up is Mr.

Carrie Davis, uh followed by Noah James.

Mr.

Davis, welcome.

Good evening, Mayor and City Council.

My name's Carrie Davis.

I'm here to oppose the rate increases on page four of the council report, it reads review of the general fund contribution.

The utility fund contribution to the general fund is calculated based off of 30% of each utility gross operating revenues.

The amount of the transfer throughout the forecast period is adjusted based on the gross operating revenue forecast.

The adjustment for fiscal year 2025 through 2026 is projected to increase uh to an increase of 9.4 million, increasing from 137.8 million to 147.2 million.

My uh opposition to the rate increases because of that 9.4 million.

I would recommend that the city uh adopt a rate increase that would exclude that 9.4 million and leave the transfer from the utility funds to the general fund at the prior year of 137.8 million.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Davis.

Uh Noah James.

Now you can speak on 10A.

Uh after that is a hard point.

But um, yeah, I mean, this is a good topic we're talking about.

And um, yeah, I mean, we need more electricity.

Um, here in Arizona, especially Mesa.

Um, and yeah, God is watching us.

So thank you.

Thank you, Noah.

Uh, Mark Kimball.

And after Mr.

Kimball is Reed Gotchuk.

Welcome, Mark.

Mayor Freeman, City Council.

My name is Mark Kimball.

Uh, lifelong resident of Mesa.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak briefly this evening, and I would also like to speak against the utility increases.

Um Mr.

Davis is extremely uh talented with numbers, and I don't pretend to speak to the details as he does, but uh I can share a couple of things.

I remember boy, how time flies.

It was just a about a year ago, we were here talking about the same thing utility rate increases.

For those that were there, it was in the old chambers, and it was a packed house.

And uh this is a dull meeting compared to that one.

I'm like, well, where's all the ones that showed up then that aren't here now?

Could it be because uh it won't do any good?

We got shut out.

I don't know.

But I do know that there are people, as was expressed in that meeting that just one after another, 10 many, many people speaking.

How uh we're barely making as it is.

You know, this is where do we find another 20, 30 dollars to uh make this you know this increase.

So it's very important.

I would like to congratulate Doreen Taylor uh as part of the council now, and I'll tie this together.

There were some that thought that the recall was a bad thing for Mesa.

In fact, Councilman Adams expressed that concern.

Uh my belief is the system works.

We saw a display of political correctness in action, and it was a grassroots effort, and sure it's a difficult thing, but I can tell you that it restored faith in a lot of people, residents of Mesa that you know what, we have a say, and I'm tying that into the utility increases.

They want to know they have a say.

And here's the problem.

You have an elected official that starts thinking that they know better for the people than the people do for themselves.

That's where you have a concern, and that's what happened.

And so I just I hope that our uh council can really listen to their constituents and their basic needs from that standpoint.

We appreciate the efforts you make.

There's a lot of work that goes into it.

I acknowledge that.

There was urging, hey, can we delay this vote, just delay it to see if there's options that can lower this utility increase.

And the decision was no, we're we're not going to delay, we're not going to even try from that standpoint.

I would urge this decision be delayed to see if there's any possible options.

Listen to what Kerry Davis said.

I highly recommend that.

And so we hope that you know the residents of Mesa can look and go, hey, this city council, they're listening, they care.

So appreciate you, and uh, I'll end my comments.

Thank you, Mr.

Kimball.

Uh Reed, if you'll come up.

Reed, and then follow that is uh Mark Hensaker.

Uh good evening, Mayor, Council members.

My name is Reed Gottschuk.

And I've been a resident of Mesa for a little over five years.

I'm here today to respectfully voice my opposition to the proposed utility rate increases under agenda item 10a.

When my family and I moved to Mesa, one of the biggest draws was that the cost of living and especially our utility rates were reasonable, predictable, and within the realm of common sense.

In just a few short years, that reality has changed dramatically.

What used to be manageable is now becoming truly difficult for working families to absorb.

And for many of us, it feels like these increases are happening faster than anyone can adjust.

My wife and I are raising two young children, one and four years old.

And like many parents in Mesa, we're doing everything we can to set them up for a better future than we had.

Mesa should remain a place where young families can afford to build a life, not a place where utility bills increasingly threaten their ability to stay afloat.

I'm not opposed to infrastructure investment or necessary improvements, but before asking residents to pay more, we deserve full transparency about where these additional dollars are going.

Sorry, I lost my place.

How they will be used and what measurable benefit rate payers will receive in return.

Right now, we haven't seen that level of clarity.

Until we do, I believe our rates should remain exactly where they are.

A rate increase of any size, large or small, may seem incremental from the outside, but for families budgeting down to the dollar each month, it is real money that impacts groceries, child care, transportation, and basic quality of life.

These decisions compound over time.

And they should shape whether Mesa remains the family-friendly, affordable community that attracted so many of us in the first place.

Or at least at the very least, if postpone approval until the public receives transparent detailed justifications for her for every cent of this proposed increase.

Thank you for your time and for your service to our city.

Thank you, Reed.

Mr.

Hunsaker, followed by Nathan Scott is on deck.

Thank you, uh Mayor and Council people here for the chance to speak to you tonight briefly.

Uh apologize a little impromptu, so I I asked for a little lenience on the lack of polish of my comments.

I won't be speaking much in the details of numbers or anything like that tonight, but more in the broad scope of an end user of many years of a citizen of Mesa.

My wife and I um have lived in Mesa for over 30 years.

Uh my wife's a longtime uh multi-generational resident of Mesa as well.

Um we've always loved Mesa.

We've we've appreciated Mesa and wouldn't trade it for anything.

Um but what I do see and what I want to comment on tonight is the the trend um that I see in dealing with Mesa, the city of Mesa and different departments.

Um as an end user um of your services.

Um perspectives I wanted to talk about tonight is just the fact of the the tile on the screen.

I can't see it, so I tried to type it in really quickly, but it talks about the adoption of uh let me see if I can find it here real quickly.

Uh terms, rates, fees, and charges.

Uh I thought this was just about the rates for the utilities that we're talking about here.

Um, but as with our utilities um and other services, as I said for Mesa, I've seen trends of additives, additions of different uh fees and charges that are added on to that.

And I see that as a lack of planning, a lack of true management of our facilities and our services, our programs.

Um I think if anything we've seen over the last year um or so, uh citizens of different uh municipalities, the state, the the federal government, uh, are wanting more accountability, more transparency in the money that is spent and where our tax dollars go.

Um we see bloated um governments, um unvetted spending, irresponsible spending at times, many times.

And I think um, as we've seen uh in our federal government and as uh one of the other speakers talked about just recently, a recall of one of the council members for what we saw as not being um representative of its constituency.

So um I would ask, you know, that to the city council look a little bit further um at whether these are all necessary.

Um I know they'll be recommended as necessary, that's just the typical.

Um, but uh I've never seen a government department not recommend any more money.

I've never very rarely, if at all, ever see one say, look, we can reduce our budget this year.

We don't need any increases.

Um, but I would ask uh maybe a continuance or something that perhaps a little bit deeper study onto these rates to see if they're absolutely necessary.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Mark.

Uh next, Nathan Scott.

After which uh Nancy Thompson.

Thank you, Nathan.

Hi, thank you, council members, for your time.

And um I came from Michigan.

Uh I've been living here in Arizona for three years now.

And I live right off of East Brown Road and North uh North Mesa Drive.

And I came here uh being promised that Mesa would be the most affordable area in Arizona, and unfortunately it's turning out not to be uh like that.

Um about as expensive as tempe now, and the utilities there doesn't seem to be any end in sight as far as these utility rate increases.

Um I'm blessed in that I work uh within financial services, but I know a number of people my age who are just living paycheck to paycheck, and they are not doing well.

Um I mean on one hand I am thankful that City of Mesa, the utilities is kept public because there has been a record uh profit from utility rate increases in the first half of 2025 alone by over 29 billion dollars, and the utility increases on average have been twice that of inflation rate.

Um, but the problem I'm encountering is that I'm having friends who have to move out of Mesa and have to move out of Arizona altogether because they unfortunately cannot afford all this increased cost of living.

Um furthermore, uh from a small business perspective, increasing the cost of utilities will increase the end cost to the customer.

And I would argue that this will stifle economic growth.

Um the other thing too is there's people, you know, there's young families, and sadly, they a lot of them aren't even able to afford a house, and then there are a good number that they're just struggling to make it, you know.

Um, and I would argue that increased transparency, and at the minimum, a delay of rate increases, and perhaps looking into restructuring and streamlining the city of Mesa's utilities.

I would argue that streamlining and perhaps restructuring in such a way as to uh mitigate the amount of people required may help delay any need for increases.

Thank you.

Thank you, Nathan.

Uh Ms.

Thompson, followed by Leslie Wilson.

You've been on the front row all night.

Yeah, so no one had to wait until I walked up here.

I'm in uh Washington Escabito neighborhood, just to the north, and we've been Macy utility uh customers about 25 years, and I learned about public input from our quality of life plan.

So I'm just adding my two cents.

I'm not saying it's correct or complete.

I'm not sure.

This is just you know what I think.

But um, like to start off, I like that um the extra.

I didn't know this before this year, but the extra money goes to that um general operating fund, because I think in public utilities, it goes to some person's pocket to make them very wealthy.

But um, I kinda I'm a little worried because West Mesa's the main area of the utilities, which is I think historically lower income.

And like our older homes, we need to we need to put like an AC on, you know, a new AC for older homes.

So we're doing things like that that take money in order to use the utilities.

So I'm not sure if it's fair that I'm not just paying for utilities, but I'm paying for like the whole rest of Mesa too to have services.

Although, you know, so it's like good and bad.

That's just what I just want to, I think it's good for you to know that.

I'm thinking what I'm thinking.

So maybe it's like an information issue of wrapping your head around all that.

And um, hold on, now I my page is gone.

Okay, so and then um, as far as like the past vote, because I watched the video on the website where it was voted that people didn't want the um, you know, the property tax, they wanted to keep it the money that goes into the fund from the utility company.

But it's like it are we not outnumbered because if we if that vote, there's so many other people that are not on Mesa utilities to be like, yeah, no, we don't want personal property tax, we want it to come from there.

Well, that's like we're like the small people, we would be outnumbered to voting to say no, it's more fair if we have the property tax.

We'd never win, like on that vote.

I feel like the voting would be like a stacked vote on that.

But um, so I think I had one more point.

Um, and then since most of West Mesa is also like the older population, would that be considered like a form of gentrification to raise you know that we are carrying that burden?

But I do appreciate the man who showed this that you reduced the percentage to like five percent down to two percent.

Like, I'm impressed with that.

I'm really happy about that.

And um the the main thing is the um money, not just based on utility need, but on that general operating fund that we're contributing to.

Even though it's better than making someone wealthy, I'd rather help my neighbors.

That was like the main thing, and then leave it open to maybe in the future, maybe we'll find another way to have revenue, like take all the dead palm leaves and make bamboo flooring, but palm leaf floor, like it.

I don't know, but that's part of how it is, you know.

Keep keep doing that, and we'll find another way too to get more revenue.

Well, thank you for sharing the comments.

Uh Leslie Wilson, followed by Bradley and Baton Court.

Good evening.

Thank you for this opportunity.

Um, my name is Leslie Wilson, and I'm a Mesa resident as well as a precinct committee man.

I'm here this evening to represent not only my own household, but also those in my precinct.

Um, we're asking all you council members to please vote no on this rate hike.

Um last year our rates were raised under the guise that the infrastructure facilities needed to prepare and updating.

Um several people have mentioned that there were a lot of us here begging you to please vote no, and it was a unanimous vote yes.

Um after the 31 million dollars in additional revenue that was raised, you moved 16 million of it, um, our money over to the general fund to then pay for the Chicago Cubs locker room and batting cage.

Um, so here we are again, and this is becoming an annual event, it seems.

Um in the past, uh public comment has felt like nothing more than process, especially for those of us in District 2.

Um, our former representative would sit up front, seeming to not care that the will of her residents was a resounding no for increases, and honestly, we're fed up with the disregard.

We're fed up with the good old boys' club and the backdoor deals.

We made that loud and clear by replacing our representative with Mrs.

Taylor.

Um, we do not want this rate hike, which is truly nothing more than a new tax.

So this evening, please vote no.

Thank you.

Thank you, Leslie.

Uh Bradley, and then followed by uh Mary Mabino.

Good evening, Mayor and City Council.

I'm Brad Bitoncourt.

I'm currently the president of Dobson Ranch in District 3.

We have several members of the board here tonight, and I made it known to our residents that the board would be here for this important discussion.

I'd like to start by thanking the city of Mesa for our more than 50 year relationship, and also thank Mayor Freeman and City Councilman Eratia, who's not here tonight for what I believe has been a positive relationship so far.

Well, I may have marked no on my card that I oppose this.

I'm going to go about this a little bit differently.

I'm not here to say you can never raise rates.

However, I would like to be sure that the city of Mesa is spending our money efficiently and has its priorities in the right place, especially when raising our rates.

There are some expenses that I've questioned in the past.

For example, in district three, there was a 16 million dollar trolley car study done recently.

I understand that was not a unanimous vote, and I'm not going to dive into who voted which way.

However, I do hope that projects focused on things like necessary infrastructure and overall public safety do not fall by the wayside while the focus is on projects that are less critical.

I will also notate that increasing commercial rates does hit the residents of HOAs as an increase in assessments.

So raising commercial rates instead of residential rates doesn't necessarily protect our residential homeowners from those increases.

Rest assured that our board of directors will stay well informed of the goings on in District 3, and we'll send news about it to our residents when necessary.

And our residents are just an email or social media post away when we need to deliver news to them, whether that's good news or bad news.

Thank you for the time.

Thank you, Bradley.

Uh Mary.

Good evening again.

Mary Mabineau, I live in District 5.

250 years ago in America, there were no income taxes, no corporate taxes, and no payroll taxes.

The revolutionary war started because the 13 American colonies felt that the T tax of five, excuse me, felt that the T tax of three pennies per pound of tea was the last straw on top of their other grievances.

Today, we are taxed on our payroll, things we buy, property taxes, Fed, state, and city taxes, and pay ever increasing utility rates.

More and more people are unable to meet higher and higher expenses with their homes.

The reason I say this is obviously we're not going to start a revolutionary war.

But after last year, when you completely disregarded all of Mesa's residents who spoke against the utility rate increase at that time, you awakened a sleeping giant.

Prior to the prior to last year, very few people attended city council meetings.

We are now respectfully talking, thinking, and debating at the local level.

And this two and a half percent was much lower than the staff proposal.

Not the best, but better than the original proposal.

I still encourage a no vote and encourage keeping the current fund transfer at its current level with no increase.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mary.

Uh that's all the blue cards I have tonight, uh, Ms.

Mosley.

Uh do you have anything else?

I have my cards for this item, Mayor.

Okay.

All right.

Next is council members.

Uh I'm sure we all have something to address uh our utility rate increases.

Who'd like to start first?

Mr.

Adams.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um well, I have a I have a few things I'd like to comment on.

Um I would start by by saying that for this council member, the safe vote would be no.

Seriously considered it.

Still thinking about it.

But as the last speaker mentioned at a study session uh a couple weeks ago now, I think I I decided to propose a zero increase to the residential payer.

And you know, personally, I I get it.

15, 20, 25 dollars, that's a tank of gas to a lot of people.

I get that.

I appreciate it, I understand it.

Um what what that discussion, and I'm not gonna take sole credit for that discussion because other council members chimed in, but what that discussion resulted in was not just the staff proposal, but the two and a half to residential.

And that that pushed that increase down to commercial users, and they're not happy about that either.

Nobody nobody wants to pay more.

I get that, I don't.

But there's there's a little more at play here, I think.

So what we have now at two and a half to residential payers, I I'm gonna call that a compromise.

Other good discussions have come out of that, like why do we consider the utility rates separate of the general budget?

Where does that 30 percent come from?

Um that's a good discussion to have.

And personally, this council member feels like I can't make an intelligent decision on 30 percent.

Is it 30?

Should it be 28.2?

What should it be unless it's considered in the overall global budget?

And I think there's movement among some to consider that.

You don't you don't turn a battleship on a dime.

These are procedures and policies and and means and ways that have been place for a long time.

And I think the conversation has begun to take a look at these things.

Um I think it's a positive move.

It's two and a half, it's not what was proposed.

Is it perfect?

No, but it's better.

Um so then I I find myself, how do I propose a how do I propose a compromise and then not support it?

Where does that take us?

It's it's it's a it's a confusing.

I do want to address something that I heard a little while ago.

Uh and and there have been some comments made about irresponsible spending.

Let's talk about that Cubs 16 million dollars.

That was a contractual obligation of this city done by councils ago.

I asked Mr.

Smith, the city attorney.

What would happen if we just said we're not gonna pay it?

Well, they'd have sued us.

We were in breach of contract.

That wasn't some capricious, let's spend 16 million bucks on a new facility for the for the Cubs.

We had to pay it.

We were obligated under contract to pay it.

If I'd have had the opportunity, I'd have voted no.

But but let's be clear on that.

That wasn't some capricious deal that we just decided to throw the Chicago Cubs 16 million dollars of your money.

We had to pay that.

Um personally, I think uh I think this is a move in the right direction.

You don't change things overnight.

Um I I think we should talk about the revenue transfer.

Let's look at it in the global sense of the budget.

Um the capacity fee, huge help here.

That's another move in the right direction.

So, you know, as I as I sit here weighing this, the the safe, easy vote is no.

I reason the reason I brought up the compromise that's on the table right now is in my estimation the proposal of higher rate that would have passed.

So what?

I throw away a no vote.

I didn't change anything.

At least we have something better.

That that's that's my personal view on this.

Um I think we are moving the right direction.

I hear you.

I think everybody up here hears you.

But but things need to be done in a reasonable order, considering all of the all of the implications of what do we what would we decide that 30% should be based on what?

I like to I like to do business based on facts, figures, and uh let's look at what is essential and what is not.

So um that's um I just want to be really clear on how we got to where we are with this two and a half.

I asked for zero.

We got two and a half instead of what five something.

So anyway, those are those are my comments, Mira.

Thank you very much.

All right, thank you, Mr.

Adams.

Ms.

Taylor, would you like to weigh in?

Does anyone else want to weigh in first?

I'll wait to go last if they do.

You have the microphone.

Okay.

So obviously, this is my origin story.

Um I wasn't available to weigh in as much in the water discussion because I wasn't an elected councilwoman.

And uh I would agree with some of what Rich has said, and I'm grateful that you proposed um that compromise, Rich.

But originally, when we were discussing this and I was listening in the study sessions, I still can't disagree with the fact that we have a traditional method, and I think our traditional method is something that other cities look at and they say, hey, you're doing a really good job by slowly increasing the rates so that you're smoothing it over.

That was what I kept saying, smoothing it over.

And that's great.

But traditional methods are not always the best methods, and when you have uncomfortable change, it leaves areas of opportunity that you may not have recognized to be there.

So, for example, I was at a city council meeting, and what was proposed was taking the fluoride out of the water.

So I did a little bit of math, and I was like, how much does fluoride cost?

And I don't have an exact cost per person for the city of Mesa, but the average was around 37 to 40 cents per person in a city.

So I just took 520,000 people and I added 40 cents per person, and that gave me approximately 280,000.

So does that mean that if we removed just fluoride from our water, we could potentially save 280,000 and reallocate that towards our water rates so that we're leveraging that?

I I don't know, it's just something I thought of.

Um Rich, you actually propose more creative ideas, like looking outside of the scope of just cutting specific programs, but looking at the budget holistically and saying, where can we leverage better so that we offset the cost to the residents and to the businesses?

Because I would agree.

We keep seeing our utility rates go up, and that is very expensive for certain people.

I was told it was gonna be $5.41.

It was not $5.41.

My household water went up about $54 a month.

Yeah.

We watched our meat, we turned off our water, we watched the meter, we tried to make sure that we didn't have any leaks, and we cut back our sprinklers.

Mind you, I have irrigation in my backyard.

And it was, I mean, we we got it down to around like 47 dollars a month.

That was my increase.

And so I started to think, I bet you other people had way more than five dollars and forty-one cents.

Sure enough, I had neighbors.

Their bill went up a hundred dollars a month.

That's 1,200 a year that that family now has to budget in to pay for just water.

I'm an absolute no on this vote.

I'm gonna stick with my origin story.

I'm gonna stick with the idea that we can be more creative.

Uh I think that I have a lot of um research to do in the budget around this, and those are meetings that I need to hold, but I'm staying true to my residents.

They ask I'm their voice, and I'm going to vote on their behalf because I'm also one of them.

And um, I appreciate the support.

Thank you to everybody who came who continues to come out here and support me.

Thank you.

And uh just to let you know, I hear you, I see you, and I will continue to represent you because that's my job.

So thank you.

Thank you, Miss Taylor.

Miss Goforth, Vice Mayor.

I appreciate that.

That's that's kind of crazy.

I I have a family of four, ours went up twelve dollars a month.

So it that seems that that's significant for sure for two people.

Um I appreciate uh Rich um proposing the zero because as he said, it sparked a conversation.

Um, and it sparked a compromise.

And I think that's what we're all looking for.

None of us want higher uh utility rates, none of us on the council.

I think I can speak for everybody in saying that.

We want to find ways to um negatively uh impact our residents as much as possible.

And so I think it's important to say we started at six percent, and we we found ways to get down to two and a half for residential.

And and and um that's important to note.

Um I I have some more remarks here, um, so bear with me.

I believe in Mesa's philosophy of smooth incremental adjustments to avoid the kind of sudden painful spikes that other cities are now facing.

I remain extremely sensitive to financial pressures our residents and small businesses already feel, and I take seriously any decision that impacts monthly bills.

But to maintain reliable and financially stable utility systems, we cannot ignore the cost realities and the growth impacts in front of us.

Gradual adjustments help us avoid unnecessary burdens by still allowing us to make smart, responsible, and frankly very hard choices that secure Mesa's long-term water future.

Since fiscal year 2017-2018, CPI has cumulatively increased more than 30 percent.

And during that same time period, our Mesa typical residential water rate adjustment have increased less than 17.

We've absorbed some of these rising costs.

Chemicals have doubled, the cost of what Colorado River water has doubled now at 350 acre, $50 per acre foot, and we are paying approximately 20 million dollars for raw water alone before any treatment or distribution.

This water serves more than half of our city.

Electricity, personnel, and the operating costs of the Valvista plant and the plant we share with Phoenix have all increased.

At the same time, we are funding major long-term investments that secure Mesa's water future.

These include the Central Mesa Reuse Pipeline, which expands our capacity and most importantly, allows us to change exchange our affluent water for reliable Colorado River water rights from the Hilo River Indian community at a significantly less cost.

We will pay $85 an acre foot instead of $350 an acre foot, which is what we're doing now for the water we we receive through this exchange.

That project alone positions us far better than most cities as river shortages continue.

We're also expanding our signal butte water treatment plant to meet growth and deploying smart motors, smart meters, excuse me, that help all of our customers catch leaks early.

Before proposing any rate adjustments, we worked, as we talked about aggressively to control costs.

We negotiated better pricing for natural gas.

We adjusted our debt payment policies to smooth payments.

We've deferred 180 million dollars in water capital projects, including water line replacements, new well drilling, and rehabilitation work at our Northwest water reclamation plant.

And we reinforced the principle that growth should pay for growth, proposing a capacity fee for new water users to the system.

We have prioritized tightening our belt before asking the public for anything.

A key part of this proposal is fairness and long-term equity.

And right now, residential customers pay a larger share of total revenue, even though they use less water than commercial users.

That imbalance is not sustainable.

This proposal proposal moves us toward a structure where the share of water used more closely matches the share of revenue contributed.

I want to be clear that the increase for commercial users is significant, and I do not take that lightly.

But most of our small businesses use less than six K galls of water, and the service charge alone gives them the first three K Gals.

That means the majority of our small businesses will not see dramatic impacts.

Adjusting commercial rates more quickly allows us to reduce the residential increase and move to parity within a quicker time period.

These decisions are never easy, but they are measured, responsible, and necessary to maintain the high quality, reliable utility systems our residents depend on.

We've done everything possible to reduce the internal costs, protect our ratepayers, and keep increases modest.

This proposal supports fairness today while safeguarding Mesa's wild water future.

And as as we heard we heard you all that these are impacting you.

Thank you, Miss Goforth.

Vice Mayor You you all heard earlier how I can pontificate, so I'm gonna try to keep this a little bit pithy.

Yeah, thank you for that.

Um first of all, thank you.

I Mr.

Butler, I think what you heard with a a couple of the questions that were brought up.

Where did this 15 million come from?

Where did the seven million come from?

I think that makes clear that what some folks have been asking for uh to become even you know, more transparent is absolutely essential.

So the the the Cub Stadium money as an example, not not only was that money contractual, that contract was part put in front of the voters back in 2010, 11 somewhere in that.

Now you can't possibly know every little detail of what's what you're voting for, but it was in front of the voters, and then it became a contract.

In addition, uh roughly seven and a half million of that money came from sales taxes generated on our tourism industry, and the remaining amount of that money came from monies we set aside in a general fund for that very specific purpose.

So there is a funding source of that.

People need to know this.

Um I voted against the transit uh study, but that was also that was federal, so that was federal monies that came or regional federal dollars, federal dollars that came in.

So now we can have that argument too.

Federal dollars are still tax dollars, and that's true, but it it didn't come from revenue transfer in from this fund.

When when this is 70 years, I believe that that this odd model of funding a city has happened, and in that time we've seen a lot of changes, and that's because all of you who showed up today and others before you have shown up to these council meetings and say, we we need to look at this again.

We need something different.

It used to be that the revenue funded the government, period, with no questions.

Whatever the council and city management wanted, that that's what it came to.

It wasn't that long ago, in the last maybe five or so years, that they capped it at 30 percent.

Not I don't think, well, I don't think most of us, if any of us were part of that conversation, but having that conversation again, is that the right number makes sense?

I've asked about maybe capping that number, not unlike what was was offered, maybe cap it at last year.

I did this a couple of years ago and say, can we use that money to bolster the the reserve fund?

And there were questions about that.

So continuing to answer these questions and have this conversation, particularly what was said, it's hard to have this conversation without talking about the budget.

Because that 30 percent, 25 of the 30 percent goes to public safety, and then five percent goes to the administration of those types of things.

So personnel, that type of thing.

If we want to hold harmless our public safety office, then this becomes a budget question.

If we're not gonna take it from public safety, if we're gonna hold them harmless using our our other revenue streams, then the budget question is where are we gonna make the cuts elsewhere, and what are the impacts of that?

So I was recently at the National League of Cities, so much for pithy, by the way.

I'm sorry, I'm just gonna pontificate.

We were recently at the at the National League of Cities, and I I ran into a vendor there, and I I think it was absolutely outstanding.

It was using AI to look at your community's priorities and apply that to the budget to say what's necessary, what's not.

And I've already had a conversation with the city manager about the potential for applying this here as moving forward about how we fund the city, what are the priorities of the community and cutting the waste that way.

So this conversation today, this might just be setting a utility rate, but the budget conversation that comes forward, probably starting in March, this is this has to be part of that.

So that's my two minutes of fame stretched into 10.

You got it.

Council's spoken about all the things that we've done, and I want to compliment our chair, our audit and finance chairman, Miss Gold, Mr.

Summersets on their vice mayor, Ms.

Aretta, and when staff, as you heard, made presentations, it was almost six percent for we're just discussing a residential uh utility rate increase.

And as we looked at some of the components that dries, we could drive it down.

One of them was the capacity growth fee.

We felt it was extremely necessary.

And I want you to know industry really pushed back on us developers about why you why you dinging development in the city of Mesa.

Well, we know that we have over 400 million dollars of infrastructure development over the next 10 years, and this capacity growth fee will allow us to recoup about 40 million dollars per year over the next 10 years.

And this capacity growth fee will allow us to recoup about 40 million dollars per year over the next 10 years.

That alleviates the tax burden or bonds for us as residents in our community.

And so I want to commend our audit and finance committee for doing that because they took it down to three and a half percent.

And then Mr.

Adams throws a grenade on the floor and says, hey, let's do zero percent.

Thank you, Mr.

Adams.

So then, you know, how do we compensate for that?

You know, unfortunately, the City of Mesa is a utility business.

And I've said this in the beginning, we're a full service city.

We provide every part of utility except electric in some parts.

And I want you to know we're the third lowest city as far as if you're leaving the city mesa, you we're the third lowest city out of all the rankings in the community.

We have a chart for that.

The other part was transparency.

We we had a council meeting where we talked about the Cubs.

Mr.

Hirschberg came up and talked about the Cubs and the funding of that.

And so just to help everybody understand that this was contractually done over 10 years ago.

We had no input in that.

However, we believe in the Cubs and the Oakland A's that they provide an economic impact to our city, and the very few cities have two professional teams in our city.

Someone uh I think Mr.

Hunsaker talked about rakes, rates, fees, and charges, and and how that operates.

We have four different utilities, they have different rates, they have different charges and fees.

If you get uh solid waste pickup, well, there's a fee to that, and you know, for our blueberrels.

So, with all that said, we are very conscious of what we are doing.

In fact, if you've if you listen, that right now we are putting in 28,905,000 to offset any utility rate increase in our utilities.

That's how committed we are.

Yeah, we have a reserve fund, and so we're taking that reserve fund and we're leveraging that money, and over the course of the next not only this year, but the following two years, that we can get up to into the black and all of our utilities.

So please bear with us as a conversation that we'll have, but we have the monies to offset these increases.

We've done due diligence in all that we can do, and and I feel it's important that we move forward with a smooth rate increase.

Uh I talked to a neighboring mayor, and he said to me, I wish we were doing what Mesa was doing, a smooth increase, because we have a significant increase that's going to impact our residential, commercial, and industrial users.

And uh it would have been a higher increase, however, he didn't want to impact his industrial user very high.

Uh with that, that's all the comments that I have.

Uh council members, is there any other issues you want to address?

If not, I will declare the public hearing closed.

Okay, with that, I'm gonna take each uh ordinance uh individually.

Council, is there a motion and second to approve item 10A related to electric utility fees?

Push your button, sir.

Thank you.

Motion by Vice Mayor, second by Mr.

Adams.

Please cast your vote.

Uh passes.

Thank you.

Um is there a council motion and second to approve item 10 B related to natural gas utility fees?

Thank you, Miss Goldforth.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

Please cast your vote.

Mr.

Adams, all right.

Motion passes.

Thank you, Council.

Council, is there a motion a second to approve item 10 C related to water utility fees?

Please make a motion.

Thank you, Mr.

Adams.

Thank you, Vice Mayor, please cast your vote.

Okay, motion passes.

Council, is there a motion a second to approve item 10 D related to wastewater utility fees?

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

Mr.

Adams, please cast your vote.

Thank you.

Motion passes.

And council is a motion a second to approve item 10E related to solid waste utility fees.

Thank you, Miss Goforth.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

Please cast your vote.

Okay.

Those motions passed.

I want to thank everyone who made comments this evening.

It's very important.

With that, we're gonna move over to item 11, and that's from citizens present.

We allow up to three speakers and three minutes to speak.

And because the topics speakers raise are not on our agenda, uh, generally prevents counsel from responding to the speaker.

However, oftentimes we will get more information to respond back with you.

With that, our first speaker is uh Reggie Braun.

Is Reggie still here?

Thank you, Reggie.

Please come forward.

And after Reggie is Elizabeth Elizabeth Lee.

Thank you, Reggie.

I thanks for hold on.

This is gonna go quick.

All this information is available by QR code and all the bibliographies available.

Professional work involves statistical analysis.

I look for systemic risks in large organizations.

I've analyzed the proposed 287G, compared to cost of liability against the ROI, and I find that this is a toxic asset to the city of Mesa.

To be clear, this is for the people who are still considering the task force as a viable option.

It offers zero revenue, unlimited liability, and operational sabotage.

Now, Mesa PD is currently meeting elite standards.

Over the past year, Mesa PD documented 1.3 million dispatch events.

They are working harder and smarter than ever before.

Our priority one response time for life-threatening emergencies averages 4.5 minutes.

And Mesa invested 36 million in new funding to protect that speed.

ICE turn would turn a 20-minute traffic stop into a two-hour federal detention process.

Every hour an officer spends processing I-247s is an hour they are not patrolling our streets or monitoring the real-time crime center.

Cannot mon we cannot maintain a four-point minute response time if our patrol officers are tied up doing secretarial work for the federal government.

The irony is that we don't need this help.

Mesa is wanting to fight against crime.

Look at our trends.

Homicides are down 55% year to date.

Robberies are down 25%.

An agreement disrupts that momentum.

It reduces federal inefficiency into a local system that is already reducing crime at record rates.

Some people here are saying ICE makes them more safe.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

While ICE is increasing the volume of civil arrests, the actual criminal convictions is proportionally lower.

More enforcement actions with more liability and fewer convictions, poor ROI.

ICE's mission is to detain and deport, not police crimes.

They do not patrol streets looking for general crime, speeding, theft, assault.

ICE profile specific individuals and ignores the rest.

Unlike Mesa PD, ICE agents do not have the authority to enforce state laws like Arizona's sexual assault statutes.

Their jurisdiction is federal and focused on detaining and deporting.

Regarding crimes, their powers are literally a citizen's arrest.

Or acting good Samaritan principles until police arrived.

287G is a distraction and resource mallocation, misallocation.

Criminals would be emboldened to commit more crimes, knowing that Mesa PD is occupied with ice distractions.

Now, unfortunately, according to 2024 data, Mesa's clearance rate for sexual assault is approximately 12%.

That means nearly 90% of sexual assaults go unsolved.

Statistically, sexual assault victims are overwhelmingly females of all ages.

Officers should be testing rape kits and solving violent crimes, not doing secretarial government paperwork.

Prioritizing 287G over unsolved sexual assault is a failure of our duty to the women of Mesa.

Everyone here's talking about budgets.

Currently, Mesa has 760 million dollars in unfunded pension liabilities.

We already in a hole.

This is the president from this is our president from AZLE founded in 2019.

MCSO was booted from the 287G program and fined 314 million dollars.

Taxpayers still bear that 314 million dollar burden.

99% of municipalities have rejected task force models.

Because these liabilities risk erosion of public trust, and of course, taxpayers.

Calculating the cost for wrongful detainer lawsuits is 145,000.

Taken recent LA lawsuits and proportionally applying them.

Expected ICE operations give an average of 10 payments, the projected liability, $14 million to Mesa.

Reggie, will you summarize your comments, please?

Yes, sir.

Taxpayer burdens, as we're all speaking of right now, costs are high.

Bringing an unregulated, limitless liability to Mesa is not only fiscally inappropriate, but a danger to our community.

Please be clear about what I said last time.

Or your flock, you are a shepherds.

Please protect your flock.

Thank you.

Uh Elizabeth.

Following that will be uh Elizabeth Noah James.

Mayor, Council members, thank you so much for the opportunity to speak to you.

My name is Elizabeth Lee.

I've been a longtime resident uh and nurse here in the East Valley.

Um and while I do reside in Gilbert, I'm running for public office, of which the district includes part of Mesa.

And so after some extensive conversations and concern from citizens, I wanted to make our collective voice heard on 287G, and I certainly can't speak with the professionalism of the gentleman behind me, so I'll speak to it from a higher level.

In practice, um what especially under now what seems to be a disregard for federal or the federal level for immigration law.

We have created with this 287G agreement, which is really only a part of the bigger problem, but we've created a situation where, especially on top of the remains of 1070 that require our officers to screen folks that have a reasonable suspicion of being undocumented, that unfortunately is so often tied to appearance to language to neighborhoods.

Um, and because statutes are forcing information sharing with ICE, even when the underlying issue is a traffic stop or a civil civil matter.

Um, the data here shows the consequences.

So since October 1st, 73% of people detained by ICE from our community have no criminal conviction.

And the specific Mesa specific data that that you guys publish shows that a small fraction of the arrests are truly 287G arrests.

So I agree uh that unconditionally that 287 ending that is necessary, but on top of that, when you combine the remnants of SB 1070, um, the federal information sharing rules, um, families are quickly learning that it's not safe to call Mesa PD for help because they don't feel that they will be kept safe even if when they have no criminal conduct.

So you guys obviously can't change federal law tonight, but what you can commit to is something I've heard you all talk about quite a bit tonight.

It's been very impressive, and that is transparency, right?

So let's publish the stop data.

Let's publish the ICE referrals, let's publish detainer outcomes, right?

The question here seems pretty simple.

Does Mesa police do we want Mesa police to be feared as an extension of ICE and to be a distraction from our good Mesa Pete's good policing efforts to keep our neighborhoods safe?

Um, or do we want to back local policies that are gonna keep those profiling incidents alive?

So thank you for the opportunity to share with you the community's concerns.

Thank you, Elizabeth.

Uh Noah, would you come up?

This is your third time, Noah.

That's a record.

Yeah.

You did pretty well on the agenda.

Yeah, I'm enjoying my time up here today.

Um mayor and to the rest of the city council.

Once again, I love being up here.

Um, and congratulations to the new city council member.

I don't agree with a lot of things you say.

Um because you're a MAGA base and you didn't follow the rules to this um doing the process.

So um, yeah, I'm I don't like that.

But so let's look at this.

How much confusion here Mesa, right here in the center city council.

There's a huge Mormon temple and more Mormon churches, about 28 and 29 is included, including the Mormon temple.

So it's 443,000 to 450 members here in Arizona.

And did you know that the Book of Mormon is not real and is not in the Bible?

So let's stop building these churches.

That's one confusion.

And the other is this what is crazy.

They have about estimate made it 2.4 million Catholics in Arizona.

And did you know that a small per percentage back in the day, there was a group with the Catholics that liked Hitler and followed him.

So we can't have any more of this in Mesa, Arizona either.

So I asked that Mesa Pity gets rid of ICE agreement here in Mesa.

And also I will agree on this.

The Fiesta Mall is a good process, uh a good project that we're bringing here.

And yes, we should bring the MLS here.

Yes, because we need it.

Because there's a lot of people complaining, and no, no, no.

We need more entertainment here.

And about Tempe, I know I heard something about Tempe.

Don't come to Tempe if you're gonna complain about it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Noah.

Uh, with that, Miss Mosley, is there anything I missed this evening?

Nothing else, Mayor.

Okay.

Well, council will entertain a motion to adjourn.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

Thank you, Miss Goldforth.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

We're adjourned.

Thank you, everyone.

Have a good evening.