Welcome to the Mesa City Council meeting for December 8th, 2025.

All of our council are present.

We're going to begin a meeting with an invocation by Pastor Gregory Dansby of the Holy Temple Church of God in Christ, followed by a pledge of allegiance led by retired First Lieutenant Tom Roberts of the United States Army.

Lieutenant Roberts served in the Military Assistance Command in Vietnam.

And so Lieutenant, thank you for your service.

With that said, uh, we'll please stand first for the uh invocation, followed by the pledge.

Heavenly Father, the God of the universe, the God who created the heavens and the earth.

We come before you this afternoon, first thanking you for your goodness and for your grace toward us and for blessing us to see this day.

A great day to honor you with praise and glory.

I invoke your presence into this room.

God, I ask you to lead and guide our mayor and each council member that have been elected to take care of the affairs of the citizens of this great city.

I pray that you lead and guide these leaders in the decisions they are tasked to make on the behalf of others.

God cover and protect this city and all who travel in and out of it.

Let our city be a drawing force that attracts people and companies that will impact us for the better.

I thank you for inclining your ear to my prayer.

For I know that you hear me, for your eyes and your ears are in every place.

And I bless you in Jesus' name I pray.

Amen.

Amen.

Mr.

Roberts, you want Lieutenant.

You can stay there, Mr.

Dansby, if you'd like.

Okay.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands.

One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you, Mayor, and Council members.

Thank you, Lieutenant.

Thank you, Pastor Dansby, for your kind words.

Before you begin, I'd like to take a moment to acknowledge and thank our deputy communications director, uh, Glenn Stephens.

Uh, unfortunately, he wanted to retire, and today is his last day of retirement.

Uh he's been an instrumental in our Channel 11 for 30 years, and his dedication, leadership, and creativity is last at last scene to mark in this uh organization.

You probably can't see him, but he's probably behind us in our comms room here.

But Glenn, we wish you all the best in your next chapter and congratulations on retirement.

With that said, item one is a consent agenda.

Uh, Mr.

Christopher, would you please come forward and read the consent?

Good evening, Mayor and Council members.

These are the items on the consent agenda.

All items listed with an asterisk will be considered as a group by the city council, and will be enacted with one motion.

There will be another 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 is written.

Item 3A, acting on the bingo application for James Witkowski American Legion Post 138, located at 1264 West University Drive.

Item 4A, Act on Liquor License Application for Royal Palms Golf Course, 1415 East McHilps Road.

Item 4B has been removed from the consent agenda.

Item 4C, Act and Liquor License Application for Il Forno Bello Pizzeria, 3121 East McCallops Road.

Item 4D, Act of Liquor License Application for Safeway, 441 North Valvista Drive.

Item 4E, Act on Liquor License Application for Corner Store, 2709 West Guadalupe Road.

Item 4F, Act on Liquid License Application for Carnitas Cochurico, 1323 West University Drive.

Items 4G and 4H acting on two liquor license applications for Dragon's Lounge, 1907 West Main Street.

Item 4I, Act on Liquor of License Application for Heidi Lau Wagau at 138 South the Opposite Road.

Item 4J, Act of Liquor License Application for Arizona Wineries, 7235 East Hampton Avenue.

Item 5A, approving one-year term contract for forensic DNA supplies for the Mesa Public Safety Support Department.

Item 5B, approving three-year term contract with two-year renewal options for CCTV carriers replacement for the Transportation Department.

Item 5C, approving three-year term contract with seven-year renewal options for sewer, manhold, including video and repair services for the water resources department.

Item 5D, approving dollar limit increase of the term contract for bronze water service valves, fittings, and hydrants for the materials and supply warehouse for the water resources department.

Item 6A, approving resolution for zoning case 25-598 for property west of the northwest corner of Pecos Road and Signal Butte Road.

Council use permit to allow for a major utility.

Item 6B is for continuance to the January 12th, 2026 City Council meeting.

This is for approval of a resolution adopting the Mesa Connected Transit Oriented Development Plan.

Again, six B is for continuance of the January 12th, 2026 Council meeting.

Item 7A, approving resolution to enter into an agreement with the Arizona Department of Administration for the implementation, maintenance, and support of the real-time decision and operations management system.

Item 7B is removed from the consent agenda.

Item 8A is for continuance to the January 26, 2026 City Council meeting.

This is for introduction of a zoning ordinance for an automobile vehicle service and repair facility.

Again, 8A is for continuance to the January 26, 2026 Council meeting.

Item 8B, introduction of ordinance with zoning case 23-365 for property located north of the northwest corner of Pecos Road and Mountain Road.

Rezone with a new planned area development overlay and site plan modification to allow for expansion of an existing industrial facility.

Item 8C Introduction of Ordinance with Zoning Case 24-998 for property south of the southeast corner of Broadway Road and Mesa Drive.

Rezoned with a bonus intensity zone overlay and site plan review for a 15 unit multiple residence development.

Item 8D, introduction of ordinance of zoning case 25-309 for property south of the southeast corner of Elligate Road and Power Road.

Major site plan modification and modification of one condition of ordinance 5781 to allow for a coffee shop with drive-through facilities.

Item 8E has been removed from the consent agenda.

Item 8F, introduction of ordinance, amending and adopting Mesa City Code Traffic Regulations 10 1 8, 10 1 9, 10 1 14, and 10 10 1 16 to allow use of certain electric vehicles in city parks and other city right of way, subject to certain limitations.

Item 9A, approving ordinance proposing amendments to chapters 5, 8, 31, 32, 86, and 87 of the Mesa City Code pertaining to middle housing.

Item 9B is for continuance to the January 12th, 2026 City Council meeting.

This is for approval of an ordinance for proposed amendments of the Mesa City Code pertaining to battery energy storage systems.

Item 10 A, approving adoption of notice of intention to adjust non-residential water utility rates, and setting February 9th, 2026 as the date for the public hearing.

Items 11A through 11J are for approval of ordinances pertaining to Mesa City Code Title IV Building Regulations.

11A is approving ordinance amending chapter 1, Mesa Administrative Code.

11B is approving ordinance amending chapter 4, Mesa Building Code.

11C is approving ordinance amending chapter 3, Mesa Residential Code.

11D is approving ordinance amending chapter 4, Mesa Lighting and Electrical Code.

11E is approving ordinance amending chapter 5, Mesa Plumbing Code.

11F is approving ordinance amending chapter 6, Mesa Mechanical Code.

11G is approving ordinance amending chapter 7, Mesa Fuel Gas Code.

11H is approving ordinance amending chapter 8, Mesa Existing Building Code.

11I is approving ordinance amending chapter 9 Mesa Energy Conservation Code.

And 11J is approving ordinance amending chapter 10, Mesa Swimming Pool and SPA Code.

And item 12 is approving ordinance amending Mesa City Code Title 7 Fire Regulations.

This is pertains to adoption of the 2024 International Fire Code and its amendments.

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

Thank you, Mr.

Christopher.

We'll move forward with a motion.

Thank you, Mr.

Summers.

Miss Goforth.

Please cast your vote.

Passes unanimously.

Thank you, Council.

With that said, uh some of you have turned in some blue cards.

And uh we have a continuance on some of them, and I'll ask if you wish to speak.

The first one right now is 4B.

Uh 4B is a liquor license.

Uh we have some that would like to speak on that.

Uh one person, and that would be Thomas uh Durh.

Thomas, you want to come forward.

After which there I'll read the others.

Thomas, you have three minutes.

Thank you.

Hello, Council.

Just want to let you know.

Mojo's is uh trying to apply for a beer and wine license.

I would like you guys to consider denying it because it's 184 feet away from a child care with the playground.

And we don't uh need that kind of activity uh near child care in the neighborhood.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Others reading uh are opposed to this is Douglas Ashley, uh Catherine Ellis, Sam S.

Sam, I really need your last name, but uh if you'll give that to me and Creighton Smith.

Mr.

Smith, maybe you can give us some admonition regarding liquor licenses.

Uh we are uh pass through uh government and then the actual board approves the licensing.

Is that correct?

Uh mayor and council, that's correct.

Yeah, you provide a recommendation that ultimately goes to the state liquor board.

Um your recommendation, there's 12 factors that you can consider.

Um one of the factors is um, and I'm looking at its compatibility, the pros proposed business with um other activity in close proximity.

So um so that that is one of the factors.

Um I don't I don't know if uh what the gentleman said is correct.

I don't know if so it feels better.

No, yeah, I I yeah, no, I don't know if the proximity to uh that business, the distance he said is correct.

There is a child care center just across the parking lot.

I I didn't read the uh discourse, but was that uh maybe may it make a note of that?

So is that any reason to deny this uh request and move it forward?

So I I think I think Ed's coming up to discuss it.

I I think um uh if if council wants to recommend, realize you're recommending a denial, that's what you're doing.

You're not denying anything.

Ultimately, the state's gonna make the decision.

Um but if you do want to recogn recommend denial, uh it would I think the most likely, and there might be another um uh factor here.

I'm just looking down the 12 factors right now.

Um it does, oh the 12th one is proximity to a licensed child care facility is defined by another statute.

So both maybe eight and twelve on those two factors could be factors for a recommendation of denial.

And mayor counsel, I don't have it in front of me, but my recollection is that the uh state code talks about uh schools and it talks about kindergarten up and it's 300 feet, but I'd have to do the rest of the research on anything below kindergarten or a child care center.

But it was not identified by my staff as being in conflict as they understand and interpret the code.

So what would your guidance be for this for this item?

Um put you on the spot.

Yes, thank you.

Um I I think based on what I know, I think we would recommend continue to recommend approval.

Okay.

Um they can uh petition the state and as well, the state will double check our our variances from the the distances between uh the facility and the uh establishment.

Um that would be my recommendation at this point.

Oh, mayor.

Yes, if I may, uh being that it's in district one.

Um question for Mr.

Smith.

Um would a continuance be something the council could consider.

The reason I ask is some information has been presented that I do not know to be fact.

However, if it would be proven to be fact, then what I've just heard, if I heard you correctly would be a basis for a recommendation of denial, which I'm hesitant to suggest at this time without having those facts in front of me, but would a continuance be something the council could consider.

Uh mayor and council, uh yes, you could.

The the issue is is that the state liquor board enforces a very tight time frame in which the city has to provide its recommendation, and the next council meeting uh won't be until obviously January.

Um in order to do it, we might have to call a special council meeting um because of the tight time frame.

And so we might be calling a special council meeting next week for this one item.

Um so recognizing that because I suspect that the deadline will will be before the January 12th meeting.

And actually, actually, council member, the uh recommendation was actually due to council in November, so it is actually overdue already.

Um understood.

I I'm I'm hesitant to vote approval or recommend approval based on the fact that there appears to be a uh child care facility.

I don't know whether it's licensed.

I think that's what it says.

So I feel like I'm having to make a decision here with without all the facts in front of me.

So Mayor, Council members, if I could.

Um perhaps if this council is so inclined, we recommend that this council recommends denial.

Um that would trigger a hearing at the liquor board.

Um and at that hearing, the liquor board could hear facts on the distances and the citations of state statute, and they could make the recommendation uh one way or the other.

But um if it's the council's will, we could send that recommendation through, trigger the hearing, and then let it be resolved at the state level.

Okay.

Well, mayor, when and if you're ready to ask for a motion, I'd be prepared to make one other comment.

Any more comments, Mr.

Smith?

Mayor and Council, and I would just sorry, I echo what Ed just said.

You can make the motion for recommendation of denial based off the proximity.

And ultimately, if those facts aren't borne out at the hearing at the liquor board, the liquor board will recognize the basis for why the council recommended the denow actually ended up not being factually correct, and so they can build they'll be able to look at that and decide so excuse me.

So the applicant would get a fair hearing at the liquor board facts would be presented and and a decision would be made based on those facts.

Correct.

And then Mayor, I would make a motion.

You want to make a motion for denial?

I'd like to make a motion for denial.

Is there a second to that?

And Mayor and Council, I just for the record, I'm assuming it's based off of the location to the child care child care facility and also probably factors eight and twelve or any other applicable factors, and just for the record that the liquor board knows, and we'll we'll provide something in writing also to them that that's the basis.

Um if that's correct, Councilmember Adams.

Yes, thank you for coloring that in for me.

Thank you.

Vice Mayor.

Yeah, I'll I'll support the motion because it keeps it moving forward, and the applicant has an opportunity to have their issue heard in a fairly timely manner, especially since we're already a month behind.

But I'd like to stress that looking at this address in the crime report, it's one of the best crime reports I've seen.

Right.

They they have four incidents since November 1st, 2020.

And two are burglar alarms, and one's a traffic stop, and the traffic stop just happens to be at that address.

So that's that's um that speaks to me that the businesses in this area are doing a very good job of making sure that they have a secure properly operating uh uh location.

So all right, we have a motion uh for denial, and please cast your vote.

So if we vote yes, that's a recommendation of denial.

All right, thank you.

Okay, we have that motion passes of denial.

Thank you, Thomas, and uh you may want to show up the state liquor board here eventually.

Okay.

All right, with that uh 6B was the uh the TOD uh transit oriented development plan.

That's a continuance, Mr.

Wynn Stanley.

Okay, keep it on as a continuance, or do you wish to speak?

Yes.

To what part?

Continuance, leave it as a continuance.

Do you want to leave it as a continuance?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

I think there's another question as well, is there not um I don't have actually there's a few this one also.

Thank you, sir.

Yes, sir.

That's what I'm here for.

Uh Chase.

Uh is it uh Hales?

Yes.

And do you this is for continuance?

Are you okay?

We're gonna continue this and speak on it uh next month.

I'm happy to do that as well.

Thank you.

Uh Mary, are you the same way, Mary?

Mobaño.

Oh, I guess so.

If everybody else is okay.

Okay, thank you.

That simplifies that.

Yes.

Well, it was read in as was it read on the consent as continuance.

Yes.

It was Mayor, so it was continued.

Okay.

All right.

Sorry, it's been voted on.

Uh also going forward is here.

I need these here.

7B.

We have a card from Linda Patrick Hayes.

Uh Linda, you want to come and talk on 7B.

Good evening, Mr.

Mayor and Council members.

Uh Linda Patrick Hayes.

I um certainly am an advocate of communications.

I feel as if we can never uh give our law enforcement uh enough communications for them to do their job properly.

And I started researching um this the um I started resisting in an integrated data platform IDP solution, and it says it's a unified system that centralizes, combines and manages data from diverse sources like apps, databases, and cloud services.

And that was kind of to me like yikes.

So that's when I first had decided that I had a question to ask this council, and I wanted to be sure and ask it.

So I would like to know if the um uh flock cameras sends uh data to this would we would be sending data to this platform.

Uh I I've heard that uh in Mesa only the uh law enforcement vehicles have flocked cameras.

I've also heard that um that information is stored for mere 30 days.

If that's the case, if there is flock camera information that will be on that platform, I will be extremely opposed to that.

And um, as you know, I believe that um it's a chipping away of my constitutional rights to privacy.

And so for that reason, I have made up my mind many years ago that I will not support anything that chips away at my constitutional rights.

And I thank you so much, and good evening.

Thank you.

Uh do we have some police representative here?

We have commander Reno.

No.

Okay.

Why don't we explain the program here for Linda?

Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council.

Yes, this program uh excuse me.

Initially, what we're gonna roll out is this base uh base system.

This will only access our existing records management system and our computer aided dispatch.

So the records management system are uh police reports that are written by officers, traffic citations rated by officers, all stuff we generate in-house.

The community dispatch are the calls for service, uh citizen calls 911, they issue a uh a call for service, an officer's dispatch, it's that information.

There are no other sources of data that will be in this system as part of this pilot program.

All right, thank you.

Vice Mayor.

Yeah, and I believe on this is only PD information.

We talked about this at a study session, but the fire department also has sensitive information that's a privacy concern.

That's their EMS documentation.

This will not access EMS documentation.

That is not part of the system, sir.

Correct.

Thank you.

Uh Linda brought up flock cameras.

They are not part of the system, sir.

Okay.

All right.

And is that somewhat satisfy you?

Absolutely.

All right.

Can I can I ask one quick question?

You said it's part of the pilot program.

Would that just for Mrs.

Hayes and everyone else listening?

Would that be a future integration?

That would have to be future discussion, uh, Councilmember Teller.

At this point, it would just be those two sources.

Um additional sources require uh additional MOUs, additional funding.

So that would have to go back for future conversation after the end of the pilot.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, with that, uh I'll entertain a motion to approve uh 7B, which is the purchase of an integrated data platform solution for the Mesa Police Department.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

Second by Miss Goforth, please cast your vote.

Motion passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Uh the next one is Office 8E.

That's the ordinance submitting and adopting City Code Park Regulation sections regarding the use of electric scooters and other motorized, non-motorized vehicles in city parks.

We have one person that wishes to speak, Mr.

Winstanley.

Good evening, Mayor, Council, and staff.

Uh my name is David Winstanley.

I think you know me by now.

I live in District 6.

I was prompted to speak to you tonight by an incident a few weeks ago in the Eastmark Great Park.

I was taking my two-year-old granddaughter to the Orange Monster.

On the way, three riders with class three e-bikes came screaming down the hill, crossed the sidewalk in front of us at high speed.

When I yelled at these three young men, they flipped me off and took off in another direction.

My wife and I also often go for Saturday morning bike rides on city streets around Eastmark and end up at Steadfast Diner for Breakfast.

There we watch and constantly see an accident waiting to happen at the intersection of three paths.

Shared, I don't know if they're shared use of their city or their park path, it doesn't matter.

There are people walking, little kids walking, there are e-bikes, class one, two, and three.

There are school, it's a mess.

It is an accident waiting to happen.

Finally, my wife and I were leaving the Mesa Arts Center right across the street when two lowrider electric powered 12-inch wheels with a seat and frame three inches off the ground, weave through the crowd.

They could have easily clipped an ankle and caused seriously and serious injury, literally right across the street.

These were not e-bikes or scooters in any sense of the word.

They were out of sight generally, and especially were dangerous because they approach people from behind.

I have several concerns about the proposed code changes.

Language.

Most will only understand e-bikes are allowed in the park.

Non-pedal assisted powered vehicles need a different name, so it is clear what is not legal and what does require does not require interpretation.

Class three requires you to know what that means.

Communication.

If there isn't enforcement present, we can say, hey, look, the it's 15 miles an hour.

To councilwoman's duff's uh comment, I am a bike commuter.

I bike from Guadalupe in extension to 32nd Street in Washington for 10 years before I retired.

So I do understand what it's like, and 20 miles an hour is too fast.

If you talk to the police, it's relative speed that causes damage.

And so I would suggest 15 miles miles per hour is more than adequate.

I would greatly appreciate your attention to these details before you pass this legislation.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Mr.

Winstanley.

Any comments from counsel?

I uh I have a question for Mr.

Wynne Stanley.

I I'm just curious, how did you know it was a class three?

Well, because there is no pedal, so they didn't have to pedal.

Yeah.

And they were they were motorcycles that were electric power.

It looked like it had pegs where they could lean back.

Yeah.

Okay, thank you.

I have a question based on what Mr.

Winstanley said.

So I don't disagree.

I think the language is incredibly important, and that's a good point that he just made.

If I saw a sign that just said no class one, class two, I'm probably not going to do the due diligence to look up the what what that means.

So what would that entail if we did change the language?

I'm not quite sure what that process would look like to make it more of a layperson's sign.

Mayor and counsel, if I can sort of take that and um and a number of people have worked on this ordinance too, and so they can come up.

The the definitions come from state statute, and so we're we're creating uniformity with other municipalities too.

And so the definitions we're adopting or mimicking the state statute and that other municipalities also.

But I think maybe your question was maybe maybe twofold.

One is the the language of the definition, but two, um, and and Mr.

Winstanley is educating people, and so we can you know potentially leave the language for the definition so we have uniformity with both the state and with uh fellow uh um jurisdictions, but we need to be able to articulate that so people when they see the sign that they actually know it.

And so I think there's sort of two aspects of that question.

The definition though comes from the almost many of those definitions come straight from state statute, but how to educate people, I guess it goes to a practical aspect of needing to put that in a sign that people can understand.

And mayor, I I would just add I think Mr.

Winsanley raised great points.

We can look at that to Jim's point.

We we do need this to comply with the statutory framework that allows us to do enforcement if need be.

But on the education component, we can certainly um take to heart the need to communicate in a way that resonates with people and that they understand and it's less bureaucratic and is more informational, so we can we can work on that.

Would that be kind of looking at taking the signage and having the state statute as we need to have it listed, so there's uniformity there, but additional verbiage that basically further informs the reader in succinct terms like this you keep e-bikes up to this mile per hour is allowed anything outside of that.

No, so mayor and council member, yes.

I think we can sort come up with a colloquial way to describe these and not just merely recite the definition from the statute on a sign.

Okay.

Um so yes, we can we can definitely work on that.

Mr.

Winstanley, does that help?

Yes clarify?

That that was the point.

Okay.

Yeah, I think there is.

There's clear confusion on my part, actually, because what what I'm looking at says a class three has pedals.

So if you saw no pedals, that's a motorcycle.

Right, which is not allowed, you know, it by uh but everybody will call it anybody.

Yeah.

So no, your point is well taken.

It's it's very confusing.

Shows it so thank you.

All right, with that, uh I think we thank you for your comments, Mr.

Winstanley.

Uh okay.

Mr.

Adams, just not not to belabor this, but uh I haven't been comfortable with this since I was first uh made aware of it and started looking at it from not a standpoint of of uh needing some regulatory uh structure around this, but my my view is this.

I think the uh the primary problem here are not um responsible adult riders or cyclists.

I think the problem here are are uh youthful underage riders who are being uh rather disrespectful to city property, and um I don't know what amount of education signage or other means uh are are going to mitigate that or change it.

It I I hope it will.

I hope it will, but I I'm just not convinced that this is the right methodology to solve the problem.

Then we enter the the the sphere of enforcement, and I really don't know, I really don't know how you how you attack that because uh I'm I'm aware of situations where you have large groups of young people on these e-bikes of whatever class it is, they go too fast.

And they pose a real problem for our police department in that how do you pursue them?

What do you pursue them with?

Is it wise to pursue them?

Um resources, so forth and so on.

So I I'm I'm not I I'm seeing this as a good faith effort to move in a direction of solving the problem, but I I just I cannot wrap my mind around it and get comfortable with it.

So I'm I'm I'm really not able to support this at this time.

I I think some of these speeds are too fast.

Um I ride a bike a lot, and I'm on these paths a lot.

And um, you know, I just I just think some of these speeds are a little bit too much, and maybe not for an adult, but for someone who's out there with their kids on their little bikes or someone pulling a trailer on their bike with their one-year-old in it or whatever.

It's just a little too much.

So um for those reasons I'm I'm not supportive of this item.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Adams.

Any other comments?

I think the uh notes are well made, and uh you know, we can always do an amendment to this ordinance.

I see Mr.

Alfred coming up.

Uh Mr.

Winston, we can always do an amendment to this, and you know, we have to start somewhere with some uh baseline foundation with this because our parks are being damaged, and this way we can have uh policing done when needed at the request of the neighborhoods.

That's one of the things we we have to start somewhere, so uh that's why I'm gonna support it.

With that, uh I I think there's still chatting.

Yeah, I see I see that.

I'm just seeing what uh what's gonna happen next.

Okay.

Did you want to make a comment?

No, I I was just gonna use the time if they were gonna continue.

Is that um like any speed limits in the parks, they're not gonna that you know, we're not gonna have PD stationed to monitor unless someone's complained of a you know recurrent problem, and then there's gonna be someone to to show up.

But it's just a way of having a common understanding of what is allowable, and then if there's some incident or a complaint, then it can be addressed, and PD has the tools to address it with, other than it just being a complaint without any limitations.

So and I might add, we're just dealing with uh our parks and shared use paths for right now.

Okay.

Mr.

Smith.

Yeah, Mayor and Council and Alfred just reminded me that the item 8F that was remained on the consent agenda and was approved.

That's the ordinance that had the shared use path at 15, which is the current, it kept that, and then the five mile on the parks.

And so that's our council actually already adopted that in the the uh consent agenda.

So I'm not sure if you know we'll be affecting um that change is already was already approved.

So I don't know if you want to step back and look at that or if go backwards or or not.

Well, it was a unanimous on that.

Uh so I I would say we can always make amendments in the future and just let this move forward.

And Mayor, just as a as a point, it's five miles an hour in the in the parks.

The 15 is a multi-use path.

Sure, yeah, yeah, the shared use path, which are completely separate.

You and thank you for your uh service on the transportation advisory board.

That was uh um great.

The the other thing you brought up about the the speed signed.

I think we can do that.

I really do.

Uh my son is now in the Seattle metro area, and one of the things when I brought up speed limits to be included in this, it was because there were speed limit signs on the path.

So it's something we can do.

Um in addition, it seems like this uh ordinance that was adopted is at least uh very similar to what the state uh legislature, the Senate bill that was dropped, um as their speed limits, that's what they're looking at.

Now I don't know if that's gonna be adopted or not.

We're gonna we'll find out.

Um, but it's I think this is one where we're on the same page, at least when it comes to how fast people can go.

Because and you're right, the the the one without pedals, that's a motorcycle.

And we need this ordinance clarifies that and they they should be getting driver's license, and they now we'll be able to enforce that because we've clarified it.

So there's some good things, but like the mayor said, we have opportunities.

This is gonna be this is evolving all the time, so we're gonna have to uh make some changes over over time to try to keep up.

So thank you.

Okay.

Anything else?

Oh good.

So with that, uh, Mr.

Smith.

Uh 9B was uh we asked for continuance.

Was that voted on for the best system?

Because I do have I believe it was.

Yeah, yeah, we was that lady or with A E.

Do we approve the continuance?

On AE.

It was a continuity.

You take a vote.

80, which was this this item about e-bikes.

Are you did you take a motion and a vote on that?

So my question is did we vote on consent to approve it?

No, that was the eight F.

Okay.

So you need you need a motion on 80.

So we need a motion on A E.

Correct.

Council.

Thank you, Mr.

Summers.

Thank you, Mr.

Reddit.

Please cast your vote on 8E.

Okay, Mr.

Adams is a no passes.

Thank you.

With that, uh 9B.

Remind me now what I asked.

Did we pass that on consent?

Yes, Mayor.

Okay.

So those that have blue cards on 9 B about the battery energy storage systems as a continuance until January 12th.

All right.

So we expect some of you to come back on January 12th.

We all good.

Okay.

Thank you for the blue cards.

And let me just read them for the record.

You know, I can never pronounce your name right, but C Pand Alzeta is a support.

And thank you.

Uh Dr.

Uh Janine Blaze.

Uh she is opposed, and thank you.

Spokesman for group Autumn Johnson in support of the ordinance.

Uh Kyle Whitty Whitaker or Whittier is opposed and of 9B.

Court Rich supports Linda Brady supports, and Aaron uh Brainham uh is in support.

So thank you on 9B.

We'll see you.

I believe it's uh January 12th for that one.

Okay.

Next is uh from items citizen present.

I believe that's uh last one here.

We have um three peeps three speakers for item 13.

Citizen Prent Jason Smithson.

If Jason will come forward for three minutes, and after Jason is uh Reggie Braun and Reggie, you're on deck.

Thank you, Jason.

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak.

My name is Jason Smithson, and I'm a resident of District 4, as well as a parent of a child with special needs at a Title I Mesa Public School.

I want to start with something personal because honesty matters here.

My skin color gives me a level of safety and ease that so many people in this city do not have.

I don't worry about a traffic stop turning into something more.

I don't get followed in stores.

I don't second guess whether taking my kid to a park, community, or school event could put us at risk.

The truth is the majority of the council doesn't either.

That's part of why the impact of 287G is so easy to ignore, because it doesn't touch your daily life, but it absolutely touches the lives of thousands of your constituents.

This just isn't a policing issue, it's an education issue.

And the consequences land hardest on our children.

When families fear law enforcement, that fear walks straight into our classrooms.

Teachers are already seeing the fallout.

Students who used to participate sit silent.

Attendance dips because parents are afraid a drive to school could put them in danger.

Families avoid conferences, IEP meetings, or even picking up valuable resources because they don't trust that stepping outside is safe.

You can't expect a child to focus on reading comprehension after spending a night wondering if their family will be intact the next morning.

You can't build strong schools when families are too afraid to show up.

And you cannot claim to support education while implementing a policy that destabilizes the very foundation our kids need to learn.

287G cuts students off from counseling, food programs, after school support, early interventions, and special education services.

Everything that helps them thrive.

Mesa prides itself on being a place where every child has a chance.

287G undercuts that at its its root.

It doesn't make our community safer.

It makes our most vulnerable children more isolated, stressed, and less able to learn.

I don't believe any of you ran for office to make life harder for the people that you represent.

I'm asking you to tap back into that compassion.

The reason why you started public service in the first place.

I'm asking for something simple.

Next month, put 287G on the agenda and take a vote.

No one is harmed by allowing the public process to work, but countless families are harmed if you refuse.

Rejecting 287G is not about taking sides.

It's about protecting children.

It's about safeguarding classrooms.

It's about doing right by families who are part of this city, even if their fear isn't part of your daily experience.

I encourage you all to visit some of these schools and talk to admin, and not just for a social media photo.

Mesa's kids deserve better.

Our schools deserve better.

And Mesa Council needs people willing to choose courage over comfort.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jason.

Mr.

Braun.

Please hold your clapping, please.

Oh, by the way, at the e-bike thing, you can use drones and radar like uh other places do.

I'd attended to speak on religious arguments in the advent season.

But last uh meeting I was referred to as a Mexican.

I'm not Mexican.

I'm Asian.

If these Mesa residents can't tell the difference, an ice task off force cannot.

Americans don't understand our culture.

We don't say happy new year.

We say go on a choice, which means I hope you get rich.

That mindset creates 1.2 billion in revenue in our Asian district.

This is imported wealth.

Data shows our customers drive over 30 minutes from Scottsdale and Gilbert to spend money here.

That spending subsidized every Mesa household by roughly $432 a year.

We just saw 10 million dollar private expansion at Mekong Plaza because of this growth.

I saw you talk about that.

Place head.

But that contract doesn't require these businesses to stay in Mesa.

We're seeing 140% surge in tourism from China and Japan.

But here's the risk.

Ice details of Asians have increased by 300% this year.

The Asian district's high density makes it a hyper efficient target for ice.

In Chicago's little village, rate for your cause revenue to drop 60% in just two weeks.

You adopt this task force, you are using that 300% enforcement surge to kill 140% economic growth.

Now I used to work for Alan Bradley.

I know the festival stuff.

You celebrated Hadrian's investment, but Hadrian is headquartered in California, which has a high Asian population.

When Asian arrests are posted to the White House.gov site, Asians in our neighbor California and Hadrian will notice.

Look at Georgia.

Hyundai stayed there only to protect their seven billion dollar cost.

But South Korean media was so horrified and used news US News Outlets ignored the raids.

The result, new investment left.

We didn't hear about it, but Korea is still advising going to America.

Capital is cowardly.

If you turn Mesa into a soft target, the money will leave.

The economy is fragile.

And you are dealing with a culture of sacrifice here.

When Fukushima melted down, 700 veteran engineers, all over 60, volunteered to walk into radiation so that future youth wouldn't have to.

I doubt Americans would do this.

If we feel threatened, we will make the hard choice again.

Now planning for lunar New Year's events with the OCA and APAPI have begun.

I would like to tell them that Mesa has formally rejected the task force, like many of the others.

99% of other cities have.

I would like to tell them that Mesa is no longer the only major East Valley City clinging to the jail enforcement model.

You are our shepherds, as I've said.

But the Asian flock is a tight-knit community.

We survive by watching the gate.

If the Mesa Shepherds let the wolves of ice in, we will not stay to be eaten.

We will hop the fence to Tempe or other places that keep us safe.

You can keep 1.2 billion dollars here in Mesa.

Or you can have a task force.

You can't have both.

Thank you, Reggie.

Thanks.

The next we'll hear from please hold your applause.

You can use jazz hands, that'd be great.

August uh Palasano.

August.

Come forward.

You'll have three minutes as well.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

Um, my name's Gus Palmasano, and I've lived in Red Mountain Ranch for the last 27 years, and I love it here.

Um what I want to talk about is something that's going to come up in future meetings and their planned discussions.

In fact, Councilmember Goreforth already has something scheduled for Thursday of this week.

Thank you for that.

So we have a health and safety issue that has got considerably worse, and I want to get out in front of this and bring it to everyone's attention as soon as possible.

You may be aware of the dramatic increase in flight traffic at Falcon Field, primarily from the at least 15 flight schools that now operate out of there.

The topic has in fact caught attention of local media.

12 News did a story on us not very flattering in the last couple of weeks.

The increase in flight schools has triple tripled flight count over our communities over the last six months with no relief in sight.

During peak training hours, flight training activity has resulted in nearly constant air traffic over our homes.

On a daily basis, beginning as early as 5 a.m.

and often going late into the evening.

Last night was 10 p.m., by the way, for a couple over my house.

The repeated process of touch and go training produces loud, low-flying air traffic and low-flying planes over our homes, often at a rate, a rate of two planes side by side every 40 to 60 seconds in the morning.

This is abusive behavior by the schools.

It has now become nearly impossible to do something as simple as sit in your backyard and have a conversation with your spouse.

The planes are always there.

I've been a full-time licensed real estate agent for the last 15 years, and I can tell you that our home values are dropping dramatically as a result of this problem.

In fact, I currently have clients who have walked away from the Red Mountain area because of this.

Our homes are losing value by the day.

It's become apparent that the low cost of operating at Falcon Field has attracted a growing number of flight schools that have chosen to leave Deer Valley and Scottsdale airports in favor of cheaper operating costs in Mesa.

Think about that for a second.

How did Scottsdale and Deer Valley get rid of those guys?

Now the residents are paying the price.

However, more importantly than the noise issue, maybe only the tip of the iceberg because it's been revealed that these aircraft use leaded fuel and are sputterly toxic exhaust, lead exhaust over our neighborhoods, over our schools, over our children, at an incredibly concentrated rate.

We may not find out about the results of this for years to come.

You will likely hear from the pilots and representatives of the flight schools on the other side of this issue in the days and weeks ahead.

And some have pointed out that we knew that there was an airport there when we bought our homes, and we did.

That's true.

We did not know there were going to be 15 flight schools there operating all the time.

Thank you, August.

Appreciate that.

With that, uh Miss Mosley, is there anything else on this item said I missed?

Um that was all of the requests, Mayor.

Okay, thank you.

This is all the items we have for this meeting.

Is there a motion to adjourn, Council?

Thank you, Miss Taylor.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Okay, we're adjourned.