Good evening.

Welcome to our Mesa City Council meeting for January 12th, 2026.

All members of our council are present.

With that, we're going to begin and stand with a moment of silence and then follow us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

So please stand if you can.

Thank you.

Following the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the United States of America.

Indivisible with every team of Justice R.

Thank you, everyone.

Item one is on the consent agenda.

Mr.

Christopher, you come forward.

Miss Mosley, do we have any other items pulled off of the consent?

I have the ones you gave me.

The four that I gave you prior to the meeting.

Yes.

And Kevin, you have four items being pulled from consent.

Oh, he has one extra.

Okay, which is the other one.

It was 4L.

4L.

Okay.

Go ahead, Mr.

Christopher.

All right.

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'll be no separate discussion unless the 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 Liquor License Application for Barbecue Chicken Mesa, 138 South Dobson Road.

Item 3B, Acting Electrical License Application for Pellagio Smoke and Vape, 28 South Dobson Road.

Item 3C, Acting Electrical License Application for Petal House Brewery, 201 West Main Street.

Item 3D, Acting Electro License Application for Las Centas Golf Club, 7555 East Eagle Crest Drive.

Item 4A, approving contract to purchase flow rider repair parts and services of the Parks Recreation Community Facilities Department.

Item 4B, approving one-year term contract for dynamo, playground equipment repair and replacement parts for the parks recreation and community facilities department.

Item 4C, approving three-year term contract with two-year renewal options for fencing and gate installation, repair, rental, and supplies for the parks recreation and community facilities and the facilities management departments.

Item 4D, approving three-year term contract with two-year renewal options for fasteners, hardware, and electrical supplies for the fleet services department.

Item 4E, approving nine-month use of cooperative term contract with renewal options for the purchase of public communication equipment and services for the Department of Innovation and Technology.

The cost is shared by the members of the Topaz Regional Wireless Cooperative.

Item 4F, approving 13-month use of a cooperative term contract for transless technology rehabilitation and related products and services for the water resources department.

Item 4G, approving four-year term contract for water and wastewater treatment chemicals for the water resources and parks recreation and community facilities departments.

Item 4H, approving use of the cooperative contract for the purchase of two E1 Cyclone Custom Hazmat apparatus for the Mesa Fire and Medical Department.

This is funded by 2024 public safety bonds.

Items 4I through 4K are approving and authorizing the mayor to sign an amendment to the employment contracts for the following employees.

4I is for the city clerk, 4J for the city attorney, 4K for the city auditor.

Item 4L has been removed from the consent agenda.

Item 5A, approving resolution authorizing the city manager to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with Maricopa County for the waterline relocation for the new traffic signal at Ellsworth Road and Pueblo Avenue intersection.

Items 6A and 6B are for continuance to the February 23rd City Council meeting.

6A is a resolution pertaining to administrative changes, while 6B is introduction of an ordinance proposing amendments to the Mesa City Code.

Again, these are for continuance to the February 23rd, 2026 City Council meeting.

Item 7A, introduction of ordinance, proposing amendments to chapter 1 of Title 1 and Chapter 66 and 67 of Title 11 of the Mesa City Code pertaining to the organization and duties of the Planning and Zoning Board and Design Review Board.

Item 7B, introduction of ordinance with zoning case 25-397 for property located at the northeast corner of University Drive and 80th Street.

Site plan modification and amending conditions of approval of ordinance number 2354 to allow for an office development.

Item 7C, introduction of ordinance for annexation case 25-889 to de-annex public right of way located at the intersection of Brown Road and Crisman, subject to approval by the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors.

This de-annexation is to accommodate Maricopa County's right of way requirements.

Item 7D, introduction of ordinance for zoning case 24-3, 24-525 for property located at 8839 East Main Street.

This is for a rezoned with new plan area development overlay.

This is for a rezoned with new plan area development overlay, slight plan review and council use permit to allow for a boat and RB storage facility.

Items 8A and 8B have been removed from the consent agenda.

Item 8C, approving ordinance, amending and adopting Mesa City Code.

Traffic regulations 10-1-8, 10-1-9, 10-1-14, and 10-1-16 to allow use of certain electric vehicles at city parks, another city right of way, subject to certain limitations.

Items 8D and 8E have been removed from consent agenda.

Item 8F, approving ordinance was only case 23-365 for property located north of the northwest corner of Pecos Road and Mountain Road.

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

Mayor and Councilmember is these are the items on the consent agenda.

Thank you, Mr.

Christopher.

With that, uh council will entertain a motion.

Thank you, Mr.

Reddy, a second by Miss Duff.

Please cast your vote.

All right.

Motion passes unanimously.

Thank you, everyone.

Next we'll move over to item 4L, approving and authorizing the mayor to sign an amendment to the employee contract with the city manager.

I don't know who asked for that to be removed.

Ms.

Holsley Mosley, do you uh Mayor?

I have a request from Mr.

Kerry Davis to speak on this item.

Mr.

Davis, you want to come up and are there any others on this uh item?

Uh no, Mayor.

Okay, thank you.

Hello, Mr.

Davis.

Good evening, uh Mayor and Honorable City Council.

My name is Carrie Davis, and I'm here to oppose the agenda item 4L, the increase, I believe, for the city manager.

The increase as I understand it takes the city manager from 345,000 to 386,000 plus three percent.

That takes it up to a total of 398,000 dollars.

And the increase, as I understand it, is based on a bunch benchmark of five or six different cities.

Two of those are Gilbert and Chandler.

The other another one is Scottsdale.

It seems to me that there should be some merit included in this increase.

There's a need, I think, for the city to look at how it fares compared to our neighbors.

The city of Chandler, the city of Gilbert, with the report that was produced by Wallet Hub, is ranked 29th out of 182 cities.

Chandler is ranked 70, uh 40th.

Scottsdale is ranked 41st.

The city of Mesa is ranked at 70.

So we're considerably less safe than those two cities.

However, we spend considerably more than those two cities when it comes to our general governmental operations.

For the 2024 period, the city spent 1 billion 67 million dollars in total expenses for general governmental operations.

Those two cities spent 812, 71,000.

So we spend 255 million dollars more than those two cities for the combined Chandler and Gilbert.

Those two cities, their population is 550,000 55,000 combined.

City of Mesa's 511,000.

Seems to me that the increase should have some merit and some performance base attached to it, and I don't see that in the amendment.

All I see is that based on the benchmark that was performed, the city is proposing that we increase the city manager based on the average plus three percent.

So I oppose the increase.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr.

Davis.

We appreciate if you keep the clapping to a minimum.

We we know there's support for the conversation.

So thank you for that.

Um thank you for your question, Mr.

Davis.

As a council, we thoroughly vet all our employment raises, especially the benchmarking component.

We felt that was the best way to finalize the number for our city manager and all staff, and taking a uh average of all the salaries throughout the the valley here.

That's how we came up with the salary for uh Mr.

Butler, along with performance measures that we've we've discussed internally, and he will continue to meet those measures.

I don't know, council, if you have anything you'd like to say uh regarding this motion.

Okay.

If not, uh I'll entertain a motion to approve item 4L.

Mr.

Heredia.

Thank you, Mr.

Summers.

All in favor, cast your vote.

It's unanimous, thank you.

Next we'll move over to item 8A, uh proposing amendments to chapters 456, 7, 8, 10, 31, and 86 and 87 of the Title 11 Mesa City Code pertaining to battery energy storage systems.

So with that, uh, I think Ms.

Duff, you wanted to take that off and have a discussion.

Yeah, I wanted to take it off.

I know we've discussed it at length over uh a few meetings now.

Um I'll be voting no on it.

I think the thousand feet is excessive, and I understand there is support um appears a support at City Council to pass it.

So um, in retrospect of understanding it'll be approved, I'd like to consider bringing it back at another time when we had more time to look at studies and and other effects to consider um shortening that distance, maybe 400 feet, maybe a hundred feet.

Um, but I would say at minimum just the 400 feet, which would put um residences in line with parks and schools and um churches, and to have that consistency.

So I'd like to see it come back at a future date.

And uh that's where I'm at.

Okay.

Mr.

Smith, Mr.

Butler, there's uh relative to coming back at a certain date in the near future, say a year or less.

I mean, what what's your opinions on that and thoughts, guidance?

Yeah, mayor and council, we um we can certainly um work with council to to determine what would be the appropriate time uh to bring this back.

Like I said, I'm I I feel uh good about the fact that we found a path forward for the sites that are under discussion uh currently.

Um any future sites would be would have to be a collaborative effort between any app future applicant and Salt River Project uh in particular in this area.

So we'll I think that'll give us time to have a more informed um discussion as we move forward.

I know there's you know, as as we stated on Thursday, we've we've heard a lot of discussion from council about as the technology evolves, as safety uh regulations tied to this evolve that that's something that will inform future decisions that this council will be able to make.

And I I think we've got a little breathing room right now after these three sites are are moving forward that we'll be able to um to definitely make a more informed uh decision as we talk about best systems in the future.

Very good, Mr.

Adams.

Thank you, Mayor.

I am uh I'm sympathetic towards Councilmember Duff's concerns.

I'm also aware that uh a lot of the uh data out there is uh a moving target, and it would be nice if there were some solid numbers that I could feel comfortable with.

Uh I think in this instant case, um, as I expressed at the study session, the parties involved here uh have come to an agreement, and uh they've come to that agreement to my knowledge, uh, not under duress.

So I think for their benefit, this should move forward as it's presented.

However, I think we should also continue to look at the issues surrounding battery energy storage systems, the distances involved, with the understanding that uh uh there is uh a lot of data out there that should be considered as technology advances.

So uh I'm supportive of this uh with the understanding that we will be revisiting these standards as we as we go down the road.

Very good.

Thank you, Mr.

Adams.

Vice Mayor, you want to make a comment.

Apparently, uh they don't want me to.

First, I'm gonna say uh anybody who wants to know my position just has to rewind a couple of meetings and you'll hear a long diatribe on uh my experiences with with batteries and my thoughts here.

A thousand feet isn't for every community.

Every community has different tolerances.

It's what's right for Mesa now.

And if four people on this council decide to vote no on this, then Bess is not allowed in a city of Mesa.

I think under existing technologies and what's unknown about future future chemistries, having that thousand feet from someone's home where they can't always evacuate.

Quickly is the right measure to do, and I do understand that as things change as more data comes in, we can reexamine this.

As a matter of fact, there's another safety item on here about e-bikes and in parks, and that's not a that's not a perfect ordinance either.

But it's a start, and we will continue to look at these issues on this council to make the best decisions for the time.

The best decision for this time is to approve this ordinance with the 1,000 feet.

So I will be in support.

Okay, thank you.

Well, hearing nothing else, I just want to add that I do to support uh revisiting this.

Uh NFPA 855 is coming into play very soon.

The Arizona Fire Marshals Association office will be adopting an FPA 55.

And so maybe, Mr.

Manager, in the future we can have a study session and see where we're at between uh the NFPA and other technical data.

Yeah, absolutely, Mayor.

And one of the things that we can do, we've we've already had a lot of robust dialogue with Salt River Project about those energy needs moving forward.

And we are that's a that's a really important partnership because we need power in Mesa to meet the economic development goals that we have set forward, because advanced manufacturers, uh semiconductor, biomed, some of the great ribbon cuttings that the vice mayor was talking about downstairs all rely on a robust power supply that we're gonna have to work with our partners at uh at SRP to ensure that we we have moving forward.

So um, so mayor, we we can certainly do that.

It might be best that if we continue this dialogue right now with SRP and just find the appropriate time as we look at um projects in the pipeline, other projects in the future, where would it make sense because the proximity to manufacturers and to substations um comes into play and is is really crucial for placement.

I think um all of that will be um will really influence the decision and the discussion as we move forward.

So I think we need to um have our arms wrapped around those aspects before it would be meaningful to bring it back to the council.

Very good.

Thank you.

With that, I'll entertain a motion to prove I think that's a good one on this subject.

Pardon?

Is there a blue card?

Is there a blue card?

Yes, Mayor, we have nine cards on this subject, actually.

Um of them are representing a group.

Okay, would you let's read them off then?

This is the first one.

All right, so the first request is David Wynne Stanley.

Mr.

Wynne Stanley.

Good evening, Mr.

Mayor, Council.

Uh, my name is David Wynn Stanley.

I live in District 6.

Most of you know me.

I'm a retired director of engineering at Honeywell Aerospace.

One of my responsibilities as director of engineering was product safety.

Every month I made the trip over to Long Beach to brief the FAA on new and ongoing safety issues with Honeywell Mechanical Systems.

In aerospace nuclear and many other industry, safety risk is evaluated with two aspects: the probability of having the event and the consequences of the event.

These two aspects are independent.

If a safety event involves any potential risk of human injury or death, they must be avoided.

The FAA in particular will not accept a probability argument if life or limb is at risk, not even if we can definitively show a less than one in a billion chance of the event happening.

Instead, we must actively design out the consequences.

This philosophy applies equally to battered battery energy storage systems.

During my tenure at Honeywell, I was involved in the investigation of two battery fire incidents on airplanes.

Both were on the 787 airplane.

They are published in public records by the FAA and the United Kingdom Air Incidents Investigation Branch.

We learned from these investigations that investigations that battery fires are highly energetic, produce high temperature gases that contain toxic chemicals depending on the chemistry of the battery, and often have unintended consequences.

We learned that solutions to battery fires must be actively tested at worst-case conditions.

The batteries that I investigated were a hundred times more energetic than your typical phone or computer battery, but they're a hundred times less energetic than what we're describing in battery battery, sorry, in the best systems.

There's a lot of energy potential and a safety risk.

Two things bother me regarding the discussions during past city council meeting and study sessions on this subject.

Number one, no testing, I repeat, testing, was ever discussed by those quoting expert agencies who define such municipal and other building codes.

We learned in our investigations that theory and prior experience is not adequate for battery fires because fault progression and unintended consequences always occur.

And number two, yes, there are new technologies for minimizing battery fire hazard.

And as an engineer, I am very intrigued.

But these are not specified in your current city code.

Therefore, that's not a relevant discussion at this point.

It is my understanding that those who have the immediate need of this ordinance can live with it as written.

Therefore, I urge you to vote yes on this ordinance, keeping the 1,000 feet and come back to it and revise it to minimize development impact when the technology and especially the testing is codified and understood.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Mr.

Wenstanley.

Uh who's next, Miss Mosley.

Next, I just have a last name for CPAN with uh representing Arizona Technology Council.

And next on deck would be Court Rich with APA power.

Okay.

Hello, sir.

Welcome back.

Good to see everyone again.

Uh Mayor Freeman, members of council, good evening.

My name is Sipand Elizada.

I'm with the Arizona Technology Council, 2800 North Central Avenue, Suite 1530 Phoenix.

It is an honor and privilege to stand before you this evening to provide these comments.

Before I begin, uh I want to thank Mesa's Development Services Department, City Attorney's Office, and City Manager for all the hard work that has been put into updating the City of Mesa code.

Zoning ordinances are living documents and they need to be refreshed.

You all have done that.

The Arizona Technology Council is ecstatic to hear that the best proposals that are going through the site plan process are moving forward and are able to comply with the proposed 1,000 foot separation requirement from residences.

This is fantastic news.

That said, we are concerned about the viability of future battery energy storage system projects coming before the city.

Should this proposed separation requirement move forward?

Mesa is growing.

More land will be rezoned residential as more people seek to move into this community.

Also, more technology companies and tech manufacturers will seek to set up operations in Mesa.

We've heard from them.

They love this city as they should.

Battery energy storage systems will play a key role in fueling this future economic growth.

By moving a 1,000-foot separation requirement forward, the city council may harm the viability of Mesa as a tech hub for companies that want to locate here.

If there's not enough power, they will go elsewhere.

Knowing I'm an NFL fanatic, one of my mentors once told me that the most impactful public policies are developed in between the 40-yard lines.

The AZ Tech Council has previously suggested a separation requirement of less than 200 feet.

In October, the planning and zoning board recommended the separation requirement of 400 feet, one that energy developers who are our members will find more palatable.

The Arizona Technology Council would support that.

If the 1,000 foot separation requirement is adopted tonight, we ask that you all look to reexamine it in the near future, just as was suggested at Thursday's study session and earlier this evening.

With that, I want to thank you all for your time.

And on behalf of the Arizona Technology Council, we wish every Mesa resident and business owner a happy and healthy 2026.

Thank you.

Thank you, CPAN.

Uh Mr.

Rich, Court Rich, and who's following Mr.

Rich.

That will be Buchanan Davis with Salt River Project.

Good evening, Mayor, Council members.

My name is Court Rich from the Rose Law Group.

I'm here today on behalf of IPA Power.

Uh IPA is one of the companies that's developing uh the battery energy storage projects in the city already.

They have two projects along Signal Butte.

Uh we appreciate your time.

I know each of you have thought about this issue deeply and spoken about it often at these meetings and outside of these meetings.

We appreciate the time of staff working on this issue.

Um we're here today to ask you to support this and vote in favor of this item.

Uh we think there are immediate needs that SRP has spoken about for these projects, and this will free them up to move forward.

We're happy to be a resource going forward to talk about what we think the right um the right setback should be in the future and and think that it can be done safely at lesser uh lesser setbacks, but but encourage you to move forward with it today, as is.

Appreciate all your time.

Thank you.

And happy to you.

Thank you, Court.

Uh Buchanan.

Who's after Mr.

Davis?

Kyle Whittier with Next Air Energy Resources.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council.

Thanks for the opportunity to be here today.

Buchanan Davis Salt River Project.

I'm a director of local government relations.

We have talked a lot with you all about the tremendous growth that Salt River Project is experiencing.

And uh, you know, we're gonna double our load in the next 10 years.

What it took us a hundred plus years to build, we're gonna have to do in ten years.

And we're approaching that by all of the above strategy, and we've talked about that as we look for natural gas and nuclear and all kinds of technology.

But battery storage is an important tool in the toolbox.

It it keeps the lights on when demand is highest.

Uh, you know, it charges energy when it's cheap and abundant and deploys it when it we need it the most in those hours of the day when demand is the highest.

We really appreciate the city council and the city staff coming together for several months ago.

It was realized that uh you had no code for for best, and and for some of our projects were already in the works.

We needed uh an ordinance to move forward.

We're grateful and that uh staff moved very quickly on this and uh very collaboratively, and we were part of that.

Um and we're and and and now we're here.

We appreciate the continuance from for last month that would allow all of those projects and in the pipeline to uh get across the finish line.

Ultimately, there are some policies and the ordinances that we do disagree with, one being the a thousand foot setback.

We are in the situation though, w where we want we need it to be legal so we can move forward with the projects to meet demand as we have it now.

But we also would like you to consider, as has been said, a future conversation on some of the policy within that, including the setbacks and maybe including some areas that aren't included now, light industrial things like that.

So uh that is our ask that we support the ordinance as written to move forward, allowing a legal framework for our projects to also move forward, but we would hope that the council would consider leaving the door open for some further considerations.

With that, I'd take any questions or anything you have for me.

Vice Mayor.

Mr.

Davis, would you extend my appreciation to Linda Brady, your vice president for her work?

I've mentioned her name from this diocese several times, and I swear within 15 minutes I had a text message and a phone call.

So she was instrumental in working through with all the partners to find a reasonable solution to everyone's issues.

I appreciate Vice Mayor.

I'll do that.

And um, today's her birthday, so uh that's why I'm here, not sh her.

So I was not that she didn't want to be here with you all tonight.

Well, thanks for giving her some time off tonight.

We wish her well as well.

Thank you, Buchanan.

Thanks, Mayor.

All right, Miss Mosley, after our next uh so next is Kyle Whittier with Next Era, and following Kyle is Brian Fink with Fire and Risk Alliance.

All right, good evening, Mayor.

Good evening, Council members.

Uh, first, thanks for the opportunity to speak tonight.

Uh my name is Kyle Whittier.

I'm here on behalf of Next Air Energy Resources, and as one of America's largest all of the above energy companies, we uh develop and operate a diverse portfolio of nuclear, natural gas, renewables, and battery energy storage.

Uh and although it's newer than some of the other technologies, we have been operating battery energy storage around the country for about a decade now, with 50 operational sites, several here in the state of Arizona.

Uh so first I'd just like to thank the city staff, of course, uh, the planning and zoning commission and the council members for your willingness to to uh engage in communication here as we talk through this best ordinance.

We at Next Air Energy Resources have worked through similar processes with many other jurisdictions across the country, and we understand the heavy lift that it entails.

I'd also like to thank the council for the previous continue vote uh back in December, allowing us the critical 30 days to come to an agreement, uh, come to a way that we can build our proposed project here under the existing uh restrictions from this this best ordinance.

Uh we all agree that the safety of Mesa residents is the most important issue.

Full stop.

Uh however, we do believe that the current ordinance creates unnecessarily and overly restrictive regulations, provisions like the zoning district uh regul restriction and the thousand foot setback from residential zoning, not only adds cost to the customer, but harms the ability of the electric utilities to provide the needed energy to power homes, businesses, schools, and hospitals.

With regard to safety, NFP 855 is the gold standard, which is why Mesa already relies on it for many of their other codes.

And it's also why Maricopa County voted unanimously last month to do an overhaul of their zoning ordinance, including a hundred foot setback for best, just like NFPA 85 recommends.

Like has been mentioned before, uh, we understand that the ordinance will likely be adopted tonight.

And if it is, we just urge the city to keep looking at best, uh, engage in conversations with us with others in the industry and revisit this at a later time.

Again, thank you.

Thank you, Kyle.

All right.

Next, uh, Miss Mosley after Kong.

Next, we have Brian Fink with Fire and Risk Alliance.

And following Brian next would be Autumn Johnson with Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association.

Brian.

Hello, Chief.

Good evening and a happy new year to all.

Um I'm gonna make your night.

I'm not, I'm not gonna speak on the on the topic.

It doesn't sound like you need any questions answered.

But I would like to say that I do a lot of training around the uh country on these systems, and I meet with a lot of AHJs, and I'm thoroughly impressed on how the city has handled this new ordinance and how quickly you've moved it through uh the process.

Most places don't operate like this, and I'm uh passing along my uh kudos to how well you've handled things.

Thank you.

I hope it's warmer here than New York.

It is.

Can I stay for a little bit longer?

Any good deals on property.

If we can get that as a quote, yeah.

All right, autumn is next, and then after autumn is home.

Uh after autumn is Amanda Curtis with MWEG.

Good evening, uh, Mayor and Council members.

My name is Autumn Johnson.

I'm the executive director of the Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association or Aresia.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Are C, as you know, has submitted detailed written comments to the city on this issue, including on October 15th and November 26th.

Those letters outline our core concern that the proposed 1,000 foot setback for battery storage systems is arbitrary, unsupported by data, and outside national best practice.

Setbacks of this magnitude do not reflect the National Fire Protection Association standard 855, do not reflect the International Fire Code, and do not reflect the best available safety science.

NFPA 855 and the Phoenix Regional Standard Operating Procedures identify 100 feet from the best equipment itself as an appropriate separation for large outdoor systems.

That is the standard used by fire professionals across the country.

The American Planning Association reviewed best ordinances nationwide and found that jurisdiction-specific setbacks typically fall between 50 and 150 feet, again measured from the equipment.

Put it plainly, if adopted as drafted, this would be the largest best setback in Arizona, and to our knowledge, one of the largest in the United States.

Even Maricopa County eliminated its proposed 500 foot separation after hearing from fire experts.

Buckeye adopted 150 feet, and the surprise ordinance that has been mentioned several times within this process is a draft and has not ever been voted on.

I realize that Councilman Summers said that this is just for Mesa, and I understand that, but it will be copied by other jurisdictions, and that's really the problem.

And that being copied throughout the state will make electricity prices more expensive, and it will make our grid less reliable.

Mesa does not need to chart an entirely new path when standard space paths already exist.

NFPA 855 and UL9540 testing and the fire code provide enforceable science grounded protections, creating a best specific setback that is 10 times higher than the national norms, risks functioning as a de facto ban, pushing projects farther from load, and raising costs for residents, as well as undermining system reliability at a time when the region is facing record peak demand.

BEST, either comply with what Maricopa County or Buckeye did.

To the extent that this passes today, I would ask that you please revisit the setback within 2026.

And I hope that this doesn't take you know years to come back and correct.

Thank you.

Thank you, Autumn.

Uh Amanda, and then following Amanda is home.

Uh the final speaker tonight would be Julie Moore.

Julie Moore, okay.

Welcome, Amanda.

Thank you.

I'm so sorry, I'm losing my voice, and I apologize.

Um I'm here um representing M Weg, or Mormon Women for Ethical Government.

And we want to thank you for the opportunity to comment on the enactment of an ordinance pertaining to the best systems.

Um we're grateful for the transparency shown so far and respectfully ask the council to continue working toward an ordinance that follows the recommendations of industry experts.

Our organization is composed of women in Mesa and throughout the state of Arizona who firmly believe in our responsibility to be good stewards of the Earth's resources while ensuring that the city's families and businesses have access to safe, reliable, and affordable electricity.

For those reasons, we support best technology as an essential component of securing the stability and affordability of Mesa's electric grid.

We encourage Mesa to adopt the standards recommended by the National Fire Protection Association, including a 50 to 150 foot set property line setback, excuse me.

According to the Asma, please.

Umsociation, this is the distance range that most of the examin jurisdictions used.

Experts consider this a safe distance for best facilities, especially when combined with other safety measures like fire suppression systems and adherence to national safety codes.

The American Clean Power Association has created a model ordinance drawn from a variety of sources, including an FPA, national fire safety standards, guidance established by national energy laboratories, existing state laws and local regulations, firefighters, fire protection professionals, and safety experts.

We have concerns that the proposed recommendation of a 1,000-foot setback for sensitive locations would limit the number of viable sites where best projects could be developed, potentially making them economically and logistically impossible in many areas of Mesa.

This large setback would drastically reduce the availability of land with existing infrastructure infrastructure to support interconnection of a best facility to the grid.

It would make the acquisition of appropriate land more difficult and expensive.

The cost of the system itself would increase due to the longer roads and added wiring and cables needed for a larger than necessary setback.

A 1,000 foot setback is not required for installations to be safe.

Best safety has significantly improved in recent years, with failure rates decreasing dramatically due to better system designs, innovations in battery chemistry, improved containment, and enhanced fire safety standards such as the NFPA 855.

And WEC urges the city council to consult the most recent industry safety standards mentioned above.

We are confident that with the right ordinance, best can be thoughtfully and safely integrated without comp within Mesa without compromising public health and safety.

Thank you for your service to the Mesa community, Amanda Curtis Mesa resident, Amber Daniel, MY Arizona's environmental specialist, and Jane Anderson, MWAG Arizona State Director.

Thank you, Amanda.

Julie.

Thank you.

All right, that was a short message.

Thank you, Julie.

Uh, with that, council, any input uh or discussion.

Do you need to hear from our fire marshal or our chief building official or planning director?

Okay, well, hearing none, I will entertain a motion to approve uh unless there's no other comments.

Uh Ms.

Mosley, we've covered everybody, correct?

Yes, Mayor, that was all for item 8A.

All right.

Okay, with that, we'll entertain a motion.

Thank you.

Mr.

Summers, thank you, Miss Gilforth.

All in favor, please cast your vote.

Thank you.

Passes six to one.

With that, we'll move over to item eight B.

Uh, that is an ordinance amending adopting the Mesa City Code of Park Regulation, section six ten-two, six-tan-four, six-10-seven, and six-tan-eight that allow the use of certain electric bicycles, electric scooters, and other motorized and non-motorized vehicles in city parks.

Uh, shared use paths, subject to certain limitations.

Whom do we have to speak on this, Miss Mosley?

Mayor, we have one request to speak on this from Mr.

David Wynne Stanley.

All right, Mr.

Winstanley.

You're in the lottery draw.

Good evening again, Mayor and Council members and staff.

My name is David Wynstanley.

I live in District 6.

Thanks for letting me speak again on this subject.

I spoke to you last meeting, and we had a great robust discussion as a result.

Thank you.

Since the last meeting, I saw a great video produced by the MISA police department on the definition of electric motorcycles versus e-bikes.

Thank you for that.

Every parent should see this video, but unfortunately, many will not.

This brings me to my first point.

Signage.

How will the new speed limit be displayed?

Is there a budget for these speed limit signs?

Is someone on staff assigned to make that happen?

And will you please include electric motorcycles prohibited on the signs?

This may get parents' attention to the distinction between e-bikes and electric motorcycles.

The second point I would like to make is enforcement.

I will let Councilman Adams expound on this subject since he has more than three minutes.

But it needs to be a continuing discussion that comes to a conclusion.

We have a serious problem in Southeast Mesa with electric-powered vehicles operated by children who are not observing any reasonable or rational rules.

I have twice in recent months had to slam on my brakes along railroad to avoid an e-scooter darting out into traffic or J driving across the street.

I have asked folks from other parts of the city, and it seems as though they are not yet seeing this as a problem.

Park rangers would be of value in Eastmark Gray Park, but they won't help on the roads.

And just to follow up on uh Mr.

Smith's comment, uh, if you want to see what it's like with e-bikes on regular sidewalks, I asked you to go to Eastmark High School at the dismissal.

It is crazy.

Somebody is gonna get hurt.

The last point I would like to make is the need for no ride zones.

Areas where even five miles per hour is too much.

All bicycle and scooters need to be walked.

That includes me.

I'm one of the bicyclists.

My wife is one of the huge e-bike riders.

I I will send you a photo if you would like, but there were two low rider electric motorcycles maneuvering a group among a group of people across the street, leaving Mesa Art Center, uh, an event there, uh, and they wove through the people and sped off.

Luckily, no ankles were clipped, no canes were knocked over, and no walkers were hit, but it was an accident that just almost happened.

Uh we have a similar location uh in the Eastmark Great Park.

The plaza on the north corner on the corner of Ray Road and Inspiran Road, it's a confluence of restaurant patrons, Eastmark community building entrance, and most importantly, the entrance to the children's splash pad.

This is an area I mentioned in the last meeting where an accident is waiting to happen.

E-bikes, e-scooters zooming in and out of people with little children racing across the plaza, as three-year-olds and five-year-olds are wont to do as they come out of the splash pad.

So I do support this ordinance, but I'm asking you to assign someone to follow up and bring to conclusion these open issues that are not resolved by this legislation.

Thank you for your attention.

Thank you, Mr.

West Alley.

Anybody on council want to comment?

I think you were called out, Mr.

Adams.

There we go.

Well, I I probably deserve that.

Um I I've really struggled with this this whole issue because I I believe we need to do something, obviously.

Um it was pointed out at study session that uh, you know, when I was discussing the enforcement aspect, it was pointed out that you know we do have our park rangers, and um we can employ them within the park system.

Um but then we also have the streets.

Um I'm not familiar with the Eastmark problem.

I am familiar with the uh um Lehigh Crossing area because my son lives there, and I was just there last night after dark, and a couple of young people on a couple of these.

I don't know whether they were e-bikes with pedals or the kind that that don't have pedals, but no lights whatsoever, and I had to swerve to avoid one of them.

Um it it's a problem.

I I'm going to vote in favor.

I'm gonna support this because I think we need to do something, but I I think it's just the start, and I think we need to continue to work on this.

Uh my personal preference is that where we have unlicensed miners operating these and violating the law.

I think we need to uh take a look at their parents.

Somebody's responsible for the conduct of minors, and it's typically parents.

So I think we have our work to do.

I don't have a complete solution, but I I have indicated in the past that I'm not supportive of this, but I think as I as I on balance, if we do nothing, we've we we've taken we've taken no action.

So I think I'm going to be supportive of this because I think it's a good first step.

But um, as I've said before, I hope that we can find a way to bring this under control before some young person or persons or young child or whatever is either seriously injured or killed as the potential exists.

So um thank you, Mayor.

Those are just my my thoughts on it.

Thank you.

Anyone on council, Miss Gold.

So thank you, Mr.

Winstanley.

I think you're exactly right.

This is the first step.

Uh, once we pass the ordinance, it's gonna be about educating, it's gonna be about signage.

I would agree.

Most people don't follow the the city council meetings, aren't gonna know that there's a new ordinance, and so it's gonna be very important for us to educate and designage.

And I agree, I'm not I'm not sure we're quite solving the problem, but I think I agree with Rich, it's a good first step.

I asked about riding on the sidewalk.

I mean, I I ride on the sidewalk on my e-bike.

I didn't know you couldn't ride on the sidewalk, and I don't think the issue is adults.

I think it's kids, and it's it's they're not supposed to be on the e-bike anyway.

So we're not even we're not even addressing that.

I think it's mostly probably under 16 who are not supposed to be riding an e-bike.

So and now we've inadvertently, you know, prohibited adults who may want to ride their bike on the sidewalk.

It has to be happens to be an e-bike.

Um, so it's just not a perfect uh ordinance, but it is a start, I agree.

Um, and it's it's gonna need some more work as as we go down the road here.

So thank you.

Thank you, Miss Goforth.

Anyone else?

Well, Mr.

Woodstand, you you bring out some good points, you know.

Uh, but you're you're putting two together.

We're talking about parks and our shared use paths, and that's what we want to concentrate on, is making sure we we do the right things, and and we know that we may have to massage this later on down the road, and then the bicycle thing, things that we have available.

I've talked to our police chief about it.

Uh we have our real-time crime center, we they can deploy drones, uh, you know, for those that are not acting appropriately, and and I know they don't have a license plate, maybe it'll be hard to catch, and we can come up with all kinds of uh things to say about that.

But at the end of the day, we do have resources available, and then we're waiting, we hear legislation coming into your point.

Yes, we're tracking that.

We have our intergovs are watching what our state legislators are gonna do, and uh they should be back in session, I think this week, if not well, this week anyway.

Yeah, I think today was their introductory, and then you know, kind of, and then they they're starting dropping bills.

Okay, so we're watching everything going on to see if we're handcuffed and if they're taking away, and I'll say local control from us as as municipalities, which uh we don't agree with.

So thank you for your advocacy on that.

Uh with that, council, I believe if there's nothing else, a motion, you can.

Thank you, David.

We appreciate your comments.

Uh I actually had an extensive conversation with my husband, who has we've seen many e-bikes go through our neighborhood, young children, adults, and he's a pretty creative thinker.

And I said, What would you do in this situation just as a resident looking at all this kind of unfold?

And he agreed that because this is such a new issue that Mesa is having, and it's not just Mesa, there's other municipalities that are that are experiencing this as well.

He said, You kind of have to stair step this.

It's almost like an experimentation.

We made it illegal, it didn't work.

People violated the law, they would still ride in our parks, even though it's disallowed.

And so now the question is is maybe if we are just kind and courteous, allow it, educate people, they will respect the fact that they're now allowed to do that.

I don't necessarily think that that's going to be a perfect solution.

I do agree with you.

There needs to be very clear signage as to what each thing is, where it's allowed, where it's disallowed.

Um, I would like to remind the public, you do have bike paths that you can ride your bikes on.

That's why they're there.

They were very expensive for us to create for you, so I would encourage you to ride your e-bikes on our bike paths.

And I would also like to encourage the public as we go through with this to remember to be very respectful for the other people that are pedestrians in the parks, particularly the fact that we have a lot of families in Mesa that are enjoying our parks with children, including strollers, and we have elderly people that are also enjoying those public spaces.

So we are not currently requiring the e-bikes to have their own separate path, but we would like for them to be respectful of their pedestrian neighbors that are gonna be using them.

Um we would hate to have such serious injuries occur that it technically could become a future problem that disallows e-bikes in Mesa in general.

I don't think that's going to happen.

Um, but that's something to consider.

We don't want bad apples to ruin it for everybody.

So he did tell me he thought this was probably the best option is learn to educate and then move forward, and we'll see if this works.

Hopefully, it does.

I'm glad that the council's open and willing to give it a shot.

So thank you.

All right.

Is there a motion to approve this item?

Uh 8B.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

Second by Miss Go Forth, please cast your vote.

Okay, motion passes unanimously.

With that, we'll move on to item 8D.

That is a zoning case at 623 South Mesa Drive, point six acres.

Uh with that, uh, Miss Mosley, who do we have to speak on this?

Tonight we have Noah James Markham here to speak in support of 8D.

Okay.

Uh hello, Noah.

Welcome again.

Happy New Year's to everybody in Mesa.

Um, yeah, I'm really excited that we are doing stuff here in Mesa, as I can see that people complain a lot here in Mesa.

Yeah, I'm really excited that we are doing stuff here in Mesa, as I can see that people complain a lot here in Mesa.

It is embarrassing.

I see when I go through Mesa.

Um, if there's a lot of things that are broken down here.

Like the buildings are not like built, like they're like, there's nobody wants to use the building.

Um, and Mesa, and it just looks really ghetto here.

Um, and considering being a Republican, I'm not a Republican, thank goodness.

Um, I think you guys should be thinking about about your money, especially building more here.

I mean, it's pretty gross.

See, it may so like this.

Um, but yes, this is um this is good for to have.

Um, and like I said, this is good for the zoning.

This is good um to build, because I don't know if you guys have section eight at all yet.

But um, yeah, that would be a recommended thing too about this stuff, too.

Um so thank you, Mahalo, for your time.

Thank you, Noah.

All right.

With that, uh, I'll entertain a motion to approve item eight D zoning case 24-0098.

Thank you, Miss Duff.

By Mr.

Redia, please cast your vote.

Okay, that moves on unanimously.

Uh, next is item 8E.

It's a zoning case again, item 25-00309, Dutch Bros uh.8 acres on power and Elliot.

Uh who is the lucky speaker, Miss Mosley?

It is Noah James, once again.

Oh my.

We love Noah.

Um, yeah, so being a resident of Tempe, it's gonna, you know.

Um, but it's great to have this, and um I I love it.

I can hear that Dutch Bros.

I love Dutch Bros, because they really include the word DEI.

And I know it's hard in Mesa for that to be happening in Mesa.

But Dutch Bros is a very good example of the DEI.

So we need to build this.

So we have it more in Mesa.

Thank you, Mahalo.

Well, thank you, Noah.

We need to approve it first before we build it.

Uh, with that, uh, council uh entertain a motion to approve item 8E, which is zoning case 25-00309.

That's for the coffee, right?

Yeah, cup of coffee.

Thank you, Mr.

Redia.

Mr.

Summers, please cast your vote.

All right, that moves on unanimously.

I think that covers Miss Mosley's that everything off uh the agenda, consent agenda, correct?

Yes, Mayor.

Okay.

Next is uh items from citizens present.

As you know, we allow three speakers three minutes to speak because the topics vary.

Uh speakers raise or not on our agenda and generally prevents council from responding to the speaker.

However, sometimes we'll get and have staff meet with you, and you can uh you know be entertained that way.

In the coming months, I want you to be aware the city will provide electronic options to fill out blue cards for council meetings, including options to fill it out on your phone and at kiosk in the lobby, and updates will be shared on the city social media and city clerk's website.

So please check those sources for the latest information.

With that, Miss Mosley, who's our first speaker tonight?

So the first I'll just read the three in the order that they were turned in so you'll know.

Um the first is Jason Smithson, the second will be Reginald Braun, and third will be Trent Heidke.

All right.

All right.

Thank you, sir.

Yes.

Members of the council, thank you for your time.

I want to share a story from Webster Elementary.

My son's school that speaks directly to what leadership looks like and what it doesn't.

For Christmas, Webster Elementary was adopted by the fire department to provide gifts for students.

On December 16th, just hours before the scheduled arrival, the school received a call stating that the event had to be canceled.

The fire department had only secured a hundred gifts for more than 600 students.

Every single child was about to be disappointed.

As the only parent serving on Webster's PTO, I acted immediately.

I reached out to Councilmember Heredia and his coordinator, Miss Hambright.

I also contacted Councilmember Duff and her coordinator, Miss Gutierrez, as I live in District 4.

Ms.

Hambright responded almost immediately, and she took action.

I don't know every call she made, but I do know this.

Because of her efforts, the fire department was able to secure enough gifts, and the event went for forward.

Over 600 children had an amazing day.

Especially considering Webster Elementary serves the highest homeless student population in the district and is one of the lowest income schools in the state.

For many of those children, that gift was the only gift they would receive this holiday season.

So, Councilmember Heredia, I want you to know how exceptional exceptional your coordinator is.

Her responsiveness and a sense of responsibility made a real difference for hundreds of students and families.

Thank you.

I encourage you to visit Webster as they are aware without you and your staff, we would have had a completely different conversation.

Now, on the other side of that experience, I need to express my deep disappointment with Councilmember Duff in her office.

Neither Miss Duff nor her coordinator responded at the time.

More importantly, neither of them followed up afterward to ensure the situation had been resolved.

As a constituent who has repeatedly reached out to Miss Duff and has been ignored, this was not surprising.

It was unacceptable.

City leadership is not about titles or photo opportunities.

It is about showing up when your community needs you.

In this case, that did not happen.

Public education matters to me.

Our students, educators, and families deserve leaders who respond who care and who act.

Constituents should not have to wait until election season to matter.

Do better, listen better.

And I'll end with this.

Last month I asked for a vote to end the 287G agreement, and that request was ignored.

ICE is no longer focused on dangerous criminals.

They are going after anyone who questions them, no matter their citizenship or skin color.

They are violating rights first and asking questions later.

This should not be a political issue, as it is a matter of basic human decency.

Our students in our community are not safer because of this agreement.

And while I understand some of you may fear being turning pointed, as unfortunately former council member Spillsbury was, and Councilmember Taylor, that is not a knock at you, as I'm sure you're a great person.

It just wasn't right.

I'm asking at least a few of you to stand up for the people you represent and put neighbors before politics.

Her name was Renee Good, and she was an American citizen.

Thank you, sir.

Uh, next speaker is Reginald Braun.

And then after him.

And then Trent Hyde Key.

The Gilbert Goons were electric by people, and people steal stuff and speed away electric bikes.

So consideration.

Give solutions for stuff.

Um.

You know, I trained under a great guy.

He was a patrol and swap guy in West Dallas.

You know, almost capable guys, I knew.

Um he would conscript us as students to, you know, help them out with his four use of force classes, and when we went to Coronado.

No matter who we taught, he always said the same thing, whether like JSOP or women.

You said, like, who here, like, what's the best weapon?

And all the guys were like, oh, like Lock 19 or whatever like that.

This woman was like, oh, I don't know.

Like, run away.

He always said it was words and thoughts.

You train because people don't want to hurt each other.

You train because you gotta do something in a moment that normally takes people something they can't imagine.

You think about it, you practice it, you practice it, and you do it.

Renee Good was shot in the face by a guy who was holding a phone in front of a car.

You know how hard that is to do?

Hardism to shoot somebody in the face.

And we're okay with that.

Or like we're okay with guys going around wearing masks and doing that to women.

I just said last time we had a great police force.

We had 100% homicide solution.

We had a drop in 25% of violent crime.

We have less than 11.

Was it 18% clearance rate for sexual assaults?

That's not a that's not solving it.

A clearance rate just means that it was addressed or someone decided to withdraw, you know, like a rape victim and not want to be faced by somebody.

We're investing 36 million dollars in a crisis center.

Oh, by the way, 274 women or people, I'm sorry.

People, mostly women.

Reported.

Um people are assaulted.

Do not report.

So it's over 500 women, probably, or people at deals.

Now, why am I talking about this?

Well, we're talking about a lot of stuff about the festival stuff and investment.

We're talking about energy and batteries and all that stuff.

We have 51% of the population that are women, there's a mothers, our daughters, or sisters.

And we're not talking about that.

It's a crazy world of living.

I talk about some real stuff.

Liability, which talked about $14 million civil liability because ICE won't pay for that.

People aren't safer with ICE because they can't enforce Arizona laws.

They distract from the police.

You don't do secretary work for the government.

That is defunding.

That is the definition of defunding the police.

They're not doing what we hope they would do.

I recommend that you have just a few seconds left.

I recommend you repass them to go ahead and go after rapists and sexual assaulters.

We know we can do it.

We have reduced crime and violent crime.

Easy.

We know that when they when they are detained, because people get toward right away, we foot the bill to detain these people.

Government doesn't.

I've asked for the records from uh the open data project.

I haven't received it.

I'm sure you might have come past your desk.

Uh somebody said that it's around since 2009.

It was renewed in 2020.

2009, the iPhone had just come out.

2009, Charles Angels movie.

Reginald.

Reginald, your time's up.

Thank you for your time.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

You bet.

All right.

See you again.

We'll have our next speaker.

I have tried key right.

Just have a little decorum here in respect.

You don't need to be clapping.

We're trying to be civil about this.

Otherwise, I'm gonna ask you to leave.

I'm serious about it.

Enough is enough.

Thank you.

Go ahead, sir.

I'm not sure how to follow that.

Well, but I am here to talk about something else that is important in Mesa, right?

And that is landing fees that are proposed at Falcon Field.

So I am a pilot.

I'm based there at Falcon Field.

And there's a couple of key points.

One is safety, and I and I can't overemphasize this enough.

So from the standpoint of Mesa Falcon Field, it's a controlled environment.

People go in and out of there, they're under positive control by the FAA.

Come and go.

If you put landing fees in, they're gonna move those people to other airports in the area.

And what's gonna happen?

There's gonna be an accident.

Those are uncontrolled airports in other parts of the state that all these people are gonna go to.

Those airports are already saturated with airplanes, and we're gonna end up with a catastrophe, is what we're gonna end up with.

So that's one thing.

The other thing is it appears that a lot of the discussions relative to how the proposal was brought up, how the uh city is addressing noise complaints, those meetings happened in sort of a vacuum.

If I'm looking in from the outside, which I am, um, I knew nothing about any of this before a surprise happened.

And oh, by the way, landing fees are gonna be at $30 a piece every time you land.

That that's quite a jump from nothing for 80 years at Falcon Field.

So that's the second thing.

And I guess the third thing that I'd like to bring up is at the end of the day, Mesa City as a city does not support the airport when every other municipality in the valley supports their airport via fee structures.

Now, you can argue that all day long, but the end at the end of the day, you guys are the only ones that don't support Mesa Falcon Field.

There's an 850 million dollar economic impact that you're ignoring, that you're not helping fund.

It's business 101.

You fund the things that bring you money, you don't starve them like Falcon Field is being starved right now.

My advice is to I as much as I don't want to say it, increase taxes and spread it across the base that you have in Mesa to support Falcon Field.

At the end of the day, that's the right thing to do.

Um with that, I'll leave.

Thank you very much for your time and attention.

I know this is coming up on an agenda.

There's a lot of activity I know is going on with respect to this, and I appreciate every one of them.

But there's there's those three things.

There's safety, there's making sure that we're doing this right with everybody's input that's that's required.

And for God's sake, look at helping out the airport from a city standpoint.

I mean, all the rest of the airports combined economic impact is not what Mesa Falcon Field is to Mesa.

Combined.

That's good.

You're that's everybody else except Gateway, right?

And Phoenix Sky Harbor.

Anyway, thanks, guys, appreciate it.

Thank you.

We'll have one of our assistant city managers reach out to you.

Uh Miss Mosley, have I missed anything else?

No, Mayor, that was all of them.

Well, with that, council, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

Thank you, Mr.

Adams.

All in favor say aye.

All right, we're adjourned for the evening.

Thank you.