Well, good morning, everybody.

Thank you for being here.

Our Mesa City Council study session for July 16th.

And we're back from a small uh council break and appreciate that.

With that, we have Miss Stuff and Miss Go Forth Virtual.

Is that correct?

Yes, it is.

Thanks, Mayor.

Thank you.

And I talked to Miss Duff earlier, so great.

Otherwise, all council are here.

Appreciate that.

First off, item one is to convene an executive session regarding Falconfield's airport landing fees.

There's a motion to convene that session.

Thank you, Miss Taylor.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Okay.

Great.

We will convene our executive session.

Okay, we'd like to reconvene our study session.

All council members are present.

I believe Miss Goforth is doing something else, but Ms.

Duff, are you back on Zoom with us?

If not, we're gonna start.

So item three is to review the agenda we have for our July 20th council meeting.

Let's scroll through the agenda council if there are any questions for staff.

I I have a question about 8B as a boyfriend.

Go ahead, Miss Taylor.

Um I think there's a presentation for this.

This is for the text amendments for unmanned, this is for drones and fleet services.

Um I talked to Rachel and Ian a little bit yesterday about it, but this was um a fairly large concept that I think is coming to Mesa and we should we should learn a little bit more about item number was that 8B.

8B.

Yeah.

Yeah, good morning.

We'll we'll pull it up, Mayor and Council.

We there is a full presentation where we could just answer questions, whatever your preference would be.

Yeah, we I mean that's not just up to me, that's up to the council too.

Um I'm happy to have questions answered.

Um, but there might be some people who desire the presentation as well.

I don't know if everybody went over it.

How quickly?

22.

I said we give you to do the presentation.

Maybe a higher level overview through the presentation or it you and I I can tell you what preempted this because for the city of Tempe.

There was some zoning issues with uh vehicle charging stations and neighborhoods and other areas, and so we wanted to get in front of this to make sure that we had the proper zoning for these type of when industry comes in for fleet services recharging vehicles, drone uh charging as well.

And so Ian and Rachel have been tasked with that.

Yeah.

Yeah, thank you.

I think most of my questions are not necessarily around the the actual fleet vehicle services.

My bigger concern that I discussed with you yesterday was around um the placement of drone charging because of the fact that there's so many small factors into play with the bill that was passed for the public to hear HB 2875 is the House bill that I read over, called a couple of legislators and got some details on it.

One, I want to say I'm very grateful that the city of Mesa is getting in front of this as quickly as we can.

So I want the public to publicly hear that our city's doing a good job at jumping on quickly because of a reaction to this bill to help set guidelines and boundaries around where some of these things can go.

Um my bigger questions were in terms of what our allowances are.

Uh, how we could, as I said a little bit yesterday, are we allowed to set hours of operations within our city guidelines for noise ordinance um respect respectfulness?

Are we allowed to zone drone charging stations to be further away from residencies?

And then I would like to implore my fellow council members to consider more than a 100-foot setback.

Um, you know, I'm I'm thinking about the data centers and how there's about a 100-foot setback from the back of, I think it's Meta to Eastmark, and you know, those people have to turn around and see a giant wall.

Well, I would hate to have somebody with a 27-foot tower a hundred feet away from their neighborhood because it's near a shopping center, and they're just listening to drones launch all day to go pick up stuff and then come back and charge and the next one's up.

And I kind of foresee this as being um we're in a pioneer stage right now.

This is a little bit of the classic wild west, and I'm concerned about what I would call the beehive effect, where our neighborhoods now hear non-stop humming of drones above their heads.

And if we think we heard a lot from Falcon Field, I don't think we know what we're getting ourselves into when you have 800 drones flying around dropping stuff off for various vendors.

So what can we control is really what I'd like to hear.

And I'd like to hear some thoughts from my fellow council members on potentially expanding those setbacks a little bit more.

Yeah, so maybe real quick, uh, Mayor and Council.

I I could just answer that one of those questions real quickly, which is what can we control and what can't we control?

So, what what these text amendments are are driving towards are land use of uh a variety of uses, including fleet services, um, which would include uh vehicles uh like flying drones or or vehicles on the ground.

What we what the city of Mesa does not control are the operations in the air of vehicles.

So we we can't set limits on when they can fly, you know, where they can fly that sort of thing.

I think it may maybe it's valuable to run through very quickly kind of what we're proposing here, so we've got the context.

Okay.

And then can dive into more specific questions, but we could do real real quick.

That sounds great.

Thank you so much.

Thanks, Mayor and Council.

And I'll I'll try to keep this brief, but um, I think we already touched on this a little bit, but the background and the impetus for this tax amendment is it's not only the house bill that came forward, but we are seeing a lot of interest in in new technology coming into the city.

When we're talking about drones or electrical vehicles, that could be charging, but that could also be the operations and deployment for like robo taxi services.

Um, but also about when did where do those then go at the end of the day to charge and then to go back out to service um people?

Um so having all that in mind, it was the appropriate time with the timing of this bill coming forward to to really clarify within our zoning ordinance where these things sit and what the development standards surrounding them are.

So the the first kind of category of these is the fleet-based services.

And what fleet-based services are is it's really your delivery services, it could be paramedic services, it could be um limousines, or it could be any sort of business that has a fleet of vehicles that they use to go out and do business.

So that could be delivery, or that could be their, you know, they have their their vans for repairs that they're going out and using on a daily basis.

Um, so we already had a classification earner zoning ordinance for light fleet-based services, but that was kind of all encompassing.

And when we're starting to see this new technology come in, we're seeing that there's really starting to be this demand of a very different operations and very different kind of scale and impacts of these.

So some of them might be that we have, you know, a couple of drones that are taking off from an area and going and making deliveries, but we're also seeing interest and in larger facilities that are charging for, for example, like robo taxis.

So when you have, you know, a large number of vehicles.

The impact of those is very different when you're talking about traffic coming in and out, noise, um, just kind of the impacts on residential versus if you just have a couple of vehicles.

So the first thing that we wanted to do was look at our definition and to really make a distinguishment between light fleet-based services and heavy fleet-based services.

So looking at the number of vehicles, the the area that's occupied by this kind of charging and staging.

Um, that way we can then look at our our zoning and say, where is it appropriate to have these these more impactful heavy fleet-based services versus of light fleet-based service?

And so what we did was we created um, we modify some definitions, we created some new definitions.

So one was creating an uh overall branching definition for fleet-based services, and then having the the category within that for light fleet-based, heavy fleet base, and accessory um fleet services.

So the the distinguishment between the two for between the light fleet-based and the heavy fleet-based has to do with, as I mentioned, both number of vehicles and the area devoted to those.

So for light fleet base, that's 50 or few fewer vehicles.

Those vehicles would need to be under 10,000 pounds, and they would have to occupy less than 10,000 square feet of area that's dedicated for those.

For heavy feet-based, um, it would be any vehicle that's over the 10,000 pound threshold, um, more than 50 vehicles, or they're occupying more than the 10,000 square feet.

But in addition to this, we know that a lot of our current operations in the city, they have a fleet-based services that are accessory to their other operations.

So instead of it being a standalone location where they just have vehicles that they're going and staging and charging, it's part of their normal operations.

So for example, and Amazon, obviously, you know, they have large fleets of bands and vehicles that they go and make deliveries for, but really that's in association with their warehousing where they have their products.

So once again, making sure that we we have a classification for those, and we're we're addressing those a little differently in the zoning code as well because they are not the main focus.

And those those because they're on site, those are basically like, hey, we already know you're gonna be over by your warehouse or your existing location.

Just to clarify a little bit more, you are helping to essentially state where are we going to put like a fleet of Waymo's that are just independent?

They're being leased out.

They want to be taxi cabs, but there's you know, there's 700 of them.

Where are they gonna go?

Correct.

Mayor, council member Taylor, that's correct.

So there's kind of the three, the different ways to look at them if they're associated with a business where that's typical for the operations, or if they're they're a standalone, that's specifically what that land is being used for is the staging and operations for a fleet.

Okay, sorry, continue.

Um, so with this, we um obviously are looking at making updates to the land use tables as well to say where these are appropriate.

So with light fleet-based services, um, those are gonna remain essentially within the zoning districts that they were already permitted, but we are recommending that we add the limited commercial district as an option for those because we do see a a lot of kind of delivery with commercial activity as kind of an uh kind of normal component of that.

Trying to find words here.

Um for um heavy fleet-based services because these are more impactful.

We think it's appropriate within the the general commercial and the light industrial that these require council use permit so that they do come before council and we can assess what sort of impacts that they may have on surrounding residential, because oftentimes you you do see that sometimes general commercial or light industrial is located near residential zoning or properties, and then we recommend that these be allowed by right in the gener the general industrial and the heavy industrial districts, where you're not gonna have surrounding zoning that's gonna you know be as impactful, so you wouldn't likely have any residential surrounding those zoning districts, and then for um accessory fleet-based services, um, we're recommending that those be permitted within light commercial, general commercial, planned employment parks, light industrial, general industrial, and heavy industrial districts.

Can you give just for an example what a light industrial district would look like for the public?

Because we know what heavy heavy is, it's pretty you know, big warehouses, you don't really see any residential anything nearby, there's no parks nearby.

But can you explain light industrial?

Just high level.

Yeah, light industrial, it you know, that's the least intense of your industrial districts, so it could be, you know, in in closer proximity to residential, but it has a greatest variety of the type of uses you might see.

So it's permitted to have a lot of our commercial uses, but as well as some of the lower impact um industrial uses such as warehousing.

So that's where you see a lot of of a warehousing take place.

Um we've also seen previously a lot of data center kind of services.

But it's not like grocery stores and small commercial, right?

I just want them to know the difference.

Um it could include those, but it typically does not.

Typically, people end up because of the other uses that are permitted, they take advantage of those properties for the the less intense industrial uses, such as um indoor storage and warehousing.

So I'm thinking of how people are gonna view the proximity of some of these fleet services, including obviously the unmanned next to things like shopping centers or small restaurants that might not want to necessarily hear people coming in and going out all day long.

So that's why I want to have that clarified.

And Mayor and Councilmember Taylor, just one one point is Rachel mentioned this, but so uh many of those companies actually are looking to be in those spaces that tends to be their business model because they're actually picking up and um I I'm not so sure that I've seen that uh, for example, but like in a uh a general commercial area or something like that where you do have a shop.

Um I don't want to name a store, but say you need to pick up a hammer, you know, and this thing could uh could go ahead and deliver that.

Um so it it does seem to us to be the type of area that's dropping out of a drone.

Yeah, I'm just very safely their package.

What I've seen.

I don't really know.

We should have picked a different example.

Maybe a brick.

Well, I have it uh uh a meal from Wendy's.

Okay, I'm doing you a hammer to anyway.

I just wanted to make that point that we do see them looking to do their business in those those areas.

Rachel, could you talk uh to Miss Taylor's qu about limited commercial?

I see LC here.

Right?

Right.

And and what impact that give us some examples of LC of limited commercial.

I'm trying to think of you want an example of an actual type property.

Like a Walmart L C in that all in the well, it's target.

Limited commercial might be more, it's more typical to like your neighborhood um commercial center where you might have you know some some smaller scale retail restaurants, kind of that's correct.

Okay.

Hardware store to pick up your hammer.

Yeah, I was thinking ASM hardware.

When you get your hammer, you get your nails too.

Okay.

Are auto dealerships in LC?

They would be in general commercial.

So it'd have to be a GC.

Okay.

Added fleet basis services will go in all of those, depending on the size.

Right, correct of how many are in the fleet.

Does that also include the drone stations?

Yes, because drone delivery is considered fleet services.

So they're they're not their own defined use.

Um they fall within fleet services.

Can you go back one slide really quick?

So just to be clear, even in limited commercial, it is possible that we can have a company like Zipline station themselves nearby to a strip mall.

That's correct.

Okay, and those are 27 foot tall docking stations in rows.

Yes, Mayor, Councilmember Taylor, that's what we have seen so far with some of the proposals that they've shown us is that the polls are.

I was looking at them yesterday.

And and and Mayor and Councilmember, just one other clarification.

That's one company, and there are multiple different wings.

Yeah, and so this isn't you know, company or business model specific.

Again, it's on the on the zoning side and the and the use within the I'm just I'm thinking about the company going into our zoning.

Again, I'm very thankful we're getting ahead of this.

I just want people to understand the city is doing our best to put guidelines on this so that you don't look in your backyard and you're like, oh, look, there's towers with drones all around them.

Yeah, so this is just for clarification, so everyone can get the visual understanding.

Sure, sure.

And and Mayor, Councilmember Taylor, I just went back a couple slides because I I do want to provide kind of a visual for this because we're seeing that these come in many different kinds of shapes and forms for their operations.

So some of them they are on the ground or they come down and they pick up, um, but some do dock on polls, and I I imagine we'll continue to see these evolve as the technology evolves.

But this is kind of what we're seeing today coming through.

And then we discussed how I asked about how will we make these look good?

What's our requirements for you know doing our best to make them aesthetically pleasing?

And other council members may feel differently about this, of course, but I appreciate that you decided not to go with a 27-foot high wall everywhere, everywhere that there's a tall station to place because I think that that would look fairly terrifying if you looked around the city and there's just huge walls everywhere.

So I like the idea of low hedging something at the base.

There's not much we can do about what I call the light post, you know.

Yeah, okay.

Yeah, just wanted everyone to know that.

Thank you.

So um Mayor Council, that that kind of leads into this next section.

Yes.

Mr.

Adams.

Thank you, Mayor.

I'm I'm sorry.

I the question comes to me why do we have to allow the polls?

Why can't we say you have to land them on the ground like the center picture depicts?

Why do we have to allow polls?

Yeah, um Mayor, Councilmember Adams, it's it's largely because we um again can't regulate how they operate, but we can regulate the land use.

Perhaps there is a nuance here.

Um attorney to help out.

Yeah.

That says it all right there.

It does.

Council Kirsten Devorchak, um, the CD attorney's office, uh, maybe provide some general guidance on the bill that was recently passed that will be effective in September.

Um as to what Ian and Rachel were talking about earlier.

As to what Ian and Rachel were talking about earlier, the city is preempted on a vast majority of things when it comes to the operation of drones.

I think the specific concern that the council's been talking about is commercial drone delivery.

It's one subset of the bill that's passed, but is um of particular interest.

We are able to uh regulate these and I'll say three different buckets.

When it comes to commercial drone delivery operation, uh we can put some regulations on the landing and docking of those if they're within a residential district, uh which we're not permitting, um, or within 150 feet of a residential district.

Uh that might be implicated somewhat with where they're able to go, but most of these districts will be outside of that.

Uh the second bucket is we can enforce more general regulations if they're within two and a half miles of in terms of Mesa uh Mesa Gateway Airport.

It wouldn't apply to Falcon Field.

Um, but those are more uh generally applicable things like fire police safety.

And then the third bucket is we can regulate these as if we would regulate any other type of technology.

So if this is a subset of a type of land use, then they would be um bound by the same regulations as the rest of that land use.

So uh in looking at this planning determined that this is very similar to the existing fleet services, and so it would fit nicely in that.

And so we can regulate these as we would any other fleet service.

So we can't have a specific regulation uh that would make them different.

Uh we can only do as much as we could for another type.

So fair and equal.

So but I don't know of any other transportation mode that requires a 27 foot tall pole for its vehicle to dock on, you know, trucks and cars and various other things don't go 27 feet in the air.

What if they came in and said we want 100 foot tall poles with a big platform?

Do we have to accept it?

So we I'll maybe let Rachel chime in on that, but we do have height regulations on the why can't we say we don't want 27 foot poles?

Well, we have regulations on heights in districts that would apply generally, and so it would be the generally applicable height that that would apply.

Okay, I guess I'm I'm gonna leave that question out there.

You know, well, can we change drone technology is great, but land them on the ground?

Can we change the height?

You don't put a you don't put a tall pole in the air, you don't have to fence it.

Right, and you don't have to look at it.

I'm just wondering why are we why are we accepting this pole in the air thing when obviously the technology exists to have them land on a pad in the ground?

May I chime in on this?

Go ahead, Miss Duff.

Yeah.

Um having I like them having in the air to have them on the ground is a horrible land use.

It doesn't, it's not productive.

It's gonna take up space that could contribute to us economically in a better way than just using a mass amount of land for a drone to land.

So that's my opinion on that.

Thanks.

Doesn't the pole take up the same amount of land as its base?

Pole farm?

Each pole lands one drone.

They're a singular docking station.

So whether you have them on the ground and you have 18 on the ground or you have them on poles, they'll take up the same amount of space.

That's my question.

Because the poles have to be placed a certain amount of space apart.

Right.

So we're taking up the same amount of space either plant a pole or put a landing pad.

Or put a landing pad down.

Um, what would be the benefit of polls to can they just land them on the roof of their building?

Mayor council, there, yeah.

So there's a couple things I wanted to kind of chime in on as you're having this discussion.

So one thing has to do with the the area devoted to those as you're talking about the poles versus the ground mounted.

There is a little bit of nuance because with the poles, they do they do occupy less space because they can dock multiple drones on the poll.

So as you can see, but then I thought they could only do one, I'm sorry.

Oh, it's okay.

No, it's fine.

Um, as you can see in this picture on the very left-hand side of the screen, you're only seeing one drone there, but they often have three kind of levels of docking of these.

And so the area that's devoted to those is less than if you were just to have the one pad on the ground.

Um Rachel, the don't they have three on two sides so that it's actually six purple that may be true, yes.

And mayor and counsel, and and and remember, and Rachel said this already, like this is truly evolving, and we've you know, we've heard we've heard that like they could go denser at some point than even the three.

Um so there are many different models that are out there.

Um the next piece I wanted to touch on was as we're discussing the height.

So we do have general our our maximum building height limits that they would have to adhere to.

So there wouldn't be the possibility of a going up beyond that.

Um we're talking about limiting the the heights of the poles is that these may end up docking on roofs.

We've seen, we've had companies come and talk to us about that model as well, even though we haven't had an application for it.

But they in themselves would be at that maximum building height.

So um in a lot of districts we're seeing that's 30 feet.

Um so it when we talk about treating these the same, we wouldn't then be able to say, well, if you're docking on the building, you can have it at 30 feet, versus if you're doing an operation on a pole, you can't because of the the way that we have to treat them similar.

So we would have to have one blanket for all of these.

Um we we are recommending that the poles be limited to a maximum of 30 feet because that's what we have for our our base zoning districts, and um in most of most of the general commercial or I'll just say the commercial districts and then our light industrial.

And once we started getting to those, the maximum building heights go up to 40, 50 feet, depending on the zone.

So we're recommending that we keep this at the 30 feet level.

Um but I think that's it's that's a little bit of a nuance.

It's gonna be challenging, and I think we'd have to think about how that would apply if we were to regulate them at a lower height when we talk about what they'd be parented on a roof.

Yeah, I'd like to know what the details of that would look like if we were to say, hey, you know, we're fine if you put it on a roof, that's great.

You can put 70 up there as long as somebody will lease you the space and you can hook up.

But for single stations that are just poles with drones on them, I would like to know if we can reduce that required height, because I think that's an eyesore.

I think you're we don't necessarily, if you're not a visual thinker, you may not see it in your mind, but I think you're gonna see a lot of those popping up.

It's not necessarily going to elevate our city.

It's going to look very different too as technology changes.

What do we do if they can be reduced and those are abandoned locations and they just don't want to rebuild there?

I mean, like we're seeing things move so quickly with emerging technology that that could be something that's great this year and next year we don't want it anymore.

So what do we do with that?

We have to tell them please tear it down, are you gonna rebuild it?

Can you put more on a shorter pole?

Is that something that's even possible?

Um just throwing ideas out there.

So mayor council, that's something that we can certainly look into for those options.

Our hands might be tied just because of the legislation, but that's something that we can certainly look at.

I I do understand that because I I called a few legislators and they were kind of shocked at this bill in particular.

Mayor and council, and the the legislation is problematic, and the the state is really trying to tie our hands um with this legislation.

There's one section that I want to sort of talk about is that it allows us to treat also fleet services uniformly as long as it's an existing regulation.

And so we we were bringing this to council right now so that we pass it before the effective date of the legislation.

So there's a window of opportunity here.

And so I I can't say for certain because of how it's drafted, um, the ultimate outcome if we uh say that you have to land um all the drones on the ground.

But if council wanted to do that, I think we should do it now.

Um and then just say you have to land it on the ground, there's no poles.

Um and and we'll we'll it might result in uh in a fight regarding what this language is, but the ability to do that is now um two months from now after the legislation goes into effect, then it's too late.

And so if you want to sort of what I'll say, and and we would say all fleet services, all fleet services must occur um on uh at ground level or something to that, and we'll we'll modify the ordinance um to still be able to introduce it on Monday so that this can get introduced and adopted.

So if that's the direction you want us to go in, I I haven't had the chance to talk with people to even to think this through enough.

Um so we're gonna end up having a meeting right after this meeting um to talk this through.

Um but uh I think there might be an opportunity, or we could also do something where it's the the lower of the roof or the pole, so that you so we're encouraging you to do on the roof, but not forcing you to do on the roof, but if the you can do it either, the the lower of the roof or the pole, so you don't get a pole higher than a roof.

Um so if that's also sort of a direction you want us to look at, um if we can kind of get a sense of what council would like us to look at, because we're gonna have to sort of make these changes and bring you something Monday um to introduce.

I think you should, Jim.

Uh I guess we can uh lobby the council and Mr.

Adams, Mr.

Redia on height.

I guess we're talking high ground-based uh would you want groundings or the lower uh sort of a concept of sort of the lower of the roof line or the whatever I can't remember the highest.

Well, if we do that, we're still gonna end up with 27 foot poles.

Well, my my view is I'm I'm I'm not at all supportive of the polls.

Okay.

Keep it on the ground.

Brown.

Or roof, or under rooftop.

Well, I I'd like to see how how Jim would craft language.

I um roofs are no problem.

Buildings are already there.

Yeah, but I think the problem is is it's sort of has to be uniform.

So we have to say all fleet services, we would have to, it has to be a uniform rule.

So we we can't you see what I'm saying?

So we right.

Well, keep your speech up.

Okay.

Yeah, I mean, just think about the the possibilities of these things all over the place.

Is that is that a uh an attractive thing to look at?

I think not.

Others may not agree with me, but I don't see a problem with keeping them on the ground.

Okay.

That would be my preference.

Well, we can always come back and I suspect we can always we can always come back and approve polls.

They're not gonna.

Right, right.

I know Miss Duff wasn't was not in favor of that, but uh I I'm interested.

Yeah.

Sorry, Jen.

No.

It's okay.

I am I do like the poles, just because it's a smarter use of land.

I could see like even fleet vehicles parked underneath the poles, just double using the land.

So we just don't have land dedicated to you know, something sitting a foot maybe above the ground, and we just have it's just a mass.

And also I hate to there's gonna be a lot of economic development around this about companies using this and the service, and I would like to say that Mesa is on the cutting edge and being able to be efficient for these companies and invite this type of business.

Um it'll reduce cars be delivering goods and uh the drones are much more efficient.

Now we could put a CUP on a certain zoning districts that might have, you know, a uh a visual that might be um you know unpleasant.

I'd uh I need to look through the presentation and maybe Rachel could advise that we could have a CUP on, you know, like LC or uh or GC.

I don't know.

Whatever ones that we might be close to any residences, because I that's I what I think we're worried about is the residents um anyway.

I like the efficiency of being on the poles and being able to use the land for underneath for something else.

Thank you.

Mayor, council uh council member Duff's comment just I think multiple of us are thinking the same thing, I'm hoping.

Um, is that maybe it's that the poles might be allowed in the industrial districts, um, and we can think about that uniform, a uniform rule as to on the industrial districts for fleet services and a different uniform rule for um like uh LC for the lighter commercial.

I would be in favor of that because then it's offset, it's not a visual obstruction.

It's not where people live and they're looking out at that.

It's not in our our core epicenters that we're shopping and dining are happening.

Yeah, um Mayor Council.

Um another thing in regards to um requiring CUPs and and where these are permitted in the zoning district is a consideration that we have to keep keep in mind is Prop 207, because we already do have light fleet-based services.

So we have to consider we can't diminish their property rights that they have now without looking at a a waiver policy like we've done previously for data centers and for drive-throughs.

So we're a little bit tied there about in you know, making it increasing kind of the process that they have to go through.

Um the LC being a district that wasn't previously permitted, we could look at that one about requiring a C UP versus being permitted by right, but the other districts, we would have the Prop 207 challenge.

What I'm really concerned about is LC because that's gonna impact almost every neighborhood.

You know, your shopping centers, your smaller, I'm just, you know, say uh a neighborhood Walmart that's entrenched into a neighborhood and uh other I don't I I could see that affecting and to the point of I know Ian and I have talked about this, so just the uh activity of drones uh going and how they fly in the sky to make the delivery, do they go over neighborhoods, do they fly in a site versus uh the geographical area GPS to around a neighborhood to drop, but you have to go on streets.

I I don't know.

Uh you know, Dallas Fort Worth area.

We talked about that, they're doing uh thousands of drone deliveries today.

Yeah.

So I can we we can use that as a template.

I'd really like to see how their zoning is uh kind of help drive our zoning for this as well, and setbacks and heights, and maybe there isn't one, maybe they're pretty flexible about that.

I don't know.

But constraints with the how the house bill, I'm not familiar with it.

But we have to make a decision.

But uh now I would like to see something for protection on maybe a different standard for LC versus the other ones.

I don't have a problem with.

But if you're okay with that.

That sounds like a decent colour.

Yeah, I agree.

Mr.

Redia, do you think that's the one?

Yeah, same thing.

Uh that was my question as well as uh trying to figure out like how do we not uh around neighborhoods, uh how do we look out for that in uh on commercial?

I think I'm I think we should be fine.

Did you mention you mentioned COP on some items, so right?

So what were what was those correctly?

Correct.

Um mayor council member Heredia.

So for the heavy fleet-based services within the general commercial and light industrial, we're recommending a C UP for those.

Um something to keep in mind too.

Um so for accessory, we also for like the PEP, that as well would be uh a C UP.

Yeah, and and Mayor and Council for one point since heavy fleet based is new, that's where the C UP comes in again.

So okay, counselor, we have some consensus there.

Yeah, we'll put our heads together.

Yeah, okay.

One one more thing is because I notice there's some noise uh ambient noise standards in here.

Can we see if there's any research on noise levels when they connect poles versus ground?

Because I just curious as if they get closer to ground, if that echoes the noise more than if it were on a pole.

So we can just see if there's any research on that.

That might guide our decision.

We can take that.

Is there any requirements for decibel noise, you know, a part of this to make sure it doesn't impact your neighborhood?

I mean, I don't think they're gonna line 12 has something about decibels.

Is can we add something?

Yeah, so mayor counsel what we have drafted in in the ordinance today is that there is a separation requirement from residential for any of the electric kind of charging infrastructure.

So that's the piece where we thought we would have the most noise coming, potential humming from that equipment.

And so we're recommending the 100 feet distance.

Um, but we also do have a a kind of a waiver process in there that if they could prove through a sound study that they're not increasing that ambient noise level that the planning director could make a waiver on the hundred feet, but we do have that proposed in here.

And mayor, just just again one one point, you know, this is the land uh use uh regulation.

We we we have no uh jurisdiction on like regulating noise in the air, so you could still have things flying that create noise, and we don't we don't operate there.

Thoughts on the setbacks.

I'm just trying to remember what we did with Bess that was successful at reducing how many could go up, how often we were gonna see those applications coming in.

Anyone thoughts on maybe may I interject?

I'm sorry, but uh but a point on setbacks as you think about it.

So if we were to apply setbacks, um they would need to apply to the the entire use.

The fleet service light light fleet or heavy fleet, even non-EV and all of that, right?

Like just regular, okay.

Oh, goody.

So we're constrained to 100 feet, is all you're saying.

Well, no, no, we're we would just change it for all fleet services in that case, like anybody with a fleet would have to abide by larger setbacks.

You want to can you weigh in one way in on that?

Let's let's have legal way.

Yes, mayor council, that's correct, because the the way the bill is drafted, it would apply to the the general use.

So if you were to say let's increase the setback to 200 feet, 300 feet, that would be the fleet services category.

It wouldn't be specific to a commercial drug delivery.

Anything that's new and moving forward.

That's not existing, right?

They're grandfathered into the old setback, correct?

So if we had DoorDash robots, a fleet of them, those little red ones, and they wanted to park 300 of them in a parking lot somewhere to charge.

Or we could say, no, we want those like four or five hundred feet away from those areas.

So the then the neighborhood doesn't have to think about the fact that right next door there's gonna be a whole bunch of little ladybugs taking off constantly to deliver you your food.

Or whatever it is.

Waymo, Tesla, whoever's renting out part of that fleet.

Is this is this even something we could consider requiring them, or is this going to be general use that like instead of using all this land to charge your vehicles, which talk about I'm I hear Jen on this one, land use, right?

A waste of space.

Can they not go two-story vertical with charging stations instead of just swaths of land where we're just gonna park cars with charging stations?

What a what an absolute waste of space.

And the the drain on the grid.

I don't know if anyone's talked about this.

Like we're just gonna have tons of electricity being used to charge fleets now.

Fleets of drones, fleets of cars, fleets of tiny robots that deliver you your food that get stuck in intersections and can't decide which way to go when there's construction.

I'm just ranting, obviously.

Mayor and council, I'll just suggest again if you wanted to increase the number, I think this would be a good window of opportunity to do it.

And you can you can reduce it in the future, right?

Without sort of a having also a prop 207.

So if you wanted to if we wanted to go to 150 or 200, you might want to do that now.

And then we there's still there's an exception, right?

In which the planning deck director could um grant an exception.

And so it would be uniform, though, as as pointed out.

It would be for other uh right, it would be applied to new.

Um so if you wanted to go 150 or 200, um you might want to do that now.

Ian, I'll lean on you.

Do you have is there any been discussion on the setbacks from your analysis from other communities?

Um I mean, what is the industry as an industry weighed in?

Not that that matters, but I mean, we're making the decision.

But yeah, per per usual, um Rachel did uh significant outreach to industry.

We have heard from them.

Um, as you can imagine, um, you know, you start with the world and then kind of work from there as far as what's what's allowable.

I mean, from what we've kind of seen in other jurisdictions, I don't have hard details in front of me right now, but um there are there have been presented to me, I guess lighter um regulations in other jurisdictions outside of this state.

Um, but I think what we what we are attempting to do again, what the this presentation as presented initially was to find the balance as we always do um between a lot, you know, being open to the use and and setting some guidelines, but making it conducive to to Mesa.

Oh I don't want to send up like data centers, remember on the fourth front of technology.

One sort of point is the the statute itself actually says um that the city it doesn't prohibit the city from land use approvals for taking docking or landing commercial drone delivery within a hundred and fifty foot radius of the outer boundary of a area zone for residential.

So the statute itself contemplates 150 feet.

So, you know, uh I don't know how upset the industry can be if we just increase it to 150 feet, which was this is their legislation.

Yeah.

I I'm all for that.

The further away the better.

Yeah, let's put 150 on.

Mayor council actually maybe Rachel might be weighing in on this.

She just pointed out to me, and I think is correct.

The way that the uh ordinance is currently drafted, the setback is actually for the electric charging equipment, which would apply both to ground and aerial direction as well.

If we want that to apply as it's written right now to just the electrical charging equipment, or if you would like to see that set back to any fleet-based service.

So if it's a a you know, gasoline charged vehicle, if you want those as well to be set back the 100 feet.

You're just trying to complicate it more.

Mayor, I just want to make sure that we're delivering what you would like.

You know, I'm I'm for further setbacks for any fleets around light commercial and residential areas because those are where people congregate and those are where people are enjoying their city, and we need people to love and enjoy the city if we want it to be a fruitful and prosperous place to live, and that will bring more business in because people love being being here and they like spending money here, but we have to find a balance.

And we need people to love and enjoy the city if we want it to be a fruitful and prosperous place to live, and that will bring more business in because people love being being here and they like spending money here.

But we have to find a balance.

So going forward, I think an extra 50 feet, it's not gonna destroy anyone's life for gas and EV.

I don't see how we can go wrong.

Um Mr.

Smith mentions the 150 feet is is noted in the statute to go concurrent with the statute.

Who could object?

So it seems to me that would be a good move.

Just for clarity, are we just talking about LC zoning, or are we talking about all of them?

Well, I it's a setback off of the residential.

Um, you know, hopefully we don't have a lot of heavy industrial right up against um residential, so it won't actually ever so I would say all the zones.

Um I don't know, there might be an area.

So I I would I I would not make a distinction based off the zoning on this one because if you happen to have a house, residential.

Just keep the 150.

Okay, you have some direction there.

Okay.

Uh I'd like to just chime in.

I know the direction is one way, but again, I think is a waste of land use.

And you know, we're talking about cars that are cars.

And they're noisier than any of these EV charging uh, whether it's you know, the robots or the Waymo's, which are actually silent uses.

So we're saying we want to push all fleet away, again, a waste of land use.

Why we have the separation on data centers is because of noise.

These new technologies, fleets of electric are silent.

So I don't know what we're trying to achieve by using 50 feet just sitting there doing nothing for us.

I I don't understand what we're trying to achieve, and I don't agree with 150.

I think it's the hum of the actual chargers that is more of the concern, not the vehicles themselves.

Well, the house bill says 150 feet, so we're just complying with the the bill at 150.

Is there if you've been to an electric charging, there is no sound.

Uh so uh anyway.

It I is it just a waste of land.

My opinion, leave it at that.

Can council make an exception if a user comes in and in the future and says, hey, we want to reduce from 150 down to less than this.

This is part of the that's it's right on the screen right now.

It's on the variable.

Planning director can't approve.

Yeah, but you're gonna less than 150.

We'll put it, we'll start it at 150 and then the planning director approve less than 150.

All right, there you go.

There's compromise.

Thank you.

All right, you want to give us the high level.

So, mayor council, we we talked on some of these, but there are some other development standards that are within this ordinance that have to do with with screening.

We've talked about the residential um separation.

Um, and then similarly, there's there's provisions that dictate kind of this has to be in a defined area, so no, using up the required parking spaces for for this type of service.

Um, in addition to fleet-based services, there's also a component that talks about service stations, and we thought this was necessary once again because of electrical vehicle charging and some of the proposals that were seeing come into the city um for um service stations that are that are solely electric.

So making sure that it's clear that yes, this still falls within the definition of a service station, and looking at those development standards surrounding that and making some modifications to them.

Um some of the nuances is there's some some safety regulations behind fuel canopies and why they exist.

Um, so those may not be appropriate for electrical vehicle charging, but we we still would like to see you know secure lighting for these areas, we still want to look at queuing for these for these as well.

Um so there are some various development standards as well that we're looking at modifying as far as those components.

Once again, we were recommending 100 feet for um the fuel pumps and for electrical vehicle charging from residential uses because of the potential noise impact.

So once again, if we could get direction from council, if if you would like to keep this at 100 feet, or if you would like us to similarly make some modifications to that distance, um that would be appreciated.

Um I prefer to be consistent, and then if they want to reduce that, they have the ability to do that with the sound study.

I just trying to keep it consistent across the board.

And then a fuel pump.

You said canopy.

Can you explain that that part?

I didn't.

Sure.

And I'm not sure if I have a picture of it.

But we all know what a fuel pump canopy is.

It's the the cover, but there are some literally.

Okay.

Yeah, there's some safety reasons why you have that for your gasoline pumps.

They they mitigate the fumes and they provide some um kind of fire safety there.

Um, but we did not feel like it was appropriate to outright require those for electrical vehicles since they don't have the same considerations.

Um we still would like to see some compatibility standards if they do provide some sort of shade structure, um, but not requiring them.

Um, but then um making sure that we are still requiring lighting for these facilities.

We want to make sure they're safe when people are are sitting there charging, um, as well as um things like trash, you know, having provision of trash for those people.

Um, but I mentioned the stacking.

So when you when you have a a service station, obviously there's some cueing there for the pumps, but also making sure that's well defined, putting in a um a waiver process once again for the planning director to be able to approve, be because we recognizing that in some of these instances the electrical vehicle charging, depending on what what they end up looking like, they might not have the same sort of queuing and stacking needs as a traditional gasoline service station.

So those are um the other pieces of of this ordinance.

Um as Ian mentioned, we we did do a lot of outreach with the the stakeholders.

Um we had an open house and we had several one-on-one meetings with different operators to talk about these requirements and make some adjustments.

Um happy to go back and and make some revisions for for Monday, um, but with the the timing of the the state legislature, we would need to have the new um the new ordinance introduced on Monday.

Jim, I have a question for you.

Since this was passed on and bequeathed to the cities without us really having a lot of power.

What does could we put an injunction in on this?

So, mayor and council, I I know there's frustrations with this uh piece of legislation um because it was uh industry sponsored uh piece of legislation, and so uh sometimes people look at it as almost sort of like special legislation, um, but that's not unique.

There's uh the legislature, there's uh many times industry sponsors legislation and passes it, and and unfortunately the the state has taken rather commonly now the the position of trying to prevent municipalities from engaging in regulation.

Um also unfortunately the state didn't ru uh provide any regulation as part of this piece of legislation, and so um and so I I can look at it, um but I don't want to I don't want to raise sort of um undue expectations um because uh unfortunately this has become sort of uh the this is this is how uh a fair amount of legislation is passed now.

Thank you.

Okay.

Anything else?

Council, Miss Duff.

Thank you so much for presenting, answering the questions, making the adjustments, and for being so quick to jump on this.

So I just want to follow up on slide 19.

Fuel pumps and charging stations obviously separate by 100 feet.

That's the industry standard.

I mean, how is that driven?

Um is that NFPA or mayor council?

That 100 feet um was a recommendation based on some of the other land uses that we have that we're requiring separation because of noise.

So for instance, we have a separation requirement for drive-throughs.

So we were trying to provide some consistency between those.

Um, but we are we're we're welcome to look at doing the 150 feet to be consistent with what we would be proposing for the fleet services.

I I said 150 feet across because in the human.

Well, I heard that that's why I brought it back up, was 150 feet to be consistent.

Okay.

Can we do that?

Yes.

Okay.

I'm just gonna chime in that I disagree that land use vehicles are much more noisy than charging stations.

I'm done.

Thanks.

We have fuel pumps and charging stations separation.

So and then I guess they can always appeal to the planning director if they so choose to be less than that.

Okay, Mary.

Okay, there you go.

Thank you.

I have a question on 7B as well, so they might want to stay up there.

Of course.

We haven't even got through the um is there you said seven.

Let's start at the beginning of of the agenda for Monday.

Council, are there any questions?

Then we can get we have awards and recognitions.

Uh district uh item four, take action on contracts.

Mayor comes there will be an addition on another item four from engineering.

They're gonna bring um another GMP for the interconnect pipeline.

And so you'll see later today when the the agenda gets updated.

Engineering's going to um that that sort of next GMP, they're up to seven now, um, for the interconnect pipeline, another piece of the pipe for the interconnect.

So that'll be added to the agenda.

Okay, and that's under number four or yeah, we have that'll be in item four.

Okay.

It'll be item four, the beginning of item four is always the engineering department, then after then later in four is all the procurement.

Okay.

And then also just while I'm talking, five B is going to get pushed by one week.

That's the 911 IGA.

That's going to get pushed to the uh July 27th meeting.

Ms.

Duff, I'll go to you.

Do you have anything on the uh council agenda you'd like to address?

Uh no, I don't, thank you.

Okay.

Uh quite a bit in here.

I was gonna commend uh our tab transportation advisory board about changing some speed limits.

Uh thank you, Eric and your team for doing that, putting that together.

I know district one was involved in that okay.

Anything else from council?

You said seven.

Yeah.

Seven B.

Um, but before that, I did want to say thank you to Ed Queenus and his team because I asked a few questions on 4A, and I asked about um 4B, just to have clarification on the the actual vehicle that we were putting a new cable puller on, you know, before we spend 171,000, like what's going on with the existing one, what's its lifespan?

Can you give me some numbers?

And he basically explained that um they last about 20 years, but our current is underground and we need overhead.

Um I hope I said that correctly, Ed.

And uh that particular detail is why we needed to basically purchase this unit.

It's not because it couldn't be fixed if something was wrong, but it's because there's a new use case for it.

And I just want the public to know that you answered my question so succinct.

I was I just want to say thank you.

Yes, we had questions on A, B, and C, and we had a great team that worked on it.

Parks recreation fleet services.

It was uh a great effort to uh get those answers.

And then also for the general public to know the the turf and landscaping, just the fact that um we do subscribe to one vendor to essentially provide software updates and parts parts for all of that irrigation and um it's it's time for some updates to be done, it's time for some new components.

So uh it's not really something that we necessarily want to move to a whole new vendor over.

It would be extremely expensive, and we love our parks, and we want to keep them looking green and beautiful.

So this is what I would call an absolutely justifiable expense because it's gonna serve the general welfare of the public.

So thank you for that.

I already as well as controlling our water use, which is very important.

Yes, helping us to have a good understanding of how much we're using.

Um so thanks.

I just wanted to say thank you.

Have people understand that?

And then 7B.

I just really had one question.

I'm sorry, I didn't get to go through this one as much because I was so focused on the other one.

Um, but for the accessory dwelling units, I notice it says modifying standards for detached accessory building buildings and structures as well as accessory dwelling units.

Can you explain what the diff what the changes will be for that?

Yes, so mayor, council members.

What we are um what this modification is, and I'm trying to get there, is we're just aligning um with the building code, the separation between detached structures when we talk about fire separation without having a fire-rated wall.

So it's making sure that those are five feet away.

Previously, we had an air zoning ordinance that there was a six-foot separation.

So for both for the detached accessory structures and for an ADU, if you have a detached building, the standard would be that you're five feet away from your from your walls, your back from another structure.

Okay, okay.

Thanks.

That was my only question.

Again, this was uh mandated by the legislature.

Oh, yes, thank you.

Um Vice Mayor, you had a question you said on five yeah, just really quickly.

Uh we have a couple contracts for school resource officers, Gilbert, and Mesa school districts, but I don't see or I'm sorry, Mesa and Queen Creek.

I don't see Gilbert.

Do we have one in force or is that forthcoming?

We we do, and and that's coming, I think it's through the end of the calendar year.

Um you'll you'll see that on a later so everyone's covered, it's just they happen to be on different cycles.

Perfect.

That's I like them keeping.

Okay.

Keep it inconsistent.

I love it.

Okay, council hearing, nothing else uh on the agenda for Monday.

We're all good.

All right with that.

Okay, we'll move over to item four A presentation discussion on HUD and human services funding for fiscal year 2027-2028.

Uh thank you for your patience, uh Michelle and Candace.

And team let it clear out a little bit here.

Can we take a five minute?

Okay, so let me you do it on moment if something comes up.

Okay.

Jump in whenever you need over need to speak.

Sorry, we have our general counsel leaving with council over there.

So is that left?

Let's do more meeting work.

All right, who's our lead?

Michelle or Canada?

Michelle, okay.

Good morning, Mayor and Council.

Today we are here to seek direction from City Council on the fiscal year 27-28 funding process for both our federal and local resources.

This discussion follows the fiscal year 26-27 funding process that we just concluded in May when City Council approved the funding allocations.

And at that time, council had provided feedback that staff could consider retaining federal funding specifically for city-led projects, and also um looking at potential projects that would be eligible in each district.

So traditionally, each year we begin our funding process in August to solicit applications, and so we're right around the corner for that.

I know it probably feels like we just finished because we did, and now we're starting the new one.

Um we are seeking direction on the federal sources, which include CDBG, home, and ESG, and also our local sources, which are human services and ABC or a better community, which is the utility donation program.

And funds historically have been um allocated specifically to nonprofit uh nonprofit programs through a competitive process for ABC and human services.

So just want to recap.

Um these numbers that you see on the screen are estimated allocations for the 2728 funding round.

We obviously won't have those until probably April or May of next year.

So we work on um the anticipated based on this year's allocations.

So for public services, we anticipate 546,000.

And as a reminder, um, for 25 and 26 fiscal years, we retained 50 percent of the public services for um city programming.

And then for our non-public services, we have approximately two point say three million dollars, and all of those funds were retained for city programming.

ESG funds were solicited uh to nonprofits, and none of those funds were retained by the city, and then home for um our Tibra, the city um held 372,000, and then the rest of the projects um were ones that applications were submitted for so based on council feedback um that was provided during the last funding process.

We're presenting these following options for the council consideration.

Um first is to reserve the CDBG and ESG funds for city-led priorities and eligible activities to retain and direct the home dollars to advance city identified projects for affordable housing and also to develop strategic public partnerships.

Consider council identified and district-based programs and services.

And of course, all projects would still require eligibility, readiness, and compliance review.

For human services and ABC, these programs typically support crisis response, prevention, youth, elderly food programs, and long-term stability.

For human services, we are estimating approximately 547,000, and for ABC, a better community is 104,000.

So the recommended action for human services and ABCs to continue a competitive application process for nonprofit organizations and also focus applications on programs and services that meet the city identified priorities.

So for the next steps, we will need to establish the preferred approach for the human services and ABC competitive funding process and receive council direction on city-led use of CDBG home and ESG funds.

We would return to city council in early fall to discuss potential projects, programs, services.

And then we would also review proposed projects and applications for eligibility and alignment with the federal recs.

And then finally, we would return to city council as we traditionally do in the spring with those funding recommendations.

So at this time, Mayor and Council, we are requesting council direction on the federal and local funds, retaining the federal funding for eligible city-led initiatives and council priorities as well as continuing a competitive process for human services in ABC.

Thank you.

So Mayor, um, real quick, just want to jump in.

Thanks for shelling her team for um for putting this together and and hearing council's desire to focus our federal funds on projects that meet some of that more closely aligned with what the city priorities and goals set by the council are.

And so I think what uh has been presented today allows that opportunity.

Some of those may be partnerships with the nonprofit um providers that are receiving some of these funds today, but instead of us um doing a call and and receiving projects that are priority to those organizations and then having to choose between those um submittals about what we want to fund, we'll be able to be more strategic with those dollars and put out uh some we may retain uh for for city-led services, and we wouldn't need to do a call, but then if we see that no, this would probably be better provided outside of the city, uh, we could put out a call and look for partners that meet the spice the specific criteria that we put out.

So um so I I think that um allows for that more strategic thought about how those monies are are utilized, whether they're used internally or used uh with in conjunction with some of our nonprofit partners, but would be on our terms uh under that scenario.

And and and mayor, I think that strikes a really good um direction for the way that council um has looked at some of these programs.

Candace reminded me we've done that in the past with other with other um funds that the city has has received from various sources, whether it was settlement money from the um the opioid settlement or or others where we set the criteria, then we go out and we find those partners uh to work with, or we stand up or utilize supplement programs uh that are the priority of council um in-house, and so it gives us that discretion and it gives council that ability to set those priorities for it.

And I think this is a a really good balance personally.

Um what I wanted to really I've driven every district in our city and being here a long time, and it's time that we reinvest in our community, and I ask our council members to look into your districts and where you can leverage some of these monies to uplift.

I mean, I meant I drove Escabido here and I saw boarded up homes.

Why are there bordered up homes in Escobide?

Well, I don't know if it's because of the ownership, the landlord, or whomever.

Could we partner and leverage some of these monies and have this home opened up so family can live there?

I don't know, but these are things that in all of our districts in our city are underperforming shopping centers, the uh redevelopment, the sales tax revenue, which we need so much and keep people engaged here.

So I think it's nice that council we can leverage some of these monies in the respective districts, and I expect every council member to come in and say this is where I'd like to uh operate some monies and and work with the nonprofit if we don't have the capacity to do it within our city resources, but look at ways we we can be more strategic and uh help redevelop Mesa Arizona.

So that's kind of my spiel right now.

So, council, I mean, do you feel comfortable with the direction?

I mean, it can also be, I'm sure, tweaked as we go forward, but everybody's gonna play a role in this, everybody.

And I want that to be clear.

Miss Duff, I'll I'll defer to you first, your virtual.

Um, yeah, I had a lot of concerns about this, making sure that we met the human service side of it, which is the majority of the expenditures, but I also understand the city's um challenges sometimes and doing our spend down, especially when it comes to CDGB.

Um, I think it's worth the try to um you know this uh model and and and let's go forward and and see what that looks like.

Um I'm not opposed to it.

I think in order for the council members to think about what projects they would like to think to consider is that we need from staff like the eligible areas rather than spending time on something that may not apply because it's outside of the um census track that would qualify so that we can narrow down our scope.

And um so I'm fine with going forward as it is in it and regarding Escavator, we do have some projects going on and expenditures with a project with um habitat for humanity and the sale of those proceeds going back into reinvesting into the neighborhood.

So I we realize there's challenges there, and we're working with the neighborhood and investing in that neighborhood.

Great, thank you.

Uh Mr.

Eddie, I'll turn to you.

No, yeah, I agree.

Uh on the uh I think we have sometimes in the past uh on CDBG funding just the spend down with some of the nonprofits has been just a challenge based on just the project timeline, right?

Because of the construction or something.

Um I just want to make sure that we don't eliminate the the partnerships that we have with nonprofits on that end.

Um if there is a project out there that makes sense, uh uh is in within the census track that we look for partnerships that can maximize, you know, their ability to you know get resources from the state or the feds, and then our ability to also uh get some some of these monies out that maximizes the the efforts there.

And so uh I think that's where um I was just maybe concerned on on what's the what's uh the partnerships retained on that end.

Uh I think on the home funds, I think we with the nonprofits, they all be still coming through the uh human services uh um committee, right?

As far as application, scoring them, those kinds of things, right?

Or is that gonna be changed?

Uh Mayor and Councilmember Haretia, that was one of the recommended changes.

Rather than doing a an all-out like call for projects where a lot of people spend a lot of time putting project proposals together, it's really working.

What we've seen is the success has come from those partnerships that we've developed with those, whether it's an uh um a nonprofit or an affordable housing developer, where we've developed those relationships over time and developed the project together, have been more successful.

They all still come back to council for approval.

So we would be taking the home process out of our advisory board review, but it would still come through council for approval.

Okay.

Would you still be scoring those as far as staff to see what I'm assuming say we have uh multiple needs, right?

Like, you know, council members see, you know, hey, we got a couple projects and we have less funds than allotted, right?

So how how how would you score or look at ways to fund appropriately those projects?

So Mayor and Councilman Parettia, what I what I foresee, obviously, this is the our first time kind of taking a new approach.

Um, but what I see is looking at we know that home is is multiple years, and we know these projects also take multiple years to put those together.

So I think it's a combination of looking at the needs of the city, the ability of that partner to pro to actually um successfully build something, successfully get their financials um home home service or home funds are gap financing.

So we'd be looking for the success of them acquiring the other financing they need, and then home would come in as a gap.

If I think I would foresee if we get to the point where we have a couple different ways that we can go that we would maybe bring those back to council and talk with those districts and uh council members of those districts to see what is the priority if we do have two kind of combating for the same dollars.

Um I do see that this would be more of a strategic.

We know we're gonna get about this much money every year.

Um working on a project today, they don't really need the money for another one or two, you know, a couple years down the road as they go through design.

So I think we could start laying in a pipeline of projects.

Okay.

I I guess I I'm also like on the human services side.

I think we're is that the process as well on that end based on nonprofits, uh, how if we're looking at supporting nonprofits, how how can they apply for human services?

I guess that's I was confusing with home and human services on that end.

So Mayor and Councilman Parettio, we're recommending that we continue the same process for the human services funding.

Those are um capped at that $25,000.

They're made for those um to keep nonprofits going to help them out in our community.

They provide great and valuable services, and we do want to um continue to that would still go through our advisory board and through the scoring and would still come back to council.

Okay, perfect.

Yeah, okay.

No, happy to defer to the council members whose areas are gonna be LA access as far as Ms.

Taylor.

You're incredible.

Um I was I was doing a little research and learning that CBDG block grants can be given to a not-for-profit through the county as well as through a city.

Um, and since I'm I'm learning a little bit more about the fact that a not-for-profit doesn't just have to apply through a city, they can also apply through counties.

That's actually kind of you know an encouragement.

But in light of that, uh I hope I'm understanding this correctly, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

But I do like the idea of reserving the funds for the city-led priorities and the eligible services.

Obviously, in bias, district two has some interesting areas that I would like to see those funds be applied to.

So I'm in the case.

Well, I think this source script Congress has allowed more flexibility this year, I think, than ever before to allow cities to move forward for projects, especially on low to medium income census tracts, and I think that's where we need to come.

We've talked about how we can uplift.

We're an aging city in some areas.

We we need to we need to show love to these areas and help them understand and and become better.

I mean, I I grew up here, it just it makes my heart ache a little bit to see some of these neighborhoods decline when we should be help uplifting them.

And that's for the nonprofits, that's where everybody, you know, we we provide all the support we can to help these nonprofits and neighborhoods be successful.

So that's where I'm at and user line, you know, cleanups, uh revitalization, beautification, trees, everything uh that we can use.

So that's kind of my emphasis.

So with that, we'll move forward.

There's your direction.

Okay, Michelle.

That was the shortest one we've had all time.

I know.

Awesome.

I'm so excited to do this.

Thank you.

All right.

Anything else?

I just wanted to add um per def's comment that we will provide the uh map that shows all of the low mod census tracks, and that can be your starting point.

Yes.

It'd be nice to have a breakdown of everything that's eligible for each thing, because then you know, council members go, I want to cue into this one.

Right, and mayor and council, as she had on her next step slide, part of that is is getting that information is is working with each council member about your district, learning a little bit more about where your priorities are, particular neighborhoods or commercial centers, or or where is it in your neighborhood you would like us to focus.

Also working with our departments about what their needs are and where they're seeing that they could assist in this as well.

This is this is a whole city um endeavor to put this together.

Um we'll be doing that really behind the scenes with you over the next couple of months to get as much information as we can so that staff can go through it and verify that it qualifies, whether it's in the right census track or has the right population.

So there's a lot of different things for how it could qualify.

Um, and so we'll be working with you over the next couple of months to compile all of that and um assess it and kind of figure out which which things um work and which things maybe don't work, or have caveats to them and work through that with you, and then we'll bring it all back in a way that we can talk about it as a group with the council.

Okay.

Thank you.

Well, very good.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, I'll just tell you right now, Main Street.

Yeah, that is gonna be different.

Yeah, that's rolling.

It's funny you say that.

I drove Main Street six times over the last few days from I'm gonna say Gilbert Road to Saucaman because there's a business out east of Saucaman.

And I was a real disappointed reminded what is out there.

Thank you for driving through my whole district.

Yeah, it's really embarrassing.

I mean, we we can help work with businesses, help reduce blight.

You know, I look at city, I mean, I'll use the word purchasing a home, rehabbing it, selling that, get it out as a low cost to a family, get somebody in there to live in a home, kind of uplift our older aging neighborhoods.

Candace, you want to say something.

I was just gonna say, Mayor and council, they just want to, whenever we have people approach us and talk about um whether it's affordable housing or some type of way to uplift neighborhoods or areas.

The first thing we do is we say, take a look at Main Street and do one mile north and south and start looking there.

Um mile to a mile and a half.

It also has um the buses and it has this has the infrastructure that would allow those types of projects to move forward.

Okay, great.

Thank you for your work.

All right, with that, we'll move over to item four A, a presentation discussion on the use of HUD and human services.

That's what we just did.

Great.

Four B is a pre-sustained discussion on development agreement and G Plit.

Jeff's Jeff.

This is regarding for the development of a mixed-use multi-resident project adjacent to Sycamore Light Rail Station, known as OVL.

Oh, Mayor, we're gonna just see if we can get the rest of the room to clear out now that we're up to that.

Um morning, Mayor, uh, counsel Jeff McVay, manager of urban transformation with me.

This is Jeff Robbins, our redevelopment program administrator.

Um, we're happy to be here today to present the OVO project.

Um, before I hand it over and um and hand over to Jeff to be able to walk you through the overview of the project and the and the development agreement, driplet agreement.

Just kind of want to give a a real quick um intro to this project because it is different than any of the other ones that we have brought to you before for a GIPLAT or a development agreement.

The and and the main reason for that is it it's if you have driven by here, and mayor I'm sure you have, it is well under construction and it's been under construction now for a couple of years.

And it's not typical for us to bring a project to you for a development agreement or a GIPLED agreement while it's under construction.

Normally, it's well before it's even been designed.

Um there's a number of things that are involved in this.

We have been working with this developer.

This is actually um goes back to COVID era.

Um, and we've been working with this developer since 2021-2022.

Um we've been negotiating actively for these development agreements and jiplets during that entire time.

And there's a couple of factors that kind of led to the fact to the reason that we are here only now in 2026.

Um COVID was one of them.

Um right as they were getting ready to move forward, um, a lot of the inflationary um issues started coming into play.

Um for for rent or for financing also um played a role in that they had to they had to advance faster than then the project could advance from a negotiation perspective.

You'll know see when Jeff is presenting this.

There's a lot of relationship with improvements to the Valley Metro assets at the park and ride.

So there's a separate layer of negotiation with Valley Metro that had to be um incorporated into this.

During construction, there was also a major redesign that had to happen related to this the entire project's roof line that it delayed it a few more uh a few more months.

So uh I just wanted to open up and and address the main thing that makes this different than what we're used to uh seeing from a GIPLIT perspective and and just have that as a uh to to lead off before we move into the actual project itself.

So Mayor, with that, uh I'm gonna hand over to Mr.

Robbins and he's gonna give us an overview of the project and a summary of the of the development agreements and triple agreements.

Okay, before you start, we have Mr.

Adams not with us.

Uh Miss Duff is not with us now, she's logged off.

So I think it's just the four of us.

Is Alicia's one?

And Alicia is not with us, so Miss Go for it.

So everybody's committed here.

Mayor has nobody's leaving.

All right.

All right.

Jeff's gonna tell you how they're gonna go with money.

Yeah, yeah.

All right, Jeff.

Time is yours.

Uh thank you.

Mayor Council, it's good to be with you today.

So OVO is located on the northeast corner of Dobson Road and Main Street.

It is the old tri-city mall site.

So this has been a source and a target of redevelopment efforts of the city for decades.

It shares this corner with some anchored retail, the Pomeroy, which is a project that we helped facilitate multifamily, and then uh the park and ride and the transit center.

And this corner, uh, while it doesn't have all of the main shopping centers of the Asian district, is a part of the Asian district and strategically plays a role.

So many of the visitors that come to the Asian district, they are what we tend to classify as uh shoppers who are commuting to visit the Asian district, which we love.

We want to have people come from all over and see our award-winning district.

But the northeast corner, it's building in convenience shoppers.

And psychographically, a convenience shopper has a very different shopping profile than somebody who's just coming to try out the Asian district.

They're shopping like we all do, close to home for routine.

They will maybe pick up a tea or a coffee before they leave for work, and then when they get home, they're doing their shopping on the same day of the week every week.

So being able to, from an economic resiliency perspective, build in more of these convenient shoppers is very good for the district.

And that's the main purpose that this northeast corner serves, both with the Pomeroy, OVO, and in the future, hopefully, a redevelopment of the park and ride itself.

So, what is OVO though?

OVO is an urban market rate mixed use development.

It's one building with five stories, 191 Market rate apartments, and it also has about 5,700 square feet of ground floor commercial.

So on the right side of your screen, you can see that commercial product.

Um there's three slices of rendering, go down to the very bottom one.

This is the perspective looking north from Main Street, and you can see the building, and then along the front, you're gonna see that long, looks like gray to me facade about one story.

That's your commercial product.

And it has a nice glass curtain, so adds a lot of visual interest.

It's the type of thing that we'd like to see in an urban active district.

And if you look very closely, the other thing, your eyes are not deceiving you, there are trees on top of that commercial product.

So if you're walking west, you are having trees along the street, you're having that glass curtain, and then above the retail, there's more trees in structured soil.

So it creates a very different leveling and visual interest that we uh may this may exist somewhere else in the city.

I'm not aware of it, and this could be a very nice thing from my perspective, be able to point to and say, hey, this is the type of quality we're getting in the redevelopment area, and this is what we want to see going forward.

One other thing that's very important about this in terms of differentiation and quality is that it's built on a podium.

So that is basically a big concrete box, and that's where the majority of the parking is going to be.

And so, from an urban perspective, it's it's incredibly different when you experience a building where most of the parking is not out front, it's not blocking you from the street.

There's not this you know sea of cars.

It is very uh tight, compact, and it just has a very different feel.

So, from that perspective, we also really like that aspect of this project.

Is there a question?

You answered.

I was like, where are they gonna park?

And then also are those Palo Verde trees.

I'm just I'm messing.

I'm probably but I'm not at the same time.

I I I think in the rendering, I actually don't know what those look like.

But um I can just see them like blowing off the building in a month and I love the trees.

I think robots gonna park.

Yeah.

Uh are you activating is uh is the developer activating that rooftop space or just planting bushes up there?

Yeah, I was doing something up here.

Just curious.

Um I think I'm gonna jump ahead.

And I will I'll show you an aerial angle so you can see how parts of the building are being activated from a different view.

Um, so don't read the text.

I will jump back.

Um here's our angle.

So here's what you're seeing uh again, Main Street there to the south.

You've got your transit station, you've got the transit center to the east, park and ride to the north.

And so you on that podium, what they're doing is they're creating these really interesting alcoves.

It's got this very creative backwards looking building.

And so uh you will see people activity, it's gonna be up above from the walking area, and then the trees are just on that commercial strip, those are just trees.

There's not really an a rooftop bar or something like that on that commercial space.

All the activity will be down inside.

I think all of you.

Eight months out of the year.

Seven.

Thank you for that.

So we'll jump down to the next slide.

Okay, so the economic impact of this project.

Um, I'll start kind of on the top left and work my way right on this slide.

The total economic impact, and this is measured from the start of construction all the way to the end of the eight-year terms.

This is about 10 years.

Total economic impact, direct indirect induced is 136 million dollars.

This in addition to the estimated 500 jobs that would be created from the construction will result in 28 permanent jobs in the district from that, mostly that commercial, but there are some that are part of the multifamily.

Total direct tax revenue to the city, county, and state is 5.2 million.

And then of that 5.2, the city would realize an estimated $920,000 in revenues.

Part of that $920 component is a guaranteed minimum of $520,000 for construction sales tax.

So if for some reason they came in and the construction sales tax was $510, they would cut a check for the difference of the $10,000 of the state.

So we are guaranteed that money.

And then any of the other sales tax revenue that will come in over that term.

As part of a jiblet lease, which I'll talk about later in the presentation, we get our standard $10,000 a year, which over the term is $80,000, new residential and commercial utility users.

And then I will also talk about this component a little bit later in the presentation, but there'll be a one-time lump sum check of $500,000 to the city that can help to serve our redevelopment efforts.

So to fill to facilitate the development of this project, there are several agreements that would be coming before council for action.

There's a development agreement.

Can I ask you who gets to spend the $500,000 for redevelopment?

Uh mayor, council, yes.

Okay.

Just want to confirm that council has that.

Yeah, it's mayor.

That is one of the buckets uh that we identified when council gave us direction to uh go ahead and for the restaurant incubator to uh go ahead and finish out the bottom uh the basement level of of that.

We knew right off the bat that this 500,000 was coming.

I think it was roughly a million that we were trying to get to, give or take.

And so um so the idea was to to apply this 500,000 towards that million dollars, and then we had other um ideas of so we've gone from activating rooftops to the basement.

It is completely the opposite.

Yeah, yeah.

Okay, sorry to cut you off.

Carry on.

Uh the other agreement would be a government property lease excise tax.

We uh depending on how you pronounce it, jiplet, uh, and this jiplet has an eight-year tax abatement.

Not all jiplets do, but this one does, and with that, there are several statutory requirement tests that have to be met.

So we contract with an independent third-party economist, and they have run an analysis that shows that this project does meet all the tests that are required.

It's located within the city's central business district redevelopment area.

It more than doubles the value of the property, and it generates more revenue than the amount that is benefited.

So those are all good.

And then the other um kind of more unique aspect of this project is where it's located because it's next to the transit center and also the park and ride.

It's very important that there's free access from the public to be able to get back and forth, and we do envision that someday that park and ride will redevelop.

So, even more important that people can walk back and forth easily.

So if you look to directly the west of the property, there is a road called Ironwood.

That eastern half that is private.

And so the developer will grant the city an easement for both the vehicular traffic as well as the pedestrian traffic.

And that easement's going to be on the west side of the building as well as part of the north.

And that would survive in perpetuity.

There are some obligations that the developer will take on as part of the agreements.

They will have to complete all of the private and public minimum improvements by July 1st, 2027.

So about a year from now, they need to be done.

This project has to have an enhanced landscaping, so better than just the minimum standard.

They will be making improvements to the transit center.

I'll talk about that in the next slide.

There, and there will be perpetual maintenance of certain uh aspects of the project.

Uh trees along Main Street will be maintained, Ironwood Drive, the easement we talked about, and then they will be required to use city utilities.

The main one there that we focus on is solid waste because if they're developing here, they're gonna use city water and sewer, but the solid waste, they could go out and compete and they have to use us now.

As part of a GIPLAT lease, we also have the in-loop payments to the school districts for tax that is being abated, so the amounts are there to the different school districts, and then we've we just talked about the $500,000.

That's part of the public benefit of a jiplet, and that's an important component.

Any GIPLIT has to provide significant uh public benefit, which we negotiate.

And this check would not have happened if not for this agreement.

And we've talked about that.

And if council would like to continue to discuss, we can, but we did want to point out that that was the thought is to use this for the basement of the restaurant incubator.

And then to the east, the transit center was constructed in 1998.

This is a city maintenance obligation and it has been maintained over the years.

But as with any asset over 20 years, there are some items that need to be repaired.

The city would need to take care of these, but because of the agreement, the developer's going to do it for us.

And uh one of them is the demolition of a restroom facility, which you can see on the screen.

Uh, this facility is not functioning.

It was closed due to crime and other things that were going on.

So it is just a liability.

And um we have to say, council, we we did forget to negotiate one thing, and that was to not let Jody Surrell have the first crack at this with a sledgehammer.

So uh she's somewhere cheering right now.

Um nobody's happier to have that removed than her.

Uh there will also be improvements to the sidewalks, repairs to the pavers.

You can see just the the buses are heavy when they go up the slabs, they crack.

So those will be repaired, and that's one of the most expensive pieces of the repairs in this package.

There'll be some improvements to the transit trans traction power substation or the TPSS that provide for improved safety safety for people who are working on that facility.

And then speaking of safety, there'll be some improvements for pedestrian crossing and then rant modifications for ADA accommodation.

There are four primary obligations of the city in this agreement.

We provide the eight-year tax abatement, we accept the improvements, provide utilities, and then to help the developer achieve their construction obligation of July 1st, 2027.

We're gonna provide a customized review schedule, which allows them to get through with the review process faster.

And with that, council, we are open for any questions you may have.

Council?

Really quick one.

Are they paying a capacity fee?

Um, mayor, counsel council Taylor.

Uh, this because of when they actually um were issued their first building permits, they were still under the old system.

So they they would have likely had to pay whatever um impact fees that were in place at the time, but they are not uh subject to the capacity fee.

Because it's yeah, we just initiated that a couple of months ago, whatever, Mr.

Reddy.

Uh no, this is a long time coming.

I think uh we've talked about this area since uh 2018, I think.

Uh different variations of plans that happened, and um, you know, the with the Pomeroy behind um behind the safe way just made uh it's made a big difference in activating a little bit more that area, and this I think will add further activation.

Uh we got a light world stop there.

We got uh the Asian district, you know, HMR across the street.

You know, we can't uh we the uh vacancy is really low, like as far as the retail shops, so there's actually need for more retail shops and more restaurants potentially.

Um so having that activation of uh commercial space is uh really uh uh a push that we made, I think, when uh we were talking about this development that we just need more spaces for commercial because the need is there, right?

So it's always to it's always good to have that type of problem, I think uh in the city.

So uh this is uh a great project in an area that you know was distressed.

Uh you know, hopefully, you know, the parking ride just doesn't have I think it has maybe three, four cars.

You know, I pass by there all the time, so um it's just not uh is it wasn't uh uh a space that was being utilized.

Um, and so to have this type of um development, I think will only improve this area for the future for for decades, right?

So um so I'm very supportive of this uh and little little quirky as far as normally we see you know these these agreements prior to construction, but I think uh they're I think they're probably like 60, 70 percent done uh right now.

So I I think it's coming along uh and hopefully we can uh cut the ribbon before I uh leave office.

So well, again, thank you for this.

I think one thing for me to point out is you know, property taxes, and in lieu of that, the school districts get paid in lieu of the one-time payment, I think is important, even though in the city of Mesa we just reiterate we do not have a primary property tax, and that's beneficial.

However, and I think Mr.

Kenneton will remind me that I think nine cents out of every dollar is actually paid to Mesa and all everything in taxes, everything else goes everywhere else.

So I'm not gonna say where it goes, but nine cents out of every dollar, right, Mike.

So I think that's key that we're very uh prudent in our making sure that our school systems, school districts get the monies entitled because they they normally wouldn't get this money, right?

Correct.

Okay.

And and then mayor, of course, after the abatement period ends, then um then they will get the benefit of the improvements that were made um on the property.

So the value of of the property after the eight-year abatement, um you know, and and if not for the incentive, sometimes these deals don't pencil out to make that happen.

And so that's why with the limited tools that the legislature has left us here in Arizona, G PLET is is one of those that can be highly effective and and actually um changing the making some of these projects pencil out at the end of the day.

And mayor, I just want to make sure I I I'm accurate in my answer to your question.

A G P put abatement could include every single property tax, could include these school district taxes.

It isn't is our negotiating position that that we want to make the school districts whole as if this land were exist if the land existed as it did um prior to the development for that eight years.

So it is it is um the city's position from policy that we do apply that in blue tax to for the school districts.

It is not required of us, though.

That's what I wanted to point out.

It's not required, but we require it.

Yes, to make them whole.

Ms.

Taylor, did you have a comment?

I do, but I don't know.

Okay.

Well, just to finish, I look at you know the addition of people living there.

They may attend Mesa Public Schools.

Mesa Community College, Evet, I mean it's across the street and very close.

So and then the public transportation component is there and help uplifting our uh light rail system and utilizing that to its best capacity.

So great.

Hearing nothing else, uh council.

Thank you.

Mayor, just one word.

I think we are scheduled to come back and actually have this on council agenda for action August 17th.

Okay, very good.

With that, council, uh, I'll entertain item four sees to take action on appointments to various boards and committees.

Is there a motion to that effect?

Thank you, Mr.

Reddy.

Thank you, Miss Taylor.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All right, that is for historic preservation, economic development, and board of adjustment public hearing and design review board.

Uh sure.

Item five is to acknowledge receipt of board minutes.

Is there a motion to that effect?

Thank you, Ms.

Taylor.

Thank you, Mr.

Reddy.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Next is current events and conferences attended.

Council members, do you have anything you wish to share?

Had a great time in Louisville for the NLC.

Um, I went with Scott.

Oh, okay.

Very interesting.

I went for the information technology committee.

Uh we got to see how Louisville is implementing artificial intelligence from everything from uh crime centers to drone technology used to get 360 degree views of fires, so that when they're on the backside of one of their buildings, before the firefighters get there, they can already get an idea of what's going on.

Um we took a few tours, we got to see some historic areas.

It was uh it was pleasant.

I learned a lot about what other cities are facing in terms of difficulties with data centers and AI super using centers.

Um so we had some fruitful discussions around that, and um, I got to hang out with this this old guy.

He was he's cool, you know.

And the drones charge on the roof, not on poles.

They do.

Yeah, and they were cheaper than ours.

Just gonna throw that out there.

Mr.

Reddit, you think so.

Uh here's uh celebration of freedom.

Oh, yeah.

Yeah, I was gonna bring the why don't you do that?

Oh, we uh Arizona Celebration of Freedom, Mesa, Mesa Mesa celebration of freedom.

Mesa celebration of freedom.

We renamed it.

Uh great event.

Thanks to all the staff over the course of the past year has been working on uh America 250 and putting uh that program into their programming that we saw that at this event.

Uh first time well, second time we've used drones as part of the show.

First time uh for 4th of July.

Uh we it was really good to see that, and hopefully we'll be able to explore expanding that program uh over the years.

But uh really good programs over at the event.

We really appreciate it.

Didn't get to do the uh swearing in of new citizens, but we did swear in some uh brand new military folks as a substitute.

So that was fantastic.

And thank them for their service in advance.

Very good.

I'll just share with you.

I attended Arizona District Export Council where the ambassador, new ambassador of Canada, uh Mark Wiseman spoke to us with a panel.

That was on gosh, June 23rd.

And then some of us attended the Mesa Police Department Academy graduation class.

Uh that was June 25th.

I attended the U.S.

Conference of Mayors celebration in Philadelphia.

That was quite the ordeal to be there at where the Liberty Bill and the Hall is there where the it was all made.

Um also want to do a shout out.

Chief Camelli was selected as the Arizona Fire Chiefs recipient of the Lifetime Achievement Award uh yesterday.

And then congratulations to Mesa Deputy Chief Lisa Anderson.

She doesn't, she's going to be named Arizona Municipal Clerks Association Deputy Clerk of the Year.

Congratulations.

Yeah.

So are we going to get to embarrass them at a public meeting?

City Councilman.

You can on Monday.

On Monday.

Oh, totally.

So we're grateful for your support and transparent and effective local government there, and we're proud of her being recognized as Deputy Clerk of the Year.

You're welcome.

Then on a sad note, uh Salt River Fire Department Medical, they lost a firefighter, uh, Mr.

Christopher Firefighter Christopher here uh yesterday, and he died from a cancer related death.

So uh the our local 2260 is providing an honor watch for him, the Christopher family until he's buried.

So that will be forthcoming.

I'm understanding Thursday of next week is his funeral.

So I believe the vice mayor's consented to be there because I cannot be there.

Thank you.

Uh all inner yes.

Sorry, I don't want to drag it out, but I did want to say I wasn't here for the celebration of freedom, but I have heard from multiple residents that it was one of the best experiences they've ever had.

I was at the uh Mesa Republican Women's Club on Monday, and a woman just stood up and she's like, I need to tell everybody that I went to the air, the Mesa Celebration of Freedom, and she said I have never attended one of these, and she said it was so amazing.

She can't wait to come back every year.

And she's like, Mesa has got to have the best fourth of July she's ever seen in her entire life.

And she's you know, she's probably my age.

She's had a few years to live with some of them.

And I just I'm sorry I wasn't here, but I I do want the public to know the city put a lot of effort into this this event, and um, I'm grateful for everyone who's given feedback on it because they had an awesome, awesome experience.

So well done to staff and everybody who was involved in orchestrating it.

Record attendance, I believe.

Yes, record attendance.

I think Casey, Casey, your team put out over 50,000, up to 60,000 uh people.

We can get you the exact numbers, Mayor.

But yeah, it was record, record turnout and over 50,000.

Great volunteers, barks and rec and public safety and and solid waste.

I mean, you name it, it's a team effort uh throughout the organization to pull it off.

And of course, we we appreciate our private sector partners uh who sponsor Will Nig was the title sponsor, but we have great participation from our sponsors that allow that um you know to be a very um very good investment uh into a great event that brings out you know tens of thousands of of people.

Um, and we had some good weather uh too this year as well, so that was great.

And I know this Sertoma Club Surtoma plays an important part of that.

Okay, with that, Mr.

Butler, could you share the schedule of future meetings?

Yeah, mayor and council.

I'll just I'll just be brief.

We'll reconvene here on Monday uh for study session, uh, followed by council meeting.

But just take note.

We are we're not going to have study session next Thursday, the 23rd.

That's that's already been canceled.

So we will review the agenda for Monday the 27th during study session on Monday the 20th.

So this coming Monday, um, just plan ahead.

Um we will we will review the schedule for the 27th, uh, since we won't have next Thursday to do that.

And then of course, you'll have a whole week if there's additional questions or information that staff can provide, and then we'll review it again on the 27th uh before at study session before we go up to the regular meeting.

So that's a little extra homework assignment for you over this weekend is to is to start early reviewing the 27th.

Okay.

And and Mayor, I'll just um just one final uh reminder too, uh, especially as we're still expecting storms over the next couple of days.

We do have information uh if you go to MesaAZ.gov um uh right on the the very first header of the website, it share shares information with our residents about where to receive sandbags if they were to need that and other uh emergency preparedness.

So we'd just encourage folks, and if you're talking to groups and and others, um I know uh Councilmember Taylor said she's got an event tonight when it could be raining.

Uh just make sure folks know that those resources are right at the very top of our city website.

All right.

With that, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.

So thank you, Miss Taylor.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Oh great, we're adjourned.