Good evening. Welcome to our Mesa City Council meeting for January 12th, 2026. All members of our council are present. With that, we're going to begin and stand with a moment of silence and then follow us in the pledge of allegiance. So, please stand if you can. Thank you. Following the pledge of allegiance. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you everyone. Item one is on the consent agenda. Mr. Christopher, if you come forward. Miss Mosley, do we have any other items pulled off of the consent? I have the ones you gave me. >> The four that I gave you prior to the meeting. Yes. And Kevin, you have four items being pulled from consent. >> Five. >> Oh, he has one extra. >> Okay. Which is the other one? >> The last one I was 4 L. >> 4 L. >> Sorry. >> Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Christopher. >> All right. Good evening, mayor and council members. These are the items on the consent agenda. All items listed with an asterisk will be considered as a group by the city council and will be enacted with one motion. There will be no separate discussion unless a council member or citizen request in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered as a separate item. Item two, approval of minutes of previous meetings is written. Item 3 A, act on liquor license application for Barbecue Chicken Mesa, 138 South Dobson Road. Item 3 B, act an electoral license application for Bellagio Smoke and Vape, 28 South Dobson Road. Item 3 C, act an electoral license application for Pedal House Brewery, 2011 West Main Street. Item 3D, actual license application for Lendas Golf Club, 755 East Eagle Crest Drive. Item 4 A, approving contract to purchase Flow Rider repair parts and services with Parks, Recreation, and Community Facilities Department. Item 4 B, approving one-year term contract for Dynamo playground equipment repair and replacement parts for the parks, recreation, and community facilities department. Item 4 C, approving three-year term contract with two-year renewal options for fencing and gate installation repair rental and supplies for the parks, recreation, and community facilities and the facilities management departments. Item 4 D, approving three-year term contract with two-year renewal options for fasteners, hardware, and electrical supplies for the fleet services department. Item 4E, approving nine-month use of cooperative term contract with renewal options for the purchase of public communication equipment and services for the Department of Innovation and Technology. The cost is shared by the members of the Topaz Regional Wireless Cooperative. Item 4F, approving 13-month use of a cooperative term contract for trenchless technology rehabilitation and related products and services for the water resources department. Item 4G, approving four-year term contract for water and wastewater treatment chemicals for the water resources and parks, recreation and community facilities departments. Item 4 H, approving use of a cooperative contract for the purchase of two E1 cyclone custom hazmat apparatus for the Mesa Fire and Medical Department. This is funded by 2024 public safety bonds. Items 4 I through 4K are approving and authorizing the mayor to sign an amendment to the employment contracts for the following employees. Four I's for the city clerk, 4 J for the city attorney, 4K for the city auditor. Item 4 L has been removed from the consent agenda. Item 5 A, approving resolution authorizing the city manager to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with Maropa County for the waterline relocation for the new traffic signal at Ellsworth Road and PBLO Avenue intersection. Items 6A and 6B are for continuence to the February 23rd city council meeting. 6A is a resolution pertaining to administrative changes while 6B is introduction of an ordinance proposing amendments to the Mesa city code. Again, these are for continuence to the February 23rd, 2026 city council meeting. Item 7 A, introduction of ordinance proposing amendments to chapter 1 of title one and chapter 66 and 67 of title 11 of the Mesa City Code pertaining to the organization and duties of the Ping and Zoning Board and Design Review Board. Item 7B, introduction of ordinance for zoning case 25-397 for property located at the northeast corner of University Drive and 80th Street. Site plan modification and amending conditions of approval of ordinance number 2354 to allow for an office development. Item 7 C, introduction of ordinance for annexation case 25-889 to deanex public rightway located at the intersection of Brown Road in Krisman subject to approval by the Maropa County Board of Supervisors. This deanexation is to accommodate Maricopa County's right-of-way requirements. Item 7D, introduction of ordinance for zoning case 24-3 24-525 for property located at 8839 East Main Street. This is for a reszone with new plan area development overlay site plan review and council use permit to allow for a boat and RV storage facility. Items 8A and 8B have been removed from the consent agenda. Item 8 C approving ordinance amending and adopting Mesa City Code traffic regulations 10-1-8 10-1-9 10-1-14 and 10-1-16 to allow use of certain electric vehicles in city parks and other city rideway subject to certain limitations items 8 D and 8E have been removed from consent agenda item 8F approving ordinance for zoning case 23-365 for property located north of the northwest corner of POS road and mountain road reszoned a new plan area development overlay and site plan modification to allow for expansion of an existing industrial facility. Mayor and council members, these are the items on the consent agenda. >> Thank you, Mr. Christopher. With that, uh, council, we'll entertain a motion. Thank you, Mr. Ready, a second by Miss Duff. Please cast your vote. All right, motion passes unanimously. Thank you, everyone. Next, we'll move over to item 4 L, uh, approving and authorizing the mayor to sign an amendment to the employee contract with the city manager. I don't know who asked for that to be removed. Miss Hosley Mosley, do you? >> Uh, mayor, I have a request from Mr. Carrie Davis to speak on this item. >> Mr. Davis, you want to come up? And >> are there any others on this uh item? >> Uh, no, Mayor. >> Okay. Thank you. Hello, Mr. Davis. >> Good evening. Uh, mayor and honorable city council. My name is Carrie Davis and I'm here to oppose the agenda item 4L, the increase, I believe, for the city manager. The increase, as I understand it, takes the city manager from 345,000 to 386,000 plus 3%. That takes it up to a total of $398,000. And the increase, as I understand it, is based on a bench benchmark of five or six different cities. Two of those are Gilbert and Chandler. The other another one is Scottsdale. It seems to me that there should be some merit included in this increase. There's a need, I think, for the city to look at how it fares compared to our neighbors. The city of Chandler, the city of Gilbert with the report that was produced by Wallet Hub is ranked 29th out of 182 cities. Chandler is ranked 70 40th. Scottsdale is ranked 41st. The city of Mesa is ranked at 70. So, we're considerably less safe than those two cities. However, we spend considerably more than those two cities when it comes to our general governmental operations. For the 2024 period, the city spent 1 bill67 million in total expenses for general governmental operations. Those two cities spent $812,71,000. So we spend $255 million more than those two cities for the combined Chandler and Gilbert. Those two cities, their population is 550 thou 55,000 combined. City of Mesa is 511,000. seems to me that the increase should have some merit and some performance base uh attached to it. And I don't see that in the amendment. All I see is that based on the benchmark that was performed, the city is proposing that we increase the city manager based on the average plus 3%. So I oppose the increase. Thank you very much. >> Thank you, Mr. Davis. We appreciate if you keep the clapping to a minimum. We we know there's support for the conversation. So, thank you for that. Um, thank you for your question, Mr. Davis. As a council, we thoroughly vet all our employment raises, especially the benchmarking component. We felt that was the best way to finalize the number for our city manager and all staff. and taking a uh average of all the salaries throughout the valley here. That's how we came up with the salary for uh M Mr. Butler along with performance measures that we've we've discussed internally and he will continue to meet those measures. I don't know council if you have anything you'd like to say uh regarding this motion. Okay. If not, uh, I'll entertain a motion to approve item 4L. Mr. Heredia, thank you, Mr. Summers. All in favor, cast your vote. It's unanimous. Thank you. Next, we'll move over to item 8A, uh, proposing amendments to chapters 45, 5,67, 88, 10, 31, and 86, and 87 of the title 11 Mesa city code pertaining to battery energy storage systems. So, with that, uh, I think Miss Duff, you wanted to take that off and have a discuss. >> Yeah, I wanted to take it off. I know we've discussed it at length over a few meetings now. Um, I'll be voting no on it. I think the thousand feet is excessive and I understand there is support um appears a support at city council to pass it. So um in retrospect of understanding it'll be approved, I'd like to consider bringing it back at another time when we had more time to look at studies and and other effects to consider um shortening that distance. Maybe 400 feet, maybe 100 feet. Um but I would say at minimum just the 400 feet which would put um residences in line with parks and schools and um churches and have that consistency. So I'd like to see it come back at a future date and uh that's where I'm at. Thank you. >> Okay. Mr. Smith, Mr. Butler, there's uh relative to coming back at a certain date in the near future, say a year or less. I mean, what what's your opinions on that? and thoughts, guidance. >> Yeah, mayor and council, we um we can certainly um work with council to to determine what would be the appropriate time uh to bring this back. Like I said, I'm I I feel good about the fact that we've found a path forward for the sites that are under discussion uh currently. Um any future sites would be would have to be a collaborative effort between any future applicant and Salt River Project. uh in particular in this area. So, we'll I think that'll give us time to have a more informed um discussion as we move forward. I know there's, you know, as as we stated on Thursday, we've we've heard a lot of discussion from council about as the technology evolves, as safety uh regulations tied to this evolve, that that's something that will inform future decisions that this council will be able to make. And I I think we've got a little breathing room right now after these three sites are are moving forward that we'll be able to um to definitely make a more informed uh decision as we talk about best systems in the future. >> Very good, Mr. Adams. >> Thank you, Mayor. I am uh I'm sympathetic towards Council Member Duff's concerns. I'm also aware that a lot of the U data out there is a moving target and it would be nice if there were some solid numbers that I could feel comfortable with. Uh I think in this instant case um as I expressed at the study session the parties involved here uh have come to an agreement and uh they've come to that agreement to my knowledge uh not under duress. So I think for their benefit this should move forward as it's presented. However, I think we should also continue to look at the issues surrounding battery energy storage systems, the distances involved with the understanding that uh uh there is a a lot of data out there that should be considered as technology advances. So, uh, I'm supportive of this, uh, with the understanding that we will be revisiting these standards as we as we go down the road. >> Very good. Thank you, Mr. Adams. Vice Mayor, you want to make a comment? >> Apparently, uh, they don't want me to. First, I'm going to say uh anybody who wants to know my position just has to rewind a couple of meetings and you'll hear a long diet tribe on my experiences with with batteries and my thoughts here. 1,000 ft isn't for every community. Every community has different tolerances. It's what's right for Mesa now. And if four people on this council decide to vote no on this, then best is not allowed in a city of Mesa. I think under existing technologies and what's unknown about future future chemistries, having that thousand ft from someone's home where they can't always evacuate quickly is the right measure to do. And I do understand that as things change, as more data comes in, we can re-examine this. As a matter of fact, there's a another safety item on here about ebikes in in parks and and that's not a that's not a perfect ordinance either, but it's a start. And we will continue to look at these issues on this council to make the best decisions for the time. and the best decision for this time is to approve this ordinance with the 1,00 ft. So, I will be in support. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Well, hearing nothing else, I just want to add that I do to support revisiting this uh NFPA 855 is coming into play very soon. The Arizona Fire Marshals Association office will be adopting the NFPA55. And so maybe, Mr. manager. In the future, we can have a study session and you and see where we're at between uh the NFPA and other technical data. >> Yeah, absolutely, Mayor. And one one of the things that we can do, we've we've already had a lot of robust dialogue with Salt River Project about um those energy needs moving forward and and we are that's that's a really important partnership because we need power um in Mesa to meet the economic development goals that we have set forward because advanced manufacturers uh semiconductor, biomed, some of the great ribbon cutings that the vice mayor was talking about downstairs all rely on a robust power supply that we're going to have to work with our partners at at SRP to ensure that we we have moving forward. So, um so Mayor, we we can certainly do that. It might be best that if we continue this dialogue right now with SRP and just find the appropriate time as we look at um projects in the pipeline, other projects in the future, where would it make sense? because the proximity to manufacturers and to substations um comes into play and is is really crucial for placement. I think um all of that will be um will really influence the decision and the discussion as we move forward. So I think we need to um have our arms wrapped around those aspects before it would be meaningful to bring it back to the council. >> Very good. Thank you. With that, I'll entertain a motion to approve. I excuse the subject. >> Pardon? >> Is there a blue card? >> Yes, mayor. We have nine cards on this subject actually. Um nine. >> Yeah. And some of them are representing a group. >> Okay. Would you let's read them off then? Let's do the first one. >> All right. So, the first request is David Winstanley. >> Mr. Win Stanley. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, council. Uh, my name is David Winstanley. I live in District 6. Most of you know me. I'm a retired director of engineering at Honeywell Aerospace. One of my responsibilities as director of engineering was product safety. Every month, I made the trip over to Long Beach to brief the FAA on new and ongoing safety issues with Honeywell Mechanical Systems. In aerospace, nuclear, and many other industry, safety risk is evaluated with two aspects. The probability of having the event and the consequences of the event. These two aspects are independent. If a safety event involves any potential risk of human injury or death, they must be avoided. The FAA in particular will not accept a probability argument if life or limb is at risk. Not even if we can definitively show a less than one in a billion chance of the event happening. Instead, we must actively divi design out the consequences. This philosophy applies equally to batter battery energy storage systems. During my tenure at Honeywell, I was involved in the investigation of two battery fire incidents on airplanes. Both were on the 787 airplane. I cannot describe in three minutes what happened, but they were p they are published in public records by the FAA and the United Kingdom Air Incidents Investigation Branch. We learned from these investigation that investigations that battery fires are highly energetic, produce high temperature gases that contain toxic chem chemicals depending on the chemistry of the battery and often have unintended consequences. We learned that solutions to battery fires must be actively tested at worst case conditions. The batteries that I investigated were 100 times more energetic than your typical phone or computer battery, but they're 100 times less energetic than what we're describing in battery, sorry, in the best systems. There's a lot of energy potential and a safety risk. Two things bother me regarding the discussions during past city council meeting and study sessions on this subject. Number one, no testing, I repeat, testing was ever discussed by those quoting expert agencies who define such municipal and other building codes. We learned in our investigations that theory and prior experience is not adequate for battery fires because fault progression and unintended consequences always occur. And number two, yes, there are new technologies for minimizing battery fire hazard, and as an engineer, I am very intrigued, but these are not specified in your current city code. Therefore, that's not a relevant discussion at this point. It is my understanding that those who have the immediate need of this ordinance can live with it as written. Therefore, I urge you to vote yes on this ordinance keeping the 10,00 ft and come back to it and revise it to minimize development impact when the technology and especially the testing is codified and understood. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you, Mr. Win Stanley. Who's next? Miss Mosley. >> Uh, next I just have a last name for CPAN with uh representing Arizona Technology Council. And next on deck would be Court Rich with APA Power. >> Okay. >> Hello sir. Welcome back. >> Good to see everyone again. Uh Mayor Freeman, members of council, good evening. My name is Sepand Alazada. I am with the Arizona Technology Council, 2800 North Central Avenue, Sweet 1530 Phoenix. It is an honor and privilege to stand before you this evening to provide these comments. Before I begin, I want to thank Mesa's development services department, city attorney's office, and city manager for all the hard work that has been put into updating the city of Mesa code. Zoning ordinances are living documents, and they need to be refreshed. You all have done that. The Arizona Technology Council is ecstatic to hear that the best proposals that are going through the site plan pro process are moving forward and are able to comply with the proposed 1,000 ft separation requirement from residences. This is fantastic news. That said, we are concerned about the viability of future battery energy storage system projects coming before the city should this proposed separation requirement move forward. Mesa is growing. More land will be reszoned residential as more people seek to move into this community. Also, more technology companies and tech manufacturers will seek to set up operations in Mesa. We've heard from them. They love this city as they should. Battery energy storage systems will play a key role in fueling this future economic growth. By moving a 1,000 ft separation requirement forward, the city council may harm the viability of Mesa as a tech hub for companies that want to locate here. If there's not enough power, they will go elsewhere. Knowing I'm an NFL fanatic, one of my mentors once told me that the most impactful public policies are developed in between the 40 yard lines. The a tech council has previously suggested a separation requirement of less than 200 ft. In October, the planning and zoning board recommended the separation requirement of 400 ft, one that energy developers who are our members will find more palatable. The Arizona Technology Council would support that. If the 1,000 ft separation requirement is adopted tonight, we ask that you all look to re-examine it in the near future, just as was suggested at Thursday's study sess session and earlier this evening. With that, I want to thank you all for your time and on behalf of the Arizona Technology Council, we wish every Mesa resident and business owner a happy and healthy 2026. Thank you. >> Thank you, Supan. Uh, Mr. Rich Court Rich and who's following Mr. Rich. >> That will be Buchanan Davis with Salt River Project. >> Good evening, mayor, council members. My name is Court Rich from the Rose Law Group. I'm here today on behalf of IPA power. Uh IPA is one of the companies that's developing uh the battery energy storage projects in the city already. They have two projects along Signal but uh we appreciate your time. I know each of you have thought about this issue deeply and and spoken about it often at these meetings and and outside of these meetings. We appreciate the time of of staff working on this issue. Um we're here today to ask you to support this and vote in favor of this item. uh we think there are immediate needs that SRP has spoken about for these projects and this will free them up to move forward. We're happy to be a resource going forward to talk about what we think the right um the right setback should be in the future and and think that it can be done safely at at lesser uh le lesser setbacks but but encourage you to move forward with it today as is appreciate all your time. Thank you and happy new year. >> Thank you court Buchanan who's after Mr. Davis >> Kyle Whittier with Next Air Energy Resources. >> Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. Thanks for the opportunity to be here today. Buchanan Davis, Salt River Project. I'm our director of local government relations. We've talked a lot with you all about the tremendous growth that Salt River Project is experiencing and uh you know, we're going to double our load in the next 10 years. what it took us a 100 plus years to build, we're going to have to do in 10 years. And we're approaching that by all of the above strategy. And we've talked about that as we look for natural gas and nuclear and all kinds of technology. But battery storage is an important tool in the toolbox. It it keeps the lights on when demand is highest. Uh you know, it charges energy when it's cheap and abundant and deploys it when it we need it the most in those hours of the day when demand is the highest. We really appreciate the city council and the city staff coming together. Several months ago, it it was realized that uh you had no code for for best and and for some of our projects were already in the works, we needed a an ordinance to move forward. We're grateful and that as staff moved very quickly on this and very collaboratively and we were part of that. Um and we're and and and now we're here. We appreciate the continuence from for last month that would allow all of those projects and in the pipeline to uh get across the finish line. Ultimately, there are some policies in the ordinances that we do disagree with. One being the 1,000 ft setback. We are in the situation though where we want we need it to be legal so we can move forward with the projects to meet demand as we have it now. But we also would like you to consider as has been said a future conversation on some of the policy within that including the setbacks and maybe including some areas that aren't included now light industrial things like that. So uh that is our ask that we support the ordinance as written to move forward allowing a legal framework for our projects to also move forward but we would hope that the council would consider leaving the door open for some further considerations. With that I'd take any questions or anything you have for me. Vice Mayor, >> Mr. Davis, would you extend my appreciation to Linda Brady, your vice president, for her work. I've mentioned her name from this DASIS several times and I swear within 15 minutes I had a text message and a phone call. So, she was instrumental in working through with all the partners to find a reasonable solution to everyone's issues. >> I I appreciate the vice mayor to do that. and um today's her birthday. So, uh that's why I'm here, not her. So, >> I was >> not that she didn't want to be here with you all tonight. >> Well, thanks for giving her some time off tonight. We wish her well as well. Thank you. >> Thanks, Mayor. >> All right, Miss Mosley, after our next >> So, next is Kyle Whittier with Next Era and following Kyle is Brian Frink with Fire and Risk Alliance. >> All right. Good evening, Mayor. Good evening, council members. Uh, first, thanks for the opportunity to speak tonight. My name is Kyle Wider. I'm here on behalf of Next Energy Resources. And as one of America's largest all the above energy companies, we develop and operate a diverse portfolio of nuclear, natural gas, renewables, and battery energy storage. Uh, and although it's newer than some of the other technologies, we have been operating battery energy storage around the country for about a decade now with 50 operational sites, several here in the state of Arizona. Uh so first I'd just like to thank the city staff of course uh the planning and zoning commission and the council members for your willingness to to uh engage in communication here as we talk through this best ordinance. We at next year energy resources have worked through similar processes with many other jurisdictions across the country and we understand the heavy lift that it entails. I'd also like to thank the council for the previous continue vote uh back in December, allowing us the the critical 30 days to come to an agreement, come to a way that we can build our proposed project here under the existing uh restrictions from this this best ordinance. Uh we all agree that the safety of Mesa residents is the most important issue. Full stop. Uh however, we do believe that the current ordinance creates unnecessarily and overly restrictive regulations. Provisions like the zoning district uh reg restriction and the thousand foot step back from residential zoning not only adds cost to the customer but harms the ability of the electric utilities to provide the needed energy to power homes, businesses, schools, and hospitals. With regard to safety, NFP855 is the gold standard, which is why Mesa already relies on it for many of their other codes. And it's also why Maricopa County voted unanimously last month to do an overhaul of their zoning ordinance, including a 100 foot setback for best, just like NFPA55 recommends. Like has been mentioned before, uh we understand that the ordinance will likely be adopted tonight and if it is, we just urge the city to to keep looking at best, engage in conversations with us, with others in the industry, and revisit this at a later time. Again, thank you. >> Thank you, Kyle. All right. Next, uh Miss Mosley after Kyle. >> Next, we have Brian Frink with Fire and Risk Alliance. And following Brian next would be Autumn Johnson with Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association. >> Okay, Brian. >> Hello, Chief. >> Good evening and happy new year to all. Um, I'm going to make your night. I'm not I'm not going to speak on the on the topic. It doesn't sound like you need any questions answered, but I would like to say that I do a lot of training around the country on these systems and I meet with a lot of AHJs and I'm thoroughly impressed on how the city has handled this new ordinance and how quickly you've moved it through uh the process. Most places don't operate like this and I'm uh passing along my uh kudos to how well you've handled things. >> Thank you. I hope it's warmer here than New York. >> It is. Can I stay for a little bit longer? Any good deals on property? If we can get that as a quote. Yeah. >> All right. Autumn is next. And then after autumn is whom? >> After autumn is Amanda Curtis with MWG. >> Good evening, mayor and council members. My name is Autumn Johnson. I'm the executive director of the Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association or ARISA. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. ARISA, as you know, has submitted detailed written comments to the city on this issue, including on October 15th and November 26th. Those letters outline our core concern that the proposed 1,000 ft setback for battery storage systems is arbitrary, unsupported by data, and outside national best practice. Setbacks of this magnitude do not reflect the National Fire Protection Association standard 855, do not reflect the International Fire Code, and do not reflect the best available safety science. NFPA 855 and the Phoenix Regional Standard Operating Procedures identify 100 ft from the best equipment itself as an appropriate separation for large outdoor systems. That is the standard used by fire professionals across the country. The American Planning Association reviewed best ordinances nationwide and found that jurisdiction specific setbacks typically fall between 50 and 150 ft. Again, measured from the equipment. Mesa's proposed 1,000 ft separation is therefore an outlier by an order of magnitude. Put it plainly, if adopted as drafted, this would be the largest best setback in Arizona and to our knowledge, one of the largest in the United States. Even Maricopa County eliminated its proposed 500 foot separation after hearing from fire experts. Buckeye adopted 150 ft. And the surprise ordinance that has been mentioned several times within this process is a draft and has not ever been voted on. I realize that Councilman Summer said that this is just for Mesa and I understand that, but it will be copied by other jurisdictions and that's really the problem and that being copied throughout the state will make electricity prices more expensive and it will make our grid less reliable. Mesa does not need to chart an entirely new path when standards base paths already exist. NFPA 855 and UL 9540 um testing and the fire code provide enforcable science grounded protections. Creating a best specific setback that is 10 times higher than the national norms risks functioning as a deacto ban pushing projects farther from load and raising costs for residents as well as undermining system reliability at a time when the region is facing record peak demand. I'm going to run out of time, so I'll just reiterate that our recommendations were to reduce best to either comply with what Maricopa County or Buckeye did. To the extent that this passes today, I would ask that you please revisit this setback within 2026. And I hope that this doesn't take, you know, years to come back and correct. Thank you. >> Thank you, Autumn. Uh Amanda, and then following Amanda is whom? >> Uh the final speaker tonight would be Julie Moore. >> Julie Moore. Okay. Welcome Amanda. >> Thank you. I'm so sorry I'm losing my voice and I apologize. Um, I'm here um representing Mweg or Mormon Women for Ethical Government and we want to thank you for the opportunity to comment on the enactment of an ordinance pertaining to the best systems. Um, we're grateful for the transparency shown so far and respectfully ask the council to continue working toward an ordinance that follows the recommendations of industry experts. Our organization is composed of women in Mesa and throughout the state of Arizona who firmly believe in our responsibility to be good stewards of the earth's resources while ensuring that the city's families and businesses have access to safe, reliable, and affordable electricity. For those reasons, we support bus technology as an essential component of securing the stability and affordability of Mesa's electric grid. We encourage Mesa to adopt the standards recommended by the National Fire Protection Association, including a 50 to 150 foot set property line setback, excuse me. According to the plasma, please um according to the American Planning Association, this is the distance range that most of the examined jurisdictions used. Experts consider this a safe distance for best facilities, especially when combined with other safety measures like fire suppression systems and adherence to national safety codes. The American Clean Power Association has created a model ordinance drawn from a variety of sources, including NFPA, National Fire Safety Standards, guidance established by National Energy Laboratories, existing state laws and local regulations, firefighters, fire protection professionals, and safety experts. We have concerns that the proposed recommendation of a 1,00 ft setback for sensitive locations would limit the number of viable sites where best projects could be developed, potentially making them economically and logistically impossible in many areas of Mesa. This large setback would drastically reduce the availability of land with existing infrastructure infrastructure to support interconnection of a best facility to the grid. It would make the acquisition of appropriate land more difficult and expensive. The cost of the system itself would increase due to the longer roads and added wiring and cables needed for a larger than necessary setback. A 1,000 ft setback is not required for installations to be safe. Best safety has significantly improved in recent years with failure rates decreasing dramatically due to better system designs, innovations in battery chemistry, improved containment, and enhanced fire safety standards such as the NFPA 855. ENW urges the city council to consult the most recent industry safety standards mentioned above. We are confident that with the right ordinance, best can be thoughtfully and safely integrated without comp within Mesa without compromising public health and safety. Thank you for your service to the Mesa community. Amanda Curtis, Mesa resident. Amber Daniel, Mwag, Arizona environmental specialist. And Jane Anderson, Mwag, Arizona State Director. >> Thank you, Amanda. Uh Julie, >> thank you. I'ming to speak. >> All right, that was a short message. Thank you, Julie. Uh with that, council, any input uh or discussion? Do you need to hear from our fire marshal or our chief building official or planning director? >> Okay. Well, hearing none, I will entertain a motion to approve uh unless there's no other comments. Uh Miss Mosley, we've covered everybody. Correct. >> Yes, Mayor. That was all for item AA. >> All right. Okay. With that, we'll entertain a motion. Thank you, Mr. Summers. Thank you, Miss Goldorth. All in favor, please cast your vote. Thank you. Passes 6 to1. With that, we'll move over to item 8B. Uh that is an ordinance amending and adopting the Mesa City Code Park regulations section 610-2 6-10-4 6-10-7 and 6-10-8 that allow the use of certain electric bicycles, electric scooters, and other motorized and non-motorized vehicles in city parks uh shared use paths subject to certain limitations. Whom do we have to speak on this, Miss Mosley? Mayor, we have one request to speak on this from Mr. David Winstanley. >> All right, Mr. Win Stanley. You're in the lottery draw. >> Good evening again, mayor and council members and staff. My name is David Winstanley. I live in District 6. Thanks for letting me speak again on this subject. I spoke to you last meeting and we had a great robust discussion as a result. Thank you. Since the last meeting, I saw a great video produced by the Mesa Police Department on the definition of electric motorcycles versus ebikes. Thank you for that. Every parent should see this video, but unfortunately, many will not. This brings me to my first point, signage. How will the new speed limit be displayed? Is there a budget for these speed limit signs? Is someone on staff assigned to make that happen? And will you please include electric motorcycles prohibited on the signs? This may get parents attention to the distinction between ebikes and electric motorcycles. The second point I would like to make is enforcement. I will let Councilman Adams expound on this subject since he has more than three minutes, but it needs to be a continuing discussion that comes to a conclusion. We have a serious problem in Southeast Mesa with electric powered vehicles operated by children who are not observing any reasonable or rational rules. I have twice in recent months had to slam on my brakes along Ray Road to avoid an escooter darting out into traffic or jd driving across the street. I have asked folks from other parts of the city and it seems as though they are not yet seeing this as a problem. Park rangers would be of value in Eastmart Gray Park, but they won't help on the roads. And just to follow up on uh Mr. Smith's comment. Uh, if you want to see what it's like with ebikes on regular sidewalks, I ask you to go to East Mark High School at the dismissal. It is crazy. Somebody is going to get hurt. The last point I would like to make is the need for no ride zones. Areas where even 5 miles per hour is too much. All bicycle and scooters need to be walked. That includes me. I'm one of the bicyclists. My wife is one of the huge ebike riders. I I will send you a photo if you would like, but there were two low rider electric motorcycles maneuvering a group among a group of people across the street leaving Mesa Art Center an event there. Uh and they wo through the people and sped off. Luckily, no ankles were clipped, no canes were knocked over, and no walkers were hit, but it was an accident that just almost happened. Uh we have a similar location uh in the East Mark Great Park. the plaza on the north corn on the corner of Ray Road and Inspiron Road. It's a confluence of restaurant patrons, Eastmart community building entrance, and most importantly, the entrance to the children's splash pad. This is an area I mentioned in the last meeting where an accident is waiting to happen. Ebikes, escooters, zooming in and out of people with little children racing across the plaza as three-year-olds and 5-year-olds are want to do as they come out of the splash pad. So, I do support this ordinance, but I'm asking you to assign someone to follow up and bring to conclusion these open issues that are not resolved by this legislation. Thank you for your attention. >> Thank you, Mr. Winley. Anybody on council want to comment? I think you were called out, Mr. Adams. >> There we go. Well, I I probably deserve that. Um I I've really struggled with this this whole issue because I I I believe we need to do something obviously. Um it was pointed out at study session that uh you know when I was discussing the enforcement aspect it was pointed out that we do have our park rangers and um we can employ them within the park system. Um but then we also have the streets. Um I'm not familiar with the eastark problem. I am familiar with the uh um Lehi Crossing area because my son lives there and I was just there last night after dark and a couple of young people on a couple of these I don't know whether they were ebikes with pedals or the kind that that don't have pedals but no lights whatsoever and I had to swerve to avoid one of them. So it it it's a problem. I I'm going to vote in favor. I'm going to support this because I think we need to do something, but I I think it's just the start and I think we need to continue to work on this. Uh my personal preference is that where we have unlicensed miners operating these and violating the law, I think we need to uh take a look at their parents. Somebody's responsible for the conduct of minors, and it's typically parents. So, I think we have our work to do. I don't have a a complete solution, but I I have indicated in the past that I'm not supportive of this, but I think as I as I on balance, if we do nothing, we've we've taken we've taken no action. So, I think I'm going to be supportive of this because I think it's a good first step. But um as I've said before, I hope that we can find a way to bring this under control before some young person or persons or young child or whatever is either seriously injured or killed because the potential exists. So um thank you mayor. Those are just my my thoughts on it. >> Thank you. Anyone on council? Miss Go forth. >> So thank you Mr. Win Stanley. I think you're exactly right. This is the first step. Uh once we pass the ordinance, it's going to be about educating. It's going to be about signage. I would agree. Most people don't follow the the city council meetings aren't going to know that there's a new ordinance. And so, it's going to be very important for us to educate and do signage. And I agree, I'm not I'm not sure we're quite solving the problem, but I think I agree with Rich. It's a good first step. I asked about riding on the sidewalk. I mean, I I I ride on the sidewalk on my ebike. I didn't know you couldn't ride on the sidewalk. And I don't think the issue is adults. I think it's kids. And it's it's they're not supposed to be on the ebike anyway. So, we're not even we're not even addressing that. I think it's mostly probably under 16 who are not supposed to be riding an ebike. So, and now we've inadvertently, you know, prohibited adults who may want to ride their bike on the sidewalk. It has to be happens to be an ebike. Um, so this is not a perfect uh ordinance, but it is a start. I agree. Um, and it's it's going to need some more work as as we go down the road here. So, thank you. >> Thank you, Miss Goforth. Anyone else? >> Well, Mr. Woody, you bring up some good points, you know, but you're you're putting two together. We're talking about parks and our shared use paths and that's what we want to concentrate on is making sure we we do the right things and and we know that we may have to massage this later on down the road. And then the bicycle thing things that we have available. I've talked to our police chief about it. We have our real-time crime center. We they can deploy drones uh you know for those that are not acting appropriately and and I know they don't have a license plate. Maybe it'll be hard to catch them. We can come up with all kinds of uh things to say about that, but at the end of the day, we do have resources available. And then we're waiting. We hear legislation coming. And to your point, yes, we're tracking that. We have our inner goss watching what our state legislators are going to do. And uh they should be back in session, I think, this week, if not well, this week anyway. Yeah, I think today was their introductory and then you know kind of and then they they're starting dropping bills. Okay. So, we're watching everything going on to see if we're handcuffed and if they're taking away and I'll say local control from us as as municipalities which uh we don't agree with. So, thank you for your advocacy on that. Uh, with that council, I believe if there's nothing else, a motion you can. >> Thank you, David. We appreciate your comments. Uh, I actually had an extensive conversation with my husband who has we've seen many ebikes go through our neighborhood, young children, adults, and he's a pretty creative thinker, and I said, "What would you do in this situation just as a resident looking at all this kind of unfold?" and he agreed that because this is such a new issue that Mesa's having it, it's not just Mesa. There's other municipalities that are experiencing this as well. He said, "You kind of have to stairstep this. It's almost like an experimentation. We made it illegal. It didn't work. People violated the law. They would still ride in our parks even though it's disallowed." And so now the question is is maybe if we are just kind and courteous, allow it, educate people, they will respect the fact that they're now allowed to do that. I don't necessarily think that that's going to be a perfect solution. I do agree with you. There needs to be very clear signage as to what each thing is, where it's allowed, where it's disallowed. Um, I would like to remind the public, you do have bike paths that you can ride your bikes on. That's why they're there. They were very expensive for us to create for you. So, I would encourage you to ride your ebikes on our bike paths. And I would also like to encourage the public as we go through with this to remember to be very respectful for the other people that are pedestrians in the parks, particularly the fact that we have a lot of families in Mesa that are enjoying our parks with children, including strollers, and we have elderly people that are also enjoying those public spaces. So, we are not currently requiring the ebikes to have their own separate path, but we would like for them to be respectful of their pedestrian neighbors that are going to be using them. Um, we would hate to have such serious injuries occur that it technically could become a future problem that disallows ebikes in Mesa in general. I don't think that's going to happen. Um, but that's something to consider. We don't want bad apples to ruin it for everybody. So, he did tell me he thought this was probably the best option is learn to educate and then move forward. And we'll see if this works. Hopefully, it does. I'm glad that the council's open and willing to to give it a shot. So, thank you. >> All right. Very good. Is there a motion to approve this item? Uh 8B. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Second by Miss Go forth. Please cast your vote. Okay. Motion passes unanimously. With that, we'll move on to item 8 D. That is a zoning case at 623 South Mesa Drive, 6 acres. Uh with that, Miss Mosley, whom do we have to speak on this >> tonight? We have Noah James Markham here to speak in support of 8D. >> Okay. Uh hello Noah. Welcome again. >> I don't even know. Happy New Year's to everybody in Mesa. Um yeah, I'm really excited that we are doing stuff here in Mesa. As I can see that people complain a lot here in Mesa. It's embarrassing. I see when I go through Mesa, um there's a lot of things that are broken down here. Like the buildings are not like built like they're like there's nobody wants to use the building um in Mesa and it just looks really ghetto here. Um and considering being a Republican, I'm not a Republican, thank goodness. Um, I think you guys should be thinking about about your money, especially building more here. I mean, it's pretty gross to see me like this. Um, so it, you know, um, but yes, this is um, this is good for to have um, and like I said, this is good for the zoning. this is good um to build because I don't know if you guys have section 8 at all yet but um yeah that would be a recommended thing too about this stuff too. Um so thank you mahalo for your time. >> Thank you Noah. All right with that uh I'll entertain a motion to approve item 8D zoning case 24-00998. Thank you Miss Duff by Mr. Ready. Please cast your vote. Okay, that moves on unanimously. Uh, next is item 8E. It's a zoning case again. Item 25-00309 Dutch Bros. Uh,8 acres on Power and Elliot. Uh, who is the lucky speaker, Miss Mosley? >> It is Noah James once again. >> Oh my. >> No. Are you telling me you don't like Dutch Bros? >> We love Noah. Um, yeah. So, as being a resident of Tempee, it's kind of, you know, um, but it's great to have this and, um, I I love it. I can hear that Dutch Bros. I love Dutch Bros cuz they really include the word DEI. And I know it's hard in Mesa for that to be happening in Mesa, but Dutch Bros is a very good example of the DEI. So, we need to build this so we have it more in Mesa. Thank you. Mahalo. >> Well, thank you, Noah. We need to approve it first before we build it. >> Uh, with that, uh, council, I'll entertain a motion to approve item 8E, which is zoning case 25-00309. >> That's for the coffee, right? >> Yeah. Cup of coffee. Thank you, Mr. Ready. Mr. Summers, please cast your vote. All right, that moves on unanimously. I think that covers Miss Mosley. Is that that everything off uh the agenda, consent agenda? Correct. >> Yes, mayor. >> Okay. Next is uh items from citizens present. As you know, we allow three speakers, three minutes to speak because the topics vary. Uh speakers raised are not on our agenda and generally prevents council from responding to the speaker. However, sometimes we'll get and have staff meet with you and you can uh inter be entertained that way. In the coming months, I want you to be aware the city will provide electronic options to fill out blue cards for council meetings, including options to fill it out on your phone and at kiosk in the lobby, and updates will be shared on the city social media and city clerk's website. So, please check those sources for the latest information. With that, Miss Mosley, who's our first speaker tonight? >> So, the fir I'll just read the three in the order that they were turned in so you'll know. >> Um, the first is Jason Smithson, the second will be Reginald Braun, and third will be Trent Hyde. >> All right. >> All right. Thank you, sir. >> Yes, members of the council, thank you for your time. I want to share a story from Webster Elementary, my son's school, that speaks directly to what leadership looks like and what it doesn't. For Christmas, Webster Elementary was adopted by the fire department to provide gifts for students. On December 16th, just hours before the scheduled arrival, the school received a call stating that the event had to be cancelled. The fire department had only secured a 100 gifts for more than 600 students. Every single child was about to be disappointed. As the only parent serving on Webster's PTO, I acted immediately. I reached out to Council Member Heredia and his coordinator, Miss Hamre. I also contacted council member Duff and her co coordinator, Miss Gutierrez, as I live in district 4. Miss Hambrite responded almost immediately and she took action. I don't know every call she made, but I do know this. Because of her efforts, the fire department was able to secure enough gifts and the event went for forward. Over 600 children had an amazing day. That matters, especially considering Webster Elementary serves the highest homeless student population in the district and is one of the lowest income schools in the state. For many of those children, that gift was the only gift they would receive this holiday season. So, Council Member Heredia, I want you to know how exceptional exceptional your coordinator is. Her responsiveness and a sense of responsibility made a real difference for hundreds of students and families. Thank you. I encourage you to visit Webster as they are aware without you and your staff, we would have had a completely different conversation. Now, on the other side of that experience, I need to express my deep disappointment with Council Member Duff and her office. Neither Miss Duff nor her coordinator responded at the time. More importantly, neither of them followed up afterward to ensure the situation had been resolved. As a constituent who has repeatedly reached out to Miss Duffin has been ignored, this was not surprising. It was unacceptable. City leadership is not about titles or photo opportunities. It is about showing up when your community needs you. In this case, that did not happen. Public education matters to me. Our students, educators, and families deserve leaders who respond, who care, and who act. Constituents should not have to wait until election season to matter. Do better, listen better. And I'll end with this. Last month, I asked for a vote to end the 287g agreement, and that request was ignored. ICE is no longer focused on dangerous criminals. They are going after anyone who questions them, no matter their citizenship or skin color. They are violating rights first and asking questions later. This should not be a political issue as it is a matter of basic human decency. Our students in our community are not safer because of this agreement. And while I understand some of you may fear being turning pointed, as unfortunately former council member Spillsbury was, and council member Taylor, that is not a knock at you as I'm sure you're a great person. It just wasn't right. I'm asking at least a few of you to stand up for the people you represent and put neighbors before politics. Her name was Renee Good and she was an American citizen. >> Thank you, SIR. >> Who's our next speaker, Miss Mosley? >> Uh, next speaker is Reginald Braun. And then after him >> and then Trent Hyde key anything. >> Uh the Gilbert goons are electric by people and people steal stuff and eat away electric bikes. It's a consideration trying to be positive this year trying to do all stuff like that. So I'm going to try to give solutions for stuff. Um you know I trained under a great guy. He was a patrol and SWAT guy in West Dallas. you know, one of the most capable guys I knew. Um, he would conscript us as students to, you know, help him out with his for use of force classes. And one time we went to Coronado, didn't matter who he taught, he always said the same thing, whether like Jop or women. He said like, "Who here like what's the best weapon?" And all the guys were like, "Oh, like lock 19 or whatever like that." This woman was like, "Oh, I don't know. Like, run away." He always said it was words and thoughts. You train because people don't want to hurt each other. You train because you got to do something in a moment that normally takes people something they can't imagine. You think about it. You practice it. You practice it and you do it. Renee Good was shot in the face by a guy who was holding a phone in front of a car. You know how hard that is to do? How hard is it to shoot somebody in the face? And we're okay with that. or like we're okay guys going around wearing masks and doing that to women. I just said last time we had a great police force. We had a 100% homicide solution. We had a drop in 25% violent crime. We have less than 11 was 18% clearance rate for sexual assaults. That's not a that's not solving it. A clearance rate just means that it was addressed or someone decided to withdraw. You know, like a rape victim may not want to be faced by somebody. We're investing $36 million in a crisis center. Oh, by the way, 274 women or or people, I'm sorry, people, mostly women reported. Um, normally 68% of people are assaulted do not report. So, that's over 500 women probably or people that deals. Now, why am I talking about this? Well, we're talking about a lot of stuff about the festial stuff, investment. We're talking about energy and batteries and all that stuff. We have 51% of the population that are women. There are mothers or daughters. There are sisters and we're not talking about that. It's a crazy world we live in. We talk about some real stuff. Liability talked about $14 million civil liability because ICE won't pay for that. People aren't safer with ICE because they can't enforce Arizona laws. They distract from the police. Um, when you take police work and don't let them police, you let them do secretary work for the government. That is defunding. That is the definition of defunding the police. They're not doing what we hope they would do. >> I recommend that you have just a few seconds left. >> I recommend you retask them to go ahead and go after rapists and sexual assaulters. We know we can do it. We have reduced crime and violent crime. easy. We know that when they when they are detained cuz people don't get toward right away. We put the bill to detain these people. Government doesn't. I've asked for the records from uh the open data project. I haven't received it. I'm sure you might have come past your desk. U somebody said that it's been around since 2009. It was renewed in 2020. 2009. The iPhone had just come out. 2009 Charles Angel's movie. >> Reginald Reginald, your time's up. Thank you for your time. Appreciate it. >> Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. >> You bet. All right. >> We'll see you again. >> We'll have our next speaker. >> I have Let's have a little decorum here in respect. You don't need to be clapping. We're trying to be civil about this. Otherwise, I'm going to ask you to leave. I'm serious about it. Enough is enough. Thank you. Go ahead, sir. >> I'm not sure how to follow that. >> Well, but I am here to talk about something else that is important in Mesa, right? and that is landing fees that are proposed at Falcon Field. So, I am a pilot. I'm based there at Falcon Field. And there's a couple of key points. One is safety. And I and I can't overemphasize this enough. So, from the standpoint of Mesa Falcon Field, it's a controlled environment. People go in and out of there. They're under positive control by the FAA. Come and go. If you put landing fees in, they're going to move those people to other airports in the area. And what's going to happen? There's going to be an accident. Those are uncontrolled airports in other parts of the state that all these people are going to go to. Those airports are already saturated with airplanes and we're going to end up with a catastrophe is what we're going to end up with. So that's one thing. The other thing is it appears that a lot of the discussions relative to how the proposal was brought up, how the uh city is addressing noise complaints, those meetings happened in sort of a vacuum. If I'm looking in from the outside, which I am, um I knew nothing about any of this before a surprise happened and oh, by the way, landing fees are going to be at $30 a piece every time you land. that that's quite a jump from nothing for 80 years at Falcon Field. So that's the second thing. And I guess the third thing that I'd like to bring up is at the end of the day, Mesa City as a city does not support the airport when every other municipality in the valley supports their airport via fee structures. Now, you can argue that all day long, but the end at the end of the day, you guys are the only ones that don't support Mesa Falcon Field. There's an $850 million economic impact that you're ignoring, that you're not helping fund. It's business 101. You fund the things that bring you money. You don't starve them like Falcon Field is being starved right now. My advice is to I as much as I don't want to say it, increase taxes and and spread it across the the base that you have in Mesa to support Falcon Field. At the end of the day, that's the right thing to do. Um, with that, I'll leave. Thank you very much for your time and attention. I know this is coming up on an agenda. There's a lot of activity I know is going on with respect to this, and I appreciate every one of them. But there's there's those three things. There's safety. There's making sure that we're doing this right with everybody's input that's that's required. And for God's sake, look at helping out the airport from a city standpoint. I I mean, all the rest of the airport's combined economic impact is not what Mesa Falcon Field is to Mesa combined. That's Goodyear. That's everybody else except Gateway, right? and Phoenix Sky Harbor. Anyway, thanks guys. Appreciate it. >> Thank you. We'll have one of our assistant city managers reach out to you. Uh, Miss Mosley, have I missed anything else? >> No, mayor. That was all of them. >> Well, with that, council, I'll entertain a motion to adjurnn. >> Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Adams. All in favor say I. >> All right, we're adjourned for the evening. Thank you.