November 13, 2025 Study Session

OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK             
 
 
COUNCIL MINUTES 
 
 
November 13, 2025 
 
The City Council of the City of Mesa met in the Study Session room at City Hall, 20 East Main Street, on 
November 13, 2025, at 7:30 a.m. 
 
COUNCIL PRESENT 
 
COUNCIL ABSENT 
OFFICERS PRESENT 
Mark Freeman  
Scott Somers 
Rich Adams* 
Jennifer Duff 
Alicia Goforth 
Francisco Heredia  
 
  Julie Spilsbury 
 
  
Scott Butler  
Holly Moseley 
Kelly Whittemore 
 
 
(*Participated in the meeting through the use of video conference equipment.) 
 
Mayor Freeman conducted a roll call. 
 
1. 
Review and discuss items on the agenda for the November 17, 2025, Regular Council meeting. 
 
All of the items on the agenda were reviewed among Council and the following was noted: 
 
Conflict of interest: None 
 
Items removed from the consent agenda: None 
 
Responding to a question from Mayor Freeman regarding agenda Item 4-c, (Use of a 
Cooperative Term Contract for Furniture and Related Services for Sunaire property for the 
Community Services Department (Funded by ARPA Related Interest Income) (Citywide)), 
on the Regular Council Meeting agenda, Deputy City Manager Candace Cannistraro explained 
that the $430,000 contract with Goodman's covers furniture, fixtures and equipment (FF&E) for 
the 64 rooms at the Sunaire facility, including bed frames, tables, shelving units and mattresses. 
She pointed out that the contract also includes furniture for a small office area; however, no 
playground equipment is included.  
 
Ms. Cannistraro discussed the vendor selection process and stated that the decision was made 
as part of a state cooperative contract. She confirmed that two vendors were reviewed, including 
site tours, and Goodman's was determined to be the best fit for the project based on durability 
and suitability for social-service environments.  
 
Procurement Administrator Kristy Garcia explained the competitive bidding process followed by 
departments and noted the state contract is based on statewide usage and volume. She verified

Study Session 
November 13, 2025 
Page 2 
 
 
   
that local vendors registered in the system receive notifications when the City of Mesa (COM) 
issues its own solicitations.  
 
Discussion ensued regarding the vendor selection process.  
 
Ms. Garcia pointed out that the specialized nature of this furniture limits the number of viable 
vendors and although Goodmans is not based in Mesa, it is an Arizona company that reinvests 
locally and is widely used in the region for durable commercial furniture. She shared that the 
Procurement and Economic Development teams conduct ongoing outreach to help local vendors 
learn how to do business with the COM, including vendor fairs and training sessions. 
 
Councilmembers expressed their support for maximizing participation by Mesa businesses 
whenever practicable and encouraged continued outreach, particularly for items such as 
appliances that may be sourced locally in future purchases.  
 
Mayor Freeman indicated that additional discussion would occur at the upcoming Regular Council 
Meeting on whether to proceed with the current contract or consider rebidding. 
 
In response to a question from Councilmember Goforth regarding agenda Item 5-d, (Approving 
and adopting the Downtown Mesa Micromobility and Parking Plan, covering the area 
generally located from University Drive on the north to Broadway Road on the south and 
Country Club Drive on the west to Mesa Drive on the east. (District 4)), on the Regular 
Council Meeting agenda, Downtown Transformation Manager Jeff McVay introduced Economic 
Development Project Manager Jimmy Cerracchio and displayed a PowerPoint presentation. (See 
Attachment 1)  
 
Mr. McVay explained that the presentation provides all the short-term implementation steps that 
can be completed under the COM’s current programs and budget, without needing to return to 
Council during the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) process. He clarified that the scope of the 
item Council will be voting on is the Micromobility Plan with recommendations related to parking, 
along with an outline of possible implementation steps and their timelines should Council choose 
to proceed. He added that the plan also contains recommendations related to street design and 
striping improvements that the Transportation Department will implement over the next four years 
as part of its Pavement Preservation Program and identifies long-term goals such as potential 
traffic signal removals and curb line relocations that would require CIP funding and future Council 
discussion. 
 
Mr. McVay explained that the downtown parking mobile app is currently in Beta testing and the 
Department of Innovation and Technology (DoIT) has been working closely on the project to 
ensure the system integrates smoothly with the COM’s programming. He mentioned that DoIT 
has been collaborating with the Police Department on the installation of Real Time Crime Center 
cameras to make the most of coverage needed for parking. (See Page 3 of Attachment 1) 
 
Deputy Chief Information Officer Harry Meier explained that the primary goal of the project is to 
avoid investing in a system designed solely for free parking management, which does not 
generate a return on investment like paid parking systems would. He stated it is more cost-
effective for the COM to invest in cameras that give dual use for public safety and utilize internal 
application development staff to develop the needed functionality. 
 
Mayor Freeman thanked staff for the presentation.

Study Session 
November 13, 2025 
Page 3 
 
 
   
2-a. 
Hear a follow up presentation, discuss, and provide direction on the water utility recommended 
rate adjustments. 
 
 
Office of Management and Budget Director Brian Ritschel introduced Water Resources Director 
Christopher Hassert and displayed a PowerPoint presentation. (See Attachment 2) 
 
 
Mr. Ritschel stated he would be reviewing the additional rate-adjustment scenarios for 
consideration based on the requests made by Council, noting that the recommended rate 
adjustment incorporates the new capacity fee. He reported that during the most recent budget 
process, Water Resources deferred approximately $180 million in maintenance projects to keep 
the long-term forecast aligned with financial principles and policies. He pointed out that if capacity 
fees are approved, approximately $400 million in projects over the next 10 years can be shifted 
out of the rate-funded forecast and funded through capacity fees, resulting in increased net 
sources and uses and improved fund balance projections. He reported that the deferred $180 
million in projects will be re-evaluated during the upcoming budget cycle and that reintroducing 
those projects into the forecast is expected to reduce projected fund balances while remaining 
within financial policy guidelines. (See Page 2 of Attachment 2) 
 
Mr. Ritschel reviewed the initial staff recommended rate adjustments. He presented the first 
Council-requested scenario, assuming no rate adjustments for residential or multi-unit customers. 
He confirmed that to maintain forecasted revenues and fund balance levels, commercial 
customers would require increases of 12% for the service charge, 25% for general usage, 30% 
for landscape usage, and 13% for large commercial and industrial usage. He noted that annual 
rate evaluations would continue and that future rates would return to forecast levels. He continued 
with the second Council-requested scenario applying a 2.5% increase to both residential and 
multi-unit customers where commercial customers would require a 7.5% service charge increase, 
a 20% general usage increase, and 25% increases for both landscape and large 
commercial/industrial usage. He discussed revenue parity between residential and non-
residential customers and mentioned that while residential customers historically represented 
most of the water consumption, commercial users now account for approximately 52% of 
consumption. He confirmed that under the recommended forecast, revenue parity is projected in 
FY 27/28 and under the zero residential increase scenario, parity would occur one year earlier. 
He reported that the 2.5% increase scenario would maintain parity in FY 27/28. He reviewed the 
impact on the monthly bills for each customer category. (See Pages 3 through 7 of Attachment 2) 
 
Mr. Ritschel explained the method for determining a typical residential customer and reported that 
all residential water bills for each month of FY 24/25 were evaluated and grouped into 
consumption tiers. He pointed out that approximately 55% of all monthly residential bills showed 
consumption of 6,000 gallons or less, which is Tier 1. (See Page 10 of Attachment 2)  
 
In response to a question from Vice Mayor Somers, Mr. Hassert confirmed that approximately 
one-third of all commercial customers use 3,000 gallons of water per month or less and that these 
accounts typically represent small businesses with minimal indoor water needs, such as salons 
or similar service establishments. He added that customers in this tier do not pay usage charges, 
as their consumption is covered within the service charge. He reported that approximately 35% 
of commercial customers fall within the mid-range usage tiers, consuming between 3,000 and 
24,000 gallons per month and that the remaining 30% of commercial accounts represent high-
volume users, including large industrial and commercial operations, with some accounts 
exceeding one million gallons monthly. He added that only a small number of customers reach 
this level of consumption and may be subject to the COM’s Large Water User Ordinance.

Study Session 
November 13, 2025 
Page 4 
 
 
   
Utilities Fiscal Analyst Erik Hansen added that 6,000 gallons per month is used as the quantity 
for multi-unit development to provide an equal comparison point to our residential customers. He 
pointed out that multi-unit development can also include patio homes, not just apartments, so the 
goal is to establish parity between residential and multi-unit usage.  
 
Discussion ensued regarding the impact of increasing the utility rates for commercial customers 
and maintaining parity with the residential rates.  
 
Responding to a question from Councilmember Goforth, Mr. Ritschel stated that the transfer from 
the Utility Fund to the General Fund would be discussed during the budget process. 
 
Discussion ensued regarding the amount that is transferred from the Utility Fund to the General 
Fund. 
 
 
In response to a question from Mayor Freeman, Mr. Hassert confirmed that the COM works 
closely with the Central Arizona Project (CAP) to monitor the water costs, and currently the cost 
for municipal and industrial users is $365 per acre-foot. He discussed the importance of the 
exchange agreement with the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC) and noted that through the 
reuse pipeline system, the cost of that exchanged water is only $85 per acre-foot. He confirmed 
that CAP’s municipal and industrial rate is expected to rise to about $400 per acre-foot within the 
next five years; however, the water from GRIC will remain inexpensive at around $95 per acre-
foot in five years. 
 
Mayor Freeman asked each Councilmember to provide their input on how to proceed. 
  
Additional discussion ensued concerning the various utility rate increase options under 
consideration. 
 
Mayor Freeman confirmed that the consensus of the Council was to proceed with a 2.5% increase 
to both residential and multi-unit customers as presented 
 
Mr. Ritschel outlined the next steps for implementing the rate adjustments and reiterated that it is 
out of compliance to adopt rates above the amounts included in the original approved Notice of 
Intent. He stated that Council will move forward with action on the portions of the rate adjustments 
that fall within the previously noticed levels on December 1, 2025, with the effective date of 
January 1, 2026. He reported that an updated Notice of Intent covering the commercial rate 
adjustments will be issued on December 8, with Council consideration to follow early in January, 
and noted an approximate effective date of April 1, 2026. (See Page 8 of Attachment 2) 
 
Mayor Freeman thanked staff for the presentation.  
 
(Mayor Freeman declared a recess at 9:10 a.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:19 a.m.)  
 
2-b. 
Hear a presentation, discuss, and provide direction on the regulation of battery energy storage 
systems, including potential amendments to the building, fire, and zoning regulations of the Mesa 
City Code. 
 
Assistant Planning Director Rachel Phillips provided an update regarding the ongoing work 
related to the Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) text amendments and displayed a 
PowerPoint presentation. (See Attachment 3)

Study Session 
November 13, 2025 
Page 5 
 
 
   
Ms. Phillips explained that the Planning Department, Building Division, and Fire Department have 
been collaborating on the proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and Fire Code as they 
pertain to the BESS. She highlighted the various public outreach efforts made and listed the 
concerns heard by staff, noting questions raised regarding the application of these regulations in 
specific communities, such as Eastmark. She said that the Planning and Zoning Board 
subsequently provided a recommendation for adoption modifying the separation requirement for 
residential areas from the staff-proposed 1,000 feet to 400 feet and increasing the nameplate 
capacity for accessory BESS use from 1 megawatt, as proposed by staff, to 5 megawatts. (See 
Page 2 of Attachment 3) 
 
Ms. Phillips reviewed the details of the two ordinances for consideration and pointed out that the 
first option reflects the Planning and Zoning Board’s recommendations, including the reduced 
separation requirement and the increased accessory use capacity; the second option reflects 
staff’s recommendation, which maintains the 1,000-foot separation requirement while updating 
the accessory use nameplate capacity. (See Pages 3 and 4 of Attachment 3) 
 
In response to a question from Vice Mayor Somers, City Manager Scott Butler clarified that staff 
had requested guidance from Council on how to proceed and that the two ordinance options were 
being presented to facilitate discussion. He confirmed that Council action on this matter is 
scheduled for the December 1 Council meeting. 
 
 
Vice Mayor Somers commented that the BESS proposals primarily impact District 6 and he 
emphasized that public safety must take priority. He expressed his opinion that a 1,000-foot 
separation requirement is reasonable to protect residents’ health and safety and cited concerns 
about smoke, hazardous particles, and hydrogen fluoride that can be released during a fire. He 
acknowledged that while some BESS systems in the COM may be large, the 1,000-foot standard 
is consistent with a cautious approach and aligns with practices in other communities. 
 
Responding to questions from Councilmembers, Ms. Phillips explained that staff was asked to 
consider greater separation distances from residential property to address public safety concerns. 
She confirmed that there is no uniform standard for BESS separation because it is a relatively 
new technology, and pointed out that ordinances from other municipalities vary widely, with 
distances ranging from 100 feet to 5,000 feet. She indicated that the 1,000-foot separation from 
residential areas was proposed as a reasonable middle ground and reflected Council’s preference 
for balancing safety with practicality. She added that the 400-foot separation was based on the 
data center ordinance. 
 
Planning Director Mary Kopaskie-Brown explained that, aside from the National Fire Protection 
Association (NFPA) standard of approximately 100–150 feet, there is no established guideline for 
BESS separation distances. She noted that the 400-foot distance had originally been based on 
standards for data centers and the 1,000-foot recommendation was intended as a precautionary 
measure to account for potential safety risks associated with evolving BESS technology. 
 
Ms. Kopaskie-Brown introduced Battalion Chief and Fire Marshal Shawn Alexander and 
Development Services Deputy Director and Building Official John Sheffer.  
 
Marshal Alexander confirmed that there is no universally accepted standard for these distances. 
He stated that independent subject-matter experts including contacts at Underwriters 
Laboratories and the Fire Safety Research Institute reviewed the draft zoning language and were 
unwilling to recommend specific numbers because appropriate distances depend on each 
jurisdiction’s unique needs. He reiterated that the NFPA and Fire Code standards include a

Study Session 
November 13, 2025 
Page 6 
 
 
   
minimum setback of 100 feet and under the Fire Code, we cannot extend that distance without 
adding additional amendments, which is why this issue is being addressed through zoning.  
 
Responding to a question from Mayor Freeman, Mr. Butler stated that Maricopa County 
established a 100-foot setback for similar facilities. He pointed out that Mesa is ahead of most 
communities in developing a regulatory framework, which creates challenges due to differing 
industry perspectives and the lack of established best practices, and stated that future revisions 
may be necessary as technology develops. He highlighted the importance of identifying 
appropriate areas for these facilities, noting that heavy or general industrial areas may prove more 
compatible in the long term and reiterated the importance of balancing public safety with rising 
energy demand driven by significant economic growth in the city.  
 
Additional discussion ensued regarding existing BESS requirements and any current BESS 
facilities or facilities under construction in the city.  
 
In response to a question from Councilmember Adams regarding the 400-foot separation 
recommendation, Ms. Phillips verified that the recommendation was derived from public 
comments received during the public hearing and comments from representatives in the 
construction industry who follow the NFPA standards claiming that the 1,000-foot separation was 
excessive. 
 
Responding to a question from Mayor Freeman, Marshal Alexander explained the risks involved 
if a fire breaches a battery storage container. He reminded Council that recent Fire Code 
amendments limit sites to arrays no larger than 300 by 300 feet, ensuring any container-to-
container fire spread is confined to a smaller area. He pointed out that these requirements are 
intended to reduce overall site risk and support safer fire response operations. 
 
Mayor Freeman declared that this item will be continued for additional discussion.  
 
3. 
Acknowledge receipt of minutes of various boards and committees.  
 
3-a. 
Economic Development Advisory Board meeting held October 7, 2025.  
 
3-b. 
Historic Preservation Board meeting held on September 2, 2025.  
 
3-c. 
Human Relations Advisory Board meeting held on September 24, 2025. 
 
It was moved by Councilmember Duff, seconded by Vice Mayor Somers, that receipt of the above-
listed minutes be acknowledged. 
 
Upon tabulation of votes, it showed:  
 
AYES – Freeman–Somers–Adams–Duff–Goforth–Heredia 
NAYS – None 
ABSENT – Spilsbury 
 
Mayor Freeman declared the motion carried unanimously by those present.   
 
4. 
Current events summary including meetings and conferences attended.

Study Session 
November 13, 2025 
Page 7 
 
 
   
Mayor Freeman and Councilmembers highlighted the events, meetings, and conferences recently 
attended. 
 
At 10:00 a.m., Mayor Freeman excused Councilmember Adams from the remainder of the 
meeting. 
 
5. 
Scheduling of meetings. 
 
City Manager Scott Butler stated that the schedule of meetings is as follows: 
 
Monday, November 17, 2025, 4:30 p.m. – Special Meeting 
 
Monday, November 17, 2025, 5:00 p.m. – Study Session 
 
Thursday, November 17, 2025, 5:45 p.m. – Regular Council 
 
6. 
Convene an Executive Session.  
 
It was moved by Vice Mayor Somers, seconded by Councilmember Heredia, that the Council 
adjourn the Study Session at 10:03 a.m. and enter into an Executive Session.  
 
Upon tabulation of votes, it showed:  
 
AYES – Freeman–Somers–Adams–Duff–Goforth–Heredia 
NAYS – None 
ABSENT – Spilsbury 
 
Mayor Freeman declared the motion carried unanimously by those present.   
 
At 10:03 a.m., Mayor Freeman excused Councilmember Duff from the remainder of the meeting.  
 
6-a. 
Discussion or consideration of employment, assignment, appointment, promotion, 
demotion, salaries, discipline, dismissal, or resignation of a public officer, appointee or 
employee of the City. (A.R.S. §38-431.03A (1)):  
 
1. City Auditor Review  
2. City Clerk Review  
3. City Attorney Review  
4. City Manager Review  
 
7.  
Reconvene the Public Meeting. 
 
The Council did not reconvene in public session. 
 
8.  
Adjournment. 
 
Without objection, the Study Session adjourned at 10:58 a.m.

Study Session 
November 13, 2025 
Page 8 
 
 
   
    ____________________________________ 
MARK FREEMAN, MAYOR 
ATTEST: 
 
 
 
_______________________________ 
 
HOLLY MOSELEY, CITY CLERK 
 
I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Study Session 
of the City Council of Mesa, Arizona, held on the 13th day of November 2025. I further certify that the 
meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
_______________________________ 
 
      HOLLY MOSELEY, CITY CLERK 
 
sr  
(Attachments – 3)

Micromobility and Parking Plan: 
Short Term Goals Implementation
Study Session 
November 13, 2025 
Attachment 1 
Page 1 of 12

Completed
• Updated all existing parking 
wayfinding signage
• Added parking wayfinding 
signage on surrounding 
arterials (University, Country 
Club, Broadway, Mesa)
• Comprehensive signage 
update in Pepper Garage
• First floor public parking – 
138 spaces
Sign Legend
x8 Installed
x6 Installed
x2 Installed
x1 Installed
x27 Installed
x29 Installed
73 Total Installs
University Dr
1st St
Main St
1st Ave
Broadway Rd
Pepper Pl
Country Club Dr
Mesa Dr
Center St
Macdonald
Robson
Sirrine
Hibbert
Study Session 
November 13, 2025 
Attachment 1 
Page 2 of 12

In progress
Mesa Smark Park App
•
Utilizes existing camera infrastructure to show available parking
•
Alerts users to nearby facilities as they approach
•
Currently only covers Orange, Gold, and Green Lot
•
Funding needs for further implementation
Item
Occurrence
Cost Estimate
Onboarding and equipment to leverage projects by other 
departments (PD Realtime Crime Center Installs, Transportation re-
striping), maintenance
Annual
$30K – 60K
Main St Camera upgrades – Adding 4-way view to crosswalk PTZ Cams
One-time
$20K
App developer time
Annual
1 FTE
Study Session 
November 13, 2025 
Attachment 1 
Page 3 of 12

Improve wayfinding and parking signage
Subgoals
Timeline
Cost
Add rules and relevant ordinance signage to 
parking garages and lots*
Q1 2026
Accommodated 
through existing 
budget
Arrival signage for garages
TBD - funding
$25k-$50k+
*May require updates to City code.
Study Session 
November 13, 2025 
Attachment 1 
Page 4 of 12

Restriping Plan
Subgoals
Timeline
Cost
Northwest quadrant
FY25-26
Accommodated 
through Pavement 
Maintenance Project – 
Mill & Overlay
Southwest quadrant
FY26-27
Accommodated 
through Pavement 
Maintenance Project – 
Mill & Overlay
FY25-26
FY26-27
FY27-28
FY28-29
Study Session 
November 13, 2025 
Attachment 1 
Page 5 of 12

Establish pick-up/drop-off areas
Subgoals
Timeline
Cost
Finalize locations
Q1 2026
-
Select design/signage
Q2 2026
Varies
Establish formal pick-
up/drop-off areas with 
rideshare companies
TBD depending 
on cost
Varies
Study Session 
November 13, 2025 
Attachment 1 
Page 6 of 12

Adjust parking time regulations
Subgoals
Timeline
Cost
Green Lot
Q1 2026
Accommodated 
through existing 
budget
ECO Garage
Q1 2026
Orange Lot
Q1 2026
Gold Lot
Q2 2026
Mesa City Hall 
(20 E Main St & 55 N Center St)
Q2 2026
On street parking - Main St
Q2 2026
On street parking - Everywhere 
else
Q2 2026
Sirrine Garage
Q3 2026
Centennial Garage
Q3 2026
Pomeroy Garage
Q3 2026
Study Session 
November 13, 2025 
Attachment 1 
Page 7 of 12

Daily parking pass rollout
Subgoals
Timeline
Cost
Increase daily parking pass 
rate
Q2 2026
-
Implement online payment 
system
Q3 2026
TBD
Study Session 
November 13, 2025 
Attachment 1 
Page 8 of 12

Formalize micromobility parking locations
Subgoals
Timeline
Cost
Identify locations and design 
and implement
2027
Varies
Study Session 
November 13, 2025 
Attachment 1 
Page 9 of 12

Related initiatives 
• DSD City-wide wayfinding study
• Will allow for a more holistic look at wayfinding 
for vehicles and pedestrians
• DMA marketing campaign
• New parking available at Pepper
• Directing towards parking
Study Session 
November 13, 2025 
Attachment 1 
Page 10 of 12

Discussion
Study Session 
November 13, 2025 
Attachment 1 
Page 11 of 12

Pepper Garage Test Case REMOVE
Study Session 
November 13, 2025 
Attachment 1 
Page 12 of 12

FY 2025/26 WATER RATES 
RECOMMENDATION UPDATE
City Council Study Session
Presented by: Brian A. Ritschel – Management & Budget Director
Christopher Hassert – Water Resources Director
November 13, 2025
Study Session 
November 13, 2025 
Attachment 2 
Page 1 of 30

2
FY 25/26 RECOMMENDED RATE ADJUSTMENTS
WITH CAPACITY FEE
As of 9/15/2025
FY 24/25
FY 25/26
FY 26/27
FY 27/28
FY 28/29
FY 29/30
FY 30/31
Estimate
Projected
Forecast
Forecast
Forecast
Forecast
Forecast
WATER
$3,472,435
($5,859,349)
($4,354,832)
$5,268,997
$14,888,058
$25,536,796
$42,556,577
WASTEWATER
($7,285,154)
($12,080,760)
($7,048,336)
($3,014,649)
$1,702,838
$10,205,256
$10,129,209
SOLID WASTE
$26,254
($5,858,624)
$688,832
($629,299)
$2,586,058
$8,510,604
$9,060,768
ELECTRIC
$1,435,561
($1,066,822)
($706,935)
($871,150)
($1,117,234)
($1,646,811)
($1,171,368)
NATURAL GAS
($817,183)
($3,793,486)
($1,982,515)
($1,440,090)
$2,018,693
$1,626,125
$2,301,975
DISTRICT COOLING
($376,552)
($181,786)
($171,502)
($316,383)
($182,335)
($185,275)
($233,758)
TOTAL NET SOURCES AND USES
($3,544,639)
($28,840,828)
($13,575,288)
($1,002,574)
$19,896,079
$44,046,695
$62,643,402
Beginning Reserve Balance
$117,019,543
$113,474,904
$84,634,076
$71,058,788
$70,056,214
$89,952,293
$133,998,988
Ending Reserve Balance
$113,474,904
$84,634,076
$71,058,788
$70,056,214
$89,952,293
$133,998,988
$196,642,390
Ending Reserve Balance Percent*
20.1%
13.6%
11.4%
10.8%
13.4%
18.9%
26.4%
*As a % of Next Fiscal Year's Expenditures
WATER Residential (Tier 1 usage)
6.00%
3.50%
3.50%
3.50%
3.50%
3.50%
3.50%
WATER Commercial (usage)
8.50%
13.00%
13.00%
13.00%
13.00%
13.00%
13.00%
WASTEWATER Residential
7.50%
7.50%
7.50%
7.50%
7.50%
7.50%
7.50%
WASTEWATER Non-Residential
8.50%
8.50%
8.50%
8.50%
8.50%
8.50%
8.50%
SOLID WASTE Residential
5.50%
5.50%
5.50%
5.50%
5.50%
5.50%
5.50%
SOLID WASTE Commercial
10.00%
5.50%
5.50%
5.50%
5.50%
5.50%
5.50%
SOLID WASTE Rolloff
6.50%
5.50%
5.50%
5.50%
5.50%
5.50%
5.50%
ELECTRIC Residential - svc charge
$2.75
$1.00
$3.00
$3.00
$3.00
$3.00
$3.00
ELECTRIC Non-Residential - svc charge
$5.00
$5.00
$5.00
$5.00
$5.00
$5.00
$5.00
GAS Residential - svc charge
$0.00
$0.00
$1.00
$1.00
$1.00
$1.00
$1.00
GAS Non-Residential - svc charge
$3.00
$3.00
$3.00
$3.00
$3.00
$3.00
$3.00
Study Session 
November 13, 2025 
Attachment 2 
Page 2 of 30

Water Rate Adjustments
Recommended Forecast
3
FY 25/26
FY 26/27+
Residential Service Charge
+4.5%
+4.5%
Residential Usage Tiers 1 & 2
+3.5%
+3.5%
Residential Usage Tiers 3 & 4
+4.5%
+4.5%
Multi-Unit Service Charge
+4.5%
+4.5%
Multi-Unit Usage
+12.0%
+12.0%
Commercial Service Charge
+4.5%
+4.5%
Commercial Usage
+13.0%
+13.0%
Commercial Landscape Usage
+20.0%
+20.0%
Large Comm./Industrial Usage
+19.0%
+13.0%
Study Session 
November 13, 2025 
Attachment 2 
Page 3 of 30

Water Rate Adjustment Scenario
No FY 25/26 Residential & Multi-Unit Increase
4
FY 25/26
FY 26/27+
Residential Service Charge
+0.0%
+4.5%
Residential Usage Tiers 1 & 2
+0.0%
+3.5%
Residential Usage Tiers 3 & 4
+0.0%
+4.5%
Multi-Unit Service Charge
+0.0%
+4.5%
Multi-Unit Usage
+0.0%
+12.0%
Commercial Service Charge
+12.0%
+4.5%
Commercial Usage
+25.0%
+13.0%
Commercial Landscape Usage
+30.0%
+20.0%
Large Comm./Industrial Usage
+30.0%
+13.0%
Study Session 
November 13, 2025 
Attachment 2 
Page 4 of 30

Water Rate Adjustment Scenario
2.5% Increase for FY 25/26 Residential & Multi-Unit
5
FY 25/26
FY 26/27+
Residential Service Charge
+2.5%
+4.5%
Residential Usage Tiers 1 & 2
+2.5%
+3.5%
Residential Usage Tiers 3 & 4
+2.5%
+4.5%
Multi-Unit Service Charge
+2.5%
+4.5%
Multi-Unit Usage
+2.5%
+12.0%
Commercial Service Charge
+7.5%
+4.5%
Commercial Usage
+20.0%
+13.0%
Commercial Landscape Usage
+25.0%
+20.0%
Large Comm./Industrial Usage
+25.0%
+13.0%
Study Session 
November 13, 2025 
Attachment 2 
Page 5 of 30

Water Revenue Parity Analysis
6
Recommended Forecast
FY 24/25
FY 25/26
FY 26/27
FY 27/28
FY 28/29
FY 29/30
Residential Revenues
55%
54%
52%
50%
48%
45%
Non-Residential Revenues
45%
46%
48%
50%
52%
55%
No FY 25/26 Res. & Multi-Unit Increase
FY 24/25
FY 25/26
FY 26/27
FY 27/28
FY 28/29
FY 29/30
Residential Revenues
55%
54%
50%
48%
46%
43%
Non-Residential Revenues
45%
46%
50%
52%
54%
57%
2.5% Increase FY 25/26 Res. & Multi-Unit
FY 24/25
FY 25/26
FY 26/27
FY 27/28
FY 28/29
FY 29/30
Residential Revenues
55%
54%
51%
49%
47%
44%
Non-Residential Revenues
45%
46%
49%
51%
53%
56%
Consumption
FY 24/25
FY 25/26
FY 26/27
FY 27/28
FY 28/29
FY 29/30
Residential
49%
48%
48%
48%
48%
47%
Non-Residential
51%
52%
52%
52%
52%
53%
Study Session 
November 13, 2025 
Attachment 2 
Page 6 of 30

Typical Customer
Current 
Monthly Bill 
Recommended Rate Adj. 
with Capacity Fee
No Res. & Multi-Unit Rate 
Adjustment
2.5% Res. & Multi-Unit 
Rate Adjustment
Residential
(6 kgals/month)
$43.57/mo  
$45.41/mo  
(+$1.84/mo)
$43.57/mo
(+$0.00/mo)
$44.64/mo  
(+$1.07/mo)
Multi-unit 
Development
(6 kgals/month)
$40.46/mo
$43.98/mo
(+$3.52/mo)
$40.46/mo
(+$0.00/mo)
$41.49/mo
(+$1.03/mo)
Commercial – 
General
(9 kgals/month)
$78.59/mo
$84.39/mo
(+$5.80/mo)
$91.47/mo
(+$12.88/mo)
$87.83/mo
(+$9.24/mo)
Commercial – 
Landscape
(29 kgals/month)
$177.01/mo
$204.06/mo
(+$27.05/mo)
$220.28/mo
(+$43.27/mo)
$211.79/mo
(+$34.78/mo)
+2.5%
+2.5%
+11.8%
+19.6%
Customer Impact - Water
+4.2%
+8.7%
+7.4%
+15.3%
7
+0.0%
+0.0%
+16.4%
+24.4%
Study Session 
November 13, 2025 
Attachment 2 
Page 7 of 30

Non-Residential Water Scenario Timeline
FY 25/26 Residential & Multi-Unit Scenarios
8
Introduce and adopt non-residential water rate adjustments included in Recommended Forecast on 
November 17 and December 1
Rate adjustment adoption timeline for remaining non-residential water increases above the amounts in 
the Recommended Forecast:
December 8, 2025 
City Council action on Notice of Intent for remaining non-residential water utility rate adjustments
January 26, 2026 
Introduction of remaining non-residential water utility rate ordinance
February 9, 2026 
City Council action on remaining non-residential water utility rate adjustments
April 1, 2026 
Effective Date for remaining non-residential utility rate adjustments
Study Session 
November 13, 2025 
Attachment 2 
Page 8 of 30

9
Study Session 
November 13, 2025 
Attachment 2 
Page 9 of 30

10
RESIDENTIAL MONTHLY WATER CONSUMPTION
Study Session 
November 13, 2025 
Attachment 2 
Page 10 of 30

11
UTILITY FUND FORECAST
NO INCREASE FOR RESIDENTIAL AND MULTI-UNIT
As of 11/6/2025
FY 24/25
FY 25/26
FY 26/27
FY 27/28
FY 28/29
FY 29/30
FY 30/31
Estimate
Projected
Forecast
Forecast
Forecast
Forecast
Forecast
WATER
$3,472,435
($6,013,276)
($4,747,638)
$5,253,106
$15,360,337
$26,611,910
$44,354,611
WASTEWATER
($7,285,154)
($12,080,760)
($7,048,336)
($3,014,649)
$1,702,838
$10,205,256
$10,129,209
SOLID WASTE
$26,254
($5,858,624)
$688,832
($629,299)
$2,586,058
$8,510,604
$9,060,768
ELECTRIC
$1,435,561
($1,066,822)
($706,935)
($871,150)
($1,117,234)
($1,646,811)
($1,171,368)
NATURAL GAS
($817,183)
($3,793,486)
($1,982,515)
($1,440,090)
$2,018,693
$1,626,125
$2,301,975
DISTRICT COOLING
($376,552)
($181,786)
($171,502)
($316,383)
($182,335)
($185,275)
($233,758)
TOTAL NET SOURCES AND USES
($3,544,639)
($28,994,755)
($13,968,094)
($1,018,465)
$20,368,357
$45,121,808
$64,441,436
Beginning Reserve Balance
$117,019,543
$113,474,904
$84,480,149
$70,512,055
$69,493,590
$89,861,947
$134,983,755
Ending Reserve Balance
$113,474,904
$84,480,149
$70,512,055
$69,493,590
$89,861,947
$134,983,755
$199,425,191
Ending Reserve Balance Percent*
20.1%
13.6%
11.4%
10.7%
13.4%
19.0%
26.7%
*As a % of Next Fiscal Year's Expenditures
WATER Residential (Tier 1 usage)
6.00%
0.00%
3.50%
3.50%
3.50%
3.50%
3.50%
WATER Commercial (usage)
8.50%
25.00%
13.00%
13.00%
13.00%
13.00%
13.00%
WASTEWATER Residential
7.50%
7.50%
7.50%
7.50%
7.50%
7.50%
7.50%
WASTEWATER Non-Residential
8.50%
8.50%
8.50%
8.50%
8.50%
8.50%
8.50%
SOLID WASTE Residential
5.50%
5.50%
5.50%
5.50%
5.50%
5.50%
5.50%
SOLID WASTE Commercial
10.00%
5.50%
5.50%
5.50%
5.50%
5.50%
5.50%
SOLID WASTE Rolloff
6.50%
5.50%
5.50%
5.50%
5.50%
5.50%
5.50%
ELECTRIC Residential - svc charge
$2.75
$1.00
$3.00
$3.00
$3.00
$3.00
$3.00
ELECTRIC Non-Residential - svc charge
$5.00
$5.00
$5.00
$5.00
$5.00
$5.00
$5.00
GAS Residential - svc charge
$0.00
$0.00
$1.00
$1.00
$1.00
$1.00
$1.00
GAS Non-Residential - svc charge
$3.00
$3.00
$3.00
$3.00
$3.00
$3.00
$3.00
Study Session 
November 13, 2025 
Attachment 2 
Page 11 of 30

12
UTILITY FUND FORECAST
2.5% INCREASE FOR RESIDENTIAL AND MULTI-UNIT
As of 11/7/2025
FY 24/25
FY 25/26
FY 26/27
FY 27/28
FY 28/29
FY 29/30
FY 30/31
Estimate
Projected
Forecast
Forecast
Forecast
Forecast
Forecast
WATER
$3,472,435
($5,924,190)
($4,455,891)
$5,365,716
$15,238,263
$26,199,075
$43,591,415
WASTEWATER
($7,285,154)
($12,080,760)
($7,048,336)
($3,014,649)
$1,702,838
$10,205,256
$10,129,209
SOLID WASTE
$26,254
($5,858,624)
$688,832
($629,299)
$2,586,058
$8,510,604
$9,060,768
ELECTRIC
$1,435,561
($1,066,822)
($706,935)
($871,150)
($1,117,234)
($1,646,811)
($1,171,368)
NATURAL GAS
($817,183)
($3,793,486)
($1,982,515)
($1,440,090)
$2,018,693
$1,626,125
$2,301,975
DISTRICT COOLING
($376,552)
($181,786)
($171,502)
($316,383)
($182,335)
($185,275)
($233,758)
TOTAL NET SOURCES AND USES
($3,544,639)
($28,905,668)
($13,676,348)
($905,855)
$20,246,283
$44,708,974
$63,678,240
Beginning Reserve Balance
$117,019,543
$113,474,904
$84,569,236
$70,892,888
$69,987,033
$90,233,316
$134,942,290
Ending Reserve Balance
$113,474,904
$84,569,236
$70,892,888
$69,987,033
$90,233,316
$134,942,290
$198,620,530
Ending Reserve Balance Percent*
20.1%
13.6%
11.4%
10.8%
13.4%
19.0%
26.6%
*As a % of Next Fiscal Year's Expenditures
WATER Residential (Tier 1 usage)
6.00%
2.50%
3.50%
3.50%
3.50%
3.50%
3.50%
WATER Commercial (usage)
8.50%
20.00%
13.00%
13.00%
13.00%
13.00%
13.00%
WASTEWATER Residential
7.50%
7.50%
7.50%
7.50%
7.50%
7.50%
7.50%
WASTEWATER Non-Residential
8.50%
8.50%
8.50%
8.50%
8.50%
8.50%
8.50%
SOLID WASTE Residential
5.50%
5.50%
5.50%
5.50%
5.50%
5.50%
5.50%
SOLID WASTE Commercial
10.00%
5.50%
5.50%
5.50%
5.50%
5.50%
5.50%
SOLID WASTE Rolloff
6.50%
5.50%
5.50%
5.50%
5.50%
5.50%
5.50%
ELECTRIC Residential - svc charge
$2.75
$1.00
$3.00
$3.00
$3.00
$3.00
$3.00
ELECTRIC Non-Residential - svc charge
$5.00
$5.00
$5.00
$5.00
$5.00
$5.00
$5.00
GAS Residential - svc charge
$0.00
$0.00
$1.00
$1.00
$1.00
$1.00
$1.00
GAS Non-Residential - svc charge
$3.00
$3.00
$3.00
$3.00
$3.00
$3.00
$3.00
Study Session 
November 13, 2025 
Attachment 2 
Page 12 of 30

13
HOMEOWNER’S COMPARISON
*includes proposed 25% Water increase
**includes proposed 15% Water, 15% Wastewater, and 6% Solid Waste increases
estimated as of April 2026
$1,855
$1,949
$2,209
$2,279
$2,295
$2,386
$2,720
$2,859
$2,883
 $-
 $500
 $1,000
 $1,500
 $2,000
 $2,500
 $3,000
Chandler**
Scottsdale
Mesa
Mesa Proposed
Phoenix
Tempe
Tucson
Gilbert*
Glendale
Primary Property Tax
Secondary Property Tax
City Sales Tax
 Solid Waste
  Water
 Wastewater
Study Session 
November 13, 2025 
Attachment 2 
Page 13 of 30

Water Rate Adjustment Scenario
No FY 25/26 Residential Increase
14
FY 25/26
FY 26/27+
Residential Service Charge
+0.0%
+4.5%
Residential Usage Tiers 1 & 2
+0.0%
+3.5%
Residential Usage Tiers 3 & 4
+0.0%
+4.5%
Multi-Unit Service Charge
+8.0%
+4.5%
Multi-Unit Usage
+7.0%
+12.0%
Commercial Service Charge
+8.0%
+4.5%
Commercial Usage
+25.0%
+13.0%
Commercial Landscape Usage
+25.0%
+20.0%
Large Comm./Industrial Usage
+30.0%
+13.0%
Study Session 
November 13, 2025 
Attachment 2 
Page 14 of 30

Water Revenue Parity Analysis
No FY 25/26 Residential Increases
15
No FY 25/26 Residential Increase
FY 24/25
FY 25/26
FY 26/27
FY 27/28
FY 28/29
FY 29/30
Residential Revenues
55%
54%
50%
48%
46%
43%
Non-Residential Revenues
45%
46%
50%
52%
54%
57%
Consumption
FY 24/25
FY 25/26
FY 26/27
FY 27/28
FY 28/29
FY 29/30
Residential
49%
48%
48%
48%
48%
47%
Non-Residential
51%
52%
52%
52%
52%
53%
Study Session 
November 13, 2025 
Attachment 2 
Page 15 of 30

16
Kgals
Tier
Percent
Accounts
Number
Accounts
Percent
Accounts
Number
Accounts
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
>24
4
2.74%
3,698
7.42%
10,203
100.00%
135,104
100.00%
137,514
Residential Water Usage - Highest Point of Usage (by Account)
Average Summer
(June 2025 - August 2025)
Average Winter
(December 2024 - February 2025)
9,435
41,119
40,247
40,605
6.98%
Total
17,884
42,479
30,595
36,353
13.01%
30.89%
22.25%
26.44%
0
1
2
3
30.06%
29.79%
30.44%
Study Session 
November 13, 2025 
Attachment 2 
Page 16 of 30

City of Mesa
Water Resources Department
City Council Study Session
Water & Wastewater
Capacity Fee
September 11, 2025
Chris Hassert, Water Resources Director
Jesse Heywood, Water Resources Assistant Director
Study Session 
November 13, 2025 
Attachment 2 
Page 17 of 30

Presentation 
Overview
• What is a Capacity Fee
• How is the Capacity Fee 
calculated
• What type of projects will the fee 
fund
18
Study Session 
November 13, 2025 
Attachment 2 
Page 18 of 30

What is a Capacity 
Fee
• Capacity fees are a one-time charge 
for a new or upsized connection to the 
water and/or wastewater system as 
authorized by A.R.S. § 9-511.01
• The fee is designed to recover the 
growth-related portion of the cost of 
constructing any additional water and 
wastewater system capacity
• Fees will be directed to the “Utility 
Capacity Fee Fund”
19
Study Session 
November 13, 2025 
Attachment 2 
Page 19 of 30

20
Study Session 
November 13, 2025 
Attachment 2 
Page 20 of 30

How is the Capacity 
Fee calculated
• The City utilized AWWA’s Principles of 
Water Rates, Fees, and Charges – 
Manual of Water Supply Practices M1 in 
developing the methodology to 
calculate the capacity fees
• The incremental cost or marginal cost 
method was chosen
• The recently completed 2025 Integrated 
Master Plan identified projects that 
added capacity in the next 10 years
21
Study Session 
November 13, 2025 
Attachment 2 
Page 21 of 30

22
Study Session 
November 13, 2025 
Attachment 2 
Page 22 of 30

Capacity Fee Calculation
23
Study Session 
November 13, 2025 
Attachment 2 
Page 23 of 30

Capacity Costs
24
Study Session 
November 13, 2025 
Attachment 2 
Page 24 of 30

Water Service Units
25
Study Session 
November 13, 2025 
Attachment 2 
Page 25 of 30

Wastewater Service Units
26
Study Session 
November 13, 2025 
Attachment 2 
Page 26 of 30

Water & Wastewater Capacity Fee 
Calculation
27
Study Session 
November 13, 2025 
Attachment 2 
Page 27 of 30

Capacity Fee Table by Meter Size
28
Study Session 
November 13, 2025 
Attachment 2 
Page 28 of 30

Fee Comparison for a ¾” Meter
29
Study Session 
November 13, 2025 
Attachment 2 
Page 29 of 30

Conclusions
• Proposed Capacity Fee eases 
financial burden on all rate 
payers
• Protects existing customers 
from the cost of new growth
• Frees up capital funds to spend 
on needed life cycle 
replacement projects 
30
Study Session 
November 13, 2025 
Attachment 2 
Page 30 of 30

Battery Energy Storage Systems 
(BESS) Update
City Council Study Session
November 13, 2025
Mary Kopaskie-Brown, Planning Director
John Sheffer, Building Official
Shawn Alexander, Fire Marshal
Rachel Phillips, Assistant Planning Director
Study Session 
November 13, 2025 
Attachment 3 
Page 1 of 6

Project Summary
• Planning Division, Building Division, Fire & Medical, and Energy 
Resources Department – Proposed Zoning and Fire Code amendments 
• Public Outreach - 2 Open Houses (October 1, 2025 - October 13, 2025)
• City Council Study Session (October 6, 2025)
• Planning and Zoning Board Public Hearing (October 22, 2025)
• Main Concerns Staff Has Heard
Separation Requirements
Defining Accessory Uses
Screening/Design
Sound study requirements and levels
Safety – including Fire Code setbacks
Applicability to Eastmark
2
Study Session 
November 13, 2025 
Attachment 3 
Page 2 of 6

Ordinance 1
Planning and Zoning Board  Recommendation
• Separation Requirements (Residential)
• Decrease Separation from 1,000 Feet to 400 
Feet
• Defining Accessory Use
• Increase Nameplate capacity from ≤ 1,000 
kilowatts to ≤ 5,000 kilowatts
3
Study Session 
November 13, 2025 
Attachment 3 
Page 3 of 6

Ordinance 2 
Staff Recommendation
• Separation Requirements (Residential)
• Maintain separation at 1,000 Feet
• Defining Accessory Use
• Concur with P&Z - Increase Nameplate 
capacity from ≤ 1,000 kilowatts to ≤ 5,000 
kilowatts
4
Study Session 
November 13, 2025 
Attachment 3 
Page 4 of 6

Questions?
Study Session 
November 13, 2025 
Attachment 3 
Page 5 of 6

6
Study Session 
November 13, 2025 
Attachment 3 
Page 6 of 6