Minutes of the Work Session held on November 10, 2025 at 4:00 pm
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
29407 characters
Meeting Minutes
City Council Work Session
November 10, 2025 | 4:00 p.m.
Council Chambers Conference Room
88 E. Chicago St., Chandler, AZ
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Kevin Hartke at 4:00 p.m.
Roll Call
Council Attendance
Appointee Attendance
Mayor Kevin Hartke
John Pombier, Acting City Manager
Vice Mayor Christine Ellis
Kelly Schwab, City Attorney
Councilmember Angel Encinas
Dana DeLong, City Clerk
Councilmember Jane Poston
Councilmember Matt Orlando
Councilmember OD Harris
Councilmember Jennifer Hawkins
Staff in Attendance
Dawn Lang, Deputy City Manager / Chief Financial Officer
Ryan Peters, Deputy City Manager
Leah Powell, Deputy City Manager
Alexis Apodaca, Mayor & Council Public Affairs Senior Manager
Matt Burdick, Communications & Public Affairs Director
Matt Dunbar, Budget & Policy Director
Kristi Smith, Financial Services Director
Jeremy Abbott, Acting Public Works & Utilities Director
Simone Kjolsrud, Water Resources Manager
Marge Zylla, Strategic Initiatives Director
Cristabel Dykstra, Utilities Administrative Support Manager
Corina Meister, Utility Services Manager
Danielle Wells, Revenue & Tax Senior Manager
Page 2 of 16
Discussion
1.
Proposed Utility Rate Outreach Results, Utility Customer Service, Water Conservation and
Drought Management Plan
• Introduction
• Proposed Utility Rate Outreach Results
• Utility Customer Service "The Chandler Way"
• Chandler Water Conservation & Drought Management Plan
o Water Resources Update
o Reclaimed Water Update
o 2-Year Review of Conservation Success
o Rebate Policy Updates
o Drought Management Plan Updates
o Next Steps
• Public Comment
• Closing
MAYOR HARTKE called for a staff presentation.
JOHN POMBIER, Acting City Manager, introduced the discussion item.
DAWN LANG, Deputy City Manager / Chief Financial Officer, presented the following presentation.
• Proposed Utility Rate Outreach Results, Utility Customer Service and Water Conservation &
Drought Management Plan
• Proposed Utility Rate Outreach Results
• Revenue Required for Sustainability of Funds
• Residential Utility Cost Comparison
MAYOR HARTKE asked if there are any other rate increases from different communities.
MS. LANG explained that the slide depicts rate increases in the region from around July 2025.
MS. LANG continued the presentation.
• Utility Rate Outreach
o In-Person
▪ Presentation and discussion with Chandler Chamber
▪ Presentation and discussion with multi-housing group
▪ Two public informational meetings
▪ Calculated and communicated rate plans and projected monthly/annual effect
of bill change to various large industrial users
o Social Media
▪ Posted on all platforms about rate changes
Page 3 of 16
▪ Posted public informational meeting times and locations
▪ Posted responses to clarify misinformation when needed
o Other
▪ Posted on City website
• Presentations
• Calculator
• Comment/Feedback Link
▪ Issued press release for papers
▪ Published CityScope article
▪ Posted Adopted Notice of Intent (NOI)
▪ Emailed 88 HOAs available on the Neighborhood Resources contact list
▪ Upcoming utility bill messages in Jan/Feb 2026
o Each group/resident/business we sent specific information to or spoke to did not
have major concern with proposed rate changes
o chandleraz.gov/proposedutilityrates has all of the proposed rate information
• Feedback Received
o Website 2026 Proposed Utility Rate Changes
▪ 382 views
▪ 5 Comments
o Website Monthly Bill Calculator
▪ 211 views
o Social Media
▪ 3 posts Oct 2, 7 & 12
▪ 22,600 Impressions/Views
▪ 1,567 Engagements
o 2 Public Informational Sessions
▪ Light public participation
o Other
▪ 1 letter
▪ 2 emails
MAYOR HARTKE asked about the difference between impressions, views, and engagements.
MS. LANG explained that impressions are the number of times a piece of content is displayed on
a screen. A high number of impressions means the information was shown to many users. Views
are the number of times users actively engage with content, such as liking, sharing, or
commenting.
MS. LANG continued the presentation.
• Feedback Received
o 8 - Emails (2), Letter (1), Website Comments (5)
▪ One supported proposed changes
Page 4 of 16
▪ One supports the changes to ensure long-term sustainability
▪ One support for across-the-board allocation
▪ One requested more data-based allocation to customer classes
▪ One requested another study to ensure cost split is accurate
▪ One concern with overall cost-of-living increases
▪ One wanted actions to lower costs
▪ One did not want to have drastic increases like other municipalities
o 43 Captured Social Media Comments
▪ 13 – Had comments related to other concerns not utility rate related
▪ 12 – Generally, not in favor of rate increases
▪ 6 – While not good news, they understood
▪ 5 – Did not want to follow other municipality’s drastic increases
▪ 5 – Some concern with the cost split between residents and businesses
▪ 2 – Wanted less growth which could reduce costs
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO asked about the ratios between the residential and commercial for
solid waste and wastewater, which could lead to a net overall increase. He inquired what that
would do for the other areas, referring to the slide Revenue Required for Sustainability of Funds.
MS. LANG explained that other areas maintain a 15% rate, but that rate does not include solid
waste services.
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO asked if there would be a blended rate of 12.6%.
MS. LANG explained that most meters were at 15%, which depends on the customer.
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO asked whether the reclaimed water rate has always been 18%.
MS. LANG explained that the reclaimed water rate has been 18%, while the other categories have
been 15%. The rate model may have displayed rate increases for future rate adjustments.
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO confirmed that the rate increase for residents would be 12.6%.
MS. LANG agreed.
MS. LANG continued the presentation.
• Utility Customer Service “The Chandler Way”
• Customer Service “The Chandler Way”
o Utility Billing & Meter Services Teams
o Goal to provide information and services fairly and accurately to Chandler utility
customers with a high level of customer satisfaction
o Highlights
Page 5 of 16
o Provides single point of contact for utilities, billing, and collecting user charges for
water, wastewater, and sanitation systems
o Performs billing usage reviews using audit reports
o Triages high water bills to meter techs or conservation to perform water audits if
needed
o Provides water usage educational tools
o Uses bill messages and electronic bills to communicate water conservation tips, 2x
consumption, rate changes, rebates, etc.
o No late fee or shut offs for those impacted by federal shut-down
o Partners with Neighborhood Resources to triage calls of customers needing
resources
o Proactive full meter review to be completed by manufacturer
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO said several organizations work with cities in the event of a water
main break. He asked whether the city has ever considered partnering with one of these
organizations.
JEREMY ABBOTT, Acting Public Works & Utilities Director, explained that many companies provide
this service. It is not something the city would be involved in. In the case of a main break, the city
does its best to provide timely service.
MAYOR HARTKE asked if the city has ever advertised this service.
MS. LANG said she is not familiar. Through the Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI)
conversions, the new infrastructure will help protect consumers, reduce bill increases, and assist
in conservation.
MS. LANG continued the presentation.
• Customer Service “The Chandler Way”
o Water/Wastewater/Reclaimed/Solid Waste Rate Change Process
o Work session during budget process
o Website with rate information
o Online bill calculator
o Customer feedback button
o Significant customer outreach
o Public meetings
o City Scope article
o Bill message for 2 months prior to change
o Utility Reps trained to calculate impact
o Adding additional $25K to A-OK program to help rate payers most vulnerable
• Rate Adjustment Timeline
Page 6 of 16
COUNCILMEMBER HARRIS asked why the notice of intent is published again.
MS. LANG explained that the rate adjustment public notice is regulated by the Arizona Revised
Statutes, which sets out a specific deadline.
COUNCILMEMBER HARRIS asked if the additional $25,000 for the A-OK program is to help
residents who need utility assistance, and they can apply through the water program.
MS. LANG explained that residents applying for utility assistance through the program will work
with Neighborhood Resources, which will connect them with the agency through which the funds
flow.
COUNCILMEMBER HARRIS asked how residents can access the application.
LEAH POWELL, Deputy City Manager, explained that the CARES team in Neighborhood Resources
works with AZCEND, which accepts the application for utility assistance.
SIMONE KJOLSRUD presented the following presentation.
• Chandler Water Conservation & Drought Management Plan Preparing for water supply
reductions
• Agenda
o Water Resources Update
o Reclaimed Water Update
o Water Conservation Programs
o 2-Yr Review of Conservation Success
o Rebate Policy Updates
o Drought Management Plan Updates
o Next Steps
• Where does our water come from?
o Surface Water: snow and rain runs off into rivers, lakes, and streams. The water is
stored in reservoirs behind dams.
o Groundwater: water stored underground in the space between sand and gravel.
• Chandler’s Water Supplies
• Water Supply Challenges
o Drinking Water
▪ Colorado River Shortage (CAP)
• Permanent reductions to Arizona’s allocation will likely result in a 20%
to 40% cut for most central AZ water providers
▪ Salt & Verde Supplies (SRP)
• Last winter was second driest on record, the 2026 SRP surface water
allocation has been reduced by half
▪ Groundwater
Page 7 of 16
• Reduced surface water supplies will result in aquifer draw down
o Reclaimed Water
▪ Gila River Indian Community Exchange – 67% of supply
▪ Serving 400 direct use customers for irrigation and cooling towers – 73
customers exceeded allocation 2024
▪ Aquifer recharge helps to manage seasonal demand
MAYOR HARTKE asked how much CAP water accounts for in Tucson's water usage.
MS. KJOLSRUD explained that water usage in the Tucson area is different from that in the Phoenix
area. Phoenix-area municipalities take the Colorado River delivered through their treatment plant
and deliver it through pipes. Tucson-area municipalities send Colorado River water to recharge
facilities and wells. It is not delivered to a treatment plant.
MAYOR HARTKE asked when the seven states that use Colorado River water will reach an
agreement.
MS. KJOLSRUD said she will discuss that later in the presentation.
MS. KJOLSRUD continued the presentation.
• Colorado River Post-2026
o January 2025 – US Bureau of Reclamation published the Post-2026 Alternatives
Report, excluding each of the alternatives proposed by the upper basin and lower
basin states.
o November 2025 – Deadline for seven state consensus
o Spring 2026 – reclamation will publish a preferred alternative and develop any
federal legislation needed to grant additional authorities required to implement the
preferred alternative
o Summer 2026 – June/July deadline for final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and
August deadline for a Record of Decision. Implementation for calendar year 2027.
• Salt and Verde River Watersheds
• Salt and Verde Reservoirs
• Colorado River Conditions
• Groundwater Supplies
o In response to surface water shortages, Chandler will rely on groundwater reserves
or stored water
o 32 wells provide redundancy
o 31 active wells
o 1 new well (in-progress)
o 2 future well sites reserved
o Decades of well maintenance and careful planning
Page 8 of 16
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO asked how many SRP wells are in Chandler.
MS. KJOLSRUD said there are four active SRP wells and two inactive SRP wells. There is one planned
shared well with SRP that has not been constructed.
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO asked what would happen if SRP wanted to pump well water to
areas outside Chandler.
MS. KJOLSRUD explained that the wells are directly connected to Chandler’s distribution system.
Structural changes would be needed to redirect the well water.
MAYOR HARTKE asked why does SRP partner with Chandler on the wells in the city.
MS. KJOLSRUD explained that Chandler is an SRP shareholder. SRP can meet its responsibilities to
chandler by delivering water in that way.
MAYOR HARTKE confirmed it is not possible for SRP wells in Chandler to distribute water outside
of the city.
MS. KJOLSRUD said that was correct.
MS. KJOLSRUD continued the presentation.
• Regional Partnerships and Infrastructure
o Regional projects provide additional operational flexibility
▪ Bartlett Dam Modification
• Funding a feasibility study which evaluates the potential to restore lost
capacity due to sedimentation and modify Bartlett Dam height to
increase the available storage space
▪ SRP/CAP Interconnect Facility
• Allows for delivery of water stored in the SRP system into the CAP canal
for delivery to Chandler’s Santan Vista Water Treatment Plant (adjacent
to the CAP canal)
▪ Roosevelt Dam Flood Control Space
• Five-year pilot program to optimize the use of Roosevelt flood control
space. Opportunities for planned deviations from normal operations,
extending from 20 days to 120 days.
MAYOR HARTKE said this SRP/CAP Interconnect Facility does not change the destination of SRP
water.
MS. KJOLSRUD said that is correct. This infrastructure requires water rights to have water. SRP
Association water can only be used on SRP member lands would not be a candidate to move
Page 9 of 16
through this system. Alternate water supplies can be used outside of the SRP member lands. If an
entity has other water supplies, they can use the infrastructure. For example, participants in the
Bartlett Dam Modification could put their share of that water through the infrastructure.
MAYOR HARTKE confirmed that Chandler’s SRP water would still only be used by Chandler.
MS. KJOLSRUD agreed.
MS. KJOLSRUD continued the presentation.
• 2024/2025 Water Infrastructure Investments
o Water treatment investments, new recharge capacity and new wastewater and
reclaimed metering infrastructure
o Reclaimed Water Interconnect Facility (RWIF) – New membrane treatment facility to
increase Chandler’s aquifer recharge and deliver additional water for industrial
cooling at Intel’s expanded facilities.
o Two ASR wells at Tumbleweed Park for Aquifer Storage & Recovery (ASR), with
improvements to the reclaimed water conveyance infrastructure between the RWIF
and Tumbleweed.
o Pecos Water Treatment Plant upgrades improve water quality – new Granular
Activated Carbon (GAC) filters
o Reclaimed and Wastewater Meters – Extensive meter replacements and
infrastructure upgrades
• 2025 Reclaimed Assessment
o All reclaimed accounts evaluated for contract compliance in Summer 2025
o Communication & Education
▪ Letters sent include 2024 water use, annual allotment, reclaimed agreement,
description of required permits, irrigation schedules, and customer service
options
o Notification of Exceedance
▪ Letters mailed to 73 accounts to notify of exceedance
o Conservation Customer Service
▪ Irrigation scheduling, leak assessments, water budget software, help with
understanding permits
o Recent Updates Impacting Reclaimed Water
▪ Removed exemption from allocation policy, plans to remove exemption from
the drought Plan, and remove exemption in landscaping ordinances
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO asked about the follow up from the notification of exceedance.
MS. KJOLSRUD responded that the extra water allotment of the 73 accounts would be freed up to
assist with the current supply deficit.
Page 10 of 16
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO asked how long it would take to notify all account holders of
exceedance.
MS. KJOLSRUD explained that letters would be sent to all relevant account holders by the end of
the year. Continued efforts will continue into the next year with these customers to provide
education and support.
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO asked if there has been compliance with this request.
MS. KJOLSRUD said that 25 out of 73 have responded to the letters and engaged with the
department to reduce water usage.
VICE MAYOR ELLIS asked for more information on the account exceedance.
MS. KJOLSRUD said these accounts were billed for all their water usage. The allotment in the
contract is a specified volume of water with an annual limit. It is looked at on an annual basis. If
they were using more water than allotted, customers still paid for water usage above their
allotment. There will be savings by the customer once their water usage is reduced.
COUNCILMEMBER POSTON asked how much water would be saved if these accounts were under
compliance.
MS. KJOLSRUD said she would follow up with that information. There are about a dozen that are
significantly over the allotment. Most accounts have a minimal exceedance; simple actions will
allow them to come into compliance with their contract. Much of the overuse could be due to
overwatering of landscaping.
MS. KJOLSRUD continued the presentation.
• Chandler Water Conservation
o Outreach & Education
▪ Community workshops, water wise site visits and landscape consultations to
assist residents, HOAs and businesses.
o Rebates
▪ Landscape conversions and technology rebates to reduce outdoor water use.
• Water Demand Trends
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO asked how much agricultural conversion plays into water
conservation over time.
MS. KJOLSRUD explained that this is just examining city municipal water use. The city does not
serve water to agricultural customers. It is likely served as SRP irrigation or RWCD to agricultural
Page 11 of 16
customers. There may be indirect benefits when agricultural use converts to a developed use,
such as the reduction of pumping wells.
MS. KJOLSRUD continued the presentation.
• Residential Conservation Rebates
o Grass to Xeriscape Rebate
▪ $2 per SF of grass converted to xeriscape, up to $3,000
▪ Landscape must include 50%plant coverage post conversion
▪ Minimum of 500 SF needs to be removed to qualify
▪ You need to apply before removing grass
o Indoor Water Conservation kits (multi-family and homes built before 1992)
▪ Water efficient showerhead
▪ Aerators
▪ Toilet Water Displacement
o Smart Controller Rebate
▪ 50% off the purchase price (pre-tax), up to $250
▪ Must be a WaterSense approved smart controller
• HOA/Commercial Conservation Rebates
o Large Landscape Grass Removal Rebate
▪ Reimburses 25% of the total project cost and an additional $3/Sq Ft for “Non-
Functional” grass.
▪ Landscape must include 50% plant coverage post conversion.
▪ Minimum of 5,000 SF needs to be removed to qualify.
▪ Need to apply before removing grass
• Water Conservation Successes
o Grass removal incentives increased October 2023 and program participation has
significantly increased
o Single Family Grass Removal – Participation increased 234% after increase to $2 per
square foot (sq ft) and lowering the minimum from 1,000 to 500 sq ft. Roughly
132,000 of grass removed since Oct. 2023 and approximately $240,000 in rebates
($25,000 prior to change)
o Commercial/HOA Grass Removal – Participation increased 260% after developing a
Large Landscape Grass Removal (LLGR) Rebate. Roughly 371,000 sq ft of grass
removed since October 2023, and approximately $770,000 in rebates ($18,000 prior
to change)
o Smart Controller Rebate – Residential smart controller rebates nearly doubled to 216
rebates ($14,500 since Oct. 2023, compared to $7,700 in the prior period).
o Water Efficient Technology Rebate – New program in Oct. 2023. Thirteen customers
approved and approximately $171,000 in rebates.
COUNCILMEMBER HARRIS asked what the amount is decreasing in the single-family grass removal
rebate.
Page 12 of 16
MS. KJOLSRUD explained that it is currently $2 per square foot, and it will decrease to $1.50 per
square foot.
COUNCILMEMBER HARRIS asked if the program is expected to still be popular with the rebate
decrease.
MS. KJOLSRUD expected a continued participation level at the same level regardless of the
decrease. Additionally, the current maximum of $3,000 is not reached by most projects submitted.
Customers have been notified that a change is expected January 1, 2026. Anyone in single family
grass removal rebate will be approved under the existing policy.
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO asked if the current policy would be honored for single family grass
removal and the commercial/HOA grass removal projects until January 1, 2026.
MS. KJOLSRUD said yes, the current rebate amount would apply to anyone with an existing project.
They are working on finding funds to cover the gap until the end of the year.
MAYOR HARTKE asked where in the process someone would need to be to receive the existing
rate.
MS. KJOLSRUD said individuals with a Notice of Proceed document would be assured they are
under the current policy prior to any changes.
MS. KJOLSRUD continued the presentation.
• 2025 Conservation Initiatives – City Facilities
o New sub-meters on select city pools and all city facilities with cooling towers
o Turf to xeriscape program in city retention basins, $3 Million WIFA grant funding
(2,000,000+ sq. ft.)
o City Parks – reduced overseeding, smart controllers for all parks and 13
basins/medians
o Partnered with SRP for funding landscape irrigation efficiency evaluations at all city
parks
o Consultant completed water efficiency evaluations for large city facilities and
implemented updates
• Rebate Policies
MAYOR HARTKE asked what the original staff recommendation for rebate policies was when first
proposed.
MS. KJOLSRUD said when changes were proposed in October 2023, the staff recommendation was
an increase from $0.20 to $1 per square foot.
Page 13 of 16
MAYOR HARTKE commented that this is still a robust program, it seems like there is still engaged
participation.
COUNCILMEMBER POSTON asked how many large organizations took advantage of the large
grass removal rebates offered.
MS. KJOLSRUD estimated around 35 organizations took advantage of the large grass removal
rebates offered, and there are 20 HOAs on the waitlist. Applicants were advised that staff cannot
move forward with any projects until receiving some direction from Council on the action they
would take on rebate programs.
COUNCILMEMBER POSTON commented that it seems like the goal to be able to provide more
funding for more projects.
MS. KJOLSRUD explained that was true, the goal is to adjust the financial components of rebates
to be able to continue these programs that have been successful.
MS. KJOLSRUD continued the presentation.
• Drought Management Plan – Proposed Updates
o Update drought plan triggers to match current water supply expectations, remove
reclaimed exemption and update outdated language
o Stage Triggers – update to reflect new shortage projections for post-2026 Colorado
River reductions and modify triggers to evaluate supplies based on all surface water
supplies.
o Reclaimed Water – remove reclaimed exemption and add language to clarify the
availability of reclaimed water during a shortage. Reclaimed water users will also be
asked to conserve during shortages.
o Update Language – Update references to more current resources available online.
o Expiration of Drought Stage – One year after issuance or January 1st of a normal water
supply year. Current plan does not address procedures to determine when a drought
stage expires.
• Drought Plan Triggers – Proposed Updates
MAYOR HARTKE asked to confirm that the same language is present in the requirements for the
mayor to declare a state of emergency as the Stage IV water emergency.
KELLY SCHWAB, City Attorney, explained that these items are different, staff will follow up with
Council to share information on the overlap between these procedures.
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO asked how the declaration is put together while balancing many
factors.
Page 14 of 16
MS. KJOLSRUD responded that the next slide will explain more, communication to customers will
explain the different stages.
MR. POMBIER added that Stage III is where the drought triggers may invoke policy changes. In a
scenario like this, City Manager and staff would work with Council before bringing anything
forward for action.
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO emphasized communication if Stage III was reached. He asked what
percentage of a CAP reduction is expected next year.
MS. KJOLSRUD explained that Stage III is if all surface water supplies were reduced by more than
50%. She did not anticipate that level of shortage next year.
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO asked for more information on how policymakers would engage in
these changes in the future. Any shortages should allow for policy decisions that Council should
be well-prepared for.
MS. KJOLSRUD shared that mandatory reductions are only present in Stage IV drought planning
to align with the city’s ability to enforce the reductions and managing to meet customer demand
for water. If both supplies are reduced by 65% or more, then the city would enter into Stage IV.
COUNCILMEMBER POSTON asked what mandatory water reductions for municipal facilities look
like.
MS. KJOLSRUD said deficit irrigation landscaping and city park water reductions.
COUNCILMEMBER POSTON commented in Stage III there are mandatory restrictions for municipal
facilities but it is not defined by how much.
MS. KJOLSRUD said a 5% reduction is planned for. Current actions for water savings are the turf
to xeriscape conversion and adjusting parks watering schedules. The goal is to maintain the
current quality of life while making some adjustments to how water is used.
VICE MAYOR ELLIS said the reason why these stages are here is due to the city’s planning in
advance of challenges. If Chandler were to enter Stage IV of Chandler’s Drought Management Plan,
other municipalities and levels of government would likely be taking drought regulation actions.,
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO said at that point, this would be a policy decision with other
municipalities and levels of government.
VICE MAYOR ELLIS commented she is secure in the ideas of the stages.
Page 15 of 16
MS. KJOLSRUD said many municipalities may act after hearing the verdict on the Colorado River
water in 2026. This drought plan is designed to be specific to Chandler’s water resources. There
are some political considerations for this subject.
MS. KJOLSRUD continued the presentation.
• Conservation Public Awareness Campaigns
• Next Steps
o Drought Management Plan – Proposed updates to Chandler’s Drought Plan will be
published on the water conservation website and become effective January 1, 2026
o Water Conservation – Adopt resolution to update rebate policies consistent with
funding from operating funds instead of WIFA grants. Policies effective January 1,
2026.
o Reclaimed Water Agreements – Continue current engagement strategy, offer water
budgeting software, irrigation strategies and assist customers exceeding their
allotment.
o Regional Partnerships – Participate in feasibility of Bartlett Dam Modification, the
SRP/CAP Interconnect Facility, and maximize investment Roosevelt Dam Flood
Control Space
• Questions?
MAYOR HARTKE asked if any proposals in the drought plans affect enforcement over HOAs
mandating overseeding in neighborhoods.
MS. KJOLSRUD explained that her understanding is that the city cannot enforce a drought stage
on the provisions of an HOA. There are some HOAs that require overseeding, and the city does
request that HOAs do not enforce this. There may be future political action in the state legislature
regulating this.
MS. SCHWAB confirmed that information, it may be an action taken by the state legislature.
Public Comment
None.
Adjourn
The meeting was adjourned at 5:45 p.m.
ATTEST: _______________________
______________________________
City Clerk Mayor
Page 16 of 16
Approval Date of Minutes: December 8, 2025
Certification
I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Work
Session of the City Council of Chandler, Arizona, held on the 10th day of November 2025. I further
certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present.
DATED this _______ day of December, 2025.
__________________________
City Clerk