City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everyone. Thank you for joining us today, everyone that's here. And thank you for being patient. We were running a little late from our previous meeting. So we're going to go ahead and start with this study session. And the first one on the agenda is the item number one. And is that going to be you two, or are you presenting? Okay, if you can go ahead.

Madam Mayor, just for the benefit of the public, I do want the mayor and council and the public to know that we will not be covering the second topic this evening in study session, which is related to the recycling program options that we've been evaluating. There's been some recent items that have come to light that I think could have an impact, may have an impact on the options. And staff needs to do some additional research before we, and gather some additional information before we make the presentations to the council. So I apologize for adding that. But we are here and have our staff here ready for the Mission Parkway and Cottonwood Lane intersection improvement presentation.

Perfect. Thank you.

No decision will be made tonight, but ultimately want to update the council on a dialogue that we had had several months ago and some of the engineering work that we've done under the options that were evaluated. So with that, I'll hand it over to the public works team. Great, thank you. All right.

Hi, good evening. I'm Natalie Stevens with Public Works. I'm joined by Matt Carman, civil engineer. We also have our traffic engineer, Clark Klotinoff, in the audience as well. tonight we're presenting an update on the Mission Parkway and Cottonwood Lane proposed improvements and we'll go over the design alternatives, go over the public outreach and survey that was conducted, go over engineering's recommendation and also ask for council's input on the project. Okay, let's get into the project background. The intersection of Mission Parkway and Cottonwood Lane currently meets warrants for a traffic signal, and that means that some sort of intersection improvements are required at this time. You may remember back in October, we held a study session to go over the project, and Council additional information and research. City staff did conduct a public outreach and survey and also conducted some additional analysis. Here are some of the options that were initially considered. We looked at the all-way stop, the traffic signal and the roundabout. Each of these options were evaluated on safety, traffic operations, right-of-way needs, cost, maintenance and also long-term performance. So we reviewed the always stop and this option is no longer being considered as signal warrants are met. It's not the most appropriate long-term traffic control for this location. The second alternative is a traffic signal. One of the benefits of the traffic signal is it provides familiar traffic control. A couple of The issues with the signal is it requires electrical and equipment maintenance and users may experience delays during high traffic volume periods. The third option is the roundabout alternative. One of the benefits to the alternative is it allows for continuous movement of traffic through the intersection. It also allows for the movement to be at lower speeds, which reduces severe and fatal crashes compared to a signal. This exhibit shows the proposed right-of-way. It's kind of small, but in red, that is the right-of-way that would be required for the signal. And then in blue, you can see that would be the right-of-way that would be required for the roundabout. This design is still conceptual. It might change slightly, but overall, the roundabout would require less right-of-way than the traffic signal. So Public Works conducted a public outreach to gather community input on the project and find out what some of the community's concerns are for the intersection. We did conduct a survey. We received over 120 responses. City staff held a public involvement meeting July 8th at Vista Grande Library. This allowed the community to review alternatives, ask questions, and provide feedback to city staff. Here are some of the residents' primary concerns that we heard regarding the intersection. Number one was speeding vehicles. Number two was traffic congestion. Number three was difficulty driving through the intersection. Number four was poor lighting. Another concern that we heard was the concern that if we construct a roundabout that we would not be able to expand that in the future. compared to a signal. But with the signal, we would have to upgrade the intersection in about 15 years. And so that would require us to rip out the pavement and replace the signal at that point. Whereas with the roundabout, we would be able to take the current design and it would require minimal pavement tear out. and that would allow us to expand to the minor arterial pavement section. Another benefit with the roundabout is it would hold the traffic flows five years longer than the traffic signal alternative. So whereas at the 15 year mark with the signal, we would have to upgrade the intersection, it would be another five years, it would be 20 years for the roundabout. And then here's a breakdown of our survey results. You can see 48% preferred the traffic signal improvement compared to 40% with the roundabout. So we considered this feedback along with safety, operational, and long-term performance when developing our recommendation. And so we'll get into the engineering recommendation. So the roundabout is the preferred alternative from the engineering department and we can talk a little bit about why that is the preferred alternative. So, Compared to a traffic signal, there are fewer severe and fatal crashes associated with a roundabout. The roundabout allows for continuous movement throughout the intersection, so it provides shorter travel times. The right-of-way needs would be equal or less than a traffic signal. and then we would be able to expand the roundabout when needed and we wouldn't have to do a lot of removal and upgrades compared to a traffic signal. Next we can look at the cost comparison. So here's the cost for the signal versus the roundabout. And then we also listed the right of way that would be required for both options. And I'm gonna hand it over to Matt Carman to go over the signal tech staffing and the maintenance requirements.

Ms. Stevens, perhaps you can explain for the council and the staff, you spoke about the 15 year need to expand. Perhaps you can outline a little bit of scope and explain that a bit of what actually is transpiring at that point. In my mind, it's obviously widening the intersection there. But just to give everybody a context of what's driving that expectation at 15 years.

Definitely. And I think I'll actually hand that over to our traffic engineer because he has more of the technical expertise. So, Clark, if you don't mind.

Turned on, Clark.

Good evening. I'm Clark Klotnoff, Assistant City is the Traffic Engineer. The reason we walk through this is to point out when we're looking at the initial installation of the traffic signal. And if you look at the exhibits, Natalie, if you could roll back to the exhibit that we have there. And I'll explain one more back. I'll explain the coloring that's on there. A couple more back. There we go. So you see the gray pavement in the middle here? That's existing pavement. And so this alternative is built on widening the existing pavement. And the dark color that you see adjacent to it is pavement widening. When you look at the next alternative, which is the roundabout, you'll see that it's all gray pavement and then that the circle itself is a lighter color, that's concrete pavement. And the reason we do that is because your heavy vehicles will deteriorate, the asphalt will deteriorate faster in a roundabout, so we'll put concrete in there so that it gives you the long life that you're after. So Natalie, if you'll go back to the initial exhibit. Keeping in mind now that we now have pavement out there that we're moving to a minor arterial section that has a 20 foot wide median, and that's a raised median. The existing pavement that we're using in place is roughly 22 to 24 foot wide. So essentially all the existing pavement needs to be removed. Further, when we go to finalize this and you end up with the cross slopes, you're driving the edge of the road into the ground and drainage becomes more difficult. So when we were designing new roads like Thornton Road or Peters Road, we raised the profile of the road so that when you get to the edge, which is lower, that you're up in the air from the existing ground six to nine inches so that the drainage then can flow off into the existing ground level rather than being pressed further into the ground requiring more right of way because you have a deeper and wider basin. And it also gets into where does it go? THAT IS THE REASON WHY WE'RE SAYING IN THE FUTURE IT WOULD BE A TOTAL RECONSTRUCT AS COMPARED TO THE ROUND ABOUT WHICH WE WOULD BE ON NEW PAVEMENT ANYWAY BUT WHY WE'RE DESIGNING AT THE FIRST ITERATION WOULD BE THE BUILD OUT OF THE ROUND ABOUT AS A FOUR LANE FACILITY And then we just remove some of the pavement, either on the inside or the outside, quite probably on the inside. So in the future, it's simpler to do. Just come in, widen on the inside, widen the approaches, and achieve the goal of the most cost-effective way of transitioning from a one-lane or two-lane roundabout to a four-lane roundabout in the future. Any questions on that explanation?

No, thank you. Questions? Thank you.

So I just wanted to give a little bit more context into these 10-year maintenance costs and what's driving them and a little bit of additional information that I think maybe isn't necessarily included in those costs but should be part of the project consideration as a whole. So the primary driver on the 10-year maintenance cost of the signalized intersection is the asphalt maintenance, right? So as the asphalt wears out, we have to do surface treatments to repair that asphalt. Really, that cost is also the same in the roundabout, right? About the same amount of pavement. The costs there aren't too different from each other. Where that increase comes from really is the maintenance of the equipment, right? So on a traffic signal, you have bulbs that go out. You have wires that oxidize and corrode and things to replace in that aspect. Equipment that fails, right? They're controlled by controllers and all the computer equipment that goes into those as well. So really that's kind of the main cost driver and the difference and kind of going into that a little bit deeper, one of our main concerns right now is trying to address the existing traffic, the existing signal system as it stands today rather. We looked a little bit into the FHWA's traffic signal operations and maintenance staffing guidelines as part of our staffing request last year and just looking at our system as a whole. They do recommend that we have about one signal technician per 30 signals that we have through the city. Right now we're sitting at about 38 traffic signals, two hawk signals, and then 13 advanced warning signals, whether they're like pedestrian flashing beacons, things like that. And the assumption that the FHWA is making is based on a team that's just responding to traffic signals.

Our signal team also responds to about 5,000 streetlights throughout the city.

So as we're considering adding new signals, it is a big concern from the staffing availability side of things to make sure that we have somebody that can maintain those signals and also have an adequate response time. We really strive, and our goal is to make sure that if we have a signal that's down, A, we get notified of it as soon as possible, so we have to make sure that our system is built that that notification occurs, and that B, we have it up and running in an hour, two hours tops. When the time to repair starts to exceed that, we have really bad detrimental effects on the traffic system as a whole. And so it really is our priority to make sure that we're getting those fixed an hour or less. As we consider a signal at this part of town, one of the things that we have a struggle with our current system is making sure that our radio communications that report those failures are able to reach out to our existing traffic control system at the North Operations Center. We consistently have challenges, for example, at our Thornton and Peter signal and the Thornton and Lucid driveway entrance, being able to communicate with our overarching signal system. That's primarily due to distance and interference with the roadways between our current system and that signal. We suspect that that problem will probably be very similar at Cottonwood and Mission Parkway just because of its proximity to the freeway as well as the distance away from our traffic system. So the way we combat that is installing a hardwire connection. That original cost wasn't forecast into this original estimate and crossing over ADOT facilities and trying to have a hardwired connection to that is another concern that we're a little bit worried about with this project in order to make sure that we have a signal that when it fails, we know that it fails and we can get somebody out there to fix it quickly. So just wanted to bring up those kind of concerns from a staffing point of view and a maintenance point of view, that we're not just looking at this signal, we're really looking at our entire signal system, that quite frankly, we're getting pretty taxed on having manpower to address it all, so adding one more to that on top of, I'm sure everyone's aware of all the other signals that have been put in recently, we're a little bit concerned with making sure that we can have an operating system that works consistently every day, all day, 24-7.

Okay, then we'll move on to recommendations and next steps. So engineering's recommendation is to move forward with the roundabout alternative. City staff is currently working on selecting a design firm and so we're requesting council's recommendation as we move forward and so we can direct the design firm on which option we wanna go with. And with that, we'd be happy to answer any questions you may have, thank you. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS? SURE, BOB.

I ACTUALLY HAVE A COUPLE. WE'VE HEARD SEVERAL TIMES THAT ACCIDENT REDUCTION, THAT FATALITIES ESPECIALLY ARE REDUCED WITH A ROUNDABOUT. DO YOU KNOW HOW SIGNIFICANT THOSE STATISTICS ARE? IS THERE A PERCENTAGE REDUCTION?

I will have Clark speak to the percentages, but I do know with a roundabout, since you're going slower through the intersection, the crashes are less severe, and they're more likely to be like a rear end, like a fender bender type of accident. But I'm not sure if we have that data available.

And all that does make sense. But if it's a 1% reduction, then I don't know. But if we have some kind of numerical value, I would appreciate it.

Consulting with our other senior traffic engineer. And we are on the same page that it's in the 75% plus range reduction in severe and fatal accidents.

Well, that's significant. That's not 1%. I mean, I can look forward to that because I know that intersection as is can be dangerous and I can see with the light it would still be dangerous. My other question is that Is this a sign of the time or is there criteria that you look at an intersection? I mean, I could overreact and say, well, every intersection in town that has a light, we ought to switch them to roundabouts. But is there criteria to look at that you would have a different opinion of a roundabout and say, no, we need a light here?

So I'll have some comments. Clark might have some comments as well. First of all, I don't want to advocate that we switch to roundabouts at every intersection in town. I think that's not the appropriate solution. But to your point, from an engineering perspective, we try to look at all the tools in our toolbox. And when we look at a project like this, we're in a rural area of town. For example, where having existing electrical hookup is going to be a challenge to the project, right? We do have ED2 as the power provider out there. We tend to like our system powered through APS because that's just where most of our signals are powered through anyway right now. So that would kind of be an atypical process for the rest of our system. speeding. You brought up driving concerns in that area. This is a very rural road that is a straightaway that's approaching an interstate. It's very typical for drivers in those conditions to drive well over the speed limit. A roundabout is an effective measure to help slow those drivers down by physical barrier. You just can't go through the roundabout without slowing down. At a traffic signal, you're more likely in a scenario like this to have people running the red light because they're just going really fast down that straightaway. So there's a couple reasons why we think for this project specifically, a roundabout's a better solution. Not saying that a roundabout's a good solution for all intersections, but when we look at things in the strategic plan of council of trying to address public safety and those things, that's why we feel like this is a good example for a roundabout. Do you have anything to add to that, Clark?

I would simply reiterate that it's not a solution fit for every location. It takes the right balance of traffic in order for it to function properly. If you have too many approaches that are heavily loaded consecutively, the second or third one in the sequence may not get any vehicles all into the roundabout itself. SO IT DOES TAKE THE RIGHT SITUATION IN ORDER FOR IT TO EFFECTIVELY PROVIDE THE REDUCTION IN DELAY THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR OR THE EFFICIENCY THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR IN TERMS OF OPERATIONS.

Thank you, Bob. Any other questions?

Yeah, I've got actually a few. You talk about being a rural area out there and everything like that. Well, what about future development on the east side with the increased population as population starts to increase on the east side? Has that been put into factors on that roundabout?

One of the things that we would propose doing with our consultant after we select them is what is called sensitivity analysis. And what we do there is not only take a look at what we think will be the traffic under our normal forecasting conditions for 20 years in the future. We will take a look at a few other scenarios. We will test and see, we'll project it to 25 years and see whether the traffic signal fails at that point or the roundabout fails at that point. We will test the limits to see where one or the other fails first. and then see how many years further the other one will go before it reaches that same level of failure. As Natalie alluded, we would go ahead and when we have our consultants start looking at this, we would have the initial layout for a build-out scenario. In other words, a miner arterial on cottonwood, a major collector on mission. we would also add the north leg there to that intersection in the design. And again, it would be laid out so that we could add that effectively. So to your question now, effectively, if we look at some significant INCREASE IN GROWTH FROM THE EAST SIDE, WE COULD ADD THAT TO THE SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS.

THAT HASN'T BEEN DONE YET.

IT HAS NOT. WE NEED TO PICK A CONSULTANT TO DO THAT.

AND THEN I RECENTLY HAD THE PRIVILEGE, I GUESS, TO RIDE BEHIND A TRACTOR TRAILER THROUGH FLORENCE AT THE ROUND ABOUT, GOING REALLY SLOW AROUND IT, AND I WAS REALLY INTERESTED TO SEE HOW THAT TRACTOR TRAILER WOULD NAVIGATE THAT ROUND ABOUT. And they did just fine. They jumped, the trailer jumped the curb and was driving up on the actual roundabout on the concrete that was, had it beveled up. Is that the design you're picking?

Natalie, do you want to go ahead and go back? Yes, that is exactly the reason for that interior apron. When you take a look at that, you can see on the left side, that's a WB67. It's counting for if that's a magenta or red for the right turn, so on and so forth. You can see all the different movements that we have simulated through that intersection.

So those are those green lines that come up? around like where they're through? Yes.

So you can see where the tractor and the trailer, it's always the driver's side. If you're taking a left turn, it's the driver's side trailer wheel. If you're taking a right side, it's the passenger side wheel. And you can see all of those in that image.

Okay. And then my third question, there's some massive trees on that intersection. Is this included in the bid to tear down those trees? Because those are a nuisance problem right now.

As shown on the image that you're looking at there, we would not impact those.

They need to come down, so I'm wondering if we can't get that in this, when we're improving the intersection.

We can always remove. I think their health is being stressed right now.

They're dead. They're dead. Severely stressed. They're dead in a doornail. I was being kind to the trees. But as we improve that intersection, we sure need to look at, and as we work on that intersection, we sure need to, I would think, include those tree removals in that. If the property owner is not willing to do it.

If I may add, when we first started kind of the conceptual designs for this project, really about a year and a half, two years ago, we talked about what we were going to do with the trees. At that time, they still had green leaves and everything was happy. And we were going, oh, they're the biggest trees in the area. It would be a shame to have to get rid of them. obviously now as time has gone on, it appears that they're beginning to die. No, they're dead. So I think adding to the scope, the removal, regardless of how the project turns out, I don't think it would be a huge problem and shouldn't be, frankly, in comparison to the overall cost of the project, should be pretty cheap.

Okay. Just want to keep that in the staff's mind.

Thanks, Sean. Any other questions? Matt.

On the pie chart about the public feedback, it was 48% for a traffic signal. When doing these, what was the main reason people gave for not having a roundabout? Was it lack of Comfort with them or you know, why were we what was their biggest issue with that?

Yeah, I would say lack of comfort and then I guess lack of education on how to navigate the roundabout. Yeah, it was the top concern just unfamiliarity with the with the design.

As I answered a lot of the questions that were going on, one of them that I typically got is the ability to expand the roundabout to accommodate the four lanes along Cottonwood and three lanes along Mission in the future.

That was one of my big concerns, too, is expanding that roundabout for future expansion.

I think the biggest comment I got is, why don't we build four lanes in the bridge and everything? Of course.

Anything else, ma'am? That was all I had.

Okay. Everyone else asked.

Right. And no, that's funny, because that's, you know, of course that number looks high, you know, for the traffic signals, but I think 121 surveys, I don't know, I just, not too impressed with 121. I, you know, would have liked to see more participation. Of course, when you're on social media, there's a lot more. But, you know, I mean, you know, but people don't have the facts and you're not asking consistent questions. So, That doesn't concern me too much. It seems almost about even. But the comfort level does concern me, because there's a lot of people that are just nervous about navigating. So the safety piece was really important to me, and I know you're really pushing that with the roundabout. But after the presentation today, when you went through, and I think that was a great question, Bob, when you asked, what really is the criteria? Why are you choosing that for this location? Because I really wasn't sure. I was like, I'm fine. I'm comfortable with the signal. It's just comfortable for me. But I respect all of you as engineers. i'm not a traffic engineer i don't do this for a living you know you all see um you know the importance of all of this you know criteria so i respect your opinions and your research and what you've done you know as far as as far as outlining the why um so that criteria was really good you know being the rural area of town speeding, slowing people down, and you're right, people slow down in a roundabout. I hope no one will accept Steven Weaver. Kind of a little inside joke there. And the right balance of traffic, so that's good. But I think it's really that that safety thing and education. And how are we going to get people to feel comfortable with this? And one of the concerns was lighting. And so a traffic signal, there's light. So will there be lighting in the roundabout? I can't remember. In Florence, I've never been through there at night, but pretty lit up.

yeah so um regardless you know we have we have anytime we build a new project one of the standard requirements now is to make sure that there's adequate lighting so if there's new roadway going in whether it's a roundabout a signal new stretches of roadway we have we have to meet lighting standards particularly one of the reasons we looked at a roundabout at this intersection was because it's in a rural area, we think that there actually even might be the ability to use solar lighting as part of this project. A lot of similar projects at town of Marana and Tucson and other similar areas where they have kind of these rural roundabouts. And if if the cost and the and the the upfront cost makes sense, that's a really good solution where we could have a really good lighted intersection and also, again, reduce some of those maintenance costs from actually paying for the electricity as well.

Right, right. Okay. Yeah, so the lighting thing and then finally the transition, you know, as there's future growth, you know, which is the easier route that where we can expand? And I think you answered that question pretty clear that this would be a little bit easier to do this. I know this is a discussion right now, but I think that education piece is just gonna have to continue to tell the people why. Why, we're not just randomly putting a roundabout. Let's explain why this is important. how it addresses all of these you know different criteria and how we can you know push people because there's probably a few people in the audience that aren't excited about a roundabout i i definitely get you know i get input both ways you know so um but um i'm fine with around velvet um so i just think that continuing and if this if we continue to move this forward um you know that's going to be really important but the flow makes sense that it's going to keep people moving you know instead of stopped at a stoplight when only one car goes through or whatever so um so i i understand how that makes sense but okay any other questions any any feedback sean you you gave some you know i got everybody telling me they hate roundabouts i i really don't care for them but um this this seems like a good deal but

Is there any plans for the center of the roundabout? I mean, what's the plans for architecture? Are we putting a statue up there or just a tree in the center? Or what are we doing in the center of the thing?

INITIALLY THEY WERE DOING THINGS LIKE THAT. WE RECOMMEND THEY NO LONGER DO THAT BECAUSE OF SIGHT DISTANCE. SO THERE'S, YOU KNOW, IF WE'RE PLANNING FOR A FOURTH LEG, THE NORTH LEG IN THE FUTURE, THERE'S CRITERIA THAT WE HAVE TO FOLLOW TO BE ABLE TO LOOK LEFT AND RIGHT AND BE ABLE TO SEE AND PART OF IT IS THROUGH THE CENTER.

SO FOR LINE OF SIGHT THERE WON'T BE ANYTHING IN THE CENTER AT ALL?

THERE WILL NOT BE ANYTHING IN THE MIDDLE. IT WILL HAVE TO BE VERY LOW GROWTH IF WE WERE TO INSTALL ANYTHING.

ANY LANDSCAPE AT ALL. OKAY.

Could there be like decorative, you know, just the pavement or pavers or something to dress it up with?

You should have something to make it look nice.

I hope something. One other question, because I think we talked about this with Florence when they got the roundabout. Was there pushback at the beginning and did they feel that the community kind of, you know, after a few times through it, you know, kind of caught on and everything was good? I mean, did you guys, did anyone talk to Florence

So I don't know, I don't think we reached out to Florence specifically. We definitely could. I know that that was part of some of the concern at the initial construction of it. I know they were able to get that project done under budget, and that seemed to be what made people more happy, more than anything. It was under budget and on time, but haven't reached out to see if there was any post feedback from residents.

And I think that could be helpful if you don't mind just reaching out and find some, you know, just best practices and, you know, what they did to combat some of that feedback. So any questions? No?

other questions okay so um i can tell you in closing that maricopa is building two roundabouts uh on the west end of town on state route 238 as you come into town you will hit two roundabouts before you hit your first traffic signal right have you heard any reaction from from them at all I have not heard. I know the project is near design completion and that they had to do some special redesign because that's where there are rockets that are shipped there. I'm serious. There are rockets that are shipped through Maricopa down 238 there. And so they had to lower the profile of the roundabout because they're quite long. And so they had to be able to span a low way to get over them. They'll be built here shortly, but their concern is with speed. I mean they got people coming into town 85 miles an hour Yeah, you know and some more faster And they just need to slow them down.

Maybe we could look at Maricopa's residents to see if they've had any pushback.

Yeah I know the traffic engineer there

Okay. Let us know.

Yeah, thank you.

Okay. Anything, Larry, do we need from us at this point?

Madam Mayor, members of the council, as I said earlier, there's not a decision on this item this evening. Appreciate the feedback. I know that when we last had the dialogue with the council in October of 2025, there was some additional requests that were made for additional study. I THINK THE IMPORTANT MESSAGE THAT I WANT TO LEAVE FOR EVERYBODY IS ULTIMATELY THAT A SIGNAL AND A ROUND ABOUT DOES WORK FUNCTIONALLY. OBVIOUSLY THERE ARE SOME ADVANTAGES TO EITHER OF THOSE. You hear that our staff is highly confident that this would be a good location. I don't know, I'm not sure that we're going to be able to really tip the scales from the community, right? I mean, it may be one of those scenarios that we move forward with that it may be a 50-50 type of a scenario related to this simply because of the fact that there's not one to really point to and cast a grant and this may be the first. But ultimately we'll do the additional research that you've asked tonight with some of our neighboring communities. Marana may be another one that we ought to get some information from them as well. But what I'm hearing tonight is that we'll move forward with selecting a design team to actually at least start some level of work in this. Obviously the council will very likely have to approve that particular item and we can bring that information back to you at that point in time as well along with the scope that is being recommended at that point.

Okay, thank you. Okay, thank you. Thank you, everyone.

Just one, for a point of clarification, this intersection, if we do a roundabout, it'll be constructed quicker than what a signal would be done by how much time?

So I want to be careful how I answer. Plus or minus. Yeah. Oh, we're recording you. So yes, it would be quicker, probably by the order of about a month or two. Oh, that's a month or two. Yeah, the primary driver is going to be ordering signal equipment. So when I say it's going to be shorter, We're going to have contractors doing a lot of little work until the signal cabinet comes in. So if you look at maybe like our intersection at Centennial.

Depends on supply chain kind of deal?

Yeah. Yeah. That's going to be the major thing is we can get all the work done, but we're going to be waiting for signal equipment to be procured and get to us. So that's what's going to really delay the project as far as timeline.

So slightly quicker. Yeah. Okay. All right. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Okay, we'll go ahead and adjourn this study session, and we'll resume the regular council meeting at 7 o'clock.

Adjourned.

Good evening, everyone.

We'll go ahead and call the meeting to order, the regular council meeting. And we're going to go ahead and start with the invocation from Brian Walsh of St. Anthony's Church. And that will be followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. And if you can stand if you're willing and able. Thank you.

Mayor Fitzgibbons, city councilmen, and all present here, let us pray. Almighty God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, we gather before you this evening as servants of the people of Casa Grande. In Psalm 127, your word declares, unless the Lord builds the house, they labor in vain who build it. Unless the Lord guards the city, the guard keeps watch in vain. We pray tonight that you guard this city and guard this council. We pray that you grant these elected servants the wisdom Solomon sought. As we read, give your servants a listening heart to judge your people and to distinguish between good and evil. Holy Spirit, Spirit of truth, lead every deliberation tonight away from pride, fear, self-interest, and toward justice, mercy, and the dignity of every soul made in your image who calls Casa Grande home. As your word commands, defend the oppressed, take up the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow. We pray that no family be forgotten and may no neighbor be left behind. What a joy, what an unspeakable privilege to serve you and the people of this city. May each member of this council be reminded tonight that their service done with integrity and love is nothing less than holy As your word reminds us, whatever you do, do from the heart as for the Lord. And so with grateful and joyful hearts, we pray you bless Casa Grande, bless her people, and bless all who serve her tonight. In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, amen. Amen. Thank you.

Please join us in a pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United

Thank you, Deacon Walsh, and thank you, Mayor Pro Tempa-Dillon. Next item on the agenda is roll call. Adriana, if you can please accept for the record that the council is all present. So noted. Thank you. And next are the minutes.

Mayor Fitzgibbons, I would like to consider the minutes from July 20, 2026 City Council regular meeting, the minutes for the July 20, 2026 City Council study session, and except for the record, the minutes from the June 17, 2026 Police Personnel Retirement Board, and except for the record, the minutes from the June 6, 2026 Arts and Culture Commission meeting, and except the minutes from the June 23, 2026 Airport Advisory Board meeting. Second.

Okay, there's been a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? Okay, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, motion carries. Next item is the approval of the claims.

Mayor Fitzgerald, I move that we consider the list of claims for July 15th through the 28th, 2026.

Second. There's been a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? Okay, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? I abstain. Okay, motion carries. Okay, did you get that, Adriana? Okay, that will carry. Next item is the meeting agenda approval. Are there any changes to the meeting agenda? Larry?

Madam Mayor, I have just one change. We can remove item F1, the recognition of Rick Wilson, unless Rick is in the audience. I don't believe he's going to be. He had indicated that he had to, he can come to another meeting. We'll tie that with the recycling update that we'll be giving the Mayor and Council at that point.

Great, thank you. Any other changes to the agenda?

Mayor Fitzgibbon, I move that we move reports ahead of the executive session. Okay.

Second.

Second.

okay there's been a motion and a second is there any further discussion all those in favor please signify by saying aye aye any opposed okay motion carries so no on the f1 we'll put that um to the next another meeting so next on the agenda is the consent agenda so all items listed with an asterisk are considered routine matters and will be enacted by one Motion and one roll call vote of the council. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a council member or member of the public so requests in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered in its normal sequence of the agenda. Is there any item that anyone on the council would like to pull from the consent agenda? Any from the staff or from the public? Okay, so if we can get a motion.

So move. Second.

Okay, there's been a motion and a second. Any further discussion? So if we can get a roll call vote, please, Adriana.

Council Member Rameau? Yes. Council Member Dugan?

Yes.

Council Member Edwards? Yes. Council Member Hedleston?

Yes.

Council Member Herman?

Yes.

Mayor Perz and B. Dillon?

Yes.

Mayor Fitzgibbons?

Yes. Motion carries. Thank you. Next item are the public comments. So I have several speaker cards here. So just want for all of you here to know that the Cache Grand City Council definitely values citizen input. When called, please state your name and address and try to speak clearly into the microphone and limit your comments to three minutes or less. In fairness to all speakers, we ask that you please do not exceed your allotted time. Please note that speakers who have submitted speaker cards for a specific agenda item will be called when the applicable agenda item is reached. After all speakers who submitted speaker cards have been called, anyone who did not submit a card may approach the podium to provide comment before the public comment period closes. So in accordance with the law, the city council cannot respond to or discuss items not listed on the agenda, but may direct them to staff upon conclusion of all public comments. So I'll go ahead and start with the speaker cards that I do have. So the first one for public comments is Delia Mendel. Delia, I hope I said your name right.

Hi there. Good evening. My name is Dalia Mendivil. I'm the mother of Emilio Guillen Mendivil, who is a member of the Promote the Chance Young Chess Team. I would like to offer my personal thanks to the Mayor, Mrs. Fitzgibinson, the City Council and all its members, park and recreation staff, Daniel Gallegos, Brando Washington, Seth Chandley, Samuel Mason, Mr. Rick, and Jacob, and all of the recreation staffers for the generous support and beginner and intermediate chess classes that they allow us to take place at the recreation center. These classes have added to the growth and development of my son in a tremendous way, as they have benefited the growth and the development of the 500 or so others who have taken the class. The benefits of these programs are many. Outside the piano playing, chess is one of the few activities that develops both sides of the brain. It also improves concentration and focus, offers an opportunity to solve complex problems and help with decision making and learning consequences. In summary, this is a positive activity for the young of the city fostered and supported by very positive forward thinking administration and as a mother and supporter of this program, I would like to thank you and wish everybody a continuous success. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much, Dahlia. Okay, next is Jacob Petroski.

Jacob Petroski, 194 South Llamador Trail. Good evening. Tonight you have a chance to show the country that Casa Grande supports public safety while still respecting everyone's privacy. We keep hearing that Flock is only a license plate reader, but we know that's not true. You got one pointed at the front door of the city hall. I don't remember my license plate being on my rear end, so I guess it's more than a license plate reader. Every detection creates a record, where a vehicle was, when it was there. Put enough of those records together and the government or flock can begin constructing or reconstructing a person's life, where they worship, where they receive medical care, whose home they visit, which political meetings they attend. And the public has spoken. 978 people have signed a petition. 876 identify themselves as residents. Nearly 97% of those answering the policy questions support removing flock. Hundreds more support warrants, limits on outside agency sharing, and penalties for misuse. These are not criminals. their parents, workers, veterans, business owners, and taxpayers. At this point, doing nothing is not neutral. Silence is a decision. Delay is a decision. If nothing changes, the record will show that nearly a thousand people spoke and this council did nothing. But you have another choice. You can lead the nation by showing that public safety and constitutional safeguards can exist together. Require a warrant, limit outside agency sharing, create independent oversight and real penalties for misuse. If those protections can't be removed or can't be guaranteed, remove the system. A warrant is not an obstacle to public safety. It's what separates a legitimate investigation from unchecked surveillance. You have a chance to show the public that you've heard them and respect their wishes. This is democracy working. The country is already watching Casa Grande now. Give them an example worth following. Thank you.

Thank you, Jacob. Next card is Casey Day. Hi there, Casey. Hi, Madam Mayor.

OK. GOOD EVENING, MADAM MAYOR, COUNCIL MEMBERS, AND THE PUBLIC. BEFORE I BEGIN, I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE SOMETHING IMPORTANT. THERE'S A LOT OF INFORMATION CIRCULATING ABOUT THIS PROJECT.

CAN YOU GIVE YOUR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD? ABSOLUTELY. casey are you here to speak on the um prop the prop 207 waiver i am should i speak at a later time yes very well that's okay we had public comments if you don't mind waiting we'll have you do that okay thank you okay next for public comments is blake andrews either blake

How you doing today? My name is Blake Andrews. I live at 1367 East Kingman Place in Casa Grande. So I'm here to talk about HOA enforcement. I'm the former board president of G Diamond Ranch. I served three terms before I ended up leaving recently. One of the issues that have come to us is the enforcement of street parking on city streets. What I'm asking from the community, from you guys, is to make a ordinance where HOAs cannot enforce street parking on city maintained streets. Casa Grande is a growing community with families and we all know the economy the way it is that family members, children that drive, young adults have to move back in with their parents. The houses that were built before 2006 or before 2012, a lot of them have two car garages with two extra spots in the front. It just doesn't accommodate growing families nowadays. So people have selected to safely park in the right direction on city streets that are in their community, in front of their house, in front of their property, and they're being harassed. by the current, for my community, by the current HOA. These people, one, a lot of them come to me and said, I can barely afford to live the way I live right now, and now I'm going to get undue fines? And they've been told at community meetings things like, well, sell your vehicle. If you don't have room for it, get rid of it. You can get a bicycle. You can walk to work. Your kids can just walk to work. It's not right. We need to stand up and lead Arizona and show them, hey, look, HOAs are more like dealing with the mafia nowadays than dealing with the community. They sit here and they threaten things like, well, if you don't pay your fine, we could take your house because I want to park on a city street. You can take my house because I don't pay a fine. It's wrong. I think Casa Grande should lead the way and say, you know what? We're going to make a city ordinance that only affects the city streets that we pay our tax dollars to maintain. We already have a code enforcement that you can call if you think there's something wrong. We used to do it in my community. They would come out and they do a good job of checking it and making sure if it's legal or not. And if it's not, They have the vehicle removed or have the owner remove it. I don't see what's wrong with having our city control our city streets, not an HOA that doesn't know how to govern and uses it to personally attack certain residents. by saying things like we can take your home it's not right so all i'm asking from you guys if you could consider putting it on an agenda to look at a city ordinance the hoas on city streets that are maintained by this city that they cannot enforce street parking thank you thank you blake

Okay, next speaker card is Benjamin. Oh gosh, Benjamin, I'm really sorry. I can't read this last name. Okay. Hi, Benjamin. If you can give your last name and then your address too, please.

My name is Benjamin Hanrian. I live at 2552 North Millie Place. I recently discovered that we are integrating flock cameras as a city. I find that disturbing. That opens a door for adults to watch and ogle other parents' children, children as young as five years old to as old as 18. As someone who just turned 18 in their senior year of high school, I feel unsafe in my own school. Do you like being watched on a daily, at your work, where you live, by hundreds of people who you don't know? If I know anything about today's youth, they speak up and question those in authority. I yield my time.

Thank you, Benjamin. The next speaker card is Michael Hanrian. Sorry, did I say that wrong, Michael? No, you're good. Okay.

Close enough. Michael Hanrian, 2552 North Millie Place. Flock is a big company and The mass surveillance around town is not necessarily just that one company. If you were to get rid of that, I guarantee you another company would come. It's about mass surveillance. FLAC has gotten a bad reputation. That's why they don't want you guys using those names, referring to flock, or at least in general, that's what the internal memos are saying, they have a whole, ORGANIZATION TO STRIKE DOWN OR TRY AND SHOUT DOWN THOSE THINGS, THE CRITICISMS THAT PEOPLE HAVE ABOUT FLOCK. IN PARTICULAR, LIKE YOUR SAFE CITIES INITIATIVE, THERE'S INTERNAL MEMOS FROM FLOCK THAT HAVE BECOME PUBLIC THAT SAY THAT THEY'VE TOLD CITIES TO CALL IT SAFE CITIES. SO I'M WONDERING IF IT'S YOUR IDEA OR THEIRS. Who knows? Supposedly a survey was gone around that the main thing that people were concerned about was safety. I wonder what the cameras are supposed to be fixing as far as that. And for the mass surveillance in our town, there's 200 plus cameras here and it's really changed the way I live in this town. I don't really feel like I can drive anywhere. I've changed the way I move around the town a lot. There's something called a cooling effect, if you're familiar with that, where you just choose to do different things or move differently because of adverse effects or things that you choose not to be a part of, like taking pictures of you everywhere you go. By and large, I don't spend a whole lot of money in Casa Grande anymore. I don't go to many restaurants anymore. just in our drive to get here, which I normally don't drive towards city center here. I passed 21, maybe even more cameras just to get here. In the beginning of June, my family, we went to California. We spent two weeks there going up and down and looking at the national parks. I saw maybe that many, about 20 cameras in that entire time. Ooh, 20 seconds. Let me bring it back to, uh maybe this the safeness is maybe they're seeing these homeless on the streets and maybe those those homeless people we can help help put that 10 million dollars that we have in line to better better uh better places like to help barb barbara with our homeless thank you michael

And then Benjamin, you had another card here. Did you fill out two cards or no?

Yes, it was a mistake.

Okay, no problem. Okay, Barbara Sundust.

Hi, Barbara.

My name is Barbara Sundust, and I live at 1273 East Cordova Avenue. I have three things to say, so I'm going to have to really talk fast. Number one, I was happy to see that they moved the cooling station from Lincola to the Senior Center. I went over there on Tuesday to see, and there were like five people, and they were comfortably sleeping, and they had their heads down, and they were resting, and the only... then I'm thinking, okay, at 10 o'clock, bam, you're out, and what happens to you if you have to walk 10 blocks to get someplace to stay? I mean, it's just, we just need to try to do something to, I mean, and the senior center seems like a perfect place to be, all night for them maybe there's some way we can work that out maybe because it just seems like it's good but it's not good enough is my point um and the other thing um i actually was grateful i feel bad i didn't get to see the rick rick wilson commendation or recognition because he's one of the reasons why our laundry love can exist All the money he and his volunteers have, they give away. And like we did Laundry Love last Wednesday, 152 people, 760 loads of wash, $2,585 in one day. And these are people, families, who can't afford to live someplace and take care of themselves and eat and clean their clothes. And I mean like, the people, it's families, it's elderly women, they should be safe, they should have a place to be. Anyway, they're always grateful and it's a form of dignity for them. We don't do the laundry, they do the work. We just give them the soap and the money and so they have a sense of dignity. So I gotta say this next thing. The last time when Michael talked about the flock system and he said about giving me $10 million, I know, not me, the city so we could buy a house, and I was thinking that, you know, when people come to ask for some community money for something, maybe they could make a little deal, like instead of $1.4 million for a pickleball court, how about $1 million and take the $400,000 and buy a house for the elderly people? Or when... Oh, there's another one I thought. Oh, the tower, the communication tower. Instead of putting a tree on top of it, just put the communication tower there and use the tree money to buy something for elderly people to live. And then when they talked about the air conditioning, because I really listen when I'm here, the air conditioning for the animal shelter, what about making a deal with the air conditioning guy to do something for the elderly? or for the homeless, so.

Thank you, Barbara. Thank you. Okay, that was all the speaker cards that I have besides the one for later. Is there anyone else that would like to come and address the council?

there if you can make sure you give your name and address good evening council thank you my name is nancy wood 513 speckle road casagrand arizona i'm just going to briefly say a couple of things that i have on my mind and things with the heat that we have and everything this summer it's been pretty tough and one of the things i would love to see the city do is work a lot more on cooling their city down which getting vegetation trees planted in areas where you know even going to school walking downtown or wherever you know working toward providing safer, cooler areas for the city and the people in it. And this comes to also where we have all the new construction, such as the data centers. And these kind of environmental buildings create a lot of heat, infrastructure, cement. It's going to increase and not be good for our environment. And the fact that these centers are storing our data, another thing is the flock cameras. Storing data takes up a lot of space with computers, electricity, water, and everything that we need that our residents need to use for daily life. And storing a bunch of Data where I go to the grocery store, where I go to my friend's house or where I go to a neighbor's or wherever. I mean, we don't need to store all this information for years to come and have everybody look at it and get access to it. And access can be from not just here in Casa Grande. It could be somebody in New York. It could be somebody in Florida. It could be somebody in India. It could be somebody in Japan. It could be wherever. When you put data and store it, it gets available to many more things than you want. So I'm really against the flock cameras as far as what they would create for our cities. And the buildings that they propose for the data center that's here tonight is, I know there are owls in the area. And I know they're on Clayton Road. They've been there. The environment the data center creates is not very environmentally friendly. And I think we need to think about how we do things. We do need the technology. And I'm not against it. It's how we use it. And let's not hurt everyone. Thank you.

Thank you, Nancy. Is there anyone else? Sure, come on. If you can give your name and address, please.

Pedro Encinas, 700 East Rodeo Road.

So this whole flock thing, you know, in my short quick run for council, congratulations to those who got their seats, keeping their seats and those coming in. I learned a lot about this whole flock and the people who speak and those who show up and those who don't. And one thing that really confuses me in the last meeting we had here, we had a gentleman speaking about how he's out in public. And where I get confused is we have to understand that we're out in public. So I've had this conversation with my wife and family members and other people as well around the city. It's like, you're in public, folks. So when you step out into the public, you're in the public eye. It doesn't matter who's watching you. You're in public. If you're in your home, I understand invasion. People say, oh, it's taking away our amendments, our rights. I say, no, it's not. You're in public. When you walk out of your home, if you want to get drunk and be a buffoon in your house and fall over and do what you want, you're fine. It's your house. The moment you walk out into public, now you become a public nuisance. You can be in trouble and get arrested for being drunk in the street. You walk into public. So when you're out in the public... It doesn't matter if there's slot cameras on what's watching you. You don't get just 20 cameras on your way here or wherever you're at, or your food store, the grocery store, who's watching you order a Blizzard at Dairy Queen. It becomes the public. So your invasion of privacy will happen in your home. If there's cameras pointing in your house, I would understand like, hey, that camera's really weirding me out when I'm taking a shower. It's actually like watching me. That'd be different. And so people are getting real touchy about this flock system. I'm for it. I stand for it. I openly say it. I had my council. invited people to come speak to me when i was running for council and i tell you straight up i'm for the flock system i'm walking around i feel comfortable i got my wife and my two kids one in a stroller walking down the street i feel great that somebody's watching if somebody hits the corner and it runs a red light and hits me and i'm screaming and bleeding and yelling and my wife's calling 9-1-1 hey what happened some vehicle just hit my husband he's a guy in the background screaming like a baby what kind of vehicle were they driving you know the silver Pick up. Which way were they going that way? The cameras will catch them. Then you'll be happy. Or if one of your kids comes up missing, my kid didn't make it home, what happened? Oh, he got abducted. Catch the flat camera. Then you'll be thankful that they're there. Your kid got taken on the way in a public place. Your kid wasn't kidnapped from home. That could happen. But they were walking home and they got kidnapped in the public. And now we can have the flock system to find out where that child's at who took them a vehicle. So that's just my, you know, what I've talked to people about. And I've heard both sides of the situation. And I think we just need to understand that when you step out into public, It's called the public eye. Things are watching. People are watching. It's what it is. I feel completely comfortable that I'm walking around this city safe, safe, a safe city that somebody's watching, that my kids are going to be OK if something happens, that myself will be OK. So just wanted to clarify that, that you are in the public, folks. When you step out, you're stepping out of your house into the public. Thank you.

Thank you, Pete.

Thank you.

Hi there, if you can make sure you give your name and address.

Eric Rivera, 1750 East Okotoa Drive, Casa Grande, Arizona. I didn't realize flock was such a big thing. I get it that we're in public, but who's watching the public? Who's getting to watch it? I mean, as you get into technology, technology offers a little bit more scary things. I have five girls. I DON'T WANT SOMEBODY ON THOSE CAMERAS THAT GETS OFF ON WATCHING LITTLE KIDS. WHO'S WATCHING THEM? I MEAN, WE DON'T KNOW WHO'S WATCHING, I GUESS, WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT BEING IN THE PUBLIC. I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE IN HERE CAN TAKE MY PICTURE. THAT'S DIFFERENT. I MEAN, THAT'S WHERE IN PUBLIC I'M WALKING OUT. I KNOW MY SURROUNDINGS. I KNOW THE PEOPLE AROUND ME. CAMERAS ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT. THERE'S NO NEED FOR SOMEONE TO BE WATCHING US AND TAKING OUR DATA, TAKING OUR LICENSE PLATES, READING OUR INFORMATION, FIGURING OUT HOW WE JUDGE OR WHAT WE EAT OR WHERE WE'RE GOING, BECAUSE YOU GUYS ARE USING THAT DATA FOR SOMETHING. AND WHO'S WATCHING THE PEOPLE THAT ARE SHARING THE DATA? BECAUSE I DON'T, ACCORDING TO over across country. It could be here. It could be in India. We don't know. And that's what I think the public is worried about. I think that's what the concerning is. We don't know and there's no way to figure it out because I mean, I'm not smart enough to get on there and figure out who's watching me. I mean, I know everybody in here, and I'm okay with that, but I can't control who else is watching. I don't know who's behind the camera. I don't know if somebody over there is getting off on looking at little kids. I don't know that. I do know I can feel safe around the people I am and the places I choose to go. So I would think IN THOSE CASES, I DO UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS. I DIDN'T ACTUALLY KNOW CASAGRAN WAS GETTING THAT BAD AND, YOU KNOW, I GUESS SO. IT'S A LOT TO THINK ABOUT TONIGHT AND THE FLOT CAMERAS IS JUST, I DIDN'T REALLY KNOW THAT THEY COULD DO ALL THE STUFF THAT THEY DO UNTIL COMING TO THIS MEETING. I wish more people got involved and came to these meetings so you could understand, but I thank you for all that you guys do and all the information you guys give. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, is there anyone else? Public comments? Okay, if there's no one else, I'll go ahead and close the public comments. And now we are on item K1. And is that you, Adriana?

Mayor and council that K1 ordinance number 1178.477 was first introduced for the first read in July 20th. It passed with a six to one vote and it's on K1 in case you need additional discussion.

Okay, any discussion? This is the final, so we just need a motion to approve the final ordinance. if there's no questions.

Okay. Mayor Fitzgibbons, I move to approve Ordinance Number 1178.477 as presented. Second.

Okay, there's been a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? Okay, Adriana, if we can get a roll call vote.

All right, Council Member Rummel? Yes. Council Member Dugan?

Yes.

Council Member Edwards? Yes. Council Member Huddleston?

Yes.

Council Member Herman?

Yes.

Mayor Pro Tempidone?

No.

Mayor Fitzgibbons? Yes. Motion carries, 6-2-1.

Thank you. Okay, next item, K-2. Mary, hi. Hello.

So tonight we're here to discuss the Proposition 202 funds for the Tohono O'odham Indian Nation applications. Under Proposition 202, Arizona tribes agreed to share a portion of their revenues with the state of Arizona. Of the revenue shared, 12% is made available to cities, towns, and counties for the purpose of benefiting the public through either the direct distribution to the local government or in the form of a deposit to the State of Arizona Commerce and Economic Development Commission Local Community Fund. On May 6, 2026, the Tonno Odom Nation announced they were seeking requests for funding proposals from the Arizona cities, towns, counties, and nonprofit organizations. Applications had to be submitted by June 9, 2026. As part of the requirement, non-governmental agencies had to identify a municipality that agrees to accept the grant funding from the Tonno Odom Nation on the organization's behalf if the award is made. Due to the limited time between the RFP announcement and the application deadline, there was insufficient time to present the request to Mayor and City Council before applications were due. Applicants were advised that their request for the City of Casa Grande to serve as their pass-through agency would be presented to the Mayor and City Council for approval following the application deadline. The city received ten applications from non-profit organizations. Seven applicants have an established presence in Casa Grande and provide direct services to Casa Grande residents. Three applicants are requesting the city of Casa Grande to serve as a pass-through agency for the first time. These organizations primarily provide services countywide or statewide. Because the city does not have a formal policy or evaluation process for supporting pass-through applications from organizations whose services extend beyond Casa Grande, staff is requesting that the city council consider this distinction when evaluating and selecting applicants for submission. If council chooses not to support a particular application, the applicant will have time to seek sponsorship from another eligible municipality to serve as their pass-through agency. So the applications that have been submitted to us are the City of Casa Grande. We did a hotel based housing for individuals experiencing homelessness. City of Casa Grande Emergency Housing Repair and Accessibility Assistance Program. Casa Grande Police Department for turf conversion project, the Casa Grande Police Department for city council chamber hardening project, City of Casa Grande Arts and Culture for mini grants, Casa Grande Public Safety Foundation for the back to school shop with the cop, Against Abuse for transitional living safety improvements, the Art Mobile Arizona for mobile art excess vehicle replacement project, Canary for Spotlight Program, Legion Lex Institute for Criminal Case Readiness and Courtroom Testimony Certification Program, Pinal Alliance for Economic Growth, Achieve Pinal Experience for the ARP Experience, Seeds of Hope for the Hot Lunch Program, St. Anthony's of Padua Catholic Church for Baptismal Fount, font, United Way of Pinal County for Reading by Third Grade Initiative, the United States Navy SCC Black Eagle Squadron for Sea Cadet program. And out of those, like we mentioned before, three of them do not have an established presence in Casa Grande, but it's up to you to decide if you want to support them.

Okay, thank you, Mary. So, and I was actually surprised that there were three on here that weren't cash grant based organizations. It seems as though I've been on the council for a long time and I don't remember receiving, especially startup type organizations. So I can see if there was history and if there was data to show how many cash grant citizens. but it seems as though these are newer, is that right?

Yes, they've not applied through us before.

So I know, of course I met with the Tohono O'odham representatives and I'm extremely grateful for what they do for our community and same with Gila River. We've talked to both of them and appreciate what they do for our city. And so my concern is that when we have competing grants on here, it concerns me that there's so many organizations that have strong, strong presence and make a huge impact for the residents of this city. So I'm concerned about that. I guess maybe because we didn't have a policy in the past. I can understand why you brought it. But it does concern me, and I do know other cities don't service pass through for that reason. There's so much competing, there's so much need out there. And so I just think it's important that we support and do whatever we can for those that are making an impact for our residents. And especially for these startup organizations, if they can show data that proves what the percentage is maybe in the future. you know that's up to the council if we want to do a you know policy you know you know and evaluate them on a you know case by case or whatever but i i personally um i'm comfortable supporting the castran organizations that's me which ones are not i'm i know two of them i know the canary oh they're there because i do want to say that the sea cadet

program has an active presence here in Casa Grande. I don't know about their particular.

And it's a county-wide program.

But they do help the Rotary Club a lot. I do know that. Oh, okay.

So you have seen that.

I have seen this in cadets, yes. But I am in favor of only supporting Casa Grande. But I would include them because I have seen them in Casa Grande helping out.

Did they say specifically why it's countywide versus just being in Casa Grande for the the black eagles squadron.

I know that I I believe the same as councilmember Herman they did mention that they have a an alliance with the VFW but I don't know anything about the organization.

I guess my question would be, so we're just acting as a pass-through agency. It doesn't reduce how much we would, anything anybody would receive that would help cast grant anyway, correct? Or does it actually affect?

I don't know. I don't know how To'ono O'odham looks at who they fund and who they don't fund.

That's my concern as well, is that will they be competing for those grant dollars with the other organizations if they only allocate so much to the city of Casa Grande? Now are they competing for outside of Casa Grande?

Yeah, typically with Tawana Odom, I don't know off the top of my head exactly how many, but typically the city receives two to three awards per year from them.

And so they kind of would be competing then, in that fact.

Yeah.

I think also the time and energy that you have to put into it, in addition to what you already do for just the people in Casa Grande, I think that's a lot to ask of you guys as well, to serve as that pass-through. Because there's work on your part, on our part, involved with that, correct? There is.

OK. Any any motion or? How would you guys like to move forward with this?

Can we can we do the alternative where it's approved resolution authorizing the city to serve as? Pastor as a pastor agency only for applications that primarily serve Casa ground. Residents.

I feel comfortable with that. OK, do you want to make that motion?

Well, first, I think we need to read the resolution. OK. Sorry about that. We can put it in front, and then we can talk about wording the amendment.

OK. Thanks, Brett.

OK. Resolution number 5956, a resolution of the Council of the City of Casa Grande, Arizona, authorizing the submission of Proposition 202 grant applications to the Tohono O'odham Nation on behalf of various agencies for the purpose of benefiting the general public for fiscal year 2026 to 2027, authorizing the city manager to accept and execute grant agreements with the Tohono O'odham Nation for any grants awarded to the agencies, authorizing the city finance director to accept and disburse funds as necessary and authorize the transfer of budget authority. So.

And I think that hearing what I'm hearing, I certainly understand the sentiment. I think it'd be hard to amend the resolution exactly that way. But if what we're wanting to do is remove two items from our current pass through, I think the easiest thing would do either to make the motion originally or to make it and then amend it to remove those items, I'm guessing, from the description. Those would be C and D from the community program area of section one of the resolution.

We move so easy.

What do you see in D and section, one of the resolution and community programs. He has and we're working on the resolution. So each one of those has it. I can only guess from having been here for a long time to names that I didn't recognize that those are likely the ones that were discussed.

right okay so did you get that becca on the resolution itself so i moved to approve resolution number five nine five six except for c and d of the community programs of the community programs second okay okay okay there's been a motion and a second is there any further discussion

Okay, if we can get a roll call vote, please.

Council Member Rameau? Yes. Council Member Dugan? Yes. Council Member Edwards? Yes. Council Member Huddleston?

Yes.

Council Member Herman? Yes. Mayor Protham V. Dillon?

Yes.

Mayor Fitzgibbons? Yes. Motion carries.

Thank you. Item K-3, Adriana.

Mayor and Council, before you is the resolution canvassing the official results of the city's July 2026 primary election, as required by Erie Center Vice Statutes. Pinal County Board of Supervisors earlier today adopted the official results. The attached certificate of condensed results reflects the final election results. In accordance with Arizona law and city ordinance number 3059, candidates receiving the required majority of votes cast for the respective office are declared elected at the primary election. The official results reflect the reelection of Lisa Navarro Fitzgibbons as mayor. Council members Anthony Edwards and Matt Herman were each reelected to another term of the city council. And Billy Davis was elected to fill the third council seat. The elected officials will be sworn into office on the first meeting in December, which is December 7, 2026. Because the mayor's office and all three council seats were decided at the primary election, the city will not hold a general election for those offices this November. Staff recommends adoption of the resolution canvassing the election and approving the certificate of results.

Okay, any questions?

Congratulations.

All right. Congratulations. And welcome to Billy and Bob. We're going to miss you, but you still have a few more months with us.

A little bit.

So we're going to work you hard while you're here. OK. So if we can get a resolution number, please.

Okay, resolution number 5959, a resolution of the mayor and council of the city of Cassegrain, Arizona, declaring and adopting the results of the primary election held on July 21st, 2026.

Mayor Fitzgibbon. I move to approve resolution number 5959 as presented. Second.

Okay, there's been a couple motions and a couple seconds, but if we can get a roll call vote, please.

Council Member Romo? Yes. Council Member Dugan?

Yes.

Council Member Edwards?

Yes.

Council Member Hellston?

Yes.

Council Member Herman? Yes. Mayor Pro Tempe Dillon?

Yes.

Mayor Fitzgibbons? Yes. Motion carries.

Thank you, Adriana. Okay, next item, K-4. And is that you, Rob? All right.

evening mayor and council as you all know the city is planning on holding a charter amendment election in may 2027 and prior to charter elections in charter cities often a charter committee is formed and the purpose for that charter committee is to review the charter to take a look and to also provide more community input and support and Guidance, because ultimately, in order for a charter amendment to be approved, it has to receive a majority vote from the voters. And so these committees review the charters, make recommendations to the mayor and council for the mayor and council to consider. Ultimately, the decision of what to put on the ballot is the mayor and council's decision. And the city previously held a charter amendment election back in 2022. It was a very hot election. There was a lot of stuff that got voted down all over the state. And of all the different amendments that were put on the ballot, only one to put term limits on council members was approved in that election. However, the proposed amendments are still from that election in 2022 are still relevant today. And that's the primary driver for holding additional charter amendment election next year. And so the proposed charter committee, that part of this resolution will be made up of seven members that will review the charter, will make recommendations for what to include on the ballot. They'll meet regularly for what's anticipated to be approximately four to six weeks or until a consensus can come. And then at that point, the plan is to have the chair of that committee present the recommendations to the mayor and council for your consideration. And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions.

Okay, any questions? And I know the council submitted some names. We were finalizing the names and getting confirmation. So you'll be getting that out to the council soon?

Correct, so the names have been finalized. It's the list we put together. And so we've reached out to all the members and they've started to send their availability in. So we're working to finalize that first meeting date with them.

Okay, great. Okay, thank you, Rob. Any other questions, comments? Okay, thank you. If we can get a resolution number, please.

Resolution number 5958, a resolution of the council of the city of Casa Grande, Arizona, creating the city charter review committee for the May 2027 special election and authorizing the appointment of committee members by the mayor.

Mayor Fitzgibbons, I move to approve resolution number 5958 as presented. Second.

Okay, there's been a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? Adriana, if we can get a roll call vote, please.

Council Member Romo? Yes. Council Member Dugan?

Yes.

Council Member Edwards? Yes. Council Member Huddleston?

Yes.

Council Member Herman? Yes. Mayor Pro Tempe Dillon?

Yes.

Mayor Fitzgibbons? Yes. Motion carries.

Great, thank you. Okay, item K5, and that's you, Larry.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, members of the council. As Stephen's pulling up the PowerPoint presentation that I'll be using tonight, I thought I would just make a couple of comments related to this topic. Obviously, this is a continuation of the July 20th council study session related to a Proposition 207, Private Property Rights Protection Act claim that's been filed with the city. I ultimately have a number of of pages that I'm gonna be going through, but because of the complexity, Mayor, I will be at least trying to establish a format by which staff will give a presentation. We have property owners that would like to present as well to the mayor and council, but I think ultimately, first and foremost, I want to thank Jody and the dispatch team for the stories that they've run. I think they've been very accurate. on the information that's brought before us today. This particular topic is a bit complex, and so please bear with me, but if you have questions along the way, don't hesitate to ask. The item before the Mayor and Council is a resolution considering a binding waiver of enforcement with binding operational restrictions pursuant to the Private Property Rights Protection Act to resolve a Proposition 207 claim arising from the city's adoption of a zoning ordinance requiring a conditional use permit for data center development. This item is not a zoning case or a hearing, and so ultimately I'm wanting to stress that simply so that everybody has the context of it. If the proposed resolution is supported this evening, it would remove the requirement for the property owner to obtain a conditional use permit by following the stipulations outlined in the proposed binding waiver with binding operational restrictions. and when development of a data center, if and when a development of a data center on this property transpires. The waiver is only valid if the owner complies with the conditions and requirements included in this waiver. I want to stress this, tonight is a land use. It's not, again, not a zoning case. The waiver applies only to the conditional use permit requirement for the data center on this property. There's several properties that's embedded within this particular location. I'll show a map to the mayor and council here in a bit. It does not change or waive any of the city's zoning regulations, land use laws, or other applicable city requirements. And I know, Mayor, you had mentioned that you've got some cards for speakers this evening. I just want, there may be others. I know that we've indicated that that at the mayor's discretion, the public will be allowed the opportunity to comment following the presentation by staff and property owners. I guess just to set a bit of the decorum for this evening, the city recognizes that the item before the council is of significant interest to members of our community and that individuals may hold differing opinions. We appreciate everyone who has taken the time to attend and participate in this process. We respectfully ask that all comments be directed to Council and myself, remain focused on the agenda item, and be delivered in a respectful and courteous manner. And this group has already appeared to be in line, but we discourage personal attacks, applause, demonstration, or other actions that would disrupt this meeting and prevent others from speaking. during this session. We also ask members of the audience to extend the same courtesy to each other speaking regardless of whether you agree or disagree with comments. Respectful disagreement is an important part of public process, but everyone deserves the opportunity to express their viewpoints without interruption. We thank you in advance for your cooperation, your civility, and the participation in this process. We appreciate your help in ensuring that tonight's meeting is respectful, orderly, and productive for everyone. As I mentioned, a full history of the zoning amendments to include the Planning Department's prior zoning interpretation, the Arizona Private Property Rights Protection Act Proposition 207, the applicable statutes, and the proposed Proposition 207 waiver that's being introduced tonight. were fully outlined in the July 20th, 2026 council session. I intend to highlight those because I think it gives a context, but I will not go into as much depth unless council has any specific questions related to those items. I do want everybody to know, particularly the mayor and council, that since our last meeting in July, the city has provided an online engagement tool for public comment. We also have received emails that have been included into the record. I know the council has received several emails Those were put into the record, but I do want to just highlight very quickly the types of activity that we saw through our public engagement platform to give the council a context and the residents a context. We've had roughly 179 views of the webpage and roughly 146 views of our FAQ document that we put out. We've had emails that have been submitted to a number of departments. Those include two in opposition to the PIO team. We had 12 comment cards that were submitted on the engaged CASA grant, nine of which opposed, one that supported, and two that were neutral. We had five interactions on social media with our public information team, three that opposed, two that were neutral. We had nine direct emails to the council, two of which were opposed and seven that were in support. Other staff did not receive any email. We did not receive any specific phone calls related to other than the meeting time this evening. So just to summarize that for all of you opposed, there was roughly, out of the 28 submittals, 16 opposed, eight supported, and four were neutral. I think the mayor and council of the community knows there were a couple of polls that were put out as well that had a variety of different feedback on that. So with that, Madam Mayor, members of the council, if I can just spend a bit of time talking about the background that what brings us here today, as well as the, let me make sure I'm advancing the slideshow as we go through this, the background that what brings us here today, as well as ultimately the Prop 207 components of this. I did add a picture for the council and for our residents just to kind of understand what a data center development might look like, the land use. Here's a couple of pictures, one of a campus itself, a very common industrial use, and then an interior of a data center itself. And then... I've already talked about this timeline. I should have been advancing as I was saying those last parts. But in any event, in late 2024 and early 2025, the city began reviewing how data centers should be regulated under our city code. At that time, data centers were becoming much more common throughout Arizona, but our zoning code did not specifically identify them as either a permitted use or a conditional use. Because of the size and unique operating characteristics of these facilities, staff believe the city needed to establish a clear policy before applications were submitted. As part of the process, staff researched how other Arizona communities were addressing data centers. We found that many cities were allowing data centers, most of those in their industrial area, but some in a variety of zoning districts, but ultimately found that a number of the cities were in the process of updating their zoning codes to place data centers in industrial areas specifically, and in many cases requiring additional review because of concerns related to infrastructure, water use, electric demand, noise, and compatibility with surrounding land uses. The city's staff goal was never to encourage or discourage data centers. Instead, our goal was to ensure that these facilities, if they were developed, they would be located in appropriate areas, supported by adequate infrastructure, and developed in a manner that protects the community's long-term interests. In 2025, we began to process the zoning amendment. Staff proposed amendments to the zoning code that would specifically recognize data centers as a permitted use in the industrial zones and conditional use in B4 zoning districts. During the same time, two property owners requested a formal zoning interpretation asking whether a data center would be allowed within their industrial, their I2 property under the city's existing regulations. If I can, let me find the map, Mayor, that shows the location as I outlined in the July 20th meeting. The areas that we're talking about is on his West of Ethington road South of Clayton and North of he'll have been highway there is a you'll see the square that is actually omitted from these particular sites prime which is a future APS substation I believe there's a couple of other holdings there that may not be included in APS but they ultimately are are processing the substation in this area. After reviewing the request, the planning director determined that because of the zoning code did not specifically address data centers, the proposed use was most similar to a warehouse and therefore could be considered a permitted use under the existing I-2 zoning district. The interpretation also noted that staff was already preparing zoning amendments that would specifically address data centers and would be presented through the process the Planning and Zoning Commission and Mayor and Council later that year. The proposed zoning amendments were then reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission, which unanimously approved recommendations to the mayor and council. When these amendments reached the floor of the city council in September of 2025, the council modified staff's recommendation. Rather than allowing data centers as a permitted use in an industrial zone districts, the council required that future data centers obtain a conditional use permit. Obviously, there was some discussion at that time. I'm sure many of you recall that. The purpose of this change was to provide additional public review and to allow the city to evaluate issues such as water usage, electrical demand, power generation, and noise on a project by project basis. The ordinance establishing that requirement was adopted in October of 6th of 2025. I'll move now, Madam Mayor, to the Proposition 207 claim. Several months later, the property owners filed a notice of claim under Proposition 207. Proposition 207 is an Arizona law approved by voters in 2026. I'm sorry, 2006. It allows a property owner to seek compensation if a land use regulation reduces the value or use of private property. The property owners argued that the planning director's earlier interpretation allowed a data center as a permitted use and that changing the zoning code to require conditional use permit reduced the value of the property. The claim requests approximately $70 million for each property owner. As you saw, there were two holdings of variety parcels that were included in each of those holdings, totaling approximately $140 million in compensation. Alternatively, a waiver, they requested that a waiver from the conditional use permit requirement for the specific property be considered as part of that claim. Under Arizona Private Property Rights Protection Act Prop 207, property owners may be entitled to compensation if a new land use law restricts a use that was previously allowed on their property and as a result reduces the property's fair market value. Simply put, Proposition 207 is designed to protect property owners when a government land use decision limits how their property can be used or developed in any way that diminishes the value. The statutes driving this, in fact, ultimately do allow for a variety of options to cities that are served with these propositions. Under Proposition 207, the city has four options. We could repeal the zoning regulation that the mayor and council had approved in October. We could pay the compensation, estimated $140 million, We can deny the claim and defend the matter in court, or we can grant a waiver that applies only to the affected property. After evaluating each option, staff ultimately established a series of evaluation tools, but when reviewing that, we believe that under the option of repealing the existing ordinance that a conditional use process remains an important planning tool because it allows the city to review large data center projects individually and apply project-specific conditions that protect public infrastructure and community resources. Staff also does not recommend authorizing compensation. The owners have indicated in their notice that the variance between the two land uses would exceed collectively $140 million, while the amount of any potential compensation claim depends upon competent appraisal evidence comparing the property's fair market value immediately before and immediately after the regulatory action. An obligation of this magnitude would exceed the city's available unrestricted reserves and would require the city to evaluate a combination of financing strategies, including the use of available fund balances, budget reallocations, reductions or deferrals of capital improvement programs, could require the issuance of debt and adjustments for future operating expenditures. One of the questions, if I might pause there, Madam Mayor, that we've received is how would $140 million impact the city's budget? It's very difficult for me to sit here today and really outline that on a case-by-case basis. We would obviously have to put a strategy together, but just to give everybody a context, our general fund budget for fiscal year 27 that we just passed is roughly $100 million, so this is one almost 1.5 times that. And so it would be a combination of efforts that ultimately we would have to undertake. If the city denies the claim, litigation would likely follow. While the city has legal arguments it could present, no one can predict the outcome of litigation. If the property owners were successful, the city could face substantial financial judgment that would severely limit service delivery to our citizens in addition to significant legal costs. In the July 20th meeting, Madam Mayor and members of the council, I began to outline the approach that staff was actually working on as we went into our public engagement component. And that approach really is very consistent with the approach taken by several Arizona municipalities in resolving Proposition 207 claims using property-specific waivers. And ultimately, we ended up engaging the property owners and their teams in discussions to identify operational and development standards that would become binding requirements for the project in lieu of a conditional use permit. And I would say that they've been very willing since the onset to engage the document that you have before you this evening, ultimately includes a number of those conditions. I'm going to work through those here in a second. These overall conditions, the discussions have focused on establishing objective performance standards, addressing water consumption, electrical demand, noise mitigation, decommissioning requirements, and community benefits. Quite frankly, similar to what would ultimately, many of the same elements that may be considered in a conditional use permit. The property owner has displayed a willingness to incorporate these standards into the proposed waiver and operational restrictions, thereby ensuring that if a future project is developed and operated in accordance with enforceable conditions that could protect the city's long-term planning and infrastructure objectives for industrial development. Let me spend just a minute providing a bit of an overview on these operational conditions that are embedded within the embedded into the binding waiver that you had before you this evening, Mayor and Council. There's a couple of points that I'd like to point out to everybody before I get into the specifics, but I do want to note that there is a direct nexus between water and power usage, and that system technologies for both continue to advance rapidly, particularly in this particular industry. Certain water usage systems have an impact on power demand and certain power generation options will drive water demand. To this end, the developer has expressed the desire to implement solutions for each that are based on best practices and technologies that can reduce water usage and power demand. These actual demands can't be formally established today because the final end user has not yet been identified. However, they're committed to taking on the studies and submitting appropriate documents to the city for both the water and power systems that will be contemplated if a development ensues. and submitting those documents to the city for our review prior to the building permit being issued. So let me just start with that. It is also important to recognize that the city is neither the water nor the electric utility provider. It becomes part of the challenge as we're moving through this. We have to work very closely with our utility partners. We have members of APS, as well as Arizona Water here tonight. If there's specific questions, we have an opportunity for the council to engage any of them. But ultimately, a lot of what you'll find embedded within the waivers are requirements that ultimately will drive any type of development for data center use back to these utility providers to assist. But I think when I'm done outlining, you'll see how we tried to build the foundation around each of those. Should the owner seek, oh, sorry, I've already said that. Mayor, I'll move on to the next sentence here. Some of the comments expressed by our residents have really focused on many of the conditions that we are outlining. There's some that they don't, and I'll try to address some of those individually when I'm done going through the key components and conditions that are within the waiver. Let me start specifically with water use. You'll find that the owner shall comply with all applicable water use regulations, service agreements, conservation requirements, and allocation limitations approved by federal, state, and local water provider serving the property. The second component of that is that prior to the issuance of a building permit for any data center structure, the owner shall submit to the planning director a cooling technology disclosure identifying the proposed primary cooling method and provide an estimated water demand for the applicable phase. The next component, the owner shall not use once through cooling systems and shall limit water demand for any data center and on power uses to an aggregate of 800 acre feet per year of potable water. I do want to pause there because I know that that number sounds really high in the context of just the typical water usage. That the the land that is being proposed this evening that we're considering this proposition 207 waiver for is actually farmed today and there's a People have asked specifically about what type of water demand that is being utilized on the on the crops that are growing out there Wow, while city staff could not get the exact number and there's a reason primarily driven by the fact that there's a Some of that could be groundwater, some of that could be San Carlos Irrigation District irrigation water and the like. Through the analysis we've done, and we have verified this, that growing crops on roughly 480 acres would generate, would actually create about 1,240 acre feet of water usage. THE PROPERTY OWNERS MAY HAVE MORE INFORMATION THAT THEY'D LIKE TO SHARE, BUT ULTIMATELY THE 1240 IS WHAT WOULD LIKELY BE USED TODAY IN THE CONTEXT. SO THIS WOULD BE LOWER THAN THAT. The owner may elect to negotiate with the city to reduce the water usage or otherwise offset usage through a separate effluent purchase agreement. That would be a separate consideration for the council. It is not being discussed tonight. It simply creates the provision that would allow the dialogue to take place. An annual water demand and usage report shall be filed with the city manager of the city, which has allowed to be made public. I know that in my dialogue with individual council members, the idea of making this water usage public was something that the council was key on. You can see that the owners have accepted that. Water consumption attributable to any on-site power generation equipment shall be included in the estimated water demand disclosure and shall be supplied pursuant to the same water provider agreements applicable to the remainder of the property. So essentially, this is not just the water to serve the data center itself. It would be any water that would actually serve the power generation at that plant in this area. And then finally, Water use associated with any such on-site power shall not exceed the per acre consumption benchmarks applicable to other power generations or heavy industrial users. So essentially, you could see the willingness on the part of the property owners to ultimately utilize the best practices when it comes to this particular provision. Are there any questions on water before I move on to power generation?

Any questions on water right now?

No. Just for, they are gonna be transparent and it will be released to the city on their water usage, you did? Annually, yes. Okay.

Let's move on to power generation. I think it's safe to say that, well, let me talk just for a second on the water utility provider. And I know Mr. Snyder and his team were kind enough to be here this evening. Ultimately, the city staff approached these negotiations with the understanding for both Arizona Water as well as APS. And Mr. Ortega and Mr. Rosales are here from APS. this evening as well. Under the concept of what we hear from them when we're processing other economic development prospect, either candidacy and or projects, ultimately both of the utilities have suggested that the developer's gonna be responsible to bring the infrastructure They're going to cover the cost of infrastructure. In the case of water, they're going to have to provide their own supplies to the project. On the power side, they're ultimately going to have to go through a variety of interconnects if they ever look to interconnect into the power grid. It's highly likely in Casa Grande because of the capacity levels we have on the power side that either we're years away from a group being able to connect to the grid and or that they're going to be bringing some type of power generation to the particular site. So keep that in mind when I start to go through these next items. Owner agrees that unless and until the electrical utility interconnection capacity is sufficient to serve the data center use, that has been constructed, commissioned, and placed in service, any data center usage shall utilize onsite generation or behind the meter power generation facilities and associated infrastructure being constructed, owned, and operated or on behalf of the owner. So essentially bringing their own power. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any onsite power generation facility, the owner shall, in addition to any requirements of the city code, submit to the City Planning Director a power generation disclosure identifying the proposed generation technology, which will include the capacity in megawatts and the primary fuel source. The disclosure shall include a summary of all applicable federal and state environmental permits required for the installation and operation of the on-site power generation equipment. All on-site power shall meet or exceed admission standards for non-attainment zones and shall comply with the I-2 zoning standards and will be subject to all applicable laws, including the zoning and permitting laws of the City of Casa Grande. In the event the owner pursues interconnection with the utility provider's transmission or distribution system, owner shall bear all costs associated with such interconnections including studies, transmission upgrades, substation or switchyard construction or modification and distribution system improvements. So ultimately we're driving the standard that they're gonna pay their way on both water and power at this point. Any onsite generation facility shall comply with all applicable requirements. of the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, the US Environmental Protection Agency, and the Federal Energy Regulation Commission, as well as the Arizona Corporation Commission. Any questions on the power generation conditions?

We might have some after. No, that's fine. And you may have some directed at the individual city. That's what I was going to ask. Do we want to ask those questions now to the water provider and the power? Or should we just wait till the end?

Well, I'm going to move to noise mitigation now. We'll wait till then.

You want to ask now? It might be easier to ask while we're discussing. So let's pause here, because then we can kind of clear it. But let's first go back to the water really quick. If there's any questions from the council right now when it comes to water. Any questions? The only question that I have is, We seem to get this all the time, and I know all over the country, is where we are with water, and is our rates gonna go up because they're going to take the water? And we get it all the time. And the same question's gonna come to the power company, because that's what we get, that our rates are gonna go up because the data centers take so much water. Can someone clarify that? and explain to the public how that works and how it would affect them.

Fred, thank you for participating. Thank you, Fred.

Fred, if you can introduce yourself to everyone, too.

I'M FRED SCHNEIDER. I'M PRESIDENT OF ARIZONA I'M FRED SCHNEIDER. I'M PRESIDENT OF ARIZONA WATER COMPANY. WATER COMPANY. OUR PHILOSOPHY WHEN WE HAVE NEW OUR PHILOSOPHY WHEN WE HAVE NEW PROJECTS COME IN IS DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS COME IN IS DEVELOPMENT PAYS FOR DEVELOPMENT. PAYS FOR DEVELOPMENT. IF THERE'S A WATER SUPPLY NEEDED IF THERE'S A WATER SUPPLY NEEDED LIKE A COUPLE WELLS THEY WOULD LIKE A COUPLE WELLS THEY WOULD FUND THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND FUND THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND CONSTRUCTION OF THOSE WELLS. CONSTRUCTION OF THOSE WELLS. IF THERE ARE WATER MAINS NEEDED IF THERE ARE WATER MAINS NEEDED And then when that customer then signs up, being a commercial industrial, they would then pay our standard tariff rate, which is the same as the same customer would in an existing place as this proposed use. So for the most part, the added additional customers fund their own infrastructure, so there really is no increased cost. per se, because they'd be paying that infrastructure and then paying for the cost of service, which is representative in their fees they pay for both the base fee of the meter and then the tiered usage of water.

Okay, and Fred, we also, the question that's come to me is that you guys are going to, through a rate increase, and so people think that that might correlate with what's going on with data centers or other development. Can you answer that question?

Yeah, that's a great question, Madam Mayor. So we are in the process of a rate review by the Corporation Commission right now. I think we haven't been in for a rate review in six or seven years. I think 2019 was the evaluation year of our rates, so they're far old compared to the cost increases we see today. THAT PROCESS WON'T BE CONCLUDED UNTIL EARLY NEXT YEAR. BUT OUR RATES ARE SET ON BOTH THE COST OF PROVIDING THE SERVICE, OUR LABOR, OUR TRUCKS, OUR FUELS, POWER COSTS, BUT THEN THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WE HAVE FUNDED. SO IF A DEVELOPER FUNDS AN INFRASTRUCTURE FOR A PIPELINE We do not earn on that at all. We only earn on our investments to the extent that we drill wells or replace wells, replace well pumps. That's what we earn on. So we don't get any dollars to build things going forward. We only get recovery of costs of things we've already built.

Okay. Thank you, Fred. Any other questions? Matt.

Yeah, just one of my things was there's been claims online about how much data centers use them. One that said 55 million gallons a day. that's 100 about 160 acre feet and so with this disagreement there's no possible way you know because we're capped at 800 acre feet right and you guys have a meter sim i mean not like the one on my house but a lot larger but the same principle right exactly so you guys send them a bill every month to use this much water and hey you can only use this much water at the most you're capped and if you go over that there's consequences including that goes through the city where it gets complicated because

we work together but we're not the same entity so maybe you could visit that a little bit it is a little more complex this is a city provision but we have other entities that have similar provisions that we have put on them where they have come in and said hey we're going to use this much water and we put in the agreement that they are capped at that volume of water on an annual basis and then if they were to go over slightly we would notify them so they could take measures to get their usage back in check And in the event that they continue to have that usage, we would have a mechanism by which we either would turn them off or throttle their water supply back, or they would have to fund additional infrastructure for us to be able to meet that demand so that their current customers aren't funding that project. They're funding their own water demands.

But we are capping it in this agreement at a certain. Yes.

So from our standpoint, we would just need to work with the city as we always do. And how do we incorporate that into our provision for service for them? So we would have that hammer with them to make sure that they comply. But we do that with a few other users, so it's not totally uncommon.

Right. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for Fred at this point? Okay, Fred, I think we're good for now.

I was just going to say, just for clarification, so it's capped at about 33% less than what the current usage is. You're going to monitor that, and it's not raising rates on any of our citizens.

No, that's not how that works.

Thank you. Thank you for that clarification. OK, thank you.

Thank you.

We might have more questions, but OK. So let's go to the power now. We have a couple of people here from APS. So is there any questions for our APS crew? No questions?

I think it would be the same as with the water, the rates. Yeah, the rates.

We're hearing that too. If you can introduce yourself, Richard.

Yes, Madam Mayor. Richard Rosales, Public Affairs with APS. Also Danny Ortega is here with me in case any of the technical questions come up. But in terms of rates, so the question is will the data center increase rates for the rest of our customers? So APS was proactive. In 2017, we implemented a high load factor rate, which means data centers. High load factor meaning that customers will ramp up to peak demand and just stay there for 24-7. So manufacturing like Lucid or others, Frito-Lay, they go up and down, right? There's a cycle that they do with each shift. whereas data centers actually are high load factor. So whenever I refer to high load factor rates, it means data centers. So we implemented the rates in 2017 for the high load factors in order to not shift costs onto the regular rate payers. Now, that was, A while back, last year, 2025, data centers only comprised about 5% of our peak demand. And by the way, we set a new peak demand yesterday, 9,100 megawatts. And we held. We had plenty of capacity. So we're not causing any issues with the extra capacity. We're doing a very good job in keeping the lights on, especially during these hot days of summer. And then, so what I was saying was 2025 data centers were only 5% of our capacity. Now we're seeing an increased demand. This is nationwide, but Phoenix has been projected to be like the number two data center development area in the country. So in order to combat that, last June 2025 when we filed our rate case, We actually addressed this issue with all of the increased demand, and there is a provision in the current rate case that filed in June 25 is still ongoing. It was just adjudicated. We're waiting for a recommended order, and the commission will probably make a ruling in December, but that has a 45% rate increase for the high load factor customers. So that will address a lot of the large growth. Whenever a high load factor customer comes into our service territory, again, it's like what Fred said, it's the growth. We call it growth pays for growth model. He called it development pays for development. and so that will help reduce no cost shifts to residential and the regular business customers. We also have a strategy in place where we're not serving new high load factor data center capacity until we have plenty of extra capacity which is far down the line. So we're not going to be risking the reliability of our current customer base and for business or residential to serve data centers. So whenever they come and we have a request and they give us the megawatts that they need, they go into a queue. At the end of each year from our resource planning, whatever we have left over, we would offer it to the next person in line. years before some of we get through this queue. We currently have like 20,000 megawatts in the queue of requested to share.

Okay, thank you Richard.

So you won't be connecting to any data center in Cascaran anytime soon.

Yeah, we have a lot of requests in the queue. It depends on if the developer has already implemented that request. We sign non-disclosure agreements, but if the developer wishes to address that question, they can answer that for you of where they're at.

So they'll have to bring their own power then, not rely on APS. Yeah.

That's an option yes that they have yes, okay, okay Okay, any other questions or APS? Okay. Thank you Richard.

I think we're good for now Okay, Larry, so I guess you can go on to the noise the noise mitigation Yes, Marin there and and obviously there were some comments that were made specifically about noise mitigation and certainly there are some adjacent areas related to residential, that has residential in the county, in county areas here, but ultimately prior to the issuance of a building permit for any data center or onsite power generation facility, the owner shall commission and submit to the city a noise impact study prepared by a licensed acoustical engineer. The study shall identify ambient noise levels at all adjacent property lines, model projected operational noise levels from all material noise generating equipment, and specify design measures to ensure compliance. One of the things that we have learned is that many of these data centers, as they're moving forward, these projects, they ultimately are beginning some level of strategic design that really assists with the noise mitigation. The campus shall be designed and constructed so that the noise generated by the data center on-site power generation and electrical infrastructure does not exceed 60 dBA between the hours of 8 a.m. and 9 p.m. and 55 dPA between the hours of 9 p.m. and 8 a.m. Within 90 days after a phase becomes operational, the owner shall commission a post-construction noise measurement study prepared by an acoustical engineer. So ultimately there's a tracking of this as time goes on as development occurs. There is a component related to backup generator testing because we've learned a lot about that in the context of other communities. Any routine testing or operations of a backup generator shall be limited to Monday to Friday between the hours of 9 AM and 4 PM. Owners shall communicate to the city any planned operations or testing at least 24 hours in advance. The next item, Madam Mayor, is decommissioning, if there's no questions on noise.

Anything on noise right now? No, not right now. Not right now, okay.

I guess I would make this statement as well in our industrial areas. The city doesn't have a lot of standards, so this is really beginning to drive some of that, some that we've worked on. From decommissioning, if a data center is developed and ceases to operate for a continuous period of 24 months, or if the owner provides written notice that the facility will permanently cease operations, the owner shall commence decommissioning of the technology equipment, cooling equipment, backup generator, fuel tanks, battery, transformers, and substation with 180 days. And then I think an important element is, as we were having dialogue with the owners, There was a willingness for them to add a voluntary contribution in terms of a community benefit to the city recreation facilities. Owner has agreed to make a contribution of $5 million to the city for the use by this city for recreational facilities if the property is developed as a data center. The owner shall remit a contribution in the amount of two and a half million dollars for each of the first two phases of the project at the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. So ultimately a contribution back to the community for recreational facilities. And so any questions on those last three, decommissioning, noise, or voluntary contribution?

Any questions at this point?

If not, Madam Mayor, let me talk about a couple of the items that are not included in these conditions that ultimately some of the questions that we filled, I think it's important for our residents to know that we've been looking into this. I know that the item about testing for PFAS is something that many of you have gotten questions on as well. I WILL TELL YOU THAT AT LEAST IN OUR DIALOGUE WITH THE GROUP, THERE'S NOT ANY INTENTION TO HAVE ANY TYPE OF DISCHARGE THAT'S GOING ON TO THE PROPERTY. THEIR INTENTION IS TO DISCHARGE INTO OUR CITY WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT LIKE MOST INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS. SO WE CONTINUE TO HAVE DIALOGUE RELATED TO PFAS. I ULTIMATELY BELIEVE THAT SOME OF THIS IS ON THE WATER GENERATION SIDE, NOT NECESSARILY THE EFFLUENT. So we've been given the information for the city of Tucson, water director that has some information that we'll be looking into, maybe something that we ultimately can attempt to address as part of the site plan or perhaps even in dialogue with a potential user in the future.

And Larry, with that, so if there is a change, right now there's no discharge, but if there was a change, they would have to let the city know?

That would actually be part of the site plan review that we actually, and the civil plans that would ultimately be submitted. And Mayor, I do want to talk specifically After the property owner has spoke, I want to talk about the next steps from the city's perspective. As I said earlier, at least at this point, there's not been an end user identified specifically. So we do not have any specific details related to that. But ultimately, there will be opportunities. I also want to talk about economic development, economic impact after we're done with the technical provisions of this. I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE WAIVER COMPONENTS, I TALKED PRIMARILY ABOUT THE CONDITIONS THAT WE TALKED SPECIFICALLY THAT WE MAY HAVE BEEN INCORPORATING INTO FROM AN OPERATIONAL PERSPECTIVE. The waiver ultimately talks about some of the things that I've outlined, that the waiver is in lieu of the CUP, that there's not a separate process that they would go through from a zoning perspective. I do think it's important to note as well that under Section 7 of the agreement, there is a provision that basically talks about the covenants running with the land. This particular waiver runs with the land. and outlines some provisions related to timing and the like. But ultimately, it will be a recorded document that ultimately would run with the land could be assigned and whatnot. Madam Mayor, if I can move to the recommendation that staff is making to the mayor and council tonight. Obviously, you have options on this particular item. The question before the council is how the city should The question before the council is not how the city should respond to a data center. It should be focused on the specific Proposition 207 claim. It is our belief that it allows us to protect the taxpayers from the claim and maintain the city's current zoning policies in the future, the conditional use permit process. according staff is recommending approval of the resolution for binding waiver and binding and I say waivers because there's actually two waivers that will be executed in this because there's two property owners in this particular case and the binding operational restrictions is permitted by the Arizona law thereby avoiding the potential financial exposure associated with compensation claim while preserving the city's broader zoning regulations regarding future data center development. The waivers will incorporate not only the statutory waiver requirement, but also include the conditions on utility coordination, water use, power, electrical demand, noise, decommissioning, and community benefit. In this case, staff believes this approach most appropriately balances the city's responsibility to protect the city's public interest and responsibly manage taxpayer resources with the obligation under the Arizona Private Property Rights Protection Act. The proposed waiver is a property-specific remedy authorized by state law that resolves the pending claim without repealing or undermining the city's broader legislative policy governing future data center development. By granting the waiver only for the subject property, the city preserves its adopting zoning regulations and its ability to continue reviewing future data center proposals through the conditional use permit. At the same time, this approach substantially reduces the uncertainty, the litigation costs, and potential financial exposure associated with the Proposition 207 claim. while allowing the city to secure enforceable development and operational environmental standards to protect the community. And so with that, Madam Mayor, as I mentioned a minute ago, I do have a few more topics that I want to cover related to, specifically to site planning and to economic development. But I think given the fact that I've spent, I don't know how long, you can tell me, about 45 minutes making this presentation. And I, again, want to thank the utility providers for being here. I knew that they would be of great assistance. Perhaps we ought to... hand the baton to the property owner's team and let them introduce themselves and perhaps make comments in regards to the item this evening.

Great. Thank you. You can have a drink of water. Do you need more water over there? You might need water. Okay. Hi there. If you can definitely introduce yourself.

Thank you, Mayor, council members, and thank you, Mr. Raines. Jason Morris, with you Morris Ball, on behalf of the applicants, or in this instance, the claimants, And truly, I appreciate the detail and the length to which the city manager has explained this matter and gone through all of the items that are part and parcel of what's before you. Because this doesn't happen often to a lawyer, but he's taken away all of my best lines. And he has given the highlights of my presentation. So rather than force you to sit through that again, What I will say is, first of all, your staff has been very comprehensive in their approach to this. And I mean that in that they were not overly solicitous of our needs. but they were highly defensive of the city's needs. And as a result, what we have is a binding document that addresses what's occurred in this industry. And I say this industry because we're not talking about what has occurred in Arizona or even the Southwest. What's happened with this particular use And I can say this because I've been doing land use in Arizona for over 30 years, and I've done dozens of data centers during that time, and they were non-issues. They were some of the easiest cases that my office would process because they looked and acted like an office building or an industrial building. They generated almost no traffic, which as you know from zoning cases is always a major issue. and they didn't disturb the surrounding community. What has occurred and what often occurs with every use, whether it's bashes getting larger and holding more products and creating either just a different land use impact and then really creating a hypermarket, right? We get to the Costco's of the world or a super center. they all started out as a retail use and they had very few impacts, but as data centers in particular have become more important in terms of the infrastructure of everything we use day to day, the digital world that we now live in, and there were other items on this agenda that attest to that, but also just I know my daily use between the computer and the phone. I understand the impact and the digital footprint that we have as a result of that, and data centers have grown accordingly. With that growth have come ramifications, and like any use, They are judged by the worst example anywhere internationally or nationally. So we as an industry and as landowners and also the city has come to now guard against what these ramifications can be. So we've gone from a data center being allowed by right in this city. In a very short amount of time, you reacted as a council and said, you're not comfortable with that by right. And instead you put belt and suspenders on where they can be. And you've placed yourself as a city council as the arbiter of where every subsequent data center, should there be other data centers in the city of Casa Grande, will be located. Your staff took that and ran with it with this waiver, because I would explain the Prop 207, the process, but it's already been done. It felt like I was back in law school. It was done very well. You understand what happens and what occurs with a Prop 207 waiver. But your staff is not just issuing a waiver. They've not just put a waiver in front of you. What they've put in front of you is a document that addresses the concerns that have been heard in other states or in other places where data centers have run afoul of the public. Water use, electrical use or power usage and generation, and noise. All of those are handled within this document. But in addition to that, as we heard, there is also a total voluntary contribution of $5 million in the aggregate for both of these sites. for use in your recreation. Coming from a city which literally within months was allowing or could have allowed these as a use by right, and none of these conversations would have taken place, to a place where we're standing in front of you with a negotiated document that gives you protections and a benefit to the community. is something that I think allows both sides to win. So really, that was my purpose in being here and allowing the team to answer any questions that you may have, but also to introduce former Supreme Court Justice Andy Gould, who's a member of our team, just to talk about the document itself. And I think he'll reiterate some of the points that we discussed. Thank you.

Great. Thank you, Jason. Hi there, Mr. Gold.

How are you, Mayor, members of the council? I think we know somebody in common. I practiced with your husband many years ago, so please tell him I said hello.

I will.

Thank you for giving me an opportunity to speak here tonight. I have to tell you, this is past my bedtime, so I'll be very brief. I should be going to bed soon. My team promised me a cot on the way out of here, and I haven't seen them come in with that yet. Arizona has some of the strongest land use laws in the country. In fact, when Prop 207 was passed in 2006, there was only one other measure that was stronger. That's Measure 37 out of Oregon. This proposition passed two to one, and it came on the heels of some egregious behavior by governments in eminent demand cases and regulatory taking cases. And what the people of Arizona did when they passed this land use law was say, we're not going to have governments take away property rights. We're not going to have governments take away people's abilities to use and develop their land. And so what we have here in Prop 207 and in the statute 12-11-34 is probably one of the strongest land use protections for citizens anywhere in the United States. And I think Arizona should be very proud to have that kind of protection of their property rights. You're aware of the elements of a claim. There are three elements. It has to be a land use law. Clearly, the ordinance is a land use law. Secondly, that land use law, here the ordinance, has to reduce the property rights of the owner. There is no question that going from an unconditional use to conditional use reduces and limits their ability to develop the property. And then the last component is just compensation or the fair market value. The reduction in value of the property here, it is probably closer to $150 million. I would tell you that if all three of those elements are proved under the statute, the court must award those damages to my client. It's not a discretionary ruling, it is mandatory. Further, if the landowner succeeds, the government must pay their attorney's fees. If the government wins, the landowner cannot and does not pay the fees of the government. The idea being it's a fee shifting provision to encourage landowners to protect their rights, to protect their property rights. As has been discussed tonight, there is an alternative. There is a waiver procedure. There's also an amendment or a repealing procedure. What I have reviewed in this case, as I've been involved in it, is obviously a waiver provision. I prepared the letter that we sent back in February 2026. It's not actually a notice of claim. The statute was amended. There was some litigation in the Court of Appeals over the years. Prop 207 is its own claim. You're not required to file a notice of claim with Prop 207. And I believe that this is a very straightforward Prop 207 claim. I believe in my almost 40 years of practice, both as a lawyer and on the bench, it is one of the strongest claims I've ever seen. I've looked at this. I think the biggest piece of evidence here is obviously the letter signed July 14th, 2005. In that letter, the Planning and Zoning Department expressly confirmed that a data center is permitted use and that is why this project went forward. The last thing I would mention in all of this is we have tried to work very carefully with the city. The waiver I think is very generous. You know, I had a lawyer once do that in my courtroom, and I made him throw his suitcase or his briefcase at the back of the courtroom door, so I'm just teasing you. But there is going to be jury duty for you next week.

Yeah, weaver.

In any event, I just want to note that we've worked really well with the city. I think this is a very strong waiver letter. It makes sense. You know, in all candor, I'm sensitive to the pressures that you have as city council. You're trying to do your job, and I think you and your staff have done a very fine job. I know I'm not going to add on much to what Jason had to say other than another community. Communities have concerns about the status as I think they're dressed here frankly I think you've done your job exceptionally well thank you.

Any questions too. our attorneys here, so not our attorneys, but. No questions at this point? Okay, okay, thank you guys.

madam mary should i continue before we um open it up for uh comment um i i do want to specifically address two topics before we move because uh on on to any feed additional feedback because they are specifically addressing questions that we have had we have filled it as a city team a city staff in the last couple of weeks but uh ultimately the first question DEALS WITH WHAT'S NEXT, RIGHT? AND AGAIN, TONIGHT'S MATTER IS ESSENTIALLY A LAND USE SCENARIO THAT ULTIMATELY WOULD ALLOW FOR... YEAH, THE WIND MUST BE... STORM OF THE WIND. YEAH, NO, RIGHT. ALL OF US. WE'LL TRY TO GET EVERYBODY OUT OF HERE, RIGHT? But ultimately, there are next phases of this. If any development transpires, including a data center, the city obviously has a process that is required.

How many people are in here?

It's going to go one to one.

Is the storm going just one phone at a time?

There are additional steps that are required before any type of construction, any type of development could transpire on the property. or any development and that typically is a site plan submission. Obviously the developer must submit a detailed site plan to the City of Casa Grande Planning and Development Department for review. There's a public notice that's given to the property owners surrounding the site. They're notified and would be given an opportunity to review the proposal and provide comments. And then obviously there's a city review and the city staff would be evaluating uh... the site to determine whether it is if it's compared whether uh... whether it is compatible with the city zoning ordinances and other applicable development regulations, adequately addressing the conditions if approved in the binding waiver, adequately addressing anticipated traffic access and parking, and demonstrating that the site can accommodate the proposed use and all requirements improvements while meeting the approved operational restrictions outlined in this waiver. I think it's important for everyone to know in the community that approval of this waiver does not authorize construction. There's still work to be done. The project must be completed to meet the city site plan review process and satisfy all applicable local, state, and federal requirements before development can proceed. The next item, and we've had a handful of questions related to the economic impact, and as we discussed at the July 20th meeting, there is a potential economic impact to any community that has development, but certainly from a data center perspective, development perspective. There has been some work done by the owners on the economic impact to Casa Grande, if a data center were to develop. And ultimately, I'm referring to the analysis that was put together. We agree with it. It was done in a very conservative nature, one that considered items like them bringing their own power and the like. And so it's not been done, the analysis has not been completed specifically for an end user. That's something that we likely would want to do as a staff if there is one that is secured and we move forward. But ultimately what you'll find is that the city will receive, the project investment is estimated at roughly $5 billion. That initially during construction phase would generate roughly $65 million. of construction sales tax that would be paid to the city, remitted to the city through the Arizona Department of Revenue. That is over a five year period, typically during when construction is occurring. There would be a 20 year property tax revenue stream that would be in the vicinity of $55.3 million as well, and on a very conservative estimate, full-time jobs would certainly start somewhere in the vicinity for a development of this nature in the 220 range, as I explained on the 20th of July. uh typically data centers have lower numbers of of direct hires but they do have a tremendous uh indirect hire base they hire a lot of uh contractors and the like that come in that will come in and maintain ac units and and the like and so that summarizes from a city perspective the other question we've been been asked is what are the local school district impacts And over that same 20-year period, the school districts see a sizable impact because of their reliance on primary property taxes. And for the districts in Casa Grande, and I believe this includes the Central Arizona College as well, it's roughly $210.3 million in that 20-year window. And then finally, Pinal County, who receives an impact every time we land a project here in Casa Grande or a project of transpires roughly 17.9 million in county sales tax and 134.8 million in property taxes over that same 20 year period. And so with that, Madam Mayor, I would certainly stand for any additional questions that the Mayor and Council may have.

Okay, any questions? Comments? No questions, comments. I think you're just like, wow, okay, you're pretty thorough on that presentation. So we really, really appreciate it. And just appreciate everyone being here and those watching online. I know there's a lot of people that are interested on what's going on. For all the people that submitted comments online, emails, telephone. When you talk about, Mr. Gould talked about that our staff did a good job when it came to a comprehensive presentation and kind of defending us. And that's because we are listening to the community. Sometimes people don't think we are. But like you said, I've talked to some of my fellow mayors and some of the things that these, what's happening in other cities regarding data centers, and I feel we really have listened to the community, and we are trying to, we're in this tough situation, I must say, it's been a tough few months as we've been negotiating all this. None of us were really happy when the The notice came forward. We thought our hands were tied. But we truly appreciate, you know, our staff, you know, working with the landowners, with their attorneys, and trying to understand, you know, how important it is for us to... just inform the community on facts, what's happening with data centers. So this presentation was definitely a strategy. We wanted to make sure we told the public, gave factual information, we gave them time to participate. We had a meeting a couple weeks ago and it was important for us. we're trying we were advised to move forward and and fast on this process but you know we as a council and staff really felt that we needed to give the community time to absorb it i mean some of you are experts at this stuff you know you know you've been studying this you know what's going on but for our community this is the first time and they're getting their facts from tick tock they're getting their facts from cg chat and they're getting their facts from their neighbor so we wanted to make sure that we were providing everyone with as much information that we were gathering you know um and and doing our due diligence to show that we want to make sure that we are are protecting you know our community so i just um i i just you know i want to you know thank these these property owners for being willing, you didn't have to do this. You didn't have to put these conditions. And we know that, we know. And we were told today that this was probably a pretty strong Prop 207 case. And so we know that these landowners and developers did not have to do it, and they did. And so in the end, we were trying to put conditions to manage and and um you know we we all stood strong on the conditional use permit and how we want to make sure that people are being responsible you know and data you know data centers case basic case and with these conditions i really feel that that is incorporated into this waiver. So it's going to help us as we move forward with future data centers. So again, I thank all the people that participated in the public process. We're trying to get information, inform. We just appreciate that. To staff, poor Brett and Larry. Larry, you just keep losing more and more hair, I think, every time. Sorry, I have to joke with him. But it really took us some time. So thanks for your patience. Thanks for the participation. I feel that you all have done a great job in addressing the concerns from our community. And again, I'm thankful that these landowners have listened and want to be good community partners and are willing to put these conditions that are very strong into this waiver. So again, thank you everyone.

That's very hard. Yeah.

Okay. Perfect, thank you. So, couple more comments. So the first public comment is Casey Day.

Thank you. Apologize prior.

No, no problem. OK, I ALSO WANT TO APOLOGIZE FOR MY LACK OF ORATORY SKILLS IN ADVANCE, BUT MY NOTES THAT I PREVIOUSLY MADE ON THIS, AGAIN, IT'S CASEY DAY, 25150, CLAYTON, WEST CLAYTON ROAD, CASA GRANDE. I LIVE ACROSS THE STREET FROM WHERE THIS PROPERTY IS AND EVEN THOUGH I AM NOT A CITY RESIDENT BECAUSE I LIVE ON THE WEST SIDE OF THAT ROAD VERSUS THE EAST SIDE OF THAT ROAD. THE IMPACTS OF A 480 ACRE INDUSTRIAL CAMPUS DON'T STOP JUST AT THE BOUNDARY LINE. THERE'S WATER, AIR, NOISE AS WE'VE ALL DISCUSSED. THERE'S ALSO WILDLIFE AND THE TRAFFIC THAT CROSSES JURISDICTIONS. SO WILL THE CONSEQUENCES OF THIS PROJECT IN MY OPINION. AND I WANT TO BE CLEAR ON THE ONSET, I FULLY RESPECT THE CLAIMANT'S PROPERTY RIGHTS, BUT THE FAMILIES THAT ARE LIVING IN VERY CLOSE PROXIMITY, INCLUDING THE LONG ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL HOMES, HORSE FARMS, IT'S RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET, THEY HAVE PROPERTY RIGHTS, TOO, AS WELL AS QUALITY OF LIFE RIGHTS, AND THE GROUNDWATER RIGHTS DESERVE EQUAL CONSIDERATION IN THIS PROCESS, IN MY OPINION. item is the proposition to a 7 binding. Waiver enforcement now this is not a data center approval. It's about this waiver. But approving this waiver in my opinion removes the city's strongest tool. Or the conditional use permit process. I CAME IN ON THIS LATE. OBVIOUSLY, THIS HAS BEEN IN THE PROCESS FOR SOME TIME, BUT I PERSONALLY DON'T KNOW OF ANY HYDROLOGICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL OR NOISE STUDIES THAT WERE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW. MAYBE THEY ARE. AND AFTER THIS, IF SOMEBODY COULD CORRECT ME, I'D BE HAPPY TO LOOK AT THEM. ONCE THE CITY WAIVER, ONCE THE WAIVER IS GRANTED, THE CITY'S LEVERAGE, IN MY OPINION, TO REQUIRE MITIGATION LATER IS SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED. ACCORDING TO THE CITY'S OWN FAQ, WHICH I JUST READ TONIGHT, THE PROPOSED CAMPUS COULD INCLUDE UP TO 10 BUILDINGS TOTALING ROUGHLY 3.25 MILLION SQUARE FEET AND WOULD RELY PRIMARILY ON GROUNDWATER. THE FAQ ALSO INDICATED THAT THE POTENTIAL WATER USE APPROACHING 800 ACRE FEET PER YEAR. THAT WAS NEWS TO ME. I JUST LEARNED THAT TONIGHT. FOR THE OTHER PEOPLE THAT ARE HERE THAT AREN'T AWARE OF WHAT 800 ACRE FEET ARE, THAT'S MORE THAN 260 MILLION GALLONS. THAT'S LIKE BETWEEN 2500 AND 3000 RESIDENTIAL HOMES EVERY YEAR. THAT'S A WHOLE COMMUNITY. My time is expired. I have a lot more to say, but obviously my time is expired. So you only give the three days. I did, and I just like, 60 decimals, that's like you and me talking, right? But that's a hum, that's 24-7. That goes right through a building. It's a totally different kind of noise. Thank you.

Okay, thank you, Casey. Okay, and then we have Tyler Stein. Hi there, Tyler.

Mayor and members of the council, my name is Tyler Stein, address 810 East Stonewood Drive in Casa Grande. I am the policy analyst with Rural Arizona Engagement and we are here to speak in opposition to the Prop 207 waiver. Rural Arizona Engagement is not outright opposed to data centers, but far too often rural people are missing in the spaces where discussions about their communities are being made. When the city passed code text amendments that required data centers to obtain a conditional use permit, that was a victory for rural community members. But when it was announced that the city was considering a waiver of the conditional use permit for a potential data center, I felt like you were basically walking back what you promised. When you put in the code text amendments, that was your way of saying you weren't gonna mess around, that you were going to give the public the opportunity to give feedback on data centers in a public forum. I understand the reason you are considering this waiver is due to unique circumstances that you believe put the city at risk with this particular plot of land and that you would fight for a democratic process in the future. The reason I'm here today is not to condemn you for considering this waiver, but because we don't believe the property owner has a strong Prop 207 claim. If you approve the waiver for a data center on this land, you would allow the project to consume 800 net acre feet of water per year, or approximately 260.7 million gallons. I want to emphasize that this is net acre feet, not gross acre feet, so the true amount of water for this data center could be far greater. We are in a mega drought, and Arizona is at high risk of getting cut off from the Colorado River by the federal government. If those cuts were to take place, Casa Grande would be among the first to lose access to the Central Arizona project, and we would become more dependent on groundwater. How can your average citizen compete with a billion dollar corporation that can afford to dig deeper and deeper into our aquifer? Before you move forward with approving this waiver, consider the future and in the future, how you would explain to your constituents' neighbors why you allowed the status center to exist as municipal wells are going dry and farming wells are collapsing. Please vote no on the Prop 207 waiver. Thank you.

Thank you, Tyler.

Is there anyone else? Those are the only two speaker cards I have, but if there's someone else that would like to come up. And if you can give your name and address.

My name is Eric Rivera, 1750 East Okotoa Drive, Casa Grande. Water usage, we just stopped housing. So when he said 4,000 homes, I mean, that's mind boggling that we're just gonna allow a company. I didn't know Casa Grande was, I grew up here. Farmers, everything. I didn't know we were trying to become Mesa. I didn't know we were trying to become Tempe. People that moved here always liked a small home. Why are we trying to grow a data center? So my question to you would be is, are we going to allow more data centers after this? Who's going to stop it? And if their lawsuit is we're depreciating their land if we don't give them this, well, what about the horse owner that lives right across the street? Aren't we diminishing? Because property around a data center doesn't become more valuable. It becomes less valuable. So what about third lawsuits? I mean, because their land is going to become less. Are we going to just allow all that rest of that land to be unfarmable? Because data centers, according to not just people that are running across this country, the harm it does to animals, that's a known fact. So I mean, what's going to happen to their horses, to the farming community around there? Are we even thinking about that? I mean, and if they're willing to sue right now for $140 million, what's going to stop them from suing later? And if we can't afford the $140 million, now it's going to start at $140 million every lawsuit that they have because they know we can't budge on that. I just feel that I just don't understand what we're thinking. I didn't know Castle Grand was meant to be a tech hub. What are we going to do when data centers are coming and taking most people's jobs around here? What are we going to do? Are we going to just give up our city to that? I just don't really understand what we are doing anymore. I mean, growth has to stop somewhere. We're only 25 miles wide. Can't grow too much bigger. Then what are we gonna do? We're gonna grow up. I don't understand, do we even have a sense of what our future is supposed to be as Casa Grande? It just seems like we just changed it completely from when I was growing up. And I understand growth is inevitable, but what is the growth that you guys see? And when are we gonna stop certain things? I just feel that we should fight the fight that we can fight right now. Because later on, we can't fight. They got more money than us. Why do you think they come to small towns? They got more money than we do. Thank you.

Thank you, Eric. Larry, can you address the future data center concern that he has as far as what's going to happen for the next project that comes forward?

As far as the next project, Mayor, they would ultimately have to go through a conditional use permit, right? And maybe that's a better question legally for Brett, but at least in my mind, if future development comes in, that's gonna be what we're encouraging them to actually follow is our conditional use permit in these industrial zoned areas. Right, okay.

Okay, any other questions? I there if you can give your name and address.

My pleasure, my name is Rodney Williams 2, 1, 8, 1, North Magdalena place Casa Grande. you for the honor of addressing the city council and our great mayor i understand the complexity of the position that you're in looking after the city making sure that your decisions are right but it's generally effective it's a generally accepted fact that people do and say whatever they need to do in order to get what they want We have generations of people here in this city that have been here and settled here, and they came here for a certain reason. Because of the peace, because of a good city council and mayor who look after them. They want the best for their citizens. And I understand that when it's right, it's easy. If you're sitting in turmoil, your stomach is turning because you want to do the right thing, There's a lot of indications that tell you what that right thing is. I'm just one citizen in this area. I'm fully invested in this city.

My kids go to school here. I'm invested in the community.

And I'm grateful for all the support that you give and the thoughtfulness and the consideration to the citizens. But for a company to come in here and look for an opportunity to put a stranglehold on you as a way of introduction, that should be a telltale sign of what's to come. And people only do things that they can get away with. If they see an opening or loophole, they're going to take advantage of it. And you're all a great city council. I would hate to see you continue to look for ways to allow this to happen. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else?

Good evening again. My name is Nancy Wood, 513 East Feckle Road, Casa Grande, Arizona. Thank you for the council listening to us tonight. Complex issue. So I don't have any answers necessarily, but I do have some things that I have as a viewpoint for things. The concern I have is for water for Arizona. I mean this is across the whole state. This is not just a Casa Grande issue. And the heat that we've had in recent summers pretty tough on everyone. It's tough on the people, tough on the wildlife, tough just getting by when we have the kind of temperatures like we've had in this last couple summers especially. With everything considered, what happens when you build big infrastructures like a data center with all the concrete and then you put in all the electronics and electrical? Not a good combination with what Arizona has, which is a desert environment. I mean, this is not an ideal location for any data center anywhere pretty much in this area. So it's not just a Casa Grande issue, it's a Arizona issue. And I know it's a difficult balance. I'm very disappointed that a property owner would put me kind of I feel in this position because it feels like it just it devalues my property because it's something that's going to be a huge impact for the city that I live in so and it's in a negative way the animals that live in this area you know with the EMF that these kind of centers produce It's 24-7. It affects migration. It impacts emotions, people. We don't even know what the consequences are going to be with these places for long-term, for decades. for animals, for our environment. And I think we have a lot to look at to see what we're gonna leave for our children and our grandchildren and what they're gonna have to face. Because some of this is not gonna be easily undone if it causes really serious issues. And, you know, I have a background in electronics. I know what's gonna go in those buildings. And I try and live my life as far away from electrical stuff as I can for the most part because it's not good on our bodies. Thank you.

Thank you, Nancy. Is there anyone else? Okay, we'll go ahead and kind of close public comments. Any other questions, comments from the council?

Just a couple. So we talked about like 60 dBA as far as like the sound. How different is that from some of the other industries that we have here as far as like what they emit in comparison to?

Mayor Fitzgibbons, Councilmember Romo, I do not have the data of neighboring industrial uses from a decibel perspective. What I can tell you is that the parameters that we established in this condition were similar to what other cities were looking at or had within their conditions, if you will, or within areas of that nature. I think the important part is that and ultimately we've got, there's gonna be a study done to begin with, right, to ultimately establish that, and with a specific emphasis on what the neighboring zoning would be as well, and there are some loud industries, right, in our community. I couldn't tell you the exact decibel level of those, though. Brett, I don't know if there's anything else you wanna add to that.

I think to that point, Council Member Fitzgibbons, Mayor Fitzgibbons, Council Member Romo, we don't have current standards for those other industries, so it's hard to do that. In this case, the property owners have been willing to understanding that noise is a concern to do those studies and to do it not just at the beginning to see what the ambient levels are, but to do it as they're operational and for three years while they're operational so that we get really good data on what that is. So I think it's difficult to compare it to other industries because we don't measure those under other industries because they have no limitations.

Okay, thank you. Questions, comments?

Yeah, I just have a quick couple of comments about the water use. I mean, it's factual that we capped them at 33% less than the current use. So we're actually saving water on this waiver. The other thing, the noise. We had the opportunity to visit Goodyear, a few of us. And Goodyear has seven data centers in their city. And I asked the question specifically on noise. And they said they had one complaint. They said that one complaint was when they fired up all the generators all at once, and they had a noise complaint. But it was they were testing the generators. And so I thought that was interesting, because they went back to that resident later on, and they said, do you notice a difference now? He goes, oh yeah, it's fine. And they were within, what, 300 foot of the data center? It was close. It was close by, yeah. And then I did ask him specifically about the property devaluation, if homes located near those data centers had a decreased value to their property. They said, no, matter of fact, the property's all around the board have gone up. So there was no real reduction. No one's refusing to buy homes next to those things. And this is from Goodyear, from the city of Goodyear. Other cities might be different. Just using one comparison. The other thing, we got a chance to go into the data center. Went into the data center, looked around, walked outside. I could not hear any noise at all on the exterior of the building. No hum, no noise. I asked about a low frequency hum that I've heard a lot of people talk about that people could hear from miles away from this low frequency hum. They said they had not heard of that. They looked at me like I was crazy. They said they have seven data centers, and they said they had zero issues with the low frequency hum, noise pollution, or anything. And that's just from the city of Goodyear. So I can't speak to what gets developed in Casa Grande. I'm just using that for a comparison and their experience that they've had in their city. And like I said, the big one was the water issue for me. But it is a reduction. And I want to point out, too, that it's not the data center that's coming in on this Proposition 207. It is local resident farmers, property owners, that want the right to sell their property. It's not the data center coming in and forcing this down us. Thank you.

Matt?

You know, Lisa did a good job earlier, so I'm not going to cover all that. But this is tough. I mean, difficult and consequential. And this is an emotional decision. It's getting very emotional nationwide about these data centers. And I've done a lot of research on these myself, as we have, I think as we all have. And we heard the concerns about water, power, noise, environmental impact, agriculture. And those concerns were deserved to be heard, and we heard them. And they are addressed with these conditions, with enforceable conditions here. I mean, they are not dismissed. Don't think about it. And people think that communities are hiding these. And here we are in public. We wanted to make sure this was a public process that everyone could participate in. And we have a lot of industrial projects in town, Kohler, Lucid, Frito-Lay. We recruited all of those. We wanted them to come here. We did not ask for this data center. These were local residents owning this land, local farmers who came to us and said, we want to sell our land to make a data center on. We didn't force them to sell. We didn't ask them to sell. This is their choice as landowners. So they're the ones that could pursue this $140 million claim. And it is already zoned. I too. It's not like we're taking residential. We're not taking rural. It's already I to land that can be used for industrial development. You've heard of other cities that have moratoriums. I've looked into that a lot. I asked our lawyer and he. told me choice words that, no, probably not a good idea. But most of the moratoriums you see are six to 12 months for people to learn, for cities to learn about how these data centers are and what they can do. And essentially, we've done that because we started this back in February when the first letter came. And that's what we've been working on this whole time. So we're not changing the zoning. This is just a land use. And agriculture is still an important part. But these are farmers that are selling their land. They're not being forced by the city to sell their land. and data centers i mean they're getting a bad name used to be called the cloud you know i stored my photos on the cloud this is on the cloud but now it's called a data center and i think you know everyone use them every day and they the older older ones use a lot of water a lot of power but there's a lot of new updated stuff in here and this is tough i've got friends here that i've known for 30 years that are not in favor of this and it's tough to make these decisions but i've done a lot of research to support and find the facts And most of us use them every day. If you use Netflix today, Amazon, Google Maps, Facebook, Instagram, anything, artificial intelligence, smartphones, I mean, your hospital records, everything, these are all stored somewhere. And data centers is really where they are. We talked about benefits. I mean, other people ask me, what are they going to do for the community? Well, they're going to give $5 million to our aquatic center. If it gets built, there's going to be a lot more property tax. They're going to pay their own way for everything they do. This is also coming up as a national security concern, if you've seen lately, about the US having our own data so that we can do that. It's seen as infrastructure now. A lot of stuff I've learned is that if you get something like this, it promotes other growth with more jobs, other factories, other types of industrial that do have jobs. So again, I mean, this is kind of being seen as infrastructure now as more and more of this happens. It's not an easy automatic decision by any means. I mean, the potential litigation is a big part of it. Environmental infrastructure concerns have all been taken into account. And after listening to residents and, you know, reviewing this information, I believe we, you know, created a lot of strong enforceable conditions, very similar to what a conditional use permit would have been going through this process. So it's our responsibility to hold development accountable if this passes, if this waiver passes and required to operate as a responsible member of our community. So again, I've lived here, I've lived here my whole life. I'm not going to move because, you know, this is, we live here too. This is our home as well. So we are affected. I don't know.

Okay, other questions, comments?

Yeah, I won't be as long winded as Council Member Herman. I cut a lot of it out. I know, I saw you flitting, that was a lot. GO BACK TO WHEN WE FIRST WENT WITH THIS DATA CENTER, WHERE WE PUT THEM. AND THE WHOLE REASON WE PUT THEM UNDER A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS BECAUSE WE WANTED THE OPPORTUNITY TO GET SOME PUBLIC INPUT SO THAT WE COULD PUT RESTRICTIONS ON THEM SO WE KNEW WHAT TECHNOLOGIES THEY WERE USING SO WE COULD, YOU KNOW, KNOW THE WATER USAGE, KNOW THE POWER USAGE. Don't necessarily like how we got to where we are now, but I think we've got what we would ask for under a conditional use permit. I do want to thank both APS and Arizona Water for coming out tonight and helping talk about rates and potential impacts to residents and that they aren't going to happen. So thank you both for being here for that. yeah it just the the alternative of denying this and going into litigation and and potentially being out 140 million dollars would not be good at all for the city that would be very damaging more than than just a year and a half's worth of Operating budgets like I think it's a lot bigger impact than just that to us But again, we ended up with the conditions that we want And all we're doing right now is a waiver for the to prop 207 There are still a lot more steps that they will have to take to get to where everybody is worried about right now. So Yeah, that's my thoughts.

I Anything else? No other comments?

I do want to just say that, you know, this wasn't ideal. It was something that we've been talking about for a while. Something that, you know, I think has been on our minds because we do want to make sure that we're doing what's best for the community. You know, we care about the community. I'm from here. We're all from here. And so, you know, and I've had lots of conversations. I've had lots of emails. And some have been for and some have been against. And it's really been 50-50. And I appreciate the time and the thought that has been put into the waiver. And I think that we really look to see what is best and making sure that we're moving forward with those best practices. And so I do appreciate that.

Thank you, Becca. Okay, so with that, we have to remember, we have to remind ourselves that today's agenda item is not a decision on data centers, and it's a waiver request involving Prop 207 notice. So with that, if there's no other questions, comments, we'll go ahead and if we can get a resolution number.

Resolution number 5960, a resolution of the Council of the City of Casa Grande, Arizona, approving binding waivers of enforcement with binding operational restrictions pursuant to the Private Property Rights Protection Act to resolve Proposition 207 claims, authorizing the execution of the waivers, authorizing related actions requiring recordation of the waiver, providing for severability, and establishing an effective date.

Mayor Fitzgibbons, I move approval of resolution number 5960 as presented. Second.

Okay, there's been a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? And Brett, at this time, if we need to go into executive session, but it looks like there's been no request.

You do have an executive session this evening if you need legal advice, but only if you need legal advice.

Right. Okay, so no further discussion. So if we can get a roll call vote, please.

Council Member Brownell? Yes. Council Member Dugan?

Yes.

Council Member Edwards? Yes. Council Member Huddleston?

Yes.

Council Member Herman?

Yes.

Mayor Pro Tempe Dillon?

Yes.

Mayor Fitzgibbons? Yes. Motion carries.

Thank you. And again, thank you everyone for being here. I know it's long, but we want to make sure we took the time to go through this. So next on the agenda, we are going to go into another, we have an executive session, but we'll go through council reports first, and then we'll go into our executive session. So if we can start with you, Sean.

No reports.

No report. No reports. Okay, you gave yours on the data set. Yeah. Okay. Do you want to wait a minute, Bob? I think we have a few people exiting. That's quick. Okay. Don't report. Go ahead, Bob. Brent?

No report.

Brent was swimming with the sharks. That's his report. He made it back. Okay, Matt.

I do have a brief report. Yes. We had the Youth Commission annual planning session, so we are ready. They're hitting the ground running. I want to thank Councilmember Dugan for talking to the kids in the place of Mayor Fitzgibbons, who had a great family event going on. So she's going to come and talk to them at another time. But we had great question and answer sessions. The kids are ready. We've got our plans for the year. So they're excited.

I was very impressed with their questions, by the way.

Yeah. Shaw said, wow, those kids are pretty bright. I do want to thank the Community Services Department. They got it all set up, especially Aidenary, Ellie, and their team, Danny. This was by far the easiest one for me to set up, thankfully, since I am on crutches, so that was much appreciated. And along with that, I know you've seen the paper, but The 9-11 Day of Service, Scott McEwen and his team, they're doing a youth-focused introduction this year so that a lot of youth from different organizations, including one from the Youth Commission, will be taking roles at the opening ceremony. So they're excited, but he wanted me to remind everyone that the 9-11 Day of Service is actually on 926 so it's it will be at Pier Park and just look for more information but make sure and get out there and it's an awesome event to do community service in Casa Grande.

No reports other than I wanted to say on behalf of the International Conference of Police Chaplains, thank you to our mayor, to our city manager, the city of Cassie Grandy, Chief McCorry. Paul Ellis, who's our chaplain here, is the president of the International. That's big. The city of Cassie Grandy, equipment it's here it's based out of Casa Grande and so Casa Grande gets spoken of a lot at our our meetings and so both on behalf of Paul Ellis and our local chaplain serves we want to thank the city for doing that for us and we give back to the community we're part of our community we love what we do and we serve our police officers to be thankful for them But we also want to just thank the city for all that you do behind the scenes that a lot of people don't know about. Believe me, I know all the equipment because I moved that equipment. We just had our meeting in Spokane, Washington. I just got back last week, and so I was there for a full week. And so this is my second meeting, and Cassandra is well-represented from the president to the secretary, and I'm also a regional director. So I'm over in California, New Mexico, Colorado. Nevada, Utah, Arizona. So thank you on behalf of the International Conference of Holy Shepherds.

Good. Thank you. Becca?

I have a couple of things. Sure. So I'm excited to get to partner with the Youth Commission again this year with Cactus Middle School. They mentor our students, and they do such a wonderful job. They get feedback, and then we listen to them. And then they also look to see, like, what do you need to do to be successful in high school? And they've just always done such an amazing job. So I'm really excited about that. And then we had our Tuesday Twilight League golf tournament over the weekend. It was really, really hot. We all survived, so we were very thankful for that. I was questioning my choices that day because I think it was like 1.12 or something like that. But I wanted to thank Jennifer Thornton. She does an amazing job. Anytime we ask to do something, she's like, how can I help? And let me see what I can do. And I just really appreciate that. She does amazing things with the golf course. That's it.

Good. Thank you. And I'll try to be really quick. But no, first, I really want to do, I know a lot of our staff are in here today. And I just really want to thank all of our staff. And our PIO team is up above. But just everything they've done, not only with the data center outreach and making sure we are communicating and being transparent and open, but also with a couple other agenda items. When it came to the roundabout and the recycling, You know, we're trying to make sure that we're engaging in getting input from the community as we make decisions. So I know it's tough for us sometimes when people say you're not listening, but I just hope people see that we really are trying to get input and incorporating it into the decisions. And I just want to thank all of everyone. all of the staff and everyone that's been active in all of these. So thank you again. We had a great service luncheon for milestones with many of the employees. Gosh, I think it ranged from five to maybe 20, 25 years in that lunch. So it's exciting to recognize those people that have been here with the city for a long time. I was able to attend the Cascaden Elementary School District kickoff. And that was a lot of fun with all the teachers and staff. And I think he said it was about 1,000 people that were there. And there was a lot of energy. And it's just so exciting to see all the teachers and staff ready to kick off the school year. Hopefully, they keep that energy through the year. I want to thank the Cache Grand Police Foundation with the shop with a cop. That was a really fun event last Saturday as they were able to identify some students and families that they could help. and do back to school shopping at Walmart. So thank you to Walmart and Chase Bank for their sponsorships and participation in the program. Pace School, for any of you that haven't been there, it's great. It's really coming alive and a lot of participation for career and college ready students and a lot of energy going out there with the new principal, Mr. Owens. And he's bringing a whole new energy and excitement there. And of course a lot of discussion today on data centers and you guys know that I'm on the league executive committee and I'm one of 22 mayors out of the 92 mayors that meet and discuss issues that we're all going through. And what we just went through is what all these cities are experiencing right now. But I must say that I'm just so pleased with where we were with this, with this whole, I mean, not pleased with the Prop 207, but with the waiver and the conditions, because many of these cities just have it by right in these cities, and we are still trying to protect the citizens' concerns, address these on a case-by-case, and so I was just proud to see that we still think that that continues to be very, very important. So, two more things. Cooling station, yes, we moved it from Len Cola So we do have 14 cooling stations throughout the city. We moved it from Lent Cola to the Dorothy Powell Center because people were saying that it was too far away for our homeless to get to. So now we've moved it and it's increasing that attendance here at Dorothy Powell. And good news, Banner Cash Grand, many of you saw that. that Sun Life was not delivering babies here in Cascaran and Banner Cascaran did tell us that they have secured a provider that is going to be delivering babies here in Cascaran. So it's short-term, but they're hoping to extend this into a long, long-term solution. So just FYI, that was good news. We don't want any babies born on the freeway like the other day. So again, thank you, everyone. Thank you, staff, for being here. Thank you to our partners for coming today and answering questions, APS, Arizona Water. We truly appreciate everything that you do. So with that, if I can get a motion going into executive session.

So moved.

Second. OK, motion and a second. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? OK.