Mesa approves 20% nonresidential water rate increase despite business community concerns

Mesa Council Approves Water Rate Hikes and Lincoln Development While Fielding Sustained Opposition to ICE Cooperation Agreement

The Mesa City Council convened on February 10, 2026, to approve routine consent and infrastructure items, but the meeting was shadowed by three consecutive speakers condemning the Mesa Police Department's 287G immigration enforcement agreement with Immigration and Customs Enforcement—an address the council was barred by state law from answering. Separately, Councilmember Jen Duff opposed a 20 percent increase to non-residential water rates, arguing the city was placing an unfair burden on businesses to avoid asking residents to absorb higher charges.

The council approved the Lincoln residential development (102 units west of Hampton Avenue and Chrisman Road), Arizona Farms Road natural gas infrastructure, and non-residential water rate increases, with only the water vote splitting the council. Two philosophy questions about the city's utility business footprint in Pinal County were deferred to a February 19 strategy session.

Key Speeches

"I have seen ICE and DHS in our parking lot as they harass and intimidate people. In front of our store, I watched a young couple get swarmed and kidnapped by ICE. I've seen my regular customers disappear after seeing SEU tomorrow. I've watched my friends live in fear of what happens if ICE comes through our door. And I listened to our community tell me they're terrified of warrantless searches and racial profiling. This culture of collaboration is a stain on what public safety means for our city." — Rohit Chandra Shaker, Milano Music Center employee and Chandler resident

"I'm a US citizen of South Indian descent. I carry my birth certificate around in case I'm stopped. Is this the life that was promised to people who did it the so-called right way? In the end, we know that regardless of how we or our parents got here, the system that you prop up sees us all the same. So I must stand with my brothers and sisters regardless of their documentation status and say ice out of Mesa despite your alterations to city hall rules to manufacture the perception that we are just a few disgruntled individuals." — Rohit Chandra Shaker

"What happened is that amount that we still had to capture um which we reduced residents um average monthly charge 77 cents. We decided we didn't want to do that. That's too great for our residents. So, we pushed all that onto our businesses and now on average, our businesses have a 20% increase, an average of $9.24 a month for 9K gals. I don't agree with pushing this kind of rate increase on our businesses." — Councilmember Jen Duff

"The majority of our small businesses um use less than 6,000 gallons of water, three of which are covered in the service uh fee. So, you know, is it is an impact? Yes. But, uh looking at our small businesses, the majority of small businesses will not be significantly impacted." — Unnamed council member (staff response)

Timeline

• Consent Agenda: Nine items approved unanimously, including liquor license approval, three-year facility maintenance and equipment contracts, federal highway safety grant application, zoning approval for two freeway landmark signs, primary election resolution, and utilities ordinance (Item 9A). Item 4A (Arizona Farms Road gas line) and Item 8A (water rate increases) were removed for separate discussion.

• Item 4A (Arizona Farms Road High-Pressure Gas Line): David Winstanley, a District 6 resident, posed two philosophical questions: (1) whether the city should remain in the natural gas utility business, particularly in Pinal County's Magma service area, and (2) whether approving the contract would increase the general fund transfer and effectively levy a tax on Mesa residents. Winstanley requested that both questions be addressed in the February 19 strategy session rather than that evening.

  Mr. Butler (utilities staff) clarified that utility costs are borne solely by ratepayers within each utility, not by all city residents. Councilmember Jeremy Whittaker asked for revenue figures after maintenance and staffing costs; Butler confirmed that enterprise fund profit-and-loss statements are publicly available. Mark Hersburg (utilities staff) explained that the Magma service area acquisition in the 1970s was made as speculative growth infrastructure that is now "paying dividends" with increased commercial and industrial development. A council member noted Mesa's 1913 purchase of an electric company as historical precedent. Item 4A passed unanimously.

• Item 8A (Non-Residential Water Rate Increases): Councilmember Jen Duff explained the issue: in November–December utility rate negotiations, residents pushed back against residential water rate increases. The council reduced the residential burden to 77 cents per month but was obligated to capture approximately $1.7 million elsewhere. Rather than impose higher residential charges, the majority voted to shift the burden onto businesses, resulting in a 20 percent average increase ($9.24/month for 9,000-gallon customers).

  Jen Duff said she disagreed with this approach and opposed the ordinance as unfair to Mesa businesses. An unnamed council member rebutted that the move was designed to accelerate rate parity: businesses had historically paid significantly less than residents. Another council member noted that the majority of small businesses (those using less than 6,000 gallons) fall under a service fee cap and would not be severely impacted. Item 8A passed 6–1, with Jen Duff voting no.

• Items 7A & 7B (The Lincoln Development): No separate discussion. Minor general plan amendment and rezoning for 102-lot attached single-residence development west of Hampton Avenue and Chrisman Road passed as part of consent agenda.

• Citizen Comment Period: Three speakers addressed the council. State law prohibits council response to non-agenda items.

  1. Rohit Chandra Shaker (3 minutes): A Chandler resident employed at Milano Music Center in downtown Mesa, Shaker described witnessing ICE operations in the parking lot, warrantless searches, racial profiling, and customer fear. He named Mesa Police Officer Kent Green and ICE Kevin Thompson in connection with a July 1, 2025, query of a facial recognition ("flock") database. Shaker called the 287G agreement "a stain on public safety" and demanded its termination.

  2. Reggie Braun (waived three-minute limit; gave extended remarks): Braun invoked Christian teachings on neighbor care and opposition to putting "money, taxes, security" above moral principle. He cited Second Amendment concerns, Pinal County construction slowdown (attributed to fear of ICE), and referenced South Korea's response to ICE enforcement (military consolidation, $8 billion budgetary impact). Braun praised council's rail and setback decisions but criticized those who opposed them. He referenced a veteran and VA nurse who was fatally injured by law enforcement during a conflict.

  3. Ryan Jared Burch (District 1 resident, 3 minutes): Burch stated he travels with phone numbers of three family members permanently marked on his arm due to distrust of police custody. He compared the current environment to border cartel practices (maintaining car distance to avoid being "boxed in") and noted that "ice watch" alerts went off 24 times in the East Valley during the prior council meeting. He urged the council to end the 287G agreement.

  Mayor John Giles requested decorum after applause and cheering.

• Motion to Adjourn: Entertained and passed.

Opposition

Number of speakers: 3 (all three speakers opposed the 287G agreement; Jen Duff opposed the water rate vote)

Main concerns about 287G agreement:

1. Direct witnessing of ICE operations in downtown Mesa parking lots involving harassment and intimidation
2. Warrantless searches and racial profiling of community members
3. Cooperation agreement between Mesa PD and ICE (Kevin Thompson, Officer Kent Green cited)
4. Use of facial recognition ("flock") database by Mesa Police at request of ICE
5. Community members disappearing and living in fear following ICE visibility
6. Cultural collaboration with an "ultraviolent government agency" motivated by "blood lust"
7. Diversion of federal funding from healthcare and education systems
8. Broader economic and diplomatic consequences (Pinal County construction slowdown, South Korea military consolidation)

Main concerns about water rate increases:

1. Unfair burden-shifting from residents (77 cents) to businesses (20 percent increase, ~$9.24/month per 9,000 gallons)
2. Inconsistency with business-friendly development goals

Most compelling arguments:

• Rohit Chandra Shaker's testimony about witnessing ICE operations in downtown Mesa and the erosion of community trust
• Ryan Jared Burch's statement that the lived experience ("what we are seeing firsthand on the streets") contradicts the official description of the cooperation agreement
• The practical consequences: community members marking family contact information on their bodies due to fear of police custody

Organized groups: No formal organizations named, but Shaker referenced "lines of people who feel what I feel" standing outside the meeting room, suggesting organized community presence.

Support

For water rate increases:

• Unnamed council member: Rate increases accelerate progress toward "parity" between residential and commercial customer classes; businesses had historically paid less than residents
• Unnamed council member: Majority of small businesses (using less than 6,000 gallons) fall under a service-fee cap and will not be "significantly impacted"

No speakers explicitly supported the 287G agreement during public comment. The council did not respond to the three speakers on the grounds of state law prohibiting council response to non-agenda items.

Project Details

The Lincoln Development

• Case numbers: Zoning case 25-313 (minor general plan amendment); Zoning case 25-210 (rezoning and site plan review)
• Location: West of the southwest corner of Hampton Avenue and Chrisman Road
• Project type: 102-lot attached single-residence development
• Current zoning → Proposed zoning: Urban Center (Place Type) → Urban Residential (Place Type); rezoning of plant area development overlay
• Units: 102 attached single-residence lots
• Outcome: Approved as Items 7A and 7B (minor general plan amendment and rezoning ordinance)

Arizona Farms Road High-Pressure Gas Line

• Case number / Item: 260131; Item 4A
• Scope: Design, bid, and build of high-pressure gas line replacement
• Location: Arizona Farms Road, Pinal County (Magma service area)
• Project context: Part of Mesa's owned-and-operated natural gas utility enterprise (acquired 1970s); intended to serve growing residential, commercial, and industrial development in Magma service area
• Outcome: Approved unanimously

Non-Residential Water Rate Increases

• Item: 8A (Ordinance 26-011)
• Scope: Non-residential (business) water utility services rate increases
• Rate increase: Average of 20 percent ($9.24/month increase for 9,000-gallon consumption)
• Rationale: Acceleration of rate parity between residential and commercial customer classes; shift of approximately $1.7 million rate-capture burden from residential (capped at 77 cents/month) to commercial
• Outcome: Approved 6–1

Vote Breakdown

Consent Agenda (Items 2, 3A, 4B, 4C, 4D, 5A, 5B, 5C, 6A, 7A, 7B, 9A)

• Final: Unanimous
• Yes: Mayor John Giles, Vice Mayor (participated by Zoom), Francisco Heredia (participated by Zoom), and other council members present
• No: None
• Abstentions / absences: None noted

Item 4A (Arizona Farms Road Gas Line)

• Final: Unanimous
• Yes: All council members present
• No: None

Item 8A (Non-Residential Water Rate Increases)

• Final: 6–1
• Yes: Mayor John Giles, unnamed council members (5)
• No: Councilmember Jen Duff
• Abstentions / absences: None noted

Individual votes by name not stated in transcript for Items 4A and 8A, with exception of Duff's no vote.

Outcome & Next Steps

Approved items:

• Consent agenda: passed unanimously
• Item 4A (Arizona Farms Road gas line): passed unanimously
• Item 8A (non-residential water rates): passed 6–1 (Jen Duff opposed)
• Items 7A & 7B (The Lincoln development): passed as part of consent agenda

Deferred items:

• Two philosophical questions raised by David Winstanley regarding the city's utility business footprint and the mechanism by which utility capital costs increase general fund transfers (effectively taxing non-utility customers) were assigned to the February 19 strategy session for further discussion. Staff committed to providing revenue figures for the natural gas utility enterprise fund to Winstanley and interested parties.

Non-agenda public comments:

• Three speakers opposed the 287G immigration enforcement agreement during citizen comment. The council did not respond, citing state law prohibition on council response to non-agenda items. No council motion, vote, or assignment of staff follow-up was made on the immigration enforcement topic.

Meeting adjournment: Entertained and passed.

Controversies & Context

287G Immigration Enforcement Agreement

The Mesa Police Department maintains a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) under Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which allows local police to perform immigration enforcement functions with federal authority. Three speakers—Rohit Chandra Shaker, Reggie Braun, and Ryan Jared Burch—provided testimony opposing the agreement.

Key allegations:

• ICE and Department of Homeland Security personnel conducting operations in downtown Mesa parking lots
• Warrantless searches and racial profiling
• Facial recognition database ("flock") queries by Mesa Police Officer Kent Green at the request of ICE Kevin Thompson (specifically dated July 1, 2025)
• Community members disappearing and living in fear
• Contradiction between official cooperation agreement scope and actual practice on streets

Broader context cited by speakers:

• Reggie Braun referenced South Korea's response to U.S. ICE enforcement: military consolidation and withdrawal, costing $8 billion in defense spending
• Pinal County construction slowdown attributed to fear of ICE enforcement
• Tension between immigration enforcement and economic development goals
• Moral and religious arguments about treatment of vulnerable populations

Council response: Under Arizona state law, the council was prohibited from responding to comments on non-agenda items. No vote, motion, or staff assignment was made. The meeting adjourned without addressing the immigration enforcement controversy.

Water Rate Increases and Business Impact

Councilmember Jen Duff opposition to the non-residential water rate increases (20 percent average) reflects a broader tension over how to fund utility infrastructure while remaining business-friendly. The majority of council voted to accelerate rate parity between residential and commercial customers, shifting the burden from residents (capped at 77 cents per month) to businesses (~$9.24/month increase per 9,000 gallons). Jen Duff argued this conflicted with pro-business development goals and expressed sympathy for "Mesa res[ident] businesses." Staff clarified that small businesses (majority using less than 6,000 gallons) are covered by a service fee cap and would not be "significantly impacted."

Utility Business Operations in Pinal County

David Winstanley raised philosophical questions about whether Mesa should remain in the natural gas utility business, particularly in the Magma service area (Pinal County). His concern was twofold: (1) profitability after staff and operational costs, and (2) the mechanism by which utility debt service increases the general fund transfer, effectively taxing residents who do not purchase gas from the city. Staff and council defended the utility enterprise as a "full service city" asset and noted that other Arizona municipalities contract out utilities, so comparing FTE and financial metrics "apples to apples" requires accounting for these differences. The city committed to presenting revenue and profit-loss data at the February 19 strategy session.

Duration

• Item 4A (Arizona Farms Road): Approximately 15–20 minutes (includes Winstanley's statement, staff response, council discussion)
• Item 8A (Water rates): Approximately 8–10 minutes (Duff's statement and council discussion)
• Citizens' comment period (287G opposition): Approximately 10–12 minutes (three speakers, ~3 minutes each)
• Total meeting: Approximately 1 hour to 1 hour 15 minutes (estimated; exact start/end times not provided in transcript)

Other Notable Items

Consent agenda approvals: The council approved a liquor license for Arosa Kitchen (1940 West Baseline Road), federal highway safety contracts and grant funding, zoning for two freeway landmark signs (Williamsfield Road and Signal Butte Road), and primary election designation. Item 6A (vehicle service and repair facility near Southern Avenue and Signal Butte Road) was continued to a date uncertain.