Water resource fee

A septic-system homeowner urged the council to scrap the credit model and adopt a flat $2.45 per 1,000-gallon fee for all accounts, arguing the current structure locks septic owners out of the 40% sewer discount and could push large-lot bills above $500 a month.

Questioned why projected growth is driving the fee, asked for specifics on apartment water use and what infrastructure the fee buys, and worried about losing Queen Creek's rural character to overdevelopment.

Expressed concern over the high financial impact of the proposed water resource fee on properties with large turf requirements and suggested exploring HOA water-wise landscaping ordinances like Scottsdale's.

Raised questions about fairness for residents on fixed incomes and septic systems who face additional charges without sewer connectivity.

Questioned the fairness of a $40 monthly septic fee and higher per-thousand-gallon rates for residents not connected to town sewer services.

Highlighted confusion among residents regarding conflicting information from town staff about septic fees and urged council to consider residents' livelihoods.

Expressed strong opposition to Flock automated license plate reader cameras in town, citing privacy concerns and potential for misuse.

Expressed opposition to the water resource fee, stating that two-acre irrigated lots face a triple hit on potable water, irrigation water, and lack of septic credit.

Expressed opposition to the fee increases, arguing that the town bears responsibility for overbuilding and should not push the financial burden onto long-time residents.

Expressed concern over how water costs are distributed, noting that large-lot agricultural and livestock uses should not be penalized by policies ignoring historical exemptions.

Asked the council to halt the fee increases and find a more equitable solution for long-time residents whose water bills would exceed property taxes.

Stated that county island irrigators face life-changing cost increases that threaten retirement plans and urged the town to find a smarter, long-term funding mechanism.

Requested that existing flood irrigation customers be removed from the water resource fee or that adoption be postponed until a separate irrigation cost-of-service study is completed.

Expressed opposition on behalf of the equine community, stating that exorbitant water rates will force horse owners out and calling for a public vote.

Stated that flood irrigation naturally replenishes the ground and questioned why fees are charged on water that returns directly to the aquifer.