An atmospheric garden oasis [music] was beautifully created in this space. Surrounded by Spanish medieval baro style architecture, murals of mountains [music] and forests under a deep blue dome sky. It was hailed an architectural and artistic marvel expressing modern theater at its finest. We were inspired [music] to marry today's technology to that original intent. Taking a step forward, we gathered [music] sounds that are true to Arizona. Mixing and layering hours of [music] recordings, achieving realism to surround our audience. The dome sky is further brought to life where advanced lighting [music] and visuals are meticulously synced to captured sounds. Witness dusk till dawn and the expanse [music] of our universe. All this magic to honor the Orpheium's original intent [music] for audiences to lose themselves in this garden oasis and be drawn closer to the performance. [music] These efforts are a nod to the Oreium's history and performances past, present, and future. As stewards of this historic space, we look forward to welcoming [music] you and walking beside you. One step [music] into history, one step into the future. Heat. Heat. [music] >> [music] >> Happy holidays from Phoenix TV. [music] [music] Juan Ying. Wying or welcome everybody. Welcome to America's friendliest airport, Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport. What a wonderful day it is to be here as we welcome China Airlines with the first ever non-stop service from Taipei to Phoenix, Arizona. What a great day it is. [applause] First, we have some very distinguished guests and dignitaries who will be speaking today. I'd like to introduce them, please. Uh, first we have Phoenix City Councilman Kevin Robinson, who happened to be on the flight today. Councilman Robinson, welcome. [applause] ROC Taiwan's representative to the United States, Ambassador Alexander U, is with us. [applause] Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Los Angeles. Director General Aminoqi is with us. Welcome. [applause] China Airlines has forged an amazing partnership with one of our largest carriers at Sky Harbor Airport, uh, Southwest Airlines. We're well just excited to welcome Southwest Airlines senior vice president Adam Decair. Thank you for joining us, Adam. [applause] And we're beyond thrilled to have the chairman of China Airlines, China Airlines Chairman George Cow is with us. Chairman. [applause] In addition, we have China Airlines board member Joel Shonne is with us. Joel. [applause] And China Airlines senior vice president Jeffrey Shen is with us. Jeffrey. [applause] So, thank you all so much for being with us today. I am Chad Makovsky. I'm the aviation director here at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport. We've been working on this route for almost a decade now. And we're so happy uh to have this day arrive where we have our first ever non-stop service uh to Taipei, Taiwan. Um our mayor, Kate Ggo, uh was able to join the flight and meet the flight at its arrival, but has other duties as she's uh leading a council uh council formal meeting today. So, she wasn't able to be with us. But we're very grateful to have Councilman Kevin Robinson here. As I'd mentioned, not only is he going to provide uh welcoming remarks, but he's going to give you a firsthand account because he actually was on that very first flight from Taipei to Phoenix today. So, on behalf of the thousands of people who work here at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport every day, we want to thank you, Councilman, for your steadfast leadership and your willingness to really do what's best for the community and our airport. So, please uh ladies and gentlemen, uh allow me to welcome Councilman Kevin Robinson. Councilman [applause] Good afternoon everybody and thank you very much. Um, you know, Chad mentioned that I had the pleasure and it was more than just a pleasure. It was an honor to be on that inaugural flight from from Taipei, Taiwan to Phoenix. It is indicative of what I know is a tremendous partnership that is really going to propel this region, the relationship between the two countries. It's um it's just terrific. And as I said, it's an tremendous honor to welcome all of you here today because this is a historic milestone for Phoenix. And it's the first it's our first non-stop flight to Taipei, Taiwan. China Airlines launched the China Airlines's launch of this three times weekly non-stop service to Taipei marks a significant first for Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport. This new route is more than just a connection between two cities. It's a bridge between two dynamic regions. The economic impact of this yearround service is expected to exceed $100 million on an annual basis. That's a testament to the power of global connectivity. Passenger traffic between Phoenix and Taipei has surged by more than 400% since 2019, highlighting the growing demand for this connection. China Airlines's extensive network will provide seamless access to destinations across Asia, making travel more convenient than ever before. Taipei is home to TSMC, the world's largest semiconductor manufacturer, along with a robust ecosystem of supply chain and equipment design companies. This new route arrives at a pivotal time for our region. Our region is experiencing historic levels of foreign direct investment across sectors such as semiconductor, battery manufacturing, and biosciences. This flight is not just about tourism. It's about trade, innovation, and opportunity. It reflects this in the opportunity. It reflects the strength and momentum of the Phoenix market. It's made possible by the collaboration, as Chad mentioned, by the collaboration of some significant partners. foremost, China Airlines, but also the Phoenix's Office of Economic, Office of Community Economic Development, as well as Greater Phoenix Economic Council and many others. With more than 320 days of sunshine here in Phoenix, Phoenix has long been a premier destination for visitors, and Arizona is proud to boast more national parks and monuments than any other state in the nation. So outside of the business aspect of it, the tourism opportunities are terrific. So today we are thrilled to welcome travelers from from the Silicon Island to the Silicon Desert. The future is bright and this is just the beginning. Thank you all for being here. Truly appreciate it. And again, thank you and congratulations to all involved in this what is a historic endeavor. Thank you very much. Thank you for THE TIME. [applause] THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN. WE'RE SO fortunate to have you in a leadership role in our city. Uh, it's now next my honor to introduce our next speaker, ROC Taiwan's Representative to the United States, Ambassador Alexander Yu. Ambassador. [applause] >> Thank you, Chad, Councilman Robinson, Chairman Gal, George Cow, and senior VP from Southwest Airlines and members of the China Airlines team as well as my colleague Amino Chi from uh our ALA office and all my colleagues and all the uh distinguished guests who are here. What an happy occasion. Uh, congratulations to Phoenix Sky Harbor, but also to Taiwan's China Airline for making this possible. But my question is, what took you so long? [laughter] Uh, you know, the bustling presence from Taiwanese community, not only uh for the presence of TSMC in the last few years, but also I I've, you know, from data I I I read, there are 30,000 of our e expats living in Arizona. So I think it was only a matter of time that the the transportation nexus will be established. But as the councilman and Chad mentioned, this flight is not only about tourism. It's about forging uh more collaboration uh in our industries, in our technologies, in our exchanges, in education and in all fronts. uh United States is uh seeking for a re renaissance in uh industrialization especially in the high-tech area and Taipei Taiwan is your best partner in this endeavor. Um what can I say? I I was when I was waiting for for the passengers to come in, uh, one of the ladies who was with me, uh, she's a Taiwanese teaching at Arizona University in Tucson, and she said, "Well, now I don't have to drive nine hours to LA to to receive my parents." Yeah, I can just wait here. And and and I said, "Well, maybe your mom misses the the drive from LA to to Arizona." But again, uh it's it's uh simplifies a lot of things for people who are coming from Taiwan to uh Arizona, particularly Phoenix. But this is a two-way street. So Taiwan is your portal to Asia. From what I know, this is not only the first flight between Taiwan and and and Arizona, but it's the the first Asia flight that Sky Harbor is receiving. So this is big news for for you, but also for us. And again uh a lot of prosperity, a lot of good health to all all of you present. You know I'm wearing my lucky red as you've noticed. Uh well uh more more to come and a lot of prosperity and especially uh on the issue of uh AI. You know United States is pushing for AI uh dominance AI uh and we'll work together to achieve this packed silica that United States is trying to promote. Thank you very much. [applause] Thank you so much for being with us, Ambassador. Uh, I'm thrilled to introduce our next speaker with Southwest Airlines senior vice president, Adam Decair. Adam, [applause] well, thank you and welcome China Airlines. This is a tremendous opportunity to get to speak for the 70,000 uh Southwest employees and it's a great honor to be here. So, thank you for including us. Uh this service to Taipei doesn't just build a strong connection between Sky Harbor and Asia. It also puts Phoenix at the crossroads of a great new partnership. Beginning in mid January, our Southwest team will be here providing their customer uh famous hospitality transferring China Airlines customers to and bags between Trans-Pacific flights and the unmatched network of Southwest Airlines. will offer these international travelers connections to nearly 40 cities across the United States, including Las Vegas, Austin Dallas Houston Nashville Baltimore, and Orlando. This has been a decade of sustained growth for Southwest Airlines here in Phoenix. With new gates, new maintenance facilities, job growth, and new flights, the number of seats we offer travelers here in Phoenix has grown 30% in the last 10 years. That's included everything from domestic to international, long haul and short. We start even new short hall service to Tucson here in the next uh in March. And from the Hawaiian Islands to Cancun, from New England to Midsouth, Southwest Airlines will do all across the heartland. No one gives Phoenix what Southwest Airlines does every day with the heart that we give it to. Thank you to our partners at China Airlines. We welcome you to the great Southwest. [applause] Thank you, Adam. We are so fortunate to have such a long-standing relationship with Southwest Airlines. It's one of our largest airlines right here at Sky Harbor Airport. We're really happy that you're with us today. Um, so, uh, our last speaker has been working with the Phoenix on our business case, as I'd mentioned, for many years, almost a decade, as we, uh, met back as as recently as 2023, uh, in the China Airlines headquarters in Taipei. uh we really appreciate all of uh his efforts, his confidence that he's really placed in our market uh as we uh launch this non-stop flight. And I'm just beyond thrilled today to welcome the chairman of China Airlines, Mr. George Cow. [applause] This is a serious moment, so I need to read it words by words. And good afternoon everyone. Uh thank you to the CT of uh Phoenix uh Councilman Kevin and uh Chad and also our uh Bas Suzan and all the discret distinguished guest uh from all over the governor and all department of the airport and also our team in China airline and I'm persspiring not because I'm nervous but it's the warm home hospitality when I step in in this airport. I can feel so make me persspiring. It is a great honor uh for me to personal fly on this first non-stop schedule flight from Taipei to Phoenix. But actually I was here and in 1997 it's almost 30 years ago. And from the window when we approach I can see a lot of change of the Phoenix. That's why I feel I'm right to open this flight to launch this flight from uh Taipei to Phoenix. and today mark another important uh milestone for our North American network and uh represent a new chapter for the China airline in the region. Phoenix is a major city in the southwest of the United States and also is one of the fastest and fastest uh growing city in the United States. So we truly believe uh in this city potential and uh look forward to building even stronger partnership uh together in here. North American is our most important network market. Uh, Phoenix is our seventh destination in the North American and totally we I I believe we are we have a more than 40 flight uh from Tawian to the United States per week. So with the connect flight in Southwest airline I believe we can provide more convenient service to both side people passenger for example uh the passenger from the Asia no matter it's north Asia or Northeast Asia or the Southeast Asia uh we can provide a more convenient flight through the Southwest airline. Finally, I want to express my sincere appreciation uh to the city of the Phoenix uh our partner in governor and everyone who support the launch of this sector. I would also like to uh give a special thanks uh to our hardworking Phoenix station teams. The milestone is possible because of your dedication and we hope you will continue to support China Airlines and we will keep promising providing the high quality service and reliable operation and look forward to become your first choice when you fly between Phoenix and Asia. Thank you. [applause] Thank you, chairman. You know, I was thinking as you were speaking about um the the risk and the investment that it takes to actually have that very first flight come to a community. You uh have you we worked to build that business case. Uh but you had the confidence uh to make sure that this day happened and I just want to thank you and the entire China Airlines team for allowing us to make that today possible. So, thank you very much, sir. Uh so I have a couple of other uh very important people in the audience I really want to make sure that we recognize because it takes a lot of people to make a route work and so some of the the important folks in the audience that helped us to do this. Uh if you would uh join me in recognizing Phoenix Aviation Advisory Board member and past chair Sandra Pheneza is with us. Please uh join me in welcoming Sandra. [applause] Uh representing our Phoenix City Manager's Office and my boss deputy city manager Amber Williamson is with us. So, thank you, Amber, for being with us. [applause] Uh, I have a a couple of amazing team members that really make this state uh work on behalf of the City of Phoenix Aviation Department. First, Phoenix Sky Harbor's chief revenue officer, Roxan Favorvers. She actually was on the arrival flight as well. So, welcome Roxan. Thank you for being a part of that. [applause] Chief uh development officer, he's the guy that helps to build the future of Sky Harbor Airport, Dber Malik. Thank you, Davver. [applause] And our chief operating officer, she uh makes sure that everything from the roadways to the runways is working in good working order. Uh Sarah Demery is with us. Please join me in welcoming Sarah. [applause] We also have an amazing partnership with our federal agencies and today would not be possible without their cooperation and support, an amazing uh focus on the future of Arizona. Uh and so with us uh from the Customs and Border Protection Phoenix port is port director Marisella Perez. Please join me in welcoming Miss Perez. [applause] Uh Chief Bernardet Garcia is with us today. Chief, thank you for being with us. [applause] And Chief Juanosario, thank you all for being with us today on behalf of uh the Customs and Border Protection. [applause] you really are the first impression for many, not only to the city of Phoenix, but to the state of Arizona and for many the United States of America. And so, we're just so grateful to have you as the face of our airport. So, thank you. Um, I also want to thank on behalf of the uh office of uh Arizona Office of Tourism, Alex Sculpser Ridgeway is with us today. Alex, thank you for being a part of this. And I know I have so many others in the back that I had a chance to greet as well from the Support Sky Harbor Coalition and many others. I just want to thank you all for being a part of uh today and making it special for us. So, I'd like to close by thanking everybody, especially all the members of our Phoenix aviation department that helped to make today possible uh in the onboarding process. You know, they work hard to uh to make sure that over 130,000 passengers every single day make it through our airport efficiently and safely. You know, and as the largest economic engine and the largest employment center uh in all of Arizona, although TSMC is getting much bigger, so we're watching them. Uh, Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport contributes more than 44 billion dollars to the Arizona economy every single year. Uh, and our employees make all of this look so seamless, even during the busiest days. And so, I just want to thank all of those teams that help make this possible. Please join me in thanking them. [applause] >> [music] [music] [music] >> Good morning everyone and thank you all for joining us as we celebrate the grand reopening of Telephone Pioneer Park playground. I'm so thrilled that we have some fourth grade students from Village Meadow Elementary School here with us today. Little known fact, I actually attended Village Meadows a long time ago when it was probably a new school. [laughter] Um, today's ribbon cutting reflects our city's commitment to equity and accessibility. This playground was designed to ensure children of all abilities can explore, learn, and have fun. It was designed with new adaptive play equipment, accessible surfacing, and sensory friendly elements. Parks should be places where everyone feels welcome, and telephone pioneer park continues to lead the way. I want to acknowledge the hard work and partnerships behind this project. First, an a heartfelt thank you to Ability 360 for their advocacy and expertise. Let's give them a Christopher. Is it working? Okay, Christopher, you and your team are invaluable in providing inclusive recreation across the city. Thank you. I also want to thank Integrity Foundation for their dedication and helping bring this vision to life. I was here the day the Integrity volunteers worked on the playground and their enthusiasm was contagious. Thank you so much, Integrity. And finally, yes, round of applause for Integrity. Finally, I want to offer my sincere appreciation to the Parks and Recreation Department team. Their hard work, dedication, and passion are what make projects like this possible. And so, let's give them a round of applause. Also, thank you to the park department. This grand reopening of Telephone Pioneer Parks Playground shows Phoenix at its best. We value innovation, teamwork, and a commitment to serving every member of our community. I want to thank you again for being here and I know we have a couple of more speakers, but I can't wait for us to all play. And that that's the sign for play afterwards. So now it's my imp my pleasure to introduce our parks and recreation department director Cynthia Aguular. >> Thank you Vice Mayor. Good morning everyone especially to our students from Village. Is it Village Meadows? Did I get right? >> Village Meadows. I hear you are third through sixth graders. Is that right? >> Fourth through six. >> Fourth through six. Good morning. Thank you for being here. I also want to thank Vice Mayor O'Brien who we introduced pretty quickly but we're very lucky. She is the city council woman for this part of Phoenix and you have a very fierce advocate for parks in your area. So, if you could please give her a round of applause. >> I meet with her very regularly and she is genuinely passionate about parks and because of her we are here today and because of our partners at Ability 360 and the Integrity Foundation. Uh this park has a special place in our park system. You heard a little bit about it. There is no other park in the entire Phoenix park system and we have almost 200 parks uh quite like Telephone Pioneer Park. This was the city's first fully inclusive park and we have work to do to make sure that that continues and this is just one step towards that. Making sure that we provide generations to come accessibility to our parks is really at the forefront of what we do and as we continue to grow we want to be sure that we're committed to that. Uh I do want to thank Ability 360. You are fantastic partners. We could not do what is done here for the community without you. Thank you very much to Chris and Gus, Belle, everyone involved here. And as the vice mayor mentioned, the parks team, we have several members. So, not only are they critical to making sure that things like this are planned, but moving forward that things like this are taken care of just to so to our children and to the community who's here, the moms I met at the front, I was so glad to meet you. they were so enthusiastic and appreciative for what we've done here. Um, to all of you, thank you for really helping us take care of this place and making sure that other people are going to take care of it moving forward. Um, and thank you to our parks and recreation team. If you are a parks employee, can you please raise your hand? And with that, um, it's really my pleasure to introduce Christopher Knight, who is the CEO of Ability 360. All right, thank you so much. What a beautiful morning. Uh, everybody took my talking points about the uh park. So, uh, some of them bear repeating because I know so many individuals, so many organizations uh have have come together in order to make this come to fruition. And as mentioned previously, this used to be one of the country's, if not the country's most accessible uh park, making sure that everybody could have an inclusive experience. And over the years, obviously, as some things do, it's kind of fallen off and technology's gotten better and design has gotten more interesting. I'm so incredibly proud that we're able to move forward on creating what used to be and creating what will be, I think, really a landmark in terms of accessibility for parks and for recreational areas. So, I'm so thankful to the city of Phoenix. We're so thankful to the parks and recck department, certainly the Phoenix Suns who have helped. They introduced us into the to the Integrity Foundation which obviously helped put this all together. And certainly I want to say a big thank you to our staff at Ability 360 because I know how hard it is to kind of wrangle everything together and to find the funds and to get everybody on the same page. But I think once you work together, we really do see the fruit we really do see the fruits of our labor and what's coming together. So I'll share a quick story and then we can go uh and enjoy ourselves. Just seeing this is just absolutely incredible. I got involved into the disability community as the result of being the younger brother to my brother TJ. We grew up in a a relatively small at the time country town called Tombball, Texas. Uh, and growing up, you know, I I was in a unique point vantage point to see my parents and some of their struggles. And as TJ, my brother, and I were growing up, we didn't have things like this. So, I could tell how difficult it was for our parents to have to find different recreational opportunities because not everything was was accessible as not everything was accessible for my brother. So, we'd have to separate in many circumstances. And you know, from the beginning of my career, beginning of all that, kind of realizing what could the world look like if we could work better together to create places like this. And here we are. So, I'm so so proud of everybody's hard work. Thank you so much. This is just the beginning. It's going to be incredible. Thank you. >> [music] >> Yes. I mean, >> good afternoon. It is Wednesday, December 17th. Thank you for joining us. Please rise for an invocation from Chaplain Taylor. >> Please bow with me. Heavenly Father, we pause at the beginning of this meeting today to acknowledge you and to give thanks. Thank you for the gift of life, for the opportunity to serve, and for the freedoms we enjoy in this country. Thank you for the city of Phoenix and all those who call it home. We're reminded in your word that all authority is established by you. And so we lift up our leaders to you today. We pray for our mayor, our council members, and all who serve in the city government. Grant them your guidance and grace as they carry out their responsibilities. Please bless them with wisdom to navigate complex decisions with clarity and courage, compassion to see and respond to the real needs of our community, integrity to do what is right even when it is difficult, humility to listen well and lead with unity, and peace in their hearts as they carry the weight of leadership. We ask for your presence over today's agenda. May each discussion and decision reflect what is just, good, and in the best interest of those who live and work in the city we love. We offer this prayer in your holy name. Amen. >> Thank you for those important words during the holiday season. Uh, Councilman Robinson, will you please lead us in the pledgece to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Thank you, Councilman Robinson. I'll now call to order the meeting. Will the clerk call the role? Councilwoman Morvado >> here. >> Councilwoman Hernandez here. >> Councilwoman Hajj Washington. >> Councilwoman Pastor here. >> Councilman Robinson >> here. >> Councilwoman Stark >> here. >> Councilman Wearing. >> Vice Mayor O'Brien >> here. >> Mayor Go here. >> We have Elsie Dwarte and Mario Bahas with us to provide interpretation. Mario, would you please introduce your team? >> Yes, mayor. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Mario Vahas. As mayor said, together with uh Elsie Dwart and Oscar Monroy, we'll be serving as today's Spanish interpreters. I'll take a moment now to introduce ourselves to our Spanish speaking audience and provide a couple of uh uh guidelines as far as uh pro uh for interpretation. Oscar. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you so much, Mario. Will the city clerk read the 24-hour paragraph? >> The titles of the following ordinance and resolution numbers on the agenda were available to the public at least 24 hours prior to this council meeting and therefore may be read by title agenda item only. Ordinances number G7451,7462 through 7468 S52435 5243 sorry 52482 through 52509 52511 through 52513 and resolutions 22349 through 22354. >> Will the city attorney please explain public comment? >> Yes, thank you mayor. Um, the public must uh be cautious about speaking against the staff or other council members during their comments on agenda items. Agenda items must be related to the items on the agenda. Thank you. >> Thank you. As is becoming common at the end of the year, we will have quite a long lengthy meeting. A lot of important business to finish up in 2025. We will take a break around 5:00 pm today for approximately 15 minutes. We'll begin with the meeting minutes. Councilman Robinson. Item one. >> Thank you, Mayor. I move approval of formal meeting minutes from June 18th, 2025. >> Second motion and a second. All those in favor say I. >> I. I. >> Any oppose? Nay. >> Passes unanimously. >> Vice Mayor boards and commissions. Item two. Mayor, I move to approve mayor and city council boards and commission's nominations. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. Any comments? All those in favor, please say I. >> I. Any opposed? Nay. >> We have some public servants to be sworn in and I'll ask them to come forward. Please raise your right hand. I state your name. Do solemnly swearly >> that I will port the Constitution I will support the Constitution of the United States. and the Constitution and laws of the state of Arizona, >> that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same and defend them against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge the duties of the office of state your office, according to the best of my ability. So help me God. Congratulations on your unanimous selection. Congratulations to our new commissioners and thank you for serving our city. We next go to item three. We'll reappoint five municipal court judges and and recognize some exceptional continue to recognize exceptional public servants. Vice Mayor, I move to approve reappointment of the following judges to serve four-year terms as municipal court judges. The Honorable Nyquest, the Honorable Sanchez, the Honorable Dulles, the Honorable Gilbert, and the Honorable Jones. >> Second. We have a motion and a second. Any comments? Thank you for all you've accomplished on behalf of our court system and and continue to do. Our court system is really a point of pride for the city of Phoenix. Roll call. >> Ward Hernandez. >> Yes. >> Haj Washington. >> Yes. >> Pastor, >> um, may I make a >> Please explain your vote. >> Okay. I'm sorry. Uh, I just want to congratulate you. Um, you do great work and thank you for serving in our court. Yes. >> Robinson. >> Yes. >> Stark. >> Of course. Yes. >> Wearing >> O'Brien. >> Yes. >> GGO. >> Yes. >> Passes 90. >> Thank you so much for your service to the city of Phoenix and congratulations on your well-deserved reappoint. The city of Phoenix provides an advisory role to the state of Arizona on liquor licenses. And that is the next portion of our agenda. Vice Mayor, do we have a motion? >> I move to approve items 4 through 16. We have a motion in a second. Any comments? Counciloman Pastor. >> Yes. I'm so excited for Hope uh brunch. Uh we've been working on this for quite some time or been talking about it and now it's here. So, yay. All right. All those in favor, please say I. >> I. >> I. Any oppose? Nay. >> City clerk, are we ready for ordinances resolution new business planning and zoning? >> Yes, mayor. >> Vice Mayor, do we have a motion? Mayor, I move to approve items 17 through 77 except the following. Items 18, 37, 40, 44 45 46 51 54 55 67 72 73 74 75, 76, and 77. noting that items 46, 73, and 76 are as revised. And will the clerk confirm if there are any other items that should be excluded for in-person public comment? >> Yes, mayor, vice mayor. Also excluding item 29, item 29. >> Thank you. We have a motion. We need a second. Second. We have a motion and a second from Councilwoman Pastor. Roll call. >> Yes. >> Hernandez, >> yes. >> Hudge Washington, >> yes. >> Pastor, >> yes. >> Robinson, >> yes. >> Stark, >> yes. >> Wearing O'Brien, >> yes. >> GGO, >> yes. >> Passes 90. >> Thank you. We next move to item 18. North North American Region of Airports Council International vote. Uh, Vice Mayor, do we have a motion? >> Mayor, I move to approve item 18. >> Second. >> We have a motion, a second. I'll recognize Councilman Hernandez for comments. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, I just have a few questions for our airport director, Macakovski. >> Good afternoon, director. Um so this agenda item is to approve Sky Harbor's annual membership into the um airports council international North America. Um, our membership in this group gives us access to an advocacy group that works on our behalf um to advance policies and practices amongst federal agencies including the Federal Aviation Administration, Transportation Security Administration, which is TSA, uh, Customs and Border Protection, and the Environmental Protection Agency. Is that correct? >> Yeah, Mayor Councilwoman Hernandez, good afternoon. Uh, yes, I'm Chad Makovsky, aviation director of the ACI or Airports Council International. um membership does uh provide a number of services for the airport. Everything from career development of staff, certifications, educational uh opportunities, but an important function of the membership is for them to interpret legislation and regulatory policy. So airports understand how that impacts them and then when there's consensus among airports, uh they will advocate on behalf of airports with legislative officials, members of Congress as well as with the regulatory agencies. So yes, >> thank you, director. Um, and last week, you know, last week the New York Times published a piece that confirmed a lot of the fears that um, sorry, let me backtrack. Um, in late November, one of my constituents was grabbed by ICE at Sky Harbor. They had checked in and were walking to security when ICE agents surrounded them. Um, obviously his family is distraught. They're searching for answers um, and immediate, you know, immediate answers. Um, our office also began to look for answers of how ICE knew that our constituent was going to be at Sky Harbor. We asked um if ICE if is working with TSA to target residents. Um, last week the New York Times published a piece that did confirm those fears that TSA and ICE appear to be sharing passenger information. If airlines and TSA are sharing passenger data that ICE then uses to detain and deport people at our airport, then the city of Phoenix, I believe, has an obligation to warn residents of that risk because silence is not neutrality. Um, it is consent to expose our residents to danger. We also have an obligation to push push this organization who we are about to pay to demand that TSA and I stop working to deport our people. So, I just have a few questions. Um, is Phoenix Sky Harbor aware that ICE uses commercial flight information to locate and detain undocumented people at airports? >> Can we pause for a second for the city attorney? >> Thank you, mayor. Um, council, I just want to u caution you that this item is not agendaized to discuss um specific immigration issues. It is specifically to discuss um approval for um participation and membership in this group. Okay. But my questions are in relation to benefits of our membership in the group. >> Um, me mayor, members of council, as long as staff feels that they can answer that question and stay within the confines of, you know, membership in the group and tie it to that. Um, Mayor, Council Member Hernandez, as I understand your question, you were wondering if the airport was aware of immigration activity at the airport. Um, the airport's not always notified of immigration and customs enforcement activity. Uh, at the airport, they have a host of responsibilities, uh, everything from drug smuggling, international drug smuggling, interdiction to human trafficking, uh, um responsibilities uh and immigration responsibilities, of course. And so, we were not, uh, they don't always, uh, let the airport know of their activity. their official law enforcement activity and in this case until recent reports were were made in the uh in the media as well as um some constituents have let us know about that activity become aware of it. >> Okay. Thank you. And you kind of address what my next question is about the notifications um even though this is a citywide facility. So thank you for touching on that that they don't always have to let you know or inform us of that. Um, can the city push airports through this council international to advocate and demand that TSA stop sharing residents data with ICE? And mayor, council member Hernandez, the way uh, airports council international works is they work on consensus policy issues for the airport. So, uh, if one airport said, I would like you to do this one thing for me, they typically that wouldn't be their charge. But where airports come together and develop consensus on policy issues, that's where ACI can actually move forward uh with that policy direction from the consensus of airports. So in this instance, what I can do is I can um following this meeting uh work with ACI staff to determine whether or not other airports have raised this issue. And then I'm also um on a large hub committee leadership uh committee and I'm certainly uh willing to to u raise the issue with other airport directors to see if there is consensus on a policy direction related to this matter. >> Thank you so much director. I think it's in our best interest as a city to really push to make sure our residents are safe. Um I think it's bad for all of us if people do not feel our residents or anybody traveling through our airport do not feel safe to partake right. that is a uh economic impact that can come to the city property to our to our assets, right? So, I think for multiple reasons, we should use every tool in our disposal to advocate to make sure that everybody every traveler that uses our airport feels safe uh doing so here in our great city. Um so, thank you so much for for those answers, director. >> Thank you. Does anyone else have comments on this membership? Roll call. Yes. >> Hernandez, >> yes. >> Haj Washington, >> yes. >> Pastor, >> yes. >> Robinson, >> yes. >> Stark, >> yes. >> Wearing O'Brien, >> yes. >> GGO, >> yes. >> Passes 90. >> Item 29 is related to election tabulation. Vice Mayor, do we have a motion? >> I move to approve item 29. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. Leonard Clark is here to provide public testimony. Thank you, mayor and council member. My name is Leonard Clark. Uh I've been living in around this city since 1964 when I was born here. Um I just uh want to say thank you if you vote for this measure. We have a free and fair election system in Maricopa County. It is run by good people. It is run uh by people who are conscientious of their duties to the constitution. And that's why I think the city of Phoenix is making a wise decision to let Maricopa County elections oversee our elections. I know there is a lot of cynicism, but um I I ask that you please not fall for the propaganda that's telling us that our votes don't count just because certain people don't like who we are electing as a people. Thank you. Thank you for that testimony. Do anyone have any comments on this item? Roll call. >> Yes. >> Ernandez, >> yes. >> Hodge Washington. >> Yes. >> Pastor, >> yes. >> Robinson, >> yes. >> Stark, >> yes. >> Wearing. >> O'Brien, >> yes. >> GGO, >> yes. >> Passes 90. >> Item 37 is public comments on the proposed changes to the memorandum of understanding. Uh, I'll turn to our assistant city manager, Lori Ba, to introduce this item and explain the city's process. >> Thank you, mayor. Good afternoon, mayor, members of the council. The purpose of today's item is an opportunity for public comment on the proposed changes to theUS for the five labor organizations. Um, we had a previous meeting on December 3rd where the labor organizations themselves had an opportunity to present those changes. And today is the opportunity for the public to make comment on the proposed changes to the uhus. The negotiations process takes place between December and May. And so we are formally in the process. The actual negotiations will begin at the table January 6th and will continue until the uh final draftus are presented to the council which will be um sometime likely in April and then final vote in May. Um today's comments are focused specifically on comments from the public. There will be an opportunity for the council to make comments once the uh process concludes and the again the final drafts of those proposals are presented to the council in the spring and at the end of the process there will also be another opportunity for the public to make comment on those final drafts. >> Thank you so much. All right, we will go to public comment and we will begin with Rebecca followed by Annie. Um, hi, my name is Rebecca Dennis and I am here to speak in opposition of specifically unit 4 of the labor contract, which is theou negotiation between plea and the city. Um, I just want to be very clear that we really have no real accountability for law enforcement in the state of Arizona. The Arizona legislature has passed many laws that make it virtually impossible for officers to be disciplined or for there to be any real accountability. that trickles down into the city. And the city often uses those state laws as their excuses for why we don't have more oversight, for why we don't have more accountability, for why they can't do anything when an officer is violent or kill somebody. And so without saying that, I think this right now, why we're here, why the plea negotiation, why theou is so important to community, it's because it is literally life and death for us. It is the only time that we get to come here and see what they're proposing. We get to see how much money they're getting. We get to see that they're negotiating for more more overtime. This city already has an issue with corruption in its overtime policies and there's been many articles written about it in the city and yet this is one of the things that's proposed in thisou. The city also helps to fund positions on plea. That is their own union. And yet I tax dollars are going to fund a union that protects officers at all costs. That protected the officers that attacked my brother when he was in a mental health crisis. That protected the officer that killed Anna Hernandez's brother. They killed James Garcia that killed Ryan Whitaker who by the way trains for the academy. So when we come here, and we're not talking about the other labor unions, those other labor unions, the people that work in those those specific city departments, they don't have the ability to shoot and kill me. and get away with it. So that's why this plea contract should be open for the public beyond just today's comment. It should be open and accessible. We should have a seat at the table. >> Annie is next, followed by Cynthia. >> Good afternoon, mayor and city council members. My name is Annie Elden. I'm a supporter of Black Lives Matter Phoenix Metro, a member of Chispa Arizona, and a board member and former president of Phoenix spokespeople. Thank you for holding this meeting so that we can be involved in how how our tax dollars are spent in this great city of ours with regard to the Phoenix Police Department. And in regarding to theou, I am opposed to passing that because it is not in support of our communities. I reviewed it and I have many concerns. First, most of the contract will be completed behind closed doors. Today is the only day the public has a chance to let the city know how we want our money spent on this institution. There needs to be more transparency and opportunity for public comment, especially as we are paying for it. Second, there are a few places in theou that would provide Phoenix Police Department with even more money than the $1 billion they already have. In section 3-1 M, it states the city will conduct a market analysis of law enforcement agencies in Maricopa County that will be provided to the association at no cost. In section 5-2, point D, it says the city will establish a standalone trust to supplement retirey health care for officers. This is unacceptable. If the police want studies done and better retirey health care, let them use the $1 billion they already have. My friends from Black Lives Matter, Petta Action, and Samias will state more issues we have with thisou and I fully support them. I care most that thisou becomes more transparent and that the police do not get any more of our tax money. Thank you so much for letting me speak and I know you will make the right decision for all of Phoenix residents. Cynthia is next, followed by Sophia. >> Hello council members and Mayor Ggo. My name is Cynthia and I'm a resident here in Phoenix, Arizona. I'm here to voice my opposition to item number 37 regarding the plea police union contract. You need to vote no on this item as it puts Phoenix residents at a greater risk giving an already dangerous and violent department with one of the highest shooting rates, more money and power with even less transparency. I need you all to remember that you work for us, the residents and constituents, not the lethal police state. We need and deserve real effective and sustainable community pro protections. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Sophia is next followed by Hayden. Hello my relatives. I am Dr. Sophia Maranovich. I have a PhD in immunology and microbiology. I'm an enrolled member of the Fort Pexu tribes and I grew up as a settler of the aam land of in South Phoenix, Arizona. I work as a contractor all throughout the city of Phoenix. Every day I helped successfully repeal the law enforcement officers bill of rights in Maryland. For for your information, my mother was a tribal and federal law enforcement officer. According to several independent scientific studies, law enforcement is the field of work with the most domestic abusers. I survived the domestic violence of my mother. Cops didn't keep me safe from child abuse and they aren't keeping me safe as I work as a contractor all throughout Phoenix every day. Therefore, I demand that you oppose the plea police union contract as it makes no sense to fund people with disturbed concepts about power, control, and domination to harass and harm people who simply need our basic needs met in order to survive. In my previous employment experiences, I served as a shop steward and as a union representative representative in the progressive union workers union and I'm a former member of unite here local 11 here in Phoenix. I know from my experience as a union leader that union contracts can be ne negotiated in public. So I demand that you make the police union's contract negotiations open to the public. I have worked as a community organizer and other customer service jobs for over 10 years. After successfully defending my PhD, working with the public can be dangerous, and the cops have never kept me safe from human trafficking, sexual assault, sexual harassment, and threats of assault from abusive members of the public who have mainly been racist white men. As indigenous women are disproportionately victims of violence by white men in Arizona and throughout the USA, you have a missing and murdered indigenous women's epidemic in Arizona. And the solution is not more funding for the police, but more funding to the social safety net debt. I got out of human trafficking by the burning 2020 campaign giving me a job. >> Hayden is next, followed by Elizabeth. Good afternoon, council. My name is Hayden and I'm here to speak out against this policeou. Now, what this really is about is public safety and police transparency. Right now, our communities in Phoenix do not feel safe and there have been many, many, way too many incidents of violence and negligence from this police department. And thisou does nothing to protect our people and instead prioritizes officer safety. Right now we already have a bloated police department, a $1 billion budget which goes towards the second most violent police department in this country right right behind LA. And we want to give more money to fund overtime for those officers. I don't think so. And not only that, thisou gives protections for those officers when they do commit violence. Section 1-4 allows officers to receive training instead of discipline for causing harm against our communities. Why should we let the most the second most violent police force be given more money, more protection for their abuses? Thisou is not community safety and is not police transparency. It is the exact opposite of that. If we want to put an end to police violence in Arizona, and if we want to create a community where everyone feels safe, included, and welcome, we cannot keep feeding money to this police department, and we must hold those officers accountable. I recommend that this council and thisou be made open to the public more than just today. Everybody should hear what is going on, and everybody should have a chance because our police department and our community should feel safe. Thank you. Elizabeth Venibal is next followed by Monica Berentos. >> Hello Elizabeth Venibal um from department. Um, so one of the things I have a problem with plea is um that they are very influential on the policies of the city of Phoenix and they don't always advocate for um policies that are um um like in the best interest of the city of Phoenix um either financially sometimes or um I would say possibly like um in terms of morality. there's other ways that you can address problems uh besides just constantly expanding the police budget and and I think I've argued some pretty you know um strict uh definitions in terms of like what a program can provide in terms of like a human life is worth a bed is worth you know savings only in fire, police and emergency right and you know you look at the way that that the budget now is over you you know, a billion and and you got to wonder like what actual benefit to society does keeping increasing it every time go and I feel like a lot of this comes back to plea okay because of the policies that they advocate for continuously and their influence over the policy pro process I understand that you're going to have a police union and there's very little you can do about you know them articulating for their members because that's sort of the function of a union right but um at the same time there have been a lot of movement toward There had in the past been a lot of movement towards um police accountability, especially with council member um Carlos Garcia working on that. Um I am saddened to see that the um office of apparent of accountability and transparency has not been very functional right in in the time it's been going on. And I think that yes, there is a big barrier with working with the uh state legislature in terms of, you know, they always want to limit your purview um [clears throat] excessively, but I think that um you need to consider um the impact of play on your policies and they're not always positive. Monica is next, followed by Marty. Good afternoon, council members. I'm here to speak on the pleaouou. The fact that negotiations are made behind closed doors is undemocratic by nature. Decisions about the community's money should not be made without community input. Transparency and accountability need to be increased, not decreased as the PMOU dictates. Violent departments should not be rewarded with races. Additionally, violent actions should not be rewarded with time off or with training that doesn't actually change or decrease violent practices. And as if it wasn't enough, the over $1 billion budget, as if that wasn't enough, the pleou is requiring taxpayers to fund the union's work regarding section 3.31 uh which somebody previously quoted. This section says that the study will be provided to the assoc association at no cost. If the plea wants this study, they should pay for it themselves. This study is unnecessary and the cost should not be covered by the local community. No community group gets publicly funded staff, but the union does. Why is the police union and Phoenix PD being prioritized over community? We demand the end of negotiations behind closed doors, no more money for Phoenix PD, and the increase of transparency and accountability. Thank you. Thank you. Martha Marty is next, followed by Nancy. My name is Marty Winkler. Marty with an I. Search Martha Winkler, city of Phoenix officer Jason Gillespie and Facebook Justice for Marty Winkler. I have been the subject of one of the biggest cover-ups and public corruption in the city of Phoenix and Phoenix Police Department. I'm an extreme crime victim of Phoenix police officer Jason Gillespie and have been fighting in federal court against the city of Phoenix and Phoenix police aided by ruthless defense attorneys Kathleen Wineiki Christina Ratz of Wine Law for 11 and a half years through four attorneys and winning an appeal to the ninth circuit court and will finally be going to trial on June 7th 2026. I don't know many how many times I have to say this. The corruption at the city of Phoenix and the cover up of criminal Phoenix police must stop. Seattle, Minneapolis, San Antonio, Austin, and other cities have public hearings, listening sessions, and community observers observers. Uh during negotiations, the Phoenix Police Union contract must be discussed with the public input and is outrageous that they can review body camera and evidence before interviewed by PSB after attacks, shootings, and killings. This is how they protect their criminal cops. Almost never are they shockingly put they shockingly put these criminal predators doing training and many like Jason Gillespie don't even end up on the 100 plus Phoenix police Brady list who fights an innocent woman for over 11 years. I had been living a nightmare for 11 and a half years after officer Jason Gillespie almost killed me with his bare hands in a fit of rage because he thought I called the police too many times and all his blue buddies and the city of Phoenix immediately and continuously have done everything in their power to cover up an unspeakable act of violence on an innocent unarmed senior woman who called the police for help in their extreme corruption to cover for him. He's training police at Desert Horizon precinct, shockingly making a chief salary of 240,000 plus a year. While I survive on meager disability with traumatic brain injury, almost almost losing my eye. This is for Marty Winkler. Nancy is next, followed by Stephanie. Good afternoon. My name is Nancy Lamb. I am a constituent of district 4. A few months ago, I was at a deal muertos vigil where two moms shared how their sons were killed by the Phoenix Police Department. This happened more than 5 years ago and they have resigned themselves to no repercussions or accountability for the PPD officers involved. These miscarriages of justice are directly tied to theou negotiations the city is doing with the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association. Now, theseUS dictate staffing levels at the Phoenix Police Department, their wages and compensation, and importantly, whether or not officers receive disciplinary action when there is wrongdoing. The current draft of theou replaces discipline with training for officers who harm people. Section 1-4 allows officers who commit class 2 misconduct to receive training in le of discipline. Training is not accountability. There is no evidence training changes violent behavior. Instead, violent officers receive no marks on their record and stay on the street where they continue their violent behavior in another precinct. This is how departments recycle abuse instead of stopping it. We need theou to include accountability and transparency. Furthermore, the Phoenix Police Department receives $1 billion of our tax dollars, but the community is locked out of the negotiation process that make up a huge part of the PPD budget. Today is our one and only opportunity to comment on the PMOU before negotiations go behind closed doors. In a time of rising authoritarianism in the US, when the federal government is sending troops into American cities and folding local law enforcement into its efforts to terrorize communities and silence disscent, it is more important than ever that the local community act as a decision maker in theou process. Today, we demand that the city council open the pleaou negotiation processes to the public, deny any part of the MAU that increases the staffing and budget of the Phoenix Police Department, and hold PPD accountable when they harm and kill our community. Stephanie is next, followed by Nicole. >> Uh Stephanie Faircloth, >> I'm here. Um good afternoon, city council. I am a constituent from district 4 and I am here to speak in opposition to the Phoenix Police Department's. Um the police budget already consumes a disproportionate share of city resources compared to other departments. If increased funding alone led to greater efficiency or public safety, we would have seen those results years ago. Instead, continued increases have not reduced harm and in many cases have coincided with increased violence. Of one concern is section one two one to two allows supervisors to declare staffing levels unsafe and obligates the city to increase staffing including overtime which is the most expensive component of the police budget. This effectively gives the department unilateral authority to determine its own staffing levels creating what amounts to a blank check with no meaningful uh public oversight. This single provision has the potential to inflate the budget by millions of dollars. Additionally, thisou is negotiated behind closed doors with little to no input from communities most impacted by by these decisions. The lack of transparency feels intentional. Even the timing of this meeting midday on a weekday makes it difficult for working residents to participate. Um, our communities deserve a voice in this and I urge the council to reject this agreement and pursue a more transparent, accountable process. Thank you. Thank you. Nicole is next, followed by Monica. >> Nicole, you're unmuted. Please go ahead. Oh, >> okay. Sorry. I I didn't realize you were going to the online comments at this at this time. So, um I actually just need to pull over. And um anyways, uh good afternoon, mayor and uh members of the council. Uh my name is Nicole Marquez. I'm an elected school board member in Kraton. I serve on the Urban Phoenix Project Board and I'm in alignment with what Bodet and Action has been saying. Um, we're currently living in a time of rising authoritarianism as the federal government increasingly signals its intent to send troops to American cities and fold local law enforcement into efforts to silence descent and terrorize our neighbors. Local accountability is no longer just a policy preference. It is a matter of survival. Thisou negotiated entirely behind closed doors fails that test. The community has been locked out of this process while the city prepares to sign a billion-dollar agreement that binds us to a department already under DOJ investigation for unconstitutional policing. Only authoritarians negotiate the public's safety and money in secret. Thisou allows police supervisors to declare staffing unsafe at their own discretion, forcing the city to increase overtime and staffing. This is a blank check. blank check that can balloon the budget by millions without a single vote from the public. Phoenix PD's budget already dwarfs most every other department. Yet, thisou guarantees wage increases, bonuses, and even forces taxpayers to fund the union's own market studies and six full-time union positions. We are being asked to fund a political organization that exists to shield violent officers from the consequences of their actions. Most dangerously, thisou replaces discipline with training for class 2 misconduct. They should be getting trained before they get hired and start working and dealing with their people. Training is not accountability. It is a way to recycle abuse. Furthermore, giving officers early access to body cam footage and investigative files before they are interviewed allows them to craft their own stories and destroys the integrity of investigations. Phoenix PD is one of the most violent departments in the country. This contract contains zero reforms, zero financial safeguards, and zero protections for our community. And it just in a time when the federal government is attacking its own citizens, we need a police department that is strictly accountable to its local community, not a union contract that function. >> Thanks for pulling over. Monica will be our next speaker. >> Good afternoon, city council and members. Um, I urge you all to please oppose item 37. It will expand overtime and weaken accountability without new safeguards for its constituents. We don't need any more police brutality in our city. I've never felt safe around police officers and I ask that you listen to everybody's please. Thank you. >> Thank you. That concludes comment on this item from the public. And again, this is a lengthy process. We'll next go to item 40, which is the authorization to amend the contract with Arizona Community Association, also known as wildfire, related to additional utility assistance funding. Vice Mayor, >> mayor, I move to approve item 40. >> We have a motion of second. Councilwoman Hernandez. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, just wanted to pull this item really quick to really voice my support um for this increased investment in direct support services for our communities. Um, in a time when so many of our working families are facing hardships and finding ways to make ends meet, it is great that we have a great a good item on the agenda that is going to provide more assistance to our residents. Um, I do have a quick question for probably Jacqueline from our human services department. Um, or Ginger might you might be able to take this one, but I'll wait for Jacqueline to get to the table. Thank you so much. Um, as you see, we have a full council chamber and downstairs and would love for the residents to hear how they can um, access this utility assistance um, for the members for the public here and those watching online um, see how they could tap into that. Mayor, Council, Councilwoman Hernandez, members of council, thank you for the question. Um, there are multiple ways in which community members can access uh crisis assistance funds. Uh, first and foremost, I recommend going to our website www.fenix.govcase assistance. on there. Um they can find information on uh criteria for our programs. Also a link to our online portal which is in both English and in Spanish. They can apply for assistance that way. In addition um anyone can contact our appointment intake line at 6025348 or 2433. Um and also um someone can come into any one of our three family service centers and request um information on the program and apply there as well. >> Thank you so much. I think this is a great example of a great step that the city is taking and it's a step in the right direction to really address the needs that our residents face. So, thank you so much. Thank you, mayor. >> Thank you, councilwoman. And just recently, we had a unanimous council vote to do more and prioritize energy assistance. We know this is a huge challenge for our residents particularly in the summer. Encourage everyone to check out the utility programs in addition to the programs through the city of Phoenix for assistance. Councilwoman Haj Washington. >> Thank you, Mayor. I will take the opportunity also to layer on the gratitude for these types of programs. We continue to see a need in our community for us for programs that helped address the affordability concerns we see in our community. So, our human services department has been doing a great job on making sure that we are responsive to need of our residents. So, I too am very much in support of this item and I'm grateful for the opportunity to continue to serve more of Phoenix and our residents with utility assistance. So, thank you. >> Roll call. Mardo, >> yes. >> Hernandez, >> yes. >> H Washington, >> yes. >> Pastor, >> yes. >> Robinson, >> yes. >> Stark, >> yes. >> Wearing, >> yes. O'Brien, >> yes. >> GGO, >> yes. >> Passes 90. >> Next up is item 44, which is related to the South Mountain Community Library, maintaining it, investing in capital, and operating expenses. Vice Mayor, do we have a motion? >> I move to approve. >> I move to approve item 44. >> Motion from the vice mayor and a second from Councilwoman Stark, noting that Counciloman Pastor will not be participating in this item. We have a wonderful part partnership with the community college district that supports the students as well as our residents. gorgeous library at South Mountain and I'm excited to support the item. Roll call. >> Yes. >> Hernandez, >> yes. >> Hutch Washington, >> yes. >> Robinson, >> yes. >> Stark, >> yes. >> Wearing, >> yes. >> O'Brien, >> yes. >> GGO, >> yes. >> Passes 80. >> Item 44 is next. Will the city clerk read the title? I'm sorry. Item 45 is next. Item 45 is for ordinance G7466, an ordinance amending Phoenix City Code Chapter 24, Parks and Recreation to align with the parks code of conduct and improve consistency in enforcement. Thank you. Uh do we have a motion? >> Mayor, I move to approve item 45. >> Second. We have a motion and a second. We have many members of the public to comment on this item. Councilman Hernandez also wishes to comment. I'll recognize you. >> Thank you, mayor. Um, I'm actually going to start with a scripture from the Holy Bible because to be honest, I don't know what else to do today, and today's earlier prayer inspired me, and I really feel like I need to take y'all to church for a moment. Proverbs 14:31 reads, "Whoever oppresses the poor shows contempt for their maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God." Let me be clear as I get started and that I am against this ordinance. All this will do will be to incriminal uh to increase criminalization of Phoenix residents, resulting in our officers spending more of their time on petty issues and really cost us more taxpayer money. Furthermore, this is a huge step in aligning our city with Trump's war on residents experiencing homelessness. We need more beds, not more criminalization. We need more support services, not more criminalization. We need to move from a place of compassion and continuing to cage people will not solve the challenges we see in our parks. In addition, are we really proposing to charge a class one misdemeanor for these activities? Six months and $2,500 for smoking, for using our water fountains, for sleeping on a bench, for sitting on a picnic table. This is quite frankly ridiculous. In addition, um this is this also would charge anyone blocking an entry or exit with the misdemeanor. How are we even going to uphold that component of this ordinance? Um I do have a few questions for our parks department. Good afternoon, mayor, members of the city council. Councilwoman Hernandez. >> Thank you, Cynthia. Um, my first question is, what evidence did the city review that illustrates that increased criminalization of people in parks will result in more people finding housing? Mayor, members of the council, Councilwoman Hernandez, the intent of this ordinance is really to align what the parks and recreation board approved as park rules code of conduct uh with city ordinances. So when the parks board, who has the authority to establish park rules, made that decision, um we now need to come in for consistency purposes and make these ordinances align. Uh it's my understanding that the uh the consequences or the penalties that exist already existed prior to this when it comes to the ordinances, but there was clarifications in where that language was placed. >> Okay, I hear you. And is there any evidence that could either address through the code of conduct or this ordinance how people will find more housing by further criminalizing existing in the parks? >> Sure. Me mayor, members of the city council, Councilwoman Hernandez, that is not information or data that we look at when it comes to what today's ordinance is. Uh again, we're trying to align park rules in the ordinances. >> Okay. Um, is there any evidence or data that we looked at that shows that increased criminalization through either the code of conduct or this ordinance will result in more um people finding support services? >> Councilwoman Hernandez, that is not something that we tied to this. >> Okay. Thank you. My next question um is, is there any evidence or data that we looked at as a city that illustrates that increased criminalization of people in parks will result in more stability for our neighborhoods through either changes in our parks code of conduct or through this ordinance? >> Council Hernand Council Hernandez, that is not something we looked at in terms of criminalization. Uh again, it's about alignment. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, and my final question, what evidence, if any, did the city review that six months in jail and a $2,500 fine will help our residents or improve our parks through the parks code of conduct or through this ordinance? >> Sure, Councilwoman Hernandez, for that. I' I'd like to ask assistance from our law department again because it's my understanding that the punishments as they are today remained unchanged from what they were in most of these circumstances in the alignment of these park rules and the ordinances. >> Okay. Thank you, Cynthia. >> Sure. >> Thank you. Are we ready for public? >> Do you have Oh, sure. I'm sorry. Okay. Uh Julia, thank you. um mayor, members of council, yes, that is my understanding as well. And um I would also respond to that to say that when um if a violation is issued by the police department, the court has a lot of discretion in um having those penalties depending on the circumstances. >> Okay. Thank you, Julie. Um just some final comments. Um, every time I read this ordinance, I'm reminded of the endless number of policies passed all over the country and here in Phoenix that criminalize the poor, that criminalize black and brown people, that allow for police to target my people for pretty ridiculous reasons. I'm also reminded that one one in four people in the US are incarcerated, most of them being black and brown. And I am reminded that incarceration in the is the state's number one tool to terrorize communities. 25% of the world's prison populations are here in the United States. That is racism and incarceration is a tool of white supremacy. We have vulnerable people in our city. Nobody is disputing that. And we nobody is in disagreement that we need safe parks. Also, no one also this is a shameful, racist, ineffective policy masquerading as public safety. I reject this ordinance in its entirety and I would like to make a substitute motion that we table item number 45 permanently that we stop playing games with the lives of our people and we get to work on real solutions that don't put people in cages for facing poverty. Thank you. Does anyone else have questions or comments before we go to public? Okay. So, council will come back after public comment. We'll um begin with Jinnanne Sumner followed by Rebecca Dennis. I'm sorry. I looked at Did I look at Oh, no. It's the right item. Okay. Mayor Ggo and members of the city council, I support this alignments to enhance the public safety in our parks. I do have a question regarding section 24-48 about water activities. My question, will this hopefully include the use of the irrigation system in the old cross cut park for bathing? Thank you. And I'm sorry, the question was would this uh >> will this also will this also preclude using the irrigation system in the old crosscut linear park for bathing? The irrigation system is often cut so individuals can take can bathe in the park. >> Okay. Uh uh Cynthia. >> Yes, mayor, members of the city council and Miss Sumers. This would prohibit that as written because uh the purpose or the intended purpose of an irrigation system is to provide water to the grass or the turf. Thank you. >> Thank you. I definitely then support this. Thank >> Thank you. Uh Rebecca is next followed by Hilda. >> My name is Rebecca. I live in district 4 of the city. When I read policy like this propos proposed ordinance, I immediately feel sad, not disappointed because my expectations are so low. This city has literally set the bar in hell. While this policy is written broadly and is written to apply to everyone living in our city who uses our parks, those of us who are embedded in marginalized and vulnerable communities, we can read between the lines. And we know that who this ordinance will mainly affect and who it targets are those who are homeless and struggling with substance abuse, who use our parks as a refuge, people who are vulnerable and struggling, who lack resources and safe spaces to merely exist. I am not aware of any overreaching or long-standing research that supports the notion that increasing surveillance and criminalization makes our parks safer or works in the long term as a solution to homelessness and substance abuse. That is one reason I am sad. The second reason is it makes me sad because it's obvious that leadership and some of the staff who work for the city just aren't that smart or imaginative. And I say that with all the offense that it will be taken like cuz if you were, you wouldn't create weak policies like this. If you had any hope, if you had any faith, if you believed in the resiliency of people, if you really loved problem solving and you were creative, you would not come with weak policy. You would not put this on a platter in front of us and act like it's okay. You should be ashamed. This city constantly undermines the community and we tell you what we need over and over. We've been shouting it for years and you come by and come through with BS like this. This is honestly a disgrace. This is the type of that makes me want to run even though I hate politics. I think you guys suck at your job. I think you guys are going to have legacies that are going to be atrocious and you guys are really only concerned with that. So I say it again, your legacies will be an abomination and you should absolutely not pass any of these policies or ordinances. How dare you? Especially in a time of increasing fascism. This is not the leadership we need in Phoenix. It's disgusting. Hilda is next, followed by Jeff. My name is Hilda Hernandez. Um, mayor, council members, and council member Hernandez. Um, we are here representing the Oakland Neighborhood Association 3019 and we are here in support of this item. Um, we see we hear the passion from everyone. We don't understand it. Our boundaries are Vanurren, Grand Roosevelt, and 19th Avenue. Everything that this item calls for is what we see is needed. Um, when you talk about people sitting on picnic tables, when you talk about where is this things being used, they're not for that. When you see the people that are using it, you don't see the community. The community is inside their home. Doors closed, windows closed, they're afraid. I don't understand why you don't support it. I don't understand how you're thinking that this is targeting the community. What we see is that the transients that are there, they are not the homeless. They're the pushers, the users, the prostitutes. We see the people that work on the street. We don't see the homeless. I'd like to show you some pictures of what we experience. I don't know if you can see this. This man just stopping traffic in the middle of Roosevelt. This is typical. Walking down vertically south, north and south on 15th Avenue. This is typical in the middle of street stopping traffic. Dog sl jumping on the vehicles. patient dumping in our area. This is typical for us. I think your fight is somewhere else but not here. And I'd like for you to see this. This is a what we have on our property, sitting on our property. >> The patient dumping. Um, does that mean you've seen medical providers? >> We see them in their in their garb still from the hospital and it's typical. >> Okay. So that's Poke and 15th Avenue. Uh between Taylor Poke and 15th Avenue is typical. Thank you. Thank you, >> Mayor. >> Council Gordon, >> I have a question for her. >> Thank you. Do you mind coming back? >> Back up, please. >> And I want to thank everyone has been very respectful while she is testifying and we really appreciate it. We understand there's a lot of diversity of opinions, but people have been very respectful and and thank you. >> Thank you. So, so when you I have a question for you. >> So, I I guess my question is what do you mean when you say people are in their homes behind closed doors? >> Um, they're afraid to come out. I talked we talk to our neighbors. Uh, our neighbors see the retaliation towards me personally. They see what they what the transients when you call homeless in our area, there are very few homeless. And when they were, your programs did work. But what we see now in the summer, we see the um the people who use we see the typical same ones all the time. They get rides from your programs in the summer in the debt of heat. They get a ride to come over to our street. You guys bring them water. You bring them food. You put your blankets and your bags of clothes on our property. And on a rainy day, you should see me trying to pick up all those clothes. They're very heavy. We clean the streets. And another question for you. Um do you think that a lot of the families in your area have um have the means to be able to take their children somewhere else to play um recreational like basketball? Do families in your area have the money to pay for that? drive around University Park and you'll see what you have in there. It's packed with all the transients that are and I call them transients because I don't want to uh call anybody by the wrong name or anything, but what we see is people who work on the street. I don't judge them. That's what they do. That's what they choose to do. That's the police department's problem, not mine. But as a as a resident, as we're part-time residents, but as a resident for 15 years, we've seen the same thing. >> Okay. Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Thank you. Jeff is next, followed by Briana. Okay, here we go. Two minutes again. Mayor, council, thanks for having me today. Uh, my name is Jeff Tat. Um, I've been a resident of Phoenix for 30 years. Live up in Sunny Slope and I'm the president of the East Sunny Slope Neighborhood Association in Blockwatch with over 700 registered members. Um, we we absolutely support this this agenda item. One of the things I do too is I coach little league baseball and football and I have been for over 30 years all over the world. Okay, we should not have to take five and six year olds to a park and have them sit there and watch naked people bathing in the irrigation. Shouldn't happen. I shouldn't take calls from parents saying, "We're not going to that park. My kids off the team." Okay, this ordinance is giving giving us just another tool to keep our park safe. you know, our group and myself, we work with the police department a lot. You know, parks is, you know, and they're absolutely amazing people that run these parks, but and I we have 180 parks or something like that and a handful of park rangers. Okay, the new 24-hour line works well, but a handful of park rangers cannot do what our parks need to do to keep my kids and my players safe. You know, I have many times, you know, confronted people in the restrooms for doing drugs. You know, this has got nothing to do with homeless people. Everybody can use our parks, but they have to follow the code of conduct. Okay. the rules that have that parks department, the board has set down. And I think with the police having the ability, you know, to also help parks, not do it for parks, because it's ultimately park's responsibility to keep the parks safe. Like I said, guys, it's just another tool to help keep my friends, family, kids, and neighbors safe. Thanks. >> Thank you. Briana is next, followed by Andrea. >> Hi. Uh, my name is Brianna. I am in full support of everything on this proposal. Um, I'm a concerned mom who's lived in the same area of Phoenix my entire life. Um, over the past six years, I've watched um, drug increase in the park. That's just gotten worse. Um, I used to walk my dogs in the park daily at any time of the day. Can't do it anymore. Um, as I've been in the park or driving by the park, I've seen people using IV drugs, smoking drugs, snorting drugs, drug deals going down, drug dealers coming into the community and hanging out around the parks as well. Um, I will not take my kids to Phoenix parks. I will take him to Scottsdale where this doesn't happen. Um, and I don't like that. I like our community. I want to be in our community. Um, I would definitely argue that the vulnerable population are the children. Um, in our neighborhood, we have, you go a half mile south from us, we have lowincome apartments and refugee kids. Um, this is their park. So, allowing drugs to be used is not safe. Um, I am also a nurse and I've been a nurse for 12 years. I have taken care of detoxing patients and um people having psychotic breaks because they are under the influence of drugs. Usually takes about four nurses and hospital police to sedate them. Um lots of drugs. And so if this is what we are allowing around the parks, it's not safe for our community. It's not safe for our kids. Um even the secondhand smoke, usually it's on cannabis isn't good. CDC is already saying that um it is the same there's the same carcinogens in tobacco and you will actually inhale THC. So this is all being done around our kids. Needles Harbor, Pepsi, HIV, um the drugs with like um fentanyl, carfentinyl being cut with tran are all in our parks around our kids. Um so I am very much in proposal to allow police to come in and um uh uh stop these stop these activities. Um thank you. Thank you. Andrea is next followed by Leonard. >> Hi I'm Andrea. Thank you for your time. I'd like to say that I work with Jeff Datonis community. We've spent the last 10 years cleaning up our parks, our neighborhoods, and uh I would like to support this because when the police are involved with the homeless people, they get options. They get told about services. They get told what they can do to help themselves and it helps keep our area clean and supports the work that we've already done. Um, it's another tool as Jeff has said. I think it's a great idea to alleviate some of the work that parks is doing and they get the support that they need. Thank you. >> Thank you. Leonard is next, followed by Olivia. >> Thank you, Mayor and Council. I think of this measure as an iceberg kind of measure and I know that's ironic because this is the city of Phoenix and we get pretty hot here. But I think that with all due respect and I understand when you're living in the neighborhood the question will be do you want them to come live in your house? Well, yes, of course we care about the children but we see the iceberg above the water. Look at the evil drug users. But instead, we're just looking at the symptoms. We're not extinguishing the behavior. We want this problem to end now. Don't we get the police involved? Get those evil drug users out instead of looking underneath the water at the iceberg. The same kind of iceberg that tore open the unsinkable Titanic. What a what is causing this? Drugs in our society. You know, we just had a very famous person that breaks my heart. Allegedly their child was involved with drugs. So, we can all take these shallow measures and just look above the water at the iceberg. But what we really need to look at and our friends in elective office need to address this. Our libertarian friends, when does a person have to become institutionalized? When should they lose their personal freedom when they're harming themselves? But I think that it's quite easy to just pick on them, the people who are addicted to drugs. From a spiritual standpoint, I personally believe that there are there are dark spirits in them. From a scientific standpoint, they're addicted. And why? I'll tell you why. because this society is allowing these drugs in all too many forms and measures. But I would like to say I'm against this because you're just you're just going for a symptom. You're not you're not extinguishing the behavior. When you beat a child, which of course is wrong, do you think you're really extinguishing their behavior? You're just suppressing it. So we need to look deeper than we're looking. And besides, I'm a little bit nervous because we all know who in Washington DC and yes, this is very apppropo. He has made an executive order to go after the unhoused, the homeless, what you will call them. Thank you. >> Thank you. Olivia is next online followed by Rachel. Okay. Uh, we lo uh Rachel. Is Rachel online? Rachel's here. Okay. I'm sorry. Rachel is here. Rachel, it's uh Okay. Uh, let's see. So, um, No, we don't have Do we have Rachel? We don't have Rachel either. Okay. Um, do we have Brian Hmel? >> Brian, the floor is yours. Thank you for your patience. >> Thank you. Uh, my name is Brian Humble. I'm the Arizona and New Mexico director of government relations for the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, the advocacy arm of the American Cancer Society. We encourage government entities at all levels to make evidence-based policy that advances the mission of the American Cancer Society to reduce suffering from cancer and to end cancer as we know it for everyone. I am a resident of Phoenix. [clears throat] Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. Today we applaud the adoption of the addition of ecigarettes to the smoke-free portion of the city of Phoenix parks department code of conduct. It is important to note two things. Number one, the US federal government primarily through the FDA defines ecigarettes as electronic nicotine delivery systems, classifying them as tobacco products. And secondly, Arizona's statewide smoke-free law establishes a floor allowing local jurisdictions to go further than the statewide law, which we strongly encourage. ACS can urge urges state and local officials to pass and protect comprehensive smoke-free laws. These laws should include all forms of smoking, including but not limited to cigarettes ecigarettes cigars hookah pipes, and cannabis. We do not advocate for the punishment of people using tobacco products. We do encourage people to seek help to quit their nicotine addiction. In Arizona, you can do so for free by calling the ASH line, the state quit line at 1 8005566222. There's more work to do and we look forward to working with the city to do so. Thank you. >> Thank you for that testimony. Estraa is next and then and followed by Nicole Rodriguez. >> Hi, I'm Estrea Gomez. Um, I actually was wanting to speak on number 46. However, I will speak on number 45 as well. um well instead. But I do want to say thank you mayor and council for letting me speak today. Um I am in opposition to this ordinance. I do understand the desire for clean and safe parks, but this ordinance is prioritizing optics over the lives of our neighbors. By restricting the delivery of any type of aid in public spaces, we're not solving addiction. We're not solving unhouseness, homelessness, however you want to phrase it. We're only making them more dangerous and less visible. I do urge you guys to vote on vote no on ordinance G4 7466. We need to have more compassion and medical common sense and not more barriers to care. We need to work with community partners instead of criminalizing their efforts to keep Phoenix residents alive. Thank you. Thank you. So, we'll first go to Nicole Rodriguez and then Nicole Marquez. >> You mayor, can you hear me? Okay. >> Yes, beautifully. >> Okay, great. Thank you. This is Nicole Rodriguez. Um, thank you, council members. I am opposed to this ordinance. Um, I come to you not only as a mom and frequent recreator of our public parks, including the flatland parks, but also as a former park ranger for the city of Phoenix for eight years. And I can tell you that I've been to every single flatland park and mountain park several times for a lot of the different types of situations we've heard today. However, what we've heard today about drug use, it's already prohibited no matter where you're at in um the city and what I do know also in my experience with our public parks and as a park ranger is that the unhoused transient and anyone who has a different lifestyle um whether you want to call them prostitutes or not um were always amunable to a normal conversation and discussion. What I don't like is empowering park rangers who do not wear body cams to continue the possible and what I had witnessed as a park ranger and afterwards harassment of people whether they were unhoused or not. I don't think we should allow that type of discretion for them. And even our police department which are already allowed in our public parks by the way. I hear public testimony that it's going to welcome them in. They're already allowed there to prohibit any of the activities that we've already talked about. But this type of jurisdiction makes it feel hostile to me for someone who even may want to use a park bench for exercise, for doing dips or maybe laying back for a second after a long run. That's actually prohibited because it's not the intended use. So, this is really myopic and it's in a way that just makes our public parks less inviting. And I think we need to learn how to respect um people who are in need and maybe engage with them more, which I do on a regular basis. I've even played Frisbee with a homeless guy or a trans ant. And everything was fine. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Nicole Marquez is next, followed by Anna Swanson. Hello again. Nicole Marquez here officially at home and not driving this time. Um, thank you, Mayor Ggo and council members. Um, you know, this is something that I'm is is near and dear to me. I live in district 8. I live close to Edison Park. That's the nearest walking distance park. I have my kids. We walk the dogs over there and we we see all this, you know, the the my transient neighbors. um uh be there and doing their thing. And um however, after hearing um kind of the Q&A prior to public comment here, I recognize that this is not a data-driven ordinance. This isn't backed up by by facts. It's really just a way to criminalize homelessness. And we can't criminal criminalize all 7,000 plus of our homeless folks um living here in the city. So, I I agree with the amended motion that Council Member Ernnandez made earlier. I think this is something that needs to go back to the drawing board to be done, right? Um because it it's not going to solve anything. And as the uh Nicole Rodriguez mentioned just before me, um doing drugs is already illegal. Prostitution is already illegal. So, um they need to find a way to rework this. And um you know ultimately I would love to see the council operate in a way that's more forward thinking. You know imagine if something were to go down if everybody's phones right now went off with a public alert that incoming missiles and all of a sudden Phoenix is cut off from the rest of of the country. What are y'all prepared to do? How are we going to protect our communities? what if we need those parts to actually do um medical work on folks? So, obviously that's a bit extreme, but we need to be looking at be prepared for what could come and think about what's important and safe for our communities. >> Thank you, Nicole. >> Anna is next, followed by Senator Kubie. Afternoon. Uh my name is Anna. Obviously I'm uh here to give my personal support for the proposed changes. In addition, I'm also here to represent Royal Palm neighborhood. We have a city park in the center of our neighborhood. Uh it does not have bathrooms and we have very vigilant residents. So there tend to be less occasions of encampments or issues uh compared to some of the other city parks. And I also like to thank Desert Horizon Precinct and the Parks and Recck Department are very supportive and responsive when incidents do occur. However, as part of my role for the neighborhood, I close down the parking lot prior to or the night prior to a huge event that we might be having. And in many instances, I've seen concerning activity. I've seen drinking, probable drug use, um, and exchanges, sexual activity. And this should not be acceptable. It's to a degree that now when I have to go close down the parking lot, I do ask for police to come with me to just keep my own personal safety. Uh my personal views are primarily driven for the safety of our children and residents and also concerned for the seriously mentally ill community. Uh I worked for many years on mobile crisis teams and I've also worked for many years on inpatient psychiatric hospitals. So I do have a strong place of compassion for that population. However, when they're on the street, they are often not in the right state of mind and they're off their medications. They have a high likelihood of being victimized. Um, and we have a huge need in the state of Arizona for improved mental health services and facilities. But one way of encouraging that population to accept treatment and housing and to stay at their group homes is to make living on the streets less acceptable, for lack of a better word. Uh it's my hope and understanding that they would be offered connections to services first. Uh and for people engaging active criminal activity, I think there's even more reason for police intervention. Uh so I personally support those changes. But speaking as a neighborhood representative, I posted a poll for our neighbors and as of 2:00 today, 92 responded. 10% uh are ne or 10% were neutral. Uh, nine of the respondents were in opposition of the proposed. >> Uh, uh, Senator Kubie is next, followed by Janette. >> Good afternoon, Mayor Ggo, Vice Mayor O'Brien, and council. I'm State Senator Lauren Cubie. I represents parts parts of Phoenix, and I'm here to reflect the concerns of constituents and mutual aid groups who work with the Houseless. I'm here to urge caution, further revision, possible recision before adopting the proposed changes to the parks ordinance. Phoenix's parks are not just recreational spaces. Under the Constitution, their traditional public forums, places where people gather, speak assemble pray protest and exist in public life. Because of that, the rules governing them must meet a very high legal standard. This ordinance, as written, creates serious constitutional concerns. First, it grants broad discretionary power to city officials to exclude people from parks in some cases for up to a year based on internal guidelines that are not written into the law. Courts across the country have struck down park bans like this when they lack clear standards notice and a meaningful right to appeal. A year-long exclusion from a public forum is not a minor penalty. It implicates due process and first amendment rights. Second, the ordinance uses vague and expansive language. words like obstruct, impede, interfere without objective definitions. That kind of language invites arbitrary enforcement. Peaceful protest, a prayer circle, a rally, or even standing with a sign could be deemed impeding someone else's use. Laws that chill lawful speech don't survive constitutional review. Thirdly, several provisions risk criminalizing basic human behavior. Blanket bans on bathing or using water facilities when no realistic alternatives exist have been found unconstitutional when applied to unhoused people. And courts are clear cities may regulate parks, but they can't punish people for unavoidable acts of survival. Fourth, the authority to order someone to leave a park for any violation lacks proportionality and safeguards. That kind of unchecked power raises serious due process concerns and opens the door to viewpointbased or discriminatory enforcement. My time's running out. I really believe Phoenix can do better. Thank you. Thank you. Janette is next, followed by Nancy. Hello, Mir. and council. My name is Janette Arms with Redeem Neighborhoods. I reside in districts 7 and 8. I also work directly in our community providing prevention education outreach and most importantly connecting individuals experience crisis and parks. So, uh, real services such as detox, inpatient treatment, recovery programs, and case management. Our goal is to reduce harm, stabilize individuals, and move people out of the parks and into care. My concern is not the safety. My concern is that the language in these items is too broad and leaves too much room for interpretation. When policies are vague, enforcement becomes selective that creates inconsistencies, discourage legitimate outreach and risks pushing serious issues out of sites instead of addressing them. I want to share a concrete example during a four-week heat relief outreach period at Caesar Chavez Park where redeemed neighborhoods distributed a lock zone and provided direct outreach. In that short time, we received direct reports of 22 overdose reversals, which means 25 22 lives were saved. Along with that, we got over eight individuals into detox services and that it was over four outreaches 2 hours at a time. That is a great result. Um, in that uh if the city uh wants safety and parks, we need specifics and strong written guidance, clear definitions of what it is and isn't considered medical care. Written enforcement instructions so that Nlloxxone or distribution or non-clinial outreaches are not pro mistaken as prohibited activity. a simple authorization process for legitimate organizations so the city does not unintentionally push problems into surrounding neighborhoods instead of resolving them by prohibiting any collection of paraphernalia such as alcohol cleaning wipes testing kits which is to ensure people who have substance use disorder from accidental opioid overdose along with allowing um section C number one will cause an increase in disease and an increase in funding to provide approved safe um safety 2-in shirt. And I just have one small sentence if you just give me the grace um to be able to say this. Um I'm just asking that you guys would delay this and just not approve it yet for number 45 and 46 and that you guys would ask to revisit this at the table um so that we can be more clear and concise of what is being brought. Thank you so much and I appreciate your time. Thank you. And uh the clerk should note that although you testifi you mentioned both that was primarily on item 46 which is our next item. So we will attribute that to item 46. Very important uh testimony. Uh Nancy is next followed by Elizabeth. >> Good afternoon. My name is Nancy Lamb. I am a constituent of district 4. Um I love our public parks. I run at Encanto Park or Still Indian School Park at least four times a week. It is my refuge and haven to relax and practice my sport as a way to cope with the stress of life. As a previous park ranger said, "This ordinance makes me feel less welcome at parks and constantly second guessing whether or not I'm accidentally breaking a park rule by using equipment or a bench in its not intended use." Parks are one of the only public spaces besides libraries that p people do not have to pay in order to exist. Parks are funded by our public tax dollars. It is clear that this ordinance is meant to further criminalize the unhoused, low-income folks, and people of color. Communities already overburdened by the skyrocketing costs of living in Phoenix. Now, we're about to give them a criminal record that makes it even harder to get a job, secure housing, or remove the stigmatism of being unhoused or just simply struggling to exist. And they have a possible $500 fine to pay on top of that. All of which pushes folks deeper into homelessness or dire economic situations. Do you see how the city perpetuates cycles of poverty through these kinds of ordinances? Phoenicians do not need more reasons to shut people away from their public resources and to be further criminalized and demonized. What we actually need to improve our lives and what real safety looks like is a good education, workforce uh education, strong community, places like parks to gather and healthcare. None of which these ordinance address or provide. What this ordinance does do is increase community contact with the police department that our Department of Justice has criticized as brutal, discriminatory, and with one of the highest rates of civilian death in the country. We as a community plead with you to vote no on this ordinance. Thank you. >> Thank you. Elizabeth is next. uh tend tenderland tend turinden I'm sorry >> I'd like to acknowledge the concerns of community residents who have mentioned so far I also agree that children should not be having to see people naked bathing and irrigation to me it seems a much simpler solution to that to provide showering facilities I think in general if The concern is sanitation and safety. Um both and um two previous people have mentioned support services. They're grossly underfunded. If people are not given the ability because there is no capacity in health care or in housing, however much they may wish to use those services, they're locked out from it. And in terms of evidenced driven policy, as Nicole mentioned earlier, um housing first approaches have been shown to not only reduce homelessness but save money over time because of decreased use of emergency services. So I think the best way to protect our communities and all members of them, housing and health. >> Thank you that checking with our staff, but I think we got everyone once. All right. Thumbs up. Council comments. Councilwoman Hunt Washington. Thank you, mayor. I do have a couple of questions. I was trying to keep them in track with the community's comments. I want to start off by asking parks to explain a little further as to how these proposed changes um improve consistency and clarity for both park users and those responsible for the enforcement. >> Yes, mayor, members of the city council, and councilwoman Hajj Washington. Uh the parks and immigration board is the body who has authority to establish park rules and they established many of these park rules for as part of the code of conduct back in 20121. Uh what that did is create a situation where there are rules that are approved by the board but that are not identified in the city ordinance. And that's what we're trying to do to align that. And I want to make sure that I also add that part of the process for the parks board who approved the code of conduct included a community engagement process. There were several months of community feedback and work with the law department and prosecutor's office that went into development of those rules back then. Again, this is to align it so that they are clearly uh that they clearly match each other so that the code of conduct does not have things in it that are not a city ordinance. In addition to that, by uh incorporating these rules as a city ordinance, it gives also a Phoenix Police Department the ability uh to help address some of these violations that occur on park property. They may be out in the park for another reason or another call, but this would give them the ability to have this tool and option to also be able to address these issues. Park rangers do have some limitations. Uh they are not able to require people to provide information. and they are not able to detain. So there are some uh levels of authority where a police officer can be more helpful in some of these circumstances. >> Thank you for that. Um do you mind expanding a little further about the level of community engagement that you were talking about in 20 2021 when this first was brought up? >> Yes, Councilman Haj Washington. There was a series of community meetings that were held uh to have discussions with the community to solicit feedback on what uh they were seeing in parks and what they felt would be helpful to put into the code of conduct to help keep parks uh safe and accessible to the public. And I would trust that as part of this engagement process, there was some communication or um communication with those neighborhoods, especially those that abut the parks um because they see they have a different perspective than those that may be further away from the parks. Is that correct? >> Yes, councilwoman. That would be correct. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, I'm just curious, is there any thoughts on how the park system is going to, sorry, park department is going to track and evaluate the effectiveness of these proposed changes if we do move forward to ensure that it is improving safety and park conditions over time. >> Councilman Hodgej Washington. Um, currently what we provide is a quarterly update on the code of conduct to the parks and recreation board. That's certain something that we can certainly also provide that information to city council or the subcommittee that we report to which is TIP. It provides information on things like what are the greatest uh violations that we're seeing, which parks are experiencing the highest number of violations, uh how many contacts park rangers have, including uh citations and trespass notices issued. And um based on the information you have so far regarding the larger number of um violations, do we do you believe that these changes to the code of conduct would help address those larger those um highfrequency violations? >> Councilman Hodgej Washington, we feel that by aligning the ordinance with the park rules that it will allow us to be consistent and have a tool to help us address some of the challenges that we're experiencing in our parks. >> Thank you so much. Now my next question u there was a couple things that were raised with respect to our legal department regarding um the constitutionality of the public parks and enforcement. I won't ask for a full legal opinion at this juncture but I just would ask that law give some indication that they have reviewed this and they believe that the language as drafted meets the requirement of the law. Um, mayor, members of council, yes, our law department was involved in reviewing and helping draft this ordinance. >> Okay. Thank you. My next question goes, I'm going to ask them to come up here. I know it's probably a little out of their wheelhouse. My next question I would like to ask of the office of homeless solutions because we've heard quite a bit of comments from our from the community regarding um this is an attempt to um to criminalize and otherwise punish the individuals that are unsheltered and I wanted to just have a just hear a little bit from our thank you director Mily for coming to the front. Um, I I think it might be helpful for us to give an overview as some of the investments the city has made um thus far to help address our unsheltered partners. [clears throat] >> Thank you, mayor. Members of council, Councilwoman Haj Washington, since the Office of Homeless Solutions was created three and a half years ago, we've roughly invested $22 million in services and infrastructure in our community. 127 million of that was support services with outreach and shelter um shelter services and about 75 million uh was infrastructure and capital improvements bringing on 1,200 new shelter beds and um several still in the in the works as well. >> And I I trust let me ask you this. I presume there's a fair amount of engagement that happens with our unsheltered um residents in our in our city parks. Correct. >> Councilwoman Hodgej Washington. One of the first things we did when the office of homeless solutions was created was to enhance our um outreach teams. We now have 16 dedicated employees on the on the office of homeless solutions alone who do outreach in the community. Two of those are dedicated to parks. They get a list of parks with cares cases in them and known um parks where we know we have encampments and go out and outreach each and every day. >> So we do try to provide resources in those areas to those that are in need but some accept some don't accept. Is that correct? Councilman Hodge Washington, that is correct. >> All right. And then my I guess what I'd call my last type of question is whether or not you would say that the um actually let me do this. Um just about all of the the facilities that the city operates for outsheltered individuals, there are some level of regulations that come with it. Correct, >> Councilwoman Hodgej Washington. That is correct. We have a code of conduct at each one of our shelters, the city- owned as well as the ones we um just fund. >> Thank you so much. Thank you. Those are my questions for um for our offices. So, I have one more question for parks. I I neglected to ask that question. Um I want to make sure I understand what steps the parks will take to ensure that not only the rangers but the users are informed about um the roles and expectations if and when the ordinance is adopted. >> Yes, mayor. members of the city council council in Hodgej Washington we are prepared to ensure that that information is getting out in a variety of ways. Uh one of those ways would be uh social media also on our website also communication uh in partnership with our neighborhood services department ideally to get information out to all of the neighborhood associations who are registered with the neighborhood services department. Uh we also plan to provide an update to the parks and recreation board and uh continue to find additional ways to get that information out. >> I would also ask that as we if this if this moves forward that we consider some signage for individuals who use our parks for um lodging or for um some of the things that we've heard about for example showering at the facility that we provide a signage that talks about where they can actually get proper resources. also be listed at the park facilities as well. Um I feel like if we're going to tell them that this is no longer the space for them that they have identification of where and who they should contact for that type of research u sorry that resource. Thank you mayor. Can I also want to thank the parks department for their time um in doing this. I know across my district I hear quite a bit from residents that abut the parks about how difficult um it is. it has been. Many of them have looked at the parks as a at one point they talked about how it was a benefit to their community and now they don't feel like it shares that same um they no longer feel that way about it and they would like us to do a little bit more. I know to many people in the in the in the in the assembly we it may seem like we are trying to um force individuals out of the park and from my perspective we are trying to make the parks where families, seniors and community members everyone are able to enjoy our park knowing that their expectations of what behavior is acceptable and this provides a more consistent approach. As mentioned, this has been something that has been in practice since 2021. And I think by um codifying this, we are making sure that it is not subject to discretion as to how enforcement, but we have clear guidelines on how that um is done. So, I appreciate this update and focusing on u providing access to park amenities and improving safety without losing sight of the importance of inclusivity on this. So, thank you, mayor. >> Thank you, Councilwoman. Does anyone have any additional questions or comments? Councilman Wearing. >> Thank you, Mayor. Uh, first to the fellow in the green shirt who coaches uh I guess little league baseball and so forth. We owe you an apology as a city. I'm sorry you've had to go through that. I remember as a kid how much I love going to parks with my dad, playing catch, going in the coaches who would volunteer their time to teach us. The fact that you've had to go out there, worry about your personal safety, and had kids quit, that is disgusting. And I can't even believe we're having to debate this. So, I'm sorry, sir. I wish we'd done better for you. To the woman in the white shirt who was talking about walking her dog, if my wife came home and told me she was going to go walk our dog in the dark at one of the city parks, I'd say the hell you are. Not without me. That's nuts. How many dead bodies, Cynthia, excuse me, mayor, do we find in city parks every month? Dead bodies. Ladies and gentlemen, >> mayor, members of the council, Councilman wearing, I believe the the last annual count we did ranged from 14 to 16. I'd have to look. >> Yeah. You know what people don't want to do when they encounter a dead body? Go back to that place again. So, it's sad. Sure, it is. We can't have it. That's not acceptable at all. Uh, Ed, somebody mentioned libraries. Didn't we just find a dead body outside Burton Bar? Thought I saw that in my police report. Mayor, Councilman Wearing. Yes, that was in the police report this week. >> So, I've had personal experiences at the library that are insane. People's behavior that was completely out of control. I talked about you about this and we increase security, I think, at Burton Bar, but the other ones have seen it, too. Insane language behavior. Absolutely outrageous. You know, we don't build the libraries and the parks so people can go and have to deal with that. That's not a thing. What they want to do is have a good time mostly with their kids. To me, we're building it for kids. Now, I can take my kids other places and so forth. Not everybody has that option. When I was a kid, we didn't have all that. You had a park. You went out and threw a ball. And I'm having to hear that we can't do it because of needles and all this other just absolutely ridiculous nonsense. And some of you are clapping. You think you're on the side of truth and justice. Well, I got some bad news. You're not. You're wrecking it for the rest of these people who are also paying taxes. When do we start thinking about them? That ain't right. For those who said, "Well, we're we're hurting the impoverished." Well, you know what? A lot of people look in the mirror every morning, they got kids, jobs, and everything. You know what they think? I'm not doing so hot financially either, but I could at least go to a park or a library. But I can't do that now because we're letting 7,000 people dictate how the other 1.7 million of us are going to live. And we think that's like enlightened. That's smart. That's good public policy. That's nuts. So, if you're clapping after hearing some of these stories, you ought to look in the mirror and be ashamed because that's a word that gets thrown around a lot. I know it gets thrown in my decoration. I don't care. But I I got to tell you, listening to this and then hearing that clapping, you ought to take a long hard look at what you're thinking is good and right and true. We cannot function like this. And it's getting worse. Absolutely. We spend a fortune on the homeless, way more than we ever used to. and it would be great if we could help. And you know what they're doing? They're turning down the services. Well, that's not an option. That can't be an option in Phoenix. You can clean yourself up and we'll try to get you help, but if you're going to say, "Nope, I'm just going to keep shooting up in the park." That's not acceptable. It's amazing you have to say that to adults. Very surprising, I got to tell you. So, all of you who spout it off, said, "This is great." It's over. Why don't you run for office? To the young lady said, "Oh, politics is beneath me." Yeah, but you know what? We get to decide. That's the perk. >> So, maybe you should step up and try to do it. You'll You'll You'll probably lose. >> You'll probably >> Please be respectful. >> You'll probably lose. Thank you for that. You'll probably lose. Not the first time I've been booed, by the way. You're not going to hurt my feelings. Not capable of feeling them. >> So, called you. >> So, >> yes, you've really showed me. I feel terrible. Um, I'll I'll tell you. You know what? >> I've had the ep thrown at me so many times at the library, I can't even tell you. But you know what made me sad about that particular instance? The m the woman with her son who was walking through the library who caught one of the fbombs, thought it might have been directed at her, turned around and walked out. Think I'm making that up? I'm not. That happened. I watched it happen. I felt bad I hadn't said something to stop the maniac's behavior beforehand. But again, you can boo all you want. I don't really care. But you know what? Yes. Hypocrite. Leonard. Was that you? Oh, so terrible. >> Leonard, just please >> got to tell you. I I'm just You guys You guys think the homeless should just take over the parks and should do whatever they want. Okay. But you know what? You're gonna get push back from some of the neighbors and there's gonna be more of it that you heard from here. You don't like my tone. >> You don't like my t You didn't hear these people come. You didn't hear I know you don't respect them, but you didn't hear them. >> Yeah. Okay. Well, like I said, step up, go to the city clerk, pull a packet, and run yourself and see how you do. >> I did it. These people all did it. Even if we disagree, I respect the fact that they stepped up to do something. Whether I agree with what they're saying or not. You either will have that courage or you won't. We'll find out. Good luck to you. >> But I will say I hope this passes today and uh maybe we'll get some needed change. I appreciate everything, by the way, that the officers do who are here because I know you got to listen to a lot of nonsense every every week we have these meetings. So, thank you for what you do. I appreciate that this is another thing on your plate and we're short officers and uh I wish we had more. I understand listening to this today why it's hard to recruit, but I appreciate what you do. So, thank you for that. Family thanks you too. >> That's it, mayor. Thank you. >> Thank you, Councilwoman Pastor. >> Yes. Thank you, Mayor. Uh Cynthia, I have a question. Uh when the code of conduct was voted in 2021, um what have you seen? What has seen do we have any data or anything that as we implemented the code of conduct? Have we seen anything change in the parks? Mayor, members of the city council, Councilwoman Pastor, the type of data that we track really shows that there's far much far more outreach and education going on than the issuing of citations and trespassing. So, the code of conduct exists obviously to keep order in the park and make sure that they're safe and accessible, but also uh so that we can help educate people how to use the park properly. We track information on the number of citations that are issued, uh trespassing notices that are issued. So once the code of conduct went into place, what we found was that people could more clearly identify what the rules are and that was a big part of it. We updated our signage in English and Spanish so the code of conduct rules are in multiple signs in parks uh throughout the park system currently. So that's the data that we track now. We don't have something that shows whether um anything went up or down, but we do track that information as far as citations and trespass notices issued. Okay. Thank you. Um, and I'm going to I shouldn't do this, but um I'm going to make an assumption that in 2021 we were seeing uh certain behaviors or the board was seeing certain behaviors happening in the park and uh that's why code of conduct was written. I'm just trying to figure out by having the code of conduct the behaviors change. And I know that's very difficult to track, but that's what I'm I'm trying to get at at today is did they change? We're just modifying the ordinance to uh match or uh update it. And I think maybe in the future what we do is we do try to figure out how we can track and and work with some community partners within our areas of of fielded areas uh and see a way that we can get some of this data. Um I happen to be in California this past weekend because I was picking up my son from college. Um and my daughter was uh playing softball in California also. Uh what I had found very interesting is when I was on the softball fields uh there were code of conducts uh everywhere on the wall and I thought I stopped I literally just just stopped and started to read the code of conduct because I thought okay it's on a softball field this is interesting. Um and then when I went to the park in that area uh there were signs of code of conduct. So, I guess my and and actually I was kind of surprised in a way um and and thinking, wow, okay, it's in a college town. I'm in a college town. It's all over the the the space. Um there was some in Fullerton some code of conduct for the city uh in the downtown area. Um and so I feel like the code of conduct is just a uh framework of how we behave in in a space in a certain area. Um and then if uh there is an issue at that point then there are different um steps that are taken. I would I would wonder and I want to know Cynthia is the final step police because my understanding is we do provide information, we do provide resources and um because we have been talking about uh police. >> Yes. >> At what point do they come into play? Councilwoman Pastor, members of the city council, uh we certainly continue to lead with education and services and the code of conduct was written and approved by the parks board with the intent to lead with education and services. And as Director Milny mentioned, we work very closely with the Office of Homeless Solutions outreach teams. Our staff know them, the rangers know them, our maintenance staff know them. They're on a firstname basis in most of these cases to coordinate. We are regularly coordinating coordinated outreach in the park every single day in some park somewhere in the park system that is happening. Um and oftentimes they are partnered with park rangers as well. Park rangers are trained to give out resources and information and connect individuals in the parks with services as well. So our intent certainly is to work through those channels first. And you're correct where a police officer would come in would be a situation that is uh maybe a crime happening in the park that just cannot be addressed by those teams or a park ranger um or someone is not responding in a way that we need them to that they might be being asked to um follow a rule that the park ranger is talking with them about. >> Thank you, >> Councilwoman Stark. >> Thank you. As I look at this ordinance, a lot of it deals with public safety. I mean, we we we don't want to have a fire in our park and we want be want people to be able to drink from a water fountain and it be healthy. I I I think that uh we really are trying to make the park available for everybody. And I I and some of my constituents spoke. Jeff spoke. He's a big big big supporter of Palma Park and he's always telling me when there's issues in Palma Park and I appreciate that because we want that park to be open for everyone. So I I I really think that codifying this is something that will make it easier for everyone to follow the rules. So thank you mayor. >> Thank you. Vice Mayor, >> please. Um, so I became a council woman in 2021 and parks safety was one of the major concerns I was hearing at community meetings and I remember um asking you Cynthia about the code of conduct and and who could enforce the code of conduct. So who can enforce the code of conduct in our parks right now? Vice Mayor Brian, mayor, members of the city council, park rangers have the authority to enforce the code of conduct. >> Okay. So, [clears throat] in if an officer were to be in our parks today and there was a code of conduct violation, is there anything they can do? >> Vice Mayor O'Brien, um, depending on the circumstance, obviously, if that rule is also a crime, then they certainly could. However, if it is truly a park rule, uh they would then connect with the park ranger and need a park ranger's permission to sight somebody or trespass somebody on park property. >> And how many park rangers do you have? >> In our flatland parks, we have 44 and they work uh 24 hours a day, seven days a week in three different shifts. So on any given time there are >> Yes, sorry, Vice Mayor. On any given shift there are six rangers. They ride in pairs. So, three vehicles with two rangers and a supervisor. >> And how many flatland parks do we have, >> Vice May? We have 189 parks. >> So, we have roughly six people a shift covering 189 parks. >> Yes, Vice Mayor. >> And so, I have community members who live near parks who used to believe those parks were assets to their communities um who don't always feel that way any longer. and after we add added additional park security. Um, and when they see our coordinated outreach efforts that include our parks department, our office of homeless solutions, our community action officers, and and they lead with services. They provide education on on rules and laws um and and behavior changes in those parks. My residents couldn't be more happy. the most compliments I get is when I can they see the children and families and community members out there enjoying the parks as they're intended to be used. Um so I am very thankful for all the work that the parks department and the law department did to align these um and provide more assistance in manpower relative to both our park rangers and our officers so they can work together handinand. This is a balanced approach along with our office of homeless solutions. We should always lead with services and education, but it is always not received. It's not always received when it was it is offered. Um, so thank you for that work. Um, and for those reasons and for my community and the safety of our children and families and community members, I will be supporting this item. >> Councilwoman Hernandez. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, just want to provide a point of clarification because I think it might have got lost in some of my earlier comments. There's full agreement across the board that we all want safe parks. I've never once stood against that and there is should be and what I hear is that we are in full agreement that there are vulnerable people in our city that are struggling with issues. And I want to just reiterate that nothing in this ordinance that is aligning us to our parks code of conduct resolves the root cause of the behaviors that we are seeing in people that are struggling. That is the problem. And it and I think that sometimes gets lost because we want to focus on band-aid solutions and not root cause solutions that are going to provide stability to our residents, provide safety in our communities, and build thriving neighborhoods. So that that's one point. I for one will never underestimate the power of our residents that have the courage to get up to that podium and speak because I was once one of the persons that was on that side of the dis and I would come up to that podium time and time again because I disagreed with the policies that were happening and being voted on in this chamber. So, I would encourage you to run if you do not like the policies that are getting up here because I will not underestimate your ability to win because might I remind folks that I did something historic. I stepped up to run. I presented a vision to the community of what safety could look like and what root cause solutions can be. And I did something that had never been done before. And I won outright with 53% of the vote. So, I will never underestimate any of you in the audience to step up and do that. Thank you. Any additional council comments? So, with council rules, the um substitute motion needs a second. Otherwise, the original motion remains on the table. So, the first motion is the motion on the table. Roll call. All members recognized to explain their votes. >> I'm sorry, mayor. What's the motion on the table right now? >> The vice mayor's motion to approve. >> Yes. >> Hernandez, >> no. >> Haj Washington? >> Yes. >> Pastor, >> yes. >> Robinson, >> yes. >> Stark, >> yes. >> Wearing O'Brien, >> yes. Ggo. >> Yes. Passes 81. >> All right. So, the next item is item 46, which will be quite lengthy. That is the item that most people are here today for. Uh, would folks like to We're scheduled for a 5:00 break. Should we do that now and then start it so we can go through? Okay. So, this council meeting is adjourned for 15 minutes and we will reconvene around 4:47. of the election, right? So, what's the next step? Boom. Lost my right hand. really unless you start. You must say yeah I don't want I don't want to be kicked It's all great. >> Oh, thank you. Yeah, sometimes I want to get a little Thank you. The city council meeting will now resume. We will begin with item 46. Will the city clerk please read the title? Item 46 is for ordinance G7467, an ordinance amending Phoenix City Code Chapter 24, Parks and Recreation to add a new section relating to safe medical treatment. >> Thank you. And we will begin with a few uh PowerPoint slides. >> Sure. Good evening again, mayor, members of the city council. Item 46 is a proposed safe medical treatment and city parks ordinance. We are fortunate here in the city of Phoenix to have a very large and diverse parks and recreation system. We have 189 parks, more than 41,000 acres of mountain parks and preserves, and over 200 trails and much more throughout the park system for our residents and visitors to enjoy. Uh we have continued, as you've heard tonight in a little bit, to continue experience with challenges in our parks that pose safety concerns. Um and tonight we're here to talk about this propos proposed ordinance and the concerns that specifically relate to medical treatment and the use of syringes in city parks. Before I go into providing an overview of the intent or the ordinance as written, I do want to share just an example of some of the challenges that we are experiencing in parks. If we could go to the next slide. I'm having a trouble with this. This is just one photo of an example of activity in a Phoenix park that um is really of concern to us. And this is just one of the types of activities that we're really struggling with in our parks uh because of the safety potential harm and hazard that it leaves for our general park users. Any park user uh next slide please shows uh some similar activity that was taking place under a ramada where then we also found some potential biohazard safety concerns. Uh and again, we're seeing a lot of popup uh mobile medical treatment activity in our parks. As proposed, the ordinance defines medical treatment as any act aimed at diagnosis, cure, or treatment of disease, injury, illness, or wound. This ordinance, as written, would prohibit any person, group, or organization to invite, promote, advertise, sponsor, organize, or conduct an event or activity designed to provide medical treatment to the public in a park unless such event or activity is sponsored by or otherwise authorized by the city by approval through established city processes. I will add that currently the parks integration department has a process uh where the public can submit an activity request form to request organized and coordinated activities. So the intent of this language would still allow organizations an opportunity to submit a request to the parks department for approval to conduct coordinated medical events and activities. Uh also the ordinance as written does not prohibit providing information, information sharing, providing connection to services or transporting individuals from a park to a medical facility. It would prohibit the sale or exchange of syringes and needles and needle exchange programs from happening on park property as well as the sale or distribution of harm reduction kits that include syringes. It does not apply to first responders, family members administering aid to another family member, any person rendering aid to another person that is experiencing an emergency, that would still be allowed. And also the administration or distribution of nlloxxone in park property or on park property would also continue to be allowed as well. Uh that is our highle overview of today's ordinance that's being proposed and be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. And just for folks who read the packet when it originally came out, this ordinance has been updated in response to some stakeholder comments. So if you read it last week, you might make sure you have the current version. Council members, do we have questions or shall we go straight to Councilman Hernandez? Do you have >> No, I'm going to hold my questions till after. >> Does anyone have anything before we go to public comment? All right. Uh we are going to begin with our our state legislators who are with us. Um beginning with uh Senator Koopy. Uh um Representative Sandival. You probably can't see me because I'm short. Good afternoon, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Council. I'm here with U. Senator Ortiz, who is right behind me. Oh, she's back there. Are you coming up? Um, and we're here to uh read a letter that um we drafted and had uh several of our colleagues sign uh for you. So, I'm going to read it into the record. Dear Mayor and Phoenix City Council members, as state legislators, we care about the health, safety, and dignity of the people we serve, especially those who are most vulnerable. Our residents deserve public policies that are effective, humane, and based on evidence, not once they shift from harm or make crisis worse. We appreciate the city's ongoing efforts to ensure that Phoenix parks are safe and welcoming for everyone. Public safety is a shared goal. However, we are concerned that the proposed ordinances restricting medical outreach and harm reduction services in the parks move the city of Phoenix in the wrong direction by criminalizing poverty and substance use rather than addressing unmet health needs. Care is not the problem in our parks. Unmet need is. Evidence consistently shows that medical outreach, early intervention, and harm reduction services reduce overdose, prevent disease, decrease criminal emer decrease emermergency room visits, and improve overall safety. Restricting the services while expanding enforcement and exclusion will not make parks safer. It will push crisis elsewhere, increase strain on emergency systems, and make people harder, not easier, to help. A class one misdemeanor is not treatment, and a trespass notice is not recovery. These actions turn health problems into criminal records, which have lasting effects on people, families, and public systems. Relying on enforcement is often more expensive and less effective than proven public health solutions. We urge you to pause consideration of these ordinances and engage in a meaningful dialogue with healthc care providers, public health experts, community organizations, and people with lived experiences. Taking time for stakeholder engagement is not delay. It is due diligence. Safety and compassion are not opposing values. Effective policy requires both. Thank you for your continued leadership, for your consideration of the needs of the voices of the communities we collectively serve. We stand ready to work in partnership towards solutions that truly improve health, safety, and outcomes for all Phoenix residents. And I have copies here for each of you if you want to distribute them. Um, which one? Thank you. Thank you. And Senator Ortiz, uh, would would it be fair to say you agree with that comment or would you like to comment? >> Wonderful. And for those who are watching online, a ditto from the senator. All right. Um, thank you. I believe that is all of our state legislators who are here. All right. Uh we will go with Michael Abramson next followed by Jinnanne Sumner. Mayor and council members, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today in opposition to line item 46, the ordinance that would prevent medical care from being provided to our city's most vulnerable populations. For the record, my name is Michael Abramson III. I'm the director of legislative affairs for the Arizona Alliance for Community Health Centers, a resident of Council District 8, and I work in Council District 5. I am fortunate, we are fortunate to be joined by a handful of outstanding federally qualified health centers who you will hear from shortly as well, located here in the valley. All of whom are committed to the mission of providing quality, accessible health care services to all Arizonans. Achieving the accessible part of that mission means meeting Phoenix residents where they are while recognizing that many may not have the means or be in a healthy enough position to receive necessary treatments in a traditional facility. Restrictions on medical care fail to resolve homelessness or poverty and instead steepen the barriers faced by our vulnerable populations. Failing to allow care to be provided where residents are leads to delays in necessary treatment, which not only results in higher healthcare costs down the line, but most importantly can and will lead to significantly worse health outcomes. We ask that you table this ordinance to a later date and work to incorporate our federally qualified health centers into a workable solution for providing such critical care. Thank you. Mayor Ggo and members of the city council, drugs, drug use, and certainly not the enabling of drug use should be allowed in our parks. It should not be allowed. Councilman Robinson, you heard from the neighbors concerning during the ribbon cutting concerning the the concerning the drug use in the old crosscut canal park. right beside my house for several weeks now. We had a drug dealer and it became quite evident that this drug that individuals would come up to the drug dealer. We even saw money exchanged. This should not be allowed in a park, any park. It's not acceptable. And I know Councilwoman Haj Washington, you've certainly heard from me and my neighbors about the concerns of the use of drugs in our park. That is not what we that is not what we should encourage. Unfortunately, we don't have a designated drug person there every day and all during the time the parks are open. That's what's happening in our parks and it is certainly not acceptable. We're trying to get more neighbors and children involved in our parks and the use of drugs is not helping. Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh Janette Arns will be next followed by Jennifer Bailey. Okay. Um J, could you wave Janette if you were coming? What? Okay. So, Jennifer, it appears you are next. And I I think I'm gonna call folks alphabetical by last name. So, we have many clerks coming. >> Hello. All right. Good afternoon, mayor and council members. My name is Jennifer Bailey, and I am against the proposed ordinance, and I recommend voting no or tableabling this item. This ordinance doesn't make parks safer. It criminalizes people and programs that conduct life-saving and cost-saving work in our community. These organizations bring specialists who are trained to dispose of leftover materials, any materials at all, and bring treatment to the exact places where help is continually needed the most. Whether or not this ordinance passes, it's still going to be there. This makes our parks safer and healthier. Turning this in turning this type of care and access into a misdemeanor will not increase safety. If we restrict this preventive care in parks such that we rely on emergency services, we'll pay more money and our community will suffer. Harm reduction and early intervention prevent emergencies. They reduce strain on fire, police, and hospitals, and they make parks safer for everyone. I am, to be honest, I am worried that you may think that this is actually a chill, normal measure that will allow you to make a general rule for public safety, but that you'll still authorize qualified agencies to conduct services like this. I want you to think about it a little bit more deeply. By passing this ordinance, you're effectively ending programs at local agencies because agencies will not fund programs that are criminalized by default. It will not happen and you will be responsible for the lost programs. Do you like being responsible for cost-saving, life-saving programs drying up? That is a very weird and bad thing to like. I urge you to vote no on this item or at very or at the very least table it until you have more time to fully understand the farreaching consequences of this ordinance. Thank you. Jennifer Bilman followed by Caitlyn Bowman. >> [clears throat] >> Mayor and council members, thank you for the opportunity to speak and thank you for the care that you show to the city. I want to speak against this ordinance through the lens of both lived experience and [clears throat] shared values. At Terara's Health are I'm nervous. At Terara's Health, our mission is hope, health, and healing. For me, those words are not abstract. They are people. They are families. [clears throat] They are sisters. I have a sister who struggled for years while working through addiction and recovery. She's not you. [clears throat] She is not unique and that's the point. There are many sisters like her in our community and many families quietly holding their breath hoping the phone doesn't ring with devastating news. What made the difference for my sister and so many was access to care that met her where she was at. Services that allowed her and them to protect their health without shame. Support that recognized her humanity when she felt invisible and less than human. Harm reduction is not about enabling harm. It's about preventing death, reducing disease, and creating a bridge to recovery. These services save lives. They buy time and keep people alive long enough to choose something different. Our parks are public spaces. They are already [cough and clears throat] where vulnerable people are. For many, these parks are not a choice. It's where they feel safe. And that is why access to care in these spaces matters. When we remove life-saving supports from those spaces, we don't solve the problem. We push it further to the shadows. I'm asking that you slow down and not make car care harder for people to reach. Caitlyn is next, followed by Ashley Bird. Hello, my name is Caitlyn Bowman and I'm a premed student who volunteers preparing harm reduction kits with sonor and prevention works. I'm here to speak against the proposed ordinance restricting community- based medical care and harm reduction services in city parks. Each kit I assemble provides resources to people who use drugs, including those experiencing homelessness, with tools to stay safe and healthy, sometimes in life or death situations. These kits include sterile syringes, nlloxxone, hydration, and first aid supplies, and other essential items that protect people from preventable harm. Limiting access to these services would directly prevent these interventions from reaching the individuals who need them the most. The proposed ordinance would not only endanger people struggling with substance use and other health challenges, but would also increase long-term costs to our health care system by sending more people to emergency rooms with preventable illnesses and injuries. Community-based outreach programs like ours fill critical gaps left by traditional health care, especially for those who are marginalized or unsafe seeking formal care. I urge the council to reconsider or revise this ordinance to allow trained volunteers and community organizations to continue providing essential health services in public spaces. Preserving these programs ensures the safety, dignity, and survival of some of our city's most vulnerable residents. Thank you for your time and consideration. Ashley is next, followed by Vanna. And Ashley, could you wave so we know you're on your way? Thank you. Perfect. Hello everyone and good afternoon and good evening. My name is Ashley Bird. I am a patient navigator with Circle the City where we believe in healing homelessness together. That is our motto at Circle the City. We have 10 outreach teams that are street medicine. We have mobile medical units. We service the vast majority of anyone who is struggling with homelessness, anyone who is struggling with addiction, anyone that we are able to go and outreach. As far as that goes, as a patient navigator, I have countless resources and those wouldn't be possible without the opportunity to go into parks, to go into shelters, to go in to their space to meet them where they're at. It's something that at Circle the City, we definitely promote. We want to make sure that we are always able to have that next step in place. Whether that's going to one of our respbit facilities, whether that's being able to get them transport to a detox facility, making it so that we can make an impact together. All about wraparound services. With that being said, if this passes, it doesn't just jeopardize us as a company. It doesn't just jeopardize the countless other people who are here. It jeopardizes those who are the most vulnerable, those who might not always have a voice, those who may not even know what services are available as far as that goes. We're there to be able to tell them, "Hey, we're here for you. We may not be able to solve your need immediately. We may not be able to cure what disease you have, but we're here for you and we have options. Let's look at those together and let's try to come up with a game plan for what the next steps are to rebuild." Thank you very much. I hope you guys have a good evening. Vana, followed by Charles Chapman. Thank you, Mayor and City Council, um, for the opportunity to speak today. Um, I am Dr. Vana Campion. I am a family practice physician and the chief medical officer at Teros Health. As a physician, my job is to prevent illness, to reduce harm, and to keep people safe, which is aligned with your goals today. Safety and public health are not competing values. They are inseparable. This proposed ordinance would restrict basic medical services in parks while expanding enforcement. That does not make our parks safer. It shifts health crisis into neighborhoods, your emergency departments, and to increased EMS utilization, increasing weight times for critical services and costing your taxpayers extra for everything. [clears throat] Community health centers provide regulated evidence-based care under strict federal standards with universal precautions. When that care is banned, the burden doesn't disappear. It lands on our EMS, our hospitals, our taxpayers, and families trying to access care when the system is already stretched. Policies without clear guard rails consistently harm our most vulnerable community members and erode trust. They make communities less safe, not more. Phoenix residents deserve solutions that work. Protecting parks should not mean criminalizing medical care. I urge the city to pause these ordinances and work with healthcare providers, public health experts, and community members to create safer parks and healthier neighborhoods. We stand ready to partner with you. Thank you. Charles is next, followed by Brenton Clark. Good [clears throat] afternoon. My name is Charles Chapman. I am here to oppose the proposed ordinance because it would adversely affect the ability of circle the city to provide care. In particular, it would adversely affect their ability to provide preventative care and early in intervention care. Preventative care is inexpensive care. Earlier intervention care is inexpensive care. I well know the excellent work that Sle City does because I am a patient there. I suffer from clinical depression. If it weren't for Circle the City, I wouldn't be here today. I wouldn't be here today because I would be dead. I owe Circle the City. Under the proposed ordinance, someone in a someone in a park suffering from clinical depression who otherwise would receive diagnosis and treatment will not because the ordinance. Instead, they will suffer a life of pain and regret if they're so lucky. under the ordinance that the someone who's suffering from COVID will not receive early treatment or diagnosis and instead will will spread the disease to the community. Under the ordinance, someone who is suffering from cancer will not receive early detection. Thank you. Brentton Clark is next, followed by Leonard Clark. >> Good evening, Mayor and Council. Uh, my name is Brentton Clark, a proud resident of City Council District 7 and an even prouder member of Teros Health. There are a lot of people that will be speaking after me that can talk about the cost-saving measures and the public health implications of passing this this ordinance. So, I come armed with just a story that was that was passed along with to me. One of our I got it last week. One of our mobile health teams um met a woman, we'll call her Eve. Eve looked a lot like me. She was from privilege, highly educated, working in systems that support the people that are most vulnerable and through medical conditions, she found herself claiming residence in one of our parks. She became weary of the supports offered to her. But when she connected with our teams at Teros Health, she felt a sense of belonging and engaged with services. From that engagement point, from when she walked into our clinics, in three weeks, she connected with City of Phoenix programs and with partner agencies that are in this room doing incredible work. And in those 3 weeks, we heard back she had landed a job in a shelter where she once stayed. She had gotten her own housing and was moving towards hope and healing. And now, the reason I share this is because Eve is not the outlier or the minority. Her success stories happen every day around us and if this passes those success stories will become far more extraordinary. So I urge you to table this and work with partners like Teros health and public health officials to create a more comprehensive plan to make our parks safer and our community healthier. Thank you. Leonard is next, followed by Raa or Regina Clark. >> Thank you, mayor and council members. Um, I would also ask that you table this. I'm sorry I got a little emotional, but I will always clap for people who stand up for the marginalized and have the courage and who are good Samaritans to do what they're doing now in our parks. So, I am sorry to Mr. Jim Wearing. I'm not ashamed of myself, but I'm also sorry for calling you a hypocrite because I've seen you and I know I'm not going to hate you cuz that's what the devil wants. That's what that's what they want. No, but I will say to you this, I will always clap for the marginalized. I will always clap for like those that are as courageous as the people that get up here to stand up. And I just heard people talking here. They're not going to get the medical care they need. This is a bandage on something much deeper in our society. We are the fifth largest city. And we do set the example. It doesn't have to be New York or LA. We set the example. If we're going to talk about empathy and compassion for our fellow human beings, I'm sorry. When you say the services are there for these folks, we haven't even answered the question, what do we do if they don't have capacity and know you can say self- responsibility as a conservative, pull yourself up by your bootstraps, but what if these people, the medical people are talking to, they don't even know that they're harming themselves. But this is like trying to cure that you're just putting a bandage on this. But not you're all af not you but society the people that rule the society are afraid. We need to come up with a better health care system and then maybe people wouldn't have to be in the parks are people going out. We could have something like Norway or Switzerland. Yes, the evil Scandinavian countries or Germany with the capitalistic system yet a national medical care system. Anyways, to stay apppropo to this subject, I ask that you please table this. And again, to all of you, I'm sorry. I'm not going to get up here and hate you cuz that's not the right thing. Please do the right thing. Thank you. >> And after the next speaker, it will be Rebecca Dennis. Illustrious members of Phoenix City Council. My name is Regina Clark Piggee and I am a member of the city of Phoenix community and a public health professional who has worked directly with people that have experienced homelessness in our great city. I humbly stand before you today to say that I have heard firsthand from displaced teens and young adults the traumatic stories of abandonment from school systems, family, and finally the health care system. Many were introduced to substance use against their will and found themselves immediately addicted. Many were kidnapped from their reservations hundreds of miles away and were brought to Phoenix against their will under the pretense of receiving recovery treatment within fraudulent facilities that promptly evicted these young people to the streets once their fraudulent programs were exposed in our local paper. A positive solution for our youth and young adults lies in strengthening community partnerships between the Phoenix Cares program and trade and training job placement companies such as Awake Windows and Doors and Wholesome Bakery to name a few. Street Medicine provides hope to these young people. For some, it is the only hope they know. Please do not vote today to abandon them also by adopting an ordinance that would limit medical and harm reduction services vital for saving their lives and giving them a chance at a full recovery. At the very least, please postpone your ordinance decision until you have consulted public health officials and consider a designated space for administering medical care in parks. Thank you for your time and attention. Thank you. Rebecca is next, followed by Kim Dri. >> Hi, I'm Rebecca, resident of district 4. I want to begin by saying that when I come up here and speak, I'm always thinking of a yes. And right, yes, I want safe parks. I don't want needles in my parks. I don't want to see people using substances mostly because I know that they're hurting and I want them to get help. like I don't want to go somewhere and feel unsafe either or feel like I'm also vulnerable and I also don't want to criminalize my neighbors as much as I am a community member who doesn't struggle with addiction, who doesn't struggle with homelessness as of right now, but that could change at any moment with our economy, right? I know and I believe that we can create solutions and find solutions that do not criminalize and target people. I think that's where I get so frustrated sometimes coming to these meetings is because when I advocate for something, there's an assumption that I don't want the other thing to happen or that I don't see the other side or that I don't believe that we could have something better. I believe we could have something great and better. I believe in the yes and yes, we need to clean up our parks and make it safe for everyone. We need to make it somewhere that is welcome for everyone. And we do not need to limit care. We do not need to take back compassion. We do not need to criminalize people and surveil people in order to do that. Again, I'm such a big advocate of root causes. I love to read. There's an amazing book called Poverty by America. When I think about poverty in our country, I think about that book because what he talks so much about is these band-aid approaches and we're not really getting to the root issues. And if we did, it would cost way less money to solve poverty, right? So that's what I think about books like that, people like that, people that have devoted their whole lives to looking at the evidence-based approaches. Houston is a city that comparatively is around the same population we are. I think often we trade with them. Fourth or fifth city in the nation. They have a housing first approach. They are the only people I think the only city that has really been successful and really getting people off the street. We could look to them. I just also I took work off today to be here. I don't think I'm beneath anything. >> And then after the current speaker will be Karen. >> Good afternoon, council members and mayor. Thank you for having us here today. My name is Kim De Prey and I serve as chief executive officer of Circle the City. We provide healthc care to people facing homelessness. I I think I've rewritten my what I wanted to say 10 times since I've been sitting here since 2:00. Um, and I know a lot of my colleagues are going to say everything that I was going to say. So, I'm going to make it a little bit personal. I'm the luckiest person to have been raised by incredible parents who instilled love and compassion in my heart to the point where I became a nurse. I've been a nurse for over 41 years here in the valley and working with the unhouse for 10 years. My cup is full every day I go home. My husband thinks I'm crazy. He's a airline pilot. He goes, "I want your job." I said, "This job is incredible. I love Circle the City. I love what we do." And I with I work with 280 other individuals who feel exactly the same way I do. I feel really sorry for people who don't have that compassion and love in their heart because it's an incredible feeling to go every day feeling so good about making a difference in people's lives. I think what people don't realize is there are many reasons why people are homeless and it's not always drug addiction or because people choose to be that way. It can be something as simple as a or as catastrophic as a health a health issue that happens. They um become hospitalized. they lose their job and they lose their home. I can't tell you how many situations that happens over and over and over again. I want to give a shout out to Rachel Mily. She's my best friend. Uh I love working with the Office of Homeless Solutions. I'm hoping that we can continue to work as in a partnership. It's going to take all of us working together and I please please if you could table this until we have more discussion. Thank you. Mayor question. Mayor, Mayor, can I ask Kim a question? >> Uh, yes. Uh, >> if you want to ask Kim a question. Yeah. Kim, do you mind coming back? >> Kim, thank you so much for your comments. Just have a really quick question. as an expert and more importantly a provider in this um field. Were you part of any stakeholder process in drafting this policy? >> No. No. We just found out about it last week and I think that's where my disappointment is because I think we would have we we'd have a lot to contribute. I absolutely support having safe parks. I don't want the parks to be unsafe. However, the unhoused people, they don't have anywhere to go. They they can't sleep in people's yards. They can't sleep on the sidewalks. They can't sleep in on businesses. They can't sleep in the streets. And clearly there's not enough shelter beds or housing. So where are they going to go? You know, and they feel safe in parks. Many people they there's camaraderie, they share resources, there's a community, and um so anyway. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. Good evening, mayor and city council members. My name is Karen D. Francesco and I work at Teros Health. I am a clinical so social worker and the senior director of community health and the health center director of our Mitchell clinic which is in central Phoenix District 4. In partnership with our CMO, I oversee our mobile and portable medical and behavioral health services and I am opposed to this ordinance. This ordinance questions the intelligence and professionalism of those of us who are doing the work and directing the work. The interventions and modalities we use are evidence-based and what might look like a task oriented um [clears throat] thing that we're doing by cleaning a wound or testing someone for HIV or heepsi is tied to so much more. We are listening and looking for a window to open with our patients. And when that window opens, we have engaged them. And we know that the number one single indicator of inspiring change in our patients is the therapeutic relationship that is developed with that helping professional. That window that opens allows us to ask, are you ready to go to treatment? Have you thought of detox? Would you like to re-engage engage in your services at the VA or your SMI clinic? Do you want a PCP appointment? Would you like a ride there? We are willing to collaborate and have collaborated with the city of Phoenix and worked the past two summers at the city of Phoenix 24-hour heat respit and with all other levels of government. For example, just last weekend we worked with Maricopa County Probation. I have worked at Terrace for 10 years and I know if this ordinance passes, we will follow it. If you say we can't step foot in a park, we won't. But not because we professionally or ethically think that's the right thing to do. Thank you. Leanne is next followed by William Ellert. Mayor Ggo and members of the city council. Good afternoon. My name is Leanne Dunton. I'm a constituent of council district 4 and spend significant time in district 7 as a local harm reductionist with Riot Phoenix. I'm here to testify in opposition of the proposed safe medical treatment in city parks ordinance and urge you to vote no or at least table this for further discussion, research and community engagement. I want to begin with three names, Michael, Jacqueline, and Bruce. These are three individuals to whom I have personally administered Nlloxxone to inside Phoenix parks. While administering or distributing nlloxxone itself may not violate this ordinance, the reason I was there absolutely does. For the fa past four years, I've operated a syringe service program providing safer substance use and safer sex supplies, nlloxxone to reverse opioid overdoses, education service referrals, HIV and heepsi testing, all in compliance with ARS 36-798.51. I'm sure you've all heard the harm reduction phrase, meet people where they're at. This work requires access to people where they already are, which includes inside of Phoenix parks. Why? Because houseless folks are our neighbors. They're using the parks just like we are. Nlloxxone is an incredible life-saving medication, but its effectiveness depends on the ability to distribute it directly to those most at risk. Without access to do this work within city parks, Nlloxxone distribution will significantly decline and fatal overdoses will absolutely increase. People do not come to syringe service programs only for Nlloxxone. They come for other essential life-saving supplies and Nlloxxone is often provided at the same time whether or not they personally need it. Research consistently shows that people who use SSPs are the most effective responders in reversing overdoses. Just last month in a survey that we conducted with our participants, 70% of all people in our line reported having administered Nlloxxone to somebody at least once in their life. Phoenix, including local SSPs and the Office of Public Health, has worked tire entirely to reduce overdose deaths. Restricting access to our parks will only begin to reverse that progress. So, I urge you to I urge you to vote no on this ordinance. >> Thank you. >> William is next, followed by Matt Evans. >> Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, city council members. Um, my name is Bill Ellert and I am a family physician who has been providing care to people experiencing homelessness since 1981 and specifically in the city of Phoenix since 2000. The advantage of being the age I am is that I've had the benefit of seeing multiple success stories and knowing what works and what doesn't work. I had a prepared statement, but I'd like to just address some of the things that were said earlier that I'd just like to to to put a perspective on it. Earlier in this meeting, somebody mentioned people in hospital gowns in the parks. If you don't allow us to go into the parks, that's not going to de decrease. it's going to increase because that person wasn't being treated by those of us that go into the parks to give care. That person was coming from a hospital setting and discharged to the streets and therefore ended in our parks. That will not change. If you refuse to let us go into the parks, you are not going to have a decrease in drug use in your parks. you are going to have an increase in drug use in parks because there's not going to be anybody that's going in and giving counseling, talking about suboxone therapy, and getting a number of people into residential treatment programs. So, the other thing that was mentioned was dead bodies. I guarantee you that there will be more dead bodies in the park with this ordinance. Currently, the number of seniors entering homelessness for the first time is high and it's projected to triple by 2030. So, you will be subjecting our elderly to the to the horrors of a death from dehydration. I don't think that's what any of you want. Don't do this. Table this and reach out to us. We're willing to partner with you. Matt Evans is next, followed by Clayton Ael. Hey everyone, uh my name is Dr. Matt Evans. I'm a family physician, a type 1 diabetic who injects insulin, and someone who's been discriminated against when asking for safe syringes in the past. In my clinical practice, I spend the majority of my time helping people who struggle with managing their chronic medical illnesses. Um, and I try to improve their lives through the administration of health care in all types of different settings, in the clinic, in an addiction treatment center, outreach on the street. I offer heepsi treatment. I offer access to patient um medication for addiction treatment. I uh pro provide insulin prescriptions. I get them into residential treatment centers. Um, we have opioid treatment programs and I oppose ordinance G7467. It will certainly lead to a reduction in the public health of our community here in the Phoenix area. Um, and I just want to share a personal story. I was very close to homelessness myself. I have a very amazing mother. My father has struggled with substance use my entire life. And I almost ran away. I almost ran away into a park just like a lot of my patients do. But luckily, I had a good parent figure. I had a good great siblings and I just thank them for that. And now I'm trying to provide that same service to the same patients that I see every day. Uh when I was practicing medicine in Oregon, my nephew had an accident. I had to go to the hospital im immediately and I forgot my insulin syringe. So, I went to a pharmacy and what did the pharmacist tell me? No, you don't have your diabetes box with you. I'm not giving you a syringe. My patients struggle with this every single day. Safe syringe programs allow them to get the access that they need to not go into the hospital. And a nurse against policy gave me a syringe when I was at the hospital with my nephew to get my blood sugar down. So, we're going to have more patients with more medical problems if things like this allow to go forward. So, thank you so much. >> Clayton is next, followed by Dr. Fowler. >> Uh, hello council members. Uh, I my name is Clayton Zel. I'm an EMT. I work in Phoenix and the greater Phoenix area. Um, I just want to talk about why I oppose this measure. Um, first of all, just sort of a a small note is that EMTs and paramedics really don't do any of this harm reduction stuff. We're not handing out needles. We're not handing out harm reduction kits. So, when you take this stuff away and you tell us that there's an exception for us, it just doesn't do anything. You're just saying you're just putting a stop gap that's not there, right? Um, emergency workers provide emergency medical care in emergency situations. And we are seeing more and more people that are just treating emergency care as their their like one solution for medical care. And we're seeing costs go up and we're seeing worse health outcomes because people are not seeking care as soon. and the people who work in like needle uh uh needle replacement and and uh the and are sorry and harm reduction events are are the ones who are providing that care which bridges that gap. Um, we know that there are tons of of positive uh there are tons of positive uh uh there are are a lot of positive outcomes that come from these programs. Uh a reduction in the spread of bloodborne illnesses, decreased overdose deaths, and even in some cases finding rehab and detox uh resources for the people that need them. So, when we take these away, we're expecting to have more addicts out on the street. And finally, I know that kind of one of the big the big questions about this is is talking about medical waste and talking about the debris that gets left behind, but it's important to realize that the debris that gets left behind is just a natural outcome of people needing medical care. And by making it illegal for people to go in and help these people and find ways to dispose of these things, you're not reducing that debris or that waste. You're just making it harder for the people who actually want to make a difference for that. >> Thank you. Dr. Fer is next, followed by Scott. Good afternoon, mayor and council. My name is Robert Fowler. I'm a physician and assistant professor of family and community medicine at the University of Arizona and Kraton Medical Schools. I've practiced medicine in Phoenix for over 40 years. I'm here to oppose the currently written proposal to ban medical care in city parks. I urge you to reconsider this proposal and coordinate with other city, county, and state public health partners to protect the most vulnerable residents. Please consider designated areas and parks where medical care may be administered. For many people experiencing homelessness, parks are the only place where medical assessment, hydration, and heat related care can occur. Prohibiting medical care in these city settings increases preventable risk of harm and death, especially during extreme heat. Existing services are not yet able to address the immense needs of the unsheltered individuals as demonstrated by Phoenix's heat data. Phoenix has the highest rate of heat related deaths in the country. The homeless account for 50% of the heat related deaths and make up 30% of the burn unit patients and 20% of burn unit deaths. These outcomes are predictable, preventable when care is available. Conditions such as dehydration, heat exhaustion, burns, and wounds are treatable on site. This prevents overloading an already burdened emergency response and healthcare system. The Maricopa County Office of Preparedness and Response and the Arizona Heat Officer expect communities to provide heat relief and medical care during extreme heat. Providers such as circle the city city and other street medicine teams deliver this care responsibly in public parks. Banning medical intervention delays care until emergencies tax our most expensive healthc care resources and lead to avoidable deaths. Don't criminalize healthcare. Uh Dr. Um Dr. F could we have Dr. Fowler back? And um I understand there are many people with medical degrees. If the if you file if you signed up with a medical degree I'm calling doctor and I apologize for those who have a degree which we have not honored. Counciloman Pestor had a question. >> I have a question about heat relief. Uh we run a heat relief program throughout pretty much maybe March, maybe April, April through September. And I believe and I don't know if you we have several partners that help us in the heat relief. Are you one of our partners? >> So the partners in heat relief are in the heat centers. >> Okay. We used to be a partner when the city of Phoenix would give heat relief supplies to be distributed on the streets, but they aren't anymore, right? The the current strategy is to get people off the streets and into heat relief centers, but that doesn't happen for everybody, right? And heat relief is a form of harm reduction. It's just and the reason why I'm talking about heat relief is because I've got other people talk about other parts of harm reduction. All right? But that's something that we all agree that Phoenix needs and you have strategies to prevent these deaths, but providing the deaths in uh the medical care in the park should be part of that strategy. >> Okay. Thank you. Scott will be followed by Julie. >> Thank you. Uh thank you, Mayor Gaygo and members of the city council. My name is Scott Greenwood. I'm in here in opposition to this item. I also serve as a CEO of Sonor and Prevention Works, Arizona's largest and most impactful organization that works in this space uh providing life-saving information and resources uh with people who use drugs. Our work is directly responsible for tens of thousands of opioid overdose reversals. Uh every year that work saves somewhere between 2,700 and 3,000 Arizonans. that would not be possible without a harm reduction approach. I'm also a constitutional lawyer with particular expertise on both the First Amendment and police oversight and accountability. This draft's ordinance lives right at the intersection of these areas. I want to focus first on two different areas. First, the legal issues and then the real world implications of a yes vote. First, the draft regulates speech and expressive activities in public parks, a public forum. It does so by unconstitutionally banning certain activity on the basis of the identity or the viewpoint of the speaker and the content of the speech. Both are unconstitutional. This is not even a close question. The draft would ban only certain activity uh that it's otherwise legal under the federal and state constitutions as well as the relevant enabling uh state statute. It's exactly like an ordinance that would ban speech if it's done by Republicans, but permit it if it's by Democrats. This ordinance would say, I can distribute in a lock zone with my outreach and navigation team. I can talk to people about wound care. Um, I can talk to them about a bandage, but I can't give them a bandage. Um, that's not even rational. Um, the these distinctions don't pass the traditional tests. Um, I will let uh colleagues from other harm reduction orgs and others in the community speak to the uh health impacts, but this ordinance is unfounded. It is unnecessary. Uh, we were not consulted. Um, and we urge the council to either table it or uh vote it down. Thank you, Madame Mayor, members of council. My name is Julie Gunnall. I'm an attorney and I work at the intersection of drug policy reform, reproductive justice, and housing. I'm here in opposition to this agenda item. I would invite those who are elected and as importantly those in the gallery for whom you work to look to the left and look to the right. Now, go ahead and do it because in so doing, the odds are that you are looking into the face of someone whose own life or whose family's lives have been impacted by addiction or overdose. Because in the United States, that's one in three of us. I want to know if this council has grappled with the fact that in passing this ordinance, loved Phoenicians will die. And that is true because harm reduction works. Harm reduction saves money. It prevents lifelong infections like HEP B and HIV. It removes the costs from public health. It is a gateway to treatment by meeting people where they're at in a way that is non-judgmental and supportive. It prevents overdose. It saves lives. And most importantly, I guess in this discussion, it actually reduces public consumption of drugs and reduces the biohazard waste in public. Every major study that has examined harm reduction has shown that it works. And my question to this council is why is it that you know better? Uh what studies have you consulted to show that this is going to save lives? What what medical professionals have you examined how much it's going to cost to lock up these folks? I see I'm running low on time, but I was raised on a steady diet of Mr. Rogers growing up. And one of the things that he says is that when you confront these tough issues, you need to look for the helpers. So my question to you is, what evidence exists to look for the helpers, to investigate them, and to lock them up and criminalize the public health professionals that are on the front lines in Phoenix right now? Megan Kepler is next, followed by Laura Lightfoot and then Rebecca Lutz and then Arlene Mahoney. Thank you, mayor, and council members for allowing me to speak today. Uh, my name is Megan Kepler. I'm a volunteer with the urban front and a member of the heat and health partnership with the city of Phoenix office of public health office. I'm here today to oppose item 46. This ordinance is in direct opposition to the work that we do with the city and state public health departments to reduce heat deaths, prevent public health issues, and encourage the use of services. Without the ability to educate, treat, and serve people in city parks, we have limited ability to reach people in many parts of the city. This proposed ordinance will have many legal, financial, and public health costs for the city and its residents. Criminalizing service providers, professionals, and volunteers who are reaching people around Phoenix is counterproductive. There has been no evidence present presented by the city of how frontline public health efforts are making parks more dangerous. There are already laws established to prevent criminal activity in parks. Our heat relief and harm reduction work in partnership with the city has prevented countless emergency calls, reduced emergency room visits, and connected people to medical care, rehab, and shelter services. We designed pamphlets this year with the city to distribute along with heat relief supplies to reduce and rep prevent the effects of heat and substance use. In these engagements, we successfully treated heat emergencies, educated and informed people on the city's heat relief program and got them to safer locations out of the parks. They had no other way of knowing what those services were without our interactions. Finally, the language of this ordinance is exceptionally broad and will have consequences. Any supplies that save the life or protect the health of the person or the community from the consequences of drug use. Is this ordinance saying you in fact want us to not protect the community from the consequences of drug use by providing safe syringe disposal, heat relief supplies, and wound care? Is this really about public safety? Is the distribution of electrolytes and bandages making the public safe? Please vote no. Laura Lightfoot is followed by Rebecca Lutz. Hello everybody and now good evening since we've all been here since 100 p.m. Um my name is Laura Lightfoot and I'm here to uh reject this or ask that you reject this bill. Um I'm a criminology and public health researcher and university instructor. I focus on overdose prevention, harm reduction, and community safety. I work closely with community- based harm reduction organizations such as Sonorin, which you've already heard from, and I engage in outreach work that this ordinance would restrict. Most importantly though, I'm here as someone who loves people who use drugs. I want to acknowledge the revisions made to this ordinance, including the change from medical care to medical treatment and the clarification that infor sharing and referrals are excluded. While these changes may sound reassuring, the the revised ordinance is still deeply concerning and I'm here to oppose it. As written, this ordinance still makes it a crime in city parks to organize or conduct the distribution of syringe or harm reduction kits. Even though these activities are explicitly authorized under Arizona's syringe service statute, the fact that nlloxxone distri distribution is exempt does not solve this problem. Harm reduction is not just one item. It's a system of care. Even with these listed expectations, this ordinance still gives police a basis to stop, question, and investigate people engaged in harm reduction work, such as myself. Um, enforcement will hinge on whether someone is deemed exempt rather than whether they are preventing harm. That uncertainty invites discretionary enforcement, harassment, and ultimately disenourages lifesaving work. The ordinance also continues to exclude community members who are not formally recognized or acting in an emergency. Harm reduction has always depended on mutual aid in community response, not just credentials or titles. The ordinance runs counter to what decades of research tells us. I've asked you to please reject this ordinance. Every research we know would reject this. As a researcher, I ask you to reject this bill. Please, for the safety of Phoenix, >> Rebecca, followed by Arlene, followed by Jennifer Longden. >> Good afternoon, mayor and council members. My name is Becky Loots and I am a member of the FastTrack Cities. I am the subcommittee chair for your know your status eliminate stigma subcommittee. Um, and we weren't even told about this. Nobody was. I also work at Spectrum Medical Care. I run the outreach program. Um, this proposed ordinance would have serious unintended consequences for some of the most vulnerable residents in our city. For many people who are uninsured or underinsured, community health fairs, mo and mobile units are not supplemental care. [snorts] They're the only access to care that these people have. In Maricopa County, over 1 in 10 working age adults lacks health insurance. That's a lot. Making community health fairs and mobile medicine a critical access point, not just a convenience. These events provide basic screenings, education, referral, and and early identification of health issues that would otherwise go unnoticed until they become emergencies. Preventing [clears throat] or restricting this access does not improve public health. It delays care and increases long-term costs for everybody. From public from a public health standpoint, this ordinance would directly undermine our shared goal of ending the HIV epidemic. Phoenix is part of a fasttrack cities initiative, which commits us to meeting people where they are at in parks, neighborhoods, and community spaces, not only clinical settings. Outreach, testing, and education are proven evidence-based strategies that connect people to care, reduce transmission, and save lives. I want to be very clear. This is not medical care being provided inappropriately. This is medical access being restricted inequitably, inequitably, sorry. Um, policies like this do not impact people with private insurance or established providers. They disproportionately harm people experiencing poverty, homelessness, and systematic barriers to care. Thank you. [clears throat] I urge the council to reconsider and table this ordinance until they can engage with public health professionals and community providers. >> Arlene is next, followed by Jennifer. Hello, mayor and members of the city council. My name is Arlene Mahoney and I'm a constituent of district 8 and I am here in opposition of the proposed safe medical treatment and parks ordinance. I am a social worker and the executive director of Southwest Recovery Alliance Suare Suare operates a syringe service program in compliance with ARS 36798.51 in Phoenix. I am deeply concerned about the public health implications of restricting access to a wellestablished evidence-based public health intervention, particularly during the ongoing symic of HIV, Hepsi, and overdose. Not only is this alarming, but it undermines Arizona's integrated HIV, heepsi, and STI elimination plan, which explicitly calls for expanding access to syringe service programs and harm reduction services, not restricting them and criminalizing people providing those services. If this ordinance's aim is to improve public safety, then we should be expanding harm reduction efforts and not rolling them back. Limiting the location to where supplies are distributed to save a life or protect the health of a person or communities will have dire health outcomes. It seems to me that a loud part is said out loud here that these are life-saving activities. Why would the council members vote to restrict access to life-saving activities? Additionally, there is evidence that syringe service programs reduce the number of discarded syringes in parks and public spaces. A 2019 peer-reviewed study in Miami found a 49% reduction in syringe litter after implementation of a syringe service program. Syringe s waste would likely increase, not decrease through this ordinance. Lastly, in this past year, we have had 4,000 encounters with people at risk of HIV, hepatitis C, and fatal overdose, providing life-saving supplies to all, distributing 8,000 doses of Nlloxxone, documenting 1,048 overdose reversals, concurrently providing over 70 HIV and heepsi tests via community partners and providing safe syringial disposals and referrals. My question is, why would the city council vote to restrict a program with this kind of impact and criminalize its workers? I beg the city council to vote no and at bare lease table this until you have more information about the consequences this will have. Jennifer is next followed by Stephanie This is new. >> Good evening, madame mayor, members of the city council. Thank you for this opportunity to speak to you today. For the record, I am Jennifer Longden. I am the chief external affairs officer with the Arizona Alliance for Community Health Centers. I live and work in Council District 4. I hear I am here today in respectful opposition to this matter. Uh this ordinance will not create order. It will dismantle it. Ordinance G assumes that prohibiting the rendering of medical attention makes parks safer. But the care is not the cause of disorder. Unmet need is. When you remove support without providing an alternative, you do not solve a problem. you displace it, often into a deeper crisis. We're being asked to accept that a nurse checking a wound and offering basic health care is a threat to public order. That's not credible and it's not supported by public health data. Federally qualified health centers are designed to absorb need before it becomes an emergency. When you restrict orderly, appropriate care in public spaces, that need doesn't disappear, it escalates. And when it escalates, people do what they're told to do. They call 911. The EMS system is not designed for early intervention. It's designed to address crisis. This will push people out of managed care pathways and into emergency response. And that means more ambulance calls, more police response, more people transported to already overwhelmed emergency rooms. This ordinance treats public health intervention as a nuisance rather than as a stabilizer that saves lives, reduces strain on emergency systems that the city itself already funds. Emergency rooms do not have excess capacity. They are crowded. Everyone waits longer. stroke victims wait, heart attack victims wait, families wait, and clinicians burn out faster. This ordinance assumes that restricting care produces safety. In reality, it produces volume, more calls, more transports, more em boarding. >> Thank you. >> This Thank you, [clears throat] Madame Mayor. Mayor, Councilwoman Washington. >> Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. I do have a question. I was going to ask this of the Arizona Alliance of Community Health Centers. The request has been made for us to table this um with the hopes I I presume of providing some gu some additional guidelines. Do we have some ideas of what it is that you think the ordinance should entail? >> Madame Mayor, um Councilwoman Hajj Washington, I think it where I want to start is that we just learned about this within the past several days. uh our folks were not consulted or offered the opportunity to help craft something that works at one point. And and I'm grateful, by the way, that uh the mayor and city manager uh were very patient and took our calls uh once we learned about it and we tried to work through some solutions, including adding federally qualified health centers as an exemption so that these fully trained um wellresourced organizations could go into the parks and do the work they've already been doing for decades. when you talk to Circle of the City and Teros for example, um I am not the person to offer you those solutions, but folks like our community health centers, Vier del Soul is here, Circle the City is here, Teros is here, and if I've missed any of our other members, I apologize. And they do have credible solutions that would be helpful. So, we do ask that you slow this down long enough to speak to the public health experts so that we get to a win-win. I don't want needles in the park. I don't want bandages in the park, but I do want to ensure that we're taking care of every Phoenician. >> Thank you for that. Thank you, Mayor. >> Thank you, ma'am. [clears throat] I believe Stephanie was next, followed by Hannah, followed by Joseph. Hello, my name is Stephanie Martinez and I serve Circle the City as the senior director of community outreach and strategy. Thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening. Uh you guys have heard our CEO Kim, our CMO Dr. Allert, uh Dr. Evans and I just want to reiterate that we have always collabor collaborated with both um city of Phoenix, Maropa County and other municipalities to ensure that our services are delivered safely, responsibly, and in alignment with public health goals. This collaboration is especially critical during heat relief efforts when coordinated outreach and medical care literally saves lives. Our teams are often the first point of medical contact for individuals who otherwise would not have access to care until their condition becomes an emergency. We know that if this passes and is if it passes as currently written, this will limit our ability to provide timely lifesaving medical services. This will have a direct and negative impact on our patients, the people who rely on us for their medical attention. We are not asking to operate outside of partnership or accountability. In fact, we welcome continued collaboration, coordination, and clear communication. We invite you to tour our facility, to join us, to see what we do every day, what our teams do out there every day to save lives. Our goal has always been to support public health, reduce the strain on emergency systems, and provide compassionate medical care. With a few seconds to spare, I also want to briefly address something that was shared earlier. I heard concerns about children being exposed to things in public spaces, and I understand how emotional that is. As a mom of boys who also play sports, my kids are exposed to far worse every single day with things at their fingertips such as video games and phones. But in I teach them to see humans for who they are. And I too am surprised that we're here debating something as simple as human kindness. Thank you for your time. Good evening, Mayor Ggo GGO and members of the city council. My name is Hannah Matamoto and I'm a first year medical student with the University of Arizona College of Medicine Phoenix as well as an overdose prevention lead with Street Med. I'm also proud Phoenix native. Our city parks are where I once was one of those children who was playing in the little league soccer team. I also ran through these parks as a cross-country athlete and now I walk each day with my dog. The shared sense of belonging and connection these space provide for all members of our community, including those experiencing homelessness are invaluable to me and our city. With the number of unhoused individuals increasing annually, the parks offer refuge from our extreme heat. often 12 degrees cooler than the surrounding asphalt, which can be the difference between life and death. I'm profoundly disappointed to see item 46 being discussed today. I'm disheartened by the thought that on my daily walks through these parks, both as a civilian and a medical volunteer, I would face a dis misdemeanor charge for providing kids designed to save lives. If the simple moral act of saving a life is not reason enough to reject this ordinance, I implore you to consider the severe financial burden you are voting to impose on this city. You are trading treat cheap, proven prevention for expensive, chaotic, and burdensome burdensome emergency response. For every three fatal overdoses, the government, public safety, and criminal justice costs increase by an average of $150,000. I must emphasize the burden this places on our already strained medical system. Street medicine programs like ours alleviate the load on our emergency departments by managing chronic conditions and providing preventative medicine. As a future physician, I will inherit the consequences consequences of the decision made today. I urge you to consider the physical suffering and the massive fiscal cost this um ban will incur. Thank you. Joseph McKay is next and then we have Angel Mendoza registered to speak if necessary followed by Katherine Miller. So, Angel, let us know if you wish to speak. Joseph, >> what up council? My name is [snorts] Joseph McKay. I'm an attorney and a small business owner in Arizona. Um, I don't think it's the intent for this council to criminalize anyone trying to save the life of someone else. Nor do I think it's the intent of this council to cause the death of any person, much less most vulnerable people in our community. But if this ordinance passes, that is what is going to happen. The language of this ordinance makes it a crime for anyone to promote, advertise, or sponsor harm reduction toolkits based on the language of the statute. If someone any person promotes simply tells someone where they can get a harm reduction toolkit and that toolkit includes only Narcan and an alcohol swab or a testing kit, they are now committing a class one felony which is punishable by 6 months in jail [snorts] and various other fines and probations. Let me read part of the statute right now. How much time do I got? 45 seconds. Uh, section three for any It's a crime for any person. Two, promote harm reduction toolkits defined as items that are int used to save the life or protect the health of any person in the community from the consequences of drug use. This not only 19 seconds. This not only restricts free speech, but it will lead to overzealous enforcement by police officers, which will have a chilling effect on the protected areas that are carveouts for Narcan distribution in the first place. I'll end on this. The councilman, sorry, council member said that he is concerned with dead bodies and parks. The best way to get rid of that is to provide harm reduction toolkits to the most vulnerable population. Thank you. Angel, uh, could you wave? >> Registered available, uh, to speak if necessary. Do you wish to speak or >> Okay. And then after that be Katherine Miller followed by Kelly. [clears throat] >> Uh, good evening, uh, mayor and council. I appreciate the opportunity to speak. Uh my name is Angel Mendoza. Uh speaking on behalf of myself uh and the organization uh FQHC here that I'm here with Teros Health. Um a major concern we have uh of course with this measure it's the broad definitions of medical treatment uh the restriction and criminalization of health care and the restriction of services to those that need it where they need it. Um I would wanted to share you know f uh some facts of personal sentiment. Um I [clears throat] know we'll hear a lot of f folks coming from uh backgrounds of um public health. I come from more of an administrative background. But what brought me to Teros Health was a personal health crisis. Um when I was 17 years old I did attempt uh suicide on February 14th, 2017. um a member of Teros Health staff and crisis team actually intervened in a public park setting at Steel Indian School Park where my family you know resides and and spends time and the members were there to deescalate the situation and help me through a very difficult time in my life. I've committed myself to the health care of not only my local community um but of the the broader greater Phoenix area and I believe this restricted measure would negatively impact the health outcomes of individuals like myself and uh my local community. Um, so I ask that you again t excuse me, table this conversation for a later date uh when you can consult with the professionals um that have offered that support here today as well as the many professionals that are within the state of Arizona um that would like to provide that support. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. We have Katherine Mel Miller followed by Kelly and then Lisa. >> Mayor Ggo and council members, thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Katherine Miller. Uh for three years, I coordinated and helped lead Street Medicine Phoenix. I'm now in medical school continuing a career focused on addressing gaps in a health care system that does not adequately serve people experiencing homelessness. I'm here speaking today along uh sitting with about 20 other busy medical students. Um, based on item number 45 and your comments and the public's comments, I understand that um, this issue is based on safety concerns and I take those very seriously. I want to address that goal directly because this ordinance will not accomplish it. Street medicine teams do not draw people experiencing homelessness to parks. These teams go to parks precisely because that's where patients already are. policies that resist medical outreach focus on removing visible responses to homelessness rather than addressing its drivers. That approach has repeatedly resulted in displacement without resolution, moving people from place to place without uh while eliminating stabilizing services that reduce harm and keep people safe. From a systems perspective, this ordinance misunderstands cause and effect. When medical outreach is restricted, people do not simply leave. They get sicker. care is pushed downstream to the busy Phoenix Fire Department, emergency departments, and hospitalizations that are more expensive and less efficient. Delayed care becomes crisis care. This burdens taxpayers, increases preventable deaths, and does not improve comm uh conditions for families using those spaces. An analogy I have is building maintenance. If a building has a persistent leak, we don't make it safer by removing the maintenance crew simply because people residents don't like seeing repair equipment. We fix the leak. The maintenance screw doesn't cause the problem. They respond to it and prevent further damage. Removing them allows the underlying issue to worsen and creates more visible harm, not less. In the same way, homelessness is the underlying issue here, and banning medical care does not address the root cause of why people are in the parks in the first place. If the council's goal is safer parks, I respectfully urge you not to prohibit care without providing a clear, realistic, and accessible alternative. Thank you very much for your time. Thank Thank you for your testimony. We have um Kelly Neither followed by Lisa and then Emily. [clears throat] Hello. I first want to say I definitely oppose this. My name is Kelly Nether and I'm a medical coordinator at Circle the City. Um I'm going to try not to get emotional. I'm here tonight because the conversation isn't abstract for me. This is my daily work, my daily reality, my assignment on Earth. Um, [clears throat] I work in street medicine in Phoenix. And I'm here to speak for the humans I care for every day who don't have a seat in this room. I'm here because policies about parks, food, and outreach directly affect whether they eat, receive medical care, or even survive the night. I ask that humanity stays at the center of these decisions. There are a lot of humans up here. Um, a lot of humans in the world, but for me, I don't see enough humanity. Um the one of my favorite quotes is by um um a rapper, an entrepreneur um an advocus. His name is Nipy Hustle. And that quote is the highest human act is to inspire. And I say that because for me inspiration is what changes systems. It's not to punish or displace. When we lead with dignity, housing, and care, humans stabilize, and then we'll see our communities stabilize. If we want a real change, we have to inspire policies that see humans as worthy of safety, shelter, and care, even if that is in parks. Um, it's not a problem to be pushed. Oh, I'm sorry. They're worthy of shelter and care even in parks. and it's not a problem to be pushed out of view. And I just want to say thank you for listening and allowing me to speak. Thank you. Thank you for Thank you for your testimony. Next, we have Lisa and then Emily and then Dominic. >> Good evening. I'm Lisa Neri and like everyone in this room, I am here because I support safe, clean parks for families, kids, seniors, and everyone who uses public spaces. I'm also a staff member at the Arizona Alliance for Community Health Centers and a constituent in District 2. I'm here to oppose the measure because it criminalizes public health and the life-saving activity and expands enforcement power in a way that will likely make parks less safe, not more. Item 46 effectively prohibits most medical and harm reduction activities in parks, and that includes health outreach, basic me medical care, and the distribution of harm reduction kits. The practical outcome of this is that nonprofits, volunteers, and outreach teams will avoid parks to reduce legal risk, even when they're trying to prevent overdoses. It will reduce unsafe needle disposal, connect people to treatment, and save lives in our communities. I'm asking you to vote no or at a minimum amend this measure so we can keep parks safe without criminalizing and impeding this life-saving work. We all want safer parks, but this approach risks criminalizing the very interventions that prevent emergencies. Please reject this measure or at the very least amend it so it improves safety without undermining public health and saving lives. I also implore you to involve and get input from key stakeholders doing this life-saving work like our health centers. I know because we're going in alphabetical order, you're going to be hearing from some of our health centers about the work that they do in these public spaces and the impact of this ordinance. Thank you. >> Thank you for your testimony. Ma'am, could you come back to the podium, please? Councilwoman Ernnandez has questions. >> Thank you, Vice Mayor, and thank you, Lisa. Just have a quick question on the health centers piece, and it's a term I've heard a few times. Um, and I'm not an expert, so I just want to know more background on it. What exactly are the federally um qualified health centers? >> Thank you for asking. We use that term a lot and and don't often get to explain it. Um, so a federally qualified health center or an FQC is a community-based nonprofit organization that provides highquality, comprehensive primary care services that are focused on the needs of the communities that they serve. They serve everybody that walks in the door. They provide services on a sliding fee schedule based on income. They're governed by patient majority boards and receive federal grants to provide services in high need underserved areas. Some health centers do provide services outside of their four walls and when necessary in will provide services where there where the need is in places like our public parks. They offer accessible, affordable, highquality health care and the vital services that keep people healthy, thriving, alive, and out of emergency rooms. >> Thank you so much. >> Yeah, thank you, ma'am. >> Emily Oak. >> Uh, hi. My name is Emily. Um, I am a colleague of Lisa's at the Arizona Alliance for Community Health Centers, as you may be able to tell from our matching shirts. Um I am also here to oppose um this measure. Um I am a member of district 4 is where I live and work. Um I would be very curious to see the slides provided by the city staff members of the examples that they provided of where there have been issues because we would like to work with the city to address those issues rather than punish everyone unilaterally um for specific things that may have occurred. Um we do want to keep parks safe. We want to be able to provide medical treatment and care at parks because we know that's where people are at. We know that's what keeps people out of emergency rooms. Um all these wonderful organizations are providing um care and um to fill gaps um that the city has, the society has. Um you know, they're here to work with all of you um to fill those gaps. So all that we ask is that you table this and that you bring the stakeholders together um in order to make this um amendment measure appropriate um to say for everyone, you know, give people the ability to provide care when and where people need it and not make it harder for them to do their jobs. Thank you. >> Dominic is next, followed by Sister O Sullivan. >> Yes. Um, mayor and members of city council, uh, my name is Dominic Orso and I'm here today to talk about my opposition uh, to passing it or at least uh, think about tableabling it for now. Um, I'm speaking not from theory but from experience. I have had the opportunity to work here in the city of Phoenix and manage the NLOXone program that over 15 departments participate in. Um, with this Nlloxxone program, um, it was helped build the relationships with these organizations that have come here to talk today. Um, I want to be clear and accurate. Nlloxxone itself um may not still be allow may still be allowed under this ordinance, but nlloxxone alone does not equal overdose prevention. Overdose prevention works as a system. It relies on outreach, education, trust, and coordinated engagement, especially in public spaces where people are most vulnerable. The policy does not exist in a vacuum. It directly impacts the city's own work and efforts that different departments have put into this. the Office of Public Health, the Office of Homeless Solutions, as well as the Office of Heat Response and Mitigation. You cannot respond effectively to homelessness, extreme heat, or public health emergencies while simultaneously restricting overdose prevention services in the very spaces um people are forced to be. These policies are indirect conflict. Um this ordinance does not prevent drug use. It prevents intervention. It does not improve safety. It creates gaps where people fall through and sometimes die. I want to remind the council of something fundamental. The people most affected by those uh by this ordinance are also your constituents. You do not get to pick and choose which constituents deserve care, protection or public health services. People who are unhoused, people who use drugs, people in crisis, every single one of them is a Phoenician. Our parks do not divide people into worthy and unworthy. City policy should not either. I urge council again to reject the ordinance or at least table it until you have the proper stakeholders at the table to give you that guidance. Thank you. Sister O'Sullivan followed by Brennan Pfrey. [clears throat] Good evening, Mayor Ggo and council members. [clears throat] My name is Sister Adello Sullivan. I'm a sister of St. Joseph and a family physician. My practice since 1996 has been caring exclusively for persons experiencing homelessness in Maricopa County. I began as an employee of the Maricopa County Department of Public Health, became the medical director of the Maricopa County Healthcare for the Homeless program, and then founded Circle the City. I have personally provided direct medical care for homeless persons in our local parks off and on since 1996. Circle the city. Our model begins by engaging persons where we meet them. We engage them for episodic problem oriented care or routine primary care. And then hopefully that engagement leads us through a more direct relationship where we can provide other services in more traditional settings. that includes um addressing problems deeper such as addiction and mental health issues. I think like most of my colleagues today, I came with something prepared, but what I want to say Oh my goodness, how'd that happen? Um >> Sister O Sullivan, what would you like to say? Okay. So, what I'd like to say is don't let us stop providing lifesaving care by uh not allowing us to go into the parks and meet the people and engage them where they are. Thank you. Uh, Brennan is next, followed by Jack Palmer. >> Thank you. Good afternoon, mayor and council members, and thank you for this opportunity to speak. My name is Brennan Palfrey, and I serve as the senior manager for Ven Centers. We are a viral outreach program that specializes in the screening, prevention, and treatment of hepatitis C and sexually transmitted diseases. Public health street medicine and harm reductions harm reduction program are essential to treating the entire population here in Phoenix. Our team's own data collected between August 2023 and August 2024 has shown that unsheltered individuals located on the streets, parks, and other public settings had a hepatitis C positivity rate of close to 17%. Whereas unsheltered individuals located at harm reduction sites or uh getting harm reduction supplies had a hepatitis C positivity rate closer to 7 to 8%. This clearly indicates the success of these sites to help limit the spread of bloodborne pathogens. When we make care harder to access, we increase the risk for everyone in this city. If this ordinance passes, it will not only harm people who are unsheltered. It will also restrict outreach teams, churches, and volunteers who are trying to provide basic care and needs to the public. This doesn't just hurt one group of people. It will affect all of us. This this is a huge step backwards in bloodborne virus prevention as well as disease control. Viruses don't discriminate based off of housing status, income, or location. And because of this, we cannot discriminate in who we allow to be treated or not and where. In regard to some of the comments made by Cal Council member Wearing today, we are not ashamed to be here. My team's not ashamed in the outreach we do every day and the advocacy that we show every day to our patients and the people of Phoenix. I urge you all to consider this uh public health I urge you all to consider the public health consequences of this ordinance and to vote in a way that protects the health and safety of all Phoenix residents. I strongly oppose. Thank you so much for your time. Good afternoon um mayor and council members. Thank you for the time for my comments. Uh my name is Dr. Jack Palmer. I'm an emergency medicine physician and the medical director of the outreach and street medicine department at Circle the City. I'm here to voice my opposition to ordinance number 46 and also am not ashamed to do so. As a constituent of district 2, however, I'm disappointed in Councilman Wearing's response during the last um ordinance discussion, and I'd love to invite you out to work with us, to come out with my teams to see the incredible work that we do and the people that we work with um who you and I don't see as much in our neck of the woods. Um, mayor, just under one month ago on November 21st, you said the following in reference to the life-saving work to mitigate heat related deaths in our city. Quote, "Even one death is too many, but the hard work and dedication of our city staff and community partners are making a difference and saving lives. No city, no community does more to mitigate extreme heat as a public health threat than Phoenix." Mayor, you were right. And a majority of the people that did that work are here in this room opposing this ordinance. As I continue to read on the city of Phoenix website where the article continued to say that you were joined by Councilman Kevin Robinson speaking about the shared commitment of the members of the council to save more lives, calling for more services and funding to serve this mission. Today, many hardworking and caring residents of Phoenix stand before you in support of that mission, saving more lives. Yet, this [clears throat] same council, who just one month ago asked the community for more support, is considering limiting our ability to do so by preventing us from doing the very work required to save more lives. We provide medical care, mental health care, and harm reduction by meeting patients where they are at, sometimes in parks. not only to save lives, but I have firsthand experience that our work gets people housed and off of the streets. I urge you to consider at least discussing with us and collaborating with collaborating with our organizations to try to make this ordinance successful to help our patients on the streets. Thank you very much, >> Councilman. Councilman Wearing. >> So, it might have occurred to the previous speaker that the last vote was 8 to1. Now, I know I'm terrible. I'm a conservative Republican. I know how bad I am. Blah blah blah. I'll skip the Pacino. Everybody look at the bad guy speech. It's gotten stale. But I'll tell you what, there's one other Republican here and then there's one independent. But there were five Democrats who voted for that. It might have occurred to you that maybe these Democrats are also voting for it. Not because I mean, President Trump, I don't see him here. So, I think uh realistically it might occur to you that maybe they're getting calls like we want to use the parks. We're taxpayers. Taxpayers over decades in the city of Phoenix have spent billions. I don't know, Cynthia, I've asked you this before, like how much do you think is a real estate investment? Our parks are, but it is a high dollar investment as are our libraries. They are not cheap things. We got citizens sitting up here and I know there was only a few. You outnumber them. Congratulations. But we get calls. We can't go to the parks. You can't. The woman who's just a young mom wants to take her dog to the park and can't do it. What am I supposed to tell her when she calls? You're right. I don't get as many calls as probably they do, but I don't like to get even one because that's not acceptable. The things that are going on in the parks are prohibiting people from using the stuff that they paid for and their parents paid for and their grandparents paid for. That millions, probably billions over time were spent planning and executing so that people could get out and not just watch video games. They could get out and get exercise and enjoy the outside and stuff. And that's what we're trying to do here today. We're trying to take it back a little bit. I know it's easy to but you might want to reflect. It was 8 to1. It's a bipartisan vote. I'm always buried in the minority. >> I'm not sure. I lost track myself in all this excitement. >> Oh, okay. Congratulations. You really showed me up. But facts are funny things. It just happened. You saw it happen. Didn't process it at all. That's really my point. Thank you. >> Okay. So So folks are getting tired. We if we have about 20 more people in person, which would be 40 minutes if everyone takes two minutes. We have a significant number of folks still online. So, I think we're going to finish the Rs and then we're going to we're going to take a brief break and then keep going. All right. I think we're at uh Mary followed by Taran. It's in the P's. Hello, my name is Mary Pelz and I practice as a registered nurse in the Phoenix area. Agenda item 46 is one example of a wider problem in the country's approach to public health. The text of the proposed ordinance limits the use and distribution of medical supplies only to a set list of emergencies. Prevention of such emergencies through the gift of supplies is criminalized. Why should this be? Hospitalization is well known to be to the individual, to the state, and to wider society many more many times more costly than any other public intervention. Why allow a crisis to develop when through a modest investment, it may never happen? By passing this ordinance, the city would make clear that it's more interested that the right kind of people provide care than that care take place at all. As with [snorts] all decisions that erode public health in this country, it pushes the nature of treatment from the small and well in advance to the last, largest, most dire and most grotesque moment. Thank you. Taran is next, followed by Edward. >> Mayor and council members, my name is Taran Perez. I am a medical student at U of A Phoenix, but I am here in a personal capacity, and my views do not represent those of the university, nor those of my employer, the VA. I am also a constituent of Council District 6. I alongside 494 of your future physicians and healthcare providers are asking you to vote no on this ordinance as written and work with your stakeholders in harm reduction, street medicine, and public health to revise the ordinance before an additional vote. Street outreach based harm reduction has been part of my life for over 12 years. I have also studied the provision and quality of care for veterans living with opioid use disorder for the last decade. In that span of time, the relationship between harm reduction and the medical community has changed immensely. While harm reduction was once stigmatized and excluded from medicine, it is now embraced and welcomed into hospitals and clinics. As a matter of fact, the VA itself now offers harm reduction to veterans at many sites across the country. However, this body seems determined to stop this forward progress toward a kinder, more humane future for people who use drugs. Despite the large body of evidence indicating harm reduction is efficacious in reducing harm and illness associated with substance use without increasing it, we are choosing to ignore the evidence and cater to unsubstantiated public fears towards people who use drugs. These unsubstantiated fears do not outweigh the actual human cost of withholding services from people who use drugs. Council members, whether you like it or not, you are elected to also represent your constituents who use drugs or who happen to live an unsheltered life. Do you see this map? It is from the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics. Do you know why Arizona is colored differently than 47 other states? We are one of only three states that experienced an increase in overdose deaths in the last year. Almost all overdose deaths are preventable. Clearly, what we have already been doing was not enough. Do you think that at a time like this for Arizona that withholding services from people who use drugs is the right thing to do? Harm reduction is a moral imperative. Please do not fall on the wrong side of history in the making by voting for this ordinance. Instead, reconsider your options with your stakeholders at the table. Thank you for your time. Edward is next, followed by Harris. Oh, no, I'm sorry. Edward is next followed by Tiffany. Edward Pinel. Pinel. Edward, could you wave if you're present? >> Edward is not here. All right. Uh, Tiffany Randall, followed by Harrison. >> Mayor and council members, I appreciate the opportunity to speak today. My name's Tiffany Randall and I currently live in District 4. I'm here to oppose item 46. I came I come before you wearing multiple hats. I have over a decade of experience working within behavioral health and social services with uh within Arizona. I'm currently a coordinator for a newly developed harm reduction project here in Phoenix. I'm a graduate student in psychology specializing in substance use related disorders. But most importantly, I am someone who has been on the receiving end of our local behavioral health services, substance use treatment, and mental health crisis response services. Without a robust community of care, which we see here with us today, I do not believe that I would be alive today. This ordinance is titled safe medical treatment in city parks. And I think it's important for us to ask safe for who? Because what this ordinance actually does is criminalize our community-based care. Care that is legal under Arizona state law. It's evidence-based and it's proven to save lives and make our families, our communities, and individuals safer and healthier. This ordinance aims to ban these services not because they are unsafe, but to ban them just because they are visible. What is especially concerning is that as many people have stated coming up here, nobody in this room was consulted. There are so many people with rich experience, rich um knowledge education doctors medical professionals, social workers, people with lived and living experience that were not consulted in making this. That does not make any practical sense whatsoever and is one of the main reasons I think we have such a turnout. So I really really beg you to consider revisiting this and having the discussions with the public health professionals and also with people with lived experience. Thank you. >> Harrison is next followed by Mike. Good evening, Mayor Ggo, Vice Mayor O'Brien, and members of the Phoenix City Council. My name is Harrison Redmond, and I'm a community organizer and registered lobbyist here on behalf of the ACLU of Arizona in strong opposition to Ordinance G7467. This ordinance is incredibly broad, prohibiting expressive activity related to medical treatment and criminalizing people who provide life-saving interventions to community members. The prohibition on advertising and promoting medical treatments in sections B1 through3 are contentbased restrictions that criminalize speech and threaten community members trying to provide aid with arrest. This means groups promoting or advertising information related to HIV treatment, pregnancy services, abortion care, drug treatment, or the spread of illness could be charged with the crime simply for promoting or advertising treatment options to vulnerable members of the community. Such a policy contravenes public health and violates the First Amendment. To put it plainly, under this ordinance, someone could promote or advertise their ice cream business, or organize a political rally in a Phoenix park, but they could not promote a syringe exchange program, share testing kits, or advertise a neighborhood drive to share overdose prevention information. Promoting, advertising, and organizing are simply different ways of sharing information. And the Constitution does not allow the city to criminalize speech based on which message it prefers. The ordinance seemingly singles out medical treatment under the umbrella of harm reduction for special disfavor. Despite the proven success of these techniques in addressing addiction, reducing overdose deaths, and improving the well-being of communities, these examples of selective targeting are exactly what makes this ordinance a contentbased restriction on speech, which is presumptively unconstitutional. Though the ordinance has been amended to focus on treatment, there are some aspects of treatment that constitute expressive activity, such as talk therapy. The city cannot ban talk therapy in a park any more than it can ban forms of expressive activity like an AA meeting or a peer counseling group simply because those conversations relate to health or addiction. Courts have already rejected similar attempts by cities to prohibit expressive health related activities in parks holding that the contentbased bans and traditional public forums are presumptively invalid. Phoenicians deserve policies that save lives, support recovery, and make our parks and neighborhoods safer. For the promise for the promise of progress over punitive action, the of Arizona urges you to vote no. All power to the people. Thank you, >> Mayor. >> Councilwoman Hernandez. >> Thank you, Mayor. I would like to ask Carrison a few questions. Um, the ordinance prohibits organiz or the warning in the ordinance says that it this or uh prohibits organizations from promoting, advertising, or organizing any event that distributes tools used to save the life or protect the health of someone who uses drugs. Can you explain a little bit more why that language may violate the First Amendment? >> Sure. Mayor Ggo, Council Member Hernandez. Yes. Uh, this ordinance prohibits speech based entirely on its message uh, specifically health rellated information and outreach. Uh, so that's textbook content based restrictions uh, which courts have historically presumed uh, unconstitutional. So it bans not just the activities but the communication around them uh, which the first amendment does not allow. Uh the ordinance here as currently written uh would require city authorization for medical care uh which would give the city unchecked discretion over who can speak uh which courts again consistently strike down as unconstitutional? >> Okay, thank you. Uh my next question is we've heard concerns about syringe litter um and public safety and parks. Based on evidence, do overdose prevention services reduce or increase these public order issues? >> Sure, Mayor Ggo. Council member, uh, as many other people have said tonight, all available data shows that overdose prevention centers reduce syringe litter, uh, infections, 911 calls that, you know, burden already overburden uh, first responders. So, when you take away sterile or safe supplies, people will inevitably reuse equipment, discard that equipment unsafeely, uh, and move deeper into parks and or alleys. Uh, so all of that is to say that prevention outreach actually uh, makes parks safer uh, and cleaner. And when outreach workers are threatened with a class one misdemeanor, as they would be under this current language, uh fewer people show up. They don't even come onto the parks, uh and the public health problems become more visible, uh not less. >> Okay. Thank you. Um this ordinance also allow or this ordinance allows lock zone administration after someone is already overdosing, uh but bans the tools that prevent overdoses from happening. What does that mean for our fires, EMS, and police from your perspective? Uh, as I said before, uh, mayor, council member, um, this just means more preventable emergencies, uh, and overly burdens first responders. Uh, prevention, uh, not only in Phoenix, but in cities across the United States, in countries across the world, uh, is cheaper, it is safer, and it keeps first responders from having to repeatedly reverse overdoses on the same individuals. Uh, this ordinance increases emergency call volume and would increase risk for first responders. Uh and while it allows nlloxxone both as a preventative use but also in uh you know in active drug overdose uh it bans the upstream prevention uh that actually reduces people who are overdosing on drugs. Uh what this ordinance would do is outright ban that prevention while only allowing a emergency response um and like I said would overly burden uh first responders. >> Okay. Thank you. Um can you explain what happens to rates of HIV and hepatitis C when access to sterile supplies is banned? >> Sure. Mayor, council member, uh the simple answer is that if access to these safe supplies are banned, uh the rates of infections increase every single time. We have seen in data uh that hepatitis C, HIV, things like that. Uh when sterile supplies disappear from people who uh have those infections, uh people can share or reuse equipment, further spreading the infections, further making our parks in our city uh an unsafe place. Uh this also will burden uh already overly burden healthcare workers and hospitals uh which will increase hospitalizations and taxpayer costs. >> Okay, thank you. Um just have a few more questions. Instead of an outright ban, what evidence-based alternatives could Phoenix adopt that would improve safety um while still addressing a lot of the community concerns we've heard? >> Sure. Mayor, uh, council member, I would not be the best person to ask on this and there are lots of other groups who would have, uh, you know, some of these, uh, prepared, but I would say things like regulated, uh, syringe service programs with clear oversight, uh, disposal protocols, mobile outreach, uh, with data tracking, some wraparound services that can connect people to resources that they need. Uh, these models work in cities across the country. These are not just hypotheticals, uh, and would cost far less than what this ordinance would do uh, to this city and to the taxpayers of Phoenix. >> Okay. Thank you. And from a ACLU's perspective, under the current wording, could a health a health care worker distributing alcohol wipes, testing kits, or sterile supplies uh be cited for that under this ordinance? >> Uh mayor, council member, yes. Healthcare workers uh in parks. The definition here covers quote any collection of paraphernalia used to save life or protect health of a person who uses drugs. So that would include uh alcohol wipes, testing strips, sterile devices. Um it's excessively broad and vague. uh and just captures basic public health tools. >> Okay. Thank you. Um there's talk that this ordinance may be a response to the federal executive order banning harm reduction funding. Um does that change the science or the public health reality? >> Mayor, council member, uh no, the science has not changed regardless of the federal government's uh anti-scientific posturing towards these issues. overdose prevention and uh sterile supply programs remain as the evidence-based best practices uh endorsed by the World Health Organization, by public uh health agencies in Arizona and across the country. Uh local policy should be driven by what works uh not federal or state politics. >> Okay. Thank you. Um could people who provide information related to HIV treatment um and care be charged with the crime for offering services in Phoenix parks under this ordinance? Mayor, council member. Uh yes, the ordinance bans organizing or conducting events that provide medical treatment uh and care to the public unless authorized by the city, which not only is a speech licensing issue, um but also is a criminalization issue. Uh HIV treatment information, referrals, testing guidance or linkage to care can be reasonably considered medical care. Uh you do not have to be in school or have a medical degree to understand that. And because the ordinance provides no clear definition uh or standards for authorization, uh people providing HIV related outreach uh or or any kind of infection related outreach uh in parks could be exposed to arrest uh or prosecution. >> Okay. Thank you. I just have two more questions for you. Um does the ordinance make it illegal to offer information related to treatment facilities and syringe exchanges to people who appear to use drugs when in public parks? Mayor and council member, the ordinance prohibits inviting, promoting, or organizing syringe exchange programs and harm reduction kit uh distribution in parks. So, even though it's been said that information sharing is allowed under this ordinance because promotion is not defined or limited, uh offering information or referrals about syringe exchange programs uh could, you know, expose outreach workers to criminal enforcement uh you know, an unnecessary confusion among law enforcement about how to enforce those issues uh so on and so forth. >> Okay. Thank you. And my last question, um, was the ACLU consulted or part of any stakeholder discussion to make sure that constitutional constitutionality issues were addressed in writing this ordinance. Uh, mayor, council member, no, the ACLU of Arizona was not consulted uh during stakeholder meetings about the language of this ordinance. And I want to be very clear on this. The problem here is not just about what the ordinance explicitly bans. It's that the language is broad, undefined, and criminally enforced. uh which means people providing health information will self censor or avoid parks entirely to avoid arrest. Uh and there's something that I want everyone to you know leave with here tonight which is a quote from the author Johan Hari who writes about actual solutions uh to opio overdose prevention and addressing addiction. And he says that the opposite of addiction isn't sobbriety, it's connection. It is a natural human instinct to turn our fears into symbols and destroy the symbols in the hope that it will destroy the fear. So, I think we can all agree uh regardless of our backgrounds or our policy positions, that Phoenicians across our city deserve connection and care, not policies based in fear or for our leaders to continue taking the same exclusionary approach that we all know doesn't work, let alone solve the problems at hand. We need productive evidence-based pathways forward, not punitive ones. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you, Harrison. And then Mike Roberts will be our final speaker before we take a break. Thank you for your >> mayor, members of the council. Uh is it possible to show uh the ordinance on the screen or section D in particular? >> Uh let's bring up No. Okay. >> Okay. >> Okay. I don't want to Oh, my time. Start it over. >> Okay. I think most of us [clears throat] have it right here in front of us. >> Yeah. Sure. For the for the audience. Um if it's not possible, I understand. Not possible. >> Got it. Okay. Um, mayor, members of the council, Mike Reno, president, CEO of I the Soul, as of yesterday, a brand new resident to District 8, moved from Scottsdale, a terrible city, to Phoenix, an incredible city [laughter] and then have this happen. Um, this is the fourth day of Hanukkah and about a week away from Christmas. And our city is proposing to criminalize the care of the most vulnerable people in our town. This ordinance is an affront to the health care workers, mental health professionals advocates family members, and of course our fellow citizens who are struggling finding themselves unhoused with mental illness and or addiction. Let me be clear, we all want a solution to this crisis. We don't want our unhoused citizens in our parks. We want them housed. We don't want our folks struggling with addiction in our parks. We want them in treatment. We don't want our fellow citizens struggling with mental illness in our parks. We want them in treatment. But those treatment options do not exist in this state to the extent we need them to. We are stuck. We, the beautiful people of these organizations who give their lives literally to go on the streets and get people out of the park so they can take their own families to play there are now being told they would be criminals. The same health care workers who put their lives at risk during the COVID pandemic, yes, it was real, are now being told that they would be criminals. This ordinance will not work. It will not do what you think it needs to do. It will not clean up our parks. It will kill people. It will make our police officers have to do more and more calls to the parks and expend so much more city revenue. We have better ways. Please talk to us, engage with us, table this ordinance, and work with us to find a better way. Mayor Mike, I have a question for you. If you can come back. Sorry. Thank you and thank you for showing up today. Um you are someone I have uh grown to highly respect in the public health space in the medical and healthcare community. Um were you as a leader of such an important organization like via del were you part of any stakeholder table discussion in the drafting of the language of this ordinance? Um, mayor, members of the council, um, as a person with a masters in public health and 26 years of public health experience in many different locations, um, I was not consulted, nor was our organization informed or consulted at all in this. >> Thank you so much, Mike. >> Uh, thank you, >> Vice Mayor. Mayor, um based on the testimony we have this evening, I would move that we table or not table, we continue this item until February 18th um council meeting, February 18th, 2026 and have staff work with council or our stakeholders to revise um and come back with a new ordinance. We have a motion to continue. Um, >> I mayor, I have a motion. >> I um >> I have a motion. >> I I guess I need I need a just a little bit of clarification. We're not >> recognize Councilwoman Stark. Can I >> May I recognize Counciloman Stark? Okay. >> We're not preventing them from going into the parks and helping people. Correct. It's just the use of the needles and the or are we >> can we allow the individual question? I >> I don't think any of us want to prevent you guys doing your job. I think it was just the concern with needles and people that perhaps are not qualified to do it. And so I I guess I'm trying to seek a little clarification because guess if I'm misunderstanding then I may agree with your motion. >> Okay, that's why I'm trying to get clarification. Thank you. >> Mayor, members of the city council and councilwoman Stark, the intent of the ordinance is certainly to uh provide some parameters around the activities related to medical treatment that we have seen cause some safety concerns on park property. The intention of writing the ordinance in the manner that it was, while we recognize their difference opinions and interpretations on it, was to still allow for other types of medical care to take place on park property with approval by the parks department. And that is the best way I think I can answer that question. And Councilwoman uh Stark, you are correct. the the focus the intent of the focus was around syringes uh because of the challenges we've experienced and specifically the medical treatment uh where we were seeing and are seeing uh cleaning of open wounds and leaving of biosafety hazard concerns on park property. >> Councilman Stark, may I call in some of our colleagues? Councilman Hud Washington. >> Thank you, Mayor. I too wanted to clarify just to make sure I understand it. My understanding is we're not necessarily prohibiting the med medical treatment. We are just articulating the process for acquiring for permission to utilize city park. I I am asking the question for the director. Can we please let her speak and then we can go from there. Thank you. >> Mayor, members of the council, Councilwoman Hodge Washington. Uh, as it's written today, there is certain care that would be able to continue with the exception of this specific type of treatment of open wounds and treatment on park property that could leave dangerous scenarios behind and uh would not allow for distribution of harm reduction kits with syringes or needle exchange programs. >> Okay. So, let me I have two follow-up questions. So, if a medical provider or organization has filed the authorization, it's called the special activity request form. If they file that, if they complete that and it's approved by the city, by the parks department, if they have a vehicle, can they treat the person in that ve vehicle or transport to another facility? Councilwoman Haj Washington, mayor, members of the city council. Yes. So, as it's written, the intent is to utilize an existing application process to help us uh to help individuals or organizations communicate what they would like to go out and do in park property when and where and if that in fact is in a contained mobile environment uh mobile unit. That is something that we would be able to approve through that existing process. >> Okay. And we also heard some questions regarding what um type of activity might be prohibited. And I want to just clarify a couple things that I heard and I want to make sure that I'm not incorrect. Um, heat relief as a part of harm reduction, that's not prohibited in the ordinance. Correct. >> Correct. Councilman Haj Washington, that is not the intent. A distribution of water and other items that are tied to heat relief. Uh, and again, the focus is on the syringe piece and medical treatment on park property. >> Same. Similarly, the distri distribution of electrolytes are also permitted. Um, Narcan is still permitted to be if our fasttrack cities want to do an outreach, it would be have to be approved by our department and then u move forward. Correct, >> Councilman Hud Washington. That is correct. >> And I I want to I want to ask this question. I we've talked about this in a briefing. Um, you keep focusing on syringes and it's my understanding we're focusing on syringes because we've had multiple incidents where our employees have been exposed or um pricricked by needles and then those employees have had to undergo uh medical testing to ensure that they have not been infected with something and not just employ I see you nodding. I'll let you go ahead >> Councilman Hodge Washington that that is correct. Unfortunately, we do uh every year experience circumstances where parks employees um undergo the situation or experience the situation you described. >> Okay. And I I want to make sure I'm clear to those um those organizations that provide medical treatment to the unhoused population. I thank you for the work that you do because it serves a core issue, a core service in our community. However, I think we also have to acknowledge that um we have to also be responsive to not only our employees but our residents that are also being exposed to these needles. And we I believe that as a council member, we have an obligation to provide some type of parameters to ensure that we do not unduly risk the health and safety of other individuals. So I also am willing to I would like to see us figure out if we can get more information from our our health pro providers to come up with a solution but we have but let me finish but we have to ensure that we are not creating additional risk for our residents. I mean we are here because we hear from our residents about I can't tell you how many photos we receive in our in our inbox about syringes. We saw the video. We saw the photo up on the screen. That should not be what our residents should have to deal with. I understand that many of the organizations that are represented here today are what I would say the ones that are that don't do those types of things, right? But we have to ensure that we have rules that prescribe what type of conduct is allowed in our parks. And that's what we're for me that's what we're trying to do here. It is not about saying that we don't want to see the unhoused individuals in our community not have access to care. We are just trying to say where does that where should that occur and we don't I think we need to figure out whether or not our public park is the right format and the right place for that. So I would like to see us have a little bit more time to figure out what that looks like. I don't know if necessarily continuing it is the best path forward or how we move that forward, but I do think we need to listen to the community on this. But we also have to make sure that we are we are allowing our residents to continue to have access to their parks. The parks are supposed to be a benefit to both all residents of Phoenix, housed and unhoused. And the rules that apply or the code of conduct that applies or the expectation that applies in the park, we need to make sure they are consistent. So I do have a question for um also I have a question mayor if I may um for for for law for legal and again I I'll preface my question in a very broad way so that we don't necessarily violate um where you're giving me um legal advice in public but we've heard a lot of comment about speech being um this type of regulation being unconstitutional. I don't profess to prof um to practice constitutional law but I am a lawyer by trade. I have been practicing for numerous of years and as a part of taking the bar exam I had to take constitutional law and pass that portion. And it's my understanding that a coordinance is constitutional even if it limits or if sorry if it's if it it's narrowly tailored to a time place and manner type of provision. I presume law has looked at this draft ordinance has l has squared it up with the Arizona what we've called the serin statutes as well as the first amendment concerns and we feel comfortable that as drafted we are not infringing on the constitutional rights of our residents. >> Um thank you for the question mayor members of council um councilwoman Hodge Washington. So, um certainly law was involved in the drafting of the ordinance and um did take a look at the different statutes that are involved. Um we we're always happy to re-review and and to look and and make sure that we've covered every angle, but um we were involved in this drafting. >> Okay. And then I just want to ask one more question from uh to our parks director. As we drafted this, one of the benefits of the city is that we have recent, not recent, but one of our newer offices is the office of public health that we have an internal public health office. And was the public health office um privy to this draft ordinance as we sorry, >> Councilman H Washington, mayor, members of the city council, the law department did engage the office of public health in the drafting of the ordinance. >> Okay. Thank you, mayor, for allowing me to ask my questions. Councilman Robinson and then Councilman Wearing and then Councilwoman Pestor. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, [clears throat] and I think Councilwoman Hodgej Washington hit on several issues that I wanted to hit on. Excuse me. [clears throat] Excuse me. But um, a couple questions. Um, and I'll go to um, Cynthia first. What What is the purpose of our city parks? Give us that. What's the purpose of our city parks? >> Sure. Councilman Robinson, Mayor, members of the city council. Uh in my opinion as the parks recreation director, the parks are intended to be a welcoming and safe accessible space for the entire community to come to recreate to uh participate in leisure activities. Uh there's a lot of different purposes that a park can play based on the amenities but essentially it is to come out and enjoy open space in a safe accessible manner. >> Okay. Thank you for that. And you know for the crowd and know a lot of folks have already said it for the audience I should say we appreciate your passion on this issue clearly it's something that um you know it rises to the level it's very important to a lot of folks but um you know one of the concerns that I have or as an elected official and that has come up this evening several times you know we have to pair what I think is compassion you know the these are all valuable they're important issues with foresight and responsibility is one of the things I'm responsible for, all of us are responsible for is it's a fiduciary responsibility. We're responsible for your taxpayer dollars. Now, that having been said, Julie Cree, I need to ask our city attorney a question. If we were to allow, if we were to engage or enter into a partnership with groups where these types of activities can occur in our parks, what liability, what liability do we have as a city? And I asked that question because with a little bit of regularity, we have to meet in executive session and settle lawsuits. There's a lot of them. There's a lot of money that goes out from this city from liability on our part and our job is to try to foresee have that foresight [clears throat] and try to mitigate that if not eliminate the best we possibly can. So Julie, if you could please. Um, mayor, members of council, um, I think that the city, if it is participating in in sponsoring, um, certainly the city can be sued and could have some liability exposure. >> Okay. >> All right. Thank you for that. I, you know, I've heard from several of you. A couple of you were texting me about this issue, wanting us to go in one direction or another, and I'm still I I want to hear from the rest of my colleagues. But, you know, we want to support our vulnerable population. I think anybody who thinks there's any of us up here don't want that. But we do hear from our constituents. I think Councilman Wearing mentioned it, Councilwoman Stark mentioned it. We get calls when there are issues when there are people in the park who don't allow the kids or the sports activities to participate. That's an issue. And I think in Jenny is here. It was I think the year before last or last year we were at um one of the parks in her area and an entire group and party had to move away because of some issues like this. So this is a concern to us. We have to figure out what's the best way to deal with it. And having said that, I want to hear from the rest of my colleagues. But mayor, thank you very much for the time. >> Thank you. I believe it's Council Wearing and then Councilwoman Pestor. >> Thank you, Mayor. Cynthia, is this the first time you and I have ever talked about the parks or problems in the parks? >> It is not Councilman Wearing. >> No, it's not. Is it the first public meeting we've ever had when we discuss the parks? >> No, Councilman Wearing is >> Maybe dozens. Hundreds is too many. Dozens. Fair. >> Fair. >> Okay. So for those of you at your first meeting, this isn't some new thing. It may be to you. It's not to us. This has been a longunning issue. I've been saying exactly the same things I've been saying in this meeting for years. Now, that wasn't always the 8 to1 opinion. Sorry I mentioned that old vote. My bad. Lock me up in free speech jail or whatever. >> Um, >> please, Councilman Wearing has the floor. I I know this very personal is many people's life's work, but >> Gotcha. We're really trying to to listen council councilman wearing >> um so uh Cynthia we've discussed this many times before and three years ago you wanted to put private security more security in parks that was a five to four very controversial vote people who are still on this council voted against it three years later the behavior has deteriorated so much here we are this didn't just come out of nowhere so yeah I'm aware whoever's yelling about the past but you also should be respectful of like the coach who got up there said I can't even take my kids to the park and you're not you're pretending to be a little bit some of you but you're not. It's very frustrating for the per hey for the person who got up >> for the for the person for the person who got up and said unsubstantiated problems in our parks. I caught that word I think twice. Are you saying that the coach is lying? The woman who got up at the beginning of the meeting and was saying it's wrecking her neighborhood. She's lying. She's making it up. The woman in the back, all those people is making it up. >> Excuse me, mayor. Um, if I can step in. As a reminder, speakers should behave respectfully towards everyone, including council members. Every person has the right to speak without fear of retaliation or being interrupted. If you are disruptive in the audience or at the podium, you may be asked to leave the meeting. >> And Julie, I'm I'm perfectly fine with it. I've grown to accept it. I listened to you guys, sat here and listened, but it's okay. Um, so we uh we have discussed this many times before, right? It's been longrange problems. We're trying to address an issue. Kevin touched on it. The parks are not for distributing needles. Voters wouldn't say, "Let's spend more money on a distributing needle thing in the parks." That that's not a thing. Uh the analogy here for the public health professionals in the room. Now, some of you wouldn't have been here when this happened. I think it was in 2006 the anti-smoking ordinance passed. Why did that pass? Well, because people were smoking, hurting themselves. What were they also doing? Wrecking it for everybody else. Couldn't get in an elevator, couldn't walk down a hall, couldn't go to a restaurant. You smelled like smoke. I remember back to my little league days, our coaches smoking in the dugout. My mom would have to wash the uniform twice to get the smoke out. It was just a thing. And people got sick of it because the behavior of some people was wrecking it for everybody else. And voters rebelled. I don't know if any of you are capable of seeing the analogy here, but there we are. So now voters have spent billions, as I said, on our parks and our libraries, and they feel like they can't use them, and they're mad. That doctor from my district, you know, no, no, we should, we should go, no, no, there's going to be push back. It's here now. It didn't really exist as much as it should have three years ago, but it's absolutely here now. People are tired of it. I will say, I'm not a constitutional scholar like either Kesha or that one fell who got up there, but I know this much. We've now said our parks are, you know, it's a little dodgy. You could step on a needle and so forth. So, if we don't do something today, I'm curious what legal is going to say about our liability if something happens between now and February, we pass something because I am reflecting on the zone. Just a couple short years ago, we were forced to clean up after 40 years or whatever it was, the homeless encampments where they found I think it was a burned body and a fetus and lots of needles. It was kind of a problem. And I think the judge rightfully said you as a government have abdicated your responsibility. You abandon your responsibility. The whole reason we have government is to not have it look like that. That's basically what the judge said. and we finally had to go clean it up. Julie, you tell me I'm wrong. The parks aren't there for this activity. That's not what they're there for. And I'm just afraid a judge is going to say, you know, you knew this was an issue and you let it keep going on. The hell's wrong with you guys? Which is pretty much what the advanced middle-aged nice lady sitting in the back basically said. Like, you're distributing needles in the park. What? in exactly that kind of tone. Is she wrong? Really, >> yes. Well, >> I've been in the state legislature. You can't make me go back. Um >> to the gentleman back that you got to you got to give councilman wearing the floor. >> He he can't help himself, but he thinks he's a good guy, mayor. Please, let's not forget that. Um but but this would get you kicked out of any second grade I've ever heard of, right? But keep doing what you're doing. You're making my point to any the five people who are still watching this at home. If you think they think you're great after doing that, they don't. You don't meet as many people as we do. We meet people all day long in this job. We hear from people all day long. So, we have a different perspective. It's not just all about this one thing. >> I'm done, Mayor. They can go back to making fun of me, but I appreciate I appreciate your answers. Councilwoman Pastor, followed by Councilwoman Gordado. >> Yes. Um, I would like you to listen. I have a motion. I My motion it the motion and I will explain my motion once we're ready to vote. Um, uh motion to approve the ordinance with a delayed effect date of March 30th, 2026. During this period, we direct the city manager to have staff from parks and recreation, public health, and the office of homeless solution meet with health care providers who provide services in the parks to review the ordinance and identify any potential clarification that could support provisions of service by medical professionals while keeping parks safe for all community members and park users. I have a point of order because I need clarity. >> Okay. A point of order and then Well, yeah. Point of order for Councilman Hernandez. >> Thank you. Um my understanding is Vice Mayor made a first substitute motion. >> Well, there was there was no motion on the table. So, no one seconded it. So, if someone seconded it, we would vote on that. >> Okay. >> But no one did. >> Okay. Julie, help us. >> Yes. Sorry, mayor, members of council. >> Sorry, I'm a little confused. >> Yeah, I don't think we have a motion on the table right now. >> Did we not do a motion before public comment? We did not. We did not. So, there is no motion on the >> the first motion was vice mayor's vice >> mayor and it was not. >> Substitute motion would be councilwoman. >> No, the first motion was not second. So, by vice mayor. >> Okay. >> So, there is no motion. Now there's a motion pending with no second. So that's the first the second motion and we're waiting for a second. >> Okay. >> Um and I I'm sorry Councilman Start, but I think I'd recognize Council Gordado next unless you have like a point of order type thing. And do you Okay, so you have a motion. Um do you see the floor to council Gordado or do you wish to keep talking? >> No, I need a second. I mean, can you just clarify a little bit more what that means? >> Do we motion >> here? >> Because we didn't get that in writing. >> I don't know where I I wrote it as I was sitting up here. >> Did Laura get a second? I do need my eight hours. >> Recognize the city attorney. >> Um, mayor, members of council, we have copies of the motion if if council would like us to to pass it out. And of course, we can have discussion, but we still need a second. Can I see a motion? >> And could someone still second the vice mayor's motion? or no? >> No, mayor. Um because we now have another motion on the table. >> I'll second Morris's motion. >> Okay. May I recognize Councilman Gordado? >> Council Gordado. >> Okay. Thank you, Mayor. I guess for me, you know, I I respect um everything that everyone had had to has said today. To all of our providers, to all of our neighbors, um to everyone that took the day off from work, you know, thank you for being engaged um in this discussion. Um we heard you loud and clear and heard what everyone has had to say today. Um but I also believe that we also have to strike that balance. Um, I get the phone calls every day um from from neighbors about the activities um that they see in the parks. Just like Councilman Wearing, I spend a lot of time on the phone with Cynthia about what is it that we do. But I'm also very proud to say, you know, that I was part of starting the office of homeless solutions, enhancing our CAP program. I've always been the biggest advocate to say we have to lead with services. um all the changes that we have done as a council. Um you know, I'm very proud to have been part of a lot of those changes. Um being able to have a health and safety um department within the city of Phoenix um I I think um has also been something very proud um that I have been a part of. you know, the pandemic brought us a lot of awful things, but I think we also learned a lot um through that pandemic, which helped us um start a lot of these departments and using a lot of the co dollars that we got um to do a lot of this work. I think um you know, very happy and proud that I have voted um for all the different um homeless um facilities that we have throughout throughout the city of Phoenix. I think um you know as a city we have done a lot you know when it comes to partnering with a lot of you when it comes to adding um the services that we need um to be able to help our um shelter population and also being and and seeing them and for me you know they are people in our community as well. But I also have to respond um to my constituents um to my constituents that have children that have sent me pictures of her ines. Um you know I myself have experienced that with my son where he picked up a needle and told me mommy what is this and he was only three years old at Mville Park. So I think there there is a problem here. Um, you know, I I hear everyone, you know, I think we do have to have a solution um when it comes to how is it that we give people services? How is it um that we make sure that we are able to attend to everyone and making sure that you guys don't feel disrespected with the work that you guys do out there every day because there's not a lot of people that do the work that you guys do. But at the same time, we have to make sure that our neighbors can also enjoy the parks, that they can take their children to the parks, that they can use the romadas when they want to have a a birthday party with their children. I represent the Mville area as well, and there's a lot of people in Mville that are upset when they see all the issues and the challenges in the parks. And a lot of these people that I represent are workingclass people and they cannot afford the $1,000 a month to take their children um to private basketball lessons. Um parks, our parks are their only asset and it and it's also my responsibility um to making sure that we make those assets available to them. We have a parks plan that that we're putting together. We're investing a lot in our parks and yes, the parks need to be welcoming to everyone and we need to make sure that they are an asset to everyone and everyone is able to access access our parks and that's part of the reason and for me I I am seeing this from that from that point of view and how is it that we make our parks safe for our children for our community. Um, but I also think that as a city we have done a lot um for our for our most vulnerable population and we've been very creative on on what we do and I just wish that the state would step up a little bit more that the federal government would step up a little bit more because this is not a city of Phoenix issue. I think this is an issue throughout the whole country and unfortunately here in Phoenix. Um our state legisl legislators just continue to attack the city of Phoenix and continue um to put um more issues on us instead of helping us. Um and I know that around when it comes to homelessness, they do very little and as a city we have done a lot and we will continue to do so and you know we will continue to work with all of you. But for me, I see it from the lens on how do I continue to provide resources um for my constituents that cannot afford to take their children to very expensive camps um for their children and they need these parks um and for them to be able to enjoy. Thank you, mayor. >> And and thank you. And just uh for the folks who are waiting, uh we do have about 40 more folks who want to speak. So, um, if if it had been a continuence had been moved on, the council's tradition is not to take testimony on the continuence, but this is the motion on the floor is substantive, and so we would take testimony on the and and the substantive. So, just we haven't forgotten you. Uh, but I have forgotten who is next in the queue. It was Jim. Thank you. >> Is it? >> I haven't even spoken. >> Okay. Um, sorry. Um, >> I think council woman wearing took up a lot of time already. So, um I respect the intention of the motion on on the table. Um, but I have a lot of problems with the motion to approve the ordinance with the delayed effective date because I have serious concern 1487 concerns of how the ordinance is currently written and my specific concerns are based on the conflicts in our ordinance um in relation to ARS 36-798.51 and ARS 13-3415. Um, our ordinance prohibits needle exchanges and harm reduction kits. uh harm reduction kit distribution in parks and those kits in our ordinance says not limited to uh syringes, testing strips, alcohol wipes. Um and sorry and even if it's conducted under ARS 36-798.51 that ARS explicitly permits such programs including the distribution of syringes um and a lock zone by authorized entities. So, my worry is that the ordinance may contradict state law by restricting activities that ARS 36-798.51 allows, particularly if those programs are operated by entities authorized under the state statute. Um, separately, ARS 13-3415 legalized fentinel testing strips and this ordinance appears to treat harm reduction kits that include testing strips and that's pretty broad um as paraphernalia banning their distribution in the parks. So if harm reduction kits are used in accordance to with ARS 36-798.51 um for example for public health purposes they may not be considered uh illegal under ARS 13-3415 but however the ordinance blanket prohibition could be seen as overreaching especially if it impedes lawful public health initiatives. So I still have a lot of legal concerns and if we proceed with this ordinance even with the ta the motion on the table logistically if changes are made to the ordinance with a delayed effective date what is that do we come back to vote on a new ordinance like what is the process because I don't think we are in a position as a city to entertain or risk any state shared revenue funding if we are found um not in complant or if we are found to violate a 1487 and for those of you that don't know it's SB1 1487 which means that if a city is not complying with state law it gets referred to the attorney general's office and if we fail that means we lose shared revenue from the state. So what is the process on the motion on the table to approve the ordinance with the delayed effective date? So, mayor, members of council, Councilwoman Hernandez. So, the way the motion is currently, um, it would not require us to come back for another approval. Um, we could come back if we identified changes and council was, you know, directing us to come back with certain changes, but it wouldn't require us. So, it's a delayed effective date to give us time to evaluate and work with um, partners. Um, >> and I had promised a break 45 minutes ago. >> Um, at that point I thought maybe we were about to continue this. So, um, could we just >> Well, can we >> I mean, can I finish my comments first? >> Okay. >> Thank you. So, I don't feel comfortable as I said because and I'm not asking for legal advice. I am sharing what my legal concerns in concerns are specifically to a 1487 in relation to this statute. So I would not feel comfortable moving with I do not feel comfortable moving forward with the motion on the table. >> Can can you add >> clarity or >> is it a clarifying qu Okay, great. Counciloman Hudge Washington. >> Thank you, Mayor. It's a clarifying question because I feel like we've heard a lot about um ARS 36798.51 which I've pulled up here and the statute if I can uh I'll just kind of summarize the different components. Section A talks about it says a city uh city, town, county or a non-governmental organization may establish and operate an overdose and disease prevention program. and it goes forward to articulate what is the objectives and then B it says a program established under this section shall offer all of the following. C then talks about kind of establishing best practices. So I say all that to say is I understand this statute to say if you're going to do this here are the things that your your your program should have. Are you looking at it Julie? Oh sorry. >> Yes. Um, thank you, mayor, members of council. So, yes, I just pulled it up. Um, I I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying, but I we would take a closer look at it. >> Okay. So, I I say that to say is I don't think the statute itself is saying that we must because the word there's a difference between shall and the difference between may. And in this situation, it says we may have this type of prevention program. It doesn't say we are required to have it. And I think the difference is in normally in a statute like this, if we're talking about a section 1487 claim, it is where we're violating state law, meaning that we are doing something contrary to what the state legislature has um authorized. And I just want to take a moment to echo my colleague, Councilwoman Betty Gardo's comment about the state legislature not being the right partner for us on this. They've continued to cut our funding um our available funds for exactly these types of programs, but yet we're expected to do more with even less. But going back to my question here is on its face, I don't see anything that requires us to have to operate um well, I don't see anything that this statute I should say that we would be violating um with the draft motion. Am I missing something is more of my question. Mayor, members of council. Um, no, I I don't think there's anything specifically on its face. I would also comment that the process for a 1487 complaint is if we do receive a complaint, we would of course look at this more closely and it would go to the attorney general to we give a chance to respond. Um the attorney general then makes a determination and then the city has 30 days to correct you know any ordinance deficiencies or any you know violations that were found by the attorney general. >> And then the same concern regard and thank you for that clarification and then the same similar comments regarding ARS section 133415 which is part of the criminal code right. Um is there any indic any concern am I missing anything as to whether or not the proposed mo proposed ordin uh the proposed motion is a violation of that language. >> So, mayor, members of council, um we are pulling up that ordinance and and to see if if we think there's a we'll we'll have to review that issue. >> Thank you. Thank you. Sorry. Go ahead, Mayor. >> C. Are we good to take a break? All right. It is 7:44. We will break till 8. We will reconvene the formal meeting of the Phoenix City Council. Thank you to everyone for your patience. Special thank you. We have a huge amount of important things later on in the agenda and we are very grateful to folks for your patience. Uh, do council colleagues have want to start with continue with questions and comments or go into the s last names? What did anyone have a comment before we go to a cap comment? All right. Uh, sorry. We'll begin with Michael Roberts followed by Hunter Scott and Noah Schulen. Michael Roberts. Mayor, city council, thank you so much. I've missed uh a child's concert tonight. I'm going to go home to a a wife with expecting our sixth baby any day now. Very busy night, but it's worth it to come and be able to present to you. There's been I feel like a little bit of an advantage and disadvantage having heard your thoughts on this. uh redirecting what I had prepared. I would encourage the council to reconsider the proposal that's up currently and go back to the the vice mayor's proposal for tableabling. So, not just that it's a delayed approval and that we have a month to to not do anything about it, but rather that we can bring the most important people uh to this conversation so that we can do this right. Um, if I, you know, councilman Wearing uh mentioned what would happen if someone were stuck with a needle between here and there, the reality is if we don't have programs and protections in place, that needle's likely to carry more diseases, have been used by multiple users, and be in a worse position versus when these these practices are in place, we're able to provide more protection for your citizens, eventually reducing the the strain and and the burden of having those needles in the community to start with. The goal of these organizations and of these programs is ultimately to provide healing and safety by plugging these people into the right place. So, please reconsider that. I also want you to just really consider again um removing the motion in place, reconsidering tableabling it for now and bringing the right people because there's such a plethora of experience that's been shared here tonight, expertise. I'm a nurse of 10 years and and I'm just learning barely this year what community health really is. And these experts here in the room can lead you and guide you and help you make a much better decision. Thank you, Council Hunter Scott, followed by Noah Schulen. >> Good evening, Mayor. Good evening, council. Uh my name is Hunter Scott. I have the honor of serving as the director of marketing and communications for Circle to City. Unfortunately, I had to follow Michael, my colleague, who is an amazing speaker. Um, I know it's been a long and emotional day for all of us. I did have something also prepared as well. Um, but I'm deciding to throw that out and I would like to echo um my colleagues sentiment as well that we go back to the vice mayor's motion. I think it's been again a long day. I think we all have the same shared interest in meeting people where we're where where our mission is to meet people where we are. We want to meet you where you're at as well in this. I think we all just want to come together. We all want to work together. We too want safer parks. And I think that's been kind of the sentiment that's been echoed throughout the day. Um so again, like my colleague said, all we'd like to do is just to have a seat at the table. We ask this um be tabled so we can again bring all these incredible health experts to the table together and we can work together on finding a solution, doing it right way the first time. Um I know there's a lot of confusion from a lot of different parties on this. Um, so we just um gracefully ask for just that time and that seat at the table so we can all come together and work on a solution together. Thank you. >> Noah is next, followed by Michael Smithson. >> Mayor Ggo and city council members, good evening. My name is Noah Schulen and I'm a medical student at the University of Arizona College of Medicine Phoenix. As a volunteer, I work with Street Medicine Phoenix to distribute Nlloxxone and overdose prevention education to people experiencing homelessness every week. While I may have affiliations with the University of Arizona, the beliefs expressed today are entirely my own and do not reflect those held by the university. I'm here to state my opposition to the ordinance prohibiting harm reduction in Phoenix parks. The measures you're attempting to ban have been used for decades because they work, are backed by evidence, and most importantly, they keep people safe. This does not only have implications for people who use drugs, but the greater Phoenix community. For example, a hepatitis C virus is transmitted in blood, potentially by sharing used needles, eventually causing liver failure and even cancer. A European study aggregated results of multiple publications to find that there's a 76% reduction in hepatitis C incidents with syringe service program utilization. Essentially, this exhibits how distribution of clean needles can effectively reduce the spread of certain diseases. Furthermore, given that many homeless patients receive healthcare through access, both state and federal funds could be financially impacted by a rise in diseases such as hepatitis C. The school of pharmacy at Virginia Commonwealth University found that for every one case of hepatitis C averted per 100 people who use drugs, there'd be savings of over $360,000 in avoided treatment costs based on the 2019 value of the US dollar. In other words, harm reduction initiatives can decrease deadly disease transmission, resulting in a reduced financial burden at the state and federal level. Given these figures, I hope I make the case for the financial benefit of investment into harm reduction. While this may make a compelling argument for the opposition of the new city ordinance, I hope the safety and protection of your constituents is far more important. Thank you for your time and consideration. Michael is next, followed by Sharon Taylor. >> Thank you, mayor. Thank you, councel. My name is the Reverend Michael Smithson. I serve at Trinity Episcopal Cathedral here in downtown Phoenix, but I'm speaking to you today as a resident of Phoenix, a resident of District 8. Um, as someone who lives and serves a congregation in downtown, I'm very sympathetic to this the position you're in. Um, we too have the homeless on our front door. We have drug issues. I spend my Sunday morning, one of my first tasks is picking needles up out of our courtyard. I'm very sympathetic to the position you're in and I'm very sympathetic to the complaints that you receive from constituents worried about these kind of issues in our parks. What I'm cons more concerned with though is that this ordinance would not solve that problem. As many of the experts in the room have testified tonight, this ordinance would exacerbate that problem. We would still find needles, but they would be more diseased and more dangerous. We would still find drugs and we would still find used medical supplies in our parks. I really encourage you to table this ordinance and consult with the experts in the room in protecting our children and our community from drugs and from disease is important, but it's best done in collaboration with the doctors and the researchers who study this. Thank you. Sharon is next, followed by Karen Deer. Good evening, Mayor Ggo and council members. My name is Sharon Taylor. I am a registered nurse and I serve as chief operating officer at Circle the City. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you and and really to share vehemently our advocacy for why we do not want this ordinance to proceed. Having worked in various healthc care settings, healthc care for the homeless itself is truly a specialty. If I were to have a reunion with all the nurses that I've gone to school with, they would not have a clue, not anywhere close to understanding what it's like to take care of the most vulnerable of our community members, our neighbors. Whether we like it or not, they are our community members. And I actually have a much longer speech that I prepared. However, many have already spoken to what I was going to speak to. So instead, Council Member Pastor, I respectfully request to please withdraw your your motion and allow for C uh Vice Mayor O'Brien's motion to please re be presented again and allow us the opportunities to sit together, collaborate, and come up with solutions that will ensure safety not just for the vulnerable people that we serve, but for all of the communities. members. Thank you so much. Karen Ter is next, followed by Nicole Terron. >> Good evening, Mayor and Council. I'm Dr. Karen Ter and I'm the president and CEO of Teros Health. Terrace is a federally qualified health center and one of the largest behavioral health providers here in the state of Arizona. We serve roughly 60,000 Arizonans every year. And this includes individuals who are unhoused or have a mental illness, but also children and families and elderly members of our community. We have been a longtime partner with the city of Phoenix and we value and appreciate your collaboration over many, many years. We have been providing care in the community, including in parks, since 1969. These services include mobile crisis services, HIV testing, flu vaccines, heat relief, blood pressure checks, blood sugar checks, and yes, wound care. Should this ordinance take effect, organizations like Teros Health would need to make decisions regarding how much additional administrative burden and provider risk we are able to sustain. The language in this ordinance currently is so vague that I would not be comfortable allowing our teams to go into parks to provide any activities including a blood pressure check. Our unhoused pop uh the my job is to protect our medical staff from engaging in behaviors that could result in criminal prosecution. Our legal team is concerned about the risk that this ordinance prevents to our teams. A financial decision would need to be made. Do we cease participating in these lines of business? altogether. Do we have sufficient need in other municipalities that Terrell Health only serves municipalities outside of Phoenix? This will include many of the activities that the parks department has said are allowable. Our legal team disagrees. The additional admin during the break, I had the opportunity to speak with Jenny and also Kim from Circle of the City. The three of us would love to sit down with other members of the community and be able to work through this together. Please go back to the vice mayor's amendment and please let's give us some time to work the through these things together. >> Councilwoman Hernandez. >> Thank you. I have a question for Dr. for Dr. Ter. Um just a well maybe a two-part question. um how if this ordinance passes and I say that because we have to move on the assumption that the ordinance is g well the ordinance is going to pass as written because we don't know what the final language of the ordinance will be. Um how can or how will Teros and Circle the city how how are they going to be able to continue their work? Um, more specifically, how would you be able to operationalize mobile units? Um, and getting permits each time that you have to go provide healthcare access to our residents. >> So, the margins on any kind of mo mobile service is extremely narrow. So, these are not money-making ventures. These are there's lines of business that that Teros in particular loses money on every time we deliver a service in the community. Um, so adding any sort of increased administrative burden means that I have to take it back to the drawing board and determine can we continue to do those lines of business. So I don't know the answer to your question. I I am pleading with you to give us some time to work through how we can make this uh doable from a from a from that sort of perspective. Standing up a mobile unit that you can actually deliver medical care in is a six-f figureure endeavor. So to to retrofit an RV to be or van to be able to go out and actually deliver medical care in the communities is not something that you can do quickly. Um to retrofit it could take 6 to9 months and as I said could take six figures in terms of being able to do that. There is not that margin in this line of business to do that work. >> And thank you for that doctor. And just kind of a follow-up question in because of those unknowns, is it possible that you will also face staffing uh impacts because of the added administrative burden piece to do the work? >> In order to make in order to make any line of business viable, you need to know that you have sufficient work for your staff to do for a 40-hour work week. For example, if we have to get permission every time we're going to go into a park and I have staff that are assigned to do that work 40 hours a week today, I don't have a guarantee that I'm going to have 40 hours of worth of work for them to do. And so, yes, there would likely be staffing impacts. Either we would have to reassign them to other lines of business or potentially discontinue the the services altogether. So this ordinance as is, not only is it going to impact the access from our vulnerable residents to receive healthcare access, we're talking about potentially impacting staff >> face loss of jobs. >> Correct. >> In this moment. >> Yes. >> Thank you, Dr. Pepper. And I am so sorry that you have to deal with this. >> Thank you. Can I ask a question? Can I ask a question? No. Nicole Tran is a is registered to speak if necessary. Councilwoman Haj Washington, >> I was going to ask a question regarding the if you can articulate a little bit more on the uh administrative burden that you anticipate with the with the proposed ordinance. >> Absolutely. So my understanding from the parks department is that organizations like Teros or Circle of the city would be able to still do some health activities in a park. We would have to submit a form and let folks know when we were going to be there and and do some of those kinds of pieces. That takes a lot of operational time. It sounds super simple. It's just one form except if you're doing one form for every time you're going to go to a location. That means somebody has to be planning out very intentionally where we're going to be, when we're going to be there, documenting it. I don't have admin staff that are assigned to my mobile units. >> So, sorry. No, that's okay. >> So, how are we making the determination right now as to where resources are allocated? >> So, in general, we are going to places where we see need in the in the morning. So, we go there the same time every day and we see how many folks are there that need care. based upon how many people are there, we make the decision on where we're going to go next. And so there are certain places where they expect to see us day and or same time, same day um in a given week. And there are certain places that we're going to when we have the time because there wasn't enough folks at the the place where we started. This is an incredibly inefficient line of business. Nobody is doing this because it is it is good or logical from a business perspective. We're doing it because it saves lives. Thank you for that. Um, thank you for that. Um, my question or my understanding um, from parks director Cynthian, you can correct me that the re Well, I'll ask you this question then I'll come back to this question. Can you tell me what the how long the process is anticipated to take? Yes, mayor, members of the city council, council in Hajj, Washington. The special activity request form takes us three to five days to respond. Um, in that process, we are also able to approve multiple dates for an event or activity. So, if there are standing locations and dates, that's something that could be reviewed and potentially approved all in one permit. >> Okay. Thank you so much for that. So, if a provider, for example, wanted to say, "I wanted to have a I hate to call it, it's a standin um an application for a standin um time in place," they could submit that all at one time. Correct. >> Yes, Councilman Hudington. >> Thank you so much for that. Thank you for the question. Thank you for providing the answer. Thank you. >> Okay. Uh is Nicole here? Terron. All right. Uh, Elizabeth Turinden and Brian Thoy. So sorry. >> Good evening, council. Thank you to everyone staying here. Um, I'm going to quote Council Member Robinson. We appreciate your passion on this issue. It is wonderful that all of you are looking to the health and safety of your constituents and I la that especially Council Member Gardo, the work you've done with the Office of Homeless Services. Thank you. But good intentions aren't enough to guarantee good outcomes. And council member Hajj Washington, you mentioned that it's not the intention of this legislation to adversely impact programs like heat relief. Uh but you have just heard from a multitude of people explaining how there could be unintended consequences from this legislation as currently written. And so I would ask you to go back to considering the vice mayor's motion to postpone this until February 18th so that there can be more conclusive dialogue and you can come up with something which is not only well-intentioned but effective in accomplishing your stated goals of bringing health and safety to all your constituents. Thank you, >> Brian Toy. >> Followed by Rachel Valenuela. >> Uh, good evening, Mayor, uh, council members. Um, and I appreciate you getting the name right. I do care that we put respect on that name because my grandmother came as a refugee in the aftermath of the Vietnam War with her four kids. So, that name is very important to me. Um, what I just want to say tonight is that, you know, I want to think back in American history and I want to think to a really dark time in American history when we at the American people were given the phrase, "There is nothing to fear but fear itself." And what I've heard throughout this conversation is a lot of desiring to make motion and make changes uh into the city code based on fears, based on concerns, and not based on evidence. So, I'm here to talk about facts, not feelings. All right? It's not about fear. It's not about compassion. It's not about love. It's not about desperation. What I want to talk to talk to you all about tonight is facts. Because I understand the fears that my neighbors and other residents in Phoenix have about the work that we do at Shot in the Dark, of which I've been a volunteer for over 10 years. Shot in the Dark has been providing needle exchange services here in Phoenix for over 15 years and to the wider Phoenix metropolitan area. And that may not make me an expert in terms of having nice little letters next to my name, but it thinks I think it means that I've been around the block and this is not my first rodeo. So, what I want to share with y'all is the fact of the matter that when somebody attends a needle exchange service as a participant, they're five times more likely to enter treatment after that experience. When a needle exchange uh service is implemented in a neighborhood, uh it's consistently seen that crime reduces up to rates of 30% when that is implemented within the community. Uh we've seen every time that a needle exchange is implemented in the community, it decreases needlesticks both to law enforcement and to the wider population at large. So I know some of you have probably already decided how you feel about me and my work just based on the fact that it's a needle exchange. But what I'm asking here for you all tonight is not to let me tell you how to do your jobs or who to listen to from the community, but to ask that you have an opportunity to sit down and hear the facts and hear and see some of the evidence that's been across the country and across the world. Because the only two things that fight fear are ending uncertainty and ending misinformation. And I've heard a lot of those two things tonight. >> Rachel is next, followed by Rodrigo. I'm a lot smaller than him, so I had to pull that down a little bit. Hello, Mayor Gayo. Nice to see you, and thank you, council members, for having us today. My name is Rachel Valenuela. I am the chief community engagement officer for VA Soul, which like many of my friends here, we are community health centers who focus and pride ourselves on taking care of the people in the city of Phoenix. Um, obviously you guys have heard a lot of statistics and data. I won't regurgitate that information. Instead, what I'm asking is that you guys table this for discussion with those of us that are involved in the care of these individuals within our communities. I think you guys have heard more than enough people tell you that there was not enough people at the table to discuss these items. There was not enough input from the stakeholders that could have had influence on better solutions, better resolutions to this situation. We and we are in agreement with you on the safety of the parks. We are in agreement with you that these people do need help and do do need redirection. And so we're asking you to table this to please reconsider Vice Mayor's um recommendation and allow us to be a part of the conversation. Allow us to collaborate with you and come up with solutions that make sense not only for um you know the people we serve but for the entire community of Phoenix. Uh we appreciate your time. I know it's been a long day and we really hope that you guys consider our request. Thank you. Thank you. Rodrigo is next, followed by Elizabeth Venibal. >> Hello, mayor and council members. Thank you for allowing me the time to speak to you today. Uh my name is Rodrigo Valencola Cordova. I'm a resident of the city of Phoenix and also a public health professional who has been working in public health for the past 5 years. I um have also worked directly with people experiencing homelessness in our community. I'm here to urge you all to please table this uh current item as um vice mayor had uh made the motion to do so. Um while the intent may be to ensure safety, this ordinance would instead criminalize medical care and harm reduction services in our city parks, prohibiting these services and making them class one misdemeanor. The policy places unhoused residents at a greater risk and undermines public health. For many for many people experiencing homelessness, parks are where care happens. It's where their life also happens. They are where wound care is provided. Overdoses are reversed and infections are pre are prevented. Eliminating these services does not make the part safer. It increases medical emergencies and shifts the burden onto the first responders and emergency departments. As a public health professional, I want to be clear. harm reduction and street based medical care saves lives. Criminalizing these services contradicts the city's goals of creating a healthier and safer Phoenix. There is a better approach and that is why I urge you to please table this um item. Uh public health and public safety are not in conflict. Uh when we when we support evidence-based care and collaboration, we improve outcomes for everyone. Phoenix is a city that values dignity, compassion, and community. And our policies should reflect those values by protecting life, not criminalizing care. Thank you for your time. Elizabeth is next, followed by Amanda Williams. Elizabeth, could you please wave so we know you're on your way? All right, Amanda Williams is next, followed by Gilbert Arvu, virtual comment. >> Hi, good good [clears throat] evening, mayor and council members. My name is Amanda Williams. I'm a licensed clinical social worker and I am the chief of behavioral health at Vayul Soul. I know you've heard a lot from our partners here in the community about our concerns with this new ordinance and how that can actually prevent and delay us from providing necessary life-saving treatment. We all have the same goal, which is having parks that are safe for all community members to enjoy. We also want our parks free of drug use and needles and unhoused. We actually want them to be in treatment and receiving care and that's where our focus and energy should be. And I encourage you to partner with us so that we can come up with a mutual solution that serves everyone in our community. Thank you. Mr. Arusu is next followed by Graham Fox. Mayor, members of council, I see two related but distinct issues in this ordinance. The first is concern about syringe debris in our parks. The second is the very reasonable desire for park staff to know who is operating in their parks and for what purpose. On the first issue, there are different types of activity. One is individuals or informal groups who may be handing out syringes or medical supplies without clear standards. The other is provisioning of health care by licensed providers such as Circle the City and Street Medicine Phoenix. I cannot speak to whether informal groups are contributing to debris, but from my own direct observations, these licensed programs follow protocols operate under medical supervision and are not leaving medical waste behind. The second issue is park staff needing to know who is in their parks and when, and that is totally understandable. I would simply encourage us to consider whether class one misdemeanor penalties and routing every outreach event through the special activity form, a process designed for large family parties and Roma reservations are necessary to encourage coordination with parks from licensed providers, especially when our main concern is unregulated activity. This seems like a great opportunity for collaboration, a simple standing process where organizations like Circle the City and Street Medicine Phoenix share a regular schedule. Parks has clear points of contact and everyone understands the expectations without relying on class one misdemeanor penalties or burdensome costly forms to achieve that coordination. In closing, I respectfully ask that as you consider this ordinance, you look for a path that keeps parks safe and clean while preserving access to evidence-based medical and outreach services for the people who need them most. Thank you. >> Graham Fox is next, followed by Michelle. >> Hello. Thank you to the council and mayor for allowing me to speak. My name is Graham Fox. I'm from district 4 and I oppose this ordinance. I'm an outreach supervisor overseeing staff who are syringe service program specialists and testers with sonor and prevention works, a statewide org that does streetbased outreach, organizational capacity building and advocacy work with a focus on people who use drugs. I've been doing this work for over a decade. We do direct outreach to individuals while providing overdose education, the lock zone and supply distribution, HIV and hepatitis C testing. We prioritize meeting people where they are at. We go to areas where people are already congregating, where people are not receiving regular services for their health and well-being. This is why medical outreach in public parks is so important. Some people will never never go to a facility, have no way to get there, or have pets, disabilities that make it extremely difficult to visit other places. I want to tell you about one of our uh participants, James, who has received our services for several years. James is disabled and in a wheelchair and mostly stays in parks. He's one of our secondary distributors who gives out our Nlloxxone provides overdose education to others in his community. He has helped administer Nlloxxone to at least 30 people and saved their lives. However, we've seen what happens when the parks are swept of unhoused people. When they are displaced, it makes it extremely difficult to reconnect to services. There are increased overdoses, deaths, communical disease transmission. If harm reduction uh services are not allowed in the park, we will undoubtedly see an increase in overdose, deaths, 911 calls, emergency room visits, and uh severe wounds. Until there are better services, affordable housing, other places for people to go. They will remain in the park and need life-saving care and harm reduction. This ordinance is not the solution. It will not keep the parks cleaner or safer. It will do the complete opposite. In fact, we need community members like James be able to edit. >> Michelle uh G is next and then uh we'll go back to inerson comment with uh Eloise. >> My name is Michelle Grez and I'm the CFO for Circle of the City and I stand with the rest of um our team and asking you to re um evaluate this ordinance. I think that we've brought uh to the plate a lot of evidence that what you're proposing is not going to solve the problem that you are uh looking to solve. And so I think if we all get together and discuss this, it may create a better solution for a long-term results. Thank you. >> Thank you. Eloa is next, followed by Janelle Jones. She had to go. Okay. She had to go home. Uh Janelle is next, followed by Aven. Hi. Um thank you, mayor, for the opportunity to speak. My name is Janelle Jones and I, um live in district 6. I work in district 8 and I conduct outreach um in all of the districts and I have done various work in the field of substance use disorder that includes as a subject matter expert for the state judiciary. It includes public health. Um, and currently in my role, I serve in leadership at a nonprofit that serves families and infants that are impacted by the opioid epidemic. Um, I had a whole thing planned, but I'm going to go ahead and just address a couple things quickly that have not been brought up. Um, one major concern that I have is that the ordinance as written says that it does not include um, nlloxxone. that that will still be allowed. An issue I have with that is that it does not clarify that nlloxxone that generic version that costs only $3 that most of our orgs are handing out has to be distributed or not distributed, it has to be um administered to a person through an intramuscular needle. And so this ordinance is contradicting um because it's saying that it's not going to influence nlloxxone distribution in parks, but nlloxxone distribution is only possible um in that form with needles. The form that is done um nasally costs like $45 in compared to three. So, that's a major issue that I wanted to bring up and urge that um this ordinance is reconsidered for a later date because the ordinance as written is not specific enough to clarify that. Um, I also wanted to bring up that this ordinance contradicts um Arizon what Arizona's public health goals are and essentially that syringe service programs are already legal in our state and so I myself have um volunteered in the community and I have experienced being told that I'm not allowed to hand out. >> Thank you for that testimony. Aven is next followed by Carrie. Mayor, council members, my name is Aan Kelly and I would like to join the chorus of voices in opposition to proposed ordinance G7467. There's been a lot of talk about safety tonight and I want to speak to what that means. Because safety does not look like criminalizing life-saving healthcare. It looks like increasing access to health care, affordable education, affordable housing, wraparound services, and other programs that are focused on lifting people up rather than pushing them to the side. But let's be clear, harm reduction programs save lives. There are evidence-based programs that reduce the spread of infections, reduce overdose deaths, and improve overall public health outcomes. They protect vulnerable members of our communities, people who have been repeatedly failed by our public health and social social safety net systems. People who use drugs are our friends, family members, and neighbors. And this council has an obligation to address their needs. This ordinance does nothing to actually keep people safe. This council has presented no evidence this ordinance will actually address any of the problems it purports to to address. And this council has been seemingly willing to ignore all the evidence presented by dozens and dozens of speakers that that shows that this ordinance will actually increase the many harms that our community is facing. All this ordinance does is cut people off from life-saving healthcare and make it easier for people to look away from systemic problems that make them uncomfortable. That isn't what safety looks like. I encourage this council to support harm reduction initiatives that actually improve public safety and health and to oppose proposed ordinance G7467. Thank you. >> Carrie is next followed by Claire. Good evening, mayor and city council members. My name is Carrie Lundstöm and I am a medical student at Kraton University School of Medicine, a volunteer with Street Medicine Phoenix and a constituent of District 4. My views are my own and do not represent these affiliated institutions. I stand alongside many other healthcare workers, community members, and medical students, including many of my fellow peers online, and urge the council to vote no on this ordinance. I'd like to mention that the disagreement surrounding this ordinance is not contained to this chamber. A petition in opposition to this ordinance has already gathered around 500 signatures, reflecting distinct community disagreement. My original speech echoed and agreed with many of the opinions offered today about the importance and effectiveness of preventative medical care and harm reduction programs that meet people where they're at. that they improve the health of our unhoused community members and reduce health care burdens. So, I'd like to offer an educational perspective not yet considered. Administering medical care in public places as a medical student has empowered me in my future practice as a physician to appropriately understand and compassionately treat people experiencing homelessness. Medical outreach and harm reduction programs like Street Medicine Phoenix plays a vital role not only in providing care to people experiencing homelessness, but also in training future physicians in social determinance of health, harm reduction, and systembased care. Operating under licensed clinician supervision, students like myself learn to practice ethical, compassionate, and costconcious medicine, strengthening both public health and the future healthcare workforce serving Phoenix. I respectfully urge you to vote no or table this ordinance for further collaboration with key stakeholders. Thank you for your time. Claire Richards is next, followed by Nicole Rodriguez. Good evening, Mayor and members of the city council. My name is Claire Richards. I'm a first year medical student at the University of Arizona College of Medicine Phoenix and a resident of District 7. I am also an overdose prevention lead for Street Medicine Phoenix. I want to begin by acknowledging the length of today's meeting and the fatigue we are all feeling. It's clear from both the public testimony and comments from council members and the vice mayor that there are shared concerns about the language of this ordinance and its potential unintended consequences. It was stated earlier in this meeting that this ordinance was not drafted using data on the effectiveness of harm reduction programs or their impacts on overdose deaths or use of emergency services. It was also not drafted with the input of the community organizations who are experts in this field and are so ready to partner with you. Given the seriousness of those outcomes and the concerns raised today about the ordinance's clarity, I respectfully urge the council to not move forward with this hasty vote. Instead, I would ask that we revisit the vice mayor's motion and initiate a collaborative review process. This could include a small working group or subcommittee with parks and recreation, concerned neighbors, public health officials, federally qualified health centers, street medicine teams, and community partners who you heard from today. Slowing down in this moment is not inaction. It is responsible leadership. And I think you know that we all want safer parks and healthier communities. The last thing we want is to exacerbate the existing issues the Phoenix community faces. I urge you to let the data and not the stigma or discomfort guide this vote. Thank you for your time. >> Nicole is next, followed by Tammy Weaver. >> Hi, thank you Mayor and Council Nicole Rodriguez. I am against uh the proposed ordinance here. Um, it comes across as a Mcavelian ordinance proposal. Um, I'm not a doctor. I'm not a lawyer, but for what it's worth, I did say earlier I was a park ranger with the city of Phoenix for eight years. The only medical debris experience left behind were done by first responders. Not intentional, but in response to an emergency situation to get someone to a hospital ASAP. I never witnessed medical waste being left behind by the people you hear uh are hearing from today. And 20 years ago, I was picking up needles in parks when uh current park director Cynthia was in the Norton house. Uh needles in parks isn't new. Arguably, there were more needles in parks 15 to 20 years ago. Um park staff, we were always trained and educated how not to get poked by glass needles while conducting routine maintenance. In eight years, I never got poked. Um, so in not there's language in this ordinance that keeps bothering me. The not limited um to part of the ordinance for a harm what goes into harm reduction kit does it can leave room for including water electrolytes. I'm not an attorney and I know the ambigu ambiguity what um not limited to can cause um mobile units cannot be expected to carry someone to um you know we cannot expect these folks to carry someone to a mobile unit. Um there's a reason why our heat mitigation folks walk around with wagons meeting people where they're at. If you've ever been into for instance the park I mostly now recreate in is still Indian school park. Um, it can be very challenging to expect someone to get up and move if they are not in good health condition. Um, and they just need immediate medical attention to get up and move and come towards you in a mobile unit because I did hear something about mobile units. I just wanted to share the the the many nuances I'm hearing tonight and I really am excited for council to start meeting with these folks too. So, thank you for your time. Tammy is our next speaker. >> Hey, I'm Tammy. Um, I work in healthc care have for a long portion of my my career. I have lost family members to drugs, including a sibling. Spent a lot of time in hospitals and often encountered people on what was the worst day of their life. It teaches you compassion. I I believe no one wants a lifestyle of homelessness or drug addiction. There's usually a root cause and a desire to do something more meaningful. Can you imagine dealing with something so dark or painful that drugs seem like a better option? For those living in parks, that's their community. They've been shunned by the rest of society and this is the location and the place where they feel they still have a home. Healthcare is like sales. You have to keep trying. Build trust and a relationship over time. talking to the person and helping them understand uh what got them there and what they think could help. Um there was a gentleman that mentioned something earlier about those that they give a needle to are five times more likely to enter treatment. That needle is a symbol that they care uh more than a meal. You care about them living. So I I would hope that you kind of consider that um the the ultimate impacts of of this decision. I care very much about parks, you know that. Um, but then you you need to understand that you're going to make things worse with worse with like STD rates and such around the city. Maricopa County, it already has one of the highest. Uh, to my friends in healthcare, I hope you stick around because the next uh agenda item is also healthcare related. TSMC's expansion. Thank you. Thank you to our team. Did we get everyone? All right. So, Tammy was our final speaker. The motion on the table is Councilwoman Pastor's motion. Uh, >> Councilman Hernandez. >> Yeah, I have a question for staff. >> Um, thank you, mayor. As we are moving forward, the other thing that's happening in the city is that we've started moving into our budget process. um where we have asked part of the budget process is to ask each department to identify um where reductions in their budget can happen. Uh one of those departments is our fire department which we ask them to identify 3% of reductions in their budget. If we pass this ordinance um I would agree with the public that it is going to increase the impact of services of the service needs that our fire department faces. Um, so my question would be, how are we going to how are we going to explain to our residents that they can expect to see increased response times in other emergencies that they face? because this ordinance will drastically increase the burden on emergency rooms and calls to our 911 system that our firefighters have to answer. Have we thought about that? Mayor, members of the council, Councilman Hernandez. Um, one of the things that we have discussed related to this ordinance is that there would need to be metrics that we would need to establish and follow to determine the impacts of the ordinance. One of those could be on 911 calls. Um, and so that would be something that we would intend to monitor and then identify whether or not we are seeing impacts on those calls. specifically related to this ordinance if we could identify the location of we can identify I'm sorry I'm tired [laughter] >> we can identify the location of the calls and so we would need to specify um the number of calls in parks specifically so that we can compare current data to what happens after the ordinance >> my apologies for not being able to articulate that >> no no you're you are fine and you articulated it exactly how you need to um My concern still remains that, you know, the city earlier in the year passed a TBT, a sales tax increase because we needed our fire department is in dire need of resources, right? They are stretched thin. They are our first line of defense out to provide care to the community. And now we're going to be voting on an ordinance that we have no idea what that impact is to our fire department. or I'm expected to make a vote on an ordinance that I have absolutely zero idea what the impact to our fire department is that is going to add um increased calls that could very likely result in increased or delayed longer call uh call response call times to the all of our residents right and so I don't expect you to answer that I just want to make sure that that everyone understands how we are moving forward in this so thank you Lori Counciloman Pastor. >> Yes. I want to add clarity to the motion. Uh the motion is to be delayed to March 30th 2026. In between the 90 days, staff is to work with uh health professionals, uh community organizations on the ordinance that is currently here and to work with uh our professionals and the community professionals on the language of the ordinance. And if there are changes that need to be had in the ordinance, an agreement to it, those changes will be done and the ordinance then will come back before March 30th. Am I I I want to know this from the legal standpoint and get it validated because that's the intent of the ordinance. >> Can I ask a clarifying question? >> Councilwoman Pastor, I think has asked a question. Thank you, mayor, members of council. Um, yes, council, councilwoman, that is my understanding of the intent and the language as well. >> So, when there are changes to the ordinance and there's an agreement, then it will come back to council before March 30th as to uh as to that being the effective date. >> Mayor, members of council, that is correct. So if we are able to bring back changes to the ordinance, we would do that prior to the effective date. >> And then that when you bring those changes back to the council with the changes, then that's the that's the ordinance that we will pass once comes up back up. >> Mayor, members of council. So if we brought back a new ordinance and that was passed by council, that ordinance would supersede. we would make sure we wrote it that it superseded the prior ordinance. Um, if you passed that that one today. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you, Councilwoman Hernandez. >> It's actually a clarifying question for Councilwoman Pastor on the motion. So is it to still approve the this current ordinance with the delayed effective date or are we saying we are going to delay a vote on this ordinance? It's a delay. It's an approval of this ordinance of a delayed effective date of March 30th. And in between those 90 days, they will be working community I mean um staff and community will be working together on the current ordinance and bring back a new ordinance prior to March 30th >> or language. >> Go ahead. Am I That's >> I would just Yes. I would clarify that we would bring back any proposed changes. It may be a totally new ordinance or maybe revisions within it. I think that was your intent, council. >> Correct. >> Okay. So, it it's clear there's a lot of misinformation right now and Councilman Pastor's motion then directs staff to work with our valuable partners to address that. And if there's a need to make changes, then we are open to that. We want this to work. All right. Are we ready? >> Sorry. Roll call. I'm sorry. Vice Mayor, >> can I ask one more question? So, could um [clears throat] if there are no changes made and this is approved tonight, this ordinance goes into effect as is March 30th, 2026. Correct Julie. >> Uh, mayor, members of council, vice mayor. Um, that is correct. If there if we didn't bring back any changes, this ordinance would go into effect. >> Okay. Councilwoman Pastor, is it is your is it your intent that they bring us back changes or only if >> Yes, it is my intent that they will bring back >> Sorry, what? Well, >> changes. Yes. >> So, so it is your intent. Sorry. Sorry. I just I'm trying. But as long as it comes back be those changes would be need to be brought back before March 30th. >> Correct. >> Thank you, Mayor. >> Councilwoman Hutch Washington. >> Thank you, Mayor. And it's the intent that during this 90day, let's call a 90-day window that they will meet with the healthc care providers that provide services in the park and tried to come up with a solution that works. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Roll call. >> Yes. >> Mayor, >> please. Thank you. Um, first I just want to apologize to the professionals in the room, to the medical students in the room, to the residents that spend hours of their day to come to use your voice to advocate with evidencebased solutions and advice on how this city should be crafting policy. I am truly sorry that the opinion and the facts that you as professionals in these fields and the providers to healthcare access to our most vulnerable residents seem to not matter tonight. Um I have there's no guarantees that this ordinance will get better and that is very egregious to me. Um, it's also, yeah, I also want to apologize as staff for you being put in a position. You have to present something that is not ready for us to vote on. We are completely doing this process backwards by voting on something that we have zero guarantee on what the language will be. When I served in the state senate, one of the first lessons I learned that the best policy crafted was to bring the stakeholder the stakeholders to the table before we voted on any language that changed any laws because that brings real impact to our residents lives. And so my frustration is not with the staff. It is with the language in this ordinance and the fact that we are voting that I have to take a vote on some on an empty piece of paper with zero guarantees that we will save lives. As the fifth largest city in the United States, it is shameful that our answer to an overwhelming need for access to care is to lean towards criminalization and restrictions in our public parks. Nothing in this ordinance will make our parks safer. Nothing in this ordinance will make our communities across Phoenix safer. Instead, what we are saying is that as the leaders of this city, we are okay with pushing our most vulnerable residents further into the shadows, further into neglect, and further into despair. We as a city have already been clear that we do not have the financial resources to meet the needs of our most vulnerable neighbors. And the reality is that we rely on all of you as medical providers, the harm reduction providers, and the community health providers to ensure our residents have the access to the care that they need. Making it illegal for them to work with us to provide those services will not address the issue that seems to be the motivating factor to bring this ordinance to a vote. Furthermore, reision re revisions to this item were literally thrown together by legal at the last minute because my office raised questions about the fact that we didn't even have a definition for medical care. To be quite honest, that is sloppy af and reckless. This whole ordinance is shameful and dangerous. And I want to be clear that our sloppiness and haste to punish our residents with will result in people dying. And that is unacceptable. That goes against com the oath of office that I took before I stepped into this role. People will die if we pass this ordinance. This ordinance will not reduce drug use. It does not make our parks anymore safe. It will increase overdose and disease. It will place Phoenix in legal risk. And it will increase long-term taxpayer cost. Most importantly, it will weaken partnerships with the community organizations that we claim to champion and that the city relies on to help our residents. And let's be honest, it is downright cruel. This is an immoral ordinance. I fully reject this ordinance and I vote vehemently no. Hodge Washington. >> If I may, mayor, I'll explain my vote. >> Please do. >> Thank you. Um, this issue, as evidenced by the number of people that have spoken on it today, is a definitely not an easy issue. It's a complex issue. However, I think the motion that has been presented allows us the time to hear from the stakeholders that have attended today so that we can figure out a path forward. We want to make sure and from my perspective, I want to make sure we're balancing the needs of all of our residents, housed, unhoused, those that neighbor and abuts, as well as ensuring that we do not cause any additional harm to the residents of our Phoenix. So for that reason I will support the motion and allow us to have some more time to talk to the medical professionals that provide services on if there is a path forward. So thank you. My vote is yes. >> Pastor, my vote is yes. Uh this has been a very complicated piece. I have uh worked with community providers on this. I have spoken to them la late last night working on some of this language. I know that people are disappointed in this motion but this motion provides us the 90 days that is needed to come together and work on the language. The other piece is delivery of services has not stopped. You have right now you can continue to deliver services up until the ordinance is in effect. when the ordinance is in effect then after that there's additional 30 days until it's completely goes into effect. Uh I am working and uh have told and committed to many people that I will commit uh work with you and help develop this ordinance. Thank you. >> Robinson. Yes. >> Stark. >> Yes. And if I can explain my vote as well. I I agree with Councilwoman Pastor. The work can continue in our parks, but I don't think what we're trying to do is prevent you from doing what you need to do. So hopefully in the next 90 days, we can have something as successful for everybody, both our residents and the healthc care community. Thank you. Yes. >> Wearing, >> uh, mayor, I'd like to explain my vote. If you had a movie theater and you got to the theater and part of it seemed to be blocked off for some reason, you said, "What happened over there? Why can't I sit over there?" Oh, well, there's some some medical waste and maybe some blood. Um, you know, realistically, I'll say what I'd like. Thanks very much. Um, you wouldn't go back to that theater. Have no illusions. Don't tell me that you would. So, that's what our parks are like. we're losing customers at these extremely valuable city properties because they don't like what they're finding when they go there. Uh second for the comments about uh uh expert opinion. So one fella gets up and says, "Well, I distribute needles in the park. All this stuff is just in your head." And two comments later, somebody says, "I was a park ranger for eight years. There were needles then. There are needles now. I guess there will be needles in perpetuity. And you're just supposed to record." >> Sure. Um, so which is it? You can't have both of those. >> So I'm gonna vote yes. >> Yes. >> Oh, >> are you finished? I want to make sure that you get your say. >> You could run. You could run, but you're not gonna. >> I was busy for the last. >> Sure. Yes. Easy. >> Excuses. Excuses. Excuses. >> Giving us excuses. Shall we continue the roll call? >> I'm going to vote yes. >> Thank you. >> And the points I made are pretty valid and are apparently going to carry the day like I said about the last vote. Thanks a lot, Mayor. I appreciate it. >> May I explain my vote mayor, >> please? >> Thank [clears throat] you. So, I'd like um to thank you all for coming out and testifying and um it's been a very long meeting, I know, and we're not done yet, but and I also want to thank acknowledge and thank the nonprofits um the nonprofit staffs, members, their volunteers who serve all our vulnerable populations. You all are motivated by genuine compassion and I respect that. I also have to acknowledge that I have constituents who want to use their parks for their families and their children who are also a vulnerable population. Um, I heard what you had to say and I know that we have work to to do which is why I made the motion I did and I would have preferred my motion to continue but I did not receive a second. This is now the motion on the table and our parks are an important aspect of our community, but so too is partner collaboration. And because this motion allows for both, I will vote yes. >> There you go. >> Yes. Passes 81. Next is the fire code. Will the city clerk read the title? Item 51 is for ordinance G7464, an ordinance repealing the existing city of Phoenix Fire Code authorizing the adoption of the 2024 International Fire Code with Phoenix amendments and establishing an effective date. >> Vice Mayor, do we have a motion? I move to approve item 51. >> Second. >> We have a motion, a second. Does anyone wish to comment? >> Roll call. >> Yes. >> Hernandez, >> yes. >> Hudge Washington, >> yes. >> Pastor, >> yes. >> Robinson, >> yes. >> Stark, >> yes. >> Wearing O'Brien, >> yes. >> GGO, >> yes. >> Pass is 90. Item 54 is related to crossing or stopping in a roadway. Will the city clerk read a title? Item 54 is for ordinance G7468, an ordinance amending chapter 36, article 10, section 36-128, relating to crossing to crossing or stopping in a roadway to remove requirement that pedestrian receive a warning before being issued a citation for a civil violation. >> Uh there is a presentation available. It is my sense maybe we just move forward without the presentation. >> Okay. All right. We have four members of the public to comment. Councilman Hernandez, do you wish to go first or hear the public? >> No, I will let rather do public comment first. >> All right. uh Hilda Hernandez and then I believe Leo Kurd and then Rebecca Dennis >> I don't see >> okay so the C council Ternandez says that the first speaker departed uh is is uh Leo Kurt here okay and then Rebecca is Rebecca Rebecca departed. Okay. Okay. Hi, my name is Io and I'm here because I oppose item 54. This proposal of j hold I'm sorry. This proposal is rooted in racism. The concept of jaywalking came from trying to criminalize black people. Any way our cities and government can incarcerate black people, they will do. And this will do exactly that. Allowing this to pass shows your outright racism and love of white supremacy. Stop cloaking your racism under laws. You might as well put your white hood on if you think that any of this isn't antilack. This especially pertains to you, Kate, and you, Jim. Why are we in 2025 voting on black codes? Think about that. Thank you, >> Nicole Rodriguez. >> Thank you, Mayor and Council. And without a doubt, probably my point will go Miss Spice and win here today. But I'm opposed to um this uh agenda item 54 and uh for that it removes the requirement for a warning before citing pedestrians, walking people, an ordinance essentially that would criminalize Jesus just like item 46. But anyway, um let me be clear. The proposal reframes street design and safety failure as a pedestrian behavior problem. That is backwards. People do not stand in medians for fun. Um they do it because Phoenix streets are wide, fast, hostile to human beings on foot. That is our problem with increased incidents of pedestrians being hit by drivers. Many crossings are too long. Signals are too short. There's not crossings from midblock bus crossings. Shade is non-existent. Uh safe crossings are space far apart. Medians often become survival space, not misconduct. And who gets to determine what is a safe time to cross when you're in a median? Um this ordinance gives law enforcement more power to issue citations without addressing the root cause. They have better things to be doing. It does nothing to shorten crossing distances. It does nothing to slow vehicle speeds. It does nothing to add shade, refuge islands designed for people or safer crossings. It simply removes discretion and displaces it with punishment. The city itself acknowledged in 2014 that warnings were appropriate. So what has changed? And lastly on the history of walking because it's our first thing we do as we're learning as babies to do anything. Sadly, the term Jay, jaywalking, was actually for hillbillies. It was a way to make us feel ashamed for being a walker. So Jay then got termed by a lot of lobbyists um as jaywalking. You were dis considered disgusting for doing it. So there's some history also. Thank you. First, we'll go to the vice mayor for a motion, then we'll turn to Councilman Hernandez for comments. >> Mayor, I move to approve item 54. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. Councilman, Councilwoman Hernandez. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, and I'll have some questions for Chief, which he should not be surprised by. Um, but I want to be start with being very clear that this proposal expands criminalization under the false banner of safety and I just cannot support that. Turning streets street crossing from a warning into a civil traffic offense and then escalating it to a misdemeanor on the second is instance is not harm prevention. It is punishment and it will not make our streets safer. What it will do is increase police contact when we already have police overtime issues. Create fines people cannot afford. Funnel lowincome resident or funnel low-income residents, unhoused people, disabled people, elders, and black and brown residents deeper into the legal system. Um, criminalize survival and mobility. This city does not need another way to punish people for existing in public space. We all I would say that we would need we should do a study on this ordinance impact and not just make decisions based on assumptions. Um before expanding penalties, I would like to see us as a city answer a few basic questions around this ordinance like who is being cited now? What is a race, income, housing status and disability? And where are these incidences happening? Um so those are a few questions I think we should move forward with. And are these locations even designed safely for pedestrians? Um because I truly believe that passing punishment without without data is a responsible policym. Um but Chief Jard Gerardano, sorry it's late. I'm going to get it right earlier in the day. Um just a few questions. Who who came up with the with this idea at this time for this ordinance? >> Mayor Ggo, members of council, Councilwoman Hernandez. Um, this is actually like a full circle moment for me. When I was a traffic lieutenant in 2014, um, I was responsible for motorcycle officers on the south side of the city as well as our vehicular crimes unit. Too often I went out at night with my detective group to investigate car pedestrian collisions and a lot of them were people crossing midblock or standing in the roadway that were struck and killed. And it's traumatic for the person obviously that's struck, but also for the person that is involved in the in the vehicle. So I started looking for alternative ways to to make sure people were crossing not midblock, not crossing middle and street, crossing at intersections. So we started looking at different options and city code 36128 section A was already in existence. We simply added section B prohibiting anyone from standing in a raise or painted median and it was our safety concern because people were getting struck in the roadway at that time. We wanted to it was new. So we wanted to incorporate a educational component. So we wrote right into the law that the first instance had to be a a warning. >> It had to be entered into the computer because for the second violation for that same person, it could be a civil violation and when you go to court, you'd have to be able to prove that you did give them a warning. And then for the third or subsequent violation, it could be a criminal violation. And that's how we we design the code. And now we're looking just to remove the one portion about issuing a warning. Um to just again to our whole goal is not to cite somebody. Our whole goal is to increase traffic safety. And if we could do that through compliance and voluntary compliance, that would be wonderful. What we found was just giving someone a warning and saying, "Please get out of the roadway, what's your name?" It became problematic and they wouldn't move. And you'd see the same person. And I think council Wearing has mentioned it multiple times seeing the same people on and I see the same thing. So we wanted to have some ability to to to to force someone to to to get them to comply. And we talked to we've talked about this several times on multiple topics. I know that usually when we en encounter someone who's resistant to complying, there's underlying issues. We'd love to get to the bottom of that and hopefully through this process we can do that. >> Thank you. And chief, I really appreciate that. you know, you don't shy away from having these tough conversations with me, especially, you know, we agree to disagree on many things, but I think it's really important that we show that we can have that discourse and still disagree on things, right? And work to find ways to make things better. Um, my next question is, is there any data that supports escalating this from a warning to so removing that warning piece um and moving to a civil offense and then a misdemeanor? like do we have any data that supports that that will actually deter folks from being in the medians or the what is it the uh painted >> painted or raised median >> median um you know I don't have data that that would show that would be that would that would change behavior. I am hopeful. My anecdotal experience in 30 years in this profession shows that when there's a consequence, people tend to adhere to the law and I'm hoping that by giving them the opportunity to move or to give them a civil because it will start with a civil traffic violation. It will it will just be like a speeding ticket at first. It would be a it would be a second violation that would result in a misdemeanor charge. So, we're hopeful. one, we were hopeful before we could get it through voluntary compliance, the warning, and now we're hopeful that with a civil traffic infraction, we can change behavior and create a safer street. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh my next question is, has an impact analysis been conducted with community partners um from those impacted communities on what these changes could mean for them. >> When I sat down in 2014 with all of our community stakeholders, we had that exact discussion because I didn't want this to be punitive. I didn't want this to for anyone to think we were going after people that were were were soliciting or panhandling in the road. That's not what our intention was back then and it's not my intention now. I want the roadway to be safe. I have stood in too many intersections uh watching our detectives investigate fatal collisions. I've talked to too many families members who were killed in traffic collisions. I've also talked to too many drivers who are doing nothing more than obeying the speed limit, driving down the street, and had a pedestrian walk in front of them. I I want to eliminate that. We have I read two you you see it every morning when we give you the the daily report. We have too many car pedestrian collisions and I'm hopeful this is one tool in our tool belt and someone mentioned it earlier. There's it's a three-prong approach. It's education, it's traffic enforcement, as well as traffic engineering. And I think we're we're getting there. We just we just need a little more education component on getting people not to cross midblock. >> Okay. Thank you, Chief. Um and my last question really is, you know, has the department considered doing this like maybe in a pilot structure or to your point an educationonly approach. Um or even I know you mentioned you just mentioned like traffic what was the word traffic >> engineering >> engineering um but looking at like infrastructure first alternatives. We always look at that. We look at those three things together all the time when we talk about traffic safety. So, we'll always be partnered with streets uh and and and the the police department to look at that collectively. Um what I would like to do is just like when other cities enact photo enforcement, you do a period of of we push out the message. So, if this is successful, this would not go into effect right away. During the the time before it goes into effect, I would do a campaign. I would do I'd get with our public affairs bureau and push out a message through social media reminding people not to cross in not to cross midblock and that standing in the median and painted or raised would be against the law. >> Okay. Thank you, chief. That's all my questions I have. >> Thank you, mayor. >> Roll call. >> Yes. >> Hernandez, >> no. >> Hatch Washington. >> Yes. >> Pastor Robinson, >> yes. >> Stark, >> yes. Wearing, >> yes. >> O'Brien, >> yes. >> GGO, >> yes. >> Passes 71. >> Item 55 is the power DMS contract. Vice Mayor, do we have a motion? >> I move to approve item 55. >> Second. >> Councilwoman Hernandez. >> Thank you, Mayor. I was about to tell you, Chief, just hold tight. I have a question on this one or I have two questions. Um, can you just help us understand exactly how this software works? Sorry. like let me provide a little context like um how does it help us improve recruitment, training and public transparency for our officers? >> Uh Mayor Ggo, members council, Councilwoman Hernandez, if you would be so kind, I would like to allow the experts in the room who develop the program, work with the program talk about that if that's okay. >> I have nothing but kindness left at this time. >> Me too. Mayor, members of council, uh, Councilwoman Hernandez, the I oversee the accountability and transparency division of the department, and this covers both of those things. Number one, it allows us to share our policies and our bureau manuals with the community. It also allows us to hold our employees accountable to those policies by sharing with the department. So, it does both those things in in a platform. Um, we are moving into um, uh, training and keeping not only the curriculum from the academy for each class that's taught to hold officers accountable and employees accountable to those classes and what they're taught, but also for field training officers as well as our dispatchers, sorry, and forensic uh, scientists. So, that's what we've been using it for, and it's allowed us to share that information across the department and then out to the the community. One of the ways we get our our public policy comments is through our power DMS which is forward facing. >> I hope that answers your question ma'am. >> Uh yes. Um I guess the question is just to try to understand and get the public to understand how we can get better officers using this software or using you know using this item. Um, so if there's anything else you need to add on that >> or you can add on that, >> mayor, member, members of council, Councilwoman Hernandez, I think it speaks to our values, um, what we're about, who we are. Uh, when recruits look at what our policies are, this speaks to our values and it speaks to what we want to portray to the community and who we want them to understand that we are. So, I think that helps with our recruiting. >> Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. >> Thank you. Roll call. >> Yes. Hernandez. Yes. >> Hodge Washington. >> Yes. >> Pastor. >> Yes. >> Robinson. >> Yes. >> Stark. >> Yes. >> Wearing. >> Yes. >> O'Brien. >> Yes. >> Bego. >> Yes. >> Passes 90. >> We now go to the planning and zoning portion. Thank you all for your incredible patience. Really important agenda today. Item 67. Will the clerk read the title? Item 67 is for ordinance G7465, an ordinance amending chapter 9, building and chapter 15, fire prevention to update the user fee schedules applicable to plan review, inspection, services, and hazardous material annual assessments. >> Thank you, Vice Mayor. >> I move to approve item 67. >> Second. >> We'll recognize Council Gordado for the second roll call. >> Yes. Hernandez. >> Sorry, yes. >> Hodge Washington. >> Yes. >> Pastor, >> yes. >> Robinson, >> Stark, >> yes. >> Wearing >> O'Brien, >> yes. >> GGO, >> yes. >> Passes 90. >> Item 72 and 73 are both related items. Uh, the Sheileley including a data center and a public hearing. Uh, but I guess let's see. Uh, we'll start with item. Actually, it seems like we'll just do 72. Um, or should we do one public hearing? Two votes. I will open the public hearing. Judith Coburn is first, followed by Karina Ramirez. Judith, are you still with us? And could the applicant come forward uh on this one? Uh Karina could you wave if you are here? Is Karina here? Blake, thank you. Appreciate your patience with us. >> Good evening, Mayor Gyogo and city council members. Uh, thank you for the opportunity to testify this evening. Uh for the record, my name is Blake Listister and I'm here representing Opportunity Arizona, a nonprofit working for affordability for hardworking Arizonans. We are in opposition to agenda item 72 because Arizonans are paying more now than ever before the for their utility bills, largely due to energy demand being at an all-time high because of data centers like this one. Uh APS's 2023 integrated resources plan as reported by 12 News projected by that data centers would account for 94% of the growth in energy demand in the state between 2023 and the end of this year. In the same time period, AMPS raised rates for residential rate payers by 8% in both 2023 and 2024 and they're asking for another 14% hike in 2026. This is despite the fact that data centers still pay significantly less per kilowatt hour used than the average rate payer. Make no mistake, these data centers are raising electric electricity cost and must be stopped from unfair high strikes on everyday Arizonans. Uh in addition to these affordability concerns, there are other long-term concerns to consider with these pieces of legislation. Uh these concerns include air and noise pollution, uh pollution, um energy girder lines and accessibility, water usage and fire risk, uh and more. These data centers do not also contribute a lot of long-term jobs to the communities at their end. And the land could serve to be uh used better, such as for allowing for the building of critical critically needed affordable housing or the establishing of a commercial district that would provide more long-term higher paying jobs. Those concerns are felt broadly across the political spectrum regarding data centers. Last week, Florida Governor Ronda Santis called for stopping subsidies for data centers and curbing their water use. while the city of Chandler had a developer agree to repay any city property and TPT taxes that the city could lose from federal or state incentives. With all this in mind and for the bank accounts of all Arizona families that are working hard and still feel like they're struggling to get by, we ask that you oppose this agenda item. Uh thank you and if needed, I'm available for any questions. >> Thank you so much. Very much appreciate that testimony. Could the applicant please come forward on this one? Okay, so this um very complicated one. City of Phoenix, lots of data centers. I believe we have 39 taxpayers who have applied for data center tax abatement and then we've approved several since then that have been built. This one is very different because it has a power plant, a power source on site. Uh Councilman Gordado and I met with these folks on Thursday. I've left with a lot of unanswered questions. I have not heard back from them. I've also heard from the attorney general's office. Um the attorney general has asked for the efforts to what are we doing to mitigate the impacts of the powers generation on site and that the attorney general's office would like to see them. So given all of that and that the applicant is not here, I move that we continue this till do we have a is it January 21st is a council meeting date that we move this to January 21st. Num number 7. Well, can I do both of them together? I move 72 and 73 be continued to January 21st so that the applicant can answer very important questions about the energy particularly fully acknowledge they can build a data center. What is different on this one is the on-site power. I would second that if there's no applicant here to answer our questions. Second all those in favor say I. I. Any oppose? Nay. Passes unanimously. All right. Next we go on to three related items. So we will have one public hearing. Super duper important. So grateful to everyone waiting for this. I am so sorry that you had to very very one of the most important things we'll do this year. Uh 73, 74, and 75. We'll open the public hearing and we will I'm sorry it's been a long day. 74, 75, and 76. We will open the public hearing and begin with a staff report. And we will recognize our very patient planning and development director. >> Thank you, mayor, members of the council. I'll turn to our de deputy director Trisha Gomes for the presentation. Trisha. >> Thank you, mayor, members of the council. Items 74, 75, and 76 are public hearings for companion items that are located at the southwest corner of I17 and loop 303 and can be heard together, but will require separate motions. The subject site is currently vacant and held in trust and managed by the Arizona State Land Department for 13 trust benefici beneficiaries which are primarily K through2 public schools. Item 74 is GPA- NG-1-24-1 a request to amend the general plan land use [clears throat] designations, expand the infrastructure limit line, and update the city's trail system map. Item 75 is GPA- NNG-2-24-1, a request to amend the street trans the street classification map to include minor realignments of Dixeletta, 43rd Avenue, 51st Avenue, 67th Avenue, but does not change the major arterial street designations of those streets and includes the termination of Dixletta Drive at 67th Avenue. Item 76 is Z-1-139-24-1, a request to reszone 6,381 acre site from S1 to planned unit development for the North Park PUD. To the north of the subject site is vacant land in a semiconductor manufacturing zoned S1 and PUD. To the east is vacant land zoned approved S1 PCD North Black Canyon Overlay. To the east is Middle Mountain and a drainage track subdivision zoned R118 and R3. And to the south is vacant land and the central avenue project. The cip canal zoned S1 and P A within the city of FE uh city of Poria jurisdiction. And to the west is vacant land zoned S1 and P A and AG within the city of Poria jurisdiction. The PUD proposes a regulatory framework that creates six master development parcels and nine district land use districts dispersed throughout the master development parcels each with their own set of permitted uses. Map of the land use districts that included natural and community open space, various residential and commercial districts, and an innovation corridor intended to complement the high-tech enterprises already located in the area. The request includes approximately 2100 acres of land to be conveyed to the city for inclusion in the sonor and preserve which would otherwise have been to be purchased by the city as well as approximately 208 acres of land to be conveyed for a future park future regional park and community park. Reservation of the land reservation of land for a future fire and mini police station, a future public library, and three future public school sites. The PUD also includes robust landscaping and enhanced shading standards, elevated and protected bike lanes, amenities such as neighborhood and pocket parks, a network of urban multi-use trails and shared use paths and art installations throughout the proposed development. The North Gateway Village Planning Committee heard all three items uh on November 13, 2025 and recommended approval of each item per the staff recommendation by a vote of 7 to zero. The planning commission heard these items on December 4th, 2025 and recommended approval of GPA NG1-24-1 and GPA- NG-2-24-1 per the North Gateway Village Planning Committee recommendation by a vote of 8 to 0 to1 and approval of Z-139-24 per the staff memo dated December 4th, 2025 by a vote of 8 to 0 to1. [sighs] The memo dated December 17, 2025 from the PDD director for Z-139-24-1 modifies stipulation 1N to clarify and limit the basic compounding of raw materials use exclusively to semiconductor manufacturing and stipulation 1 SS to update the comparative standards table to reflect changes to the development standards due to the modified stipulations from planning commission and stipulation TT was added to maximize the screening and landscape buffer along the western property line of the mass of master development parcel 2 and the adjacent regional park. With that, staff recommends approval of GPA- NG-124-1 and GPA- NG-2-24-1 per the planning commission recommendation and adopt the related resolutions and staff recommends approval of Z-139-24 per the memo dated December 17th, 2025 from the PDD director and adopt the related ordinance. Happy to answer any questions. >> Thank you. Does anyone have questions for staff? >> We'll open the public hearing. So, uh uh each perspective will have the applicant and the opposition will each have 10 minutes. You may use slides during this portion. After that, anyone who has not spoken during this portion will have two minutes. No slides. Uh the applicant can reserve some time at the end to reply to questions that have been raised. So um did I miss anything? All right. Uh we will begin with Carolyn on behalf of the applicant followed by Amanda. Thank you Mary. Do you have a presentation if we could get that called up and we'll will staff be advancing the slides or Okay, I get it. Thank you. Madame Mayor and council members, thank you so much for being here this late. Um, my name is Carolyn Oberholtzer. I'm with the law firm of Bergen Frank Small and Overholdzer, 4343 East Camelback and I am thrilled to be here tonight on behalf of the Arizona State Land Department, PY and TSMC on the North Park project. Literally thousands of hours of staff time has been put into this case um over the course of the application process and the body of work before you tonight is something that we've worked very hard on a lot of back and forth incorporating feedback along the way from many departments and stakeholders and we just can't um overstate our appreciation for everyone that's put in all the time on this to get us here this evening. Um, as staff uh gave you the location and the history of state trust land, just a bit more context about it. Um, just as uh North Park is state trust land, so was Stson Valley before it was reszoned in the late 80s and then subsequently auctioned as well as the North Phoenix 3500 where TSMC is now. In 2020, it was zoned before it was purchased by them 5 years ago. um this week actually it was December 15th of 2020 and then since then the rest of the North Phoenix 3500 was purchased by the MAC real estate investment group. So we modeled the innovation corridor in the project after the tech campus in the North Phoenix 3500. This district is where TSMC is and is now home to over 3,000 TSMC employees as well as many thousand construction workers that go to the site daily. At this time, approximately 10,000 workers are employed at this location every day. And the chips being manufactured here are being m manufactured in the most advanced facility on Earth. And these chips require advanced packaging that at this time there are no advanced packaging facilities in the United States. So what is made here gets flown back to Taiwan for packaging. And so we are um and had been looking at the innovation corridor as a place where advanced packaging could locate when we began this case a few years ago. This slide shows you the context of TSMC in relationship to the area as we discuss um options for expansion. And the property is impacted. The property to the north in Halo Vista is impacted by a 500 KV line and that impacts the ability to place buildings in that area that also are away from the Ben Avery shooting range which is on Game and Fish property. There is other state trust land north of 74 but it is severely impacted by flood planes and then uh you have the city of puria to the west. So when looking at other options for where TSMC could locate, North Park became the obvious answer. Um turning to the application as staff mentioned uh we do have a general plan case before you and where we began and and where the the general plan is today is with a major employment corridor that is that purple area at the 303 and the 17. We've shifted that to essentially flank the south side of TSMC. You'll see there's also a concentration of commercial and highdensity residential on 51st Avenue in the current general plan. And our plan changes the location of that intensity. It shifts the density away from 51st Avenue. And that was something that we worked with um the community on. All told, the land use increase in terms of density is 0.15 twilling units to the acre. So a very marginal increase to the overall density in the project. And so this shows you the the first land use plan that we introduced to the public in September of 2024. Um there's our originally proposed innovation corridor. It is in purple. It is 526 acres. And again the idea at the time was that it would provide for support industry to TSMC. And then you had highdensity residential from there. So that brown area, the neighborhood village is where you could have multif family and community commercial around the four corners of the intersection. In this plan, a maximum of 19,247 units was proposed. And after several meetings with the community, both formal and informal, with HOA board members, we came away with several consistent concerns. They asked us, one, lower the density. Two, move it away from 51st. Three, don't build it anything north of the cap south of Pyramid Peak. And these concerns were largely focused around the extension of 51st Avenue into their community. So, we went to work and we made a lot of changes to the plan. First, we moved the density away from 51st Avenue. And not only did we move the higher density to the freeway locations, but we created a new category, a less dense district, the foothills residential district. Specifically for the area north of the cap, which is south of Pyramid Peak. And while we couldn't eliminate that area from the development plan, we established a density cap for this area in a zoning district that is less dense less dense than what is just on the other side of the cap canal in Stson. We increased the open space keeping the 2100 acres of the preserve but then as staff mentioned we added 208 acres of community open space for future dedication to the city and this entire project requires 60% open edge adjacent to the preserve areas. So this will ensure that when the preserve is dedicated to the city that it is not encircled with development, but that a 60% edge remains open adjacent to it. We added community commercial land in the area that's red south of Dixeletta. This area prohibits residential. All of that bright red color um both north and south of Dixeletta near 51st Avenue does not allow residential. And we did that in addition to those park designations to create a space between the innovation corridor and any residential. There is no location where there is a residential land use district that's within a thousand ft of an innovation corridor. And that's vastly different than what you see in Chandler around Intel where there are residential communities that are thriving directly across the street from several of Intel's facilities and semiconductor fabs. So we felt that this revision did a lot of things to get at creating a separation, but basically this is a tale of two halves. We have the northern half of Dixoetta where we have the more intense uses and then we have more traditional residential uses south of it. And everything that everyone needs in their life, jobs, commercial education recreation and every variety of housing product is provided within this development, but with a vastly reduced density. We increased the density by 4,000 units. And namely in MDP5 we brought the density down by,00 units and that again was specifically in response to that HOA feedback we received. Then after we had more conversations with the community, I'm going to click ahead here. Um we heard a lot of concerns about the innovation corridor. So, we have added more restrictions to the uses in it, including a prohibition of data centers and providing for enhanced screening and buffering as staff mentioned tonight. And this project is all managed by individual uh unit caps for each of the development units. And this was done also to manage where the density will go within the project so that we can also control the traffic patterns. And I'm going to go ahead a few slides to deal with that. Um this is the open space master plan. 51st Avenue is at the core of it. The purple stars are where you see regional trail heads and those require pardon me pedestrian crossings. Those require enhanced pedestrian crossings which will work to calm traffic. This is the um view to what would be where the approximate location of the regional park is. You'll see that the BLM land all along the east side of 51st Avenue is not being impacted by this zoning case. So, what we're talking about is on the west side of this intersection where there would be development, but there would also be the extension of 51st Avenue with brand new roadway crosssections that take the bike lanes out of the travel lanes to create safe passage for everybody as they extend north into the project, but also at a configuration that maintains four lanes. And this again was something that was driven by community feedback. We strived very hard to manage the density so we could keep this um project at a four-lane configuration into the future. And I'm about out of time. So I appreciate the opportunity to return to the podium after public comment and our whole team is here and um look forward to answering the questions that you have. >> Thank you. Amanda will be our next speaker. Thank you, mayor, uh, council people. Um, I appreciate you giving me 10 minutes to speak on behalf of our HOA today. However, unfortunately, I wasn't notified that that was happening until I was already in my vehicle on the way down here today. Um, so I didn't realize that I was able to make slides or have 10 minutes. So, um, my name is Amanda McGawan. I represent more than 2,500 homes in Stson Valley that uh we're the community that will be hit first and hardest by the North Park resoning. Uh while I appreciate that you guys have spent thousands of hours working with them on this, our community was not looped in on many of the details until very recently, specifically the semiconductor manufacturing. I'm here today like many in my community assuming that this vote was already decided a very long time ago. Uh that should alarm every resident of Phoenix. These public hearings have so far really been theater. Um they've been rushed decision. This rush rushed decision deserves a continuence. It is now what time is it? Very late. And my kids haven't had dinner. We've been here since 2 p.m. Uh not a rubber stamp from all of you. I'm sure many other families were not able to stay online to to speak at this late at night. Uh I need to say this plainly. Our representative Ann O'Brien, who should be our advocate, has chosen to represent TSMC and the developers over her constituents repeatedly and now openly. She's refused community calls to transparently share changes and details of this plan, specifically the semiconductor manufacturing. There are many people in my neighborhood who believed that there were restaurants and shops going in to that innovation corridor. They were told that it was mixed use, residential, commercial, a commerce park, all of these things. And they're not land use attorneys. This resoning allows hundreds of acres of heavy industrial use. We were told that it was going to be limited to 20%, then it was changed to 60% via a staff memo prior to the zoning commission meeting. And now all of those percentages seem to be removed. So I'm assuming it's unlimited semiconductor manufacturing in the 900 acres. But because I got that 29page memo from the city while I was driving here at 2 p.m. today, I haven't had an opportunity to speak with a professional who could explain to me exactly what that means. Structures will be up to 220 ft 25 ft tall next to the Sonor and Preserve and surrounded by homes, schools, parks, libraries. It's incompatible land used, irresponsible planning, and it's being imposed on an established community that didn't ask for it and does not want it. Our city recognizes that data centers must address health and safety concerns, energy and water use concerns when applying for resoning, but apparently TSMC factories are totally exempt from that. There's been no transparent risk modeling. We've asked, no environmental review. I tried to pull the records. They told me there was no responsive record. Uh, no honest public process. Instead, residents have been dismissed and misled. The city is not requiring TSMT to test for forever chemicals or PAS in their discharged water. Some of the emissions that are released into the air were marked trade secret. We can't know. Uh, we, as we understand it, federal standards for the Clean Air Act have been lowered. That would have made it difficult for TSMC to get air permits. Residents have been sold glossy images of walkability, shade, shops, restaurants. Who doesn't love all of that? But buried in the details the entire time was hundreds of acres of heavy industrial zoning that was not transparently shared with the community in private or public meetings, [clears throat] massive water and power demands, and hazardous materials. We've asked multiple times how long we would have to evacuate from our homes, and that's not an answer that we've been able to get. Our community members attempted to share the truth. Our HOA has done a really good job, I think, of letting people who live in our neighborhood know the changes as best that we could. Uh, but outside of our community broader in District 1, I don't think people know across the valley what's being proposed here. They assume that the expansion of TSMC is happening on the land that they already own. Uh, so community members tried to put out signage, that's those signs were removed within 12 hours by the city of Phoenix. Um, when we asked who ordered that, they asked if they could call me on my cell phone instead of putting in writing who told neighborhood services to come remove all the signs. Other signs for holiday lighting, junk removal services, all those kinds of things that were 6 in away from our signs were left in place. Why are you trying to prevent the public from knowing what your plans are? At the planning commission, one of the commissioners abstained. He was responding to public comments about not being land use attorneys, and he said that he's an industry professional. He's a planner, but even he didn't understand what was actually being proposed, so he abstained from voting. If professionals are confused, residents never had a chance. Hundreds of residents have written to you to oppose this. Many more couldn't take off work today in the middle of the day at 2:30 p.m. to come 40 minutes downtown and stay until this late at night to tell you um that they don't want this in their community, but they've sent you hundreds of letters. City leadership is prioritizing TSMC's desires overwhelming public opposition. You're asking residents to absorb the risk, the traffic, the pollution, the loss of quality of life. Please stand with residents. You should grant a continuence or vote no. You need to remove the heavy industrial zoning. It's not an appropriate place to put it. We don't want to see the Sonor and Preserve become a super fun site. Save the preserve. Keep our neighborhood road to four lanes permanently. The traffic impact study says that it will have to be six lanes. We were also lied to about that. We were told, as you heard from the developer, and as Ann O'Brien has told us, they were going to try to keep it to four lanes, but the traffic study says that it will have to be six. Phoenix deserves real leadership. Our neighborhood fears that our leaders are TSMC puppets. Please don't prove them right. Please table this, work with us on the North Park development so that it's something that we can come back and support. Thank you. Thank you, Amanda. Uh Sean McGawan is next followed by Kent McGow. Avail uh speak if necessary. And Kent, if you are here, could you wave? Great. Hi, I'm Sean. Uh, I live in District 1. I live in Stson Valley. Um, this project depends on massive amounts of water and energy use in the desert. Uh, we're in a city that already facing long-term water insecurity. Um, we also told don't worry because one day TSMC is going to try to recycle most of it other than uh the vice chair um I haven't heard anybody uh express that they want to drink um expensive perpetually filtered industrial sewer water um so that we can subsidize uh energy and water hogging foreign corporations with no guardrails. And that's exactly what's going on here. The rhetoric that's being exposed about how this is going to be so great for everybody is not sustainable. Spin is not safety and taxpayers are sick of paying for uh subsidizing TSMC. We have some of the worst air quality in the country as everybody here knows. So what does our government do? It lowers the standards to make it easier for companies like TSMC to get the permits they want. Florinated gases uh contradict climate goals uh for the state. Residents are asked to trust assurances. Yet TSMC is not required to test for the forever chemicals as just mentioned linked to cancer, birth defects, and permanent groundwater contamination. See super fun sites everywhere. We're expected to accept chemical facilities without seeing publicly shared evacuation plans. That's not informed consent. We didn't know about any of this. Perhaps most disturbing, community parks are being discussed as buffers for chemical factories. A playground full of children does not neutralize toxic exposure. You can't vote for a project that ignores air quality, ignores water reality, hides chemical risks, treats residents as expendable while letting a foreign corporations police themselves on American soil. How much is breathable air worth? How much is drinkable water worth? How much is uncontaminated soil worth? This current plan is flatout dangerous. Please vote no. Kent is next, followed by Danny Weiss. >> All right. Hi, I'm Kent McGawen. I'm 15 years old and I'm terrified. Now, I've lived here my entire life right here in Arizona, near to a beautiful desert. And I I love my home. Now, imagine how I felt when I first heard that a literal giant smoke sack hundreds of feet high toxic chemical stuff Disney cartoon style chemical plant is being put within walking distance of my house [snorts] and nobody was even told about it. Okay, who thought it was a good idea to put a microchip plant right next to a school? Now, imagine a world where every breath can be a gamble with mystery trade secret chemical emissions delivered with free shipping right to the air you breathe. Here I am, greedy me, drinking water and such when all that precious, scarce H2O could go to birthing a brand spanking new iPhone chip. And it appears that the city wants to keep the gas leak evacuation plans a sneaky surprise because they seem awfully hesitant to share them with us. I mean, how how could anybody in their right mind vote this in? I think we all could guess, but I'm not saying it. Honestly, at this point, I don't even think me being up here is going to change anything. It would be fantastic if the entire council heard this and had a moment of realization, a come to God moment, and just changed it like they could. But that rarely seems to happen in the real world. Uh, I'm up here more out of my own stubbornness than anything. I might not be able to stop it, but I not going out quietly. Danny is next, followed by Randall. Danny. Okay, great. Mayor Ggo, council members, thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. My name is Danny Weiss. I'm a homeowner and also the board president for inspiration at Stson Valley. I'm here on behalf of our neighbors to ask you to insist on responsible growth for North Park that protects existing neighborhoods in the Sonor and Preserve. North Park has always been sold to the public as a mixeduse master plan community with homes, parks, shops, and a very loosely defined innovation corridor that complements TSMC, not as a massive heavy industrial park next to Pyramid Peak and our schools. What is in front of you tonight would now allow roughly, well, apparently now 100% of the innovation corridor to be heavy semiconductor industrial. a fundamental change from the 20% residents were told and from what your own plans described for the North Gateway area. This change was pushed forward after planning commission received 17 pages of new language at the last minute with no realistic time for staff, the public, or even the planning commission itself to evaluate the full impacts on air quality, traffic, and water on a 6,000 plus acre case that will shape North Phoenix for generations. That is not transparent or careful planning. You have the opportunity tonight to correct that process and restore public trust. Our community is not anti-TSMC and not even anti-growth. We welcome jobs, housing, and investment, and we appreciate the city's work to secure a regional park, shaded, multi-use trails, and walkable mixeduse areas in North Park. Responsible growth here means three simple things. No heavy industrial and North Park near existing homes and schools. Keep 51st Avenue to four lanes instead of turning it into a six-lane regional truck freeway and preserve a meaningful sonor and preserve buffer between Pyramid Peak and the Cap Canal. With those guardrails in place, this can still be a national model for how to grow a tech corridor next to a desert preserve. Please vote no on this. Thank you. Randall is next, followed by Raymond. >> Good evening, mayor and council. My name is Randall Wild. I am a constituent of desert of a district 1 and I live just south of the Cap Canal in the Stson Valley neighborhood. I previous I previously sent each of your offices an email outlining suggestions for specific stipulations for the approval of this project, but I'm here in person today because the pace of the required public meetings surrounding the final approval process, which were very suddenly scheduled in a 10-week sprint after nearly a year of no information being released to the public and during the holiday season, no less, has left my neighbors and me feeling like our opportunity to voice our concerns are merely a required formality. for a decision that has already been made. The proposal has changed several times just in the last few weeks. Now, if this project is truly a done deal, as we suspect that it is, I'm asking you to consider the legacy that you are leaving behind. Uh this is this land is crossed by trails and filled with wildlife that can never be replaced. This is not former farmland. This is raw and wild desert habitat. I am pleading with you to mandate additional land preservation south of Pyramid Peak. This area was designated by the city for preservation in 1998 as part of the sonor and preserve master plan. We need a meaningful buffer that respects the existing environment and the families who already call this area home. Furthermore, we are deeply concerned about safety. This project will change 51st Avenue from a quiet road with stop signs to a major arterial road with three proposed traffic lights between the Cap Canal and Happy Valley Road. Today, it is a road where children ride their bikes and neighbors walk their dogs. These activities will no longer be safe adjacent to this road. To protect our neighborhood from being swamped, I'm also asking you to designate 51st Avenue as a collector street permanently limited to four lanes and also establish a no truck route on this road to prevent cut through traffic of semi-truckss, many of which will no doubt be hauling toxic chemicals to and from the semi semiconductor manufacturing sites. Thank you. Thank you. Raymond is next, followed by Cynthia. >> Good evening. Thank you, Mayor Ggo and council members. My name is Raymond Keeler. I live in District 1. Uh I'm here to request you delay the approval of this to avoid unnecessary impacts to the existing residents and constituents of District 1. question. I I'm here for three reasons. Water, electricity, and 51st Avenue. The third of those I understood the presenter earlier this evening that they were limiting the 51st Avenue down to four lanes. Is that correct? Two lanes each way. Sir, >> sir, you have to address your >> I have to speak to you. Yes. >> Is that correct? because we can take that off my thing. I have a minute left. >> I will address those questions after speaking. >> For electricity, people are concerned that their prices are going up and they're already hard pit. That's a problem. For water, I figured out I'm a math major. water for the first three years at 19 million gallons per day comes out to one gallon almost one gallon for every 200 gallons going down the central Arizona project. That's from CAP's numbers and their presentation. That's point that's 4% in change and that's not counting the other stuff for the people going in. Please delay this to make uh adjustments that that are needed. Thank you. Thank you. Cynthia is next, followed by Cheryl. Good evening. My name is Cynthia Diaz. I am a community organizer with Arizona Jobs with Justice, a member of the CHIPS Communities United Coalition. I am here today to ask you to vote no because this project is moving forward without transparency, accountability, or the input of local communities and workers. Workers and neighbors deserve clear and publicly revealed information about the hazardous substances that will be used, transported, and potentially potentially released in their communities like PAS, the forever chemical. As taxpayers, we have supported this industry for decades. We have the right to demand that chip makers operate in a clean, fair, and responsible manner. Corporations like TSMC must be responsible to the local community by investing in the people that already live here with s family sustaining jobs. The construction must be local union labor only. Union workers provide quality work. They are certified and the workers are safer on the job because unions require high safety standards. While TSMC does employ some union workers, it is not 100% union built. TSMC is getting billions in taxpayer funded subsidies. If TSMC won't provide information on the toxic chemicals it uses, does not publish clear plans for managing risk, and won't sign an agreement to hire only local union workers and a neutrality agreement for the engineers and technicians, the vote should be no. The decision you make today will impact future generations for decades to come. Thank you. Thank you. Cheryl is next, followed by Carter. >> Thank you, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and council members. Um, I've been a resident in the state of Arizona and Phoenix area for 40 years. Lived in Stson Valley for 14. I'm not going to repeat everything that every speaker before me has already stated. I've written a letter to each of you stating my concerns at length. I if I had to narrow down one thing, my my backyard faces 51st Avenue through a view fence. That is my primary concern is that that becomes a major thorough affair. Having been there for 14 years now, Happy Valley Road has become the volume on that road is increased exponentially and all you have to do is drive down that road and you can see memorials from all the accidents and the people who didn't survive those accidents. My fear is that 51st Avenue is going to become just like that. It's no longer going to be a place where people can go for a walk in the neighborhood or walk their dogs or let the kids ride their bikes. It's going to become a thoroughare where it's not going to be safe any longer. And I just implore you to please consider the impacts to the residents that live there that call that place home and maybe table this and spend a little bit more time. is such a major decision that's going to impact thousands of people and children and and I just ask you to slow it down. Look at it. It feels like things are being rushed through. I don't disagree that we need a semiconductor plant in this country for so security reasons to um you know be more independent. We don't rely on China and so forth. But the expanding development, the encroachment under our community is very concerning. So I implore you, please table this. Let's spend some more time, slow it down, and try to find meet somewhere in the middle. And I thank you for your time. Thank you. >> Carter is next, followed by Josh. Uh, good evening, Mayor Ggo and council. Uh, my name is Carter Huber. I'm an avid mountain biker and local veterinarian. Um, I believe in the immense value of open space for health and community and am strongly opposed to the North Park development. Uh, when I got word that there was a proposed development around Pyramid Peak, I started the petition on change.org titled say no to North Park. Uh, that petition has since garnered over 1300 signatures from local residents. I think it's really important to recognize that those opposed represent a very diverse uh, group that really spans across the entire valley. This isn't just Stson Valley or other neighboring HOAs. This is thousands of your constituents that use this area for hiking biking photography family picnics, um, and other uses. This resoning is way out of line with the original planning, the snore and master plan. Uh, the entire area south of Pyramid Peak was slated for preservation. Uh, creating isolated mountaintops surrounded by dense development is not an adequate replacement for that. Uh, the majority of the unslope space proposed in this plan that will be donated is right along the 303. Um, as Councilman Wearing has mentioned, uh, there's extreme value in our parks in Phoenix. I'm not sure if you've ever hiked right along a highway, uh, but it's really tough to justify that as a a great natural experience for our residents or visitors. This development also raises a lot of water scarcity concerns. Uh, a recent article in the Arizona Republic highlighted that Arizona is already using more than its entitled aotment of Colorado River water each year. and the original home of microchip production, Santa Clara County or Silicon Valley in California, has more super fund hazardous weight sites than any other American county. Um, I'm not sure I have the words to express how insane it is to continue to increase the urban sprawl of Phoenix and build a forever chemical producing plant uh within a mile of the central Arizona project and these residences. Hiking and living alongside heavy industry and homes built by a company with a 1.3 star consumer affairs rating is not an opportunity I imagine most residents are excited about. The purpose of state trust fund is not lost on me, but the current zoning represents reasonable growth in a local already plagued by water issues and a region facing major water scarcity issues. The only real arguments for increasing industrial residential and residential development here are recklessness and greed. Um please do the right thing. Josh is next, followed by Christine Mackey. Uh, good evening, Madame Mayor and members of the council. My name is Josh Hansma, and I am here on behalf of the Friends of Deer Valley. We are a nonprofit coalition located at uh, 251 West Happy Valley in District 1. And we are a coalition dedicated to promoting economic vitality, livability, and responsible growth for the Deer Valley region. As one of the fastest growing areas of metropolitan Phoenix, the Deer Valley and North Gateway corridors continue to attract worldcl class employers, residents, and innovators. This proposal represents a thoughtful and sustainable plan that aligns with our mission to advance balanced development that supports the Deer Valley region, nearby employment centers, and surrounding neighborhoods. We are particularly encouraged by the project's updates, which demonstrate a clear commitment to responsible land use and environmental stewardship. As advocates for the continued success of the Deer Valley and North Phoenix communities, we view North Park as a model for responsible growth that balances economic opportunities with conservation and connectivity. We respectfully urge the city council to approve this project. Thank you. >> Thank you. Christine is next and then Christine Mackey is next and then I'll turn to Christine Dots to see if she has testimony. >> Good evening, Mayor and Council. Thank you so much for having me here today. As you know, I was on the team that went to Taiwan to recruit TSMC back in 2019. We were really hyperfocused on diversifying our economy, bringing highquality knowledge related jobs into the community. And I would look at what's happened with TSMC to date and I think we would all agree we've succeeded. When we look when we worked with them originally, they had planned to do a 12 billion investment. as we continued to work and as they explored Arizona, they've now committed to $165 billion capital investment in our community. It's the largest foreign direct investment in our country's history. But I think what's so important, as we all know, coming out of the Great Recession, diversifying our economy, bringing new and and investing new investment into the community is going to help us get to be as recessionp proof as we can. And it's not just about the jobs and the investment that TSMC is creating. They have to date uh we're working with them. To date, we've brought more than 50 of their suppliers into the community that have either expanded or located in the community. U bringing more than 9,500 additional jobs. So, we've heard this evening the number of jobs TSMC's created to date. Their supply chains already created more than 9,500 jobs in this market. So, as we move forward, uh, we would, uh, I would highly encourage you to vote yes on this project. I think it's critical for the diversification and investment here in Arizona and being able to create the type of economy that we have long strived to make happen. And with that, mayor and council, I'll be happy to take any questions you might have. Thank you for that testimony. to to as is appropriate, we have focused on the really local impacts, but in terms of citywide and other council districts, are there impacts from this? >> Yes, um mayor, absolutely. As I mentioned, uh that we've created, we've brought 50 expanding or new jobs into this area. 36 of them are in the city of Phoenix, 18 are in council district 1. Uh there is uh there is one in council district 2, one in council district 3, one in council district 4. Uh in council district 5, we are uh under construction as innovation 27 which will have a semiconductor registered apprenticeship training program with department of labor operating with uh Northern Arizona University. In the program we have uh three in council district 6, one in seven, and 13 in council district 8. In fact, one of the most recent ribbon cutings we went to was in council district 8 with a significant globally recognized training facility. And mayor, as we look at the local taxes that that these suppliers are creating, if we look at just uh over a 10-year period and for the state, we'll see about $1.4 billion in new taxes coming into the state from their supply chain. for our school districts, about $535 million coming in from their supply chain and $441 million to the city of Phoenix. So those are real local impacts and real focus. I think mayor, one of the other important things to notice is the jobs that it's creating, the training programs, the workforce training programs that have been created in partnership with the city, with the community college, with Arizona State University. In fact, we just had our first graduation of one of those workforce training programs last week. So, the companies are hiring local and really relying on the talent that's here in Arizona. Besides which, that we're talking about these jobs, it is not even beginning to count the number of construction companies and the tens of thousands of jobs from local construction uh companies that are created here. >> Thank you. Uh thank you. Appreciate that. Uh uh Christine Dots. >> Good evening. Thank you, Mayor. I actually only signed up only to speak if necessary. >> Great. Thank you. Um Tammy, we'll go a virtual to Tammy. Uh followed by uh Joetta. >> Hi, Council. Can you hear me? >> Yeah. Yes, we can. Okay. Council and committee members take an oath to uphold the constitution. Council and committees are sworn to represent the interest of the people yet frequently vote in favor of special interests. This is the erosion of democracy. People invest their life savings in the homes. This project is incompatible use. This can hurt people's health and quality of life and property values. Corporate interests are being prioritized over the good of the public. This is the erosion of democracy. The the Alban's lobbying firm has previously donated to many council members deciding on this project tonight. They are also lobbyists for the state of land trust. How is that not a conflict? The governor has refused to meet with us. She appoints the land commissioner who's denying the land sale. This project is so massive that we've struggled to find legal representation to assist us. No lawyer is willing to take this case on. We the people have no legal representation in this matter. Council members have prioritized trips to Taiwan over engagement with their own community. You actually swore an oath to represent. We've invited you to our community, but you haven't come. You represent TSMC. We've lost trust in you. And you didn't hold public meetings to ask for any input about how we would feel if you put a six-lane road, bus lines, chemical factory with hazardous materials just north of our community, creating air and water hazards. We have no more trust. There is no doubt that this project will worsen air quality. Growth is not paying for growth. We the people are. You'll have to breathe the polluted air and drink the poop water, too. TSMC. As is parent, it's important for me to teach my kids about the importance and fairness of fairness in play. If you decimate your opponent, they won't want to keep playing. To us, you are the big bully pushing kids down on the playground. It seems no secret how you got to be number one. Shame on you. What's in your heart? A microchip. >> Uh Joetta is not on and I apologize. Uh uh we had two speakers who signed up after my list was uh printed but but are here in person and before the item started. Uh Katie and George. No, I can talk loud if that's helpful. Um, madame mayor, council members, uh, late night happy holidays to you all. My name is Katie Kefir. I am a proud Arizona native and I am here in full support of the North Park project. This project builds on the city's continued leadership in how Phoenix grows and evolves. When TSMC chose Arizona, it created a ripple effect of jobs, supply chain activity, and long-term investments that benefit many cities beyond Phoenix. That statewide momentum is only possible because Phoenix leads with clear future focused vision. The North Park project is a critical missing link in North Phoenix's growth story. It pairs industry and employment investments with a thoughtfully planned complete community instead of leaving job centers disconnected from muchneeded housing, highquality amenities, and open space. The quality of conserved open space and preserved land sets this project apart. North Park is deliberately organized around highquality open space that will serve future residents, neighboring industries, businesses, and regional stakeholders alike. Approving the project is about balancing the needs of today's community members with those future residents and workers. Supporting the applicants project embraces the strategic growth that keeps Phoenix and Arizona as a whole economically strong. A truly integrated community at this scale simply cannot be replicated. Thank you to the city council for your leadership in how North Phoenix has continued to grow. It is keeping our state resilient and competitive and it continues to build the economic foundation of how communities throughout Arizona thrive. I respectfully ask for you to support this project. Thank you. >> Thank you. George is next, followed by Eric Thompson. Good evening, mayor, council members. My name is George Actal. Uh, I live in District 1. I spent my whole life in business. I'm an investor in businesses. I sit on boards of businesses. I understand the importance of growth. It's obviously very, very important to us. But this thing, this is out of hand. This is ridiculous. I want to thank Amanda for everything that you've done here. And I'll tell you, I came here to speak, but I got to tell you what you told what you said tonight that you were only given 29 minutes notice of what you were going to be able to present tonight. That's outrageous. That happens. I'm sorry. I do not mean to be disrespectful, but that happens in a third world country. Now, there's a company called Amcor. They were about to build a plant at a place called Vistansia, which is about a few miles west of where we are. They went to the the constituents went to the city of Peoria and said, "We do not want an Amcort chip plant within 2 miles of our facil of our of our residences." Now, the the city of Peoria and their council members got together and they reszoned and they moved it to a different area because I assume that the council members over there in the city of Poria listened to their constituents and they care about the residents. They're not just here to take money. And I'll say it again, I am 100% for growth. I have no problem with what we're doing up there. But this makes zero sense. And when I hear what Amanda's gone through and trying to protect us, that is just outrageous to me. So I would challenge and question this council to go back and to do what the city of Peoria did, which is to take a look at your residents and your constituents and just don't stand in the pockets of big money. I appreciate it. Thank you very much, Amanda. Thank you again. Thank you for everybody that came out here tonight. Eric is next, followed by Jim virtual. >> Good evening, Mayor Go, Vice Mayor O'Brien, and council member. My name is Eric Thompson. I'm a Phoenix native, a toxicologist by training, and I lead a translational medicine group at a molecular pathology laboratory. I live in Stson Valley in District 1 and I'm here tonight with my neighbors to share evidence-based concerns about this resoning proposal. Let me be clear. We support economic development. Like the prior gentleman said, we support TSMC. We support responsible growth, but we believe this proposal as currently written creates unacceptable risk that can and should be addressed prior to approval. My first concern is groundwater protection. The Motorola The Motorola 52nd Street Super Fund site just a few miles from where you sit demonstrates what happens when semiconductor manufacturing proceeds without adequate safeguards. That site has been on the EPA's national priorities list since 1989. After three decades and of remediation and removing over 22 billion gallons of contaminated water, a 7m plume still persists under the city. that aquifer remains unusable for drinking water. This isn't speculation. This is Phoenix's own history, our history. And yet, it's been reported that the state of Arizona is likely to lose on the order of 20% of our Colorado River water allocation. We've also documented hazardous materials mishaps in transit. A worker at the TSMC facility died in May of 2024 in a hazardous material transplant event. We've had multiple acid spills related to semiconductor work on Interstate 10 in Arizona. And now you're going to have these materials moving through these residential zones because they're simply too close to this innovation corridor. What happens when we have a event inside a residential zone? My second concern is infrastructure. >> Jim is next, followed by Michael Robbins. >> Hello. Thank you uh for the opportunity to speak. I'm here to ask you to oppose the current PUD as it's written or at the very least continue this item until there's a better win-win scenario here. Look, we've met with you guys individually. You guys know what's going on here. You know that this is being railroaded through. You have an opportunity now to do the right thing. We've met with you guys and we've been kept at an arms length this entire time with the full story. You guys have known what's going on and it hasn't always been transparently given to us. And we're now scrambling at the last minute to help save our neighborhood. I know a lot of you guys are going to say this is what was always planned. But plans aren't promises carved in stone. They're not meant to be re or they're meant to be revisited when conditions change and conditions have changed. Look at how much it's changed right now with the current PUD. We are getting staff memos 20 minutes before meetings over and over again. We're trailing behind you guys and you guys have the full visibility and we're not getting it and you guys all know it. We need to keep TSMC north of the 303 where there's a good buffer for these neighborhoods. There's plenty of land up there despite what everybody's saying. We've heard that there's vibrations. We've heard there's washes. We've heard all this other stuff. There's $165 billion development plan here that we're fighting against and we're fighting a losing battle. We need your help. We also need you guys to keep 51st Avenue to four lanes. It makes no sense to make it six lanes. It goes to two lanes south of Happy Valley and dead ends into Pinnacle Peak. If you want to look at a thorough fair, go to 67th Avenue where it goes all the way down 101. You know, that makes sense. You're going to sit there and say, "Well, it was always planned to be, you know, six lanes." That doesn't mean it has to be. Plans change. And then save that two two small parcels south of Pyramid Peak. We just heard there's going to be billions of dollars coming into the city. There's plenty of money to pay for those parcels. So, I'd ask you to please sit there and think in 10 years, we're not going to regret that we didn't build enough. We're going to regret that we didn't build it properly and we didn't preserve enough open space. There's still time. Please. >> Michael is next, followed by Lenny. >> Yeah. Hello. Good evening, Mayor and Council. Uh, I'm in District 1 in Stson Valley. Uh, thank you for your time. I've uh talked with hundreds of people as a board member of our HOA with over 200 homes. Every single person that lives near the proposed resoning. They all oppose it. Strongly oppose it. Not a single person in the area supports this. How they all vote in the future will be determined by this outcome. The comments by the lawyers that are in support that there is support from our communities is a lie. And uh these lies should not be overlooked. There was one comment on the agenda and that was in support and that one person does not live in the area and is a lobbyist for the sector. That opinion should be null and void. Every speaker tonight that spoke yes, which was only three, not one of them lives close to this facility and does not have to reap the repercussions of it. There is no rush to get to to do this now. And it's important to get it right. There's no reason why TSMC or any CH manufacturer needs to build south of the 303. There's plenty of other land. We were in all of the meetings and the only ones speaking in favor seemed to get an opportunity to financially gain from moving forward. Even the board members had some questionable scenarios. I'd like to read direct directly from a study from the NIH. The studies done regarding semiconductor production portray a clean image. However, the manufacturing process releases thousands of pounds of chemicals into the air and have been many leaks from underground storage tanks and contaminating water. This puts all of our lives at danger. Plants that generate large amounts of hazardous solid and liquid waste which contaminate local environments. Incidents and proximities have been lo uh located um and linked to cancers, rare cancers, birth defects, miscarriages, and even worse. The NIH clearly defines this as dangerous. Phoenix has 10 active super fund sites currently. Do not let this one be the 11th or 12th or 13th, depending on what happens to that Intel plan in years to come. So, you know, the other councils have recently voted no on these or have moved it. Do not be the ones on the wrong side of this. So, a vote from this commission is a yes vote to harm its citizens and we will not forget that. Thank you. >> Lenny is next, followed by Britney. >> Can you hear me? >> We can. We do hear you loudly and clearly. >> Okay, now you still hear me? I've been clicking a button. Can you hear me now? >> Still can hear you. >> Go go go ahead now, Lenny. If you could, if you've been speaking, please start over. >> Okay. Um, I'm Lenny Seagull, executive director of the Center for Public Environmental Oversight. As an activist, uh, environmental professional and city council member and mayor of Mountain View, California, um, I've been working to clean up the semiconductor industry since the 1970s. The semiconductor industry is a chemical industry with a history of pollution and no plans to stop it. Um, while it can be controlled with good regulation, the the forever chemicals that it discharges into our waterways are not regulated. The florinated gases that are potent and persistent greenhouse gases are not adequately mitigated. And it uses extremely hazardous gases. And there's been no evaluation of what the risk not only to the existing homes in Stson Valley, but to the new homes that are planned to be built near near the plant. Um the existing TSMC plant reports that it uses hydrochloric acid and ammonia. Uh but but we know it also uses lethal chemicals like arsine, phosphine, uh dyborine. These are lethal chemicals that a semiconductor industry considers essential to production. But it is not they aren't reported because Arizona's require thresholds for reporting such chemicals are one are 10 times higher. that is less protective than those in California. These gases need to be well, it's it's a folly to locate homes near a chemical industry that's so so risky. Um in at the in 2024, um TSMC reported releasing 6,000 lbs of hydrochloric acid and hydrofuloric acid gases in a in a very short period of production near the near the end of the year. Um, those are gases that are routinely released, so they're going to be much higher and who knows where they're there's they're they're going to go. There needs to be an evaluation of the risk from toxic releases from the industry. Finally, there is an advanced packaging plant in the US, Intel, and New Mexico. Unfortunately, we don't have any analysis of what chemicals it's using. There needs to be transparency. We need to know what TSMC is going to be using near a community, near residences if you're going to go ahead and actually approve. >> Britney is next, followed by Jason. >> Hello, Madame Mayor and City Council members. Thank you for allowing me to speak today. My name is Britney Simy. I am a resident of Stson Valley and an Arizona native that grew up right here on 67th and Beardsley. Um, I moved my family back into this neighborhood to avoid high industrial areas and to have that quiet suburban life with my children. I am highly concerned um about the TSMC site and the chemicals that it'll put into our water and our ground use um and what that will do to my children and my daughter and the risks of miscarriages. And I just I'm highly concerned about my daughter's future with these chemicals being in our land. Um I echo all of my fellow neighbors when I um talk about the four lanes in on 51st Avenue where our children cross to go to the school. Um and I appreciate the developer working with us to lower the density and have the preserve lands. Um, I do ask that we just slow this down and look at the TSMC and the safety measures that need to be put in place for this. Um, keeping our 51st Avenue to four lanes and looking at the school districts. I know that they are gifting us some land, but I don't know that there's any plans from the city to actually fund those schools and develop them. Um, I just think this needs to be looked at further, especially um, not at 10:30 at night when everybody's tired. I really urge you guys to delay this vote where we can have more conversations and level clear heads. Thank you. >> Thank you. Jason Weaver, >> can you hear me? >> Yes, we can. >> Okay, great. Uh Jason Weaver's uh District One Stson Valley. I attended the pre two preceding uh committee meetings on the reszone. Each meeting the representatives for PY and TSMC were given largely disproportionate time versus citizens to speak. Uh at each meeting they were deceptive in their naming of TSMC's innovation corridor and kept details vague with neighbors on purpose. They shared the information and proposal changes as late as possible to keep the community on the back foot with most changes including today being dropped just minutes before each council meeting so that our community had no time to digest and respond. As we play catch-up from these tactics, a lot of us have just resolved to asking for health and safety concessions at a minimum because it seems that this is being railroaded. [snorts] Each meeting I witnessed corporations giving the corporations giving real zero concessions on the local residents safety needs but only discussing concessions on uh relocating things within the parcel. All they really did was allocate more to industrial manufacturing and chemical storage next to residential and increased dwellings to double the original zoning. And let's not reference 2024. Village Planning Committee officials with some apparent conflicts of interest and some having accepted donations from the lobbyists involved in the process pushed it right through despite the lopsided representation heavily leading to no on the reszone as it's proposed. We're not against it 100% just let's make it right. And this shouldn't be the first stage of the process where our community as a collective is being met with their council representative. But here we are. Our elected official did not attend any of our community meetings, didn't speak with us, we were invited, the city leaders to our community as well, and none were accepted. So, while this is basically a railroad in favor of big money, I at least like to leave something on the table if we're not going to vote no. Would ask that we limit 51st Avenue to four lanes. Six lanes down to two lanes south of Happy Valley and dead ending at Pinnacle Peak just doesn't make sense. The other individual made mentioned 67th makes more sense. No semi-truckss through Stetson Valley Residential. Please consider traffic mitigation such as a split in 51st Avenue north of the canal or possibly install roundabout to discourage heavy uh large >> to our team. I believe we got everyone who is registered. All right. Got a nod. Okay. Does any council member have questions before I Let's leave the public hearing open. Okay. >> Yes. I have >> All right. We'll turn to the vice mayor. >> Thank you. Um if I could have um [clears throat] state land come to the table. >> Mayor and council Mark Edelman. Exe exe. >> Pardon me. >> Thank you Mark. Okay. Sorry, I was looking for you over here and you popped. No, that's fine. That's a fine place. I just was very very focused. Um, can you give us a little bit of history on state land and ex explain what it is and and how you work with the city to zone the areas and lands that um are applied for? Mayor Ggo, Vice Mayor um O'Brien and council members. State trust land was granted to the state of Arizona by the federal government uh in two tranches. One in when we became a territory and the second one became a state uh totaling about 10.5 million acres in 1912. The state land department was formed um by Governor Hunt and his commission at the time felt that that was the best way to manage the land. So we have a government agency that is managing trust land. So even though we are a government agency, we are a financial fiduciary and a trustee and we serve our beneficiaries who are actually the uh they are the beneficiaries of that land. It is their land. It is not public land. And so we manage that land. Uh and we have a very small staff about 100 full-time employees. We have an annual appropriation from the state legislature. We are not allowed. We do not keep any of the proceeds of our auctions. Those go back to the beneficiaries. And so we must uh partner with uh private entities and work in concert with local jurisdictions to get that land zoned so that we can increase its value and have it ready for development uh and then acrue that upzoning value back to the beneficiaries rather than going into the pockets of of others. And how does the state land convey preserve land to the city? >> The preserve land that the city has today was conveyed through a series of auctions under what was called the Arizona preserve initiative. This was an agreement between and this was the designation of those lands was determined by agreement between the city and the state uh approximately again in two two groups. one in the mid 90s, one in the late 90s, which would have been this land west of uh I17. I may be a little bit off on my dates, but the program was meant to um enable the cities to petition, first of all, that the land be designated for conservation and second of all, that they be granted matching grants from the Arizona State Parks Board to then purchase that land at full market value. We are not allowed to sell for anything less than full market value and obviously if it's designated for conservation there is it's reduced value than you would have if it were if it were entitled for development but even even as open space land has residual value. So that land that we have now in the area of Sonor and Desert Drive and to the north uh Cave Creek area that was purchased by the city of Phoenix from the state land department at auction. It was designated as suitable for conservation and matching grants were given. >> And so is that program still available? >> The program is on the books. It is no has not been funded by the legislature for approximately I'm going to say 10 to 12 years. It was wound down in the great uh recession. >> And can the state land gift us preserved land? >> We may not. >> Okay. Thank you, sir. I appreciate that. >> And then if I could have um our um water department come to the table. Not sure who's gonna and then I'll also have streets questions just so we can get folks because I want to make sure we address some of the concerns we heard tonight. >> Vice Mayor [clears throat] and members of the council, we have Nasario Prito, our assistant water services director, coming to the table. >> Thank you, Jinger. I appreciate that. Um, Nazario, does the city of Phoenix test for contaminants in the waste water that comes into our water treatment plant? >> Mayor Ggo, um, city members of the city council, Vice Mayor O'Brien, yes, the water services department does test for waste water coming into our collection system. Um, as part of the indust industrial pre-treatment program, we require that all industry and some commercial uh businesses comply with this program. Uh, it's a program that requires very thorough uh investigation of all the constituents that they propose to discharge into the wastewater collection system. As part of that process, we re review those and we determine the levels that those can be released into the system and the concentrations u making sure that there won't be a negative impact to our infrastructure to the biology at the wastewater treatment plant as well as to the environment for when we discharge the treated wastewater into the environment. >> And how often do we check for contaminants? >> So that varies depending on on permits. There are some industrial pre-treatment pro uh permits that require continuous monitoring uh and there's some that require monthly, quarterly, semiannually. A lot of it is the industry is required to self-report and then in addition to that, city staff also sample at those different intervals. >> Okay. And can you explain is the process of wastewater treatment and to what degree is the wastewater safe once it's treated? >> So waste water has to be treated to a level that that is safe for the environment and for recycling purposes. So we we take the waste water that comes into the collection system. I think a lot of you have heard it's a large system, you know, 5,000 miles of sewer lines. Uh we currently have three wastewater treatment plants that re I mean two wastewater treatment plants that are currently in operation that receive the wastewater. Uh the idea is to separate the liquids from the solids. There's a whole biological process. There's a mechanical process. There's a chemical process. But by the time we discharge that into the environment, it has to be safe. And if you've been to our 91st Avenue wastewater treatment plant, it's a massive facility that receives waste water from five cities in the valley. over 2.5 million people discharged to that facility and it is imperative that we ensure that the waste water that's coming into our plant will not kill the biology because the biology is extremely important in treating wastewater >> and and where does that wastewater go once it's treated. >> So there's a couple of different places that it goes. Um the 91st Avenue wastewater treatment plant primarily sends uh about half of the the what we call effluent or the treated waste water to the Palo Verde nuclear generating station which uses that water for cooling water purposes. The other half ends up going through the Treasuro's man-made wetlands. Uh from there some of it goes into the Salt River. Most of it goes into the Salt River. Uh, and then some of that water is used by the Buck Irrigation Company to irrigate farms in the West Valley. The other treatment plant, our 23rd Avenue wastewater treatment plant in downtown Phoenix, uh, there's actually a three-way exchange with SRP and RI where we turn some of that treated wastewater that goes to the Roosevelt Irrigation District where they use it to irrigate farmland in the West Valley. We turn that into um we turn that into raw water that comes to us via the Salt River project. >> Okay. And then there were some questions and concerns about conservation. Will you explain the responsibility that our large water users have to follow regarding water conservation and recycling? >> Absolutely. Uh so as part of the ordinance, the large water user ordinance that the council passed uh months ago, maybe even a year ago, um every large water user is required to provide at a minimum. If they're over 250,000 gallons per day, they have to have a conservation plan. If they exceed 500,000 gallons per day, they need to show that they can recycle and reuse at least 30% of that water. >> Thank you very much. I appreciate it. And then do we have streets available too? >> Uh we will get there well there will be more questions not done. I think you should you can stay. Thank you so much Eric for joining us. Can we talk about um this the Stson Valley community and one of the the uh commenters talked about the future plans and so we talk about what that that plan is and and how Stson Valley or how 51st Avenue is built through Stson Valley right now. >> Uh yeah, absolutely. Uh thank you for the question, mayor, members of council, vice mayor. Uh so Stson Valley uh when it was originally platted was let me go back to the street classification map. The street class street classification map as far back as 1997 showed 51st Avenue uh crossing over the cap and and heading south. Uh it also showed up in the 2002 general plan as a major arterial a sixlane roadway. So, for quite some time, the plan has been for eventually that roadway to potentially be a six-lane roadway. When Stson Valley was platted, uh that also showed the potential for that roadway in compliance with the street classification map to also be a six-lane roadway. uh because of its proximity and at the time there wasn't anything north of there. Uh the designers at the time designed it as a four-lane roadway, but it has a very wide median. Well, that very wide median is to reserve the space for someday in the future if a six-lane roadway was needed. >> And how do how do we determine if and when a six-lane road would be needed? So through uh traffic studies or traffic impact studies as development comes in uh they are required to submit a traffic study. That traffic study will lay out what the demands are for whatever the development is. And based on the uh following uh the city guidelines and uh city regional and and national guidelines about trip generation will then determine at what level it needs to be a two-lane, a fourlane or a six lane roadway. And so can you tell me based on the the initial um assumptions and when we first started talking about North Park, what was the original recommendation for 51st Avenue? So it it comes down to right the street classification map does require that at some point or shows it being a sixlane roadway but as the traffic studies came in for North Park uh it was determined that that could be a fourlane roadway until it can't and I know that's a difficult conversation to say right but with its as as development occurs and again this development is potentially going to occur over decades, right? Where opening day, it isn't anticipated to be uh anything more than the four-lane roadway. It's intended to actually match the cross-section that it is shown through Stson Valley. Um many years from now, depending on how it develops, a future traffic study may show that that roadway needs to be expanded uh to meet the traffic demands to that six lane roadway. And so that would be based on traffic impact analysis. As the as we call them MDPs or master developed um parcels come on board the there will be a new traffic impact analysis at each point and we will use that data to determine where we are at in street development andor expansion. >> Mayor, members of council, vice mayor, that is correct. >> Okay. Um, I know that when I initially met with uh folks from Sess Valley, this was a ma major concern and um I had pushed really hard to make sure that we could keep this a four-lane road until um such time that the actual um data and analysis called for that. Um, one of the other concerns is from community members is truck traffic, commercial truck traffic and semis being able to take 51st Avenue through some Stson Valley. Um, is there some it can you tell me is it something we can do to prevent that and limit it? So, yes, as far as truck traffic, we will be able to uh post signs that say, you know, no commercial truck traffic and those types of things uh heading south, right, to try to direct those uh north um to the 303. We can also work with TSMC and the developer to make sure that their developments are also trying to funnel that type of traffic uh to the it's the most appropriate location, which would be the 303. >> Excellent. And so I um am going to insist that we pro prohibit commercial truck traffic and semi-tra from traveling through 51st Avenue south of Dex Dixelleta. Um and that you know TSMC will do all they can in when they build uh their parking lots to direct traffic uh as well to those major roads. Um residents are concerned about the safety of their children crossing the streets. the existing streets. Um I also want to talk to the applicant about um the Hawk crossing to be placed at Stson Valley Parkway and Inspiration Mountain to make sure it is safer for all residents um to cross. Can you speak to that please Carolyn? Are you willing to is the applicant willing to commit to that crossing to be built within the first six months of the very first permit of North Park? There it is. Okay. Mayor, council members, vice mayor, the answer is yes. And the community has also expressed a desire for a stoplight. So, I also would like to know if they will commit and build a street light at the intersection of 55th Avenue and Stson Valley Parkway when you begin to develop. Yes. Um the other concern related to traffic is ensuring that we establish the proper traffic patterns um and the 51st Avenue actually going over the cap and so I um want [clears throat] to ensure I understand their concerns. We we will we've established there'll be no commercial truck and semi-tra slated for 51st Avenue south of Dixeletta. But is the applicant also willing to stipulate that the CAP bridge um cannot be utilized for traffic until 51st Avenue is connected to the 303 and your future residents learn to drive through north rather than south and when the the traffic impact analysis would call for it. >> Yes, madame mayor, vice mayor, council members. Yes. >> Thank you. Um, I appreciate that those have been large concerns from the beginning and and it's been a long process, but I appreciate everybody working through that. Um, I'd like to touch a little bit on the Sonor and Preserve. Is Jared here or Yep, there he is. Thank you. We might run out of chairs at the table, but >> Vice Mayor, could could Nazario maybe or >> um I think we still have for him. I apologize. Um can Jared um appreciate you still being here with the rest of us. Can you tell um me a little bit about our existing official trail system trail systems within the Pyramid Peak area? >> Yeah. U Mayor Ggo and Vice Mayor uh O'Brien. Um we don't have an official trail system in the Pyramid Peak area now. Um I know that there is a lot of use out there. I've enjoyed going out there as part of the planning exercises. You can imagine as we've worked through uh these issues. So it's a beautiful area and I've seen a lot of mountain bikers out there. We've also reviewed other data to know that there's a lot of mountain biking happening, but we don't currently have official trails there. >> With the with the dedication planned to city of Phoenix, would there be um future will mountain bikes be able to use utilize any of that for future trails? >> Absolutely. So, yes, I could say for sure. Yes. >> Okay. And can you explain to the difference between the 1998 proposed sonorin preserve map and what we would have today? >> Yeah, so the sonorin preserve master plan is prepared in 1998 uh did not include all of the city of Phoenix boundary lines have changed since that time. So it didn't include all of the area that's now currently in this north park area. So there were acre there were acreages that were identified in that master plan u that equal about the same amount as what's going to be given to the city in those 2100 acres but the change the the the sorry the shape of the city boundaries has changed and so the the amount of land that's available has also changed. >> Okay, appreciate that. Um, Carolyn, I apologize for making you do the Jack in the Box thing there up and down. Um, so and and you know, I'm a big supporter of more housing. We need more of it. But I also understand it's necessary to balance having housing and preserving our beautiful desert. And one of the things that we've heard a lot from um this community in the letters I've received is creating um more a little bit more desert space and and preserving land. Um and and I appreciate you creating a less dense neighborhood uh along just to the sorry I get my directions north of the CO cap there that is less dense than Stson Valley. But I've continued to hear from the residents about that flat land near the base of Pyramid Peak and how much it means to them for their rec recreation. Um again, balance between housing and preserve. Is there any more flat land that you as an applicant can give to the preserve to provide a larger connection buffer between Stson Valley and Pyramid Peak? Um, Madame Mayor, Vice Mayor, um, yes, there is, uh, at that location that you just described adjacent to 51st on the west side. >> And so, can you, um, about how many acres? >> Um, about 18 acres. Uh if you look at the um map, if I pulled up the slide uh from earlier, there's an area that extends directly south from the regional park uh the regional trail head and that area extending down to the cap is approximately 18 acres. Okay. >> Vice Mayor, would you like staff to pull up the slide? >> You could pull that slide up. Is that possible? [clears throat] It's this uh slide 15. I can if I'm There we go. Yes. Thank you. So, so the area closest to the 51st Avenue between the cap and the base of the peak. >> Yes, mayor, vice mayor. That's correct. >> Okay, wonderful. Hopefully that is helpful for folks. Um, thank you so much for that. Um, I'm trying to make sure I've gone through all of the questions that I got around traffic. Um, okay. And then Derek, sorry. Um, Nazario, can can we talk a little bit about the regulation of the the chemicals? Thank you, Carolyn. I apologize for the Jack again, the Jack in the Box. Um, uh, Who regulates the the chemicals that are used in um advanced manufacturing? >> Mayor Ggo, uh Vice Mayor Anne O'Brien and uh council members. So in terms of the regulation, uh generally that is done by the EPA, by the federal government, and ADQ also has some regulations that we have to abide by. So there are some chemicals that people talk about that aren't necessarily regulated at this time. Uh in terms of our industrial pre-treatment program, we also enforce those uh those types of regulations through that process. And it's usually a lot more extensive than what we would do with with just a regular commercial uh industry to ensure that it does not pose a threat to our treatment plant or infrastructure or the environment. But those are regulated by the EPA and by ADEQ. >> Okay. And so but we we are more stringent than them. >> We can be more stringent than them. We have local limit studies depending on our our treatment plans that sometime that allow us to be more stringent. Uh but there are certain things that we cannot do if if certain chemicals are not regulated by the EPA. As soon as they are they do become regulated, then we adjust like we always have. We if we need to add treatment technology to our facilities to be able to remove those chemicals, we will do that and we will also monitor. >> Wonderful. Thank you for that. And I apologize for bouncing around a little bit. Just trying to make sure from all the notes. I want to go back uh go to transparency. Um, I first learned about North Park a couple of years after being elected. And since then, I began meeting with Amanda and members of the Stson Valley HOA starting in August of 2023. And since then, I continued to meet with HOA and various residents multiple times throughout the last two years. When this first project first came to me, it did not include TSMC. I was first informed of TSMC's interests about six months ago. The HOA and their representatives were informed by the applicant shortly after I met with them again and between now and then. And Josh, can you explain the city's process for reszoning cases and and is this abnormal? [clears throat] >> Mayor, vice mayor, members of the council, uh for all reasonzoning cases, including PUDS, I'll focus on PUDS. There's a requirement for two public meetings, a u two presentations before the village planning committees planning commission and then a hearing before the city council. Uh this request these requests have followed that to get to your question about whether or not a case evolves through a hearing process that is fairly common and and this the process is set up to facilitate constant communication with the community especially when that request is finalized and the hearing process begins. That's where you see the the village planning committees and the planning commission hearings take place. >> And how much communication has staff had with residents on this case versus other zoning cases throughout Phoenix? >> Mayor, vice mayor, members of the council, uh this case, uh like all of our cases has assigned a village planner. Our our village planner in this case has been in constant contact with the residents. Uh they certainly have, as they have noted in their testimony, uh provided a a lot of feedback and letters that the staff has worked hard to respond to. They've also participated in in a robust way at both the village planning committees, which I think had in excess of 100 attendees. That that's certainly a a strong showing through the process. >> Thank you very much. Um, and I want to I'm not sure if who who who we address chemical spills and evacuations to. Is that fire? I guess I think maybe Nazaro, we're done with you or Jared. [laughter] We're going have to get a big bigger dis or a bigger table. >> Vice Mayor, Chief of Christ coming to the table. >> Thank you. Thank you, Chief Christ. Can you talk to some of the residents were concerned about um evacuations and and chemical spills? Can you address that? >> Mayor Ggo, Vice Mayor Brian, members of the council, for the fire department, our engagement starts with enforcement of the fire code. So fire code has language that regulates the storage, handling and use of hazardous materials. So our efforts in any facility, especially those that have hazardous materials, initiates through that process. The process to continue to inspect facilities after they're built occurs with our special hazards unit. From an emergency response perspective, the Phoenix Fire Department has hazardous materials specialists. We have heavy rescue personnel. We have technical rescue personnel. We even have specially trained ARF personnel for the airport. Of course, that's not what we're discussing tonight. In the instance of uh incident involving hazardous materials, the closest most appropriate units will respond to address life safety and the closest most appropriate specialty units, those hazardous materials companies will respond to mitigate that emergency incident. And can you talk about the eva the evacuation plans for if there were an emergency that required such? >> Absolutely. Mayor Ggo, Vice Mayor O'Brien, in the instance of an emergency situation, the first thing that the firefighters look at is life safety. So any type of emergency could necessitate a very small evacuation, could necessitate a very large evacuation. But any of those decisions are dependent on the emergency situation that we're dealing with. Our firefighters are trained to size those emergencies up very quickly. We have special plume modeling software with our hazardous materials teams in the event that that equipment is needed. And on any incident, large fires or incidents involving hazardous materials like the ones we're contemplating here today, we would partner with the Arizona Department of ADQ. Excuse me. I'm also tired too, but we partner with ADAQ to assist us with the monitoring and making those decisions. Excellent. Thank you so much. I appreciate that. And then is there somebody who can talk with us about the air quality standards? I don't know if I know we don't have anybody from the Maricopa County. That is generally followed by Maricopa County. They they establish our air standards. Josh, >> mayor, vice mayor, members of the council. Yes, that is correct. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, right. I think I got through all of my questions. Mayor. >> Okay. I will turn uh does do C council I have one very simple question, but do you do you want any Councilman Robinson? >> Thank you, Mayor. You know, the question I had and I it's actually not for any of the panel members. It might be actually Chris Mackey is still here. she wouldn't mind coming up. [snorts] And as she's coming forward, I'll kind of lay the groundwork for my question. There's a lot of concern obviously by a lot of residents um about TSMC, but obviously not on the same level, but something similar. Before Chris came to work for the city of Phoenix, she worked for the city of Chandler. And I believe because you and I talked about it one time, you had a lot to do with or you dealt with all the issues surrounding the Intel plant out in Chandler. I know it's anecdotal more than anything else, but I think it helps us to understand a little bit more completely. Can you tell us what it was like or what issues did you run into? Obviously, there were schools and homes and things like that fairly close to the plant. Can you just give us a little bit of that or the best of your, you know, your experience having dealt with those issues? [clears throat] >> Mayor, Councilman Robinson, members of the council be happy to. So, I began working with Chandler in 1998. The West Chandler campus was built and FAB 12 was under construction. So, I got to work through the construction of four different fabs on the Aato campus. Intel was building adjacent to the Aatoio neighborhoods that were in the area and the neighborhoods continued to build and fact is as the the zoning attorney mentioned this evening they are literally across the street. They're the width of Price Road which is 80 ft across the street from uh from Intel from the entire plant. There are schools in the area. There's an emergency room in the area, restaurants, uh those type of things that are in the area. If you go to West Chandler and you look at what was built up there, an entire neighborhood exists there. There is a soccer field that's immediately adjacent to the Intel West Chandler campus. There is a a a school, a charter school that meets up to the fence of the West Chandler campus. And uh it's an experience in my time that I was in Chandler, which was 17 years. There were no issues that happened with those activities and living in proximity. In fact, the employer and the neighbors built a fast relationship in in working together. >> Thank you very much for that. And that helps. I think it helps us all to understand things a little bit clearer and from a full disclosure standpoint. My younger brother and his family live in the Aato neighborhood out there in Chandler and lived there for over 20 years. But thank you for that, Chris. And the next question I have, I don't know if it's for Josh or maybe for um one of the attorneys with regard to the distance between the TSMC plant and the innovative innovations corridor. I'm tired. In the the innovation corridor and the homes, what is the distance? How far away are we from um one another? Mayor, Council Member Robinson, we we might be able to bring up the Lannis exhibit, but as Trish highlighted in the presentation, uh the the innovation corridor is surrounded by either a mix of open space or commercial uses. The exact width of those areas varies uh depending on the sides. I I could certainly go back to the applicants if they know any of the specific dimensions of those areas. >> Okay. Uh, Madame Mayor, Vice Mayor, and council members, again, could uh we would have the benefit of a slide. I do have a slide that shows the measurements on it. Um, that I think you're looking for, Councilman. Uh, but just generally, if you're measuring the southern point of the innovation corridor, the new innovation corridor door, not TSMC where it is today, um, that southern point is approximately 1.4 4 miles to the northernmost tip of Stson uh Valley, their community. It is uh 1.2 miles to Middle Mountain, which is the LAR community that's on the east side of Middle Mountain, um south of Dixaletta. So, that existing community is technically the closest to the innovation corridor. >> Okay. Thank you very much. I I do appreciate that um that clarification. [clears throat] Okay, mayor. Thank you very much for the time. I think that's all I have for now. I think a lot of the questions have been answered. >> Thank you so much. We have a group of mayors who have semiconductor facilities in their cities and I tried to consult with them about this including uh Mayor Harky in Chandler. The advice I got was that for this to work it's collaborative. So his question for TSMC things are going to change. Are you committed to working with the neighborhood and and making this a win for all? Mayor, thank you. I'm Christine Doss. I am the director of public relations for TSMC Arizona. I've been in this role since October of 2023. Um, the matter of the community is also personal to me. I actually grew up on that side of town. I My family moved us here in 1978. I'm a product of Deer Valley schools, graduate of Deer Valley High School. So, I'm personally connected to the community. But on behalf of TSMC, the answer to your question simply is absolutely. Um, not only is it deeply important to the leadership of TSMC Arizona, it matters greatly to the leadership of the company and it comes up very consistently. So yes, we have been, we'll continue to be very committed to that collaboration. >> Thank you. I really appreciate that commitment. We are doing something in Phoenix that's not happening anywhere else in the United States right now. It is complicated and it's got to be a partnership and we'll we'll learn together. We'll try not to we'll try to not make the same mistake twice, but but this is hard and we ought to acknowledge that. And I'm so grateful for everyone who's worked so hard on this. Often when after people testify, they leave. People are sticking with us. Thank you to the community members, the business community folks. A big thank you to team Phoenix. We often have a very long meeting at the end of the year, but not this long. and and we're so grateful to the folks who are keeping us safe, who are working in the facilities and who are our experts here. Uh we are lucky as a city to have such incredible expertise and I think it will be a much better project because you all stayed late and and thank you thank you to the the vice mayor for working on this and and to our to our residents. I hope you heard in her motion. She's been listening. The city's been listening. A lot of the protections from neighborhoods on trucks were in there. Some of the things folks wanted on 51st Avenue. Uh Jim and and Danny really spoke about that area near Pyramid Peak and and more open space that was in the vice what the vice mayor is moving forward. So I know there's a lot of folks who are not going to leave happy. Uh but there have been many many changes. I cannot think of a case where we had more changes in response to neighborhoods. So, it it's we're all tired and I should probably leave it at that. But a lot of hard work went into this and a lot of hard work is going to continue to go into this. It's remarkable and internationally important, but but it's complicated. So, thank you to everyone who has been working on this and who will continue to work on this. Certainly this importance and the process does not end with today's council meeting and and we're so thankful to everyone. >> Mayor, >> Councilwoman Pastor, >> I have some questions and the questions were submitted by Amanda McGawan. Um, question number one, and this is for staff. are the gravity sewer that now is under construction along 51st Avenue and the widening of Happy Valley Road being built to serve TSMC's North Park operations included in the 205 [clears throat] million taxpayer funded infrastructure already approved for TSMC. Not sure who answers that. >> Mayor Ggo, members of council, council pastor. Uh so that infrastructure that's about to be completed here probably in the next month or so was not is not a part it's not necessarily built to serve this North Park development. It is meant to serve the properties north of the 303 freeway. That is essentially what what it's meant to serve. >> Okay. Thank you. I'm just I'm asking these questions for Amanda because I had met with the group and so I said uh I will ask some questions. So I'm I'm asking them for them. But understood. Citizens have repeatedly asked whether toxic gas release modeling has been performed for TSMC's North Park site, including how long nearby residents would have to evacuate and what the evacu evacue evacuation plans are. Why has this information not been shared publicly or does it not simply exist? And I don't know. I think that's fire. No. >> Mayor Ggo, members of council, Councilwoman Fastor, the fire department can model based on emergency incidents. The fire department's position on development of properties is fire code compliance and preventing those incidents from happening in the first place. >> Thank you. And the third one is basically about transparency. >> I'm sorry, Councilwoman Pastor has the floor. >> Um, is about transparency. And so, uh, it says a land commissioner, and I heard this earlier, a land commissioner and professional planner abstained from voting on this reasonzoning, citing why the public might feel misled and that he himself was confused about the heavy industrial industrial despite doing this for a living. Why has this information not been transparent despite multiple requests from the community or in the developers marketing materials? Not sure who that goes to, but I guess there's a sense of there hasn't been transparency, but I had heard that you went through the process. Mayor, Councilwoman Pastor, members of the council, uh, yes, like all resoning cases and general plan amendments, the requests were coupled with a staff analysis and report, staff presentations at each step of the way, and staff availability for all commission members and committee members to answer any questions. >> So, I want to those are the questions. I just wanted it to place it on the record for the constituent. >> Thank you, Councilwoman Pastor. Vice Mayor, >> I have one more um question for maybe Caroline, maybe TSMC. It's my understanding in the village planning committee that there was a commitment to provide um annual updates to the VPC about um what is happening with North Park. >> [clears throat] >> Can you confirm that? Uh, mayor and vice mayor and council members, um, when we did the resoning for the North Phoenix 3500 uh, for the state land department, a stipulation on that case was that the land department would do an annual update to the VPC and they would uh, update them as to all activity on their land within that PUD. Um, we would be happy to integrate that same requirement in this PUD. um for that is in the North Phoenix 3500 which is providing for that annual updating requirement until all of the land uh within the PUD has been sold at auction and and I appreciate you being willing to commit that. I would ask that we add that notifications be sent to the HOAs the surrounding HOAs so that that notice of that meeting or whatever meeting it's going to be at I don't Josh Trish Mayor, vice, members of the council, we could certainly add a new stipulation that requires notification to the the HOAs and the neighborhoods regarding a yearly presentation by the Arizona State Land Department >> at at the North Gateway Village Plan Committee. >> Wonderful. Thank Thank you. And thank you. I think that I needed two help. Two yeses on that. Okay. Okay. I will make them. I'm going to need a little help with that language. >> All right. >> Um, we have closed the public hearing. >> So, I'm going to start while you're all working on that. The motion would be to approve item Oh, in the wrong spot. Sorry. Yeah. >> For 7. >> No, 74. 74. Um move to approve the item per the planning commission recommendation and adopt the rel related resolution. >> Second >> motion a second. Check in with our planning team. We're good on that motion >> on 74. >> Um mayor, vice mayor. Yes, the the motion for 74 sounds good. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Roll call. Yes, >> Washington. >> Can I just say something real quick? I'll explain my vote. I want the community to understand that this is not a rubber stamp process. We have I have heard your concerns. I think the concerns have been addressed um regarding some of the things you've talked about whether it's water or safety. And I really just want to take a moment to thank the um the developer for their commitment to continue to update the community about what's going on as part of one of the stipulations because I think with anything when you're doing something that's has not been done and the community has some concerns, I think this ongoing commitment will help to diffuse some of those concerns. So I will say yes. >> Pastor, >> yes. >> Robinson, >> yes. >> Stark, >> yes. Wearing >> yes. O'Brien. >> Yes. >> There you go. >> Yes. >> Passes 8 Z. >> Thank you. And I suppose when I was thanking everyone, I for I did not thank my colleagues. Eight of us are still here at 11:30. [snorts] Item 7 uh item 75. >> I move to approve the item for the planning commission recommendation and adopt the related resolution. >> Second. Roll call. Yes. >> Hodge Washington. >> Yes. >> Pastor, >> yes. >> Robinson, >> yes. >> Stark, >> yes. >> Wearing O'Brien, >> O'Brien, >> sorry. Yes. Apologize. >> There you go. >> Yes. Passes 8 Z. >> All right. The complicated one. 76. >> Okay. Do we have language to add my very last minute stipulation? >> Mayor, Vice Mayor, yes, we're prepared. If if you'd like us to offer that now, we can. >> Um, should I read the the whole motion and then have that one added? Okay. I move to approve item 76 Z-139-24-1 per the memo dated December 17, 20125 from the planning and development um department director and adopt the related ordinance as modified by the following add to stipulation one UU page 92 section 6 development standards 6.7 amenities E art installations S to applicability. Add the following. Number three, traffic signal utility boxes located at arterial street intersections. VV, page 92, section 6, development standard 6.7, amenities E, art installation. Three, art element requirements. One, minimum size, add the following. B for the arterial street traffic signal utility boxes only. All boxes shall be fully wrapped with the city approved artistic mural wraps. Replace stipulation 25 as follows. Future PCD or FS master development plan shall identify and assign a traffic signal to be designed fully funded and constructed at the intersection of Stson Valley Parkway and Inspiration Mountain Parkway north/tombstone trail. Period. The developer of master development parcel 2 shall fund and construct a hot crossing at the intersection as an interim condition within six months of issuance of the first building permit in the initial phase of their initial development as approved by the street transportation department. Add the following stipulations. 34. An additional approximate 18 acres extending into the foothills residential land use district along the west side of 51st Avenue shall be reserved for inclusion within the sonor and preserve and a major trail head provided that two points of access into the foothill residential land use district area are provided. The final acreage along with the timing of the conveyance shall be mutually agreed upon by the developer, the parks and recreation department, and the planning and development department. 35. No roadway connection of 51st Avenue over the central Arizona project canal shall be permitted until 51st Avenue is constructed from the loop 303 to Dixaletta Drive and only when warranted by an updated and approved TIA. 36. Master Development Parcel 5 shall be responsible for funding and constructing a traffic signal at the intersection of 55th Avenue North,51st Avenue and Deem Hills Parkway/ST Stson Valley Parkway prior to the opening of the 51st Avenue bridge over the CAP canal as approved by the Street Transportation Department. 37. No commercial truck traffic uh signage shall be added along 51st Avenue south of Dixeletta Drive as approved by the street transportation department. 38. That prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall submit to the city an agreement with its contractors prohibiting construction traffic from utilizing 51st Avenue by crossing over the CAP canal bridge as approved by the planning and development department. and 39. >> Mayor, vice mayor, we offer uh stipulation 39. The developer will provide an annual presentation with the state land department to the North Gateway Village Planning Committee regarding the status of the development. Notice shall be given one month in advance to registered neighborhood associations within one and a half miles of the development. >> Thank you, ma'am. Second. And should we put a a a point when that stops >> the annual presentations? >> Yeah. >> Uh mayor, vice mayor, you certainly could. >> Okay. >> Once all the >> parcels are developed. >> Okay. >> Or >> or sold. I'm not sure. Or guess developed. I I would use some guidance from >> may [clears throat] is there is there a particular geographic area or is there just a a certain point at which development you'd like like the the notice to stop >> I think as long as they're they're selling the you know the parcels >> and >> we we could go with that at buildout of theory if if that if that is is okay. Well, >> so will you read that sentence again, Trish? >> Just running it back when >> I'm sure >> the developer will provide an annual presentation with the state land department to the North Gateway Village Planning Committee regarding the status of the development until buildout. Notice shall be given one month in advance to registered neighborhood associations with one and a half miles of the development. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> And to confirm on the streets, one could get a refrigerator delivered. Maybe a question for Eric, I guess. One could on streets, one could get a refrigerator delivered. It would be more the in uh construction traffic that would be impacted by that. >> That's correct. as we understand the stipulation that commercial truck traffic wouldn't impact delivery vehicles, uh, Amazon trucks or those types of things, right? If you needed, uh, appliances delivered, it would be more for the types of vehicles that, uh, would frequent TSMC, those types of vehicles. >> All right. >> Are we ready for roll call? Councilwoman Stark, >> I just wanted to say, you know, in my career, I've worked on a lot of master plan communities, including Anthem, um, Desert Bridge, and I want to thank the vice mayor. You put a lot of thought into this, and you've added quite a lot of, uh, stipulations. You might actually have the record for most stipulations to protect a neighborhood. And so, I really do appreciate that. And, of course, I'm happy to make the second. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Councilwoman Stark, and and thank you for uh the folks on the business side. You do not own this land right now and have put in an enormous amount of work into it. >> Roll call. >> Yes. >> Haj Washington, >> yes. >> Pastor, >> yes. >> Robinson, >> yes. >> Stark, >> yes. >> Wearing, >> yes. >> O'Brien, >> mayor, may I just please comments. Thank you. I do want to state that I have received 182 emails of individuals who were concerned about this development, but I've also heard from almost an equal amount of residents, business owners, and educational partners and more who support this department. It has been my job, it always is my job, to work with both sides to balance the needs of the larger community and the desires of the local community. And and that is what I have um sought to do here tonight. I am thankful for all the residents who um sent in letters and who took meetings with not just me, applicants who attended the process, who met with my colleagues. Thank you to my colleagues who have done all of those meetings and asked thoughtful questions and helped with this process. Um thank you to the planning staff, the village planning commission, the planning commission, um and and all the residents who engaged. I know that some still remain opposed and I respect their position. I believe this invest this project is a strategic investment in the future of district 1, our city and our entire region. The North Park development will provide a variety of housing choices from single family to mixeduse residential, giving more options for the workforce that companies like TSMC will employ. It will create space for commerce services and community amenities that serve both new residents and our long-standing neighborhoods alike. It'll do so with appropriate safeguards, modern infrastructure, and design standards that reflect our values. And I support this project because I believe in a future that balances growth with livability, economic opportunity, with environmental responsibility, and progress with preservation of what makes Northwest Phoenix so special. And with that, I vote yes. >> There you go. >> Yes. Passes 8 Z. >> Thank you. Thanks for everyone who put time into this. We next go to item 77. And we'll turn to Tammy Weaver for uh comment. >> Uh yeah. Hi. I submitted a petition. You guys are hearing that. Um, part of the language was to remove the notary requirement. I do believe that creates a barrier um to accessibility, remove intimidating penalty language that deters reporting and that's that's part of the the language that's there as well. I don't I don't think that's that's right to have uh financial penalty, especially this is a process used by city employees as well. um it just doesn't lend itself to transparency. Thank you. >> Thank you so much. And could maybe someone on our team um just mention a little bit there's multiple different ways to file complaints at the city. >> Mayor, Deputy City Manager David Matthews is coming to the table to explain those differences. Good evening, mayor, members of council. There is multiple ways for concerns to be filed. The ethics commission is really focused on reviewing ethics or gift policy concerns regarding elected officials or board members, committee members, task force members. Any ethics concerns regarding employees would either go to HR, audit or EOD depending on the type of concern that was raised. >> Thank you so much. What is the integrity line? >> The integrity line goes to the audit department. That's a way where the public and employees can file a concern that gets reviewed. >> Wonderful. Thank you. Do we have a motion on 77? I'll move to approve per the staff recommendation or refer the matter to the January ethics commission meeting for further consideration and recommendations. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. Any comments? >> Roll call. Yeah. Do we need a roll call, Denise? >> We should roll call. >> Yes. >> Hudge Washington. >> Yes. >> Pastor, >> yes. >> Robinson, >> yes. >> Stark, >> yes. >> Wearing, >> yes. >> O'Brien, >> yes. GGO. >> Yes. >> Passes 8 Z. >> All right. Uh, will the city attorney introduce the final portion of our meeting, citizen public comment? >> Thank you, mayor. During citizen comment, members of the public may speak to the city council for up to three minutes on issues of interest or concern. However, the matters addressed must be within the jurisdiction of the Phoenix City Council and on which the council has the authority to act. The citizen comment session is limited to 30 minutes. The Arizona open meeting law allows the city council to listen to comments but prohibits council members from discussing or acting on the issues presented. However, council members may respond to criticism. Thank you. Thank you so much. I believe Mark Rodriguez departed. Is that right? Uh did Amanda McGawan depart? Yes. Cody Bampamp, wave if you're here. You you might win an endurance award. The floor is yours. If Leonard Clark is here, he'd be next. >> Uh, well, good evening. Uh, I have a biology and psychology degree, so I quite enjoyed the energy that we had here today. And I know you probably want to go home, but you know, I also hate getting woken up by my neighbors dirt blower and flower whacker. So, here we are. Uh, I last spoke here October 2nd of last year, 2024. Uh, at about the 5630 minute mark. I was decrying the insanity of actively reducing the amount of plant life in this city via the city codes requiring an overcutting of yards. I discussed how stupid it was that we have people being paid to race around this city to cut every plant on every roadside into a little stick ball circle. Uh killing many of them in the process, removing shade and few food for the beautiful bees and butterflies, creating noise and air pollution and overall making the city uglier. Uh, as I've continued to have the most beautiful yard in my entire neighborhood, I have once again gotten a letter from your neighborhood blighters telling me my yard is too alive with flowers. Uh, and here's the thing. My neighbors to my right and left are two dirt lots. They mow their dirt. Uh, and the next two are overwatered, overcut, poisonfilled all grass yards. If you all were listening to the science or what the Bible says about creation, uh, you'd be more concerned about them instead of my very alive, healthy yard. Uh this council has declared many times the desire to be a more sustainable climate resilient city. Report after report you've published say our green plant friends are our best helper. You aptly did a milkweed planting a few years back but here's the failure. Uh most of those milkweed planted around the city are getting cut. So imagine a becoming endangered monarch butterfly lays their precious eggs on it and then just about a month later a whirling death machine comes along and kills it. It would have been better to have just not planted it in the first place. Uh, now you all have a city code on the books, section 1309 on landscrape standards. Section B1E states 50% living vegetation ground coverage should be provided when a strip is present. Uh, well, on every street and sidewalk and road are these strips, and most of them never reach that poultry 50% level. Uh, there's enough plants there maybe, but every time they start looking remotely alive, they start branching out, producing flowers. uh those wasteful noise polluting death machines come along and cut that beautiful plant back to a tiny little stick ball protecting that gravel, right? Uh and many of them die. So if you stopped cutting entirely, that wasteland would bloom with flowers and shade 100% coverage should be the goal and it would cost nothing. It would actually save time and money and it's in everyone's best interest to have this. The city parks should all double the trees planted. Every school should be lined with bushes and trees that don't ever need to be cut. And ideally with the tens of millions of dollars you're currently spending on this general death uh instead provide green houses to the schools as that knowledge and science above any other uh is what will make our city livable in 20 years. It starts now. So maybe hire a botnist or two. Uh and uh you know your public parks, all these better facilities, activities, it would all lead to greater health and happiness. Plants are good. Shade is cool. Cutting is killing. Let it grow. Thank you. Good night. >> Thank you. Um, I mispronounced this last time and I can't remember what I messed up. Lio, I think has departed. John Foresight, uh, Seven Rustley, uh, Tammy Weaver will be our final speaker. Hi, uh, Tammy Weaver. So, I submitted a citizens petition with 1342 signatures. Um, so I I attached the online position petition, sorry. Uh, requests for consideration were listed in there as well. Um, some of those haven't been addressed um in tonight's meeting, so I wanted to to point that out that there's still a couple that um we'd like to talk about um to TSMC. Let's work together. Um, I think we can find a common ground that um achieves a successful unity between communities. Um the parcel that was mentioned tonight, I I have some concerns that that doesn't have any trails that the mountain bikers were accustomed to using. Uh it seemed like most of the trails were to the west of 51st Avenue. Um so again, let's come to the table and have a discussion. Um and thank you for your time and consideration. >> Thank you so much. Wishing everyone a wonderful holiday season and a happy new year. We are adjourned. We're what? Oh. I'm so sorry. Um, Kareem Ramirez, so sorry. Uh, thank you. All right, you win the endurance award. So, actually I came here to speak on issue 72 about the data centers uh, one being proposed in district 5 if I remember correctly. Is still okay for me to speak on this? >> Yes. So, uh, selling out the limited resources of the city to wasteful data centers that are way more harmful at this current ridiculous rate of overuse and whose real purpose is surveillance and control is beyond concerning. Promoting the development of data centers and overconumption of AI technology have resulted in these resource drains that have stolen our future with lies to further profit tech companies and their bud government officials that are clearly more invested in serving themselves and falling in line with this authoritarian administration than helping their constituents. This technology like any tool can be useful in very limited ways when properly harnessed. But it will not be used for our benefit with the current systems in place and lack of regulation. The average citizen will of course be expected to foot the bill with the rising cost of living. The negative consequences of this data cent's wasteful use of water and electricity and the misuse of our data will be more detrimental to the city of Phoenix and I oppose their development. In addition, I just like to say that it is very discouraging to see the disinterest and disregard by some council members on the experiences and expertise of their constituents dealing with the policies being pushed forward. As much as as much as you like to say otherwise, it is very clear which constituents you prioritize and the lack of empathy in your actions is appalling. The god to be called a public servant only to tell us you get to decide how things are no matter what we say. To chastise and condescend to us for daring to speak against policies that affect us. And we tell you over and over don't work how you say they do. hiding behind language or technicalities and insufficient or ineffective programs to ignore the actual consequences. Then blaming the people dealing with circumstances you do not face nor understand and act like you are better than really shows how the comments put forward by the public have barely a part if at all in your decisions outside of your blatant self-interest and fear. How you treat people that don't benefit you is always telling and speaking here feels like talking to a wall behind which decisions have long been negotiated and made outside of this theater. I understand the dissolution and hopelessness many young people experience with the democratic process if this is what comes from it. However, I also understand it is important to publicly speak out and fight for what we care about, especially for our future and environment constantly being sold to the highest bidder and for the most vulnerable members of our community because they could be any of us. And I am glad to see so many people today came here to do that. Thank you. We are adjourned. building with its fire hose tower. That's part of our legacy. That building service