more realistic than it appeared just a year ago when things look very dark. Good afternoon. Welcome to the formal meeting of the Phoenix City Council. We'll begin with an invocation from Police Chaplain Jim Williams. Madame Mayor, council, and others, please join me in the invocation in prayer. Lord, I lift up to you our mayor, our council, and their staff members, their precious and willing individuals that share their leadership, talents, and gifting with our great city. Father, I ask that you draw the mayor and council close to you. Lord, please anoint them with your wisdom, understanding, and discernment as only our maker could do. Grant them favor and draw them close to you, allowing them to know and understand and fulfill your purposes. Lord, I ask that you put a hedge of protection around all of our city leaders and their families. Keep them healthy and safe. Additionally, I ask for the same protection be directed to all of our city employees, our fire and police and their families, keeping them healthy and safe in this holiday season. Lord, we thank you in advance for your support and your love extended to all of our leaders. Amen. Thank you. We'll ask Councilwoman O'Brien to lead us in the pledge of allegiance 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, Chaplain and Councilwoman O O'Brien. will call to order the formal meeting of the Phoenix City Council. Will the clerk call the role? Councilwoman Wardado here. Councilwoman Hodgej Washington. Councilwoman O'Brien here. Councilwoman Pastor here. Councilman Robinson here. Councilwoman Stark here. Councilman Wearing. Vice Mayor Ansari here. Mayor Ggo here. Elsie Dwarte and Carmen Kota are here to provide Spanish interpretation. Would you introduce your team? Thank you, mayor. Hello, my name is Elsie Darten and together with my colleague, Carmen Kota, we will be servicing as Spanish interpreters for today's policy session. I will now take a moment to introduce ourselves to our Spanish speaking audience and review some guidelines. is. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Will the city clerk please read our 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 or agenda item only. Ordinances number G7202 through 7206, S50410 through 50440 and resolutions 22175 through 22178. Thank you. I'll turn to our city attorney to explain the role of public comments. Thank you, mayor. Members of the public may speak for up to two minutes to comment on agenda items. Comments must be related to the agenda item and the action being considered by the council. General comments that go beyond the scope of the agenda item must be made in the citizen comment session at the end of the agenda. The city council and staff cannot discuss or comment on matters relating to pending investigations, claims, or litigation. Additionally, any member of the public who appears before council in their capacity as a lobbyist must, as required by Phoenix City Code, disclose this fact before addressing council. The city code requires speakers to present their comments in a respectful and courteous manner. profane language, threats, or personal attacks on members of the public, council members or staff are not allowed. A person who violates these rules will lose their opportunity to continue to speak. Councilman Wearing, do you have a motion on item one? Uh, request a continuence so I can look at the matter further. Second. Second. Um, Councilman Wearing, uh, would you suggest a date perhaps January 3rd? Uh, January 3rd would be fine. Thank you. So, we have a motion to continue item one to January 3rd and a second. All those in favor, please say I. I. Any oppose? Nay. Passes unanimously. Item number two, boards and commissions. Motion to approve mayor and city council boards and commissions nominations as revised. Second. Motion. Second. All those in favor, please say I. I. Any opposed? Nay. Passes unanimously. We will now share in our swear in our new boards and commissioners. Please raise your right hand. I state your name. Do solemnly swear domly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the state of Arizona the Constitution and laws of the state of Arizona. that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same. 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 the office of planning planning commission according to the best of my my ability to the best of my ability. So help me God. Congratulations. Thank you for serving our city. We would ask you to go behind the podium to say hello to the council members. Congratulations to our new commissioners. The commissioners advise the city on a variety of very important matters and we appreciate their service. Many of us up here first worked with the city as volunteers on commissions. Uh particularly exciting today was we have approved an ethics commission and seated all ethics commissioners. This is something that the council has been looking at for more than a decade and this is the council that got it approved. So a good day for transparency in the city of Phoenix. Any additional comments? All right, we will go to liquor license applications. The city of Phoenix provides an advisory role to the state of Arizona on liquor licenses. Vice Mayor motion to approve items three through five. Second. We have a motion and a second on items three through five. Any comments? All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Nay. Passes unanimously. Item six is in council district two. I'll turn to the councilman for comments or a motion. Uh before we do that, mayor, I think you said there was somebody here to speak. Yes, we will. Um we have Jared here, an agent for the applicant. If you Jared is if you could if you have comments for the council, please come forward. Uh good afternoon. Uh just I mean it's not I I'm up here to answer questions if necessary. Uh but I I'm more than happy to at least do a quick uh kind of summary of what I know, which is not much. Um I I've spoke with uh Jude Brandy from the finance department and as a result of uh confidentially requirements, she was unable to disclose any information to us. uh spoke with the owner, the applicant, uh whichever term you like. She had also mentioned she was unable to really address much with them. So, it seems like the uh issue is with the previous owner and uh so we're confronted with a situation where myself and or the current applicant can't fix it because we can't find out what's wrong. Uh so it's uh kind of a bizarre situation to be in. And uh if not that it makes a difference. I I think because of course uh city of Phoenix can is their own municipality and and certainly the the big dog on the block when it comes to municipalities. But uh I at least feel it's noteworthy that the city of Glendale has seen this exact same application. Um same owner, same previous owner, same everything, just different municipality. It's already gone through. Uh, Department of Liquor has already approved it. City of Chandler, same thing. Uh, so I I I guess it's kind of confusing because uh, out of every department in the city of Glendel, every department in the city of Chandler, the Department of Liquor, and every department within the city of Phoenix, everybody is okay with this application except for the finance department. And we can't find out why they're not okay with it. So, I guess we'll leave that this up to the good judgment of mayor and council as to how to potentially move this application forward. Wonderful. Thank you. I think we do have the staff here. We would ask to come forward. Yes, mayor. We do have Leah Swanton, deputy city clerk. She can come and provide a staff report. And mayor, can I just ask I mean, how did you come to represent them? It sounds like you're not the owner. No, I'm not the owner. I'm the agent. So, I file all the forms. Oh, okay. All right. Yeah. But you're not a lawyer representing them, right? No. No. Okay. Yeah. Agent doesn't necessarily have to be a lawyer. We're just form filers. So, mayor, if we could maybe get an explanation of what what's going on here. Mimi's has been there for a long time. Sounds like they're changing ownership. What's the problem? Good afternoon, mayor and members of the council. I'm Leah Swanson, deputy city clerk. Um, and I believe we also have Brandy Flores with the uh finance department here with us. Um, council chambers. This particular um request is for a new liquor license for restaurant. the liquor what the location was previously licensed for liquor sales and may currently operate with an interim permit. The 60-day limit for processing this application is December 31st of 2023 and staff is recommending disapproval of this application based on finance department recommendation for disapproval. Okay, mayor. That that was all in our packet, but I mean it doesn't say why are we disapproving? I don't think. Good afternoon, mayor, members of council. My name is Brandy Flores. I'm deputy finance director. Um, the finance department's recommendation is subject to disclosure prohibitions in accordance with the disclosure regulations of Phoenix City Code section 14-510 and Arizona Revised Statutes 42-201 to 42 thou 42-204. Okay. So, we we cannot share the reason because of confidential information, but we could continue it and allow the applicant to have a a greater chance. I thought maybe they give us a hint like is it a missing paper or something? Mayor, the hint is it's the finance department. So, unfortunately, I am prohibited by state law from disclosing any additional information. Uh maybe continue it for two weeks. I mean, why don't we just continue it for two weeks? So, um the applicant I think would need to authorize us to continue it to January 3rd. Is that right? Although I don't want to seem uh unaccommodating because of course we can but since the problem potentially exists not with the applicant but with the old owner at least and I hate making assumptions and and inferences and things like that but I've been given the same information due to confidentially requirements. We can't disclose any information. Uh we know the current applicant's okay especially since it's gone through other municipalities. Um, so since the previous owner is potentially, and as I said, I don't like making assumptions is the issue and they are not being compliant and and are very very difficult to to address. I don't think two weeks we're going to be able to address this. We're just going to be back with the same situation of not knowing the issue. Mayor, keep in mind the applicant wants to solve the issue, but we don't know it because only the old entity, Lori, can address it. Let me turn to our assistant city manager, Lori Bay. Mayor, members of the council, one option that you have is to move the item forward with no recommendation and allow the state to decide how to proceed. Okay, why don't we do that? Uh, I move uh no re uh move it forward with a No recommendation. Motion a second. Councilman Pastor, I have questions. Sorry, I have questions. And do you have questions for Jared or for ours team? For our team. So, uh, or maybe um, when do they go in front of the liquor board? Is that December 30th? I thought I heard December 30th, but I'm not sure. Um, Councilwoman Pastor, members of the council, um, the 60-day limit that the Department of Liquor License and Control provides us is December 31st. So, at that point in time, they're able to move forward with their own recommendation. Okay. So, ours expires December 31st. Am I hearing this correctly? And then it goes on to the liquor board or they can make a decision. That is correct. Okay. So, um the second thing is the applicant who's applying for this uh location. Is the applicant the one that we're denying or are we denying the location? Because I'm I'm confused with what he stated. It's a combination. So, the application includes both for the location as well as the applicant. Okay. because what I'm hearing is the previous owner uh had I'm just uh I don't know if he had any issues, but I'm making assumptions once again and I don't want to assume, but the previous owner there was some issues with that building or that property. There's a new applicant applying or and I'm assuming purchasing this property in order to have this license and they're in the middle of a past. Is that what I'm hearing? All I need is a yes or no. My apologies, but we're unable to share any additional information that might imply what the issue could be. I'm just asking is is the applicant the one the the current applicant the issue or is it the past applicant? Mayor, members of the council, if I may, Councilwoman Pastor, just to clarify, um, when it comes to this item, when it comes to an issue related to the finance department disapproval, they can't disclose that. But this particular application can be looked at by the state once it goes to them with this no recommendation. They can then look at both the person, which is the current applicant, or the location. And if there was any issue with the prior applicant still pending, then they can also look at that and they can either determine to submit it to the liquor board for a hearing or if they resolve everything at the state level, then they can just approve it. Thank you for the clarity, but it's my questions aren't for the liquor board. questions are are for me understanding because in the past we have or in past I've had situations where it was finance and I knew background. So that's why I'm saying that's why I'm asking the questions the way I'm asking them. It's not revealing the finance background or anything like that. It is I'm trying to understand the case or situation. But I will let it go because it's a because we we're no recommendation. But I want staff to come educate us as to in particular this case as to why it got denied. Thank you. Thank you. We have a motion for no recommendation and a second. Any comments? Do we need We need a roll call for this roll call. Wardo, yes. H Washington, O'Brien, yes. Pastor, yes. Robinson, yes. Stark, yes. Wearing, yes. I'm sorry, yes. GO, yes. Passes 90. Thank you. Thank you. City clerk, are we ready for ordinances, resolutions, new business, and planning and zoning? Yes, mayor. Motion to approve items 7 through 59 except the following. Items 12, 13, 25, 27, 30, and 32. Noting that item 27 is as revised. Item 57 is withdrawn. Item 59 is an add-on and excluding these additional items for virtual public comment. 33, 41, and 47. And can the clerk confirm if there are any other items that should be excluded for inperson public comment? Yes, mayor. Vice Mayor, also excluding item 19. That would be also excluding item 19. Second. We have a motion and a second. Roll call. Wardado. Yes. Hudge Washington. Yes. O'Brien. Yes. Pastor, yes. Robinson, yes. Stark, yes. Wearing. Onsari. Yes. GGO. Yes. passes 90. Do we have a motion on item 12? Move to approve item 12. Second. Any comments? Roll call. Yes. Washington. Yes. O'Brien. Yes. Pastor, yes. Robinson, yes. Stark, yes. Wearing. I'm sorry. Yes. GGO. Yes. Passes 81. Item 13 is public comment on proposed changes to memorandum of understanding submitted by authorized employee organizations. We'll open the public hearing. A note that this there's no vote today. This is just a public hearing to get feedback on the proposals. We'll begin with people in chambers. We'll begin with Blanca Abara followed by Maria Alonso. Okay. foresto. Department. Okay. Okay. Wow. Gracias. Good afternoon. I'm here because I'm opposed to uh supporting the contract from the department, the police department, which is the most deadly department in Phoenix. no more money to this department. This money belongs to the people and we have the right to decide where it's um used. Every time we ask the council and our representatives for money to invest in the community, uh it's we're told that they don't have any money and it's because they're giving it to the majority of the money to the police department who uh denies uh or is not willing to be transparent or um be accountable. They are It is needed by our community. We were promised solutions and I hope that we that you guys comply with what was promised. I also I also pray for the children that are in need and I would they need a lot of help. God bless you all. Maria the Martha Aendano Proxima Maria Alonzo See departmentos. Phoenix department [Music] transport. I I'm here to speak about my opposition to the contract police contract. I do not agree with the department that is the most deadly in this country. This negotiation is done under closed doors. Their contract the respon the responsibility is yours and it needs to be proportionate to the people and the uh resources that we need. You have to you're putting putting at risk the health and security of our residents of Phoenix are by allowing this police department to accumulate millions and millions of dollars. I want my money to be invested in homes that are accessible transportation uh, better parks and, um, rehabilitation center, Martha Aendano, And then Olivia Rishiers. I'm here to speak in opposition to the police contracts. I believe everyone in the community deserves not just to survive but to thrive. That means everyone deserves access to things like affordable housing and mental health resources. And city council's role is to provide the people with the resources that they need to thrive. Which is why I am adamantly opposed to the police contracts that would give nearly a billion of our dollars to a violent police force instead of supporting programs and policies that would keep our communities safer, healthier, and thriving. The Phoenix PD do not keep us safe. They are a deadly corrupt force that enact continued violence on our communities. The solution is to give the people, us taxpayers, a say in what happens with our own money and a say in our safety and what our safety looks like. Stop negotiating away our safety and our resources to the Phoenix PD. My demand is that we give no more money to the deadliest police department in the country. Olivia is next. Alma Chavez. Good afternoon. I'm here to ask that the negotiations not be done under closed doors and that the people um get what they need. also because that is our money. That's money that we are uh paying into and um it's being given and used by the the country's most deadly police force. I would like the money be used to u fix up fix up the parks, the streets to build a rehab center and also lower the rents. There's many things that I would like to ask to be done uh but this is a few that I've mentioned. Gracias. Thank you, Alma. Followed by Sebastian. Sebastian followed by Rebecca. Um, hi. Hello, Mayor Ggo and council. My name is Sean Portillo and I'm a resident of district 4. I am also the campaign coordinator with unemployed workers united and the take back our homes campaign. I'm here today standing with Bera action um against the negotiations and renewal of the contract with plea. I stand with all others who believe that our communities deserve equitable investment, a high standard of living for all and transparency with what is done with our money. Stop budget increases for Phoenix PD and stop backdoor negotiations with plea. These are closed door negotiations. These closed dooror negotiations are a blemish on a long track of lack of transparency and true accountability with the deadliest police force in the country. You're choosing to protect this department as they inflict trauma and harm to the people of this city. This process is one breach and very tattered trust in this city. Um, one public comment period for a billion dollar contract. That's ridiculous. U multitudes more than we invest in anything else in the city. Whether it's our parks, our streets, or our children, or housing, it is clear where your priorities lie. As the federal government finances war abroad today instead of funding its people right here in its own country, this city council is marrying those actions right here in this city. Finance solutions to the root of the issues of our city. Stop closed door negotiations with plea and stop giving away our tax dollars to police. Funding uh Phoenix Police Department is not working and it won't fund our people. Rebecca is next, followed by Forest. Hi, my name is Rebecca Deni. I live in District 7. I am here today in opposition of agenda item 13. I believe the currentou which has been submitted was done so for performative reasons after plea refused to submit theirou last year and the backlash that was received. I don't trust nor do I believe that theou presented is what plea ultimately wants. Theou negotiations should be open to the public and should be a transparent process that community members have the opportunity to engage in the almost 1 billion Phoenix PD budget is bloated and takes away from critical resources our communities need. I want to clearly demand that the finalou does not include any increases increases to the police budget and especially for increases in wages, uniforms, supplies and so on. This council and city leadership has proven that they are well aware of the issues within Phoenix PD and that they don't value or care with the what the community thinks or says. Will you continue to protect and align with this corrupt and violent department who for the fifth year in a row leads the country in police shootings and deaths. The majority of the council members opposition in signing a principled and agreement with the DOJ which ultimately is the city saying that they don't trust the investigation. It's an investigation that's based on information that this city gave the DOJ. You would rather sue than face the truth of who this department is. This is just another example of how far you will go to protect this department and evade accountability, not only for them, but for yourselves. While this council has stated that they have cooperated with the investigation, the reality is that you never intended to accept what findings may come and that you expected to be exposed for failing your constituents with your unwavering support of Phoenix PD. From the very beginning of the DOJ investigation, you hired a shark of an attorney from DC who charges $695 an hour. You hired an interim police chief who had experience with DOJ investigations. And now you refuse to accept the findings from the DOJ. Findings that should inform our current if they are released through the process. And thisou once again should include community. And also these meetings are so inaccessible for parents, for people that work. They need to be later. They're inaccessible. And it's It's irresponsible and it's unacceptable. Thank you. Forest is next followed by Miros. Good afternoon everyone except those hiding behind their name plaques and business attire. I'm here to speak in opposition of the police contracts. My name is Forest and I'm a member of the working class. As a trans person, immigrant, and a human being, I'm absolutely horrified with the increased militarization of the police. Excessive force is a norm and is even encouraging police departments all across this country. But I'm sure you know all about that, don't you? District Council 6 Councilman. As an officer of upper management, how much of the police department's budget is used for settling with a victim's family? Trading a priceless life for simple dollars and cents. Like when our neighbor Mesa PD paid off Daniel Schaefer's widow eight million dollars after letting officer Brilsford play a sick game of Simon says in a hotel hallway. He was even rehired in order to be medically separated and then receive a pension. When the rot runs this deep, it must be cut out root and stem. If you have eyes, as many of you do, you can attest that in recent years it has been hard to ignore the fact that my brothers and sisters of color do not get treated fairly by police. 73% of 52,434 arrests in 2018 here in Phoenix were made for non-serious nonviolent charges. These arrests are often made in response to situations that don't even require a police presence. And these arrests um three people three times more um likely to get arrested are black people over white people. Inflating this budget only means that these members of our city council will have an increasing amount of blood on their hands. This council shamelessly aids the deadliest police force in the country. Our struggles are all interconnected. From Phoenix to Cop City to Palestine, we cannot sit idly by as police forces keep terrorizing people like you and I. Our people deserve to live safe and free from harassment of police, to have housing and respectable education. This is in no way a good use of my and our tax money. Protect our city. Invest in our future. Divest from police funding. No more money for Phoenix police. Free Palestine. I yield my time. Miros and then Chalet. I'm here today to talk about uh my opposition to the police contract. I'm here to ask city council to take in consideration the decisions that you've been taking um in regards to the community well-being. Can we acknowledge that the Phoenix Police Department is the deadliest department in the country and the reality of this fact? It's disturbing to think that all of you can't comprehend this reality. How dare you continue to protect the police department? How do you not take in consideration the findings of the that are going to be released by the DOJ? How do you how do you refuse them? How do you not want to trust them? Invest in our lives. Invest in the lives of those kids. Those are my niece and nephews. invest in their future, in their wellness, and in their happiness. Negotiate with us, with the community of what we need. How do we continue? How can we continue to thrive? How can we continue our wellness? The economy has changed and it's increased and it's hurt a lot of comm of our community. Can't you think about our wellness? Can't you think about what we're suffering? Can't you think of how this is impacting our wellness? Invest in mental health. Invest in rehabilitation centers. Invest in parks. Invest in schools. Chalet is next and then Beatatrice Proxima. Phoenix resident opposing item 13. So your role is to make policies that provide people with the resources they need. This is by virtue supposed to be an act of service. I work for a community organization and we understand that our team deserves living wages and respect in the workplace. That's a human right. Your homies at Boden and Action also believe our work, our policies, and our finances should never cause harm to our community, especially the people who we serve. the ways you're spending our money and negotiating POS policies are causing harm. It looks like you learned your lesson to follow your own city code and Phoenix PD has released a contract draft. But we know now that negotiations come next in a room with the door closed where we the people don't see or hear, let alone give input. All of you up there looking down upon all of us, I'm sure, are expecting to be able to continue this business as usual. That's become very apparent by your recent reactions to the DOJ investigation. The majority of you have rejected the findings before they've even been released. So, you have no intention to be transparent or accountable to reducing your harm and by extension the harm done by your police department. This is personal. I have a brother. He's 16. He's had a rough couple of years. Recently, a mental health call was made on his behalf. We're all adults here. At some point, we realize that it's our duty to protect children. Now, tell me why my 16-year-old brother was forced from his home, threatened by multiple assault weapons, and handcuffed face down on concrete. Who were your police officers protecting, and how were they reducing harm? It's our stories that you need to lead with at that negotiations table. Also, stop giving your trigger-happy cops shiny new toys. They're out here terrorizing kids and killing police. AAB 1312 Free Palestine Beatatrice Proxima and then Isabelle Garcia is Garcia. Good afternoon. My name is Beatatrice Garcia. I'm with District 4 and I'm here uh to say that we need to uh in use these funds to um help with our parks and more uh funds used to the to help the community. But we also need more accessible affordable housing. Our uh taxes that we pay need to be used uh in the community for these purposes. I also noticed that a lot of the council members notice us, look at us, and then make faces. We're not anybody's puppets. We're here to speak up and um be heard by the council. The way they ask they ex expect respect from us. We also need respect from them because we are members of the community. Thank you. Thank you, Isabelle. Followed by Stephanie Gonzalez. I'm commenting in opposition to the pleaouou. The pleaouou contains important provisions for police salaries and benefits, which in the current fiscal year has resulted in Phoenix police receiving nearly $1 billion, upwards of 40% of the city's discretionary funds that could otherwise be used for programs that are proven to contribute to public safety, such as housing, workforce development, and youth programs. Theou also has provisions that protect police and make it difficult to hold them accountable for misconduct and violence. People in this city deserve to be treated with respect and dignity. And we also deserve to know how our our tax dollars are being spent. The fact that the negotiation process is done completely behind closed doors without any opportunity for public participation or even public observation and scrutiny demonstrates how this council is choosing to protect violence and racist police over black and brown unsheltered and disabled people in Phoenix. plea and city council are also desperate to derail the DOJ investigation because you don't want Phoenix residents to see how deeply rotten this police department really is. Pa shields violent, racist, corrupt police from accountability and transparency. and Mayor Ggo and Phoenix City Council have sided with plea, refusing to hold Phoenix accountable for decades, which has resulted in a disastrous amount of taxpayer dollars going to this deathmaking machine. Stop negotiating our safety and resources with the deadliest department in the country. No more money to Phoenix police. Stephanie is next. Marcy Gutierrez Proxima. Good evening everyone. My name is Stephanie E Gonzalez. I'm here opposing the police contract. Stop negotiating our safety and resources with the deadliest police department in the country. And I want to make that really clear because several of our folks have state that stated that who spoke in Spanish and that has not been translated. So I want to make sure you know that is what they're saying as well. Time and time again, this Phoenix council has protected Phoenix PD instead of their people by allowing the by allowing this contract to be negotiated behind closed doors and rejecting the G DOJ findings before they are even released. This is your responsibility to provide the resources for your residents. Instead, you choose to give it to police. I read theou. $500 for a business suit and more money for sunglasses and jewelry. Is that what our tax dollars are going to? Is that what we're paying for? How is that giving us safety? How does that make any sense? Use your logic. We have brought forth real solutions, real resources that actually make us feel safe. That is actually going to solve the issues that happen in our community. That's where we need the money to be invested to. Real solutions, not violent reactions. They're just killing our people and you're protecting them and you're giving them more money and nothing is being solved. So, I urge today this city council to stop negotiating with our safety and resources and closed doors with the deadliest police department in the country and no more money for Phoenix PD. Marcy Proxima and then BD Hernandez, Marcy Gutierrez. Phoenix. Okay. [Music] Hello. Good afternoon. I'm here because I oppose the support of the contract of the U. the the most deadly department in Phoenix. No more money to this department. This money belongs to uh the people and we have the right to decide where to um use this money, invest this money. We're not a business. Stop financing with our resources and our security with this department. the most violent in Phoenix. And I think she also said to stop negotiating behind closed doors. That was part of the last Yeah. Yeah. Vi Francisco Gimenez Proxima. Good afternoon. We called ahead of time to ask for interpretation and support. Like the fact that we're still struggling with this is is really hard and really ridiculous that it's not accessible for people to be here and like have and be able to get all their points across. I'm here as many others to oppose this police contract. Last week in the last two weeks, another $10.5 million were spent on lawsuits brought on by the Phoenix the Phoenix Police Department. That is money that is not going into our communities. That is money that is a result of police violence. That is money that does has not resulted in accountability or transparency. On one end, you're paying $10.5 million. On the other end, you're saying there that you need more evidence about the violence of this department. You all have evidence. There have been countless community forums with thousands of people that have been coordinated through this council. There have been dozen several committees that we've participated in that have exposed and community have shared about the violence of this department. This this department continues to be one of the deadliest departments in the country as departments across the United States have declined in officer police shootings. This department has not has sustained the same rates has not continued to go down. There are other cities that would had the most officer involved shootings in the past that are no longer on the top. Phoenix's sustained record to be one of the deadliest departments in the country. Mayor Ggo and the council as a refusal to hold this police department accountable has enabled this culture of violence corruption secrecy including this hiding of this negotiation of our public dollars and our safety behind closed doors. We need leaders who are going to protect our citizens and residents and not bow down to the demands of an extremist police union. Stop negotiating our safety and our resources behind closed doors with the deadliest department in the country. [Music] Francisco Jimenez doses. So we have two registered When I start Good afternoon. I'm here to oppose what is given to them because in reality they do not. There's a lot of problems here in Phoenix. people in government. There's a lot of young people, a lot of people driving license. That's a big problem in my neighborhood as here to ask those meetings you have with closed doors. I can't believe people are allowed You're allowing people to uh go in uh behind closed doors, people that don't belong there. Um I have a lot of problems in in my neighborhood. I've called the police at 3:00 in the morning and they don't get there till 6:00 in the morning. Thank you. Iro Francisco Jimenez, I was called earlier, but um And Francisco is not here. Am I able to speak? My name is Jessica Blanco. Jessica. Jessica Blanco. Yes. Okay. Okay. Well, it's just kind of sad and disheartening to see a lot of you guys not really pay attention to community and it's really disappointing. So, I just want to start with that. Um, so I know everybody here wants to start, you know, the jolly spirit. I know you guys probably not care about what people are saying here, but what has been said here is very important. I want to remind you that the reason why you're here is because of us. Like we chose you to be here or some of us, you know what I mean? And you might not even be here next time because we need to see that you actually care and actually listen to what the community is saying. I come from the west side, West Phoenix. There's so much underdevelopment. There's not a lot of infrastructure that is being invested upon, not school programs actually been taken away. And I'm seeing all that money being put towards the police department, the deadliest department in the nation. And you should be ashamed of that. You should be ashamed to hold that and to have like the like the lowest like test scores in the nation at this point. How can you how can you be proud of that? How can you negotiate these things behind closed doors and not even like show face like that? How can you show face like that? That's what I want to say. You should be a ashamed. Very ashamed. I can't believe the amount of money that has been given to this police department. I've had family, I've had people, I've had friends, I've had loved ones that have suffered from police violence. And I just can't believe that you guys continue to perpetuate this and allow this to be going on. All of you. All of you. I want you to look at the look at the people here. And there's so many people behind these people that they represent and the people that cannot be here. We cannot be celebrating right now which what what's going on. I want you to understand how deadly and how impactful that is. And you guys are just leaning here very cool. You know what I mean? And it's not like that because you're not affected by it. That's why you don't care. You actually get paid for this which is cool and it's cute but it's not nice. It's not This is not life. You shouldn't be proud of this. Thank you. Ben Laughlin, followed by Eduardo Py. My name is Ben Laughlin. I'm a resident of District 7. Just want to say I've been coming to council meetings and talking here for like 10 years now, and this is getting really old. Um, I'm here today to speak about my opposition to the pleaouou and to urge council to make plea labor negotiations a fully public process and to stop funding one of the deadliest departments in the country. Council members recent politicking around the DOJ investigation makes it clear that the city has no business negotiating our safety and our resources with this police department behind closed doors. When you reject the DOJ findings before they even come out, you're choosing to protect this police department over the health and well-being of Bipok, unsheltered, and disabled community members. How can we expect any different from you during labor negotiations? For years, this council has been sherking responsibility for the culture of violence, secrecy, and corruption in the Phoenix Police Department. Instead, you've been bowing to the demands of Plea, an extremist political organization that is always on the wrong side of history. I understand that this contract draft does not contain proposals for increased payraises and protections right now, but that's the exact problem. This is a draft and it's going into secret negotiations where the 1.6 million residents you're supposed to serve will have no idea what kind of increased protections or benefits PE is trying to get until a contract has already been negotiated. Your track record as council members already tells us that you're going to spend millions of dollars funding hundreds of vacant police positions rather than putting our tax dollars towards things like mental health care, affordable housing, and quality childhood development services. Now, a majority of you are attempting to derail the DOJ investigation to keep community members from knowing how deep the rot in this police department really goes. We need leadership in this city who is accountable and transparent with the people they're supposed to serve. So, stop the secret negotiations. Stop funding this police department. And stop trying to bury this DOJ report before it's even released. Eduardo. Next. Ewanarita Proxima. Hello, mayor, members of council. My name is Eduardo. I'm a resident of district 8. Kesha, we haven't had the pleasure. How you doing? Um, I'm here to oppose theou contract uh for Phoenix police. I believe transparency is a a key foundational value for city government and uh I think mayor both you and I can agree on that. I went ahead and searched your name along with the word transparency on Google and a lot of stuff came up and you seem to throw that word around a lot even today. You said, "It's a great day in Phoenix for transparency." Uh, here's your quote. Our goal is to use transparency to rebuild trust between the police department and the community. Now, you say that, but we had to sue you last year because you kept the plea contract private. And not just us, you got sued by multiple people because these backdoor negotiations do not reflect transparency and you say you want to see the findings of the DOJ before signing anything. Well, we the community needs to see what happens in these backdoor negotiations before we give them all this money. So I am asking to stop the negotiations and stop giving them money. Thank you. Okay. Gracias. No. Okay. Huana. Good afternoon. My name is Hana. I'm here once more to tell um the mayor Gos Do not do not continue doing these negotiations with the police department under closed doors. She allows that uh uh billions of dollars be used and contributed to help the police and leaves our communities without resources. So now I believe that you need to take a stand, mayor, so that all the people in the communities can be present in every negotiation you uh have with the police. that everything be clear and transparent. And for the community, remember, you're there because our communities elected you. And we deserve respect because that money that's given to the police belongs to us. We pay taxes each year. And it's not fair that all that money go to the police. That's all. Bertha next and then Maria Sanchez. Department. Foreign Gracias. Mayor uh GGO and council members of the city, stop uh choosing to protect a department that's the most deadly department in the country and against that's on top of the communities that are black, indigenous, color, uh homeless, and disabled. Why do you continue allowing that this contract be negotiated under closed doors and reject the results from the Department of Justice before it is public? What are you hiding? Thank you very much. Maria Sanchez next and then Estella Varela. Good afternoon. Uh, my name is Maria. I reside in Phoenix, District 3. I'm here to oppose a contract negotiation with the deadliest police department in the country, a department that has been under investigation for civil rights violations. This investigation has already cost us millions of dollars. And it is really disappointing to know that so many of us have come up here to give public statement, to be vulnerable enough to share our own testimonies of what this department is and does. And you didn't need to go spend millions of dollars for this. And yet still, you refuse to even look at this report that again is costing us millions of dollars. Phoenix Police Department continues to be a liability and a national embarrassment. And I want all of you elected officials up there to know that you're also part of this problem. You've ignored our own constituents public comments for years. You continue to protect plea. You're even say no to Biden's administration. But you continue to protect plea. That is why I'm here to oppose a contract negotiation process that hides everything from the public and ultimately at the end of the day is going to tell you what we've been telling you for years. This department does not need to exist. You need to fund other things that are actually going to make us safer. Thank you. Are you on my time? Estella is next. Lupita Anay Proxima. Good afternoon. My name is Stellan and I'm here also to ask for transparency. I don't know if you know that word. because it's our money. It's money that we paid through all the all the people that are here are people of color. We want the money to be spent in our communities and used for that. No more money to the police. The police only discriminates us and is always pointing at us because we're people of color. I don't want you to spend my money on the police. I want you to spend it on us. And that's what I'm here to ask for. the negotiations that you guys have or do, we want to know about it because it's our money. Betty, every any every one of you that is up there was uh chosen was elected to be up there. I belong in from I'm from district five. Betty Guard, you have to raise your voice community because you're there because of us. Gracias. Thank you, Lupita Annayia. Uh then Karolina Hernandez. afternoon. We're here for the same reasons you have already heard. My uh friends that are here, we want to be heard. We want you to want the money uh to be used for our community, our district, not more money for the police. there. That money can be used in many areas in the parks uh for the people that are homeless. [Music] We want transparency. We want to know why all the money is going to the police. No more money for the police. Gracias. Thank you. Karolina next and then Laura or Lori Valdez. Dear Phoenix City Council and Mayor Ggo. Uh my name is Karolina and I reside in District 7. I'm here to talk today about the ongoing police union contract negotiations. As you all well know, the DOJ is conducting an ongoing investigation of the police due to their notorious reputation as the deadliest force in the country. A force which is well known to target protesters, to use excessive force against black, brown, and disabled people, and which does not respect our unhouse neighbors. In light of these allegations, I'm asking that my talks tax dollars not be used to support the police department and this plea contract. Stop negotiating our safety with the deadliest department in the country. Doing so is grossly undermining public trust and confidence. These negotiations should be transparent and open open to the public because they concern the public. They have a direct impact on our lives. Trust, transparency, and accountability are cornerstones of our democracy. But these are precisely the values which are being uh violated at this moment by the city of Phoenix. Stop creating a culture of violence and corruption. Not another scent of our tax money should be given to the police. Our city will be much more safe if the billions of dollars spent on the police were allocated to resources that actually strengthen the health economy and overall well-being of our communities. These are resources like affordable and accessible housing, mental health resources, living wages, and health benefits among others. We have expressed this to you time and time again, and I hope that this time you will listen. Thank you. Lori Valdez, followed by Marty Winkler. Okay, Marty Winkler is next, followed by Korea OOA online. My name is Marty Winkler. Marty with an I. Mayor Ggo. It's time to do right. In the words of Martin Luther King, the time is always right to do right. Phoenix police violence, extreme cover up, and corruption must stop. I often wonder how many victims of Phoenix police, just like you tried to do to me, were all swept under the blue rug and the blue wall of silence, false narrative, lies and deception, corruption collusion conspiracy and extreme cover up. Mayor Ggo, you apparently forget you are a Phoenix police violence victim when officer Steve Polus threatened to shoot the mayor if she defunded the police. You got justice unluck unlike many other Phoenix police victims. And he was forced to retire when you have been part and parcel of the cover up of extreme fe police violence victims including myself of officer Jason Gillespie who almost killed me with his bare hands within a minute and a half in a psychotic rage fracturing the front and the back of my skull in four places. Traumatic brain injury. Almost lost my eye. almost a dislocated jaw, life-threatening and permanently disabling injuries, and extreme mental trauma because he was enraged that he thought I called the police for help too many times. And I politely asked for his supervisor twice and he thought he'd teach me a lesson. I would never forget or I wouldn't survive. And the city of Phoenix has done everything to cover up this unspeakable act on an innocent unarmed senior woman and have fought my federal civil rights lawsuit for nine and a half years. Even after winning an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court, Martha Winkler versus City of Phoenix officer Jason Gillespie that my appeal attorney said was one of the greatest injuries and injustices they have ever seen. The time is always right to do ma do right. Mayor Gygo be transparent and allow public to be part of the negotiation for the $1 billion Phoenix police contract. Karema OOA followed by Felicitas. Uh Karema is not online. Felicitas is next. Uh do we have any additional online? All right. Felicitus will be followed by Anner. Elisas. Yes. Hi. I'm calling in that you guys know what's going on in our community. I believe you guys are already aware of it. Um there's a lot of people I've heard already. this last lady that I heard, you know, breaks my heart because it seems that for years you guys are not paying attention and not listening to what we the people have to say. You guys are in the positions you guys are because we have elected you guys. Now it's your time to actually do something about it because that's the main reason you guys should be there. So that you guys do what's right so that you guys don't give no more money to the Phoenix Police Department and actually spend that money in people in our community that need it. There's so many other places where we can put or invest that money into instead of giving it to the Phoenix Police Department. I ask you guys to please do your job as you're supposed to do and put yourselves in our shoes and think about if it was you, what would you do? Would you ask the same things that we are asking? I would like for you guys to stand and understand a little bit of what's going on in our community and be a part of it and actually do and do something about it and make that change happen because it's really greatly needed. Thank you. Thank you. And Ender is next. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Uh, Mayor Ggo, Vice Mayor Ansari, and council members. I'm Ann Ender. I'm the president of Operation Blue Ribbon. Um, we are in support of our police department. So, I'm here for the third year to um give my support of the Phoenix PD pleaouou as well as the rest of theus on the agenda. My reasoning is that I trust the unions, their members and representatives of the city to negotiate a fair, balanced, and supportive contract. Additionally, this is the third year the opposition has demanded that the plea contract be negotiated in public. unions don't negotiate contracts in public whether it's the fire department asks me or it doesn't happen. So at the end of the day to ensure public safety which is the city's priority along with public works see I listen to you councilman wearing um we we have the privilege as taxpayers to engage in the budget process. Last year's budget process was amazing. It was open to the public. There were several meetings and we were able to see what was going what was in there and have a say in it as a taxpayer. We also have the privilege to vote. You know, I don't like what the Phoenix Union High School District got in terms of a bond, but you know what? I voted and the people said that it was okay. So, I can either accept it or I can move. But we're at a critical point regarding our public safety as a um as a consent decree looms over us. And we've heard about this from the opposition, but they're not no understanding the cost of what a consent decree means. That could be $300 million. And where's that going to come out of the budget? It might actually come from the budget that supports parks. So, at the end of the day, I support our police department and it's not the deadliest police department in the United States. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes the public hearing. There is no vote today. This was just to provide public comment on all of the memorandums of understanding. We'll close the public hearing. We will next go to item 19, which is acquisition of vacant land south of Alama Road between 7th and 19th Avenue. Do we have a motion? Move to approve item 19. Second. We have a motion and a second. We have one member of the public to speak. Leslie Shepard, Leslie Shepard. Okay. Sorry, I thought you guys weren't doing 19. I can't believe I'm saying this, but I felt for you guys. Um, it's sad that they had to call the police a lot of times, but that means we need them. And not funding them would be disastrous. I mean, obviously investigation should be important, but if we don't have our police, there's always bad apples, but there's a lot of good ones. Okay. Sorry. Number 19. Um um while it was listed as the last option of acquiring this land, please do not use imminent domain to obtain this land. This is a this is like government theft. Imminent domain. I mean I would love to see the people who were involved in creating eminent domain. I bet it was nobody whose land was going to be taken. I'm just going to mention that. Okay. This is a huge amount of land to purchase for buses and at the last meeting you stated you were only going to be slowing slowly rolling it out. It appears the amount of investment is much higher than a slight roll out of the first test uh first test the buses to see if they work. especially um it's not especially but utility uh companies have continuously stated that there is not enough energy to provide for the amount of charging the cities are looking to implement. It is a major concern. Um these warnings are not being listened to. So I'm just asking you I'm just opposing it. But I am glad that you passed the budget with the police because we do need the police cuz people if they were being called a lot of times it meant they needed them. I do hope they're not abusing people. That's for sure. Thank you. Any comments? Councilwoman O'Brien. Thank you, Mayor. Um Lori, could we please have Jesus come up? Mario sorry. of Good afternoon. Could you explain this item in a little bit more detail, please? Mayor and members of the council. Yes, this is a an a request for authorization for us to um use u potentially um although eminent domain was listed, we're actually looking to negotiate with the with the land owner for the purchase of vacant land south of Alama Road between 7th and 19th avenues for a new north um Phoenix Transit Operations and Maintenance Center. This has actually been planned for several years. And although the the new fleet that we're talking about to accommodate uh zero emission buses, both electric fueled and hydrogen fueled is part of that, it it includes the current fleet needs as well. So I have a a team here from public transit department assistant director uh Wanita Carver, deputy director uh Joe Bower and deputy finance director Jimmy Schmaltz can answer any further detailed questions you might have on this. How long have we been looking for land? May I go Councilwoman O'Brien? We had been looking for a little over three years. Okay. And we're doing that because we've outgrown our current location. Yes, that is correct. We have three garages. Two are at capacity and our third garage is of sufficient size at this time. Wonderful. And I just want to verify again that we are currently in negotiations to purchase this land. Mayor, member of the city council, Councilwoman O'Brien, that's correct. We have an interested seller that we are uh beginning negotiations with. Wonderful. Thank you so very much. Thank you Mayor. Thank you, Councilwoman Pastor, our Valley Metro leader. Uh I would like like to ask specifically about eminent domain. Um my understanding is that eminent domain is really truly the last resort and it's really we prefer not to do that. Um, and so just me in some of the dialogue about eminent domain, every time I've asked about eminent domain, I have been told by city staff that is truly truly the last resort. And I don't know where Prop 20 07 I want to say 479. Yeah. The one that came through about property rights that caused uh that piece around eminent domain. So could you please clar clarify at least for the audience? Yes. Uh, Councilwoman Pastor, eminent domain is uh absolutely the last potential option. Um, and I'll have Jamie Schmaltz describe why that's there. Councilwoman Pastor, we uh go to lengthy negotiations with property owners to acquire voluntarily. We only use imminent domain as a last resort and only for public use and necessity. So, we do not use imminent domain for redevelopment, which is the prop 207. Thank you. Roll call. Yes. Hodge Washington. Yes. O'Brien, yes. Pastor, yes. Robinson, yes. Stark, yes. Wearing, yes. GGO, yes. Passes 90. Item 25 is the authorization to amend emergency shelter heat related respit operator and supportive service qualified vendor list and increase authority. Do we have a motion? Move to approve item 25. Second. Councilwoman Hodgej Washington. Thank you, Mayor. I have a few questions for um the office of homeless solutions. I'm not sure if Gina or Rachel can. Mayor, members of the council, Rachel Mily is on her way as well as deputy city manager Gina Montes. I just had a few clarif clarifying questions because it's it's not as clear from the documentation in front of me. What do we anticipate using the additional funds u that are provided for in what manner? Mayor, Councilman Hodgej Washington. Um the additional funds uh will be used for um temporary lodging um temporary shelter that we set up to um accommodate folks we were um working with outside of the human services campus. We have two specific hotels. Um one um temporary lodging locations. One is operated by um um CBI and the other one is operated by which was the other one? A new leaf. any mayor and members of the council. So there are two temporary lodging sites and then our community court program which is a community court navigation program uh with CBI. So you said one is are they both operated by CBI or is it one operated by CBI? Uh mayor and members of the council, one temporary lodging site is operated by CBI. Uh a temporary lodging site is operated by a New Leaf and then our community court navigation program is operated by CBI. And all three of those projects are included in this request for authorization. And it's my understanding the new are we talking about the new leaf um temporary lodge that is in district 8? Mayor and members of council. That's correct. And where's the CBI temporary shelter? Which one are you talking about? Oh, mayor, members of council, I misspoke. The other the the other temporary lodging including in this authorization is the Cass Haven shelter and that is uh in district 4 and the temporary temporary shelter or community court navigators that you're talking about in community court. Where would they be located? Mayor and members of council, the community court navigator office is going to be located at uh Phoenix Municipal Court. However, they'll be working with uh clients citywide. I apologize for the question because it wasn't I'm sorry. Apologies of Councilman Haj Washington. I wanted to um also add for the community court. The QVL allows for services in addition to shelter and the community court is is services specifically support services for those going through the community court program. Thank you for that clarification. As I voiced at the last um council meeting, I am concerned of the QVL being used in a manner where it is we bypass the input of the council member whose district is being affected. And even with a situation where we would be expanding or extending the contract, I still believe that that council member should be informed of that. And because of past practice, I am inclined again to request or to to um amend the motion that it provides that once again that if you are extending or changing the current contract in any way, that it must be brought to that council member whose district in which it resides and with the option of presenting it to council if that council member so chooses. with the 60-day approval. Thank you. So, um, I make a substitute motion. Is that I think that's different enough. A substitute motion would be better. Thank you. Correct. Okay. I will go ahead and make a substitute motion. I apologize. My my motion is that item number 25 is approved on the condition the staff must meet and confer with the council member in whose district the anticipated project um if it's I'm sorry if it's being extended or modified in any way of an existing program and be presented back to council at least 60 days for approval before utilizing or extending that QVL contract. Second a motion and a second. Any comments you need to make? Can we make a clarification Mayor? Okay. Would that apply to projects that um would happen in the future? Extensions that would happen in the future, not the ones that we're talking about today? I'm talking about this contract um because I'm not 100% sure what exactly, for example, uh a new leaf. It's in my district, but I don't know what this Q how the QVL would apply to whether or not extending the term increase in the number of beds. and I should know that information. But yes, so it applies to this contract and I think okay anything associated with the uh additional funds under this item. Okay. Mayor, members of the council, um, as long as it's for existing extending those, then we will be able to accommodate the request. Just wanted to make sure, please. And then I'll go to Councilman O'Brien and Council Pastor, are you saying under the under item number 25, you're asking for an extension of a contract, correct? Um, Mayor, Councilman Hajj Washington, um, to clarify, we do not have enough funding under that QVL for existing services for the um, for the the New Leaf, for example, and the Haven. Um, we um um, got some items in place in order to comply with the court deadline. And so those ones are already existing. We're not extending any time frames on those particular um, items. um to clarify. So my understanding of what transpired with that is that the contract was extend I mean the contract was entered into um through for for New Leaf. I believe that goes to July of 2024. Mayor and members of council the a new leaf contract was started in November or excuse me September of 2023. So it will be a one-year contract through September um of 2024. Okay. And you're saying you're this my apologies for the question because it's not that clear in the packet. So I want to make sure I understand how this affects us. Um so what you're asking for is additional funding to continue just to simply pay that new contract. Correct. So So with that caveat, I want to make sure I'm clear. So I would Yes. You would not need to bring this back to council, but any extension beyond this would need to go to that council member and as well as city council for approval. Just to confirm new beds, contract dates change, we'll come back. Correct. Councilwoman O'Brien. Um I I'm sorry, Mayor, Councilwoman. Um my only um concern with the 60-day time frame is just if we were to need a new um service provider for heat relief, for example, um it should it it might create challenges if we needed to stand something up quickly. So, in terms of um um the 60 days uh with the summer coming up, we're we're very much um uh planning to be ahead of that, but I'm just concerned about if we ever had an emergency and we needed to um bring it back to council for full approval within 60 days prior. It could be um it could remove some flexibility that that the city um currently has in terms of standing things up. I'm not objecting to bringing it back to council members um whose districts are impacted or the full council. Just want to give the caveat that the 60-day time frame might be a some challenging um in the future should we have um should we desire to move quickly on something? Counciloman, I'm the one that suggested the 60 days. It's because I would presume that we would be planning in advance and not um waiting until the last minute. and 60 days is required just so that we're not in a situation where we're not getting the information in in enough time. As I stated the last time, I learned about a contract in my district two business days before that went into effect. So, yes, I I am steadfast in the 60-day approval and then if there's an emergency measure, we can talk about that, but that should not be our that should not be our practice going forward. We should be sure that we have sufficient time to act in a manner that's safe and appropriate. go to Councilwoman O'Brien, then Councilwoman Pastor, and then the Vice Mayor. I apologize because I think you already answered this, but I just want to clarify. What you're asking for today is additional funds to fulfill contracts we already have. There will be no extension of um contract dates or addition of beds. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. And and I'm I am a little bit concerned about the emergency part. However, can you could can someone help me understand? So, if we did get in a situation where we were short provider or um assistance in heat respit, what would that look like then uh for getting approval or or I guess let's say if we if you don't have to come to us within 60 days, are you able to just move forward with this QVL and put services in any district wherever you would like? Um council councilwoman um the the QVL does allow us to enter into an agreement as it stands um without coming back to council. So that is correct. Okay. But will these um addition will this addition of 60 days um if we become an get in an emergency situation uh that would not necessarily prevent them from coming back to council. That that's correct. It just depends what the emergency would be. So it may if there's a valid emergency um we could put that in the ordinance and and they wouldn't have to come back. Okay. Um, thank you very much, Mayor, Councilwoman Pastor, and then Councilwoman Hud Washington. I I just want to make sure that we have some clarity or some parameters around what an emergency means. An emergency doesn't simply mean want to do it and it's an emergency like it has to be more. We have to have some parameters of what an emergency means. No. And the the code does speak to what an emergency uh qualifies. And yeah, it wouldn't be just a normal expiration of a contract. Um I don't have it off the top of my head what an emergency is, but but but it is uh there there are identified reasons what qualify as an emergency. And the expiration of a contract in and of itself would not qualify. But right now, we know the dates of the expiration of the contracts. We kind of I would presume we know when the hottest time of the year is. I don't want to come off as being unsympathetic to those individuals that are experiencing homelessness and are experiencing heat that need heat relief, but I also want to make sure that we're not using it as a excuse to continue to get around the wishes of certain members of the council. We have to do so. I I I mean, I make it no secret that it should be balanced in our approach throughout the districts and they are being concentrated in one district. And I get it. there is some services proximity, but I believe that all areas of Phoenix have the same needs and we need to make sure that we are spreading those out and maybe I just have this stuck because I have like I said I I got it where I was told um didn't you didn't need to come to me and I you could tell me two business days ahead of time and that was enough and that is not enough and I will continue to I want to do my job and represent my community and my district and I can't do that when I don't have the when I don't have all of the information. I will yield. I continue. I I want to make sure I'm clear. I want to I want to move forward with this, but we just need to have some level of oversight and make sure we are all on the same page for this. Councilwoman Pastor, followed by the vice mayor. Thank you. So I think uh really uh the issue with the Q uh QBL is that it gives all authority to staff or the authority. Um it provides a list that gives authority to staff to be able then to choose off that list as to where a service will go or where a shelter will go or housing however however we want to label it. I think the issue is that we're unaware of it at a certain time or when we're made aware of it, we're not given the opportunity to go out to the community or given the opportunity to um say something. Um but that's was the design of the QVL. Um and that's the purpose of the QVL. Um I think what's where you're seeing and I'm I'm part of this uh the push back is because we need as you plan and understand as you're planning to be able then to understand what's happening and then get it to the community. Um, under emergency sake, I do understand an emergency sake, but even under emergency sake, you go to that council person and say, "It's an emergency. We found this. This is what I mean." That's what happened to me. That's basically what happened to me. Um, we were looking at an area. Uh, I had known in advance, you know, we're we're kind of looking at this area. We're not sure. I gave you my Well, that's a area that I I wouldn't put vulnerable population in then what happened is we're under emergency we need to move and this is what we're doing I get it and I understand it um but this is then where we get the push you get the push pull from council because we also have the community that we have to address and be able then to say this is what we're doing and we don't have that ability to do that. Um, and I think that's probably why the QVL is is in just in general, not just you, but just in general where we have issues with it. Um, is there a way we we can put some language in here or do we need language in here for this particular item to identify? because it sounds like it's just those four and we've already identified those pieces and we're on this item. You're not going to come back unless you're going to extend that. My understanding, my understanding is anytime we would use the QVL for any new um beds or um or service um and or extend any current contracts under that QVL that we would need to um um notify council the district affected and come back um to council for approval 60 days in advance is how I'm understanding it the the motion if I'm correct. Okay. Okay. I'm not speaking about the motion. I'm just asking what what would what language would we need to put because what I heard is well 60 days is too much. So I'm trying to figure out a oh I apologize a compromise or how we how we have the ability to say something. I I was uh 30 days would be would be um would be better um would be you know a little bit less time but I think um um advanced notice would be my suggestion but I think any less probably wouldn't you know okay the the other scenario I have is we find an area um a district and that council person or colleague does not want it in in in that area, then what do you do? Because you can turn around and say, "Well, the QVL, we have the QVL and this is what we're doing." So, I think that that's that's the dynamic and situation. And um Councilwoman, members of the council, I understand um completely where you're coming from. Um I I do want to note that the situation that we were in in the since since we had an injunction uh preliminary and permanent did um we did move very quick quickly on items, we did set up the QVL so we could stand projects up. And so I um um not making excuses, but I just I just want to note that um that those were some circumstances that we had not experienced before and we really did do our best to try to try to comply. And I think but I think it's a very valid concern. And so to me, if a council member um you know where this is this is the direction I'm I'm I'm hearing and we're seeing that the council member is not wanting in their district um you know where whether we would move move forward. I mean we we likely would would not we I guess there's a potential to bring it to the full council if it's something we really we really need. Um and I don't know if Laura if you want to add anything to my to what I'm saying here but I'm I'm I'm hearing that loud and clear. Um it is challenging to site these um these issues and I know that there's there's burden in more than in in a few districts more than the entire city. Um but I that that's what I would say to that. and mayor, members of the council, what I would add is that it would be our intention and we've heard you loud and clear that that we will communicate with council members, especially the impacted district, with as much notice as we can um in advance of implementing any new services um in the homeless services arena. We were moving very quickly under the injunction and and we still should have communicated earlier than we did related to the the project that you referenced, Councilwoman Hodgej Washington. Um but it is our intention to communicate going forward in advance with as much notice as as we have. If there is a situation where we don't have at least that 60 days notice, if that's what is put in place or 30 days notice, then we will communicate that with council members. and if we need to put something on an upcoming agenda with a shorter time frame, we will communicate that and let you know that that's what we need to do and hopefully have your support to do so. Um, but that will depend on the circumstances. We will plan far in advance for heat relief. are actually already planning for heat relief for next summer and you know so we will plan well in advance of 60 days notice for those things but there may be things that come up through the heat season that we weren't expecting and that we need to be able to address and in those cases we will bring those issues to you um to address them appropriately and because I'm not completely unreasonable I will change it from 60 days to 30 days to account for some of the um issues that you have mentioned thank Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. My questions, uh, Lori, pertain to your remarks just now. Um, I think, you know, in my district, I have a lot of experience with, you know, emergency heat relief that we've had to do over the last couple of years. So, I just want to better understand how that could potentially be affected. So last summer, for example, when we had um that first weekend that was extremely hot, you know, um we had a lot of concern from residents um and businesses and the local community and we wanted to move very quickly to pop up tents and bring out the cooling bus. Would this particular motion affect that? Or if if you're coming, if I'm coming to you in district 7, could we still move forward with those types of actions without the 60 days? I just want to make sure that if the council member themselves wants to move forward with something that that is not affected. Um, mayor, vice mayor, um, if there were a contract that needed to be um, executed, if there were some funding that we were providing to an organization um, outside of the city and they were on the QVL, then then it likely I I read that as it would be impacted in terms of those services. Um, however, um, for things like if we had to get the bus out, that's not part of the QVL. And there were some things we did in partnership with other organizations that we were able to stand up that didn't require um, an agreement. Um, so it kind of the answer is kind of it depends. Um, but I I do anticipate having a better plan this year, this upcoming summer. Um, that hopefully we wouldn't need to do that. Um, but I want to Do you have anything to add on that, Rachel? Does that answer your question, Vice Mayor? Somewhat. So, the the bus example would not be affected, but what about, you know, popping up a tent or like what specifically? Because I I do want to warn this actually could have a big impact. I know we're I I'm the biggest advocate for proactive heat planning, but our summers are deadly and they're going to get deadlier and sometimes we may have to do something with one day notice or day of notice. Um, so that is my only concern with this. Um, mayor, members of council, the the two times we used the QVL this summer to stand up um, heat respit uh, sites were to quickly contract with St. Vincent Nepal to stand up a site in the Sunny Slope area and then also at their Watkins campus. Um, some of the other things we did this summer were either on the on city uh, city-owned property or we utilized existing contracts with say the human services campus. Um, but we were able to stand up those two St. Vincent Paul heat relief sites after receiving money from Maricopa County quickly because we had the QBL. In what month was that? I believe we got the funding in May and we uh set up the uh heat relief beginning June 1. So if something happens in the month of July and the council is on recess, we could not use the QVL with this new amendment. Um I believe um we we might not be able to just depending on the timing. So okay that is my concern. I have done much of the heat relief in my district. So, I think I would have to say no to this. Um, unless there's can be a compromise where some sort of exception for, you know, extreme heat days in Phoenix or But if I if I understand council's com or city attorney's comments is that we could if it's an emergency, it can't would bypass the provisions that we've talked about. Isn't that correct there? If it's an emergency clause, the whatever action the council took would go into effect immediately. What is an emergency clause? Extreme heat would qualify. Well, I I would again I would like to look at the the emergency provisions, but I would suspect that heat mitigation would qualify as an emergency measure. Those are somewhat conflicting answers, though. And you just said emergency clause. Are we talking about an emergency clause attached by council or are we talking about an emergency declared by mayor, council governor? I'm I'm talking about an emergency clause in the ordinance. If you're talking if you're talking about something other than that, just an emergency declaration, that's that's something different, but that would again take um some action by council to declare that. Um staff testified they're going to put together a more robust heat plan. Perhaps that we in that context we could come up with a plan that has sets out communication and has several different scenarios. Mayor, absolutely. Um and and we are final we are we're working um feverishly on getting that plan and we we could have you know different contingencies. We have some already. Um, I do believe that, you know, like putting up a tent or some of those um those things that we've done that we needed when we needed to do more, we would find a way to to do that within our city um city resources. Um or if there were an existing contract with a provider, we we could go off that contract. That's some of the things we've done in the past. Um, but absolutely Mayor could there Okay, just a suggested. Could there could we word this amendment in a way where if that council member was the one initiating or needed to do something for the protection of residents in their district that they could do that without the 60-day notice? So, uh, vice mayor, uh, has suggested that if a council member would like something to go forward, we would not need in her or his own district, we would not need the notice period if if it was council initiated, right? Okay. And counciloman signed with that. Okay. So, if a council member is comfortable, then we don't need the 30 days. So, uh, the And the maker of the motion accepts does the second accepts. Counciloman Pastor is comfortable with that as well. Motion reduced it to 30. Okay. So the motion is now 30 days notice unless waved by the council member and I just on behalf of someone who has 1.7 million bosses would also love to be in involved. All right. Are we ready to vote? Roll call. Yes. Hodge Washington. Yes. O'Brien. Yes. Pastor Robinson. Yes. Stark. Yes. Wearing. I'm sorry. Yes. Passes 90. Item 27 is related to the proposed vacant property registry. Will the clerk read the title? Item 27 is for ordinance G7203, an ordinance amending the Phoenix City Code Chapter 39, Article 1, Section 3, by adding definitions and adding chapter 39, article 9, sections 49 through 55. Do we have a motion? Move to approve item 27. Second. We have a motion, a second. We'll go to Councilwoman Guardo and then public comment. Thank you, Mayor. This is an important issue that I've been working on with neighborhood leaders across District 5. Too many out ofstate and absentee owners allow their properties to turn to blight and disrepair by leaving them vacant. Today's item is about understanding the property rights in the Phoenix in Phoenix also come with certain responsibilities. It should not be the responsibility of city staff to spend hours and taxpayer money to track down the owner of a vacant building in our community. These buildings should be registered with the city. Property owners should be good neighbors and take responsibility for their vacant lots and buildings in our communities. I want to thank neighborhood services department for listening to the concerns of our neighborhood leaders on this important issue. I am proud to support this item to take the burden off our neighborhoods and off our city staff. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Michael Norton. For public comment, thank you for the opportunity to speak, Mayor Ggo. In 2013, council member running for office stated that the worst neighbor in the city of Phoenix was the city of Phoenix. That council member was you, Mayor Kgo. And you were right. Absolutely right. Since 2013, the city of Phoenix has become a better neighbor in some regions, but in other regions, it's still just as bad a neighbor as it was at the beginning. In order to if we approve if we approach this process by saying that blighted neighbor blighted land, vacant land, dormant land, ignored land is a blight on the community and and and the danger to the health and safety of the neighbors in the community. Then we should ignore the question of who is the owner of the land. Private property owners are not the biggest property problem in Phoenix. The biggest pro problem in Phoenix is actually the city of Phoenix and the Maricopa County Assessors map proves that. In 2017 and 18, there was a news report followed by some city action to activate and sell the dormant properties, the unused prop unnecessary properties. But over the year or so after that, very little got done. There are now more unused properties on the city count city's property registry ownership list than there were before. It's a good thing we sold some of the stuff, but we did not nearly sell enough of the stuff. We are a hoarder and we're causing a problem for our own community. I believe that this ordinance should be approved. I believe that this ordinance should be it should should be blind with respect to who owns the land. as you register the land and you recognize which property is causing a problem problem for each community, don't don't ignore the fact that the city itself might be the biggest problem. Thank you. [Music] Thank you, Councilwoman Haj Washington. I want to say that I'm supportive of the registry, but I want to once again emphasize what I brought up at the last on this May 3rd subcommittee. I really want us to look at applying this also to infill properties because we see um many times these are in low to moderate income areas and we receive in my office receive a number of complaints about the vacant property next door to them causing blight and criminal activity encampments and graffiti high and dry vegetation. So it doesn't always mean the property is owned by a low-inccome owner, but it's having an impact on that community. And I just want us to as we go forward with this make sure we recognize that and try to figure out how best we can implement in in an equitable manner as well. So thank you. Thank you. Roll call. Yes. Washington. Yes. O'Brien. Yes. Pastor. Yes. Robinson. Yes. Stark. Yes. Wearing. Yes. VGO. Yes. passes 90. Item 30 is citywide general construction job order contract. Do we have a motion? Move to approve item 30. Second. Councilwoman Gordado. Thank you, Mayor. This item will provide up to 4 million for upgrades and renovations at La Praa Park in District 5. I just wanted to take a moment to thank the entire team and our parks and recreation department for their hard work on this item. I know how excited neighbors from the area are for these upcoming improvements. I look forward to another ribbon cutting ceremony at one of our amazing parks in District 5. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Roll call. Ward, yes. Hodge Washington, yes. O'Brien, yes. Pastor Robinson, yes. Stark, yes. Wearing, I'm sorry, yes. VGO. Yes. Passes 80. Next is item 32, golf course maintenance and operation contract extension. Do we have a motion? Mayor, I move to approve. Second. Second. We have a motion and a second. Uh, vice mayor. Thank you. I just have a couple of questions for staff. Mayor, Deputy City Manager Inger Ericson and Assistant Parks Director Martin Whitfield is coming up. Mayor, members of the council, we also have Greg Lightd who is the um uh golf pro. Thank you so much um to all of you. Uh my question is both in regards specifically to this contract and a little bit outside of that. I'm wondering as Phoenix is moving towards more sustainable practices and considering you know practices like turf removal or replacement what OB sports in particular and the city is doing to reduce water usage on golf courses. Mayor and members of council I will let Greg answer that. Mayor, Vice Mayor, and sorry, members of the council, we work very closely with OB Sports uh through the golf industry association as well as uh other other entities in the golf world to to have sustainable practices in golf course maintenance. Golf course maintenance is one of the best uh users of of water in the state, only 2% of the water being used. So, we pay attention to the water that we use on our golf courses and the land uses as well. in special operations. We also have a water resources specialist who who watches the scheduling of the water for all the parks, including the golf courses as well. So, we stay on top of that. And we've also got a plan in place that we're putting together to possibly explore a a uh a consultant to help us address our golf course challenges with the upcoming state water reductions. Okay, thank you for that. Um, in terms of land use, how many acres of Phoenix land do are utilized for golf courses in total and how much of that is city- owned? If you have that, we have the city land. We have a lot to to come up with a total. It's probably over 800 acres of land. Uh, the city owns all of the golf courses. We contract two of the golf courses. The GCU golf course and the Papico golf course are contracted the but they are all owned by the city of Phoenix. All of the 800 acres. Correct. Okay. And have we ever considered um selling or leasing this land or utilizing the land in any other way other than through the golf courses? Mor and members of the council, I'll start and I'll let Greg kind of add into that. There are some deed restrictions on uh many of those uh properties. Um we have obviously leased it out to When I say lease, we've we've got contracts and agreements with GCU for Mville Golf Course as well as um Papago Golf Course with um the foundation there. And so we we found ways to um help us improve some of the experiences for the golfers. Um but um as far as finding other uses for the properties, I think there's been some discussion about that, but it's always come back to deed restrictions. And what do the deed restrictions? Can you explain what that means? I that's what I'll let Greg speak to. Yeah, Mayor Ggo, Vice Vice Mayor, and sorry, members of the council. The the restrictions are that the spaces be used for recreational use. Uh the only one that uh I'm aware of that is not deemed restricted that way is the Palver Golf Course. Otherwise, the others have to be used for recreational use, but not necessarily golf courses. Correct. So they could be parks or uh mayor and uh vice mayor I'm sorry. Yes. And we've looked at that in the past. Um the expense for a golf course versus something that's bringing in revenue like golf. Um the golf fund right now is currently self-sufficient. And so there would be expenses that would be then uh needed to pay for be paid for some other way if we made it a park that didn't have those kind of entry fees, that kind of thing. Okay. I appreciate that. I I really just ask all these questions because I think as we look towards the future of the city and looking at some of our biggest challenges, whether that's water or affordable housing, I think it's important to at least have a conversation about how we could potentially be using better land. and if it's a conversation that the city council hasn't had in a while, it could be worthwhile to do so. Um, I I appreciate the fact that we are looking at, you know, sustainably using our water, but I think perhaps a broader discussion at some point in time would be valuable. Thank you. Um, okay, we'll go to Councilwoman Stark and then Councilwoman Gordado and then we'll go right. Thank you. Um, I'm I'm open to looking at different land uses, but in the case of Cape Creek, that is a landfill and they still have methane fires underneath it. So, we really would be limited in what we could do there. But, um, I understand your concern. Um, but as long as it's bringing in revenue, I I'm not sure what we could do with that particular golf course because it was one of the first landfills the city of Phoenix had. Owen Gordado and then we'll go to Councilwoman Pestor. Thank you, Mayor. Yes, I think we I mean I'm glad to hear that there's finally self- sustainable again. I know that at some point we were having a lot of challenges um with a lot of our golf courses. I think we also um I'm always open to figure out how we make them sustainable. I know we've had many different conversations on how we make that happen. But as we're having these conversations, we also got to think about all of the neighbors that have bought homes a little bit more expensive um in this in these areas because they wanted to be behind a golf course. So, I think we really have to balance that out. um open to having conversations in terms of how do we make them sustainable? How is it that they are able um to bring in that revenue that they need to continue to give give that to the community? I know I mean for I know firsthand right issues that we can have with golf courses and how um ones are not operational how it brings in blight and it brings in a lot of challenges into those neighborhoods and for those neighbors that bought very expensive homes because they wanted to live behind a golf course. But definitely open to figuring out how can we make them sustainable. But I do think that I mean I'm glad to hear that they that they are bringing in the revenue that they can. Um but just let me know how I how I can be helpful. Thank you. Thank you. We'll go to Councilwoman Pestor and then Councilman Wearing. I know we had this conversation and when I first entered and I believe my neighborhoods went and worked very hard to put deed restrictions on Encanto Park and they worked really hard because they did not want to lose that space to development. And at the time when the golf courses were um um weren't self suffic sufficient I can't get it out of my mouth. Um that was kind of the conversation going around the city as to let's convert these golf courses into development. And the historic uh community said oh no and actively got their lawyers and actively did what they had to do to protect the land. Um, to me, golf courses are not golf courses, but the land is very important to the city. And if we were even thinking about uh getting rid of the land, to me, the land is an asset to the city and it's probably a very limited asset. So, uh, we would start, I think we should have the conversation. uh but just know that that the conversation will also evolve on we can develop it um because I think this conversation I've how long have we been here eight nine years uh is now evolving back up and so uh I just think we need to be cautious. The other piece is when does the parks board come into play? mayor, uh, members of the council, u, councilwoman pastor, they they have the, um, uh, ability to provide disposition for the land. Um, and so they would be needed, they would need to be involved in this. Okay. Many years ago when you all are referencing when the golf courses were not sustainable, self-sufficient, um, there was a a large committee that went through and that's how we partially ended up with Papigo being kind of outsourced as well as, um, GCU taking on Mville. So those were some of the ideas that helped us become a little bit more self-sufficient. But I think the conversation when we start to move towards water, it'll be uh a different conversation. Uh however, golf also has to be equitable to everybody and be able to those that uh don't have the access or don't have the money to be able to play at private golf courses or get private lessons. there's accessibility and access to those in those communities that are unable to afford but be able to learn a sport and be and and talented in that area and be able then to uh move on as young kids to adults to possibly become one of a famous golfer. So, we also have to think uh about access and and it's equitable across our city. So, um those are just some of my concerns. Uh as we start to talk about this and I understand maybe we become it's not instead of the uh uh 18 it becomes a short nine and it's less land and then there's more activity on other pieces, but I don't know. Councilman Wearing. Thank you, Mayor. Uh so I'm actually the one who pulled this. Uh I just uh the staff is laughing. I' I've always voted against uh the golf related uh items that come before us. It's nothing against golf. Uh family come from a family of golfers literally. I just don't think that's one of the core functions of a city. I understand what Counciloman Por is saying about, you know, make it available to everyone. That's fantastic. Golf is still not cheap. Um regardless, you still have to buy clubs even if you you cut the green peas in half compared to what a private course would be. It's still going to be expensive. There is no getting around it. Um, and people have greater needs than that. And I've just always thought it takes us away from our core mission. There is nothing our city elders would have written down. I'm going to suspect 100 or 150 years ago saying, you know what, part of your mission is to provide equitable golf. I just I don't see that as being a thing. We were also losing money hand over fist when I started, which was 12 years ago. Okay. We were losing 2.4 million I think at the peak and I think that lasted for a couple years but certainly in the ballpark of two million. Uh we were trying to run it ourselves. And you know what we found? We found that hiring people who actually run golf courses for a living actually cut the losses. That was something that took us a while to come around to but that that seemed to work. So it's great that it's back to break even or whatever. But obviously we're talking about it right now. We've got DOJ investigation. We got a lot of other stuff. So, that's been my point. We also was it about 15 million in losses because it's an enterprise fund. So, golf was supposed to pay for itself, which it did not. I think it was about 15 million we swept from the parks fund. Now, I don't have a city course in my district. I do meet people who play city courses, so it's not like people in district 2 don't play them, however, and enjoy them. But, you know, really I think again parks fund when people voted for that, I think they thought more of like city parks, nice open fields for kids to play, dogs to run around, etc. And we swept $15 million. I was the lone vote against it. Pretty much everybody here wasn't here. I was against that. I didn't think that was right. I I thought that was misleading to voters. So, it's nothing against golf. It's nothing against people who run our golf courses. Nobody involved with this contract. I don't have anything against it. Um, I just at some point when is enough enough? Um, if they're water efficient, that's fantastic, but I I find it hard to believe they use less than uh newer construction, either office or apartments or whatever where the water usage has been really boiled down to just the bare essence um in recent years out of necessity. So again, we do need open spaces. Want to make it trails or something. I would understand that. Um but I I just this is a lot of time and energy that we've spent on this over the years uh that I thought could have been more productively deployed. So thank you for listening to me. I appreciate I was not going to belabor this, by the way, but since you guys talked about it, I figured I hadn't done it in a few years. I owed you to you. Just kidding. We will let the record reflect that you have been very consistent on this yes particular point. The city of Phoenix sound like it's the only one consistency. I'm kidding. Mayor, I will try to recognize all of your consistency on I feel like your consistency on light rail has been well recognized. Uh but we can we can continue to we'll just blanket give Councilman Wearing a very consistent uh grade. We are about to update our parks master plan and I believe the parks department is now working with Dr. Max Wilson who is our expert on water conservation to look at all of parks operations. Um perhaps we could do a a particular focus on measures in the golf course area. We've gotten some national press for some of the things we have done in the area. We had a partnership or we have a partnership with Arizona State University where they apply a polymer on the golf course that help reduce evaporation. I believe that has gotten pretty significant attention. And so we've we've done some innovative things, but why stop now? I'm very much looking forward to the parks master plan and and would note for people named Mike Norton that I have shared my top priority is making sure before we do anything new, we develop our existing properties. So looking forward to that for many different reasons. We'll go back to the vice mayor. Thank you. I just had one more uh two more clarification questions. Um do we use potable water or recycled water to maintain our golf courses? Mayor Ggo uh Vice Mayor and sorry and members of the council. We use what we call raw water. So we do not use potable water or of any kind. It's called raw water. Yes, it's called raw water. And what is the difference with raw water? It's not potable. It's not treated water. It's bit most of our water sources are from SRP and a well we have at Cape Creek. Okay. We don't use any water from say the uh Colorado River or the canal system. Right. Is it possible to look at perhaps part of the the master plan with the experts that we're bringing in? Is it possible to look at using recycled water um to to better conserve the water that's being used on these golf courses? Mayor Ggo, Vice Mayor, and sorry, members of of the of the council. Absolutely. Yes. We would be in favor of all the above. Okay. Thank you, Jeff Caldwell, for public comment. Mayor, council, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. Um, personally, I think that it is insane that we are about to spend $24 million to upkeep five golf courses that the city owns. I'm glad that uh, Vice Mayor Ansari asked these questions because now I know that the city owns 800 million acres. Um, I believe that's what they said. But we shouldn't even own these. And if the city sold the land and the golf courses and potentially two golf courses that are private, um, we would have an astronomical amount of money on our hands and we also wouldn't have to pay $24 million to upkeep these for, I believe, a two to fouryear contract. Um, but if you review the reviews on Yelp, then you will see that four out of the five have complaints about the upkeep uh from people who have used the golf courses. So, I I just would highly encourage that we sell them and use the money to fund law enforcement and uh the potential fight against the DOJ. Thank you very much. Clarification. Councilwoman O'Brien, we please have a clarification on the number of acres that are allocated to golf courses. Uh Mayor Ggo, members of the council, uh it's we have just over 800 acres of golf. 800 acres, not 800 million acres. That that is a significant um difference in that. And I also want to clarify again that you said um Inger that they're all except for one of them are deed restricted to recreational use. Correct members of the council. That's correct. And so based on that um if we tried to sell the properties that are deed restricted, do we have any idea what that might look like if they have to be used for recreation only? Uh we've not actually done a study on that. Uh we'd have to investigate that. But it would be quite a lot of money to manage those without again revenue coming in to offset it. Right now the revenue that comes in um from the fees um and the the rentals of carts etc pays for everything that we spend on the golf courses. Okay. And I and I do appreciate that. And I do just want to say that golf I do know that golf is can be very expensive. But you can get used golf clubs for about $75. Just saying. So, so for those who who who want to golf and like to golf, I'm appreciative that we have that opportunity for the city of Phoenix residents um in a more affordable manner. Thank you. Roll call. Yes. Hodge Washington. Yes. O'Brien. Yes. Pastor. Yes. Robinson. Yes. Stark. Wearing. I'm sorry. Yes. GGO. Yes. Passes 81. Item 32 is our membership with the Canada Arizona Business Council. Do we have a motion? I'm sorry. Item 33 is our Canada Arizona. Move to approve item 33. Second. We have a motion and a second. Jeff Caldwell. I'm sorry about that last mistake. Uh I'm getting over a head cold and so uh you know little congestion. So um the cost of this contract with the Canada Business Council is $75,000 for three years, $25,000 a year. The contract focuses on attracting Canadian foreign direct investment to Phoenix's residential and economic real estate market. This is one factor adding to the astronomical costs of housing in Phoenix and should be voted down. Furthermore, the government should not be attempting to find foreign investors in our residential and commercial real estate. This is preposterous. This also leads to potential tax dollars going to foreign entities if a real estate collapse occurs and a bailout ensues like the Federal Reserve and the uh financial system has done in the past. So, this is a hindrance on our ability to have affordable housing along with uh a detriment to taxpayers across the entire United States. Uh please vote no on this. This this should not be occurring. I do understand that it is possible that uh this leads to other types of investment but this item itself specifically states that it is used for uh residential and commercial real estate. Thank you very much. Thank you Leslie Shepard. I actually reiterate a lot of what he just talked about. I have very strong feelings when it comes to all the needs we have going on here in our country and then we go and we're trying trying to bring in you know you know just what he said you know Canada business counselor 75,000 for three years I was listening to the various people earlier a moment talking about the police and not funding them and putting money into their community I definitely think this money could be a lot better spent within our own community and not going outside of our country being especially that we are having too many investors when it comes to property within our country China and other ones to that. Thank you. Thank you. I am looking forward to support this item. It is $25,000 a year annually for our membership. Canada is our number two trade and tourism partner. We export 1.3 billion in goods to Canada. We have had a great partnership with the Canada Arizona Business Council on a variety of areas, but I want to emphasize our great success in developing new air service at Sky Harbor. We have seen travel rebounding and the economic ties between Canada and Arizona growing ever stronger. We've attracted new carriers to Arizona, including lowfair carriers. Uh there was a sale you could go to Canada for $75 when Links Air came into our community. Air Canada is launching service with its 787 widebody to accommodate increased demand. and we continue to partner with Canadian companies on training air pilots. It's a point of pride for me that we train many of the pilots for the world and one of our key partners who recently made a very significant investment at Sky Harbor in training pilots is a Canadian company that we get to work with in part through the Canada Arizona Business Council. So appreciate all the partnerships but particularly on air service. It is exciting that we now have so many destinations between Sky Harbor and Canada. Any additional comments? Roll call. Yes. Hodge Washington. Yes. O'Brien, yes. Pastor, yes. Robinson, yes. Stark, yes. Wearing. Ansari, yes. GGO, passes 81. Item 41 is ADQ recycling research and development grant. Move to approve item 41. Second. We have a motion and a second. Leslie Shepard. And Leslie is followed by Jeff Caldwell. Okay. All right. If awarded, the grant will be used to conduct a feasibility study for alternative transportation of recycling and compost by rail at the 27th Avenue Resource Innovation Campus. Currently, the city's materials recovery facility, MRF, and compost facility operations contractors rely solely on semitrs to transport bailed recyclable commodities and finished compost out of the 27th Avenue Resource Innovation Campus. With the reliance on the semi in this on the semi-truckss, the the contractors can experience increased transportation cost when fuel cost increase, which they already are. They're astronomical. Matter of fact, we had a little thing down at the capital today talking about the cost of fuel. and they are limited on how many loads they can transport per day with rail with rail infrastructure in close proximity to the resource innovation campus and the additional volume capacity of the rail cars com uh compared to the semmitrs both the MRF and the compost facility operations contractors and communicated with the uh city their interests have have accessing to the rail spur Access to a rail spur can also increase capacity to divert more material from the landfill as the resource innovation campus develops supporting the city's solid waste diversion goals by conducting a phys a feasibility study. The city can determine if the of constructing a rail spur is viable and feasible. Oh, I'm so sorry. I read your dog on. Okay, the talking point. I'm so sorry. The grant is brought about because of the cost of transportation increasing the fuel cost. That's the big issue. If fuel cost increased, the cost of all energy usually increases. Therefore, [Music] so I'm definitely against it. Gas is already high enough. We're This is just going to create more problems. Thank you. Our final comment will be from Jeff. So, as Leslie started to say, usually when fuel costs increase, all energy costs increase. So, this is just shifting um one cost to another. However, um when this study does get done, because I do believe you all are going to potentially vote yes on this, uh just to see what the study finds, uh the study, um needs to lay out how many truckloads would have to have had to have occurred in order to break even on the project. Uh how many years it would take to break even. uh how many uh transportations from the rail it would take to break even in comparison to the trucks. So I am not a harsh no but I am concerned that this is going to lead to an astronomical increase of cost that will take a long period of time uh to to pay off. Um, but you know, like I said, as if the study does a a comparison of the cost, I am very curious to see what that would be. Thank you. Thank you. Roll call. Yes. Washington, yes. O'Brien, yes. Pastor, yes. Thank you. Robinson, yes. Stark, yes. Wearing, yes. GGO, yes. This is 90. Our final agendaized item is our application to DWR for an assured water supply designation. Move to approve item 47. Second. We have a motion and a second. Leslie Shepard, followed by Jeff Caldwell. Okay. So earlier this year, the state of Arizona said it would no longer approve any assured water certificates that are tied to the underground water. Also, the city of Phoenix announced that it would would forego 150,000 acre feet of water from the Colorado River for 60 million federal dollars while also assuring Phoenicians the deal. we have no impact on the city water consumers. Then the city drastically raised the rates and cut the allotment. Now we're presenting plans to to this uh we are presenting plans to the state that include to acquire sufficient renewable supplies to accommodate pro uh projected growth. It'd be nice to have that 150,000 acres worth of feet of water you gave up earlier this year. That's about the amount of water used by the 450,000 households in a year. Divide that by 100 and you get 450,000 houses. Please do not implement policy to trade our water for more federal funding. This obviously has not worked out in favor of the of the Phoenix residents. Furthermore, do not implement policies that lead to Phoenix residents drinking poo water. We do not want that. Thank you. Jeff will be our final speaker. All right. So, uh, I actually, um, put myself down in favor of this because we do need water and, uh, I do hope that the state approves us, uh, moving forward with this, uh, request. Um, but again, I want to stress, I I'll I'll make a correction. Um, if we had the 150,000 acre feet of water, we would have 45,000 houses for a 100redyear supply. Um, so, you know, I mean, while I support moving forward with this, I hope that the city does not implement um, restricting our water again, raising our rates again. Well, you already approved raising the rates coming up in a few months in earlier this year, but on top of that, please don't do it again. Um, and then I know that there's this thing coming with the uh poo water, and I want to make sure that that's not turned into drinking water because this is for uh recycled water. Um I have great concerns that we don't have the proper um mechanisms in place in order to let us know when a contamination happens. When a contamination happens, we are allotted 30 days without knowing on the poo water plant. So thank you very much and uh let's get some water to Phoenix. Thank you. Roll call. Yes. H Washington, yes. O'Brien, yes. Pastor, yes. Robinson, yes. Stark, yes. Wearing, I'm sorry. Yes. Yes. Passes 90. Now we go to our final five speakers of the year and public comment. I'll turn to our city attorney to introduce this portion of the meeting. Thank you, mayor. Uh during citizen comment, members of the public may address the city council for up to three minutes on issues of interest or concern to them. The citizen comment session is limited to 30 minutes. The Arizona open meeting law permits the city council to listen to the comments but prohibits council members from discussing or acting on the matters presented. Thank you. We'll begin with Leslie Shepard, followed by Jeff Caldwell. I'm just appealing to you guys to not consent the uh to not support the consent decree between the DOJ regarding what's going on with our police. Um I mean actually it says every city that has agreed to has agreed to it has seen their violent crime drastically increase in all 12 news article in in a news 12 article recently published Sheriff Penzone admitted he's not running again because of his office currently is restricted restricted by the court order of 2013. So actually I have a total conflict in the what I'm appealing to you for because I definitely believe the DOJ is absolutely crooked. I think we see that time and time again. Unfortunately, so is Penzone. So I guess what we're just saying is I really appreciated a lot of you asking questions today. Um, Miss uh, Haj Washington, I appreciated that you really just asking people to start giving you stuff in advance because we we do rely on you guys to make decisions that are based on on educated choices, not somebody lining your pocket or you're working for MAG or some other thing where you're compromising your ability to lead here, which is definitely the situation with the mayor who does need to eventually resign with MAG or resign as the mayor because you can't work for the economic forum and act like you're going to represent we the people and then act like you're going to be the mayor. It just doesn't work that way. Thank you. Jeff Caldwell is next, followed by Michael Norton. I want to wish you all a merry Christmas and a happy new year. It is the last city council meeting of the year and so I hope that you all return back to your homes and your families and uh reflect on the future of Phoenix. I know Mayor Ggo, you are hopeful with implementing the Green New Deal policies. Um, but I I hope that you listen to what we are saying regarding the meat mitigation policies that are being implemented in the city. Um, also if the DOJ moves forward with a lawsuit against the city of Phoenix, because I hope you all do not support the the consent decree, that we hire the best lawyer possible in fighting this and not somebody who has lost in a battle already previously. Um, but to get back into it with the consent decree, uh, Penzon actually says that he cannot, uh, perform his proper safety of the community and he believes something is wrong when he when when this is happening. And he said that on October 2nd. Um, I I just hope that you all have the courage to stand up against tyranny and uh support individual liberty and freedom. And I hope that uh you have a great Christmas and happy new year. Thank you very much. Michael Norton is next, followed by Jerry Carlton. Mayor Ggo, thank you for the opportunity to speak. In 2017, the Arizona Republic reported that there were 5,449 parcels owned by the city of Phoenix that were dormant, unused, unnecessary, and should be sold. In November of 2018, the city's property manager, Tim McBride, reported to the city council that after reviewing those parcels, they identified several hundred that should be sold. And the city would try to become a good neighbor and a good landlord rather than the bad neighbor and the slum landlord. City charter provides that if land is not needed or likely to be needed within a reasonable future time, it should be sold. Those are the words of the city charter. In September 20, 2013, the city adopted a policy that stated that the city would sell or lease, and I'm quoting, if the controlling department has no planned, programmed immediate use or 5 years or more of the property that's involved. City Parks Department sitting on properties today that it has owned for over 20 years and those properties are adjacent to schools. Five of those properties sit adjacent to schools in district 6. One of those properties sits adjacent to a school in district 7. When you leave a park property dormant next to a school, you don't just take away from the community, you also create a health hazard. We know that the dust from those lots is going to promagate valley fever. You also create a fire hazard. We know that those lots will create a stink netw weed issue. I'm asking that you create Jerry is actually going to make this request. He's going to ask that you create an ordinance that adopts the policies that were set forth in 2013. Thank you. Thank you. Jerry is next, followed by Brian McCarti. Yes. City Council members, thank you for this opportunity. Uh, I represent, My name is Jerry Carlton. I represent Rogers Ranch Residence Committee. Uh, we've submitted several petitions to the city and yet have been told by the city manager that they have to go to the parks and recreation board. The si the Phoenix city charter provides only for filing citizen petitions by submitting them in writing during the general session of the city council. It is not allowed to authorize petitions to the parks and recreation. That's your city charter. So I just want to make sure we understand that. Second, we petition the city to adopt a new ordinance addressing the acquisition of sale any properties designated or intended used as a park when that property uh is adjacent to a public school. We also implore the help and assistance of Councilman Washington and District 8 and Vice Mayor Ansari for district 7. We had a park planned for that uh area in district 7 20 years ago. At that time, the vice mayor could have even used that park because she'd have been 11 or 12 years old. The city should adopt an ordinance providing as follows. Dormant parks properties ordinance. If at any time the city owns any property designated for use as a park which has failed to develop within five years or taking after taking title, the city shall cease acquiring any further properties until all land designated for use as a park been developed as a park. If at any time a city-owned property designated for the use as a park has not been used or constructed a functioning park within 10 years of the title taking a possession of the land, the city shall immediately deed that land back to the former property owner or its assenee. In consideration of the transfer of ownership of the land, the city shall be paid to fair market value of that land. Since the land can be used only as park and has a very limited value, the city shall be paid $1 per acre for the land so transfer. We respectfully submit this on behalf of the residents who serve as the Rogers Ranch residence committee. We would also like to ask for the help and support by both district 7 and district 8 council. Hope you all have a great holiday. Stay safe, be peaceful, and enjoy the rest of your year. Thank you. Our final speaker today and this year will be Brian McCarti. Right. Thank you. Good afternoon, mayor and members of the city council. Thank you for this opportunity to speak with you again. Uh my name is Brian McCarti and I live in the West Valley north of the Goodyear airport. I've gone on record several times about the growing noise and public safety problem in Goodyear, chiefly associated with the significant growth in flight school operations and the patterns flown by them. With no warnings to the citizens of Goodyear about the nature, frequency, and intensity of airport growth and changing flight patterns, the residents of Goodyear endure long hours of droning aircraft noise, air pollution from piston aircraft leed fuel emissions, and the increased public safety risk of an airplane crash into a populated area. Please see the EPA's October 2023 news release titled, "Let emissions from aircraft engine cause or contribute to air pollution." While investigating this problem nationwide, we have found that other cities where United Aviate Academy and their partners operate are also negatively affected by the flight school's aggressive all-day operations. They are not being good neighbors to us. In 2019, a Cirrus aircraft, just like the ones that fly above our neighborhood every day, crashed into a Los Angeles home with an infant inside. And in 2020, the same type of aircraft, Assirus, crashed into a neighborhood school near Santa Maria, California. This should be a caution to you that an accident is highly likely to happen in Goodyear as aircraft fly over our neighborhood thousands of times a week. We have one simple objective and that is to work with you and use your influence to encourage flight school pilots to fly south of Interstate 10. Although we support the aviation programs at your airport, it is our view that flight school training programs need not be undertaken by imposing annoyance and health hazards upon nearby residents, hospitals, daycare facilities, schools, and businesses. There are many airfields and areas of this state remote from population centers at which this training can take place. Again, we urge you to encourage the flight schools to fly south of Interstate 10. There is no acceptable flight path or altitude north of Interstate 10 that will abate the noise pollution generated from these aircraft. It clearly states under bullet point one in the Goodyear airport pilot guide under practice noise friendly flight to avoid low-level activity over residential areas. If the flight schools can adhere to this rule and stay south of Interstate 10, the noise concerns will likely go away. If not, the pilots at these flight schools will continue to be a constant strain on your already limited city resources. This airport is too busy, it's too noisy, and it is too unsafe. Thank you again for your time and attention to this problem, and again, have a safe holiday season. That is our final speaker for today's meeting. Have a great holiday season. Happy New Year. We are adjourned. Policing is not just a profession. It's a way of life. long hours, inherent risks,