← Back to meetings

Meeting City Council Formal Meeting-5/31/2023 complete

2023-05-31 · Formal

Items: 152

City Council Formal Meeting

View on Agenda Online ↗


Synced: 2026-05-28 03:37 AZ

Item text
to Boards and Commissions

Summary
This item transmits recommendations from the Mayor and Council for appointment or
reappointment to City Boards and Commissions.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by the Mayor's Office.




Page 19
ATTACHMENT A




To: City Council Date: May 31, 2023
From: Mayor Kate Gallego

Subject: REVISED FOR CORRECTION* BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS – APPOINTEES

The purpose of this memo is to provide recommendations for appointments to the
following Boards and Commissions:

*Fire Safety Advisory Board

I recommend the following for appointment:

Bryan Jeffries
Mr. Jeffries is a retired firefighter and investor. He will represent Real Estate for a term
to expire May 31, 2027.

Jim Piotrowski
Mr. Piotrowski recently retired from his position as Director of Renewable Generation at
Arizona Public Service. He will serve as a Resident of Phoenix for a term to expire May
31, 2027.

*Laveen Village Planning Committee

Vice Mayor Yassamin Ansari recommends the following for appointment:

Mixen Rubio-Raffin
Ms. Rubio-Raffin is a student at Arizona State University and a resident of District 7.
She fills a vacancy for a term to expire November 19, 2024.

North Mountain Village Planning Committee

Councilwoman Debra Stark recommends the following for appointment:




Page 20
Donna Kennedy
Ms. Kennedy has a background in urban planning and is a resident of District 3. She fills
a vacancy for a partial term to expire November 19, 2023.

Kenneth Molfetta
Kenneth Molfetta is a Project Manager at Aline Architecture Concepts and a resident of
District 3. He replaces Donna Wiedoff for a term to expire November 19, 2024.

Phoenix Business and Workforce Development Board

I recommend the following for appointment:

Raghu Santanam
Mr. Santanam is Executive Director of AZNext. He replaces Luke Tate and will fulfill his
term to expire June 30, 2024.

Phoenix Youth and Education Commission

I recommend the following for appointment:

Rabbanni FurQaan
Mr. FurQaan is Director of Development at Pipeline AZ. He fills a vacancy for a term to
expire August 31, 2026.




Page 21



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Bonitas

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 239365.

Summary

Applicant
Theresa Morse, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
4920 W. Thunderbird Road, Ste. 100
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 1

This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was previously
licensed for liquor sales and may currently operate with an interim permit.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is June 3, 2023.

Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.

Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.


Page 22


Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.

Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.

I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I am a reliable business owner and have staff that has obtained the Basic and
Management liquor law training. I will also attend the liquor law training to ensure my
staff is complying with all state, city and health department laws and regulations.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“The public convenience will be served as there has been a restaurant at this location
previously for approximately 4 years. My customers are in favor of a liquor license at
this location as it complements the service of food. Our hours of operation are such
that the restaurant will not interfere with traffic and noise in the neighborhood.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application noting the applicant must resolve any
pending City of Phoenix building and zoning requirements, and be in compliance with
the City of Phoenix Code and Ordinances.

Attachments
Liquor License Data - Bonitas
Liquor License Map - Bonitas

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.




Page 23
Liquor License Data: BONITAS
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Bar 6 2 1

Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 1

Liquor Store 9 4 2

Beer and Wine Store 10 3 1

Restaurant 12 6 5


Crime Data

Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***

Property Crimes 59.36 23.93 30.46

Violent Crimes 11.38 3.68 6.36

*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius



Property Violation Data

Description Average 1/2 Mile Average

Parcels w/Violations 51 52

Total Violations 89 88




Page 24
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1042173 1381 51 18 8

1042181 1368 85 8 6

1042182 926 72 3 3

1042183 1664 19 4 20

1042191 1602 85 0 13

1042241 813 22 15 15

1042242 1937 95 14 2

Average 0 61 13 19




Page 25
Liquor License Map: BONITAS
4920 W THUNDERBIRD RD




Ü
Date: 4/7/2023
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi


City Clerk Department
Page 26



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Casa De Falafel

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 238656.

Summary

Applicant
Ali Shakir, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
4920 W. Thunderbird Road, Ste. 119
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 1

This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was previously
licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is June 10, 2023.

Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.

Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.


Page 27


Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.

Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.

I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“since 2021, I have operated a restaurant featuring Middle Eastern food. I have
complied with all laws and regulations pertaining to the operation of my restaurant. If a
license is issued, I will comply with the liquor laws and regulations pertaining to the
sale and service of alcohol.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“it will permit the sale of alcohol to the few patrons of the restaurant who wish to buy
alcohol to accompany their meal.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Attachments
Liquor License Data - Casa De Falafel
Liquor License Map - Casa De Falafel

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.




Page 28
Liquor License Data: CASA DE FALAFEL
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Bar 6 2 1

Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 1

Liquor Store 9 4 2

Beer and Wine Store 10 3 1

Restaurant 12 6 5


Crime Data

Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***

Property Crimes 59.36 23.93 30.46

Violent Crimes 11.38 3.68 6.36

*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius



Property Violation Data

Description Average 1/2 Mile Average

Parcels w/Violations 51 51

Total Violations 89 87




Page 29
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1042173 1381 51 18 8

1042181 1368 85 8 6

1042182 926 72 3 3

1042183 1664 19 4 20

1042191 1602 85 0 13

1042241 813 22 15 15

1042242 1937 95 14 2

Average 0 61 13 19




Page 30
Liquor License Map: CASA DE FALAFEL
4920 W THUNDERBIRD RD




Ü
Date: 4/12/2023
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi


City Clerk Department
Page 31



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Mexcelente

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 244084.

Summary

Applicant
Alfredo Rodriguez, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
4241 W. Thunderbird Road, Ste. B
Zoning Classification: PSC
Council District: 1

This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was not
previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit. This location
requires a Use Permit to allow alcohol sales as an accessory use to a restaurant.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is June 13, 2023.

Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.

Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.

Page 32




Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.

Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.

I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I have taken the necessary Title IV Management Liquor Law Training, as well as, Title
IV Basic Liquor Law Training and learned how to serve, monitor, control and manage
the sale of alcoholic beverages. Furthermore, in the last thirty years, I have manage,
administer, and led multiple restaurants that sold alcoholic beverages.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“It allows our patrons to enjoy their meal with an option of an alcoholic beverage in a
safe, controlled and monitored environment.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application noting the applicant must resolve any
pending City of Phoenix building and zoning requirements, and be in compliance with
the City of Phoenix Code and Ordinances.

Attachments
Liquor License Data - Mexcelente
Liquor License Map - Mexcelente

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.




Page 33
Liquor License Data: MEXCELENTE
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Bar 6 1 1

Beer and Wine Bar 7 2 0

Liquor Store 9 5 0

Beer and Wine Store 10 2 1

Restaurant 12 9 1


Crime Data

Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***

Property Crimes 59.36 64.22 68.15

Violent Crimes 11.38 10.74 8.59

*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius



Property Violation Data

Description Average 1/2 Mile Average

Parcels w/Violations 50 54

Total Violations 88 101




Page 34
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1042021 1471 85 2 7

1042023 1420 88 18 4

1042121 1193 15 0 17

1042123 1683 79 0 10

1042124 2501 80 3 5

1042181 1368 85 8 6

1042191 1602 85 0 13

Average 0 61 13 19




Page 35
Liquor License Map: MEXCELENTE
4241 W THUNDERBIRD RD




Ü
Date: 4/17/2023
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi


City Clerk Department
Page 36



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Circle K Store #599

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 239296.

Summary

Applicant
Maria Burgess, Agent

License Type
Series 10 - Beer and Wine Store

Location
1440 W. Bell Road
Zoning Classification: C-1
Council District: 2

This request is for a new liquor license for a convenience store that sells gas. This
location is currently licensed for liquor sales with Series 9 - Liquor Store, liquor license
and does not have an interim permit.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is June 9, 2023.

Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.

Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This information is not provided due to the multiple ownership interests held by the
applicant in the State of Arizona.

Page 37




Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.

Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.

I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“Circle K requires all store personnel to attend an in-house training program. This
training is designed to provide a safe and positive customer service environment. As
part of the Circle K training program, we provide an Alcohol Training Program that
meets the requirements of the Arizona Department of Liquor License Control.
Employees must pass a test on Techniques of Alcohol Management that becomes part
their employee file. Store Managers are required to attend additional in-house training
and obtain certification from the Arizona Department of Liquor License Control. This
certification requires submission of fingerprints and includes background investigation.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Circle K's objective to provide a product, accessible in a convenient manner that
meets the need of the surrounding community. Circle K's success depends on us
being able to provide products that are in demand.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application noting the applicant must resolve any
pending City of Phoenix building and zoning requirements, and be in compliance with
the City of Phoenix Code and Ordinances.

Attachments
Liquor License Data - Circle K Store #599
Liquor License Map - Circle K Store #599

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.




Page 38
Liquor License Data: CIRCLE K STORE #599
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Bar 6 2 2

Beer and Wine Bar 7 2 2

Liquor Store 9 8 4

Beer and Wine Store 10 6 2

Restaurant 12 3 1

Club 14 1 1


Crime Data

Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***

Property Crimes 59.36 180.28 381.21

Violent Crimes 11.38 23.91 51.16
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius



Property Violation Data

Description Average 1/2 Mile Average

Parcels w/Violations 51 58

Total Violations 89 115




Page 39
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1036041 2174 87 7 29

1036042 664 92 17 9

1036081 2434 69 11 7

6186003 1177 89 11 24

6187001 1478 79 7 13

6187002 1468 61 7 20

6188001 893 63 6 18

6188002 1160 0 35 11

6188003 1746 38 21 7

6188004 1245 35 20 30

6189004 1183 83 15 1

Average 0 61 13 19




Page 40
Liquor License Map: CIRCLE K STORE #599
1440 W BELL RD




Ü
Date: 4/12/2023
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi


City Clerk Department
Page 41



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Dahlia Tapas Tequila and Wine

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 238187.

Summary

Applicant
Audrey Corley, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
2221 N. 7th St.
Zoning Classification: C-1 CNSPD
Council District: 4

This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was not
previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit. This location
requires a Use Permit to allow outdoor dining and outdoor alcohol consumption.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is June 9, 2023.

Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.

Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
The ownership of this business has an interest in other active liquor license(s) in the


Page 42

State of Arizona. This information is listed below and includes liquor license violations
on file with the AZ Department of Liquor Licenses and Control and, for locations within
the boundaries of Phoenix, the number of aggregate calls for police service within the
last 12 months for the address listed.

Boycott (Series 6)
4301 N. 7th Ave., Phoenix
Calls for police service: 9
Liquor license violations: In June 2019, a fine of $500 was paid for false or misleading
information on application or other documents.

Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.

Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.

I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“We train all of our employees in responsible liquor service and conduct regular audits
to ensure they comply.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“We would like to offer our patrons a place to enjoy some amazing food, a beautiful
atmosphere and possibly an adult beverage for guests of legal drinking age.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application noting the applicant must resolve any
pending City of Phoenix building and zoning requirements, and be in compliance with
the City of Phoenix Code and Ordinances.

Attachments
Liquor License Data - Dahlia Tapas Tequila and Wine
Liquor License Map - Dahlia Tapas Tequila and Wine

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.



Page 43
Liquor License Data: DAHLIA TAPAS TEQUILA AND WINE
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Microbrewery 3 2 0

Government 5 2 0

Bar 6 10 2

Beer and Wine Bar 7 9 0

Liquor Store 9 5 3

Beer and Wine Store 10 9 0

Hotel 11 2 0

Restaurant 12 54 7

Club 14 1 1



Crime Data

Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***

Property Crimes 59.36 159.73 103.5

Violent Crimes 11.38 36.17 16.02
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius



Property Violation Data

Description Average 1/2 Mile Average

Parcels w/Violations 50 90

Total Violations 89 144




Page 44
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1117001 1792 45 32 41

1117002 1243 39 12 28

1117003 1057 64 2 10

1117004 1227 75 20 21

1118001 742 44 28 5

1118004 671 62 6 6

1130002 873 29 21 38

1132032 638 28 7 70

Average 0 61 13 19




Page 45
Liquor License Map: DAHLIA TAPAS TEQUILA AND WINE
2221 N 7TH ST




Ü
Date: 4/18/2023
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi


City Clerk Department
Page 46



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Kid Sister

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 244190.

Summary

Applicant
Courtney Lewandrowski, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
4810 N. 7th St.
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 4

This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was previously
licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit. This location requires a
Use Permit to allow outdoor dining and outdoor alcohol consumption as an accessory
use to a restaurant. This business is currently being remodeled with plans to open in
August 2023.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is June 16, 2023.

Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.



Page 47

Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.

Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.

Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.

I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I have 5+ years of experience in the food and beverage industry. Three of those years
were spent at a winery intimately learning about alcohol production. I also have a
background in tax and accounting and understand the great fiscal responsibility in
following the law. I will create a training schedule for all employees so they are
informed of applicable liquor laws and are responsible servers.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Our goal is to be a good neighbor and be a welcoming place to the community for
food and drinks. We are committed to social entrepreneurship where-in we operate a
for-profit business with intentional operating practices to positively impact the local
community. Examples of these include partnering with WasteNot to limit food waste
and paying fair wages and offering benefits to all employees.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application noting the applicant must resolve any
pending City of Phoenix building and zoning requirements, and be in compliance with
the City of Phoenix Code and Ordinances.

Attachments
Liquor License Data - Kid Sister
Liquor License Map - Kid Sister

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.




Page 48
Page 49
Page 50
Page 51



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Addis Ababa Rest & Cafe

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 244317.

Summary

Applicant
Nuria Omer, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
3527 W. Bethany Home Road
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 5

This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was previously
licensed for liquor sales and may currently operate with an interim permit.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is June 17, 2023.

Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.

Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.


Page 52


Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.

Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.

I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I have the last five years experience and I have taken all the classes.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“for Saftey and Security.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Attachments
Liquor License Data - Addis Ababa Rest & Cafe
Liquor License Map - Addis Ababa Rest & Cafe

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.




Page 53
Liquor License Data: ADDIS ABABA REST & CAFE
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Bar 6 1 0

Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 0

Liquor Store 9 4 1

Beer and Wine Store 10 6 1

Restaurant 12 11 6


Crime Data

Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***

Property Crimes 59.36 167.33 327.81

Violent Crimes 11.38 31.28 44.69

*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius



Property Violation Data

Description Average 1/2 Mile Average

Parcels w/Violations 50 147

Total Violations 89 264




Page 54
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1069003 1767 77 0 14

1070002 1741 70 23 18

1070003 1336 82 30 9

1071011 1603 77 10 21

1071012 2416 62 10 43

1071022 2275 45 20 45

1071023 2082 32 14 38

1072011 2335 21 25 49

1072021 3137 64 9 29

Average 0 61 13 19




Page 55
Liquor License Map: ADDIS ABABA REST & CAFE
3527 W BETHANY HOME RD




Ü
Date: 4/19/2023
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi


City Clerk Department
Page 56



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Circle K Store #9580

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 239295.

Summary

Applicant
Maria Burgess, Agent

License Type
Series 10 - Beer and Wine Store

Location
2440 W. Bethany Home Road
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 5

This request is for a new liquor license for a convenience store that sells gas. This
location is currently licensed for liquor sales and has an interim permit.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is June 9, 2023.

Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.

Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This information is not provided due to the multiple ownership interests held by the
applicant in the State of Arizona.


Page 57


Public Opinion
Four letters protesting the issuance of this license have been received and are on file
in the Office of the City Clerk. The letters are from the Desert Horizon Precinct Block
Watch, Ocotillo Glen Neighborhood Association and two local residents. They feel that
there are sufficient liquor licenses in the area, noting that they are primarily opposed to
a Series 9 - Liquor Store liquor license the applicant had originally applied for at this
location, which has since been withdrawn.

Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.

I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“Circle K requires all store personnel to attend an in-house training program. This
training is designed to provide a safe and positive customer service environment. As
part of the Circle K training program, we provide an Alcohol Training Program that
meets the requirements of the Arizona Department of Liquor License Control.
Employees must pass a test on Techniques of Alcohol Management that becomes part
their employee file. Store Managers are required to attend additional in-house training
and obtain certification from the Arizona Department of Liquor License Control. This
certification requires submission of fingerprints and includes background investigation.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Circle K's objective to provide a product, accessible in a convenient manner that
meets the need of the surrounding community. Circle K's success depends on us
being able to provide products that are in demand.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff gave careful consideration to the protest letters received. However, after
reviewing the application in its entirety, staff is recommending approval of this
application.

Attachments
Liquor License Data - Circle K Store #9580
Liquor License Map - Circle K Store #9580

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City
Clerk Department.

Page 58
Liquor License Data: CIRCLE K STORE #9580
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Bar 6 5 2

Liquor Store 9 6 3

Beer and Wine Store 10 15 7

Restaurant 12 6 0


Crime Data

Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***

Property Crimes 59.36 272.74 258.7

Violent Crimes 11.38 60.5 81.84

*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius



Property Violation Data

Description Average 1/2 Mile Average

Parcels w/Violations 51 158

Total Violations 89 316




Page 59
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1068012 1670 5 28 55

1068013 1083 30 20 33

1068021 1099 60 0 9

1068022 1105 85 21 1

1068023 1633 17 17 34

1069002 2629 71 5 22

1072022 2085 62 5 22

1073001 2203 79 3 6

1073004 2614 23 5 31

Average 0 61 13 19




Page 60
Liquor License Map: CIRCLE K STORE #9580
2440 W BETHANY HOME RD




Ü
Date: 4/11/2023
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi


City Clerk Department
Page 61



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Doughbird

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 233438.

Summary

Applicant
Samuel Fox, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
5600 N. 7th St., Ste. 100
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 6

This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was previously
licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit. This business is
currently being remodeled with plans to open in August 2023.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is June 4, 2023.

Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.

Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This information is not provided due to the multiple ownership interests held by the
applicant in the State of Arizona.

Page 62




Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.

Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.

I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because: I
have owned and operated restaurants in Phoenix in compliance with all liquor laws
over the last 24 years. I have completed the Department of Liquor and Licenses
Control liquor service training.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Doughbird restaurant with serve roasted chicken, pizza, salads and a variety of
sandwiches for casual dine in and for take out. We believe the public will benefit from
having a glass of wine, cold beer or a mixed drink with their dine-in meal.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Attachments
Liquor License Data - Doughbird
Liquor License Map - Doughbird

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.




Page 63
Liquor License Data: DOUGHBIRD
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Microbrewery 3 1 0

Bar 6 5 2

Beer and Wine Bar 7 12 0

Liquor Store 9 6 3

Beer and Wine Store 10 9 1

Restaurant 12 55 20


Crime Data

Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***

Property Crimes 59.36 112.2 109.97

Violent Crimes 11.38 13.82 12.52
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius



Property Violation Data

Description Average 1/2 Mile Average

Parcels w/Violations 51 39

Total Violations 89 65




Page 64
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1065012 1594 61 18 32

1066002 2064 83 7 5

1075001 758 80 2 3

1075002 1458 74 7 15

1076011 319 65 16 46

1076012 904 38 24 23

1076013 1748 38 8 17

Average 0 61 13 19




Page 65
Liquor License Map: DOUGHBIRD
5600 N 7TH ST




Ü
Date: 4/7/2023
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi


City Clerk Department
Page 66



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Global Ambassador Hotel

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 06070459.

Summary

Applicant
Samuel Fox, Agent

License Type
Series 6 - Bar

Location
4360 E. Camelback Road
Zoning Classification: PUD
Council District: 6

This request is for an ownership and location transfer of a liquor license for a bar. This
location was not previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim
permit. This business is currently under construction and has plans to open in
November 2023.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is June 11, 2023.

Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.




Page 67

Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This information is not provided due to the multiple ownership interests held by the
applicant in the State of Arizona.

Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.

Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.

I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because I
have owned and operated restaurants in Phoenix in compliance with all liquor laws
over the last 24 years. I have completed the Department of Liquor and Licenses
Control liquor service training.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“The Global Ambassador Hotel will contain several restaurants for the guests and the
public to enjoy. We will have four different restaurants on the hotel premises. Each
restaurant serves food and we believe the public will benefit from having a glass of
wine, cold beer and mixed drink with their meal.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application noting the applicant must resolve any
pending City of Phoenix building and zoning requirements, and be in compliance with
the City of Phoenix Code and Ordinances.

Attachments
Liquor License Data - Global Ambassador Hotel
Liquor License Map - Global Ambassador Hotel

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.




Page 68
Page 69
Page 70
Page 71



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - 7-Eleven #23215A

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 239456.

Summary

Applicant
Jatinder Singh, Agent

License Type
Series 10 - Beer and Wine Store

Location
3948 E. Thomas Road
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 8

This request is for a new liquor license for a convenience store that does not sell gas.
This location was previously licensed for liquor sales and may currently operate with
an interim permit.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is June 2, 2023.

Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.

Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
The ownership of this business has an interest in other active liquor license(s) in the


Page 72

State of Arizona. This information is listed below and includes liquor license violations
on file with the AZ Department of Liquor Licenses and Control and, for locations within
the boundaries of Phoenix, the number of aggregate calls for police service within the
last 12 months for the address listed.

7-Eleven #24169D (Series 10)
850 E. Bell Road, Phoenix
Calls for police service: 75
Liquor license violations: None

7-Eleven #26086D (Series 10)
3201 E. Shea Boulevard, Phoenix
Calls for police service: 9
Liquor license violations: None

Mission Market (Series 9)
8818 S. Avenida Del Yaqui, Guadalupe
Calls for police service: N/A - not in Phoenix
Liquor license violations: None

Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.

Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.

I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“Applicant is committed to upholding the highest standards for business and
maintaining compliance with applicable laws. Managers and staff will be trained in the
techniques of legal and responsible alcohol sales and service.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“7-Eleven #23215A is a one-stop shop for convenience items and has been in
operation for many years. Under new franchise ownership, applicant would like to
continue to offer beer and wine to its customers 21 and over.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.


Page 73


Attachments
Liquor License Data - 7-Eleven #23215A
Liquor License Map - 7-Eleven #23215A

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.




Page 74
Liquor License Data: 7-ELEVEN #23215A
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Microbrewery 3 1 1

Bar 6 7 2

Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 1

Liquor Store 9 6 1

Beer and Wine Store 10 8 4

Restaurant 12 14 6


Crime Data

Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***

Property Crimes 58.75 41.74 8.7

Violent Crimes 11.25 8.62 3.29
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius



Property Violation Data

Description Average 1/2 Mile Average

Parcels w/Violations 51 77

Total Violations 89 117




Page 75
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1109012 2669 23 19 27

1109021 2609 33 21 40

1109022 2224 39 7 18

1110002 1105 63 8 19

1110003 1587 64 17 24

1113002 930 52 7 20

1114011 2444 62 7 27

1114021 1986 38 14 27

Average 0 61 13 19




Page 76
Liquor License Map: 7-ELEVEN #23215A
3948 E THOMAS RD




Ü
Date: 4/4/2023
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi


City Clerk Department
Page 77



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - American Premium Vodka

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 239573.

Summary

Applicant
Mark Scott, Agent

License Type
Series 18 - Craft Distiller

Location
2841 E. Bell Road, Ste. 101
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 2

This request is for a new liquor license for a craft distillery. This location was not
previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit. This business
has plans to open in June 2023.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is June 6, 2023.

Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.

Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.

Page 78




Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.

Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.

I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“30+ Year Industry Leader (Resume Attached). Federal Liquor License/Permit Aquired
harit New Brand Established to support American Legion and VFW Veteran Charities.
AZ Title 4 Management Certificate (Attached).”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“American Premium Vodka Donates $1 from every bottle sold to the American Legion
and VFW Charities In Honor of Real American Heroes - Our Veterans! Facility Not
Open to the Public.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends disapproval of this application based on a Finance Department
recommendation for disapproval. The applicant has not demonstrated the capability,
qualifications and reliability to hold and control a liquor license.

Attachments
Liquor License Data - American Premium Vodka
Liquor License Map - American Premium Vodka

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.




Page 79
Liquor License Data: AMERICAN PREMIUM VODKA
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Microbrewery 3 1 0

Bar 6 4 1

Beer and Wine Bar 7 2 0

Liquor Store 9 7 4

Beer and Wine Store 10 9 1

Restaurant 12 14 11


Crime Data

Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***

Property Crimes 59.36 125.66 116.34

Violent Crimes 11.38 24.57 28.76
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius



Property Violation Data

Description Average 1/2 Mile Average

Parcels w/Violations 51 86

Total Violations 89 156




Page 80
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1033032 1103 78 9 18

1033041 1926 47 13 34

1033042 1219 2 16 38

1033043 1952 26 28 48

1033051 1180 47 29 35

1033052 2333 59 9 30

1033062 2272 17 22 37

6195003 2362 65 14 8

6196001 2094 72 11 3

Average 0 61 13 19




Page 81
Liquor License Map: AMERICAN PREMIUM VODKA
2841 E BELL RD




Ü
Date: 4/11/2023
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi


City Clerk Department
Page 82




PAYMENT ORDINANCE (Ordinance S-49701) (Items 14-39)
Ordinance S-49701 is a request to authorize the City Controller to
disburse funds, up to amounts indicated below, for the purpose of
paying vendors, contractors, claimants and others, and providing
additional payment authority under certain existing city contracts. This
section also requests continuing payment authority, up to amounts
indicated below, for the following contracts, contract extensions and/or
bids awarded. As indicated below, some items below require payment
pursuant to Phoenix City Code section 42-13.

14 DS Griffen & Associates
For $25,000 in payment authority to purchase strategic consulting
services for the Phoenix Fire Department (PFD). The primary role will be
to facilitate a series of stakeholder input sessions as well as a subsequent
workshop to develop the overall strategic planning framework for the PFD.
The process will include input sessions from key PFD staff members and
operational professionals to provide their assessment of PFD today and
the challenges ahead. Sessions with representatives from the Phoenix
business community and a citizen-oriented session will provide
understanding with the current views and reputation of the PFD . A final
session will be held with City stakeholders and key department heads that
will be interacting with the PFD in the future. Following the input sessions,
the final analysis will be completed and returned to the PFD leadership
team. Funding is available through the Phoenix Fire Department budget
for Fiscal Year 2022-23.

15 Avolve Software Corporation
For $80,691 in payment authority to purchase annual software
maintenance and support renewal service for the Planning and
Development Department. An electronic review process software known
as ProjectDox will assist Planning and Development staff with workflow
capability. Staff in Planning and Development are responsible for the


Page 83

intake, tracking and review process of construction plans. After hard copy
plans are submitted, they go through a complex routing process for
review to ensure that multiple disciplines and/or departments along with
infrastructure providing outside entities can review and provide comments
to minimize in the field construction problems. ProjectDox reduces
process times and integrates with the existing KIVA system. Funding is
available through the Planning and Development Department budget for
Fiscal Year 2022-23.

16 MG Trust Investments, LLC doing business as
American Bindery & Mailing
For $20,000 in additional payment authority for Contract 149374 for mail
service processing for the Police and City Clerk departments. Contractor
provides all labor, transportation, equipment and supplies necessary for
the processing of special, first class and bulk mailings on an as-needed
basis at various City locations.

17 Healthy Outcomes, Inc., doing business as Balancing
Act
For $12,000 in payment authority to purchase simulation analysis services
from Healthy Outcomes, Inc., doing business as Balancing Act, for the
Planning and Development Department (PDD). PDD is kicking off an
intense and varying series of public participation events to solicit
feedback on the General Plan 2025 Update. This process is expected to
facilitate conversations with all Phoenicians. Balancing Act provides a
unique set of methods and approaches to ensure all citizens can engage
and give input over the next several months. One aspect of the public
participation plan is to enhance the online presence and input-gathering
opportunities through interactive media beyond the typical department
website and web presence. The City Council approved the General Plan
Citizen Participation Plan in the fall of 2022. The proposed tool utilization
will cover the time frame between May 31, 2023, and Dec. 28, 2023, and
will be paid through PDD’s Fiscal Year 2022-23 operating budget.

18 Smith's Detection Inc.
For $15,940 in payment authority to purchase annual maintenance service
for four X-ray machines for the Phoenix Police Department (PPD). PPD is
responsible for on-site security for several critical infrastructure buildings


Page 84

within the downtown footprint (Calvin Goode, City Hall, Council Chambers,
and 305 Mail Room). The X-Ray machines screen members of the public
entering the buildings to detect prohibited items and ensure the safety of
those within the buildings. The maintenance agreement and support
guarantee immediate maintenance response when an issue is detected.
The funds are available in the Police Department operating budget.

19 Asset Security Tracking and Recovery, LLC
For $96,317 in payment authority to purchase 10 LED covert camera
heads for the Phoenix Police Department. The camera equipment sends
a video signal to the Police Department server to allow detectives to
review footage in felony criminal investigations. Utilizing the camera
equipment minimizes risks to detectives, and allows more time for
personnel to meet demands within the department. The funds are
available in the Police Department operating budget.

20 Gabriel Roeder Smith & Company
For $80,000 in additional payment authority on Contract 155166 for
actuarial services for the Finance Department. The services are required
to determine asset and liabilities for other post-employment benefits and
compensated absences as required by Governmental Accounting
Standards and other special studies as needed.

21 Standard Coating Company
For an additional $43,000 in payment authority to purchase specialty art
painting services for the Office of Arts and Culture. The funds will be used
to paint the Cave Creek Tower Art Structure at Rose Mafford Sports
Complex. Standard Coating Company is a qualified local vendor that
originally coated and painted the existing outdoor art structures and other
elements.

22 Demers Ambulance USA, Inc.
For $96,600 in additional payment authority to purchase four ambulance
chassis for the Fire Department. The additional funds are being
requested to support a change order due to the original Dodge chassis
no longer being available, requiring a change to a Ford chassis.




Page 85

23 Hunter Contracting Co.
For $1,146,180 in additional payment authority for Contract 153785
Change Order 1 (WS90500295-5), Relief Sewer Project - Van Buren and
52nd Streets, for the Water Services Department. The original contract
included 500 lineal feet of hard rock trenching. The actual lineal footage of
hard rock trenching encountered was 2,865 lineal feet. The increased
quantity of hard rock trenching increased the project cost and project
duration. This project uses Water Services Department Capital
Improvement Program funds; no general funds are required.

24 City of Glendale
For $65,000 in additional payment authority for Intergovernmental
Agreements 114154 and 114155 pertaining to treated sewer service and
treated water service to an area located in Phoenix. The
Intergovernmental Agreements provide for sewer and water service to the
area of Arizona State Route 101 and 51st Avenue located within the
boundaries of the City of Phoenix but outside the City's system, for the
Water Services Department.

25 City of Scottsdale
For $50,000.00 in payment authority for Contract 69310 with the City of
Scottsdale, pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding of
Overlapping Retail Sewer Services for the Water Services Department.
The City of Scottsdale provides sewer services at a wholesale rate to
Phoenix customers for sewer areas within Phoenix boundaries but outside
the Water Services Department's distribution and Wastewater Collection
area.

26 City of Mesa
For $100,000 for annual payment authority for the water, wastewater, solid
waste and gas costs associated with the Val Vista Water Treatment Plant,
including yearly maintenance and repair shutdown for the Water Services
Department. During the shutdown, services are purchased from the City
of Mesa for the site, including potable water, wastewater services, solid
waste services for removing debris from the Salt River Project South
Canal, and natural gas services to power standby generators.




Page 86

27 State of Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
For $525,000 in annual payment authority for Fiscal Year 2023-24 permit
fees and permit renewal fees for the Water Services Department. The
funds will be used for annual operating permits, hazardous waste permits,
quarterly disposal fees for all Water Services Department wastewater and
water facilities, fees for acceptance and review of required compliance
reports, fees for inspection of facilities for compliance with regulations,
and fees for document review of paperwork necessary to make changes
to permits.

28 Goldman Sachs Renewable Power Operating
Company, LLC, doing business as Solar Star Arizona
III, LLC
For $1,400,000 for annual payment authority for Contract 132993 to
provide solar power services to the Lake Pleasant Water Treatment Plant
for the Water Services Department. The 7.5-megawatt solar facility
produces approximately 75 percent of the plant's power needs.

29 Salt River Project Agriculture Improvement and Power
District doing business as SRP
For $16,766.33 in payment authority for design and construction of
electrical facilities for the 32nd Street and Thomas Road Signalized
Intersection number T3376230 for project ST89340623 for the Street
Transportation Department. SRP needs to make changes to their power
design in order to install the signal.

30 Salt River Project Agriculture Improvement and Power
District doing business as Salt River Project
For $18,860 in payment authority for construction of a street light circuit
T3081256 along Roeser Road between 32nd and 37th streets for project
ST87100169-1. Salt River Project is to install junction boxes, lights and
conductor for the Street Transportation Department.

31 Salt River Valley Water Users' Association Doing
Business as Salt River Project
For $3,100,000 in payment authority for Contract 59580 for the Water
Transportation Agreement to transfer water from the Salt River Valley
Water Users' Association dba Salt River Project to the City, and for Salt

Page 87

and Verde river water delivery pursuant to water rights held by the City for
Fiscal Year 2023-24 for the Water Services Department (WSD). WSD
treats and delivers water for lands within the Salt River Reservoir District
which have rights to the water stored and developed by Salt River Project.

32 Central Arizona Water Conservation District doing
business as Central Arizona Project
For $47,575,000 in payment authority for Contract 132409 and Contract
108079 for Fiscal Year 2023-24 for delivery of Colorado River water to
the City of Phoenix for the Water Services Department. The agreement
provides irrigation, municipal, and industrial water to the Phoenix service
area.

33 EPCOR Water USA, Inc.
For $70,000 for annual payment authority for Contract 93040 to provide
water and wastewater treatment services for the West Anthem service
area for the Water Services Department.

34 Arizona Department of Health Services
For $20,000 in payment authority for State of Arizona regulatory laboratory
license fees for the Water Services Department. The City is required to
pay an annual renewal fee to maintain the Water Services laboratory
compliance testing licensure and comply with state and federal
regulations. Valid licensure is required for the laboratory to perform
regulatory compliance testing.

35 Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., doing business as Republic
Media, The Arizona Republic, AZ Business Gazette
For $20,000 in payment authority to purchase Industrial Pretreatment
Program Significant Noncompliance and Pretreatment Settlement
Agreement publications for the Water Services Department. The
publications are mandatory public notices that inform residents of
industries that are in significant noncompliance with the Industrial
Pretreatment program standards.

36 Regents of the University of California doing business
as University of California, San Diego
For $20,000 in payment authority to purchase professional training


Page 88

courses in Fiscal Year 2023-24 for the Water Services Department
(WSD). WSD safety and training staff are required to maintain their
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) certification to
ensure staff can train WSD employees on OSHA regulations.

37 Settlement of Claim(s) Sandberg v. City of Phoenix
To make payment of up to $1,650,000 in settlement of claim(s) in
Sandberg v. City of Phoenix, CV2022-016752, 21-1145-001, BI, GL, for
the Finance Department pursuant to Phoenix City Code Chapter 42. This
is a settlement of a claim involving the Fire Department that occurred on
Dec. 31, 2021.

38 Settlement of Claim(s) State Farm v. City of Phoenix
To make payment of up to $33,000 in settlement of claim(s) in State
Farm v. City of Phoenix, 22-0059-001, AU, PD, for the Finance
Department pursuant to Phoenix City Code Chapter 42. This is a
settlement of an automobile property damage claim involving the Police
Department that occurred on Feb. 7, 2022.

39 Settlement of Claim(s) Velazquez Lopez v. City of
Phoenix
To make payment of up to $32,000 in settlement of claim(s) in Velazquez
Lopez v. City of Phoenix, 22-0304-001, AU, BI, for the Finance
Department pursuant to Phoenix City Code Chapter 42. This is a
settlement of an auto accident claim involving the Water Services
Department that occurred on April 7, 2022.




Page 89



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Public Hearing on the 2023-28 Capital Improvement Program

As required by the City Charter, this item requests the City Council conduct a public
hearing on the 2023-28 Capital Improvement Program for purposes of receiving public
comments.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the Budget and Research
Department.




Page 90



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Adoption of the 2023-28 Capital Improvement Program (Resolution 22127)

Request City Council approval of a resolution adopting a 2023-28 Capital Improvement
Program (CIP) for the City of Phoenix. This resolution does not appropriate or commit
any public funds, but represents an endorsement of the proposed capital
improvements and the five-year plan of expenditure as a reasonable and desirable
plan to be accomplished by the City. A five-year capital plan is considered a best
financial practice.

Summary
The Five-Year CIP is a plan for the replacement, expansion and improvement of city
infrastructure, facilities and technology used to deliver community services. It is
financed from pay-as-you-go funds, property tax and revenue supported bond
proceeds, federal, state and other participation funds, passenger facility charges,
customer facility charges, participation by other governmental entities in certain
projects, development impact fees, capital grants, capital reserves, solid waste
remediation funds and other capital funding sources.

The Preliminary Five-Year CIP was presented to the City Council on March 21, 2023.
The 2023-28 CIP proposed for adoption includes adjustments to reflect carryovers and
known cost and resource changes.

The City Charter requires that the Five-Year CIP be adopted by resolution following the
advertised public hearing, which this year will take place at the Formal meeting on May
31, 2023.

Adoption of the resolution (Attachment A) does not commit any funds, but represents
an endorsement of the CIP as a desirable plan to be accomplished over the next five
years. The first year of the CIP is adopted by ordinance as part of the annual budget
adoption process, which provides the only authority to commit funds.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the Budget and Research
Department.



Page 91
ATTACHMENT A

THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED RESOLUTION


RESOLUTION #####


A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A 2023-28 CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE CITY OF PHOENIX.




WHEREAS the provisions of Section 18, Chapter XVIII, Phoenix City

Charter require that the City Manager submit to the City Council a five-year capital

improvement program; and

The City Manager having prepared a five-year program listing all capital

improvements proposed to be undertaken during the next ensuing fiscal years

beginning July 1, 2023, and ending June 30, 2028; and

Said programs having been submitted to the City Council and filed of

record under the title "Preliminary 2023-2028 Capital Improvement Program," in the

office of the City Clerk; and

A public hearing on the program having been held on May 31, 2023, at

2:30 p.m. at the Council Chambers of the City of Phoenix, 200 West Jefferson, Phoenix,

Arizona; notice of the time, date and place of said hearing having been placed in the

official City newspaper and posted on the official bulletin boards not less than two

weeks prior to the hearings; and the City Council having considered all matters

appropriate thereto;



-1- Resolution #####
Page 92
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX as

follows:

SECTION 1. That the proposed five-year capital improvement program of

all capital improvements to be undertaken by the City of Phoenix for the five next

ensuing fiscal years commencing July 1, 2023, and consisting in general of the following

items and amounts:

Program Five-Year Total

Arts and Cultural Facilities $902,000
Aviation 1,962,568,000
Economic Development 48,501,000
Environmental Programs 1,262,000
Facilities Management 134,968,000
Finance 1,031,000
Fire Protection 54,594,000
Historic Preservation & Planning 26,563,000
Housing 172,801,000
Human Services 7,763,000
Information Technology 153,339,000
Libraries 13,954,000
Municipal Court 7,000,000
Neighborhood Services 12,888,000
Non-Departmental Capital 1,077,696,000
Parks, Recreation & Mountain Preserves 350,671,000
Phoenix Convention Center 79,232,000
Police Protection 45,259,000
Public Art Program 19,903,000
Public Transit 1,375,881,000
Regional Wireless Cooperative 30,005,000
Solid Waste Disposal 87,082,000
Street Transportation & Drainage 1,089,039,000
Wastewater 1,543,554,000
Water 1,722,347,000

Total $10,018,803,000


All as is more explicitly set forth in the document entitled "2023-2028

Capital Improvement Program" and in a section of the document entitled "The 2023-

-2- Resolution #####
Page 93
2024 Phoenix Detail Budget," to be submitted by the City Manager and filed with the

City Clerk, is adopted as the capital improvement program of the City.

SECTION 2. The adoption of this program is a statement of present goals

and objectives subject to actual annual appropriation by budget procedure and adoption

and to expenditure by regular fiscal payment ordinance.

PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 31st day of May, 2023.




MAYOR



ATTEST:


City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:


Acting City Attorney

REVIEWED BY:


City Manager




-3- Resolution #####
Page 94



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Public Hearing on Adoption of the Tentative 2023-24 Annual Budget Ordinances

As required by the City Charter and State statute, this item requests the City Council
conduct a public hearing on the adoption of the tentative 2023-24 Annual Budget
ordinances (see Attachments A and B for additional information).

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the Budget and Research
Department.




Page 95
ATTACHMENT A



Adoption of the Annual Tentative 2023-2024 Budget Ordinances

This report provides backup information to items on the May 31, 2023 Council Formal
agenda regarding adoption of the Tentative 2023-2024 Budget ordinances. These are
the annual steps required by City Charter and State Law.

State law requires adoption of the annual Tentative Budget ordinances, followed by two
consecutive weeks of publication of the adopted Tentative Budget in the legally
prescribed format. Detailed budget schedules prepared on forms provided by the State
Auditor General’s Office and Truth in Taxation notice in accordance with state law are
attached to this report.

Adoption of the Tentative 2023-2024 budget ordinances requires the following:

1. Holding a public hearing

2. Adoption of the Tentative 2023-2024 Budget ordinance. This ordinance adopts the
portion of the Tentative Budget financed from operating resources. It represents the
2023-2024 Budget approved by the City Council on May 16.

3. Adoption of the Tentative 2023-2024 Capital Funds Budget ordinance. This
ordinance adopts the portion of the Tentative Budget financed from capital funds and
is included in the first fiscal year of the 2023-2028 Capital Improvement Program.

4. Adoption of the Tentative 2023-2024 Reappropriated Funds Budget ordinance. This
budget ordinance is required to rebudget funds that were contractually committed in
the prior fiscal year but not yet fully expended. Since budget appropriations expire
on June 30 of each fiscal year, this ordinance re-establishes the appropriations for
payment of vendors as goods and services are received.

For example, on August 31, 2022, the City Council awarded a contract to J.E. Dunn
Construction Company, Inc. to provide Construction Manager at Risk Construction
Services for the Deer Valley Airport Police Hangar and Apron Replacement project.
The amount of the contract was $18,500,000, which was encumbered, or committed
using the 2022-2023 Aviation Capital Improvement Program budget appropriation.
However, to-date payments on this contract have not yet occurred and will extend
into fiscal year 2023-2024. The contract amount is included in the Reappropriated
Funds ordinance to ensure the spending authority is in place for future payments
made on this contract during the 2023-2024 fiscal year.

REMAINING STEPS
Following this action, the Tentative 2023-2024 Budget information will be advertised for
two consecutive weeks in accordance with state law.

State law also requires adoption of the Final 2023-2024 Budget ordinances following the
two weeks of advertised publications of the adopted Tentative Budget. The City Charter



Page 96
requires Council adopt the budget on or before the last day of June each year. As a
result, adoption of the Final 2023-2024 Budget is scheduled for the June 14, 2023
Council Formal meeting. The June 14, 2023 actions will include the Final 2023-2024
Budget ordinance, the Final 2023-2024 Capital Funds Budget ordinance, and the Final
2023-2024 Reappropriated Funds Budget ordinance. Both state law and the City
Charter require holding public hearings prior to adoption of the Budget ordinances.

Also on the June 14, 2023 agenda there will be several items necessary to close out the
current fiscal year and prepare for the annual independent audit. A separate City
Council Report will be provided explaining these funding plan close-out items for the
June 14, 2023 agenda.

The 2023-2024 Property Tax Levy will be brought forward for adoption on July 3, 2023,
as state law requires this to occur at least 14 days after adoption of the Final Budget.
The City Charter requires adoption of the Property Tax Levy no later than the last
regularly scheduled meeting in July. Based on the May 16, 2023 City Council action,
the levy will reflect a total property tax rate of $2.0992 per $100 of assessed valuation.




Page 97
Attachment B - State Forms A through G and Truth
in Taxation Notice
CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA
Summary Schedule of Estimated Revenues and Expenditures/Expenses
Fiscal Year 2023-24
(In Thousands)


FUNDS
S
c
Fiscal h Special Revenue Capital Projects Enterprise Reappropriation
Year General Fund Fund Debt Service Fund Fund Funds Available Funds Total All Funds

2023 Adopted/Adjusted Budgeted Expenditures/Expenses* E 1,779,781 2,192,105 208,911 1,820,794 1,797,044 2,246,442 10,045,077

2023 Actual Expenditures/Expenses** E 1,627,796 1,576,861 206,818 513,596 1,500,239 1,352,821 6,778,131

2024 Fund Balance/Net Position at July 1*** 204,065 1,060,297 100 967,327 1,166,797 2,237,406 5,635,992

2024 Primary Property Tax Levy B 206,935 206,935

2024 Secondary Property Tax Levy B 131,092 131,092

2024 Estimated Revenues Other than Property Taxes C 237,358 3,356,813 3,846 1,559,803 1,668,897 6,826,717

2024 Other Financing Sources D 2,457 2,483 600,000 6,507 611,447

2024 Other Financing (Uses) D

2024 Interfund Transfers In D 1,561,419 770,741 16,281 104,925 2,453,366

2024 Interfund Transfers (Out) D 183,565 2,182,977 47 19,594 83,919 2,470,102
Page 98
2024 Reduction for Amounts Not Available:

LESS: Amounts for Future Debt Retirement:

Future Capital Projects

Maintained Fund Balance for Financial Stability

2024 Total Financial Resources Available 2,028,668 3,007,357 134,991 3,123,817 2,863,207 2,237,406 13,395,446

2024 Budgeted Expenditures/Expenses E 2,028,668 2,534,591 134,892 2,635,916 2,051,886 2,237,406 11,623,359

EXPENDITURE LIMITATION COMPARISON 2023 2024
1. Budgeted expenditures/expenses $ 7,798,635 $ 9,385,953
2. Add/subtract: estimated net reconciling items (748,587) (969,972)
3. Budgeted expenditures/expenses adjusted for reconciling items 7,050,048 8,415,981
4. Less: estimated exclusions
5. Amount subject to the expenditure limitation $ 7,050,048 $ 8,415,981
6. EEC expenditure limitation $ 10,045,077 $ 11,623,359


* Includes Expenditure/Expense Adjustments Approved in the current year from Schedule E.
** Includes actual amounts as of the date the proposed budget was prepared, adjusted for estimated activity for the remainder of the fiscal year.
*** Amounts on this line represent Fund Balance/Net Position amounts except for amounts not in spendable form (e.g., prepaids and inventories) or legally or contractually required to be maintained
intact (e.g., principal of a permanent fund).




Arizona Auditor General's Office
SCHEDULE A Official City/Town Budget Forms
CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA
Tax Levy and Tax Rate Information
Fiscal Year 2023-24
(In Thousands)
2022-23 2023-24
1. Maximum allowable primary property tax levy.
A.R.S. §42-17051(A) $ 201,207 $ 209,026

2. Amount received from primary property taxation in
the current year in excess of the sum of that
year's maximum allowable primary property tax
levy. A.R.S. §42-17102(A)(18) $

3. Property tax levy amounts
A. Primary property taxes $ 201,207 $ 209,026
B. Secondary property taxes 126,108 132,416
C. Total property tax levy amounts $ 327,315 $ 341,442

4. Property taxes collected*
A. Primary property taxes
(1) Current year's levy $ 200,199
(2) Prior years’ levies 1,716
(3) Total primary property taxes $ 201,915
B. Secondary property taxes
(1) Current year's levy $ 125,477
(2) Prior years’ levies 1,069
(3) Total secondary property taxes $ 126,546
C. Total property taxes collected $ 328,461

5. Property tax rates
A. City/Town tax rate
(1) Primary property tax rate 1.2989 1.2851
(2) Secondary property tax rate 0.8141 0.8141
(3) Total city/town tax rate 2.1130 2.0992
B. Special assessment district tax rates
Secondary property tax rates - As of the date the proposed budget was prepared, the
city/town was operating zero special assessment districts for which secondary
property taxes are levied. For information pertaining to these special assessment districts
and their tax rates, please contact the city/town.

* The 2023-24 planned primary and secondary levies are $209,025,792 and $132,416,075,
respectively. Historically, actual property tax collections have been slightly lower than the amount
levied. For 2023-24, actual collections for primary and secondary property taxes are estimated to
be $206,935,000 and $131,092,075, or 99% of the levy amount.
** Includes actual property taxes collected as of the date the proposed budget was prepared, plus
estimated property tax collections for the remainder of the fiscal year.




Arizona Auditor General's Office Schedule B Official City/Town Budget Forms
Page 99
CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA
Revenues Other Than Property Taxes
Fiscal Year 2023-24
(In Thousands)

ESTIMATED ACTUAL ESTIMATED
REVENUES REVENUES * REVENUES
SOURCE OF REVENUES 2022-23 2022-23 2023-24
GENERAL FUND
Intergovernmental
County Vehicle License Tax $ 83,100 $ 79,065 $ 85,627
Charges for services
Fire Emergency Transportation Services $ 44,313 $ 49,739 $ 51,332
Hazardous Materials Inspection Fee 1,500 1,500 1,700
Planning 1,828 1,811 1,811
Police 14,154 13,592 14,511
Street Transportation 6,831 6,264 6,976
Other Service Charges 25,258 27,981 27,592
Fines and forfeits
Moving Violations $ 4,760 $ 4,099 $ 4,099
Parking Violations 465 693 693
Driving While Intoxicated 612 586 586
Defensive Driving Program 1,405 1,648 1,648
Other Receipts 1,863 1,759 1,739
Interest on investments
Interest on investments $ 5,550 $ 14,540 $ 14,540
Contributions
SRP In-Lieu Taxes $ 2,203 $ 2,126 $ 2,126

Miscellaneous
Miscellaneous $ 6,475 $ 7,639 $ 7,569
Parks and Recreation 5,722 6,322 6,371
Libraries 399 435 439
Cable Communications 9,000 8,200 8,000
Total General Fund $ 215,437 $ 227,998 $ 237,358

SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
Highway User Revenue Fund
Incorporated Cities Share $ 123,025 $ 120,438 $ 125,272
300,000 Population Share 31,474 31,422 32,683
Interest/Other 500 1,979 520
$ 154,999 $ 153,839 $ 158,475




Arizona Auditor General's Office SCHEDULE C Official City/Town Budget Forms
Page 100
CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA
Revenues Other Than Property Taxes
Fiscal Year 2023-24
(In Thousands)

ESTIMATED ACTUAL ESTIMATED
REVENUES REVENUES * REVENUES
SOURCE OF REVENUES 2022-23 2022-23 2023-24
Excise Tax Fund
Local Taxes $ 629,254 $ 676,397 $ 696,224
Stormwater 5,148 5,143 5,194
Jet Fuel 929 811 823
Marijuana Sales Tax Earmarked for Public Safety Pension 12,248 14,159 14,691
License & Permits 5,878 6,025 6,075
State Sales Tax 227,155 241,628 248,655
State Income Tax 310,387 308,183 435,656
Neighborhood Protection 47,843 51,705 53,422
2007 Public Safety Expansion 95,686 103,412 106,843
Public Safety Enhancement 25,821 29,624 29,845
Parks and Preserves 47,844 51,707 53,420
Transportation 2050 326,455 353,178 364,773
Capital Construction 6,179 5,880 5,623
Sports Facilities 24,577 28,114 28,488
Convention Center 73,883 84,625 86,163
$ 1,839,289 $ 1,960,592 $ 2,135,896
Other Special Revenue Funds
Neighborhood Protection $ 292 $ 539 $ 366
2007 Public Safety Expansion 119 346 278
Parks and Preserves 891 4,274 2,777
Transportation 2050 38,157 37,651 37,491
Capital Construction 120 534 534
Sports Facilities 3,878 4,591 3,964
Development Services 81,725 91,614 84,311
Regional Transit 45,672 43,172 82,429
Community Reinvestment 6,045 8,888 11,905
Impact Fee Administration 761 674 628
Regional Wireless Cooperative 5,632 5,993 7,156
Golf 9,562 10,784 10,130
Court Awards 4,533 5,651 4,673
$ 197,386 $ 214,708 $ 246,642
Other Restricted Funds
Court Special Fees $ 814 $ 781 $ 764
Vehicle Impound Program 1,993 2,402 2,471
Other Restricted Funds 23,085 20,645 22,351
Affordable Housing Program 4,774 9,130 7,889
$ 30,666 $ 32,958 $ 33,475
Federal Funds
Public Housing $ 137,673 $ 130,335 $ 194,819
Human Services 76,011 119,208 69,662
Federal Transit Administration 96,562 44,045 136,908
Community Development 54,729 37,061 44,010
Criminal Justice/Public Safety 10,296 14,585 11,703
Other Federal & State Grants 391,284 177,421 325,223
$ 766,554 $ 522,655 $ 782,325

Total Special Revenue Funds $ 2,988,893 $ 2,884,752 $ 3,356,813




Arizona Auditor General's Office SCHEDULE C Official City/Town Budget Forms
Page 101
CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA
Revenues Other Than Property Taxes
Fiscal Year 2023-24
(In Thousands)

ESTIMATED ACTUAL ESTIMATED
REVENUES REVENUES * REVENUES
SOURCE OF REVENUES 2022-23 2022-23 2023-24
DEBT SERVICE FUNDS

Secondary Property Tax $ 4,130 $ 4,131 $ 3,846

Total Debt Service Funds $ 4,130 $ 4,131 $ 3,846
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS

Bond Funds $ $ 17,811 $
Capital Grants 614,685 294,759 817,368
Capital Reserves 1,086 950
Customer Facility Charges 53,380 45,000 55,902
Federal, State and Other Participation 122,028 92,610 551,312
Impact Fees 31,525
Joint Ventures 35,670 41,494 42,931
Passenger Facility Charges 90,732 90,142 91,340
Solid Waste Remediation 86
Other Capital Funds 75,500
$
Total Capital Projects Funds $ 916,495 $ 690,013 $ 1,559,803


ENTERPRISE FUNDS

Convention Center $ 17,802 $ 25,823 $ 26,834
Solid Waste 196,668 198,103 197,194
Aviation 508,516 576,271 528,508
Water System 525,269 539,529 627,172
Wastewater System 268,890 263,303 289,188

Total Enterprise Funds $ 1,517,146 $ 1,603,029 $ 1,668,897

TOTAL ALL FUNDS $ 5,642,101 $ 5,409,924 $ 6,826,717

* Includes actual revenues recognized on the modified accrual or accrual basis as of the date the proposed budget was prepared, plus
estimated revenues for the remainder of the fiscal year.




Arizona Auditor General's Office SCHEDULE C Official City/Town Budget Forms
Page 102
CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA
Other Financing Sources/ and Interfund Transfers
Fiscal Year 2023-24
(In Thousands)

OTHER FINANCING INTERFUND TRANSFERS
2023-24 2023-24
FUND SOURCES IN
GENERAL FUND
General Fund $ 2,457 $ $ 1,438,041 $ 176,683
Library 8,972 3,676
Parks 114,407
Cable Communications 3,206

Total General Fund $ 2,457 $ $ 1,561,419 $ 183,565

SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
Excise $ $ $ $ 2,135,896
Arizona Highway User Revenue 901 4,475
Capital Construction 143 5,623
City Improvement 79,994 1,022
Community Reinvestment 1 2,064
Court Awards 19
Development Services 21 6,528
Golf 1
Neighborhood Protection 53,421 1,004
Parks and Preserves 53,420 278
Public Safety Enhancement 29,845 535
Public Safety Expansion 106,843 2,192
Regional Wireless Cooperative 6
Sports Facilities 29,510 15,759
Transportation 2050 1,274 364,773 11,366
Other Restricted 49 47,311 1,087
Grant Funds 68 771

Total Special Revenue Funds $ 2,483 $ $ 770,741 $ 2,182,977

DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
Secondary Property Tax $ $ $ $ 47

Total Debt Service Funds $ $ $ $ 47

CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS
Aviation Bonds $ 200,000 $ $ $
Other Bonds 1,022 1,022
Wastewater Bonds 400,000
Capital Reserves 9,250
Customer Facility Charges 18,572
Federal, State and Other Participation 6,009

Total Capital Projects Funds $ 600,000 $ $ 16,281 $ 19,594

ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Aviation $ 1,795 $ $ 18,761 $ 14,727
Convention Center 560 86,163 4,394
Solid Waste 322 14,043
Wastewater 1,619 19,748
Water 2,211 31,007

Total Enterprise Funds $ 6,507 $ $ 104,925 $ 83,919

TOTAL ALL FUNDS $ 611,447 $ $ 2,453,366 $ 2,470,102



Arizona Auditor General's Office SCHEDULE D Official City/Town Budget Forms
Page 103
CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA
Expenditures/Expenses by Fund
Fiscal Year 2023-24
(In Thousands)


ADOPTED EXPENDITURE/
BUDGETED EXPENSE ACTUAL BUDGETED
EXPENDITURES/ ADJUSTMENTS EXPENDITURES/ EXPENDITURES/
EXPENSES APPROVED EXPENSES* EXPENSES
FUND/DEPARTMENT 2022-23 2022-23 2022-23 2023-24
GENERAL FUND
General: $ $ $ $
General Government 204,617 196,498 229,683
Criminal Justice 43,390 42,766 45,265
Public Safety 1,088,575 1,084,184 1,222,556
Transportation 26,085 26,011 25,473
Community Development 36,748 34,203 39,424
Community Enrichment 35,006 33,487 50,179
Environmental Services 29,534 28,506 38,527
Contingencies/Non-Departmental** 100,788 (15,760) 73,247
Capital Budget 46,973 34,548 114,217

Parks and Recreation
Operating 117,261 113,429 128,060
Contingencies
Capital 5,600

Library
Operating 45,841 45,833 49,528
Capital 1,193 377 2,115

Cable Communications 3,420 350 3,714 4,794

Total General Fund $ 1,779,431 $ 350 $ 1,627,796 $ 2,028,668
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
$ $ $ $

Arizona Highway User Revenue
Operating 95,818 88,886 94,493
Capital 91,598 78,365 114,864

Capital Construction
Operating 140 139 140
Capital 25,398 5,974 24,792

City Improvement 70,114 3,450 72,110 78,972

Community Reinvestment
Operating 2,302 650 2,891 2,292
Capital 7,968 (650) 6,402 7,924

Court Awards
Operating 7,071 5,620 4,671
Capital

Development Services
Operating 82,400 77,206 87,446
Contingencies 8,000 8,000
Capital 15,755 2,618 29,165

Federal Community Development
Operating 47,109 (3,800) 26,323 47,691
Capital 7,619 3,800 10,868 10,888

Federal & State Grants
Operating 315,306 (120,446) 152,961 225,709
Capital 71,724 39,717 63,761

Federal Transit
Operating 17,552 13,350 30,257 21,578



Arizona Auditor General's Office SCHEDULE E Official City/Town Budget Forms
Page 104
CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA
Expenditures/Expenses by Fund
Fiscal Year 2023-24
(In Thousands)


ADOPTED EXPENDITURE/
BUDGETED EXPENSE ACTUAL BUDGETED
EXPENDITURES/ ADJUSTMENTS EXPENDITURES/ EXPENDITURES/
EXPENSES APPROVED EXPENSES* EXPENSES
FUND/DEPARTMENT 2022-23 2022-23 2022-23 2023-24
Capital 79,009 (13,350) 14,168 115,329

Golf Course
Operating 7,074 2,926 8,104 9,288
Capital 2,000 (1,200) 560 1,440

HOPE VI Grant
Operating 3,743 920 4,564 5,678
Capital 10,807 (920) 901 27,244

Human Services Grants 76,011 47,350 120,936 69,671

Neighborhood Protection
Operating 51,591 7,100 53,617 60,547
Capital

Other Restricted Funds
Fees and Contributions 60,396 17,740 76,598 101,883
Capital 12,862 5,361 17,059

Parks and Preserves
Operating 7,137 240 7,227 7,923
Capital 80,643 (240) 32,067 120,293

Public Housing
Operating 108,837 5,540 112,132 171,354
Capital 44,411 (5,540) 15,084 38,400

Public Safety Enhancement
Operating 32,115 31,533 37,112
Capital

Public Safety Expansion
Operating 106,664 9,320 110,473 125,877
Capital

Public Transit (RPTA)
Operating 41,378 39,221 61,925
Capital 13,002 2,393 17,839

Regional Wireless Cooperative 5,791 560 6,224 6,881

Sports Facilities
Operating 3,066 2,744 2,805
Contingencies 5,000 2,500
Capital 4,424 4,413 2,127

Transportation 2050
Operating 231,238 226,549 250,370
Contingencies 4,000 4,000
Capital 368,232 101,654 454,661
$ $ $ $
Total Special Revenue Funds $ 2,225,305 $ (33,200) $ 1,576,861 $ 2,534,591
DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
$ $ $ $
Secondary Property Tax and G.O. 196,061 12,850 206,818 134,892

Total Debt Service Funds $ 196,061 $ 12,850 $ 206,818 $ 134,892
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS
$ $ $ $



Arizona Auditor General's Office SCHEDULE E Official City/Town Budget Forms
Page 105
CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA
Expenditures/Expenses by Fund
Fiscal Year 2023-24
(In Thousands)


ADOPTED EXPENDITURE/
BUDGETED EXPENSE ACTUAL BUDGETED
EXPENDITURES/ ADJUSTMENTS EXPENDITURES/ EXPENDITURES/
EXPENSES APPROVED EXPENSES* EXPENSES
FUND/DEPARTMENT 2022-23 2022-23 2022-23 2023-24
Arts and Cultural Facilities 902 902
Aviation 378,631 67,975 959,959
Facilities Management 16,697 6,388 21,026
Finance 4,700 1,500 1,031
Fire Protection 22,944 4,271 32,669
Housing 13,134 13,251 13,165
Human Services 600 600
Information Technology 8,137 8,137
Libraries 4,839 5,295
Non-Departmental Capital 203,223 103,294 631,407
Parks, Recreation and Mtn Preserves 25,033 4,789 26,723
Phoenix Convention Center 158,600 108,590 36,770
Police Protection 20,982 12,454 17,759
Public Art Program 5,745 1,557 5,244
Public Transit 144,311 182 257
Regional Wireless Cooperative 6,001 6,001
Solid Waste Disposal 10,500 8,597 23,761
Street Transportation and Drainage 142,155 38,801 163,659
Wastewater 421,122 105,326 246,887
Water 232,538 36,620 434,663


Total Capital Projects Funds $ 1,820,794 $ $ 513,596 $ 2,635,916
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
$ $ $ $

Aviation
Operating 403,851 401,156 443,121
Contingencies 20,000 25,000
Capital 187,920 37,296 237,893

Convention Center
Operating 72,452 69,144 79,340
Contingencies 3,000 3,000
Capital 2,781 2,171 10,617

Solid Waste
Operating 180,798 180,391 183,403
Contingencies 1,000 1,000
Capital 20,478 14,877 17,631

Wastewater
Operating 202,742 202,372 226,634
Contingencies 12,500 10,000
Capital 90,162 45,614 145,256

Water
Operating 414,872 20,000 425,909 476,884
Contingencies 12,000 22,000
Capital 152,489 121,309 170,106

Total Enterprise Funds $ 1,777,044 $ 20,000 $ 1,500,239 $ 2,051,886
REAPPROPRIATION FUNDS
$ $ $ $

General
General Government 25,946 23,814 27,043
Criminal Justice 5,207 1,269 4,242
Public Safety 70,087 46,170 70,211
Transportation 5,586 382 4,754



Arizona Auditor General's Office SCHEDULE E Official City/Town Budget Forms
Page 106
CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA
Expenditures/Expenses by Fund
Fiscal Year 2023-24
(In Thousands)


ADOPTED EXPENDITURE/
BUDGETED EXPENSE ACTUAL BUDGETED
EXPENDITURES/ ADJUSTMENTS EXPENDITURES/ EXPENDITURES/
EXPENSES APPROVED EXPENSES* EXPENSES
FUND/DEPARTMENT 2022-23 2022-23 2022-23 2023-24
Environmental Services 29,356 18,217 32,233
Community Development 3,656 2,459 6,926
Community Enrichment 6,437 3,699 7,224
Capital Improvements 24,467 14,133 30,969

Library
Community Enrichment 8,136 4,206 6,958
Parks and Recreation
Community Enrichment 19,653 11,989 22,472
Cable Communications
General Government 308 152 458
Arizona Highway User Revenue
Street and Highway purposes 90,030 70,872 109,091
Aviation
Transportation 90,463 47,571 117,198
Capital Construction
Capital Improvements 7,564 2,923 5,164
City Improvement Operating
Debt Service 252 247
Community Reinvestment
Community Development 2,454 840 5,543
Court Awards
Criminal Justice 2,234 631 3,728
Development Services
Community Development 26,733 15,988 17,736
Federal and State Grants
Operating grants 53,079 22,241 79,092
Federal Community Development
Community Development 21,038 4,502 9,702
Federal Transit
Transportation 96,323 44,840 41,953
Golf
Community Enrichment 4,389 2,416 1,370
HOPE Grant
Community Development 4,989 404 3,778
Human Services
Community Enrichment 44,842 7,153 32,769
Neighborhood Protection
Public Safety 4,643 2,903 5,694
Other Restricted
Community Development 43,980 11,314 45,526
Parks and Preserves
Capital Improvements 34,019 29,119 39,851
Phoenix Convention Center
Community Enrichment 11,767 4,307 15,050
Public Housing
Community Development 29,067 366 30,001
Public Safety Enhancement Funds
Public Safety 34 23 35
Public Safety Expansion Funds
Public Safety 3,690 2,031 2,465
Regional Transit Authority
Transportation 36,066 18,292 18,307
Regional Wireless Cooperative
General Government 3,095 1,063 1,903
Secondary Property Tax
Debt Service 285 933
Solid Waste
Environmental Services 70,829 35,004 60,787
Sports Facilities
Community Enrichment 3,488 2,079 4,554



Arizona Auditor General's Office SCHEDULE E Official City/Town Budget Forms
Page 107
CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA
Expenditures/Expenses by Fund
Fiscal Year 2023-24
(In Thousands)


ADOPTED EXPENDITURE/
BUDGETED EXPENSE ACTUAL BUDGETED
EXPENDITURES/ ADJUSTMENTS EXPENDITURES/ EXPENDITURES/
EXPENSES APPROVED EXPENSES* EXPENSES
FUND/DEPARTMENT 2022-23 2022-23 2022-23 2023-24
Transportation 2050
Transportation 205,817 99,044 219,456
Wastewater
Environmental Services 111,921 72,729 116,093
Water
Environmental Services 190,455 126,309 203,367

Capital
1988 Parks, Recreation, Facilities, Library Bonds 2,202 1,993 1,763
2001 Educational, Youth and Cultural Facility Bonds 10 9 15
2001 Neighborhood Protection & Senior Center Bonds 12
2006 Affordable Housing & Neighborhood Bonds 82 82 35
2006 Parks & Recreation Bonds 1,927 1,617
2006 Police and Fire Protection Bonds 3,527 3,455 32
Aviation Capital 186,018 97,090 121,495
Capital Reserves 8,607 7,879 19,926
City Improvement 40,330 20,778 126,946
CPBC - Senior Lien Excise Tax 4,099 5 4,167
Development Impact Fees 23,241 20,460 31,250
Multi-City Wastewater Capital 50,207 41,552 82,055
Public Housing Capital 1,949 188 13,732
Regional Wireless Cooperative Capital 1
Solid Waste Capital 16,002 14,510 26,021
Streets Capital 48,154 30,562 46,895
Wastewater Capital 92,143 60,803 80,767
Water Capital 375,558 300,383 277,412


Total Reappropriation Funds $ 2,246,442 $ $ 1,352,821 $ 2,237,406
TOTAL ALL FUNDS $ 10,045,077 $ $ 6,778,131 $ 11,623,359

* Includes actual expenditures/expenses recognized on the modified accrual or accrual basis as of the date the proposed budget was prepared, plus
estimated expenditures/expenses for the remainder of the fiscal year.
** Non-Departmental includes Unassigned Vacancy Savings, which was previously reported as its own line item.




Arizona Auditor General's Office SCHEDULE E Official City/Town Budget Forms
Page 108
CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA
Expenditures/Expenses by Department
Fiscal Year 2023-24
(In Thousands)

ADOPTED EXPENDITURE/
BUDGETED EXPENSE ACTUAL BUDGETED
EXPENDITURES/ ADJUSTMENTS EXPENDITURES/ EXPENDITURES/
EXPENSES APPROVED EXPENSES* EXPENSES
DEPARTMENT/FUND 2022-23 2022-23 2022-23 2023-24

Community Development: $ $ $ $
Arizona Highway Users Revenue 15 15
Aviation 75 74 74
Community Development 53,115 (3,800) 33,773 56,527
Community Reinvestment 10,271 (650) 8,794 10,216
Convention Center 597 100 605 642
Development Services 97,903 79,649 114,009
Federal and State Grants 61,546 33,275 81,991
General 36,748 34,203 39,424
HOPE VI 14,515 (920) 5,296 32,737
Neighborhood Protection 300 2,100 331
Other Restricted 17,199 40 16,339 25,356
Public Housing 153,218 127,205 209,753
Sports Facilities 2,763 2,593 2,294
Water 30 30 30

Department Total $ 448,294 $ (3,130) $ 342,167 $ 573,067

Community Enrichment: $ $ $
Arizona Highway Users Revenue 837 116 892
Aviation 40 22 29
Capital Construction 76 11 103
Community Development 1,373 3,000 3,147 1,752
Community Reinvestment 650 500
Convention Center 57,090 (100) 53,204 70,145
Federal and State Grants 111,286 88,914 70,066
General 35,010 500 35,487 52,179
Golf Course 9,074 1,726 8,664 10,728
HOPE VI 34 920 170 185
Human Services Grants 76,011 47,350 120,936 69,671
Library 47,033 46,211 51,643
Other Restricted 3,398 1,700 4,069 8,490
Parks and Preserves 87,780 39,294 128,216
Parks and Recreation 117,261 113,429 133,660
Public Housing 31 11 2
Solid Waste 57 22 31
Sports Facilities 2,800 2,687 623
Transportation 2050 430 195 276
Wastewater 155 50 197 1,120
Water 535 381 1,826

Department Total $ 550,310 $ 55,796 $ 517,665 $ 601,636

Criminal Justice: $ $ $
General 43,390 42,766 52,265
Other Restricted 2,988 2,686 2,703

Department Total $ 46,378 $ $ 45,452 $ 54,968

Contingencies/Non-Departmental: $ $ $




Arizona Auditor General's Office SCHEDULE F Official City/Town Budget Forms
Page 109
CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA
Expenditures/Expenses by Department
Fiscal Year 2023-24
(In Thousands)

ADOPTED EXPENDITURE/
BUDGETED EXPENSE ACTUAL BUDGETED
EXPENDITURES/ ADJUSTMENTS EXPENDITURES/ EXPENDITURES/
EXPENSES APPROVED EXPENSES* EXPENSES
DEPARTMENT/FUND 2022-23 2022-23 2022-23 2023-24
Aviation 20,000 25,000
Convention Center 3,000 3,000
Development Services 8,000 8,000
Federal and State Grants** 152,576 (148,946) 76,000
General ** 100,788 (15,760) 103,247
Solid Waste 1,000 1,000
Sports Facilities 5,000 2,500
Transportation 2050 4,000 4,000
Wastewater 12,500 10,000
Water 12,000 22,000

Department Total $ 318,864 $ (148,946) $ (15,760) $ 254,747

Environmental Services: $ $ $
Aviation 2,000
Capital Construction 70 70 70
Convention Center 1,000
Development Services 63 61
Federal and State Grants 13,909 6,090 3,388
General 50,174 49,145 65,302
Other Restricted 5,499 4,020 6,840
Solid Waste 185,603 (10) 179,685 190,303
Wastewater 217,604 (2,060) 170,762 281,850
Water 427,873 3,500 397,968 493,599

Department Total $ 900,795 $ 1,430 $ 807,801 $ 1,044,352

General Government: $ $ $
Arizona Highway Users Revenue 270 135 1,995
Aviation 838 706 4,826
Cable 3,420 350 3,714 4,794
Community Development 240 800 271 300
Convention Center 81 41 690
Court Awards 58 46 52
Development Services 189 114 2,602
Federal and State Grants 2,570 22,500 24,804 17,715
General 225,767 (2,100) 205,152 256,100
Other Restricted 2,201 1,751 3,433
Regional Wireless Cooperative 5,791 560 6,224 6,881
Solid Waste 442 386 1,119
Sports Facilities 159 109 159
Transportation 2050 98 90 2,596
Wastewater 750 631 2,526
Water 1,403 1,311 3,997

Department Total $ 244,277 $ 22,110 $ 245,485 $ 309,783




Arizona Auditor General's Office SCHEDULE F Official City/Town Budget Forms
Page 110
CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA
Expenditures/Expenses by Department
Fiscal Year 2023-24
(In Thousands)

ADOPTED EXPENDITURE/
BUDGETED EXPENSE ACTUAL BUDGETED
EXPENDITURES/ ADJUSTMENTS EXPENDITURES/ EXPENDITURES/
EXPENSES APPROVED EXPENSES* EXPENSES
DEPARTMENT/FUND 2022-23 2022-23 2022-23 2023-24
Public Safety: $ $ $
Court Awards 7,013 5,574 4,619
Federal and State Grants 29,525 6,000 35,207 29,469
General 1,092,155 1,084,189 1,238,132
Neighborhood Protection 51,291 5,000 53,285 60,547
Other Restricted 36,210 16,000 47,669 66,098
Public Safety Enhancement 32,115 31,533 37,112
Public Safety Expansion 106,664 9,320 110,473 125,877
Sports Facilities 1,769 1,769 1,857

Department Total $ 1,356,741 $ 36,320 $ 1,369,699 $ 1,563,710

Transportation: $ $ $
Arizona Highway Users Revenue 186,294 167,000 206,455
Aviation 489,625 338,313 569,733
Capital Construction 25,392 6,032 24,759
Federal and State Grants 15,618 4,387 10,841
Federal Transit Authority 96,561 44,425 136,908
General 27,685 1,600 29,261 31,923
Other Restricted 5,763 5,424 6,023
Transit - RPTA 54,380 41,614 79,764
Transportation 2050 598,942 327,919 702,158

Department Total $ 1,500,261 $ 1,600 $ 964,377 $ 1,768,564

Debt: $ $
Aviation 101,192 99,337 104,352
City Improvement 70,114 3,450 72,110 78,972
Convention Center 17,465 17,465 17,481
Secondary Property Tax 196,061 12,850 206,818 134,892
Solid Waste 15,174 10 15,174 9,581
Wastewater 74,395 2,010 76,396 86,395
Water 137,519 16,500 147,528 147,538

Department Total $ 611,920 $ 34,820 $ 634,828 $ 579,210

$ $ $ $
Capital: 1,820,794 513,596 2,635,916

Department Total $ 1,820,794 $ $ 513,596 $ 2,635,916

$ $ $ $
Reappropriation: 2,246,442 1,352,821 2,237,406




Arizona Auditor General's Office SCHEDULE F Official City/Town Budget Forms
Page 111
CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA
Expenditures/Expenses by Department
Fiscal Year 2023-24
(In Thousands)

ADOPTED EXPENDITURE/
BUDGETED EXPENSE ACTUAL BUDGETED
EXPENDITURES/ ADJUSTMENTS EXPENDITURES/ EXPENDITURES/
EXPENSES APPROVED EXPENSES* EXPENSES
DEPARTMENT/FUND 2022-23 2022-23 2022-23 2023-24

Department Total $ 2,246,442 $ $ 1,352,821 $ 2,237,406


Total All Departments $ 10,045,077 $ $ 6,778,130 $ 11,623,359




* Includes actual expenditures/expenses recognized on the modified accrual or accrual basis as of the date the
proposed budget was prepared, plus estimated expenditures/expenses for the remainder of the fiscal year.
** These funds include Non-Departmental expenditures, which were listed separately as its own category and now
reported under Contingencies/Non-Departmental .




Arizona Auditor General's Office SCHEDULE F Official City/Town Budget Forms
Page 112
CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA
Full-Time Employees and Personnel Compensation
Fiscal Year 2023-24
(In Thousands)

Total Estimated
Full-Time Employee Salaries Other Benefit Personnel
Equivalent (FTE) and Hourly Costs Retirement Costs Healthcare Costs Costs Compensation
FUND 2023-24 2023-24 2023-24 2023-24 2023-24 2023-24

GENERAL FUND
General 7,973 $ 759,685 $ 415,033 $ 115,173 $ 116,417 = 1,406,308
Library 392 21,440 5,323 3,361 3,840 33,965
Parks and Recreation 966 49,266 11,688 7,919 7,747 76,619
Cable Communications 23 2,164 683 315 435 3,598
Total General Fund 9,354 $ 832,554 $ 432,728 $ 126,768 $ 128,439 = 1,520,490

SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
Arizona Highway User Revenue 689 $ 40,075 $ 16,195 $ 9,631 $ 8,852 = 74,753
Community Reinvestment 3 340 107 18 59 523
Court Awards 1 1
Development Services 489 38,626 12,620 7,010 7,094 65,350
Federal Community Development 76 6,242 1,928 1,082 1,110 10,362
Federal and State Grants 193 14,107 6,036 2,550 7,023 29,717
Page 113 Golf Course 32 1,667 256 120 220 2,263
HOPE VI 20 1,358 403 273 248 2,282
Human Services 167 10,484 3,027 2,290 1,793 17,594
Neighborhood Protection 281 27,621 21,859 3,518 3,044 56,043
Other Restricted 114 10,471 32,124 1,700 1,963 46,258
Parks and Preserves 78 4,200 1,014 691 746 6,651
Public Safety Enhancement 264 21,017 11,828 3,002 2,930 38,777
Public Safety Expansion 684 70,950 53,078 9,350 7,939 141,317
Public Housing 66 4,530 1,514 945 860 7,848
Regional Wireless Cooperative 5 465 110 74 89 738
Transportation 2050 127 10,942 3,656 1,627 2,193 18,417
Total Special Revenue Funds 3,287 $ 263,094 $ 165,755 $ 43,881 $ 46,164 = 518,894

ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Aviation 924 $ 65,806 $ 5,866 $ 13,305 $ 12,752 = 97,729
Convention Center 218 14,717 4,500 2,801 2,779 24,797
Solid Waste 629 43,759 13,681 8,980 6,960 73,380
Wastewater 341 24,870 2,134 5,094 4,525 36,622
Water 1,195 81,744 27,999 16,772 16,114 142,629
Total Enterprise Funds 3,306 $ 230,896 $ 54,180 $ 46,952 $ 43,130 = 375,158

TOTAL ALL FUNDS 15,947 $ 1,326,544 $ 652,662 $ 217,601 $ 217,734 = 2,414,541



Arizona Auditor General's Office SCHEDULE G Official City/Town Budget Forms
TRUTH IN
TAXATION HEARING
NOTICE OF TAX INCREASE
In compliance with section 42-17107, Arizona Revised Statutes, the city of
Phoenix is notifying its property taxpayers of the city of Phoenix’s intention
to raise its primary property taxes over last year’s level. The city of Phoenix
is proposing an increase in primary property taxes of $4,098,863 or 2.00%.


For example, the proposed tax increase will cause the city of Phoenix’s
primary property taxes on a $100,000 home to be $128.51 (total proposed
taxes including the tax increase). Without the proposed tax increase, the
total taxes that would be owed on a $100,000 home would have been
$125.99.


The proposed increase is exclusive of increased primary property taxes
received from new construction. The increase is also exclusive of any
changes that may occur from property tax levies for voter approved bonded
indebtedness or budget and tax overrides.


All interested citizens are invited to attend the public hearing on the tax
increase that is scheduled to be held June 14, 2023 at 2:30 p.m. at the city
of Phoenix Council Chambers, 200 W. Jefferson St.




Page 114



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Adoption of the Tentative 2023-24 Annual Budget (Ordinance S-49709)

An ordinance (Attachment A) adopting the tentative estimates of the amounts
required for public expense for operating funds for the City of Phoenix for the fiscal
year 2023-24; adopting a tentative budget; setting forth the receipts and expenditures
and the amounts estimated as collectible for the fiscal year, and the amount proposed
to be raised by direct property taxation for primary and secondary purposes; giving
notice of the time and place for hearing taxpayers and for adoption of the budget and
fixing the tax levies.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This reflects the budget approved by the Council on May 16, 2023 and complies with
the requirements set forth in the City Charter and Code and State Statutes. Final
adoption is scheduled for June 14, 2023.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the Budget and Research
Department.




Page 115
Attachment A


THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE.




ORDINANCE S-



AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE TENTATIVE
ESTIMATES OF THE AMOUNTS REQUIRED FOR PUBLIC
EXPENSE OF OPERATING FUNDS FOR THE CITY OF
PHOENIX FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2023-2024; ADOPTING
A TENTATIVE BUDGET; SETTING FORTH THE
RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURES AND THE AMOUNTS
ESTIMATED AS COLLECTIBLE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR,
AND THE AMOUNT PROPOSED TO BE RAISED BY
DIRECT PROPERTY TAXATION FOR PRIMARY AND
SECONDARY PURPOSES; GIVING NOTICE OF THE TIME
AND PLACE FOR HEARING TAXPAYERS AND FOR
ADOPTION OF THE BUDGET AND FIXING THE TAX
LEVIES.

_____________


WHEREAS, by the provisions of the City Charter an ordinance adopting

the tentative budget for the fiscal year 2023-2024 is required to be adopted on or before

the last day of June, which date complies with A.R.S. §§ 42-17101, 17102, 17103, and

17104.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF PHOENIX as follows:




Page 116
SECTION 1. That the statement and schedules hereinafter set forth and

hereby adopted for the purpose as hereinafter set forth as the tentative budget for the


SECTION 2. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to

publish in the manner prescribed by law the estimates of expenditures, as hereinafter

set forth, together with a notice that the City Council will meet for the purpose of final

hearing by taxpayers and for adoption of the 2023-2024 annual budget for the City of

Phoenix on the 14th day of June 2023 at the hour of 2:30 p.m. in the City Council

Chambers of the City of Phoenix, 200 West Jefferson, Phoenix, Arizona, and will further

meet for the purpose of fixing tax levies on the 3rd day of July 2023 at the hour of

10:00 a.m. in said Council Chambers.

SECTION 3. That the sums to be raised by primary taxation, as specified

herein, do not in the aggregate amount exceed that amount as computed pursuant to

A.R.S. § 42-17102(C).

SECTION 4. Upon the approval of the City Manager, funds may be

transferred within purposes set forth in Section 9.

SECTION 5. Upon recommendation by the City Manager and with the

approval of the City Council, expenditures may be made from the appropriation for

contingencies.

SECTION 6. In the case of an emergency, the City Council may authorize

the transfer of funds between purposes set forth in Section 9, if funds are available and

the transfer does not conflict with the limitations provided by law (A.R.S. § 42-17102).

-2- Ordinance S-

Page 117
SECTION 7. The City Council may authorize appropriation increases, if

funds are available, for purpose of expenditures that are exempt from limitation provided

in Article IX, Section 20, Constitution of Arizona.

SECTION 8. Money from any fund may be used for any of these

purposes set forth in Section 9, except money specifically restricted by State law or by

City Charter or City ordinances and resolutions.

SECTION 9. That the purposes of expenditures set forth in this section

are necessary for the conduct of the business of the government of the City of Phoenix

and such amounts are hereby adopted as tentative appropriations for the 2023-2024

fiscal year.



CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA
PURPOSES OF PROPOSED PUBLIC EXPENSE


Amount of Appropriation
Purpose 2023-2024

GENERAL FUNDS
General Government $229,683,332
Public Safety 1,222,556,202
Criminal Justice 45,265,113
Transportation 25,472,913
Community Development 39,424,168
Community Enrichment 50,179,313
Environmental Services 38,527,479
Contingencies/Non-Departmental 73,247,000
Capital Improvements 114,216,712

Total General Funds $1,838,572,232



-3- Ordinance S-

Page 118
Amount of Appropriation
Purpose 2023-2024

PARKS AND RECREATION FUNDS
Parks and Recreation Operations and Maintenance, and $133,659,931
Capital Improvements.

LIBRARY FUNDS
Library Operations and Maintenance, and Capital $51,642,689
Improvements.

CABLE COMMUNICATION FUNDS
Cable Communication Operations and Maintenance. $4,793,603

ARIZONA HIGHWAY USER REVENUE FUNDS
Street Maintenance, Major Street Improvements, Traffic $209,357,463
Improvements and other Street Improvements.

AVIATION FUNDS
Aviation Operations and Maintenance, Debt Service and $681,014,039
Capital Improvements.

Contingencies 25,000,000

Total Aviation Funds $706,014,039

CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION FUNDS
Capital Improvements in the Street Transportation and $24,931,951
Environmental Programs, and related Operations and
Maintenance.

CITY IMPROVEMENT FUND
Debt Service Payments for Excise Tax Bond-Funded $78,971,564
Projects Including Information Technology Improvements;
Vehicle and Equipment Replacements; Facility
Construction and Improvements; Street Improvements;
and Other Capital Projects.

COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT FUNDS
Community Reinvestment Operations and Maintenance, $10,215,720
and Capital Improvements.



-4- Ordinance S-

Page 119
Amount of Appropriation
Purpose 2023-2024

COURT AWARD FUNDS
Criminal Justice Programs. $4,671,236

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES FUNDS
Development Services Operations and Maintenance, and $116,610,402
Capital Improvements.

Contingencies 8,000,000

Total Development Services Funds $124,610,402

FEDERAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUNDS
Community Development Program. $58,578,515

FEDERAL OPERATING TRUST FUNDS
Federal and State Grant Programs. $289,469,587

FEDERAL TRANSIT FUND
Transit Operations and Maintenance, and Capital $136,907,541
Improvements.

GOLF COURSE FUNDS
Golf Course Operations and Maintenance, and Capital $10,727,741
Improvements.

HOPE VI FEDERAL GRANT FUNDS
HOPE VI Program. $32,921,680

HUMAN SERVICES FEDERAL TRUST FUNDS
Human Services Program. $69,670,897

NEIGHBORHOOD PROTECTION FUNDS
Eligible Police, Fire, and Block Watch Operations and $60,546,737
Maintenance Expenditures Funded with Privilege License
and Excise Taxes in accordance with Ordinance G-3696.

OTHER RESTRICTED FUNDS
Other Restricted Funds Operations and Maintenance, and $118,941,679
Capital Improvements.


-5- Ordinance S-

Page 120
Amount of Appropriation
Purpose 2023-2024

PARKS AND PRESERVES FUNDS
Parks and Preserves Operations and Maintenance, and $128,216,093
Capital Improvement Expenditures Funded with Privilege
License and Excise Taxes in Accordance with the
Phoenix Parks and Preserves initiative approved by the
Phoenix voters in a ballot measure on May 20, 2008.

PHOENIX CONVENTION CENTER FUNDS
Phoenix Convention Center Operations and Maintenance, $89,957,533
Debt Service, and Capital Improvements.

Contingencies 3,000,000

Total Phoenix Convention Center Funds $92,957,533

PUBLIC HOUSING FUNDS
Public Housing Operations and Maintenance, and Capital $209,754,393
Improvements.

PUBLIC SAFETY ENHANCEMENT FUNDS
Police, Fire, and Emergency Management Operations and $37,111,641
Maintenance Expenditures Funded with Privilege License
and Excise Taxes in accordance with Ordinance S-31877.

PUBLIC SAFETY EXPANSION FUNDS
Police and Fire Personnel and Service Expansion Funded $125,877,441
with Privilege License and Excise Taxes in accordance
with Ordinance G-4987.

REGIONAL TRANSIT FUNDS
Regional Transportation Operations and Maintenance, $79,764,386
and Capital Improvements.

REGIONAL WIRELESS COOPERATIVE FUNDS
Operations and Maintenance of the Regional Wireless $6,881,164
Cooperative.

SECONDARY PROPERTY TAX FUNDS
Debt Service on and Early Redemption of Outstanding $134,891,525
Bonds and Long-Term Obligations.

-6- Ordinance S-

Page 121
Amount of Appropriation
Purpose 2023-2024

SOLID WASTE FUNDS
Solid Waste Operations and Maintenance, Debt Service $201,033,741
and Capital Improvements.

Contingencies 1,000,000

Total Solid Waste Funds $202,033,741

SPORTS FACILITIES FUNDS
Sports Facilities Operations and Maintenance, and Capital $4,932,656
Improvements.

Contingencies 2,500,000

Total Sports Facilities Funds $7,432,656

TRANSPORTATION 2050 FUNDS
Transit and Streets Operations and Maintenance, and $705,030,673
Capital Improvement Expenditures Funded with Privilege
License and Excise Taxes in accordance with Ordinance
G-6051.

Contingencies 4,000,000

Total Transportation 2050 Funds $709,030,673

WASTEWATER SYSTEM FUNDS
Wastewater System Operations and Maintenance, Debt $371,890,796
Service and Capital Improvements.

Contingencies 10,000,000

Total Wastewater Funds $381,890,796

WATER FUNDS
Water System Operations and Maintenance, Debt Service $646,989,778
and Capital Improvements.




-7- Ordinance S-

Page 122
Amount of Appropriation
Purpose 2023-2024

Contingencies 22,000,000

Total Water Funds $668,989,778

TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS 2023-2024 $6,750,037,027




PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix on this 31st day of

May 2023.

____________________________________

MAYOR

ATTEST:


City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:


Acting City Attorney

REVIEWED BY:


City Manager




-8- Ordinance S-

Page 123



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Adoption of the Tentative 2023-24 Capital Funds Budget (Ordinance S-49791)

An ordinance (Attachment A) adopting the tentative Capital Funds Budget for the City
of Phoenix for the Fiscal Year 2023-24.

Summary
This adopts the tentative 2023-24 Capital Funds Budget for the fiscal year beginning
July 1, 2023, and ending June 30, 2024. The Capital Funds Budget will be funded by
property tax and revenue supported bond proceeds, federal, state and other
participation funds, passenger facility charges, customer facility charges, participation
by other governmental entities in certain projects, development impact fees, capital
grants, capital reserves, solid waste remediation funds and other capital funding
sources.

Final adoption is scheduled for June 14, 2023.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The 2023-24 Capital Funds Budget is included in the Five-Year Capital Improvement
Program resolution, also requested for Council approval on the May 31, 2023, Formal
Agenda and complies with requirements set forth in the City Charter and Code and
State Statutes.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the Budget and Research
Department.




Page 124
ATTACHMENT A

THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE


ORDINANCE S-#####


AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE TENTATIVE CAPITAL
FUNDS BUDGET FOR THE CITY OF PHOENIX FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR 2023-24.




BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX as

follows:

SECTION 1. The schedule set forth as Section 2 below is hereby adopted as the

tentative 2023-24 Capital Funds Budget for capital improvements to be made from authorized

property tax and revenue supported bond proceeds, nonprofit corporation bond financing,

federal and state participation funds, passenger facility charges, customer facility charges,

participation by other governmental entities in certain projects, development impact fees, capital

grants, capital reserves, solid waste remediation funds and other capital funding sources, for the

year beginning July 1, 2023, and ending June 30, 2024.

SECTION 2. This Council has determined and adopted the following estimates of

proposed Capital expenditure improvements for the various purposes therein named for the

fiscal year beginning July 1, 2023, and ending June 30, 2024.




-1- S-#####

Page 125
Appropriation
Amount
Purpose 2023-24

ARTS AND CULTURAL FACILITIES
2001 General Obligation Bonds $902,484

AVIATION

Aviation Bonds, Capital Grants, Passenger Facility Charges $959,958,507

FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

Capital Grants, Other Bonds, Other Capital $21,026,254

FINANCE

Other Bonds $1,030,894

FIRE PROTECTION

Impact Fees, Other Bonds $32,669,354

HOUSING

Capital Grants $13,164,881

HUMAN SERVICES

2006 General Obligation Bonds $600,000

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Other Bonds $8,137,175

LIBRARIES

Impact Fees $5,295,100

NON-DEPARTMENTAL CAPITAL

Aviation Bonds, Capital Grants, Customer Facility Charges, $631,406,841
Federal, State and Other Participation, Other Bonds,
Passenger Facility Charges, Wastewater Bonds




-2- S-#####

Page 126
Appropriation
Amount
Purpose 2023-24

PARKS, RECREATION & MOUNTAIN PRESERVES

Capital Grants, Capital Reserves, Impact Fees $26,723,063

PHOENIX CONVENTION CENTER

Other Bonds $36,770,000

POLICE PROTECTION

Capital Reserves, Impact Fees $17,759,000

PUBLIC ART PROGRAM

Aviation Bonds, Other Bonds, Solid Waste Bonds, Water $5,243,714
Bonds

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Capital Grants $257,006

REGIONAL WIRELESS COOPERATIVE

Other Cities' Share in Joint Ventures $6,001,000

SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL

Capital Grants, Capital Reserves, Solid Waste Bonds, Solid $23,761,418
Waste Remediation

STREET TRANSPORTATION & DRAINAGE

Capital Reserves, Federal, State and Other Participation, $163,658,749
Impact Fees

WASTEWATER

Capital Grants, Impact Fees, Other Cities' Share in Joint $246,886,868
Ventures, Wastewater Bonds




-3- S-#####

Page 127
Appropriation
Amount
Purpose 2023-24

WATER

Capital Grants, Impact Fees, Other Cities' Share in Joint $434,663,311
Ventures, Water Bonds


TOTAL $2,635,915,619


SECTION 3. Upon the approval of the City Manager, funds may be transferred

within purposes set forth in Section 2.

SECTION 4. The City Council may authorize appropriation increases, if funds

are available, for purpose of expenditures that are exempt from the limitation provided in Article

IX, Section 20, Constitution of Arizona.




-4- S-#####

Page 128
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 31st day of May, 2023.




MAYOR




ATTEST:

City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:


Acting City Attorney

REVIEWED BY:


City Manager




-5- S-#####

Page 129



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Adoption of the Tentative 2023-24 Reappropriated Funds Budget (Ordinance S-
49710)

An ordinance (Attachment A) adopting the tentative Reappropriation Budget for items
of expenditure previously adopted as part of the 2022-23 Fiscal Year Operating and
Capital Funds Budgets of the City of Phoenix but remaining as unexpended funds as
of June 30, 2023.

Summary
This adopts the Tentative 2023-24 Reappropriated Funds Budget Ordinance. Council
approved contracts can span multiple fiscal years and budget appropriations expire on
June 30 of each fiscal year. This ordinance re-establishes the spending authority for
remaining payments to vendors on outstanding contract balances for goods and
services to be received during Fiscal Year 2023-24.

This complies with requirements set forth in the City Charter and Code and State
Statutes.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the Budget and Research
Department.




Page 130
Attachment A


THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE.



ORDINANCE S-


AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE TENTATIVE
REAPPROPRIATION BUDGET FOR ITEMS OF
EXPENDITURE PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED AS PART OF
THE 2022-2023 FISCAL YEAR OPERATING AND CAPITAL
FUNDS BUDGETS OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX BUT
REMAINING AS UNEXPENDED FUNDS AS OF
JUNE 30, 2023.
_____________


WHEREAS, the City of Phoenix adopts, pursuant to state law, an annual

budget consisting of operating funds and capital funds for expenditure in each fiscal

year, and did so for the fiscal year 2022-2023, and

WHEREAS, the requirements of planning and contracting for the

acquisition of goods and services requires in many instances that the contracts for such

goods and services cannot be immediately executed; and

WHEREAS, there remains from said items budgeted for the fiscal year

2022-2023 substantial amounts represented by executed but unfulfilled contracts, and

WHEREAS, the City Charter directs that amounts may be expended by

the City only for goods and services actually received, and may not be expended in

advance of the acquisition of such goods and services, and




Page 131
WHEREAS, State Budget Law, A.R.S. § 42-17102 as amended, and as

interpreted by the Attorney General, demands that no expenditures be made for a

purpose not included in the budget, and no expenditure be made for any debt,

obligation or liability incurred or created in any fiscal year in excess of the amount

specified for each purpose in the budget for such fiscal year as finally adopted,

THEREFORE, it has become necessary to tentatively adopt a

reappropriation and supplemental budget for sums to be expended in the fiscal year

2023-2024 from funds budgeted for the fiscal year 2022-2023, but remaining

unexpended as of the close of the fiscal year on June 30, 2023.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF PHOENIX as follows:

SECTION 1. That this Council has determined and adopted the following

tentative estimates of proposed capital and operating fund expenditures as hereinafter

set forth presenting a reappropriation of items previously budgeted for the fiscal year

2022-2023 but remaining unexpended at the close of said fiscal year, and likely to

remain unexpended by September 1, 2023, and representing amounts encumbered by

means of outstanding contracts as of the close of said fiscal year. Said amounts and the

purposes therefore are set forth in the schedule below as follows:




-2- Ordinance


Page 132
2023-2024 REAPPROPRIATED FUNDS

Fund Amount

OPERATING FUNDS:

General Funds
General Government $27,043,000
Criminal Justice 4,242,000
Public Safety 70,211,000
Transportation 4,754,000
Environmental Services 32,233,000
Community Development 6,926,000
Community Enrichment 7,224,000
Capital Improvements 30,969,000

Total General Funds $183,602,000

Parks and Recreation Funds

Parks and Recreation Operations and Maintenance, and $22,472,000
Capital Improvements.

Library Funds

Library Operations and Maintenance, and Capital $6,958,000
Improvements.

Cable Communication Funds

Cable Communication Operations and Maintenance. $458,000

Arizona Highway User Revenue Funds

Street Maintenance, Major Street Improvements, Traffic $109,091,000
Improvements and Other Street Improvements.

Aviation Funds

Aviation Operations and Maintenance, and Capital $117,198,000
Improvements.




-3- Ordinance


Page 133
Fund Amount

Capital Construction Funds

Capital Improvements in Street Transportation and $5,164,000
Drainage.

City Improvement Operating Funds

Debt Service Related Costs associated with City $247,000
Improvement.

Community Reinvestment Funds

Community Reinvestment Program. $5,543,000

Court Award Funds

Criminal Justice Program. $3,728,000

Development Services Funds

Development Services Operations and Maintenance, and $17,736,000
Capital Improvements.

Federal Community Development Funds

Community Development Program. $9,702,000

Federal Operating Trust Funds

Federal and State Grants. $79,092,000

Federal Transit Funds

Federal Transit Grant Program. $41,953,000

Golf Course Funds

Golf Course Operations and Maintenance, and Capital $1,370,000
Improvements.

HOPE VI Federal Grant Funds

HOPE VI Program. $3,778,000

-4- Ordinance


Page 134
Fund Amount

Human Services Federal Trust Funds

Human Services Program. $32,769,000

Neighborhood Protection Funds

Eligible Police, Fire and Blockwatch Operations and $5,694,000
Maintenance Expenditures Funded with Privilege License
and Excise Taxes in accordance with Ordinance G-3696.

Other Restricted Funds

Other Restricted Funds Operations and Maintenance, and $45,526,000
Capital Improvements.

Parks and Preserves Funds

Parks and Preserves Operations and Maintenance, and $39,851,000
Capital Improvement Expenditures Funded with Privilege
License and Excise Taxes in accordance with the Phoenix
Parks and Preserves initiative approved by the Phoenix
voters in a ballot measure on May 20, 2008.

Phoenix Convention Center Funds

Phoenix Convention Center Operations and Maintenance, $15,050,000
and Capital Improvements.

Public Housing Funds

Public Housing Operations and Maintenance, and Capital $30,001,000
Improvements.

Public Safety Enhancement Funds

Police, Fire, and Emergency Management Operations and $35,000
Maintenance Expenditures Funded with Privilege License
and Excise Taxes in accordance with Ordinance S-31877.




-5- Ordinance


Page 135
Fund Amount

Public Safety Expansion Funds

Police and Fire Personnel and Service Expansion Funded $2,465,000
with Privilege License and Excise Taxes in accordance
with Ordinance G-4987.

Regional Transit Authority Funds

Regional Transit Operations and Maintenance, and $18,307,000
Capital Improvements.

Regional Wireless Cooperative Funds

Regional Wireless Cooperative Operations and $1,903,000
Maintenance, and Capital Improvements.

Secondary Property Tax Funds

Debt Service on and Early Redemption of Outstanding $933,000
Bonds and Long-Term Obligations.

Solid Waste Funds

Solid Waste Operations and Maintenance, and Capital $60,787,000
Improvements.

Sports Facilities Funds

Sports Facilities Operations and Maintenance, and Capital $4,554,000
Improvements.

Transportation 2050 Funds

Transit and Streets Operations and Maintenance, and $219,456,000
Capital Improvement Expenditures Funded with Privilege
License and Excise Taxes in accordance with Ordinance
G-6051.

Wastewater System and Multi-City Wastewater Funds

Wastewater System Operations and Maintenance, and $116,093,000
Capital Improvements.


-6- Ordinance


Page 136
Fund Amount

Water Funds

Water System Operations and Maintenance, and Capital $203,367,000
Improvements.

CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS:

1988 Parks, Recreation, Facilities, Library Bonds Funds $1,763,000

2001 Educational, Youth and Cultural Facilities Bonds $15,000
Funds

2001 Neighborhood Protection & Senior Center Bond $12,000
Funds

2006 Affordable Housing & Neighborhood Bond Funds $35,000

2006 Police and Fire Protection Bond Funds $32,000

Aviation Capital Funds $121,495,000

Capital Reserve Funds $19,926,000

City Improvement Capital Funds $126,946,000

Civic Plaza Building Corporation Funds $4,167,000

Development Impact Fee Funds $31,250,000

Multi-City Wastewater Capital Funds $82,055,000

Public Housing Capital Funds $13,732,000

Solid Waste Capital Funds $26,021,000

Streets Capital Funds $46,895,000

Wastewater Capital Funds $80,767,000

Water Capital Funds $277,412,000

TOTAL $2,237,406,000


-7- Ordinance


Page 137
SECTION 2. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to

publish in the manner prescribed by law the estimates of these expenditures, as

hereinabove set forth, together with the notice that the City Council will meet for the

purpose of final hearing by taxpayers and for the adoption of said reappropriation

budget on the 14th day of June 2023 at the hour of 2:30 p.m. in the City Council

Chambers of the City of Phoenix, 200 West Jefferson, Phoenix, Arizona.

SECTION 3. In case of an emergency, the City Council may authorize the

transfer of funds between the purposes set forth in Section 1 above, if the funds are

available and the transfer does not conflict with the limitations provided by law under

A.R.S. § 42-17102.

SECTION 4. Money from any fund may be used for any of these purposes

set forth hereinabove, except money specifically restricted by state law or by City

Charter or City ordinances and resolutions.




PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 31st day of May 2023.



_________________________________________

MAYOR


ATTEST:


City Clerk



-8- Ordinance


Page 138
APPROVED AS TO FORM:


Acting City Attorney

REVIEWED BY:


City Manager




-9- Ordinance


Page 139



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Form of the Ballot for Nov. 7, 2023 Special Bond Election (Ordinance S-49806)

This report requests City Council approval of an ordinance establishing the form of
the ballot for the City of Phoenix Special Bond Election to be held on Tuesday, Nov.
7, 2023.

Summary
This ordinance establishes the language that will be printed on the ballot. In this
election registered voters who reside in the City of Phoenix will vote to approve or
reject certain questions related to the selling and issuance of general obligation
bonds. Four bond questions, if approved, would establish the authorization to sell
up to $214,000,000 general obligation bonds for fire, police, roadway and
pedestrian infrastructure projects; up to $108,615,000 general obligation bonds for
library, parks and historic preservation projects; up to $114,385,000 general
obligation bonds for workforce and job creation, education, economic development,
environment, sustainability, arts, and culture projects; and up to $63,000,000
general obligation bonds for affordable housing and senior center projects.

At the May 3, 2023 Formal Council Meeting, the City Council ordered the Special
Bond Election and approved the election to be a ballot by mail election conducted
by Maricopa County. The form of the ballot for this election is consistent with the
requirements of applicable State law, as Maricopa County will be conducting the
election.

Public Outreach
All eligible registered voters in Phoenix will receive notification of the election and
will automatically be sent a ballot by mail. Households with one or more registered
voters will receive an Informational Pamphlet, which contains general information
about the election, including key dates related to when ballots will be mailed and
when ballot replacement sites will be open. Arguments supporting or opposing any
of the bond questions must be filed with the City Clerk no later than ninety days
prior to the election, at 5 p.m. on Aug. 9, 2023. Arguments are limited to 300 words
and are printed in the Informational Pamphlet. Several publications and news
releases will be provided throughout the election process and shared on a variety of


Page 140

platforms, including print and social media. All election information will be provided
in English and Spanish and will be available on phoenix.gov/elections.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.




Page 141



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Repeal Existing Pay Ordinance S-47689 and Adopt New Ordinance for New
Rates and Compensation (Ordinance S-49802)

Request the City Council to repeal Ordinance S-47689, and all amendments thereto,
and to adopt a new ordinance for new rates and compensation.

One facet of the new ordinance, effective July 10, 2023, the first day of the first full pay
period of the new fiscal year, implements City Council-approved gross pay rates and
other compensation for the one-year period included in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2023-24
Memoranda of Understanding, as defined under the Meet and Confer Ordinance. This
portion also includes gross rates and other compensation for employees covered by
the Meet and Discuss Ordinance, and gross pay rates and other compensation for all
unrepresented employees.

Another facet of the new ordinance implements a new pay structure to become
effective Aug. 7, 2023, to implement the recommendations of Kaneko and Krammer
Corp., dba Koff & Associates, Inc., resulting from the Citywide Classification and
Compensation Study.

Summary
Changes Effective July 10, 2023
This new Pay Ordinance includes items which are part of the Memoranda of
Understanding with the five Meet and Confer employee groups that were approved by
the City Council through Formal Resolution on May 3, 2023. Administrative
Regulations and other policy documents will be amended to address items agreed to
with the employee groups that are not part of the Pay Ordinance.

The new Pay Ordinance outlines changes to pay rates and other compensation for
employees covered by the Meet and Confer Ordinance, employees covered by the
Meet and Discuss Ordinance, and employees represented by the City Manager, such
as confidential office and clerical, middle managers, and executives. This is consistent
with the City Council’s actions adopting the FY 2023-24 Memoranda of Understanding
(MOUs). This is also consistent with the City Manager’s authority to approve FY 2023-
24 Memoranda of Agreement (MOAs) for employee associations; and to approve pay
rates and other compensation for employees represented by the City Manager.


Page 142


Changes Effective Aug. 7, 2023
The new Pay Ordinance also outlines the new pay structure resulting from the
Citywide Classification and Compensation Study. In 2021, the City partnered with Koff
& Associates, a human resources firm, to perform a comprehensive job evaluation and
market analysis of nearly 900 Citywide jobs. The key objectives of the study were to
ensure that the City's job classifications were accurate and up to date, that the City
has an equitable and market-based pay structure, defined career paths, and training
opportunities, and that the City has the best talent retention in the market to make the
City a destination employer for future generations. Salary data from other agencies
was gathered to provide the City with useful information about how job classifications
are paid in comparison to positions in other organizations.

The proposed language for the FY 2023-24 Pay Ordinance is included in Attachment
1. Separate reports of updates to the existing pay structure by job code effective July
10, 2023, through Aug. 6, 2023, and the new pay structure by job code effective on
Aug. 7, 2023, are included in Exhibits A and B to Attachment 1.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
· City Council provided approval to enter into a contract with Kaneko and Krammer
Corp., dba Koff & Associates, Inc., to provide Classification and Compensation
Study services on March 17, 2021.
· City Council approved by Formal Resolution the Memoranda of Understanding with
the five Meet and Confer groups on May 3, 2023.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Human Resources
Department.




Page 143
ATTACHMENT 1
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE




AF
T
R
D
Page 144
AF
T
R
D
Page 145
AF
T
R
D
Page 146
AF
T
R
D
Page 147
AF
T
R
D
Page 148
AF
T
R
D
Page 149
AF
T
R
D
Page 150
AF
T
R
D
Page 151
AF
T
R
D
Page 152
AF
T
R
D
Page 153
AF
T
R
D
Page 154
AF
T
R
D
Page 155
AF
T
R
D
Page 156
AF
T
R
D
Page 157
AF
T
R
D
Page 158
AF
T
R
D
Page 159
AF
T
R
D
Page 160
AF
T
R
D
Page 161
AF
T
R
D
Page 162
AF
T
R
D
Page 163
AF
T
R
D
Page 164
AF
T
R
D
Page 165
AF
T
R
D
Page 166
AF
T
R
D
Page 167
AF
T
R
D
Page 168
AF
T
R
D
Page 169
AF
T
R
D
Page 170
AF
T
R
D
Page 171
AF
T
R
D
Page 172
AF
T
R
D
Page 173
Page 174
Page 175
Page 176
Page 177
Page 178
Page 179
Page 180
Page 181
Page 182
Page 183
Page 184
Page 185
Page 186
Page 187
Page 188
Page 189
Page 190
Page 191
Page 192
Page 193
Page 194
Page 195
Page 196
Page 197
Page 198
Page 199
Page 200
Page 201
Page 202
Page 203
Page 204
Page 205
Page 206
Page 207
Page 208
Page 209
Page 210
Page 211
Page 212
Page 213
Page 214
Page 215
Page 216
Page 217
Page 218
Page 219
Page 220
Page 221
Page 222
Page 223
Page 224
Page 225
Page 226
Page 227
Page 228
Page 229
Page 230
Page 231
Page 232
Page 233
Page 234
Page 235
Page 236
Page 237
Page 238
Page 239
Page 240
Page 241
Page 242
Page 243
Page 244
Page 245
Page 246
Page 247
Page 248
Page 249
Page 250
Page 251
Page 252
Page 253
Page 254
Page 255
Page 256
Page 257
Page 258
Page 259
Page 260
Page 261
Page 262
Page 263
Page 264
Page 265
Page 266
Page 267
Page 268
Page 269
Page 270
Page 271
Page 272
Page 273
Report by Job Code
Effective: 8/7/2023


FLSA Ben Cat Salary
Job Code Job Title Status Code Plan Grade
00010 General Apprentice-U1 (NC) N 001 100 190
00020 General Apprentice-U2 (NC) N 002 200 290
00030 General Apprentice-U3 (NC) N 003 300 390
00070 General Apprentice-U7 (NC) N 007 700 090
00100 Clerical Trainee (NC) N 003 006 321
00110 Clerk I N 003 006 324
00120 Clerk II N 003 006 330
00160 Clerk III N 003 006 334
00180 Mail Service Worker N 001 002 135
00190 Mail Service Supervisor N 007 001 041
00240 Clerical Supervisor N 007 001 044
00320 Secretary II N 003 006 330
00322 Secretary II*U8 N 008 012 730
00323 Secretary II*Office Automation N 003 006 334
00325 Secretary II*Precinct N 003 006 332
00330 Secretary III N 007 001 034
00331 Secretary III*Council Reporter N 007 001 041
00450 Police Automated System Sec N 003 006 341
00451 Police Automated System Sec*Ld N 007 001 045
00460 Council Reporter N 007 001 056
00470 Remote Comp Term Op N 003 006 324
00474 Remote Comp Term Op*CAU Lead N 003 006 330
00480 Courier N 002 004 225
00510 Court/Legal Clerk I N 003 006 335
00520 Court/Legal Clerk II N 003 006 341
00530 Court/Legal Clerk III N 007 001 045
00531 Court/Legal Clerk III*Pros N 007 001 045
00600 Municipal Court Administrator E 009 013 834
00610 Asst Court Administrator E 007 001 065
00620 Court Supervisor N 007 001 053
00621 Court Supervisor*Interpreter E 007 001 055
00640 Court Interpreter N 003 006 340
00642 Court Interpreter*Credentialed N 007 001 051
01010 Secretary to City Manager(NC) E 007 001 062
01020 Legal Secretary N 003 006 343
01022 Legal Secretary*U8 N 008 012 743
01023 Legal Secretary*Lead N 007 001 047
01024 Legal Secretary*PERB (NC) N 007 001 047
01030 Admin Secretary N 007 001 041
01031 Admin Secretary*Council Agenda N 007 001 043
01070 Council Aide (NC) E 007 023 C10

Page 274
Report by Job Code
Effective: 8/7/2023


FLSA Ben Cat Salary
Job Code Job Title Status Code Plan Grade
01080 Customer Service Clerk N 003 006 331
01083 Customer Service Clerk*Lead-U7 N 007 001 041
01085 Customer Service Clerk*Plans N 003 006 337
01120 Records Clerk N 003 006 333
01121 Records Clerk*Lead N 003 006 337
01130 Senior Records Clerk N 007 001 035
01140 Records Supervisor N 007 001 047
01150 Airport Access Agent N 003 006 337
01210 Police Records Clk N 003 006 331
01212 Police Records Clk*Lead N 003 006 345
01220 Fingerprint Technician N 003 006 339
01221 Fingerprint Technician*Lead N 003 006 343
01260 Police Coding Clerk N 003 006 341
01280 Police Statistical Rsrch Aide N 003 006 343
01290 Meter Collection Clerk N 003 006 324
01320 Account Clerk II N 003 006 330
01330 Account Clerk III N 003 006 336
01331 Account Clerk III*U8 N 008 012 736
01350 Account Clerk Supervisor N 007 001 042
01360 Utilities Service Trainee (NC) N 003 006 331
01370 Utilities Service Spec N 003 006 337
01371 Utilities Service Spec*Lead N 003 006 341
01372 Utilities Service Spec*Water N 003 006 339
01410 Human Resources Clerk N 008 012 733
01420 Senior Human Resources Clerk N 008 012 733
01450 Auto Parts Clerk I N 002 004 235
01460 Auto Parts Clerk II N 002 004 241
01470 Auto Parts Clerk III N 002 004 245
01510 Library Clerk I N 003 006 323
01512 Library Clerk I*Extension Svcs N 003 006 323
01520 Library Clerk II N 003 006 327
01540 Library Support Services Supv N 007 001 049
01550 Library Circulation Attnd I N 003 006 327
01560 Library Circulation Attnd II N 003 006 331
01570 Library Circulation Attnd III N 007 001 049
01580 Library Page N 999 006 323
01590 Inventory Control Specialist N 007 001 043
01600 Supplies Clerk II N 001 002 135
01601 Supplies Clerk II*U2 N 002 004 235
01602 Supplies Clerk II*U3 N 003 006 335
01620 Supplies Clerk III N 001 002 139

Page 275
Report by Job Code
Effective: 8/7/2023


FLSA Ben Cat Salary
Job Code Job Title Status Code Plan Grade
01621 Supplies Clerk III*U2 N 002 004 239
01623 Supplies Clerk III*U7 N 007 001 043
01670 Supplies Clerk I N 001 002 129
01671 Supplies Clerk I*U2 N 002 004 229
01672 Supplies Clerk I*U3 N 003 006 329
01680 Inventory Management Coord E 007 001 063
01690 Police Property Supervisor N 007 001 045
01700 Police Property Technician N 003 006 339
01800 Police Comm Shift Supervisor E 007 001 061
01801 Police Comm Shift Supv*Lead E 007 001 061
01810 Communications Dispatcher N 003 006 335
01820 Fire Emergency Dispatcher N 003 006 347
01822 Fire Emergency Dispatcher*Lead N 003 006 349
01830 Police Comm Operator N 003 006 345
01832 Police Comm Op*Radio/911 N 003 006 347
01833 Police Comm Op*Lead Radio/911 N 003 006 349
01840 Mobile Dispatcher N 003 006 330
01850 Fire Communications Supervisor N 007 001 055
01870 Police Communications Supv N 007 001 055
01880 Desktop Publisher N 003 006 339
01890 Asst Housing Supervisor E 007 001 051
01910 Housing Program Representative N 003 006 340
02010 Repro & Bindery Equip Operator N 003 006 333
02040 Offset Press Operator N 003 006 339
02042 Offset Press Op*Special Press N 003 006 341
02050 Printing Services Foreman N 007 001 045
02060 Printing Services Supervisor E 007 001 053
02070 Rehabilitation Loan Processor N 003 006 339
03190 Payroll Supervisor E 007 001 065
03200 Investment Manager E 007 001 069
03210 Accountant I N 007 001 049
03220 Accountant II E 007 001 056
03240 Accountant III E 007 001 060
03260 Accountant IV E 007 001 066
03270 Tax Hearing Officer E 007 001 067
03280 Accounting Supervisor E 007 001 069
03300 Auditor Intern (NC) N 003 006 343
03310 Associate Auditor N 007 001 053
03330 Internal Auditor E 007 001 059
03340 Tax Auditor N 007 001 054
03350 Senior Tax Auditor E 007 001 058

Page 276
Report by Job Code
Effective: 8/7/2023


FLSA Ben Cat Salary
Job Code Job Title Status Code Plan Grade
03370 Senior Internal Auditor E 007 001 063
03371 Senior Internal Auditor*IT E 007 001 065
03390 Investment and Debt Manager E 007 001 073
03570 Treasury Collections Supv E 007 001 051
03600 License Inspector N 003 006 343
03610 Treasury Collections Rep N 003 006 343
03611 Treasury Collections Rep*TAR N 003 006 343
03670 Business License Service Clerk N 003 006 343
03720 Deputy City Auditor E 009 013 842
03730 Asst City Auditor E 010 018 912
03740 City Auditor (NC) E 010 018 922
03850 Rate Analyst E 007 001 060
04150 Supplies Supervisor E 007 001 051
04160 Petroleum Supplies Supervisor E 007 001 051
04210 Quality Assurance Engineer E 007 001 053
04300 Buyer Aide N 003 006 334
04310 Buyer N 007 001 049
04330 Senior Buyer E 007 001 055
04340 Finance Procurement Officer E 007 001 064
04341 Finance Procurement Ofcr*Lead E 007 001 066
04350 Procurement Manager E 007 001 066
04351 Procurement Manager*Finance E 007 001 068
04990 Industrial Hygienist E 007 001 063
05000 Benefits Aide N 008 012 739
05010 Training Specialist N 007 001 052
05020 Human Resources Aide N 008 012 745
05021 Human Resources Aide*U7 N 007 001 045
05022 Human Resources Aide*Court N 008 012 745
05030 Curriculum/Training Coord E 007 001 061
05031 Curriculum/Trng Coord*Supv Dev E 007 001 063
05050 Safety Analyst I N 007 001 055
05060 Safety Analyst II E 007 001 059
05110 Human Resources Analyst N 007 001 049
05111 Human Resources Analyst*Court N 007 001 049
05120 Senior Human Resources Analyst E 007 001 055
05130 Human Resources Supervisor E 007 001 069
05180 Asst Human Resources Director E 010 018 916
05190 Human Resources Director (NC) E 010 018 926
05200 Labor Relations Adm (NC) E 010 018 914
05220 Human Resources Officer E 007 001 066
05221 Human Resources Officer*Court E 007 001 066

Page 277
Report by Job Code
Effective: 8/7/2023


FLSA Ben Cat Salary
Job Code Job Title Status Code Plan Grade
05260 Operations Analyst E 007 001 059
05300 Management Intern (NC) N 007 001 047
05310 Management Asst I E 007 001 057
05320 Management Asst II E 007 001 062
05330 Management Asst III E 009 013 830
05332 Management Asst III*PBS E 009 013 832
05350 Deputy Budget & Research Dir E 009 013 846
05360 Management Services Adm E 009 013 834
05370 Retirement Assistant N 007 001 045
05380 Benefits Analyst II E 007 001 058
05381 Benefits Analyst II*IT E 007 001 062
05390 Benefits Analyst I N 007 001 052
05400 Deputy Human Resources Dir E 009 013 846
05430 Budget Analyst III E 007 001 066
05440 Budget Analyst II E 007 001 058
05460 Budget Analyst I E 007 001 052
05490 Department Budget Supervisor E 007 001 066
05500 Fiscal Manager E 007 001 071
05510 Budget & Research Director(NC) E 010 018 926
05530 Retirement Program Adm E 010 018 922
05560 Business Assistance Coord E 007 001 061
05600 Budget & Research Analyst E 007 001 067
05610 Senior Budget/Research Analyst E 007 001 069
05620 Principal B&R Analyst E 007 001 071
06000 Admin Intern (NC) N 007 001 038
06020 Admin Aide N 003 006 343
06021 Admin Aide*U7 N 007 001 043
06022 Admin Aide*U8 N 008 012 743
06023 Admin Aide*Empl Parking Coord N 003 006 343
06030 Admin Asst I N 007 001 053
06040 Admin Asst II E 007 001 059
06050 Admin Asst III E 007 001 061
06060 Special Asst to City Mgr (NC) E 010 018 906
06070 Exec Asst to Mayor (NC) E 010 018 912
06080 Deputy City Manager (NC) E 010 018 930
06090 Exec Asst to the City Mgr (NC) E 010 018 908
06100 Asst City Manager (NC) E 010 018 935
06110 Asst to the City Manager (NC) E 010 018 904
06130 Exec Asst to City Council (NC) E 010 018 908
06140 Senior Exec Asst/City Mgr (NC) E 010 018 912
06150 Special Asst / City Council E 009 013 830

Page 278
Report by Job Code
Effective: 8/7/2023


FLSA Ben Cat Salary
Job Code Job Title Status Code Plan Grade
06160 Asst to the Mayor (a) (NC) E 010 018 904
06161 Asst to the Mayor (b) (NC) E 010 018 902
06190 Emergency Management Coord E 009 013 832
06220 Chief Sustainability Off (NC) E 010 018 914
06230 Intergovern Affairs Coord (NC) E 010 018 922
06250 Protocol Program Adm (NC) E 009 013 830
06270 Asst Protocol Program Adm (NC) E 007 001 064
06300 Council Secretary (NC) N 007 023 C11
06320 Council Research Analyst (NC) E 007 023 C17
06330 Council Assistant (NC) E 007 023 C22
06350 Mayor's Assistant (NC) E 007 023 C22
06370 Public Information Officer E 007 001 060
06380 Senior Public Info Officer E 007 001 064
06410 Deputy Public Info Director E 009 013 842
06420 Public Information Specialist E 007 001 054
06430 Public Information Dir (NC) E 010 018 922
06480 Video Station Manager E 009 013 832
06490 Video Productions Coordinator E 007 001 055
06600 Labor Compliance Supervisor E 007 001 059
06610 Labor Compliance Specialist N 008 012 753
06620 Contracts Specialist I N 007 001 049
06630 Contracts Specialist II E 007 001 055
06631 Contracts Specialist II*Lead E 007 001 059
06770 Deputy Equal Opportunity Dir E 009 013 842
06790 Equal Opportunity Dir (NC) E 010 018 922
06800 OAT Director (NC) E 010 018 922
06810 OAT Attorney (NC) E 009 013 826
06850 OAT Executive Admin Asst E 007 001 059
06860 OAT Monitor E 007 001 061
06870 OAT Senior Monitor E 007 001 063
06880 OAT Monitor Supervisor E 007 001 067
06920 Workforce Development Supv E 007 001 064
06930 Workforce Development Spec N 007 001 052
06940 Senior Workforce Dev Spec E 007 001 058
07040 Equal Opportunity Specialist E 007 001 055
07042 Equal Opportunity Spec*Lead E 007 001 059
07050 Equal Opportunity Progrms Asst N 007 001 055
07090 Caseworker III E 007 001 059
07091 Caseworker III*Workforce Dev E 007 001 060
07100 Caseworker I N 003 006 345
07110 Caseworker II N 007 001 051

Page 279
Report by Job Code
Effective: 8/7/2023


FLSA Ben Cat Salary
Job Code Job Title Status Code Plan Grade
07112 Caseworker II*MentalHealthSpec N 007 001 055
07120 Youth Services Coordinator E 007 001 061
07130 Human Services Center Supv E 007 001 058
07180 Dietitian E 007 001 049
07220 Youth Counselor N 003 006 343
07260 Casework Aide N 003 006 333
07320 Community Worker II N 003 006 332
07330 Community Worker III N 007 001 038
07340 Senior Programs Supervisor II E 007 001 061
07350 Senior Programs Supervisor I E 007 001 049
07360 Community Outreach Supervisor E 007 001 054
07400 Senior Center Assistant N 003 006 341
07630 Head Start Area Supervisor E 007 001 061
07640 Head Start Educator N 007 001 043
07642 Head Start Educator*Prog Asst N 007 001 047
07670 Head Start Education Spec E 007 001 055
07690 Casework Services Coordinator E 007 001 065
07790 Deputy Human Services Director E 009 013 842
07900 Human Services Program Coord E 007 001 067
07960 Asst Human Services Director E 010 018 912
07990 Human Services Director (NC) E 010 018 922
08420 Housing Rehabilitation Supv E 007 001 057
08470 Housing Investigator N 007 001 046
08500 Landlord/Tenant Counselor N 003 006 345
08520 Housing Program Assistant N 007 001 044
08521 Housing Prog Asst*Property Mgr N 007 001 048
08530 Housing Supervisor E 007 001 057
08590 Asst Housing Director E 010 018 912
08610 Special Projects Administrator E 009 013 832
08630 Project Management Assistant E 007 001 055
08640 Project Manager E 007 001 067
08680 Housing Development Manager E 007 001 065
08710 Housing Rehabilitation Spec N 003 006 351
08730 Housing Development Specialist E 007 001 057
08740 Housing Manager E 007 001 065
08750 Economic Development Prog Mgr E 007 001 066
08760 Housing Director (NC) E 010 018 922
08770 Deputy Housing Director E 009 013 842
08780 Modernization Manager E 007 001 059
08810 Economic Dev Executive Officer E 010 018 908
08830 Economic Development Spec E 007 001 055

Page 280
Report by Job Code
Effective: 8/7/2023


FLSA Ben Cat Salary
Job Code Job Title Status Code Plan Grade
09260 Data Control Specialist N 003 006 334
09320 Info Tech Supervisor E 007 001 057
09321 Info Tech Supv*1st Shift E 007 001 057
09330 Computer Production Scheduler N 007 001 048
09440 Info Tech Project Manager E 007 001 071
09510 Computer Operator N 003 006 338
09520 Senior Computer Operator N 003 006 342
09560 Information Tech Systems Spec E 007 001 063
09570 Senior Info Tech Systems Spec E 007 001 067
09580 Lead Info Tech Systems Spec E 007 001 071
09650 Info Tech Analyst/Prg I E 007 001 054
09660 Info Tech Analyst/Prg II E 007 001 060
09670 Info Tech Analyst/Prg III E 007 001 064
09770 User Support Specialist N 003 006 346
09780 Lead User Technology Spec E 007 001 064
09790 Senior User Technology Spec E 007 001 060
09800 User Technology Specialist N 007 001 056
09801 User Technology Specialist*U3 N 003 006 356
09802 User Technology Specialist*U2 N 002 004 256
09810 Business Systems Analyst E 007 001 055
09820 Senior Business Systems Anlyst E 007 001 063
09830 Lead Business Systems Analyst E 007 001 065
09840 Info Tech Service Specialist E 007 001 054
09850 GIS Technician N 003 006 353
09860 Senior GIS Technician N 007 001 055
09880 GIS Coordinator E 007 001 057
09890 Enterprise Technology Manager E 009 013 834
09920 Chief Information Officer(NC) E 010 018 928
09950 Asst Chief Information Officer E 010 018 918
09960 Deputy Chief Information Off E 009 013 848
09970 Regional Wireless Coop Dir E 010 018 914
10030 Legal Assistant N 003 006 347
10040 Legal Assistant Supervisor E 007 001 055
10050 Municipal Court Hrng Off (NC) E 009 013 860
10060 Presiding Court Hrng Off (NC) E 009 013 870
10120 Asst City Atty II (NC) E 007 001 068
10121 Asst City Atty II*Pros (NC) E 007 001 068
10130 Asst City Atty III (NC) E 009 013 824
10131 Asst City Atty III*Pros (NC) E 009 013 824
10140 Asst City Atty IV (NC) E 009 013 826
10141 Asst City Atty IV*Pros (NC) E 009 013 826

Page 281
Report by Job Code
Effective: 8/7/2023


FLSA Ben Cat Salary
Job Code Job Title Status Code Plan Grade
10170 City Prosecutor (NC) E 010 018 922
10180 Chief Asst City Attorney (NC) E 010 018 918
10190 City Attorney (NC) E 010 018 929
10200 Chief Counsel (NC) E 010 018 914
10210 Asst Chief Counsel (NC) E 009 013 848
10220 Deputy City Prosecutor (NC) E 009 013 848
10221 Deputy City Pros (NC)*Chf Asst E 010 018 912
10230 Public Defender (NC) E 009 018 922
10240 Forensic Toxicology Expert(NC) E 009 013 834
10510 Bailiff N 003 006 345
10511 Bailiff*Lead N 003 006 349
10570 City Judge (NC) E 009 013 880
10580 Asst Chief Presiding Judge(NC) E 010 018 970
10590 Chief Presiding Judge (NC) E 010 018 980
10620 Municipal Court Exec Officer E 010 018 908
10640 Municipal Court Info Sys Off E 010 018 904
11980 Elections/Annexation Spec II E 007 001 057
11990 Elections/Annexation Spec I N 003 006 351
12000 Elections/Annexation Aide N 003 006 339
12010 Elections Coordinator E 007 001 063
12011 Elections Coord*Citizen Supprt E 007 001 067
12030 Property Specialist E 007 001 057
12040 Property Records Supervisor E 007 001 061
12080 Property Records Specialist N 003 006 347
12130 Review Appraiser E 007 001 061
12170 Asst Tax & License Adm E 007 001 067
12190 Asst Real Estate Admin E 007 001 067
12230 Deputy City Clerk E 009 013 842
12240 City Clerk (NC) E 010 018 922
12250 Asst City Clerk E 010 018 912
12270 Deputy Finance Director E 009 013 848
12280 Asst Finance Director E 010 018 918
12300 Chief Financial Officer (NC) E 010 018 928
12320 Risk Management Coordinator E 007 001 065
12330 Claims Adjuster II E 007 001 063
12360 Asst Risk Management Admin E 007 001 067
12400 Finance Supervisor E 007 001 065
16340 Relocation Specialist E 007 001 049
17810 Transit Ops Contract Supv E 007 001 053
17820 Transit Superintendent E 007 001 070
17830 Transit Field Operations Mgr E 007 001 064

Page 282
Report by Job Code
Effective: 8/7/2023


FLSA Ben Cat Salary
Job Code Job Title Status Code Plan Grade
17870 Asst Public Transit Director E 010 018 912
17880 Deputy Public Transit Director E 009 013 842
17890 Public Transit Director (NC) E 010 018 922
18020 Planning Technician N 003 006 341
18030 Senior Planning Technician N 003 006 347
18040 Planning Graphic Designer N 003 006 353
18200 Historic Preservation Officer E 009 013 832
18210 Planner I E 007 001 049
18220 Planner II E 007 001 055
18221 Planner II*Village E 007 001 059
18230 Planner III E 007 001 063
18240 Principal Planner E 007 001 068
18500 Neighborhood Services Dir (NC) E 010 018 922
18510 Deputy Neighborhood Svcs Dir E 009 013 842
18530 Neighborhood Specialist E 007 001 061
18550 Compliance Supervisor E 007 001 069
18560 Asst Neighborhood Services Dir E 010 018 912
19010 Senior Construction Insp N 002 004 251
19011 Senior Construction Insp*U1 N 001 002 151
19020 Chief Construction Insp N 002 004 255
19021 Chief Construction Insp*U1 N 001 002 155
19025 Chief Construction Insp*U7 N 007 001 055
19030 Construction Insp Supv E 007 001 061
19050 Survey Aide N 002 004 234
19060 Instrument Technician N 002 004 246
19070 Party Chief N 002 004 252
19080 Senior Party Chief N 002 004 256
19090 Survey Supervisor E 007 001 062
19100 Construction Drafting Tech N 002 004 250
19130 Senior Drafting Technician N 003 006 350
19140 Chief Drafting Technician N 007 001 054
19160 Materials Technician N 002 004 232
19170 Senior Materials Technician N 002 004 238
19180 Chief Materials Technician N 002 004 242
19190 Chief Materials Plant Insp N 002 004 246
19200 Materials Supervisor E 007 001 053
19230 Engineering Tech N 003 006 340
19232 Engineering Tech*Traffic Count N 003 006 340
19240 Senior Engineering Tech N 003 006 350
19241 Senior Engineering Tech*U1 N 001 002 150
19250 Chief Engineering Tech N 003 006 354

Page 283
Report by Job Code
Effective: 8/7/2023


FLSA Ben Cat Salary
Job Code Job Title Status Code Plan Grade
19251 Chief Engineering Tech*U7 N 007 001 054
19260 Principal Engineering Tech E 007 001 060
19270 Water Services Tech Sup Coord E 007 001 071
20150 Mechanical Engineer E 007 001 063
20170 Energy Management Engineer E 007 001 060
20190 Survey Engineer E 007 001 070
20200 Hydrologist E 007 001 063
20210 Civil Engineer I N 007 001 057
20220 Civil Engineer II E 007 001 063
20230 Civil Engineer III E 007 001 067
20235 Civil Engineer III*Team Ldr E 007 001 071
20240 Engineering Supervisor E 007 001 071
20260 Asst City Engineer E 010 018 912
20280 City Engineer (NC) E 010 018 916
20320 Energy Management Specialist E 007 001 060
21000 Signal Systems Specialist I N 007 001 055
21010 Signal Systems Specialist II E 007 001 059
21110 Traffic Engineer I N 007 001 059
21120 Traffic Engineer II E 007 001 063
21130 Traffic Engineer III E 007 001 067
21140 Traffic Engineering Supervisor E 007 001 073
21150 Engineering Manager E 009 013 832
21240 Asst Street Transportation Dir E 010 018 914
21250 Street Transportation Dir (NC) E 010 018 924
21260 Deputy Street Transp Director E 009 013 844
22050 Water Services Proc Cont Spec E 007 001 064
22130 Communications Engineer E 007 001 061
23030 Environmental Programs Coord E 007 001 066
23031 Environmental Programs Crd*PBS E 007 001 066
23040 Architect E 007 001 065
23210 Landscape Architect I E 007 001 059
23220 Landscape Architect II E 007 001 065
23250 Principal Landscape Architect E 007 001 069
23310 Laboratory Technician N 003 006 342
23410 Chemist I N 007 001 047
23411 Chemist I*Quality Assurance E 007 001 051
23412 Chemist I*Specialty N 007 001 049
23420 Chemist II E 007 001 054
23421 Chemist II*Specialty E 007 001 056
23430 Chemist III E 007 001 058
23431 Chemist III*Specialty E 007 001 060

Page 284
Report by Job Code
Effective: 8/7/2023


FLSA Ben Cat Salary
Job Code Job Title Status Code Plan Grade
23510 Planning & Dev Team Ldr E 007 001 071
23520 Electrical Plans Engineer E 007 001 062
23530 Mechanical Plans Engineer E 007 001 062
23540 Structural Plans Engineer E 007 001 062
23630 Fire Protection Engineer E 007 001 060
23633 Fire Protection Engineer*Lead E 007 001 064
24000 Airport Security Guard N 002 004 232
24010 Airport Operations Assistant N 003 006 336
24100 Aviation Dispatcher N 003 006 344
24110 Aviation Dispatch Supv I N 007 001 049
24120 Aviation Dispatch Supv II E 007 001 055
24950 Airfield Maint Worker I N 002 004 234
24960 Airfield Maint Worker II N 002 004 238
25180 Asst Aviation Director E 010 018 918
25190 Aviation Director (NC) E 010 018 929
25200 Deputy Aviation Dir E 009 013 848
25210 Aviation Superintendent E 007 001 069
25220 Aviation Supv III E 007 001 061
25230 Aviation Supv II N 007 001 055
25240 Aviation Supv I N 007 001 047
25242 Aviation Supv I*Special Maint N 007 001 049
25250 Aviation Marketing Supervisor E 007 001 061
26010 Airport Operations Technician N 002 004 245
27120 Sales Manager E 007 001 051
27150 Sales Supervisor E 007 001 057
27190 Production Assistant N 007 001 045
27250 Senior Sales/Marketing Supv E 007 001 061
27340 Convention Center Maint Supt E 007 001 068
27350 Production Coordinator N 007 001 051
27360 Asst Production Services Mgr E 007 001 055
27370 Production Services Manager E 007 001 059
27400 Ticket Seller N 999 006 322
27410 Asst Ticket Services Supv N 007 001 037
27420 Ticket Services Supervisor N 007 001 043
27450 Events Representative N 999 006 343
27460 Events Coordinator N 007 001 045
27480 Deputy Economic Dev Director E 009 013 844
27490 Community & Econ Dev Dir (NC) E 010 018 924
27500 Asst Com/Econ Dev Dir E 010 018 914
27530 Facility Coordinator E 007 001 061
27600 Deputy Convention Center Dir E 009 013 844

Page 285
Report by Job Code
Effective: 8/7/2023


FLSA Ben Cat Salary
Job Code Job Title Status Code Plan Grade
27610 Convention Center Dir (NC) E 010 018 924
27620 Asst Convention Center Dir E 010 018 914
30120 Library Technical Assistant N 003 006 335
30190 Volunteer Coordinator E 007 001 055
30200 Library Assistant N 007 001 039
30210 Librarian I N 007 001 049
30220 Librarian II E 007 001 053
30230 Librarian III E 007 001 065
30260 Deputy Library Director E 009 013 842
30280 Asst City Librarian E 010 018 912
30290 City Librarian (NC) E 010 018 922
30300 Librarian IV E 007 001 069
40020 Urban Forestry Tech Trnee (NC) N 001 002 126
40030 Urban Forestry Technician N 001 002 132
40060 Groundskeeper N 001 002 132
40080 Gardener N 001 002 138
40082 Gardener*Sprinkler System N 001 002 139
40083 Gardener*U2 N 002 004 238
40100 Parks Foreman I N 007 001 047
40110 Parks Foreman II N 007 001 053
40120 Park Ranger III N 007 001 046
40130 Park Ranger II N 007 001 040
40160 Parks Maint Mechanic N 001 002 149
40162 Parks Maint Mech*Plumb Install N 001 002 149
40190 Parks Equipment Mechanic N 001 002 142
40350 Horticulturist E 007 001 057
40420 Park Manager E 007 001 058
40430 Parks Supervisor E 007 001 058
40450 Parks & Recreation Aide N 999 006 328
40452 Parks & Recreation Aide*Cash N 999 006 328
40460 Parks Special Operations Supv E 007 001 067
40550 Golf Course Supervisor E 007 001 063
40551 Golf Course Supervisor*Lead E 007 001 065
40570 Head Golf Professional E 007 001 065
40571 Head Golf Professional*Lead E 007 001 067
41010 Lifeguard N 999 017 S29
41090 Recreation Programmer N 003 006 342
41140 Recreation Coordinator II E 007 001 050
41160 Recreation Coordinator III E 007 001 056
41161 Recreation Coord III*Aquatics E 007 001 057
41170 Recreation Supervisor E 007 001 058

Page 286
Report by Job Code
Effective: 8/7/2023


FLSA Ben Cat Salary
Job Code Job Title Status Code Plan Grade
41172 Recreation Supv*Aquatics E 007 001 060
41200 Arts & Culture Administrator E 010 018 912
41210 Arts Specialist E 007 001 049
41220 Senior Arts Specialist E 007 001 058
41660 Deputy Parks & Rec Director E 009 013 844
41670 Asst Parks & Rec Director E 010 018 914
41700 Parks & Recreation Dir (NC) E 010 018 924
42010 Museum Aide N 003 006 341
42020 Pueblo Grande Administrator E 007 001 059
42050 Museum Curator E 007 001 053
42060 Museum Assistant N 007 001 051
42100 City Archaeologist E 007 001 057
43010 Recreation Instructor N 999 006 332
43030 Recreation Leader N 999 006 340
43050 Asst Pool Manager N 999 006 331
43070 Pool Manager N 999 006 339
50010 Water Meter Reader N 002 004 237
50160 Senior Utilities Svc Spec N 003 006 343
50200 Water Services Technician N 002 004 243
50220 Water Services Specialist N 002 004 249
50260 Water Customer Services Spv I N 007 001 050
50270 Water Customer Services Spv II E 007 001 056
50271 Water Customer Svc Spvr II*Fld E 007 001 056
50330 Environ Health & Safety Spec N 002 004 253
50340 Senior Utility Operator N 002 004 249
50341 Senior Utility Operator*SCBA N 002 004 251
50360 Ops & Maint Tech Trnee (NC) N 002 004 237
50370 Ops & Maintenance Tech N 002 004 245
50371 Ops & Maintenance Tech*SCBA N 002 004 246
50380 Ops & Maintenance Supervisor N 007 001 060
50390 Water Facilities Supervisor E 007 001 068
50400 Utility Helper N 002 004 237
50420 Utility Mechanic N 002 004 243
50421 Utility Mechanic*SCBA N 002 004 245
50430 Industrial Maintenance Mech N 002 004 250
50440 Maintenance Planner/Scheduler N 002 004 252
50720 Laboratory Superintendent E 007 001 067
50790 Water Systems Operator N 003 006 355
50791 Water Systems Operator*Lead N 007 001 059
50830 Water Services Project Coord E 007 001 063
51120 Instrumentation & Cont Supv N 007 001 061

Page 287
Report by Job Code
Effective: 8/7/2023


FLSA Ben Cat Salary
Job Code Job Title Status Code Plan Grade
51130 Instrumentation & Cont Spec N 002 004 251
51131 Instrumentation & Cont Spec*Ld N 002 004 253
51210 Senior Water Quality Inspector N 002 004 246
51220 Chief Water Quality Inspector E 007 001 053
51260 Water Quality Inspector N 002 004 240
51280 Asst Customer Svcs Adm E 007 001 064
51300 Environmental Programs Manager E 010 018 912
51330 Water Resources Mgt Advsr (NC) E 010 018 912
51380 Water Resource Specialist E 007 001 063
51390 Water Services Director (NC) E 010 018 928
51430 Asst Water Services Dir E 010 018 918
51440 Deputy Water Services Director E 009 013 848
51460 Water Services Superintendent E 007 001 069
51520 Environmental Quality Spec E 007 001 055
51530 Water & Wastewtr Econ Anlst E 007 001 060
53000 Utility Technician Trainee(NC) N 002 004 228
53010 Utility Technician N 002 004 237
53020 Utility Specialty Technician N 002 004 243
53030 Senior Utility Technician N 002 004 251
53040 Utility TV Technician N 002 004 247
53050 Utility Crew Chief N 007 001 053
53060 Utility Supervisor N 007 001 059
60010 Structural Inspector I N 003 006 347
60020 Structural Insp Field Supv E 007 001 063
60030 General Inspector I N 003 006 349
60040 General Insp Field Supv E 007 001 057
60050 Annual Facilities Program Supv E 007 001 058
60060 Const Permit Supv E 007 001 063
60070 Const Permit Spec I N 003 006 351
60080 Mechanical Plans Examiner I N 003 006 351
60090 Mechanical Plans Examiner II N 003 006 357
60100 Electrical Plans Examiner I N 003 006 351
60110 Electrical Plans Examiner II N 003 006 357
60120 Structural Inspector II N 003 006 353
60121 Structural Inspector II*Ind/PR N 003 006 357
60140 Structural Plans Examiner I N 003 006 351
60150 Structural Plans Examiner II N 003 006 357
60160 General Inspector II N 003 006 353
60170 Const Permit Spec II N 003 006 357
60200 Building Code Examiner N 003 006 357
60201 Building Code Examiner*Lead N 003 006 361

Page 288
Report by Job Code
Effective: 8/7/2023


FLSA Ben Cat Salary
Job Code Job Title Status Code Plan Grade
60210 Electrical Inspector I N 003 006 347
60220 Electrical Insp Field Supv E 007 001 063
60230 Electrical Inspector II N 003 006 353
60231 Electrical Insp II*Ind/PR N 003 006 357
60260 Civil Inspector I N 003 006 347
60270 Civil Inspector II N 003 006 353
60280 Civil Inspector III N 003 006 357
60320 Elevator Inspector II N 003 006 353
60330 Elevator Inspector I N 003 006 347
60340 Elevator Insp Field Supv E 007 001 059
60360 Civil Inspections Field Supv E 007 001 063
60420 Plumbing/Mech Insp II N 003 006 354
60421 Plumbing/Mech Insp II*Ind/PR N 003 006 358
60430 Plumbing/Mech Insp I N 003 006 348
60440 Plumbing/Mech Insp Field Supv E 007 001 064
60630 Neighborhood Maint Tech I N 003 006 331
60640 Neighborhood Maint Tech II N 003 006 343
60650 Neighborhood Maint Tech III N 007 001 048
60670 Neighborhood Preserv Insp I N 003 006 349
60680 Neighborhood Preserv Insp II E 007 001 055
60700 Sign Inspector N 003 006 353
60730 Site Development Supervisor E 007 001 063
60870 Planning & Dev Dir (NC) E 010 018 924
60910 Asst Planning & Dev Dir E 010 018 914
60930 Deputy Planning & Dev Dir E 009 013 844
60960 Plan Review Coordinator E 007 001 060
61000 Firefighter Trainee (NC) N 003 006 321
61010 Firefighter (56) N 005 008 545
6101A Firefighter (56) - SO N 005 008 547
6101B Firefighter (56) - HMT&TRT N 005 008 549
6101C Firefighter (56) - Para N 005 008 549
6101D Firefighter (56) - SO/Para N 005 008 551
6101E Firefighter (56) - HMT&TRT/Para N 005 008 553
6101F Firefighter (40) N 005 009 549
6101G Firefighter (40) - SO N 005 009 551
6101H Firefighter (40) - HMT&TRT N 005 009 553
6101I Firefighter (40) - Para N 005 009 553
6101J Firefighter (40) - SO/Para N 005 009 555
6101K Firefighter (40) - HMT&TRT/Para N 005 009 557
6101L Firefighter*Recruit (NC) N 005 009 528
61020 Fire Engineer 56hr N 005 008 555

Page 289
Report by Job Code
Effective: 8/7/2023


FLSA Ben Cat Salary
Job Code Job Title Status Code Plan Grade
6102A Fire Engineer 56hr - SO N 005 008 557
6102B Fire Engineer 56hr - HMT&TRT N 005 008 559
6102C Fire Engineer 56hr - Para N 005 008 559
6102D Fire Engineer 56hr - SO/Para N 005 008 561
6102E Fire Engineer 56hr - HMT&TRT/Para N 005 008 563
6102F Fire Engineer 40hr N 005 009 559
6102G Fire Engineer 40hr - SO N 005 009 561
6102H Fire Engineer 40hr - HMT&TRT N 005 009 563
6102I Fire Engineer 40hr - Para N 005 009 563
6102J Fire Engineer 40hr - SO/Para N 005 009 565
6102K Fire Engineer 40hr - HMT&TRT/Para N 005 009 567
61040 Fire Captain 56hr N 005 008 559
6104A Fire Captain 56hr - SO N 005 008 561
6104B Fire Captain 56hr - HMT&TRT N 005 008 563
6104C Fire Captain 56hr - Para N 005 008 563
6104D Fire Captain 56hr - SO/Para N 005 008 565
6104E Fire Captain 56hr - HMT&TRT/Para N 005 008 567
6104F Fire Captain 40hr N 005 009 563
6104G Fire Captain 40hr - SO N 005 009 565
6104H Fire Captain 40hr - HMT&TRT N 005 009 567
6104I Fire Captain 40hr - Para N 005 009 567
6104J Fire Captain 40hr - SO/Para N 005 009 569
6104K Fire Captain 40hr - HMT&TRT/Para N 005 009 571
61080 Fire Equipment Service Worker N 002 004 239
61090 Fire Prevention Spec Trnee(NC) N 003 006 337
61100 Fire Prevention Spec II N 003 006 353
61101 Fire Prevention Spec II*Ind/PR N 003 006 357
61110 Fire Prevention Spec I N 003 006 347
61120 Fire Prevention Supervisor N 007 001 063
61200 Fire Performance Auditor E 007 001 067
61370 Fire Battalion Chief 56hr E 017 014 851
61371 Fire Batt Chf*Division E 017 024 852
61373 Fire Batt Chf*Deputy E 017 024 854
61374 Fire Batt Chf*Asst Chief E 019 025 950
61375 Fire Batt Chf*Exec Asst Chief E 019 025 952
61376 Fire Batt Chief*DepChfShftCmdr E 017 014 854
61500 Asst to the Fire Chief E 010 018 904
61501 Asst to the Fire Chief*P & R E 009 013 834
61590 Fire Chief (NC) E 019 025 956
61600 Fire Marshal E 009 013 832
62000 Fire 911 Administrator E 009 013 834

Page 290
Report by Job Code
Effective: 8/7/2023


FLSA Ben Cat Salary
Job Code Job Title Status Code Plan Grade
62020 Medical Billing Supervisor E 007 001 065
62030 Paramedic Training Coordinator E 007 001 059
62080 Multimedia Specialist N 007 001 055
62120 Detention Officer Trainee (NC) N 003 006 338
62130 Detention Officer N 003 006 343
62150 Detention Supervisor N 007 001 047
62160 Police Assistant N 003 006 343
62163 Police Asst*Detention Off Trne N 003 006 338
62180 Police Aide N 003 006 324
62200 Police Recruit (NC) N 004 007 450
62210 Police Officer N 004 007 451
62211 Police Officer*Pilot N 004 007 452
62212 Police Officer*Rescue Pilot N 004 007 453
62213 Police Officer*Flight Instr N 004 007 454
62214 Police Officer*Chief Pilot N 004 007 455
62220 Police Sergeant N 006 011 650
62230 Police Lieutenant N 006 011 651
62240 Police Commander E 016 026 865
62242 Police Commander*Asst Chief E 018 027 970
62243 Police Commander*Exec Asst Chf E 018 027 972
62320 Forensic Photo Spec N 003 006 347
62321 Forensic Photo Spec*Ld N 003 006 349
62340 Police Administrator E 009 013 846
62350 Police R & I Bureau Shift Supv N 007 001 051
62370 Police R & I Operations Supv E 007 001 057
62380 Polygraph Examiner E 007 001 057
62460 Asst Crime Lab Administrator E 007 001 069
62550 Criminal Intelligence Analyst E 007 001 053
62560 Police Civilian Investigator N 007 001 059
62610 Police Research Analyst E 007 001 059
62620 Police Research Supervisor E 007 001 063
62690 Police Chief (NC) E 018 027 976
62800 Crime Scene Specialist I N 003 006 340
62810 Crime Scene Specialist II N 003 006 346
62820 Crime Scene Specialist III N 003 006 350
62830 Crime Scene Shift Supervisor E 007 001 056
62840 Crime Scene Section Supervisor E 007 001 064
62910 Forensic Scientist I (NC) N 003 006 347
62920 Forensic Scientist II N 007 001 051
62930 Forensic Scientist III N 007 001 057
62940 Forensic Scientist IV E 007 001 065

Page 291
Report by Job Code
Effective: 8/7/2023


FLSA Ben Cat Salary
Job Code Job Title Status Code Plan Grade
62950 Forensic Science Section Supv E 007 001 067
69990 Laborer N 001 002 130
69991 Laborer*U2 N 002 004 230
70030 Solid Waste Worker N 001 002 134
70060 Trades Helper N 001 002 137
70061 Trades Helper*U2 N 002 004 237
70100 Weigh Station Clerk N 003 006 330
70110 Street Maint Worker I N 001 002 141
70120 Street Maint Worker N 001 002 147
70121 Street Maint Worker*Rapid N 001 002 147
70122 Street Maint Wkr*Crew Ldr N 001 002 149
71040 Solid Waste Landfill Foreman N 007 001 054
71110 Street Maint Foreman I N 007 001 049
71120 Street Maint Foreman II N 007 001 051
71130 Street Maint Foreman III N 007 001 053
71210 Street Maint Supervisor E 007 001 057
71250 Street Maint Superintendent E 007 001 065
71280 Solid Waste Foreman N 007 001 054
71310 Solid Waste Admin Analyst E 007 001 064
71320 Support Services Aide N 003 006 343
71400 Solid Waste Superintendent E 007 001 068
71410 Solid Waste Environ Spec N 003 006 353
71411 Solid Waste Environ Spec*Ld N 003 006 355
71420 Solid Waste Supervisor N 007 001 060
71422 Solid Waste Supv*Inspections N 007 001 062
71430 Solid Waste Administrator E 009 013 834
71510 Traffic Maintenance Worker N 001 002 140
71520 Traffic Maintenance Frmn II N 007 001 046
71530 Traffic Maintenance Frmn III N 007 001 050
71570 Sign Specialist I N 001 002 135
71580 Sign Specialist II N 001 002 143
71581 Sign Specialist II*U2 N 002 004 243
72010 Equipment Op I N 001 002 135
72012 Equipment Op I*U2 N 002 004 235
72020 Equipment Op II N 001 002 139
72021 Equipment Op II*U2 N 002 004 239
72022 Equipment Op II*Gangmower Op N 001 002 141
72030 Equipment Op III N 001 002 143
72031 Equipment Op III*Asphalt N 001 002 145
72032 Equipment Op III*Lead Striper N 001 002 145
72033 Equipment Op III*U2 N 002 004 243

Page 292
Report by Job Code
Effective: 8/7/2023


FLSA Ben Cat Salary
Job Code Job Title Status Code Plan Grade
72034 Equipment Op III*Aprt Striper N 002 004 245
72036 Equipment Op III*Concrete N 001 002 145
72040 Backhoe/Loader Op N 001 002 143
72042 Backhoe/Loader Op*Const N 002 004 245
72080 Solid Waste Equipment Operator N 001 002 143
72090 Landfill Equipment Operator N 001 002 145
72110 Equipment Op IV N 001 002 149
72111 Equipment Op IV*U2 N 002 004 249
72112 Equipment Op IV*Fuel Distrib N 002 004 251
72160 Motor Broom Operator N 001 002 141
72161 Motor Broom Operator*U2 N 002 004 241
72200 Landscape Equipment Operator N 001 002 137
73030 Equipment Services Aide N 003 006 334
73060 Equipment Service Wkr I N 002 004 233
73070 Equipment Service Wkr II N 002 004 237
73100 Auto Technician N 002 004 245
73102 Auto Technician*Master Tech N 002 004 249
73110 Heavy Equip Mech N 002 004 251
73112 Heavy Equip Mech*Mobile Repair N 002 004 253
73113 Heavy Equip Mech*Emer Repair N 002 004 253
73114 Heavy Equip Mech*Landfill Mech N 002 004 253
73120 Equipment Repair Spec N 002 004 253
73140 Body Repair Specialist N 002 004 245
73150 Methods & Standards Analyst N 002 004 253
73170 Equipment Control Specialist N 003 006 347
73190 Equipment Analyst E 007 001 059
73200 Equipment Shop Foreman N 007 001 057
73230 Equipment Fabrication Foreman N 007 001 057
73260 Fuel Management Specialist N 007 001 049
73270 Equipment Maintenance Supv E 007 001 063
73280 Tire Program Supervisor N 007 001 057
73360 Equipment Maintenance Supt E 007 001 064
73420 Fuel System Support Technician N 002 004 239
73450 Public Works Operations Mgr E 007 001 069
74010 Cement Finisher N 001 002 139
74011 Cement Finisher*U2 N 002 004 239
74060 Traffic Services Supt E 007 001 061
74070 Traffic Signal Supervisor E 007 001 057
74090 Electrician Helper N 002 004 232
74120 Electrician N 002 004 249
74121 Electrician*Lead N 002 004 253

Page 293
Report by Job Code
Effective: 8/7/2023


FLSA Ben Cat Salary
Job Code Job Title Status Code Plan Grade
74130 Traffic Signal Technician Frmn N 007 001 055
74140 Electrical Maint Crew Chief N 007 001 055
74160 Electrical Facilities Supv E 007 001 059
74190 Traffic Signal Technician N 002 004 248
74200 Electronic Systems Specialist N 002 004 248
74230 Telecommunications Svcs Asst E 007 001 049
74250 Machinist N 002 004 251
74270 Telecommunications Aide N 003 006 334
74370 Security Systems Supervisor E 007 001 059
74380 Parking Meter Specialist N 001 002 135
74390 Parking Meter Repair Supv N 007 001 041
74400 Welder N 001 002 149
74401 Welder*U2 N 002 004 249
74470 Asst Security Systems Supv E 007 001 047
74650 Building Equip Op I N 002 004 245
74680 Building Equip Op II N 002 004 249
74700 Building Equipment Supervisor N 007 001 053
74720 Senior Building Equipment Supv E 007 001 059
74740 Building Maint Foreman N 007 001 051
74770 Building Facilities Supt E 007 001 068
74780 Energy Management Supt E 007 001 067
74800 Public Works Director (NC) E 010 018 924
74810 Deputy Public Works Director E 009 013 844
74820 Asst Public Works Director E 010 018 914
74830 Building Maint Worker N 001 002 147
74831 Building Maint Worker*U2 N 002 004 247
74850 Building Maintenance Supv E 007 001 057
74880 Property Manager E 007 001 067
74900 Locksmith N 002 004 243
75010 Aircraft Technician N 002 004 249
75011 Aircraft Technician*QA N 002 004 253
75020 Aircraft Maintenance Supv E 007 001 059
80010 Court Security Officer N 003 006 332
80020 Court Security Supervisor N 007 001 053
80030 Court Security Systems Manager E 007 001 059
80040 Public Service Trainee (NC) N 999 006 322
80050 Municipal Security Guard N 003 006 332
80070 Senior Municipal Security Grd N 007 001 036
80090 Custodial Worker I N 001 002 127
80091 Custodial Worker I*U2 N 002 004 227
80120 Custodial Worker II N 002 004 231

Page 294
Report by Job Code
Effective: 8/7/2023


FLSA Ben Cat Salary
Job Code Job Title Status Code Plan Grade
80121 Custodial Worker II*Window N 002 004 233
80130 Facilities Projects Planner N 002 004 259
80140 Facility Contract Compl Spec N 003 006 350
80141 Facility Contr Compl Spec*Ld N 007 001 054
80150 Facilities Service Coordinator E 007 001 055
80160 Event Services Worker N 002 004 237
80170 Event Services Lead N 007 001 041
80180 Event Services Supervisor N 007 001 047
80190 Event Services Manager E 007 001 055
80200 Asst Event Services Manager E 007 001 049
80210 Custodial Supervisor I N 007 001 037
80220 Custodial Supervisor II N 007 001 041
90010 Mayor E 011 016 998
90020 Council Member E 011 016 997
90030 City Manager (NC) E 012 018 940
P99109 Election Worker N 998 017 008




Page 295
Pay Plan 001 Supervisory & Professional
Effective: 8/7/2023



Grade Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8 Step 9 Step 10 Step 11 Step 12 Step 13 Step 14 Step 15 Step 16 Step 17
HRLY $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58 $67.81 $71.20 $74.76 $78.49 $82.42 $86.54
ANNUAL $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326 $141,045 $148,096 $155,501 $163,259 $171,434 $180,003
HRLY $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00 $66.15 $69.46 $72.93 $76.58 $80.41 $84.43
ANNUAL $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592 $144,477 $151,694 $159,286 $167,253 $175,614
HRLY $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58 $67.81 $71.20 $74.76 $78.49 $82.42
ANNUAL $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326 $141,045 $148,096 $155,501 $163,259 $171,434
HRLY $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00 $66.15 $69.46 $72.93 $76.58 $80.41
ANNUAL $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592 $144,477 $151,694 $159,286 $167,253
HRLY $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58 $67.81 $71.20 $74.76 $78.49
ANNUAL $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326 $141,045 $148,096 $155,501 $163,259
HRLY $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00 $66.15 $69.46 $72.93 $76.58
ANNUAL $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592 $144,477 $151,694 $159,286
HRLY $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58 $67.81 $71.20 $74.76
ANNUAL $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326 $141,045 $148,096 $155,501
HRLY $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00 $66.15 $69.46 $72.93
ANNUAL $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592 $144,477 $151,694
HRLY $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58 $67.81 $71.20
ANNUAL $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326 $141,045 $148,096
HRLY $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00 $66.15 $69.46
Page 296 ANNUAL $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592 $144,477
HRLY $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58 $67.81
ANNUAL $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326 $141,045
HRLY $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00 $66.15
ANNUAL $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592
HRLY $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58
ANNUAL $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326
HRLY $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00
ANNUAL $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040
HRLY $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50
ANNUAL $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920
HRLY $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00
ANNUAL $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800
HRLY $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57
ANNUAL $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826
HRLY $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15
ANNUAL $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872
HRLY $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78
ANNUAL $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022
HRLY $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42
ANNUAL $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194
HRLY $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13
ANNUAL $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510
HRLY $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83
ANNUAL $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806




Pay Plan 001 Supervisory & Professional
Effective: 8/7/2023



Grade Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8 Step 9 Step 10 Step 11 Step 12 Step 13 Step 14 Step 15 Step 16 Step 17
HRLY $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60
ANNUAL $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248
HRLY $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36
ANNUAL $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669
HRLY $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19
ANNUAL $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235
HRLY $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01
ANNUAL $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781
HRLY $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89
ANNUAL $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451
HRLY $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77
ANNUAL $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122
HRLY $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71
ANNUAL $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917
HRLY $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64
ANNUAL $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691
HRLY $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63
ANNUAL $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590
HRLY $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61
Page 297 ANNUAL $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469
HRLY $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64
ANNUAL $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451
HRLY $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68
ANNUAL $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454
HRLY $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76
ANNUAL $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541
HRLY $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84
ANNUAL $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627
HRLY $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96
ANNUAL $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797
HRLY $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08
ANNUAL $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045




Pay Plan 001 Supervisory & Professional
Effective: 8/7/2023



Grade Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8 Step 9 Step 10 Step 11 Step 12 Step 13 Step 14 Step 15 Step 16 Step 17
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74
Page 298 ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661




Pay Plan 002 Field Unit I
Effective: 8/7/2023



Grade Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8 Step 9 Step 10 Step 11 Step 12 Step 13 Step 14 Step 15 Step 16 Step 17
HRLY $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58 $67.81 $71.20 $74.76 $78.49 $82.42 $86.54
ANNUAL $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326 $141,045 $148,096 $155,501 $163,259 $171,434 $180,003
HRLY $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00 $66.15 $69.46 $72.93 $76.58 $80.41 $84.43
ANNUAL $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592 $144,477 $151,694 $159,286 $167,253 $175,614
HRLY $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58 $67.81 $71.20 $74.76 $78.49 $82.42
ANNUAL $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326 $141,045 $148,096 $155,501 $163,259 $171,434
HRLY $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00 $66.15 $69.46 $72.93 $76.58 $80.41
ANNUAL $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592 $144,477 $151,694 $159,286 $167,253
HRLY $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58 $67.81 $71.20 $74.76 $78.49
ANNUAL $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326 $141,045 $148,096 $155,501 $163,259
HRLY $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00 $66.15 $69.46 $72.93 $76.58
ANNUAL $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592 $144,477 $151,694 $159,286
HRLY $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58 $67.81 $71.20 $74.76
ANNUAL $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326 $141,045 $148,096 $155,501
HRLY $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00 $66.15 $69.46 $72.93
ANNUAL $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592 $144,477 $151,694
HRLY $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58 $67.81 $71.20
ANNUAL $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326 $141,045 $148,096
HRLY $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00 $66.15 $69.46
Page 299 ANNUAL $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592 $144,477
HRLY $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58 $67.81
ANNUAL $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326 $141,045
HRLY $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00 $66.15
ANNUAL $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592
HRLY $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58
ANNUAL $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326
HRLY $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00
ANNUAL $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040
HRLY $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50
ANNUAL $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920
HRLY $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00
ANNUAL $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800
HRLY $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57
ANNUAL $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826
HRLY $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15
ANNUAL $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872
HRLY $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78
ANNUAL $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022
HRLY $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42
ANNUAL $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194
HRLY $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13
ANNUAL $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510
HRLY $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83
ANNUAL $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806




Pay Plan 002 Field Unit I
Effective: 8/7/2023



Grade Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8 Step 9 Step 10 Step 11 Step 12 Step 13 Step 14 Step 15 Step 16 Step 17
HRLY $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60
ANNUAL $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248
HRLY $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36
ANNUAL $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669
HRLY $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19
ANNUAL $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235
HRLY $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01
ANNUAL $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781
HRLY $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89
ANNUAL $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451
HRLY $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77
ANNUAL $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122
HRLY $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71
ANNUAL $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917
HRLY $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64
ANNUAL $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691
HRLY $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63
ANNUAL $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590
HRLY $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61
Page 300 ANNUAL $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469
HRLY $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64
ANNUAL $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451
HRLY $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68
ANNUAL $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454
HRLY $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76
ANNUAL $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541
HRLY $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84
ANNUAL $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627
HRLY $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96
ANNUAL $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797
HRLY $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08
ANNUAL $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045




Pay Plan 002 Field Unit I
Effective: 8/7/2023



Grade Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8 Step 9 Step 10 Step 11 Step 12 Step 13 Step 14 Step 15 Step 16 Step 17
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74
Page 301 ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661




Pay Plan 004 Field Unit II
Effective: 8/7/2023



Grade Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8 Step 9 Step 10 Step 11 Step 12 Step 13 Step 14 Step 15 Step 16 Step 17
HRLY $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58 $67.81 $71.20 $74.76 $78.49 $82.42 $86.54
ANNUAL $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326 $141,045 $148,096 $155,501 $163,259 $171,434 $180,003
HRLY $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00 $66.15 $69.46 $72.93 $76.58 $80.41 $84.43
ANNUAL $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592 $144,477 $151,694 $159,286 $167,253 $175,614
HRLY $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58 $67.81 $71.20 $74.76 $78.49 $82.42
ANNUAL $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326 $141,045 $148,096 $155,501 $163,259 $171,434
HRLY $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00 $66.15 $69.46 $72.93 $76.58 $80.41
ANNUAL $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592 $144,477 $151,694 $159,286 $167,253
HRLY $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58 $67.81 $71.20 $74.76 $78.49
ANNUAL $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326 $141,045 $148,096 $155,501 $163,259
HRLY $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00 $66.15 $69.46 $72.93 $76.58
ANNUAL $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592 $144,477 $151,694 $159,286
HRLY $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58 $67.81 $71.20 $74.76
ANNUAL $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326 $141,045 $148,096 $155,501
HRLY $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00 $66.15 $69.46 $72.93
ANNUAL $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592 $144,477 $151,694
HRLY $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58 $67.81 $71.20
ANNUAL $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326 $141,045 $148,096
HRLY $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00 $66.15 $69.46
Page 302 ANNUAL $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592 $144,477
HRLY $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58 $67.81
ANNUAL $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326 $141,045
HRLY $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00 $66.15
ANNUAL $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592
HRLY $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58
ANNUAL $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326
HRLY $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00
ANNUAL $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040
HRLY $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50
ANNUAL $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920
HRLY $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00
ANNUAL $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800
HRLY $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57
ANNUAL $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826
HRLY $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15
ANNUAL $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872
HRLY $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78
ANNUAL $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022
HRLY $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42
ANNUAL $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194
HRLY $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13
ANNUAL $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510
HRLY $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83
ANNUAL $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806




Pay Plan 004 Field Unit II
Effective: 8/7/2023



Grade Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8 Step 9 Step 10 Step 11 Step 12 Step 13 Step 14 Step 15 Step 16 Step 17
HRLY $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60
ANNUAL $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248
HRLY $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36
ANNUAL $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669
HRLY $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19
ANNUAL $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235
HRLY $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01
ANNUAL $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781
HRLY $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89
ANNUAL $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451
HRLY $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77
ANNUAL $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122
HRLY $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71
ANNUAL $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917
HRLY $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64
ANNUAL $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691
HRLY $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63
ANNUAL $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590
HRLY $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61
Page 303 ANNUAL $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469
HRLY $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64
ANNUAL $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451
HRLY $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68
ANNUAL $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454
HRLY $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76
ANNUAL $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541
HRLY $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84
ANNUAL $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627
HRLY $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96
ANNUAL $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797
HRLY $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08
ANNUAL $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045




Pay Plan 004 Field Unit II
Effective: 8/7/2023



Grade Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8 Step 9 Step 10 Step 11 Step 12 Step 13 Step 14 Step 15 Step 16 Step 17
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74
Page 304 ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661




Pay Plan 006 Office & Clerical
Effective: 8/7/2023



Grade Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8 Step 9 Step 10 Step 11 Step 12 Step 13 Step 14 Step 15 Step 16 Step 17
HRLY $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58 $67.81 $71.20 $74.76 $78.49 $82.42 $86.54
ANNUAL $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326 $141,045 $148,096 $155,501 $163,259 $171,434 $180,003
HRLY $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00 $66.15 $69.46 $72.93 $76.58 $80.41 $84.43
ANNUAL $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592 $144,477 $151,694 $159,286 $167,253 $175,614
HRLY $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58 $67.81 $71.20 $74.76 $78.49 $82.42
ANNUAL $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326 $141,045 $148,096 $155,501 $163,259 $171,434
HRLY $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00 $66.15 $69.46 $72.93 $76.58 $80.41
ANNUAL $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592 $144,477 $151,694 $159,286 $167,253
HRLY $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58 $67.81 $71.20 $74.76 $78.49
ANNUAL $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326 $141,045 $148,096 $155,501 $163,259
HRLY $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00 $66.15 $69.46 $72.93 $76.58
ANNUAL $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592 $144,477 $151,694 $159,286
HRLY $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58 $67.81 $71.20 $74.76
ANNUAL $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326 $141,045 $148,096 $155,501
HRLY $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00 $66.15 $69.46 $72.93
ANNUAL $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592 $144,477 $151,694
HRLY $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58 $67.81 $71.20
ANNUAL $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326 $141,045 $148,096
HRLY $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00 $66.15 $69.46
Page 305 ANNUAL $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592 $144,477
HRLY $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58 $67.81
ANNUAL $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326 $141,045
HRLY $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00 $66.15
ANNUAL $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592
HRLY $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58
ANNUAL $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326
HRLY $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00
ANNUAL $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040
HRLY $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50
ANNUAL $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920
HRLY $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00
ANNUAL $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800
HRLY $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57
ANNUAL $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826
HRLY $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15
ANNUAL $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872
HRLY $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78
ANNUAL $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022
HRLY $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42
ANNUAL $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194
HRLY $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13
ANNUAL $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510
HRLY $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83
ANNUAL $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806




Pay Plan 006 Office & Clerical
Effective: 8/7/2023



Grade Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8 Step 9 Step 10 Step 11 Step 12 Step 13 Step 14 Step 15 Step 16 Step 17
HRLY $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60
ANNUAL $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248
HRLY $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36
ANNUAL $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669
HRLY $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19
ANNUAL $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235
HRLY $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01
ANNUAL $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781
HRLY $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89
ANNUAL $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451
HRLY $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77
ANNUAL $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122
HRLY $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71
ANNUAL $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917
HRLY $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64
ANNUAL $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691
HRLY $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63
ANNUAL $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590
HRLY $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61
Page 306 ANNUAL $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469
HRLY $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64
ANNUAL $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451
HRLY $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68
ANNUAL $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454
HRLY $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76
ANNUAL $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541
HRLY $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84
ANNUAL $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627
HRLY $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96
ANNUAL $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797
HRLY $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08
ANNUAL $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045




Pay Plan 006 Office & Clerical
Effective: 8/7/2023



Grade Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8 Step 9 Step 10 Step 11 Step 12 Step 13 Step 14 Step 15 Step 16 Step 17
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74
Page 307 ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661




Pay Plan 007 Police
Effective: 8/7/2023


Grade Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8 Step 9
HRLY $54.69 $57.28 $60.01
ANNUAL $113,755 $119,142 $124,821
HRLY $52.76 $55.26 $57.88
ANNUAL $109,741 $114,941 $120,390
HRLY $50.83 $53.26 $55.79
ANNUAL $105,726 $110,781 $116,043
HRLY $49.02 $51.35 $53.79
ANNUAL $101,962 $106,808 $111,883
HRLY $35.75 $37.44 $39.22 $41.09 $43.04 $45.08 $47.23 $49.48 $51.84
ANNUAL $74,360 $77,875 $81,578 $85,467 $89,523 $93,766 $98,238 $102,918 $107,827
HRLY $33.72 $35.41
ANNUAL $70,138 $73,653



Page 308




Pay Plan 008 Fire - 56 Hour
Effective: 8/7/2023




Grade Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8 Step 9 Step 10 Step 11 Step 12 Step 13 Step 14 Step 15 Step 16 Step 17
HRLY $28.314 $29.736 $31.221 $32.779 $34.421 $36.143 $37.950 $39.843 $41.836 $43.929 $46.129 $48.436 $50.857 $53.400 $56.064 $58.871 $61.814
ANNUAL $82,450 $86,591 $90,916 $95,452 $100,234 $105,248 $110,510 $116,023 $121,826 $127,921 $134,328 $141,046 $148,096 $155,501 $163,258 $171,432 $180,002
HRLY $27.629 $29.007 $30.457 $31.979 $33.579 $35.257 $37.021 $38.871 $40.821 $42.857 $45.000 $47.250 $49.614 $52.093 $54.700 $57.436 $60.307
ANNUAL $80,456 $84,468 $88,691 $93,123 $97,782 $102,668 $107,805 $113,192 $118,871 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592 $144,476 $151,695 $159,286 $167,254 $175,614
HRLY $26.971 $28.314 $29.736 $31.221 $32.779 $34.421 $36.143 $37.950 $39.843 $41.836 $43.929 $46.129 $48.436 $50.857 $53.400 $56.064 $58.871
ANNUAL $78,540 $82,450 $86,591 $90,916 $95,452 $100,234 $105,248 $110,510 $116,023 $121,826 $127,921 $134,328 $141,046 $148,096 $155,501 $163,258 $171,432
HRLY $26.314 $27.629 $29.007 $30.457 $31.979 $33.579 $35.257 $37.021 $38.871 $40.821 $42.857 $45.000 $47.250 $49.614 $52.093 $54.700 $57.436
ANNUAL $76,626 $80,456 $84,468 $88,691 $93,123 $97,782 $102,668 $107,805 $113,192 $118,871 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592 $144,476 $151,695 $159,286 $167,254
HRLY $25.686 $26.971 $28.314 $29.736 $31.221 $32.779 $34.421 $36.143 $37.950 $39.843 $41.836 $43.929 $46.129 $48.436 $50.857 $53.400 $56.064
ANNUAL $74,798 $78,540 $82,450 $86,591 $90,916 $95,452 $100,234 $105,248 $110,510 $116,023 $121,826 $127,921 $134,328 $141,046 $148,096 $155,501 $163,258
HRLY $25.057 $26.314 $27.629 $29.007 $30.457 $31.979 $33.579 $35.257 $37.021 $38.871 $40.821 $42.857 $45.000 $47.250 $49.614 $52.093 $54.700
ANNUAL $72,966 $76,626 $80,456 $84,468 $88,691 $93,123 $97,782 $102,668 $107,805 $113,192 $118,871 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592 $144,476 $151,695 $159,286
HRLY $24.464 $25.686 $26.971 $28.314 $29.736 $31.221 $32.779 $34.421 $36.143 $37.950 $39.843 $41.836 $43.929 $46.129 $48.436 $50.857 $53.400
ANNUAL $71,239 $74,798 $78,540 $82,450 $86,591 $90,916 $95,452 $100,234 $105,248 $110,510 $116,023 $121,826 $127,921 $134,328 $141,046 $148,096 $155,501
HRLY $23.864 $25.057 $26.314 $27.629 $29.007 $30.457 $31.979 $33.579 $35.257 $37.021 $38.871 $40.821 $42.857 $45.000 $47.250 $49.614 $52.093
ANNUAL $69,492 $72,966 $76,626 $80,456 $84,468 $88,691 $93,123 $97,782 $102,668 $107,805 $113,192 $118,871 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592 $144,476 $151,695
HRLY $23.300 $24.464 $25.686 $26.971 $28.314 $29.736 $31.221 $32.779 $34.421 $36.143 $37.950 $39.843 $41.836 $43.929 $46.129 $48.436 $50.857
ANNUAL $67,850 $71,239 $74,798 $78,540 $82,450 $86,591 $90,916 $95,452 $100,234 $105,248 $110,510 $116,023 $121,826 $127,921 $134,328 $141,046 $148,096
Page 309
HRLY $22.729 $23.864 $25.057 $26.314 $27.629 $29.007 $30.457 $31.979 $33.579 $35.257 $37.021 $38.871 $40.821 $42.857 $45.000 $47.250 $49.614
ANNUAL $66,187 $69,492 $72,966 $76,626 $80,456 $84,468 $88,691 $93,123 $97,782 $102,668 $107,805 $113,192 $118,871 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592 $144,476
HRLY $22.186 $23.300 $24.464 $25.686 $26.971 $28.314 $29.736 $31.221 $32.779 $34.421 $36.143 $37.950 $39.843 $41.836 $43.929 $46.129 $48.436
ANNUAL $64,606 $67,850 $71,239 $74,798 $78,540 $82,450 $86,591 $90,916 $95,452 $100,234 $105,248 $110,510 $116,023 $121,826 $127,921 $134,328 $141,046
HRLY $21.650 $22.729 $23.864 $25.057 $26.314 $27.629 $29.007 $30.457 $31.979 $33.579 $35.257 $37.021 $38.871 $40.821 $42.857 $45.000 $47.250
ANNUAL $63,045 $66,187 $69,492 $72,966 $76,626 $80,456 $84,468 $88,691 $93,123 $97,782 $102,668 $107,805 $113,192 $118,871 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592
HRLY $21.129 $22.186 $23.300 $24.464 $25.686 $26.971 $28.314 $29.736 $31.221 $32.779 $34.421 $36.143 $37.950 $39.843 $41.836 $43.929 $46.129
ANNUAL $61,528 $64,606 $67,850 $71,239 $74,798 $78,540 $82,450 $86,591 $90,916 $95,452 $100,234 $105,248 $110,510 $116,023 $121,826 $127,921 $134,328
HRLY $20.614 $21.650 $22.729 $23.864 $25.057 $26.314 $27.629 $29.007 $30.457 $31.979 $33.579 $35.257 $37.021 $38.871 $40.821 $42.857 $45.000
ANNUAL $60,028 $63,045 $66,187 $69,492 $72,966 $76,626 $80,456 $84,468 $88,691 $93,123 $97,782 $102,668 $107,805 $113,192 $118,871 $124,800 $131,040
HRLY $20.121 $21.129 $22.186 $23.300 $24.464 $25.686 $26.971 $28.314 $29.736 $31.221 $32.779 $34.421 $36.143 $37.950 $39.843 $41.836 $43.929
ANNUAL $58,592 $61,528 $64,606 $67,850 $71,239 $74,798 $78,540 $82,450 $86,591 $90,916 $95,452 $100,234 $105,248 $110,510 $116,023 $121,826 $127,921
HRLY $19.636 $20.614 $21.650 $22.729 $23.864 $25.057 $26.314 $27.629 $29.007 $30.457 $31.979 $33.579 $35.257 $37.021 $38.871 $40.821 $42.857
ANNUAL $57,180 $60,028 $63,045 $66,187 $69,492 $72,966 $76,626 $80,456 $84,468 $88,691 $93,123 $97,782 $102,668 $107,805 $113,192 $118,871 $124,800
HRLY $19.164 $20.121 $21.129 $22.186 $23.300 $24.464 $25.686 $26.971 $28.314 $29.736 $31.221 $32.779 $34.421 $36.143 $37.950 $39.843 $41.836
ANNUAL $55,806 $58,592 $61,528 $64,606 $67,850 $71,239 $74,798 $78,540 $82,450 $86,591 $90,916 $95,452 $100,234 $105,248 $110,510 $116,023 $121,826
HRLY $18.700 $19.636 $20.614 $21.650 $22.729 $23.864 $25.057 $26.314 $27.629 $29.007 $30.457 $31.979 $33.579 $35.257 $37.021 $38.871 $40.821
ANNUAL $54,454 $57,180 $60,028 $63,045 $66,187 $69,492 $72,966 $76,626 $80,456 $84,468 $88,691 $93,123 $97,782 $102,668 $107,805 $113,192 $118,871
HRLY $18.257 $19.164 $20.121 $21.129 $22.186 $23.300 $24.464 $25.686 $26.971 $28.314 $29.736 $31.221 $32.779 $34.421 $36.143 $37.950 $39.843
ANNUAL $53,164 $55,806 $58,592 $61,528 $64,606 $67,850 $71,239 $74,798 $78,540 $82,450 $86,591 $90,916 $95,452 $100,234 $105,248 $110,510 $116,023
HRLY $17.807 $18.700 $19.636 $20.614 $21.650 $22.729 $23.864 $25.057 $26.314 $27.629 $29.007 $30.457 $31.979 $33.579 $35.257 $37.021 $38.871
ANNUAL $51,854 $54,454 $57,180 $60,028 $63,045 $66,187 $69,492 $72,966 $76,626 $80,456 $84,468 $88,691 $93,123 $97,782 $102,668 $107,805 $113,192



Pay Plan 008 Fire - 56 Hour
Effective: 8/7/2023




Grade Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8 Step 9 Step 10 Step 11 Step 12 Step 13 Step 14 Step 15 Step 16 Step 17
HRLY $17.386 $18.257 $19.164 $20.121 $21.129 $22.186 $23.300 $24.464 $25.686 $26.971 $28.314 $29.736 $31.221 $32.779 $34.421 $36.143 $37.950
ANNUAL $50,628 $53,164 $55,806 $58,592 $61,528 $64,606 $67,850 $71,239 $74,798 $78,540 $82,450 $86,591 $90,916 $95,452 $100,234 $105,248 $110,510
HRLY $16.957 $17.807 $18.700 $19.636 $20.614 $21.650 $22.729 $23.864 $25.057 $26.314 $27.629 $29.007 $30.457 $31.979 $33.579 $35.257 $37.021
ANNUAL $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,180 $60,028 $63,045 $66,187 $69,492 $72,966 $76,626 $80,456 $84,468 $88,691 $93,123 $97,782 $102,668 $107,805
HRLY $16.557 $17.386 $18.257 $19.164 $20.121 $21.129 $22.186 $23.300 $24.464 $25.686 $26.971 $28.314 $29.736 $31.221 $32.779 $34.421 $36.143
ANNUAL $48,214 $50,628 $53,164 $55,806 $58,592 $61,528 $64,606 $67,850 $71,239 $74,798 $78,540 $82,450 $86,591 $90,916 $95,452 $100,234 $105,248
HRLY $16.150 $16.957 $17.807 $18.700 $19.636 $20.614 $21.650 $22.729 $23.864 $25.057 $26.314 $27.629 $29.007 $30.457 $31.979 $33.579 $35.257
ANNUAL $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,180 $60,028 $63,045 $66,187 $69,492 $72,966 $76,626 $80,456 $84,468 $88,691 $93,123 $97,782 $102,668
HRLY $15.771 $16.557 $17.386 $18.257 $19.164 $20.121 $21.129 $22.186 $23.300 $24.464 $25.686 $26.971 $28.314 $29.736 $31.221 $32.779 $34.421
ANNUAL $45,925 $48,214 $50,628 $53,164 $55,806 $58,592 $61,528 $64,606 $67,850 $71,239 $74,798 $78,540 $82,450 $86,591 $90,916 $95,452 $100,234
HRLY $15.386 $16.150 $16.957 $17.807 $18.700 $19.636 $20.614 $21.650 $22.729 $23.864 $25.057 $26.314 $27.629 $29.007 $30.457 $31.979 $33.579
ANNUAL $44,804 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,180 $60,028 $63,045 $66,187 $69,492 $72,966 $76,626 $80,456 $84,468 $88,691 $93,123 $97,782
HRLY $15.014 $15.771 $16.557 $17.386 $18.257 $19.164 $20.121 $21.129 $22.186 $23.300 $24.464 $25.686 $26.971 $28.314 $29.736 $31.221 $32.779
ANNUAL $43,721 $45,925 $48,214 $50,628 $53,164 $55,806 $58,592 $61,528 $64,606 $67,850 $71,239 $74,798 $78,540 $82,450 $86,591 $90,916 $95,452
HRLY $14.650 $15.386 $16.150 $16.957 $17.807 $18.700 $19.636 $20.614 $21.650 $22.729 $23.864 $25.057 $26.314 $27.629 $29.007 $30.457 $31.979
ANNUAL $42,661 $44,804 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,180 $60,028 $63,045 $66,187 $69,492 $72,966 $76,626 $80,456 $84,468 $88,691 $93,123
HRLY $14.300 $15.014 $15.771 $16.557 $17.386 $18.257 $19.164 $20.121 $21.129 $22.186 $23.300 $24.464 $25.686 $26.971 $28.314 $29.736 $31.221
Page 310 ANNUAL $41,642 $43,721 $45,925 $48,214 $50,628 $53,164 $55,806 $58,592 $61,528 $64,606 $67,850 $71,239 $74,798 $78,540 $82,450 $86,591 $90,916
HRLY $13.957 $14.650 $15.386 $16.150 $16.957 $17.807 $18.700 $19.636 $20.614 $21.650 $22.729 $23.864 $25.057 $26.314 $27.629 $29.007 $30.457
ANNUAL $40,643 $42,661 $44,804 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,180 $60,028 $63,045 $66,187 $69,492 $72,966 $76,626 $80,456 $84,468 $88,691
HRLY $13.621 $14.300 $15.014 $15.771 $16.557 $17.386 $18.257 $19.164 $20.121 $21.129 $22.186 $23.300 $24.464 $25.686 $26.971 $28.314 $29.736
ANNUAL $39,664 $41,642 $43,721 $45,925 $48,214 $50,628 $53,164 $55,806 $58,592 $61,528 $64,606 $67,850 $71,239 $74,798 $78,540 $82,450 $86,591
HRLY $13.286 $13.957 $14.650 $15.386 $16.150 $16.957 $17.807 $18.700 $19.636 $20.614 $21.650 $22.729 $23.864 $25.057 $26.314 $27.629 $29.007
ANNUAL $38,689 $40,643 $42,661 $44,804 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,180 $60,028 $63,045 $66,187 $69,492 $72,966 $76,626 $80,456 $84,468
HRLY $12.971 $13.621 $14.300 $15.014 $15.771 $16.557 $17.386 $18.257 $19.164 $20.121 $21.129 $22.186 $23.300 $24.464 $25.686 $26.971 $28.314
ANNUAL $37,772 $39,664 $41,642 $43,721 $45,925 $48,214 $50,628 $53,164 $55,806 $58,592 $61,528 $64,606 $67,850 $71,239 $74,798 $78,540 $82,450
HRLY $12.657 $13.286 $13.957 $14.650 $15.386 $16.150 $16.957 $17.807 $18.700 $19.636 $20.614 $21.650 $22.729 $23.864 $25.057 $26.314 $27.629
ANNUAL $36,857 $38,689 $40,643 $42,661 $44,804 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,180 $60,028 $63,045 $66,187 $69,492 $72,966 $76,626 $80,456
HRLY $12.357 $12.971 $13.621 $14.300 $15.014 $15.771 $16.557 $17.386 $18.257 $19.164 $20.121 $21.129 $22.186 $23.300 $24.464 $25.686 $26.971
ANNUAL $35,984 $37,772 $39,664 $41,642 $43,721 $45,925 $48,214 $50,628 $53,164 $55,806 $58,592 $61,528 $64,606 $67,850 $71,239 $74,798 $78,540
HRLY $12.057 $12.657 $13.286 $13.957 $14.650 $15.386 $16.150 $16.957 $17.807 $18.700 $19.636 $20.614 $21.650 $22.729 $23.864 $25.057 $26.314
ANNUAL $35,110 $36,857 $38,689 $40,643 $42,661 $44,804 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,180 $60,028 $63,045 $66,187 $69,492 $72,966 $76,626
HRLY $11.764 $12.357 $12.971 $13.621 $14.300 $15.014 $15.771 $16.557 $17.386 $18.257 $19.164 $20.121 $21.129 $22.186 $23.300 $24.464 $25.686
ANNUAL $34,257 $35,984 $37,772 $39,664 $41,642 $43,721 $45,925 $48,214 $50,628 $53,164 $55,806 $58,592 $61,528 $64,606 $67,850 $71,239 $74,798
HRLY $11.479 $12.057 $12.657 $13.286 $13.957 $14.650 $15.386 $16.150 $16.957 $17.807 $18.700 $19.636 $20.614 $21.650 $22.729 $23.864 $25.057
ANNUAL $33,427 $35,110 $36,857 $38,689 $40,643 $42,661 $44,804 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,180 $60,028 $63,045 $66,187 $69,492 $72,966
HRLY $11.207 $11.764 $12.357 $12.971 $13.621 $14.300 $15.014 $15.771 $16.557 $17.386 $18.257 $19.164 $20.121 $21.129 $22.186 $23.300 $24.464
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,257 $35,984 $37,772 $39,664 $41,642 $43,721 $45,925 $48,214 $50,628 $53,164 $55,806 $58,592 $61,528 $64,606 $67,850 $71,239
HRLY $10.936 $11.479 $12.057 $12.657 $13.286 $13.957 $14.650 $15.386 $16.150 $16.957 $17.807 $18.700 $19.636 $20.614 $21.650 $22.729 $23.864
ANNUAL $31,846 $33,427 $35,110 $36,857 $38,689 $40,643 $42,661 $44,804 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,180 $60,028 $63,045 $66,187 $69,492



Pay Plan 008 Fire - 56 Hour
Effective: 8/7/2023




Grade Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8 Step 9 Step 10 Step 11 Step 12 Step 13 Step 14 Step 15 Step 16 Step 17
HRLY $11.207 $11.764 $12.357 $12.971 $13.621 $14.300 $15.014 $15.771 $16.557 $17.386 $18.257 $19.164 $20.121 $21.129 $22.186 $23.300
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,257 $35,984 $37,772 $39,664 $41,642 $43,721 $45,925 $48,214 $50,628 $53,164 $55,806 $58,592 $61,528 $64,606 $67,850
HRLY $10.936 $11.479 $12.057 $12.657 $13.286 $13.957 $14.650 $15.386 $16.150 $16.957 $17.807 $18.700 $19.636 $20.614 $21.650 $22.729
ANNUAL $31,846 $33,427 $35,110 $36,857 $38,689 $40,643 $42,661 $44,804 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,180 $60,028 $63,045 $66,187
HRLY $11.207 $11.764 $12.357 $12.971 $13.621 $14.300 $15.014 $15.771 $16.557 $17.386 $18.257 $19.164 $20.121 $21.129 $22.186
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,257 $35,984 $37,772 $39,664 $41,642 $43,721 $45,925 $48,214 $50,628 $53,164 $55,806 $58,592 $61,528 $64,606
HRLY $10.936 $11.479 $12.057 $12.657 $13.286 $13.957 $14.650 $15.386 $16.150 $16.957 $17.807 $18.700 $19.636 $20.614 $21.650
ANNUAL $31,846 $33,427 $35,110 $36,857 $38,689 $40,643 $42,661 $44,804 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,180 $60,028 $63,045
HRLY $11.207 $11.764 $12.357 $12.971 $13.621 $14.300 $15.014 $15.771 $16.557 $17.386 $18.257 $19.164 $20.121 $21.129
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,257 $35,984 $37,772 $39,664 $41,642 $43,721 $45,925 $48,214 $50,628 $53,164 $55,806 $58,592 $61,528
HRLY $10.936 $11.479 $12.057 $12.657 $13.286 $13.957 $14.650 $15.386 $16.150 $16.957 $17.807 $18.700 $19.636 $20.614
ANNUAL $31,846 $33,427 $35,110 $36,857 $38,689 $40,643 $42,661 $44,804 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,180 $60,028
HRLY $11.207 $11.764 $12.357 $12.971 $13.621 $14.300 $15.014 $15.771 $16.557 $17.386 $18.257 $19.164 $20.121
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,257 $35,984 $37,772 $39,664 $41,642 $43,721 $45,925 $48,214 $50,628 $53,164 $55,806 $58,592
HRLY $10.936 $11.479 $12.057 $12.657 $13.286 $13.957 $14.650 $15.386 $16.150 $16.957 $17.807 $18.700 $19.636
ANNUAL $31,846 $33,427 $35,110 $36,857 $38,689 $40,643 $42,661 $44,804 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,180
HRLY $11.207 $11.764 $12.357 $12.971 $13.621 $14.300 $15.014 $15.771 $16.557 $17.386 $18.257 $19.164
Page 311 ANNUAL $32,635 $34,257 $35,984 $37,772 $39,664 $41,642 $43,721 $45,925 $48,214 $50,628 $53,164 $55,806
HRLY $10.936 $11.479 $12.057 $12.657 $13.286 $13.957 $14.650 $15.386 $16.150 $16.957 $17.807 $18.700
ANNUAL $31,846 $33,427 $35,110 $36,857 $38,689 $40,643 $42,661 $44,804 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454
HRLY $11.207 $11.764 $12.357 $12.971 $13.621 $14.300 $15.014 $15.771 $16.557 $17.386 $18.257
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,257 $35,984 $37,772 $39,664 $41,642 $43,721 $45,925 $48,214 $50,628 $53,164
HRLY $10.936 $11.479 $12.057 $12.657 $13.286 $13.957 $14.650 $15.386 $16.150 $16.957 $17.807
ANNUAL $31,846 $33,427 $35,110 $36,857 $38,689 $40,643 $42,661 $44,804 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854
HRLY $11.207 $11.764 $12.357 $12.971 $13.621 $14.300 $15.014 $15.771 $16.557 $17.386
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,257 $35,984 $37,772 $39,664 $41,642 $43,721 $45,925 $48,214 $50,628
HRLY $10.936 $11.479 $12.057 $12.657 $13.286 $13.957 $14.650 $15.386 $16.150 $16.957
ANNUAL $31,846 $33,427 $35,110 $36,857 $38,689 $40,643 $42,661 $44,804 $47,029 $49,379
HRLY $11.207 $11.764 $12.357 $12.971 $13.621 $14.300 $15.014 $15.771 $16.557
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,257 $35,984 $37,772 $39,664 $41,642 $43,721 $45,925 $48,214
HRLY $10.936 $11.479 $12.057 $12.657 $13.286 $13.957 $14.650 $15.386 $16.150
ANNUAL $31,846 $33,427 $35,110 $36,857 $38,689 $40,643 $42,661 $44,804 $47,029
HRLY $11.207 $11.764 $12.357 $12.971 $13.621 $14.300 $15.014 $15.771
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,257 $35,984 $37,772 $39,664 $41,642 $43,721 $45,925
HRLY $10.936 $11.479 $12.057 $12.657 $13.286 $13.957 $14.650 $15.386
ANNUAL $31,846 $33,427 $35,110 $36,857 $38,689 $40,643 $42,661 $44,804
HRLY $11.207 $11.764 $12.357 $12.971 $13.621 $14.300 $15.014
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,257 $35,984 $37,772 $39,664 $41,642 $43,721
HRLY $10.936 $11.479 $12.057 $12.657 $13.286 $13.957 $14.650
ANNUAL $31,846 $33,427 $35,110 $36,857 $38,689 $40,643 $42,661



Pay Plan 009 Fire - 40 Hour Staff
Effective: 8/7/2023



Grade Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8 Step 9 Step 10 Step 11 Step 12 Step 13 Step 14 Step 15 Step 16 Step 17
HRLY $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58 $67.81 $71.20 $74.76 $78.49 $82.42 $86.54
ANNUAL $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326 $141,045 $148,096 $155,501 $163,259 $171,434 $180,003
HRLY $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00 $66.15 $69.46 $72.93 $76.58 $80.41 $84.43
ANNUAL $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592 $144,477 $151,694 $159,286 $167,253 $175,614
HRLY $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58 $67.81 $71.20 $74.76 $78.49 $82.42
ANNUAL $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326 $141,045 $148,096 $155,501 $163,259 $171,434
HRLY $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00 $66.15 $69.46 $72.93 $76.58 $80.41
ANNUAL $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592 $144,477 $151,694 $159,286 $167,253
HRLY $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58 $67.81 $71.20 $74.76 $78.49
ANNUAL $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326 $141,045 $148,096 $155,501 $163,259
HRLY $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00 $66.15 $69.46 $72.93 $76.58
ANNUAL $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592 $144,477 $151,694 $159,286
HRLY $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58 $67.81 $71.20 $74.76
ANNUAL $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326 $141,045 $148,096 $155,501
HRLY $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00 $66.15 $69.46 $72.93
ANNUAL $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592 $144,477 $151,694
HRLY $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58 $67.81 $71.20
ANNUAL $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326 $141,045 $148,096
HRLY $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00 $66.15 $69.46
Page 312 ANNUAL $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592 $144,477
HRLY $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58 $67.81
ANNUAL $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326 $141,045
HRLY $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00 $66.15
ANNUAL $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592
HRLY $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58
ANNUAL $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326
HRLY $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00
ANNUAL $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040
HRLY $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50
ANNUAL $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920
HRLY $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00
ANNUAL $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800
HRLY $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57
ANNUAL $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826
HRLY $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15
ANNUAL $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872
HRLY $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78
ANNUAL $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022
HRLY $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42
ANNUAL $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194
HRLY $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13
ANNUAL $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510
HRLY $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83
ANNUAL $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806




Pay Plan 009 Fire - 40 Hour Staff
Effective: 8/7/2023



Grade Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8 Step 9 Step 10 Step 11 Step 12 Step 13 Step 14 Step 15 Step 16 Step 17
HRLY $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60
ANNUAL $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248
HRLY $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36
ANNUAL $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669
HRLY $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19
ANNUAL $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235
HRLY $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01
ANNUAL $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781
HRLY $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89
ANNUAL $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451
HRLY $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77
ANNUAL $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122
HRLY $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71
ANNUAL $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917
HRLY $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64
ANNUAL $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691
HRLY $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63
ANNUAL $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590
HRLY $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61
Page 313 ANNUAL $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469
HRLY $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64
ANNUAL $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451
HRLY $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68
ANNUAL $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454
HRLY $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76
ANNUAL $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541
HRLY $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84
ANNUAL $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627
HRLY $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96
ANNUAL $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797
HRLY $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08
ANNUAL $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045




Pay Plan 009 Fire - 40 Hour Staff
Effective: 8/7/2023



Grade Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8 Step 9 Step 10 Step 11 Step 12 Step 13 Step 14 Step 15 Step 16 Step 17
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74
Page 314 ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661




Pay Plan 011 Police Supv & Professional
Effective: 8/7/2023


Grade Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7
HRLY $68.39 $71.64 $75.05 $78.63 $82.39
ANNUAL $142,251 $149,011 $156,104 $163,550 $171,371
HRLY $52.20 $54.59 $57.07 $59.68 $62.40 $65.25 $68.23
ANNUAL $108,576 $113,547 $118,706 $124,134 $129,792 $135,720 $141,918




Page 315




Pay Plan 012 Confidential Ofc & Clerical
Effective: 8/7/2023



Grade Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8 Step 9 Step 10 Step 11 Step 12 Step 13 Step 14 Step 15 Step 16 Step 17
HRLY $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58 $67.81 $71.20 $74.76 $78.49 $82.42 $86.54
ANNUAL $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326 $141,045 $148,096 $155,501 $163,259 $171,434 $180,003
HRLY $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00 $66.15 $69.46 $72.93 $76.58 $80.41 $84.43
ANNUAL $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592 $144,477 $151,694 $159,286 $167,253 $175,614
HRLY $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58 $67.81 $71.20 $74.76 $78.49 $82.42
ANNUAL $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326 $141,045 $148,096 $155,501 $163,259 $171,434
HRLY $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00 $66.15 $69.46 $72.93 $76.58 $80.41
ANNUAL $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592 $144,477 $151,694 $159,286 $167,253
HRLY $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58 $67.81 $71.20 $74.76 $78.49
ANNUAL $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326 $141,045 $148,096 $155,501 $163,259
HRLY $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00 $66.15 $69.46 $72.93 $76.58
ANNUAL $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592 $144,477 $151,694 $159,286
HRLY $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58 $67.81 $71.20 $74.76
ANNUAL $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326 $141,045 $148,096 $155,501
HRLY $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00 $66.15 $69.46 $72.93
ANNUAL $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592 $144,477 $151,694
HRLY $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58 $67.81 $71.20
ANNUAL $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326 $141,045 $148,096
HRLY $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00 $66.15 $69.46
Page 316 ANNUAL $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592 $144,477
HRLY $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58 $67.81
ANNUAL $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326 $141,045
HRLY $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00 $66.15
ANNUAL $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592
HRLY $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58
ANNUAL $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326
HRLY $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00
ANNUAL $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040
HRLY $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50
ANNUAL $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920
HRLY $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00
ANNUAL $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800
HRLY $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57
ANNUAL $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826
HRLY $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15
ANNUAL $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872
HRLY $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78
ANNUAL $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022
HRLY $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42
ANNUAL $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194
HRLY $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13
ANNUAL $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510
HRLY $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83
ANNUAL $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806




Pay Plan 012 Confidential Ofc & Clerical
Effective: 8/7/2023



Grade Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8 Step 9 Step 10 Step 11 Step 12 Step 13 Step 14 Step 15 Step 16 Step 17
HRLY $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60
ANNUAL $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248
HRLY $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36
ANNUAL $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669
HRLY $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19
ANNUAL $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235
HRLY $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01
ANNUAL $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781
HRLY $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89
ANNUAL $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451
HRLY $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77
ANNUAL $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122
HRLY $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71
ANNUAL $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917
HRLY $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64
ANNUAL $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691
HRLY $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63
ANNUAL $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590
HRLY $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61
Page 317 ANNUAL $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469
HRLY $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64
ANNUAL $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451
HRLY $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68
ANNUAL $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454
HRLY $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76
ANNUAL $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541
HRLY $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84
ANNUAL $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627
HRLY $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96
ANNUAL $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797
HRLY $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08
ANNUAL $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045




Pay Plan 012 Confidential Ofc & Clerical
Effective: 8/7/2023



Grade Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8 Step 9 Step 10 Step 11 Step 12 Step 13 Step 14 Step 15 Step 16 Step 17
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74
Page 318 ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661




Pay Plan 013 Middle Management
Effective: 8/7/2023


Hourly Hourly
Grade Min Max Annual Min Annual Max
880 $94.96 $94.96 $197,516.80 $197,516.80

870 $80.72 $80.72 $167,897.60 $167,897.60

860 $66.47 $66.47 $138,257.60 $138,257.60

848 $65.62 $85.31 $136,489.60 $177,444.80
846 $59.66 $77.55 $124,092.80 $161,304.00
844 $54.23 $70.50 $112,798.40 $146,640.00
842 $53.41 $69.43 $111,092.80 $144,414.40

834 $51.65 $67.15 $107,432.00 $139,672.00
832 $49.30 $64.09 $102,544.00 $133,307.20
830 $47.16 $61.31 $98,092.80 $127,524.80

826 $60.93 $85.31 $126,734.40 $177,444.80
824 $52.99 $74.18 $110,219.20 $154,294.40




Page 319
Pay Plan 014 Middle Management - Fire 56
Effective: 8/7/2023


Hourly Hourly
Grade Min Max Annual Min Annual Max
854 $50.36 $65.46 $146,640.00 $190,632.00
851 $39.81 $51.75 $115,918.40 $150,696.00




Page 320
Pay Plan 016 Elected Officials
Effective: 8/7/2023


Hourly Hourly
Grade Min Max Annual Min Annual Max
998 $42.31 $42.31 $87,999.50 $87,999.50
997 $29.62 $29.62 $61,600.00 $61,600.00




Page 321
Pay Plan 017 Temporary - Seasonal
Effective: 8/7/2023




Grade Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8 Step 9 Step 10 Step 11 Step 12 Step 13 Step 14 Step 15 Step 16 Step 17
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93
S29
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854




Page 322




Pay Plan 017 Miscellaneous
Effective: 8/7/2023


Hourly Hourly
Plan Grade Min Max
017 008 $1.00 $75.00




Page 323
Pay Plan 018 Executive
Effective: 8/7/2023


Hourly Hourly
Plan Grade Min Max Annual Min Annual Max
018 980 As approved by City Council
018 970 $104.46 $104.46 $217,276.80 $217,276.80

018 940 $152.24 $228.37 $316,659.20 $475,009.60

018 935 $125.48 $175.67 $260,998.40 $365,393.60
018 930 $104.56 $146.39 $217,484.80 $304,491.20

018 929 $99.58 $139.42 $207,126.40 $289,993.60
018 928 $102.37 $133.08 $212,929.60 $276,806.40
018 926 $93.06 $120.98 $193,564.80 $251,638.40
018 924 $84.60 $109.98 $175,968.00 $228,758.40
018 922 $76.91 $99.99 $159,972.80 $207,979.20

018 918 $85.31 $110.90 $177,444.80 $230,672.00
018 916 $77.55 $100.82 $161,304.00 $209,705.60
018 914 $70.50 $91.65 $146,640.00 $190,632.00
018 912 $64.09 $83.32 $133,307.20 $173,305.60

018 908 $71.09 $92.42 $147,867.20 $192,233.60
018 906 $64.63 $84.02 $134,430.40 $174,761.60
018 904 $54.10 $75.75 $112,528.00 $157,560.00
018 902 $49.19 $68.86 $102,315.20 $143,228.80




Page 324
Pay Plan 023 Council Office Staff
Effective: 8/7/2023


Hourly Hourly
Grade Min Max Annual Min Annual Max
C22 $39.76 $55.66 $82,700.80 $115,772.80
C17 $30.76 $43.07 $63,980.80 $89,585.60
C11 $24.06 $33.68 $50,044.80 $70,054.40
C10 $22.92 $32.08 $47,673.60 $66,726.40




Page 325
Pay Plan 024 Middle Management - Fire 40
Effective: 8/7/2023


Hourly Hourly
Grade Min Max Annual Min Annual Max
854 $70.50 $91.65 $146,640.00 $190,632.00
852 $61.30 $79.70 $127,504.00 $165,776.00




Page 326
Pay Plan 025 Executive - Fire
Effective: 8/7/2023


Hourly Hourly
Grade Min Max Annual Min Annual Max
956 $101.91 $132.48 $211,972.80 $275,558.40
952 $80.04 $104.05 $166,483.20 $216,424.00
950 $75.93 $98.71 $157,934.40 $205,316.80




Page 327
Pay Plan 026 Middle Management - Police
Effective: 8/7/2023


Hourly Hourly
Grade Min Max Annual Min Annual Max
865 $84.30 $105.39 $175,344.00 $219,211.20




Page 328
Pay Plan 027 Executive - Police
Effective: 8/7/2023


Hourly Hourly
Grade Min Max Annual Min Annual Max
976 $112.17 $145.82 $233,313.60 $303,305.60
972 $104.34 $119.99 $217,027.20 $249,579.20
970 $94.85 $113.82 $197,288.00 $236,745.60




Page 329
Pay Plan 100 Field Unit I Apprentice
Effective: 8/7/2023


Hourly Hourly
Grade Min Max Annual Min Annual Max
190 $16.14 $37.64 $33,571.20 $78,291.20




Page 330
Pay Plan 200 Field Unit II Apprentice
Effective: 8/7/2023


Hourly Hourly
Grade Min Max Annual Min Annual Max
290 $16.12 $37.60 $33,529.60 $78,208.00




Page 331
Pay Plan 300 Ofc & Clerical Apprentice
Effective: 8/7/2023


Hourly Hourly
Grade Min Max Annual Min Annual Max
390 $16.06 $37.48 $33,404.80 $77,958.40




Page 332
Pay Plan 700 Sup & Prof Apprentice
Effective: 8/7/2023


Hourly Hourly
Grade Min Max Annual Min Annual Max
090 $16.06 $37.48 $33,404.80 $77,958.40




Page 333



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Reappointment of Municipal Court Judge and Chief Presiding Judge and Salary
Consideration for Chief Presiding Judge

Request City Council to reappoint Judge Wilbur Hudson III to a four-year term as
Judge of the Phoenix Municipal Court, expiring May 24, 2027, and Judge B. Don
Taylor III to an annual term as Chief Presiding Judge, expiring June 30, 2024. Further
request City Council to set the annual salary for the Chief Presiding Judge at
$224,328.

Summary
On May 5, 2023, the Judicial Selection Advisory Board recommended reappointment
of Judge Wilbur Hudson III as a Judge of the Phoenix Municipal Court for a four-year
term expiring May 24, 2027.

On May 5, 2023, the Judicial Selection Advisory Board also recommended
reappointment of Judge B. Don Taylor III as Chief Presiding of the Phoenix Municipal
Court for an annual term expiring June 30, 2024. Judge B. Don Taylor III is currently
serving as a Judge of the Phoenix Municipal Court for a four-year term expiring Feb. 9,
2025.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
On May 10, 2023, the Public Safety and Justice Committee recommended:
· Reappointment of Judge Wilbur Hudson III as a Judge of the Phoenix Municipal
Court for a four-year term expiring May 24, 2027.
· Reappointment of Judge B. Don Taylor III as Chief Presiding Judge for an annual
term expiring June 30, 2024.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Interim Deputy City Manager John Chan and the City Council
Offices.




Page 334



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Authorization to Terminate an Access and Sewer Easement near McDowell Road
and 40th Street (Ordinance S-49714)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to terminate an access and
sewer easement near McDowell Road and 40th Street. Termination of the easement
will be recorded via separate instrument.

Summary
A permanent easement was conveyed to the City at no cost from the Arizona State
Land Department for access and construction of an underground sewer transmission
line. The sewer transmission line is to be abandoned and re-routed; therefore, the
easement is no longer needed. The easement to be terminated was conveyed by
Maricopa County recording number 2003-1549092.

Location
Near McDowell Road and 40th Street within Maricopa County Assessor's parcel
number 121-01-639.
Council District: 8

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Water
Services and Finance departments.




Page 335



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Acceptance and Dedication of Easements and Deed for Public Utility, Sidewalk
and Roadway Purposes (Ordinance S-49728)

Request for the City Council to accept and dedicate easements and a deed for public
utility, sidewalk and roadway purposes; further ordering the ordinance recorded.

Summary
Accepting the property interests below meets the Planning and Development
Department's Single Instrument Dedication Process requirement prior to releasing any
permits to applicants.

Easement (a)
Applicant: The J Peterson Family Trust dated Dec. 26, 2014, its successor and assigns
Purpose: Public Utility
Location: 2350 E. Charlene Place
File: FN 220099
Council District: 2

Easement (b)
Applicant: The Village at Sonoran Vista, LLC, its successor and assigns
Purpose: Public Utility
Location: 30825 N. North Valley Parkway
File: FN 230018
Council District: 2

Easement (c)
Applicant: The Village at Sonoran Vista, LLC, its successor and assigns
Purpose: Sidewalk
Location: 30825 N. North Valley Parkway
File: FN 230018
Council District: 2

Easement (d)
Applicant: Copper House, LLC, its successor and assigns
Purpose: Sidewalk


Page 336

Location: 2639 and 2645 N. 16th St.
File: FN 230010
Council District: 4

Easement (e)
Applicant: The Ahincos Living Trust, dated July 31, 2003, its successor and assigns
Purpose: Sidewalk
Location: 2637 N. 16th St.
File: FN 230010
Council District: 4

Easement (f)
Applicant: Merkos Chabad-Lubavitch Organization, Inc., its successor and assigns
Purpose: Sidewalk
Location: 2110 E. Lincoln Drive
File: FN 230028
Council District: 6

Deed (g)
Applicant: School District #48, of Maricopa County, its successor and assigns
Purpose: Roadway
Location: 4610 E. Osborn Road
File: FN 220091
Council District: 6

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development and Finance departments.




Page 337



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Acceptance and Dedication of Right-of-Way Abandoned by Arizona Department
of Transportation Resolution 2023-04-A-012 (Ordinance S-49766)

Request for the City Council to accept and dedicate to public use right-of-way
abandoned by Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) Resolution 2023-04-A-
012; further ordering the ordinance recorded.

Summary
Pursuant to Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) 141781 between the City and ADOT,
ADOT will abandon ownership, jurisdiction and maintenance responsibilities of those
City cross streets located outside of ADOT's access control limits and no longer
needed for the construction of the Congressman Ed Pastor Freeway.

ADOT's Resolution of Abandonment 2023-04-A-012 recorded on April 21, 2023,
Maricopa County Recorder number 20230205932, is for the portion of right-of-way
depicted on Exhibit A, page 16 of the City's turnback area under IGA 141781-001. A
map depicting the right-of-way is to be recorded with the ordinance.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
· IGA 141781 (Ordinance S-42094) adopted Oct. 21, 2015; and
· IGA 141781-001 (Ordinance S-47302) adopted Feb. 17, 2021.

Location
North of Congressman Ed Pastor Freeway, along Chandler Boulevard to 27th Avenue
and along Cedarwood Lane and 27th Avenue.
Council District: 6

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Street
Transportation and Finance departments.




Page 338



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Acceptance of Easements for Access, Drainage and Water Purposes (Ordinance
S-49724)

Request for the City Council to accept easements for access, drainage and water
purposes; further ordering the ordinance recorded.

Summary
Accepting the property interest below meets the Planning and Development
Department's Single Instrument Dedication Process requirement prior to releasing any
permits to applicants.

Easement (a)
Applicant: The Village at Sonoran Vista, LLC, its successor and assigns
Purpose: Drainage
Location: 30825 N. North Valley Parkway
File: FN 230018
Council District: 2

Easement (b)
Applicant: Streamliner Aldea, LLC, its successor and assigns
Purpose: Access for Ingress/Egress
Location: 5900 N. 99th Ave.
File: FN 230016
Council District: 5

Easement (c)
Applicant: Streamliner Aldea, LLC, its successor and assigns
Purpose: Water
Location: 5900 N. 99th Ave.
File: FN 230016
Council District: 5

Easement (d)
Applicant: Cabana Aldea, LLC, its successor and assigns
Purpose: Drainage


Page 339

Location: 5900 N. 99th Ave.
File: FN 230016
Council District: 5

Easement (e)
Applicant: Cabana Aldea, LLC, its successor and assigns
Purpose: Water
Location: 5900 N. 99th Ave.
File: FN 230016
Council District: 5

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development and Finance departments.




Page 340



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Envelopes Contract - IFB 23-070 Request for Award (Ordinance S-49718)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
Southland Envelope Company to purchase various envelopes for the Finance, Police
and City Clerk departments. Further request to authorize the City Controller to
disburse all funds related to this item. The total value of the contract will not exceed
$171,600.

Summary
This contract will provide standard mailing envelopes and specialty printed envelopes
for the Finance, Police and City Clerk departments. The various departments will use
these envelopes to mail correspondence, invoices, and statements to City of Phoenix
residents and vendors. Additionally, the contract will also provide printed envelopes,
such as parking violation envelopes, citizen mail-in response envelopes, and self-
addressed court payment plan envelopes.

Procurement Information
An Invitation for Bid procurement was processed in accordance with City of Phoenix
Administrative Regulation 3.10.

One vendor submitted a bid deemed to be responsive to posted specifications and
responsible to provide the required goods and services. Following an evaluation based
on price, the procurement officer recommends award to the following vendor:

Selected Bidder
Southland Envelope Company

Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about June 15, 2023, for a five-year term with no options
to extend.

Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $171,600. Funding is available in the
Finance, Police and City Clerk department budgets.



Page 341

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the Finance, Police and City
Clerk departments.




Page 342



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Authorization to Sell Approximately 4,900 Square Feet of Land Along the East
Side of North 7th Street and Amend Lease Agreement 48385 (Ordinance S-
49719)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to sell approximately 4,900
square feet of City-owned land along the east side of north 7th Street, south of
Thunderbird Road, to 11111 North 7th Street Property DE, LLC, its successors and/or
assigns; and to amend Lease Agreement 48385 to modify the leased area to remove
the portion of land sold. Further request to authorize the City Manager, or his
designee, to dedicate an approximate 25-foot strip of land directly adjacent to the east
side of 7th Street to public use for right-of-way purposes via separate recording
instrument. Additionally request to authorize the City Treasurer to accept all funds
related to sale of the real property.

Summary
The land to be sold is approximately 4,900 square feet and is part of a 65-year lease
for 32 acres of City-owned land. The leased land, combined with the adjacent property
currently owned by 11111 North 7th Street Property DE, LLC, (Lessor) was developed
into Lookout Mountain Golf Course, operated by the Phoenix Tapatio Cliffs Resort. The
4,900 square feet of land is improved with a driveway and golf cart path that provides
exclusive ingress and egress from north 7th Street to a private drive and golf course
parking lot. The Lessor requested to purchase this portion of the leased site to
maintain access in perpetuity to a driveway and parking lot on the privately-owned
portion of the golf course property. Disposition of this land will have no adverse impact
on the remainder of the City-owned property and will alleviate any liability the City may
have as underlying fee owner of the driveway.

The land will be sold "as-is." The City and buyer will enter into a purchase agreement
with terms and conditions acceptable to the City for fee simple conveyance by special
warranty deed. Upon conveyance of the land, the lease will be amended to exclude
the approximate 4,900 square feet from the leased area. Excluded from disposition is
a 25-foot strip of land along the 7th Street frontage to match the 65-foot right-of-way
north and south of the City-owned property, to be dedicated as right-of-way by
separate conveyance instrument.



Page 343

Financial Impact
Revenue will be reflective of the market value of the property.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
· City Council approved Lease Agreement 48385 (Ordinance S-17616) on Feb. 24,
1988.
· The Parks and Recreation Board recommended approval of the disposition on Feb.
23, 2023, as Agenda Item 3b by a vote of 6-0.

Location
Along the east side of north 7th Street; south of Thunderbird Road, identified by
Maricopa County Assessor parcel number 159-01-004C.
Council District: 3

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Park and
Recreation and Finance departments.




Page 344



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Unified Print Program Multifunction Copiers Contract - COOP 23-061- Request
for Award (Ordinance S-49722)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
Toshiba America Business Solutions Inc., DBA Toshiba Business Solutions to provide
multi-function print and scanning devices including supplies, maintenance and
management of print services for Citywide departments. Further request an exception
to the indemnity and assumption of liability provisions of Phoenix City Code section 42-
18. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this
item. The total value of the contract will not exceed $10,595,000.

Summary
This contract will provide the ability to continue contracting with Toshiba for support
and purchase of multi-function print and scanning devices, including supplies,
maintenance and management of print services. Toshiba will service over 1,100
copiers, will add service to 800 stand-alone printers and enable replacement of the
majority of City of Phoenix's stand-alone printer fleet that is over 10 years old and
experiences a high rate of failure due to wear and tear. The deployment of devices are
managed through the City's Unified Print Program, which involves analysis of printer
usage at various locations, and an annual review to ensure devices are deployed in
the most efficient and cost-effective manner. The requested products and services are
critical to citywide facility operations.

Procurement Information
In accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10, standard competition was waived
as a result of an approved Determination Memo based on the following reason:
Special Circumstances - Alternative Competition. The Information Technology Systems
(ITS) Department has researched cooperative contract programs with other agencies
such as Omnia Partners, Mohave Cooperative, Sourcewell, and a local Arizona
business to find alternative contractor options. ITS has determined that the contract
with Toshiba America Business Solutions Inc., DBA Toshiba Business Solutions from
Omnia Partners, which was competitively solicited, best aligns with the City's needs.

Contract Term
The five-year contract term will begin on or about July 1, 2023, and includes one two-
year option to extend.

Page 345

Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $10,595,000 for the five-year aggregate
term. Funding is available in the various departments' budgets.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the Finance Department.




Page 346



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Citywide Moving Services - RFQu 23-0061 Request for Award (Ordinance S-
49726)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into contracts with
Atmosphere Commercial Interiors, LLC; Coleman Worldwide Moving, LLC; Daniels
Moving & Storage, Inc.; and Sunshine Moving Company, LLC, to provide Citywide
moving services. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item. The total value of the contracts will not exceed $1,892,000.

Summary
These contracts will provide comprehensive moving services for all City departments
and facilities. These contracts will include services such as packing, loading,
transportation, unloading and unpacking of equipment, furniture and supplies. The
contracts will also be used to facilitate the relocation of the City of Phoenix Police
Department to their newly purchased building.

Procurement Information
A Request for Qualifications procurement was processed in accordance with
Administrative Regulation 3.10 to establish a Qualified Vendor List (QVL).

Four offerors submitted qualifications and were deemed to be responsive and
responsible. An evaluation committee of City staff evaluated those offers based on the
following minimum qualifications:
• Method of Approach
• Experience and Capacity
• Price

After reaching consensus, the evaluation committee recommends award to the
following offeror(s):
• Atmosphere Commercial Interiors, LLC
• Coleman Worldwide Moving, LLC
• Daniels Moving & Storage, Inc.
• Sunshine Moving Company, LLC




Page 347

Contract Term
The contracts will begin on or about June 15, 2023 for a five-year term with no options
to extend.

Financial Impact
The aggregate value of the contracts will not exceed $1,892,000. Funding is available
in various department budgets.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the Finance Department.




Page 348



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
One-Year Subscription for CoStar Realty Information, Inc. (Ordinance S-49741)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with CoStar Realty Information, Inc., (CoStar) to provide a one-year subscription for
online access to real property market data. Further request to authorize the City
Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.

Summary
CoStar is a comprehensive online database for commercial real estate market data,
statistics and reporting. CoStar provides staff the tools necessary to complete
appraisals, appraisal reviews and valuation services, manage existing contracts and
develop new business transactions for revenue contract services, and assist
developers, investors and companies interested in relocating to or investing in
Phoenix. The subscription enables staff to conduct market research and market-based
valuations to ensure compliance with applicable federal, state and City regulations and
requirements related to real estate transactions.

This item has been reviewed and approved by the Information Technology Services
Department.

Procurement Information
An exception to the procurement process was determined to select the vendor set
forth in City of Phoenix Administrative Regulation 3.10. A direct selection was made
because there is only one known capable supplier of goods and services due to the
unique nature of the requirement.

Contract Term
The agreement will begin on or about June 1, 2023, for a one-year term.

Financial Impact
The fee for the one-year agreement is $147,660, plus applicable taxes. Funding is
available in the Finance, Community and Economic Development, Aviation,
Neighborhood Services and Housing department budgets.




Page 349

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the Finance, Community
and Economic Development, Aviation, Neighborhood Services and Housing
departments.




Page 350



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Uninterruptible Power Supply Equipment, Service and Maintenance - IFB 17-171
- Amendment (Ordinance S-49753)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute amendments to
Contract 145554 with Titan Power, Inc., and Contract 145555 with Gruber Technical,
Inc., to extend contract term. Further request to authorize the City Controller to
disburse all funds related to this item. The additional expenditures will not exceed
$600,000.

Summary
This contract will provide uninterruptible power supply (UPS) equipment and
associated services and maintenance, which are vital for various City services that
require constant, uninterrupted power. The UPS units supply power in the event of an
outage, which allows continued operations until power resumes. Some critical
operations include 911 call centers, Citywide data rooms, and water production and
distribution functions. This extension is needed to ensure continued services and allow
more time for completion of a full procurement process.

Contract Term
Upon approval the contract will be extended through June 30, 2024, with an option to
extend through June 30, 2025.

Financial Impact
Upon approval of $600,000 in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contract will not exceed $3,240,000. Funds are available in various departments'
budgets.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request:
• Uninterruptible Power Supply Equipment, Service and Maintenance 145554, 145555
Ordinance S-43740 on June 28, 2017;
• Uninterruptible Power Supply Equipment, Service and Maintenance 145554, 145555
Ordinance S-45948 on Aug. 28, 2019;
• Uninterruptible Power Supply Equipment, Service and Maintenance 145554, 145555
Ordinance S-48753 on June 15, 2022.


Page 351


Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the Finance Department.




Page 352



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Office Supplies and Services - ADSPO15-088800 - Amendment (Ordinance S-
49756)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee to allow additional
expenditures under Contract 151720 with Wist Business Supplies and Equipment for
the purchase of toner, paper, recycled-content/green products and various other
products for citywide use. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse
all funds related to this item. The additional expenditures will not exceed $4,000,000.

Summary
This contract will provide the City with office supplies, which support the needs of City
employees, facilities, warehouses and the public. Office supplies include, but are not
limited to: toner, paper, recycled-content/green products and other miscellaneous
supplies required for the City to remain operational on a daily basis. The primary users
of this contract include the Aviation, Finance, Fire, Human Services, Library, Parks and
Recreation, Police, Public Works, Street Transportation, and Water Services
departments as well as the Municipal Court. The additional funds are needed to
purchase office supplies through the end of the contract term.

Contract Term
The contract term remains unchanged, ending on March 31, 2025.

Financial Impact
Upon approval of $4,000,000 in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contract will not exceed $10,500,000. Funds are available in the various departments'
budgets.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed and approved this request:
• Office Supplies and Services Contract 151720 (Ordinance S-46367) on March 3,
2020.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the Finance Department.



Page 353



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Software Value-Added Reseller Services - ADSPO16-130652 - Amendment
(Ordinance S-49758)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute amendments to
Contracts 144228 and 151721 with CDW Government, LLC, and SHI International
Corp, to extend contract term. Further request to authorize the City Controller to
disburse all funds related to this item. The additional expenditures will not exceed
$34,000,000.

Summary
These contracts will provide commercial off-the-shelf-software, license agreements,
and maintenance agreements to departments Citywide. Purchases of critical software
solutions and services under these contracts support City email, internet and intranet,
servers and other information technology infrastructure, and provide database
software and critical security tools for protecting, monitoring, and responding to threats
to the City’s network or data. In addition to providing cost savings from volume
discounts, utilizing the value-added reseller contracts provides the City with additional
benefits for implementing and upgrading software solutions, including providing
evaluation copies, product comparisons, proofs-of-concept, needs analysis, product
information and application recommendation.

This item has been reviewed and approved by the Information Technology Services
Department.

Contract Term
Upon approval, the contracts will be extended through Aug. 30, 2024, with an option to
extend through Aug. 30, 2025.

Financial Impact
Upon approval of $34,000,000 in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contracts will not exceed $138,327,330. Funds are available in the various
departments' budgets.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request:


Page 354

• Software Value-Added Reseller Services Contract 144228 and 151721 (Ordinance S-
43077) on Dec. 14, 2016;
• Software Value-Added Reseller Services Contract 144228 and 151721 (Ordinance S-
46331) on Feb. 19, 2020;
• Software Value-Added Reseller Services Contract 144228 and 151721 (Ordinance S-
47903) on Aug. 25, 2021;
• Software Value-Added Reseller Services Contract 144228 and 151721 (Ordinance S-
48848) on July 1, 2022;

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the Finance Department.




Page 355



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Telephone and Data Network Replacement - RFP 17-022 - Amendment
(Ordinance S-49787)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute amendment to
Contract 144657 with World Wide Technology, Inc. to extend contract term. Further
request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The
additional expenditures will not exceed $15,000,000.

Summary
This contract will provide ongoing support of our Cisco phone system. Daily support
includes but is not limited to provisioning telephones, training users, managing
connections to phone carriers, managing servers on which the phone system resides
and managing the contact center.

This item has been reviewed and approved by the Information Technology Services
Department.

Contract Term
Upon approval the contract will be extended through June 30, 2028.

Financial Impact
Upon approval of $15,000,000 in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contract will not exceed $52,727,806. Funds are available in the various Departments'
budgets.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request:
• Telephone and Data Network Replacement Contract 144657 (Ordinance S-43175) on
Jan. 25, 2017.
• Telephone and Data Network Replacement Contract 144657 (Ordinance S-45547) on
April 17, 2019.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Information
Technology Services Department.


Page 356



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Amend Ordinance S-45435 Regarding the Pediatric Health Care Initiative Fund
(Ordinance S-49792)

Request to amend Ordinance S-45435 to replace Attachment A of the
Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment
System Administration (AHCCCS).

Summary
Ordinance S-41038 established the Pediatric Health Care Initiative Fund to facilitate
the transfer of donations for specialized pediatric care provided by freestanding
children's hospitals with 100 beds or more located in the City of Phoenix, to AHCCCS
through an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA). The original IGA included an
attachment (Attachment A) that details the transfer of donations through two annual
installments of $2,500,000. The preference of the City and AHCCCS is to conduct the
transfer of donations through a single annual payment of $5,000,000 instead of
installments. This amendment would revise the current IGA attachment to allow for the
transfer of donations through a single annual payment.

Financial Impact
There is no financial impact to the City.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
· Ordinance S-41038 was approved by the City Council on July 2, 2014, to establish
the Pediatric Health Care Initiative Fund.
· Ordinance S-45435 was approved by the City Council on March 6, 2019, to
maintain the Pediatric Health Care Initiative Fund.
· Ordinance S-46957 was approved by the City Council on May 6, 2020, and
authorized the City to entire into an IGA with AHCCCS to implement the provisions
of S-45435.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the Finance and Law
departments.




Page 357
Attachment A

INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
ARIZONA HEALTH CARE COST CONTAINMENT SYSTEM ADMINISTRATION
(“AHCCCS”)
AND
(“Public Entity”)
For the Support of the
Pediatric Services Initiative

WHEREAS, AHCCCS is authorized through contract to direct Medicaid managed care
contractors’ payments made to providers in a manner consistent with 42 C.F.R. § 438.6 when
those directed payments are expected to advance the goals and objectives of the quality
strategies adopted by AHCCCS which include improving access to high-quality health care; and

WHEREAS, AHCCCS is authorized under A.R.S. § 36-2913(C)(5) to accept donations from any
source, and is permitted to use funds transferred from other public entities in support of the
AHCCCS program; and

WHEREAS, the Public Entity, is authorized by City Ordinances No. S-41038, No. S-45435, and
No. S-46597 to enter into this Agreement and to contribute the funds for health care services as
provided hereunder; and

WHEREAS, 42 C.F.R. Part 433, Subpart B restricts States’ use of Federal funds, health care-
related taxes, and provider-related donations as sources for the Non-Federal Share of Medicaid
expenditures; and

WHEREAS, AHCCCS and the Public Entity are authorized by A.R.S. § 11-952 to enter into
Intergovernmental Agreements to jointly exercise powers common to the parties or for
cooperative action; and

WHEREAS, the Public Entity and AHCCCS wish to enter into this Agreement in order to permit
the Public Entity to provide the Non-Federal Share of a portion of the payments made by
AHCCCS to Medicaid managed care contractors in support of the Pediatric Services Initiative;

NOW, THEREFORE, the Public Entity and AHCCCS (collectively, the “Parties”), pursuant to the
above and in consideration of the matters hereinafter set forth, do mutually agree as follows:

1. DEFINITIONS: Unless otherwise defined in this Agreement, all terms have the same
meaning as set forth in Chapters 29 and 34 of Title 36 of the Arizona Revised Statutes, 42
C.F.R. Parts 433 and 438, or Chapter 22 of Title 9 of the Arizona Administrative Code
(A.A.C.) as appropriate.

1.1. AHCCCS Contract means a contract between AHCCCS and a managed care entity
for the services described in AHCCCS Contract Nos. YH19-0001 (AHCCCS Complete
Care), YH19-0001 and YH22-0061R (ACC with Regional Behavioral Health
Agreements), YH18-0001 (Arizona Long Term Care E/PD), YH6-0014 (Arizona Long
Term Care DD), and YH15-0001 (DCS/CHP) including amendments to and extensions
of those contracts.

1.2. Agreement means this document, together with any and all attachments, appendices,
exhibits, schedules and future amendments as agreed to by the Parties. The term
“Agreement” is synonymous with “Intergovernmental Agreement.”



IGA No. YH23-0052-02-S Page 1 of 9 form date: 9/7/2022
Page 358
1.3. AHCCCS means Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System Administration, an
agency of the State that administers the Medicaid program under Title XIX of the
Social Security Act in Arizona.

1.4. PSI or Pediatric Services Initiative means the terms in the AHCCCS Contracts or in
policies incorporated by reference into those contracts, that require the MCO to make
supplemental payments to Qualifying Children’s Hospitals for inpatient and outpatient
hospital services above the rates otherwise negotiated for Qualified Children’s
Hospitals under a written contract with the MCO to provide service to persons enrolled
with the MCO.

1.5. CFR means Code of Federal Regulations – the official compilation of Federal rules
and requirements.

1.6. Contract Year means the period October 1, 2022 through September 30, 2023.

1.7. Public Entity means the City of Phoenix.

1.8. CMS means The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, a Federal agency
within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

1.9. Day means a calendar day, unless specified otherwise.

1.10. Qualified Children’s Hospital means a Hospital that (1) is a freestanding children’s
hospital with more than 100 licensed pediatric beds and (2) has completed and
submitted to AHCCCS a fully executed attestation as set forth in Attachment B.

1.11. FFP or Federal Financial Participation means the Federal monies that AHCCCS
claims from CMS for the Federal share of AHCCCS expenditures for the
administration of and services paid for through the Medicaid Program, Title XIX of the
Social Security Act.

1.12. Hospital means a health care facility licensed in Arizona as a hospital that is registered
with AHCCCS as a participating provider.

1.13. MCO or Medicaid Managed Care Contractor means an entity that has an AHCCCS
Contract and meets the definition in 42 C.F.R. § 438.2.

1.14. State means the State of Arizona.

1.15. State Plan means the agreement between the State and CMS for the administration of
the Medicaid program in Arizona as described in 42 C.F.R. 430.10.

1.16. Non-Federal Share means the portion of AHCCCS expenditures for the administration
of and services paid for through the Medicaid Program, Title XIX of the Social Security
Act, that are not FFP and which meet the requirements of 42 C.F.R. Part 433, Subpart
B.

1.17. Prior Period Adjustment means an adjustment to the amount that would be transferred
by the Public Entity for the Contract Year under Section 4.2 of this Agreement, but for
Section 4.2.1, to reconcile amounts transferred for previous Contract Years with the
Non-Federal Share of actual MCO payments to the Qualifying Children’s Hospitals in
that previous Contract Year.

2. The purpose of this Agreement is to set forth the procedures under which the Public Entity
will, at its discretion, transfer public funds to AHCCCS for use as the Non-Federal Share of
expenditures made by AHCCCS to MCOs for the Contract Year, as modified to account for
Prior Period Adjustments, in support of the PSI described in this Agreement. It is the intent of
the parties that the procedures herein fully comply with Federal and State laws, rules and
regulations.
IGA No. YH23-0052-02-S Page 2 of 9 form date: 9/7/2022
Page 359
3. Monies transferred by the Public Entity under this Agreement may only be used by AHCCCS
for the Non-Federal Share of payment made by AHCCCS to MCOs as part of the PSI. Such
payments will be made consistent with applicable Federal and State statutes, regulations,
rules and the terms of the State Plan.

4. RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES.

4.1. In advance of each Contract Year:

4.1.1. AHCCCS will estimate the total amount for the Contract Year of the supplemental
payments that MCOs will make to Qualified Children’s Hospitals as the result of
the PSI.

4.1.2. AHCCCS will then calculate the Non-Federal Share of the costs identified in
Section 4.1.1 and will notify the Public Entity of the Non-Federal Share.

4.1.3. The Public Entity shall provide AHCCCS with an attestation from each Qualified
Children’s Hospital in the form set forth in Attachment B of this Agreement.

4.2. The Public Entity shall transfer to AHCCCS periodic payments equal to the amounts
specified in Attachment A on or before the dates specified therein.

4.2.1. The amount of the first payment made by the Public Entity under Section 4.2
may be modified to reflect any Prior Period Adjustments owed by or to the Public
Entity as specified in Attachment A.

4.3. Subject to approval by CMS, upon receipt of the transfer of funds from the Public Entity
that is specified in Attachment A, AHCCCS shall distribute the funds transferred and the
associated FFP to the MCOs and shall require the MCOs to make the corresponding
PSI payment for service provided during the Contract Year to Qualified Children’s
Hospitals.

4.4. Qualified Children’s Hospitals will receive and retain one hundred percent (100%) of all
PSI payments received, and neither the State, AHCCCS nor the Public Entity shall
require, by contract or otherwise, a Qualified Children’s Hospital to return any portion of
the PSI payment to the State, AHCCCS, or the Public Entity.

4.5. In advance of the Contract Year, the Public Entity will submit to AHCCCS Attachment A
to this Agreement listing the amounts and public source of the payment made under
Section 4.2.

4.6. In the event of a disallowance based on the impermissibility of the transferred funds and
the failure of the Qualified Children’s Hospital to refund PSI payments as required by
Attachment B, AHCCCS shall make diligent efforts to recover the amounts due under
Attachment B. If AHCCCS is unable to recover the total computable amount associated
with such disallowance from the hospital within twelve months of final exhaustion of any
administrative appeal related to such disallowance, the Public Entity shall make a
payment to AHCCCS within 30 days of written demand from AHCCCS. AHCCCS shall
only make such written demand if AHCCCS has been unable to recover the total
computable amount associated with such disallowance from the Qualified Children’s
Hospital within twelve months or after final exhaustion of any administrative appeal
related to such disallowance, whichever is later. The payment due from the Public Entity
shall be equal to the amount due to CMS as a result of the disallowance, less any
amount recovered from the Qualified Children’s Hospital associated with the
disallowance, and including any interest incurred as a result of an appeal of the
disallowance.




IGA No. YH23-0052-02-S Page 3 of 9 form date: 9/7/2022
Page 360
5. COMPLIANCE WITH ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS FOR STATE FINANCIAL
PARTICIPATION

5.1. Public Entity certifies that, consistent with 42 C.F.R. Part 433, Subpart B, no portion of
the funds transferred to AHCCCS are derived from (1) direct or indirect provider-related
donations (in cash or in kind), other than bona fide provider-related donations or (2)
health care-related taxes, other than as permitted in Subpart B and any other federal law
or regulation applicable to the permissibility of funding sources.

5.2. Public Entity certifies that, consistent with 42 C.F.R. § 433.51(c), the funds transferred to
AHCCCS under this Agreement are not Federal funds or are Federal funds authorized
by Federal law to be used to match Federal funds.

5.3. Public Entity agrees to provide AHCCCS with supporting documentation of the sources
of the funds transferred pursuant to this Agreement and of the bases for the Public
Entity’s assurance that the funds transferred comply with Sections 5.1 and 5.2.

5.4. If Public Entity fails to provide supporting documentation required in Section 5.3 of this
Agreement such that CMS adjusts future grant awards to AHCCCS or defers or
disallows any expenditures claimed by AHCCCS, then Public Entity agrees to reimburse
AHCCCS immediately, upon demand by AHCCCS, in the amount of the adjustment or
disallowance that is attributable to sources that do not comply with Sections 5.1 or 5.2 of
this Agreement, only to the extent not reimbursed pursuant to Attachment B.

5.5. Public Entity certifies that the funds transferred to AHCCCS as described in this
Agreement are made voluntarily and that neither the State nor AHCCCS has through
statute, rule, or otherwise required the Public Entity to provide the funding.

6. GENERAL PROVISIONS.

6.1. Entire Agreement. This document, its attachments and appendices, including any
approved subcontracts, amendments and modifications made thereto, shall constitute
the entire Agreement between the Parties, and supersedes all other understandings,
oral or written.

6.2. Exercise of Rights. Failure to exercise any right, power or privilege under this
Agreement will not operate as a waiver thereof, nor will a single or partial exercise
thereof preclude any other or further exercise of that or any other right, power, or
privilege.

6.3. Contract Term. This Agreement commences when signed by both parties.
Notwithstanding the fact that certain AHCCCS or Public Entity obligations under this
Agreement occur after the Term hereof, the parties agree that the Term of this
Agreement continues through the later of conclusion of: (1) any payment reconciliations
required by Federal or State law for payments made under this Agreement or (2) audits
of payments made under this Agreement as required by State or Federal law and any
administrative appeal of such reconciliation or audit.

6.4. Compliance with Laws, Rules and Regulations. The Public Entity and its subcontractors
must comply with all applicable Federal and State laws, rules, regulations, standards
and Executive Orders, without limitation to those designated within this Agreement.

6.4.1. Non-Discrimination. The parties shall not discriminate against any employee,
client or any other individual in any way because of that person’s age, race,
creed, color, religion, sex, disability or national origin in the course of carrying
out their duties pursuant to this Agreement. The Parties shall comply with the
provisions of Arizona Executive Order 2009-09, incorporated into this
Agreement by reference, as if set forth in full herein.



IGA No. YH23-0052-02-S Page 4 of 9 form date: 9/7/2022
Page 361
6.4.2. ADA. The parties shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Americans
with Disabilities Act (Public Law 101336, 42 U.S.C. 1210112213) and all
applicable Federal regulations under the Act, including 28 CFR Parts 35 and 36.

6.5. Choice of Law. The laws and regulations of the State of Arizona govern the rights of the
Parties, the performance of this Agreement, and any disputes arising from the
Agreement.

6.6. Compulsory Arbitration. Any action relating to this Agreement must be brought by
arbitration to the extent required by A.R.S. § 12-1518 or in an appropriate court. Any
arbitration award will be enforced in an appropriate court.

6.7. Amendments. This Agreement, including its term, may be modified only through a duly
authorized written amendment, executed with the same formality as the Agreement.

6.8. Notice. Any notice required by the terms of the Agreement and any questions regarding
the duties and obligations of this contract shall be directed to:

6.8.1. For AHCCCS:

Meggan LaPorte, CPPO, MSW
Chief Procurement Officer
AHCCCS
801 E. Jefferson, MD 5700
Phoenix, AZ 85034
Email: Meggan.Laporte@azahcccs.gov

6.8.2. For the Public Entity:

Thomas Husband
Accountant IV
251 W. Washington St., 9th Floor
Phoenix AZ 85003
Email: thomas.husband@phoenix.gov

6.8.3. Notwithstanding Section 6.8 of this Agreement, AHCCCS and the Public Entity will
give notice by regular mail or any other means reasonably anticipated to provide
actual notice to the other party of any change of the address, telephone number,
name of the authorized signatory or designee; or name and/or address of the
person to whom notices are to be sent.

6.9. Termination.

6.9.1. AHCCCS may terminate this Agreement if the PSI program is terminated for any
reason including the withdrawal of CMS approval of the PSI program, a
determination that funds provided or payments made under this Agreement do not
comply with this Agreement, or a change in Federal or State law. Upon
termination under this Section, AHCCCS shall return to the Public Entity any funds
transferred pursuant to Section 4.2 or 4.4 not used as the non-Federal share of
PSI payments made.

6.9.2. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 38-511, either party to this Agreement may terminate this
Agreement without penalty or further obligation if any person significantly involved
in initiating, negotiating, securing, drafting or creating the Agreement is or
becomes at any time while the Agreement or an extension of the Agreement is in
effect an employee of or a consultant to any other party to this Agreement with
respect to the subject matter of the Agreement. The cancellation will be effective
when AHCCCS or the Public Entity receives written notice of the cancellation
unless the notice specifies a later time.


IGA No. YH23-0052-02-S Page 5 of 9 form date: 9/7/2022
Page 362
6.10. Records. The Parties agree to retain all financial books, records, and other documents
and will contractually require each subcontractor to retain all data and other records
relating to the acquisition and performance of the Agreement for a period of five (5)
years after the completion of the Agreement. All records are subject to inspection and
audit by the Parties at reasonable times. Upon request, the Parties will produce a legible
copy of any or all such records.

6.11. Severability. The provisions of this Agreement are severable. If any provision of this
Agreement is held by a court to be invalid or unenforceable, the remaining provisions
continue to be valid and enforceable to the full extent permitted by law.

6.12. Indemnification. Each party (as Indemnitor) agrees to indemnify, defend and hold
harmless the other party (as Indemnitee) from and against any and all claims, losses,
liability, costs or expenses (including reasonable attorney’s fees) (hereinafter collectively
referred to as “claims”) arising out of this Agreement, but only to the extent that such
claims result in vicarious/derivative liability to the Indemnitee, are caused by the act,
omission, negligence, misconduct, or other fault of the Indemnitor, its officers, officials,
agents, employees, or volunteers.

6.13. No Third Party Beneficiaries. Nothing in the provisions of this Agreement is intended to
(1) create duties or obligations to or rights in Qualified Children’s Hospitals or any other
persons or entities not parties to this Agreement or (2) effect the legal liability of either
party to the Agreement with respect to Qualified Children’s Hospitals or any other
persons or entities not parties to this Agreement.

6.14. No Joint Venture. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to create a joint venture
between or among the Parties, including the Qualified Children’s Hospitals, and it will
not be so construed. Neither AHCCCS’ nor the Public Entity’s employees will be
considered officers, agents or employees of the other or be entitled to receive any
employment related fringe benefits from the other.

NOW THEREFORE, AHCCCS and the Public Entity agree to abide by the terms and conditions
set forth in this Agreement.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date and year
specified below.

System
(“Public Entity”) (“AHCCCS”)


___________________________________ ____________________________________
By: Jeffrey Barton, City Manager By: Meggan LaPorte, Chief Procurement
Officer

Date: ________________________________ Date: ________________________________

In accordance with A.R.S. § 11-952, undersigned counsel have determined that this
Intergovernmental Agreement is in proper form and is within the powers and authority granted
under the laws of the State of Arizona, including but not limited to A.R.S. §§ 36-2903 et seq.



___________________________________ ___________________________________
Counsel for Public Entity Susan Russo, Counsel for AHCCCS

Date: ________________________________ Date: ________________________________



IGA No. YH23-0052-02-S Page 6 of 9 form date: 9/7/2022
Page 363
TO THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
ARIZONA HEALTH CARE COST CONTAINMENT SYSTEM ADMINISTRATION
(“AHCCCS”)
AND
(“Public Entity”)
For the Support of the
Pediatric Services Initiative



Pursuant to the Agreement, the Public Entity has agreed to transfer public funds
from the source(s) and in the amount(s) specified below as the Non-Federal
Share of expenditures in support of the PSI for the Contract Year ending
September 30, 2023:

Payment Date Source Amount
February 1, 2023 Phoenix Health Care Initiative Fund $ 2,500,000

May 2, 2023 Phoenix Health Care Initiative Fund $ 2,500,000

Grand Total $ 5,000,000




IGA No. YH23-0052-02-S Page 7 of 9 form date: 9/7/2022
Page 364
On behalf of Phoenix Children’s Hospital (“Hospital”), I hereby attest to the following under
penalty of perjury as true and correct to the best of my knowledge:

1. For purposes of this attestation, the following terms have the following meanings:

a. PSI or Pediatric Services Initiative means the terms in the AHCCCS Contracts or in
policies incorporated by reference into those contracts, that require the MCO to
supplement payments to Qualified Children’s Hospitals for inpatient and outpatient
hospital services above the rates otherwise negotiated for Qualified Children’s Hospitals
that have a written contract with the MCO to provide service to persons enrolled with the
MCO.

b. CFR means Code of Federal Regulations – the official compilation of Federal rules and
requirements.

c. Contract Year means the period from October 1, 2022 through September 30, 2023.

d. CMS means The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, a Federal agency within
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

e. Qualified Children’s Hospital means a Hospital that (1) is a freestanding children’s
hospitals with more than 100 licensed pediatric beds (2) has completed and submitted to
AHCCCS this fully executed attestation.

f. Entity related to the Hospital or Qualified Children’s Hospital means:

i. An organization, association, corporation, or partnership formed by or on behalf of
the health care provider;

ii. An individual with an ownership or control interest in the health care provider, as
defined in 42 USC 1320a-3(a)(3);

iii. An employee, spouse, parent, child, or sibling of the health care provider, or of a
person with an ownership or control interest in the Hospital, as defined in 42 USC
1320a-3(a)(3); or

iv. A supplier of health care items or services or a supplier to the health care provider.

g. FFP or Federal Financial Participation means the Federal monies that AHCCCS claims
from CMS for the Federal share of AHCCCS expenditures for the administration of and
services paid for through the Medicaid Program, Title XIX of the Social Security Act.

h. Funding Partner means collectively the Public Entities providing funds to AHCCCS to be
used as the Non-Federal Share of a claim by AHCCCS for FFP associated with the PSI.

i. Hospital means a health care facility licensed in Arizona as a hospital that is registered
with AHCCCS as a participating provider.

j. MCO or Medicaid Managed Care Contractor means an entity that has a contract with
AHCCCS and that meets the definition in 42 C.F.R. § 438.2.

k. Non-Federal Share means the portion of AHCCCS expenditures for the administration of
and services paid for through the Medicaid Program, Title XIX of the Social Security Act,
that are not FFP and which meet the requirements of 42 C.F.R. Part 433, Subpart B.




IGA No. YH23-0052-02-S Page 8 of 9 form date: 9/7/2022
Page 365
2. On behalf of the Hospital, I attest that:

a. The Hospital is a Qualified Children’s Hospital.

b. No formal or informal agreements exist between the Hospital, or any Entity Related to
the Hospital, and any Funding Partner for the direct or indirect return to any Funding
Partner of any portion of payments made by any MCO to Qualified Children’s Hospitals
as part of the PSI or of payments made by the Funding Partner for the administration of
the PSI.

c. No formal or informal agreement exists between (1) the Hospital or any Entity Related to
the Hospital and (2) any other Qualified Children’s Hospital, or any Entity Related to any
other Qualified Children’s Hospital, for the direct or indirect return to any Funding
Partner of any portion of payments made by any MCO to any Qualified Children’s
Hospital as part of the PSI or of payments made by the Funding Partner for the
administration of the PSI.

d. Neither the Hospital nor any Entity Related to the Hospital has made any direct or
indirect donations (in cash or in kind) to any Funding Partner in excess of the limitations
in 42 CFR Part 433, Subpart B.

3. The Hospital accepts that completion of this attestation is a condition of the Hospital’s
participation in PSI. The Hospital shall inform AHCCCS immediately if the Hospital enters
into an agreement described in this attestation or makes any donation to any Funding Partner
in excess of the limitations in 42 CFR Part 433, Subpart B associated with payments under
PSI.

4. The undersigned Hospital agrees that in the event CMS issues a disallowance of FFP based
on a determination that the source of the funds transferred by any governmental entity in
support of PSI payments to the Hospital are either Federal funds, provider donations, or
health care-related taxes that are not permissible under 42 C.F.R. Part 433, Subpart B, the
Hospital will, upon final exhaustion of any administrative appeal related to such disallowance:

a. Refund to AHCCCS within 30 days of written demand an amount of the PSI payments
made to the Hospital equal to the total computable amount associated with such
disallowance, including any interest incurred as a result of an appeal.

b. Permit AHCCCS to offset the amount referenced in (a), to the extent it is not refunded,
from any amounts otherwise due to the Hospital.

5. The undersigned attests that they have personal knowledge of the matters attested to herein
and has the legal authority to bind the Hospital to the terms herein.


Dated: _________________________




By: __________________________


Print Name: Dennis Bruns

Title: Chief Financial Officer




IGA No. YH23-0052-02-S Page 9 of 9 form date: 9/7/2022
Page 366



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Employee Loans Contract - COOP 23-038 Request for Award (Ordinance S-
49704)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
Sunrise Banks, N.A., and Employee Loan Solutions, LLC, dba TrueConnect, to provide
a resource to secure safe, affordable, small-dollar loans to avert financial emergencies
and ease financial stress of employees, for the Human Resources Department.
Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds necessary for this
item. There is no impact to the General Fund, the costs for these services are paid by
monthly payroll deductions from participants in the loan program.

Summary
This contract will provide an employee loan program which can provide City
employees with a resource to secure safe, affordable, small-dollar loans (up to $5,000)
to avert financial emergencies and ease financial stress. Loan payments are deducted
from each paycheck over 12 months. Loans are made with a reasonable maximum
interest rate of 19.99 percent and offer an alternative to title loans and payday loans
which typically carry extremely high interest rates. There are no origination fees or
other fees assessed on the loans. Loan eligibility is not dependent upon personal
credit scores, and a borrower's personal credit score is improved upon complete loan
repayment. The loan services are supported by a comprehensive employee financial
wellness program which can help employees get out of the cycle of debt. This program
is provided at no cost or liability to the City.

Procurement Information
In accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10, standard competition was waived
as a result of an approved determination memo based on special circumstances, being
a lack of alternative competition. Sourcewell serves as a cooperative purchasing
agency for government, education, and non-profit organizations, including the City of
Phoenix. Sourcewell issued a competitive solicitation in 2019, Request for Proposal
#060519, and awarded a contract to Sunrise Banks, N.A., dba TrueConnect.

Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about July 1, 2023, for a five-year term with no options to
extend.


Page 367


Financial Impact
This program is provided at no cost or liability to the City of Phoenix, and there is no
impact to the General Fund. The costs for these services are paid by monthly payroll
deductions from participants in the loan program.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Human Resources
Department.




Page 368



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Occupational Medical Provider Services - RFP HR 22-013 - Request for Award
(Ordinance S-49708)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
Occupational Health Centers of the Southwest, P.A. dba Concentra Medical Centers to
provide Occupational Medical Provider Services to City employees through the Human
Resources Department’s Occupational Medical Services Program. Further request to
authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The total value of
the contract will not exceed $8,500,000.

Summary
Occupational Health Centers of the Southwest, P.A. dba Concentra Medical Centers
will partner with the HRD’s Safety Division to provide occupational medical provider
services at various locations throughout the Phoenix metropolitan area. The locations
will include a twenty-four hour facility, conveniently located at the Phoenix Sky Harbor
Airport. Many of the occupational medical provider services are legally mandated, and
necessary to continue providing medical treatment to City employees who are injured
in the performance of their duties. Some of the services include pre-employment and
annual physicals, tower climber physicals, clinical screenings, laboratory testing,
audiometric testing, vision screening, vaccinations, work fitness evaluations, return to
work fitness evaluations, alcohol and drug testing, post-exposure exams,
immunizations and other miscellaneous testing. The current contract with Concentra
Medical Centers is set to expire Sept. 30, 2023.

Procurement Information
RFP HR 22-013 was conducted in accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10.
The Human Resources Department received two proposals. The Notice of Solicitation
was emailed to 219 vendors registered in ProcurePHX and to additional known
vendors in the occupational provider health care industry.

The offers were scored using the following criteria: Qualifications and Experience (350
points), Method of Approach (350 points) and Pricing (300 points).

The evaluation panel determined that one offer was within the competitive range. The
finalist provided a Best and Final Offer (BAFO). After reviewing the BAFO response, it


Page 369

was the consensus of the evaluation committee to recommend award to Occupational
Health Centers of the Southwest, P.A. dba Concentra Medical Centers. The BAFO
resulted in minimal price increases. Overall, the pricing will remain the same as the
current pricing, which has been in place since 2019, under the existing Concentra
contract.

The consensus scores are as follows:
· Banner Occupational Health-Arizona, LLC dba Banner Occupational Health Clinics :
497 points
· Occupational Health Centers of the Southwest, P.A. dba Concentra Medical
Centers: 990 points

After reaching consensus, the evaluation committee recommends award to
Occupational Health Centers of the Southwest, P.A. dba Concentra Medical Centers,
as the highest scored, responsive and responsible offer most advantageous to the
City.

Contract Term
The five-year contract term shall being on or about Oct. 1, 2023.

Financial Impact
The aggregate five-year contract value for these services shall not exceed $8,500,000.
Funds are available in multiple departments' budgets. Additionally, the Worker’s
Compensation Program Trust Account will be used for worker’s compensation medical
expenses.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Human Resources
Department.




Page 370



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Workers Compensation Taxes (Ordinance S-49757)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to pay taxes to the Industrial
Commission of Arizona for Workers Compensation injuries for the Human Resources
Department. Further request authorization for the City Controller to disburse funds
related to this item. The aggregate value will not exceed $1,500,000.

Summary
The City has been self-insured for Workers Compensation injuries since 2003 and the
taxes are due quarterly based on premiums that would have been paid by an employer
if the employer had been fully insured by a Workers Compensation insurance carrier.

The Industrial Commission of Arizona calculates an administrative fund assessment
annually for Workers Compensation injuries and computes the quarterly taxes that the
City must pay every January, April, July, and October of each calendar year.
Additionally, the Industrial Commission of Arizona will refund the City for any
overpayment of taxes from the prior year or bill the City for any underpayment. The
City will pay these underpayment adjustments annually if needed.

Procurement Information
In accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10, normal competition was waived as
a result of an approved Determination Memo citing the Industrial Commission of
Arizona as a Special Circumstance - Without Competition.

Term
The payment authorization will begin on July 1, 2023 and end June 30, 2026.

Financial Impact
The aggregate value will not exceed $1,500,000 and the funds are available in the
Human Resources Department.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
· The Phoenix City Council approved Ordinance S-49567-0015 on April 19, 2023.
· The Phoenix City Council approved Ordinance S-49080 on Oct. 26, 2022.



Page 371


Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Human Resources
Department.




Page 372



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Police Employment Marketing Services RFP HR 22-009 - Request for Award
(Ordinance S-49790)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into contracts with ON
Advertising, Inc., and Lincoln Strategy Group, LLC, to provide employment marketing
services for the Human Resources Department and the Police Department. Further
request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The
total value of the contracts will not exceed $1,700,000.

Summary
The Phoenix Police Department faces significant challenges to fill hundreds of vacant
positions and maintain necessary staffing levels. These contracts will provide
marketing services and advertising using digital and traditional media to promote the
Phoenix Police Department as a premier employer for law enforcement careers, attract
a diverse pool of qualified applicants, and generate a continuous pipeline of applicants
for the next five years. The contracts also include the design and hosting and of a new
employment website.

Procurement Information
A Request for Proposal procurement was processed in accordance with Administrative
Regulation 3.10.

Four vendors submitted proposals deemed responsive and responsible. An evaluation
committee of City staff evaluated those offers based on the following criteria with a
maximum possible point total of 1000:
· Qualifications and Experience (0-300 points)
· Method of Approach (0-450 points)
· Price (0-250 points)

After reaching consensus, the evaluation committee recommends awards to the
following vendors:
· ON Advertising, Inc., 782.5 points
· Lincoln Strategy Group, LLC, 762 points



Page 373

Contract Term
The contracts will begin on or about June 1, 2023, for a five-year term with no options
to extend.

Financial Impact
The aggregate value of the two contracts will not exceed $1,700,000. Funding is
available in the Police Department operating budget.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Human Resources
Department.




Page 374



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Authorization to Apply for, Accept, and Enter into an Agreement for Victim of
Crime Act (VOCA) Grant Funds (Ordinance S-49805)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to apply for renewal, accept,
and enter into an agreement with the Arizona Department of Public Safety for a Victim
of Crime Act (VOCA) grant in an amount not to exceed $478,039. Further request
authorization for the City Treasurer to accept, and for the City Controller to disburse, all
funds related to this item.

Summary
The VOCA grant is federally funded and administered by the Arizona Department of
Public Safety. The application provides an opportunity to request ongoing and
additional funding to further enhance victim services in the City of Phoenix
Prosecutor's Office. The VOCA renewal application process has opened for the grant
period Oct. 1, 2023, to Sept. 30, 2024.

Advocates provide an array of legally mandated as well as compassionate services to
victims of misdemeanor crimes that occur within the City of Phoenix. These services
include assisting victims in making safety plans, assisting victims seeking shelter from
their abusers, connecting victims to necessary resources inside and outside of the
City, attending court, arranging for transportation to and from court, translating
complex nuances of the process to victims and providing legally mandated notification
of court dates. The grant would provide continued funding for five employees. In recent
years, VOCA funding allowed the City to greatly reduce the case load of victim
advocates. Reducing the case load significantly increases Victim Services' opportunity
to provide more personalized services to all crime victims, meeting the needs of the
community in alignment with the Domestic Violence Roadmap and the Human
Trafficking Compass Plan.

Contract Term
The initial grant period is Oct. 1, 2023, through Sept. 30, 2024.

Financial Impact
Total grant funding will not exceed $478,039. City funding for existing Victim Services
positions provides the required 20 percent in-kind match.


Page 375


Location
Citywide

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the Law Department.




Page 376



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Disaster Recovery as a Service Contract for the Municipal Court (Ordinance S-
49749)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
Kyndryl, Inc., to provide a Disaster Recovery (DRaaS) solution for the Phoenix
Municipal Court. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item. The total value of the contract will not exceed $1,080,000.
Additionally, request to grant an exception pursuant to Phoenix City Code 42-20 to
authorize inclusion in the documents pertaining to this transaction of indemnification
and assumption of liability provisions that otherwise should be prohibited by Phoenix
City Code 42-18.

Summary
Phoenix Municipal Court is required by the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) to
maintain a disaster recovery posture for its systems. Without a disaster recovery
solution, the ability to ensure the Court’s continuity of operations is at risk. Kyndryl, Inc
has proposed a solution that provides the correct servers, support, and overall DRaaS
solution for the Court’s primary enterprise system. In addition, Kyndryl, Inc offers the
ability to conduct full disaster recovery tests twice a year. This contract offers the most
efficient way to get the Court back to an acceptable business continuity and disaster
recovery posture, ensuring its ability to resume operations in the event of a disruptive
event. Additionally, this allows the Court to comply with the AOC’s policies and best
practices related to the management of information technology systems.

This item has been reviewed and approved by the Information Technology Services
Department.

Procurement Information
In accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10, standard competition was waived
as a result of an approved Determination Memo based on the following reason:
Special Circumstances Without Competition. The Information Technology Services
Department (ITS) previously held a contract for citywide disaster recovery services
which expired. ITS conducted a formal procurement for citywide Disaster Recovery-as-
a-Service (DRaaS) (ITS RFP 22-001), which resulted in a successful solicitation
process. The parties entered good faith negotiations but despite efforts the parties


Page 377

were unable to reach an agreement. ITS is in the midst of another formal procurement
for citywide DRaaS (ITS RFP 23-003). Given the Phoenix Municipal Court’s
requirements, and to ensure operation continuity, ITS and Phoenix Municipal Court
jointly agreed to exclude their systems from the current RFP and request to establish a
direct contract with Kyndryl, Inc.

Contract Term
The two-year contract term will begin on or about June 1, 2023, with an option to
renew for an additional one-year term.

Financial Impact
The contract value will not exceed $1,080,000. The funds are available in the
Information Technology Services Department’s operating budget.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Interim Deputy City Manager John Chan, Phoenix Municipal
Court, and the Information Technology Services Department.




Page 378



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Electronic Document Management System Licensing, Maintenance and
Professional Services for the Phoenix Municipal Court (Ordinance S-49796)

Request authorization for Phoenix Municipal Court to enter into an agreement with
Databank IMX, LLC for Licensing, Maintenance and Professional Services of OnBase
for Electronic Document Management System. The total value of the contract will not
exceed $250,000. Additionally, request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all
funds related to this item.

Summary
The Phoenix Municipal Court uses OnBase as its Electronic Document Management
System (EDMS). OnBase is the statewide standard for EDMS selected by the Arizona
Supreme Court’s Administrative Office of the Court (AOC) for all Arizona courts. The
AOC has established a new contract with Databank IMX, LLC for licensing,
maintenance and professional services related to the use and support of this product.
Leveraging this contract not only provides the Court with access to negotiated pricing,
it also ensures the Court is able obtain support and professional services from an
organization with specific knowledge of the configuration and business requirements
pertaining to the needs Arizona courts.

Procurement Information
In accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10, standard competition was waived
as a result of an approved Determination Memo based on the following reason:
Special Circumstance Alternate Competition. Databank IMX, LLC is contracted by the
Arizona Supreme Court’s AOC to provide licensing, maintenance and professional
services to support OnBase, which is the statewide standard for Arizona courts.

Contract Term
The contract term will begin on or about July 1, 2023, and will expire on Dec. 21, 2027,
with an option to renew for an additional five years.

Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $250,000. Funds are available in the
Phoenix Municipal Court’s operating budget.



Page 379

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Chief Presiding Judge B. Don Taylor and Interim Deputy City
Manager John Chan.




Page 380



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Request to Appropriate, Expend and Disburse Federal Economic Development
Initiative/Community Project Funding (Ordinance S-49751)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to appropriate and expend
Community Project Funding from the United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD). Further request to authorize the City Treasurer to accept and the
City Controller to disburse all funds for the life of the grant(s). The total funds received
will not exceed $6,963,927.

Summary
The Office of Government Relations (OGR) helped the City navigate the fast-paced
Fiscal Year 2022-23 appropriations process. OGR submitted various projects
requesting over $14.7 million in funding. Of those projects, the Office of Homeless
Solutions will receive $1.9 million in funding for its Homelessness Support Initiative,
and the Phoenix Fire Department will receive $5 million for the Semiconductor Fire
Response Station. This is only the second time in a decade that community project
funding (known as earmarks) has been available. Each project had to have extensive
community engagement and support, as only competitive projects with demonstrated
community support were considered. OGR gathered over 35 potential projects from
City departments. Each project was thoroughly vetted and reviewed by City
management and Council. The appropriations process is extremely competitive, not
only on a regional level but nationally as well.

The Office of Homeless Solutions will receive $1,963,927 and the Phoenix Fire
Department will receive $5 million in community project funding:
· The Office of Homeless Solutions will utilize the funding to support efforts around
identification and storage of property belonging to unsheltered individuals. The
funds will be used to procure and obtain secure storage containers that will be
placed in specific areas within the City and used to safely store property of
individuals experiencing homelessness. The funds will also be used for program
administration and the equipment necessary to allow staff to manage the
assessment, documentation and storage of property.
· The Phoenix Fire Department will use the grant funds to acquire land and begin
construction on a new five-bay fire station. Funds will be allocated for the initial land



Page 381

use study, environmental and historical preservation review, zoning, costs
associated with real property purchase, design and engineering, and construction
start.

Contract Term
The grant period of performance begins when the grant agreements are signed by
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development and will end on Aug.
31, 2031.

Financial Impact
No matching funds are required and there is no budgetary impact to the City as no
general funds are required.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the Office of Government
Relations.




Page 382



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Transfer of Retirement Funds to Arizona State Retirement System (Ordinance S-
49752)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to transfer retirement funds for
Hector Montes in the amount of $28,423.56 to the Arizona State Retirement System.
Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse the funds.

Summary
Pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes, sections 38-730 and 38-922, retirement service
credits for former members of the City of Phoenix Employees’ Retirement System
(COPERS) may be transferred to the Arizona State Retirement System upon approval
by the City Council. The following former City of Phoenix employee has requested
transfer of the balance of their credited service:

Montes, Hector: $28,423.56

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This item was approved by the COPERS Board at the May 4, 2023 meeting.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Retirement
Office.




Page 383



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Transfer of Retirement Funds to Arizona State Retirement System (Ordinance S-
49760)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to transfer retirement funds for
Holly Moore in the amount of $44,653.44 to the Arizona State Retirement System.
Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse the funds.

Summary
Pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes, sections 38-730 and 38-922, retirement service
credits for former members of the City of Phoenix Employees’ Retirement System
(COPERS) may be transferred to the Arizona State Retirement System upon approval
by the City Council. The following former City of Phoenix employee has requested
transfer of the balance of her credited service:

Moore, Holly: $44,653.44

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This item was approved by the COPERS Board at the May 4, 2023 meeting.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Retirement
Office.




Page 384



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Authorize Revisions to Phoenix City Code Chapter 32 (Ordinance G-7116)

Request to amend Phoenix City Code Chapters 32A (Grading and Drainage), 32B
(Floodplains) and 32C (Stormwater Quality Protection) to incorporate requirements of
the City's latest Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Permit from the Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality and to update references, correct errors and
improve clarity. The permit requires that the City enforce certain requirements, and the
proposed code modifications provide for the enforcement basis and should be in place
no later than June 30, 2023.

Summary
The City of Phoenix (City) operates the storm sewer system under a Municipal
Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit issued under the Federal Clean Water
Act from the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). Administration of
the Stormwater Management Program (Program), required by the permit, requires a
multi-departmental effort to manage citywide stormwater quality. Generally, the MS4
permit authorizes discharges from the City's stormwater infrastructure into protected
surface waters. The City is required by the permit to have authority to enforce certain
requirements.

Effective July 1, 2021, the City is operating under a new MS4 permit. The new MS4
permit requires the implementation of new programs and practices and the expansion
of existing program elements. New and expanded elements include: a new stormwater
post-construction control program, retrofit feasibility study, increased public outreach
requirements, expanded inspection and monitoring requirements, and expanded
reporting and mapping requirements.

To provide authority to the City for the development of a post-construction program and
achieve consistency with the new permit requirements, changes to City Code Chapters
32A (Grading and Drainage) and 32C (Stormwater Quality Protection) are warranted.
For efficiency, Chapter 32B (Floodplains) is simultaneously being updated for clarity
and reference corrections.

A summary of revisions to these chapters are as follows:



Page 385

· Chapter 32A - Adds the requirement for submittal of a maintenance manual for
permanent post-construction features during the plan review process, clarifies plan
submission requirements including clarifying the type of stormwater management
plan required, and corrects references, grammar, errors and unclear word usage.
· Chapter 32B - Changes departmental titles and responsibilities to match with the
restructuring of the Floodplain Management Group from Public Works to the Street
Transportation Department, updates to match federal and state regulations and
terminology, and the reorganization of sections for clarity.
· Chapter 32C - Provides authority to the City for the stormwater post-construction
program and adds record keeping requirements associated with that program,
revises language to capture new MS4 permit requirements including updating the
list of allowable discharges, adds language to clarify City authority to enter
settlement agreements and other actions related to compliance issues, corrects
references, grammar, word usage, and reorganizes sections for clarity.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
· The revisions were presented to the Development Advisory Board (DAB) Technical
Subcommittee on Jan. 19, 2023.
· Technical comments were addressed and the revised code changes were
presented to the DAB Technical Subcommittee on Feb. 21, 2023. Members of the
Subcommittee concurred with the changes and voted to move the code to the DAB
for further action.
· Staff presented at the DAB on March 16, 2023. The DAB members voted
unanimously to recommend approval of these code changes to City Council.
· Staff presented at the Transportation, Infrastructure, and Planning City Council
Subcommittee on April 19, 2023. Subcommittee voted unanimously to recommend
approval of the code changes by City Council.

Public Outreach
The revisions were presented during two public outreach meetings: one virtual and
one in-person to interested parties that represent building and private development
organizations and members of the general public. These meetings were advertised
broadly through the City's social media channels, the City Clerk's office, the
Stormwater Post-Construction Program inventory contact list, the City of Phoenix
Homeowner Association's contact list, and the Planning and Development's Self-
Certified Professionals mailing list. A special presentation was also requested by, and
provide to, the Homebuilder's Association of Central Arizona. City staff met with Valley
Partnership and the Arizona Multi-Family Housing Association on May 5, 2023.
Additionally, the proposed revisions were posted on a City website for review and
outreach was conducted via social media to direct people to the webpage to review


Page 386

and make comments. No comments on the proposed City code changes were
received from the public via any of these methods.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Alan Stephenson and Ginger
Spencer, the Planning and Development, Street Transportation and Water Services
departments, the Office of Environmental Programs and the Office of the City
Engineer.




Page 387



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Office of Heat Response and Mitigation Community Canopy Grant Program
(Ordinance S-49801)

Request authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into multiple
grant agreements with multiple grantees to disburse funds for the Community Canopy
Grant Program. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds
and supplies related to this item. There is no impact to the General Fund. The
aggregate expenditures will not exceed $2,000,000. Funding is available through the
City's allocation of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) from the federal government
and is part of the Residential Tree Equity Accelerator and the Trees and Shade for
Schools programs.

Summary
Phoenix’s Office of Heat Response and Mitigation (OHRM) is leading the efforts of the
City to fight the growing hazard of urban heat. OHRM focuses on both heat response
(helping people cope with hot weather) and heat mitigation (including efforts to cool the
city and make it more comfortable through tree planting). During all seasons of the
year, OHRM coordinates programs and policies to help lower urban heat temperatures
and protect public health. OHRM also tracks trends, collects data, and collaborates
with other governments and organizations to share ideas and solutions when it comes
to dealing with heat.

On June 7, 2022, Phoenix City Council approved the ARPA Second Tranche Strategic
Plan and allocated $6,000,000 of these funds for the Residential Tree Equity
Accelerator and the Trees and Shade for Schools programs. The Community Canopy
Grant Program will improve the prospects of impacted residents and address
economic and social disparities that have continued and worsened during the COVID-
19 pandemic. This grant program will assist in that effort by providing trees and
supplies to community members, neighborhood groups and non-profits in
neighborhoods that have been disproportionately negatively impacted by COVID-19.

To increase the tree shade canopy in neighborhoods that have been disproportionately
negatively impacted by COVID-19, OHRM is seeking authorization to use $2,000,000
in ARPA funds to develop a Community Canopy Grant Program to provide funding and
supplies for tree planting projects to community members, neighborhood associations


Page 388

and non-profits in Qualified Census Tracts. The Community Canopy Grant Program
will provide funding, services, supplies and education to community members,
neighborhood associations and nonprofits for tree planting projects. The OHRM Tree
Equity Project Coordinator will facilitate and administer this grant program. The
Community Canopy Grant Program will accept applications on a rolling basis, and all
projects and funding will be spent by the end of December 2024.

Financial Impact
Funding for this program will not exceed $2,000,000. There is no impact to the General
Fund. Funding is available through the City's allocation of ARPA.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Office of Heat
Response and Mitigation.




Page 389



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Office of Heat Response and Mitigation Shade for Students Grant Program
(Ordinance S-49803)

Request authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into multiple
grant agreements with multiple grantees to disburse funds for the Shade for Students
Grant Program. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse the funds
related to this item. There is no impact to the General Fund. The aggregate
expenditures will not exceed $1,500,000. Funding is available through the City's
allocation of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) from the federal government and
is part of the Residential Tree Equity Accelerator and the Trees and Shade for Schools
programs.

Summary
Phoenix’s Office of Heat Response and Mitigation (OHRM) is leading the efforts of the
City to fight the growing hazard of urban heat. OHRM focuses on both heat response
(helping people cope with hot weather) and heat mitigation (including efforts to cool the
city and make it more comfortable). During all seasons of the year, OHRM coordinates
programs and policies to help lower urban heat temperatures and protect public health.
OHRM also tracks trends, collects data, and collaborates with other governments and
organizations to share ideas and solutions when it comes to dealing with heat.

On June 7, 2022, Phoenix City Council approved the ARPA Second Tranche Strategic
Plan and allocated $6,000,000 of these funds for the Residential Tree Equity
Accelerator and the Trees and Shade for Schools programs. The Shade for Students
Grant Program will improve the prospects of impacted educational facilities and
address economic and social disparities that have continued and worsened during the
COVID-19 pandemic. This grant program will assist in that effort by providing funding
for shade structures to public school districts, non-profit schools, after-school or
summer program nonprofits, and youth-serving community centers in areas that have
been disproportionately negatively impacted by COVID-19.

To increase the shade canopy in neighborhoods that have been disproportionately
negatively impacted by COVID-19, OHRM is seeking authorization to use $1,500,000
in ARPA funds to develop a Shade for Students Grant Program to provide funding for
shade structure installation to public school districts, non-profit schools, and non-profits


Page 390

with 501(c)(3) status that provide education to youth in Qualified Census Tracts. The
OHRM Built Environment Specialist will facilitate and administer this grant program.
The Shade for Students Grant Program will accept applications on a rolling basis, and
all projects and funding will be spent by the end of December 2024.

Financial Impact
Funding for this program will not exceed $1,500,000. There is no impact to the General
Fund. Funding is available through the City's allocation of the American Rescue Plan
Act (ARPA) from the federal government.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Office of Heat
Response and Mitigation.




Page 391



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Office of Heat Response and Mitigation Canopy for Kids Grant Program
(Ordinance S-49804)

Request authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into multiple
grant agreements with multiple grantees to disburse funds for the Canopy for Kids
Grant Program. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse the funds
related to this item. The aggregate expenditures will not exceed $2,000,000. There is
no impact to the General Fund. Funding is available through the City's allocation of the
American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) from the federal government and is part of the
Residential Tree Equity Accelerator and the Trees and Shade for Schools programs.

Summary
Phoenix’s Office of Heat Response and Mitigation (OHRM) is leading the efforts of the
City to fight the growing hazard of urban heat. OHRM focuses on both heat response
(helping people cope with hot weather) and heat mitigation (including efforts to cool the
city and make it more comfortable through tree planting). During all seasons of the
year, OHRM coordinates programs and policies to help lower urban heat temperatures
and protect public health. OHRM also tracks trends, collects data, and collaborates
with other governments and organizations to share ideas and solutions when it comes
to dealing with heat.

On June 7, 2022, Phoenix City Council approved the ARPA Second Tranche Strategic
Plan and allocated $6,000,000 of these funds for the Residential Tree Equity
Accelerator and the Trees and Shade for Schools programs. The Canopy for Kids
Grant Program will improve the prospects of impacted educational facilities and
address economic and social disparities that have continued and worsened during the
COVID-19 pandemic. This grant program will assist in that effort by providing trees and
supplies to public school districts, non-profit schools, after-school or summer program
nonprofits, and youth-serving community centers in areas that have been
disproportionately negatively impacted by COVID-19.

To increase the tree shade canopy in neighborhoods that have been disproportionately
negatively impacted by COVID-19, OHRM is seeking authorization to use $2,000,000
in ARPA funds to develop a Canopy for Kids Grant Program to provide funding and
supplies for tree planting projects to public school districts, non-profit schools, and non


Page 392

-profits with 501(c)(3) status that provide education to youth in Qualified Census
Tracts. Canopy for Kids Grant Program will also provide funding, services and
education to public school districts, non-profit schools, and non-profits with 501(c)(3)
status who provide education to youth for tree planting projects. The OHRM Tree
Equity Project Coordinator will facilitate and administer this grant program. The
Canopy for Kids Grant Program will accept applications on a rolling basis, and all
projects and funding will be spent by the end of December 2024.

Financial Impact
Funding for this program will not exceed $2,000,000. There is no impact to the General
Fund. Funding is available through the City's allocation of ARPA.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Office of Heat
Response and Mitigation.




Page 393



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Retroactive Authorization to Apply for, Accept and Disburse Grant Funding from
JPMorgan Chase & Co. (Ordinance S-49735)

Request to retroactively authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to apply for and
accept JPMorgan Chase & Co. grant funds totaling $125,000. Further request
authorization to enter into an agreement with the Phoenix Parks Foundation to serve
as the fiscal agent to receive these funds. Additionally, request to authorize the City
Treasurer to accept, and the City Controller to disburse, all funds related to this item
for the life of the grant.

Summary
Since 2013, the City of Phoenix Youth Reach and Invest in Summer Employment
(Phoenix Youth RISE) program has placed more than 902 youth between the ages of
16 to 24 in summer work experiences. The program provides subsidized wages for
youth to work up to 80 hours with an employer during the summer and includes work
readiness training, career exploration and mentorship. For the summer of 2022,
Phoenix Youth RISE placed 180 qualified youth applicants in paid internships due to
increased philanthropic support.

On Feb. 15, 2023, JPMorgan Chase & Co. announced a grant opportunity to partner
with U.S. cities to increase the number of youth who have access to quality summer
work experiences to place youth on a path to greater economic mobility. To be a
recipient of the funds, JPMorgan Chase & Co. requires that a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) be executed with a 501(c)3 nonprofit partner that agrees to
serve as the applicant and fiscal agent for the grant. The Human Services Department
has an executed MOU with Phoenix Parks Foundation to serve as Fiscal Agent.

If awarded, the available grant of $125,000 will support summer work experiences for
up to 75 youth. The cost per youth is approximately $1,656, including the cost of
wages, interest and skill assessments, training, mentoring and supportive services.
The grant application was due on April 10, 2023. If authorization is denied, the grant
application will be rescinded.

Contract Term
The grant period is on or about May 1, 2023, through June 30, 2024.


Page 394


Financial Impact
There is no impact to the General Fund. Funding will be provided by JPMorgan Chase
& Co. No matching funds are required.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Human Services
Department.




Page 395



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Request Authorization to Accept Funding from the Arizona Community Action
Association dba Wildfire to Administer a Diaper Bank Program (Ordinance S-
49746)

Request authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an
agreement with the Arizona Community Action Association dba Wildfire to accept funds
in an amount not to exceed $10,000 to administer a Diaper Bank Program for Phoenix
residents. Further request authorization for the City Treasurer to accept, and the City
Controller to disburse, all funds related to this item. There is no impact to the General
Fund.

Summary
Funds provided to the City of Phoenix through this agreement will be used to
administer the Diaper Bank Program. Administration will include receiving, storing,
distributing, tracking and reporting 869,720 diapers and incontinence supplies for low-
income families. Diapers are not only vital for children's health and well-being, but they
also have substantial financial consequences for parents. Providing resources, such
as diapers, can mitigate challenges caused by scarcity or non-existence of resources,
which includes inconsistent childcare and low-employment rates.

Contract Term
The contract term is six months beginning March 30, 2023, through Sept. 29, 2023,
with a one-year option to extend.

Financial Impact
Funds are being provided from a federal grant awarded to the Diaper Bank of
Southern Arizona, Inc. There is no impact to the General Fund.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Human Services
Department.




Page 396



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Request Retroactive Authorization to Apply for and Accept Lifelong Arts and
Engagement Grant (Ordinance S-49747)

Request retroactive authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to apply for
a Lifelong Arts Engagement Grant in an amount not to exceed $7,500 and, if
approved, accept funding from the Arizona Commission on the Arts. Further request
to authorize the City Treasurer to accept, and for the City Controller to disburse, all
funds related to this item. There is no impact to the General Fund.

Summary
The Arizona Commission on the Arts Lifelong Arts Engagement Grant seeks to
enhance the work of community and social service organizations and governmental
entities through projects that foster meaningful arts learning experiences in
community settings for adult learners. Lifelong Arts Engagement grants encompass
a Creative Aging component intended to use arts and creative expression to
improve the quality of life for older adults. The project, "Across the City," will
encourage senior center members to partner with a professional artist/instructor in
creating a reflective mural with contributions from members at all 15 senior centers.
This program aligns with improving the quality of life for seniors through holistic and
coordinated activities.

The grant notification was issued in mid-January with an application due date of
April 6, 2023. The delay in applying for the grant was due to negotiations with the
contracted artist who will provide the services.

Contract Term
The grant period is July 1, 2023, through June 30, 2024.

Financial Impact
If approved, funding in an amount of $7,500 will be provided by the Arizona
Commission on the Arts. No matching funds are required. There is no impact to the
General Fund.




Page 397

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Human
Services Department.




Page 398



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Request to Amend Contract with the Arizona Department of Economic Security
to Accept Additional Emergency Rent and Utility Assistance Funding (Ordinance
S-49748)

Request authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to amend Contract
152615 with the Arizona Department of Economic Security (ADES), Division of
Community Assistance and Development. The current ADES contract threshold is
$47,857,600 for Community Action Agency services. A total amount of $45,370,297.78
has been received during the first three years of the five-year contract. This request is
to increase the contract amount by $20,629,702.22 for an amount not to exceed
$66,000,000 over the five-year term. Further request authorization for the City
Treasurer to accept, and the City Controller to disburse, all funds related to this item
for the life of the contract.

Summary
The City of Phoenix Human Services Department (HSD) is the designated Community
Action Agency for the Phoenix service area and contracts with ADES for funding to
deliver Community Action Agency services. Under this contract, HSD is directed to
promote the participation of the entire community in the reduction or elimination of
poverty.

Community Action Agency funding allows HSD to assist low-income individuals and
families in removing obstacles and resolving barriers to self-sufficiency. Funding
supports new and existing services for low-income individuals and families to secure
and retain employment and/or education, housing navigation, emergency rent and
utility assistance, and provide ongoing supportive services through case management
and community coordination.

Funding consists of both federal and local funds to include Community Services Block
Grant, Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families, Social Services Block Grant and Neighbors Helping Neighbors.
Funding levels may be adjusted throughout the contract period through amendments
based on federal and state program appropriations.




Page 399

Financial Impact
The funding for the first year of the contract was $17,260,144.81, the second year was
$20,021,680.97, and third year was $8,088,472. The total amount of the contract will
not exceed $66,000,000 over the life of the contract. There is no impact to the General
Fund.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Human Services
Department.




Page 400



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Preventative Health Medical Equipment and Supplies - IFB-22-EDU-74
(Ordinance S-49782)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into contracts with e3
Diagnostics, Inc., School Health Corporation, and Touchdown Sportswear &
Promotions LLC to provide preventative health medical equipment and supplies to the
Health and Wellness Center. The aggregate value of all contracts will not exceed
$1,256,000. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item.

Head Start programs prepare America’s most vulnerable young children to succeed in
school and in life beyond school. To achieve this, Head Start programs deliver services
to children and families in core areas of early learning, family well-being and health
while engaging parents as partners every step of the way. The program has an
ongoing need to provide medical screenings to children enrolled in the program to
meet the “Child Health Status and Care” Performance Standards outlined by the Office
of Head Start.

The Phoenix Fire Department Health & Wellness Center performs annual hearing tests
on public safety firefighters and police officers as part of their National Fire Protection
Agency and OSHA required physical exams. This testing requires calibration,
maintenance and repair of audiometer testing equipment to ensure equipment is
working properly and safely.

Procurement Information
Invitation for Bid IFB-22-EDU-74 was conducted in accordance with City of Phoenix
Administrative Regulation 3.10.

Five bids were received on April 7, 2023. Three were deemed responsive and
responsible to the solicitation requirements. The procurement officer evaluated the
offers using a pass/fail evaluation matrix under the following criteria:

· Company history and relevant background.



Page 401

· Products offered.
· Fee Schedule.
· Reference checks with positive results.
· No active exclusions found on the System for Award Management database.
· In good standing with the Arizona Corporation Commission.

The following offerors met all solicitation criteria and are recommended for award:

· e3 Diagnostics, Inc.
· School Health Corporation
· Touchdown Sportswear & Promotions LLC

Contract Term
The term for the contracts will begin on or about June 1, 2023, for a five-year term with
no options to extend.

Financial Impact
Expenditures shall not exceed $1,256,000 over the life of all contracts. Funding for
Head Start is available from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Administration of Children, Youth and Families. Funding for the Fire Department is
available from the Fire Health and Wellness Center. No additional General Funds are
required.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
On Jan. 9, 2023, the Head Start Birth to Five Policy Council approved the request to
release Preventative Health Medical Equipment and Supplies Invitation for Bid.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays, Deputy City Manager Gina
Montes, and the Human Services and Fire departments.




Page 402



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Authorization to Amend Contract with Community Bridges, Inc. for Phoenix
Starfish Place for Victims of Human Trafficking (Ordinance S-49783)

Authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to amend Contract 145543 with
Community Bridges, Inc. (CBI) to extend the term for an additional year from July 1,
2023, through June 30, 2024, and approve funding for this vendor to continue to
provide contracted services through the extended term. The additional funding will not
exceed $150,000. Further request authorization for the City Controller to disburse all
funds related to this item for the life of the contract. Funds are available through the
City's federal Community Development Block Grant allocation from the United States
Department of Housing and Urban Development. There is no impact to the General
Fund.

Summary
The Human Services Department (HSD) is requesting authorization to extend the
contract for one year outlined herein and conduct a Request for Proposals (RFP) for
victims of human trafficking at Phoenix Starfish Place during the summer of 2023. The
RFP process can take from six months to a year, depending on the complexity of the
services needed. This extension would provide HSD staff sufficient time to conduct the
procurement process.

The City’s current contract with CBI provides for support services to assist Phoenix
Starfish Place residents in achieving independence in a healing environment. The
contract supports professional, on-site staff who provide trauma-informed case
management services to support residents in housing stabilization and independent
living skills.

Contract Term
The extended contract term will be July 1, 2023, through June 30, 2024.

Financial Impact
Expenditures will not exceed $150,000 during the extension period of the contract.
Funds are available from the Community Development Block Grant. There is no
impact to the General Fund.



Page 403

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
· On Dec. 6, 2016, the release of an RFP was approved by the Sustainability,
Housing, Efficiency and Neighborhoods Subcommittee by a vote of 4-0.
· On May 31, 2017, City Council authorized staff to contract with CBI for victims of
human trafficking at Phoenix Starfish Place (Ordinance S-43586).
· On Feb. 16, 2022, City Council authorized a contract extension for CBI through
June 30, 2023 (Ordinance S-48338).

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Human Services
Department.




Page 404



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Authorization to Amend Contract with Arizona Coalition to End Sexual and
Domestic Violence (Ordinance S-49784)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to amend Contract 147434
with Arizona Coalition to End Sexual and Domestic Violence (ACESDV) to extend the
term for an additional year from July 1, 2023, through June 30, 2024, and approve
funding for this vendor to continue to provide contracted services through the extended
term. Expenditures will not exceed $200,000 during the one-year extension period.
Further request authorization for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this
item for the life of the contract.

Summary
The purpose of this contract is to provide victim services to include oversight,
coordination and operation of a 24-hour centralized screening hotline and placement
services for emergency shelter or housing vouchers. This is geared toward individuals
and families experiencing domestic violence, sexual violence and sex trafficking in
Maricopa County. The goal will be to assist individuals and families in need to be
placed in shelter and provide individuals and families with services that are an
alternative to shelter.

The Human Services Department (HSD) is requesting authorization to extend the
contract for one year outlined herein and conduct an procurement process for similar
services for victims of sexual and domestic violence during the summer of 2023. The
Request for Proposals process can take from six months to a year, depending on the
complexity of the services needed. This extension would provide HSD staff sufficient
time to conduct the procurement process.

Contract Term
The extended contract term will be July 1, 2023, through June 30, 2024.

Financial Impact
Expenditures are not to exceed $200,000 during the extension period of the contract.
Funds are available from the Human Services Department budget.




Page 405

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
· On May 2, 2018, City Council approved the initial contract for ACESDV with
Ordinance S-44540.
· On Nov. 4, 2020, City Council authorized a contract extension for ACESDV through
June 30, 2022, with Ordinance S-47035.
· On Feb. 16, 2022, City Council authorized a contract extension for ACESDV
through June 30, 2023, with Ordinance S-48335.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Human Services
Department.




Page 406



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Request Authorization to Enter into Contract with MV Transportation, Inc. for
Senior Programs Alternative Transportation Services (Ordinance S-49785)

Request authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into contract with
MV Transportation Inc. to provide Alternative Transportation Services for the Human
Services Department (HSD). Expenditures are not to exceed $4,912,151 over the life
of the contract. Further request authorization for the City Controller to disburse all
funds related to this item.

Summary
Senior center transportation programs offered through HSD include Senior Center
Shuttle and Group Trip services. Eligible participants include older adults, seniors, and
persons with disabilities who utilize mobility devices and wheelchairs to engage in
senior center activities.

The goal of this program is to provide transportation for Phoenix residents who are
registered members at one of 15 City of Phoenix HSD Senior Centers. Transportation
is provided between a member's personal residence and the nearest senior center
location, as determined by HSD. The program also provides transportation for group
trips to and from designated off-site activities such as shopping, social, educational
and recreational events.

Procurement Information
Request for Proposals, RFP-23-CSSD-74, was conducted in accordance with the City
of Phoenix Administrative Regulation 3.10. HSD received two offers on March 30,
2023. One vendor was determined non-responsive to the solicitation and removed
from award consideration. The remaining vendor was determined responsive and in
alignment with solicitation requirements.

An Evaluation Committee evaluated the proposal based on established evaluation
criteria, responsiveness to all of the specifications, terms and conditions, and
responsibility to provide the required service. Evaluation Criteria was as follows:

Criteria and Possible Points
· Introduction - 50 possible points


Page 407

· Experience and Past Performance - 300 possible points
· Management Structure and Personnel - 200 possible points
· Understanding of the Scope of Work - 300 possible points
· Overall Cost - 150 possible points

The Evaluation Committee reached consensus and recommends MV Transportation,
Inc. for contract award, with an overall score of 1,000 points.

Contract Term
The term of the contract will begin on or about July 1, 2023, and end June 30, 2028,
with no options to extend.

Financial Impact
Expenditures are not to exceed $4,912,151 over the life of the contract. Funds are
available through the HSD budget.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Human Services
Department.




Page 408



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Agreement with Fireworks Productions of Arizona (Ordinance S-49799)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to grant an exception
pursuant to Phoenix City Code 42-18 authorizing indemnification or assumption of
liability provisions that otherwise would be prohibited for the agreement with
Fireworks Productions of Arizona.

Summary
On April 19, 2023, City Council authorized the Parks and Recreation Department to
enter into contracts with multiple vendors to provide fireworks display services and
event activities in 2023, for the Parks and Recreation Department. The contract with
Fireworks Productions of Arizona for the Phoenix Fabulous Fourth event contains
indemnification and assumption of liability provisions that otherwise would be
prohibited by Phoenix City Code 42-18. This authorization allows for mutual
indemnification.

Financial Impact
There is no additional funding requested.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
Ordinance S-49629 was adopted by City Council on Apr. 19, 2023.

Location
Council Districts: 4

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Parks and
Recreation Department.




Page 409



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Authorization to Enter Agreement with Apple, Inc. for Placement of Innovative
Mobile App on Apple App Store as Exception to Provisions of City Code 42-18;
Authorization to Enter Related Indemnity Agreement with App Developer Solus
UK LTD (Ordinance S-49780)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into agreement with
Apple, Inc. for placement of the Innovative Mobile App ("App") on Apple App Store,
including limitation of liability and indemnity language that would be disallowed under
City Code 42-18 absent a waiver under City Code section 42-20. The value of the
agreement will not exceed $1,000. Further request to authorize the City Manager, or
his designee, to enter a related indemnity agreement with the App's developer, Solus
UK LTD ("Solus") to protect the City from potential liabilities arising under the
agreement with Apple, Inc. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse
all funds related to this item.

Summary
The Phoenix Public Library has contracted with Innovative Interfaces, Inc. (City
Contract 149073) for configuration and development of the mobile app that would
allow Library patrons the ability to store their library card within the application, access
to the library materials catalog, an ISBN/barcode scan search feature, mapping to the
nearest library, over 20 language options, and the ability to link parent and child library
accounts. Innovative Interfaces used a subcontractor, Solus, for development if the
App. In order to make the App available to Library patrons via the Apple App Store, the
City must enter an agreement with Apple, Inc. which contains limitation of liability and
indemnity provisions that are disallowed under City Code section 42-18 absent a
waiver from City Council under City Code 42-20. Solus has agreed to indemnify the
City against certain representations in the Apple, Inc. agreement relating to permission
to publish the App and the App's technical performance.

Contract Term
The term of the agreement with Apple, Inc. will terminate concurrently with City
Contract 149073.

Financial Impact
The value of the agreement with Apple, Inc. will be less than $1,000. Funding is


Page 410

available in the Library Department’s budget. There is no financial impact associated
with the Solus indemnity agreement.

Concurrence/Previous Council
45244.

and two one-year extension options on Feb. 6, 2019 via Ordinance S-45370.

On Jan. 26, 2022, Council authorized amendment one and two to the contract via
Ordinance S-48281.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Library
Department.




Page 411



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Annual Review and Updates to the Neighborhood Services Department's Code
Enforcement Policy

Request City Council approval of changes to the Neighborhood Services Department's
(NSD) Code Enforcement Policy (CEP), based on the annual review.

Summary
The CEP provides guidelines for enforcement of the Neighborhood Preservation
Ordinance, Zoning Ordinance, and portions of other city codes/ordinances enforced by
NSD. Each year, staff present a review of the policy with any recommended updates to
the City Council, as stated in the policy, which was last updated June 15, 2022.

The CEP is comprised of five sections. Sections I through III of the CEP establish the
purpose of standard code enforcement and the notification and enforcement options
available to inspection staff; define recidivist person/properties and the possible
consequences for repeat offenders; and describe the inspection and enforcement
protocols for resident complaints, with exceptions for proactive code enforcement in
the immediate area of a complaint and in strategic initiative areas. Section IV includes
information encouraging the use of hardship assistance programs for low- and
moderate-income households where funding is available. Section V provides guidance
for NSD to work cooperatively with other departments and agencies to resolve
complex and hazardous cases.

In March 2023, staff provided a presentation to the Community and Cultural
Investment Subcommittee on the required annual review of the CEP. The presentation
included the following possible updates identified by staff, City Council and the
community to clarify and clean up current language and propose additional language
to allow deviations from the standard enforcement process to address specific
violations:

· Additional language addressing hardships related to homelessness and
modification of the enforcement process to include increased communication about
available resources to support compliance.
· Clarification of exceptions regarding health, safety, episodic and egregious



Page 412

violations.
· Additional language about enforcement limitations in private communities.
· Simplification of the pre-notification requirement regarding confusing recidivist
language more appropriately provided in the Notices of Ordinance Violation (NOV).
· Revision of the definition of recidivist to 12 months to be consistent with NSD's
strategic enforcement process.

During the presentation, a member of the subcommittee also recommended NSD
include a statement of intent in the policy.

Public Outreach
Following the Subcommittee presentation, NSD held three community outreach
meetings: two virtual and one in-person. Outreach included social media (FaceBook,
Twitter, Next Door, NSD Internet website), Neighborhood Associations listed with the
Department, Arizona Multihousing Association and Arizona Association of Realtors.
Approximately 56 residents attended the meetings and provided feedback on the
proposed changes. Overall, staff received positive feedback and support for the
proposed changes, with one resident expressing concern about the proposed
language addressing hardships related to homelessness. Additionally, the community
provided input specific to short term rental properties and the length of time for NOVs.
Based on the feedback, staff added the following recommended changes:

· Statement of Intent.
· Language to address Short Term Rentals as part of the episodic violations.
· Standard timelines for NOV re-inspections, which are part of NSD's existing
standard code enforcement practice.

All staff recommended updates to the CEP are highlighted in Attachment B, with the
current CEP provided as Attachment A for reference.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
On May 3, 2023, the Community and Cultural Investment Subcommittee unanimously
recommended City Council approval of the CEP updates by a vote of 4-0.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Neighborhood
Services Department.




Page 413
ATTACHMENT A
Code Enforcement Policy (effective June 15, 2022)




NEIGHBORHOOD
SERVICES
DEPARTMENT


CODE
ENFORCEMENT
POLICY
The Code Enforcement Policy,
adopted by the Phoenix City Council,
provides guidelines for enforcement of
the Neighborhood Preservation
Ordinance, Zoning Ordinance and
portions of other codes and
ordinances.



Effective June 15, 2022



Page 414
Attachment A – Code Enforcement Policy (effective June 15, 2022)




Neighborhood Services Department Mission
To Preserve, Enhance and Engage Phoenix Neighborhoods




Contact Us

Report a code violation:
phoenix.gov/myPHX311
(602) 534-4444

Check the status of a code enforcement case:
nsdonline.phoenix.gov/CodeEnforcement
(602) 534-4444

For information about the Neighborhood
Preservation Code Compliance program:
phoenix.gov/nsd/programs/compliance




For a copy of this publication in an alternate format or for reasonable accommodations contact:
Neighborhood Services Department ADA Liaison,
200 W. Washington St., Phoenix, AZ 85003.
Voice (602) 534-4444. TTY 711.
Esta información está disponible en español.

Effective June 15, 2022




Page 415
Code Enforcement Policy

I. Standard Code Enforcement

A. Purpose
It is the intent of the city of Phoenix to promote the health, safety, and welfare of the
residents of Phoenix, Arizona. Part of this responsibility includes protecting
neighborhoods from blighting and deteriorating conditions that have a negative
impact on area property values and encourage social disorder and crime. This is
achieved through ordinances and by establishing a policy to guide enforcement of
the ordinances.

B. Standard Enforcement Policy
physical environment of their neighborhoods through standards set in local ordinances.
To assist in this endeavor, the following code enforcement policy has been established
to guide the city in addressing properties with code violations.

The following actions will be taken on properties where there has been no case history
or history of violations and/or previous enforcement action:

1. Inspection/Pre-notification
When a property complaint is received, the city will respond in the
following manner:
a. Immediate Inspections
If the alleged violation concerns a potential health or safety hazard to the
neighborhood or neighbors, inclusive of open/vacant buildings, fire and/or
health hazards, unsecured pools or other health and safety hazards, the city
will respond with an immediate inspection.

b. Pre-Notification Letter
If the alleged violation is not a potential health or safety hazard, if the property
is occupied and if a mailing address is available, the city will issue a pre-
notification letter to the owner/responsible parties notifying them that specific
complaints have been received and that an inspection will be conducted
within 10 days.

Included with the pre-notification letter will be an explanation that
recidivists will receive only one official notice of ordinance violation for a
violation and that future offenses of city ordinances may result in legal
action without issuance of further notices of ordinance violation.
Information on the most common blighting violations will also be included
with the pre-notification letter.

2. Formal Notice of Ordinance Violation (NOV)
Except in cases involving health and safety violations, cases with previous
history of code violations, violations of a transient nature such as commercial
business violations, home occupation violations and violations involving
vendors, the responsible party or parties will be officially notified that a
violation has been discovered through an inspection and will be advised of
specific corrective action required. They will also be advised through this
process of what further action




Effective June 15, 2022 Page 1
Page 416
Code Enforcement Policy

will be taken by the city if they do not comply. In addition, owners/responsible
parties will be advised of available appropriate assistance as enumerated in
Section IV.B. of this policy.

Also included with the NOV to owners/responsible parties who have not
previously received the information with a pre-notification letter will be an
explanation that recidivists will receive only one official notice of ordinance
violation for a violation and that future offenses of city ordinances may result
in legal action without issuance of further notices of ordinance violation.
Information on the most common blighting violations will also be included
with the NOV.

3. Civil Citation
Owners/responsible parties who fail to comply will be subject to the issuance
of a civil citation that will be adjudicated by a hearing officer/judge. In the case
of properties that are not owner occupied the following general guidelines will
apply:
• In general, tenants/occupants will be held responsible for items
concerning routine maintenance and for personal property items.
• In situations where tenants/occupants have failed to fulfill their
responsibility for compliance with city ordinances, owners/responsible
parties may also be held accountable.
• In cases involving unoccupied properties, owners/ responsible parties will
be held accountable for all property conditions.

4. Criminal Complaint
Failure to comply with any of the preceding actions will be cause to proceed
with a criminal complaint.

5. City Abatement
The city, at its own discretion, may choose to directly abate and assess
(lien) for any and all violations that remain in non-compliance with city
ordinances or regulations.

II. Recidivists Persons/Properties

A. Purpose
The recidivist process is designed to provide relief via an expedited enforcement
process for neighborhoods experiencing problems with residents who repeatedly
violate city ordinances and who have demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to
remain a good neighbor by maintaining their property.

B. Definition
A recidivist case is a newly opened case on a property involving the same
responsible party for the same violation or any of the common blight violations as
specified in Section III (B) (4) (a), where within the last 24 months, the responsible
party has been issued a Notice of Ordinance Violation and/or civil citation, and/or had
criminal charges filed for, and/or contractual abatement initiated.




Effective June 15, 2022 Page 2
Page 417
Code Enforcement Policy


A chronic recidivist case is a case on a property where within the last 24 months the
property has had unresolved notice(s) of violation of the City codes for six months
or more, excluding time for administrative appeals or hardship assistance
processes. A chronic recidivist designation shall apply until the property has
remained in compliance for past violation(s) and any of the common blight
violations, as specified in Section III
(B) (4) (a) for a period of 90 days following the date the prior case was closed.

If unusual or mitigating circumstances warrant, the City Manager or designee may
exempt a responsible party from the recidivist designation. In such cases, the City
Manager or designee will seek input from the complainant, neighborhood
associations or block watches in the area, area residents or other staff, as
appropriate, to assist in making a determination.

C. Notification Policy
Cases with violation which have been determined to be recidivist or chronic recidivist will not be
issued a pre-notification letter or standard NOV, and will proceed immediately to one of the
following code enforcement actions based on the unique facts of the case:
• issue a NOV requiring the abatement of the violations
• issue a civil citation
• issue a criminal summons

III. Inspection/Enforcement

A. Purpose
The Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance, Zoning Ordinance and other ordinances
and codes enforced by the Neighborhood Services Department are enforced on a
complaint basis. This is designed to encourage resident, neighborhood association,
block watch or other city department participation in the enforcement process. The
graffiti supplies non- access regulations (Section 39-10 D) of the Neighborhood
Preservation Ordinance and mobile vending regulations are enforced proactively.

Anonymous complaints will be accepted with the following exceptions: illegal
commercial business complaints; when past complaints for the same alleged violation
on the same property have been found to be invalid on three or more occasions; and
in situations when a street address is not provided. Complaints in these categories
will require that the complainant provide a name and contact phone number.

B. Exceptions
Exceptions to the complaint-based enforcement policy are as follows:

1. Active Neighborhood Fight Back Areas
The Neighborhood Fight Back Program is a resident mobilization effort that
provides a temporary increase in city services to assist in community
revitalization efforts. The increased services are targeted to reduce crime,
eliminate, or prevent blight and help restore or stabilize neighborhoods.
Deviation from the complaint-




Effective June 15, 2022 Page 3
Page 418
Code Enforcement Policy

based enforcement process will take place at the request of, and with the
active support and cooperation of, area residents.

2. Neighborhood Initiative Areas
Combined with the city's long-standing commitment to improve distressed
areas, the Neighborhood Services Department is focusing resources for
concentrated and comprehensive revitalization in five Neighborhood Initiative
Areas. The concept is to concentrate resources, complete revitalization, then
move to other areas of need. The neighborhoods identified and selected
require a comprehensive approach for restoration and revitalization. Staff
works with residents so that success can be defined, and a strategy
developed to achieve it.
These and future designated NIAs will allow for non-complaint-based
inspections and enforcement.

3. Redevelopment Areas, Neighborhood Revitalization Areas or other Target
Areas the Neighborhood Services Department works with resident advisory
committees and neighborhood organizations in the city's designated
Redevelopment Areas and other Target Areas to eliminate blight and to
promote residential and commercial redevelopment and revitalization. In
order to support and complement redevelopment and revitalization efforts
within the designated redevelopment and Target Areas, systematic and non-
complaint-based code enforcement may be required.

At the request of Phoenix City Council members, certain Neighborhood
Revitalization Areas are designated by the Neighborhood Services
Department for neighborhood organization and revitalization activities.
Based upon the request of, and in partnership with, the neighborhood
organization, non- complaint-based code enforcement may be
implemented in these areas.

4. Properties in the Immediate Area which are an Obvious Detriment
or Blight
When an initial inspection is conducted, based on a complaint, the inspector may:

a. Expand upon the initial complaint on the same property and determine
whether violations exist on the following items identified by City
Council:
• High weeds/grass or dead/dry bushes, trees, weeds and/or other
vegetation
• Inoperable vehicles
• Junk, litter and/or debris
• Open/vacant buildings and structures
• Outside storage
• Fences in disrepair
• Vehicles parked on non-dustproofed surfaces or in non-permitted
areas of residential front or side yards
• Graffiti



Effective June 15, 2022 Page 4
Page 419
Code Enforcement Policy

b. Inspect additional properties in the immediate area of the initial
reported violation; and
c. Limit the inspection to those items, which appeared as violations on the
initial property on which the complaint was received; and the items listed in
III (B)(4)(a).
d. Initiate appropriate enforcement action.

5. Environmental, Imminent Hazard and/or Fire Safety Conditions
In order to maintain and protect neighborhoods from imminent hazards,
environmental hazards, fire hazards and other types of similar conditions
that may immediately endanger or place residents in peril, the city will
summarily inspect/abate any and all conditions which are discovered
without benefit of complaint.

6. Seamless Service Efforts
The Neighborhood Services Department may be called upon by other
departments or governmental agencies to partner on issues of community
concern in areas outside of the city’s designated Target Areas. It is the
department’s goal to provide seamless and coordinated service in such
circumstances to facilitate the resolution of an identified community problem.
In order to support and complement these interagency/interdepartmental
efforts, systematic and non-complaint-based code enforcement may be
implemented with the approval of the City Manager or designee.

7. City-designated Slum Properties
In an effort to comprehensively and effectively address multiple violations at
city- designated slum properties, the Neighborhood Services Department may
implement non-complaint-based code enforcement.

8. Recidivist/Chronic Recidivist Properties
To address frequently recurring violations on recidivist properties, the
Neighborhood Services Department may initiate non-complaint-based
inspections/ code enforcement on recidivist properties after case resolution to
check for a recurrence of the same violation(s) and/or any of the common
blight violations as identified in Section III. (B) (4) (a).

To assure lasting compliance on chronic recidivist properties, the Neighborhood
Services Department shall initiate non-complaint based exterior inspections/
code enforcement on designated chronic recidivist properties after case
resolution, to check for a recurrence of the same violation(s) and/or any of the
common blight violations as identified in Section III. B. (4) (a).

IV. Hardship Assistance

A. Purpose
It is the intent of the city to provide assistance to all low- and moderate-income
households that are eligible for financial assistance. Assistance will be provided in
the




Effective June 15, 2022 Page 5
Page 420
Code Enforcement Policy

form of information, referral, counseling, the provision of volunteer labor and/or
the provision of direct financial assistance.

B. Available Resources
Based upon funding availability and in some cases participant eligibility the
Neighborhood Services Department will provide or coordinate the following types
of assistance:
Information
Housing, financial, landlord/tenant counseling
Referral to public, private, or nonprofit sources of
assistance Tool lending
Volunteer labor assistance
Graffiti abatement supplies and assistance
Financial assistance to bring violations into compliance
Housing rehabilitation/reconstruction (limited geographic areas only)

V. Interdepartmental/Interagency Cooperation

A. Purpose
The Neighborhood Services Department will cooperate with other departments
and agencies when appropriate to further the mutual goals of nuisance
abatement and neighborhood maintenance for the benefit of the entire
community.

B. Cooperation From Other Departments
Upon the request of the director or designee, the Police Department and any
other department of the city will assist and cooperate with the director in the
performance of duties related to the enforcement of ordinances. This
cooperation may include assistance in enforcement or abatement actions,
including removal of persons from buildings or structures to be demolished.

C. Hazardous Conditions
The city manager or designee may order immediate abatement of a hazard
without notice. The Neighborhood Services Department may also request official
concurrence from other departments as to whether immediate abatement action
is necessary. These departments or agencies include, but are not limited to,
Police, Fire, Public Works, Development Services, and the Maricopa County
Environmental Services departments.

VI. Annual Review by City Council
This Code Enforcement Policy will be reviewed and evaluated annually by the City
Council.




Effective June 15, 2022 Page 6
Page 421
ATTACHMENT B
Proposed Revised Policy




NEIGHBORHOOD
SERVICES
DEPARTMENT


CODE
ENFORCEMENT
POLICY
The Code Enforcement Policy,
adopted by the Phoenix City
Council, provides guidelines for
enforcement of the Neighborhood
Preservation Ordinance, Zoning
Ordinance and portions of other
codes and ordinances.




Effective May 31, 2023
Page 422
Code Enforcement Policy




Effective May 31, 2023 2


Page 423
Neighborhood Services Department Mission
To Preserve, Enhance and Engage Phoenix Neighborhoods




Contact Us

Report a code violation:
phoenix.gov/myPHX311
(602) 534-4444




Check the status of a code enforcement case:
nsdonline.phoenix.gov/CodeEnforcement
(602) 534-4444



For information about the Neighborhood
Preservation Code Compliance program:
phoenix.gov/nsd/programs/compliance




For a copy of this publication in an alternate format or for reasonable accommodations contact:
Neighborhood Services Department ADA Liaison,
200 W. Washington St., Phoenix, AZ 85003. Voice (602) 534-4444. TTY 711.
Esta información está disponible en español.




Effective May 31, 2023
Page 424
Code Enforcement Policy


Statement of Intent
The Code Enforcement Policy is to be used to guide the efforts of the Neighborhood Services
Department to address violations of the City Code. To achieve compliance, it is the intent of the
department to lead with education, provide resources when hardships exist, and enforce when
necessary. Code enforcement is intended to be used to foster partnership with residents to support
the overall health, safety, and welfare of the City, and to protect neighborhoods against hazardous,
blighting, and deteriorating influences or conditions. Neighborhood Preservation Inspectors provide
excellent customer service and will operate with fairness, integrity, transparency, and consistent
professionalism while working to meet the department’s intent.


I. Standard Code Enforcement
A. Purpose
It is the intent of the city of Phoenix to promote the health, safety, and welfare of
the residents of Phoenix, Arizona. Part of this responsibility includes protecting
neighborhoods from blighting and deteriorating conditions that have a negative
impact on area property values and encourage social disorder and crime. This is
achieved through ordinances and by establishing a policy to guide enforcement of
the ordinances.

B. Standard Enforcement Policy
maintain the physical environment of their neighborhoods through standards set in
local ordinances. To assist in this endeavor, the following code enforcement policy
has been established to guide the city in addressing properties with code
violations.

The following actions will be taken on properties where there has been no case history or
history of violations and/or previous enforcement action:

1. Inspection/Pre-notification

When a property complaint is received, the city will respond in the following
manner:

a. Immediate Inspections
If the alleged violation concerns a potential health or safety hazard to the
neighborhood or neighbors, inclusive of open/vacant buildings, fire and/or
health hazards, unsecured pools or other health and safety hazards, the city
will respond with an immediate inspection.

b. Pre-Notification Letter
If the alleged violation is not a potential health or safety hazard, if the property
is occupied and if a mailing address is available, the city will issue a pre-
notification letter to the owner/responsible parties notifying them that specific
complaints have been received and that an inspection will be conducted within
Effective May 31, 2023 2


Page 425
Code Enforcement Policy


ten days. Information on the most common blighting violations will also be
included with the pre-notification letter.

2. Formal Notice of Ordinance Violation (NOV)

Except in cases involving health and safety violations, cases with previous
history of code violations, violations of a transient nature such as commercial
business violations, home occupation violations and violations involving
vendors, the responsible party or parties will be officially notified that a
violation has been discovered through an inspection and will be advised of
specific corrective action required. They will also be advised through this
process of what further action will be taken by the city if they do not comply. In
addition, owners/responsible parties will be advised of available appropriate
assistance as enumerated in Section IV.B. of this policy.

a. Timelines for NOV Reinspection
i. Standard – 15 days (minor violations)
ii. Standard – 35 days (significant cost to correct)
iii. Abatement – 35 days
iv. Hazard – 0 to 24 hours
v. Graffiti – 10 days
vi. Rental Registration – 10 days
vii. Illegal Signs - 5 days
viii. Mobile Vending – 0 to 15 days

The NOV will include an explanation that recidivists will receive only one
official notice for a violation and that future offenses of city ordinances may
result in legal action without issuance of further notices of ordinance violation.
Information on the most common blighting violations will also be included with
the NOV.

3. Civil Citation

Owners/responsible parties who fail to comply will be subject to the issuance
of a civil citation that will be adjudicated by a hearing officer/judge. In the case
of properties that are not owner occupied the following general guidelines will
apply:

• In general, tenants/occupants will be held responsible for items concerning
routine maintenance and for personal property items.
• In situations where tenants/occupants have failed to fulfill their responsibility for
compliance with city ordinances, owners/responsible parties may also be held
accountable.
• In cases involving unoccupied properties, owners/ responsible parties will be
held accountable for all property conditions.



Effective May 31, 2023 3


Page 426
Code Enforcement Policy


4. Criminal Complaint

Failure to comply with any of the preceding actions will be cause to proceed
with a criminal complaint.

5. City Abatement

The city, at its own discretion, may choose to directly abate and assess
(lien) for any and all violations that remain in non-compliance with city
ordinances or regulations.

6. Exceptions

Exceptions to the standard code enforcement policy are as follows:

Episodic Violations

a. An episodic violation is one that occurs intermittently, including violations
at Short Term Rentals. To effectively address episodic violations in an
expediated manner, the Neighborhood Services Department will deviate
from the standard enforcement process and proceed to an immediate
citation.


II. Recidivists Persons/Properties and Egregious Violations

A. Purpose
The recidivist process is designed to provide relief via an expedited enforcement
process for neighborhoods experiencing problems with residents who repeatedly
violate city ordinances and who have demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to
remain a good neighbor by maintaining their property.

B. Definition
A recidivist case is a newly opened case on a property involving the same responsible
party for the same violation or any of the common blight violations as specified in Section
III (B) (4) (a), where within the last 12 months, the responsible party has been issued a
Notice of Ordinance Violation and/or civil citation, and/or had criminal charges filed for,
and/or contractual abatement initiated.

An egregious violation is when the condition or state of a property is in an extreme
state of violation, which could present health and safety issues, or is beyond the
reasonable scenario where the owner may not be aware there is a violation.

If unusual or mitigating circumstances warrant, the City Manager or designee exempt
a responsible party from the recidivist designation. In such cases, the City Manager or
designee will seek input from the complainant, neighborhood associations or block


Effective May 31, 2023 4


Page 427
Code Enforcement Policy


watches in the area, area residents or other staff, as appropriate, to assist in making a
determination.

C. Notification Policy
Cases with violation which have been determined to be recidivist or chronic recidivist
will not be issued a pre-notification letter or standard NOV, and will proceed
immediately to one of the following code enforcement actions based on the unique
facts of the case:

• issue a NOV requiring the abatement of the violations
• issue a civil citation
• issue a criminal summons


III. Inspection/Enforcement

A. Purpose
The Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance, Zoning Ordinance and other ordinances
and codes enforced by the Neighborhood Services Department are enforced on a
complaint basis. This is designed to encourage resident, neighborhood association,
block watch or other city department participation in the enforcement process. The
graffiti supplies non- access regulations (Section 39-10 D) of the Neighborhood
Preservation Ordinance and mobile vending regulations are enforced proactively.

Anonymous complaints will be accepted with the following exceptions: illegal
commercial business complaints; when past complaints for the same alleged violation
on the same property have been found to be invalid on three or more occasions; and
in situations when a street address is not provided. Complaints in these categories will
require that the complainant provide a name and contact phone number.

B. Exceptions

Exceptions to the complaint-based enforcement policy are as follows:

1. Active Neighborhood Fight Back Areas

The Neighborhood Fight Back Program is a resident mobilization effort that
provides a temporary increase in city services to assist in community
revitalization efforts. The increased services are targeted to reduce crime,
eliminate, or prevent blight and help restore or stabilize neighborhoods.

Deviation from the complaint-based enforcement process will take place at the
request of, and with the active support and cooperation of, area residents.




Effective May 31, 2023 5


Page 428
Code Enforcement Policy


2. Neighborhood Initiative Areas

Combined with the city's long-standing commitment to improve distressed
areas, the Neighborhood Services Department is focusing resources for
concentrated and comprehensive revitalization in five Neighborhood Initiative
Areas. The concept is to concentrate resources, complete revitalization, then
move to other areas of need. The neighborhoods identified and selected
require a comprehensive approach for restoration and revitalization. Staff
works with residents so that success can be defined, and a strategy developed
to achieve it.

These and future designated NIAs will allow for non-complaint-based
inspections and enforcement.

3. Redevelopment Areas, Neighborhood Revitalization Areas, or other Target
Areas

The Neighborhood Services Department works with resident advisory
committees and neighborhood organizations in the city's designated
Redevelopment Areas and other Target Areas to eliminate blight and to
promote residential and commercial redevelopment and revitalization. In order
to support and complement redevelopment and revitalization efforts within the
designated redevelopment and Target Areas, systematic and non-complaint-
based code enforcement may be required.

At the request of Phoenix City Council members, certain Neighborhood
Revitalization Areas are designated by the Neighborhood Services
Department for neighborhood organization and revitalization activities. Based
upon the request of, and in partnership with, the neighborhood organization,
non- complaint-based code enforcement may be implemented in these areas.

4. Properties in the Immediate Area which are an Obvious Detriment or Blight

When an initial inspection is conducted, based on a complaint, the inspector
may:

a. Expand upon the initial complaint on the same property and determine
whether violations exist on the following items identified by City Council:

• High weeds/grass or dead/dry bushes, trees, weeds and/or other
vegetation
• Inoperable vehicles
• Junk, litter and/or debris
• Open/vacant buildings and structures
• Outside storage
• Fences in disrepair
• Vehicles parked on a non-dust proofed surface or in non-permitted
areas of residential front or side yards
Effective May 31, 2023 6


Page 429
Code Enforcement Policy


• Graffiti

b. Inspect additional properties in the immediate area of the initial reported
violation
c. Limit the inspection to those items, which appeared as violations on the
initial property on which the complaint was received; and the items listed in
III (B)(4)(a).
d. Initiate appropriate enforcement action

5. Environmental, Imminent Hazard and/or Fire Safety Conditions

In order to maintain and protect neighborhoods from imminent hazards,
environmental hazards, fire hazards and other types of similar conditions that
may immediately endanger or place residents in peril, the city will summarily
inspect/abate any and all conditions which are discovered without benefit of
complaint.

6. Seamless Service Efforts

The Neighborhood Services Department may be called upon by other
departments or governmental agencies to partner on issues of community
concern in areas outside of the city’s designated Target Areas. It is the
department’s goal to provide seamless and coordinated service in such
circumstances to facilitate the resolution of an identified community problem.
In order to support and complement these interagency/interdepartmental
efforts, systematic and non-complaint-based code enforcement may be
implemented with the approval of the City Manager or designee.

7. City-designated Slum Properties

In an effort to comprehensively and effectively address multiple violations at
city- designated slum properties, the Neighborhood Services Department may
implement non-complaint-based code enforcement.

8. Recidivist/Chronic Recidivist Properties

To address frequently recurring violations on recidivist properties, the
Neighborhood Services Department may initiate non-complaint-based
inspections/ code enforcement on recidivist properties after case resolution to
check for a recurrence of the same violation(s) and/or any of the common
blight violations as identified in Section III. (B) (4) (a).

To assure lasting compliance on chronic recidivist properties, the
Neighborhood Services Department shall initiate non-complaint based exterior
inspections/ code enforcement on designated chronic recidivist properties after
case resolution, to check for a recurrence of the same violation(s) and/or any
of the common blight violations as identified in Section III. B. (4) (a).

Effective May 31, 2023 7


Page 430
Code Enforcement Policy


9. Private Communities

Enforcement of violations within private communities with private roads and/or
limited public access are generally the responsibility of the owner(s),
responsible party, property manager, and/or park managers. NSD will enforce
violations visible from the property boundaries and health and safety violations
reported by residents within the community.


IV. Hardship Assistance

A. Purpose
It is the intent of the city to provide assistance to all low- and moderate-
income households that are eligible for financial assistance, and support
for owners/responsible parties who are impacted by homelessness.
Assistance and support will be provided in the form of information, referral,
counseling, outreach, the provision of volunteer labor and/or the provision
of direct financial assistance. Additional time to achieve compliance may
also be necessary due to the resources offered.

B. Available Resources
Based upon funding availability and in some cases participant eligibility the
Neighborhood Services Department will provide or coordinate the following
types of assistance:

• Information
• Housing, financial, landlord/tenant counseling
• Referral to public, private, or nonprofit sources of assistance
• Tool lending
• Volunteer labor assistance
• Graffiti abatement supplies and assistance
• Financial assistance to bring violations into compliance
• Housing rehabilitation/reconstruction (limited geographic areas only)

V. Interdepartmental/Interagency Cooperation

A. Purpose
The Neighborhood Services Department will cooperate with other
departments and agencies when appropriate to further the mutual goals of
nuisance abatement and neighborhood maintenance for the benefit of the
entire community.

B. Cooperation From Other Departments
Upon the request of the director or designee, the Police Department and
any other department of the city will assist and cooperate with the director
in the performance of duties related to the enforcement of ordinances. This
cooperation may include assistance in enforcement or abatement actions,

Effective May 31, 2023 8


Page 431
Code Enforcement Policy


including removal of persons from buildings or structures to be
demolished.

C. Hazardous Conditions
The city manager or designee may order immediate abatement of a hazard
without notice. The Neighborhood Services Department may also request
official concurrence from other departments as to whether immediate
abatement action is necessary. These departments or agencies include,
but are not limited to, Police, Fire, Public Works, Development Services,
and the Maricopa County Environmental Services departments.


VI. Annual Review by City Council
This Code Enforcement Policy will be reviewed and evaluated annually by the City
Council.




Effective May 31, 2023 9


Page 432



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Request to Extend Contract with Central Arizona Shelter Services, Inc. for The
Haven Project (Ordinance S-49786)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to extend Contract 156214
with Central Arizona Shelter Services, Inc. (CASS) for COVID-19 related, essential
public facility improvements for The Haven to Dec. 31, 2023. Further request to
authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. Funding is
available from Community Development Block Grant Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and
Economic Security Act (CDBG-CV) funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD). There is no impact to the General Fund.

Summary
On July 1, 2021, the City Council approved entering into a contract with CASS to
utilize CDBG-CV funds for public facility improvements for the acquisition and facility
improvement costs of a new emergency shelter bed facility focused on individuals
experiencing homelessness over the age of 55 years old. The project will support the
creation of 170 new shelter beds.

The contract is set to expire June 30, 2022, and an extension through Dec. 31, 2023,
is necessary to allow CASS additional time to complete the scope of the contract. The
value of the contract will remain unchanged and will not exceed $4,000,000.

Contract Term
The term of the contract extension period will be from July 1, 2023, through Dec. 31,
2023, with an option to extend for an additional three months, exercised at the
discretion of the City Manager, or his designee.

Financial Impact
The total contract value will remain unchanged and will not exceed $4,000,000.
Funding is available from Community Development Block Grant CARES Act funds.
There is no impact to the General Fund.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
On July 1, 2021, the City Council approved Contract 156214 with Ordinance S-47805.



Page 433

Location
8152 N. Black Canyon Highway
Council District: 5

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Neighborhood
Services Department.




Page 434



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Apply for U.S. Department of Transportation Charging and Fueling Infrastructure
Grant Opportunity for Federal Fiscal Years 2021-22 and 2022-23 - Federal
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Funding (Ordinance S-49781)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to apply for, accept and, if
awarded, enter into an agreement for disbursement of Federal funding from the U.S.
Department of Transportation through the Federal Fiscal Years 2021-22 and 2022-23
Charging and Fueling Infrastructure grant opportunity. If awarded, the funding will be
used to provide additional publicly available electric vehicle charging infrastructure.
Further request to authorize the City Treasurer to accept, and the City Controller to
disburse, all funds related to this item. Funding for this grant opportunity is available
through the Federal Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. The total grant funds applied for will
not exceed $15 million, and the City’s local match would not exceed $3.75 million.

Summary
The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) Charging and Fueling Infrastructure
grant program has made available $700 million in funding for Federal Fiscal Years
(FFYs) 2021-22 and 2022-23 through this funding opportunity. USDOT’s purpose for
this funding is to strategically deploy electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure
located in publicly accessible locations. Their goals for this program are to: 1)
supplement, not supplant, necessary private sector investment; 2) complement
existing federal programs; 3) facilitate broad public access to a national charging and
alternative fuel infrastructure network to accelerate adoption of zero emissions
vehicles; 4) implement Justice40 objectives, lower transportation costs, and increase
economic opportunity; 5) advance job quality, workforce development, and workforce
equity; and 6) reduce greenhouse gas and vehicle-related emissions.

If awarded, the City of Phoenix will use grant funds:
· for design and construction of EV charging infrastructure at Phoenix Sky Harbor
International Airport ground transportation lots;
· for assessment, design and construction of EV charging infrastructure at various
City-owned facilities such as parks, senior centers and park-and-rides;
· and to partner with private businesses for installation of EV charging infrastructure
at publicly accessible privately-owned facilities and to encourage the recruitment
and retention of businesses and workplaces that support the creation of good-


Page 435

paying jobs and encourage workforce development in disadvantaged communities.

The grant submittal deadline is June 13, 2023.

Financial Impact
The estimated total cost for the project is approximately $18.75 million. The maximum
federal participation rate is 80 percent with a minimum local match of 20 percent of the
total eligible project cost. If awarded, the federal match would not exceed $15 million
and the City’s costs would be approximately $3.75 million for the local match.

Funding for the local match on awarded grants will be incorporated into future Capital
Improvement Program budgets, and is anticipated to utilize General, Special Revenue
and Enterprise funds, and funding from private sector partners. Potential grant funding
received is available through the Federal Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, from the
USDOT through the FFYs 2021-22 and 2022-23 Charging and Fueling Infrastructure
grant opportunity.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua, Interim Deputy City
Manager John Chan, and the Aviation, Community and Economic Development and
Public Works departments, and the Office of Sustainability.




Page 436



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Parks and Recreation Specialty Programming Supplies, Events and Services
(Ordinance S-49721)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, for payment authority to
purchase recreation specialty supplies, snacks, group admissions and transportation
for Parks and Recreation Department summer programs. The request of $226,000 is
for a period starting July 1, 2023 through Dec. 31, 2024. Further request authorization
for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.

Summary
The Parks and Recreation Department offers an annual PhxPlays Summer Camp at
24 locations across the City. The funds requested are used to purchase specialty
recreation supplies, snacks, group admission and transportation to support youth
services for summer programs. The summer camp programs include activities such as
arts and crafts, sports, swimming, movies, nutritional and educational presentations,
and field trips to various venues. The Parks and Recreation Department will serve
approximately 800 youth participants per week.

Financial Impact
No expenditures from the General Fund are used to procure these services. The
source of funding is revenue generated by the fee-based recreation programs held
throughout the year. The funds are retained in a special revenue fund to be used for
summer programs.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Parks and
Recreation Department.




Page 437



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Flood Irrigation System Repair and Replacement Contract - IFB-PKS-23-0052
Request for Award (Ordinance S-49768)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into contracts with
Blue World Construction, Inc, Farsight Construction, and Premier Irrigation to provide
flood irrigation system repair and replacement services for the Parks and Recreation
Department. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item. The total value of the combined contracts will not exceed
$1,000,000.

Summary
The contracts will provide the Parks and Recreation Department with the ability to
procure flood irrigation repair and replacement services on an as needed basis. The
contracts will also be utilized to complete emergency services and repairs. A delay for
these services could disrupt or stop the flow of water to the turf, trees, shrubs and
other plant materials located in community parks. Replacing vegetation would be
expensive to replace if they were to perish without irrigation services.

Procurement Information
An Invitation for Bid procurement was processed in accordance with City of Phoenix
Administrative Regulation 3.10.

Four vendors submitted responsive and responsible bids per the posted specifications
to provide the required goods and services. Following an evaluation based on price,
responsiveness to all specifications, terms and conditions, and responsibility to provide
the required services, the following three low-price bid vendors have been selected for
award recommendation:

Selected Bidders
Farsight Construction: $2,667
Premier Irrigation: $4,461
Blue World Construction, Inc: $6,146

Contract Term
The contracts will be for five years to begin on or about July 1, 2023.


Page 438


Financial Impact
The aggregate contracts value will not exceed $1,000,000. Funding is available in the
Parks and Recreation Department's Operating and Capital Improvement Program
budgets.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Parks and
Recreation Department.




Page 439



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Swimming Pool Maintenance Supplies, Accessories, and Repair - IFB 18-053 -
Amendment (Ordinance S-49807)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute amendments to
Contract 147807 and Contract 147813 with Leslie's Poolmart, Inc. and A & M Corson's
Aquavalue, LLC to extend the contract beyond term and add additional funding in the
amount of $250,000. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all
funds related to this item. The additional expenditures will not exceed $875,000.

Summary
This contract will provide supplies for pool maintenance and accessories, which
includes pool chemicals and parts necessary to keep the pools operational through the
summer. The Parks and Recreation Department is requesting a one-year beyond term
extension and additional funding. These are the only two vendors in the Metro Phoenix
area that have the needed pool chemicals in the appropriate safe storage size. Other
out-of-area vendors may have supply; however, shipping would increase the cost and
the bulk storage containers they offer are too large for safe storage in the department’s
facilities. Leslie’s Poolmart, Inc. is holding 400, 25-lb. buckets of chlorine strictly for the
Parks and Recreation Department.

Contract Term
Upon approval the contract will be extended through May 31, 2024.

Financial Impact
Upon approval of $250,000 in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contract will not exceed $875,000. Funds are available in the Park and Recreation
Department’s budget.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request:

• Swimming Pool Maintenance Supplies, Accessories, and Repair - S-44733 on June
6, 2018.




Page 440

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Parks and
Recreation Department.




Page 441



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Authorization to Enter into a Development Agreement with IDM Companies for
Reimbursement of Public Infrastructure Improvements (Ordinance S-49772)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to negotiate and enter into a
development agreement and any other agreements as necessary (Agreements), with
IDM Companies, or its City-approved designee (Developer), for the reimbursement of
public infrastructure improvements. Further request to authorize the City Controller to
disburse all funds under the terms of the Agreements.

Summary
Developer is planning to develop approximately 80-acres into several speculative
Class A industrial buildings, totaling an estimated 1,240,000 square feet of new
construction, along the Loop 202 Ed Pastor South Mountain Freeway (Site). This area
is the newest employment corridor in Phoenix and has been named the Loop 202
South Mountain Technology Corridor. The property is currently farmland and has been
farmed by the same family for over 70 years. Due to the extensive cost of public
infrastructure in comparison to other parts of the City, and in an effort to help attract
world-class employers along the Loop 202, the following business terms are being
recommended.

· Developer will privately finance and construct the public infrastructure
improvements including Dobbins and Olney Roads, 63rd and 67th Avenue, a
portion of the 63rd and Dobbins intersection and Water and Wastewater lines, as
approved by the Planning & Development, Streets Transportation and Water
Services departments.
· Agreements may include other such public infrastructure and related components
(and costs thereof) as approved by the Community and Economic Development
Director.
· These improvements shall be in conformance with the zoning for the Site.
· The project must start construction within 18 months of Council authorization.
· Developer must comply with Title 34 of the Arizona Revised Statutes in constructing
the improvements to qualify for reimbursement, and the specifics and cost of the
public infrastructure improvements must be pre-approved by the City in order to
qualify for reimbursement.


Page 442

· The City will reimburse the Developer for public infrastructure improvements as
listed above and will not exceed a total reimbursement of $10 million.
· No other sources of funds would be used if resources are not adequate to meet the
projected construction expenses.
· Agreements will include other terms and conditions as deemed necessary by the
City.

Reimbursement Terms are as follows:
1. Reimbursement shall be paid on a quarterly basis, in arrears, from the following
sources: 100 percent of the City’s eligible General Fund portion of the Transaction
Privilege Taxes (TPT) collected and received by the City, as verified by the City, from
the following categories: construction sales tax, retail sales tax, speculative builder tax
and commercial lease tax.
2. The maximum reimbursement amount for the public infrastructure improvements,
as they relate to the project, will not exceed $10 million.
3. Reimbursement shall not exceed actual verifiable costs for the approved
Improvements.
4. The term shall begin upon commencement of construction of the first phase of the
Improvements, as made evident by the issuance of required permits (Construction
Commencement Date), and continue for a period of 10 years or upon the date
Developer has received reimbursements totaling the Reimbursement Cap.

The project is vital to activate the Loop 202 South Mountain Technology Corridor.
Multiple high-wage employers have short-listed this site for their new location. Phoenix
has reached a critical point in the real estate market that makes this investment a
possibility, and will bring significant investment in the employment projects in the
corridor. The redevelopment of the Site is an important economic development
opportunity that will transform the community and yield significant financial and public
benefits for the City above and beyond the TPT revenues generated.

Contract Term
The development agreement will terminate 10 years after the Construction
Commencement Date.

Financial Impact
The City's financial impact will be the reimbursement of the eligible General Fund
share of the TPT generated from the Site over ten years with a maximum of $10 million
in payments. Financial terms of the Agreements will be provided to the Budget and
Research and Finance Departments for review prior to execution of Agreements.




Page 443

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This item was recommended for approval by the Economic Development and Equity
Subcommittee on April 26, 2023 by a 4-0 vote.

Location
Generally located west of Loop 202 Ed Pastor South Mountain Freeway and Dobbins
Road
Council District: 7

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Interim Deputy City Manager John Chan and the Community
and Economic Development Department.




Page 444



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Authorization to Enter into a Development Agreement with Leon Capital Group
for Reimbursement of Public Infrastructure Improvements (Ordinance S-49773)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to negotiate and enter into a
development agreement and any other agreements as necessary (Agreements), with
Leon Capital Group, or its City-approved designee (Developer), for the reimbursement
of public infrastructure improvements. Further request to authorize the City Controller
to disburse all funds under the terms of the Agreements.

Summary
Developer is planning to develop approximately 140-acres into several speculative
industrial buildings, totaling an estimated 1,672,000 square feet of new construction,
along the Loop 202 Ed Pastor South Mountain Freeway (Site). This area is the newest
employment corridor in Phoenix and has been named the Loop 202 South Mountain
Technology Corridor. The property is currently farmland and has been farmed by the
same family for over 70 years. Due to the extensive cost of public infrastructure in
comparison to other parts of the City, and in an effort to help attract world-class
employers along the Loop 202, the following business terms are being recommended.

· Developer will privately finance and construct the public infrastructure
improvements including Dobbins and Olney Roads, 67th Avenue, a portion of the
63rd and Dobbins intersection, Elliot Roundabout and Water and Wastewater lines,
as approved by the Planning & Development, Streets Transportation and Water
Services Departments.
· Agreements may include other such public infrastructure and related components
(and costs thereof) as approved by the Community and Economic Development
Director.
· These improvements shall be in conformance with the zoning for the Site.
· The project must start construction within 18 months of Council authorization.
· Developer must comply with Title 34 of the Arizona Revised Statutes in constructing
the improvements to qualify for reimbursement, and the specifics and cost of the
public infrastructure improvements must be pre-approved by the City in order to
qualify for reimbursement.
· The City will reimburse the Developer for public infrastructure improvements as



Page 445

listed above and will not exceed a total reimbursement of $10 million.
· No other sources of funds would be used if resources are not adequate to meet the
projected construction expenses.
· Agreements will include other terms and conditions as deemed necessary by the
City.

Reimbursement Terms are as follows:
1. Reimbursement shall be paid on a quarterly basis, in arrears, from the following
source: 100 percent of the City’s eligible General Fund portion of the Transaction
Privilege Taxes (TPT) collected and received by the City, as verified by the City, from
the following categories: construction sales tax, retail sales tax, speculative builder tax
and commercial lease tax.
2. The maximum reimbursement amount for the public infrastructure improvements,
as they relate to the project, will not exceed $10 million.
3. Reimbursement shall not exceed actual verifiable costs for the approved
Improvements.
4. The term shall begin upon commencement of construction of the first phase of the
Improvements, as made evident by the issuance of required permits (Construction
Commencement Date), and continue for a period of 10 years or upon the date
Developer has received reimbursements totaling the Reimbursement Cap.

The project is vital to activate the Loop 202 South Mountain Technology Corridor.
Multiple high-wage employers have short-listed this site for their new location. Phoenix
has reached a critical point in the real estate market that makes this investment a
possibility, and will bring significant investment in the employment projects in the
corridor. The redevelopment of the Site is an important economic development
opportunity that will transform the community and yield significant financial and public
benefits for the City above and beyond the TPT revenues generated.

Contract Term
The development agreement will terminate 10 years after the Construction
Commencement Date.

Financial Impact
The City's financial impact will be the reimbursement of the eligible General Fund
share of the TPT generated from the Site over ten years with a maximum of $10 million
in payments. Financial terms of the Agreements will be provided to the Budget and
Research and Finance Departments for review prior to execution of Agreements.




Page 446

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This item was recommended for approval by the Economic Development and Equity
Subcommittee on April 26, 2023 by a 4-0 vote.

Location
Generally located west of Loop 202 Ed Pastor South Mountain Freeway and Dobbins
Road
Council District: 7

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Interim Deputy City Manager John Chan and the Community
and Economic Development Department.




Page 447



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Improvement and Escrow Agreement with Martens Park 91 Land, LLC, and
Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company NCS (Ordinance S-49776)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an improvement
and escrow agreement and any other agreements as necessary (Agreements), with
Martens Park 91 Land, LLC, or its City-approved designee (Developer) and
Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company NCS, or its City-approved designee
(Escrow), for installation of public infrastructure improvements, outdoor space
improvements, and dedication of public right-of-way (ROW) or easements, and holding
in escrow an amount equal to 150 percent of the estimated cost to complete offsite
improvements, which include necessary roadway improvements along 91st Avenue
and relocation of an existing irrigation ditch until such work is completed. Further
request to authorize the City Treasurer to accept, and the City Controller to disburse
such funds if the required work is not completed under the terms of the Agreement.

Summary
Developer proposes to construct approximately 278,825 square feet of new Class A
Industrial product in two buildings on approximately 20 acres at the southwest corner
of 91st Avenue and Buckeye Road (Project). On 91st Avenue, along the frontage of
the Project, there is a USA Fee Title irrigation ditch that is required to be relocated. The
lengthy process required to relocate the ditch involves approval of the relocation plan
by both the federal Bureau of Reclamation and Salt River Project. This process can
typically take 18 to 24 months and must be completed before permits can be pulled
and Project construction can commence. The subject of the current request pertains to
the speed at which the Developer can pull permits and commence construction on the
Project. Currently, vacancy rates for available industrial buildings are at historic lows.
Not having this type of space readily available could result in high-wage employers
looking at markets outside of Phoenix.

To continue to attract high-wage employers to this area, subject to City Council
approval, the following major business terms have been negotiated and would be
implemented through the Agreements:

· Developer will construct necessary roadway improvements on 91st Avenue along
the frontage of the Project;


Page 448

· Developer will relocate the USA Fee Title irrigation ditch along 99th Avenue to the
subject property outside of any future proposed ROW;
· Developer will deposit 150 percent of the cost of the offsite improvements, in an
amount approved by the City Engineer but estimated at $2,921,474 into Escrow;
· Developer may, with City's approval, deposit 150 percent of the offsite
improvements in phases, for the portions of the Project that Developer is planning
to commence construction;
· City will allow Developer to pull permits and commence construction of the phases
of the Project for which it has deposited 150 percent of the offsite improvements
into escrow before approvals for the relocation of the irrigation ditch is complete;
· The development will not request Certificate of Occupancy from the City for any
building until the USA Fee Title irrigation ditch has been relocated, constructed, and
accepted by both the City and Bureau of Reclamation;
· Developer will leave up to 150 percent of funds required to complete the offsite
improvements in case the City assumes responsibility to complete the required
improvements;
· The Developer will provide the necessary dedications to the City, at no charge, in
the event that the City assumes responsibility to complete the required
improvements;
· Upon completion of the offsite improvements, any remaining funds in the account
will be disbursed to the Developer by Escrow;
· Offsite improvements are scheduled to be completed by Oct. 30, 2025;
· Other terms and conditions deemed necessary and/or appropriate at the City's
discretion.

Contract Term
Developer will use diligent, good faith efforts, subject to force majeure delays, to
substantially complete the offsite improvements by Oct. 30, 2025.

Financial Impact
There is no financial impact to the City. If the offsite improvements are not completed
by the Developer as required, the City will accept the Escrow funds to complete the
required improvements.

Location
Southwest corner of Buckeye Road and 91st Avenue.
Council District: 7

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and Interim Deputy


Page 449

City Manager John Chan, and the Community and Economic Development and Street
Transportation departments, and the City Engineer.




Page 450



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Arizona Department of Economic Security Intergovernmental Agreement -
Authorization to Accept and Disburse Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act
Program Grant Funds (Ordinance S-49779)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an
intergovernmental agreement (IGA) with the Arizona Department of Economic Security
(DES) to accept up to $75 million of Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA)
grant funds for a five-year contract term beginning July 1, 2023, on behalf of the
Phoenix Business and Workforce Development Board (Board). Further request to
authorize the City Treasurer to accept and the City Controller to disburse those funds.
Additionally request to authorize to include an indemnification provision as required by
DES in accordance with Phoenix City Code section 42-20(B). The annual WIOA
allocations will be set by the Workforce Arizona Council each June for the upcoming
fiscal year. There is no impact to the General Fund.

Summary
WIOA is a federal program branded “American Job Centers'' with a state brand of
“ARIZONA@WORK” and is implemented through an IGA with DES. This program
provides funding for workforce development activities designed to enhance the
employability, occupational attainment, retention, and earnings of adults, dislocated
workers, and youth; and to assist employers recruit, develop, and retain the best
employees for their workforce needs. Through the IGA, and on behalf of the Board, the
Community and Economic Development Department (CED) will implement the
required activities of the Board, including adult, dislocated worker, youth, rapid
response, and work-based learning services; ensure oversight and compliance with
WIOA regulations, applicable federal and state laws, rules, regulations, and state
policies and procedures; and maintain all timelines and criteria set out for the Board
and City, including meeting of performance measures.

The WIOA grant will continue to fund the Phoenix Business and Workforce
Development Center and business services that support Phoenix employers with rapid
-response activities, recruitment, training, and retention programs provided by CED. To
accomplish this, CED will subcontract with employers to provide a Work Based
Learning Program that will expand the skills of an existing workforce to gain
competitive skills necessary to avoid potential separation of employment, connect local


Page 451

employers to great job candidates who need additional industry experience, and meet
the special requirements and skills needed by employers. In addition, CED will
subcontract with community-based organizations to provide case management and
career services for youth, laid off worker and adult clients. These subcontracts are
procured through City Administrative Regulation 3.10. The number of subcontractors
varies based on available funds and direction of the Board. Subcontractors bring
collaboration, expertise and resources to the WIOA program. The WIOA grant will also
continue to fund City staff that support the Board’s activities in CED as well as
Memoranda of Understanding between CED and other City departments that provide
or deliver workforce development services under WIOA on behalf of the Board.

As required by the terms of the grant, the City allows WIOA participants to choose
among the 300+ vendors on the State of Arizona's Eligible Training Provider List
(ETPL) for training. The ETPL and the related eligibility procedures ensure the
accountability, quality and labor-market relevance of training services provided to
eligible WIOA participants. In addition, the City is required to provide WIOA participants
with emergency support and short-term prevocational services such as childcare,
health care, housing, transportation, one-time classes, utilities, and professional
clothing for interviews, to ensure an eligible participant's successful completion of a
workforce development program. These services are impractical to compete as
payments must be made to a specific participant's landlord, utility provider, car repair
facility, health care provider, or childcare provider and the time frame in which these
services are needed is immediate. The provision of emergency support services must
comply with the financial limits established by the ARIZONA@WORK City of Phoenix
Support Services Policy. All other goods and services obtained to fulfill the grant
requirements will be procured in compliance with City Administrative Regulation 3.10.

Contract Term
The IGA will begin on July 1, 2023, and will end June 30, 2028, unless otherwise
amended.

Financial Impact
No general funds are required. Funding is provided by the U. S. Department of Labor
to DES each year and then DES allocates funding to the respective Boards. The
annual funding has not been determined for this coming year as of the time of this
report; however, based on historical budget trends for the past several years, we
expect that amount to be no more than $15 million for Fiscal Year 2023-24. Within that
$15 million, CED and Human Service Department provides the necessary Board and
Program services including ETPL contracts of approximately $8 million annually as
well as Support Services of approximately $120,000 annually, and other contracts as
needed to implement the WIOA grant.


Page 452


Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Interim Deputy City Manager John Chan and the Community
and Economic Development Department.




Page 453



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Phoenix Rising FC, LLC Development Agreement for Public Infrastructure
Improvements (Ordinance S-49793)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to negotiate and enter into a
Development Agreement (DA), and any other agreements as necessary, with Phoenix
Rising FC, LLC, or its City approved designee, for the demolition and removal of
certain existing improvements, and the installation of public infrastructure
improvements at 3801 E. Washington Street. Further request authorization for the City
Controller to disburse funds under the terms of the agreement.

Summary
Phoenix Rising FC, LLC (RISING) entered into a ground lease on approximately 10
acres of City-owned land on March 27. The ground lease term is five years including
five one-year options to extend the term. The land owned by Phoenix Sky Harbor
International Airport was formerly the Greyhound Racing Park. The Greyhound
grandstand and other structures were recently demolished by the Aviation Department
and the site was left in an unimproved and partially demolished state. Upon entering
the lease earlier this year, RISING constructed a temporary soccer stadium and
associated facilities including offices, a concession stand, team locker rooms, portable
sports book, parking lot and practice facility. RISING performed extensive public
improvements, following Title 34, and completed additional excavation and demolition
on the site. Some of the public improvements and additional demolition would have
needed to be completed in the future as the Airport expands it operational footprint to
this site, and will benefit the Airport well beyond the term of the lease. Some of the
improvements to make the Aviation-owned site developable include moving public
water and sewer lines, removal of over 70 caissons from the previous Greyhound
structures, installation of a public sidewalk and street improvements, environmental
and site remediation and several other public infrastructure related items.

Through a DA, the City will reimburse RISING up to $1,750,000 for construction of
required, necessary and beneficial public improvements. All reimbursable
improvements must be approved by the City. All cost must be verifiable and cannot
exceed actual costs. Reimbursement shall be paid on an annual basis, in arrears, and
reimbursement payments shall not exceed the term of the lease.



Page 454

Contract Term
The term of the DA is for a maximum of seven years.

Financial Impact
The action will have no impact on the General Fund. The $1,750,000 is available in the
Downtown Community Reinvestment Fund and will be programmed as a $250,000
annual expense from FY 2023-24 to FY 2029-30.

Location
3801 W. Washington Street
Council District: 8

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Interim Deputy City Manager John Chan and the Community
and Economic Development Department.




Page 455



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Resolution to Participate in and Support Bid to Host WNBA and NBA All-Star
Games and Related Events (Resolution 22128)

Request to authorize a Resolution to express support for, and authorize the City's
participation in, the Phoenix Suns’ and Phoenix Mercury’s bid to host the 2024
Women’s National Basketball Association (WNBA) All-Star Game and related events
as well as the National Basketball Association (NBA) All-Star Game and related events
in the current bid cycle (either 2025 or 2026).

Summary
As part of the NBA and WNBA required bid submittals, the Phoenix Suns/Mercury
organization has requested a declaration of support from the City of Phoenix for the
2024 WNBA All-Star Game and 2025 or 2026 NBA All-Star Game bid. This resolution
will express the City's support for the bid through the commitment of general
government services including: assistance with permitting coordination, licensing and
plan reviews; facilitating branding, décor, signage and street pole banners; providing a
dedicated Citywide liaison; parking for VIP vehicles and busses; street transportation
and traffic coordination; public safety support and emergency preparedness services
at no cost; anti-counterfeiting enforcement; temporary signage rights; and use of
certain City-controlled venues at no cost for official NBA/WNBA events and other
Suns/Mercury and NBA/WNBA sanctioned activities.

The 2024 WNBA All-Star Game and All-Star 3 Point and Skills Competition would be
played at Footprint Center. Major fan-related events, lodging and meeting activities
associated with the WNBA All-Star Game would be held in Phoenix. The WNBA Live
Fan Festival would be held at the Phoenix Convention Center. These events would
take place in July of 2024.

The NBA All-Star Game, All-Star Skills Competition and Rising Stars Challenge would
be played at Footprint Center. A secondary arena (to be decided) would host a
Celebrity Game, NBA All-Star Practice and the G League All-Star Game. Major fan-
related events including Jr. NBA youth basketball, lodging and meeting activities
associated with the NBA All-Star Game would be held in Phoenix. A hotel room block
commitment of 7,250 rooms on peak would be housed in Downtown Phoenix. The NBA
All-Star Fan Zone and related hospitality functions would be held at the Phoenix
Convention Center.

Page 456

Phoenix has successfully hosted these events in the past including WNBA All-Star
festivities in 2000 and 2014 and NBA All-Star festivities in 1975, 1995 and 2009. Since
1995, each of these games were hosted in the City-owned Footprint Center. In 2021,
the City of Phoenix and the Suns/Mercury completed a $240 million renovation of the
arena, making Footprint Center one of the premier sports and entertainment venues in
the nation.

Hosting the NBA/WNBA All-Star games and events in downtown Phoenix will have a
significant local impact in terms of media exposure, contributions to community
organizations, and visitor spending.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Interim Deputy City Manager John Chan and the Phoenix
Convention Center.




Page 457



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Radiology Read Services Contract (Ordinance S-49742)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
DVT Radiology, LLC to provide radiology read services for the Fire Department.
Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this
item. The aggregate contract value will not exceed $259,775.

Summary
The Fire Department's Health Center provides on-site radiology imaging for all new
firefighter hires, firefighter industrial injuries, periodic x-rays of existing firefighters, and
COVID-19 post-exposure evaluations. This service allows injured firefighters to move
quickly through the medical evaluation and healing process and to return to work
expeditiously. The radiology images are submitted through an electronic and HIPAA-
compliant portal to be read by a board certified and licensed sub-specialty radiologist.
The radiologist then electronically communicates the diagnosis to the Health Center to
immediately begin treatment for the injured firefighter.

This item has been reviewed and approved by the Information Technology Services
Department.

Procurement Information
In accordance with Administrative Regulation (AR) 3.10, standard competition was
waived as a result of an approved Determination Memo based on the following reason:
Special Circumstances Without Competition. The determination memo was approved
by the Assistant Finance Director and recommends the contract with DVT Radiology,
LLC.

The Fire Department went out to bid three times in accordance with AR 3.10. No bids
were received from the vendor community, and no awards were made. Due to time
constraints and the need to provide these critical services, the Fire Department sought
approval to go directly into contract with DVT Radiology, LLC.

Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about June 1, 2023, for a five-year term.



Page 458

Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $259,775 for the five-year term. Funding
is available in the Fire Department's operating budget.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Fire Department.




Page 459



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Miscellaneous Blade and Chain Maintenance Contract - IFB 23-090 Request for
Award (Ordinance S-49755)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
Continental Cutting Tools, dba Desert Cutting Tools, to provide blade and chain
maintenance for the Phoenix Fire Department. Further request to authorize the City
Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The total value of the contract will
not exceed $300,000.

Summary
This contract will provide the Phoenix Fire Department with services including blade
sharpening, cleaning, and cutting tip replacement for circular and chain saws. These
tools are utilized in daily operations.

The Phoenix Fire Department is one of the busiest fire departments in the United
States. Phoenix currently has 58 fire stations and nine battalions. Maintaining the
equipment is of utmost importance for the City’s firefighters to be adequately prepared.
Blades and chains are integral parts to the equipment used by the department. Bladed
power equipment provides firefighters the capability to breach a wide variety of
materials from concrete to automobiles.

Procurement Information
An Invitation for Bid procurement was processed in accordance with City of Phoenix
Administrative Regulation 3.10.

One vendor submitted a bid deemed to be responsive to posted specifications and
responsible to provide the required goods and services. Following an evaluation based
on price, the procurement officer recommends award to the following vendor:

Selected Bidder
Continental Cutting Tools ,LLC, dba Desert Cutting Tools

Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about May 31, 2023, for a five-year term with no options
to extend.


Page 460


Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $300,000. Funding is available in the
Phoenix Fire Department's budget.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Fire Department.




Page 461



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Intergovernmental Agreement with Arizona Department of Health Services for
Immunization Services (Ordinance S-49762)

Request authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an
agreement with the Arizona Department of Health Services to accept funds to
immunize children and adults residing in the City of Phoenix. Authorization also is
requested for the City Treasurer to accept, and for the City Controller to disburse, all
related funds.

Summary
The Arizona Department of Health Services' (AZDHS) Arizona Immunization Program
Office strives to meet national immunization goals outlined by the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention. The Fire Department will assist in Vaccine-Preventable
Diseases (VPD) outbreaks and pandemic responses in coordination with equivalent
county public health preparedness programs and other relevant partners.
Preparedness activities may include mass vaccination exercises, identification of
priority groups and hard-to-reach populations for immunization, and identification of
critical infrastructure personnel. In addition to preparedness activities, this agreement
with AZDHS will provide for additional capacity for data entry, reminder recall activities,
and vaccine cold storage capacity.

Contract Term
The term of the agreement is two years, commencing on July 1, 2022, and ending on
June 30, 2024.

Financial Impact
The aggregate reimbursement over the life the contract will depend on the number of
immunization clinics hosted but will not exceed $10,000.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Fire Department.




Page 462



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Authorization to Amend Ordinance FFY 2021 BJA Smart Policing Initiative Grant
(Ordinance S-49736)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to amend Ordinance S-47902
agreement with the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) for the Federal Fiscal Year
(FFY) 2021 BJA Smart Policing Initiative grant. Further request authorization for the
City Treasurer to accept, and the City Controller to disburse, all funds related to this
item.

Summary
In August 2021, the City Council approved the agreement for FFY 2021 BJA Smart
Policing Initiative (SPI) grant in the amount of $500,000 under Ordinance S-47902 .
We are requesting approval for the revised scope of the SPI FFY 2021 grant program.
The new project will fund Arizona State University (ASU) to research, evaluate, and
update Early Intervention Technology (EIS).

The Police Department seeks to expand and build on its current work with ASU to
develop, enhance and evaluate a new data driven EIS. The project has six strategies
that will be employed to address officer behavior.

· Strategy One: Establish a partnership between the Police Department and ASU's
Center for Violence Prevention and Community Safety. The goal of the partnership
is to reduce adverse police officer behavior through the deployment of a data driven
EIS.

· Strategy Two: Through administrative data and data-driven statistical techniques,
establish indicators and thresholds that more accurately predict police officers who
are most likely to engage in an adverse event within 12 months.

· Strategy Three: Identify and select officers, who, as seen through above
established indicators and thresholds, are at high risk for a future adverse event, for
non-punitive, early intervention programming.




Page 463

· Strategy Four: Provide the identified and selected officers with evidence-based
programming aimed at preventing a future adverse event. Supports include
supervisory-based, and wellness-based interventions.

· Strategy Five: Provide post-intervention monitoring to observe (and intervene if
necessary) officer performance following the intervention.

· Strategy Six: Develop an EIS to aggregate officer-level data, display officers who
were identified as being at high risk for an adverse event and provide intervention
management.

Funding from the SPI FY 2021 grant will be utilized for purchasing software,
equipment, providing funding to Arizona State University for program evaluation, and
funding project oversight to ensure all tasks are executed efficiently and effectively.

Contract Term
The contract term is Oct. 1, 2021 through Sept. 30, 2024.

Financial Impact
No matching funds are required.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Police Department.




Page 464



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
IBIS System Maintenance and Support Contract - EXC 23-050 Request for Award
(Ordinance S-49788)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
Forensic Technology, Inc., to provide annual service and maintenance for the
Integrated Ballistic Identification System (IBIS) systems for the Police Department.
Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this
item. The total value of the contract will not exceed $425,616.

Summary
This contract will provide maintenance and support services for the Integrated Ballistic
Identification System (IBIS), which includes the BRASSTRAX and MATCHPOINT
systems for the Crime Gun Intelligence Unit of the Police Department. The Crime Gun
Intelligence Unit operates the IBIS systems to collect data and access the National
Integrated Ballistic Information Network (NIBIN), operated by the United States Bureau
of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Ballistic evidence is entered into
the IBIS systems and the findings are compared against other ballistic evidence stored
in the NIBIN database which enables law enforcement to link weapons and casings to
crime scenes and provide investigative leads throughout the State of Arizona.

This item has been reviewed and approved by the Information Technology Services
Department.

Procurement Information
In accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10, standard competition was waived
as a result of an approved determination memo due to special circumstances, being
without competition. The IBIS systems have been in use by the Police Department
since 2007. The IBIS systems are currently used by the ATF's National Integrated
Ballistic Information Network and are the only technology that works on the network.
Forensic Technology, Inc., is the only company that provides this proprietary system,
support, and maintenance. Without this service agreement the Police Department will
be unable to utilize the systems.

Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about June 1, 2023, for a five-year term with no options to
extend.

Page 465

Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $425,616 for the five-year aggregate
term. Funding is available in the Police Department's budget.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Police Department.




Page 466



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Custodial and Floor Care Services Request to Issue for the Aviation Department

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to issue a Custodial and Floor
Care Services Request for Proposal (RFP) to include large and small company
opportunities at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, Phoenix Deer Valley Airport,
and Phoenix Goodyear Airport and their owned and maintained facilities.

Summary
As the largest economic engine in the State of Arizona and a transportation gateway to
our community, Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport strives to deliver a world-
class experience to every customer, every day. High quality sanitation practices are
also necessary to meet evolving customer expectations and to ensure the Phoenix
system of airports can continue to maintain leading industry health and safety
certifications such as the Global Biorisk Advisory Council (GBAC) Star Facility
Accreditation. The resultant contracts for custodial and floor care services will provide
staff, equipment, supplies, and supervision necessary to provide the cleaning services
for approximately 1.7 million square feet of Airport facilities across all three airport
campuses.

Through this RFP, the Aviation Department is creating three contracting opportunities:
large and small company custodial service categories and a large company floor care
services category. The successful respondents will provide labor, equipment,
supervision, and method of communication to provide custodial services and floor care
services.

Procurement Information
With approval, the Aviation Department will issue a RFP to select three service
providers to deliver the required custodial and floor care services. The Aviation
Department intends to issue the solicitation in June 2023. It is estimated the contracts
shall commence in April 2024.

The Evaluation Criteria for the responses and responsible respondents are as follows:

· Operations Plan
· Quality Assurance and Work Order Management Program


Page 467

· Recruitment and Retention Plan
· Pricing
· Qualifications/Experience

Aviation intends to issue a 90-day retention requirement for frontline staff should the
incumbent be unsuccessful in this RFP process.

Contract Term
The term of the contract will be five-years with two, one-year renewal options.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Phoenix Aviation Advisory Board unanimously recommended approval of the item
on April 20, 2023.

Public Outreach
The solicitation process will include all standard and required outreach efforts,
including advertising in Aviation industry publications.

Location
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, 2485 E. Buckeye Road
Phoenix Deer Valley, 702 W. Deer Valley Road
Phoenix Goodyear Airport, 1658 S. Litchfield Road, Goodyear AZ
Council District(s): 1, 8, and Out of City

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Aviation
Department.




Page 468



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Noise and Operations Management System - AVN RFP 23-012 - Request for
Award (Ordinance S-49707)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
Casper Airport Solutions, Inc. to maintain and operate flight tracking and noise
monitoring services at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport. Further request to
authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The total value of
the contract will not exceed $1,200,000.

Summary
This contract will provide the operation and maintenance of a Noise and Operations
Management System (NOMS) near Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport. The
system is composed of twenty permanent and one portable noise monitoring devices.
The NOMS allows staff to analyze flight track data and monitor noise abatement in
compliance with the 1994 Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Phoenix
and City of Tempe.

This item has been reviewed and approved by the Information Technology Services
Department.

Procurement Information
A Request for Proposal procurement was processed in accordance with City of
Phoenix Administration Regulation 3.10.

Three vendors submitted proposals, and two proposals were deemed responsive. An
evaluation committee evaluated those offers based on the following criteria with a
maximum possible total of 1,000 points.

· Method of Approach (0-300 points)
· Qualifications and Experience of Firm (0-275 points)
· Qualifications and Experience of Key Personnel (0-225 points)
· Fee Schedule (0-200 points)




Page 469

After reaching consensus, the evaluation committee recommends award to the
following vendor:

· Casper Airport Solutions, Inc. - 867 points

Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about Aug. 1, 2023, for a five-year contract term with no
options to extend.

Financial Impact
The total contract value will not exceed $1,200,000 for the five-year contract term.

Funding is available in the Aviation Department's budget.

Location
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport: 2485 E. Buckeye Road
Council District: 8

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Aviation
Department.




Page 470



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Phoenix Deer Valley Airport Relocate Taxiway B and Construct Connectors B6
and B9 - Construction Manager at Risk Construction Services - AV31000092 FAA
(Ordinance S-49712)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with J. Banicki Construction, Inc. to provide Construction Manager at Risk Construction
Services for the Phoenix Deer Valley Airport Relocate Taxiway B and Construct
Connectors B6 and B9 project. Further request to authorize execution of amendments
to the agreement as necessary within the Council-approved expenditure authority as
provided below, and for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.
The fee for services will not exceed $12.1 million.

Summary
The purpose of this project is to meet updated design standards required by Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) Advisory Circulars, which define separation between
runway and adjacent taxiway. New angled connectors are also added to reduce
runway occupancy time and improve airfield efficiency. Taxiway B will be moved to a
location 300 feet from runway 7L-25R (centerline to centerline) to meet modernized
taxiway design standards. Taxiway B enhancements were identified in the Phoenix
Deer Valley Airport Master Plan Update (June 2015). The project will be constructed in
phases consistent with FAA/Arizona Department of Transportation grant funding
availability.

J. Banicki Construction, Inc.'s initial services will include preparation of a Guaranteed
Maximum Price proposal for the Construction Services provided under the agreement
and participating with the City in a process to establish a Small Business Enterprise
(SBE) goal for the project. J. Banicki Construction, Inc. will be responsible for
construction means and methods related to the project and fulfilling the SBE program
requirements. J. Banicki Construction, Inc. will be required to solicit bids from
prequalified subcontractors and to perform the work using the City’s subcontractor
selection process. J. Banicki Construction, Inc. may also compete to self-perform
limited amounts of work.

J. Banicki Construction, Inc.'s services include but are not limited to: constructing the
Phoenix Deer Valley Airport taxiway connectors B6 and B9; relocating Taxiway B;


Page 471

scheduling and managing site operations; providing quality controls; addressing all
federal, state and local permitting requirements; maintaining a safe work site for all
project participants; and other work as required for a complete project.

Procurement Information
The selection was made using a qualifications-based selection process set forth in
section 34-603 of the Arizona Revised Statutes. Scoring and selection were made in
conjunction with the Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR) Preconstruction Services
selection process.

Contract Term
The term of the agreement is five years from issuance of the Notice to Proceed. Work
scope identified and incorporated into the agreement prior to the end of the term may
be agreed to by the parties, and work may extend past the termination of the
agreement. No additional changes may be executed after the end of the term.

Financial Impact
The agreement value for J. Banicki Construction, Inc. will not exceed $12.1 million,
including all subcontractor and reimbursable costs.

The Aviation Department anticipates grant funding for this project. Funding is available
in the Aviation Department's Capital Improvement Program budget. The Budget and
Research Department will separately review and approve funding availability prior to
execution of any amendments. Payments may be made up to agreement limits for all
rendered agreement services, which may extend past the agreement termination.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved:
· Engineering Services Agreement 150110 (Ordinance S-45685) on June 5, 2019.
· CMAR Preconstruction Services Agreement 152002 (Ordinance S-49299) on Jan.
4, 2023.

Location
Phoenix Deer Valley Airport, 702 W. Deer Valley Road
Council District: 1

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Mario Paniagua and Alan
Stephenson, the Aviation Department and the City Engineer.



Page 472



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport Utility Vault Upgrade and Infield Paving
- Construction Manager at Risk Construction Services - AV08000074 (Ordinance
S-49713)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with J. Banicki Construction, Inc. to provide Construction Manager at Risk Construction
Services for the Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport Utility Vault Upgrade and
Infield Paving project. Further request to authorize execution of amendments to the
agreement, as necessary within the Council-approved expenditure authority as
provided below, and for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.
The fee for services will not exceed $12.5 million.

Summary
The purpose of this project is to upgrade utility vaults and manholes across Phoenix
Sky Harbor International Airport’s south airfield by raising the City’s airfield lighting
vaults, replacing vault lids as necessary, adjusting the Federal Aviation Administration’s
utility and communication vaults, and grading the immediate area around them to
improve drainage. The project will also include infield asphalt paving to ensure proper
elevations and drainage in the infields to divert water runoff around the utility structures
and minimize, if not eliminate, water intrusion within each vault. This project is
necessary to improve drainage so water does not pond or infiltrate utility vaults and to
reduce loose material that could become foreign object debris, which could damage
the aircrafts.

J. Banicki Construction, Inc.'s initial services will include preparation of a Guaranteed
Maximum Price (GMP) proposal for the Construction Services provided under the
agreement. J. Banicki Construction, Inc. will be responsible for construction means
and methods related to the project. J. Banicki Construction, Inc. will be required to
solicit bids from pre-qualified subcontractors and to perform the work using the City’s
subcontractor selection process. J. Banicki Construction, Inc. may also compete to self
-perform limited amounts of work.

J. Banicki Construction, Inc.'s services include, but are not limited to: constructing all
utility adjustments and new infield asphalt paving as designed; scheduling and
managing site operations within the constraints of airfield operations; soliciting and


Page 473

procuring subcontractors/suppliers in a competitive bid environment; preparing multiple
GMP proposals that meet the approval of the City; coordinating with various City of
Phoenix Aviation divisions, utility companies and other agencies; arranging for
procurement of materials and equipment; providing quality controls; addressing all
federal, state and local permitting requirements; maintaining a safe work site for all
project participants; and other work as required for a complete project.

Procurement Information
The selection was made using a qualifications-based selection process set forth in
section 34-603 of the Arizona Revised Statutes. Scoring and selection were made in
conjunction with the Construction Manager at Risk Preconstruction Services selection
process.

Contract Term
The term of the agreement is five years from issuance of the Notice to Proceed. Work
scope identified and incorporated into the agreement prior to the end of the term may
be agreed to by the parties, and work may extend past the termination of the
agreement. No additional changes may be executed after the end of the term.

Financial Impact
The agreement value for J. Banicki Construction, Inc. will not exceed $12.5 million,
including all subcontractor and reimbursable costs. This project anticipates federal
funds and is subject to the requirements 49 CFR Part 26 and the U.S. Department of
Transportation Disadvantage Business Enterprise program. Funding is available in the
Aviation Department's Capital Improvement Program budget. The Budget and
Research Department will separately review and approve funding availability prior to
execution of any amendments. Payments may be made up to agreement limits for all
rendered agreement services, which may extend past the agreement termination.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved:
· Design Services Agreement 142157 (Ordinance S-42335) on Feb. 17, 2016;
· Construction Administration and Inspection Services Agreement 143042 (Ordinance
S-42679) on June 15, 2019; and
· CMAR Preconstruction Services Agreement 156309 (Ordinance S-48617) on May
25, 2022.

Location
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, 2485 E. Buckeye Road
Council District: 8



Page 474


Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Mario Paniagua and Alan
Stephenson, the Aviation Department and the City Engineer.




Page 475



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport Terminal 4 Fire Alarm Replacement -
Design-Build Services Amendment 2 - AV21000102 (Ordinance S-49731)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Agreement 155436 with Chasse Building Team, Inc. to provide additional Design-Build
Services for the Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport Terminal 4 Fire Alarm
Replacement project. Further request to authorize execution of amendments to the
agreement as necessary within the Council-approved expenditure authority as
provided below, and for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.
The additional fee for services included in this amendment will not exceed $9 million.

Summary
The purpose of this project is to replace the existing Terminal 4 Fire Alarm/Voice
Evacuation System with a new updated system. The existing fire alarm system in
Terminal 4 has been in place since 2003 and some parts of the system much longer
than that. The existing system has reached the end of its service life, according to the
manufacturer. To minimize the impact on terminal operations, this project will proceed
in phases while the existing system stays active. Night work and multiple shifts to
expedite the work will be required at certain locations.

This amendment is necessary to begin the construction phase of this project. This
amendment will provide additional funds to the agreement.

Chasse Building Team, Inc.’s additional services include, but are not limited to:
replacement of the current fire alarm and voice evacuation system located at Terminal
4 of Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport; permitting; procurement and installation;
programming and testing of the Fire Alarm and Voice Evacuation System; identify code
related upgrades where applicable; develop cost estimates and multiple Guaranteed
Maximum Price proposals that are within the City’s budget; execute construction plan
in coordination with various stakeholders; and other services necessary for a complete
project.

Contract Term
The term of the agreement remains unchanged.



Page 476

Financial Impact
· The initial agreement for Design-Build Services was approved for an amount not to
exceed $1 million, including all subconsultant, subcontractor and reimbursable
costs.
· This amendment will increase the agreement by an additional $9 million, for a new
total amount not to exceed $10 million, including all subconsultant, subcontractor
and reimbursable costs.

Funding for this amendment is available in the Aviation Department's Capital
Improvement Program. The Budget and Research Department will separately review
and approve funding availability prior to the execution of any amendments. Payments
may be made up to agreement limits for all rendered agreement services, which may
extend past the agreement termination.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved Design-Build Agreement 155436 (Ordinance S-48075) on
Nov. 3, 2021.

Location
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, 2485 E. Buckeye Road
Council District: 8

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Mario Paniagua and Alan
Stephenson, the Aviation Department and the City Engineer.




Page 477



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Phoenix Goodyear Airport New Apron and Taxiway Connector - Design-Bid-Build
Services - AV41000077 FAA (Ordinance S-49732)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to accept J. Banicki
Construction, Inc. as the lowest-priced, responsive and responsible bidder and to enter
into an agreement with J. Banicki Construction, Inc. for Design-Bid-Build Services for
the Phoenix Goodyear Airport New Apron and Taxiway Connector project. Further
request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The
fee for services will not exceed $11,698,594.90.

Summary
The purpose of this project is to construct a concrete taxiway connector which ties the
existing Taxiway A to a future aircraft parking apron at Phoenix Goodyear Airport. The
project was identified for implementation in the Goodyear Master Plan 2018 Update, is
a recommended facility improvement, and is the last part of the Phase I
Recommended Development Plan.

J. Banicki Construction, Inc.’s services include, but are not limited to: paving
approximately 26,330 square yards of 17-inch thick Portland Cement Concrete
Pavement and a four-inch thick asphalt concrete shoulder, both with base course
materials; installation of a concrete storm drainpipe under the pavement and the
relocation of a Surface Weather Station to a location approximately 4,000 feet away
connected by an underground duct bank; installation of a duct bank and conduit
system for taxiway edge lights and connection to the existing airfield lighting system, a
70-foot-tall apron light pole; and other work as required.

The selection was made using an Invitation for Bids procurement process set forth in
section 34-201 of the Arizona Revised Statutes. Two bids were received on April 11,
2023, and were sent to the Equal Opportunity Department for review to determine
subcontractor eligibility and contractor responsiveness in demonstrating
responsiveness to Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) program requirements.

The Opinion of Probable Cost and the two lowest responsive, responsible bidders are
listed below:



Page 478

· Opinion of Probable Cost: $13,291,399.57
· J. Banicki Construction, Inc.: $11,698,594.90
· Combs Construction, Inc.: $14,087,222.50

The bid award amount is within the total budget for this project.

Contract Term
The term of the agreement is 180 calendar days from issuance of the Notice to
Proceed. Work scope identified and incorporated into the agreement prior to the end of
the term may be agreed to by the parties, and work may extend past the termination of
the agreement. No additional changes may be executed after the end of the term.

Financial Impact
The agreement value for J. Banicki Construction, Inc. will not exceed $11,698,594.90,
including all subcontractor and reimbursable costs.

This project anticipates federal funds and is subject to the requirements of 49 Code of
Federal Regulations Part 26 and the U.S. Department of Transportation DBE program.
Funding is available in the Aviation Department's Capital Improvement Program
budget. The Budget and Research Department will separately review and approve
funding availability prior to execution of any amendments. Payments may be made up
to agreement limits for all rendered agreement services, which may extend past the
agreement termination.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved:
· Engineering Services Agreement 149734 (Ordinance S-45591) on May 1, 2019;
and
· Engineering Services Amendment to Agreement 149734 (Ordinance S-49298) on
Jan. 4, 2023.

Location
1658 S. Litchfield Road, Goodyear, Ariz.
Council District: Out of City

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Mario Paniagua and Alan
Stephenson, the Aviation Department and the City Engineer.




Page 479



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Phoenix Goodyear Airport Infield Paving Phase I - Design-Bid-Build Services -
AV41000079 FAA (Ordinance S-49733)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to accept J. Banicki
Construction, Inc. as the lowest-priced, responsive and responsible bidder and to enter
into an agreement with J. Banicki Construction, Inc. for Design-Bid-Build Services for
the Phoenix Goodyear Airport Infield Paving Phase I project. Further request to
authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The fee for
services will not exceed $2,657,022.50.

Summary
The purpose of this project is to pave three infields between Taxiway connectors A2
and A3, A3 and A4, and A8 and A9 at Phoenix Goodyear Airport. The project was
identified for implementation in the Goodyear Master Plan 2018 Update, and is a
safety and maintenance improvement measure by reducing the incidence of foreign
object debris, and eliminating vegetation growth in the infields that can attract wildlife.
A two-inch asphalt surface is to be applied over the areas identified, from shoulder to
shoulder.

J. Banicki Construction, Inc.’s services include, but are not limited to: all grading and
paving; adjustment to new grades of certain appurtenances within those infields
including catch basins and inlets; designated concrete storm drain piping; designated
electrical duct bank and conduits; associated manholes, handholes, lights and signs;
asphalt and concrete removals; compaction; removing storm drain pipe and catch
basins; and other work as required.

The selection was made using an Invitation for Bids procurement process set forth in
section 34-201 of the Arizona Revised Statutes. Two bids were received on April 11,
2023, and were sent to the Equal Opportunity Department for review to determine
subcontractor eligibility and contractor responsiveness in demonstrating
responsiveness to Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) program requirements.

The Opinion of Probable Cost and the two lowest responsive, responsible bidders are
listed below:



Page 480

· Opinion of Probable Cost: $2,831,790,00
· J. Banicki Construction, Inc.: $2,657,022.50
· Combs Construction, Inc.: $2,967,784.00

The bid award amount is within the total budget for this project.

Contract Term
The term of the agreement is 180 days from issuance of the Notice to Proceed. Work
scope identified and incorporated into the agreement prior to the end of the term may
be agreed to by the parties, and work may extend past the termination of the
agreement. No additional changes may be executed after the end of the term.

Financial Impact
The agreement value for J. Banicki Construction, Inc. will not exceed $2,657,022.50,
including all subcontractor and reimbursable costs.

The Aviation Department anticipates grant funding for this project. This project
anticipates using grant funding and is subject to the requirements of 49 Code of
Federal Regulations Part 26 and the U.S. Department of Transportation DBE program.
Funding is available in the Aviation Department's Capital Improvement Program
budget. The Budget and Research Department will separately review and approve
funding availability prior to execution of any amendments. Payments may be made up
to agreement limits for all rendered agreement services, which may extend past the
agreement termination.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved:
· Engineering Services Agreement 149734 (Ordinance S-45591) on May 1, 2019;
and
· Engineering Services Amendment 1 to Agreement 149734 (Ordinance S-49298) on
Jan. 4, 2023.

Location
Phoenix Goodyear Airport, 1658 S. Litchfield Road, Goodyear, Ariz.
Council District: Out of City

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Mario Paniagua and Alan
Stephenson, the Aviation Department and the City Engineer.



Page 481



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Aviation Program Manager Project Management Staff Support Services -
Professional Services (Ordinance S-49734)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with Hill International, Inc. to provide Professional Services that include program
management, project management and support services for the Aviation Program
Management Project Management Staff Support Services project. Further request to
authorize execution of amendments to the agreement, as necessary within the Council
-approved expenditure authority as provided below, and for the City Controller to
disburse all funds related to this item. The fee for services will not exceed $50 million.

Additionally, request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to take all action
as may be necessary or appropriate and to execute all design and construction
agreements, licenses, permits and requests for utility services related to the
development, design and construction of the project. Such utility services include, but
are not limited to: electrical, water, sewer, natural gas, telecommunication, cable
television, railroads and other modes of transportation. Further request the City
Council to grant an exception to Phoenix City Code 42-20 to authorize inclusion in the
documents pertaining to this transaction of indemnification and assumption of liability
provisions that otherwise should be prohibited by Phoenix City Code 42-18. This
authorization excludes any transaction involving an interest in real property.

Summary
The purpose of this project is to provide program management professional consulting
services and project management staff support services for the management of a
variety of civil and building capital improvement projects in the Aviation Department's
$2 billion Capital Improvement Program.

The Program Manager firm will act as an owner representative of the City of Phoenix
Aviation Department for nearly all aspects of the design and construction of an airport
project. The Program Manager firm will augment in-house staff to assist with managing
airport projects. These contract staff members will provide project management staff
support services to ensure projects are successfully executed within scope, schedule
and budget at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, Phoenix Deer Valley Airport
and Phoenix Goodyear Airport.


Page 482


Hill International, Inc.'s services include, but are not limited to: providing up to a
maximum of 50 percent of the required staff if it is in the best interest of the City;
utilizing the Aviation Qualified Vendors List (QVL) to provide opportunities through a
City approved subconsultant selection process; develop and manage an internal
outreach program to attract Small Business Enterprise subconsultants; provide
qualified individuals to augment staff either through Hill International, Inc. or through
the Aviation QVL; provide a part-time Managing Principal/Executive that is not required
to reside locally but must be available onsite as needed; provide a full-time Contract
Coordinator that must reside locally; and provide a full-time Project Controls Manager
that must reside locally.

Procurement Information
The selection was made using a qualifications-based selection process set forth in
section 34-603 of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.). In accordance with A.R.S.
section 34-603(H), the City may not publicly release information on proposals received
or the scoring results until an agreement is awarded. Five firms submitted proposals
and are listed below:

Selected Firm
Rank 1: Hill International, Inc.

Additional Proposers
Rank 2: Red Brick Consulting, Inc.
Rank 3: Parsons Transportation Group, Inc.
Rank 4: Kitchell/CEM, Inc.
Rank 5: AECOM Technical Services, Inc.

Contract Term
The term of the agreement is five years from the issuance of the Notice to Proceed.
Work scope identified and incorporated into the agreement prior to the end of the term
may be agreed to by the parties, and work may extend past the termination of the
agreement. No additional changes may be executed after the end of the term.

Financial Impact
The agreement value for Hill International, Inc. will not exceed $50 million, including all
subconsultant and reimbursable costs.

Funding is available in the Aviation Department's Capital Improvement Program. The
Budget and Research Department will separately review and approve funding
availability prior to execution of any amendments. Payments may be made up to


Page 483

agreement limits for all rendered agreement services, which may extend past the
agreement termination.

Location
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport: 2485 E. Buckeye Road
Phoenix Deer Valley Airport: 702 W. Deer Valley Road
Phoenix Goodyear Airport: 1658 S. Litchfield Road, Goodyear, Ariz.
Council Districts: 1, 8 and Out of City

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Mario Paniagua and Alan
Stephenson, the Aviation Department and the City Engineer.




Page 484



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Multidisciplinary Training Services Contract - RFQu 23-029 - Request for Award
(Ordinance S-49745)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into contracts with
Contractors listed on Attachment A to provide multidisciplinary training services.
Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this
item. The total value of the contracts will not exceed $2,230,000.

Summary
These contracts will provide multidisciplinary training services to comply with Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA), Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA),
and Transportation Security Administration (TSA) training requirements and other
specific on-the-job training needs for the Aviation Department. The purpose and intent
of this RFQu is to ensure qualified Contractors are available on an as-needed basis to
enhance the Aviation Department's training program.

Procurement Information
A Request for Qualifications procurement was processed in accordance with
Administrative Regulation 3.10 to establish a Qualified Vendor List (QVL). Offerors
were able to submit an offer for one or more groups based on years of experience
providing relevant training. The QVL has six multidisciplinary training groups as
follows:

Group 1: Safety and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
Compliance
Group 2: Environmental, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Wildlife, and OSHA
Compliance
Group 3: Airport Security, Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) Compliance
Group 4: Human Resources, Project Management, and General Soft-Skills
Development
Group 5: Aviation/Airport Related Skill and Compliance Training
Group 6: Facilities Maintenance Technical Skill and Equipment Operations Related
Training



Page 485

Twelve offers were submitted and eleven were deemed responsive and responsible.
The Procurement Officer evaluated all offers as a pass or fail based on the following
minimum qualification:

· For each group the Offeror is submitting an offer, the Offeror must have experience
in providing training for a minimum of five consecutive years in the last eight years.

The vendors that met the minimum qualification criteria, and are being recommended
for contract award, are included in Attachment A.

Contract Term
The contracts will begin on or about October 1, 2023 for a five-year term with no
options to extend.

Financial Impact
The contract values are up to a total of $2,230,000 for the five-year contract term.
Funding is available in the Aviation Department budget.

Location
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport - 2485 E. Buckeye Road
Council District: 8

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and Aviation
Department.




Page 486
Attachment A


____________________________________________________________




Multidisciplinary Training Services Contract - RFQu 23-029 –
Request for Award
The following vendors meet the minimum qualification criteria and are
being recommended for award for placement on the QVL:

American Association of Airport Executives, Inc.: Groups 3, 5, and 6
Deborah Ostreicher dba Distinguished Communications: Group 4
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Inc.: Groups 4 and 5
Entreprenyour, LLC dba Fresh Revenues: Group 4
Ferguson Learning Company, LC: Group 4
Franklin Covey Client Sales, Inc.: Group 4
Nextec, Inc.: Group 4
P3 Safety Solutions, LLC: Groups 1, 2, 3, and 4
SNVA, LLC: Group 4
Speakers You Need, LLC: Group 4
SSi, Inc.: Groups 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6




Page 487



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Operations Security Portal Parts and Services - RFA 18-032 - Amendment
(Ordinance S-49761)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Contract 148324 with HID Global Corporation to extend the contract term and
authorize additional expenditures which will not exceed $430,780. Further request to
authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.

Summary
This contract will provide ongoing technical support and maintenance for the Aviation
Department's (Aviation) Identity Management System (IDMS) which is used to manage
background verification, identities, badging and credentials for approximately 1,000
companies and more than 25,000 employees that work and require access to
restricted areas at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport. The IDMS also integrates
with the Access Control and Alarm Monitoring system to control access to all secure
areas of the Airport to comply with federal regulatory requirements mandated by the
Transportation Security Administration.

In the past two years, Aviation issued two RFPs to solicit a new IDMS. However, both
procurements were unsuccessful given limited competition in this highly specialized
field. Because of these circumstances and the critical nature of the IDMS, Aviation
requests to extend the current contract for four months to prevent the service from
lapsing and allow sufficient time to negotiate and develop a scope for long-term
renewal of the support contract.

This item has been reviewed and approved by the Information Technology Services
Department.

Contract Term
Upon approval the contract will be extended through Oct. 14, 2023.

Financial Impact
Upon approval of $430,780 in additional funds, the revised value of the contract will
not exceed $2,330,780 for the contract term. Funds are available in the Aviation
Department’s budget.


Page 488


Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request:
• Operations Security Portal Parts and Services Contract 148324 (Ordinance S-44701)
on June 6, 2018

Location
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport - 2485 E. Buckeye Road
Deer Valley Airport - 702 W. Deer Valley Road
Goodyear Airport - 1658 S. Litchfield Road, Goodyear, Ariz.
Council Districts: 1, 8 and Out of City

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Aviation
Department.




Page 489



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Contract Amendment with Regional Public Transportation Authority for the
Purchase of Fixed Route Bus Transit Service for Fiscal Year 2023-24 (Ordinance
S-49775)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Agreement 143071 with the Regional Public Transportation Authority for the purchase
of bus transit services operated by this agency within Phoenix for FY 2023-24. Further
request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The
funding for FY 2023-24 will not exceed $11,327,969.

Summary
Transit services are customarily purchased and sold between regional transit agencies
where adding service or continuing an existing bus route is most economical. Each
Fiscal Year (FY), the City determines the level of service to be operated within its
boundaries and executes an amendment to its Service Agreement with the Regional
Public Transportation Authority (RPTA) to authorize funding for that year's service.

In FY 2023-24, the RPTA will provide the following fixed route bus service within
Phoenix: Routes 30 (University Drive); 45 (Broadway Road); 56 (Priest Drive); 61
(Southern Avenue); 77 (Baseline Road); 108 (Elliot Road/48th Street); 140 (Ray
Road); and 156 (Chandler Boulevard). The City also sells service to RPTA on various
routes.

At the end of each year, the City and RPTA assess the actual miles operated, gross
costs incurred, federal funds credited (for preventative maintenance), and advertising
and fare revenues collected. The City and RPTA then reconcile the difference between
the original estimates and actual costs through a credit memo or billing, as applicable.

Financial Impact
The estimated number of annual fixed-route miles for FY 2023-24 is 1,319,154 miles at
a cost of $12,777,746. The total estimated farebox revenue is $631,567, the total
estimated preventive maintenance credit is $714,537, and the estimated advertising
revenue is $103,673. The total estimated net cost for RPTA's billing to the City is
$11,327,969.



Page 490

Funding is available in the Public Transit Department’s Operating budget using the
Transportation 2050 Fund.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved RPTA Service Agreement 143071 (Ordinance S-42474) on
April 20, 2016.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Public Transit
Department.




Page 491



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Renewable Liquefied Natural Gas Contract - IFB PTD22-005 Request for Award
(Ordinance S-49794)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
Sapphire Gas Solutions to provide renewable liquefied natural gas to the Public
Transit Department for use in operating the transit fleet. Further request to authorize
the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The total value of the
contract will not exceed $59,262,584.

Summary
Renewable Liquefied Natural Gas (RLNG) is a fuel product generated from the
decomposition of organic waste streams, or "biomass." RLNG captures the naturally
occurring gas from society's waste streams for use as a carbon-neutral and reliable
energy source. Typical sources of biomass production are landfills, livestock
operations and dairy farms, wastewater treatment and other industrial sources.

In furthering its efforts to reduce the City's carbon footprint and implement the tactics
outlined in the City's Climate Action Plan, the Public Transit Department (PTD) will
transition to using RLNG to power its compressed natural gas heavy-duty buses which
currently comprise approximately two-thirds of the bus fleet. The City's Climate Action
plan calls for identifying sources of renewable energy and to utilize renewable natural
gas sources as a substitute for fossil natural gas. This contract will supply RLNG to
PTD's three transit operating facilities (North Transit Facility, South Transit Facility and
West Transit Facility) for the next five years. During this time, the PTD will also begin
Phase 1 of its Zero Emission Heavy-Duty Bus Fleet Transition plan as approved by
basis, newer-technology zero emission buses.

Procurement Information
An Invitation for Bid procurement was processed in accordance with City of Phoenix
Administrative Regulation 3.10.

Two vendors submitted bids deemed to be responsive to posted specifications and
responsible to provide the required goods and services. Following an evaluation based
on price, the procurement officer recommends award to the following vendor:


Page 492


Selected Bidder
Sapphire Gas Solutions: $59,262,584.

Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about July 1, 2023, for a two-year initial term with one,
two-year option to extend followed by another one-year option to extend (both options
to be exercised at the City's sole discretion), for a total term of up to five years.

Financial Impact
The contract value will not exceed $59,262,584. Funding is available in the Public
Transit Department's operating budget.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee recommended approval
of this item on May 17, 2023, by a vote of 4-0.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Public Transit
Department.




Page 493



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Annual Operations Funding Agreement with Valley Metro Rail for Operational
Costs for Light Rail Services for Fiscal Year 2023-24 (Ordinance S-49795)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an annual
operations funding agreement with Valley Metro Rail, Inc. as required each year by the
City and Valley Metro’s Operations Master Cooperative Funding Agreement 125068 to
pay the City of Phoenix’s share of light rail service and agency operating costs for
Fiscal Year (FY) 2023-24. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse
all funds related to this item. The annual agreement’s value will not exceed
$54,158,000.

Summary
The operations and maintenance budget of Valley Metro Rail, Inc. (VMR) includes
costs for: transportation contractors, propulsion power, vehicle maintenance,
systems/facilities maintenance, materials and supplies, VMR staff, safety, consultants,
regional customer services, utilities, liability insurance, and general and administrative
expenses.

Financial Impact
For FY 2023-24, the City’s total estimated share of VMR’s cost is $54,158,000, broken
down as follows:
· Agency costs - $1,652,000; and
· Operating costs for light rail service - $52,506,000.

Funding is available in the Public Transit Department's Operating budget using
Transportation 2050 funds.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Public Transit
Department.




Page 494



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Alternative Transportation Programs Contract Extension (Ordinance S-49797)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to amend the Alternative
Transportation Services Contract 148268 with MV Transportation, extending Group I
services for the current five-year contract term by one additional year. Further request
the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The total cost of the
amendment, including all management fees and reimbursable trip pass-through costs,
will not exceed $1,445,089.

Summary
In addition to fixed route (bus and light rail) and paratransit services (Dial-a-Ride), the
citizens and residents with disabilities through its multiple taxi service subsidy
programs, some of which have been in place since 1983. The Alternative
Transportation Programs allow flexibility for seniors and individuals who have obtained
paratransit certification per the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to plan taxi-based
trips based on their needs. The Group I services of the alternative transportation
programs include:
· ADA Cab: A supplement to Dial-a-Ride service, allowing individuals to schedule
additional trips at their convenience and to locations of their choice.
· Senior Cab: Provides individuals age 65 and older flexible transportation at their
convenience and to locations of their choice.
· Jobs and Employment Training: Supports travel to and from jobs or employment
training programs for residents with disabilities.
· Repetitive Medical Trips: Supports travel to and from repetitive medical
appointments, such as dialysis treatment.

Procurement Information
The Public Transit Department (PTD) issued a Request for Proposals in February
2023, which received no proposals. In response, PTD has negotiated a price with the
incumbent contractor, MV Transportation, to extend Group I services for the current
contract by one year. PTD has begun working to seamlessly transition Phoenix’s users
of the Alternative Transportation Programs to Valley Metro’s Ride Choice program,
which offers similar services, during the one-year extension.


Page 495


Contract Term
Upon approval, Contract 148268 will be extended for one year through June 30, 2024.

Financial Impact
MV Transportation's negotiated management fees for the one-year extension are
$299,454. Under this contract extension, there are also up to $1,145,635 in pass-
through transportation costs funded in part by federal grants that are tracked and
reimbursed separately based on passenger trips provided. The amendment's total
cost, including all management fees and reimbursable trip pass-through costs, will
increase the contract's aggregate cost by an amount not to exceed $1,445,089.
Funding is available in PTD’s operating budget and via existing federal grant funding.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee recommended approval
of this item on May 17, 2023, by a vote of 4-0.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Public Transit
Department.




Page 496



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Jurisdictional Bus Service Revenue Agreements - Amendments (Ordinance S-
49798)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute amendments to
Agreement 147281 with the Gila River Indian Community; Agreement 150473 with the
City of Glendale; and Agreement 150638 with the Regional Public Transportation
Authority for the purchase of Phoenix's fixed route bus services by these agencies,
and to receive funding for Phoenix's Dial-a-Ride services with regional transportation
funds managed by Regional Public Transportation Authority for Fiscal Year 2023-24.
Further request to authorize the City Treasurer to accept, and the City Controller to
disburse, all funds related to these amendments.

Summary
Phoenix's Public Transit Department has existing agreements with these agencies for
the provision of Phoenix-operated fixed route bus services on the following routes:
· Gila River Indian Community (GRIC) - Route 51;
· City of Glendale - Routes 51, 59, 60, 67, 80, 83, 90 and 186; and
· Regional Public Transportation Authority (RPTA) - Routes 3, 17, 29, 41, 50, 59, 67,
70, 80, 83, 106, 138, 154 and 170.

These amendments establish the Fiscal Year 2023-24 cost estimates for the fixed-
route bus services provided to these agencies by Phoenix, plus Phoenix’s Dial-a-Ride
services funded by regional funds.

Financial Impact
There is no cost to Phoenix, as each agency will pay Phoenix for these services.
Below are the projected costs for each agency in Fiscal Year 2023-24:

GRIC
Gross Cost of Service: $1,217,525
American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Funding Credit to GRIC: $62,461
Farebox Revenue: $46,835
Net GRIC Cost (Revenue to Phoenix): $1,108,229




Page 497

City of Glendale
Gross Cost of Service: $5,108,918
ARPA Funding Credit to Glendale: $260,073
Farebox Revenue: $347,900
Net Glendale Cost (Revenue to Phoenix): $4,500,945

Regional Public Transit Authority (RPTA)
Gross Cost of Fixed Route Bus Service: $47,081,183
ARPA Funding Credit to RPTA: $2,310,343
Farebox Revenue: $3,890,503
Net Fixed Route Bus Service Cost: $40,880,337
Net Dial-a-Ride Cost (Revenue to Phoenix): $20,792,366
Net Combined RPTA Cost (Revenue to Phoenix): $61,672,703

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Public Transit
Department.




Page 498



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Rider Sweepers Contract - IFB 23-FSD-048 - Request for Award (Ordinance S-
49711)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into separate
contracts with Southwest Sweeper Sales, Inc, and Waxie's Enterprises, LLC, dba
Waxie Sanitary Supply for the purchase of riding sweepers. The value of the contracts
will not exceed $2,000,000. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse
all funds related to this item.

Summary
The Public Works Department is responsible for maintaining and repairing 32 riding
sweepers within the City's fleet. This contract will allow for the replacement of existing
units in the fleet on an as-needed basis. These units are essential to operations and
are used for interior and exterior cleaning or scrubbing of warehouse floors, road
surfaces, parking lots and sidewalks, while providing dust control. These sweepers are
used by the Aviation, Parks and Recreation, and Water Services departments.

Procurement Information
An Invitation for Bid (IFB) 23-FSD-048 was conducted in accordance with
Administrative Regulation 3.10. Two bids were received with both vendors bidding on
all three items; Bid Item I - Sweeping at 124,080 square feet per hour (SFPH), Bid Item
II- Sweeping at 184,800 SFPH, Bid Item III- Sweeping at 217,800 SFPH. All bids were
deemed responsive and responsible with both vendors being recommended for award
based on the information found in Attachment A.

Contract Term
The initial three-year contract term shall begin on or about June 1, 2023 with two one-
year options to extend for a total term of five years.

Financial Impact
The total value of the contracts will not exceed $2,000,000 for the five-year term.

Funds are available in the Aviation, Parks and Recreation, and Water Services
departments' budget.



Page 499

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Ginger Spencer, Inger Erickson, and
Mario Paniagua, and the Water Services, Parks and Recreation, Aviation, and Public
Works departments.




Page 500
ATTACHMENT A
IFB 23-FSD-048
RIDER SWEEPERS
Grand Total Price combines the Rider Sweepers


Bid Item I Description Unit of Measure Total RECOMMENDED*

OFFEROR
Rider sweeper sweeping
Waxie Sanitary Supply 124,080 square feet-an-hour EACH $54,155.46 x
Rider sweeper sweeping
Southwest Sweepers Sales 124,080 square feet-an-hour EACH $45,495.00 x

Bid Item II Description Unit of Measure Total RECOMMENDED*

OFFEROR
Rider sweeper sweeping
Waxie Sanitary Supply 184,800 square feet-an-hour EACH $54,155.46 x
Rider sweeper sweeping
Southwest Sweepers Sales 184,800 square feet-an-hour EACH $58,972.00 x

Bid Item III Description Unit of Measure Total RECOMMENDED*

OFFEROR
Rider sweeper sweeping 217,
Waxie Sanitary Supply 800 square feet-an-hour EACH $68,386.05 x
Rider sweeper sweeping
Southwest Sweepers Sales 217,800 square feet-an-hour EACH $77,175.00 x

OFFEROR Grand Total
Waxie Sanitary Supply $176,696.97
Southwest Sweepers Sales $181,642.00




Page 501



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Solid Waste Financial Model Update and Training - Requirements Contract
(Ordinance S-49715)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
NewGen Strategies and Solutions, LLC to update the current solid waste financial
model and provide training on how to utilize the model. Further request to authorize
the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The total value of the
agreement will not exceed $89,020.

Summary
The Public Works Department Solid Waste Division is responsible for maintaining the
solid waste budget and ensuring the financial model is current. The financial model
includes information consisting of all equipment and personnel allocations, customer
counts, and tonnage data for the landfill and solid waste transfer stations. This
agreement will update the City's customer counts and tonnage data to ensure
information is current. The agreement will also include training City staff on how to
utilize the financial model to design various scenarios and perform annual revenue and
expenditure analysis.

Procurement Information
In accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10, normal competition was waived as
the result of a determination memo citing unusual nature. NewGen Strategies and
Solutions, LLC conducted a solid waste cost of service analysis and developed a
financial model in 2019. This agreement will update the existing model.

Contract Term
The agreement will be for the one-time purchase of conducting the analysis and
training that will begin on or about June 1, 2023.

Financial Impact
The item will have a one-time value of $89,020.

Funds are available in the Public Works Department's budget.




Page 502

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Public Works
Department.




Page 503



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Painting Services Agreement - IFB 24-FMD-004 (Ordinance S-49750)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into separate
agreements with A&H Painting, Inc., Bullseye Painting Company, LLC and DMS
Companies, Inc. doing business as Hernandez Companies to provide painting services
in City-owned facilities and structures. Further request to authorize the City Controller
to disburse all funds related to this item. The value of the agreements will not exceed
$4,415,000.

Summary
The Public Works Department is responsible for maintaining City-owned properties.
Painting preserves facility infrastructure by preventing deterioration of underlying
building materials, and is necessary for vandalism repairs and environmental
remediation projects such as mold and asbestos removal. These agreements provide
painting services for large projects to help maintain City-owned facilities and other
structures. These agreements will also provide services for facilities maintained by the
Water Services and Parks and Recreation departments.

Procurement Information
Invitation for Bid 24-FMD-004 was conducted in accordance with Administrative
Regulation 3.10. Eight offers were received by the Public Works Department
Procurement Services Division on March 22, 2023. The offers were evaluated based
on price, responsiveness to all specifications, terms and conditions, and responsibility
to provide the required services. The prices were evaluated based on an all or none
bid total for common as-needed painting services. The offers submitted by A&H
Painting, Inc., Bullseye Painting Company, LLC and DMS Companies, Inc. doing
business as Hernandez Companies were deemed fair and reasonable.

A&H Painting, Inc.: $315.85 bid total;
Bullseye Painting Company, LLC: $318.88 bid total; and
DMS Companies, Inc. doing business as Hernandez Companies: $375.38 bid total.

Contract Term
The initial one-year term of the agreements will begin on or about July 1, 2023. The
agreements will include four one-year options to extend the term, for a total agreement


Page 504

term of up to five years if all options are exercised.

Financial Impact
The value of the agreements, including all option years is $4,415,000, including all
applicable taxes, with an estimated annual expenditure of $883,000.

Funding is available in the Water Services, Parks and Recreation, and Public Works
departments' budgets.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Ginger Spencer, Inger Erickson and
Mario Paniagua, and the Water Services, Parks and Recreation and Public Works
departments.




Page 505



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Transfer Station Mister System Maintenance and Repair Agreement - RFQ 24-SW
-006 (Ordinance S-49759)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with Universal Fog Systems, Inc. to provide maintenance and repairs to the misting
systems at the 27th Avenue and North Gateway transfer stations. Further request to
authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The value of the
agreement will not exceed $99,000.

Summary
The Public Works Department is responsible for maintaining dust control and
compliance at the solid waste transfer stations, in accordance with the Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality and Maricopa County Air Quality Department.
The misting systems are used to maintain dust control to ensure compliance with
environmental and air quality requirements. This agreement will provide regular
quarterly maintenance and necessary repairs to the high-pressure misting systems to
keep the systems operational and ensure they are working properly.

Procurement Information
Request for Quote 24-SW-006 was conducted in accordance with Administrative
Regulation 3.10. One offer was received by the Public Works Department Procurement
Services Division on March 29, 2023. The offer was evaluated based on price,
responsiveness to all specifications, terms and conditions, and responsibility to provide
the required services. The offer submitted by Universal Fog Systems, Inc. was deemed
fair and reasonable.

Universal Fog Systems, Inc.: $17,065.91 bid total for annual costs of regular
maintenance service.

Contract Term
The initial two-year term of the agreement will begin on or about Aug. 1, 2023. The
agreement will include three one-year options to extend the term, for a total agreement
term of up to five years if all options are exercised.




Page 506

Financial Impact
The value of the agreement, including all option years is $99,000, including all
applicable taxes, with an estimated annual expenditure of $19,800.

Location
27th Avenue Transfer Station, 3060 S. 27th Ave.
North Gateway Transfer Station, 30205 N. Black Canyon Highway
Council Districts: 2 and 7

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Public Works
Department.




Page 507



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Intergovernmental Agreement with City of Flagstaff to Accept and Process
Recyclable Materials (Ordinance S-49770)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an
Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the City of Flagstaff to accept and process
recyclable materials collected in the City of Flagstaff and delivered to the City of
Phoenix's Material Recovery Facilities (MRF). Further request to authorize the City
Council to grant an exception pursuant to Phoenix City Code section 42-20(B),
inclusion of mutual indemnification language that otherwise would be prohibited by
Phoenix City Code section 42-18(A) and (B). Additionally request to authorize the City
Treasurer to accept, and for the City Controller to disburse, all funds related to this
item.

Summary
The City of Flagstaff has requested to enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement with
the City of Phoenix to accept and process its recyclable material. The City of Phoenix
can accept these materials with terms to address changing market conditions resulting
in lower commodity prices and increased processing costs from contamination in the
recyclables. This IGA will authorize the City of Phoenix to charge a processing fee to
the City of Flagstaff for recycling tonnage processed at the City MRFs, which is
designed to ensure all costs associated with processing recyclables are recovered by
the fee. The terms of this IGA include:

· In a market with low recycling commodity prices, the City of Phoenix will charge a
processing fee to the City of Flagstaff, and no revenue share to Flagstaff will be
available.
· In a market with high recycling commodity prices, the City of Flagstaff will pay a
processing fee and will receive 50 percent of the net revenue share, and the City of
Phoenix will receive the remaining 50 percent.

Annually, the City of Flagstaff will deliver up to 12,000 tons of recyclable materials to




Page 508

Contract Term
The one-year term of this IGA will begin on or about June 1, 2023, and conclude on or
about May 31, 2024. Provisions of the IGA include four, one-year options to extend the
agreement.

Financial Impact
The City of Flagstaff will be paying Phoenix to accept recyclables to cover all expenses
associated with proper handling of the materials. If recycle market prices increase
during the term of the agreement, Phoenix and Flagstaff would share the additional
revenue at a 50/50 split. Funds for the revenue share payments to the City of Flagstaff
are available in the Public Works Department's budget.

Location
North Gateway Material Recovery Facility, 30205 N. Black Canyon Highway.
27th Avenue Material Recovery Facility, 3060 S. 27th Ave.
Council Districts: 2 and 7

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Public Works
Department.




Page 509



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Active Transportation Plan

Request City Council approval of the Street Transportation Department's Active
Transportation Plan (ATP).

Summary
The Street Transportation Department (Streets) is requesting City Council approval of
the ATP (Attachment A). Active transportation is defined as walking, biking or rolling,
including using wheelchairs, scooters, mobility devices or micromobility vehicles. The
ATP updates the City's Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan originally approved by City
Council in 2014. The ATP is guided by four overarching principles based on community
input to create an active transportation network that is:

1) Safe;
2) Connected;
3) Enjoyable; and
4) Equitable.

The ATP is a policy-level plan that includes recommendations in three areas: network
development, policy updates and design guidance. The recommendations in the ATP
will help further the implementation of existing plans and policies including Complete
Streets, the Vision Zero Road Safety Action Plan and the Climate Action Plan.

ATP Background
In 2014, City Council approved the City's Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan. The
plan recommended infrastructure and policy changes to reach the vision of a well-
connected infrastructure network that would make bicycling a preferred option for daily
transportation within 20 years. The vision included receiving a Platinum Level Bicycle
Friendly Community designation from the League of American Bicyclists.

The Bicycle Master Plan guided the development of several signature active
transportation projects in Phoenix, including the 3rd and 5th Avenue Improvements,
the 3rd Street Promenade, Oak Street and the Grand Canalscape. Subsequently, the
Transportation 2050 (T2050) Plan, approved by voters in 2015, established a
commitment to add 1,080 new bike lane miles in the City of Phoenix by 2050. This


Page 510

ambitious goal requires building bike lanes beyond the recommendations in the
Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan.

In 2018, Streets applied for, and received, funds from the Maricopa Association of
Governments (MAG) to update its Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan to help guide
implementation of an expanded bike lane network. In June 2019, City Council
approved an intergovernmental agreement to allow the City to work with MAG to
collaborate on the development of an ATP that would include walking and the use of
micromobility and mobility devices.

ATP Development and Community Engagement
The ATP planning process included engagement of an interdepartmental advisory
team, extensive analysis of existing City plans and policies, and two rounds of
community engagement. The interdepartmental advisory team (Active Transportation
Advisory Team) brought together staff from seven City departments, with dedicated
working groups for each of the plan elements. The planning team reviewed 11 existing
City plans and policies to ensure alignment with the ATP and to identify opportunities
for further implementation of active transportation goals.

Two rounds of community outreach were conducted for the ATP. The first round of
community outreach took place in the winter of 2021 through an online survey, poster
polls at two community events, and interviews with community leaders from historically
marginalized neighborhoods and active transportation advocacy organizations. The
feedback gathered during this round of outreach guided the creation of the planning
principles and the recommendations within each assessment area. A second round of
public outreach, focused on review of the draft plan, was conducted from December
2022 through January 2023 through a virtual public meeting and a community survey.
The community feedback during the meeting and the survey answers informed
updates to the final version of the ATP.

ATP Elements
The ATP has three elements that correspond to the three assessment areas: network
development, policy updates and design guidance. Each element is designed to work
as part of the overall plan, or as a standalone document.

Rather than providing a map of recommended bicycle or active transportation projects,
the ATP recommends a community-focused program for developing the active
transportation network in Phoenix. Streets will work in each of Phoenix’s urban villages
to conduct in-depth community outreach and recommend a network of bike lanes that
can be quickly implemented. Staff will work with two urban villages per year to create
plans and then work to install the bike lanes within two years after finishing the plans,


Page 511

as funding is available. The process will also identify potential larger projects that will
require longer planning timelines and additional funding. The urban villages will be
prioritized based on equity and the individual village workload. The program is
anticipated to take approximately ten years to complete.

The policy section recommends updates to City policies and procedures to ensure
alignment and consistency and to support the four principles of the plan: Safe,
Connected, Enjoyable and Equitable. It supports the further implementation of
Complete Streets, the Climate Action Plan, and the Vision Zero Road Safety Action
Plan. The recommendations are grouped into short-term, medium-term and long-term
priorities based on public input and feasibility.

The design guidance section will be a reference manual for staff and consultants on
how to design streets for active transportation. It reflects the current best practices for
active transportation with a special focus on Phoenix’s unique challenges. The design
guidance section will be shared internally and made available on Phoenix’s website as
a standalone document for use by consultants and developers.

Accountability
The ATP continues previously established commitments to build bike lanes and multi-
use paths along canals and to pursue a Platinum Level Bicycle Friendly Community
designation. Tracking metrics for each of the three plan elements are identified and will
be reported in annual Active Transportation Program updates to the Citizens
Transportation Commission and the Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning
Subcommittee.

Financial Impact
The $2 million per year Bicycle Master Plan funding from the Highway Users Revenue
Fund will be used for implementation of the ATP.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved:
· An intergovernmental agreement with MAG (Ordinance S-45828) on June 19, 2019;
and
· An exception to Phoenix City Code to include indemnification and assumption of
liability provisions for the intergovernmental agreement previously authorized
(Ordinance S-46354) on Feb. 5, 2020.

The Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee recommended City
Council approval of the ATP on May 17, 2023, by a vote of 4-0.


Page 512


Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Street
Transportation Department.




Page 513
ATTACHMENT A





ACTIVE
TRANSPORTATION
PLAN


APRIL 2023




Page 514




ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Mayor Kate Gallego Department
Councilmember Ann O’Brien, District 1 Mark Glock, Former Deputy Director, Street
Transportation Department
Councilmember Jim Waring, District 2
Matthew Wilson, Former Deputy Director, Street
Councilmember Debra Stark, District 3 Transportation Department
Councilmember Laura Pastor, District 4 Rubben Lolly, Deputy Director, Street Transportation
Councilmember Betty Guardado, District 5 Department
Councilmember Kevin Robinson, District 6 Carl Langford, Traffic Operations Engineering
Supervisor, Street Transportation Department
Vice Mayor Yassamin Ansari, District 7
Bruce Littleton, Traffic Engineering Supervisor, Street
Councilmember Kesha Hodge Washington,
Transportation Department
District 8
Leticia Vargas, Special Projects Administrator, Street
Previous Council Members Transportation Department
Councilmember Sal DiCiccio, District 6 Mailén Pankiewicz, Pedestrian Safety Coordinator,
Street Transportation Department
Councilmember Carlos Garcia, District 8
Additional staff acknowledgments
Active Transportation Advisory Committee
Kini Knudson, Director, Street Transportation
Jordan Feld, Deputy Aviation Director, Aviation Department
Department
Mark Melnychenko, Former Deputy Director, Street
Sheldon Daisley, Former Airport Planner, Aviation Transportation Department
Department
Marielle Brown, Active Transportation Principal
Samantha Keating, Deputy Director, Housing Planner, Street Transportation Department
Department
Brian Fellows, Principal Planner, Street Transportation
Lynda Lee, Former Deputy Director, Neighborhood Department
Services Department
Maja Brkovic, Principal Planner, Street Transportation
Yvette Roeder, Deputy Director, Neighborhood Department
Services Department
Al Zubi, Traffic Engineer III, Street Transportation
Gregory Gonzales, Economic Development Program Department
Manager, Neighborhood Services Department
Joseph Perez, Former Bicycle Coordinator, Street
Mark Hartman, Chief Sustainability Officer, Office of Transportation Department
Sustainability
Brandy Ruark, Civil Engineer II, Street Transportation
Darice Ellis, Environmental Quality Specialist, Office Department
of Sustainability
Aaron Jensen, Landscape Architect II, Parks and Maricopa Association of Governments
Recreation Department
Kay Bork, Transportation Planning Project Manager
Natasha Hughes, Planner I, Parks and Recreation
Department Consultants
Joshua Bednarek, Director of Planning and Alta
Development Department
Mike Rose
Joél Carrasco, Special Projects Administrator,
Planning and Development Department Brandon Gonzalez
Racelle Escolar, Principal Planner, Planning and Krista Flynt
Development Department
Community Equity Partners
Albert Crespo, Deputy Director, Public Transit
Sarah Gonzalez
Department
Sharifa Rowe
Markus Coleman, Light Rail Administrator, Public
Transit Department Stephanie Luz Cordel


Special thanks to the Maricopa Association of Governments for providing funding
ii for this project through the Active Transportation Design Assistance Program.
Page 515
Table Of Contents




TABLE OF
CONTENTS


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 04 REVIEW OF EXISTING PLANS
Review of Existing Plans 17



01 BACKGROUND
Background 1 05 ACTION & ACCOUNTABILITY
Action & Accountability 21



02 BENEFITS OF ACTIVE
TRANSPORTATION PLAN ELEMENTS
Benefits of walking & biking 7 Community Active Transportation Network
Program Element
Policy Recommendations Element
Bicycle & Pedestrian Design Guidance Element
03 COMMUNITY INPUT
& PRINCIPLES
Input Themes 13
APPENDIX A
Guiding principles 15
Public Outreach Summary




iii
Page 516

THE CITY OF PHOENIX
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Executive Summary


Guiding Principles
The plan includes guiding principles that are based on what Phoenicians said were important during
outreach. These principles guided recommendations developed in the plan, and they will guide how
Phoenix builds its active transportation network.




Equitable Safe Connected Enjoyable


What is active Public Input Major Takeaways
transportation? RESIDENTS WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE:
bike infrastructure, specifically bike lanes
that are protected or separated from
vehicle travel lanes.

When we walk, bike, and roll around Phoenix, we
streets with sidewalks, specifically
are using active transportation. detached sidewalks with shade
By designing our streets to be inclusive of active
travel, and improve safety and connectivity for
midblock crossings
active transportation infrastructure, Phoenix can
give people choices on how they move around the
COMMUNITY PRIORITIES
community.
Neighborhood bicycle routes should
be a higher priority than regional
routes.

The City should prioritize Comfortable
and safe Bicycle facilities over lower-cost
facilities.

Prevent injury-causing collisions.


Everyone should have a
comfortable and safe option for
using the street.




iv
Page 517
The City Of Phoenix




What are the Plan’s Primary Recommendations?
Community Active Transportation Village
Network Program Assessment
Process
Community feedback indicated that diverse needs and priorities across the
short, local connections within people’s city of Phoenix, and will help lead to STEP 1
neighborhoods were a high priority. projects that can make an impact on Analyze
The Community Active Transportation residents’ daily lives. Existing
Network Program will work with Conditions
The Network Program will individually
community members to recommend
assess two of Phoenix’s 15 Urban STEP 2
biking and walking connections. The
Villages, every year. Priority projects will
program will focus on bike lanes and Identify
be implemented the following two years Destinations
street crossings to help people get
after the assessment is completed. and Gaps
to local destinations. The program
will gather community input through
community task forces, surveys, meetings, STEP 3
and attending community events. Identify
A cornerstone of the Network Network
Development Program is neighborhood
engagement. Local connections to STEP 4
parks, schools, transit, community Prioritize
centers, and other neighborhood Projects
destinations will be identified and
prioritized by neighborhood residents STEP 5
themselves. This community-driven Implement
approach will allow the Network Projects
Development Program to account for


Implementation Schedule
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031
Village 13
Network Village 1 Village 3 Village 5 Village 7 Village 9 Village 11
Village 14
Assessment Village 2 Village 4 Village 6 Village 8 Village 10 Village 12
Village 15
Project Villages 1 Villages 1 Villages 3 Villages 5 Villages 7 Villages 9 Villages 11 Villages 13
Implementation and 2 through 4 through 6 through 8 through 10 through 12 through 15 through 15




i
Page 518




Policy Recommendations Policy Objectives
The policy recommendations direct staff to update Objective 1: Advance Complete
internal policies and programs to better support Streets Policy Implementation
active transportation. Under each objective, there are
specific recommendations to advance existing plans Objective 2: Support the Goals of the
and to support the guiding principles of the plan. The Climate Action Plan
recommendations are prioritized as short-term, medium- Objective 3: Support the Vision Zero
term, and long-term to create a feasible work plan. The Road Safety Action Plan
policy recommendations represent a continued shift
towards a more multimodal future in Phoenix where Objective 4: Share Opportunities
active transportation plays an important role alongside for Integrating Active Transportation
other ways of travel. Policies and Guidance into the
General Plan

Objective 5: Build Safe Active
Transportation Networks

Objective 6: Build Connected Active
Transportation Networks

Objective 7: Build Enjoyable Active
Transportation Networks

Objective 8: Build Equitable Active
Transportation Networks



Design Guidance




Design Guidance
Shared Use Paths SIDEWALKS

SIDE WAL KS
PAT HS
SHA RED USE
pedestrians,
from motorized
traffic for bicyclists,
desirable for bicyclists
of all skill Sidewalk Zones
a travel area separate
A shared use path
provides use paths are Shared ies not opportunit & Widths
and other users. provide travel Sidewalks are
the most fundament
users, joggers, should generally
skaters, wheelchair traffic. These facilities pedestrian travel al element of the
walking network,
separation from separated from
vehicle traffic. as they provide
levels preferring increased numbers Providing adequate an area for
roadways. of people walking,
provided by existing improved accessibilit and accessible
facilities can lead
y, and the creation to
Design Featur of social space.
es
Suburban Sidewalk
B




Phoenix’s new design guidance for active transportation is based on A


Enhancement




best practices and focuses on safety and comfort of people walking
Zone Amenity Zone Pedestrian
The curbside Route (PAR)Access Building Frontage
lane can act as The amenity zone,
a flexible space called the furnishingalso The pedestrian Zone
access
to further buffer or landscaping route is the area The building frontage
zone, intended zone
from travel. This a comfortable
moving traffic, the adjacent roadway, zone should be “shy” distance
and entirely from the building
may be used for and is also the free of permanent fronts, fencing,
area walls
bike facility. Curb
a where elements temporary objects and vertical landscaping. and
such as It provides
extensions and street trees, signal while fully meeting opportunities
for windowCrossing Treatments
bike signs, and other poles, Enhanced

Typical Use Comfort
the requirements shopping, to place
Facility Selection:
corrals may occupy




and biking. The guidance provides an overview of how we should be
street for signs, planters,
this space where furniture are properly pedestrian accessibility. or chairs.
along canals, such as appropriate. located.
Wide pedestrian
In order to• In
provide corridors,
a bikeway
waterway network that meets the needs of the Phoenix’s “Interested but Concerned” zones
ditches, rivers, and creeks. are needed in
areas or
residents (who comprise
drainage the majority of the population), bikeways must be low-stress and comfortable. where pedestrian
By using a•metric abandoned
In called Level
(commonly
corridorsStress
railof Traffic
Rails-to-Tra
(LTS), specific facility types can be matched to the needs of
ils or Rail-Trails.) TOUCAN SIGNAL are high.
flows

people who bicycle
referred in to as
Phoenix. Generally, “Interested but Concerned,” users will only bicycle on LTS 1 or
can be built
LTS 2 facilities.In active rail corridors, trails to as “Toucan” signalized crossings of streets are a special signal configuration at minor street crossings
• railroads (referred
adjacent to active of a major street, exclusively for people walking and biking, so that “two can” cross the major street
Rails-with-Trails.) line and
concurrently. Vehicles on the minor street do not have a signal, and are instead forced to turn right at
Levels of Traffic Stress (LTS)



designing our active transportation facilities and includes important
such as power a stop sign. This does function as a half signal since vehicles are not allowed to turn left or proceed
• In utility corridors,
sewer corridors. through. The placement of the Toucan can vary within a given intersection, depending on the overall
WHAT TYPE OF BICYCLISTS WILL RIDE ON Design-12
THIS LTS FACILITY? roadway width, and whether one-way vs. two-way operations are contained fully within the median in the
LTS LEVEL • Along roadways.
DESCRIPTION
STRONG & ENTHUSIASTIC & INTERESTED BUT middle of the minor street.
FEARLESS CONFIDENT CONCERNED



Presents the lowest level of traffic stress; demands
less attention from people riding bicycles, and
Design-37
attractive enough for a relaxing bicycle ride. Suitable
LTS 1 for almost all people riding bicycles, including children




design considerations that will raise the standard for bike and
YES YES YES
trained to ride in the street and to safety cross
intersections.



Presents little traffic stress and therefore suitable to
most adults riding bicycles, but demandsmore
LTS2 attention than might be expected from children.
YES YES SOMETIMES




More traffic stress than LTS2, yet significantly less than
LTS3 the stress of integrating with multilane traffic. YES SOMETIMES NO




pedestrian design in Phoenix. The new design guidance is an exciting
Design Guidan
A level of stress beyond LTS 3. Includes roadways that ce
have no dedicated bicycle facilities and moderate to

LTS4
higher vehicle speeds and volumes OR high speed
BIK E BO
ULE VAR
and high volume roadways WITH an exclusive riding YES NO NO


DS
zone (lane) where there is a significant speed

BIK E BO
differential with vehicles.


UL EVAR
A Bike Boulev D OV ER
in Tucson, ard
AZ. is a
VIE W


step forward for the City and will be an important guide as each new
conven
A Toucan signal low-sp
Motorists
ience foror go straight.
must turn right onto Stone Avenue, the major roadway (from either direction).
eed, low-vo
Bicyclists can turn left, right,
neighborhoodPhoto people bicyclin lume
Bicyclists turning left or going straight can push a button to activate a green
roadway
bicycle signal indication. credit: Steven g. It provide
Vance. that
serve as charac ter and mainta s better conditi is designed to enhanc
Bicycle Toolbox a low-stress ons for bicyclin e comfor
elements bikeway networ ining emergency g while improv t and
vehicle access
Typical Use
features to
of Bike Boulev
maintain
ards are
k, providi
ng Design Features
unique signag direct, and conven
. Bike Boulev
ards are
ing the
low vehicle e•and A pavem
toucanentsignal ient routesmay
assembly intended
be created
• Appropriate at carefully designed intersection
volumes, across to
Phoenix.
locations
and conven pairing a markin
byient bicyclegs,
andtraffic
pedestrian
calmingsignal
Key
major street and
heads. The bicycle signal gs.
crossin must comply withdiversion
Bikeways
• Across higher traffic streets where people

Facility Selection:
requirement from FHWA Interim Approval 16.




facility is design and built.
walking and biking both require safe and
to determine the
below can be used To use comfortable crossings, such as along Bike • The major street faces a standard traffic signal
facility, the chart and volume situations.
to identify a preferred roadway speed Boulevards. (red, amber, and green indications) for the
As a starting point provided in particular proposed roadway,
and locate major road. When located at an intersection,
of bikeway to be on the existing or
Design-20 recommended type daily traffic volume volume which affect
facility the minor cross street has Stop sign to control
the appropriate factors beyond
this chart, identify key variables. Other on-street parking,
intersection minor street motor vehicle traffic.
indicated by those the presence of in the facility
the facility types heavy vehicles,
traffic mix of including factors are not included
selection include sight distance. These and design process.
land use, and roadway facility selection
considered in the
Design-47
density, surrounding
below, but should always be
selection chart
100 veh/peak hr)
(1,000 veh/day or
DAILY TRAFFIC
PHOENIX BICYCLE
FACILITY AVERAGE ANNUAL 20+ 25+ 30+
GUIDANCE 10 15+
CONTEXTUAL 6 8
0 2 4




In particular, the Bikeway Facility Selection Matrix is an important
FACILITY TYPE
BIKE BOULEVARD Volume
street environment LTS 2
Comfortable local LTS 1 Treatme
physical separation;
without utilizing ensure nts depicte
techniques to Speed
typically employs d may vary
enough for safe
speeds are slow
shared street. Typical Use per roadwa
y segmen
t or location
.
PARKING LANE Volume
• Paralle
BIKE LANE WITH LTS 2
l with
Design Fea
bike lane (without
thoroughfare and in close proxim
LTS 1
On-road basic
buffers or barriers). Speed

low-speed s (1/4 mile or less) ity to major
streets. on low-vo • Signs tures
• Follow lume, and pavem
a desire line minimum ent markin




milestone for bikeway design in Phoenix. Contextual factors, such as
PARKING LANE
Volume
BIKE LANE WITHOUT
bike lane (without
LTS 2
ideally long for bicycle treatments gs are the
LTS 1
street as
and relative travel that a bike boulevnecessary to design
On-road basic
buffers or barriers). Speed
miles). ly continu is ate a
ous (2-5 • Implem ard.
• Avoid ent volume
alignments on the contex control treatm
circuitous with
routing. The excessive zigzag engineering t of the bike boulev ents based
Volume
BUFFERED BIKE LANE LTS 2
LTS 1
separated by painted
Basic bike lane less than bikeway or judgment. ard,
While motor using
bike lane from Speed
10% out volumes
of directio should have
buffer to separate and/or parking
vehicle travel
lanes
to shortes should not
lanes. t path of n travel day, ideal exceed 3,000 vehicle
• Local primar y corrido compared conditions vehicles per
LANE LTS 2 streets r. day or less. are 1,500
SEPARATED BIKE
bikeway. Could
Volume
LTS 1 than 1,500 with traffic volume vehicles per
Physically separated protected by a
vehicles per s of fewer • Interse
way and ction
of their length) to enhanc crossings should
be one or two




posted speeds and volumes, will help determine levels of bikeway
variety of techniques.
Speed
day (for
50 speeds below and with averag the majority bicyclis
e comfor
t and
be design
ed
25 mph. e operat ts of diverse minimi
to mainta
in Utilize traffic ing skills and ze delay for
discourage or establish low volume calming
Volume LTS 1*
SHARED-USE TRAIL
from roadway,
abilities.
Completely separatedpedestrians Design-3 vehicle cut
through / s and
with Speed
typically shared
35 40
45 speeding.
25 30
15 20
5 10 (mph)
SPEED
POSTED TRAVEL is needed to be
LTS 1.
LEGEND range, more treatment
If in the 45 mph
and their treatment.
Volume turns across path
LTS 2 * Depending on Methods
LTS 1 Stress (LTS) Analysis
Speed on Level of Traffic
LTS ratings based




separation for enhanced user comfort and safety.
Acceptable desired and acceptable
Desired For street segments, the
at a selected location. vehicle speed on
an LTS 1 or 2 experience between motor
that would provide for that facility.
The correspondence
the street volumes
and LTS
facility, or facilities, that are appropriate chosen when both
a preferred bicycle volume ranges should only be a treatment,
used to identify are the motor vehicle the facility. A facility when selecting
This chart can be are shown. These the LTS scores for should be considered
for each facility entries determine LTS. Other factors
vehicular volumes shown. The speed to meet the desired
facility are also one facility type
score for each allow more than
street and the LTS it is important to
Since ranges overlap,
scores are appropriate. or trailheads.
to schools, parks,
such as proximity
Design-21




ii
Page 519
The City Of Phoenix




Planning Process Accountability
The two-year process to create this plan involved The City will continue tracking and reporting on
a thorough assessment of internal barriers to bicycle infrastructure progress, including on-street
implementing active transportation, numerous and canal path facilities. Additionally, after each
meetings with the Active Transportation Advisory urban village priority projects are selected, they
Team (ATAT), and community engagement through will be included as an addendum to the plan for
interviews with community leaders, surveys, tabling implementation accountability. Finally, the City will
events, advocacy group interviews, and a virtual apply for Bicycle Friendly Community Status each
public meeting introducing the draft plan. A final two years to benchmark progress towards Platinum
community survey on the draft plan helped identify status.
final revisions.



What was the process for creating the Plan?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Project Discovery Internal Outreach Recommended Public Review Final Plan
Strategizing Strategies & Closeout



Recommended
Strategies Final Plan
Project & Closeout
Internal
Strategizing
1 7
3 Public
Review



Discovery
Outreach
2a
Stakeholder
mapping
2b 4b
4a
Current
Practice Outreach
Mapping Outreach
Prep




Active Transportation Program
iii
Email: bike@phoenix.gov
Page 520




BACKGROUND
iv
Page 521
Background




BACKGROUND
Purpose & Need
The City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan (ATP) residents access and connect to these important local
establishes a framework to guide decision-making— destinations.
through policies, programs, and infrastructure—to
make walking, biking, and rolling* more safe and Safe and connected active transportation networks
enjoyable in Phoenix. This plan is a policy-level plan should meet the needs of all Phoenicians. This plan
that highlights collaborative opportunities to advance provides an assessment framework that helps to
active transportation through partnerships with other city prioritize highest need areas and the neighborhood-
initiatives, and also provides a neighborhood-centered
approach to building active transportation priorities at
the neighborhood scale.

This plan’s recommendations are organized into
three main assessment areas of 1) Policy Framework,
2) Network Development guidance, and 3) Design
Guidance. An overview of all three of these areas is
contained within this document, which is guided by an
overarching set of principles—to create an active
transportation network in Phoenix that is
safe, connected, enjoyable, and equitable.
Source: Maricopa Association of Governments
Each year, the City installs new bikeways, crossings,
and pedestrian infrastructure in coordination with capital Three Plan Assessment Areas:
projects and the ongoing resurfacing program. This
POLICY FRAMEWORK:
plan aims to accelerate active transportation progress
Review policies and internal

by prioritizing neighborhood-scale and neighborhood-
identified improvements and provides design guidance practices that influence
to create the next generation of bicycle and pedestrian active transportation
infrastructure in Phoenix. design.

While the city aims to continue improving city-wide
NETWORK DEVELOPMENT:
networks, a major focus of this plan is helping to create
linkages and connections to everyday destinations within
neighborhoods and urban villages with facilities that 2 Develop a network framework
that is not map-based.
are designed to be safe and enjoyable for everyone.
Many of these local destinations - including grocery
stores, restaurants, schools, and parks - are set up DESIGN GUIDANCE:
for travel through walking and biking as short trips

Create updated design
within neighborhoods. This plan focuses on helping guidance for how to design
bicycle and pedestrian
facilities.
* Rolling refers to those using wheelchairs, scooters, and
other mobility devices, whether powered or unpowered. ATP-1
Page 522




specific approach speaks to Phoenix’s large and safe for a variety of ways of travel and directly
geographic demographic diversity, allowing residents impact the lives, experiences, and quality of life of
to identify projects and needs that are most impactful to Phoenix’s residents. This ATP is an opportunity to build
their neighborhoods. upon other planning efforts, like those highlighted
below, to make biking and walking key components of
Advancing Existing Plans the City’s transportation network as it continues to grow
and evolve in the future.
Phoenix is the 5th largest city and the fastest growing
large city in the United States at this time. Many
previous and existing planning efforts have contributed
to and guided this growth to support Phoenix
transitioning into a world class city. These plans, and
this active transportation plan, build upon and support
the cultural shift of designing roadways to be inclusive




Existing Plans Supported by This Plan
Existing plans and policies across Phoenix that this plan supports are: Road Safety Action Plan: Moving to
Vision Zero (2022); City of Phoenix Complete Streets Policy; City of Phoenix Climate Action Plan (2021); the
Maricopa Association of Governments Active Transportation Plan (2020); and the City of Phoenix Transit
Oriented Development (TOD) Strategic Policy Framework (2018).




The Phoenix Road Safety The City of Phoenix Transit The City of Phoenix Complete
Action Plan: Moving to Vision Oriented Development (TOD) Streets Policy provides
Zero (2022) adopted by City Strategic Policy Framework support and direction around
Council in September 2022 (2018) prioritizes higher designing Phoenix’s streets to
with the goal of reducing traffic density land use around high accommodate many different
fatalities and serious injuries capacity transit and provides forms of travel, and to prioritize
to zero in Phoenix by 2050. opportunities for active safe and comfortable facilities
transportation connections. for people walking and biking.




ATP-2
Page 523
Background




Advancing Active
Transportation
While the City of Phoenix first began planning for bikes implementing bicycle facilities that are considered more
when the Council adopted a proposed bike system in comfortable for all ages and abilities. This includes
1987, bikeway implementation and momentum for safe bike boulevards, which are low stress routes along
and comfortable facilities only recently began with the neighborhood streets, as well as protected bike lanes,
adoption of the City’s first bicycle master plan in 2014. which are on-street bicycle facilities that are physically
Since then, the City has made significant progress in separated from motor vehicle traffic by a vertical
expanding the bicycle network. To date, the City has element or barrier, such as a curb, flexible delineators,
implemented 183 miles of buffered bike lanes, 8 miles or vehicle parking aisle.
of protected bike lanes, and 974 miles of traditional
bike lanes. In recent years, as national best practices
have evolved, the City has begun planning and




The Evolution of Protected Bikeways in Phoenix:


The City installed its first protected bike lane along 15th Avenue
between Van Buren and Jefferson streets.


The City installed its first parking-protected bike lanes along 39th
Avenue from Encanto Boulevard to Edgemont Avenue and Earll Drive
from Sixth to Third Avenues.

The City installed its first two-way protected bike lane along 3rd
Avenue between Roosevelt Street and McDowell Road.


The City installed protected bike lanes on Fillmore Street from
Central Avenue to 7th Street, and 3rd Street from Roosevelt Street to
Indian School Road.




ATP-3
Page 524




Another exciting milestone is the current design of a bike the Design Guidance Element for more information
boulevard that includes significant traffic calming and on designing for different users). They provide safe
traffic diverters along Fillmore Street from 7th to 16th connections for children to walk or bike to school
Streets. This corridor will reflect current best practices and connect people to work, transit, and places they
in bike boulevard design and has been envisioned for want or need to go. In many cases, walking, biking,
over a decade. and rolling are also primary ways of moving around
Phoenix. Many residents use walking and biking to
Phoenix has made significant progress and the work
access transit and other modes of transportation,
by various departments, advocates, and community
and an increasing number of people are reducing
input have helped make each of these projects a reality
household vehicle ownership for a variety of different
for our community. The next 10 years will bring more
reasons.
opportunities to create safe and enjoyable roadways
that provide space for different forms of travel. Building our active transportation network serves these
purposes, among many others, and helps to guide how
and where safe critical infrastructure investments can
Streets for All and should be made within our community.

The way we think about and design our streets in Active Transportation accounts for a variety of different
Phoenix and across the country is changing. We have ways of travel, including walking, rolling, biking, and
made large strides as a community, and have invested many emerging types of mobility options. But it’s not
significant resources, in building a transportation just about being inclusive of multiple types of travel
network that provides choices for how to travel, modes, it’s about ensuring the accommodation of
including not just driving, but walking, rolling, biking, people with different abilities, including people with
transit, and other emerging types of mobility options. a disability and children. This means creating facilities
The extension of our light rail system, continued that are comfortable for people of all abilities and
advancement of Bus Rapid Transit and the building of confidence levels.
canal trails are all testaments to this commitment.

Walking, biking, and rolling are critical pieces of this
network. These modes are not just about providing
a variety of options, but are about including and
accommodating people of all ages and abilities (see




* Rolling refers to those using wheelchairs, scooters, and
other mobility devices, whether powered or unpowered.



ATP-4
Page 525
Background




3rd Avenue Protected Bike Lanes with the use of a buffer strip and vertical posts to separate bicyclists from traffic.
Source: Maricopa Association of Governments
ATP-5
Page 526




BENEFITS OF ACTIVE
TRANSPORTATION
ATP-6
Page 527
Benefits Of Active Transportation




BENEFITS OF DRIVING 4 MILES/DAY COSTS

WALKING &
$905 / year
BIKING
Economic Benefits IN FUEL AND VEHICLE WEAR AND TEAR
AAA, 2019
Active transportation can benefit the bottom line of
households, businesses, and cities. The economic while...
benefits of walking and biking include lower WALKING AND BICYCLING COSTS
transportation costs for individuals and families, savings
to cities from less wear and tear on streets, greater
neighborhood and community vibrancy, boosts in retail

$0-350 / year
sales, and more young job seekers being attracted and
retained.1

Vehicle ownership and maintenance are expensive.
On average, households in Phoenix spend
$10,900 a year ($908 per month)on vehicle
ownership costs2 . These costs are especially Your driving Costs: How Much are you really Paying to
burdensome for lower-earning households. National Drive? (2019). https://exchange.aaa.com/wp-content/
research from 2019 shows that lower-earning American uploads/2019/09/AAA-Your-Driving-Costs-2019.pdf

households proportionately spend roughly twice Increased EMPLOYMENT AND
as much of their income as the average-earning SALES for businesses facing
household on transportation. In 2016, the lowest STREETS WITH IMPROVED
earning 20 percent of the population spent almost WALKING & BIKING
30 percent of their income on transportation costs3. INFRASTRUCTURE4, 5
Having more transportation choices, including biking, Proximity to BICYCLE

$
walking, and transit, presents important opportunities INFRASTRUCTURE
for individuals and families to be more financially stable is associated with
and self-reliant. INCREASING
RESIDENTIAL
Research suggests that active transportation also has
PROPERTY VALUES6
the potential to contribute to the general economic
vitality of the community, and in more specific ways as
shown in the graphics at right.



1. Railyards Blog. https://railyards.com/blog/7-benefits-of-bike-friendly-communities
2. The Housing and Transportation (H+T®) Affordability Index. https://htaindex.cnt.org/map/
3. ITDP (Institute for Transportation & Development Policy). The High Cost of Transportation in the
United States. 2019. https://www.itdp.org/2019/05/23/high-cost-transportation-united-states/
4. Garrett-Peltier, H. (2011). Pedestrian and Bicycle Infrastructure: A National Study of Employment
Impacts. University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Political Economy Research Institute.
5. Liu, J. H., & Shi, W. (2020). Understanding Economic and Business Impacts of Street Improvements for Bicycle and Mobility– A
Multicity Multiapproach Exploration (NITC-RR-1031). National Institute for Transportation and Communities, Portland State University.
6. Liu, J. H., & Shi, W. (2017). Impact of Bike Facilities on Residential Property Prices. Transportation Research
ATP-7
Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2662, pp 50–58. https://doi.org/10.3141/2662-06
Page 528




Safety Benefits
Dedicated infrastructure for walking and biking, “Communities designed
combined with measures to reduce vehicle speeds,
helps prevent crashes and saves lives. Many bicycle to be walkable can
and pedestrian-involved crashes are preventable. improve safety not only
While education and other efforts are important, for people who walk
the design of safe infrastructure that is designed for
slower vehicle speeds and separation between
but for all community
motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians is the most members.”
effective way to reduce crashes and crash severity.
– Vivek H. Murthy, Surgeon
Speed management is important in preventing both General, 2015
crash instances and crash severity. Research shows
that driver behavior, especially speed, is largely
driven by roadway design, more so than posted Bicycling infrastructure
speed limits or enforcement, and that streets designed (specifically separated and
for slower speeds result in fewer crashes.6 protected bike lanes) significantly
reduce fatalities and improve road-
safety outcomes for all road users,
not just cyclists. 7




A pedestrian hit by a vehicle A pedestrian hit by a vehicle A pedestrian hit by a vehicle
traveling at 25 MPH traveling at 35 MPH traveling at 45 MPH8

30 30 30
20 40 20 40 20 40
10 50 10 50 10 50

0 60 0 60 0 60
SURVIVABILITY SURVIVABILITY SURVIVABILITY


has an 89% has a 68% has a 35%
chance of survival chance of survival chance of survival


6. Ewing, Reid and Dumbaugh, Eric. 2009. The Built Environment and Traffic
Safety. Journal of Planning Literature. Volume 23 Number 4.
7. Marshall, W. and Ferenchak, N. 2019 - Why cities with high bicycling rates
are safer for all road users, Journal of Transport & Health
8. National Traffic Safety Board (2017) Reducing Speeding-Related Crashes Involving Passenger
Vehicles. Available from: https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/SS1701.pdf

ATP-8
Page 529
Benefits Of Active Transportation




Nationally, those who bike
Health Benefits report11:
Active transportation supports mental and physical
well-being through reduced stress, reduced anxiety,
and numerous health benefits associated with higher
levels of activity. A BETTER MOOD HIGHER SELF-
CONFIDENCE
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
recommends that adults get 150 minutes of moderate-
intensity physical activity every week (e.g., 30 minutes
a day for five days) to reduce chances of chronic
diseases, such as diabetes or cardiovascular disease. HIGH TOLERANCE HEALTHIER SLEEP
Most recent data shows that roughly 80 percent of TO STRESS PATTERNS
American adults do not achieve this.9 Communities
that make walking and bicycling safe and convenient
ways to travel enable residents to incorporate physical
activity into their daily routines.

Despite the inherent risks tied to bicycling in car-
oriented cities, studies have shown that the health
benefits of bicycling to an individual outweigh the risks Those who are PHYSICALLY ACTIVE generally
9 to 1, even when accounting for higher exposure to air LIVE LONGER and have a LOWER RISK FOR
pollution and risk of traffic collisions.10 HEART DISEASE, STROKE, TYPE 2 DIABETES,
DEPRESSION, AND SOME CANCERS.

CDC, 2015




20 MINUTES WALKING OR BIKING
9. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. each day is associated with a
https://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/index.html
10. de Hartog, Jeroen Johan; Boogaard, Hanna; LOWER RISK OF HEART
Nijland, Hans; Hoek, Gerard. 2010. Do the FAILURE FOR MEN
Health Benefits of Cycling Outweigh the Risks?
Environmental Health Perspectives. https://www. &
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2920084/
11. Boyd, H., Hillman, M., Nevill, A., Pearce, A. LOWER RISK FOR WOMEN
and Tuxworth, B. (1998). Health-related effects
of regular cycling on a sample of previous non- Rahman, 2014 and 2015
exercisers, Resume of main findings



ATP-9
Page 530




Environmental Benefits By 2050, if 7% of American commute trips were
By enabling people to make short trips on foot or
bicycle instead of a car, active transportation can OR
help communities address several environmental
challenges. The most discussed, and perhaps most
critical, environmental benefits of active transportation ANNUAL GLOBAL GREENHOUSE GAS
are reduced air pollution and emissions of greenhouse EMISSIONS would be reduced by approximately
gases. Other environmental benefits include energy

14%
savings, less noise pollution, less water pollution, and
even reduced pressure to develop agricultural and
open space.


84%
Replacing automobile trips with walking and bicycling Those who BICYCLE
trips can reduce particulate matter, nitrous oxide, sulfur EVERYDAY had 84%
oxide, volatile organic compounds and carbon dioxide LOWER CARBON
that a typical motor vehicle emits. DIOXIDE EMISSIONS
from all daily travel than
non-bicyclists.13

to school, air pollution reduced from
not taking a car would =
If
8% MORE children
living within 2 miles of a
school
OR REMOVING x 60,000
from the road FOR 1 YEAR,
nationally.14




Key opportunities identified by the climate action plan
that advance active transportation include:
Phoenix Climate Action Plan
• Creating a connected and comfortable bicycle
In 2021, Phoenix adopted a climate action plan network that is designed for all ages and abilities
with the goal of reaching net-zero as a city by 2050
• Expanding the network of multi-use pathways
while also reducing 50% of emissions by 2030. Our
• Linking active transportation connections with high
active transportation network will be a key partnership
capacity transit
opportunity in achieving these goals.
• Creating walkable and bikeable neighborhood
connections




ATP-10
Page 531
Benefits Of Active Transportation




Accessibility and
Mobility Benefits
Active transportation provides more options for how
people get around, regardless of their reason for travel.
Improved infrastructure that provides comfortable and
safe routes of travel can encourage more people to use
active modes and increase connections to educational,
economic, and recreational opportunities.

For those who are unable to drive or lack access to a
vehicle, increasing the range of safe walking, biking,
and rolling facilities creates large improvements
in quality of life - accessing more destinations and
opening the door to new possibilities. A robust active
transportation network can capture a high percentage
of 0-5 mile trips, helping to maximize transportation
efficiency, and provide greater choice for residents and
visitors.

Source: Maricopa Association of Governments



On average, 40% OF ALL TRIPS we make are for a distance of TWO MILES OR LESS—a distance that can
easily be covered by a 10 MINUTE BICYCLE RIDE or a 30 MINUTE WALK.15




12. European Cyclists’ Federations. (2016). Cycle More Often 2 Cool Down the Planet! Quantifying
CO2 savings of cycling.ast Company https://medium.com/fast-company/as-we-discuss-big-
solutions-to-climate-change-dont-forget-people-friendly-streets-18514fe56a43
13. Brand, C. et al., 2021, The climate change mitigation effects of daily active travel
in cities. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment
14. Pedroso, M, 2008, Safe Routes to School Steps to a Greener Future: How walking and bicycling to
school reduces carbon emissions and air pollutants. Safe Routes to School National Partnership
15. NHTS 2009, FHWA Office of Policy


ATP-11
Page 532




COMMUNITY INPUT &
PRINCIPLES
ATP-12
Page 533
Community Input & Principles




INPUT THEMES

Community outreach for the plan was conducted through an online Online Survey
survey, poster polls at neighborhood and community events, and
interviews with local leaders and advocacy organizations. This input Who Participated?

guided the overall plan goals. Here is a snapshot of what we heard.
The full engagement summary can be found in Appendix A.
Survey Participants

What we heard: TRANSPORTATION DESIRES
DAILY TRANSPORTATION Respondents would LIKE TO SEE MORE:
bike infrastructure, specifically bike lanes that
65% for daily transportation are protected or separated from vehicle travel
lanes.
70% would like to more often. streets with sidewalks, specifically
detached sidewalks with shade
TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS
midblock crossings
Most common BARRIERS to WALKING:

PRIORITIES
GENERAL TRANSPORTATION:
distance between unsafe driving heat/lack of
places behavior shade

Most common BARRIERS to BIKING: preventing injury- everyone has a comfortable
causing collisions option for using the street
STREET-SPECIFIC

lack of connected unsafe driving bike lane/road
facilities behavior proximity
expanded shade neighborhood routes
The highest percentage of respondents rate current bikeway network over regional
conditions in Phoenix as UNSAFE for

53% 71%
walking biking comfortable over safety over upgrading/
low-cost adding paths
58% of residents agree with “I would
support lowering speed limits in
65% ofinformation
respondents feel unable to find
and ways to provide
58%
exchange for making streets more
comfortable for walking and biking” input on local bicycle and pedestrian projects
with 37% saying they strongly agree. agree in their neighborhood.


ATP-13
Page 534




Poster Polls Interviews with Local
Who Participated? Leaders and Advocacy
Organizations
Poster Poll Who Participated?
Participants

What we heard: 4 Representatives from two education and
advocacy organizations
SPECIFIC PRIORITIES Community leaders from the 6 marginalized
NEIGHBORHOOD BICYCLE ROUTES
should be a higher priority than regional
7 zip codes identified in the equity map

routes

The City should prioritize COMFORTABLE What we heard:
BICYCLE FACILITIES over lower-cost
facilities BICYCLE ADVOCATES

GENERAL PRIORITIES • Need for increased awareness/education about
city projects; better messaging when relating
neighborhood projects to overall city goals.
SAFETY
• Concerns about traffic, speeding, and lack of
infrastructure to make walking and biking safe.
TRANSIT ACCESS • City should work to improve the culture with the
streets department. In addition, there are concerns
about internal politics, turnover, and a lack of strong
EQUITY advocates within the department.

COMMUNITY LEADERS IN
HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED
Draft Plan Feedback AREAS
PROTECTION AND SEPARATION • Concerns about safety; lack of sidewalks in some
between vehicles and cyclists / pedestrians residential communities (particularly West &
is important South Phoenix), inconsistent bike paths, speeding,
Heat and LACK OF SHADE are a homeless encampments, violent crimes, drug use,
deterrent to walking and biking and stray dogs.
• Need for more accountability and transparency
BETTER PROTECTION for cyclists and from the city. In addition, they are not confident the
pedestrians AT INTERSECTIONS city will show up for their communities; supportive
of additional street infrastructure if it supported their
More FREQUENT ARTERIAL current safety needs.
CROSSINGS

More ACCOUNTABILITY AND
TRANSPARENCY on project delivery


ATP-14
Page 535
Community Input & Principles




GUIDING
PRINCIPLES
Developing an intentional active transportation network
that is responsive to the community must be driven by
key guiding principles. The future active transportation
network in Phoenix should be one that is safe,
connected, enjoyable, and equitable. These principles
should guide future decision-making around facility
selection and design and work together to create a
better environment for people walking and biking in
Phoenix.



Equitable
The City will develop active transportation networks that meet the needs of all Phoenicians
and will prioritize improvements for areas with the highest need and vulnerable and
disadvantaged populations. Your identity, ability, and/or where you live should not determine
your ability to safely and enjoyably travel around Phoenix.


Safe
The City will develop active transportation networks that eliminate bicycle and pedestrian
fatalities and serious injuries. People walking and biking in Phoenix should be able to travel to
their destination without fear or the undue risk of being killed or seriously injured in traffic.



Connected
The City will develop active transportation networks that connect people to where they want
and need to go. People in Phoenix should be able to walk and bike to destinations within
their urban villages that allow them to meet their daily needs such as to school, work, parks
and trails, attractions, healthcare, transit, and more.


Enjoyable
Travel along Phoenix’s bikeways and pedestrian corridors should be an enjoyable
experience. Routes that support people of all ages and abilities will include separation from
motor vehicles, reduce exposure to high speed and high volume traffic, provide shade for
heat resiliency, and encourage more people to walk and bike to nearby destinations.




ATP-15
Page 536




REVIEW OF
EXISTING PLANS
ATP-16
Page 537
Review Of Existing Plans




REVIEW OF EXISTING PLANS
The City of Phoenix’s transportation system is guided plans reviewed included the 2014 Comprehensive
by a number of different local and regional plans Bicycle Master Plan, Sustainability Transportation
and initiatives. Many of these completed plans Goals, Shifting Gears Five Year Bicycle Program
and initiatives directly or indirectly address active (2018), the Downtown Phoenix Comprehensive
transportation as part of their implementation priorities, Transportation Study, Reinvent Phoenix, and the
which highlights the important role active transportation Mobility Improvements Program.
plays in achieving a variety of different objectives. The
This section is a summary of some of the key themes
policies, design guidelines, and network development
that came out of the existing plan review, and includes
program outlined in this plan were drafted with this in
some specific policies and goals related to active
mind, and are an attempt to build upon and advance
transportation from those plans. These themes provided
many of the active transportation objectives already
the foundation for policy and design guidance
outlined in other plans.
recommendations.
Citywide plans reviewed included the Phoenix General
Plan (2015), the Phoenix Strategic Plan, City of Phoenix
Complete Streets Policy, the Transportation 2050 Plan
(T2050), and the Climate Action Plan (2021). Other


Recommendation Existing Plan Summary
Theme 1: Improve Safety & Comfort for Pedestrians and Enhance the Pedestrian Experience
Cores, centers and corridors will have pedestrian and bicycle There is an opportunity to better
Phoenix General Plan
connections to the surrounding community define pedestrian planning in
Phoenix by building on policies
Plan, design, develop, and maintain green infrastructure, such and objectives in other city plans.
as interconnected trail systems that increase shade canopy Phoenix Strategic Plan The ATP should focus on pedestrian
coverage and promote pedestrian mobility comfort and safety through policy
development and design guideline
Less traffic and more crosswalks are the future Reinvent Phoenix updates. Factors influencing the
pedestrian experience include safe
Maricopa Association of crossings, lighting, visibility, shade,
Build more high comfort (safer, better-connected) networks Governments (MAG) Active and separation from traffic, among
Transportation Plan others.




ATP-17
Page 538




Recommendation Existing Plan Summary
Theme 2: Prioritize Active Transportation Improvements Around First/Last Mile Transit
Connectivity

Create more walkable corridors to connect to station areas Reinvent Phoenix
First/last mile connectivity to
transit is an important intersect
Conduct additional project assessments for major street Mobility Improvement between public transit and active
sidewalk improvements for ADA non-accessible bus stops Programs transportation; the provision of
comfortable and safe bicycle and
A particular emphasis on improving connectivity and access to pedestrian facilities makes people
Transportation 2050 Plan
major transportation and transit corridors more likely to walk or bike to transit.
The provision of quality active
Phoenix Comprehensive transportation infrastructure around
Encourage bike integration with the overall transit system
Bicycle Master Plan transit has the added benefit of
increasing transit ridership.
Provide first-mile/last-mile connections that complement and
Shared Mobility Program
even supplement transit during disruptions

Theme 3: Improve Coordination Between Departments & Agencies on Active Transportation
Implementation
Phoenix street environment to be more inclusive of pedestrians,
cyclists, and transit-users will require coordination with and
Streets Policy Many plans, agencies, and
support of many City departments and adjacent landowners
departments reference active
Street Transportation Department will lead implementation of transportation as an objective, and
Phoenix Strategic Plan while many positive references
Complete Streets for projects
to active transportation in other
Build off the agency partnerships that developed the plan to plans exist, it’s important to
Reinvent Phoenix
implement the TOD vision understand whether they are being
implemented and what barriers to
Strengthen regional transportation planning coordination with
Phoenix Comprehensive implementation might exist.
state and regional governmental agencies and public service
Bicycle Master Plan
providers

Theme 4: Understand and Assess Funding Sources
The Planning and Development Department will provide City of Phoenix Complete
guidance for privately funded projects to implement the Policy Streets Policy
T2050 dedicates nearly 14% of its total transportation funding
towards improvements that expand bicycle and pedestrian Transportation 2050 Plan Understand what funding exists,
connectivity how funding is being used and
The Street Transportation Department’s Capital Improvement allocated, and understand public
Shifting Gears Five Year support and priorities in terms of
Program (CIP), the five-year program provides over $750
Bicycle Plan funding.
million in improvements to street transportation infrastructure
Seek State and Federal funding through the Maricopa
Phoenix Comprehensive
Association of Governments (MAG) to assist with
Bicycle Master Plan
implementation of large and difficult projects

Theme 5: Design Guidelines and Standards




ATP-18
Page 539
Review Of Existing Plans




Recommendation Existing Plan Summary
Complete Streets principles will be included into the General
Developing Design Guidance that
Plan and other relevant plans, manuals, rules, regulations, City of Phoenix Complete
follow best practices allow for
ordinances and programs as determined by staff and the Streets Policy
the implementation bicycle and
Complete Streets Advisory Board
pedestrian facilities that can attract
Potential improvement strategies should be “context sensitive” users of all ages and abilities. This
Transportation 2050 Plan guidance can improve safety,
solutions.
functionality, and comfort for
Update City of Phoenix guidelines addressing bicycle facility Phoenix Comprehensive users. They are a tool for the Street
design and traffic control Bicycle Master Plan Department for installation and can
provide context sensitive designs
Maricopa Association of
Building out a regional active transportation network for all that will help achieve mode shift
Governments (MAG) Active
ages and abilities goals and safety goals.
Transportation Plan

Theme 6: Sustainability
Create a network of shared-use trails and pathways that are
Phoenix General Plan
safe, convenient and connected within preserves and parks
Reducing energy usage from street lights while improve visibility Shifting Gears Five Year
by replacing 100,000 street lights with new LEDs Bicycle Plan
Allowing 90% of the population to be a 10-minute walk from
Environmental Sustainability Active transportation is one main
transit through the expansion of routes and service frequency
Goals – Transportation component in creating a sustainable
(and shaded bus stops)
future. Vehicular transportation is
Maricopa Association of one of the largest contributors to
Increase the active transportation mode share to 30 percent by
Governments (MAG) Active greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
Transportation Plan and contributes to climate change.
Continue to implement the Tree & Shade Master Plan to The ATP will be the key planning
establish 25% tree and shade canopy in streets and pedestrian Climate Action Plan document to reduce dependency
areas by 2030 (medium term 2030-2035) on driving. Additionally, the ATP
will provide recommendations
Increase bike lane mileage in the City of Phoenix and ensure for landscaping that could have
the bicycle network is connected and comfortable for riders of Climate Action Plan benefits to water and urban heat
all ages and abilities. (long term 2040-2050) issues.
Create a network of multi-use paths along the existing canal
Climate Action Plan
network in Phoenix (long term 2040-2050)
Develop a series of corridors with a strong emphasis on
active transportation and connections to high-capacity transit Climate Action Plan
corridors (long term 2040-2050)




ATP-19
Page 540




ACTION &
ACCOUNTABILITY
ATP-20
Page 541
Action & Accountability




ACTION & ACCOUNTABILITY
Translating Community
Input into Action Input from outreach is reflected in the plan guiding
principles, network development program, design
The Active Transportation outreach approach was
guidance, and the policy recommendations, as follows.
designed to capture community priorities, desired
outcomes, and process approaches in order to draft
plan recommendations aligned with community priorities.
Plan Guiding Principles
The initial round of community outreach focused on Across each outreach method, respondents were
soliciting input that could form the basis of the plan asked about their big picture priorities and guiding
guiding principles, priorities, and the general direction for principles when it comes to transportation. The survey
recommendations. and poster polls focused on tradeoffs to ensure plan
recommendations and prioritization were grounded in
The first round of outreach included an online survey, community priorities.
poster polls, and targeted outreach to neighborhood
leaders and active transportation advocates. Each method In the online survey, respondents most frequently identified
of outreach was able to reach different populations; the safety as their top priority, followed by canals, equity,
poster polls at community events and targeted outreach to high comfort facilities, and gap closure. Poster poll
neighborhood leaders were a way to get feedback from participants had largely similar priorities. At the Laveen
residents that may not normally opt into online polls. BBQ, respondents ranked safety first, followed by parks
and community centers, transit access, canals, and equity.
As City staff will be responsible for implementing the plan, At First Friday in downtown, respondents selected transit
stakeholder interviews with City staff were conducted to access as their top priority followed by safety, access to
better understand challenges and feasibility as part of the population and employment centers, equity, and canals.
initial outreach. The internal Active Transportation Advisory
Team provided further information on opportunities and These priorities are captured in the plan guiding
challenges from several departments, including: principles of safe, connected, enjoyable, and equitable
active transportation networks. Though each group
• Streets & Transportation
of respondents had different top priorities for where
• Parks & Recreation active transportation networks should connect to,
• Office of Sustainability the neighborhood-scale planning recommendations
• Planning & Development in the Community Active Transportation Network
• Public Transit Program will allow different communities to identify the
• Aviation important destinations for their neighborhoods. Policy
recommendations on canal paths are also included in the
• Neighborhood Services
plan.
• Community & Economic Development

The internal staff outreach ensured recommendations were Policy Recommendations
feasible by identifying what could be achieved within Active transportation infrastructure is part of the city
the twenty-year planning horizon while also highlighting fabric, usually sharing the same streets as cars, and
opportunity areas with potential for rapid actions. connecting to the same places. In the survey and through
targeted outreach, the planning team asked about
ATP-21
Page 542




overall transportation priorities to better understand
how Phoenicians would like to see active transportation
integrated into the city. Interconnected transportation specific recommendations for implementing existing plans
and land use issues, along with the tradeoffs inherent through an active transportation lens. Recommendations
to creating truly multimodal streets, were mentioned in for consideration in the upcoming General Plan
targeted outreach and in survey comments. update are also included to further link land use and
transportation in Phoenix.
While survey respondents overwhelmingly expressed
interest in walking and biking more, features of the car-
oriented built environment were consistently identified
as the major barriers to active transportation in Phoenix.
Unsafe driving and distances between places were most
frequently identified as the top barriers to walking, while
unsafe driving and bike lanes too close to traffic were
the top barriers to biking. To meaningfully address these
barriers, the policy recommendations include potential
updates to policies and procedures that impact land use
and street design.

Through the current General Plan, Complete Streets
Policy, and Transit-Oriented Development planning Overcoming Existing Active
the City of Phoenix already has strong policy support Transportation Barriers
for multimodal street design and supportive land use.
However, in conversations with internal City staff, a While active transportation barriers exist, the
recurring theme was the need to translate high level new design guidance, policies, and network
policy recommendations into updates for existing development approach, in conjunction with
procedures and practices. the work of other plans/initiatives, will continue
to advance active transportation in Phoenix.
The need to match high level policies with day-to-day Expanding active transportation culture will not
practices was echoed in targeted outreach as well. happen overnight, it will happen incrementally.
Representatives of advocacy groups, who had been
involved in campaigns to adopt these policies and
plans, felt the recommendations had not always resulted
in implementation. Neighborhood leaders representing
historically marginalized communities doubted the city
could follow through on delivering their stated vision,
based on direct experience with previous planning
processes.

Carrying overarching policy recommendations into
implementation is particularly important for active
transportation as it is both a desired outcome in city
plans and a means to achieving other outcomes, such as
reducing carbon emissions reductions and improving air
quality. As a result, the policy recommendations include Source: Maricopa Association of Governments

ATP-22
Page 543
Action & Accountability




Community Active Transportation
THE PROGRAM WILL IDENTIFY
Network Program AND IMPLEMENT:
During outreach, respondents were asked directly • Neighborhood-scale bicycle facilities
about tradeoffs in the planning and design process,
• Safe crossings of major roadways
specifically, whether they would prefer planning to
focus on regional or local networks and whether • Enhanced accessibility to transit
they would prefer safer, more expensive infrastructure • Safe routes to schools, community
or more miles of lower-cost infrastructure. Across all centers, and activity centers
outreach methods, respondents preferred to focus on • Connections to trails and parks
connections to local destinations and higher-quality
infrastructure, even if the increased cost resulted in less
mileage overall. These preferences were particularly of community destinations and connections. The
pronounced for poster poll participants. program’s focus on equity, safety, and tying together
existing connections will allow for the identification of
Direct conversations with community leaders from
projects that are driven by neighborhoods themselves,
historically marginalized neighborhoods helped the
beginning with urban villages that have the greatest
planning team to better understand needs and desires
need. It will be a way for the department to create
from communities that often do not get prioritized in
stronger relationships with communities, share
citywide plans. Many community leaders expressed
information, and be more transparent about decisions.
concerns about personal safety in addition to traffic
safety. They mentioned the lack of sidewalks in The program will assess two urban villages per year and
some residential communities (particularly West & will immediately implement the priority projects that can
South Phoenix), inconsistent bike paths, speeding, be quickly built in the next two years. The program will
homeless encampments, violent crimes, drug use in operate from 2023 through 2031, and funding for the
neighborhoods, and stray dogs. network development program has been allocated by the
City.
The preference for local network connections
tailored to neighborhood level concerns shaped In addition to the priority projects that can be quickly
the recommendations for network development. The implemented, the outreach is anticipated to identify
Community Active Transportation Network Program maintenance issues and potential Capital Improvement
is designed to provide an opportunity for the Street Projects. The program will help guide available
Transportation Department to work with communities resources to high priority community projects, even
at a scale that allows for careful consideration outside of the quick-build projects envisioned for the


Community Active Transportation Network Program Schedule
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031
Village 13
Network Village 1 Village 3 Village 5 Village 7 Village 9 Village 11
Village 14
Assessment Village 2 Village 4 Village 6 Village 8 Village 10 Village 12
Village 15
Project Villages 1 Villages 1 Villages 3 Villages 5 Villages 7 Villages 9 Villages 11 Villages 13
Implementation and 2 through 4 through 6 through 8 through 10 through 12 through 15 through 15


ATP-23
Page 544




In the online survey, respondents were asked more
Roadway Reallocation specific questions about infrastructure types and
Space reallocation projects involve reallocating street tradeoffs around speed limits. They were also asked
space through the use of roadway paint and modular whether they supported lowering speed limits in some
infrastructure, such as flexposts. Roadway reallocation cases. Respondents consistently supported safe,
projects are less costly than roadway reconstruction
projects, are able to react to community input, and can be
enjoyable, and connected infrastructure designs even if
installed quickly. they added congestion. The preference for separation
from motor vehicles and slower speeds informed policy
recommendations in addition to the design guidance.

When asked about whether they would like to see
more of a given type of infrastructure in Phoenix,
respondents were most enthusiastic about infrastructure
types that provided greater separation and shade. A
detached sidewalk with shade was the single most
popular picture, with 94% of respondents agreeing to
some degree they would like to see more in Phoenix,
and 74% strongly agreeing. For bike infrastructure,
designs with more separation (e.g. curb protected
bike lanes) received the most enthusiastic support
while designs with no separation (e.g. Bike Boulevard)
received the least enthusiasm. In all cases, the majority
of respondents at least slightly agreed they would be
willing to accept increased rush hour congestion as a
trade off.


Source: Maricopa Association of Governments


program. When the program has worked with every
urban village in Phoenix, the Street Transportation
Department will work with Phoenix residents and
City leadership to determine the next steps for further
building out the network and how to best continue the
work of the program.

Design Guidance
The design guidance provides information on safe
and comfortable active transportation infrastructure.
The guidance is intended to support the design and
implementation of infrastructure types that respondents
prioritized during the outreach process.



ATP-24
Page 545
Action & Accountability




Source: Maricopa Association of Governments




Implementation and upgrade bike lanes identified through pavement
projects where there is space on the street
Tracking • Maricopa Association of Governments Active
Transportation Plan Regional Routes: The
The plan has three assessment areas, with three distinct
department will continue to seek funding from the
paths to implementation. Additionally, the plan builds on Maricopa Association of Governments to build out
previous plans, policies, and initiatives. Implementation routes in the regional Active Transportation Plan
timelines for each of these areas are detailed below. • Complete Streets: The department will continue
Progress on metrics will be included in an annual to review development projects and Capital
update to the Citizens Transportation Commission Improvement Plan projects to recommend bike lanes,
along with bike mile tracking. sidewalks, street crossings, and other Complete
Streets design features
Ongoing Commitments • Canalscape projects: The department will continue
to seek funding to build out the canal path network
The Street Transportation Department will prioritize
maintaining momentum on active transportation
initiatives already underway. The department will
continue to deliver on the following programs and
project types:
• Pavement projects and other striping projects: The
department will continue to add bike lanes and

ATP-25
Page 546




Ongoing Tracking Metrics
The Street Transportation Department will continue to
report on active transportation metrics set by previous
plans. Delivering on ongoing commitments and metrics
is a key component of the Active Transportation Plan.



Existing plan
Goal Evaluation Metrics
or initiative

Add 1,080 bike lane miles • Target of 30.9 new bike lane miles per year, reported annually to the
Transportation 2050
from 2015 to 2050 Citizens Transportation Commission

Multi-use paths along 90% of
Climate Action Plan • New miles of paths included in the annual T2050 reports
canals in Phoenix by 2050


• Apply for Bicycle Friendly Community Status every two years to
benchmark progress
2014 Comprehensive
Achieve Platinum level Bicycle • Work continuously towards Platinum status (note- the previous timeline
Bicycle
Friendly Community Status for achieving different levels of bicycle friendliness has been updated to
Master Plan
emphasize more frequent applications rather than specific milestones as
the Bicycle Friendly Community Status standards are regularly updated)


New Tracking Metrics
Plan
Assessment Timeframe Evaluation Metrics
Areas

The design guidance will be used as a • Design guidance internally distributed
reference tool by internal staff and design • .Design guidance posted on Street Transportation Department
teams as soon as it is finalized. The
Design Guidance website
document is deliberately designed as a
standalone piece in order for the PDF to • I.nternal staff survey to check whether it is being used one year
be easily distributed and printed. after adoption

• .Network planning conducted with two villages per year until
Staff will begin work on the Community
all villages are completed.
Active Transportation Program as soon as
Network
the Active Transportation Plan is adopted. • % of recommended quick-build projects within two years
Development
Outreach for the first two villages is
of finalizing Community Active Transportation Network
anticipated to start in the fall of 2023.
recommendations

Implementation priorities and • .% of policy recommendations initiated within the recommended
Policy
timeframe are detailed in the Policy
Recommendations timeframe
Recommendations chapter.




ATP-26
Page 547
Action & Accountability




Source: Maricopa Association of Governments

ATP-27
Page 548




ATP-28
Page 549
COMMUNITY ACTIVE
TRANSPORTATION
NETWORK PROGRAM
ELEMENT




APRIL 2023




Page 550
TABLE OF
CONTENTS




Page 551
COMMUNITY ACTIVE
TRANSPORTATION
NETWORK PROGRAM
Introduction 1
Community Active Transportation Network
Program 2




Page 552
COMMUNITY ACTIVE
TRANSPORTATION
NETWORK PROGRAM
Page 553
Community Active Transportation Network Program




INTRODUCTION
The City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan establishes a framework for advancing walking and biking
infrastructure, programs, and policies in the City. While this plan does not explicitly analyze the existing
network or recommend specific projects, it does propose a framework for how the City can advance
these efforts in accordance with the Plan’s vision, goals, and priorities. The following document outlines
a program that would implement this framework, including recommended analyses, planning areas and
priorities, and processes for translating analysis results and public input into a comprehensive network.


Responding to Plan Goals
This framework responds to the plan’s goals and
addresses the following:
• Safe Networks: Phoenix’s walking and
biking networks should facilitate safe travel to
destinations across the city. People traveling in
Phoenix should not experience undue risk of
seriouis injury or death. The City will develop
transportation networks that reduce conflict
points and eliminate serious injuries and
fatalities.
• Equitable Networks: Safe and connected
active transportaton networks should meet the
needs of all Phoenicians. This plan provides an
opportunity to invest in Phoenix’s highest need
areas and help remove barriers to access for
vulnerable and disadvantaged populations in
the city.
• Connected Networks: A functional and
effective network will connect people to
where they want and need to go. Bicycle and
pedestrian network will support access to
school, work, parks and trails, attractions,
healthcare, transit, and more. The City will
Source: Maricopa Association of Governments
create a complete and connected bicycle and
pedestrian network that supports travel wtihin
neighborhoods and across the city.
• Enjoyable Networks: Travel along Phoenix’s
bikeways and pedestrian corridors should be
an enjoyable experience. Routes that support
people of all ages and abilities will include
separation from motor vehicles, reduce
exposure to high speed and high volume
traffic, provide shade for heat resilency, and
encourage more people to walk and bike to
nearby destinations.

Network-1
Page 554




COMMUNITY ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION
NETWORK PROGRAM
The City of Phoenix covers nearly 520 square miles
across the city. Focusing on assessment by
and is home to more than one million people.
Urban Village also creates an opportunity for an
Today, 4,863 miles of roadway and 183 miles
intentional neighborhood-focused engagement
of shared use paths support travel across the
process where neighborhood residents can help
city. Each year, the City installs news bikeways,
identify and prioritize which local projects are
crossings, and pedestrian infrastructure in
most needed and most relevant to their daily lives.
coordination with capital projects and the ongoing
resurfacing program. While this provides a method The program till assess two villages per year, and
to advance active transportation networks in the then implement priority projects that can be quickly
city—and will continue to do so in the future—it built in the next two years. All told, the program
does not directly consider opportunities to develop will run from 2023 through 2031. The schedule of
a complete and connected network by closing assessments and project implementation are limited
network gaps, improving safety at intersections, by the availability of funding for assessments each
and connecting people to where they want to go, year, and the existing schedule/speed of roadway
particularly at the neighborhood scale, a priority restriping. Funding for the transportation network
identified in the project outreach. program and the priority projects will be allocated
from those earmarked for the Bicycle Master Plan.
Improving routes across the whole city will require
significant investment both in terms of funding as The sections that follow outline the process,
well as staff time. Phoenix covers more than 500 starting from selecting which Urban Villages
square miles, with varying levels of both need to plan for first through analysis and project
and opportunity in different areas of the city. To development. It includes the following steps:
support development of high-quality networks in
Pre-work: Prioritize Urban Villages
an organized and efficient manner, Phoenix can
1. Analyze Existing Conditions
focus planning and implementation efforts by
2. Identify Destinations
Urban Village. Urban Villages in Phoenix provide
3. Identify Network
a manageable scale for assessing network
4. Prioritize Projects
opportunities while still being large enough to
5. Implement Projects
result in tangible improvements for how people
get around both within their neighborhood and

Community Active Transportation Network Program Schedule
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031
Village 13
Network Village 1 Village 3 Village 5 Village 7 Village 9 Village 11
Village 14
Assessment Village 2 Village 4 Village 6 Village 8 Village 10 Village 12
Village 15
Project Villages 1 Villages 1 Villages 3 Villages 5 Villages 7 Villages 9 Villages 11 Villages 13
Implementation and 2 through 4 through 6 through 8 through 10 through 12 through 15 through 15



Network-2
Page 555
Community Active Transportation Network Program




Network STEP 1
Analyze
Development Existing
Approach Conditions

Form Community Active
Transportation Task Force




STEP 3 STEP 2

Identify Identify
Network Destinations
and Gaps

Tabling at community events
Public Meeting Community survey
Online Interactive Map




STEP 4 STEP 5
Prioritize
Implement
Projects
Projects


Community Survey

= PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT



Network-3
Page 556




Community engagement is a critical element
of the process, and needs to be incorporated
in order to achieve the neighborhood-driven
project identification and prioritization outcomes
being recommended by this plan. Respondents
to the project survey and input at outreach
events identified the desire and need for better
neighborhood-focused connectivity that allows




Source: City of Phoenix
residents to walk, bike, and roll around their local
neighborhoods more safely and enjoyably. This
Urban Village assessment process is intended to
address that feedback and allow the city to better
understand and react to active transportation
needs at the neighborhood scale. Each urban
village in Phoenix has different contexts and The sections that follow identify recommended
the engagement process is a way to help drive approaches for engagement to provide a more
neighborhood-identified projects that truly make comprehensive understanding of local community
an impact. priorities and conditions.




Pre-Work: Prioritize Urban Villages
Identification of priority Urban Villages (Figure 1) for network planning and implementation should
consider the location of historically disadvantaged and vulnerable populations as well as existing
infrastructure deficiencies. The results of the Equity Analysis (Figure 2) will inform identification of focus
populations, while data capturing existing active transportation facility locations should be used to
identify network deficiencies.

As the geographic coverage of Urban Villages varies, the City should combine smaller areas with
comparable characteristics to facilitate network connections. For example, Encanto and Central City
cover relatively small areas in comparison to other Villages and may be considered together.

Recommended Urban Village Assessment Prioritization Strategy:
Equity: Using the equity analysis, prioritize Urban Villages for assessment based on the percentage of the
Village scoring as high need based on demographic and environmental justice factors.

Equity: Rank Urban Villages based on existing facility presence. Evaluate the ratio of miles of bikeways to
miles of roadway centerline, as well as ratio of miles of sidewalk to miles of centerline miles. The City will
need to obtain sidewalk data to support this assessment.

Safety: Rank Urban Villages based on active transportation related serious injuries and fatalities.
Coordinate with Maricopa County Public Health to obtain hospital data on pedestrian and bicycle
serious injuries and fatalities. Identify Urban Villages with highest numbers of pedestrian and bicycle
serious injuries and fatalities.

Network-4
Page 557
Community Active Transportation Network Program




Rio ER
Vista RIV
W MUNICIPAL
NE PLANNING
AREA
ANTHE M WA
Y
I-17


URBAN PIO NEER

VILLAGE
& VILLAGE CAREFREE HWY
North
CAREFREE HWY


CORES DOVE VALLEY Gateway
Ahwatukee Foothills SR-303
SO NO RA N
LONE MOUNTAIN
DIXILETA DES ERT
Alhambra
NORTERRA
DIXILETA
Camelback East
Desert
67TH AVE
DYNAMITE
Central City View
EK JOMAX
Deer Valley JOMAX RE
HAPPY VALLEY CA
Desert View VE
C
HAPPY VALLEY


Encanto PINNACLE PEAK

7TH AVE
Deer PINNACLE PEAK
7TH ST
Estrella Valley
64TH ST

SCOTTSDALE
DEER VALLEY

Laveen SR-101 BEARDSLEY MA
YO
Maryvale
51ST AVE TATUM
UNION HILLS
North Gateway
BELL
North Mountain Paradise
BELL


Paradise Valley GREENWAY
Valley GREENWAY

Rio Vista THUNDERBIRD
SR-51
THUNDERBIRD

South Mountain CACTUS North CACTUS
I-17 Mountain
Primary Core PEORIA SHEA

Secondary Core DUNLAP



27TH AVE 19TH AVE CENTRAL
NORTHERN



107TH AVE 99TH AVE
GLENDALE

Alhambra LINCOLN


91ST AVE 83RD AVE 75TH AVE 67TH AVE
BETHANY HOME


CAMELBACK G
RA Camelback
CAMELBACK

43RD AVE
N
D East
32ND ST
INDIAN SCHOOL
7TH ST 44TH ST
Maryvale
SR-101
INDIAN SCHOOL


52ND ST
THOMAS THOMAS
Encanto SR-51
MCDOWELL MCDOWELL
I-10 SR-202
VAN BUREN
VAN BUREN
Central WASHINGTON
BUCKEYE
City
Estrella
CENTRAL
LOWER BUCKEYE UNIVERSITY
LIGHT RAIL

FUTURE
I-10
BROADWAY SALT BROADWAY

South
48TH ST
SOUTHERN SOUTHERN




p
Laveen Mountain
BASELINE BASELINE

24TH ST 32ND ST 40TH ST
7TH AVE 16TH ST
7TH ST


59TH AVE
DOBBINS GUADALUPE


ELLIOT
51ST AVE 43RD AVE 35TH AVE 27TH AVE 19TH AVE
ELLIOT

48TH ST
URBAN ESTRELLA
Ahwatukee
WARNER



VILLAGES Foothills RAY



17TH AVE 32ND ST
CHANDLER

FIGURE __ 40TH ST
PECOS




Network-5
Page 558




Equity Analysis Results What is an Equity Analysis?
The equity analysis in Phoenix is shown on the
An equity analysis utilizes demographic and
next page and is broken down at the Census
environmental metrics to help identify areas of the
Block Group level. Generally, south and west
community with higher need. Generally, areas
Phoenix are shown as areas of highest need, with
that also score high on the equity analysis area
other pockets of need also shown along the I-17
also areas that have been historically underserved
corridor. Urban Villages with the highest need
and where infrastructure can be lacking behind
based on this analysis include South Mountain,
other parts of the community. For the Phoenix
Maryvale, Estrella, Alhambra, and North
ATP, The United States Environmental Protection
Mountain.
Agencies Demographic and Environmental EJ
Screen factors were used to help identify areas of
need at the Census Block Group level in Phoenix.
The results of this analysis are shown on the next
page.




Source: Alta Planning + Design




Network-6
Page 559
Community Active Transportation Network Program




Network-7
Page 560




Step 1: Analyze Existing Conditions
For each Urban Village, analyze the existing network conditions. The results of this step will provide
baseline information that will guide project identification in subsequent steps. This process begins with
mapping existing bikeways, sidewalks, and supporting infrastructure. Table 1 identifies the recommended
analyses, based on plan goals, that can support the planning process. For each analysis, the table
includes the following information:
• Analysis Name and Description, including what the analysis will accomplish and the information it
provides for the planning process;
• Required Data, which can guide the City’s identification of new datasets that may be required;
• Anticipated Baseline Measurements, which identify the metrics that will result from the analysis;
• Recommended Metric, or an identified standard to use as a point of comparison or for goal setting
and progress tracking; and
• Resources, which link to available documentation or informational resources to learn more.

For the Recommended Metric, or identified standard, it is important to note that in many cases, specific
standards or absolute rules are not available. Instead, the City of Phoenix should both track progress
based on improving the metric (e.g., reduction of crashes annually) as well as identify standards that are
appropriate for various contexts in the City based on considerations like existing level of service, land
use and roadway context, and coordination across departments. For example, safety metrics should
correspond with the policies and actions identified In the City’s Vision Zero Road Safety Action Plan and
in coordination with the Action Plan’s goals. FHWA’s Guidebook for Developing Pedestrian and Bicycle
Performance Measures can help further guide the City in this effort.




Community Engagement
COMMUNITY ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION TASK FORCE
A Community Task Force will guide decision-making and oversee the selection of neighborhood
priorities. The Task Force will be neighborhood-focused and representatives will include residents,
businesses, community-based organizations, and neighborhood leaders. It is imperative that the
Task Force represent a cross-section of the urban village to better identify neighborhood-specific
needs.

The role of the Task Force will be to review the survey to help establish neighborhood-specific needs
and challenges, engage their neighbors as routes are developed, and help prioritize facilities for
implementation.




Network-8
Page 561
Community Active Transportation Network Program




Source: Maricopa Association of Governments

Network-9
Page 562




Anticicapted Recommended
Plan Analysis Analysis Description Required Baseline Performance Resources
Goal Name Data Measurements Measure /
Outcome
• Annual trends crashes
Identify crash trends, numbers, separated by
hotspots, and characteristics severity
through an analysis of
bicycle- and pedestrian- • Proportion of crashes
• Bicycle- and
involved crashes. Consider involving bicyclists
pedestrian- Annual reduction in
Crash both frequency of crashes and/or pedestrians
involved crashes. Zero traffic
Analysis as well as severity. Areas compared to all
crashes for the deaths
with high frequencies of collisions
last 5 years
crashes or severe/fatal
crashes can guide further • Relationship of crashes
analysis to identify relevant locations to existing



Safe Network
countermeasures. active transportation
facilities
Analyze crash data to
determine patterns in
crash locations. Consider
roadway characteristics, • Bicycle- and
such as speed or pedestrian- Develop corresponding
number of lanes, and involved Summary of crash
countermeasures, FHWA Safe
Safety evaluate available crash crashes for the location trends and
review and revise System
Review characteristics, such as last 5 years; associated roadway
design requirements as Approach
contributing factors. Identify characteristics.
• Roadway needed
factors that are associated
with high crash locations. Characteristics
This step may also utilize
existing crash profiles, as
available and applicable.

Identify activity centers • Schools by
and other destinations type;
that active transportation • Transit stops
networks will connect. and hubs;
Destinations will include
Establish minimum
schools by type; transit • Parks and network spacing
stops and hubs; parks; trails; N/A. This analysis
standards and
trails; shopping centers; visualizes data to serve as
Destination • Employment connectivity
employment centers; a reference layer for gap
Density Centers; requirements based
attractions; and other identification and route
on land use context
destinations as determined development.
• Attractions; and associated




Connected Network
by the City of Phoenix.
destinations.
The results of this exercise • Other
will inform identification destinations
of key routes that connect as determined
destinations within an by the City of
Urban Village. Phoenix.
Evaluate the distance No absolute rule exists
between signalized, for crosswalk spacing. FHWA STEP
Percent of roadways with STUDIO: Tools
marked crosswalks along Recommended
crossing opportunities for Selecting and
major roadways, including • Traffic Signals, standard should
less than 800 ft apart; implementing
arterials and collectors. Pedestrian consider land use
Crosswalk between 800 ft and ¼ countermeasures
The results of this analysis Hybrid context, desire lines
Spacing mile; between ¼ mile for improving
will provide insight into Beacons, and building entrances,
and ½ mile; between ½ pedestrian
locations where crossing RRFBs and potential out
mile and 1 mile; greater crossing safety,
improvements are needed of direction travel
than 1 mile
to support safer, more required to access a NACTO
comfortable travel. crossing


Network-10
Page 563
Community Active Transportation Network Program




Anticicapted Recommended
Plan Analysis Analysis Description Required Baseline Performance Resources
Goal Name Data Measurements Measure /
Outcome
• Roadway
centerline,
including
number of
Mineta
lanes, posted • Percentage of roadways Transportation
Evaluation of the relative speed limit by LTS score Institute Low-
stress level associated Alternatively,
• Relationship of LTS Stress Bicycling
with a roadway, based on functional
score and existing Designated bikeways and Network
roadway characteristics as class could be
bikeways should meet Connectivity
well as provision of bicycle used.
Level of requirements for LTS 2.
or pedestrian infrastructure. • Percentage of network Oregon
Traffic Stress • Bicycle This assessment should
Network should be within specified Department of
facilities, consider impact of
evaluated using both a distance of destination Transportation
including roadway crossings.
Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress types (e.g., schools) Analysis
location, type,
and Pedestrian Level of that are low stress Procedures
and width
Traffic Stress approach. Manual
• Pedestrian




Enjoyable Network
facilities,
including
location, type,
and width
Using the results of the Level
of Traffic Stress, symbolize
N/A. This analysis Mineta
data to identify areas N/A Use this analysis
visualizes Level of Traffic Transportation
of connected low-stress • Results of the to support visualization
Connectivity Stress data to facilitate Institute Low-
corridors. This analysis Level of Traffic of out of direction
Islands identification of barriers Stress Bicycling
helps to identify barriers to Stress Analysis travel, network gaps,
to comfortable travel in and Network
enjoyable travel and provide and barriers.
the Urban Village. Connectivity
an early assessment of out-
of-direction travel.
Planning for
Conduct a heat assessment Urban Heat
to understand heat exposure Resilience, PAS
on the network for purposes • Tree Equity Reduction in heat Report 600;
of assessing project design Score map Percentage of network along network
Heat
features, particularly when and Heat experiencing high heat corridor; increased Pima Association
Assessment
the key network segments Vulnerability exposure. tree canopy/vegetation of Governments
and linkages are shown Index Map coverage Resiliency
to have high levels of heat Planning Maps
exposure.




Network-11
Page 564




Step 2: Identify Destinations and Gaps
Following analysis of existing conditions, the results of each analysis should be considered together to
identify key trends and gaps in the existing network. While the characteristics and context of each Urban
Village may require unique considerations for identifying project opportunities, the following can be used
as a preliminary guide.

Connections to Destinations:
Utilizing the results of the Destination Density mapping exercise and community input, explore where
connections are missing in the existing network. Some questions to ask are:
• How does the existing network connect to elementary schools or transit stops? Does the current
network support direct access?
• Are there gaps that result in travel along high stress routes? For larger scale destinations, such as
shopping centers or city parks, evaluate how neighborhoods are able to safely and enjoyably connect
to the location.

It is expected that local networks should be denser to support access to local destinations by the greatest
number of residents, so assess the availability of low-stress connections in relationship to different
destination types.

Further, evaluate existing crossing opportunities, particularly in relationship to destinations. Using the
results of the Crosswalk Spacing Analysis, identify roadway segments with limited crossings. Dedicated
crosswalks and bike crossings with signals can support low-stress routes, improve access to destinations,
and encourage crossings at designated locations.




Source: Alta Planning + Design

Network-12
Page 565
Community Active Transportation Network Program




Enjoyable Networks:
What is the relative comfort of existing
connections? For example, although a bike
lane may provide direct access to a local
elementary school, it’s location along a higher
speed road identifies this as a high stress (LTS
3 or 4) connection. Scenarios such as this may
still be considered a network gap and project
opportunity.

Further, consider the impact of high stress
roadway crossings and if these corridors result
in difficult connections along an otherwise
enjoyable route. High stress roadway crossings
are candidates for intersection improvements in
the next step.
Source: Maricopa Association of Governments

Safe Networks:
Are collision hotspots located along existing active
transportation routes? Are key routes consistent Community Engagement
with high crash locations, or do they have
During Step 2, the planning team will
characteristics similar to those associated with
attend existing community events and
high crash locations? Evaluate the relationship
conduct a survey to ask residents about
among analysis results in coordination with safety
destinations and gaps.
analysis results to identify both opportunities
to advance safe and comfortable routes as COMMUNITY SURVEY
well as opportunities to improve safety for all An online and community survey will be
modes of travel through development of active conducted for residents and employees
transportation routes. of the Urban Village. This survey will
focus on identifying important community
destinations, and establish an Urban
Village-specific vision for network
priorities.




Network-13
Page 566




Step 3: Identify Network
Within each Urban
Village, identify
new connections
of improvements to
existing facilities to
improve connections to
destinations, support
enjoyable networks, and
proactively develop safe
networks. This process is
informed by the results of
the Existing Conditions
analysis (Step 1) and the
identification of Network
Gaps (Step 2). This
process should include
the following: Source: Alta Planning + Design


• Fill Gaps in Existing
Network: For existing low-stress routes, fill any gaps in the network by identifying new low-stress
bikeways and key intersection improvements. Low-stress bike routes should provide as direct of a route
as possible while supporting enjoyable travel through increased separation from motor vehicles, traffic
calmed routes, and complete and connected network links.
• Develop Local Connections: Create new connections that support access to schools, parks, transit
stops, and other high priority destinations. For destinations along major roadways, such as transit
stops or shopping centers, consider nearby crossing opportunities as well as sidewalk completeness to
support direct access.
• Develop Regional Connections: Identify connections to nearby neighborhoods, Urban Villages,
and regional destinations. Regional connections may be less dense than the local network and rely on
high-quality facilities along larger corridors in some locations. Local networks should connect to the
regional route to support a connected system.

For each corridor or intersection identified as a potential project, be sure to consider the associated
facility selection and design guidance provided by this plan. Additionally, consider the heat assessment
and opportunities for green infrastructure or shade features if the project is identified in an area of high
heat exposure. If roadway characteristics require a more separated facility, but space does not allow for
implementation, consider adjacent and parallel routes.




Network-14
Page 567
Community Active Transportation Network Program




Step 4: Prioritize Projects
Within the planning process, prioritization helps us
understand which projects should be implemented
first. Specifically, the goal is to identify which
projects are most needed and can provide the
greatest community benefit. A successful process
will have three key characteristics:
• Aligned with local value and needs:
Prioritization should also be rooted in
community values and needs, captured
through a data-driven evaluation process.
While infrastructure quality, economic
conditions, and growth patterns may change Community Engagement
over time, a prioritization process based on
The Street Transportation Department will
community values can help guide new project
priorities that best reflect a shared community host a community meeting to get feedback
vision. on proposed projects and prioritization. A
• Practical and actionable: By focusing on the community survey with a map of proposed
necessary timeline and funding for projects, routes will also be used to gather
prioritization can identify a local network that community feedback.
can be quickly implemented.




Source: Alta Planning + Design



Network-15
Page 568




Source: Maricopa Association of Governments




Creating an Effective Prioritization Process
The planning team will work with the task force to identify a network of projects that can be quickly
built within 1 to 2 years. More complex projects that require additional funding and outreach will be
prioritized in collaboration with the task force. The following are examples of how the prioritization
process may utilize project goals:
• .Connected Networks: Do projects support connections to key neighborhood areas and/or regional
destinations? This can be assessed overall or separately for unique location types (e.g., connections to
schools, parks, transit, neighborhood centers, etc.)
• Safe Networks: Does a project address an identified or evaluated roadway safety concern
identified by the neighborhood residents, the safety assessment, or another plan? Project will include
countermeasures that respond to crash history of location or the characteristics of a location that are
consistent with city crash profiles.
• Enjoyable Networks: Project improves an existing high stress corridor or improves crossing
conditions along a low stress route.
• Community Input: Project is supported by the residents, workers, and patrons within the Urban
Village. This should be assessed through a focused survey/outreach effort within each Urban Village
as part of its respective prioritization process.
• Equitable Networks: Project is community-driven and provides a connection for those with the
greatest need.

Network-16
Page 569
Community Active Transportation Network Program




Step 5: Implement Projects
Using the priority projects developed in Step 4 and verified by the public, the Street Transportation
Department will seek to implement projects that can be quickly implemented, such as installing bike lanes
that do not require major street redesigns as a top priority. The goal will be to install these projects within
one to two years.

The Street Transportation Department will create a map of the prioritized recommendations. The map will
be appended to the Active Transportation Plan and considered part of the plan. It will also be shared on
the Street Transportation Department’s website.

For larger projects that are better suited for the Capital Improvement Plan, the Street Transportation
Department will seek funding opportunities, including external grants. For projects identified by the
community that do not fit within the Active Transportation Program, staff will refer the projects to the
appropriate program teams. When the program has worked with every urban village in Phoenix, the
Street Transportation Department will work with Phoenix residents and City leadership to determine the
next steps for further building out the network and how to best continue the work of the program.




Source: Maricopa Association of Governments



Network-17
Page 570
Page 571
POLICY
RECOMMENDATIONS
ELEMENT




APRIL 2023




Page 572
TABLE OF
CONTENTS




Page 573
01 CONTEXT &
COLLABORATION
Introduction 1
Issues Influencing Walking & Biking in Phoenix 1




02 POLICY
RECOMMENDATIONS
Policy Recommendations for Active
Transportation 7
Section 1 8
Section 2 11
Section 3 12




Page 574
CONTEXT &
COLLABORATION
Page 575
Context & Collaboration




INTRODUCTION
Policy recommendations are one of the three key factors, including the city’s physical and cultural
focus areas of this planning process, the other context, common objectives found as part of
two being a Community Active Transportation the existing plan review of other city documents,
Network Program and Design Guidance. The and community outreach themes. The policy
Policy recommendations are intended to guide recommendations are a continuation of areas
city actions towards continuing to build an of success, but also represent a continued shift
equitable, safe, connected, and enjoyable active towards a more multimodal future in Phoenix
transportation network. where active transportation plays an important
role alongside other ways of travel.
The policy recommendations found within this
section are guided by a number of different


ISSUES INFLUENCING WALKING
& BIKING IN PHOENIX
Physical and cultural context is one of the most
important factors influencing the planning
and design of active transportation facilities.
For Phoenix, the two most significant factors
contributing to this context are the city’s historic
development patterns and the warm summer
climate. The city’s development patterns have
contributed to the reliance on a personal vehicle
to travel, which is manifested in the way roadways
are design and built for vehicular travel. This has
led to safety concerns and issues, particularly for
people walking and biking.

Additionally, despite an overall temperate climate
that is conducive for walking and biking, the City’s
warm summer months present unique challenges
for people walking and biking, particularly the
dangers of heat exposure and heat related illness.

The following section is a summary of these
factors, all of which directly inform the policy
recommendations found later in this section.

Source: Maricopa Association of Governments



Policy-1
Page 576




Development Patterns
Issue: Phoenix has seen rapid growth both in terms of land and population since the second half of
the 20th Century. Much of that growth, however, has developed around the automobile characterized
by single family homes, highways and high speed roadways, and a separation of land uses.
Businesses and other community destinations are often located along these major roadways, and our
community’s design has influenced our reliance on a vehicle even for short trips.


Positive: This history of sprawling, low-density development has begun to change as the city aims
to grow more sustainably by concentrating growth in Downtown, near high-capacity transit, and in
transit oriented development areas. Greater access and shorter distances to destinations, creates more
demand and opportunities for walking and biking.


Opportunity: Short trips are
important to consider because they
can be good candidates for replacing
a motor vehicle trip with an active
trip, such as by walking, biking, or
rolling. While Phoenix has been adding
density and creating more short trips
by focusing growth near community
destinations, many people in Phoenix
already take many short car trips.
Studies have shown that nearly 50%
of all car trips in the United States are
three miles or less18, a distance that
could be supported by bicycling. In
Phoenix, the grid system, particularly
prevalent in central parts of the city,
provides walkable connections between
residential and commercial areas that
can be leveraged. Source: Alta Planning + Design

18. Curry, Melanie, et al. “Bikes and Scooters Could Replace a Lot of Car Trips in U.S. Cities.”
Streetsblog California, 17 Sept. 2019, ht tps://cal.streetsblog.org/2019/09/16/bikes-and-
scooters-could-replace-a-lot-of -car-trips-in -u-s-cities/. Accessed 5 July 2022.




Policy-2
Page 577
Context & Collaboration




Car Culture
Issue: For decades, Phoenix has excelled at building car-oriented places; internal policies and
practices have been created with the primary goal of moving cars and limiting vehicle congestion
during peak commuting hours. Decades of auto-oriented development has created barriers to walking
and biking such as: limited street connections between neighborhoods, major roadways that are wide
and have high speeds, destinations that are far apart, and highways that separate neighborhoods.


Positive: The City of Phoenix has made progress, especially over the last decade, in expanding
the walking, bicycling, and the transit network as options for travel. For example, the City has
implemented the following planning and policy initiatives that increase multimodal options:
Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan (2014), ReinventPHX (2015), the Walkable Urban Code (2015),
(TOD) Strategic Policy Framework (2018 ), the Key Corridors Master Plan (2020), and the Road
Safety Action Plan: Moving to Vision Zero (2022). Transit options are improving through the continued
expansion of the Valley Metro Light Rail and Bus Rapid Transit will soon provide Pheonicians with
another high-capacity transit option. The City is also expanding and improving bicycle and pedestrian
connections to and from transit.


Opportunity: This ATP is an
opportunity to collaborate with and
build upon the momentum from
these various planning and policy
initiatives to ensure biking and
walking are a key component of the
City’s transportation network as it
continues to grow and evolve in the
future. The transportation system
needs to work holistically across all
modes, not just for motor vehicles.
Source: Maricopa Association of Governments




Policy-3
Page 578




Safety
Issue: Decades of car-oriented development and streets designed to efficiently move motor vehicles
through them, has led to an increasing number of traffic crashes resulting in fatalities and serious
injuries on Phoenix streets. A disproportionate number of traffic fatalities and serious injuries in
Phoenix involve people biking and walking. People traveling outside of motor vehicles are particularly
vulnerable roadways users, particularly people biking and walking. More specifically, data across the
country has shown that traffic fatalities and serious injuries are disproportionately impacting children,
seniors, people with low and no income, unhoused residents, and people of color .
Streets designed for the movement of cars typically leads to cars traveling at high speeds. Speed
is one of the most important factors in determining how severe a crash is, especially for people
walking, biking or relying on transit. The faster a car is traveling, the less likely a person’s chances are
of surviving the crash. In addition to high speeds, car-oriented major roadways also typically have
dangerous conditions for people walking and biking such as long crossing distances, incomplete
sidewalks, a lack of bicycle facilities, and general lack of separation from motor vehicles.


Positive: To combat the growing number of people dying in traffic crashes, the City of Phoenix
approved the Phoenix Vision Zero Road Safety Action Plan (2022), which establishes strategies and
objectives to eliminate traffic fatalities and serious injuries in Phoenix. Vision Zero represents a cultural
shift in Phoenix, and policies and practices directly support active transportation objectives.


Opportunity: With the
momentum of various policy and
planning initiatives, specifically the
Complete Streets Policy (2017),
Complete Streets Design Guidelines
(2018), the Phoenix Vision Zero Road
Safety Action Plan (2022), and this
updated active transportation plan,
the City has set the plans, policies,
and design standards in place to
proactively create streets safe for all
roadway users.
Source: Maricopa Association of Governments




Policy-4
Page 579
Context & Collaboration




Climate
Issue: Temperatures in Phoenix have been rising over the past few decades and are expected to
continue rising. Phoenix averages over 100 days per year where temperatures are over 100 degrees
Fahrenheit. Heat can be a major barrier (as identified through public input in the previous section)
to walking and biking in Phoenix. Heat is also experienced inequitably, with historically marginalized
areas of Phoenix having less shade and being hotter than wealthier areas of the community.


Positive: Phoenix has been taking steps to lower temperatures that are magnified by the urban heat
island effect, which makes already hot temperatures hotter due to surfaces that retain and absorb
heat such as pavement. In 2020, the City began Cool Pavement Pilot Program, which has successfully
lowered surface temperatures on the city’s streets through a coating applied over the existing asphalt.
In addition to cool pavement, the City has also developed a Cool Corridors Program in 2020 that
aims to “create a network of cool corridors,” primarily through planting trees, “across its communities
to encourage movement from residential homes to various areas across the city that is safe and
environmentally-conscious.”19


Opportunity: The City has
the opportunity to build upon the
Cool Pavement and Cool Corridors
program by providing facilities that
are safe and enjoyable to walk
and bike. Bicycle and pedestrian
infrastructure should be prioritized
and implemented in coordination
with the Cool Pavement and
Cool Corridors Programs—along
streets with trees, shade, and cool
pavement—to reduce the barrier that
heat provides to walking and biking
in Phoenix.
Source: Maricopa Association of Governments

19. https://www.phoenix.gov/streetssite/Pages/Cool-Corridors.aspx




Policy-5
Page 580
POLICY
RECOMMENDATIONS
Page 581
Policy Recommendations




POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION
The Active Transportation Plan provides
an opportunity for the City of Phoenix to
support existing city policies, related plan
recommendations, and ongoing programs and
efforts that seek to improve the quality of life for
all residents. The policy recommendations that
follow identify specific opportunities to implement
existing plans and policies, including the Road
Safety Action Plan, Complete Streets Policy, and
the Climate Action Plan, while advancing walking
and biking in Phoenix.

The recommendations are focused on actions
the Street Transportation Department can
initiate, in collaboration with other City
departments, agencies, and community groups.
The prioritization takes into account community
feedback, existing opportunities, and Street
Transportation Department capacity. Throughout
the 20 year planning horizon, the Street
Transportation Department should seek new
opportunities to update policies to support active
transportation or adjust recommended priorities
based on changing conditions and public input.




Policy-7
Page 582



SECTION 1
Support Implementation Of Existing Plans

Objective 1: Advance Complete Streets
Policy Implementation
in 2017, followed by Complete Streets Design were asked to rank priorities for overall
Guidelines in 2018. The Street Transportation transportation in Phoenix; “Giving everyone a
Department has been working to implement comfortable option for using streets, whether they
the Complete Streets priorities and designs by are driving, walking, biking, or taking transit” was
identifying appropriate streets and contexts for the top priority for 29% of respondents, second
complete street transitions, updating procedures, only to “Preventing collisions that could injure
and building additional active transportation people.” In survey comments and survey questions
infrastructure. Complete street designs have about specific types of infrastructure, respondents
also been emphasized with new projects and repeatedly showed support for street design
development across the City. that prioritizes comfortable and safe multimodal
options above all.
Identifying appropriate contexts and designing
streets for all modes remains a high priority for

Recommendation Type of Change
Near term (2023 - 2026)
Conduct a Complete Streets information and professional education campaign internally to Continue ongoing
1.1
improve awareness of active transportation best practices and Complete Streets design. work

Create internal guidance that documents existing policies and processes relevant to
1.2 Complete Streets design elements for retrofits and new projects developed as part of the Prioritize resources
active transportation network

Medium term (2027 - 2032)
Review and update project documentation and handoff process in the Capital Improvement Update existing
1.3
Project process to incorporate Complete Streets goals and support Active Transportation. procedures

Compile and report on information about Complete Streets compliance captured via the
1.4 Prioritize resources
development process.

Create a policy and define a methodology for evaluating multi-modal impacts and Update existing
1.5
mitigation of development in high-activity areas policies

Long term (2032 - 2043)
Update traffic impact analysis guidance and standards in the City of Phoenix Street
Update existing
1.6 Planning and Design Guidelines Manual to incorporate safe systems and complete streets
procedures
tradeoffs in future updates to the manual

Review internal documentation of Complete Streets elements and collaborate internally
Update existing
1.7 to update policies and processes where appropriate to streamline implementation of
policies
Complete Streets design elements in support of Active Transportation.

Establish a methodology for determining active transportation demand for Capital Update existing
1.8
Improvement and development projects in order to ensure appropriate facilities are built. policies

Policy-8
Page 583
Policy Recommendations




Objective 2: Support the Goals of the
Climate Action Plan
The Climate Action Plan set a goal to shift following recommendations provide concrete steps
how people get around Phoenix towards lower for achieving the overarching goals.
carbon modes of transportation, including
Expanding and connecting canal paths was
active transportation. Building out the canal
a recurring theme in the first round of public
path network was one of the supporting goals
outreach. In the online survey respondents were
for the plan as it increases opportunities for
asked to rank bicycle-specific improvements;
safe and comfortable biking and walking. The
“Canals – Adding and upgrading paths along
Street Transportation Department is committed
existing canals” was the second most frequent top
to supporting the Climate Action Plan and the
priority (19%), second only to safety.

Recommendation Type of Change
Near term (2023 - 2026)
Support electric vehicle adoption by continuing to manage the Micromobility Program and
Continue ongoing
2.1 seek to expand the program boundaries and types of vehicles based on demand and future
work
infrastructure expansion.

Support electric vehicle adoption by revising Motorized Play Vehicle Ordinance to better
2.2 Update existing code
regulate modern micromobility vehicles for safety and transportation options.

Collect data on existing shared use paths along canals, assess needs, and create a plan for
2.3 Prioritize resources
building out 90% of the network by 2050.

Continue to build canal paths in line with the goal of paths along 90% of the canal network Continue ongoing
2.4
by 2050. work

Medium term (2027 - 2032)

Support mode shift target by creating an anticipatory warrant process that provides an Update existing
2.5
opportunity to install pedestrian and bicycle crossings proactively. policies

Support mode shift target by integrating Benefits of Complete Streets Tool into CIP project
Update existing
2.6 evaluation to capture latent demand and mode shift potential as one of the evaluation
procedures
criteria when assessing potential project impacts (i.e., Complete Streets Toolkit).
Outside agency
Initiate research into opportunities for safe and legal usage of micromobility along canal
2.7 would need to update
paths.
existing policies

Long term (2033 - 2043)

Support mode shift goals by seeking to collaborate with the Public Transit Department to
2.8 Prioritize resources
identify last-mile sidewalk connections and crossings and seek funding for adding sidewalk.


Policy-9
Page 584




Objective 3: Support the Vision Zero Road
Safety Action Plan
The Road Safety Action Plan was adopted
by Council in 2022 with strong support from
Phoenicians. Safety was the top priority in the
initial round of public outreach for this plan. It
was the most frequently identified top priority for
transportation overall and for improvements to the
bicycle network. The following recommendations
address how active transportation can support the
implementation of the Road Safety Action Plan.

Recommendation Type of Change
Near term (2023 - 2026)
Integrate the High Injury Network and identified priority locations from the RSAP into the
Update existing
3.1 Community Active Transportation Network Program as part of the existing conditions
procedures
analysis.

Integrate the High Injury Network and rebalancing recommendations from the RSAP into Update existing
3.2
pavement project reviews for potential bike lanes. procedures

Establish internal processes to integrate the Active Transportation Team in to the RSAP
implementation process, specifically for the RSAP goals to review of mid-block crossings at
3.3 priority arterial road locations, the development of checklist or toolkit to improve safety for Prioritize resources
pedestrians and bicyclists in project design, and the analysis of the transportation network
to identify locations with risk-factors and countermeasures.

Advance school safety measures identified in the RSAP, including expanding education and
3.4 awareness programs, developing Safe Routes to School Plans, and implementing school Prioritize resources
zone safety measures.


Develop and promote driver education programs, campaigns, and materials to increase
3.5 Prioritize resources
awareness of safe driving behavior around people walking and biking.




Policy-10
Page 585
Policy Recommendations




SECTION 2
Informing Future Plans

Objective 4: Share Opportunities for Integrating
Active Transportation Policies and Guidance into
the General Plan
The City of Phoenix will be updating its General During targeted outreach and in survey
Plan in 2025, in accordance with state law comments, a recurring theme was the need to
requirements that an update be performed link land use and transportation. The community
every ten years. The upcoming General Plan survey asked respondents to identify the single
update presents a significant opportunity for the biggest barrier to walking in Phoenix; the most
Planning and Development Department to make frequent response was “Distance between places”
recommendations, set priorities, and identify (24%). Creating neighborhoods with walkable
the process for procedural changes on land use destinations requires land use policies that
and transportation policy in the City of Phoenix. support a mix of uses within a walkable distance.
The following recommendations are general The General Plan update also impacts policies
guidance the Street Transportation Department that directly impact street design, including
can provide as opportunities to better support regulations around requirements for providing
Complete Streets implementation and integrate parking, mitigating traffic impacts, and street
active transportation, safety, and design into the cross-section design.
General Plan.

Recommendation Type of Change
Near term (2023 - 2026)

In the Connect People and Places Core Value, update the Bicycle Goal to Active Update existing
4.1
Transportation goal to reflect updated program name. policies

Include the Active Transportation Plans’ Network Development Program as a key bicycle Update existing
4.2
implementation mechanism within the Active Transportation Goal section. policies

Integrate the importance of protected bicycle infrastructure as a design consideration within Update existing
4.3
the Active Transportation Goal section. policies


Include the Active Transportation Plan as an implementation policy or plan within the Update existing
4.4
General Plan’s Complete Streets Goal section. policies


Integrate first and last mile connectivity through bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure as a Update existing
4.5
design principle within the Transit Oriented Development Goal section. policies

Include bicycle infrastructure and accessibility as a key design principle, in addition to Update existing
4.6
pedestrian infrastructure, within the Cores, Centers, and Corridors Goal section. policies


Policy-11
Page 586




SECTION 3
Align Internal Standards And Practices With Active Transportation Plan Values


Objective 5: Build Safe Active
Transportation Networks
Safety was identified as a plan value as it was
a consistent theme throughout public outreach.
The following recommendations support
Phoenix’s Vision Zero goal and offer specific
recommendations for developing safe active
transportation networks.


Recommendation Type of Change
Near term (2023 - 2026)
Use the FHWA Bikeway Facility Guide, which provides facility selection criteria based on
Update existing
5.1 roadway characteristics and user considerations, as a baseline for facility selection and
procedures
design on all bikeway projects.

Pilot the use of NACTO City Speed Limit Guide as a baseline for consideration on
5.2 Pilot
targeted, high-priority active transportation corridors.

Medium term (2027 - 2032)

In future updates of the City's Street Planning and Design Guidelines, reference and
Update existing
5.3 integrate best practice facility designs and treatments for bicycle and pedestrian facilities
policies
include in the Plan's Design Guidance section as well as emergent best practices.



Update existing
5.4 Evaluate the potential use of stop bars in high priority bicycle and pedestrian intersections.
procedures




Policy-12
Page 587
Policy Recommendations




Objective 6: Build Connected Active
Transportation Networks
Connectivity was identified as a plan value can effectively shorten walking and biking
as a network is only as strong as its weakest distances, as it reduces the chance of people
link. Connecting existing and future facilities walking out of their way to cross safely. The
is essential for creating a viable active following recommendations identify specific
transportation network. Adding crossings for opportunities to reduce gaps in the network and
people walking and biking along major streets create safe and comfortable connections for
people walking and biking.


Recommendation Type of Change
Near term (2023 - 2026)

Continue ongoing
6.1 Initiate a feasibility study for a pilot protected intersection in Phoenix.
work

Pilot implementation of intersection treatments that elevate visibility, shorten crossing
6.2 distances, and provide greater protection to people walking and biking at high-priority Pilot
biking and walking intersections.

Medium term (2027 - 2032)
Document location of all bike lanes that allow time of day parking. Prioritize locations to
6.3 work with the community on potential alternative designs with the goal of eliminating bike Prioritize resources
lanes that allow parking.

Establish standard intersection design practices that raise the visibility of people biking on
Update existing
6.4 approaches and through intersections, as recommended in the Plan's Design Guidance
policies
section.

Create and implement consistent wayfinding on high priority active transportation corridors
6.5 Prioritize Resources
throughout Phoenix

Long term (2033 - 2040)
Seek to collaborate with the Parks and Recreation Department and the Planning and
6.6 Development Department to identify opportunities for coordinated development of an Prioritize resources
interconnected, low-stress Multi-Use Path network in Phoenix.




Policy-13
Page 588




Objective 7: Build Enjoyable Active
Transportation Networks
Enjoyability was identified as a plan value as recommendations offer specific guidance on
people will not use infrastructure they do not building infrastructure that will attract new users
enjoy. The need for comfortable and enjoyable and allow every Phoenician interested in walking
networks was a recurring theme in the initial and biking to be able to do so comfortably.
round of public outreach. The following


Recommendation Type of Change
Near term (2023 - 2026)

Establish outreach guidelines for including traffic calming in Capital Improvement Projects, Update existing
7.1
including speed humps and speed bumps. procedures

Collect data that will enable evaluation of bicycle and pedestrian Level of Transportation
Stress (LTS). Data should specifically include: length, location, and number of travel lanes;
7.2 parking signs; landscaping strips; and sidewalk location and width. This assessment informs Prioritize resources
facilities selection and design by evaluating the relative comfort and safety of someone
walking or biking along a corridor.

Conduct a pilot project of various roadway surface materials that act as heat reflectants
7.3 to reduce the stress and impact of heat. Use the pilot to select preferred materials and use Pilot
cases and create implementation guidelines.

Medium term (2027 - 2032)
Seek to collaborate across departments to streamline permit process for structural shade in Update existing
7.4
the ROW, specifically awnings. policies

Seek to collaborate across departments to review the existing traffic calming design
Update existing
7.5 standards for horizontal and vertical traffic calming for potential updates to ensure designs
policies
effectively calm traffic while supporting emergency operations.




Policy-14
Page 589
Policy Recommendations




Objective 8: Build Equitable Active
Transportation Networks
Equity was identified as a plan value as it is a different community needs into account. The
high priority for the City and for the community. following recommendations seek to address
Throughout the outreach process, residents historic inequities and to ensure that all
asked for an equitable approach to developing Phoenicians have a chance to participate in active
infrastructure and planning processes that take transportation planning processes and benefit
from infrastructure investments.

Recommendation Type of Change
Near term (2023 - 2026)
Create easy to share fliers and slides with information on how to contact the Street
8.1 Transportation Department and how to report maintenance to share during future outreach Prioritize resources
opportunities.

Track and incorporate publicly-submitted requests during the urban village assessment and
8.2 Prioritize resources
project prioritization process.

Medium term (2027 - 2032)
In future updates to the Street Transportation Department's Public Engagement Plan
8.3 consider opportunities to better include low-income, historically-marginalized, disabled, Update procedures
and limited English-speaking residents in the decision-making and implementation process.

In future updates to internal public outreach standard processes and materials consider
8.4 opportunities to better reach historically marginalized communities and empower residents Update procedures
to be actively involved in the decision making and implementation process.

Long term (2033 - 2040)
Update existing program structures to support implementation of small projects that
proactively support safe and enjoyable active transportation such as sidewalk infill,
8.5 Update procedures
shade, street crossings, Low Impact Development/Green Infrastructure, ramps, and other
Complete Streets design elements.

Evaluate Street Transportation Department programs that support active transportation,
such as the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program, for opportunities to update project
8.6 Update procedures
selection criteria and outreach processes to better prioritize projects that reflect diverse
needs and experiences.




Policy-15
Page 590
Page 591
BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN
DESIGN GUIDANCE
ELEMENT




APRIL 2023




Page 592
TABLE OF
CONTENTS




Page 593
01 INTRODUCTION 05 ENHANCED CROSSING
Context 1 TREATMENTS
Guidance Basis 3 Intersection Treatments
Design Needs of Pedestrians 4 Two Stage Turn Box 41
Design Needs of Bicycle and Other Bike Box 42
Micromobility Devices 8
Driveway and Minor Street Crossings 44
Signals and Beacons
HAWKS 45
02 PEDESTRIAN TOOLBOX Toucan Signal 47

Introduction 11 Bike Detection and Actuation 49

Sidewalks Bicycle Signal Phase 50

Sidewalk Zones and Widths 12
Curb Ramps 14
Curb Extensions 16
Corner Radii 17 06 NETWORK CONNECTIONS
AND SUPPORTING
FACILITIES
03 BICYCLE TOOLBOX Short-term Bicycle Parking 53

Introduction 19 Long-term Bicycle Parking 57

Bike Lanes Transit Stop Design 59

Standard Bike Lanes 22 Shared Use Trails and On-Street Transitions 60

Buffered Bike Lanes 24 Wayfinding 62

Separated Bike Lanes: One-way 26
Separated Bike Lanes: Two-way 28
Separated Bike Lane Barriers 30 07 PEDESTRIAN-BICYCLE
Bike Boulevards OPERATIONS AND
Bike Boulevard Overview 32 MAINTENANCE
Traffic Calming 34 Sidewalk Maintenance 65
Parking, Loading, and Garbage Access 66
Bike Facility Maintenance 68
04 SHARED USE PATHS
Shared Use Trails 37
Bollard Alternatives 39 08 ADDITIONAL DESIGN
PARAMETERS &
CONSIDERATIONS
Complete Streets 71
High Activity Areas 72




Page 594
INTRODUCTION
Page 595
Introduction




CONTEXT
This toolbox presents high-level guidance for local
planners, engineers, and advocates to improve Projects must not only be planned for their
the walkability and bikability of Phoenix and physical aspects as facilities serving specific
create more comfortable streets for pedestrians transportation objectives; they must also consider
and bicyclists of all ages and abilities. Planners effects on the aesthetic, social, economic and
and project designers should refer to these environmental values, needs, constraints and
guidelines in shaping future infrastructure opportunities in a larger community setting.
projects; however, these guidelines are not
Design guidance in this document meets or
intended to guide detailed design as they do not
exceeds the minimums set by the Americans with
constitute standards.
Disabilities Act Accessible Design Guidelines
Future roadway planning, engineering, design (ADAAG) and the Public Right of Way Accessibility
and construction will continue to strive for a Guidelines (PROWAG).
balanced transportation system that includes
All traffic control devices, signs, pavement
a seamless, accessible bicycle and pedestrian
markings included in street projects must conform
network and encourages bicycle and pedestrian
to the Arizona Supplement to the “Manual on
travel wherever possible.
Uniform Traffic Control Devices” (MUTCD).
The goal of a transportation system is to better
meet the needs of people - whether in vehicles,
bicyclists or pedestrians - and to provide access to
goods, services, and activities.

Streets that include safe and inviting facilities
for active modes provide users important
transportation choices, whether it is to make
trips entirely by walking or bicycling, or to access
public transit. Often in urban or suburban areas,
walking and bicycling are the fastest and most
efficient ways to perform short trips.

Convenient, active travel provides many benefits,
including reduced traffic congestion, financial
savings for users, road and parking facility
savings, improved economic development, and
a more attractive and healthier environment
through reduced greenhouse gases.

The design guidelines and recommendations
in this document are intended for use on City
of Phoenix roadways. Projects on Arizona
Department of Transportation, county, or other
roadways in other cities may require additional
considerations.
Design-1
Page 596




Design-2
Page 597
Introduction




GUIDANCE BASIS
The sections that follow serve as an inventory of pedestrian and bicycle design treatments and provide
guidelines for their development. These treatments and design guidelines are important because they
represent the tools for creating a pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly, accessible community. The guidelines
are not, however, a substitute for a more thorough evaluation by a professional engineer prior to
implementation of facility improvements. The following guidelines are incorporated in this Design Guide.

Multi-modal Guidance
The National Association of The Federal Highway
City Transportation Officials’ Administration’s Small Town
(NACTO) Urban Street Design and Rural Multimodal Networks
Guide (2013) is a collection of Report (2016) offers resources
nationally recognized street and ideas to help small towns
design standards, and offers and rural communities support
guidance on the current state safe, accessible, comfortable,
of the practice designs. and active travel for people
of all ages and abilities. It
connects existing guidance
to rural practice and includes
examples of peer communities.

Pedestrian Guidance
The American Association of The Maricopa Association
State Highway Transportation ÿ of Governments’ (MAG)
Officials’ (AASHTO) Guide for the ÿÿ !!" Pedestrian Policies and
Planning, Design, and Operation Design Guidelines (2005)
of Pedestrian Facilities (2021) provides information and design
identifies effective measures for assistance to better create
accommodating pedestrians on and redevelop pedestrian
public rights-of-way, vary among areas throughout the
roadway and facility types. region that integrate
01234561ÿ899543135 ÿ5ÿ 52 9
facilities for walking with
other transportation modes.

Bikeway Guidance
The National Association of The American Association of
City Transportation Officials’ State Highway Transportation
(NACTO) Urban Bikeway Officials’ (AASHTO) Guide
Design Guide (2012) provides for the Development of
cities with state-of-the-practice Bicycle Facilities (2012)
solutions that can help create provides information on how
complete streets that are safe to accommodate bicycle
and enjoyable for bicyclists. travel and operations in most
riding environments.
wwxyxyxyxxyxyxxyxxxxxyxxxyxyxxxywxwxyyxyyxyxyyxwww

012345678ÿ 45ÿ15851ÿ1ÿ88ÿ5673ÿÿ42148851ÿ55ÿ
ÿ!"ÿ#$%ÿ&'ÿ()'*ÿ+,-ÿ..%$/0ÿ 12345644789:;94ÿ=52>4:62?@ABCDEFGDFFHÿ
`aÿcdecafghijakacÿkdilacmjknÿedcojiidfÿljipagiÿqjhdkrdÿscaoÿtuv IJKÿMJNÿOPQRSPTÿUVWXYWZUXZÿZX[\\[YVÿ]^_




Separated Bike Lane Planning
and Design Guide (2015) is the
latest national guidance on the
planning and design of separated
bike lane facilities released by the
Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA). The resource documents
best practices as demonstrated
around the U.S., and offers ideas
on future areas of research,
evaluation and design flexibility.

Design-3
Page 598




DESIGN NEEDS OF PEDESTRIANS
Types of Pedestrians Disabled Pedestrian
Pedestrians have a variety of characteristics and Design Considerations
the transportation network should accommodate
The table below summarizes common physical
a variety of needs, abilities, and possible
and cognitive impairments, how they affect
impairments. Age is one major factor that affects
personal mobility, and recommendations for
pedestrians’ physical characteristics, walking
improved pedestrian-friendly design.
speed, and environmental perception. Children
have lower eye height and may walk slower
than adults. They also perceive the environment
differently at various stages of their cognitive
development. Older adults walk more slowly and
may require assistive devices for walking stability,
sight, and hearing.


Disabled Pedestrian Design Considerations
Impairment Effect on Mobility Design Solution
Difficulty propelling over uneven or soft Firm, stable surfaces and structures, including
Physical Impairment surfaces. ramps or beveled edges.
Necessitating
Cross-slopes cause wheelchairs to veer
Wheelchair and Cross-slopes of less than two percent.
downhill or tip sideways.
Scooter Use
Require wider path of travel. Sufficient width and maneuvering space.
Difficulty negotiating steep grades and cross
Cross-slopes of less than two percent.
Physical Impairment slopes; decreased stability and tripping
Smooth, non-slippery travel surface.
Necessitating hazard.
Walking Aid Use Slower walking speed and reduced Longer pedestrian signal cycles, shorter crossing
endurance; reduced ability to react. distances, median refuges, and street furniture.

Less able to detect oncoming hazards
Longer pedestrian signal cycles, clear sight
Hearing at locations with limited sight lines (e.g.
distances, highly visible pedestrian signals and
Impairment driveways, angled intersections, channelized
markings.
right turn lanes) and complex intersections.

Limited perception of path ahead and Accessible text (larger print and raised text),
Vision obstacles; reliance on memory; reliance accessible pedestrian signals (APS), guide strips
Impairment on non-visual indicators (e.g. sound and and detectable warning surfaces, safety barriers,
texture). and lighting.
Varies greatly. Can affect ability to perceive,
Cognitive Signs with pictures, universal symbols, and colors,
recognize, understand, interpret, and
Impairment rather than text.
respond to information.
Slower walking speed and reduced Longer pedestrian signal cycles, shorter crossing
Fatiguing Illnesses endurance; reduced ability to react. distances, median refuges, and street furniture.
Increased chances of tripping or falling. Smooth, non-slippery travel surface.



Design-4
Page 599
Introduction




Pedestrian Characteristics by Age
Age Characteristics
0-4 Learning to walk
Requires constant adult supervision
Developing peripheral vision and depth
perception
Eye Level 5-8 Increasing independence, but still requires
4’ 6” - 5’ 10” supervision
(1.3 m - 1.7 m)
Poor depth perception

9-13 Susceptible to “darting out” in roadways

Insufficient judgment

Sense of invulnerability

14-18 Improved awareness of traffic environment

Insufficient judgment
19-40 Active, aware of traffic environment

41-65 Slowing of reflexes

65+ Difficulty crossing street

Vision loss
Shoulders
1’ 10” (0.5 m) Difficulty hearing vehicles approaching from
behind
Walking
2’ 6” (0.75 m)
Source: AASHTO. Guide for the Planning,
Design, and Operation of Pedestrian
Minimum Accessible Width*
Facilities, Exhibit 2-1. 2021.
3’ (0.9 m)

Preferred Operating Space
5’ (1.5 m)

*At point of contact




Design-5
Page 600




Design Needs of Runners Design Needs of Strollers
Running is an important recreation and fitness Strollers are wheeled devices pushed by
activity commonly performed on shared use pedestrians to transport babies or small children.
paths. Many runners prefer softer surfaces (such Stroller models vary greatly in their design
as rubber, bare earth or crushed rock) to reduce and capacity. Some strollers are designed to
impact. Runners can change their speed and accommodate a single child, others can carry 3
direction frequently. If high volumes are expected, or more. Design needs of strollers depend on the
controlled interaction or separation of different wheel size, geometry and ability of the adult who
types of users should be considered. is pushing the stroller.

Strollers commonly have small pivoting front
wheels for easy maneuverability, but these wheels
Runner Dimensions may limit their use on unpaved surfaces or rough
pavement. Curb ramps are valuable to these
Preferred Operating Space
users. Lateral overturning is one main safety
5’ (1.5 m)
concern for stroller users.
Shoulders
1’ 10” (0.5 m)




Stroller Dimensions




Sweep Width
4.3’ (1.3 m)




Sweep Width
3’ 6” (1.5 m)
Physical Length
5’ (1.5 m)




Design-6
Page 601
Introduction




Design Needs of wheelchair using handles attached to the back of
the chair.
Wheelchair Users Power wheelchairs use battery power to move
As the American population ages, the age the wheelchair. The size and weight of power
demographics in Phoenix may also shift, and the wheelchairs limit their ability to negotiate
number of people using mobility assistive devices obstacles without a ramp. Various control units
(such as manual wheelchairs, powered wheelchairs) are available that enable users to control the
will increase. wheelchair movement, based on their ability (e.g.,
joystick control, breath controlled, etc).
Manual wheelchairs are self-propelled devices.
Users propel themselves using push rims attached Maneuvering around a turn requires additional
to the rear wheels. Braking is done through space for wheelchair devices. Providing adequate
resisting wheel movement with the hands or arm. space for 180 degree turns at appropriate
Alternatively, a second individual can control the locations is an important element of accessible
design.

Wheelchair User Design Considerations
Effect on Mobility Design Solution
Difficulty propelling over uneven or soft surfaces. Firm, stable surfaces and structures, including ramps or beveled edges.

Cross-slopes cause wheelchairs to veer downhill. Cross-slopes of less than two percent.

Require wider path of travel. Sufficient width and maneuvering space.


Wheelchair User Dimensions
Eye Height 3’8”
(1.1 m)


Handle 2’9”
(0.9 m)

Armrest
2’5” (0.75 m)




Physical Width Physical Width
2’6” (0.75 m) 2’2” (0.7 m)

Minimum Operating Width
Minimum Operating Width
3’ (0.9 m)
3’ (0.9 m)
Minimum to Make a 180 Degree Turn
Minimum Width of Accessway*
5’ (1.5 m)
4’ (1.2 m)

Minimum to Make a 180 Degree Turn *Provide 5’ x 5’ passing zone every 200’ if travel way width is less than 5 feet
5’ (1.5 m)


Design-7
Page 602




DESIGN NEEDS OF BICYCLE & OTHER
MICROMOBILITY DEVICE RIDERS
The facility designer must have an understanding of how bicycles and scooters operate and how the devices
themselves influence that operation. People who ride bicycles and other micromobility devices, by nature, are
much more affected by poor facility design, construction and maintenance practices than motor vehicle drivers.
By understanding the unique characteristics and needs of bikes and micromobility devices, a facility designer
can provide quality facilities that work for a wider spectrum of users and minimize user risk.



Bicycle as a Design Vehicle Bicycle Rider - Typical Dimensions
Similar to motor vehicles, bicycles exist in a variety
of sizes and configurations. These variations occur Operating
in the types of vehicle (such as a conventional Envelope
8’ 4”
bicycle, a recumbent bicycle or a tricycle), and
behavioral characteristics (such as the comfort
level of the bicyclist). The design of a bikeway
should consider reasonably expected bicycle
types on the facility and utilize the appropriate
dimensions.
Eye Level
5’ to 6’
The figure illustrates the operating space and
physical dimensions of a typical adult bicyclist,
which are the basis for typical facility design.
Bicyclists require clear space to operate within Handlebar
a facility. This is why the minimum operating Height
3’8”
width is greater than the physical dimensions
of the bicyclist. Bicyclists prefer five feet or
more operating width, although four feet may
be minimally acceptable if the pavement is
Physical
continuous and there is no curbing present.. Operating
Width 2’6”
In addition to the design dimensions of a typical
bicycle, there are many other commonly used Minimum
Operating
pedal-driven cycles and accessories to consider Width 4’
Preferred Operating
when planning and designing bicycle facilities. Width 6’
The most common types include tandem bicycles,
recumbent bicycles, and trailer accessories.




Design-8
Page 603
Introduction




Other Micromobility Devices Scooter Rider - Typical Dimensions
Operating
Scooters, skateboards, and other similar Envelope
micromobility devices, both human-powered 8’ 4”
and battery-powered are low-speed mobility
devices that are typically operated in on-street
bike facilities. These devices can be entirely
human-powered, powered by an electric motor,
or a combination of the two. They typically have
an operating speed of 20 mph or less, but this Eye Level
5’ to 6’
can vary widely depending on whether manually-
powered or motor driven, and other factors like
hills.
Handlebar
In general, these devices have similar design Height
operating envelopes of bicycles, (in some cases 3’8”
even narrower), and can be operated by a wide
range of users, including those who may not
be able to operate a traditional bicycle. As the
wheels are smaller than bicycle wheels, potholes Physical
Operating
and large cracks are more disruptive to these
Width 2’6”
vehicles
Minimum
Operating
These devices have seen a dramatic increase in
Width 4’
use, and will likely only continue to be the case
Preferred Operating
as they become more affordable, available, and
Width 5’
accessible, for both personal devices and shared
micromobility systems.

Design Speed Expectations
BICYCLE TYPE FEATURE TYPICAL SPEED
Paved level surfacing 8-12 mph
Crossing Intersections 10 mph
Upright Adult Bicyclist
Downhill 25-30 mph
Uphill 5-12 mph

Recumbent Bicyclist Paved level surfacing 18 mph


Paved level surfacing 10-20 mph


E-bikes and E-scooters Crossing Intersections 10-12 mph

Downhill 30 mph

Uphill 10-15mph

Design-9
Page 604
PEDESTRIAN
TOOLBOX
Page 605
Pedestrian Toolbox




INTRODUCTION
The Pedestrian Toolbox includes pedestrian- building heights and setbacks should be designed
oriented infrastructure elements that create to provide the maximum shade on sidewalks and
a more comfortable and safe pedestrian streets - preventing the ground materials from
experience. absorbing too much heat from the sun. Surface
materials and their respective UV reflective
In Phoenix, in addition to all elements listed in the properties can also assist in reducing the effects
Toolbox, designing for heat mitigation is essential. of heat form the sun.
To mitigate heat, trees, shade structures, and
This toolbox will be helpful to in addressing
pedestrian needs.




Design-11
Page 606




SIDEWALKS

SIDEWALKS
Sidewalk Zones & Widths
Sidewalks are the most fundamental element of the walking network, as they provide an area for
pedestrian travel separated from vehicle traffic. Providing adequate and accessible facilities can lead to
increased numbers of people walking, improved accessibility, and the creation of social space.


Design Features
Suburban Sidewalk




Enhancement Pedestrian Access
Zone Amenity Zone Route (PAR) Building Frontage Zone

The curbside The amenity zone, also The pedestrian access The building frontage zone
lane can act as called the furnishing route is the area intended allows pedestrians a comfortable
a flexible space or landscaping zone, for pedestrian travel. This “shy” distance from the building
to further buffer buffers pedestrians from zone should be entirely fronts, fencing, walls and
the sidewalk from the adjacent roadway, free of permanent and vertical landscaping. It provides
moving traffic, and and is also the area temporary objects opportunities for window
may be used for a where elements such as while fully meeting shopping, to place signs, planters,
bike facility. Curb street trees, signal poles, the requirements for or chairs.
extensions and bike signs, and other street pedestrian accessibility.
corrals may occupy furniture are properly
this space where located. Wide pedestrian zones
appropriate. are needed in areas or
where pedestrian flows
are high.




Design-12
Page 607
Pedestrian Toolbox




Parking Lane/ Amenity Pedestrian Building
Street Classification Enhancement Zone Access Route Frontage
Zone (PAR) Zone*

Local Streets Varies 4 - 6 ft 6 - 8 ft 2 ft

Pedestrian Priority Areas Varies 6 - 10 ft 8 ft 2 - 8 ft

Arterials and Collectors Varies 4 - 6 ft 6 - 8 ft 4 - 6 ft

*Indicates ideal frontage zone space. Actual frontage zone is contingent
upon the City’s development code and required set backs



Typical Application Materials and
• Wider sidewalks should be installed near
schools, at transit stops, or anywhere high
Maintenance
concentrations of pedestrians exist. Sidewalks are typically constructed out of concrete
• At transit stops, an 8 ft by 5 ft clear space is and are separated from the roadway by a curb or
required for accessible passenger boarding/ gutter and sometimes a landscaped boulevard.
alighting at the front door location per ADA Less expensive walkways constructed of asphalt,
requirements. crushed stone, or other stabilized surfaces may
• Sidewalks should be continuous on both sides be appropriate. Ensure accessibility and properly
of urban commercial streets, and should be maintain all surfaces regularly. Surfaces must be
required in areas of moderate residential firm, stable, and slip resistant. Colored, patterned,
density (1-4 dwelling units per acre).
or stamped concrete can add distinctive visual
• When retrofitting gaps in the sidewalk network, appeal. See ‘Sidewalk Maintenance’ for more
locations near transit stops, schools, parks,
information.
public buildings, and other areas with high
concentrations of pedestrians should be the
highest priority.




Design-13
Page 608




CURB RAMPS
Curb ramps are the design elements that allow all users to make the transition from the street to the
sidewalk. A sidewalk without a curb ramp can be useless to someone in a wheelchair, forcing them back
to a driveway and out into the street for access. There are a number of factors to be considered in the
design and placement of curb ramps.



Diagonal ramps must include a Curb ramps must be located so that they
Turning Space of at least 48” x 48" within do not project into vehicular traffic lanes,
the crosswalk for user maneuverability the center of an intersection, parking
spaces, or parking access aisles. Three
configurations are illustrated below.




Parallel Curb Ramp Perpendicular
Diagonal Curb Ramp
Curb Ramps



(Crosswalk spacing not to scale. For illustration purposes only)



Typical Application Design Features
Curb ramps must be installed at all intersections • The level landing at the top of a ramp should
and midblock locations where pedestrian be at least 4 feet long and at least the same
width as the ramp itself. The slope of the ramp
crossings exist, as mandated by federal legislation
should be compliant to current standards.
(1973 Rehabilitation Act and ADA 1990). All
• If the top landing is within the sidewalk or
newly constructed and altered roadway projects
corner area where someone in a wheelchair
must include compliant curb ramps. In addition, may have to change direction, the landing
existing facilities must be upgraded to current must be a minimum of 4’-0” long (in the
standards when appropriate. direction of the ramp run) and at least as
wide as the ramp, although a width of 5’-0” is
The edge of the Pedestrian Access Route (PAR) preferred.
at the ADA Ramp opening, transitioning from the
sidewalk to the street, is equipped with detectable
warning surfaces (also known as truncated
domes) to alert people with visual impairments
to changes in the pedestrian environment. Visual
contrast between the raised tactile device and
the surrounding infrastructure is important so that
the change is readily evident to partially sighted
pedestrians.


Design-14
Page 609
Pedestrian Toolbox




Not recommended: Diagonal curb ramp configuration. Recommended: Directional curb ramps
for crossing in both directions.




Further Considerations
Where feasible, separate directional curb
ramps for each crosswalk at an intersection
should be provided rather than having a single
ramp at a corner for both crosswalks. Ramps
dedicated to a single pedestrian travel direction
orient pedestrians directly into the center of
the intersection, which can be challenging for
wheelchair users and pedestrians with visual
impairments. Diagonal curb ramp configurations
are not allowed during new construction and
can only be installed as part of a maintenance Pedestrian Policies and Design Guidelines, pg 56.
activity or after a technical infeasibility study and Maricopa Association of Governments, 2005
approval by the city engineer.

Curb radii need to be considered when designing Materials and
directional ramps. While curb ramps are needed
for use on all types of streets, the highest priority Maintenance
locations are on streets near transit stops, schools, It is critical that the interface between a curb
parks, medical facilities, shopping areas. ramp and the street be maintained adequately.
Asphalt street sections can develop vertical
differentials where concrete meets asphalt at the
foot of the ramp, which can catch the front wheels
of a wheelchair.




Design-15
Page 610




B


C
A




CURB EXTENSIONS
Curb extensions, also called curb bulbouts and neckdowns, minimize pedestrian exposure during crossing
by shortening the crossing distance and giving pedestrians a better chance to see and be seen before
beginning to cross. Curb extensions are appropriate for any crosswalk where it is desirable to shorten the
crossing distance and there is a parking lane adjacent to the curb.



Typical Application C• Curb extension length can be adjusted to
accommodate bus stops or street furniture.
• For purposes of efficient street sweeping, the
minimum radius for the reverse curves of the
transition is 10 ft and the two radii should be
Further Considerations
balanced to be nearly equal. If there is no parking lane, adding curb extensions
• The curb extension width should terminate across a roadway shoulder may be a problem for
one foot short of the parking lane to maximize bicycle travel and truck or bus turning movements.
bicyclist safety when bicycle lanes are not
present. This buffer is also preferred when
bicycle lanes are present. Materials and Maintenance
Planted curb extensions may be designed as a
Design Features bioswale, a vegetated system for stormwater
management. To maintain proper stormwater
A• Where a bike lane runs adjacent to the curb drainage, curb extensions can be constructed as
extension, design with a 1‘ buffer from edge
of parking lane (preferred). refuge islands offset by a drainage channel or
feature a covered trench drain.
B• Crossing distance is shortened by
approximately 6-8 feet with a parallel parking
lane or 15 feet or more with an angled
parking lane.


Design-16
Page 611
Pedestrian Toolbox




CORNER RADII
The size of a curb’s radius can have a significant impact on pedestrian comfort and safety. A smaller
curb radius provides more pedestrian area at the corner, allows more flexibility in the placement of
curb ramps, results in a shorter crossing distance and requires vehicles to slow more on the intersection
approach. During the design phase, the chosen radius should be the smallest possible for the
circumstances and consider the effective radius in any design vehicle turning calculations.


Typical Application
The curb radius may be as small as 3 ft where US
DI
RA
there are no turning movements, or 5 ft where EF YSICAL RA
FE
CT PH D
there are turning movements and adequate street IV
E IUS
width. Wide outside travel lanes, on-street parking
and bike lanes create a larger effective turning
radius and can therefore allow a smaller physical
curb radius.


Design Features
Corners have two critical dimensions which must
be considered together.
• The physical radius controls the pedestrian
experience. Recommended: Bidirectional curb ramps
for crossing in both directions.
• The effective radius is the widest turning arc
that a vehicle can take through the corner and
is larger than the physical radius.


Further Considerations
Several factors govern the choice of curb radius
in any given location. These include the desired
pedestrian area of the corner, traffic turning
movements, street classifications, design vehicle
turning radius, intersection geometry, presence of
a bus or other large vehicle route, and whether
there is on-street parking or a bike lane (or both)
between the travel lane and the curb. Dual radius
corners with mountable aprons or other corner
hardening devices such as modular speed bumps
can be used to accommodate larger design/
control vehicles while still effectively managing
ordinary vehicular traffic.


Design-17
Page 612
BICYCLE
TOOLBOX
Page 613
Bicycle Toolbox




INTRODUCTION
Facility Selection:
Bicycle User Type
The current AASHTO Guide to the Development of Bicycle Facilities encourages designers to identify
their rider type based on the trip purpose (Recreational vs Transportation) and on the level of comfort
and skill of the rider (Causal vs Experienced). An alternate, and commonly used, user-type framework
for understanding a potential rider’s willingness to bike is illustrated in the figure below. Developed by
planners in Portland, OR* and supported by research**, this classification identifies four distinct types of
bicyclists.

Strong and Fearless – This group is willing to ride Typical Distribution of
a bicycle on any roadway regardless of traffic
Bicyclist Types
conditions. Comfortable taking the lane and
riding in a vehicular manner on major streets 1%
without designated bicycle facilities. Strong and Fearless

Enthused and Confident - This group of people 5-10% Enthused and Confident
riding bicycles who are riding in most roadway
situations but prefer to have a designated facility.
Comfortable riding on major streets with a bike
lane.

Interested but Concerned – This group is more
cautious and has some inclination towards
bicycling, but are held back by concern over
sharing the road with cars. Not very comfortable
on major streets, even with a striped bike lane,
Interested but Concerned
and prefer separated pathways or low traffic 60%
neighborhood streets.

No Way, No How – This group comprises
residents who simply aren’t interested at all in
bicycling and may be physically unable or don’t
know how to ride a bicycle, and they are unlikely
to adopt bicycling in any way.


* Roger Geller, City of Portland Bureau of Transportation. 30% No Way, No How
Four Types of Cyclists. http://www.portlandonline.
com/transportation/index.cfm?&a=237507. 2009.
** Dill, J., McNeil, N. Four Types of Cyclists?
Testing a Typology to Better Understand
Bicycling Behavior and Potential. 2012.



Design-19
Page 614




Facility Selection: Comfort
In order to provide a bikeway network that meets the needs of the Phoenix’s “Interested but Concerned”
residents (who comprise the majority of the population), bikeways must be low-stress and comfortable.
By using a metric called Level of Traffic Stress (LTS), specific facility types can be matched to the needs of
people who bicycle in Phoenix. Generally, “Interested but Concerned,” users will only bicycle on LTS 1 or
LTS 2 facilities.


Levels of Traffic Stress (LTS)
WHAT TYPE OF BICYCLISTS WILL RIDE ON
THIS LTS FACILITY?
LTS LEVEL DESCRIPTION
STRONG & ENTHUSIASTIC & INTERESTED BUT
FEARLESS CONFIDENT CONCERNED



Presents the lowest level of traffic stress; demands
less attention from people riding bicycles, and
attractive enough for a relaxing bicycle ride. Suitable
LTS 1 for almost all people riding bicycles, including children YES YES YES
trained to ride in the street and to safety cross
intersections.



Presents little traffic stress and therefore suitable to
most adults riding bicycles, but demandsmore
LTS2 attention than might be expected from children.
YES YES SOMETIMES




More traffic stress than LTS2, yet significantly less than
LTS3 the stress of integrating with multilane traffic. YES SOMETIMES NO



A level of stress beyond LTS 3. Includes roadways that
have no dedicated bicycle facilities and moderate to
higher vehicle speeds and volumes OR high speed
LTS4 and high volume roadways WITH an exclusive riding YES NO NO
zone (lane) where there is a significant speed
differential with vehicles.




Design-20
Page 615
Bicycle Toolbox




Facility Selection: Bikeways
As a starting point to identify a preferred facility, the chart below can be used to determine the
recommended type of bikeway to be provided in particular roadway speed and volume situations. To use
this chart, identify the appropriate daily traffic volume on the existing or proposed roadway, and locate
the facility types indicated by those key variables. Other factors beyond volume which affect facility
selection include traffic mix of including heavy vehicles, the presence of on-street parking, intersection
density, surrounding land use, and roadway sight distance. These factors are not included in the facility
selection chart below, but should always be considered in the facility selection and design process.

PHOENIX BICYCLE FACILITY
CONTEXTUAL GUIDANCE AVERAGE ANNUAL DAILY TRAFFIC (1,000 veh/day or 100 veh/peak hr)

FACILITY TYPE 0 2 4 6 8 10 15+ 20+ 25+ 30+
BIKE BOULEVARD
Comfortable local street environment Volume
without utilizing physical separation;
typically employs techniques to ensure
speeds are slow enough for safe Speed LTS 1 LTS 2
shared street.


BIKE LANE WITH PARKING LANE Volume
On-road basic bike lane (without
buffers or barriers).
Speed LTS 1 LTS 2




BIKE LANE WITHOUT PARKING LANE Volume
On-road basic bike lane (without
buffers or barriers).
Speed LTS 1 LTS 2




BUFFERED BIKE LANE Volume
Basic bike lane separated by painted
buffer to separate bike lane from
vehicle travel lanes and/or parking Speed LTS 1 LTS 2
lanes.


SEPARATED BIKE LANE
Physically separated bikeway. Could Volume
be one or two way and protected by a
variety of techniques.
Speed LTS 1 LTS 2




SHARED-USE TRAIL Volume
Completely separated from roadway, 50
typically shared with pedestrians
Speed
LTS 1*




LEGEND 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Volume POSTED TRAVEL SPEED (mph)
LTS 1 LTS 2
Speed * Depending on turns across path and their treatment. If in the 45 mph range, more treatment is needed to be LTS 1.

Desired Acceptable LTS ratings based on Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) Analysis Methods




This chart can be used to identify a preferred bicycle facility, or facilities, that would provide an LTS 1 or 2 experience at a selected location. For street segments, desired and acceptable
vehicular volumes for each facility are shown. These are the motor vehicle volume ranges that are appropriate for that facility. The correspondence between motor vehicle speed on the
street and the LTS score for each facility are also shown. The speed entries determine the LTS scores for the facility. A facility should only be chosen when both the street volumes and LTS
scores are appropriate. Since ranges overlap, it is important to allow more than one facility type to meet the desired LTS. Other factors should be considered when selecting a treatment,
such as proximity to schools, parks, or trailheads.




Design-21
Page 616




BIKE LANES
STANDARD BIKE LANES
On-street bike lanes designate an exclusive space for bicyclists through the use of pavement markings
and signs. The bike lane is located directly adjacent to motor vehicle travel lanes and is used in the same
direction as motor vehicle traffic. Bike lanes are typically on the right side of the street, between the
adjacent travel lane and curb, road edge or parking lane.




A



C
A
E



D

B



Typical Application Design Features
• Bike lanes may be used on any street with A• Mark inside line with 8" stripe. Mark 4"
adequate space, but are most effective on parking lane line or "Ts".
streets with moderate traffic volumes ≤ 6,000 B• Include a bicycle lane marking at the
ADT (≤ 4,000 preferred). beginning of the bike lane, beginning and
• Bike lanes are most appropriate on streets with end of bike lane pockets, approaches and
lower to moderate speeds ≤ 30 mph. farside of arterial crossings, and major
• Appropriate for skilled adult riders on most changes in direction. MUTCD recommends
streets. every 80 ft - 1,000 ft depending on land use
context.
• May be appropriate for children when
configured as 6+ ft wide lanes on lower-
C• 6 foot width preferred adjacent to on-street
speed, lower-volume streets with one lane in parking, (5 foot min.). Buffer preferred when
each direction. parking has high turnover, see Buffered Bike
Lanes.




Design-22
Page 617
Bicycle Toolbox




D 5.5–7 foot preferred adjacent to curb and

gutter or 4 feet more than the gutter pan
width.
E• The R3-17 “Bike Lane” sign is optional, but
recommended in most contexts.


Further Considerations
• On high speed streets (≥ 40 mph) the
minimum bike lane should be 6 feet.
• It may be desirable to reduce the width of
general purpose travel lanes in order to add or
Bike lanes provided dedicated spaces
widen bicycle lanes. for bicyclists to ride on the street.
• On multi-lane streets, the most appropriate
bicycle facility to provide for user comfort
may be buffered bicycle lanes or physically other drainage elements should be constructed
separated bicycle lanes. with no variation in the surface. The maximum
• Contraflow bike lanes are a special type of allowable tolerance in vertical roadway surface
bike lane that can be implemented in specific will be 1/4 of an inch.
locations where a dedicated bike lane is
needed for a particular direction of travel, but
the roadway is oriented for one-way travel in
Materials and
the opposite direction, and/or when space
constraints preclude a bike facility on nearby
Maintenance
parallel routes that would otherwise serve this Bike lane striping and markings will require higher
need. Contraflow bike lanes are effective in maintenance where vehicles frequently traverse
providing short, critical connections along over them at intersections, driveways, parking
bikeways, and special attention needs to be lanes, and along curved or constrained segments
paid to facility transitions to other bikeway of roadway.
types.
Bike lanes should also be maintained so that
Manhole Covers and Grates: there are no pot holes, cracks, uneven surfaces or
• Manhole surfaces should be manufactured debris.
with a shallow surface texture in the form of a
tight, nonlinear pattern.
• If manholes or other utility access boxes are
to be located in bike lanes within 50 ft. of
intersections or within 20 ft. of driveways
or other bicycle access points, special
manufactured permanent nonstick surfaces
ensure a controlled travel surface for bicyclists
breaking or turning.
• Manholes, drainage grates, or other obstacles
should be set flush with the paved roadway.
Roadway surface inconsistencies pose a
threat to safe riding conditions for bicyclists.
Construction of manholes, access panels or

Design-23
Page 618




BUFFERED BIKE LANES
Buffered bike lanes are conventional bike lanes paired with a designated buffer space, separating the
bike lane from the adjacent motor vehicle travel lane and/or parking lane.




A

B




Typical Application Design Features
• Anywhere a conventional bike lane is being A• The minimum bicycle travel area (not
considered. including buffer) is 5 feet wide.
• While conventional bike lanes are most B• Buffers should be at least 2.5 feet wide - but
appropriate on streets with lower to moderate 3 feet or more in width is preferred. Diagonal
speeds (≤ 30 mph), buffered bike lanes markings are used in buffers that are 2.5 to
provide additional value on streets with higher 4 feet wide. Chevron markings are used in
speeds (+30 mph) and high volumes or high buffers over 4 feet wide.
truck volumes (up to 6,000 ADT). • Buffers may be applied on the parking side,
• On streets with extra lanes or lane width. the travel side, both or alternating depending
• Appropriate for skilled adult riders on most on the main source of concern.
streets.




Design-24
Page 619
Bicycle Toolbox




Buffered bike lanes should include a striped buffer that is The use of additional pavement markings delineates
at least 2.5-3+ feet space between vehicles and bicyclists.



Further Considerations Materials and
• On multi-lane streets with high vehicles
speeds, the most appropriate bicycle facility
Maintenance
to provide for user comfort may be physically Bike lane striping and markings will require
separated bike lanes. higher maintenance where vehicles frequently
• NCHRP Report #766 recommends, when traverse over them at intersections, driveways,
space is limited, installing a buffer space parking lanes, and along curved or constrained
between the parking lane and bicycle lane segments of roadway.
where on-street parking is permitted rather
than between the bicycle lane and vehicle Bike lanes should be maintained so that there are
travel lane.1 This buffer is particularly useful no pot holes, cracks, uneven surfaces or debris.
in commercial areas where parking turnover is
higher.




1 National Cooperative Highway Research
Program. Report #766: Recommended Bicycle Lane
Widths for Various Roadway Characteristics.
Design-25
Page 620




SEPARATED BIKE LANES: ONE-WAY
One-way separated bike lanes, also known as protected bikeways or cycle tracks, are on-street bikeway
facilities that are separated from vehicle traffic. Physical separation is provided by a barrier between the
bikeway and the vehicular travel lane. These barriers can include flexible posts, bollards, parking, planter
strips, extruded curbs, or on-street parking. Separated bikeways using these barrier elements typically
share the same elevation as adjacent travel lanes, but the bikeway could also be raised above street
level, either below or equivalent to sidewalk level.




B



A
C


Typical Use B• 8 feet or more in width preferred in areas
with high bicycle volumes or uphill sections
• Along streets on which conventional bicycle to facilitate safe passing behavior. Minimum
lanes would cause many bicyclists to feel stress width, 6 feet (5.5 feet as an absolute
because of factors such as multiple lanes, high minimum).
bicycle volumes, high motor traffic volumes C• When placed adjacent to parking, the
(9,000-30,000 ADT), higher traffic speeds parking buffer should be 4 ft wide to allow
(35+ mph), high incidence of double parking, for passenger loading and to prevent door
higher truck traffic (10% of total ADT) and collisions.
high parking turnover.
• Buffers should be wide enough to support
• Along streets for which conflicts at the type of separation provided without that
intersections can be effectively mitigated separation creating a hazard for drivers or
using parking lane setbacks, bicycle markings bicyclists using the roadway.
through the intersection, and other signalized
intersection treatments. • When placed adjacent to a travel lane, one-
way raised cycle tracks may be configured
with a mountable curb to allow entry and
Design Features exit from the bicycle lane for passing other
bicyclists or to access vehicular turn lanes.
A• Pavement markings, symbols and/or arrow
markings must be placed at the beginning of • Include green elephant crossings marks at
the separated bikeway and at intervals along conflict points like intersections or driveways.
the facility based on engineering judgment
to define the bike direction.
Design-26
Page 621
Bicycle Toolbox




Parked cars serve as a barrier between bicyclists and the vehicle lane. Barriers could
also include flexible posts, bollards, planters, or other design elements.



Further Considerations Materials and
• Diagonal markings are used in buffers that are
2.5 to 4 feet wide. Chevron markings are used
Maintenance
in buffers over 4 feet wide. Bikeway striping and markings will require higher
• Curbs may be used as a channeling device. maintenance where vehicles frequently traverse
Grade-separation provides an enhanced level over them at intersections, driveways, parking
of separation in addition to buffers and other lanes, and along curved or constrained segments
barrier types. of roadway. Green conflict markings (if used) will
• Where possible, physical barriers such as also generally require higher maintenance due to
removable curbs should be oriented towards vehicle wear.
the inside edge of the buffer to provide as
much extra width as possible for bicycle use. Bikeways should be maintained so that there are
• A retrofit separated bikeway has a relatively no pot holes, cracks, uneven surfaces or debris.
low implementation cost compared to road
reconstruction by making use of existing Access points along the facility should be
pavement and drainage and using a parking provided for street sweeper vehicles to enter/exit
lane as a barrier. the separated bikeway.
• Gutters, drainage outlets and utility covers Install composite and reboundable delineator
should be designed and configured as not to
systems, which offer more durability.
impact bicycle travel.
• For clarity at major or minor street crossings,
consider a dotted line for the buffer boundary
where cars are expected to cross.
• Special consideration should be given at
transit stops to manage bicycle and pedestrian
interactions.
• Consideration should be given to ensuring
that entrances to separated bike lanes do not
look like car travel lanes by incorporating clear
signage and pavement markings.


Design-27
Page 622




SEPARATED BIKE LANES: TWO-WAY
Two-Way separated bike lanes are bicycle facilities that allow bicycle movement in both directions on one
side of the road. Two-way separated bikeways share some of the same design characteristics as one-way
separated bikeways, but often require additional considerations at driveway and side-street crossings, and
intersections with other bikeways.




A



B




Typical Application Design Features
Works best on the left side of one-way streets. A• 12 foot operating width preferred (10 ft
minimum) width for two-way facility.
• Streets with high motor vehicle volumes and/
• In constrained locations an 8 foot minimum
or speeds
operating width may be considered for short
• Streets with high bicycle volumes. intervals.
• Streets with a high incidence of wrong-way B• Adjacent to on-street parking a 4 foot
bicycle riding. minimum width channelized buffer or
• Streets with few conflicts such as driveways or island should be provided to accommodate
cross-streets on one side of the street. opening doors. (NACTO, 2012).
• Streets that connect to shared use trails. • Additional signalization and signs may be
necessary to manage conflicts.




Design-28
Page 623
Bicycle Toolbox




A two-way facility can accommodate bicyclists in two directions of travel.



Further Considerations Materials and
• A two-way separated bikeway on one way
street should be located on the left side.
Maintenance
• A two-way separated bikeway may be Bikeway striping and markings will require higher
configured at street level or as a raised maintenance where vehicles frequently traverse
separated bikeway with vertical separation over them at intersections, driveways, parking
from the adjacent travel lane. lanes, and along curved or constrained segments
• Two-way separated bikeways should ideally be of roadway. Green conflict markings (if used) will
placed along streets with long blocks and few also generally require higher maintenance due to
driveways or mid-block access points for motor vehicle wear.
vehicles.
• Two-way separated bikeways may have Bikeways should be maintained so that there are
implications for signalized and unsignalized no pot holes, cracks, uneven surfaces or debris.
intersections that put contra-flow bicyclists in
increased levels of risk. This should be strongly Access points along the facility should be
considered with any project. Bicycle exclusive provided for street sweeper vehicles to enter/exit
signals and other control elements are often the separated bikeway.
recommended with two-way separated
bikeways.
• Consideration should be given to ensuring
that entrances to separated bike lanes do not
look like car travel lanes by incorporating clear
signage and pavement markings.


Design-29
Page 624




SEPARATED BIKE LANE BARRIERS
Separated bike lanes may use a variety of vertical elements to physically separate the bikeway from
adjacent travel lanes. Barriers may be robust constructed elements such as curbs, or may be more
interim in nature, such as flexible delineator posts.

Barrier Separation Median Separation

Flexible Delineators
(10’-40’ spacing) Raised Curb
Modular curbing (2’ min. width,
(6’ spacing, 4' if plantings
1’ from travel lane) present)

Optional
Planting
Elevation Separation
3’ Buffer and Spatial
Envelope for Barriers


Raised
Planter Boxes Bike Facility
(Consistent spacing)



Parking Separation

Jersey Barriers
(Consistent spacing)
Buffered
Door Zone
(3’ min. 4’
P preferred. No
vertical elements
next to parking
spaces.)

Typical Application
Appropriate barriers for
Appropriate barriers for retrofit
reconstruction projects:
projects:
• Curb separation
• Parked cars
• Medians
• Flexible delineators
• Landscaped medians
• Planters
• Raised protected bike lane with vertical or
• Modular curbing mountable curb
• Pedestrian Refuge Islands


Design-30
Page 625
Bicycle Toolbox




Raised separated bikeways are bicycle facilities that are vertically separated from motor vehicle traffic.



Design Features Materials and
• Maximize effective operating space by placing
curbs or delineator posts as far from the
Maintenance
through bikeway space as practicable. Separated bikeways protected by concrete islands
• Allow for adequate shy distance of 1 to 5 or other permanent physical separation, can
feet from vertical elements to maximize useful be swept and plowed by smaller street sweeper
space. vehicles.
• When next to parking allow for 3 feet of space
Access points along the facility should be
in the buffer space to allow for opening doors
and passenger unloading. provided for street sweeper vehicles to enter/exit
the separated bikeway.
• The presences of landscaping in medians,
planters and safety islands increases comfort
for users and enhances the streetscape
environment.


Further Considerations
• With new roadway construction, a raised
separated bikeway can be less expensive to
construct than a wide or buffered bicycle lane
because of shoulder trenching and sub base
requirements.
• Parking should be prohibited within 30 feet
of intersections and driveways to improve
visibility. Clearly indicate the parking
prohibition through the use of a red curb,
signs, or other tools.


Design-31
Page 626



BIKE BOULEVARDS
BIKE BOULEVARD OVERVIEW
A Bike Boulevard is a low-speed, low-volume roadway that is designed to enhance comfort and
convenience for people bicycling. It provides better conditions for bicycling while improving the
neighborhood character and maintaining emergency vehicle access. Bike Boulevards are intended to
serve as a low-stress bikeway network, providing direct, and convenient routes across Phoenix. Key
elements of Bike Boulevards are unique signage and pavement markings, traffic calming and diversion
features to maintain low vehicle volumes, and convenient major street crossings.




Treatments depicted may vary per roadway segment or location.

Typical Use Design Features
• Parallel with and in close proximity to major • Signs and pavement markings are the
thoroughfares (1/4 mile or less) on low-volume, minimum treatments necessary to designate a
low-speed streets. street as a bike boulevard.
• Follow a desire line for bicycle travel that is • Implement volume control treatments based
ideally long and relatively continuous (2-5 on the context of the bike boulevard, using
miles). engineering judgment. While motor vehicle
• Avoid alignments with excessive zigzag or volumes should not exceed 3,000 vehicles per
circuitous routing. The bikeway should have day, ideal conditions are 1,500 vehicles per
less than 10% out of direction travel compared day or less.
to shortest path of primary corridor. • Intersection crossings should be designed
• Local streets with traffic volumes of fewer to enhance comfort and minimize delay for
than 1,500 vehicles per day (for the majority bicyclists of diverse skills and abilities.
of their length) and with average operating
speeds below 25 mph. Utilize traffic calming
to maintain or establish low volumes and
discourage vehicle cut through / speeding.
Design-32
Page 627
Bicycle Toolbox




Image Placeholder




A traffic circle included in an intersection along An example of an large pavement marking to
a Bike Boulevard calms traffic since vehicles reinforce that the street is a Bike Boulevard.
are forced to slow down. Photo credit: Alta



Further Considerations Materials and
• Bike Boulevards are established on streets that
improve connectivity to key destinations and
Maintenance
provide a direct, low-stress route for bicyclists, Bike Boulevards require few additional
with low motorized traffic volumes and speeds, maintenance requirements to local roadways.
designated and designed to give bicycle travel Signage, signals, and other traffic calming
priority over other modes.
elements should be inspected and maintained
• Bike Boulevard retrofits to local streets are according to local standards.
typically located on streets without existing
signalized accommodation at crossings of
collector and arterial roadways. Without
treatments for bicyclists, these intersections
can become major barriers along the Bike
Boulevard.
• Traffic calming can deter motorists from driving
on a street. Anticipate and monitor vehicle
volumes on adjacent streets to determine
whether traffic calming results in inappropriate
volumes. Traffic calming can be implemented
on a trial basis.




Design-33
Page 628




TRAFFIC CALMING
Traffic calming devices can help mitigate speeding and cut-through traffic by changing driver behavior
through a variety of visual or physical changes to the road environment. Such measures may reduce
the design speed of a street and can be used in conjunction with reduced speed limits to reinforce the
expectation of lowered speeds.




Typical Application • Traffic calming measures should always
consider emergency vehicle response times
• Traffic calming measures should be limited to and turning abilities.
placement along local streets, typically with a
maximum posted speed of 30 mph.
Design Features
• Traffic calming measures should be
implemented when the safety of all roadway • There are a variety of treatments and
users, especially pedestrians and bicyclists, is combinations of treatments that can be used
at risk due to high vehicular speeds. The risk for traffic calming.
can be determined by an engineering study. • Priority traffic calming measures include
• Traffic calming measures can be more strategies and devices that are primarily
applicable in areas with high potential for focus on safety. They are meant to regulate,
conflict between pedestrian/bicyclist and motor warn, inform, enforce, and educate motorists,
vehicles. cyclists, and pedestrians on the road. Examples
include, radar signs, pavement markings, turn
• Traffic calming measures may be most restrictions, temporary speed bumps.
appropriate in areas with predominantly
residential or mixed-use land use. • Secondary traffic calming devices and roadway
design features are used primarily to reduce
• If applicable, traffic calming measures should traffic speeds within residential areas. These
not infringe on bicycle space. Where possible, measures are used when primary calming
provide a bicycle route outside of the element devices have not been effective. Examples
so bicyclists can avoid having to merge into
traffic at a narrow pinch point.



Design-34
Page 629
Bicycle Toolbox




include, speed tables, chicanes, traffic circles,
and tree planting.
• Traffic diversion may be employed to
discourage cut-through traffic from utilizing
residential streets designated as Bike
Boulevards. Traffic diverters are often
employed when traffic volumes in a particular
area have been found to be significantly
higher compared to similar streets in other
areas. Examples include, diverters, partial
street closures, and median barrier/forced turn
islands.


Further Consideration Bulb outs narrow the right-of way, creating visual friction
and slowing cars.

Benefits of speed management
include:
• Improves conditions for bicyclists, pedestrians,
and residents on local streets.
• Reduced travel speeds decreases the exposure
risks between bicyclists/pedestrians and motor
vehicles.
• Reduced travel speeds result in reduced injury
severity in the event of a collision.
• Helps achieve a safer and more livable
neighborhood while balancing the
transportation needs of the roadway.




Design-35
Page 630
SHARED USE
PATHS
Page 631
Shared Use Paths




SHARED USE PATHS
A shared use path provides a travel area separate from motorized traffic for bicyclists, pedestrians,
skaters, wheelchair users, joggers, and other users. Shared use paths are desirable for bicyclists of all skill
levels preferring separation from traffic. These facilities should generally provide travel opportunities not
provided by existing roadways.




B




A




Typical Use
• In waterway corridors, such as along canals,
drainage ditches, rivers, and creeks.
• In abandoned rail corridors (commonly
referred to as Rails-to-Trails or Rail-Trails.)
• In active rail corridors, trails can be built
adjacent to active railroads (referred to as
Rails-with-Trails.)
• In utility corridors, such as power line and
sewer corridors.
• Along roadways.




Design-37
Page 632




Design Features Further Considerations
A• 12-14 ft is recommended for heavy use • Under most conditions, centerline markings
situations with high concentrations of multiple are not necessary. Centerline markings should
users. A separate track (5’ minimum) can be only be used if necessary for clarifying user
provided for pedestrian use. positioning or preferred operating procedure:
Solid line = No Passing; Dashed line = Lane
• 10 ft is recommended in most situations and
placement
will be adequate for moderate to heavy use.
• Paths with a high volume of bidirectional traffic
should include a centerline. This can help
Lateral Clearance communicate that users should expect traffic in
• A 2 ft or greater shoulder on both sides both directions and encourage users to travel
of the path should be provided if the trail on the right and pass on the left. Wide trails
is constructed from asphalt. If the trail is will function better with higher levels of user
constructed out of concrete these clearances traffic.
should be maintained, but no gravel shoulder
• Where there is a sharp blind curve, painting
is required.
a solid yellow line with directional arrows
• 1-2 ft of clearance should be provided reduces the risk of head-on collisions.
between the edge of path and barriers, such
• Small scale signs should be used in trail
as walls or fences, or railing
environments.
• Terminate the path where it is easily accessible
Overhead Clearance to and from the street system, preferably at
B• Clearance to overhead obstructions should a trailhead, controlled intersection, or at the
be 8 ft minimum, with 10 ft recommended. beginning of a dead-end street.
• Use of bollards should be avoided when
Striping possible. If bollards are used at intersections
• When striping is desired, use a 4 inch dashed and access points, they should be colored
yellow centerline stripe with 4 inch solid white brightly and/or supplemented with reflective
edge lines. materials to be visible at night.
• Solid centerlines can be provided on tight
or blind corners and transitions, and on the
approaches to roadway crossings.




Design-38
Page 633
Shared Use Paths




PATHWAY ENTRANCES
Bollards or other physical barriers are often used to restrict motor vehicle access to the shared use
path. Unfortunately, physical barriers are often ineffective at preventing access, and create obstacles
to legitimate path users. Alternative design strategies use signage, landscaping and curb cut design to
reduce the likelihood of motor vehicle access.




B

C
A
D




Typical Application Design Features
• Bollards or other barriers should not be A• “No Motor Vehicles” signage (R5-3) may be
used unless there is a documented history of used to reinforce access rules.
unauthorized intrusion by motor vehicles. B• At intersections, split the trail tread into two
sections separated by low landscaping.
• If unauthorized use persists, assess whether
the problems posed by unauthorized access C• Vertical curb cuts should be used to
discourage motor vehicle access.
exceed the risks and issues posed by bollards
and other barriers. D• Low landscaping preserves visibility and
emergency access.




Design-39
Page 634
ENHANCED CROSSING
TREATMENTS
Page 635
Enhanced Crossing Treatments




INTERSECTION TREATMENTS
TWO-STAGE TURN BOXES
Two-stage turn boxes offer bicyclists a safe way to make turns at multi-lane signalized intersections from
a physically separated or conventional bike lane. On separated bike lanes, bicyclists are often unable to
merge into traffic to turn due to physical separation, making the two-stage turning critical. This treatment
received Interim Approval from FHWA in 2017 (IA-20).


Typical Application
• Streets with high vehicle speeds and/or traffic
volumes.
• At intersections of multi-lane roads with
signalized intersections.
• At signalized intersections with a high number
of bicyclists making a left turn from a right side
facility.
• Preferred treatment to assist turning maneuvers
on bike lanes, instead of requiring bicyclists to
merge to make a vehicular left turn.
• This design formalizes a maneuver called a
• Required for protected bikeways to assist left turns
“box turn” or “pedestrian style turn.”
from a right side facility, or right turns from a left
side facility. • Design guidance for two-stage turns apply to
both bike lanes and separated bike lanes.

Design Features • Two-stage turn boxes reduce conflicts in
multiple ways; from keeping bicyclists from
• The two-stage turn box should be placed in a queuing in a bike lane or crosswalk and by
protected area. Typically this is within the shadow separating turning bicyclists from through
of an on-street parking lane or protected bike bicyclists.
lane buffer area and should be placed in front of
• Bicyclist capacity of a two-stage turn box is
the crosswalk to avoid conflict with pedestrians.
influenced by physical dimension (how many
• 10 foot x 6.5 foot preferred dimensions of bicycle bicyclists it can contain) and signal phasing
storage area (6 foot x 3 foot minimum). (how frequently the box clears.)
• Bicycle stencil and turn arrow pavement markings
should be used to indicate proper bicycle
direction and positioning. (NACTO, 2012)
Materials and Maintenance
Turn boxes may subject to high vehicle wear,
especially turning passenger vehicles, buses, and
Further Considerations heavy trucks. As a result, bike boxes with green
• Consider providing a “No Turn on Red” on coloring will require more frequent replacement
the cross street to prevent motor vehicles from over time. The life of the green coloring
entering the turn box. will depend on vehicle volumes and turning
movements, but Thermoplastic or MMA are
generally more durable material than paint.


Design-41
Page 636




BICYCLE BOX
A bicycle box is designed to provide bicyclists with a safe and visible space to get in front of queuing
traffic during the red signal phase. Motor vehicles must queue behind the white stop line at the rear of
the bike box. On a green signal, all bicyclists can quickly clear the intersection. This treatment received
Interim Approval from the FHWA in 2016 (IA-18).




A
B




C




Typical Use Design Features
• At potential areas of conflict between A• 14 foot minimum depth from back of
bicyclists and turning vehicles, such as a right crosswalk to motor vehicle stop bar.
or left turn locations. (NACTO, 2012)
• At signalized intersections with high bicycle B• A “No Turn on Red” sign should be installed
volumes. overhead to prevent vehicles from entering
• At signalized intersections with high vehicle the Bike Box. A “Stop Here on Red” sign
volumes. should be post mounted at the stop line to
reinforce observance of the stop line.
• Not to be used on downhill approaches to
minimize the right hook threat potential during C• A 50 foot ingress lane should be used to
the extended green signal phase. provide access to the box.
• Use of green colored pavement is
recommended.




Design-42
Page 637
Enhanced Crossing Treatments




A bike box allows for bicyclists to wait in front of queuing traffic, providing high visibility
and a head start over motor vehicle traffic. Photo credit: Marin County.



Further Considerations Materials and
• This treatment positions bicycles together and
on a green signal, all bicyclists can quickly
Maintenance
clear the intersection, minimizing conflict and Bike boxes are subject to high vehicle wear,
delay to transit or other traffic. especially turning passenger vehicles, buses, and
• Pedestrian also benefit from bike boxes, as heavy trucks. As a result, bike boxes with green
they experience reduced vehicle encroachment coloring will require more frequent replacement
into the crosswalk. over time. The life of the green coloring
• Bike boxes require permission from the FHWA will depend on vehicle volumes and turning
to implement, and jurisdictions must receive movements, but thermoplastic is generally a more
approval prior to implementation. A State may durable material than paint.
request Interim Approval for all jurisdictions in
that State.1
• Bike boxes should not be used to
accommodate bicyclist turns at intersections
that have substantial parallel green time as
bicyclists cannot safely occupy the box when
arriving on green.

1 FHWA. Interim Approval for Optional Use of
an Intersection Bicycle Box (IA-18). 2016.




Design-43
Page 638




DRIVEWAY & MINOR STREET
CROSSINGS
The added separation provided by separated bikeways creates additional considerations at intersections
and driveways when compared to conventional bicycle lanes. Special design guidelines are necessary to
preserve sightlines and denote potential conflict areas between modes, especially in the case of a two-way
bike lane when motorists turning into or out of driveways may not be expecting bicycle travel opposite to
the main flow of traffic.

At driveways and crossings of minor streets, bicyclists should not be expected to stop if the major street
traffic does not stop.




Typical Use • Use colored pavement markings and/or
shared line markings through conflict areas at
• Along streets with separated bikeway where intersections.
there are intersections and driveways. • If a raised bikeway is used, the height of
• Higher frequency driveways or crossings may the lane should be maintained through the
require additional treatment such as conflict crossing, requiring automobiles to cross over.
markings and signs. • Motor vehicle traffic crossing the bikeway
should be constrained or channelized to make
Design Features turns at sharp angles to reduce travel speed
prior to the crossing.
• Remove parking to allow for the appropriate
clear sight distance before driveways or • Driveway crossings may be configured as
intersections to improve visibility. The desirable raised crossings to slow turning cars and assert
no-parking area is at least 30 feet from each physical priority of traveling bicyclists.
side of the crossing. • Motor vehicle stop bar on cross-streets
and major driveways is setback from the
intersection to ensure that drivers slow down
and scan for pedestrians and bicyclists before
turning.
Design-44
Page 639
Enhanced Crossing Treatments




SIGNALS AND BEACONS

HIGH-INTENSITY ACTIVATED
CROSSWALKS (HAWK)
High-Intensity Activated Crosswalks (HAWK) are used to improve non-motorized crossings of major
streets. A hybrid beacon consists of a signal head with two red lenses over a single yellow lens on the
major street, and a pedestrian signal head for the crosswalk. HAWKS are only used at marked mid-block
crossings or unsignalized intersections. They are activated with a pedestrian pushbutton at each end. If a
median refuge island is used at the crossing, another pedestrian pushbutton can be located on the island
to create a two-stage crossing.




Typical Application Design Features
• Suitable for multi-lane streets where speeds are • HAWKS may be installed without meeting
above 30-45 mph traffic signal control warrants based on
• Where off-street bicycle and pedestrian engineering judgment if roadway speed
facilities intersect major streets without and volumes are excessive for comfortable
signalized intersections. pedestrian crossings.
• At intersections or midblock crossings where • If installed within a signal system, signal
there are high pedestrian volumes. engineers should evaluate the need for the
HAWKs to be coordinated with other signals.
• Parking and other sight obstructions shall be
prohibited in advance of, and beyond, the
marked crosswalk to provide adequate sight
distance.

Design-45
Page 640




Further Considerations Materials and
• HAWKs are normally activated by push
buttons, but may also be triggered by infrared,
Maintenance
microwave, or video detectors. If not on- • HAWKs are subject to the same maintenance
demand, the maximum delay for activation needs and requirements as standard traffic
of the signal should be two minutes, with signals. Signing and striping need to be
minimum crossing times determined by the maintained to help users understand any
width of the street, but a much shorter delay is unfamiliar traffic control.
strongly preferred.
• Each crossing, regardless of traffic speed or
volume, requires review to identify sight lines,
potential impacts on traffic progression, timing
with adjacent signals, capacity, and safety.
• The installation of HAWKs should also include
public education and enforcement campaigns
to ensure proper use and compliance.




Design-46
Page 641
Enhanced Crossing Treatments




TOUCAN SIGNAL
“Toucan” signalized crossings of streets are a special signal configuration at minor street crossings
of a major street, exclusively for people walking and biking, so that “two can” cross the major street
concurrently. Vehicles on the minor street do not have a signal, and are instead forced to turn right at
a stop sign. This does function as a half signal since vehicles are not allowed to turn left or proceed
through. The placement of the Toucan can vary within a given intersection, depending on the overall
roadway width, and whether one-way vs. two-way operations are contained fully within the median in the
middle of the minor street.




A Toucan signal in Tucson, AZ. Motorists must turn right onto Stone Avenue, the major roadway (from either direction).
Bicyclists can turn left, right, or go straight. Bicyclists turning left or going straight can push a button to activate a green
bicycle signal indication. Photo credit: Steven Vance.



Typical Use Design Features
• Appropriate at carefully designed intersection • A toucan signal assembly may be created
locations by pairing a bicycle and pedestrian signal
heads. The bicycle signal must comply with
• Across higher traffic streets where people
requirement from FHWA Interim Approval 16.
walking and biking both require safe and
comfortable crossings, such as along Bike • The major street faces a standard traffic signal
Boulevards. (red, amber, and green indications) for the
major road. When located at an intersection,
the minor cross street has Stop sign to control
minor street motor vehicle traffic.


Design-47
Page 642




• The pedestrian/bike phase is typically activated • Pedestrians typically need more time to travel
actively by a pushbutton or passively using through an intersection than bicyclists. Signal
other detection devices. timing and recall phases should be responsive
• At street crossings, the design must be paired to the detection and actuation by different
with access management or other measures users.
to reduce potential conflicts. Such measures • Bicycle detection and actuation systems include
as turn restrictions with dynamic (blank-out) user-activated buttons mounted on a pole,
No Right turn/No Left Turn signs, or access loop detectors that register a call to the bike
management to limit conflicting motor vehicle signal when a bicycle is detected, microwave
movements into the and out of the intersection detectors, or video/thermal detection cameras
• High visibility crosswalk markings and that detect a change in the activity at the
bicycle lane dotted lane line extensions location.
(when connecting bike lanes) help to clarify
pedestrian and bicyclist paths.
Materials and
Maintenance
Further Considerations Pedestrian and bicycle signal detection equipment
• The FHWA has been discouraging “half should be inspected and maintained regularly,
signals” for several decades because of the
especially if detection relies on manual actuation.
potential conflict issues caused when minor-
street drivers make a right turn onto the major Pushbuttons and loop detectors will tend to have
street, in conflict with the crossing pedestrians higher maintenance needs than other passive
(the center-running configuration shown in the detection equipment.
photo to right eliminates this risk).
• The steady red signal indication provides
a clear regulatory message that typically
receives a more uniform control response than
warning signs or flashing beacons. Red signal
indications receive a high-degree of yielding
with over 95% compliance (NCHRP 562).
• Because this is not a common signal
configuration at intersections, it is important to
operate all toucan signals consistently across
the jurisdiction for maximum understanding,
compliance, and safety.
• FHWA has approved bicycle signals for use,
if they comply with requirements from Interim
Approval 16.




Design-48
Page 643
Enhanced Crossing Treatments




BIKE DETECTION AND ACTUATION
Bicycle detection and actuation is used to alert the signal controller of bicycle crossing demand on
a particular approach. Proper bicycle detection should meet two primary criteria: accurately detects
bicyclists and provides clear guidance to bicyclists on how to actuate detection (e.g., what button to
push, where to stand).


Typical Application Materials and
• At signalized intersections within bicycle lanes or
general purpose travel lanes. Maintenance
• At signalized intersections within left turn lanes It is important to perform ongoing maintenance
used by bicyclists. of traffic control equipment. Consider semi-
• At signalized intersections within separated bike annual inspections of controller and signal
lanes. equipment, intersection hardware, and detectors.
• In conjunction with active warning beacons and
pedestrian hybrid beacons.


Design Features
Video Detection
• Video detection systems use digital image
processing to detect a change in the image at
a location. These systems can be calibrated to
detect bicycle, although there may be detection
issues during poor lighting and weather
conditions.

Thermal Detection
• Infrared detection systems typically consist of one
or more thermal cameras, a microprocessor to
process the thermal imagery, and software to
interpret the traffic flow data and communicate
with the traffic signal controller. These systems
are typically able to extract a significant amount
of data from the thermal imagery.

Microwave Detection
• Microwave sensor detection is a system which
uses frequency modulated continuous wave radio
signals to detect objects in the roadway. This
method marks the detected object with a time
code to determine its distance from the sensor.
• Microwave sensor detection is unaffected by
temperature and lighting, which can affect
Pavement markings are paired with a sign to teach
standard video detection.
riders how to activate the bicycle loop detection Design-49
Page 644




BICYCLE SIGNAL PHASE
Separated bicycle lane crossings of signalized intersections can be accomplished through the use of a
bicycle signal phase which reduces conflicts with motor vehicles by separating bicycle movements from
any conflicting motor vehicle movements. Bicycle signals are traditional three lens signal heads with
green, yellow and red bicycle stenciled lenses.



A




B




Typical Use Design Features
• Two-way protected bikeways where contraflow A• An additional “Bicycle Signal” sign should be
bicycle movement or increased conflict points installed below the bicycle signal head.
warrant protected operation.
B• Designs for bicycles at signalized crossings
• Bicyclists moving on a green or yellow signal should allow bicyclists to trigger signals via
indication in a bicycle signal shall not be in pushbutton, loop detectors, or other passive
conflict with any simultaneous motor vehicle detection, to navigate the crossing.
movement at the signalized location • On bikeways, signal timing and actuation
• Right (or left) turns on red should be prohibited shall be reviewed and adjusted to consider the
in locations where such operation would needs of bicyclists.
conflict with a green bicycle signal indication.




Design-50
Page 645
Enhanced Crossing Treatments




A bicycle signal head at a signalized crossing A bicycle detection system triggers a change in
creates a protected phase for cyclists to safely the traffic signal when a bicycle is detected.
navigate an intersection. Photo credit: TREC




Further Considerations Materials and
• A bicycle signal should be considered for use
only when the volume/collision or volume/
Maintenance
geometric warrants have been met. Bicycle signal detection equipment should be
• The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) inspected and maintained regularly, especially if
has approved bicycle signals for use, if detection relies on manual actuation. Pushbuttons
they comply with requirements from Interim and loop detectors will tend to have higher
Approval 16 (I.A. 16). Bicycle Signals are maintenance needs than other passive detection
not approved for use in conjunction with
equipment.
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons.
• Bicyclists typically need more time to travel
through an intersection than motor vehicles.
Green light times should be determined using
the bicycle crossing time for standing bicycles.
• Bicycle detection and actuation systems
include user-activated buttons mounted on a
pole, loop detectors that trigger a change in
the traffic signal when a bicycle is detected
and video detection cameras, that use digital
image processing to detect a change in the
image at a location.




Design-51
Page 646
NETWORK
CONNECTIONS
AND SUPPORTING
FACILITIES
Page 647
Network Connections And Supporting Facilities




SHORT-TERM BICYCLE PARKING
People need a safe, convenient place to secure their bicycle when they reach their destination. This may
be short-term parking of 2 hours or less, or long-term parking for employees, students, residents, and
commuters.

Information on short- and long-term bike parking has been informed by the Association of Pedestrian
and Bicycle Professionals (APBP) Bicycle Parking Guide, which is updated frequently and is available
online at www.apbp.org.



Application Design Features
Bike Racks Bike Racks
• Bike racks provide short-term bicycle parking • When placed on sidewalks, 2 feet minimum
and are meant to accommodate visitors, from the curb face to avoid ‘dooring.’
customers, and others expected to depart • 4 feet between racks to provide maneuvering
within two hours. It should be an approved room.
standard rack, appropriate location and
placement. • Locate close to destinations; 50
feet maximum distance from main building
entrance.
Bike Corrals
• Minimum clear distance of 6 feet should be
• On-street bike corrals (also known as on- provided between the bicycle rack and the
street bicycle parking) consist of bicycle racks property line.
grouped together in a common area within
the street traditionally used for automobile • While bike racks could be installed
parking. perpendicular or parallel to the curb, it is
important to ensure there is sufficient room for
• Bicycle corrals are reserved exclusively for pedestrian traffic, even when a bike is locked
bicycle parking and provide a relatively to the rack.
inexpensive solution to providing high-
volume bicycle parking. Bicycle corrals can
be implemented by converting one or two Bike Corrals
on-street motor vehicle parking spaces into on- • Bicyclists should have an entrance width from
street bicycle parking. the roadway of 5-6 feet.
• Each motor vehicle parking space can be • Can be used with parallel or angled parking.
replaced with approximately 6-10 bicycle • Parking stalls adjacent to curb extensions are
parking spaces. good candidates for bicycle corrals since the
concrete extension serves as delimitation on
one side.




Design-53
Page 648




Further Considerations
• Where the placement of racks on sidewalks
is not possible (due to narrow sidewalk width,
sidewalk obstructions, street trees, etc.), bicycle
parking can be provided in the street where
on-street vehicle parking is allowed in the form
of on-street bicycle corrals.
• Some types of bicycle racks may meet design
criteria, but are discouraged except in limited
situations. This includes undulating “wave”
racks, schoolyard racks, and spiral racks.
These discouraged racks are illustrated on the
following page. Inverted-U racks provide two points of contact.
• Bike racks should be made of thick stainless
steel to reduce the chance of thieves cutting
through the racks to take bicycles. Square
tubing can provide further protection from
cutting, as well.
• If a bike rack is installed as surface mount,
countersink bolts or expansion bolts should
be used to keep the rack in place. Covering
the bolts with putty or epoxy can provide
additional protection.




Racks with square tubing, good spacing, and a
concrete base likewise offer two points of contact.




Design-54
Page 649
Network Connections And Supporting Facilities




Types of Bike Racks to Use Types of Bike Racks to
These racks provide two points of contact with Avoid
the bicycle, accommodate varying styles of bike,
These racks do not provide support at two
allow for the frame of a bicycle and at least one
places on the bike, can damage the wheel,
wheel to be secured by most U-locks, and are
do not provide an opportunity for the user to
intuitive to use.
lock the frame of their bicycle easily, and are
not intuitive to use. Because of performance
concerns, the APBP Essentials of Bike Parking
Report recommends selecting other racks instead
of these.




POST & RING WHEELWELL
SECURE WAVE




INVERTED-U COMB WHEELWELL




COATHANGER BOLLARD




Communities may consider purchasing branded
U-racks for installation on sidewalks.

Graphics courtesy of Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle
Professionals Essentials of Bike Parking report (2015).



Design-55
Page 650




Space Requirements
PLACEMENT
The following minimum spacing requirements apply to some common installations of fixtures like
inverted U or post and ring racks that park one bicycle roughly centered on each side of the rack.
Recommended clearances are given first, with minimums in parentheses where appropriate. In areas with
The following minimum spacing requirements apply to
tightcommon
some clearances, consider
installations wheelwell-secure
of fixtures like inverted-U or racks, which can be placed closer to walls and constrain the
bicycle footprint
post-and-ring racks thatmore reliably
park one bicyclethan inverted
roughly centered U and post and ring racks. The footprint of a typical bicycle
is each side
on approximately
of the rack.6' x2'. Cargo bikes
Recommended and bikes with trailers can extend to 10' or longer.
clearances
are given first, with minimums in parentheses where
appropriate. In areas with tight clearances, consider
wheelwell-secure racks (page 6), which can be placed
closer to walls and constrain the bicycle footprint more
reliably than inverted-U and post-and-ring racks.
The footprint of a typical bicycle is approximately 6’ x 2’. 96”
Cargo bikes and bikes with trailers can extend to 10’ (72” min)
36”
or longer. (24”min)




16’ min
60”
(48” min)




96” 36”
(72” min)

48” (36” min)
24” min

36”
(24” min)

48” (36” min)
When installing sidewalk racks,
maintain the pedestrian
When installing through
sidewalk racks, maintain
120” recommended
zone. Racks should be placed
the pedestrian through zone. Racks should
be placed in line with existing sidewalk
in line with to
obstructions existing sidewalk
maintain a clear line of
Sidewalk
Sidewalk racks
racks adjacent travel for all sidewalk
obstructions users. a clear
to maintain
to on-street auto
adjacent
parking to on-street
should be placed line of travel for all sidewalk
betweenshould
parking parking stalls
be
to avoid conflicts with users.
placed between
opening car doors.
parking stalls to avoid
conflicts with opening
car doors.

96” recommended
Crosswalk




60” 72” 48”

24” (36” preferred when adjacent to auto parking)




Graphics courtesy of Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle
Crosswalk
Professionals Essentials of Bike Parking report (2015).

Design-56
Page 651
Network Connections And Supporting Facilities




LONG-TERM BICYCLE PARKING
Users of long-term parking generally place high value on security and weather protection. Long-term
parking is designed to meet the needs of employees, residents, public transit users, and others with
similar needs.

Information on short and long term bike parking has been obtained from the APBP Bicycle Parking
Guide, which is updated frequently and is available online at www.apbp.org.



Application Further Considerations
• At transit stops, bike lockers or a sheltered • As the APBP Bike Parking Guide notes,
secure enclosure may be appropriate long increasing density of bike racks in a long-term
term solutions. facility without careful attention to user needs
• On public or private property where secure, can exclude users with less-common types of
long-term bike parking is desired. bicycles which may be essential due to age,
ability, or bicycle type.
• Near routine destinations, such as workplaces,
universities, hospitals, etc. • To accommodate trailers and long bikes, a
portion of the racks should be on the ground
and should have an additional 36” of in-line
Design Features clearance.

Bike Lockers
• Minimum dimensions: width (opening) 2.5
feet; height 4 feet; depth 6 feet.
• 4 foot side clearance and 6 foot end
clearance. 7 foot minimum distance between
facing lockers.

Secure Parking Area
• Closed-circuit television monitoring or on-site
staff with secure access for users.
• Double high racks & cargo bike spaces.
• Bike repair station with bench and bike tube
and maintenance item vending machine.
• Bike lock “hitching post” – allows people to
leave bike locks.




Design-57
Page 652




High Density Bike Racks Bike Parking Rooms
Racks may be used that increase bike parking Long term bike parking may be available in
density, like the ones below. While these types dedicated rooms in residential and commercial
of racks provide more spaces, racks that require buildings. Bicycle parking can be accommodated
lifting should not be used exclusively. People in 15 square feet per space or less.
with heavier bikes (i.e. cargo bikes) or people
with disabilities or people who are simply small in
stature may be unable to lift their bikes easily.




STAGGERED WHEELWELL-SECURE




Bike lockers




VERTICAL




TWO-TIER Secured parking areas



Design-58
Page 653
Network Connections And Supporting Facilities




TRANSIT STOP DESIGN
Bus platforms or waiting areas serve as the critical transition point for pedestrians as transit passengers.
As such, bus platforms, shelters, and shelter amenities need to be designed to the benefit of people
boarding, alighting, waiting, and passing through. Transit platforms and shelters should be designed to
be comfortable and safe, accessible for people with disabilities, sized appropriately based on ridership
and demand, use space efficiently, and to minimize delay and conflicts with other modes such as
bicycles, and competing sidewalk uses.



Typical Application Design Features
• Bus stops can range from simple curbside • Bus shelters should be designed to minimize
stops with a pole and seating, to in-roadway potential for conflicts between the bus, and
platforms with shelters and other shelter people walking and bicycling through the area.
amenities depending on demand, adjacent • Site visibility is a critical safety and security
land use, and available right of way. factor. The bus operator needs to be
• Typically, bus stop shelters and amenities able to see waiting passengers, and
occupy an area of the sidewalk, either in the waiting passengers need to be able to see
furnishing zone, or a reserved space in the approaching buses. The shelter, street trees,
frontage zone. They can also be located on and other vertical elements must not obstruct
transit islands which accommodates bicycle visibility. The stop and shelter should be
through traffic, or in medians for center adequately illuminated at night for safety and
running alignments. security.
• Shelters can face toward the roadway or away • The shelter should maximize use of materials
from the roadway. Shelters facing toward the that maximize visibility for waiting passengers,
roadway provide better sightlines, but may and minimize incentive for vandalism.
compete with other sidewalk uses and adjacent • The shelter canopy should be sized to provide
property access and circulation. sufficient coverage based on stop demand.


Design-59
Page 654




SHARED USE TRAILS AND
ON-STREET TRANSITIONS
Transitions occur where the trail meets a roadway or railway, where one trail typology meets another,
such as when an elevated trail transitions into an at-grade trail or where separated trail segments
transition into shared environments. Transitions may also include horizontal shifts to avoid physical
obstacles such as utility towers or other structures. Trail access means providing a formalized way for
people to arrive and depart from the trail network by a variety of travel modes.




Typical Application Design Features
• Regional trail access points can take several • Major trailheads feature convenient access
different forms ranging from major trailheads, to transit, parking for 10 or more vehicles,
minor trailheads, and neighborhood entryways. (including accessible spaces), short- and
These vary in the level of infrastructure and long-term bicycle parking, restrooms, trash/
facility amenities. recycling facilities, wayfinding/interpretive
• These access points are multimodal transition kiosks, benches/picnic tables, and other day
points; they serve as the transition between the use amenities.
on-street network and the off-street network • Minor trailheads include similar facilities
for people walking, biking, riding transit, and as major trailheads but a lower provision
driving. of vehicle and bike parking and day use
• All trailheads should be open to the public. amenities, and may be further from major
transit and bike connection points.
• Neighborhood entry points are the most basic
form of local accessways that do not provide
many of the amenities of trailheads due to
space constraints, neighborhood context, and/
or proximity to other trailheads.




Design-60
Page 655
Network Connections And Supporting Facilities




Typology Transitions Mixing Zones
Design elements used to alert trail users include Mixing zones are necessary where physical space
pavement markings such as optical speed constraints do not allow for separated modes,
bars or zebra stripe crosswalks with yield/stop or at locations along the trail where a high level
markings. Other visual indications include bike of cross-traffic is expected. Mixing zones need
and pedestrian directional markings, centerlane to provide clear indication to all users that a
striping, and the use of colored pavement transition is occurring in advance of the change,
to visually narrow or indicate a change in so that trail users can adjust their speeds and
environment. awareness appropriately to proceed carefully into
the mixing zone.
Tactile indications include speed humps, tactile
speed bars, and the use of multiple surface types, Advanced warning can be accomplished with
such as concrete, asphalt, and pavers. advisory signage, pavement markings, and the
use of contrasting surface treatments (e.g. pavers/
Advisory, regulatory, and/or wayfinding signage
inlays with contrasting tones/textures, striping,
are should be considered at transition points.
or a combination of these treatments). These
Physical treatments to alert and guide trail users
design elements help to guide trail users safely
include traffic calming measures such as vertical
through the mixing zone by alerting users to the
and horizontal deflection.
change in conditions and thus reducing the speed
Trail illumination is an important design element differential.
that must be considered along the trail, but is
especially important in transition zones.




Design-61
Page 656




WAYFINDING
The ability to navigate across an urbanized area is informed by landmarks, natural features, and other
visual cues. Signs throughout the city should indicate the direction of travel, the locations and travel
time distances to those destinations. A pedestrian wayfinding system is similar to a transit, vehicular, or
bike facility wayfinding system, in that it consists of comprehensive signing and/or pavement markings to
12’ guide pedestrians to their destination along routes that are safe, comfortable and attractive.
11’


10’


9’




CIT Y NAME
8’ Sign types Decision sign
7’

Destination 1
6’
Destination 2
TRAIL
NAME
Destination 3
5’


4’



TRAIL NAME
1.0
MILE

3’
Destinations Points of Interest
Bus Station PARKS AND RECREATION NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS

Schools CIVIC FACILITIES COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS




TRAIL NAME
Hospital


!! Transit Stations




TRAIL NAME
2’


1’



Trailhead Secondary Access Decision Turn Confirmation Pavement Mile Recreational Interpretive
Kiosk Signage Sign Sign Sign Marking Marker Trail Marker Sign




Typical Application Design Features
Wayfinding signs will increase users’ comfort • Confirmation signs indicate to pedestrians that
and accessibility to the pedestrian system in they are on the right trail to their destinations.
They include destinations and distance/time,
denser urbanized areas and connections to other
but not arrows
destinations across the larger region.
• Turn signs indicate where a route turns from
Signage can serve both wayfinding and safety one street onto another street.
purposes including: • Decision signs indicate the junction of two
or more pedestrian routes to access key
• Helping to familiarize users with the pedestrian
destinations. These include destinations, arrows
network
and distances. Travel times are optional but
• Helping users identify the best routes to recommended.
destinations within walking distance or
• A regional wayfinding sign plan would
connections to other modes.
identify sign locations, sign type, destinations,
• Helping to address misperceptions about time and approximate distance and travel time
and distance. to destinations, and highlight connections
• Helping overcome a “barrier to entry” for between urban and non-urbanized areas.
people who are not frequent walkers. • The Valley Path has existing branding and
design guidance, see the Valley Path Brand &
Wayfinding Signage Guidelines.

Design-62
Page 657
Network Connections And Supporting Facilities




Further Considerations
• Bicycle wayfinding signs also visually cue
motorists that they are driving along a bicycle
route and should use caution. Signs are
typically placed at key locations leading to and
along bicycle routes, including the intersection
of multiple routes.
• Too many road signs tend to clutter the right-
of-way, and it is recommended that these signs
be posted at a level most visible to bicyclists
rather than per vehicle signage standards.
• Green is the color used for directional Tactile navigation sign
guidance and is the most common color of
bicycle wayfinding signage in the US.
• Check wayfinding signage along bikeways for
signs of vandalism, graffiti, or normal wear and
replace signage along the bikeway network
as-needed.




Design-63
Page 658
PEDESTRIAN-BICYCLE
OPERATIONS AND
MAINTENANCE
Page 659
Pedestrian-bicycle Operations And Maintenance




SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE
The sidewalk is an essential space for people walking and using wheelchairs and other personal mobility
devices, and it is also the location where many other important activities take place. Each of the zones
described in ‘Sidewalk Zones’ needs to be maintained for the overall sidewalk space to function as
intended.


Maintaining Sidewalk Zones • The Building Frontage Zone is the area
between the Pedestrian Access Route and the
• The Pedestrian Access Route must remain free abutting property. Along commercial corridors
and clear of obstacles and impediments. This is the this space may be utilized by businesses
primary accessway for people traveling along streets for outdoor cafe seating by permit, and in
and to and from adjacent properties, and must be residential areas, this space may be occupied
maintained to ADA standards. by landscaping or other natural screening.
• .Property owners are responsible for maintaining • Outdoor seating shall not occupy the
all sidewalk zones abutting their property, not Pedestrian Access Route or inhibit travel
just the Building Frontage Zone. along the sidewalk.
• Maintaining a firm, stable, and slip resistant • Landscaping in the Building Frontage
surfaces is necessary for people walking or Zone should be maintained in a manner
rolling to traverse the Pedestrian Access Route similar to landscaping in the Amenity
without risk of tripping, slipping or otherwise Zone. Landscaping should be maintained
uneven footing. by property owners so as not to encroach
on the Pedestrian Access Route.
• Regular sweeping ensures the Pedestrian Access
Route and other sidewalk zones are kept free of • The Enhancement Zone must be maintained
natural debris and litter. for the following uses: bike facilities, vehicle
parking, curb extensions, and bike parking.
• Routine maintenance of sidewalk damage
due to tree roots, freeze-thaw, etc. is the • Street sweeping should be conducted
responsibility of abutting property owners. per maintenance schedule and following
significant weather events to help to ensure
• The Amenity Zone is where street furnishing are intended use of this space.
located, where people are often picked up and
dropped off, where mail is delivered, and where
other loading/unloading happens. It’s the space
where trees and landscaping are planted, and
where street lighting and other utilities are located.
The Amenity Zone must be maintained properly to
ensure access to this area and all of these curbside
uses are possible.
• Vegetation in the Amenity zone should
be regularly maintained by the City so as
not to encroach on the pedestrian travel
zone. Maintenance should be prioritized
by plant species, high demand areas, and/
or narrow sidewalk corridors. When they are
not maintained on schedule, the space for
pedestrian travel becomes constrained, creating
bottlenecks, and/or forcing pedestrians into the
street.


Design-65
Page 660




PARKING, LOADING, AND GARBAGE
ACCESS
Where separated bikeways are adjacent to on-street parking, drop-off locations, freight loading zones,
or designated garbage pick-up areas, the design of the separation at those locations should provide an
accessible aisle and adequate landing area to allow for travel from the vehicle to the curb ramp.

Colored pavement within a bicycle lane may be used to increase the visibility of the bicycle facility, raise
awareness of the potential to encounter bicyclists, and reinforce priority of bicyclists in conflict areas.


Typical Application
• Streets with on-street parking and a separated
bikeway along the same block face.
• Where ADA-accessible spaces are desired,
either due to proximity to nearby building
entrances, street grades, or other factors.
• Where loading and garbage pick-up zones are
desired along the same side of the street as a
separated bikeway due to adjacent commercial
users such as retail or hotels, and cannot be
relocated to adjacent block faces or alleys.




Design-66
Page 661
Pedestrian-bicycle Operations And Maintenance




A passenger loading zone allows pedestrians to cross the
separated bike lane to access the loading island. These
designs should also incorporate truncated domes to alert
people walking with vision disabilities of the crossing.




Design Features Further Considerations
• Accessible spaces should be located adjacent • Garbage pick-up, freight loading, and drop-
to intersections to simplify access to curb off hours should be restricted to hours of the
ramps. day when less bicycle traffic is expected, to
• Accessible spaces must comply with all ADA minimize potential interactions.
requirements. • The City can provide guidance to both waste
• To connect between the sidewalk and parking management operators and customers
spaces, a crosswalk across the separated on desirable recycling/trash can and bin
bikeway and curb ramp (6’ minimum width) placement with respect to both walkways and
must be provided. bikeways to improve safety and use of these
facilities.
• Place a YIELD HERE TO PEDESTRIANS
(MUTCD R1-5) sign where the separated
bikeway crosses the parking access route
to clearly establish a right-of-way. Yield line
pavement marking may be placed prior to the
crosswalk.




Design-67
Page 662




D
C
A B

E
F



BIKE FACILITY MAINTENANCE
Regular bicycle facility maintenance includes sweeping, maintaining a smooth roadway, trimming
encroaching vegetation, ensuring that the gutter-to-pavement transition remains relatively flush, and
installing bicycle friendly grates. Pavement overlays are a good opportunity to improve bicycling facilities.
The following recommendations provide a menu of options to consider to enhance a maintenance
regimen.


A Sweeping B Signage
Debris that is allowed to accumulate can become • Include bikeway regulatory and wayfinding
a hazard due to loss of control, inner tube blow signing as part of the roadway sign
outs, as well as service dog safety. maintenance program, regularly checking
for vandalism, graffiti, and wear. Schedule
• Cover both on-road and off-road bikeways replacement/repair as needed.
under the jurisdiction of the city. Can establish
a seasonal sweeping schedule that allows
for prioritization of routes. The schedule
could prioritize facilities designated as major
bikeways, before roadways designated as
minor bikeways.
• Sweep bikeways periodically to minimize
accumulation on the facility to maintain safe
surface conditions.




Design-68
Page 663
Pedestrian-bicycle Operations And Maintenance




C Roadway Surface E Gutter-to-Pavement
• Smooth pothole-free surfaces are especially
critical for people on bikes.
Transition
• Gutter-to-pavement transitions should have no
• The finished surface on bikeways does not vary more than a 1/4” vertical transition.
more than 1/4” for new roadway construction.
• Pavement transitions should be examined
• Pavement should be maintained so ridge buildup during every roadway project for new
does not occur at the gutter-to-pavement construction, maintenance activities, and
transition or adjacent to railway crossings. construction project activities that occur in
• Ensure pavement inspections occur after streets.
trenching activities are completed and if
excessive settlement has occurred to require
mitigation prior to the expiration of the project’s F Landscaping
warranty period.
• Vegetation on the edge of the roadway
• To the extent possible, pavement markings and should not hang into or impede passage
green-colored areas should be placed out of along bikeways.
the vehicle path of travel to minimize wear.
• After storm events, remove fallen trees or
In general, striping, pavement markings, and
other debris from bikeways as quickly as
green colored areas should be well maintained
possible.
especially areas in the path of vehicle travel, and
where high-turning movements occur.

Coordination With
D Drainage Grates
• New drainage grates should be bicycle-friendly.
Emergency Responders
Grates should have horizontal slats on them so • General roadway maintenance should be
that bicycle tires and assistive devices do not fall coordinated and prioritized on emergency
through any vertical slats. response routes that overlap with major and
• Create a program to inventory all existing minor bikeways.
drainage grates, and replace hazardous grates • Provide fire, police, and EMS services with a
as necessary - temporary modifications such map of major and minor bikeway routes.
as installing rebar horizontally across the grate
should not be an acceptable alternative to
replacement. Recommended Bikeway
Maintenance Activities
The City should ensure that each of these
activities is addressed in City requirements,
various operations plans, or emergency response
plans. The frequency of each activity is at the
discretion of the City Engineer. However, the
activity should be done in a timely enough
manner to ensure bikeways are operated in a safe
manner for all users.


Design-69
Page 664
ADDITIONAL DESIGN
PARAMETERS &
CONSIDERATIONS
Page 665
Additional Design Parameters & Considerations




COMPLETE STREETS




The Phoenix General Plan (2015) identifies Complete Streets as a
key approach for enacting the core value of Connecting People
and Places. The role of development is specified in the Land Use
and Design Principle, “In order to balance a more sustainable
transportation system, development should be designed to
include increased amenities for transit, pedestrian and bicyclists
such as shade, water, seating, bus shelters, wider sidewalks, bike
racks, pedestrian scale lighting and way-finding.”

The Complete Streets Policy (2017)
supports the implementation of the
General Plan by directing staff to ensure
City’s rights-of-way serve a variety of
transportation modes. Designing streets
for safe and enjoyable walking, biking,
and transit use helps Phoenix to achieve
the goal of reducing single occupant
vehicle trips set in the Climate Action
Plan (2021). Additionally, streets that
are designed with the safety of all users
supports the goal of the Vision Zero Road
Safety Action Plan to eliminate all serious
injuries and fatalities on Phoenix streets.




Design-71
Page 666




HIGH ACTIVITY AREAS
PEORIA AVE
Northwest 1/4 mile radius 1/4 mile radius 1/4 mile radius
(5 minute walk) (5 minute walk) (5 minute walk)
Extension
1/2 mile radius 1/2 mile radius 1/2 mile radius
Phase II (10 minute walk) (10 minute walk) (10 minute walk)
DUNLAP AVE
! ! Existing Light Planned-Under Planned Light
Rail Construction Rail
Light Rail
!
! Existing Station
Planned-Under
Planned Station
NORTHERN AVE Construction
!! Station


19North Transit Overlay District
(TOD-1)
GLENDALE AVE
!! Transit Overlay District
(TOD-2)



BETHANY HOME RD
§
¦
¨
£
¤
Transit Oriented
Development (TOD)
District Boundaries

!! Phoenix City Limits

Solano Canals
CAMELBACK RD
! ! ! !
!!
Uptown Village Estrella
G
R !
!
Ahwatukee Foothills
Laveen
A
INDIAN SCHOOL RD
!
N
D !
E Alhambra
AV Maryvale
Camelback East
! ! North Mountain

I-10 West THOMAS RD Midtown Central City
Paradise Valley
!
!
Encanto




MapDate: 11/1/2021
Extension South Mountain

!
!

MCDOWELL RD Capitol Eastlake
Extension !
!
Garfield Gateway 50th Street
§
¨
¦
Station Area
!
!

VAN BUREN ST
Downtown
! !




M:\Projects\TOD_Area_Maps_Joel\MXD\All_TOD_Areas_Villages.mxd
!!!!
!! !
! !
!!
! !! !
! !!
! !

v
w 202 BUCKEYE RD
!
!
!
!




LOWER BUCKEYE RD £
¤ 143 !
!




83RD AVE 75TH AVE 67TH AVE 51ST AVE 27TH AVE
40TH ST 48TH ST 52ND ST

CENTRAL AVE
19TH AVE 7TH AVE 24TH ST
99TH AVE 59TH AVE 43RD AVE
7TH ST 16TH ST 32ND ST 64TH ST
91ST AVE 35TH AVE


£
¤
30 BROADWAY RD




.
South Central

Phoenix Transit SOUTHERN AVE

£
¤


Oriented Communities BASELINE RD

0 0.75 1.5 3
Miles




In areas where active transportation is expected to a specific emphasis on connecting walking,
be higher than typical, streets should be designed biking, and transit. In 2008, the Downtown
to ensure people using the street are comfortable Urban Form Project (2008) proposed a Form-
and safe, whether they are walking, biking, Based Code for downtown that calls for walkable
using micromobility, driving, or taking transit. development. The Circulation and Parking Plan
In Phoenix, planning processes have identified in the document further emphasized the need for
three types of areas where dense, mixed-use streets that support walking, biking, and transit
development should be concentrated and where as key for downtown circulation. The Downtown
walking, biking, and transit should be emphasized Code was adopted by Council and added to
in street design. the Zoning Ordinance in 2010. The Downtown
Transportation Plan Update (2020) updated the
The downtown area was identified as a
strategies for increasing multimodal transportation
dense, multi-modal and mixed use area in the
in Downtown Phoenix.
Downtown Strategic Plan (2004). One of the
three planning principles was connectivity, with


Design-72
Page 667
Additional Design Parameters & Considerations




Transit Oriented Development (TOD) areas Large scale development, high-density
have been specifically identified as areas for multifamily/mixed-use Planned Unit Developments
encouraging multimodal streets and denser (PUDs), regional shopping centers and regional
development in order to foster access to transit. attractions (e.g. spring training facilities and
Currently every TOD area has adopted Walkable event venues) are expected to increase active
Urban Code. TOD areas will continue to be transportation. Street design and street crossings
added as the high-capacity transit network in should be designed for safe and comfortable
Phoenix develops. Policy plans for individual TOD walking and biking.
areas have been developed through the Reinvent
PHX planning effort and through
individual TOD area plans.
The City of Phoenix continues RD PHOENIX
to develop plans for the most A R I Z O N A
RIV
ER
W




High Injury Network
NE
N




recently added TOD areas. N o v e m b e r 2 0 2 1 v e r s i o n




Urban Village Cores have also U
V 74
W CAREFREE HWY




been identified as areas for a o
W DOVE VALLEY RD ED
OV
EV
AL
LE
Y
RD


W SONORAN DES ERT DR




concentration of people and
0 0.5 1 2 3 4
E SONORA
mi ND
N E
D
RT




NORTH VALLEY P K
SE
R




activities. The Phoenix Urban Legend
Fatal and Serious Injury (KSI)
W
Y E DYNAMITE BLVD




Village Model (1994) identifies
Crashes (2016 - 2020)
Intersections >1.98 Std. Deviation
! (KSI crashes)


multi-modal transportation as
W HAPPY VALLEY RD
Roadways > 2.6 Std. Deviation
(KSI crashes per mile)
E PINNACLE PEAK RD




a feature of village cores, with
N CAVE CREEK RD
VALLEY RD
ER ED
E DE EER
VA
! ! LLEY
DR




a strong emphasis on providing !
N 7TH ST
U
V 101




N TATUM BLVD

pedestrian amenities in urban ! ! ! V
U51




cores. While it describes
E BELL RD
W BELL RD
! ! !

§
¨
¦ 17

!
!



suburban village cores as auto- ! ! !
W THUNDERBIRD RD
! E TH
UN N SCOTTSDALE RD




oriented, it also notes that as
D ER

N 7TH ST
BIR
D
RD
E CACTUS RD
! !

N 19TH AVE

villages build out over the next
E SHEA BLVD
! !




30-50 years suburban cores
W DUNLAP AVE
! ! !


! ! ! U
V 51



may become more urban. The N 35TH AVE

!
W GLENDALE AVE
! E GLENDALE AVE




plan was approved 29 years
E LINCOLN DR
!
! !
N 7TH ST



ago and Phoenix has seen this ¡
¢60
!




shift happening throughout its
W INDIAN SCHOOL RD E INDIAN SCHOOL RD
! ! ! W
! ! ! !! !
G
RA
! N
D



N 51ST AVE
A


N 44TH ST
VE
! ! ! ! ! !

suburban cores. ¡
¢ 60


N 75TH AVE
E MCDOWEL L RD
! ! ! ! !
§
¨
¦ 10
§
¨
¦ 10
§
¨
¦ 10
V
U 51 U
V
!

N 24TH ST

!
V
U
In addition to three types of
E WASHINGTON ST
!
S 75TH AVE
S 19TH AVE
S 7TH ST
! V
U85
W BUCKEYE RD
! U
V 85 ! S 24TH ST
S 44
TH
ST




areas defined in the planning S 51ST AVE
!
§
¨
¦ 17

§
¨
¦
U
V




processes above, there are ! !
S 7TH ST
!
S 19TH AVE




further places where connectivity ! ! ! ! S 48TH ST




W BASELINE RD E BASELINE RD




for people walking, biking, and
!




using micromobility should
be emphasized based on
surrounding land use. Data: City of Phoenix/ADOT/MCDOT/Y2K Visualization Analysis | Y2K Engineering | 2021 Phoenix, AZ | High Injury Network Analysis 2021




Design-73
Page 668




Active transportation is expected to be
high in recreation areas and near public
facilities such as libraries, hospitals, schools.
Streets near parks, preserves, trails, and
public facilities should be designed with City of Phoenix Guidance
consideration for people accessing these
amenities on foot or on bike. At entry points,
Design Guidance Element (2023)
appropriate street crossings are important
for allowing people to access public facilities
and recreation areas safely. City of Phoenix Crosswalk Guidance (2023)

Finally, the High Injury Network defined in
the Vision Zero Road Safety Action Plan
Guidelines (2023)
has identified corridors and intersections
with the highest levels of serious injury
and fatality crashes in the City of Phoenix.
Guidelines (2018)
In 2022, people walking were 43% of
the fatal and serious injury crashes in
Phoenix, despite walking trips being a small
percentage of overall trips. As such, streets
National guidance
and intersections along the High Injury Institute for Transportation and Development
Network should be designed with special Policy (ITDP) Transit Oriented Development
consideration for people walking, biking, and Standard (2017)
taking transit.
National Association of City Transportation
In the areas identified above, the following
Officials (NACTO) Urban Street Design Guide
guidance should be considered when
(2013)
designing streets.

Federal Highways Administration (FHWA)
Field Guide for Selecting Countermeasures
at uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Locations
(2018)


Federal Highways Administration (FHWA)
Proven Safety Countermeasures (website)




Design-74
Page 669
Page 670
PUBLIC OUTREACH
SUMMARY



APPENDIX A




Page 671




Phoenix Active Transportation Plan
Public Outreach Report




Page 672




Table of Contents
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... 6
Context............................................................................................................................................ 6
Methods & Summary ..................................................................................................................... 6
Online Survey ........................................................................................................................................ 9
Demographics................................................................................................................................. 9
Zip codes (N=651) .............................................................................................................................. 9
Age (N=527) .....................................................................................................................................10
Gender (N=399) ...............................................................................................................................10
Race/Ethnicity (N=507) ...................................................................................................................11
Household Income (N=503) ............................................................................................................11
Questions ......................................................................................................................................12
Q1: Which of the following best describes you? ...........................................................................12
Q3: Which of the following do you own or have access to regularly? Please check all that apply:
(N=657) ............................................................................................................................................13
Q4: Please check how often you use each of these different ways of traveling. (N=639) ..........14
Q5: Please check how often you would like to use these different ways of traveling in the
future. (N=636) ................................................................................................................................15
Q6: If you were to walk and bike more often, which of the following would describe the
purpose of doing so? Please check all that apply. (N=632) ...........................................................16
Q7: If you would like to provide more details, please use the space below. (N=95) ...................16
Q8: How would you rate the conditions in Phoenix for the following modes of travel? (N=599)
..........................................................................................................................................................24
Q9: Thinking about safety, how safe do you currently feel in Phoenix using the following modes
of travel? (N=599) ............................................................................................................................25
Q10: For the following question, please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with each
of the following statements. (N=601) ............................................................................................26
Q11: Which of the following stops you from walking more? Please select all that apply. (N=600)
..........................................................................................................................................................27




Page 673


Q12: Thinking of the list above, what is the single biggest barrier when it comes to walking?
Please select one. (N=594) ..............................................................................................................28
Q13: Which of the following stops you from biking more? Please select all that apply. (N=591)
..........................................................................................................................................................29
Q14: Thinking of the list above, what is the single biggest barrier for you when it comes to
bicycling? (N=587) ...........................................................................................................................30
Q15: For the following questions, please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the
following statements. (N=584) .......................................................................................................31
Q16: For the following question, please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the
following statements. (N=584) .......................................................................................................33
Q17: For the following question, please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the
following statements. (N=585) .......................................................................................................35
Q18: For the following question, please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the
following statements. (N=583) .......................................................................................................37
Q19: For the following question, please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the
following statements. (N=582) .......................................................................................................39
Q20: For the following questions, please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the
following statements. (N=568) .......................................................................................................41
Q21: For the following question, please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the
following statements. (N=568) .......................................................................................................43
Q22: For the following question, please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the
following statements. (N=570) .......................................................................................................45
Q23: For the following question, please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the
following statements. (N=569) .......................................................................................................47
Q24: For the following question, please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the
following statements. (N=570) .......................................................................................................49
Q25: For the following question, please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with each
of the following statements. (N=536) ............................................................................................51
Q26: What are your broader priorities for transportation in Phoenix? Please rank the following
choices: Please prioritize the broader transportation objectives listed below from highest (1) to
lowest (6) priority: (N=528) .............................................................................................................52
Q27: The list before provides a number of different street-specific priorities. Please organize
the list below from your highest (1) to lowest (10) priority. (N=522) ..........................................53



Page 674


Q28: What types of improvements are most important for Phoenix's bicycle network? Please
rank the following based on what you think is most important: (N=510) ...................................54
Q29: Which types of bicycle routes are most important? (N=523) ..............................................55
Q30: When thinking about the continued development, buildout, and improvement of the
city's bicycle and pedestrian network, which of the following do you think is more important?
(N=522) ............................................................................................................................................55
Q31: Is there any additional information you'd like to share with us about your active
transportation priorities for Phoenix? (N=143) .............................................................................56
Q32: Do you know how to report street maintenance issues to the City of Phoenix? (N=531) .67
Q33: When there is a bicycle or pedestrian street project in my neighborhood, are you able to
find information about the project and provide input? (N=524) .................................................68
Q34: Have you ever reported a street issue to the City of Phoenix? (N=530) .............................68
Q35: If yes, were you satisfied with the outcome? (N=226) .........................................................69
Q36: Is there any additional information you'd like to share with us about our outreach and
engagement process or your experience reporting/contacting the city about a street-related
issue? (N=68) ...................................................................................................................................69
Additional Community Outreach .......................................................................................................75
Laveen BBQ Results ......................................................................................................................75
First Friday Results .......................................................................................................................78
Targeted Outreach ..............................................................................................................................81
Bike Advocates .............................................................................................................................81
Questions ......................................................................................................................................81
Themes .........................................................................................................................................81
Marginalized Zip Codes ................................................................................................................82
Questions ......................................................................................................................................82
Themes .........................................................................................................................................82
Draft Plan Feedback Survey Results Summary ..................................................................................84
About the survey .............................................................................................................................84
Q1) Did you participate in the original project survey or project interviews? .............................84
Other: ............................................................................................................................................84
Key takeaways: .............................................................................................................................84


Page 675


Q2) If you are interested in walking or biking more in Phoenix, what changes would encourage
you walk or bike more? ...................................................................................................................85
Statistics: .......................................................................................................................................85
Themes: ........................................................................................................................................85
Insightful/Example Comments: ...................................................................................................86
Q3) What is your most important active transportation priority (i.e., more sidewalks, safer
roadway crossings, protected bicycle facilities, etc.)?...................................................................87
Statistics: .......................................................................................................................................87
Themes: ........................................................................................................................................87
Insightful Comments: ...................................................................................................................87
Q4) How familiar are you with the Draft Plan and Plan Elements? ..............................................88
Q5) How do you feel about the current Draft Plan and Plan Elements? ......................................89
Q6) Please share your comments on the Draft Plan and Plan Elements. For example, What do
you like about the plan? What concerns do you have? What recommendations do you have?
..........................................................................................................................................................89
Themes: ........................................................................................................................................90
Insightful/Example Comments: ...................................................................................................90
Appendix A: Survey Questions ...........................................................................................................94
English Version .............................................................................................................................94
Spanish Version ..........................................................................................................................103
Appendix B: Draft Plan Survey Responses .......................................................................................117




Page 676


Executive Summary

Context
For decades, Phoenix has excelled at building car-oriented places; internal policies and practices
have been created with cars as the top priority. However, Phoenicians have shown increased
interest in multimodal transportation. Therefore, the City of Phoenix responded by expanding
the walking, bicycling, and transit network. The City implemented the following planning and
policy initiatives to increase multimodal options: Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan (2014),
Complete Streets Ordinance, Policy, and Guidelines, ReinventPHX, the Key Corridors Master Plan,
and the Walkable Urban Code.

The Active Transportation Plan (ATP) process was an opportunity to build upon these previous
efforts and attempted to answer the following questions:
• When it comes to transportation, what kind of city does Phoenix want to be?
• How well do current policies and practices work to build that desired city?
• What are the strategies for becoming the desired city when it comes to people riding
bicycles?
This process focused on understanding priorities, the impacts of decisions, and why they matter
to better inform proposed solutions. Feedback from community residents was obtained through
an online survey, poster polls, and interviews with local leaders and advocacy organizations.

Methods & Summary
Method Participation
• 665 participants submitted a survey response. Of these
participants, 655 individuals chose to complete the English
Version and 10 individuals chose to complete the Spanish version.

Summary
• Most participants reside in zip code 85013, were age 30-39,
identified as male, identified as white, and reported a household
Online Survey income of $100K-$200K.

• Most participants live and work in the City of Phoenix. In addition,
most reported to own or have access to regularly, a car or truck.

• The following themes were identified based on the individual
comments: Design, Development & Infrastructure, City Website,




Page 677


Climate, Homelessness, Issues & Requests, Public Transportation,
Routes, Safety & Speeding, Scooters, and Survey Feedback.

Methods Participation
• Staff from the City of Phoenix attended the 70th Annual Laveen
BBQ (February 2022) and First Friday (March 2022) to conduct
poster polls. In total 79 community members participate in the
poster polls.

Key Findings
• Community members tended to either answer the dot poll
posters or the open-ended questions, but usually not both.

• Community members wanted to talk more than interact with
posters. The conversations seemed to align with the poll data in
Poster Polls
that community members were interested in safer, local
connections for walking and biking.

• The following questions were asked at each event:
o Should regional routes or neighborhood routes be
priority?
o Should the focus be on cost versus comfort?
o What are your top three community priorities?
o Where do you enjoy walking and biking in Phoenix?
o What stops you from walking or biking more in Phoenix?

Methods Participation
• 4 representatives from two education and advocacy
organizations

• 7 community leaders from the 6 marginalized zip codes identified
in the equity map

Key Findings
Targeted Outreach
• Representatives from the advocacy organizations mentioned the
need for increased awareness and education about city projects.
In addition, they suggested better messaging when relating
neighborhood projects to overall city goals.

• Representatives from the advocacy organizations expressed
concerns about traffic, speeding, and the lack of infrastructure to



Page 678


make walking and biking safe. In addition, they suggested the city
work to improve the culture with the streets department.

• Representatives from the advocacy organizations recommended
the city work to improve the culture with the streets department.
In addition, they expressed concerns about turnover and a lack of
strong advocates within the department.

• Many community leaders expressed concerns about safety. They
mentioned the lack of sidewalks in some residential communities
(particularly West & South Phoenix), inconsistent bike paths,
speeding, homeless encampments, violent crimes, drug use in
neighborhoods, and stray dogs.

• Many community leaders expressed the need for more
accountability and transparency from the city. In addition, they
are not confident the city will show up for their communities.
However, they seemed to be supportive of additional street
infrastructure if it supported their current safety needs.




Page 679



Online Survey
665 participants submitted a survey response. Of these participants, 655 individuals chose to
complete the English Version and 10 individuals chose to complete the Spanish version. Both
English and Spanish responses have been combined. The Spanish qualitative data has been
translated to English.

Demographics

Zip codes (N=651)
There were 651 responses to this question making the completion rate 98.05%. The zip code
with the most respondents was 85013 (Midtown/Uptown), with 62 respondents.

Zip Code # of Zip Code # of Zip Code # of
Responses Responses Responses
23235 1 85043 3 85282 9
84051 1 85044 15 85283 10
85001 1 85045 1 85286 3
85003 25 85048 4 85295 2
85004 29 85050 9 85296 1
85005 1 85051 2 85297 1
85006 31 85053 9 85301 1
85007 24 85054 2 85302 4
85008 19 85083 3 85303 1
85009 11 85085 4 85305 1
85012 13 85086 1 85306 3
85013 62 85142 1 85308 4
85014 13 85201 5 85309 1
85015 27 85202 2 85326 1
85016 28 85203 3 85331 3
85017 6 85204 1 85335 1
85018 31 85207 1 85338 2
85019 4 85208 3 85339 15
85020 16 85209 1 85345 2
85021 7 85212 1 85353 1
85022 17 85215 1 85374 2
85023 4 85224 7 85375 1
85024 3 85225 1 85377 1




Page 680


85027 6 85226 2 85379 2
85028 4 85233 1 85381 1
85029 5 85234 3 85382 1
85031 2 85236 1 85383 1
85032 10 85248 1 85388 1
85033 4 85250 1 85395 2
85034 4 85251 6 85396 1
85035 5 85254 6 86018 1
85037 6 85255 1 86016 1
85040 3 85257 8 86281 1
85041 13 85280 1
85042 8 85281 14

Age (N=527)
There were 527 responses to this question making the completion rate 79.25%. The largest age
group was ages 30-39.


40.00%

35.00%

30.00%

25.00%

20.00%

15.00%

10.00%

5.00%

0.00%
Under 18 19-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70+
Responses 1.14% 26.57% 37.95% 15.37% 9.49% 5.88% 3.61%



Gender (N=399)
There were 399 responses to this question making the completion rate 60%. Most participants
identified as male.




Page 681


70.00%

60.00%

50.00%

40.00%

30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00%
Non- Why do Don’t
Male Female Trans We N/A Decline
Binary you ask? Know
Responses 63.16% 33.83% 1.00% 0.75% 0.25% 0.25% 0.25% 0.25% 0.25%



Race/Ethnicity (N=507)
There were 507 responses to this question making the completion rate 76.24%. Most
participants identified as White.


80.00%

70.00%

60.00%

50.00%

40.00%

30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00%
Asian / Pacific Hispanic / Latino
Black Native American White
Islander of any race
Responses 4.93% 5.92% 0.99% 71.79% 16.37%



Household Income (N=503)
There were 503 responses to this question making the completion rate 75.64%. The most
frequent response was a household income of $100K-$200K.




Page 682


40.00%

35.00%

30.00%

25.00%

20.00%

15.00%

10.00%

5.00%

0.00%
Under $35k $36-65k $66-100k $100k - $200k $200k+
Responses 8.95% 18.49% 25.65% 34.79% 12.13%




Questions

Q1: Which of the following best describes you?
There were 663 responses to this question making the completion rate 99.70%. The most
frequent response was both living and working in the City of Phoenix.


50.00%
45.00%
40.00%
35.00%
30.00%
25.00%
20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
I neither live nor work
I live in the City of I work in the City of I live and work in the
in the City of Phoenix
Phoenix - Phoenix - City of Phoenix -
-
Responses 38.16% 11.46% 43.29% 7.09%




Page 683


Q3: Which of the following do you own or have access to regularly? Please
check all that apply: (N=657)
There were 657 responses to this question making the completion rate 98.80%. Most
participants own or have access to regularly, a car or truck.


100.00%
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Assistive device,
such as a
Car or truck Bicycle E-scooter wheelchair or Other
motorized
scooter
Responses 93.76% 65.14% 6.70% 1.83% 4.72%




Page 684




There were 639 responses to this question making the completion rate 96.09%. Highlighted below are the top responses for each way
Q4: Please check how often you use each of these different ways of traveling. (N=639)

of traveling.


120.00%


100.00%


80.00%


60.00%



Page 685
40.00%


20.00%


0.00%
Use an assistive
Drive or ride in a Use rideshare or a device, like a
Take public transit Walk Bike Use an e-scooter
car taxi wheelchair or
mobility scooter
Daily 64.52% 5.49% 0.00% 46.65% 17.94% 1.14% 0.82%
Weekly 29.51% 8.56% 7.68% 19.17% 24.13% 3.26% 0.16%
Monthly 2.04% 10.82% 21.41% 7.03% 12.70% 3.43% 0.16%
Seldom 2.51% 36.03% 49.02% 17.89% 16.67% 13.70% 1.47%
Never 1.41% 39.10% 21.90% 9.27% 28.57% 73.57% 97.38%








There were 636 responses to this question making the completion rate 95.64%. Highlighted below are the top responses for each way
Q5: Please check how often you would like to use these different ways of traveling in the future. (N=636)

of traveling.


120.00%



100.00%



80.00%



60.00%

Page 686
40.00%



20.00%



0.00%
Use an
Drive or ride Take public Use rideshare Use an E- assistive
Walk Bike
in a car transit or a taxi scooter device, such as
a wheelchair
I would like to use this mode less often 75.28% 3.76% 25.85% 4.18% 1.60% 2.61% 2.32%
I would like to use this mode more often 2.85% 69.44% 10.73% 69.77% 69.65% 27.04% 0.83%
No Change 21.87% 26.80% 63.41% 26.05% 22.36% 70.36% 96.85%








Q6: If you were to walk and bike more often, which of the following would
describe the purpose of doing so? Please check all that apply. (N=632)
There were 632 responses to this question making the completion rate 95.04%. Most
participants reported they would walk or bike for exercise or fun.


90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Walk or bike to
complete a trip to Walk or bike to access
Walk or bike for I’m not interested in
work, school, transit (bus or light
exercise or fun walking or biking
shopping, or rail)
socializing
Responses 78.64% 85.60% 51.11% 3.48%




Q7: If you would like to provide more details, please use the space below.
(N=95)
There were 95 responses to this question making the completion rate 14.29%. Based on the
comments, the following themes were identified: Design, Development & Infrastructure,
Climate, Public Transportation, Routes, Safety, and Scooters. Below are comments that align with
each theme:

Design, Development & Infrastructure
• Phoenix needs to prioritize bicycles as transportation. I bought my home in an adjacent
suburb because Phoenix's bicycle infrastructure is totally inadequate by any measure.
• The more walkability, the better. Phoenix currently has a depressing amount of car
centric design.
• I dream of living in a city with real, people-centric infrastructure
• Phoenix (and its metro region) is obviously car centric - I know it's unrealistic for that to
change in the future but 15 minute walkable communities would do enormous good for




Page 687


the general welfare of their residents. Walking and biking places is far superior to driving
in most circumstances.
• It's going to take more than bike lanes to fix this urban hellscape. We need a dense
walkable city not based around cars. Downtown needs to be at least twice as dense as it
is.
• Need more grocery stores, pharmacies, hardware stores, and other amenities. Currently,
none of these are walking distance for my neighborhood at 7th St & Osborn.
• I would love to be in an area that is walkable or bikeable. My area currently requires a car
to get around anywhere.
• i would like to walk and bike more but the current landscape doesnt let me
• I love biking where it is feasible. I appreciate the improvements the city is making and
feel that better bike infrastructure, especially physically protected bike lanes, would go a
long way.
• If there were more walkable (walking only) spaces downtown, I would be interested in
spending time in those areas.
• I bike as much as possible. I use public transit when biking is not possible (weather,
health etc). I want to drive as little as possible, but I still have to sometimes because of
infrequent bus stops on McDowell and 44th, or because bike infrastructure is incomplete
(like on 40th street where the bike lane ends suddenly) and sometimes feels unsafe.
• Street Parking in my area is the real issue. Historic Downtown was not built for this many
people and cars.
• Some people don't have the choice and must walk, bike and use transit for daily living.
We must consider these most vulnerable members of our community.
• Rideshare would be an option in a self-driving model
• I enjoy biking and taking the bus; it's my "gym" and "study" time. However, I would like it
if traffic to Downtown Phoenix were more reliable, so that, on occasion, I could drive to
Downtown in case if I have an appointment or need to leave earlier or to sort out logistics
like picking something up. Using rideshare or some foldable personal electric transport
could also work, but it'd be nice if it weren't so expensive.
• This new project is not where I want my tax dollars going. The Government does not
know how to do anything well. Just look at California who tried this plan. Unsuccessful. All
forms of government need to get out of the people's lives. They work for us, not the
other way around.
• The more opportunity to walk or bike, the better. Even if it comes at the expense of cars,
I say as primarily a car user.
• I would also love to see bicycle symbols painted on city streets that are designated
bikeways, such as Oak. There are some small street signs, but these can be easy to ignore
or miss. Motorists should be aware of bikes and looking out for them on these streets,
especially when there’s no designated bike lane and bikes have to use the main road.
• We need a traffic light and safe sidewalk crossing at 43 rd Avenue and Dobbins. You need
to hold your breath as you take your turn at the 4 way stop. Drivers are unkind and
greedy when it comes to taking your turn at the 4 way stop. Children are biking and
walking each day and school buses also have a challenging time at this intersection. There


Page 688


are 4 schools using this intersection = 2 charter and 2 public. Laveen is building
approximately 8000 more homes and 2-3 more schools. What and when are the plans to
install a traffic signal?
• I drive home on cave creek road at night and the traffic lights will turn red when no one is
there. It makes zero sense.

Climate
• We need more shade. The added heat to the city from all the concrete is substantial. I
read an article from someone who lived here over 100 years ago, and they described
Phoenix as having only 2 seasons, spring and fall since the temperature was always
perfect. We need that back
• The zip code 85004 should have more investment into green spaces, we need increased
shade, more trees
• I would much prefer to walk and bike, but the general lack of shade throughout most of
Phoenix prevents this during the peak summer months.

Public Transportation
• I don't have good access to light rail. If I did, I'd use it more.
• I would take the light rail but it smells of urine and filled with homeless.
• I have mobility issues so walking to bus/light rail is difficult. I wish there were buses that
went through the neighborhood.
• The Metro is not an option in my area. I do use it occasionally for special events.
• Please extend the light rail route. The current route mainly runs east and west between
Mesa and Phoenix. There should be a north and south route as well between Chandler
and Scottsdale.
• I do not drive when possible. I use my electric skateboard or bike to go most everywhere
I need to go in the city. I would like to be able to take my electric skateboard on the bus
systems but it appears not allowed right now. I would also like better access to rail and
bus systems on a more regular basis
• I've been car-free in the Valley for more than 15 years and only drive in case of
emergencies. Cars and trucks to me are too much of a danger. This city is a disaster for
pedestrians, the light rail was a nice touch but why are buses still only every half-hour?
They should cost less to use or be free at least during summer months.
• I would love to walk to a bus or light rail stop, but it’s almost a full mile to the nearest
stop that goes in a direction I frequent.
• No light rail
• I would love to see more transit options in Laveen.
• I would like to use transit more, but the bus stops in my neighborhood are terrible—
some have no shade at all.
• More bike racks for bus stops if there aren't any spaces on the bus.
• Buses absolutely need to come every 15 minutes minumum. We're a major city.
• Most of my car trips are short and only for bulky items. I'd love more separated bike
lanes and easier access to public transport/have it go somewhere besides downtown and
Tempe

Page 689


• Walking/biking/public Trans are my main means of transportation. I own a car, but try to
not use it if I can help it.
• I wouldn't want to drive to get to public transit
• Trying to use public transport more

Routes
• Walking/Biking is an excellent way to get daily exercise in addition to getting to where
you need to go in a quick way. What I believe we should still have a car for is longer
trips/trips that involving hauling goods. However we should encourage at every
opportunity the ability to choose different modes of transit. I live in Tempe, just east of
the I-10, and I am sure that there are bike routes that connect swiftly and safely to
Tempe; but I still wish I knew more about them prior. I would also love it if in general
more pedestrian paths connected to other pedestrian paths. (Though a project like this is
ensured to be expensive) I would love to see more pedestrian freeway overpasses
connect to other freeway overpasses, thereby giving pedestrians multiple options of
route across a freeway and allowing for a more efficient use of the space overall.
• I hate having to get in the car for a quick trip to the market or even just grab coffee.
Better / more walking and bike ways would make this possible
• Would love to see bike paths through neighborhoods so I wouldn't have to ride on 7th
Street to get to Thunderbird.
• There are zero bike lakes on Thomas Ave, and there is zero consideration taken for
pedestrians to establish that.
• Use the canals for bike and walk paths! Use the large storm drain culverts and washes for
bike and walk paths. Separate multi-use paths from traffic, too many stop lights for
cyclists. Tie the paths into shopping areas. Make a huge effort to connect existing paths
through power, drainage, canal easements. Get creative on the use of other rights-of-
way. Work with the flood control district and canal co. on using rights-of-way for trails.
• I would love more multi use paths, separated from traffic by some sort of barrier.
• I use the bike path along the Rio Salado and it's wonderful. I would like to have more and
better bike lanes getting to and from that bike path from my office at 1300 W
Washington St.
• I would like to see more bike lanes on west to east streets and more bike routes without
any vehicles, especially along canals.
• 11th Ave and Bethany Rd to popular shopping areas like uptown plaza and routes into
downtown from 7th Ave
• More bike lanes to get around town on streets that are not too heavily used by motor
vehicles
• The 3rd/5th Ave bike lanes are fantastic
• I bike to work in 85043 (7 miles from 85006) twice a week. Wish there were better
East/west bike lanes especially away from downtown. Also, e scooters are the most
goddamn annoying things people leave them everywhere. They need to have designated
places to leave them.
• Walking and biking are so much nicer to get around, especially midtown and downtown.
Would love more protected bike lanes and shade for pedestrians.

Page 690


• Many wide secondary streets do not have bike lanes.
• I love long bike rides where I can just GO with friends or by myself to enjoy Phoenix and
get exercise. The bikeways throughout the valley are exceptional, I'd love to have more
BUT I wish they were like the other canal bike system where it goes under the roadways
so I don't ever have to stop at a light.
• I work from home and live a relatively walkable part of town (Melrose). However, I would
love it if the city made the road more pedestrian and bicycle-friendly, with improved
walkways, crosswalks, parking strips etc.
• I basically want the option to live without a car, weather permitting. I ride into Phoenix at
least once per week. The canals are great but don't necessarily get me to the place I'm
trying to go. Getting downtown should be easier, for example.

Safety – Cars, Speeding & Traffic
• I would love to be able to bike to the grocery store! I have 3 stores super close to me, but
everyone drives so crazily that I can’t. :(
• 82 years old so walk is better than bike. Seeing the way MORE DRIVERS with different
backgrounds (country upbringing) drive I'm afraid there is going to be more people on
bikes or walking getting killed.
• I am interested in walking and biking more, but the speed at which drivers drive through
the downtown Phoenix area is outrageous. We need more investment in bicycle and
pedestrian infrastructure downtown and drivers need to be held accountable for
speeding and driving recklessly. Too many people die in our streets.
• Even with bike lanes, I do not feel safe riding in traffic. There aren't enough safeguards
for cyclists. When walking, I often feel unsafe because the sidewalk is very often right
next to the traffic lanes vs. having a parkway space giving space between the street and
the sidewalk.
• Would walk more from my house downtown if there was more shade and safety
projection from the fast cars. Walking along an arterial is suicide. This is why no one
walks, the cars drive too fast and its scary.
• Phoenix is pretty pedestrian hostile. I live near some walkable amenities (the intersection
of Bethany Home and 16th St), but I don't feel safe walking around this intersection with
the volume of traffic it experiences. I especially don't feel safe taking my young daughter
there. And safety aside, walking a few feet from cars going 40+ mph is not a PLEASANT
experience to say the least, which I think also dissuades people from walking. I think it
would be great if the city had things like dedicated bus lanes, protected bike lanes (more
than one!) and separated, shaded sidewalks. Such things would go a long way to
promoting more walkability and pedestrian safety.
• I'd like to bike more, but Phoenix has some of the most unsafe drivers I've ever seen in
my life.
• I want to walk and bike as much as I can, but it's so dangerous because of cars and street
design. I live within walking distance to the grocery store, but I feel like my life is at risk if I
try to walk or bike there. Pedestrians don't have priority anywhere, speeds are super high
on roadways, and drivers are very aggressive against pedestrians and cyclists.



Page 691


• Cars are noisy and dangerous and it would be nice to have zones that were exclusively
pedestrian.
• I would love to be able to bike to work. But crossing streets like 7th St and Central is a
death wish during rush hour. There is a single HAWK light I can use at 7th St but I would
love to have more options. Also, I would like to express my frustration at the pitiful bike
lane along Roosevelt Avenue, specifically near 7th Avenue. It is discontinuous and
automobile drivers treat it like part of their own lane instead of a dedicated lane. That
intersection also does not provide a protected left turn (dedicated turning green arrow)
for cars turning left off of 7th Avenue which means people rush to turn as fast as they
can, making the pedestrian crossing from Nortenos to the Circle K extremely dangerous

Safety – Infrastructure & Road Conditions
• Painted lines on the road are not bike infrastructure, not one vehicle respects them and
they do nothing for safety. I've lost too many cycling friends over the years, enough is
enough.
• If there was safe, shaded routes that are easy to access I would love to have biking as an
easy alt. to take from work to surrounding areas. Both as a form of excercise & to enjoy
the view outside.
• I would like to have to option to commute via public transit and walk /bike safely for daily
needs. This would require road overhaul and increased pedestrian safety near my work
place.
• Construction of effective and safe alternative travel is paramount to strong city design.
Although not your exclusive jurisdiction, consider talking the Cities of Surprise, Sun City,
and Deer Valley into improving bicycle infrastructure.
• I would like improved infrastructure to allow myself and other citizens to safely walk and
bike around the city.
• I think if we had more viable alternatives to individual car trips fewer trips would be taken
by cars and congestion would get better. Personally, I would like to take every trip by bike
or on foot, especially if it was safer. Practically speaking bikes are already better for some
trips in Phoenix. For instance, if it's busier downtown/on Roosevelt Row cycling can
sometimes actually be faster because of the parking time. The problem is that cycling *is
not safe enough*. Our roads are designed for speed, and that's why we have these racing
problems now. We need to use engineering to reduce the natural speed, not just the
speed limit, on our roads. Some of our roads that kind of act like arterial roads, like 15th
ave, should have two-way bike lines, narrower car lanes, and lower speed limits. Please
resist the temptation to plan bike infrastructure based on how many people currently
cycle; this is like planning bridges based on how many people are swimming across a
river. Infrastructure induces demand. Don't just put bike lines around downtown like it's
some kind of novelty tourism activity like so many cities do. That's setting us up for
failure. Spread our *from* downtown and the canal paths that already exist and make it
progressively easier for people to get to the more central parts of the city by bicycle. And
do it with *protected* two-way bike paths. These could be utilized by bicycles, class 1
and 2 e-bikes, e-scooters, and eventually perhaps even microcars for disabled people like



Page 692


they have in cities with better bike infrastructure. Lean on Valley Metro to improve the
fare system and the bus routes. Phoenix is way behind in public transit right now.
• I do not feel safe biking to and from work and home. Another good alternative would be
for me to bike from my home to the light right, unfortunately there is no safe route to do
so.
• I don't feel that biking or walking is safe in Phoenix, and public transit is so unreliable that
I do not take it even though I work downtown and would love to not pay for parking.
• Create more safe ways for bikes to cross streets or more bike lanes in high volume areas
• I would like to walk and bike more often however the streets in Phoenix are often very
dangerous so my wife worries about me biking. We need better and wider sidewalks and
buffered bike lanes so my kids and I have a place to walk and bike safely.
• I already use a bicycle for my daily work commute and am thankful that the route is
relatively safe. If I needed to go in another direction, the routes would be much less safe.
In much of Phoenix, I am not comfortable riding, especially with my wife and young child.
In much of Phoenix, I would not be comfortable walking (even to transit or a nearby park)
because the sidewalks are non-existent, uncomfortable due to their proximity to travel
lanes, or are unsafe.
• I’m a virtual employee so no drives to an office. But I do go to the grocery store every
other day. Being able to safely traverse the Phoenix roadways would make me much
more likely to walk or bike.
• Paint is not a sufficient barrier. Both bicyclists and drivers are safer when there is a
physical barrier between the road and the bike path. Specifically, there should be a
barrier that would meaningfully impede progress, such as a curb or a wall- collapsible
reflectors are insufficient.
• Our public transportation system isn't safe and makes it a difficult option to use.
• I would like short distance public transit to access other areas of downtown, to Tempe,
etc. Biking is not currently ideal given the general lack of safety in terms of bike lanes,
cars, and aggressive people.
• I live relatively close to my work and would love to bike there, but I do not feel safe with
the bike infrastructure that currently exists. I would love protected bike lanes around the
city. I would definitely bike more places. Walking can also be a challenge because of how
close to cars they are. Walking with my young daughter in a stroller sometimes even feels
dangerous. We live close to 16th street and Bethany Home where there are great
restaurants and cafes, but walking to them is not fun, nor safe.
• I have a car I never use because I like to ride my bike BUT the bike lanes here are on
uneven terrible roads, covered in glass, blocked by city of Phoenix street workers. It’s
very unsafe. For such a flat city it would be nice to utilize my bike outside of the 2 streets
that are someone rideable.

Safety – Other
• I have no driver's license. I'd like to be able to reach mostly the same places as someone
with a license. Currently, that is not possible safely.
• If biking were safer, and public transit biking options were better, I would see a significant
increase in my bike usage for various errands and enjoyment.


Page 693


• It is very dangerous to drive with bikes on the road. These questions are a set up to push
biking. This is not an honest survey.

Scooters
• Missing escooters in the warehouse district (around Maricopa County government
center)
• More scooters available for rent would be helpful. Scooters are always hard to find
downtown
• Prefer to use escooter for going to work, school, or shopping.
• I would also like to see e-scooters permitted on sidewalks. I don’t think it’s safe to ride an
e-scooter on most streets in Phoenix, and this is a great transit mode for short distances
and connecting to the light rail.

Additional Comments
• More people should bike and walk more and get out of their gas guzzlers.
• Gasoline is steadily going up and it would help the budget.
• I ride my bike daily to work because I enjoy it plus I dont enjoy sitting in traffic or dealing
with the idiot drivers
• Primarily bicycle for purpose (no place for casual/enjoyable bike riding nearby). Walk for
pleasure or for purpose if close.
• Walk dog more often
• I only bike for exercise and recreation
• Deseo hacer cambios en mi vida diaria , para estar más saludable(bajar colesterol y
ayudar a mi presión arterial)

Translation: I want to make changes in my daily life, to be healthier (lower cholesterol
and help my blood pressure).




Page 694




There were 599 responses to this question making the completion rate 90.08%. Highlighted below are the top responses for each
Q8: How would you rate the conditions in Phoenix for the following modes of travel? (N=599)

mode of travel.


50.00%

45.00%

40.00%

35.00%

30.00%

25.00%

20.00%


Page 695
15.00%

10.00%

5.00%

0.00%
Using an assistive device, such as a
Walking Biking
wheelchair
Very safe 3.18% 1.34% 0.88%
Safe 10.70% 3.51% 0.88%
Somewhat safe 21.40% 15.55% 3.89%
Neutral 11.37% 8.36% 43.54%
Somewhat unsafe 23.08% 22.74% 15.75%
Unsafe 16.56% 24.08% 16.81%
Very unsafe 13.71% 24.41% 18.23%








Q9: Thinking about safety, how safe do you currently feel in Phoenix using the following modes of travel?

There were 599 responses to this question making the completion rate 90.08. Highlighted below are the top responses for each mode
(N=599)

of travel.
60.00%


50.00%


40.00%


30.00%



Page 696
20.00%


10.00%


0.00%
Using an assistive device, such as a
Walking Biking
wheelchair
Very safe 3.34% 1.18% 0.74%
Safe 12.71% 5.89% 0.93%
Somewhat safe 21.74% 14.81% 2.59%
Neutral 11.20% 11.28% 52.96%
Somewhat unsafe 24.58% 22.05% 11.30%
Unsafe 14.21% 21.38% 15.00%
Very unsafe 12.21% 23.40% 16.48%








Q10: For the following question, please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with each of the

There were 601 responses to this question making the completion rate 90.38%. Highlighted below are the top responses for reach
following statements. (N=601)

statement. Note: Due to an error in the survey format, several participants did not response to every statement.


60.00%

50.00%

40.00%

30.00%

20.00%


Page 697
10.00%

0.00%
My neighborhood My neighborhood
My neighborhood I am comfortable Many of the
would be a better would be a better
would be a better with my friends places I need to
place to live if it place to live if it
place to live if it and family using get to regularly
were more were more I like walking. I like biking.
were more the streets in are within biking
enjoyable for enjoyable for
enjoyable for Phoenix to walk distance of my
people to walk or people to take
people to bike. or bike. home.
bike. public transit.
Strongly agree 50.59% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 36.55% 50.00% 50.00%
Agree 7.73% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 11.51% 0.00% 0.00%
Somewhat agree 4.37% 0.00% 50.00% 50.00% 7.45% 0.00% 0.00%
Neutral 3.87% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 13.87% 0.00% 0.00%
Somewhat disagree 3.87% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 5.08% 0.00% 0.00%
Disagree 6.05% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6.60% 0.00% 0.00%
Strongly disagree 24.54% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 19.97% 50.00% 50.00%








There were 600 responses to this question making the completion rate 90.23%. Most participants selected not enough shade as the
Q11: Which of the following stops you from walking more? Please select all that apply. (N=600)

reason for why they do not walk more.


80.00%

70.00%

60.00%

50.00%

40.00%

30.00%


Page 698
20.00%

10.00%

0.00%
Crossings
People Crosswalk Crossing
Not at major People Distances Bad Other
driving in No Narrow s spaced Gaps in signals
enough streets do Too hot driving between sidewalk (please
unsafe sidewalks sidewalks too far sidewalks take too
shade not feel fast places conditions specify)
ways apart long
safe
Responses 66.67% 64.83% 64.00% 61.50% 58.50% 57.50% 51.50% 46.00% 45.50% 35.67% 33.83% 19.17% 13.83%






Q12: Thinking of the list above, what is the single biggest barrier when it comes to walking? Please select

There were 594 responses to this question making the completion rate 89.32%. Most participants selected distance between places as
one. (N=594)

the biggest barrier when it comes to walking.


30.00%



25.00%



20.00%



15.00%

Page 699
10.00%



5.00%



0.00%
Crossings
People Crosswalk Bad Crossing
Distances Not at major People Other
driving in No s spaced sidewalk Narrow Gaps in signals
between Too hot enough streets do driving (please
unsafe sidewalks too far condition sidewalks sidewalks take too
places shade not feel fast specify)
ways apart s long
safe
Responses 24.07% 17.85% 11.95% 11.62% 8.59% 6.23% 6.06% 4.71% 3.87% 2.02% 1.85% 0.67% 0.51%








There were 591 responses to this question making the completion rate 88.87%. Most participants selected people driving in unsafe
Q13: Which of the following stops you from biking more? Please select all that apply. (N=591)

ways as the reason for what stops them from biking more.


80.00%


70.00%


60.00%


50.00%
AXIS TITLE
40.00%



Page 700
30.00%


20.00%


10.00%


0.00%
Bike
Bike Hard to Crosswal
People Bike lanes Distance Crossing
lanes are People find a Lack of Not ks Other
driving Feeling lanes do disappea s signals
too close driving clear Too hot bike enough spaced (please
in unsafe unsafe not r near between take too
to traffic fast biking parking shade too far specify)
ways connect intersect places long
lanes route apart
ions
Responses 70.73% 63.11% 59.39% 57.02% 54.48% 52.62% 50.25% 34.01% 29.78% 28.26% 22.50% 10.66% 9.64% 9.64%






Q14: Thinking of the list above, what is the single biggest barrier for you when it comes to bicycling?

There were 587 responses to this question making the completion rate 88.27%. Most participants selected people driving in unsafe
(N=587)

ways as the biggest barrier when it comes to bicycling.


25.00%



20.00%



15.00%




Page 701 10.00%



5.00%



0.00%
Bike
Bike Hard to
People Bike lanes Crossing Crosswal
lanes too find a Other Distances People Not Lack of
driving in Feeling lanes do disappea signals ks spaced
close to clear Too hot (please between driving enough bike
unsafe unsafe not r near take too too far
traffic biking specify) places fast shade parking
ways connect intersecti long apart
lanes route
ons
Responses 21.47% 21.29% 15.33% 9.88% 7.67% 6.64% 5.79% 4.94% 2.39% 1.87% 1.87% 0.85% 0.17% 0.00%








Q15: For the following questions, please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following

There were 584 responses to this question making the completion rate 87.82%. Highlighted below is the top response for each
statements. (N=584)

statement.


40.00%

35.00%

30.00%

25.00%

20.00%

Page 702 15.00%

10.00%

5.00%

0.00%
I would like to see more streets that look like this in I would be interested in this street design even if it added a
Phoenix. few minutes to driving times during the rush hour.
Strongly agree 31.96% 36.03%
Agree 23.54% 21.72%
Somewhat agree 18.38% 15.69%
Neither agree nor disagree 7.39% 9.48%
Somewhat disagree 6.87% 4.48%
Disagree 5.50% 5.52%
Strongly disagree






Image: Major Street with a Buffered Bike Lane




Page 703








Q16: For the following question, please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following

There were 584 responses to this question making the completion rate 87.82%. Highlighted below is the top response for each
statements. (N=584)

statement.


70.00%

60.00%

50.00%

40.00%



Page 704
30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00%
I would like to see more streets that look like this in I would be interested in this street design even if it added a
Phoenix. few minutes to driving times during the rush hour.
Strongly agree 58.08% 54.50%
Agree 23.88% 20.93%
Somewhat agree 8.08% 12.28%
Neither agree nor disagree 2.75% 3.98%
Somewhat disagree 2.92% 2.08%
Disagree 1.37% 2.42%
Strongly disagree 2.92% 4.15%






Image: Major Street with a Protected Bike Lan (Bollards Guideposts)




Page 705








Q17: For the following question, please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following

There were 585 responses to this question making the completion rate 87.97%. Highlighted below is the top response for each
statements. (N=585)

statement.


80.00%

70.00%

60.00%

50.00%

40.00%

Page 706 30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00%
I would like to see more streets that look like this in I would be interested in this street design even if it added a
Phoenix. few minutes to driving times during the rush hour.
Strongly agree 71.40% 65.92%
Agree 12.67% 14.71%
Somewhat agree 6.68% 6.40%
Neither agree nor disagree 3.42% 4.15%
Somewhat disagree 1.71% 2.08%
Disagree 1.71% 1.73%
Strongly disagree 2.40% 5.02%






Image: Street with a Protected Bike Lane (Two-way Protected Bike Lane with Curb)




Page 707








Q18: For the following question, please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following

There were 583 responses to this question making the completion rate 87.67%. Highlighted below is the top response for each
statements. (N=583)

statement.


70.00%

60.00%

50.00%

40.00%



Page 708
30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00%
I would like to see more streets that look like this in I would be interested in this street design even if it added a
Phoenix. few minutes to driving times during the rush hour.
Strongly agree 60.55% 58.32%
Agree 16.12% 15.61%
Somewhat agree 8.40% 8.23%
Neither agree nor disagree 7.55% 7.89%
Somewhat disagree 1.54% 2.40%
Disagree 2.40% 2.40%
Strongly disagree 3.43% 4.97%






Image: Protected Intersection on Major Street




Page 709








Q19: For the following question, please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following

There were 582 responses to this question making the completion rate 87.52%. Highlighted below is the top response for each
statements. (N=582)

statement.


50.00%

45.00%

40.00%

35.00%

30.00%

25.00%

Page 710
20.00%

15.00%

10.00%

5.00%

0.00%
I would like to see more streets that look like this in I would be interested in this street design even if it added a
Phoenix. few minutes to driving times during the rush hour.
Strongly agree 39.93% 43.28%
Agree 19.79% 16.21%
Somewhat agree 13.43% 12.41%
Neither agree nor disagree 13.08% 12.59%
Somewhat disagree 4.82% 5.00%
Disagree 4.82% 4.48%
Strongly disagree 4.13% 6.03%






Image: Local street with sharrows and traffic calming (Bike Boulevard)




Page 711








Q20: For the following questions, please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following

There were 568 responses to this question making the completion rate 85.41%. Highlighted below is the top response for each
statements. (N=568)

statement.


25.00%



20.00%



15.00%



Page 712
10.00%



5.00%



0.00%
I would like to see more streets that look like this in I would be interested in this street design even if it added a
Phoenix. few minutes to driving times during the rush hour.
Strongly agree 17.25% 22.97%
Agree 18.13% 16.96%
Somewhat agree 17.61% 11.84%
Neither agree nor disagree 18.31% 19.61%
Somewhat disagree 7.04% 6.01%
Disagree 11.27% 10.95%
Strongly disagree 10.39% 11.66%






Image: Major street and sidewalk without separation from the roadway (not detached)




Page 713








Q21: For the following question, please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following

There were 568 responses to this question making the completion rate 85.41%. Highlighted below is the top response for each
statements. (N=568)

statement.


45.00%

40.00%

35.00%

30.00%

25.00%


Page 714
20.00%

15.00%

10.00%

5.00%

0.00%
I would like to see more streets that look like this in I would be interested in this street design even if it added a
Phoenix. few minutes to driving times during the rush hour.
Strongly agree 37.15% 39.61%
Agree 34.51% 27.46%
Somewhat agree 14.96% 13.91%
Neither agree nor disagree 6.87% 10.21%
Somewhat disagree 3.17% 3.52%
Disagree 1.76% 1.94%
Strongly disagree 1.58% 3.35%






Image: Major street with detached sidewalk




Page 715








Q22: For the following question, please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following

There were 570 responses to this question making the completion rate 85.71%. Highlighted below is the top response for each
statements. (N=570)

statement.


80.00%

70.00%

60.00%

50.00%

40.00%

Page 716 30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00%
I would like to see more streets that look like this in I would be interested in this street design even if it added a
Phoenix. few minutes to driving times during the rush hour.
Strongly agree 73.04% 67.77%
Agree 18.26% 17.07%
Somewhat agree 3.48% 5.75%
Neither agree nor disagree 2.78% 4.53%
Somewhat disagree 0.70% 1.92%
Disagree 0.70% 0.70%
Strongly disagree 1.04% 2.26%






Image: Street with detached sidewalk and shade




Page 717








Q23: For the following question, please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following

There were 569 responses to this question making the completion rate 85.56%. Highlighted below is the top response for each
statements. (N=569)

statement.
45.00%

40.00%

35.00%

30.00%

25.00%

20.00%


Page 718
15.00%

10.00%

5.00%

0.00%
I would like to see more streets that look like this in I would be interested in this street design even if it added a
Phoenix. few minutes to driving times during the rush hour.
Strongly agree 36.44% 39.19%
Agree 27.29% 23.20%
Somewhat agree 15.85% 12.83%
Neither agree nor disagree 7.92% 11.25%
Somewhat disagree 4.23% 4.04%
Disagree 3.87% 3.51%
Strongly disagree 4.40% 5.80%






Image: Mid-block crossing with flashing beacon and island




Page 719








Q24: For the following question, please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following

There were 570 responses to this question making the completion rate 85.71%. Highlighted below is the top response for each
statements. (N=570)

statement.


60.00%


50.00%


40.00%


30.00%

Page 720
20.00%


10.00%


0.00%
I would like to see more streets that look like this in I would be interested in this street design even if it added a
Phoenix. few minutes to driving times during the rush hour.
Strongly agree 51.14% 50.88%
Agree 22.85% 21.30%
Somewhat agree 10.37% 5.46%
Neither agree nor disagree 7.21% 8.63%
Somewhat disagree 2.28% 2.64%
Disagree 2.81% 2.64%
Strongly disagree 3.34% 4.93%






Image: Mid-black crossing with HAWK signal




Page 721








Q25: For the following question, please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with each of the

There were 536 responses to this question making the completion rate 80.60%. Highlighted below is the top response for each
following statements. (N=536)

statement.


40.00%

35.00%

30.00%

25.00%

20.00%

Page 722 15.00%

10.00%

5.00%

0.00%
I would not support any project that would lower speeds for I would support lowering speed limits in exchange for making
driving or make driving trips longer. streets more comfortable for walking and biking
Strongly agree 21.50% 37.01%
Agree 8.79% 13.83%
Somewhat agree 8.04% 7.29%
Neutral 6.54% 4.86%
Somewhat disagree 6.54% 7.10%
Disagree 15.14% 8.79%
Strongly disagree 33.27% 20.93%






Q26: What are your broader priorities for transportation in Phoenix? Please rank the following choices:
Please prioritize the broader transportation objectives listed below from highest (1) to lowest (6)


There were 528 responses to this question making the completion rate 79.40%. Highlighted below is the top response for each
priority: (N=528)

transportation objective.


35.00%


30.00%


25.00%


20.00%
Page 723
AXIS TITLE


15.00%


10.00%


5.00%


0.00%
Giving everyone a
comfortable option for
Preventing collisions Building a green and Reducing vehicle Designing streets to Minimizing the cost of
using streets, whether
that could injure sustainable congestion during rush match the atmosphere building and
they are driving,
people transportation system hour of the neighborhood maintaining streets
walking, biking, or
taking transit
1 32.00% 28.52% 20.11% 13.17% 4.56% 1.90%








Q27: The list before provides a number of different street-specific priorities. Please organize the list below

There were 522 responses to this question making the completion rate 78.50%. Highlighted below is the top response for each street-
from your highest (1) to lowest (10) priority. (N=522)

specific priority.


30.00%



25.00%



20.00%


Page 724 AXIS TITLE
15.00%



10.00%



5.00%



0.00%
Expand the Add shade Expand street Improve Expand the Improve Improve Maintain Maintain
Fill in
bikeway along network for pedestrian sidewalk traffic signals bicycle existing existing
sidewalk gaps
network sidewalks cars crossings network for cars crossings sidewalks bikeways
1 26.74% 23.55% 11.73% 10.02% 9.46% 6.96% 4.05% 3.64% 2.69% 1.93%






Q28: What types of improvements are most important for Phoenix's bicycle network? Please rank the

There were 510 responses to this question making the completion rate 76.69%. Highlighted below is the top response for each type of
following based on what you think is most important: (N=510)

improvement.


35.00%

30.00%

25.00%

AXIS TITLE 20.00%

15.00%

10.00%
Page 725
5.00%

0.00%
Connections
to Population
Low-cost
High comfort &
Safety – opportunities
Canals – facilities - Employment Transit Connections
Address areas Equity – – Adding bike
Adding and Increasing Gap Closure – Centers – Access – to Parks &
with a history Invest in lanes after
upgrading separation of Fill in missing Connect Build links Community
of serious historically pavement /
paths along bike facilities links in within to with bus and Centers -
collisions marginalized roadway
existing to improve network areas where light rail Build links to
and/or areas resurfacing
canals network there are a lot stations recreation
fatalities project is
comfort of people
completed
working and
living
Most Important 30.30% 18.89% 15.35% 10.85% 9.86% 7.14% 4.34% 2.95% 1.18%








Q29: Which types of bicycle routes are most important? (N=523)
There were 523 responses to this question making the completion rate 78.65%. Most
participants chose neighborhood routes as being most important.


60.00%


50.00%


40.00%

AXIS TITLE
30.00%


20.00%


10.00%


0.00%
Neighborhood routes – Local roads Regional routes - Canal paths and
and routes that guide people to major streets that support longer
neighborhood destinations trips and travel across the city
Responses 53.73% 46.27%



Q30: When thinking about the continued development, buildout, and
improvement of the city's bicycle and pedestrian network, which of the
following do you think is more important? (N=522)
There were 522 responses to this question making the completion rate 78.50%. Most
participants chose comfort as being most important.




Page 726


80.00%

70.00%

60.00%

50.00%

40.00%

30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00%
Cost – Focus on adding stripes and signs to Comfort – Focus on building projects that
make sure the City can add as many miles of make bicycling more comfortable, even if it
bike lanes as possible means fewer projects
Responses 32.76% 67.24%




Q31: Is there any additional information you'd like to share with us about
your active transportation priorities for Phoenix? (N=143)
There were 143 responses to this question making the completion rate 21.50%. Based on the
comments, the following themes were identified: Design, Development & Infrastructure,
Climate, Homelessness, Public Transportation, Routes, Safety, and Survey Feedback. Below are
the comments that align with each theme.

Design, Development & Infrastructure
• Phoenix and surrounding cities have way too many parking lots and drive through fast
food
• The lack of biking infrastructure makes this a pretty bad place to live, honestly.
• Transportation policy should have as its goal reducing congestion and travel time. For
vehicles. Not cars, and not pedestrians. This is about how we move people from point A
to point B as efficiently as possible. You people are trying to make driving undesirable
through bad transportation planning that increases congestion to force people into your
Green New Deal pipe dream of forcing people out of their cars. It won’t work. Prioritize
real transportation policy that benefits 99% of the population by reducing congestion.
Add lane miles, not bike lanes that remove vehicle lanes. Ridiculous polling, for ridiculous
ideas.
• The focus should overwhelming be on figuring out how to make Phoenix a more bike-
able and walkable city. Car traffic should not be the priority. Part of that is a roadway
concern, but it is also a development concern, and the City should prioritize in-fill
projects that bring housing and businesses to the heart of the city.
• More focus on active trans projects and less focus on auto centric projects.



Page 727


• More density and mixed-use zoning to make walking and biking easier
• Infrastructure for physical and mental health and environmental benefits.
• More density everywhere makes it easier to afford and scale bicycle/pedestrian
infrastructure
• Any amount of bicycle network additions are worthless if the construction zoning isn't
conducive to walkable neighborhoods.
• Thanks for doing this survey. Phoenix could be an amazing bike city if we invest in the
infrastructure. Please do as many bike and pedestrian projects as possible. We need to
stop relying solely on cars, and we need to make our city more walkable and bikable to
improve safety, tourism, satisfaction and equity.
• If we invest heavily up front in making non-car transportation viable, it will help with our
car priorities as well by minimizing car-dependence and thus congestion, wear on roads,
etc.
• We know bike infrastructure is way cheaper to construct and maintain that car
infrastructure. Start being honest with the public please.
• Keep building bike lanes and shading sidewalks. We need road diets whenever possible.
• Design a course on respecting active transportation users required at any stage of getting
a driving license.
• Cost for bicycle infrastructure wouldn't be an issue if sufficient funds were diverted from
car infrastructure.
• You can't do any of this without addressing zoning and upzoning to mixed use multiple
story buildings instead of the obsession with single family homes. Increase density and
transit options and stop the sprawl. Separate vehicle traffic from every other mode of
traffic to keep people safe.
• I live and bike in a 2 mi radius downtown. Continue to make micro-neighborhood hubs,
like Roosevelt row, and switching from cars will be easier for the local people.
• Design streets for people. Cars are not people. People shouldn’t need to own a car to
thrive in PHX - many people don’t have a vehicle and are disadvantaged by our street
design
• The city needs to focus on building upwards and reducing the distance between places
before address sidewalks or bicycle routes. A well built system of sidewalks and bike
paths will be useless if everything is still far apart and impossible to get to in the summer.
• Bikes and pedestrians deserve infostructure as much as cars do, and should not be
treated as less important.
• How about Phoenix Greenbelt Division completely separate from Phoenix Street
Division!! People could bike commute 9 months a year if the canals were bike routes.
Separate the multi-use trails from streets. Get creative with other rights-of-way. Involve
parks department, flood control, power, and canal easements for multi-use trails
throughout the city. Make trail connections from existing parks and shopping centers
using GIS. Bike commutes and shopping would reduce road traffic considerably. Bikes and
walkers don't want to smell like exhaust.
• I would prioritize comfort, but in reality I want coverage to be established & a bike
network to be adequately linked, then from there focus on enhancing the areas. I would
have put comfort, but am also concerned that it would be invested in major routes that


Page 728


would serve only a certain population & leave out other disadvantaged areas. So
transportation relies on having reliable connections first, then quality can come second. If
better design could be implemented as roads & bikelanes are placed (such as shade) that
would be the ideal. Both are so important.
• Are there not any win-win solutions where speed/time do not have to decrease for
vehicles and where bikes/peds can have better travel conditions without much cost?
Perhaps even widening the sidewalk and leveling the driveways so biking on the sidewalk
is safer (e.g. Baseline Rd near Recker Rd in Gilbert). Can a protected bike lane be
combined with a sidewalk and could cars be slowed down (e.g. square sidewalk
connections and less rounding/sidewalk deviation) only when making turns into
driveways or right turns where the slow down is splitting hairs (like tens of seconds rather
than minutes)? A lot of these questions assume tradeoffs that matter, but are there
tradeoffs that don't matter and where we are splitting hairs? Can we trend in investing in
cars while also investing in bikes?
• 2. The last question for me isn’t about cost v. comfort. It’s a question of quantity v.
quality. For a bike network to add real value to a population, it needs to connect across
the region it serves — at a bare minimum. I chose my response because I think a
functional, connected biking network that joins Phoenix with surrounding metro areas in
all directions should be a first priority (quantity). When this groundwork is laid, more
people will be able to effectively use the system to get where they need to go, making
demand and support for future upgrades in quality possible. I want both! But quantity
first3. The canals are interesting. I’d love to use them for transit but a lot of them are
essentially just alleys. They are sparsely populated and unpatrolled. They don’t feel
particularly safe. Can we make room for appropriate development, maintenance and
even attractions, food, or retail along the canalways in some areas? And make the areas
that are more peaceful, like nature reserves or residential areas, more well lit and
secure?
• Focus on making a state of the art bike network for recreation and exercise.
• When cars were first introduced, pedestrians always had the right of way. Somewhere
along the line those switches places and it has become impossible to live in a lot of cities
without a car. That is ridiculous.
• We need more transit oriented development and to stop the endless sprawl and urban
heat island effect
• Investing in Public transportation/biking/walking will reduce traffic. Consider induced
demand: if you build the infrastructure people will use it. This is why adding more lanes
doesn’t decrease rush hour traffic. The only traffic solution is to have less people on the
road. This means getting rid of euclidean zoning and parking lot minimums.
• Everything phoenix does should have a focus on equity
• We shouldn’t have to choose between cost and comfort when it comes to prioritizing
peoples low cost access to living in a city. We should be able to get both. This is especially
when the city continues to overfund a police department infested with crime, corruption,
resignations.
• Convenience is key- if it's more convenient to ride a bike, car traffic will lessen as more
people ride bikes.


Page 729


• Implement "superblocks" (i.e. Barcelona, Spain model) where car traffic is restricted.
• Allow active transport through gated communities. Sometimes it takes much, much
longer to go somewhere because of the barriers.
• People primarily ride bikes for recreation so I think emphasizing and investing in the
canals and connecting trails is key. Traffic can be awful here so I don’t think reducing
driving lanes for cyclists makes sense when peoples commutes are already pretty bad.
• We dont have the funds to make these improvements. Dont print any more money. Our
current government has killed the US dollar
• Incentivize and educate people to use bikeways and ensure that commuters in
historically marginalized areas have access to bicycles
• Street diets everywhere
• Id like to see more accessibility and incentives for Phoenix area residents to use
alternative methods of transport than cars
• Traffic lights that monitor traffic flow. Mid city traffic lights don't manage traffic and
congestion, they're so badly managed they actually create traffic and congestion. Indian
School from 16th Street to 33rd avenue is one of the worst stretches of road for that in
the country, especially between 12th St and 15th Ave. It's truly the worst thing I've ever
seen day on y and day out year over year.
• Hawks are only effective if cars stop for them--and they don't. Bike lanes only function as
bike lanes if cars are not parked in them--and they are parked in them.
• Traffic signal needed at 43 rd avenue and Dobbins ASAP!!
• Please put speed cameras at major intersections (ex. McDowell and 7th St). Drivers in this
city are completely irresponsible wrt red lights and speed limits. It's one of the worst
aspects of Phoenix.
• Put sharrows on Desert Foothills Parkway, please. Tons of people ride there and the
locals speed and ride in the right lane.
• I'm all for adding bike access to marginalized communities if we have evidence that it will
improve equity. Sharrows are useless. Please do not imitate so many other worthless bike
projects by using the sharrow option. Car drivers are always texting and they don't see
the sharrows. Car drivers don't think bicycles belong in the street. It doesn't matter if
they're wrong if they keep hitting pedestrians and cyclists. I have a ton of hope for how
forward-thinking the bike plan is in Phoenix.
• 27th ave and baseline, has a school on the SE corner and cars speed by during school
hours due to lack of speed sign, baseline near that area is missing sidewalk so kids walk
on dirt paths
• Badly need hawk signal at Tatum and Berneil - popular route for bikers but crossing
Tatum is dangerous. No easy way to get to a light.
• There seems to be a new problem at "HAWK" crossing locations where drivers proceed
through the flashing red without stopping or yielding. This could be due to
misunderstanding on recently-added signs. The city should perform a formal study of this
behavior and share the results.




Page 730


Climate
• Increasing shade throughout the city to help combat the intolerable heat would make
biking and walking much more accessible for all communities. When it’s nice out, you see
Phoenicians out walking everywhere. Heat and lack of shade are the biggest barriers.
Then the roads and everything else follow
• Adding bike lanes is nice, but again, won't fix the urban hellscape of terrible city planning
that is Phoenix. No one wants to bike or walk miles through 115 degree heat, even in the
shade, even on nice paths. The only way to fix this problem is building a dense city, not
an endless sea of single family homes.
• Phoenix would be less hot with less asphalt streets and more alternative transportation
options
• Too hot for long distance
• Phoenix is never going to be a bike commuter town a la Seattle or San Francisco. It's not
dense enough and it's too hot in the summer.
• We live in the desert, we can’t afford to ignore climate change. If more people could
comfortably walk or bike it would be better for all of us.
• Increasing shade cover across sidewalks and bike lanes will lead to more biking and
demand for lanes creating positive feedback loop
• If doing protected bike lanes please don't just add more asphalt and curbing and call it a
day. This is an opportunity to provide shade, even if it's on the sidewalk side of the
protected lane.
• Consider alternatives to asphalt for streets. There are cooler, and over the long term,
cheaper alternatives.
• 1. Shade! There’s no way this city can support walking or bicycling without it. I’d like to
see the percentage of sidewalks without shade in Phoenix today, and in 5-10 years to see
it at 100% over sidewalks and bikeways across the full transit network.

Homelessness
• Reduce roadside areas for homeless to camp. Increase traffic handling capabilities.
• None of this matters if we still have wave after wave of homeless people sleeping in
underpasses, and places where I want to ride my bike or walk.
• On existing bike paths, clear out the homeless from under passes; not at all safe.
• I don't use canal paths anymore because the underpasses are trashed - used by
homeless. I have compassion for homeless and would like more services for them, but
this is a problem that needs to be addressed to improve biking in Phoenix.

Public Transportation
• I want fully separated bike lanes, better sidewalks for pedestrians, and easier access to
transit, specifically the light rail. The light rail expansion will help but it has very little use
right now.
• Given the heat biking and walking are often hostile, so supporting networks of bike lanes
and sidewalks that lead to other public transit makes more sense to me. And thus public
transit needs support of bikes etc.


Page 731


• I wish the light rail went more places especially the west valley. Also I wish it weren’t a
part of the traffic like above or below.
• I would love to see the various cities in the valley continue working together to make it
less car centric! The light rail is a great start but it needs to be supported by other
efficient options to facilitate inter-city travel
• I think any transportation plan has to address the abysmal bus and light rail service.
• Expanding the light rail, improving sidewalks & pedestrian crossings
• Prioritize railways
• I would love to see a high speed rail system like other metros have- something that can
keep cars and people off the streets to make our beautiful city greener and safer. We
have very minimal weather to prevent a rail system, our layout is already a grid, and
there are few land features to prevent rail access/construction.
• Bus bays for all stops are needed. When busses are not able to pull out of the lane of
moving traffic, it's a problem
• There should be a renewed emphasis on street car expansion
• More crossing on major streets, more bike racks

Routes
• Enforce crosswalk etiquette/rules rather than force hawk lights onto traffic.
• Creating more miles of bike paths would bring out more people on bikes.
• In general I think most streets in Phoenix could be narrowed to make room for additional
bike paths (and potentially tax-generating parcels).
• More bike lanes. Wider shoulders.
• Buffered and wider bike lanes would make bicycling with the high volume of car traffic in
the Phoenix metropolitan area much more comfortable for both the motorist and cyclist.
• Protections are needed for the bike lanes whether those are truly costly or not.
• painted bike lanes in the gutters are not bike lanes and should not be counted. Especially
on Major and Collector roads.
• We desperately need more, longer, and more comfortable bike lanes - especially lanes
that have a curb or other physical barrier. We especially need longer routes that connect
businesses and parks. For example, we need a long, buffered bike lane from Steele Indian
School Park to downtown, and from the Grand Canal to Downtown.
• Protect existing bike lanes with low cost options like flexible bollards (i.e crashing a car
into them won’t cause a major accident, but they should prevent parking in or passing
using bike lanes)
• Painted lanes unfortunately don’t work. Slow cars down and provide protected lanes
throughout the city. Maybe focus on central Phoenix to start. We bear the brunt of heavy
traffic in the region during week days when many of us would like active transit and a
small portion of our streets back
• Both neighborhood and regional routes are important. I think something as simple as
painting in the bike lane to be a solid color (ie green) would even help tremendously in
defining that is a bike specific space and path



Page 732


• There is no clear bike route from southwest Phoenix to downtown. The salt river used to
suffice, but it's been closed. We need more access to southwest Phoenix via bicycle to
downtown.
• Some bike lane options, such as those with physical separation between bike and traffic
lanes, do not allow for regular sweeping.
• 56th St and Indian School has AZ Falls what a cool spot but yet in either direction theres
no pavement on the canal? Why???? So many people travel there, seems dumb this has
been overlooked for so long.
• I love using the bike route between glendale and mcdowell along the az51
• The canal system is great and I think that's in a good spot now to where the focus can
shift to other regional connections or figuring out where those gaps are.

Safety – Cars, Speeding & Traffic
• Reduce space for cars, make drivers go slower and pay attention. Neighborhood routes
would feel safer but they still need to connect to destinations along major streets..
• Safety should be the highest priority and that will require taking space away from cars
and slowing them down to make room for pedestrians, bikes and such. Our
transportation network needs to focus on moving people, not just cars.
• Making the sidewalks and bikepaths safer for pedestrians is so necessary. It makes me
nervous walking on a narrow sidewalk right against the street, when drivers regularly go
10-15 miles over the speed limit. When riding a bike, drivers often straddle the street and
the bike lane and do not check for bikers when turning at an intersection. I fully support
separations between sidewalks and streets, and protected bike paths and bike
intersections. Traffic calming measures would do a lot as well, even if it’s just narrowing
the street lanes so drivers slow down and drive with more caution.
• Please, please do something to improve this! I hate being in the car, it’s terrifying,
especially because everyone drives super fast and super recklessly! I want to be able to
safely bike to the store and to the light rail without sharing a street with cars; I’ve seen
too many cyclists and pedestrians get run down to feel safe, but I hate being in the car.
so I usually just don’t go anywhere. If I could safely leave my house and go somewhere by
walking or biking or taking transit, the city would be better off because I’d be more
willing to spend money at local businesses and I’d be connected to the community and
not want to leave here; as it stands, I’m counting down the end of my lease so I can move
somewhere cars are unnecessary, like NYC or somewhere in Europe, and I’ll be taking my
software engineering salary and spending with me. It hurts, though; this is home, I want
to stay, but all the traffic and cars are making it impossible for me. :(
• Safety from cars is the biggest issue for bikers and walkers in our city. A huge overhaul
needs to occur to make Phoenix a biker/walker friendly city and to encourage people to
use alternate modes of transportation other than a car.
• My weekly ride is 50% safe with great paths and 50% hair raising white knuckle in an area
that is mostly people in big trucks who could care less about me. It sucks.
• Speeding and safety and NOISE




Page 733


• Walking and biking along an Arterial is scary. Street trees and on-street parking that
buffer bikes and sidewalks are preferred. The trees and cars protect the pedestrians from
the cars. Its actually safer to bike and walk when traffic is congestted and moving slowly.
• The biggest problem is the lawlessness of some of the driving population. Too fast, too
crazy. We need red light cameras back to tamp down on that.
• Please make sure that all bike lanes are as seperated from this high speed traffic! nobody
wants to ride next to 2 ton cars going 55mph, it poses a serious saftey concern
• Stop high speed cut through traffic near I-17. Cars exit freeway and cut through
neighborhood streets to avoid major intersections and put others at risk. Look at Simpson
neighborhood as an example.
• Personally Owned Vehicle operators cannot be trusted whatsoever. They drive fast,
reckless, and without regard for their surroundings and people. I've only survived this far
by pretending no one can ever see me. People do not pay attention and speeds are too
fast.
• Love to bicycle and I've had several close calls with vehicles. My spouse no longer bicycles
with me after an SUV ran a red light and missed her by inches. City of Phoenix & Streets
department has valued cars over our lives for years, we hope that changes.

Safety – Infrastructure & Road Conditions
• For bicyclists feeling safe is the key. It seems that with the new infrastructure bill, we
ought to be able to build more comfortable and safe biking projects. Safe intersection
crossings need to be improved on streets with stripes and signs.
• I selected comfort because I think we need high-quality infrastructure to make biking and
walking more accessible, but ideally there would be a balance of cost and comfort. More
bikers means it's safer for everyone out there biking so the biggest goal should be to
break down the barriers to cycling and that means infrastructure that brings more
visibility to cycling, helps people feel safe, and signals to drivers that they don't own the
road.
• I live near 27th Ave and northern. I want investment in my area. Why can't my
neighborhood walkways and bike ways look like downtown? Underserved, lower income
communities need these things more than other communities because they often don't
have other choice s. Stop trying to appeal to wealthy people to be green and start making
working people feel safe on their commute.
• Add as many miles of protected bike lanes as possible and improve safety at street
crossings.
• You’ve made some good progress in the last 30 years, but, the bike network is a
shambles that often goes nowhere, signals regularly ignore bikes, and drivers are often
very unsafe sharing space with bikes.
• Bike lanes are worthless if they are not protected from out-of-control Phoenix drivers
• A dangerous bike lane is worse than no bike lane. See w Maryland westbound by central!
• My biggest concern is bike and walk crosswalks at intersections. We need more emphasis
on traffic light control, biker and pedestrian safety at our intersections. (especially 56th
street and Indian School).


Page 734


• Allow bikes and scooters on sidewalks. Would be much safer.
• I do not consider non-protected bike lanes to be functional infrastructure, more of a
"surprise me, theres no rush" method of suicide waiting for the right texting driv
• Maybe making the crossing of major street light more accessible for those who are blind
such as traffic light sound when safe to go
• I feel quite strongly that quality of infrastructure should take precedence over quantity.
The safer and more comfortable people feel, the more they'll bike, walk and use transit,
and the less they'll confine themselves to the relative safety of a private vehicle, which
contributes to congestion, road maintenance and climate change.
• Our city's grid layout is hazardous if we "just add lane lines and try adding as many as
possible". We need to separate the street from the bike lane so both can be safe
• Put bike lanes where people will use them (i.e., connect important locations) and make
them safe so people actually will use them. A focused approach will yield more benefit
than adding as many miles of bike lanes as possible
• Suicide lanes are too confusing to new drivers in the area
• Paint is not infrastructure, separate cars and bikes/peds and make the streets safer for
all. It costs less to create and maintain infrastructure for humans than it does for vehicles
and it should be prioritized. I hope to see a greener, safer Phoenix for all of us who
choose to not pollute and drive vehicles the size of tanks. Less stuff for cars and more
stuff for humans please
• Safety is number one issue. Bike lanes need to be separated from the road or else it is not
completely safe
• Very small % of residents use biks - why spend the $$$ for these few people - we need
more $$$ for full community safety not just a very small % of population. More $$$ for
police to provide safety for walkers & Bikers
• As a bike commuter, painted bike lanes are terrifying: cars pass too close at too high of a
speed and there are conflicts with people making turns. The Dutch have already figured
out how to build safe bike infrastructure. Look at CROW. I want to live in a place that is
built at the human scale not for cars. Our urban planning prioritizes cars which is bullshit.
Public space like streets cannot only be available for people who can afford to spend
money on cars. Also, the design of streets causes people to speed, decrease the width of
lanes and the road as well as blocking sight lines are great ways to reduce speeds.
Changing speed limit signs is not enough. If pedestrians/bicyclists are dying bc of
dangerous intersections or cars driving too fast, it is the engineers fault.
• It would be helpful if more decision makers (Traffic Engineers and City Council Officials)
were to try walking down a busy arterial street (I suggest 7th Avenue) or bicycling down a
unseparated bike facility (I suggest Central). If this happened, none would say they felt
safe and hopefully some would change the way they design these public spaces. These
are public spaces and should be treated as such, not freeways. I stated that I would like
to see more bike boulevards in Phoenix but not as a substitute for actual bike facilities.
Local streets should be narrow and tree lined to reduce vehicle speeds. HAWK and RRFB
crossing islands are better than nothing but do not solve the problem. The problem is
that our streets are hostile to people outside of vehicles.



Page 735


• The bike and pedestrian networks are only as strong as their weakest links. The path
could be fine, but it becomes super dangerous at street crossings--this will also prevent
new people from biking and walking.
• The southwest portion of Phoenix not only lacks in bicycle infrastructure, we face the real
dilemma of large distribution trucks that sometimes outnumber cars. This makes for a
very dangerous situations sometimes when biking on major streets.
• I would cycle more but getting from North Phoenix and around North and Shadow
Mountain is impossible. No way would go on 7th Street. The Mountain pass is a
incredibly dangerous. Once you get to Sunnyslope it is always dangerous with traffic and
homeless to get downtown.
• New bike lanes are near useless unless they are 100% physically separated and
protected. Far more phoenicians would start utilizing them and give the city more
momentuum to continue building out a truly protected system. Cars go wayy too fast in
phoenix downtown.
• I skate. Some sidewalks are just plain dangerous! Cobblestones are deadly and cracks
that run lengthwise along the sidewalk or path can break bones and make you blead. Like
the path next to the zoo. You spent a lot of money to make it pretty, but you made it very
dangerous to skate on. We call it the death path! And stop making paths serpentine
through the landscape. If you are trying to get somewhere yo want to go straight.
• At the end of the day, a bike lane is pointless and can not be used if it is on a bumpy,
glass and trash covered lane/road. We need a team that maintains this.
• The city does a poor job of maintaining existing bicycle facilities, especially physically-
separated ones. Nearly all separated facilities have a lot of loose sand/gravel, glass,
thorns, and other hazards. Adding more separated facilities will likely make the situation
worse.
• Bicycle punctures (flat tires) are a concern and road debris always accumlates near the
curb.

Safety – Laws
• I would like to see stiffer penalties for harming pedestrians and cyclists (even if it was an
"accident") as well as more public education awareness on laws for motorists. Today, you
can basically murder someone on a bicycle on purpose and get away with a small fine.

Safety – People
• I wish I felt safe walking along the streets in my neighborhood, but there is a lot of
violence on the streets. Beggars harassing pedestrians is also concerning, as is the
homeless population that sleeps on the sidewalks. I would walk all the time if the crime
rate wasn't so concerning. (85015)
• My feeling of safety is not only determined by those driving on the road but by those I
encounter on my walking trip that create fear with unpredictable behavior.




Page 736


Safety - Other
• More so we want to protect the lives of those not choosing to get within a car. Why are
peoples lives in cars being valued more than those outside of them?
• I am concerned that some of the questions in this survey present driver convenience as
something to be traded off against safety. This is inconsistent with vision zero. You should
be focussing on maximizing safety and reducing conflicts.
• Do you ask motorists if safety is a priority? I suspect not. Also, why does every option ask
whether we are willing to slow commutes? Many of these should not impact motorist
total drive times. The 2014 Bicycle Plan has over 100 pages of ideas for which you already
paid a consultant. The city is clearly dangerous for pedestrians and bicyclists. Common
sense indicates this. You can have a city with safe places for bicyclists, pedestrians and
cars.
• When riding a bike in Phoenix is line riding on the road with a big target on your back. If
the cars don't hit you, then your a target for the homeless. Phoenix is not safe for biking
or walking. Fix that
• I wish there was a middle ground between cost and comfort. But the reality is that paint
doesn't save lives, it just provides a false sense of security.
• Implementar la seguridad para los que usan la bicicleta ayudará a la reducción de jumó
en la ciudad y también gente más saludable.

Translation: Implementing safety for those who use a bicycle will help reduce pollution in
the city and also make people healthier.

Survey Feedback
• There's too much industry language in this survey. Last ranking question-- what is a
comfort facility? What is meant by 'gap closure'? Missing links in what network? What
does "Connect within to areas.." mean? It doesn't indicate 1=? and 9=?. Lastly, on the last
question. Comfort doesn't have to be more costly.
• You changed the lowest and highest above, that was a trick to get more pluses for bikes.
Most important is to train cyclists and make them get insurance. As it is only the driver
spends for insurance, and cyclist pays nothing for the collisions he causes. It is not fair.
• We need more (any is an improvement) enforcement of speed limits and stop sign
violations by motorists.
• Ranking questions too long.
• Thanks for doing the survey and the chance to give input.

Additional Comments
• Look to city of Minneapolis bike highway system!
• Please watch NotJustBikes and read up on Strongtowns for inspiration.
https://www.youtube.com/c/notjustbikes and https://www.strongtowns.org/
• This city is great for bike commuting. Even in summer, the mornings are good for cycling.
The improvements to the canals have been outstanding. The light rail pairs well with




Page 737


cycling if you are close to it. Thank you for making the city more friendly to non-car
transit. Keep going!
• none
• While I no longer ride a bike, I have many friends and relatives who do. My answers are
based upon their needs as expressed to me.
• The less attractive driving is as a transportation mode (relatively speaking), the better our
city will be
• Go bikes!
• Either make obtaining a driver's license more in depth and harder or start punishing
people for bad illegal habits.
• It’s great as is.
• Las personas tomando decisiones con respecto al diseno de las calles deberian como
minimo caminar y usar el transporte publico. La gente que toma estas decisiones solo
piensa en la movilidad vehicular.

Translation: People making decisions regarding street design should at minimum walk
and use public transportation. They people who make these decisions only think about
vehicular mobility.

Q32: Do you know how to report street maintenance issues to the City of
Phoenix? (N=531)
There were 531 responses to this question making the completion rate 79.85%. Most
participants reported they do not know how to report street maintenance issues to the City of
Phoenix.


70.00%

60.00%

50.00%

40.00%

30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00%
Yes No
Responses 34.27% 65.73%




Page 738


Q33: When there is a bicycle or pedestrian street project in my neighborhood,
are you able to find information about the project and provide input? (N=524)
There were 524 responses to this question making the completion rate 78.80%. Most
participants reported they do not know how to find more information about the project and
provide input.


70.00%

60.00%

50.00%

40.00%

30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00%
Yes No
Responses 34.73% 65.27%



Q34: Have you ever reported a street issue to the City of Phoenix? (N=530)
There were 530 responses to this question making the completion rate 79.70%. Most
participants reported they have never reported a street issue to the City of Phoenix.


90.00%

80.00%

70.00%

60.00%

50.00%

40.00%

30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00%
Yes No
Responses 23.21% 76.79%




Page 739


Q35: If yes, were you satisfied with the outcome? (N=226)
There were 226 responses to this question making the completion rate 33.98%. Most
participants reported they were not satisfied when they reported an issue to the City of Phoenix.


70.00%

60.00%

50.00%

40.00%

30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00%
Yes No
Responses 37.61% 62.39%



Q36: Is there any additional information you'd like to share with us about our
outreach and engagement process or your experience reporting/contacting
the city about a street-related issue? (N=68)
There were 68 responses to this question making the completion rate 10.23%. Design,
Development & Infrastructure, City Website, Homelessness, Issues & Request, and Safety. Below
are the comments that align with each theme.

Design, Development & Infrastructure
• Adopt the Key Corridors Master Plan.
• I hope The streets department begins to gradually think of our streets as public space for
all, not simply sewers for cars during rush hour
• Very dissapointed in the final outcome of the Oak Street improvements. The
improvement was minimal and cars seem to drive faster now that its better paved. None
of the community suggestions were implemented to slow down cars. The lighting within
the neighborhood seems most appropriate for a freeway. Should have been more
pedestrian poles similar to Tempe. A lot of money was spent for minimal impact. Cars are
the priority with the design and it shows.
• Bike lanes and paths should be planned comprehensively as a long route not piecemeal
as the City does it now. The City currently only plans out and executes bike lanes at 1/4 or


Page 740


1/2 mile at a time, which is not how people travel or use bike lanes. It is fine for Vin
Diesel from Fast and Furious to live his life 1/4 mile at a time, but we need the City to be
planning and executing bike lanes at several miles at a time to facilitate people having a
safe option to commute to work via bike.
• Pavers, gravel and permeable pavement are better for bikes and feet than asphalt and
cement
• You could put QR codes on project signs to learn more about them.
• Every business needs to also have bike racking. Why is it a requirement to have specifics
for vehicle parking, yet there's nothing for cycles. In South Phoenix, there's practically no
where in official in public to lock up bicycles. Sometimes have to utilize objects not meant
to be used for bike parking and therefore comes with increased risks for theft and
vandalism.
• If engaging with a community it is critical to research and consult any efforts they have
already invested time in. Referencing their past efforts as a starting point is an effective
way to continue dialogue and install a design that is context sensitive to the
neighborhood. In other words, something that is designed and accepted by the
community will be used by the community.
• Investing in media may improve general knowledge about transportation resources.
Billboards, signs, or even digital geofence ads are great tools for increasing awareness
and reach.
• Downtown is becoming more attractive. I've even looked at houses downtown to be
closer to transit. However, I'll continue to spend my time/money in the East Valley &
Tucson until Phoenix steps it up and shows that they truly value any activity besides
driving. Committees/surveys are not action. I type this as a driver with two cars.
• I've heard of the City doing green efforts & tree/shade programs, but one issue I've heard
brought up is that maintenance cuts almost all of the branches off that it defeats the
purpose. I understand the costs of maintaining & it may be suitable to have more
aggressive measures, but ensuring that it doesn't take away the value is important. In
terms of outreach, glad this is being done! I only wish (as with many plan updates) that it
was more accessible such as on social media pages or in neighborhood newsletters so it's
not only focused on people who are focusing on transportation topics, but everyday
citizens.
• Dobbins at 70th Ave right before GRIR is really awful to travel on.
• I sometimes commute by bike from Ahwatukee to downtown and there is currently no
good way to get there. But you could fix that.
• Adding a crosswalk to the canal crossing at 44th street and Campbell is a great example
of a project that supporting cyclists and pedestrians but doesn’t eat into lanes for cars.
Projects like this seem like a win win for the community!!


Page 741


City Website
• I think, as a city/gov website,’ it’s naturally hard to find the info on certain topics because
there is so much info to sort through in general. Maybe if there were a simpler landing
page that simply explains / breaks down the category or project and how u can provide
input or report street issues would be very helpful in simplifying the user experience.
• I can generally find city info pretty quickly on the web page. It's very helpful.
• I find everything online, so do not know what opportunities are available for those
without internet access to get information about city issues.
• The City website is very user friendly.
• Now that I have been on this website and know my way around, I can provide more
input. However, this is a recent development.

Homelessness
• Homeless are encamping on the sidewalk/bikeroute just north of mcdowell and SR51.
And I have reported it. I have to take a different route now.
• Again, clear out the homeless from underpasses on existing bike paths. not very safe for
riders, walkers, joggers.
• I wish we could get the homeless people some help so they stop having sex and doing
drugs and Thunderbird Park against the wall my house is up against.

Issues & Requests
• Specifically I have raised several issues with bicycle detection not working or being
absent, which is especially frustrating on streets having a bike lane.
• I reported the lack of a crossing on 19th Ave. Years later, a needed hawk light was
installed in place of bridge. I was happy with the outcome and use the hawk light often to
cross. In two other recent cases, I was told the striped section of the road wasn't in the
cue for repair and in the other recent report, I was told there was no money to complete
the bike lane to the intersection (roadway too narrow).
• Desert Ridge, Tatum Blvd and 101 interchange needs pavement rehab BADLY. Pavement
on 56th Street and Mayo is in too poor of condition for cycling. No bike lanes on Pinnacle
Peak between Cave Creek Rd and Scottsdale Rd and you just repaved and didn't even add
a bike lane. Why spend money on pavement and not add a bike lane? When will Pinnacle
Peak Road be widen between Cave Creek and Scottsdale Rd? How many fatalities and
crashes occur at Pinnacle Peak Rd/Scottsdale Rd intersection? Team with Scottsdale to
make this intersection safer.
• There are oleander bushes blocking the view for see oncoming cars, pedestrians or bikers
at 7th Ave and Clarendon. Between the bush and the large metal street light it's a blind
spot every day...every car...


Page 742


• Traffic signal needed at 43 rd avenue and Dobbins ASAP!!
• I have reported street issues in the past, at least 3, and I have never heard of the
resolution. Other cities I have lived in open a ticket and keep the reporter up to date with
resolutions.
• I reported it to our City Councilman, Sal Diciccio and never had a reply back
• I have reported 2 street issues to the COP. I was satisfied with one. Unsatisfied with the
other.
• The police won’t even look into my stolen bike
• Add more shade to Tempe!!
• My mobile phone number is not answered when I call the non emergency number.
• Still need sidewalk on Rubicon near Hopi Elementary in East Phoenix.
• Would love some more civic engagement opportunities!
• I ride around a lot of Phoenix area streets and would love to have a convenient option to
report issues with them.
• The above question, when i reported a street issue to the city, it was months later i got
an email but they did not have the information i sent. Quit pretending, the city is not
interested in knowing what people think, this is just all fakery and you are pushing bikes
that have not earned the right to ride with motorists. But you must please the bike lobby
which may pay your substantial salaries.
• Never saw my complaint resolved or heard back from streets
• I don't really know who I should contact. There's been times I've seen dangerous debris
on the road, but I had no idea if I should call someone or if someone is already coming to
fix it.
• I want to be able to report trash, weeds, downed trees, over grown grasses along roads
and sidewalks.
• I reported a low visibility corner and while the reporting process was simple, the neighbor
still has hedges which prevent you from seeing cross traffic
• Had 15 years of knowing a streets dept staff members who we could report problems to -
he has transferred and no one has been hired in his place/. We now have problem
reporting streets / public works problems
• I've heard discussions of the ability to report/contact the city about street-related issue,
but didn't know it was possible.
• I have been repeatedly told by working staff at the city Street Transportation Department
that it is official city policy to refuse to make bicycle-specific improvements to any street
that has not been officially-designated as a "bicycle facility". This is in stark contrast to
the responsiveness that the department showed in the past under a City Council not
dominated by one political party.



Page 743



Safety – Cars, Speeding & Traffic
• We have a traffic calming circle in the neighborhood that should not have been put in.
There were no safety or speed concerns. There’s a house nearby (15th Ave/Bethany
Home Rd) that has cars drive through their block wall regularly. It’s almost like the traffic
calming circle has made things more dangerous. Doesn’t help make bike riding feel safe
either.
• There needs to be accountability for unsafe driving, including red light runners and
speeding. Changing speed limits will do nothing if no one is ever ticketed for speeding.
• speed limits should be addressed as part of this effort.
• More traffic enforcement
• Speed is a problem in our neighborhood. Too few speed bumps. Too many entitled
drivers passing thru
• Surface street speed limits (45 mph) are too high knowing that motorists rarely obey
speed limits. Speed limits should be reduced to 35 mph.
• Canal crossing at 40th st and camelback is a death trap for pedestrians and cyclists

Safety – Law Enforcement
• Defund the police and place more money into alternatives that provide more safety to
people such as increased green spaces, creating more sustainable ways of living for
people. Pour more money into communities of color that are the way they are because
of white supremacy and a city that continually neglects their needs.

Safety – Road Conditions
• Broken glass at a busy sidewalk intersection for weeks.

Additional Comments
• I’d like to be more informed about potential projects; I want to be able to advocate for
safer streets for pedestrians and cyclists. :)
• Thank you for this question. Hoping we will have a way of knowing the results of our
effort of taking the survey. Even when reaching out to the City regarding neighborhood
traffic issues the answer is always no. And we have to be the ones to ask what the
decision is. Some current staff are not doing a good job at building relationships.
• Takes too long
• I was surprised by the attention given to the issue. Well done!
• Thank you and please keep connecting routes.
• The recent street maintenance program has been doing a great job!



Page 744


• i dont live in phoenix, but i hope that innovations taken in other parts of the country will
motivate my local government to take action
• I'm really appreciate to contribute my thoughts on these important issues to the city, and
I would love more opportunities to do so. I understand that the wheels of change turn
slowly and bureaucracy can be labyrinthine, but I have hope that Phoenix can move
things in the right direction and create a more sustainable, healthy and equitable urban
environment.
• Road closures for events are not communicated well, I live on 7th ave and often get stuck
and take much longer to get home after being rerouted. Construction closures are well
communicated though.
• Parking in mixed residential/business zoned areas is bad
• It's sporadic and often depends on just how engaged the councilmember is.
• Be less concerned with biking and more with driving
• N/A
• Kind of satisfied with the outcome. Closer to yes than to no.
• Mas transparencia con los residentes con respecto a como los proyectos son elegidos y
construidos. Mas presupuesto y consideracion para la mobilidad comoda y segura de

Translation: More transparency with residents regarding how projects are chosen and
built. More budget and consideration for comfortable mobility and safe mobility.




Page 745



Additional Community Outreach

Laveen BBQ Results
On Saturday February 26, 2022, staff from the City of Phoenix attended the 70th Annual Laveen BBQ to conduct poster polls.
Community members were asked to provide feedback on four separate posters using sticky dots. On the first poster, community
members were asked if regional routes or neighborhood routes should be priority and if the focus should be on cost versus comfort.
63 people answered those two questions. On the second poster, community members were asked to rank their top 3 community
priorities. 185 responses were received for this question.

On the third poster, community members were asked to write down where they enjoyed walking and biking in Phoenix. 29 comments
were received for this question. Lastly, on the fourth poster, community members were asked to write down what stops them from
walking or biking more in Phoenix. 34 comments were received for this question.
Page 746
Poster 1 Data


Highest Priority of Cost Versus Comfort
Routes

Regional Routes 44% Focus on Cost
38%
56% Focus on Comfort
62% Neighborhood
Routes






Poster 2 Data


Community Priorities


Canals
Equity
Gap Closure
Low Cost Opportunities
Parks & Community Centers
Population & Employment Centers
Safety

Page 747 Transit Access

0 10 20 30 40 50 60




Posters 3 & 4 Data

Where do you enjoy walking or biking in Phoenix? What stops you from walking or biking more in Phoenix?
Hiking trails are great Sidewalks falling apart
South Mtn, hiking trails, conveyance channel in Laveen The litering; people leave trash
Tempe Lake Safety; I don’t feel safe anymore in Laveen walking or biking
Canals The high rate of collision between vehicles and cyclists; Safety
Walking and biking along the canals and South Mountain Safety
South Mountain Park Unsafe roads or drivers
South/Carver Mtn 51st & Estrella; lots of crashes



More lights Nothing
Canals Safety; traffic makes walk dangerous
Community canal trails Ease of access
Bodies of water; pretty sitting areas; flowers; statues More lighting on paths
All of the city parks No time
Prado Park Cars
Canal paths; parks Getting to trails involves driving and parking
Parks and neighborhood trails Scary high speed dangerous traffic! Speed limit too high!
There are not enough sidewalks/safe biking paths and
Laveen Channel Trail
everything is very spread out
Canals - Rogers Ranch I'm fat
Road biking on major streets Traffic; unsafe areas to walk
Need sidewalks on Estrella Drive Getto areas; safty; homeless ppl
Parks We need more sidewalks!
Cesar Chavez Hiking trail Risk of accidents
Page 748
Shade Cars/safety
Along trails Distance between nice looking areas
Estrella & 51st Ave to 43rd Ave Lack of shade
I like biking through the canals Lack of interconnectivity b/n sidewalks and trails
Cesar Chavez Park Dog poop
Stores Lack of restaurants
Canals and Parks Heat
South Phoenix Road safety
Having more walking paths off Dobbins
Racist comments
Putting shade along canals and biking paths
Crime
Safty






First Friday Results
On Friday March 4th, 2022 staff from the City of Phoenix attended the First Friday to conduct poster polls. Community members were
asked to provide feedback on 3 separate posters using sticky dots. On the first poster, community members were asked if regional
routes or neighborhood routes should be priority and if the focus should be on cost versus comfort. 16 people answered those two
questions. On the second poster, community members were asked to rank their top 3 community priorities. 48 responses were
received for this question.

On the third poster, community members were asked to write down where they enjoyed walking and biking in Phoenix and what
stops them from walking or biking more in Phoenix. 8 comments were received for the first question and 9 comments were received
for the second question.

Poster 1 Data


Page 749
Highest Priority of Cost Versus Comfort
Routes
19%
Regional Routes Focus on Cost
25%
Focus on Comfort
Neighborhood 81%
75%
Routes






Poster 2 Data


Community Priorities


Canals
Equity
Gap Closure
Low Cost Opportunities
Parks & Community Centers
Population & Employment Centers
Safety

Page 750 Transit Access

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10




Poster 3 Data

Where do you enjoy walking or biking in Phoenix? What stops you from walking or biking more in Phoenix?
Park paths Proximity to parks
Park paths Bike lanes/safety
Gym Safety
Neighborhood Safety
Park Homeless
Parks Wild animals
Park dangers



Canal, preserve, main streets loose dogs
safety




Page 751








Targeted Outreach

Bike Advocates
To gather information about how the City of Phoenix can become more bike friendly,
conversations were held with representatives from advocacy organizations that are working to
make The City a better place to bike, walk and commute. Phoenix Spokes People and Urban
Phoenix Project were the two organizations engaged.

Questions
The following questions were asked of the representatives:

1. How does your organization advance active transportation?
2. What is going well and where have you seen change improvement?
3. What are our biggest challenges moving forward?
4. What are some opportunities moving forward?
5. Additional comments

Themes
The following themes were identified from the conversations:

• Public Education – Representatives from the advocacy organizations mentioned the need
for increased awareness and education about city projects. In addition, they suggested
better messaging when relating neighborhood projects to overall city goals.

• Safety – Representatives from the advocacy organizations expressed concerns about
traffic, speeding, and the lack of infrastructure to make walking and biking safe.

• City of Phoenix – Representatives from the advocacy organizations recommended the
city work to improve the culture with the streets department. In addition, they expressed
concerns about internal politics, turnover, and a lack of strong advocates within the
department.




Page 752


Marginalized Zip Codes
To expand outreach and better understand the needs of historically marginalized areas, the
project team reached out directly to community leaders in the following zip codes: 85004,
85006, 85007, 85009, 85034 and 85040. The zip codes were selected based on the poverty
percentage.

Questions
The following questions were asked of the community leaders:

1. What is the biggest challenge/issue when you walk in your community?
2. If there were more frequent crossings placed in streets (crossing before major street
crossings), would you consider walking out of your way to use them?
3. What are some of the attitudes or feelings in your community around biking? What are
some of the fears or concerns? Do people want to bike?
a. What is a biking economy and what does it mean? What is the walking/biking
experience for homeless individuals? (Homeless shelter).
4. Do you walk or bike in your neighborhood? Where are you walking/biking to?
a. If yes how often, if no why not?
5. Do you feel safe walking or riding bikes in your neighborhood?
a. If yes, why, if no why not?
6. If you bike, what is your experience and where are you biking to?
7. Is there anything that would make you consider walking or biking more?
8. If you could prioritize sidewalks over bike facilities, which would you choose?
9. When you are walking or biking and you witness an issue, do you address it? With whom?
If it is with the city, how has your experience been trying to resolve it? If you need
something in your neighborhood connected to streets or ATP do you know who to
contact or the process to get support?
10. If there was one thing to make walking and biking better, what would it be?
11. Is there anything you would celebrate connected to active transportation?

Themes
The following themes were identified from the interviews:

• Safety – Many community leaders expressed concerns about safety. They mentioned the
lack of sidewalks in some residential communities (particularly West & South Phoenix),
inconsistent bike paths, speeding, homeless encampments, violent crimes, drug use in
neighborhoods, and stray dogs.


Page 753



• City of Phoenix’s Role – Many community leaders expressed the need for more
accountability and transparency from the city. In addition, they are not confident the city
will show up for their communities. However, they seemed to be supportive of additional
street infrastructure if it supported their current safety needs.




Page 754


Draft Plan Feedback Survey Results Summary

About the survey
The survey was provided through an online web platform. The survey received 182 individual
responses which were received between November 28th, 2022 and January 16th, 2023.


Q1) Did you participate in the original project survey or project interviews?

Q1) Did you participate in the original project survey or
project interviews?
80.0%
70.0%

PERCENT OF RESPONSES
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Booth at either
Community No, I did not Project Survey in Bicycle
Roosevelt Row
Leader participate in the Winter/Spring Community Other
First Friday or
Interviews past. 2022 Interviews
Laveen BBQ
Responses 0.6% 71.5% 1.1% 24.6% 2.2% 1.7%



Other:
• I do not think so.
• I was not aware of the survey previously.
• It happened so fast I didn’t an opportunity.

Key takeaways:
• The majority of survey respondents (71.5%) have not previously participated in public
outreach for the plan. The majority (3 out of 5) of those responding “Other” also
indicated they have not participated in previous public outreach through the
comments they provided.
• Of those who have participated previously, a large majority (86%) indicated their
participation was through a previous survey.



Page 755


Q2) If you are interested in walking or biking more in Phoenix, what changes
would encourage you walk or bike more?
This question received 159 responses.

Statistics:
• 85 comments were related to biking (53%).
• 63 comments were related to walking and sidewalks (40%).
• 39 comments requested protection and/or separation between vehicles and
cyclists/pedestrians (25%).
• 32 comments indicated that heat and lack of shade were a deterrent to walking or
biking (20%).
• 21 comments requested the mitigation of dangerous driver behavior and speeding
through speed reduction, traffic enforcement, and driver education (13%).
• 18 comments said that “no,” “nothing,” or “not interested” – indicating nothing would
make them walk or bike more and no changes were desired (11%).
• 12 comments were related to the unhoused (homeless) population (8%).

Themes:
• Desire for improved (and continuous) sidewalks through better maintained surfaces,
additional width, and detachment from vehicular lanes. Respondents indicated that
many areas lack sidewalks altogether.
• Desire for more and safer bike infrastructure. Cyclist respondents desire
separation/protection from vehicles.
• A need for better-connected routes with continuous facilities that don’t dead-end.
• Improved safety infrastructure for bicyclists and pedestrians at intersections.
• Want protection from the sun and heat mitigation.
• Reduced interaction with the homeless population on the streets by providing
housing/space/facilities/treatment for the homeless.
• Vehicle drivers dislike bicyclists intermixed with vehicle traffic.
• There is a need for driver education and increased traffic enforcement to deter unsafe
driving behavior and speeds.
• Lack of destinations within walkable distance.




Page 756


Insightful/Example Comments:
• Completion of Colter Street bike lanes to provide a safe east/west alternative route;
Improved safety at the canal crossing at 40th & Camelback; Improvements to overpass
bridges such as at Campbell to make them more bicycle friendly; Enforcement of no
loitering/homeless in underground tunnels and bridges - (this is very expensive
infrastructure and not the place for this/creates safety concerns for users); Paved
multi-use path or bike lane on Lincoln from 24th to 32nd Street; Connecting the
uptown area to the 3rd/5th Ave bike lanes to create a safe route all the way through to
downtown.
• Consistent sidewalks - there are a lot of spots that randomly end or are in bad
condition. Same goes for bike lanes. Also, additional trees for shade and lighting for
night time.
• Definitely interested in biking more, as I’m an avid road cyclist. The city needs more
cycling infrastructure like protected lanes, but we also need to educate drivers on the
rights of cyclists. Not a day goes by that I don’t have some motorist try to run me off
the road or scream at me for NOT riding on the sidewalk.
• Develop inclusivity of safety, addressing barriers for people on wheelchairs, timing of
street crossing lights, pavement condition on streets at crosswalks, transition of
pavement at crosswalks (bulked), impose violation fees for the hundreds of rental
scooters just left blocking on sidewalks. A new problem is the tents being installed by
the homeless on sidewalks.
• I want low-level, easy routes where I know there will consistently safe ways to cross big
streets, shade, etc. There’s a lot of changes I would like to see, but the thing that would
make the biggest difference for both biking and walking is tons more HAWK crosswalks.
• The danger from cars is such a big risk, I find myself driving embarrassingly short
distances because there is no way to safely cross the 6-lane road that separates me
from the drug store or convenience store, etc. I used to love walking with my kids
before we lived in Phoenix, but now our routes are very limited thanks to the car
danger. Cars do not stop in marked crosswalks here, especially not on arterial roads.
They also generally block the crosswalk at intersections and don’t seem to look for
pedestrians before turning on red. It is not physically possible to cross 6 lanes of traffic
with small children during a gap in traffic. If there were those boulevard-style islands in
the middle of the road at more places, it would give us a more protected place to wait
for all the cars speeding through the crosswalk while we stand in the middle of the
road and wait for another break in traffic. More access points and water crossings over
the wash/canal trails would make them a more practical option for traveling safely


Page 757


while on bike or on foot too. Also, I would love to see traffic lights give pedestrians that
2 second head start before any car traffic lanes get the green, since that seems to
make pedestrians slightly more visible.
• Unfortunately, there is not much I can walk to in my area. The newest business about
to be added nearby is a used car dealership on McDowell near 41st Place, which the
zoning will be changed to accommodate if the project is approved. So, I would say that
part of the larger picture is what zoning changes the city is approving. There’s very
little to walk to near me.


Q3) What is your most important active transportation priority (i.e., more
sidewalks, safer roadway crossings, protected bicycle facilities, etc.)?
This comment received 164 responses, summarized below.

Statistics:
• 66 comments mention bicycles or bikes (40%).
• 44 comments request protected bicycle lanes (27%).
• 33 comments relate to intersections and safer crossings (20%).
• 31 comments mention sidewalks (19%).

Themes:
• Respondents indicated a desire for the following:
o Protected Bike lanes and safer bike routes
o More and safer sidewalks
o Safer Crossings
o Better roadways, more driving lanes for cars
o More shade and trees




Insightful Comments:
• Protected cycling lanes and paved, maintained, improved greenway/canal paths.
• I love the canal pathways. I think they should be paved/improved and if we can go
UNDER the roadways instead doing HAWKS to cross, I can really get moving across




Page 758


town. For example, Biltmore to Sun city is 1 hour on my bike. Thats a lot of ground in
a short amount of time because of those canal tunnels.
• Better roads, more lanes and separated bike lanes.
• Frequent crossing points for pedestrians and bicyclists. It’s not a system safe for us if
we have to walk or bike a mile out of our way to go anywhere.
• Safer roadway crossings is most important for saving lives.



Q4) How familiar are you with the Draft Plan and Plan Elements?
This question received 180 responses and did not provide an open-ended response option. The
results of the question are shown below, and indicate a general familiarity with the Draft Plan
and the Plan Elements by survey respondents.

Q4) How familiar are you with the Draft Plan and Plan
Elements?
70.0%


60.0%


50.0%

PERCENT OF RESPONSES
40.0%


30.0%


20.0%


10.0%


0.0%
Have not Reviewed Somewhat Familiar Very Familiar
Responses 13.3% 64.4% 22.2%




Page 759




Q5) How do you feel about the current Draft Plan and Plan Elements?
This question received a total of 180 responses and did not provide an open-ended response
option. In total, 49.5 percent of respondents indicated a disapproving feeling towards the Draft
Plan, while 40.5 percent of respondents indicated a positive feeling towards the Draft Plan. Ten
percent indicated that they had not reviewed the Draft Plan. While this question did not include
an open-ended response option, Question 6 below provides a summary of responses that
provide insight into the results of Question 5.

Q5) How do you feel about the current Draft Plan and Plan
Elements?
40.0%

35.0%



PERCENT OF RESPONSES
30.0%

25.0%

20.0%

15.0%

10.0%

5.0%

0.0%
I have not
Strongly Slightly Slightly Strongly reviewed the
Approve Disapprove
Approve Approve Disapprove Disapprove Draft Plan and
Plan Elements
Responses 5.0% 23.3% 12.2% 5.6% 10.0% 33.9% 10.0%




Q6) Please share your comments on the Draft Plan and Plan Elements. For
example, What do you like about the plan? What concerns do you have? What
recommendations do you have?
This question received 141 comments. However, the amount written for this question far
exceeded that of the other questions. Most respondents provided answers in detailed
explanatory paragraphs that included a diverse array of topics. As such, comments were not
easily encapsulated into statistics about subject matter frequency similar to what was completed
in prior questions. Instead, the themes below have been put in rough order of


Page 760


frequency/prominence. Additionally, more Insightful/example comments have been included
below to capture the feeling and message of commenters.

Themes:
• Commentators predominantly express support for the overall plan and its content,
followed by varied caveats and suggestions.
• Don’t remove car lanes and maintain the priority of vehicles.
• The implementation timeline is too slow and there is a desire for faster
improvements/implementation.
• There needs to be increased accountability and concrete goals/actions on the part of
the city and in this plan to implement (well) active transportation infrastructure and
safety improvements.
• Concerns about traffic speeds and bad driver behavior and the need for additional
content around enforcement.
• Road diets and deprioritizing cars is a necessity to fully create space for pedestrian and
cyclist infrastructure.
• Many specific locational recommendations for infrastructure and connections.
• A desire to see more bike infrastructure - specifically protected and separated.
• Public transit improvements are needed to connect the distant parts of Phoenix in
order to make walking and biking feasible.
• Support for the urban villages and neighborhood approach to implementation.
• Appreciation for the plan’s recognition of Phoenix as a car-centric/car-culture city and
how that is a barrier to active transportation.
• Content needs to be added discussing the use of roadway and surface materials that
reflect instead of absorb heat.
• The city needs to address land use and zoning in order to make a city fabric that is
more walkable and bikeable with destinations close by.

Insightful/Example Comments:
• Glad there is an emphasis on equity and underserved communities. Glad there are
sections about evaluating progress and the results of the plan. Our Subdivision Code
Ch. 32 needs to be redesigned to encourage development in a grid, which increases
accessibility to important destinations. We should also re-evaluate our street cross-
sections to see if we can build smaller to reduce speeds driven, which would make
alternative modes of transportation feel safer.




Page 761


• Any reduction to the number of lanes for vehicular traffic would have a negative effect
on overall transportation.
• Need to use surfaces that do not absorb heat to be re-radiated at night creating a
bigger heat island.
• Substituting asphalt, chip seal or tarmac with alternatives like concrete is conspicuously
absent from the plan. A reduction in vehicle speed from traffic calming could make
concrete a viable alternative. This would save the city tons of money on road
maintenance.
• From my brief review, it appears that most of the improvements appear to be in
central Phoenix. Tatum Rd from Pinnacle Peak to Cave Creek needs protective bike
lanes so people can ride bikes to library from Desert Ridge.
• I am concerned that the plan does not address the root causes of danger to
pedestrians but attempts to shoehorn pedestrian infrastructure onto poorly designed,
dangerous streets. Real change would require road diets. I still appreciate the effort
and the proposed improvements.
• I don’t like the idea of making roads smaller and creating “speed diets” or usage diets.
The roads are congested enough and enough people will not bike, walk, take a bus or
train to make these changes sustainable, to grow the city, nor encourage a healthy
lifestyle. I drive around the city and vary rarely see anyone using any of the bike lanes.
• HIN criteria too narrow and thus missing many areas of the city where accidents occur.
• My main concern is the need for more transparency and accountability from the city.
Despite an accountability section being a part of the plan, I do not have a good sense
of how the plan will address this issue.
• One of my primary concerns is that the city will continue to paint bike lanes and call it a
victory for active transportation. Look, a bike lane is better than nothing, but at the end
of the day paint is just paint and it’s not infrastructure. I speak from experience —
paint does not prohibit a car from veering into a bike lake or turning into a cyclist. I
appreciate the thought and work that has gone into this plan, but it would be a shame
to see it squandered by “good enough” thinking. As for recommendations, I really do
think enforcement — which is not mentioned as a pillar of this plan — needs to be
considered. Speed and traffic enforcement could go a long way in curbing the worst
motorist behaviors and ensuring road safety for all users.
• I like the direction. Need more beautification points.
• I like the focus on prioritizing historically marginalized communities, and the
acknowledgement that car culture is a prohibitive factor in making Phoenix more
sustainable. I wonder how bus and light rail systems could better support cyclists and
pedestrians.

Page 762


• I’m concerned about only focusing on two neighborhoods at a time, does that mean
the other neighborhoods are just neglected or no action is taken on those? What
happens when you get to a neighborhood like Central and Bethany Home and they just
decide they don’t care about bike lanes or walkability? Basically, how they made a big
fuss about re-striping that very low traffic section of Central because they’d have to
“look for bikes when turning out of the neighborhood”. How do we ensure that we
have a wholistic vision and common voice for the city and it’s not left up to the
privileged in that neighborhood to ignore the program and recommendations?
• I think more traffic calming measures are needed in general. I wish that turn lanes that
serve no purpose (i.e., in areas where there’s no place to physically turn in either
direction for 100s of yards) could be replaced with islands.
• My concern is that sharrows or bike lanes next to car parking (where the door could
open into a biker) are mentioned at all. I initially don’t love the bike boulevard idea,
because it’s assuming that drivers will be fully attentive and respectful of sharing the
road, which is often not the case. I recommend focusing on developing an
interconnected network of protected bike lanes with safe crossings especially in
downtown/Roosevelt Row where there is so much foot/bike traffic.
• I think that the timeline for some of the recommended changes is way too long. It
should not be a 3–10-year process to evaluate the potential to implement a stop bar
(changing where the line on the ground is) at SOME intersections. This is something
that has already been studied. Why do we need another 3 years of evaluation. To
decide on its potential. Overall, I think the framework is good. The network program
seems like a step in the right direction. I have lots of doubts on the implementation.
• My one other recommendation is that the city should view HAWK signals as not only
pedestrian infrastructure, but bicycle infrastructure. This can be a great tool to allow
cyclists to bike through neighborhoods and then be able to cross major streets.
• I think the plan will do a lot for the city and making transportation for all safer. I am
concerned on some of the choices in focusing on a small area for overkill projects while
neglecting other less “showy” concerns (i.e., a huge bike lane with bollards on 3rd
avenue with little traffic but super thin bike lanes on cave creek with cars traveling at
60+)
• I’m extremely pleased that we are acknowledging the benefits and need for facilitating
other forms of transportation that is not driving. Cars create noise pollution, air
pollution, social isolation, and literal death. They might be good for intercity travel, but
we need to focus on neighborhood-centric transportation and I loved seeing that in the
plan. Another aspect to consider is working with city zoning to enable more multi-use



Page 763


zone construction that integrates residential and small-business spaces. Doing this will
make the transportation plan much more feasible.
• In your report, you indicate that 2.5% of crashes involve pedestrians, but are 46% of
fatalities. On the same page you indicate 21% of KSIs are speed related. Why, then, are
you indicating on page 37 that you are going to apply equal behavioral enforcement to
both drivers and pedestrians/cyclists (both segments will see 12x/year targeted
enforcement)? I would like to see significantly more driver enforcement considering
the outcomes of driver-related behavior.
• There is missing inclusion of the wheelchair user population who depend on their
devices as mode of transportation.
• Over all I think it’s a good plan. I’d like to see benchmarks and goals made more
concrete but it’s a good start.
• More protected bike infrastructure, with hard protection, bollards, make the tough
choices to actually make it safer instead of always bowing to cars instead of safety.
• My concerns are the reduction in vehicular lanes to accommodate bike lanes. The
reduction of those lanes increases traffic throughout the neighborhood. For the
amount of disruption the bike lanes cause, there are not of bicycle riders who use
them compared to cars. It would be wise to have a corridor for bicycles that do not
take away vehicular lanes or parking spots (as those are also becoming hard
downtown).
• Please do not replace traffic lanes. Look for ways to implement bicycle lanes only
where there is unused space. This will be a nightmare otherwise.
• The City must commit to studying the removal of single-family zoning and minimum
parking requirements in order to make Phoenix more walkable and stop exacerbating
the urban heat island effect, which this plan identifies as a key barrier to active
transportation. Collaborate across departments and get things done.
• The issue is that Phoenix is so hostile in its design toward pedestrians and bicyclists
that stronger action is required. Anticipatory warrants should be a short-term action
and we should be actively designing our streets to be safe for pedestrians and cyclists
instead of reacting to their deaths. There is no reason this shouldn’t be a short-term
goal. When Phoenix for instance allows parking in bike lanes, it is clear who the city
prefers. The success of this plan is entirely dependent on the rollout of quickbuild
plans. This is not enough to say that Phoenix should be a multimodal city. The metric of
success is the deployment of concrete protected bicycle infrastructure and frequent,
safe pedestrian crossings.




Page 764


Appendix A: Survey Questions

English Version
• Which of the following best describes you?
a. I live in the City of Phoenix
b. I work in the City of Phoenix
c. I live and work in the City of Phoenix
d. I neither live nor work in the City of Phoenix

• What is your zip code?

• Which of the following do you own or have access to regularly? Please check all that apply:
a. Car or truck
b. Bicycle
c. E-scooter
d. Assistive device, such as a wheelchair or motorized scooter
e. Other (open text)

• Please check how often you use each of these different ways of traveling.

Daily Weekly Monthly Seldom Never
Drive or ride in a car
Take public transit
Use rideshare or a
taxi
Walk
Bike
Use an e-scooter
Use an assistive
device, like a
wheelchair or
mobility scooter

• Which of the following types of transportation would you like to use more in the future?
Please check all that apply.
a. Car
b. Public transit
c. Rideshare or a taxi
d. Walking
e. Bicycle


Page 765


f. E-scooter
g. An assistive device, like a wheelchair or mobility scooter
h. None of the above


• Which of the following types of transportation would you like to use less in the future?
Please check all that apply.
i. Car
j. Public transit
k. Rideshare or a taxi
l. Walking
m. Bicycle
n. E-scooter
o. An assistive device, like a wheelchair or mobility scooter
p. None of the above


• In the last two months, have you walked or biked for any of the following reasons?
a. Walk or bike to complete a trip to work, school, shopping, or socializing
b. Walk or bike for exercise or fun
c. Walk or bike to access transit (bus or light rail)
d. I’m not interested in walking or biking

• If you were to walk and bike more often, which of the following would describe the purpose
of doing so? Please check all that apply.
a. Walk or bike to complete a trip to work, school, shopping, or socializing
b. Walk or bike for exercise or fun
c. Walk or bike to access transit (bus or light rail)
d. I’m not interested in walking or biking

• How would you describe yourself from the options below, based on how often or
comfortable you are with biking?
a. Not interested in biking – I do not want to bike
b. Interested in biking – I’m interested in biking more if there are more comfortable and
safe bike facilities
c. Casual bike rider – I’m comfortable using bike lanes and bike paths
d. Assertive bike rider – I’m very comfortable biking on streets, even if they don’t have
bike lanes

• If you would like to provide more details, please use the space below (open text)



Page 766


• How would you rate the current bicycling conditions in Phoenix?
a. Very good
b. Good
c. Somewhat good
d. Neutral
e. Somewhat poor
f. Poor
g. Very Poor

• How would you rate the current walking conditions in Phoenix?
a. Very good
b. Good
c. Somewhat good
d. Neutral
e. Somewhat poor
f. Poor
g. Very Poor


• How would you rate the current conditions for assistive devices, such as wheelchairs, in
Phoenix?
a. Very good
b. Good
c. Somewhat good
d. Neutral
e. Somewhat poor
f. Poor
g. Very Poor

• Thinking about traffic safety, how safe do you currently feel walking in Phoenix?
a. Very Safe
b. Safe
c. Somewhat safe
d. Neutral
e. Somewhat unsafe
f. Unsafe
g. Very Unsafe



• Thinking about traffic safety, how safe do you currently feel biking in Phoenix?
a. Very Safe

Page 767


b. Safe
c. Somewhat safe
d. Neutral
e. Somewhat unsafe
f. Unsafe
g. Very Unsafe

• Thinking about traffic safety, how safe do you feel using an assistive device, such as a
wheelchair, in Phoenix?
a. Very Safe
b. Safe
c. Somewhat safe
d. Neutral
e. Somewhat unsafe
f. Unsafe
g. Very Unsafe


• For the following question, please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with each of
the following statements.

Strongly Disagree Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Agree Strongly
disagree disagree agree agree
My
neighborhood
would be a
better place to
live if it were
more enjoyable
for people to
walk.
My
neighborhood
would be a
better place to
live if it were
more enjoyable
for people to
bike.
I am
comfortable
with my friends
and family


Page 768


using the
streets in
Phoenix to walk
or bike.
Many of the
places I need to
get to regularly
are within
biking distance
of my home
I would use
public transit
more often if it
was convenient
and safe to
walk and bike
to
I like walking.
I like biking.

• Which of the following stop you from walking more? Please select all that apply
a. People driving in unsafe ways
b. People driving fast
c. Narrow sidewalks
d. Bad sidewalk conditions
e. Gaps in sidewalks
f. No sidewalks
g. Crossings at major streets do not feel safe
h. Crossing signals take too long
i. Crosswalks spaced too far apart
j. Not enough shade
k. Too hot
l. Distances between places
m. Other (open text)

• Thinking of the list above, what is the single biggest barrier for when it comes to walking?
(Repeat list from above, single selection only to prioritize)

• Which of the following stop you from biking more? Please select all that apply
a. Bike lanes too close to traffic lanes
b. Bike lanes do not connect



Page 769


c. Bike lanes disappear near intersections
d. Hard to find a clear biking route
e. Lack of bike parking
f. Crosswalks spaced too far apart
g. Crossing signals take too long
h. Feeling unsafe
i. People driving in unsafe ways
j. People driving fast
k. Not enough shade
l. Too hot
m. Distances between places
n. Other (open text)

• Thinking of the list above, what is the single biggest barrier for you when it comes to
bicycling? (repeat list, single selection only to prioritize)


• Below are descriptions and pictures of different types of bicycle infrastructure. For each
photo, please indicate whether you’d like to see more of that type of street in Phoenix and
whether you’d support the design even if it added a few minutes to driving times during rush
hour. (for setup, list each of the two questions on a 1-7 scale from strongly agree to strongly
disagree. Question 1: I would like to see more streets that look like this in Phoenix. Question
2: I would be interested in this street design even if it added a few minutes to driving times
during rush hour).

a. Major street with 5 or 6 lanes / no bike lane
b. Major street with bike lane
c. Major street with buffered bike lane
d. Major street with protected bike lane (bollards / guideposts)
e. Major street with protected bike lane (cycletrack w/ curb)
f. Major street with wide sidewalk (10’)
g. Secondary street with bike lane
h. Secondary street with buffered bike lane
i. Local street with sharrows and traffic calming (bike blvd)
j. Local street with no bike infrastructure

• Below are descriptions and pictures of different types of sidewalk infrastructure. For each
photo, please indicate whether you’d like to see more of that type of street in Phoenix and
whether you’d support the design even if it added a few minutes to driving times during rush
hour. (for setup, list each of the two questions on a 1-7 scale from strongly agree to strongly
disagree. Question 1: I would like to see more streets that look like this in Phoenix. Question


Page 770


2: I would be interested in this street design even if it added a few minutes to driving times
during rush hour).
a. Major Street and sidewalk with no buffer (flush with curb)
b. Major Street with buffer and shade
c. Secondary Street and sidewalk with no buffer
d. Secondary Street with buffer and shade
e. Mid-block crossing with HAWK signal on 6 or 7 lane arterial
f. Mid-block crossing with HAWK signal on a collector street (3 lanes)
g. Mid-block crossing without HAWK signal on a collector street
h. Mid-block crossing without HAWK with pedestrian refuge island
i. Major intersection with pedestrian enhancements

• For the following question, please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with each of
the following statements.

Strongly Disagree Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Agree Strongly
disagree disagree agree agree
I would not
support any
project that would
lower speeds for
driving or make
driving trips
longer.
I would support
lowering speed
limits in exchange
for making streets
more comfortable
for walking and
biking




• Thinking about transportation overall in the City of Phoenix, please rank your priorities:
a. Reducing vehicle congestion during rush hour
b. Preventing collisions that could injure people
c. Minimizing the cost of building and maintaining streets
d. Giving everyone a comfortable option for using streets, whether they are driving,
walking, biking, or taking transit
e. Designing streets to match the atmosphere of the neighborhood
f. Building a green and sustainable transportation system



Page 771



• Thinking of streets in Phoenix, what are your top five priorities? Please rank them with 1
being highest. (setup to allow for items to be dragged to prioritize)
a. Expand street network for cars
b. Improve traffic signals for cars
c. Maintain existing sidewalks
d. Expand the sidewalk network
e. Fill in sidewalk gaps
f. Improve pedestrian crossings
g. Add shade along sidewalks
h. Maintain existing bikeways
i. Expand the bikeway network
j. Improve bicycle crossings

• When thinking about how to add to Phoenix’s bicycle network, the City has to identify
priorities and make decisions on where and how to invest. When we look at adding
connections to the bicycle network, we have to prioritize where to connect to first. Please
rank the following based on what you think is most important:
a. Canals – Adding and upgrading paths along existing canals
b. Equity – Invest in historically marginalized areas
c. Gap Closure – Fill in missing links in network
d. Low cost opportunities – Adding bike lanes after pavement projects
e. Parks & Community Centers – Build links to recreation
f. Population & Employment Centers – Connect within to areas where there are a lot of
people working and living
g. Safety – Address areas with a history of serious collisions and/or fatalities
h. Transit Access – Build links with bus and light rail stations

• When thinking about how to add to Phoenix’s bicycle network, the City has to identify
priorities and make decisions on where and how to invest. Regional routes usually use
through streets and canals to guide people across the city. Neighborhood routes are focused
on guiding people to destinations in their neighborhood. Which do you think is a higher
priority?
a. Neighborhood routes – Focus on local routes to neighborhood destinations
b. Regional routes – Focus on citywide routes for people to make longer trips


• Usually the most comfortable bicycle facilities also cost more money to build and maintain.
Thinking about new bicycle facilities, which do you think is more important?
c. Cost – Focus on adding stripes and signs to make sure the City can add as many miles
of bike lanes as possible


Page 772


d. Comfort – Focus on building projects that make bicycling more comfortable, even if it
means fewer projects

• What other comments would you like to share with us? (open-ended)
The following questions are meant to help the City of Phoenix understand if it is sharing
information. Please answer honestly.
• Do you know how to report street maintenance issues to the City of Phoenix?
a. Yes
b. No

• When there is a bicycle or pedestrian street project in my neighborhood, are you able to find
information about the project and provide input?
a. Yes
b. No

• Have you ever reported a street issue to the City of Phoenix?
a. Yes
b. No

• If yes, were you satisfied with the outcome?
a. Yes
b. No


Please tell us a little more about you…
• Age:
a. 18 and under
b. 19-29
c. 30-39
d. 40-49
e. 50-59
f. 60-69
g. 70+

• Race & Ethnicity
a. Asian / Pacific Islander
b. Black
c. Native American
d. White
e. Hispanic / Latino of any race


Page 773


• Gender
a. _________________________

• Household Income
a. Under $35k
b. $36-65k
c. $66-100k
d. $100k - $200k
e. $200k+

Spanish Version
• ¿Cuál de las siguientes te describe mejor?
a. Yo vivo en la ciudad de Phoenix
b. Trabajo en la ciudad de Phoenix
c. Vivo y trabajo en la ciudad de Phoenix
d. No vivo ni trabajo en la Ciudad de Phoenix

• ¿Cuál es su código postal?

• ¿Cuál de los siguientes posee o tiene acceso regularmente? Por favor marque todos los que
apliquen:
a. Coche o camión
b. Bicicleta
c. Scooter eléctrico
d. Dispositivo de asistencia, como una silla de ruedas o un scooter motorizado
e. Otro (texto abierto)

• Marque la frecuencia con la que usa cada una de estas diferentes formas de viajar.



A diario Semanal Mensual Raramente Nunca


Conducir o viajar en un automóvil


Toma transporte público


Usa viajes compartidos o un taxi


Page 774



Camina


Usa bicicleta


Usa un scooter eléctrico


Usa un dispositivo de asistencia,
como una silla de ruedas o un
scooter de movilidad

• ¿Cuál de los siguientes tipos de transporte le gustaría usar más en el futuro? Por favor
marque todos los que apliquen.
a. Coche
b. Tránsito público
c. Viaje compartido o un taxi
d. Caminando
e. Bicicleta
f. Scooter eléctrico
g. Un dispositivo de asistencia, como una silla de ruedas o un scooter de movilidad.
h. Ninguna de las anteriores

• ¿Cuál de los siguientes tipos de transporte le gustaría usar menos en el futuro? Por favor
marque todos los que apliquen.
a. Coche
b. Tránsito público
c. Viaje compartido o un taxi
d. Caminando
e. Bicicleta
f. Scooter eléctrico
g. Un dispositivo de asistencia, como una silla de ruedas o un scooter de movilidad.
h. Ninguna de las anteriores



• ¿Cuál de los siguientes tipos de transporte le gustaría usar menos en el futuro? Por favor
marque todos los que apliquen
a. Coche


Page 775


b. Tránsito público
c. Viaje compartido o un taxi
d. Caminando
e. Bicicleta
f. Scooter eléctrico
g. Un dispositivo de asistencia, como una silla de ruedas o un scooter de movilidad.
h. Ninguna de las anteriores

• En los últimos dos meses, ¿ha caminado o andando en bicicleta por alguna de las siguientes
razones?
a. Camine o ande en bicicleta para completar un viaje al trabajo, la escuela, ir de
compras o socializar
b. Camine o ande en bicicleta para hacer ejercicio o divertirme
c. Camine o ande en bicicleta para acceder al transporte público (autobús o tren
ligero)
d. No estoy interesado en caminar o andar en bicicleta.

• Si tuviera que caminar y andar en bicicleta con más frecuencia, ¿cuál de las siguientes
describiría el propósito de hacerlo? Por favor marque todos los que apliquen.
a. Camine o ande en bicicleta para completar un viaje al trabajo, la escuela, ir de
compras o socializar
b. Camine o ande en bicicleta para hacer ejercicio o divertirme
c. Camine o ande en bicicleta para acceder al transporte público (autobús o tren
ligero)
d. No estoy interesado en caminar o andar en bicicleta.

• ¿Cómo se describiría a sí mismo a partir de las siguientes opciones, según la frecuencia o la
comodidad con la que se siente andando en bicicleta?
a. No me interesa andar en bicicleta - No quiero andar en bicicleta
b. Interesado en andar en bicicleta: estoy interesado en andar en bicicleta más si
hay instalaciones para bicicletas más cómodas y seguras
c. Ciclista ocasional: me siento cómodo usando carriles para bicicletas y senderos
para bicicletas
d. Ciclista asertivo: me siento muy cómodo andando en bicicleta en las calles,
incluso si no tienen carriles para bicicletas



• Si desea proporcionar más detalles, utilice el espacio a continuación (texto abierto)



Page 776



• ¿Cómo calificaría las condiciones actuales para andar en bicicleta en Phoenix?
a. Muy bien
b. Bien
c. algo bueno
d. Neutral
e. Algo pobre
f. Pobre
g. Muy pobre

• ¿Cómo calificaría las condiciones actuales para caminar en Phoenix?
a. Muy bien
b. Bien
c. algo bueno
d. Neutral
e. Algo pobre
f. Pobre
g. Muy pobre

• ¿Cómo calificaría las condiciones actuales de los dispositivos de asistencia, como las sillas
de ruedas, en Phoenix?
a. Muy bien
b. Bien
c. algo bueno
d. Neutral
e. Algo pobre
f. Pobre
g. Muy pobre

• Pensando en la seguridad del tráfico, ¿qué tan seguro se siente actualmente caminando
en Phoenix?
a. Muy seguro
b. A salvo
c. Algo seguro
d. Neutral
e. Algo inseguro
f. Inseguro
g. muy inseguro



Page 777


• Pensando en la seguridad del tráfico, ¿qué tan seguro se siente actualmente al andar en
bicicleta en Phoenix?
a. Muy seguro
b. A salvo
c. Algo seguro
d. Neutral
e. Algo inseguro
f. Inseguro
g. muy inseguro

• Pensando en la seguridad vial, ¿qué tan seguro se siente usando un dispositivo de
asistencia, como una silla de ruedas, en Phoenix?
a. Muy seguro
b. A salvo
c. Algo seguro
d. Neutral
e. Algo inseguro
f. Inseguro
g. muy inseguro

• Para la siguiente pregunta, indique qué tan de acuerdo o en desacuerdo está con cada
una de las siguientes afirmaciones.


Muy en Discrepar Algo en Neutra Parcialment Estar Totalment
desacuerd desacuerdo l e de de e de
o acuerdo acuer acuerdo
do



Mi vecindario
sería un
mejor lugar
para vivir si
fuera más
agradable
para la gente
caminar.



Page 778



Mi vecindario
sería un
mejor lugar
para vivir si
fuera más
agradable
para la gente
andar en
bicicleta.


Me siento
cómodo con
mis amigos y
familiares
usando las
calles de
Phoenix para
caminar o
andar en
bicicleta.


Muchos de
los lugares a
los que
necesito ir
regularmente
están a una
distancia en
bicicleta de
mi casa.




Page 779



Usaría el
transporte
público con
más
frecuencia si
fuera
conveniente y
seguro
caminar y
andar en
bicicleta para
llegar.


Me gusta
caminar.


Me gusta
andar en
bicicleta

• ¿Cuál de los siguientes le impide caminar más? Por favor seleccione todas las respuestas
válidas
h. Personas que conducen de manera insegura
i. Gente manejando rápido
j. Aceras angostas
k. Malas condiciones de la acera
l. Huecos en las aceras
m. no hay aceras
n. Los cruces en las calles principales no se sienten seguros
o. Las señales de cruce tardan demasiado
p. Pasos de peatones espaciados demasiado lejos
q. No hay suficiente sombra
r. Demasiado caliente
s. Distancias entre lugares
t. Otro (texto abierto)

• Pensando en la lista anterior, ¿cuál es la barrera más grande para caminar?

Page 780


a. Personas que conducen de manera insegura
b. Gente manejando rápido
c. Aceras angostas
d. Malas condiciones de la acera
e. Huecos en las aceras
f. no hay aceras
g. Los cruces en las calles principales no se sienten seguros
h. Las señales de cruce tardan demasiado
i. Pasos de peatones espaciados demasiado lejos
j. No hay suficiente sombra
k. Demasiado caliente
l. Distancias entre lugares
m. Otro (texto abierto)

• ¿Cuál de los siguientes le impide andar en bicicleta más? Por favor seleccione todas las
respuestas válidas
a. Carriles para bicicletas demasiado cerca de los carriles de tráfico
b. Los carriles para bicicletas no se conectan
c. Los carriles para bicicletas desaparecen cerca de las intersecciones.
d. Difícil de encontrar una ruta clara para andar en bicicleta.
e. Falta de estacionamiento para bicicletas.
f. Pasos de peatones espaciados demasiado lejos
g. Las señales de cruce tardan demasiado
h. Sintiéndome inseguro
i. Personas que conducen de manera insegura
j. Gente manejando rápido
k. No hay suficiente sombra
l. Demasiado caliente
m. Distancias entre lugares
n. Otro (texto abierto)



• Pensando en la lista anterior, ¿cuál es la barrera más grande para usted cuando se trata
de andar en bicicleta?
a. Carriles para bicicletas demasiado cerca de los carriles de tráfico
b. Los carriles para bicicletas no se conectan
c. Los carriles para bicicletas desaparecen cerca de las intersecciones.
d. Difícil de encontrar una ruta clara para andar en bicicleta.

Page 781


e. Falta de estacionamiento para bicicletas.
f. Pasos de peatones espaciados demasiado lejos
g. Las señales de cruce tardan demasiado
h. Sintiéndome inseguro
i. Personas que conducen de manera insegura
j. Gente manejando rápido
k. No hay suficiente sombra
l. Demasiado caliente
m. Distancias entre lugares
n. Otro (texto abierto)

• A continuación se encuentran descripciones e imágenes de diferentes tipos de
infraestructura para bicicletas. Para cada foto, indique si le gustaría ver más de ese tipo
de calle en Phoenix y si apoyaría el diseño incluso si agregara unos minutos al tiempo de
conducción durante las horas pico.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7


desde totalmente
totalment en
e de desacuerd
acuerdo o

(Totally (Totally
Agree) Disagree)


Pregunta 1: Me gustaría ver más calles que se vean así en Phoenix.

Pregunta 2: Estaría interesado en esta calle diseño incluso si añadía unos minutos a los
tiempos de conducción durante las horas pico).

1. Calle principal con 5 o 6 carriles / sin carril para bicicletas
2. Calle principal con carril bici
3. Calle principal con carril bici protegido
4. Calle principal con carril bici protegido (pilonas / postes indicadores)
5. Calle principal con carril para bicicletas protegido (pista para bicicletas con
bordillo)
6. Calle principal con acera ancha (10’)


Page 782


7. Calle secundaria con carril bici
8. Calle secundaria con carril bici amortiguado
9. Calle local con sharrows y control de tráfico (bike blvd)
10. Calle local sin infraestructura para bicicletas

• A continuación se encuentran descripciones e imágenes de diferentes tipos de
infraestructura de aceras. Para cada foto, indique si le gustaría ver más de ese tipo de
calle en Phoenix y si apoyaría el diseño incluso si agregara unos minutos a los tiempos de
conducción durante las horas pico.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7


desde totalmente
totalment en
e de desacuerd
acuerdo o

(Totally (Totally
Agree) Disagree)




Pregunta 1: Me gustaría ver más calles que se vean así en Phoenix.

Pregunta 2: Estaría interesado en esta calle diseño incluso si añadía unos minutos a los
tiempos de conducción durante las horas pico).

1. Calle principal y acera sin barrera (al ras del bordillo)
2. Calle Mayor con tope y sombra
3. Calle secundaria y acera sin amortiguador
4. Calle Secundaria con amortiguador y sombra
5. Cruce a mitad de cuadra con señal HAWK en arterial de 6 o 7 carriles
6. Cruce a mitad de cuadra con señal HAWK en una calle colectora (3 carriles)
7. Cruce a mitad de cuadra sin señal HAWK en una calle colectora
8. Cruce a mitad de cuadra sin HAWK con isla de refugio para peatones
9. Intersección principal con mejoras para peatones

• Para la siguiente pregunta, indique qué tan de acuerdo o en desacuerdo está con cada
una de las siguientes afirmaciones.


Page 783


2. las siguientes afirmaciones.


Muy en Discrepar Algo en Neutra Parcialment Estar de Totalment
desacuerd desacuerdo l e de acuerdo e de
o acuerdo acuerdo




No apoyaría
ningún
proyecto que
reduzca la
velocidad
para conducir
o haga que
los viajes en
automóvil
sean más
largos.


Apoyaría la
reducción de
los límites de
velocidad a
cambio de
hacer las
calles más
cómodas
para caminar
y andar en
bicicleta.

• Pensando en el transporte en general en la Ciudad de Phoenix, clasifique sus prioridades:
a. Reducción de la congestión vehicular durante las horas pico
b. Prevención de colisiones que podrían lesionar a las personas
c. Minimizar el costo de construcción y mantenimiento de calles.



Page 784


d. Brindar a todos una opción cómoda para usar las calles, ya sea que conduzcan,
caminen, anden en bicicleta o tomen el transporte público.
e. Diseño de calles para que coincida con la atmósfera de la vecindad.
f. Construyendo un sistema de transporte verde y sostenible

• Pensando en las calles de Phoenix, ¿cuáles son sus cinco prioridades principales? Por
favor clasifíquelos con 1 siendo el más alto.
a. Ampliar la red de calles para automóviles
b. Mejorar las señales de tráfico para los automóviles
c. Mantenimiento de las aceras existentes.
d. Ampliar la red de aceras
e. Rellene los huecos de la acera
f. Mejorar los pasos de peatones
g. Agregar sombra a lo largo de las aceras
h. Mantener los carriles para bicicletas existentes
i. Ampliar la red de ciclovías
j. Mejorar los cruces de bicicletas

• Al pensar en cómo agregar a la red de bicicletas de Phoenix, la Ciudad tiene que
identificar prioridades y tomar decisiones sobre dónde y cómo invertir. Cuando
buscamos agregar conexiones a la red de bicicletas, debemos priorizar dónde
conectarnos primero. Clasifica lo siguiente según lo que creas que es más importante:
a. Canales: agregar y mejorar caminos a lo largo de canales existentes
b. Equidad: invertir en áreas históricamente marginadas
c. Cierre de brecha: complete los enlaces que faltan en la red
d. Oportunidades de bajo costo: Agregar carriles para bicicletas después de los
proyectos de pavimento
e. Parques y centros comunitarios: construya vínculos con la recreación
f. Centros de población y empleo: conéctese con áreas donde hay mucha gente
trabajando y viviendo.
g. Seguridad: aborde las áreas con un historial de colisiones graves y/o muertes
h. Acceso al tránsito: construya enlaces con estaciones de autobús y tren ligero

• Al pensar en cómo agregar a la red de bicicletas de Phoenix, la Ciudad tiene que
identificar prioridades y tomar decisiones sobre dónde y cómo invertir. Las rutas
regionales generalmente usan calles y canales para guiar a las personas por la ciudad. Las
rutas de vecindario se enfocan en guiar a las personas a destinos en su vecindario. ¿Cuál
crees que es una prioridad más alta?
a. Rutas vecinales: concéntrese en rutas locales a destinos vecinales


Page 785


b. Rutas regionales: concéntrese en las rutas de toda la ciudad para que las personas
hagan viajes más largos

• Por lo general, las instalaciones para bicicletas más cómodas también cuestan más dinero
para construir y mantener. Pensando en nuevas instalaciones para bicicletas, ¿cuál crees
que es más importante?
g. Costo: concéntrese en agregar rayas y letreros para asegurarse de que la ciudad
pueda agregar tantas millas de carriles para bicicletas como sea posible
h. Comodidad: concéntrese en construir proyectos que hagan que andar en bicicleta
sea más cómodo, incluso si eso significa menos proyectos.

• ¿Qué otros comentarios le gustaría compartir con nosotros? (Abierto)

• Las siguientes preguntas están destinadas a ayudar a la ciudad de Phoenix a comprender
si está compartiendo información. Por favor responda honestamente.

1. ¿Sabe cómo reportar problemas de mantenimiento de calles a la Ciudad de Phoenix?
a. Sí
b. No
2. Cuando hay un proyecto de calles para bicicletas o peatones en mi vecindario,
¿pueden encontrar información sobre el proyecto y dar su opinión?
a. Sí
b. No
3. ¿Ha informado alguna vez sobre un problema de la calle a la ciudad de Phoenix?
a. Sí
b. No
4. Si la respuesta es afirmativa, ¿Estuvo satisfecho con el resultado?
a. Sí
b. No

Cuéntanos un poco más sobre ti…

1. Edad
a. 18 and under
b. 19-29
c. 30-39
d. 40-49
e. 50-59
f. 60-69



Page 786


g. 70+

2. Raza y etnicidad
a. Asiático / Isleño del Pacífico
b. Negro
c. Nativo americano
d. Blanco
e. Hispano/Latino de cualquier raza

3. Género
a. _________________

4. Ingresos del hogar
a. Under $35k
b. $36-65k
c. $66-100k
d. $100k - $200k
e. $200k+




Page 787
Appendix B: Draft Plan Survey Responses
Q1 Did you participate in the original project survey or project interviews?
Answered: 180 Skipped: 0



Project Survey
in...


Bicycle
Community...


Community
Leader...


Booth at
either...


No, I did not
participate ...


Other (please
specify)


0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%




ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES

Project Survey in Winter/Spring 2022 24.44% 44

Bicycle Community Interviews 2.22% 4

Community Leader Interviews 0.56% 1

Booth at either Roosevelt Row First Friday or Laveen BBQ 1.11% 2

No, I did not participate in the past. 71.11% 128

Other (please specify) 1.67% 3

Total Respondents: 180


# OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE
1 I was not aware of the survey previously. 1/5/2023 6:02 PM

2 It happened so fast I didn't an opportunity. 1/5/2023 6:00 PM

3 I do not think so. 12/14/2022 3:19 PM




Page
1 788
/ 36
Phoenix Active Transportation Plan: DRAFT PLAN FEEDBACK



Q2 If you are interested in walking or biking more in Phoenix, what
changes would encourage you walk or bike more?
Answered: 159 Skipped: 21



# RESPONSES DATE
1 less hostile traffic conditions. slower vehicles. More shade 1/16/2023 12:25 PM

2 Slower auto traffic. More dedicated bus and bike lanes. Signal priority at lights and 1/8/2023 10:54 AM
intersections for non motor vehicles.

3 None 1/8/2023 7:51 AM

4 If you actually built good infrastructure instead of saying cars are more important than human 1/7/2023 1:16 PM
lives

5 Elevated bike paths, roundabouts for 2 lane streets 1/6/2023 6:56 PM

6 It is fine the way it is. 1/6/2023 4:30 PM

7 N/A 1/6/2023 4:05 PM

8 Not 1/6/2023 3:36 PM

9 N/A 1/6/2023 3:10 PM

10 As a handicap walker sudden dips in sidewalks and uneven pavement make it hard to 1/6/2023 2:33 PM
walk/navigate

11 None 1/6/2023 1:24 PM

12 I am interested in safer streets for driving. 1/6/2023 1:22 PM

13 No. Get rid of homeless squatters in city parks. 1/6/2023 10:12 AM

14 Face it, MAJORITY of people will not use bikes as their primary transportation. Money could 1/6/2023 8:30 AM
be better spent finding a solution to the HOMELESS crisis in the valley. (Our streets look like
garbage cans, worse than the poor parts of Mexico, it's an embarrassment and disappointment
to tax paying citizens.)

15 Nothing. 1/5/2023 9:49 PM

16 None. We don’t need anymore for the amount of people who use bicycles as their mode of 1/5/2023 9:40 PM
transportation to work etc.

17 No. 1/5/2023 9:18 PM

18 Water stations. 1/5/2023 8:51 PM

19 Parks with walkways and bike paths not on the road 1/5/2023 8:39 PM

20 Safer biking 1/5/2023 7:18 PM

21 Not interested in adding any bike lanes and less streets are actively widened. I do not want 1/5/2023 6:47 PM
any car lanes taken away.

22 None of these changes would cause me to walk more than I already do. 1/5/2023 6:02 PM

23 We already walk when we can. Many other people do not. Changing the streets doesn't change 1/5/2023 6:00 PM
people.

24 Fewer abandoned mental patients living homeless in outdoor bus shelters and the proposed 1/5/2023 4:47 PM
shade structures. I drive because I can lock my car. I'd kive to know why the City pours
money into bike lanes that rarely carry a single cyclist but cannot scrape up ten cents to find
housing for the mentally ill. I sense a prejudice against the disabled in this mis-prioritization of
resources. Overbuilding facilities for healthy people while abandoning a huge disabled


Page
2 789
/ 36
Phoenix Active Transportation Plan: DRAFT PLAN FEEDBACK

population to remain homeless may actually violate the Americans With Disabilities Act, under
which the City is liable for damages.

25 Lower the temperature. I'm not biking when it's 100 degrees. 1/5/2023 3:20 PM

26 None, the current lanes are adequate 1/5/2023 3:19 PM

27 Protected bike lines, space between sidewalks and high-speed roads, lower speed limits 1/5/2023 3:02 PM

28 More physically separated bike lanes (with medians) in downtown. Turn Roosevelt Row into a 1/5/2023 1:58 PM
public walkway and close the street to cars

29 Safer streets. More help with homeless population. 1/5/2023 11:22 AM

30 Safe places to ride a bike that is away from traffic. 1/5/2023 11:08 AM

31 Lowering speed limits on ALL streets, more bike lanes throughout the city not just downtown 1/5/2023 8:37 AM

32 More and better sidewalks. Riding on any road with distracted drivers is suicidal. 1/5/2023 7:28 AM

33 Current configuration is fine 1/5/2023 6:18 AM

34 None. Leave us alone. You quit driving if that’s what you want. 1/5/2023 6:12 AM

35 This is more of a seasonal activity in Phoenix. 1/4/2023 11:44 PM

36 Reduce crime and homelessness 1/4/2023 11:38 PM

37 Congested cities are not safe for biking and it is too hot to bike at least 4 months of the year. 1/4/2023 10:27 PM

38 More shade covering sidewalks, protected bike lanes, more bike parking. 1/4/2023 9:29 PM

39 I do not want to bike or walk. The weather is tooooo hot in Phoenix. This is a very BAD idea. 1/4/2023 9:28 PM
Plus, it will create unnecessary traffic jams for features that will be minimally used.

40 More shade for pedestrians and more curb protected bike lanes all over the city 1/4/2023 8:36 PM

41 More Euro style bike/pedestrian protection. More public education regarding pedestrian and 1/4/2023 8:31 PM
cyclists rights. Serious penalties for hitting/killing pedestrians cyclists.

42 I bike the canals and find them amply sufficient 1/4/2023 8:24 PM

43 Safer walk/bike routes with proper hygiene facilities available. 1/4/2023 8:07 PM

44 None 1/4/2023 8:06 PM

45 We need more paths/trails that aren’t connected to roads. Like the trail around the Arizona 1/4/2023 8:00 PM
Canal.

46 Make the streets more safe. Intersections typically house homeless encampments where drug 1/4/2023 7:24 PM
use and other dangerous activities occur.

47 There are enough trails already without taking away from roads 1/4/2023 7:17 PM

48 Not to spend money on this project, if you do, reduce it. This was a mess In Seattle made 1/4/2023 6:56 PM
traffic and accidents worse, and was not used due to hills and weather. It is too hot most of the
year to safely bike.

49 Less mileage. 1/4/2023 6:52 PM

50 I am not interested in either of these. I walk and bike plenty as weather permits but it's too 1/4/2023 6:45 PM
damn hot here for anything but driving at least six months out of the year.

51 More local and affordable businesses along the 32nd St corridor. 1/4/2023 6:37 PM

52 N/A 1/4/2023 6:33 PM

53 Clean up the homeless Street people problem, so we will feel safer to walk the streets 1/4/2023 6:30 PM

54 Parks, definitely not to work. 1/4/2023 6:19 PM

55 None. I can walk and bike fine as is. 1/4/2023 6:18 PM

56 I don’t agree with this plan. 1/4/2023 6:18 PM



Page
3 790
/ 36
Phoenix Active Transportation Plan: DRAFT PLAN FEEDBACK

57 Get homeless out of underpasses and tunnels. 1/4/2023 5:59 PM

58 I’m not. Nobody is. We are a sprawling, spread out city. Not a congested communist pit you 1/4/2023 5:57 PM
desire is to be.

59 Clean up the homeless population 1/4/2023 5:50 PM

60 More trails. 1/4/2023 5:46 PM

61 None 1/4/2023 5:39 PM

62 No 1/4/2023 5:35 PM

63 more convenient businesses 1/4/2023 5:31 PM

64 More parks to walk or bike to 1/4/2023 5:22 PM

65 To hot for walking and riding a bike! 1/4/2023 5:12 PM

66 Give them designated areas to operate and prioritize motor vehicle traffic in high density areas. 1/4/2023 5:11 PM

67 consistent sidewalks- there are a lot of spots that randomly end or are in bad condition. Same 1/4/2023 5:11 PM
goes for bike lanes. Also, additional trees for shade and lighting for night time.

68 Not interested 1/4/2023 5:08 PM

69 Most interested in getting to my destination in my automobile! 1/4/2023 5:06 PM

70 It’s fine how it is. 1/4/2023 5:05 PM

71 Lower taxes so fewer work hours would be necessary to pay bills 1/4/2023 5:00 PM

72 Republicans in office 1/4/2023 4:57 PM

73 If people want to bike more they can move back to CA. 1/4/2023 4:54 PM

74 Having more trains or some of train-like specific transportation, so that walking and biking 1/4/2023 8:44 AM
would be a realistic and accessible approach. Doing all of these city wide improvements that
focus on bike and pedestrian safety only work so well when you can't get to other parts of the
city due to how expansive Phoenix is

75 More trees and more bicycling infrastructure 1/3/2023 11:16 AM

76 no 1/2/2023 5:29 PM

77 Protected bicycle infrastructure including solidly separated bike lanes like in Salt Lake City or 12/29/2022 7:13 PM
at the very least flex delineators on major corridors. Additionally I walk a lot and the need for
HAWKs or just anything to slow down drivers is critical. I also would like more shade
especially in the summer, but the bigger threat to my life is drivers who do not think they have
to stop for pedestrians.

78 Sidewalks 12/29/2022 1:40 PM

79 Improve intersection signals, many do not have a bicycle/pedestrian interface. Focus on the 12/29/2022 10:49 AM
current users and what significant gaps they see in the infrastructure. /there are large safety
gaps that currently exist that are not being addressed by this plan or other current
processes/projects

80 Buffered lanes with shade 12/26/2022 8:00 AM

81 Slower speed limits and off street paths 12/21/2022 10:04 PM

82 Access to retail with Shaded sidewalks on streets with slower traffic. 12/17/2022 7:55 AM

83 Protected bike lanes, better connectivity, and improvements at intersections. Visibility isn’t 12/16/2022 6:03 PM
enough, cars NEED to be slowed down.

84 Better-connected routes, slower car traffic 12/15/2022 4:02 PM

85 Dedicated bike lanes that are protected. 12/14/2022 3:19 PM

86 Shaded walkways and fully protected bike lanes 12/13/2022 8:43 PM

87 More sidewalks (many areas do not have sidewalks or the sidewalks suddenly end) Greater 12/12/2022 7:54 AM


Page
4 791
/ 36
Phoenix Active Transportation Plan: DRAFT PLAN FEEDBACK

separation between sidewalks and streets (I’m originally from Milwaukee. The streets there
follow this layout: traffic lanes, parked cars, 4ft strip of grass (berm/verge), sidewalk. When I
first moved to Phoenix I was surprised to see that the sidewalks here are right up against fast,
high traffic streets. More crosswalks Protected bike lanes Clearly marked bike lanes Lower
speed limit in residential areas ( the neighborhood I live in has 5 lanes of busy traffic. Walking
along a narrow sidewalk with cars speeding past at 50 mph make me feel unsafe) Speed limit
enforced with cameras and fines

88 The danger from cars is such a big risk, I find myself driving embarrassingly short distances 12/11/2022 6:34 PM
because there is no way to safely cross the 6 lane stroad that separates me from the drug
store or convenience store, etc. I used to love walking with my kids before we lived in
Phoenix, but now our routes are very limited thanks to the car danger. Cars do not stop in
marked crosswalks here, especially not on arterial roads. They also generally block the
crosswalk at intersections and don't seem to look for pedestrians before turning on red. It is
not physically possible to cross 6 lanes of traffic with small children during a gap in traffic. If
there were those boulevard-style islands in the middle of the road at more places, it would give
us a more protected place to wait for all the cars speeding through the crosswalk while we
stand in the middle of the road and wait for another break in traffic. More access points and
water crossings over the wash/canal trails would make them a more practical option for
traveling safely while on bike or on foot too. Also I would love to see traffic lights give
pedestrians that 2 second head start before any car traffic lanes get the green, since that
seems to make pedestrians slightly more visible.

89 Sidewalks! My neighborhood for whatever reason doesn't have them. I would get out more with 12/8/2022 1:21 PM
the kids, walk

90 More protected bike lanes, more sidewalks, more shaded sidewalks, beautification of walls 12/8/2022 1:06 PM
with murals from local muralists, more street facing retail shops

91 Reduced speed. Increased education for drivers, bikers, and walkers. Enforcement. 12/8/2022 12:50 PM

92 More HAWKs and bike lanes. 12/8/2022 11:56 AM

93 Upgrade existing bicycle lanes; add new bicycle lanes where feasible. 12/8/2022 6:30 AM

94 Protected bike lanes, water stations on bike paths. 12/7/2022 2:27 PM

95 Safer, more abundant infrastructure for pedestrians and biking. Auto lane reductions and 12/6/2022 4:02 PM
controlling traffic through better street design.

96 Definitely interested in biking more, as I’m an avid road cyclist. The city needs more cycling 12/6/2022 3:46 PM
infrastructure like protected lanes, but we also need to educate drivers on the rights of
cyclists. Not a day goes by that I don’t have some motorist try to run me off the road or
scream at me for NOT riding on the sidewalk.

97 More protected lanes and slower vehicle speed limits 12/6/2022 2:27 PM

98 Less emphasis on accommodating cars, stricter policing on cars for blowing stop lights, rolling 12/6/2022 10:49 AM
through stop signs, etc. more designated bike lanes and safer pedestrian crossings.

99 Bicyclists are a hazard to motorists 12/6/2022 7:31 AM

100 more green space to make commuting paths cooler in the summer months 12/6/2022 4:05 AM

101 protected bike lanes, safer bike parking, 12/5/2022 10:46 PM

102 safe paths that are blocked off from cars. Stoplights that allow for fast crossing. Paths that 12/5/2022 9:35 PM
have appropriate tree coverage so the path stays cool.

103 cycling paths AWAY from traffic 12/5/2022 8:03 PM

104 Better/more bike infrastructure. 12/5/2022 5:59 PM

105 I want low-level, easy routes where I know there will consistently by safe ways to cross big 12/5/2022 4:06 PM
streets, shade, etc. There's a lot of changes I would like to see, but the thing that would make
the biggest difference for both biking and walking is tons more HAWK crosswalks.

106 Walking. More Rapid/Express Transit to get me places where I don't need my car. Rapid transit 12/5/2022 2:58 PM
to downtown Phoenix is great and it would be great to take it other places beyond DTPHX and
not only during rush hour.


Page
5 792
/ 36
Phoenix Active Transportation Plan: DRAFT PLAN FEEDBACK

107 I'm more a cyclist than a walker. Cars remain my biggest concern on a bicycle - too many 12/5/2022 1:33 PM
distracted drivers and too many disrespectful drivers (those that intentionally intimidate
cyclists with their cars) remain primary blockers to my cycling more for transportation than for
fitness/fun.

108 Develop inclusivity of safety, addressing barriers for people on wheelchairs, timing of street 12/5/2022 7:26 AM
crossing lights, pavement condition on streets at crosswalks, transition of pavement at
crosswalks (bulked), impose violation fees for the hundreds of rental scooters just left blocking
on sidewalks. A new problem too is the tents being installed by the homeless on sidewalks.

109 More zebra painted cross walks, speed bumps through newer neighborhoods, multi purpose 12/5/2022 12:46 AM
buildings (retail on bottom, living space above); have bus stops closer together

110 reduced speed limits in pedestrian areas 12/4/2022 8:15 PM

111 more protected bike lanes, or at least more buffered bike lanes. lower speed limits for motor 12/4/2022 7:40 PM
vehicles on streets with just bike lanes or no bike lanes. Better signage fir existing bike
infrastructure. Overall more protection for cyclists and pedestrians, stronger enforcement of
motor vehicle speed limits.

112 More shade and improvements in safety infrastructure 12/4/2022 7:09 PM

113 Less interaction with motorized vehicles is required as Scottsdale has done with underpasses 12/4/2022 3:47 PM
so bikers are not hit by vehicles.

114 Real bike lanes with a barrier between car traffic lanes and the bike lane, not just a painted 12/4/2022 10:35 AM
line. More no right on red restrictions at intersections. More sidewalks that are kept in better
condition.

115 Protected bike/walking lanes along major roads 12/3/2022 3:40 PM

116 I walk more than I bike. My neighborhood has people parking on the sidewalk. Children going 12/3/2022 8:54 AM
to school and others walking have to go out in the street to get past vehicle’s parked on the
sidewalk.

117 More protected bike paths and more shade on side walks 12/3/2022 7:51 AM

118 There needs to be more of an incentive to walk. I live 10 minutes away from a Walgreens and 12/3/2022 7:38 AM
would love to walk there, but I always choose to drive. Walking is not only dangerous, but also
very uncomfortable. I can't have conversations during my walk, I have to use the same route
as the cars, and there is no shade or barriers to protect me from danger. I recommend having
seperate walking/biking paths that pedestrians can use to get where they are going. These
paths would prioritize pedestrians and allow a comforting experience to travel or to just hang
out.

119 Protected infrastructure, as long as there is a physical and immovable barrier I will feel safer 12/2/2022 9:18 PM
walking (add STRONG, IMMOVABLE bollards) or cycling (add jersey barriers to test routes or
separate with plants/shade trees). I think road's need to go on diets and make it so people
don't feel free to go as fast as possible just because the width of the road tricks their minds
into thinking "it's ok because it's like a freeway" Central Ave needs a diet from the very south
to the very north.

120 Safer street crossings, more bike lanes, smarter bike lanes connecting residential to 12/2/2022 2:46 PM
businesses and commercial, otherwise where are we biking? More RED LIGHT CAMERAS.

121 Continue detached sidewalks. Have more safe ways across freeways. 12/2/2022 1:17 PM

122 Lower enforced speeds, speed cameras, traffic light cameras, total ban on right turn on red, 12/2/2022 1:08 PM
bike parking facilities, and protected bike lanes.

123 Enforce traffic laws for cars. Speeding. Red light running. Driving in bike lanes. Running 12/2/2022 1:04 PM
through HAWKs. Ignoring stop signs. I never see traffic stops, and there is no camera
enforcement.

124 Bikers act as if they own the road rather than sharing with cars - bikers on central Avenue 12/2/2022 8:17 AM
make rush hour impossible and yet they are struggling to bike up the road, get some practice
in and attempt to keep up with the flow of traffic rather than crawling along and swerving
around in the lane so that cars cannot pass through

125 Protected Bike Lanes and Safer Road Crossings. 12/2/2022 6:46 AM


Page
6 793
/ 36
Phoenix Active Transportation Plan: DRAFT PLAN FEEDBACK

126 car-free roads 12/2/2022 12:53 AM

127 I am very interested in both when temps are acceptable. Shaded buffered bike and bed paths. 12/1/2022 9:34 PM
I think they are called multi use pathways.

128 I am interested in walking more than biking. I would like more shaded sidewalks. I would rather 12/1/2022 9:22 PM
drive than ride a bicycle

129 Shaded pedestrian walkways, or, at the very least, shade structures or trees placed on the 12/1/2022 8:50 PM
corners of the busiest intersections, where pedestrians often have to wait for long periods while
they wait for the traffic lights to cycle through. Protected bike lines are the single most
effective option for encouraging more biking.

130 Biking more, where safer side streets are used. Walking more if there were more shade 12/1/2022 6:34 PM
walking to and from Light Rail or bus stops.

131 protected bike lanes where I bike 12/1/2022 3:35 PM

132 Completion of Colter Street bike lanes to provide a safe east/west alternative route; Improved 12/1/2022 3:20 PM
safety at the canal crossing at 40th & Camelback; Improvements to overpass bridges such as
at Campbell to make them more bicycle friendly; Enforcement of no loitering/homeless in
underground tunnels and bridges - (this is very expensive infrastructure and not the place for
this/creates safety concerns for users); Paved multi-use path or bike lane on Lincoln from 24th
to 32nd Street; Connecting the uptown area to the 3rd/5th Ave bike lanes to create a safe route
all the way through to downtown.

133 Protected bike lanes, consistent cleaning of debris from bike lanes 12/1/2022 2:57 PM

134 More protected bike lanes, traffic calming, safer pedestrian/bike crossings. 12/1/2022 2:45 PM

135 be less hot outside 12/1/2022 2:17 PM

136 Protected Bike/Pedestrian Lanes Ped/bike bridges Bike paths 12/1/2022 12:32 PM

137 Protected bike infrastructure, lowered speed limits, protected crossings — and 12/1/2022 12:11 PM
ENFORCEMENT. I cannot stress how important enforcement is to making changes such as
these work. If people can park in bike lanes with impunity, speed with no consequences and
place pedestrians in danger without repercussions

138 Real traffic enforcement, lower speed limits, red light cameras. Literally everything is needed. 12/1/2022 12:10 PM

139 Protected Bike lanes, wider sidewalks, MORE SHADE, traffic calming 12/1/2022 11:53 AM

140 Protected, separate bike lanes are the absolute biggest thing preventing me from cycling more 12/1/2022 11:15 AM
in Phoenix. After that shade and drainage would be a priority as well, as well improvements to
the existing trails, the canal trails in particular, they could really use more lighting and paved
routes.

141 Lower driving speed limits, fewer car lanes, and barriers between lanes. 12/1/2022 9:58 AM

142 more efficient light rail, established protected bike lane network, more shade for walking 12/1/2022 1:11 AM

143 Protected bike lanes, more public transit, less priority of cars in the city 11/30/2022 11:31 PM

144 i wish there was less noise and air pollution and it was less hostile to be outside without being 11/30/2022 9:57 PM
in a car

145 Safety. Too many criminal transients and drug addicts to safely walk or ride 11/30/2022 9:35 PM

146 walking, separation barriers between cars and pedestrians/bikers 11/30/2022 6:45 PM

147 Decrease homelessness so streets are safe and bikes don’t keep getting stolen. Expand 11/30/2022 6:23 PM
sidewalks so they aren’t only big enough for a single person at a time. Enforce traffic rules in
high density areas.

148 More interested in biking because everything is so far apart for walking in a lot of phoenix. 11/30/2022 6:06 PM

149 More continuous bike lanes, we have a lot of forgotten lanes where they just randomly end, 11/30/2022 3:16 PM
how can we contribute and report these? Sometimes it seems like there's such a disconnect
between our bike lanes and people that actually ride bikes, that's not a blanket statement, we
have some great routes but we also have some weird ones that could use a little help. More


Page
7 794
/ 36
Phoenix Active Transportation Plan: DRAFT PLAN FEEDBACK

guarded bike lanes and buffered bike lanes, the 15th ave buffered addition is great, the
Fillmore addition is lovely, the 3/5th additions are great. Better routes on quieter streets, there's
no business having a bike lane on 16th, invest in 12th st. and the related lower vehicular traffic
routes. The major through streets are always going to have higher speed limits which I know is
hard to reduce or get people to comply with, invest the streets that'll work instead of trying to
bend the major streets to work.

150 Protected bike lanes! Sharrows and bike lanes next to street parking are even more dangerous 11/30/2022 1:54 PM
than having nothing at all. They give newer riders false confidence and can lead to more
accidents. The priority NEEDS to be on protected bike lanes.

151 Road Diets, Reducing Speed Limits Citywide, Reducing traffic lanes and utilizing them for 11/30/2022 11:49 AM
buffered bike lanes and/or extend curbs and widen sidewalks to create raised protected bike
lanes which improve safety, reduce accidents and ensure accessibility for everyone. Lane
conversion allows for additional area for shade trees or shade structures, increased public
transportation, and economic benefits all while improving traffic, not adding to it.

152 Have you heard of Sunday Parkways in Portland, OR? Community events like that! 11/30/2022 11:47 AM

153 Separated/protected bike lanes, and bike crossing signals. I use the bike lane traveling west 11/30/2022 11:42 AM
on Oak St to 3rd St, and I'm not sure how to safely turn south onto 3rd Street. There's no bike
signal or stop sign for oncoming 2-way traffic. Luckily traffic has been light the times I was
there but it makes me wary of biking there in the future. Also, the 3rd/5th Ave bike lanes were
full of debris from cars running into/over the barriers and breaking them.

154 Road diets, protected bike lanes, speed enforcement, improved pedestrian crossing (i.e. 11/30/2022 9:11 AM
delayed left turn arrows, no turns on red).

155 Unfortunately there is not much I can walk to in my area. The newest business about to be 11/29/2022 11:21 PM
added nearby is a used car dealership on McDowell near 41st Place, which the zoning will be
changed to accommodate if the project is approved. So I would say that part of the larger
picture is what zoning changes the city is approving. There's very little to walk to near me,
including all along McDowell (which has lots of car washes, tire shops, etc.), and this zoning
change will likely have a negative effect for many years to come, as I don't think restaurants,
coffee shops, etc. will be eager to place themselves near something like a car dealership that
doesn't draw in any pedestrians or neighbors. This is obviously a larger conversation beyond
the active transportation plan. Additionally, McDowell Road from 40th Street to 44th Street
(which is the closest area to my home) appears to be one of the worst stretches of road in the
area for traffic fatalities/serious injuries (9 in the last 5 years based on city data), so it doesn't
feel like a great area to walk around. Two other stretches of McDowell west of me (before you
reach downtown) are also hot points. Overall, McDowell could use some improvement when it
comes to safety and also zoning/development. I do very much enjoy walking when I'm able to
do so! Particularly when visiting Downtown Phoenix, where I feel safe getting around on foot. I
find that cars are more likely to be looking for pedestrians than cyclists. And because as a
pedestrian I am grade-separated from cars, it feels much safer. I love biking and now get
around primarily by e-bike. The biggest hurdles to biking are the lack of safe
infrastructure/necessity to ride close to fast-moving traffic, dominant car culture/aggressive
attitude towards cyclists, and also lack of shade (especially May to September). I try to
choose the best routes but there aren't always great options. Commuting all around town, I'd
say my least favorite stretch of road I have to use regularly is 40th Street between McDowell
and Camelback, as it has about 7,000 cars per day (according to data from 2015) and the bike
lane is narrow and unprotected, with most cars driving over 40mph. I don't feel super safe on
this route but try to reassure myself that only 3% of car/bike crashes happen in bike lanes
(based on 2019 city data).

156 More safe routes to destinations that I actually want to go to 11/29/2022 9:21 PM

157 More infrastructure for safe and wide enough bike lanes through popularly ridden streets. Also, 11/29/2022 6:35 PM
for the lanes to remain clear of debris.

158 For walking - more shaded sidewalks. More sidewalks in general. And more shops and 11/29/2022 4:46 PM
restaurants in walking distance to my home. For biking - I am scared to bike because drivers
in Phoenix are fast and aggressive.

159 Vegetation barriers between cars and pedestrians/cyclists would make the streets much more 11/29/2022 4:10 PM
walker/biker friendly while trees could provide shade and better air quality.




Page
8 795
/ 36
Phoenix Active Transportation Plan: DRAFT PLAN FEEDBACK



Q3 What is your most important active transportation priority (i.e., more
sidewalks, safer roadway crossings, protected bicycle facilities, etc.)?
Answered: 164 Skipped: 16



# RESPONSES DATE
1 safer roadway crossings, protected bicycle lanes, road bollards to discourage 4-wheeled 1/16/2023 12:25 PM
vehicle operations and increase pedestrian confidence

2 Safety, convenience, accessibility 1/8/2023 6:17 PM

3 How about maintaining the sidewalks and protected bike lane we have now? And attached 1/8/2023 10:54 AM
sidewalks on arterial roads is unacceptable. More of the same isn't getting us anywhere to
vision zero goals.

4 Wider lanes for automobiles, traffic laws enforced for bicycles 1/8/2023 7:51 AM

5 Make driving a car in Phoenix more difficult 1/7/2023 1:16 PM

6 More busses, bus stops, wheelchair access in bike paths 1/6/2023 6:56 PM

7 N/A 1/6/2023 4:05 PM

8 Better roads 1/6/2023 3:36 PM

9 Better public transportation More police presence at crosswalks to arrest drivers who don't 1/6/2023 3:10 PM
yield to pedestrians

10 Safer sidewalks 1/6/2023 2:33 PM

11 More sidewalks 1/6/2023 1:24 PM

12 Fix the damn roads you currently have. 1/6/2023 1:22 PM

13 Repair existing streets . Reduce light rail funding 1/6/2023 10:12 AM

14 Keep existing sidewalks clear of debris (rocks, plants, garbage) 1/6/2023 8:30 AM

15 Putting these recreational uses in other places that don’t interfere with roads. 1/5/2023 9:49 PM

16 N/A 1/5/2023 9:40 PM

17 Traffic lights synched for vehicles and more pull out lanes for buses 1/5/2023 9:18 PM

18 Driving a vehicle 1/5/2023 8:51 PM

19 Street repairs for auto transportation 1/5/2023 8:39 PM

20 Safer roadway crossings 1/5/2023 7:18 PM

21 My most important, active transportation priority is being able to drive where I want without 1/5/2023 6:47 PM
excessive traffic

22 Phoenix has a great layout of sidewalks and bike paths that are already very underutilized. It is 1/5/2023 6:02 PM
very hot here in the summer months and we rarely see people walking or biking. “Safer” bike
paths will not increase usage and will be a waste of taxpayer dollars.

23 I think Phoenix is already well structured and the existing walking paths and bike lanes don't 1/5/2023 6:00 PM
see that much activity. Adding more is nothing but a waste of tax dollars.

24 Crosswalk safety is vitally important. Many intersections are poorly lit and motorists enter 1/5/2023 4:47 PM
crosswalks, not seeing pedestrians attempting to cross.

25 More sidewalks. 1/5/2023 3:20 PM

26 Protected bike lanes would make it safer for bikers and walkers alike 1/5/2023 3:02 PM



Page
9 796
/ 36
Phoenix Active Transportation Plan: DRAFT PLAN FEEDBACK

27 Safer bike routes 1/5/2023 1:58 PM

28 Do not restrict car lanes. It will achieve only congestion and more smog. 1/5/2023 1:44 PM

29 Safer crossings 1/5/2023 11:22 AM

30 Safer Roadway Crossings 1/5/2023 11:08 AM

31 More car lanes 1/5/2023 8:55 AM

32 Lowering speed limits 1/5/2023 8:37 AM

33 Sidewalks sidewalks sidewalks 1/5/2023 7:28 AM

34 Protected bike facilities 1/5/2023 6:18 AM

35 Actual streets. For driving. 1/5/2023 6:12 AM

36 Less traffic. So if this is something that will influence traffic in a negative way then we need to 1/4/2023 11:44 PM
circle back and think when this would be utilized. An example would be it will be utilized more
in fall and winter.

37 Increase number of lanes for cars. Build sidewalks. Bicycles are for spandex wearing chumps! 1/4/2023 11:38 PM

38 Repair Phx highways, too many pot holes, it’s worse than ever. Bike lanes are a WASTE of 1/4/2023 10:27 PM
taxpayer dollars, invest in electric car charging stations instead.

39 Protected bine lanes 1/4/2023 9:29 PM

40 Safer roadway for vehicles 1/4/2023 9:28 PM

41 Protected bike lanes 1/4/2023 8:36 PM

42 more sidewalks with integrated bike path I would also like to see the heat level lowered by 1/4/2023 8:31 PM
painting streets and roof tops white

43 More lanes for cars 1/4/2023 8:24 PM

44 Cost and usage effectiveness 1/4/2023 8:07 PM

45 No traffic 1/4/2023 8:06 PM

46 More lanes for cars. Almost no one bikes. There is already a serious traffic issue in the 1/4/2023 7:44 PM
Phoenix area. Are you seriously considering CLOSING vehicle lanes?!?

47 Updating & expanding infrastructure to accommodate growth in the valley and the fact that 1/4/2023 7:26 PM
people are having to move further out for affordability. Our roads and highways are already
congested, fix that, not complicate a system that cannot handle current conditions.

48 N/A 1/4/2023 7:24 PM

49 Efficient and sufficient roadway space to handle car traffic 1/4/2023 7:17 PM

50 Safe road crossings in areas with high accident rates 1/4/2023 6:56 PM

51 Timed red lights. 1/4/2023 6:52 PM

52 Driving lanes. 1/4/2023 6:45 PM

53 Safer roadway crossings 1/4/2023 6:37 PM

54 Easy, unimpeded and well-managed flow of traffic and bikes/pedestrians 1/4/2023 6:33 PM

55 More sidewalks 1/4/2023 6:30 PM

56 More expressways, more sidewalks, more traffic lanes. 1/4/2023 6:26 PM

57 Better roads, more lanes and separated bike lanes 1/4/2023 6:19 PM

58 None 1/4/2023 6:18 PM

59 Please leave the roads alone. 1/4/2023 6:18 PM

60 None. We don’t need to waste money on this stuff. There are higher properties such as 1/4/2023 5:59 PM
homelessness etc


Page/ 797
10 36
Phoenix Active Transportation Plan: DRAFT PLAN FEEDBACK


61 Less vehicle traffic. 1/4/2023 5:57 PM

62 Safer better maintained roadways and crossings 1/4/2023 5:51 PM

63 Trying to get around the homeless camps 1/4/2023 5:50 PM

64 Safe roads. 1/4/2023 5:46 PM

65 Mone 1/4/2023 5:39 PM

66 Avoiding do gooder efforts that only further ensnarl traffic so people can feel good about 1/4/2023 5:35 PM
themselves while harming the greater mass of commuters

67 more courteous drivers - nothing that involves any expenditure 1/4/2023 5:31 PM

68 More diving lanes for cars. Rush hour congestion is ridiculous. How can such a new city have 1/4/2023 5:22 PM
such bad traffic?

69 Safer roadways better street surfaces! 1/4/2023 5:12 PM

70 Less motor vehicle congestion. 1/4/2023 5:11 PM

71 more, and wider, sidewalks 1/4/2023 5:11 PM

72 Better roadways 1/4/2023 5:09 PM

73 Safer roads for vehicles. There's almost no bicycle travel. This will cause congestion, angry 1/4/2023 5:08 PM
motorists, and more accidents.

74 Available motor vehicle lanes 1/4/2023 5:06 PM

75 Most interested in getting to my destination in my automobile! 1/4/2023 5:06 PM

76 More sidewalks are fine. 1/4/2023 5:05 PM

77 Less homelessness and crime around light rail stops 1/4/2023 5:00 PM

78 Less traffic not more 1/4/2023 4:57 PM

79 Stop the building in metro Phoenix. 1/4/2023 4:54 PM

80 Trains; Our city is expanding at a rapid rate that cannot be sustained by adding lanes on 1/4/2023 8:44 AM
roads. If Phoenix wants a realistic and active transportation strategy that can be easily
accessible to all while still cutting down on congestion and pollution then some form of train
transport needs to be considered. Whether that be trolley/street car, and/or a high speed
commuter train that runs in the median between freeways. Ultimately less cars on the road
means a more pedestrian and bike friendly city as it means safer sidewalks and bicycle lanes.
Especially when in 2020 AZ had the 6th highest pedestrian fatality rate in the country. We are
not a pedestrian friendly city, because we do not offer an effective public transit system that
works throughout the city.

81 Less money towards car-centric roads and more money towards tree shade and bicycle 1/3/2023 11:16 AM
infrastructure

82 none 1/2/2023 5:29 PM

83 Frequent crossing points for pedestrians and bicyclists. It's not a system safe for us if we 12/29/2022 7:13 PM
have to walk or bike a mile out of our way to go anywhere.

84 More sidewalks 12/29/2022 1:40 PM

85 Updating current roadways that have no sidewalk or bike lanes. 12/29/2022 10:49 AM

86 Crossings 12/26/2022 8:00 AM

87 Safer roadways 12/21/2022 10:04 PM

88 Safer sidewalks with shade and slower traffic. 12/17/2022 7:55 AM

89 Safer roadway crossings is most important for saving lives. 12/16/2022 6:03 PM

90 Protected bicycle facilities, more shade 12/15/2022 4:02 PM



Page/ 798
11 36
Phoenix Active Transportation Plan: DRAFT PLAN FEEDBACK

91 Protected sidewalks, bike paths, and parallel parking to be a buffer for restaurants on 7th 12/14/2022 3:19 PM
street from Mcdowell to Thomas.

92 Protected bike lanes 12/13/2022 8:43 PM

93 My greatest priority is safety, such as safer sidewalks and bike lanes. 12/12/2022 7:54 AM

94 Safer crosswalks 12/11/2022 6:34 PM

95 Sidewalks 12/8/2022 1:21 PM

96 Protected bicycle paths 12/8/2022 1:06 PM

97 Speed reduction. Cushion space between sidewalks and roads. Travel safety education. 12/8/2022 12:50 PM

98 Safer crossings 12/8/2022 11:56 AM

99 Protected bicycle lanes 12/8/2022 6:30 AM

100 Protected bike lanes, bike cages or lockers. 12/7/2022 2:27 PM

101 Bike facilities accessible for all ages and abilities. 12/6/2022 4:02 PM

102 More bike lanes. 12/6/2022 3:46 PM

103 Slower vehicle speed limits and improved bicycle/pedestrian crossings at intersections 12/6/2022 2:27 PM

104 Safer roadway crossings and protected bike lanes 12/6/2022 10:49 AM

105 police enforcement of traffic laws 12/6/2022 7:31 AM

106 actions that promote bicycle commuting 12/6/2022 4:05 AM

107 protected bike lanes 12/5/2022 10:46 PM

108 protected bike lanes and favorable crossings 12/5/2022 9:35 PM

109 shade spots and protected cycling paths 12/5/2022 8:03 PM

110 protected bike infrastructure 12/5/2022 5:59 PM

111 HAWK crosswalks. They would be most useful if we designed them thoughtfully to form 12/5/2022 4:06 PM
consistent routes to walk on small neighborhood streets.

112 Safer roadway crossings 12/5/2022 2:58 PM

113 Protected cycling lanes and paved, maintained, improved greenway/canal paths. 12/5/2022 1:33 PM

114 All of the above mentioned as part of question. 12/5/2022 7:26 AM

115 All of it!! 12/5/2022 12:46 AM

116 pedestrian safety 12/4/2022 8:15 PM

117 Protected bike lanes—separate bicycles and pedestrians from high speed motor vehicles. 12/4/2022 7:40 PM

118 more sideways and scenic walks, safer roadway crossings and intersections. 12/4/2022 7:20 PM

119 Safer roadway crossings and protected bicycle facilities 12/4/2022 7:09 PM

120 Safer crossings, protected right of use. 12/4/2022 3:47 PM

121 safer roadway crossings 12/4/2022 10:35 AM

122 Safer roadway crossings 12/3/2022 11:19 PM

123 Protected bike/walking lanes for safe transportation 12/3/2022 3:40 PM

124 Safer roadway crossings. 12/3/2022 8:54 AM

125 Bike paths 12/3/2022 7:51 AM

126 Not just more sidewalks, but also wider sidewalks. Sidewalks with beautiful trees between 12/3/2022 7:38 AM
pedestrians and cars to not only protect pedestrians but to beautify the roads/ streets. I see
aggressive driver on the road every day. Many of them run through red light intersections. Red


Page/ 799
12 36
Phoenix Active Transportation Plan: DRAFT PLAN FEEDBACK

light cameras are good but there needs to be better infrastructure to not allow cars to reach
fast speeds in the first place. And definitely protected bike lanes. Not just space or cones but
an actual barrier to deincentivise cars from driving where bikes are.

127 Safer road crossings, I see too many oversized trucks ride the curb while turning which can be 12/2/2022 9:18 PM
deadly to pedestrians waiting for a light change. Ban right on red.

128 Protected bike lanes, then red light cameras and safer roadways. 12/2/2022 2:46 PM

129 safer roadway crossings 12/2/2022 1:17 PM

130 Protected bike facilities. 12/2/2022 1:08 PM

131 Slower cars. I avoid some bike lanes because the cars are faster there. For example, 11st in 12/2/2022 1:04 PM
Garfield and the new Oak Street in Coronado. The side roads are safer because the cars are
slower. The infrastructure doesn't matter until we slow the cars and get motorists to obey the
traffic laws.

132 Protected Bike Lanes and Safer Road Crossings. 12/2/2022 6:46 AM

133 Zoning reform to encourage mixed use nearby dense residential shifting focus away from car- 12/2/2022 12:53 AM
dependency

134 I love the canal pathways. I think they should be paved/improved and if we can go UNDER the 12/1/2022 9:34 PM
roadways instead doing HAWKS to cross, I can really get moving across town. For example
Biltmore to Sun city is 1 hour on my bike. Thats a lot of ground in a short amount of time
because of those canal tunnels.

135 More sidewalks, safe roadway crossings. 12/1/2022 9:22 PM

136 Pedestrian improvements, including more sidewalks and pedestrian bridges, more signaled 12/1/2022 8:50 PM
crosswalks and more shade structures/trees.

137 Protected bike facilities and safer crosswalk sites that do not recall a pedestrian to walk half a 12/1/2022 6:34 PM
mile or more to the next stoplight.

138 protected bike lanes, safer roadway crossings and less stupidity and rushing on the part of 12/1/2022 3:35 PM
automobile drivers!

139 Improved bicycle infrastructure - bike lanes and protected bike lanes - in the central 12/1/2022 3:20 PM
city/uptown area. Connect the Uptown area to the 3rd/5th Ave bicycle improvements to allow a
safe commute all the way downtown.

140 Sidewalks AND protected bike lanes 12/1/2022 2:57 PM

141 Safer crossings and more protected bike lanes. 12/1/2022 2:45 PM

142 Safe Cycling Infrustructure 12/1/2022 2:17 PM

143 protected bicycle facilities 12/1/2022 12:32 PM

144 1.) Wider sidewalks, better insulated from traffic. I live on 16th Street, near a commercial node 12/1/2022 12:11 PM
on Bethany Home and can walk to a lot of amenities. It's not a pleasant walk, nor does it feel
particularly safe (especially with my child) because there's near-highway speed traffic mere
feet away whipping by us on the sidewalk. 2.) Protected bike lanes are a close second for all
the reasons above. If I had a dollar for every time a driver cut me off to get ahead or nearly hit
me because they didn't see (or didn't care), drinks would be on me.

145 Increase reliability and scheduling of transit intervals 15 minutes, not 30 minutes. Also, ensure 12/1/2022 12:10 PM
all buses are equipped with 3 bike rack slots, not 2 (you never know if you're going to work and
will get a slot on the bus as it could be a two racker or a three racker, no uniformity)

146 protected bike facilities 12/1/2022 11:53 AM

147 Protected bicycle facilities, protected bicycle lanes, and safer roadway crossings. 12/1/2022 11:15 AM

148 Fewer and narrower car lanes that share space with protected, wider bike lanes and sidewalks. 12/1/2022 9:58 AM

149 safer roadway crossings and more traffic lights downtown for local residents 12/1/2022 1:11 AM

150 Protected bike lanes 11/30/2022 11:31 PM



Page/ 800
13 36
Phoenix Active Transportation Plan: DRAFT PLAN FEEDBACK

151 all of the above: fewer cars 11/30/2022 9:57 PM

152 Safer area without mentally Ill, criminal transients and drug pushers on the right of ways 11/30/2022 9:35 PM

153 Wider sidewalks 11/30/2022 6:23 PM

154 More sidewalks and safer bicycle facilities. A big reason I don’t bike more places is because I 11/30/2022 6:06 PM
had a bike stolen and it’s really common here. Obviously there’s a bigger problem of economic
inequality and homelessness, but in the mean time some sort of protected bike racks with
codes or something would be cool. Just an idea not sure how it would work- I would be willing
to pay a small fee for that like a parking monitor

155 Protected bicycle routes and facilities 11/30/2022 3:16 PM

156 Protected bicycle facilities, safer crossings, bike boxes, less parking by mixed-use 11/30/2022 1:54 PM
developments. It's not just about the bikes, all other forms of transportation benefit from better
bike infrastructure.

157 Protected Bicycle facilities and a truly connected network, especially in Southwest Phoenix 11/30/2022 11:49 AM
(estrella & laveen villages)

158 Community awareness and participation in active transportation 11/30/2022 11:47 AM

159 protected bicycle facilities 11/30/2022 11:42 AM

160 Protected bicycle facilities, roadway crossings, road diets, lower speed limits + enforcement. 11/30/2022 9:11 AM

161 protected bicycle facilities - whether that's a buffered lane or something safer 11/29/2022 11:21 PM

162 More sidewalks and protected bicycle lanes. 11/29/2022 6:35 PM

163 More sidewalks and shaded sidewalks. 11/29/2022 4:46 PM

164 Shaded sidewalks are very important. Especially in the summer months. Without shade, the 11/29/2022 4:10 PM
heat can make it unbearable to walk.




Page/ 801
14 36
Phoenix Active Transportation Plan: DRAFT PLAN FEEDBACK



Q4 How familiar are you with the Draft Plan and Plan Elements?
Answered: 180 Skipped: 0




Have not
Reviewed




Somewhat
Familiar




Very Familiar



0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%




ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES

Have not Reviewed 13.33% 24

Somewhat Familiar 64.44% 116

Very Familiar 22.22% 40

TOTAL 180




Page/ 802
15 36
Phoenix Active Transportation Plan: DRAFT PLAN FEEDBACK



Q5 How do you feel about the current Draft Plan and Plan Elements?
Answered: 180 Skipped: 0



Strongly
Disapprove


Disapprove


Slightly
Disapprove

Slightly
Approve


Approve


Strongly
Approve

I have not
reviewed the...

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%




ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES

Strongly Disapprove 33.89% 61

Disapprove 10.00% 18

Slightly Disapprove 5.56% 10

Slightly Approve 12.22% 22

Approve 23.33% 42

Strongly Approve 5.00% 9

I have not reviewed the Draft Plan and Plan Elements 10.00% 18

TOTAL 180




Page/ 803
16 36
Phoenix Active Transportation Plan: DRAFT PLAN FEEDBACK



Q6 Please share your comments on the Draft Plan and Plan Elements. For
example, What do you like about the plan? What concerns do you have?
What recommendations do you have?
Answered: 139 Skipped: 41



# RESPONSES DATE
1 hi, substituting asphalt, chip seal or tarmac with alternatives like concrete is conspicuously 1/16/2023 12:25 PM
absent from the plan. A reduction in vehicle speed from traffic calming could make concrete a
viable alternative. This would save the city tons of money on road maintenance.

2 I don’t like the idea of making roads smaller and creating “speed Diets” or usage diets. The 1/8/2023 6:20 PM
roads are congested enough and enough people will not bike, walk, take a bus or train to make
these changes sustainable, to grow the city, nor encourage a healthy lifestyle. I drive around
the city and vary rarely see anyone using any of the bike lanes.

3 Section 3 Objective 5 - YES to recommendation 5.2 – pilot use of NACTO city speed limit 1/8/2023 6:17 PM
guide. Failing to slow cars down is malfeasance. Additionally, education is crucial to explain
speed-related dangers and the proven benefits of lowering speeds. School crossing speed
limits are 15mph with generally high compliance; drivers know slowing down is crucial for
safety, and need to apply this knowledge to all streets. Section 3 Objective 7 – YES to
recommendation 7.1 – process to include traffic calming in capital improvement projects. The
Streets Department must also consider broad toolkit of self-enforcing design features/traffic
calming beyond just speed humps and speed bumps (see West 5th Street in Tempe between
Hardy and Farmer for an example of effective traffic calming). Recommendation 7.4 must be
moved to medium or near term; we cannot afford to wait a decade on this when our city has so
much ground to make up. Section 3 Objective 8 - Innovative and thorough community
engagement is critical. Over 100,000 Phoenix households do not own a car. A few hundred out
of 1.6 million people responded to the initial Active Transportation Plan survey. How will
marginalized and vulnerable residents, such as busy working poor people, homeless
constituents and non-English-speaking residents be sought out and included in network
development? Posting a survey link on City social media accounts is not sufficient. The City
must commit to studying the removal of single-family zoning and minimum parking
requirements in order to make Phoenix more walkable and stop exacerbating the urban heat
island effect, which this plan identifies as a key barrier to active transportation. Collaborate
across departments and get things done. Appendix A page 5 - 85103/85013 zip code typo

4 It doesn't go far enough to really encourage people to replace motor vehicle trips in their 1/8/2023 10:54 AM
everyday routines.

5 The draft plan focuses too much on non-automobile transportation, at the cost of making 1/8/2023 7:51 AM
driving less safe.

6 More protected bike infrastructure, with hard protection, bollards, make the tough choices to 1/7/2023 1:16 PM
actually make it safer instead of always bowing to cars instead of safety

7 Traffic maker, kills bikers, destroys businesses. Waste of money and lives 1/6/2023 6:56 PM

8 Will create too much vehicle traffic. 1/6/2023 4:30 PM

9 Not to move forward with this plan 1/6/2023 4:05 PM

10 Don’t like taking away car lanes. 1/6/2023 1:24 PM

11 No one rides bikes for six months in the summer to commute. Less $ on bike lanes, more $ for 1/6/2023 10:12 AM
street maintenance.

12 My concern is this is a waste of money for a minority of the population, it will bottleneck traffic 1/6/2023 8:30 AM
(even more than current). As it is I loathe driving in downtown Phx because of light rail
confusion, one way streets etc. Use the money somewhere else like homeless transition




Page/ 804
17 36
Phoenix Active Transportation Plan: DRAFT PLAN FEEDBACK

services and supporting our Police Department that are overloaded because of the terrible
border enforcement.

13 The city should stop trying to manipulate behavior to force people out of their cars. People love 1/5/2023 9:49 PM
their freedom of mobility and unencumbered ability to choose to access a number of
destinations. Stop foisting your anti-car agenda on residents and taxpayers - cars are the
greatest asset to the democratization of the freedom to mobility.

14 It’s a ridiculous waste of money. It isn’t complicated to figure out what problems this will cause 1/5/2023 9:40 PM
with traffic etc. there aren’t enough bicyclists that use this as their main mode of transportation
to work etc. in Phoenix to warrant this, and you know it.

15 Phoenix is not laid out to be walkable or bikeable. 1/5/2023 9:18 PM

16 This will make traffic unbearable. 1/5/2023 8:51 PM

17 Repair roadways stop wasting money 1/5/2023 8:39 PM

18 I feel the current plan would back up traffic actually making biking more dangerous 1/5/2023 7:18 PM

19 I am not interested in adding anything to our transportation system that causes more traffic 1/5/2023 6:47 PM
that gets backed up

20 My biggest concern is what a waste of money this will be. We have yet to see any significant 1/5/2023 6:02 PM
use of the light rail system. Creating these specific lanes will reduce vehicle lanes an could
cause even greater vehicle emissions.

21 The roads are well set up to manage traffic loads. Restricting them with the proposed 1/5/2023 6:00 PM
modifications would be foolish. In the hot summer months, in particular, people will not want to
walk or bike. By decreasing traffic lanes you will cause more traffic backups and increased
emissions.

22 I recommend the City give tax incentives to landlords who take in at least one Section 8 1/5/2023 4:47 PM
recipient, and fund it by delaying the Active Transportation Plan implementation. Our existing
investment in light rail and bus transportation is underutilized because of abandoned mental
patients using them in place of housing. AHCCS can provide continuing care for the mentally
ill, if those peoplw have a home address somewhere. But keeping on a medication schedule
and attending therapy is nearly impossible if one lives on the streets. This increases costs for
AHCCS because patients are re-hospitalized in emergencies but are discharged right back to
the condition of homelessness that interferes with their therapy and recovery. A plan to expand
light rail service across Mesa, through Gilbert, and into developing communities southeast of
the city met opposition this election season, specifically because voters understood that
abandoned mental patients would come into their cities and live homelesa along the route.
Active transit and mass transit will remain underutilized and the capital already invested in
those assets will appear to be a poor investment. The City must solve the problem of patient
abandonment by working with landlords and charitable groups, to see that patients with serious
mental illness have a safe place to live.

23 The answer is NOT to make life more difficult for drivers. We live in a desert! People need 1/5/2023 3:20 PM
cars...not more bike lanes. Anything that causes more traffic congestion (like one lane roads
bc you want to put in useless bike lanes) will cause MORE accidents. Also, bicyclists are
often reckless and ignore traffic laws and cause most accidents. We need more enforcement
and harsher penalties when they don't follow the laws. We also need to prosecute them when
they injure pedestrians.

24 We do NOT need to take away car lanes. It is important that people can move about in cars 1/5/2023 3:19 PM
and by wanting to remove car lanes is dangerous to the future of our city

25 I love that it takes a neighborhood approach and considers all types of active transportation 1/5/2023 3:02 PM
users. My biggest hesitation to biking is that I don't want to ride down arterials like 7th Ave - it
is so scary! It is also scary to walk on those sidewalks. Small measures will make a big
difference.

26 I like that it calls out car culture in Phoenix. We need to stop seeing EVs as the solution 1/5/2023 1:58 PM
(which only add to more cars on the road), and start incentivizing more public transportation
and safer bikeways.

27 Ignores the need for easier flow of inevitable auto traffic. 1/5/2023 1:44 PM



Page/ 805
18 36
Phoenix Active Transportation Plan: DRAFT PLAN FEEDBACK

28 We do not need smaller roadways. We don't need single lanes. We have enough traffic and it 1/5/2023 11:22 AM
is only getting worse as more people move to AZ.

29 I would like to see Skunk Creek be connected in Phoenix to Glendale at the intersection of 1/5/2023 11:08 AM
51st Ave South of Beardsley. Let's take advantage of the Skunk Creek Riparian from 43rd Ave
all the way to 51st Ave.

30 We have cars. Build more car lanes. 1/5/2023 8:55 AM

31 I think the plan will do a lot for the city and making transportation for all safer. I am concerned 1/5/2023 8:37 AM
on some of the choices in focusing on a small area for overkill projects while neglecting other
less “showy” concerns (ie., a huge bike lane with bollards on 3rd avenue with little traffic but
super thin bike lanes on cave creek with cars traveling at 60+)

32 Stop destroying car travel lanes for less used bike lanes. I want a sidewalk to ride my bike on. 1/5/2023 7:28 AM

33 Any reduction to the number of lanes for vehicular traffic would have a negative effect on 1/5/2023 6:18 AM
overall transportation

34 I want to see all public officials ride their bikes as a test program for 1 year and report back on 1/5/2023 6:12 AM
how they like it. They can not drive anywhere. Not once!

35 Typical green new BS. This will increase traffic dramatically and the few who use the bike 1/4/2023 11:38 PM
lanes will be harassed by vagrants and crime.

36 It is not realistic, will cause significant increase in traffic congestion and biking in the city is a 1/4/2023 10:27 PM
hobby, not a viable mode of daily transportation, especially once temps are above 100
degrees.

37 Do not implement this. 1/4/2023 9:28 PM

38 Over all I think it’s a good plan. I’d like to see benchmarks and goals made more concrete but 1/4/2023 8:36 PM
it’s a good start

39 I love the tree/shade Master plan. 1/4/2023 8:31 PM

40 It’s been problematic in other cities, squeezing cars into bumper to bumper single lanes 1/4/2023 8:24 PM

41 Plan is lacking in any actionable detail. Costs, locations, priorities, public safety while using 1/4/2023 8:07 PM
public transportation, racists and sexist prioritization through equity initiatives.

42 Trying to move a large metropolitan center away from a “car-centered culture” can have 1/4/2023 8:00 PM
problems. Taking away lanes of roads to make metro-rail lanes or bike lanes can increase car
congestion on streets. This will lead to increased traffic and increased idling in high traffic
areas. Which in turn, will lead to MORE carbon emissions. Since part of the goal of the action
plan is to REDUCE carbon emissions, such a result would be counterproductive. The board
and the plan need to balance car travel with active travel, not just focus on active travel. Even
with active travel improvements, many people in Phoenix will still have to trace by car to far
away places (distance was a large barrier to active travel as mentioned in the plan). The Plan
needs to recognize this and focus some of its funds to improving car travel. Also the plan
needs to realize that Phoenicians who live in the “suburbs” will not receive the same benefit
from this program as will those living in high populous places. Any benefits of this plan will
highly favor those living in highly populated neighborhoods of Phoenix.

43 There is already a VERY serious traffic issue around Phoenix. Currently there aren't enough 1/4/2023 7:44 PM
roads for all the vehicles. Traffic is a nightmare! PLEASE DO NOT close any vehicle
lanes!!!!!!!! Do you understand that you will directly affect the increase in driver's rage and
most likely push people to leave Phoenix because of this horrible proposal?!?

44 Shared bike lanes impede auto traffic in high use roadways downtown. They result in safety 1/4/2023 7:24 PM
issues and will make cycle less safe and auto travel less effective.

45 Don't do it, quit pushing agenda 2030 at taxpayers expense, for things not highly utilized. 1/4/2023 6:56 PM

46 You're idiots. You can't walk or ride bike 5-6 months out of the year! 1/4/2023 6:52 PM

47 I work downtown. Stop turning driving lanes into anything other than driving lanes! 1/4/2023 6:45 PM

48 Similar plans have been implemented in cities such as Washington DC, and the result has 1/4/2023 6:33 PM
been clogged streets with bumper-to-bumper traffic. Phoenix is a commuter city and people are
not going to give up their cars. This plan will only cause congestion and frustration. As a


Page/ 806
19 36
Phoenix Active Transportation Plan: DRAFT PLAN FEEDBACK

commuter who lives in the suburbs but is frequently downtown for both work and recreation, I
am against this plan.

49 Streets are congested enough 1/4/2023 6:31 PM

50 The bike lanes that were put in on third Street going towards downtown. Phoenix are unsafe 1/4/2023 6:30 PM
and confusing. They are just as confusing as the suicide lanes on seventh Street and seventh
Avenue. Furthermore, the confusion mix traffic backed up.

51 Please do not replace traffic lanes. Look for ways to implement bicycle lanes only where there 1/4/2023 6:26 PM
is unused space. This will be a nightmare otherwise.

52 It will ruin our roads and create crazy congestion to focus more on biking and walking. 1/4/2023 6:19 PM

53 Please don’t impede in traffic flow for walking and bicycles. There is ample other ways. 1/4/2023 6:18 PM

54 Money could be used for more urgent proposes. Very small percentage of population would 1/4/2023 5:59 PM
benefit. I’m an avid cyclist and don’t see the need

55 This will make vehicle traffic significantly worse, as it has everywhere else. 1/4/2023 5:57 PM

56 Don't need to increase the width of bike right of ways on the streets and reduce area for 1/4/2023 5:51 PM
vehicles. Need to use surfaces that do not absorb heat to be re-radiated at night creating a
bigger heat island.

57 Phoenix is too densely populated to give up traffic lanes. It made Washington DC a mess. 1/4/2023 5:51 PM

58 Please do not reduce the number of vehicle lanes, AT ALL. 1/4/2023 5:46 PM

59 There are not enough bicyclists to enact this policy. It will cause more wrecks and congestion. 1/4/2023 5:46 PM
I recommend making a bike lane on the sidewalks and more bicycle trails.

60 These efforts make things worse in American cities. Just stop. 1/4/2023 5:35 PM

61 I don't like the idea of creating traffic bottlenecks to create bike paths 1/4/2023 5:31 PM

62 I have many concerns with how adding more bike lanes will impede traffic further and increase 1/4/2023 5:22 PM
traffic accidents and first responder times.

63 Better streets! 1/4/2023 5:12 PM

64 I think the City is trying to minimize motor vehicle traffic under the agenda of inclusiveness. If 1/4/2023 5:11 PM
a proper study was done, one would find that bicyclists rarely stay in their bike lanes.
Removing traffic lanes in what the draft states as the 5th largest and fastest growing city is
inane. The City needs to improve traffic flow for motor vehicles and spend less time worrying
about pedestrian and bicycle traffic.

65 The plan will clog up the ability for people to move around in vehicles 1/4/2023 5:09 PM

66 Stop spending my money on this idiocy. 1/4/2023 5:08 PM

67 It lacks insight and a basic understanding of the vastness of the metro area and commuter 1/4/2023 5:06 PM
needs

68 Don't reduce lanes on our streets. I pay taxes for streets to drive on, not to dodge bicycles. 1/4/2023 5:06 PM
Consider us "old folks" that need to go to the doctor or lawyer. Downtown is already a maze to
navigate with homeless camping on the streets and crapping there, too. Focus our dollars on
cleaning the city, not making more room for "campers".

69 This is going to make commuting by vehicle take longer and create more traffic jams. 1/4/2023 5:05 PM

70 Taking traffic lanes away is idiotic 1/4/2023 4:57 PM

71 Do not implement it. 1/4/2023 4:54 PM

72 I like increasing of width of bike lanes and sidewalks. And adding more parking and loading 1/4/2023 8:44 AM
zones. However, I'm worried that these improvements are only going to affect a small
subsection of the population, and mostly for leisure rather than for accessibility and regular
use.

73 The plan is good. But it's yet another plan and the City has put forth plans for more than a 1/3/2023 11:16 AM
decade, which the streets department ignores. From the Shade Master (2010) to Complete


Page/ 807
20 36
Phoenix Active Transportation Plan: DRAFT PLAN FEEDBACK

Streets (2017), it is clear that the streets department leadership is hostile to shifting its focus
from car-centric culture. If the City wants real change on this point, city management needs to
change leadership in streets. It needs personnel that will actively shift the priority and budget
requests from car-centric streets to tree shade and bicycle infrastructure. Until that happens,
I'm afraid this plan that builds on years of other plans, will have as much to show 10 years
from now as we currently have to show for the plans of the last 20 years.

74 The money is being wasted and could be used in better housing for the homeless I do not live 1/2/2023 5:29 PM
in Phoenix but my tax dollars are being used.

75 There is a lot of good in the plan and I won't go into detail on that for the sake of time but know 12/29/2022 7:13 PM
that it is passable. The issue is that Phoenix is so hostile in its design toward pedestrians and
bicyclists that stronger action is required. Anticipatory warrants should be a short term action
and we should be actively designing our streets to be safe for pedestrians and cyclists instead
of reacting to their deaths. There is no reason this shouldn't be a short term goal. When
Phoenix for instance allows parking in bike lanes, it is clear who the city prefers. The city has
bent over backwards to make every aspect of life convenient for motorists while at the same
time endangering the lives of cyclists and pedestrians throughout the city. The success of this
plan is entirely dependent on the rollout of quickbuild plans. This is not enough to say that
Phoenix should be a multimodal city. That has been done time and time again. The metric of
success is the deployment of concrete protected bicycle infrastructure and frequent, safe
pedestrian crossings. Protected intersections should be the norm. And the irony is while we
have done a somewhat better job at the basics with Complete Streets in the exurban villages
due to the new builds, it is still not enough as those are largely rural roads that still encourage
speeding and dangerous driving behaviors.

76 More sidewalks 12/29/2022 1:40 PM

77 The timeline and scope is completely unacceptable and it does very little to address current 12/29/2022 10:49 AM
safety issues. This plan does very little to close gaps. I appreciate the effort, but it doesn’t
even bring Phoenix to the same level as Scottsdale is already at.

78 Enhance and build on existing plans 12/26/2022 8:00 AM

79 Too long for laypeople to read, implementation will take too long. 12/15/2022 4:02 PM

80 Get as many urban designers on board as possible. 12/14/2022 3:19 PM

81 I like the focus on creating urban villages. 12/12/2022 7:54 AM

82 I love everything that's included so far. Although I think more traffic calming measures are 12/11/2022 6:34 PM
needed in general. I wish that turn lanes that serve no purpose (ie in areas where there's no
place to physically turn in either direction for 100s of yards) could be replaced with islands. It
would calm traffic by reducing the perception that the roads are wide enough for extreme
speeds, it could give pedestrians a place shelter from cars in crosswalks, and you could even
plant some trees to reduce the heat island effect -- it's a win all around, at least in my opinion
:)

83 I like the direction. Need more beautification points 12/8/2022 1:06 PM

84 HIN criteria too narrow and thus missing many areas of the city where accidents occur. 12/8/2022 12:50 PM

85 I believe the plan is well developed and comprehensive. 12/8/2022 6:30 AM

86 I am very encouraged by some improvements and plans for the Central Avenue light rail and 12/7/2022 2:27 PM
pedestrian/bike bridge near central. I commute from west Mesa to downtown and can get most
of the way safely by bicycle. This will allow a complete trip without encountering much auto
traffic, if any.

87 The plan timeline is way too long. People are dying on the streets of our city due to poor 12/6/2022 4:02 PM
infrastructure and street design. We can afford to wait any longer on improvements. Please
prioritize people’s lives and do it as soon as possible.

88 Need more bike lanes on major streets to encourage cycling. 12/6/2022 3:46 PM

89 In your report, you indicate that 2.5% of crashes involve pedestrians, but are 46% of fatalities. 12/6/2022 2:27 PM
On the same page you indicate 21% of KSIs are speed related. Why, then, are you indicating
on page 37 that you are going to apply equal behavioral enforcement to both drivers and




Page/ 808
21 36
Phoenix Active Transportation Plan: DRAFT PLAN FEEDBACK

pedestrians/cyclists (both segments will see 12x/year targeted enforcement)? I would like to
see significantly more driver enforcement considering the outcomes of driver-related behavior.

90 I like the emphasis on improving safety! I’d take it a step further and honestly start shrinking 12/6/2022 10:49 AM
road sizes and creating more bike lanes.

91 I like the focus on prioritizing historically marginalized communities, and the acknowledgement 12/6/2022 4:05 AM
that car culture is a prohibitive factor in making Phoenix more sustainable. I wonder how bus
and light rail systems could better support cyclists and pedestrians.

92 Please build more bike lanes, specifically connecting central phoenix to south phoenix. There 12/5/2022 10:46 PM
are no safe ways to ride south

93 Faster implementation 12/5/2022 9:35 PM

94 I was hoping to discuss the pathway along the Salt Water River from around Central going east 12/5/2022 8:03 PM
into Tempe. It's away from traffic which is wonderful but need lights for night use. And
homeless prevention under bridges please.

95 Painted bike gutters are not safe. Eliminate that 3 feet of asphalt, bring the curb out to the 12/5/2022 5:59 PM
motor vehicle lanes, and make the bike paths grade separated from the roadway.

96 I think the plan would be more impactful if it included more specificity, particularly with regard 12/5/2022 4:06 PM
to cost and funding sources.

97 It would be great to separate more bike lanes from driving lanes, possibly off roads all together 12/5/2022 2:58 PM

98 Yes, we need to make facilities better for carless households, but relying too much on "equity" 12/5/2022 1:33 PM
as a focus for areas of improvement, and not taking into account those most likely to utilize
those improvements isn't appropriate.

99 Just learned of the Draft Plan, a quick scan shows great plans and improvements needed for 12/5/2022 7:26 AM
our City to encourage people to seek alternative methods of transportation for work and leisure.
But there is missing inclusion of the wheelchair user population who depend on their devices
as mode of transportation.

100 N/A 12/5/2022 12:46 AM

101 concerns that funds will not be utilized with high infrastructural impact 12/4/2022 8:15 PM

102 I’m a new bike commuter in Phoenix and appreciate the goals of the plan. I feel like high motor 12/4/2022 7:40 PM
vehicle speed and lots of interaction between cyclists and motor vehicles are a major hazard in
the Phoenix area. I really appreciate areas with improved safety measures.

103 I'm concerned about the protected bike lanes and how they will affect travel by automobiles. 12/4/2022 7:20 PM
Particularly in downtown and crowded areas, traffic is already a challenge.

104 Speed limits should be lowered in most places and no more funding for wide roads or 12/4/2022 10:35 AM
highways. Let's focus on mass transportation and walking and biking. Offer monetary
incentives to builders to infill closer into the city center to curtail urban sprawl.

105 The changes that have been made and want to be made benefit very few people while 12/3/2022 3:50 PM
negatively impacting thousands. While the principle of making Phoenix a more walkable city is
desirable, the reality is that these changes don't impact very much. It is too hot for most of the
year to walk or bike outdoors, and the rest of the time only a few people take advantage of the
streets and sidewalks. These changes largely benefit only the nearby residents while
thousands of people all over the valley commute to and from central Phoenix. Traffic has been
made worse by these changes, and as the covid pandemic winds down more people will be out
driving. Another point is that only 665 people were surveyed. Over a million people live and
work in the Phoenix metro area, 665 people is not enough to be an accurate reflection on the
desires of all Phoenicians who are impacted by these changes. There were also already
options to safely bike and walk, there is no need to add even more that will only be utilized by
very few. The elimination of lanes of traffic are a detriment to society. Emissions from cars will
be greater as cars must spend more time in traffic; these changes will not make people
change their mode of transportation, the demand of cars will always be there especially as
electric vehicles become more prevalent. Overall, these changes benefit a very very small
fraction of the people who live here at the detriment of all commuters and drivers. These
changes should be reversed and these plans scrapped entirely.

106 More focus on traffic lights. So many vehicles run red lights. More speed humps on 12/3/2022 8:54 AM


Page/ 809
22 36
Phoenix Active Transportation Plan: DRAFT PLAN FEEDBACK

neighborhood streets. Traffic control around schools. The increase in bike lanes has been a
huge improvement.

107 Public transportation is terrible in Phoenix. It needs to be more accessible to all parts of the 12/3/2022 7:38 AM
valley. I would love tonbuke to work, but its too dangerous. I would love to take the bus to go
eat out, but a bus stop is too far away from my house and the wait for a bus is unbearably
long. I would love tonjust walk around outside and get some fresh air, but the cars on the street
are loud, fast, and wreckless. Phoenix is built for the car, and I would like to see it transition to
favor more pedestrians. Cars and people can coexist comfortably.

108 Painted lines and plastic poles are not infrastructure, you need to physically separate modes 12/2/2022 9:18 PM
of transportation or ban cars on certain roads all together. I think the plan is a joke and will
never get people to leave their cars behind if there is no real change to the roads because
there will always be a chance of death if vehicles are allowed to cross a paint stripe. I think
there is a lot of emphasis on first mile/last mile connectivity but why bother with that when
there aren't near enough buses moving every hour? Make BUS LANES, make it so you don't
need to look at a schedule and get people moving... Phoenix's population is only going to rise
more in the near future before it's starts dropping off drastically, that means either more cars or
more transit to move those people. You increase transit ridership by increasing how many
buses/trains there are moving. Have you Heard of Induced Demand? That also works for
transit. If this city even has water in future years and there are people still living here with
climate change happening, they will probably not be riding in cars because they won't be able
to afford the gas/energy AND their rent, so stop allowing cars to dictate how this city burns and
start removing privileges they've stolen from pedestrians. Ban cars from Downtown. Make it
safe and people will start moving themselves without any encouragement.

109 I'd like to see more concrete examples of locations that the city is looking at through this plans 12/2/2022 2:46 PM
lens.

110 More money needs to be allocated to the elements. 12/2/2022 1:17 PM

111 Pay particular attention to school zones. Parents picking up their kids are an environmental 12/2/2022 1:08 PM
and traffic nightmare. Sidewalks full of irrigation water are dangerous for pedestrians and
bikers. Car drivers still park on bike lanes. Didn't they try to use a protected bike lane?

112 Lack of emphasis on motorist traffic enforcement, preferably through ticketing via traffic 12/2/2022 1:04 PM
cameras. Traffic calming is recommended in the report--but I think it needs to be a higher
priority. For me a bike lane is less important than much slower auto traffic.

113 I’m glad there is an initiative at all. Most bike lanes in my zip are “standard” and rarely used 12/2/2022 6:46 AM
which is no surprise given how dangerous it’d be. Obviously the best lanes are entirely
separate from the road but that’s not usually possible. There are many roads lined with
businesses and small parking lots. Perfect places to be more walkable and yet the car traffic
is so violent that if you can’t grab a spot in their small lot you’d just leave. Bad for business
and a shame they have to use all that space for parking.

114 Wi-Fi on transit is a cost-sink with very little pay off. Build transit around libraries and third 12/2/2022 12:53 AM
places to bring passengers to places with Wi-Fi should they want it. As much funding as soon
as possible should be in Bus Rapid Transit. Suburbs like Scottsdale and Glendale need to
allow light rail into their communities and every effort should be made to encourage or force
them to allow it.

115 That plan took me forever to get through it's like 100 pages! I just want more bike and shared 12/1/2022 9:34 PM
use roads in PHX. I also would prefer multi use paths instead of dedicated bike or ped paths.

116 My concerns are the reduction in vehicular lanes to accommodate bike lanes. The reduction of 12/1/2022 9:22 PM
those nike lanes increase traffic throughout the neighborhood. For the amount of disruption the
bike lanes cause, there are not of bicycle riders who use them compared to cars. It would be
wise to have a corridor for bicycles that do not take away vehicular lanes or parking spots (as
those are also becoming hard downtown). I am a resident downtown. 3rd avenue should remain
a one lane street with the separate bike lane. Making 3rd street one lane from Indian School
Park to Roosevelt was downright stupid. Also there seems to be a lack of a bicycle, walking
path for South Mountain Village and Laveen Village.

117 I generally like everything about the plan, and understand that some initiatives may be limited 12/1/2022 8:50 PM
due to funding. My main concern is the need for more transparency and accountability from the
city. Despite an accountability section being a part of the plan, I do not have a good sense of
how the plan will address this issue.


Page/ 810
23 36
Phoenix Active Transportation Plan: DRAFT PLAN FEEDBACK


118 This plan seems like a grab for federal money, while doing very little to improve Phoenix roads 12/1/2022 7:14 PM
or the driving experience.

119 Under types of changes, the Words are absolutely meaningless: "update" "Continue" 12/1/2022 6:34 PM
"Prioritize" - - - In other words the City is committing to nothing, no deadlines, no goals to fully
achieve. BE MORE SPECIFIC. Complete a plan and goal. Green poles on heavily trafficked
arterial streets are not sufficient to be safe. Address width and shading of sidewalks for
wheelchairs, motorized wheelchairs or scooters, strollers, etc. Address more e-bikes and
motorized scooters, that are becoming more common, plus skateboards or the like esp near
college campus and other schools. Address electric charging stations. Bike storage areas.

120 From my brief review, it appears that most of the improvements appear to be in central 12/1/2022 3:35 PM
Phoenix. Tatum Rd from Pinnacle Peak to Cave Creek needs protective bike lanes so people
can ride bikes to library from Desert Ridge... or build a branch library in the empty lot at the
corner of 40th and Deer Valley!!!

121 I love the changes that were made to the 3rd Ave/5th Ave bike lanes and bikeways and use 12/1/2022 3:20 PM
them regularly!

122 Have not reviewed 12/1/2022 2:17 PM

123 I like a lot of what I see in this document. It gives the impression that the city is taking active 12/1/2022 12:11 PM
transportation seriously and that is very promising. I think the appetite for active transportation
is out there, people just need to feel empowered and safe to pursue it. One of my primary
concerns is that the city will continue to paint bike lanes and call it a victory for active
transportation. Look, a bike lane is better than nothing, but at the end of the day paint is just
paint and it's not infrastructure. I speak from experience — paint does not prohibit a car from
veering into a bike lake or turning into a cyclist. I appreciate the thought and work that has
gone into this plan, but it would be a shame to see it squandered by "good enough" thinking.
As for recommendations, I really do think enforcement — which is not mentioned as a pillar of
this plan — needs to be considered. Speed and traffic enforcement could go a long way in
curbing the worst motorist behaviors and ensuring road safety for all users. With ebikes
becoming more and more accessible, I think the city needs to really prioritize safe cycling and
getting people out of cars. I would love to feel safe enough to bike to the grocery store instead
of driving the 1 mile there. Furthermore, I think this plan needs to be upfront and bold about
one thing: deprioritizing cars is a necessity for a healthy, vibrant city. Phoenix has so far to go
before one can feasibly be car free here, but I think that should be the goal. If someone wants
to drive, great. The option to walk, bike or use transit should be just as reasonable and
attainable for non-motorists. Thank you for all the hard work!

124 I want Phoenix to not be such a lawless, demolition derby with a heap of road rage, daily. I am 12/1/2022 12:10 PM
terrified to drive here. I choose to cycle/walk/transit as much as possible, I feel like I have
more control of the situation around me. Lower the speed limits EVERYWHERE. Install many
red light/speed on green camera systems for police officer safety, allowing them to focus on
other policing work. Install bike racks at EVERY bus stop, every business.

125 This is all excellent, but I'm tired of the streets department constantly prioritizing cars. All of 12/1/2022 11:53 AM
this is hot air unless the department ACTUALLY works towards implementation. We need
better follow through. The more recent bike improvements on 3rd Ave and 3rd St are an
excellent example of what should be prioritized and implemented. I appreciate Equity was
evaluated as part of this effort as well.

126 I'm extremely pleased that we are acknowledging the benefits and need for facilitating other 12/1/2022 9:58 AM
forms of transportation that is not driving. Cars create noise pollution, air pollution, social
isolation, and literal death. They might be good for intercity travel, but we need to focus on
neighborhood-centric transportation and I loved seeing that in the plan. Another aspect to
consider is working with city zoning to enable more multi-use zone construction that integrates
residential and small-business spaces. Doing this will make the transportation plan much more
feasible.

127 concerned about speed of construction for improvements. we need effective but rapid 12/1/2022 1:11 AM
improvements.

128 asphalt, markings and signage may be helpful if they inconvenience cars. but the important 11/30/2022 9:57 PM
part is the inconvenience of cars, it would be just as good to simply remove some asphalt and
let us have a little bit of space back as dirt



Page/ 811
24 36
Phoenix Active Transportation Plan: DRAFT PLAN FEEDBACK

129 We have to keep our roads safer so people are able to walk or ride without being harassed by 11/30/2022 9:35 PM
drug users. This is not addressed in the plan

130 It ignores any mention of enforcement for poor drivers. We don’t need more e scooters. Who 11/30/2022 6:23 PM
will maintain the bike lanes? The bollards are hit all the time and the city never replaces them

131 N/a 11/30/2022 6:06 PM

132 I like the parts in the plan that outline all of the specifics around making intersections and 11/30/2022 3:16 PM
streets more walkable and bikeable, it looks like a great reference doc that can be utilized at
meetings and to explain to the various neighborhoods. I'm concerned about only focusing on
two neighborhoods at a time, does that mean the other neighborhoods are just neglected or no
action is taken on those? What happens when you get to a neighborhood like Central and
Bethany Home and they just decide they don't care about bike lanes or walkability? Basically
how they made a big fuss about re-striping that very low traffic section of Central because
they'd have to "look for bikes when turning out of the neighborhood". How do we ensure that we
have a wholistic vision and common voice for the city and it's not left up to the privileged in
that neighborhood to ignore the program and recommendations? How do we get better about
leaning into how cheap biking and walking infrastructure is over vehicular? In talking with other
advocacy groups I know they explained about the expensive bike lane "paint" but we're talking
pennies compared to what it takes to build a road or add a lane for a vehicle. How we get a
stipend/grant/discount/rebate on active transportation purchases? Denver for instance provided
up to $1200 to residents that purchased e-bike and e-cargo options for themselves last year
and they're doing it again in 2023 because of how successful it was. Do we need a sponsor?
Do we need a petition? https://denvergov.org/Government/Agencies-Departments-
Offices/Agencies-Departments-Offices-Directory/Climate-Action-Sustainability-
Resiliency/Sustainable-Transportation/Electric-Bikes-E-Bikes-
Rebates#:~:text=Denver's%20e%2Dbike%20rebate%20program,please%20subscribe%20to%
20our%20newsletter.

133 I love that the draft recognizes the problems with how we've developed a car-centric 11/30/2022 1:54 PM
infrastructure in the past. My concern is that sharrows or bike lanes next to car parking (where
the door could open into a biker) are mentioned at all. I initially don't love the bike boulevard
idea, because it's assuming that drivers will be fully attentive and respectful of sharing the
road, which is often not the case. I recommend focusing on developing an interconnected
network of protected bike lanes with safe crossings especially in downtown/roosevelt row
where there is so much foot/bike traffic.

134 I am supportive of any improvements, which this plan is. Create a sense of place Allow Transit 11/30/2022 11:49 AM
Oriented Development along streets with bicycle lanes, even in areas like Laveen and Estrella.
Public Outreach and Community Education is vital to success. Eliminate Parking Minimums to
allow for more pedestrian and bicycle facilities Attract new walkers/riders Strengthen bicycle
policies Form a denser bikeway network Increase bicycle parking Expand programs to support
bicycling Increase funding for bicycle facilities Allow for innovative public transportation
programs Create a more pedestrian oriented environment. Close existing streets and alleys
with historically low traffic volume to vehicle traffic, and create multi-modal districts that allow
for pedestrians and micro-mobility options within a residential/commercial area or corridor. I'm
thinking Monton Trail in Carmel, Indiana

135 Glad there is an emphasis on equity and underserved communities. Glad there are sections 11/30/2022 11:42 AM
about evaluating progress and the results of the plan. Our Subdivision Code Ch. 32 needs to
be redesigned to encourage development in a grid, which increases accessibility to important
destinations. We should also re-evaluate our street cross-sections to see if we can build
smaller to reduce speeds driven, which would make alternative modes of transportation feel
safer.

136 I am concerned that the plan does not address the root causes of danger to pedestrians but 11/30/2022 9:11 AM
attempts to shoehorn pedestrian infrastructure onto poorly designed, dangerous streets. Real
change would require road diets. I still appreciate the effort and the proposed improvements.

137 I think the plan is great and am very excited to see the city making this a priority! The plan is 11/29/2022 11:21 PM
very comprehensive and is clearly working towards a lot of solutions for different users. I also
think that splitting this up by village is ideal as well. My main concern is that I expect change
to be quite slow and still having a lot of gaps in the road network when it comes to cycling.
One specific recommendation I have is that e-bike 'typical speed' [page 93] should be noted as
10-20mph, not 10-15 mph. My average is 15mph, and I am biking at 20mph for significant
portions of each ride. I'm doing that with a Class I e-bike (pedal assist only), so those with


Page/ 812
25 36
Phoenix Active Transportation Plan: DRAFT PLAN FEEDBACK

Class II e-bikes (with throttles) will be riding at 20mph even more often than I do. This speed is
actually a huge advantage as it makes biking more practical for longer commutes and during
hotter weather since it takes less time to get from place to place. My one other
recommendation is that the city should view HAWK signals as not only pedestrian
infrastructure, but bicycle infrastructure. This can be a great tool to allow cyclists to bike
through neighborhoods and then be able to cross major streets. For example, I can leave my
home on Almeria Road and bike north on 42nd Street to avoid biking on busy 40th Street, but
there's no way to cross Thomas Road at 42nd Street (or Indian School at 42nd Street - but I
know a HAWK is in the works there). A HAWK signal would essentially convert a mile of
neighborhood street into solid bike infrastructure (just because the street is low-speed and low-
traffic, even though there are no bike signs/lanes) with no cost along the route, just the cost of
the HAWK signal at the intersection (which would also benefit pedestrians). I should also note,
Thomas Road & 42nd Street used to have a crosswalk (not a safe one as there were no
signals), but the road was repaved and now there is very little sign of a crosswalk.

138 I think that the timeline for some of the recommended changes is way to long. It should not be 11/29/2022 9:21 PM
a 3-10 year process to evaluate the potential to implement a stop bar (changing where the line
on the ground is) at SOME intersections. This is something that has already been studied.
Why do we need another 3 years of evaluation. To decide on its potential. Overall I think the
framework is good. The network program seems like a step in the right direction. I have lots of
doubts on the implementation.

139 I like how nuanced and detailed the plan is - it takes many different aspects into account. 11/29/2022 4:46 PM
Also, it's nice to see an emphasis on walking and biking in such a car-dominant city. I am
concerned of its ambition, and how much is feasible and obtainable.




Page/ 813
26 36



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Amend City Code to Establish the Shared Micromobility Program (Ordinance G-
7113)

Request to amend Phoenix City Code chapters 4, 23, 24, 31, 36 and 39 to establish a
Shared Micromobility Program; enact related regulations; and allow for the permanent
use of electric scooters on public streets citywide.

Summary
On June 26, 2019, City Council approved Ordinance G-6602 establishing a Downtown
Shared Electric Scooter (e-scooter) Pilot Program (Pilot Program) and amending
Phoenix City Code to incorporate a definition for an electric standup scooter and
legalizing e-scooter operation on public streets with revocable dockless electric
standup scooter share permits. Additionally, the ordinance authorized the City of
Phoenix Police Department or peace officer to issue civil traffic citations for, among
other things, speed limit violations, yielding the right of way, parking violations and
riding on the sidewalk. The ordinance had a one-year sunset provision.

The ordinance was extended four times to extend the Pilot Program and sunset
provision to allow staff time to research, develop and implement a new permanent
program. The ordinance is now set to expire on June 30, 2023.

On Dec. 14, 2022, City Council approved the Shared Micromobility Program
(Micromobility Program) to replace the Pilot Program, and the program launched on
Jan. 20, 2023. Phoenix City Code needs to be amended to reflect the updated
definitions, terms and provisions of the new Micromobility Program. The amendment
also needs to allow for the permanent use of e-scooters on public streets citywide.

Shared Micromobility Program
The Micromobility Program built upon the Pilot Program by expanding the program
boundaries and the types of vehicles available. The Micromobility Program vendors
were also selected using a competitive procurement process and operate under City
contracts rather than a revocable permit that was used during the Pilot Program.

If approved, this request will amend Phoenix City Code to align with the new
Micromobility Program by adding a definition of micromobility and removing references


Page 814

to the revocable dockless electric standup scooter share permits. The ordinance will
also update the term “standup electric scooters” to “electric scooters, e-scooters” to
allow for additional vehicle types to be used in the Micromobility Program and by
residents who own electric scooters.

Additionally, the sunset provision that currently allows e-scoooters to operate on public
streets in the City will become permanent. To support the safe use of e-scooters, the
amendment will also clarify that e-scooters should be operated at a speed that is
reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions. It also adds a section on
disposition of abandoned e-scooters that mirrors the electric bicycle regulations,
required equipment, and applicability of traffic laws and bicycle laws.

The Street Transportation Department will provide an update to the Transportation,
Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee at its September 2023 meeting on the first
six months of operation of the Micromobility Program.

Electric Bicycles
Currently, Phoenix City Code uses the term “motorized electric bicycle” when referring
to electric bicycles. The amendment will remove the word motorized and update the
term to “electric bicycle," which is used in the Arizona Revised Statutes.

Financial Impact
There is no financial impact to the City of Phoenix to update the Phoenix City Code.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee:
· Was provided with information on the proposed Comprehensive Micromobility
Program on Oct. 20, 2021;
· Recommended approval to issue a solicitation for the program on April 20, 2022, by
a vote of 4-0; and
· Recommended approval to amend Phoenix City Code to establish the Shared
Micromobility Program on May 17, 2023, by a unanimous vote.

The Economic Development and Equity Subcommittee:
· Was provided an update on the Shared Micromobility Shared Revenue Contract
Solicitation on Dec.13, 2022.

The City Council approved:
· The Pilot Program (Ordinance G-6602) on June 26, 2019;
· A Pilot Program extension and a sunset provision extension (Ordinance G-6676) on


Page 815

Feb. 19, 2020;
· A sunset provision extension (Ordinance G-6772) on Dec. 2, 2020;
· A Pilot Program extension and a sunset provision extension (Ordinance G-6823) on
March 17, 2021;
· A Pilot Program extension, a sunset provision extension and the allowance of
electric bicycles on public streets citywide (Ordinance G-6967) on March 2, 2022;
· The issuance of a Request for Proposals to operate a Comprehensive Micromobility
Program in Phoenix on May 11, 2022; and
· The award of the Revenue Contract Solicitation to two micromobility vendors to
operate shared micromobility services in Phoenix (Ordinance S-49256) on Jan. 14,
2022.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Street
Transportation Department.




Page 816



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Amend Chapter 2, Article XLIII, Phoenix City Code, Relating to Vision Zero
Community Advisory Committee (Ordinance G-7114)

Request City Council amend Phoenix City Code, Chapter 2, Article XLIII, section 2-
1803(C), Vision Zero Community Advisory Committee, to incorporate updates on
meeting frequency.

Summary
Currently, Chapter 2, Article XLIII, section 2-1803(C) states the Committee shall hold
quarterly meetings. Proposed changes include updating the language to allow
meetings to be held as needed but not less than quarterly.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
Chapter 2, establishing a Vision Zero Community Advisory Committee to assist in
implementing the Road Safety Action Plan - Moving to Vision Zero (Ordinance G-7069)
on Jan. 25, 2023.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Street
Transportation Department.




Page 817



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Amend City Code - Section 36-158, Schedule I, Local Speed Limits at 25
Locations (Ordinance G-7115)

Request to amend Phoenix City Code, section 36-158, Schedule I, Local Speed Limits
due to record keeping and local speed limit changes at 25 locations.

Summary
Speed limits are established under Arizona Revised Statutes, section 28-703, which
requires an "engineering study and traffic investigation." The Phoenix City Code and
Charter require that all local speed limits on City streets be approved by City Council in
the form of an amendment to Phoenix City Code, as shown in Attachment A.

The Street Transportation Department (Streets) conducted a comprehensive review of
the speed limit ordinance and is recommending record keeping and local speed limit
changes at 25 locations, as summarized in Attachment B. Thirteen changes are for
record keeping purposes, where speed limits posted on City streets do not match the
speed limits included in the current ordinance or where street segments included in the
current ordinance are not maintained by the City. The twelve other changes are related
to road and traffic conditions. As with all recommended speed limit changes, they are
based on traffic investigations conducted with the engineering judgment of Streets
staff.

If approved, Streets staff will make on-street speed limit signage changes as
necessary within 90 days.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee recommended approval
of this item on May 17, 2023, by a vote of 4-0.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Street
Transportation Department.




Page 818
ATTACHMENT A




ARTICLE XII. PENALTY AND SCHEDULES

36-158 Schedule I—Local speed limits.

It is hereby determined upon the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation that the speed limit
permitted by state law on the following streets or intersections is greater or less than is reasonable
under existing conditions, and it is hereby declared that the maximum speed limits shall be as
hereinafter set forth on those streets, parts of streets or intersections herein designated at the times
specified when signs are erected giving notice thereof.

The City Traffic Engineer may declare a maximum speed limit that is determined pursuant to this section
to be effective at all times or at such times as indicated on the speed limit signs. The City Traffic
Engineer may establish lower speed limits for different times of day, different types of vehicles, varying
weather conditions, special events, work zones for construction, maintenance or other activity in the
roadway and other factors bearing on safe speeds. The lower limits are effective when posted on
appropriate fixed, variable or portable signs.

Table A. Prima Facie Speed Limit 30 Miles Per Hour at All Times.

Acoma Drive 51st Avenue to 43rd Avenue

Acoma Drive Black Canyon Freeway to 23rd Avenue

Acoma Drive 36th Street to 40th Street

Acoma Drive Tatum Boulevard to 64th Street

Arroyo Norte Drive Northbound I-17 Frontage Road to 3900 West

Beardsley Road 32nd Street to 34th Street

Butler Drive 39th Avenue to 27th Avenue

Butler Drive Black Canyon Freeway to 19th Avenue

Campbell Avenue 71st Avenue to 51st Avenue

Campbell Avenue 113th Avenue to 107th Avenue

Campbell Avenue 35th Avenue to 15th Avenue




Page 819
Table A. Prima Facie Speed Limit 30 Miles Per Hour at All Times.

Campbell Avenue 12th Street to 16th Street

Campbell Avenue 20th Street to 44th Street

Canterbury Drive Thunderbird Road to Tam-O-Shanter Drive

Cashman Drive Pinnacle Peak Road to 44th Street

Central Avenue Lincoln Street to Madison Street

Central Avenue Grovers Avenue to Union Hills Drive

Chauncey Lane 68th Street to Scottsdale Road

Cholla Street 24th Street to 56th Street

Clarendon Avenue 55th Avenue to Maryvale Parkway

Colter Street 16th Street to SR-51

Copperhead Trail North Valley Parkway to Gambit Trail

Copperhead Trail West of 14th Lane Traffic Circle to Gambit Trail

Coral Gables Drive Thunderbird Road to 7th Street

DEEM HILLS PARKWAY 51ST AVENUE TO STETSON VALLEY PARKWAY

Deer Valley Drive 1,200 feet west of 35th Avenue to 35th Avenue

Desert Willow Parkway East Dixileta Drive to Dynamite Boulevard

Desert Willow Parkway West 30200 North Cave Creek Road to 31000 North Cave Creek Road

Dove Valley Road 52nd Place to 56th Street

Dunlap Avenue 7th Street to 12th Street

Durango Street 67th Avenue to 63rd Avenue




Page 820
Table A. Prima Facie Speed Limit 30 Miles Per Hour at All Times.

Elwood Street 40th Street to 48th Street

Encanto Boulevard 93rd Avenue to 91st Avenue

Encanto Boulevard 75th Avenue to 73rd Avenue

Encanto Boulevard 71st Avenue to 51st Avenue

Encanto Boulevard 49th Avenue to 31st Avenue

Encanto Boulevard Grand Avenue to 19th Avenue

Freemont Road Rough Rider Road to Cashman Drive

100 Feet +/- North of East Papago Park to Traffic Circle at
Galvin Parkway
Botanical Garden Entrance

Grand Ave 7th Avenue to 15th Avenue

Greenway Road 20th Street to Cave Creek Road

Grovers Avenue 51st Avenue to 27th Avenue

Grovers Avenue Central Avenue to Cave Creek Road

Hatcher Road Central Avenue to 12th Street

Highland Avenue Campbell Avenue to 107th Avenue

Highland Avenue 16th Street to 24th Street

Illini Street 30th Street to Riverpoint Parkway

INSPIRATION MOUNTAIN
STETSON VALLEY PARKWAY TO STETSON VALLEY PARKWAY
PARKWAY

Jefferson Street 27th Avenue to 23rd Avenue

Jefferson Street 7th Avenue to 4th Avenue




Page 821
Table A. Prima Facie Speed Limit 30 Miles Per Hour at All Times.

Jesse Owens Parkway Central Avenue to 7th Street

Jones Avenue 103rd Avenue to 99th Avenue

Kelton Lane 29th Avenue to 28th Avenue

Knox Road Warpaint Drive to 36th Street

Lakewood Parkway West 3300 East to 3600 East to 17000 South to 15800 South

Lakewood Parkway East 3600 East to 3800 East to 17000 South to 15800 South

Lindner Drive (West Section) 45th Avenue to Augusta North

Lindner Drive (East Section) 45th Avenue to Grovers Avenue

Lockwood Drive Freemont Road to Cashman Drive

Marriott Drive Pathfinder Drive to Deer Valley Drive

Maryland Avenue 43rd Avenue to Black Canyon Freeway

MARYLAND AVENUE CENTRAL AVENUE TO 16TH STREET

Maryvale Parkway 51st Avenue to Indian School Road

Missouri Avenue 43rd Avenue to 27th Avenue

Missouri Avenue Black Canyon Freeway to 19th Avenue

Mohave Street 7th Avenue to 7th Street

Morningside Drive Black Canyon Freeway to 21st Avenue

Morten Avenue 16th Street to 1900 East

Mountain View Road 23rd Avenue to 15th Avenue

Mountain View Road 12th Street to 17th Street




Page 822
Table A. Prima Facie Speed Limit 30 Miles Per Hour at All Times.

Mountain View Road 32nd Street to 36th Street

Northern Avenue 26th Street to 32nd Street

North Valley Parkway Carefree Highway to 33rd Lane

Oak Street 16th Street to 24th Street

Oak Street 32nd Street to 44th Street

Oak Street 48th Street to 52nd Street

Oak Street (Eastbound) 56th Street to 64th Street

Olympic Drive Central Avenue to Jesse Owens Parkway

Orangewood Avenue 43rd Avenue to 19th Avenue

Osborn Road 83rd Avenue to 75th Avenue

Osborn Road 73rd Avenue to Grand Avenue

Osborn Road Black Canyon Freeway to 19th Avenue

Osborn Road 40th Street to 56th Street

Paradise Lane 7th Street to 16th Street

Paradise Lane Tatum Boulevard to 56th Street

Paradise Lane 47th Avenue to 43rd Avenue

Pathfinder Drive 44th Street to Marriott Drive

Piedmont Road 48th Street to 51st Street

Pinnacle Vista Drive Pyramid Peak Parkway to Inspiration Mountain Parkway

Pinnacle Vista Drive 52nd Street to 56th Street




Page 823
Table A. Prima Facie Speed Limit 30 Miles Per Hour at All Times.

POINTE GOLF CLUB DRIVE THUNDERBIRD ROAD TO SHARON DRIVE

Quail Track Drive North Valley Parkway to Copperhead Trail

Ranger Drive Tatum Boulevard to 55th Street

Riverpoint Parkway Wood Street to Illini Street

Roeser Road 7th Avenue to Central Avenue

Roeser Road 40th Street to 48th Street

Roosevelt Street 51st Avenue to 43rd Avenue

ROOSEVELT STREET 57TH AVENUE TO 43RD AVENUE

Roosevelt Street 39th Avenue to 35th Avenue

Roosevelt Street 33rd Avenue to 27th Avenue

Roosevelt Street 19th Avenue to 7th Avenue

Roosevelt Street Central Avenue to 16th Street

Rose Garden Lane 29th Avenue to 19th Avenue

Rough Rider Road Black Mountain Boulevard to 40th Street

Sells Drive 79th Drive to 71st Drive

Sky Crossing Way Deer Valley Road to Black Mountain Boulevard

SR-51 (East Access Road) 500 Feet North of Camelback Road to Colter Street

Stanford Drive 40th Street to 44th Street

Stetson Hills Loop 43rd Avenue to 39th Drive

Sweetwater Avenue 51st Avenue to Black Canyon Freeway




Page 824
Table A. Prima Facie Speed Limit 30 Miles Per Hour at All Times.

Sweetwater Avenue 32nd Street to 42nd Street

Sweetwater Avenue Paradise Valley Parkway East to Scottsdale Road

Thunderbird Road 28th Street to 32nd Street

Trailblazer Drive 44th Street to Tatum Boulevard

University Drive 24th Street to Magnolia Street (2700 East)

Utopia Road 23rd Avenue to 19th Avenue

Van Buren Street 7th Street to 16th Street

Via Del Deserto 33rd Lane to Via Puzzola

Via Puzzola Carefree Highway to Cloud Road

Via Tramonto Carefree Highway to Via Vista

Via Vista 27th Avenue to Via Tramonto

Vineyard Road 47th Avenue to 43rd Avenue

Virginia Avenue 35th Avenue to 27th Avenue

Virginia Avenue Central Avenue to 7th Street

Warpaint Drive Knox Road to Coconino Street

Washington Street 7th Avenue to 4th Avenue

Wier Avenue 39th Avenue to 35th Avenue

Winchcomb Drive 26th Avenue to Acoma Drive (2300 West)

Wood Street Riverpoint Parkway to University Drive

1st Avenue Grant Street to Roosevelt Street




Page 825
Table A. Prima Facie Speed Limit 30 Miles Per Hour at All Times.

3rd Avenue Thomas Road to Osborn Road

3rd Street Monroe Street to Indian School Road

4th Street 5th Street crossover to Roosevelt Street

5th Street Van Buren Street to 5th Street Crossover

5th Street Crossover 5th Street to Fillmore Street

7th Avenue Jackson Street to Van Buren Street

7th Avenue Coral Gables Drive to Greenway Parkway

7th Street Jefferson Street to Van Buren Street

11th Avenue Greenway Parkway to Bell Road

11th Street Washington Street to Moreland Street

12th Street Vineyard Road to Southern Avenue

12th Street Moreland Street to Thomas Road

12th Street Osborn Road to Indian School Road

12th Street Bell Road to Agua Fria Freeway

15th Avenue Bethany Home Road to Northern Avenue

15th Avenue Hatcher Road to Shangri-La Road

15th Avenue Bell Road to Grovers Avenue

15th Avenue Union Hills Drive to Utopia Road

16th Street Grovers Avenue to Beardsley Road

18th Street Camelback Road to 500 Feet North of Camelback Road




Page 826
Table A. Prima Facie Speed Limit 30 Miles Per Hour at All Times.

19TH AVENUE OLNEY AVENUE TO DOBBINS ROAD

20th Street Dobbins Road to Baseline Road

20th Street Roeser Road to Broadway Road

20th Street Jefferson Street to Roosevelt Street

20th Street McDowell Road to Cambridge Avenue

20th Street Greenfield Road to Highland Avenue

20th Street Missouri Avenue to Bethany Home Road

21st Avenue Bell Road to Union Hills Drive

23rd Avenue Indian School Road to Bethany Home Road

23RD AVENUE INDIAN SCHOOL ROAD TO GLENDALE AVENUE

23rd Avenue Orangewood Avenue to Dunlap Avenue

23rd Avenue Acoma Drive to Greenway Road

23rd Avenue Union Hills Drive to Utopia Road

24th Street Shea Boulevard to Sweetwater Avenue

26th Avenue Thunderbird Road to Acoma Drive

26th Street SR-51 to Shea Boulevard

27th Avenue Rose Garden Lane to Deer Valley Drive

27th Drive Carefree Highway to Via Vista

28th Street Cholla Street to Thunderbird Road

28th Street Oak Street to Camelback Road




Page 827
Table A. Prima Facie Speed Limit 30 Miles Per Hour at All Times.

28th Avenue 29th Avenue to Kelton Lane

29th Avenue Union Hills Drive to Kristal Way

29th Avenue Beardsley Road to Rose Garden Lane

31st Avenue Van Buren Street to Encanto Boulevard

31st Avenue Thomas Road to Grand Avenue

31st Avenue Indian School Road to Camelback Road

31st Avenue Missouri Avenue to Orangewood Avenue

31st Avenue Northern Avenue to Dunlap Avenue

31st Avenue Cheryl Drive to Thunderbird Road

31st Avenue Bell Road to Kristal Way

31st Avenue Yorkshire Drive to Beardsley Road

32nd Street 750 Feet South of Beautiful Lane to Baseline Road

32nd Street Deer Valley Road to Sky Crossing Way

32nd Street Puget Avenue to Mountain View Road

33rd Lane North Valley Parkway to Via Del Deserto

36th Street Ranch Circle North to Suncrest Court

36th Street Roeser Road to Broadway Road

36th Street McDowell Road to Camelback Road

36th Street Mountain View Road to Shea Boulevard

36th Street Cactus Road to Greenway Road




Page 828
Table A. Prima Facie Speed Limit 30 Miles Per Hour at All Times.

39th Avenue Van Buren Street to Osborn Road

39th Avenue Missouri Avenue to Camino Acequia

39th Avenue Peoria Avenue to Cactus Road

39th Avenue Bell Road to Yorkshire Drive

40th Street University Drive to 0.25 Miles North of University Drive

40th Street Mountain View Road to Shea Boulevard

44th Street Frye Road to Chandler Boulevard

44th Street Ray Road to Warner-Elliot Loop

44th Street Paradise Village Parkway North to Bell Road

44th Street Deer Valley Drive to Cashman Drive

45th Avenue Bell Road to Union Hills Drive

46th Street Paradise Village Parkway North to Thunderbird Road

47th Avenue Baseline Road to Vineyard Road

47th Avenue Thomas Road to Camelback Road

47th Avenue Thunderbird Road to Greenway Road

47th Avenue Acoma Drive to Bell Road

48th Street Pecos Park Entrance to Frye Road

48th Street Elwood Street to University Drive

48th Street Van Buren Street to McDowell Road

48th Street Cholla Street to Paradise Village Parkway South




Page 829
Table A. Prima Facie Speed Limit 30 Miles Per Hour at All Times.

50th Street Frye Road to Chandler Boulevard

51st Street Elliot Road to Piedmont Road

52nd Place Rancho Paloma Drive to Dove Valley Road

52nd Street Thomas Road to Osborn Road

52nd Street Cholla Street to Cactus Road

52nd Street Thunderbird Road to Bell Road

52nd Street Jomax Road to Pinnacle Vista Drive

53rd Avenue Maryvale Parkway to Indian School Road

55th Avenue McDowell Road to Camelback Road

55th Avenue Pinnacle Peak Road to Alameda Road

56th Street Mountain View Road to Shea Boulevard

59th Avenue South Mountain Avenue to Baseline Road

60th Street Desert Cove Avenue to Cholla Street Alignment

60th Street Cactus Road to Bell Road

63rd Avenue Lower Buckeye Road to Pima Street

63rd Avenue Thomas Road to Osborn Road

63rd Avenue Indian School Road to Camelback Road

70th Street Princess Drive to Mayo Boulevard

71st Avenue Van Buren Street to Roosevelt Street

71st Avenue McDowell Road to Indian School Road




Page 830
Table A. Prima Facie Speed Limit 30 Miles Per Hour at All Times.

71st Avenue Campbell Avenue to Camelback Road

71st Drive Indian School Road to Sells Drive

79th Drive Osborn Road to Sells Drive

80th Lane Thomas Road to Osborn Road

93rd Avenue Encanto Boulevard to Thomas Road

103rd Avenue Broadway Road to Country Place Boulevard

103rd Avenue Indian School Road to Campbell Avenue

111th Avenue Campbell Avenue to Camelback Road




Table A1. Prima Facie Speed Limit 30 Miles Per Hour from 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on School Days.

Cactus road Wb 350 ft +/- east of 37th Avenue and eb 350 ft +/- west of 37th Avenue

Ray Road 400 Feet North of Thunderhill Drive to 100 Feet South of Mountain Sky
Avenue

19th Avenue 450 Feet North of Orangewood Avenue to 450 Feet South of Orangewood
Avenue




Table B. Prima Facie Speed Limit 35 Miles Per Hour at All Times.

Adams Street 27th Avenue to Washington Street

Anthem Way 46th Drive to Black Canyon Freeway

Ball Park Boulevard Camelback Road to Grand Canal

Beardsley Road 20th Street to Cave Creek Road

Bethany Home Road 16th Street to 18th Street




Page 831
Table B. Prima Facie Speed Limit 35 Miles Per Hour at All Times.

Black Mountain Boulevard Sr101 To Mayo Boulevard

Black Mountain Boulevard Rancho Paloma Drive to Carefree Highway

Buckeye Road 31st Avenue to 27th Street

Camelback Road 27th Avenue to 28th Street

Central Avenue Briarwood Terrace to Chandler Boulevard

Central Avenue Mineral Road to Thunderbird Trail

Central Avenue Thunderbird Trail to Dobbins Road
(Southbound)

Central Avenue Vineyard Road to Pioneer Street

Central Avenue Watkins Street to Lincoln Street

Central Avenue Roosevelt Street to Mountain View Road

Central Avenue Happy Valley Road to 2,050 Feet +/- North of Happy Valley Road

Chandler Boulevard Shaughnessey Road To 19th Avenue

Chandler Boulevard 19th Avenue to 15th Avenue
(Westbound)

Chandler Boulevard Pecos Road to Shaughnessey Road

Cheryl Drive 35th Avenue to Metro Parkway West

Circle Mountain Road New River Road to Barko Lane

Cotton Center Boulevard 40th Street to 48th Street

Desert Foothills Parkway Chandler Boulevard to 5th Avenue

Desert Willow Parkway East 31000 North Cave Creek Road (East Side) to 5000 East Dixileta
Drive




Page 832
Table B. Prima Facie Speed Limit 35 Miles Per Hour at All Times.

Dobbins Road Central Avenue to 19th Street

Dove Valley Road North Valley Parkway to 16th Avenue

Dunlap Avenue 7th Avenue to 7th Street

Encanto Boulevard 83rd Avenue to 75th Avenue

Frye Road 3rd Street to Desert Foothills Parkway

Galvin Parkway North of Traffic Circle at Botanical Garden Entry to McDowell Road

Grand Avenue 18th Avenue to 15th Avenue

Grant Street Black Canyon Freeway to Lincoln Street

Grant Street 16th Street to Sky Harbor Circle

Greenway Road Cave Creek Road to Greenway Parkway

Guadalupe Road 48th Street to Interstate 10

Hatcher Road 19th Avenue to Central Avenue

Holmes Boulevard Bell Road to Grovers Avenue

Indian School Road 27th Avenue to 20th Street

Indian School Road 45th Street to 48th Street

Jefferson Street 23rd Avenue to 7th Avenue

Jefferson Street 7th Street to Washington Street

Jefferson Street 7th Street to 265 Feet +/- East of 26th Street (except frontage road
which is 25 mph)

Jomax Road Cave Creek Road to Tatum Boulevard

Jomax Road Tatum Boulevard to 52nd Street




Page 833
Table B. Prima Facie Speed Limit 35 Miles Per Hour at All Times.

Knox Road 36th Street to 48th Street

Lafayette Boulevard 44th Street to 64th Street

Liberty Lane 17th Avenue to Central Avenue

Liberty Lane Desert Foothills Parkway to 13th Way

Lincoln Street Grant Street to 7th Street

Lone Mountain Road 40th Street to Cave Creek Road

Lower Buckeye Road 300 Feet West to 300 Feet East of 99th Avenue

Lower Buckeye Road 22nd Avenue to 19th Avenue

Maryland Avenue 19th Avenue to 16th Street

MARYLAND AVENUE 19TH AVENUE TO CENTRAL AVENUE

Maryvale Parkway Indian School Road to 51st Avenue

MAYO BOULEVARD BLACK MOUNTAIN BOULEVARD TO 4OTH STREET

McDowell Road 27th Avenue to 32nd Street

Metro Parkway Entire Street Surrounding Metro Center

Missouri Avenue 19th Avenue to 24th Street

Mohave Street 7th Street to Sky Harbor Circle

Mohave Street 22nd Street to 24th Street

Mountain View Road Central Avenue to 12th Street

Norterra Parkway Happy Valley Road to Jomax Road

Oak Street 24th Street to 32nd Street




Page 834
Table B. Prima Facie Speed Limit 35 Miles Per Hour at All Times.

Oak Street 52nd Street to 56th Street

Osborn Road 19th Avenue to 36th Street

Paloma Parkway Bronco Butte Trail to Dove Valley Road

Paradise Village Parkway Entire Street Surrounding Paradise Village

Peoria Avenue 19th Avenue to 7th Avenue

Pinnacle Peak Road 19th Avenue to 7th Street

Pocono Way 800 feet north of Hackamore Drive to 33rd Avenue

Pointe Golf Club Drive Thunderbird Road to Sharon Drive

Princess Drive 68th Street to Scottsdale Road

Pyramid Peak Parkway 1,900 Feet +/- north of Brookhart Way to City Limits
(Northbound)

Ranch Circle North Ray Road (3600 East) to Ray Road (4300 East)

Ranch Circle South Ray Road to Mountain Parkway

Rancho Paloma Drive Black Mountain Boulevard to 56th Street

Roeser Road Central Avenue to 40th Street

Roosevelt Street 16th Street to 32nd Street

Rose Garden Lane 19th Avenue to 7th Avenue

Shea Boulevard 24th Street to 32nd Street

Sky Harbor Circle 22nd Street to Grant Street, Mohave Street to Grant Street, and
Mohave Street to 22nd Street

Southern Avenue 7th Avenue to 7th Street




Page 835
Table B. Prima Facie Speed Limit 35 Miles Per Hour at All Times.

STETSON VALLEY PARKWAY DEEM HILLS PARKWAY TO STRAIGHT ARROW LANE

Sweetwater Avenue Cave Creek Road to 32nd Street

Tatum Boulevard 40th Street to Cave Creek Road

Thistle Landing Drive 48th Street to 50th Street

Thomas Road 27th Avenue to 32nd Street

Thunderbird Road 32nd Street to 38th Place

Tombstone Trail Norterra Parkway to 21st Avenue

University Drive 16th Street to 24th Street

Utopia Road Black Canyon Freeway to 23rd Avenue

Utopia Road Cave Creek Road to 32nd Street

Van Buren Street 35th Avenue to 7th Avenue

Van Buren Street 16th Street to 44th Street

Washington Street Adams Street to 7th Avenue

Washington Street 7th Street to 24th Street (except frontage road which is 25 mph)

Williams Drive Black Canyon Freeway to 19th Avenue

Yorkshire Drive 43rd Avenue to Black Canyon Freeway

1st Avenue Crossover Grant Street to Hadley Street

3rd Avenue Osborn Road to Indian School Road

3rd Street Frye Road to Chandler Boulevard

5th Avenue Desert Foothills Parkway to Chandler Boulevard




Page 836
Table B. Prima Facie Speed Limit 35 Miles Per Hour at All Times.

5th Street Crossover Fillmore Street to 4th Street

7th Avenue Dobbins Road to Baseline Road

7th Avenue Magnolia Street to Jackson Street

7th Avenue Van Buren Street to Missouri Avenue

7th Avenue Dunlap Avenue to Hatcher Road

7th Avenue Greenway Parkway to Bell Road

7th Street Mineral Road to Baseline Road

7th Street Lincoln Street to Jefferson Street

7th Street Van Buren Street to Missouri Avenue

7th Street Butler Drive to Cinnabar Avenue

12th Street Indian School Road to Mountain View Road

15th Avenue Southern Avenue to Broadway Road

15th Avenue 0.25 miles south of Magnolia Street to Bethany Home Road

16th Street Dobbins Road to Baseline Road

16th Street Maricopa Freeway to Bethany Home Road

16th Street Bell Road to Grovers Avenue

17th Avenue Pecos Road to Chandler Boulevard

17th Avenue Buckeye Road to Grant Street

19th Avenue Buckeye Road to the Grand Canal

19th Avenue Glendale Avenue to Northern Avenue (Except where noted in
subsection A.1 of this section)




Page 837
Table B. Prima Facie Speed Limit 35 Miles Per Hour at All Times.

20th Street Highland Avenue to Missouri Avenue

21st Avenue Jomax Road to Tombstone Trail

23rd Avenue Bethany Home Road to Glendale Avenue

23rd Avenue Mountain View Road to Cactus Road

23rd Avenue Utopia Road to Deer Valley Drive

23rd Avenue Pinnacle Peak Road to Happy Valley Road

24th Street South Mountain Avenue to Baseline Road

24th Street Buckeye Road to Indian School Road

25th Avenue Dunlap Avenue to Peoria Avenue

27th Avenue South Mountain Avenue to Baseline Road

27th Avenue Lower Buckeye Road to Van Buren Street

27th Avenue Northern Avenue to Dunlap Avenue

27th Avenue Grovers Avenue to Union Hills Drive

27th Avenue Yorkshire Drive to Rose Garden Lane

27th Drive North Valley Parkway to Carefree Highway

28th Drive Peoria Avenue to Cactus Road

29th Avenue Dunlap Avenue to Metro Parkway

29th Avenue Greenway Road to Bell Road

32nd Street Air Lane to Van Buren Street

32nd Street Chandler Boulevard to Pecos Road




Page 838
Table B. Prima Facie Speed Limit 35 Miles Per Hour at All Times.

33rd Avenue Pocono Way to Pinnacle Vista Drive

35th Avenue South Mountain Avenue to Baseline Road

35th Avenue Van Buren Street to Encanto Boulevard

35th Avenue Happy Valley Road to 800 feet north of Hackamore Drive

36th Street Shea Boulevard to Cactus Road

39th Drive Pinnacle Peak Road to Happy Valley Road

40th Street 0.39 miles South of Air Lane to Washington Street

40th Street McDowell Road to Missouri Avenue

40th Street (Southbound) Shea Boulevard to Mercer Lane

40th Street Potter Drive to Deer Valley Drive

40th Street Tatum Boulevard to Lone Mountain Road

43rd Avenue Olney Avenue to Dobbins Road

43rd Avenue Elwood Street Alignment to Lower Buckeye Road

43rd Avenue Anthem Way to 1,930 Feet North of Anthem Way

44th Street Campbell Avenue to Calle Feliz

44th Place Cotton Center Boulevard to Broadway Road

48th Street Frye Road to Chandler Boulevard

48th Street Washington Street to Van Buren Street

48th Street Piedmont Road to Guadalupe Road

50th Street Chandler Boulevard to Ray Road




Page 839
Table B. Prima Facie Speed Limit 35 Miles Per Hour at All Times.

51st Street 500 Feet South of Elliot Road to Warner-Elliot Loop

52nd Street McDowell Road to Thomas Road

52nd Street Cactus Road to Thunderbird Road

55th Avenue Alameda Road to Happy Valley Road

56th Street South City Limit to Van Buren Street

56th Street Oak Street to Camelback Road

56th Street Bell Road to Central Arizona Project Canal

56th Street Lone Mountain Road to Rancho Paloma Drive

64th Street Oak Street to McDowell Road (Southbound Only)

64th Street 255 Feet North of Hillcrest Boulevard to Chaparral Road

68th Street Princess Drive to Mayo Boulevard

71st Avenue Baseline Road to Vineyard Road

79TH AVENUE MCDOWELL ROAD TO THOMAS ROAD

107th Avenue Camelback Road to Missouri Avenue




Table B1. Prima Facie Speed Limit 35 Miles Per Hour from 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on School Days.

Dunlap Avenue For Westbound, 650 Feet +/- West of 29th Avenue to 625 +/- West of
35th Avenue

Dunlap Avenue For Eastbound, 545 Feet +/- West of 35th Avenue to 30th Avenue




Page 840
Table B2. Prima Facie Speed Limit 35 Miles Per Hour from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on School Days.

Greenway Parkway 400 Feet West of 7th Avenue to 250 Feet East of 5th Avenue




Table C. Prima Facie Speed Limit 40 Miles Per Hour at All Times.

Air Lane 24th Street to 32nd Street

Baseline Road 43rd Avenue to 35th Avenue

Baseline Road 7th Avenue to 7th Street

Beardsley Road (Eastbound 37th Avenue to 27th Avenue
Frontage)

Beardsley Road Cave Creek Road to 32nd Street

Bell Road 19th Avenue to 12th Street

Bell Road 0.25 miles West of Cave Creek Road to 1,500 Feet East of 40th
Street

Bethany Home Road 43rd Avenue to 16th Street

Black Mountain Boulevard Mayo Boulevard to Pinnacle Peak Road

BROADWAY ROAD 51ST AVENUE TO 32ND STREET

Broadway Road 19th Avenue to 32nd Street

Buckeye Road 39th Avenue to 31st Avenue

Cactus Road 39th Avenue to 350 ft West of 37th Avenue

Cactus Road 350 ft East of 37th Avenue to 19th Avenue

Cactus Road Cave Creek Road to 60th Street

Camelback Road 43rd Avenue to 27th Avenue

Camelback Road 28th Street to 64th Street




Page 841
Table C. Prima Facie Speed Limit 40 Miles Per Hour at All Times.

Carefree Highway 700 feet West of North Valley Parkway to Via Puzzola

Cave Creek Road Dunlap Avenue to Peoria Avenue

Cave Creek Road Marco Polo Road to Rose Garden Lane

Central Avenue (Northbound) Thunderbird Trail to Dobbins Road

Central Avenue Dobbins Road to Vineyard Road

Central Avenue Pioneer Street to Watkins Street

Chandler Boulevard Marketplace Way to 34th Street

Deer Valley Drive 600 Feet West of 27th Avenue to 0.25 Miles East of 19th Avenue

Deer Valley Drive 600 Feet West of 16th Street to 56th Street

Desert Foothills Parkway Pecos Road to Chandler Boulevard

Desert Peak Parkway Lieber Place to Cave Creek Road

Dobbins Road From West City Limit to 1,320 Feet +/- East

Dobbins Road 23rd Avenue to Central Avenue

Dunlap Avenue 43rd Avenue to 7th Avenue (Except where noted in Table B1 of
this section)

Durango Street 35th Avenue to Black Canyon Freeway

Elliot Road 2,085 Feet +/- West of 59th Avenue to 51st Avenue

Elliot Road 46th Street to 51st Street

Elwood Street 7th Street to 16th Street

Galvin Parkway Van Buren Street to 100 Feet +/- North of East Papago Park (Zoo
Entrance)




Page 842
Table C. Prima Facie Speed Limit 40 Miles Per Hour at All Times.

Gavilan Peak Parkway 800 Feet +/- West of 33rd Lane to Cloud Road

Glendale Avenue 43rd Avenue to 21st Street

Greenway Parkway 500 Feet West of 7th Avenue to 3rd Avenue (Except where noted
in Table B2 of this section)

Greenway Parkway Cave Creek Road to Greenway Road

Greenway Road 51st Avenue to 19th Avenue

Greenway Road Greenway Parkway to 300 Feet East of 30th Street

Greenway Road 52nd Street to 500 Feet East of 60th Street

Indian School Road 67th Avenue to 27th Avenue

Indian School Road 20th Street to 45th Street

Indian School Road 48th Street to 60th Street

Jomax Road Black Canyon Freeway to Norterra Parkway

Liberty Lane 13th Way to 24th Street

Lincoln Drive 21st Street to 800 Feet East of Ocotillo Road

Lower Buckeye Road 103rd Avenue to 300 Feet +/- West of 99th Avenue

LOWER BUCKEYE ROAD 107TH AVENUE TO 300 FEET +/- WEST OF 99TH AVENUE

Lower Buckeye Road 300 Feet +/- East of 99th Avenue to 95th Avenue

LOWER BUCKEYE ROAD 79TH AVENUE TO 67TH AVENUE

Lower Buckeye Road 27th Avenue to 22nd Avenue

Maricopa Freeway Frontage 23rd Avenue to 16th Street
Roads




Page 843
Table C. Prima Facie Speed Limit 40 Miles Per Hour at All Times.

Mayo Boulevard Black Mountain Boulevard to 40th Street

McDowell Road 43rd Avenue to 27th Avenue

McDowell Road 32nd Street to 52nd Street

Mountain Parkway Chandler Boulevard to Ray Road

Norterra Parkway Jomax Road to North Valley Parkway

Northern Avenue 43rd Avenue to SR-51

North Valley Parkway Jomax Road to 30th Avenue

North Valley Parkway 800 Feet +/- West of 33rd Lane to 33rd Lane

Peoria Avenue 43rd Avenue to 19th Avenue

Priest Drive Salt River Drive to Van Buren Street

Pyramid Peak Parkway 67th Avenue to City Limits
(Southbound)

Pyramid Peak Parkway 67th Avenue to 1,900 Feet +/- North of Brookhart Way
(Northbound)

Ray Road Chandler Boulevard to Interstate 10 (Except where noted in Table
A1 of this section)

Rose Garden Lane Cave Creek Road to 32nd Street

Shea Boulevard 32nd Street to 450 Feet East of 40th Street

Southern Avenue 39th Avenue to 31st Avenue

Southern Avenue 19th Avenue to 7th Avenue

Southern Avenue 7th Street to 24th Street

STETSON VALLEY PARKWAY RANGE MULE DRIVE TO DEEM HILLS PARKWAY




Page 844
Table C. Prima Facie Speed Limit 40 Miles Per Hour at All Times.

Thomas Road 800 Feet West of 59th Avenue to Grand Avenue

Thomas Road 32nd Street to 56th Street

Thunderbird Road 31st Avenue to Coral Gables Drive

Thunderbird Road 38th Place to Scottsdale Road

Union Hills Drive 27th Avenue to 19th Avenue

Union Hills Drive 7th Street to 20th Street

University Drive Wood Street to 48th Street

Van Buren Street 67th Avenue to 200 Feet West of 63rd Avenue

Van Buren Street 39th Avenue to 35th Avenue

Van Buren Street 44th Street to 56th Street

Warner-Elliot Loop 4600 East Elliot Road to 578 Feet East of Wakial Loop

Washington Street 24th Street to 34th Street

7th Avenue Baseline Road to Magnolia Street

7th Avenue Missouri Avenue to Dunlap Avenue

7th Avenue Bell Road to Union Hills Drive

7th Avenue Rose Garden Lane to Deer Valley Drive

7th Street Baseline Road to Lincoln Street

7th Street Missouri Avenue to Butler Drive

7th Street Cinnabar Avenue to 400 Feet North of Peoria Avenue

7TH STREET CINNABAR AVENUE TO CLINTON STREET




Page 845
Table C. Prima Facie Speed Limit 40 Miles Per Hour at All Times.

7th Street Thunderbird Road to 600 Feet North of Bell Road

16th Street Baseline Road to the Maricopa Freeway

16th Street Bethany Home Road to Northern Avenue

19th Avenue Southern Avenue to Buckeye Road

19th Avenue Grand Canal to Glendale Avenue

19th Avenue Northern Avenue to Evans Drive

24th Street Pecos Road to Chandler Boulevard

24th Street Baseline Road to Buckeye Road

24th Street Indian School Road to Montebello Avenue

27th Avenue Baseline Road to 500 Feet +/- North

27th Avenue Van Buren Street to Northern Avenue

32nd Street Baseline Road to Wood Street

32nd Street Van Buren Street to the Arizona Canal

32nd Street Mountain View Road to Bell Road

32nd Street Beardsley Road to Rose Garden Lane

35th Avenue Dobbins Road to South Mountain Avenue

35th Avenue Baseline Road to Broadway Road

35th Avenue Lower Buckeye Road to Van Buren Street

35th Avenue Encanto Boulevard to Bell Road

35th Avenue Union Hills Drive to Beardsley Road




Page 846
Table C. Prima Facie Speed Limit 40 Miles Per Hour at All Times.

40th Street Pecos Road to Chandler Boulevard

40th Street 800 Feet South of Roeser Road to University Drive

40th Street Washington Street to McDowell Road

40th Street (Northbound) Shea Boulevard to Mercer Lane

40th Street Mercer Lane to Union Hills Drive

40th Street Mayo Boulevard to Pinnacle Peak Road

43rd Avenue Buckeye Road to Glendale Avenue

43rd Avenue Thunderbird Road to Beardsley Road

43rd Avenue Pinnacle Peak Road to Happy Valley Road

44th Street Washington Street to Campbell Avenue

44th Street Calle Feliz to McDonald Drive

48th Street Chandler Boulevard to Piedmont Road

51ST AVENUE ESTRELLA DRIVE TO OLNEY AVENUE

51st Avenue Dobbins Road to Baseline Road

51st Avenue 0.5 Miles South of Lower Buckeye Road to Lower Buckeye Road

51st Avenue Roosevelt Street to Camelback Road

51st Avenue 250 Feet South of Cactus Road to Union Hills Drive

51st Avenue Pinnacle Peak Road to Happy Valley Road

51ST AVENUE PINNACLE PEAK ROAD TO RANGE MULE DRIVE

52nd Street Van Buren Street to McDowell Road




Page 847
Table C. Prima Facie Speed Limit 40 Miles Per Hour at All Times.

55TH AVENUE HAPPY VALLEY ROAD TO DEEM HILLS PARKWAY

56th Street Shea Boulevard to Bell Road

56th Street Central Arizona Project Canal to Pinnacle Peak Road

59th Avenue Dobbins Road to South Mountain Avenue

59th Avenue Roosevelt Street to Camelback Road

64th Street Cactus Road to Bell Road

67th Avenue 400 Feet +/- South of Elwood Street to Camelback Road

67th Avenue Happy Valley Road to Pyramid Peak Parkway

75th Avenue Baseline Road to Vineyard Road

75th Avenue 0.25 Miles South of Thomas Road to Devonshire Avenue

83rd Avenue Van Buren Street to Papago Freeway

91st Avenue McDowell Road to Indian School Road

99th Avenue 0.5 Miles South of Lower Buckeye Road to Durango Street

107th Avenue Indian School Road to Camelback Road




Table D. Prima Facie Speed Limit 45 Miles Per Hour at All Times.

Baseline Road 55th Avenue to 43rd Avenue

Baseline Road 35th Avenue to 7th Avenue

Baseline Road 7th Street to 48th Street

Beardsley Road (Frontage Roads) 27th Avenue to 20th Street

Beardsley Road Frontage Road 27th Avenue to 51st Avenue




Page 848
Table D. Prima Facie Speed Limit 45 Miles Per Hour at All Times.

(Westbound)

Beardsley Road Frontage Road 51st Avenue to 37th Avenue
(Eastbound)

Bell Road 51st Avenue to 19th Avenue

Bell Road 12th Street to 0.25 Miles West of Cave Creek Road

Bell Road 1,500 Feet East of 40th Street to Scottsdale Road

Broadway Road 107th Avenue to 99th Avenue

BROADWAY ROAD 107TH AVENUE TO 91ST AVENUE

Broadway Road 27th Avenue to 19th Avenue

Broadway Road 32nd Street to 48th Street

Buckeye Road 71st Avenue to 39th Avenue

Cactus Road 51st Avenue to 39th Avenue

Camelback Road 113th Avenue to 99th Avenue

Carefree Highway Via Puzzola to 0.5 Miles East of Via Tramonto / Paloma
Parkway

Cave Creek Road Peoria Avenue to Marco Polo Road

Cave Creek Road Rose Garden Lane to Pinnacle Peak Road

Cave Creek Road (Southbound) Pinnacle Peak To 660 Feet +/- North of Quiet Hollow Lane

Cave Creek Road Peak View Road to Westland Road

Chandler Boulevard (Eastbound) 19th Avenue to 15th Avenue

Chandler Boulevard 15th Avenue to Marketplace Way




Page 849
Table D. Prima Facie Speed Limit 45 Miles Per Hour at All Times.

Chandler Boulevard 34th Street to Interstate 10

Deer Valley Drive 35th Avenue to 600 Feet West of 27th Avenue

Deer Valley Drive 0.25 Miles East of 19th Avenue to 600 Feet West of 16th
Street

Dixileta Drive Tatum Boulevard to 52nd Street

Dobbins Road 1,320 Feet +/- East of City Limit to 200 Feet +/- West of
56th Glen

Dobbins Road 43rd Avenue to 0.25 Miles West of 35th Avenue

Dobbins Road 650 Feet West of 35th Avenue to 33rd Avenue

Dobbins Road 30th Lane to 23rd Avenue

Dove Valley Road 16th Avenue to Sonoran Desert Drive

Dynamite Boulevard Cave Creek Road to 40th Street

Greenway Parkway 17th Drive to 500 Feet West of 7th Avenue

Greenway Parkway 3rd Avenue to Cave Creek Road

Greenway Road 19th Avenue to 17th Drive

Greenway Road 300 Feet East of 30th Street to 52nd Street

Greenway Road 500 Feet East of 60th Street to Scottsdale Road

Happy Valley Road 67th Avenue to 29th Avenue

Happy Valley Road 800 Feet West of 23rd Avenue to 7th Street

Indian School Road 99th Avenue to 67th Avenue

Jomax Road Norterra Parkway to 19th Avenue




Page 850
Table D. Prima Facie Speed Limit 45 Miles Per Hour at All Times.

Lincoln Drive 800 Feet East of Ocotillo Road to 32nd Street

Lone Mountain Road 56th Street to 63rd Street

Lower Buckeye Road 95th Avenue to 83rd Avenue

Lower Buckeye Road 79th Avenue to 75th Avenue

LOWER BUCKEYE ROAD 95TH AVENUE TO 79TH AVENUE

Lower Buckeye Road 67th Avenue to 27th Avenue

Mayo Boulevard Tatum Boulevard to Scottsdale Road

McDowell Road 83rd Avenue to 43rd Avenue

McDowell Road 52nd Street to 1,350 Feet East of 52nd Street

McDowell Road 1,575 Feet West of Galvin Parkway to 64th Street

New River Road 1.0 Mile Southwest of Black Canyon Freeway to Black
Canyon Freeway

Pinnacle Peak Road 55th Avenue to 19th Avenue

Pinnacle Peak Road Cave Creek Road to Tatum Boulevard

Shea Boulevard 450 Feet East of 40th Street to 64th Street

Sonoran Desert Drive Dove Valley Road to Cave Creek Road

Southern Avenue 59th Avenue to 51st Avenue

Southern Avenue 31st Avenue to 19th Avenue

Southern Avenue 24th Street to 48th Street

Tatum Boulevard Mockingbird Lane to Pinnacle Peak Road

Tatum Boulevard Prickly Pear Trail to Cave Creek Road




Page 851
Table D. Prima Facie Speed Limit 45 Miles Per Hour at All Times.

Thomas Road 99th Avenue to 800 Feet West of 59th Avenue

Thunderbird Road 51st Avenue to 31st Avenue

Thunderbird Road Coral Gables Drive to Cave Creek Road

Union Hills Drive 51st Avenue to 27th Avenue

Union Hills Drive 19th Avenue to 7th Street

Union Hills Drive 20th Street to Tatum Boulevard

Van Buren Street 83rd Avenue to 67th Avenue

Van Buren Street 200 Feet West of 63rd Avenue to 39th Avenue

Van Buren Street 56th Street to 508 Feet East of Project Drive

Washington Street 34th Street to 56th Street

7th Avenue Union Hills Drive to Rose Garden Lane

7th Street 400 Feet North of Peoria Avenue to Thunderbird Road

7TH STREET CLINTON STREET TO THUNDERBIRD ROAD

7th Street 600 Feet North of Bell Road to Happy Valley Road

19th Avenue Dobbins Road to Southern Avenue

19th Avenue Evans Drive to Jomax Road

24th Street Baseline Road to Roeser Road

24th Street Montebello Avenue to Lincoln Drive

27th Avenue Southern Avenue to Broadway Road

29th Avenue Pinnacle Peak Road to Happy Valley Road




Page 852
Table D. Prima Facie Speed Limit 45 Miles Per Hour at All Times.

32nd Street Arizona Canal to Lincoln Drive

32nd Street Bell Road to Beardsley Road

35th Avenue 200 Feet South of Elliot Road to Dobbins Road

35th Avenue Baseline Road to 500 Feet +/- North

35th Avenue Broadway Road to Lower Buckeye Road

35th Avenue Bell Road to Union Hills Drive

35th Avenue Beardsley Road to Pinnacle Peak Road

40th Street Baseline Road to 800 Feet South of Roeser Road

43rd Avenue South Mountain Avenue to Southern Avenue

43rd Avenue Lower Buckeye Road to Buckeye Road

43rd Avenue Glendale Avenue to Thunderbird Road

48th Street Baseline Road to Southern Avenue

51st Avenue Baseline Road to Roosevelt Street

51st Avenue Union Hills Drive to Beardsley Road

59th Avenue Elliot Road to Dobbins Road

59TH AVENUE BROADWAY ROAD TO DURANGO STREET ALIGNMENT

59th Avenue Buckeye Road to Roosevelt Street

75th Avenue Broadway Road to Van Buren Street

75th Avenue Roosevelt Street 0.25 miles South of Thomas Road

75TH AVENUE BROADWAY ROAD TO 0.25 MILES SOUTH OF THOMAS
ROAD




Page 853
Table D. Prima Facie Speed Limit 45 Miles Per Hour at All Times.

75th Avenue Devonshire Avenue to Camelback Road

83rd Avenue Broadway Road to Buckeye Road

83rd Avenue Papago Freeway to Camelback Road

91st Avenue Elwood Street to Buckeye Road

91st Avenue Indian School Road to Camelback Road

99TH AVENUE MOBILE LANE TO RIVERSIDE AVENUE

99th Avenue Durango Street to Buckeye Road

99TH AVENUE THOMAS ROAD TO CAMELBACK ROAD




Table E. Prima Facie Speed Limit 50 Miles Per Hour at All Times.

Broadway Road 99th Avenue to 91st Avenue

Buckeye Road 75th Avenue to 71st Avenue

Carefree Highway 0.5 Miles East of Via Tramonto / Paloma Parkway to 7th Avenue

Cave Creek Road Pinnacle Peak Road to 660 Feet +/- North of Quiet Hollow Lane
(Northbound)

Cave Creek Road 660 Feet +/- North of Quiet Hollow Lane to Peak View Road

El Mirage Road 0.25 Miles South of Camelback Road to 0.50 Miles North of
Camelback Road

Lower Buckeye Road 107th Avenue to 103rd Avenue

Lower Buckeye Road 83rd Avenue to 79th Avenue

Lower Buckeye Road 75th Avenue to 71st Avenue

McDowell Road 1,350 Feet East of 52nd Street to 1,575 Feet West of Galvin Parkway




Page 854
Table E. Prima Facie Speed Limit 50 Miles Per Hour at All Times.

New River Road Cloud Road to 1.0 Mile Southwest of Black Canyon Freeway

Pinnacle Peak Road Tatum Boulevard to Scottsdale Road

Tatum Boulevard Pinnacle Peak Road to Prickly Pear Trail

51st Avenue Estrella Drive to Olney Avenue

59th Avenue Broadway Road to Durango Street Alignment

75th Avenue Van Buren Street to Roosevelt Street

91st Avenue 1.56 Miles South of Broadway Road to 0.5 Miles South of Broadway
Road

99th Avenue Indian School Road to Camelback Road

99th Avenue 0.25 Miles North of Broadway Road to 0.5 Miles South of Lower
Buckeye Road




Table F. Prima Facie Speed Limit 55 Miles Per Hour at All Times.




G. Parks.

1. North Mountain Park.

a. Prima Facie Speed Limit 25 Miles Per Hour at All Times.

North Mountain Park Entire Length
Drive

2. Papago Park.

a. Prima Facie Speed Limit 25 Miles Per Hour at All Times.

All roadways except Galvin Parkway.

3. Pecos Park.




Page 855
a. Prima Facie Speed Limit 25 Miles Per Hour at All Times.

All roadways within park boundary.

4. South Mountain Park.

a. Prima Facie Speed Limit 25 Miles Per Hour at All Times.

All roadways within park boundary.

5. Piestewa Peak Park.

a. Prima Facie Speed Limit 30 Miles Per Hour at All Times.

Piestewa Peak Road Piestewa Peak Park Boundary to End of Road Within Piestewa
Peak Park

H. Sky Harbor Airport.

1. Prima Facie Speed Limit 15 Miles Per Hour at All Times.

Sky Harbor Boulevard (North and Between Terminal Curb and Sky Harbor Boulevard
South Roadway) Median on All Terminals 2 and 3 and on Level 1 of
Terminal 4

Sky Harbor Boulevard (North and All Ticketing/Check-in Lanes on Level 2 of Terminal 4
South Roadway)

2. Prima Facie Speed Limit 20 Miles Per Hour at All Times.

Sky Harbor Boulevard 4,400 Feet East of 24th Street to 6,300 Feet East of 24th Street
(South Roadway)

3. Prima Facie Speed Limit 25 Miles Per Hour at All Times.

Sky Harbor Boulevard All Ramps, Entries and Exits for All Ticketing/Check-in and Baggage
(North and South Claim Lanes at Terminals 3 and 4
Roadway)

4. Prima Facie Speed Limit 30 Miles Per Hour at All Times.

Sky Harbor Boulevard 3,000 Feet East of 24th Street to 4,400 Feet East of 24th Street
(South Roadway)



5. Prima Facie Speed Limit 35 Miles Per Hour at All Times.




Page 856
Sky Harbor Boulevard Between 24th Street and SR 143, Except as Provided in the Prior
(North and South Subsections
Roadway)




Page 857
ATTACHMENT B


SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN CITY OF PHOENIX SPEED LIMITS
AMENDING SECTION 36-158, SCHEDULE I - LOCAL SPEED LIMITS


Prima Facie Speed Limit 30 mph at all times

Council
Street Changed Segment Changed Reason for Change
District

51st Avenue to Recommend reduction from 35 mph
Deem Hills
Stetson Valley to 30 mph. 1
Parkway
Parkway


Stetson Valley
Inspiration Record keeping. Update ordinance
Parkway to Stetson 1
Mountain Parkway to show currently posted speed limit.
Valley Parkway


Maryland Avenue Central Avenue to Recommend reduction from 35 mph 6
16th Street to 30 mph.


Pointe Golf Club Thunderbird Road to Recommend reduction from 35 mph 3
Drive Sharon Drive to 30 mph.


Recommend increase from 25 mph
57th Avenue to 51st
Roosevelt Street to 30 mph in conjunction with 7
Avenue
roadway improvements.


Olney Avenue to Recommend reduction from 35 mph
19th Avenue 8
Dobbins Road to 30 mph.


Bethany Home Road Recommend reduction from 35 mph
23rd Avenue 5
to Glendale Avenue to 30 mph.




Prima Facie Speed Limit 35 mph at all times

Council
Street Changed Segment Changed Reason for Change
District

Black Mountain Recommend reduction from 40 mph
Mayo Boulevard Boulevard to 40th to 35 mph. 2
Street


Stetson Valley Deem Hills Parkway to Record keeping. Update ordinance
Parkway Straight Arrow Lane to show currently posted speed limit.


Page 858
Recommend increase from 25 mph
McDowell Road to to 35 mph to coincide with
79th Avenue 7
Encanto Boulevard development and existing posted
speed limit north of segment.


Encanto Boulevard to Record keeping. Update ordinance
79th Avenue
Thomas Road to show currently posted speed limit.




Prima Facie Speed Limit 40 mph at all times

Council
Street Changed Segment Changed Reason for Change
District

51st Avenue to 19th Record keeping. Update ordinance to
Broadway Road 7, 8
Avenue show currently posted speed limit.


Lower Buckeye 107th Avenue to 103rd Record keeping. Update ordinance to
Road Avenue show currently posted speed limit.


Record keeping. Update ordinance to
show currently posted speed limit
Lower Buckeye 79th Avenue to 67th from 79th Avenue to 71st Avenue.
Road Avenue 71st Avenue to 67th Avenue annexed
from Maricopa County and added to
ordinance.


Stetson Valley Range Mule Drive to Record keeping. Update ordinance to
Parkway Deem Hills Parkway show currently posted speed limit.


400’ North of Peoria
Recommend reduction from 45 mph
7th Street Avenue to Clinton 3
to 40 mph.
Street


51st Avenue Estrella Drive to Olney Recommend reduction from 50 mph 8
Avenue to 40 mph.


Happy Valley Road to Record keeping. Update ordinance to
51st Avenue 1
Range Mule Drive show currently posted speed limit.


Happy Valley Road to Record keeping. Update ordinance to
55th Avenue 1
Deem Hills Parkway show currently posted speed limit.




Page 859
Prima Facie Speed Limit 45 mph at all times

Council
Street Changed Segment Changed Reason for Change
District

Broadway Road 99th Avenue to 91st Recommend reduction from 50 mph to
Avenue 45 mph with development.


Lower Buckeye 83rd Avenue to 79th Record keeping. Update ordinance to
Road Avenue show currently posted speed limit.


Broadway Road to
Record keeping. Update ordinance to
59th Avenue Durango Street 7
show currently posted speed limit.
Alignment


75th Avenue Van Buren Street to Record keeping. Update ordinance to
Roosevelt Street show currently posted speed limit.


99th Avenue Mobile Lane to Record keeping. Update ordinance to
Riverside Avenue show currently posted speed limit.


99th Avenue Thomas Road to Recommend reduction from 50 mph to
Camelback Road 45 mph with development.




Note: All speed limit changes were recommended based on a traffic study and
approved by a Traffic Engineer.




Page 860



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Large Valve Repair and Replacement, Emergency Transmission Repair and
Waterline Work - Construction Administration and Inspection Services -
WS85500346, WS85500347 & WS85500399 (Ordinance S-49703)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into separate
agreements with the two consultants listed below, to provide Construction
Administration and Inspection Services for the Large Valve Repair and Replacement,
Emergency Transmission Repair and Waterline Work project. Further request to
authorize execution of amendments to the agreements as necessary within the City
Council-approved expenditure authority as provided below, and for the City Controller
to disburse all funds related to this item. The total fee for services will not exceed
$2.75 million.

Additionally, request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to take all action
as may be necessary or appropriate and to execute all design and construction
agreements, licenses, permits, and requests for utility services relating to the
development, design and construction of the project. Such utility services include, but
are not limited to: electrical, water, sewer, natural gas, telecommunications, cable
television, railroads and other modes of transportation. Further request the City
Council to grant an exception pursuant to Phoenix City Code 42-20 to authorize
inclusion in the documents pertaining to this transaction of indemnification and
assumption of liability provisions that otherwise should be prohibited by Phoenix City
Code 42-18. This authorization excludes any transaction involving an interest in real
property.

Summary
The purpose of this project is to provide construction administration and inspection
services for:
· repair, replacement, and new installation of water valves on an as needed and
emergency basis.
· repairs to transmission waterlines on an as needed and emergency basis.
· installation and/or relocation of waterlines, valves, manholes, vaults, fire hydrants,
and bypass assemblies related to waterline infrastructure.
· waterline and sewer main infrastructure relocations, installation and related work
associated with project completed within the City of Phoenix and adjacent
jurisdictions.

Page 861

The Engineering consultant's services include but are not limited to: monitoring of
contractor time, material work and job progress, daily interaction with contractors to
clarify job requirements, review design or construction plans and provide
recommendations, and inspect waterline and sewer main assets installed or relocated
by or within another municipality or entity.

Procurement Information
The selections were made using a qualifications-based selection process set forth in
section 34-604 of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.). In accordance with A.R.S.
section 34-604(H), the City may not publicly release information on proposals received
or the scoring results until an agreement is awarded. Four firms submitted proposals
and are listed below.

Selected Firms
Rank 1: HDR Engineering, Inc.
Rank 2: Brown and Caldwell, Inc.

Additional Proposers
Rank 3: Entellus, Inc.
Rank 4: Tristar Engineering & Management, Inc.

Contract Term
The term of each agreement is five years from the issuance of the Notice to Proceed.
Work scope identified and incorporated into the agreement prior to the end of the term
may be agreed to by the parties, and work may extend past the termination of the
agreement. No additional changes may be executed after the end of the term.

Financial Impact
The agreement values for each of the Engineering consultants will not exceed $1.375
million each, totaling $2.75 million including all subconsultant and reimbursable costs.

Funding is available in the Water Services Department's Capital Improvement Program
budget. The Budget and Research Department will separately review and approve
funding availability prior to execution of any amendments. Payments may be made up
to agreement limits for all rendered agreement services, which may extend past the
agreement termination.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Ginger Spencer and Alan Stephenson,
the Water Services Department and the City Engineer.



Page 862



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
24-Inch Water Main: Cave Creek Road and Desert Peak Parkway to Booster
Pump Station 5ED-B1 - Construction Manager at Risk Preconstruction Services -
WS85508002 (Ordinance S-49705)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with Sundt Construction, Inc. to provide Construction Manager at Risk Preconstruction
Services for the 24-Inch Water Main: Cave Creek Road and Desert Peak Parkway to
Booster Pump Station 5ED-B1 project. Further request to authorize execution of
amendments to the agreement as necessary within the City Council-approved
expenditure authority as provided below, and for the City Controller to disburse all
funds related to this item. The fee for services will not exceed $100,000.

Summary
The purpose of this project is to construct approximately 29,500 feet of new 24-inch
water main.

Sundt Construction, Inc. will begin in an agency support role for Construction Manager
at Risk Preconstruction Services. Sundt Construction, Inc. will assume the risk of
delivering the project through a Guaranteed Maximum Price agreement.

Sundt Construction, Inc.'s services include, but are not limited to: provide detailed cost
estimating and knowledge of marketplace conditions, project planning, construction
phasing, and scheduling that will minimize interruption to City operations, alternate
systems evaluation and constructability studies, long-lead procurement studies and
procurement of long-lead items, and assist in the permitting processes. A Small
Business Enterprise goal will be established for this project upon substantial
completion of Preconstruction Services and prior to the start of construction.

Procurement Information
The selection was made using a qualifications-based selection process set forth in
section 34-603 of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.). In accordance with A.R.S.
section 34-603(H), the City may not publicly release information on proposals received
or the scoring results until an agreement is awarded. Five firms submitted proposals
and are listed below:



Page 863

Selected Firm
Rank 1: Sundt Construction, Inc.

Additional Proposers
Rank 2: Achen-Gardner Construction, L.L.C.
Rank 3: McCarthy Building Companies, Inc.
Rank 4: B & F Contracting, Inc.
Rank 5: Hunter Contracting Co.

Contract Term
The term of the agreement is five years from issuance of the Notice to Proceed. Work
scope identified and incorporated into the agreement prior to the end of the term may
be agreed to by the parties, and work may extend past the termination of the
agreement. No additional changes may be executed after the end of the term.

Financial Impact
The agreement value for Sundt Construction, Inc. will not exceed $100,000, including
all subcontractor and reimbursable costs.

Funding is available in the Water Services Department's Capital Improvement Program
budget. The Budget and Research Department will separately review and approve
funding availability prior to execution of any amendments. Payments may be made up
to agreement limits for all rendered agreement services, which may extend past the
agreement termination.

Location
Cave Creek Road and Desert Peak Parkway to Booster Pump Station 5ED-B1
Council District: 2

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Ginger Spencer and Alan
Stephenson, the Water Services Department and the City Engineer.




Page 864



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Zone 3D and 4A Improvements Program: Remote Facilities Booster Pump
Stations - Construction Manager at Risk Construction Services Amendment -
WS85100046, WS85110005 and WS85100053 (Ordinance S-49723)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Agreement 152400 with McCarthy Building Companies, Inc. to provide additional
Construction Manager at Risk Construction Services for the Zone 3D and 4A
Improvements Program: Remote Facilities Booster Pump Stations project. Further
request to authorize execution of amendments to the agreement, as necessary within
the City Council-approved expenditure authority as provided below, and for the City
Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.

Summary
The purpose of this project is for the City of Phoenix to supply water in north Phoenix
in the event there are restrictions placed on Colorado River water delivered through
the Central Arizona Project. The City of Phoenix treats Colorado River water at the
Union Hills and Lake Pleasant Water Treatment Plants (WTP), which supply water to
north Phoenix. Construction of a new 66-inch pipeline from the 24th Street WTP to
32nd Street and Bell Road is intended to allow the delivery of Salt and Verde River
water into north Phoenix.

This amendment is necessary as more contract time is needed to purchase standby
generators to provide power redundancy to the 24th Street WTP facilities to supply
water from the 24th Street WTP to north Phoenix. This amendment will provide
additional time to fulfill the agreement.

Contract Term
The term of the agreement amendment is two years from the issuance of the Notice to
Proceed. Work scope identified and incorporated into the agreement prior to the end of
the term may be agreed to by the parties, and work may extend past the termination of
the agreement. No additional changes may be executed after the end of the term.

Financial Impact
The initial agreement value remains unchanged.



Page 865

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved:
· Construction Manager at Risk Construction Services 148948 (Ordinance S-45163)
on Dec. 5, 2018, and;
· Construction Manager at Risk Construction Services 152400 (Ordinance S-46721)
on June 17, 2020.

Location
32nd Street and Bell Road
Council District: 3

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Ginger Spencer and Alan
Stephenson, the Water Services Department and the City Engineer.




Page 866



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Street Improvements Areas Bounded By 15th Avenue to 7th Avenue From
Mountain View Road to Peoria Avenue - Design-Bid-Build Services - ST87750144
(Ordinance S-49729)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to accept AJP Electric, Inc. as
the responsive and responsible bidder and to enter into an agreement with AJP
Electric, Inc. for Design-Bid-Build Services for the Street Improvements Areas
Bounded By 15th Avenue to 7th Avenue from Mountain View Road to Peoria Avenue
project. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to
this item. The fee for services will not exceed $2,929,507.75.

Summary
The purpose of this project is to provide construction services for proposed
improvements to include new sidewalks, sidewalk ramps, driveways and driveway
retrofits to meet current American Disabilities Act (ADA) guidelines.

AJP Electric, Inc.’s services include, but are not limited to: saw cutting and removing
existing pavement, removal of existing vegetation, removal of existing miscellaneous
hardscape and property walls/fences within the right-of-way in conflict with proposed
improvements, relocation of mailboxes, relocation of utilities and utility poles, new four
foot sidewalk on local streets, ADA ramp construction, new driveway and driveway
retrofits, and new sidewalk drainage crossings.

The selection was made using an Invitation for Bids procurement process set forth in
section 34-201 of the Arizona Revised Statutes. Three bids were received on March
21, 2023, and were sent to the Equal Opportunity Department for review to determine
subcontractor eligibility and contractor responsiveness in demonstrating
responsiveness to Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) program requirements.

The Opinion of Probable Cost and the two lowest responsive, responsible bidders are
listed below:

· Opinion of Probable Cost: $1,594,425.35
· AJP Electric, Inc.: $2,929,507.75



Page 867

· Combs Construction Company, Inc.: $4,479,382.00

Bidders who were deemed non-responsive are listed below, in alphabetical order:
· Lincoln Constructors, Inc.

Although the bid exceeds the Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Cost by more than 10
percent, it has been determined the bid represents a fair and reasonable price for the
required work scope. Additionally, the bid award amount is within the total budget for
this project.

The reason for the variance from the Opinion of Probable Cost to the lowest,
responsive, responsible bid is based upon the latest comparable bids on City of
Phoenix major streets and adjusted for the market conditions and rapid inflation
experienced at an unpredictable rate over the past several years.

Contract Term
The term of the agreement is 120 calendar days from issuance of the Notice to
Proceed. Work scope identified and incorporated into the agreement prior to the end of
the term may be agreed to by the parties, and work may extend past the termination of
the agreement. No additional changes may be executed after the end of the term.

Financial Impact
The agreement value for AJP Electric, Inc. will not exceed $2,929,507.75, including all
subcontractor and reimbursable costs.

This project will utilize federal funds and is subject to the requirements of 49 Code of
Federal Regulations Part 26 and the U.S. Department of Transportation DBE program.
Funding is available in the Street Transportation Department's Capital Improvement
Program budget. The Budget and Research Department will separately review and
approve funding availability prior to execution of any amendments. Payments may be
made up to agreement limits for all rendered agreement services, which may extend
past the agreement termination.

Public Outreach
Planned resident notification will be provided prior to construction.

Location
Areas bounded by 15th Avenue to 7th Avenue from Mountain View Road to Peoria
Avenue
Council District: 3


Page 868


Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson, the Street
Transportation Department and the City Engineer.




Page 869



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
CIPP-Lined Concrete Sewer Condition Assessment - Engineering Services -
WS90500271 (Ordinance S-49730)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with Brown and Caldwell, Inc. to provide Engineering Services that include
assessment services for the CIPP-Lined Concrete Sewer Condition Assessment.
Further request to authorize execution of amendments to the agreement as necessary
within the City Council-approved expenditure authority as provided below, and for the
City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The fee for services will not
exceed $1.6 million.

Additionally, request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to take all action
as may be necessary or appropriate and to execute all design and construction
agreements, licenses, permits, and requests for utility services related to the
development, design and construction of the project. Such utility services include, but
are not limited to: electrical, water, sewer, natural gas, telecommunication, cable
television, railroads and other modes of transportation. Further request the City
Council to grant an exception to Phoenix City Code 42-20 to authorize inclusion in the
documents pertaining to this transaction of indemnification and assumption of liability
provisions that otherwise should be prohibited by Phoenix City Code 42-18. This
authorization excludes any transaction involving an interest in real property.

Summary
The purpose of this project is to conduct a condition assessment on a portion of cured-
in-place plastic-lined (CIPP) concrete interceptor sewer system. The CIPP-lined sewer
system is approximately 12.5 miles in length, of which 6.6 miles of existing sewer will
be assessed. The system ranges in pipe diameter from 16 to 60 inches. In addition to
the sewer infrastructure assessment, there is a need for approximately 50 miles of
sewer segments and manholes, not previously assessed in other programs, to be
included as these assets were inadvertently missed or the project was under funded to
complete.

Brown and Caldwell, Inc.'s services include, but are not limited to: reviewing past
assessments, as-builts, any available records of rehabilitation, any other pertinent
documents, and records, conducive to the assessment; inspect manholes and


Page 870

structures on the interceptor; inspect the pipe interior of the interceptor utilizing remote
video inspection equipment; and present the final executive summaries.

Procurement Information
The selection was made using a qualifications-based selection process set forth in
section 34-603 of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.). In accordance with A.R.S.
section 34-603(H), the City may not publicly release information on proposals received
or the scoring results until an agreement is awarded. One firm submitted a proposal
and is listed below.

Selected Firm
Rank 1: Brown and Caldwell, Inc.

Contract Term
The term of the agreement is five years from the issuance of the Notice to Proceed.
Work scope identified and incorporated into the agreement prior to the end of the term
may be agreed to by the parties, and work may extend past the termination of the
agreement. No additional changes may be executed after the end of the term.

Financial Impact
The agreement value for Brown and Caldwell, Inc. will not exceed $1.6 million,
including all subconsultant and reimbursable costs.

Funding is available in the Water Services Department's Capital Improvement Program
budget. The Budget and Research Department will separately review and approve
funding availability prior to execution of any amendments. Payments may be made up
to agreement limits for all rendered agreement services, which may extend past the
agreement termination.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Ginger Spencer and Alan
Stephenson, the Water Services Department and the City Engineer.




Page 871



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Salt River Project Construction License for Zone 1 16-Inch Water Main -
WS85500440 (Ordinance S-49737)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a Construction
License with Salt River Project (SRP) for work associated with a City of Phoenix Water
Services project. Further request the City Council to grant an exception pursuant to
Phoenix City Code 42-20 to authorize inclusion in the documents pertaining to this
transaction of indemnification and assumption of liability provisions that otherwise
should be prohibited by Phoenix City Code 42-18.

Summary
The City is constructing a 16-inch water main in the area bounded by Carver Road to
Elliot Road and 51st Avenue to 35th Avenue. The purpose of the Construction License
is to allow the City to install water pipe and hydrants along Carver Road, next to
existing SRP irrigation facilities. This work is in conjunction with City Project
WS85500440.

Contract Term
The term of the Construction License is one year, effective when the City begins
construction, expected to be after June 1, 2023.

Financial Impact
There is no financial impact to the City of Phoenix.

Location
Carver Road and 51st Avenue
Council District: 8

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson, the Street
Transportation Department and the City Engineer.




Page 872



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Wastewater Facilities Electrical and Instrumentation & Control Improvements -
Job Order Contracting Services - 4108JOC211 (Ordinance S-49738)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into separate master
agreements with two contractors to provide Wastewater Facilities Electrical and
Instrumentation & Control Improvement Job Order Contracting services for the Water
Services Department. Further request to authorize execution of amendments to the
agreements, as necessary within the City Council-approved expenditure authority as
provided below, and for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.
The total fee for all services will not exceed $40 million.

Additionally, request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to take all action
as may be necessary or appropriate and to execute all design and construction
agreements, licenses, permits, and requests for utility services relating to the
development, design and construction of the project. Such utility services include, but
are not limited to: electrical, water, sewer, natural gas, telecommunications, cable
television, railroads and other modes of transportation. Further request the City
Council to grant an exception pursuant to Phoenix City Code 42-20 to authorize
inclusion in the documents pertaining to this transaction of indemnification and
assumption of liability provisions that otherwise should be prohibited by Phoenix City
Code 42-18. This authorization excludes any transaction involving an interest in real
property.

Summary
The Job Order Contracting (JOC) contractors’ services will be used on an as-needed
basis to provide Wastewater Facilities Electrical and Instrumentation & Control
Improvement services for installations and replacement of mechanical equipment,
such as auto samplers, pumps, motors, chemical feed equipment, valves and
actuators, with any electrical equipment, such as analyzers, meters, sensors, variable
frequency drivers, security upgrades, and Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
system components, including conduit and or wiring. Additionally, the JOC contractors
will be responsible for fulfilling Small Business Enterprise program requirements.

Procurement Information
The selections were made using a qualifications-based selection process set forth in


Page 873

section 34-604 of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.). In accordance with A.R.S.
section 34-604, the City may not publicly release information on proposals received or
the scoring results until an agreement is awarded. Two firms submitted proposals and
are listed below.

Selected Firms
Rank 1: Ludvik Electric Co.
Rank 2: PCL Industrial Services Inc.

Contract Term
The term of each master agreement is for up to five years or up to $40 million,
whichever occurs first. Work scope identified and incorporated into the master
agreement prior to the end of the term may be agreed to by the parties, and work may
extend past the termination of the master agreement. No additional changes may be
executed after the end of the term.

Financial Impact
The master agreement value for each of the JOC contractors will not exceed $40
million, including all subcontractor and reimbursable costs. The total fee for all services
will not exceed $80 million.

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute job order
agreements performed under these master agreements for up to $4 million each. In no
event will any job order agreement exceed this limit without Council approval to
increase the limit.

Funding is available in the Water Services Department's Capital Improvement Program
budgets. The Budget and Research Department will review and approve funding
availability prior to issuance of any job order agreement. Payments may be made up to
agreement limits for all rendered agreement services, which may extend past the
agreement termination.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Ginger Spencer and Alan
Stephenson, the Water Services Department and the City Engineer.




Page 874



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Fire Station 74 - Architectural Services - FD57100020 (Ordinance S-49739)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with Perlman Architects of Arizona, Inc., to provide Architectural Services that include
design and possible construction administration and inspection services for the new
Fire Station 74 project. Further request to authorize execution of amendments to the
agreement, as necessary, within the City Council-approved expenditure authority as
provided below, and for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.
The fee for services will not exceed $495,000.

Additionally request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to take all action
as may be necessary or appropriate to execute all design and construction
agreements, licenses, permits and requests for utility services related to the
development, design and construction of the project. Such utility services include, but
are not limited to, electrical, water, sewer, natural gas, telecommunication, cable
television, railroads and other modes of transportation. Further request the City
Council to grant an exception to Phoenix City Code 42-20 to authorize inclusion in the
documents pertaining to this transaction of indemnification and assumption of liability
provisions that otherwise should be prohibited by Phoenix City Code 42-18. This
authorization excludes any transaction involving an interest in real property.

Summary
The purpose of this project is to build a new 12,000 square foot fire station with three
apparatus bays that will enable the Phoenix Fire Department to support the
surrounding neighborhood to increase speed of delivery and to significantly reduce
response times. Due to the extensive growth in the area, it has become vital to build
Fire Station 74. It is proposed to use the existing design replicated from Fire Station 55
and site-adapt it to the City-owned property located on the northwest corner of 19th
Avenue and Chandler Boulevard. Perlman Architects of Arizona, Inc., as the Architect
of Record of Fire Station 55, is uniquely qualified to immediately provide a turnkey set
of plans for Fire Station 74.

Services provided by Perlman Architects of Arizona, Inc., include, but are not limited to:
replicate and site-adapt design and preparation of plans and specifications; structural,
mechanical, plumbing, electrical, civil, survey and geotechnical engineering design


Page 875

services; fire protection design; landscape design; post design services and other work
for complete design; and construction administration and inspection services through
to obtaining substantial completion, punch-list development, final and warranty
walkthrough, and other services as required to support successful completion of the
work and City interests.

Procurement Information
Perlman Architects of Arizona, Inc., was chosen for this project using a Direct Select
process set forth in section 34-103 of the Arizona Revised Statutes. The Direct Select
process will benefit the project through design savings based on replicating an existing
design and will also expedite the procurement process resulting in a savings of several
months.

Contract Term
The term of the agreement is five years from the issuance of the Notice to Proceed.
Work scope identified and incorporated into the agreement prior to the end of the term
may be agreed to by the parties, and work may extend past the termination of the
agreement. No additional changes may be executed after the end of the term.

Financial Impact
The agreement value for Perlman Architects of Arizona, Inc., will not exceed $495,000,
including all subconsultant and reimbursable costs.

Funding is available in the Fire Department's Capital Improvement Program budget.
The Budget and Research staff will separately review and approve funding availability
prior to execution of any amendments. Payments may be made up to agreement limits
for all rendered agreement services, which may extend past the agreement
termination.

Public Outreach
The firm will work with the City of Phoenix on public outreach, if needed.

Location
19th Avenue and Chandler Boulevard
Council District: 6

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays, Deputy City Manager Alan
Stephenson, the Fire Department and the City Engineer.




Page 876



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Aviation Department Sustainability On-Call Consulting Services for Fiscal Years
2023-28 (Ordinance S-49743)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into separate
agreements with the five consultants listed below to provide Sustainability On-Call
Consulting services for Fiscal Years 2023-28 for the Aviation Department. Further
request to authorize execution of amendments to the agreements as necessary within
the Council-approved expenditure authority as provided below, and for the City
Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The total fee for services will not
exceed $3 million aggregate.

Additionally, request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to take all action
as may be necessary or appropriate and to execute all design and construction
agreements, licenses, permits, and requests for utility services relating to the
development, design, and construction of the project. Such utility services include, but
are not limited to: electrical, water, sewer, natural gas, telecommunications, cable
television, railroads and other modes of transportation. Further request the City
Council to grant an exception pursuant to Phoenix City Code 42-20 to authorize
inclusion in the documents pertaining to this transaction of indemnification and
assumption of liability provisions that otherwise should be prohibited by Phoenix City
Code 42-18. This authorization excludes any transaction involving an interest in real
property.

Summary
The Aviation Department is committed to actively supporting city and industry
sustainability efforts by ensuring Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, Phoenix
Deer Valley Airport and Phoenix Goodyear Airport are Future Friendly and enhance the
communities we serve. The services provided under these contracts will leverage the
technical expertise necessary for Aviation to support the City in achieving goals, such
as 100 percent Renewable Energy by 2030, Net Zero Carbon by 2040 and Zero Waste
by 2050.

The On-Call consultants will be responsible for providing On-Call Sustainability
Consulting services that include, but are not limited to: supporting the Department's
projects and initiatives regarding Net Zero Carbon Roadmap; Planning and Policy;


Page 877

Waste Reduction and Recycling; Water Conservation and Efficiency; Technical
Reviews, Reporting, and Recommendations; Outreach and Education; and Grants and
Funding.

Procurement Information
The selections were made using a qualifications-based selection process set forth in
section 34-604 of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.). In accordance with A.R.S.
section 34-604(H), the City may not publicly release information on proposals received
or the scoring results until an agreement is awarded. Ten firms submitted proposals
and are listed below.

Selected Firms
Rank 1: C & S Engineers, Inc.
Rank 2: Gresham Smith
Rank 3: Mead & Hunt, Inc.
Rank 4: AECOM Technical Services, Inc.
Rank 5: Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.

Additional Proposers
Rank 6: Cumming Management Group, Inc.
Rank 7: McKinstry Essention, LLC
Rank 8: Affiliated Engineers, Inc.
Rank 9: GLUMAC, Inc.
Rank 10: Blue Strike Environmental, Inc.

Contract Term
The term of each agreement is up to five years, or up to an aggregate of $3 million for
all five contracts, whichever occurs first. Work scope identified and incorporated into
the agreement prior to the end of the term may be agreed to by the parties, and work
may extend past the termination of the agreement. No additional changes may be
executed after the end of the term.

Financial Impact
The agreement value for the On-Call consultants will not exceed an aggregate of $3
million, including all subconsultant and reimbursable costs.

Funding is available in the Aviation Department’s Operating budget. The Budget and
Research Department will review and approve funding availability prior to issuance of
any On-Call task order of $100,000 or more. Payments may be made up to agreement
limits for all rendered agreement services, which may extend past the agreement
termination.


Page 878


Location
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport: 2485 E. Buckeye Road
Phoenix Deer Valley Airport: 702 W. Deer Valley Road
Phoenix Goodyear Airport: 1658 S. Litchfield Road, Goodyear, Ariz.
Council Districts: 1, 8 and Out of City

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Mario Paniagua and Alan
Stephenson, the Aviation Department and the City Engineer.




Page 879



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Street Transportation Department Project Management Assistance On-Call
Services (Ordinance S-49744)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into separate
agreements with the two consultants listed below, to provide Project Management
Assistance On-Call services for the Street Transportation Department. Further request
to authorize execution of amendments to the agreements, as necessary within the
Council-approved expenditure authority as provided below, and for the City Controller
to disburse all funds related to this item. The total fee for services will not exceed $4
million.

Additionally, request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to take all action
as may be necessary or appropriate and to execute all design and construction
agreements, licenses, permits and requests for utility services relating to the
development, design and construction of the project. Such utility services include, but
are not limited to: electrical, water, sewer, natural gas, telecommunications, cable
television, railroads and other modes of transportation. Further request the City
Council to grant an exception pursuant to Phoenix City Code 42-20 to authorize
inclusion in the documents pertaining to this transaction of indemnification and
assumption of liability provisions that otherwise should be prohibited by Phoenix City
Code 42-18. This authorization excludes any transaction involving an interest in real
property.

Summary
The On-Call consultants will be responsible for providing On-Call Project Management
Assistance services that include, but are not limited to: overseeing design and
construction for both federally and locally funded Capital Improvement Program
projects outside of the right-of-way; producing, reading and reviewing plans, drawings
and specifications; producing and reviewing cost estimates; advising on technical
aspects; reviewing submittals and pay estimates; coordinating with internal and
external stakeholders; providing community engagement and public outreach; project
field review and plan review; and other services as required to support successful
completion of the work and city's interest.




Page 880

Procurement Information
The selections were made using a qualifications-based selection process set forth in
section 34-604 of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.). In accordance with A.R.S.
section 34-604(H), the City may not publicly release information on proposals received
or the scoring results until an agreement is awarded. Three firms submitted proposals
and are listed below.

Selected Firms
Rank 1: Topaz Engineering, Inc.
Rank 2: T.Y. Lin International, Inc.

Additional Proposer
Rank 3: Deccan Consulting, LLC

Contract Term
The term of each agreement is up to two years or up to $2 million, whichever occurs
first. Work scope identified and incorporated into the agreement prior to the end of the
term may be agreed to by the parties, and work may extend past the termination of the
agreement. No additional changes may be executed after the end of the term.

Financial Impact
The agreement value for each of the On-Call consultants will not exceed $2 million,
including all subconsultant and reimbursable costs. The total fee for all services will not
exceed $4 million.

Funding is available in the Street Transportation Department’s Capital Improvement
Program budget. The Budget and Research Department will review and approve
funding availability prior to issuance of any On-Call task order of $100,000 or more.
Payments may be made up to agreement limits for all rendered agreement services,
which may extend past the agreement termination.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson, the Street
Transportation Department and the City Engineer.




Page 881



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Light Rail Capitol and I-10 Extension Water and Sewer Design Review and
Construction Inspection Oversight Services - WS85500330 and WS90500224
(Ordinance S-49763)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with Brown and Caldwell, Inc., to provide Engineering Services for the Light Rail
Capitol and I-10 Extension Water and Sewer Design Review and Construction
Inspection Oversight Services project. Further request to authorize execution of
amendments to the agreement, as necessary within the City Council-approved
expenditure authority as provided below, and for the City Controller to disburse all
funds related to this item. The total fee for services will not exceed $1.6 million.

Additionally, request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to take all action
as may be necessary or appropriate and to execute all design and construction
agreements, licenses, permits, and requests for utility services relating to the
development, design and construction of the project. Such utility services include, but
are not limited to: electrical, water, sewer, natural gas, telecommunications, cable
television, railroads and other modes of transportation. Further request the City
Council to grant an exception pursuant to Phoenix City Code 42-20 to authorize
inclusion in the documents pertaining to this transaction of indemnification and
assumption of liability provisions that otherwise should be prohibited by Phoenix City
Code 42-18. This authorization excludes any transaction involving an interest in real
property.

Summary
The purpose of this project is to provide design review and independent construction
inspection oversight services on behalf of the City of Phoenix Water Services
Department for the Light Rail Capitol Extension and future potential I-10 Extension
projects. This project site is planned along Washington and Jefferson streets from 3rd
Avenue to 19th Avenue.

Brown and Caldwell, Inc.’s services include, but are not limited to: review of design
and construction plans; construction inspection and oversight; coordination of the
pipeline relocation schedule; coordination of pipeline shutdown and startup plans; and
coordination and review of pipeline disinfection, including procedures and compliance.


Page 882


Procurement Information
The selection was made using a qualifications-based selection process set forth in
section 34-603 of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.). In accordance with A.R.S.
section 34-603(H), the City may not publicly release information on proposals received
or the scoring results until an agreement is awarded. Eight firms submitted proposals
and are listed below.

Selected Firm
Rank 1: Brown and Caldwell, Inc.

Additional Proposers
Rank 2: Wilson Engineers, LLC
Rank 3: Entellus, Inc.
Rank 4: Stanley Consultants, Inc.
Rank 5: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Rank 6: Consultant Engineering, Inc.
Rank 7: Greeley and Hansen LLC
Rank 8: Ardurra Group, Inc.

Contract Term
The term of the agreement is five years from the issuance of the Notice to Proceed.
Work scope identified and incorporated into the agreement prior to the end of the term
may be agreed to by the parties, and work may extend past the termination of the
agreement. No additional changes may be executed after the end of the term.

Financial Impact
The agreement value for Brown and Caldwell, Inc. will not exceed $1.6 million,
including all subconsultant and reimbursable costs.

Funding is available in the Water Services Department's Capital Improvement Program
budget. The Budget and Research Department will separately review and approve
funding availability prior to execution of any amendments. Payments may be made up
to agreement limits for all rendered agreement services, which may extend past the
agreement termination.

Location
Washington and Jefferson streets from 3rd Avenue to 19th Avenue
Council District: 7




Page 883

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Ginger Spencer and Alan
Stephenson, the Water Services Department and the City Engineer.




Page 884



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Apply for U.S. Department of Transportation Safe Streets and Roads for All
Grant Opportunity for Federal Fiscal Year 2022-23 - Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
Funding (Ordinance S-49764)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to apply for, accept and, if
awarded, enter into an agreement for disbursement of federal funding from the U.S.
Department of Transportation through the Federal Fiscal Year 2022-23 Safe Streets
and Roads for All grant opportunity. If awarded, the funding will be used to implement
projects and strategies in the Vision Zero Road Safety Action Plan. Further request to
authorize the City Treasurer to Accept, and the City Controller to disburse, all funds
related to this item. Funding for this grant opportunity is available through the Federal
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. The total grant funds applied for will not exceed $25
million, and the City's local match would not exceed $6.25 million.

Summary
The Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) is a funding program under the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law, which was signed into law on Nov. 15, 2021. The U.S. Department
of Transportation (USDOT) issued a Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) on March
30, 2023, for the SS4A program for the second year of the program offering over a
billion dollars in Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2022-23. The intent of the program is to
offer a competitive discretionary grant opportunity to support planning, infrastructure,
behavioral and operational initiatives to prevent death and serious injuries involving all
roadway users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, public transportation users, personal
conveyance and micromobility users, motorists and commercial vehicle operators.

On Sept. 7, 2022, City Council approved the Street Transportation Department's
(Streets) Vision Zero Road Safety Action Plan (RSAP). The RSAP is one of the key
SS4A grant requirements to apply for funding designated under the implementation
grants category. The department was successful in obtaining $460,000 in FFY 2021-22
SS4A funding in supplemental action funds to enhance and build upon the existing
planning efforts approved through the RSAP. If awarded this year, the funding will be
used for implementation of projects and strategies in the RSAP.

Streets staff evaluated prior year successful implementation awards and consequently
changed the focus of this second-round submittal to be more in line with the first round


Page 885

of awarded implementation grants. The focus on this second-round submittal will be a
more comprehensive corridor approach utilizing key strategies identified in the RSAP
to target safety improvements along one of the City's busiest and high-injury-prone
corridors: Indian School Road, west of 39th Avenue. Staff is evaluating all of the grant
criteria to ensure a competitive final grant submittal is achieved with a focus on these
grant priorities as defined in the SS4A NOFO:

· Promoting safety to prevent death and serious injuries on public roadways;
· Employing low cost, high-impact strategies that can improve safety over a wide
geographic area;
· Ensuring equitable investment in the safety needs of under-served communities,
which includes under-served urban communities;
· Incorporating evidence-based projects and strategies and adopting innovative
technologies;
· Demonstrating engagement with a variety of public and private stakeholders; and
· Aligning with USDOT's mission and strategic goals such as safety, climate change
and sustainability, equity and Justice 40, workforce development, job quality and
wealth creation.

The City intends to submit an implementation grant application with a total project cost
up to $31.25 million, which includes final design, environmental and construction costs
related to the implementation of projects that will deliver countermeasure solutions to
improve roadway safety along Indian School Road corridor, west of 39th Avenue.

The SS4A grant submittal deadline is July 10, 2023.

Financial Impact
The estimated total cost for the project is approximately $31.25 million. The maximum
federal participation rate is 80 percent with a minimum local match of 20 percent of the
total project cost. If awarded, the federal match would not exceed $25 million, and the
City’s costs would be approximately $6.25 million for the local match.

Funding for the local match is available in the Streets Transportation Department’s
Capital Improvement Program budget. Potential grant funding received is available
through the Federal Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, from USDOT through the FFY 2022-
23 SS4A grant opportunity.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee recommended approval
of this item on May 17, 2023, by a vote of 4-0.


Page 886


Location
Along Indian School Road, west of 39th Avenue.
Council Districts: 4 and 5

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Mario Paniagua and Alan Stephenson
and the Street Transportation Department.




Page 887



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation - Job Order Contracting Services - 4108JOC216
(Ordinance S-49767)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into separate master
agreements with the four contractors listed below, to provide Sanitary Sewer
Rehabilitation Job Order Contracting services for the Water Services Department.
Further request to authorize execution of amendments to the agreements, as
necessary within the City Council-approved expenditure authority as provided below,
and for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The total fee for
services will not exceed $90 million.

Additionally, request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to take all action
as may be necessary or appropriate and to execute all design and construction
agreements, licenses, permits, and requests for utility services relating to the
development, design and construction of the project. Such utility services include, but
are not limited to; electrical, water, sewer, natural gas, telecommunications, cable
television, railroads and other modes of transportation. Further request the City
Council to grant an exception pursuant to Phoenix City Code 42-20 to authorize
inclusion in the documents pertaining to this transaction of indemnification and
assumption of liability provisions that otherwise should be prohibited by Phoenix City
Code 42-18. This authorization excludes any transaction involving an interest in real
property.

Summary
The Job Order Contracting (JOC) contractors’ services will be used on an as-needed
basis to provide Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation services for approximately 5,000 miles
of gravity sewer and small diameter pipe comprising 92 percent of the wastewater
collection system. The purpose of this program is to maintain the reliability and
integrity of the wastewater collections system by rehabilitating existing infrastructure.
Additionally, the JOC contractors will be responsible for fulfilling Small Business
Enterprise program requirements.

Procurement Information
The selections were made using a qualifications-based selection process set forth in
section 34-604 of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.). In accordance with A.R.S.


Page 888

section 34-604(H), the City may not publicly release information on proposals received
or the scoring results until an agreement is awarded. Four firms submitted proposals
and are listed below.

Selected Firms
Rank 1: Insituform Technologies, LLC
Rank 2: SAK Construction, LLC
Rank 3: IRC West, LLC DBA Insta-Pipe SW
Rank 4: Iron Horse, LLC

Contract Term
The term of each master agreement is for up to five years or up to $22.5 million,
whichever occurs first. Work scope identified and incorporated into the master
agreement prior to the end of the term may be agreed to by the parties, and work may
extend past the termination of the master agreement. No additional changes may be
executed after the end of the term.

Financial Impact
The master agreement value for each of the JOC contractors will not exceed $22.5
million, including all subcontractor and reimbursable costs. The total fee for all services
will not exceed $90 million.

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute job order
agreements performed under these master agreements for up to $4 million each. In no
event will any job order agreement exceed this limit without Council approval to
increase the limit.

Funding is available in the Water Services Department Capital Improvement Program.
The Budget and Research Department will review and approve funding availability
prior to issuance of any job order agreement. Payments may be made up to
agreement limits for all rendered agreement services, which may extend past the
agreement termination.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Ginger Spencer and Alan
Stephenson, the Water Services Department and the City Engineer.




Page 889



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
2022 99th Avenue Interceptor Rehabilitation - Engineering Services -
WS90160109 (Ordinance S-49771)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with Brown and Caldwell, Inc. to provide Engineering Services that include design and
possible construction administration and inspection services for the 2022 99th Avenue
Interceptor Rehabilitation project. Further request to authorize execution of
amendments to the agreement, as necessary within the Council-approved expenditure
authority as provided below, and for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to
this item. The fee for services will not exceed $500,000.

Additionally, request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to take all action
as may be necessary or appropriate and to execute all design and construction
agreements, licenses, permits, and requests for utility services related to the
development, design and construction of the project. Such utility services include, but
are not limited to: electrical, water, sewer, natural gas, telecommunication, cable
television, railroads and other modes of transportation. Further request the City
Council to grant an exception to Phoenix City Code 42-20 to authorize inclusion in the
documents pertaining to this transaction of indemnification and assumption of liability
provisions that otherwise should be prohibited by Phoenix City Code 42-18. This
authorization excludes any transaction involving an interest in real property.

Summary
The purpose of this project is to rehabilitate approximately 4,600 linear feet of large
diameter PVC-lined concrete pipelines that are located primarily along 99th Avenue
between Olive Avenue and Harrison Street, then runs east and south ultimately
connecting to the junction structure at the intersection of Broadway Road and 87th
Avenue near the 91st Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant.

Brown and Caldwell, Inc.'s services include, but are not limited to: evaluating existing
documentation including assessment reports, videos, as-builts, and other investigative
data and/or reports that may be available on pipe and manhole condition to identify
viable rehabilitation alternatives; investigate and propose appropriate repair and
rehabilitation methods; address any sewer capacity reductions caused by proposed
rehabilitation methods; and provide rehabilitation or repair design to correct all sewer
and manhole defects at identified project locations.

Page 890

Procurement Information
The selection was made using a qualifications-based selection process set forth in
section 34-603 of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.). In accordance with A.R.S.
section 34-603(H), the City may not publicly release information on proposals received
or the scoring results until an agreement is awarded. Three firms submitted proposals
and are listed below.

Selected Firm
Rank 1: Brown and Caldwell, Inc.

Additional Proposers
Rank 2: Dibble & Associates Consulting Engineers, Inc.
Rank 3: Consor North America, Inc.

Contract Term
The term of the agreement is five years from the issuance of the Notice to Proceed.
Work scope identified and incorporated into the agreement prior to the end of the term
may be agreed to by the parties, and work may extend past the termination of the
agreement. No additional changes may be executed after the end of the term.

Financial Impact
The agreement value for Brown and Caldwell, Inc. will not exceed $500,000, including
all subconsultant and reimbursable costs.

Funding is available in the Water Services Department's Capital Improvement Program
budget. The Budget and Research Department will separately review and approve
funding availability prior to execution of any amendments. Payments may be made up
to agreement limits for all rendered agreement services, which may extend past the
agreement termination.

Location
99th Avenue and Olive Avenue to 87th Avenue and Broadway Road
Council Districts: 5, 7 and Out of City

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Ginger Spencer and Alan Stephenson,
the Water Services Department and the City Engineer.




Page 891



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Intergovernmental Agreement with Arizona Department of Transportation to
Fund City of Phoenix Staffing Resources for Interstate 10 Broadway Curve
Improvement Project - Amendment (Ordinance S-49777)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to amend the
Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the Arizona Department of Transportation
(ADOT) for ADOT to fund City staffing resources in the Street Transportation
Department related to the reconstruction of the Interstate 10 Broadway Curve
Improvement Project. Further request the City Council to grant an exception pursuant
to Phoenix City Code section 42-20 to authorize indemnification and assumption of
liability provisions that otherwise would be prohibited by Phoenix City Code section 42-
18. Further request to authorize the City Treasurer to accept, and the City Controller to
disburse, all funds related to this item.

Summary
The purpose of this amendment is for ADOT to extend the terms of the IGA. The
original IGA was effective from July 26, 2021, through July 25, 2023. This amendment
will extend the terms of the IGA until the substantial completion of the Interstate 10 (I-
10) Broadway Curve Improvement Project (Broadway Curve). Street Transportation
Department staff will continue to coordinate with City departments on the I-10
Broadway Curve in an amount not to exceed $350,000 per year. City staff will be
assigned to the project to coordinate and perform plan reviews, process permits, and
provide traffic operations coordination and outreach support during the freeway
detours and closures. It is critical to the success of this freeway project for City staff to
work closely with ADOT and the development team throughout design and
construction.

The I-10 Broadway Curve is planned to improve a segment of I-10 between the I-
10/Interstate 17 (I-17) Split Traffic Interchange and the Congressman Ed Pastor
Freeway (Loop 202-South Mountain Freeway).

Contract Term
The City Council approved the original IGA on May 19, 2021 (Ordinance S-47561).




Page 892

Financial Impact
The City will be reimbursed in an amount not to exceed $350,000 per year.

Location
Interstate 10, from the I-10/I-17 Split Traffic Interchange and the Congressman Ed
Pastor Freeway (Loop 202-South Mountain Freeway)
Council Districts: 6 and 8

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Street
Transportation Department.




Page 893



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Intergovernmental Agreement with Arizona Department of Transportation for the
City to Authorize the State to Perform National Bridge Inspection Standards for
Inspections on Bridges Owned or Controlled by the City (Ordinance S-49778)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an
Intergovernmental Agreement with the Arizona Department of Transportation, to define
the maintenance agreement on bridges that are owned or controlled by the City.
Further request the City Council to grant an exception pursuant to Phoenix City Code
section 42-20 to authorize indemnification and assumption of liability provisions that
otherwise would be prohibited by Phoenix City Code section 42-18.

Summary
The State will inspect inventoried bridges owned by the City according to the National
Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS).

NBIS:
Federal regulations in 23 CFR Part 650, Subpart C establishing requirements for
inspection procedures, frequency of inspections, qualifications of personnel, inspection
reports, and preparation and maintenance of a State bridge inventory. The NBIS apply
to all structures defined as bridges located on all public roads.

The State will allow the City to use its bridge management software system to store
inspection reports for all City owned or controlled bridges and culverts.

Contract Term
This Agreement is in full force and effect for 25 years from the effective date, unless
this Agreement violates any Arizona law, rule or regulation, either now enacted or
which may be enacted in the future. Prior to the expiration of the 25-year period, the
parties may mutually agree to a 25-year extension by entering into an amendment to
this Agreement.

Financial Impact
There is no financial impact to the City of Phoenix.




Page 894

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Street
Transportation Department.




Page 895



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Phoenix Bus Rapid Transit Program Planning Support Services - Professional
Services Amendment - PT00400001 (Ordinance S-49789)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Agreement 149143 with HDR Engineering, Inc. to provide additional Professional
Services for the Phoenix Bus Rapid Transit Program Planning Support Services
project. Further request to authorize execution of amendments to the agreement, as
necessary within the City Council-approved expenditure authority as provided below,
and for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The additional fee
for services included in this amendment will not exceed $5.5 million.

Summary
The purpose of this project is to develop the initial Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) corridor of
35th Avenue and Van Buren Street. In 2015, Phoenix voters approved Proposition 104,
creating the 35-year street and transit plan known as Transportation 2050 (T2050)
which identified BRT as a key component to continue expanding the City's high-
capacity transit network. BRT is a high-capacity bus service that focuses on improved
speed, reliability, convenience and the overall transit experience. There are common
recurring elements found in successful BRT systems, such as: advanced fare
collection, enhanced stations, dedicated lanes, custom buses, transit spot
improvements and unique branding.

This amendment is necessary because the BRT Program for the approved BRT
corridor of 35th Avenue and Van Buren Street requires: increased and focused
community education, stakeholder outreach and business owner engagement
throughout the proposed corridor; conducting meetings to refine corridor alternatives to
align priorities and balance amenities, benefits and impacts; continuing coordination
with ongoing and correlating projects along the corridor; and preparing efforts for
Phase 3 of community and business engagement for the Alternatives Analysis. This
amendment will provide additional funds to the agreement.

Contract Term
The term of the agreement remains at six years from issuance of the Notice to
Proceed of March 15, 2019. The work scope identified and incorporated into the
agreement prior to the end of the term may be agreed to by the parties, and work may


Page 896

extend past the termination of the agreement. No additional changes may be executed
after the end of the term.

Financial Impact
· The initial agreement for Professional Services was approved for an amount not to
exceed $3 million, including all subconsultant and reimbursable costs.
· This amendment will increase the agreement by an additional $5.5 million, for a
new total amount not to exceed $8.5 million, including all subconsultant and
reimbursable costs.

Funding for this amendment is available in the Public Transit Department's
Transportation 2050 fund. The Budget and Research Department will separately
review and approve funding availability prior to the execution of any amendments.
Payments may be made up to agreement limits for all rendered agreement services,
which may extend past the agreement termination.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Citizen Transportation Commission (CTC) Subcommittee and Transportation,
Infrastructure and Planning (TIP) Subcommittee:
· The CTC recommended approval of the award recommendation to the
Transportation and Infrastructure (T&I) Subcommittee by a vote of 13-0 on May 31,
2018;
· The Aviation and Transportation Subcommittee recommended approval to enter into
agreement with Package A and Package B in support of the BRT program by a vote
of 3-0 on Sept. 25, 2018;
· The CTC recommended for approval the initial BRT corridor of 35th Avenue/Van
Buren Street by a vote of 10-0 on May 27, 2021;
· The TIP Subcommittee recommended for approval the initial BRT corridor of 35th
Avenue and Van Buren Street by a vote of 4-0 on Sept. 15, 2021;
· The CTC recommended approval to continue community and stakeholder
engagement, alternatives analysis and 15 percent design plans for the initial BRT
corridor of 35th Avenue and Van Buren Street by a vote of 11-1 on Feb. 24, 2022;
· The CTC recommended approval of additional expenditure of $5.5 million to
Package A by a vote of 11-0 on April 27, 2023; and
· The TIP Subcommittee recommended City Council approval to execute an
amendment by a vote of 4-0 on May 17, 2023.

The City Council approved:
· Issuing a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to solicit firms to provide services for
planning and preliminary engineering for the BRT program based on


Page 897

recommendations from the CTC and T&I Subcommittees. This approval included a
stipulation that the planning RFQ included an assessment of the criteria used for
the initial identification of the BRT corridors and was made on Oct. 4, 2017;
· Professional Services Agreement 149143 for HDR Engineering, Inc. (Ordinance S-
45019) on Oct. 17, 2018;
· The initial BRT corridor of 35th Avenue and Van Buren Street by a vote of 9-0 on
Oct. 6, 2021; and
· Continuation of community and stakeholder engagement, alternatives analysis and
15 percent design plans for the initial BRT corridor of 35th Avenue and Van Buren
Street by a vote of 8-1 on April 20, 2022.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Mario Paniagua and Alan
Stephenson, the Public Transit Department and the City Engineer.




Page 898



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Consent to Use Agreement with Salt River Project for City Improvements on 59th
Avenue from Southern Avenue to Baseline Road (Ordinance S-49800)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a Consent to Use
Agreement with Salt River Project (SRP) to allow the installation of roadway
improvements on the east half of 59th Avenue from Southern Avenue to Baseline
Road.

Summary
SRP currently has a 90-foot-wide electrical easement along the east side of 59th
Avenue for existing electrical facilities. The City proposes future roadway
improvements on 59th Avenue that may include pavement, curb, gutter and
landscaping within SRP's existing electrical easement. The Consent to Use Agreement
confirms SRP’s consent to the City, as well as the use and occupancy within the
existing SRP easement for the proposed City improvements.

Financial Impact
This action has no financial impact to the City.

Location
59th Avenue from Southern Avenue to Baseline Road
Council Districts: 7 and 8

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson, the Street
Transportation Department and the City Engineer.




Page 899



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Specialized Equipment, Piping and Infrastructure Coatings - Job Order
Contracting Services - 4108JOC212 (Ordinance S-49702)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into separate master
agreements with five contractors, to provide Specialized Equipment, Piping and
Infrastructure Coatings Job Order Contracting services for the Water Services
Department. Further request to authorize execution of amendments to the
agreements, as necessary, within the Council-approved expenditure authority as
provided below, and for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.
The total fee for services will not exceed $45 million.

Additionally, request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to take all action
deemed necessary to execute all utilities-related design and construction agreements,
licenses, permits and requests for utility services relating to the development, design
and construction of the project and to include disbursement of funds. Utility services
include, but are not limited to: electrical, water, sewer, natural gas,
telecommunications, cable television, railroads and other modes of transportation.
Further request the City Council to grant an exception pursuant to Phoenix City Code
42-20 to authorize inclusion in the documents pertaining to this transaction of
indemnification and assumption of liability provisions that otherwise should be
prohibited by Phoenix City Code 42-18. This authorization excludes any transaction
involving an interest in real property.

Summary
The Job Order Contracting (JOC) contractors' services will be used on an as-needed
basis to provide Specialized Equipment, Piping and Infrastructure Coatings services to
apply protective coatings on wastewater process equipment, structural support
members, piping, tanks, motors, mechanical equipment, manholes, lift station wet
wells and accessory items throughout the City of Phoenix wastewater infrastructure.
Additionally, the JOC contractors will be responsible for fulfilling Small Business
Enterprise program requirements.

Procurement Information
The selection was made using a qualifications-based selection process set forth in
section 34-604 of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.). In accordance with A.R.S.


Page 900

section 34-604(H), the City may not publicly release information on proposals received
or the scoring results until an agreement is awarded. Nine firms submitted proposals
and are listed below.

Selected Firms
Rank 1: Professional Piping Systems LLC dba PPS Coatings
Rank 2: Hunter Contracting Co.
Rank 3: TF Contracting Services, LLC
Rank 4: Joseph Painting Company, Inc. dba JPCI Services
Rank 5: Degan Construction, LLC

Additional Proposers
Rank 6: Revolution Industrial, LLC
Rank 7: Solution Coatings, Inc.
Rank 8: Riley Industrial Services, Inc.
Rank 9: Advanced Enviro Cure, LLC

Contract Term
The term of each master agreement is for up to five years or up to $9 million,
whichever occurs first. Work scope identified and incorporated into the master
agreement prior to the end of the term may be agreed to by the parties, and work may
extend past the termination of the master agreement. No additional changes may be
executed after the end of the term.

Financial Impact
The master agreement value for each of the JOC contractors will not exceed $9
million, including all subcontractor and reimbursable costs. The total fee for all services
will not exceed $9 million.

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute job order
agreements performed under these master agreements for up to $2 million each. In no
event will any job order agreement exceed this limit without Council approval to
increase the limit.

Funding is available in the Water Services Department’s Capital Improvement Program
budget. The Budget and Research Department will review and approve funding
availability prior to issuance of any job order agreement. Payments may be made up to
agreement limits for all rendered agreement services, which may extend past the
agreement termination.




Page 901

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Ginger Spencer and Alan
Stephenson, the Water Services Department and the City Engineer.




Page 902



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Water Services Utility Document Print, Mail, Archive and Retrieval Services -
Amendment (Ordinance S-49706)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Agreement 143079 with Pinnacle Data Systems LLC to provide additional time to the
agreement. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item. No additional funds are needed, request to continue using
Ordinance S-42748.

Summary
The purpose of the amendment is to extend the agreement for an additional three
years to allow the City of Phoenix Water Services Department to conduct the
competitive procurement process and provide sufficient time for the awarded vendor to
collaborate with the City to create an encrypted link necessary for the processing of
utility bills without a disruption of services. The purpose of this agreement is to provide
utility bill processing, printing and delivery to approximately 465,000 customers per
month or 22,000 per day for a yearly revenue of $850 million for water, sewer, solid
waste, taxes, fees and mandates.

This item has been reviewed and approved by the Information Technology Services
Department.

Contract Term
This amendment will extend the end date of the agreement term from June 30, 2023 to
June 30, 2026.

Financial Impact
The initial authorization for the Water Services Utility Document Print, Mail, Archive,
and Retrieval Services was for an expenditure not-to-exceed $16,695,000. No
additional funds are needed.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved:
· Water Services Utility Document Print, Mail, Archive and Retrieval Services
Contract 143079 (Ordinance S-143079) on June 22, 2016.


Page 903


Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Water
Services Department.




Page 904



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
91st Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant Process Piping Rehabilitation -
Engineering Services Amendment - WS90100101 (Ordinance S-49716)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Agreement 147881 with Brown and Caldwell, Inc. to provide additional Engineering
Services for the 91st Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant Process Piping
Rehabilitation project. Further request to authorize execution of amendments to the
agreement as necessary within the City Council-approved expenditure authority as
provided below.

Summary
The purpose of this project is to update various process piping systems within the 91st
Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). Plants 1 through 3 are in need of
rehabilitation and replacement. These process piping systems are exposed, buried
and located within the plants' service tunnels. The pipes vary in size from two inches to
24 inches in diameter.

This amendment provides additional time to the agreement.

The 91st Avenue WWTP is owned by the Sub-Regional Operating Group and operated
by the City of Phoenix.

Contract Term
The term of the agreement amendment is two years from the issuance of the Notice to
Proceed. Work scope identified and incorporated into the agreement prior to the end of
the term may be agreed to by the parties, and work may extend past the termination of
the agreement. No additional changes may be executed after the end of the term.

Financial Impact
No additional funding is needed for this amendment.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved:
· Design Services Agreement 142548 (Ordinance S-42518) on May 4, 2016; and
· Engineering Services Agreement 147881 (Ordinance S-44759) on June 20, 2018.


Page 905


Location
91st Avenue WWTP
Council District: 7

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Ginger Spencer and Alan
Stephenson, the Water Services Department and the City Engineer.




Page 906



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Large Diameter Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation - Grade 5 and 4 Manholes -
Engineering Services Amendment - WS90500273 (Ordinance S-49717)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Agreement 150124 with Project Engineering Consultants, LTD., to approve a name
change to Consor North America, Inc. and to provide Construction Administration and
Inspection Services for the Large Diameter Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Grade 5 and
4 Manholes project. Further request to authorize execution of amendments to the
agreement, as necessary within the City Council-approved expenditure authority as
provided below, and for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.
The additional fee for services included in this amendment will not exceed $1,150,000.

Summary
On Feb. 14, 2020, the City and Project Engineering Consultants, LTD. entered into the
Large Diameter Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Grade 5 and 4 Manholes Engineering
Services agreement. The City received notification on Dec. 3, 2022, from Project
Engineering Consultants, LTD. indicating the name change from Project Engineering
Consultants, LTD. to Consor North America, Inc. and is now operating under the name
of Consor North America, Inc.

The purpose of this project is to rehabilitate the higher priority Grade 5 and 4 sanitary
sewer manholes as identified by the assessment report.

This amendment is necessary because the project was phased into four design
packages versus a single package. The project deliverable was changed to a manhole
rehabilitation work sheet versus a typical design sheet. This change increased the
overall project duration, as well as the review periods, and this amendment will provide
additional time to the agreement.

Project Engineering Consultants, LTD.'s additional services include, but are not limited
to: administration of the construction schedule, review of submittals, issue
interpretations and clarifications, certify contractor progress payments, inspections,
survey, material testing, record drawings and project documents, and field
administration.



Page 907

Contract Term
The term of the agreement amendment is five years from the issuance of the Notice to
Proceed. Work scope identified and incorporated into the agreement prior to the end of
the term may be agreed to by the parties, and work may extend past the termination of
the agreement. No additional changes may be executed after the end of the term.

Financial Impact
· The initial agreement for Engineering Services was approved for an amount not to
exceed $1.9 million, including all subconsultant and reimbursable costs.
· This amendment will increase the agreement by an additional $1,150,000, for a new
total amount not to exceed $3,050,000, including all subconsultant and
reimbursable costs.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved:
· Engineering Services Agreement 150124 (Ordinance S-45716) on June 5, 2019.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Ginger Spencer and Alan
Stephenson, the Water Services Department and the City Engineer.




Page 908



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Oracle Customer Care and Billing RTO 2223-WTS-539 - Request for Award
(Ordinance S-49720)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with Ernst & Young, LLP, to provide the Oracle Customer Care and Billing upgrade for
the Water Services and Public Works departments. Further request to authorize the
City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The total value of this
agreement will not exceed $3,998,060.

Summary
The Water Services Department, in conjunction with the Information Technology
Services, Public Works and Finance departments, provide a customer information and
billing system for water, wastewater, solid waste services, and other applicable taxes
and fees.

To ensure performance and customer service remain properly supported by this
system, the City is proceeding to upgrade to a current on-premise version of Customer
Care and Billing. This agreement will require the vendor to assess the City's cloud
readiness posture. The upgrade optimizes the base features while minimizing the
customizations to strategically enhance security, streamline processes, increase
interoperability/integration, increase customer satisfaction, improve flexibility to meet
changing needs, and leverage best practices.

This item has been reviewed and approved by the Information Technology Services
Department.

Procurement Information
The consultant was selected through a competitive process in accordance with
Administrative Regulation 3.10 utilizing the Information Technology Professional
Services Qualified Vendors List.

Three vendors submitted offers and are listed below with all bids found to be
responsive and responsible. An evaluation committee comprised of City staff evaluated
the offers based on the following criteria, with a maximum possible point total of 1100:
· Method of Approach (0-400 points)


Page 909

· Capabilities (0-250 points)
· Cost of Services (0-200 points)
· Company Qualifications & Experience (0-150 points)
· Key Personnel (0-100 points)

After reaching consensus, the evaluation committee recommends award to the
following vendor:
· Ernst & Young, LLP - 846.93 points

Contract Term
The agreement will begin on or about June 1, 2023, for a three-year term with two one-
year options to extend.

Financial Impact
The agreement value for Ernst & Young, LLP, will not exceed $3,998,060. Funding is
available in the Water Services Department's Capital Improvement Program budget.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Water
Services and Public Works departments.




Page 910



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Reinforced Concrete Pipe Main Inspection and Assessment Program -
Engineering Services Amendment - WS85508001 (Ordinance S-49725)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Agreement 151695 with Black & Veatch Corporation, to provide additional Engineering
Services for the Reinforced Concrete Pipe Main Inspection and Assessment Program
project. Further request to authorize execution of amendments to the agreement as
necessary within the City Council-approved authority as provided below.

Summary
The purpose of this project is to continue with a multi-year inspection and assessment
program to inspect and assess the condition of approximately 228 miles of reinforced
concrete, cast iron, concrete cylinder, ductile iron pipes and other material types of
water transmission mains that vary in age throughout the conveyance system.

This amendment will provide additional time to the agreement.

Contract Term
The term of the agreement amendment is two years from the issuance of the Notice to
Proceed. Work scope identified and incorporated into the agreement prior to the end of
the term may be agreed to by the parties, and work may extend past the termination of
the agreement. No additional changes may be executed after the end of the term.

Financial Impact
No additional funding is needed for this amendment.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved:
· Engineering Services Agreement 151695 (Ordinance S-46392) on March 4, 2020.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Ginger Spencer and Alan
Stephenson, the Water Services Department and the City Engineer.




Page 911



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Large Diameter Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation - Grade 5 Pipe - Engineering
Services Amendment - WS90500273 (Ordinance S-49727)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Agreement 150126 with Project Engineering Consultants, Ltd., to approve a name
change to Consor North America, Inc. and to provide Construction Administration &
Inspection Services for the Large Diameter Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation - Grade 5
Pipe project. Further request to authorize execution of amendments to the agreement,
as necessary within the Council-approved expenditure authority as provided below,
and for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The additional fee
for services will not exceed $1.5 million.

Summary
On Feb. 18, 2020, the City and Project Engineering Consultants, Ltd. entered into the
Large Diameter Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation - Grade 5 Pipe Engineering Services
agreement. The City received notification on Dec. 3, 2022, from Project Engineering
Consultants, Ltd. indicating the name changed from Project Engineering Consultants,
Ltd. to Consor North America, Inc. and is now operating under the name of Consor
North America, Inc.

The purpose of this project is to rehabilitate the Large Diameter Sanitary Sewer
System, which includes approximately 220 miles of pipe with diameter sizes greater
than 15 inches and over 1,900 sanitary sewer manholes. The 2019 Large Diameter
Sanitary Sewer Condition Assessment Report recommended rehabilitation of 55 pipe
segments with Grade 5 Structural Rating. Grade 5 pipe segments contain severe
defects that are the highest priority to rehabilitate.

This amendment is necessary as the project was phased into four design packages
versus a single package, and the project deliverable was changed to manhole
rehabilitation work sheet versus typical design sheet. This change increased overall
project duration and review periods. This amendment will provide additional time to the
agreement.

Project Engineering Consultants, Ltd.'s additional services include, but are not limited
to: administer the construction schedule, review of submittals, issue interpretations and


Page 912

clarifications, certify contractor progress payments, inspections, survey, material
testing, record drawings and project documents, and field administration.

Contract Term
The term of the agreement amendment is five years from the issuance of the Notice to
Proceed. Work scope identified and incorporated into the agreement prior to the end of
the term may be agreed to by the parties, and work may extend past the termination of
the agreement. No additional changes may be executed after the end of the term.

Financial Impact
The initial agreement for Engineering Services was approved for an amount not to
exceed $1.55 million. This amendment will increase the agreement by an additional
$1.5 million, for a new total amount not to exceed $3.05 million, including all
subconsultant and reimbursable costs.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved Engineering Services Agreements 150126 and 150127
(Ordinance S-45723) on June 5, 2019.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Ginger Spencer and Alan
Stephenson, the Water Services Department and the City Engineer.




Page 913



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Request to Amend A Development Agreement with Multiple Developers for
Construction of a Relief Sewer Main (Ordinance S-49740)

Request authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to amend a Development
Agreement with Creation RE, LLC, LOFTIN Equipment Company, an Arizona
Corporation, TUDO Capital, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, and Villa Fifty
2, LP, a Delaware Limited Partnership (or their related entities, collectively, referred to
herein as the “Developers”), for the design and construction of a relief sewer main. The
amendment is to increase the reimbursement dollar amount from $210,000 to
$665,000. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse the necessary
funds related to this item.

Summary
The original Development Agreement (DA) provided for the Developers to fund,
design, and construct a new relief sewer main located north of Van Buren Road,
between 48th Street to 50th Street. The Developers were in the process of developing
or redeveloping their respective properties, and the sewer flows resulting from these
developments would have placed an existing common downstream sewer main out of
its maximum capacity. The new relief sewer main was initially estimated to cost
approximately $330,000 and the City initially agreed to reimburse the Developers an
amount not to exceed $210,000 for its share of the total project cost based on capacity
calculation.

During construction, inflation, unforeseen utility conflicts, site conditions, additional
rehabilitation efforts, and other changes caused the final construction cost to total
$966,000 and the new City’s share of the cost to be $665,000. The Developers
financed and completed the construction of the sewer relief main and are requesting
the City to reimburse the proportional share based on the increased project cost.

Contract Term
The contract term will remain unchanged and will not exceed a five-year period.

Financial Impact
The City will increase its share from $210,000 to $665,000.



Page 914

Funding for this project is available in the Water Services Department Capital
Improvement Program budget.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved: Development Agreement 153928 (Ordinance S-46623) on
May 20, 2020.

Location
Council District: 6

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer, and the Water
Services Department.




Page 915



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Biomass Power and Solar Power Production Partnership with Salt River Project
(Ordinance S-49754)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into two agreements
between the City of Phoenix and Salt River Project for the production of Biomass
Power and Solar Power. Further request authorization for the City Treasurer to accept
and for the City Controller to disburse funds related to this item. The total amount will
not exceed $13 million.

Summary
Arizona forests are a high risk for catastrophic fires and will continue to be devastated
each year without proactive forest restoration efforts. These fires could significantly
impact the watersheds that feed the Salt River Project's (SRP) reservoir system and
provide water to Phoenix. Wildfires degrade water quality, increase water treatment
costs, and impact water system resiliency by filling reservoirs with debris and
sediment. Phoenix has a history of partnering with SRP and other City partners in
developing and executing strategic forest thinning projects to better protect the health
of the forests and the watershed system.

The challenge to reforestation efforts is finding marketable industry options for the
enormous amount of low-value, small ponderosa pine trees found in Arizona’s forests.
Bioenergy is one of the few options available to dispose of these trees and supports
the industry to ensure thinning projects move forward to continue protecting
watersheds. Bioenergy is a renewable energy resource that generates electricity
through a wood-burning boiler. Currently, SRP is contracted to receive power from a
biomass plant located in Snowflake, Arizona, owned and operated by Novo BioPower,
that uses small trees from forest thinning, other non-marketable woody material such
as branches that are left over from thinning operations and sawmill residues.

The new agreement between Phoenix, SRP, and other Valley cities, supports SRP's
continuance of the biomass power purchase agreement with Novo BioPower to work
on forest thinning projects in areas at risk of devastating wildfires. This agreement will
assist to restore critical watersheds that provide water to the Valley by investing in
forest thinning projects and biomass power.



Page 916

Through the agreement, SRP will purchase power and associated environmental
attributes from Novo BioPower’s use of forest thinning sourced within SRP
watersheds. SRP will retire in Phoenix’s name renewable energy certificates (“RECs”),
water benefits, acres treated benefits, and carbon benefits associated with the clean
energy generation and forest thinning efforts. In addition to the many environmental
benefits specific to watershed protection and biomass investment, the City is working
with SRP on a 20 megawatt solar development project that will produce annual
renewable energy credits.

The Water Services Department is seeking approval for two agreements with SRP for
the biomass power and solar power respectively for a total investment of $1.3 million
per year for a 10 year term.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Transportation, Infrastructure, and Planning Subcommittee recommended
approval of this item on May 17, 2023.

Financial Impact
The total amount will not exceed $13 million for the 10 year term. Funding in the
amount of $1.3 million, per year, for the term of the agreement, is available in the
Water Services operating budget.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Water
Services Department.




Page 917



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Purchase Supply of Water/Wastewater Disinfectant - Amendment (Ordinance S-
49765)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Agreement 144726, with DPC Enterprises, Inc. to provide additional funding to the
agreement. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item. The additional expenditures included in this amendment will not
exceed $6,000,000.

Summary
The purpose of this amendment is to request additional spending authority to continue
to provide the Water Services Department (WSD) with the supply of water/wastewater
disinfectant. The additional funding will provide the ability for WSD to purchase
disinfectant through the remaining term of the contract which expires March 31, 2024.
Additional funding is required for future orders until this agreement can be re-solicited.
The additional funds are needed as a result of the significant increases in commodity
pricing for the disinfectant over the past two years.

This agreement is for the as-needed supply of disinfectant for water and wastewater
treatment plants, which provide the ability to disinfect drinking water and treat
wastewater discharge to state and federal regulatory standards.

Agreement Term
The agreement's term will remain unchanged, ending on March 31, 2024.

Financial Impact
Currently, the authorized expenditure is up to $9,807,572. This request will amend the
agreement to increase the not-to-exceed value by an additional $6,000,000 for a new
total value of up to $15,807,572. Funding for this amendment is available in the Water
Services Department's budget.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved:
· Chlorine Agreement 144726 (Ordinance S-43355) on March 22, 2017, for up to
$4,300,000;


Page 918

· Chlorine Agreement 144726 (Ordinance S-47419) on April 7, 2021, for an additional
$553,000; and,
· Chlorine Agreement 144726 (Ordinance S-48014) on Oct. 6, 2021, for an additional
$4954,572.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Water
Services Department.




Page 919



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Pinnacle PCX Instruments and Maintenance Agreement - RFA-2223-WES-464
(Ordinance S-49769)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with Pickering Laboratories, Inc., to provide Pinnacle PCX Instruments and
Maintenance for Water Services Department. Further request to authorize the City
Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The total value of the agreement
will not exceed $200,000.

Summary
The agreement will provide Water Services the ability to purchase Pinnacle PCX
Instruments as well as provide preventative maintenance, parts and labor. The units
are used in the analysis of glyphosate by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
as required by the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act. Maintenance
services are necessary to ensure proper operation of the units and ongoing analysis of
drinking water samples to ensure compliance with environmental laws and regulations.

Procurement Information
In accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10, standard competition was waived
as a result of an approved determination memo due to special circumstances being
without competition, as there exists a lack of available qualified products, which makes
a competitive selection process impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.

Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about July 1, 2023, for a five-year term with no options to
extend.

Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $200,000 for the five-year aggregate
term. Funding is available in the Water Services Department operating budget.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Water
Services Department.


Page 920



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Agreement with the United States Bureau of Reclamation and the Central
Arizona Water Conservation District to Implement the Lower Colorado
Conservation and Efficiency Program (Ordinance S-49774)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with the United States Bureau of Reclamation and the Central Arizona Water
Conservation District to forgo delivery of a volume of Phoenix's Colorado River
entitlement in 2023, as system conservation, in return for compensation. Further
request to authorize the City Treasurer to accept all funds related to this item into the
Water Services Department Water Fund. The compensation will not exceed
$60,000,000.

Summary
Conditions on the Colorado River system remain difficult, with the major reservoir of
Lake Mead and Lake Powell at historically low water levels. Based on recent modeling
on the Colorado River, the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) has determined there is an
unacceptable risk of further water declines in Lake Mead that threaten operations and
deliveries of Colorado River water to the Lower Basin states of Arizona, California, and
Nevada even with delivery reductions agreed to in the Lower Basin Drought
Contingency Plan. The BOR received $4 billion in Inflation Reduction Act of 2022
funding to create Lower Colorado Conservation and Efficient Program to specifically
address Colorado River issues. Phase 1 funding established a system conservation
program to incentivize water users to voluntary contribute volumes to protect Lake
Mead from catastrophic risks.

Under the agreement, Phoenix will make available up to 50,000 acre-feet (af) of
Phoenix's Colorado River entitlement in 2023, 2024 and 2025 in exchange for
monetary compensation of $400 per af. These reduced deliveries are in addition to the
reductions in deliveries Arizona agreed to in the Drought Contingency Plan.

In 2023, Phoenix is scheduled to receive 177,237 af of its total Colorado River
allocation of 186,557 af. That includes 27,960 af of "mitigation water" under the
Arizona Drought Contingency Plan implementation agreement. This "mitigation water"
is Non-Indian Agricultural (NIA) Priority water that would have otherwise been
unavailable to Phoenix without the mitigation measures taken by Arizona to deliver


Page 921

water from reserves in Lake Mead. By forgoing delivery of the NIA mitigation water,
that volume of water will remain in Lake Mead. The remainder of the 50,000 af of
system conservation is water that would have been stored in Tucson for future
shortage conditions. The creation of system conservation has no impact on water
available for customer deliveries.

Contract Term
This agreement will terminate on Dec. 31, 2025.

Financial Impact
Phoenix will receive compensation in 2023 up to $20,000,000 for contribution of
50,000 af ($400/af). In the event Phoenix creates additional system conservation in
2024 or 2025, it will be compensated at the same rate of $400 per af. The funds will be
deposited in Water Services Department's Water Fund for use through the Colorado
River Resiliency Fund for water resource portfolio augmentation and water
conservation programs.

Location
Out of City

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Water
Services Department.




Page 922



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Final Plat - Desert Ridge Mezzo - PLAT 220063 - Southeast Corner of 56th Street
and City North Drive

Plat: 220063
Project: 18-2907
Name of Plat: Desert Ridge Mezzo
Owner: ZT 56th Street at 101 NE Owner, LLC
Engineer: Eric L. Sostrom, LLC
Request: A One-Lot Commercial Plat
Reviewed by Staff: April 21, 2023
Final Plat requires Formal Action Only

Summary
Staff requests that the above plat be approved by the City Council and certified by the
City Clerk. Recording of the plat dedicates the streets and easements as shown to the
public.

Location
Generally located at the southeast corner of 56th Street and City North Drive
Council District: 2

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.




Page 923



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Final Plat - PV Mixed Use Area Amended - PLAT 230016 - Northwest Corner of
Tatum Boulevard and Cactus Road

Plat: 230016
Project: 00-4403
Name of Plat: PV Mixed Use Area Amended
Owner: PV Land SPE, LLC & PV Retail I SPE, LLC
Engineer: Gabriel S. Rios, RLS
Request: A Seven-Lot Commercial Plat
Reviewed by Staff: April 28, 2023
Final Plat requires Formal Action Only

Summary
Staff requests that the above plat be approved by the City Council and certified by the
City Clerk. Recording of the plat dedicates the streets and easements as shown to the
public.

Location
Generally located at the northwest corner of Tatum Boulevard and Cactus Road
Council District: 3

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.




Page 924



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Final Plat - PV Redevelopment Phase 2 - PLAT 220080 - Northwest Corner of
Tatum Boulevard and Cactus Road

Plat: 220080
Project: 00-4403
Name of Plat: PV Redevelopment Phase 2
Owner: PV Land SPE, LLC
Engineer: Gabriel S. Rios, RLS
Request: A 15-Lot Commercial Plat
Reviewed by Staff: April 28, 2023
Final Plat requires Formal Action Only

Summary
Staff requests that the above plat be approved by the City Council and certified by the
City Clerk. Recording of the plat dedicates the streets and easements as shown to the
public. Plat 230016 must be recorded before this plat. Recording information from Plat
230016 needs to be added to this plat by the surveyor prior to recordation. This plat
needs to record concurrently with abandonment ABND 230034. This sequence of
recording is that the resolution of abandonment is recorded first, and the plat second.

Location
Generally located at the northwest corner of Tatum Boulevard and Cactus Road
Council District: 3

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.




Page 925



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Final Plat - Algodon Medical Office Park - PLAT 220110 - Southwest Corner of
92nd Avenue and Algodon Way

Plat: 220110
Project: 06-2638
Name of Plat: Algodon Medical Office Park
Owner: John F. Long Properties LLLP
Engineer: Robert J. Blake, RLS
Request: A Two-Lot Commercial Plat
Reviewed by Staff: April 14, 2023
Final Plat requires Formal Action Only

Summary
Staff requests that the above plat be approved by the City Council and certified by the
City Clerk. Recording of the plat dedicates the streets and easements as shown to the
public.

Location
Generally located at the southwest corner of 92nd Avenue and Algodon Way
Council District: 5

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.




Page 926



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Final Plat - Carioca - 67th Ave & Broadway Road - PLAT 210098 - Northwest
Corner of 67th Avenue and Broadway Road

Plat: 210098
Project: 20-2029
Name of Plat: Carioca - 67th Ave & Broadway Road
Owner: Butterfield Trail, LLC
Engineer: Douglas B. Toney, RLS
Request: A One-Lot Commercial Plat
Reviewed by Staff: April 11, 2023
Final Plat requires Formal Action Only

Summary
Staff requests that the above plat be approved by the City Council and certified by the
City Clerk. Recording of the plat dedicates the streets and easements as shown to the
public.

Location
Generally located at the northwest corner of 67th Avenue and Broadway Road
Council District: 7

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.




Page 927



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Final Plat - The Henri - PLAT 210102 - East of 7th Avenue and North of Van Buren
Street

Plat: 210102
Project: 17-2129
Name of Plat: The Henri
Owner: 6th Van Buren Owner LLC
Engineer: Eric L. Sostrom, RLS
Request: A One-Lot Commercial Plat
Reviewed by Staff: April 4, 2023
Final Plat requires Formal Action Only

Summary
Staff requests that the above plat be approved by the City Council and certified by the
City Clerk. Recording of the plat dedicates the streets and easements as shown to the
public. This plat needs to record concurrently with abandonment ABND 210059. The
sequence of recording is that the resolution of abandonment is recorded first, and the
plat second.

Location
Generally located at east of 7th Avenue and north of Van Buren Street
Council District: 7

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.




Page 928



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Final Plat - Legacy at Laveen Village - PLAT 230006 - South of Southern Avenue
and West of 35th Avenue

Plat: 230006
Project: 20-3413
Name of Plat: Legacy at Laveen Village
Owner: Laveen 12, LLC
Engineer: Mitchell H. Ragsdale, RLS
Request: A One-Lot Commercial Plat
Reviewed by Staff: April 13, 2023
Final Plat requires Formal Action Only

Summary
Staff requests that the above plat be approved by the City Council and certified by the
City Clerk. Recording of the plat dedicates the streets and easements as shown to the
public.

Location
Generally located south of Southern Avenue and west of 35th Avenue
Council District: 7

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.




Page 929



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Final Plat - Quiktrip Store #1449 - PLAT 220049 - Southeast Corner of Lower
Buckeye Road and 107th Avenue

Plat: 220049
Project: 21-3370
Name of Plat: Quiktrip Store #1449
Owner: Quiktrip Corporation
Engineer: C. Don Walding, RLS
Request: A Five-Lot Commercial Plat
Reviewed by Staff: April 27, 2023
Final Plat requires Formal Action Only

Summary
Staff requests that the above plat be approved by the City Council and certified by the
City Clerk. Recording of the plat dedicates the streets and easements as shown to the
public.

Location
Generally located at the southeast corner of Lower Buckeye Road and 107th Avenue
Council District: 7

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.




Page 930



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Final Plat - Sunset Farms Parcel 18 - PLAT 210071 - East of 99th Avenue and
South of Broadway Road

Plat: 210071
Project: 02-2183
Name of Plat: Sunset Farms Parcel 18
Owner: VPAMH Sunset Farms LB, LLC
Engineer: Richard G. Alcocer, RLS
Request: A 154-Lot Residential Plat
Reviewed by Staff: April 14, 2023
Final Plat requires Formal Action Only

Summary
Staff requests that the above plat be approved by the City Council and certified by the
City Clerk. Recording of the plat dedicates the streets and easements as shown to the
public.

Location
Generally located at east of 99th Avenue and south of Broadway Road
Council District: 7

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.




Page 931



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Final Plat - Alta Vista Ranch Subdivision - PLAT 230003 - Southwest Corner of
Alta Vista Road and 13th Place

Plat: 230003
Project: 16-3028
Name of Plat: Alta Vista Ranch Subdivision
Owner: Habitat for Humanity Central Arizona
Engineer: Robert J. Blake, RLS
Request: A 25-Lot Residential Plat
Reviewed by Staff: April 19, 2023
Final Plat requires Formal Action Only

Summary
Staff requests that the above plat be approved by the City Council and certified by the
City Clerk. Recording of the plat dedicates the streets and easements as shown to the
public.

Location
Generally located at the southwest corner of Alta Vista Road and 13th Place
Council District: 8

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.




Page 932



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Abandonment of Easement - ABND 230034 - 4568 East Cactus Road (Resolution
22126)

Abandonment: ABND 230034
Project: 00-4403
Applicant: Scott Wagner
Request: To abandon a portion of 20-foot Water/Sewer East per Book 168, Page 6
Maricopa County Recorder; a portion of 20-foot Water/Sewer Easement per Book 211,
Page 10 Maricopa County Recorder; a portion of 20-foot Water/Sewer Easement Book
333, Page 26 Maricopa County Recorder; and a portion of a 20-foot Water/Sewer
Easement per Book 338, Page 42 Maricopa County Recorder.
Date of Decision/Hearing: May 1, 2023

Summary
The resolution of this abandonment and PLAT 220080 are to be recorded together with
the Maricopa County recorder on the same day, at the same time. The sequence of
recording to be followed is that the resolution is recorded first, then the plat is recorded
second.

Location
4568 E. Cactus Road
Council District: 3

Financial Impact
None. No consideration fee was required as a part of this easement abandonment,
although filing fees were paid.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.




Page 933



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Abandonment of Easement - ABND 210059 - 4th Avenue, 5th Avenue and Van
Buren Street (Resolution 22123)

Abandonment: ABND 210059
Project: 17-2129
Applicant(s): Traver Jones, Kimley-Horn, on behalf of Toll Brothers
Request: To abandon the eight-foot and ten-foot public utility easements at the
northeast corner of 6th Avenue and Van Buren, as well as an easement retained for
public access, public utilities, sidewalk, street light, landscape and drainage located at
the northwest corner of 5th Avenue and Van Buren Street.
Date of Decision/Hearing: March 10, 2023

Summary
The resolution of this abandonment and PLAT 210102 are to be recorded together with
the Maricopa County recorder on the same day, at the same time. The sequence of
recording to be followed is that the resolution is recorded first, then the plat recorded
second.

Location
4th Avenue, 5th Avenue and Van Buren Street
Council District: 7

Financial Impact
Pursuant to Phoenix City Code Article 5, section 31-64 (e) as the City acknowledges
the public benefit received by the generation of additional revenue from the private tax
rolls and by the elimination of third-party general liability claims against the city,
maintenance expenses, and undesirable traffic patterns, also replatting of the area
with alternate roadways and new development as sufficient and appropriate
consideration in this matter.

No consideration fee was required as a part of this easement abandonment, although
filing fees were paid.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.

Page 934



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Abandonment of Right-of-Way - ABND 220043 - 3218 East Southern Avenue
(Resolution 22125)

Abandonment: ABND 220043
Project: 21-1515
Request: To abandon a portion of the east half of 32nd Street
Date of Decision/Hearing: Sept. 22, 2022

Location
3218 E. Southern Ave.
Council District: 8

Financial Impact
A consideration fee was also collected as part of this right-of-way abandonment in the
amount of $28,000.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.




Page 935



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Map of Dedication - PV-Phase I - MOD 230002 - Northwest Corner of Tatum
Boulevard and Cactus Road

Map of Dedication: 230002
Project: 00-4403
Name of MOD: PV-Phase I
Owner: PV Land SPE, LLC, PV Retail I SPE, LLC, PV Residential I SPE, LLC, and PV-
Phase I Condominiums Association, Inc.
Engineer: Gabriel S. Rios, RLS
Request: Public rights-of-way and easement dedication
Reviewed by Staff: April 28, 2023
Final Map of Dedication requires Formal Action Only

Summary
Staff requests that the above map of dedication be approved by the City Council and
certified by the City Clerk. Recording of the map of dedication dedicates the streets
and easements as shown to the public.

Location
Generally located at the northwest corner of Tatum Boulevard and Cactus Road
Council District: 3

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.




Page 936



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Amend City Code - Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application PHO-1-23--Z-56-
19-2 - Southeast Corner of the 29th Avenue Alignment and Dove Valley Road
(Ordinance G-7112)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to approve the Planning
Hearing Officer's recommendation without further hearing by the City Council on
matters heard by the Planning Hearing Officer on April 19, 2023.

Summary
Application: PHO-1-23--Z-56-19-2
Existing Zoning: C-2 M-R NBCOD
Acreage: 10.29

Applicant: Thompson Thrift
Owner: Britmet Ventures LLC
Representative: Berry Riddell LLC

Proposal:
1. Request for review and approval by the Planning Hearing Officer for site plan and
elevations per Stipulation 1.
2. Deletion of Stipulation 1.e. regarding incorporation of natural drainage features.

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Recommendation: The North Gateway Village Planning Committee heard this
case on April 13, 2023, and recommended approval, by a vote of 4-0.
PHO Recommendation: The Planning Hearing Officer recommended approval with a
modification and additional stipulations.

Location
Southeast corner of the 29th Avenue Alignment and Dove Valley Road
Council District: 2
Parcel Address: N/A

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning
and Development Department.

Page 937
ATTACHMENT A

THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE




ORDINANCE G-

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE STIPULATIONS APPLICABLE TO
REZONING APPLICATION Z-56-19-2 PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY
ORDINANCE G-6679.

____________



BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as

follows:

SECTION 1. The zoning stipulations applicable located at the southeast

corner of the 29th Avenue Alignment and Dove Valley Road in a portion of Section

14, Township 5 North, Range 2 East, as described more specifically in Attachment

“A”, are hereby modified to read as set forth below.

STIPULATIONS:

1. All site plans and elevations shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning
Hearing Officer through the public hearing process prior to preliminary site plan
approval for conceptual review of the applicable provisions of the goals and
policies of the North Gateway Village Core Plan, which shall include:

THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE
SITE PLAN DATE STAMPED FEBRUARY 10, 2023, AS MODIFIED BY THE
FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

a. Promoting the overall pedestrian circulation within the North Gateway
Core through wide sidewalks, detached sidewalks and overall
connectivity.




Page 938
b. Ensure all building facades contain architectural embellishments and
detailing such as textural changes, pilasters, offsets, recesses, window
fenestration, shadow boxes and overhead/canopies at least every 50 feet.

c. Ensure all paint colors and building materials are in compliance with the
North Black Canyon Overlay District with specific regard to colors being
muted and blend with, rather than contrast strongly, with the surrounding
desert environment.

d. Ensure parking lots are broken into multiple smaller parking areas.

e. Incorporation of natural drainage features.

2. THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE
ELEVATIONS DATE STAMPED FEBRUARY 10, 2023, AS APPROVED OR
MODIFIED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, AND
WITH SPECIFIC REGARD TO THE FOLLOWING:

a. THE “SHOPS A” BUILDING WILL PROVIDE A MURAL INSTALLATION
COMPATIBLE WITH THE DESIGN OF THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT,
THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY, AND THE SURROUNDING
DESERT CONTEXT.

3. Maximum building height shall be limited to 60 feet. If the following occurs prior
2 to preliminary site plan approval, the maximum building height permitted shall be
a maximum of 120 feet.

a. A water report is submitted to and approved by the Water Services
Department which demonstrates that sufficient water capacity exists or is
being provided by the developer of this parcel.

b. A wastewater report is submitted to and approved by the Water Services
Department which demonstrates that sufficient wastewater capacity exists
or is being provided by the developer of this parcel; and

c. A traffic study is submitted to and approved by the Street Transportation
Department which demonstrates that street improvements (existing and/or
proposed) are sufficient to serve the site.

d. A multi-modal (pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, etc.) circulation plan is
submitted and approved by the Street Transportation and Planning and
Development departments that illustrates how the project and its
corresponding infrastructure improvements will facilitate multi-modal
connectivity within the site and to the site's surrounding streets and
amenities as envisioned in the North Gateway Village Core Plan.

4. All sidewalks adjacent to streets shall be detached per the adopted Street
3. Classification Map cross-section or with a minimum 8-foot wide continuous
landscape area located between the sidewalk and back of curb; and shall include


Page 939
minimum 3-inch caliper, large canopy single-trunk shade trees (limbed-up a
minimum of 10 feet clear from finished grade), planted 25 feet on center or in
equivalent groupings; and minimum 5-gallon shrubs with a maximum mature
height of 2 feet providing 75 percent live cover, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

5. A minimum of 50 percent of the pedestrian pathways shall be shaded by a
4. structure, landscaping or a combination of the two, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

6. All pedestrian pathways, including those that intersect vehicular traffic lanes,
5. shall be constructed with decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or
another material other than those used to pave the parking surfaces and drive
aisles, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

7. If a drive-through restaurant is developed, pick-up windows shall be
6. architecturally integrated in proportion, color, material and texture to the
building it serves by providing awnings or architecturally integrated structures
for weather protection, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

8. If a drive-through restaurant is developed, a minimum of 250 square feet of
7. outdoor seating areas shall be provided, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

9. A minimum of two inverted-U bicycle racks (four spaces) shall be provided for
8. each building on site, located near building entries, and installed per the
requirements of Section 1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department.

10. All surface retention areas shall be natural and organic in shape, as
9. approved by the Planning and Development Department.

11. The glazing on all building windows shall have a maximum reflectivity of 20
10. percent, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

12. All service areas must be screened to conceal trash containers, recycling
11. containers, loading docks, transformers, backflow preventers and other
mechanical and or electrical equipment from eye level adjacent to all public
streets and private drives, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

13. A 30-FOOT-WIDE MULTI-USE TRAIL EASEMENT (MUTE) SHALL BE
DEDICATED ALONG DOVE VALLEY ROAD AND A MINIMUM 10-FOOT-WIDE
MULTI-USE TRAIL (MUT) SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THE
EASEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MAG SUPPLEMENTAL DETAIL
AND AS APPROVED OR MODIFIED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT.




Page 940
14. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
12. developer shall immediately cease all ground disturbing activities within a 33-foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.

15. The developer shall dedicate a minimum of 40 feet for public right-of-way along
13. the full western limit of the site for 29th Avenue. Additional right-of-way for
intersection or auxiliary turn lanes may be required as indicated in the approved
Traffic Impact Study or through the North Gateway Core Study being conducted
by the Street Transportation Department at the time of this zoning action. The
determination of final right-of-way required will be made by the Street
Transportation Department.

16. The developer shall construct half-street improvements for 29th Avenue inclusive
14. of a minimum 25 feet of paving, curb, gutter, detached sidewalk and
streetlighting for the full frontage of the property as modified and approved by the
Street Transportation Department.

17. The developer shall dedicate the full width right-of-way for the Village Core
15. Northern Collector street along the entirety of the southern zoning boundary. The
full width of right-of-way required is 60 feet adjoined on each side by a minimum
10-foot sidewalk easement. Full width right-of-way and alignment may be
modified by the Street Transportation Department.

18. The developer shall construct the full width roadway section of the Village Core
16. Northern Collector street along the entirety of the southern zoning boundary. The
minimum full width roadway section is 50 feet of paving, curb, gutter, and
detached sidewalk for the full frontage of the property. Full width improvements
may be modified by the Street Transportation Department.

19. The developer shall be responsible for proportional share of the funding and/or
17. construction of any traffic control improvements for the intersection of Village
Core Northern Collector and North Valley Parkway, as per the approved Traffic
Impact Study and as approved by the Street Transportation Department.

20. All publicly dedicated roadways shall be designed as dry crossings per City
18. standards for a minimum 100-year storm event. Drainage easement shall be
dedicated to accommodate drainage structures and maintenance access ramps
as approved by the Street Transportation Department.

21. The developer shall be responsible for proportional funding contributions towards
19. traffic signals at 29th Avenue and Dove Valley Road and 29th Avenue and
Sonoran Desert Drive. The funding contribution will be determined through an
assessment of proportional traffic impact, as per the Traffic Impact Study and as
approved by the Street Transportation Department.

22. All publicly dedicated roadways shall be designed as dry crossings per City
20. standards for a minimum 100-year storm event as approved by the Street
Transportation Department.


Page 941
23. A Developer Project Information Form for the MAG Transportation
21. Improvement Program shall be completed and submitted to the Street
Transportation Department prior to preliminary site plan approval, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

24. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the
22. development with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights,
median islands, landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans approved by
the Planning and Development Department. All improvements shall comply
with all ADA accessibility standards.

25. PRIOR TO PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE LANDOWNER SHALL
EXECUTE A PROPOSITION 207 WAIVER OF CLAIMS FORM. THE WAIVER
SHALL BE RECORDED WITH THE MARICOPA COUNTY RECORDER'S
OFFICE AND DELIVERED TO THE CITY TO BE INCLUDED IN THE
REZONING APPLICATION FILE FOR RECORD.


SECTION 2. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use

district granted pursuant to Ordinance G-6679 this portion of the rezoning is now

subject to the stipulations approved pursuant to Ordinance G-6679 and as modified in

Section 1 of this Ordinance. Any violation of the stipulation is a violation of the City of

Phoenix Zoning Ordinance. Building permits shall not be issued for the subject site

until all the stipulations have been met.

SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or

portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the

decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the

validity of the remaining portions hereof.

PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 31st day of May,

2023.




________________________________
MAYOR




Page 942
ATTEST:


_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk


APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney


By:
_________________________
_________________________


REVIEWED BY:


_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager



Exhibits:
A - Legal Description (1 Page)
B - Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)




Page 943
EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR PHO-1-23—Z-56-19-2
The Land referred to herein below is situated in the County of Maricopa, State of
Arizona, and is described as follows:

A PORTION OF LAND AS DESCRIBED IN THE SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED
RECORDED IN DOCUMENT NO. 1998-0523403, MARICOPA COUNTY
RECORDS, BEING SITUATED WITHIN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF
SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 2 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT
RIVER MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, BEING MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

COMMENCING AT A FOUND 3 INCH CITY OF PHOENIX BRASS CAP IN
HAND HOLE ACCEPTED AS THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION
14 FROM WHICH A FOUND 1/2 SNCH REBAR WITH CAP, RLS 48943
ACCEPTED AS THE NORTH QUARTER CORNER THEREOF BEARS SOUTH
89°25'55", 2639.68 FEET;

THENCE SOUTH 89°25’55" WEST, 710.93 FEET ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF
THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 14 TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING;

THENCE LEAVING SAID N0RTHLINE, SOUTH 83°01’35" EAST, 51.43 FEET TO
THE EAST LINE 0F THE N0RTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST
QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 14;
THENCE SOUTH 00°21'48" EAST, 655.29 FEET ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID
NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST
QUARTER OF SECTION 14 TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER THEREOF;

THENCE SOUTH 89°27'39“ WEST, 659.90 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH LINE 0F
SAID N0RTHWEST QUARTER 0F THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 14 T0 THE S0UTHWEST CORNER
THERE0F;

THENCE NORTH 00°21'55" WEST, 661.70 FEET ALONG THE WEST LINE OF
SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 14 TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER
THEREOF;
THENCE NORTH 89°25'55" EAST, 608.91 FEET ALONG SAID NORTH LINE TO
THE POINT OF BEGINNING.




Page 944
Page 945



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Modification of Stipulation Request for Ratification of April 19, 2023, Planning
Hearing Officer Action - PHO-2-23--Z-98-05-7 - Southeast Corner of 51st Avenue
and Roosevelt Street

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to approve Planning Hearing
Officer's recommendation without further hearing by the City Council on matters heard
by the Planning Hearing Officer on April 19, 2023. This ratification requires formal
action only.

Summary
Application: PHO-2-23--Z-98-05-7
Existing Zoning: A-1
Acreage: 18.93

Owner: Phoenix Van Buren Properties LLC
Applicant: Michael Buschbacher, Earl & Curley PC
Representative: Taylor Earl, Earl & Curley PC

Proposal:
1. Modification of Stipulation 1 regarding general conformance with the site plan date
stamped Oct. 23, 2007.
2. Deletion of Stipulation 2.B. regarding shaded seating areas.
3. Deletion of Stipulation 2.C. regarding landscaping at 51st Avenue and Van Buren
Street.
4. Modification of Stipulation 2.D. regarding landscaping at entrance drives.
5. Deletion of Stipulation 3 regarding right-of-way dedication for 51st Avenue.
6. Deletion of Stipulation 4 regarding right-of-way dedication for Van Buren Street.
7. Deletion of Stipulation 5 regarding right-of-way dedication for 51st Avenue and Van
Buren Street.
8. Deletion of Stipulation 7 regarding transit infrastructure on 51st Avenue.
9. Technical corrections to Stipulations 2 and 6.

VPC Action: The Estrella Village Planning Committee was scheduled to hear this case
on April 18, 2023, but did not have a quorum.
PHO Action: The Planning Hearing Officer recommended denial as filed and approval
with modifications and additional stipulations.

Page 946

Location
Southeast corner of 51st Avenue and Roosevelt Street
Council District: 7
Parcel Address: N/A

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.




Page 947
ATTACHMENT A
Stipulations – PHO-2-23--Z-98-05-7
Location: Southeast Corner of 51st Avenue and Roosevelt Street

STIPULATIONS:

GENERAL CONFORMANCE

1. That The development shall be in general conformance with the site plan
date stamped October 23, 2007 JANUARY 27, 2023, as approved or
modified by the FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS AND APPROVED BY THE
PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

LANDSCAPE

2. That The applicant shall provide a landscape plan to be administratively
approved by the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) prior to preliminary site
plan approval with specific regard to the following as approved by the
PLANNING AND Development Services Department:

a. That The perimeter landscape setbacks along 51st Avenue and Van
Buren Street shall comply with the Commerce Park standards, except
the area along 51st Avenue generally between Polk Street and
McKinley Street as shown on the site plan date stamped October 23,
2007 where A-1 landscape setbacks shall be applicable.

b. That Shaded seating areas shall be provided for employees and
customers in accessible and convenient locations.

c. That The 51st Avenue AND /Van Buren Street corner shall be
developed with a 75-foot by 75-foot enhanced landscape area using
the landscape palette from the Estrella Village Arterial Street
Landscaping Plan PROGRAM.

d. That the customer entrance drive on Van Buren Street and all entry
drives on 51st Avenue shall be developed with 50-foot by 50-foot
enhanced landscape areas located on both sides of the driveway
entrance using the landscape palette from the Estrella Village Arterial
Street Landscaping Program, except for the area along 51st Avenue
generally between Polk Street and McKinley Street which shall
provide entry landscape areas as shown on the site plan date
stamped October 23, 2007, and that the Conceptual Landscape Plan
for the enhanced landscape areas shall be approved administratively
by the Planning Hearing Officer.




Page 948
THE ENTRY AT THE CORNER OF 51ST AVENUE AND MCKINLEY
STREET AND THE ENTRY IMMEDIATELY EAST OF 51ST AVENUE
ON ROOSEVELT STREET SHALL BE DEVELOPED WITH
MINIMUM 50-FOOT BY 50-FOOT ENHANCED LANDSCAPE AREAS
LOCATED ON BOTH SIDES OF THE DRIVEWAY ENTRANCES,
WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE EXISTING LANDSCAPE AREA ON
THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE MCKINLEY STREET ENTRANCE, AS
APPROVED OR MODIFIED BY THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. ENHANCED LANDSCAPE
AREAS SHALL UTILIZE THE LANDSCAPE PALETTE FROM THE
ESTRELLA VILLAGE ARTERIAL STREET LANDSCAPING
PROGRAM.

e. That The existing landscape setback along Roosevelt Street shall be
enhanced with new plant materials using the Estrella Village Arterial
Street Landscaping Program. The landscaping quantity shall be
based on the landscaping program guidelines on page one.

STREETS

3. That right-of-way totaling 50 feet shall be dedicated for the east half of 51st
Avenue.

4. That right-of-way totaling 50 feet shall be dedicated for the north half of
Van Buren Street.

5. That a 21-foot by 21-foot right-of-way triangle shall be dedicated at the
northeast corner of 51st Avenue and Van Buren Street.

3. That The developer shall construct all streets adjacent to the development
6. with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, landscaping
and other incidentals as per plans approved by the PLANNING AND
Development Services Department. All improvements shall comply with all
ADA accessibility standards.

TRANSIT

7. That the following transit infrastructure improvements shall be provided:

A. Two transit stop locations, north of Van Buren Street east side of 51st
Avenue and north of Fillmore Street east side of 51st Avenue.




Page 949
B. Transit Accessory pads P1261 located north of Van Buren Street east
side of 51st Avenue and P1260 located north of Fillmore Street and
east of 51st Avenue.

C. Transit Bus Bay P1256 located on the east side of 51st Avenue north
of Van Buren Street.

ARCHAEOLOGY


4. IF DETERMINED NECESSARY BY THE PHOENIX ARCHAEOLOGY
OFFICE, THE APPLICANT SHALL CONDUCT PHASE I DATA TESTING
AND SUBMIT AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REPORT OF THE
DEVELOPMENT AREA FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE CITY
ARCHAEOLOGIST PRIOR TO CLEARING AND GRUBBING,
LANDSCAPE SALVAGE, AND/OR GRADING APPROVAL.

5. IF PHASE I DATA TESTING IS REQUIRED, AND IF, UPON REVIEW OF
THE RESULTS FROM THE PHASE I DATA TESTING, THE CITY
ARCHAEOLOGIST, IN CONSULTATION WITH A QUALIFIED
ARCHAEOLOGIST, DETERMINES SUCH DATA RECOVERY
EXCAVATIONS ARE NECESSARY, THE APPLICANT SHALL
CONDUCT PHASE II ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA RECOVERY
EXCAVATIONS.

6. IN THE EVENT ARCHAEOLOGICAL MATERIALS ARE ENCOUNTERED
DURING CONSTRUCTION, THE DEVELOPER SHALL IMMEDIATELY
CEASE ALL GROUND-DISTURBING ACTIVITIES WITHIN A 33-FOOT
RADIUS OF THE DISCOVERY, NOTIFY THE CITY ARCHAEOLOGIST,
AND ALLOW TIME FOR THE ARCHAEOLOGY OFFICE TO PROPERLY
ASSESS THE MATERIALS.

AVIATION

7. That The property owner shall record documents that disclose to
8. purchasers of the property within the development the existence and
operational characteristics of Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport. The
form and content of such documents shall be reviewed and approved by
the City Attorney.

8. PRIOR TO PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE LANDOWNER
SHALL EXECUTE A PROPOSITION 207 WAIVER OF CLAIMS FORM.
THE WAIVER SHALL BE RECORDED WITH THE MARICOPA COUNTY
RECORDER'S OFFICE AND DELIVERED TO THE CITY TO BE
INCLUDED IN THE REZONING APPLICATION FILE FOR RECORD.




Page 950



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Public Hearing - Biennial Certified Audit of Land Use Assumptions,
Infrastructure Improvement Plan and Development Fees

Request to hold a public hearing regarding the Biennial Certified Audit of Land Use
Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvement Plans and Development Impact Fees, as
required by State statute.

Summary
Arizona Revised Statute 9-463.05 requires a biennial certified audit of municipalities'
land use assumptions (LUA), infrastructure improvements plans (IIP) and development
fees to be conducted by a qualified professional. The rule further specifies that the City
shall conduct a public hearing on the audit findings within 60 days of posting the audit
report on the City's website. Willdan Financial Services (Willdan) was retained to
perform the biennial audit. The audit reviewed development impact fees and water
resource acquisition fees for the period of July 1, 2020, through June 30, 2022.

The intent of the audit is to allow stakeholders who pay the impact fees to receive a
third party analysis of the assumptions, plans and how fees are spent by each
municipality. The next required biennial audit will review the period of July 1, 2022,
through June 30, 2024.

The final audit report titled: City of Phoenix, AZ FY 2021 & FY 2022 Development
Impact Fee Audit is available on the Planning and Development website at:
phoenix.gov/pdd/devfees/impactfeedocs.

Biennial Audit Conclusions
Review of LUAs identified minor differences between projected and actual
development but anticipates the development over the 10-year study period will not
significantly vary from projections.

Review of the progress of the IIPs identified projects that were either accelerated from
the projected schedule or delayed based on the projected schedule, but all project for
which funds were expended were included in the adopted IIPs.

Review of collections and expenditures of the development impact fees for each


Page 951

project in the plan indicate that all expenditures made with development impact fee
funds were on projects or debt expenses as identified in the 2020 Plan.

Evaluation of any inequities in implementing the plan or imposing the development
impact fees indicates that the fees were assessed in an appropriate manner based
upon the size and type of the development.

Review of sample permits did not identify any cases where a development was
assessed an incorrect fee based on development type, square footage or meter size.

Public Outreach
A meeting was held with stakeholders on April 27, 2023, to review the audit report.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.




Page 952



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Public Hearing and Resolution Adoption - General Plan Amendment GPA-DV-3-
22-1 - Approximately 320 Feet North of the Northwest Corner of 17th Avenue and
Happy Valley Road (Resolution 22124)

Request to hold a public hearing on a General Plan Amendment for the following item
to consider the Planning Commission's recommendation and the related resolution if
approved. Request to amend the General Plan Land Use Map designation on 8.00
acres from Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units (du) per acre and Mixed Use
(Commercial/Commerce/Business Park) to Residential 15+ du/acre. This is a
companion case to Z-59-22-1 and should be heard first, followed by Z-59-22-1.

Summary
Application: GPA-DV-3-22-1
Current Designation: Residential 3.5 to 5 du/acre (5.28 acres) and Mixed Use
(Commercial/Commerce/Business Park) (2.72 acres)
Acreage: 8.00 acres
Proposed Use: Multifamily residential

Owner: Red Hawk Partners, LLC, et.al.
Applicant and Representative: Benjamin Graff, Quarles & Brady, LLP

Staff Recommendation: Approval.
VPC Information Only: The Deer Valley Village Planning Committee was scheduled to
hear this case on Feb. 9, 2023, for information only. However, there was no quorum.
VPC Action: The Deer Valley Village Planning Committee was scheduled to hear this
case for recommendation on April 20, 2023. However, there was no quorum.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on May 4, 2023, and
recommended approval, by a vote of 5-3.

Location
Approximately 320 feet north of the northwest corner of 17th Avenue and Happy Valley
Road
Council District: 1
Parcel Address: 25100, 25150, 25200, 25250 and 25273 N. 17th Ave.



Page 953

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.




Page 954
ATTACHMENT A

THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED RESOLUTION



RESOLUTION


A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE 2015
GENERAL PLAN FOR PHOENIX, APPLICATION GPA-DV-3-22-1,
CHANGING THE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION FOR THE
PARCEL DESCRIBED HEREIN.

____________


BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as

follows:

SECTION 1. The 2015 Phoenix General Plan, which was adopted by

Resolution 21307, is hereby amended by adopting GPA-DV-3-22-1. The 8.00 acres of

property located approximately 320 feet north of the northwest corner of 17th Avenue

and Happy Valley Road is designated as Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre.

SECTON 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to

modify the 2015 Phoenix General Plan to reflect this land use classification change as

shown below:




Page 955
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 31st day of May 2023.



MAYOR




ATTEST:


____________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk




-2- Resolution

Page 956
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney



By:___________________________
___________________________



REVIEWED BY:


______________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager




-3- Resolution



Page 957
ATTACHMENT B




GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
STAFF ANALYSIS
March 29, 2023

Application: GPA-DV-3-22-1

Owner: Red Hawk Partners, LLC et.al.

Applicant/Representative: Benjamin Graff, Quarles & Brady, LLP

Location: Approximately 320 feet north of the northwest
corner of 17th Avenue and Happy Valley Road

Acreage: 8.00 acres

Current Plan Designation: Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre
(5.28 acres) and Mixed Use (Commercial/
Commerce/Business Park) (2.72 acres)

Requested Plan Designation: Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre

Reason for Requested Change: Minor General Plan Amendment to allow multifamily
residential

Deer Valley Village Planning
Committee Meeting Date: April 20, 2023

Staff Recommendation: Approval

FINDINGS:

1) The proposed General Plan Land Use Map designation of Residential 15+
dwelling units per acre would allow higher density attached townhouses,
condominiums, or apartments, which are consistent with proposed land uses to
the west.

2) The companion rezoning case, Z-59-22-1, proposes a multifamily residential
development, which, as stipulated, protects the character of the surrounding area
by providing additional landscape setbacks and limiting height adjacent to single-
family residential properties to the north.




Page 958
Staff Analysis
GPA-DV-3-22-1
Page 2


3) The subject site is appropriate for residential uses at the proposed densities and
provides new housing opportunities in the Deer Valley Village and in close
proximity to employment uses.

BACKGROUND

The subject site is 8.00 acres of vacant land, located approximately 320 feet north of the
northwest corner of 17th Avenue and Happy Valley Road. This request proposes a
minor amendment to the General Plan Land Use Map to allow multifamily development.

The current General Plan Land Use Map designation for the site is 5.28 acres of
Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre and 2.72 acres of Mixed Use (Commercial/
Commerce/Business Park).

The site is currently zoned S-1 (Ranch or Farm Residence) and C-2 (Intermediate
Commercial). The companion rezoning case, Z-59-22-1, proposes a change to PUD
(Planned Unit Development) to allow multifamily residential.

SURROUNDING LAND USES

North of the subject site is designated Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre. To
the north is County property used as a single-family residence and zoned RU-43 (Rural
Zoning District - One Acre Per Dwelling Unit).

East is designated Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre and Mixed Use
(Commercial/Commerce/Business Park). To the east, across 17th Avenue, is County
property with residences zoned RU-43.

South is designated Mixed Use (Commercial/Commerce/Business Park. To the south is
vacant land and a school zoned C-2.

West is designated Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre and Mixed Use
(Commercial/Commerce/Business Park). To the west are existing single-family
residences which are proposed to be demolished as part of a multifamily project known
as the “Lumara” PUD (Z-48-21) and self-service storage.




Page 959
Staff Analysis
GPA-DV-3-22-1
Page 3




Existing General Plan Land Use Map designation, Source: Planning and Development Department




RELATIONSHIP TO GENERAL PLAN CORE VALUES AND PRINCIPLES

CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES

• OPPORTUNITY SITES; LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Support reasonable levels
of increased intensity, respectful of local conditions and surrounding
neighborhoods.

The proposed minor General Plan Amendment, along with the companion
rezoning case, Z-59-22-1, would allow development of an underused site into a
multifamily residential community that is compatible with the surrounding area
and respectful of local conditions. The proposed development is located next to a
similar development and as stipulated, incorporates setbacks and enhanced
landscaping around the perimeter to enhance compatibility with the surrounding
area.

CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES & NEIGHBORHOODS

• CERTAINTY & CHARACTER: DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Create new development
or redevelopment that is sensitive to the scale and character of the



Page 960
Staff Analysis
GPA-DV-3-22-1
Page 4


surrounding neighborhoods and incorporates adequate development
standards to prevent negative impact(s) on the residential properties.

As stipulated in the companion rezoning case, Z-59-22-1, the proposed
development will be sensitive to the scale and character of the surrounding area.
This area near 19th Avenue and Happy Valley Road contains a mix of higher-
intensity commercial uses and multifamily development. As stipulated, the
development would incorporate standards to avoid negative impacts on the
adjacent single-family residences to the north and east, including a height limit,
increased setbacks, and enhanced landscaping.

BUILD THE SUSTAINABLE DESERT CITY

• TREES AND SHADE: DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Integrate trees and shade into
the design of new development and redevelopment projects throughout
Phoenix.

As stipulated in the companion rezoning case, Z-59-22-1, the proposal will be
required to shade the sidewalk on 17th Avenue, provide enhanced landscaping
standards and provide additional shaded open space. This will help to provide
shade for pedestrians in and around the community and to mitigate the urban
heat island effect by covering hard surfaces, thus cooling the micro-climate
around the vicinity.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends approval of GPA-DV-3-22-1. The proposed land use map
designation allows for development that is consistent with the surrounding land uses to
the west and provides additional multifamily housing opportunities for the area. The
companion rezoning case, Z-59-22-1, as stipulated, will require design features that
promote compatibility with the surrounding area.

Writer
Matteo Moric
March 29, 2023

Team Leader
Racelle Escolar

Exhibits
Sketch Maps (2 pages)




Page 961
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
CITY OF PHOENIX X PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT X 200 W WASHINGTON ST X PHOENIX, AZ X 85003X (602) 262-6882
APPLICATION NO: GPA-DV-3-22-1 ACRES: 8.00 +/- REVISION DATE:
VILLAGE: Deer Valley COUNCIL DISTRICT: 1
APPLICANT: Shelter Asset Management
EXISTING:
Residential 3.5 to 5 du/ acre ( 5.28 +/- Acres)
Mixed Used (Commercial / Commerce /
Business Park) ( 2.72 +/- Acres)


Proposed Change Area
Residential 3.5 to 5 du/ac
Residential 15+ du/ac
Commerce/Business Park

19TH AVE
Mixed Use (Commercial /
Commerce / Business Park)
Mixed Use (Commercial /
Commerce /Business Park /
Residential 5 to 10 / 10 to 15 / 15+)


HAPPY VALLEY RD




PROPOSED CHANGE:
Residential 15+ du/ acre ( 8.00 +/- Acres)




Proposed Change Area
Residential 15+ du/ac




19TH AVE




HAPPY VALLEY RD




Page 962
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
CITY OF PHOENIX X PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT X 200 W WASHINGTON ST X PHOENIX, AZ X 85003X (602) 262-6882
APPLICATION NO: GPA-DV-3-22-1 ACRES: 8.00 +/- REVISION DATE:
VILLAGE: Deer Valley COUNCIL DISTRICT: 1
APPLICANT: Shelter Asset Management
EXISTING:
Residential 3.5 to 5 du/ acre ( 5.28 +/- Acres)
Mixed Used (Commercial / Commerce /
Business Park) ( 2.72 +/- Acres)


Proposed Change
Residential 3.5 to 5 du/acre
Residential 15+ du/acre
Commerce/Business Park


19TH AVE
Mixed Use (Commercial /
Commerce / Business Park)
Mixed Use (Commercial /
Commerce /Business Park/
Residential 5 to 10/ 10 to 15/ 15+)


HAPPY VALLEY RD




PROPOSED CHANGE:
Residential 15+ du/ acre ( 8.00 +/- Acres)




Proposed Change Area
Residential 15+ du/acre




19TH AVE




HAPPY VALLEY RD




Page 963
ATTACHMENT C




Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-DV-3-22-1
INFORMATION ONLY


Date of VPC Meeting February 9, 2023
Request From Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre and Mixed
Use (Commercial/Commerce/Business Park)
Request To Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre
Proposed Use Multifamily Residential
Location Approximately 320 feet north of the northwest corner of
17th Avenue and Happy Valley Road


VPC DISCUSSION:

No quorum.




STAFF COMMENTS:

None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 964
ATTACHMENT D




Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-DV-3-22-1


Date of VPC Meeting April 20, 2023
Request From Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre and Mixed
Use (Commercial/Commerce/Business Park)
Request To Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre
Proposed Use Multifamily Residential
Location Approximately 320 feet north of the northwest corner of
17th Avenue and Happy Valley Road
VPC Recommendation No quorum
VPC Vote No quorum


VPC DISCUSSION:

No quorum.




STAFF COMMENTS:

None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 965
ATTACHMENT E


REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
May 4, 2023

ITEM NO: 2
DISTRICT NO.: 1
SUBJECT:

Application #: GPA-DV-3-22-1
Location: Approximately 320 feet north of the northwest corner of 17th Avenue and
Happy Valley Road
From: Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre and Mixed Use (Commercial /
Commerce/Business Park)
To: Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre
Acreage: 8.00
Proposal: Minor General Plan Amendment to allow multifamily residential
Applicant: Benjamin Graff, Quarles & Brady, LLP
Owner: Red Hawk Partners, LLC, et al.
Representative: Benjamin Graff, Quarles & Brady, LLP

ACTIONS:

Staff Recommendation: Approval.

Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Deer Valley 2/9/2023 Information only - No quorum.
Deer Valley 4/20/2023 Recommendation - No quorum.

Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the staff recommendation.

Motion Discussion: N/A

Motion details: Commissioner Gaynor made a MOTION to approve GPA-DV-3-22-1, per the
staff recommendation.

Maker: Vice-Chair Gaynor
Second: Gorraiz
Vote: 5-3 (Busching, Perez, and Simon)
Absent: Mangum
Opposition Present: Yes

Findings:

1. The proposed General Plan Land Use Map designation of Residential 15+ dwelling
units per acre would allow higher density attached townhouses, condominiums, or
apartments, which are consistent with proposed land uses to the west.

2. The companion rezoning case, Z-59-22-1, proposes a multifamily residential
development, which, as stipulated, protects the character of the surrounding area by
providing additional landscape setbacks and limiting height adjacent to single-family
residential properties to the north.




Page 966
3. The subject site is appropriate for residential uses at the proposed densities and
provides new housing opportunities in the Deer Valley Village and in close proximity to
employment uses.

This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact Angie
Holdsworth at (602) 495-5622, TTY use 7-1-1.




Page 967
ATTACHMENT F
Racelle Escolar

From: Julia Levene
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2022 4:48 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Regarding amendment to the Mayo Blvd. Flyover plan.



To the planning commission:

We are highly in support and favor of passing the amendment that will alter the current
plan to connect Tatum Blvd to Mayo Blvd. Connecting Tatum to Mayo Blvd would
negatively impact the quiet family-oriented neighborhood environment that currently
exists. Additional traffic through this route would also endanger the many students
attending Pinnacle High School as well as Fireside Elementary. Homes were purchased in
this area for the neighborhood environment that currently exists.

We are not in favor of connecting Tatum to Mayo Blvd; as a member of the planning
commission, please support this amendment to alter the current plan to connect Tatum
Blvd to Mayo Blvd. on behalf of all Fireside residents.

Sincerely,

Julia Levene

Go West Destinations, Inc.
DBA: APP, Association Planner Partners
3734 E. Ringtail Way
Phoenix, AZ 85050
Phone: 602 320‐8323
www.associationplannerpartners.com [associationplannerpartners.com]





Page 968
^ddDEdK&^hWWKZd

LJ ƐŝŐŶŝŶŐ ďĞůŽǁ͕ d ϭϵƚŚ ,ĂƉƉLJ sĂůůĞLJ >> ĂĐŬŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞƐ ƚŚĂƚ ŽƵƌ ĐŽŵƉĂŶLJ ŚĂƐ ĐŽŵŵƵŶŝĐĂƚĞĚ ǁŝƚŚ
ƌĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĂƚŝǀĞƐŽĨƚŚĞ^DĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ'ƌŽƵƉ>>;Η^DΗͿƚĞĂŵ͖ƚŚĂƚdϭϵƚŚ,ĂƉƉLJsĂůůĞLJ>>ŝƐƚŚĞ
ŽǁŶĞƌŽĨWĂƌĐĞůEŽƐ͘ϮϭϬͲϭϬͲϬϮϯ͕ϮϭϬͲϭϬͲϬϯϬ͕ϮϭϬͲϭϬͲϬϬϴ͕ϮϭϬͲϭϬͲϬϬϴ͕ϮϭϬͲϭϬͲϬϬϴ'͕ĂŶĚϮϭϬͲϭϬͲ
ϬϬϴ& ŝŶ DĂƌŝĐŽƉĂ ŽƵŶƚLJ ůŽĐĂƚĞĚ ĚŝƌĞĐƚůLJ ǁĞƐƚ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͖ ĂŶĚ ƚŚĂƚ d ϭϵƚŚ ,ĂƉƉLJ
sĂůůĞLJ>>ƐƵƉƉŽƌƚƐ^DΖƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚWůĂŶŶĞĚhŶŝƚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ;ĐĂƐĞŶƵŵďĞƌƐͲϱϵͲϮϮͲϭΘ'WͲsͲϯͲ
ϮϮͲϭͿĨŽƌĂŵƵůƚŝĨĂŵŝůLJĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚůŽĐĂƚĞĚŽŶĂŶĂƉƉƌŽdžŝŵĂƚĞůLJϳ͘ϴͲĂĐƌĞƐŝƚĞůŽĐĂƚĞĚĂƚƚŚĞEŽƌƚŚǁĞƐƚ
ŽƌŶĞƌŽĨϭϳƚŚǀĞŶƵĞĂŶĚ,ĂƉƉLJsĂůůĞLJZŽĂĚ͘

dŚĞ ƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ƉƌŽũĞĐƚ ǁŝůů ŝŶĐůƵĚĞ͗ ;ĂͿ ƌĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ ŽĨ ǀĂĐĂŶƚ ĂŶĚ ƵŶĚĞƌƵƚŝůŝnjĞĚ ƉĂƌĐĞůƐ ǁŝƚŚ ƋƵĂůŝƚLJ
ĂƚƚĂŝŶĂďůĞ ĂƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚƐ ǁŝƚŚ ƌĞƐŽƌƚ ƐƚLJůĞ ĂŵĞŶŝƚŝĞƐ ĂŶĚ ůƵƐŚ ůĂŶĚƐĐĂƉŝŶŐ͖ ;ďͿ ϮϮϲ ƵŶŝƚƐ ĂĐƌŽƐƐ ĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶƚ
ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƚLJƉĞƐĂŶĚƚŽǁŶŚŽŵĞƐ͖;ĐͿϯϱϭƚŽƚĂůƉĂƌŬŝŶŐƐƉĂĐĞƐƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚǁŝƚŚϮϮϮƌĞƐĞƌǀĞĚĐĂƌƉŽƌƚƐƉĂĐĞƐ
ĂŶĚϴƌĞƐĞƌǀĞĚŐĂƌĂŐĞƐƉĂĐĞƐ͖;ĚͿĂŶĞŶŚĂŶĐĞĚůĂŶĚƐĐĂƉĞĂŶĚƉĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶĞdžƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞĂůŽŶŐϭϳƚŚǀĞŶƵĞ͖
ĂŶĚ;ĞͿĞŶŚĂŶĐĞĚůĂŶĚƐĐĂƉĞĂŶĚŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞĂƌŽƵŶĚƚŚĞƐŝƚĞ͘



LJƐŝŐŶŝŶŐďĞůŽǁ͕dϭϵƚŚ,ĂƉƉLJsĂůůĞLJ>>ƐƵƉƉŽƌƚƐ^DΖƐWůĂŶŶĞĚhŶŝƚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚnjŽŶŝŶŐĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ͘



^ŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞ
Digitally signed by Joshua M. Rubinich
Joshua M. Rubinich DN: cn=Joshua M. Rubinich,
email=jrubinich@tollbrothers.com, c=US
 Date: 2022.08.25 10:20:34 -04'00'


WƌŝŶƚĞĚEĂŵĞŽĨ/ŶĚŝǀŝĚƵĂů͕ƵƚŚŽƌŝnjĞĚZĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĂƚŝǀĞŽƌƵƐŝŶĞƐƐKǁŶĞƌ
:ŽƐŚƵĂD͘ZƵďŝŶŝĐŚ͕^ĞŶŝŽƌsŝĐĞWƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚͮDĂŶĂŐŝŶŐŝƌĞĐƚŽƌ
^ƚƌĞĞƚĚĚƌĞƐƐ 
ϭϭϰϬsŝƌŐŝŶŝĂƌŝǀĞ
ŝƚLJ͕^ƚĂƚĞ ŝƉŽĚĞ
&ŽƌƚtĂƐŚŝŶŐƚŽŶ͕W ϭϵϬϯϰ
WŚŽŶĞEƵŵďĞƌ
ϮϭϱͲϵϯϴͲϴϭϵϭͮϰϴϰͲϴϲϴͲϭϴϱϮ
ŵĂŝů
ũƌƵďŝŶŝĐŚΛƚŽůůďƌŽƚŚĞƌƐ͘ĐŽŵ
  




Page 969
Page 970
Page 971
Page 972
Page 973
Page 974
Page 975
Page 976
Page 977
Page 978
Page 979
Page 980
Page 981
Page 982
Page 983
Page 984
Page 985
Page 986
Page 987
Page 988
Page 989
Page 990
Page 991
Page 992
Page 993
Page 994
Page 995
Page 996
Page 997
Page 998
Page 999
Page 1000
Page 1001
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3FB1500A-DF3C-406F-94AC-262D474845DA




STATEMENT OF SUPPORT FOR THE HOME AT HAPPY VALLEY DEVELOPMENT

By signing below, I acknowledge that either I or my ownership company has communicated with
representatives of Shelter Asset Management Development ("SAM") and that I support Shelter Asset
Management’s Planned Unit Development (Case Numbers Z-59-22-1 & GPA-DV-3-22-1) for a multifamily
development located on an approximately 8-acre site located at the Northwest Corner of 17th Avenue
and Happy Valley Road.

The proposed development will include: (1) redevelopment of vacant and underutilized parcels with
quality attainable apartments with resort style amenities and lush landscaping; (2) 226 units across
different building types and townhomes; (3) 351 total parking spaces provided with 222 reserved
carport spaces and 8 reserved garage spaces; (4) an enhanced landscape and pedestrian experience,
inclusive of a detached sidewalk for public use, along 17th Avenue; and (5) gated entry points with
enhanced landscape and open space around the site.



By signing below, I am expressing my support for SAM's ’s Planned Unit Development zoning and General
Plan Amendment application.



Signature
4/1/2023

Printed Name of Individual or Ownership Entity
Florin Popescu
Street Address
20601 N 4th Ave
City Zip Code
Phoenix 85027
Phone Number
(808) 773-2878
Email




Page 1002
DocuSign Envelope ID: 997D41EA-395E-4E50-A8ED-894E8C5B2222




STATEMENT OF SUPPORT FOR THE HOME AT HAPPY VALLEY DEVELOPMENT

By signing below, I acknowledge that either I or my ownership company has communicated with
representatives of Shelter Asset Management Development ("SAM") and that I support Shelter Asset
Management’s Planned Unit Development (Case Numbers Z-59-22-1 & GPA-DV-3-22-1) for a multifamily
development located on an approximately 8-acre site located at the Northwest Corner of 17th Avenue
and Happy Valley Road.

The proposed development will include: (1) redevelopment of vacant and underutilized parcels with
quality attainable apartments with resort style amenities and lush landscaping; (2) 226 units across
different building types and townhomes; (3) 351 total parking spaces provided with 222 reserved
carport spaces and 8 reserved garage spaces; (4) an enhanced landscape and pedestrian experience,
inclusive of a detached sidewalk for public use, along 17th Avenue; and (5) gated entry points with
enhanced landscape and open space around the site.



By signing below, I am expressing my support for SAM's ’s Planned Unit Development zoning and General
Plan Amendment application.



Signature
4/3/2023

Printed Name of Individual or Ownership Entity
Mario Diaz

Street Address
7144 W Monte Lindo
City Glendale
Zip Code

Phone Number
‭(602) 571-6530‬
Email




Page 1003
STATEMENT OF SUPPORT FOR THE HOME AT HAPPY VALLEY DEVELOPMENT

By signing below, I acknowledge that either I or my ownership company has communicated with
representatives of Shelter Asset Management Development ("SAM") and that I support Shelter Asset
Management’s Planned Unit Development (Case Numbers Z-59-22-1 & GPA-DV-3-22-1) for a multifamily
development located on an approximately 8-acre site located at the Northwest Corner of 17th Avenue
and Happy Valley Road.

The proposed development will include: (1) redevelopment of vacant and underutilized parcels with
quality attainable apartments with resort style amenities and lush landscaping; (2) 226 units across
different building types and townhomes; (3) 351 total parking spaces provided with 222 reserved
carport spaces and 8 reserved garage spaces; (4) an enhanced landscape and pedestrian experience,
inclusive of a detached sidewalk for public use, along 17th Avenue; and (5) gated entry points with
enhanced landscape and open space around the site.



By signing below, I am expressing my support for SAM's ’s Planned Unit Development zoning and General
Plan Amendment application.



Signature

Printed Name of Individual or Ownership Entity
Marius Groza
Street Address
25822 N 20th Ave
City Zip Code
PHOENIX 85085
Phone Number
602 - 459 - 6740
Email




Page 1004
DocuSign Envelope ID: D464A784-048F-4874-A3EC-B087CCC16C36




STATEMENT OF SUPPORT FOR THE HOME AT HAPPY VALLEY DEVELOPMENT

By signing below, I acknowledge that either I or my ownership company has communicated with
representatives of Shelter Asset Management Development ("SAM") and that I support Shelter Asset
Management’s Planned Unit Development (Case Numbers Z-59-22-1 & GPA-DV-3-22-1) for a multifamily
development located on an approximately 8-acre site located at the Northwest Corner of 17th Avenue
and Happy Valley Road.

The proposed development will include: (1) redevelopment of vacant and underutilized parcels with
quality attainable apartments with resort style amenities and lush landscaping; (2) 226 units across
different building types and townhomes; (3) 351 total parking spaces provided with 222 reserved
carport spaces and 8 reserved garage spaces; (4) an enhanced landscape and pedestrian experience,
inclusive of a detached sidewalk for public use, along 17th Avenue; and (5) gated entry points with
enhanced landscape and open space around the site.



By signing below, I am expressing my support for SAM's ’s Planned Unit Development zoning and General
Plan Amendment application.



Signature
4/3/2023

Printed Name of Individual or Ownership Entity
Mihai Costea

Street Address
1923 W Hide Trl
City Zip Code
Phoenix 85085
Phone Number
‭(480) 406-8713‬
Email




Page 1005
DocuSign Envelope ID: B36FA05A-D0C3-4856-AAF0-B5C1CE076319




STATEMENT OF SUPPORT FOR THE HOME AT HAPPY VALLEY DEVELOPMENT

By signing below, I acknowledge that either I or my ownership company has communicated with
representatives of Shelter Asset Management Development ("SAM") and that I support Shelter Asset
Management’s Planned Unit Development (Case Numbers Z-59-22-1 & GPA-DV-3-22-1) for a multifamily
development located on an approximately 8-acre site located at the Northwest Corner of 17th Avenue
and Happy Valley Road.

The proposed development will include: (1) redevelopment of vacant and underutilized parcels with
quality attainable apartments with resort style amenities and lush landscaping; (2) 226 units across
different building types and townhomes; (3) 351 total parking spaces provided with 222 reserved
carport spaces and 8 reserved garage spaces; (4) an enhanced landscape and pedestrian experience,
inclusive of a detached sidewalk for public use, along 17th Avenue; and (5) gated entry points with
enhanced landscape and open space around the site.



By signing below, I am expressing my support for SAM's ’s Planned Unit Development zoning and General
Plan Amendment application.



Signature
4/1/2023

Printed Name of Individual or Ownership Entity
Narcis Dihel Corinne Belbe

Street Address
3422 W Galvin St
City Zip Code
Phoenix 85086
Phone Number
602-503-6620
Email




Page 1006
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7042AD0D-E3E4-4B30-81F3-A97C749D8535




STATEMENT OF SUPPORT FOR THE HOME AT HAPPY VALLEY DEVELOPMENT

By signing below, I acknowledge that either I or my ownership company has communicated with
representatives of Shelter Asset Management Development ("SAM") and that I support Shelter Asset
Management’s Planned Unit Development (Case Numbers Z-59-22-1 & GPA-DV-3-22-1) for a multifamily
development located on an approximately 8-acre site located at the Northwest Corner of 17th Avenue
and Happy Valley Road.

The proposed development will include: (1) redevelopment of vacant and underutilized parcels with
quality attainable apartments with resort style amenities and lush landscaping; (2) 226 units across
different building types and townhomes; (3) 351 total parking spaces provided with 222 reserved
carport spaces and 8 reserved garage spaces; (4) an enhanced landscape and pedestrian experience,
inclusive of a detached sidewalk for public use, along 17th Avenue; and (5) gated entry points with
enhanced landscape and open space around the site.



By signing below, I am expressing my support for SAM's ’s Planned Unit Development zoning and General
Plan Amendment application.



Signature
4/3/2023

Printed Name of Individual or Ownership Entity
RADU TOMUTA

Street Address
6523 W Gold Mountain Pass
City Zip Code
Phoenix 85083

Phone Number
‭(623) 703-1092‬
Email




Page 1007
Page 1008
STATEMENT OF SUPPORT

By signing my name below, I acknowledge that I am familiar with and support the proposed multifamily
Shelter Asset Management Planned Unit Development for the approximately 7.8-acre site located north
of the northwest corner of 17th Avenue and Happy Valley Road.

I understand the proposed project will include (1) developing vacant/underutilized land parcels with
quality attainable apartments with resort style amenities and lush landscaping; (2) 226 units across
different building types and townhomes as a buffer to the north; (3) 351 total parking spaces provided
with 222 carport spaces and 8 reserved garage spaces; (4) enhanced landscape and pedestrian
experience along 17th Avenue; and (5) enhanced landscape and open space around the site.

I am a business-owner in the area, and hereby give my support to the project and to Shelter Asset’s
zoning application.



Signature
Type text here
Printed Name
Kurt Homan
Street Address
1540 W. HAPPY VALLEY RD.
City Zip Code
PHOENIX
Phone Number
623-869-6757
Email
kurt@nativeresources.com




Page 1009
STATEMENT OF SUPPORT

By signing my name below, I acknowledge that I am familiar with and support the proposed multifamily
Shelter Asset Management Planned Unit Development for the approximately 7.8-acre site located north
of the northwest corner of 17th Avenue and Happy Valley Road.

I understand the proposed project will include (1) developing vacant/underutilized land parcels with
quality attainable apartments with resort style amenities and lush landscaping; (2) 226 units across
different building types and townhomes as a buffer to the north; (3) 351 total parking spaces provided
with 222 carport spaces and 8 reserved garage spaces; (4) enhanced landscape and pedestrian
experience along 17th Avenue; and (5) enhanced landscape and open space around the site.

I am a business-owner in the area, and hereby give my support to the project and to Shelter Asset’s
zoning application.



Signature

Printed Name

Street Address

City Zip Code

Phone Number

Email




Page 1010
From: Michael Mosharrafa
To: Graff, Benjamin W.
Subject: Rezoning Case Happy Valley / 17th Ave
Date: Thursday, April 13, 2023 12:27:06 PM
Attachments: image001.png


Hi Ben,

Received your rezoning notice for the above referenced site today. Reaching out to tell you that
Cobblestone is in support of your proposed development. Good luck!

Best,
Michael

Michael Mosharrafa
Project Manager – Architecture & Development
Cobblestone Auto Spa Corporate


8900 E. Bahia Dr. Suite 200
Scottsdale, AZ 85260
t. (602) 919-1218 f. (602) 787-0400
w. cobblestone.com
e. m.mosharrafa@cobblestone.com
[cobblestone.com]




Page 1011
$77$&+0(17*

From: Alison McKee
To: PDD Deer Valley VPC
Subject: #Z-59-22-1 & #GPA-DV-3-22-1
Date: Wednesday, April 19, 2023 11:31:03 PM
Attachments: COP letter home at Happy Valley - 230419.pdf


Deer Valley Village Planning Committee,

I am writing today on behalf of myself, my husband and the Apostolic community living in
our rural neighborhood. Please see the attached opposition letter to cases Z-59-22-1 and GPA-
DV-3-22-1. The letter outlines the many reasons why the zoning adjustment and general plan
amendment should not be considered or recommended to the city council. I constructed this
letter after speaking with our many neighbors who are members of the nearby Apostolic
Church. These Apostolic neighbors do not use computers or the internet outside of their
work. The letter reflects their concerns as well as the concerns of my husband and myself and
was signed with all of our addresses or parcel numbers and phone numbers. Since the meeting
is on a Thursday night, a church night for the Apostolic neighbors, they cannot attend. While
they will not skip a church service, they still want a voice in this important matter, and hope
that the committee will be accommodating and understand that this group signed letter is their
best means of communicating their opposition. Despite their lack of use of
modern technology, their opinions should matter and be heard by the committee and City
of Phoenix staff. We are all happy to accept a phone call to discuss this matter.

Please see the attached letter.

Kind Regards,
Alison McKee




Page 1012
     !"  #" "$%$% !




  -
 C!
$99+  6+
 -'!D"99(




    


      


            
  !"#$$%       & '($$%  )  
%*')  +,   - .   )/   ) 
    0   1  /
  +        0 -
+

))      /0       
             +,     
!"#$$%+, /          234 5 34,    
   +6  5-    /2'/
34,74  /    )0 )  +,  " 
-    /      
1 +0  )   )   2'  3476
  89(       )   
     /  :        
 ) +; )              
+, /<=(>/ 4 6%?       +  
/0     89(+       /
)+,   -    )         
     /+@)    
2'/ )0  /  
 1+    2A  +,     
      / 1    -   +,
 %* ')    )  )  /  ) B  +@
   //1  $$8  - +
%* ')+           +,   -  )




Page 1013
     /  <   0+@    /
  0  +@    / -+
       / )
)  !"#$$%+


@       -&    & '($$%   0
     /0 &    / +@  
   ) /2E  5     $     / 
/     +F   "0  / 
     ) ///  )0   +, 
 6%   5 ) 1 <=(      +,
             )   
 +4   5     +
.   0)   )0 )    +' 
 " -5      +@ )/   
  23  )/  6%   +@      /
/ %G  / + )  )
  )           2@ @@@      C
 :H)  /  )) +H 
) )          5
   /+;      0 I +   
    )     )0 +.0  
 - /   =99G        
+ 0     )  
 +'  -        
 /     )    :/  )  +; 
         & '($$% / +


      -        
  /   /  -         
& /0     -&   )+ )  !"#$$% 
& '($$%+  7


 




Page 1014
Parcel # 210-09-017F
Parcel # 210-09-006B




Page 1015
JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
 > ?  > ?

JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
 > ?  > ?

JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ

JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
 

JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
   


JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
 > ?  > ?

JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
 > ?  > ?

JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ

JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
 

JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
   


JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
 > ?  > ?

JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
 > ?  > ?

JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ

JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
 

JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
   




Page 1016
From: Diane Habener
To: PDD Deer Valley VPC
Subject: Zoning #2-59-22-1
Date: Thursday, April 20, 2023 12:40:16 PM




I am completely appalled that you are even considering approving this project! Please go back and read your
Village Planning Handbook.

“Is the request consistent with the General Plan Map?”
NO

Does the request, “Promote the unique character of each village and strengthen existing neighborhoods?”
Absolutely not. This request destroys our existing
neighborhood.

This proposal has negative impacts that cannot be mitigated on traffic, density, height, environmental, character and
lifestyle.

Please listen to the neighbors and refuse this rezoning proposal.

Sincerely,
Diane Habener
25312 N 16th Ave
Phoenix 85085

Sent from my iPhone




Page 1017
From: DaveVicki Rockey
To: Matteo Moric
Subject: Rezoning at 17th Ave and Happy Valley Rd
Date: Monday, May 1, 2023 7:47:52 AM




We live in the area and are very much opposed to changing the zoning. We bought the land in 1976 and have lived
there since 1980. We are happy with our zoning now and do not want it to change to have more apartments in our
area.
#Z-59-22-1 and companion case #GPA-DV-22-1.
Vicki and David Rockey
25440 N 11th Ave
Phx, AZ 85085

Sent from my iPhone




Page 1018
Racelle Escolar

From: Allyson McLean
Sent: Monday, May 1, 2023 8:48 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: RE: GPA-DV-3-22-1 & Z-59-22-1


Phoenix,planningcommittee,

IamreachingoutasaconcernedcommunitymemberrequestingapostponementofthesecasesBeingdiscussedatthe
meetingon5/4/23,duetotheDVVPCcanceledmeetingduetonoquorum.Iamrequestingpostponementbeforone
month,whichwouldallowforourcommunitytogatherourvoicesmoreclearly,andallowforadequatetimeto
communicateourconcernswiththispossiblezoningchange.

Thatbeingsaid,shouldpostponementnotbegranted,Iwouldliketomakeitclearhowthispossiblezoningwould
effectmycommunity.Thiszoningchangewouldallowforalargeapartmentcomplexofapproximately243unitstobe
builtwithnoplanchangesontrafficdirecting.TrafficaloneonhappyValleyfrommycommunityisagreatchallenge.It
willbeexponentiallyincreasedwiththisapartmentcomplex.OurcommunityiszonedasSͲ1“whichisranchorfarm.
Residentdistrictdesignedtoprovideforverylowdensity,farmorresidentialusestoprotectandpreservelowdensity
areasintheirpresentordesiredcharacter.ItisintendedthattheS1districtwillafireareaswhereisSemiͲrural
residentialandagriculturalusescanbemaintainedwithoutimpairmentfromindustrial,commercial,orhigherdensity
residentialdevelopment”.Redistrictingthis8acreplotwillhaveamassiveaffectonourlowdensityneighborhoodby
grosslyincreasingthedensitygoingagainstwiththeS1districtstandsfor.Beyondinconvenienceoftheseredistrictingis
agreatconcernforsafetyregardingmychildrenandtheincreaseoftrafficwithoutplansonnewsafetyimplementation.
Ihopethatmyconcernscanbevoicedclearlyandunderstood.Changingacommunityinsuchadrasticwaywithouta
planonsafetyandtrafficlogisticsisaskingforsignificantproblemsifnotpossibleinjuries.InadditiontotheseconcernsI
amalsoconcernedaboutthestressofthesenewapartmentswillputonthecurrentschoolsasamountofgrowthinthe
areahasbeenexponentialwithoutredistrictingoftheschoolsorplansfornewschoolsintheverynearfuture.

AllysonandMichaelMcLean
1607wParsonsrd
Phoenix,AZ85085
303Ͳ242Ͳ1871

SentfrommyiPhone





Page 1019
Racelle Escolar

From: Alison McKee
Sent: Tuesday, May 2, 2023 10:43 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission; Racelle Escolar
Subject: GPA-DV-3-22-1 & Z-59-22-1
Attachments: PlanningCommissionLetterHomeatHappyValley 230502.pdf


PlanningCommission,
Iamwritingtodayonbehalfofmyself,myhusbandandtheApostoliccommunitylivinginourrural
neighborhood.PleaseseetheattachedoppositionlettertocasesZͲ59Ͳ22Ͳ1andGPAͲDVͲ3Ͳ22Ͳ1.Inthisletterweare
askingforapostponementofthePlanningCommissionhearingonthiscaseandoutliningthemanyreasonswhy
thezoningadjustmentandgeneralplanamendmentshouldnotbeconsideredorrecommendedtothecitycouncil.I
constructedthisletterafterspeakingwithourmanyneighborswhoaremembersofthenearbyApostolicChurch.These
Apostolicneighborsdonotusecomputersortheinternetoutsideoftheirwork.Theletterreflectstheirconcernsas
wellastheconcernsofmyhusbandandmyselfandwassignedwithallofouraddressesorparcelnumbersandphone
numbers.SincethemeetingisonaThursdaynight,achurchnightfortheApostolicneighbors,theycannot
attend.Whiletheywillnotskipachurchservice,theystillwantavoiceinthisimportantmatter,andhopethatthe
committeewillbeaccommodatingandunderstandthatthisgroupsignedletteristheirbestmeansofcommunicating
theiropposition.Despitetheirlackofuseofmoderntechnology,theiropinionsshouldmatterandbeheardbythe
committeeandCityofPhoenixstaff.Weareallhappytoacceptaphonecalltodiscussthismatter.

Pleaseseetheattachedletter.

KindRegards,
AlisonMcKee





Page 1020
     !"  #" "$%$% !




  1
> 
#== +   5+
 1& ?!==(




    


   


             
    !"##$   %&'(##$  )  
$*&)   +   ,        -
      +.    )   /  
     )  +0 -  ) -)- !  
  1,+0     /   
  + 2    ) 3  )  4 4$  
 +& /        +.      
  !5$ ) )    -    +
6 ,4 4   )            
 +     )  + 2   4 4$ 
   +7-              )
    +6    4  0895'&:    ,
)        +0       ) 
-      )   +&  )
      )- ,  1    )   
+;   )          +

0  14  )- )      
  ,     2    -    +  
    ,     1 +0
      !"##$+0 -      +0
 )      /1 -  +5  -   
 )  ,) +0  !    1    
  -       2    +0
  )     ) )    +5  <=(  
      )     




Page 1021
 - @      )  +AB  
    1)       
   -  +0            
 -  2   1   +0  @ A 
  /     +& ) - )  
$*&)+    ) - 1 )  $* &)+
0C1 $* &))2       +0 
$*&) )  )  -) C  +;
    - -2   ##<  1    
  )         ) +0  1  
 )   - 8 ,+
    $* &)+     +;   -  
  ,  -    1+
          -     ) )  
  !"##$+

;       1% %&'(##$%  
 - +0     )-+B  /    # 
   - -     +D       
! ,-        )    -- -)
 ,     +0   5$ /) 28E(   
    +0         
)   +B    /  
     +4    ,)  )  ,) 
      +&  !    1/     
+0   ))      +;;;; 
>   @9)-     )
) +9 )  )        
 / -  +A,  3 
+   )  )  ,
 +4,   1-   E==F      
          +  ,      
)    +&  1)     )
 @-)   +A        
  %&'(##$   -+
   1          
-  -   1       1
         1% ) + )      !"##$
%&'(##$+      G




Page 1022
Page 1023
Page 1024
Page 1025
Page 1026
HHH




Page 1027
Racelle Escolar

From: tryitonjewels@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 2, 2023 2:46 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission; Racelle Escolar
Cc: laurel@clearskies.com; alisonsmckee@gmail.com
Subject: GPA-DV-3-22-1 & Z-59-22-1


May 2, 2023


To Whom It May Concern;

RE: GPA-DV-3-22-1 & Z-59-22-1

As a community we are requesting to POSTPONE the meeting May 4th. Our community are large horse properties and
the 600 ft outreach requirement did not let our community know about these changes to zoning and another HUGE
apartment development in our landlocked community.
We are asking for more time to allow others in the neighbor to know and properly address these developments.

For the record, we are OPPOSED to yet another HUGE apartment development. First of all, there has been no
consideration for the horse properties owners nor our livestock lifestyle with all the rentals being approved. Short-term
apartment culture is in complete contrast to our livestock culture.
The other MAJOR impact that is not being considered is how all these huge apartment developments are placed at our
community’s entrances and exists. These developments do not show any concessions for our community and it is
landlocking us. We are already feeling the increase of traffic without the completion of the thousands of people you have
already approved that outnumber our small community. It will make it very difficult and dangerous to be pulling horse
trailers in and out of our community.

Unfortunately, this feels like another unheard request for our community but we feel we need to make yet another attempt
to voice our concerns.

In closing,

Alan and Melissa Crawford
Owners of two properties on W Parsons Rd.
623 606 7248





Page 1028
Page 1029
Margaret Langley
1607 W Parsons Road
Phoenix AZ 85085
(970)217-2791
Margaret.a.langley@gmail.com


May 2, 2023


Phoenix Planning Commission


RE: GPA-DV-3-22-1 & Z-59-22-1


Dear Commissioners,


I am writing to request a postponement of this rezoning request and submit
my objections to this zoning change. Please consider postponement due to
the cancellation of the DVVPC meeting as there wasn't a quorum.


I am opposed to this zoning change. Two large apartment complexes are
already on the way that will not only disrupt our way of life and the character of
our neighborhood, but dangerously increase traffic. Please do not add
another. Please do not recommend zoning changes and general plan
amendment to the City of Phoenix council to make way for Home at Happy
Valley.


Home at Happy Valley, a multi-family housing development, is different from
the other developments in that it DOES NOT border a major road. It is on 17th
Avenue which is surrounded by Maricopa County RU-43 properties. This will
make traffic on our rural, PRIVATE, dirt roads a nightmare. The developer
claim residents from these apartments won't use our roads. How are they
going to stop them? There is a median at 17th which means traffic must access
Happy Valley to go east to the 101, by going north on 17th to Parsons and
going west to 19th or east to 15th. Both ways are through our neighborhood
on private roads. Happy Valley and 19th Avenues are already congested
because the city has not adequately improved them for the traffic created by


Page 1030
the neighboring community of Union Park. We already have drivers using our
rural area as a cut through when westbound traffic on single lane Happy Valley
is bumper to bumper. This problem will only be compounded by the building of
the 2 other apartment complexes. We simply cannot handle more traffic that
will be caused by a third.


My family has been in this valley for five generations. When I moved with my
daughter's family back to Arizona, to live self-sufficiently and become
beekeepers, we purchased this land, believing the general plan, which
showed commercial, medical/dental office space as the buffer between our
county island and a growing city. Now we're faced with three large apartment
complexes! Please vote no on the general plan amendment and help us
maintain the certainty that it promises and honor the statement to, "Ensure that
development, redevelopment and infrastructure supports and reinforces the
character and identity of each unique community and neighborhood.

Sincerely,



Margaret Langley




Page 1031
Racelle Escolar

From: Laurel Brodie
Sent: Tuesday, May 2, 2023 1:29 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission; Racelle Escolar
Cc: Alison McKee; Melissa Crawford
Subject: Fw: Urgent - GPA-DV-3-22-1 (Companion Case Z-59-22-1) Request for Postponement
of the Planning Committee meeting scheduled May 4, 6 PM




Subject: Urgent - GPA-DV-3-22-1 (Companion Case Z-59-22-1) Request for Postponement of the Planning Committee
meeting scheduled May 4, 6 PM

I am writing a separate appeal to request that the May 4, 2023 meeting for this case be postponed due to
what we feel are extenuating circumstances. We would appreciate your consideration of this request ASAP, as
if you agree that these items constitute enough of a reason to postpone and you could let us know that, many
of us would not have to make a 50 mile drive (round trip) partly during rush hour, which would also require
some of us to leave our work places early (if we are able to) just to attend a meeting you might decide to
postpone once we are there. Yes I understand we can attend virtually but those types of meetings truly are
not effective if you want to be heard. And if you do not postpone, we want to be heard. Please consider the
following circumstances;


1. Most of us have been talking wondering how we ended up so late to this game. Obviously the majority
of the residents within our small County Island were not notified by the developer (not required, I
understand that) but we try to keep an eye out for indications of things that might be occuring and the
posted sign issue has been gnawing at my brain wondering why none of us picked up on that the
minute it was posted. At 4 am I realized why that was. The posted sign referencing these requested
changes and meetings was posted 270 ' away from the SE corner of the 5 acre parcel ( 210-10-
003) among the piles of dirt that exist on the 3 acre parcel ( 210-10-019D & 210-10-019H) - There is
NO signage of ANY kind on the 5 acre S1 zoned parcel. Most of us when driving that way on
17th Avenue paid that sign no attention as the assumption was it involved the C2 zoned properties
which didn't concern us a whole lot as those fights were long over. When I finally made a point of
stopping and getting out of my vehicle it then became known what we are up against. I will send
pictures in a follow up email which show how easily we could all make this assumption due to the sign
placement. We are talking 2 separate cases and 3 separate parcels owned by 2 separate entities, we
find it extremely unfair if the placement of the one and only sign was placed as far away as possible
from the S-1 5 acre parcel. At a minimum it should have been centered between the 5 acre and 3 acre
parcels. And even though these are companion cases they are currently differently zoned parcels and I
would expect that should require 2 separate signs, or at least multiple signs due to the size and
configuration of the area as your Step 9 states. We feel that the intent of the below requirements was
NOT MET and that alone should get us a postponement.





Page 1032
Step 9: Posting Sign on Property The following shall be submitted as part of the Citizen Participation Report:
The applicant is required to post a double-sided sign (Pages 27-28), 4-foot by 8-foot, at a prominent location
on the site a minimum of 15 calendar days prior to the first Village Planning Committee meeting. Multiple
signs may be required depending on the size of the site and location of street frontages. As in the case of the
written notices, the applicant shall submit a notarized affidavit of posting (Pages 29-30) stating the sign has
been posted and a photograph showing the sign on the site to the assigned staff planner two weeks prior to
the first public meeting/hearing, 2nd Floor, Phoenix City Hall, 200 West Washington Street. Signs shall be
updated as needed. Continued cases shall be posted a minimum of seven calendar days prior to continuance
date or immediately after the request is granted. An additional affidavit of posting (Page 30) is required. Signs
must be removed by the applicant within seven calendar days of City Council action

B) The first meeting (which we admit to be unaware of) with the DVVCP which was to be held virtually
evidently resulted in a No Quorum, so no recommendation resulted. The second meeting, (April 20)
which many of us made a point to attend, which included a peaceful style protest and with local news on site,
also resulted in a No Quorum, so we were denied
our first known opportunity to make our concerns known. Therefore, we will never know whether we
would have had the support of the DVVCP in our endeavors, and if we did, how
that might have affected your outlook.

Step 11: Village Planning Committee Meeting Prior to any public hearing, the application will be reviewed at a
regularly scheduled Village Planning Committee monthly meeting (Pages 53-54). Staff will provide the
committee and the applicant a copy of the staff report prior to this meeting. The Village Planning Committee
will make a recommendation. The recommendation from the Village Planning Committee will be forwarded to
the Planning Commission on a Village Planning Committee recommendation form. A copy of the form will be
provided to the applicant, upon request.

C) Since that Non-meeting on April 20 th the Developers finally reached out directly to residents beyond their
required 600'. That "open house" was held May 1, which many made the point of attending. The results of
that only made us more concerned that serious concerns involving traffic and density are not being properly
addressed.

Step 12: Planning Commission Action – Public Hearing This public hearing occurs approximately three to five
weeks after the Village Planning Committee meeting. During this public hearing, your rezoning application will
be reviewed and either approved, approved with stipulations, denied, denied as filed and approved differently
than requested, or continued. • Public hearing – legally advertised and posted a minimum of 15 calendar days
prior to hearing (by the applicant). Appeals • Action taken by the Planning Commission can be appealed by the
applicant or interested parties within seven calendar days. Appeals will be forwarded to the City Council for a
public hearing. • Written protests to require a 3/4 vote submitted no later than seven calendar days following
the Planning Commission hearing may require 3/4 vote, rather than a majority vote, for the City Council to
approve the application. • If no appeal is received, ratification occurs at the scheduled City Council hearing. •
The City Council may, by a majority vote; 1) request a public hearing on a Planning Commission
recommendation request that has not been appealed or, 2) send the case back to the Planning Commission
for further consideration. If a hearing is requested, it must first be re-advertised and posted.

We are respectfully requesting that you POSTPONE the Planning Committee meeting so that we can, as a
neighborhood, have the time to gather together and fully discuss the concerns that will have extreme impact
on our small, essentially landlocked (due to the CAP) triangular County Island, so that we can present those
concerns to you for your careful consideration.

Page 1033
History has shown us that past cases that make it past your Department are essentially done deals and we
have no chance at a City Council meeting of being heard to the extent that it would make any difference, so
WE IMPLORE YOU TO HEAR OUR VOICES NOW and postpone the May 4th hearing on these cases for at least a
month.

I am also following this email request with pictures of the Installed Notification signage.

Respectfully,
Laurel Brodie (representing many voices from our neighborhood Community)
25657 N. 17th Avenue





Page 1034
Page 1035
Page 1036
Page 1037
Racelle Escolar

From: Laurel Brodie
Sent: Tuesday, May 2, 2023 1:30 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission; Racelle Escolar
Cc: Alison McKee; Melissa Crawford
Subject: Pictures RE: Urgent - GPA-DV-3-22-1 (Companion Case Z-59-22-1) Request for
Postponement of the Planning Committee meeting scheduled May 4, 6 PM
Attachments: IMG_3230.jpg; IMG_3234.jpg; IMG_3231.jpg; IMG_3235.jpg




Subject: Pictures RE: Urgent - GPA-DV-3-22-1 (Companion Case Z-59-22-1) Request for Postponement of the Planning
Committee meeting scheduled May 4, 6 PM

1st picture is of the Completely fenced 5 acre S-1 parcel
2ndpicture show footage from that corner to sign
3rd picture is the view of the sign standing on the SE corner of that parcel looking south




Get Outlook for iOS [aka.ms]





Page 1038
Page 1039
Page 1040
Page 1041
Racelle Escolar

From: Laurel Brodie
Sent: Tuesday, May 2, 2023 1:32 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission; Racelle Escolar
Cc: Alison McKee; Melissa Crawford
Subject: Pictures RE: Urgent - GPA-DV-3-22-1 (Companion Case Z-59-22-1) Request for
Postponement of the Planning Committee meeting scheduled May 4, 6 PM
Attachments: IMG_3239.jpg; IMG_3256.jpg; IMG_3240.jpg; IMG_3259.jpg; IMG_3260.jpg




Subject: Pictures RE: Urgent - GPA-DV-3-22-1 (Companion Case Z-59-22-1) Request for Postponement of the Planning
Committee meeting scheduled May 4, 6 PM

1st picture is at the sign looking North towards the 5 acre fenced S! parcel
2ndpicture looking west on 17th Ave (notice the debris piles)
3rd picture is the view of the sign looking North
4th picture just emphasizing the amount of obstructions
5th picture shows the corner of the 5 acre lot looking south



Get Outlook for iOS [aka.ms]





Page 1042
Page 1043
Page 1044
Page 1045
Page 1046
Page 1047
Racelle Escolar

From: Diane Habener
Sent: Thursday, May 4, 2023 2:55 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Fwd: GPA-DV-3-22-1 & Z-59-22-1




SentfrommyiPhone

Beginforwardedmessage:

From:DianeHabener
Date:May4,2023at2:37:22PMMST
To:pdf.planningcomm@phoenix.gov
Subject:GPAͲDVͲ3Ͳ22Ͳ1&ZͲ59Ͳ22Ͳ1

PleasepostponeanyvoteonthisprojectastheDeerValleyVillagePlanningCommissionwerenotable
tolistentoneighborhoodinputorvoteastherewasnoquorumandweneighborswerenotheard.

Regardingthisproposedhighdensity4and5storyapartmentsnexttominimum1.25+acrerural
homes,whywasthisevenallowedtobeproposed?Highdensitynexttorural?Youdon’thavetobe
RayCharlestoseethatthatispoorplanning!Iliveon2.5acresoneparcelawayfromthisandam
1000%againstit.Pleasekeeptheexistingcommercialonthesouth3acresandLOWdensityresidential
ontheother5acreswithnomorethan2storiesallowed.Thankyou.

Sincerely,
DianeHabener
25312N16thAve
Phoenix85085
(925)209Ͳ6480cell



SentfrommyiPhone





Page 1048



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Public Hearing and Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-59-22-1 (Home
at Happy Valley PUD) - Approximately 320 Feet North of the Northwest Corner of
17th Avenue and Happy Valley Road (Ordinance G-7117)

Request to hold a public hearing and amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section
601, the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix, by adopting Rezoning Application Z-59-22-
1 and rezone the site from S-1 (Ranch or Farm Residence) and C-2 (Intermediate
Commercial) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) to allow multifamily residential. This
is a companion case and must be heard following GPA-DV-3-22-1.

Summary
Current Zoning: S-1 (5.28 acres) and C-2 (2.72 acres)
Proposed Zoning: PUD
Acreage: 8.00 acres
Proposal: Multifamily residential

Owner: Red Hawk Partners, LLC, et.al.
Applicant: Shelter Asset Management
Representative: Benjamin Graff, Quarles & Brady, LLP

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Information Only: The Deer Valley Village Planning Committee was scheduled to
hear this case on Feb. 9, 2023, for information only; however, there was no quorum.
VPC Action: The Deer Valley Village Planning Committee was scheduled to hear this
case on April 20, 2023, for recommendation; however, there was no quorum.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on May 4, 2023, and
recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a vote of 5-3.
The Planning Commission recommendation was appealed and a petition for a three-
quarter vote was submitted on May 11, 2023. A three-quarter vote is required.

Location
Approximately 320 feet north of the northwest corner of 17th Avenue and Happy Valley
Road.
Council District: 1
Parcel Address: 25100, 25150, 25200, 25250 and 25273 N. 17th Ave.


Page 1049


Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.




Page 1050
ATTACHMENT A

THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE




ORDINANCE G-

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED
HEREIN (CASE Z-59-22-1) FROM S-1 (RANCH OR FARM
RESIDENCE) AND C-2 (INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL) TO
PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT).

____________



BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as

follows:

SECTION 1. The zoning of an 8.00 acre property located approximately

320 feet north of the northwest corner of 17th Avenue and Happy Valley Road in a

portion of Section 6, Township 4 North, Range 3 East, as described more specifically in

Exhibit “A,” is hereby changed from 5.28 acres of “S-1” (Ranch or Farm Residence) and

2.72 acres of “C-2” (Intermediate Commercial) to “PUD” (Planned Unit Development).

SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to

modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification

change as shown in Exhibit “B”.

SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use

district applied for by the applicant, this rezoning is subject to the following stipulations,




Page 1051
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of

Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:

1. An updated Development Narrative for the Home at Happy Valley PUD
reflecting the changes approved through this request shall be submitted to the
Planning and Development Department within 30 days of City Council approval
of this request. The updated Development Narrative shall be consistent with
the Development Narrative date stamped April 4, 2023, as modified by the
following stipulations:

a. Front cover: Revise the date information on the cover page to the
following:


2. A minimum of 30 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated for the west side of
17th Avenue, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

3. The applicant shall submit a Traffic Impact Study to the City for this
development. The developer shall be responsible for cost and construction of
all mitigation identified through the analysis. No preliminary approval of plans
shall be granted until the study is reviewed and approved by the Street
Transportation Department.

4. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the
development with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights,
median islands, landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans approved by
the Planning and Development Department. All improvements shall comply
with all ADA accessibility standards.

5. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of Phoenix Deer Valley Airport (DVT) to future
owners or tenants of the property. The form and content of such documents
shall be according to the templates and instructions provided which have been
reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.

6. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.

7. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a
Proposition 207 waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the
Maricopa County Recorder’s Office and delivered to the City to be included in
the rezoning application file for record.




Page 1052
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or

portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the

decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity

of the remaining portions hereof.

PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 31st day of May, 2023.




________________________________
MAYOR


ATTEST:


_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk


APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney


By:
_________________________
_________________________


REVIEWED BY:


_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager



Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (2 Pages)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)




Page 1053
EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION - NCS-1099164
THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF
MARICOPA, STATE OF ARIZONA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
LOT 41, SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST OF THE GILA AND
SALT RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTRY, ARIZONA.
EXCEPT ALL COAL, OIL GAS AND OTHER MINERAL DEPOSITS AS RESERVED IN
THE PATENT.

LEGAL DESCRIPTION - NCS-1108661
THE LAND REFERRED TO HERIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF
MARICOPA, STATE OF ARIZONA AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
PARCEL NO. 1:
A PORTION OF LOT 42, SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, OF
THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN, MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT MARICOPA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
BRASS CAP FLUSH MARKING THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF
SAID SECTION 6 FROM WHICH A CITY OF PHOENIX BRASS CAP IN HANDHOLE
MARKING THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SCTION 6 BEARS
SOUTH 89 DEGREES 17 MINUTES 55 SECONDS WEST 2647.15 FEET, SAID
DESCRIBED LINE BEING THE BASIS OF BEARINGS OF THIS
DESCRIPTION;
THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 17 MINUTES 55 SECONDS WEST 1396.91 FEET
ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID
SECTION 6 TO THE INTERSECTION OF 17TH AVE & HAPPY VALLEY ROAD;
THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 51 MINUTES 55 SECONDS WEST 330.32 FEET
ALONG THE MONUMENT LINE OF SAID 17TH AVENUE TO THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 42;
THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 18 MINUTES 45 SECONDS WEST 27.00 FEET
ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 42 TO THE WETERLY RIGHT
OF WAY AS DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT NO. 2013-0925285, RECORDS OF
MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 89 DEGREES 18 MINUTES 45 SECONDS WEST
184.41 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE;
THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 38 MINUTES 27 SECONDS WEST 330.35 FEET TO
THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 42;
THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 19 MINUTES 29 SECONDS EAST 180.11 FEET
ALONG SAID NORTH LINE TO SAID WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY;
THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 51 MINUTES 55 SECONDS EAST 165.15 FEET TO
THE NORTH LINE OF SAID WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY;
THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 19 MINUTES 07 SECONDS EAST 3.00 FEET
ALONG SAID NORTH LINE TO THE SAID WESTERLY RIGHR OF WAY;
THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 51 MINUTES 55 SECONDS EAST 165.15 FEET
ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
EXCEPT ALL COAL, OIL GAS AND OTHER MINERAL DEPOSITS AS RESERVED IN
THE PATENT FROM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN DOCKET 1624, PAGE 2.


Page 1054
PARCEL NO. 2; ** SURVEYOR'S DESCRIPTION**
A PORTION OF G.L.O. LOT 42 LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF
SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, OF THE GILA AND
SALT RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA BEING MORE
PARTICULARYL DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 42;
THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 18 MINUTES 45 SECONDS WEST 211.41 FEET
ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 42,
THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 38 MINUTES 27 SECONDS WEST 43.21 FEET TO
THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 18 MINUTES 45 SECONDS WEST 181.24 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 24 MINUTES 59 SECONDS WEST 287.18 FEET TO
THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 42;
THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 19 MINUTES 29 SECONDS EAST 180.11 FEET
ALONG SAID NORTH LINE;
THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 36 MINUTES 04 SECONDS EAST 287.13 FEET TO
THE POINT OF BEGINNING.




Page 1055
Page 1056
ATTACHMENT B




Staff Report Z-59-22-1
(Home at Happy Valley PUD)
April 19, 2023

Deer Valley Village Planning April 20, 2023
Committee Meeting Date:
Planning Commission Hearing Date: May 4, 2023

Request From: S-1 (Ranch or Farm Residence) (5.28
acres) and C-2 (Intermediate Commercial)
(2.72 acres)
Request To: PUD (Planned Unit Development) (8.00
acres)
Proposed Use: Multifamily residential
Location: Approximately 320 feet north of the
northwest corner of 17th Avenue and
Happy Valley Road
Owner: Red Hawk Partners, LLC et.al.
Applicant: Shelter Asset Management
Representative: Benjamin Graff, Quarles & Brady, LLP
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations


General Plan Conformity
Current: Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling
units per acre (5.28 acres) and Mixed
Use (Commercial/Commerce/Business
Park) (2.72 acres)
General Plan Land Use Map Designation

Pending (GPA-DV-3-22-1): Residential
15+ dwelling units per acre

Street Map 0 to 30-foot west
17th Avenue Local
Classification half street




Page 1057
Staff Report: Z-59-22-1
April 19, 2023

General Plan Conformity

CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES: OPPORTUNITY SITES; LAND USE
PRINCIPLE: Support reasonable levels of increased intensity, respectful of local
conditions and surrounding neighborhoods.

The proposal would allow development of an underused site into a multifamily
residential community that is compatible with the surrounding area and respectful of
local conditions. The proposed development is located next to a similar development
and as stipulated, incorporates setbacks and enhanced landscaping around the
perimeter to enhance compatibility with the surrounding area.
CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES & NEIGHBORHOODS: CERTAINTY &
CHARACTER; DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Create new development or redevelopment
that is sensitive to the scale and character of the surrounding neighborhoods
and incorporates adequate development standards to prevent negative impact(s)
on the residential properties.

As stipulated, the proposal will be sensitive to the scale and character of the
surrounding area. This area near 19th Avenue and Happy Valley Road contains a mix
of higher-intensity commercial uses and multifamily development. As stipulated, the
development would incorporate standards to avoid negative impacts on the adjacent
single-family residences to the north and east, including a height limit, increased
setbacks, and enhanced landscaping.

BUILD THE SUSTAINABLE DESERT CITY CORE VALUE; TREES AND SHADE;
DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Integrate trees and shade into the design of new
development and redevelopment projects throughout Phoenix.

As stipulated, the proposal will be required to shade the sidewalk on 17th Avenue,
provide enhanced landscaping standards and provide additional shaded open space.
This will help to provide shade for pedestrians in and around the community and to
mitigate the urban heat island effect by covering hard surfaces, thus cooling the micro-
climate around the vicinity.




Page 1058
Staff Report: Z-59-22-1
April 19, 2023



Applicable Plans, Overlays and Initiatives
Housing Phoenix Plan: Background Item No. 6.

Complete Streets Guiding Principles: Background Item No. 7.

Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan: Background Item No. 8.

Tree and Shade Master Plan: Background Item No. 9.

Zero Waste PHX: Background Item No. 10.

Transportation Electrification Action Plan: Background Item No. 11.



Surrounding Land Uses/Zoning
Land Use Zoning
On Site Vacant land S-1 and C-2
North Single-family residence County RU-43
South School, vacant C-2
East (across 17th
Single-family residences County RU-43
Avenue)
West Single-family residences PUD, C-2 SP
(proposed multifamily
residential), self-service
storage

Background/Issues/Analysis
SUBJECT SITE
1. This request is to rezone 8.00 acres located approximately 320 feet north of the
northwest corner of 17th Avenue and Happy Valley Road from 5.28 acres of S-1
(Ranch or Farm Residence) and 2.72 acres of C-2 (Intermediate Commercial) to
PUD (Planned Unit Development) to allow multifamily residential development.
The subject site is currently vacant.




Page 1059
Staff Report: Z-59-22-1
April 19, 2023



SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING
2. To the north is a single-family
residence within Maricopa County
jurisdiction zoned RU-43 (Rural
Zoning District - One Acre Per
Dwelling Unit). To the south is
vacant land and a school zoned C-2
(Intermediate Commercial District).
To the east, across 17th Avenue, are
single-family residences zoned RU-
43. To the west are existing single-
family residences which are
proposed to be demolished as part
of a multifamily project known as the
“Lumara” PUD (Z-48-21) and self- Existing Zoning Aerial Map
Source: Planning and Development Depatment
service storage facility zoned C-2 SP
(Special Permit). Further to the west,
across 19th Avenue, is the “Norterra”
PUD (Z-3-B- 15) this includes
approximately 405.4 acres of mixed-
use development consisting of
employment, commercial, hotel,
multifamily and single-family
residential uses.

GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION
3. The current General Plan Land Use Map designation for the site is 5.28 acres of
Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre and 2.72 acres of Mixed Use
(Commercial/Commerce/Business Park).

To the north of the subject site is designated Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units
per acre. To the east is designated Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre
and Mixed Use (Commercial/Commerce/Business Park). To the south is
designated Mixed Use (Commercial/Commerce/Business Park). To the west is
designated Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre and Mixed Use
(Commercial/Commerce/Business Park).

To ensure consistency with the General Plan, a concurrent General Plan Land
Use Map amendment, GPA-DV-3-22-1, is proposed to change the land use map
designation to Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre.

The requested PUD zoning is consistent with the proposed General Plan Land
Use Map designation.




Page 1060
Staff Report: Z-59-22-1
April 19, 2023




General Plan Land Use Map
Source: City of Phoenix Planning and Development Department


PROPOSAL
4. The proposal was developed utilizing the PUD zoning district. The Planned Unit
Development (PUD) is intended to create a built environment that is superior to
that produced by conventional zoning districts and design guidelines. Using a
collaborative and comprehensive approach, an applicant authors and proposes
standards and guidelines that are tailored to the context of a site on a case-by-
case basis. Where the PUD Development Narrative is silent on a requirement,
the applicable Zoning Ordinance provisions will be applied.

5. Below is a summary of the proposed standards for the subject site as described
in the attached PUD Development Narrative date stamped April 4, 2023.

List of Uses
The Development Narrative lists multiple family dwelling units as the only
permitted use, in addition to temporary and accessory uses.

Development Standards
Below is a summary of the key development standards as set forth in the
Development Narrative.

Page 1061
Staff Report: Z-59-22-1
April 19, 2023


Development Standards
Maximum Density 28.25 du/acre
Maximum Number of dwelling units 226
Minimum Building Setbacks
PUD Site Area Perimeter

North 30-foot, exclusive of carports
East (Along 17th Avenue) 40-foot, exclusive of carports
West (Adjacent to C-2 SP) 10-foot, exclusive of carports
West (Adjacent to PUD) 80-foot, exclusive of carports
South 20-foot, exclusive of carports


Interior Lot Lines 0-foot
Maximum Building Height 5 stories or 65-foot
To further ensure an appropriate
height transition from adjacent
properties the building height shall not
exceed 30 feet within 100 feet of the
northern property line.
Maximum PUD Site Area Lot 50% of total PUD Net Site Area
Coverage

Minimum PUD Site Area Total Open 19%
Space

Minimum Landscape Setbacks

North 30-foot
East (Along 17th Avenue) 20-foot
West (Adjacent to C-2 SP) 10-foot
West (Adjacent to PUD) 10-foot
South 20-foot


Interior Property Line Landscape 0-foot
Setbacks

Minimum Parking Standards Shall comply with Section 702 of the
Zoning Ordinance.

Minimum Bicycle Parking Standards 0.25 per dwelling unit
Minimum 160 secure spaces shall be
Surface Spaces provided. Secure parking includes
Spaces in Basement bicycles locker spaces located in the
basement

Page 1062
Staff Report: Z-59-22-1
April 19, 2023

The PUD proposes five buildings consisting of 226 dwelling units at a density of
28.25 dwelling units per acre. The building heights range between two and five
stories. The proposed townhomes on the north side of the site are two stories
and 30 feet tall. The reduced height and intensity along the northern boundary
allows for a transition to the single-family homes located in the Maricopa County
island.

The applicant proposes 19 percent open space and to retain the natural open
space running through the middle of the site. This will ensure for a more shaded
and comfortable environment and is above the minimum requirements for open
space in the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance.

Landscape Standards
The PUD proposes a 30-foot landscape setback to the north, 20-foot east, 10-
foot west, and 20-foot south which provide a transition and ensure compatibility
with the surrounding uses.

The PUD proposes enhanced landscape setbacks along the perimeter property
lines. The landscape areas will incorporate a minimum of two-inch caliper trees
planted and spaced approximately 25-foot on center.

The streetscape standards propose a minimum 5-foot-wide detached sidewalk
with a minimum 8-foot-wide landscape strip located between the sidewalk and
back of curb along 17th Avenue. This streetscape will be required to provide a
minimum of two-inch caliper trees planted between the back of curb and
sidewalk and spaced approximately 25 feet on center. The landscaping will
provide for a pedestrian-friendly environment with shade on all sidewalks at a
minimum of 75 percent, exceeding the minimum requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance.

Parking Standards
The PUD proposes to comply with the Zoning Ordinance minimum parking
standards per Section 702 and it proposes a minimum bicycle parking which
exceeds the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.

Also, the proposal includes standards for electric vehicle parking and
infrastructure.

Fences/Walls
All fences and walls will adhere to the Zoning Ordinance requirements per
Section 703, except a minimum 7-foot-tall wall is required along the northern
property line to provide additional screening. Also, wall enhancements include
the provision of view fencing where the washes intersect the west property line.
View fencing will also be provided around the centralized open space,
surrounding the main amenity area.

The townhomes on the north of the site will incorporate a wall creating private
yards.
Page 1063
Staff Report: Z-59-22-1
April 19, 2023


Shade
Shading including architectural, vegetative, or a combination is proposed to be
provided at a minimum of 75 percent for all sidewalks. This goes above and
beyond the conventional 50 percent provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.

Lighting
Lighting is proposed to adhere to the Zoning Ordinance standards.

Design Guidelines
The Development Narrative includes design standards that enhance the facades
of the proposed buildings by incorporating a variety of materials. Building
massing is taken into consideration to transition height and bulk of buildings
relative to their surrounding developments and all units will include a patio or
balcony.

The streetscape design promotes an enhanced entry by providing stamped
asphalt, pedestrian pathway connections, and larger trees. Additionally, there will
be a minimum of six residential amenities.

Signs
The PUD Narrative states all signs shall comply with the City of Phoenix sign
codes including Section 705. All signs will require a sign permit from the City of
Phoenix prior to installation.

Sustainability
The Development Narrative proposes several options to incorporate
sustainability principals. These options include standards which encourage
recycling, energy efficiency, minimize waste and waste water and provide
drought tolerant landscaping. Also, the proposal promotes sustainability by
encouraging the use of electric vehicles by providing charging stations for
residents and visitors onsite.

AREA PLANS, OVERLAY DISTRICT, AND INITIATIVES
6. Housing Phoenix Plan
In June 2020, the Phoenix City Council approved the Housing Phoenix Plan.
This Plan contains policy initiatives for the development and preservation of
housing with vision of creating a stronger and more vibrant Phoenix through
increased housing options for residents at all income levels and family sizes.
Phoenix’s rapid population growth and housing underproduction has led to a
need for over 163,000 new housing units. Current shortages of housing supply
relative to demand are a primary reason why housing costs are increasing.

The proposed development supports the Plan’s goal of preserving or creating
50,000 housing units by 2030 by contributing to a variety housing types that will
address the supply shortage at a more rapid pace while using underutilized land
in a more sustainable fashion.


Page 1064
Staff Report: Z-59-22-1
April 19, 2023

7. Complete Streets Guiding Principles
In 2014, the Phoenix City Council adopted the Complete Streets Guiding
Principles. The principles are intended to promote improvements that provide an
accessible, safe, and connected transportation system to include all modes,
such as bicycles, pedestrians, transit, and vehicles. Detached sidewalks will be
provided along street frontages to promote a safe pedestrian atmosphere. The
Development Narrative requires that pedestrian pathways will visually contrast
the drive aisles.

8. Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan
The City of Phoenix adopted the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan in 2014 to
guide the development of its bikeway system and supportive infrastructure. The
Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan supports options for both short- and long-
term bicycle parking as a means of promoting bicyclist traffic to a variety of
Destinations. Provisions for bicycle parking are addressed in the PUD Narrative.

9. Tree and Shade Master Plan
The Tree and Shade Master Plan has a goal of treating the urban forest as
infrastructure to ensure that trees are an integral part of the city’s planning and
development process. By investing in trees and the urban forest, the city can
reduce its carbon footprint, decrease energy costs, reduce storm water runoff,
increase biodiversity, address the urban heat island effect, clean the air, and
increase property values. In addition, trees can help to create walkable streets
and vibrant pedestrian places. The PUD includes enhanced shading and
landscaping standards to reduce the urban heat island effect.

10. Zero Waste PHX
The City of Phoenix is committed to its waste diversion efforts and has set a goal
to become a zero-waste city, as part of the City’s overall 2050 Environmental
Sustainability Goals. One of the ways Phoenix can achieve this is to improve and
expand its recycling and other waste diversion programs. Section 716 of the
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance establishes standards to encourage the provision of
recycling containers for multifamily developments meeting certain criteria. The
PUD narrative states that recycling receptacles will be provided on site.

11. Transportation Electrification Action Plan
In June 2022, the Phoenix City Council approved the Transportation
Electrification Action Plan. The current market desire for the electrification of
transportation is both a national and global phenomenon, fueled by a desire for
better air quality, a reduction in carbon emissions, and a reduction in vehicle
operating and maintenance costs. Businesses, governments and the public are
signaling strong future demand for electric vehicles (EVs), and many automobile
manufacturers have declared plans for a transition to fully electric offerings within
the coming decade. This Plan contains policy initiatives to prepare the City for a
future filled with more EVs, charging infrastructure and e-mobility equity, and
outlines a roadmap for a five-step plan to prepare for the EV infrastructure needs
of 280,000 EVs in Phoenix by 2030. One goal of the Plan to accelerate public
adoption of electric vehicles through workplace, business, and multifamily
Page 1065
Staff Report: Z-59-22-1
April 19, 2023

charging infrastructure recommends a standard stipulation for rezoning cases to
provide EV charging infrastructure. This PUD provides requirements for electric
vehicle parking, charging and infrastructure.

COMMUNITY INPUT SUMMARY
12. As of the writing of this report, staff has received three letters of opposition, 42
signed statements of support, and one email of support.

The letters of opposition express concerns that the proposed development is not
compatible with the rural atmosphere of the surrounding properties, and it will not
provide the buffer as promised in the existing general plan land use map. Also,
there are concerns with this proposal being more than a minor change to the
area which will increase traffic, noise, and destroy the character of the
unincorporated rural community.

INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
13. The Street Transportation Department has proposed stipulations requiring the
developer to dedicate right-of-way and make street improvements to City and
ADA standards. Additionally, a Traffic Impact Study is required where the
developer is responsible for any mitigation identified through the study. This is
addressed in Stipulation Nos. 2 through 4.
14. The Water Services Department commented that a water and sewer main
extension is required within 17th Avenue.

15. The Aviation Department has indicated that due to the proximity of the Deer
Valley Airport and potential for noise from airport related activity, a stipulation is
recommended to require documents to disclose the existence and operational
characteristics of the airport to future owners or tenants of the property. This is
addressed in Stipulation No. 5.

OTHER
16. The site has not been identified as being archeologically sensitive. However, in
the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, all
ground disturbing activities must cease within a 33-foot radius of the discovery
and the City of Phoenix Archaeology Office must be notified immediately and
allowed time to properly assess the materials. This is addressed in Stipulation
No. 6.

17. Staff has not received a completed form for the Waiver of Claims for Diminution
in Value of Property under Proposition 207 (A.R.S. 12-1131 et seq.), as required
by the rezoning application process. Therefore, a stipulation has been added to
require the form be completed and submitted prior to preliminary site plan
approval. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 7.

Findings

1. The proposal would allow multifamily residential, which is compatible with

Page 1066
Staff Report: Z-59-22-1
April 19, 2023

proposed land uses to the west and is consistent with the proposed General
Plan Land Use Map designation of Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre.

2. The proposal, as stipulated, protects the character of the surrounding area by
providing additional landscape setbacks, open space, and limiting height
adjacent to single-family residential properties to the north.

3. The subject site is appropriate for residential uses at the proposed densities and
provides new housing opportunities in the Deer Valley Village and in close
proximity to employment uses.

Stipulations

1. An updated Development Narrative for the Home at Happy Valley PUD reflecting
the changes approved through this request shall be submitted to the Planning
and Development Department within 30 days of City Council approval of this
request. The updated Development Narrative shall be consistent with the
Development Narrative date stamped April 4, 2023, as modified by the following
stipulations:

a. Front cover: Revise the date information on the cover page to the
following:


2. A minimum of 30 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated for the west side of 17th
Avenue, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

3. The applicant shall submit a Traffic Impact Study to the City for this development.
The developer shall be responsible for cost and construction of all mitigation
identified through the analysis. No preliminary approval of plans shall be granted
until the study is reviewed and approved by the Street Transportation
Department.

4. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development
with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands,
landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and
Development Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA
accessibility standards.

5. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of Phoenix Deer Valley Airport (DVT) to future owners
or tenants of the property. The form and content of such documents shall be
according to the templates and instructions provided which have been reviewed
and approved by the City Attorney.

6. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33- foot
Page 1067
Staff Report: Z-59-22-1
April 19, 2023

radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.

7. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition
207 waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa
County Recorder’s Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning
application file for record.

Writer
Matteo Moric
April 19, 2023

Team Leader
Racelle Escolar

Exhibits
Sketch Map
Aerial Map
Site Plan date stamped April 4, 2023
Elevations date stamped April 4 (4 pages)
Conceptual Landscape Plan date stamped April 4, 2023
Correspondence (53 pages)
Home at Happy Valley PUD Narrative date stamped April 4, 2023




Page 1068
MARICOPA
S-1 COUNTY
19TH DR
Z-83-06



S-1
ANX 499



PUD *
19TH AVE Z-48-21 MARICOPA
COUNTY
C-2 SP *
PUD * Z-SP-7-16

Z-3-15
Z-3-A-15

17TH AVE
C-2 * C-2 *
Z-140-01 S-1
Z-17-09 ANX 301
ANX 246
Z-40-01 C-2
Z-25-11 Z-167-04
Z-140-01 HAPPY VALLEY RD
C-2 and/or CP/GCP
C-2 * C-2 * CP/GCP C-2 *

16TH AVE
Deer Valley
Z-122-00 ANX 301 ANX 193



CP/GCP *
C-2 * ANX 193 ANX 301
Airport Overlay
Z-23-00 ANX 220
Z-122-00
ANX 217 CP/GCP *
Z-95-98
Z-75-06
District (DVAO) Z-28-00 ANX 222
ANX 217 Z-95-98 Z-11-00 Z-91-00 ANX 235 Z-91-06
ANX 246 Z-122-00 Z-122-00 Z-122-00 *
ANX 37

JOMAX RD
Z-59-22
Miles HAPPY VALLEY RD

PINNACLE PEAK RD
0.065 0.0325 0 0.065
DEER VALLEY VILLAGE
DEER VALLEY DR

SR 101
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 1 UNION HILLS DR

BELL RD

7TH ST
16TH ST
7TH AVE
GREENWAY RD


35TH AVE 19TH AVE
I - 17

51ST AVE 43RD AVE



APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
Shelter Asset Management
S-1 ( 5.28 a.c.)
FROM:


APPLICATION NO. 8/11/2022
C-2 ( 2.72 a.c.)
DATE:

Z-59-22 RE VISION DATES:



GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
QUARTER SEC. NO.
8.00 Acres QS 47-25 O-7 TO: PUD ( 8.00 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
S-1, C-2 5, 39 N/A, 47
PUD 226 N/A

* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL G IS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2022\Z-59-22.mxd
Page 1069
MARICOPA
S-1 COUNTY
19TH DR
Z-83-06



S-1
ANX 499



PUD *
19TH AVE Z-48-21 MARICOPA
COUNTY
C-2 SP *
PUD * Z-SP-7-16

Z-3-15
Z-3-A-15

17TH AVE
C-2 * C-2 *
Z-140-01 S-1
Z-17-09 ANX 301
ANX 246
Z-40-01 C-2
Z-25-11 Z-167-04
Z-140-01 HAPPY VALLEY RD
C-2 and/or CP/GCP
C-2 * C-2 * CP/GCP C-2 *

16TH AVE
Deer Valley
Z-122-00 ANX 301 ANX 193



CP/GCP *
C-2 * ANX 193 ANX 301
Airport Overlay
Z-23-00 ANX 220
Z-122-00
ANX 217 CP/GCP *
Z-95-98
Z-75-06
District (DVAO) Z-28-00 ANX 222
ANX 217 Z-95-98 Z-11-00 Z-91-00 ANX 235 Z-91-06
ANX 246 Z-122-00 Z-122-00 Z-122-00 *
ANX 37

JOMAX RD
Z-59-22
Miles HAPPY VALLEY RD

PINNACLE PEAK RD
0.065 0.0325 0 0.065
DEER VALLEY VILLAGE
DEER VALLEY DR

SR 101
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 1 UNION HILLS DR

BELL RD

7TH ST
16TH ST
7TH AVE
GREENWAY RD


35TH AVE 19TH AVE
I - 17

51ST AVE 43RD AVE



APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
Shelter Asset Management
S-1 ( 5.28 a.c.)
FROM:


APPLICATION NO. 8/11/2022
C-2 ( 2.72 a.c.)
DATE:

Z-59-22 RE VISION DATES:



GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
QUARTER SEC. NO.
8.00 Acres QS 47-25 O-7 TO: PUD ( 8.00 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
S-1, C-2 5, 39 N/A, 47
PUD 226 N/A

* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL G IS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2022\Z-59-22.mxd
Page 1070
Page 1071
Page 1072
Page 1073
Page 1074
Page 1075
Page 1076
^ddDEdK&^hWWKZd

LJ ƐŝŐŶŝŶŐ ďĞůŽǁ͕ d ϭϵƚŚ ,ĂƉƉLJ sĂůůĞLJ >> ĂĐŬŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞƐ ƚŚĂƚ ŽƵƌ ĐŽŵƉĂŶLJ ŚĂƐ ĐŽŵŵƵŶŝĐĂƚĞĚ ǁŝƚŚ
ƌĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĂƚŝǀĞƐŽĨƚŚĞ^DĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ'ƌŽƵƉ>>;Η^DΗͿƚĞĂŵ͖ƚŚĂƚdϭϵƚŚ,ĂƉƉLJsĂůůĞLJ>>ŝƐƚŚĞ
ŽǁŶĞƌŽĨWĂƌĐĞůEŽƐ͘ϮϭϬͲϭϬͲϬϮϯ͕ϮϭϬͲϭϬͲϬϯϬ͕ϮϭϬͲϭϬͲϬϬϴ͕ϮϭϬͲϭϬͲϬϬϴ͕ϮϭϬͲϭϬͲϬϬϴ'͕ĂŶĚϮϭϬͲϭϬͲ
ϬϬϴ& ŝŶ DĂƌŝĐŽƉĂ ŽƵŶƚLJ ůŽĐĂƚĞĚ ĚŝƌĞĐƚůLJ ǁĞƐƚ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͖ ĂŶĚ ƚŚĂƚ d ϭϵƚŚ ,ĂƉƉLJ
sĂůůĞLJ>>ƐƵƉƉŽƌƚƐ^DΖƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚWůĂŶŶĞĚhŶŝƚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ;ĐĂƐĞŶƵŵďĞƌƐͲϱϵͲϮϮͲϭΘ'WͲsͲϯͲ
ϮϮͲϭͿĨŽƌĂŵƵůƚŝĨĂŵŝůLJĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚůŽĐĂƚĞĚŽŶĂŶĂƉƉƌŽdžŝŵĂƚĞůLJϳ͘ϴͲĂĐƌĞƐŝƚĞůŽĐĂƚĞĚĂƚƚŚĞEŽƌƚŚǁĞƐƚ
ŽƌŶĞƌŽĨϭϳƚŚǀĞŶƵĞĂŶĚ,ĂƉƉLJsĂůůĞLJZŽĂĚ͘

dŚĞ ƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ƉƌŽũĞĐƚ ǁŝůů ŝŶĐůƵĚĞ͗ ;ĂͿ ƌĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ ŽĨ ǀĂĐĂŶƚ ĂŶĚ ƵŶĚĞƌƵƚŝůŝnjĞĚ ƉĂƌĐĞůƐ ǁŝƚŚ ƋƵĂůŝƚLJ
ĂƚƚĂŝŶĂďůĞ ĂƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚƐ ǁŝƚŚ ƌĞƐŽƌƚ ƐƚLJůĞ ĂŵĞŶŝƚŝĞƐ ĂŶĚ ůƵƐŚ ůĂŶĚƐĐĂƉŝŶŐ͖ ;ďͿ ϮϮϲ ƵŶŝƚƐ ĂĐƌŽƐƐ ĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶƚ
ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƚLJƉĞƐĂŶĚƚŽǁŶŚŽŵĞƐ͖;ĐͿϯϱϭƚŽƚĂůƉĂƌŬŝŶŐƐƉĂĐĞƐƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚǁŝƚŚϮϮϮƌĞƐĞƌǀĞĚĐĂƌƉŽƌƚƐƉĂĐĞƐ
ĂŶĚϴƌĞƐĞƌǀĞĚŐĂƌĂŐĞƐƉĂĐĞƐ͖;ĚͿĂŶĞŶŚĂŶĐĞĚůĂŶĚƐĐĂƉĞĂŶĚƉĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶĞdžƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞĂůŽŶŐϭϳƚŚǀĞŶƵĞ͖
ĂŶĚ;ĞͿĞŶŚĂŶĐĞĚůĂŶĚƐĐĂƉĞĂŶĚŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞĂƌŽƵŶĚƚŚĞƐŝƚĞ͘



LJƐŝŐŶŝŶŐďĞůŽǁ͕dϭϵƚŚ,ĂƉƉLJsĂůůĞLJ>>ƐƵƉƉŽƌƚƐ^DΖƐWůĂŶŶĞĚhŶŝƚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚnjŽŶŝŶŐĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ͘



^ŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞ
Digitally signed by Joshua M. Rubinich
Joshua M. Rubinich DN: cn=Joshua M. Rubinich,
email=jrubinich@tollbrothers.com, c=US
 Date: 2022.08.25 10:20:34 -04'00'


WƌŝŶƚĞĚEĂŵĞŽĨ/ŶĚŝǀŝĚƵĂů͕ƵƚŚŽƌŝnjĞĚZĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĂƚŝǀĞŽƌƵƐŝŶĞƐƐKǁŶĞƌ
:ŽƐŚƵĂD͘ZƵďŝŶŝĐŚ͕^ĞŶŝŽƌsŝĐĞWƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚͮDĂŶĂŐŝŶŐŝƌĞĐƚŽƌ
^ƚƌĞĞƚĚĚƌĞƐƐ 
ϭϭϰϬsŝƌŐŝŶŝĂƌŝǀĞ
ŝƚLJ͕^ƚĂƚĞ ŝƉŽĚĞ
&ŽƌƚtĂƐŚŝŶŐƚŽŶ͕W ϭϵϬϯϰ
WŚŽŶĞEƵŵďĞƌ
ϮϭϱͲϵϯϴͲϴϭϵϭͮϰϴϰͲϴϲϴͲϭϴϱϮ
ŵĂŝů
ũƌƵďŝŶŝĐŚΛƚŽůůďƌŽƚŚĞƌƐ͘ĐŽŵ
  




Page 1077
Page 1078
Page 1079
Page 1080
Page 1081
Page 1082
Page 1083
Page 1084
Page 1085
Page 1086
Page 1087
Page 1088
Page 1089
Page 1090
Page 1091
Page 1092
Page 1093
Page 1094
Page 1095
Page 1096
Page 1097
Page 1098
Page 1099
Page 1100
Page 1101
Page 1102
Page 1103
Page 1104
Page 1105
Page 1106
Page 1107
Page 1108
Page 1109
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3FB1500A-DF3C-406F-94AC-262D474845DA




STATEMENT OF SUPPORT FOR THE HOME AT HAPPY VALLEY DEVELOPMENT

By signing below, I acknowledge that either I or my ownership company has communicated with
representatives of Shelter Asset Management Development ("SAM") and that I support Shelter Asset
Management’s Planned Unit Development (Case Numbers Z-59-22-1 & GPA-DV-3-22-1) for a multifamily
development located on an approximately 8-acre site located at the Northwest Corner of 17th Avenue
and Happy Valley Road.

The proposed development will include: (1) redevelopment of vacant and underutilized parcels with
quality attainable apartments with resort style amenities and lush landscaping; (2) 226 units across
different building types and townhomes; (3) 351 total parking spaces provided with 222 reserved
carport spaces and 8 reserved garage spaces; (4) an enhanced landscape and pedestrian experience,
inclusive of a detached sidewalk for public use, along 17th Avenue; and (5) gated entry points with
enhanced landscape and open space around the site.



By signing below, I am expressing my support for SAM's ’s Planned Unit Development zoning and General
Plan Amendment application.



Signature
4/1/2023

Printed Name of Individual or Ownership Entity
Florin Popescu
Street Address
20601 N 4th Ave
City Zip Code
Phoenix 85027
Phone Number
(808) 773-2878
Email




Page 1110
DocuSign Envelope ID: 997D41EA-395E-4E50-A8ED-894E8C5B2222




STATEMENT OF SUPPORT FOR THE HOME AT HAPPY VALLEY DEVELOPMENT

By signing below, I acknowledge that either I or my ownership company has communicated with
representatives of Shelter Asset Management Development ("SAM") and that I support Shelter Asset
Management’s Planned Unit Development (Case Numbers Z-59-22-1 & GPA-DV-3-22-1) for a multifamily
development located on an approximately 8-acre site located at the Northwest Corner of 17th Avenue
and Happy Valley Road.

The proposed development will include: (1) redevelopment of vacant and underutilized parcels with
quality attainable apartments with resort style amenities and lush landscaping; (2) 226 units across
different building types and townhomes; (3) 351 total parking spaces provided with 222 reserved
carport spaces and 8 reserved garage spaces; (4) an enhanced landscape and pedestrian experience,
inclusive of a detached sidewalk for public use, along 17th Avenue; and (5) gated entry points with
enhanced landscape and open space around the site.



By signing below, I am expressing my support for SAM's ’s Planned Unit Development zoning and General
Plan Amendment application.



Signature
4/3/2023

Printed Name of Individual or Ownership Entity
Mario Diaz

Street Address
7144 W Monte Lindo
City Glendale
Zip Code

Phone Number
‭(602) 571-6530‬
Email




Page 1111
STATEMENT OF SUPPORT FOR THE HOME AT HAPPY VALLEY DEVELOPMENT

By signing below, I acknowledge that either I or my ownership company has communicated with
representatives of Shelter Asset Management Development ("SAM") and that I support Shelter Asset
Management’s Planned Unit Development (Case Numbers Z-59-22-1 & GPA-DV-3-22-1) for a multifamily
development located on an approximately 8-acre site located at the Northwest Corner of 17th Avenue
and Happy Valley Road.

The proposed development will include: (1) redevelopment of vacant and underutilized parcels with
quality attainable apartments with resort style amenities and lush landscaping; (2) 226 units across
different building types and townhomes; (3) 351 total parking spaces provided with 222 reserved
carport spaces and 8 reserved garage spaces; (4) an enhanced landscape and pedestrian experience,
inclusive of a detached sidewalk for public use, along 17th Avenue; and (5) gated entry points with
enhanced landscape and open space around the site.



By signing below, I am expressing my support for SAM's ’s Planned Unit Development zoning and General
Plan Amendment application.



Signature

Printed Name of Individual or Ownership Entity
Marius Groza
Street Address
25822 N 20th Ave
City Zip Code
PHOENIX 85085
Phone Number
602 - 459 - 6740
Email




Page 1112
DocuSign Envelope ID: D464A784-048F-4874-A3EC-B087CCC16C36




STATEMENT OF SUPPORT FOR THE HOME AT HAPPY VALLEY DEVELOPMENT

By signing below, I acknowledge that either I or my ownership company has communicated with
representatives of Shelter Asset Management Development ("SAM") and that I support Shelter Asset
Management’s Planned Unit Development (Case Numbers Z-59-22-1 & GPA-DV-3-22-1) for a multifamily
development located on an approximately 8-acre site located at the Northwest Corner of 17th Avenue
and Happy Valley Road.

The proposed development will include: (1) redevelopment of vacant and underutilized parcels with
quality attainable apartments with resort style amenities and lush landscaping; (2) 226 units across
different building types and townhomes; (3) 351 total parking spaces provided with 222 reserved
carport spaces and 8 reserved garage spaces; (4) an enhanced landscape and pedestrian experience,
inclusive of a detached sidewalk for public use, along 17th Avenue; and (5) gated entry points with
enhanced landscape and open space around the site.



By signing below, I am expressing my support for SAM's ’s Planned Unit Development zoning and General
Plan Amendment application.



Signature
4/3/2023

Printed Name of Individual or Ownership Entity
Mihai Costea

Street Address
1923 W Hide Trl
City Zip Code
Phoenix 85085
Phone Number
‭(480) 406-8713‬
Email




Page 1113
DocuSign Envelope ID: B36FA05A-D0C3-4856-AAF0-B5C1CE076319




STATEMENT OF SUPPORT FOR THE HOME AT HAPPY VALLEY DEVELOPMENT

By signing below, I acknowledge that either I or my ownership company has communicated with
representatives of Shelter Asset Management Development ("SAM") and that I support Shelter Asset
Management’s Planned Unit Development (Case Numbers Z-59-22-1 & GPA-DV-3-22-1) for a multifamily
development located on an approximately 8-acre site located at the Northwest Corner of 17th Avenue
and Happy Valley Road.

The proposed development will include: (1) redevelopment of vacant and underutilized parcels with
quality attainable apartments with resort style amenities and lush landscaping; (2) 226 units across
different building types and townhomes; (3) 351 total parking spaces provided with 222 reserved
carport spaces and 8 reserved garage spaces; (4) an enhanced landscape and pedestrian experience,
inclusive of a detached sidewalk for public use, along 17th Avenue; and (5) gated entry points with
enhanced landscape and open space around the site.



By signing below, I am expressing my support for SAM's ’s Planned Unit Development zoning and General
Plan Amendment application.



Signature
4/1/2023

Printed Name of Individual or Ownership Entity
Narcis Dihel Corinne Belbe

Street Address
3422 W Galvin St
City Zip Code
Phoenix 85086
Phone Number
602-503-6620
Email




Page 1114
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7042AD0D-E3E4-4B30-81F3-A97C749D8535




STATEMENT OF SUPPORT FOR THE HOME AT HAPPY VALLEY DEVELOPMENT

By signing below, I acknowledge that either I or my ownership company has communicated with
representatives of Shelter Asset Management Development ("SAM") and that I support Shelter Asset
Management’s Planned Unit Development (Case Numbers Z-59-22-1 & GPA-DV-3-22-1) for a multifamily
development located on an approximately 8-acre site located at the Northwest Corner of 17th Avenue
and Happy Valley Road.

The proposed development will include: (1) redevelopment of vacant and underutilized parcels with
quality attainable apartments with resort style amenities and lush landscaping; (2) 226 units across
different building types and townhomes; (3) 351 total parking spaces provided with 222 reserved
carport spaces and 8 reserved garage spaces; (4) an enhanced landscape and pedestrian experience,
inclusive of a detached sidewalk for public use, along 17th Avenue; and (5) gated entry points with
enhanced landscape and open space around the site.



By signing below, I am expressing my support for SAM's ’s Planned Unit Development zoning and General
Plan Amendment application.



Signature
4/3/2023

Printed Name of Individual or Ownership Entity
RADU TOMUTA

Street Address
6523 W Gold Mountain Pass
City Zip Code
Phoenix 85083

Phone Number
‭(623) 703-1092‬
Email




Page 1115
Page 1116
STATEMENT OF SUPPORT

By signing my name below, I acknowledge that I am familiar with and support the proposed multifamily
Shelter Asset Management Planned Unit Development for the approximately 7.8-acre site located north
of the northwest corner of 17th Avenue and Happy Valley Road.

I understand the proposed project will include (1) developing vacant/underutilized land parcels with
quality attainable apartments with resort style amenities and lush landscaping; (2) 226 units across
different building types and townhomes as a buffer to the north; (3) 351 total parking spaces provided
with 222 carport spaces and 8 reserved garage spaces; (4) enhanced landscape and pedestrian
experience along 17th Avenue; and (5) enhanced landscape and open space around the site.

I am a business-owner in the area, and hereby give my support to the project and to Shelter Asset’s
zoning application.



Signature
Type text here
Printed Name
Kurt Homan
Street Address
1540 W. HAPPY VALLEY RD.
City Zip Code
PHOENIX
Phone Number
623-869-6757
Email
kurt@nativeresources.com




Page 1117
STATEMENT OF SUPPORT

By signing my name below, I acknowledge that I am familiar with and support the proposed multifamily
Shelter Asset Management Planned Unit Development for the approximately 7.8-acre site located north
of the northwest corner of 17th Avenue and Happy Valley Road.

I understand the proposed project will include (1) developing vacant/underutilized land parcels with
quality attainable apartments with resort style amenities and lush landscaping; (2) 226 units across
different building types and townhomes as a buffer to the north; (3) 351 total parking spaces provided
with 222 carport spaces and 8 reserved garage spaces; (4) enhanced landscape and pedestrian
experience along 17th Avenue; and (5) enhanced landscape and open space around the site.

I am a business-owner in the area, and hereby give my support to the project and to Shelter Asset’s
zoning application.



Signature

Printed Name

Street Address

City Zip Code

Phone Number

Email




Page 1118
From: Alison McKee
To: Matteo Moric
Subject: Village Planning committee guidelines
Date: Wednesday, April 12, 2023 8:39:13 AM


Matteo,
It was a pleasure speaking to you today. Can you please forward on the
guidelines/rules/handbook that the village planning committee receives? Certainly the city of
Phoenix has some sort of rules for this volunteer committee to abide by. It seems, in the past,
that they completely disregard all community input and already have their mind up made up
when we show up to the meetings. While our community is not in the City of Phoenix, we
should be afforded the same consideration as if our properties were annexed.

Thank you,
Alison McKee
602-702-3676.




Page 1119
From: Barbara
To: PDD Deer Valley VPC
Subject: Case #Z-67-22-3
Date: Wednesday, April 12, 2023 8:39:12 AM




I am responding to rezoning request,
Case #Z-67-22-3 rezones the C2 portion of the parcels from intermediate commercial to multi family. Case #GPA-
DV-3-22-1 amments the general plan from residential, 3.5 - 5 units per acreto multi-family 15+ units per acre.

I am a resident located in the area of Happy Valley and 15th Ave.

I built my home in this area for the rural atmosphere in the 1980s decades ago and spent a short time serving on the
Deer Valley Village Planning Committee many years ago.

The general plan for Deer Valley Village promised a buffer of light commercial, medical/dental/office space
transitioning into our rural community. This type of zoning would contain businesses that are generally open 5 days
a week, regular business hours, closed holidays. An apartment complex of 226 units will generate increased traffic
& noise 24-7, 365 days a year and IS NOT an appropriate transition into our community.

Please comply with the original general plan of the committee and deny this request.

Sincerely,

Barbara Yednak

Sent from my iPhone




Page 1120
From: Alison McKee
To: Matteo Moric; PDD Deer Valley VPC; Council District 1 PCC; Mayor Gallego
Subject: #Z-67-22-3 #GPA-DV-3-22-1
Date: Wednesday, April 12, 2023 11:51:08 AM
Attachments: GPA-DV-3-22-1.pdf


Matteo,
The document I was referencing in my phone conversation with you today about the upcoming
meeting regarding case #z-67-22-3 and #gpa-dv-3-22-1, is attached to this email. There is
misinformation in this document being shared with the village planning committee that
completely white washes the drastic zoning and general plan changes that are being proposed.
It states that one of the parcels in the proposed multi-family housing project is zoned S-1, but
in other parts of the document it refers to the same parcel allowing 3.5-5 units per acre. Per
the city's own zoning ordinance, there is only 1 dwelling per acre allowed on S-1 zoned
parcels. Please reference the City of Phoenix zoning ordinance with the link I have provided.
https://phoenix.municipal.codes/ZO/603 [phoenix.municipal.codes] Also, the attached
document says these are "minor" changes to the general plan. How is a small office complex
and 5 homes (per the current zoning) being changed to a 226 unit apartment complex a
minor change? It is a HUGE change, which destroys the present and desired character of
our unincorporated rural community. How can staff recommend approval of this project
when they don't even know their own city ordinances?

Also, the aforementioned zoning ordinance clearly states that S-1 properties "can be
maintained without impairment from industrial, commercial or
higher density residential development." Since the S-1 zoned property in question
borders, the Toll Brothers project, staff, the Village Planning committee, the city council
and mayor blatantly disregarded their own zoning ordinance and passed through The
Toll Brothers project, adjacent to a City of Phoenix S-1 parcel. The character of that
parcel, whether developed or not, should have never been compromised with the
enormous Toll Brothers complex.


I personally have been told by several City of Phoenix staff members, in conversations
regarding the aggressive rezoning of our area, that the county equivalent to the city's S-1
zoning is, RU-43. Since the new proposed project, Home at Happy Valley, borders RU-43
zoned properties, we are going to insist that we are given the same consideration as
should have no bearing on how we are treated as a community. We expect our rural
community to be maintained without the impairment of this high density, multi -family,



Page 1121
"more attainable" (aka cheap), apartment complex. We have been bowled over in the
past because we are unincorporated, and we refuse to be bowled over again. Home at
Happy Valley can find a home elsewhere!


In conclusion, follow your own city ordinances and your own mission
statement.  Mission: Planning, Development and Preservation for a Better Phoenix.
Preserve rural communities in the greater Phoenix area!

Regards,
Alison McKee
602-702-3676

On Wed, Apr 12, 2023, 8:50 AM Matteo Moric wrote:

Hello Alison,



It was a pleasure talking with you, as well. Here is a link to the Village Planning Handbook
online: TABLE OF CONTENTS (phoenix.gov)

If the link does not work for some reason, please let me know and I can save the pdf version
and forward it onto you.




I hope you feel better soon.



Thank you,




Matteo Moric
Planner II* Village




Page 1122

Planning and Development Department

Long Range Planning Division

200 West Washington Street

Phoenix, Arizona 85003

matteo.moric@phoenix.gov

(602) 261-8235




Mission: Planning, Development and Preservation for a Better Phoenix




From: Alison McKee
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2023 8:39 AM
To: Matteo Moric
Subject: Village Planning committee guidelines



Matteo,

It was a pleasure speaking to you today. Can you please forward on the
guidelines/rules/handbook that the village planning committee receives? Certainly the city
of Phoenix has some sort of rules for this volunteer committee to abide by. It seems, in the
past, that they completely disregard all community input and already have their mind up
made up when we show up to the meetings. While our community is not in the City of
Phoenix, we should be afforded the same consideration as if our properties were annexed.



Thank you,

Alison McKee

602-702-3676.




Page 1123
From: Michael Mosharrafa
To: Graff, Benjamin W.
Subject: Rezoning Case Happy Valley / 17th Ave
Date: Thursday, April 13, 2023 12:27:06 PM
Attachments: image001.png


Hi Ben,

Received your rezoning notice for the above referenced site today. Reaching out to tell you that
Cobblestone is in support of your proposed development. Good luck!

Best,
Michael

Michael Mosharrafa
Project Manager – Architecture & Development
Cobblestone Auto Spa Corporate


8900 E. Bahia Dr. Suite 200
Scottsdale, AZ 85260
t. (602) 919-1218 f. (602) 787-0400
w. cobblestone.com
e. m.mosharrafa@cobblestone.com
[cobblestone.com]




Page 1124
From: Alison McKee
To: Matteo Moric; PDD Deer Valley VPC; Council District 1 PCC; Mayor Gallego
Subject: case #Z-67-22-3 #GPA-DV-3-22-1
Date: Tuesday, April 18, 2023 10:04:56 AM


Deer Valley Village Planning Committee,
I am writing to plead with you to finally do the right thing for our rural community. Two large
apartment complexes are already on the way that will disrupt our way of life and the character
of our neighborhood. We cannot have another. The proposed zoning changes and general
plan amendment to make way for Home at Happy Valley, must not be recommended to the
makes it clear that the approval by your committee and recommendation to the council of case
#Z-67-22-3 and GPA-DV-3-22-1 would be against city zoning ordinances and the City of
Phoenix General Plan goals. I have also attached a video that represents just a fraction of what
my husband and I do on our rural property. You and the city council have already damaged,
irreparably, our lifestyle and neighborhood by approving other zoning changes and general
plan amendments. Do not do this again to us, our animals and our neighbors.

Home at Happy Valley, a multi-family housing development, is different from the other
developments in that it DOES NOT border a major road. It is on 17th Avenue which is
surrounded by Maricopa County RU-43 properties. This will make traffic on our rural dirt
roads a nightmare. Please don't believe developers when they claim residents from these
apartments won't use our roads. Happy Valley and 19th Avenues are already congested
because the city has not adequately improved them for the traffic created by the neighboring
community of Union Park. We already have drivers using our rural area as a cut through.
This problem will only be compounded by the building of the 2 other apartment complexes.
We simply will not tolerate more traffic that will be caused by a third.

The City of Phoenix General Plan talks about certainty. Something that the city has taken
away with the aggressive rezoning of our area. My husband and I thoroughly research the
zoning in this area before choosing it for our home. The general plan at the time showed
commercial, medical/dental office space as the buffer between our rural community and a
growing city. We were happy with that, as were other residents since those are businesses that
are typically 9-5, 5 days a week, closed holidays. No one lives in an office to be bothered by
our rural activities that include lots of animal sounds and smells. Please vote no on the general
plan amendment and help us maintain the certainty that it promises and honor the statement to,
"Ensure that development, redevelopment and infrastructure supports and reinforces the
character and identity of each unique community and neighborhood."

In the City of Phoenix zoning ordinances, section 603, there are rules specifically written to
protect rural zoned, low density, residential properties. I'm just going to type out the entire
thing for you to read. "The S-1, ranch or farm residence district, is a district designed to
provide for very low density farm or residential uses to protect and preserve lower density
areas in their present or desired character. It is intended that the S-! district will afford areas
where semi-rural residential and agricultural uses and be maintained without impairment from
industrial, commercial or higher density residential development." During annexation
meetings, the City of Phoenix staff and your committee has told residents of our community
that S-1 is the equivalent to county RU-43 zoning. Just because we are not incorporated, does
not mean that we shouldn't be protected and preserved in the manner described above. The



Page 1125
you to follow those rules and vote no on the zoning change and general plan amendment.

I have thoroughly gone through the Village Planning Handbook and specifically studied the
points to consider for rezoning and general plan amendments. I implore you all to dust off that
handbook and look at those points, one by one, like I have, in regards to the cases currently
before you. If you do, and if you keep in mind the rural zoning ordinance and the goals of the
general plan, you must reach the same conclusion, that case #Z-67-22-3 and #GPA-DV-3-22-1
must not be recommended to council.

Enjoy the video of our rural dream.
Link to video of Big Tank Ranch. https://youtu.be/oGCJTNNaVrk [youtu.be]

Kind regards,
Alison McKee
602-702-3676




Page 1126
DEER VALLEY VILLAGE PLANNING COMMITTEE

RE: April 20, 2023 6 PM Meeting

Items 6 & 7 - GPA-DV-3-22-1 (Companion Case Z-59-22-1)

We resigned ourselves to the USAA development years ago. We actually thought it might afford our area
and zoning some protection as we had 19th Avenue between us, and that did seem to be enough
distance to allow us to compatibly maintain our current zoning and the rural aspect of our community.
Then that barrier that we fought so hard to maintain was breached and suddenly there is nothing but a
lot line between 3 - 5 story high density apartments, and homes with R-43 zoning designation (which
affords them the right to have space & livestock). Where we once had to look into the distance to see
multi story buildings, we now will simply have to look up.

For years the Deer Valley Village Planning Committee assured us of the goal to maintain the “character”
“certainty” and “continuity” of the area that many have invested a lifetime into. Suddenly it has
become critical to completely disrupt or abolish the zoning in which we securely built our homes,
families, and lives in. Throughout those years we have nurtured and raised our families, and a big part of
our family always included our outdoor family ; a pot bellied pig (adopted from the Humane Society –
lived 12 years ) a sheep (that had been “dumped” in the desert- lived 14 years ) peafowl ( that lived to
be 30!! years old) chickens, ducks, & horses (many were rescues) , and none of which would have been
compatible with the current proposed changes. (Btw only left out our dogs and cats because they are
part of our “indoor” family) .

It’s been a slap in the face to have been demeaned and ignored by the “powers that be” and the high $
developers and lawyers that have but one quest in mind $$$$$. There was a day this City & State
embraced and respected the diversity of the neighborhoods that developed around the valley, but
evidently that time has past. So now it is not enough to have this type of development of the outskirts
of our neighborhood, now they seek to come within, to the heart of our County Island. Now they also
seek to put high density zoning onto property that does not even have direct access to Happy Valley Rd
or 19th Avenue, and should not be allowed to travel North on 17th Avenue using our Private Roads.

We are a landlocked triangular piece of County land. The roads within are private and essentially go
nowhere due to the CAP. It is a travesty and extremely inappropriate to burden us with having to deal
with the traffic (auto or foot) that will be inevitable with these projects. We have a right to keep our
roads as private (as we will) as well as a right to expect that to be respected.

We are requesting that you evaluate carefully your sense of values when you are weighing the options
here. Much more weight should be afforded to those of us who have already deeply vested ourselves
into this area through much hard work and sacrifice, as opposed to the deep pockets of developers who
are in this strictly for the money. They can yadayadayada all they want about how they are protecting us
from worse and they are being a “buffer” from the realities of todays world, but like it or not they are
the people YOU, as the Deer Valley Planning Committee, are supposed to be protecting us from as they
are funding and looking out for their interests only. We don’t have deep pockets or paid time to
continually have to fight “to simply maintain” what we bought years ago and have nurtured, built and
existed within for years.




Page 1127
Over the years the Deer Valley Village Planning Committee had continued to indicate the “plan” for our
area was low density housing. We understand things change over time, however the terms continually
used involving “buffers and compatibility” led us all to believe that we could be comfortable in investing
our time and efforts into creating what has become a home for us all. As our representatives you should
live up to those past commitments, assure us that we weren’t misled all these years, and make sure
any changes made truly are “compatible buffers” to what already is. Let us maintain that sense of
certainty so that we can continue to invest in our surroundings, not feel that we need to run from them

At a MAXIMUM the only changes we could be comfortable with on this 8 acre parcel would be 1 unit per
¼ acre, more preferably per 1/3 acre, most preferably per 1.25 acre as it stands – That would be much
closer to a “Webster” definition of a “buffer” within the existing neighborhood (which has been happily
co-existing with R-43 zoning for DECADES )

And in case there is any doubt that the vast majority of owners/dwellers within this County Island all
feel the same about drastically changing zoning/density. Please refer to all of the signatures on petitions
for the last 2 projects (Toll Brothers/Bungalows ) that we all put much time and effort into to stop, only
to be marginalized thru “Virtual Meetings” that were fraught with “technical errors” and which ended
up silencing the cumulative voices asking for common sense to see that projects of 52.5 acres with 665
housing units is hardly a “buffer” nor compatible with the R-43 property it directly borders – we are
weary of fighting over and over again for the same thing when it is obvious that we are considered
irrelevant to the “grand scheme of things” .

So once again rallying the troops to be a show of force is also a challenge. That is how most developers
win I believe. That is their livelihood, whereas for us it is actually our day to day lives which we must
continually “find more time in” to dispute those who are being paid to disrupt our day to day lives and
our futures which now sadly always seem to be uncertain. Hopefully our turn out will be strong even if
we are weary, but if not please also keep that aspect in your thoughts.

Also, please refer to my 3rd sheet to gain some perspective on what we have been, and are, going thru.



Respectfully and still Hopeful,



Richard & Laurel Brodie

25657 N. 17th Ave

Phoenix, AZ 85085

Resident since 1988

laurel@clearskies.com




Page 1128
ATTACHMENT FOR THE DISCUSSIONS OF
Items #6 & #7 April 20, 2023
GPA-DV-3-22-1 (Companion Case Z-59-22-1):


Please consider our realities on this matter – these are “rough” numbers

Original triangular County Island with R43 zoning - (bound by 19th Avenue - Happy Valley Rd -
CAP ) Roughly 366 +/- acres - (Note: - which is also essentially a land locked parcel of land with
most roads going nowhere and with no outlets - That leaves Parsons Rd. and ALL North-
South Avenues crossing Parsons at a HUGE risk for detrimental traffic impact if this project is
approved

Acreage still zoned residential R-43/S-1 (but owned by Churches (which brings in large volumes
of outside traffic and set to increase with the building of a school on 15th Ave) 48 acres

Acreage approved by the City for High Density Housing - 52.5 acres - This new development
on 17th Ave would bring that to 60.5 acres

Acreage owned and used by commercial businesses - 23.5 acres ( all on Happy Valley Road )

Vacant acreage on 19th Ave at risk of being targeted for re-zoning - 10 acres

So in essence our land locked County Island has already lost over 1/3 of our acreage to non-
conforming zoning

If this new site on 17th is approved we have gone from an area that would max have maxed out
at 1,464 actual residents to an area that will now look like this -

224 R-43 zoned acres (est 896 people)
60.5 high density PUD zoned acres (proposals indicate a total of 901 UNITS ) - (est 2,408
people)

for a total of 3,872 people

plus
48 acres (churches) with a high traffic impact that is about to become a daily issue with the
building of a school on their grounds




Page 1129
ATTACHMENT C




Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-59-22-1
INFORMATION ONLY


Date of VPC Meeting February 9, 2023
Request From S-1 and C-2
Request To PUD
Proposed Use Multifamily Residential
Location Approximately 320 feet north of the northwest corner of
17th Avenue and Happy Valley Road


VPC DISCUSSION:

No quorum.

STAFF COMMENTS:

None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1130
ATTACHMENT D




Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-59-22-1


Date of VPC Meeting April 20, 2023
Request From S-1 and C-2
Request To PUD
Proposed Use Multifamily Residential
Location Approximately 320 feet north of the northwest corner of
17th Avenue and Happy Valley Road
VPC Recommendation No quorum
VPC Vote No quorum


VPC DISCUSSION:

No quorum.

STAFF COMMENTS:

None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1131
ATTACHMENT E


REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
May 4, 2023

ITEM NO: 3
DISTRICT NO.: 1
SUBJECT:

Application #: Z-59-22-1 (Home at Happy Valley PUD)
Location: Approximately 320 feet north of the northwest corner of 17th Avenue and
Happy Valley Road
From: S-1 and C-2
To: PUD
Acreage: 8.00
Proposal: Planned Unit Development to allow multifamily residential
Applicant: Shelter Asset Management
Owner: Red Hawk Partners, LLC, et al.
Representative: Benjamin Graff, Quarles & Brady, LLP

ACTIONS:

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.

Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Deer Valley 2/9/2023 Information only - No quorum.
Deer Valley 4/20/2023 Recommendation - No quorum.

Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the staff recommendation.

Motion Discussion: N/A

Motion details: Commissioner Gaynor made a MOTION to approve Z-59-22-1, per the staff
recommendation.

Maker: Vice-Chair Gaynor
Second: Gorraiz
Vote: 5-3 (Busching, Perez, and Simon)
Absent: Mangum
Opposition Present: Yes

Findings:

1. The proposal would allow multifamily residential, which is compatible with proposed
land uses to the west and is consistent with the proposed General Plan Land Use Map
designation of Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre.

2. The proposal, as stipulated, protects the character of the surrounding area by
providing additional landscape setbacks, open space, and limiting height adjacent to
single-family residential properties to the north.

3. The subject site is appropriate for residential uses at the proposed densities and
provides new housing opportunities in the Deer Valley Village and in close proximity to
employment uses.

Page 1132
Stipulations:

1. An updated Development Narrative for the Home at Happy Valley PUD reflecting the
changes approved through this request shall be submitted to the Planning and
Development Department within 30 days of City Council approval of this request. The
updated Development Narrative shall be consistent with the Development Narrative
date stamped April 4, 2023, as modified by the following stipulations:

a. Front cover: Revise the date information on the cover page to the following:


2. A minimum of 30 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated for the west side of 17th
Avenue, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

3. The applicant shall submit a Traffic Impact Study to the City for this development. The
developer shall be responsible for cost and construction of all mitigation identified
through the analysis. No preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until the study
is reviewed and approved by the Street Transportation Department.

4. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development with
paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands, landscaping,
and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and Development
Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA accessibility standards.

5. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of Phoenix Deer Valley Airport (DVT) to future owners or
tenants of the property. The form and content of such documents shall be
according to the templates and instructions provided which have been reviewed
and approved by the City Attorney.

6. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33- foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.

7. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207
waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County
Recorder’s Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning application
file for record.

This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact Angie
Holdsworth at (602) 495-5622, TTY use 7-1-1.




Page 1133
ATTACHMENT F
210-10-020D 210-10-014C 210-10-018A 210-10-006A



210-10-014E 210-10-018B 210-10-006C
210-10-010
210-10-006D
210-10-031A

210-10-014F 210-10-018C
210-10-014A




210-10-016A 210-10-016B
210-10-027A 210-10-008F 210-10-008G




S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\Petitions\Z-59-22-1_GPA-DV-3-22-1\Z-59-22-1_GPA-DV-3-22-1.mxd
210-10-003




210-10-008B 210-10-008D 210-10-009B 210-10-009C 210-10-009F
210-10-030B




210-10-019H 210-10-013A 210-10-013B
210-10-023A 210-10-019F 210-10-019D




210-10-029K 210-10-019G

210-10-017F
210-10-017H 210-10-029L 210-10-005




17TH AVE
210-10-029M




Legend HAPPY VALLEY RD

Zoning Petition Area
Proposed Amendment Area 210-07-077
210-07-075 210-07-076
Lots/Tracts/Condos
210-07-083 210-07-084 210-07-089 # of Lots/Tracts/Condos: 5/19 = 26%
% Area = 4.83ac./18.76ac. = 26%
210-07-050B
Signed Petition 3/4 VOTE REQUIRED
210-07-060A 210-07-064 210-07-056

Petition Verification Map
for Z-59-22-1
I 0 100 200 Feet Map prepared
Page 1134 by City of Phoenix, Planning & Development Services Dept. 5/12/23
CITY OF PHOENIX
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

FORM TO REQUEST PC to CC
I HEREBY REQUEST THAT THE CC HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON:

APPLICATION NO/ Z-59-22-1 and GPA- (SIGNATURE ON ORIGINAL IN FILE)
LOCATION DV-3-22-1 opposition x applicant
Approximately 320
feet north of the
northwest corner of
17th Avenue and
Happy Valley Road
APPEALED FROM: PC May 4, 2023 1219 West Parsons Road
Phoenix, AZ 85085

PC DATE STREET/ADDRESS/CITY/STATE/ZIP
TO PC/CC
HEARING CC May 31, 2023 Alison McKee
602-702-3676
alisonmckee@gmail.com

CC DATE NAME / PHONE / EMAIL
REASON FOR REQUEST:

See the attached document(s) for an appeal and request for a ¾ vote.


RECEIVED BY: Jerroid Hopkins RECEIVED ON: 511/2023

Alan Stephenson Greg Harmon
Joshua Bednarek Paul M. Li
Tricia Gomes Village Planner
Racelle Escolar GIS
Stephanie Vasquez Applicant
Diana Hernandez Byron Easton (for PHO Appeals)
David Urbinato
Vikki Cipolla-Murillo




Page 1135
Page 1136
Page 1137
Page 1138
Page 1139
Page 1140
Page 1141
Page 1142
Page 1143
Page 1144
Page 1145
$77$&+0(17*

From: Alison McKee
To: PDD Deer Valley VPC
Subject: #Z-59-22-1 & #GPA-DV-3-22-1
Date: Wednesday, April 19, 2023 11:31:03 PM
Attachments: COP letter home at Happy Valley - 230419.pdf


Deer Valley Village Planning Committee,

I am writing today on behalf of myself, my husband and the Apostolic community living in
our rural neighborhood. Please see the attached opposition letter to cases Z-59-22-1 and GPA-
DV-3-22-1. The letter outlines the many reasons why the zoning adjustment and general plan
amendment should not be considered or recommended to the city council. I constructed this
letter after speaking with our many neighbors who are members of the nearby Apostolic
Church. These Apostolic neighbors do not use computers or the internet outside of their
work. The letter reflects their concerns as well as the concerns of my husband and myself and
was signed with all of our addresses or parcel numbers and phone numbers. Since the meeting
is on a Thursday night, a church night for the Apostolic neighbors, they cannot attend. While
they will not skip a church service, they still want a voice in this important matter, and hope
that the committee will be accommodating and understand that this group signed letter is their
best means of communicating their opposition. Despite their lack of use of
modern technology, their opinions should matter and be heard by the committee and City
of Phoenix staff. We are all happy to accept a phone call to discuss this matter.

Please see the attached letter.

Kind Regards,
Alison McKee




Page 1146
     !"  #" "$%$% !




  -
 C!
$99+  6+
 -'!D"99(




    


      


            
  !"#$$%       & '($$%  )  
%*')  +,   - .   )/   ) 
    0   1  /
  +        0 -
+

))      /0       
             +,     
!"#$$%+, /          234 5 34,    
   +6  5-    /2'/
34,74  /    )0 )  +,  " 
-    /      
1 +0  )   )   2'  3476
  89(       )   
     /  :        
 ) +; )              
+, /<=(>/ 4 6%?       +  
/0     89(+       /
)+,   -    )         
     /+@)    
2'/ )0  /  
 1+    2A  +,     
      / 1    -   +,
 %* ')    )  )  /  ) B  +@
   //1  $$8  - +
%* ')+           +,   -  )




Page 1147
     /  <   0+@    /
  0  +@    / -+
       / )
)  !"#$$%+


@       -&    & '($$%   0
     /0 &    / +@  
   ) /2E  5     $     / 
/     +F   "0  / 
     ) ///  )0   +, 
 6%   5 ) 1 <=(      +,
             )   
 +4   5     +
.   0)   )0 )    +' 
 " -5      +@ )/   
  23  )/  6%   +@      /
/ %G  / + )  )
  )           2@ @@@      C
 :H)  /  )) +H 
) )          5
   /+;      0 I +   
    )     )0 +.0  
 - /   =99G        
+ 0     )  
 +'  -        
 /     )    :/  )  +; 
         & '($$% / +


      -        
  /   /  -         
& /0     -&   )+ )  !"#$$% 
& '($$%+  7


 




Page 1148
Parcel # 210-09-017F
Parcel # 210-09-006B




Page 1149
JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
 > ?  > ?

JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
 > ?  > ?

JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ

JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
 

JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
   


JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
 > ?  > ?

JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
 > ?  > ?

JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ

JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
 

JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
   


JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
 > ?  > ?

JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
 > ?  > ?

JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ

JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
 

JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
   




Page 1150
From: Diane Habener
To: PDD Deer Valley VPC
Subject: Zoning #2-59-22-1
Date: Thursday, April 20, 2023 12:40:16 PM




I am completely appalled that you are even considering approving this project! Please go back and read your
Village Planning Handbook.

“Is the request consistent with the General Plan Map?”
NO

Does the request, “Promote the unique character of each village and strengthen existing neighborhoods?”
Absolutely not. This request destroys our existing
neighborhood.

This proposal has negative impacts that cannot be mitigated on traffic, density, height, environmental, character and
lifestyle.

Please listen to the neighbors and refuse this rezoning proposal.

Sincerely,
Diane Habener
25312 N 16th Ave
Phoenix 85085

Sent from my iPhone




Page 1151
From: DaveVicki Rockey
To: Matteo Moric
Subject: Rezoning at 17th Ave and Happy Valley Rd
Date: Monday, May 1, 2023 7:47:52 AM




We live in the area and are very much opposed to changing the zoning. We bought the land in 1976 and have lived
there since 1980. We are happy with our zoning now and do not want it to change to have more apartments in our
area.
#Z-59-22-1 and companion case #GPA-DV-22-1.
Vicki and David Rockey
25440 N 11th Ave
Phx, AZ 85085

Sent from my iPhone




Page 1152
Racelle Escolar

From: Allyson McLean
Sent: Monday, May 1, 2023 8:48 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: RE: GPA-DV-3-22-1 & Z-59-22-1


Phoenix,planningcommittee,

IamreachingoutasaconcernedcommunitymemberrequestingapostponementofthesecasesBeingdiscussedatthe
meetingon5/4/23,duetotheDVVPCcanceledmeetingduetonoquorum.Iamrequestingpostponementbeforone
month,whichwouldallowforourcommunitytogatherourvoicesmoreclearly,andallowforadequatetimeto
communicateourconcernswiththispossiblezoningchange.

Thatbeingsaid,shouldpostponementnotbegranted,Iwouldliketomakeitclearhowthispossiblezoningwould
effectmycommunity.Thiszoningchangewouldallowforalargeapartmentcomplexofapproximately243unitstobe
builtwithnoplanchangesontrafficdirecting.TrafficaloneonhappyValleyfrommycommunityisagreatchallenge.It
willbeexponentiallyincreasedwiththisapartmentcomplex.OurcommunityiszonedasSͲ1“whichisranchorfarm.
Residentdistrictdesignedtoprovideforverylowdensity,farmorresidentialusestoprotectandpreservelowdensity
areasintheirpresentordesiredcharacter.ItisintendedthattheS1districtwillafireareaswhereisSemiͲrural
residentialandagriculturalusescanbemaintainedwithoutimpairmentfromindustrial,commercial,orhigherdensity
residentialdevelopment”.Redistrictingthis8acreplotwillhaveamassiveaffectonourlowdensityneighborhoodby
grosslyincreasingthedensitygoingagainstwiththeS1districtstandsfor.Beyondinconvenienceoftheseredistrictingis
agreatconcernforsafetyregardingmychildrenandtheincreaseoftrafficwithoutplansonnewsafetyimplementation.
Ihopethatmyconcernscanbevoicedclearlyandunderstood.Changingacommunityinsuchadrasticwaywithouta
planonsafetyandtrafficlogisticsisaskingforsignificantproblemsifnotpossibleinjuries.InadditiontotheseconcernsI
amalsoconcernedaboutthestressofthesenewapartmentswillputonthecurrentschoolsasamountofgrowthinthe
areahasbeenexponentialwithoutredistrictingoftheschoolsorplansfornewschoolsintheverynearfuture.

AllysonandMichaelMcLean
1607wParsonsrd
Phoenix,AZ85085
303Ͳ242Ͳ1871

SentfrommyiPhone





Page 1153
Racelle Escolar

From: Alison McKee
Sent: Tuesday, May 2, 2023 10:43 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission; Racelle Escolar
Subject: GPA-DV-3-22-1 & Z-59-22-1
Attachments: PlanningCommissionLetterHomeatHappyValley 230502.pdf


PlanningCommission,
Iamwritingtodayonbehalfofmyself,myhusbandandtheApostoliccommunitylivinginourrural
neighborhood.PleaseseetheattachedoppositionlettertocasesZͲ59Ͳ22Ͳ1andGPAͲDVͲ3Ͳ22Ͳ1.Inthisletterweare
askingforapostponementofthePlanningCommissionhearingonthiscaseandoutliningthemanyreasonswhy
thezoningadjustmentandgeneralplanamendmentshouldnotbeconsideredorrecommendedtothecitycouncil.I
constructedthisletterafterspeakingwithourmanyneighborswhoaremembersofthenearbyApostolicChurch.These
Apostolicneighborsdonotusecomputersortheinternetoutsideoftheirwork.Theletterreflectstheirconcernsas
wellastheconcernsofmyhusbandandmyselfandwassignedwithallofouraddressesorparcelnumbersandphone
numbers.SincethemeetingisonaThursdaynight,achurchnightfortheApostolicneighbors,theycannot
attend.Whiletheywillnotskipachurchservice,theystillwantavoiceinthisimportantmatter,andhopethatthe
committeewillbeaccommodatingandunderstandthatthisgroupsignedletteristheirbestmeansofcommunicating
theiropposition.Despitetheirlackofuseofmoderntechnology,theiropinionsshouldmatterandbeheardbythe
committeeandCityofPhoenixstaff.Weareallhappytoacceptaphonecalltodiscussthismatter.

Pleaseseetheattachedletter.

KindRegards,
AlisonMcKee





Page 1154
     !"  #" "$%$% !




  1
> 
#== +   5+
 1& ?!==(




    


   


             
    !"##$   %&'(##$  )  
$*&)   +   ,        -
      +.    )   /  
     )  +0 -  ) -)- !  
  1,+0     /   
  + 2    ) 3  )  4 4$  
 +& /        +.      
  !5$ ) )    -    +
6 ,4 4   )            
 +     )  + 2   4 4$ 
   +7-              )
    +6    4  0895'&:    ,
)        +0       ) 
-      )   +&  )
      )- ,  1    )   
+;   )          +

0  14  )- )      
  ,     2    -    +  
    ,     1 +0
      !"##$+0 -      +0
 )      /1 -  +5  -   
 )  ,) +0  !    1    
  -       2    +0
  )     ) )    +5  <=(  
      )     




Page 1155
 - @      )  +AB  
    1)       
   -  +0            
 -  2   1   +0  @ A 
  /     +& ) - )  
$*&)+    ) - 1 )  $* &)+
0C1 $* &))2       +0 
$*&) )  )  -) C  +;
    - -2   ##<  1    
  )         ) +0  1  
 )   - 8 ,+
    $* &)+     +;   -  
  ,  -    1+
          -     ) )  
  !"##$+

;       1% %&'(##$%  
 - +0     )-+B  /    # 
   - -     +D       
! ,-        )    -- -)
 ,     +0   5$ /) 28E(   
    +0         
)   +B    /  
     +4    ,)  )  ,) 
      +&  !    1/     
+0   ))      +;;;; 
>   @9)-     )
) +9 )  )        
 / -  +A,  3 
+   )  )  ,
 +4,   1-   E==F      
          +  ,      
)    +&  1)     )
 @-)   +A        
  %&'(##$   -+
   1          
-  -   1       1
         1% ) + )      !"##$
%&'(##$+      G




Page 1156
Page 1157
Page 1158
Page 1159
Page 1160
HHH




Page 1161
Racelle Escolar

From: tryitonjewels@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 2, 2023 2:46 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission; Racelle Escolar
Cc: laurel@clearskies.com; alisonsmckee@gmail.com
Subject: GPA-DV-3-22-1 & Z-59-22-1


May 2, 2023


To Whom It May Concern;

RE: GPA-DV-3-22-1 & Z-59-22-1

As a community we are requesting to POSTPONE the meeting May 4th. Our community are large horse properties and
the 600 ft outreach requirement did not let our community know about these changes to zoning and another HUGE
apartment development in our landlocked community.
We are asking for more time to allow others in the neighbor to know and properly address these developments.

For the record, we are OPPOSED to yet another HUGE apartment development. First of all, there has been no
consideration for the horse properties owners nor our livestock lifestyle with all the rentals being approved. Short-term
apartment culture is in complete contrast to our livestock culture.
The other MAJOR impact that is not being considered is how all these huge apartment developments are placed at our
community’s entrances and exists. These developments do not show any concessions for our community and it is
landlocking us. We are already feeling the increase of traffic without the completion of the thousands of people you have
already approved that outnumber our small community. It will make it very difficult and dangerous to be pulling horse
trailers in and out of our community.

Unfortunately, this feels like another unheard request for our community but we feel we need to make yet another attempt
to voice our concerns.

In closing,

Alan and Melissa Crawford
Owners of two properties on W Parsons Rd.
623 606 7248





Page 1162
Page 1163
Margaret Langley
1607 W Parsons Road
Phoenix AZ 85085
(970)217-2791
Margaret.a.langley@gmail.com


May 2, 2023


Phoenix Planning Commission


RE: GPA-DV-3-22-1 & Z-59-22-1


Dear Commissioners,


I am writing to request a postponement of this rezoning request and submit
my objections to this zoning change. Please consider postponement due to
the cancellation of the DVVPC meeting as there wasn't a quorum.


I am opposed to this zoning change. Two large apartment complexes are
already on the way that will not only disrupt our way of life and the character of
our neighborhood, but dangerously increase traffic. Please do not add
another. Please do not recommend zoning changes and general plan
amendment to the City of Phoenix council to make way for Home at Happy
Valley.


Home at Happy Valley, a multi-family housing development, is different from
the other developments in that it DOES NOT border a major road. It is on 17th
Avenue which is surrounded by Maricopa County RU-43 properties. This will
make traffic on our rural, PRIVATE, dirt roads a nightmare. The developer
claim residents from these apartments won't use our roads. How are they
going to stop them? There is a median at 17th which means traffic must access
Happy Valley to go east to the 101, by going north on 17th to Parsons and
going west to 19th or east to 15th. Both ways are through our neighborhood
on private roads. Happy Valley and 19th Avenues are already congested
because the city has not adequately improved them for the traffic created by


Page 1164
the neighboring community of Union Park. We already have drivers using our
rural area as a cut through when westbound traffic on single lane Happy Valley
is bumper to bumper. This problem will only be compounded by the building of
the 2 other apartment complexes. We simply cannot handle more traffic that
will be caused by a third.


My family has been in this valley for five generations. When I moved with my
daughter's family back to Arizona, to live self-sufficiently and become
beekeepers, we purchased this land, believing the general plan, which
showed commercial, medical/dental office space as the buffer between our
county island and a growing city. Now we're faced with three large apartment
complexes! Please vote no on the general plan amendment and help us
maintain the certainty that it promises and honor the statement to, "Ensure that
development, redevelopment and infrastructure supports and reinforces the
character and identity of each unique community and neighborhood.

Sincerely,



Margaret Langley




Page 1165
Racelle Escolar

From: Laurel Brodie
Sent: Tuesday, May 2, 2023 1:29 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission; Racelle Escolar
Cc: Alison McKee; Melissa Crawford
Subject: Fw: Urgent - GPA-DV-3-22-1 (Companion Case Z-59-22-1) Request for Postponement
of the Planning Committee meeting scheduled May 4, 6 PM




Subject: Urgent - GPA-DV-3-22-1 (Companion Case Z-59-22-1) Request for Postponement of the Planning Committee
meeting scheduled May 4, 6 PM

I am writing a separate appeal to request that the May 4, 2023 meeting for this case be postponed due to
what we feel are extenuating circumstances. We would appreciate your consideration of this request ASAP, as
if you agree that these items constitute enough of a reason to postpone and you could let us know that, many
of us would not have to make a 50 mile drive (round trip) partly during rush hour, which would also require
some of us to leave our work places early (if we are able to) just to attend a meeting you might decide to
postpone once we are there. Yes I understand we can attend virtually but those types of meetings truly are
not effective if you want to be heard. And if you do not postpone, we want to be heard. Please consider the
following circumstances;


1. Most of us have been talking wondering how we ended up so late to this game. Obviously the majority
of the residents within our small County Island were not notified by the developer (not required, I
understand that) but we try to keep an eye out for indications of things that might be occuring and the
posted sign issue has been gnawing at my brain wondering why none of us picked up on that the
minute it was posted. At 4 am I realized why that was. The posted sign referencing these requested
changes and meetings was posted 270 ' away from the SE corner of the 5 acre parcel ( 210-10-
003) among the piles of dirt that exist on the 3 acre parcel ( 210-10-019D & 210-10-019H) - There is
NO signage of ANY kind on the 5 acre S1 zoned parcel. Most of us when driving that way on
17th Avenue paid that sign no attention as the assumption was it involved the C2 zoned properties
which didn't concern us a whole lot as those fights were long over. When I finally made a point of
stopping and getting out of my vehicle it then became known what we are up against. I will send
pictures in a follow up email which show how easily we could all make this assumption due to the sign
placement. We are talking 2 separate cases and 3 separate parcels owned by 2 separate entities, we
find it extremely unfair if the placement of the one and only sign was placed as far away as possible
from the S-1 5 acre parcel. At a minimum it should have been centered between the 5 acre and 3 acre
parcels. And even though these are companion cases they are currently differently zoned parcels and I
would expect that should require 2 separate signs, or at least multiple signs due to the size and
configuration of the area as your Step 9 states. We feel that the intent of the below requirements was
NOT MET and that alone should get us a postponement.





Page 1166
Step 9: Posting Sign on Property The following shall be submitted as part of the Citizen Participation Report:
The applicant is required to post a double-sided sign (Pages 27-28), 4-foot by 8-foot, at a prominent location
on the site a minimum of 15 calendar days prior to the first Village Planning Committee meeting. Multiple
signs may be required depending on the size of the site and location of street frontages. As in the case of the
written notices, the applicant shall submit a notarized affidavit of posting (Pages 29-30) stating the sign has
been posted and a photograph showing the sign on the site to the assigned staff planner two weeks prior to
the first public meeting/hearing, 2nd Floor, Phoenix City Hall, 200 West Washington Street. Signs shall be
updated as needed. Continued cases shall be posted a minimum of seven calendar days prior to continuance
date or immediately after the request is granted. An additional affidavit of posting (Page 30) is required. Signs
must be removed by the applicant within seven calendar days of City Council action

B) The first meeting (which we admit to be unaware of) with the DVVCP which was to be held virtually
evidently resulted in a No Quorum, so no recommendation resulted. The second meeting, (April 20)
which many of us made a point to attend, which included a peaceful style protest and with local news on site,
also resulted in a No Quorum, so we were denied
our first known opportunity to make our concerns known. Therefore, we will never know whether we
would have had the support of the DVVCP in our endeavors, and if we did, how
that might have affected your outlook.

Step 11: Village Planning Committee Meeting Prior to any public hearing, the application will be reviewed at a
regularly scheduled Village Planning Committee monthly meeting (Pages 53-54). Staff will provide the
committee and the applicant a copy of the staff report prior to this meeting. The Village Planning Committee
will make a recommendation. The recommendation from the Village Planning Committee will be forwarded to
the Planning Commission on a Village Planning Committee recommendation form. A copy of the form will be
provided to the applicant, upon request.

C) Since that Non-meeting on April 20 th the Developers finally reached out directly to residents beyond their
required 600'. That "open house" was held May 1, which many made the point of attending. The results of
that only made us more concerned that serious concerns involving traffic and density are not being properly
addressed.

Step 12: Planning Commission Action – Public Hearing This public hearing occurs approximately three to five
weeks after the Village Planning Committee meeting. During this public hearing, your rezoning application will
be reviewed and either approved, approved with stipulations, denied, denied as filed and approved differently
than requested, or continued. • Public hearing – legally advertised and posted a minimum of 15 calendar days
prior to hearing (by the applicant). Appeals • Action taken by the Planning Commission can be appealed by the
applicant or interested parties within seven calendar days. Appeals will be forwarded to the City Council for a
public hearing. • Written protests to require a 3/4 vote submitted no later than seven calendar days following
the Planning Commission hearing may require 3/4 vote, rather than a majority vote, for the City Council to
approve the application. • If no appeal is received, ratification occurs at the scheduled City Council hearing. •
The City Council may, by a majority vote; 1) request a public hearing on a Planning Commission
recommendation request that has not been appealed or, 2) send the case back to the Planning Commission
for further consideration. If a hearing is requested, it must first be re-advertised and posted.

We are respectfully requesting that you POSTPONE the Planning Committee meeting so that we can, as a
neighborhood, have the time to gather together and fully discuss the concerns that will have extreme impact
on our small, essentially landlocked (due to the CAP) triangular County Island, so that we can present those
concerns to you for your careful consideration.

Page 1167
History has shown us that past cases that make it past your Department are essentially done deals and we
have no chance at a City Council meeting of being heard to the extent that it would make any difference, so
WE IMPLORE YOU TO HEAR OUR VOICES NOW and postpone the May 4th hearing on these cases for at least a
month.

I am also following this email request with pictures of the Installed Notification signage.

Respectfully,
Laurel Brodie (representing many voices from our neighborhood Community)
25657 N. 17th Avenue





Page 1168
Page 1169
Page 1170
Page 1171
Racelle Escolar

From: Laurel Brodie
Sent: Tuesday, May 2, 2023 1:30 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission; Racelle Escolar
Cc: Alison McKee; Melissa Crawford
Subject: Pictures RE: Urgent - GPA-DV-3-22-1 (Companion Case Z-59-22-1) Request for
Postponement of the Planning Committee meeting scheduled May 4, 6 PM
Attachments: IMG_3230.jpg; IMG_3234.jpg; IMG_3231.jpg; IMG_3235.jpg




Subject: Pictures RE: Urgent - GPA-DV-3-22-1 (Companion Case Z-59-22-1) Request for Postponement of the Planning
Committee meeting scheduled May 4, 6 PM

1st picture is of the Completely fenced 5 acre S-1 parcel
2ndpicture show footage from that corner to sign
3rd picture is the view of the sign standing on the SE corner of that parcel looking south




Get Outlook for iOS [aka.ms]





Page 1172
Page 1173
Page 1174
Page 1175
Racelle Escolar

From: Laurel Brodie
Sent: Tuesday, May 2, 2023 1:32 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission; Racelle Escolar
Cc: Alison McKee; Melissa Crawford
Subject: Pictures RE: Urgent - GPA-DV-3-22-1 (Companion Case Z-59-22-1) Request for
Postponement of the Planning Committee meeting scheduled May 4, 6 PM
Attachments: IMG_3239.jpg; IMG_3256.jpg; IMG_3240.jpg; IMG_3259.jpg; IMG_3260.jpg




Subject: Pictures RE: Urgent - GPA-DV-3-22-1 (Companion Case Z-59-22-1) Request for Postponement of the Planning
Committee meeting scheduled May 4, 6 PM

1st picture is at the sign looking North towards the 5 acre fenced S! parcel
2ndpicture looking west on 17th Ave (notice the debris piles)
3rd picture is the view of the sign looking North
4th picture just emphasizing the amount of obstructions
5th picture shows the corner of the 5 acre lot looking south



Get Outlook for iOS [aka.ms]





Page 1176
Page 1177
Page 1178
Page 1179
Page 1180
Page 1181
Racelle Escolar

From: Diane Habener
Sent: Thursday, May 4, 2023 2:55 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Fwd: GPA-DV-3-22-1 & Z-59-22-1




SentfrommyiPhone

Beginforwardedmessage:

From:DianeHabener
Date:May4,2023at2:37:22PMMST
To:pdf.planningcomm@phoenix.gov
Subject:GPAͲDVͲ3Ͳ22Ͳ1&ZͲ59Ͳ22Ͳ1

PleasepostponeanyvoteonthisprojectastheDeerValleyVillagePlanningCommissionwerenotable
tolistentoneighborhoodinputorvoteastherewasnoquorumandweneighborswerenotheard.

Regardingthisproposedhighdensity4and5storyapartmentsnexttominimum1.25+acrerural
homes,whywasthisevenallowedtobeproposed?Highdensitynexttorural?Youdon’thavetobe
RayCharlestoseethatthatispoorplanning!Iliveon2.5acresoneparcelawayfromthisandam
1000%againstit.Pleasekeeptheexistingcommercialonthesouth3acresandLOWdensityresidential
ontheother5acreswithnomorethan2storiesallowed.Thankyou.

Sincerely,
DianeHabener
25312N16thAve
Phoenix85085
(925)209Ͳ6480cell



SentfrommyiPhone





Page 1182
Matteo Moric

Subject: FW: Z-59-22-1 GPA-DV-3-22-1




From: Alison McKee
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2023 2:04 PM
To: Council District 8 PCC
Subject: Z‐59‐22‐1 GPA‐DV‐3‐22‐1

District 8 Councilperson,

I'm writing to you today about a matter that is very important to me and to our small, rural community in an
unincorporated area of Maricopa County. Rezoning case Z‐59‐22‐1 and the companion case GPA‐DV‐3‐22‐1 will be
before the city council next week. The rezoning and general plan amendment cases are proposed to make way for a
multi‐family housing unit, an apartment complex called Home at Happy Valley in District 1. I do hope that the council
will vote no on both cases, as this apartment complex is completely inappropriate for the area.

Home at Happy Valley has a five‐story building as part of the PUD. There are no five‐story apartment buildings in the
vicinity. In fact, all of the new apartments on Happy Valley road, 19th Avenue south of Happy Valley, and even on the
frontage road of I‐17 from Jomax to Dixeleta, are three stories or less. All of the aforementioned apartment complexes
abut commercial properties, yet the max height is only three stories. It is not in character of the area and is not
appropriate to put a five‐story building near rural, single family residences.

Traffic is a huge concern for our rural community, as our roads are private and are maintained by us, the property
owners. These are dirt roads that are meant to give right away to people living in our county island. They are not
appropriate for the amount of traffic that the proposed PUD, Home at Happy Valley will create. County resident traffic
concerns have not been addressed by the city staff or the developer. The developer may have an approved traffic plan,
but our private county roads were not involved in the traffic study used to create the plan, and no concrete plan is in
place to keep traffic from the proposed PUD from driving on private, dirt roads. Also, no information has been given by
staff that would indicate when Happy Valley road to the east of 17th Avenue would be improved to accommodate traffic
from this proposed PUD. It is currently one lane each direction with no turn lanes. With two other multi‐family housing
developments approved in the area, we are going to have more traffic problems in an already congested area. There
have been three car accidents in the area of 19th Avenue and Happy Valley Rd. within the past 3 weeks! We cannot
afford the traffic of yet another apartment complex.

The entrance and exits of the proposed PUD are also a great concern to our community. Of course, we have the traffic
issues, as mentioned above, on our dirt roads. But even more concerning is what the developer is touting as their main
entrance. This entrance is to be through the parking lot of a child care/preschool! Residents in the area cannot think of
a more inappropriate place to increase traffic.

Lastly, but what I feel is the most important fact to point out in these rezoning and general plan amendment cases, is
that the proposed multi‐family housing development completely goes against the City of Phoenix's own zoning
ordinance and general plan goals. Section 603 of the municipal zoning codes states that the city will protect and
preserve low density areas and their present and desired character, and that these areas may be maintained "without
the impairment of higher density residential development." The proposed multi‐family housing development also
undermines goals of the general plan. While I do understand that the general plan must morph and change as the city
grows and changes, the goals within the general plan should always remain constant. In part III of the general plan under
certainty and character, the goal clearly states, "Every neighborhood and community should have a level of certainty.


Page 1183
Ensure that development, redevelopment and infrastructure supports and reinforces the character and identity of each
unique community and neighborhood."

In conclusion, I would like to point out that our community did have the support of some members of the planning
commission. The planning commissioners that were against the rezoning and general plan amendment, and the
proposed PUD, Home at Happy Valley, were the commissioners that took the time to come and see the property in
question and the surrounding rural community. We hope that you will do the same, come out and visit our area! This
email includes a personal invitation to come visit my rural property, all of my animals and I will happily show you around
the area, including the preschool/daycare where the developer proposes to have the main entrance to this apartment
complex. I do believe that if you accept my invitation, you will understand the issues that this multi‐family housing
development will cause, not only for our rural community, but for your city as well.

Kindest regards,

Alison McKee
1219 W Parsons Rd.
Phoenix, AZ 85085
602‐702‐3676
*******





Page 1184
Racelle Escolar

From: Kathy Doucette
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2023 4:16 PM
To: Mayor Gallego
Cc: PDD Planning Commission; Racelle Escolar; PDD Deer Valley VPC; Matteo Moric; Chairman Hickman;
Supervisor Gallardo; Supervisor Galvin; Supervisor Gates; Vice Chairman Sellers
Subject: GPA-DV-3-22-1 (Companion Case Z-59-22-1)


Dear Ms. Gallego,

I live in the Maricopa County Island that will be extremely negatively affected by the Proposed high density PUD
apartment complex at 17th Ave and Happy Valley. Please vote no on the Re‐Zoning Application.

The roads in our County Island are private roads that we own and are responsible for maintaining. This is no small task
with the current traffic we have in our community and the increased traffic of populating the proposed apartment
complex would be a nightmare and significantly compromise the safety of all that travel the roads. For example, it took
over a year to collect funds from neighbors just to get Briles road repaired recently. It is a community effort and expense
that would not be supported by apartment complex residents and would be left to us homeowners to manage.

In addition, both Happy Valley Road and 19th Ave, in this area are not adequately able to handle this proposed traffic
increase. Access and traffic flow currently present safety concerns/ issues as frustrated drivers try to pull out into never
ending lines of cars. The inability of these public roads to absorb the additional traffic will most definitely send drivers to
our private roads!

I urge you to respect the needs and safety of our Maricopa County Island and VOTE NO ON THE RE‐ZONING
APPLICATION.

Sincerely,
Kathy Doucette
26223 N 17th Dr.
Phoenix, AZ 85085
928‐587‐4269





Page 1185



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Consideration of Citizen Petition by Ismael Morales

This report provides the City Council with information in response to a citizen petition
was submitted by Ismael Morales at the April 19, 2023, Formal City Council meeting
regarding public comment (Attachment A).

Summary
The petition requests the City Council revise the Rules of Council Proceedings, Rule 9,
to state "The Mayor or Presiding Officer, and Councilmembers will not make motions
that limit public comment to no public comment. That includes for all items, new and
continued, except for public hearings that are time certain that are opened and closed
by the Mayor or Presiding Officer." Upon review by the Law Department, the request
was determined to qualify as a Citizen Petition because it is an action within the
purview of the City Council.

On March 6, 2023, a special Community and Cultural Investment (CCI) City Council
Subcommittee was held with one agenda item on Mobile Home Park Displacement
Options. During the special subcommittee meeting, City staff provided information on
potential options to assist residents facing displacement from the Periwinkle, Las
Casitas and Weldon Court mobile home parks. Additionally, the special subcommittee
meeting provided the opportunity for concerned residents to provide several hours of
public comment and testimony on the issue.

During the March 22, 2023, Formal City Council meeting, the City Council considered
recommendations from the special CCI subcommittee meeting on March 6, 2023. The
recommendations related to the mobile home parks were made available for public
comment, which continued for over five hours.

On April 4, 2023, three members of the City Council submitted a letter to the City
Manager to add an item on the April 5, 2023, Formal City Council meeting to consider
a moratorium on the development of the Periwinkle, Las Casitas and Weldon Court
mobile home parks. The consideration of a moratorium on the development of the
three mobile home parks was added as Item 93 to the April 5, 2023, Formal City
Council meeting. In light of the hours of testimony and public comment that was
previously provided during the two meetings discussed in this report and multiple other


Page 1186

prior Council meetings, the City Council voted to not hear further public comment
during the April 5, 2023, Formal City Council meeting.

The City Council voted to limit public comment on Item 93 pursuant to the Rules of
Council Proceedings and the Arizona Attorney General's Opinion I99-006 on Arizona's
Open Meeting Law (OML), as established in Arizona Revised Statute (ARS) 38-
431.09. The Arizona Attorney General's Opinion I99-006 states the City Council has a
"right to limit public comment" and that the Law "neither requires nor prohibits"
comment by the public and leaves it in the discretion of the public body. The opinion
found the Arizona State Legislature's intent when adopting ARS 38-431.09 was to
"open the conduct of the business of government to the scrutiny of the public." OML
requires that a public body allow the public to attend and listen to open and public
meetings, but it does not require the public body to allow people to speak at public
meetings. Additionally, the Attorney General recognizes that if a public body allows the
public to provide comment, it may put reasonable time, place and manner restrictions
on the public comment.

OML is also incorporated into the Phoenix City Council's Rules of Council
Proceedings. Council Proceeding Rule 11 states that "citizen comments will be heard
for up to 30 minutes." However, Council Proceeding Rule 10 allows the City Council,
upon majority vote, to suspend or modify its rules." During the April 5, 2023, Formal
comment in accordance with the Rules of Council Proceedings.

Options for Council Action
A. Accept the petition and direct staff to prepare amendments to the City Code and
Rules of Council Proceedings.
B. Deny the petition

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the Law Department.




Page 1187
Attachment A


From: no-reply@phoenix.gov
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2023 6:36 AM
To: Mailbox City Clerk Department CLK
Subject: emcityclerk - Form Submission


FROM : Ismael Morales

SUBJECT : Citizen Petition to the Phoenix City Council 04/19/2023

MESSAGE : Good morning,
I will be reading this citizen petition for the record at today's Formal Meeting of the Phoenix City Council
dated 04/19/2023 virtually and during citizen comments. See below for the content of the petition. I will
also be emailing council member offices a copy of this petition.

Pursuant to Chapter IV, Section 22 of the Phoenix City Charter, I would like to present a Citizen Petition
regarding certain motions limiting Public Comment during meetings of the Phoenix City Council.

Whereas, during the Formal Meeting on April 5, 2023, item 93 was placed on the agenda by three
councilmembers regarding a study for a potential moratorium on development of three mobile home
parks in the city of Phoenix.

Whereas, a motion was made by Councilmember Stark, seconded by Councilmember O'Brien to have no
public comment for item 93 as a similar item was heard at the previous Formal Meeting.

Whereas, item 93 was a different item but served a similar purpose.

Whereas, many residents of those affected mobile home parks were present at the meeting, expected
to be heard and speak on that item.

Whereas, on the vote of 5-4, the motion did pass and no public comment was held for that item.

Whereas, as public officials, it is essential for citizens to exercise their 1st amendment right to speak. In
that case, given it was a different item, citizens were denied that right.

Whereas, the Phoenix City Council currently has that right to limit public comment according to council
rules and procedures. However, it is up to local jurisdictions to implement rules on public comments. In
accordance with Arizona Attorney General Opinion I99-006, it states that "while the open meeting law
grants members of the public the absolute right to attend public meetings, the Open Meeting Law,
neither requires nor prohibits participation by the public in the discussions and deliberations of a public
body." This, in turn, leaves it up to discretion by each public body to decide how to handle public
participation.

I hereby petition to the Phoenix City Council to revise Phoenix City Code Section 2-60, Rule 9, Decorum-
Speaker and Audience and add the following subdivision "The Mayor or Presiding Officer, and
Councilmembers will not make motions that limit public comment to no public comment. That includes
for all items, new and continued, except for public hearings that are time certain that are opened and
closed by the Mayor or Presiding Officer.”




Page 1188
The Phoenix City Council should uphold their duty to listen to citizens and take those comments into
consideration when hearing an item.
Please act upon this within 15 days according to said Phoenix City Charter code.

Thanks very much. If there are any questions, please contact me at your earliest convenience.
Ismael Morales

INTEMAIL : igmorales87@gmail.com

AREA : 323

PHONE : 4932495

ADDRESS : 3040 E Shea Blvd Apt 2232

CITY : Phoenix

STATE : AZ

ZIP : 85028

Submission ID: 450179fea0b9446299d31c37bb2ee46f

Form Submission On : 4/19/2023 6:35:52 AM

Referer: https://phoenix.gov/cityclerk/contactus

This is Not Spam - This message is sent on behalf of the City of Phoenix.
Please handle appropriately.




Page 1189



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Consideration of Citizen Petition by Mr. Jeremy Thacker

This report provides the City Council with information in response to a citizen petition
submitted by Mr. Jeremy Thacker at the April 19, 2023, Formal City Council meeting
regarding the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Districts (Attachment A).

Summary
The petitioner requests the City Council to consider and enact an ordinance or
measure to do two things:

(1) "Prevent developments within the TOD Districts from using entitlements obtained
prior to Reinvent PHX that do not support the objectives of the TOD Policy Plans from
being approved for permits."

(2) "Create a temporary zoning overlay (Non-TOD) and update "Definitions" in the
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance for the TOD Districts to prevent developments containing
elements opposing the goals of the TOD Policy Plans for those districts from receiving
permits of rezoning approval."

Staff Response

The City of Phoenix has nine adopted TOD Districts (See map in Attachment B). The
ReinventPHX project referenced in the petition was a community planning effort from
2012 and 2015 funded by a $2.9 million grant from the Unites States Department of
Housing and Urban Development. One of the outcomes of the ReinventPHX effort was
the formation of five of the City's TOD Districts including Gateway, Eastlake Garfield,
Midtown, Uptown and Solano; each with a City Council adopted TOD District policy
plan. The ReinventPHX TOD District policy plans served as the model for the
development of additional TOD District policy plans for 19 North and South Central.
The TOD District policy plans articulate a vision for future development centered
around addressing a framework of six planning elements from housing to land use.

The petitioner’s first request asks the City Council to "prevent" those with existing
development rights of properties located within a TOD District. A governmental action
prohibiting or restricting a property owner’s right to exercise their existing property right


Page 1190

may conflict with Arizona statutes, Arizona Regulatory Bill of Rights (A.R.S. § 9-831 to
§ 9-842) or Proposition 207 Diminution of Property Value (A.R.S. § 12-1134) (aka
Prop. 207).

The petitioner requests City staff to stop issuing permits for projects that comply with
all existing regulatory requirements but are not consistent with the City Council's own
adopted vision of the TOD policy plans.

The City may adopt ordinances to implement the intent of the TOD policies under the
Arizona Regulatory Bill of Rights permits. However, under Prop. 207, the City is
required to compensate private property owners if the new ordinance causes the
diminution of the value of their property. The City Council adopted the Walkable Urban
(WU) Code as Chapter 13 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance in 2015. The WU Code
was developed to serve as an implementation tool for the TOD District policy plans.
Due to Prop. 207 considerations, the City did not unilaterally rezone properties within
the TOD Districts to WU Code, but instead has facilitated rezoning of properties to WU
Code at the request of individual property owners through the rezoning process.

Under Prop. 207, a municipality must pay private property owners affected by any land
use change that causes any reduction in property value if the law reduces the owner’s
existing rights to “use, divide, sell or possess private property …." If the City Council
adopts new regulations prohibiting or restricting the exercise of the existing land use
entitlement already acquired by the private property owners, the City will be subject to
the diminution of property value claims under Prop. 207.

The City staff cannot determine whether the petitioner’s specific request will be subject
to a diminution of value claim with specific facts. The City could review the TOD Policy
Plans, but will have to research those effects to ascertain colorable claims under the
Arizona Regulatory Bill of Rights or Prop. 207.

The petitioner’s second request asks the City Council to create a new temporary
zoning overlay and other development standards to prevent developments that are
inconsistent with the goals of the TOD District policy plans. Creation of a new overlay
that would restrict existing zoning entitlements to implement the policy plan will conflict
with the Arizona Regulatory Bill of Rights (A.R.S. § 9-831 to § 9-842) or Prop. 207
Diminution of Property Value (A.R.S. § 12-1134) (aka “Prop. 207) and subjects the City
to monetary damages.

Options for Council Action
A. Accept the petition and direct the Planning and Development Department to request
the Planning Commission initiate a text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance for the


Page 1191

TOD Districts.
B. Accept the petition and direct staff to conduct additional review and study under the
8-Hour Rule for a recommendation to subcommittee or bring back to City Council.
C. Deny the petition.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.




Page 1192
Attachment A




Page 1193
Page 1194
Page 1195
ATTACHMENT B
PEORIA AVE
Northwest 1/4 mile radius (5 1/4 mile radius (5 1/4 mile radius (5
minute walk) minute walk) minute walk)
Extension
1/2 mile radius (10 1/2 mile radius (10 1/2 mile radius (10
Area II minute walk) minute walk) minute walk)
DUNLAP AVE
!! Planned-Under
Existing Light Rail Planned Light Rail
Construction Light
! Existing Station Rail Planned Station
! Planned-Under
NORTHERN AVE Construction
!
! Station


19North Transit Overlay District
(TOD-1)
GLENDALE AVE
!! Transit Overlay District
(TOD-2)

17 Transit Oriented
§
¦
¨ 51
£
¤ Development (TOD)
BETHANY HOME RD District Boundaries

!! Phoenix City Limits

Solano
CAMELBACK RD Canals
! ! !!
! !
Uptown
G !
!
R
A
N
INDIAN SCHOOL RD D !
!
AV E

!
!
THOMAS RD !
Midtown
CAP/I-10 !
Phase 2
Page 1196 !!
MCDOWELL RD CAP/I-10 Eastlake
Phase 1 ! !
Garfield Gateway
§
¦
¨ !
!
VAN BUREN ST
Downtown
!!
!!
!!
! !!
! ! !
! !
!
!
!! ! ! ! !
!
!
w
v BUCKEYE RD !!




143 !
!
LOWER BUCKEYE RD £
¤
7TH AVE 7TH ST 24TH ST 40TH ST 48TH ST 52ND ST 64TH ST
99TH AVE 83RD AVE 75TH AVE 67TH AVE 59TH AVE 51ST AVE 43RD AVE 27TH AVE 19TH AVE 16TH ST 32ND ST
91ST AVE 35TH AVE

30 BROADWAY RD
CENTRAL AVE
£
¤
South Central
SOUTHERN AVE

£
¤
Phoenix Transit
BASELINE RD
Oriented Communities 0 0.75 1.5
. 3
Miles
M:\Projects\TOD_Area_Maps_Joel\MXD\All_TOD_Areas_Oct2020.mxd

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

152 item(s)