Meeting City Council Formal Meeting-6/16/2021 complete
2021-06-16 · Formal
City Council Formal Meeting
Item text
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 13
ATTACHMENT A
To: City Council Date: June 16, 2021
From: Mayor Kate Gallego
Subject: BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS – APPOINTEES
The purpose of this memo is to provide recommendations for appointments to the
following Boards and Commissions:
Assisted Housing Governing Board
I recommend the following for appointment:
Donna Magaard
Ms. Magaard has been appointed by Acting Housing Director Deanna Jonovich. She
replaces Ruth Wiesehan for a term to expire June 30, 2023.
Civil Service Board
I recommend the following for appointment:
Jose Samuel Leyvas
Mr. Leyvas is the Executive Director of HomeAid Phoenix and a resident of District 7.
He replaces Craig Steblay for a term to expire June 16, 2024.
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Councilman Jim Waring recommends the following for appointment:
Barbara Reynolds
Ms. Reynolds is a retired administrator of Teamsters Local 705 and a resident of District
2. She fills a vacancy for a term to expire November 19, 2022.
Human Services Commission
I recommend the following for appointment:
Page 14
Jayson Matthews
Mr. Matthews is Vice President of Community Development at Valley of the Sun United
Way and a resident of District 4. He fills a Category III vacancy for a term to expire June
30, 2023.
Industrial Development Authority Board
I recommend the following for appointment:
Aaron Marquez
Mr. Marquez is the Partnerships Lead at FreeWill and a resident of District 4. He
replaces Charlene Tarver for a term to expire May 1, 2027.
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Councilman Jim Waring recommends the following for appointment:
Cynthia DiMassa
Ms. DiMassa is a retired software professional and a resident of District 2. She fills a
vacancy for a term to expire November 19, 2022.
Phoenix Business Workforce Development Board
I recommend the following for appointment:
Jeffrey Clark
Mr. Clark is President of the Arizona State Association of Letter Carriers. He replaces
Yolanda Bejarano and will fulfill her term to expire June 30, 2023.
Brendan Mahoney
Mr. Mahoney is General Counsel at HBI International and a resident of District 4. He fills
a Small Business vacancy for a term to expire June 30, 2022.
Page 15
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 007070005224.
Summary
Applicant
Jeffrey Miller, Agent
License Type
Series 7 - Beer and Wine Bar
Location
14202 N. Scottsdale Road, Ste. 165
Zoning Classification: C-2 PCD
Council District: 2
This request is for an ownership and location transfer of a liquor license for a beer and
wine bar. This location was not previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have
an interim permit. This business has plans to open in July 2021.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is June 25, 2021.
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 16
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.
Hush Public House(Series 12)
14202 N. Scottsdale Road, Ste. 167, Scottsdale
Calls for police service: 48
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:
“We currently own another business that has a liquor license in Arizona. We will
continue to abide by Title 4 liquor laws.”
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 and adult beverage to enjoy at our establishment.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - The Vanilla Gorilla Tap Room and Bottle Shop
Liquor License Map - The Vanilla Gorilla Tap Room and Bottle Shop
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 17
Liquor License Data: THE VANILLA GORILLA TAP ROOM
AND BOTTLE SHOP
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 2 1
Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 0
Liquor Store 9 1 0
Beer and Wine Store 10 4 1
Restaurant 12 24 10
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 44.37 16.42 23.88
Violent Crimes 8.14 0.90 0.84
*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 55 19
Total Violations 89 23
Page 18
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1032072 1401 93 % 2% 0%
1032191 834 44 % 30 % 13 %
1032201 1364 95 % 15 % 3%
1032202 513 51 % 32 % 4%
1032203 1161 0% 16 % 7%
2168161 1812 95 % 0% 4%
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 19
Liquor License Map: THE VANILLA GORILLA TAP ROOM AND BOTTLE SHOP
14202 N SCOTTSDALE RD
Ü
Date: 5/19/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 20
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 09070696.
Summary
Applicant
Yashvant Patel, Agent
License Type
Series 9 - Liquor Store
Location
12850 N. 19th Ave.
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 3
This request is for an acquisition of control of an existing liquor license for a liquor
store. This location is currently licensed for liquor sales.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is June 26, 2021.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, consideration should be given only to the applicant's
personal qualifications.
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
Page 21
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I, Bhargav Patel, have been working at N Food Mart since 2012. I started to work as a
cashier at N Food Mart under the guidance of the owner, Yashvant Patel. However, as
I got experience of running the store, I took over all responsibilities of store manager,
who handles all expects of the business. Along with that, I have been taking all
necessary training courses which helped me to maintain requisite of liquor license.
Currently, my role at Food Mart includes all responsibilities of co owner of business (N
Food Mar). Thus, I could say that I have capability, reliability and qualification to hold a
liquor licenses.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 22
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 148841.
Summary
Applicant
Juliana Yanko, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
4651 E. Cactus Road
Zoning Classification: C-2 PCD
Council District: 3
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 22, 2021.
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 23
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:
“My business hires competent, reliable staff who are responsible to follow the
restrictions required by law related to serving liquor. Our training standards allow for
future & current employees to be educated in safe processes regarding liquor sales.
We maintain current health & safety guidelines in all aspects of our business.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Providing a liquor license to this business will allow for improved economic viability.
With ongoing success of this restaurant, patrons will be able to safely enjoy alcoholic
beverages with their meals while benefiting the community's options for expanded
dining experiences.”
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 - Golden Wok
Liquor License Map - Golden Wok
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 24
Liquor License Data: GOLDEN WOK
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 2 1
Liquor Store 9 5 4
Beer and Wine Store 10 6 4
Hotel 11 1 1
Restaurant 12 21 18
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 44.37 74.54 200.10
Violent Crimes 8.14 5.46 11.04
*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 55 23
Total Violations 90 29
Page 25
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1032052 1192 82 % 0% 16 %
1032082 1548 38 % 36 % 18 %
1032083 885 93 % 10 % 0%
1032091 804 74 % 0% 24 %
1032101 872 20 % 20 % 12 %
1032102 1681 32 % 14 % 19 %
1032105 468 0% 19 % 22 %
1032106 886 23 % 22 % 7%
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 26
Liquor License Map: GOLDEN WOK
4651 E CACTUS RD
Ü
Date: 4/26/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 27
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 148935.
Summary
Applicant
Simon Shimon, Agent
License Type
Series 10 - Beer and Wine Store
Location
1201 W. Hatcher Road
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 3
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 25, 2021.
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 28
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 responsible owner/operater that abides and always follow all the rules 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:
“This is a change in ownership to an existing convenience store with a series 10 beer
and wine store liquor license. I will continue to provide quality service to the neighbors
of this store and to the general public.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - MJ Mini Mart & Smoke
Liquor License Map - MJ Mini Mart & Smoke
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 29
Liquor License Data: MJ MINI MART & SMOKE
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 1 0
Liquor Store 9 5 0
Beer and Wine Store 10 10 4
Restaurant 12 9 1
Club 14 1 1
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 44.37 106.23 91.18
Violent Crimes 8.14 31.28 31.52
*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 55 98
Total Violations 90 165
Page 30
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1045011 795 78 % 7% 18 %
1045012 1110 5% 29 % 23 %
1045013 1204 7% 29 % 48 %
1045021 2058 40 % 14 % 50 %
1045022 2126 31 % 14 % 49 %
1045023 1538 57 % 20 % 33 %
1046003 1165 68 % 20 % 35 %
1053003 1205 96 % 9% 0%
1054001 1427 100 % 3% 4%
1054002 981 85 % 7% 5%
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 31
Liquor License Map: MJ MINI MART & SMOKE
1201 W HATCHER RD
Ü
Date: 4/29/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 32
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 128097.
Summary
Applicant
Jose Ralon, Agent
License Type
Series 4 - Wholesaler
Location
3442 W. Wilshire Dr., Ste. 4
Zoning Classification: Ind. Pk.
Council District: 4
This request is for a new liquor license for a wholesaler. This location was not
previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is June 21, 2021.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, consideration should be given only to the applicant's
personal qualifications.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
The ownership of this business has an interest in other active liquor license(s) in the
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.
Mundo Distribution (Series 4)
2925 E. McDowell Road, Phoenix
Calls for police service: 1
Page 33
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:
“I am capable and qualified to hold a Series 4 liquor license because I have one at my
present location since 2017 we have had no vilations. I know the responsibility it takes
to have a liquor license.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“My buisness provieds our community with diffrent products from Central america and
there beer. This gives our community a little piece of there home country.”
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.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 34
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 149156.
Summary
Applicant
Jeffrey Miller, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
100 E. Camelback Road, Ste. 150
Zoning Classification: C-2 TOD-1 WSNSPD
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. A Use Permit
hearing has been scheduled. This business is currently being remodeled with plans to
open in July 2021.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is June 27, 2021.
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 35
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:
“We will train all of our employees in responsible liquor service. All employees handling
alcohol will attend the Title 4 liquor law training.”
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 and adult beverage to enjoy at our establishment.”
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 - Dapper & Stout Coffee Company
Liquor License Map - Dapper & Stout Coffee Company
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 36
Liquor License Data: DAPPER & STOUT COFFEE
COMPANY
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Microbrewery 3 2 2
Bar 6 14 3
Beer and Wine Bar 7 11 10
Liquor Store 9 6 1
Beer and Wine Store 10 7 2
Restaurant 12 48 24
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 44.37 106.84 106.68
Violent Crimes 8.14 16.45 14.33
*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 55 56
Total Violations 90 109
Page 37
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1075001 758 80 % 2% 3%
1075002 1458 74 % 7% 15 %
1075003 1599 46 % 15 % 14 %
1076013 1748 38 % 8% 17 %
1086023 650 23 % 34 % 15 %
1088021 1456 23 % 32 % 31 %
1088022 435 43 % 41 % 19 %
1171001 2126 10 % 15 % 10 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 38
Liquor License Map: DAPPER & STOUT COFFEE COMPANY
100 E CAMELBACK RD
Ü
Date: 4/30/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 39
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 148778.
Summary
Applicant
Jesus Altamirano, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
5828 W. Indian School 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 21, 2021.
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 40
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 worked in the restaurant business for 12 years during that time I also had a
liquor license. Several years ago I decided to rent my restaurant (at this location)
however, the tenant did not pay her rent and did not file for a liquor license.
Unfortunately, it resulted in lost revenue. I locked out the tenant and decided to reopen
my restaurant. I attended Basic and Management liquor law training to identify
obviously intoxicated customers, I am familiar with the legal forms of ID and my staff
also attended the training class.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This restaurant has been in operation for approximately 12 years. The community
supports the restaurant and due to the menu, the service of alcohol complements the
food service. The restaurant does not have any entertainment and the restaurant will
continue to be supportive to the neighborhood and surrounding communities.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - El Original Mariscos Altata
Liquor License Map - El Original Mariscos Altata
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 41
Liquor License Data: EL ORIGINAL MARISCOS ALTATA
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 1 1
Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 1
Liquor Store 9 6 2
Beer and Wine Store 10 7 1
Restaurant 12 7 2
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 44.37 117.72 79.93
Violent Crimes 8.14 23.56 19.21
*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 56 167
Total Violations 91 309
Page 42
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1094001 623 55 % 22 % 23 %
1094004 1754 25 % 24 % 40 %
1094005 1964 56 % 26 % 22 %
1095001 1977 84 % 0% 22 %
1095002 1574 79 % 9% 48 %
1098021 2573 85 % 3% 21 %
1099002 1908 34 % 13 % 25 %
1099003 3146 54 % 16 % 33 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 43
Liquor License Map: EL ORIGINAL MARISCOS ALTATA
5828 W INDIAN SCHOOL RD
Ü
Date: 4/23/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 44
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 148789.
Summary
Applicant
Theresa Morse, Agent
License Type
Series 10 - Beer and Wine Store
Location
6075 N. 19th Ave., Ste. 104
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 5
This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant/store. This location was not
previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is June 21, 2021.
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 45
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:
“The owners have extensive experience owning and managing liquor licensed
establishments in AZ and other states. All employees and owners are familiar with
current liquor laws and are required to take liquor law classes. The owners primary
purpose is to provide food and beer & wine as an accessory to take-out pizza /wings &
deliver the same. The area coaches provide oversight to all employees and
establishments. Furthermore, the owners are diligent to ensure all ID is checked and
alcohol is not sold to intoxicated customers.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“The owners have selected this existing store to allow customers to purchase beer or
wine with their food to go only. The license permits delivery of beer/wine as well as
food. The owners are mindful of the community and they support their cause to abide
by all laws and participate in community action. The issuance of this license is in the
best interest of the community.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Pizza Hut #37665
Liquor License Map - Pizza Hut #37665
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 46
Liquor License Data: PIZZA HUT #37665
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Government 5 1 0
Bar 6 4 2
Liquor Store 9 8 2
Beer and Wine Store 10 9 2
Restaurant 12 6 5
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 44.37 251 541.82
Violent Crimes 8.14 42.72 45.43
*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 56 88
Total Violations 91 145
Page 47
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1067012 803 9% 19 % 32 %
1067013 971 33 % 39 % 20 %
1067031 1122 79 % 3% 16 %
1067032 1120 92 % 0% 4%
1068021 1099 60 % 0% 9%
1068022 1105 85 % 21 % 1%
1068023 1633 17 % 17 % 34 %
1073001 2203 79 % 3% 6%
1074001 1280 80 % 4% 15 %
1074003 839 0% 6% 56 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 48
Liquor License Map: PIZZA HUT #37665
6075 N 19TH AVE
Ü
Date: 4/23/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 49
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 09070282 &
09070282S.
Summary
Applicant
Nicholas Guttilla, Agent
License Type
Series 9 & 9S - Liquor Store with Sampling Privileges
Location
4005 E. Chandler Blvd.
Zoning Classification: C-2 PCD
Council District: 6
This request is for a location transfer of a liquor license for a grocery store. This
location is currently licensed for liquor sales.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is June 28, 2021.
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 50
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:
“Safeway is committed to upholding the highest standards for alcohol sales and
service. Its managers and staff are trained in responsible liquor sales and service,
along with other restricted sales items. Safeway is a national grocery store chain which
takes its responsibility regarding liquor sales very seriously and it has a stellar
compliance record in Arizona.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Placing this license at Safeway #1201 will have no adverse effect on the
neighborhood or customers. There is already an existing liquor license at Safeway
#1201 and the second license will eventually be moved from this location. Only one
series 9 liquor license will be active at a time.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Safeway #1201
Liquor License Map - Safeway #1201
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 51
Liquor License Data: SAFEWAY #1201
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 2 2
Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 1
Liquor Store 9 3 2
Beer and Wine Store 10 5 3
Restaurant 12 16 10
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 44.37 35.37 51.91
Violent Crimes 8.14 3.95 8.38
*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 55 13
Total Violations 89 18
Page 52
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1167121 2721 19 % 15 % 9%
1167122 1832 76 % 0% 3%
1167123 2451 69 % 5% 8%
1167131 589 64 % 51 % 42 %
1167132 1474 87 % 0% 0%
1167133 1145 100 % 0% 7%
1167135 1106 54 % 0% 2%
1167191 1679 87 % 3% 2%
1167194 2185 77 % 0% 4%
1167203 1430 34 % 7% 5%
1167212 1820 65 % 4% 3%
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 53
Liquor License Map: SAFEWAY #1201
4005 E CHANDLER BLVD
Ü
Date: 5/3/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 54
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 09070386 &
09070386S.
Summary
Applicant
Nicholas Guttilla, Agent
License Type
Series 9 & 9S - Liquor Store with Sampling Privileges
Location
810 E. Glendale Ave.
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 6
This request is for an ownership and location transfer of a liquor license for a grocery
store. This location is currently licensed for liquor sales.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is June 28, 2021.
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 55
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:
“Safeway is committed to upholding the highest standards for alcohol sales and
service. Its managers and staff are trained in responsible liquor sales and service,
along with other restricted sales items. Safeway is a national grocery store chain which
takes its responsibility regarding liquor sales very seriously and it has a stellar
compliance record in Arizona.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Placing this license at Safeway #1515 will have no adverse effect on the
neighborhood or customers. These is already an existing liquor license at Safeway
#1201 and the second license will eventually be moved from this location. Only one
series 9 liquor license will be active at a time.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Safeway #1515
Liquor License Map - Safeway #1515
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 56
Liquor License Data: SAFEWAY #1515
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 2 1
Beer and Wine Bar 7 2 1
Liquor Store 9 3 1
Beer and Wine Store 10 8 2
Restaurant 12 16 4
Club 14 2 0
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 44.37 56.68 58.59
Violent Crimes 8.14 5.67 4.35
*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 55 51
Total Violations 89 79
Page 57
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1062002 1751 97 % 6% 1%
1063002 1099 67 % 24 % 17 %
1063003 1910 50 % 11 % 42 %
1063004 1060 59 % 22 % 20 %
1065011 1458 63 % 8% 10 %
1065022 1027 85 % 14 % 4%
1066002 2064 83 % 7% 5%
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 58
Liquor License Map: SAFEWAY #1515
810 E GLENDALE AVE
Ü
Date: 5/3/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 59
PAYMENT ORDINANCE (Ordinance S-47658) (Items 12-27)
Ordinance S-47658 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.
12 Tata Consultancy Services Limited
For $50,000.00 in additional payment authority for Contract 122332 for
professional services for the Information Technology Services
Department. The Tax Mantra system holds historical taxpayer information
used by the Tax Division in Finance for research and reporting. The City
Clerk Department relies on Tax Mantra to manage all regulatory license
services for citizens and businesses. The additional funds are needed to
perform the migration of the application to new supportable and secure
hardware platform.
13 United States Conference of Mayors
For $91,138.00 in payment authority for Fiscal Years 2020-21 and
2021-22 annual membership dues for the City of Phoenix. The United
States Conference of Mayors (USCM) is the official non-partisan
organization of cities with populations of 30,000 or more. Mayors
contribute to development of national urban policy by serving on one or
more of the conference's standing committees. USCM develops policy
positions adopted by the nation's mayors that are distributed to the
President of the United States and Congress. Task forces are also
assembled to examine and act on issues like civic innovation, exports,
hunger and homelessness. The membership ensures that Phoenix's
interests are being represented by the USCM.
Page 60
14 Lumen Technologies, Inc. doing business as Lumen
Technologies Service Group, LLC.
For $23,420.00 in additional payment authority for project ST85100341
for the relocation and rework of fiber and conduit for the Street
Transportation Department. The additional funds are needed for the
placement of Roosevelt Irrigation District pipeline which is required for
construction for the City of Phoenix on 27th Avenue, from Lower Buckeye
to Buckeye roads.
15 AZ Locators, LLC
For $9,500.00 in additional payment authority for Contract 151225 for
locator equipment and associated testing, calibration, maintenance and
repairs to various locators for the Water Services Department. The
locators are used to locate water pipes, cables and utilities. The cost of
the contract increased due to higher utilization than anticipated.
16 EPCOR Water USA, Inc.
For $1,508,000.00 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.
17 Goldman Sachs Renewable Power Operating Company
LLC doing business as Solar Star Arizona III, LLC
For $1,410,000.00 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.
18 ANSI National Accreditation Board, LLC.
For $9,000.00 in payment authority to pay fees necessary for the Water
Services Department to become an accredited Field Sampling and
Measurement Organization through the American National Standards
Institute American Society for Quality National Accreditation Board.
Accreditation requires the environmental and drinking water field sampling
procedures meet standards adopted by the National Environmental
Laboratory Accreditation Conference Institute’s National Environmental
Field Accreditation Program and provides additional checks to ensure
Page 61
effective quality field sampling systems.
19 State of Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
For $250,000.00 in annual payment authority for Fiscal Year 2021-22
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.
20 Roosevelt Irrigation District
For $1,100,000.00 in annual payment authority for Contract 54170 for
Fiscal Year 2021-22 water rights settlement claim costs for the Water
Services Department. In 1998, the City of Phoenix entered into a
comprehensive settlement agreement with Salt River Pima Maricopa
Indian Community, and others, to settle Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian
Community water rights claims. Part of that settlement included an
ongoing three-way water exchange among the City of Phoenix, Salt River
Project and the Roosevelt Irrigation District. The City of Phoenix is
responsible to pay a portion of costs associated with the ongoing annual
exchange.
21 Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power
District doing business as SRP
For $300,000.00 in annual payment authority for Contract 63846 for
Fiscal Year 2021-22 for operation and maintenance costs for the Granite
Reef Underground Storage Project for the Water Services Department.
The Granite Reef Underground Storage Project operates under an
Intergovernmental Agreement between Salt River Project and the cities of
Chandler, Gilbert, Phoenix, Mesa, Scottsdale, and Tempe. Phoenix owns
25.755 percent of the underground water storage capacity of Granite
Reef Underground Storage Project and pays its proportional share of
Granite Reef Underground Storage Project costs.
22 Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power
District doing business as SRP
Page 62
For $130,000.00 in annual payment authority for Contract 53453 for
operation and maintenance of the Central Arizona Project Salt River
Project interconnection facility for the Water Services Department. The
Intergovernmental Agreement between the Salt River Valley Water Users’
Association, the Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power
District, and the cities of Chandler, Gilbert, Glendale, Mesa, Peoria,
Phoenix, Scottsdale, and Tempe allows the City of Phoenix to transport
water from the Central Arizona Project aqueduct to the Granite Reef Dam.
The department is responsible for 38.425 percent of the operating and
maintenance expenses for Fiscal Year 2021-22.
23 Salt River Valley Water Users’ Association
For $4,600,000.00 in annual payment authority for Contract 100353 for
Fiscal Year 2021-22 for water delivery and use agreement to provide
wholesale water within the Salt River Reservoir District for resale by the
Water Services Department. The water delivered to the City by the
Association from the Salt and Verde rivers represents approximately 60
percent of the City’s water supply.
24 Salt River Valley Water Users’ Association
For $120,000.00 in annual payment authority for Agreement 107647 for
delivery, ordering, accounting, and reporting of the Peninsula - Horowitz
Water Entitlement for Fiscal Year 2021-22 for the Water Services
Department. Peninsula, Horowitz, and Champion Irrigation Districts are
located on the southwest portion of the City of Phoenix and are in the
initial stages of conversion from farmland to urban usage. Under the
agreement, the City receives water from the Salt River Valley Water
Users’ Association, treats it and delivers to urban customers within these
irrigation districts.
25 Salt River Valley Water Users’ Association - Water
Transportation Agreement
For $2,500,000.00 in annual payment authority for Contract 59580 to
transfer water from the Salt River Valley Water Users’ Association to the
City, and for the delivery of water from the Salt and Verde rivers pursuant
to water rights held by the City, for Fiscal Year 2021-22 for the Water
Services Department. The department treats and delivers water for lands
within the Salt River Reservoir District which have rights to the water
Page 63
stored and developed by the Salt River Valley Water Users’ Association.
26 Water Research Foundation - Annual Payment
Authority
For $265,090.00 in payment authority to the Water Research Foundation
for the Water Services Department. The Foundation sponsors research to
assist water utilities in providing safe and affordable drinking water. Having
a membership with the organization allows Water Services staff access to
the latest research and technical information used to address drinking
water, wastewater, and water reclamation issues.
27 Multimedia Holdings Corporation doing business as
KPNX-TV, Channel 12, 12 News, Tegna Inc, KPNX.com
For $40,000.00 in payment authority for a new contract, entered into on or
about June 16, 2021, for a one-year term to conduct recruitment
advertising for the Human Resources Department. The advertising
campaign is expected to begin the Fall of 2021 for critical and hard-to-fill
positions such as 911 Operators, Solid Waste Equipment Operators,
Street Maintenance Workers and other hard-to-fill positions. Several
advertising stations were contacted and 12 News was selected because it
was the lowest priced, caters to all demographics, can begin the
campaign the Fall of 2021 and has successfully completed advertising
campaigns for the City of Phoenix. The campaign includes broadcast
news, streaming content, internet sites, and community outreach.
Page 64
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Grants (Ordinance S-47649)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to apply, accept, and if
awarded, enter into related agreements for up to $836,200 in new funding from Fort
McDowell Yavapai Nation under the 2021 funding cycle. Further request authorization
for the City Treasurer to accept, and the City Controller to disburse, funds by Fort
McDowell Yavapai Nation in connection with these grants.
Summary
If awarded, these monies would be applied, as directed by Fort McDowell Yavapai
Nation towards the following:
City Applications
· Community and Economic Development Department: $50,000 for the Reinvest
Maryvale Campaign, which will attract meaningful investment and development
interest in the Maryvale Village, that will provide education, recreational and
economic opportunity to the residents and visitors of Maryvale.
· Housing Department: $27,460 for the PHXHousing Connect Tech Ambassador
Program, which will develop a new program for up to 800 senior residents at the
city's public housing properties who recently received a device and free internet
service. Funding will be used to develop a Tech Ambassador program to provide
continued support to the city's senior public housing residents by supporting one
year of peer-to-peer digital literacy skill training and isolation-reducing social
activities.
· Human Services Department: $149,479 for the Phoenix Youth R.I.S.E. program,
which will provide youth of Phoenix, ages 16 to 24, an opportunity to participate in a
paid, four-week work experience/internship with a community business during the
summer months. Funding will allow for 107 more youth to be served and in turn
support the economic and community development needs in Phoenix.
· Office of Environmental Programs and Community and Economic Development
Department: $289,000 (over two years) for the Phoenix Urban Agriculture, Climate
Resilience, and Entrepreneurship (ACRE) program, which will strengthen the food
production step of the local food system by helping farms increase climate
Page 65
resilience, growing new farm entrepreneurs and worker cooperatives, and training
the next generation of growers through a fellowship program that embeds fellows
with farms and other entrepreneurs.
· Phoenix Fire Department: $84,361 for the Phoenix Fire Department Regional
Paramedic Training Unit Vehicle, funding will be used to acquire a dedicated
paramedic training vehicle that will provide a consistent and reliable apparatus for
paramedic students to respond to EMS incidents to practice response, apply
knowledge and perform skills necessary to effectively provide medical treatment in
a pre-hospital setting prior to certification.
Nonprofit Applications
· Aunt Rita's Foundation: $10,000 for the Ending the HIV Epidemic: Prevention,
Education, Testing, and Outreach program, which would educate individuals about
HIV, prevent HIV transmission, promote HIV testing, provide resources to access
health care, medications, housing, substance use treatment, legal aid, etc., and
heighten the awareness of HIV through virtual and in-person community events.
· Arizona Educational Foundation: $25,000 for the Our World: Educators for
Indigenous Students program, which will provide training for teachers and
administrators serving Indigenous students throughout the City of Phoenix and
Maricopa County.
· Arizona Foundation for Women: $25,000 for the SHE Leads! Leadership
Development for Women program, which seeks to amplify its impact by creating a
cohort of SHE Leads! participants from BIPOC communities who have often been
marginalized by past leadership programs.
· Arizona Helping Hands: $10,000 for the Basic Needs program, which will provide
beds and other essential items for children in foster care so they can lead healthy
and safe lives.
· Arizona Humane Society: $8,000 for the Humane Teens for a Humane Future
program, which will benefit the Humane Teens program during the 2022-2023
school year, allowing Arizona Humane Society to enroll up to 40 teens in their
STEM-related internship program.
· Camp Colley: $27,900 for the Phoenix Youth to Camp Colley 2021 program, which
will fund undeserved Phoenix children to attend Camp Colley in 2021 for their
positive learning and growth in nature. Program objectives include increasing social
-emotional skills and environmental education/learning.
· Esperanca, Inc.: $10,000 for the Health Literacy Education for Low-Income Latino
Children, Adults and Seniors program, which will support Esperanca's delivery of
evidence-based health literacy programs regarding nutrition, physical activity,
chronic disease self-management, such as diabetes, and oral health to reduce the
prevalence of obesity, diabetes and poor oral health that disproportionately affect
Page 66
low-income Latino children, adults, and seniors. Esperanca also delivers meals and
food items to Latino seniors in the programs to reduce food insecurity and promote
healthy eating.
· Foundation for Senior Living (FSL): $15,000 for the FSL Nutrition Program for Low-
Income Seniors program, which will support FSL's efforts to reduce food insecurity
and improve the health outcomes of an estimated 1,000 unduplicated low-income
seniors and homebound adults with disabilities through the provision of 70,000 hot,
nutritious meals in Fiscal Year 2022.
· New Pathways for Youth: $50,000 for the Holistic Youth Transformation Program,
which will provide a comprehensive, evidence-based programming to improve the
educational outcome of at-risk students attending Title I schools in Maricopa
County. Funding will serve more than 600 new Title I students over the next five
years, more than doubling their organizational impact.
· Ronald McDonald House Charities of Central and Northern Arizona: $25,000 for the
Keeping Families Together program, which will offer families a welcoming and safe
place to stay, meals, and a support system of other families who are also
experiencing a difficult time. Funding would fund 234 nights of rest for families and
would allow them to stay close to their ill or injured children receiving specialized
care at a Phoenix-area hospital.
· Valley of the Sun YMCA: $20,000 for the Childcare, Preschool, and Meal Programs
for low-income Phoenix children program, which will provide childcare, preschool,
and meals to children from low-income Phoenix families at no cost.
· Year Up Arizona: $10,000 for the Closing the Opportunity Divide in Phoenix:
Support for Year Up Arizona's Workforce Development Program, which support
Year Up Arizona's Gateway Community College location. They will enroll up to 160
young adults in the program preparing them to compete for careers and thrive in a
rapidly evolving economy.
The gaming compact entered into by the State of Arizona and various tribes calls for
12 percent of gaming revenue to be contributed to cities, towns, and counties for
government services that benefit the public including education, public safety, health,
environment, economic and community development. The Fort McDowell Yavapai
Nation will notify the City, by resolution of the Tribal Council, if it desires to convey to
the City a portion of its annual 12 percent local-revenue-sharing contribution.
Financial Impact
There is no budgetary impact to the City of Phoenix and no General Fund dollars are
required. Entities that receive gaming grants are responsible for the management of
those funds.
Page 67
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Ed Zuercher and the Office of Government
Relations.
Page 68
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Grants (Ordinance S-47639)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to apply, accept, and if
awarded, enter into related agreements for up to $6,870,730.76 in new funding from
the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC) under the 2021 funding cycle. Further request
authorization for the City Treasurer to accept and the City Controller to disburse funds
as directed by GRIC in connection with these grants.
Summary
If awarded, these monies would be applied, as directed by GRIC, towards the
following:
City Applications
· Housing Department: $65,450 for the Phoenix Housing Connect Digital Literacy
Training, which will develop a digital literacy training program for residents who
recently received a device and two years of free internet service. Additionally,
training will be provided to onsite residents interested in becoming Tech
Ambassadors to assist their neighbors who need individual assistance.
· Neighborhood Services Department: $203,600 (over three years) for the Love Your
Block Project, which will heighten neighborhood, business and community
engagement.
· Office of Environmental Programs: $298,356 (over three years) for the Seeding
Abundance and Growing Our Future project, which will provide equipment and
training for consumers located in food deserts to grow their own food and develops
new urban farmers resulting in improved health, reduced food insecurity and
increased economic opportunities.
· Office of Sustainability: $192,000 (over three years) for the Cool Kids Cool
Corridors - A Children's Health Project, which will implement cooling strategies and
vegetation to improve the public health of students.
· Parks and Recreation Department: $20,100 for the Pueblo Grande Museum
Outdoor Exhibits Renovation, which will renovate two outdoor exhibit areas, the
reconstructed pit houses and the demonstration archeological dig site on the
grounds of Pueblo Grande Museum.
Page 69
· Phoenix Fire Department: $76,189.42 for the Special Events Emergency Response
Vehicle program, which will enhance emergency medical response capabilities
within the footprint of special events with limited vehicle access due to crowd
congestion or space restriction.
· Phoenix Police Department: $269,043.34 for the Officer Safety Package, which will
provide additional night vision goggles and protective equipment needed to
effectively protect officers and citizens within the Phoenix Metropolitan area.
· Public Transit Department: $85,000 for the 302 N. 1st Avenue Parking Garage
Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Stations project, funding will be used to purchase
and install six EV charging stations in the Public Transit owned 302 N. 1st Avenue
(Public Transit headquarters) parking garage.
· Public Transit Department: $299,850 (over two years) for the Transit Bus Shelter
Safety Lighting Program, which will expedite and improve lighting systems for
transit bus shelters to provide and improve customer experience and increased
public safety for the transit-dependent populations in Phoenix.
· Public Works Department: $9,920 for the Virtual Compost Facility Tour in the Solid
Waste Section, which will fund an educational tour of a compost facility to be posted
online to the public.
Non-Profit Applications
· 19North Community Alliance: $237,000 for the Accelerating Economic Development
through Transit Oriented Development, which will implement the recommendations
outlined by the City of Phoenix in the 19North Transit Oriented Development Policy
Plan.
· A New Leaf, Inc.: $100,000 for A New Leaf's Workforce Development Services,
which will expand service capacity through a Workforce Central program office
location in Phoenix to promote and assist with employment, job readiness, and
economic security for community members.
· Arizona Center for Nature Conservation/Phoenix Zoo: $150,000 (over three years)
for The Pride Campaign-Predator Passage, the Predator Passage, the Africa Trail
Expansion will be the Zoo's largest capital project to date, spanning six acres and
resulting in an immersive experience for guests featuring new, up-close animal
viewing of lions, hyenas, leopards, meerkats, wart hogs, fennec fox and more. To
include educational components and conservation, species survival efforts.
· Amanda Hope Rainbow Angels: $25,000 for the Moms Mentoring Program, which
will provide mentoring for moms whose children are battling cancer and other life-
threatening diseases.
· Arizona Foundation for Women: $25,000 for the SHE Leads program, a Women's
Leadership Development Certificate Program.
Page 70
· Assistance League of Phoenix: $50,000 for the Operation School Bell Wardrobes
for Children in Poverty program, which will provide new school wardrobes, including
a hygiene kit and new book to very low-income grade K-8 children attending over
90 Phoenix Metro Area high-poverty, Title 1 schools.
· Arizona Helping Hands: $100,000 (over two years) for the Basic Needs Program, a
signature program of Arizona Helping Hands by providing beds and other essential
items for children in foster care so they can lead healthy and safe lives.
· Arizona Humane Society: $500,000 (over two years) for Arizona Humane Society's
Campaign to Transform Animal Welfare, which will transform Maricopa County from
the second-worst place to be a homeless pet in the nation to the best, the Arizona
Humane Society (AHS) proposes a replacement of its deteriorating Sunnyslope
Campus with the Central Campus & Animal Medical Center. Working as a
comprehensive system of care with the Nina Mason Pulliam Campus for
Compassion, the Central Campus & Animal Medical Center will enhance AHS' life-
saving abilities.
· Arizona Science Center: $50,000 for the STEM Education Programs for Under
Served Youth program, which will help deliver essential STEM education programs
including Focused Field Trips and Science on Wheels to children from Title I
schools in 2022.
· Arizona Sustainability Alliance: $47,499 for the Sow It Forward: Vertical Garden
Program, which will mitigate food insecurity by improving access to fresh, healthy
produce and provide food and farmers market education to students in low-income
and Title I K-12 schools.
· Arizona Autism United: $120,000 (over two years) for the Bilingual Family Support
Specialist to serve more local families affected by developmental disabilities and to
strengthen access to critical service among under served communities.
· Ballet Arizona: $30,000 (over three years) for the DanceAZ Program, which will
deliver high-quality arts education during the next three school years, annually
engaging approximately 100 low-income, under served students (grades 3-5)
attending Maricopa County Title I elementary schools.
· Banner Health Foundation: $500,000 (over three years) for the Center for Clinician
Resiliency program, which will seek to build resiliency and reduce burnout in
clinicians across their health care system. This project will reduce the stigma of
mental/behavioral health concerns and build wellness into regular routines and work
flows through education and training of resiliency champions, retreats, respite
opportunities and counseling.
· Barrow Neurological Foundation: $50,000 for The Barrow Concussion & Brain Injury
Center Domestic Violence Program, which will provide medical treatment and
community outreach support, in the form of cognitive retraining and education, for
the victims of domestic violence, living in shelters, in Maricopa County.
Page 71
· Big Brothers Big Sisters of Central Arizona: $30,000 for the Making More Matches:
Getting Youth off the Wait List program, which will provide youth mentoring.
· Boys & Girls Club of the Valley (BGCAZ): $100,000 for the Safe, Healthy and
Successful Kids Program, which will help to improve the academic success, life
skills, safety, health and well-being of at least 10,000 youth attending BGCAZ's 24
Clubs throughout the Valley.
· Boys Hope Girls Hope of Arizona: $35,000 for the Scholar Success program, which
will help high achieving students living in poverty get to and through college.
· Children's Museum of Phoenix: $300,000 (over three years) for the Children's
Museum of Phoenix's Free First Friday Nights and Innovation Fund Initiatives. This
initiative opens the museum to the public for ten free nights per year serving 25,000
people, as well their Innovation Fund, which enables the museum to routinely
create and update imaginative and research-based exhibits, activities and
programs.
· Cihuapactli Collective: $300,000 (over three years) for the Nurturing Community
Wellness through Comadrismo program, which will provide capacity building and
general support aimed at promoting health and wellness among urban Indigenous
Peoples.
· Civitan Foundation, Inc.: $125,884 for the MIDTOWN: Employment and Life-Skills
Opportunities for Developmentally Disabled Arizonans, which will address the
disproportionate challenges and barriers to employment, displacement from quality
programs due to the pandemic, and barriers to life-skills development that
intellectually and developmentally disabled Arizonans face. Funding will support a
large capital project at MIDTOWN that will transform the Northeastern corner of the
Coronado Neighborhood, and provide major economic development for disabled
Arizonans.
· Duet: Partners in Health & Aging: $30,000 for the Support for Non-English-Speaking
Kinship Families. Funding will help secure a full-time bilingual social worker to meet
the increased demand of Duet's non-English speaking kinship families in crisis who
need a coordinated approach to navigating the holistic needs of their families and
provide case management to grand families in crisis.
· Educare Arizona: $50,000 for the Child Development Association Certificate: A Two-
Generation Anti-Poverty Program, which will enable low-income individuals,
primarily mothers, to begin new careers while improving early childhood education
for thousands of young children in Arizona.
· Elevate Phoenix: $30,000 for the Improving the Lives and Futures of Low-Income
Urban Youth and Families program, which will help Elevate Phoenix improve the
academic success, life skills, literacy skills, health, well-being and future outcomes
for low-income, at risk, urban youth and their families.
· Esperanca, Inc.: $10,000 for the Health Literacy Education for Low-Income Latino
Page 72
Children, Adults, and Seniors program, which will support the delivery of health
literacy programs regarding nutrition, physical activity, chronic disease self-
management, such as diabetes, and oral health to reduce the prevalence of obesity,
diabetes, and poor oral health that disproportionably affect low-income Latino
children, adults, and seniors.
· Foundation for Senior Living (FSL): $25,000 for the FSL Nutrition Program for Low-
Income Seniors, which will support FSL's efforts to reduce food insecurity and
improve the health outcomes of an estimated 1,000 unduplicated low-income
seniors, adults with disabilities, and homebound adults through the provision of
70,000 hot, nutritious meals.
· Furnishing Dignity: $20,000 for the Essential Home Furnishings program, which will
provide complete home furnishings for low-income children, youth, adults and
families successfully transitioning out of homelessness or foster care into self-
reliance. Everyone deserves the comforts of home. Through in-kind donations of
gently used home furnishings and community support, Furnishing Dignity's
Essential Home Furnishings program makes this a reality for those on their pathway
to self-sufficiency and success.
· Girl-Scouts-Arizona Cactus-Pine Council: $25,000 for the Girl Scout Program,
which will support Girl Scout programming that promotes academic achievement,
mental wellness, and overall positive life outcomes for girls in Maricopa County.
· Greater Phoenix Chamber Foundation: $100,000 (over two years) for the Workforce
Collaboratives program, which will strengthen the alignment between education and
businesses, addressing the talent shortage for high wage, high demand careers
and improving the economic prospects of 2,000 individuals.
· Greater Phoenix Urban League, Inc.: $300,000 (over three years) for the Summer
Youth Empowerment Program, which will support funding for a five-year program.
· Hope Community Services: $25,000 for the Horses Healing Kids Equine Therapy
Program, which will expand HCS's successful equine therapy for children who have
experienced extreme trauma including severe violence, neglect and/or sexual,
physical and emotional abuse.
· Hushabye Nursery: $28,228 for the Healthy Families, Healthy Communities
program, which will provide neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) infant and
caregiver treatment for five families.
· Justa Center: $30,000 for the Improving the Health of Homeless Seniors program
which will hire a full-time nurse for Justa Center's on-site clinic to provide needed
services for homeless seniors in Phoenix.
· Life More Abundantly: $15,000 for the Family Health and Wellness STD Testing
Program, which will support staffing, STD testing kits and processing, supplies, and
brochures for STD testing in the South Phoenix Community where the rates are
highest and the health care resources are scarce and costly.
Page 73
· Lights Camera Discover: $195,000 (over three years) for the Lights Camera
Discover Youth STEAM Workshops, which will allow them to purchase much
needed supplies to facilitate their youth programs and assist with program
implementation.
· Live and Learn Program: $20,000 for the COVID-19 Relief Program, which will
provide funding to continue the COVID-19 Relief Program, the program offers
women in poverty a path back to stability and employment, and demand remains
high.
· Los Ninos Hospital Inc., DBA Innovative Home Health Nursing Services: $64,348
(over two years) for the Home Health Nursing Technology Services, which will
create efficiency and improve patient care by converting patient paper processes to
patient electronic processes.
· Lost Boys Center for Leadership Development: $205,500 (over three years) for the
Youth Education & Leadership Development for Second-Generation Sudanese
Refugees program, which will provide a breadth of educational, social, and
leadership opportunities for second-generation Sudanese refugees so they may
thrive within their families, schools, and Arizona communities.
· Maggie's Place, Inc.: $40,000 for the Family Success Center for Homeless
Pregnant Women program, which will provide supportive services to more than 250
mothers and children.
· MentorKids USA: $20,000 for the iLEAD Program, which will help youth (9th - 12th
grade) become leaders in their lives, their families, and their neighborhoods.
· Million Dollar Teacher Project: $90,000 (over three years) for the Title 1 Tech
program, which funding will be used to purchase and distribute computers, laptops,
hotspots to disadvantaged students in the Phoenix metro area to facilitate their
distance learning.
· Native American Connections: $25,000 for the Phoenix Indian School Visitor
Center, which will provide funding for the Phoenix Indian School Visitor Center,
whose purpose is to tell the untold story of the Phoenix Indian School and its alumni
to a wide community audience and to show how this story relates to larger history of
American Indian Boarding schools and Indian history in the Southwest and
nationally.
· OCJ Kids: $25,000 for the Cuddle Bags Distribution program, which will reduce
children's trauma after they are removed from abusive homes and as they transition
into foster care.
· Phoenix AKArama Foundation: $193,048 (over four years) for the Ultimate
Technology Extra-Curricular Education Programs, which will provide extra-curricular
educational programs for under-served communities with an emphasis on STEM
education.
· Phoenix Public Library Foundation: $100,000 for the Investing in Literacy, Learning
Page 74
and Creativity program, which will support Phoenix Public Library Foundation's
Capital Campaign to bring exceptional preschool learning environments to our
libraries. Funding would be used to improve and enhance Children's Place at
Burton Barr Central Library. The first five years is a critical time in a child's life; 90
percent of a child's brain development happens by age five. Providing free,
stimulating, and interactive environments for children is key to supporting school
readiness skills. This funding would enhance and update the Storybook Garden at
Burton Barr Central Library.
· ResilientME, Inc.: $40,000 (over two years) for the R's of Resilient Me program,
which will provide prevention programming rooted in evidence-based practices for
developing resiliency to youth transitioning from foster care, a population
particularly vulnerable to homelessness and incarceration.
· Rosie's House: $100,000 (over four years) for the $5 million More than Music
Campaign, which will support the purchase, renovation and equipping of a
permanent facility that will help Rosie's House increase enrollment and create
relevant programs that encourage young people from low-income neighborhoods to
think critically, solve problems in inventive ways, collaborate, and ultimately become
the well-rounded intellectual talent needed to ensure Arizona's future.
· Southern Arizona Association for the Visually Impaired (SAAVI): $35,000 for the
Real Empowerment through Achievement and Learning (REAL) Program for Blind
Children program, which will continue to expand educational programming for blind
children throughout Phoenix.
· SEED SPOT: $103,875 for the Accelerating Economic Recovery through
Entrepreneurship program, which will ensure that entrepreneurs and small business
owners in the Phoenix metro area can access the support they need to accelerate
an equitable economic recovery.
· SOUNDS Academy: $40,000 (over two years) for the Comprehensive Music
Education program, which will extend high quality music education programming to
395 youth traditionally under-represented in classical music and under-served
through music education opportunities in school.
· St. Joseph the Worker: $15,000 for the Employment Without Barriers program,
which will provide quality employment opportunities to individuals experiencing
homelessness and those facing extreme poverty across Maricopa County.
· St. Mary's Food Bank: $100,000 for the St. Mary's Food Bank Skills Center, which
will improve the lives of homeless, formerly incarcerated, and other vulnerable
people by training them for jobs in the food industry or a warehouse and helping
with job placement.
· Televerde Foundation: $100,000 (over two years) for the Prepare Achieve and
Transform for Healthy Success (PATHS) program, a workforce development
program for currently and formerly incarcerated women focusing on personal
Page 75
wellness, workplace readiness, employment strategies financial literacy, lifelong
learning and mentoring.
· The Opportunity Tree: $25,000 for the Youth Transition Program - Self Sufficiency
for Youth with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (IDD) program, which will
continue to expand the program and provide employment training for youth with
IDD.
· The Sagrado: $60,840 for the Conscious Development program, which will activate
and replicate an outdoor meditation space created to connect community members
with nature, each other, and themselves through healing arts.
· Upward for Children and Families: $30,000 for the Lifting Children Upward Nursing
Program, which will provide medically vulnerable children, and potentially adults,
who have disabilities with on-site nursing care so they can attend Upward's Special
Education School, Child Care program and Adult Day Treatment program.
· USO Arizona: $90,000 (over three years) for USO Youth Programs and USO
Phoenix Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS), which will strengthen and
connect military service members and their families through programs and services
that boost morale, provide a sense of community, and build resiliency among
children and families. Funding will support USO Arizona's youth programming
including Kids Camp programs (arts, recreation, and educational programs) and
services for military service members through their Phoenix MEPS location.
· Valley of the Sun YMCA: $50,000 (over two years) for the Childcare, Preschool, and
Meal Programs for low-income Phoenix children program, which will provide
childcare, preschool, and meals to children from low-income Phoenix families.
· Year Up Arizona: $20,000 for the Supporting Youth Employment and Economic
Mobility: Year Up Arizona's Workforce Development Program, which will support
Year Up Arizona's core Academics, Program, and Student Services program
elements to prepare their students to compete for careers and thrive in a rapidly
evolving economy.
The gaming compact entered into the State of Arizona and various tribes calls for 12
percent of gaming revenue to be contributed to cities, towns and counties for
government services that benefit the general public including public safety, mitigation
of impacts of gaming and promotion of commerce, and economic development. The
Gila River Indian Community will notify the City, by resolution, of the Tribal Council, if it
desires to convey to the City a portion of its annual 12 percent local revenue-sharing
contribution.
Financial Impact
There is no budgetary impact to the City of Phoenix and no general purpose funds are
required. Entities that receive gaming grants are responsible for the management of
those funds.
Page 76
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Ed Zuercher and the Office of Government
Relations.
Page 77
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to apply, accept, and if
awarded, enter into related agreements for up to $637,944 in new funding from the Ak-
Chin Indian Community under the 2021 funding cycle. Further request authorization for
the City Treasurer to accept and the City Controller to disburse funds as directed by
the Ak-Chin Indian Community in connection with these grants.
Summary
If awarded, these monies would be applied, as directed by the Ak-Chin Indian
Community, towards the following:
City Applications
· Community and Economic Development Department: $50,000 for the Reinvest
Maryvale Marketing Campaign, which will attract investment and development
interest in the Maryvale Village, with the project goal to attract meaningful
investment and development that will provide education, recreational and economic
opportunity to the residents and visitors of Maryvale.
· Housing Department: $40,000 for the Digital Literacy Program, which will allow for
the development of a custom digital literacy program for residents who recently
received a device and two years of free internet service. Residents will receive
access to device-specific training and social activities to reduce social isolation,
increase access to tele-medicine and online access to services. Additionally,
funding will be provided to onside residents interested in becoming Tech
Ambassadors to assist their neighbors who need individual assistance.
· Human Services Department: $30,000 for the Men All Need to be Caring, Actively-
Engaged, Vested and Encouraged (M.A.N. C.A.V.E.) Fatherhood Program, which
will fund the curriculum, workshops, participation support costs and the annual
Helping Boys Thrive/Fatherhood Summit. Additionally, funding will support the
partnership with the Native American Fathers and Families Program to provide
educational information and training to support engaging fathers.
· Parks and Recreation Department: $5,000 for the FitPHX Yoga and Hike program,
which will fund the opportunity to host a monthly, free, FitPHX Yoga and Hike
program for the community of Phoenix, Ak-Chin Indian community and surrounding
communities at the South Mountain Preserve. This program will provide a pre-hike
Page 78
yoga class led by a contracted certified yoga teacher, followed by an instructor led
interpretative hike through South Mountain Preserve that is suitable for all levels.
Participants will get a well-rounded approach to health and wellness through the
benefits of the yoga class and hike. After completion of the hike, participants will
have the opportunity to win raffle prizes and interact with instructors and fellow
participants.
· Parks and Recreation Department: $47,800 for the Collaborating for Cultural
Continuity: A New Plan for Permanent Exhibits at Pueblo Grande Museum, which
will fund the creation of an interpretive plan and conceptual design plan for a
complete redo of the permanent exhibit galleries at Pueblo Grande Museum. The
plan will include the goals of 1) ensuring that the perspectives of descendant
communities is clearly evident and central to exhibit interpretation; 2) delivering a
holistic presentation of ancestral culture to include environmental contexts and
implications for 21st Century desert life and 3) redesigning the physical gallery
spaces to meet current environmental standards, improve traffic flow and better
accommodate visitor groups.
· Phoenix Police Department: $300,000 for The Great Outdoors - A Positive
Relationship Between Police and Community program, which aims to provide a
structure for children of Santa Maria Middle School and Western Valley Middle
School that will help achieve greater physical and mental health. The Phoenix
Police Department and the Fowler School District are hoping to partner in providing
an after-school and summer program for students at Santa Maria Middle School
and Western Middle School. This program will seek to use the outdoors in as many
of the activities as possible to promote physical, emotional, and mental health.
During each activity, a planned "fireside discussion" will be led by one of the
officers. These fireside discussions will focus on relevant topics to children that will
focus on their emotional, mental, and physical health.
Non-Profit Applications
· American Indian Veterans Memorial Organization: $100,000 for the American Indian
Veterans Memorial, which will be built at Steele Indian School Park in Phoenix.
· Arizona Helping Hands: $10,000 for the Basic Needs Program, a signature program
of Arizona Helping Hands, which will provide beds and other essential items for
children in foster care so they can lead healthy and safe lives.
· Creighton Community Foundation: $30,000 for the Fresh in the Neighborhood
program, as part of the Creighton Community Gardens Program, which seeks to
transform the local food system to bring inclusive, equitable, and participatory food
access to the most vulnerable communities. The program aims to build capacity
and create healthy connections around food and nutrition throughout school-
centered neighborhoods who suffer from a variety of systemic inequalities.
Page 79
· River of Dreams DBA Daring Adventures: $25,144 for the Daring Adventures:
Helping People with Disabilities Reach Their Everest program, which will improve
the health and wellness of individuals with disabilities. Funds will be used to
increase participation for #OurEverest programming including but not limited to
Glen Canyon, kayaking, hiking, cycling and camping.
The gaming compact entered into by the State of Arizona and various tribes calls for
12 percent of gaming revenue to be contributed to cities, towns, and counties for
government services that benefit the general public including public safety, mitigation
of impacts of gaming, and promotion of commerce and economic development. The Ak
-Chin Indian Community will notify the City, by resolution, of the Tribal Council, if it
desires to convey to the City a portion of its annual 12 percent local revenue-sharing
contribution.
Financial Impact
There is no budgetary impact to the City of Phoenix and no general purpose funds are
required. Entities that receive gaming grants are responsible for the management of
those funds.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Ed Zuercher and the Office of Government
Relations.
Page 80
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
of the Final 2021-22 Annual Budget
As required by State statute, this item requests the City Council hold a public hearing
on the City's proposed Property Tax Levy and Truth in Taxation and the adoption of the
final 2021-22 City of Phoenix Annual Budget (see Attachment A for State Budget
Forms).
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Ed Zuercher, Assistant City Manager Jeff
Barton and the Budget and Research Department.
Page 81
Attachment A - State Forms A through G
CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA
Summary Schedule of Estimated Revenues and Expenditures/Expenses
Fiscal Year 2021-22
(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
2021 Adopted/Adjusted Budgeted Expenditures/Expenses* E 1,476,913 1,727,285 129,497 2,599,180 1,686,765 2,213,434 9,833,074
2021 Actual Expenditures/Expenses** E 1,377,249 1,431,408 128,846 979,440 1,410,629 1,435,601 6,763,173
2022 Fund Balance/Net Position at July 1*** 244,765 567,054 100 633,566 739,279 2,341,651 4,526,415
2022 Primary Property Tax Levy B 191,294 191,294
2022 Secondary Property Tax Levy B 119,289 119,289
2022 Estimated Revenues Other than Property Taxes C 194,252 2,897,357 4,397 467,229 1,363,608 4,926,843
2022 Other Financing Sources D 1,000 1,074 650 700,000 5,431 708,155
2022 Other Financing (Uses) D
2022 Interfund Transfers In D 1,117,024 595,203 5,379 20,285 137,684 1,875,575
2022 Interfund Transfers (Out) D 140,717 1,571,947 44,611 117,708 1,874,983
Page 82
2022 Reduction for Amounts Not Available:
LESS: Amounts for Future Debt Retirement:
Future Capital Projects
Maintained Fund Balance for Financial Stability
2022 Total Financial Resources Available 1,607,618 2,488,741 129,815 1,776,469 2,128,294 2,341,651 10,472,588
2022 Budgeted Expenditures/Expenses E 1,607,618 2,206,494 129,714 1,157,566 1,682,695 2,341,651 9,125,738
EXPENDITURE LIMITATION COMPARISON 2021 2022
1. Budgeted expenditures/expenses $ 7,619,640 $ 6,784,087
2. Add/subtract: estimated net reconciling items (1,447,661) 1,451,623
3. Budgeted expenditures/expenses adjusted for reconciling items 6,171,979 8,235,710
4. Less: estimated exclusions
5. Amount subject to the expenditure limitation $ 6,171,979 $ 8,235,710
6. EEC expenditure limitation $ 9,833,074 $ 9,125,738
* 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).
4/19 Arizona Auditor General's Office
SCHEDULE A Official City/Town Budget Forms
CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA
Tax Levy and Tax Rate Information
Fiscal Year 2021-22
(In Thousands)
2020-21 2021-22
1. Maximum allowable primary property tax levy.
A.R.S. §42-17051(A) $ 185,429 $ 193,314
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 $ 181,767 $ 193,225
B. Secondary property taxes 114,741 120,494
C. Total property tax levy amounts $ 296,508 $ 313,719
4. Property taxes collected*
A. Primary property taxes
(1) Current year's levy $ 179,950
(2) Prior years’ levies 1,261
(3) Total primary property taxes $ 181,211
B. Secondary property taxes
(1) Current year's levy $ 113,594
(2) Prior years’ levies 868
(3) Total secondary property taxes $ 114,462
C. Total property taxes collected $ 295,673
5. Property tax rates
A. City/Town tax rate
(1) Primary property tax rate 1.3055 1.3055
(2) Secondary property tax rate 0.8241 0.8141
(3) Total city/town tax rate 2.1296 2.1196
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 2021-22 planned primary and secondary levies are $193,225,455 and $120,493,943,
respectively. Historically, actual property tax collections have been slightly lower than the amount
levied. For 2021-22, actual collections for primary and secondary property taxes are estimated to
be $191,294,000 and $119,289,000, 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.
4/19 Arizona Auditor General's Office SCHEDULE
Page 83
B Official City/Town Budget Forms
CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA
Revenues Other Than Property Taxes
Fiscal Year 2021-22
(In Thousands)
ESTIMATED ACTUAL ESTIMATED
REVENUES REVENUES * REVENUES
SOURCE OF REVENUES 2020-21 2020-21 2021-22
GENERAL FUND
Intergovernmental
County Vehicle License Tax $ 71,743 $ 75,200 $ 79,100
Charges for services
Fire Emergency Transportation Services $ 37,875 $ 30,371 $ 33,500
Hazardous Materials Inspection Fee 1,400 1,400 1,500
Planning 1,808 1,387 1,497
Police 15,481 12,975 13,108
Street Transportation 6,684 6,145 6,481
Other Service Charges 20,365 18,484 21,644
Fines and forfeits
Moving Violations $ 6,133 $ 5,949 $ 5,949
Parking Violations 758 427 467
Driving While Intoxicated 771 450 450
Defensive Driving Program 2,512 1,375 1,375
Other Receipts 2,670 1,933 2,166
Interest on investments
Interest on investments $ 9,420 $ 5,410 $ 5,550
Contributions
SRP In-Lieu Taxes $ 1,987 $ 2,010 $ 2,010
Coronavirus Relief Fund $ - $ 109,225 $ -
Miscellaneous
Miscellaneous $ 6,899 $ 5,674 $ 5,279
Parks and Recreation 7,559 3,461 4,093
Libraries 768 204 483
Cable Communications 10,120 9,600 9,600
Total General Fund $ 204,953 $ 291,680 $ 194,252
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
Highway User Revenue Fund
Incorporated Cities Share $ 115,980 $ 113,312 $ 118,834
300,000 Population Share 29,144 28,807 30,126
Interest/Other 1,160 760 755
$ 146,284 $ 142,879 $ 149,715
4/19 Arizona Auditor General's Office SCHEDULE
Page 84 C Official City/Town Budget Forms
CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA
Revenues Other Than Property Taxes
Fiscal Year 2021-22
(In Thousands)
ESTIMATED ACTUAL ESTIMATED
REVENUES REVENUES * REVENUES
SOURCE OF REVENUES 2020-21 2020-21 2021-22
Excise Tax Fund
Local Taxes $ 503,367 $ 525,063 $ 547,397
Stormwater 5,040 5,037 5,087
Jet Fuel 769 741 744
License & Permits 6,010 5,302 5,571
State Sales Tax 174,072 189,898 197,945
State Income Tax 241,167 240,237 219,316
Neighborhood Protection 36,539 38,258 40,214
2007 Public Safety Expansion 73,083 76,517 80,428
Public Safety Enhancement 22,789 26,808 24,706
Parks and Preserves 36,539 38,259 40,214
Transportation 2050 249,230 261,183 274,395
Capital Construction 8,239 7,790 7,370
Sports Facilities 20,558 10,877 15,578
Convention Center 60,050 50,420 57,196
$ 1,437,452 $ 1,476,390 $ 1,516,161
Other Special Revenue Funds
Neighborhood Protection $ 637 $ 3,433 $ 405
2007 Public Safety Expansion 607 8,146 321
Parks and Preserves 2,242 1,627 1,852
Transportation 2050 43,468 15,855 27,973
Capital Construction 300 45 222
Sports Facilities 4,412 4,313 4,240
Development Services 72,140 69,500 71,428
Regional Transit 41,124 27,828 38,945
Community Reinvestment 5,987 5,938 5,863
Impact Fee Administration 625 515 525
Regional Wireless Cooperative 5,167 5,543 5,515
Golf 6,274 8,439 6,794
Court Awards 5,760 5,608 5,296
$ 188,743 $ 156,790 $ 169,379
Other Restricted Funds
Court Special Fees $ 1,328 $ 868 $ 851
Vehicle Impound Program 1,293 1,270 1,270
Other Restricted Funds 33,317 21,822 22,427
Affordable Housing Program 6,590 (4,455) 6,550
$ 42,528 $ 19,505 $ 31,098
Federal Funds
Public Housing $ 108,895 $ 109,733 $ 105,745
Human Services 58,963 96,447 86,581
Federal Transit Administration 180,911 142,349 240,756
Community Development 53,375 41,795 70,581
Criminal Justice/Public Safety 10,936 14,769 18,876
Other Federal & State Grants 331,269 135,989 508,465
$ 744,349 $ 541,082 $ 1,031,004
Total Special Revenue Funds $ 2,559,356 $ 2,336,646 $ 2,897,357
4/19 Arizona Auditor General's Office SCHEDULE
Page 85 C Official City/Town Budget Forms
CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA
Revenues Other Than Property Taxes
Fiscal Year 2021-22
(In Thousands)
ESTIMATED ACTUAL ESTIMATED
REVENUES REVENUES * REVENUES
SOURCE OF REVENUES 2020-21 2020-21 2021-22
DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
Secondary Property Tax $ 4,611 $ 4,621 $ 4,397
Total Debt Service Funds $ 4,611 $ 4,621 $ 4,397
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS
Capital Grants $ 701,709 $ 244,522 $ 189,542
Joint Ventures 27,763 33,899 34,721
Passenger Faciltiy Charges 88,061 45,086 77,959
Customer Faciltiy Charges 51,198 27,595 46,246
Federal, State and Other Participation ** - 82,429 118,761
Other Capital Funds 63,700 35,970 -
Total Capital Projects Funds $ 932,431 $ 469,501 $ 467,229
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Convention Center $ 27,331 $ 3,557 $ 18,800
Solid Waste 175,132 182,178 189,869
Aviation 425,915 426,477 412,547
Water System 479,782 502,979 487,696
Wastewater System 249,814 253,208 254,696
Total Enterprise Funds $ 1,357,974 $ 1,368,399 $ 1,363,608
TOTAL ALL FUNDS $ 5,059,325 $ 4,470,847 $ 4,926,843
* 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.
** Previously reported as "Other Capital Funds".
4/19 Arizona Auditor General's Office SCHEDULE
Page 86 C Official City/Town Budget Forms
CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA
Other Financing Sources/
Fiscal Year 2021-22
(In Thousands)
OTHER FINANCING INTERFUND TRANSFERS
2021-22 2021-22
FUND SOURCES
GENERAL FUND
General Fund $ 1,000 $ $ 1,021,547 $ 131,740
Parks and Recreation 93,358
Library 2,119 2,546
Cable Communications 6,431
Total General Fund $ 1,000 $ $ 1,117,024 $ 140,717
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
Excise $ $ $ $ 1,516,161
City Improvement 71,447 1,026
Neighborhood Protection 40,214 753
2007 Public Safety Expansion 80,428 1,423
Public Safety Enhancement 24,706 416
Parks and Preserves 40,369 193
Capital Construction 236 7,370
Court Awards 2
Transportation 2050 274,396 21,192
Development Services 14 4,440
Highway User Revenue 691 892
Sports Facilities 1 16,604 15,415
Regional Transit 14
Regional Wireless Cooperative 9
Other Restricted 32 34,824 7,541
Community Reinvestment 1 4,845 2,221
Grant Funds 74 274
Total Special Revenue Funds $ 1,074 $ $ 595,203 $ 1,571,947
DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
Secondary Property Tax $ 650 $ $ 5,379 $
Total Debt Service Funds $ 650 $ $ 5,379 $
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS
Aviation Bonds $ $ $ $ 14,975
Capital Reserves 19,259 9
Water Bonds 200,000
Other Bonds 1,026 1,026
Transportation 2050 Bonds 500,000
Customer Facility Charges 28,601
Total Capital Projects Funds $ 700,000 $ $ 20,285 $ 44,611
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Aviation $ 1,781 $ $ 32,747 $ 10,290
Water 2,099 17,737 46,103
Wastewater 1,222 30,004 47,712
Solid Waste 268 9,802
Convention Center 61 57,196 3,801
Total Enterprise Funds $ 5,431 $ $ 137,684 $ 117,708
TOTAL ALL FUNDS $ 708,155 $ $ 1,875,575 $ 1,874,983
4/19 Arizona Auditor General's Office SCHEDULE
Page 87 D Official City/Town Budget Forms
CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA
Expenditures/Expenses by Fund
Fiscal Year 2021-22
(In Thousands)
ADOPTED EXPENDITURE/
BUDGETED EXPENSE ACTUAL BUDGETED
EXPENDITURES/ ADJUSTMENTS EXPENDITURES/ EXPENDITURES/
EXPENSES APPROVED EXPENSES* EXPENSES
FUND/DEPARTMENT 2020-21 2020-21 2020-21 2021-22
GENERAL FUND
General: $ $ $ $
General Government 150,096 30,000 161,835 168,223
Criminal Justice 37,540 (200) 36,684 39,858
Public Safety 944,681 (5,200) 920,821 999,730
Transportation 20,762 2,800 23,186 23,476
Community Development 24,761 400 25,056 29,344
Community Enrichment 26,837 26,744 29,069
Environmental Services 18,799 3,200 21,670 24,482
Contingencies 55,596 123,219
Unassigned Vacancy Savings (18,600) 10,000 (8,677) (11,000)
Capital Budget 18,688 10,300 27,551 24,052
Parks and Recreation
Operating 101,808 (3,200) 95,701 108,229
Contingencies 945
Capital 3,200 3,000
Library
Operating 40,896 40,026 43,865
Capital 955 955 955
Cable Communications 2,794 2,696 3,169
Total General Fund $ 1,425,613 $ 51,300 $ 1,377,249 $ 1,607,618
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
$ $ $ $
Arizona Highway User Revenue
Operating 81,659 1,700 81,714 89,856
Capital 87,484 (1,700) 71,585 85,482
Capital Construction
Operating 167 140 140
Capital 21,570 9,253 20,380
City Improvement 74,837 58,706 70,421
Community Reinvestment
Operating 1,931 300 2,181 2,128
Capital 6,604 (300) 2,470 7,734
Court Awards
Operating 5,760 4,393 5,464
Capital
Development Services
Operating 67,555 66,475 74,906
Contingencies 5,000 7,000
Capital 14,862 11,713 4,451
Federal Community Development
Operating 42,697 40,890 58,187
Capital 10,678 1,978 12,394
Federal & State Grants
Operating 327,486 (124,700) 148,089 502,000
Capital 100 69 10,225
Federal Transit
4/19 Arizona Auditor General's Office SCHEDULE
Page 88 E Official City/Town Budget Forms
CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA
Expenditures/Expenses by Fund
Fiscal Year 2021-22
(In Thousands)
ADOPTED EXPENDITURE/
BUDGETED EXPENSE ACTUAL BUDGETED
EXPENDITURES/ ADJUSTMENTS EXPENDITURES/ EXPENDITURES/
EXPENSES APPROVED EXPENSES* EXPENSES
FUND/DEPARTMENT 2020-21 2020-21 2020-21 2021-22
Operating 98,178 4,300 100,458 161,955
Capital 82,732 (4,300) 41,891 78,801
Golf Course
Operating 5,604 2,000 7,364 6,224
Capital 593 1,300 1,793
HOPE VI Grant
Operating 4,975 4,388 5,370
Capital 9,745 9,745
Human Services Grants 58,963 39,500 96,447 86,581
Neighborhood Protection
Operating 40,707 39,700 45,671
Capital
Other Restricted Funds
Fees and Contributions 61,948 52,701 66,468
Capital 15,747 7,708 12,718
Parks and Preserves
Operating 6,251 5,929 6,479
Capital 68,566 28,178 66,212
Public Housing
Operating 105,249 101,045 98,858
Capital 14,969 5,198 13,894
Public Safety Enhancement
Operating 30,294 28,896 30,482
Capital
Public Safety Expansion
Operating 81,177 900 82,043 96,706
Capital
Public Transit (RPTA)
Operating 15,364 300 15,364 24,998
Capital 18,710 (300) 8,997 13,961
Regional Wireless Cooperative 5,118 900 5,947 5,485
Sports Facilities
Operating 3,173 3,120 2,690
Contingencies 20,000 20,000
Capital 7,060 400 7,060 2,393
Transportation 2050
Operating 163,905 (40,000) 120,323 87,311
Contingencies 4,000 4,000
Capital 107,267 68,300 167,201 308,724
$ $ $ $
Total Special Revenue Funds $ 1,778,585 $ (51,300) $ 1,431,408 $ 2,206,494
DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
$ $ $ $
Secondary Property Tax and G.O. 129,497 128,846 129,714
Total Debt Service Funds $ 129,497 $ $ 128,846 $ 129,714
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS
4/19 Arizona Auditor General's Office SCHEDULE
Page 89 E Official City/Town Budget Forms
CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA
Expenditures/Expenses by Fund
Fiscal Year 2021-22
(In Thousands)
ADOPTED EXPENDITURE/
BUDGETED EXPENSE ACTUAL BUDGETED
EXPENDITURES/ ADJUSTMENTS EXPENDITURES/ EXPENDITURES/
EXPENSES APPROVED EXPENSES* EXPENSES
FUND/DEPARTMENT 2020-21 2020-21 2020-21 2021-22
$ $ $ $
Arts and Cultural Facilities 903 902
Aviation 312,790 115,714 222,906
Economic Development 122,000 95,659
Facilities Management 27,340 1,676 9,197
Finance 8,000
Fire Protection 20,271 4,647 25,870
Housing 12,116 1,207 11,949
Human Services 600 600
Information Technology 13,395 7,218 9,651
Libraries 8,530 4,666
Neighborhood Services 53
Non-Departmental Capital 102,792 63,678 103,118
Parks, Recreation and Mtn Preserves 17,573 530 15,676
Phoenix Convention Center 1,780 1,780
Police Protection 11,016 24,412
Public Art Program 5,736 1,236 4,455
Public Transit 976,241 80,204 70,579
Regional Wireless Cooperative 7,325 1,325 6,001
Solid Waste Disposal 21,553 1,051 21,611
Street Transportation and Drainage 144,125 134,169 163,821
Wastewater 281,408 47,686 179,044
Water 511,633 421,660 275,108
Total Capital Projects Funds $ 2,599,180 $ $ 979,440 $ 1,157,566
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
$ $ $ $
Aviation
Operating 557,457 479,478 440,249
Contingencies 20,000 20,000
Capital 126,151 30,820 126,993
Convention Center
Operating 80,325 69,642 66,643
Contingencies 3,000 3,000
Capital 14,706 5,344 15,480
Solid Waste
Operating 176,097 173,946 185,874
Contingencies 1,000 1,000
Capital 9,833 8,138 11,278
Wastewater
Operating 187,595 183,026 187,351
Contingencies 3,500 12,500
Capital 32,262 32,039 71,659
Water
Operating 373,106 366,701 403,313
Contingencies 12,000 12,000
Capital 89,733 61,496 125,355
Total Enterprise Funds $ 1,686,765 $ $ 1,410,629 $ 1,682,695
REAPPROPRIATION FUNDS
$ $ $ $
General
General Government 13,262 8,712 25,379
4/19 Arizona Auditor General's Office SCHEDULE
Page 90 E Official City/Town Budget Forms
CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA
Expenditures/Expenses by Fund
Fiscal Year 2021-22
(In Thousands)
ADOPTED EXPENDITURE/
BUDGETED EXPENSE ACTUAL BUDGETED
EXPENDITURES/ ADJUSTMENTS EXPENDITURES/ EXPENDITURES/
EXPENSES APPROVED EXPENSES* EXPENSES
FUND/DEPARTMENT 2020-21 2020-21 2020-21 2021-22
Criminal Justice 840 538 1,261
Public Safety 26,407 17,049 32,634
Transportation 1,522 355 5,336
Environmental Services 32,093 17,343 21,400
Community Development 652 489 1,069
Community Enrichment 1,918 1,406 2,266
Capital Improvements 2,095 2,273 4,367 5,643
Library
Community Enrichment 5,654 2,339 5,886
Parks and Recreation
Community Enrichment 15,918 4,338 15,654
Cable Communications
General Government 280 62 177
Arizona Highway User Revenue
Street and Highway purposes 87,387 55,334 79,595
Aviation
Transportation 186,378 112,281 99,990
Capital Construction
Capital Improvements 7,473 3,046 8,874
City Improvement Operating
Debt Service 32 260
Community Reinvestment
Community Development 2,112 142 3,444
Court Awards
Criminal Justice 1,385 551 1,557
Development Services
Community Development 29,023 17,185 28,318
Federal and State Grants
Operating grants 15,292 13,683 8,801
Federal Community Development
Community Development 16,978 1,570 27,722
Federal Transit
Transportation 69,589 47,020 26,289
Golf
Community Enrichment 535 216 2,345
HOPE Grant
Community Development 2,733 549 2,711
Human Services
Community Enrichment 10,947 923 34,086
Neighborhood Protection
Public Safety 1,678 921 2,472
Other Restricted
Community Development 38,555 4,478 37,184
Parks and Preserves
Capital Improvements 45,819 34,121 33,415
Phoenix Convention Center
Community Enrichment 21,434 4,639 15,506
Public Housing
Community Development 17,907 663 22,138
Public Safety Enhancement Funds
Public Safety 1,275 801 59
Public Safety Expansion Funds
Public Safety 2,902 911 282
Regional Transit Authority
Transportation 11,516 5,244 45,499
Regional Wireless Cooperative
General Government 2,510 202 3,508
Solid Waste
Environmental Services 45,343 24,720 49,739
Sports Facilities
4/19 Arizona Auditor General's Office SCHEDULE
Page 91 E Official City/Town Budget Forms
CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA
Expenditures/Expenses by Fund
Fiscal Year 2021-22
(In Thousands)
ADOPTED EXPENDITURE/
BUDGETED EXPENSE ACTUAL BUDGETED
EXPENDITURES/ ADJUSTMENTS EXPENDITURES/ EXPENDITURES/
EXPENSES APPROVED EXPENSES* EXPENSES
FUND/DEPARTMENT 2020-21 2020-21 2020-21 2021-22
Community Enrichment 7,349 6,021 5,785
Transit 2000
Transportation 623
Transportation 2050
Transportation 127,383 (2,273) 34,974 282,597
Wastewater
Environmental Services 75,670 42,277 89,437
Water
Environmental Services 115,874 72,488 117,200
Capital
1988 Parks, Recreation, Facilities, Library Bonds 3,963 3,527 5,322
2001 Educational, Youth and Cultural Facility Bonds 68 9 15
2001 Neighborhood Protection & Senior Center Bonds 371 48 34
2006 Affordable Housing & Neighborhood Bonds 207 153 131
2006 Library, Senior & Cultural Center Bonds 5
2006 Parks & Recreation Bonds 3,294 3,294 5,240
2006 Police and Fire Protection Bonds 110 69 32
2006 Police, Fire and Computer Technology Bonds 557 2
2006 Street & Storm Sewer Improvement Bonds 7 5
Aviation Capital 476,041 366,889 318,481
Capital Reserves 692 425 800
City Improvement 56,721 29,849 105,059
CPBC - Senior Lien Excise Tax 18,720 9,658 7,050
Development Impact Fees 20,906 17,874 34,822
Multi-City Wastewater Capital 32,039 30,023 43,204
Public Housing Capital 148 109
Regional Wireless Cooperative Capital 6,002 362
Solid Waste Capital 2,240 1,369 364
Streets Capital 16,036 8,438 53,418
Transit Capital 65,473 48,721
Wastewater Capital 139,979 115,823 100,448
Water Capital 323,512 257,467 521,242
Total Reappropriation Funds $ 2,213,434 $ $ 1,435,601 $ 2,341,651
TOTAL ALL FUNDS $ 9,833,074 $ $ 6,763,173 $ 9,125,738
* 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.
4/19 Arizona Auditor General's Office SCHEDULE
Page 92 E Official City/Town Budget Forms
CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA
Expenditures/Expenses by Department
Fiscal Year 2021-22
(In Thousands)
ADOPTED EXPENDITURE/
BUDGETED EXPENSE ACTUAL BUDGETED
EXPENDITURES/ ADJUSTMENTS EXPENDITURES/ EXPENDITURES/
EXPENSES APPROVED EXPENSES* EXPENSES
DEPARTMENT/FUND 2020-21 2020-21 2020-21 2021-22
Community Development: $ $ $ $
Arizona Highway Users Revenue 15 15
Aviation 75 75 75
Community Development 50,843 (3,630) 36,748 68,938
Community Reinvestment 8,535 4,651 9,862
Convention Center 588 532 504
Development Services 82,053 (800) 77,325 78,554
Federal and State Grants 8,988 27,000 35,880 21,302
General 24,761 10,800 35,556 29,344
Hope VI 14,594 4,280 14,989
Neighborhood Protection 400 237 261
Other Restricted 14,521 10,921 13,904
Public Housing 120,128 (10) 106,144 112,652
Sports Facilities 2,786 400 2,765 677
Water 31 31 31
Department Total $ 328,318 $ 33,760 $ 315,146 $ 351,109
Community Enrichment: $ $ $
Arizona Highway Users Revenue 2,562 1,918 617
Aviation 157 3 6
Capital Construction 40
Community Development 2,301 3,600 5,866 1,370
Convention Center 72,290 (10) 53,745 60,788
Federal and State Grants 18,825 24,600 43,424 37,758
General 27,181 27,087 29,296
Golf Course 6,197 3,300 9,157 6,224
HOPE VI 126 108 126
Human Services Grants 58,963 39,500 96,447 86,581
Library 41,851 40,981 44,820
Other Restricted 5,695 2,871 3,907
Parks and Preserves 74,817 34,107 72,691
Parks and Recreation 101,808 98,701 108,229
Public Housing 89 10 98 100
Sports Facilities 5,205 5,205 2,563
Transportation 2050 783 248 494
Wastewater 155 155 155
Water 225 225 470
Department Total $ 419,230 $ 71,000 $ 420,348 $ 456,235
Criminal Justice: $ $ $
Federal and State Grants 130 110
General 37,541 (200) 36,684 39,858
Other Restricted 2,975 2,956 3,265
Department Total $ 40,516 $ (70) $ 39,749 $ 43,123
Contingencies: $ $ $
Aviation 20,000 20,000
Convention Center 3,000 3,000
Development Services 5,000 7,000
4/19 Arizona Auditor General's Office SCHEDULE
Page 93 F Official City/Town Budget Forms
CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA
Expenditures/Expenses by Department
Fiscal Year 2021-22
(In Thousands)
ADOPTED EXPENDITURE/
BUDGETED EXPENSE ACTUAL BUDGETED
EXPENDITURES/ ADJUSTMENTS EXPENDITURES/ EXPENDITURES/
EXPENSES APPROVED EXPENSES* EXPENSES
DEPARTMENT/FUND 2020-21 2020-21 2020-21 2021-22
General 55,596 123,219
Parks and Recreation 945
Solid Waste 1,000 1,000
Sports Facilities 20,000 20,000
Transportation 2050 4,000 4,000
Wastewater 3,500 12,500
Water 12,000 12,000
Department Total $ 124,096 $ $ $ 203,664
Environmental Services: $ $ $
Aviation 10 5
Capital Construction 70 70 70
Convention Center 10 2
Development Services 23 800 734 480
Federal and State Grants 491 4,740 5,222 362
General 32,574 3,200 34,272 39,429
Other Restricted 4,128 350 4,468 4,149
Solid Waste 168,462 166,760 181,431
Transportation 2050 200 11
Wastewater 147,070 (10) 142,350 186,566
Water 314,329 289,561 372,626
Department Total $ 667,147 $ 9,300 $ 643,455 $ 785,114
General Government: $ $ $
Arizona Highway Users Revenue 236 163 252
Aviation 1,180 831 1,186
Cable 2,794 2,696 3,169
Community Development 231 30 254 273
Convention Center 82 68 68
Court Awards 165 86 58
Development Services 342 129 323
Federal and State Grants 1,879 28,600 30,470 2,550
General 136,065 30,000 165,920 175,521
Other Restricted 2,483 2,419 2,424
Regional Wireless Cooperative 5,118 900 5,947 5,485
Solid Waste 473 346 493
Sports Facilities 639 606 159
Transportation 2050 331 77 290
Wastewater 858 776 900
Water 1,508 1,471 1,921
Department Total $ 154,384 $ 59,530 $ 212,261 $ 195,071
Public Safety: $ $ $
Court Awards 5,594 4,307 5,406
Federal and State Grants 25,281 7,630 32,883 34,222
General 944,681 (5,300) 920,841 1,001,310
Neighborhood Protection 40,308 39,463 45,410
Other Restricted 40,283 (350) 31,626 45,701
4/19 Arizona Auditor General's Office SCHEDULE
Page 94 F Official City/Town Budget Forms
CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA
Expenditures/Expenses by Department
Fiscal Year 2021-22
(In Thousands)
ADOPTED EXPENDITURE/
BUDGETED EXPENSE ACTUAL BUDGETED
EXPENDITURES/ ADJUSTMENTS EXPENDITURES/ EXPENDITURES/
EXPENSES APPROVED EXPENSES* EXPENSES
DEPARTMENT/FUND 2020-21 2020-21 2020-21 2021-22
Public Safety Enhancement 30,293 28,896 30,482
Public Safety Expansion 81,177 900 82,043 96,706
Sports Facilities 1,604 1,604 1,685
Department Total $ 1,169,221 $ 2,880 $ 1,141,663 $ 1,260,923
Transportation: $ $ $
Arizona Highway Users Revenue 166,330 151,218 174,453
Aviation 593,590 (40,010) 382,936 478,694
Capital Construction 21,667 9,323 20,410
Federal and State Grants 72 100 170 30
Federal Transit Authority 180,661 142,349 240,756
General 20,762 2,800 23,186 23,476
Other Restricted 7,108 5,149 5,836
Transit - RPTA 34,075 24,362 38,959
Transportation 2050 270,057 28,100 287,188 395,252
Department Total $ 1,294,322 $ (9,010) $ 1,025,880 $ 1,377,867
Debt: $ $
Aviation 87,856 40,000 126,449 87,281
City Improvement 74,837 58,706 70,421
Convention Center 21,070 20,639 20,763
Secondary Property Tax 129,497 128,846 129,714
Solid Waste 16,745 14,977 15,227
Wastewater 71,775 10 71,783 71,389
Water 146,446 136,908 153,620
Department Total $ 548,226 $ 40,010 $ 558,308 $ 548,415
Non-Departmental $ $
Aviation 750
Convention Center 1,000
Federal and State Grants 271,950 (217,400) 416,000
Federal Transit Authority 250
General** 10,000 (8,677) (11,000)
Other Restricted 500
Solid Waste 250
Water 300
Department Total $ 275,000 $ (207,400) $ (8,677) $ 405,000
$ $ $ $
Capital: 2,599,180 979,440 1,157,566
Department Total $ 2,599,180 $ $ 979,440 $ 1,157,566
$ $ $ $
Reappropriation: 2,213,434 1,435,601 2,341,651
4/19 Arizona Auditor General's Office SCHEDULE
Page 95 F Official City/Town Budget Forms
CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA
Expenditures/Expenses by Department
Fiscal Year 2021-22
(In Thousands)
ADOPTED EXPENDITURE/
BUDGETED EXPENSE ACTUAL BUDGETED
EXPENDITURES/ ADJUSTMENTS EXPENDITURES/ EXPENDITURES/
EXPENSES APPROVED EXPENSES* EXPENSES
DEPARTMENT/FUND 2020-21 2020-21 2020-21 2021-22
Department Total $ 2,213,434 $ $ 1,435,601 $ 2,341,651
Total All Departments $ 9,833,074 $ $ 6,763,173 $ 9,125,738
* 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.
** In prior years, Unassigned Vacancy Savings were included in General Government General Funds.
4/19 Arizona Auditor General's Office SCHEDULE
Page 96 F Official City/Town Budget Forms
CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA
Full-Time Employees and Personnel Compensation
Fiscal Year 2021-22
(In Thousands)
Total Estimated
Full-Time Employee Salaries Other Benefit Personnel
Equivalent (FTE) and Hourly Costs Retirement Costs Healthcare Costs Costs Compensation
FUND 2021-22 2021-22 2021-22 2021-22 2021-22 2021-22
GENERAL FUND
General 7,457 $ 664,737 $ 324,008 $ 98,005 $ 102,697 = 1,189,447
Library 389 19,582 4,222 2,332 3,360 29,495
Parks and Recreation 931 42,357 10,199 7,039 7,344 66,940
Cable Communications 19 1,732 514 199 347 2,793
Total General Fund 8,796 $ 728,409 $ 338,944 $ 107,575 $ 113,748 = 1,288,675
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
Arizona Highway User Revenue 683 $ 39,951 $ 14,168 $ 8,536 $ 8,382 = 71,037
Community Reinvestment 3 350 106 28 62 546
Development Services 440 34,223 10,575 5,719 6,082 56,598
Federal Community Development 78 5,889 1,778 1,013 1,143 9,823
Federal and State Grants 197 10,617 4,455 1,984 1,933 18,989
Golf Course 32 1,398 226 98 207 1,930
Page 97 HOPE VI 15 710 151 147 199 1,207
Human Services 173 8,733 2,837 1,904 1,787 15,261
Neighborhood Protection 283 19,910 13,574 2,731 2,702 38,918
Other Restricted 119 9,235 2,881 1,504 1,802 15,422
Parks and Preserves 78 3,700 911 601 717 5,929
Public Safety Enhancement 266 17,633 8,800 2,554 2,752 31,740
Public Safety Expansion 687 54,917 34,689 7,609 7,179 104,394
Public Housing 70 4,969 1,507 890 916 8,283
Regional Wireless Cooperative 4 349 93 48 78 569
Transportation 2050 121 9,760 3,202 1,445 1,998 16,404
Total Special Revenue Funds 3,248 $ 222,344 $ 99,953 $ 36,812 $ 37,941 = 397,051
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Aviation 892 $ 55,007 $ 89,864 $ 11,660 $ 12,140 = 168,671
Convention Center 218 11,584 3,472 1,902 2,450 19,408
Solid Waste 635 37,542 11,920 8,314 6,581 64,356
Wastewater 339 21,822 2,818 4,507 4,326 33,472
Water 1,151 73,345 24,399 14,595 15,094 127,433
Total Enterprise Funds 3,235 $ 199,300 $ 132,471 $ 40,978 $ 40,591 = 413,341
TOTAL ALL FUNDS 15,278 $ 1,150,053 $ 571,368 $ 185,365 $ 192,281 = 2,099,067
4/19 Arizona Auditor General's Office SCHEDULE G Official City/Town Budget Forms
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
In accordance with State statute, this item requests the City Council formally convene
a special meeting for the purpose of considering adoption of the final 2021-22 budget.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Ed Zuercher, Assistant City Manager Jeff
Barton and the Budget and Research Department.
Page 98
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
In compliance with requirements of the City Charter and Code and State statutes,
request to adopt an ordinance (Attachment A) determining and adopting final
estimates of proposed expenditures by the City of Phoenix for the fiscal year beginning
July 1, 2021 and ending June 30, 2022 declaring that such shall constitute a budget of
the City of Phoenix for such fiscal year.
Summary
The final operating funds budget ordinance reflects extensive public review through
phone, email, information posted on the City website and actions taken by the Council
on the budget at the May 18, 2021 Policy meeting and at the June 2, 2021 Formal
meeting to adopt the tentative 2021-22 operating budget ordinance.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Ed Zuercher, Assistant City Manager Jeff
Barton and the Budget and Research Department.
Page 99
Attachment A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE S-
AN ORDINANCE DETERMINING AND ADOPTING FINAL
ESTIMATES OF PROPOSED EXPENDITURES BY THE
CITY OF PHOENIX FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING
JULY 1, 2021, AND ENDING JUNE 30, 2022; DECLARING
THAT SUCH SHALL CONSTITUTE A BUDGET FOR THE
CITY OF PHOENIX FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR.
_____________
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the laws of Arizona, the Charter
and Ordinances of the City of Phoenix, the City Council is required to adopt a budget for
the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2021, and ending June 30, 2022; and
WHEREAS, by the provisions of the City Charter and in compliance with
the provisions of A.R.S. §§ 42-17101, 17102, 17103, 17104, 17105, 17106, 17107, and
17108, the City Council did on the 2nd day of June, 2021, adopt and file with the City
Clerk its tentative budget including an estimate of the different amounts required to
meet the public expense for the ensuing year, also an estimate of revenues from
sources other than direct taxation, and the amount to be raised by taxation upon real
and personal property within the City of Phoenix; and
Page 100
WHEREAS, due notice has been given by the City Clerk as required by
law, the said tentative budget is on file and open to inspection by anyone interested;
and
WHEREAS, in accordance with law and following due public notice the
Council met on the 16th day of June, 2021, at which meeting any taxpayer was
privileged to appear and be heard in favor of or against any of the proposed
expenditures or tax levies; and
WHEREAS, publication has been duly made as required by law, of said
estimates together with a notice that the City Council will meet on the 1st day of July,
2021, at the hour of 10:00 a.m. in the City Council Chambers of the City of Phoenix,
200 West Jefferson St., Phoenix, Arizona for the purpose of making tax levies as set
forth in said estimates; and
WHEREAS, 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;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PHOENIX as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council has determined and adopted the following
estimates of the proposed expenditures therein named and set forth for the conduct of
the business of the City government of the City of Phoenix for the fiscal year beginning
July 1, 2021, and ending June 30, 2022, and that the same shall constitute the official
annual budget of the City for said fiscal year.
Page 101
CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA
PURPOSES OF PROPOSED PUBLIC EXPENSE
Amount of Appropriation
Purpose 2021-2022
GENERAL FUNDS
General Government $168,222,524
Public Safety 999,730,206
Criminal Justice 39,858,267
Transportation 23,476,431
Community Development 29,344,401
Community Enrichment 29,069,292
Environmental Services 24,481,917
Contingencies 123,219,420
Unassigned Vacancy Savings (11,000,000)
Capital Improvements 24,052,012
Total General Funds $1,450,454,470
PARKS AND RECREATION FUNDS
Parks and Recreation Operations and Maintenance. $108,229,050
Contingencies 945,000
Total Parks and Recreation Funds $109,174,050
LIBRARY FUNDS
Library Operations and Maintenance, and Capital $44,820,358
Improvements.
CABLE COMMUNICATION FUNDS
Cable Communication Operations and Maintenance. $3,168,877
ARIZONA HIGHWAY USER REVENUE FUNDS
Street Maintenance, Major Street Improvements, Traffic $175,337,671
Improvements and other Street Improvements.
AVIATION FUNDS
Aviation Operations and Maintenance, Debt Service and
Capital Improvement Expenditures. $567,241,921
Page 102
Amount of Appropriation
Purpose 2021-2022
Contingencies 20,000,000
Total Aviation Funds $587,241,921
CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION FUNDS
Capital Improvements in the Street Transportation and $20,519,777
Environmental Programs, and related Operations and
Maintenance.
CITY IMPROVEMENT FUND
Debt Service Payments for Transit Facilities and $70,420,934
Improvements; Vehicles; Downtown Arena; Municipal
Court Building; IGC/TGen Facility; City Hall; Public
Safety Communication Systems; Property Acquisitions;
Security Access Control; Adams Street and Other
Garages; LED Streetlight Conversion; Telephone
System and Data Network Replacement; Street
Improvements; Amphitheater; Personnel Building;
Elevator Rehabilitation; ASU College of Nursing; Police
Training Academy and Precincts; City Technology
Upgrades; Local Alcohol Rehabilitation Center;
Miscellaneous Redevelopment Projects; Other
Equipment, Office, Service and Training Facilities and
Improvements.
COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT FUNDS
Community Reinvestment Operations and Maintenance, $9,862,269
and Capital Improvement Expenditures.
COURT AWARD FUNDS
Criminal Justice Programs. $5,463,755
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES FUNDS
Development Services Operations and Maintenance, $79,357,250
and Capital Improvement Expenditures.
Contingencies 7,000,000
Total Development Services Funds $86,357,250
Page 103
Amount of Appropriation
Purpose 2021-2022
FEDERAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUNDS
Community Development Program. $70,581,150
FEDERAL OPERATING TRUST FUNDS
Federal and State Grant Programs. $512,224,775
FEDERAL TRANSIT FUND
Transit Operations and Maintenance, and Capital $240,755,810
Improvement Expenditures.
GOLF COURSE FUNDS
Golf Course Operations and Maintenance, and Capital $6,223,650
Improvement Expenditures.
HOPE VI FEDERAL GRANT FUNDS $15,115,075
HUMAN SERVICES FEDERAL TRUST FUNDS
Human Services Program. $86,581,471
NEIGHBORHOOD PROTECTION FUNDS
Eligible Police, Fire, and Block Watch Operations and $45,671,187
Maintenance Expenditures Funded with Privilege
License and Excise Taxes in accordance with Ordinance
G-3696.
OTHER RESTRICTED FUNDS
Other Restricted Funds Operations and Maintenance, $79,185,939
and Capital Improvement Expenditures.
PARKS AND PRESERVES FUNDS
Parks and Preserves Operations and Maintenance, and $72,691,141
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 $82,123,372
Maintenance, Debt Service, and Capital Improvement
Expenditures.
Page 104
Amount of Appropriation
Purpose 2021-2022
Contingencies 3,000,000
Total Phoenix Convention Center Funds $85,123,372
PUBLIC HOUSING FUNDS
Public Housing Operations and Maintenance, and $112,751,559
Capital Improvement Expenditures.
PUBLIC SAFETY ENHANCEMENT FUNDS
Police, Fire, and Emergency Management Operations $30,481,955
and 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 $96,706,039
Funded with Privilege License and Excise Taxes in
accordance with Ordinance G-4987.
REGIONAL TRANSIT FUNDS
Regional Transportation Operations and Maintenance, $38,959,335
and Capital Improvement Expenditures.
REGIONAL WIRELESS COOPERATIVE FUNDS
Operations and Maintenance of the Regional Wireless $5,484,955
Cooperative.
SECONDARY PROPERTY TAX FUNDS
Debt Service on and Early Redemption of Outstanding $129,714,319
Bonds and Long-Term Obligations.
SOLID WASTE FUNDS
Solid Waste Operations and Maintenance, Debt Service $197,151,493
and Capital Improvement Expenditures.
Contingencies 1,000,000
Total Solid Waste Funds $198,151,493
Page 105
Amount of Appropriation
Purpose 2021-2022
SPORTS FACILITIES FUNDS
Sports Facilities Operations and Maintenance, and $5,082,877
Capital Improvement Expenditures
Contingencies 20,000,000
Total Sports Facilities Funds $25,082,877
TRANSPORTATION 2050 FUNDS
Transit and Streets Operations and Maintenance, and $396,035,691
Capital Improvement Expenditures Funded with
Privilege License and Excise Taxes in accordance with
Ordinance G-6051.
Contingencies 4,000,000
Total Transportation 2050 Funds $400,035,691
WASTEWATER SYSTEM FUNDS
Wastewater System Operations and Maintenance, Debt $259,010,031
Service and Capital Improvement Expenditures.
Contingencies 12,500,000
Total Wastewater Funds $271,510,031
WATER FUNDS
Water System Operations and Maintenance, Debt $528,668,231
Service and Capital Improvement Expenditures.
Contingencies 12,000,000
Total Water Funds $540,668,231
TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS 2021-2022 $5,626,521,387
Page 106
SECTION 2. Upon the approval of the City Manager, funds may be
transferred within purposes set forth in Section 1, or within the purposes of separately
adopted portions of this budget.
SECTION 3. Upon recommendation by the City Manager and with the
approval of the City Council, expenditures may be made from the appropriation for
contingencies.
SECTION 4. In the case of an emergency, the City Council may authorize
the transfer of funds between purposes set forth in Section 1, if funds are available and
the transfer does not conflict with the limitations provided by law (A.R.S. § 42-17106).
SECTION 5. 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.
SECTION 6. Money from any fund may be used for any of these
purposes set forth in Section 1, 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 on this 16th day of
June, 2021.
_________________________________________
MAYOR
Page 107
ATTEST:
, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
, Acting City Attorney
REVIEWED BY:
, City Manager
Page 108
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
In compliance with requirements of the City Charter and Code and State statutes,
request to adopt an ordinance (Attachment A) adopting the final Capital Funds
Budget for the City of Phoenix for the fiscal year 2021-22.
This adopts the final 2021-22 Capital Funds Budget for the fiscal year beginning July
1, 2021 and ending June 30, 2022. This capital funds appropriation will be funded by
property tax and revenue supported bond proceeds, 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.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The final Capital Funds Budget ordinance reflects actions taken by Council at the June
2, 2021 Formal meeting to adopt the tentative budget ordinances and is consistent
with the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program resolution approved by Council at the
June 2, 2021 Formal meeting.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Ed Zuercher, Assistant City Manager Jeff
Barton and the Budget and Research Department.
Page 109
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 FINAL CAPITAL FUNDS
BUDGET FOR THE CITY OF PHOENIX FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 2021 AND ENDING JUNE 30,
2022; DECLARING THAT SUCH SHALL CONSTITUTE THE
CAPITAL FUNDS BUDGET FOR THE CITY OF PHOENIX
FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR.
_____________
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 final 2021-22 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, 2021
and ending June 30, 2022.
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, 2021 and ending June 30, 2022.
Page 110
Appropriation
Amount
Purpose 2021-22
ARTS AND CULTURAL FACILITIES
2001 General Obligation Bonds $902,484
AVIATION
Aviation Bonds, Capital Grants, Passenger Facility Charges $222,906,187
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
Other Bonds, Other Capital $9,197,423
FINANCE
Other Bonds $8,000,000
FIRE PROTECTION
Impact Fees, Other Bonds $25,869,988
HOUSING
Capital Grants $11,949,126
HUMAN SERVICES
2006 General Obligation Bonds $600,000
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
Other Bonds $9,650,699
LIBRARIES
Impact Fees $4,666,283
Page 111
Appropriation
Amount
Purpose 2021-22
NON-DEPARTMENTAL CAPITAL
Customer Facility Charges, Federal, State and Other Participation, $103,117,628
Passenger Facility Charges, Transportation 2050 Bonds, Water
Bonds
PARKS, RECREATION & MOUNTAIN PRESERVES
Capital Grants, Capital Reserves, Impact Fees $15,675,874
POLICE PROTECTION
2006 General Obligation Bonds, Capital Reserves, Impact Fees $24,412,000
PUBLIC ART PROGRAM
Aviation Bonds, Passenger Facility Charges, Solid Waste Bonds, $4,455,255
Wastewater Bonds, Water Bonds
PUBLIC TRANSIT
Capital Grants, Transportation 2050 Bonds $70,578,680
REGIONAL WIRELESS COOPERATIVE
Other Cities' Share in Joint Ventures $6,001,000
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
Capital Reserves, Solid Waste Bonds, Solid Waste Remediation $21,610,760
Page 112
Appropriation
Amount
Purpose 2021-22
STREET TRANSPORTATION & DRAINAGE
2006 General Obligation Bonds, Federal, State and Other $163,820,559
Participation, Impact Fees, Transportation 2050 Bonds
WASTEWATER
Impact Fees, Other Cities' Share in Joint Ventures, Wastewater $179,044,203
Bonds
WATER
Impact Fees, Other Cities' Share in Joint Ventures, Water Bonds $275,107,856
TOTAL $1,157,566,005
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.
Page 113
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 16th day of June,
2021.
_________________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Acting City Attorney
REVIEWED BY:
City Manager
Page 114
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
47662)
In compliance with requirements of the City Charter and Code and State statutes,
request to adopt an ordinance (Attachment A) adopting the final reappropriation
budget for items of expenditure previously adopted as part of the 2020-21 fiscal year
operating and capital fund budgets of the City of Phoenix but remaining as
unexpended funds as of June 30, 2021.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The reappropriated funds budget ordinance reflects the action taken at the June 2,
2021 Formal meeting to adopt the tentative 2021-22 reappropriated funds budget
ordinance.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Ed Zuercher, Assistant City Manager Jeff
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 FINAL
REAPPROPRIATION BUDGET FOR ITEMS OF
EXPENDITURE PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED AS PART OF
THE 2020-2021 FISCAL YEAR OPERATING AND CAPITAL
FUND BUDGETS OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX BUT
REMAINING AS UNEXPENDED FUNDS AS OF
JUNE 30, 2021.
_____________
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 2020-2021; 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
2020-2021 substantial amounts represented by executed but unfulfilled contracts; and
Page 116
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
WHEREAS, State Budget Law, A.R.S. § 42-17106, 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; and
WHEREAS, it has become necessary to adopt a reappropriation and
supplemental budget for sums to be expended in the fiscal year 2021-2022 from funds
budgeted for the fiscal year 2020-2021 but remaining unexpended as of the close of the
fiscal year on June 30, 2021.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PHOENIX as follows:
SECTION 1. This Council has determined and adopted the following
estimates of proposed capital and operating fund expenditures as hereinafter set forth
presenting a reappropriation of items previously budgeted for the fiscal year 2020-2021
but remaining unexpended at the close of said fiscal year, and representing amounts
encumbered by means of outstanding contracts as of the close of said fiscal year. That
said amounts and the purposes therefore are set forth in the schedule below as follows:
Page 117
2021-2022 REAPPROPRIATED FUNDS
Fund Amount
OPERATING FUNDS:
General Funds
General Government $25,379,000
Criminal Justice 1,261,000
Public Safety 32,634,000
Transportation 5,336,000
Environmental Services 21,400,000
Community Development 1,069,000
Community Enrichment 2,266,000
Capital Improvements 5,643,000
Total General Funds $94,988,000
Parks and Recreation Funds
Parks and Recreation Operations and Maintenance, and $15,654,000
Capital Improvements.
Library Funds
Library Operations and Maintenance, and Capital
Improvements. $5,886,000
Cable Communication Funds
Cable Communication Operations and Maintenance. $177,000
Arizona Highway User Revenue Funds
Street Maintenance, Major Street Improvements, Traffic $79,595,000
Improvements and Other Street Improvements.
Page 118
Fund Amount
Aviation Funds
Aviation Operations and Maintenance, and Capital $99,990,000
Improvements.
Capital Construction Funds
Capital Improvements in Street Transportation and $8,874,000
Drainage.
City Improvement Operating Funds
Debt Service Related Costs associated with City $260,000
Improvement.
Community Reinvestment Funds
Community Reinvestment Program. $3,444,000
Court Award Funds
Criminal Justice Program. $1,557,000
Development Services Funds
Development Services Operations and Maintenance, and
Capital Improvements. $28,318,000
Federal Community Development Funds
Community Development Program. $27,722,000
Federal Operating Trust Funds
Federal and State Grants. $8,801,000
Page 119
Fund Amount
Federal Transit Funds
Federal Transit Grant Program. $26,289,000
Golf Course Funds
Golf Course Operations and Maintenance, and Capital $2,345,000
Improvements.
HOPE VI Federal Grant Funds
HOPE VI Program. $2,711,000
Human Services Federal Trust Funds
Human Services Program. $34,086,000
Neighborhood Protection Funds
Eligible Police, Fire and Blockwatch Operations and $2,472,000
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 $37,184,000
Capital Improvements.
Parks and Preserves Funds
Parks and Preserves Operations and Maintenance, and $33,415,000
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.
Page 120
Fund Amount
Phoenix Convention Center Funds
Phoenix Convention Center Operations and Maintenance, $15,506,000
and Capital Improvements.
Public Housing Funds
Public Housing Operations and Maintenance, and Capital $22,138,000
Improvements.
Public Safety Enhancement Funds
Police, Fire, and Emergency Management Operations and $59,000
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 $282,000
with Privilege License and Excise Taxes in accordance
with Ordinance G-4987.
Regional Transit Authority Funds
Regional Transit Operations and Maintenance, and $45,499,000
Capital Improvements.
Regional Wireless Cooperative Funds
Regional Wireless Cooperative Operations and $3,508,000
Maintenance.
Solid Waste Funds
Solid Waste Operations and Maintenance, and Capital $49,739,000
Improvements.
Page 121
Fund Amount
Sports Facilities Funds
Sports Facilities Operations and Maintenance, and Capital $5,785,000
Improvements.
Transportation 2050 Funds
Transit and Streets Operations and Maintenance, and $282,597,000
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 $89,437,000
Capital Improvements.
Water Funds
Water System Operations and Maintenance, and Capital $117,200,000
Improvements.
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS:
1988 Parks, Recreation, Facilities, Library Bonds $5,322,000
2001 Educational, Youth and Cultural Facilities Bonds $15,000
Funds
2001 Neighborhood Protection and Senior Center Bond $34,000
Funds
2006 Affordable Housing & Neighborhood Bond Funds $131,000
2006 Parks & Recreation Bond Funds $5,240,000
2006 Police and Fire Protection Bond Funds $32,000
Page 122
Fund Amount
Aviation Capital Funds $318,481,000
Capital Reserve Funds $800,000
City Improvement Capital Funds $105,059,000
Civic Plaza Building Corporation Funds $7,050,000
Development Impact Fee Funds $34,822,000
Multi-City Wastewater Capital Funds $43,204,000
Public Housing Capital Funds $109,000
Regional Wireless Cooperative Capital Funds $362,000
Solid Waste Capital Funds $364,000
Streets Capital Funds $53,418,000
Wastewater Capital Funds $100,448,000
Water Capital Funds $521,242,000
TOTAL $2,341,651,000
SECTION 2. 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. § 42-17106.
SECTION 3. Money from any fund may be used for any of these
Page 123
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 16th day of June 2021.
_________________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
, Acting City Attorney
REVIEWED BY:
City Manager
Page 124
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Funds (Ordinance S-47663)
An ordinance (Attachment A) amending Ordinance S-46715 adopting the 2020-21
Annual Budget to authorize reallocating appropriations among lawfully available
appropriations to ensure the continued operation of the City of Phoenix in the payment
of necessary expenses.
Summary
This legally required amendment to the 2020-21 Operating Budget will allow the City to
close out the current fiscal year's budgetary accounts and proceed with the annual
independent audit. This is a standard end-of-year process required to close the books.
State law precludes any expenditure not included in the budget even if additional funds
become available. This means all expenditures require an appropriation. An
appropriation is the formal recognition in the City's official accounting records that the
transfer spending authority between line items in the adopted budget. This does not
represent an actual transfer of funds, but rather, only transfers of spending authority
between specific areas. As a result, the total bottom line budget amount for 2020-21
does not change.
To make sure all planned expenditures have appropriate spending authority, each year
the Budget and Research Department brings to the City Council a request to amend
the original budget amounts between specific areas at the end of each fiscal year. This
is a normal part of the annual budget close-out process. Variances between estimated
and actual expenditures that trigger the need to do these reallocated appropriations
are usually caused by timing differences, such as expenditures originally planned for
the early part of the 2021-22 fiscal year that actually occurred during the 2020-21 fiscal
year. These timing variances can be quite large, especially when dealing with
construction contracts. Allowing for these timing differences in our request for year-end
budget amendments allows for bid awards and payments to vendors to proceed.
The amendments to the 2020-21 Operating Budget require City Council approval to
move spending authority from areas where excess authority is available to other areas
Page 125
where insufficient authority was originally provided due to normal changes during the
year.
Decreases in 2020-21 appropriation authority are requested in the following:
· General Fund Criminal Justice Funds due to minor budgetary savings.
· General Fund Public Safety Funds due primarily to vacancy savings from sworn
positions.
· Federal and State Grant Funds due primarily to the $143.3 million in Coronavirus
Relief Funds not programmed in the budget that were used to offset General
Funded Public Safety salaries as permitted by the Federal guidelines.
Increases in 2020-21 appropriation authority are requested in the following:
· General Fund General Government Funds due to an increase in General Fund
resources resulting from a portion of Coronavirus Relief Funds that was used to
offset Public Safety salaries, as permitted by the Federal guidelines, and which
were used to carry out the City Council adopted plan in response to the COVID-19
pandemic. These increased resources allowed for unplanned spending on
technology projects including distance learning, WiFi access, telework, and e-
government projects as well as both community and employee COVID-19 testing,
resident assistance with City service bills, and PPE supplies for employees.
· General Fund Transportation Funds due to an increase in General Fund resources
resulting from a portion of Coronavirus Relief Funds that was used to offset Public
Safety salaries, as permitted by the Federal guidelines, and which were used to
carry out the City Council adopted plan in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
These increased resources allowed for unplanned spending on the retrofit of the
City's bus fleet to provide a safety barrier between drivers and passengers.
· General Fund Environmental Services due to an increase in General Fund
resources resulting from a portion of Coronavirus Relief Funds that was used to
offset Public Safety salaries, as permitted by the Federal guidelines, and which
were used to carry out the City Council adopted plan in response to the COVID-19
pandemic. These increased resources allowed for unplanned spending on public
facility retrofit projects.
· General Fund Unassigned Vacancy Savings to account for the assignment of
vacancy savings from Unassigned to General Fund specific programs.
· General Fund Capital Improvement Funds as a result of an unbudgeted acquisition
of property for at-risk veterans' housing utilizing Coronavirus Relief Funds.
Page 126
· Golf Course Funds due to unbudgeted maintenance needs.
· Human Services Grant Funds due to the receipt of Coronavirus Relief Funds in
response to the pandemic that were not included in the original budget.
· Public Safety Expansion Funds due to higher than estimated personal service
costs.
· Regional Wireless Cooperative Funds due to a reduction in credits received from
RWC members.
· Transportation 2050 Funds due to the use of available pay-as-you-go funds in place
of bond funds, as originally planned, allowing issuance of debt to be delayed.
· The following funds to provide for minor year-end variances: General Fund
Community Development and Sports Facilities Funds.
These are balancing measures with a net impact of $0. The total appropriation remains
unchanged.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Ed Zuercher, Assistant City Manager Jeff
Barton and the Budget and Research Department.
Page 127
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE S-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. S-46715
DETERMINING AND ADOPTING ESTIMATES AND
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES BY THE CITY OF PHOENIX
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 2020 AND
ENDING JUNE 30, 2021, BY REALLOCATING CERTAIN
EXPENDITURES AND APPROPRIATIONS.
______________
WHEREAS, during the fiscal year 2020-2021, the resources in certain
funds will be more than originally anticipated in the 2020-2021 budget, and
WHEREAS, further reallocations of certain expenditures from available
funds are required to ensure the continuing operation of the City of Phoenix and the
payment of necessary expenses;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PHOENIX as follows:
SECTION 1: That pursuant to the provisions of Section 4 and Section 6 of
Ordinance No. S-46715 the City Manager is hereby authorized and empowered to
allocate, and there is hereby appropriated and authorized to be expended, from other
lawfully available funds of the City of Phoenix, the following sums to be included in the
appropriations of the following listed funds by increasing or decreasing the amount
Page 128
previously appropriated from said funds as follows:
(a) Reallocating and increasing the appropriation for General Fund
General Government Funds from $150,096,053 to $180,096,053;
(b) Reallocating and decreasing the appropriation for General Fund
Criminal Justice Funds from $37,540,550 to $37,340,550;
(c) Reallocating and decreasing the appropriation for General Fund
Public Safety Funds from $944,680,555 to $939,480,555;
(d) Reallocating and increasing the appropriation for General Fund
Transportation Funds from $20,762,291 to $23,562,291;
(e) Reallocating and increasing the appropriation for General Fund
Community Development Funds from $24,760,742 to $25,160,742;
(f) Reallocating and increasing the appropriation for General Fund
Environmental Services Funds from $18,798,890 to $21,998,890;
(g) Reallocating and increasing the appropriation for General Fund
Unassigned Vacancy Savings Funds from ($18,600,000) to ($8,600,000);
(h) Reallocating and increasing the appropriation for General Fund
Capital Improvement Funds from $18,687,712 to $28,987,712;
(i) Reallocating and decreasing the appropriation for Federal
Operating Trust Funds from $327,485,851 to $202,885,851;
(j) Reallocating and increasing the appropriation for Golf Course
Funds from $6,196,936 to $9,496,936;
(k) Reallocating and increasing the appropriation for Human Services
Federal Trust Funds from $58,963,098 to $98,463,098;
Page 129
(l) Reallocating and increasing the appropriation for Public Safety
Expansion Funds from $81,176,992 to $82,076,992;
(m) Reallocating and increasing the appropriation for Regional Wireless
Cooperative Funds from $5,117,948 to $6,017,948;
(n) Reallocating and increasing the appropriation for Sports Facilities
Funds from $30,233,498 to $30,633,498;
(o) Reallocating and increasing the appropriation for Transportation
2050 Funds from $275,171,152 to $303,471,152;
(p) Leaving the total appropriation adopted for 2020-2021 unchanged
at $5,020,460,241.
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 16th day of June 2021.
_________________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
, Acting City Attorney
REVIEWED BY:
, City Manager
Page 130
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
(Ordinance S-47664)
An ordinance (Attachment A) amending Ordinance S-46716 adopting the 2020-21
Final Reappropriation Budget to authorize reallocating appropriations among lawfully
available appropriations to ensure the continued operation of the City of Phoenix in the
payment of necessary expenses.
Summary
This amendment to the 2020-21 Final Reappropriation Budget will allow the City to
close out the current fiscal year's budgetary accounts and proceed with the annual
independent audit. This is part of the standard year-end process required to close the
books.
Requested changes to the 2020-21 Reappropriated Funds Budget allow for year-end
timing differences and allow for updated contract payment schedules. The 2020-21
Reappropriated Funds Budget ordinance was required to rebudget funds that were
contractually committed in the prior fiscal year (2019-20) but not yet fully expended in
that fiscal year. Since budget appropriations expire on June 30 of each fiscal year, the
2020-21 Reappropriated Funds Budget ordinance reestablished the appropriations for
payment of vendors as goods and services were received.
These requested reallocations do not represent an actual transfer of funds, but rather,
only a transfer of spending authority. Also, these reallocations do not increase or
decrease the total budget.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Ed Zuercher, Assistant City Manager Jeff
Barton and the Budget and Research Department.
Page 131
Attachment A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE S-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. S-46716
ADOPTING THE FINAL 2020-2021 REAPPROPRIATION
BUDGET FOR ITEMS OF EXPENDITURE PREVIOUSLY
ADOPTED AS PART OF THE OPERATING AND CAPITAL
FUND BUDGETS OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX BUT
REMAINING AS UNEXPENDED AS OF JUNE 30, 2020, BY
REALLOCATING CERTAIN EXPENDITURES AND
REAPPROPRIATIONS.
______________
WHEREAS, during the fiscal year 2020-2021, the resources in certain
funds will be more than originally anticipated in the 2020-2021 budget; and
WHEREAS, further reallocations of certain expenditures from available
funds are required to ensure the continuing operation of the City of Phoenix and the
payment of necessary expenses;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PHOENIX as follows:
SECTION 1. That pursuant to the provisions of Ordinance No. S-46716,
the City Manager is hereby authorized and empowered to allocate, and there is hereby
appropriated and authorized to be expended, from other lawfully available funds of the
Page 132
following listed funds by increasing or decreasing the amount previously reappropriated
from said funds as follows:
(a) Reallocating and increasing the reappropriation for General Fund
Capital Improvement Funds from $2,095,000 to $4,368,000;
(c) Reallocating and decreasing the reappropriation for Transportation
2050 Funds from $127,383,000 to $125,110,000;
(d) Leaving the total for the 2020-2021 reappropriation budget
unchanged at $2,213,434,000.
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 16th day of June 2021.
_________________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
, Acting City Attorney
REVIEWED BY:
, City Manager
Page 133
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
(Ordinance S-47723)
Request to adopt a Pension Funding Policy applicable to City of Phoenix Employee
Retirement System (COPERS) and Public Safety Personnel Retirement System
(PSPRS). A Pension Funding Policy to clearly communicate the City's funding
objectives is a requirement adopted by the State Legislature in 2018 as A.R.S. 38-
863.01 (Attachment A) to be implemented on an annual basis by June 30. While the
State law only applies to PSPRS, for the third year in a row City staff recommends also
adopting a COPERS funding policy as a transparent sound financial practice. This
report further requests the Council to adopt a policy for the utilization of recreational
marijuana revenues and a policy on the issuance of Pension Obligation Bonds.
Summary
The State law requires the City to:
1) Annually adopt a Pension Funding Policy.
2) Formally accept the Employer's share of the assets and liabilities under
each pension system based on the actuarial valuation report.
3) Post the Policy on the City's website.
For review and discussion purposes, a proposed Pension Funding Policy for both
PSPRS and COPERS can be found in Attachments B and C. A final City Pension
Funding Policy must be adopted and posted on the City's website by July 1 each year.
Over the last several years the Phoenix City Council and voters have taken
responsible actions to ensure the pension plans are financially stable while maintaining
services to the public. Increase in net pension liabilities (Attachment D) and annual
costs (Attachment E) have placed significant budgetary constraints on the City’s
ability to provide employee wage and non-pension benefit increases, public services
and infrastructure maintenance. While currently manageable, this pressure will
continue into the foreseeable future. Further, credit rating agencies and lenders place
strong consideration on the funding plan and funding levels of the City’s pension
Page 134
systems when determining their view of the overall financial health of the City.
The Phoenix City Council has requested staff provide various pension funding options,
which has resulted in the following actions:
1) Maintained our legal commitment to employees and retirees to pay at least
100% of the actuarially required contribution (ARC) to each plan.
2) Adopted a balanced budget based on a 25-year amortization schedule for
PSPRS, which is more aggressive than the 30-year amortization adopted
through State Law. However, the 25-year amortization schedule allow
budgetary capacity to continue providing quality services and fair
compensation for employees.
3) Established a Pension Reserve Fund to stabilize annual PSPRS
payments.
4) Advanced $70 million in Wastewater enterprise funds to pay down the
COPERS liability in FY18.
5) Ongoing coordination with the Aviation Department for advance paydowns
of $100 million and $70 million in FY21 and FY22, respectively.
These actions are in addition to the COPERS pension reform that the City Council and
voters have implemented since 2013 and the statewide PSPRS pension reform
passed by the voters in 2016. These actions have resulted in savings of more than $1
billion over 25 years for the City.
Results to Date
Implementation of the City Council's direction has resulted in improvements to the
funded position and stabilization of the plans, including an increase in the funded ratio
for COPERS to 60.74 percent for fiscal year ending 2020, up from 60.43 percent in
fiscal year ending 2019 (Attachment F). The funded ratio for PSPRS was 39.81
percent for fiscal year ending 2020 and was 40.24 percent for fiscal year 2019
(Attachment F). However, the City's total Net Pension Liability increased to $5.4
billion. This is an indication that ongoing attention to the funded position of the plans
and strategies to increase payments over a sustained period is necessary in
conjunction with balancing the current needs of the community and employees.
Future Considerations
In accordance with State law, the City Council must formally accept the assets,
Page 135
liabilities, and current funding ratio of the City's pension funds as stated in the annual
actuarial valuations for the City of Phoenix (Attachments G and H) and must approve
funding goals (Attachments B and C) by July 1, 2021.
While the pension systems are not currently fully funded, the strategy to pay the ARC
and pay down the liability over a set period (20 years remaining for PSPRS and 18
years remaining for COPERS) allows flexibility in proving services to the public while
spreading the liability to our residents over a period of time.
Under current actuarial calculations and amortization periods, PSPRS will be 100%
funded by June 30, 2042 (Attachment I) and COPERS will be 100% funded by June
30, 2039 (Attachment I). Under the leadership of the City Council, the City can
continue to take steps to ensure the current actuarial determined funding expectations
are achieved on this schedule, or even reach 100% funded within a shorter timeframe.
Next steps to address the City's pension liability could include:
1) Continuing to balance the budget and pay the annual contribution required
by actuaries.
2) Using any excess cash, including any savings from the refinancing of
long-term debt obligations, to fund the pension reserve fund or
directly pay down the liability.
3) Allocating budgetary resources of revenues from recreational
(non-medical) marijuana sales to directly pay down the liability for
PSPRS through accelerated pension payments.
4) Seeking opportunities to advance payments from enterprise and/or
special revenue funds.
5) Continue evaluating the feasibility of funding the pensions through
Pension Obligation Bonds under the proposed policy if established
by the City Council.
6) Reviewing investment rate or returns on pension assets, actuary
assumptions and to forecast future annual required contributions.
7) Compiling sensitivity and scenario analyses on proposed changes to
the pension plans.
Page 136
Recreational (non-medical) Marijuana Revenues
In November 2020 voters approved Proposition 207 legalizing the sale of recreational
marijuana in the State of Arizona. This proposition also created a new fund for the
revenues collected from the sale of recreational marijuana which will be distributed
through several allocation streams.
The City of Phoenix will receive recreational marijuana revenues from four sources,
including:
1) City of Phoenix regular general fund sales tax.
2) Public Safety proportional allocation based on PSPRS membership.
3) HURF proportional allocation.
4) State-shared sales tax revenue.
Staff recommends the City Council adopt a policy to annually direct revenues from 1
and 2 above (the City’s sales tax of recreational marijuana and the City’s Public Safety
allocation) to paying down PSPRS pension liability. Staff estimates applying the
additional revenues to PSPRS would result in reaching 100% funded a year earlier
than projected without doing so.
Pension Obligation Bonds (POBs)
Pension Obligation Bonds are bonds issued to pay pension plan liabilities. The City
Council previously directed staff to study and evaluate the possibility of issuing
Pension Obligation Bonds. With City Council’s direction, staff research and determined
a set of conditions required for issuing Pension Obligation Bonds.
Staff recommends the City Council adopt a policy for issuing Pension Obligations
Bonds only if the following conditions exist:
1) Bond Interest rates are under 3.5 percent.
2) The City applies all savings from issuing POBs to PSPRS for the
unfunded liability.
3) Rating indications are neutral.
Furthermore, additional City Council authorization would be required for issuance of
Pension Obligation Bonds. Staff estimates issuing Pension Obligations Bonds would
result in PSPRS reaching 100% three years earlier.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Ed Zuercher and Chief Financial Officer
Denise Olson.
Page 137
4/7/2021 38-863.01 - Pension funding policies; employers
ATTACHMENT A
38-863.01. Pension funding policies; employers
A. Beginning on or before July 1, 2019, each governing body of an employer shall annually:
1. Adopt a pension funding policy for the system for employees who were hired before July 1, 2017. The
pension funding policy shall include funding objectives that address at least the following:
(a) How to maintain stability of the governing body's contributions to the system.
(b) How and when the governing body's funding requirements of the system will be met.
(c) Defining the governing body's funded ratio target under the system and the timeline for reaching the targeted
funded ratio.
2. Formally accept the employer's share of the assets and liabilities under the system based on the system's
actuarial valuation report.
B. The governing body shall post the pension funding policy on the governing body's public website.
https://www.azleg.gov/ars/38/00863-01.htm Page 138 1/1
Attachment B
Public Safety Personnel Retirement System
Pension Funding Policy
The intent of this policy is to clearly communicate the Council’s pension funding objectives
and its commitment to our employees and the sound financial management of the City and
to comply with statutory requirements of Laws 2018, Chapter 112.
Several terms are used throughout this policy:
Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (UAAL) – Is the difference between trust assets
and the estimated future cost of pensions earned by employees. This UAAL results from
actual results (interest earnings, member mortality, disability rates, etc.) being different
from the assumptions used in previous actuarial valuations.
Annual Required Contribution (ARC) – Is the annual amount required to pay into the
pension funds, as determined through annual actuarial valuations. It is comprised of two
primary components: normal pension cost – which is the estimated cost of pension
benefits earned by employees in the current year; and, amortization of UAAL – which is
the cost needed to cover the unfunded portion of pensions earned by employees in
previous years. The UAAL is collected over a period of time referred to as the
amortization period. The ARC is a percentage of the current payroll.
Funded Ratio – Is a ratio of fund assets to actuarial accrued liability. The higher the
ratio the better funded the pension is with 100% being fully funded.
The City’s police and fire employees who are regularly assigned hazardous duty participate
in the Public Safety Personnel Retirement System (PSPRS).
Public Safety Personnel Retirement System (PSPRS)
PSPRS is administered as an agent multiple-employer pension plan. An agent multiple-
employer plan has two main functions: 1) to comingle assets of all plans under its
administration, thus achieving economy of scale for more cost-efficient investments and
invest those assets for the benefit of all members under its administration and 2) serve as
the statewide uniform administrator for the distribution of benefits.
Under an agent multiple-employer plan each agency participating in the plan has an
individual trust fund reflecting that agencies’ assets and liabilities. Under this plan all
contributions are deposited to and distributions are made from that fund’s assets, each fund
has its own funded ratio and contribution rate, and each fund has a unique annual actuarial
valuation. The City of Phoenix has two trust funds, one for police employees and one for fire
employees.
Page 139
Council formally accepts the assets, liabilities, and current funding ratio of the City’s PSPRS
trust funds from the June 30, 2020 actuarial valuation, which are detailed below.
Unfunded
Accrued Actuarial Accrued Funded
Trust Fund Assets Liability Liability Ratio
Phoenix Police 1,368,290,122 3,492,835,270 2,124,545,148 39.17%
Phoenix Fire 765,370,023 1,867,271,442 1,101,901,419 40.99%
For comparative purposes, the City of Phoenix total Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability for
the prior fiscal year ending June 30, 2019 was $3.03 billion and the funded ratio was
40.34%.
PSPRS Funding Goal
Fully funded pension plans are the best way to achieve taxpayer equity. However, most
funds in PSPRS are significantly underfunded due to historical low returns on plan assets,
people in general living longer and decreases in governmental workforces. As shown
above, the UAAL for the City is $3.2 billion which should be paid over time to avoid a huge
burden to current taxpayers by either significantly decreasing services or an increase in
taxes. This taxpayer burden must be balanced with being fiscally responsible and
committed in providing pensions to retirees.
The Council’s PSPRS funding ratio goal is 100% (fully funded) by June 30, 2042.
Council has taken the following actions to achieve the June 30, 2042 goal:
• Maintain ARC payment from operating revenues – Council is committed to
maintaining the full ARC payment (normal cost and UAAL amortization) from
operating funds.
• Additional payments above the ARC
o City Council has approved paying the ARC based on a 20-year remaining
amortization schedule. The budget for the ARC for FY 21 is $283.6 million,
which is $39.7 million more than the actuarial amount.
o Established the Pension Reserve Fund to ensure annual payment during
downturns in the economy. Currently, there is $41 million in the reserve fund.
To achieve this goal, the City may utilize the following strategies:
1. Maintaining the City’s legal commitment to employees and retirees by paying at least
100% of the annual required contribution.
2. Evaluating prior year budget compared to actual expenditures and make an excess
payment to either the Pension Reserve Fund or directly to PSPRS to accelerate
pension payments to directly pay down the liability
3. Allocating budgetary resources of revenues from recreational (non-medical)
marijuana sales to directly pay down the PSPRS liability through accelerated
pension payments. Specific marijuana categories would only include direct
revenues from the City’s general fund sales tax of recreational marijuana and the
City’s Public Safety allocation to paying down PSRPS pension liability.
Page 140
4. Authorizing City staff to develop a financing plan issuing Pension Obligation Bonds
if bond interest rates are under 3.5 percent, the City applies all savings from
issuing POBs to PSPRS and rating indications from rating agencies are neutral.
5. Reviewing investment rate of returns on pension assets, actuary assumptions and to
forecast future annual required contributions.
6. Compiling sensitivity and scenario analyses on proposed changes to the pension
plan.
Page 141
Attachment C
Pension Funding Policy
The intent of this policy is to clearly communicate the Council’s pension funding objectives
and its commitment to our employees and the sound financial management of the City and
to comply with statutory requirements of Laws 2018, Chapter 112.
Several terms are used throughout this policy:
Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (UAAL) – Is the difference between trust assets
and the estimated future cost of pensions earned by employees. This UAAL results from
actual results (interest earnings, member mortality, disability rates, etc.) being different
from the assumptions used in previous actuarial valuations.
Annual Required Contribution (ARC) – Is the annual amount required to pay into the
pension funds, as determined through annual actuarial valuations. It is comprised of two
primary components: normal pension cost – which is the estimated cost of pension
benefits earned by employees in the current year; and, amortization of UAAL – which is
the cost needed to cover the unfunded portion of pensions earned by employees in
previous years. The UAAL is collected over a period of time referred to as the
amortization period. The ARC is a percentage of the current payroll.
Funded Ratio – Is a ratio of fund assets to actuarial accrued liability. The higher the
ratio the better funded the pension is with 100% being fully funded.
CITY OF PHOENIX EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT SYSTEM (COPERS)
COPERS is a single-employer defined benefit pension plan, covering all full-time general
employees of the City except sworn police and fire employees. COPERS is governed by a
separate Board, established in the City Charter.
Council formally accepts the assets, liabilities, and current funding ratio of the City’s
COPERS trust funds from the June 30, 2020 actuarial valuation, which are detailed below.
Accrued Unfunded Net Funded
Trust Fund Assets Liability Pension Liability Ratio
Phoenix 2,681,173,000 4,414,114,000 1,732,941,000 60.74%
Page 142
For comparative purposes, the City of Phoenix total Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability for
the prior fiscal year ending June 30, 2019 was $1.74 billion and the funded ratio was
60.43%.
COPERS Funding Goal
Fully funded pension plans are the best way to achieve taxpayer equity. However,
COPERS is currently underfunded due to historical low returns on plan assets, people in
general living longer and decreases in governmental workforces. As shown above, the
UAAL for the City is $1.7 billion which should be paid over time to avoid a huge burden to
current taxpayers by either significantly decreasing services or an increase in taxes. This
taxpayer burden must be balanced with being fiscally responsible and committed in
providing pensions to retirees.
The Council’s COPERS funding ratio goal is 100% (fully funded) by June 30, 2039.
Council has taken the following actions to achieve the June 30, 2039 goal:
• Maintain ARC payment from operating revenues – Council is committed to
maintaining the full ARC payment (normal cost and UAAL amortization) from
operating funds. The budget for the ARC for FY 21 is $202.3 million.
To achieve this goal, the City may utilize the following strategies:
1. Maintaining the City’s legal commitment to employees and retirees by paying at least
100% of the annual required contribution.
2. Evaluating prior year budget compared to actual expenditures and make an excess
payment directly to COPERS to accelerate pension payments to directly pay down
the liability.
3. Continuing to seek opportunities to advance payments from either enterprise and/or
special revenue funds. Aviation is currently preparing advance payments of $100
million and $70 million in FY21 and FY22, respectively.
4. Reviewing investment rate of returns on pension assets, actuary assumptions and to
forecast future annual required contributions.
5. Compiling sensitivity and scenario analyses on proposed changes to the pension
plan.
Page 143
Attachment D:
Total Unfunded Net Pension Liability
$3,500,000
$3,000,000
$2,500,000
$2,000,000
Page 144
thousands
$1,500,000
$1,000,000
$500,000
$0
2010‐11 2011‐12 2012‐13 2013‐14 2014‐15 2015‐16 2016‐17 2017‐18 2018‐19 2019‐20
COPERS PSPRS
Attachment E: Total Pension Annual Required
Contribution by Plan & Payment Source
all $ in thousands COPERS & PSPRS
400,000
350,000
300,000
250,000
Page 145
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
‐
COPERS General Fund COPERS Other COPERS Paydowns PSPRS General Fund PSPRS Other
*Does not reflect possible COPERS paydown utilizing Aviation funds in 2021-22 for $184 million
Attachment F:
Historical Total Funding Percentage of Pension Plans
90.0%
Funding Percentage
80.0%
*Largest U.S. Cities
70.0% Median 71%
Page 146
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
2010‐11 2011‐12 2012‐13 2013‐14 2014‐15 2015‐16 2016‐17 2017‐18 2018‐19 2019‐20
COPERS PSPRS‐Police PSPRS‐Fire
*S&P Global Ratings – “Mounting Pressures Threaten Stability of 20 Largest U.S. Cities’ Pension Funding,” October 26, 2020.
ATTACHMENT G
ARIZONA PUBLIC SAFETY PERSONNEL
RETIREMENT SYSTEM
PHOENIX POLICE DEPT. (022)
GASB STATEMENT NO. 68
EMPLOYER REPORTING ACCOUNTING SCHEDULES
MEASUREMENT DATE JUNE 30, 2019
Page 147
Arizona Public Safety Personnel Retirement System
GASB 68 Accounting Report as of June 30, 2019 – Phoenix Police Dept. (022) 1
I. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Schedule of Changes in Net Pension Liability
GASB 68 Reporting Period Ending 06/30/2020 06/30/2019
Measurement Date 06/30/2019 06/30/2018
Total Pension Liability
Service Cost 52,681,184 49,600,950
Interest 241,526,271 231,824,249
Change of Benefit Terms 0 0
Difference between Expected and Actual Experience 21,414,639 (905,937)
Changes of Assumptions 58,976,382 0
Benefit Payments, including Refund of Employee Contributions (185,901,097) (168,681,938)
Net Change in Total Pension Liability 188,697,379 111,837,324
Total Pension Liability – Beginning 3,304,137,891 3,192,300,567
Total Pension Liability – Ending (a) $3,492,835,270 $3,304,137,891
Plan Fiduciary Net Position
Contributions - Employer 149,441,956 124,618,256
Contributions - Employee 18,525,386 22,727,856
Hall / Parker Settlement 0 (42,201,317)
Net Investment Income 71,707,018 89,411,383
Benefit Payments, including Refund of Employee Contributions (185,901,097) (168,681,938)
Administrative Expense (1,247,557) (1,363,529)
Other 1 89,435 (442,686)
Net Change in Plan Fiduciary Net Position 52,615,141 24,068,025
Plan Fiduciary Net Position – Beginning 1,315,680,266 1,291,612,241
Adjustment to Beginning of Year (5,285) 0
Plan Fiduciary Net Position – Ending (b) $1,368,290,122 $1,315,680,266
Net Pension Liability – Ending (a) – (b) $2,124,545,148 $1,988,457,625
Plan Fiduciary Net Position as a Percentage of the Total Pension Liability 39.17% 39.82%
Covered Payroll 2 $228,845,840 $221,105,147
Net Pension Liability as a Percentage of Covered Payroll 928.37% 899.33%
Other changes include adjustments for prior year GASB 68 and reserve transfer to/from employer and employee reserves.
Does not necessarily represent Covered Payroll as defined in GASB Statement No. 82.
The June 30, 2019 results reflect the assumption changes noted in the assumptions section of this report.
Results from June 30, 2018 and prior years, both here and throughout this report, are as prepared by GRS
Retirement Consulting.
Page 148
ARIZONA PUBLIC SAFETY PERSONNEL
RETIREMENT SYSTEM
PHOENIX FIRE DEPT. (021)
GASB STATEMENT NO. 68
EMPLOYER REPORTING ACCOUNTING SCHEDULES
MEASUREMENT DATE JUNE 30, 2019
Page 149
Arizona Public Safety Personnel Retirement System
GASB 68 Accounting Report as of June 30, 2019 – Phoenix Fire Dept. (021) 1
I. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Schedule of Changes in Net Pension Liability
GASB 68 Reporting Period Ending 06/30/2020 06/30/2019
Measurement Date 06/30/2019 06/30/2018
Total Pension Liability
Service Cost 32,749,328 30,633,836
Interest 130,378,095 123,037,837
Change of Benefit Terms 0 0
Difference between Expected and Actual Experience (7,563,080) 21,387,284
Changes of Assumptions 31,021,420 0
Benefit Payments, including Refund of Employee Contributions (96,862,276) (89,735,125)
Net Change in Total Pension Liability 89,723,487 85,323,832
Total Pension Liability – Beginning 1,777,547,955 1,692,224,123
Total Pension Liability – Ending (a) $1,867,271,442 $1,777,547,955
Plan Fiduciary Net Position
Contributions - Employer 77,142,323 73,287,988
Contributions - Employee 11,591,691 13,412,972
Hall / Parker Settlement 0 (21,839,946)
Net Investment Income 39,878,688 49,178,522
Benefit Payments, including Refund of Employee Contributions (96,862,276) (89,735,125)
Administrative Expense (694,329) (751,191)
Other 1 0 250,919
Net Change in Plan Fiduciary Net Position 31,056,097 23,804,139
Plan Fiduciary Net Position – Beginning 734,315,272 710,511,133
Adjustment to Beginning of Year (1,346) 0
Plan Fiduciary Net Position – Ending (b) $765,370,023 $734,315,272
Net Pension Liability – Ending (a) – (b) $1,101,901,419 $1,043,232,683
Plan Fiduciary Net Position as a Percentage of the Total Pension Liability 40.99% 41.31%
Covered Payroll 2 $135,272,840 $132,502,915
Net Pension Liability as a Percentage of Covered Payroll 814.58% 787.33%
Other changes include adjustments for prior year GASB 68 and reserve transfer to/from employer and employee reserves.
Does not necessarily represent Covered Payroll as defined in GASB Statement No. 82.
The June 30, 2019 results reflect the assumption changes noted in the assumptions section of this report.
Results from June 30, 2018 and prior years, both here and throughout this report, are as prepared by GRS
Retirement Consulting.
Page 150
ATTACHMENT H
Retirement System
GASB Statement Nos. 67 and 68 Accounting and Financial
Reporting for Pensions
June 30, 2020
Sample Employees Retirement System 1
Page 151
Executive Summary
as of June 30, 2020
(Amounts in Thousands)
Actuarial Valuation Date June 30, 2020
Measurement Date of the Net Pension Liability June 30, 2020
Employer's Fiscal Year Ending Date (Reporting Date) June 30, 2020
Membership
Number of
- Retirees and Beneficiaries 7,502
- Inactive, Nonretired Members 1,033
- Active Members 8,027
- Total 16,562
Covered Payroll $ 568,089
Net Pension Liability
Total Pension Liability $ 4,414,114
Plan Fiduciary Net Position 2,681,173
Net Pension Liability $ 1,732,941
Plan Fiduciary Net Position as a Percentage
of Total Pension Liability 60.74 %
Net Pension Liability as a Percentage
of Covered Payroll 305.05 %
Development of the Single Discount Rate
Single Discount Rate 7.00 %
Long-Term Expected Rate of Investment Return 7.00 %
Long-Term Municipal Bond Rate* 2.45 %
Last year ending June 30 in the 2021 to 2120 projection period
for which projected benefit payments are fully funded 2120
Total Pension Expense $ 160,140
Deferred Outflows and Deferred Inflows of Resources by Source to be recognized in Future Pension Expenses
Deferred Outflows Deferred Inflows
of Resources of Resources
Difference between expected and actual experience $ 23,707 $ 79,272
Changes in assumptions 484 49,909
Net difference between projected and actual earnings
on pension plan investments 139,823 16,673
Total $ 164,014 $ 145,854
*Source: Fixed-income municipal bonds with 20 years to maturity that include only federally tax-exempt
municipal bonds as reported in Fidelity Index’s “20-Year Municipal GO AA Index” as of June 30, 2020.
In describing this index, Fidelity notes that the municipal curves are constructed using option-adjusted
analytics of a diverse population of over 10,000 tax exempt securities.
Page 152
Attachment I:
Projected Paydown of Unfunded Net Pension
Liability
$4,000
$3,500
$3,000
$2,500
Page 153
$2,000
millions
$1,500
$1,000
$500
$0
COPERS PSPRS
Note: PSPRS fully funded amortization period has been adjusted based on revised information from the actuaries.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
A public hearing, as required by Arizona Revised Statutes section 9-471, on the
proposed 19th Avenue and Parsons Road Annexation. This public hearing allows the
Council will not act on the proposed annexation at this public hearing. Formal adoption
of this proposed annexation will be considered at a later date.
Summary
This annexation was requested by Paul E. Gilbert, with Beus Gilbert McGroder, PLLC
for the purpose of receiving City of Phoenix services. The proposed annexation
conforms to current City policies and complies with Arizona Revised Statutes section 9
-471 regarding annexation. Additionally, the annexation is recommended for adoption
per the attached Task Force Analysis Report (Attachment A).
Public Outreach
Notification of the pubic hearing was published in the Arizona Business Gazette
newspaper, and was posted in at least three conspicuous places in the area proposed
to be annexed. Also, notice via first-class mail was sent to each property owner within
the proposed annexation area.
Location
The proposed annexation area includes parcels 210-10-020C, 210-10-020D, 210-10-
031A, 210-10-027A and 210-10-010 and is located at 19th Avenue and Parsons Road
(Attachment B). The annexation area is approximately 15.73 acres (0.0239 sq. mi.)
and the population estimate is zero individuals.
Council District: 1
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department
Page 154
ATTACHMENT A
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
TO: Mario Paniagua
Deputy City Manager
FROM: Alan Stephenson
Planning Director
SUBJECT: Request for Task Force Analysis: 19th Avenue and Parsons Road Annexation
This report recommends the approval of the proposed annexation of 15.73 acres located at east of
19th Avenue and south of Parsons Road, Parcels: APN # 210-10-020C, 210-10-020D, 210-10-010,
210-10-031A, 210-10-027A
THE REQUEST:
The applicant is requesting annexation to access city services and proposes to rezone the parcels to
develop a multifamily residential rental complex.
OTHER INFORMATION:
Planning Village: Deer Valley
General Plan Designation: Traditional Lot, 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre
Current Zoning District: RU-43
Equivalent Zoning District: S-1
Current Conditions
Current Land-Use: Vacant
To the North: Single-family dwelling and ranch properties, zoned RU-43, Maricopa County jurisdiction
To the South: Undeveloped. Properties rezoned to Commercial Office/Major Office Option Restricted
Commercial (C-O/M-O), City of Phoenix jurisdiction
To the West: Residential and mixed uses (Norterra), zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD), City of
Phoenix jurisdiction
To the East: Single-family dwelling, zoned RU-43, Maricopa County jurisdiction
…Maricopa County Non-Conformities Present? None
Parcel (s) History: None
ALTERNATIVES:
Option A - Annex the land as requested:
The city of Phoenix will control rezoning requests in this area to ensure conformance with the
General Plan Land Use Map. The city of Phoenix will capture property tax, utility tax, state shared
revenue, and impact fees.
Page 155
Option B - Deny the request for annexation:
If annexed later, this site would have been developed under County zoning and development
standards that may not be consistent with the General Plan, Land Use Map, zoning, and
development standards.
RECOMMENDATION:
Located adjacent to City of Phoenix lands, this annexation is supported by the 2015 General Plan,
particularly the Land Use goal for land uses and development standards for unincorporated land, under
Policies 1 and 2.
This annexation is recommended for approval. Approval of annexation does not constitute
recommendation for future rezoning actions.
SUPPORTING INFORMATION:
I. Water and Sewer Service
Parcels currently fall within Water Pressure Zone Area 4A.
There are both water and sewer infrastructure within the area. There is a 12-inch DIP water
distribution main within 19th Avenue, along with a 54-inch PCCP transmission water main. There is
also a 24-inch DIP sewer force main within 19th Avenue.
The proposed parcels can likely be served by the City’s water and/or sewer system pending capacity
review and approval. This review will be done at the time of preliminary site plan approval. Design
and construction of any infrastructure will be the responsibility of the developer. Specifics regarding
potential main extension requirements would be discussed and determined at a pre-app meeting
after annexation.
II. Fire Protection
Servicing Station: Fire Station #5, 26700 N 27th Avenue
Station Capacity Level, Unknown
Station Capacity Level, After Annexation:Unknown
Current Response Time: 3 Min. 0 Sec.
City Average Response Time: 5 Min. 2 Sec.
Difference From Typical Response Time: -2 Min. 2 Sec.
Number Of Service Calls Expected: 21
Average Cost Per Service Call: $466
Estimated Total Annual Fire Service Costs: $9,820
III. Police Protection
Servicing Station: Black Mountain Precinct, 33355 North Cave Creek Rd
Number Of New Officers Required: 0.22
Number Of New Patrol Cars Required: 0.10
Estimated Total Annual Police Service Costs: $28,745
IV. Refuse Collection
Number of New Containers Required: 0
Page 156
Public refuse container costs not applicable for apartments and non-residential uses which require
private refuse services or contractual agreements with the City that are not determined at this time.
Total Start-Up Costs For Refuse Collection: $0
V. Street Maintenance
Average Cost Per Acre For Street Maintenance: $85
Estimated Total Annual Street Maintenance Costs: $1,342
VI. Public Transit
Servicing Routes: here are no servicing routes to the proposed annexation area.
VII. Parks and Recreation
Neighborhood Park Demand In Acres: 0.82
Community Park Demand In Acres: 0.44
District Park Demand In Acres: 0.44
Total Park Demand In Acres: 1.70
Cost Per Acre, Annual Maintenance: $11,000
Total Annual Parks and Recreation Costs: $18,655
VIII. Schools
Elementary School District: Deer Valley Unified
High School District: Deer Valley Unified
Total Expected Elementary School Students: 55
Total Expected High School Students: 32
Total Expected New Students: 87
IX. Revenues
This annexation is not in an Impact Fee area
Expected Total Impact Fees At Buildout: $0
Tax Revenue, Year One
Property Tax Income: $1,026
Utility Fee Income: $9,831
State Shared Revenue: $63,780
Solid Waste: $32,542
Sales Tax Generated: $0
Total Tax Related Income, Annually: $107,179
Page 157
Tax Revenue, Year Two and Beyond
Property Tax Income: $1,026
Utility Fee Income: $9,831
State Shared Revenue: $63,780
Solid Waste: $32,542
Sales Tax Generated: $0
Total Tax Related Income, Annually: $107,179
X. Total Costs
Revenue, First Year Only: $107,179
Revenue, Year Two and Beyond $107,179
Expenses, First Year Only: $58,563
Expenses, Year Two and Beyond: $58,563
XI. Total Annual Revenue
Total Annual Revenue, First Year Only: $48,616
Total Annual Revenue, Year Two and Beyond: $48,616
The above referenced Property Tax Income figures are based on vacant parcels only, it does not not
refer to future development which will vary depending on number of lots and individual square footage.
Total Tax Related Income and Total Annual Revenues will vary depending on project scope and size,
the timing of permit issuance and build-out.
Page 158
ATTACHMENT B
Page 159
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Public Utility Purposes (Ordinance S-47676)
Request for the City Council to accept and dedicate deeds and easements for
sidewalk, roadway and public utility purposes; further ordering the ordinance recorded.
Summary
Accepting the property interests below will meet the Planning and Development
Department's Single Instrument Dedication Process requirement prior to releasing any
permits to applicants.
Easement (a)
Applicant: HumpyMelt, LLC, its successor and assigns
Purpose: Sidewalk
Location: 2932 & 2938 N. 7th Ave.
File: FN 210031
Council District: 4
Deed (b)
Applicant: CAAM House LLC, its successor and assigns
Purpose: Roadway
Location: 1908 W. Lawrence Road
File: FN 210033
Council District: 5
Easement (c)
Applicant: DOC-3311 North 44th Streets MOBs, LLC, its successor and assigns
Purpose: Public Utility
Location: 3333 N. 44th St.
File: FN 210030
Council District: 6
Deed (d)
Applicant: Choice Fund I, LLC, its successor and assigns
Purpose: Roadway
Page 160
Location: 1533 E. Sierra St.
File: FN 210037
Council District: 6
Easement (e)
Applicant: Andrew Davidson and William Davidson, its successor and assigns
Purpose: Public Utility
Location: 4824 E. Willetta St.
File: FN 210016
Council District: 6
Easement (f)
Applicant: Andrew Davidson, Rachel Davidson and William Davidson, its successor
and assigns
Purpose: Public Utility
Location: 4830 E. Willetta St.
File: FN 210016
Council District: 6
Easement (g)
Applicant: A5 Residential, LLC, its successor and assigns
Purpose: Public Utility
Location: 423 E. Wier Ave.
File: FN 210022
Council District: 7
Deed (h)
Applicant: Vita on McDowell, LLC, its successor and assigns
Purpose: Roadway
Location: 509 W. McDowell Road
File: FN 210028
Council District: 7
Easement (i)
Applicant: Estrella Vista Laveen Homeowners Association, its successor and
assigns
Purpose: Sidewalk
Location: 8220 S. 63rd Ave.
File: FN 210040
Council District: 7
Page 161
Easement (j)
Applicant: KBBS Development LLC, its successor and assigns
Purpose: Public Utility
Location: 2249 E. Desert Lane
File: FN 210027
Council District: 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development and Finance departments.
Page 162
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Van Buren Street, Near North 27th Drive (Ordinance S-47678)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to accept an easement for
traffic control purposes for the installation of a High-Intensity Activated Cross Walk
signal located along West Van Buren Street, near North 27th Drive.
Summary
Mikael Rugi LLC, its successor and assigns, has agreed to donate an easement for
the installation of a High-Intensity Activated Cross Walk (HAWK) signal and Americans
with Disabilities Act pedestrian ramps to provide pedestrians a safe crossing along
West Van Buren Street near North 27th Drive. The easement is approximately 64
square feet.
The parcel affected by this project and included in this request is identified by
Maricopa County Assessor's parcel number 109-27-155 located at 2730 W. Van Buren
St.
Location
West Van Buren Street, near North 27th Drive.
Council District: 4
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Street
Transportation and Finance departments.
Page 163
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Roeser Road to South of Hidalgo Avenue (Ordinance S-47675)
Request authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to grant irrigation
easements to Salt River Project within the 23rd Avenue and Roeser Road right-of-way,
and the 23rd Avenue right-of-way, south of Hidalgo Avenue, for consideration in the
amount of the appraised value and other consideration. Further request to authorize
the City Treasurer to accept all funds related to this item.
Summary
The irrigation easements are required to connect to Salt River Project's existing
irrigation lines along 23rd Avenue from Roeser Road to south of Hidalgo Avenue for
irrigation flow to accommodate Liberty 1A by Lennar Communities Development, Inc.
The easement at Roeser Road is approximately 431 square feet and the easement
south of Hidalgo Avenue is approximately 92 square feet.
Financial Impact
Revenue will be reflective of the market value of the easement.
Location
23rd Avenue, Roeser Road to south of Hidalgo Avenue.
Council District: 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Street
Transportation and Finance departments.
Page 164
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
for Relocation of Irrigation Facilities within Olney Avenue Right-of-Way
(Ordinance S-47671)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute the necessary
documents and accept a quitclaim deed for an easement exchange between the City
of Phoenix and the United States of America through its Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Reclamation for the purpose of relocating irrigation facilities. Further request
to authorize the City Treasurer to accept all funds related to this item.
Summary
An easement exchange is required to relocate irrigation facilities for development of
the Estrella Crossings, Phases 1 and 2. The irrigation facilities are currently within the
avenues, and will be relocated to the south, partially in City right-of-way and partially
on private property.
The City will convey approximately 5,663 square feet, Brookfield Holdings, LLC
(Estrella Crossing) will convey approximately 74,923 square feet, and Isola Elliot, LLC
will convey approximately 4,792 square feet in easements to the United States of
America (USA) to accommodate the relocated irrigation facilities. In exchange, the
USA will quitclaim to the City two easements within the right-of-way containing
approximately 78,408 square feet.
Financial Impact
Revenue, if any, will be based on the value of the easement conveyed by the City.
Location
Along Olney Avenue, between 55th and 59th avenues.
Council District: 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Street
Transportation and Finance departments.
Page 165
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
310 (Ordinance S-47670)
Request City Council to grant a public utility easement, for consideration of $1.00, for
installation of electrical facilities and a switching cabinet on City-owned property in the
Arizona Public Service area, and further ordering the Ordinance recorded. The public
utility easement is required for the construction of Well 310.
Summary
This public utility easement is more fully described in the legal description within
Exhibit "A" ("Easement Premises") to be recorded with the ordinance and will be
granted to all public service corporations, and telecommunication corporations
providing utility service to Well 310 (collectively "Grantee") in perpetuity, so long as
Grantee uses the Easement Premises for the purposes herein specified; subject to the
following terms and conditions:
A. Grantee is hereby granted the right to construct, reconstruct, replace, repair,
operate and maintain utility facilities together with appurtenant fixtures for use in
connection therewith (collectively "Grantee Facilities") to, through, across and
beyond Grantor's property within the Easement Premises. Subject to the notice
requirements provided in paragraph "I," Grantee shall at all times have the right of
full and free ingress and egress to and along the Easement Premises for the
purposes herein specified. Grantee acknowledges and accepts that Grantee shall
share the Easement Premises with other Grantees and shall use such Easement
Premises with other Grantees in accordance with and consistent with industry
standards and customs for shared use. Grantor agrees to coordinate the location of
Grantee's Facilities within the Easement Premises and to pay costs for relocation of
Grantee's Facilities as provided in paragraph "F."
B. Grantor shall not locate, erect or construct, or permit to be located or erected or
constructed, any building or structure within the limits of the Easement Premises.
However, Grantor reserves all other rights, interests, and uses of the Easement
Premises that are not inconsistent with Grantee's easement rights herein conveyed
and which do not interfere with or endanger any of the Grantee Facilities.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, Grantor shall not have the right to lower by more
than one foot or raise by more than two feet the surface grade of Easement
Page 166
Premises without the prior written consent by the Grantee whose facilities will be
affected by the change of elevation.
C. Grantee shall not have the right to use the Easement Premises to store gasoline or
petroleum products, hazardous or toxic substances, or flammable materials;
provided however, that this prohibition shall not apply to any material, equipment or
substance contained in, or a part of, the Grantee Facilities, provided that Grantee
must comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations in
connection therewith. Additionally, the Easement Premises may not be used for the
storage of construction-related materials or to park or store construction-related
vehicles or equipment except on a temporary basis to construct, reconstruct,
replace, repair, operate, or maintain the Grantee Facilities.
D. Grantor shall maintain an appropriate three-foot clear area around all edges of all
equipment pads for Grantee Facilities in addition to a clear operational area that
extends 10 feet immediately in front of all transformer or switching cabinet
openings, within the Easement Premises. No obstruction, trees, shrubs, fixtures, or
permanent structures shall be placed or permitted by Grantor within said areas.
Grantee is hereby granted the right to trim, prune, cut, and clear away trees, brush,
shrubs, or other obstruction within said areas.
E. Grantee shall exercise reasonable care to avoid damage to the Easement Premises
and all improvements thereon and agrees that following any work or use by Grantee
within the Easement Premises, the affected area, including without limitation, all
pavement, landscaping, concrete and other improvements permitted within the
Easement Premises pursuant to this easement will be restored by Grantee to as
close to original condition as is reasonably possible, at the expense of Grantee.
F. Grantor reserves the right to require the relocation of Grantee Facilities to a new
location within Grantor's property; provided however, that: (1) Grantor pays the
entire cost of redesigning and relocating existing Grantee Facilities to the new
location; and (2) Grantor provides Grantee with a new and substantially similar
public utility easement at no cost to Grantee. After relocation of Grantee Facilities to
the new easement area, Grantee shall abandon its rights to use the Easement
Premises granted in this easement without cost or consequence to Grantor.
G. Each public service corporation and telecommunication services corporation as a
Grantee shall coordinate and work with other Grantees in the use of the Easement
Premises. In the event that a third party or other Grantee requests the relocation of
existing Grantee Facilities to a new location (whether or not) within the Easement
Premises, the requesting party shall pay the entire cost of redesigning and
relocating the existing Grantee Facilities.
H. Grantee shall not have the right to transfer, convey or assign its interests in this
easement to any individual, corporation, or other entity without the prior written
consent of Grantor, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. Grantee
shall notify Grantor of any proposed transfer, conveyance or assignment of any
Page 167
rights granted herein at address listed below.
I. Except in emergencies or exigent circumstances such as service restoration,
Grantee agrees to contact Grantor at least one business day prior to Grantee's
entrance onto the Easement Premises where the Easement Premises are located:
(1) on a site that includes Aviation Department facilities; (2) water and wastewater
treatment facilities; (3) Police Department headquarters located at 620 W.
Washington St.; (4) Fire Department headquarters located at 150 S. 12th St.; (5)
City Hall located at 200 W. Washington St.; (6) City Court Building located at 300 W.
Washington St.; (7) Calvin C. Goode Building located at 251 W. Washington St.; (8)
Transit Operations Center located at 320 N. 1st Ave. or West Transit Facility located
at 405 N. 79th Ave.; or (9) in a secured or fenced area.
Location
56th St. and Pinnacle Peak Road.
Council District: 2
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters and the Water Services
and Finance departments.
Page 168
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Development, Inc. on City-owned Property at Lindo Park (Ordinance S-47681)
Request authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to grant a temporary
construction easement (TCE) to Lennar Communities Development, Inc. on City-
owned property at Lindo Park.
Summary
An approximate 5,000-square-foot TCE is required for Lennar to construct a storm
drainpipe and headwall. The storm drain improvements will allow off-site water runoff
from the neighborhood to the south of the park and along S. 23rd Avenue into the
existing detention basin located at Lindo Park. The permanent improvements will tie
into the City's larger drainage system to mitigate flooding in this area.
Location
2230 W. Roeser Road, identified by Maricopa County Assessor parcel numbers 105-
65-004D and 105-65-692.
Council District: 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Parks and
Recreation and Finance departments.
Page 169
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Between the Pointe Parkway West Traffic Circle and Baseline Road (Ordinance S
-47704)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to acquire all real property
and related property interests by donation, purchase within the City's appraised value,
or by the power of eminent domain required for roadway improvements along 48th
Street between the Pointe Parkway West traffic circle and Baseline Road. Further
request to authorize dedication of land with roadway and/or public improvements to
public use for right-of-way purposes via separate recording instrument. Additionally
request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.
Summary
The City entered into Development Agreement 143841 with Pointe South Mountain
Business Park Association (Association) for the construction of public improvements
including the build out of 48th Street as a public roadway. The Association worked with
the City to secure dedications from existing owners and members of the Association.
Acquisition of real property is required to obtain the property rights needed to begin
construction.
The parcel affected by this project and included in this request is identified by
Maricopa County Assessor's parcel numbers 301-15-142B, 301-15-143, 301-15-144
located along 48th Street and the Highline Canal and 301-14-043 located at 8201 S.
48th St.
Financial Impact
Funding is available in the Street Transportation Department's Capital Improvement
Program budget.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved:
· Development Agreement 143841 (Ordinance S-42241) on Jan. 6, 2016; and
· Acceptance and Dedication of Land (Ordinance S-47122) on Nov. 18, 2020.
Page 170
Location
48th Street between the Pointe Parkway West traffic circle and Baseline Road.
Council District: 6
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Street
Transportation and Finance departments.
Page 171
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
and Sunrise Drive (Ordinance S-47680)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to acquire real property and
related property interests by donation, purchase within the City's appraised value, or
by the power of eminent domain, for South Mountain Preserve to be designated as
"Mountain Preserve" in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XXVI of the City
Charter. Further request authorization for the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item.
Summary
The acquisition of 39 acres will add land to South Mountain Preserve. The property
includes scenic views, connections to the Preserve to the south of the property,
multiple drainage washes and desert flora and fauna. The property to be acquired is
identified by Maricopa County Assessor's parcel number (APN) 300-16-035G located
at 2333 W. Sunrise Drive.
Financial Impact
Funding is available in the Parks and Recreation Department's Capital Improvement
Program budget using PPPI funds.
Location
23rd Avenue and Sunrise Drive
Council District: 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Parks and
Recreation and Finance departments.
Page 172
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
North of Palm Lane (Ordinance S-47673)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to acquire all real property
and related property interests required by donation, purchase within the City's
appraised value, or by the power of eminent domain for the installation of a High-
Intensity Activated Cross Walk (HAWK) signal located along 32nd Street, north of Palm
Lane. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to
this item.
Summary
Acquisition is required for the installation of a HAWK signal located along 32nd Street,
north of Palm Lane. Improvements include a new pedestrian signal, pavement, curb,
gutter and construction of an Americans with Disabilities Act accessible sidewalk.
The parcels affected by this project and included in this request are identified by
Maricopa County Assessor's parcel number 120-21-105D located at 2012 N. 32nd St.
and 120-21-102A located at 2002 N. 32nd St.
Financial Impact
Funding is available in the Street Transportation Department's Capital Improvement
Program budget.
Location
32nd Street, north of Palm Lane.
Council District: 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Street
Transportation and Finance departments.
Page 173
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Amendment (Ordinance S-47660)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Agreement 148450 with Arizona West Builders and Communications Inc. to provide
additional funding for the purchase of Communication Tower inspection, maintenance,
and repair services for the Information Technology Services Department in support of
the Regional Wireless Cooperative. Further request authorization for the City
Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The additional expenditures for
services included in this amendment will not exceed $1.5 million.
Summary
Arizona West Builders and Communications Inc. (AZW) provides tower maintenance,
support and equipment that is needed for public safety radio communication sites
throughout the valley. The Regional Wireless Cooperative (RWC) has two radio tower
sites that need to be relocated. The first site relocation will require that AZW provide
the shelter, generator, and labor services. The second site will require AZW to provide
a new tower, shelter, generator, and engineered design build. The RWC is budgeting
for these sites in the Fiscal Year 2022 budget.
Failure to maintain, replace, or relocate communication tower equipment would
negatively impact the radio communications infrastructure which provides critical public
safety communications throughout the region.
Contract Term
The agreements term will remain unchanged, ending on Aug. 31, 2023.
Financial Impact
The initial authorization for the Communication Tower Inspection, Maintenance and
Repair agreement was for an expenditure not-to-exceed $250,000. This amendment
will increase the authorization for the agreement by an additional $1.5 million, for a
new total not-to-exceed agreement value of $1.725 million.
Funding is available in the Information Technology Services Department’s budget. The
cost of services is recovered from RWC member organizations.
Page 174
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved Agreement 148450 (Ordinance S-44996) on Sept. 19,
2018.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the Information
Technology Services Department.
Page 175
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF
THE FINAL, ADOPTED ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE S-
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE AMENDMENT OF
AGREEMENT 148450 WITH ARIZONA WEST BUILDERS
AND COMMUNICATIONS, INC. TO PROVIDE
AF
ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR THE PURCHASE OF
COMMUNICATION TOWER INSPECTION,
MAINTENANCE, AND REPAIR SERVICES FOR THE
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
IN SUPPORT OF THE REGIONAL WIRELESS
COOPERATIVE; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY
follows:
T
CONTROLLER TO DISBURSE ALL FUNDS.
__________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX as
R SECTION 1. The City Manager or his designee is authorized to amend
Agreement 148450 with Arizona West Builders and Communications, Inc. to provide
additional funding for the purchase of communication tower inspection, maintenance,
D
and repair services for the Information Technology Services Department in support of
the Regional Wireless Cooperative. The Agreement’s term will remain unchanged,
ending on August 31, 2023. This amendment will increase the authorization for the
agreement by an additional $1.5 million dollars, for a new total not to exceed agreement
value of $1.725 million dollars.
Page 176
SECTION 2. The City Controller is authorized to disburse all funds for the
purposes of this Ordinance.
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 16th day of June,
2021.
____________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
AF
____________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
T
Cris Meyer, City Attorney
BY: ____________________________________
____________________________________
REVIEWED BY:
R
____________________________
Ed Zuercher, City Manager
D
DRL:rb:LF20-3127:6/16/21:2259912_1
Page 177
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with CoStar Realty Information, Inc. to provide a three-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. The agreement value will not exceed
$381,139.68, plus applicable taxes.
Summary
The CoStar Realty Information, Inc. database subscription renewals are for the
Community and Economic Development, Aviation and Finance departments to provide
online access to comprehensive market data, information and reports on commercial
property sales, listings, and leases. The information is used extensively to research
market data to support the disposal, acquisition and leasing of real property; provide
the tools necessary to complete appraisals, appraisal reviews and valuation services;
manage existing contracts and development of new business transactions for revenue
contract services; and assist business developers, investors and companies interested
in relocating to or investing in Phoenix. A three-year subscription provides for a two
percent cost savings from the prior annual subscription.
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 or services due to the
unique nature of the requirement.
Contract Term
The agreement will begin on or about June 16, 2021, for a three-year term.
Financial Impact
The fee for the initial year of the agreement is $121,497.24 with 4.5 percent annual
increases for a total amount not to exceed $381,139.68, plus applicable taxes.
Funding is available in the Community and Economic Development, Aviation and
Finance departments' budgets.
Page 178
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Ginger Spencer and Mario Paniagua,
and the Community and Economic Development, Aviation and Finance departments.
Page 179
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Contract - City of Tucson 12-0471A (Ordinance S-47667)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to allow additional
expenditures under Contract 146072 with Panasonic System Communications
Company (PCS) Mobile and Mobile Concepts Technology LLC for the purchase of
Panasonic toughbooks, tablets, accessories and services for citywide use. Further
request authorization for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.
The additional expenditures will not exceed $3,528,000.
Summary
These contracts provide Panasonic toughbooks, tablets, accessories and services to
all City of Phoenix departments, primarily the Police, Fire and Water Services
departments. The devices are used as public safety measures to help employees
collect, organize and transfer data faster, more efficiently and in real-time. The devices
allow police officers to run license plates, scan fingerprints, and check records car
side, so they never leave a subject unattended. Purchases of replacement
Toughbooks and equipment vehicle installations have increased in the last two years
due to staffing level demands in all departments.
Contract Term
The contract term is Aug. 1, 2017 through July 31, 2022.
Financial Impact
Upon approval of $3,528,000 in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contract will not exceed $14,028,000. Funds are available in various Department’s
budgets.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This contract was originally approved by City Council on June 28, 2017.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Ed Zuercher and the Finance Department.
Page 180
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
Transcend Robotics Inc. to purchase one Vantage V3 Robot for the Police
Department. Further request an exception to Phoenix City Code 42-18 for Limitation of
Liability and Indemnification. Transcend Robotics Inc. and City agree that liability is to
be limited to $2,000,000 as negotiated. Also, request authorization for the City
Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The aggregate contract value will
not exceed $18,794.
Summary
The Special Assignments Unit is responsible for handling all violent and potentially
violent incidents, particularly involving barricaded subjects. Often, armed subjects
barricade and hide inside structures and fail to comply with officers' commands to
surrender. Use of the Vantage robot will help locate, communicate, and disarm these
suspects. This robot is essential because it will help officers provide maximum safety
for both suspects and the public. The Vantage F3 Robot provides a safe means of
communication with subjects that are barricaded by using its two-way communications
system. Pricing includes the robot, controller unit, controller & accessory transport
case, robot battery, small batteries, chargers, backpack, boosters and a High Gain
Antenna (HGA) Antenna. This booster HGA antenna allows the use of the robot at
extended distances.
Procurement Information
In accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10, normal competition was waived as
a result of an approved Determination Memo which stated the Special Assignments
Unit has used different robots in the past and found that many of them fail due to
distances, mechanical failures, cannot navigate stairs or through the debris. This
Vantage Tactical F3 robot and accessories is the only tool that defeats those issues.
Transcend Tactical is the only manufacturer of this robot. This robot was chosen based
on its mission capabilities, to include an accessory kit and HGA antenna.
The Deputy Finance Director recommends that the contract with Transcend Robotics
Inc. be accepted.
Page 181
Contract Term
Contract term is for one year beginning on or about June 16, 2021.
Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $18,794. Funds are available in the
Police Department’s budget.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Jeff Barton and the Police
Department.
Page 182
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
(B) (Ordinance S-47679)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to allow additional
expenditures under Contract 145675 with Idemia Identity & Security USA, LLC for the
purchase of automated fingerprint identification system and related services for the
Phoenix Police Department. Further request authorization for the City Controller to
disburse all funds related to this item. The additional expenditures will not exceed
$209,848.
Summary
This contract was established for the Police Department's Information Technology
Bureau to purchase automated fingerprint system equipment and related services, to
provide support to the Arizona Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AZAFIS)
network located at various bureaus and precincts throughout the City. The additional
funding is requested to purchase the final year of maintenance and support renewal of
the AZAFIS system. Original funds were depleted because the contract proved to be
useful for other divisions within the Police Department, which purchased essential
commodities and services against the contract. This contract is essential to ensure that
the digital fingerprint capture system remains compatible with the existing AZAFIS
network. Idemia Identity & Security USA, LLC is the only company to perform
maintenance services on the digital capture systems. This product is used by Police
Headquarters, Central Booking, the Crime Lab, Police Precincts and Substations with
digital fingerprint capture systems.
Contract Term
The contract term is Aug. 15, 2018 through June 27, 2022.
Financial Impact
Upon approval of $209,848 in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contract will not exceed $1,051,952. Funds are available in the Police Department's
budget.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This contract was originally approved by City Council on June 28, 2017, and additional
Page 183
expenditures were approved by City Council on June 24, 2020.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Jeff Barton and the Police
Department.
Page 184
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
47682)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Agreement 148627 with Peoria Pest Control for the purchase of additional cockroach
remediation services for the Water Services Department. Further request to authorize
the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The additional
expenditures will not exceed $40,000.
Summary
This agreement is necessary to provide sewer manhole cockroach remediation
services for the health and protection of the general public and for the City employees
who maintain the sewer system. Additional funds are needed due to usage that has
been higher than originally anticipated as a result of improved contractor productivity,
the addition of 3,500 new structures in the sanitary sewer system and increased
treatment for public health. The contractor will provide the labor, material, and
equipment required to treat over 90,000 manholes in the City's sewer system.
Contract Term
The agreement term is from Nov. 1, 2018 through Oct. 14, 2021 and will remain
unchanged.
Financial Impact
The initial authorization for Vector Manhole Cockroach Treatment was for an
expenditure not-to-exceed $817,000. This amendment will increase the authorization
for the agreement by an additional $40,000, for a new total not-to-exceed agreement
value of $857,000.
Funding is available in the Water Services Department's operating budget.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved Vector Manhole Cockroach Treatment Agreement 148627
(Ordinance S-45051) on Oct. 17, 2018.
Page 185
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters and the Water Services
Department.
Page 186
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Projects - RFQu 18-185A (Ordinance S-47684)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to allow additional
expenditures under Contracts (148369) with Transcon Environmental, Inc.; (148374)
AECOM; (148349) Motley Design Group, LLC; (148350) Ryden Architects, Inc.;
(148367) Environmental Planning Group, LLC; (148376) HDR Engineering, Inc.;
(148368) Westland Resources, Inc.; (148354) Desert Archaeology, Inc.; (148377)
SWCA Environmental Consultants; (148355) PaleoWest Archaeology; (148365)
Terracon Consultants, Inc.; (148375) Archaeological Consulting Services, Ltd;
(148352) Northwind Resource Consulting; (148373) AZTEC Engineering Group, Inc.;
(148353) Logan Simpson; (148351) Northland Research, Inc.; (148366) Jacobs
Engineering Group; and (148372) with EcoPlan Associates, Inc., for the purchase of
archaeology consulting and historic preservation services for various City departments.
Further request authorization for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this
item. The additional expenditures will not exceed $8,200,000.
Summary
Since approximately 1990, the City of Phoenix has enlisted archaeological and historic
preservation consultants to conduct investigations that identify cultural resources and
evaluate or mitigate impacts to sensitive cultural resources resulting from a variety of
City-sponsored projects. These projects are completed for various City departments
and use different funding sources that require specific compliance procedures in order
to meet city, state, and federal archaeological and historic preservation policies and
regulations. Services provided will include, but are not limited to, archaeological and
historic property surveys, archaeological monitoring of ongoing construction sites to
conduct archaeological feature recordation and sampling, testing and data recovery
excavations, artifact analyses, evaluation and assessment of archaeological
discoveries, and preparation of documents for federal reporting purposes. Services will
be used on a Citywide basis with the Parks and Recreation, Neighborhood Services,
Housing, Planning and Development, and Aviation departments being the majority
users.
Additional funding is needed to accommodate archaeological and historic preservation
compliance requirements under the Arizona Antiquities Act, the National Historic
Page 187
Preservation Act, and the City of Phoenix Historic Preservation Ordinance. Nine of the
current projects exceeded their original estimated cost because of project areas being
expanded by the project managers or because of additional findings after excavation
began, exceeding expectations. Once excavation begins on these projects, the cost
can double or even triple based on what is found. It is correct to say there were
unforeseen expenses during the lifetime of these contracts and new projects were
required.
The additional funding for this contract will ensure sufficient funding to continue
ongoing critical Citywide Archaeology projects and necessary services for the
remaining term of the contract.
Contract Term
The contract term is Sept. 14, 2018 through Sept. 13, 2023.
Financial Impact
Upon approval of $8,200,000 in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contract will not exceed $15,070,000. Funds are available in various Departments'
budgets.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This item was originally approved by City Council on Aug. 29, 2018.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Ed Zuercher and the Finance Department.
Page 188
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a cooperative
agreement with Sprinkler World of Arizona, Inc. to purchase landscape sprinkler and
irrigation supplies and parts for the Parks and Recreation and Aviation departments. A
cooperative agreement was established by the City of Mesa under solicitation number
2020041. Further request authorization for the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item. The aggregate agreement value will not exceed $1,575,000.
Summary
The cooperative agreement will provide an array of sprinkler and irrigation supplies
and parts used to repair and maintain various types of irrigation systems located in
landscape areas owned or maintained by the City. The landscape sprinkler and
irrigation supplies and parts provided through the cooperative agreement will ensure
that all grass, trees, and shrubbery at various locations are watered to enhance and
maintain their quality.
Procurement Information
In accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10, a participating agreement is
required when the City uses a cooperative agreement from another public agency. The
cooperative agreement was awarded through competitive processes consistent with
the City's procurement processes, as set forth in the Phoenix City Code, Chapter 43.
The City of Mesa agreement covers the purchase of landscape sprinkler and irrigation
supplies as required by the Parks and Recreation and Aviation Departments. The
agreement was awarded on Oct. 22, 2019. The use of this cooperative agreement will
provide the City national discounts on these products. Additionally, review of pricing
and availability from registered small and local business indicates that this cooperative
agreement offers the best value to the City.
Upon City Council approval of this item, a purchasing agreement incorporating the
City's terms and conditions will be fully executed between the referenced vendor and
the City.
Both the American Bar Association and National Institute of Government Purchasing
Page 189
endorse the use of cooperative agreements by municipalities and other public
institutions. An established best practice in government procurement, cooperative
agreements provide extensive benefits to procurement officials by leveraging volume
purchasing for maximum cost benefit and ensuring best value.
The Deputy Finance Director recommends that the cooperative agreement with
Sprinkler World of Arizona, Inc. be accepted.
Contract Term
The five-year agreement term will begin on or about June 1, 2021.
Financial Impact
The aggregate agreement value will not exceed $1,575,000. Funding is available in
the Parks and Recreation and Aviation departments' budgets.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Inger Erickson and Mario Paniagua,
and the Parks and Recreation and Aviation departments.
Page 190
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
(Ordinance S-47688)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
Brinks Incorporated to purchase Armored Car Services for citywide use. Further
request authorization for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $2,000,000.
Summary
This contract will provide armored car services for citywide departments, to include
scheduled pick-up and delivery of sealed bank deposits from designated City of
Phoenix locations to designated financial institutions. Items to be transported to and
delivered from the designated financial institutions include currency, parking meter
coin, validated deposit slips, checks, and other miscellaneous items. The armored car
services will provide fiduciary responsibility of the City’s funds while providing safe,
secure transportation and protection between City departments and the designated
financial institutions.
Procurement Information
RFP 21-097 was conducted in accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10. There
were two offers received by the Procurement Division on April 9, 2021. The notification
was sent to 65 suppliers and was publicly posted and available for download from the
City's website.
The proposals were scored by a three-member evaluation panel based on the
following criteria worth 1,000 points:
Approach to Scope of Work - 400 points
Company History, Experience and Qualifications - 300 points
References and Past Performance - 150 points
Cost (Section VI - Bid Price Schedule) - 150 points
The offeror scores are as follows:
Brinks Incorporated - 690 points
Page 191
Garda World Cash Services - 553.9 points
The Deputy Finance Director recommends that the offer from Brinks Incorporated be
accepted as the highest-scored, responsive and responsible offer that is most
advantageous to the City.
Contract Term
The five-year contract term will begin on or about July 1, 2021.
Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $2,000,000. Funds are available in
various departments' budgets.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Ed Zuercher and the Finance Department.
Page 192
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
47692)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Agreement 143159 with SES America, Inc. to extend the term through Jan. 31, 2022,
for the purchase of blank out signs for the Street Transportation Department. No
additional funding is requested.
Summary
This agreement is required to purchase blank out signs for traffic control during
construction projects performed by the Street Transportation Department. Blank out
signs are illuminated signs, which reinforce traffic signals or other traffic control
devices, and discourage undesirable or unsafe motorist movements. Blank out signs
can be illuminated at all times providing easily visible messages in all weather and
daylight conditions, or can be illuminated only when traffic control conditions warrant
their activation. The Street Transportation Department uses blank out signs for a
variety of situations, but primarily to provide signage for turning movement restrictions
and for additional warning around light rail train operations.
A competitive solicitation was previously issued to enter into a new agreement but it
had to be cancelled. This amendment will allow time to update the scope of work and
perform another competitive process to award a new agreement.
Contract Term
This amendment will extend the agreement term through Jan. 31, 2022.
Financial Impact
This amendment will not change the $1.625 million authorized value of the agreement.
Funding is available in the Street Transportation Department's budget.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved Agreement 143159 (S-42778) on July 1, 2016.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Street
Transportation Department.
Page 193
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
Matlick Enterprises, Inc. DBA United Fire Equipment Company to provide 3% low
viscosity alcohol film foam for the Fire Department. Further request authorization for
the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The aggregate contract
value will not exceed $710,000.
Summary
The Fire Department (PFD) Special Operations Division requires the use of foam
product to provide fire and vapor suppression for Class B fuel fires where water cannot
be used. Common applications of this foam product are for industrial chemical and
petroleum facilities, fuel or chemical storage tanks, railroad cars, and other flammable
liquids that require Class B foam. The foam product physically blankets and blocks
oxygen supply to these types of fires to suppress, cool, and prevent additional
spreading. The aggregate contract value will not exceed $710,000.
Procurement Information
IFB 21-040 was conducted in accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10. There
were four offers received by the Procurement Division on March 17, 2021 which were
evaluated on price, responsiveness to specifications, and responsibility to provide the
required goods and services. The bid notification was sent to 112 suppliers and was
publicly posted and available for download from the City's website. One offer was
deemed non-responsive to the requirements of the solicitation.
United Fire Equipment Company (Tyco): $9,207.60
United Fire Equipment Company (Phos-Chek): $9,510.25
Momar: $11,129.85
The Deputy Finance Director recommends that the offer from United Fire Equipment
Company (Tyco) be accepted as the lowest-priced, responsive, and responsible offer.
Contract Term
The five-year contract term shall begin on or about July 1, 2021.
Page 194
Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $710,000. Funds are available in the Fire
Department's operating budget.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Jeff Barton and the Fire Department.
Page 195
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to allow additional
expenditures under Contract 149535 with RIESTER Sonoran LLC for the purchase of
interactive marketing services for citywide use. Further request authorization for the
City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The additional expenditures
will not exceed $50,960. There is no impact to the General Fund; funds are available in
the Downtown Community Reinvestment Fund.
Summary
This contract provides interactive marketing services including website design,
advertising and public relations services for the City. Additional funds are needed to
supplement Community and Economic Development Department's (CED) preliminary
budget for website design services.
With this contract, CED is currently working with RIESTER on design updates for the
department’s website, phoenix.gov/econdev. This effort has two purposes: to improve
the way users interact and use the website and to change the appearance of the
website to focus on showcasing and “selling” Phoenix to CED customers with a
business attraction focus. Technology has greatly changed the way the public utilizes
websites since the City created the current template for department usage and CED
would like to create a unique and enhanced site experience while remaining a .gov
site. The initial budget estimate did not account for all the necessary design changes
identified through the scoping process.
Contract Term
The contract term is March 21, 2019 through March 20, 2024.
Financial Impact
Upon approval of $50,960 in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contract will not exceed $3,430,960. There is no impact to the General Fund. Funds
are available in the Downtown Community Reinvestment Fund.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Community
and Economic Development Department.
Page 196
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
(Ordinance S-47718)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to allow additional
expenditures under Contract 148523 with Sierra Signs, Inc. to provide the fabrication
and installation of signage for the Parks and Recreation Department. Further request
authorization for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The
additional expenditures will not exceed $400,000.
Summary
The additional funding is needed to update current public parks signage with new
information regarding the Parks and Recreation Department's code of conduct. As part
of this effort, the department also will include Spanish text which is critical to ensuring
the Spanish-speaking community is able to understand the rules of public parks
throughout the City.
Contract Term
The contract term is Oct. 1, 2018 through Sept. 30, 2021.
Financial Impact
Upon approval of the $400,000 in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contract will not exceed $970,000. Funds are available in the Parks and Recreation
Department's budget.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The contract was originally approved by City Council on Aug. 29, 2018.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Parks and
Recreation Department.
Page 197
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Rates and Compensation (Ordinance S-47689)
Request the City Council to repeal Ordinance S-45840, and all amendments thereto,
and to adopt a new ordinance to become effective July 12, 2021 (first day of the first
full pay period of the new fiscal year), for City Council-approved gross pay rates and
other compensation for the two-year period included in the 2021-23 Memoranda of
Understanding, as defined under the Meet and Confer Ordinance. Also included are
gross rates of pay and other compensation for employees covered by the Meet and
Discuss Ordinance, and gross pay rates and other compensation for all unrepresented
employees.
Summary
The 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 April 7, 2021, and May 5, 2021.
Administrative Regulations and other policy documents will be amended to address
those items agreed to with the employee groups that are not part of the Pay
Ordinance. A report of pay rates by job code (known as “Schedule II”) has been filed
with City Clerk for each year of the 2021-23 Pay Ordinance.
Collectively, these documents outline 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 2021-23 Memoranda of Understanding
(MOUs). This is also consistent with the City Manager’s authority to approve 2021-23
Memoranda of Agreement (MOAs) for employee associations; and, to approve pay
rates and other compensation for employees represented by the City Manager.
The proposed language for the new Pay Ordinance is included in Attachment A. The
Schedule II documents for each year of the 2021-23 Pay Ordinance are on file with
City Clerk.
Page 198
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
the five Meet and Confer groups on April 7, 2021 and May 5, 2021.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the Human
Resources Department.
Page 199
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF
THE FINAL, ADOPTED ORDINANCE
_____
ORDINANCE S-_ _ _ _ _
AN ORDINANCE REPEALING EXISTING PAY
ORDINANCE S-45840 AND ADOPTING A NEW
ORDINANCE FOR NEW RATES AND
COMPENSATION; AND FURTHER AUTHORIZING
THE CITY CONTROLLER TO DISBURSE ALL
FUNDS FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS
ORDINANCE.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX as
follows:
SECTION 1. Ordinance No. S-45840 being an Ordinance which adopted a
"Gross Pay Schedule" of all employees of the City of Phoenix, and all amendments
thereto be, and the same are repealed as of the effective date of this Ordinance.
SECTION 2. On and after July 12, 2021, the effective date of this
Ordinance, all compensation to be paid to employees of the City of Phoenix shall be
computed from the Schedule II for each fiscal year attached hereto as an Exhibit A and
by this reference incorporated herein. The Schedule II for each fiscal year, attached,
includes those compensation changes set forth in Section 5 hereof.
Page 200
SECTION 3. The City Manager is authorized to provide a benefits program
for City employees as described by various administrative regulations and the benefits
reference guides.
SECTION 4. On and after the effective date of this Ordinance, employees
of the City of Phoenix shall be compensated on a biweekly schedule in accordance with
the attached Schedule II for each fiscal year and in accordance with those certain
Memoranda of Understanding, to wit:
Memorandum of Understanding 2021-2023 by and between the City
of Phoenix and the Laborers International Union of North America,
Local 777, AFLCIO, covering Field Unit 1.
Memorandum of Understanding 2021-2023 by and between the City
of Phoenix and the American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees, Local 2384, AFL-CIO, covering Field Unit 2.
Memorandum of Understanding 2021-2023 by and between the City
of Phoenix and the American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees, Local 2960, AFL-CIO, covering Office and
Clerical Unit 3.
Memorandum of Understanding 2021-2023 between the City of
Phoenix and Phoenix Law Enforcement Association, covering Police
Officers Unit 4.
Memorandum of Understanding 2021-2023 by and between the City
of Phoenix and Phoenix Firefighters Association, Local 493, IAFF,
covering Unit 5.
and shall work a schedule of hours in accordance with applicable administrative
regulations and ordinances and consistent with the determination of work hours by the
City, based on the needs of the City.
SECTION 5. Compensation
Page 201
The compensation schedules set forth in the Schedule II for each fiscal year
shall be effective and/or modified in accordance with the following:
(a) Effective July 12, 2021, a 2.34% base wage increase will be applied to all
Unit 1 pay steps. In addition, a non-continuous payment of $2,191 for each
full-time employee and $200 for each part-time employee, to be paid out
on the first full pay period in August 2021.
(b) Effective July 11, 2022, a 1.77% base wage increase will be applied to all
Unit 1 pay steps. In addition, a non-continuous payment of $1,860 for each
full-time employee and $200 for each part-time employee in year two, to
be paid out on the first full pay period in August 2022.
(c) Effective July 12, 2021, a 2.38% base wage increase will be applied to all
Unit 2 pay steps. In addition, a non-continuous payment of $2,235 for each
full-time employee, to be paid out on the first full pay period in August 2021.
(d) Effective July 11, 2022, a 1.78% base wage increase will be applied to all
Unit 2 pay steps. In addition, a non-continuous payment of $2,279 for each
full-time employee, to be paid out on the first full pay period in August 2022.
(e) Effective July 12, 2021, a 1.6% base wage increase will be applied to all
Unit 3 pay steps. In addition, there will be a non-continuous payment of
$2,055 made to all full-time employees and a non-continuous payment of
$822 made to all part-time employees in Unit 3 to be paid on the first full
pay period in August 2021.
(f) Effective July 11, 2022, a 1.73% base wage increase will be applied to all
Unit 3 pay steps. In addition, there will be a non-continuous payment of
$2,097 made to all full-time employees and a non-continuous payment of
$839 made to all part-time employees in Unit 3 to be paid out on the first
full pay period in August 2022.
(g) Effective July 12, 2021, a 2.40% base wage increase will be applied to all
Unit 4 pay steps and to each assignment step. In addition, there will be a
non-continuous payment of 6.38% of annual base wage to all Unit
employees to be paid out on the first paycheck in December 2021.
(h) Effective July 11, 2022, a 1.81% base wage increase will be applied to all
Unit 4 pay steps and to each assignment step. In addition, there will be a
non-continuous payment of 5.33% of annual base wage to all Unit
employees to be paid out on the first paycheck in December 2022.
(i) Effective July 12, 2021, a 1.77% base wage increase will be applied to all
Unit 5 pay steps to include assignment steps. In addition, there will be a
Page 202
non-continuous payment of $5,217 for each Unit member/employee to be
paid out on the first full pay period in August 2021.
(j) Effective July 11, 2022, a 1.65% base wage increase will be applied to all
Unit 5 pay steps to include assignment steps. In addition, there will be a
non-continuous payment of $4,433 for each Unit member/employee to be
paid out on the first full pay period in August 2022.
(k) Effective July 12, 2021, a 1.60% base wage increase will be applied to all
Unit 6 pay grades. In addition, there will be a non-continuous payment of
5.97% of annual base wage to all Unit employees to be distributed to the
401(a) Defined Contribution Plan under the Phoenix Employees' Deferred
Compensation Program for those employees designated as represented
by Unit 6 on the first full pay period in December 2021.
(l) Effective July 11, 2022, a 1.69% base wage increase will be applied to all
Unit 6 pay grades. In addition, there will be a non-continuous payment of
5.06% of annual base wage to all Unit employees to be distributed to the
401(a) Defined Contribution Plan under the Phoenix Employees' Deferred
Compensation Program for those employees designated as represented
by Unit 6 on the first full pay period in December 2022.
(m)Effective July 12, 2021, a 2.03% base wage increase will be applied to all
Unit 7 pay steps. In addition, there will be a non-continuous payment of
3.85% of annual base wage to all full-time employees to be paid out on the
first full pay period in August 2021 as well as a non-continuous payment of
0.78% of annual base wage to all full-time employees for agreeing to the
City’s transparency and accountability proposals to be paid out on the first
full pay period in August 2021. There will be a non-continuous payment of
$1,000 made to all part-time employees in Unit 7 paid out on the first full
pay period in August 2021.
(n) Effective July 11, 2022, a 1.69% base wage increase will be applied to all
Unit 7 pay steps. In addition, there will be a non-continuous payment of
3.87% of annual base wage to all Unit members and a non-continuous
payment of $1,000 made to all part-time employees in Unit 7 to be paid
out on the first full pay period in August 2022.
(o) Effective July 12, 2021, a 1.68% base wage increase will be applied to all
Unit 8 pay steps. In addition, there will be a non-continuous payment of
$2,250 for each full-time Unit 8 employee and a non-continuous payment
of $900 for each part-time Unit 8 employee to be paid out on the first full
pay period in August 2021.
(p) Effective July 11, 2022, a 1.74% base wage increase will be applied to all
Unit 8 pay steps. In addition, there will be a non-continuous payment of
Page 203
$1,912 for each full-time Unit 8 employee and a non-continuous payment
of $765 for each part-time Unit 8 employee to be paid out on the first full
pay period in August 2022.
(q) Effective July 12, 2021, a 1.59% base wage increase will be applied to Unit
9 and 10 pay grades and employees. In addition, all Unit 9 and 10
employees will receive a non-continuous payment of 4.89% annual base
wage to be paid on the first full pay period in August 2021, after completing
requirements set forth by the City Manager relative to their performance
evaluations. The provisions of this paragraph do not apply to Municipal
Court Judges or Hearing Officers [Chief Presiding Judge (NC), City Judge
(NC), Presiding Court Hearing Officer (NC), Municipal Court Hearing
Officer (NC)].
(r) Effective July 11, 2022, a 1.64% base wage increase will be applied to Unit
9 and 10 pay grades and employees. In addition, all Unit 9 and 10
employees will receive a non-continuous payment of 4.10% annual base
wage to be paid out on the first full pay period in August 2022, after
completing requirements set forth by the City Manager relative to their
performance evaluations. The provisions of this paragraph do not apply to
Municipal Court Judges or Hearing Officers [Chief Presiding Judge (NC),
City Judge (NC), Presiding Court Hearing Officer (NC), Municipal Court
Hearing Officer (NC)].
(s) Effective July 12, 2021, a 1.59% base wage increase will be applied to Unit
17 and 19 pay grades and employees. In addition, all Unit 17 and 19
employees will receive a non-continuous payment of 4.89% annual base
wage to be paid on the first full pay period in August 2021, after completing
requirements set forth by the City Manager relative to their performance
evaluations.
(t) Effective July 11, 2022, a 1.64% base wage increase will be applied to Unit
17 and 19 pay grades and employees. In addition, all Unit 17 and 19
employees will receive a non-continuous payment of 4.10% annual base
wage to be paid out on the first full pay period in August 2022, after
completing requirements set forth by the City Manager relative to their
performance evaluations.
(u) Effective July 12, 2021, a 1.59% base wage increase will be applied to Unit
16 and 18 pay grades and employees. In addition, all Unit 16 and 18
employees will receive a non-continuous payment of 4.89% annual base
wage to be paid on the first full pay period in August 2021, after completing
requirements set forth by the City Manager relative to their performance
evaluations.
Page 204
(v) Effective July 11, 2022, a 1.64% base wage increase will be applied to Unit
16 and 18 pay grades and employees. In addition, all Unit 16 and 18
employees will receive a non-continuous payment of 4.10% annual base
wage to be paid out on the first full pay period in August 2022, after
completing requirements set forth by the City Manager relative to their
performance evaluations.
(w) Effective July 12, 2021, a 2.03% base wage increase will be applied to all
pay ranges of Council Office Staff Salary Plan 023 In addition, all
employees in Council Office Staff Salary Plan 023 will receive a non-
continuous payment of 4.63% of annual base wage paid out on the first full
pay period in August 2021.
(x) Effective July 11, 2022, a 1.69% base wage increase will be applied to all
pay ranges of Council Office Staff Salary Plan 023. In addition, there will
be a non-continuous payment of 3.87% of annual base wage to all
employees in Council Office Staff Salary Plan 023 to be paid out on the
first full pay period in August 2022.
(y) Effective July 12, 2021, a 1.6% base wage increase will be applied to all
Lifeguard pay steps. In addition, any Lifeguard that remains active on
payroll through August 8, 2021 of the 2021 season shall receive a non-
continuous payment of $150 paid out on the first paycheck of August
2021. Any Lifeguard that remains active on payroll through September 6,
2021 of the 2021 season shall receive a non-continuous payment of $200
paid out on the second paycheck of September 2021.
(z) Effective July 11, 2022, a 1.73% base wage increase will be applied to all
Lifeguard pay steps. In addition, any Lifeguard that remains active on
payroll through August 7, 2022 of the 2022 season shall receive a non-
continuous payment of $150 paid out on the first paycheck of August
2022. Any Lifeguard that remains active on payroll through September 5,
2022 of the 2022 season shall receive a non-continuous payment of $200
paid out on the second paycheck of September 2022.
SECTION 6. On and after the effective date of this Ordinance, the pay rates
for employees of the City of Phoenix shall be that shown in the Schedule II for each fiscal
year, except that employees designated as Council Office Staff, Executive, or Middle
Management shall have a salary set by the City Manager which shall be at or between
the minimum and maximum rates assigned to that classification as shown in the Schedule
II for each fiscal year.
Page 205
SECTION 7. On and after the effective date of this Ordinance, no overtime
work shall be authorized, unless it shall have first been approved as provided by
administrative regulation.
SECTION 8. New Hire Salary
New employees shall be hired at the beginning rate of the established grade
for each classification. Full-time, part-time, and non-seasonal employees will be hired at
a rate no lower than the City’s established minimum entry rate of $15.00 per hour. A
department head may authorize a beginning rate up to the median step of the pay grade
after conducting an analysis with Human Resources. The City Manager and Human
Resources Director may authorize a beginning rate above the median step of the pay
grade in the event of labor market requirements or due to the unusual qualifications of a
candidate. In cases where a pay grade has an even number of steps, the larger value
shall be used as the median. If existing steps are not available to be used (e.g., the rate
is less than $15/hour) they shall not be included in the determination of the median step.
(a) Police Recruit employees may be entered at Step 5 of the Police Recruit
pay grade to attract qualified applicants and to remain competitive with
other law enforcement agencies.
(b) Certified Police Officer candidates from other jurisdictions may be brought
in at a higher step based upon the number of years of experience they
have after receiving certification as a law enforcement officer as follows:
Prior Years of At Time of Hire
Experience
(After obtaining Salary
Classification Step
certification) Grade
1 up to 1.49 Police Officer 428 4
1.5 up to 2.49 Police Officer 428 5
2.5 up to 3.49 Police Officer 428 6
3.5 up to 4.49 Police Officer 428 7
4.5 or more Police Officer 428 8
Page 206
(c) Certified Police Officer candidates who have not completed the Phoenix
Regional Police Academy will be hired at Step 5 of the Police Recruit pay
grade. Upon completion of the Phoenix Regional Police Academy, they
will be moved to the step noted in the chart above that corresponds to the
number of years of experience they have after receiving certification as a
law enforcement officer.
SECTION 9. Anniversary Dates
For the purpose of this ordinance, anniversary date refers to the salary
review date.
(a) All employees appointed or entered at the beginning step of the pay grade
of a classification for each fiscal year, upon successful completion of six
(6) months of full-time employment, may be advanced to the next step in
the pay grade for their respective classifications, and this shall become the
anniversary date for subsequent pay increases. The provisions of this
paragraph do not apply to Executive and Middle Management employees.
(b) The anniversary date of employees hired at a step above the beginning
step shall be the date on which they were hired.
(c) The effective date for merit increases for employees covered under (a) and
(b) shall be on the anniversary date.
(d) An employee on a continuous leave of absence of thirty (30) working days
or longer, whether such leave is paid or unpaid, shall have the anniversary
date adjusted to account for the period of absence from the thirtieth day
until the employee's return to work. This provision does not apply when
the leave involved is military leave unless the employee is probationary
and has been on probation for less than nine months.
(e) Anniversary dates for incumbents of positions which are reclassified and/or
regraded shall be handled in accordance with Section 20(d) of this
Ordinance.
SECTION 10. Merit Increases
In recognition of continued meritorious service, full-time employees become
eligible to be considered for a merit pay increase on each anniversary date until they have
advanced to the maximum step in their pay grade. Employees eligible for merit increases shall
Page 207
be advanced one step in the pay grade in accordance with this section only upon approval of
the department head or the City Manager, except that:
(a) Employees designated as Executive and Middle Management and
assigned to executive and middle management compensation grades may
be advanced within their assigned pay grade by the City Manager based
upon periodic review of the individual employee's work performance.
(b) Employees designated as Council Office Staff and assigned to council
office staff compensation grades may be advanced within their assigned
pay grade by the Executive Assistant to City Council based upon periodic
review of the individual employee's work performance.
(c) All Police Officers who enter that rank at Step 4 or above may be eligible
for a merit increase at twelve (12) months from the date of hire or date of
promotion to Police Officer and this shall become the anniversary date for
subsequent pay increases.
(d) Sworn employees in the classifications of Police Sergeant and Police
Lieutenant, who meet performance expectations and have not already
reached the top step of the pay range, will receive a one-step merit
increase when they have completed twenty (20) years of continuous
service with the Phoenix Police Department. The effective date of the one-
step merit pay increase shall become the anniversary date for future merit
pay increases.
(e) Sworn employees in the classification of Firefighter paid at Step 1 upon
graduation from the academy shall be considered for a merit pay increase
six months after graduation from the academy; and this shall become the
anniversary date for subsequent pay increases.
(f) Firefighters on assignment to Paramedic will be paid at a step between
Steps 21 and 25 of the Firefighter pay grade.
(g) Firefighters assigned to Special Operations and the ARFF program shall
be paid at a step between Steps 31 and 39 of the Firefighter pay grade.
(h) Firefighters assigned to both Paramedic and Special Operations will be
paid at a step between Steps 51 and 55 of the Firefighter pay grade.
(i) Firefighters assigned to both the Hazardous Materials (HMT) and the
Technical Rescue (TRT) programs shall be paid at a step between Steps
61 and 69 of the Firefighter pay grade.
Page 208
(j) Firefighters assigned to Paramedic, Hazardous Materials (HMT), and
Technical Rescue (TRT) will be paid at a step between Steps 81 and 85 of
the Firefighter pay grade.
(k) Fire Engineers may enter the classification at Step 1 of the grade. A Fire
Engineer entering the pay grade at Step 1 will be considered for a merit
pay increase six months after promotion and then at one and one-half
years after promotion. Fire Engineers entering the pay grade above Step
1 will be considered for a merit pay increase on their anniversary date until
they have advanced to Step 3.
(l) Fire Engineers assigned as Paramedics will be paid at Steps 21 and 22
and will be considered for a merit pay increase on their anniversary date
until they have advanced to Step 22.
(m)Fire Engineers assigned as Special Operations will be paid at Steps 31
and 32 and will be considered for a merit pay increase on their anniversary
date until they have advanced to Step 32.
(n) Fire Engineers assigned to both Special Operations and Paramedic will be
paid at Steps 51 and 52 and will be considered for a merit pay increase on
their anniversary date until they have advanced to Step 52.
(o) Fire Engineers assigned to both the Hazardous Materials (HMT) and the
Technical Rescue (TRT) programs shall be paid at Steps 61 and 62 of the
Fire Engineer pay grade and will be considered for a merit pay increase on
their anniversary date until they have advanced to Step 62.
(p) Fire Engineers assigned to Paramedic, Hazardous Materials (HMT), and
Technical Rescue (TRT) will be paid at Steps 81 and 82 and will be
considered for a merit pay increase on their anniversary date until they
have advanced to Step 82.
(q) Fire Captains will enter the classification at Step 8 of the grade and will be
considered for a merit pay increase on their anniversary date until they
have advanced to Step 10.
(r) Fire Captains assigned as Paramedics will be paid at a step between Steps
21 and 23 and will be considered for a merit pay increase on their
anniversary date until they have advanced to Step 23 of the pay grade.
(s) Fire Captains assigned as Special Operations will be paid at a step
between Steps 31 and 33 and will be considered for a merit pay increase
on each anniversary date until they have advanced to Step 33 of the pay
grade.
Page 209
(t) Fire Captains assigned to both Special Operations and Paramedic will be
paid at a step between Steps 51 and 53 and will be considered for a merit
pay increase on each anniversary date until they have advanced to Step
53 of the pay grade.
(u) Fire Captains assigned to both the Hazardous Materials (HMT) and the
Technical Rescue (TRT) programs shall be paid at a step between Steps
61 and 63 of the Fire Captain pay grade and will be considered for a merit
pay increase on their anniversary date until they have advanced to Step
63.
(v) Fire Captains assigned to Paramedic, Hazardous Materials (HMT), and
Technical Rescue (TRT) will be paid at a step between Steps 81 and 83
and will be considered for a merit pay increase on their anniversary date
until they have advanced to Step 83.
(w) Part-time employees, excluding seasonal employees, may be considered
for advancement from pay Step 1 to pay Step 2 after completing one
thousand forty (1,040) hours of work at pay Step 1. Advancement from
pay Step 2 to pay Step 3 and each subsequent step in a grade may be
considered after working two thousand eighty (2,080) hours at each step.
If a part-time employee is hired at a rate above Step 1 (in accordance with
the provisions of Section 8 of this Ordinance), advancement to the next
step and each subsequent step in a grade may be considered after working
two thousand eighty (2,080) hours at each step. Part-time employees,
upon returning from military leave, will be given credit for working the
average number of hours they would normally have worked during the time
of leave.
(x) It is further provided that a special merit pay increase for superior
performance or a step adjustment for unusual circumstances may be
granted at lesser intervals for any employee, upon recommendation of the
employee's department head and approval by the Human Resources
Director.
SECTION 11. Assignment Pay, Differential, Standby and Other
Additional Compensation
(a) Rules for designated holidays and premium pay shall be established by
administrative regulations, applicable Memoranda of Understanding and
applicable Memoranda of Agreement.
(b) Employees shall receive the assignment pay provided for certain
classifications for each fiscal year only during the period they are working
on these assignments. Employees shall receive an immediate increase
Page 210
upon entering an assignment which corresponds to the next step in the
employee's present pay grade except that if no such rate exists, the
employee shall be placed in the closest step which is not less than that
amount, regardless of the number of steps in the differential above the
base classification. An employee in an assignment will be eligible to
receive productivity enhancement pay at the time the employee would
have received productivity enhancement pay had the employee stayed in
the base classification, even though the employee may not yet be at top
step in the assignment.
(c) In cases of assignments in Public Safety Middle Management or Executive
category classifications, employees shall receive a pay rate that is a
minimum of 5% higher than their current rate, but not higher than the
maximum pay rate of the new pay grade, using a formula established by
the Human Resources Director.
(d) Sworn employees at the rank of Police Officer who are Field Training
Officers or who the department selects to conduct department-approved
officer field training will receive an additional 5% of their regular pay rate
for each day they are assigned to an officially authorized field training
position. Employees assigned to train an officer-in-training in traffic/DUI
enforcement will receive 5% training pay for each day the employee
actually trains. Employees assigned as Canine Unit Training Officers will
receive 5% training pay for each day they are assigned to an officially
authorized Canine Unit Trainer position. Employees assigned as Team
Leaders on SAU squads will receive an additional 5% base hourly rate of
pay while assigned to this position. Detectives whom the department
selects to conduct department-approved new Detective training will
receive an additional 5% of their base rate of pay for every day the
Detective is training.
(e) Sworn employees at the rank of Police Sergeant who supervise officers in
training will receive an additional 5% of their regular pay rate while the
officer in training is assigned to their squad. Sergeants who supervise a
Master Field Training Officer squad will receive an additional 10% of their
regular pay rate.
(f) Employees working in positions which, because of unusual hours, should
receive extra compensation may receive a shift differential as provided by
administrative regulation.
(g) Certain Unit 2 employees required by the City to maintain a Commercial
Driver License (CDL) as a secondary part of their regular position duties
shall receive an additional twenty cents ($0.20) per hour.
Page 211
(h) Unit 3 and Confidential Office and Clerical employees who are
authorized, certified, and required by management to use a language
other than English to conduct official City business may receive bilingual
pay as provided by administrative regulation.
(i) Phoenix Firefighters Association Unit 5 employees who speak Spanish to
conduct official City business may receive bilingual pay as provided by
administrative regulation.
(j) Municipal Court employees performing legal, verbatim, and formal
translation duties may receive bilingual pay as provided by administrative
regulation.
(k) Qualified sworn personnel in the Police Department who are requested to
perform verbal interpretation or written translation in a language other than
English, or signing activities, while conducting police-related investigations
may receive bilingual pay of ten dollars ($10.00) per hour as provided by
the Unit 4 Memorandum of Understanding.
(l) Certified/registered Unit 1 employees who are assigned to continuous,
non-incidental application of herbicides or pesticides may receive premium
pay of one dollar ($1.00) per hour as provided in the Unit 1 Memorandum
of Understanding.
(m) Certified/registered Unit 2 employees who are assigned to continuous,
non-incidental application of herbicides or pesticides may receive premium
pay of fifty cents ($0.50) per hour as provided in the Unit 2 Memorandum
of Understanding.
(n) Any Aviation Dispatcher or Police Communications Operator assigned
Radio/911 who is selected by their Department to conduct department
approved field training will be paid a one-step differential or a minimum of
three percent (3%) of base wages, whichever is higher, for those hours
actually spent training other staff members.
(o) Trained and certified employees in the classifications of User Technology
Specialist, Senior User Technology Specialist, and Lead User Technology
Specialist may receive a per diem of fifty dollars ($50.00) when required to
climb wireless communication towers in the performance of their assigned
duties.
(p) Fire Management Command Officers who are assigned to and work in the
Constant Staffing Program may receive a monthly premium pay as
provided by administrative regulation.
Page 212
(q) Upon recommendation of the employee’s department head and approval
of the Human Resources Director, a premium payment of up to two
hundred fifty dollars ($250.00) per week may be authorized to be paid to
exempt employees for taking on substantial special projects, projects or
events requiring significant extended hours or weekends, or considerable
additional duties due to staffing shortages, as provided by administrative
regulation.
(r) Exempt personnel may receive additional pay, as provided by
administrative regulation, for performance of their usual City duties in
catastrophic field conditions in extreme and protracted emergency events
involving a state or federal non-military deployment in which circumstances
do not permit normal work and rest cycles. For an employee to be eligible
for the additional payment, the deployment must be approved by the
department head and City Manager. The deployment must exceed forty
(40) continuous hours and the payment amount will be determined based
on a formula determined by the Human Resources Director and shall be
consistent for all personnel deployed. Such payment may be approved
only if it meets all reimbursement guidelines specified by the state or
federal agency.
(s) Specific employees recruited or trained in specific advanced information
technology fields, as such employees and job fields are approved by the
Chief Information Officer, Human Resources Director, and City Manager,
may receive specialty skills premium pay not to exceed 10% of base salary
as provided by administrative regulation.
(t) Compensation for employees who are assigned to standby duty shall be
calculated at a rate which, over a twenty-four (24) hour period, shall not
exceed the prevailing federal or state minimum hourly wage, whichever is
higher.
(u) Sworn Police Officers below the rank of Sergeant and Unit 3 employees
assigned to court standby shall receive the following:
1. Sworn Police Officers below the rank of Sergeant, may receive two
(2) hours of pay at one and one-half (1-1/2) times the base hourly rate
for court dockets scheduled before 12:00 p.m. (noon), and an
additional two (2) hours of pay at one and one-half (1-1/2) times the
base hourly rate for court dockets scheduled after 12:00 p.m. (noon).
If an employee is required to remain on standby after 12:00 p.m.
(noon), the employee may receive an additional one (1) hour of pay
at one and one-half (1-1/2) times the base hourly rate of pay. For
each day a court proceeding continues in session and the officer
remains subject to call, the employee may be entitled to court standby
Page 213
compensation as provided in this paragraph and in the Unit 4
Memorandum of Understanding.
2. Unit 3 employees as provided in the Unit 3 Memorandum of
Understanding shall be compensated the greater of either $100 per
day or in accordance with the current provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
(v) Sworn Police Supervisory and Professional employees assigned to court
standby may receive two (2) hours of pay at one and one half (11/2) times
the base hourly rate per day for court standby. An additional hour of pay at
one and one half (11/2) times the base pay rate shall be paid if the employee
is required to remain on standby after noon.
(w) The City Manager is authorized to provide call-out pay to hourly
employees, as provided by administrative regulation. Where appropriate,
these payments shall be made in accordance with the applicable
Memoranda of Understanding or applicable Memoranda of Agreement.
(x) The City Manager is authorized to provide out of class pay differential to
employees, as provided by administrative regulation.
(y) The City Manager is authorized to award additional vacation leave to an
employee whose annual vacation accrual rate is twelve (12) days or less,
when it is in the best interest of the City as determined by the City
Manager.
SECTION 12. Awards Programs
(a) An employee suggestion program shall be established by administrative
regulation. Employees may be eligible for a cash award or for other awards
for making suggestions which qualify under the program. The cash award
to employees, per suggestion, shall not exceed sixteen thousand six
hundred sixty-seven dollars ($16,667.00).
(b) An employee safety awards program may be established by administrative
regulation. Employees may be eligible for a one-time cash award or other
awards as part of the City safety program. Any single cash award shall not
exceed one hundred dollars ($100.00).
(c) A program to recognize employee excellence may be established by
administrative regulation. The total allocation per department shall not
exceed one dollar ($1.00) per full-time equivalent employee or three
hundred dollars ($300.00) per year or one shift (not to exceed 10 hours) of
performance recognition leave per recognition award.
Page 214
(d) The City Manager is authorized to establish a performance based cash
award program for employees.
(e) The City Manager is authorized to implement incentive programs to reward
employees for exceptional performance and/or substantial savings to the
City.
(f) The City Manager is authorized to establish a hiring incentive cash award
not to exceed seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500.00) for
employees hired into critical positions, positions that are hard to fill, or
positions that require a rare skill set, when it is in the best interest of the
City as determined by the Human Resources Director and the City
Manager. This award is not applicable to rehires within 3 years. The
provisions of this paragraph do not apply to retirees.
(g) The City Manager is authorized to establish a cash award program for
employees who refer successful candidates for City employment, when it
is in the best interest of the City. The cash award to employees, per
successful candidate, shall not exceed two thousand five hundred dollars
($2500.00).
SECTION 13. Allowances and Reimbursements
(a) The City Manager is authorized to provide for a transportation allowance
for employees designated as Executive and Middle Managers and certain
professional staff in the Offices of the Mayor and City Council who are not
assigned a City vehicle on a regular basis.
(b) Elected City officials shall receive the benefits package of their choice as
provided for in the Charter.
(c) The City Manager is authorized to provide to elected officials either (1) a
transportation allowance as provided in the chosen benefits package, or
(2) a mileage expense reimbursement when using a personal vehicle for
travel in carrying out official duties. Such reimbursement shall include
mileage expenses of elected officials traveling from their places of
residence to their City offices or City functions/events. These expenses
are determined to be necessary expenses in the conduct of an elected
official’s office. Reimbursement will be provided at the prevailing mileage
rate set by the Finance Department for all City employees.
(d) The City Manager is authorized to establish a program to provide payment
of moving expenses, relocation expenses, and housing allowance. The
reimbursement amount per employee shall not exceed $20,000.
Page 215
(e) The City Manager is authorized to establish a program for payment of a
communications allowance paid on a monthly basis for eligible Middle
Managers, Executives, and certain professional staff in the Offices of the
Mayor and City Council. In order to be eligible for the communication
allowance, employees are required to provide a cellular phone and be
responsible for all related expenses.
(f) Clothing allowances shall be established by administrative regulation and
in accordance with applicable Memoranda of Understanding or applicable
Memoranda of Agreement.
(g) The City Manager is authorized to establish a program for distributing
public safety uniform allowance funds for sworn public safety employees.
(h) Employees covered by the Unit 2 Memorandum of Understanding who are
required to provide their own tools for work shall receive up to six hundred
dollars ($600.00) per year to replace and repair such tools, as provided in
the Unit 2 Memorandum of Understanding and as specified in
administrative regulation.
(i) The City Manager is authorized to provide reimbursement to employees
for actual and necessary expenses incurred while engaged in City
business. The requirements for such reimbursement shall be set forth in
administrative regulation.
(j) The City Manager is authorized to provide a stipend for volunteers in the
Police Department for certain expenses incurred as a result of their
volunteer duties. This may include expenses incurred as a result of court
appearances and for maintaining a uniform and equipment.
(k) The City Manager is authorized to provide reimbursement to employees or
make payments in advance for tuition-related expenses incurred for
training in employment-related courses, memberships, and seminars only
for employment-related courses that have been approved in advance and
are consistent with administrative regulations, applicable Memoranda of
Understanding, and Memoranda of Agreement.
(l) Employees who have received advanced tuition reimbursement for tuition
related expenses shall agree in writing to repay the City for any failure to
meet the criteria set forth in the administrative regulations concerning
reimbursement. Any unpaid balances may be deducted from the
employee’s pay.
(m) The City Manager is authorized to provide:
Page 216
1. At the City Manager's discretion, reimbursement of individual
development expenses up to an annual maximum equal to two
thousand six dollars ($2,006.00) for Executives and Middle
Managers. Any reimbursement to an employee under the provisions
of this paragraph shall be deducted from the total amount of tuition
funds available for the individual employee, pursuant to Section 13(k).
2. Reimbursement for professional memberships and seminars of up to
one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) for employees designated as
Supervisory or Professional. Any reimbursement to an employee
under the provisions of this paragraph shall be deducted from the
total amount of tuition funds, pursuant to Section 13(k), available for
the individual employee.
3. Reimbursement for Police Officers at the ranks of Sergeant and
Lieutenant for professional memberships and seminars of up to eight
hundred dollars ($800.00). Any reimbursement to an employee
under the provisions of this paragraph shall be deducted from the
total amount of tuition funds, pursuant to Section 13(k), available for
the individual employee.
4. Reimbursement for Police Officers below the rank of Sergeant for
professional memberships and seminars of up to five hundred dollars
($500.00). Any reimbursement to an employee under the provisions
of this paragraph shall be deducted from the total amount of tuition
funds, pursuant to Section 13(k), available for the individual
employee.
5. Reimbursement for Confidential Office and Clerical employees for
professional memberships and seminars of up to four hundred fifty
dollars ($450.00). Any reimbursement to an employee under the
provisions of this paragraph shall be deducted from the total amount
of tuition funds, pursuant to Section 13(k), available for the individual
employee.
6. Reimbursement for Office and Clerical employees in classifications at
pay ranges 324 and above of up to one hundred fifty dollars ($150.00)
to attend one-day, in-state, City-related seminars/training, and
professional memberships. Any reimbursement to an employee
under the provisions of this paragraph shall be deducted from the
total amount of tuition funds, pursuant to Section 13(k), available for
the individual employee.
7. Reimbursement for all Unit 1 employees up to one hundred fifty
dollars ($150.00) to attend one-day, in-state, City-related
seminars/training. Any reimbursement to an employee under the
Page 217
provisions of this paragraph shall be deducted from the total amount
of tuition funds, pursuant to Section 13(k), available for the individual
employee.
8. Certain employees specified in the Unit 3 Memorandum of
Understanding shall be reimbursed on a one-time basis only for
expenses incurred as a result of passing a required certification test
as provided in the Unit 3 Memorandum of Understanding and as
specified by administrative regulation.
9. Reimbursement for certain Unit 2 employees for CDL endorsements
as provided in the Unit 2 Memorandum of Understanding and as
specified by administrative regulation.
10. Certain employees specified in the Unit 1 Memorandum of
Understanding, Unit 2 Memorandum of Understanding, and the Unit
7 Memorandum of Agreement shall be reimbursed for expenses
incurred as a result of renewing commercial driver licenses and
endorsements, including HazMat background screening fees, as
provided in aforementioned memoranda, and as specified by
administrative regulation.
(n) Employees who are called to military service with presidential call-up
orders may receive “gap pay” as defined in the applicable administrative
regulations. They must first exhaust their paid military leave benefit.
SECTION 14. The City Manager is authorized to establish a Career
Enhancement Program for Police Officers below the rank of Sergeant, providing for a bi-
weekly payment as follows: Level 1 pay to be seventy-three dollars and twenty cents
($73.20), Level 2 pay to be one hundred forty-six dollars and forty cents ($146.40), Level
3 pay to be two hundred nineteen dollars and sixty cents ($219.60), and Level 4 pay to
be two hundred ninety-two dollars and eighty cents ($292.80).
SECTION 15. Vacation/Compensatory Time Sell-Back
(a) At the City Manager’s discretion, employees designated as either General
Executive or General Middle Management, for each fiscal year, may be paid
for up to a maximum of eighty (80) hours of accumulated vacation time
payable in November. The payment is contingent upon the use of two (2)
regular weeks of vacation time during the same calendar year.
Page 218
(b) At the City Manager’s discretion, employees designated as either Police
Executive or Police Middle Management, for each fiscal year, may be paid
for up to a maximum of eighty (80) hours of accumulated vacation time
payable in November. The payment is contingent upon the use of two (2)
regular weeks of vacation time during the same calendar year.
(c) At the City Manager’s discretion, employees designated as either Fire
Executive or Fire Middle Management, who work a 40-hour shift, for each
fiscal year, may be paid for up to a maximum of eighty (80) hours of
accumulated vacation time payable in November. Employees who work a
56-hour shift, may be paid for up to a maximum of one hundred and twelve
(112) hours of accumulated vacation time payable in November. The
payments are contingent upon the use of two (2) regular weeks of vacation
time during the same calendar year.
(d) Employees designated as Unit 1 for each fiscal year may be paid up to a
maximum of forty (40) hours of accumulated vacation hours, twice per year,
for an annual maximum of eighty (80) hours, after accumulating a minimum
of one hundred seventy-five (175) hours of vacation leave, contingent upon
the use of forty (40) hours of vacation/compensatory time during the same
calendar year.
(e) Employees designated as Unit 2 for each fiscal year may be paid up to a
maximum of forty (40) hours of accumulated vacation time twice per
calendar year, after accumulating a minimum of one hundred twenty (120)
hours of vacation leave, contingent upon the use of forty (40) hours of
vacation/compensatory time during the same calendar year.
(f) Employees designated as Unit 3 for each fiscal year may be paid up to a
maximum of forty (40) hours of accumulated vacation time twice per
calendar year, after accumulating a minimum of one hundred twenty (120)
hours of vacation leave, contingent upon the use of forty (40) hours of
vacation/compensatory time during the same calendar year.
(g) Employees designated as Confidential Office/Clerical for each fiscal year
may be paid up to a maximum of one hundred twenty (120) hours of
accumulated compensatory time as specified by administrative regulation.
Payments of up to sixty (60) hours each will be made effective the last pay
day in August and the first pay day in December.
(h) Employees designated as Confidential Office/Clerical for each fiscal year
may be paid up to a maximum of forty (40) hours of accumulated vacation
time, one time per calendar year, contingent upon the use of forty (40) hours
of vacation/compensatory time during the same calendar year.
Page 219
(i) Employees designated as Unit 4 and Unit 5 for each fiscal year may be paid
for accumulated compensatory time as specified by the applicable
Memorandum of Understanding.
(j) Police Sergeant and Police Lieutenant employees may be paid for up to a
maximum of forty (40) hours of accumulated vacation time contingent upon
their use of forty (40) hours of vacation/compensatory time during the same
calendar year. The requirement to use time may be waived in the calendar
year prior to retirement provided the employee submits a written notice of
intent to retire on a specific date of the following year. Payment shall be
made effective the first pay day in December.
(k) Eligible sworn Public Safety personnel may receive a lump sum payment
for accrued vacation time.
(l) Employees designated as Supervisory/Professional for each fiscal year
may be paid twice per year up to a combined maximum of eighty (80) hours
of accumulated vacation time each year contingent upon their use of eighty
(80) hours of vacation time during the same calendar year.
(m)Hourly (non-exempt) employees designated as Supervisory and
Professional for each fiscal year may be paid for accumulated
compensatory time as specified by administrative regulation.
SECTION 16. Productivity Enhancement/Performance-Based Cash
Award Program
(a) The City Manager is authorized to establish a productivity enhancement
program, as specified by administrative regulation, to pay qualifying
employees up to two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00) per year of service up
to a maximum of six thousand one hundred twelve dollars ($6112.00).
(b) The City Manager is authorized to establish a performance-based cash
award program for those Middle Managers and Executives who are at the
equivalent of the top step of their salary ranges. Individual awards cannot
exceed the maximum individual payout available under the productivity
enhancement/performance program in Section 16(a) above.
SECTION 17. Deferred Compensation Program and Post Employment
Retirement Accounts
(a) The City will contribute 0.45% of base annual salary to the 401(a) Defined
Contribution Plan under the Phoenix Employees' Deferred Compensation
Program for those employees designated as represented by Unit 1 for each
Page 220
fiscal year. If contributions from all sources exceed the federal maximum
allowed for 401(a) defined contribution plans, excess City contributions will
be contributed to the 457(b) Deferred Compensation Plan under the
Phoenix Employees' Deferred Compensation Program. If the full amount of
the excess City contributions cannot be contributed to the 457(b) Deferred
Compensation Plan due to federal 457(b) deferred compensation plan
contribution limits including catch-up provisions, the balance of the City
contributions converts to ordinary wages.
(b) The City will contribute 3.62% of base wages to the 401(a) Defined
Contribution Plan under the Phoenix Employees' Deferred Compensation
Program for those employees designated as represented by Unit 2 for each
fiscal year. If contributions from all sources exceed the federal maximum
allowed for 401(a) defined contribution plans, excess City contributions will
be contributed to the 457(b) Deferred Compensation Plan under the
Phoenix Employees' Deferred Compensation Program. If the full amount of
the excess City contributions cannot be contributed to the 457(b) Deferred
Compensation Plan due to federal 457(b) deferred compensation plan
contribution limits including catch-up provisions, the balance of the City
contributions converts to ordinary wages.
(c) Effective July 1, 2021, the City will contribute 2.36% of monthly base wages
to the 401(a) Defined Contribution Plan under the Phoenix Employees'
Deferred Compensation Program for those employees designated as
represented by Unit 3. If contributions from all sources exceed the federal
maximum allowed for 401(a) defined contribution plans, excess City
contributions will be contributed to the 457(b) Deferred Compensation Plan
under the Phoenix Employees' Deferred Compensation Program. If the full
amount of the excess City contributions cannot be contributed to the 457(b)
Deferred Compensation Plan due to federal 457(b) deferred compensation
plan contribution limits including catch-up provisions, the balance of the City
contributions converts to ordinary wages.
(d) The City will contribute 2.56% of monthly gross wages to the 401(a) Defined
Contribution Plan under the Phoenix Employees' Deferred Compensation
Program for those employees designated as represented by Unit 4 for each
fiscal year. If contributions from all sources exceed the federal maximum
allowed for 401(a) defined contribution plans, excess City contributions will
be contributed to the 457(b) Deferred Compensation Plan under the
Phoenix Employees' Deferred Compensation Program. If the full amount of
the excess City contributions cannot be contributed to the 457(b) Deferred
Compensation Plan due to federal 457(b) deferred compensation plan
contribution limits including catch-up provisions, the balance of the City
contributions converts to ordinary wages.
Page 221
(e) The City will contribute 4.42% of each employee’s biweekly gross pay to the
401(a) Defined Contribution Plan under the Phoenix Employees' Deferred
Compensation Program for those employees designated as represented by
Unit 5 for each fiscal year. If contributions from all sources exceed the
federal maximum allowed for 401(a) defined contribution plans, excess City
contributions will be contributed to the 457(b) Deferred Compensation Plan
under the Phoenix Employees' Deferred Compensation Program. If the full
amount of the excess City contributions cannot be contributed to the 457(b)
Deferred Compensation Plan due to federal 457(b) deferred compensation
plan contribution limits including catch-up provisions, the balance of the City
contributions converts to ordinary wages.
(f) The City will contribute 0.05% of base annual salary to the 401(a) Defined
Contribution Plan under the Phoenix Employees' Deferred Compensation
Program for those employees designated as sworn Police Supervisory and
Professional for each fiscal year. In addition, a non-continuous payment
equal to 5.97°/o of annual base wage will be paid into each member’s
deferred compensation account on the first full pay period in December
2021. If contributions from all sources exceed the federal maximum allowed
for 401(a) defined contribution plans, excess City contributions will be
contributed to the 457(b) Deferred Compensation Plan under the Phoenix
Employees' Deferred Compensation Program. If the full amount of the
excess City contributions cannot be contributed to the 457(b) Deferred
Compensation Plan due to federal 457(b) deferred compensation plan
contribution limits including catch-up provisions, the balance of the City
contributions converts to ordinary wages.
(g) The City will contribute 1.92% of base annual salary to the 401(a) Defined
Contribution Plan under the Phoenix Employees' Deferred Compensation
Program for those employees designated as Confidential Office/Clerical for
each fiscal year. If contributions from all sources exceed the federal
maximum allowed for 401(a) defined contribution plans, excess City
contributions will be contributed to the 457(b) Deferred Compensation Plan
under the Phoenix Employees' Deferred Compensation Program. If the full
amount of the excess City contributions cannot be contributed to the 457(b)
Deferred Compensation Plan due to federal 457(b) deferred compensation
plan contribution limits including catch-up provisions, the balance of the City
contributions converts to ordinary wages.
(h) The City will contribute 6.5% of base annual salary to the 401(a) Defined
Contribution Plan under the Phoenix Employees' Deferred Compensation
Program for those employees designated as Supervisory/Professional for
each fiscal year. If contributions from all sources exceed the federal
maximum allowed for 401(a) defined contribution plans, excess City
contributions will be contributed to the 457(b) Deferred Compensation Plan
under the Phoenix Employees' Deferred Compensation Program. If the full
Page 222
amount of the excess City contributions cannot be contributed to the 457(b)
Deferred Compensation Plan due to federal 457(b) deferred compensation
plan contribution limits including catch-up provisions, the balance of the City
contributions converts to ordinary wages.
(i) The City will contribute 9.0% of gross annual salary to the 401(a) Defined
Contribution Plan under the Phoenix Employees' Deferred Compensation
Program for anyone authorized to have an Executive or Middle Manager
benefit package. If the 9.0% of gross annual salary does not equal at least
$9,500.00, the City will contribute the remaining amount not to exceed a
combined maximum of $9,500.00. If contributions from all sources exceed
the federal maximum allowed for 401(a) defined contribution plans, excess
City contributions will be contributed to the 457(b) Deferred Compensation
Plan under the Phoenix Employees' Deferred Compensation Program up to
the annual Internal Revenue Service defined maximum. If the full amount
of the excess City contributions cannot be contributed to the 457(b)
Deferred Compensation Plan due to federal 457(b) deferred compensation
plan contribution limits including catch-up provisions, the balance of the City
contributions converts to ordinary wages.
(j) The City will contribute one hundred fifty dollars ($150.00) per month to a
post-employment health plan (PEHP) for eligible employees. The eligibility
of employees will be determined by the City Manager, or his designee. The
City will contribute one hundred fifty dollars ($150.00) each month the
employee is eligible.
SECTION 18. Retirement, Pensions, Termination, Death Benefits
(a) Sworn Public Safety personnel may receive a cash lump sum payment for
accrued sick leave as provided by administrative regulation.
(b) The City Manager is authorized to establish guidelines to have a portion of
accumulated sick leave hours at retirement converted to service credit
under the City of Phoenix Employees’ Retirement Plan or converted to an
employer contribution to the 401(a) Defined Contribution Plan.
(c) The City Manager is authorized to provide a retirement incentive for
retirement eligible employees who occupy positions affected by a City
Council approved reduction in force and who meet the requirements of a
regulation.
(d) The City Manager is authorized to provide for the payment of severance
pay to certain employees as established in administrative regulation.
Page 223
(e) The City Manager is authorized to grant a partial benefit package to
employees who occupy full-time regular positions at the time their positions
are reduced by the City to less than full-time because of funding limitations.
(f) The City Manager is authorized to pay all or a portion of accrued sick leave
to an Executive or Middle Manager employee when it is in the best interest
of the City for the involuntary separation of the employee from City
employment.
(g) The City Manager is authorized to grant the following:
1. Police Officers, upon approval of the Police Chief, may purchase,
at the time of retirement or medical retirement, their breast badge
mounted on a plaque, their retired flat badge and holder, and a
specified duty weapon for one dollar ($1.00); and
2. Within thirty (30) days of death, the spouse or adult survivor of a
Police Officer who has died in the line of duty may elect to receive
the deceased officer's breast badge mounted on a plaque, and the
department issued service weapon for one dollar ($1.00).
(h) The City Manager is authorized to grant the continuation of health insurance
coverage for eligible surviving dependents of a City employee who has died
in the line of duty with the City as specified by administrative regulation and
in accordance with applicable Memoranda of Understanding or applicable
Memoranda of Agreement.
(i) The City Manager is authorized to provide that, upon the in-line-of-duty
death or death resulting from an in-line-of-duty injury of any City employee,
the City will pay the full cash value of the accrued sick leave existing at the
time of the employee's death.
(j) The City Manager is authorized to provide that, upon the death of a Unit 2
employee while on active work status or on an approved leave status, the
City will pay the full cash value of the accrued sick leave existing at the time
of the employee's death. Paid leave status, as the term is used in this
paragraph, excludes retired employees, employees on suspension, and
employees on long-term disability or unpaid leave.
(k) The City Manager is authorized to provide that, upon the death of a Unit 3
employee while on active work status or on an approved leave status, the
City will pay the full cash value of the accrued sick leave existing at the time
of the employee's death. Paid leave status, as the term is used in this
paragraph, excludes retired employees, employees on suspension, and
employees on long-term disability or unpaid leave.
Page 224
(l) The City Manager is authorized to provide that, upon the death of a sworn
Police employee while on active work status or on an approved leave status,
the City will pay the full cash value of the accrued sick leave existing at the
time of the employee's death. Paid leave status, as the term is used in this
paragraph, excludes retired employees, employees on suspension, and
employees on long-term disability or unpaid leave.
SECTION 19. Promotion
The following rules concerning promotions shall apply to employees:
(a) Upon promotion to another classification as a result of competitive
appointment, an employee shall receive a rate of pay that corresponds to
the next step in the employee's present pay grade except that if no such
rate exists, the employee shall be placed in the closest step which is not
less than that amount.
(b) A department head may authorize a promotional increase up to the median
step of the pay grade after conducting an analysis with Human Resources.
The City Manager and Human Resources Director may authorize a
promotional increase above the median step of the pay grade in the event
of labor market requirements or due to the unusual qualifications of a
candidate. In cases where a pay grade has an even number of steps, the
larger value shall be used as the median. The provisions of this paragraph
shall not apply to individuals entering the classifications of Police Recruit
and Firefighter, Assign: Recruit.
(c) Upon promotion, employees who are receiving productivity enhancement
pay shall be moved to at least that step of the new grade which corresponds
the closest to their combined base pay and previous productivity
enhancement amount. In no event will it result in a decrease from that
combined amount. Placement in the new grade will be limited to the
maximum step in the grade.
(d) If the classification to which the employee is promoting is only one grade
higher than the classification they are currently in and the employee is at
the top step of the current grade, the employee will be moved to the top step
in the new grade. Eligibility for productivity enhancement pay or credit
toward qualifying for productivity enhancement pay will not be affected.
Where the promoted position is designated as supervisory, any entitlement
to supervisory differential shall be governed by Section 19(i).
(e) Employees eligible to be considered for a merit pay increase within one
hundred eighty (180) calendar days of the effective date of a promotion shall
be entitled to receive the promotional increase based upon the amount they
Page 225
would have received at the next merit increase pursuant to paragraph (a) of
this section.
(f) In cases of promotions into Middle Management or Executive category
classifications, employees shall receive a pay rate which is a minimum of
5% higher than their current rate, but not higher than the maximum pay rate
of the new pay grade.
(g) In cases of promotions into Public Safety Middle Management or Executive
category classifications, employees shall receive a pay rate which is a
minimum of 5% higher than their current rate, but not higher than the
maximum pay rate of the new pay grade, using a formula established by the
Human Resources Director.
(h) Part-time or job share employees who have worked at least one thousand
forty (1,040) hours since their last merit increase and are promoted into a
full-time position shall be entitled to receive the promotional increase based
upon the amount they would have received at the next merit increase
pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section.
(i) An employee hired or promoted into a position responsible for regularly
supervising employees shall receive one additional step increase above the
hiring rate or normal promotional increase if he/she regularly supervises a
higher paid subordinate. The additional step increase shall not apply in the
following cases: the supervisor laterally transfers into a situation where a
subordinate is higher paid; a higher paid subordinate rotates to the
supervisor’s work group; a higher paid subordinate is hired after the
supervisor is hired or promoted; the subordinate is being paid higher than
the salary range [Y-rated pursuant to the provisions of Section 20(c)]; the
subordinate is higher paid due to receiving special assignment pay; the
subordinate is higher paid due to specialized technical skills as determined
by the Human Resources Director. The applicability of this provision shall
be determined by the Human Resources Director. This section does not
apply to Middle Management or Executive employees.
(j) Employees entitled to receive an additional step increase above their
promotional pay because they supervised a higher paid subordinate in
accordance with Section 19(i) shall be entitled to retroactive pay if an
administrative error occurred or processing the additional step increase was
omitted. The adjustment to the employee’s pay step and retroactive
payment shall be made as soon as reasonable after notification to the
Human Resources Department, pursuant to the provisions of Section 24.
(k) In Public Safety promotions, employees promoted to a supervisory position
shall receive a rate of pay that is at least one step higher than the maximum
base rate of pay of the highest paid sworn rank they may supervise,
Page 226
excluding any special assignment pay in the lower rank and excluding any
employees paid higher than the salary range [Y-rated pursuant to the
provisions of Section 20(c)].
(l) In cases of promotion from Police Officer to Police Sergeant, employees
who have been receiving Career Enhancement Pay and/or Productivity
Enhancement Pay shall have those amounts factored along with their base
pay when calculating the promotional rate.
(m)In cases of promotions from Police Sergeant to Police Lieutenant,
employees receiving a pay increase of less than 3% shall have their merit
increase date set six (6) months from the date of promotion.
(n) In cases of promotions into the sworn classifications of Police Sergeant and
Police Lieutenant, employees who at the time of promotion have already
completed a minimum of twenty (20) years of continuous service with the
Phoenix Police Department shall receive one additional pay step above
regular promotional calculations, but not higher than the maximum pay rate
of the new pay grade.
(o) Employees who receive a promotion to a higher classification and receive
a pay increase of less than 3% shall have their merit increase date set six
(6) months from the date of promotion.
SECTION 20. Reclassification or Grade Change
The following rules concerning reclassifications or grade changes shall
apply to employees in impacted positions:
(a) When a position is reclassified to a different classification at a higher grade,
or when the current pay grade of a classification is assigned to a higher pay
grade, the affected employee shall be assigned to that step of the new
grade which corresponds to the employee's present pay rate except that if
no such rate exists, the employee shall be placed in the closest step which
does not result in a pay decrease.
1. Placement in the new grade will be limited to the maximum step in
that grade.
2. When an affected employee is at the maximum step of the previous
pay grade and not receiving productivity enhancement pay, they
shall be placed one step above the step of the new grade which
corresponds to or is closest to but not lower than the employee's
present pay rate.
Page 227
3. Affected employees who are receiving productivity enhancement pay
shall be moved to that step of the new grade which corresponds the
closest to their combined current base pay and previous productivity
enhancement amount, and which does not result in a decrease from
that combined amount.
4. If the reclassification or pay grade change is only a one-grade
increase, and the affected employee is receiving productivity
enhancement pay, he/she will be moved to the top step of the new
grade and continue to be eligible for productivity enhancement pay.
5. Where the reclassified position is changed from non-supervisory to
supervisory, and the incumbent will be responsible for supervising
higher paid subordinates, the employee shall be moved up one
additional step in the new grade. The additional step shall not be
granted in the following cases: the supervisor laterally transfers into
a situation where a subordinate is higher paid; a higher paid
subordinate rotates to the supervisor’s work group; a higher paid
subordinate is hired after the supervisor is hired or promoted; the
subordinate is being paid higher than the salary range [Y-rated
pursuant to the provisions of Section 20(c)]; the subordinate is higher
paid due to receiving special assignment pay; the subordinate is
higher paid due to specialized technical skills as determined by the
Human Resources Director. The applicability of this provision shall
be determined by the Human Resources Director. This section does
not apply to Middle Management or Executive employees.
(b) Under certain circumstances, employees whose positions are reclassified
to a lower paid classification may be retained at their present rates of pay
with the approval of the City Manager, if their rate of pay is within the pay
grade of the new classification in which they are placed.
(c) In unusual circumstances, the City Manager may permit a reclassified
employee to remain at a pay rate which is above the maximum rate of the
lower classification for a period not to exceed two (2) years for each pay
grade the classification is reduced. (This practice is known as “Y rating.”)
This procedure may also be followed in determining pay rates of employees
in a classification for which the pay grade has been reduced. Employees
paid above the maximum step rate for their classification will be moved to
the maximum step of the appropriate grade, with the salary difference
required to maintain the present rate to be entered as a payroll adjustment
for a period not to exceed two (2) years for each pay grade the classification
is reduced.
(d) Anniversary dates will not be affected as a result of a reclassification action
if there is no change to the employee’s pay rate. However, if it is necessary
Page 228
to adjust the pay step of any employee to satisfy the provisions concerning
promotion, reclassification and transfer, demotion and re-employment, the
Human Resources Director is authorized to adjust the anniversary date for
future merit increases.
SECTION 21. Demotion
Employees who are demoted shall have their pay reduced, unless
otherwise provided for in this section.
(a) Under certain circumstances, employees who voluntarily demote to a lower
paid classification may be retained at their present rates of pay with the
approval of the City Manager, if their rate of pay is within the pay grade of
the new classification in which they are placed.
(b) Employees, who are involuntarily demoted for the purpose of discipline or
failure to meet the requirements of their classification of work, shall have
their pay reduced at a rate determined by the Human Resources Director,
but which shall not exceed the maximum rate of the lower classification.
SECTION 22. Re-employment
Employees reemployed or recalled to a full-time position in the same
classification or a related classification within five (5) years of separation from city service
shall be placed at a pay rate that is not less than the rate of pay the employee was
receiving at the time of layoff, demotion, or separation, except where concessions remain
in effect thereby reducing the previous rate of pay by a percentage respective to the
employee Unit. Under no circumstances will an employee be placed above the maximum
rate of the grade into which they are being re-employed or recalled. The applicability of
this provision shall be determined by the Human Resources Director. The provisions of
this paragraph do not apply to promotions after reemployment.
SECTION 23. Transfer
Page 229
If an employee transfers within the same classification, but in a different
meet and confer unit, the Human Resources Director is authorized to designate the pay
step to which the employee shall be assigned.
SECTION 24. Retroactive Payment
Retroactive payments will not exceed three (3) years from the date the
employee notifies the Human Resources Department in writing of a payment dispute.
The Human Resources Director shall have exclusive authority to determine the
appropriate time limit and amount of retroactive pay for any retroactive pay awarded.
SECTION 25. The City Controller is authorized to disburse the necessary
funds for the purposes of this ordinance. That unless otherwise specified, the provisions
of this Ordinance shall be effective as of the 12th day of July, 2021.
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 16th day of June, 2021.
_____________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
__________________________ City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________ City Attorney
REVIEWED BY:
__________________________ City Manager
Page 230
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
(Ordinance S-47701)
Request to authorize the City Manager, through the City Attorney, or his designee, to
enter into legal services agreements with various law firms and lawyers to provide
outside counsel services to the City on an as-needed basis as determined by the City
Attorney. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse funds in an
amount not to exceed $19 million in total over the two-year period for FY 2021-22 and
FY 2022-23 for purposes of this ordinance.
Summary
The existing list of qualified firms and attorneys that currently provide legal services to
the City on an as-needed basis expires June 30, 2021. The Law Department issued a
Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for law firms and lawyers to submit qualifications to
be on the list of qualified legal counsel for the City for a variety of areas of legal
practice, for the next two years. The Law Department received 60 responses to the
RFQ and determined that 58 firms and attorneys who submitted met the minimum
requirements and have been approved to be placed on the attached list to be engaged
to represent the City on a case-by-case basis (Attachment A). The two firms who
were not on the list did not agree to the City's standard terms and the City Attorney will
negotiate agreements with those two firms which currently represent the City on a
limited basis in specialized areas of law.
The City Code authorizes the City Attorney to enter into agreements to provide legal
services for the City of Phoenix. Upon approval of this request by the City Council, the
City Attorney will enter into agreements, as needed, with firms from the attached list of
approved respondents to the RFQ. As needed, the City Attorney may also contract for
other legal services, including services of attorneys, expert witnesses, and other legal
advisors or consultants consistent with the authority granted in the Phoenix City Code,
sections 2-10 and 43-2.
Contract Term
The contract term will be from July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2023.
Page 231
Financial Impact
The amount requested represents an increase of approximately $300,000 over the
actual expenditures of $18.7 million during the current two-year period of FY 2019-
2021.
The individual agreements with outside counsel set forth specific rates and fees for
legal services, in accordance with proposals submitted during the procurement. The
agreements will include a prompt-payment discount of 2 percent.
Funds are available in various department budgets, including the Law Department and
Self-Insured Retention Fund. Payments will be made from affected funding sources,
primarily from the Self-Insured Retention Fund or the General Fund on an individual
case or legal assignment basis.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Ed Zuercher and the Law Department.
Page 232
Page 233
Page 234
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into agreements with
legal services providers to provide representation services to indigent defendants in
Phoenix Municipal Court for Fiscal Year 2022. Further request to authorize the City
Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The total value of the agreements
will not exceed $3.8 million.
Summary
The Public Defender's Office, through its contract holders, provides legal
representation services to indigent individuals charged with criminal offenses in
Phoenix Municipal Court. These services are provided in Phoenix Municipal Court
courtrooms, and 365 days a year at the Fourth Avenue Jail.
Procurement Information
On May 13, 2021 the City of Phoenix Public Defender Review Committee met to
review resumes and applications of attorneys and legal support service providers for
provision of legal defense services in Phoenix Municipal Court. The review process
included applications from current contract holders as well as individuals seeking to
obtain a contract for the first time. The Committee approved a list of those who meet
the minimum qualification requirements and who would be eligible for consideration for
a contract. The approved list contains more names than available contracts due to the
necessity of having attorneys available should an unexpected opening occur during
the course of the contract year. This procedure facilitates continuity in providing legal
services and minimizes delay in processing and resolution of cases.
Contract Term
Contract period is one year starting July 1, 2021, and ending June 30, 2022.
Financial Impact
These agreements will have a financial impact of up to $3.8 million. Funding is
available in the Public Defender’s Office's operating budget.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters and the Public Defender's
Office.
Page 235
Adelayo, Bami Countryman, Nicole
Aeed, Caroline Dalton, Jennifer
Allen, Jared Davis, Ariel
Anderson, David Davis, L. James
Anderson, Taylor De La Torre, Daniela
Bala, Adethia Dean, Kamille
Ballecer, Daniel Dew, Michael
Bernard, Gillmore B. Dodell, Robert
Bidwill, Josephine Dove, Shawn Haven
Black, Aaron Ehrbright, Stephanie Lee
Blackwell, Jocquese Ellison, Keilembo D.
Booth, Jennifer Falduto, Bobbi
Braaten, Diana Faussette, Jacob
Bradley, Percival Faussette, Nicholas
Bridger, Stephen Finefrock, Marcus
Brown, Carlos Foundas, Nathan
Brown, Jay Fry, Joshua
Buesing, Matt Gates, Hank (investigator)
Burkhart, Michael Gonzalez, Alex D.
Butler, Robert Gosselin, Carmen
Califano, Kristopher Greer, Nora
Callender, Randy Gronski, Jason
Carey, Kathleen Gurion, Omer
Carter, Christina Hall, Theron
Casey, Celeste (veterans) Hassen, Gabriel
Casey, Robert Ian Hayes, Matthew
Castaneda, Oscar Herd, Samantha J.
Cloud, Jeff Hergert, Ron (investigator)
Collins, Courtney Herman, Laurie
Cooke, Reginald Hutto, Daniel
Countryman, Ken Iacob, Anca
Page 236
Jarrett, Damian (investigator) Phillips, Delano
Kimmons, Barry (investigator) Phillips, Jeremy
Kinsman, Jason Preciado, Stephanie
Landry, Troy Primera, Tamara
Lashgari, Rana Pules, Dana
Lauritano, Sheri Radovanov, Jelena
Lawson, Slade Redpath, James
Leal, Michael Ricard, Michael
Leathers, Matthew Richard II, Gerald
Lorenz, Vernon Robinson, Edward
Marner, Matthew Roscoe, David
McGrath, Jeff (investigator) Salata, Brian
McNulty, Charles Sansone, Paul
McWhirter, Robert Scherb, Richard A.
Mehrens, Jeff Schreck, Jerald
Mendelson, Wendy Segal, Natalee
Mendoza, Jose Sellers, Eric
Meshel, Charles Shah, Arja
Miller, Damien Shell, Chad
Miller, Katelyn Silva, Scott
Mitchell, Tyrone Silvas, Manuel
Mussman, Logan Stewart, Kristin
Myers, Grace Teel, David
Naum, Taras Tinker, James
Nelson (Droban), Kerrie Traher, Ashley
Nermyr, Mark Traher, Michael
Neufeld, Michael Victor, Jeffrey
Nickerson, Darius Weaver, Christopher
Ortega III, Daniel Weeks, Ashelee J.
Pajerski, Chad Wicks, Mike
Palestini, James Wilhite, Monique Branscomb
Parascandola, Tara Egita Wilson, Daniel R.
Parzych, Greg Winters, Phil
Penrod, Craig W. Zimmerman, Alan
Peters, Shannon
Page 237
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Amendment to Include Additional Community Development Block Grant Funding
(Ordinance S-47714)
Request City Council approval of an amendment to Ordinance S-47526 to amend the
2020-24 Consolidated Plan and 2021-22 Annual Action Plan broad activity areas to
include an increase of $244,067 in Community Development Block Grant funds and
the submission of the plan to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD).
Summary
The 2021-22 Annual Action Plan defines strategies to address housing and community
development needs in the City of Phoenix for the coming year. The plan contains the
application requirements of four federal formula grants HUD utilizes to provide critical
funds to entitlement cities like Phoenix. The four programs are: Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME),
Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG), and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS
(HOPWA). Funds for these four programs are allocated annually by HUD to the City
based on population and other socio-economic indicators. On May 5, 2021, the City
Council approved the draft plan, including the initial CDBG award of $16,562,413. On
May 13, 2021, HUD released a formal notification providing an additional $244,067 in
CDBG funds to the City of Phoenix, for a total of $16,806,480, and amended the
Annual Action Plan Submission deadline to June 16, 2021.
Staff recommends maintaining the original percentage distribution allocation in the
broad categories of 65 percent for Critical Core Department Programs ($158,644
increase), 15 percent for Public Services ($36,610 increase), and 20 percent for
Program Management, Coordination, and Support ($48,813 increase). This would
increase the totals for each of these categories to the following:
· Critical Core Department Programs: $10,924,212
· CDBG Program Management, Coordination, and Support: $3,361,296
· Public Services: $2,520,972
Total CDBG Funding: $16,806,480 (a total increase of $244,067)
Page 238
Public Outreach
The Annual Action Plan Process was approved by the City Council on Nov.18, 2020. A
survey was distributed by multiple City departments and posted on the Neighborhood
Services Department's webpage on Feb. 18, 2021, to obtain community and
stakeholder input relative to the priorities identified through the 2020-24 Consolidated
Plan process. The survey was offered in English and Spanish and over 200 responses
were received. On March 4, 2021, a HUD required, virtual, public hearing was held to
share the survey results and obtain additional public input to assess community needs
throughout Phoenix. Residents and neighborhood leaders provided input regarding
housing, social services, neighborhood revitalization, and community development.
Additionally, residents who were unable to attend the public hearing had the
opportunity to submit comments via e-mail or voicemail. This information, along with a
needs assessment, formed the basis for the 2021-22 Annual Action Plan.
A draft of the 2021-22 Annual Action Plan was made available on April 5, 2021, for an
advertised 30-day public comment period and a second HUD-required, virtual, public
hearing was conducted on April 22, 2021, to obtain community stakeholder input
relative to the draft. The goal of the Annual Action Plan process, per HUD
requirements, is to ensure comprehensive community planning, and coordinated
service delivery to meet critical housing and community development needs.
HUD did not require an additional public comment period or public hearing for the
release and allocation of the additional $244,067 in CDBG funds.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
Ordinance S-47526, with the original CDBG allocation, was adopted by the City
Council on May 5, 2021, and recommended for City Council approval by the Land Use
and Livability Subcommittee on April 21, 2021 by a 3-0 vote.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Neighborhood
Services, Human Services and Housing departments.
Page 239
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Development of 814 N. 5th Ave. (Ordinance S-47691)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a development
agreement and other agreements as necessary, with Metrowest Development, LLC, or
its City-approved designee, for the sale and development of a City-owned property
located at 814 N. 5th Ave. in downtown Phoenix. Further request to authorize the City
Treasurer to accept funds related to this item. The sale of the property will generate
one-time revenue of $345,000 in sales proceeds to the City.
Summary
The Developer submitted its proposal in response to the City's Request for Proposals
(RFP) for the disposition and redevelopment of an approximately 7,000-square-foot,
City-owned vacant lot located at 814 N. 5th Ave. in downtown Phoenix (Site). The Site
was previously developed with a small multi-family building, which was purchased with
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) funds by the Neighborhood Services Department (NSD) in the early
2000s to facilitate revitalization through blight elimination in the Roosevelt
Neighborhood. In November 2005, the structure suffered severe fire damage and was
subsequently demolished.
The Developer proposes to relocate and rehabilitate the historic home known as the
Seargeant-Oldaker House to the Site. The Seargeant-Oldaker House is currently
located at 649 N. 3rd Ave. If relocation of the historic home is unsuccessful, the
Developer will build a home on the Site that is consistent with the character of the
area. The Developer has agreed to purchase the Site for $345,000, which is the
appraised value and the minimum purchase price listed in the RFP.
This project will preserve a threatened historic building, resolving a significant
community concern. In addition, an unproductive vacant lot in the Historic Roosevelt
Neighborhood will be activated and an opportunity for new downtown residents will be
created, which are both outcomes supported by the City Council-adopted Downtown
Strategic Plan. Furthermore, this project will put a vacant City property back into
private and taxable use. The City will only transfer title of the Site when permits to
relocate and renovate the home are paid for and approved. The City intends to enter
Page 240
into an agreement to allow the Developer to complete some utility work and site
preparation prior to the closing of the transaction.
Procurement Information
The City received two proposals for the North Fifth Avenue Parcel Sale and
Redevelopment Request for Proposals (RFP-CED20-NFA), which was issued on Sept.
29, 2020. The proposals were evaluated by a panel comprised of representatives from
the development community and City staff from the Community and Economic
Development, Planning and Development, and Neighborhood Services departments.
On Jan. 8, 2021, the panel recommended the City begin negotiations with Metrowest
Development, LLC, the top-ranked proposer.
Financial Impact
The sale of the Site will generate a one-time $345,000 sales proceed to the City, and
will put the 0.16-acre property back into private ownership, which will generate net new
property tax revenues. The proceeds will be returned to the CDBG program managed
by NSD. There is no impact to the General Fund.
Public Outreach
Staff presented this proposal to the Downtown Voices Coalition on April 10, 2021, the
Roosevelt Action Association on April 20, 2021, and the City's Central City Village
Planning Committee on April 12, 2021.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This item was recommended for approval by the Land Use and Livability
Subcommittee at the May 19, 2021 meeting by a vote of 3-0. However, the legislative
file incorrectly stated that the purchase price of the Site was $350,000 instead of the
correct amount of $345,000. The price has been corrected for this requested action.
Location
814 N. 5th Ave.
Council District: 7
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Gina Montes and Ginger Spencer,
and the Neighborhood Services and Community and Economic Development
departments.
Page 241
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Building Located at 2526 W. Northern Ave. (Ordinance S-47712)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to negotiate and enter into
agreements as necessary with Arizona State University (ASU), Maricopa Community
College District (MCCCD), Western Maricopa Education Center (West-MEC) and M.
Arthur Gensler Jr. & Associates, Inc. (Gensler) for the completion of a building
assessment (Assessment) of the former Kmart building located at 2526 W. Northern
Ave. (Site). Further request authorization for the City Treasurer to accept, and for the
City Controller to disburse, all funds related to this item. Upon receipt of the
Government Partner's reimbursements, the City's share will not exceed $9,000. There
is no impact to the General Fund; funding is available in the Downtown Community
Reinvestment Fund (DCRF).
Summary
The City is currently working with various partners to explore the viability for the
adaptive reuse of the Site. Community visioning sessions have indicated the desire to
repurpose the Site into a center that offers education, workforce training and job
opportunities for the community at large. The potential uses being explored include:
· Culinary support services hub
· K-12 and community college education
· Business incubation
· Workforce development
· Skills/technical training center
In 2020, the City contracted with Gateway Community College's Center for
Entrepreneurial Innovation (CEI) for the completion of a feasibility study for a culinary
support services hub. Further expertise is required to address the structural and
mechanical requirements needed to support the various uses being considered for the
Site in the form of an Assessment. The CEI feasibility study is separate from these
services and is not a part of the requested Assessment.
City staff engaged education partners ASU, MCCCD and West-MEC (collectively,
Page 242
Government Partners) to share in the cost of the Assessment.
The City and the Government Partners have each agreed to pay an equal share of the
Assessment cost, not to exceed $9,000 per entity. Each Government Partner will pay
the City its share of the cost and the City will pay Gensler the full cost of the services.
The City will execute an Intergovernmental Agreement, including terms for remitting
payment to the City, with each Government Partner. The City will enter into a separate
agreement with Gensler to complete the Assessment and outline reimbursement terms
from the Government Partners.
Procurement Information
Staff conducted an informal solicitation, in accordance with the City's Administrative
Regulation for procurement, for these services. The City received two proposals:
Gensler: $35,000.00
Architechnology: $66,000.00
The Gensler proposal offered the lowest cost and was selected to complete the
Assessment.
Contract Term
If approved, the terms for the Intergovernmental Agreements and Gensler contract will
be for one year.
Financial Impact
The cost of the Assessment will not exceed $35,000. The City will pay the full
Assessment amount to Gensler. The Government Partners will reimburse the City for
their equal share of the Assessment, estimated at $9,000 each. Upon receipt of the
Government Partner's reimbursements, the City's share will not exceed $9,000. There
is no impact to the General Fund. Funding is available in the Downtown Community
Reinvestment Fund (DCRF). Reimbursements received from the Government Partners
will be deposited into the DCRF.
Location
2526 W. Northern Ave.
Council District: 5
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Community
and Economic Development Department.
Page 243
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
(Ordinance S-47705)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to apply for, and accept, if
awarded, up to $5,200,000 from federal fiscal year (FFY) 2021 Department of
Homeland Security grant funds that include the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI)
and the State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP) through the Arizona
Department of Homeland Security. Further request authorization for the City Treasurer
to accept, and for the City Controller to disburse, all funds related to this item.
Summary
The Department of Homeland Security distributes Homeland Security Grant funds to
enhance the ability of regional authorities to prepare, prevent and respond to terrorist
attacks and other disasters. UASI and SHSGP grant funds are used by the Fire and
Police departments to purchase equipment and vehicles, conduct training and
exercises, perform assessments of critical infrastructure sites, and implement target
hardening measures to protect critical infrastructure. Programs funded under the
Homeland Security Grant Program include: Terrorism Liaison Officer program,
Community Emergency Response Teams, Rapid Response Task Force and the
Metropolitan Medical Response System.
The Fire and Police departments have received Homeland Security Grant awards
since 2003. In 2020, the total grant award from both UASI and SHSGP totaled
$5,200,000; $4,200,000 from UASI and $1,000,000 from SHSGP.
Contract Term
The grant period of performance begins Oct. 1, 2021 and ends Sept. 30, 2024.
Financial Impact
No matching funds are required. Grant funds will be managed through the Fire and the
Police departments.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This item was recommended for approval at the Public Safety and Justice
Subcommittee meeting on March 10, 2021.
Page 244
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Jeff Barton, the Fire Department, and
the Police Department.
Page 245
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
22 (Ordinance S-47715)
Request authorization for the City Manager to adopt the Fiscal Year 2021-22 Computer
Aided Dispatch (CAD) fees and Regional Wireless Network 800 MHz Infrastructure
payments to be charged to (1) the cities of Avondale, Buckeye, Chandler, El Mirage,
Glendale, Goodyear, Maricopa, Peoria, Scottsdale, Surprise, Tempe, and Tolleson; (2)
the fire districts of Buckeye Valley, Daisy Mountain, Harquahala, and Sun City; (3) the
Towns of Guadalupe and Paradise Valley; (4) Arizona Fire & Medical Authority; and (5)
Dignity Health. Authorization is requested to allow the City Treasurer to accept and, for
the City Controller to disburse these funds.
Summary
In 2019, the City Council approved Intergovernmental Agreements (IGAs) with each of
the above fire jurisdictions, which included CAD fees and charges to be updated
annually as "Exhibit A" (attached). The City of Phoenix has Automatic and/or Mutual
Aid Agreements with these jurisdictions and provides dispatching for their fire and
emergency medical units. Each CAD member pays a dispatching fee for each call
dispatched, as well as charges for equipment and network maintenance.
Financial Impact
The General Fund revenue to be generated from these IGAs for FY 2021-22 is
estimated at $8,327,533 and is intended to offset a portion of the operating costs of the
City's Regional Dispatch Center, including salaries of Dispatch Center staff. The
$5,061,778 balance of the funds collected pays for communications system and
equipment maintenance and modernization.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Jeffrey J. Barton and the Fire
Department.
Page 246
Phoenix Fire Department
FY 2021-2022 Projected Total CAD Revenues
Exhibit A Fees for Technical Services
CAD Partner Revenue
Arizona Fire & Medical Authority $747,699
City of Avondale $577,804
City of Buckeye $392,380
Buckeye Valley Fire District $402,046
City of Chandler $1,321,186
Daisy Mountain Fire District $338,773
City of El Mirage $214,538
City of Glendale $1,934,978
City of Goodyear $678,586
Town of Guadalupe $93,596
Harquahala Fire District $43,281
City of Maricopa $388,996
Town of Paradise Valley $89,843
City of Peoria $1,075,485
City of Scottsdale $2,100,074
Sun City Fire District $544,539
City of Surprise $832,103
City of Tempe $1,428,709
City of Tolleson $156,325
Dignity Health $28,370
Total FY 2021/2022 $13,389,311
Page 247
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to approve the sale of
Police canine Fred to Officer Mike Burns for $1. Officer Burns is assigned to the
Tactical Support Bureau's Canine and Specialty Vehicle Detail and has requested to
retire and purchase his assigned canine Fred in accordance with A.R. 4.21. Officer
Burns will be retiring from the Police Department on July 31, 2021.
Summary
Police service dog Fred is about six and half years old, and has been assigned to the
Police Department's Canine Unit since November 2016. He has been assigned to
Officer Burns for the past three years after having worked with another handler for
approximately a year and a half prior. Canine Fred is a handler-sensitive canine which
requires a strong bond. Therefore, transitioning him to a new handler will be extremely
difficult, time consuming and may not be successful. Currently, the Canine Unit does
not have an operational need to retain canine Fred, nor is it anticipated there will be a
need for him in the near future.
This request is for the authorization of the sale of Police service canine Fred for $1.
The purchase of canine Fred is being made by Officer Mike Burns, who agrees to
accept full responsibility and liability for him until his death.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Jeff Barton and the Police
Department.
Page 248
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to approve the sale of
Police canine Keno to Officer Donald Peelman for $1. Officer Peelman is assigned to
the Tactical Support Bureau's Canine and Specialty Vehicle Detail and has requested
to retire and purchase his assigned canine Keno in accordance with A.R. 4.21. Officer
Peelman will be retiring from the Police Department on July 31, 2021.
Summary
Canine Keno is 11 years old and has served the Phoenix Police Department and the
citizens of Phoenix with unwavering bravery and distinction in his capacity as a police
service dog since 2011.
This request is for the authorization of the sale of Police canine Keno for $1. Officer
Peelman has requested to retire and purchase canine Keno and has agreed to accept
full responsibility and liability for him until his death.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Jeff Barton and the Police
Department.
Page 249
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Policing Development Micro Grant (Ordinance S-47719)
Request authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to allow the Police
Department to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with the Arizona Board of
Regents on behalf of Arizona State University (ASU), that will act as a research partner
in support of the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing
Services (COPS) FY 2020 Community Policing Development Micro Grant in an
amount not to exceed $33,000. Further request authorization for the City Controller to
disburse all funds related to this item.
Summary
The Police Department was awarded $88,516 from the U.S. Department of Justice,
COPS office through the FY 2020 Community Policing Development Micro Grant. The
grant and disbursement of grant funds was approved by City Council on April 1, 2020,
under Ordinance S-46511. The grant requires the Police Department to work with a
research partner to analyze data and produce project-related reports regarding the
grant project. The Police Department has partnered with ASU on similar projects in the
past. This agreement will reimburse ASU, an amount not to exceed $33,000, during
the contract term, to asses the impacts of the community policing program on police-
community relationships from both youth perceptions of police and police perceptions
of youth and the community. The City will be reimbursed for applicable ASU expenses
through the COPS office grant.
Contract Term
The contract term is Aug. 1, 2020 through July 31, 2021.
Financial Impact
The Community Policing Development grant provides up to a maximum of $33,000 in
funding to reimburse ASU as the grant research partner.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Jeff Barton and the Police
Department.
Page 250
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
47720)
Request authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to allow the Police
Department to enter into various agreements with the Office of National Drug Control
Policy and the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office for up to $2,500,000 in funding through
the 2022-23 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA). Further request
authorization for the City Treasurer to accept, and for the City Controller to disburse, all
funds related to this item.
Summary
The Police Department has applied for and accepted HIDTA funds annually for more
than 14 years. Historically, HIDTA funds are used to support and enhance the Police
Department's Drug Enforcement Bureau's investigations into illegal narcotic
distribution enterprises in the Phoenix area and throughout Arizona. These complex
investigations usually involve partnerships with other local, state and federal law
enforcement agencies. The investigations focus on identifying and disrupting drug
organizations, most of which have connections with the Mexican and Columbian drug
cartels.
The Arizona Alliance Planning Committee HIDTA Executive Board makes all of the
HIDTA funding decisions. The Police Department is requesting approval to accept
funds and enter into various agreements for any HIDTA funds made available during
the funding period. Funding reimburses the City for salary, overtime, 15 percent of the
associated fringe benefits and operational supplies associated with the drug trafficking
investigations.
Contract Term
The contract term is for two years beginning Jan. 1, 2022 through Dec. 31, 2023.
Financial Impact
Permission is requested to accept up to $2,500,000 through the various funding
sources to receive HIDTA funds. Cost to the City is in-kind resources only.
Page 251
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Jeff Barton and the Police
Department.
Page 252
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request retroactive authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to allow the
Police Department to apply for, accept, and enter into an agreement with the ASIS
Foundation. Funding provided under this grant will not exceed $4,000. Further request
authorization for the City Treasurer to accept, and the City Controller to disburse, all
funds related to this item.
Summary
The purpose of this grant is to provide funding to purchase and maintain new bicycles
for the Cactus Park Precinct officers in support of the Neighborhood Safety Initiative
and other safety-related programs.
Contract Term
The contract term is for one year from date of award.
Financial Impact
The amount of funding available is $4,000. No matching funds are required.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Jeff Barton and the Police
Department.
Page 253
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Community Policing Development Micro Grant (Ordinance S-47722)
Request authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to allow the Police
Department to enter into an agreement with Team Kids in support of the U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) FY
2020 Community Policing Development Micro Grant in an amount not to exceed
$55,000. Further request authorization for the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item.
Summary
The Police Department was awarded $88,516 from the U.S. Department of Justice,
COPS office through the FY 2020 Community Policing Development Micro Grant. The
grant and disbursement of grant funds was approved by City Council on April 1, 2020,
under Ordinance S-46511. Funding provided under this grant will be used to
implement the Team Kids Challenge program in public elementary schools. The goal of
the program is to bring police officers and children together to build developmental
assets and more positive perceptions of law enforcement.
Contract Term
Aug. 1, 2020 through July 31, 2021.
Financial Impact
The Community Policing Development grant provides up to a maximum of $55,000 in
funding to reimburse Team Kids.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Jeff Barton and the Police
Department.
Page 254
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
S-47672)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with Matrix Consulting Group, LLC, to conduct an infrastructure pilot study, for the City
of Phoenix Fire and Police Departments. Further request to authorize the City
Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The aggregate agreement value will
not exceed $245,500.
Summary
The agreement is necessary to provide the Planning and Development Department
implementation strategies for Phoenix Police and Fire Department's assets in the
City's northern areas. The consultant will conduct a study to include a comprehensive
review and analysis to help determine capital facility requirements and associated
funding needs to serve new development. The outcomes of this study are expected to
inform future updates to the Fire and Police Infrastructure Improvements Plan that
supports Fire Protection and Police Impact Fees, as well as other public safety
infrastructure and financial plans. The request for proposal was limited in scope to the
Fire Department however after further discussion and analysis by staff it was
determined that including the Police Department would be in the best interest of the
City. As a result of this determination, procurement staff worked with Planning, Police,
Fire, and the selected vendor to expand the scope to include the Police Department.
The attached memo (Attachment A) provides the scope of work for the infrastructure
pilot study.
Procurement Information
Request for Proposal, RFP 21-034 for North Phoenix Police/Fire Infrastructure Pilot
Study for the Planning and Development Department, was conducted in accordance
with Administrative Regulation 3.10. The notification was sent to 1,047 vendors and
was publicly posted and available for download from the City's website. There was one
offer received by the Procurement Division on March 26, 2021. The proposal was
scored by a five-member evaluation panel based on the following criteria:
· Conformance with Scope of Work, Project Approach, Methodology (400 points);
· Firm Experience and Personnel Qualifications (300 points);
· Cost (200 points); and
· Project Schedule and References (100 points)
Page 255
The Deputy Finance Director recommends acceptance of the offer from Matrix
Consulting Group, LLC, as the highest scored, responsive and responsible offer that is
most advantageous to the City.
Contract Term
The one-year agreement term shall begin June 1, 2021 through May 31, 2022.
Financial Impact
The aggregate agreement value will not exceed $245,500. Funding is available in the
Planning and Development, Fire and Police Department's budgets.
Location
The pilot study includes the area north of Northern Avenue.
Council Districts: 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 256
ATTACHMENT A
matrix
consulting group
June 3, 2021
T. J. Martin
Deputy Finance Director
251 W. Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Dear Ms. Martin:
The Matrix Consulting Group is pleased to provide you with our proposal to Conduct a
North Phoenix Police Infrastructure Study. This proposal is based on the original RFP for
Fire, your request for a supplemental proposal, our discussion yesterday, and review of
the information sent on the Police Department.
1. Scope of Work
The City of Phoenix has selected Matrix Consulting Group Planning to conduct a
comprehensive review, analysis and implementation strategies of the Phoenix Fire
Department’s (PFD) existing and future facilities, equipment and assets in the rapidly
growing area north of Northern Avenue. The City would like to expand this analysis to
include the asset needs of the Phoenix Police Department (PPD).
As with the Fire Department evaluation, the scope of work for the Police Department
portion of the study includes:
• A review of the geographic characteristics, road network and infrastructure
systems.
• Development of a land use profile and the associated risks associated with new
development projections.
• Identification of the capital facility requirements, impacts of new police facilities.
• Development of recommended ways to reduce costs; including changes to service
delivery or deployments, and/or to integrate fire and police facilities.
1650 S. Amphlett Blvd., Suite 213 • San Mateo, CA 94402 • 650.858.0507
SF Bay Area (Headquarters), Boston, Charlotte, Dallas, Irvine, Portland, St. Louis
Page 257
This project must be highly collaborative, involving input from employees of the Planning
Department, Fire Department, Police Department, City representatives and external
stakeholders.
2. Task Plan
In developing the proposal for the assessment of the Fire Department’s needs we
provided a detailed task plan for its conduct.
Task 1 Initiate the Project and Document Police Service Trends and Issues.
We would begin the study with interviews with the City (e.g., Mayor, City Manager, and
other departments) to obtain views on police service issues and improvement
opportunities. We would have comparable initial interviews with the Police Chief and
executive command staff.
Task 2 Document the Police Department’s Staffing, Organization and Deployment
Plan in Phoenix.
To establish a basis for structuring and comprehensively evaluating police operational
needs in the north Phoenix area, we will develop a profile of the Police Department. We
will gather and analyze detailed information about the organizational structure,
operations and service levels to use as a basis for planning how services should be
delivered in the study area. We will document the organization and operations of the
Police Department overall but with greater detail and focus on staffing and deployments
in the North Phoenix study area.
Task 3 Identify Key Organizational and Operational Issues in a Comparative
Context.
The project team will develop a diagnostic assessment of the Police Department in order
to identify issues in staffing, organization, and deployment practices. The standards used
represent the project team’s experience working with police departments around the
country, as well as standards from other organizations (e.g., CALEA, CPSM, etc.).
The project team will also contact up to six other agencies considered comparable to
Phoenix in order to understand the extent to which ‘best practices’ have been
implemented or other efforts that could translate well into Phoenix’s service environment.
Matrix Consulting Group 2
Page 258
Task 4 Assess the Fire Department Staffing and Deployment Needs
The project team will develop a staffing analysis for the North Phoenix area. To
accomplish this will require a variety of techniques depending on the function – for patrol,
we will evaluate existing police call responses and service levels, determine net
availability and deployments; for investigations, case assignments and management as
well as caseload levels for detectives; for other functions, similar workload and service
level measures will be evaluated.
Task 5 Evaluate the Current Capital Assets of the Police Department in the North
Phoenix Study Area.
Existing precinct and other facilities in the study area will be toured to ensure they provide
an appropriate and safe location for employees to work and operate from now and in the
future.
Task 6 Develop a Projection of Future Staffing Needs Based on Projected Growth
in the Study Area.
Staffing projections for field, investigative, special services, and support functions will be
developed. The project team will collect data used for the analysis, such as current and
proposed road networks, census data, and geographical features. The results of the
service need and staffing projections will be developed into an interim deliverable that
provides comprehensive projections for staffing needs to meet current services and
provide services to the in the North Phoenix region through buildout.
Task 7 Develop an Analysis of Issues That Impact Future Space Planning
This task will further the projection analysis to evaluate how non-linear aspects of
planning need to be incorporated. These couple include but not limited to the following
questions: Do service gaps exist which require organizational attention? Should
specialized or alternative resources be considered for the area (e.g., mental health
techs.)? Are current precinct locations appropriate to meet the current and future needs
of the North Phoenix region? Are there opportunities to co-locate with other city facilities,
especially fire facilities?
Task 8 Develop the Final Report and Present the Results of the Study.
Our findings, conclusions, and recommendations will be documented in a final report to
the City together with detailed plans for implementation, including financial impacts to
Matrix Consulting Group 3
Page 259
both operational and capital budgetary needs. We would review the draft report with the
Department and the City. We are prepared to make a presentation to City management
and the City Council.
3. Cost and Schedule
Our proposed additional cost to conduct this staffing and asset assessment of the Police
Department’s current and projected operations in the North Phoenix study area is
provided in the following table.
Project Senior Total Total
Task Manager Manager Analysts Hours Cost
Initiation / Interviews 16 8 8 32 $5,880
Profile 8 32 40 80 $13,520
Comparisons 16 24 24 64 $11,240
Staffing / Deployment 16 32 32 80 $13,920
Facility Assessment 8 16 0 24 $4,560
Growth Projections 16 32 24 72 $12,720
Future Options 16 32 16 64 $11,520
Draft and Final Report 24 32 32 88 $15,520
120 208 176
Total Hours 504 $88,880
Rate Per Hour $200 $185 $150
Total Time Cost $24,000 $38,480 $26,400
Travel Related Expense $4,620
MWL Architects $30,000
RLB Cost Estimators $4,500
Total Project Cost $128,000
We would be prepared to add this price of $128,000 to the fire contract and invoice
monthly on a consolidated basis.
The study will take 8 months to conduct. The completion of tasks will be consistent with
the Fire Department analysis. The schedule for the Police Department tasks is shown in
the following table.
Matrix Consulting Group 4
Page 260
4. Qualifications to Conduct Police Operational Studies
As was the case for fire, a review of our services, experience, and qualifications will show
that the Matrix Consulting Group is highly qualified because of its extensive experience
evaluating police staffing, deployment, operations, organization, and management
studies throughout the United States. Within the approximately 400 police studies
conducted were many for large metropolitan police departments, as shown in the
following list:
Albuquerque, NM Kansas City, MO Rio Rancho, NM
Austin, TX Los Angeles, CA San Antonio, TX
Birmingham, AL Miami Beach, FL (2x) San Francisco, CA
Columbia, MO Nashville, TN San Jose, CA
Columbus, OH Omaha, NE Spokane, WA
Denton, TX Orange County, FL (2x) Tacoma, WA (2x)
Fort Worth, TX Portland, OR Wichita, KS
Kansas City, KS Raleigh, NC (2x) Winnipeg, MB
We are also currently completing studies for the Salt Lake City Police Department and the
Buda and Fair Oaks Ranch (TX) police departments. About 10 years ago we also
conducted a study of Phoenix’s Internal Affairs.
The following references can attest to our qualifications:
Los Angeles, California – Beat Redesign and Community Policing Study
Tyler Munhall, City Administrator’s Office, 213-473-7528, tyler.munhall@lacity.org
Austin, Texas – Community Policing Study
Chris Vallejo, Patrol Commander, 512-974-4452, Chris.Vallejo@austintexas.gov
Matrix Consulting Group 5
Page 261
Columbus, Ohio – Operational Review of the Division of Police
Brian Clark, Chief Advisor to Mayor Ginther, 614-645-6992, BMClark@columbus.gov
A major advantage of working with the Matrix Consulting Group is the training and
experience of our staff consulting team. We rarely use subcontractors because of the risk
of poor quality, consistency and customer service that can result. All of the experience of
our firm is the experience of the project team which would work with you (for example, I
was the project manager on our study of Phoenix’s internal affairs 10 years ago). Our
highly qualified team includes:
• Richard Brady, with over 40 years of police analytical experience working with over
400 law enforcement agencies throughout the country and in Canada. He would
manage the project and be assisted by a highly qualified team of staff consultants,
and would be involved in every facet of the project.
• Ian Brady, a Vice President with 10 years of experience in law enforcement
consulting; he has developed the firm’s deployment and statistical models.
• John Scruggs, a Manager, has over 26 years of law enforcement experience. He
co-authored legislation on body worn cameras in Oregon.
• Kelli Sheffer, a Manager, has 30 years of law enforcement experience. She has
served in all facets of law enforcement, both in civilian and sworn roles.
• Aaron Baggarly, a Senior Manager who works in our public safety services practice
and focuses on resource and facility needs.
• Ryan Peterson, a Consultant, specializes in GIS capabilities and has over five years
of experience in conducting geospatial analysis for local governments.
Our reputation in the consulting industry is as a ‘fact-based’ firm which has developed
leading-edge models for the assessment of staffing and deployment needs as well as
planning future needs. This analytical foundation is closely allied with our emphasis on
extensive input and interaction with our clients throughout our projects.
* * *
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 650-858-0507 or via
email at rbrady@matrixcg.net. I can also be contacted at the letterhead address.
Richard P. Brady
Matrix Consulting Group
Richard P. Brady
President
Matrix Consulting Group 6
Page 262
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
JUNE 2, 2021) - Citywide Asbestos and Lead Abatement Job Order Contracting
Services - 4108JOC198 (Ordinance S-47647)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into separate master
agreements with four contractors to provide Citywide Asbestos and Lead Abatement
Job Order Contracting services. 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 $10 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 Contractors' services will be used on an as-needed basis to provide Citywide
Asbestos and Lead Abatement Job Order Contracting (JOC) that includes abatement,
transport and disposal, documentation, "put back" of materials, and other
environmental services as requested.
These Agreements are essential to the health, safety, and welfare of the public and
critical operations for the City.
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 263
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: East Valley Disaster Services Inc.
Rank 2: Comprehensive Risk Services, LLC
Rank 3: Spray Systems of Arizona Inc.
Rank 4: Southwest Hazard Control, Inc.
Additional Proposers
Rank 5: ATI Holdings, LLC
Rank 6: Viking Specialty Services, LLC
Rank 7: Kary Environmental Services, Inc.
Rank 8: Belfor Environmental, Inc.
Rank 9: Square One Builders LLC
Contract Term
The term of each master agreement is for up to four years, or up to $2.5 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 values for each of the JOC contractors will not exceed $2.5
million, including all subcontractor and reimbursable costs. The total fee for all services
will not exceed $10 million. The value for each job order agreement performed under
this master agreement will be up to $1 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 Citywide Capital Improvement Program and/or Operating
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 Manager Mario Paniagua, the Street
Transportation Department, and the City Engineer.
Page 264
Page 265
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Airport (Ordinance S-47659)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a Luggage Cart
Service Lease Agreement with APS USA LLC at Phoenix Sky Harbor International
Airport for five years, with no options to extend the term. The Aviation Department will
collect eight percent of gross sales from cart rentals, and the free luggage carts
program provided for passengers utilizing the Rental Car Center and the federal
inspection station will have an annual cost of $320,000.
Summary
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (PHX) is America's Friendliest Airport when it
comes to customer service. As the largest economic engine in the State of Arizona,
PHX strives to deliver a world-class experience to every customer, every day. The
agreement for airport luggage cart rental services will provide passengers with an
option to manage their luggage on demand through PHX to their destinations.
The service is provided at all terminals, parking locations, and Phoenix Sky Train
stations. The service will also offer free luggage carts to our passengers using the
Phoenix Rental Car Center and international passengers using the federal inspection
station.
The current contract with Smarte Cart expires on June 30, 2021 and has an annual
cost of $405,000. On Dec. 9, 2020, the City Council approved the issuance of a
revenue contract solicitation (RCS 21-014) for luggage cart services.
Procurement Information
On Feb. 11, 2021, the Aviation Department issued an RCS to select a service provider
to provide the required luggage cart rental services. On March 19, 2021, two proposals
were received - - one from the current provider, Smarte Cart, was deemed non-
responsive and one from APS USA LLC that was deemed responsive. Smarte Cart's
response was deemed non-responsive because Smarte Cart refused to accept the
terms of the RCS and submitted material exceptions, including mandatory payment
terms.
Page 266
On April 14, 2021, an evaluation panel met and evaluated the responsive respondent
based on the published evaluation criteria:
· Respondent’s Experience and Qualifications (400 points)
· Management Plan (300 points)
· Operation Plan (150 points)
· Maintenance Plan (150 points)
After a local and national outreach effort and a competitive solicitation, APS USA LLC
is recommended for award of the Luggage Cart Service Lease Agreement with 827 out
of 1,000 points.
The City's Transparency Policy is in effect until the agreement resulting from this RCS
is awarded by the City Council.
Contract Term
The term is five years with no options to extend the term.
Financial Impact
The Aviation Department will collect eight percent of gross sales from cart rentals, and
the free luggage carts program provided for passengers utilizing the Rental Car Center
and the federal inspection station will have an annual cost of $320,000. Funding for the
agreement is available in the Aviation Department's Budget.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Phoenix Aviation Advisory Board recommended this item for approval on May 20,
2021 by a vote of 8-0.
Public Outreach
Public outreach included local and national advertising, industry specific advertising,
and a pre-proposal meeting was held on Feb. 19, 2021.
Location
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport - 3400 E. Sky Harbor Blvd.
Council District:8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Aviation
Department.
Page 267
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Recommendation (Ordinance S-47668)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with PM Plumbing & Mechanical, Inc. to provide supplemental plumbing repairs, gas
system repairs, rooter services, sewer line cleaning/jetting preventative maintenance,
and backflow preventer testing services on an as-needed basis. Further request to
authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The value of the
agreement will not exceed $1,725,000.
Summary
PM Plumbing & Mechanical, Inc. will provide supplemental labor, materials, and
equipment for the plumbing, rooter, jetting, and backflow preventer testing services
throughout Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport and its surrounding airport
properties, Phoenix Deer Valley Airport, and Phoenix Goodyear Airport. This
agreement will be utilized on an as needed basis anytime an immediate or emergency
response requires specialized skills, tools, or equipment beyond the scope for general
in-house plumbing tasks. Having immediate access to a qualified and specialized
contract vendor is critical in order to resolve any situation in which a specialized
service is required. This agreement is essential to maintain safe operations at our
airports and provide a high level of service to our passengers and business partners.
Procurement Information
The Invitation for Bid (IFB) 21-027 was conducted in accordance with Administrative
Regulation 3.10. Bids were requested for two groups: Group 1 was for plumbing repair,
rooter, Jetting, and related services, and Group 2 was for backflow preventer testing,
maintenance, and repair related services. One vendor submitted bids for both Groups
and the bids were found to be responsive and responsible.
Selected Bidder - Group 1
PM Plumbing & Mechanical, Inc.
Selected Bidder - Group 2
PM Plumbing & Mechanical, Inc.
Page 268
Contract Term
The term of the agreement is five years, which will begin on or about July 1, 2021 with
no options to extend the terms.
Financial Impact
The value of the agreement will not exceed $1,725,000. Funding is available in the
Aviation Department's Operating budget.
Location
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport - 3400 E. Sky Harbor Blvd.
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 Manager Mario Paniagua and the Aviation
Department.
Page 269
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
47697)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
American Airlines Cargo Transfer Point Lease Agreement 146359 at Phoenix Sky
Harbor International Airport to add five, one-year options to extend the term of the
Lease that may be exercised at the sole discretion of the Director of the Aviation
Department.
Summary
The City’s existing Lease Agreement 146359 (Lease) with American Airlines (AA) is for
approximately 85,233 square feet of land at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport
(Airport) that supports AA’s operation of a cargo transfer point (C-Point). AA’s C-Point
operation was to be relocated during the initial term to enable the construction of
Terminal 3’s (T3) second North Concourse. Due to the impact of the COVID-19
pandemic, the Airport's construction of the new T3 Concourse has been delayed
indefinitely. The Aviation Department and AA would like to amend the term to allow
AA’s continued use of the existing C-Point until it is required to relocate.
Contract Term
The amendment will add five one-year options to extend the term that may be
exercised at the sole discretion of the Director of the Aviation Department.
Financial Impact
Rent for the first year of the extended term will be approximately $86,213 ($1.01 per
square feet), plus applicable tax. Rent will be adjusted annually thereafter according to
the Consumer Price Index using the Phoenix-Mesa index. Total anticipated rent over
the five-year extended term, if all options are exercised, will be approximately
$431,068.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved Lease Agreement 146359 (Ordinance S-37523) on Nov.
17, 2010.
Page 270
Location
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport - 3400 E. Sky Harbor Blvd.
Council District: 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Aviation
Department.
Page 271
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Airport (Ordinance S-47702)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a ground lease
for up to 43,560 square feet (approximately one acre) with United Parcel Service, Inc.
at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport for a term of five years with two five-year
options to extend the term.
Summary
United Parcel Service, Inc.(UPS) is an air cargo operator in the South Air Cargo (SAC)
facility at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport. UPS currently occupies
approximately 30,000 square feet (0.68 acres) of undeveloped graveled property
under a temporary parking lot license agreement for the staging and storage of tractor
trailers during peak season at 2908 E. Old Tower Road. UPS also currently occupies
approximately one acre in the East Tonto Lot under a ground lease for employee
parking. UPS shuttles employees from the East Tonto Lot to the SAC at its own
expense.
UPS now desires to lease and develop the undeveloped graveled property occupied
under the license for employee parking. UPS will develop the property into a paved
employee parking lot following City Code within the first two years of the lease term.
During the lease term, the undeveloped gravel property will only be used for tractor
trailer staging and storage. After the property is developed into a paved parking lot,
UPS will be allowed to have employees park on the property. UPS will then utilize the
East Tonto Lot for tractor trailer staging and storage.
Contract Term
The term is five years with two five-year options to extend the term, which may be
exercised at the sole discretion of the Director of Aviation Services.
Financial Impact
Rent for the first year of the term will be approximately $45,738 ($1.05 per-square-
foot). Rent will be adjusted annually using the Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale Consumer
Price Index, but not to exceed three percent. Total anticipated revenue over the term, if
all options are exercised, is approximately $686,070.
Page 272
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Phoenix Aviation Advisory Board recommended this item for approval on May 20,
2021, by a vote of 8-0.
Location
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport - 3400 E. Sky Harbor Blvd.
Council District: 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Aviation
Department.
Page 273
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
(Ordinance S-47703)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a facility lease
agreement for up to 5,760 square feet (three bays) of cargo bay space with Swissport
Fueling, Inc. at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport for a term of five years.
Summary
Swissport Fueling, Inc. is a ground service operator that provides ground service
equipment maintenance for airlines at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (PHX).
Swissport currently occupies 1,920 square feet (one bay) of cargo bay space in the
West Air Cargo (WAC) Building A, Bay 13. Swissport wants to relocate and expand by
entering into a new facility lease agreement for three bays in the WAC. Swissport will
use two bays for maintenance and a third bay will be improved for office, breakroom,
and restroom facilities.
Contract Term
The term is five years with no options to extend the term.
Financial Impact
Rent for the first year of the term will be up to $70,502.40 ($12.24 per-square-foot).
Rent will be adjusted annually based on PHX's Rates & Charges program. Total
anticipated revenue over the term will be approximately $352,512.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Phoenix Aviation Advisory Board recommended this item for approval on May 20,
2021, by a vote of 8-0.
Location
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport - 3400 E. Sky Harbor Blvd.
Council District: 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Aviation
Department.
Page 274
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a facility lease
and a ground lease with PGT Trucking, Inc. at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport
for one year with one, one-year option to extend the terms. Total rent over the terms of
the leases, if options are exercised on both leases, will be approximately $115,412.
Summary
PGT Trucking, Inc. (PGT) hauls freight to locations throughout the United States. PGT
has recently expanded its operations in the Phoenix area and requires office and trailer
parking space to support its operations. PGT has requested to up to 2,067 square feet
of office space and up to 33,560 square feet of land for parking.
Contract Term
The terms will be one year with one, one-year option to extend the terms.
Financial Impact
Rent for the first year of the facility lease will be approximately $1,872 per month
($10.87 per-square-foot per year). Rent for the first year of the ground lease will be
approximately $2,937 per month ($1.05 per-square-foot per year). Rent will be
adjusted based on the Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale Consumer Price Index if the options
to extend the terms are exercised. Total rent over the terms of the leases, if options are
exercised on both leases, will be approximately $115,412.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Phoenix Aviation Advisory Board recommended this item for approval on May 20,
2021, by a vote of 8-0.
Location
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport - 3400 E. Sky Harbor Blvd.
Council District: 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Aviation
Department.
Page 275
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Agreement No. 143140 (Agreement) with ACC Consulting, LLC (ACC) for up to one
year on a month-to-month basis to provide consulting services in support of Phoenix
Sky Harbor International Airport's Airport Concession Disadvantaged Business
Enterprise (ACDBE) Program.
Summary
ACC conducts ACDBE Program compliance reviews for the Equal Opportunity
Department and the Aviation Department (Aviation) to ensure that Phoenix Sky Harbor
International Airport's (PHX) concessionaires meet federal compliance requirements
and abide by Aviation's employee retention requirements. As a large hub primary
airport, PHX is required to have an ACDBE program. As a condition of eligibility for
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) financial assistance, the City is required to
submit its ACDBE Program and overall goals to the FAA. In addition, the City must
conduct regular ACDBE compliance reviews to ensure PHX concessionaires meet
federal compliance requirements.
During the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, monthly passenger traffic was as low as
seven percent of 2019 passenger traffic and PHX concession hours and
concessionaire staff levels were significantly reduced in response to low customer
activity. ACDBE compliance reviews were paused to provide concessionaires the
opportunity to focus on keeping their businesses operational and the process to re-
solicit the Agreement was postponed. April 2021 data now indicates enplanements and
passenger traffic are increasing at a faster rate than projected, which will require
initiation of compliance reviews in the near future. The Agreement extension will allow
Aviation to develop a new procurement and establish a new five-year consultant
agreement.
Contract Term
The term of the Agreement is through June 30, 2021. The amendment would extend
the term of the agreement for one year on a month-to-month basis beginning on or
about July 1, 2021.
Page 276
Financial Impact
No additional funds are requested.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved Agreement 143140 (Ordinance S-42765) on July 1, 2016.
Location
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport - 3400 E. Sky Harbor Blvd.
Council District: 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Aviation
Department.
Page 277
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
(Ordinance S-47713)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with AT&T Services, Inc. for the design, implementation, and operation of an airport
Distributed Antenna System to improve cellular service for all passengers, business
partners, and workers at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport. AT&T will pay the
City a $750,000 first-year minimum annual guarantee with a three percent annual
increase during the agreement term and any option periods exercised by the City.
Summary
The cellular service at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (PHX) is spotty and
inconsistent because of the physical structures in and around the airport campus.
Terminal buildings, parking garages, and other structures make it difficult to receive
optimal cellular service inside the terminals and concourses.
On average, approximately 123,000 passengers pass though PHX facilities per day
(pre-COVID-19). A strong and reliable cellular service is essential to provide
passengers a world-class experience that enables them to stay connected with friends,
family, and work while traveling. Historically, wireless-service providers have tried to
address structural impediments by strategically locating outdoor cell towers. This
method has made marginal improvements for voice calls. But most cellular traffic today
consists of data, video, and streaming services. These services cannot be improved by
modifying or adding legacy outdoor towers. And with the launch of 5G technology,
passengers expect the next-generation wireless experience while in our facilities. The
Federal Communications Commission's designated frequency spectrum allocation for
5G makes it almost impossible to provide ultra-high bandwidth 5G service inside
airport terminals and other facilities by relying on common outdoor cell towers.
A Distributed Antenna System (DAS) will help provide the necessary infrastructure to
deliver world-class 4G and 5G cellular service to PHX passengers. The DAS will
ensure adequate coverage and the capacity needed to support a high-speed wireless
experience (such as for streaming, media, video, and online gaming). This connection
quality is becoming the expectation that passengers demand while at the airport. The
system will also facilitate next-gen applications and services, such as the Internet of
Page 278
Things (IoT), Virtual/Augmented Reality, and others within the PHX environment.
This item has been reviewed and approved by the Information Technology Services
Department.
Procurement Information
The Aviation Department issued a Revenue Contract Solicitation (RCS 21-008) for
design, build, operation, management, and maintenance of a DAS on Dec.17, 2020.
Five responses were received on March 2, 2021. Two respondents were deemed non-
responsive.
Evaluation criteria for the responsive and responsible respondents included:
· Method of approach to design, build and operate a DAS (350 Points)
· Revenue to the City (300 Points)
· Qualifications and experience of respondent and key personnel (250 Points)
· Business plan (100 Points)
The evaluation panel recommends AT&T Services, Inc. (AT&T) for award as the best
value to the City based on the following consensus scores:
· AT&T - 890 Points
· Crown Castle Fiber, LLC - 850 Points
· Boingo, LLC - 827 Points
Contract Term
The agreement term will be 10 years with two one-year options to extend the term.
The options may be exercised at the Director of Aviation Services' sole discretion.
Financial Impact
AT&T will pay the City a $750,000 first-year minimum annual guarantee with a three
percent annual increase during the agreement term and any option periods exercised
by the City.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Phoenix Aviation Advisory Board recommended approval of this item on May 20,
2021 by a vote of 8-0.
Location
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport - 3400 E. Sky Harbor Blvd.
Council District: 8
Page 279
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Aviation
Department.
Page 280
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to implement proposed bus
service changes that would take effect on Oct. 25, 2021.
Summary
The Public Transit Department (PTD) constantly focuses on improving the
effectiveness and reliability of Phoenix’s transit system to best serve passengers’
needs while efficiently operating the City’s transit fleet. Accordingly, PTD works with
regional transit partners and the public on making schedule changes, implementing
service efficiencies, and adding route connections during the regional service change
windows each April and October.
During the past year, the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in significant declines in
both transit ridership and fare revenue collections across the region. As a result, bus,
rail, and paratransit services are currently operating differently than pre-pandemic
methods of service delivery.
Service delivery strategies are expected to transition back to normal operations later
this year, it is recognized that fully restoring all transit services at once may not be
necessary. At this time, PTD is not proposing major service improvements. As of April
2020, Phoenix bus service ends at approximately 11:00 p.m. (before the pandemic,
service ran to 12:00 a.m. on Monday through Thursday, to 2:00 a.m. on Friday and
Saturday, and to 11:00 p.m. on Sunday). For all bus routes (and their frequencies,
hours of operation, and proposed extensions), PTD continues monitoring ridership
closely and will continue proposing service change recommendations as needs arise
to address ridership increases, community feedback, economy reopening, and
continuation of residential and commercial developments across Phoenix.
Although major service improvements are not recommended at this juncture, PTD
does propose some bus route changes resulting from construction for the South
Central/Downtown Hub Light Rail Project and its impact on local traffic and bus
service. If approved, these route changes would be implemented in October 2021.
PTD plans to offset its proposed route changes with improvements to service and
frequency for adjacent routes within the corridor.
Page 281
The proposed changes are as follows:
Route 0A (South Central Shuttle)
Current Route
In October 2020, Route 0 (Central Avenue) was split into two routes to accommodate
construction detours more effectively and traffic delays on Central Avenue in downtown
and South Phoenix. Those changes resulted in:
· Route 0 (Central Avenue) - for the north end of the route; this route consists of local
bus service between the Sunnyslope Transit Center and Van Buren Street; and
· Route 0A (South Central Shuttle) - for the south end of the route; this route consists
of local bus service between Van Buren Street and Dobbins Road.
Currently, Route 0A operates every 20 minutes on weekdays and 30 minutes on the
weekend, with an additional weekday peak frequency of every 10 minutes between
Van Buren Street and Baseline Road. This route has more frequent service than Route
0 (north end of the route), which operates at 20-minute service frequency throughout
the weekday.
Proposed Changes
Due to construction along Central Avenue, it has become difficult to maintain the
current 10-minute frequency. This often leads to the bunching of multiple buses
throughout the corridor. As a result, PTD proposes revising the frequency to 15-minute
frequency between 6:00 a.m. and 9:30 p.m. on weekdays, and to 30-minute frequency
outside of these core times between Van Buren Street and Baseline Road. These
changes would be made along with the proposals to increase service frequency for a
section of Route 7 and to extend the end-of-line destination for Route 8, both
described below, which would help mitigate the construction impacts on Route 0A.
Frequency south of Baseline Road will be revised to every 30 minutes all day.
Route 7 (7th Street)
Current Route
Route 7 currently operates on Seventh Street between Deer Valley and Dobbins
roads, with deviations to Central Avenue at Van Buren Street, and at Broadway Road
to the Ed Pastor Transit Center. Service frequency is every 20 minutes for most of the
day, with 30-minute frequency during off-peak hours and on the weekends.
Proposed Changes
The Public Transit Department proposes removing the route deviation at Broadway
Road, while also doubling the number of trips between Van Buren Street and Baseline
Page 282
Road from 6:00 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. on weekdays. This will result in trips every 10
minutes at peak times and every 15 minutes otherwise.
By increasing frequency along with removing the route deviation, ridership data shows
that Route 7 serves as a viable alternative to Route 0A because of existing transit
service on all the main crossroads in South Phoenix (Broadway Road, Southern
Avenue, etc.).
Route 8 (7th Avenue)
Current Route
Route 8 operates on Seventh Avenue between Dunlap Avenue and Baseline Road
with deviations to Central Avenue at Van Buren Street, and at Broadway Road to the
Ed Pastor Transit Center. Service operates every 30 minutes seven days a week.
Proposed Changes
As with Route 7, PTD proposes removing the route’s deviation at Broadway Road. In
addition, the route’s end-of-line destination would be extended to Baseline Road and
Central Avenue, providing connectivity to Route 0A for riders who may need to travel
south to Dobbins Road.
Route 52 (Roeser Road)
Current Route
Route 52 operates on Roeser Road between 19th Avenue and 48th Street, with a
deviation at Broadway Road to the Ed Pastor Transit Center. Service operates every
30 minutes, seven days a week.
Proposed Changes
Similar to Route 7 and Route 8, PTD proposes removing the route deviation at
Broadway Road.
In summary, the proposed changes include revised frequencies and removal of the
route deviation to Central Avenue and Broadway Road. PTD will evaluate each route’s
ridership, passenger connections, and potential return to the transit center once light
rail construction is complete. See Attachment A for maps of all proposed service
changes.
Financial Impact
The proposed changes result in a cost reduction of $230,000 annually; each route is
summarized below:
· Route 0A (South Central Shuttle) - $(389,000)
Page 283
· Route 7 (7th Street) - $540,000
· Route 8 (7th Avenue) - $(117,000)
· Route 52 (Roeser Road) - $(264,000)
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Citizen's Transportation Commission recommended approval of this item on May
27, 2021, by a vote of 10-0.
Public Outreach
The Public Transit Department used the locally adopted public outreach process to
solicit public feedback on proposed service changes. The process opened on May 3
and ended on June 4, and included methods such as:
· Posting proposed service change details and an online passenger survey;
· Implementing on-board announcements requesting passenger input on the
proposed service changes;
· Posting flyers at impacted stops along affected routes; and
· Conducting joint online public hearing with Valley Metro on May 19, 2021.
The Public Transit Department is recommending the proposed service changes
because light rail construction will continue to impact overall bus operations and
passengers' ability to make connections on time according to the published schedule.
By way of example, Route 0A is currently able to adhere to its schedule only 29
percent of the time due to the traffic congestion it is encountering. It is important that
passengers be able to rely on established transit schedules in order to ensure they can
arrive to their destinations at or near expected times. If these service changes are
implemented, PTD believes that they will aid in overall on-time bus performance and
passenger connectivity along each route.
Once construction activities are complete, PTD will reevaluate the bus network in
South Phoenix to best work in tandem with the South Central rail extension on Central
Avenue. As required by Federal Transit Administration Circular 4702.1B, a Title VI
analysis for the proposed service changes was conducted. Under the City’s Title VI
policies, neither service change proposal qualifies as a major service change that
would potentially impact low-income and/or minority populations.
See Attachment B for the most recent results of feedback received by Valley Metro.
Location
Council Districts: 7 and 8
Page 284
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Public Transit
Department.
Page 285
Attachment A - Maps
Route 0A (South Central Shuttle)
Revise frequency to:
o Every 15 minutes between 6 a.m. and 9:30 p.m. weekdays between
Van Buren Street and Baseline Road
o 30 minutes all other times and locations
Page 286
Route 7 (7th Street)
Remove the route deviation at Broadway Road
Increase frequency to:
o 10-15 minutes during weekday peak hours between Van Buren Street
and Baseline Road
o 30 minutes all other times and locations
Page 287
Route 8 (7th Ave)
Remove the route deviation at Broadway Road
Extend the route to Baseline Road and Central Avenue
Page 288
Route 52 (Roeser Rd) – Eliminate Central/Broadway Deviation
Remove the route deviation at Broadway Road
Page 289
Maps 5 of 5
All Service Change Proposals
Although three routes are affected by the route deviation to Broadway Road and
Central Avenue, the benefit to riders will be to avoid congested construction zones
and the ability to make connections via a single transfer to either Route 45
(Broadway Road) or Route 0A (South Central Shuttle).
Page 290
Attachment B
October 2021 Proposed Service Changes Public Feedback
To date, there have been 743 total comments and suggestions received about
Phoenix’s proposed service changes, with 468 of those registering an opinion (the
remaining comments are unrelated to these particular proposed changes).
The following table summarizes the feedback by route:
Route 0A (South Central Shuttle)
44 support (34%)
86 against (66%)
Route 7 (7th Street)
67 support (55%)
54 against (45%)
Route 8 (7th Avenue)
60 support (51%)
57 against (49%)
Route 52 (Roeser Road)
41 support (41%)
59 against (59%)
Page 291
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into separate
agreements with: Amrep Manufacturing Company, LLC; Balar Holding Corp. dba Balar
Equipment; BTE Body Company, Inc.; Short Equipment, Inc.; and Wastebuilt
Environmental Solutions, LLC, for Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) and
aftermarket refuse truck parts. Further request to authorize the City Controller to
disburse all funds related to this item. The total aggregate amount is $10 million over
the life of the agreements.
Summary
The Public Works Department is responsible for maintaining approximately 285 refuse
collection trucks. The City-owned refuse trucks require ongoing repairs and
maintenance to ensure they are safe, efficient, and reliable for operation to provide
refuse collection services to City residents. These agreements will allow OEM and
aftermarket refuse truck parts to be purchased for regular maintenance and necessary
repairs of the refuse truck fleet.
Procurement Information
Invitation for Bid 22-FSD-005 was conducted in accordance with Administrative
Regulation 3.10. Five offers were received by the Public Works Department
Procurement Services on April 14, 2021. The offers were evaluated based on price,
responsiveness to all specifications, terms and conditions, and responsibility to provide
the required services. The offers submitted by Amrep Manufacturing Company, LLC;
Balar Holding Corp. dba Balar Equipment; BTE Body Company, Inc.; Short Equipment,
Inc.; and Wastebuilt Environmental Solutions, LLC were deemed fair and reasonable.
The Award Recommendation can be found in Attachment A.
Contract Term
The one-year term of the agreements will begin on or about Aug. 1, 2021. The
agreements will contain four, one-year options to extend the term, for a total
agreement term of up to five years if all options are exercised.
Page 292
Financial Impact
The aggregate value of the agreements, including all option years, is $10 million,
including all applicable taxes, with an estimated annual expenditure of $2 million.
Funding is available in the Public Works Department's budget.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters and the Public Works
Department.
Page 293
Attachment A
IFB 22-FSD-005 Original and Aftermarket Refuse Truck Parts
Award Recommendation
Original
Recommend
Offeror Manufacturer (OEM) or Discount
(X)
Aftermarket
Balar Holding Corp. dba Balar Equipment Heil OEM 12.50% X
Amrep OEM 0% X
Heil Aftermarket 25% X
Amrep Manufacturing Company, LLC NewWay Aftermarket 25% X
Wayne Aftermarket 25% X
Rapid Rail Aftermarket 25% X
Heil Aftermarket 30% X
Rapid Rail Aftermarket 30% X
Wayne Aftermarket 30% X
Wastebuilt Environmental Solutions, LLC
Dadee Aftermarket 30% X
NewWay Aftermarket 30% X
Amrep Aftermarket 30% X
BTE Body Company, Inc. Dadee Scorpion OEM 10% X
NewWay OEM 5% X
Short Equipment, Inc.
Curbtender OEM 5% X
Page 294
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
47693)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into separate
agreements with: Arizona Comfort Zone, LLC; Harris Arizona, LLC; and Pueblo
Mechanical & Controls, to provide Energy Management Control Systems Repair
Services to be used on an as-needed basis. Further request to authorize the City
Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The total aggregate amount is
$1.25 million over the life of the contracts.
Summary
The Public Works Department is responsible for maintaining the Energy Management
Control Systems at various City locations. These systems control and monitor energy
consuming devices including heating and cooling equipment, fans, and pumps. The
City owns and maintains multiple facilities complete with Building Automation Systems
(BAS) that control central plant chillers, air distribution systems, and associated
equipment. There are several City-owned facilities with aging equipment that require
these systems to be repaired.
Procurement Information
Invitation for Bid 22-FMD-007 was conducted in accordance with Administrative
Regulation 3.10. Four offers were received by Public Works Department Procurement
Services on March 24, 2021. The offers were evaluated based on price,
responsiveness to all specification, terms and conditions, and responsibility to provide
the required services. The offers submitted by Arizona Comfort Zone, LLC; Harris
Arizona, LLC; and Pueblo Mechanical & Controls were deemed to be fair and
reasonable.
Arizona Comfort Zone, LLC bid total is $237.50
Harris Arizona, LLC bid total is $277.00
Pueblo Mechanical & Controls bid total is $287.50
Contract Term
The initial agreement term is for three years beginning on or about Aug. 1, 2021 with
two, one-year options to extend the term, for a total agreement term of up to five years
Page 295
if all options are exercised.
Financial Impact
The aggregate value of the agreements, including all option years, is $1.25 million,
including all applicable taxes, with an estimated annual expenditure of $250,000.
Funding is available in the Public Works Department's budget.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters and the Public Works
Department.
Page 296
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
- Agreement Recommendation (Ordinance S-47698)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with American Air Filter Company, Inc. dba AAF International for air filter replacement
services and purchase of air filters. Further request authorization for the City Controller
to disburse all funds related to this item. The total aggregate amount is $11.5 million
over the life of the agreement.
Summary
The Public Works Department is responsible for maintenance of various City buildings
across the Valley. The awarded vendor will provide the City with Heating, Ventilation
and Air Conditioning (HVAC) filter replacement services, and supply air filters to allow
City staff to change filters as-needed. Due to the City's COVID-19 requirements, all
filters have been upgraded to Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) 13 rather
than MERV 10 to help with filtration of indoor air. This agreement will aid in the citywide
effort to maintain quality air in City buildings to support our community, residents, and
employees.
Procurement Information
Invitation for Bids (IFB) 22-FMD-008 was conducted in accordance with Administrative
Regulation 3.10. Five groups were identified in the bid submittal. Groups 1 - 4 are for
supply and filter replacement at multiple locations, with Group 5 being the supply of
filters only. The offers were evaluated based on price, responsiveness to
specifications, and responsibility to provide the required goods and services.
The award recommendation can be found in Attachment A.
Contract Term
The initial one-year term shall begin on or about Sept. 1, 2021, with four option years
to extend in increments of up to one year, for a total agreement term of five years.
Financial Impact
This agreement will have an estimated annual expenditure of $2.3 million, with a total
aggregate amount of $11.5 million over the life of the agreement. Funding is available
Page 297
in the Public Works Department's budget.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters and the Public Works
Department.
Page 298
Attachment A
HVAC Filter Maintenance Service & Supply IFB 22-FMD-008
Offerors Group 1: Metro Group 2: Group 3: Fire Group 4: Group 5: Filter
Locations (Filter Downtown Locations (Filter Police Only
Supply and Locations (Filter Supply and Locations
installation) Supply and installation) (Filter Supply
installation) and
Page 299 installation)
American Air Filter Company, Inc. dba AAF International Monthly x Monthly x Monthly x Monthly x $453.66
$18,457.87 $5,352.82 $6,690.49 $2,706.89
x
Dave Downing & Associates: A Div. of DL Sales Corp Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly $759.52
$57,884.62 $45,569.22 $13,632.85 $9,291.25
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request City Council approval to install ceremonial sign toppers recognizing Don
Bolles at the intersections of 4th Avenue and Clarendon Avenue and 4th Avenue and
Osborn Road. The fabrication, installation, and maintenance costs of the ceremonial
signs will be funded by the Clarendon Hotel. There is no financial impact to the City.
Summary
The Street Transportation Department received a request to install ceremonial sign
toppers to honor Donald "Don" Bolles, a reporter for the Arizona Republic who was
killed by a car bomb in 1976. The request was submitted by representatives of the
Clarendon Hotel per the Ceremonial Sign Procedure published on the Street
Transportation Department website.
During his roughly 10 years as an Arizona journalist, Don Bolles gained a reputation as
an in-depth investigative reporter, tracking stories related to land fraud, influence
peddling and corruption. His work led to the criminal indictment against four State
commissioners for bribery and conspiracy. Bolles also exposed links between
Arizona's horse racing industry and the mafia in the 1960s, and while working at the
Arizona Republic, published a story that included 200 known mafia members operating
in the state, along with their associates. His work also led to legislative action. After
wondering why a drunk driver who killed three college students on Interstate 40 in
1971 was allowed a plea deal and later paroled six months early, Don published an
interview with the driver. That article pointed out steps the City of Phoenix was taking
to curb the rate of drunk driving arrests, which had doubled in four years, and led to
stricter DUI laws in Arizona.
In his private life, Don Bolles advocated for special education in Arizona schools, and a
provision for their educational accommodations was passed two years ahead of the
Federal mandate.
In June 1976, Don Bolles was killed by a car bomb outside the Hotel Clarendon while
investigating a story regarding a land deal that presumably connected top-ranking
Arizona politicians with the mafia.
Page 300
This biographical information was based on a compilation of sources, including the
Arizona Republic and the Clarendon Hotel.
The blue ceremonial signs will be placed on the sign posts at 4th Avenue and
Clarendon Avenue, and 4th Avenue and Osborn Road. These signs will be 8 inches by
30 inches in size and flag-mounted to the existing sign posts.
The Street Transportation Department will enter into an agreement with the requesting
private party, the Clarendon Hotel, to establish the costs and maintenance
responsibilities of the ceremonial sign toppers.
Financial Impact
The fabrication, installation, and maintenance costs of the ceremonial signs will be
funded by the Clarendon Hotel. There is no financial impact to the City.
Location
4th Avenue and Clarendon Avenue, and 4th Avenue and Osborn Road.
Council District: 4
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Street
Transportation Department.
Page 301
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Improvements near Norterra Parkway and Jomax Road (Ordinance S-47699)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an
Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD)
to utilize ASLD owned property for an interim storm water retention basin associated
with the Jomax Road widening project located at the north west corner of Norterra
Parkway and Jomax Road. The City will apply for a Special Land Use Permit and pay
associated cost for the permit, as well as perform routine maintenance of the interim
basin as outlined within the IGA. 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 Street Transportation Department is constructing a roadway widening project for
the north side of Jomax Road between I-17 Freeway and Norterra Parkway. The City
has reached an agreement with ASLD to allow the north half roadway storm water
runoff to be retained in an interim retention basin on ASLD owned land. The City
agrees to assume general maintenance responsibility of the basin for weed and litter
control as outlined with in the IGA until such time that the land is auctioned by ASLD,
at which time the permit shall expire and the successful bidder will operate and control
the land and be responsible for overall maintenance as required by the City of
Phoenix, Storm Water Design Manual.
Financial Impact
The total fee for the Special Land Use Permit application is $1,800 with a $300
renewal fee due in two years.
Location
Northwest Corner of Norterra Parkway and Jomax Road.
Council Districts: 1 and 2
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Street
Transportation Department.
Page 302
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Industrial LP (Ordinance S-47709)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a Development
Agreement with AZ Deer Valley Industrial LP, for the installation of public roadway
infrastructure, and necessary public easement dedications, on behalf of the City
related to the north half street of Pinnacle Peak Road from Central Avenue to 7th
Street. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse funds related to this
item. The value of the agreement will not exceed $2 million.
Summary
The City of Phoenix, in 2007, entered into Development Agreement (DA) 122225 with
Airpark 80, LLC for Improvements to and Realignment of Pinnacle Peak Road, Central
Avenue to Seventh Street, which was recorded in the Official Records of Maricopa
County, Arizona on Sept. 21, 2007, as Document 2007-1046057, pursuant to which,
the City agreed to design and construct certain public infrastructure improvements to
the north side of Pinnacle Peak Road between Central Avenue and 7th Street. AZ
Deer Valley Industrial LP (Developer) has since acquired the subject parcel from
Airpark 80, LLC and has requested to complete the north half roadway improvements
of Pinnacle Peak Road as outlined in the previous Development Agreement on behalf
of the City in advance of the City's scheduled Capital Improvement Project currently
budgeted in Fiscal Year 2024.
Developer will publicly procure the roadway design and construction in accord with
A.R.S. Title 34 requirements in order to seek reimbursement for the City responsible
improvements in an amount not to exceed $2 million.
Contract Term
Developer shall use commercially reasonable efforts to complete the construction of
the Public Infrastructure Improvements by no later than Dec. 31, 2024. Developer
acknowledges that if it has not completed the construction of the Public Infrastructure
Improvements by Dec. 31, 2024, the City shall have the right to terminate this
Agreement by recording a notice of termination in the Official Records of Maricopa
County, Ariz.
Page 303
Financial Impact
Funding is available through the Street Transportation Department’s Capital
Improvement Program.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved DA 122225 (Ordinance S-34293) on July 2, 2007.
Location
Pinnacle Peak Road, Central Avenue to 7th Street
Council Districts: 1 and 2
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua on behalf of the Street
Transportation Department.
Page 304
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
ST85100368 and PT00170023 (Ordinance S-47710)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with AECOM Technical Services, Inc., to provide Professional Services that include
program management, project management, programming, planning, support services,
design, and possible construction administration and inspection services for the
Transportation 2050 Program. 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 $11,025,000.
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 relating 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 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 program management staff support in the
planning, programming, and implementation of the City’s Transportation 2050
program.
The Consultant’s services include, but are not limited to: prioritization and scheduling
of projects, construction management, cost estimating and price analysis, federal,
state and local agency coordination, technical and legal evaluation of public-private
partnerships or alternative financing options, multi-modal transportation planning,
design, and construction administration and inspection.
Page 305
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. Two firms submitted proposals
and are listed below.
Selected Firm
Rank 1: AECOM Technical Services, Inc.
Additional Proposer
Rank 2: Michael Baker International, 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 AECOM Technical Services, Inc. will not exceed $11,025,000,
including all subconsultant and reimbursable costs.
Funding is available in the Street Transportation and Public Transit Departments'
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 Manager Mario Paniagua, the Street
Transportation Department, the Public Transit Department, and the City Engineer.
Page 306
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with Pipeline Video Inspection dba AIMS Companies, to provide vactor services for the
purpose of keeping sewer lines, process pipelines and storm drains clean and free of
debris that could cause blockage. Further request to authorize the City Controller to
disburse all funds related to this item. The agreement amount will not exceed
$3,726,250.
Summary
The purpose of this agreement is to provide vactor services for facility sewer lines,
which are not infrastructure in the City’s sanitary sewer collection system, decant
stations, process pipelines, process tanks, storm drains, basin/rock trap, process liquid
holding structure, process liquid conveying structure, flood irrigation lines, interceptor
tanks and pool filter/settling tank.
AIMS Companies services include, but are not limited to: providing Closed-Circuit
Television (CCTV) recording or still photographs of the interior of the cleaned
sewer/process pipelines as requested by the City, removing flood irrigation line
blockages in 12- to 24-inch concrete pipes and removal of pool filter sand and sand
traps, disposal of materials and cleaning up spills or leaks.
Procurement Information
The recommendation was made using an Invitation for Bids procurement process in
accordance with City Administrative Regulation 3.10.
Four vendors submitted bids and are listed below. All bids were found to be responsive
and responsible.
Selected Bidder
Pipeline Video Inspection dba AIMS Companies: $224,775
Other Bidders
StormWater Pros, LLC: $246,300
Ancon Services: $249,857.20
Page 307
Lincoln Constructors, Inc: $338,000
Contract Term
The agreement will begin on or about Sept. 1, 2021, for a five-year aggregate term
with no options to extend.
Financial Impact
The agreement value for Pipeline Video Inspection dba AIMS Companies will not
exceed $3,726,250.
Funding is available in the Water Services and Parks and Recreation departments’
operating budgets.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Karen Peters and Inger Erickson, and
the Water Services and Parks and Recreation departments.
Page 308
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Manager at Risk Preconstruction Services - WS85500440 (Ordinance S-47674)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with PCL Construction, Inc. to provide Construction Manager at Risk Preconstruction
Services for the 16-Inch Zone 1 Carver to Elliot roads from 51st to 35th avenues
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 $30,000.
Summary
The purpose of this project is to install approximately 11,339 feet of 16-inch
combination transmission and distribution pipe, valves, fittings, hydrants and service
connections. Particular care must be exercised in the area of existing and abandoned
El Paso Natural Gas lines and a City of Phoenix 54-inch water transmission main, as
well as Salt River Project (SRP) irrigation canals, ditches, and pipes in the area.
Additionally, the right of way is split between the City of Phoenix and Maricopa County.
PCL Construction, Inc. (PCL) will begin in an agency support role for Construction
Manager at Risk Preconstruction Services. PCL will assume the risk of delivering the
project through a Guaranteed Maximum Price agreement.
PCL's services include, but are not limited to: providing a detailed cost estimate and
knowledge of marketplace conditions, provide project planning and scheduling, provide
for construction phasing and scheduling that will minimize interruption and to City
operations and to provide alternate systems evaluation and constructability studies. A
Small Business Enterprise goal will be established for this project upon substantial
completion of Preconstruction Services and prior to the start of construction.
This Agreement is essential to the health, safety, and welfare of the public and critical
operations for the City.
Procurement Information
The selection was made using a qualifications-based selection process set forth in
Page 309
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. Six firms submitted proposals
and are listed below.
Selected Firm
Rank 1: PCL Construction, Inc.
Additional Proposers
Rank 2: Achen-Gardner Construction, LLC
Rank 3: Hunter Contracting Co.
Rank 4: TALIS Construction Corporation
Rank 5: B&F Contracting, Inc.
Rank 6: Haydon Building Corp.
Contract Term
The term of the agreement is 260 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 PCL will not exceed $30,000, 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
Carver to Elliot roads from 51st to 35th avenues
Council District: 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Karen Peters and Mario Paniagua,
the Water Services Department, and the City Engineer.
Page 310
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Phoenix Pressure Reducing Valve Station - WS85500455 (Ordinance S-47677)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a Trenching
Agreement with Arizona Public Service to provide new electrical service for a Pressure
Reducing Valve station located near 51st Avenue and Union Hills Drive for City of
Phoenix project WS85500455. Further 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
would be prohibited by Phoenix City Code 42-18. There is no financial impact to the
Summary
The City is constructing a pressure reducing valve station that will require new
electrical service for operational purposes. The Trenching Agreement is required by
Arizona Public Service (APS) in order to proceed with electrical design, as well as
installation of necessary facilities to provide power for the City’s requested needs and
is being executed with a zero dollar cost.
Contract Term
The term of the agreement will begin on or about June 16, 2021, and will expire when
the project is completed and accepted.
Financial Impact
There is no financial impact to the City of Phoenix.
Location
Near 51st Avenue and Union Hills Drive
Council District: 1
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Mario Paniagua and Karen Peters,
and the Street Transportation and Water Services departments.
Page 311
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Agreement 147292 with Synagro of California, LLC, to provide additional funding to the
contract. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to
this item. The additional expenditures will not exceed $2,596,000.
Summary
Biosolids are a byproduct of the wastewater treatment process. Synagro of California,
LLC is responsible for transporting, reusing and disposing of digested biosolids for the
Water Services Department 23rd Avenue and 91st Avenue Wastewater Treatment
Plants (WWTP).
This amendment is necessary due to an increase in the volume of biosolids being
processed at the 91st Avenue WWTP. Load fees are based on weight and frequency,
both of which have increased.
Financial Impact
The initial agreement for Biosolids Removal Services was authorized for a fee not-to-
exceed $12 million. An amendment increased the authorization for the agreement by
$741,000, for a total value not-to-exceed $12,741,000. This amendment will increase
the authorization for the agreement by an additional $2,596,000, for a new total not-to-
exceed agreement value of $15,337,000.
Funding for this amendment is available in the Water Services Department's Operating
budget.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved:
· Biosolids Removal Services Agreement 147292 (Ordinance S-44478) on April 18,
2018; and
· Biosolids Removal Services Agreement 147292 - Amendment (Ordinance S-46608)
on May 20, 2020.
Page 312
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters and the Water Services
Department.
Page 313
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Garter Snake for Operations of Modified Roosevelt Dam (Ordinance S-47687)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with Salt River Project to share costs for requirements related to the Northern Mexican
Garter Snake, a threatened species, proportional to Phoenix’s allotted New
Conservation Space storage in Modified Roosevelt Dam’s total storage. This will be in
alignment with the Modified Roosevelt Dam incidental take permit and associated
Roosevelt Habitat Conservation Plan to obtain coverage under the Endangered
Species Act for the Northern Mexican Garter Snake for operations of Modified
Roosevelt Dam. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item. The agreement value will not exceed $150,000.
Summary
In 2003, the Fish and Wildlife Service issued Salt River Project (SRP) an incidental
take permit under Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act for certain listed species
for operation of the Modified Roosevelt Dam. In 2010, near Theodore Roosevelt Lake,
the Northern Mexican Garter Snake was found in the vicinity. In 2014, the Northern
Mexican Garter Snake was listed as a threatened species. SRP has obtained a
research permit to perform scientific research to better understand the Northern
Mexican Garter Snake’s long-term survival needs in the vicinity of Theodore Roosevelt
Lake. The research permit provides short-term coverage for the incidental take of
Northern Mexican Garter Snake from operation of the Modified Roosevelt Dam's
Active Conservation Space and New Conservation Space storage. The Water Services
Department will share costs associated with the long-term survival of the Northern
Mexican Garter Snake. In doing so, in collaboration with SRP, the City of Phoenix will
safeguard the continued availability of Phoenix’s allotted New Conservation Space
storage.
Procurement Information
In accordance with City of Phoenix Administrative Regulation 3.10, competitive
procurement was waived as a result of a Determination Memo citing there is an
unusual nature of the goods or services that require a specific vendor due to SRP’s
network of private and public partners funding the project for the Northern Mexican
Garter Snake. SRP provides a one-of-a-kind opportunity for the City to fund
Page 314
collaborative projects that positively impact Phoenix’s allotted New Conservation
Space storage and environmental improvements.
Contract Term
The agreement will expire upon the completion of the project or the full expenditure of
Phoenix's $150,000 share of the cost, whichever occurs first.
Financial Impact
The agreement value of the agreement is not to exceed $150,000.
Funding for this agreement is available in the Water Services Department’s Operating
budget.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters and the Water Services
Department.
Page 315
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to ratify existing purchase
orders and enter into an agreement with TR International Trading Company to provide
liquid copper sulfate as an emergency alternative product to acidified copper sulfate
used for water treatment. Further request to authorize execution of amendments to the
agreement as necessary within the Council-approved expenditure authority, and for
the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The expenditures will not
exceed $192,111.
Summary
The purpose of this agreement is to purchase liquid copper sulfate as an alternative
product to acidified copper sulfate for the Water Services Department (WSD) Water
Production Division's 24th Street and Val Vista Water Treatment Plants (WTPs). During
the warmer summer months (May through October), the WTPs normally use acidified
copper sulfate crystals to suppress algae growth in treated water. Algae growth is
primarily triggered by the high summer temperatures and sun exposure.
WSD has an existing agreement with Chemrite, Inc. (Agreement 153960) to provide
acidified copper sulfate. On April 20, 2021, Chemrite, Inc. notified WSD that acidified
copper sulfate was no longer available in the marketplace due to shortages of key raw
materials. In response, WSD determined that it would be in the best interest of the City
to obtain an alternative product to suppress algae growth (liquid copper sulfate) before
the inventory of acidified copper sulfate was completely depleted.
Procurement Information
WSD issued a Request for Information (RFI) to identify the availability of liquid copper
sulfate and subsequently obtained a quote for the product. An emergency
determination was obtained to purchase the liquid copper sulfate from TR International
Trading Company.
An exception to the procurement process was determined to select the contractor set
forth in City of Phoenix Administrative Regulation 3.10. A direct selection was made
because there exists a threat to public health, welfare or safety where the normal
procurement sourcing methods and payment authorization was not followed.
Page 316
Contract Term
The agreement's term will begin on or about June 16, 2021 and extend to Oct. 31,
2021.
Financial Impact
The agreement value for TR International Trading Company will not exceed $192,111.
Funding is available in the Water Services Department's operating budget.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters and the Water Services
Department.
Page 317
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Road and 19th Avenue
Plat: 200626
Project: 15-3108
Name of Plat: Norterra PUD Parcel 22
Owner(s): US Relp Norterra East, LLC
Engineer: Thomas R Gettings
Request: 162 Lot Detached Single Family Subdivision
Reviewed by Staff: May 12, 2021
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 southwest corner of Jomax Road and 19th Avenue
Council District: 1
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 318
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
15th Ave and Happy Valley Road
Plat: 200588
Project: 18-1700
Name of Plat: 200588
Owner(s): Red Hawk Garage Suites-DV LLC
Engineer: David S. Klein
Request: 1 Lot Commercial Plat
Reviewed by Staff: May 13, 2021
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 15th Ave and Happy Valley Road
Council District: 1
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 319
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
and Pinnacle Peak Road
Plat: 200632
Project: 20-2549
Name of Plat: Hopewell 7th Pinnacle
Owner(s): AZ Deer Valley Industrial, LP
Engineer(s): Keako, Inc.
Request: 2 Lot Commercial Plat
Reviewed by Staff: May 11, 2021
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 7th Street and Pinnacle Peak Road
Council District: 1 and 2
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 320
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Avenue and Sunland Avenue
Plat: 200628
Project: 19-4421
Name of Plat: 11th Avenue Subdivision
Owner(s): Lexington Communities, LLC
Engineer(s): Keogh Engineering, Inc.
Request: A 11 Lot Residential Plat
Reviewed by Staff: May 6, 2021
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 northeast corner of 11th Avenue and Sunland Avenue.
Council District: 7
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 321
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Avenue
Plat: 200604
Project: 19-3925
Name of Plat: Laveen 23
Owner(s): AMH Development, LLC
Engineer: Robert Blake; Clouse Engineering, Inc.
Request: 23 Lot Residential Single Family Subdivision Plat
Reviewed by Staff: May 17, 2021
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 223 feet north of the northeast corner of 43rd Avenue and Vineyard
Road
Council District: 7
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 322
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
107th Avenue and Broadway Road
Plat: 200618
Project: 02-2183
Name of Plat: Sunset Farms Parcel 4
Owner: GWH Sunset Farms LLC.
Engineer: Richard G Alcocer
Request: 16 Lot Residential Plat
Reviewed by Staff: May 17, 2021
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 210008. The
sequence of recording to be followed is that the resolution of abandonment is recorded
first, then the plat is recorded second.
Location
Generally located at the northeast corner of 107th Avenue and Broadway Road
Council District: 7
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 323
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Avenue and 38th Street
Plat: 200559
Project: 20-1061
Name of Plat: Phoenix Pipelines
Owner(s): Phoenix Pipelines, Inc.
Engineer(s): Alliance Land Surveying, Inc.
Request: A 1 Lot Commercial Plat
Reviewed by Staff: Sept. 22, 2020
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. Abandonment 200522 must be scheduled concurrently with this plat.
Location
Generally located at the southeast corner of Winslow Avenue and 38th Street.
Council District: 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 324
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
and Baseline Road
Plat: 200608
Project: 19-4199
Name of Plat: Take 5 Oil Change
Owner(s): The Emas Family Trust, Dated October 1998
Engineer(s): Bryan G. Goetzenberger, RLS
Request: A 2 Lot Commercial Plat
Reviewed by Staff: May 7, 2021
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 48th Street and Baseline Road.
Council District: 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 325
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
(Resolution 21931)
Abandonment: ABND 200562
Project: 01-237
Applicant: Cave Creek Road Partners LLC
Request: To abandon the 25-foot Multi Use Trail Easement located along the eastern
property line at the parcel on the west side of Cave Creek Road and south of Utopia
Road, identified as parcel APN 213-80-452.
Date of Decision/Hearing: February 18, 2021
Location
9226 North Cave Creek 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 Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 326
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
and Northern Avenue (Resolution 21929)
Abandonment: ABND 210004
Project: 20-952
Applicant: Ashley Zimmerman Marsh, Tiffany & Bosco
Request: To abandon a 1 foot vehicular non-access easement (VNAE) along the
western perimeter of APN 151-02-011F.
Date of Decision/Hearing: March 18, 2021
Location
Southwest Corner of 31st Avenue and Northern Avenue
Council District: 5
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 Ginger Spencer the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 327
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
(Resolution 21930)
Abandonment: ABND 200520
Project: 01-19072
Applicant(s):
Request:To abandon a 4-foot public utility easement at the southern portion of parcel
identified APN 161-21-005 and a 4-foot public utility easement at the northern
boundary of parcel identified APN 161-21-004, recorded on final subdivision plat for "El
Sol," recorded with Maricopa County Recorder, Book 048, page 29.
Date of Decision/Hearing:June 30, 2020
Location
6810 & 6815 North 2nd Street
Council District: 6
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 Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 328
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
and Broadway Road (Resolution 21933)
Abandonment: ABND 210008
Project: 02-2183
Applicant: Douglas W. Chubin, P.E., Coe and Van Loo Consultants, Inc.
Request: To abandon a 1-foot vehicular non-access easement (VNAE) on Lots 1-16 on
Sunset Farms Parcel 4 (APN 101-31-477 through 101-31-492, inclusive). The 1-foot
vehicular non-access easement (VNAE) was dedicated through PLAT 190013.
Date of Decision/Hearing: April 9, 2021
Summary
The resolution of the abandonment and PLAT 200618 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 of abandonment is recorded first, then
the plat is recorded second.
Location
Northeast Corner of 107th Avenue and Broadway Road
Council District: 7
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 Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 329
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
21932)
Abandonment: ABND 200522
Project: 20-1061
Applicant: Phoenix Pipelines Inc.
Request: To abandon a 16-foot public utility easement on lots 7-14 recorded on final
subdivision on plat "Williams Okemah Addition Amended," recorded with Maricopa
County Recorder, Book 041, page 26.
Date of Decision/Hearing: September 10, 2020
Summary
The resolution of the abandonment and PLAT 200559 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
2849 South 38th Street
Council District: 8
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 Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 330
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request to authorize the City Manager to amend Section 601 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance by adopting Official Supplementary Zoning Map 1219. This amendment
reflects that the property owner has met all of the rezoning conditions previously
approved by City Council with Z-89-04 and the entitlements are fully vested.
Summary
To rezone a parcel located approximately 1,091 feet east of the southeast corner of 7th
Street and Deer Valley Road.
Application No.: Z-89-04
Zoning: A-1
Owner: KeyBank Natl Assoc & Geupel Family LP
Acreage: 144.64
Location
Approximately 1,091 feet east of the southeast corner of 7th Street and Deer Valley
Road..
Council District: 2
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 331
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE G-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 601 OF THE CITY
OF PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE BY ADOPTING
OFFICIAL SUPPLEMENTARY ZONING MAP 1219
____________
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX as
follows:
SECTION 1. That Section 601 of the City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance is
hereby amended by adopting Official Supplementary Zoning Map 1219 signed by the
Mayor and City Clerk, which is accompanies and is annexed to this ordinance and
declared a part hereof.
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 16th day of June, 2021.
_____________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________ City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Page 332
_________________________ City Attorney
REVIEWED BY:
_________________________ City Manager
Page 333
Attachment B
OFFICIAL SUPPLEMENTARY ZONING MAP NO. 1219 Sheet 1 of 1
ORDINANCE NO. AMENDING SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE
Passed by the Council of the City of Phoenix, Arizona this 16th day of June 2021.
E DEER VALLEY RD N 7TH ST
Page 334
A-1*
Z-89-04
ZONING SUBJECT TO STIPULATIONS: *
Drawn by: LW
_______ AREA INVOLVED BOUNDED THUS:
DEER VALLEY RD
DR
R
LTE
SA
11TH PL
8TH WAY
LONE C A
CTUS DR
7TH ST
Page 335 9TH PL
COVEY LN
12TH ST
8T
H
ST ROSS AVE
7TH PL
9TH ST
Zoning Map: N-8
Quarter Section: 42-29 Property Location: Area that requires a Supp Map/ Case:89-04/Zoning: A-1
0 625 1,250
Planning & Development Department
Feet ´
Page 336
Page 337
Page 338
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request to authorize the City Manager to amend Section 601 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance by adopting Official Supplementary Zoning Map 1218. This amendment
reflects that the property owner has met all of the rezoning conditions previously
approved by City Council with Z-7-12-3 and the entitlements are fully vested.
Summary
To rezone a parcel located approximately 300 feet east of the northeast corner of 42nd
Street and Cactus Road.
Application No.: Z-7-12-3
Zoning: R-5 PCD
Owner: WW Cactus 88, LLC
Acreage: 5.06
Location
Approximately 300 feet east of the northeast corner of 42nd Street and Cactus Road
Address: 4232, 4238, and 4242 E. Cactus Road
Council District: 3
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 339
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE G-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 601 OF THE CITY
OF PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE BY ADOPTING
OFFICIAL SUPPLEMENTARY ZONING MAP 1218
____________
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX as
follows:
SECTION 1. That Section 601 of the City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance is
hereby amended by adopting Official Supplementary Zoning Map 1218 signed by the
Mayor and City Clerk, which is accompanies and is annexed to this ordinance and
declared a part hereof.
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 16th day of June, 2021.
_____________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________ City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Page 340
_________________________ City Attorney
REVIEWED BY:
_________________________ City Manager
Page 341
Attachment B
OFFICIAL SUPPLEMENTARY ZONING MAP NO. 1218 Sheet 1 of 1
ORDINANCE NO. AMENDING SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE
Passed by the Council of the City of Phoenix, Arizona this 16th day of June 2021.
EL
AR
KS
PU
RD
R
N 40TH PL
N 42ND ST
Page 342 N 41S T PL
R-5 PCD* AR
NP
AD
IS
AG
V ILL
E
RD K
S EP
TU
AC WY
EC
W
Z-7-12
ZONING SUBJECT TO STIPULATIONS: *
Drawn by: KS
_______ AREA INVOLVED BOUNDED THUS:
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Hearing Officer Action - PHO-4-21--Z-14-05-1- Southeast Corner of 7th Avenue
and Happy Valley Road
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 May 19, 2021. This ratification requires formal
action only.
Summary
Application: PHO-4-21--Z-14-05-1
Existing Zoning: A-1 DVAO
Acreage: 16.14
Applicant: Strata Solar
Owner: Happy Valley II LLC
Representative: Chris Webb, Rose Law Group
Proposal:
1. Modification of Stipulation 1 regarding general conformance to site plans date
stamped August 13, 2007 (PHO-1-07 and PHO-2-14) and October 3, 2014 (PHO-2-
14).
2. Deletion of Stipulation 2 regarding a master architectural theme (PHO-1-07 and
PHO-2-14).
3. Deletion of Stipulation 4 regarding two pedestrian access points to the regional trail
system (PHO-1-07 and PHO-2-14).
4. Modification of Stipulation 7 regarding recording documents that disclose the
existence and characteristics of Goodrich-Universal Propulsion Company (PHO-1-07
and PHO-2-14).
5. Technical corrections to Stipulations 3 and 5 (PHO-1-07).
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation: The Deer Valley Village
Planning Committee heard this case on May 13, 2021 and recommended approval by
a 10-1 vote.
Page 343
Planning Hearing Officer Recommendation: The Planning Hearing Officer heard this
case on May 19, 2021, and recommended approval with a modification and additional
stipulations. Please see Attachment A for a complete list of the Planning Hearing
Officer's recommended stipulations.
Location
Southeast corner of 7th Avenue and Happy Valley Road
Council District: 1
Parcel Address: N/A
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 344
Attachment A- Stipulations- PHO-4-21--Z-14-05-1
Location: Southeast corner of 7th Avenue and Happy Valley Road
Stipulations: PHO-1-07—Z-14-05-1
PHO recommended legislative edit of stipulations applicable to that portion of
the site subject to PHO-1-07—Z-14-05-1.
GENERAL CONFORMANCE
1. That development shall be in general conformance with the site plan
date stamped August 31, 2007, as approved or modified by the
Development Services Department.
2. That a master architectural theme, that unifies the landscaping and
building materials for all development, shall be approved concurrent
with preliminary site plan approval for the first phase of development as
approved by the Development Services Department.
1. That An average 20-foot (minimum 10-foot) landscape setback shall be
3. provided along 7th Avenue and Misty Willow Lane and an average 10-
foot (minimum 5-foot) landscape setback shall be provided along all
internal streets, as approved by the PLANNING AND Development
Services Department.
TRAILS
4. That the applicant shall provide two pedestrian access points to the
regional trail system located adjacent to the CAP Canal via the two
public streets adjacent to the canal, as approved by the Development
Services Department.
LANDSCAPING
2. That Landscaping shall be provided within parking lots per C-2 zoning
5. district standards (Section 701.d), as approved by the PLANNING AND
Development Services Department.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL
3. That The subject site has the potential to contain archaeological
6. resources. That The applicant shall submit an archaeological survey
for review and approval by the City Archaeologist (602) 495-0901
prior to preliminary approval.
NOTIFICATION
4. That, At such time as the sale of any parcel, the property owner shall
7. record documents that disclose to purchasers or occupants of property
within the development(s) the existence and operational characteristics
Page 345
of Deer Valley Airport and Goodrich-Universal Propulsion Company.
The form and content of such documents shall be reviewed by the City
Attorney.
5. THE PROPERTY OWNER SHALL RECORD DOCUMENTS THAT
DISCLOSE TO PROSPECTIVE PURCHASERS OF PROPERTY
WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENTS THE NATURE OF ENVIRONMENTAL
REMEDIATION ACTIVITIES AT THE FORMER SITE OF THE
GOODRICH UNIVERSAL PROPULSION COMPANY. 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.
STREETS AND TRANSPORTATION
6. That Right-of-way totaling 70 feet shall be dedicated for the south half
8. of Happy Valley Road.
7. That A 21-foot by 21-foot right-of-way triangle shall be dedicated at
9. the southeast corner of 7th Avenue and Happy Valley Road.
8. THE DEVELOPER SHALL PERFECT THE EXISTING 55-FOOT
RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT FOR THE EAST HALF OF 7TH
AVENUE, AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT.
9. THE DEVELOPER SHALL DEDICATE A 10-FOOT SIDEWALK
EASEMENT FOR THE EAST SIDE OF 7TH AVENUE, AS APPROVED
BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
10. THE DEVELOPER SHALL PROVIDE A MINIMUM 5-FOOT-WIDE
DETACHED SIDEWALK ALONG PROPERTY FRONTAGES, AS
APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT.
11. THE DEVELOPER SHALL PROVIDE CONDUIT AND JUNCTION
BOXES AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF 7TH AVENUE AND
HAPPY VALLEY ROAD. THE DEVELOPER SHALL PROVIDE 25% OF
THE COST OF THE FUTURE TRAFFIC SIGNAL IN AN ESCROW
ACCOUNT WITH THE STREET TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT.
12. That Sufficient right-of-way shall be dedicated to accommodate a
10. bus-bay on Happy Valley Road at 7th Avenue.
13. THE DEVELOPER SHALL DEDICATE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND
CONSTRUCT ONE BUS STOP PAD ALONG EASTBOUND HAPPY
VALLEY ROAD EAST OF 7TH AVENUE. BUS STOP PAD SHALL BE
CONSTRUCTED ACCORDING TO CITY OF PHOENIX STANDARD
DETAIL P1260 WITH A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 10 FEET. BUS STOP
PAD SHALL BE SPACED FROM THE INTERSECTION OF HAPPY
VALLEY ROAD AND 7TH AVENUE ACCORDING TO CITY OF
Page 346
PHOENIX STANDARD DETAIL P1258. TREES SHALL BE PLACED
TO PROVIDE 50% SHADE COVERAGE TO BUS STOP PAD AT FULL
MATURITY.
14. That The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to
11. the development with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps,
streetlights, median islands, landscaping and other incidentals as per
plans approved by the City. All improvements shall comply with all
ADA accessibility standards.
15. That The applicant shall submit paving plans for all arterial streets
12. within and adjacent to the development, to the Street Transportation
Department for review and approval.
16. That The applicant shall complete and submit the Developer Project
13. Information Form for the MAG Transportation Improvement Program
to the Street Transportation Department. This form is a requirement
of the EPA to meet clean air quality requirements.
17. PRIOR TO PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE
LANDOWNER SHALL EXECUTE A PROPOSITION 207 WAIVER
OF CLAIMS IN A FORM APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY’S
OFFICE. A 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.
Stipulations: PHO-2-14—Z-14-05-1
PHO recommended legislative edit of stipulations applicable to that portion of
the site subject to PHO-2-14—Z-14-05-1.
1. That development shall be in general conformance to the site plan date
stamped August 13, 2007 and the site plan date stamped October 3,
2014, as approved or modified by the Planning and Development
Department.
2. That a master architectural theme, that unifies the landscaping and
building materials for future development, shall be approved concurrent
with preliminary site plan approval for the subsequent phases of
development as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
1. That An average 20-foot (minimum 10-foot) landscape setback shall be
3. provided along 7th Avenue and Misty Willow Lane and an average 10-
foot (minimum 5-foot) landscape setback shall be provided along all
internal streets, as approved by the PLANNING AND Development
Services Department.
Page 347
Trails
4. That the applicant shall provide two pedestrian access points to the
regional trail system located adjacent to the CAP Canal via the two public
streets adjacent to the canal, as approved by the Development Services
Department.
Landscaping
2. That Landscaping shall be provided within parking lots per C-2 zoning
5. district standards (Section 701.d), as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
Archaeological
3. The subject site has the potential to contain archaeological resources.
6. That The applicant shall submit an archaeological survey for review
and approval by the City Archaeologist (602) 495-0901 prior to
preliminary approval.
Notification
4. That, At such time as the sale of any parcel, the property owner shall
7. record documents that disclose to purchasers or occupants of property
within the development(s) the existence and operational characteristics of
Deer Valley Airport and Goodrich-Universal Propulsion Company. The
form and content of such documents shall be reviewed by the City
Attorney.
5. THE PROPERTY OWNER SHALL RECORD DOCUMENTS THAT
DISCLOSE TO PROSPECTIVE PURCHASERS OF PROPERTY
WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENTS THE NATURE OF ENVIRONMENTAL
REMEDIATION ACTIVITIES AT THE FORMER SITE OF THE
GOODRICH UNIVERSAL PROPULSION COMPANY. 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.
Street Transportation
6. That Right-of-way totaling 70 feet shall be dedicated for the south half of
8. Happy Valley Road.
7. That A 21-foot by 21-foot right-of-way triangle shall be dedicated at the
9. southeast corner of 7th Avenue and Happy Valley Road.
8. THE DEVELOPER SHALL PERFECT THE EXISTING 55-FOOT RIGHT-
OF-WAY EASEMENT FOR THE EAST HALF OF 7TH AVENUE, AS
APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
Page 348
9. THE DEVELOPER SHALL DEDICATE A 10-FOOT SIDEWALK
EASEMENT FOR THE EAST SIDE OF 7TH AVENUE, AS APPROVED
BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
10. THE DEVELOPER SHALL PROVIDE A MINIMUM 5-FOOT-WIDE
DETACHED SIDEWALK ALONG PROPERTY FRONTAGES, AS
APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
11. THE DEVELOPER SHALL PROVIDE CONDUIT AND JUNCTION
BOXES AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF 7TH AVENUE AND
HAPPY VALLEY ROAD. THE DEVELOPER SHALL PROVIDE 25% OF
THE COST OF THE FUTURE TRAFFIC SIGNAL IN AN ESCROW
ACCOUNT WITH THE STREET TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT.
12. That Sufficient right-of-way shall be dedicated to accommodate a bus-
10. bay on Happy Valley Road at 7th Avenue.
13. THE DEVELOPER SHALL DEDICATE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND
CONSTRUCT ONE BUS STOP PAD ALONG EASTBOUND HAPPY
VALLEY ROAD EAST OF 7TH AVENUE. BUS STOP PAD SHALL BE
CONSTRUCTED ACCORDING TO CITY OF PHOENIX STANDARD
DETAIL P1260 WITH A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 10 FEET. BUS STOP
PAD SHALL BE SPACED FROM THE INTERSECTION OF HAPPY
VALLEY ROAD AND 7TH AVENUE ACCORDING TO CITY OF
PHOENIX STANDARD DETAIL P1258. TREES SHALL BE PLACED TO
PROVIDE 50% SHADE COVERAGE TO BUS STOP PAD AT FULL
MATURITY.
14. That The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the
11. development with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps,
streetlights, median islands, landscaping and other incidentals as per
plans approved by the City. All improvements shall comply with all ADA
accessibility standards.
15. That The applicant shall submit paving plans for all arterial streets
12. within and adjacent to the development to the Street Transportation
Department for review and approval.
16. That The applicant shall complete and submit the Developer Project
13. Information Form for the MAG Transportation Improvement Program to
the Street Transportation Department. This form is a requirement of the
EPA to meet clean air quality requirements.
17. That Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall
14. execute a Proposition 207 waiver of claims in a form approved by the
City Attorney’s Office. A 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 349
Final Stipulations: PHO-4-21—Z-14-05-1
Final stipulations reflecting the PHO recommended legislative edit of both PHO-
1-07 and PHO-2-14, resulting in a single approval letter for PHO-4-21—Z-14-05-1.
See Finding #1 for detailed information.
1. An average 20-foot (minimum 10-foot) landscape setback shall be
provided along 7th Avenue and Misty Willow Lane and an average 10-
foot (minimum 5-foot) landscape setback shall be provided along all
internal streets, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
2. Landscaping shall be provided within parking lots per C-2 zoning district
standards (Section 701.d), as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
3. The subject site has the potential to contain archaeological
resources. The applicant shall submit an archaeological survey for
review and approval by the City Archaeologist (602) 495-0901 prior to
preliminary approval.
4. At such time as the sale of any parcel, the property owner shall record
documents that disclose to purchasers or occupants of property within
the development(s) the existence and operational characteristics of
Deer Valley Airport. The form and content of such documents shall be
reviewed by the City Attorney.
5. The property owner shall record documents that disclose to prospective
purchasers of property within the developments the nature of
environmental remediation activities at the former site of the Goodrich
Universal Propulsion Company. 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. Right-of-way totaling 70 feet shall be dedicated for the south half of
Happy Valley Road.
7. A 21-foot by 21-foot right-of-way triangle shall be dedicated at the
southeast corner of 7th Avenue and Happy Valley Road.
8. The developer shall perfect the existing 55-foot right-of-way easement
for the east half of 7th Avenue, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
9. The developer shall dedicate a 10-foot sidewalk easement for the east
side of 7th Avenue, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
Page 350
10. The developer shall provide a minimum 5-foot-wide detached sidewalk
along property frontages, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
11. The developer shall provide conduit and junction boxes at the
southeast corner of 7th avenue and happy valley road. The developer
shall provide 25% of the cost of the future traffic signal in an escrow
account with the street transportation department.
12. Sufficient right-of-way shall be dedicated to accommodate a bus-bay
on Happy Valley Road at 7th Avenue.
13. The developer shall dedicate right-of-way and construct one bus stop
pad along eastbound Happy Valley Road east of 7th Avenue. Bus stop
pad shall be constructed according to City of Phoenix Standard Detail
P1260 with a minimum depth of 10 feet. Bus stop pad shall be spaced
from the intersection of Happy Valley Road and 7th Avenue according
to City of Phoenix Standard Detail P1258. Trees shall be placed to
provide 50% shade coverage to bus stop pad at full maturity.
14. 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 City. All improvements shall comply with all
ADA accessibility standards.
15. The applicant shall submit paving plans for all arterial streets within
and adjacent to the development, to the Street Transportation
Department for review and approval.
16. The applicant shall complete and submit the Developer Project
Information Form for the MAG Transportation Improvement Program
to the Street Transportation Department. This form is a requirement
of the EPA to meet clean air quality requirements.
17. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a
Proposition 207 waiver of claims in a form approved by the City
Attorney’s Office. A 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 351
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Hearing Officer Action - PHO-5-21--Z-111-98-7- Approximately 238 Feet East of
the Southeast Corner of 67th Avenue and Lower Buckeye Road
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 May 19, 2021. This ratification requires formal
action only.
Summary
Application: PHO-5-21--Z-111-98-7
Existing Zoning: C-1
Acreage: 3.28
Applicant: The Carioca Company
Owner: RG3 Solar LLC
Representative: Jeff Winter, Esencia LLC
Proposal:
1. Deletion of Stipulation 26.c regarding review and approval of conceptual site plan
and elevations for Phase II development.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation: The Estrella Village Planning
Committee heard this case on May 18, 2021 and recommended denial, by a 5-0 vote.
Planning Hearing Officer Recommendation: The Planning Hearing Officer heard this
case on May 19, 2021, and recommended denial as filed and approval with a
modification and additional stipulation. Please see Attachment A for a complete list of
the Planning Hearing Officer's recommended stipulations.
Location
Approximately 238 feet east of the southeast corner of 67th Avenue and Lower
Buckeye Road
Council District: 7
Parcel Address: N/A
Page 352
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 353
Attachment A- Stipulations- PHO-5-21--Z-111-98-7
Location: Approximately 238 feet east of the southeast corner of 67th Avenue and
Lower Buckeye Road
Stipulations:
1. The development of the R1-8 shall be in general conformance to the site plan
dated October 6, 1998, and the development shall include the open space
elements, landscape tracts, and perimeter setbacks as described in the
submitted Riverside Heights Rezoning Request and Plan of Development
document dated October 9, 1998. If the commercial portion of this request is
denied, stub street access shall be provided to accommodate residential
development as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
2. Development shall be under the Planned Residential Development option.
3. The open space area shall provide active amenities for recreation activities
such as tennis courts, volleyball, playgrounds and picnic areas, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.
4. The minimum residential lot depth shall be 110 feet.
5. The housing elevations shall provide pop-outs or other window detailing on the
front elevations and on those side and rear elevations adjacent to streets.
6. Garage door windows should be an option on any available model.
7. The living space of a house and/or the entry shall be set back no more than
10-14 feet from the garage for 75% of those properties that have lot widths of
less than 55 feet.
8. Staggered front yard setbacks shall occur for every third lot for those properties
with less than 55 feet in lot width.
9. There shall be floor plans that have front porches as an optional element.
10. The project fencing shall consist of block, which shall be finished with a smooth
texture or decorative design on the outside surface (no unfinished block) or
may be of wrought iron, steel, or aluminum.
11. Wherever properties face out into the common open space areas, viewing
fencing shall be provided.
12. At least three distinctive elevations shall be provided for each standard plan.
13. Accent materials including brick or stone shall be options available for all
models.
Page 354
14. All subdivision entrances located at 63rd Avenue and Lower Buckeye Road
and the local streets extending from the entrances to the open space tracts
shall include detached sidewalks behind a landscaped strip and the curb. The
landscape shall include trees and live ground cover.
15. The applicant shall utilize dual pane windows, solid core doors, and additional
insulation which is higher than R-19 on the east exterior walls of those
residential units adjacent to 63rd Avenue.
16. Right-of-way totaling 40 feet and a 10-foot sidewalk easement shall be
dedicated for the south half of Lower Buckeye Road.
17. Right-of-way totaling 40 feet and a 10-foot sidewalk easement shall be
dedicated for the east half of 67th Avenue.
18. Right-of-way totaling 30 feet shall be dedicated for the west half of 63rd
Avenue.
19. An 18-foot by 18-foot right-of-way triangle shall be dedicated at the southwest
corner of 63rd Avenue and Lower Buckeye Road.
20. Right-of-way dedication and street alignments for local streets within the
subdivision will be determined by the Planning and Development Department
at the time of Preliminary Subdivision Plat Review.
21. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the
development with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights,
landscaping and other incidentals as per plans approved by the City. All
improvements shall comply with all ADA accessibility standards.
22. If the City Council adopts an infrastructure financing program for the Estrella
Village, the developer of this property agrees to participate in the program. The
Estrella Village boundaries are from Interstate 17/19th Avenue to 107th
Avenue and from Interstate 10 to the Rio Salado.
23. The developer of this property will participate in any future Estrella Village
Major Street Landscape Program prior to final site plan/plat approval if such a
program is adopted by the City Council. The landscape program will impact the
major streets abutting this property.
24. The developer agrees to participate in a Master Drainage/Open Space Study
for the Estrella Village prior to preliminary site plan/plat approval to ensure
linkage between developments and the Rio Salado.
25. The developer agrees to work with the local school district in acquiring and
providing infrastructure services for a new school location.
The following stipulations apply to the C-1 portion of the site:
26. Site Plan and Elevations:
Page 355
a. The Phase I development shall be in general conformance with the site
plan date stamped January 18, 2019, as approved or modified by the
Planning and Development Department.
b. The developer shall present Phase I elevations to the Estrella Village
Planning Committee for review and comment prior to final site plan
approval.
c. THE PHASE II DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE IN GENERAL
CONFORMANCE WITH THE SITE PLAN AND ELEVATIONS DATE
STAMPED MARCH 16, 2021, AS APPROVED OR MODIFIED BY THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
Conceptual site plan and elevations for the Phase II development shall be
reviewed and approved by the Planning Hearing Officer through the
public hearing process for stipulation modification prior to preliminary site
plan approval. This is a legislative review for conceptual purposes only.
Specific development standards and requirements may be determined by
the Planning Hearing Officer and the Planning and Development
Department.
D. THE DEVELOPER SHALL PRESENT PHASE II ELEVATIONS FOR THE
FUTURE BUILDING PAD, AS DEPICTED ON THE SITE PLAN DATE
STAMPED MARCH 16, 2021, TO THE ESTRELLA VILLAGE PLANNING
COMMITTEE FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT PRIOR TO FINAL SITE
PLAN APPROVAL.
27. Access shall be limited to two driveways onto 67th Avenue and two driveways
onto Lower Buckeye Road as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
28. The site shall be developed with a similar architectural and landscape theme to
include minimum 24-inch box size shade trees (spaced 20 feet on center)
along the south and east property lines, together with a minimum 50’ x 50’
landscaped entryway feature at the southeast corner of 67th Avenue and
Lower Buckeye Road as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
29. The developer shall dedicate a 30-foot wide Multi-Use Trail Easement (MUTE)
along the south side of Lower Buckeye Road and construct a 10’ wide multi-
use trail (MUT) within the easement in accordance with the MAG supplemental
detail, as approved or modified by the Parks and Recreation Department.
30. A pedestrian circulation pathway shall be provided across and through the site
by utilizing concrete sidewalks, or similar. Where said path crosses a drive-
aisle or parking surface, a material that contrasts any asphalt surface shall be
used, such as stamped concrete or brick pavers. Said path shall connect with
the northeast, northwest, and southwest corners of the site to allow easy
pedestrian access to the structure and through the site, as approved or
modified by the Planning and Development Department.
Page 356
31. 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.
32. 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.
33. 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.
Page 357
REPORT OF PLANNING HEARING OFFICER ACTION
Adam Stranieri, Planner III, Hearing Officer
Daniel Jordan, Planner I, Assisting
May 19, 2021
ITEM NO: 3
DISTRICT 7
SUBJECT:
Application #: PHO-5-21--Z-111-98-7
Location: Approximately 238 feet east of the southeast corner of 67th
Avenue and Lower Buckeye Road
Existing Zoning: C-1
Acreage: 3.28
Request: 1) Deletion of Stipulation 26.c regarding review and
approval of conceptual site plan and elevations for Phase
II development.
Applicant: The Carioca Company
Owner: RG3 Solar LLC
Representative: Jeff Winter, Esencia LLC
ACTIONS
Planning Hearing Officer Recommendation: The Planning Hearing Officer
recommended denial as filed and approval with a modification and additional
stipulation.
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation: The Estrella Village
Planning Committee heard this case on May 18, 2021 and recommended denial
by a 5-0 vote.
DISCUSSION
Jeff Winter, the representative, gave an overview of the request. He stated that
the subject property of this request is a portion of the larger commercially zoned
site at the southeast corner of 67th Avenue and Lower Buckeye Road which is
being developed as a gas station and is planned to open in approximately one
week. He stated the current request is intended to address a development
proposal for the back portion of their property which was identified as a future
phase area in the prior PHO request. He stated the development would include a
gas canopy for RVs on the east side of the property and a future pad on the
south side of the property. He stated that their initial request was for the deletion
of Stipulation 26.c regarding Planning Hearing Officer review for a conceptual
site plan and elevations for the Phase II development. He stated that concerns
were expressed at the Estrella Village Planning Committee meeting regarding
Page 358
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of May 19, 2021
Application PHO-5-21—Z-111-98-7
Page 2
the deletion and they are open to alternative modifications or additional
stipulations as needed. He noted that the Village recommended denial of the
request.
Adam Stranieri stated he had spoken with the Estrella Village Planner who noted
that the Committee was concerned that the site could be developed without
public participation if Stipulation 26.c was deleted. He asked Mr. Winter what
aspects of the submitted conceptual site plan they intended to develop
immediately. Mr. Winter stated both the driveway from 67th Avenue and the RV
gas canopy on the east would be developed in the short term. Mr. Stranieri
clarified by asking Mr. Winter if the plan is to dustproof the site, make a
continuation of the driveway, and develop the canopy on the east. Mr. Winter
agreed that is their plan, and they would provide additional landscaping around
the perimeter as well.
Mr. Stranieri stated he believed the Committee’s area of concern was the portion
of the site labeled as “future building pad.” Mr. Winter confirmed this was how he
interpreted their recommendation as well. Mr. Stranieri stated that there were a
few possible options that could address these concerns. He stated he could
retain the stipulation as recommended by the VPC but expressed concern that
this would halt the project for even the RV canopy and driveway. He stated that
he could establish a general conformance requirement for the canopy only and
leave the future building pad site for review at a future PHO. However, he noted
that the general conformance requirement applied to the entire site would also
limit modifications to the pad site in terms of setbacks, height, footprint, and other
considerations. Finally, he noted he could establish a future review requirement
for the future building pad. He stated that it was clear that the Estrella Village
Planning Committee would like to be involved in the review process for the future
building. He stated that he would recommend the Estrella Village Planning
Committee review the conceptual building elevations in a review and comment
session which would allow staff to utilize these comments during plan review.
FINDINGS
1) The subject property consists of approximately 3.28 gross acres located
east of the southeast corner of 67th Avenue and Lower Buckeye Road.
Rezoning Case No. Z-114-06 established Approved C-2 (Intermediate
Commercial) zoning on approximately 2.01 gross acres at the hard corner
of this intersection. These two cases do not directly correlate to the
existing parcel lines for the commercially zoned property at this corner. In
2019, Case Nos. PHO-1-19--Z-114-06 and PHO-4-19--Z-111-98-7 were
approved concurrently with multiple stipulation modifications, including
establishing a site plan conformance requirement for the Phase I area
(Current Stipulation 26.a in this case). The Phase II area, the subject
Page 359
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of May 19, 2021
Application PHO-5-21—Z-111-98-7
Page 3
property of this request, did not contain any specific development proposal
and therefore a PHO review requirement was established (Current
Stipulation 26.c in this case). The applicant’s proposal in this request is to
conform with this requirement for PHO review and to delete the stipulation.
2) The proposed conceptual site plan includes an RV fuel canopy with an
approximate footprint of 1,940 square feet at 20 feet in height. The fuel
canopy will serve as a component of the gas station use that is in the
Phase I development, located almost entirely within the subject property of
Rezoning Case No. Z-114-06, as described in Finding #1. The proposed
elevations depict fuel canopies consisting of painted metal panels. The
site plan and elevations are consistent with the approved gas station plans
on the adjacent parcel to the west. However, the applicant’s request for
deletion of the stipulation is recommended for denial as filed and approval
with a modification. The modification is to instead require general
conformance to the conceptual plans.
3) The conceptual site plan depicts a future building pad on the site with no
specific land use or tenant. The conceptual elevations do not include any
design for this building. The Estrella Village Planning Committee
expressed concerns regarding the unknown character of this building and
a desire to have an opportunity to evaluate future proposals for this
building. The general conformance requirement to the site plan in this
recommendation will control the development standards regarding this
building and a future public hearing would be required if the footprint,
height, or setbacks of this building change significantly. However, an
additional stipulation is required to require a public process once the
developer establishes conceptual building elevations. The recommended
stipulation is a review and comment session by the Estrella Village
Planning Committee prior to final site plan approval which will allow staff to
collect public comments for use in the plan review process.
4) The site was identified as archaeologically sensitive and archaeological
survey and testing may be required. Stipulations 31-33 were previously
established regarding these standards and no additional stipulations are
required.
5) There is a proposed privately maintained multi-use trail along the south
side of Lower Buckeye Road. Stipulation 29 was previously established
regarding the standards for this trail and no additional stipulation is
required.
DECISION: The Planning Hearing Officer recommended denial as filed and
approval with a modification and additional stipulation.
Page 360
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of May 19, 2021
Application PHO-5-21—Z-111-98-7
Page 4
STIPULATIONS
1. The development of the R1-8 shall be in general conformance to the site
plan dated October 6, 1998, and the development shall include the open
space elements, landscape tracts, and perimeter setbacks as described in
the submitted Riverside Heights Rezoning Request and Plan of
Development document dated October 9, 1998. If the commercial portion
of this request is denied, stub street access shall be provided to
accommodate residential development as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
2. Development shall be under the Planned Residential Development option.
3. The open space area shall provide active amenities for recreation
activities such as tennis courts, volleyball, playgrounds and picnic areas,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
4. The minimum residential lot depth shall be 110 feet.
5. The housing elevations shall provide pop-outs or other window detailing
on the front elevations and on those side and rear elevations adjacent to
streets.
6. Garage door windows should be an option on any available model.
7. The living space of a house and/or the entry shall be set back no more
than 10-14 feet from the garage for 75% of those properties that have lot
widths of less than 55 feet.
8. Staggered front yard setbacks shall occur for every third lot for those
properties with less than 55 feet in lot width.
9. There shall be floor plans that have front porches as an optional element.
10. The project fencing shall consist of block, which shall be finished with a
smooth texture or decorative design on the outside surface (no unfinished
block) or may be of wrought iron, steel, or aluminum.
11. Wherever properties face out into the common open space areas, viewing
fencing shall be provided.
12. At least three distinctive elevations shall be provided for each standard
plan.
Page 361
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of May 19, 2021
Application PHO-5-21—Z-111-98-7
Page 5
13. Accent materials including brick or stone shall be options available for all
models.
14. All subdivision entrances located at 63rd Avenue and Lower Buckeye
Road and the local streets extending from the entrances to the open
space tracts shall include detached sidewalks behind a landscaped strip
and the curb. The landscape shall include trees and live ground cover.
15. The applicant shall utilize dual pane windows, solid core doors, and
additional insulation which is higher than R-19 on the east exterior walls of
those residential units adjacent to 63rd Avenue.
16. Right-of-way totaling 40 feet and a 10-foot sidewalk easement shall be
dedicated for the south half of Lower Buckeye Road.
17. Right-of-way totaling 40 feet and a 10-foot sidewalk easement shall be
dedicated for the east half of 67th Avenue.
18. Right-of-way totaling 30 feet shall be dedicated for the west half of 63rd
Avenue.
19. An 18-foot by 18-foot right-of-way triangle shall be dedicated at the
southwest corner of 63rd Avenue and Lower Buckeye Road.
20. Right-of-way dedication and street alignments for local streets within the
subdivision will be determined by the Planning and Development
Department at the time of Preliminary Subdivision Plat Review.
21. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the
development with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights,
landscaping and other incidentals as per plans approved by the City. All
improvements shall comply with all ADA accessibility standards.
22. If the City Council adopts an infrastructure financing program for the
Estrella Village, the developer of this property agrees to participate in the
program. The Estrella Village boundaries are from Interstate 17/19th
Avenue to 107th Avenue and from Interstate 10 to the Rio Salado.
23. The developer of this property will participate in any future Estrella Village
Major Street Landscape Program prior to final site plan/plat approval if
such a program is adopted by the City Council. The landscape program
will impact the major streets abutting this property.
Page 362
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of May 19, 2021
Application PHO-5-21—Z-111-98-7
Page 6
24. The developer agrees to participate in a Master Drainage/Open Space
Study for the Estrella Village prior to preliminary site plan/plat approval to
ensure linkage between developments and the Rio Salado.
25. The developer agrees to work with the local school district in acquiring
and providing infrastructure services for a new school location.
The following stipulations apply to the C-1 portion of the site:
26. Site Plan and Elevations:
a. The Phase I development shall be in general conformance with the
site plan date stamped January 18, 2019, as approved or modified
by the Planning and Development Department.
b. The developer shall present Phase I elevations to the Estrella Village
Planning Committee for review and comment prior to final site plan
approval.
c. THE PHASE II DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE IN GENERAL
CONFORMANCE WITH THE SITE PLAN AND ELEVATIONS DATE
STAMPED MARCH 16, 2021, AS APPROVED OR MODIFIED BY
THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
Conceptual site plan and elevations for the Phase II development
shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Hearing Officer
through the public hearing process for stipulation modification prior
to preliminary site plan approval. This is a legislative review for
conceptual purposes only. Specific development standards and
requirements may be determined by the Planning Hearing Officer
and the Planning and Development Department.
D. THE DEVELOPER SHALL PRESENT PHASE II ELEVATIONS FOR
THE FUTURE BUILDING PAD, AS DEPICTED ON THE SITE PLAN
DATE STAMPED MARCH 16, 2021, TO THE ESTRELLA VILLAGE
PLANNING COMMITTEE FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT PRIOR
TO FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL.
27. Access shall be limited to two driveways onto 67th Avenue and two
driveways onto Lower Buckeye Road as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 363
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of May 19, 2021
Application PHO-5-21—Z-111-98-7
Page 7
28. The site shall be developed with a similar architectural and landscape
theme to include minimum 24-inch box size shade trees (spaced 20 feet
on center) along the south and east property lines, together with a
minimum 50’ x 50’ landscaped entryway feature at the southeast corner of
67th Avenue and Lower Buckeye Road as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
29. The developer shall dedicate a 30-foot wide Multi-Use Trail Easement
(MUTE) along the south side of Lower Buckeye Road and construct a 10’
wide multi-use trail (MUT) within the easement in accordance with the
MAG supplemental detail, as approved or modified by the Parks and
Recreation Department.
30. A pedestrian circulation pathway shall be provided across and through the
site by utilizing concrete sidewalks, or similar. Where said path crosses a
drive-aisle or parking surface, a material that contrasts any asphalt
surface shall be used, such as stamped concrete or brick pavers. Said
path shall connect with the northeast, northwest, and southwest corners
of the site to allow easy pedestrian access to the structure and through
the site, as approved or modified by the Planning and Development
Department.
31. 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.
32. 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.
33. 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.
Page 364
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of May 19, 2021
Application PHO-5-21—Z-111-98-7
Page 8
Upon request, this publication will be made available within a reasonable length
of time through appropriate auxiliary aids or services to accommodate an
individual with a disability. This publication may be made available through the
following auxiliary aids or services: large print, Braille, audiotape or computer
diskette. Please contact the Planning and Development Department, Tamra
Ingersoll at voice number 602-534-6648 or TTY use 7-1-1.
Page 365
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Infrastructure Improvement Plan and Development Fees
Request to hold a public hearing regarding the Biennial Certified Audit of Land Use
Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvement Plan and Development 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, and the City is required to conduct a
public hearing on the audit within 60 days of posting the findings of the audit on the
City's website. Raftelis Financial Consultants (RFC) was retained to perform the
biennial audit. The audit reviewed development impact fees and water resource
acquisition fees for the period of July 1, 2018, through June 30, 2020. City Council
approved changes to the development impact fee program that took effect during the
audit period on April 13, 2020. As such, the audit considered two sets of LUAs, IIPs
and development fees - those that were in effect from April 6, 2015 through April 12,
2020, as well as the current LUAs, IIPs and development fees that have been in place
since April 13, 2020.
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, 2020,
through June 30, 2022.
The final audit report titled: City of Phoenix Biennial Certified Audit of Land Use
Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvement Plan and Development Fees (July 1, 2018 -
June 30, 2020) is attached (Attachment A) and available on the Planning and
Development website at : www.phoenix.gov/pdd/devfees/impactfeedocs
Biennial Audit Conclusions
The audit of LUAs found that actual new development in the impact fee areas was less
than the average two-year forecast from the 2015 Infrastructure Financing Plan
Update. RFC noted that these trends should be monitored but were not an issue of
Page 366
immediate concern. RFC further noted that the LUAs have been updated as part off
the 2020 Infrastructure Financing Plan Update; illustrating the correcting aspect of the
LUA forecasts as part of regular five-year updates.
The revenue audit (review of charges) did not find material discrepancies between
adopted development fees and actual charges assessed to permits over the audit
period. The following discrepancy was found:
1. Five permits with Water Resources Acquisition Fee (WRAF) charges (out of 3,786
total WRAF transactions) were identified that were assessed the 2015 WRAF fee
amounts resulting in over-charges. The over-payments were refunded by the City.
Review of expenditures found that all costs incurred against impact fee funds went
towards eligible projects that are identified in the approved IIPs.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 367
CITY OF
Phoenix
Biennial Certified Audit of Land Use
Assumptions, Infrastructure
Improvement Plan, and Development
Fees (July 1, 2018 – June 30, 2020)
Final Report / February 16, 2021
Page 368
Page 369
February 16, 2021
Adam Q. Miller, Team Leader
Growth and Infrastructure Section
200 W. Washington Street, 3rd Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Subject: Biennial Certified Audit of Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan and
Development Fees (July 1, 2018 – June 30, 2020)
The City of Phoenix (City) retained Raftelis Financial Consultants Inc. (Raftelis) to complete an audit of the City’s
land use assumptions (LUA), infrastructure improvement plan (IIP), development impact fee (DIF), and water
resource acquisition fee (WRAF) revenues and expenditures over the period of July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2020
(Audit Period) per Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS) §9-463.05. This report summarizes the results of the LUA, IIP,
DIF, and WRAF audit.
The scope of the audit is limited to an audit of the LUA, IIP and DIF, and WRAF assessments and expenditures
outlined in the Annual Development Impact Fee Reports for Fiscal Years (FY) 2018-19 and 2019-20 dated
September 9, 2019 and September 11, 2020, respectively. All fee amounts assessed and expenditures outlined are
audited pursuant to the provisions in in the City Code Section 29 (Development Impact Fees) and Section 30
(Water Resource Acquisition Fees), as supported by the Infrastructure Financing Plan and Water Resources
Acquisition Fee Report that took effect April 2015 (2015 IFP and WRAF Report)1, and the Infrastructure
Financing Plan Update that took effect April 2020 (2020 IFP)2.
Per the statuary requirements of ARS §9-463.05, the study focused on charges assessed consistent with the adopted
DIF and WRAF schedules. The City maintains DIF and WRAF assessment schedules varying by land use
designation and/or customer classification and amongst multiple service areas. The City does not assess DIFs in
portions of the City. The 2015 IFP provides for up to eight (8) service areas within the City and up to eight (8)
service categories, based on the characteristics of development and services provided. New DIFs were implemented
using nine (9) service areas beginning April 13, 2020. The WRAF are charged to recover funds that will be used for
the acquisition of water resources and related infrastructure consistent with the WRAF Report. The City has been
partitioned into two primary water resource service areas; On-Project areas that do not require additional water
resources and Off-Project which do require additional water resources.
An additional provision of ARS §9-463.05 includes a “grandfathering” clause whereby a new or increased DIF or
WRAF is not assessed against a new development for a period of up to 24-months after:
· the City issues the final approval for a commercial, industrial, or multifamily development OR
Infrastructure Financing Plan 2015, April 6, 2015, and Water Resources Acquisition Fee Update Report and
Infrastructure Improvements Plan, November 14, 2014.
Infrastructure Financing Plan: 2020 Update, November 18, 2019; this report incorporates the material previously
included in the WRAF Report, including water resource acquisition fees and infrastructure improvement plan.
5619 DTC Parkway, Suite 850
Greenwood Village, CO 80111
www.raftelis.com
Page 370
· the date that the first building permit is issued for a residential development pursuant to an approved site
plan or subdivision plat, provided that no subsequent changes are made to the approved site plan or
subdivision plan that would increase the service units.
The City has administered this provision by assessing previously adopted DIFs and WRAFs until the
grandfathering period expires for applicable development(s). Additionally, the City has entered into various
developer credit agreements whereby the DIF and/or WRAFs were referenced and the City has administered those
agreements. The application of developer credits and grandfathering provisions is beyond the scope of the Biennial
Audit requirements, but Raftelis worked with City staff to identify instances where either the grandfathering
provision or developer credit agreements were applied to permits during the Audit Period in situations where the
assessed DIFs and/or WRAFs varied from the adopted DIFs and WRAFs.
The City deposits DIF and WRAF revenues into separate funds for each fee category and each fee area.
Accordingly, the City maintains unique funds which are updated as new and/or amended IFPs are completed. For
example, additional funds were created following the 2020 IFP and updated DIFs effective in 2020 and the WRAF
update completed in 2014. Expenditures or uses of DIFs by category and WRAFs over the Audit Period are
consistent with the uses documented in the adopted IFP and WRAF Reports.
The overall audit approach followed by Raftelis was to:
1. Review the reported Audit Period growth by each land use classification against the categories provided
for in the IFP and WRAF Report.
2. Review the DIF and WRAF revenues reported against independently calculated amounts based on the
appropriate criteria, to check the accuracy of assessed charges.
3. Compare the actual expenditures reported over the Audit Period against the IFP and WRAF Report to verify
that funded projects were included in each report.
Raftelis worked with City staff following the initial identification of calculated permit revenues varied from
reported DIF or WRAF revenues provided by the City over the Audit Period. Additional discussion regarding the
process of the Biennial Audit of the DIF and WRAF LUA, IIP, revenues, and expenditures as detailed in the body
of this report.
The following provides a summary of each of the study elements.
· LUA Audit: The permit data provided by the City are used to review actual growth over the Audit Period to
the forecasted level of growth in the City’s IFP and WRAF Report. The growth identified in the IFP and
WRAFs provided for a 10-year period and is not broken out into individual annual forecasts. Raftelis used
2/10 (2 years to reflect the period from July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2020) of the LUA forecasted growth
as a baseline of what might be expected over the Audit Period.
· IIP Audit: The City met the requirements of the IIP as part of the IFP and WRAF Report previously identified
which support the DIFs and WRAFs in place over the Audit Period. The IIP related audit requirements are
limited to confirming actual uses of DIF and WRAF revenues over the Audit Period were consistent with the
improvements identified, and fees were assessed to development by fee category and/or service area as
detailed within the IFP and WRAF Report.
· Revenue Audit: To test for revenue assessment accuracy, the DIFs identified in the IFP and WRAFs identified
in the WRAF Report were applied by Raftelis to each of the permits, based on the service area, fee category,
Equivalent Development Units (EDUs) and land use classification provided. These calculated DIF and WRAF
revenues were compared to the unadjusted DIF amount reported by the City during the Audit Period. Any
record showing a difference was considered a potential error, subject to additional review and validation.
Page 371
· Expense Audit: Audit Period expenditures are identified in the Development Impact Fee Annual Reports for
FY 2018-19 and FY 2019-20.
Pursuant to the discussion and analysis contained in this report the following findings are provided:
1. The difference between growth forecasted in the LUA as part of the 2020 IFP and the actual growth
experienced by the City should be monitored but is not an area of immediate concern. As previously
discussed, the City adjusted the LUA EDU growth forecasts as part of the 2020 IFP. This adjustment
illustrates the self-correcting aspect of the LUA forecasts as part of comprehensive DIF and WRAF updates
completed at least every five years. Additionally, growth often occurs less linearly as certain development
may occur more rapidly than others and can be influenced by various external factors. Lastly, as the City
DIFs are assessed within certain service areas where new development is anticipated that will require
expansions to facilities providing necessary public services and WRAFs assessed only within Off-Project
areas, growth may occur within the City, but in areas where DIFs and/or WRAFs are not currently assessed
increasing the difficulty in projecting where future growth may occur in a given year.
2. The completed revenue audit has not found any material discrepancies when compared to the DIFs
identified in the IFP and the WRAFs identified in the WRAF Report.
3. Based on the information obtained through the City’s annual DIF reports, there are no discrepancies between
expenditures identified in the IFP and WRAF reports and the IFP.
Raftelis is pleased to present our findings and analysis of the third Biennial Audit of the City’s DIF and WRAF
program to the City. Please contact Andrew Rheem or Hannah Palmer-Dwore regarding this report.
Sincerely,
RAFTELIS
Andrew Rheem Hannah Palmer-Dwore
Senior Manager Senior Consultant
Page 372
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ................................... 1
1.1. SCOPE OF WORK ..................................................................................... 1
1.2. ARS §9-463.05 SUMMARY ....................................................................... 1
1.2.1. Grandfather Provisions..............................................................................................2
1.2.2. Designated DIF Funds................................................................................................2
1.3. EXISTING DIFS AND WRAFS...................................................................2
2. STUDY PROCESS ................................................................. 16
2.1. AUDIT APPROACH .................................................................................16
2.2. DATA PROVIDED BY CITY .....................................................................16
2.3. LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS AUDIT ........................................................17
2.4. INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS PLAN AUDIT ...........................20
2.5. IFP AND WRAF EXPENSE AUDIT .........................................................20
2.6. DIF AND WRAF REVENUE AUDIT .........................................................22
2.7. ADJUSTMENTS AND FEEDBACK FROM CITY ....................................22
2.8. ADDITIONAL WRAF FEEDBACK FROM CITY .....................................23
2.9. OVERALL FINDINGS ..............................................................................23
CITY OF PHO ENIX BIENNIAL CERTIF IED AUDIT
Page 373
List of Tables
Table 1: Fire Protection DIFs until 4/12/20 ....................................................................................................... 5
Table 2: Fire Protection DIFs effective 4/13/20................................................................................................ 5
Table 3: Police DIFs until 4/12/20 ...................................................................................................................... 5
Table 4: Police DIFs effective 4/13/20............................................................................................................... 6
Table 5: Parks DIFs until 4/12/20....................................................................................................................... 6
Table 6: Parks DIFs effective 4/13/20 ............................................................................................................... 6
Table 7: Library DIFs until 4/12/20 .................................................................................................................... 6
Table 8: Library DIFs effective 4/13/20 ............................................................................................................. 7
Table 9: Major Arterial DIFs until 4/12/20 ......................................................................................................... 7
Table 1- 10: Major Arterial DIFs effective 4/13/20............................................................................................ 7
Table 11: Storm Drainage DIFs until 4/12/20 ................................................................................................... 7
Table 12: Storm Drainage DIFs effective 4/13/20 ............................................................................................ 8
Table 13: Water DIFs until 4/12/20 .................................................................................................................. 10
Table 14: Water DIFs effective 4/13/20 ........................................................................................................... 10
Table 15: Wastewater DIFs until 4/12/20 ........................................................................................................ 11
Table 16: Wastewater DIFs effective 4/13/20 ................................................................................................. 12
Table 17: WRAFs until April 12, 2020 ............................................................................................................. 14
Table 18: WRAFs effective April 13, 2020 ...................................................................................................... 15
Table 19: Audit Period DIF Charges, EDUs and Revenues by Fee Category ............................................ 17
Table 20: Audit Period WRAF Charges, EDUs and Revenues..................................................................... 17
Table 21: Fire Protection and Police LUA Audit ........................................................................................... 18
Table 22: Library LUA Audit ............................................................................................................................ 18
Table 23: Parks LUA Audit .............................................................................................................................. 18
Table 24: Major Arterials LUA Audit ............................................................................................................... 18
Table 25: Storm Drainage LUA Audit ............................................................................................................. 19
Table 26: Water LUA Audit .............................................................................................................................. 19
Table 27: Wastewater LUA Audit .................................................................................................................... 19
Table 28: WRAF Growth Audit ........................................................................................................................ 19
Table 29: Expenditures in Funds 3001 – 3078, FY 2018 - 2019.................................................................... 20
Table 30: Expenditures in Funds 3001 – 3078, FY 2019 - 2020.................................................................... 21
Table 31: WRAF Expenditures, FY 2018 - 2019 ............................................................................................. 21
Table 32: WRAF Expenditures, FY 2019 - 2020 ............................................................................................. 21
Table 31: DIF and WRAF Records for Additional Review ............................................................................ 22
List of Figures
Figure 1: DIF Service Areas effective prior to April 13, 2020......................................................................... 3
Figure 2: DIF Service Areas effective April 13, 2020 ...................................................................................... 4
Figure 3: WRAF Service Areas........................................................................................................................ 13
List of Appendices
APPENDIX A: DIF Records Subject to Additional Review with Response from City
APPENDIX B: WRAF Records Subject to Additional Review with Response from City
APPENDIX C: LUA Audit Tables by Service Area
CITY OF PHO ENIX BIENNIAL CERTIF IED AUDIT
Page 374
This page intentionally left blank to facilitate two-sided printing.
CITY OF PHO ENIX BIENNIAL CERTIF IED AUDIT
Page 375
1. Introduction and Background
1.1. Scope of Work
The City of Phoenix (City) retained Raftelis Financial Consultants Inc. (Raftelis) to complete an audit of the City’s Land
Use Assumptions (LUA), Infrastructure Improvement Plan (IIP), Development Impact Fee (DIF), and Water Resource
Acquisition Fee (WRAF) revenues and expenditures over the period of July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2020 (Audit Period)
per Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS) §9-463.05. The scope of the audit is limited to an audit of the LUA, IIP, DIF, and
WRAF assessments and planned expenditures outlined in the Development Impact Fee Annual Reports for Fiscal Year
(FY) 2018-19 and FY 2019-20 dated September 9, 2019 and September 11, 2020, respectively. All fee amounts and
expenditures outlined are audited pursuant to the provisions in the City Code Section 29 – Development Impact Fees and
Section 30 – Water Resource Acquisition Fees, as supported by the Infrastructure Financing Plan and Water Resources
Acquisition Fee Report that took effect April 2015 (2015 IFP and WRAF Report)3, and the Infrastructure Financing Plan
Update that took effect April 2020 (2020 IFP)4. The City Code and the IFP were amended May 20165 to reflect updated
land use assumptions, defining a new land use category known as “mini warehouse”. Because this land use type did not
exist at the time of the 2015 IFP publication, it has been included in Industrial land use for the purposes of this study.
The three areas of focus of the audit include:
· A review and comparison of the LUA forecast within the 2015 IFP to actual development by classification and
service area.
· An audit of the DIF and WRAF revenues assessed as authorized by DIF and WRAF category and/or service area
match the adopted DIF and WRAF assessment schedules.
· An audit of the expenditures or use of funds from DIFs and WRAFs by fee category and/or service area were
identified within the 2015 IFP and WRAF Reports.
1.2. ARS §9-463.05 Summary
ARS §9-463.05 contains the Arizona statutory guidance, restrictions and requirements governing assessment, collection,
and reporting of DIFs. Per ARS §9-463.056, as a condition of assessing DIFs, the City is required to either:
· Establish an infrastructure improvements advisory committee or
· Complete a biennial audit
The City did not establish an infrastructure improvement advisory committee and is therefore completing the biennial
audit for the 2-year audit period. The most recent audit for FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18 was also completed by Raftelis
with the results documented in the report dated February 9, 2020. The statutory requirements for the audit per ARS §9-
463.057 is detailed as follows.
Infrastructure Financing Plan 2015, April 6, 2015, and Water Resources Acquisition Fee Update Report and Infrastructure
Improvements Plan, November 14, 2014.
Infrastructure Financing Plan: 2020 Update, November 18, 2019; this report incorporates the material previously included in
the WRAF Report, including water resource acquisition fees and infrastructure improvement plan.
Draft Infrastructure Financing Plan 2015, 1st Amendment, April 29, 2016
Subsection G, paragraphs 1 and 2.
Subsection G, paragraph 2.
BIENNIAL CERTIF IED AUDIT 1
Page 376
In lieu of creating an advisory committee pursuant to paragraph 1 of this subsection, provide for a biennial certified
audit of the municipality’s land use assumptions, infrastructure improvements plan and development fees. An audit
pursuant to this paragraph shall be conducted by one or more qualified professionals who are not employees or officials
of the municipality and who did not prepare the infrastructure improvements plan. The audit shall review the progress
of the infrastructure improvements plan, including the collection and expenditures of development fees for each project in
the plan, and evaluate any inequities in implementing the plan or imposing the development fee. The municipality
shall post the findings of the audit on the municipality’s website or the website of an association of cities and towns if
the municipality does not have a website and shall conduct a public hearing on the audit within sixty days of the release
of the audit to the public.
Based on the statuary requirements, the study focused on charges assessed consistent with the adopted DIF and WRAF
schedules. The City maintains DIF and WRAF assessment schedules varying by land use designation and/or customer
classification and amongst multiple service areas. The City does not assess DIFs in portions of the City. Figures 1, 2, and
3 detail the service area boundaries for DIFs and WRAF. The WRAF applies City-wide but is currently set to $0 per
EDU within the “On-Project” fee area, as shown in Figure 3.
Expenditures or uses of DIFs by category and WRAFs over the Audit Period are consistent with the uses documented in
the adopted 2015 IFP and WRAF Reports.
1.2.1. GRANDFATHER PROVISIONS
As will be presented and discussed in this report, the City implemented the grandfather provisions over the course of the
audit period pursuant to subsection F of ARS §9-463.05 that reads in part:
A municipality's development fee ordinance shall provide that a new development fee or an increased portion of a
modified development fee shall not be assessed against a development for twenty-four months after the date that the
municipality issues the final approval for a commercial, industrial or multifamily development or the date that the
first building permit is issued for a residential development pursuant to an approved site plan or subdivision plat,
provided that no subsequent changes are made to the approved site plan or subdivision plat that would increase the
number of service units.
1.2.2. DESIGNATED DIF FUNDS
The City deposits DIF and WRAF revenues into separate funds for each fee category and each fee area. Accordingly, the
City maintains unique funds to implementing the IFP and WRAF update. Fund numbers reflect the date ranges for
which DIF revenues were collected.
· Fund Series 1000/0000: DIFs collected prior to January 1, 2012
· Fund Series 2000: DIFs collected between January 1, 2012 and April 5, 2015
· Fund Series 3000: DIFs collected since April 6, 2015
o Funds 3045, 3053, and 3079: DIFS collected since April 13, 2020
1.3. Existing DIFs and WRAFs
The 2015 IFP provides for up to eight service areas within the City and up to eight service categories, based on the
characteristics of development and services provided. The service areas prior to April 13, 2020 are depicted within Figure
18.
Map used in Figure 1 obtained from Annual Development Impact Fee Report FY 2018-19, dated September 9, 2019.
2 CITY OF PHOENIX
Page 377
Figure 1: DIF Service Areas effective prior to April 13, 2020
BIENNIAL CERTIF IED AUDIT 3
Page 378
New DIFs were implemented using nine (9) service areas beginning April 13, 2020 as shown in Figure 2: DIF Service
Areas effective April 13, 20209. For the purposes of comparison to the 2015 IFP, Paradise Ridge has been included as part
of the Northeast service area in this report, except where noted.
Figure 2: DIF Service Areas effective April 13, 2020
Map used in Figure 2 obtained from Annual Development Impact Fee Report FY 2019-20, dated September 11, 2020.
4 CITY OF PHOENIX
Page 379
For fire protection, police, park, library, and major arterials, DIFs for residential development are assessed per dwelling
unit. DIFs for non-residential classes (commercial, office, industrial, mini warehouse, and institutional) are assessed per
1,000 square feet of building space, with the exception of major arterial assessments for hotel and lodging projects that are
assessed per room. Storm Drainage DIFs are assessed to single family (SF) residential per dwelling unit; assessments for
all other classes, including multifamily (MF) residential, are based on acreage.
DIFs were adjusted effective April 13, 2020. Permits issued before April 13, 2020 were subject to the previous DIF, while
those issued since April 13, 2020 were subject to the amended DIFs. The original and amended net fees10 are shown in
Table 1 through Table 1612.
Table 1: Fire Protection DIFs prior to 4/13/20
Description Single Family Multi-family Commercial Office Industrial Institutional
Unit Per Dwelling Per Dwelling Per 1000 sqft Per 1000 sqft Per 1000 sqft Per 1000 sqft
Northwest [1] $444 $289 $346 $315 $124 $306
Northeast 519 337 405 368 145 358
Southwest [2] 616 400 480 437 172 425
Ahwatukee 513 333 400 364 144 354
__________
[1] Includes the Northwest and Deer Valley areas.
[2] Includes the Estrella North, Estrella South, Laveen East and Laveen West areas.
Table 2: Fire Protection DIFs effective 4/13/20
Description Single Family Multi-family Commercial Office Industrial Institutional
Unit Per Dwelling Per Dwelling Per 1000 sqft Per 1000 sqft Per 1000 sqft Per 1000 sqft
Northwest [1] $516 $387 $418 $330 $144 $299
Northeast [3] 551 413 446 353 154 320
Southwest [2] 487 365 394 312 136 282
Ahwatukee 470 353 381 301 132 273
__________
[1] Includes the Northwest and Deer Valley areas.
[2] Includes the Estrella North, Estrella South, Laveen East and Laveen West areas.
[3] Includes the Northeast and Paradise Ridge areas.
Table 3: Police DIFs prior to 4/13/20
Description Single Family Multi-family Commercial Office Industrial Institutional
Unit Per Dwelling Per Dwelling Per 1000 sqft Per 1000 sqft Per 1000 sqft Per 1000 sqft
Northwest [1] $500 $325 $390 $355 $140 $345
Northeast 506 329 395 359 142 349
Southwest [2] 489 318 381 347 137 337
Ahwatukee 459 298 358 326 129 317
__________
[1] Includes the Northwest and Deer Valley areas.
[2] Includes the Estrella North, Estrella South, Laveen East and Laveen West areas.
Net fees are the unadjusted fees assessed to properties initially calculated within the IFP and WRAF reports. They are
inclusive of gross impact fees and offsets, including development occupational fee (DOF) offsets, which are calculated for all
users and are distinct from development agreements.
BIENNIAL CERTIF IED AUDIT 5
Page 380
Table 4: Police DIFs effective 4/13/20
Description Single Family Multi-family Commercial Office Industrial Institutional
Unit Per Dwelling Per Dwelling Per 1000 sqft Per 1000 sqft Per 1000 sqft Per 1000 sqft
Northwest [1] $293 $220 $237 $188 $82 $170
Northeast [3] 314 236 254 201 88 182
Southwest [2] 285 214 231 182 80 165
Ahwatukee 342 257 277 219 96 198
__________
[1] Includes the Northwest and Deer Valley areas.
[2] Includes the Estrella North, Estrella South, Laveen East and Laveen West areas.
[3] Includes the Northeast and Paradise Ridge areas.
Table 5: Parks DIFs prior to 4/13/20
Description Single Family Multi-family Commercial Office Industrial Institutional
Unit Per Dwelling Per Dwelling Per 1000 sqft Per 1000 sqft Per 1000 sqft Per 1000 sqft
Northwest [1] $1,120 $728 $56 $78 $22 $56
Northeast 1,953 1,269 98 137 39 98
Southwest [2] 2,291 1,489 115 160 46 115
Ahwatukee 703 457 35 49 14 35
__________
[1] Includes the Northwest and Deer Valley areas.
[2] Includes the Estrella North, Estrella South, Laveen East and Laveen West areas.
Table 6: Parks DIFs effective 4/13/20
Description Single Family Multi-family Commercial Office Industrial Institutional
Unit Per Dwelling Per Dwelling Per 1000 sqft Per 1000 sqft Per 1000 sqft Per 1000 sqft
Northwest [1] $1,368 $1,028 $68 $96 $27 $68
Northeast [3] 1,236 927 62 87 25 62
Southwest [2] 1,241 931 62 87 25 62
Ahwatukee 1,225 919 61 86 25 61
__________
[1] Includes the Northwest and Deer Valley areas.
[2] Includes the Estrella North, Estrella South, Laveen East and Laveen West areas.
[3] Includes the Northeast and Paradise Ridge areas.
Table 7: Library DIFs prior to 4/13/20
Description Single Family Multi-family Commercial Office Industrial Institutional
Unit Per Dwelling Per Dwelling Per 1000 sqft Per 1000 sqft Per 1000 sqft Per 1000 sqft
Northwest [1] $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northeast 232 151 12 16 5 12
Southwest [2] 112 73 6 8 2 6
Ahwatukee 0 0 0 0 0 0
__________
[1] Includes the Northwest and Deer Valley areas.
[2] Includes the Estrella North, Estrella South, Laveen East and Laveen West areas.
6 CITY OF PHOENIX
Page 381
Table 8: Library DIFs effective 4/13/20
Description Single Family Multi-family Commercial Office Industrial Institutional
Unit Per Dwelling Per Dwelling Per 1000 sqft Per 1000 sqft Per 1000 sqft Per 1000 sqft
Northwest [1] $105 $79 $5 $7 $2 $5
Northeast [3] 105 79 5 7 2 5
Southwest [2] 105 79 5 7 2 5
Ahwatukee 105 79 5 7 2 5
__________
[1] Includes the Northwest and Deer Valley areas.
[2] Includes the Estrella North, Estrella South, Laveen East and Laveen West areas.
[3] Includes the Northeast and Paradise Ridge areas.
Table 9: Major Arterial DIFs prior to 4/13/20
Description Single Family Multi-family Commercial Office Industrial Institutional
Unit Per Dwelling Per Dwelling Per 1000 sqft Per 1000 sqft Per 1000 sqft Per 1000 sqft
Northwest [1] $2,208 $1,546 $3,027 $1,389 $979 $1,337
Northeast 2,392 1,675 3,279 1,505 1,061 1,449
Southwest [2] 573 401 785 361 254 347
Ahwatukee 0 0 0 0 0 0
__________
[1] Includes the Northwest and Deer Valley areas.
[2] Includes the Estrella North, Estrella South, Laveen East and Laveen West areas.
Table 10: Major Arterial DIFs effective 4/13/20
Mini Lodging
Description Single Family Multi-family Commercial Office Industrial Institutional Warehouse
Per 1000 Per 1000 Per 1000 Per 1000 Per
Unit Per Dwelling Per Dwelling sqft sqft sqft sqft Per 1000 sqft Room
Northwest [1] $3,080 $2,310 $3,758 $1,694 $986 $1,386 $277 $1,078
Northeast [3] 3,080 2,310 3,758 1,694 986 1,386 277 1,078
Southwest [2] 1,928 1,446 2,352 1,060 617 868 174 675
Ahwatukee 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
__________
[1] Includes the Northwest and Deer Valley areas.
[2] Includes the Estrella North, Estrella South, Laveen East and Laveen West areas.
[3] Includes the Northeast and Paradise Ridge areas.
Table 11: Storm Drainage DIFs prior to 4/13/20
Description Single Family Multi-family Commercial Office Industrial Institutional
Unit Per Dwelling Per Acre Per Acre Per Acre Per Acre Per Acre
Northwest [1] $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northeast 0 0 0 0 0 0
Estrella [2] 1,278 5,112 5,112 5,112 5,112 5,112
Laveen [3] 1,277 5,108 5,108 5,108 5,108 5,108
Ahwatukee 0 0 0 0 0 0
__________
[1] Includes the Northwest and Deer Valley areas.
[2] Includes the Estrella North and Estrella South areas within the southwest region of the City.
[3] Includes the Laveen East and Laveen West areas within the southwest region of the City.
BIENNIAL CERTIF IED AUDIT 7
Page 382
Table 12: Storm Drainage DIFs effective 4/13/20
Description Single Family Multi-family Commercial Office Industrial Institutional
Unit Per Dwelling Per Acre Per Acre Per Acre Per Acre Per Acre
Northwest [1] $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northeast 0 0 0 0 0 0
Paradise Ridge 1,715 6,860 6,860 6,860 6,860 6,860
Estrella [2] 770 3,080 3,080 3,080 3,080 3,080
Laveen [3] 1,037 4,148 4,148 4,148 4,148 4,148
Ahwatukee 0 0 0 0 0 0
__________
[1] Includes the Northwest and Deer Valley areas.
[2] Includes the Estrella North and Estrella South areas within the southwest region of the City.
[3] Includes the Laveen East and Laveen West areas within the southwest region of the City.
For utility service, new development is generally responsible for purchasing capacity in the system based on potential
demand. Potential demand is measured in many ways throughout the water and wastewater utility industry, with meter
size serving as a relatively simple and commonly used assessment option. For the water and wastewater services
identified in
8 CITY OF PHOENIX
Page 383
Table 13 through Table 16, DIFs are based on the number of dwelling units or assessed pursuant to the water meter size
and meter type. MF residential developments are assessed per dwelling unit regardless of meter size serving the
connection. SF residential developments are assessed per dwelling unit for meter sizes of 1-inch and smaller and increase
by meter size for 1 1/2-inch or 2-inch water meters. The City uses both meter size and type for assessment of water and
wastewater DIFs for non-residential development and dedicated irrigation meters for all types of development.
Water DIFs are assessed in two service areas which are comprised of sub-areas shown in Figures 1 and 2 and
summarized below:
· The Northern water service area consists of the Northwest, Deer Valley, Northeast, and Paradise Ridge areas.
· The Southern water service area consists of the Estrella North, Estrella South, Laveen East, Laveen West, and
Ahwatukee sub-areas.
BIENNIAL CERTIF IED AUDIT 9
Page 384
Table 13: Water DIFs until 4/12/20
Description Unit Northern Area [1] Southern Area [2]
Multifamily (Domestic) Dwelling $2,123 $1,198
SF Less 1 1/2-inch Dwelling 5,935 3,499
SF 1.5-inch Meter 21,162 13,050
SF 2.0-inch Meter 34,232 21,248
Non-res 3/4-inch Meter 13,254 8,090
Non-res 1-inch Meter 21,634 13,010
Non-res 1.5-inch Meter 43,377 26,179
Non-res 2-inch
Meter 69,346 41,819
displacement
Non-res 2-inch turbine Meter 80,500 47,809
Non-res 3-inch compound Meter 152,436 92,169
Non-res 3-inch turbine Meter 184,686 109,803
Non-res 4-inch compound Meter 262,084 158,798
Non-res 4-inch turbine Meter 328,355 199,247
Non-res 6-inch compound Meter 595,839 363,445
Non-res 6-inch turbine Meter 701,347 425,933
Non-res 8-inch compound Meter 690,847 415,433
Non-res 8-inch turbine Meter 1,239,015 757,028
__________
[1] Includes the Northwest, Deer Valley and Northeast areas.
[2] Includes the Estrella North, Estrella South, Laveen East, Laveen West and Ahwatukee areas.
Table 14: Water DIFs effective 4/13/20
Description Unit Northern Area [1] Southern Area [2]
Multifamily (Domestic) Dwelling $2,273 $1,394
SF Less 1 1/2-inch Dwelling 6,330 4,016
SF 1.5-inch Meter 22,477 14,771
SF 2.0-inch Meter 36,337 24,003
Non-res 3/4-inch Meter 14,092 9,186
Non-res 1-inch Meter 23,032 14,841
Non-res 1.5-inch Meter 46,166 29,829
Non-res 2-inch
Meter 73,809 47,661
displacement
Non-res 2-inch turbine Meter 85,801 54,747
Non-res 3-inch compound Meter 162,09 104,960
Non-res 3-inch turbine Meter 196,829 125,696
Non-res 4-inch compound Meter 278,832 180,719
Non-res 4-inch turbine Meter 349,290 226,648
Non-res 6-inch compound Meter 633,522 412,767
Non-res 6-inch turbine Meter 746,006 484,385
Non-res 8-inch compound Meter 735,506 473,885
Non-res 8-inch turbine Meter 1,317,170 859,322
__________
[1] Includes the Northwest, Deer Valley, Northeast, and Paradise Ridge areas.
[2] Includes the Estrella North, Estrella South, Laveen East, Laveen West and Ahwatukee areas.
Wastewater DIFs are assessed within the same service areas identified in Figures 1 and 2, with four different DIF
assessment schedules as summarized below.
· The Northern Area consists of the Northwest, Northeast, and Paradise Ridge service areas.
10 C ITY OF PHOENI X
Page 385
· Deer Valley, Estrella North, Laveen East, and Ahwatukee service areas comprise the Multiple Areas shown in
Table 15 and Table 16. These areas share a common fee level for wastewater treatment capacity only; the fee in
these areas does not include network expansion costs.
· Estrella South and Laveen West have separate fees which include both wastewater treatment capacity as well as
varying network expansion costs.
Table 15: Wastewater DIFs until 4/12/20
Northern Multiple Estrella Laveen
Description Unit Area [1] Areas [2] South West
Multifamily (Domestic) Dwelling $1,468 $532 $1,454 $1,378
SF Less 1 1/2-inch Dwelling 3,130 1,221 3,102 2,947
SF 1.5-inch Meter 11,821 5,464 11,728 11,212
SF 2.0-inch Meter 19,281 9,106 19,132 18,306
Non-res 3/4-inch Meter 7,793 3,497 7,730 7,381
Non-res 1-inch Meter 12,525 5,347 12,420 11,837
Non-res 1.5-inch Meter 25,178 10,879 24,968 23,807
Non-res 2-inch
Meter
displacement 40,223 17,334 39,887 38,029
Non-res 2-inch turbine Meter 45,915 18,731 45,516 43,309
Non-res 3-inch compound Meter 88,710 38,579 87,975 83,904
Non-res 3-inch turbine Meter 105,510 43,219 104,596 99,539
Non-res 4-inch compound Meter 152,850 66,945 151,590 144,615
Non-res 4-inch turbine Meter 191,813 84,431 190,238 181,519
Non-res 6-inch compound Meter 350,063 156,776 347,228 331,534
Non-res 6-inch turbine Meter 410,063 181,002 406,703 388,108
Non-res 8-inch compound Meter 399,563 170,502 396,203 377,605
Non-res 8-inch turbine Meter 729,263 328,392 723,383 690,835
__________
[1] Includes the Northwest, Northeast, and Paradise Ridge service areas.
[2] Includes the Deer Valley, Estrella North, Laveen East, and Ahwatukee areas.
BIENNIAL CERTIF IED AUDIT 11
Page 386
Table 16: Wastewater DIFs effective 4/13/20
Northern Multiple Estrella Laveen
Description Unit Area [1] Areas [2] South West
Multifamily (Domestic) Dwelling $1,552 $610 $1,789 $1,712
SF Less 1 1/2-inch Dwelling 3,303 1,380 3,787 3,630
SF 1.5-inch Meter 12,397 5,993 14,008 13,486
SF 2.0-inch Meter 20,203 9,953 22,782 21,946
Non-res 3/4-inch Meter 8,182 3,855 9,271 8,917
Non-res 1-inch Meter 13,175 5,945 14,995 14,405
Non-res 1.5-inch Meter 26,473 12,070 30,098 28,922
Non-res 2-inch 42,297 19,240 48,100 46,218
Meter
displacement
Non-res 2-inch turbine Meter 48,379 20,995 55,271 53,035
Non-res 3-inch compound Meter 93,252 42,754 105,962 101,839
Non-res 3-inch turbine Meter 111,155 48,407 126,948 121,825
Non-res 4-inch compound Meter 160,635 74,100 182,415 175,350
Non-res 4-inch turbine Meter 201,544 93,375 228,769 219,937
Non-res 6-inch compound Meter 367,579 172,875 416,584 400,687
Non-res 6-inch turbine Meter 430,821 200,080 488,896 470,058
Non-res 8-inch compound Meter 420,321 189,580 478,396 459,558
Non-res 8-inch turbine Meter 765,591 361,780 867,226 834,258
__________
[1] Includes the Northwest, Northeast, and Paradise Ridge service areas.
[2] Includes the Deer Valley, Estrella North, Laveen East, and Ahwatukee areas.
The WRAF are charged to recover funds that will be used for the acquisition of water resources and related
infrastructure. The WRAF are charged to recover funds that will be used for the acquisition of water resources and
related infrastructure. The City has been partitioned into two primary service areas for the WRAF as follows:
· On-Project: Areas provided water by the Salt River Project (SRP) primarily from the Salt and Verde river systems.
These areas are designated as having water resources to provide a 100-year assured water supply under moderate
shortage and moderate demand conditions. Development is controlled by the Salt River Water Users Association.
Adequate water supplies and associated infrastructure are currently available for new development in the On-
Project areas and the City is not actively developing alternative water sources to serve them.11
· Off-Project areas: Areas provided water from sources other than the SRP. These areas require additional water
resources to provide a 100-year assured water supply under moderate shortage and moderate demand conditions.
Lands do not have prior specific water rights from the Salt and Verde rivers and associated reservoirs, and as a
result, more costly water resources from sources like the Central Arizona Project are required to serve new
development or additional demands by existing users.
Figure 3: WRAF Service Areas summarizes the two primary service areas.
Water Resources Acquisition Fee Update Report and Infrastructure Improvements Plan, November 14, 2014.
12 C ITY OF PHOENI X
Page 387
Figure 3: WRAF Service Areas12
From Annual Development Impact Fee Report FY 2018-19, September 9, 2019.
BIENNIAL CERTIF IED AUDIT 13
Page 388
Table 17 and Table 18 summarize the WRAF assessed to Off-Project areas within the City prior to April 13, 2020
and effective April 13, 2020. Similar to water and wastewater, MF residential developments are assessed a WRAF
per dwelling unit regardless of meter size serving the connection. SF residential developments are assessed per
dwelling unit for meter sizes of 1-inch and smaller and increase with meter size for 1 1/2 -inch and 2-inch water
meters. The City uses both meter size and type to assess WRAFs for non-residential development and dedicated
irrigation meters for all types of development.
Table 17: WRAFs until April 12, 2020
Customer Off- On-
Meter Type Meter Size Type [1] Project Project
Multifamily Unit Unit MF $296 $0
Displacement 3/4-inch SF 778 0
Displacement 1-inch SF 778 0
Displacement 1-1/2-inch SF 2,590 0
Displacement 2-inch SF 4,145 0
Displacement 3/4-inch ICIL 1,649 0
Displacement 1-inch ICIL 2,754 0
Displacement 1-1/2-inch ICIL 5,491 0
Displacement 2-inch ICIL 8,788 0
Turbine Class II 2-inch ICIL 10,437 0
Compound Class II 3-inch ICIL 19,242 0
Turbine Class II 3-inch ICIL 23,908 0
Compound Class II 4-inch ICIL 32,976 0
Turbine Class II 4-inch ICIL 41,220 0
Compound Class II 6-inch ICIL 74,196 0
Turbine Class II 6-inch ICIL 87,931 0
Compound Class II 8-inch ICIL 87,931 0
Turbine Class II 8-inch ICIL 153,883 0
__________
[1] SF = single family; MF = multifamily and mobile home (domestic/indoor use only);
ICIL = industrial, commercial, institutional and landscape meters.
14 C ITY OF PHOENI X
Page 389
Table 18: WRAFs effective April 13, 2020
Customer Off- On-
Meter Type Meter Size Type [1] Project Project
Multifamily Unit Unit MF $221 $0
Displacement 3/4-inch SF 583 0
Displacement 1-inch SF 583 0
Displacement 1-1/2-inch SF 1,940 0
Displacement 2-inch SF 3,106 0
Displacement 3/4-inch ICIL 1,235 0
Displacement 1-inch ICIL 2,063 0
Displacement 1-1/2-inch ICIL 4,114 0
Displacement 2-inch ICIL 6,584 0
Turbine Class II 2-inch ICIL 7,820 0
Compound Class II 3-inch ICIL 14,416 0
Turbine Class II 3-inch ICIL 17,912 0
Compound Class II 4-inch ICIL 24,707 0
Turbine Class II 4-inch ICIL 30,884 0
Compound Class II 6-inch ICIL 55,590 0
Turbine Class II 6-inch ICIL 65,881 0
Compound Class II 8-inch ICIL 65,881 0
Turbine Class II 8-inch ICIL 115,295 0
__________
[1] SF = single family; MF = multifamily and mobile home (domestic/indoor use only);
ICIL = industrial, commercial, institutional and landscape meters
BIENNIAL CERTIF IED AUDIT 15
Page 390
2. Study Process
2.1. Audit Approach
Raftelis first reviewed the DIF and WRAF revenues reported against independently calculated amounts based on
the appropriate criteria to check the accuracy of assessed charges. Next, the actual expenditures reported over the
Audit Period were compared against the IFP and WRAF Report to verify that funded projects were included.
Finally, the reported Audit Period growth by each land use classification was reviewed against the categories
provided for in the IFP and WRAF Report.
2.2. Data Provided by City
To assist with the review of the DIF charges, the City provided an MS-Excel based report with DIF charges for the
Audit Period. For each DIF charge, this data includes:
· Service area
· Issue date
· Calculated date
· Equivalent demand units (EDUs13)
· Land Use
· Fee category
· Unadjusted DIF amount
· Adjusted DIF amount
· Developer credits
· Permit status
The DIF charges provided span eight fee categories and total over $78.6 million in unadjusted DIF revenues over
the Audit Period. The unadjusted DIF revenue was calculated using the DIF assessment schedules identified in the
IFP. DIF revenues may then be adjusted by the City to account for grandfathering provisions (per ARS §9-
463.05F) and/or developer credits. The total charges, EDUs, and unadjusted revenue amounts by DIF category
are provided in Table 19.
One EDU has been established as the demand for a public service by one single-family home. EDUs are assigned to all
other land uses based on the demand as compared to one single-family home.
16 C ITY OF PHOENI X
Page 391
Table 19: Audit Period DIF Charges, EDUs, and Revenues by Fee Category
Unadjusted
DIF
Description DIF Charges EDUs Revenues
Fire 4,287 7,352 $4,008,168
Library 4,128 5,207 799,084
Major Arterials 4,139 8,015 12,251,363
Parks 4,287 5,529 10,229,560
Police 4,287 7,352 3,533,465
Storm Drainage 2,130 3,294 3,954,102
Wastewater 4,125 5,398 15,552,693
Water 4,265 5,952 28,282,795
Total 31,648 48,099 $78,611,230
Additionally, the City reported 3,786 charges and $4.8 million in revenue from WRAFs over the Audit Period.
Table 20 presents the number of charges, EDUs, and unadjusted revenue amounts for the WRAFs.
Table 20: Audit Period WRAF Charges, EDUs, and Revenues
Unadjusted
WRAF
Description Charges EDUs Revenues
WRA Fees 3,786 6,831. $4,804,159
2.3. Land Use Assumptions Audit
The permit data provided by the City were used to compare actual growth over the Audit Period to the forecasted
level of growth in the City’s IFP and WRAF Report. The growth identified in the IFP was provided for a 10-year
period and not broken out into annual forecasts. Raftelis used 2/10 (two years to reflect the period from July 2018
through June 2020) of the LUA forecasted growth as a baseline of what might be expected over the Audit Period.
A table is provided for each fee category that compares the actual growth in EDUs, EDUs forecast by the LUA,
and the actual growth as a percentage of the LUA forecast growth. The Storm Drainage and WRAF growth
forecasts are different as the fees are not broken out by the various land uses. Appendix C provides more detailed
information related to actual and projected growth for each service area.
The LUA forecast is compared to actual development over the two-year Audit Period for the following:
· Fire Protection and Police – Table 21
· Library – Table 22
· Parks – Table 23
· Major Arterials – Table 24
· Storm Drainage – Table 25
· Water – Table 26
· Wastewater – Table 27
· WRAF – Table 28
BIENNIAL CERTIF IED AUDIT 17
Page 392
Table 21: Fire Protection and Police LUA Audit
LUA Forecast Actual as % of
Description Actual EDUs EDUs LUA
Single Family 4,020 10,786 37.3%
Multi-family 1,362 1,380 98.7%
Commercial 283 712 39.8%
Institutional 221 374 59.2%
Office 267 323 82.8%
Industrial14 1,198 592 202.6%
Total 7,352 14,167 51.9%
Table 22: Library LUA Audit
LUA Forecast Actual as % of
Description Actual EDUs EDUs LUA
Single Family 4,017 10,786 37.2%
Multi-family 1,068 1,380 74.3%
Commercial 8 46 17.5%
Institutional 5 27 18.5%
Office 26 32 81.8%
Industrial12 82 42 194.5%
Total 5,207 12,313 42.3%
Table 23: Parks LUA Audit
LUA Forecast Actual as % of
Description Actual EDUs EDUs LUA
Single Family 4,020 10,786 37.3%
Multi-family 1,362 1,380 98.7%
Commercial 18 46 39.5%
Institutional 16 27 59.3%
Office 26 32 81.8%
Industrial12 86 42 203.8%
Total 5,529 12,313 44.9%
Table 24: Major Arterials LUA Audit
LUA Forecast Actual as % of
Description Actual EDUs EDUs LUA
Single Family 3,876 10,552 36.7%
Multi-family 1,462 1,389 105.3%
Commercial 467 1,213 38.5%
Institutional 193 324 59.6%
Office 237 258 91.9%
Industrial12 1,780 929 191.6%
Total 8,015 14,664 54.7%
Includes permits with land use designation of “Mini warehouse”; this designation was created after the publication of
the IFP and was therefore not considered in original projections.
18 C ITY OF PHOENI X
Page 393
Table 25: Storm Drainage LUA Audit
LUA Forecast Actual as % of
Description Actual EDUs EDUs LUA
All Classes 3,294 11,736 28.1%
Table 26: Water LUA Audit
LUA Forecast Actual as % of
Description Actual EDUs EDUs LUA
Single Family 4,087 10,786 37.9%
Multi-family 703 1,104 63.7%
Commercial 695 392 177.3%
Institutional 131 119 110.1%
Office 40 127 31.5%
Industrial13 296 465 63.7%
Total 5,952 12,994 45.8%
Table 27: Wastewater LUA Audit
LUA Forecast Actual as % of
Description Actual EDUs EDUs LUA
Single Family 4,021 10,786 37.3%
Multi-family 850 1,040 81.7%
Commercial 138 365 37.8%
Institutional 121 119 101.7%
Office 36 114 31.6%
Industrial15 227 465 48.8%
Total 5,393 12,889 41.8%
Table 28: WRAF Growth Audit
Forecast Actual as % of
Description Actual EDUs EDUs Forecast
All Classes 6,831 7,465 91.5%
As shown in Table 21 through Table 28, the overall growth in EDUs for the study period is lower than the forecast
provided in the City’s IFP for an average 2-year period. Actual growth in single family land use ranged from
approximately 36.7% to 37.9% of forecast for all fee categories.
Despite this trend, several fee programs and land use categories experienced more growth than anticipated. Growth
in institutional land use ranged from lower than forecast (18.5% for library) to over forecasted growth (110.1% for
water). Similarly, growth in multifamily land use ranged from 63.7% for water permits to 105.3% for major
arterials.
Includes permits with land use designation of “Mini warehouse”; this designation was created after the publication of
the IFP and was therefore not considered in original projections.
BIENNIAL CERTIF IED AUDIT 19
Page 394
The differences in actual and forecast growth are not a cause for immediate concern or action as growth is not
always consistent. The previous audit reported a much greater difference from forecast to actual growth; this
analysis demonstrates that this gap has closed slightly for most categories and noticeably for other categories. The
City has monitored these trends and adjusted anticipated EDU growth accordingly. As part of the 2020 IFP, the
City adjusted the LUA and growth forecast for 2020 through 2029 recognizing differences in growth patterns
observed during this and previous Audit Periods. This includes overall lower rates of growth as well as
proportionally less SF growth and more MF and non-residential growth.
2.4. Infrastructure Improvements Plan Audit
Multiple elements are required to be included as part of the IIP per ARS §9-463.05. These elements include
identifying existing facilities with available capacity to serve new customers, documenting the respective service
levels, and identifying future improvements and capacity added which may also be necessary to serve future
customers over a 10- to 15-year period. The City met the requirements of the IIP as part of the IFP and WRAF
Report previously identified which support the DIFs and WRAFs in place over the Audit Period.
Many aspects of the IIP will be updated in future DIF and WRAF updates as required by ARS §9-463.05, similar
to the process the City completed as documented within the 2020 IFP. This audit is focused on how the City has
administered the DIF and WRAF in assessing new and increased development consistent with the adopted fee
schedules and using the restricted revenues for the purpose stated within the adopted reports. As a result, the IIP-
related audit requirements are limited to:
1. DIFs were assessed to development by fee category and service area as detailed within the adopted IIP and
2. Confirming that actual uses of DIF and WRAF revenues over the Audit Period were consistent with the
improvements identified. Raftelis compared DIF and WRAF revenues and expenses against the IIP section
of the IFP and WRAF report.
2.5. IFP and WRAF Expense Audit
During the Audit Period, there were several expenditures from both the DIF and WRAF funds associated with the
IFP and WRAF Report, respectively. The expenditures are identified in the Development Impact Fee Annual
Reports for FY 2018-19 and FY 2019-20. Schedule B of the FY 2019-20 Development Impact Fee Annual Report
identifies the DIF project expenditures by fee category, fund number, description, expenditure amount, and a few
additional items. A footnote to Schedule B identifies that any funds numbered 3001-3078 reflect the funds collected
and used pursuant to the IFP. These DIF funds are the focus of this audit. The expenses listed in the FY 2018-19
and FY 2019-20 Annual Development Impact Fee Reports are shown below.
Table 29: Expenditures in Funds 3001 – 3078, FY 2018 - 2019
Program Project Total Impact Fee
Area Service Area Fund Number Project Description Fund Uses
Fire Northwest 3001 FD57100021 Fire Station 55 $987,786
3043 ST85100413 Roadway Widening, 1,765,490
Major Bikeways, and Pedestrian
Arterials Southwest Safety Improvements
Storm 3052 ST83110073 72-Inch Storm Drain 1,171,263
Drainage Laveen Construction
Total $3,924,539
20 C ITY OF PHOENI X
Page 395
Table 30: Expenditures in Funds 3001 – 3078, FY 2019 - 2020
Program Project Total Impact Fee
Area Service Area Fund Number Project Description Fund Uses
Fire Northwest 3001 FD57100021 Fire Station 55 $89,562
Fire Southwest 3003 FD57100024 Fire Station 58 251,213
PA75200624 Tierra Montana Park
Parks Southwest 3032 Development 632,240
Storm ST83110073 72-inch Storm Drain
Drainage Laveen 3052 Construction (Olney Avenue) 151,766
WS85500428 Water Main Construction
Water Southern 3062 (Dobbins Road) 127,657
WS85500429 Water Main Construction 147,806
Water Southern 3062 (Dobbins Road)
WS85500436 Water Main Construction 124,023
Water Southern 3062 (Dobbins Road)
WS85500440 Water Main Construction 216,522
Water Southern 3062 (Carver Road)
Wastewater Deer Valley 4 3072 - Wastewater Treatment Plant 420,834
Debt Repayment
Wastewater Estrella North 3074 - Wastewater Treatment Plant 375,314
Debt Repayment
Wastewater Laveen East 3077 - Wastewater Treatment Plant 682,368
Debt Repayment
Wastewater Ahwatukee 3078 - Wastewater Treatment Plant 590,984
Debt Repayment
Total $3,810,289
Schedule E of the Annual Development Impact Fee Reports identifies the WRAF project expenditures by project
description, location, and expenditure amount net of recoveries. Expenditures reported in the FY 2018-19 and FY
2019-20 Reports are shown below.
Table 31: WRAF Expenditures, FY 2018 - 2019
WRA Expenditures
Program Fund Project Location Net of Recoveries
Aquifer Storage 4002 East Dynamite
Water 0050 Recover Well 314 Road (545,822)
Total $(545,822)
Table 32: WRAF Expenditures, FY 2019 - 2020
WRA Expenditures
Program Fund Project Location Net of Recoveries
Aquifer Storage 4002 East Dynamite
Water 0050 Recover Well 314 Road (6,010,084)
Total $(6,010,084)
Expenses totaling $14,400 that are listed in the FY 2018-19 Report were for internal project costs for the future
Superblock 8 ARS well site. These expenditures are probably eligible for WRA funds. However, out of an
abundance of caution, the City reimbursed the WRA fund for these expenditures from a non-impact fee revenue
BIENNIAL CERTIF IED AUDIT 21
Page 396
source. Future expenditures for design and construction (including project management) of the Superblock 8 ARS
Well are expected to be paid with WRA funds.
2.6. DIF and WRAF Revenue Audit
Using the DIF charges discussed in Section 2.2, the unadjusted DIF amount for each of the 31,648 charges
provided was re-calculated by Raftelis and compared to the amount reported. To test for revenue assessment errors,
the DIFs identified in the IFP were applied to each of the charges by Raftelis, based on the service area, DIF
category, EDUs, and land use classification provided. These calculated DIF revenues were compared to the
unadjusted DIF amount reported. Any record showing a discrepancy was considered a potential inaccuracy subject
to additional review and validation. Similar information was provided for the WRAFs. Raftelis completed the
WRAF revenue audit using the same process and the appropriate fee schedule.
Because the City has a significant number of developer agreements and ongoing developments that have
outstanding credits and/or qualify for the grandfathering provisions, Raftelis used the amount calculated before
adjustments for comparison. The application of developer credits and grandfathering provisions is beyond the
scope of the Biennial Audit requirements.
As shown in Table 33, 124 DIF records or approximately 0.38% of all DIF charges were initially identified for
additional review within Water and Wastewater DIFs. For the WRAF records, 23 were initially identified for
additional review in the preliminary review.
Table 33: DIF and WRAF Records for Additional Review
Number of
Description Records
Fire 0
Library 0
Major Arterials 0
Parks 0
Police 0
Storm Drainage 0
Wastewater 57
Water 67
WRAF 23
Total 147
As previously discussed, Raftelis compared independent calculations of DIF and WRAF amounts to the
unadjusted amount provided by the City. The preliminary records identified for further review for both DIFs and
WRAFs have been discussed with the City and addressed in further detail in the “Adjustments and Feedback from
City” subsection. Appendix A includes the validation for all records subject to additional review.
2.7. Adjustments and Feedback from City
A majority of water and wastewater permit records subject to additional review were the result of lack of data used
by Raftelis to calculate the appropriate charges. Although the data provided by the City included land use type,
unit or meter type was unavailable. This is particularly problematic with water and wastewater DIFs, which are
22 C ITY OF PHOENI X
Page 397
calculated based on unit or meter type. Appendix A details each DIF record subject to additional review and
includes City feedback and comments.
With this response from the City, Raftelis could validate each of the 147 records identified for additional review.
WRAF – 23 records subject to review
· Five WRAF records were determined to have incorrect charges.
· Two records were related to meter size upgrades.
· Two records were related to fee corrections that occurred prior to the audit.
· 13 records were related to lack of data used by Raftelis to assess a fee. These records were verified by
Raftelis as additional data was provided.
· One record was related to a new fee that has yet to be paid.
Water – 67 records subject to review
· All records were related to lack of data used by Raftelis to assess a fee. These records were verified by
Raftelis as additional data was provided.
Wastewater – 57 records subject to review
· All records were related to lack of data used by Raftelis to assess a fee. These records were verified by
Raftelis as additional data was provided.
2.8. Additional WRAF Feedback from City
Upon receipt of the WRAF permits deemed to have been inaccurately charged, the City sought to determine the
source of the inaccuracy, issue refunds where permit fees were overpaid, and apply payment from an internal fund
when the permit fee had been under collected. This effort from the City resulted in the following findings.
1. Five records were determined to have inaccurately used the old fee instead of the new fees, resulting in an
overcharge to customers a total of $8,151. The City acted to correct the fee in the KIVA billing system and
issue refunds to customers.
Appendix B details each WRA record subject to additional review and includes City feedback and comments.
2.9. Overall Findings
Pursuant to the discussion above the following findings are provided:
1. The difference between growth forecasted in the LUA as part of the 2020 IFP and the actual growth
experienced by the City should be monitored but is not an area of immediate concern. As previously
discussed, the City adjusted the LUA EDU growth forecasts as part of the 2020 IFP. This adjustment
illustrates the self-correcting aspect of the LUA forecasts as part of comprehensive DIF and WRAF updates
completed at least every five years. Additionally, growth often occurs less linearly as certain development
may occur more rapidly than others and can be influenced by various external factors. Lastly, as the City
DIFs are assessed within certain service areas where new development is anticipated that will require
expansions to facilities providing necessary public services and WRAFs assessed only within Off-Project
areas, growth may occur within the City, but in areas where DIFs and/or WRAFs are not currently assessed
increasing the difficulty in projecting where future growth may occur in a given year.
2. The completed revenue audit has not found any material discrepancies when compared to the DIFs
identified in the IFP and the WRAFs identified in the WRAF Report.
BIENNIAL CERTIF IED AUDIT 23
Page 398
3. Based on the information obtained through the City’s annual DIF reports, there are no discrepancies between
expenditures identified in the IFP and WRAF reports and the IFP.
24 C ITY OF PHOENI X
Page 399
APPENDIX A:
DIF Records Subject to
Additional Review with Response
from City
Page 400
Appendix A
DIF Records Subject to Additional Review with Response from City
Line
No. Permit Number Impact Fee Service Area2 Issue Date Total EDUs Land Use DIF Category Unadjusted DIF Adjusted DIF City Comments
1 19006372 Northeast 02/28/2019 7.06 MF WATER-L 46,137 46,137 Correct see atatched REM 20016006, same calculation.
2 20011887 Northeast 02/11/2020 7.06 COM-RET WATER-D 41,997 41,997 Correct see atatched.
3 19016265 Laveen East 05/23/2019 7.06 COM-RET WATER-D 41,997 41,997 Correct see atatched.
4 19016265 Northwest 05/23/2019 22.60 COM-RET WATER-D 134,191 134,191 Correct see atatched. 2 meter for 2"
5 19012172 Deer Valley 04/18/2019 50.54 MF WATER-D 282,399 282,399 Correct, 133 units, multifamily land use.
6 19001775 Northeast 01/17/2019 1.90 MF WATER-D 10,616 10,616 Correct. See attached BLD 19012174. Multifamily land use
7 19001776 Laveen West 01/17/2019 1.90 MF WATER-D 10,616 10,616 Correct. See attached BLD 19012174. Multifamily land use
8 19001777 Northeast 01/17/2019 1.90 MF WATER-D 10,616 10,616 Correct. See attached BLD 19012174. Multifamily land use
9 19006485 Northeast 03/01/2019 1.90 MF WATER-D 10,616 10,616 Correct. See attached BLD 19012174. Multifamily land use
10 19006486 Northeast 03/01/2019 1.90 MF WATER-D 10,616 10,616 Correct. See attached BLD 19012174. Multifamily land use
11 19006488 Northeast 03/01/2019 1.90 MF WATER-D 10,616 10,616 Correct. See attached BLD 19012174. Multifamily land use
12 20009706 Northeast 01/22/2020 1.90 MF WATER-D 10,616 10,616 Correct. See attached BLD 19012174. Multifamily land use
13 20009709 Northeast 01/22/2020 1.90 MF WATER-D 10,616 10,616 Correct. See attached BLD 19012174. Multifamily land use
14 20009710 Northeast 01/22/2020 1.90 MF WATER-D 10,616 10,616 Correct. See attached BLD 19012174. Multifamily land use
15 20009711 Northeast 01/22/2020 1.90 MF WATER-D 10,616 10,616 Correct. See attached BLD 19012174. Multifamily land use
16 20014295 Northeast 03/03/2020 1.90 MF WATER-D 10,616 10,616 Correct. See attached BLD 19012174. Multifamily land use
17 20014299 Northeast 03/03/2020 1.90 MF WATER-D 10,616 10,616 Correct. See attached BLD 19012174. Multifamily land use
18 20014300 Northeast 03/03/2020 1.90 MF WATER-D 10,616 10,616 Correct. See attached BLD 19012174. Multifamily land use
19 18038142 Northeast 12/13/2018 1.90 MF WATER-D 10,616 10,616 Correct. See attached BLD 19012174. Multifamily land use
20 18038143 Northeast 12/13/2018 1.90 MF WATER-D 10,616 10,616 Correct. See attached BLD 19012174. Multifamily land use
21 18038144 Northeast 12/13/2018 1.90 MF WATER-D 10,616 10,616 Correct. See attached BLD 19012174. Multifamily land use
22 18038145 Northeast 12/13/2018 1.90 MF WATER-D 10,616 10,616 Correct. See attached BLD 19012174. Multifamily land use
23 18038147 Northwest 12/13/2018 1.90 MF WATER-D 10,616 10,616 Correct. See attached BLD 19012174. Multifamily land use
24 20024897 Northwest 06/18/2020 9.12 MF WATER-D 33,458 28,743 Correct. See attached BLD 20024896, same calculation.
25 20024899 Northwest 06/18/2020 9.12 MF WATER-D 33,458 28,743 Correct. See attached BLD 20024896, same calculation.
26 20024900 Northwest 06/18/2020 9.12 MF WATER-D 33,458 28,743 Correct. See attached BLD 20024896, same calculation.
27 19023925 Northwest 07/26/2019 9.12 MF WATER-D 50,959 50,959 Correct. See attached BLD 20024896, same calculation.
28 19023926 Northeast 07/26/2019 9.12 MF WATER-D 50,959 50,959 Correct. See attached BLD 20024896, same calculation.
29 19023927 Northeast 07/26/2019 9.12 MF WATER-D 50,959 50,959 Correct. See attached BLD 20024896, same calculation.
Page 401
30 19023928 Northeast 07/26/2019 9.12 MF WATER-D 50,959 50,959 Correct. See attached BLD 20024896, same calculation.
31 19023929 Northeast 07/26/2019 9.12 MF WATER-D 50,959 50,959 Correct. See attached BLD 20024896, same calculation.
32 19023930 Northeast 07/26/2019 9.12 MF WATER-D 50,959 50,959 Correct. See attached BLD 20024896, same calculation.
33 19023931 Northeast 07/26/2019 9.12 MF WATER-D 50,959 50,959 Correct. See attached BLD 20024896, same calculation.
34 19023932 Northeast 07/26/2019 9.12 MF WATER-D 50,959 50,959 Correct. See attached BLD 20024896, same calculation.
35 19023933 Northeast 07/26/2019 9.12 MF WATER-D 50,959 50,959 Correct. See attached BLD 20024896, same calculation.
36 19039919 Northwest 12/11/2019 3.54 COM-RET WATER-D 20,884 20,884 Correct. See attached WSOC 19016265. Same calculation
37 19016265 Northwest 05/23/2019 3.54 COM-RET WATER-L 20,884 20,884 Correct. See attached.
38 20016006 Northwest 03/17/2020 7.06 COM-RET WATER-L -46,137 -46,137 Correct. See attached.
39 18038452 Northwest 12/17/2018 11.30 MF WATER-L 73,846 73,846 Correct. See attached.
40 20022005 Northwest 05/18/2020 11.30 MF WATER-L 52,161 52,161 Correct. See attached.
41 19020827 Northwest 07/01/2019 7.06 IND-WH WATER-D 24,799 24,799 Correct. See attached.
42 18029451 Northwest 09/24/2018 3.42 MF WATER-D 19,110 19,110 Correct. See attached.
43 20008750 Northwest 01/14/2020 4.94 MF WATER-D 27,603 27,603 Correct. See attached.
44 19007735 Northwest 03/13/2019 6.46 MF WATER-D 36,096 36,096 Correct. See attached.
45 20024896 Northwest 06/18/2020 9.12 MF WATER-D 33,458 28,743 Correct. See attached.
46 19029990 Northwest 09/17/2019 11.40 MF WATER-D 63,699 63,699 Correct. See attached.
47 19029991 Northeast 09/17/2019 13.30 MF WATER-D 74,316 74,316 Correct. See attached.
48 19012173 Northeast 04/18/2019 23.94 MF WATER-D 133,768 133,768 Correct. See attached.
49 19007736 Northeast 03/13/2019 30.40 MF WATER-D 169,864 169,864 Correct. See attached.
50 18021632 Northeast 07/16/2018 34.96 MF WATER-D 195,343 195,343 Correct. See attached.
51 18034472 Northeast 11/08/2018 38.00 MF WATER-D 212,330 212,330 Correct. See attached.
52 19005344 Northeast 02/20/2019 3.42 MF WATER-D 19,110 19,110 Correct. See attached. BLD 18029451. Multifamily land use.
53 19015925 Northeast 05/21/2019 3.42 MF WATER-D 19,110 19,110 Correct. See attached. BLD 18029451. Multifamily land use.
54 19020581 Northeast 06/28/2019 3.42 MF WATER-D 19,110 19,110 Correct. See attached. BLD 18029451. Multifamily land use.
55 19020582 Deer Valley 06/28/2019 3.42 MF WATER-D 19,110 19,110 Correct. See attached. BLD 18029451. Multifamily land use.
56 19012174 Northeast 04/18/2019 1.90 MF WATER-D 10,616 10,616 Correct. See attached. Multifamily land use
57 20024895 Northeast 06/18/2020 3.54 MF WATER-L 16,341 14,510 Correct. See attached. Qualifies for grandfather fee.
60 19012174 Northeast 04/18/2019 2.45 MF WASTEWATER-M 7,338 7,338 Correct. See attached.
61 19012175 Northeast 04/18/2019 2.45 MF WASTEWATER-M 7,338 7,338 Correct. See attached. Bld 19012174, same calculation.
62 19001775 Northeast 01/17/2019 2.45 MF WASTEWATER-M 7,338 7,338 Correct. See attached. Bld 19012174, same calculation.
63 19001776 Northeast 01/17/2019 2.45 MF WASTEWATER-M 7,338 7,338 Correct. See attached. Bld 19012174, same calculation.
Line
No. Permit Number Impact Fee Service Area2 Issue Date Total EDUs Land Use DIF Category Unadjusted DIF Adjusted DIF City Comments
64 19001777 Northeast 01/17/2019 2.45 MF WASTEWATER-M 7,338 7,338 Correct. See attached. Bld 19012174, same calculation.
65 19006485 Northeast 03/01/2019 2.45 MF WASTEWATER-M 7,338 7,338 Correct. See attached. Bld 19012174, same calculation.
66 19006486 Northeast 03/01/2019 2.45 MF WASTEWATER-M 7,338 7,338 Correct. See attached. Bld 19012174, same calculation.
67 19006488 Northeast 03/01/2019 2.45 MF WASTEWATER-M 7,338 7,338 Correct. See attached. Bld 19012174, same calculation.
68 20009706 Northeast 01/22/2020 2.45 MF WASTEWATER-M 7,338 7,338 Correct. See attached. Bld 19012174, same calculation.
69 20009709 Northeast 01/22/2020 2.45 MF WASTEWATER-M 7,338 7,338 Correct. See attached. Bld 19012174, same calculation.
70 20009710 Northeast 01/22/2020 2.45 MF WASTEWATER-M 7,338 7,338 Correct. See attached. Bld 19012174, same calculation.
71 20009711 Northeast 01/22/2020 2.45 MF WASTEWATER-M 7,338 7,338 Correct. See attached. Bld 19012174, same calculation.
72 20014295 Northeast 03/03/2020 2.45 MF WASTEWATER-M 7,338 7,338 Correct. See attached. Bld 19012174, same calculation.
73 20014299 Northeast 03/03/2020 2.45 MF WASTEWATER-M 7,338 7,338 Correct. See attached. Bld 19012174, same calculation.
74 20014300 Northeast 03/03/2020 2.45 MF WASTEWATER-M 7,338 7,338 Correct. See attached. Bld 19012174, same calculation.
75 18038142 Northwest 12/13/2018 2.45 MF WASTEWATER-M 7,338 7,338 Correct. See attached. Bld 19012174, same calculation.
76 18038143 Northwest 12/13/2018 2.45 MF WASTEWATER-M 7,338 7,338 Correct. See attached. Bld 19012174, same calculation.
77 18038144 Northwest 12/13/2018 2.45 MF WASTEWATER-M 7,338 7,338 Correct. See attached. Bld 19012174, same calculation.
78 18038145 Northwest 12/13/2018 2.45 MF WASTEWATER-M 7,338 7,338 Correct. See attached. Bld 19012174, same calculation.
79 18038147 Northwest 12/13/2018 2.45 MF WASTEWATER-M 7,338 7,338 Correct. See attached. Bld 19012174, same calculation.
80 18029451 Northeast 09/24/2018 4.41 MF WASTEWATER-M 13,209 13,209 Correct, 9 units, multifamily land use.
81 19005344 Northeast 02/20/2019 4.41 MF WASTEWATER-M 13,209 13,209 Correct, 9 units, multifamily land use.
82 19015925 Northeast 05/21/2019 4.41 MF WASTEWATER-M 13,209 13,209 Correct, 9 units, multifamily land use.
83 19020581 Northeast 06/28/2019 4.41 MF WASTEWATER-M 13,209 13,209 Correct, 9 units, multifamily land use.
84 19020582 Northeast 06/28/2019 4.41 MF WASTEWATER-M 13,209 13,209 Correct, 9 units, multifamily land use.
85 20008750 Northeast 01/14/2020 6.37 MF WASTEWATER-M 19,080 19,080 Correct, 13 units, multifamily land use.
86 20008751 Northeast 01/14/2020 6.37 MF WASTEWATER-M 19,080 19,080 Correct, 13 units, multifamily land use.
87 19008481 Estrella South 03/20/2019 7.49 IND-WH WASTEWATER-M 10,879 10,879 Correct. See attached.
88 19020827 Laveen West 07/01/2019 7.49 IND-WH WASTEWATER-M 22,427 22,427 Correct. See attached above permit, same calculation.
89 19007735 Northeast 03/13/2019 8.33 MF WASTEWATER-M 24,951 24,951 Correct, 17 units, multifamily land use.
90 20024896 Laveen East 06/18/2020 11.76 MF WASTEWATER-M 14,645 12,775 Correct. See attached.
91 20024897 Laveen East 06/18/2020 11.76 MF WASTEWATER-M 14,645 12,775 Correct. See attached BLD 20024896, same calculation.
92 20024899 Laveen East 06/18/2020 11.76 MF WASTEWATER-M 14,645 12,775 Correct. See attached BLD 20024896, same calculation.
93 20024900 Laveen East 06/18/2020 11.76 MF WASTEWATER-M 14,645 12,775 Correct. See attached BLD 20024896, same calculation.
94 19023925 Northwest 07/26/2019 11.76 MF WASTEWATER-M 35,225 35,225 Correct, 24 units, multifamily land use.
95 19023926 Northwest 07/26/2019 11.76 MF WASTEWATER-M 35,225 35,225 Correct, 24 units, multifamily land use.
96 19023927 Northwest 07/26/2019 11.76 MF WASTEWATER-M 35,225 35,225 Correct, 24 units, multifamily land use.
97 19023928 Northwest 07/26/2019 11.76 MF WASTEWATER-M 35,225 35,225 Correct, 24 units, multifamily land use.
Page 402
98 19023929 Northwest 07/26/2019 11.76 MF WASTEWATER-M 35,225 35,225 Correct, 24 units, multifamily land use.
99 19023930 Northwest 07/26/2019 11.76 MF WASTEWATER-M 35,225 35,225 Correct, 24 units, multifamily land use.
100 19023931 Northwest 07/26/2019 11.76 MF WASTEWATER-M 35,225 35,225 Correct, 24 units, multifamily land use.
101 19023932 Northwest 07/26/2019 11.76 MF WASTEWATER-M 35,225 35,225 Correct, 24 units, multifamily land use.
102 19023933 Northwest 07/26/2019 11.76 MF WASTEWATER-M 35,225 35,225 Correct, 24 units, multifamily land use.
103 19023934 Northwest 07/26/2019 11.76 MF WASTEWATER-M 35,225 35,225 Correct, 24 units, multifamily land use.
104 19023935 Northwest 07/26/2019 11.76 MF WASTEWATER-M 35,225 35,225 Correct, 24 units, multifamily land use.
105 19023946 Northwest 07/26/2019 11.76 MF WASTEWATER-M 35,225 35,225 Correct, 24 units, multifamily land use.
106 19029990 Northeast 09/17/2019 14.70 MF WASTEWATER-M 44,031 44,031 Correct, 30 units, multifamily land use.
107 19029991 Northeast 09/17/2019 17.15 MF WASTEWATER-M 51,370 51,370 Correct, 35 units, multifamily land use.
108 19012173 Northeast 04/18/2019 30.87 MF WASTEWATER-M 92,465 92,465 Correct, 65 units, multifamily land use.
109 19007736 Northeast 03/13/2019 39.20 MF WASTEWATER-M 117,416 117,416 Correct, 80 units, multifamily land use.
110 18021632 Northeast 07/16/2018 45.08 MF WASTEWATER-M 135,028 135,028 Correct, 92 units, multifamily land use.
111 18034472 Northeast 11/08/2018 49.00 MF WASTEWATER-M 146,770 146,770 Correct, 100 units, multifamily land use.
112 19012172 Northeast 04/18/2019 65.17 MF WASTEWATER-M 195,204 195,204 Correct, 133 units, multifamily land use.
113 19012169 Northeast 04/18/2019 67.13 MF WASTEWATER-M 201,075 201,075 Correct, 137 units, multifamily land use.
114 18038452 Deer Valley 12/17/2018 69.09 MF WASTEWATER-M 75,053 75,053 Correct, 141 units, multifamily land use.
115 20008749 Northeast 01/14/2020 75.95 MF WASTEWATER-M 227,493 227,493 Correct, 155 units, multifamily land use.
116 19001408 Northeast 01/14/2019 96.04 MF WASTEWATER-M 287,669 287,669 Correct, 196 units, multifamily land use.
APPENDIX B:
WRAF Records Subject to
Additional Review with Response
from the City
2 CITY OF PHOENIX
Page 403
Appendix B
WRAF Records Subject to Additional Review with Response from City
Line Fee Fee Fee Amount
No. Permit Number Issue Date Fee Code Quantity Amount Total City Comment
1 19008685 03/21/2019 WRAOFF2" 1 6,584 6,584 correct paid on 05.05.2020
2 19010432 04/04/2019 WRAOFF1" 1 2,063 2,063 Fee not paid yet, new fee should be applied. See attached.
3 19027735 08/28/2019 WRAOFFCC4" 1 24,707 24,707 correct paid on 05.01.2020
4 19029202 09/10/2019 WRAOFF1" 1 2,063 2,063 correct paid on 04.30.2021
5 20010130 01/27/2020 WRAOFF1" 1 2,063 2,063 correct paid on 04.22.2022
6 20018514 04/14/2020 WRAOFFSF34 1 -778 -778 You are misisng one more line for this permit
7 20018514 04/14/2020 WRAOFFSF34 1 778 778 You are misisng one more line for this permit
8 20018952 04/17/2020 WRAOFSF3/4 1 778 778 Refund in process
9 20019360 04/22/2020 WRAOFF2" 1 8,788 8,788 Refund in process
10 20019361 04/22/2020 WRAOFF2" 1 8,788 8,788 Refund in process
11 20013709 04/24/2020 WRAOFF1" 1 2,063 2,063 correct, this is for a landscape meter
12 20020146 04/30/2020 WRAOFF1" 1 2,063 2,063 correct this is a commercial 1" water meter
13 20022196 05/20/2020 WRAOFF1" 1 2,754 2,754 Refund in process
14 20022196 05/20/2020 WRAOFF1.5" 1 5,491 5,491 Refund in process
15 20023305 06/03/2020 WRAOFF1" 1 2,063 2,063 correct, this is for a landscape meter
16 20023695 06/08/2020 WRAOFF1" 1 2,063 2,063 correct this is a commercial 1" water meter
17 20025003 06/19/2020 WRAOFF1" 1 2,063 2,063 correct, this is for a landscape meter
18 20024978 06/19/2020 WRAOFF1" 1 2,063 2,063 correct this is a commercial 1" water meter
19 19003211 01/30/2019 WRAOFFSF15 1 1,812 1,812 correct meter upgrade from 5/8 inch to 1.5” – ($2590 WRA for new 1.5” - $778 WRA for old 5/8= $1812)
20 19007588 03/12/2019 WRAOFF1"CL 1 778 778 correct, it is for 1" single family home
Page 404 21 19010827 04/08/2019 WRAOFF1"CL 1 778 778 correct, it is for 1" single family home
22 19020827 07/01/2019 WRAOFFSF15 1 5,491 5,491 Correct, it is for 1.5" commercial
23 20025577 06/24/2020 WRAOFSF1.5 1 1,357 1,357 Correct this is a upgrade from 1" to 1.5" SF ($1940 WRA for 1.5" -$583 WRA for old 1"=$1357.00)
APPENDIX C:
LUA Audit Tables by Service
Area
Page 405
Appendix C
LUA Audit Tables by Service Area
Single Family
Fire Protection Police Libraries Parks
IFP Audit IFP Audit IFP
Service Area Audit Period IFP Forecast Service Area Audit Period Forecast Service Area Period Forecast Service Area Period Forecast
Ahwatukee 169 234 Ahwatukee 169 234 Ahwatukee 167 234 Ahwatukee 169 234
Deer Valley 73 40 Deer Valley 73 40 Deer Valley 73 40 Deer Valley 73 40
Estrella North 0 145 Estrella North 0 145 Estrella North 0 145 Estrella North 0 145
Estrella South 1,136 1,758 Estrella South 1,136 1,758 Estrella South 1,136 1,758 Estrella South 1,136 1,758
Laveen East 242 843 Laveen East 242 843 Laveen East 242 843 Laveen East 242 843
Laveen West 601 2,530 Laveen West 601 2,530 Laveen West 601 2,530 Laveen West 601 2,530
Northeast 1,427 3,164 Northeast 1,427 3,164 Northeast 1,427 3,164 Northeast 1,427 3,164
Northwest 372 2,072 Northwest 372 2,072 Northwest 371 2,072 Northwest 372 2,072
Total 4,020 10,786 Total 4,020 10,786 Total 4,017 10,786 Total 4,020 10,786
Multi-family
Fire Protection Police Libraries Parks
IFP Audit IFP Audit IFP
Service Area Audit Period IFP Forecast Service Area Audit Period Forecast Service Area Period Forecast Service Area Period Forecast
Ahwatukee 0 90 Ahwatukee 0 90 Ahwatukee 0 90 Ahwatukee 0 90
Deer Valley 90 0 Deer Valley 90 0 Deer Valley 0 0 Deer Valley 90 0
Estrella North 0 91 Estrella North 0 91 Estrella North 0 91 Estrella North 0 91
Estrella South 0 24 Estrella South 0 24 Estrella South 0 24 Estrella South 0 24
Page 406 Laveen East 72 7 Laveen East 72 7 Laveen East 72 7 Laveen East 72 7
Laveen West 0 90 Laveen West 0 90 Laveen West 0 90 Laveen West 0 90
Northeast 996 618 Northeast 996 618 Northeast 996 618 Northeast 996 618
Northwest 203 460 Northwest 203 460 Northwest 0 460 Northwest 203 460
Total 1,362 1,380 Total 1,362 1,380 Total 1,068 1,380 Total 1,362 1,380
Commercial
Fire Protection Police Libraries Parks
IFP Audit IFP Audit IFP
Service Area Audit Period IFP Forecast Service Area Audit Period Forecast Service Area Period Forecast Service Area Period Forecast
Ahwatukee 18 21 Ahwatukee 18 21 Ahwatukee 0 1 Ahwatukee 1 1
Deer Valley 0 0 Deer Valley 0 0 Deer Valley 0 0 Deer Valley 0 0
Estrella North 0 0 Estrella North 0 0 Estrella North 0 0 Estrella North 0 0
Estrella South 14 98 Estrella South 14 98 Estrella South 1 6 Estrella South 1 6
Laveen East 8 51 Laveen East 8 51 Laveen East 1 3 Laveen East 1 3
Laveen West 102 63 Laveen West 102 63 Laveen West 7 4 Laveen West 7 4
Northeast 1 372 Northeast 1 372 Northeast 0 24 Northeast 0 24
Northwest 141 106 Northwest 141 106 Northwest 0 7 Northwest 9 7
Total 283 711 Total 283 711 Total 8 45 Total 18 45
Appendix C
LUA Audit Tables by Service Area
Single Family
Major Arterials Water Wastewater
Audit IFP Audit IFP Audit IFP
Service Area Period Forecast Service Area Period Forecast Service Area Period Forecast
Ahwatukee Ahwatukee 177.1 1,102 Ahwatukee 170 234
Deer Valley 73 40 Deer Valley 72.0 1,759 Deer Valley 72 40
Estrella North 0 145 Estrella North 0.0 1,102 Estrella North 0 145
Estrella South 1,136 1,758 Estrella South 1,136.0 1,102 Estrella South 1,136 1,758
Laveen East 242 843 Laveen East 245.5 1,102 Laveen East 242 843
Laveen West 601 2,530 Laveen West 616.0 1,102 Laveen West 602 2,530
Northeast 1,427 3,164 Northeast 1,460.7 1,759 Northeast 1,428 5,236
Northwest 372 2,072 Northwest 380.1 1,759 Northwest 371 0
Total 3,851 10,552 Total 4,087 10,787 Total 4,021 10,786
Multi-family
Major Arterials Water Wastewater
Audit IFP Audit IFP Audit IFP
Service Area Period Forecast Service Area Period Forecast Service Area Period Forecast
Ahwatukee Ahwatukee 0 48 Ahwatukee 0 68
Deer Valley 97 0 Deer Valley 65 288 Deer Valley 69 0
Page 407 Estrella North 0 98 Estrella North 0 48 Estrella North 0 69
Estrella South 0 25 Estrella South 0 48 Estrella South 0 18
Laveen East 72 7 Laveen East 40 48 Laveen East 47 5
Laveen West 0 97 Laveen West 11 48 Laveen West 0 68
Northeast 1,073 666 Northeast 461 288 Northeast 580 813
Northwest 219 496 Northwest 126 288 Northwest 153 0
Total 1,462 1,389 Total 703 1,104 Total 850 1,041
Commercial
Major Arterials Water Wastewater
Audit IFP Audit IFP Audit IFP
Service Area Period Forecast Service Area Period Forecast Service Area Period Forecast
Ahwatukee Ahwatukee 73 26 Ahwatukee 23 11
Deer Valley 0 0 Deer Valley 2 88 Deer Valley 2 0
Estrella North 0 0 Estrella North 15 26 Estrella North 4 0
Estrella South 25 173 Estrella South 187 26 Estrella South 16 50
Laveen East 15 90 Laveen East 40 26 Laveen East 11 26
Laveen West 178 111 Laveen West 206 26 Laveen West 56 32
Northeast 1 653 Northeast 148 88 Northeast 0 245
Northwest 248 187 Northwest 25 88 Northwest 26 0
Total 467 1,214 Total 695 394 Total 138 364
Appendix C
LUA Audit Tables by Service Area
Institutional
Fire Protection Police Libraries Parks
IFP Audit IFP Audit IFP
Service Area Audit Period IFP Forecast Service Area Audit Period Forecast Service Area Period Forecast Service Area Period Forecast
Ahwatukee 0 8 Ahwatukee 0 8 Ahwatukee 0 1 Ahwatukee 0 1
Deer Valley 0 0 Deer Valley 0 0 Deer Valley 0 0 Deer Valley 0 0
Estrella North 0 0 Estrella North 0 0 Estrella North 0 0 Estrella North 0 0
Estrella South 0 0 Estrella South 0 0 Estrella South 0 0 Estrella South 0 0
Laveen East 6 0 Laveen East 6 0 Laveen East 0 0 Laveen East 0 0
Laveen West 0 229 Laveen West 0 229 Laveen West 0 17 Laveen West 0 17
Northeast 60 137 Northeast 60 137 Northeast 5 10 Northeast 5 10
Northwest 155 0 Northwest 155 0 Northwest 0 0 Northwest 11 0
Total 221 374 Total 221 374 Total 5 28 Total 16 28
Office
Fire Protection Police Libraries Parks
IFP Audit IFP Audit IFP
Service Area Audit Period IFP Forecast Service Area Audit Period Forecast Service Area Period Forecast Service Area Period Forecast
Ahwatukee 0 32 Ahwatukee 0 32 Ahwatukee 0 3 Ahwatukee 0 3
Deer Valley 0 0 Deer Valley 0 0 Deer Valley 0 0 Deer Valley 0 0
Estrella North 1 0 Estrella North 1 0 Estrella North 0 0 Estrella North 0 0
Estrella South 0 32 Estrella South 0 32 Estrella South 0 3 Estrella South 0 3
Page 408 Laveen East 0 0 Laveen East 0 0 Laveen East 0 0 Laveen East 0 0
Laveen West 23 1 Laveen West 23 1 Laveen West 2 0 Laveen West 2 0
Northeast 243 161 Northeast 243 161 Northeast 24 16 Northeast 24 16
Northwest 0 97 Northwest 0 97 Northwest 0 10 Northwest 0 10
Total 267 323 Total 267 323 Total 26 32 Total 26 32
Industrial
Fire Protection Police Libraries Parks
IFP Audit IFP Audit IFP
Service Area Audit Period IFP Forecast Service Area Audit Period Forecast Service Area Period Forecast Service Area Period Forecast
Ahwatukee 0 0 Ahwatukee 0 0 Ahwatukee 0 0 Ahwatukee 0 0
Deer Valley 0 0 Deer Valley 0 0 Deer Valley 0 0 Deer Valley 0 0
Estrella North 293 238 Estrella North 293 238 Estrella North 21 17 Estrella North 21 17
Estrella South 781 269 Estrella South 781 269 Estrella South 56 19 Estrella South 56 19
Laveen East 7 0 Laveen East 7 0 Laveen East 1 0 Laveen East 1 0
Laveen West 0 0 Laveen West 0 0 Laveen West 0 0 Laveen West 0 0
Northeast 69 42 Northeast 69 42 Northeast 5 3 Northeast 5 3
Northwest 49 42 Northwest 49 42 Northwest 0 3 Northwest 3 3
Total 1,198 591 Total 1,198 591 Total 82 42 Total 86 42
Appendix C
LUA Audit Tables by Service Area
Institutional
Major Arterials Water Wastewater
Audit IFP Audit IFP Audit IFP
Service Area Period Forecast Service Area Period Forecast Service Area Period Forecast
Ahwatukee Ahwatukee 0 15 Ahwatukee 0 2
Deer Valley 0 0 Deer Valley 0 15 Deer Valley 0 0
Estrella North 0 0 Estrella North 0 15 Estrella North 0 0
Estrella South 0 0 Estrella South 0 15 Estrella South 0 0
Laveen East 6 0 Laveen East 9 15 Laveen East 7 0
Laveen West 0 202 Laveen West 0 15 Laveen West 0 73
Northeast 50 122 Northeast 0 15 Northeast 0 44
Northwest 137 0 Northwest 122 15 Northwest 114 0
Total 193 324 Total 131 120 Total 121 119
Office
Major Arterials Water Wastewater
Audit IFP Audit IFP Audit IFP
Service Area Period Forecast Service Area Period Forecast Service Area Period Forecast
Ahwatukee Ahwatukee 0 5 Ahwatukee 0 11
Deer Valley 0 0 Deer Valley 0 34 Deer Valley 0 0
Page 409 Estrella North 1 0 Estrella North 0 5 Estrella North 0 0
Estrella South 0 28 Estrella South 0 5 Estrella South 0 11
Laveen East 0 0 Laveen East 0 5 Laveen East 0 0
Laveen West 20 1 Laveen West 40 5 Laveen West 36 0
Northeast 216 143 Northeast 0 34 Northeast 0 91
Northwest 0 86 Northwest 0 34 Northwest 0 0
Total 237 258 Total 40 127 Total 36 113
Industrial
Major Arterials Water Wastewater
Audit IFP Audit IFP Audit IFP
Service Area Period Forecast Service Area Period Forecast Service Area Period Forecast
Ahwatukee Ahwatukee 0 80 Ahwatukee 0 0
Deer Valley 0 0 Deer Valley 0 22 Deer Valley 0 0
Estrella North 459 374 Estrella North 99 80 Estrella North 75 187
Estrella South 1,227 423 Estrella South 165 80 Estrella South 130 211
Laveen East 5 0 Laveen East 0 80 Laveen East 0 0
Laveen West 0 0 Laveen West 7 80 Laveen West 7 0
Northeast 40 66 Northeast 25 22 Northeast 19 66
Northwest 49 66 Northwest 0 22 Northwest 0 0
Total 1,780 929 Total 296 466 Total 232 464
Appendix C
LUA Audit Tables by Service Area
Storm Drainage
All Classes
Service Area Audit Period IFP Forecast
Ahwatukee
Deer Valley
Estrella North 246 2,709
Estrella South 1,931 2,709
Laveen East 300 3,159
Laveen West 710 3,159
Northeast
Northwest
Total 3,186 11,736
Page 410
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Maintenance - Z-TA-5-15 (Ordinance G-6868)
Request to hold a public hearing on a proposed text amendment Z-TA-5-15 and to
request that City Council approve Z-TA-5-15 as proposed which amends portions of
Chapters 5 (Development Review Procedures) and 7 (Development Standards of
General Applicability) of the Zoning Ordinance to address landscape maintenance.
Summary
Application: Z-TA-5-15
Proposal: Request to amend Chapter 5, Section 507.I. (Guidelines For Design Review
- Review of technical documents) and Section 507.K. (Effect of development review
approval), amend Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A.I.B.1. (Urban Design Principles -
Amenity/Comfort), Section 507 Tab A.I.G.2. (Urban Design Principles - Definition of
Space), Section 507 Tab A.II.A.3.1.10 (Guidelines for Design Review - Site
Design/Development - Landscape Architecture), add Section 507 Tab A.II.A.3.1.16
(Guidelines for Design Review - Site Design/Development - Landscape Architecture),
amend Section 507 Tab A.II.A.3.2. (Guidelines for Design Review - Site
Design/Development - Landscape Architecture), amend Section 507 Tab A.II.A.4.
(Guidelines for Design Review - Site Design/Development - Open Space/Amenities),
Section 507 Tab A.II.B.6.1 (Guidelines for Design Review - Building
Design/Construction - Public Amenities/Environmental Protection), add Section 507
Tab A.II.C.1.9 (Guidelines for Design Review - Subdivision Design/Development -
Streets/Circulation), amend Section 507 Tab A.II.C.4. (Guidelines for Design Review -
Subdivision Design/Development - Open Space/Amenities), and amend Chapter 7,
Section 703 (Landscaping, Fences and Walls) to add new subsection “E” to address
landscape maintenance.
Applicant: City of Phoenix, Planning Commission
Representative: City of Phoenix, Planning and Development Department
This text amendment responds to direction from the Phoenix City Council to update
existing codes and ordinances to support the provision of trees and shade throughout
Phoenix. The text amendment proposes several changes to Chapters 5 and 7 of the
Zoning Ordinance. The proposed changes can be generally classified as an
Page 411
enhancement of existing procedures, standards and the codification of best practices
related to landscape plan submittals and landscape maintenance.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of Z-TA-5-15, per the Attachment
E - Addendum A Staff Report Exhibit A language.
VPC Action: Informational presentations were provided through January and February
of 2021, as reflected in Attachment C - VPC Informational Summary. The request was
heard by all fifteen Village Planning Committees (VPCs) through April and May of
2021. Four VPCs recommended approval, seven VPCs recommended approval with
additional language, three recommended approval with direction, and one made no
recommendation due to lack of quorum, as reflected in Attachment D - VPC
Recommendation Summary.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on June 3, 2021 and
recommended Approval, per the language in Exhibit A of the Addendum A Staff Report
by a vote of 8-0, as reflected in Attachment F - PC Summary.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 412
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE G-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PORTIONS OF THE CODE OF THE
CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA, PART II, CHAPTER 41, THE
ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX BY AMENDING
CHAPTER 5, SECTION 507.I. (GUIDELINES FOR DESIGN REVIEW
- REVIEW OF TECHNICAL DOCUMENTS) AND SECTION 507.K.
(EFFECT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVAL), AMEND
CHAPTER 5, SECTION 507 TAB A.I.B.1. (URBAN DESIGN
PRINCIPLES - AMENITY/COMFORT), SECTION 507 TAB A.I.G.2.
(URBAN DESIGN PRINCIPLES - DEFINITION OF SPACE),
SECTION 507 TAB A.II.A.3.1.10 (GUIDELINES FOR DESIGN
REVIEW - SITE DESIGN/DEVELOPMENT - LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTURE), ADD SECTION 507 TAB A.II.A.3.1.16
(GUIDELINES FOR DESIGN REVIEW - SITE
DESIGN/DEVELOPMENT - LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE),
AMEND SECTION 507 TAB A.II.A.3.2. (GUIDELINES FOR DESIGN
REVIEW - SITE DESIGN/DEVELOPMENT - LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTURE), AMEND SECTION 507 TAB A.II.A.4.
(GUIDELINES FOR DESIGN REVIEW - SITE
DESIGN/DEVELOPMENT - OPEN SPACE/AMENITIES), SECTION
507 TAB A.II.B.6.1 (GUIDELINES FOR DESIGN REVIEW -
BUILDING DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION - PUBLIC
AMENITIES/ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION), ADD SECTION
507 TAB A.II.C.1.9 (GUIDELINES FOR DESIGN REVIEW -
SUBDIVISION DESIGN/DEVELOPMENT -
STREETS/CIRCULATION), AMEND SECTION 507 TAB A.II.C.4.
(GUIDELINES FOR DESIGN REVIEW - SUBDIVISION
DESIGN/DEVELOPMENT - OPEN SPACE/AMENITIES), AND
AMEND CHAPTER 7, SECTION 703 (LANDSCAPING, FENCES
AND WALLS) TO ADD NEW SUBSECTION “E” OF THE PHOENIX
ZONING ORDINANCE TO ADDRESS LANDSCAPE
MAINTENANCE.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
Page 413
SECTION 1: That Chapter 5, Section 507.I. (Guidelines for Design Review -
Review of technical documents) is amended to read as follows:
I. Review of technical DEVELOPMENT REVIEW documents.
***
2. Technical plans and improvements DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
DOCUMENTS. The following plans indicating dedications and improvements
should be shown, as determined by the Planning and Development
Department, and are required for review and approval:
a. Grading and drainage plans including, but not limited to, hillside and
floodplain reviews.
b. Paving plans.
c. Water and sewer line plans.
d. Landscaping plans. LANDSCAPE PLANS, PLANT INVENTORY
PLANS, AND PLANT SALVAGE AND TREE PROTECTION PLANS.
Each applicant shall submit landscaping plans showing the information
required on the checklist provided and in the format required by the
Planning and Development Department including:
(1) Landscape conservation plan. Prior to clearing and grubbing
a site or obtaining a grading permit, an applicant shall submit a
landscape conservation plan indicating existing vegetation and
salvage items. The Planning and Development Department will
determine if this plan is necessary following the review of the
context plan.
(2) Landscape plan. Each applicant shall submit a landscape plan
which must show the information required on the checklist
provided and in the format required by the Planning and
Development Department.
(3) Standards. Plant material sizes and specifications must
conform to American Nursery Association standards.
(4) Installation and maintenance. All plant material as shown on
approved landscape plans is to be installed and maintained with
an appropriate watering system in a living and viable state.
e. Architectural plans and elevations.
Page 414
***
SECTION 2: That Chapter 5, Section 507.K. (Effect of development review
approval) is amended to read as follows for paragraphs K.1., K.4., and K.6.:
K. Effect of development review approval.
1. Construction document submittal and building permit issuance.
Approved development review documents shall be ARE binding upon the
applicants PROPERTY OWNERS and their successors or assignees and shall
nullify all previously approved plans. Copies of the approved development
review documents or exemption must be included in any construction
documents submitted for building permit approval. No building permit shall
MAY be issued for any building or structure not in accordANCE with the
approved development review documents and conditions of approval. The
construction, location, use, or operation, OR MAINTENANCE of all land and
structures within the site shall MUST conform to all conditions and limitations
set forth in the development review documents. Evidence of development
review approval in the form of a copy of the approved development review
documents or exemption must be available on the construction site. In the
event THE SITE HAS NOT BEEN DEVELOPED OR MAINTAINED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROVED property owner does not comply with
the conditions imposed on the development review documents, this shall IT
WILL be considered a violation of the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Temporary construction facilities. Temporary construction facilities shall be
permitted for the purpose of developing the project. In case of a question the
Planning and Development Department shall determine if facilities proposed
qualify as temporary and related to construction. Such facilities shall be
removed within seven days after completion of initial construction or prior to
issuance of the certificate of occupancy, whichever first occurs.
3. Amendments. No structure, use or element of approved development review
documents shall be eliminated, altered, or provided in another manner unless
an amendment is approved in accordance with the standards for new reviews.
4. Site inspection and issuance of certificate of occupancy. The Planning
and Development Department shall MUST inspect each project FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE APPROVED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
DOCUMENTS prior to ISSUING A certificate of occupancy OR CERTIFICATE
OF COMPLETION. No final certificate of occupancy OR CERTIFICATE OF
COMPLETION shall WILL be issued if the project does not meet the
requirements of THE STRUCTURE AND ASSOCIATED SITE
IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO SITE UTILITIES,
Page 415
PAVING, GRADING, PLANT SALVAGE AND TREE PROTECTION, AND
LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION, INCLUDING IRRIGATION, HAVE NOT BEEN
INSTALLED, PROTECTED, OR SALVAGED IN ACCORDANCE WITH the
approved development review documents. The Planning and Development
Department may issue conditional OR TEMPORARY certificates of occupancy
in conformance with the provisions of the Construction Code. In the case of
subdivision development, the Planning and Development Department will
monitor the buildout of each subdivision approved through the development
review process for conformance to approved development review documents
and exhibits. The Planning and Development Department may withhold the
release of building permits within a subdivision if, at the discretion of the
Planning and Development Director, the buildings within the subdivision are
not conforming to diversity standards set by the approved development review
documents.
5. Enforcement. Development review documents approved under this section
shall be enforced by the Planning and Development Department under the
supervision of the Zoning Administrator. Whenever enforcement personnel find
that any proposed construction or occupancy or completed facility does not or
will not comply with the approved development review documents, they shall
require the property owner to comply with the conditions of the development
review documents.
In the event the property owner does not comply with the conditions imposed
on the development review documents, it will be considered a violation of the
Zoning Ordinance.
6. Validity.
a. Preliminary approval. Approval of the preliminary development review
documents shall be IS valid for a period of 24 months. In a phased
project, if preliminary development review documents are filed over the
total site and final development review approval is achieved on a
portion of the site within the 24-month period, the preliminary
development review documents will remain valid for an additional 12
months. Additional time beyond the 36 months shall requireS
WRITTEN approval by THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DIRECTOR City Manager’s representative.
b. Final approval. Approved development review documents shall be
ARE valid for a period of 24 months and continue in effect beyond 24
months if a building permit has been issued and has not expired. or IF
a FINAL certificate of occupancy OR CERTIFICATE OF
COMPLETION has been issued FOR THE SITE, APPROVED
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DOCUMENTS WILL REMAIN VALID AND
ENFORCEABLE UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT REVISED OR
Page 416
REPLACEMENT DOCUMENTS FOR THE SITE ARE APPROVED BY
THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT with the
project complying with the approved development review documents.
***
SECTION 3: That Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A.I.B. (Urban Design Principles -
Amenity/Comfort) is amended to read as follows for paragraph B.1.:
B. Amenity/Comfort. Settlements in the desert generally occur in an "oasis" setting
which is a respite from the extreme of the larger area context. A development in an
arid setting requires design features to aid human comfort. It is important to
understand that urban conditions such as paved areas and buildings generating
reflected heat create aridity and require mitigating design features which enhance
habitability.
1. Promote human comfort by providing shaded areas, courtyards, PUBLIC
AND PRIVATE WALKWAYS, colonnades and other areas as site amenities.
***
SECTION 4: That Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A.I.G. (Urban Design Principles -
Definition of Space) is amended to read as follows for paragraph G.2.:
G. Definition of Space. Streets, parking lots, buildings and landscape are the major
elements that define the special qualities of our environment. Organize them to
foster a setting supportive to the pedestrian as well as the driver.
1. Relate the size, character and setting of proposed projects to the functions
of adjacent streets and pedestrian networks. Buildings should be oriented to
the public rights-of-way and close to pedestrian movement.
2. The areas immediately adjacent to buildings should be designed to integrate
with surrounding landscape and pedestrian walkways. Shaded courtyards,
WALKWAYS, cloisters, trellises, colonnades and public art are encouraged
for consideration into the design to define space.
***
SECTION 5: That Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A.II.A.3.1 (Guidelines for Design
Review - Site Design/Development - Landscape Architecture) is amended to
read as follows for paragraph 3.1.10 and is amended to add paragraph 3.1.16:
Page 417
3. Landscape Architecture.
3.1 Plant Materials.
***
3.1.10 Trees SHOULD BE LOCATED adjacent to pedestrian walkways
PUBLIC AND PRIVATE WALKWAYS, AND MULTI-USE TRAILS
AND PATHS, TO PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 50 PERCENT SHADE
AND should have a minimum canopy clearance of six feet eight
inches. (P)
Rationale: SHADED Cclear walkways are necessary for pedestrian
HEALTH, safety, AND WELFARE.
***
3.1.16 PLANT MATERIALS SHOULD BE SELECTED FOR APPROPRIATE
MATURE SIZE, SPACE NEEDS, LOCATION, AND REQUIRED USE
FOR THEIR ULTIMATE LOCATION ON THE SITE. (P)
RATIONALE: ALL PLANTS ARE NOT SUITABLE FOR ALL
LOCATIONS. CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE GIVEN FOR SIZE AT
MATURITY, REASON FOR CHOICE (E.G., SHADE PROVISION OR
SCREENING/BUFFERING), MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS,
AND LONG-TERM VIABILITY. LOW MAINTENANCE PLANTS
WHICH HAVE A PROVEN TRACK RECORD OF SURVIVABILITY
IN THE URBAN DESERT ENVIRONMENT SHOULD BE
INSTALLED WHENEVER POSSIBLE.
***
SECTION 6: That Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A.II.A.3.2 (Guidelines for Design
Review - Site Design/Development - Landscape Architecture) is amended to
read as follows:
3. Landscape Architecture.
3.2 Maintenance OF LANDSCAPE AREAS.
***
3.2.3 Irrigation systems should be permanent and automatic A
PERMANENT AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHOULD BE
Page 418
INSTALLED TO WATER ALL TREES, CACTI, AND PLANTS
INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROVED
LANDSCAPE PLANS OR OTHER DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
DOCUMENTS to minimize maintenance and water consumption,
AND TO MAXIMIZE PLANT HEALTH, SURVIVABILITY, AND
VIABILITY, UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. (P)
Rationale: DIFFERENT TYPES AND SPECIES OF PLANTS
REQUIRE DIFFERENT AMOUNTS OF SUPPLEMENTAL WATER
BASED ON VARYING MICROCLIMATES CREATED BY THE
URBAN ENVIRONMENT TO ACHIEVE A HEALTHY, VIABLE,
LONG-TERM SURVIVABILITY RATE. An efficient, APPROPRIATE
irrigation system will SUPPORT LONG-TERM PLANT HEALTH BY
APPLYING THE RIGHT AMOUNT OF SUPPLEMENTAL WATER
FOR OPTIMUM PLANT HEALTH AND control growth and reduce
maintenance costs.
***
SECTION 7: That Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A.II.A.4. (Guidelines for Design
Review - Site Design/Development - Open Space/Amenities) is amended to read
as follows:
4. Open Space/Amenities.
4.1 Improved open spaces, plazas and courtyards should be SHADED A
MINIMUM 50 PERCENT AND functional in terms of area, dimensions,
location and amenities to promote safe human interaction. (P)
Rationale: SHADED Ppedestrian amenities help to encourage the use of
public spaces. With respect to open space, bigger is not necessarily better.
A series of small areas, each provided with amenities may foster more
human interrelationship than a large monolithic space.
4.2 Usable public space should incorporate A MINIMUM OF 50 PERCENT
shading through the use of TREES OR structures that provide shading,
landscaping, or a combination of the two unless otherwise prohibited by site
visibility triangles or other technical constraints. (P)
Rationale: SHADE IS NECESSARY FOR Ppeople are attracted to USE
AND ENJOY public areas with shade during large portions of the year in
Phoenix FOR THEIR HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE.
Page 419
***
SECTION 8: That Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A.II.B.6. (Guidelines for Design
Review - Building Design/Construction - Public Amenities/Environmental
Protection) is amended to read as follows:
6. Public Amenities/Environmental Protection.
6.1 PUBLIC AND PRIVATE Ppedestrian walkways and gathering areas should
be shaded (minimum 50% at maturity) FOR THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND
WELFARE OF PEDESTRIANS AND to encourage use. (P)
Rationale: The design of pedestrian routes and gathering areas, such as
WALKWAYS, courtyards and plazas, should be designed with appropriate
shading FOR THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF PEDESTRIANS
AND to MITIGATE THE HEAT ISLAND EFFECT TO enhance the
PEDESTRIAN environment and the pedestrian experience.
***
SECTION 9: That Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A.II.C.1. (Guidelines for Design
Review - Subdivision Design/Development - Streets/Circulation) is amended to
add new subsection 1.9 as follows:
1. Streets/Circulation.
***
1.9 PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SIDEWALKS ADJACENT TO ARTERIAL AND
COLLECTOR STREETS AND LOCATED WITHIN AND CONNECTING ALL
COMMON OPEN SPACE TRACTS AND AMENITIES SHOULD BE
SHADED A MINIMUM OF 50 PERCENT. (P)
RATIONALE: SHADED SIDEWALKS AND PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS
SHOULD BE DESIGNED WITH APPROPRIATE SHADING FOR THE
HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF PEDESTRIANS THAT MITIGATES
THE EXTREME SUMMER TEMPERATURES, AS WELL AS THE HEAT
ISLAND EFFECT AND ENHANCES THE PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT.
Page 420
SECTION 10: That Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A.II.C.4. (Guidelines for Design
Review - Subdivision Design/Development - Open Space/Amenities) is amended
to read as follows:
4. Open Space/Amenities.
4.1 Large open space and retention areas (generally greater than 10,000
square feet) should be improved to include active and passive amenities
(e.g. tot lot, ramada, tennis court, barbecues, large seating areas,
landscaping, etc.) AND A MINIMUM 50% VEGETATION. SEATING AREAS
SHOULD BE SHADED BY STRUCTURES OR VEGETATION (50% AT
MATURITY). (P)
Rationale: Different types of improvements will appeal to different segments
of the resident population. To ensure long-term maintenance AND USE of
open space areas, it is important to provide YEAR-ROUND amenities FOR
THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF ALL RESIDENTS to
MITIGATE THE EXTREME SUMMER TEMPERATURES, AS WELL AS
THE HEAT ISLAND EFFECT, in which the homeowners association will
maintain interest.
4.2 Open space and retention tracts/easements should be landscaped,
accessible, safe and secure. Common retention may qualify for required
common open space if it has a minimum area of 1000 square feet of level
bottom with maximum side slopes of 4:1 and is properly landscaped as
usable open space (minimum 50% vegetation). ANY PROPOSED
SEATING AREAS SHOULD BE SHADED BY STRUCTURES OR
VEGETATION (50% AT MATURITY). Streets (public and/or private) and
required perimeter landscape setbacks will not count towards common open
space. (P)
Rationale: Open space and retention areas that are accessible, and
functional, AND PROVIDE YEAR-ROUND SHADED AMENITIES FOR THE
HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF ALL RESIDENTS TO MITIGATE
THE EXTREME SUMMER TEMPERATURES, AS WELL AS THE HEAT
ISLAND EFFECT, are an amenity to the neighborhood. If feasible, open
space should be centrally located in order to be accessible to as many
residents as possible.
***
Page 421
SECTION 11: That Chapter 7, Section 703 (Landscaping, Fences and Walls) is
amended to add new subsection “E” as follows:
***
E. GENERAL LANDSCAPE STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS.
1. LANDSCAPE SALVAGE AND TREE PROTECTION.
a. ALL TREES, PLANTS AND CACTI ON SITE AND IN THE
ABUTTING RIGHTS OF WAY MUST REMAIN IN PLACE IN A
HEALTHY, STRUCTURALLY SOUND, AND VIABLE CONDITION,
IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPROVED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
DOCUMENTS. REMOVAL OR DESTRUCTION OF LANDSCAPE
MATERIALS INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPROVED
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DOCUMENTS WILL BE
CONSIDERED A VIOLATION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE,
EXCEPT WHEN IN COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 703.E.1.B
AND 1.C.
b. NO TREES, PLANTS OR CACTI MAY BE REMOVED OR
DESTROYED ON A PROPERTY WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING A
PLANT SALVAGE PERMIT FROM THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, EXCEPT AS FOLLOWS:
(1) THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
HAS EXPRESSLY STATED IN WRITING THAT A PLANT
SALVAGE PLAN IS NOT REQUIRED FOR THE SITE AS
PART OF THE APPROVED PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
OR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL DOCUMENTS, OR
ON THE FINAL SITE PLAN IF A PRELIMINARY
APPROVAL IS NOT REQUIRED; OR
(2) TREES, PLANTS OR CACTI TO BE REMOVED ARE
LOCATED ON A SINGLE-FAMILY LOT HAVING ONE
HOME OR DUPLEX; OR
(3) TREES, PLANTS OR CACTI TO BE REMOVED WERE
DESTROYED BY A NATURAL CAUSE OR OTHER
UNFORESEEN AND ACCIDENTAL INCIDENT; OR
(4) TREES, PLANTS OR CACTI REMOVED BY THE OWNER
OR A PUBLIC UTILITY PROVIDER FOR THE PURPOSE
OF MAINTAINING ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION OR
DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES. UPON REQUEST, THE
OWNER SHALL PROVIDE THE PLANNING AND
Page 422
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A WRITTEN
EXPLANATION FROM THE PUBLIC UTILITY PROVIDER
THAT THE REMOVAL IS NECESSARY FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION, INSTALLATION, OPERATION, AND
MAINTENANCE OF THE ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION OR
DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES.
c. OWNERS OF PROPERTY MUST REPLACE TREES, PLANTS
OR CACTI WITH LIKE KINDS AND SIZES OR EQUIVALENT AS
DETERMINED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE APPROVED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
DOCUMENTS, AS FOLLOWS:
(1) WHEN TREES, PLANTS AND CACTI WERE DESTROYED
BY A NATURAL CAUSE OR OTHER UNFORESEEN AND
ACCIDENTAL INCIDENT AND WERE REMOVED; OR
(2) WHEN REMAIN/PROTECT IN PLACE AND SALVAGED
TREES, PLANTS AND CACTI HAVE DIED, BEEN
REMOVED OR DESTROYED.
UNLESS SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OR
DESIGNEE, NO FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY
OR CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION WILL BE ISSUED
PRIOR TO THE INSTALLATION OF THE LIKE KIND AND
SIZE REPLACEMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH 507.K.4.
2. REQUIRED LANDSCAPE PLANS. LANDSCAPE PLANS ARE
REQUIRED FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE APPLICABILITY REQUIREMENTS OF SECTIONS 507.I. AND K.
“LANDSCAPE PLANS” MAY REFER TO ANY OR ALL OF THE
FOLLOWING PLANS: PLANT INVENTORY PLAN, PLANT SALVAGE
AND TREE PROTECTION PLAN, AND/OR LANDSCAPE
(INSTALLATION) PLAN. ALL PLANS MUST PROVIDE THE
INFORMATION AND FORMAT REQUIRED ON CHECKLISTS
PROVIDED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
AND BE SEALED BY A LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT REGISTERED IN
THE STATE OF ARIZONA.
a. PLANT INVENTORY PLAN: IDENTIFIES THE TYPES, SIZES,
AND LOCATIONS OF ALL TREES, CACTI, AND PLANTS
EXISTING ON THE SITE AND STATES THE PHYSICAL HEALTH
AND CONDITION OF EACH AS DETERMINED BY A
Page 423
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT REGISTERED IN THE STATE OF
ARIZONA.
b. PLANT SALVAGE AND TREE PROTECTION PLAN:
IDENTIFIES THE DISPOSITION OF ALL OF THE TREES, CACTI,
AND PLANTS IDENTIFIED IN THE PLANT INVENTORY PLAN
(I.E., “REMAIN/PROTECT IN PLACE”, “SALVAGE”, OR
“DESTROY”), INCLUDING DETAILS OF THE PLANT NURSERY
AND WATERING SYSTEM AND SCHEDULES FOR WATERING,
PRUNING, FERTILIZATION, MONITORING AND INSPECTION
TO BE PROVIDED FOR SALVAGED AND REMAIN/PROTECT IN
PLACE PLANTS UNTIL FINAL COMPLETION. FOR ALL TREES,
CACTI AND PLANTS THAT WILL REMAIN IN PLACE, THE PLAN
WILL INCLUDE A DESCRIPTION OF HOW THE CRITICAL
ROOT ZONES WILL BE PROTECTED DURING THE
CONSTRUCTION PHASE, INCLUDING PROTECTIVE FENCING.
MINIMUM CRITICAL ROOT ZONES WILL BE DETERMINED
ACCORDING TO THE CURRENT STANDARDS SET FORTH BY
THE AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARDS INSTITUTE (ANSI),
THE SUSTAINABLE LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT STANDARDS
OF THE ARIZONA LANDSCAPE CONTRACTORS’
ASSOCIATION, OR OTHER ACCEPTABLE SUSTAINABLE
LANDSCAPE STANDARDS AS DETERMINED BY THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT.
c. LANDSCAPE (INSTALLATION) PLAN: IDENTIFIES THE
TYPES, SIZES, AND LOCATIONS OF ALL TREES, CACTI, AND
PLANTS (INCLUDING THOSE TO REMAIN/PROTECT IN PLACE
OR SALVAGED) TO BE INSTALLED ON THE SITE, ON
DOCUMENTS SEALED BY A LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
REGISTERED IN THE STATE OF ARIZONA. LANDSCAPE
PLANS ARE TO ALSO INCLUDE ALL LANDSCAPE MATERIALS,
A MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE, IRRIGATION PLANS, PLUS
OTHER INFORMATION AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT STAFF. PLANT MATERIAL SIZES AND
SPECIFICATIONS MUST CONFORM TO THE STANDARDS OF
THE AMERICAN STANDARDS FOR NURSERY STOCK (ANSI
Z60.1) OR THE ARIZONA NURSERY ASSOCIATION.
(1) LANDSCAPE PLANS SHALL INCLUDE A MAINTENANCE
SCHEDULE WHICH IDENTIFIES THE RECOMMENDED
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE INCLUDING, BUT NOT
LIMITED TO, WEEDS, ROCK MULCH, AND IRRIGATION.
THE SCHEDULE SHALL IDENTIFY SEASONAL WATER
APPLICATION RATES, TYPES AND METHODS OF
Page 424
FERTILIZATION, AND PRUNING, ETC. FOR EACH
PLANT TYPE. ACCORDING TO THE CURRENT
STANDARDS SET FORTH BY THE AMERICAN
NATIONAL STANDARDS INSTITUTE (ANSI), THE
SUSTAINABLE LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT
STANDARDS OF THE ARIZONA LANDSCAPE
CONTRACTORS’ ASSOCIATION, OR OTHER
ACCEPTABLE STANDARDS AS DETERMINED BY THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.
DEVIATIONS FOR PRUNING STANDARDS ARE
PERMITTED WHEN DONE FOR THE PURPOSE OF
MAINTAINING ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION OR
DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES. UPON REQUEST, THE
OWNER SHALL PROVIDE THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A WRITTEN
EXPLANATION FROM THE PUBLIC UTILITY PROVIDER
THAT THE PRUNING IS NECESSARY FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION, INSTALLATION, OPERATION, AND
MAINTENANCE OF THE ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION OR
DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES.
***
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 16th day of June, 2021
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________City Attorney
Page 425
REVIEWED BY:
____________________________City Manager
Page 426
Attachment B
Staff Report
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment
Z-TA-5-15
(Landscape Maintenance)
April 9, 2021
Application No. Z-TA-5-15: Amend Chapter 5, Section 507.I.2.d. (Guidelines For
Design Review - Review of technical documents) and Section 507.K. (Effect of
development review approval), Amend Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A.I.B.1 (Urban
Design Principles – Amenity/Comfort), Section 507 Tab A.I.G.2 (Urban Design
Principles – Definition of Space), Section 507 Tab A.II.A.3.3.10 (Guidelines for Design
Review – Site Design/Development - Landscape Architecture), add Section 507 Tab
A.II.A.3.3.16 (Guidelines for Design Review – Site Design/Development - Landscape
Architecture), Amend Section 507 Tab A.II.A.3.3.2.3 (Guidelines for Design Review –
Site Design/Development - Landscape Architecture), add Section 507 Tab A.II.A.3.3.2.5
(Guidelines for Design Review – Site Design/Development - Landscape Architecture),
Amend Section 507 Tab A.II.A.4 (Guidelines for Design Review – Site
Design/Development – Open Space/Amenities), Section 507 Tab A.II.B.6.1 (Guidelines
for Design Review – Building Design/Construction – Public Amenities/Environmental
Protection), add Section 507 Tab A.II.C.1.9 (Guidelines for Design Review –
Subdivision Design/Development – Streets/Circulation), Amend Section 507 Tab
A.II.C.4 (Guidelines for Design Review – Subdivision Design/Development – Open
Space/Amenities), and Amend Chapter 7, Section 703 (Landscaping, Fences and
Walls) to add new subsection “E” to address landscape maintenance.
Staff recommendation: Staff recommends approval of Z-TA-5-15 as shown in
Exhibit A.
PURPOSE
This text amendment responds to direction from the Phoenix City Council to update
existing codes and ordinances to support the provision of trees and shade throughout
Phoenix. The text amendment proposes several changes to Chapters 5 and 7 of the
Zoning Ordinance. The proposed changes can be generally classified as an
enhancement of existing procedures, standards and the codification of best practices
related to landscape plan submittals and landscape maintenance.
Page 427
Staff Report Z-TA-5-15
April 9, 2021
BACKGROUND
The Phoenix City Council and Phoenix residents have supported a variety of efforts to
address the challenges posed to the city by climate change and the urban heat island
effect. The City of Phoenix has employed a variety of strategies in this effort from the
development of a cool pavement pilot program to the Citizen Forester program.
One of the primary strategies aimed at cooling the city’s increasing nighttime
temperatures during the summer months has been the planting of trees. Shade
provided by trees can help decrease the amount of heat absorbed by concrete, asphalt
and other building materials. The voter approved Phoenix General Plan and the City
Council adopted Tree and Shade Master Plan and 2050 Sustainability Goals all
articulate a goal of 25 percent tree canopy coverage for the city. Trees are provided in a
variety of locations throughout the city from public parks to private property. The
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance contains guidelines and standards related to how trees are
planted and maintained on private property. Ensuring that the Zoning Ordinance is
written in a way that supports trees is an important component in the city’s overall
strategy to meet the tree canopy goal.
EXISTING ZONING ORDINANCE
Chapter 5 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance currently contains several sections
regarding development review procedures for landscape submittal documents (i.e.
landscaping plans). Section 507 of Chapter 5 specifically addresses development
approval requirements that are administered as part of a project’s plan submittal and
review. Section 507 Tab A contains the city’s design guidelines. There are several
subsections within the design guidelines that address the provision of landscaping and
shade. The design guidelines are organized into three categories – Requirements (R),
Presumptions (P) and Considerations (C). Most of the guidelines are Presumptions.
Presumptions contains words like “should” and are required to be addressed as part of
the site and design review process. Presumptions do provide the ability for an applicant
to find alternative ways for the guideline to be addressed or to demonstrate that the
guideline is unworkable given unique site conditions.
Chapter 7 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance currently has development standards that
apply to the various zoning districts for the city (parking, signs etc.). Section 703 of
Chapter 7 contains the bulk landscaping standards for the multifamily zoning districts.
Landscaping standards for the other districts (commercial, commercial office, commerce
park, single family etc.) are articulated in each of the individual districts in Chapter 6 of
the Zoning Ordinance.
Two of the most recent additions to the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 12
(Downtown Code) and Chapter 13 (Walkable Urban Code) also contain landscaping
and shade standards that promote a safe and inviting environment for pedestrians. The
proposed updates to Chapter 5 and Chapter 7 will apply to landscape submittals and
landscape maintenance requirements for projects throughout the city including those
within the Downtown Code or zoned Walkable Urban Code.
Page 428
Staff Report Z-TA-5-15
April 9, 2021
TEXT AMENDMENT PROVISIONS
The following is a summary of the proposed text amendment provisions in Chapter 5
and Chapter 7.
CHAPTER 5
Site Inspection and Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. Update to Chapter 5,
Section 507.K. (Effect of development review approval) by amending paragraphs
K.1 and K.4.
The proposed amendment clarifies that worked related to paving, grading, plant
salvage, landscape and irrigation installation and associated site improvements must be
done in accordance with approved development review documents prior to the issuance
of a certificate of occupancy. These items are included now as part of the final site plan,
but the text amendment would specifically call them out in the Zoning Ordinance.
Validity of Approved Review Documents. Update to Chapter 5, Section 507.K.
(Effect of development review approval) by amending paragraph K.6
Reinforces that approved development review documents remain valid and enforceable
until revised or replacement documents for the project are approved. This change
codifies an established practice and strengthens the legal standing of approved
landscaping documents.
Design Guidelines. Update to Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A by updating and
adding guidelines in several subsections.
Modifies several design guidelines to support best practices of locating trees near
pedestrian and open space areas and updates other provisions to address inconsistent
shade percentages. These provisions are Presumptions that clarify where trees should
be located and how much shade should be provided but afford flexibility for applicants
and staff to collaborate on alternative solutions.
Plant Materials. Update to Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A.II.A.3.3.1 (Guidelines for
Design Review – Site Design/Development - Landscape Architecture) by
amending paragraph 3.1.10 add new paragraph 3.1.16
Adds a Presumption that addresses the selection of plant materials that are appropriate
for the site’s unique conditions (right tree / plant, right place). Like the other
Presumptions, this provision is also written to provide flexibility for applicants and staff
to work together to ensure that the plant materials identified on the plans are suitable for
the proposed locations.
Page 429
Staff Report Z-TA-5-15
April 9, 2021
CHAPTER 7
Landscape Removal Standards. Amend Chapter 7, Section 703 (Landscaping,
Fences and Walls) to add new subsection “E”.
Establishes requirements related to the removal or destruction of trees or cacti along
with exemptions for single-family homes and utility corridors. The primary purpose of
these provisions is to ensure that the property complies with the Zoning Ordinance’s
landscaping requirements and that the trees or cacti are ultimately replaced.
Required Landscape and Maintenance Plans. Amend Chapter 7, Section 703
(Landscaping, Fences and Walls) to add new subsection “E.2”.
Outlines submittal requirements for landscape inventory, landscape salvage, landscape
installation and landscape maintenance plans that were previously in Chapter 5.
Includes a provision that calls for the inclusion of a maintenance plan that embeds
another best practice into the Zoning Ordinance. The maintenance plan will provide a
basis for discussion between staff and design professionals to ensure that landscape
and maintenance plans are appropriate for the site and the proposed use with goal of
ensuring the long-term health of the trees. The maintenance plan provisions also
contain exemptions to address the unique maintenance needs of landscaping within
utility corridors.
GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY
The proposed Text Amendment directly responds to the following principles and calls
for action in the Phoenix General Plan.
CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS
HEALTHY NEIGHBORHOODS; DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Establish design
standards and guidelines for parking lots and structures, setback and build to
lines, blank wall space, shade, and other elements affecting pedestrians, to
encourage pedestrian activity and identify options for providing pedestrian-
oriented design in different types of development.
The proposed provisions encourage the location of trees near sidewalks, trails and
walking paths. The strategic location of trees will provide shade and support
pedestrian activity. In addition, the new language regarding the standards for
removing and replacing trees will help to ensure that investments in shade will be
maintained.
Page 430
Staff Report Z-TA-5-15
April 9, 2021
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.
TREES AND SHADE; TOOL POLICIES & ACTIONS; CODES: Develop and
establish a comprehensive tree, shade and landscape ordinance
The text amendment is a first step in the General Plan’s call for a comprehensive
ordinance for trees, shade and landscaping. The text amendment’s provisions will
help staff and applicants work together to ensure trees and shade are an integral
part of new development and redevelopment projects.
CONCLUSION
The text amendment is an important step in reinforcing the values trees and
landscaping play in helping make Phoenix a livable city. While future updates will be
needed, the update’s provisions will clarify submittal requirements and provide clarity on
the importance of maintaining requiring trees in place.
Staff recommends Z-TA-5-15 approval per the language in Exhibit A.
Writer
T. Gomes & J. Bednarek
4/9/2021
Exhibit
A. Proposed Language
Page 431
Staff Report Z-TA-5-15
April 9, 2021
EXHIBIT A
Text Amendment Z-TA-5-15: Landscape Maintenance
Proposed Language:
Amend Chapter 5, Section 507.I.2.d. (Guidelines For Design Review - Review of
technical documents) by amending paragraph I.2.d to read as follows:
I. Review of technical DEVELOPMENT REVIEW documents.
***
2. Technical plans and improvements DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
DOCUMENTS. The following plans indicating dedications and improvements
should be shown, as determined by the Planning and Development
Department, and are required for review and approval:
a. Grading and drainage plans including, but not limited to, hillside and
floodplain reviews.
b. Paving plans.
c. Water and sewer line plans.
d. Landscaping plans. LANDSCAPE PLANS, PLANT INVENTORY
AND PLANT SALVAGE PLANS. Each applicant shall submit
landscaping plans showing the information required on the checklist
provided and in the format required by the Planning and Development
Department including:
(1) Landscape conservation plan. Prior to clearing and grubbing
a site or obtaining a grading permit, an applicant shall submit a
landscape conservation plan indicating existing vegetation and
salvage items. The Planning and Development Department will
determine if this plan is necessary following the review of the
context plan.
(2) Landscape plan. Each applicant shall submit a landscape plan
which must show the information required on the checklist
provided and in the format required by the Planning and
Development Department.
(3) Standards. Plant material sizes and specifications must
conform to American Nursery Association standards.
(4) Installation and maintenance. All plant material as shown on
approved landscape plans is to be installed and maintained with
an appropriate watering system in a living and viable state.
Page 432
Staff Report Z-TA-5-15
April 9, 2021
e. Architectural plans and elevations.
***
Amend Chapter 5, Section 507.K. (Effect of development review approval) by
amending paragraphs K.1, K.4 and K.6 to read as follows:
K. Effect of development review approval.
1. Construction document submittal and building permit issuance.
Approved development review documents shall be ARE binding upon the
applicants PROPERTY OWNERS and their successors or assignees and shall
nullify all previously approved plans. Copies of the approved development
review documents or exemption must be included in any construction
documents submitted for building permit approval. No building permit shall
MAY be issued for any building or structure not in accordANCE with the
approved development review documents and conditions of approval. The
construction, location, use, or operation, OR MAINTENANCE of all land and
structures within the site shall MUST conform to all conditions and limitations
set forth in the development review documents. Evidence of development
review approval in the form of a copy of the approved development review
documents or exemption must be available on the construction site. In the
event THE SITE HAS NOT BEEN DEVELOPED OR MAINTAINED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROVED property owner does not comply with
the conditions imposed on the development review documents, this shall IT
WILL be considered a violation of the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Temporary construction facilities. Temporary construction facilities shall be
permitted for the purpose of developing the project. In case of a question the
Planning and Development Department shall determine if facilities proposed
qualify as temporary and related to construction. Such facilities shall be
removed within seven days after completion of initial construction or prior to
issuance of the certificate of occupancy, whichever first occurs.
3. Amendments. No structure, use or element of approved development review
documents shall be eliminated, altered, or provided in another manner unless
an amendment is approved in accordance with the standards for new reviews.
4. Site inspection and issuance of certificate of occupancy. The Planning
and Development Department shall MUST inspect each project FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE APPROVED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
DOCUMENTS prior to ISSUING A certificate of occupancy OR CERTIFICATE
OF COMPLETION. No final certificate of occupancy OR CERTIFICATE OF
COMPLETION shall WILL be issued if the project does not meet the
requirements of THE STRUCTURE AND ASSOCIATED SITE
Page 433
Staff Report Z-TA-5-15
April 9, 2021
IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO SITE UTILITIES,
PAVING, GRADING, PLANT SALVAGE, AND LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION,
INCLUDING IRRIGATION, HAVE NOT BEEN INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH the approved development review documents. The Planning and
Development Department may issue conditional OR TEMPORARY certificates
of occupancy in conformance with the provisions of the Construction Code. In
the case of subdivision development, the Planning and Development
Department will monitor the buildout of each subdivision approved through the
development review process for conformance to approved development
review documents and exhibits. The Planning and Development Department
may withhold the release of building permits within a subdivision if, at the
discretion of the Planning and Development Director, the buildings within the
subdivision are not conforming to diversity standards set by the approved
development review documents.
5. Enforcement. Development review documents approved under this section
shall be enforced by the Planning and Development Department under the
supervision of the Zoning Administrator. Whenever enforcement personnel find
that any proposed construction or occupancy or completed facility does not or
will not comply with the approved development review documents, they shall
require the property owner to comply with the conditions of the development
review documents.
In the event the property owner does not comply with the conditions imposed
on the development review documents, it will be considered a violation of the
Zoning Ordinance.
6. Validity.
a. Preliminary approval. Approval of the preliminary development review
documents shall be IS valid for a period of 24 months. In a phased
project, if preliminary development review documents are filed over the
total site and final development review approval is achieved on a
portion of the site within the 24-month period, the preliminary
development review documents will remain valid for an additional 12
months. Additional time beyond the 36 months shall requireS
WRITTEN approval by THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DIRECTOR City Manager’s representative.
b. Final approval. Approved development review documents shall be
ARE valid for a period of 24 months and continue in effect beyond 24
months if a building permit has been issued and has not expired. or IF
a FINAL certificate of occupancy OR CERTIFICATE OF
COMPLETION has been issued FOR THE SITE, APPROVED
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DOCUMENTS WILL REMAIN VALID AND
Page 434
Staff Report Z-TA-5-15
April 9, 2021
ENFORCEABLE UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT REVISED OR
REPLACEMENT DOCUMENTS FOR THE SITE ARE APPROVED BY
THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT with the
project complying with the approved development review documents.
***
Amend Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A.I.B. (Urban Design Principles –
Amenity/Comfort) by amending paragraph B.1 to read as follows:
B. Amenity/Comfort. Settlements in the desert generally occur in an "oasis" setting
which is a respite from the extreme of the larger area context. A development in
an arid setting requires design features to aid human comfort. It is important to
understand that urban conditions such as paved areas and buildings generating
reflected heat create aridity and require mitigating design features which
enhance habitability.
1. Promote human comfort by providing shaded areas, courtyards, PUBLIC
AND PRIVATE WALKWAYS, colonnades and other areas as site
amenities.
***
Amend Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A.I.G. (Urban Design Principles – Definition of
Space) by amending paragraph G.2 to read as follows:
G. Definition of Space. Streets, parking lots, buildings and landscape are the major
elements that define the special qualities of our environment. Organize them to
foster a setting supportive to the pedestrian as well as the driver.
1. Relate the size, character and setting of proposed projects to the functions
of adjacent streets and pedestrian networks. Buildings should be oriented
to the public rights-of-way and close to pedestrian movement.
2. The areas immediately adjacent to buildings should be designed to
integrate with surrounding landscape and pedestrian walkways. Shaded
courtyards, WALKWAYS, cloisters, trellises, colonnades and public art are
encouraged for consideration into the design to define space.
***
Page 435
Staff Report Z-TA-5-15
April 9, 2021
Amend Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A.II.A.3.3.1 (Guidelines for Design Review – Site
Design/Development - Landscape Architecture) by amending paragraph 3.1.10 to
read as follows and to add new paragraph 3.1.16 accordingly:
3. Landscape Architecture.
3.1 Plant Materials.
***
3.1.10 Trees SHOULD BE LOCATED adjacent to pedestrian walkways
PUBLIC AND PRIVATE WALKWAYS, AND MULTI-USE TRAILS
AND PATHS, TO PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 50 PERCENT
SHADE AND should have a minimum canopy clearance of six feet
eight inches. (P)
Rationale: SHADED Cclear walkways are necessary for pedestrian
HEALTH, safety, AND WELFARE.
***
3.1.16 PLANT MATERIALS SHOULD BE SELECTED FOR
APPROPRIATE MATURE SIZE, SPACE NEEDS, LOCATION,
AND REQUIRED USE FOR THEIR ULTIMATE LOCATION ON
THE SITE. (P)
RATIONALE: ALL PLANTS ARE NOT SUITABLE FOR ALL
LOCATIONS. CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE GIVEN FOR SIZE
AT MATURITY, REASON FOR CHOICE (E.G., SHADE
PROVISION OR SCREENING/BUFFERING), MAINTENANCE
REQUIREMENTS, AND LONG-TERM VIABILITY. LOW
MAINTENANCE PLANTS WHICH HAVE A PROVEN TRACK
RECORD OF SURVIVABILITY IN THE URBAN DESERT
ENVIRONMENT SHOULD BE INSTALLED WHENEVER
POSSIBLE.
***
Page 436
Staff Report Z-TA-5-15
April 9, 2021
Amend Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A.II.A.3.3.2 (Guidelines for Design Review – Site
Design/Development - Landscape Architecture) by amending paragraph 3.2.3 and
adding paragraph 3.2.5 to read as follows:
3. Landscape Architecture.
3.2 Maintenance OF LANDSCAPE AREAS.
***
3.2.3 Irrigation systems should be permanent and automatic A
PERMANENT AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHOULD BE
INSTALLED TO WATER ALL TREES, CACTI, AND PLANTS
INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROVED
LANDSCAPE PLANS OR OTHER DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
DOCUMENTS to minimize maintenance and water consumption,
AND TO MAXIMIZE PLANT HEALTH, SURVIVABILITY, AND
VIABILITY, UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. (P)
Rationale: DIFFERENT TYPES AND SPECIES OF PLANTS
REQUIRE DIFFERENT AMOUNTS OF SUPPLEMENTAL WATER
BASED ON VARYING MICROCLIMATES CREATED BY THE
URBAN ENVIRONMENT TO ACHIEVE A HEALTHY, VIABLE,
LONG-TERM SURVIVABILITY RATE. An efficient,
APPROPRIATE irrigation system will SUPPORT LONG -TERM
PLANT HEALTH BY APPLYING THE RIGHT AMOUNT OF
SUPPLEMENTAL WATER FOR OPTIMUM PLANT HEAL TH AND
control growth and reduce maintenance costs.
***
Amend Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A.II.A.4 (Guidelines for Design Review – Site
Design/Development – Open Space/Amenities) by amending paragraphs 4.1 and 4.2
to read as follows:
4. Open Space/Amenities.
4.1 Improved open spaces, plazas and courtyards should be SHADED A
MINIMUM 50 PERCENT AND functional in terms of area, dimensions,
location and amenities to promote safe human interaction. (P)
Rationale: SHADED Ppedestrian amenities help to encourage the use of
public spaces. With respect to open space, bigger is not necessarily
better. A series of small areas, each provided with amenities may foster
Page 437
Staff Report Z-TA-5-15
April 9, 2021
more human interrelationship than a large monolithic space.
4.2 Usable public space should incorporate A MINIMUM OF 50 PERCENT
shading through the use of TREES OR structures that provide shading,
landscaping, or a combination of the two unless otherwise prohibited by
site visibility triangles or other technical constraints. (P)
Rationale: SHADE IS NECESSARY FOR Ppeople are attracted to USE
AND ENJOY public areas with shade during large portions of the year in
Phoenix FOR THEIR HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE.
***
Amend Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A.II.B.6 (Guidelines for Design Review –
Building Design/Construction – Public Amenities/Environmental Protection) by
amending paragraph 6.1 to read as follows:
6. Public Amenities/Environmental Protection.
6.1 PUBLIC AND PRIVATE Ppedestrian walkways and gathering areas
should be shaded (minimum 50% at maturity) FOR THE HEALTH,
SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF PEDESTRIANS AND to encourage use. (P)
Rationale: The design of pedestrian routes and gathering areas, such as
WALKWAYS, courtyards and plazas, should be designed with appropriate
shading FOR THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF
PEDESTRIANS AND to MITIGATE THE HEAT ISLAND EFFECT TO
enhance the PEDESTRIAN environment and the pedestrian experience.
***
Amend Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A.II.C.1. (Guidelines for Design Review –
Subdivision Design/Development – Streets/Circulation) by adding new paragraph
1.9 accordingly:
1. Streets/Circulation.
***
1.9 PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SIDEWALKS ADJACENT TO ARTERIAL AND
COLLECTOR STREETS AND LOCATED WITHIN AND CONNECTING
ALL COMMON OPEN SPACE TRACTS AND AMENITIES SHOULD BE
SHADED A MINIMUM OF 50 PERCENT. (P)
RATIONALE: SHADED SIDEWALKS AND PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS
SHOULD BE DESIGNED WITH APPROPRIATE SHADING FOR THE
Page 438
Staff Report Z-TA-5-15
April 9, 2021
HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF PEDESTRIANS THAT
MITIGATES THE EXTREME SUMMER TEMPERATURES, AS WELL AS
THE HEAT ISLAND EFFECT AND ENHANCES THE PEDESTRIAN
ENVIRONMENT.
Amend Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A.II.C.4 (Guidelines for Design Review –
Subdivision Design/Development – Open Space/Amenities) by amending
paragraphs 4.1 and 4.2 to read as follows:
4. Open Space/Amenities.
4.1 Large open space and retention areas (generally greater than 10,000
square feet) should be improved to include active and passive amenities
(e.g. tot lot, ramada, tennis court, barbecues, large seating areas,
landscaping, etc.) AND A MINIMUM 50% VEGETATION. SEATING
AREAS SHOULD BE SHADED BY STRUCTURES OR VEGETATION
(50% AT MATURITY). (P)
Rationale: Different types of improvements will appeal to different
segments of the resident population. To ensure long-term maintenance
AND USE of open space areas, it is important to provide YEAR -ROUND
amenities FOR THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF ALL
RESIDENTS to MITIGATE THE EXTREME SUMMER TEMPERATURES,
AS WELL AS THE HEAT ISLAND EFFECT, in which the homeowners
association will maintain interest.
4.2 Open space and retention tracts/easements should be landscaped,
accessible, safe and secure. Common retention may qualify for required
common open space if it has a minimum area of 1000 square feet of level
bottom with maximum side slopes of 4:1 and is properly landscaped as
usable open space (minimum 50% vegetation). ANY PROPOSED
SEATING AREAS SHOULD BE SHADED BY STRUCTURES OR
VEGETATION (50% AT MATURITY) . Streets (public and/or private) and
required perimeter landscape setbacks will not count towards common
open space. (P)
Rationale: Open space and retention areas that are accessible, and
functional, AND PROVIDE YEAR-ROUND SHADED AMENITIES FOR
THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF ALL RESIDENTS TO
MITIGATE THE EXTREME SUMMER TEMPERATURES, AS WELL AS
THE HEAT ISLAND EFFECT, are an amenity to the neighborhood. If
feasible, open space should be centrally located in order to be accessible
to as many residents as possible.
***
Page 439
Staff Report Z-TA-5-15
April 9, 2021
Amend Chapter 7, Section 703 (Landscaping, Fences and Walls) to add new
subsection “E” as follows:
***
E. GENERAL LANDSCAPE STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS.
1. LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION AND SALVAGE.
a. ALL TREES, PLANTS AND CACTI ON SITE AND IN THE
ABUTTING RIGHTS OF WAY MUST REMAIN IN PLACE IN A
HEALTHY, STRUCTURALLY SOUND, AND VIABLE CONDITION,
IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPROVED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
DOCUMENTS. REMOVAL OR DESTRUCTION OF LANDSCAPE
MATERIALS INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPROVED
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DOCUMENTS WILL BE
CONSIDERED A VIOLATION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE,
EXCEPT WHEN IN COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 703.E.1.B
AND 1.C.
b. NO TREES, PLANTS OR CACTI MAY BE REMOVED OR
DESTROYED ON A PROPERTY WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING A
PLANT SALVAGE PERMIT FROM THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, EXCEPT AS FOLLOWS:
(1) THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
HAS EXPRESSLY STATED IN WRITING THAT A PLANT
SALVAGE PLAN IS NOT REQUIRED FOR THE SITE AS
PART OF THE APPROVED PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
OR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL DOCUMENTS, OR
ON THE FINAL SITE PLAN IF A PRELIMINARY
APPROVAL IS NOT REQUIRED; OR
(2) TREES, PLANTS OR CACTI TO BE REMOVED ARE
LOCATED ON A SINGLE-FAMILY LOT HAVING ONE
HOME OR DUPLEX; OR
(3) TREES, PLANTS OR CACTI TO BE REMOVED WERE
DESTROYED BY A NATURAL CAUSE OR OTHER
UNFORESEEN AND ACCIDENTAL INCIDENT; OR
(4) TREES, PLANTS OR CACTI REMOVED BY THE OWNER
OR A PUBLIC UTILITY PROVIDER FOR THE PURPOSE
OF MAINTAINING ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION OR
Page 440
Staff Report Z-TA-5-15
April 9, 2021
DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES. UPON REQUEST, THE
OWNER SHALL PROVIDE THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A WRITTEN
EXPLANATION FROM THE PUBLIC UTILITY PROVIDER
THAT THE REMOVAL IS NECESSARY FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION, INSTALLATION, OPERATION, AND
MAINTENANCE OF THE ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION OR
DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES.
c. OWNERS OF PROPERTY MUST REPLACE TREES, PLANTS
OR CACTI WITH LIKE KINDS AND SIZES OR EQUIVALENT AS
DETERMINED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROVED
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DOCUMENTS, AS FOLLOWS:
(1) WHEN TREES, PLANTS AND CACTI WERE DESTROYED
BY A NATURAL CAUSE OR OTHER UNFORESEEN AND
ACCIDENTAL INCIDENT AND WERE REMOVED; OR
(2) WHEN REMAIN/PROTECT IN PLACE AND SALVAGED
TREES, PLANTS AND CACTI HAVE DIED, BEEN
REMOVED OR DESTROYED.
2. REQUIRED LANDSCAPE PLANS. LANDSCAPE PLANS ARE
REQUIRED FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE APPLICABILITY REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 507.B. I AND K.
“LANDSCAPE PLANS” MAY REFER TO ANY OR ALL OF THE
FOLLOWING PLANS: PLANT INVENTORY PLAN, PLANT SALVAGE
PLAN, AND/OR LANDSCAPE (INSTALLATION) PLAN. ALL PLANS
MUST PROVIDE THE INFORMATION AND FORMAT REQUIRED ON
CHECKLISTS PROVIDED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT AND BE SEALED BY A LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
REGISTERED IN THE STATE OF ARIZONA.
a. PLANT INVENTORY PLAN: IDENTIFIES THE TYPES, SIZES,
AND LOCATIONS OF ALL TREES, CACTI, AND PLANTS
EXISTING ON THE SITE AND STATES THE PHYSICAL HEALTH
AND CONDITION OF EACH AS DETERMINED BY A
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT REGISTERED IN THE STATE OF
ARIZONA.
Page 441
Staff Report Z-TA-5-15
April 9, 2021
b. PLANT SALVAGE PLAN: IDENTIFIES THE DISPOSITION OF
ALL OF THE TREES, CACTI, AND PLANTS IDENTIFIED IN THE
PLANT INVENTORY PLAN (I.E., “REMAIN/PROTECT IN PLACE”,
“SALVAGE”, OR “DESTROY”), INCLUDING DETAILS OF THE
PLANT NURSERY AND WATERING SYSTEM TO BE PROVIDED
FOR SALVAGED AND REMAIN/PROTECT IN PLACE PLANTS
UNTIL FINAL COMPLETION.
c. LANDSCAPE (INSTALLATION) PLAN: IDENTIFIES THE
TYPES, SIZES, AND LOCATIONS OF ALL TREES, CACTI, AND
PLANTS (INCLUDING THOSE TO REMAIN/PROTECT IN PLACE
OR SALVAGED) TO BE INSTALLED ON THE SITE, ON
DOCUMENTS SEALED BY A LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
REGISTERED IN THE STATE OF ARIZONA. LANDSCAPE
PLANS ARE TO ALSO INCLUDE ALL LANDSCAPE MATERIALS,
A MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE, IRRIGATION PLANS, PLUS
OTHER INFORMATION AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT STAFF. PLANT MATERIAL SIZES AND
SPECIFICATIONS MUST CONFORM TO THE STANDARDS OF
THE AMERICAN STANDARDS FOR NURSERY STOCK (ANSI
Z60.1) OR THE ARIZONA NURSERY ASSOCIATION.
(1) LANDSCAPE PLANS SHALL INCLUDE A MAINTENANCE
SCHEDULE WHICH IDENTIFIES THE RECOMMENDED
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE INCLUDING, BUT NOT
LIMITED TO, WEEDS, ROCK MULCH, AND IRRIGATION.
THE SCHEDULE SHALL IDENTIFY SEASONAL WATER
APPLICATION RATES, TYPES AND METHODS OF
FERTILIZATION, AND PRUNING, ETC. FOR EACH
PLANT TYPE. ACCORDING TO THE CURRENT
STANDARDS SET FORTH BY THE AMERICAN
NATIONAL STANDARDS INSTITUTE (ANSI), THE
SUSTAINABLE LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT
STANDARDS OF THE ARIZONA LANDSCAPE
CONTRACTORS’ ASSOCIATION, OR OTHER
ACCEPTABLE STANDARDS AS DETERMINED BY THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.
DEVIATIONS FOR PRUNING STANDARDS ARE
PERMITTED WHEN DONE FOR THE PURPOSE OF
MAINTAINING ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION OR
Page 442
Staff Report Z-TA-5-15
April 9, 2021
DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES. UPON REQUEST, THE
OWNER SHALL PROVIDE THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A WRITTEN
EXPLANATION FROM THE PUBLIC UTILITY PROVIDER
THAT THE PRUNING IS NECESSARY FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION, INSTALLATION, OPERATION, AND
MAINTENANCE OF THE ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION OR
DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES.
***
Page 443
Attachment C
TA-5-15 Landscape Maintenance (FOR INFORMATION) -
Village Planning Committee Summary Results
Village Date Comments
Concerned with existing enforcement efforts with developments not
meeting landscaping requirements, improper maintenance or lack of
Central City 1/11/21
watering. Structured shade should not be the only option, trees are
necessary for clean air.
Laveen 1/11/21 Concerns with landscape maintenance in the right-of-way.
Concerned that inspectors only focus on caliper size and not the type of
Rio Vista 1/12/21
tree. Consideration for different types of plants (male vs. female).
Need to address unnatural shape of trees after improper pruning, consider
location of trees to prevent deteriorating infrastructure, consider tree
species to withstand flood and strong winds, consider and active or
South Mountain 1/12/21 proactive inventory of plants. Concerned that landscaping is not maintained
equally throughout the City. Consider potential partnerships with nonprofits
to help with landscape maintenance throughout the City. Concerns with
landscape maintenance in the right-of-way.
Maryvale 1/13/21 Important to see plans of where trees are meant to be planted in areas on
city-owned land, streets and medians. Increased shade on City-owned
sites (i.e., bus stops).
North Gateway 1/14/21 No Comments
Deer Valley 1/14/21 Concerned with detached sidewalk requirements do not provide enough
space to accommodate large canopy shade trees. Consideration to reduce
the shade coverage percentage requirement for desert environment.
Estrella 1/19/21 No Comments
North Mountain 1/20/21 No Comments
Ahwatukee Foothills 1/25/21 No Comments
Alhambra 1/26/21 Important to facilitate training regarding tree maintenance and low impact
development practices (including inspectors, plan reviewers, and Streets
maintenance crews). Consider adding street trees in historic districts.
Single-family properties should be included in the scope to address impact
on future water rate increase and the prospect of water rationing.
Encanto 2/1/21 Consider a tree preservation plan throughout the construction process.
Paradise Valley 2/1/21 No Comments
Camelback East 2/2/21 Important to facilitate training regarding tree maintenance.
Desert View 2/2/21 No Comments
Page 444
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-15
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting January 11, 2021
Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to address
Request
landscape maintenance
VPC DISCUSSION:
Joshua Bednarek, Deputy Director of the Planning and Development Department
shared that this text amendment at the request of City Council is to address
longstanding policy goals and initiatives in relation to trees and shade. Mr. Bednarek
continued that currently landscaping requirements are addressed with tree and shade
requirements in the Zoning Ordinance, inventory and salvage requirements, through
zoning stipulations for enhance landscaping and with the help of a new Principal
Landscape Architect hired by the City. Mr. Bednarek continued that the text
amendment is centered around three core concepts: trees being treated as
infrastructure, that trees provide benefits when appropriately planted and trees should
be kept in place and in healthy living conditions. The text amendment proposes to
reinforce existing and best practices and procedures such as a site inspection of
landscaping tied to certificate of occupancy and the standing of approved landscaping
documents. The text amendment also proposes to reconcile inconsistencies within the
Zoning Ordinance and establish new standards and procedures related to criteria for
removal and replacement and tree maintenance. Mr. Bednarek shared the feedback
staff has received so far and a preliminary public hearing schedule.
Dana Johnson commented that one of the issues is that tree maintenance doesn’t
happen over time, the NSD staff avoid citing businesses and they are not versed in the
sign or tree regulations and gave an example of the Downtown Safeway replacing
trees with Ocotillo, developers chopping trees down to not obscure signs, and in
Roosevelt Row some owners are not watering their trees. Mr. Johnson continued that
in regard to salvage, not all trees are created equal and some trees such as the
tamarisk or the “lead tree” are invasive and should not be salvaged.
Darlene Martinez commented that the City is rebuilding Section 8 housing on 20th
Street and the trees on site are dying because they aren’t being watered, and she went
every day to prevent one of the oldest Palo Verde trees from being cut down at the
hospital parking lot. Mr. Bednarek thanked Ms. Martinez for her efforts to save that
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 445
Central City Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-15
January 11, 2021
Page 2
tree and he will look to provide the committee with the comments that Cindy Stotler,
Housing Director, made regarding saving and incorporating as many trees as possible
with the Choice Neighborhoods redevelopment.
Eva Olivas shared that she worked with the Choice Neighborhoods residents who
discussed trees in the One Vision Plan, and the developer was great in incorporating
existing trees into the plan.
Wayne Rainey commented that the Texas Olive trees are irrigated on Roosevelt Row
and that man-made shade shouldn’t be the only option for shade, trees are necessary
for clean air.
Ryan Boyd asked if the proposed changes would affect current plans, how would a
business be held to the requirements, would it add to shade that currently isn’t there,
and if maintenance plans are open to the public. Mr. Bednarek replied that currently
business are required to put in trees and maintain them, this proposal is to highlight
that requirement and add clarifying language, penalties are a recourse although the
goal is to get compliance by working with stakeholders rather than issue fines, and that
maintenance plans will be publicly accessible.
Public Comment:
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor , Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
•Page 446
Phoenix
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-15
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting January 11, 2021
Request Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to address
landscape maintenance
VPC DISCUSSION:
Ms. Tricia Gomes, Zoning Administrator of the Planning and Development Department,
shared that this text amendment, at the request of City Council, is to address
longstanding policy goals and initiatives in relation to trees and shade. She continued
that currently, landscaping requirements are addressed with tree and shade
requirements in the Zoning Ordinance, inventory and salvage requirements, through
zoning stipulations for enhance landscaping and with the help of a new Principal
Landscape Architect hired by the City. She explained that the text amendment is
centered around three core concepts: trees being treated as infrastructure, that trees
provide benefits when appropriately planted and trees should be kept in place and in
healthy living conditions. The text amendment proposes to reinforce existing and best
practices and procedures such as a site inspection of landscaping tied to certificate of
occupancy and the standing of approved landscaping documents. The text amendment
also proposes to reconcile inconsistencies within the Zoning Ordinance and establish
new standards and procedures related to criteria for removal and replacement and tree
maintenance. Ms. Gomes shared the feedback staff has received so far and a
preliminary public hearing schedule.
Mr. Carlos Ortega asked who is responsible for funding the maintenance of trees at
community parks. Ms. Gomes explained that this is outside the scope of this text
amendment, as it is intended solely for privately owned property and all maintenance
costs will fall on the property owner. Landscaping maintenance for public parks is under
the purview of the Parks and Recreation Department.
Ms. Jennifer Rouse asked if the city is able to extend their public outreach on this text
amendment through additional channels like Facebook Events. Ms. Gomes stated that,
if there are specific groups that the city should target, they would be happy to look into
sharing the information about upcoming public hearings on those channels. She also
stated that city staff is available to meet with or call interested members of the public on
this matter.
Vice Chair Linda Abegg asked if this text amendment will also address the
landscaping within street medians. Ms. Gomes stated that it is only intended for
privately owned property, so street medians are not addressed in this text amendment.
However, this is hopefully only the first phase of a more far-reaching landscape
maintenance reform, so other landscape areas may be addressed in the future.
Page 447
Chair Tonya Glass thanked Ms. Gomes and city staff for initiating this text amendment,
stressing that it is something the community sorely needs. She stated that too often, the
committee puts in the work and effort to stipulate high quality landscaping in new
development projects, but they end up falling short, as the plants are not property cared
for an die off. More importantly, there currently are no provisions to enforce the
replacement of said trees.
Page 448
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-15
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting January 12, 2021
Request Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to address
landscape maintenance
VPC DISCUSSION:
Tricia Gomes provided an overview of the proposed text amendment on landscape
maintenance, noting it would likely come back to the committee in March for
recommendation. Overall, the proposed change was to promote trees and shade in the
city. Ordinance changes were directed to commercial as well as common areas for
multifamily developments and single-family subdivisions. The regulations would not
impact individual single-family residences.
Vice Chair Steven Scharboneau asked if this text amendment could be seen as a
clean up to the ordinance to reflect current policy. Tricia Gomes responded it could be
seen as a clean up in that we want to strengthen and explicitly state requirements in the
ordinance. More maintenance provisions are being proposed as a result.
Judy Lorch commented that she is happy to see this come forward and asked how
compliance can be forced. Tricia Gomes commented that the provisions do not
address individual homeowners, instead addressing perimeter and common areas. The
overall expectation is that you remain compliant.
Chair Massimo Sommacampagna explained he had a question and comment. He
was wondering how the city dealt with landscape in the right-of-way. In his experience,
civil inspectors enforce the landscape provisions, but only focus on caliper size and not
the type of tree. More training in this regard would be helpful. Tricia Gomes explained
the Zoning Ordinance generally only discusses private property, however some
developments include development agreements to maintain right-of-way landscape.
Chair Massimo Sommacampagna also commented that there is a difference between
male and female plants. The male varieties produce more pollen. Does this get
discussed? Tricia Gomes responded that she can talk with the department’s landscape
architect on this and follow up.
Page 449
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-20
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting January 12, 2021
Request Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to address
landscape maintenance
VPC DISCUSSION:
No requests to speak from members of the public were received.
Joshua Bednarek, Deputy Director in the Planning and Development
Department, introduced himself and this citywide text amendment under case
Z-TA-5-15 to address landscape maintenance. This proposal addresses long
standing policy goals and initiatives, including the Tree and Shade Master Plan.
Currently, landscaping is addressed via Zoning Ordinance requirements,
inventory and shade requirements, rezoning case stipulations and landscape
plan reviews by a new Principal Landscape Architect. This proposed text
amendment addresses three core concepts. Trees are infrastructure and should
be part of the inspection process that enforces the approved landscape
documents for a site. Trees provide benefits and the proposed text amendment
would reconcile inconsistencies within the Zoning Ordinance. Trees should
remain in place once approved and healthy, thus criteria regarding the removal,
replacement and maintenance of trees would help to accomplish this goal. Thus
far, staff has heard requests to clarify requirement applicability, utility
considerations, utilization of structured shade, enforcement procedures and
design considerations on the topic of landscape maintenance. He discussing the
hearing schedule and timeline for this proposed text amendment. He added that
this proposed text amendment is a great first step to address several challenges
including the urban heat island effect.
Chairwoman Trites stated that trees also help with flooding and erosion
problems. Maricopa County Flood Control Department has a list of approved
plants. She added that several items should be considered in this text
amendment including:
• How to address the unnatural shape of trees after these are pruned
improperly.
• Consider the location of trees to prevent these from deteriorating
infrastructure and cited an example in her homeowners’ association.
• Consider tree species that are hardy to flood and strong winds.
Page 450
Mr. Bednarek stated that the intent of this text amendment is to address
landscape maintenance for commercial, industrial and multifamily developments
and not single-family homes to avoid repeating previous mistakes.
Ms. Busching asked if the proposed text amendment addressed the following
items:
• Large trees that are left to die while the property is undergoing a rezoning
process. She cited examples of properties near 107th Avenue and
Camelback Road and near 24th Street and Vineyard Road.
• Spot vs. mass grading and drainage plans.
• Preventing the clearing of existing trees and having these trees replaced
by a project developer with trees of similar size. She cited an example
near 18th Street and Baseline Road where she suspects this type of
activity happened.
Mr. Bednarek responded that salvage and inventory plans are required for trees
when a site is proposed to be developed. He will speak with the city’s civil review
team for their input on this proposal. Lastly, he added that while he does not
know site specific details on the example provided, he will speak with the city’s
landscape reviewers.
Chairwoman Trites asked if keeping an active or pro-active inventory of plants
had been considered.
Mr. Bednarek responded that this idea had been considered, but there are time,
funding and staffing capacity constraints. The City of Houston, Texas has done
something similar.
Mr. Brooks asked if edible tree species had been contemplated.
Mr. Bednarek responded that no specific trees species had been prescribed.
Mr. Brownell asked if this effort would apply to vacant properties and if the city
will take care of the trees or allow these to die. This text amendment is geared
towards other parts of the city, citing issues with mandating landowners to cut
weeds on their property. He asked why mandating the upkeep of the landscaping
was not required, citing examples from California. The city is not obligated to
maintain its rights-of-way or land that it owns, and landscaping is not maintained
equally throughout the city. There should be a collaboration with non-profits to
identify which trees to keep.
Ms. Daniels agrees with Mr. Brownell’s comments.
Page 451
Mr. Bednarek responded that this ordinance addresses other aspects, citing
examples of where the ordinance applies. He citied issues with enforcing zoning
and landscaping standards on vacant land as the process requires this to be
address when the land develops.
Mr. Brownell asked if the city can partner with non-profits to identify trees that
need to be kept and maintained.
Mr. Bednarek responded that he agrees with this idea to partner with non-profits
but sees challenges in expanding this across such a large city due to staffing
shortages.
Ms. Daniels stated that she agrees with the previous comments made and that
the city should hire arborists to maintain trees along Baseline Road. Also,
focusing infrastructure improvements on the South Mountain Village like other
parts of the city.
Mr. Shelly Smith stated that the city needs to have its name on these
ordinances and maintain their properties first. He citied an example where trees
along Broadway Road were left to die, but the city should maintain its trees first.
Ms. Shepard asked if this ordinance only addresses trees or also shrubs.
Mr. Bednarek responded that this ordinance does address both trees and
shrubs.
Ms. Shepard cited examples of properties along 32n Street and agrees with the
previous comments provided.
Mr. Holmerud seconds Ms. Shepard’s comments.
Ms. Muriel Smith agrees with Ms. Daniels’ comments. Landscape maintenance
should be addressed in her neighborhood, referencing examples where trees
were not maintained by the city. She asked if trees can be interchanged with
other plants such as cacti.
Mr. Bednarek responded that he will look into this, but wants to double check the
information given certain Overlay requirements which may require trees instead
of cacti.
Mr. Brooks cited an arrangement that had been made with Ms. Miller to ensure
that water is maintained on trees over time.
Mr. Bednarek responded that he will follow up on that information.
Ms. Daniels recalls that water was cut-off citywide for landscaping for some time.
Page 452
Mr. Bednarek remembers that a creative solution to help solve this issue along
Baseline Road had been utilized.
Mr. Holmerud acknowledged the efforts from Dr. Brooks regarding this.
Page 453
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-15
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting January 13, 2021
Request Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to address
landscape maintenance
VPC DISCUSSION:
Joshua Bednarek, Deputy Director of the Planning and Development Department
shared that this text amendment at the request of City Council is to address
longstanding policy goals and initiatives in relation to trees and shade. Mr. Bednarek
continued that currently landscaping requirements are addressed with tree and shade
requirements in the Zoning Ordinance, inventory and salvage requirements, through
zoning stipulations for enhance landscaping and with the help of a new Principal
Landscape Architect hired by the City. Mr. Bednarek continued that the text amendment
is centered around three core concepts: trees being treated as infrastructure, that trees
provide benefits when appropriately planted and trees should be kept in place and in
healthy living conditions. The text amendment proposes to reinforce existing and best
practices and procedures such as a site inspection of landscaping tied to certificate of
occupancy and the standing of approved landscaping documents. The text amendment
also proposes to reconcile inconsistencies within the Zoning Ordinance and establish
new standards and procedures related to criteria for removal and replacement and tree
maintenance. Mr. Bednarek shared the feedback staff has received so far and a
preliminary public hearing schedule.
Joe Barba asked if the Neighborhood Services Department (NSD) would handle
compliance for trees for commercial properties, if there would be fees if a business is
not in compliance, and if NSD has the capacity to enforce the requirements city-wide.
Mr. Bednarek responded that NSD would handle enforcement through their complaint-
based system, that ultimately there could be fees but the goal is to get compliance and
avoid going to court, and that NSD and the Planning and Development Department are
prepared to administer this proposal.
Viri Hernandez asked in regard to transparency, if there was any way to see plans of
where trees are meant to be planted in areas such as city-owned land, streets and
medians. Ms. Hernandez continued that there was an initiative a few years ago for tree
planting however its unclear where the trees were planted, and that Maryvale is a heat
zone and does not have the same level of investment of trees. Mr. Bednarek replied
Page 454
that while this text amendment would only impact private commercial properties, he will
work on getting contact information on who to reach out to regarding street trees and
trees in medians.
Vice Chair Gene Derie asked for clarification on how this proposal would add new
requirements for commercial properties. Mr. Bednarek replied that commercial
properties are required to have landscaping, and that this request does not add new
standards but seeks to clarify the responsibilities of commercial property owners in
terms of tree maintenance.
Joe Barba shared that he would like to see the City do more in terms of shade on City-
owned sites and gave an example of a bus stop near a high school with no shade
canopy, where children have to wait in the sun for their bus, and that non-profits can
also help with education and what type of trees that can be planted.
Alvin Battle asked how the allowable trees used for projects is determined. Mr.
Bednarek responded that there is a list that applicants can choose from and depending
on utility considerations and certain overlays, some trees can be restricted.
Page 455
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-15
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting January 14, 2021
Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to address
Request
landscape maintenance
VPC DISCUSSION:
Joshua Bednarek provided an overview of the proposed text amendment on landscape
maintenance, noting it would likely come back to the committee in March for
recommendation. Overall, the proposed change was to promote trees and shade in the
city. Ordinance changes were directed to commercial as well as common areas for
multifamily developments and single-family subdivisions. The regulations would not
impact individual single-family residences.
Committee Member Daniel Tome asked who would be impacted by the changes.
Joshua Bednarek responded that commercial properties, multifamily developments
and HOA area for single-family developments would be impacted.
Page 456
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-15
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting January 14, 2021
Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to address
Request
landscape maintenance
VPC DISCUSSION:
Ms. Tricia Gomes, City of Phoenix Zoning Administrator, shared that this text
amendment at the request of City Council is to address longstanding policy
goals and initiatives in relation to trees and shade. Ms. Gomes continued that
currently landscaping requirements are addressed with tree and shade
requirements in the Zoning Ordinance, inventory and salvage requirements,
through zoning stipulations for enhance landscaping and with the help of a new
Principal Landscape Architect hired by the City. Ms. Gomes continued that the
text amendment is centered around three core concepts: trees being treated as
infrastructure, that trees provide benefits when appropriately planted and trees
should be kept in place and in healthy living conditions. The text amendment
proposes to reinforce existing and best practices and procedures such as a site
inspection of landscaping tied to certificate of occupancy and the standing of
approved landscaping documents. The text amendment also proposes to
reconcile inconsistencies within the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance and establishes
new standards and procedures related to criteria for removal and replacement
as well as tree maintenance. Ms. Gomes shared the feedback staff has received
so far and a preliminary public hearing schedule.
Chairman Joseph Grossman asked what staff has done to reduce ridiculous
planting requirements. Has staff included developers in these conversation, if
they have taken place.
Ms. Gomes replied, yes. The development community has been involved int the
process. She also shared that the City of Phoenix follows the native plant tree
list. In regard to detached sidewalks, that is part of more policy plans including
the Complete Streets Guiding Principles and the Tree and Shade Master Plan.
She iterated that detached sidewalks provide a multitude of benefits.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 457
Deer Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-15
January 14, 2021
Page 2
Mr. Russell Osborn shared that from personal experience with sidewalk
infrastructure, a 5 foot plating area between sidewalk and back of curb is not
nearly wide enough to accommodate large canopy shade trees as the roots
compromise the sidewalks integrity. He asked staff what the required shade
coverage percentage is currently, 25 percent? If so, it should be reduced to 15
percent in his opinion for a desert city. He asked if shade requiremnts have
been addressed.
Ms. Gomes shared that in many instances the detached sidewalks are located
with the city right-of-way, which this text amendment does not address.
However, she stated that she appreciated Mr. Osbornes feedback.
Mr. Osborn stated that even if the sidewalks are located in the right-of-way, it is
still the property owner’s responsibility to repair damaged sidewalks due to root
damage and this needs to be changed.
Chairman Joseph Grossman stated that this text amendment may be too
restrictive and asked staff to address practical concerns when the text
amendment comes back for recommendation.
Public Comment:
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 458
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-20
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting January 19, 2021
Request Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to address
landscape maintenance
VPC DISCUSSION:
No requests to speak from members of the public were received.
Joshua Bednarek, Deputy Director in the Planning and Development Department,
introduced himself and this citywide text amendment under case
Z-TA-5-15 to address landscape maintenance. This proposal addresses long
standing policy goals and initiatives, including the Tree and Shade Master Plan.
Currently, landscaping is addressed via Zoning Ordinance requirements, inventory
and shade requirements, rezoning case stipulations and landscape plan reviews by
a new Principal Landscape Architect. This proposed text amendment addresses
three core concepts. Trees are infrastructure and should be part of the inspection
process that enforces the approved landscape documents for a site. Trees provide
benefits and the proposed text amendment would reconcile inconsistencies within
the Zoning Ordinance. Trees should remain in place once approved and healthy,
thus criteria regarding the removal, replacement and maintenance of trees would
help to accomplish this goal. Thus far, staff has heard requests to clarify requirement
applicability, utility considerations, utilization of structured shade, enforcement
procedures and design considerations on the topic of landscape maintenance. He
concluded the presentation by discussing the hearing schedule and timeline for this
proposed text amendment.
Chairman Cardenas asked for committee member comments or questions
regarding the information. Hearing none, he thanked staff and moved to the next
agenda item.
Page 459
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-15
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting January 20, 2021
Request Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to address
landscape maintenance
VPC DISCUSSION:
No requests to speak from members of the public were received.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Tricia Gomes, Zoning Administrator of the Planning and Development Department,
shared that this text amendment at the request of City Council is to address
longstanding policy goals and initiatives in relation to trees and shade. Currently
landscaping requirements are addressed with tree and shade requirements in the
Zoning Ordinance, inventory and salvage requirements, through zoning stipulations for
enhance landscaping and with the help of a new Principal Landscape Architect hired by
the City. The text amendment is centered around three core concepts: trees being
treated as infrastructure, that trees provide benefits when appropriately planted and
trees should be kept in place and in healthy living conditions. The text amendment
proposes to reinforce existing and best practices and procedures such as a site
inspection of landscaping tied to certificate of occupancy and the standing of approved
landscaping documents. The text amendment also proposes to reconcile
inconsistencies within the Zoning Ordinance and establish new standards and
procedures related to criteria for removal and replacement and tree maintenance. She
then shared the feedback staff has received so far and a preliminary public hearing
schedule and asked the committee for input and any questions.
Chair Krentz asked the committee if they had any questions and, hearing none,
thanked Gomes for the presentation.
Page 460
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-15
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting January 25, 2021
Request Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to address
landscape maintenance
VPC DISCUSSION:
No requests to speak from members of the public were received.
Tricia Gomes, Zoning Administrator in the Planning and Development Department,
introduced herself and this citywide text amendment under case
Z-TA-5-15 to address landscape maintenance. This proposal addresses long
standing policy goals and initiatives, including the Tree and Shade Master Plan.
Currently, landscaping is addressed via Zoning Ordinance requirements, inventory
and shade requirements, rezoning case stipulations and landscape plan reviews by
a new Principal Landscape Architect. This proposed text amendment addresses
three core concepts. Trees are infrastructure and should be part of the inspection
process that enforces the approved landscape documents for a site. Trees provide
benefits and the proposed text amendment would reconcile inconsistencies within
the Zoning Ordinance. Trees should remain in place once approved and healthy,
thus criteria regarding the removal, replacement and maintenance of trees would
help to accomplish this goal. Thus far, staff has heard requests to clarify requirement
applicability, utility considerations, utilization of structured shade, enforcement
procedures and design considerations on the topic of landscape maintenance. She
discussed the hearing schedule and timeline for this proposed text amendment.
Chairman Elliott asked for committee member questions or comments regarding
the presentation. Hearing none, he thanked Ms. Gomes for her presentations.
Page 461
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-15
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting January 26, 2021
Request Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to address
landscape maintenance
VPC DISCUSSION:
No requests to speak from members of the public were received.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Joshua Bednarek, Deputy Director of the Planning and Development Department,
shared that this text amendment at the request of City Council is to address
longstanding policy goals and initiatives in relation to trees and shade. Currently
landscaping requirements are addressed with tree and shade requirements in the
Zoning Ordinance, inventory and salvage requirements, through zoning stipulations for
enhance landscaping and with the help of a new Principal Landscape Architect hired by
the City. The text amendment is centered around three core concepts: trees being
treated as infrastructure, that trees provide benefits when appropriately planted and
trees should be kept in place and in healthy living conditions. The text amendment
proposes to reinforce existing and best practices and procedures such as a site
inspection of landscaping tied to certificate of occupancy and the standing of approved
landscaping documents. The text amendment also proposes to reconcile
inconsistencies within the Zoning Ordinance and establish new standards and
procedures related to criteria for removal and replacement and tree maintenance. He
then shared the feedback staff has received so far and a preliminary public hearing
schedule and asked the committee for input and any questions.
QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE
Ammon noted the importance of replacing trees with like-for-like sizes and asked if tree
replacement always requires the tree to be placed in the same location or if the city can
provide some flexibility. Bednarek responded that the text amendment supports
flexibility and collaboration.
Fitzgerald asked if there are recommended tree lists. Bednarek responded that the
City does have a list of preferred trees and more restricted lists of permitted trees in
certain parts of the city such as the desert preservation districts and the urban core.
Page 462
Bryck noted that he strongly supports the requirement that owners are responsible to
their stipulated landscape plan and that the City model good tree maintenance on its
property including its street trees. He asked that holistic conversations and training be
facilitated regarding tree maintenance and low impact development practices, including
the inspectors, plan reviewers, and the tree maintenance crews in the Street
Transportation Department. He added that perhaps there is an opportunity to add street
trees in the historic districts where there are broad landscape areas between the curb
and sidewalk. Bednarek stated that conversations are ongoing with his counterpart in
the Neighborhood Services Department because they respond to compliance issues,
that will now include landscaping.
Adams stated that the success of landscape projects depends on maintenance which
requires attention and follow-through. She asked that the City model good tree
maintenance on its property including its street trees and noted that many crews do not
have sufficient training on trimming. She added that the text amendment should include
a system to ensure continual landscape maintenance. She added that many native
trees are not appropriate for urban environment. She asked if the City has qualified
consultants to help with the ordinance. Bednarek responded that the City hired a
Principal Landscape Architect and has been working with other professionals and
arborist organizations. He added that the City is trying to think of landscaping from the
curb inward but that this holistic approach is not within the scope of the current text
amendment.
Keyser opined on the impact on future water rate increases and the prospect of water
rationing on landscaping on single-family properties and noted that single-family
properties should be addressed in the amendment. He added that city installed street
trees could be set up on a shared meter where the city or neighbors would be able to
note if there is a malfunction to the system before the trees die.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
None.
Page 463
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-15
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting February 1, 2021
Request Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to address
landscape maintenance
VPC DISCUSSION:
No requests to speak from members of the public were received.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Joshua Bednarek, Deputy Director of the Planning and Development Department,
shared that this text amendment at the request of City Council is to address
longstanding policy goals and initiatives in relation to trees and shade. Currently
landscaping requirements are addressed with tree and shade requirements in the
Zoning Ordinance, inventory and salvage requirements, through zoning stipulations for
enhance landscaping and with the help of a new Principal Landscape Architect hired by
the City. The text amendment is centered around three core concepts: trees being
treated as infrastructure, that trees provide benefits when appropriately planted and
trees should be kept in place and in healthy living conditions. The text amendment
proposes to reinforce existing and best practices and procedures such as a site
inspection of landscaping tied to certificate of occupancy and the standing of approved
landscaping documents. The text amendment also proposes to reconcile
inconsistencies within the Zoning Ordinance and establish new standards and
procedures related to criteria for removal and replacement and tree maintenance. He
then shared the feedback staff has received so far and a preliminary public hearing
schedule and asked the committee for input and any questions.
QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE
Bryck asked about the enforcement pathway. Bednarek responded that the text
amendment will formally hold landscape plans as enforceable documents that will be
used to ensure compliance throughout the life of the property improvements when
permits are required or when complaints are filed.
Rodriguez asked that the city require a tree preservation plan with requirements
throughout the construction process including protection to the critical root zone. Atlanta
has an ordinance which addresses the topic well. Bednarek responded that the scope
Page 464
of this text amendment is limited but that this type of input can be shared with Council to
support additional attention.
Procaccini asked how the current ordinance and this text amendment address the
replacement of existing trees. Bednarek responded that, in practice the current
ordinance requires a like-for-like replacement when possible but also allows multiple
smaller trees to replace a larger tree. The text amendment formalizes this practice.
Chair Kleinman stated that this seems like the beginning of the conversation and the
first step in addressing a larger issue. He asked whether it would be helpful if a
subcommittee convened to provide detailed comments. Bednarek responded that it
would be helpful.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
STAFF RESPONSE
None.
FLOOR/PUBLIC COMMENT CLOSED: DISCUSSION
None.
Page 465
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-15
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting February 1, 2021
Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to address
Request
landscape maintenance
VPC DISCUSSION:
Ms. Tricia Gomes, City of Phoenix Zoning Administrator, shared that this text
amendment at the request of City Council is to address longstanding policy
goals and initiatives in relation to trees and shade. Ms. Gomes continued that
currently landscaping requirements are addressed with tree and shade
requirements in the Zoning Ordinance, inventory and salvage requirements,
through zoning stipulations for enhance landscaping and with the help of a new
Principal Landscape Architect hired by the City. Ms. Gomes continued that the
text amendment is centered around three core concepts: trees being treated as
infrastructure, that trees provide benefits when appropriately planted and trees
should be kept in place and in healthy living conditions. The text amendment
proposes to reinforce existing and best practices and procedures such as a site
inspection of landscaping tied to certificate of occupancy and the standing of
approved landscaping documents. The text amendment also proposes to
reconcile inconsistencies within the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance and establishes
new standards and procedures related to criteria for removal and replacement
as well as tree maintenance. Ms. Gomes shared the feedback staff has received
so far and a preliminary public hearing schedule.
Chairman Robert Gubser stated that he is curious about tree maintenance. He
asked if this text amendment strengthens the city’s ability to maintain trees in the
right-of-way.
Ms. Gomes shared that it does.
Public Comment:
None.
Page 466
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-15
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting February 2, 2021
Request Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to address
landscape maintenance
VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:
Ms. Tricia Gomes, Zoning Administrator of the Planning and Development Department,
shared that this text amendment, at the request of City Council, is to address
longstanding policy goals and initiatives in relation to trees and shade. She continued
that currently, landscaping requirements are addressed with tree and shade
requirements in the Zoning Ordinance, inventory and salvage requirements, through
zoning stipulations for enhance landscaping and with the help of a new Principal
Landscape Architect hired by the City. She explained that the text amendment is
centered around three core concepts: trees being treated as infrastructure, that trees
provide benefits when appropriately planted and trees should be kept in place and in
healthy living conditions. The text amendment proposes to reinforce existing and best
practices and procedures such as a site inspection of landscaping tied to certificate of
occupancy and the standing of approved landscaping documents. The text amendment
also proposes to reconcile inconsistencies within the Zoning Ordinance and establish
new standards and procedures related to criteria for removal and replacement and tree
maintenance. Ms. Gomes shared the feedback staff has received so far and a
preliminary public hearing schedule.
Mr. Craig Tribken asked if long term enforcement of approved commercial landscape
plans will be a part of this process to ensure that the trees planted when a development
is first constructed remain healthy or are replaced if they die. Ms. Gomes explained that
the expectation is that the city already does this, but it is complaint-based, and that by
strengthening the ordinance, it will provide a framework for better communication with
property owners in the future to help solve these issues. Mr. Tribken stated that this is
a great step forward.
Ms. Ashley Nye asked if there is a maintenance training component to this, as there
seem to be many instances of improper pruning of plant materials throughout the city,
such as in street medians. Ms. Gomes stated that this text amendment only applies to
private property, and not city-maintained public property, but that discussions regarding
the latter will be ongoing as a result of this proposal.
Ms. Linda Bair asked if this will apply to single-family residential homes, or just for
planned communities. Ms. Gomes explained that this amendment applies to all private
Page 467
property but that, in the context of single-family communities, it will apply to perimeter
landscaping and common areas, not to individual residential lots.
Page 468
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-15
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting February 2, 2021
Request Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to address
landscape maintenance.
VPC DISCUSSION:
Josh Bednarek provided an overview of the proposed text amendment on landscape
maintenance, noting it would likely come back to the committee in March for
recommendation. Overall, the proposed change was to promote trees and shade in the
city. Ordinance changes were directed to commercial as well as common areas for
multifamily developments and single-family subdivisions. The regulations would not
impact individual single-family residences.
David Kollar asked if landscape installation is currently tied to the certificate of
occupancy. Josh Bednarek responded that this is the practice but not currently
codified.
Page 469
Attachment D
TA-5-15 Landscape Maintenance (FOR RECOMMENDATION) -
Village Planning Committee Summary Results
Village Date Recommendations Vote
Approved per the staff recommendation with direction to coordinate
Maryvale 4/14/21 8-1
a future update to address heat mitigation and equity
Estrella 4/20/21 Approved per the staff recommendation 4-1
North Mountain 4/21/21 Approved per the staff recommendation 14-0
Encanto 5/3/21 Approved per the staff recommendation with additional language 10-0
Paradise Valley 5/3/21 Approved per the staff recommendation with direction to continue 16-0-1
discussions regarding protections and enforcement during
construction
Camelback East 5/4/21 Approved per the staff recommendation with additional language 13-2
Desert View 5/4/21 Approved per the staff recommendation 7-0
Central City 5/10/21 Approved per the staff recommendation with additional language 11-3
Laveen 5/10/21 Approved per the staff recommendation with additional language 9-0
Approved per the staff recommendation with additional language
Rio Vista 5/11/21 3-1
with direction to address ambiguity
Approved per the staff recommendation with additional language in
South Mountain 5/11/21 12-0
substantial conformance
Deer Valley 5/13/21 Approved per the staff recommendation 8-3
Approved per the staff recommendation with direction to intergrate
North Gateway 5/13/21 6-0
proposed tree protection zone language
Ahwatukee Foothills 4/26/2021 Continued. 11-0
5/24/2021 Approved per the staff recommendation with additional language 11-0
Alhambra 4/27/2021 Continued. 15-0
5/25/2021 No recommendation due to lack of quorum N/A
Page 470
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-15
Date of VPC Meeting April 14, 2021
Request Amend several sections of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to address landscape maintenance
VPC Recommendation Approval per the staff recommendation with direction
VPC Vote 8-1
VPC DISCUSSION:
Committee member Saundra Cole joined the meeting during this item and committee
member Denice Garcia left, bringing the quorum to 9.
Joshua Bednarek, Deputy Director with the Planning and Development Department
introduced himself and the proposed text amendment to address landscape
maintenance citywide. This effort is City Council driven as part of a three phase
approach and addresses longstanding policy goals and initiatives. This text amendment
strengthens existing Zoning Ordinance provisions and codifies practices by embracing
three core concepts: trees are infrastructure, trees provide benefits where appropriately
planted, and trees should be kept in place in a healthy plus living condition. This text
amendment updates Chapter 5 of the Zoning Ordinance as it pertains to site inspections
tied to a certificate of occupancy, validity of approved review documents, design
guidelines and plant materials. Chapter 7 of the Zoning Ordinance is also proposed to
be amended by incorporating landscape removal standards, required landscape and
maintenance plans. Staff has been provided with several ideas that go beyond the
scope of this text amendment such as a citywide effort related to trees and shade such
as tree protection zones. The 2021-2022 City Manager’s Trial Budget shows several
proposals to allocate funding in order to address related policy goals citywide. This
citywide text amendment case will be heard by Village Planning Committees in April and
May, while the Planning Commission and City Council will hear this case in June.
Vice Chair Hernandez asked if there was a type of tree or a caliper size that has been
determined with the trial budget allocation. Mr. Bednarek replied that the 18,000 trees
referenced in the trial budget will require coordination with the Council offices and staff
in terms of species and location so that the right tree can be placed in the right place.
Denice Garcia asked if staff could provide a list of approved trees that can be planted
within the budget trial allocation of trees. Mr. Bednarek replied he hasn’t been involved
in the conversations of where the trees could be placed and what type of trees they
would be, and that will require coordination with the Council office and staff for more
details.
Page 471
Sandra Oviedo stated that the Maryvale community doesn’t have as many trees as it
should and asked if there could be a recommendation to allow native, carbon absorbing
plants and carbon absorbing shade trees. Mr. Bednarek replied that the scope of this
text amendment is to reinforce shade standards and plan submittal procedures and
guidelines and while there is a desire to have native trees be incorporated in certain
areas there is the “right tree right place” philosophy where sometimes native trees make
sense in an area and sometimes they do not.
Saundra Cole asked who is responsible for tree maintenance and replacement if the
trees die. Mr. Bednarek answered that for trees required on private property the
property owner is required to maintain and replace them. This text amendment
reinforces that requirement.
Vice Chair Viri Hernandez asked that for the trial budget, what type of trees will be
coming into Maryvale as it is a climate area and asked if the text amendment goes into
that level of detail. Mr. Bednarek replied that this text amendment is an incremental
step to reinforce shade and plan submittal guidelines and that is the scope of the charge
they were given by City Council. Mr. Bednarek added that it doesn’t get into that level of
detail but understands the merit behind going deeper into the topic and the committee
can provide direction to the Council regarding issues of equity and specific tree species.
Brandon Sirochman asked how this text amendment will apply to public open space
areas such as parks and if this would allow for trees to be replaced in those areas. Mr.
Bednarek replied that the Zoning Ordinance doesn’t regulate public parks, those are
regulated by the Parks Department.
Saundra Cole asked if the trees allocated in the trial budget would be on private
property. Mr. Bednarek shared that it is unknown if the intent is to place those trees on
private property, but the locations will be determined in coordination with the Council
offices. Chair Gene Derie added that he thought the trees will most likely be placed
within rights-of-way or near transit stops.
Sandra Oviedo asked if this text amendment mentions what type of trees are to be
planted. Mr. Bednarek replied this text amendment covers submittal procedures and
guidelines and that while some overlays have specific tree lists, this text amendment
does not propose to modify them.
Vice Chair Viri Hernandez asked if she could make a recommendation for the trial
budget to include community input, heat mitigation measures and equity. Mr. Bednarek
replied that this request is not a proposal for the trial budget, but those items could be
included as direction to include in a future update.
Public Comment:
None.
Motion:
Vice Chair Viri Hernandez motioned to recommend approval of Z-TA-5-15 per the staff
recommendation with direction to coordinate a future update to address heat mitigation
and equity. Alvin Battle seconded the motion.
Page 472
Discussion:
None.
Vote:
8-1, Motion to approve passes with committee members Battle, Cole, DuBose, O’Toole,
Oviedo, Sirochman, Hernandez and Derie in favor and committee member Demarest
opposed.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:
None.
Page 473
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-15
Date of VPC Meeting April 20, 2021
Request Amend several sections in Chapters 5 and 7 of the
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to address landscape
maintenance.
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation.
VPC Vote 4-1
VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATION:
No requests to speak from members of the public were received.
Joshua Bednarek, Planning and Development Department, introduced himself and
the proposed text amendment to address landscape maintenance citywide. This
effort is City Council driven as part of a three phase approach and addresses
longstanding policy goals and initiatives. This text amendment strengthens existing
Zoning Ordinance provisions and codifies practices by embracing three core
concepts: trees are infrastructure, trees provide benefits where appropriately
planted, and trees should be kept in place in a healthy plus living condition. This text
amendment updates Chapter 5 of the Zoning Ordinance as it pertains to site
inspections tied to a certificate of occupancy, validity of approved review documents,
design guidelines and plant materials. Chapter 7 of the Zoning Ordinance is also
proposed to be amended by incorporating landscape removal standards, required
landscape and maintenance plans. Staff has been provided with several ideas that
go beyond the scope of this text amendment such as a citywide effort related to
trees and shade such as tree protection zones. The 2021-2022 City Manager’s Trial
Budget shows several proposals to allocate funding in order to address related
policy goals citywide. This citywide text amendment case will be heard by Village
Planning Committees in April and May, while the Planning Commission and City
Council will hear this case in June.
Dan Rush asked for clarification on the 2021-2022 City Manager’s Trial Budget. Are
the 1,800 trees proposed to be planted, going to be planted on a yearly basis or is
this reviewed annually?
Page 474
Mr. Bednarek clarified the trial budget, noting that some of the funding is to hire
more staff to assist with the administration of those policy goals, while some of the
funding is for infrastructure improvements, including the planting of trees.
Lisa Perez stated that she had attended a meeting several weeks back pertaining to
this text amendment case and there were several suggestions that were made by
attendees which are not reflected in this text amendment language proposed today.
Mr. Bednarek responded that no commitments were made by staff at that meeting,
but he did follow-up with some of the attendees after the meeting regarding their
suggestions. There are limitations with this text amendment case, given the limited
scope provided by the City Council.
Lisa Perez responded that trees are lacking on the far west portions of the Estrella
Village and feels that this text amendment does not address these issues for this
village.
Mr. Bednarek agreed that this text amendment is limited in scope and feels that it is
an incremental step forward. Additional discussion is needed to address those other
issues that are not part of this text amendment.
Chair Cardenas opened the floor for further discussion or a motion, given no requests
to speak on this item from the public.
Mr. Bojorquez presented several possible motions that could be made on this item.
MOTION:
Mr. Rush motioned to approve case Z-TA-5-15 per the staff recommendation
presented in the staff report. Mr. Cardenas seconded the motion to approve.
VOTE:
4-1, motion passed; Lisa Perez in dissent.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:
None.
Page 475
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-15
Date of VPC Meeting April 21, 2021
Request Amend several sections in Chapters 5 and 7 of the
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to address landscape
maintenance.
VPC Recommendation Approve, per the staff recommendation
VPC Vote 14-0
VPC DISCUSSION:
No requests to speak from members of the public were received.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Tricia Gomes, staff, introduced himself and the proposed text amendment to address
landscape maintenance citywide. This effort is City Council driven as part of a three
phase approach and addresses longstanding policy goals and initiatives. This text
amendment strengthens existing Zoning Ordinance provisions and codifies practices by
embracing three core concepts: trees are infrastructure, trees provide benefits where
appropriately planted, and trees should be kept in place in a healthy plus living
condition. This text amendment updates Chapter 5 of the Zoning Ordinance as it
pertains to site inspections tied to a certificate of occupancy, validity of approved review
documents, design guidelines and plant materials. Chapter 7 of the Zoning Ordinance is
also proposed to be amended by incorporating landscape removal standards, required
landscape and maintenance plans. Staff has been provided with several ideas that go
beyond the scope of this text amendment such as a citywide effort related to trees and
shade such as tree protection zones. The 2021-2022 City Manager’s Trial Budget
shows several proposals to allocate funding in order to address related policy goals
citywide. This citywide text amendment case will be heard by Village Planning
Committees in April and May, while the Planning Commission and City Council will hear
this case in June.
QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE
Larson asked if the amendment touches public property or if it deals only with private
property. Gomes responded that the text amendment only pertains to private property
and the restoration of downed trees and other compliance depends on the location of
the issues. She added that street trees and trees along greenspaces are often owned
and maintained by the Street Transportation Department, the Parks Department, or by
Homeowner Associations.
Page 476
Perez asked how the amendment will prioritize tree replacement from storm damage
and whether there are plans to equitably distribute support and enforcement into
disadvantaged communities. Gomes responded that the text amendment is narrowly
focused at the direction of the City Council to address private commercial properties
and that enforcement will be complaint-based through the Neighborhood Services
Department.
McBride asked for clarity on the intent of the amendment and confirmation that it is
written to make enforcement easier. Gomes responded that the intent of the
amendment is to make enforcement easier and to clearly codify established practices.
Vice Chair Jaramillo opined that the visions contained in ReinventPHX and the
Walkable Urban Code should be accompanied by best practices and incentives such as
curb cuts to direct storm water into tree basins. Gomes responded that this text
amendment is narrowly tailored to changes within the zoning ordinance and that future
chances, such as those suggested, would likely need to touch policy and the city code.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
STAFF RESPONSE
None.
FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: MOTION, DISCUSSION, AND VOTE.
MOTION:
Matthews motioned to approve the request per staff recommendation. McBride
seconded the motion.
DISCUSSION:
None.
VOTE: 14-0-0, motion passes, with: Alauria, Argiro, Fogelson, Ford, Larson, Matthews,
McBride, O'Hara, Perez, Sommacampagna, Veidmark, Whitney, Vice Chair Jaramillo,
and Chair Krentz in favor; none in dissent, and none in abstention.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:
None.
Page 477
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-15
Date of VPC Meeting May 3, 2021
Request Amend several sections in Chapters 5 and 7 of the
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to address landscape
maintenance.
VPC Recommendation Approval, per staff recommendation with modifications
VPC Vote 10-0
VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:
Five speaker cards were received, one supportive of the request, four conditionally in
support of the request, and all wishing to speak.
At this time, Coates arrived meeting bringing the quorum to 10 members (7 being
required for a quorum).
STAFF PRESENTATION
Joshua Bednarek, staff, provided an overview of the request which is intended to
tighten regulatory language and codify long standing practices in response to the three
phased approach directed by the City Council. Within the framework of strengthening
enforcement, the text amendment seeks to achieve three core concepts: trees are
infrastructure; trees provide benefit when appropriately planted; and that trees should
be kept in place in a healthy and living condition. The proposed amendment includes
changes to Chapter 5 and 7 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance. In addition to other
revisions, the proposed language formally increases the stature of landscape plans to
ensure long term compliance by requiring adherence for an owner to receive a
certificate of occupancy and strengthens landscape removal standards. He added that
staff is reviewing the Tree Protection Zone language provided by Member Rodriguez,
noted that many of the provisions are reflected in the current ordinance, and that the
addition of the language may require the text amendment be delayed.
He concluded by stating that the 2021 City Manager’s Trial Budget includes 2.8M for
tree plantings, climate change, and heat readiness with programming through the Parks
Department and the Street Transportation Department, among others.
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
Members expressed the following questions and concerns.
Page 478
• Searles asked about what measures are being used to support tree and shade
policy in Phoenix, such as measurements of existing canopies or surface
temperatures. Bednarek responded that the city has an existing inventory of tree
canopy that is a few years old but that it could potentially be updated with funding
in the City Manager’s Trial Budget.
• Bryck asked specifically what Member Rodriguez is looking for from her
proposed language.
o Rodriguez responded that her language strengthens protection for
existing trees by adding language for “Tree Protection Zones.” Tree
Protection Zones are used in many other communities and include a
physical barrier around the critical root zone. The city’s current regulations
lack the necessary language and enforcement provisions to ensure the
trees that developers plan to preserve will be preserved in a state of good
health.
o Cothron voiced support to protect and require the preservation of existing
trees, citing the example of Park Central Mall which lost many of its
mature trees through its redevelopment.
• Jewett asked about the proposed staff language for 50% shade over required
open space. Bednarek responded that the staff language requires 50%
vegetative coverage for open space, rather than 50% shade.
• Mahrle stated that it doesn’t seem that staff has a specific objection to the
language but that the risk of incorporating the proposed language is: 1) that other
stakeholder won’t have time to review and could produce delays; or 2) that all
VPCs will be voting on the TA and the revised recommendation could only exist
in 1 of the 15 recommendations.
o Bednarek responded that staff has not fully analyzed the language in
Member Rodriquez’s amendment nor the city’s ability to enforce her
amendment which may require additional staffing. He added that staff is
confident it their ability to enforce the language contained in the text
amendment.
• Rodriguez asked why her letter and language were not provided to the
committee and expressed frustration at how it appears the city is withholding
information from the committee. She stated that the Billboard Text Amendment
from last year was developed over the course of several weeks so it is not a
question of whether the department can move quickly but whether it will.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Alisa Lyons introduced herself as a registered lobbyist in attendance on behalf of
Valley Partnership which is a long-time advocate for responsible development. She
stated that Valley Partnership has no issue with the proposed amendment and agrees
with the requirement that a landscape plan should be considered a governing document
for site development held in perpetuity, in the same way that traditional infrastructure
must be maintained. Trees serve an important purpose and that this amendment is a
positive consideration. The Tree Protection Zone language needs to be vetted more,
Page 479
that she wants to better understand it, and only received it yesterday through the
grapevine. She expressed concern that the addition of the Tree Protection Zone
language could slow down the text amendment while it is evaluated and noted that the
general idea already may exist in the zoning ordinance. She concluded by asking the
committee to support the amendment as recommended by staff and, if desired, to
include a provision in the motion to direct staff to explore the topic further with its
stakeholders.
Aimee Esposito stated that she serves on the Urban Heat Island / Tree and Shade
Subcommittee, is excited about being this close to a text amendment but that the issue
of trees and shade requires attention to new tree plantings and to protections for mature
trees. The language developed by Rodriguez reflects her expertise on the topics and
the committee’s opportunity to make their voice heard. She added that the text
amendment has already taken three years and should simply be modified to include this
language to avoid another long process. The proposed additional language regarding
tree protection zones would reduce the severe risks of root zone compaction for mature
trees.
Neal Haddad introduced himself as representing the Neighborhood Coalition of Greater
Phoenix and speaking in support of the proposed language prepared by Member
Rodriguez. For all of the positive talk in support of the Tree and Shade Master Plan, the
language prepared by Rodriguez is an easy way to care of existing mature trees. He
asked how many trees must come down and how many gallons of water must be used
to replace existing mature trees before the city starts protecting its mature trees. He
added that the amendment was initiated in 2015, that the June deadline is arbitrary, and
that this is the time to make the language stronger and more effective.
Dwayne Allen introduced himself as a downtown business owner and a Chair of the Ad
Hoc Committee on Trees and Shade that started this amendment. He echoed Haddad
that the June deadline is arbitrary and is being used to rush this amendment through
committee without addressing best practices and simple opportunities to strengthen the
ordinance. He shared two photos from his downtown business with the first being
unvegetated in 2007 and the second revealing a strong tree canopy in 2017. While he
could remove these trees at any time under the city’s current code, he intends to
continue caring for these trees for the duration of his lease because they offer value to
the community and relief from the urban heat island. He asked the committee to
recommend the inclusion of additional tree protections in the text amendment.
Stacey Champion stated that the city adopted its Tree and Shade Master Plan in 2010
but was then shelved until 2017 when a controversial GPLET project at Central and
Adams which proposed the removal of several mature trees in preference for palms
based on the aesthetic. While the mature trees were eventually replaced with shade
varieties, the city’s legal inability to enforce tree standards was the impetus of this text
amendment. Since that time, many subject matter experts such as Rodriguez, prepared
best management practices from other cities, and delivered these recommendations to
the City Council. She concluded by stating that tree protections are important with
Page 480
citizen input for years but that this amendment doesn’t go far enough and has taken too
long.
STAFF RESPONSE
Chair Kleinman stated that some of the other villages have tabled the request to allow
for additional consideration and exploration of the language proposed by Rodriguez. He
asked if the committee elected to continue the case to their next meeting, if that would
allow enough time for staff to work with stakeholders without causing undue delays.
• Bednarek responded that the department will work to explore the language if the
committee elects to continue the request but that the most significant variable in
the language proposed by Rodriguez is the impact on staff capacity and
resources. For example, if additional site visits are required to monitor
construction on projects across the City of Phoenix, the department may need
additional resources to enforce its new requirements, but it has not assessed
such potential implications. He added that the department is confident in its
ability to enforce the language contained in the staff recommended language.
Wagner thanked Rodriguez for her proposed language opined whether the right
approach is to table this until the committee can more critically evaluate the language
proposed by Rodriguez.
Rodriguez commented that Valley Partnership was invited to participate with the Urban
Heat Island / Tree and Shade Subcommittee, and they elected not to participate once
over the course of three years. She added that this is a public health and risk issues
that has been ongoing for too long.
Mahrle stated that he believes the Encanto Village Planning Committee may be an
outlier from the others because they are the only body to have received the proposed
language from Member Rodriguez and that a motion to add her language would allow
the Planning Commission and Council to at least consider the language.
Benjamin asked if the committee had received the language prepared by Member
Rodriguez. Chair Kleinman responded that it was sent out to the committee in the
afternoon. Klimek, staff, confirmed that the committee was sent language by Member
Rodriguez as described.
FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: MOTION, DISCUSSION, AND VOTE.
MOTION:
Mahrle motioned to approve the request per the staff recommendation with the
language proposed by Rodriguez. Coates seconded the motion.
DISCUSSION:
None.
Page 481
Vote
10-0-0; motion passed with Benjamin, Coates, Cothron, Jewett, Mahrle, Rodriguez,
Searles, Wagner, Vice Chair Bryck, and Chair Kleinman in favor; none in dissent; and
none in abstention.
Member Procaccini continued experiencing technical difficulties and could not
participate by audio or video. For the purpose of the vote, Procaccini is considered
absent.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:
None.
Page 482
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-15
Date of VPC Meeting May 3, 2021
Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to address
Request
landscape maintenance
VPC Recommendation Approve, per the staff recommendation
VPC Vote 16-0-1
VPC DISCUSSION:
3 speaker cards were submitted in favor, wishing to speak.
Ms. Tricia Gomes, staff, went over the reasoning behind the Text Amendment
updates, which is City Council Driven and includes a three phased approach.
The Text Amendment addresses longstanding policy goals and initiatives. She
explained that the Text Amendment strengthens existing zoning ordinance
provisions and codifies best practices by embracing three core concepts, which
include the following:
• Trees are infrastructure
• Trees provide benefits when appropriately planted
• Trees should be kept in place in a healthy and living condition
She also covered the 2021-2022 City Manager’s Trail Budget, which includes
climate change and heat readiness of $2.8 million dollars. Tree protection zones
were also discussed as well as the hearing schedule.
Chairman Robert Gubser shared that he is glad to see this Text Amendment
come to fruition.
Ms. Toby Gerst shared that she is pleased with the proposed updates. She
asked staff if there is room within this amendment that would allow monetary
donations for tree panting initiatives.
Ms. Gomes, staff, stated that this is not a possibility within this Text Amendment,
but the feedback is welcomed and could potentially be included in future
amendments.
Mr. Robert Goodhue asked if the city is able to provide adequate enforcement.
Page 483
Ms. Gomes shared that enforcement is handled by the Neighborhood Services
Department (NSD) and is complaint driven.
Mr. Goodhue asked if staff is planning to ensure tree survival by enforcing
adequate root structure spacing.
Ms. Gomes said yes, landscape plans are reviewed and required with new
commercial projects.
Chairman Gubser asked about tree maintenance. Does this Text Amendment
touch on topping of trees, tree health and required shade coverage?
Ms. Gomes shared that private property owners are required to keep up
landscaping.
Ms. Jennifer Hall shared concerns about existing landscape medians as a lot of
trees in the landscape medians have dies and have not been replaced. She
asked if this Text Amendment addresses this issue.
Ms. Gomes shared that this Text Amendment does not cover landscape
medians in the rights-of-way. This Text Amendment only covers private property
but is aware of the community concerns in regard to landscape islands and the
loss of trees in them.
Ms. Hall asked who will be handling the landscape median concerns
Ms. Gomes shared that the Street Transportation Department will handle median
islands.
Chairman Gubser shared that the North 32nd Street improvement meeting is
next week and should touch on median island upgrades along that corridor. He
encouraged all committee members to attend.
Mr. Alex Popovic shared that he likes that the language is being updated in this
Text Amendment. He asked if staff had researched what other neighboring
municipalities were doing in regard to tree maintenance.
Ms. Gomes shared that staff had not benchmarked what other cities were doing,
but rather codifying our best practices.
Mr. Roy Wise asked if there is ever proactive enforcement or is this just
complaint based.
Ms. Gomes shared that all zoning code complaints are complained based and
this is part of the code.
Page 484
Mr. Eric Cashman arrived at 6:35, bringing quorum up to 17.
Public Comment:
Mr. Ryan Boyd stated that he is a member of the Central City Village Planning
Committee. He is speaking in support of this Text Amendment.
Ms. Alisa Lyons spoke in favor of the request. However, she wants to better
understand it and asked staff to conduct additional public outreach and comment
prior to this going to the Planning Commission. She stated some language needs
to be improved before City Council approval.
Ms. Aimee Esposito stated that she has concerns with some of the language.
She shared that she feels that Phoenix has been good about community
collaboration. She recommended adding tree protection language during
construction as many established trees are injured or killed during construction.
Further, she stated that trees are infrastructure that gain value with age, unlike
other forms of infrastructure. She stated that the city needs to protect these
investments by adding additional language.
Applicants Response:
Ms. Tricia Gomes, staff, stated that she is open to having further discussion with
stakeholders and receiving additional guidance from the committee tonight.
MOTION:
Vicechair Joe Lesher made a motion to recommend approval of Text
Amendment Case No. Z-TA-5-15, per the staff recommendation.
Mr. Roy Wise seconded the motion.
VOTE:
16-0-1 with committee members Balderrama, Cantor, Gerst, Goodhue, Hall,
Maggiore, Mazza, Mortensen, Popovic, Severs, Sparks, Stewart, Ulibarri, Ward,
Wise, Gubser and Lesher in favor. Committee member Cashman abstained.
Page 485
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-15
Date of VPC Meeting May 4, 2021
Request Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to address
landscape maintenance
VPC Recommendation Approval, per staff recommendation with modifications
VPC Vote 13-2
VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:
Tricia Gomes, City of Phoenix Zoning Administrator, provided an overview of the
request which is intended to tighten regulatory language and codify long standing
practices in response to the three phased approach directed by the City Council. Within
the framework of strengthening enforcement, the text amendment seeks to achieve
three core concepts: trees are infrastructure; trees provide benefit when appropriately
planted; and that trees should be kept in place in a healthy and living condition. The
proposed amendment includes changes to Chapter 5 and 7 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance. In addition to other revisions, the proposed language formally increases the
stature of landscape plans to ensure long term compliance by requiring adherence for
an owner to receive a certificate of occupancy and strengthens landscape removal
standards. She added that staff is reviewing the Tree Protection Zone language
provided by Nicole Rodriguez, noted that many of the provisions are reflected in the
current ordinance, and that the addition of the language may require the text
amendment be delayed, as further stakeholder engagement would need to take place.
She concluded by stating that the 2021 City Manager’s Trial Budget includes 2.8M for
tree plantings, climate change, and heat readiness with programming through the Parks
Department and the Street Transportation Department, among others.
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
Hayleigh Crawford asked what stakeholders would need to be engaged to add the tree
protection zones language to the text amendment. Gomes explained that city staff has
been working with several stakeholders such as the utility companies, Valley
partnership, the Multifamily Housing Association, in addition to several city departments
– Water Services, Neighborhood Services, Street Transportation, and the Development
Services portion of Planning and Development. Staff works with all of these entities to
draft the code, and has attended several meetings with them, in addition to attending
council subcommittee meetings. Crawford asked why it would be difficult to engage the
stakeholders to review the proposed language, as it seems to have been brought up
during the feedback gathering process. She stated that if the concern is purely a matter
of scheduling, it is not very convincing. Gomes stated that the tree protection zone
Page 486
language was provided to staff one or two weeks ago and explained that a lot of what is
being proposed by Nicole Rodriguez is present in the language outlined in the staff
report. She stated that staff would like more clarification on the definition of the root
zone to have a better understanding of the concept, assess if the code addresses it,
and if it needs to be added as a definition. Staff is willing to continue this discussion, but
it is not feasible to add at this particular time.
Vice Chair William Fischbach asked what department is charged with enforcement of
compliance with landscaping requirements as outlined in approved landscape plans.
Gomes explained that the mechanism through which all compliance matters are
handled throughout the city is the Neighborhood Services Department. When a
complaint is submitted, the department sends an inspector to the site to assess if the
complaint is valid. If it is, a notice of violation is issued, and the recipient would have a
specific timeframe to come into compliance. Vice Chair Fischbach asked what
happens if a property owner does not come into compliance. Gomes explained that
then a citation would be issued, and the case would go to court, where a judge would
ultimately decide on the outcome. She stated that this does not happen often as the
Neighborhood Services Department has close to a 95 percent compliance rate. Vice
Chair Fischbach asked if the Neighborhood Services Department also handles areas
that cannot be landscaped due to utility easements. Gomes explained that utility
conflicts are typically reviewed during the plan approval process, and sometimes staff
will require an applicant to obtain a variance if necessary. Vice Chair Fishbach
elaborated on his question and asked what happens if a property owner plants
something in a public utility easement, knowingly defying the city’s restrictions. Gomes
explained that this would also be handled through the Neighborhood Services
Department process if it comes in via a complaint.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Tristahn Schaub, president of the Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood
Association, stated that the best time to plant a tree is ten years ago. One of the
reasons that makes Arcadia such a desirable community is because of its established
green setting, with trees that were planted in the 1940s and 50s. Other cities such as
Sacramento and Stockton have made concerted efforts to increase their tree cover, to
great success. He asked why greater efforts in Phoenix aren’t being entertained and
expressed concern with the text amendment being pushed through without the
opportunity for meaningful engagement with the public and inclusion of thoughtful
feedback like Nicole Rodriguez’s tree protection zone language.
Neal Haddad, representing the Arcadia Osborn Neighborhood Association, expressed
his support for the tree protection zone language proposed by Nicole Rodriguez. She is
a certified arborist and has been working with the city for years to improve tree
infrastructure. Her proposal is an easy way to care for already mature trees like the
ones found in Arcadia and in North Central neighborhoods. He expressed concern with
staff’s assertion that there is not enough time to include the proposed language at this
stage, and that it can be added in a future text amendment. He pointed out that staff
had a much more aggressive timeline for the recent billboard text amendment, so this
argument is inconsistent. He asked that the committee approve the amendment with the
additional language proposed by Nicole Rodriguez and asked the committee to ask him
Page 487
about the city’s inventory and salvage process, as his time has run out. Vice Chair
Fischbach asked him to elaborate on the tree’s inventory and salvage process.
Haddad asked that those in front of a computer search for 4399 6th Avenue, where
they will see several trees that have fallen. Going back through historical street views,
they will see that just three years ago those trees were healthy, robust, mature trees
that had been there for over 50 years, but no one had watered them in a long time. A
new project in the form of a PUD came in, and the trees would not have impeded
development in any way, as they are on the edge of the property and, in fact, the
project’s site plan showed that area as green open space. If we had a robust inventory
and salvage plan, those trees that have been providing shade for 50 years would still be
there, and the proposed tree protection zone language would cover situations like this.
Christopher Alt stated that he is an architect that has been working in Phoenix for over
twenty years. He expressed his support for the tree protection zone language but
suggested that there be a caveat to prioritize mature trees that are climate-appropriate,
as some of the more mature trees in the city are very water-intensive.
Stacey Champion shared that, in 2017, there were eight mature trees at Renaissance
Square in downtown Phoenix which were torn down to make way for a new building.
Over a 24-hour period in November of 2017, she had started a petition to save the trees
and had gathered over 3,000 signatures. During that same month, her and other
community leaders spearheaded a citizen-led committee and drafted a 9-page
document containing guidelines for tree protections. In January of 2018, this committee
met with city staff several times and submitted a petition calling for meaningful action. In
April of 2018, the city created a subcommittee to address the matter. In 2019 draft
recommendations were created, and staff stated that they would implement them that
same year. These are the recommendations being voted on tonight. She asked why
there is such a push to get this approved if it has already been talked about for years.
She asked that the committee approve the amendment with Nicole Rodriguez’s
supplemental language regarding tree protection zones.
Chair Jay Swart commended Nicole Rodriguez for the time and effort she put into
drafting the tree protection zone supplemental language to the text amendment. He
stated that this was one of the best citizen-drafted documents he’d seen and something
that she should be very proud of. He agreed that the language should be incorporated
into the text amendment.
MOTION
Crawford made a motion to approve the text amendment with the proposed tree
protection zone language. Barry Paceley seconded the motion.
Vice Chair Fischback explained that he will be voting against the text amendment due
to his lack of confidence in the Neighborhood Services Department’s enforcement
abilities, which result from poor leadership.
VOTE
Page 488
13-2; Motion passes with committee members Swart, Abbott, Augusta, Bair, Thraen,
Crawford, Eichelkraut, Garcia, Grace, Miller, Paceley, Scher, and Tribken in favor and
committee members Fischbach and McKee in opposition.
Page 489
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-15
Date of VPC Meeting May 4, 2021
Request Amend several sections of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to address landscape maintenance.
VPC Recommendation Approval, per staff recommendation
VPC Vote 7-0
VPC DISCUSSION:
2 persons indicated that they wished to speak.
Joshua Bednarek, Deputy Director in the Planning and Development Department,
explained that the citywide text amendment addresses longstanding policy goals and
initiatives regarding trees and shade. He stated that the text amendment will strengthen
existing Zoning Ordinance provisions and codify best practices through three core
concepts: trees are infrastructure, trees provide befits when appropriately planted, and
trees should be kept in place in a healthy living condition. He stated that the text
amendment will update Chapter 5 of the Zoning Ordinance, specifically regarding site
inspection and certificates of occupancy, validity of approved review documents, design
guidelines, and plant materials. He added that Chapter 7 of the Zoning Ordinance will
also be updated regarding landscape removal standards and required landscape and
maintenance plans.
Joshua Bednarek stated that the text amendment is only a portion of how the City
intends to address trees and shade. He explained that overall citywide efforts related to
trees, shade, and tree protection zones were ideas beyond the scope of the proposed
text amendment. He highlighted the 2021-2022 City Manager’s Trial Budget to
emphasize how the City is holistically addressing trees and shade.
Joshua Bednarek stated that correspondence was received regarding tree protection
zones. He stated that after analyzing the proposed tree protection zone language, it
was noted that most of the proposed provisions were already addressed by the current
Zoning Ordinance and review process. He explained that any additional language could
alter the trajectory of the text amendment process. He noted that the text amendment
would be heard by the Village Planning Committees in April and May and both Planning
Commission and City Council would hear the case in June.
Chair Steven Bowser asked how long the City has been working on the text
amendment. Joshua Bednarek explained that an iteration of the text amendment has
Page 490
existed since 2015, but the process did not actively move forward at that time. He
stated that the current language was reviewed with the Environmental Quality and
Sustainability Commission and other stakeholders for approximately a year.
Rick Powell asked if the text amendment would apply to commercial developments and
common areas for residential neighborhoods. Joshua Bednarek explained that the
text amendment is applicable to required landscaping. He added that commercial
properties have required landscaping setbacks and residential properties have required
landscaping setbacks and required landscaping in common areas. He stated that the
text amendment would not apply to single-family homes.
Rick Powell asked how the text amendment would impact developments’ water and
landscape budget. Joshua Bednarek clarified that the text amendment will not
increase landscaping requirements, but instead recommend 50% vegetated shade in
open space areas and allow flexibility for alternatives.
Rick Nowell asked how the provision regarding replacement of trees would be
enforced. Joshua Bednarek explained that both quantity and caliper would be
considered when replacing a tree. He provided the example of an 8-inch caliper tree,
which could be replaced with two 4-inch caliper trees.
Rick Nowell asked for clarification regarding shading provided by structures. Joshua
Bednarek explained that structures, such as ramadas or shade sails, could be used to
meet shade requirements in open areas.
Nicole Rodriguez, member of the Encanto Village Planning Committee and
International Society of Agriculture Certified Arborist, stated that she proposed language
to protect mature trees and ensure they remain viable on site. She added that critical
root zones need to be protected, particularly during the construction phase. She
clarified that when the critical root zone is damaged, trees are more likely to fall.
Ryan Boyd, a member of the Central City Village Planning Committee, stated that he
agreed with Nicole Rodriguez and believed standard practices for tree protection
zones need to be codified.
Jill Hankins asked if the Arizona Native Plant Law was discussed in the text
amendment. Joshua Bednarek explained that the Ordinance contains existing
standards regarding native plants and that the text amendment would not modify that
language.
Jason Israel asked if there was any analysis done regarding budget. Joshua
Bednarek stated that the technical analysis, which would include the budgetary
allocation, had not be completed.
MOTION:
Rick Nowell made a motion to approve Z-TA-5-15 per staff recommendation. The
motion was seconded by Rick Powell.
VOTE:
7-0 with Committee Members Bowser, Barto, Hankins, Israel, Nowell, Powell, and
Santoro in favor.
Page 491
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has no comments.
Page 492
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-15
Date of VPC Meeting May 10, 2021
Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to address
Request
landscape maintenance
VPC Recommendation Approval, per staff recommendation with modifications
VPC Vote 11-3
VPC DISCUSSION:
Five requests to speak were submitted for this item.
Mr. Joshua Bednarek, Deputy Director with the Planning and Development
Department, introduced himself and this citywide text amendment under case
Z-TA-5-15 which addresses landscape maintenance citywide. Mr. Bednarek shared
that this effort is City Council driven as part of a three phase approach, addresses
longstanding policy goals and initiatives and this text amendment strengthens existing
Zoning Ordinance provisions and codifies practices by embracing three core concepts:
trees are infrastructure, trees provide benefits where appropriately planted, and trees
should be kept in place in a healthy plus living condition. Mr. Bednarek continued that
this text amendment updates Chapter 5 of the Zoning Ordinance as it pertains to site
inspections tied to a certificate of occupancy, validity of approved review documents,
design guidelines and plant materials and Chapter 7 of the Zoning Ordinance is also
proposed to be amended by incorporating landscape removal standards, required
landscape and maintenance plans. Mr. Bednarek added that staff has been provided
with several ideas that go beyond the scope of this text amendment such as a citywide
effort related to trees and shade such as tree protection zones. Mr. Bednarek
concluded that the 2021-2022 City Manager’s Trial Budget shows several proposals to
allocate funding in order to address related policy goals citywide and that this citywide
text amendment case will be heard by Village Planning Committees in April and May,
while the Planning Commission and City Council will hear this case in June.
Ryan Boyd asked isn’t the text amendment proposed to codify current practices. Mr.
Bednarek responded affirmatively and that the amended provisions would be at the
site plan review or inspector level, and that after an initial review it is unclear if the
proposed tree protection zone language would be administratively approved and where
in the process that would take place and would need more staff review. Mr. Boyd
Page 493
asked how long an analysis would take. Mr. Bednarek responded that outside of
stakeholder review it would take a couple of weeks, and that staffing is spread thin, so
it is difficult to give a more precise answer.
Eva Olivas asked for confirmation that the Encanto, Camelback East and Alhambra
Village Planning Committees recommended to approve with the addition of the tree
protection zone language, and for clarification on the timing of this amendment and if
the committees can go back and take a look at the proposed additional language to
ensure they get it right. Mr. Bednarek replied that the Encanto and Camelback East
Village Planning Committees did recommend approval with the additional tree
protection zone language, and was unsure of the results with Alhambra, and that the
Planning Commission takes a break in July so if the case was to be delayed it would be
in front of the Planning Commission in August and City Council in September, and that
staff is excited to support the text amendment and timeline as proposed.
Public Comment:
Nicole Rodriguez introduced herself, sharing her experience and qualifications in
urban forestry and that she serves on the Encanto Village Planning Committee. Ms.
Rodriguez shared that the request for additional language for tree protection zones is
something that has been requested for the past three years, and that there is no
reason not to vote now with the additional tree protection language. Ms. Rodriguez
added that while staff states that a concern with the proposed language is that is must
be vetted by stakeholders, they are the stakeholders who are requesting this proposed
language and that this text amendment is six years old and had stalled until the public
invoked a citizen petition.
Stacey Champion reviewed the history of the text amendment and discussed the
example of Renaissance Square where trees were removed from a plaza and never
replaced. Ms. Champion added that staff is showing a toothless amendment and that
Ms. Rodriguez did a great job at putting together additional language for the text
amendment.
Alisa Lyons introduced herself as a registered lobbyist on behalf of Valley Partnership
which is a long-time advocate for responsible development. Ms. Lyons stated that
Valley Partnership does not oppose the text amendment, and agrees with the
requirement that a landscape plan should be considered a governing document for site
development, in the same way that traditional infrastructure must be maintained,
however she would like the opportunity to discuss the proposed additional tree
protection zone language with Nicole Rodriguez to get more clarification on the
proposal and see if what is being proposed is redundant in the Zoning Ordinance.
Ryan Boyd asked who they could reach out to. Ms. Lyons responded that Valley
Partnership would love the opportunity to speak with Nicole Rodriguez.
Jim McPherson shared that he is a resident of Midtown Phoenix and that he
documents empty tree wells, some of which are being replenished with the efforts of
Page 494
Downtown Phoenix Inc. to increase our tree and shade canopy, and that he supports
the amendment and the language provided by Ms. Rodriguez.
Andie Abkarian, with the Roosevelt Action Association, shared her support for this text
amendment and the additional tree protection zone language, and that while the staff
report was released 31 days ago, the community needs more time to get the language
as strong as possible.
End of public comment.
Dana Johnson stated that not all trees are created equal, some are invasive and that
he has a concern with a blanket statement to preserve all trees, and asked if this
amendment will change the exemption of the salvage plan for properties in the Infill
Development District. Mr. Bednarek replied that the existing language on inventory
and salvage plans take into account preserving mature trees and that whether a tree is
invasive or not would be a conversation between landscape plan review staff and the
applicant, the proposed additional language does not differentiate between invasive
and non-invasive trees and that the exemption is a policy that is being updated based
on the feedback received from the committee and the proposed text amendment does
not impact that policy.
Chair Rachel Frazier Johnson shared that as a long-time tenant of the Renaissance
Tower, the trees were beautiful and it is lacking now, and asked if this can be
postponed, and there seems to be an issue with waiting and asked if there is a rush on
this item. Mr. Bednarek replied that the impetus is to get this amendment approved
and the committee does have the option to recommend a continuance.
Motion:
Ryan Boyd motioned to approve Z-TA-5-15 per the staff recommendation with the
additional tree protection zone language as proposed by Nicole Rodriguez in her letter
dated April 27, 2021. Ash Uss seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Ryan Boyd stated that the text amendment proposed great language and shared a
concern if the committee votes no, the item will be delayed even longer.
Vice Chair Sonoskey shared that he supports the text amendment overall but has a
concern with tight urban sites with existing trees, and that hopefully there is an ability
for landscape architects to get creative and work with staff to find solutions such as
moving existing trees and still allow applicants to move forward in the development
process.
Vote
11-3, Motion to approve Z-TA-5-15 per the staff recommendation with the additional
tree protection zone language passed, with committee members Boyd, Burns, Gaona,
Page 495
Gonzalez, Johnson, Lockhart, Olivas, Rainey, Starks, Uss and Sonoskey in favor and
committee members Colyer, Panetta and R. Johnson opposed.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:
None.
Page 496
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-15
Date of VPC Meeting May 10, 2021
Request Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to address
landscape maintenance
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation with
modifications
VPC Vote 9-0
VPC DISCUSSION:
Tricia Gomes, City of Phoenix Zoning Administrator, provided an overview of the
request which is intended to tighten regulatory language and codify long standing
practices in response to the three phased approach directed by the City Council. Within
the framework of strengthening enforcement, the text amendment seeks to achieve
three core concepts: trees are infrastructure; trees provide benefit when appropriately
planted; and that trees should be kept in place in a healthy and living condition. The
proposed amendment includes changes to Chapter 5 and 7 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance. In addition to other revisions, the proposed language formally increases the
stature of landscape plans to ensure long term compliance by requiring adherence for
an owner to receive a certificate of occupancy and strengthens landscape removal
standards. She added that staff is reviewing the Tree Protection Zone language
provided by Nicole Rodriguez, noted that many of the provisions are reflected in the
current ordinance, and that the addition of the language may require the text
amendment be delayed, as further stakeholder engagement would need to take place.
She concluded by stating that the 2021 City Manager’s Trial Budget includes 2.8M for
tree plantings, climate change, and heat readiness with programming through the Parks
Department and the Street Transportation Department, among others.
COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Sharifa Rowe asked how many trees this will impact and whether it only applied to
private property. Gomes replied that this text amendment only addresses private
property. It applies to commercial, multifamily, and single-family developments. In
subdivisions, it applies to the perimeter landscape setbacks and common open space
areas to ensure that the required landscaping is put in. One of the purposed of the text
amendment is to ensure that trees are placed where they provide the most benefit and
that they are properly maintained after installation, so it’s not necessarily the number of
trees, but ensuring that they are being placed in appropriate areas. Rowe asked if the
proposed language has been fully fleshed out. Gomes replied that the quantify of trees
required to place on a property is already addressed in the code and will not be
changed. The proposed changes include increasing the required amount of shade,
providing consistency throughout the code to avoid conflicting information, and
Page 497
addressing how required landscaping is maintained. Rowe asked what the main
implications of this text amendment are, and why the city is pursuing these changes.
Gomes explained that providing clarity and consistency in the code as well as adding
provisions for proper maintenance will improve enforcement of required landscaping.
Stephanie Hurd expressed her appreciation of the city for acknowledging that there is a
problem with how some properties inadequately maintain their landscaping and thanked
staff for bringing this text amendment forward.
Gizette Knight asked for clarification on what the proposal means for homeowners and
if they will be required to add or remove any trees from their property. Gomes explained
that the text amendment does not apply to individual residential lots, so landscaping on
individual homeowners’ lots would not be affected. In a single-family subdivision, this
text amendment would only apply to areas that are commonly held such as perimeter
landscape setbacks and open space areas.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Nicole Rodriguez introduced herself as a certified arborist through the International
Society of Agriculture, and also a certified utility arborist with tree risk assessment
qualifications. She is also a member of the Encanto Village Planning Committee and the
prepared a letter with proposed language for all Village Planning Committee members,
and that she hopes this committee received it. She pointed out the case number for this
text amendment, which shows that it was started in 2015 and is only now coming
through the hearing process. In 2018, the Urban Heat Island and Tree Shade
Subcommittee invited staff and developers to create recommendations, one of which
was for tree protection zones. This would address how construction would handle
existing vegetation on the site and would be incorporated into the city’s inventory and
salvage process. She explained that she has been asking staff to create tree protection
zone language for years and ultimately had to create the language herself, which was
included in the letter sent to the committee. Her proposal is heavily supported by the
community and businesses, with over 50 signatures in support from businesses. The
tree protection zone requirements would set forth standards for blocking mature trees
from the impacts of construction to avoid damage to the root system, which can
eventually kill a tree. Planting new trees is more costly to developers, so preserving
existing trees will actually save them money. She asked that the committee vote to
include the proposed tree protection zone language. Rowe asked if the implication of
this text amendment is more important for Laveen considering it does not have as many
mature trees as other parts of the city, such as Encanto. Rodriguez replied that
Laveen, as well as many other parts of the city, is subject to the urban heat island
effect, so protecting any mature trees that are already there will benefit the city as a
whole by tackling the heat bubble effect in unison. For more recent developments, trees
can become mature as quickly as in five years, depending on the species, so protecting
those is important to create a mature tree canopy in even newer developments.
Cyd Manning expressed her support for the proposed tree protection language and
that it is very good that two committees have voted to include this language, as it really
supports the city’s tree shade goals. She added that another important factor is the
maintenance plan and enforcement of appropriate landscape maintenance, as there
have been many instances throughout the city of trees being neglected and ultimately
Page 498
killed off and removed, with no plans to replace them. She asked that the committee
approve the text amendment with the additional tree protection zone language.
Alisa Lyons, with Valley Partnership, disclosed that she is a registered lobbyist. Valley
partnership does not oppose this text amendment and agrees that approved landscape
plans must be adhered to and enforcement of maintenance should be fortified. She
stated that she has been working with staff and other stakeholders on this text
amendment for years and encouraged the committee to give the proposal positive
consideration, as it is the right thing to do when looking for heat mitigating solutions in
Phoenix. She stated that Nicole Rodriguez’s language is extremely important in
preserving tree shade canopy in the city, but that the challenge with the language is that
is was presented directly to the Village Planning Committees and has not gone through
the stakeholder groups that have been working on the amendment for the past few
years. She explained that there needs to be further vetting of the language and that,
although two committees voted to include the additional language, others did not, as
they believed that the stakeholders should have the opportunity to vet it. She asked that
the committee approve the text amendment as recommended by staff and encouraged
staff to then take the additional language and bring it before the stakeholders through
the proper outreach process. Hurd asked Nicole Rodrigues to respond to Alisa Lyons’
comments. Rodriguez stated that Valley Partnership was invited to the Urban Heat
Subcommittee but did not know if Alisa was part of that. She added that two of the
Village Planning Committees did not even have the text amendment language before
them when they voted, and that city staff has been very resistant to working with the
public, yet they were willing to listen to developers. There has been no opposition from
developers, and the utility companies’ main concern is power outages from planting
vegetation under power lines, but they have no opinion on tree protection zones since
that is of concern to them. She explained that she is a volunteer and is not paid for her
efforts in this, and that it took the public mobilizing to get traction on overall tree and
shade goals, as staff was not moving it forward. She expressed her concern with the
city’s resistance to working with the community and incorporating the public’s feedback
into the text amendment. If involving the public in the process delays the text
amendment by a few months, then that is a small price to pay to get it right. Knight
asked if the text amendment pertains to development, and if it is for commercial or
residential development. Rodriguez explained that the city’s process when a new
development comes in is to salvage existing trees on the site and store them until the
construction is done, then plant them back on site. Some trees cannot be moved so
they are removed and then replaced with other trees. The additional language would
protect those trees that cannot be moved due to size. She stated that it applied to
commercial, multifamily and single-family only where the land is in common ownership.
Vice Chair Linda Abegg asked staff if the city is opposed to the additional language.
Chair Glass directed Gomes to respond at the end of public comment.
Rowe asked the same of Alisa Lyons. Lyons commended Nicole Rodriguez for her
thorough proposal but explained that the language had not been vetted for clarity and
enforceability, and also that the current code already addresses a lot of it. She
reiterated that any new language should go through the full stakeholder engagement
process to make sure it gets implemented correctly. She added that these are
regulations, and that the people and entities that are going be regulated by this new
language should have the opportunity to review it before it is codified.
Page 499
Andie Abkarian, resident of a historic downtown Phoenix neighborhood and Vice Chair
of the Downtown Voices Coalition, stated that she has been involved in providing input
on policy and zoning for a long time. Her neighborhood has some of the oldest trees in
the city, and homes that are over a century old. There are also several multifamily units
in midrise and high-rises that are planned or under construction, and she has been first-
hand the effect that construction can have on existing trees. Although Laveen doesn’t
have trees as mature as central Phoenix, she reminded the committee members that
this is a city-wide text amendment, which is important for committees to understand.
She expressed her disappointment in seeing that some of the more stringent
maintenance standards have been removed from the 2019 version of the language, and
why, if tree protection is already addressed in the language, staff can’t work on further
refining it to address it fully. She asked that the committee approve the text amendment,
as it is very important, but contingent on the additional tree protection zone language.
Neal Haddad, representing the Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix, stated that
they work with neighborhoods across the city, including some in Laveen. He expressed
his support for the tree protection zone language, as it is an easy way to embrace the
city’s Tree and Shade Master Plan. He stated that staff is pushing to get this text
amendment passed as is, and that the tree protection zone language can be added as a
text amendment later on. He questioned why they should accept that, and how many
more mature trees have to be torn down before they are protected. A brief delay in the
approval process to vet the additional language could help improve all 519 square miles
of the city. If they do not want to delay, he urged the committee to vote on incorporating
the proposed treed protection zone language.
Phil Hertel agreed with the previous speaker’s comments and asked that the language
be as enforceable as possible so developments like the one of 43rd Avenue and Euclid
can’t clear all trees from a property. He also stressed the importance of ensuring that
enforcement includes substantial burdens and penalties for noncompliance so that
developers are encouraged to properly maintain their landscaping from the time of
installation instead of just paying a fee and replacing the tree.
Dan Penton stated that he is a resident of the Artesa community, just south of 43rd
Avenue and Baseline, and that they recently experienced a loss of several mature trees
that were planted in 2007 due solely to future cost savings on pruning and hedge
trimming. He presented photos of the robust trees that were present in the community,
and compared it to photos after the tree removal, which removed the perimeter buffering
for residences and left a barren streetscape. He expressed his support for the tree
protection zones and also agreed with Phil Hertel’s comment that the code needs to
have teeth so that this type of scenario doesn’t happen again. As one of the hottest
cities in the country, it in unconscionable that the city is not doing more to enforce
shade.
Gomes clarified that the text amendment only addresses commercial, multifamily, and
the portions of single-family subdivisions that are commonly held such as the perimeter
landscape setbacks and open space areas, and not within individual residential lots.
She also explained that all Village Planning Committees receive their meeting packets
two weeks prior to their meetings, and that the proposed text amendment language and
staff report were included in all packets. Thus, all committees had the language before
them with plenty of time to review it. She then listed the stakeholders that have been
involved in this text amendment, which include Valley Partnership, the Home Builders
Page 500
Association, the Multifamily Housing Association, the Environmental Quality and
Sustainability Commission, the Urban Heat Island Subcommittee, as well as several city
departments including Neighborhood Services, Street Transportation, Water Services,
and Planning and Development. She stated that the city does not opposed the
proposed tree protection zone language, but that it does need to be evaluated before
adoption to ensure that it is consistent with what’s already in the code and that certain
terminology, such as the term “tree protection zone”, are specifically defined in the code
as well. Further, a lot of the proposed language is already included in the code, which is
outlined on page 16 of the staff report, under the inventory and salvage plan process.
Ultimately, to have an effective code, staff must ensure that there are no inconsistencies
or conflicts in the regulatory language, and staff does not have that comfort level with
the tree protection zone language at this time. She further explained that this text
amendment would apply to all development, not just future developments. If a property
has an approved landscape plan, they are required to adhere to that in perpetuity. For
properties without an approved plan, there are other ways for staff to review adequate
landscaping requirements, such as researching historical aerials of the site to determine
what was planted at the initial development stage. Regarding Dan Penton’s comment,
there is a good chance that the subdivision removed those trees without the city’s
permission, so that is a case where the Neighborhood Services Department would
come out to investigate and enforce compliance.
Chair Glass expressed her concern with enforcement, stating that if a fine is $100 and
replacing trees on a site is $2,000, a property owner would likely only pay the fine. She
asked what the follow through process of the enforcement is. Gomes explained that the
mechanism through which all compliance matters are handled throughout the city is the
Neighborhood Services Department. When a complaint is submitted, the department
sends an inspector to the site to assess if the complaint is valid. If it is, a notice of
violation is issued, and the recipient would have a specific timeframe to come into
compliance. If a property owner does not come into compliance, then a citation would
be issued, and the case would go to court, where a judge would ultimately decide on the
outcome. However, Neighborhood Services has a very high compliance rate, so it rarely
escalates to that level.
Hurd asked that Nicole Rodriguez be given the floor to address some of the comments
made by staff and by the public. Rodriguez stated that there was a text amendment
regarding billboards that the city tried to push through earlier in the year, and the
language was provided to the committees only a day or two in advance of their
meetings. This text amendment was pushed by large companies like Clear Channel,
and it seems disingenuous for the city to claim that they need more time to vet the tree
protection language, since that past text amendment was on a fast-tracked timeline
simply because it was backed by lobbyists and corporations with a lot of money. She
emphasized that the community is also a stakeholder and their voice should be heard in
the process. Additionally, no developers have come out in opposition to this
amendment, as their processes already include some form of fencing around existing
trees. She urged the committee and the public to push this forward and keep the city
accountable to achieve the goal of mitigating and reducing the urban heat island effect.
MOTION
Hurd made a motion to approve the text amendment per the staff recommendation, with
the additional tree protection zone language proposed by Nicole Rodriguez. Cinthia
Estela seconded the motion.
Page 501
VOTE
9-0; Motion passes with committee members Glass, Abegg, Branscomb, Estela, Hurd,
Knight, Ortega, Rouse, and Rowe in favor.
Page 502
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-15
Date of VPC Meeting May 11, 2021
Request Amend several sections of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to address landscape maintenance
VPC Recommendation Approval, per staff recommendation with the additional
language regarding tree protection zones from Nicole
Rodriguez’s letter dated April 27, 2021
VPC Vote 3-1
VPC DISCUSSION:
3 persons indicated that they wished to speak.
Tricia Gomes, Zoning Administrator in the Planning and Development Department,
explained that the citywide text amendment addresses longstanding policy goals and
initiatives regarding trees and shade. She stated that the text amendment will
strengthen existing Zoning Ordinance provisions and codify best practices through three
core concepts: trees are infrastructure, trees provide befits when appropriately planted,
and trees should be kept in place in a healthy living condition. She stated that the text
amendment will update Chapter 5 of the Zoning Ordinance, specifically regarding site
inspection and certificates of occupancy, validity of approved review documents, design
guidelines, and plant materials. She noted that the amendments will ensure trees are
placed in appropriate places and given enough space to be successful. She added that
Chapter 7 of the Zoning Ordinance will also be updated regarding landscape removal
standards and required landscape and maintenance plans.
Tricia Gomes stated that the text amendment is only a portion of how the City intends
to address trees and shade. She highlighted the 2021-2022 City Manager’s Trial
Budget to emphasize how the City is holistically addressing trees and shade.
Tricia Gomes stated that correspondence was received regarding tree protection
zones. She stated that after analyzing the proposed tree protection zone language, it
was noted that most of the proposed provisions were already addressed by the current
Zoning Ordinance and review process. She noted that the text amendment would be
heard by the Village Planning Committees in April and May and both Planning
Commission and City Council would hear the case in June.
Page 503
Vice Chair Steven Scharboneau asked if there were exceptions to the permit
requirement for tree removal. Tricia Gomes stated that are exceptions, which are
outlined in Section E.1.b of the staff report for Z-TA-5-15.
Loyd Nygaard asked if the text amendment applied exclusively to private property.
Tricia Gomes confirmed that the text amendment and Zoning Ordinance addresses
regulations on private property.
Ozzie Virgil asked if the text amendment would apply to both commercial and private
properties. Tricia Gomes explained that the text amendment is applicable to required
landscape setbacks for commercial properties and landscape setbacks and common
areas for residential properties. She added that this would not apply to single-family
homes on individual lots. Ozzie Virgil expressed concerns regarding overregulation of
developers.
Ozzie Virgil asked how large mature trees would be replaced. Tricia Gomes explained
that the developer would work with staff to replace the tree in like, kind, and size. She
provided the example of a 12-inch caliper tree, which could be replaced with three 4-
inch caliper trees.
Chair Massimo Sommacampagna asked how larger trees would be added to a denser
development type. Tricia Gomes explained that the site will go through an inventory
process to document existing 4-inch or greater caliper trees and 3 feet or taller cacti.
She explained that the health of the plant materials will be documented as well to
determine whether it can be salvaged, remain in place, or has to be destroyed. This
information could be used to then determine the layout of the development.
Nicole Rodriguez, member of the Encanto Village Planning Committee and
International Society of Agriculture Certified Arborist, stated that she proposed language
to protect mature trees and ensure they remain viable on site. She added that critical
root zones need to be protected, particularly during the construction phase. She
clarified that when the critical root zone is damaged, trees are more likely to fall. She
added that there are specific tree species for denser developments that can shade
sidewalks without interfering with buildings.
Stacey Champion, a member of the public, discussed the lack of tree protections in
Renaissance Plaza and how this resulted in the loss of large Ficus trees in the plaza.
She stated that there were citizen led committees who studied best practices and
brought guidelines to the City regarding tree protections. She added that we should
work to protect trees by incorporating the proposed language regarding tree protection
zones.
Neal Haddad, representing the Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix, stated that
the easiest way to care for existing mature trees is to approve the text amendment with
the proposed tree protection zone language.
Tricia Gomes stated that the City is working to integrate the proposed tree protection
zone language into the text amendment in a clear and defined way.
Page 504
Ozzie Virgil expressed concerns with approving the text amendment with the tree
protection zone language without knowing how the finalized language would read. He
asked if the language could be modified after the Village Planning Committee (VPC)
recommendation. Tricia Gomes stated that subsequent modifications could be
possible, but they would not vary much from the proposed language of the staff report
or Nicole Rodriguez’s letter regarding tree protection zones.
Nicole Rodriguez stated that the proposed language does not incorporate fines or
penalties. She added that language to protect trees is used in numerous cities
throughout the country and that it will allow developers to be good stewards on site.
Loyd Nygaard asked if there was any opposition to the proposed tree protection zone
language. Tricia Gomes stated that staff is not opposed to the proposed language, but
feels the points discussed are already addressed in the Ordinance. She added that
staff is still trying to get a further understanding of the proposed language and how that
would be incorporated.
Chair Massimo Sommacampagna asked about the difference between a certified
arborist and registered landscape architect. Tricia Gomes clarified that the proposed
tree protection zone language uses the term “arborist”, while the Ordinance uses the
term “landscape architect”. She explained that, essentially, both are asking for an
individual with the expertise to evaluate the health of trees and plants on site. She
added that the specific term used in the amendment is still be discussed by staff.
Nicole Rodriguez stated that it is also possible to be both a certified arborist and
landscape architect. She added that it is simply important for that person to have the
appropriate expertise.
Chair Massimo Sommacampagna asked if developers will be required to have an
inventory salvage and tree protection plan as part of the development process. Tricia
Gomes stated that developers would conduct inventory and salvage prior to
development and trees that remain in place will be protected from possible negative
impacts during the active development phase.
MOTION:
Vice Chair Steven Scharboneau made a motion to approve Z-TA-5-15 per staff
recommendation with the additional language regarding tree protection zones from
Nicole Rodriguez’s letter dated April 27, 2021. The motion was seconded by Chair
Massimo Sommacampagna.
VOTE:
2-2 with Committee members Sommacampagna and Scharboneau in favor and
Committee members Nygaard and Virgil in opposition. This motion failed.
Vice Chair Steven Scharboneau stated that it was not uncommon for policy items to
need additional minor revisions. Loyd Nygaard stated that any ambiguities in the text
amendment should be clarified and set in stone prior to the VPC recommendation.
Ozzie Virgil stated that the final language could be too burdensome regarding
regulations and agreed that the ambiguities should be clarified prior to a
recommendation.
Page 505
Nicole Rodriguez stated that trees are critical infrastructure that can increase property
values. She added that inventory and salvage is not a new process and provides
assistance and parameters during the development phase. She stated that the tree
protection zone language would also provide additional guidance and expertise
regarding how to best protect trees on site.
MOTION:
Ozzie Virgil made a motion to approve Z-TA-5-15 per staff recommendation. The
motion was seconded by Chair Massimo Sommacampagna.
VOTE:
2-2 with Committee members Sommacampagna and Virgil in favor and Committee
members Scharboneau and Nygaard in opposition. This motion failed.
MOTION:
Vice Chair Steven Scharboneau made a motion to approve Z-TA-5-15 per staff
recommendation with the additional language regarding tree protection zones from
Nicole Rodriguez’s letter dated April 27, 2021. He requested that staff and the Planning
Commission focus on clarifying the ambiguities in the language regarding tree
protection zones. The motion was seconded by Loyd Nygaard.
VOTE:
3-1 with Committee members Sommacampagna, Nygaard, and Scharboneau in favor
and Committee member Virgil in opposition.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:
None.
Page 506
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-15
Date of VPC Meeting May 11, 2021
Request Amend several sections in Chapters 5 and 7 of the
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to address landscape
maintenance.
VPC Recommendation Approval, per staff recommendation with modifications
VPC Vote 12-0 Motion passes; with members Aldama, Alvarez,
Brownell, Busching, Coleman, Holmerud, Marchuk, Ray,
Shepard, M. Smith, Viera and Daniels in favor; None in
dissent.
VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:
5 requests to speak from members of the public were received regarding this case. 4
members in support with modifications and 1 member of the public is neutral.
Mr. Joshua Bednarek, Deputy Director with the Planning and Development Department,
introduced himself and this citywide text amendment under case
Z-TA-5-15 which addresses landscape maintenance citywide. This effort is City Council
driven as part of a three phase approach and addresses longstanding policy goals and
initiatives. This text amendment strengthens existing Zoning Ordinance provisions and
codifies practices by embracing three core concepts: trees are infrastructure, trees provide
benefits where appropriately planted, and trees should be kept in place in a healthy plus
living condition. This text amendment updates Chapter 5 of the Zoning Ordinance as it
pertains to site inspections tied to a certificate of occupancy, validity of approved review
documents, design guidelines and plant materials. Chapter 7 of the Zoning Ordinance is
also proposed to be amended by incorporating landscape removal standards, required
landscape and maintenance plans. Staff has been provided with several ideas that go
beyond the scope of this text amendment such as a citywide effort related to trees and
shade such as tree protection zones. The 2021-2022 City Manager’s Trial Budget shows
several proposals to allocate funding in order to address related policy goals citywide. This
citywide text amendment case will be heard by Village Planning Committees in April and
May, while the Planning Commission and City Council will hear this case in June.
Gregory Brownell asked several questions:
Where are the 1,800 trees part of the trial budget going to be planted?
Will these trees be planted in private or public property?
Can someone ask for these trees to be planted in their property?
Page 507
Mr. Bednarek responded that these trees are part of the trial budget, and this text
amendment may affect these trees depending on where these are located in the city. He is
not familiar with the details of where these trees are going to be located.
Marcia Busching is generally supportive of this text amendment and sent some questions
to staff including:
How can we prevent large sections of rip-rap in order to mitigate the urban heat
island effect?
How will this help to address the premeditated destruction of trees?
Will there be provisions for tree salvage requirements?
How long will the tree maintenance be required for and will there be enforcement?
Jackie Keller, Landscape Architect with the Planning and Development Department,
introduced herself and responded that rip-rap has historically been used for erosion control
and can include trees or other vegetation along rip-rap areas. City enforcement is primarily
complaint-driven, and discussed the verbiage proposed to replace dead or damaged trees
with like-kind and size, referencing several examples of this. She discussed the notice of
intent requirements with the state agriculture department. A maintenance schedule is
required and she discussed these requirements.
Mr. Brownell asked what would happen if an invasive plant specie is removed. Does this
text amendment make a distinction between native and invasive species?
Ms. Keller responded that this text amendment addresses the required landscaping
material and the location of these. Staff encourages and asks that invasive plants are
replaced with better native species.
Trent Marchuk asked for further clarification on how trees are “infrastructure”.
Mr. Bednarek responded that if this text amendment is approved, trees will be part of the
inspection checklist just like “brick and mortar” infrastructure on the site.
Mr. Marchuk discussed an example with an HOA requirement pertaining to landscaping.
Mr. Bednarek responded that this text amendment does not apply to individual single-
family lots.
Chairwoman Daniels opened the public comment portion of the meeting.
Nicole Rodriguez introduced herself and discussed modifications to this text amendment
language that she proposes. She discussed the need for tree protection zones within the
development plans for projects. She referred to the benefits of trees and how these will
help ensure the success of a project.
Neal Haddad introduced himself and stated that he supports the text amendment with the
amended language proposed by Ms. Rodriguez, as this ensures that mature trees are kept
Page 508
in place. He referred to Ms. Rodriguez’ work and asked for this text amendment to be
approved per the staff recommendation with the language proposed by Ms. Rodriguez.
Chairwoman Daniels asked Mr. Haddad to expand on his reference to a property near
6th Avenue and Broadway Road.
Mr. Haddad discussed an example of a property at 6th Avenue and Broadway Road
where old trees are being removed. He discussed the tree protection zone concept.
Ryan Boyd introduced himself and stated that he supports this text amendment case with
modifications proposed by Ms. Rodriguez. Many years of work have gone into these
elements and feels that tree protection zones are important and missing from this text
amendment case. People should honor their commitment to landscaping their property.
Stacey Champion discussed the example of Renaissance Square where trees were
removed from a plaza and never replaced. A petition was started, and she discussed the
timeline for this text amendment to protect trees. She encourages the text amendment
approval with the modifications proposed by Ms. Rodriguez.
Tabitha Myers registered to speak but was not connected during the meeting.
Chairwoman Daniels closed the public comment portion of the meeting and asked if
there was further discussion or a motion.
Mr. Bednarek summarized some of the possible motions that the committee could make.
MOTION – Z-TA-5-15
Ms. Busching made a motion to approve case Z-TA-5-15 per the staff recommendation
and in substantial conformance with the additional language proposed by Nicole
Rodriguez in her letter dated April 27, 2021. Ms. Shepard seconded the motion.
VOTE:
12-0 Motion passes; None in dissent.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:
None.
Page 509
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-15
Date of VPC Meeting May 13, 2021
Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to address
Request
landscape maintenance
VPC DISCUSSION:
Ms. Tricia Gomes, staff, went over the reasoning behind the Text Amendment
updates, which is City Council Driven and includes a three phased approach.
The Text Amendment addresses longstanding policy goals and initiatives. She
explained that the Text Amendment strengthens existing zoning ordinance
provisions and codifies best practices by embracing three core concepts, which
include the following:
• Trees are infrastructure
• Trees provide benefits when appropriately planted
• Trees should be kept in place in a healthy and living condition
She also covered the 2021-2022 City Manager’s Trail Budget, which includes
climate change and heat readiness of $2.8 million dollars. Tree protection zones
were also discussed as well as the hearing schedule.
Chairman Joseph Grossman asked how long the $2.8 million is supposed to
last.
Ms. Gomes shared that she was unsure but could find out and get back with the
DV VPC about this. Chairman Grossman asked if the money allocated was a
one time thing or if this is funded each budget cycle.
Ms. Gomes stated that she would have to get back with the DV VPC about this
exact inquiry.
Public Comment:
Mr. Ryan Boyd, residing at 1069 W. Taylor St, spoke in support of the Text
Amendment with the caveat that Ms. Nicole Rodriguez’s proposed language is
included to protect established trees during construction of sites. He shared that
this Text Amendment took nearly 6 years to come to fruition and if it was being
considered now, the additional text should be included.
Page 510
Ms. Nicole Rodriguez stated that it is very important to include language that
protects established trees as they are a form of infrastructure that gains value
over time, unlike other forms of infrastructure that needs to be upgraded over
time. She asked the DV VPC to get this to the finish line with the additional
language.
Mr. Neal Haddad spoke in support of the Text Amendment. He stated that this
would be an easy way to protect existing mature trees with Me. Rodriguez’s
proposed language added.
Ms. Stacey Champion provided a historical perspective of the Text
Amendment.
Ms. Aimee Esposito spoke in support of the Text Amendment with the added
language proposed by Ms. Rodriguez. She stated that trees are assets and
infrastructure.
Ms. Linda Williamson spoke in support of the Text Amendment. She stated
that we are at a critical turning point with the environment and stressed the
importance of protecting trees.
VPC Discussion:
Chairman Joseph Grossman asked staff if they are going to require plant
salvage plans and how much that will cost developers both monetarily and time.
Ms. Tricia Gomes, staff, shared that the city already has tree salvage and
inventory requirement, which will not change with the passage of this Text
Amendment. Further, she explained that staff still needs to define what root
lines mean and other verbiage proposed by Ms. Rodriguez prior to considering
including the additional language.
Chairman Grossman asked if residential private property owners will be able to
cut down trees on their own properties or if owner swill need to pull some kind of
tree removal permit if the Text Amendment were to pass.
Ms. Gomes shared that this Text Amendment does not include private
residential properties, only commercially zoned properties that are mandated
through the zoning ordinance.
Chairman Grossman asked, I a business owner has a tree destroyed on their
commercial property, would they need to replace it.
Page 511
Ms. Gomes shared that they would be required to replace the tree as this is a
code requirement.
Mr. Ozzie Virgil asked if a tree is removed in the course of construction, would
that tree need to be replaced?
Ms. Gomes shared that on commercial development sites, a landscape
architect or arborist conduct a tree inventory, determines what is salvable and
boxes whatever is salvable to be replanted on site during the course of
construction.
Ms. Nicole Rodriguez explained the plant salvage process to the committee.
Chairman Grossman asked staff if the development community was involved
in the Text Amendment process. Ms. Gomes shared that the development
community was involved in the process and was able to provide feedback
throughout the course of the process. She also shared that many internal
departments were also included int eh process to include Water Services and
Streets.
Chairman Grossman asked why this is before the committee tonight if there
are working amendments to the language.
Ms. Gomes shared that the language being voted on tonight is the language
outlined in the staff report. Future Text Amendments would address any
updates or amendments.
Mr. Virgil shared that he has concerns about the proposed language.
Mr. Keith Greenberg looked up the cost of trees during the discussion and
found that $2.8 million seems reasonable on an annual basis.
MOTION: Mr. Mark Davenport motioned to recommend approval per staff’s
recommendation for Text Amendment Case No. Z-TA-5-15. Committee member
Mr. Bill Levy seconded the motion.
VOTE: 8-3, motion to recommend approval passed, with Committee
Members, Davenport, Fergis, Gardner, Greenburg, Kenney, Levy, Lewis,
and, Romero in favor. Committee members Virgil, DiLeo and Grossman not
in favor.
Public Comment:
6 speaker cards were submitted in favor, wishing to speak.
Page 512
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-15
Date of VPC Meeting May 13, 2021
Request Amend several sections of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to address landscape maintenance.
VPC Recommendation Approval, per staff recommendation
VPC Vote 6-0
VPC DISCUSSION:
3 persons indicated that they wished to speak.
Committee Member Julie Read arrived to the meeting during this item, bringing the
quorum to six members.
Joshua Bednarek, Deputy Director in the Planning and Development Department,
explained that the citywide text amendment addresses longstanding policy goals and
initiatives regarding trees and shade. He stated that the text amendment will strengthen
existing Zoning Ordinance provisions and codify best practices through three core
concepts: trees are infrastructure, trees provide befits when appropriately planted, and
trees should be kept in place in a healthy living condition. He stated that the text
amendment will update Chapter 5 of the Zoning Ordinance, specifically regarding site
inspection and certificates of occupancy, validity of approved review documents, design
guidelines, and plant materials. He added that Chapter 7 of the Zoning Ordinance will
also be updated regarding landscape removal standards and required landscape and
maintenance plans.
Joshua Bednarek stated that the text amendment is only a portion of how the City
intends to address trees and shade. He explained that overall citywide efforts related to
trees, shade, and tree protection zones were ideas beyond the scope of the proposed
text amendment. He highlighted the 2021-2022 City Manager’s Trial Budget to
emphasize how the City is holistically addressing trees and shade.
Joshua Bednarek stated that correspondence was received regarding tree protection
zones. He stated that after analyzing the proposed tree protection zone language, it
was noted that most of the proposed provisions were already addressed by the current
Zoning Ordinance and review process. He explained that any additional language could
Page 513
alter the trajectory of the text amendment process. He noted that the text amendment
would be heard by the Village Planning Committees in April and May and both Planning
Commission and City Council would hear the case in June.
Chair Jason Stokes asked if it was important for the text amendment to have adoption
in June. Joshua Bednarek stated that they were trying to get the item to City Council
prior to summer break.
Nicole Rodriguez, member of the Encanto Village Planning Committee and
International Society of Agriculture Certified Arborist, stated that she proposed language
to protect mature trees and ensure they remain viable on site. She added that critical
root zones, which contain 80% of the tree’s roots, need to be protected, particularly
during the construction phase. She clarified that when the critical root zone is
damaged, trees are more likely to fall. She added that keeping trees alive will require
little water and increase property values.
Stacey Champion, a member of the public, discussed the lack of tree protections in
Renaissance Plaza and how this resulted in the loss of large Ficus trees in the plaza.
She stated that citizen led committees studied best practices and brought guidelines to
the City regarding tree protections. She added that we should work to protect trees by
incorporating the proposed language regarding tree protection zones.
Tabitha Myers, Vice Chair of the City’s Urban Heat Island/Tree and Shade
Subcommittee, stated that mature trees are valuable assets that should be kept alive for
future generations. She stated that she agreed with Nicole Rodriguez and thought the
additional tree protection zone language will protect trees during construction and
minimize accidents.
Joshua Bednarek stated that staff have been coordinating with the Environmental
Quality and Sustainability Commission for the past year. He added that the text
amendment language was provided to different stakeholders for comment.
Committee member Steve Tucker asked if the proposed tree protection zone
language would apply to any existing mature tree. Nicole Rodriguez stated that the
language would apply to commercial and multifamily properties. She added that
developers are already required to complete inventory and salvage processes. She
clarified that the tree protection zone language will apply to trees that have been
selected to be salvaged.
Committee member Daniel Tome asked if the fencing used to protect the trees would
be temporary. Nicole Rodriguez stated that the fencing would be a temporary
measure.
Committee member Daniel Tome asked if the City had fully analyzed the proposed
tree protection zone language. Joshua Bednarek stated that staff is in the process of
analyzing the language and there are still other questions that need to be answered.
Committee member Julie Read asked if staff will be able to vet the proposed language
prior to City Council. Joshua Bednarek stated that they would have about ten working
days to complete the administrative side of the text amendment. He stated that if the
administrative portion is not complete, the text amendment cannot be taken to Planning
Page 514
Commission or City Council.
MOTION:
Committee member Daniel Tome made a motion to approve Z-TA-5-15 per staff
recommendation. He strongly encouraged the City to consider and include the
proposed tree protection zone language. The motion was seconded by Committee
member Julie Read.
VOTE:
6-0 with Committee members Stokes, Simon, Read, Ricart, Tome, and Tucker in favor.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:
None.
Page 515
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-15
Date of VPC Meeting April 26, 2021
Request Amend several sections in Chapters 5 and 7 of the
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to address landscape
maintenance.
VPC Recommendation Continued to May 24, 2021
VPC Vote 11-0
VPC DISCUSSION:
No requests to speak from the public were received on this item.
Chairman Spencer Elliott joined the meeting at 6:40pm, bringing the total to 12
members present.
Ms. Tricia Gomes, Zoning Administrator in the Planning and Development
Department, introduced herself and this citywide text amendment under case
Z-TA-5-15 which addresses landscape maintenance citywide. This effort is City
Council driven as part of a three phase approach and addresses longstanding policy
goals and initiatives. This text amendment strengthens existing Zoning Ordinance
provisions and codifies practices by embracing three core concepts: trees are
infrastructure, trees provide benefits where appropriately planted, and trees should
be kept in place in a healthy plus living condition. This text amendment updates
Chapter 5 of the Zoning Ordinance as it pertains to site inspections tied to a
certificate of occupancy, validity of approved review documents, design guidelines
and plant materials. Chapter 7 of the Zoning Ordinance is also proposed to be
amended by incorporating landscape removal standards, required landscape and
maintenance plans. Staff has been provided with several ideas that go beyond the
scope of this text amendment such as a citywide effort related to trees and shade
such as tree protection zones. The 2021-2022 City Manager’s Trial Budget shows
several proposals to allocate funding in order to address related policy goals
citywide. This citywide text amendment case will be heard by Village Planning
Committees in April and May, while the Planning Commission and City Council will
hear this case in June.
Page 516
Committee member Martha Neese left the meeting at 6:50pm, bring the total to 11
members present, allowing for a quorum.
Vice Chair Gasparro asked how the city will address trees that fall over during
storm events.
Ms. Gomes responded that property owners will replace the trees that fall within a
reasonable timeframe or the Neighborhood Services Department will begin
enforcement proceedings.
Mr. Benezra asked for clarification on tree protection zones and expressed
concerns about criminalizing potential actions to manage trees.
Ms. Gomes responded that this concept is something that has been heard by the
city from the community but is not being proposed as part of this text amendment
case.
Chairman Elliott asked for clarification on the text amendment applicability. He
asked if these standards are applicable to public property in addition to private
property.
Ms. Gomes clarified the proposal and stated that HOA landscaping maintenance
responsibilities would be an example of privately maintained areas, while
landscaping in parks and some of the street right-of-way is city-maintained.
Mr. Darrin Fisher stated that he has several concerns with this proposal given the
language that is proposed at this time. Additional stakeholder engagement would
have helped, given this background in overseeing management companies. Some of
the concerns include:
• Requesting permits from the city in order to remove trees could be
burdensome;
• Pruning tree canopies to 6 feet in height;
• The enforcement of HOA’s on individual lot owners;
Ms. Gomes clarified the proposed text amendment and added that this text
amendment does not apply to individual lot owners.
Vice Chair Gasparro stated that he would recommend that the city engage with
property management companies on future text amendments.
Chairman Elliott asked if the proposed text amendment would apply to common
areas owned by HOA’s, which are indirectly owned by the residents of the
community.
Ms. Gomes responded that this text amendment would apply to common areas
owned by HOA’s.
Mr. Fisher stated that cities generally love tree-lined streets, which can cause
damage in some respects. At times, these trees are within the deeded lots and could
affect individual lot owners.
Page 517
Ms. Gomes stated that the city supports shade and this requirement is to address
mainly perimeter common areas.
Chairman Elliott stated that there seems to be some concern about the practical
application of this text amendment case. The committee should consider the future
implications of this case.
Mr. Benezra stated that future implications and the target of this text amendment
case should be considered. Several examples of current laws with unintended
consequences were referenced.
Ms. Gomes clarified the intent of the text amendment case.
Vice Chair Gasparro has encountered similar language in other cities and is fairly
standard. This text amendment codifies current practices, and asked if this text
amendment case could be continued to the May 24, 2021 meeting.
Ms. Gomes responded that this case can be continued to May by this committee.
Mr. Fisher stated that he appreciates the intent presented by staff, but would also
appreciate further clarification on the language itself.
Mike Schiller agrees with Mr. Fisher and his initial thought is that this text
amendment results in a taking as it pertains to public space maintenance. He
encourages Ms. Gomes to contact Mr. Fisher to discuss this proposal further.
Vice Chair Gasparro asked for further discussion or a motion on this item, given no
questions from the committee or comments from the public.
MOTION
Mr. Mike Schiller made a motion to continue case Z-TA-5-15 to the May 24, 2021
meeting date. Mr. Jerry Youhanaie seconded the motion.
VOTE:
11-0 motion passed, with Committee Members Benezra, Crouch, Fisher, Hernandez
de Pena, Holt, Maloney, Pritchette, Schiller, Youhanaie, Gasparro and Elliott in
favor. None in dissent;
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:
None.
Page 518
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-15
Date of VPC Meeting May 24, 2021
Request Amend several sections in Chapters 5 and 7 of the
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to address landscape
maintenance.
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation with the
additional language proposed by Nicole Rodriguez in her
letter dated April 27, 2021
VPC Vote 11-0
VPC DISCUSSION:
Five requests to speak in support from the public were received on this item.
Chairman Schiller asked whether Ms. Gomes had met with committee members
Benezra and Fisher since the last meeting in April 26, 2021 when this case was
continued.
Ms. Tricia Gomes, Zoning Administrator in the Planning and Development
Department, introduced herself and responded that unfortunately she was not able
to meet with the two committee members due to scheduling conflicts.
Scott Crouch stated that he was not please with the lack of dialogue between staff
and the two committee members.
Ms. Gomes responded that the process in place is not proposed to be changed, but
rather reinforcing existing practices.
Mr. Alexander Benezra has concerns regarding the criminalization due to a Zoning
Ordinance violation, which could be classified as a Class 1 misdemeanor. He has
experience as a public defender and asked for confirmation about the enforcement
process.
Ms. Gomes discussed the zoning enforcement process handled by the
Neighborhood Services Department (NSD).
Page 519
Chairman Schiller opened the public comment portion of the meeting.
Dan Penton introduced himself and stated that he supports the proposed text
amendment with the tree protection language suggested by Ms. Nicole Rodriguez as
it addresses tree protection zones and provided examples of other benefits.
Stacey Champion showed a two-slide presentation depicting trees in a construction
site near midtown Phoenix. Eight Village Planning Committee’s have approved the
text amendment with the added language proposed by Ms. Rodriguez. She
discussed a petition that was conducted years ago with the intent of saving trees in
Renaissance Square. Most cities have similar language to protect trees and this will
help to maintain mature trees into the future.
Andie Abkarian supports the text amendment with the added language proposed
by Ms. Rodriguez, who has worked with staff for a month now on this language.
Neal Haddad supports the text amendment with the added language proposed by
Ms. Rodriguez to protect the critical root zone. Properties are more valuable when
they have more trees. Ms. Rodriguez is an arborist and has drafted the tree
protection language.
Nicole Rodriguez introduced herself as an arborist and discussed the additional
text amendment language proposed. She discussed the benefits of the additional
language to protect trees and asked for support of the text amendment with the
additional language.
Chairman Schiller asked for further discussion or a motion.
MOTION
Mr. Max Masel made a motion to approve case Z-TA-5-15 per the staff
recommendation with the additional language proposed by Ms. Nicole Rodriguez in
her letter dated April 27, 2021. Mr. Scott Crouch seconded the motion.
VOTE:
11-0 motion passed, with Committee Members Benezra, Crouch, Holt, Maloney,
Masel, Meir, Neese, Schiller, Sharer, Symes, and Youhanaie in favor. None in
dissent;
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:
None.
Page 520
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-15
Date of VPC Meeting April 27, 2021
Request Amend several sections in Chapters 5 and 7 of the
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to address landscape
maintenance.
VPC Recommendation Continuance to the May 25, 2021 meeting
VPC Vote 15-0
VPC DISCUSSION:
Four speaker cards were received, conditionally in support of the request, and all
wishing to speak.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Tricia Gomes, staff, provided an overview of the request which is intended to tighten
regulatory language and codify long standing practices in response to the three phased
approach directed by the City Council. Within the framework of strengthening
enforcement, the text amendment seeks to achieve three core concepts: trees are
infrastructure; trees provide benefit when appropriately planted; and that trees should
be kept in place in a healthy and living condition. The proposed amendment includes
changes to Chapter 5 and 7 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance. In addition to other
revisions, the proposed language formally increases the stature of landscape plans to
ensure long term compliance by requiring adherence for an owner to receive a
certificate of occupancy and strengthens landscape removal standards.
She concluded by stating that the 2021 City Manager’s Trial Budget includes 2.8M for
tree plantings, climate change, and heat readiness with programming through the Parks
Department and the Street Transportation Department, among others.
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
Members expressed the following questions and concerns.
• Process of Developing the Amendment. Vice Chair Williams asked about the
process used to develop this proposed amendment, the number of arborists
consulted through the process, and whether the city has considered the “tree
protection zoning” language provided by the registered public speakers. Gomes
responded that the process began years ago at the direction of Council to
Page 521
address enforcement, specifically for trees being removed or topped after
construction was completed. The process included collaboration between the
Planning Department, utilities, Water Services Department, Street Transportation
Department, and Neighborhood Services Department. Subject matter experts
included the Planning and Development Department’s Principal Landscape
Architect. Stakeholders included multifamily builders, homebuilders, the
Environmental Sustainability Commission and their subcommittees.
• Applicability and Enforcement. Bryck, Keyser, and Adams asked if this
amendment will apply to city owned properties and private residences. Gomes
responded that the proposed amendment only applies to landscape tracts in
subdivisions, multifamily properties, and commercial / industrial properties and
will be enforced on a complaint basis beginning with the Neighborhood Services
Department.
• Issues Regarding Development Standards and Maintenance. Adams stated that
enforcement is part of the issue but that the city’s flawed development standards
also play a significant role. She raised the example of wherein development
standards require a certain number of trees to shade the parking lots but do not
specify a large enough area for long term tree survivability. She further added
that native desert trees do not manage well in urban environments.
• Protection for Mature Trees. Adams, Fitzgerald, Keyser, Ammon, Sanchez,
and Vice Chair Williams expressed support to include additional protections for
mature trees. Several members asked Gomes for clarification on how the
ordinance handles tree protections. Gomes responded Inventory / Salvage
requirements for mature vegetation and much of this language is already
included in the ordinance and therefore does not need to be amended.
• Modifications to an Approved Plan. Jones, Ammon, and Bryck asked about the
process for amending an approved landscape plan, either in response to a non-
compliance complaint or pro-actively. Gomes responded that if the site were
stipulated to certain planting standards that would no longer be met by the
proposed change or if the proposed change would reduce the plantings below
code, an public hearing process would be required through either the Planning
Hearing Officer or a Variance, respectively. If no public hearing is required, the
modification can be completed in collaboration with the Planning Department’s
Principal Landscape Architect. The text amendment allows for some flexibility to
encourage the right tree to be planted in the right place.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Nicole Rodriguez stated that the text amendment had been in the works for 3 years
and that the Council’s Tier 1 direction was not merely to codify the existing requirements
for maintenance but to strengthen tree protections. She stated that the can make
changes and recommendations to the text amendment. She added that 3 years is too
long, and the city can move much faster when needed, as evidenced by last year’s
billboard text amendment.
Stacey Champion stated that the city adopted its Tree and Shade Master Plan in 2010
but was then shelved until 2017 when controversial GPLET project at Central and
Page 522
Adams which proposed the removal of several mature trees in preference for palms
based on the aesthetic. While the mature trees were eventually replaced with shade
varieties, the city’s legal inability to enforce tree standards was the impetus of this text
amendment. Since that time, many subject matter experts such as Rodriguez, prepared
best management practices from other cities, and delivered these recommendations to
the City Council. She concluded by stating that tree protections are important with
citizen input for years but that this amendment doesn’t go far enough and has taken too
long.
Jackie Rich stated that she lives in the Alhambra Village, supports Rodriguez’s
amendment, and protections for mature trees which offer more than an aesthetic benefit
but also support values, environmental health, and community character. The existing
and city proposed salvage and transplant language do not protect mature trees.
Aimee Esposito stated that she serves on the Urban Heat Island / Tree and Shade
Subcommittee, is excited about being this close to a text amendment, but would like
more protections built-in for mature trees. She added that in addition to being a certified
arborist, Rodriguez is well qualified and certified in tree risk assessment. The proposed
additional language regarding tree protection zones would reduce the severe risks of
root zone compaction for mature trees.
STAFF RESPONSE
Gomes responded that the City Council directed staff to formulate a text amendment
that would codify existing practices to make enforcement more effective. The city’s
Inventory / Salvage process does require thee trees that will be preserved in place be
tagged and surrounded by a physical barrier, which is akin to the “Tree Protection
Zones” requested by the public speakers.
• Vice Chair Williams asked to clarify with Rodriguez if she felt her proposed
amendment language was duplicitous of existing practice and code
requirements. Chair Shore invited Rodriguez to address the group. Rodriguez
responded that while such ideas exist in practice, they lack enforcement and
monitoring over the course of construction which therefore allows the developers
to become lax in their practices, often resulting in damage to the root zone and
killing the tree or greatly reducing its long term viability.
FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: MOTION, DISCUSSION, AND VOTE.
MOTION:
Vice Chair Williams motioned to continue the case to the May 25th Meeting too allow
adequate time for the city to consider the proposed amendment language and to
collaborate with Rodriguez, Champion, Rich, and Esposito. Fitzgerald seconded the
motion.
Page 523
DISCUSSION:
Chair Shore indicated that the committee’s action can include proposed language or
simply direction for the Planning Commission to consider. He opined on whether a
motion to include entirely new language is overly specific.
DeGraffenreid expressed support the citizen amendment and additional protections for
mature trees. He added that once trees get to a certain size, salvage through relocation
becomes impossible.
Bryck opined whether the citizen amendment language had been vetted by City Staff
and whether the proposed continuance would delay the text amendment. Vice Chair
Williams echoed the concern about delaying the amendment.
Harris expressed that the scope of the text amendment and this discussion is confusing
because the group has broadly entertained ideas beyond the scope of enforcement,
which staff had indicated was the purpose of the amendment.
Adams requested clarification on the existing motion and whether the citizen proposed
language was included. Klimek responded that the motion on the floor is to continue
the case to the next meeting to allow additional time to vet the language and to allow for
collaboration.
Keyser asked staff to help coordinate the exchange of contact information so any
members can get in touch with the public speakers to further refine tree protection
language. Harris and Adams expressed interest.
VOTE:
15-0, motion passes with: Adams, Ammon, Bryck, DeGraffenreid, Fitzgerald, Harris,
Keyser, Krietor, LeBlanc, McCabe, Sanchez, Smith, Solorio, Vice Chair Williams, and
Chair Shore in favor; none in dissent.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:
None.
Page 524
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-15
Date of VPC Meeting May 25, 2021
Request Amend several sections in Chapters 5 and 7 of the
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to address landscape
maintenance.
VPC Recommendation NO QUORUM
VPC Vote N/A
VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:
The village meeting was canceled due to a lack of quorum.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:
None.
Page 525
Attachment E
ADDENDUM A
Staff Report: Z-TA-5-15
(Landscape Maintenance)
June 1, 2021
Application No. Z-TA-5-15: Amend Chapter 5, Section 507.I. (Guidelines For Design
Review - Review of technical documents) and Section 507.K. (Effect of development
review approval), Amend Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A.I.B.1 (Urban Design Principles –
Amenity/Comfort), Section 507 Tab A.I.G.2 (Urban Design Principles – Definition of
Space), Section 507 Tab A.II.A.3.1.10 (Guidelines for Design Review – Site
Design/Development - Landscape Architecture), add Section 507 Tab A.II.A.3.1.16
(Guidelines for Design Review – Site Design/Development - Landscape Architecture),
Amend Section 507 Tab A.II.A.3.2. (Guidelines for Design Review – Site
Design/Development - Landscape Architecture), Amend Section 507 Tab A.II.A.4
(Guidelines for Design Review – Site Design/Development – Open Space/Amenities),
Section 507 Tab A.II.B.6.1 (Guidelines for Design Review – Building
Design/Construction – Public Amenities/Environmental Protection), add Section 507
Tab A.II.C.1.9 (Guidelines for Design Review – Subdivision Design/Development –
Streets/Circulation), Amend Section 507 Tab A.II.C.4 (Guidelines for Design Review –
Subdivision Design/Development – Open Space/Amenities), and Amend Chapter 7,
Section 703 (Landscaping, Fences and Walls) to add new subsection “E” to address
landscape maintenance.
Staff recommendation: Staff recommends approval of Z-TA-5-15 as shown in the
recommended text in Exhibit A.
Background: The attached language and changes reflect input and review of
suggested language from the public hearing process. Community leaders and members
of the Urban Heat Island Tree and Shade Subcommittee (UHITS) of the Environmental
Quality and Sustainability Commission (EQSC) have advocated for tree protection
measures and presented draft language at the Village Planning Committee meetings in
April and May. The purpose of the proposed language is to help ensure that existing
trees on a site are better preserved and able to viably remain in place as a site is
redeveloped. Preservation of existing mature trees is aligned with the overall goals of
this text amendment. Staff analyzed the proposed tree protection language and
incorporated it into the appropriate sections of the proposed language (Exhibit A).
Page 526
Below is a summary of the proposed new provisions in the text amendment and is
denoted as underlined text in Exhibit A dated June 1, 2021:
Chapter 5:
• Updates “Plant Salvage Plan” to include “Tree Protection”. (507.I.2.d.)
• Updates “Plant Salvage” to include “Tree Protection”. Also adds “protected” and
“salvaged” to include trees, plants and cacti designated to remain in place or to be
reused on site must be done in accordance with approved development review
documents prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. (507.K.4)
Chapter 7:
• Updates the title of the subsection to include “tree protection”. (703.E.1)
• Designates the Planning and Development Department’s Landscape Architect as
the authority for determining like kind, size or grouping of replacement trees, plants
and cacti. (703.E.1.c)
• Reinforces the process should replacement trees, plants or cacti failed to be
installed. (703.E.1.c.(2))
• Updates “plant salvage” to include “tree protection”. (703.E.2)
• Updates “Plant Salvage” to include “Tree Protection”. Also adds requirements for
information related to the schedules for watering, pruning, fertilization, monitoring
and inspections as part of the salvage and tree protection plan submittal.
Establishes the requirement to determine tree protection zones as part of the
salvage and tree protection plan, which include a description of how the critical root
zone(s) will be protected during the construction phase of a project. Standards to
determine critical root zones are also identified. (703.E.2.b)
Exhibit
A. Proposed Language (12 Pages)
Page 527
EXHIBIT A *Revised 6/1/21
Text Amendment Z-TA-5-15: Landscape Maintenance
Proposed Language:
Amend Chapter 5, Section 507.I. (Guidelines For Design Review - Review of
technical documents) by amending paragraph I. to read as follows:
I. Review of technical DEVELOPMENT REVIEW documents.
***
2. Technical plans and improvements DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
DOCUMENTS. The following plans indicating dedications and improvements
should be shown, as determined by the Planning and Development
Department, and are required for review and approval:
a. Grading and drainage plans including, but not limited to, hillside and
floodplain reviews.
b. Paving plans.
c. Water and sewer line plans.
d. Landscaping plans. LANDSCAPE PLANS, PLANT INVENTORY
PLANS, AND PLANT SALVAGE AND TREE PROTECTION PLANS.
Each applicant shall submit landscaping plans showing the information
required on the checklist provided and in the format required by the
Planning and Development Department including:
(1) Landscape conservation plan. Prior to clearing and grubbing
a site or obtaining a grading permit, an applicant shall submit a
landscape conservation plan indicating existing vegetation and
salvage items. The Planning and Development Department will
determine if this plan is necessary following the review of the
context plan.
(2) Landscape plan. Each applicant shall submit a landscape plan
which must show the information required on the checklist
provided and in the format required by the Planning and
Development Department.
(3) Standards. Plant material sizes and specifications must
conform to American Nursery Association standards.
(4) Installation and maintenance. All plant material as shown on
approved landscape plans is to be installed and maintained with
an appropriate watering system in a living and viable state.
e. Architectural plans and elevations.
Page 528
***
Amend Chapter 5, Section 507.K. (Effect of development review approval) by
amending paragraphs K.1., K.4. and K.6. to read as follows:
K. Effect of development review approval.
1. Construction document submittal and building permit issuance.
Approved development review documents shall be ARE binding upon the
applicants PROPERTY OWNERS and their successors or assignees and shall
nullify all previously approved plans. Copies of the approved development
review documents or exemption must be included in any construction
documents submitted for building permit approval. No building permit shall
MAY be issued for any building or structure not in accordANCE with the
approved development review documents and conditions of approval. The
construction, location, use, or operation, OR MAINTENANCE of all land and
structures within the site shall MUST conform to all conditions and limitations
set forth in the development review documents. Evidence of development
review approval in the form of a copy of the approved development review
documents or exemption must be available on the construction site. In the
event THE SITE HAS NOT BEEN DEVELOPED OR MAINTAINED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROVED property owner does not comply with
the conditions imposed on the development review documents, this shall IT
WILL be considered a violation of the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Temporary construction facilities. Temporary construction facilities shall be
permitted for the purpose of developing the project. In case of a question the
Planning and Development Department shall determine if facilities proposed
qualify as temporary and related to construction. Such facilities shall be
removed within seven days after completion of initial construction or prior to
issuance of the certificate of occupancy, whichever first occurs.
3. Amendments. No structure, use or element of approved development review
documents shall be eliminated, altered, or provided in another manner unless
an amendment is approved in accordance with the standards for new reviews.
4. Site inspection and issuance of certificate of occupancy. The Planning
and Development Department shall MUST inspect each project FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE APPROVED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
DOCUMENTS prior to ISSUING A certificate of occupancy OR CERTIFICATE
OF COMPLETION. No final certificate of occupancy OR CERTIFICATE OF
COMPLETION shall WILL be issued if the project does not meet the
requirements of THE STRUCTURE AND ASSOCIATED SITE
IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO SITE UTILITIES,
PAVING, GRADING, PLANT SALVAGE AND TREE PROTECTION, AND
LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION, INCLUDING IRRIGATION, HAVE NOT BEEN
INSTALLED, PROTECTED, OR SALVAGED IN ACCORDANCE WITH the
Page 529
approved development review documents. The Planning and Development
Department may issue conditional OR TEMPORARY certificates of occupancy
in conformance with the provisions of the Construction Code. In the case of
subdivision development, the Planning and Development Department will
monitor the buildout of each subdivision approved through the development
review process for conformance to approved development review documents
and exhibits. The Planning and Development Department may withhold the
release of building permits within a subdivision if, at the discretion of the
Planning and Development Director, the buildings within the subdivision are
not conforming to diversity standards set by the approved development review
documents.
5. Enforcement. Development review documents approved under this section
shall be enforced by the Planning and Development Department under the
supervision of the Zoning Administrator. Whenever enforcement personnel find
that any proposed construction or occupancy or completed facility does not or
will not comply with the approved development review documents, they shall
require the property owner to comply with the conditions of the development
review documents.
In the event the property owner does not comply with the conditions imposed
on the development review documents, it will be considered a violation of the
Zoning Ordinance.
6. Validity.
a. Preliminary approval. Approval of the preliminary development review
documents shall be IS valid for a period of 24 months. In a phased
project, if preliminary development review documents are filed over the
total site and final development review approval is achieved on a
portion of the site within the 24-month period, the preliminary
development review documents will remain valid for an additional 12
months. Additional time beyond the 36 months shall requireS
WRITTEN approval by THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DIRECTOR City Manager’s representative.
b. Final approval. Approved development review documents shall be
ARE valid for a period of 24 months and continue in effect beyond 24
months if a building permit has been issued and has not expired. or IF
a FINAL certificate of occupancy OR CERTIFICATE OF
COMPLETION has been issued FOR THE SITE, APPROVED
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DOCUMENTS WILL REMAIN VALID AND
ENFORCEABLE UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT REVISED OR
REPLACEMENT DOCUMENTS FOR THE SITE ARE APPROVED BY
THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT with the
project complying with the approved development review documents.
Page 530
***
Amend Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A.I.B. (Urban Design Principles –
Amenity/Comfort) by amending paragraph B.1. to read as follows:
B. Amenity/Comfort. Settlements in the desert generally occur in an "oasis" setting
which is a respite from the extreme of the larger area context. A development in
an arid setting requires design features to aid human comfort. It is important to
understand that urban conditions such as paved areas and buildings generating
reflected heat create aridity and require mitigating design features which
enhance habitability.
1. Promote human comfort by providing shaded areas, courtyards, PUBLIC
AND PRIVATE WALKWAYS, colonnades and other areas as site
amenities.
***
Amend Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A.I.G. (Urban Design Principles – Definition of
Space) by amending paragraph G.2. to read as follows:
G. Definition of Space. Streets, parking lots, buildings and landscape are the major
elements that define the special qualities of our environment. Organize them to
foster a setting supportive to the pedestrian as well as the driver.
1. Relate the size, character and setting of proposed projects to the functions
of adjacent streets and pedestrian networks. Buildings should be oriented
to the public rights-of-way and close to pedestrian movement.
2. The areas immediately adjacent to buildings should be designed to
integrate with surrounding landscape and pedestrian walkways. Shaded
courtyards, WALKWAYS, cloisters, trellises, colonnades and public art are
encouraged for consideration into the design to define space.
***
Page 531
Amend Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A.II.A.3.1 (Guidelines for Design Review – Site
Design/Development - Landscape Architecture) by amending paragraph 3.1.10 to
read as follows and to add new paragraph 3.1.16 accordingly:
3. Landscape Architecture.
3.1 Plant Materials.
***
3.1.10 Trees SHOULD BE LOCATED adjacent to pedestrian walkways
PUBLIC AND PRIVATE WALKWAYS, AND MULTI-USE TRAILS
AND PATHS, TO PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 50 PERCENT
SHADE AND should have a minimum canopy clearance of six feet
eight inches. (P)
Rationale: SHADED Cclear walkways are necessary for pedestrian
HEALTH, safety, AND WELFARE.
***
3.1.16 PLANT MATERIALS SHOULD BE SELECTED FOR
APPROPRIATE MATURE SIZE, SPACE NEEDS, LOCATION,
AND REQUIRED USE FOR THEIR ULTIMATE LOCATION ON
THE SITE. (P)
RATIONALE: ALL PLANTS ARE NOT SUITABLE FOR ALL
LOCATIONS. CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE GIVEN FOR SIZE
AT MATURITY, REASON FOR CHOICE (E.G., SHADE
PROVISION OR SCREENING/BUFFERING), MAINTENANCE
REQUIREMENTS, AND LONG-TERM VIABILITY. LOW
MAINTENANCE PLANTS WHICH HAVE A PROVEN TRACK
RECORD OF SURVIVABILITY IN THE URBAN DESERT
ENVIRONMENT SHOULD BE INSTALLED WHENEVER
POSSIBLE.
***
Amend Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A.II.A.3.2 (Guidelines for Design Review – Site
Design/Development - Landscape Architecture) by amending paragraph 3.2.3 to
read as follows:
3. Landscape Architecture.
3.2 Maintenance OF LANDSCAPE AREAS.
***
3.2.3 Irrigation systems should be permanent and automatic A
PERMANENT AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHOULD BE
INSTALLED TO WATER ALL TREES, CACTI, AND PLANTS
Page 532
INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROVED
LANDSCAPE PLANS OR OTHER DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
DOCUMENTS to minimize maintenance and water consumption,
AND TO MAXIMIZE PLANT HEALTH, SURVIVABILITY, AND
VIABILITY, UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. (P)
Rationale: DIFFERENT TYPES AND SPECIES OF PLANTS
REQUIRE DIFFERENT AMOUNTS OF SUPPLEMENTAL WATER
BASED ON VARYING MICROCLIMATES CREATED BY THE
URBAN ENVIRONMENT TO ACHIEVE A HEALTHY, VIABLE,
LONG-TERM SURVIVABILITY RATE. An efficient,
APPROPRIATE irrigation system will SUPPORT LONG-TERM
PLANT HEALTH BY APPLYING THE RIGHT AMOUNT OF
SUPPLEMENTAL WATER FOR OPTIMUM PLANT HEALTH AND
control growth and reduce maintenance costs.
***
Amend Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A.II.A.4 (Guidelines for Design Review – Site
Design/Development – Open Space/Amenities) by amending paragraphs 4.1 and 4.2
to read as follows:
4. Open Space/Amenities.
4.1 Improved open spaces, plazas and courtyards should be SHADED A
MINIMUM 50 PERCENT AND functional in terms of area, dimensions,
location and amenities to promote safe human interaction. (P)
Rationale: SHADED Ppedestrian amenities help to encourage the use of
public spaces. With respect to open space, bigger is not necessarily
better. A series of small areas, each provided with amenities may foster
more human interrelationship than a large monolithic space.
4.2 Usable public space should incorporate A MINIMUM OF 50 PERCENT
shading through the use of TREES OR structures that provide shading,
landscaping, or a combination of the two unless otherwise prohibited by
site visibility triangles or other technical constraints. (P)
Rationale: SHADE IS NECESSARY FOR Ppeople are attracted to USE
AND ENJOY public areas with shade during large portions of the year in
Phoenix FOR THEIR HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE.
***
Page 533
Amend Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A.II.B.6 (Guidelines for Design Review –
Building Design/Construction – Public Amenities/Environmental Protection) by
amending paragraph 6.1 to read as follows:
6. Public Amenities/Environmental Protection.
6.1 PUBLIC AND PRIVATE Ppedestrian walkways and gathering areas
should be shaded (minimum 50% at maturity) FOR THE HEALTH,
SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF PEDESTRIANS AND to encourage use. (P)
Rationale: The design of pedestrian routes and gathering areas, such as
WALKWAYS, courtyards and plazas, should be designed with appropriate
shading FOR THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF
PEDESTRIANS AND to MITIGATE THE HEAT ISLAND EFFECT TO
enhance the PEDESTRIAN environment and the pedestrian experience.
***
Amend Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A.II.C.1. (Guidelines for Design Review –
Subdivision Design/Development – Streets/Circulation) by adding new paragraph
1.9 accordingly:
1. Streets/Circulation.
***
1.9 PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SIDEWALKS ADJACENT TO ARTERIAL AND
COLLECTOR STREETS AND LOCATED WITHIN AND CONNECTING
ALL COMMON OPEN SPACE TRACTS AND AMENITIES SHOULD BE
SHADED A MINIMUM OF 50 PERCENT. (P)
RATIONALE: SHADED SIDEWALKS AND PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS
SHOULD BE DESIGNED WITH APPROPRIATE SHADING FOR THE
HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF PEDESTRIANS THAT
MITIGATES THE EXTREME SUMMER TEMPERATURES, AS WELL AS
THE HEAT ISLAND EFFECT AND ENHANCES THE PEDESTRIAN
ENVIRONMENT.
Amend Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A.II.C.4 (Guidelines for Design Review –
Subdivision Design/Development – Open Space/Amenities) by amending
paragraphs 4.1 and 4.2 to read as follows:
4. Open Space/Amenities.
4.1 Large open space and retention areas (generally greater than 10,000
square feet) should be improved to include active and passive amenities
(e.g. tot lot, ramada, tennis court, barbecues, large seating areas,
Page 534
landscaping, etc.) AND A MINIMUM 50% VEGETATION. SEATING
AREAS SHOULD BE SHADED BY STRUCTURES OR VEGETATION
(50% AT MATURITY). (P)
Rationale: Different types of improvements will appeal to different
segments of the resident population. To ensure long-term maintenance
AND USE of open space areas, it is important to provide YEAR-ROUND
amenities FOR THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF ALL
RESIDENTS to MITIGATE THE EXTREME SUMMER TEMPERATURES,
AS WELL AS THE HEAT ISLAND EFFECT, in which the homeowners
association will maintain interest.
4.2 Open space and retention tracts/easements should be landscaped,
accessible, safe and secure. Common retention may qualify for required
common open space if it has a minimum area of 1000 square feet of level
bottom with maximum side slopes of 4:1 and is properly landscaped as
usable open space (minimum 50% vegetation). ANY PROPOSED
SEATING AREAS SHOULD BE SHADED BY STRUCTURES OR
VEGETATION (50% AT MATURITY). Streets (public and/or private) and
required perimeter landscape setbacks will not count towards common
open space. (P)
Rationale: Open space and retention areas that are accessible, and
functional, AND PROVIDE YEAR-ROUND SHADED AMENITIES FOR
THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF ALL RESIDENTS TO
MITIGATE THE EXTREME SUMMER TEMPERATURES, AS WELL AS
THE HEAT ISLAND EFFECT, are an amenity to the neighborhood. If
feasible, open space should be centrally located in order to be accessible
to as many residents as possible.
***
Amend Chapter 7, Section 703 (Landscaping, Fences and Walls) to add new
subsection “E” as follows:
***
E. GENERAL LANDSCAPE STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS.
1. LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION AND SALVAGE AND TREE
PROTECTION.
a. ALL TREES, PLANTS AND CACTI ON SITE AND IN THE
ABUTTING RIGHTS OF WAY MUST REMAIN IN PLACE IN A
HEALTHY, STRUCTURALLY SOUND, AND VIABLE CONDITION,
IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPROVED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
DOCUMENTS. REMOVAL OR DESTRUCTION OF LANDSCAPE
MATERIALS INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPROVED
Page 535
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DOCUMENTS WILL BE
CONSIDERED A VIOLATION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE,
EXCEPT WHEN IN COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 703.E.1.B
AND 1.C.
b. NO TREES, PLANTS OR CACTI MAY BE REMOVED OR
DESTROYED ON A PROPERTY WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING A
PLANT SALVAGE PERMIT FROM THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, EXCEPT AS FOLLOWS:
(1) THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
HAS EXPRESSLY STATED IN WRITING THAT A PLANT
SALVAGE PLAN IS NOT REQUIRED FOR THE SITE AS
PART OF THE APPROVED PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
OR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL DOCUMENTS, OR
ON THE FINAL SITE PLAN IF A PRELIMINARY
APPROVAL IS NOT REQUIRED; OR
(2) TREES, PLANTS OR CACTI TO BE REMOVED ARE
LOCATED ON A SINGLE-FAMILY LOT HAVING ONE
HOME OR DUPLEX; OR
(3) TREES, PLANTS OR CACTI TO BE REMOVED WERE
DESTROYED BY A NATURAL CAUSE OR OTHER
UNFORESEEN AND ACCIDENTAL INCIDENT; OR
(4) TREES, PLANTS OR CACTI REMOVED BY THE OWNER
OR A PUBLIC UTILITY PROVIDER FOR THE PURPOSE
OF MAINTAINING ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION OR
DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES. UPON REQUEST, THE
OWNER SHALL PROVIDE THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A WRITTEN
EXPLANATION FROM THE PUBLIC UTILITY PROVIDER
THAT THE REMOVAL IS NECESSARY FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION, INSTALLATION, OPERATION, AND
MAINTENANCE OF THE ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION OR
DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES.
c. OWNERS OF PROPERTY MUST REPLACE TREES, PLANTS
OR CACTI WITH LIKE KINDS AND SIZES OR EQUIVALENT AS
DETERMINED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE APPROVED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
DOCUMENTS, AS FOLLOWS:
Page 536
(1) WHEN TREES, PLANTS AND CACTI WERE DESTROYED
BY A NATURAL CAUSE OR OTHER UNFORESEEN AND
ACCIDENTAL INCIDENT AND WERE REMOVED; OR
(2) WHEN REMAIN/PROTECT IN PLACE AND SALVAGED
TREES, PLANTS AND CACTI HAVE DIED, BEEN
REMOVED OR DESTROYED.
UNLESS SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OR
DESIGNEE, NO FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY
OR CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION WILL BE ISSUED
PRIOR TO THE INSTALLATION OF THE LIKE KIND AND
SIZE REPLACEMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH 507.K.4.
2. REQUIRED LANDSCAPE PLANS. LANDSCAPE PLANS ARE
REQUIRED FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE APPLICABILITY REQUIREMENTS OF SECTIONS 507.B. I AND K.
“LANDSCAPE PLANS” MAY REFER TO ANY OR ALL OF THE
FOLLOWING PLANS: PLANT INVENTORY PLAN, PLANT SALVAGE
AND TREE PROTECTION PLAN, AND/OR LANDSCAPE
(INSTALLATION) PLAN. ALL PLANS MUST PROVIDE THE
INFORMATION AND FORMAT REQUIRED ON CHECKLISTS
PROVIDED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
AND BE SEALED BY A LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT REGISTERED IN
THE STATE OF ARIZONA.
a. PLANT INVENTORY PLAN: IDENTIFIES THE TYPES, SIZES,
AND LOCATIONS OF ALL TREES, CACTI, AND PLANTS
EXISTING ON THE SITE AND STATES THE PHYSICAL HEALTH
AND CONDITION OF EACH AS DETERMINED BY A
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT REGISTERED IN THE STATE OF
ARIZONA.
b. PLANT SALVAGE AND TREE PROTECTION PLAN:
IDENTIFIES THE DISPOSITION OF ALL OF THE TREES, CACTI,
AND PLANTS IDENTIFIED IN THE PLANT INVENTORY PLAN
(I.E., “REMAIN/PROTECT IN PLACE”, “SALVAGE”, OR
“DESTROY”), INCLUDING DETAILS OF THE PLANT NURSERY
AND WATERING SYSTEM AND SCHEDULES FOR WATERING,
PRUNING, FERTILIZATION, MONITORING AND INSPECTION
TO BE PROVIDED FOR SALVAGED AND REMAIN/PROTECT IN
PLACE PLANTS UNTIL FINAL COMPLETION. FOR ALL TREES,
CACTI AND PLANTS THAT WILL REMAIN IN PLACE, THE PLAN
WILL INCLUDE A DESCRIPTION OF HOW THE CRITICAL
ROOT ZONES WILL BE PROTECTED DURING THE
CONSTRUCTION PHASE, INCLUDING PROTECTIVE FENCING.
Page 537
MINIMUM CRITICAL ROOT ZONES WILL BE DETERMINED
ACCORDING TO THE CURRENT STANDARDS SET FORTH BY
THE AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARDS INSTITUTE (ANSI),
THE SUSTAINABLE LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT STANDARDS
OF THE ARIZONA LANDSCAPE CONTRACTORS’
ASSOCIATION, OR OTHER ACCEPTABLE SUSTAINABLE
LANDSCAPE STANDARDS AS DETERMINED BY THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT.
c. LANDSCAPE (INSTALLATION) PLAN: IDENTIFIES THE
TYPES, SIZES, AND LOCATIONS OF ALL TREES, CACTI, AND
PLANTS (INCLUDING THOSE TO REMAIN/PROTECT IN PLACE
OR SALVAGED) TO BE INSTALLED ON THE SITE, ON
DOCUMENTS SEALED BY A LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
REGISTERED IN THE STATE OF ARIZONA. LANDSCAPE
PLANS ARE TO ALSO INCLUDE ALL LANDSCAPE MATERIALS,
A MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE, IRRIGATION PLANS, PLUS
OTHER INFORMATION AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT STAFF. PLANT MATERIAL SIZES AND
SPECIFICATIONS MUST CONFORM TO THE STANDARDS OF
THE AMERICAN STANDARDS FOR NURSERY STOCK (ANSI
Z60.1) OR THE ARIZONA NURSERY ASSOCIATION.
(1) LANDSCAPE PLANS SHALL INCLUDE A MAINTENANCE
SCHEDULE WHICH IDENTIFIES THE RECOMMENDED
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE INCLUDING, BUT NOT
LIMITED TO, WEEDS, ROCK MULCH, AND IRRIGATION.
THE SCHEDULE SHALL IDENTIFY SEASONAL WATER
APPLICATION RATES, TYPES AND METHODS OF
FERTILIZATION, AND PRUNING, ETC. FOR EACH
PLANT TYPE. ACCORDING TO THE CURRENT
STANDARDS SET FORTH BY THE AMERICAN
NATIONAL STANDARDS INSTITUTE (ANSI), THE
SUSTAINABLE LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT
STANDARDS OF THE ARIZONA LANDSCAPE
CONTRACTORS’ ASSOCIATION, OR OTHER
ACCEPTABLE STANDARDS AS DETERMINED BY THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.
DEVIATIONS FOR PRUNING STANDARDS ARE
PERMITTED WHEN DONE FOR THE PURPOSE OF
MAINTAINING ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION OR
DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES. UPON REQUEST, THE
OWNER SHALL PROVIDE THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A WRITTEN
Page 538
EXPLANATION FROM THE PUBLIC UTILITY PROVIDER
THAT THE PRUNING IS NECESSARY FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION, INSTALLATION, OPERATION, AND
MAINTENANCE OF THE ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION OR
DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES.
***
Page 539
Attachment F
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
June 3, 2021
ITEM NO: 8
DISTRICT NO.: Citywide
SUBJECT:
Application #: Z-TA-5-15 (Landscape)
Proposal: Amend Chapter 5, Sections 507 (Development Review Approval)
and 507 Tab A (Guidelines for Design Review) and Chapter 7,
Section 703 (Landscaping, Fences and Walls) of the Phoenix
Zoning Ordinance to address landscape maintenance.
Applicant: City of Phoenix, Planning Commission
Representative: City of Phoenix, Planning Commission
ACTIONS:
Staff Recommendation: Approval.
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Ahwatukee Foothills 4/26/2021 Continued. Vote: 11-0.
Ahwatukee Foothills 5/24/2021 Approval, per the staff recommendation with additional
language. Vote: 11-0.
Alhambra 4/27/2021 Continued. Vote: 15-0.
Alhambra 5/25/2021 No recommendation due to lack of quorum.
Camelback East 5/4/2021 Approval, per the staff recommendation with additional
language. Vote: 13-2
Central City 5/10/2021 Approval, per the staff recommendation with additional
language. Vote: 11-3.
Deer Valley 5/13/2021 Approval, per the staff recommendation. Vote: 8-3.
Desert View 5/4/2021 Approval, per the staff recommendation. Vote: 7-0.
Encanto 5/3/2021 Approval, per the staff recommendation with additional language.
Vote: 10-0.
Estrella 4/20/2021 Approval, per the staff recommendation. Vote: 4-1.
Laveen 5/10/2021 Approval, per the staff recommendation with additional language.
Vote: 9-0.
Maryvale 4/14/2021 Approval, per the staff recommendation with direction. Vote: 8-1.
North Gateway 5/13/2021 Approval, per the staff recommendation with direction.
Vote: 6-0.
North Mountain 4/21/2021 Approval, per the staff recommendation. Vote: 14-0.
Paradise Valley 5/3/2021 Approval, per the staff recommendation with direction.
Vote: 16-0 (1 abstained).
Rio Vista 5/11/2021 Approval, per the staff recommendation with additional language.
Vote: 3-1
South Mountain 5/11/2021 Approval, per the staff recommendation with additional
language. Vote: 12-0.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the language in Exhibit A of the
Addendum A Staff Report.
Page 540
Motion Discussion: N/A
Motion details: Commissioner Howard made a MOTION to approve, per the language in
Exhibit A of the Addendum A Staff Report.
Maker: Howard
Second: Perez
Vote: 8-0
Absent: Gorraiz
Opposition Present: No
Proposed Language:
Amend Chapter 5, Section 507.I. (Guidelines For Design Review - Review of
technical documents) by amending paragraph I. to read as follows:
I. Review of technical DEVELOPMENT REVIEW documents.
***
2. Technical plans and improvements DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
DOCUMENTS. The following plans indicating dedications and
improvements should be shown, as determined by the Planning and
Development Department, and are required for review and approval:
a. Grading and drainage plans including, but not limited to, hillside
and floodplain reviews.
b. Paving plans.
c. Water and sewer line plans.
d. Landscaping plans. LANDSCAPE PLANS, PLANT INVENTORY
PLANS, AND PLANT SALVAGE AND TREE PROTECTION
PLANS. Each applicant shall submit landscaping plans showing
the information required on the checklist provided and in the
format required by the Planning and Development Department
including:
(1) Landscape conservation plan. Prior to clearing and
grubbing a site or obtaining a grading permit, an applicant
shall submit a landscape conservation plan indicating
existing vegetation and salvage items. The Planning and
Development Department will determine if this plan is
necessary following the review of the context plan.
(2) Landscape plan. Each applicant shall submit a landscape
plan which must show the information required on the
checklist provided and in the format required by the
Planning and Development Department.
Page 541
(3) Standards. Plant material sizes and specifications must
conform to American Nursery Association standards.
(4) Installation and maintenance. All plant material as shown
on approved landscape plans is to be installed and
maintained with an appropriate watering system in a living
and viable state.
e. Architectural plans and elevations.
***
Amend Chapter 5, Section 507.K. (Effect of development review approval) by
amending paragraphs K.1., K.4. and K.6. to read as follows:
K. Effect of development review approval.
1. Construction document submittal and building permit issuance.
Approved development review documents shall be ARE binding upon the
applicants PROPERTY OWNERS and their successors or assignees and
shall nullify all previously approved plans. Copies of the approved
development review documents or exemption must be included in any
construction documents submitted for building permit approval. No
building permit shall MAY be issued for any building or structure not in
accordANCE with the approved development review documents and
conditions of approval. The construction, location, use, or operation, OR
MAINTENANCE of all land and structures within the site shall MUST
conform to all conditions and limitations set forth in the development
review documents. Evidence of development review approval in the form
of a copy of the approved development review documents or exemption
must be available on the construction site. In the event THE SITE HAS
NOT BEEN DEVELOPED OR MAINTAINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE APPROVED property owner does not comply with the conditions
imposed on the development review documents, this shall IT WILL be
considered a violation of the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Temporary construction facilities. Temporary construction facilities
shall be permitted for the purpose of developing the project. In case of a
question the Planning and Development Department shall determine if
facilities proposed qualify as temporary and related to construction. Such
facilities shall be removed within seven days after completion of initial
construction or prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy, whichever
first occurs.
3. Amendments. No structure, use or element of approved development
review documents shall be eliminated, altered, or provided in another
manner unless an amendment is approved in accordance with the
standards for new reviews.
Page 542
4. Site inspection and issuance of certificate of occupancy. The
Planning and Development Department shall MUST inspect each project
FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE APPROVED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
DOCUMENTS prior to ISSUING A certificate of occupancy OR
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION. No final certificate of occupancy OR
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION shall WILL be issued if the project does
not meet the requirements of THE STRUCTURE AND ASSOCIATED
SITE IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO SITE
UTILITIES, PAVING, GRADING, PLANT SALVAGE AND TREE
PROTECTION, AND LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION, INCLUDING
IRRIGATION, HAVE NOT BEEN INSTALLED, PROTECTED, OR
SALVAGED IN ACCORDANCE WITH the approved development review
documents. The Planning and Development Department may issue
conditional OR TEMPORARY certificates of occupancy in conformance
with the provisions of the Construction Code. In the case of subdivision
development, the Planning and Development Department will monitor the
buildout of each subdivision approved through the development review
process for conformance to approved development review documents and
exhibits. The Planning and Development Department may withhold the
release of building permits within a subdivision if, at the discretion of the
Planning and Development Director, the buildings within the subdivision
are not conforming to diversity standards set by the approved
development review documents.
5. Enforcement. Development review documents approved under this
section shall be enforced by the Planning and Development Department
under the supervision of the Zoning Administrator. Whenever enforcement
personnel find that any proposed construction or occupancy or completed
facility does not or will not comply with the approved development review
documents, they shall require the property owner to comply with the
conditions of the development review documents.
In the event the property owner does not comply with the conditions
imposed on the development review documents, it will be considered a
violation of the Zoning Ordinance.
6. Validity.
a. Preliminary approval. Approval of the preliminary development
review documents shall be IS valid for a period of 24 months. In a
phased project, if preliminary development review documents are
filed over the total site and final development review approval is
achieved on a portion of the site within the 24-month period, the
preliminary development review documents will remain valid for
an additional 12 months. Additional time beyond the 36 months
shall requireS WRITTEN approval by THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR City Manager’s representative.
b. Final approval. Approved development review documents shall be
ARE valid for a period of 24 months and continue in effect beyond
24 months if a building permit has been issued and has not
Page 543
expired. or IF a FINAL certificate of occupancy OR CERTIFICATE
OF COMPLETION has been issued FOR THE SITE, APPROVED
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DOCUMENTS WILL REMAIN VALID
AND ENFORCEABLE UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT REVISED OR
REPLACEMENT DOCUMENTS FOR THE SITE ARE
APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT with the project complying with the approved
development review documents.
***
Amend Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A.I.B. (Urban Design Principles –
Amenity/Comfort) by amending paragraph B.1. to read as follows:
B. Amenity/Comfort. Settlements in the desert generally occur in an "oasis" setting
which is a respite from the extreme of the larger area context. A development in
an arid setting requires design features to aid human comfort. It is important to
understand that urban conditions such as paved areas and buildings generating
reflected heat create aridity and require mitigating design features which
enhance habitability.
1. Promote human comfort by providing shaded areas, courtyards, PUBLIC
AND PRIVATE WALKWAYS, colonnades and other areas as site
amenities.
***
Amend Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A.I.G. (Urban Design Principles – Definition of
Space) by amending paragraph G.2. to read as follows:
G. Definition of Space. Streets, parking lots, buildings and landscape are the major
elements that define the special qualities of our environment. Organize them to
foster a setting supportive to the pedestrian as well as the driver.
1. Relate the size, character and setting of proposed projects to the functions
of adjacent streets and pedestrian networks. Buildings should be oriented
to the public rights-of-way and close to pedestrian movement.
2. The areas immediately adjacent to buildings should be designed to
integrate with surrounding landscape and pedestrian walkways. Shaded
courtyards, WALKWAYS, cloisters, trellises, colonnades and public art are
encouraged for consideration into the design to define space.
***
Page 544
Amend Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A.II.A.3.1 (Guidelines for Design Review – Site
Design/Development - Landscape Architecture) by amending paragraph 3.1.10 to
read as follows and to add new paragraph 3.1.16 accordingly:
3. Landscape Architecture.
3.1 Plant Materials.
***
3.1.10 Trees SHOULD BE LOCATED adjacent to pedestrian walkways
PUBLIC AND PRIVATE WALKWAYS, AND MULTI-USE TRAILS
AND PATHS, TO PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 50 PERCENT
SHADE AND should have a minimum canopy clearance of six feet
eight inches. (P)
Rationale: SHADED Cclear walkways are necessary for pedestrian
HEALTH, safety, AND WELFARE.
***
3.1.16 PLANT MATERIALS SHOULD BE SELECTED FOR
APPROPRIATE MATURE SIZE, SPACE NEEDS, LOCATION,
AND REQUIRED USE FOR THEIR ULTIMATE LOCATION ON
THE SITE. (P)
RATIONALE: ALL PLANTS ARE NOT SUITABLE FOR ALL
LOCATIONS. CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE GIVEN FOR SIZE
AT MATURITY, REASON FOR CHOICE (E.G., SHADE
PROVISION OR SCREENING/BUFFERING), MAINTENANCE
REQUIREMENTS, AND LONG-TERM VIABILITY. LOW
MAINTENANCE PLANTS WHICH HAVE A PROVEN TRACK
RECORD OF SURVIVABILITY IN THE URBAN DESERT
ENVIRONMENT SHOULD BE INSTALLED WHENEVER
POSSIBLE.
***
Amend Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A.II.A.3.2 (Guidelines for Design Review – Site
Design/Development - Landscape Architecture) by amending paragraph 3.2.3 to
read as follows:
3. Landscape Architecture.
3.2 Maintenance OF LANDSCAPE AREAS.
***
3.2.3 Irrigation systems should be permanent and automatic A
PERMANENT AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHOULD BE
INSTALLED TO WATER ALL TREES, CACTI, AND PLANTS
Page 545
INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROVED
LANDSCAPE PLANS OR OTHER DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
DOCUMENTS to minimize maintenance and water consumption,
AND TO MAXIMIZE PLANT HEALTH, SURVIVABILITY, AND
VIABILITY, UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. (P)
Rationale: DIFFERENT TYPES AND SPECIES OF PLANTS
REQUIRE DIFFERENT AMOUNTS OF SUPPLEMENTAL WATER
BASED ON VARYING MICROCLIMATES CREATED BY THE
URBAN ENVIRONMENT TO ACHIEVE A HEALTHY, VIABLE,
LONG-TERM SURVIVABILITY RATE. An efficient, APPROPRIATE
irrigation system will SUPPORT LONG-TERM PLANT HEALTH BY
APPLYING THE RIGHT AMOUNT OF SUPPLEMENTAL WATER
FOR OPTIMUM PLANT HEALTH AND control growth and reduce
maintenance costs.
***
Amend Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A.II.A.4 (Guidelines for Design Review – Site
Design/Development – Open Space/Amenities) by amending paragraphs 4.1 and
4.2 to read as follows:
4. Open Space/Amenities.
4.1 Improved open spaces, plazas and courtyards should be SHADED A
MINIMUM 50 PERCENT AND functional in terms of area, dimensions,
location and amenities to promote safe human interaction. (P)
Rationale: SHADED Ppedestrian amenities help to encourage the use of
public spaces. With respect to open space, bigger is not necessarily better.
A series of small areas, each provided with amenities may foster more
human interrelationship than a large monolithic space.
4.2 Usable public space should incorporate A MINIMUM OF 50 PERCENT
shading through the use of TREES OR structures that provide shading,
landscaping, or a combination of the two unless otherwise prohibited by
site visibility triangles or other technical constraints. (P)
Rationale: SHADE IS NECESSARY FOR Ppeople are attracted to USE
AND ENJOY public areas with shade during large portions of the year in
Phoenix FOR THEIR HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE.
***
Amend Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A.II.B.6 (Guidelines for Design Review –
Building Design/Construction – Public Amenities/Environmental Protection) by
amending paragraph 6.1 to read as follows:
6. Public Amenities/Environmental Protection.
Page 546
6.1 PUBLIC AND PRIVATE Ppedestrian walkways and gathering areas should
be shaded (minimum 50% at maturity) FOR THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND
WELFARE OF PEDESTRIANS AND to encourage use. (P)
Rationale: The design of pedestrian routes and gathering areas, such as
WALKWAYS, courtyards and plazas, should be designed with appropriate
shading FOR THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF
PEDESTRIANS AND to MITIGATE THE HEAT ISLAND EFFECT TO
enhance the PEDESTRIAN environment and the pedestrian experience.
***
Amend Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A.II.C.1. (Guidelines for Design Review –
Subdivision Design/Development – Streets/Circulation) by adding new paragraph
1.9 accordingly:
1. Streets/Circulation.
***
1.9 PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SIDEWALKS ADJACENT TO ARTERIAL AND
COLLECTOR STREETS AND LOCATED WITHIN AND CONNECTING
ALL COMMON OPEN SPACE TRACTS AND AMENITIES SHOULD BE
SHADED A MINIMUM OF 50 PERCENT. (P)
RATIONALE: SHADED SIDEWALKS AND PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS
SHOULD BE DESIGNED WITH APPROPRIATE SHADING FOR THE
HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF PEDESTRIANS THAT
MITIGATES THE EXTREME SUMMER TEMPERATURES, AS WELL AS
THE HEAT ISLAND EFFECT AND ENHANCES THE PEDESTRIAN
ENVIRONMENT.
Amend Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A.II.C.4 (Guidelines for Design Review –
Subdivision Design/Development – Open Space/Amenities) by amending
paragraphs 4.1 and 4.2 to read as follows:
4. Open Space/Amenities.
4.1 Large open space and retention areas (generally greater than 10,000
square feet) should be improved to include active and passive amenities
(e.g. tot lot, ramada, tennis court, barbecues, large seating areas,
landscaping, etc.) AND A MINIMUM 50% VEGETATION. SEATING
AREAS SHOULD BE SHADED BY STRUCTURES OR VEGETATION
(50% AT MATURITY). (P)
Rationale: Different types of improvements will appeal to different
segments of the resident population. To ensure long-term maintenance
AND USE of open space areas, it is important to provide YEAR-ROUND
amenities FOR THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF ALL
RESIDENTS to MITIGATE THE EXTREME SUMMER TEMPERATURES,
AS WELL AS THE HEAT ISLAND EFFECT, in which the homeowners
Page 547
association will maintain interest.
4.2 Open space and retention tracts/easements should be landscaped,
accessible, safe and secure. Common retention may qualify for required
common open space if it has a minimum area of 1000 square feet of level
bottom with maximum side slopes of 4:1 and is properly landscaped as
usable open space (minimum 50% vegetation). ANY PROPOSED
SEATING AREAS SHOULD BE SHADED BY STRUCTURES OR
VEGETATION (50% AT MATURITY). Streets (public and/or private) and
required perimeter landscape setbacks will not count towards common
open space. (P)
Rationale: Open space and retention areas that are accessible, and
functional, AND PROVIDE YEAR-ROUND SHADED AMENITIES FOR
THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF ALL RESIDENTS TO
MITIGATE THE EXTREME SUMMER TEMPERATURES, AS WELL AS
THE HEAT ISLAND EFFECT, are an amenity to the neighborhood. If
feasible, open space should be centrally located in order to be accessible
to as many residents as possible.
***
Amend Chapter 7, Section 703 (Landscaping, Fences and Walls) to add new
subsection “E” as follows:
***
E. GENERAL LANDSCAPE STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS.
1. LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION AND SALVAGE AND TREE
PROTECTION.
a. ALL TREES, PLANTS AND CACTI ON SITE AND IN THE
ABUTTING RIGHTS OF WAY MUST REMAIN IN PLACE IN A
HEALTHY, STRUCTURALLY SOUND, AND VIABLE
CONDITION, IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPROVED
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DOCUMENTS. REMOVAL OR
DESTRUCTION OF LANDSCAPE MATERIALS INSTALLED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH APPROVED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
DOCUMENTS WILL BE CONSIDERED A VIOLATION OF THE
ZONING ORDINANCE, EXCEPT WHEN IN COMPLIANCE WITH
SECTION 703.E.1.B AND 1.C.
b. NO TREES, PLANTS OR CACTI MAY BE REMOVED OR
DESTROYED ON A PROPERTY WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING
A PLANT SALVAGE PERMIT FROM THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, EXCEPT AS FOLLOWS:
(1) THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
HAS EXPRESSLY STATED IN WRITING THAT A PLANT
SALVAGE PLAN IS NOT REQUIRED FOR THE SITE AS
Page 548
PART OF THE APPROVED PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
OR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL DOCUMENTS, OR
ON THE FINAL SITE PLAN IF A PRELIMINARY
APPROVAL IS NOT REQUIRED; OR
(2) TREES, PLANTS OR CACTI TO BE REMOVED ARE
LOCATED ON A SINGLE-FAMILY LOT HAVING ONE
HOME OR DUPLEX; OR
(3) TREES, PLANTS OR CACTI TO BE REMOVED WERE
DESTROYED BY A NATURAL CAUSE OR OTHER
UNFORESEEN AND ACCIDENTAL INCIDENT; OR
(4) TREES, PLANTS OR CACTI REMOVED BY THE OWNER
OR A PUBLIC UTILITY PROVIDER FOR THE PURPOSE
OF MAINTAINING ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION OR
DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES. UPON REQUEST, THE
OWNER SHALL PROVIDE THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A WRITTEN
EXPLANATION FROM THE PUBLIC UTILITY PROVIDER
THAT THE REMOVAL IS NECESSARY FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION, INSTALLATION, OPERATION, AND
MAINTENANCE OF THE ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION OR
DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES.
c. OWNERS OF PROPERTY MUST REPLACE TREES, PLANTS
OR CACTI WITH LIKE KINDS AND SIZES OR EQUIVALENT AS
DETERMINED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE APPROVED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
DOCUMENTS, AS FOLLOWS:
(1) WHEN TREES, PLANTS AND CACTI WERE
DESTROYED BY A NATURAL CAUSE OR OTHER
UNFORESEEN AND ACCIDENTAL INCIDENT AND
WERE REMOVED; OR
(2) WHEN REMAIN/PROTECT IN PLACE AND SALVAGED
TREES, PLANTS AND CACTI HAVE DIED, BEEN
REMOVED OR DESTROYED.
UNLESS SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OR
DESIGNEE, NO FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY
OR CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION WILL BE ISSUED
PRIOR TO THE INSTALLATION OF THE LIKE KIND AND
SIZE REPLACEMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH 507.K.4.
2. REQUIRED LANDSCAPE PLANS. LANDSCAPE PLANS ARE
REQUIRED FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE APPLICABILITY REQUIREMENTS OF SECTIONS 507.B. I AND K.
Page 549
“LANDSCAPE PLANS” MAY REFER TO ANY OR ALL OF THE
FOLLOWING PLANS: PLANT INVENTORY PLAN, PLANT SALVAGE
AND TREE PROTECTION PLAN, AND/OR LANDSCAPE
(INSTALLATION) PLAN. ALL PLANS MUST PROVIDE THE
INFORMATION AND FORMAT REQUIRED ON CHECKLISTS
PROVIDED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
AND BE SEALED BY A LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT REGISTERED IN
THE STATE OF ARIZONA.
a. PLANT INVENTORY PLAN: IDENTIFIES THE TYPES, SIZES,
AND LOCATIONS OF ALL TREES, CACTI, AND PLANTS
EXISTING ON THE SITE AND STATES THE PHYSICAL
HEALTH AND CONDITION OF EACH AS DETERMINED BY A
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT REGISTERED IN THE STATE OF
ARIZONA.
b. PLANT SALVAGE AND TREE PROTECTION PLAN:
IDENTIFIES THE DISPOSITION OF ALL OF THE TREES,
CACTI, AND PLANTS IDENTIFIED IN THE PLANT INVENTORY
PLAN (I.E., “REMAIN/PROTECT IN PLACE”, “SALVAGE”, OR
“DESTROY”), INCLUDING DETAILS OF THE PLANT NURSERY
AND WATERING SYSTEM AND SCHEDULES FOR WATERING,
PRUNING, FERTILIZATION, MONITORING AND INSPECTION
TO BE PROVIDED FOR SALVAGED AND REMAIN/PROTECT IN
PLACE PLANTS UNTIL FINAL COMPLETION. FOR ALL
TREES, CACTI AND PLANTS THAT WILL REMAIN IN PLACE,
THE PLAN WILL INCLUDE A DESCRIPTION OF HOW THE
CRITICAL ROOT ZONES WILL BE PROTECTED DURING THE
CONSTRUCTION PHASE, INCLUDING PROTECTIVE
FENCING. MINIMUM CRITICAL ROOT ZONES WILL BE
DETERMINED ACCORDING TO THE CURRENT STANDARDS
SET FORTH BY THE AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARDS
INSTITUTE (ANSI), THE SUSTAINABLE LANDSCAPE
MANAGEMENT STANDARDS OF THE ARIZONA LANDSCAPE
CONTRACTORS’ ASSOCIATION, OR OTHER ACCEPTABLE
SUSTAINABLE LANDSCAPE STANDARDS AS DETERMINED
BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.
c. LANDSCAPE (INSTALLATION) PLAN: IDENTIFIES THE
TYPES, SIZES, AND LOCATIONS OF ALL TREES, CACTI, AND
PLANTS (INCLUDING THOSE TO REMAIN/PROTECT IN PLACE
OR SALVAGED) TO BE INSTALLED ON THE SITE, ON
DOCUMENTS SEALED BY A LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
REGISTERED IN THE STATE OF ARIZONA. LANDSCAPE
PLANS ARE TO ALSO INCLUDE ALL LANDSCAPE
MATERIALS, A MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE, IRRIGATION
PLANS, PLUS OTHER INFORMATION AS MAY BE REQUIRED
BY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT STAFF. PLANT MATERIAL
SIZES AND SPECIFICATIONS MUST CONFORM TO THE
STANDARDS OF THE AMERICAN STANDARDS FOR
Page 550
NURSERY STOCK (ANSI Z60.1) OR THE ARIZONA NURSERY
ASSOCIATION.
(1) LANDSCAPE PLANS SHALL INCLUDE A MAINTENANCE
SCHEDULE WHICH IDENTIFIES THE RECOMMENDED
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE INCLUDING, BUT NOT
LIMITED TO, WEEDS, ROCK MULCH, AND IRRIGATION.
THE SCHEDULE SHALL IDENTIFY SEASONAL WATER
APPLICATION RATES, TYPES AND METHODS OF
FERTILIZATION, AND PRUNING, ETC. FOR EACH
PLANT TYPE. ACCORDING TO THE CURRENT
STANDARDS SET FORTH BY THE AMERICAN
NATIONAL STANDARDS INSTITUTE (ANSI), THE
SUSTAINABLE LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT
STANDARDS OF THE ARIZONA LANDSCAPE
CONTRACTORS’ ASSOCIATION, OR OTHER
ACCEPTABLE STANDARDS AS DETERMINED BY THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.
DEVIATIONS FOR PRUNING STANDARDS ARE
PERMITTED WHEN DONE FOR THE PURPOSE OF
MAINTAINING ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION OR
DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES. UPON REQUEST, THE
OWNER SHALL PROVIDE THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A WRITTEN
EXPLANATION FROM THE PUBLIC UTILITY PROVIDER
THAT THE PRUNING IS NECESSARY FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION, INSTALLATION, OPERATION, AND
MAINTENANCE OF THE ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION OR
DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES.
***
This publication can be made available in alternative format upon request. Please
contact Tamra Ingersoll at (602) 534-6648, TTY use 7-1-1.
Page 551
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
102 item(s)