← Back to meetings

Meeting City Council Formal Meeting-6/18/2025 complete

2025-06-18 · Formal

Items: 153

City Council Formal Meeting

View on Agenda Online ↗


Synced: 2026-05-28 03:37 AZ

Item text
For Approval or Correction, the Minutes of the Formal Meeting on March 5, 2025

Summary
This item transmits the minutes of the Formal Meeting of March 5, 2025, for review,
correction and/or approval by the City Council.

The minutes are available for review in the City Clerk Department, 200 W. Washington
Street, 15th Floor.

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








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

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

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





ATTACHMENT A




To: City Council Date: June 18, 2025
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:

Audit Committee

I recommend the following for appointment:

Betty Guardado
Councilwoman Betty Guardado replaces Councilman Jim Waring for a term to expire
July 1, 2027.

Fast-Track Cities Ad Hoc Committee

Councilwoman Laura Pastor and Councilwoman Debra Stark recommend the following
for appointment:

Howard Grossman
Dr. Grossman is the Medical Director at Spectrum Medical Care and a resident of
District 4.

Judicial Selection Advisory Board

I recommend the following for appointment:

Angela Paton
Judge Paton serves on the Court of Appeals, Division One. She replaces Judge David
Weinzweig as the representative of the Court of Appeals for a term to expire
November 19, 2025.




Maryvale Village Planning Committee

Councilwoman Betty Guardado recommends the following for appointment:

Lorena Gutierrez
Ms. Gutierrez is a retiree and a resident of District 5. She fills a vacancy for a term to
expire June 18, 2027.

Mayor's Human Trafficking Task Force

Councilman Jim Waring recommends the following for appointment:

Kevin Engholdt
Mr. Engholdt is a professor at Arizona State University and a resident of District 2.

Phoenix Deferred Compensation Board/Post Employment Healthcare Plan Board

I recommend the following for appointment:

John Teefy
Mr. Teefy is a retiree and a resident of District 6. He fills a vacancy for a term to expire
June 18, 2028.







Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Tabla Indian Restaurant - District 1

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 346661.

Summary

Applicant
Juanita Esparza, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
2501 W. Happy Valley Road, Ste. H-105
Zoning Classification: C-2 DVAO
Council District: 1

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

The 60-day limit for processing this application is July 1, 2025.

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.




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 of Tabla Indian Restaurant are committed to upholding the highest
standards for 'business practices & employees'. Mr. Krishnanjan Alaparthi will be the
main operator of the establishment. Has been trained in the techniques of legal
responsibility. Mr. Alaparthi has taken Title IV Basic & Mgmt Liq Law training course.
He will oversee employees & provide a safe enviroment for all patrons.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Mr. Alaparti & Mr. Pulla Roa of Tabla Indian Restaurant will provide the service of
mainly specialty cultural beers, wine, and an occasion spirit in a family restaurant
environment upon the request of the general public and patrons over the age of 21
years. In addition will responsibly adhere to all state, city & federal tax laws & maintain
a strict adherence to the security requirements.”

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
Attachment A - Tabla Indian Restaurant - Data
Attachment B - Table Indian Restaurant - Map

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





Liquor License Data: TABLA INDIAN RESTAURANT
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Wholesaler 4 1 0
Beer and Wine Bar 7 3 1
Liquor Store 9 4 2
Beer and Wine Store 10 4 3
Hotel 11 2 0
Restaurant 12 20 19


Crime Data

I Description

Property Crimes
Average *

64.2
1 Mile Average **

59.07
1/2 Mile Average***

181.21

Violent Crimes 12.31 3.23 8.28
I
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within½ mile radius



Property Violation Data

I Description Average 1/2 Mile Average I
I Parcels wNiolations 39 0
I
I Total Violations 67 0
I
Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

I BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied II Residential Vacancy I Persons in Poverty I
I 6119001 1987 449 11 33
I
I 6123012 3501 661 276 286
I
I Average 1601 393 60 177
I

Liquor License Map: TABLA INDIAN RESTAURANT
2501 W HAPPY VALLEY RD




Date: 6/5/2025




Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi

City Clerk Department



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Humble Market (Series 7) - District 2

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 345813.

Summary

Applicant
Andrea Lewkowitz, Agent

License Type
Series 7 - Beer and Wine Bar

Location
5450 E. High Street, Ste. 117
Zoning Classification: C-2 DRSP
Council District: 2

This request is for an ownership and location transfer of a liquor license for a bar. This
location was not previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim
permit. This location requires a Use Permit for a bar. This business is currently being
remodeled with plans to open in August 2025.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is June 24, 2025.

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.

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

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

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

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“From the owners of Humble Bistro, Humble Market will feature high-quality, fresh
menu dishes complemented by an impressive selection of unique beers and wines.
Applicant would like to offer beer and wine to-go to guests 21 and over.”

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
Attachment A - Humble Market - Data
Attachment B - Humble Market - Map

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





Liquor License Data: HUMBLE MARKET
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Bar 6 12 4

Beer and Wine Bar 7 4 3

Liquor Store 9 3 0

Beer and Wine Store 10 5 1

Hotel 11 1 0

Restaurant 12 29 10


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 64.2 49.2 35.98

Violent Crimes 12.31 3.13 2.97

*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 40 0

Total Violations 67 0


Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

6152011 656 0 41 20

6152012 6102 515 722 1020

6152022 84 50 30 0

6152023 3418 1016 778 112

Average 1601 393 60 177




Liquor License Map: HUMBLE MARKET
5450 E HIGH ST




Date: 5/29/2025




Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi

City Clerk Department



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Humble Market (Series 12) - District 2

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 345813.

Summary

Applicant
Andrea Lewkowitz, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
5450 E. High Street, Ste. 117
Zoning Classification: C-2 DRSP
Council District: 2

This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was not
previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit. This business
is currently being remodeled with plans to open in August 2025.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is June 24, 2025.

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.

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

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

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

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“From the owners of Humble Bistro, Humble Market will feature high-quality, fresh
menu dishes - such as steak, fish, tacos, burgers, and salads in a casual family-
friendly atmosphere. Applicant would like to offer guests 21 and over the opportunity to
order alcohol with the meals served.”

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
Attachment A - Humble Market - Data
Attachment B - Humble Market - Map

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





Liquor License Data: HUMBLE MARKET
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Bar 6 12 4

Beer and Wine Bar 7 4 3

Liquor Store 9 3 0

Beer and Wine Store 10 5 1

Hotel 11 1 0

Restaurant 12 29 10


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 64.2 49.2 35.98

Violent Crimes 12.31 3.13 2.97

*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 40 0

Total Violations 67 0


Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

6152011 656 0 41 20

6152012 6102 515 722 1020

6152022 84 50 30 0

6152023 3418 1016 778 112

Average 1601 393 60 177




Liquor License Map: HUMBLE MARKET
5450 E HIGH ST




Date: 5/29/2025




Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi

City Clerk Department



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Raithu Bazaar - District 2

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 337931.

Summary

Applicant
Roopesh Kantala, Agent

License Type
Series 10 - Beer and Wine Store

Location
3130 E. Union Hills Drive, Ste. 101 & 102
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 2

This request is for a new liquor license for a grocery store. This location was previously
licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit. This location requires a
Use Permit to allow package liquor sales.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is June 23, 2025.

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.

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 individual, have experience running and managing retail stores I
try to keep my work environment safe and keep customer safety in mind. I have higher
education and managed retail space before.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Some recreation when drink resposnibily and in safe environment is acceptable. Will
be offering unique international collection to try and enjoy responsibly.”

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
Attachment A - Raithu Bazaar - Data
Attachment B - Raithu Bazaar - Map

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





Liquor License Data: RAITHU BAZAAR
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Bar 6 2 1

Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 1

Liquor Store 9 3 1

Beer and Wine Store 10 3 1

Restaurant 12 2 1


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 64.2 54.32 43.31

Violent Crimes 12.31 7.88 6.36

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



Property Violation Data

Description Average 1/2 Mile Average

Parcels w/Violations 40 37

Total Violations 68 53




Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

6170021 1230 377 11 30

6170022 1479 466 53 337

6170024 932 327 25 118

6171002 1032 344 7 12

6172001 1588 499 14 9

6172002 1051 371 20 14

6195001 1237 357 18 69

6195002 2117 605 14 19

6196021 1901 596 29 269

Average 1601 393 60 177




Liquor License Map: RAITHU BAZAAR
3130 E UNION HILLS DR




Date: 4/28/2025




Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi

City Clerk Department



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Yod Thai Eatery - District 2

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 346345.

Summary

Applicant
Tiffany Tavee, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
13802 N. Scottsdale Road, Ste. 130
Zoning Classification: PSC
Council District: 2

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

The 60-day limit for processing this application is June 24, 2025.

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.

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 understand the laws and regulations governing alcohol sales. We have previous
experience in the restaurant industry has given us the skills to manage and operate a
licensed establishment responsibly."

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Yod Thai Eatery will create a welcoming environment for the community to eat and
drink with their family and friends. We will also be able to create more job opportunities
from the issuance of the liquor license and additional business into the city and
community.”

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
Attachment A - Yod Thai Eatery - Data
Attachment B - Yod Thai Eatery - Map

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





Liquor License Data: YOD THAI EATERY
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Bar 6 1 1

Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 0

Beer and Wine Store 10 4 3

Restaurant 12 22 7


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 64.2 16.18 24.73

Violent Crimes 12.31 1.08 1.59

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



Property Violation Data

Description Average 1/2 Mile Average

Parcels w/Violations 40 15

Total Violations 67 21


Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1032071 1242 389 51 23

1032072 973 325 34 69

1032201 765 385 46 26

1032202 979 336 176 45

2168161 2299 576 378 112

Average 1601 393 60 177




Liquor License Map: YOD THAI EATERY
13802 N SCOTTSDALE RD




Date: 5/29/2025




Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi

City Clerk Department



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Over Easy - District 3

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 346583.

Summary

Applicant
Jeffrey Miller, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
10637 N. Tatum Boulevard, Ste. 101A
Zoning Classification: C-1, C-2
Council District: 3

This request is for an acquisition of control of an existing liquor license for a restaurant.
This location is currently licensed for liquor sales.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is June 23, 2025.

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



applicant on the City Questionnaire.

I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“We have operated several Over Easy's and now get the opportunity to own. We will
continue to run a smooth operating establishment. We require our staff to be Title 4
liquor trained.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

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








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - The Joy Bus - District 3

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 339246.

Summary

Applicant
Jennifer Desaye, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
10401 N. 32nd Street, Ste. C/D
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 3

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

The 60-day limit for processing this application is June 20, 2025.

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.

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 proven from my past history of holding a license to be a responsible business
owner.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“The Joy Bus provides a valuable service to our community and the sales of liquor help
fund our programs."

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
Attachment A - The Joy Bus - Data
Attachment B - The Joy Bus - Map

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





Liquor License Data: THE JOY BUS
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Bar 6 2 1

Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 1

Liquor Store 9 3 3

Beer and Wine Store 10 4 4

Restaurant 12 8 8


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 64.2 35.96 59.02

Violent Crimes 12.31 3.79 7.43

*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 40 37

Total Violations 68 56




Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1048011 2374 833 36 79

1048021 1512 482 37 156

1048023 1441 638 39 71

1048025 546 20 23 32

1049003 666 268 21 61

1049004 1403 396 14 34

1051011 944 349 12 15

1051013 1374 542 30 38

Average 1601 393 60 177




Liquor License Map: THE JOY BUS
10401 N 32ND ST




Date: 4/24/2025




Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi

City Clerk Department



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Liquor Cave & Convenience - District 3

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 346651.

Summary

Applicant
Paramjit Singh, Agent

License Type
Series 9 - Liquor Store

Location
10612 N. Cave Creek Road
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 3

This request is for an ownership and location transfer of a liquor license for a liquor
store. 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 27, 2025.

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.

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 been in retail liquor store business for over 20 years and spent everyday on-
site and familiar with the rules and regulations of the liquor depat. I have incredible
experience as a manager, owner of multiple liquor beer and wine stores. Who
manages crews as small as six and as large as twelve. I have extensive knowledge of
liquor industry to utilize the 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:
“Residential and commercial population of the community and its liklihood is increasing
in the neighborhood. Moreover, by observing the nature of the business and market
around that area suggests that beer, wine and liquor store will do great at this location
and will be very appealing to customers."

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
Attachment A - Liquor Cave & Convenience - Data
Attachment B - Liquor Cave & Convenience - Map

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





Liquor License Data: LIQUOR CAVE & CONVENIENCE
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Bar 6 1 1

Liquor Store 9 3 1

Beer and Wine Store 10 1 0

Restaurant 12 3 1

Club 14 1 0


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 64.2 65.23 86.3

Violent Crimes 12.31 12.6 17.3

*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 40 62

Total Violations 67 112




Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1037021 822 213 42 157

1037022 1194 426 77 40

1037023 1541 224 69 93

1047012 972 374 84 103

1047013 610 316 124 151

1047021 780 85 27 150

1047024 455 259 33 60

1048012 1609 438 32 208

Average 1601 393 60 177




Liquor License Map: LIQUOR CAVE & CONVENIENCE
10612 N CAVE CREEK RD




Date: 5/5/2025




Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi

City Clerk Department



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Special Event - Phoenix Pride Incorporated - District 4

Request for a Series 15 - Special Event liquor license for the temporary sale of all
liquors.

Summary

Applicant
Michael Fornelli

Location
300 E. Indian School Road
Council District: 4

Function
Festival

Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
October 18, 2025 - 11:30 a.m. to 11:30 p.m. / 15,000
October 19, 2025 - 11:30 a.m. to 11:30 p.m. / 10,000

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

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








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Special Event - WayneFest - District 4

Request for a Series 15 - Special Event liquor license for the temporary sale of all
liquors.

Summary

Applicant
Michael Anderson

Location
1717 N. 12th Street
Council District: 4

Function
Art and Music Festival

Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
November 8, 2025 - Noon to 4 p.m. / 700 attendees

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

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








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - AZ Pizza Co Downtown - District 4

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 339293.

Summary

Applicant
Brandi Mostofo, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
3800 N. Central Avenue, Ste. P6
Zoning Classification: C-3 TOD-1
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.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is June 20, 2025.

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
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.

AZ Pizza Co. Peoria (Series 12)
16955 N. 75th Avenue, Ste.115, Peoria
Calls for police service: N/A - not in Phoenix
Liquor license violations: None

Arizona Pizza Company (Series 12)
15530 W. Roosevelt Street, Ste. D104, Goodyear
Calls for police service: N/A - not in Phoenix
Liquor license violations: None

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

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

I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I had one at my other pizza location for almost 5 years.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“We are a casual pizza restaurant that wants to offer customers beer & wine while
enjoying good pizza. This will not be a crazy busy rowdy establiment. We will not
disturb the surrounding area only enhance it with our great food.”

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
Attachment A - AZ Pizza Co Downtown - Data
Attachment B - AZ Pizza Co Downtown - Map




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





Liquor License Data: AZ PIZZA CO DOWNTOWN
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Bar 6 13 2

Beer and Wine Bar 7 3 1

Liquor Store 9 6 1

Beer and Wine Store 10 13 3

Hotel 11 2 1

Restaurant 12 42 4


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 64.2 215.36 336.09

Violent Crimes 12.31 38.56 53.5
*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 40 66

Total Violations 67 113




Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1105011 1135 187 125 191

1105012 2159 81 138 448

1105013 486 47 63 125

1105021 1745 119 126 482

1105022 2166 436 185 339

1171001 1768 158 74 235

1171002 1261 250 104 101

Average 1601 393 60 177




Liquor License Map: AZ PIZZA CO DOWNTOWN
3800 N CENTRAL AVE




Date: 5/29/2025




Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi

City Clerk Department



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Pescaderia y Carniceria La Vaca Muu - District 4

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 339510.

Summary

Applicant
Margarita Herrera, Agent

License Type
Series 10 - Beer and Wine Store

Location
2750 W. Indian School Road
Zoning Classification: C-1
Council District: 4

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

The 60-day limit for processing this application was June 14, 2025. However, the
applicant submitted a written request for more time.

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.

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 been working in the food industry for over 20 years District Manager and I
know how important it is to follow the rules. I am a responsible person with clean
background.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“We are planning to open a meat shop, offering food and grosceries to go including
drinks safe, clean and conveniant neighborhood store.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Attachments
Attachment A - Pescaderia y Carniceria La Vaca Muu - Data
Attachment B - Pescaderia y Carniceria La Vaca Muu - Map

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





Liquor License Data: PESCADERIA Y CARNICERIA LA
VACA MUU
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Wholesaler 4 2 1

Bar 6 3 0

Liquor Store 9 3 1

Beer and Wine Store 10 15 6

Restaurant 12 3 1



Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 64.2 227.7 292.14

Violent Crimes 12.31 84.31 128.02

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



Property Violation Data

Description Average 1/2 Mile Average

Parcels w/Violations 40 92

Total Violations 67 147




Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1090012 3304 0 235 959

1090033 1038 8 61 152

1090034 1053 30 24 453

1091012 1585 278 17 108

1091022 3960 742 30 904

1091023 1136 190 72 301

1169001 2763 372 39 622

1170002 3121 431 53 676

Average 1601 393 60 177




Liquor License Map: PESCADERIA Y CARNICERIA LA VACA MUU
2750 W INDIAN SCHOOL RD




Date: 6/10/2025




Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi

City Clerk Department



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Rohans Supermarket - District 4

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 336571.

Summary

Applicant
Jaswinder Singh, Agent

License Type
Series 9 & 9S - Liquor Store with Sampling Privileges

Location
2902 N. 16th Street
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 4

This request is for a new liquor license for a liquor store. This location is currently
licensed for liquor sales with a Series 10 - Beer and Wine Store, liquor license.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is June 21, 2025.

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.




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 several years of owning and operating stores. These include beer and wine
license.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“We are focused on the community, we serve the community they will serve us. We are
here to add to the community not take away.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Attachments
Attachment A - Rohans Supermarket - Data
Attachment B - Rohans Supermarket - Map

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





Liquor License Data: ROHANS SUPERMARKET
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Bar 6 6 3

Liquor Store 9 4 1

Beer and Wine Store 10 11 5

Restaurant 12 5 3


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 64.2 131.26 177.49

Violent Crimes 12.31 27.38 46.81

*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 40 71

Total Violations 67 115




Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1106002 2321 470 72 72

1106004 1350 265 59 196

1107011 1037 46 62 247

1107012 1274 194 61 154

1116021 374 0 46 98

1116023 1740 67 23 197

1117001 1240 396 65 217

1117004 1426 315 66 49

Average 1601 393 60 177




Liquor License Map: ROHANS SUPERMARKET
2902 N 16TH ST




Date: 5/29/2025




Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi

City Clerk Department



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Tortas El Guero - District 4

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 341499.

Summary

Applicant
Lidia Lom, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
2518 N. 16th Street
Zoning Classification: C-2 CNSPD
Council District: 4

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

The 60-day limit for processing this application is June 20, 2025.

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.




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 been a business owner for over 40 years. I have been serving this community
for the last 20 years . we have the experience and the desire to continue showing the
community that we are care and appreciate it. I have once already sold liquor through
my butchers shop that we sold.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“The community of restaurants on 16th Street is growing and we would like to offer
patrons all the products and services others are already offering. We know that if we
are able to do so we have a better chance to remain in business for another 20 years.”

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
Attachment A - Tortas El Guero - Data
Attachment B - Tortas El Guero - Map

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





Liquor License Data: TORTAS EL GUERO
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Microbrewery 3 1 0

Bar 6 10 2

Liquor Store 9 5 2

Beer and Wine Store 10 11 3

Restaurant 12 17 4

Craft Distiller 18 1 0


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 64.2 140.28 166.02

Violent Crimes 12.31 32.51 39.38
*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 40 97

Total Violations 67 160




Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1106004 1350 265 59 196

1107012 1274 194 61 154

1116021 374 0 46 98

1116022 2191 365 78 589

1116023 1740 67 23 197

1117001 1240 396 65 217

1117002 1143 416 44 64

1117003 951 300 94 62

1117004 1426 315 66 49

Average 1601 393 60 177




Liquor License Map: TORTAS EL GUERO
2518 N 16TH ST




Date: 5/28/2025




Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi

City Clerk Department



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Eye Candy's - District 5

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 345707.

Summary

Applicant
Jovan Travis, Agent

License Type
Series 7 - Beer and Wine Bar

Location
3790 Grand Avenue
Zoning Classification: C-3
Council District: 5

This request is for a new liquor license for a topless bar. This location was previously
licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit. This location currently
has an active Adult Cabaret license without liquor sales, issued by the City of Phoenix.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is June 22, 2025.

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.

Public Opinion
One valid letter supporting the issuance of this license has been received and is on file
in the Office of the City Clerk. The letter is from the Alhambra Neighborhood
Association. They have entered into a good neighbor agreement with the applicant and
believe the applicant is willing to help make the neighborhood a good place to live.

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 ownership and operate several businesses and have done so for many years. I
have operated this location as an adult entertainment venue without incident for eight
months. I have taken Title IV Basic and Management training and am confident I have
the experience and knowledge to comply with Title IV liquor law and City of Phoenix
requirements.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“I have spoke face to face with many of the leaders within our community concerning
the matter and have taken active steps to address all concerns including heightened
security tactics and increased community support efforts. A successful rapport has
been established between our company and the neighborhood association which we
will continue."

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
Attachment A - Eye Candy's - Data
Attachment B - Eye Candy's - Map






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





Liquor License Data: EYE CANDY'S
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Wholesaler 4 2 0

Bar 6 5 1

Beer and Wine Bar 7 3 1

Liquor Store 9 4 1

Beer and Wine Store 10 13 3

Restaurant 12 9 1


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 64.2 207.85 156.15

Violent Crimes 12.31 58.04 54.45
*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 40 52

Total Violations 67 90




Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1091011 2041 415 18 518

1091021 1914 98 62 906

1092001 0 0 1 0

1092002 1281 176 52 131

1092003 2212 134 68 106

1092004 1218 159 51 448

1101001 1160 59 58 533

Average 1601 393 60 177




Liquor License Map: EYE CANDY'S
3790 GRAND AVE




Date: 5/2/2025




Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi

City Clerk Department



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Shake Shack #1421 - District 5

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 345663.

Summary

Applicant
Andrea Lewkowitz, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
9778 W. McDowell Road
Zoning Classification: PUD
Council District: 5

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.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is June 24, 2025.

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.




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

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

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

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Shake Shack offers a wide variety of customized delicious burgers, hot dogs, frozen
custard, shakes and more in a modern-day neighborhood restaurant. Applicant would
like to offer alcoholic beverages as an incident to the delicious meals served."

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
Attachment A - Shake Shack #1421 - Data
Attachment B - Shake Shack #1421 - Map

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





Liquor License Data: SHAKE SHACK #1421
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 1

Beer and Wine Store 10 2 1

Hotel 11 1 1


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 64.2 27.73 17.72

Violent Crimes 12.31 4.61 3.5
*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 40 5

Total Violations 68 7



Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

0820171 1887 192 18 229

0820172 0 0 0 0

0820173 3988 321 14 398

0820242 3240 398 110 469

0820271 2208 260 99 274

0830002 2263 325 59 979

Average 1601 393 60 177




Liquor License Map: SHAKE SHACK #1421
9778 W MCDOWELL RD




Date: 4/29/2025




Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi

City Clerk Department



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Lydia's Kitchen - District 6

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 329945.

Summary

Applicant
Kevin Cieszkowski, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
1215 E. Missouri Avenue, Ste. 10
Zoning Classification: C-1
Council District: 6

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.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is June 20, 2025.

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.




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:
“Of previous experience in the food and beverage industry as well as our clean track
record of compliance with state, city and county rules.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“It will allow the community to engage with others in the neighborhood in a beautiful
public setting at The Frederick on Missouri retail center.”

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
Attachment A - Lydia's Kitchen - Data
Attachment B - Lydia's Kitchen - Map

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





Liquor License Data: LYDIA'S KITCHEN
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Microbrewery 3 1 0

Wholesaler 4 2 0

Bar 6 7 0

Beer and Wine Bar 7 7 0

Liquor Store 9 6 0

Beer and Wine Store 10 12 1

Restaurant 12 47 2


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 64.2 182.21 106.47

Violent Crimes 12.31 20.99 11.99
*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 40 72

Total Violations 68 110




Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1076011 925 208 31 52

1076012 1255 262 47 84

1076013 997 362 76 88

1076021 1302 519 41 25

1076022 1529 218 57 118

1077003 985 194 120 42

1077005 171 42 15 0

1086021 2044 274 123 80

1086024 1033 260 68 191

Average 1601 393 60 177




Liquor License Map: LYDIA'S KITCHEN
1215 E MISSOURI AVE




Date: 4/22/2025




Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi

City Clerk Department



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Minnow - District 6

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 343776.

Summary

Applicant
Jeffrey Miller, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
4501 N. 32nd Street
Zoning Classification: C-1
Council District: 6

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

The 60-day limit for processing this application is June 29, 2025.

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
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.

Gladly (Series 12)
2201 E. Camelback Road, Ste. 106A, Phoenix
Calls for police service: 17
Liquor license violations: None

Citizen Public House (Series 12)
7111 E. 5th Avenue, Ste. E, Scottsdale
Calls for police service: N/A - not in Phoenix
Liquor license violations: None

Beginner's Luck (Series 12)
7240 E. Main Street, Ste. C-100, Scottsdale (Series 12)
Calls for police service: N/A - not in Phoenix
Liquor License violations: None

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

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

I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“All employees will be Title 4 trained, ID's of all customers who order alcohol will be
checked. Liquor license and applicable warning signs will be posted. Entrance and
exits will display signage to ensure records and a liquor manual containing information
required by the Department of Liquor.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Minnow aims to create a space where both newcomers and regulars can come
together and enjoy great food and drink in a welcoming atmosphere.”






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
Attachment A - Minnow - Data
Attachment B - Minnow - Map

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





Liquor License Data: MINNOW
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Bar 6 10 2

Beer and Wine Bar 7 3 0

Liquor Store 9 2 0

Beer and Wine Store 10 8 2

Hotel 11 1 0

Restaurant 12 41 3


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 64.2 109.76 52.86

Violent Crimes 12.31 12.47 4.14
*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 40 42

Total Violations 67 63




Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1083012 1555 525 75 108

1083021 1269 360 68 58

1084001 369 67 141 0

1084002 1348 427 93 67

1084004 1540 380 246 135

Average 1601 393 60 177




Liquor License Map: MINNOW
4501 N 32ND ST




Date: 6/4/2025




Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi

City Clerk Department



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Easy Access Wholesale LLC - District 7

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 345677.

Summary

Applicant
Bretton Barber, Agent

License Type
Series 4 - Wholesaler

Location
2440 W. Lincoln Street, Ste. 160
Zoning Classification: A-2 CCSIO
Council District: 7

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. This business
has plans to open in July 2025.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is June 30, 2025.

Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, consideration may 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
applicant on the City Questionnaire.

I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I have been an attorney and owner of law firm in Phoenix for over 12 years and I am
familiar with the unique legal and regulatory requirements that a business must comply
with to be able to successfully operate a business that holds a liquor license.”

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 Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Humble Bistro - District 7

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 343525.

Summary

Applicant
Andrea Lewkowitz, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
222 E. Jefferson Street
Zoning Classification: DTC Business Core
Council District: 7

This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was not
previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit. This business
is currently being remodeled with plans to open in September 2025.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is June 24, 2025.

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.

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

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

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

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Opening its 2nd location in Phoenix, Humble Bistro is a neighborhood restaurant
featuring pizza, pasta, burgers, sandwiches, salads, and soup in a family-friendly
environment. Applicant would like to continue to offer guests 21 and over the
opportunity to order alcoholic beverages as an incident to the meals they enjoy.”

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
Attachment A - Humble Bistro - Data
Attachment B - Humble Bistro - Map

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





Liquor License Data: HUMBLE BISTRO
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Producer 1 1 1

Microbrewery 3 4 0

Wholesaler 4 1 1

Government 5 5 4

Bar 6 48 28

Beer and Wine Bar 7 9 5

Liquor Store 9 5 2

Beer and Wine Store 10 14 1

Hotel 11 7 7

Restaurant 12 104 49

Club 14 3 0


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 64.2 231.52 278.55

Violent Crimes 12.31 60.5 58.91

*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 40 16

Total Violations 67 23




Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1131003 2654 2 355 297

1132022 1347 118 99 594

1140002 0 0 18 0

1140003 1025 304 49 114

1140004 394 12 24 88

1141001 2605 227 111 276

1142001 938 210 81 167

Average 1601 393 60 177




Liquor License Map: HUMBLE BISTRO
222 E JEFFERSON ST




Date: 5/5/2025




Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi

City Clerk Department



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Obon Sushi + Bar + Ramen - District 7

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 336362.

Summary

Applicant
Kevin Kramber, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
2 E. Jefferson Street, Ste. 22-108
Zoning Classification: DTC - Business Core
Council District: 7

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.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is June 28, 2025.

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.




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:
“1) I am current Agent on over 230+ liquor licenses statewide 2) The day-to-day
Manager will have State approved Title IV liquor training 3) Controlling Persons in the
Licensee entity have ownership in 5 current liquor license establishments 4) No liquor
license at other Controlling Persons has had any Title IV violations.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“The primary purpose of our business is that of a full service Asian cuisine restaurant.
We would like to be able to offer our patrons that are of legal drinking age the
opportunity to purchase adult beverages as an accompaniment to their meals to add to
the overall experience and enjoyment at our restaurant and stay."

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
Attachment A - Obon Sushi + Bar + Ramen - Data
Attachment B - Obon Sushi + Bar + Ramen - Map

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





Liquor License Data: OBON SUSHI + BAR + RAMEN
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Producer 1 1 1

Microbrewery 3 4 1

Wholesaler 4 1 0

Government 5 6 4

Bar 6 47 32

Beer and Wine Bar 7 10 5

Liquor Store 9 5 2

Beer and Wine Store 10 14 1

Hotel 11 7 6

Restaurant 12 105 49

Club 14 3 1


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 64.2 247.47 293.52

Violent Crimes 12.31 70.62 66.98

*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 40 15

Total Violations 67 26




Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1131001 1929 146 155 743

1131002 2026 50 492 845

1131003 2654 2 355 297

1141001 2605 227 111 276

1142001 938 210 81 167

Average 1601 393 60 177




Liquor License Map: OBON SUSHI + BAR + RAMEN
2 E JEFFERSON ST




Date: 5/5/2025




Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi

City Clerk Department



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Stadium - District 7

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 341362.

Summary

Applicant
Que Quinn, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
50 W. Jefferson Street, Ste. 280
Zoning Classification: DTC - Business Core
Council District: 7

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 was May 31, 2025. However, the
applicant submitted a written request for more time.

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



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.

Valley Craft (Series 7 and Series 10S)
15671 W. Roosevelt Street, Ste. 102, Goodyear
Calls for police service: N/A - not in Phoenix
Liquor license violations: None

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

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

I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“We prioritize responsibility and compliance with all regulations. Our commitmet to
ethical practices and staff traing ensures a saf enviorment for all.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“It allows for a safe and regulated environment where community members can
socialize responsibly. The license suports local business and contributes to economic
growt benefiting the entire community."

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
Attachment A - Stadium - Data
Attachment B - Stadium - Map

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


Liquor License Data: STADIUM
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Producer 1 1 1

Microbrewery 3 5 1

Wholesaler 4 1 0

Government 5 6 4

Bar 6 48 31

Beer and Wine Bar 7 10 5

Liquor Store 9 5 2

Beer and Wine Store 10 13 2

Hotel 11 7 6

Restaurant 12 105 48

Club 14 3 1


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 64.2 249.76 291.4

Violent Crimes 12.31 71.92 68.15

*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 39 9

Total Violations 67 16




Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1131001 1929 146 155 743

1131002 2026 50 492 845

1131003 2654 2 355 297

1141001 2605 227 111 276

1142001 938 210 81 167

1143011 911 80 49 374

Average 1601 393 60 177




Liquor License Map: STADIUM
50 W JEFFERSON ST




Date: 6/9/2025




Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi

City Clerk Department



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - San Tan Brewing Co. - District 8

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 347036.

Summary

Applicant
Jonathan Argentine, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
3300 E. Sky Harbor Boulevard, T3S-F8
Zoning Classification: A-1
Council District: 8

This request is for an acquisition of control of an existing liquor license for a restaurant.
This location is currently licensed for liquor sales.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is June 30, 2025.

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 information is not provided due to the multiple ownership interests held by the
applicant in the State of Arizona.

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

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



applicant on the City Questionnaire.

I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I have been working with HMSHost Corporation for over thrity-one (31) years. For
seventeen (17) years, I was in supervisory/management positions, and for the last
twelve (12) years, I have been Director of Operations.”

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 Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Shake Shack - District 8

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 347036.

Summary

Applicant
Jonathan Argentine, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
3300 E. Sky Harbor Boulevard, T3S-F7
Zoning Classification: A-1
Council District: 8

This request is for an acquisition of control of an existing liquor license for a restaurant.
This location is currently licensed for liquor sales.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is June 30, 2025.

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 information is not provided due to the multiple ownership interests held by the
applicant in the State of Arizona.

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

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



applicant on the City Questionnaire.

I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I have been working with HMSHost Corporation for over thirty-one (31) years. For
seventeen (17) years, I was in supervisory/management positions, and for the last
twelve (12) years, I have been Director of Operations.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

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








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Culinary Gangster - District 8

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 346310.

Summary

Applicant
Rocco Raschillo, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
513 E. Roosevelt Street
Zoning Classification: DTC - Evans Churchill East
Council District: 8

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.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is June 23, 2025.

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.




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 bar industry for the past 16 years. I have been the
General Manager and ran front and back of house. I controlled all liquor inventory and
kept all los books I am qualified."

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“We will abide by and keep all the laws associated with the privalge of having a liquor
license at my establishment. I will enforce the rules to my staff and make sure
everyone is trained properly.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Attachments
Attachment A - Culinary Gangster - Data
Attachment B - Culinary Gangster - Map

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





Liquor License Data: CULINARY GANGSTER
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Producer 1 1 0

Microbrewery 3 5 3

Wholesaler 4 1 0

Government 5 7 4

Bar 6 45 14

Beer and Wine Bar 7 14 5

Liquor Store 9 6 2

Beer and Wine Store 10 13 5

Hotel 11 7 2

Restaurant 12 112 43

Club 14 1 0


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 64.2 263.11 303.07

Violent Crimes 12.31 56.31 63.48

*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 40 81

Total Violations 67 130




Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1118004 1423 507 117 200

1130001 2898 331 199 515

1130002 1364 179 221 139

1131002 2026 50 492 845

1131003 2654 2 355 297

1132021 740 87 52 190

1132022 1347 118 99 594

1132041 1507 221 53 310

1132042 506 63 11 131

1141001 2605 227 111 276

Average 1601 393 60 177







Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Turquoise Wine Bar Roosevelt (Series 7) - District 8

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 347016.

Summary

Applicant
Juanita Esparza, Agent

License Type
Series 7 - Beer and Wine Bar

Location
504 E. Roosevelt Street, Ste. 1
Zoning Classification: DTC - Evans Churchill East
Council District: 8

This request is for an ownership and location transfer of a liquor license for a beer and
wine bar. This location was previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an
interim permit. This location requires a Use Permit to allow a bar and outdoor liquor
service.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is July 1, 2025.

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.

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:
“Mr. and Mrs. Salgado posses the necessary experience, integrity & commitment to
responsibly operate an establishment that will serve beer and wine alcoholic
beverages. Both owners have through understanding of state & local liquor laws &
regulations, and are dedicated to maintain full compliance with all applicable legal
requirements. They have implemented responsible service practices and employee
training programs to ensure alcohol is served in a lawful and safe manner.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“The proprieters of Turquoise Wine Bar Roosevelt, respectfully request authorization to
serve beer & wine to patrons aged 21 & over additionally, they seek approval to sell
packaged beer & wine under a series 10 (Beer and Wine off-sale). They are committed
to full compliance with all applicable state, city, and federal tax regulations and will
strictly adhere to the security and operational requirements set forth by local governing
authorities.”

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
Attachment A - Turquoise Wine Bar Roosevelt - Data
Attachment B - Turquoise Wine Bar Roosevelt - Map

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

Liquor License Data: TURQUOISE WINE BAR ROOSEVELT
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Producer 1 1 0

Microbrewery 3 5 3

Wholesaler 4 1 0

Government 5 7 3

Bar 6 47 14

Beer and Wine Bar 7 14 5

Liquor Store 9 6 2

Beer and Wine Store 10 13 5

Hotel 11 6 2

Restaurant 12 112 43

Club 14 1 0


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 64.2 262.31 371.76

Violent Crimes 12.31 56.23 72.71

*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 40 82

Total Violations 67 125




Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1117003 951 300 94 62

1118004 1423 507 117 200

1130001 2898 331 199 515

1130002 1364 179 221 139

1131002 2026 50 492 845

1131003 2654 2 355 297

1132021 740 87 52 190

1132022 1347 118 99 594

1132041 1507 221 53 310

1132042 506 63 11 131

Average 1601 393 60 177




Liquor License Map: TURQUOISE WINE BAR ROOSEVELT
504 E ROOSEVELT ST




Date: 5/29/2025




Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi

City Clerk Department



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Turquoise Wine Bar Roosevelt (Series 10/S) - District 8

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 347113.

Summary

Applicant
Juanita Esparza, Agent

License Type
Series 10 and 10S - Beer and Wine Store with Sampling Privileges

Location
504 E. Roosevelt Street, Ste. 1
Zoning Classification: DTC - Evans Churchill East
Council District: 8

This request is for a new liquor license for a beer and wine store. This location was
previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit. This location
requires a Use Permit to allow liquor retail sales.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is July 1, 2025.

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.

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:
“Mr. and Mrs. Salgado possess the necessary experience, integrity & commitment to
responsibly operate an establishment that will serve beer and wine alcoholic
beverages. Both owners have through understanding of state & local liquor laws &
regulations, and are dedicated to maintain full compliance with all applicable legal
requirements. They have implemented responsible service practices and employee
training programs to ensure alcohol is served in a lawful and safe manner.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“The proprieters of Turquoise Wine Bar Roosevelt, respectfully request authorization to
serve beer & wine to patrons aged 21 & over additionally, they seek approval to sell
packaged beer & wine under a series 10 (beer and wine off-sale) license. They are
committed to full compliance with all applicable state, city, and federal tax regulations
and strictly adhere to the security and operational requirements set forth by local
governing authorities.”

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
Attachment A - Turquoise Wine Bar Roosevelt - Data
Attachment B - Turquoise Wine Bar Roosevelt - Map

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

Liquor License Data: TURQUOISE WINE BAR ROOSEVELT
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Producer 1 1 0

Microbrewery 3 5 3

Wholesaler 4 1 0

Government 5 7 3

Bar 6 47 14

Beer and Wine Bar 7 14 5

Liquor Store 9 6 2

Beer and Wine Store 10 13 5

Hotel 11 6 2

Restaurant 12 112 43

Club 14 1 0


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 64.2 262.31 371.76

Violent Crimes 12.31 56.23 72.71

*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 40 82

Total Violations 67 125




Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1117003 951 300 94 62

1118004 1423 507 117 200

1130001 2898 331 199 515

1130002 1364 179 221 139

1131002 2026 50 492 845

1131003 2654 2 355 297

1132021 740 87 52 190

1132022 1347 118 99 594

1132041 1507 221 53 310

1132042 506 63 11 131

Average 1601 393 60 177




Liquor License Map: TURQUOISE WINE BAR ROOSEVELT
504 E ROOSEVELT ST




Date: 5/29/2025




Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi

City Clerk Department



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Off-Track Pari-Mutuel Wagering Permit - Bull Shooters - District 1

Request for an Off-track Pari-Mutuel Wagering Permit for a business that has a Series
6 liquor license.

Summary
State law requires City Council approval before a State Off-track Pari-Mutuel Wagering
Permit can be issued. This request is for a permit for off-track betting on horse races
conducted at Turf Paradise.

Applicant
David Johnson, Agent for Turf Paradise

Location
3337 W. Peoria Avenue
Zoning Classification: PSC
Council District: 1

Public Opinion
Public notice was posted at the proposed location and special notice letters were
mailed to residents within 1/8 mile radius of the proposed location, if any. The
comment period expired May 27, 2025. No protest or support letters were received
within the 20-day public comment period.

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Attachments
Attachment A - Bull Shooters - Data
Attachment B - Bull Shooters - Map

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



Liquor License Data: BULL SHOOTERS
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Bar 6 3 1

Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 0

Liquor Store 9 3 2

Beer and Wine Store 10 9 2

Hotel 11 1 0

Restaurant 12 15 5


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 64.2 262.57 264.22

Violent Crimes 12.31 43.07 34.81
*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 40 105

Total Violations 67 191




Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1042032 1454 387 17 134

1042051 1324 539 47 89

1042052 2410 76 64 453

1042053 1625 264 18 20

1042054 1560 187 71 626

1043012 1885 605 31 309

Average 1601 393 60 177




Liquor License Map: BULL SHOOTERS
3337 W PEORIA AVE




Date: 6/9/2025




Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi

City Clerk Department



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Starwood Hotels & Resorts Management Company LLC dba Sheraton Phoenix
Downtown

For $50,000 in payment authority for a one-time contract, entered on or about
November 13, 2025, for food and venue services for the 2025 Navigator Volunteer
Appreciation Luncheon event for the Aviation Department. This 25th Anniversary
Navigator Appreciation Luncheon will recognize more than 350 volunteers who donate
their time to provide customer service to Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Pitney Bowes Global Financial Services, LLC

For $225,000 in payment authority for a new contract, entered on or about July 2,
2025, for a term of five years for a Mail Metering Equipment Lease and Related
Services for the City Clerk Department. The Department uses mail metering
equipment to apply postage to all citywide mail and track postage costs in real time for
multiple accounts and cost centers. This contract will also provide maintenance for the
equipment, hardware, and software for the length of the contract. The equipment will
be located in the Mail Services Division in the City Clerk Department.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Timothy F. Hendershott dba Tartan Associates

For $125,000 in payment authority for a new contract, entered on or about June 18,
2025, for a five-year term for dispatch specialty chairs for the Fire Department. This
contract will provide the Fire Department with the ability to purchase standardized
ergonomic work chairs ensuring their workforce at the Regional Dispatch Centers
receive critical console seating. The standardized ergonomic work chairs provide
ergonomic support, durability and reliability, comfort, safety, cost efficiency in the long
term and physical well-being of staff.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
AHS Rescue, LLC dba AHS Rescue & Arizona Hiking Shack; American Diving
Supply, LLC; Paragon Dive Group, LLC; and Saguaro Diving LLC

For $200,000 in payment authority for four new contracts, entered on or about
September 1, 2025, for five-year terms for diving equipment for the Police Department.
These contracts will provide a variety of diving equipment to the Department's
Underwater Search and Recovery Dive Team, which is responsible for providing
underwater search and recovery of drowning victims, rescue services to victims of
water accidents, evidence search and recovery at crime scenes and removal of items
deemed hazardous to navigation.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
CEET Industries, Inc. dba Trident Calibration Labs

For $120,000 in payment authority for a new contract, entered on or about June 1,
2025, for a term of five years for calibration services for the Information Technology
Services Department. This contract will be used to calibrate City of Phoenix owned
electronic test devices used for various purposes in troubleshooting and maintaining
the Regional Wireless Cooperative (RWC) Public Safety Radio network. The
calibration services will ensure the test equipment will remain up to date to
manufacture standards.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
National Maintenance Group LLC dba Sentinel Maintenance

For $25,000 in additional payment authority for Contract 157019 for specialized
cleaning services of controlled environment data centers for Citywide use. This
contract provides specialized cleaning services necessary to maintain the health of
computer systems and equipment in the City's controlled environment data centers.
Additional funds are necessary to add Citywide departments as users of this contract.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Southwest Industrial Rigging

For $173,155 in payment authority to purchase heavy equipment services for the Fire
Department. Southwest Industrial Rigging responded to a warehouse collapse that
trapped a worker inside and required heavy equipment to assist with the rescue
efforts.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Clariti Cloud Inc.

For $507,300 in payment authority to purchase Community Plus login license that
provides functionality to the SHAPE PHX system for the Planning and Development
Department (PDD). This licensing creates and manages integration with PDDs
business processes, including the ability to manage portal accounts, cases, and other
records directly. The license provides a secure login and authentication mechanisms,
including support of single sign-on. Funds are available in the PDD capital
improvement budget.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Malvern Panalytical, Inc.

For $77,000 in payment authority to purchase Zetasizer Advance Service - Pro for the
Water Services Department (WSD). The instrument will provide critical information
about the effectiveness of chemical dosages and physical processes occurring during
water treatment activities. This purchase will allow WSD to maintain operational
compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Arizona and National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System when it takes over the Lake Pleasant Water Treatment
Plant.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
City of Glendale

For $24,000 in payment authority for outstanding services owed for base charges
during the current Fiscal Year 2024-25 for Intergovernmental Agreement 123273 to
provide water treatment services to the Camelback Ranch area located within the
boundaries of the City of Phoenix, but outside the City's water distribution system, for
the Water Services Department.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
City of Glendale

For $80,000 in additional payment authority for Intergovernmental Agreements 114154
and 114155 pertaining to treated sewer service and treated water service to an area
located in Phoenix for Fiscal Year 2025-26. The Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA)
provide sewer and water service to the area of Arizona State Route 101 and northeast
corner of 51st Avenue located within the boundaries of the City of Phoenix, but outside
the City's system, for the Water Services Department.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
United States Postal Service - Annual Payment Authority

For $4,122,728 in payment authority to the United States Postal Service for metered
and non-metered mail charges of City departments for the period of July 1, 2025,
through June 30, 2026, as provided in the proposed annual operating budget.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Various Vendors - Annual Utility Charges

For $103,688,736 in payment authority for Arizona Public Service, Salt River Project,
and Southwest Gas for electricity and gas charges of City departments for the period
of July 1, 2025, through June 30, 2026, as provided in the proposed annual operating
budget.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
City Treasurer - Annual Payment Authority

For $27,010,092 in payment authority on behalf of the Water Services Department for
water charges of City departments for the period of July 1, 2025, through June 30,
2026, as provided in the proposed annual operating budget.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Settlement of Claim(s) Clugston v. City of Phoenix

To make payment of up to $2,000,000 in settlement of claim(s) in Clugston v. City of
Phoenix, CV2023-004179, 22-0320-001, GL, BI, for the Finance Department pursuant
to Phoenix City Code Chapter 42. This is a settlement of a claim involving the Fire
Department that occurred on April 14, 2022.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Public Hearing on Proposed Property Tax Levy, Truth in Taxation and Adoption
of the Final 2025-26 Annual Budget - Citywide

As required by City Charter, Chapter XVIII, Section 6(B)(1) and Arizona Revised
Statutes 14-17104(A), 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
2025-26 City of Phoenix Annual Budget (see Attachment A for State Budget Forms
and Truth in Taxation Notice).

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





6WDWH)RUPV$WKURXJK*DQG
7UXWKLQ7D[DWLRQ1RWLFH ([SODQDWLRQ
CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA
Summary Schedule of Estimated Revenues and Expenditures/
ExpensesFiscal Year 2025-26
(In Thousands)

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

2025 Adopted/adjusted budgeted expenditures/expenses* E 2,132,179 2,673,640 139,845 2,681,622 2,298,181 3,051,187 12,976,654

2025 Actual expenditures/expenses** E 1,932,488 1,790,073 136,341 1,400,447 1,862,300 2,135,729 9,257,377
Beginning fund balance/(deficit) or net position/(deficit)
2026 at July 1*** 210,144 1,167,680 305,945 1,458,227 4,315,419 7,457,414

2026 Primary property tax levy B 222,719 222,719

2026 Secondary property tax levy B 143,241 143,241

2026 Estimated revenues other than property taxes C 279,238 3,512,676 913,658 2,041,482 6,747,055

2026 Other financing sources D 5,359 3,515 952,280 8,350 969,504

2026 Other financing (uses) D

2026 Interfund transfers in D 1,635,854 930,984 1,622 159,983 122,614 2,851,057

2026 Interfund Transfers (out) D 159,758 2,405,113 199,878 90,463 2,855,212
Reduction for fund balance reserved for future budget
2026 year expenditures
$77$&+0(17$

LESS: Maintained for future debt retirement

Maintained for future capital projects

Maintained for future financial stability

Maintained for future retirement contributions

2026 Total Financial Resources Available **** 2,193,555 3,209,742 144,863 2,131,988 3,540,210 4,315,419 15,535,777

2026 Budgeted Expenditures/Expenses **** E 2,193,555 2,578,892 144,863 2,269,460 2,943,579 4,315,419 14,445,768

EXPENDITURE LIMITATION COMPARISON 2025 2026
1. Budgeted expenditures/expenses $ 9,925,467 $ 10,130,349
2. Add/subtract: estimated net reconciling items (117,568) 296,821
3. Budgeted expenditures/expenses adjusted for reconciling items 9,807,899 10,427,170
4. Less: estimated exclusions
5. Amount subject to the expenditure limitation $ 9,807,899 $ 10,427,170
6. EEC expenditure limitation or voter-approved alternative expenditure limitation $ 12,976,654 $ 14,445,768

* 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).
**** The total available financial resources of Capital Projects Fund are lower than budgeted expenditures due to bonds authorized for sale but not yet sold. Bond sales are based on cash flow needs rather than
budgetary fund balance.

Arizona Auditor General's Office
SCHEDULE A Official City/Town Budget Forms



CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA
Tax Levy and Tax Rate Information
Fiscal Year 2025-26
(In Thousands)
2024-25 2025-26
1. Maximum allowable primary property tax levy.
A.R.S. §42-17051(A) $ 217,597 $ 226,692

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 $ 217,597 $ 224,968
B. Secondary property taxes 139,948 144,688
C. Total property tax levy amounts $ 357,545 $ 369,656

4. Property taxes collected*
A. Primary property taxes
(1) Current year's levy $ 215,419
(2) Prior years’ levies 1,369
(3) Total primary property taxes $ 216,788
B. Secondary property taxes
(1) Current year's levy $ 138,549
(2) Prior years’ levies 821
(3) Total secondary property taxes $ 139,370
C. Total property taxes collected $ 356,158

5. Property tax rates
A. City/Town tax rate
(1) Primary property tax rate 1.2658 1.2658
(2) Secondary property tax rate 0.8141 0.8141
(3) Total city/town tax rate 2.0799 2.0799
B. Special assessment district tax rates
Secondary property tax rates - As of the date the proposed budget was prepared, the
city/town was operating one 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 2025-26 planned primary and secondary levies are $224,967,827 and $144,688,188,
respectively. Historically, actual property tax collections have been slightly lower than the amount
levied. For 2025-26, actual collections for primary and secondary property taxes are estimated to
be $222,719,000 and $143,241,188, or 99% of the levy amount.
** Includes actual property taxes collected as of the date the proposed budget was prepared, plus
estimated property tax collections for the remainder of the fiscal year.




Arizona Auditor General's Office Schedule B Official City/Town Budget Forms

CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA
Revenues Other Than Property Taxes
Fiscal Year 2025-26
(In Thousands)

ESTIMATED ACTUAL ESTIMATED
REVENUES REVENUES* REVENUES
SOURCE OF REVENUES 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26
GENERAL FUND

Intergovernmental
County Vehicle License Tax $ 86,148 $ 88,000 $ 90,871

Charges for services
Fire Emergency Transportation Services $ 75,990 $ 63,470 $ 66,974
Hazardous Materials Inspection Fee 1,500 1,200 1,500
Planning 2,142 1,836 1,836
Police 15,105 17,859 17,177
Street Transportation 8,028 8,331 8,343
Other Service Charges 30,153 30,639 32,111

Fines and forfeits
Moving Violations $ 4,182 $ 4,338 $ 4,338
Parking Violations 629 489 489
Driving While Intoxicated 530 525 525
Defensive Driving Program 2,000 2,195 2,195
Other Receipts 1,776 1,969 1,982

Interest on investments
Interest on investments $ 21,589 $ 32,237 $ 25,785

Contributions
SRP In-Lieu Taxes $ 2,248 $ 1,892 $ 1,892

Miscellaneous
Miscellaneous $ 9,411 $ 8,805 $ 8,671
Parks and Recreation 6,614 8,699 8,653
Libraries 462 424 425
Cable Communications 6,580 6,176 5,472

Total General Fund $ 275,087 $ 279,082 $ 279,238

SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS

Highway User Revenue Fund
Incorporated Cities Share $ 127,046 $ 128,779 $ 133,236
300,000 Population Share 33,101 33,369 34,497
Interest/Other 5,274 7,513 5,543
$ 165,421 $ 169,661 $ 173,276




Arizona Auditor General's Office SCHEDULE C Official City/Town Budget Forms162
CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA
Revenues Other Than Property Taxes
Fiscal Year 2025-26
(In Thousands)

ESTIMATED ACTUAL ESTIMATED
REVENUES REVENUES* REVENUES
SOURCE OF REVENUES 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26

Excise Tax Fund
Local Taxes $ 733,578 $ 715,002 $ 839,048
Stormwater 6,622 7,061 7,131
Jet Fuel 964 852 886
Marijuana Sales Tax Earmarked for Public Safety Pension 12,865 12,368 12,875
License & Permits 6,567 6,254 4,775
State Sales Tax 259,787 252,575 262,745
State Income Tax 353,170 351,016 328,334
Neighborhood Protection 56,002 52,600 64,003
2007 Public Safety Expansion 112,008 105,203 128,006
Public Safety Enhancement 33,131 35,266 35,310
Parks and Preserves 56,005 52,603 64,003
Transportation 2050 381,630 359,178 439,091
Capital Construction 7,502 6,765 6,920
Sports Facilities 32,668 30,835 32,810
Convention Center 95,516 85,637 103,475
$ 2,148,015 $ 2,073,215 $ 2,329,412

Other Special Revenue Funds
Neighborhood Protection $ 847 $ 1,074 $ 714
2007 Public Safety Expansion 969 1,207 800
Parks and Preserves 2,627 5,615 4,414
Transportation 2050 41,118 49,332 53,520
Capital Construction 866 1,117 894
Sports Facilities 6,355 7,325 6,656
Development Services 82,133 80,603 84,032
Regional Transit 85,226 80,339 67,217
Community Reinvestment 11,092 6,493 11,504
Impact Fee Administration 684 801 790
Regional Wireless Cooperative 6,610 6,778 7,494
Golf 12,279 13,905 14,070
Court Awards 5,011 5,122 5,075
$ 255,817 $ 259,711 $ 257,177

Other Restricted Funds
Court Special Fees $ 826 $ 966 $ 867
Vehicle Impound Program 1,966 1,895 1,895
Other Restricted Funds 23,564 44,224 28,185
Affordable Housing Program 43,874 22,182 22,718
$ 70,230 $ 69,266 $ 53,665

Federal Funds
Public Housing $ 242,290 $ 200,035 $ 239,048
Human Services 79,071 75,804 101,901
Federal Transit Administration 121,894 79,025 122,688
Community Development 42,000 21,299 37,897
Criminal Justice/Public Safety 12,547 11,720 10,553
Other Federal & State Grants 373,790 154,292 187,059
$ 871,593 $ 542,177 $ 699,145

Total Special Revenue Funds $ 3,511,075 $ 3,114,029 $ 3,512,676

Arizona Auditor General's Office SCHEDULE C Official City/Town Budget Forms163
CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA
Revenues Other Than Property Taxes
Fiscal Year 2025-26
(In Thousands)

ESTIMATED ACTUAL ESTIMATED
REVENUES REVENUES* REVENUES
SOURCE OF REVENUES 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26


DEBT SERVICE FUNDS

Secondary Property Tax $ 3,552 $ - $ -

Total Debt Service Funds $ 3,552 $ - $ -
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS

Bond Funds $ - $ 19,518 $ -
Capital Gifts 500 451 -
Capital Grants 700,925 622,323 484,338
Capital Reserves - 16,137 -
Customer Facility Charges 60,060 57,500 62,100
Federal, State and Other Participation 262,891 72,746 175,871
Impact Fees - 38,259 -
Joint Ventures 62,335 85,810 85,632
Passenger Facility Charges 98,071 103,203 105,717
Solid Waste Remediation - 165 -
Other Capital Funds 7,200 175 -

Total Capital Projects Funds $ 1,191,981 $ 1,016,289 $ 913,658


ENTERPRISE FUNDS

Convention Center $ 35,574 $ 39,054 $ 40,013
Solid Waste 208,591 215,908 216,352
Aviation 595,697 659,994 663,361
Water System 715,025 709,573 782,974
Wastewater System 310,694 326,815 338,782

Total Enterprise Funds $ 1,865,581 $ 1,951,346 $ 2,041,482

TOTAL ALL FUNDS $ 6,847,276 $ 6,360,747 $ 6,747,055

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




Arizona Auditor General's Office SCHEDULE C Official City/Town Budget Forms164
CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA
Other Financing Sources/ and Interfund Transfers
Fiscal Year 2025-26
(In Thousands)

OTHER FINANCING INTERFUND TRANSFERS
2025-26 2025-26
FUND SOURCES IN
GENERAL FUND
General Fund $ 5,359 $ $ 1,511,379 $ 155,785
Library 9,167 3,973
Parks 115,165
Cable Communications 142

Total General Fund $ 5,359 $ $ 1,635,854 $ 159,758

SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
Excise $ $ $ $ 2,329,412
Arizona Highway User Revenue 1,306 4,241
Capital Construction 139 6,920
City Improvement 100 106,400
Community Reinvestment 6 2,067
Court Awards 19
Development Services 156 6,683
Golf 5
Neighborhood Protection 64,003 3,867
Parks and Preserves 64,003 98
Public Safety Enhancement 35,310 4,112
Public Safety Expansion 133,506 1,987
Regional Transit 5
Sports Facilities 32,810 16,656
Transportation 2050 1,530 439,091 26,057
Other Restricted 69 48,941 9,812
Grant Funds 180 120

Total Special Revenue Funds $ 3,515 $ $ 930,984 $ 2,405,113

DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
Secondary Property Tax $ $ $ 1,622 $

Total Debt Service Funds $ $ $ 1,622 $

CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS
2023 General Obligation Bonds $ $ $ 150,233 $ 150,233
Aviation Bonds 300,000
Convention Center Bonds 810
Solid Waste Bonds 26,500
Other Bonds 175,000 8,500
Wastewater Bonds 9,170
Capital Reserves 9,750 22,546
Customer Facility Charges 18,599
Transportation 2050 Bonds 900
Water Bonds 439,900

Total Capital Projects Funds $ 952,280 $ $ 159,983 $ 199,878
Arizona Auditor General's Office SCHEDULE D Official City/Town Budget Forms
CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA
Other Financing Sources/ and Interfund Transfers
Fiscal Year 2025-26
(In Thousands)

OTHER FINANCING INTERFUND TRANSFERS
2025-26 2025-26
FUND SOURCES IN

ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Aviation $ 2,768 $ $ 19,139 $ 17,096
Convention Center 669 103,475 4,989
Solid Waste 322 14,508
Wastewater 2,035 21,025
Water 2,556 32,844

Total Enterprise Funds $ 8,350 $ $ 122,614 $ 90,463

TOTAL ALL FUNDS $ 969,504 $ $ 2,851,057 $ 2,855,212




Arizona Auditor General's Office SCHEDULE D Official City/Town Budget Forms
CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA
Expenditures/Expenses by Fund
Fiscal Year 2025-26
(In Thousands)


ADOPTED EXPENDITURE/
BUDGETED EXPENSE ACTUAL BUDGETED
EXPENDITURES/ ADJUSTMENTS EXPENDITURES/ EXPENDITURES/
EXPENSES APPROVED EXPENSES* EXPENSES
FUND/DEPARTMENT 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26
GENERAL FUND
General: $ $ $ $
General Government 249,186 248,318 241,080
Criminal Justice 47,381 46,857 46,847
Public Safety 1,248,049 10,000 1,243,379 1,321,130
Transportation 25,252 25,248 1,902
Community Development 41,112 40,598 39,949
Community Enrichment 51,797 51,754 55,729
Environmental Services 38,051 36,639 40,435
Contingencies/Non-Departmental** 148,875 (191) 180,561
Capital Budget 86,768 (10,000) 49,311 70,027

Parks and Recreation
Operating 134,037 133,302 134,775
Capital 3,600 481 3,119

Library
Operating 51,120 50,640 51,366
Capital 1,456 746 1,020

Cable Communications 5,073 420 5,406 5,614

Total General Fund $ 2,131,759 $ 420 $ 1,932,488 $ 2,193,555
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
$ $ $ $

Arizona Highway User Revenue
Operating 90,387 90,358 97,066
Capital 130,609 85,448 131,352

Capital Construction
Operating 140 10 140 140
Capital 31,415 (10) 8,958 25,960

City Improvement 84,178 82,937 106,500

Community Reinvestment
Operating 2,317 2,315 2,771
Capital 6,479 5,764 5,315

Court Awards 5,008 4,512 3,154

Development Services
Operating 91,977 90,948 93,015
Contingencies 1,000
Capital 8,635 6,748 7,080

Federal Community Development
Operating 35,100 18,396 29,806
Capital 6,904 2,074 8,091

Federal & State Grants
Operating 296,301 (6,500) 108,388 126,896
Capital 49,726 35,953 35,351

Federal Transit
Operating 13,057 2,520 15,266 25,843
Capital 108,837 (2,520) 41,973 96,845


Arizona Auditor General's Office SCHEDULE E Official City/Town Budget Forms


CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA
Expenditures/Expenses by Fund
Fiscal Year 2025-26
(In Thousands)


ADOPTED EXPENDITURE/
BUDGETED EXPENSE ACTUAL BUDGETED
EXPENDITURES/ ADJUSTMENTS EXPENDITURES/ EXPENDITURES/
EXPENSES APPROVED EXPENSES* EXPENSES
FUND/DEPARTMENT 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26
Golf Course
Operating 10,803 1,370 11,931 12,571
Capital 2,000

HOPE VI Grant
Operating 15,445 3,257 13,478
Capital 25,045 5,367 21,984

Human Services Grants
Operating 76,071 (1,400) 68,012 92,963
Capital 3,000 1,400 4,186 9,000

Neighborhood Protection 59,962 2,800 61,511 69,619

Other Restricted Funds
Fees and Contributions 90,667 78,473 109,064
Capital 44,764 22,664 74,493

Parks and Preserves
Operating 8,121 7,980 8,030
Capital 117,390 70,415 102,054

Public Housing
Operating 217,090 178,467 203,441
Capital 47,817 17,216 47,461

Public Safety Enhancement 32,246 910 32,500 32,776

Public Safety Expansion 128,878 128,053 130,925

Public Transit (RPTA)
Operating 67,282 66,766 54,241
Capital 14,810 7,006 15,066

Regional Wireless Cooperative
Operating 6,223 (1,030) 4,888 5,696
Capital 2,030 1,925 2,192

Sports Facilities
Operating 2,960 2,958 9,706
Contingencies 2,500 2,500
Capital 5,685 2,810 8,531

Transportation 2050
Operating 268,611 264,917 338,492
Contingencies 4,000 21,000
Capital 463,621 148,589 395,422
$ $ $ $
Total Special Revenue Funds $ 2,674,060 $ (420) $ 1,790,073 $ 2,578,892
DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
$ $ $ $
Secondary Property Tax and G.O. 139,845 136,341 144,863

Total Debt Service Funds $ 139,845 $ $ 136,341 $ 144,863
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS
$ $ $ $
Arts and Cultural Facilities 18,716 3,734 25,667
Aviation 809,738 486,543 894,982
Economic Development 5,250 20,000 24,050 25,500
Arizona Auditor General's Office SCHEDULE E Official City/Town Budget Forms


CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA
Expenditures/Expenses by Fund
Fiscal Year 2025-26
(In Thousands)


ADOPTED EXPENDITURE/
BUDGETED EXPENSE ACTUAL BUDGETED
EXPENDITURES/ ADJUSTMENTS EXPENDITURES/ EXPENDITURES/
EXPENSES APPROVED EXPENSES* EXPENSES
FUND/DEPARTMENT 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26
Environmental Programs 1,000 919 1,081
Facilities Management 47,005 25,697 45,381
Finance 200 165
Fire Protection 76,130 58,604 53,748
Historic Preservation and Planning 2,000 578 11,422
Housing 32,373 7,394 48,186
Human Services 317 1,000 981 1,975
Information Technology 25,370 6,235 11,665
Libraries 2,091 117 6,666
Non-Departmental Capital 219,495 (34,800) 105,660 224,561
Parks, Recreation and Mtn Preserves 36,146 20,216 47,524
Phoenix Convention Center 55,360 48,490 11,981
Police Protection 40,233 33,468 19,079
Public Art Program 3,749 1,809 6,320
Regional Wireless Cooperative 6,000 6,000
Solid Waste Disposal 10,264 13,600 21,975 55,023
Street Transportation and Drainage 330,449 75,490 231,592
Wastewater 578,183 407,013 190,407
Water 381,753 71,311 350,700


Total Capital Projects Funds $ 2,681,622 $ $ 1,400,447 $ 2,269,460
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
$ $ $ $

Aviation
Operating 513,141 508,024 523,542
Contingencies 25,000 30,000
Capital 362,305 142,740 638,870

Convention Center
Operating 100,964 99,258 107,043
Contingencies 3,000 4,500
Capital 11,071 6,112 10,285

Solid Waste
Operating 198,897 194,576 209,407
Contingencies 1,000 1,000
Capital 34,836 6,145 10,877

Wastewater
Operating 214,956 214,268 229,667
Contingencies 10,000 10,500
Capital 106,600 81,893 277,088

Water
Operating 479,539 472,845 534,119
Contingencies 22,000 22,500
Capital 214,871 136,438 334,181

Total Enterprise Funds $ 2,298,181 $ $ 1,862,300 $ 2,943,579
REAPPROPRIATION FUNDS
$ $ $ $

General
General Government 43,962 23,825 39,962
Criminal Justice 3,697 1,395 2,403
Public Safety 82,782 22,750 72,853
Transportation 3,631 493 2,379
Arizona Auditor General's Office SCHEDULE E Official City/Town Budget Forms


CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA
Expenditures/Expenses by Fund
Fiscal Year 2025-26
(In Thousands)


ADOPTED EXPENDITURE/
BUDGETED EXPENSE ACTUAL BUDGETED
EXPENDITURES/ ADJUSTMENTS EXPENDITURES/ EXPENDITURES/
EXPENSES APPROVED EXPENSES* EXPENSES
FUND/DEPARTMENT 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26
Environmental Services 36,755 24,012 35,285
Community Development 5,424 3,370 5,994
Community Enrichment 11,321 5,818 12,018
Capital Improvements 27,787 18,431 34,369

Library
Community Enrichment 6,226 2,667 4,716
Parks and Recreation
Community Enrichment 24,562 12,934 21,370
Cable Communications
General Government 505 90 1,057
Arizona Highway User Revenue
Street and Highway purposes 95,481 71,204 96,882
Aviation
Transportation 191,873 125,713 298,841
Capital Construction
Capital Improvements 4,360 3,706 5,310
City Improvement Operating
Debt Service 253 250
Community Reinvestment
Community Development 1,402 612 2,891
Court Awards
Criminal Justice 3,024 891 2,383
Development Services
Community Development 47,076 26,401 21,596
Federal and State Grants
Operating grants 94,166 22,009 68,448
Federal Community Development
Community Development 8,534 932 4,653
Federal Transit
Transportation 58,946 20,331 48,799
Golf
Community Enrichment 2,958 1,272 2,741
HOPE Grant
Community Development 4,601 348 2,122
Human Services
Community Enrichment 16,908 5,829 13,995
Neighborhood Protection
Public Safety 2,755 1,497 2,010
Other Restricted
Community Development 43,351 5,345 45,284
Parks and Preserves
Capital Improvements 69,908 59,733 74,285
Phoenix Convention Center
Community Enrichment 21,124 10,915 27,272
Public Housing
Community Development 75,322 12,251 58,507
Public Safety Enhancement Funds
Public Safety 32 19 14
Public Safety Expansion Funds
Public Safety 771 457 199
Regional Transit Authority
Transportation 17,049 6,485 17,914
Regional Wireless Cooperative
General Government 4,846 334 2,571
Secondary Property Tax
Debt Service 902
Solid Waste
Environmental Services 30,648 10,112 36,791
Sports Facilities
Arizona Auditor General's Office SCHEDULE E Official City/Town Budget Forms


CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA
Expenditures/Expenses by Fund
Fiscal Year 2025-26
(In Thousands)


ADOPTED EXPENDITURE/
BUDGETED EXPENSE ACTUAL BUDGETED
EXPENDITURES/ ADJUSTMENTS EXPENDITURES/ EXPENDITURES/
EXPENSES APPROVED EXPENSES* EXPENSES
FUND/DEPARTMENT 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26
Community Enrichment 2,411 1,424 1,757
Transportation 2050
Transportation 174,933 76,404 225,752
Wastewater
Environmental Services 131,854 79,275 134,277
Water
Environmental Services 252,371 193,210 256,043

Capital
1988 Parks, Recreation, Facilities, Library Bonds 4,763
2006 Library, Senior & Cultural Center Bonds 122
2006 Parks & Recreation Bonds
2023 Prop 1 Public Safety and Streets 800 500 25,290
2023 Prop 2 Neighborhood and Parks 1,000 144 1,953
2023 Prop 3 Arts, Econ Dev, Environment 10 71 80 10,001
2023 Prop 4 Housing and Human Services 150 93 1,089
Aviation Capital 673,627 640,971 1,260,702
Capital Projects - Facilities Management 1,852
Capital Reserves 10,492
City Improvement Capital 130,116 (4,086) 103,689 127,783
CPBC - Senior Lien Excise Tax 4,250 4,333
Development Impact Fees 42,961 32,915 52,088
Multi-City Wastewater Capital 88,045 79,862 150,216
Public Housing Capital 9,786 5,199 4,021
Solid Waste Capital 7,461 3,738 22,685
Streets Capital 20,770 10,713 57,982
Wastewater Capital 163,878 4,015 167,887 603,739
Water Capital 293,330 237,421 302,807


Total Reappropriation Funds $ 3,051,187 $ $ 2,135,709 $ 4,315,419
TOTAL ALL FUNDS $ 12,976,654 $ $ 9,257,359 $ 14,445,768

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




Arizona Auditor General's Office SCHEDULE E Official City/Town Budget Forms


CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA
Expenditures/Expenses by Department
Fiscal Year 2025-26
(In Thousands)

ADOPTED EXPENDITURE/
BUDGETED EXPENSE ACTUAL BUDGETED
EXPENDITURES/ ADJUSTMENTS EXPENDITURES/ EXPENDITURES/
EXPENSES APPROVED EXPENSES* EXPENSES
DEPARTMENT/FUND 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26

Community Development: $ $ $ $
Aviation 74 74 74
Community Development 33,163 (840) 15,625 28,326
Community Reinvestment 2,317 2,315 2,771
Convention Center 642 630 648
Development Services 91,977 90,948 93,015
Federal and State Grants 26,140 16,319 27,170
General 41,112 40,598 39,949
HOPE VI 15,445 3,257 13,478
Neighborhood Protection 100 3,010 3,100 2,250
Other Restricted 26,511 (1,320) 18,478 24,027
Public Housing 217,089 (455) 178,015 200,536
Sports Facilities 194 191 195
Water 30 30 30

Department Total $ 454,794 $ 395 $ 369,581 $ 432,470

Community Enrichment: $ $ $
Community Development 1,612 840 2,446 1,137
Convention Center 76,632 (5) 74,939 82,711
Federal and State Grants 47,558 7,500 55,009 22,672
General 51,797 51,754 55,729
Golf Course 10,803 1,370 11,931 12,571
Human Services Grants 76,071 (1,400) 68,012 67,963
Library 51,120 50,640 51,366
Other Restricted 9,648 6,999 20,546
Parks and Preserves 8,121 7,980 8,030
Parks and Recreation 134,037 133,302 134,775
Public Housing 2 450 450 2,915
Sports Facilities 683 683 765
Wastewater 318 318 318
Water 462 462 462

Department Total $ 468,863 $ 8,755 $ 464,925 $ 461,960

Contingencies/Non-Departmental: $ $ $
Aviation 25,000 30,000
Convention Center 3,000 4,500
Development Services 1,000
Federal and State Grants 35,000 40,000
General ** 148,875 (191) 180,561
Human Services Grants 25,000
Solid Waste 1,000 1,000
Sports Facilities 2,500 2,500
Transportation 2050 4,000 21,000
Wastewater 10,000 10,500
Water 22,000 22,500

Department Total $ 251,375 $ $ (191) $ 338,561

Criminal Justice: $ $ $
General 47,381 46,857 46,847
Other Restricted 530 1,090 1,619 3,290

Department Total $ 47,911 $ 1,090 $ 48,476 $ 50,137

Environmental Services: $ $ $
Capital Construction 70 5 70 70
Federal and State Grants 152,081 (14,000) 3,897 405
General 38,051 36,639 40,435
Other Restricted 4,412 3,724 3,107
Solid Waste 188,516 184,196 194,487
Arizona Auditor General's Office SCHEDULE F Official City/Town Budget Forms

CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA
Expenditures/Expenses by Department
Fiscal Year 2025-26
(In Thousands)

ADOPTED EXPENDITURE/
BUDGETED EXPENSE ACTUAL BUDGETED
EXPENDITURES/ ADJUSTMENTS EXPENDITURES/ EXPENDITURES/
EXPENSES APPROVED EXPENSES* EXPENSES
DEPARTMENT/FUND 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26
Wastewater 150,802 150,456 165,629
Water 331,263 324,673 344,150

Department Total $ 865,195 $ (13,995) $ 703,655 $ 748,283

General Government: $ $ $
Aviation 536 532 543
Cable 5,073 420 5,406 5,614
Community Development 326 325 342
Court Awards 52 52 54
Federal and State Grants 8,278 6,609 11,697
General 249,186 248,318 241,080
Other Restricted 3,627 1,844 2,660
Public Housing 5 2 (10)
Regional Wireless Cooperative 6,223 (1,030) 4,888 5,696
Solid Waste 233 232 230
Sports Facilities 134 134 6,698
Wastewater 506 506 506
Water 1,572 1,527 1,770

Department Total $ 275,745 $ (605) $ 270,375 $ 276,880

Public Safety: $ $ $
Court Awards 4,956 4,460 3,100
Federal and State Grants 27,105 26,535 24,930
General 1,248,049 10,000 1,243,379 1,321,130
Neighborhood Protection 58,912 (210) 57,816 66,584
Other Restricted 40,610 40,254 49,445
Public Safety Enhancement 32,246 910 32,500 32,776
Public Safety Expansion 128,878 128,053 130,925
Sports Facilities 1,950 1,950 2,048

Department Total $ 1,542,706 $ 10,700 $ 1,534,947 $ 1,630,938

Transportation: $ $ $
Arizona Highway Users Revenue 90,387 90,358 97,066
Aviation 410,809 410,692 431,460
Capital Construction 70 5 70 70
Federal and State Grants 140 19 22
Federal Transit Authority 13,057 2,520 15,266 25,843
General 25,252 25,248 1,902
Neighborhood Protection 950 596 785
Other Restricted 5,329 230 5,555 5,988
Transit - RPTA 67,282 66,766 54,241
Transportation 2050 268,611 264,917 338,492

Department Total $ 881,886 $ 2,755 $ 879,488 $ 955,870

Debt: $ $
Aviation 101,722 96,727 91,464
City Improvement 84,178 82,937 106,500
Convention Center 23,690 5 23,690 23,683
Secondary Property Tax 139,845 136,341 144,863
Solid Waste 10,148 10,147 14,690
Wastewater 63,330 62,987 63,214
Water 146,213 146,153 187,708

Department Total $ 569,125 $ 5 $ 558,983 $ 632,122

Pay As You Go
Arizona Highway Users Revenue 130,609 85,448 131,352

Arizona Auditor General's Office SCHEDULE F Official City/Town Budget Forms

CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA
Expenditures/Expenses by Department
Fiscal Year 2025-26
(In Thousands)

ADOPTED EXPENDITURE/
BUDGETED EXPENSE ACTUAL BUDGETED
EXPENDITURES/ ADJUSTMENTS EXPENDITURES/ EXPENDITURES/
EXPENSES APPROVED EXPENSES* EXPENSES
DEPARTMENT/FUND 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26
Aviation 362,305 142,740 638,870
Capital Construction 31,415 (10) 8,958 25,960
Community Development 6,904 2,074 8,091
Community Reinvestment 6,479 5,764 5,315
Convention Center 11,071 6,112 10,285
Development Services 8,635 6,748 7,080
Federal and State Grants 49,726 35,953 35,351
Federal Transit Authority 108,837 (2,520) 41,973 96,845
General 86,768 (10,000) 49,311 70,027
Golf Course 2,000
HOPE VI 25,045 5,367 21,984
Human Services Grants 3,000 1,400 4,186 9,000
Library 1,456 746 1,020
Other Restricted 44,764 22,664 74,493
Parks and Preserves 117,390 70,415 102,054
Parks and Recreation 3,600 481 3,119
Public Housing 47,817 17,216 47,461
Transit - RPTA 14,810 7,006 15,066
Regional Wireless Cooperative 2,030 1,925 2,192
Solid Waste 34,836 6,145 10,877
Sports Facilities 5,685 2,810 8,531
Transportation 2050 463,621 148,589 395,422
Wastewater 106,600 81,893 277,088
Water 214,871 136,438 334,181

Department Total $ 1,886,245 $ (9,100) $ 890,962 $ 2,333,667

$ $ $ $

Capital $ $ $ $
Bond Funds 1,178,238 34,800 718,995 1,087,977
Other Capital 1,503,385 (34,800) 681,452 1,181,482

Department Total $ 2,681,622 $ $ 1,400,447 $ 2,269,460

$ $ $ $
Reappropriation: 3,051,187 2,135,709 4,315,419

Department Total $ 3,051,187 $ $ 2,135,709 $ 4,315,419


Total All Departments $ 12,976,654 $ $ 9,257,359 $ 14,445,768


* 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.
** Includes Unassigned Vacancy Savings.




Arizona Auditor General's Office SCHEDULE F Official City/Town Budget Forms

CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA
Full-Time Employees and Personnel Compensation
Fiscal Year 2025-26
(In Thousands)
Total Estimated
Full-Time Employee Salaries Other Benefit Personnel
Equivalent (FTE) and Hourly Costs Retirement Costs Healthcare Costs Costs Compensation
FUND 2025-26 2025-26 2025-26 2025-26 2025-26 2025-26

GENERAL FUND
General 8,297 $ 799,298 $ 457,195 $ 134,786 $ 127,615 = 1,518,894
Library 391 21,626 5,466 3,661 4,403 35,157
Parks and Recreation 950 49,917 11,595 8,760 8,774 79,046
Cable Communications 24 2,753 778 366 557 4,454
Total General Fund 9,661 $ 873,595 $ 475,034 $ 147,572 $ 141,349 = 1,637,550

SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
Arizona Highway User Revenue 702 $ 39,508 $ 15,751 $ 11,190 $ 9,984 = 76,433
Community Reinvestment 3 342 98 46 66 551
Development Services 493 41,393 12,885 8,057 8,248 70,583
Federal Community Development 79 6,249 1,802 1,215 1,240 10,506
Federal and State Grants 123 8,049 3,778 1,857 1,885 15,569
Federal Transit * 70 70
Golf Course 32 1,877 270 159 259 2,566
HOPE VI 18 1,046 346 210 251 1,852
Human Services 176 11,368 3,090 2,561 2,083 19,102
Neighborhood Protection 276 29,137 23,841 4,210 3,238 60,426
Other Restricted 116 10,960 18,512 1,938 2,181 33,590
Parks and Preserves 79 4,245 930 807 801 6,783
Public Safety Enhancement 254 16,069 11,778 3,357 3,109 34,312
Public Safety Expansion 707 66,084 59,352 11,198 8,898 145,532
Public Housing 64 5,189 1,511 1,032 972 8,705
Regional Wireless Cooperative 5 508 123 68 110 809
Transportation 2050 130 11,412 3,738 1,975 2,527 19,651
Total Special Revenue Funds 3,256 $ 253,505 $ 157,804 $ 49,880 $ 45,850 = 507,039

ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Aviation 925 $ 70,654 $ 5,347 $ 14,210 $ 14,526 = 104,737
Convention Center 219 15,961 4,554 3,111 3,166 26,792
Solid Waste 628 47,728 14,133 9,756 8,008 79,626
Wastewater 366 29,278 2,132 5,922 5,413 42,744
Water 1,200 87,953 28,269 18,546 18,312 153,081
Total Enterprise Funds 3,337 $ 251,574 $ 54,435 $ 51,546 $ 49,425 = 406,980

TOTAL ALL FUNDS 16,255 $ 1,378,674 $ 687,274 $ 248,998 $ 236,624 = 2,551,570

* Contains a salary transfer of $70,000 for Public Transit Operating Assistance.

Arizona Auditor General's Office SCHEDULE G Official City/Town Budget Forms
Tax Notice Explained

The accompanying Truth in Taxation notice is required by state law. The required
notice addresses the city’s primary property tax, which supports the General
Fund services such as police and fire, parks and recreation, libraries and senior
and community centers.

The city of Phoenix’s proposed primary property tax rate for 2025-26 of $1.2658
per $100 of assessed valuation will be unchanged from its 2024-25 rate of
$1.2658 per $100 of assessed valuation. However, overall increases in assessed
valuation result in a 1.22% increase in primary property taxes for the average city
of Phoenix property owner. Individual experiences may differ based on unique
property variances.

State law requires the notice below any time the average primary property tax bill
increases, even if the primary property tax rate is reduced.

The Truth in Taxation notice prescribed by state law does not address the city’s
secondary property tax. The city’s secondary property tax rate for 2025-26 will be
unchanged from its 2024-25 rate of $0.8141 per $100 of assessed valuation.
Secondary property taxes pay the bonded debt service for facilities like libraries,
police and fire stations, storm drains and parks.

For more information, call 602-262-4800, or visit phoenix.gov/budget.

Truth in Taxation notice publication dates and locations:
The Record Reporter – May 30, 2025 and June 9, 2025.

Additionally included in published estimates of revenues and expenses:
The Record Reporter – June 16, 2025.




TRUTH IN
TAXATION HEARING
NOTICE OF TAX INCREASE
In compliance with section 42-17107, Arizona Revised Statutes, the city of
Phoenix is notifying its property taxpayers of the city of Phoenix’s intention
to raise its primary property taxes over last year’s level. The city of Phoenix
is proposing an increase in primary property taxes of $2,662,379 or 1.22%.


For example, the proposed tax increase will cause the city of Phoenix’s
primary property taxes on a $100,000 home to be $126.58 (total proposed
taxes including the tax increase). Without the proposed tax increase, the
total taxes that would be owed on a $100,000 home would have been
$125.05.


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


All interested citizens are invited to attend the public hearing on the tax
increase that is scheduled to be held June 18, 2025 at 2:30 p.m. at the city
of Phoenix Council Chambers, 200 W. Jefferson St.







Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Convening of Special Meeting of the City Council - Citywide

In accordance with Arizona Revised Statute 42-17105, this item requests the City
Council formally convene a special meeting for the purpose of considering adoption of
the final 2025-26 budget.

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








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Adoption of the Final 2025-26 Operating Funds Budget (Ordinance S-52048) -
Citywide

In compliance with requirements of City Charter, Chapter XVIII, Section 6(B)(3) and
City Code Chapter 2, Section 2-18(B) and Arizona Revised Statutes 42-17101, 42-
17102, and 42-17105, this item requests 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, 2025 and ending June 30, 2026 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 21, 2025 Policy meeting and at the June 4, 2025 Formal
meeting to adopt the tentative Fiscal Year 2025-26 operating budget ordinance.

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





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, 2025, AND ENDING JUNE 30, 2026; 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, 2025, and ending June 30, 2026; 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 4th day of June, 2025, 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



-1- Ordinance S-

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 18th day of June, 2025, 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 2nd day of July,

2025, 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 in “ATTACHMENT 1 – CITY OF PHOENIX,

ARIZONA 2025-26 OPERATING FUNDS APPROPRIATIONS” 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, 2025, and ending June 30, 2026, and that the same

-2- Ordinance S-

shall constitute the official annual budget of the City for said fiscal year.

SECTION 2. Upon the approval of the City Manager, funds may be

transferred within purposes set forth in Attachment 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 Attachment 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 Attachment 1, except money specifically restricted by State law or

by City Charter or City ordinances and resolutions.




-3- Ordinance S-

PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix on this 18th day of

June, 2025.

_________________________________________

MAYOR

ATTEST:


, City Clerk


APPROVED AS TO FORM:


, City Attorney

REVIEWED BY:


, City Manager




-4- Ordinance S-

ATTACHMENT 1 - CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA
2025-26 OPERATING FUNDS APPROPRIATIONS

Appropriation Amount
Purpose 2025-2026

GENERAL FUNDS
General Government $241,080,196
Public Safety 1,321,129,738
Criminal Justice 46,846,644
Transportation 1,902,494
Community Development 39,948,859
Community Enrichment 55,728,551
Environmental Services 40,435,320
Contingencies/Non-Departmental 180,561,222
Capital Improvements 70,026,716

TOTAL GENERAL FUNDS $1,997,659,740

PARKS AND RECREATION FUNDS
Parks and Recreation Operations and Maintenance, and Capital $137,894,278
Improvements


LIBRARY FUNDS
Library Operations and Maintenance, and Capital Improvements $52,386,865


CABLE COMMUNICATION FUNDS
Cable Communication Operations and Maintenance $5,614,058


ARIZONA HIGHWAY USER REVENUE FUNDS
Street Maintenance and Modernization, Major Street Improvements, $228,418,435
Traffic Improvements and Other Street Improvements


AVIATION FUNDS
Aviation Operations and Maintenance, Debt Service and Capital $1,162,411,744
Improvements

Contingencies 30,000,000

TOTAL AVIATION FUNDS $1,192,411,744


CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION FUNDS
Capital Improvements in the Street Transportation, Public Art, and $26,100,072
Environmental Programs, and related Operations and Maintenance


CITY IMPROVEMENT FUND
Debt Service Payments for Excise Tax Bond-Funded Projects Including $106,499,517
Information Technology Improvements, Vehicle and Equipment
Replacements, Facility Construction and Improvements, Street
Improvements, and Other Capital Projects




Appropriation Amount
Purpose 2025-2026


COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT FUNDS
Community Reinvestment Operations and Maintenance, and Capital $8,086,130
Improvements


COURT AWARD FUNDS
Criminal Justice Programs $3,154,314


DEVELOPMENT SERVICES FUNDS
Development Services Operations and Maintenance, and Capital $100,094,701
Improvements


Contingencies 1,000,000

TOTAL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES FUNDS $101,094,701


FEDERAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUNDS
Community Development Program $37,897,079


FEDERAL OPERATING TRUST FUNDS
Federal and State Grants $162,247,912


FEDERAL TRANSIT FUNDS
Transit Operations and Maintenance, and Capital Improvements $122,687,844


GOLF COURSE FUNDS
Golf Course Operations and Maintenance, and Capital Improvements $14,571,098


HOPE VI FEDERAL GRANT FUNDS
HOPE VI Program $35,462,138


HUMAN SERVICES FEDERAL TRUST FUNDS
Human Services Program $101,963,167


NEIGHBORHOOD PROTECTION FUNDS
Eligible Police, Fire and Block Watch Operations and Maintenance $69,619,420
Expenditures Funded with Privilege License and Excise Taxes in
accordance with Ordinance G-3696


OTHER RESTRICTED FUNDS
Other Restricted Funds Operations and Maintenance, and Capital $183,556,723
Improvements




Appropriation Amount
Purpose 2025-2026


PARKS AND PRESERVES FUNDS
Parks and Preserves Operations and Maintenance, and Capital $110,084,416
Improvement Expenditures Funded with Privilege License and Excise
Taxes in accordance with the Phoenix Parks and Preserves initiative
approved by the Phoenix voters in a ballot measure on May 20, 2008


PHOENIX CONVENTION CENTER FUNDS
Phoenix Convention Center Operations and Maintenance, Debt Service, $117,328,091
and Capital Improvements


Contingencies 4,500,000


TOTAL CONVENTION CENTER FUNDS $121,828,091


PUBLIC HOUSING FUNDS
Public Housing Operations and Maintenance, and Capital Improvements $250,902,000



PUBLIC SAFETY ENHANCEMENT FUNDS
Police, Fire, and Emergency Management Operations and Maintenance $32,775,826
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 with Privilege $130,925,073
License and Excise Taxes in accordance with Ordinance G-4987



REGIONAL TRANSIT FUNDS
Regional Transit Operations and Maintenance, and Capital $69,306,837
Improvements


REGIONAL WIRELESS COOPERATIVE FUNDS
Regional Wireless Cooperative Operations and Maintenance, and $7,887,903
Capital Improvements


SECONDARY PROPERTY TAX FUNDS
Debt Service on and Early Redemption of Outstanding Bonds and Long- $144,863,383
Term Obligations


SOLID WASTE FUNDS
Solid Waste Operations and Maintenance, Debt Service and Capital $220,283,302
Improvements


Contingencies 1,000,000

TOTAL SOLID WASTE FUNDS $221,283,302



Appropriation Amount
Purpose 2025-2026



SPORTS FACILITIES FUNDS
Sports Facilities Operations and Maintenance, and Capital $18,237,007
Improvements


Contingencies 2,500,000

TOTAL SPORTS FACILITIES FUNDS $20,737,007


TRANSPORTATION 2050 FUNDS
Transit and Streets Operations and Maintenance, and Capital $733,914,197
Improvement Expenditures Funded with Privilege License and Excise
Taxes in accordance with Ordinance G-6051


Contingencies 21,000,000

TOTAL TRANSPORTATION 2050 FUNDS $754,914,197


WASTEWATER FUNDS
Wastewater Operations and Maintenance, Debt Service and Capital $506,755,692
Improvements


Contingencies 10,500,000

TOTAL WASTEWATER FUNDS $517,255,692


WATER FUNDS
Water Operations and Maintenance, Debt Service and Capital $868,299,856
Improvements


Contingencies 22,500,000

TOTAL WATER FUNDS $890,799,856


TOTAL OPERATING FUNDS APPROPRIATIONS 2025-2026 $7,860,888,818







Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Adoption of the Final 2025-26 Capital Funds Budget (Ordinance S-52074) -
Citywide

An ordinance (Attachment A) adopting the final Capital Funds Budget for the City of
Phoenix for the Fiscal Year 2025-26, in compliance with Arizona Revised Statute Title
42, Chapter 17, Article 3, and Phoenix City Charter Chapter XVIII, Section 6.

Summary
This adopts the final 2025-26 Capital Funds Budget for the fiscal year beginning July
1, 2025, and ending June 30, 2026. This capital funds appropriation will be funded by
property tax and revenue supported bond proceeds, federal, state and other
participation funds, passenger facility charges, customer facility charges, participation
by other governmental entities in certain projects, development impact fees, capital
grants, capital reserves, solid waste remediation funds and other capital funding
sources.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The final Capital Funds Budget ordinance reflects actions taken by Council at the June
4, 2025, 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 4, 2025, Formal meeting.

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





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, 2025, AND ENDING
JUNE 30, 2026; 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 attached schedule, “ATTACHMENT 1 – CITY OF

PHOENIX, ARIZONA 2025-2026 CAPITAL FUNDS APPROPRIATIONS” is hereby adopted as

the final 2025-26 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, 2025, and ending June 30, 2026.

SECTION 2. This Council has determined and adopted the estimates in

Attachment 1 for the various purposes therein named for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2025,

and ending June 30, 2026.

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




transferred within purposes set forth in Attachment 1.

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.

PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 18th day of June,
2025.




MAYOR




ATTEST:


City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:


City Attorney

REVIEWED BY:


City Manager




ATTACHMENT 1 - CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA
2025-2026 CAPITAL FUNDS APPROPRIATIONS

Appropriation Amount
Purpose 2025-2026

ARTS AND CULTURAL FACILITIES
2001 General Obligation Bonds, 2023 General Obligation Bonds $25,667,468

AVIATION
Aviation Bonds, Capital Grants, Customer Facility Charges, Passenger $894,982,169
Facility Charges

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
2023 General Obligation Bonds, Other Bonds $25,500,000

ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS
2023 General Obligation Bonds $1,081,107

FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
2023 General Obligation Bonds, Capital Grants, Other Bonds, Other $45,380,944
Capital

FIRE PROTECTION
2023 General Obligation Bonds, Capital Grants, Impact Fees, Other $53,747,875
Bonds

HISTORIC PRESERVATION & PLANNING
2023 General Obligation Bonds, Other Bonds $11,421,920

HOUSING
2023 General Obligation Bonds, Capital Grants $48,185,629

HUMAN SERVICES
2006 General Obligation Bonds, 2023 General Obligation Bonds $1,975,030

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
Other Bonds, Solid Waste Bonds $11,664,503

LIBRARIES
2023 General Obligation Bonds, Impact Fees $6,666,452

NON-DEPARTMENTAL CAPITAL
Capital Grants, Convention Center Bonds, Customer Facility Charges, $224,560,643
Federal, State, and Other Participation, Other Bonds, Passenger Facility
Charges, Transportation 2050 Bonds, Water Bonds

PARKS, RECREATION & MOUNTAIN PRESERVES
2023 General Obligation Bonds, Capital Gifts, Capital Reserves, Impact $47,523,608
Fees




Appropriation Amount
Purpose 2025-2026

PHOENIX CONVENTION CENTER
Other Bonds $11,981,378

POLICE PROTECTION
2023 General Obligation Bonds, Impact Fees $19,079,304

PUBLIC ART PROGRAM
2023 General Obligation Bonds, Aviation Bonds, Solid Waste Bonds $6,319,972

REGIONAL WIRELESS COOPERATIVE
Other Cities' Share in Joint Ventures $6,000,000

SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
Capital Grants, Capital Reserves, Solid Waste Bonds, Solid Waste $55,022,741
Remediation

STREET TRANSPORTATION & DRAINAGE
2023 General Obligation Bonds, Capital Reserves, Federal, State and $231,592,034
Other Participation, Impact Fees

WASTEWATER
Capital Grants, Impact Fees, Other Cities' Share in Joint Ventures, $190,407,125
Wastewater Bonds

WATER
Capital Grants, Impact Fees, Other Cities' Share in Joint Ventures, $350,699,876
Water Bonds

TOTAL CAPITAL FUNDS APPROPRIATIONS 2025-2026 $2,269,459,778







Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Adoption of the Final 2025-26 Reappropriated Funds Budget (Ordinance S-
52049) - Citywide

In compliance with requirements of City Charter, Chapter XVIII, Section 6 and City
Code Chapter 2, Section 2-18 and Arizona Revised Statutes 42-17102 and 42-17106
(A), this item requests to adopt an ordinance (Attachment A) adopting the final
reappropriation budget for items of expenditure previously adopted as part of the
Fiscal Year 2024-25 Operating and Capital Fund budgets of the City of Phoenix but
remaining as unexpended funds as of June 30, 2025.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The reappropriated funds budget ordinance reflects the action taken at the June 4,
2025 Formal meeting to adopt the tentative 2025-26 reappropriated funds budget
ordinance.

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





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 2024-2025 FISCAL YEAR OPERATING AND CAPITAL
FUND BUDGETS OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX BUT
REMAINING AS UNEXPENDED FUNDS AS OF
JUNE 30, 2025.


_____________


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 2024-2025; 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

2024-2025 substantial amounts represented by executed but unfulfilled contracts; and

-1- Ordinance S-


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 2025-2026 from funds

budgeted for the fiscal year 2024-2025 but remaining unexpended as of the close of the

fiscal year on June 30, 2025.

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 set forth in

“ATTACHMENT 1 –CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA 2025-26 REAPPROPRIATED

FUNDS APPROPRIATIONS” as hereinafter set forth presenting a reappropriation of

items previously budgeted for the fiscal year 2024-2025 but remaining unexpended at

the close of said fiscal year, and representing amounts encumbered by means of


-2- Ordinance S-


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

purposes therefore are set forth in Attachment 1, as follows.

SECTION 2. In case of an emergency, the City Council may authorize the

transfer of funds between the purposes set forth in Attachment 1 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

purposes set forth in Attachment 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 this 18th day of June 2025.



_________________________________________

MAYOR

ATTEST:


, City Clerk


APPROVED AS TO FORM:


, City Attorney



-3- Ordinance S-


REVIEWED BY:


City Manager




-4- Ordinance S-


ATTACHMENT 1 - CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA
2025-26 REAPPROPRIATED FUNDS APPROPRIATIONS

Appropriation Amount
Purpose 2025-2026

OPERATING FUNDS:

General Funds
General Government $39,962,000
Public Safety 72,853,000
Criminal Justice 2,403,000
Transportation 2,379,000
Community Development 5,994,000
Community Enrichment 12,018,000
Environmental Services 35,285,000
Capital Improvements 34,369,000

Total General Funds $205,263,000

Parks and Recreation Funds
Parks and Recreation Operations and Maintenance, and Capital $21,370,000
Improvements


Library Funds
Library Operations and Maintenance, and Capital Improvements $4,716,000


Cable Communication Funds
Cable Communication Operations and Maintenance $1,057,000


Arizona Highway User Revenue Funds
Street Maintenance, Major Street Improvements, Traffic Improvements and $96,882,000
Other Street Improvements


Aviation Funds
Aviation Operations and Maintenance, and Capital Improvements $298,841,000


Capital Construction Funds
Capital Improvements in Street Transportation and Drainage $5,310,000


City Improvement Operating Funds
Debt Service Related Costs associated with City Improvement $250,000


Community Reinvestment Funds
Community Reinvestment Program $2,891,000


Court Award Funds
Criminal Justice Program $2,383,000




Appropriation Amount
Purpose 2025-2026
Development Services Funds
Development Services Operations and Maintenance, and Capital $21,596,000
Improvements


Federal Community Development Funds
Community Development Program $4,653,000


Federal Operating Trust Funds
Federal and State Grants $68,448,000


Federal Transit Funds
Federal Transit Grant Program $48,799,000


Golf Course Funds
Golf Course Operations and Maintenance, and Capital Improvements $2,741,000


HOPE VI Federal Grant Funds
HOPE VI Program $2,122,000


Human Services Federal Trust Funds
Human Services Program $13,995,000


Neighborhood Protection Funds
Eligible Police, Fire and Block Watch Operations and Maintenance $2,010,000
Expenditures Funded with Privilege License and Excise Taxes in accordance
with Ordinance G-3696


Other Restricted Funds
Other Restricted Funds Operations and Maintenance, and Capital $45,284,000
Improvements


Parks and Preserves Funds
Parks and Preserves Operations and Maintenance, and Capital Improvement $74,285,000
Expenditures Funded with Privilege License and Excise Taxes in accordance
with the Phoenix Parks and Preserves initiative approved by the Phoenix
voters in a ballot measure on May 20, 2008


Phoenix Convention Center Funds
Phoenix Convention Center Operations and Maintenance, and Capital $27,272,000
Improvements


Public Housing Funds
Public Housing Operations and Maintenance, and Capital Improvements $58,507,000




Appropriation Amount
Purpose 2025-2026


Public Safety Enhancement Funds
Police, Fire, and Emergency Management Operations and Maintenance $14,000
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 with Privilege $199,000
License and Excise Taxes in accordance with Ordinance G-4987


Regional Transit Funds
Regional Transit Operations and Maintenance, and Capital Improvements $17,914,000


Regional Wireless Cooperative Funds
Regional Wireless Cooperative Operations and Maintenance, and Capital $2,571,000
Improvements


Solid Waste Funds
Solid Waste Operations and Maintenance, and Capital Improvements $36,791,000


Sports Facilities Funds
Sports Facilities Operations and Maintenance, and Capital Improvements $1,757,000


Transportation 2050 Funds
Transit and Streets Operations and Maintenance, and Capital Improvement $225,752,000
Expenditures Funded with Privilege License and Excise Taxes in accordance
with Ordinance G-6051


Wastewater Funds
Wastewater Operations and Maintenance, and Capital Improvements $134,277,000


Water Funds
Water Operations and Maintenance, and Capital Improvements $256,043,000


CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS:

1988 Parks, Recreation, Facilities, Library Bonds $4,763,000


2006 Library, Senior & Cultural Center Bonds $122,000


2023 Prop 1 Public Safety and Streets Bond Funds $25,290,000


2023 Prop 2 Neighborhood and Parks Bond Funds $1,953,000




Appropriation Amount
Purpose 2025-2026
2023 Prop 3 Arts, Economic Development, and Environment Bond Funds $10,001,000


2023 Prop 4 Housing and Human Services Bond Funds $1,089,000


Aviation Capital Funds $1,260,702,000


Capital Projects - Facilities Management $1,852,000


City Improvement Capital Funds $127,783,000


Civic Plaza Building Corporation Funds $4,333,000


Development Impact Fee Funds $52,088,000


Multi-City Wastewater Capital Funds $150,216,000


Public Housing Capital Funds $4,021,000


Solid Waste Capital Funds $22,685,000


Streets Capital Funds $57,982,000


Wastewater Capital Funds $603,739,000


Water Capital Funds $302,807,000


TOTAL REAPPROPRIATED FUNDS APPROPRIATIONS 2025-2026 $4,315,419,000







Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Amend Ordinance S-50949 Adopting the 2024-25 Annual Budget for Operating
Funds (Ordinance S-52046) - Citywide

An ordinance (Attachment A) amending Ordinance S-50949 adopting the 2024-25
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 2024-25 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
and complies with requirements set forth in City Code Chapter 2, Section 2-16(A)(2).

Arizona Revised Statute 42-17106 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 City Council has approved spending authority. Arizona
Revised Statute 42-17106(B) allows the City Council to 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 2024-25 does not change.

To make sure all planned expenditures have appropriate spending authority, each year
Budget and Research staff 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 Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-26 that actually occurred during FY 2024-25. These timing
variances can be quite large, especially when dealing with construction contracts.
Allowing for these timing differences in the request for year-end budget amendments
allows for bid awards and payments to vendors to proceed.

The amendments to the 2024-25 Operating Budget require City Council approval to



move spending authority from areas where excess authority is available to other areas
where insufficient authority was originally provided due to normal changes during the
year.

Decreases in 2024-25 appropriation authority are requested in the following:

· General Fund Capital Improvement Program because funding reserved to meet
local match requirements on potential federal grants was both reduced and carried
over to 2025-26.
· Federal Operating Trust Funds due to unawarded grant funds and carryover of
unused grant funds.

Increases in 2024-25 appropriation authority are requested in the following:

· General Fund Public Safety Program due to police overtime and related fringe-
benefit overages.
· Golf Course Funds as a result of continued increased usage of City golf courses.
Increased expenditures in this fund are offset by increased revenues.
· Neighborhood Protection Funds due to Council approval in December 2024 of
additional $3 million in Neighborhood Block Watch Funds to support the Gated Alley
Program.
· Public Safety Enhancement Funds for lower Police vacancy savings than originally
forecasted.
· Regional Wireless Cooperative Funds as a result of less credits received because
of an adjustment to operating and maintenance charges and the continuation of a
project from the previous year that was unbudgeted.
· The following fund to provide for minor year-end variances: Cable Communications.

These are balancing measures with a net impact of $0. The total appropriation remains
unchanged.

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





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-50949
DETERMINING AND ADOPTING ESTIMATES AND
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES BY THE CITY OF PHOENIX
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 2024 AND
ENDING JUNE 30, 2025, BY REALLOCATING CERTAIN
EXPENDITURES AND APPROPRIATIONS.

______________


WHEREAS, during the fiscal year 2024-2025, the resources in certain

funds will be more than originally anticipated in the 2024-2025 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-50949 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



-1- Ordinance S-

previously appropriated from said funds as follows:

(a) Reallocating and increasing the appropriation for General Fund

Public Safety Program from $1,248,049,161 to $1,258,049,161;

(b) Reallocating and decreasing the appropriation for General Fund

Capital Improvement Program from $86,768,033 to $76,768,033;

(c) Reallocating and increasing the appropriation for Cable

Communications Funds from $5,073,054 to $5,493,054;

(d) Reallocating and decreasing the appropriation for Federal

Operating Trust Funds from $346,027,568 to $339,527,568;

(e) Reallocating and increasing the appropriation for Golf Course

Funds from $10,803,290 to $12,173,290;

(f) Reallocating and increasing the appropriation for Neighborhood

Protection Funds from $59,961,606 to $62,761,606;

(g) Reallocating and increasing the appropriation for Public Safety

Enhancement Funds from $32,245,585 to $33,155,585;

(h) Reallocating and increasing the appropriation for Regional Wireless

Cooperative Funds from $6,222,607 to $7,222,607;

(i) Leaving the total appropriation adopted for 2024-2025 unchanged

at $7,243,845,399.




-2- Ordinance S-

PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 18th day of June 2025.



_________________________________________

MAYOR

ATTEST:


, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

, City Attorney

REVIEWED BY:


, City Manager




-3- Ordinance S-




Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Amend Ordinance S-50985 Adopting the 2024-25 Capital Funds Budget
(Ordinance S-52087) - Citywide

An ordinance (Attachment A) amending Ordinance S-50985 adopting the 2024-25
Capital Funds 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 2024-25 Capital Funds 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.

Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) Section 42-17106.A 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 City Council has approved spending
authority. A.R.S. Section 42-17106.B allows the City Council to 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 2024-25 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 later part of the 2023-24 fiscal year that actually occurred during the 2024-25 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 2024-25 Capital Funds Budget require City Council approval



to move spending authority from areas where excess authority is available to other
areas where insufficient authority was originally provided due to normal changes
during the year.

A $34,800,000 decrease in 2024-25 appropriation authority is requested in the Non-
Departmental Capital Funds Budget due to contingency funds budgeted in 2024-25
that were not required.

A $20,000,000 increase in 2024-25 appropriation authority is requested in the
Economic Development Program's Capital Funds Budget to accelerate the Rio
Reimagined land acquisition project, allowing the acquisition of a single large parcel in
fiscal year 2024-25 in place of multiple smaller parcel acquisitions across the five-year
Capital Improvement Program.

A $200,000 increase in 2024-25 appropriation authority is requested in the Finance
Program's Capital Funds Budget due to unbudgeted expenditures for the SAP financial
system upgrade in fiscal year 2024-25.

A $1,000,000 increase in 2024-25 appropriation authority is requested in the Human
Services Program's Capital Funds Budget due to unbudgeted expenditures for the
Phoenix Navigation Center located at 11 S. 71st Avenue in fiscal year 2024-25.

A $13,600,000 increase in 2024-25 appropriation authority is requested in the Solid
Waste Program's Capital Funds Budget due to vehicles and equipment expenditures
using Solid Waste Bond Funds in fiscal year 2024-25; costs were originally planned to
be recorded in Solid Waste Operating 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 Jeffrey Barton and the Budget and Research
Department.





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-50985
ADOPTING THE FINAL CAPITAL FUNDS BUDGET,
DETERMINING AND ADOPTING ESTIMATES OF PROPOSED
EXPENDITURES BY THE CITY OF PHOENIX FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 2024, AND ENDING JUNE 30, 2025,
BY REALLOCATING THE APPROPRIATION IN CERTAIN
CAPITAL FUNDS PROGRAMS.




WHEREAS, during the 2024-25 fiscal year the resources in certain funds will

be more than originally anticipated in the 2024-25 capital funds 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 ORDINANCE No. S-50985 be, and the same is hereby,

amended as follows:

(a) Reallocating and increasing the allocation for Economic Development

from $5,250,000 to $25,250,000.




-1- S-#####
(b) Reallocating and increasing the allocation for Finance from $0 to

$200,000.

(c) Reallocating and increasing the allocation for Human Services from

$316,555 to $1,316,555.

(d) Reallocating and increasing the allocation for Solid Waste from

$10,263,938 to $23,863,938.

(e) Reallocating and decreasing the allocation for Non-Departmental

Capital from $219,495,202 to $184,695,202.

(f) Leaving the total appropriation adopted for 2024-25 unchanged at

$2,681,622,456.




-2- S-#####
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 18th day of June,

2025.




MAYOR




ATTEST:


City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:



City Attorney

REVIEWED BY:



City Manager




-3- S-#####



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Amend Ordinance S-50950 Adopting the 2024-25 Final Reappropriation Budget
(Ordinance S-52047) - Citywide

An ordinance (Attachment A) amending Ordinance S-50950 adopting the 2024-25
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 2024-25 Final Reappropriation Budget will allow the City to
close out the current fiscal year's budgetary accounts and proceed with the annual
independent audit per City Code Chapter 2, Section 2-16(A)(2). This is part of the
standard year-end process required to close the books.

Requested changes to the 2024-25 Reappropriated Funds Budget allow for year-end
timing differences and allow for updated contract payment schedules. The 2024-25
Reappropriated Funds Budget ordinance was required to rebudget funds that were
contractually committed in the prior fiscal year (2023-24) but not yet fully expended in
that fiscal year. Since budget appropriations expire on June 30 of each fiscal year, the
2024-25 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 per Arizona Revised Statute 42-17106(B). Also,
these reallocations do not increase or decrease the total budget.

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





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-50950
ADOPTING THE FINAL 2024-2025 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, 2025, BY
REALLOCATING CERTAIN EXPENDITURES AND
REAPPROPRIATIONS.


______________



WHEREAS, during the fiscal year 2024-2025, the resources in certain

funds will be more than originally anticipated in the 2024-2025 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-50950,

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



-1– Ordinance S-

following listed funds by increasing or decreasing the amount previously reappropriated

from said funds as follows:

(a) Reallocating and increasing the reappropriation for 2023 Prop 3

Economic Development, Environment & Culture Bonds Funds from $10,000 to $81,000;

(b) Reallocating and increasing the reappropriation for Wastewater

Capital Funds from $163,878,000 to $167,893,000;

(c) Reallocating and decreasing the reappropriation for Capital Fund

City Improvement Funds from $130,116,000 to $126,030,000;

(d) Leaving the total for the 2024-2025 reappropriation budget

unchanged at $3,051,187,000.

PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 18th day of June 2025.



_________________________________________

MAYOR

ATTEST:


, City Clerk


APPROVED AS TO FORM:


, City Attorney

REVIEWED BY:


, City Manager




-2– Ordinance S-



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Payment Ordinance for Summer Recess (Ordinance S-52067) - Citywide

The request is prepared each fiscal year end to allow for continuance of operations
during the annual Council summer recess.

Summary
Request to authorize the City Controller to disburse funds, not to exceed $100,000 per
vendor, per occurrence, arising or otherwise due and payable during the period
commencing on July 2, 2025 through August 26, 2025, for the purpose of continuing
payment authority for expenditure of public money for payment of claims against the

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








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Elections Tabulation System Services - Maricopa County Contract 152562 -
Amendment (Ordinance S-52044) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Contract 152562 with Dominion Voting Systems, Inc. to extend the contract term and
allow for additional expenditures. Further request to authorize the City Controller to
disburse all funds related to this item. The additional expenditures will not exceed
$135,000.

Summary
This amendment will provide a centralized ballot tabulation system, including
maintenance and support services, for the tabulation of early ballots, voting center
ballots and provisional ballots for City elections. The City has 125 voting precincts and
uses 28 voting centers to conduct in-person voting. The City voter registration count is
over 828,000, with over 637,000 registered voters on the Active Early Voting List
(AEVL). Voters on the AEVL automatically receive an early ballot in the mail
approximately 27 days before an election. In a citywide election, voters can vote in
person at any of the 28 voting centers over a three-day period (Saturday, Monday and
Election Day Tuesday). This amendment will ensure that city voters continue to benefit
from reliable voting services without interruption, by providing a centralized ballot
tabulation system for the tabulation of early ballots, voting center ballots and
provisional ballots and to continue to provide election results in a timely manner using
a high-speed central count solution for processing the high volume of ballots the City
expects to receive based on anticipated voter turnout.

This item has been reviewed and approved by the Information Technology Services
Department.

Contract Term
Upon approval, the contract will be extended through December 31, 2025.

Financial Impact
Upon approval of $135,000 in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contract will not exceed $1,471,116. Funds are available in the City Clerk Department’s
operating budget.




Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request:
Election Tabulation System Services - Maricopa County Contract 152562 (Ordinance S
-46829) on July 1, 2020.

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








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Acceptance of an Easement for Vehicular Non-Access Purposes (Ordinance S-
52093) - District 2

Request for the City Council to accept an easement for vehicular non-access
purposes; further ordering the ordinance recorded. Legal descriptions are recorded via
separate recording instrument.

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)
MCR: 20250273600
Applicant and Grantor: Beldar Properties Arizona, LLC; its successor and assigns
Date: May 13, 2025
Purpose: Vehicular Non-Access
Location: 12802 N. Scottsdale Road
APN: 175-70-041
File: FN 250030
Council District: 2

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








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Acceptance and Dedication of Easements and a Deed for Public Utility,
Sidewalk, Roadway Purposes and Multi Use Trail (Ordinance S-52078) - Districts
1, 5 and 8

Request for the City Council to accept and dedicate easements and a deed for public
utility and roadway purposes; further ordering the ordinance recorded. Legal
descriptions are recorded via separate recording instrument.

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

Easement (a)
MCR: 20250250712
Applicant and Grantor: Andric Family Trust; Pero Andric & Danica Andric (Co-
Trustees); its successor and assigns
Date: May 2, 2025
Purpose: Public Utility
Location: 3126 W. Jomax Road
APN: 205-03-287
File: 250026
Council District: 1

Easement (b)
MCR: 20250278236
Applicant and Grantor: Jacob Covaciu; its successor and assigns
Date: May 15, 2025
Purpose: Sidewalk
Location: 7101 N. 27th Avenue
APN: 157-32-070P; 157-32-070U
File: 250035
Council District: 5






Deed (c)
MCR: 2025-0278234
Applicant and Grantor: Fairmount Corp. Real Estate and Investments; its successor
and assigns
Date: May 15, 2025
Purpose: Roadway
Location: 4949 S. 16th Street
APN: 122-46-014K
File: 250006
Council District: 8

Easement (d)
MCR: 20250278235
Applicant and Grantor: RDH Holdings USA Corps; its successor and assigns
Date: May 15, 2025
Purpose: Public Utility
Location: 1875 N. 38th Place
APN: 120-11-020
File: 250031
Council District: 8

Easement (e)
MCR: 20250278237
Applicant and Grantor: Baseline Partners and Investment LLC; its successor and
assigns
Date: May 15, 2025
Purpose: Multi Use Trail
Location: 1575 E. Baseline Road
APN: 301-33-012F
File: 250032
Council District: 8

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








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
SAP Programming Support Services - Amendment (Ordinance S-52054) -
Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Contract 153491 with Envision, LLC to extend the contract term and add additional
funds for SAP programming and technical support services for the Finance
Department and in support of departments citywide. Further request to authorize the
City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The additional expenditures
will not exceed $1,703,520.

Summary
This Contract provides technical programming and support services related to the
City’s SAP enterprise financial system. The SAP system is a critical component of the
City’s financial and operational infrastructure, supporting essential business functions
including financial accounting and reporting, procurement, accounts payables and
receivables, work order management, inventory management, and plant maintenance.
The Contract provides vital programming and technical services, such as Advanced
Business Application Programming (ABAP) development, to ensure the efficient and
uninterrupted operation of SAP’s modules. The proposed funding increase is
necessary to cover the remainder of the existing Contract term and the requested
extension.

This item has been reviewed and approved by the Information Technology Services
Department.

Contract Term
Upon approval, the contract will be extended through November 30, 2027.

Financial Impact
Upon approval of $1,703,520 in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contract will not exceed $4,407,520. Funds are available in the Finance Department’s
operating budget.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request:



• Technology consulting professional services, Contract 153491 (Ordinance S-47123)
on November 18, 2020.

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








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
MRO Supplies - Industrial, Plumbing, Electrical and HVAC Contract - COOP-25-
0042 - Request for Award (Ordinance S-52055) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into cooperative
contracts with Cormax Rigging Supply LLC; Electric Supply, Incorporated; Ferguson
Enterprises, LLC, a disregarded entity of Ferguson US Holdings, Inc.; Paul's
Scottsdale Hardware, Inc. dba Paul's Ace Hardware; and JANT Group, Inc. dba
Ruggiero's Ace Hardware, to provide essential maintenance, repair and operational
supplies for citywide use. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse
all funds related to this item. The total value of the contracts will not exceed
$32,000,000.

Summary
These contracts will allow the City to purchase maintenance, repair and operational
(MRO) supplies which support critical components of the City's various departmental
operations to ensure continuation of safe and secure facilities for City employees and
the general public. MRO supplies include, but are not limited to: industrial, building,
plumbing, electrical, lighting, HVAC and material handling equipment for inventory and
on an as-needed basis. The primary departments using these contracts are Aviation,
Fire, Housing, Parks and Recreation, Phoenix Convention Center, Public Works and
Water Services.

Procurement Information
In accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10, standard competition was waived
as a result of an approved Determination Memo based on the following reason:
Special Circumstances Alternative Competition. The State of Arizona Facility and
Building Supplies contracts were awarded using a competitive process consistent the
City's procurement processes set forth in the Phoenix City Code, Chapter 43. The
Arizona State contracts offer maintenance, repair and operation commodities required
for City operations. Adoption of the contracts will ensure continued services, cost-
effectiveness and operational efficiencies for the City and the general public.

Contract Term
The contracts will begin on or about July 1, 2025, and continue through December 31,
2029, with a one-year option to extend.




Financial Impact
The aggregate value of the contracts will not exceed $32,000,000 for the five-year
contract term. Funding is available in the various departments' budgets.

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








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Electrical Safety Training Contract - RFQu 25-0504 - Request for Award
(Ordinance S-52121) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into contracts with
Complete Training Resources, LLC dba ETC Compliance Solutions; MentorSource
Training Corporation; and Trade Tech Pro, LLC to provide Electrical Safety Training for
the Human Resources Department. Further request to authorize the City Controller to
disburse all funds related to this item. The total value of the contracts will not exceed
$1,100,000.

Summary
This contract will provide electrical safety training on an as-needed basis for City
employees who work on or near electrical hazards across all departments as required
by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 70-E. The City's Human Resources
Department Safety Division has an overall mission to ensure City employees receive
required training needed to be successful in completing their daily work duties and
prevent workplace injuries for City employees. Electrical safety training is provided to
various departments including Aviation, Parks and Recreation, Public Works, Street
Transportation and Water Services. The selected contractors will provide electrical
safety training using experienced instructors with NFPA 70-E training experience.

Procurement Information
A Request for Qualifications procurement was processed in accordance with
Administrative Regulation 3.10 to establish a Qualified Vendor List.

Three offerors submitted qualifications and were deemed to be responsive and
responsible. An evaluation committee of City staff evaluated the offers and determined
that all of the offers met the City's minimum evaluation criteria based on a pass or fail
rating for the following minimum qualifications: Qualifications, Experience and
Capacity.

After reaching consensus, the evaluation committee recommends award to the
following offerors:

· Complete Training Resources, LLC dba ETC Compliance Solutions


· MentorSource Training Corporation
· Trade Tech Pro, LLC

Contract Term
The contracts will begin on or about June 18, 2025, for a five-year term with no options
to extend.

Financial Impact
The aggregate value of all contracts will not exceed $1,100,000. Funding is available
in the various departments' operating budgets.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager David Mathews and the Human
Resources Department.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Heavy Equipment Rentals Contract - COOP 25-0608 - Request for Award
(Ordinance S-52058) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a cooperative
agreement with Herc Rentals, Inc. and Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. to provide Heavy
Equipment Rentals as needed for citywide use. Further request to authorize the City
Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The total value of the contracts will
not exceed $5,000,000.

Summary
These contracts will be used citywide to rent both small and large equipment of various
makes, models and sizes on an as-needed basis. The agreements will provide short-
term and long-term rental access to a complete line of heavy equipment, road
maintenance equipment and construction equipment. Rental equipment such as
generators serve as backup power that can be deployed to any site that suffers an
extended power outage. Forklifts are rented to move heavy equipment and pumps.
Specialized heavy equipment that is not currently in the City's fleet is needed for
special projects, such as repairing basins or plant upgrades. These contracts are
essential in order to continue to provide critical services for the City such as generators
to sustain electrical power in the event of an outage, equipment for road maintenance
and construction.

Procurement Information
In accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10, standard competition was waived
as a result of an approved Determination Memo based on the following reason:
Special Circumstances Alternative Competition. The State of Arizona Heavy
Equipment Rental Non-Operated contract was awarded using a competitive process
consistent with the City's procurement processes set forth in the Phoenix City Code,
Chapter 43. Utilization of cooperative contracts allows the City to benefit from national
government pricing and volume discounts.

Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about July 1, 2025, and continue through June 22, 2026,
with three one-year options to extend.




Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $5,000,000.

Funding is available in the various departments' operating budgets.

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








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
MRO Supplies - Industrial, Building, Plumbing, Electrical and HVAC Materials -
COOP 23-037 - Amendment (Ordinance S-52075) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Contract 158231 with Six Points Hardware, Inc. to extend the contract term and add
additional expenditures. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all
funds related to this item. The additional expenditures will not exceed $2,500,000.

Summary
This contract will allow the City to purchase maintenance, repair, and operational
(MRO) supplies which supports critical components of the City's various department
operations to ensure continuation of safe and secure facilities for City employees and
the general public. The contract provides 24 hour access for emergency operations.
MRO supplies include, but are not limited to: industrial, building, plumbing, electrical,
lighting, HVAC and material handling equipment. This contract is for citywide use and
the primary departments using this contract are Aviation, Fire, Housing, Parks and
Recreation, Phoenix Convention Center, Public Works and Water Services.

Contract Term
Upon approval, the contract will be extended through June 30, 2026, with two one-year
options to extend.

Financial Impact
Upon approval of $2,500,000 in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contract will not exceed $9,250,000. Funds are available in the various departments'
operating budgets.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request:
• MRO Supplies: Industrial, Building, Plumbing, Electrical and Heating, Ventilation and
Air Conditioning Materials - Contract 158231 (Ordinance S-49413) on February 15,
2023.

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





Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Wireless Communication Services, Accessories and Equipment Contract -
COOP 25-0655 - Request for Award (Ordinance S-52094) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into contracts with
Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless, a disregarded entity of Verizon
Communications, Inc.; T-Mobile USA, Inc.; and AT&T Enterprises, LLC to provide
Wireless Communication Services, Accessories and Equipment for citywide use.
Further request an exception to the indemnity and assumption of liability provisions of
Phoenix City Code Section 42-18. Further request to authorize the City Controller to
disburse all funds related to this item. The total value of the contracts will not exceed
$52,000,000.

Summary
The contracts will provide City departments mobile devices, wireless services,
equipment and accessories needed to conduct City business, including providing
critical services to the public in various locations throughout the City of Phoenix
metropolitan area. Currently, the City pays for services for more than 5,000 cellular
phones, 6,000 push-to-talk radios, 470 tablets and various other services and
equipment.

This item has been reviewed and approved by the Information Technology Services
Department.

Procurement Information
In accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10, standard competition was waived
as a result of an approved Determination Memo based on the following reason:
Special Circumstances Alternative Competition. Services are procured utilizing the
State of Arizona cooperative agreements awarded using a competitive process
consistent with the City's procurement processes set forth in the Phoenix City Code,
Chapter 43. The contracts offer significant cost savings due to the benefit from local
government pricing and volume discounts.

Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about July 1, 2025, for a five-year term with no options to
extend.




Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $52,000,000 for the five-year aggregate
term. Funds are available in various City departments' operating budgets.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Inger Erickson and the Information
Technology Services Department.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Investment Consulting Services Contract - RFP PS-25-0542 - Request for Award
(Ordinance S-52096) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
Sellwood Investment Partners LLC to provide financial and investment advisory
services for the Long Term Disability (LTD) and the Medical Expense Reimbursement
Plan (MERP) Trust Funds for the Finance Department. Further request to authorize the
City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The total value of the contract
will not exceed $597,672.05.

Summary
This contract will provide financial and investment advisory services to the Board of
Trustees ("the Board") and will help the Board maintain and invest the Trust Funds of
the LTD Program and the MERP Program in accordance with the Boards' trust
agreements. Furthermore, the investment consultant will serve as a fiduciary for the
Trust Funds and meet periodically with the Trustees and City staff, as requested. The
services provided under this agreement will help achieve a rate of return that produces
sufficient earnings over time to provide eligible employees and elected officials as
determined by the City with the benefits defined by the LTD and MERP Programs.

Procurement Information
A Request for Proposal procurement was processed in accordance with City of
Phoenix Administrative Regulation 3.10.

Two vendors submitted proposals deemed responsive and responsible. An evaluation
committee of City staff evaluated those offers based on the following criteria with a
maximum possible point total of 1,000:

Experience (0-350 points)
Method of Approach (0-300 points)
Capacity (0-200 points)
Price (0-150 points)

After reaching consensus, the evaluation committee recommends award to the
following vendor:




Sellwood Investment Partners LLC, 934 points

Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about August 1, 2025, for a five-year term with two one-
year options to extend.

Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $597,672.05. There is no impact to the
General Fund. Fees paid under this Contract will be paid directly out of the Trust
Funds.

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








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Purchase of Property and Casualty Insurance Policies for the City of Phoenix
(Ordinance S-52068) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to purchase various property
and casualty insurance policies on behalf of the City from July 2025 through June
2026. Further request authorization for the City Controller to disburse funds, not to
exceed $26,899,400.

Summary
Competitive quotes are sought from all viable commercial insurance markets to assure
the best coverage and cost available. The total estimated cost for all insurance is
approximately $26,899,400 for Fiscal Year 2025-26, up from $22,399,931 in the
current year. The increase of $4,499,469 is due to: (1) high demand for property and
excess liability insurance coverages and a reduced supply of capacity in the
commercial insurance market throughout the country; (2) the City experienced a large
property loss over the last 10 years that exceeded $10 million; (3) the City property
valuations were increased by 2 percent to gradually reflect present-day value; (4) the
City experienced losses that pierced the excess liability insurance; (5) claims are
increasing in frequency and severity throughout the country and Phoenix is no
exception; (6) insurers are hesitant to underwrite public entity insurance programs; and
(7) ransomware and other cyberattacks globally continue to increase in the cyber
liability market.

Citywide insurance policies are purchased from the Risk Management Self-Insurance
Fund or the Workers' Compensation Self-Insurance Fund and are then allocated to
each department's budget. Funds for special policies purchased are available from
those departments' budgets. The insurance quote process is ongoing, and staff will
continue to gather bids through mid-June. The amount requested is based on
estimated rate increases as advised by the City's contracted insurance broker, Marsh
USA, Inc. Depending on final quotes, staff may need to return to Council for a
retroactive increase in spending authority.

Insurance Policy Overview
Blanket Property and Boiler and Machinery Insurance
- Department: Citywide


- Estimated Cost: $10,684,900

Excess Liability Insurance (Multiple Layers)
- Department: Citywide
- Estimated Cost: $12,145,300

Excess Workers' Compensation
- Department: Citywide
- Estimated Cost: $474,800

Network Security and Cyber
- Department: Citywide
- Estimated Cost: $1,434,100

Police Aircraft Liability and Hull Insurance
- Department: Police
- Estimated Cost: $543,300

Aviation Airport Liability Insurance
- Department: Aviation
- Estimated Cost: $777,600

Miscellaneous Property and Casualty Insurance
- Department: Citywide
- Estimated Cost: $839,400

Financial Impact
The amount will not exceed $26,899,400, comprised of funds from the Risk
Management Self-Insurance Fund, and are included in the Fiscal Year 2025-26
budget.

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








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Auditing Consulting Services Contract - COOP 24-0072 - Request for Award and
Amendment (Ordinance S-52077) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into contracts with
Baker Tilly US, LLP; Moss Adams LLP; Protiviti, Inc.; and RSM US LLP for auditing
consulting services. These contracts supplement the current list of contracts and will
share payment authority previously approved by Council under Ordinance S-50986 for
auditing consulting services. In total, the auditing consulting services contracts for the
City Auditor, Finance and Information Technology Services departments will include
the four new contracts referenced above and the following existing contracts:
Contracts 161119 with Berry Dunn McNiel & Parker, LLC; 161183 with MGT of
American Consulting, LLC; 161222 with UHY Advisors Mid-Atlantic, Inc.; 161281 with
Weaver and Tidwell, LLP; 161282 with Macias Gini & O’Connell, LLP; 161283 with
Clifton Larson Allen, LLP; 161286 with Public Sector Performance Associates, LLC;
and 161297 with Heinfeld Meech & Co. Further request to allow additional
expenditures in an amount not to exceed $61,000. Further request to authorize the
City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.

Summary
These contracts will provide the City Auditor, Finance and Information Technology
Services departments the ability to periodically request external expertise in the
accomplishments of the City's audit plan. Examples of these expert auditing services
may include, but are not limited to: grant expenditures, program evaluation, contract
compliance, data analytics, application security and control, and external and internal
network security. Establishing agreements with these consultants will assist City
management in meeting objectives, efficiently and ethically managing public assets
and reducing the organization's risk through consultants' independent and objective
feedback. These contracts are part of a multi-cooperative award, which will also utilize
funding authorized per Ordinance S-50986.

This report has been reviewed and approved by the Information Technology Services
Department.

Procurement Information
In accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10, standard competition was waived



as a result of an approved Determination Memo based on the following reason:
Special Circumstances - Alternative Competition. The contracts were competitively
solicited by Maricopa County and awarded using a competitive process consistent with
the City's procurement processes set forth in the Phoenix City Code, Chapter 43. This
contract includes an extensive list of firms with favorable pricing that provide the City
with access to experts in various audit topics related to the City's audit plan.

Contract Term
The new contracts will begin on or about July 1, 2025, and extend through August 31,
2026, with an option to extend three additional years. The terms of the contracts
previously approved under Ordinance S-50986 remain unchanged, ending on August
31, 2026, with an option to extend three additional years.

Financial Impact
Upon approval of the $61,000 in additional funds, the revised aggregate contract value
will not exceed $1,632,650. The additional funds are available in the various
departments' budgets.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request:
• Auditing Consulting Services Contracts 161119, 161183, 161222, 161281, 161282,
161283, 161286 and 161297 (Ordinance S-50986) on June 12, 2024.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton, Assistant City Manager Inger
Erickson and the City Auditor, Finance and Information Technology Services
departments.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Authorization to Adopt Proposed Update to City of Phoenix Employee
Retirement System Pension Funding Policy (Ordinance S-52097) - Citywide

Request to adopt a Pension Funding Policy applicable to City of Phoenix Employee
Retirement System (COPERS). A Pension Funding Policy to clearly communicate the
City's funding objectives is a requirement adopted by the State Legislature in 2018 as
Arizona Revised Statutes Section 38-863.01 (Attachment A) to be implemented on an
annual basis by June 30. While the State law only applies to Public Safety Personnel
Retirement System, for the seventh year in a row City staff recommends also adopting
a Pension Funding Policy for COPERS as a transparent sound financial practice.

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.
3. Post the Policy on the City's website.

For review and discussion purposes, a proposed Pension Funding Policy for COPERS
can be found in Attachment B. 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 system is financially stable while
maintaining services to the public. Fluctuations in unfunded pension liabilities
(Attachment C) and annual costs (Attachment D) 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 level of the City’s pension system 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 action:




1. Advanced $70 million in Wastewater enterprise funds to pay down the COPERS
liability in Fiscal Year 2017-18. Advanced $170 million in Aviation enterprise funds to
pay down the COPERS liability in Fiscal Year 2020-21.

This action is in addition to the COPERS pension reform that the City Council and
voters have implemented since 2013.

Results to Date
Implementation of the City Council's direction has resulted in improvements to the
funded position and stabilization of COPERS, including the current funded ratio for
COPERS to 72.62 percent for fiscal year ending 2024, up from 72.02 percent in fiscal
year ending 2023 (Attachment E).

In accordance with State law, the City Council must formally accept the assets and
liabilities of the City's pension funds for the City of Phoenix (Attachment F) and must
approve Pension Funding Policy (Attachment B) by July 1, 2025.

While the pension system is not currently fully funded, the strategy to pay the
Actuarially Determined Contribution and pay down the liability over a set period (13
years remaining for COPERS) allows flexibility in improving services to the public while
spreading the liability over a period of time.

Under current actuarial calculations and amortization periods, COPERS will be 100
percent funded by June 30, 2039 (Attachment G). This means pension costs will
significantly decrease in fiscal year 2038-39 as only normal current year costs remain.
Under the leadership of the City Council, the City continues to take steps to ensure
current funding expectations are achieved on this schedule.

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





Attachment A




Attachment B
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 Arizona Revised Statute §38-863.01.

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.

Actuarially Determined Contribution (ADC) – Is the annual amount determined to pay
into the pension funds, as calculated 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 ADC 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 and liabilities of the City’s COPERS trust funds from the
June 30, 2024, actuarial valuation report, which are detailed below:

Unfunded Funded
Trust Fund Assets1 Liabilities1 Liability1 Ratio1
Phoenix $3,738,075,318 $5,147,293,773 $1,409,218,455 72.62%

For comparative purposes, the City of Phoenix total Unfunded Liability for the prior fiscal year
ending June 30, 2023, was $1.37 billion and the funded ratio was 72.02%.
1 Amounts differ from Annual Comprehensive Financial Report due to legislation reporting requirements.




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 $1.4 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 ADC payment from operating revenues – Council is committed to maintaining
the full ADC payment (normal cost and UAAL amortization) from operating funds. The
budget for the ADC for FY 25 is $219.4 million.

To achieve this goal, the City’s funding policy is as follows:

1. Maintain the City’s legal commitment to employees and retirees by paying 100% of
the ADC
2. Continue to seek opportunities to advance payments from enterprise and/or specialty
funds
3. Evaluate COPERS current year total actual expenditures, if less than the total budget,
make an additional payment directly to COPERS
4. Review investment rate of returns on pension assets, monitor actuarial assumption
changes and analyze the impact on future actuarially determined contributions
5. Compile sensitivity and scenario analyses on proposed COPERS Board changes to
the pension plan
6. 100% funded by 2039




Attachment C: COPERS
Total Unfunded Pension Liability
$2,000,000

$1,800,000

$1,600,000

$1,400,000

$1,200,000

$1,000,000
thousands
$800,000

$600,000

$400,000

$200,000

$0
2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24
COPERS
Attachment D: Total COPERS Pension
Costs by Payment Source
$400,000


$350,000


$300,000


$250,000


thousands $200,000


$150,000


$100,000


$50,000


$0




COPERS General Fund COPERS Non-General Fund COPERS Extra Non-General Fund

244 1
Attachment E:
COPERS Historical Total Funding Percentage
90.0%

Funding Percentage
80.0% * Largest U.S. Cities
Median 73.4%

72.6%
70.0%



60.0%



50.0%



40.0%



30.0%
2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24
COPERS
245 *City of Phoenix staff analysis of 2024 pension plan funded ratios for 20 of the largest U.S. Cities’ non-public safety pension plans
Attachment F


Retirement System
ACTUARIAL VALUATION REPORT AS OF
June 30, 2024




Financial Position and Summary of Results

The funded ratio increased on both an actuarial value of assets basis and on a market value of assets basis from
June 30, 2023 to June 30, 2024.


Exhibit A.1
Executive Summary
June 30, 2024 June 30, 2023

1. Total Actuarially Determined Contribution
a. Dollar Amount $ 253,860,541 $ 227,381,527
b. As a % of Payroll 33.02% 33.96%

2. Funded Status
a. Actuarial Accrued Liability $ 5,147,293,773 $ 4,884,161,894
b. Actuarial Value of Assets (AVA) 3,738,075,318 3,517,450,807
c. Unfunded Liability (AVA-basis) 1,409,218,455 1,366,711,087
d. Funded Ratio (AVA-basis) 72.62% 72.02%

e. Market Value of Assets (MVA) $ 3,615,814,139 $ 3,384,094,555
f. Unfunded Liability (MVA-basis) 1,531,479,634 1,500,067,339
g. Funded Ratio (MVA-basis) 70.25% 69.29%

3. Summary of Census Data
a. Actives
i.(a) Tier 1 Count 3,545 3,769
i.(b) Tier 2 Count 509 521
i.(c) Tier 3 Count 4,712 4,117
i.(d) Total Active Count 8,766 8,407
ii. Total Annual Compensation $ 751,455,022 $ 653,605,811
iii. Average Projected Compensation 85,724 77,745
iv. Average Age 46.0 46.2
v. Average Service 10.9 11.0

b. Deferred Vested Member Counts 1,144 1,149
c. Retiree Counts 6,620 6,547
d. Beneficiary and Alternate Payee Counts 1,222 1,226
e. Disability Counts 223 213
f. Refunds Due Counts 3,013 N/A
g. Total Members Included in Valuation 20,988 17,542



The funded ratio may not be appropriate for assessing the need for future contributions. The funded ratio is
not appropriate for assessing the sufficiency of plan assets to cover the estimated cost of settling the plan’s
benefit obligations.







Attachment G: COPERS
Total Unfunded Pension Liability
$1,600

$1,400

$1,200

$1,000

$800
millions

$600

$400

$200

$0



COPERS



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Authorization to Adopt Proposed Update to Public Safety Personnel Retirement
System Pension Funding Policy (Ordinance S-52098) - Citywide

Request to adopt a Pension Funding Policy applicable to 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
Arizona Revised Statutes Section 38-863.01 (Attachment A) to be implemented on an
annual basis by June 30.

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.
3. Post the Policy on the City's website.

For review and discussion purposes, a proposed Pension Funding Policy for PSPRS
can be found in Attachment B. 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 systems are financially stable while
maintaining services to the public. Fluctuations in unfunded pension liabilities
(Attachment C) and annual costs (Attachment D) 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 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. 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 still allows budgetary capacity to
continue providing quality services and fair compensation for employees.
2. Established a Pension Reserve Fund to stabilize annual PSPRS payments.
3. Authorized a portion of recreational (non-medical) marijuana tax revenue to directly
pay down the PSPRS pension liability.

These actions are in addition to the statewide PSPRS pension reform passed by the
voters in 2016.

Results to Date
The funded ratio for PSPRS was 44.75 and 48.41 percent for Police and Fire,
respectively, for fiscal year ending 2024 and was 42.77 and 46.41 percent for Police
and Fire, respectively, for fiscal year ending 2023 (Attachment E). This is an
indication that ongoing attention to the funded position of PSPRS and strategies to
increase payments over a sustained period is necessary in conjunction with balancing
the current needs of the community and employees.

In November 2020, voters approved Proposition 207 legalizing the sale of recreational
marijuana in the State of Arizona beginning in January 2021. Towards the end of Fiscal
Year 2020-21, the City of Phoenix started receiving 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. Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF) proportional allocation.
4. State-shared sales tax revenue.

As part of the PSPRS Pension Funding Policy for Fiscal Year 2021-22, City Council
adopted a policy to annually direct revenues from 1 and 2 above (the general fund
portion of the City’s sales tax of recreational marijuana and the City’s Public Safety
allocation) to paying down PSPRS pension liability. Since Fiscal Year 2020-21, $46.6
million has been collected and remitted to PSPRS, above the Actuarially Determined
Contribution (ADC). The City is anticipating approximately $15 million in collections by
Fiscal Year-End 2024-25.

In accordance with State law, the City Council must formally accept the assets and
liabilities of the City's pension funds for the City of Phoenix (Attachment F) and must
approve Pension Funding Policy (Attachment B) by July 1, 2025.



Pension Obligation Bonds (POBs) are bonds issued to pay pension plan liabilities. This
type of bond issuance is very complex and as such, has many critical considerations.
As part of the PSPRS Pension Funding Policy for fiscal year 2024, City Council
adopted a framework establishing parameters around issuing POBs to mitigate risks.
This framework is included as part of the proposed PSPRS Pension Funding Policy for
Fiscal Year 2025-26. The policy establishes a framework only. Additional City Council
authorization would be required for issuance of POBs.

The City has allowed the Deferred Retirement Option Plan (DROP) Tier 1 members
(who entered prior to July 6, 2022) to be eligible to extend their DROP service from
five to seven years in accordance with the statutory guidelines when in the best
interest of the City; this will be evaluated annually and on a case-by-case basis.

While the pension system is not currently fully funded, the strategy to pay the ADC and
pay down the liability over a set period (16 years remaining for PSPRS) allows
flexibility in improving services to the public while spreading the liability over a period
of time.

Under current actuarial calculations and amortization periods, PSPRS will be 100
percent funded by June 30, 2042 (Attachment G). This means pension costs will
significantly decrease in fiscal year 2041-42 as only normal current year costs remain.
Under the leadership of the City Council, the City continues to take steps to ensure
current funding expectations are achieved on this schedule.

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





Attachment A




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 Arizona Revised Statute §38-863.01.

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.

Actuarially Determined Contribution (ADC) – Is the annual amount determined to pay
into the pension funds, as calculated 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 ADC 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.




Council formally accepts the assets and liabilities of the City’s PSPRS trust funds from the
June 30, 2024, actuarial valuation report, which are detailed below:

Unfunded Funded
Trust Fund Assets 1
Liabilities 1
Liability1 Ratio1
Phoenix Police $2,034,700,661 $4,547,206,517 $2,512,505,856 44.75%
Phoenix Fire 1,185,884,027 2,449,510,646 1,263,626,619 48.41%

For comparative purposes, the City of Phoenix total Unfunded Liability for the prior fiscal year
ending June 30, 2023, was $3.71 billion and the funded ratio was 44.04%.
1 Amounts differ from Annual Comprehensive Financial Report due to legislation reporting requirements.



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 $3.8 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 ADC payment from operating revenues – Council is committed to maintaining
the full ADC payment (normal cost and UAAL amortization) from operating funds.
• Additional payments above the ADC
o City Council has approved paying the ADC based on a 17-year remaining
amortization schedule. The budget for the ADC for FY 25 is $418.8 million,
which is $67.3 million more than the actuarial amount.
o Council adopted a policy to annually direct revenues from the general fund
portion of the City’s sales tax of recreational marijuana and a portion of the
City’s Public Safety allocation from the State of Arizona related to marijuana
revenue collections and use these revenues to pay down the PSPRS pension
liability. Since fiscal year 2020-21, $46.6 million has been collected and
remitted to PSPRS, above the ADC. The City is anticipating approximately
$15.0 million in collections by Fiscal Year-End 2024-25.
o Established the Pension Stabilization Reserve Fund to ensure annual payment
during downturns in the economy. As of fiscal year ended June 30, 2024, there
was $47.6 million in the reserve fund.




To achieve this goal, the City’s funding policy is as follows:

1. Maintain the City’s legal commitment to employees and retirees by paying 100% of
the ADC
2. Evaluate Police and Fire current year total actual expenditures, if less than the total
budget, make an additional payment either directly to PSPRS or to the Pension
Stabilization Reserve
3. Use recreational (non-medical) marijuana tax revenue (general fund portion of City’s
direct sales tax and public safety allocation only) to directly pay down the pension
liability
4. Monitor market conditions for feasibility of issuing Pension Obligation Bonds (POBs).
Seek bond ordinance approval if market conditions are favorable and the following
conditions are met:
a) Interest rate is under 3.5%
b) Sufficient assets are available to sell (if applicable)
c) Apply all savings from issuing POBs to PSPRS pension liability
d) Rating indications are neutral
5. Review investment rate of returns on pension assets, monitor actuarial assumption
changes and analyze the impact on future actuarially determined contributions
6. Form sensitivity and scenario analyses for proposed PSPRS Board changes to the
pension plan
7. Allow the Deferred Retirement Option Plan (DROP) Tier 1 members (who entered
prior to July 6, 2022) to be eligible to extend their DROP service from 5 to 7 years in
accordance with the statutory guidelines when in the best interest of the City; this will
be evaluated annually and, on a case-by-case basis
8. 100% funded by 2042




Attachment C: PSPRS
Total Unfunded Pension Liability
$4,000,000

$3,500,000

$3,000,000

$2,500,000

$2,000,000
thousands

$1,500,000

$1,000,000

$500,000

$0
2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24
PSPRS
Attachment D: Total PSPRS Pension
Costs by Payment Source
$600,000



$500,000



$400,000



thousands $300,000



$200,000



$100,000



$0




PSPRS General Fund PSPRS Extra Paydown

257 1
Attachment E:
PSPRS Historical Total Funding Percentage
90.0%

Funding Percentage
80.0% * Largest U.S. Cities
Median 75.9%


70.0%



60.0%



50.0%
48.4%
44.8%

40.0%



30.0%
2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24
PSPRS-Police PSPRS-Fire
258 *City of Phoenix staff analysis of 2024 pension plan funded ratios for 20 of the largest U.S. Cities’ public safety pension plans
Attachment F




ARIZONA PUBLIC SAFETY PERSONNEL
RETIREMENT SYSTEM
PHOENIX POLICE DEPT. (022)

ACTUARIAL VALUATION
AS OF JUNE 30, 2024

CONTRIBUTIONS APPLICABLE TO THE
PLAN/FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2026




Arizona Public Safety Personnel Retirement System
Actuarial Valuation Report as of June 30, 2024 – Phoenix Police Dept. (022) 10



III. LIABILITY SUPPORT
Liabilities and Funded Ratios by Benefit - Tiers 1 & 2
June 30, 2024 June 30, 2023
Pension
Actuarial Present Value of Benefits (PVB)
Retirees and Beneficiaries $ 2,741,435,105 $ 2,632,758,995
DROP Members 565,506,976 527,177,478
Vested Members 9,557,975 9,657,529
Active Members 1,485,515,217 1,418,648,651
See combined Total Actuarial Present Value of Benefits 4,802,015,273 4,588,242,653
totals for tiers 1,
2, and 3 on next Actuarial Accrued Liability (AAL)
page All Inactive Members 3,316,500,056 3,169,594,002
Active Members 1,181,604,134 1,111,214,310
Total Actuarial Accrued Liability 4,498,104,190 4,280,808,312

Actuarial Value of Assets (AVA) 1,982,168,312 1,808,746,472

Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability 2,515,935,878 2,472,061,840
PVB Funded Ratio (AVA / PVB) 41.3% 39.4%
AAL Funded Ratio (AVA / AAL) 44.1% 42.3%

Health
Actuarial Present Value of Benefits (PVB)
Retirees and Beneficiaries $ 24,781,147 $ 24,197,726
DROP Members 7,369,792 7,195,172
Active Members 19,533,012 20,399,273
Total Present Value of Benefits 51,683,951 51,792,171

Actuarial Accrued Liability (AAL)
All Inactive Members 32,150,939 31,392,898
Active Members 15,573,089 15,993,375
Total Actuarial Accrued Liability 47,724,028 47,386,273

Actuarial Value of Assets (AVA) 75,041,750 73,859,652

Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (27,317,722) (26,473,379)

PVB Funded Ratio (AVA / PVB) 145.2% 142.6%
AAL Funded Ratio (AVA / AAL) 157.2% 155.9%

Health liabilities were increased by $14,331 under the lateral transfer methodology. Pension liabilities were
not impacted.




Arizona Public Safety Personnel Retirement System
Actuarial Valuation Report as of June 30, 2024 – Phoenix Police Dept. (022) 11


Liabilities and Funded Ratios by Benefit - Tier 3
June 30, 2024 June 30, 2023
Pension
Actuarial Present Value of Benefits (PVB)
Retirees and Beneficiaries $ 3,097,652 $ 2,014,057
Vested Members 2,270,546 1,611,963
Active Members 176,357,156 149,128,607
Total Actuarial Present Value of Benefits 181,725,354 152,754,627

Actuarial Accrued Liability (AAL)
All Inactive Members 5,368,198 3,626,020
Active Members 43,734,129 31,796,601
Total Actuarial Accrued Liability 49,102,327 35,422,621

Actuarial Value of Assets (AVA) 52,532,349 37,397,430

Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (3,430,022) (1,974,809)

PVB Funded Ratio (AVA / PVB) 28.9% 24.5%
AAL Funded Ratio (AVA / AAL) 107.0% 105.6%

Health
Actuarial Present Value of Benefits (PVB)
Retirees and Beneficiaries $ 25,206 $ 25,295
Active Members 2,021,240 1,704,206
Total Present Value of Benefits 2,046,446 1,729,501

Actuarial Accrued Liability (AAL)
All Inactive Members 25,206 25,295
Active Members 562,825 407,089
Total Actuarial Accrued Liability 588,031 432,384

Actuarial Value of Assets (AVA) 1,289,118 898,342

Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (701,087) (465,958)

PVB Funded Ratio (AVA / PVB) 63.0% 51.9%
AAL Funded Ratio (AVA / AAL) 219.2% 207.8%



The liabilities shown on this page are the liabilities for Phoenix Police Dept. Tier 3 members.

All Police Tiers, Combined Totals
Total Actuarial Accrued Liability (AAL) $4,547,206,517
Total Actuarial Value of Assets (AVA) $2,034,700,661
Total Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability $2,512,505,856
AAL Funded Ratio (AVA/AAL) 44.75%




Attachment F




ARIZONA PUBLIC SAFETY PERSONNEL
RETIREMENT SYSTEM
PHOENIX FIRE DEPT. (021)

ACTUARIAL VALUATION
AS OF JUNE 30, 2024

CONTRIBUTIONS APPLICABLE TO THE
PLAN/FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2026




Arizona Public Safety Personnel Retirement System
Actuarial Valuation Report as of June 30, 2024 – Phoenix Fire Dept. (021) 10



III. LIABILITY SUPPORT
Liabilities and Funded Ratios by Benefit - Tiers 1 & 2
June 30, 2024 June 30, 2023
Pension
Actuarial Present Value of Benefits (PVB)
Retirees and Beneficiaries $ 1,257,655,921 $ 1,217,054,920
DROP Members 401,800,394 352,527,109
See combined
totals for tiers 1,2, Vested Members 2,634,585 3,102,890
and 3 on next Active Members 1,051,762,497 1,008,214,153
page Total Actuarial Present Value of Benefits 2,713,853,397 2,580,899,072

Actuarial Accrued Liability (AAL)
All Inactive Members 1,662,090,900 1,572,684,919
Active Members 762,834,433 720,958,808
Total Actuarial Accrued Liability 2,424,925,333 2,293,643,727

Actuarial Value of Assets (AVA) 1,159,513,746 1,054,706,255

Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability 1,265,411,587 1,238,937,472
PVB Funded Ratio (AVA / PVB) 42.7% 40.9%
AAL Funded Ratio (AVA / AAL) 47.8% 46.0%

Health
Actuarial Present Value of Benefits (PVB)
Retirees and Beneficiaries $ 11,775,846 $ 11,670,371
DROP Members 4,406,124 3,994,633
Active Members 12,286,653 12,712,615
Total Present Value of Benefits 28,468,623 28,377,619

Actuarial Accrued Liability (AAL)
All Inactive Members 16,181,970 15,665,004
Active Members 8,995,653 9,144,330
Total Actuarial Accrued Liability 25,177,623 24,809,334

Actuarial Value of Assets (AVA) 43,367,233 42,321,880

Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (18,189,610) (17,512,546)

PVB Funded Ratio (AVA / PVB) 152.3% 149.1%
AAL Funded Ratio (AVA / AAL) 172.2% 170.6%

Health liabilities were increased by $30,082 under the lateral transfer methodology. Pension liabilities were
not impacted.




Arizona Public Safety Personnel Retirement System
Actuarial Valuation Report as of June 30, 2024 – Phoenix Fire Dept. (021) 11


Liabilities and Funded Ratios by Benefit - Tier 3
June 30, 2024 June 30, 2023
Pension
Actuarial Present Value of Benefits (PVB)
Retirees and Beneficiaries $ 171,403 $ 166,708
Vested Members 264,909 144,737
Active Members 137,041,783 103,999,846
Total Actuarial Present Value of Benefits 137,478,095 104,311,291

Actuarial Accrued Liability (AAL)
All Inactive Members 436,312 311,445
Active Members 24,149,001 15,551,934
Total Actuarial Accrued Liability 24,585,313 15,863,379

Actuarial Value of Assets (AVA) 26,370,281 17,082,019

Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (1,784,968) (1,218,640)

PVB Funded Ratio (AVA / PVB) 19.2% 16.4%
AAL Funded Ratio (AVA / AAL) 107.3% 107.7%

Health
Actuarial Present Value of Benefits (PVB)
Retirees and Beneficiaries $ 0 $ 0
Active Members 1,811,309 1,377,390
Total Present Value of Benefits 1,811,309 1,377,390

Actuarial Accrued Liability (AAL)
All Inactive Members 0 0
Active Members 347,068 225,255
Total Actuarial Accrued Liability 347,068 225,255

Actuarial Value of Assets (AVA) 475,767 303,819

Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (128,699) (78,564)

PVB Funded Ratio (AVA / PVB) 26.3% 22.1%
AAL Funded Ratio (AVA / AAL) 137.1% 134.9%



The liabilities shown on this page are the liabilities for Phoenix Fire Dept. Tier 3 members.

All Fire Tiers Combined Total
Total Actuarial Accrued Liabilities (AAL) $2,449,510,646
Total Actuarial Value of Assets (AVA) $1,185,884,027
Total Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability $1,263,626,619
AAL Funded Ratio (AVA/AAL) 48.41%




Attachment G: PSPRS
Total Unfunded Pension Liability
$4,000

$3,500

$3,000

$2,500

$2,000
millions

$1,500

$1,000

$500

$0



PSPRS



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Ordinance Granting an Exception to Phoenix City Code 42-18 for Municipal
Banking Service Agreements - City Contract 135573 (Ordinance S-52122) -
Citywide

Request the City Council grant an exception to authorize inclusion of indemnification
and assumption of liability provisions that otherwise would be prohibited by Phoenix
City Code 42-18, for banking service agreements permitted under City Contract
135573.

Summary
City Contract 135573 for Municipal Banking Services (Agreement) with J.P. Morgan
Chase Bank, provides for the addition and deletion of services under Paragraph 5.33
which allows the City to improve operational efficiencies; provide enhanced security;
and/or stay current with technology. The Agreement, dated March 1, 2013, was
extended from July 1, 2020, through June 30, 2025, plus a three-year option period
through June 30, 2028, authorized by Ordinance S-46448.

An exception to Phoenix City Code 42-18 is required to execute certain banking
service agreements as provided for in the Agreement, with indemnification and
assumption of liability provisions, including agreements to enhance security, prevent
fraud, and improve operational efficiencies.

Financial Impact
No additional funding is required.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved:
* Ordinance S-39056, adopted on July 3, 2012.
* Ordinance S-46448, adopted on March 18, 2020.

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








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Professional Development and Training Services Contract - RFQu 25-0572 -
Request for Award (Ordinance S-52130) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
Baker Tilly Advisory Group Parent, LP dba Baker Tilly Advisory Group, LP and Franklin
Covey Client Sales, Inc. dba Franklin Covey, to provide Professional Development and
Training Services for all City departments. Further request an exception to the
indemnity and assumption of liability provisions of Phoenix City Code Section 42-18.
Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item
through previously authorized Ordinance S-51903. Additional funds are not being
requested.

Summary
The Human Resources Department receives numerous requests from City
departments for consultation services of specialized professionals to provide
professional development, facilitation and training services. The resulting contracts will
provide a wide range of professional development, facilitation and training services for
all City departments. The companies are qualified firms who will be placed on a
Qualified Vendor List (QVL) to provide professional facilitation, training, motivational
speaking or management consulting services to departments citywide and/or with
members of the community. The engagement formats may include, but are not limited
to, community engagements, workshops, focus groups, informational sessions,
seminars, departmental training, meetings and work sessions. Solutions to be provided
by contracted companies range from turn-key solutions to highly customized sessions
in order to meet department and/or community needs.

The Human Resources Department is requesting approval to award these two
additional contracts, totaling 57 awards. The initial 55 contracts were presented and
adopted in the May 21, 2025 City Council meeting. Attachment A has been revised to
include the two additional companies and to reflect the total contract awards.

Procurement Information
A Request for Qualifications procurement was processed in accordance with
Administrative Regulation 3.10 to establish a QVL.




Fifty-nine offerors submitted qualifications and 58 were deemed to be responsive and
responsible. One offer was deemed to be non-responsive. An evaluation committee of
City staff evaluated those offers and determined that 58 offers met the City's minimum
qualifications criteria. Fifty-five contracts were approved for award on May 21, 2025.
Two additional companies are being recommended for award, and one company will
not be awarded as negotiations were unsuccessful. The 57 companies selected for
award are listed in Attachment A.

Contract Term
The contracts will begin on or about June 18, 2025, for a five-year term with no options
to extend.

Financial Impact
The aggregate value of these contracts will not exceed $3,500,000 as previously
authorized in Ordinance S-51903, and no additional funds are needed.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request:
• Professional Development and Training Services, Citywide Contracts - RFQu 25-
0572, Ordinance S-51903, May 21, 2025, Item 44.

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





ATTACHMENT A

RFQu 25-0572 Professional Development and Training Services

Legistar File 25-1321 - Attachment A (Final)

Award Recommendations (2)

1. Baker Tilly Advisory Group Parent, LP dba Baker Tilly Advisory Group, LP
2. Franklin Covey Client Sales, Inc. dba Franklin Covey
*Note: Negotiations with Emergenetics International were unsuccessful

Contract Awards (55) – May 21, 2025 City Council Meeting (ADOPTED)

Offeror’s Name
3. Accelerated Team Dynamics, LLC
4. Accenture LLP
5. Aguiar Professional Training LLC
6. Allen Physicians, PLLC
7. ARG Coaching & Consulting Group LLC
8. Axis Culture Group
9. Blanchard Training and Development, Inc. dba Blanchard
10. Builded Corporation
11. California Creative Solutions, Inc. dba CCS Learning Academy
12. Career Connectors Network Inc dba Career Connectors
13. Corrin & King Business Strategies
14. Deborah Ostreicher dba Distinguished Communications
15. Michael Dickerson dba Dickerson Consulting Group, LLC
16. Dougherty, Inc. dba Dougherty, Inc. Facilitation & Training
17. Steven Jordan dba Dr. J Enterprises LLC
18. Dr. Karen Jacobson dba Dr. Karen Jacobson Enterprises, LLC
19. Dr. Maria Church International LLC
20. EQ Inspirations
21. GainShare Inc. dba Interface Technical Training
22. Deborah Adaugo Watts dba Global Village Campus LLC
23. Beyond Spiritual Healing LLC DBA Happiness Matters, LLC
24. Christine R Molina dba Heartfelt Workforce LLC
25. Holliday Kenning, Inc.
26. Innovations in Training, Inc.
27. International Futures LLC
28. Jacqueline Starks – Jacque of All TradeZ
29. John M. Bernard LLC
30. Karcsay Consulting Group, LLC
31. Nicole Marie Lance dba Lance Strategies, LLC
32. Lead Strong Inc.
33. Tracy Lenartz dba Lenartz Consulting, LLC
34. Looking Forward Consulting, LLC Looking Forward Consulting
35. MentorSource Training Corporation dba Workplace Safety Specialist
36. Right Management LLC
37. New Horizons Learning, LLC dba New Horizons


RFQu 25-0572 Professional Development and Training Services

Legistar File 25-1321 - Attachment A (Final)

Contract Awards (Con’t)

38. Nextec Inc.
39. Novus Origo Inc
40. People Factor LLC
41. Ponder Diversity Group LLC
42. Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc.
43. Samira B Cook dba Purposeful World Strategies
44. Scholastic Inc.
45. SDS Global Enterprises, Inc.
46. Setanta Inc. dba Setanta Inc. dba The Carrie KC West Group
47. Sheila E. Murphy dba Sheila Murphy, LLC
48. SNVA LLC
49. Earnest Sears Jr SOS Technology LLC dba SOS Consulting
50. TBD Solutions Inc
51. The Lind Group LLC
52. Gerald Taylor dba The Performance Management Group LLC
53. The Pivotal Group Consultants Inc.
54. Dwayne Whitehead dba The Whitehead Group LLC
55. Trujillo Consulting Services, LLC.
56. Wellington Consulting Group, LTD
57. Ziksana Consulting Inc.









Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Intergovernmental Agreement between Maricopa County and City Prosecutor's
Office for Use of Maricopa County Phone Services (Ordinance S-52073) -
Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an
Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with Maricopa County's Enterprise Technology
and Innovation Department and the City of Phoenix Law Department, City Prosecutor's
Office for use of Maricopa County phone services at the shared Intake, Transfer and
Release facility at 2670 W. 28th Drive, Phoenix, Arizona. The estimated cost will not
exceed $2,500 for the term of this Agreement. Funding is available in the Law
Department Prosecutor's Office budget. Authorize the City Controller to disburse funds.

Summary
The IGA establishes responsibilities and costs for the parties regarding use of the
County phone services at the shared County Intake, Transfer and Release facility at
2670 W. 28th Drive, in Phoenix, AZ. Revised Statute, Section 11-952 authorizes the
County and City, as public agencies, to enter into IGAs for joint cooperative action and
agreement for the operation and use of shared services. The City Council
previously approved an IGA for these services and that agreement expires on June 30,
2025.

Contract Term
The IGA will be for a term of two years beginning July 1, 2025 and terminate on June
30, 2027. The agreement provides for extensions in increments of one year, upon
agreement of the parties.

Financial Impact
The estimated cost will not exceed $2,500 for the term of this Agreement. Funding is
available in the Law Department Prosecutor's Office budget.

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








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Request Authority to Enter into IGA with AHCCCS to Use Pediatric Health Care
Initiative Funds to Finance AHCCCS Payments to Phoenix Children’s Hospital
(Ordinance S-52076) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an
Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment
System (AHCCCS) to implement the provisions of Ordinance S-45435 to allow the
funding of the nonfederal share of certain AHCCCS payments to eligible children’s
hospitals within the City of Phoenix, namely Phoenix Children’s Hospital (PCH), from
the Pediatric Health Care Initiative Fund. Also request that the City Treasurer be
authorized to accept and the City Controller be authorized to disburse the funds.

Summary
In March 2019, the City of Phoenix passed Ordinance S-45435 extending authorization
for the Pediatric Health Care Initiative to allow donated funds to finance a broader
scope of AHCCCS payments to PCH, after the original program that was financed by
the City had ended. At the time of passage, there was not a clear opportunity for use of
the City’s funds and so the ordinance did not include authority to enter into an IGA with
AHCCCS. The Pediatric Services Initiative (PSI) is a partnership between the City of
Phoenix, AHCCCS and PCH. The purpose of PSI is to help provide financial
sustainability to PCH as one of the country’s largest and busiest pediatric systems.
There is an opportunity for the Pediatric Health Care Initiative Fund to help supplement
these and other AHCCCS payments to support this care, as outlined in Ordinance S-
45435, for the duration of the ordinance. The City’s funds will be of particular benefit,
as the federal government provides an enhanced matching rate for this program. PCH
will receive $3 for every $1 provided by the City.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
· City Council approved Ordinance S-41038 on July 2, 2014.
· City Council approved Ordinance S-45435 on March 6, 2019.
· City Council approved Ordinance S-46957 on May 6, 2020.
· City Council approved Ordinance S-50190 on September 20, 2023.
· City Council approved Ordinance S-51043 on June 12, 2024.




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





         
ATTACHMENT A
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
ARIZONA HEALTH CARE COST CONTAINMENT SYSTEM ADMINISTRATION
(“AHCCCS”)
AND
(“Public Entity”)
For the Support of the
Pediatric Services Initiative




T
WHEREAS, AHCCCS is authorized through contract to direct Medicaid managed care
contractors’ payments made to providers in a manner consistent with 42 C.F.R. § 438.6 when
those directed payments are expected to advance the goals and objectives of the quality
strategies adopted by AHCCCS which include improving access to high-quality health care; and

WHEREAS, AHCCCS is authorized under A.R.S. § 36-2913(C)(5) to accept donations from any
source, and is permitted to use funds transferred from other public entities in support of the




AF
AHCCCS program; and

WHEREAS, the Public Entity, is authorized by A.R.S. §§ 48-1901 et seq. to enter into this
Agreement and to contribute the funds for health care services as provided hereunder; and

WHEREAS, 42 C.F.R. Part 433, Subpart B restricts States’ use of Federal funds, health care-
related taxes, and provider-related donations as sources for the Non-Federal Share of Medicaid
expenditures; and

WHEREAS, AHCCCS and the Public Entity are authorized by A.R.S. § 11-952 to enter into
Intergovernmental Agreements to jointly exercise powers common to the parties or for
cooperative action; and

WHEREAS, the Public Entity and AHCCCS wish to enter into this Agreement in order to permit
the Public Entity to provide the Non-Federal Share of a portion of the payments made by
AHCCCS to Medicaid managed care contractors in support of the Pediatric Services Initiative;




R NOW, THEREFORE, the Public Entity and AHCCCS (collectively, the “Parties”), pursuant to the
above and in consideration of the matters hereinafter set forth, do mutually agree as follows:

1. DEFINITIONS: Unless otherwise defined in this Agreement, all terms have the same
meaning as set forth in Chapters 29 and 34 of Title 36 of the Arizona Revised Statutes, 42
C.F.R. Parts 433 and 438, or Chapter 22 of Title 9 of the Arizona Administrative Code
(A.A.C.) as appropriate.




D 1.1.




1.2.
AHCCCS Contract means a contract between AHCCCS and a managed care entity
for the services described in AHCCCS Contract Nos. YH19-0001 (AHCCCS Complete
Care), YH19-0001R and YH20-0002 (ACC with Regional Behavioral Health
Agreements), YH24-0001 (Arizona Long Term Care E/PD), YH6-0014 (Arizona Long
Term Care DD), and YH15-0001 (DCS/CHP) including amendments to and extensions
of those contracts.

Agreement means this document, together with any and all attachments, appendices,
exhibits, schedules, and future amendments as agreed to by the Parties. The term
“Agreement” is synonymous with “Intergovernmental Agreement.”




IGA YH26-0010-01-S Page 1 of 10 form date: 5/13/2025
         


1.3. AHCCCS means Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System Administration, an
agency of the State that administers the Medicaid program under Title XIX of the
Social Security Act in Arizona.

1.4. PSI or Pediatric Services Initiative means the terms in the AHCCCS Contracts or in
policies incorporated by reference into those contracts, that require the MCO to make
supplemental payments to Qualified Children’s Hospitals for inpatient and outpatient
hospital services above the rates otherwise negotiated for Qualified Children’s
Hospitals under a written contract with the MCO to provide service to persons enrolled
with the MCO.

1.5. CFR means Code of Federal Regulations – the official compilation of Federal rules
and requirements.

1.6. Contract Year means the period October 1, 2025, through September 30, 2026.

1.7.

1.8.


1.9.
Public Entity means City of Phoenix



T
CMS means The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, a Federal agency
within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Day means a calendar day, unless specified otherwise.




AF
1.10. Qualified Children’s Hospital means a hospital that (1) is a freestanding children’s
hospital with more than 100 licensed pediatric beds and (2) has completed and
submitted to AHCCCS a fully executed attestation as set forth in Attachment B.

1.11. FFP or Federal Financial Participation means the Federal monies that AHCCCS
claims from CMS for the Federal share of AHCCCS expenditures for the
administration of and services paid for through the Medicaid Program, Title XIX of the
Social Security Act.

1.12. Hospital means a health care facility licensed in Arizona as a hospital that is registered
with AHCCCS as a participating provider.

1.13. MCO or Medicaid Managed Care Contractor means an entity that has an AHCCCS
Contract and meets the definition in 42 C.F.R. § 438.2.




R 1.14. State means the State of Arizona.

1.15. State Plan means the agreement between the State and CMS for the administration of
the Medicaid program in Arizona as described in 42 C.F.R. 430.10.

1.16. Non-Federal Share means the portion of AHCCCS expenditures for the administration
of and services paid for through the Medicaid Program, Title XIX of the Social Security
Act, that are not FFP, and which meet the requirements of 42 C.F.R. Part 433,




D Subpart B.

1.17. Prior Period Adjustment means an adjustment to the amount that would be transferred
by the Public Entity for the Contract Year under Section 4.2 of this Agreement, but for
Section 4.2.1, to reconcile amounts transferred for previous Contract Years with the
Non-Federal Share of actual MCO payments to the Qualified Children’s Hospitals in
that previous Contract Year.

2. The purpose of this Agreement is to set forth the procedures under which the Public Entity
will, at its discretion, transfer public funds to AHCCCS for use as the Non-Federal Share of
expenditures made by AHCCCS to MCOs for the Contract Year, as modified to account for
Prior Period Adjustments, in support of the PSI described in this Agreement. It is the intent of
the parties that the procedures herein fully comply with Federal and State laws, rules, and
regulations.
IGA YH26-0010-01-S Page 2 of 10 form date: 5/13/2025
         



3. Monies transferred by the Public Entity under this Agreement may only be used by AHCCCS
for the Non-Federal Share of payment made by AHCCCS to MCOs as part of the PSI. Such
payments will be made consistent with applicable Federal and State statutes, regulations,
rules, and the terms of the State Plan.

4. RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES.

4.1. In advance of each Contract Year:

4.1.1. AHCCCS will estimate the total amount for the Contract Year of the supplemental
payments that MCOs will make to Qualified Children’s Hospitals as the result of
the PSI.

4.1.2. AHCCCS will then calculate the Non-Federal Share of the costs identified in
Section 4.1.1 and will notify the Public Entity of the Non-Federal Share.




T
4.1.3. The Public Entity shall provide AHCCCS with an attestation from each Qualified
Children’s Hospital in the form set forth in Attachment B of this Agreement.

4.2. The Public Entity shall transfer to AHCCCS payments outlined in Attachment A for the
portion of the Non-Federal Share described in Section 4.1.2 on or before the dates listed
in Attachment A.




AF 4.2.1.The amount of the first payment made by the Public Entity under Section 4.2
shall be modified to reflect any Prior Period Adjustments owed by or to the
Public Entity as specified in Attachment A.

4.3. Subject to approval by CMS, upon receipt of the transfer of funds from the Public Entity
that is specified in Attachment A, AHCCCS shall distribute the funds transferred and the
associated FFP to the MCOs and shall require the MCOs to make the corresponding
PSI payment for service provided during the Contract Year to Qualified Children’s
Hospitals.

4.4. Qualified Children’s Hospitals will receive and retain one hundred percent (100%) of all
PSI payments received, and neither the State, AHCCCS nor the Public Entity shall
require, by contract or otherwise, a Qualified Children’s Hospital to return any portion of
the PSI payment to the State, AHCCCS, or the Public Entity; provided, however, that




R this provision does not prohibit Qualified Children’s Hospitals from accepting a
reassignment of payment permitted by 42 C.F.R. 447.10.

4.5. In advance of the Contract Year, the Public Entity will submit to AHCCCS Attachment A
to this Agreement listing the amounts and public source of the payment made under
Section 4.2.

4.6. In the event of a disallowance based on the impermissibility of the transferred funds and




D the failure of the Qualified Children’s Hospital to refund PSI payments as required by
Attachment A, AHCCCS shall make diligent efforts to recover the amounts due under
Attachment A. If AHCCCS is unable to recover the total computable amount associated
with such disallowance from the hospital within twelve months of final exhaustion of any
administrative appeal related to such disallowance, the Public Entity shall make a
payment to AHCCCS within 30 days of written demand from AHCCCS. AHCCCS shall
only make such written demand if AHCCCS has been unable to recover the total
computable amount associated with such disallowance from the Qualified Children's
Hospital within twelve months or after final exhaustion of any administrative appeal
related to such disallowance, whichever is later. The payment due from the Public Entity
shall be equal to the amount due to CMS as a result of the disallowance, less any
amount recovered from the Qualified Children’s Hospital associated with the
disallowance, and including any interest incurred as a result of an appeal of the
disallowance.
IGA YH26-0010-01-S Page 3 of 10 form date: 5/13/2025
         



5. COMPLIANCE WITH ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS FOR STATE FINANCIAL
PARTICIPATION

5.1. Public Entity certifies that, consistent with 42 C.F.R. Part 433, Subpart B, no portion of
the funds transferred to AHCCCS are derived from (1) direct or indirect provider-related
donations (in cash or in kind), other than bona fide provider-related donations or (2)
health care-related taxes, other than as permitted in Subpart B and any other federal law
or regulation applicable to the permissibility of funding sources.

5.2. Public Entity certifies that, consistent with 42 C.F.R. § 433.51(c), the funds transferred to
AHCCCS under this Agreement are not Federal funds or are Federal funds authorized
by Federal law to be used to match Federal funds.

5.3. Public Entity agrees to provide AHCCCS with supporting documentation of the sources
of the funds transferred pursuant to this Agreement and of the bases for the Public




T
Entity’s assurance that the funds transferred comply with Sections 5.1 and 5.2.

5.4. If Public Entity fails to provide supporting documentation required in Section 5.3 of this
Agreement such that CMS adjusts future grant awards to AHCCCS or defers or
disallows any expenditures claimed by AHCCCS, then Public Entity agrees to reimburse
AHCCCS immediately, upon demand by AHCCCS, in the amount of the adjustment or
disallowance that is attributable to sources that do not comply with Sections 5.1 or 5.2 of




AF this Agreement, only to the extent not reimbursed pursuant to Attachment B.

5.5. Public Entity certifies that the funds transferred to AHCCCS as described in this
Agreement are made voluntarily and that neither the State nor AHCCCS has through
statute, rule, or otherwise required the Public Entity to provide the funding.

6. GENERAL PROVISIONS.

6.1. Entire Agreement. This document, its attachments, and appendices, including any
approved subcontracts, amendments and modifications made thereto, shall constitute
the entire Agreement between the Parties, and supersedes all other understandings,
oral or written.

6.2. Exercise of Rights. Failure to exercise any right, power or privilege under this
Agreement will not operate as a waiver thereof, nor will a single or partial exercise




R thereof preclude any other or further exercise of that or any other right, power, or
privilege.

6.3. Contract Term. This Agreement commences when signed by both parties.
Notwithstanding the fact that certain AHCCCS or Public Entity obligations under this
Agreement occur after the Term hereof, the parties agree that the Term of this
Agreement continues through the later of conclusion of: (1) any payment reconciliations
required by Federal or State law for payments made under this Agreement or (2) audits
of payments made under this Agreement as required by State or Federal law and any




D administrative appeal of such reconciliation or audit.

6.4. Compliance with Laws, Rules, and Regulations. The Public Entity and its subcontractors
must comply with all applicable Federal and State laws, rules, regulations, standards,
and Executive Orders, without limitation to those designated within this Agreement.

6.4.1. Non-Discrimination. The parties shall not discriminate against any employee,
client or any other individual in any way because of that person’s age, race,
creed, color, religion, sex, disability, or national origin in the course of carrying
out their duties pursuant to this Agreement. The Parties shall comply with the
provisions of Arizona Executive Order 2009-09, incorporated into this
Agreement by reference, as if set forth in full herein.


IGA YH26-0010-01-S Page 4 of 10 form date: 5/13/2025
         


6.4.2. ADA. The parties shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Americans
with Disabilities Act (Public Law 101336, 42 U.S.C. 1210112213) and all
applicable Federal regulations under the Act, including 28 CFR Parts 35 and 36.

6.5. Choice of Law. The laws and regulations of the State of Arizona govern the rights of the
Parties, the performance of this Agreement, and any disputes arising from the
Agreement.

6.6. Compulsory Arbitration. Any action relating to this Agreement must be brought by
arbitration to the extent required by A.R.S. § 12-1518 or in an appropriate court. Any
arbitration award will be enforced in an appropriate court.

6.7. Amendments. This Agreement, including its term, may be modified only through a duly
authorized written amendment, executed with the same formality as the Agreement.

6.8. Notice. Any notice required by the terms of the Agreement and any questions regarding




T
the duties and obligations of this contract shall be directed to:

6.8.1. For AHCCCS:

Meggan LaPorte, CPPO, MSW
Chief Procurement Officer
AHCCCS




AF Email: procurement@azahcccs.gov

6.8.2. For AHCCCS (Payments):
AHCCCS
801 E. Jefferson, MD 5400
Phoenix, AZ 85034
Payment Notice – Email: AHCCCSDBFReceivable@azahcccs.gov

6.8.3. For the Public Entity:

John Gallimore
Accountant IV
251 W. Washington, St., 9th Floor
Phoenix AZ 85003
john.gallimore@phoenix.gov




R 6.9.
6.8.4. Notwithstanding Section 6.8 of this Agreement, AHCCCS and the Public Entity will
give notice by regular mail or any other means reasonably anticipated to provide
actual notice to the other party of any change of the address, telephone number,
name of the authorized signatory or designee; or name and/or address of the
person to whom notices are to be sent.

Termination.




D 6.9.1. AHCCCS may terminate this Agreement if the PSI program is terminated for any
reason including the withdrawal of CMS approval of the PSI program, a
determination that funds provided or payments made under this Agreement do not
comply with this Agreement, or a change in Federal or State law. Upon
termination under this Section, AHCCCS shall return to the Public Entity any funds
transferred pursuant to Section 4.2 or 4.4 not used as the non-Federal share of
PSI payments made.

6.9.2. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 38-511, either party to this Agreement may terminate this
Agreement without penalty or further obligation if any person significantly involved
in initiating, negotiating, securing, drafting or creating the Agreement is or
becomes at any time while the Agreement or an extension of the Agreement is in
effect an employee of or a consultant to any other party to this Agreement with

IGA YH26-0010-01-S Page 5 of 10 form date: 5/13/2025
         


respect to the subject matter of the Agreement. The cancellation will be effective
when AHCCCS or the Public Entity receives written notice of the cancellation
unless the notice specifies a later time.

6.10. Records. The Parties agree to retain all financial books, records, and other documents
and will contractually require each subcontractor to retain all data and other records
relating to the acquisition and performance of the Agreement for a period of five (5)
years after the completion of the Agreement. All records are subject to inspection and
audit by the Parties at reasonable times. Upon request, the Parties will produce a legible
copy of any or all such records.

6.11. Severability. The provisions of this Agreement are severable. If any provision of this
Agreement is held by a court to be invalid or unenforceable, the remaining provisions
continue to be valid and enforceable to the full extent permitted by law.

6.12. Indemnification. Each party (as Indemnitor) agrees to indemnify, defend and hold




T
harmless the other party (as Indemnitee) from and against any and all claims, losses,
liability, costs or expenses (including reasonable attorney’s fees) (hereinafter collectively
referred to as “claims”) arising out of this Agreement, but only to the extent that such
claims result in vicarious/derivative liability to the Indemnitee, are caused by the act,
omission, negligence, misconduct, or other fault of the Indemnitor, its officers, officials,
agents, employees, or volunteers.




AF
6.13. No Third-Party Beneficiaries. Nothing in the provisions of this Agreement is intended to
(1) create duties or obligations to or rights in Qualified Children’s Hospitals or any other
persons or entities not parties to this Agreement or (2) effect the legal liability of either
party to the Agreement with respect to Qualified Children’s Hospitals or any other
persons or entities not parties to this Agreement.

6.14. No Joint Venture. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to create a joint venture
between or among the Parties, including the Qualified Children’s Hospitals, and it will
not be so construed. Neither AHCCCS’ nor the Public Entity’s employees will be
considered officers, agents, or employees of the other or be entitled to receive any
employment related fringe benefits from the other.




R
D
IGA YH26-0010-01-S Page 6 of 10 form date: 5/13/2025
         




NOW THEREFORE, AHCCCS and the Public Entity agree to abide by the terms and conditions
set forth in this Agreement.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date and year
specified below.

System
(“Public Entity”)


___________________________________
By: Jeffrey Barton, City Manager T (“AHCCCS”)


____________________________________
By: Meggan LaPorte, Chief Procurement
Officer




AF
Date: ________________________________

Date: ________________________________

In accordance with A.R.S. § 11-952, undersigned counsel has determined that this
Intergovernmental Agreement is in proper form and is within the powers and authority granted
under the laws of the State of Arizona, including but not limited to A.R.S. §§ 36-2903 et seq.



___________________________________
David Benton, Chief Counsel
Counsel for Public Entity

Date: ________________________________
___________________________________
Legal Counsel for AHCCCS


Date: ________________________________




R
D
IGA YH26-0010-01-S Page 7 of 10 form date: 5/13/2025
         


ATTACHMENT A

TO THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
ARIZONA HEALTH CARE COST CONTAINMENT SYSTEM ADMINISTRATION
(“AHCCCS”)
AND
(“Public Entity”)
For the Support of the
Pediatric Services Initiative



Pursuant to the Agreement, the Public Entity has agreed to transfer public funds from the




T
source(s) and in the amount(s) specified below as the Non-Federal Share of expenditures in
support of the PSI for the Contract Year ending September 30, 2026:

Payment Dates

February 3, 2026
Source

Payment #1
Amount


$5,000,000.00




AF May 2, 2026 Payment #2

Grand Total
$5,000,000.00

$10,000,000.00




R
D
IGA YH26-0010-01-S Page 8 of 10 form date: 5/13/2025
         


ATTACHMENT B

On behalf of Phoenix Children’s Hospital (“Hospital”), I hereby attest to the following under
penalty of perjury as true and correct to the best of my knowledge:

1. For purposes of this attestation, the following terms have the following meanings:

a. PSI or Pediatric Services Initiative means the terms in the AHCCCS Contracts or in
policies incorporated by reference into those contracts, that require the MCO to
supplement payments to Qualified Children’s Hospitals for inpatient and outpatient
hospital services above the rates otherwise negotiated for Qualified Children’s Hospitals
that have a written contract with the MCO to provide service to persons enrolled with the
MCO.ne

b. CFR means Code of Federal Regulations – the official compilation of Federal rules and


c.

d.
requirements.




T
Contract Year means the period from October 1, 2025, through September 30, 2026.

CMS means The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, a Federal agency within
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

e.



f.



AF
i.


ii.


iii.
Qualified Children’s Hospital means a hospital that (1) is a freestanding children’s
hospital with more than 100 licensed pediatric beds (2) has completed and submitted to
AHCCCS this fully executed attestation.

Entity related to the Hospital or Qualified Children’s Hospital means:

An organization, association, corporation, or partnership formed by or on behalf of
the health care provider;

An individual with an ownership or control interest in the health care provider, as
defined in 42 USC 1320a-3(a)(3);

An employee, spouse, parent, child, or sibling of the health care provider, or of a
person with an ownership or control interest in the Hospital, as defined in 42 USC
1320a-3(a)(3); or




R g.



h.
iv. A supplier of health care items or services or a supplier to the health care provider.

FFP or Federal Financial Participation means the Federal monies that AHCCCS claims
from CMS for the Federal share of AHCCCS expenditures for the administration of and
services paid for through the Medicaid Program, Title XIX of the Social Security Act.

Funding Partner means collectively the Public Entities providing funds to AHCCCS to be
used as the Non-Federal Share of a claim by AHCCCS for FFP associated with the PSI.




D i.


j.


k.
Hospital means a health care facility licensed in Arizona as a hospital that is registered
with AHCCCS as a participating provider.

MCO or Medicaid Managed Care Contractor means an entity that has a contract with
AHCCCS and that meets the definition in 42 C.F.R. § 438.2.

Non-Federal Share means the portion of AHCCCS expenditures for the administration of
and services paid for through the Medicaid Program, Title XIX of the Social Security Act,
that are not FFP, and which meet the requirements of 42 C.F.R. Part 433, Subpart B.

2. On behalf of the Hospital, I attest that:

a. The Hospital is a Qualified Children’s Hospital.
IGA YH26-0010-01-S Page 9 of 10 form date: 5/13/2025
         



b. No formal or informal agreements exist between the Hospital, or any Entity Related to
the Hospital, and any Funding Partner for the direct or indirect return to any Funding
Partner of any portion of payments made by any MCO to Qualified Children’s Hospitals
as part of the PSI or of payments made by the Funding Partner for the administration of
the PSI.

c. No formal or informal agreement exists between (1) the Hospital or any Entity Related to
the Hospital and (2) any other Qualified Children’s Hospital, or any Entity Related to any
other Qualified Children’s Hospital, for the direct or indirect return to any Funding
Partner of any portion of payments made by any MCO to any Qualified Children’s
Hospital as part of the PSI or of payments made by the Funding Partner for the
administration of the PSI.

d. Neither the Hospital nor any Entity Related to the Hospital has made any direct or
indirect donations (in cash or in kind) to any Funding Partner in excess of the limitations
in 42 CFR Part 433, Subpart B.



T
3. The Hospital accepts that completion of this attestation is a condition of the Hospital’s
participation in PSI. The Hospital shall inform AHCCCS immediately if the Hospital enters into
an agreement described in this attestation or makes any donation to any Funding Partner in
excess of the limitations in 42 CFR Part 433, Subpart B associated with payments under PSI.




AF
4. The undersigned Hospital agrees that in the event CMS issues a disallowance of FFP based
on a determination that the source of the funds transferred by any governmental entity in
support of PSI payments to the Hospital are either Federal funds, provider donations, or
health care-related taxes that are not permissible under 42 C.F.R. Part 433, Subpart B, the
Hospital will, upon final exhaustion of any administrative appeal related to such disallowance:

a. Refund to AHCCCS within 30 days of written demand an amount of the PSI payments
made to the Hospital equal to the total computable amount associated with such
disallowance, including any interest incurred as a result of an appeal.

b. Permit AHCCCS to offset the amount referenced in (a), to the extent it is not refunded,
from any amounts otherwise due to the Hospital.

5. The undersigned attests that they have personal knowledge of the matters attested to herein
and have the legal authority to bind the Hospital to the terms herein.




R Dated:




By:
_________________________




__________________________




D Print Name:


Title:
Michelle Bruhn


Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer




IGA YH26-0010-01-S Page 10 of 10 form date: 5/13/2025



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Authorization to Amend Contract with Spencer Fane LLP (Ordinance S-52108) -
Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Contract 160181 with Spencer Fane LLP, to extend the contract term to allow Spencer
Fane LLP to continue to provide outside legal counsel services to the City Ethics
Commission. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item.

Summary
This contract provides outside legal counsel services to the City Ethics Commission.

Contract Term
Upon approval, the contract will be extended through June 30, 2027.

Financial Impact
Funds are available in the Law Department Legal Services budget. The aggregate
value of the contract will not exceed $300,000.

Concurrent/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request and approved this contract on June
14, 2023.

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








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Ak-Chin Indian Community 2025 Gaming Grants (Ordinance S-52100) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to apply, accept, and if
awarded, enter into related agreements for up to $849,243 in new funding from the Ak-
Chin Indian Community under the 2025 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: $40,000 for the Yuma Street
Pocket Space, which is seeking partial funding for the design of the Yuma Street
Pocket Space, which will include community meetings for valuable neighborhood
input.
· Human Services Department: $50,000 for the Empowerment Through Employment
Initiative which will provide comprehensive workforce development services to
marginalized communities across the region, including but not limited to, low-
income individuals, dislocated workers, formerly incarcerated individuals, unhoused
individuals, individuals with disabilities, and other populations facing significant
employment barriers. This includes direct services such as job training, supportive
services, resume printing materials, and costs associated with marketing materials
and program supplies.
· Planning and Development Department: $42,000 for the Rio Reimagined "Take
Action" Campaign, which will conduct education and outreach to area residents,
students, visitors and community groups and inspire them to 'take action' in
activating and transforming the Rio Salado (Salt River) into a local and regional
destination.
· Phoenix Police Department: $25,200 for Digital Fingerprint Scanners, which will
fund hand-held fingerprint devices that enable real-time identification based on
biometric technology. These devices will allow officers to accurately identify
suspects/witnesses/drivers/at-risk youths in the field, rather than transporting them



to a precinct for identification purposes.

Nonprofit Applications
· 100 Club of Arizona: $15,000 for the Safety Enhancement Stipend Program, which
will decrease injury and death of public safety members. The program was created
to provide assistance to public safety agencies for equipment to enhance the safety
of officers and firefighters. Funded equipment includes ballistic vests, helmets,
turnouts and communication equipment.
· Arizona Humanities: $25,000 for the Youth Literacy in Arizona: AZ Read Program,
which will support a youth literacy program, AZ Reads. AZ Reads promotes youth
literacy and meets a critical community need in Arizona's Title 1 schools (K-12) by
providing diverse and culturally responsive books for classrooms and school
libraries, or directly to students. In addition to books for students, AZ Reads
provides school supplies for programming, contracts with visiting speakers, capacity
building for literacy curricula, and other resources by partnering directly with
teachers.
· Arizona Barrio Stories: $90,000 for the Arizona Barrio Stories Presents: A
Multicultural Tribute to the States Early Settlers, which will document and share
through storytelling the overlooked histories of Arizona's early settlers of color,
ensuring their legacies inspire and educate future generations.
· Duet: Partners in Health & Aging: $20,000 for Vital Services to Prevent Senior
Homelessness program, which will assist homebound older adults with the
resources and support they need to remain housed. The purpose of the grant is to
prevent homelessness among homebound older adults.
· Foundation for Blind Children: $25,000 for the Preschool for the Blind program, a
preschool educational program staffed by certified teachers of the visually impaired
with access to therapy related services as needed.
· Gabriel's Angels: $10,000 for the Pet Therapy Program, which will provide pet
therapy programming to children and youth ages 6 to 18 through partnerships with
Title 1 schools and child-serving agencies.
· Hunkapi Programs, Inc.: $12,043 for the Mental Health Services on Behalf of First
Responders program, which offers equine therapy on behalf of First Responders
and their families. Funding will allow them to continue the highly successful program
that has been in significant demand and thereby help eliminate stress caused from
PTSD along with suicidal ideation.
· International Rescue Committee: $250,000 for the Employment Services and
Resources for Low-Income Individuals and Families program, which will provide job
education, training and support to maintain or gain employment and avoid
homelessness to low-income individuals and families.
· National Council of Jewish Women, AZ: $50,000 for the Furniture, Technology, and


Supplies for Ruth Place, A Healing Center for Survivors of Sexual Violence, which
will purchase essential equipment and supplies that will support its intensive six-
month program to help survivors of sexual violence heal from their trauma.
· Rosie's House: $5,000 for the Rosie's House 2026 Summer Camp, which will
support the expansion of the summer camp to four weeks, offering free music
instruction and mentorship for youth from low-income families in the Greater
Phoenix metropolitan area.
· Sonoran University of Health Sciences: $25,000 for the Sonoran University's
Community Health Program, which will provide free health care to underserved
populations.
· The Joy Bus: $15,000 for the More Than A Meal Program, which will prepare
medically tailored meals for people each year who are homebound with cancer.
· United Cerebral Palsy Association of Central Arizona: $50,000 for the Motor
Disorder Clinic, which serves children with all disabilities, but uniquely serves
children with cerebral palsy, genetic disorders, and rare disorders that result in
physical disability.
· United National Indian Tribal Youth, Inc.: $50,000 for the Native Youth Leadership
Training, which will support a three-day Native Youth Leadership Training, which is
open to Native American youth aged 14 to 24 and it aims to prepare Native
American youth to advocate for their needs and promote positive community, tribal,
and school engagement.
· Vista College Prep: $50,000 for AI-Powered Learning, which will launch a targeted
initiative exploring how artificial intelligence (AI) can reduce teacher workload and
accelerate student academic outcomes across Phoenix campuses.

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 nonprofit a portion of its annual 12 percent local revenue-
sharing contribution.

Financial Impact
There is no budgeted impact to the City 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 Jeffrey Barton and the Office of Government
Relations.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Contract Amendment for Investment Consulting Services for 401(A)/457 Plans
and Post Employment Health Plans (PEHP) - Hyas Group (Ordinance S-52109) -
Citywide

This report requests City Council approve the extension of Contract 149752 with Hyas
Group, LLC from June 30, 2025 to October 31, 2025. Further request authorization for
the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this extension.

Summary
Hyas Group was awarded a contract to provide consulting services to the 401
(A)/457 ("Deferred Compensation Plan", "DCP") and PEHP Plans following a
competitive procurement in 2019. The original three-year agreement included two, one-
year options to extend, which have been exercised, with a total contract value of an
amount not to exceed $600,000. The Contract was previously extended through
February 28, 2025 with an additional payment authority of $120,000. A short contract
extension was granted through June 30, 2025. An additional extension is requested
through October 31, 2025, to allow for continuing investment and plan consulting
services to allow Hyas Group to continue providing consulting services and
implementation of the 2024 provisions of the federal regulations included in the
SECURE 2.0 (Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement) legislation.
An additional $60,000 in payment authority is requested to cover the extension of the
Agreement. Funds to be paid from the Deferred Compensation Program Trust. No
General Funds are used for this request.

Contract Term
The initial contract term was for three years, covering February 27, 2019 through
February 27, 2022. The City Council approved previous extensions for an updated end
date to June 30, 2025.

Financial Impact
The extension of the Agreement will cost $60,000. The consulting service fees are paid
from the City of Phoenix Employees' Deferred Compensation Program Trust. The
Trust's funding source is retained revenue from the DCP investment earnings and are
restricted.




Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed and approved the following:
· Contract 149752 on April 3, 2019;
· Ordinance S-50504 extending the contract term to February 28, 2025; and
· Ordinance S-51816 extending the contract term to June 30, 2025.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager David Mathews and the Retirement
Office.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
(CONTINUED FROM JUNE 4, 2025) - Authorization to Amend Contract 160325
with Human Services Campus, Inc. dba Keys to Change to Increase Authority
and Extend Term (Ordinance S-52022) - District 7

Request authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to amend Contract
160325 with Human Services Campus, Inc. dba Keys to Change to extend contract
term through June 30, 2026, and add funding up to $1,500,000 for Key Campus
Operations in Fiscal Year 2025-26. The revised total contract value will not exceed
$3,250,000. Further request authorization for the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item for the contract life. Funds are available from the Office of
Homeless Solutions and within the City’s American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) allocation.

Summary
Keys to Change provides essential services and homeless program operations for
unsheltered individuals experiencing homelessness. Services are provided 365 days
per year, 7 days per week, and 24 hours per day, including holidays. Directly and
through its 16 partners on the Key Campus, Keys to Change provides shelter, food,
navigation, case management, access postal services, workforce development, and
housing, among other services. Keys to Change recognizes the urgent need for
providing essential services to individuals experiencing homelessness and is
committed to providing services aligned with the City of Phoenix’s Strategies to
Address Homelessness Plan. The agency’s programs include services for the
homeless that serve thousands each day and provide general assistance for
individuals in need.

The funding will be used to support the Key Campus operations and to comply with
zoning stipulations for the site.

Contract Term
The term of the contract will be extended through June 30, 2026.

Financial Impact
The new total value of this contract shall not exceed $3,250,000.





Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council reviewed and approved the following:
· Contract 160325 with Ordinance S-50614 on February 21, 2024.
· An increase in funding with Ordinance S-51710 on March 5, 2025.

Location
220 S. 12th Avenue
Council District: 7

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Office of
Homeless Solutions.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Intergovernmental Agreement with Arizona State University for the Canopy for
Kids Grant Program (Ordinance S-52116) - Citywide

Request authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an
Intergovernmental Agreement with the Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of Arizona
State University (ASU), Rob and Melani Walton Sustainability Teachers’ Academies,
for the Canopy for Kids grant program. Further request authorization for the City
Controller to disburse all funds and supplies related to this item. There is no impact to
the General Fund. Funding is available from the U.S Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Forest Service through the Urban and Community Forestry (UCF) allocation of the
Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). The aggregate expenditures will not exceed $2 million.

Summary
Increasing urban tree canopy cover is an important public health strategy that supports
the 2025 General Plan core value to build the most sustainable desert city. In
November 2024, Phoenix City Council unanimously adopted the Shade Phoenix Plan,
which guides the implementation of more than 30 unique strategies and programs to
provide more tree and shade coverage throughout the City. Several actions in the
Shade Phoenix Plan are funded by a $10 million UCF grant awarded to the City of
Phoenix by the USDA. On October 4, 2023, Phoenix City Council authorized the
distribution of this funding for the Office of Heat Response and Mitigation (OHRM) to
create multiple grant and community impact programs.

Up to $2 million of these funds will be to develop a Canopy for Kids Grant Program.
The program will provide funding and supplies for tree planting projects to public
school districts, non-profit schools, and non-profits with 501(c)(3) status that provide
education to youth in federally defined priority neighborhoods for increasing tree
canopy. The ASU Rob and Melani Walton Sustainability Teachers’ Academies will
facilitate this grant program. ASU possesses the necessary curriculum, educational
programs, and experience to effectively teach educators about desert trees, water
conservation, and rainwater harvesting practices in the Sonoran Desert. ASU will work
collaboratively with their partners Watershed Management Group (specialists in
rainwater harvesting) and EcoRise (facilitators for site visits and resources) to train
educators in the design and development of planting projects. The program is
projected to serve 35 schools over four years.




OHRM will closely coordinate with ASU in order to administer this program. OHRM
staff will ensure that all funding will be spent by the end of June 2029 to comply with
IRA requirements.

Contract Term
The agreement will begin on or about July 1, 2025 and end on June 30, 2029.

Financial Impact
Funding for this program will not exceed $2 million. There is no impact to the General
Fund. Funding is available through the IRA from the USDA Forest Service.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Office of Heat
Response and Mitigation.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Maryvale Parkway Terrace - Site Work Items - Contract RFQ FY25-086-16 (DRW) -
Request for Award (Ordinance S-52070) - District 5

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
CM Enterprise LLC, to provide the City-owned Maryvale Parkway Terrace Senior
Apartment community with site work items (ramada, asphalt refinish, dog run, etc.) for
the Housing Department. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse
all funds related to this item. The total value of the contract will not exceed $245,000.

Summary
This contract will provide site work improvement items for the Maryvale Parkway
Terrace Senior Apartment community. Site work improvements include the following: a
15' X 25' ramada, electrical, pavers, picnic tables, barbecue grill, bench, crack seal
approximately 15,000 square feet of parking lot including re-striping parking areas and
repainting curbs to match, and installing a 35' X 50' dog run including removing
surrounding grass and replacing with gravel to match.

Procurement Information
An informal solicitation was processed in accordance with City of Phoenix
Administrative Regulation 3.10.

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

CM Enterprise LLC

Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about September 1, 2025, and continue until the project is
completed or pursuant to the terms of the agreement.

Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $245,000. Federal funding is available in
the Housing Capital Improvement Program through the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development Capital Fund Program, with no impact to the General Fund.




Location
4545 N. Maryvale Parkway
Council District: 5

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Housing
Department.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Commercial and Residential Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning, and
Evaporative Cooler Contract - RFP-FY25-086-13 - Request for Award (Ordinance
S-52085) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into contracts with
Delta Air Condition LLC, Optimum Air, Adobe Installation Inc. dba Adobe Energy
Management, and Lee Collins Air Conditioning to provide heating, ventilation, air
conditioning (HVAC), and evaporative cooler services to the Housing Department's
properties. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related
to this item. The aggregate value of the contracts will not exceed $1.25 million.

Summary
This contract will provide servicing, maintenance, installation, and replacement of
HVAC systems and evaporative coolers. The work will ensure that these units operate
efficiently, and services will be requested by City personnel as needed. The facilities
are multi-family dwellings, residential homes, community centers, and office buildings.
Contractors shall perform service checks as recommended by the equipment
manufacturer. New units and repairs must follow the new Environmental Protection
Agency guidelines and in accordance with the Air Conditioning Contractor of America
and Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio with a digital thermostat.

Procurement Information
A Request for Proposal procurement was processed in accordance with City of
Phoenix Administrative Regulation 3.10.

Seven vendors submitted proposals deemed responsive and responsible. An
evaluation committee of City staff evaluated those offers based on the following criteria
with a maximum possible point total of 1,000:

· Method of Approach (400 points)
· Qualifications and Experience (400 points)
· Pricing (200 points)

After reaching consensus, the evaluation committee recommends award to the
following vendors:



· Delta Air Condition LLC 752 points
· Optimum Air 682 points
· Adobe Insulation Inc. dba Adobe Energy Management 533 points
· Lee Collins Air Conditioning 497 points

Contract Term
The contracts will begin on July 1, 2025, for a five-year term with no options to extend.

Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $1.25 million. The contracts are funded
with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development funds. There is no impact to
the General Funds.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Housing
Department.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Landscaping Services - Commercial Contract - RFP- FY-25-086-12 - Request for
Award (Ordinance S-52103) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into contracts with Big
Boys Landscaping, Brightview Landscape Services, Inc., Reyes & Sons Landscaping,
LLC and Artistic Land Management, Inc. to provide landscaping services for the
Housing Department. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all
funds related to this item. The total value of the contracts will not exceed $800,400.

Summary
The contracts will provide grounds and landscape services at the City's senior and
public housing sites. Services also include emergency services, project-related jobs,
maintenance services, and other work such as the removing and/or replacing of
landscape materials.

Procurement Information
A Request for Proposal procurement was processed in accordance with City of
Phoenix Administrative Regulation 3.10.

Five vendors submitted proposals deemed responsive and responsible. An evaluation
committee of City staff evaluated those offers based on the following criteria with a
maximum possible point total of 1,000:

Method of Approach 450 points
Qualifications and Experience 300 points
Pricing 250 points

After reaching consensus, the evaluation committee recommends award to the
following top rated vendors:

· Big Boys Landscaping
· Brightview Landscape Services, Inc.
· Reyes & Sons Landscaping, LLC
· Artistic Land Management, Inc.



Contract Term
The contracts will begin on or about July 1, 2025 for a five-year term with no options to
extend.

Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $800,400. The contracts are funded with
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development funds. There is no impact to the
General Fund.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Housing
Department.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Amend Ordinance S-50808 for the Wild Rose Flats Affordable Housing Project
(Ordinance S-52104) - District 4

Request authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to amend Ordinance S-
50808 to modify the entity who will enter into the Affordable Housing Loan Program
Agreement to Wild Rose Owner LLC, an affiliate of Ulysses Development Group, and
to take all actions and execute all documents to complete the loan.

Summary
On May 1, 2024, City Council approved entering into an affordable housing loan
program agreement for an award of up to $1 million in federal HOME Investment
Partnerships (HOME) Program funds with BNB Development, LLC, or a City-approved
nominee, for the development of Kazan Apartments (renamed Wild Rose Flats)
affordable housing project, a 72-unit permanent multifamily housing community serving
low-income households that was recommended for funding by the Housing
Department after a competitive solicitation.

When the original applicant, BNB Development, LLC, did not separately receive a
competitive nine percent Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) award, it decided
not to move forward with the Wild Rose Flats project; however, Ulysses Development
Group (UDG) has since approached the City, wishing to substitute its affiliate, Wild
Rose Owner LLC, to take over this funded project, effectively becoming a City-
approved nominee to enter into the affordable housing loan program agreement and
execute all other documents necessary to complete the loan with the same terms and
conditions presented to BNB Development, LLC.

Wild Rose Flats, located at 2911 and 2941 N. 43rd Avenue, will continue to provide 72
units with all units serving individuals with incomes at or below 60 percent of Area
Median Income (AMI). At least 11 of those units will be City HOME units serving
households at or below 40 percent of the AMI. The total estimated development budget
is $30,941,125. Other funding for this project includes LIHTC equity, HOME-ARP
funding from the Arizona Department of Housing (ADOH), permanent debt financing,
and a deferred developer fee.

Project awards are contingent on full underwriting, environmental release of funds,



commitments of other financing, and availability of federal funds. The overall loan
structure will be consistent with the Housing Department's Underwriting Guidelines for
affordable rental housing projects.

Procurement Information
Pursuant to Ordinance S-50808, six proposals were received and reviewed by an
evaluation committee comprised of two city staff and one community representative.
The proposals were evaluated on a 1,000 point scale based on the following criteria:
Developer Experience; Project Merits/Approach; Financial Feasibility; and Project
Impact. All six projects were recommended for funding. In accordance with
Administrative Regulation 3.10, a determination memo based on Special
Circumstances Without Competition has been approved to authorize Wild Rose
Owner LLC to take over the awarded Wild Rose Flats affordable housing project from
BNB Development, LLC. These unique circumstances would allow the awarded
project as envisioned to continue under a new City-approved nominee.

Financial Impact
There is no impact to the General Fund. HOME is a federally funded program.
Funding commitments for projects with LIHTC equity are reliant upon receiving a
LIHTC award from ADOH. Loan execution is anticipated for Fiscal Year 2025-26, and
the loan will be paid to the developer over a two-to-four year period.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
Original action was approved on May 1, 2024 by City Council through Ordinance
S-50808.

On February 19, 2025, City Council approved, through Ordinance S-51653, purchase
and sale agreements with Isaac School District for the acquisition and immediate
resale of property to facilitate the development of the Wild Rose Flats affordable
housing project.

Location
2911 and 2941 N. 43rd Avenue
Council District: 4

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Housing
Department.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Award of Co-Development Partner for The Moreland Affordable Housing
Development Project (Ordinance S-52107) - District 8

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into agreements with
Brinshore Development, LLC, or a City approved nominee, to serve as co-
development partner for the development of The Moreland affordable housing project.
Additionally, to take all actions and execute all documents required to complete all
phases of the development project, with the Housing Department serving as co-
developer. Further request authorization for the City Treasurer to accept and the City
Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. There is no impact to the General
Fund.

Summary
To address a critical need for affordable housing in Downtown Phoenix, the Housing
Department issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) seeking a co-developer partner to
redevelop the former Deck Park Vista Apartments site into The Moreland, a new
affordable multifamily rental housing project. The Moreland will consist of two phases
with Phase I being a 132-unit development that contains studio to three-bedroom units,
a community room, a fitness center, a computer room, teen/youth space, and a parking
garage. Phase II will be a 105-unit development that consists of studio and one-
bedroom units, a community room, a fitness center, and other amenities. The property
is located on two acres at 1125 N. 3rd Street, and falls within the Downtown Core,
currently zoned under the Downtown Core-Evans Churchill East Character Area.
Former Deck Park Vista residents have been relocated, and the buildings have been
demolished. The site is now vacant.

Of the 237 total new units proposed for The Moreland, approximately 187 will be
affordable and approximately 50 will be workforce at attainable rents. Former residents
will have the first right to return to the new development with rents subsidized through
Housing Choice Voucher (Section 8) Project Based Vouchers (PBV). Former public
housing residents of the Choice Neighborhoods Edison-Eastlake Community will also
have a right to the new units utilizing PBVs. For Phase I, the Housing Department has
committed 131 total PBVs for returning and Choice Neighborhoods residents. Resident
services will be provided. Construction is anticipated to begin in December 2025 and
the project will be completed by Fall 2027.




The Housing Department seeks authorization to proceed with all actions necessary or
appropriate to develop, finance, and operate all phases of The Moreland including the
following:

1. Procure and/or engage in funding transactions to finance the development,
including submitting applications and accepting awards of Low Income
Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC), seeking a LIHTC equity investor and debt
lenders, and obtaining other grants and/or loans for the project.
2. Appropriate, expend, and disburse up to $3 million in federal HOME
Investment Partnerships (HOME) Program funds to provide gap funding for
housing development.
3. Allocate 131 Section 8 PBVs, amend Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) Annual Plan(s) as needed, and enter into associated
contracts or agreements, as necessary to facilitate financing, development,
and operations.
4. Convey a grant fee title or a lesser interest in all or any portion of the site to
the Corporations, LLCs, public utilities, and other third parties as necessary to
facilitate financing, development, and operations.
5. Procure, execute, and submit or deliver all contracts, documents, and
instruments necessary for the financing, development, and operation of the
property.
6. Use and expend the proceeds of any grants, loans, and other financing and
funding sources to carry out the development, capital improvements and
operations.
7. Take other actions necessary or appropriate to develop, implement, finance,
and operate all phases of The Moreland development.

Procurement Information
Request for Proposal FY25-086-14 (DRW) for The Moreland Co-Development Partner
was conducted in accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10. Two proposals
were received by the due date of May 2, 2025 at 3:00 p.m. and were deemed
responsive and responsible.

An evaluation panel comprised of City staff, and one external non-City panel member,
evaluated the submitted proposals. The maximum possible score for each proposal
was 1,000 points. Proposals received points in the following categories:

· Proposed Development (200 points)
· Proposer Qualifications, Experience, and Financing Capacity (300 points)



· Proposed City Commitment and Benefit to the City (250 points)
· Proposed Project Timeline (250 points)

The final scores for the two proposals received are as follows:
· Brinshore Development, LLC: 777
· Blue Ridge Atlantic Development, LLC: 446

After reaching a consensus, the evaluation panel recommends awarding to Brinshore
Development, LLC. The City of Phoenix Housing Department reserves the right to
further negotiate certain terms outlined in Brinshore Development, LLC's proposal
during the development contract negotiation process.

Brinshore Development, LLC has experience in financing, developing, completing, and
managing affordable housing projects that are similar in scale and complexity to The
Moreland. With a track record of over 30 years, Brinshore Development, LLC has
completed more than 120 projects, totaling over 10,000 units across various states.
The firm also has experience in public housing redevelopment and developing mixed-
income communities.

Financial Impact
HOME is a federally funded program and funding is budgeted in the Housing
Department’s Capital Improvement Plan budget. There is no impact to the General
Fund.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
On February 15, 2023, City Council approved, through Ordinance S-49424, American
Rescue Plan Act funding in an amount not to exceed $10 million to facilitate the
development of The Moreland Phase I affordable housing project.

Location
1125 N. 3rd Street
Council District: 8

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Housing
Department.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Amend Ordinance S-49833 for the Helen Drake Senior Center Affordable
Housing Site Redevelopment Project (Ordinance S-52118) - District 5

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to amend Ordinance S-49833
amending the awarded entity name listed as The Richman Group to TRG Arizona
Development, LLC, Richman Housing Development, LLC, or a City-approved nominee
for the development of the undeveloped portion of the Helen Drake Senior Center site
to provide affordable rental housing for seniors, and to take all actions and execute all
documents to effectuate all agreements required to complete the project. Further
request to amend Ordinance S-49833 by adding, to the Section 2 list of actions
necessary and appropriate to develop the Helen Drake site, the authority to enter into
a HOME Affordable Housing Loan Program Agreement. There is no impact to the
General Fund.

Summary
On June 16, 2020, the Phoenix City Council approved nine policy initiatives listed in
the Housing Phoenix Plan with the goal of creating or preserving 50,000 homes by the
year 2030. As part of the third initiative to redevelop City-owned land with mixed-
income housing, the Housing Department identified City-owned parcels that would be
ideal for affordable or mixed-income development.

On August 31, 2022, the Housing Department received City Council approval to
update the list of City-owned land, and to set aside the identified parcels for the
development of affordable or mixed-income development. This update included the
addition of the Helen Drake Senior Center parcel located at 7600 N. 27th Avenue,
Phoenix, AZ 85051, and is owned and operated by the Human Services Department.

The proposed project, Helen Drake Village, plans to develop an 80-unit senior
affordable rental property, all below 80 percent Area Median Income, on the
undeveloped portion of the site (approximately 1.8 acres).

The Housing Department is seeking approval to allocate up to $3 million in HOME
funds to assist with the development of Helen Drake Village, which aims to redevelop
the vacant portion of land adjacent to the Helen Drake Senior Center. The estimated
total cost of construction for the project is approximately $30.8 million.




Financial Impact
There is no impact to the General Fund. The HOME program is federally funded.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
On June 14, 2023, the Phoenix City Council approved the entity under the name The
Richman Group.

Location
7600 N. 27th Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85051
Council District: 5

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Housing
Department.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Amend Federal HOME Program Contract 132009 with Madison Pointe
Apartments LP (Ordinance S-52110) - District 4

Request authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to amend the federal
HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) Program Acquisition and Rehabilitation Loan
Agreement, City Contract 132009, with Madison Pointe Apartments LP, an Arizona
limited partnership, (the “Owner”) to increase the number of City HOME units from 13
to 18 units and increase the period of affordability by five years for all City HOME units
in exchange for a forgiveness of the outstanding interest on the loan up to $800,000.
Authorization is also requested for the City Manager, or his designee, to execute all
necessary documents. There is no impact to the General Fund.
Summary
City Contract 132009 was executed on September 29, 2011, providing $1,569,000 of
federal HOME funds to assist with the development of the 60-unit Madison Pointe
Apartments located at 4150 N. 9th Street. The City Contract currently secures 13 City
HOME units serving households whose income does not exceed 50 percent of the
Area Median Income (AMI).

The Owner is in the process of refinancing this property and has offered to pay the
entire principal balance of the HOME loan in the amount of $1,569,000 as well as
increase the public benefit by extending the period of affordability by five years from
2053 to 2058 along with providing the City an additional five HOME units (for a total of
18) serving households at or below 50 percent AMI in exchange for forgiveness of the
outstanding interest up to $800,000. As the original funding came from federal
sources, there is no impact to the General Fund. All loan debt paid will be re-purposed
for further affordable housing per the requirements of the original HOME funding
source.

Financial Impact
There is no financial impact to the General Fund. HOME is a federally funded program.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
On May 18, 2011, City Council approved, through Ordinance S-37865, a loan of
HOME funds up to $1,569,000 to facilitate the development of the Madison Pointe
affordable housing project.




Location
4150 N. 9th Street
Council District: 4

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Housing
Department.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Authorization to Apply for, Accept and Implement a U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development Resident Opportunities and Self Sufficiency Family Self
Sufficiency Service Coordinator Grant (Ordinance S-52120) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to submit a grant application
to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for up to $1 million
or the maximum award for a renewal of the Resident Opportunities and Self
Sufficiency (ROSS) Family Self Sufficiency (FSS) Service Coordinator grant. If
awarded, request approval to execute all contracts necessary to accept and disburse
grant funds. Further request to authorize the City Treasurer to accept, and the City
Controller to disburse, all funds for the life of the grant.

Summary
The Housing Department is seeking to apply for a renewal ROSS FSS Service
Coordinator grant from HUD. If awarded, the ROSS FSS Service Coordinator grant is
anticipated to provide up to $1 million or the maximum funding amount allotted through
the Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for calendar years 2026 and 2027, or the
maximum number of years the NOFA allows, to fund up to four service
coordinator/caseworker positions each year. This ongoing program helps Public
Housing and Housing Choice Voucher (Section 8) residents transition from
dependence on government benefits to an improved level of financial self-sufficiency.

Service coordinators/caseworkers coordinate supportive services offered by non-profit,
governmental, and educational community partners; provide case planning and
coordination, supportive counseling, referral and advocacy; facilitate access to
educational resources, vocational training and employment opportunities; and assist
with budgeting, homeownership preparation, and transportation. Successful
participants engage in training, improve employment outcomes, save money, and may
purchase a home.

The NOFA is anticipated to be issued summer 2025. Due to the timing of the NOFA
and quick turnaround for grant submittal, the Housing Department is requesting
authority to apply prior to issuance of the NOFA.





Contract Term
If awarded, the Housing Department will execute the appropriate contract agreement
(s) with HUD.

Financial Impact
There is no impact to the General Fund. This grant does not require matching funds.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Housing
Department.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Authorization to Enter into Contract with U.S. Vets - Phoenix LLC and Accept
Funding (Ordinance S-52132) - District 1

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into contract with U.S.
Vets - Phoenix LLC to accept and disburse Arizona Department of Housing Military
Transitional Housing Fund (MTHF) and/or State Housing Trust Fund (SHTF) funding in
a total amount of up to $1.9 million to construct and renovate a transitional housing
facility for veterans located at 12027 N. 28th Drive, Phoenix, Arizona. Further request
to authorize the City Treasurer to accept and the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item. Funding is available from U.S. Vets - Phoenix LLC through the
Arizona Department of Housing MTHF or SHTF. There is no impact to the General
Fund.

Summary
U.S. Vets - Phoenix LLC was awarded $1.9 million of Arizona Department of Housing
MTHF and/or SHTF funding to construct and renovate a 140-unit transitional housing
facility for veterans to be known as the M.D. Hawkins Veterans Center located at
12027 N. 28th Drive, Phoenix, Arizona. U.S. Vets will provide the funding to the City.
The funding will be used by the City’s Housing Department for the rehabilitation of City
-owned property, a former hotel, leased to U.S. Vets to provide transitional and
permanent supportive housing to homeless and at-risk veterans.

Contract Term
The term of the contract will begin on or about June 18, 2025, and continue through
June 30, 2026.

Financial Impact
Total funds to be accepted are $1.9 million MTHF or SHTF from the Arizona
Department of Housing through U.S. Vets - Phoenix LLC. There is no impact to the
General Fund.

Location
12027 N. 28th Drive
Phoenix, AZ 85029
Council District: 1




Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Housing
Department.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Arts, Education, and Recreation Supplies and Equipment Qualified Vendor List
(Ordinance S-52091) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to approve a Qualified Vendor
List (QVL) and enter into contracts with eligible contractors to provide Arts, Education,
and Recreation Supplies and Equipment to the Human Services and Library
departments. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item. The aggregate value of the contracts will not exceed $3.7 million
over the life of the QVL.

Summary
The City of Phoenix Human Services and Library departments have an ongoing need
for arts, education, and recreation supplies and equipment to support their Head Start
Birth to Five Program, Senior Programs Division, and infant and toddler programs at
public libraries.

Procurement Information
A Request for Qualifications, RFQu-25-HSD-80, was processed in accordance with

The Human Services Department received 21 offers on April 4, 2025. Nineteen of the
offers were deemed to be responsive and responsible. The procurement officer
evaluated the offers using a pass/fail evaluation matrix based on the following criteria:

· Experience and Qualifications.
· Method of Approach and Delivery of Services.
· Product Category Discount Percentage.
· Reference Checks with Positive Results.
· No Active Exclusions Found on the System for Award Management Database.
· In Good Standing with the Arizona Corporation Commission.

The procurement officer recommends award to the following offerors:

· Blick Art Materials, LLC


· BSN Sports, LLC
· Complete Book and Media Supply, LLC
· Earlychildhood, LLC dba Discount School Supply
· EPS Operations, LLC
· Flinn Scientific, Inc.
· Fun and Function, LLC
· Fun Express, LLC
· Kapalaran LLC dba Ahwatukee Trophies and Awards
· Kaplan Early Learning Company
· Lakeshore Parent, LLC, Lakeshore Learning Materials, LLC
· Nasco Education, LLC
· PC Links, LLC
· Really Good Stuff, LLC
· Scholastic, Inc.
· School Health Corporation
· School Specialty, LLC
· STEMfinity, LLC
· The Discovery Source, Inc.

Contract Term
The term of each contract will begin no sooner than June 18, 2025 and end no later
than June 30, 2029.

Financial Impact
The aggregate value of all contracts will not exceed $3.7 million. Funding for the
Human Services Department is available from the United States Department of Health
and Human Services, Administration of Children, Youth, and Families, and the Human
Services Department operating budget. Funding for the Library Department is
available from the First Things First Grant and the Library Department operating
budget.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This item was approved by the Head Start Policy Council on April 14, 2025 by a vote of
12-0.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Inger Erickson, Deputy City Manager
Gina Montes and the Library and Human Services departments.






Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Qualified Vendor List for Head Start Birth to Five Classroom Observation
Services (Ordinance S-52092) - Districts 1, 3, 4, 5, 7 & 8

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to approve a Qualified Vendor
List (QVL) and enter into a contract with Southwest Human Development, Inc., to
provide Head Start Birth to Five Classroom Observation Services to the Human
Services Department. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all
funds related to this item. The contract value will not exceed $1.17 million over the life
of the QVL.

Summary
Classroom observations are conducted regularly to ensure that young children have
high-quality learning experiences. This practice helps tailor care to each child's needs,
track their progress, and foster strong relationships. The Office of Head Start requires
that all observations be carried out using valid and reliable research-based
assessments.

The Classroom Assessment Scoring System evaluates the quality of emotional
support, classroom organization, and instructional support provided by teachers.
These elements are essential for fostering positive outcomes and future achievements
for children from birth to five years old.

The Teaching Pyramid Observation Tool and the Teaching Pyramid Infant-Toddler
Observation Scale are designed to assess how effectively teachers implement
behavior support practices related to the Pyramid Model. These tools aim to promote
social-emotional competence in infants and young children up to the age of five.

The insights gathered from these observations are utilized to pinpoint and enhance the
support systems available for teachers, ensuring they receive the resources and
assistance necessary for their professional growth and student success.

Procurement Information
A Request for Qualifications, RFQu-25-EDU-81, was processed in accordance with




The Human Services Department received three offers on April 11, 2025. All offers
were deemed to be responsive and responsible. An evaluation committee of internal
staff evaluated those offers based on the following criteria, with a maximum possible
point total of 1000:

· Method of Approach and System for Implementing Classroom Observations (400
maximum points)
· Experience and Expertise of Key Personnel (300 maximum points)
· Fee Schedule (300 maximum points)

The Evaluation Committee scores are as follows:

· Southwest Human Development, Inc.: 924.44 points
· Lakeshore Parent, LLC, Lakeshore Learning Materials, LLC: 544.44 points
· White Premier Consultants: 164.66 points

After reaching a consensus, the evaluation committee recommends award to the
following offeror:

· Southwest Human Development, Inc.

Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about July 1, 2025, for a five-year term with no options to
extend.

Financial Impact
The contract value will not exceed $1.17 million. Funding is available from the United
States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration of Children, Youth,
and Families.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This item was approved by the Head Start Policy Council on March 10, 2025, by a vote
of 9-0.

Location
Alhambra Elementary School District No. 68, 4510 N. 37th Avenue.
Cartwright Elementary School District No. 83, 5220 W. Indian School Road.
Deer Valley Unified School District No. 97, 20402 N. 15th Avenue.
Fowler Elementary School District No. 45, 1617 S. 67th Avenue.
Isaac School District No. 5, 3348 W. McDowell Road.



Laveen Elementary School District No. 59, 5001 W. Dobbins Road.
Murphy Elementary School District No. 21, 3140 W. Buckeye Road.
Pendergast Elementary School District No. 92, 3802 N. 91st Avenue.
Phoenix Elementary School District No. 1, 1817 N. 7th Street.
Riverside Elementary School District No. 2, 1414 S. 51st Avenue.
Roosevelt Elementary School District No. 66, 6000 S. 7th Street.
Washington Elementary School District No. 6, 4650 W. Sweetwater Avenue.
Wilson Elementary School District No. 7, 3025 E. Fillmore Street.
Council Districts: 1, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Human Services
Department.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Authorization to Amend the Arizona Community Action Association dba Wildfire
Ordinance S-51878 to Increase Pay Authority (Ordinance S-52112) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to amend Ordinance S-51878
to authorize an additional $280,000 in Emergency Utility Assistance funding to be
awarded to the City by Arizona Community Action Association, Inc. dba Wildfire
(Wildfire). The revised total contract amount will not exceed $880,000. Further request
authorization for the City Treasurer to accept, and the City Controller to disburse funds
for the life of the contract.

Summary
Funding provided to the City of Phoenix through this agreement will be used to assist
low-income individuals and families by removing barriers to self-sufficiency through
utility bill assistance.

The City Council approved this contract on May 7, 2025. Following the approval,
Wildfire informed the Human Service Department that additional funding is being
allocated. The additional funding will allow the Human Services Department to provide
emergency financial assistance to approximately 1,549 households.

Funding consists of both federal and local funds, including Home Energy Assistance
Funds; Utility, Repair, Replace, Deposit; Arizona Public Service; Southwest Gas Low
Income Energy Assistance Program; Southwest Gas Energy SHARE Bill Assistance;
and Salt River Project Bill Assistance.

Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about July 1, 2025, and run through June 30, 2026.

Financial Impact
The total amount of the contract will not exceed $880,000. There is no impact to the
General Fund.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
· On May 7, 2025, the City Council approved the Authorization to Enter into Contract
for Utility Assistance Programs Contract with Ordinance S-51878.



Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Human Services
Department.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
OrangeBoy, Inc. Savannah Web-based Customer Engagement Services Platform
- EXC 23-009 - Amendment (Ordinance S-52052) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Contract 157785 with OrangeBoy, Inc. to modify the scope of work to allow for the
purchase of additional features within the Savannah web-based customer engagement
services platform subscription for the Library Department, and add additional
expenditures. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item. The additional expenditures will not exceed $80,000.

Summary
This contract provides the Phoenix Public Library (PPL) with the web-based customer
engagement services platform, Savannah. The Savannah platform allows real-time
library performance analytics, access to collaboration with a national library peer
network, library customer segmentation, the ability to establish and measure PPL's key
performance indicators against industry benchmarks, and tailored library customer
messaging and community engagement. As PPL prepares to open additional
branches, the demand for these services will increase. Modification of the scope and
additional funds are needed to support this expansion and ensure the continuation of
services.

This item has been reviewed and approved by the Information Technology Services
Department.

Contract Term
The contract term remains unchanged, ending on January 31, 2028.

Financial Impact
Upon approval of $80,000 in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contract will not exceed $245,000. Funds are available in the Library Department’s
operating budget.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request:
· OrangeBoy, Inc. Savannah Web-based Customer Engagement Services Platform


Contract 157785 (Ordinance S-49336) on January 25, 2023.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Inger Erickson and the Library
Department.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Amendment to Consolidated Plan's Citizen Participation Plan - Citywide

Request City Council approval of an amendment to the Consolidated Plan's Citizen
Participation Plan and submission of the plan to the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development.

Summary
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires jurisdictions
receiving significant HUD entitlement program funds to develop a Consolidated Plan
and adopt a Citizen Participation Plan. While the primary purpose of the Consolidated
Plan is to describe the strategies and priorities to utilize federal entitlement funds
allocated to the City through the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG),
HOME Investment Partnerships, Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS, and
Emergency Solutions Grants programs, the purpose of the Citizen Participation Plan is
to set forth the policies and procedures for citizens’ involvement in the development
and administration of the Consolidated Plan.

The Neighborhood Services Department (NSD) is proposing to update the current
Citizen Participation Plan, adopted in 1996 and amended in 2010, 2018, 2020, and
2025, to provide clarification on the City's citizen outreach and engagement processes
pertaining to the development of and amendments to the City's Consolidated Plan. The
Citizen Participation Plan outlines the public participation process, which includes a
public hearing and 30-day comment period, transparency of the planning process and
access to the draft plans, instructions to guide the public’s submission of comments
and standards for the City’s response, and procedures for continuity of participation
throughout all stages of the plan's development. All these components ensure
residents who are interested in or impacted by the plans have an opportunity to
participate in the process.

The proposed amendments to the Citizen Participation Plan include:

· Removing references to outdated processes;
· Clarifying necessary Phoenix City Council actions relative to amendments to the
HUD required five-year Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plan; and



· Detailing Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report public hearing
requirements.

Public Outreach
The City of Phoenix's Citizen Participation Plan for HUD requires that a draft of the
Citizen Participation Plan amendment be posted for a 30-day public comment period
and one public hearing be conducted. The public comment period began May 12
through June 11. A public hearing was held on May 21, with invitations and the public
notice distributed through NSD's grants distribution list, posted on the Department's
website, and officially noticed in multiple publications of general circulation.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the
Neighborhood Services Department.





ATTACHMENT A




CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN




Updated May 12, 2025

Table of Contents
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN ................................................................................................ 1
ENCOURAGEMENT OF CITIZEN PARTICIPATION ...............................................................................2
PUBLIC HEARINGS, NOTICE AND OUTREACH....................................................................................3
DEVELOPMENT OF THE AFH, CONSOLIDATED PLAN OR ANNUAL ACTION PLAN ................................4
AMENDMENTS RELATING TO THE CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND ANNUAL ACTION PLAN ......................6
CITIZEN COMMENT ON CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN AND AMENDMENTS .....................................7
PUBLIC HEARING AND COMMENT PERIOD: SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENTS ........................................7
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: PERFORMANCE REPORTS (CAPER) ........................................................7
AVAILABLITY TO THE PUBLIC ...........................................................................................................8
ACCESS TO RECORDS ......................................................................................................................8
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE..................................................................................................................8
COMMENTS AND COMPLAINTS ......................................................................................................9
ANTI-DISPLACEMENT PLAN .............................................................................................................9
STATES OF EMERGENCY/DISASTER EVENTS .....................................................................................9
GLOSSARY OF TERMS....................................................................................................................10




Page 1

CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN

The Consolidated Plan (CP), Annual Action Plan (AAP), Consolidated Annual Performance and
Evaluation Report (CAPER) and any substantial amendments to these Plans and reports are
guiding documents for the use of the federal formula U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) grants and other HUD resources specified in this Citizen Participation Plan
(CPP) document and in subsequent performance reports. The CP, AAP, and CAPER are dependent
on the involvement of citizen participation in the development and implementation of the Plans
and any Plan revisions required to address the community’s needs.

The City of Phoenix encourages and promotes the involvement of its citizens in the development
and implementation of its CP, AAP, and CAPER. The City’s various citizen commissions, residents
of public and assisted housing, neighborhood-based groups, nonprofit organizations, developers,
low- and moderate-income residents of special targeted or revitalization areas, faith-based
organizations, philanthropic organizations, and others are integral partners in the planning and
implementation processes.

ENCOURAGEMENT OF CITIZEN PARTICIPATION

The City shall provide for and encourage citizen participation in the development of the CP, AAP,
CAPER, and any substantial amendments to these described documents as per 24 CFR
91.105(a)(2).

It is particularly important that low- and moderate-income persons living in areas designated by
the City as special targeted areas or revitalization areas where CDBG funds are proposed to be
used, and by residents of predominately low- and moderate-income neighborhoods as defined
by the City through the CP and AAP, be encouraged to participate. Accommodations will be made
to remove barriers and encourage participation by all citizens, English and non-English speaking.
The City shall make reasonable accommodations to make all documents referenced in this CPP
in format(s) to persons with disabilities, upon request. The City shall make reasonable
accommodations to provide language assistance to ensure meaningful access and encourage
participation by non-English speaking residents of the community. Special efforts will be made to
reach out to communities protected by the Fair Housing Act, specifically minority, immigrant, and
disability communities.

The City shall elicit the participation and consultation of the public housing authority, the
participation of residents of public and assisted housing developments (including any resident
advisory boards, resident councils, and resident management corporations) in the process of
developing and implementing the CP and AAP.

Page 2

The City shall encourage participation of local and regional institutions, Continuums of Care, and
other organizations including businesses, developers, nonprofit organizations, philanthropic
organizations, and community-based and faith-based organizations. During the development of
the CP and AAP, the City shall also consult with broadband internet service providers,
organizations engaged in narrowing the digital divide, agency(ies) whose primary responsibilities
include the management of flood prone areas, public land, or water resources, and emergency
management agencies in the development process. Information from these partners will be
included in the development of the CP and AAP.

The City will explore and implement alternative public involvement techniques and quantitative
ways to measure efforts that encourage citizen participation, including but not limited to the use
of focus groups, surveys and the internet.

The City shall provide citizens with a reasonable opportunity to comment on the original CPP,
and substantial amendments to the CPP, and shall make the CPP public. The City may additionally
adopt and implement department policies and procedures to further clarify the citizen
participation process for any of these referenced Plans, while still maintaining the requirements
of this CPP (24 CFR 91.105(a)(3)).

PUBLIC HEARINGS, NOTICE, AND OUTREACH

The City will provide for at least two public hearings per year to obtain residents' views and to
respond to proposals and questions, to be conducted at a minimum of two different stages of
the program year relative to the CP, AAP, and CAPER. All public hearings as required by HUD or
stated in this document, as per 24 CFR 91.105(e), will be noticed at least two weeks before the
meetings are conducted and be noticed in a newspaper(s) with general circulation. All postings
will include relevant information to permit informed citizen comment. Together, the hearings
will address housing and community development needs, development of proposed activities,
proposed strategies and action for affirmatively furthering fair housing, and review of program
performance. One of the public hearings will be held before the proposed CP and/or AAP is
published for the required 30-day public comment period, and one of the public hearings will be
held before the proposed CAPER is published for the required 15-day public comment period.

Every effort will be made to ensure public hearings are inclusive, including having a bilingual
(Spanish/English) staff person present to meet the needs of non-English speaking residents
where a significant number of non-English speaking residents can be reasonably expected to
participate. All public hearings to be conducted will be held at a time and location convenient to
prospective program beneficiaries. If notice is hereby given at least five calendar days in advance,
the City will provide appropriate materials, equipment and interpretation services to provide
accommodations for persons with disabilities or impairments (i.e. visual and/or hearing).

Page 3

Public hearings will be held in facilities that meet Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
and the regulations at 24 CFR part 8; and the Americans with Disabilities Act and the regulations
at 28 CFR parts 35 and 36 as applicable.

Information about the time, location, and subject of each Public Hearing will be noticed to
citizens in advance by:
a) Publication in a newspaper of general circulation;
b) Relevant City email distribution lists;
c) Publication on the City of Phoenix website.

Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act Funding Public Hearing, Notice, and
Outreach Requirements

The CARES Act, Public Law 116-136, enacted on March 27, 2020, includes a waiver allowing the
elimination of the in-person public hearing requirement for consolidated plan amendments and
allows for the implementation of at least one virtual public hearing when 1) national and or local
health authorities recommend social distancing and limiting public gatherings for public health
reasons; and 2) virtual hearings provide reasonable notification and access for citizens, timely
responses from local officials to all citizen questions and issues, and public access to all questions
and responses.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND/OR ANNUAL ACTION PLAN

Citizens, public agencies, and other interested parties will be made aware of the following
information through the publishing of the draft Plans as per CFR 91.105(b):

At the commencement of the public participation process, the City will make the HUD-provided
planning data and other supplemental information regarding the City’s plan to incorporate into
the CP and AAP available to the residents, stakeholders, public agencies, and other interested
parties. The information may include cross-references with the HUD website.

The City will post the CP and AAP, along with the performance reports on a designated City of
Phoenix website.

Information about the amount of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Emergency
Solutions Grant (ESG), HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME), Housing Opportunities for
Persons With AIDS (HOPWA), and HUD resources anticipated to be made available within the City
on a fiscal basis, as well as the amount benefitting low- and moderate-income persons, and the
eligible range of activities that may be undertaken concerning such federal programs will be
made available to the public.

Page 4

The City shall provide a narrative on the housing and non-housing community development
needs as outlined from citizen participation efforts/activities undertaken by the City, community-
based data sources, and HUD related information.

The City will conduct at least one public hearing concerning the development of the CP or AAP
before the Plan has been made available to the public.

The City will make available its draft CP and AAP on the designated City of Phoenix website, at
selected City libraries, and City offices for a 30-day public comment period, and the draft CAPER
will be made available in the same manner for a 15-day public comment period. The City shall
provide a reasonable number of copies to individuals and groups free of charge upon request.

The public shall be noticed in a newspaper(s) with general circulation, email notifications,
through social media outlets, and be apprised of the locations where citizens may review copies
of the draft Plans.

CARES Act

The CARES Act, Public Law 116-136, enacted on March 27, 2020, includes a waiver allowing the
following in an effort to prevent, prepare for and respond to the COVID-19 national pandemic:
• Reduction of the 30-day public comment period and the implementation of
a public comment period of no less than 5 days in an effort to expedite the
consolidated plan substantial amendment process and allow the City to
respond as quickly as possible to the immediate needs in the community.

• The elimination of the in-person public hearing requirement for
consolidated plan amendments and allows for the implementation of at
least one virtual public hearing when 1) national and or local health
authorities recommend social distancing and limiting public gatherings for
public health reasons; and 2) virtual hearings provide reasonable
notification and access for citizens, timely responses from local officials to
all citizen questions and issues, and public access to all questions and
responses.

Additionally, social distancing requirements enacted through the COVID- 19 state of emergency
do not allow access to public libraries. As a result, any consolidated plan amendments needed
during the COVID-19 state of emergency, will be posted to the City of Phoenix website and will
not be available at selected public libraries.

Comments received on the draft CP AAP, and CAPER in writing or orally at the public hearings,
Page 5

will be considered in preparing the final CP, AAP, and CAPER. A summary of all comments,
including comments not accepted and reasons, will be attached to the final CP AAP, and CAPER.

AMENDMENTS RELATING TO THE CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND ANNUAL ACTION PLAN

Revisions and amendments may be deemed necessary throughout the term of the CP and/or
AAP. HUD describes two levels of changes requiring amendments to the CP and/or AAP. There
are lesser level changes that will require “amendments”, which are considered non-Substantial
Amendments and will be accomplished administratively by the City, without the requirement of
further citizen participation. Revisions and amendments with a greater level of proposed
changes require “substantial amendments.” Substantial Amendments will require citizen input in
the development of the Plan as per 24 CFR 91.105(c).

Where proposed changes, revisions, and amendments will change projects and programs funded
through federal formula HUD grants and related HUD special grants, outlined in the CP and/or
AAP, the proposal will include a description of how the proposed changes, revisions, and
amendments will affect the CP and/or AAP and the community.

The criteria for a Substantial Amendment to projects/programs proposed to be funded through
CDBG, HOME, HOPWA, ESG, Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP1), Neighborhood
Stabilization Program II (NSP2), Neighborhood Stabilization Program III (NSP 3), Housing
Opportunities for People Everywhere (HOPE VI), Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-housing
and other programs is described as follows.

To the Consolidated Plan:
1) There is a change to the Priority Needs identified in the Strategic Plan;
2) There is a change to the Goals identified in the Strategic Plan;
3) There is a change to the Target Geographies/Areas identified in the Strategic Plan; and
4) New entitlement grants are awarded to the City.

To the Annual Action Plan:
1) There is a change to the Annual Goals identified in the AAP;
2) There is a change to the Target Geographies/Areas identified in the AAP:
3) When a Project previously described in the Action Plan is canceled/removed;
4) Creation of a new Project not previously described in the AAP;
5) The funding allocated to an existing Project is adjusted by 20%, or more, of the total
allocation; and
6) Revision to an existing Project which changes the purpose, scope, location, or
beneficiaries of the program.

All other changes will be considered non-Substantial Amendments and will be accomplished
administratively by the City, without the requirement of further citizen participation.

Page 6

CITIZEN COMMENT ON CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN AND AMENDMENTS

Prior to the adoption of the CPP noted herein, it will have been noticed in a newspaper(s) of
general circulation that the CPP is available for public review and comment for at least 30
calendar days, unless HUD establishes a different time period (i.e. an official waiver posted by
HUD).

Any Substantial Amendment to the CPP will be posted for public review and comment for 30
calendar days, unless HUD establishes a different time period (i.e. an official waiver posted by
HUD), before it is submitted to HUD or posted as the final document for public access.

The following items will be considered a Substantial Amendment to the CPP:

a) A change in the definition of a Substantial Amendment for the Consolidated Plan,
AAP, or Citizen Participation Plan; or
b) A change in the required public notification periods or public hearings; or
c) A change to the City's policies or procedures regarding citizen participation, to such
an extent it can no longer reasonably be construed as meeting the original intent
approved by HUD per 24 CFR Part 91.105.

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENTS

Once drafted, the text of a Substantial Amendment of the CP, AAP or CPP will be made available
for public comment prior to submission to HUD. The City will undertake the following:

a) Provide notice of the proposed Substantial Amendment(s) in a newspaper(s) of
general circulation to enable review and comment by the public for at least 30 days,
unless HUD establishes a different time period (i.e. an official waiver posted by HUD).
b) Publication on one of the City’s webpages.

Comments received on draft Substantial Amendments will be considered in preparing the final
Substantial Amendment. A summary of these comments, and a summary of comments not
accepted and the reasons, in addition to edits made to the draft during the public comment
period will be documented in the Substantial Amendment program file and submitted to HUD
when required.

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR PERFORMANCE REPORTS (CAPER)

Per 24 CFR 91.105(d) an annual performance report known as the Consolidated Annual

Page 7

Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) must be prepared by the City for annual submission
to HUD within 90 days of the conclusion of the City’s program year.

The City will provide reasonable notice of the CAPER in a newspaper(s) of general circulation to
enable review and comment by the public for at least 15 calendar days. The notice will state
where the CAPER may be obtained, which will include one of the City’s webpages. The City shall
consider any comments made in the preparation of the final CAPER and attach a summary of
such comments to the report.

As stated in the Public Hearings, Notice, and Outreach section of this document, a public hearing
will be conducted to review the performance of grant programs. The time and location will be
announced at the time of the notice. All public hearings as required by HUD or stated in this
document, as per 24 CFR 91.105(e), will be noticed at least two weeks before the meetings are
conducted and be noticed in a newspaper(s) with general circulation.

SUMMARY OF MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLIC COMMENT PERIODS

Plan/Report Minimum Required Comment Period
Consolidated Plan and/or Annual Action Plan 30 days
Citizen Participation Plan 30 days
Substantial Amendment to CP, AAP or CPP 30 days
Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report 15 days
(CAPER)




AVAILABLITY TO THE PUBLIC

The City of Phoenix will make available to the public all documents and Plans referenced in this
CPP, including the availability of materials in a form accessible to persons with disabilities, upon
request. Materials will be made available through the City of Phoenix website. These materials
are also available by telephoning the City’s Neighborhood Services Department at 602-534-4444
or TTY 7- 1-1.

ACCESS TO RECORDS

The City will provide citizens, public agencies, and other interested parties with reasonable and
timely access to the CP, AAP, CAPER, and public records relating to its past use of CDBG, HOME,
ESG, HOPWA, and other HUD funds and related assistance for the previous five years.

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
Page 8

The City will provide assistance to group representatives of low- and moderate-income persons
that request help in developing proposal for funding under the CDBG, ESG, HOPWA, HOME and
other HUD programs as described in the CP and AAP.

COMMENTS TO THE PLANS

Comments on the draft CP, AAP or any Substantial Amendment to these Plans received in writing,
or orally at the public hearing and public comment period, will be considered in preparing the
final CP, AAP or Substantial Amendment. A summary of these comments, and a summary of
comments not accepted and the reasons, will be attached to the final Plan.

Any citizen, organization or group desiring to make a complaint regarding the CP, AAP or
Substantial Amendment may do so in writing to the City’s Neighborhood Services Department,
200 West Washington Street, Fourth floor, Phoenix, AZ 85003 or by email at
grants.nsd@phoenix.gov. The City, where applicable and practical, will respond to written citizen
complaints in writing with 15 days from their receipt of such.

ANTI-DISPLACEMENT PLAN

The City discourages the displacement of people assisted through the use of CDBG, HOME, ESG,
HOPWA, or other HUD resources. Anti-displacement and relocation plans are developed on a
project basis and meet the requirements of 49 CFR Part 24 Uniform Relocation Assistance and
Real Property Acquisition for Federal and Federally Assisted Programs.

STATES OF EMERGENCY/DISASTER EVENTS

During declared states of emergency, national pandemics, disaster events, and public health
issues such as the coronavirus, it may be necessary to expedite any Substantial Amendment to
the CP, AAP, CPP or CAPER.

These expedited Substantial Amendments may include funding new activities and/or
reprogramming of funds to meet community needs resulting from the state of emergency or
disaster event. As a result, the City may utilize CDBG, HOME, ESG, HOPWA, or other HUD
resources, to meet these needs with a 5-day public comment period instead of a 30-day public
comment period. Accommodations for persons with disabilities and/or with limited English
proficiency will be made available to the greatest extent possible. During states of emergency or
disaster events, advertisements and public notices may be made available solely on the City of
Phoenix website.


Page 9

GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Annual Action Plan (AAP) - a specific one-year plan for the use of U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) formula grant funds. The formula grant programs included in
the Consolidated Plan consist of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME
Investment Partnerships Program (HOME), Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) and Housing
Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA) programs. The one-year action plan is based
upon the priority needs and goals defined in the Consolidated Plan.


Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) - taking meaningful actions, in addition to
combating discrimination, to overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive
communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected
characteristics. Specifically, affirmatively furthering fair housing means taking meaningful
actions that, taken together, address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to
opportunity, replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living
patterns, transforming racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of
opportunity, and fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws.
The duty to affirmatively further fair housing extends to all program participants’ activities and
programs relating to housing and urban development.

Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) - the identification and evaluation of barriers to fair housing
choice and contributing factors that exist.

Citizen Participation Plan (CPP) - a detailed plan that sets forth policies and procedures that
encourage and promote the involvement of its citizens in the development and
implementation of its Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plan and review of performance
reports such as the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report.

Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) - are funds, including funds received in the form
of grants under subpart D, F, or §570.405 of 24 CFR 570 (definitions), funds awarded under
section 108(q) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, loans guaranteed under
subpart M of 24 CFR 570 (definitions), urban renewal surplus grant funds, and program income
as defined in §570.500(a)

Consolidated Plan (CP) - the Plan prepared in accordance with 24 CFR part 91, which describes
needs, resources, priorities, and proposed activities to be undertaken with respect to HUD
programs, including the CDBG, HOME, ESG and HOPWA programs.

Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) – is a program authorized by subtitle B of title IV of the
McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11371-11378). The program authorizes the
Page 10

HUD to make grants to States, units of general-purpose local government, and territories for
the rehabilitation or conversion of buildings for use as emergency shelter for the homeless, for
the payment of certain expenses related to operating emergency shelters, for essential services
related to emergency shelters, street outreach for the homeless, homelessness prevention and
rapid re-housing assistance.

HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) - are grants to states and units of general local
government to implement local housing strategies designed to increase homeownership and
affordable housing opportunities for low and very low-income Americans.

Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA) - are formula allocations and
competitively awarded grants to eligible states, cities, and nonprofit organizations to provide
housing assistance and related supportive services to meet the housing needs of low-income
persons and their families living with HIV/AIDS.

HUD - the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). HUD established the
regulations and requirements for the program and has oversight responsibilities for the use of
CDBG, HOME, ESG and HOPWA funds.

Low- and moderate-income person(s)/household(s) – persons/households classified as low- to
moderate have income at 80% of the area median income (AMI). These also include a family that
has an income equal to or less than Section 8 low-income limits established by HUD.

Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) – this program was established by HUD for the
purpose of providing emergency assistance to stabilize communities with high rates of
abandoned and foreclosed homes, and to assist households whose annual incomes are up to 120
percent of the area median income (AMI). The program is authorized under Title III of the Housing
and Economic Recovery Act of 2008.
NSP1 - The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 provided a first round of
formula funding to states and units of general local government and is referred to as
NSP1.

NSP2 - The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provided a second round of
funds in 2009 awarded by competition and is referred to as NSP2.

NSP3 – The third round provided in 2010 as part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform
Act and was allocated by formula and is referred to as NSP3.

Program Income - gross income received by the recipient or a subrecipient directly generated
from the use of CDBG funds, except as provided in 24 CFR 570.500, paragraph (a)(4).
Page 11

Public Housing Authority (PHA) - any state, county, municipality, or other governmental entity
or public body, or agency or instrumentality of these entities, that is authorized to engage or
assist in the development or operation of low-income housing under the 1937 Act.

Source(s): 24 CFR Part 5, 24 CRF 91, 24 CFR 92, 24 CFR 570, 24 CFR Part 574, and 24 CFR Part 576




Page 12




Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Annual Review and Updates to the Neighborhood Services Department's Code
Enforcement Policy - Citywide

Request City Council approval of changes to the Neighborhood Services Department's
(NSD) Code Enforcement Policy (CEP), based on the annual review.

Summary
The CEP provides guidelines for enforcement of the Neighborhood Preservation
Ordinance, Zoning Ordinance and portions of other City codes/ordinances enforced by
NSD (see Attachment A). Each year, staff presents a review of the policy with any
recommended updates to the City Council, as stated in the policy, which was last
updated on June 12, 2024. The information in this report is intended to initiate the
review process and recommend updates for consideration.

The CEP is comprised of five sections. Section I through III of the CEP establish the
purpose of standard code enforcement and the notification and enforcement options
available to inspection staff; define recidivist person/properties and the possible
consequences for repeat offenders; and describe the inspection and enforcement
protocols for resident complaints with exceptions for proactive code enforcement in the
immediate area of a complaint and in strategic initiative areas. Section IV includes
information encouraging the use of hardship assistance programs for low- and
moderate-income households where funding is available and support for
owners/responsible parties who are impacted by homelessness, including increased
communication, assistance and support in the form of information, referral counseling,
outreach, the provision of volunteer labor and/or the provision of direct financial
assistance. Section V includes guidance for NSD to work cooperatively with other
departments and agencies to resolve complex and/or hazardous cases.

Based on NSD's annual review of the CEP, staff is proposing the following updates:

· Add a new section under Inspection/Enforcement to codify current practice related
to Confidentiality of Complaints.
· Consolidate the anonymous reporting information in the new Confidentiality of
Complaints section.



The staff recommended updates to the CEP are highlighted on page six of
Attachment B, with the current CEP provided as Attachment A for reference.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the
Neighborhood Services Department.





Attachment A – Current Policy




NEIGHBORHOOD
SERVICES
DEPARTMENT

CODE
ENFORCEMENT
POLICY
The Code Enforcement Policy, adopted
by the Phoenix City Council, provides
guidelines for enforcement of the
Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance,
Zoning Ordinance and portions of other
codes and ordinances.




Effective Date: June 12, 2024
Code Enforcement Policy


Neighborhood Services Department Mission
To Preserve, Enhance and Engage Phoenix Neighborhoods


Contact Us
Report a code violation:
phoenix.gov/myPHX311
(602) 534-4444



Check the status of a code enforcement case:
nsdonline.phoenix.gov/CodeEnforcement
(602) 534-4444



For information about the Neighborhood
Preservation Code Compliance program:
phoenix.gov/nsd/programs/compliance




For a copy of this publication in an alternate format or for reasonable accommodations contact:
Neighborhood Services Department ADA Liaison,
200 W. Washington St., Phoenix, AZ 85003. Voice (602) 534-4444. TTY 711.
Esta información está disponible en español.




Code Enforcement Policy


Statement of Intent
The Code Enforcement Policy is to be used to guide the efforts of the Neighborhood Services
Department to address violations of the City Code. To achieve compliance, it is the intent of the
department to lead with education, provide resources when hardships exist, and enforce when
necessary. Code enforcement is intended to be used to foster partnership with residents to support the
overall health, safety, and welfare of the City, and to protect neighborhoods against hazardous,
blighting, and deteriorating influences or conditions. Neighborhood Preservation Inspectors provide
excellent customer service and will operate with fairness, integrity, transparency, and consistent
professionalism while working to meet the department’s intent.

I. Standard Code Enforcement
A. Purpose

It is the intent of the city of Phoenix to promote the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of
Phoenix, Arizona. Part of this responsibility includes protecting neighborhoods from blighting and
deteriorating conditions that have a negative impact on area property values and encourage social
disorder and crime. This is achieved through ordinances and by establishing a policy to guide
enforcement of the ordinances.

B. Standard Enforcement Policy

environment of their neighborhoods through standards set in local ordinances. To assist in this
endeavor, the following code enforcement policy has been established to guide the city in addressing
properties with code violations.


The following actions will be taken on properties where there has been no case history or history of
violations and/or previous enforcement action:

1. Inspection/Pre-notification
When a property complaint is received, the city will respond in the following manner:

a. Immediate Inspections
If the alleged violation concerns a potential health or safety hazard to the neighborhood or
neighbors, inclusive of open/vacant buildings, fire and/or health hazards, unsecured pools or
other health and safety hazards, the city will respond with an immediate inspection.

b. Pre-Notification Letter
If the alleged violation is not a potential health or safety hazard, if the property is occupied and if
a mailing address is available, the city will issue a pre- notification letter to the
owner/responsible parties notifying them that specific complaints have been received and that
an inspection will be conducted within ten days. Information on the most common blighting
violations will also be included with the pre-notification letter.





Code Enforcement Policy

2. Formal Notice of Ordinance Violation (NOV)

Except in cases involving health and safety violations, cases with previous history of code
violations, violations of a transient nature such as home occupation standards and violations
involving vendors, the responsible party or parties will be officially notified that a violation has been
discovered through an inspection and will be advised of specific corrective action required. They
will also be advised through this process of what further action will be taken by the city if they do
not comply. In addition, owners/responsible parties will be advised of available appropriate
assistance as enumerated in Section IV.B. of this policy.

a. Timelines for NOV Reinspection
I. Standard – 15 days (minor violations)
II. Standard – 35 days (significant cost to correct)
III. Abatement – 35 days
IV. Hazard – 0 to 24 hours
V. Graffiti – 10 days
VI. Rental Registration – 10 days
VII. Illegal Signs - 5 days
VIII. Mobile Vending – 0 to 15 days

The NOV will include an explanation that recidivists will receive only one official notice for a
violation and that future offenses of city ordinances may result in legal action without
issuance of further notices of ordinance violation. Information on the most common blighting
violations will also be included with the NOV.

3. Civil Citation
Owners/responsible parties who fail to comply will be subject to the issuance of a civil citation that
will be adjudicated by a hearing officer/judge. In the case of properties that are not owner occupied
the following general guidelines will apply:

 In general, tenants/occupants will be held responsible for items concerning routine maintenance
and for personal property items.
 In situations where tenants/occupants have failed to fulfill their responsibility for compliance with
city ordinances, owners/responsible parties may also be held accountable.
 In cases involving unoccupied properties, owners/ responsible parties will be held accountable
for all property conditions.

4. Criminal Complaint
Failure to comply with any of the preceding actions will be cause to proceed with a criminal
complaint.

5. City Abatement
The city, at its own discretion, may choose to directly abate and assess (lien) for any and all
violations that remain in non-compliance with city ordinances or regulations.





Code Enforcement Policy

6. Exceptions
Exceptions to the standard code enforcement policy are as follows:

Episodic Violations
a. An episodic violation is one that occurs intermittently. To effectively address episodic
violations in an expediated manner, the Neighborhood Services Department will deviate
from the standard enforcement process and proceed to an immediate citation.

Violations include, but are not limited to, non-permitted events where the owner has been
notified but activity continues, such as unauthorized parties that occur on commercial
properties and events with outdoor entertainment without the appropriate use permit.


II. Recidivists Persons/Properties and Egregious Violations
A. Purpose

The recidivist process is designed to provide relief via an expedited enforcement process for
neighborhoods experiencing problems with residents who repeatedly violate city ordinances and
who have demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to remain a good neighbor by maintaining their
property.

B. Definition

A recidivist case is a newly opened case on a property involving the same responsible party for the
same violation or any of the common blight violations as specified in Section III (B) (4) (a), where
within the last 12 months, the responsible party has been issued a Notice of Ordinance Violation
and/or civil citation, and/or had criminal charges filed for, and/or contractual abatement initiated.

An egregious violation is when the condition or state of a property is in an extreme state of violation,
which could present health and safety issues, or is beyond the reasonable scenario where the
owner may not be aware there is a violation.

If unusual or mitigating circumstances warrant, the City Manager or designee exempt a responsible
party from the recidivist designation. In such cases, the City Manager or designee will seek input
from the complainant, neighborhood associations or block watches in the area, area residents or
other staff, as appropriate, to assist in making a determination.

C. Notification Policy
Cases with a violation, which have been determined to be recidivist or chronic recidivist, will not be
issued a pre-notification letter or standard NOV, and will proceed immediately to one of the following
code enforcement actions based on the unique facts of the case:

 issue a NOV requiring the abatement of the violations
 issue a civil citation
 request a criminal summons



Code Enforcement Policy

III. Inspection/Enforcement
A. Purpose

The Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance, Zoning Ordinance and other ordinances and codes
enforced by the Neighborhood Services Department are enforced on a complaint basis. This is
designed to encourage resident, neighborhood association, block watch or other city department
participation in the enforcement process. The graffiti supplies non-access regulations (Section 39-
10 D) of the Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance, mobile vending regulations, Vacant Property
Registry, and common blight violations identified along arterial streets may be enforced proactively.

Anonymous complaints will be accepted with the following exceptions: home occupation complaints;
portions of the animal ordinance (Chapter 8); when past complaints for the same alleged violation
on the same property have been found to be invalid on three or more occasions; and in situations
when a street address is not provided. Complaints in these categories will require that the
complainant provide a name and contact phone number.

B. Exceptions

Exceptions to the complaint-based enforcement policy are as follows:

1. Active Neighborhood Fight Back Areas

The Neighborhood Fight Back Program is a resident mobilization effort that provides a temporary
increase in city services to assist in community revitalization efforts. The increased services are
targeted to reduce crime, eliminate, or prevent blight and help restore or stabilize neighborhoods.

Deviation from the complaint-based enforcement process will take place at the request of, and with
the active support and cooperation of, area residents.

2. Neighborhood Initiative Areas

Combined with the city's long-standing commitment to improve distressed areas, the Neighborhood
Services Department is focusing resources for concentrated and comprehensive revitalization in five
Neighborhood Initiative Areas. The concept is to concentrate resources, complete revitalization,
then move to other areas of need. The neighborhoods identified and selected require a
comprehensive approach for restoration and revitalization. Staff works with residents so that
success can be defined, and a strategy developed to achieve it.

These and future designated NIAs will allow for non-complaint-based inspections and enforcement.

3. Redevelopment Areas, Neighborhood Revitalization Areas, or other Target Areas

The Neighborhood Services Department works with resident advisory committees and
neighborhood organizations in the city's designated Redevelopment Areas and other Target Areas
to eliminate blight and to promote residential and commercial redevelopment and revitalization. In
order to support and complement redevelopment and revitalization efforts within the designated
redevelopment and Target Areas, systematic and non-complaint- based code enforcement may be
required.



Code Enforcement Policy

At the request of Phoenix City Council members, certain Neighborhood Revitalization Areas are
designated by the Neighborhood Services Department for neighborhood organization and
revitalization activities. Based upon the request of, and in partnership with, the neighborhood
organization, non- complaint-based code enforcement may be implemented in these areas.

4. Properties in the Immediate Area which are an Obvious Detriment or Blight

When an initial inspection is conducted, based on a complaint, the inspector may:

a. Expand upon the initial complaint on the same property and determine whether violations exist
on the following items identified by City Council:

 High weeds/grass or dead/dry bushes, trees, weeds and/or other vegetation
 Inoperable vehicles
 Junk, litter and/or debris
 Open/vacant buildings and structures
 Outside storage
 Fences in disrepair
 Vehicles parked on a non-dust proofed surface or in non-permitted areas of residential front
or side yards
 Graffiti
 Properties not listed on the Vacant Property Registry

b. Inspect additional properties in the immediate area of the initial reported violation
c. Limit the inspection to those items, which appeared as violations on the initial property on which
the complaint was received; and the items listed in III (B)(4)(a).
d. Initiate appropriate enforcement action

5. Environmental, Imminent Hazard and/or Fire Safety Conditions

In order to maintain and protect neighborhoods from imminent hazards, environmental hazards, fire
hazards and other types of similar conditions that may immediately endanger or place residents in
peril, the city will summarily inspect/abate any and all conditions which are discovered without
benefit of complaint.

6. Seamless Service Efforts

The Neighborhood Services Department may be called upon by other departments or governmental
agencies to partner on issues of community concern in areas outside of the city’s designated Target
Areas. It is the department’s goal to provide seamless and coordinated service in such
circumstances to facilitate the resolution of an identified community problem. In order to support and
complement these interagency/interdepartmental efforts, systematic and non-complaint-based code
enforcement may be implemented with the approval of the City Manager or designee.

7. City-designated Slum Properties

In an effort to comprehensively and effectively address multiple violations at city- designated slum
properties, the Neighborhood Services Department may implement non-complaint-based code
enforcement.

Code Enforcement Policy

8. Recidivist/Chronic Recidivist Properties

To address frequently recurring violations on recidivist properties, the Neighborhood Services
Department may initiate non-complaint-based inspections/ code enforcement on recidivist
properties after case resolution to check for a recurrence of the same violation(s) and/or any of the
common blight violations as identified in Section III. (B) (4) (a).

To assure lasting compliance on chronic recidivist properties, the Neighborhood Services
Department shall initiate non-complaint based exterior inspections/ code enforcement on
designated chronic recidivist properties after case resolution, to check for a recurrence of the same
violation(s) and/or any of the common blight violations as identified in Section III. B. (4) (a).

9. Private Communities
Enforcement of violations within private communities with private roads and/or limited public access
are generally the responsibility of the owner(s), responsible party, property manager, and/or park
managers. NSD will enforce violations visible from the property boundaries and health and safety
violations reported by residents within the community.

10. Short Term Rental Properties

To ensure the appropriate permitting requirements are met, the Neighborhood Services Department
may proactively enforce non-permitted Short-Term Rentals. Additionally, the Director may adopt a
policy to regularly inspect properties for compliance with Section 10-205.


IV. Hardship Assistance
A. Purpose

It is the intent of the city to provide assistance to all low- and moderate- income households that are
eligible for financial assistance, and support for owners/responsible parties who are impacted by
homelessness. Assistance and support will be provided in the form of information, referral,
counseling, outreach, the provision of volunteer labor and/or the provision of direct financial
assistance. Additional time to achieve compliance may also be necessary due to the resources
offered.

B. Available Resources

Based upon funding availability and in some cases participant eligibility the Neighborhood Services
Department will provide or coordinate the following types of assistance:

 Information
 Housing, financial, landlord/tenant counseling
 Referral to public, private, or nonprofit sources of assistance
 Tool lending
 Volunteer labor assistance
 Graffiti abatement supplies and assistance
 Financial assistance to bring violations into compliance
 Housing rehabilitation/reconstruction (limited geographic areas only)

Code Enforcement Policy


V. Interdepartmental/Interagency Cooperation
A. Purpose

The Neighborhood Services Department will cooperate with other departments and agencies when
appropriate to further the mutual goals of nuisance abatement and neighborhood maintenance for
the benefit of the entire community.

B. Cooperation From Other Departments

Upon the request of the director or designee, the Police Department and any other department of
the city will assist and cooperate with the director in the performance of duties related to the
enforcement of ordinances. This cooperation may include assistance in enforcement or abatement
actions, including removal of persons from buildings or structures to be demolished.

C. Hazardous Conditions

The city manager or designee may order immediate abatement of a hazard without notice. The
Neighborhood Services Department may also request official concurrence from other departments
as to whether immediate abatement action is necessary. These departments or agencies include,
but are not limited to, Police, Fire, Public Works, Development Services, and the Maricopa County
Environmental Services departments.


VI. Annual Review by City Council
This Code Enforcement Policy will be reviewed and evaluated annually by the City Council.





Attachment B – Proposed Revised Policy




NEIGHBORHOOD
SERVICES
DEPARTMENT

CODE
ENFORCEMENT
POLICY
The Code Enforcement Policy, adopted
by the Phoenix City Council, provides
guidelines for enforcement of the
Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance,
Zoning Ordinance and portions of other
codes and ordinances.




Effective Date: June 18, 2025
Code Enforcement Policy


Neighborhood Services Department Mission
To Preserve, Enhance and Engage Phoenix Neighborhoods


Contact Us
Report a code violation:
phoenix.gov/myPHX311
(602) 534-4444



Check the status of a code enforcement case:
nsdonline.phoenix.gov/CodeEnforcement
(602) 534-4444



For information about the Neighborhood
Preservation Code Compliance program:
phoenix.gov/nsd/programs/compliance




For a copy of this publication in an alternate format or for reasonable accommodations contact:
Neighborhood Services Department ADA Liaison,
200 W. Washington St., Phoenix, AZ 85003. Voice (602) 534-4444. TTY 711.
Esta información está disponible en español.




Code Enforcement Policy


Statement of Intent
The Code Enforcement Policy is to be used to guide the efforts of the Neighborhood Services
Department to address violations of the City Code. To achieve compliance, it is the intent of the
department to lead with education, provide resources when hardships exist, and enforce when
necessary. Code enforcement is intended to be used to foster partnership with residents to support the
overall health, safety, and welfare of the City, and to protect neighborhoods against hazardous,
blighting, and deteriorating influences or conditions. Neighborhood Preservation Inspectors provide
excellent customer service and will operate with fairness, integrity, transparency, and consistent
professionalism while working to meet the department’s intent.

I. Standard Code Enforcement
A. Purpose

It is the intent of the city of Phoenix to promote the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of
Phoenix, Arizona. Part of this responsibility includes protecting neighborhoods from blighting and
deteriorating conditions that have a negative impact on area property values and encourage social
disorder and crime. This is achieved through ordinances and by establishing a policy to guide
enforcement of the ordinances.

B. Standard Enforcement Policy

environment of their neighborhoods through standards set in local ordinances. To assist in this
endeavor, the following code enforcement policy has been established to guide the city in addressing
properties with code violations.


The following actions will be taken on properties where there has been no case history or history of
violations and/or previous enforcement action:

1. Inspection/Pre-notification
When a property complaint is received, the city will respond in the following manner:

a. Immediate Inspections
If the alleged violation concerns a potential health or safety hazard to the neighborhood or
neighbors, inclusive of open/vacant buildings, fire and/or health hazards, unsecured pools or
other health and safety hazards, the city will respond with an immediate inspection.

b. Pre-Notification Letter
If the alleged violation is not a potential health or safety hazard, if the property is occupied and if
a mailing address is available, the city will issue a pre- notification letter to the
owner/responsible parties notifying them that specific complaints have been received and that
an inspection will be conducted within ten days. Information on the most common blighting
violations will also be included with the pre-notification letter.





Code Enforcement Policy

2. Formal Notice of Ordinance Violation (NOV)

Except in cases involving health and safety violations, cases with previous history of code
violations, violations of a transient nature such as home occupation standards and violations
involving vendors, the responsible party or parties will be officially notified that a violation has been
discovered through an inspection and will be advised of specific corrective action required. They
will also be advised through this process of what further action will be taken by the city if they do
not comply. In addition, owners/responsible parties will be advised of available appropriate
assistance as enumerated in Section IV.B. of this policy.

a. Timelines for NOV Reinspection
I. Standard – 15 days (minor violations)
II. Standard – 35 days (significant cost to correct)
III. Abatement – 35 days
IV. Hazard – 0 to 24 hours
V. Graffiti – 10 days
VI. Rental Registration – 10 days
VII. Illegal Signs - 5 days
VIII. Mobile Vending – 0 to 15 days

The NOV will include an explanation that recidivists will receive only one official notice for a
violation and that future offenses of city ordinances may result in legal action without
issuance of further notices of ordinance violation. Information on the most common blighting
violations will also be included with the NOV.

3. Civil Citation
Owners/responsible parties who fail to comply will be subject to the issuance of a civil citation that
will be adjudicated by a hearing officer/judge. In the case of properties that are not owner occupied
the following general guidelines will apply:

 In general, tenants/occupants will be held responsible for items concerning routine maintenance
and for personal property items.
 In situations where tenants/occupants have failed to fulfill their responsibility for compliance with
city ordinances, owners/responsible parties may also be held accountable.
 In cases involving unoccupied properties, owners/ responsible parties will be held accountable
for all property conditions.

4. Criminal Complaint
Failure to comply with any of the preceding actions will be cause to proceed with a criminal
complaint.

5. City Abatement
The city, at its own discretion, may choose to directly abate and assess (lien) for any and all
violations that remain in non-compliance with city ordinances or regulations.





Code Enforcement Policy

6. Exceptions
Exceptions to the standard code enforcement policy are as follows:

Episodic Violations
a. An episodic violation is one that occurs intermittently. To effectively address episodic
violations in an expediated manner, the Neighborhood Services Department will deviate
from the standard enforcement process and proceed to an immediate citation.

Violations include, but are not limited to, non-permitted events where the owner has been
notified but activity continues, such as unauthorized parties that occur on commercial
properties and events with outdoor entertainment without the appropriate use permit.


II. Recidivists Persons/Properties and Egregious Violations
A. Purpose

The recidivist process is designed to provide relief via an expedited enforcement process for
neighborhoods experiencing problems with residents who repeatedly violate city ordinances and
who have demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to remain a good neighbor by maintaining their
property.

B. Definition

A recidivist case is a newly opened case on a property involving the same responsible party for the
same violation or any of the common blight violations as specified in Section III (B) (4) (a), where
within the last 12 months, the responsible party has been issued a Notice of Ordinance Violation
and/or civil citation, and/or had criminal charges filed for, and/or contractual abatement initiated.

An egregious violation is when the condition or state of a property is in an extreme state of violation,
which could present health and safety issues, or is beyond the reasonable scenario where the
owner may not be aware there is a violation.

If unusual or mitigating circumstances warrant, the City Manager or designee exempt a responsible
party from the recidivist designation. In such cases, the City Manager or designee will seek input
from the complainant, neighborhood associations or block watches in the area, area residents or
other staff, as appropriate, to assist in making a determination.

C. Notification Policy
Cases with a violation, which have been determined to be recidivist or chronic recidivist, will not be
issued a pre-notification letter or standard NOV, and will proceed immediately to one of the following
code enforcement actions based on the unique facts of the case:

 issue a NOV requiring the abatement of the violations
 issue a civil citation
 request a criminal summons



Code Enforcement Policy

III. Inspection/Enforcement
A. Purpose

The Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance, Zoning Ordinance and other ordinances and codes
enforced by the Neighborhood Services Department are enforced on a complaint basis. This is
designed to encourage resident, neighborhood association, block watch or other city department
participation in the enforcement process. The graffiti supplies non-access regulations (Section 39-
10 D) of the Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance, mobile vending regulations, Vacant Property
Registry, and common blight violations identified along arterial streets may be enforced proactively.

B. Confidentiality of Complaints

The Neighborhood Services Department’s policy is to not publicly disclose complainant information,
unless required by law. Once a violation is substantiated, the City of Phoenix serves as the official
complainant for the duration of the case.

A property may be reported anonymously, or residents may choose to leave their contact
information as part of the process for any additional inquiries for the inspector. Anonymous
complaints will be accepted with the following exceptions: home occupation complaints; portions of
the animal ordinance (Chapter 8); when past complaints for the same alleged violation on the same
property have been found to be invalid on three or more occasions; and in situations when a street
address is not provided. Complaints in these categories will require that the complainant provides a
name and contact phone number.

C. Exceptions

Exceptions to the complaint-based enforcement policy are as follows:

1. Active Neighborhood Fight Back Areas

The Neighborhood Fight Back Program is a resident mobilization effort that provides a temporary
increase in city services to assist in community revitalization efforts. The increased services are
targeted to reduce crime, eliminate, or prevent blight and help restore or stabilize neighborhoods.

Deviation from the complaint-based enforcement process will take place at the request of, and with
the active support and cooperation of, area residents.

2. Neighborhood Initiative Areas

Combined with the city's long-standing commitment to improve distressed areas, the Neighborhood
Services Department is focusing resources for concentrated and comprehensive revitalization in five
Neighborhood Initiative Areas. The concept is to concentrate resources, complete revitalization,
then move to other areas of need. The neighborhoods identified and selected require a
comprehensive approach for restoration and revitalization. Staff works with residents so that
success can be defined, and a strategy developed to achieve it.

These and future designated NIAs will allow for non-complaint-based inspections and enforcement.

3. Redevelopment Areas, Neighborhood Revitalization Areas, or other Target Areas

Code Enforcement Policy

The Neighborhood Services Department works with resident advisory committees and
neighborhood organizations in the city's designated Redevelopment Areas and other Target Areas
to eliminate blight and to promote residential and commercial redevelopment and revitalization. In
order to support and complement redevelopment and revitalization efforts within the designated
redevelopment and Target Areas, systematic and non-complaint- based code enforcement may be
required.


At the request of Phoenix City Council members, certain Neighborhood Revitalization Areas are
designated by the Neighborhood Services Department for neighborhood organization and
revitalization activities. Based upon the request of, and in partnership with, the neighborhood
organization, non- complaint-based code enforcement may be implemented in these areas.

4. Properties in the Immediate Area which are an Obvious Detriment or Blight

When an initial inspection is conducted, based on a complaint, the inspector may:

a. Expand upon the initial complaint on the same property and determine whether violations exist
on the following items identified by City Council:

 High weeds/grass or dead/dry bushes, trees, weeds and/or other vegetation
 Inoperable vehicles
 Junk, litter and/or debris
 Open/vacant buildings and structures
 Outside storage
 Fences in disrepair
 Vehicles parked on a non-dust proofed surface or in non-permitted areas of residential front
or side yards
 Graffiti
 Properties not listed on the Vacant Property Registry

b. Inspect additional properties in the immediate area of the initial reported violation
c. Limit the inspection to those items, which appeared as violations on the initial property on which
the complaint was received; and the items listed in III (B)(4)(a).
d. Initiate appropriate enforcement action

5. Environmental, Imminent Hazard and/or Fire Safety Conditions

In order to maintain and protect neighborhoods from imminent hazards, environmental hazards, fire
hazards and other types of similar conditions that may immediately endanger or place residents in
peril, the city will summarily inspect/abate any and all conditions which are discovered without
benefit of complaint.

6. Seamless Service Efforts

The Neighborhood Services Department may be called upon by other departments or governmental
agencies to partner on issues of community concern in areas outside of the city’s designated Target
Areas. It is the department’s goal to provide seamless and coordinated service in such
circumstances to facilitate the resolution of an identified community problem. In order to support and

Code Enforcement Policy

complement these interagency/interdepartmental efforts, systematic and non-complaint-based code
enforcement may be implemented with the approval of the City Manager or designee.

7. City-designated Slum Properties

In an effort to comprehensively and effectively address multiple violations at city- designated slum
properties, the Neighborhood Services Department may implement non-complaint-based code
enforcement.

8. Recidivist/Chronic Recidivist Properties

To address frequently recurring violations on recidivist properties, the Neighborhood Services
Department may initiate non-complaint-based inspections/ code enforcement on recidivist
properties after case resolution to check for a recurrence of the same violation(s) and/or any of the
common blight violations as identified in Section III. (B) (4) (a).

To assure lasting compliance on chronic recidivist properties, the Neighborhood Services
Department shall initiate non-complaint based exterior inspections/ code enforcement on
designated chronic recidivist properties after case resolution, to check for a recurrence of the same
violation(s) and/or any of the common blight violations as identified in Section III. B. (4) (a).

9. Private Communities
Enforcement of violations within private communities with private roads and/or limited public access
are generally the responsibility of the owner(s), responsible party, property manager, and/or park
managers. NSD will enforce violations visible from the property boundaries and health and safety
violations reported by residents within the community.

10. Short Term Rental Properties

To ensure the appropriate permitting requirements are met, the Neighborhood Services Department
may proactively enforce non-permitted Short-Term Rentals. Additionally, the Director may adopt a
policy to regularly inspect properties for compliance with Section 10-205.


IV. Hardship Assistance
A. Purpose

It is the intent of the city to provide assistance to all low- and moderate- income households that are
eligible for financial assistance, and support for owners/responsible parties who are impacted by
homelessness. Assistance and support will be provided in the form of information, referral,
counseling, outreach, the provision of volunteer labor and/or the provision of direct financial
assistance. Additional time to achieve compliance may also be necessary due to the resources
offered.

B. Available Resources

Based upon funding availability and in some cases participant eligibility the Neighborhood Services
Department will provide or coordinate the following types of assistance:


Code Enforcement Policy

 Information
 Housing, financial, landlord/tenant counseling
 Referral to public, private, or nonprofit sources of assistance
 Tool lending
 Volunteer labor assistance
 Graffiti abatement supplies and assistance
 Financial assistance to bring violations into compliance
 Housing rehabilitation/reconstruction (limited geographic areas only)


V. Interdepartmental/Interagency Cooperation
A. Purpose

The Neighborhood Services Department will cooperate with other departments and agencies when
appropriate to further the mutual goals of nuisance abatement and neighborhood maintenance for
the benefit of the entire community.

B. Cooperation From Other Departments

Upon the request of the director or designee, the Police Department and any other department of
the city will assist and cooperate with the director in the performance of duties related to the
enforcement of ordinances. This cooperation may include assistance in enforcement or abatement
actions, including removal of persons from buildings or structures to be demolished.

C. Hazardous Conditions

The city manager or designee may order immediate abatement of a hazard without notice. The
Neighborhood Services Department may also request official concurrence from other departments
as to whether immediate abatement action is necessary. These departments or agencies include,
but are not limited to, Police, Fire, Public Works, Development Services, and the Maricopa County
Environmental Services departments.


VI. Annual Review by City Council
This Code Enforcement Policy will be reviewed and evaluated annually by the City Council.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
2025-26 Community Development Block Grant Neighborhood Enhancement and
Infrastructure Programs (Ordinance S-52060) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to procure services and
amend existing contracts as necessary or appropriate to implement the Neighborhood
Services Department's (NSD) grant-funded Enhancement and Infrastructure Programs
in an aggregate amount not to exceed $1,550,000. All existing contract spending limits
are included in the aggregate total for this item. Further request to authorize the City
Treasurer to accept, and the City Controller to disburse, all funds related to this item.
There is no impact to the General Fund.

Summary
NSD administers enhancement and infrastructure projects that benefit low- and
moderate-income residents of Phoenix, and prevent or eliminate blight by improving
the physical infrastructure of neighborhoods. Enhancement and Infrastructure
Programs are designed and implemented in partnership with active neighborhood
organizations, City of Phoenix departments, including Library, Parks and Recreation,
and Street Transportation, and local non-profit organizations to provide additional
resources and support to implement strategies that achieve basic neighborhood
improvement goals. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD),
through the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), funds the following
Enhancement and Infrastructure Programs:

The Neighborhood Enhancement Program (up to $900,000)
Activities that address neighborhood needs with projects that include, but are not
limited to: improving public and nonprofit owned public facilities, such as parks, youth
centers, and community facilities, and other enhancement projects that provide a
public benefit to residents with low- and moderate-income in the City of Phoenix. All
projects are subject to federal regulations and requirements.

The Neighborhood Infrastructure Program (up to $650,000)
Activities that improve streets and street lighting, median landscaping, traffic and
speed mitigation, water and sewer, drainage, and other infrastructure projects that
serve low- and moderate-income areas. All projects are subject to federal regulations
and requirements.




Additional activities include the acquisition, disposition, and rehabilitation of public
facilities to address slum and blight on a spot or area basis.

NSD seeks authorization to proceed with all actions necessary to implement and
administer the grant-funded Neighborhood Enhancement and Infrastructure Programs
in Fiscal Year 2025-26.
· If approved, procure and/or amend any necessary contracts or agreements with
subrecipients and contractors to fund existing and future contracts in accordance
with the grant terms.
· Acquire or dispose of real property meeting the applicable federal rules and
regulations and take all actions necessary to carry out acquisition, rehabilitation,
and/or disposition activities in accordance with grant terms.
· Take all other action necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of the item
and implement and administer the Neighborhood Enhancement and Infrastructure
Programs in accordance with federal regulations and requirements.

Applicant and Review Process
Neighborhood Enhancement and Infrastructure applications and needs assessments
may be submitted any time and are reviewed by City of Phoenix staff as they are
received to determine the eligibility, feasibility, and risk of the proposed projects.
Successful applications must benefit and serve low- and moderate-income residents of
Phoenix and prevent or eliminate blight by improving the physical infrastructure of
neighborhoods.

Procurement Information
Services may be procured, as needed, utilizing procurement procedures in accordance
with Administrative Regulation 3.10 and 3.25 to implement and administer NSD's
Neighborhood Enhancement and Infrastructure Programs.

Financial Impact
These programs are funded by HUD through CDBG funds. There is no impact to the
General Fund.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the
Neighborhood Services Department.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
2025-2029 Consolidated Plan and 2025-2026 Annual Action Plan - Submission to
HUD (Ordinance S-52051) - Citywide

Request City Council approval of the draft 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan and the 2025-
2026 Annual Action Plan; and the submission of these items to the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The responsible departments also seek
authorization to proceed with all actions necessary or appropriate to implement and
administer these plans, including payment authority to reimburse funds to HUD and
programming any current or prior year Program Income. Activities to administer the
Consolidated Plan include issuing solicitations (Request for Proposals, Notice of
Funding Opportunities, etc.), entering into and/or amending any necessary contracts
and agreements, and programming any current or prior year program income. Further
request authorization for the City Treasurer to accept, and the City Controller to
disburse, all funds related to these items.

Summary
The 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan (Attachment A) examines housing and community
development needs in the City of Phoenix and defines strategies for addressing those
needs over the next five years. The plan contains the application requirements for four
HUD programs administered by the City, which include: Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME), Emergency Solutions
Grant (ESG), and Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA).

The 2025-2026 Annual Action Plan describes how funds will be used to address the
priorities and achieve the goals outlined in the first year of the Consolidated Plan. The
2025-2026 grant allocations are as follows:

· CDBG: $14,389,727
· HOME: $5,123,745.14
· ESG: $1,271,028
· HOPWA: $5,586,702
· Total Funding: $26,371,202.14





CDBG
Critical Core Programs: $9,353,422.55
Public Services: $2,158,459.05
Program Management, Coordination, and Support: $2,877,845.40
Total CDBG Funding: $14,389,727

HOME
Multi-Family New Construction/Rehabilitation Projects, Reconstruction/Rehabilitation
of Owner-Occupied Homes, and Homeownership Assistance: $4,611,370.63
Program Management, Coordination, and Support: $512,374.51
Total HOME Funding: $5,123,745.14

HOPWA
Client Housing and Related Services: $5,419,101
Program Management, Coordination, and Support: $167,601
Total HOPWA Funding: $5,586,702

ESG
Emergency Shelter: $700,000
Rapid Re-Housing: $560,765
Street Outreach: $5,263
Eviction Prevention: $250,000 (from 2024-25 unspent funds)
Homeless Management Information Systems: $5,000
Program Management, Coordination, and Support: $0
Total ESG Funding: $1,271,028

Public Outreach
A multifaceted and multilingual approach to engage the community was launched to
promote the involvement of low- and moderate-income populations including:
· Six in-person community engagement sessions were conducted in English and
Spanish to introduce residents to the City's Five-Year Consolidated Plan.
· A survey, in English and Spanish, was distributed by multiple City departments,
through City social media outlets, and posted on City webpages.
· Published community engagement sessions and public hearing notices in the
Arizona Republic, Arizona Informant, Record Reporter, Prensa Hispana, and La Voz
newspapers.
· Email broadcasts sent to 10,748 City residents, public housing residents, housing
developers, Section 8 participants, Section 8 landlords, and neighborhood groups.
· Facebook, X (Twitter), and Instagram social media postings promoting the
community meetings and survey links.


· Flyers posted at ARIZONA@WORK at the 51st Avenue location, Burton Barr
Central Library, Adam Diaz Senior Center, South Mountain Community Center,
Senior Opportunities West Senior Center, and Marcos de Niza Senior Center.
· In-person outreach at: Lindo Park G.A.I.N. event on February 22, 2025; Maryvale
Mercado event on February 22, 2025; and Kuban Neighborhood Celebrates
Literacy in the Community event on March 1, 2025.

Efforts were also made to ensure community engagement sessions were held in
locations and facilities that were accessible to non-English speaking persons,
individuals with disabilities, and low- and moderate-income individuals throughout the
City. A total of 112 residents attended six engagement sessions and provided feedback
on their housing, economic, and community development needs and priorities for the
City.

To supplement the community engagement sessions an online survey was offered in
both English and Spanish. A total of 309 survey responses (292 in English and 17 in
Spanish) were received. The survey was available online on the City's website and
hard copies were made available at senior centers. Additionally, the survey was
emailed to City departments, community agencies and stakeholders who then
advertised the survey link in their newsletters, social media, and conducted outreach
through their email networks.

Based on the public outreach and community engagement process, the following goals
have been developed for the 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan:

1. Develop and preserve affordable housing - Promote and fund new affordable
development including homeownership opportunities for low- and moderate-income
households; development of new rental housing inventory; and homeowner housing
rehabilitation activities.
2. Public services for low- and moderate-income and special need populations -
Provide supportive services to low- to moderate-income and special need
populations.
3. Public facilities and infrastructure development - Provide funds to improve and
expand public facilities and infrastructure such as parks, community centers,
sidewalks, and streets.
4. Economic development - Provide support for activities, such as technical
assistance, and promote job retention or creation for low- and moderate-income
residents.
5. Removal of slum and blight - Provide support for the removal of slum and blight in
low- to moderate-income areas in the City of Phoenix. Demolition activities of aging



and dilapidated structures.
6. Housing and services for the homeless - Provide support for overnight shelter
services for individuals and families experiencing homelessness. Emergency
shelter includes wraparound services that help individuals and families gain self-
sufficiency. Provide homeless prevention services for those at-risk of
homelessness, and rapid re-housing assistance.
7. Housing and services for persons with HIV/AIDS - Provide funding support for
housing activities and related services for persons living with HIV/AIDS, including
permanent housing placement and supportive services.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Alan Stephenson and Gina Montes,
the Neighborhood Services, Human Services and Housing departments and the Office
of Homeless Solutions.





ATTACHMENT A




2025-2029 Consolidated Plan
DRAFT


200 W. Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003




Table of Contents
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................... 5
ES-05 Executive Summary - 24 CFR 91.200(c), 91.220(b) ..................................................................5

The Process ......................................................................................................................... 12
PR-05 Lead & Responsible Agencies 24 CFR 91.200(b)....................................................................12
PR-10 Consultation – 91.100, 91.110, 91.200(b), 91.300(b), 91.215(I) and 91.315(I) ........................ 14
PR-15 Citizen Participation – 91.105, 91.115, 91.200(c) and 91.300(c) ............................................24

Needs Assessment ............................................................................................................... 30
NA-05 Overview ...........................................................................................................................30
NA-10 Housing Needs Assessment - 24 CFR 91.205 (a,b,c)..............................................................32
NA-15 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Problems – 91.205 (b)(2) ...................................52
NA-20 Disproportionately Greater Need: Severe Housing Problems – 91.205 (b)(2) ........................ 57
NA-25 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Cost Burdens – 91.205 (b)(2) .............................61
NA-30 Disproportionately Greater Need: Discussion – 91.205(b)(2) ...............................................63
NA-35 Public Housing – 91.205(b) .................................................................................................64
NA-40 Homeless Needs Assessment – 91.205(c) ............................................................................70
NA-45 Non-Homeless Special Needs Assessment - 91.205 (b,d)......................................................75
NA-50 Non-Housing Community Development Needs – 91.215 (f) .................................................79

Housing Market Analysis ..................................................................................................... 81
MA-05 Overview ..........................................................................................................................81
MA-10 Number of Housing Units – 91.210(a)&(b)(2)......................................................................82
MA-15 Housing Market Analysis: Cost of Housing - 91.210(a) ........................................................89
MA-20 Housing Market Analysis: Condition of Housing – 91.210(a) ...............................................96
MA-25 Public and Assisted Housing – 91.210(b) .......................................................................... 104
MA-30 Homeless Facilities and Services – 91.210(c)..................................................................... 108
MA-35 Special Needs Facilities and Services – 91.210(d) .............................................................. 112
MA-40 Barriers to Affordable Housing – 91.210(e)....................................................................... 116
MA-45 Non-Housing Community Development Assets – 91.215 (f) .............................................. 117
MA-50 Needs and Market Analysis Discussion............................................................................. 131




MA-60 Broadband Needs of Housing occupied by Low- and Moderate-Income Households -
91.210(a)(4), 91.310(a)(2) ........................................................................................................... 140
MA-65 Hazard Mitigation - 91.210(a)(5), 91.310(a)(3) .................................................................. 144

Strategic Plan .................................................................................................................... 148
SP-05 Overview .......................................................................................................................... 148
SP-10 Geographic Priorities – 91.215 (a)(1).................................................................................. 150
SP-25 Priority Needs - 91.215(a)(2) ............................................................................................. 160
SP-30 Influence of Market Conditions – 91.215 (b) ...................................................................... 166
SP-35 Anticipated Resources - 91.215(a)(4), 91.220(c)(1,2) .......................................................... 169
SP-40 Institutional Delivery Structure – 91.215(k)........................................................................ 176
SP-50 Public Housing Accessibility and Involvement – 91.215(c) .................................................. 186
SP-55 Barriers to affordable housing – 91.215(h) ......................................................................... 188
SP-60 Homelessness Strategy – 91.215(d) ................................................................................... 192
SP-65 Lead based paint Hazards – 91.215(i) ................................................................................. 196
SP-70 Anti-Poverty Strategy – 91.215(j) ....................................................................................... 198
SP-80 Monitoring – 91.230.......................................................................................................... 200

Expected Resources ........................................................................................................... 202
AP-15 Expected Resources – 91.220(c)(1,2) ................................................................................. 202

Annual Goals and Objectives ............................................................................................. 208
AP-20 Annual Goals and Objectives ............................................................................................ 208

Projects ............................................................................................................................. 214
AP-35 Projects – 91.220(d) .......................................................................................................... 214
AP-38 Project Summary .............................................................................................................. 217
AP-50 Geographic Distribution – 91.220(f) .................................................................................. 245

Affordable Housing ........................................................................................................... 248
AP-55 Affordable Housing – 91.220(g) ......................................................................................... 248
AP-60 Public Housing – 91.220(h)................................................................................................ 250
AP-65 Homeless and Other Special Needs Activities – 91.220(i) ................................................... 255
AP-70 HOPWA Goals– 91.220 (l)(3) ............................................................................................. 260
AP-75 Barriers to affordable housing – 91.220(j) ......................................................................... 261




AP-85 Other Actions – 91.220(k) ................................................................................................. 265

Program Specific Requirements ......................................................................................... 270
AP-90 Program Specific Requirements – 91.220(l)(1,2,4).............................................................. 270




Executive Summary

ES-05 Executive Summary - 24 CFR 91.200(c), 91.220(b)
1. Introduction

The City of Phoenix, Arizona, receives an annual entitlement allocation of Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME), Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) and
Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) program funds from the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The CDBG, HOME, ESG, and HOPWA Programs provide annual
grants on a formula basis to entitlement cities and urban counties to develop viable communities by
providing safe, decent, and affordable housing; suitable living environments; and expanding economic
opportunities, primarily for low- and moderate-income (LMI) persons.

To receive these funds, the City must complete its 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan and first-year Program
Year (PY) 2025 Annual Action Plan (AAP) as required by HUD. The Consolidated Plan serves as a planning
document meeting the federal government statutory requirements in 24 CFR 91.200-91.230, for
preparing a Consolidated Plan and guiding the use of CDBG, HOME, ESG, and HOPWA funding based on
applications to HUD. The first-year PY 2025 AAP, and subsequent AAPs, is a subset of the Strategic Plan
addressing the overall goals of the plan for each program year of the five-year Consolidated Plan. PY 2025
begins on July 1, 2025, and ends on June 30, 2026.

2. Summary of the objectives and outcomes identified in the Plan Needs Assessment
Overview

The City has developed its strategic plan based on an analysis of the data presented in the Needs
Assessment, the Market Analysis of the Consolidated Plan, and the community participation and
stakeholder consultation process. Through these efforts, the City has identified eight (8) priority needs
and associated goals to address these needs. Over the 5-Year plan period, the City will work to accomplish
the following outcomes, which are listed by Priority Need.

Priority Need: Affordable Housing
1A Develop & Preserve Affordable Housing - Promote and fund new affordable housing development such
as homeownership opportunities for low- and moderate-income households; development of new rental
housing inventory; homeowner housing rehabilitation activities; and CHDO affordable housing
development activities in the city. Code enforcement activities will revitalize communities and help
improve the health and safety of low/mod neighborhoods.

Priority Need: Public Services
2A Public Services for LMI & Special Need - Provide for supportive services for low- to moderate-income
and special need populations. Services for LMI will include youth programs, health services, employment
training, housing information and referral services and other eligible services under the CDBG program.




Public services assisting special needs populations may include homeless programs, senior services,
services for persons with a disability, services for victims of domestic violence.

Priority Need: Public Facilities & Infrastructure Investment
3A Improve Public Facilities & Infrastructure - Provide funds to improve and expand public facilities and
infrastructure such as neighborhood facilities, parks and rec centers, water/sewer systems, sidewalks, and
streets. Public facility improvements may also help special need groups and may be directed towards
homeless shelters, senior centers and community centers.

Priority Need: Economic Development
4A Economic Development - Provide support for activities and promote job retention or creation for low-
and moderate-income residents. Activities may include financial aid and technical assistance. There is also
a need to provide support for façade improvements to commercial sites located in low/mod areas in
Phoenix.

Priority Need: Removal of Slum & Blight
5A Removal of Slum & Blight - Provide support for the removal of slum and blight in low/mod areas in
Phoenix. Demolition activities of aging and dilapidated structures will encourage revitalization efforts, and
help improve the health and safety of these areas.

Priority Need: Housing & Services for the Homeless
6A Homeless Housing & Services - Provide support for overnight shelter services for individuals and
families experiencing homelessness. Emergency shelter will include wraparound services that help
individuals and families gain self-sufficiency. The City will also provide homeless prevention services for
those at-risk of homelessness, and rapid rehousing assistance to homeless individuals and families with
the goal of eliminating or reducing homelessness in the City.

Priority Need: Housing & Supportive Services for People Living with HIV/AIDS
7A Housing & Supportive Services for people living with HIV/AIDS. - Provide funding support for housing
subsidy activities for people living with HIV/AIDS, which include Transitional Housing, Tenant-Based
Rental Assistance (TBRA), Short-Term Rent, Mortgage and Utility (STRM) Assistance and Permanent
Housing Placement (PHP). . Several supportive services activities address the needs of eligible clients,
increase accessibility to medical care and other vital resources.

Priority Need: Effective Program Administration
8A Effective Program Administration - Effective program management of HUD grant programs will ensure
compliance with each respective grant and their regulations and that programs meet their established
objectives. This includes a range of activities such as general administration and planning of the CDBG,
ESG, HOME and HOPWA grant programs, monitoring subrecipients, fair housing activities and keeping
strict grant-based accounting.

3. Evaluation of past performance



The City of Phoenix continues to build upon its past success in utilizing HUD funding for housing
rehabilitation, public services, and public facility improvements. As part of compliance with HUD
regulations, the City develops an Annual Action Plan (AAP) and a Consolidated Annual Performance and
Evaluation Report (CAPER) to evaluate progress toward the strategic goals outlined in its Five-Year
Consolidated Plan.

In the first four years of the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, Phoenix has made notable progress in
addressing key community development priorities. The City has made significant investments in
affordable housing initiatives, public facilities and infrastructure, and homelessness services. While
challenges remain in some areas, Phoenix has successfully expanded affordable rental housing
opportunities, and provided tenant-based rental assistance to help residents maintain stable housing for
low- and moderate-income homeowners.

Phoenix has also prioritized the enhancement of public services, including outreach and shelter programs
for individuals experiencing homelessness, services for youth and older adults, and job training initiatives
aimed at low-income residents. Investments in emergency shelter operations, rapid rehousing programs,
and public infrastructure projects have played a key role in addressing housing instability and improving
community resilience. These efforts reflect the City’s commitment to fostering an inclusive and
sustainable community.

Looking ahead, Phoenix will continue to collaborate with public, private, and nonprofit partners to expand
access to affordable housing, enhance public infrastructure, and strengthen public services. While
substantial progress has been made, ongoing challenges related to affordable housing availability,
economic development, and infrastructure improvements in low- and moderate-income neighborhoods
remain. These priorities will guide planning efforts in the final year of the Consolidated Plan, as detailed
in the PY 2023 CAPER. The following is a summary of accomplishments by priority:

Housing:
Phoenix continued its efforts to improve housing conditions for low- and moderate-income households,
with a strong focus on rental housing construction and tenant-based rental assistance. The City
successfully increased access to affordable rental units, constructing 382 rental units, achieving 106.11%
of the strategic goal. However, homeowner rehabilitation efforts fell short, with 24 homeowner housing
rehabilitations completed, achieving 20% of the program-year goal. Direct financial assistance to
homebuyers supported 3 households, reaching 100% of the strategic goal. While rental housing initiatives
have shown progress, homeownership opportunities and rehabilitation efforts remain a challenge.
Moving forward, Phoenix will need to accelerate its efforts in housing development and rehabilitation to
fully meet its five-year affordable housing objectives.

Public Facilities and Improvements:
Phoenix made substantial advancements in public facilities and infrastructure, benefiting 2,448 individuals
in low- and moderate-income communities, exceeding the program year goal of 1,410 individuals.
Additionally, 42,185 individuals benefited from public service activities linked to public facility




investments, for the program year, achieving over 5000% of the five-year goal. With these achievements,
the City far exceeded its five-year goals for public facility improvements, continuing its commitment to
strengthening infrastructure in underserved areas.

Public Services:
The City remained committed to expanding public services that support low- and moderate-income
individuals, including homelessness outreach, youth programs, senior services, and job training. Public
service activities benefited 1,517 individuals, slightly exceeding the annual goal and contributing to the
City’s success in surpassing its five-year public service targets. Phoenix has made significant progress in
delivering essential resources to residents in need and remains dedicated to providing ongoing support
for vulnerable populations.

Homelessness Assistance:
Phoenix continued investing in homelessness prevention, emergency shelters, and rapid rehousing
programs. The City provided 2,453 individuals with emergency shelter services, reaching 163.53% of its
annual goal. Homelessness prevention efforts assisted 282 individuals, exceeding the annual goal.
Additionally, 197 households received rapid rehousing assistance, but this accounted for just 7.72% of the
five year target. Although certain homelessness prevention measures have not met initial projections,
Phoenix’s broader shelter and rehousing initiatives have significantly advanced. With continued
collaboration and investment, the City is striving to close the gap and make meaningful progress toward
fulfilling its five-year homelessness assistance objectives.

The City of Phoenix remains dedicated to achieving its five-year housing and community development
goals. By leveraging partnerships, optimizing resources, and prioritizing community resilience, the City
continues to support its most vulnerable populations and advance sustainable development.


4. Summary of citizen participation process and consultation process

The City has adopted its HUD approved Citizen Participation Plan (CPP) as per 24 CFR 91.105, which sets
forth the City’s policies and procedures for citizen participation in the Consolidated Plan and first-year
2025 AAP. The CPP provides guidance for public notices for the various stages of Consolidated Plan
development, public hearings, and the public review of the proposed plan. Details of the City’s outreach
efforts are provided below:

PUBLIC HEARINGS: The City held a series of public hearing to discuss the proposed draft 2025-2029
Consolidated Plan and draft PY 2025 AAP. These hearings were held at the following dates, times, and
locations:

Public hearing: Monday, February 24, 2025, from 5:30pm to 6:30pm at the South Mountain Community
Center, Saguaro Room, 212 E. Alta Vista Road, Phoenix, AZ 85042.




Public hearing: Tuesday, February 25, 2025, from 10:30am to 11:30am at the Burton Barr Central Library,
Pulliam Auditorium, 1221 N Central Ave., Phoenix, AZ 85042.

Public hearing: Tuesday, February 25, 2025, from 5:30pm to 6:30pm at the Broadway Heritage
Neighborhood Resource Center, 2405 E. Broadway Road, Phoenix, AZ 85040.

Public hearing: Wednesday, February 26, 2025, from 5:30pm to 6:30pm at the Maryvale Community
Center, 4420 N. 51St Ave., Phoenix AZ 85031. This hearing was conducted in Spanish.

Public hearing: Thursday, February 27, 2025, from 5:30pm to 6:30pm at the Adam Diaz Senior Center,
4115 W. Thomas Road, Phoenix, AZ 85019.

Public hearing: Wednesday, March 19, 2025, from 5:30pm to 6:30pm at the Broadway Heritage
Neighborhood Resource Center, 2405 E. Broadway Road, Phoenix, AZ 85040.

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The City will hold a public comment period from April 5, 2025 to May 9, 2025,
to give citizens an opportunity to review and make comments on the draft plan. The plan can be viewed
on the City’s website https://www.phoenix.gov/nsd/yourvoice. Written comments may be submitted
at https://www.phoenix.gov/nsd/yourvoice/feedback, or by calling 602-534-4444.

COMMUNITY & STAKEHOLDER SURVEYS: Community Survey Link: The City held a community survey
online to gather public input on the housing and community development priority needs in the City of
Phoenix. The link to the survey can be found at: https://www.research.net/r/Phoenix-community

Stakeholder Survey Link: The City held a stakeholder survey online to gather public input on the housing
and community development priority needs in the City of Phoenix. The link to the survey can be found at:
https://www.research.net/r/Phoenix-stakeholder

Details of citizen participation outreach for the Consolidated Plan and PY 2025 AAP are also located in the
PR-15.

5. Summary of public comments

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: A summary of comments will be included after the comment period.

PUBLIC HEARINGS: The city held a series of public hearings during the development of the plan. A
summary of comments have been included in the PR-15.

All comments and views will be accepted at the public hearing and public comment period review
process. A summary of outreach efforts is located in the PR-15 Participation.

6. Summary of comments or views not accepted and the reasons for not accepting them

All comments or views were accepted at the public hearing and public comment period.




7. Summary

The City is dedicated to offering meaningful opportunities for residents to express their needs. This plan
prioritizes addressing affordable housing, community development—both housing and non-housing—
and providing supportive housing and services for individuals experiencing homelessness within the
Phoenix community. It also includes a comprehensive, coordinated strategy for implementing programs
funded by Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnerships Program
(HOME), Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG), and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA)
funds.

The Consolidated Plan is comprised of several sections, including an assessment of the current housing
and community needs of the area, a section detailing the needs of homeless individuals, a description of
the publicly supported housing needs, information on the citizen participation process, a Strategic Plan,
and the PY 2025 Annual Action Plan (AAP). The Strategic Plan is an essential component of the
Consolidated Plan, outlining the objectives and outcomes necessary to meet the identified needs. The PY
2025 AAP is the first of five annual action plans, which will detail how federal resources will be allocated
each year to achieve the objectives identified in the Consolidated Plan. Additionally, each AAP will be
evaluated to see the City's performance in meeting the Consolidated Plan's objectives. At the end of each
program year, the City will complete a Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Review (CAPER).

Not only are the priority needs in the City identified through the needs assessment and market analysis,
but the City also determines these needs through a citizen participation process, which includes
engagement with community nonprofit organizations and with members of the community.

Primary data sources for the Consolidated Plan include 2009-2013 & 2019-2023 American Community
Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates, 2017-2021 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data,
Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD), Homeless Management Information System (HMIS),
AZ-502 Phoenix, Mesa/ Maricopa County CoC 2024 Point in Time Count and Housing Inventory Count,
Inventory Management System/PIH Information Center (PIC), HUD Income Limits, HUD Fair Market Rents
and HOME Rent Limits and other local data sources. Data for map analysis came from the 2019-2023 ACS.

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

The City completed its most recent 2025 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) in
conjunction with this ConPlan in April of 2025. The AI outlines impediments to fair housing choice. The
2025 AI is an analysis of factors that may be potentially preventing access to fair housing choice in the
community, and understanding the impediments to fair housing choice is an important step in addressing
housing needs. The AI helps to provide information to decision makers in the community and assist in
guiding the use of grant funds and other resources that target affordable housing. This plan has developed
goals that will address the identified impediments over the next five years. For a list of identified
impediments, see MA-40 Barriers to Affordable Housing.

Contingency Provision for PY 2026 Grant Allocations




At this time HUD has not yet announced the PY 2025 CDBG, HOME, ESG and HOPWA grant allocations.
The grant allocations of $14,461,954 for CDBG, $5,137,276 for HOME, $5,499,307 for HOPWA and
$1,355,765 for ESG are only an estimate of the anticipated PY 2025 grant allocations based on prior year
awards. The City of Phoenix has a contingency provision per HUD notice CDP-25-02 to align final
allocations with actual funding. Activity budgets will be proportionally adjusted to match the announced
allocation while ensuring compliance with grant regulations.

• For CDBG, the allocation of funds will be 20% for admin, no more than 15% for public services
(including homeless services), and the balance of funds for affordable housing, public facilities
and infrastructure improvements, and economic development.
• HOME funds will be allocated 10% for admin, 15% for CHDO housing developments as required
by the program, and the balance of funds for non-CHDO housing developments including multi-
family rental development, down payment assistance and housing rehabilitation.
• HOPWA funding will allocate 3% for admin, and the remaining balance to Project Sponsors
delivering housing subsidy and supportive services activities.
• ESG will fund admin at 7.5%, homeless prevention and rapid rehousing at 32.5% and emergency
shelter services at 60%.




The Process
PR-05 Lead & Responsible Agencies 24 CFR 91.200(b)
1. Describe agency/entity responsible for preparing the Consolidated Plan and those
responsible for administration of each grant program and funding source

The following are the agencies/entities responsible for preparing the Consolidated Plan and those
responsible for administration of each grant program and funding source.

Agency Role Name Department/Agency
CDBG Administrator PHOENIX City of Phoenix Neighborhood Services Department
HOPWA Administrator PHOENIX City of Phoenix Housing Department
HOME Administrator PHOENIX City of Phoenix Housing Department
ESG Administrator PHOENIX City of Phoenix Human Services Department
Table 1 – Responsible Agencies


Narrative

The City’s Neighborhood Services Department (NSD) is the lead agency and is responsible for HUD
entitlement grants which includes CDBG, HOME, ESG, and HOPWA. NSD is also responsible for the
preparation of the Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plan, and Consolidated Annual Performance
Evaluation Report (CAPER). Additionally, NSD staff also administer the Request for Proposal (RFP) process
and oversees the selection of CDBG subrecipients for City Council’s consideration.

The City’s Housing Department administers HOME and HOPWA. HOME is the largest federal block grant
to state and local governments designed exclusively to create affordable housing for low-income
households. HOPWA is an entitlement grant dedicated to assisting communities to provide affordable
housing opportunities and related supportive services for low-income persons living with HIV/AIDS and
their families.

The City’s Human Services Department – Office of Homeless Solutions administers ESG. ESG assists
individuals in quickly regaining permanent housing stability after experiencing a housing crisis and/or
homelessness and can be used for emergency shelter, street outreach, rapid re-housing, Homeless
Management Information System (HMIS) costs, homelessness prevention, and for administration and
planning costs.

During the preparation of the Consolidated Plan and first year Annual Action Plan, the City solicited input
from other governmental agencies as well as various public and private agencies providing housing, social
services, and other community development activities within the community. The City will continue to
form new partnerships with non-profit organizations, the private sector, and other local resources.




Consolidated Plan Public Contact Information

Spencer J. Self
Neighborhood Services Director
phone: 602-262-7494
email: spencer.self@phoenix.gov




PR-10 Consultation – 91.100, 91.110, 91.200(b), 91.300(b), 91.215(I) and
91.315(I)
1. Introduction

The City of Phoenix conducts extensive outreach to local organizations, the public, and elected officials to
solicit input for the drafting and development of the 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan and Program Year 2025
Annual Action Plan. This section discusses coordination between the City and its partners and lists the
agencies and organizations that consulted and/or provided input in the development of the plan. The City
conducted a stakeholder survey to gather input from local agencies and nonprofits. This feedback
provided valuable insights into priority housing and community development needs, as well as funding
priorities for the City. The following section highlights these relationships, and the agencies and
organizations consulted.

Provide a concise summary of the jurisdiction’s activities to enhance coordination between
public and assisted housing providers and private and governmental health, mental health and
service agencies (91.215(I)).

The City of Phoenix enhances coordination between public and assisted housing providers, private
entities, and governmental health, mental health, and service agencies. Phoenix maintains strong
partnerships with housing providers through collaborative initiatives that expand affordable housing and
address diverse community needs.

The City’s Housing Department administers the federal Housing Choice Voucher (Section 8) program,
offering rental assistance to very low-income families, older adults, and individuals with disabilities. These
programs promote long-term stability for Phoenix’s most vulnerable residents. Additionally, Phoenix
allocates Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships Program
(HOME) funds to support nonprofit and service agencies assisting individuals experiencing homelessness,
housing insecurity, and financial hardship.

Through the Maricopa Regional Continuum of Care (CoC), Phoenix collaborates with mental health
providers, shelters, service agencies, and regional organizations to provide coordinated homelessness
assistance. The City’s Office of Homeless Solutions operates outreach and engagement programs to
connect unhoused individuals to housing resources, behavioral health services, employment programs,
and case management. Phoenix also leverages general funds for transitional housing, emergency shelters,
and eviction prevention, ensuring residents have access to both immediate and long-term housing
solutions.

Phoenix participates in the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) as part of the Maricopa
Regional CoC, which tracks homelessness trends, measures service outcomes, and enhances coordination
among providers. The City’s outreach teams, shelters, and service providers utilize HMIS to assess client




needs, prevent duplication of services, and improve case management. HMIS data informs funding
decisions and strengthens Phoenix’s ability to address homelessness with evidence-based strategies.

To bridge the digital divide, Phoenix partners with internet providers, community organizations, and
technology firms to expand digital connectivity for low- and moderate-income households. The City has
collaborated with providers to implement low-cost internet programs, ensuring residents have affordable
broadband and mobile services. Phoenix Public Libraries and digital inclusion initiatives offer technology
lending, digital literacy training, and online learning resources, supporting economic opportunities and
educational advancement.

Phoenix works with local, regional, and federal agencies to strengthen emergency preparedness, hazard
mitigation, and disaster response. The City collaborates with the Maricopa County Department of
Emergency Management and participates in the Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation
Plan to assess risks and develop response strategies. Additionally, Phoenix partners with the Maricopa
County Community Organizations Active in Disaster (MCCOAD) to coordinate emergency relief efforts,
streamline response operations, and enhance community resilience.

To address flood risks, Phoenix partners with the Maricopa County Flood Control District to implement
mitigation projects, improve stormwater management, and protect neighborhoods. These efforts reduce
flood damage, enhance infrastructure resilience, and ensure public safety.

Phoenix advances sustainability and climate resilience through partnerships with the Arizona Department
of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) and the Maricopa County Air Quality Department. The City is committed
to reducing emissions, improving air quality, and promoting sustainable infrastructure projects to ensure
long-term environmental resilience and energy efficiency.

Describe coordination with the Continuum of Care and efforts to address the needs of
homeless persons (particularly chronically homeless individuals and families, families with
children, veterans, and unaccompanied youth) and persons at risk of homelessness

The City of Phoenix is an active member of the Maricopa Regional Continuum of Care (CoC) and plays a
leadership role in regional efforts to address homelessness. The Director of the City of Phoenix Office of
Homeless Solutions serves as co-chair of the CoC Board, and many city staff actively participate in CoC
collaboratives, workgroups, and planning initiatives. The City regularly engages in CoC meetings, regional
coordination efforts, and the annual Point-in-Time (PIT) Count, which evaluates homelessness trends in
Maricopa County. Phoenix also collaborates with CoC-led initiatives and allocates CDBG, ESG, and general
funds to nonprofit organizations and service agencies that provide critical housing and supportive services
for individuals and families experiencing homelessness.

Phoenix’s Homeless Outreach and Navigation Team (HON Team) serves as a mobile access point for
individuals and families experiencing homelessness, helping them navigate housing and supportive
services. The team conducts street outreach, builds relationships with unsheltered individuals, and




connects people to emergency shelters, behavioral health services, employment programs, and long-term
housing options. The City is combining outreach, housing stabilization, and public and assisted housing
resources to rapidly transition chronically homeless individuals, families, veterans, unaccompanied youth,
and seniors from the streets into stable housing. Additionally, Phoenix partners with regional service
providers and nonprofit organizations to expand access to bridge housing, transitional shelters, rapid
rehousing, and eviction prevention programs for at-risk populations.

Phoenix actively participates in the Maricopa Regional Homeless Management Information System
(HMIS), which allows city staff and service providers to track service delivery, coordinate care, and monitor
program outcomes. The Continuum of Care administers the region’s coordinated entry system, which
ensures that individuals and families experiencing homelessness receive equitable access to housing and
services based on need. Coordinated entry connects individuals to permanent supportive housing, rapid
rehousing, and transitional housing through a streamlined referral process that prioritizes the most
vulnerable residents.

The City is also a key partner in Pathways Home, a Regional Homelessness Action Plan developed by local
and tribal governments to reduce homelessness by 25 percent by 2027. This three-step action plan
focuses on strengthening regional collaboration, increasing safe housing options, and expanding
partnerships to address homelessness. It represents the first coordinated regional effort of its kind,
bringing together multiple jurisdictions to build infrastructure, share resources, and implement data-
driven solutions to reduce homelessness in Phoenix and across Maricopa County.

By leveraging data, regional coordination, and targeted investments, Phoenix ensures that housing
resources and support services are effectively distributed both within the City and as part of the broader
regional homelessness response.

Describe consultation with the Continuum(s) of Care that serves the jurisdiction's area in
determining how to allocate ESG funds, develop performance standards and evaluate
outcomes, and develop funding, policies and procedures for the administration of HMIS

The City of Phoenix plays a critical leadership role in the Maricopa Regional CoC, which oversees
homelessness response efforts across the region. The Director of the Phoenix Office of Homeless Solutions
serves as Co-Chair of the CoC Board, which functions as the primary decision-making body for the CoC.
This position represents ESG formula recipients and ensures that Phoenix actively contributes to regional
planning, funding allocation, and service coordination.

Phoenix is also an active member of multiple CoC workgroups, including the Maricopa Association of
Governments (MAG) Data Collaborative, the CoC Collaborative, the Local Jurisdiction Collaborative, the
Coordinated Entry Collaborative, and the ESG Collaborative. The ESG Collaborative, in particular, works to
develop regional strategies, standardize implementation of ESG-eligible services, and improve funding
efficiency across Maricopa County. These partnerships ensure that Phoenix aligns its homelessness
services with best practices and emerging needs throughout the region.




The Maricopa Regional CoC Community Adopted Best Practices provide a standardized framework for
outreach, coordinated entry, emergency shelter, transitional housing, rapid rehousing, and permanent
supportive housing. Developed collaboratively with service providers, funders, and individuals with lived
experience of homelessness, these Best Practices serve as a guiding document for service delivery and
housing interventions across all homelessness programs, including non-HUD-funded initiatives.

Phoenix integrates these best practices into its own homelessness response system, ensuring that
program design, service operations, and performance evaluation are data-driven and aligned with
regional goals. By working through the CoC Board and specialized workgroups, the City continues to
enhance service coordination, funding strategies, and equitable access to housing for those in need.

2. Describe Agencies, groups, organizations and others who participated in the process
and describe the jurisdictions consultations with housing, social service agencies and other
entities




Table 2 – Agencies, groups, organizations who participated

1 Agency/Group/Organization Maricopa Association of Governments
Agency/Group/Organization Type Regional organization
Planning organization
Housing Phoenix Plan
What section of the Plan was addressed Homeless Needs - Chronically homeless
by Consultation? Homeless Needs - Families with children
Homelessness Needs - Veterans
Homelessness Needs - Unaccompanied youth
Homelessness Strategy
How was the The Maricopa Association of Governments is the lead
Agency/Group/Organization consulted agency of the Maricopa Regional CoC. The City of
and what are the anticipated outcomes Phoenix has been an active member of the CoC since
of the consultation or areas for its inception. As a member of the CoC Board and
improved coordination? active participant in CoC collaboratives, workgroups,
and activities, the City plays a leadership role in the
implementation of efforts to end homelessness
across the region. The CoC provided information on
CoC operations and homelessness needs in the
community to inform future funding priorities.
2 Agency/Group/Organization City of Phoenix Equal Opportunity Department
Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Housing
Service-Fair Housing
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
What section of the Plan was addressed Housing Need Assessment
by Consultation? Public Housing Needs
How was the The Equal Opportunity Department/Fair Housing
Agency/Group/Organization consulted Section provided information and data for the
and what are the anticipated outcomes Consolidated Plan, pertaining to the Fair Housing
of the consultation or areas for needs within the city and is a part of the strategies
improved coordination? within the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing
Choice. The Department was also consulted through
the online stakeholder survey.




3 Agency/Group/Organization City of Phoenix Human Services Dept.
Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Housing
Services-Children
Services-Elderly Persons
Services-Victims of Domestic Violence
Services-homeless
Services-Employment
What section of the Plan was addressed Homeless Needs - Chronically homeless
by Consultation? Homeless Needs - Families with children
Homelessness Needs - Veterans
Homelessness Needs - Unaccompanied youth
Homelessness Strategy
Anti-poverty Strategy
How was the The Human Services Department administers ESG
Agency/Group/Organization consulted funding and monitors sub-recipients. Information was
and what are the anticipated outcomes provided on ESG operations and homelessness needs
of the consultation or areas for within the city to inform future funding priorities.
improved coordination?
4 Agency/Group/Organization City of Phoenix Housing Department
Agency/Group/Organization Type Housing
PHA
Services - Housing
Services-Persons with HIV/AIDS
Services - Narrowing the Digital Divide
Planning organization
What section of the Plan was addressed Public Housing Needs
by Consultation? HOPWA Strategy
Phoenix Housing Plan
How was the The Housing Department is the Public Housing
Agency/Group/Organization consulted Authority for the City of Phoenix. The Housing
and what are the anticipated outcomes Department administers the HOME Program,
of the consultation or areas for HOPWA, housing choice vouchers, and oversees the
improved coordination? Choice Neighborhoods Grant.
5 Agency/Group/Organization City of Phoenix Office of Emergency Management
Agency/Group/Organization Type Agency - Emergency Management
What section of the Plan was addressed Public Housing Needs
by Consultation? Resiliency




How was the The City of Phoenix Office of Emergency
Agency/Group/Organization consulted Management is dedicated to promoting a safer, more
and what are the anticipated outcomes resilient city by coordinating and integrating all
of the consultation or areas for activities necessary before, during and after any
improved coordination? natural disasters, acts of terrorism, or other man-
made disasters. This office is focused on assuring
continuity of city government and readiness for
emergency operations with the safety and well-being
of citizens of the City of Phoenix in the forefront of
our operations.
6 Agency/Group/Organization City of Phoenix Neighborhood Services Department
Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Housing
Services-Children
Services-Elderly Persons
Services-Victims of Domestic Violence
Services-homeless
Other government - Local
What section of the Plan was addressed Housing Needs Assessment
by Consultation? Market Analysis

How was the The City of Phoenix Neighborhood Services
Agency/Group/Organization consulted Department is committed to partnering with
and what are the anticipated outcomes residents in building to preserve, enhance and
of the consultation or areas for engage Phoenix neighborhoods. This department
improved coordination? was consulted through the online stakeholder survey.
7 Agency/Group/Organization Phoenix Pride
Agency/Group/Organization Type Services – Persons with Disabilities
Services - homeless
What section of the Plan was addressed Housing Needs Assessment
by Consultation? Markey Analysis

How was the This organization was consulted through the online
Agency/Group/Organization consulted stakeholder survey.
and what are the anticipated outcomes
of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
8 Agency/Group/Organization Camelback Community Association
Agency/Group/Organization Type Neighborhood Organization

What section of the Plan was addressed Housing Needs Assessment
by Consultation? Market Analysis




How was the This organization was consulted through the online
Agency/Group/Organization consulted stakeholder survey.
and what are the anticipated outcomes
of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
9 Agency/Group/Organization Area Agency on Aging
Agency/Group/Organization Type Services – Elderly Persons
Services – Victims of Domestic Violence
What section of the Plan was addressed Housing Needs Assessment
by Consultation? Market Analysis

How was the This organization was consulted through the online
Agency/Group/Organization consulted stakeholder survey.
and what are the anticipated outcomes
of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
10 Agency/Group/Organization Native American Connections

Agency/Group/Organization Type Services – Housing
Services – Health
What section of the Plan was addressed Housing Needs Assessment
by Consultation? Market Analysis

How was the This organization was consulted through the online
Agency/Group/Organization consulted stakeholder survey.
and what are the anticipated outcomes
of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
11 Agency/Group/Organization Chicanos Por La Causa

Agency/Group/Organization Type Services – Housing
Services – Education
Services - Youth
What section of the Plan was addressed Housing Needs Assessment
by Consultation? Market Analysis

How was the This organization was consulted through the online
Agency/Group/Organization consulted stakeholder survey.
and what are the anticipated outcomes
of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?




Identify any Agency Types not consulted and provide rationale for not consulting

No organizations were intentionally left out of the public participation process. All comments and views
were accepted and welcomed.

Other local/regional/state/federal planning efforts considered when preparing the Plan
Name of Plan Lead Organization How do the goals of your Strategic Plan
overlap with the goals of each plan?
The City and the Maricopa Association of
Maricopa Association of
Continuum of Care Governments share the same goal to
Governments
eliminate homelessness in Phoenix.
The AI identified the housing needs, and
Analysis of Fair Housing needs in the City. The
Impediments to Fair recommendations and strategies in the AI
Opportunity Department
Housing Choice helped to inform the housing goals in the
plan.
The Housing Phoenix Plan identified the
Housing Phoenix Plan
Department the plan helped to inform the housing
goals in the plan.
The Homelessness Plan helped to identify
homelessness needs and strategies in
Strategies to Address City of Phoenix, Office of
Phoenix. The goals of the plan helped to
Homelessness Plan Homeless Solutions
inform the homeless service goals in the
plan.
The HNA identified gaps in affordable
Housing Needs
Department identified helped to inform the housing
Assessment
goals in the plan.
The Climate Action plan identified a need
for energy efficient housing and included
Climate Action Plan
Environmental Programs rehabilitation services. . The goals of the
plan helped to inform the housing goals in
the plan.
Table 3 – Other local / regional / federal planning efforts




Describe cooperation and coordination with other public entities, including the State and any
adjacent units of general local government, in the implementation of the Consolidated Plan
(91.215(l))

In developing the 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan and Program Year 2025 Annual Action Plan (AAP), the City
of Phoenix engaged multiple City departments, stakeholders, and regional partners to ensure a
coordinated approach to addressing housing, homelessness, and community development needs. These
consultations involved collaboration with the Neighborhood Services Department, Housing Department,
Human Services Department, Economic Development Department, and Public Works Department to align
strategies with the City's priorities.

The Neighborhood Services Department led efforts to gather input from local stakeholders, nonprofit
organizations, and housing providers to shape strategies for utilizing CDBG, HOME, ESG and HOPWA
funds. The Housing Department played a key role in identifying affordable housing needs, coordinating
rental assistance programs, and implementing strategies to preserve and expand housing opportunities
for low- and moderate-income residents. The Human Services Department focused on homelessness
prevention and supportive services, ensuring ESG and HOPWA funding effectively address the needs of
at-risk and vulnerable populations.

The Economic Development Department provided insights on workforce housing needs and economic
barriers affecting low- and moderate-income households, ensuring housing investments support
economic mobility. The Public Works Department contributed expertise on infrastructure planning, flood
mitigation, and hazard resilience in CDBG-eligible areas to improve community safety and sustainability.

Phoenix aims to strengthen collaboration with the State of Arizona, Maricopa County, and neighboring
jurisdictions to address shared housing, economic development, and community development challenges.
The City is also committed to expanding partnerships with broadband providers to bridge the digital divide
and exploring opportunities to coordinate discharge planning with healthcare, correctional, and foster
care systems to prevent individuals from exiting institutions into homelessness.

The City of Phoenix collaborates closely with the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG), the
Continuum of Care (CoC) lead, to support regional homelessness assistance efforts, ensuring individuals
and families have access to coordinated housing and supportive services. Moving forward, Phoenix will
continue to strengthen regional partnerships to enhance housing stability, economic opportunities, and
homelessness solutions, working collaboratively with state, county, and municipal partners to address
pressing community development needs.




PR-15 Citizen Participation – 91.105, 91.115, 91.200(c) and 91.300(c)
1. Summary of citizen participation process/Efforts made to broaden citizen participation
Summarize citizen participation process and how it impacted goal-setting

The City of Phoenix has adopted its HUD approved Citizen Participation Plan (CPP) as per 24 CFR 91.105,
which sets forth the City’s policies and procedures for citizen participation of the Consolidated Plan and
first year 2025 AAP. The CPP provides details about the public notice requirements for all meetings and
the various stages of Consolidated Plan development, public hearings before the citizens of the City and
documents. Adhering closely to the CPP, the City held a public comment period and public
hearing. Details of these outreach efforts are provided in the table below.




Citizen Participation Outreach
Sort Mode of Target of Summary of Summary of Summary of URL
Order Outreach Outreach response/attendance comments received comments not
accepted
and reasons
1 Public Non- The public hearing was held on Monday, February 24, The comments reflect All comments
Hearing targeted/broad 2025, from 5:30pm to 6:30pm at the South Mountain concerns about rising rent were accepted.
community Community Center, Saguaro Room, 212 E. Alta Vista prices, long waitlists for
Road, Phoenix, AZ 85042. Section 8 housing, limited
housing options, and
difficulties with accessing
CDBG funding for
community projects.
2 Public Non- The public hearing was held on Tuesday, February 25, The comments emphasize All comments
Hearing targeted/broad 2025, from 10:30am to 11:30am at the Burton Barr broader housing were accepted.
community Central Library, Pulliam Auditorium, 1221 N Central economics, housing
Ave., Phoenix, AZ 85042. development finance, and
legal/legislative issues, with
key takeaways highlighting
affordable housing,
homelessness, and fair
housing concerns,
particularly gentrification
and displacement.




Sort Mode of Target of Summary of Summary of Summary of URL
Order Outreach Outreach response/attendance comments received comments not
accepted
and reasons
3 Public Non- The public hearing was held on Tuesday, February 25, The comments highlight All comments
Hearing targeted/broad 2025, from 5:30pm to 6:30pm at the Broadway concerns about the were accepted.
community Heritage Neighborhood Resource Center, 2405 E. affordability of downsizing
Broadway Road, Phoenix, AZ 85040. after children move out, the
growing homelessness rate,
and recommendations for
the city to fund public
services like CPR and first
aid resources, as well as
support for accessory
dwelling units.
4 Public Non- The public hearing was held on Wednesday, February The comments include All comments
Hearing targeted/broad 26, 2025, from 5:30pm to 6:30pm at the Maryvale recommendations for were accepted.
community Community Center, 4420 N. 51St Ave., Phoenix AZ increased resources for
85031. This hearing was conducted in Spanish. public services and small
business development,
education and support for
homelessness rehabilitation
and detox centers, and
improvements to sidewalks
and roads for better
accessibility for individuals
experiencing homelessness
or low income.




Sort Mode of Target of Summary of Summary of Summary of URL
Order Outreach Outreach response/attendance comments received comments not
accepted
and reasons
5 Public Non- The public hearing was held on Thursday, February The comments suggest All comments
Hearing targeted/broad 27, 2025, from 5:30pm to 6:30pm at the Adam Diaz using CDBG for property were accepted.
community Senior Center, 4115 W. Thomas Road, Phoenix, AZ acquisition and the HOME
85019. program for housing
development, express
interest in senior and
smaller housing projects,
and recommend prioritizing
the down payment
assistance program for
home purchases.
7 Public Non- The public hearing will be held on Wednesday, March The comments All comments
Hearing targeted/broad 19, 2025, from 5:30pm to 6:30pm at the Broadway recommended that funding were accepted.
community Heritage Neighborhood Resource Center, 2405 E. should be allocated towards
Broadway Road, Phoenix, AZ 85040. The hearing was affordable housing;
attended by multiple city staff and one attendee from transitional housing;
the public. supportive services for
those exiting institutional
settings, specifically prison.




Sort Mode of Target of Summary of Summary of Summary of URL
Order Outreach Outreach response/attendance comments received comments not
accepted
and reasons
8 Public Non- The City will hold a public comment period from April A summary of comments All comments
Comment targeted/broad 4, 2025 to May 9, 2025, to give citizens an will be provided after the will be
Period community opportunity to review and make comments on the comment period. accepted.
draft plan. The plan can be viewed on the City’s
website https://www.phoenix.gov/nsd/yourvoice.
Written comments may be submitted
at https://www.phoenix.gov/nsd/yourvoice/feedback,
or by calling 602-534-4444.
9 Community Non- The City offered an online community survey to The survey results highlight All comments
Survey targeted/broad gather input on the housing, fair housing, community key community concerns, were accepted.
community development and homeless needs in Phoenix. See including a lack of
below the link to the survey. affordable housing, the
need for homelessness
https://www.research.net/r/Phoenix-community services, public facility and
infrastructure
improvements, and
stronger public services.




Sort Mode of Target of Summary of Summary of Summary of URL
Order Outreach Outreach response/attendance comments received comments not
accepted
and reasons
10 Stakeholder Non- The City offered an online stakeholder survey to The Stakeholder Survey All comments
Survey targeted/broad gather input on the housing, fair housing, community highlights urgent needs for were accepted.
community development and homeless needs in Phoenix. See affordable housing,
below the link to the survey. homelessness prevention,
Nonprofits infrastructure
https://www.research.net/r/Phoenix-stakeholder improvements, and
economic and rental
barriers, with stakeholders
prioritizing funding for
housing development and
public services.




Needs Assessment

NA-05 Overview
1. Needs Assessment Overview

To ensure the efficient and effective use of resources, the City of Phoenix must first assess the
community's needs. This section describes and analyzes various demographic and economic indicators to
provide a foundation for grant management. By using data gathered from state, local, and federal sources,
the City can identify needs based on broad trends in population, income, and household demographics.
Primary data sources include the U.S. Census Bureau and HUD. Once gathered, the data is analyzed more
closely to explore how family and household dynamics and housing problems are interconnected. A key
objective of this Needs Assessment is to identify the nature and extent of housing problems experienced
by Phoenix residents.

In addition to demographic analysis, this section examines factors that influence, or are influenced by, the
housing market. These include public housing needs, the needs of individuals facing homelessness, and
non-homeless special needs populations. Furthermore, non-housing development needs, such as public
services and infrastructure, are also evaluated to guide resource allocation decisions.

Each of these issues is analyzed alongside economic and demographic indicators to determine if certain
groups are disproportionately affected. By understanding the scale and prevalence of housing challenges
within Phoenix, the City can set evidence-based priorities for entitlement programs. This approach
ensures that resources are directed toward the areas and populations that need them most, promoting
more equitable outcomes across the community.

2. Consolidated Plan Helpful Definitions:

Affordable Housing: Housing affordable at 30% or less of a household’s monthly income.

Area Median Income: Annual household income for the Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ Metro Area as
generally published on an annual basis by HUD.

HUD Area Median Family Income (HAMFI): This is the median family income calculated by HUD to
determine Fair Market Rents (FMRs) and Income Limits for HUD programs.

Extremely low-income household: Households earning 30% of AMI or less for their household size. In
2024, a four-person household in the Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ Metro Area with an income at 30%
AMI earned $31,200 or less.

Very Low-income households: Households earning 31% to 50% AMI for their household size. In 20124, a
four-person household in the Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ Metro Area with an income at 50% AMI
earned a maximum of $51,400 per year.




Low-income households: Households earning 51% to 80% AMI for their household size. In 2024, a four-
person household in the Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ Metro Area with an income at 60% AMI earned a
maximum of $82,250.




NA-10 Housing Needs Assessment - 24 CFR 91.205 (a,b,c)
Summary of Housing Needs

The housing needs of a community are shaped by a variety of interconnected factors beyond the simple
concept of supply meeting demand. In Phoenix, these factors include population growth, household size,
rental housing availability, income levels, and the condition of existing properties. Together, they create
a complex framework that defines the city's housing challenges.

A key issue in Phoenix is the significant lack of affordable housing. According to the 2019-2023 American
Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates, approximately 195,497 households—33.4% of all households
in the city—are cost burdened, spending more than 30% of their income on housing costs. This issue
disproportionately affects renters, with 124,027 rental households cost burdened, compared to 71,470
homeowner households. These statistics underscore a housing market where supply fails to align with
demand at affordable price points, leaving many residents unable to secure stable and reasonably priced
housing. Addressing these affordability challenges is essential to meeting the community's housing
needs.

Demographics Base Year: 2013 Most Recent Year: 2023 % Change


Population 1,473,639 1,624,832 10.3%


Households 517,348 601,397 16.2%


Median Income $47,139 $77,041 63.4%

Table 5 - Housing Needs Assessment Demographics

Data Source: 2009-2013 ACS (Base Year), 2019-2023 ACS (Most Recent Year)


Residents

Since 2013, Phoenix's population has grown by approximately 10.3%. Over the same period, the number
of households in the city increased by about 16.2%, outpacing population growth. This trend suggests a
reduction in average household size, potentially reflecting demographic shifts such as an increase in young
adults or seniors living independently. Economic factors, including housing affordability and availability,
may also play a role in influencing living arrangements.

Median Household Income (MHI) in Phoenix experienced significant growth during this timeframe,
increasing by 63.4%. Although this growth exceeds the rate of inflation, its impact on purchasing power
has been limited due to rising costs of living. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) inflation
calculator, a household earning $47,139 in 2013 would require $61,240.99 in 2023 to maintain the same
purchasing power. This figure is slightly below Phoenix's 2023 MHI, highlighting the challenges households
face in adapting to increased living costs despite income growth.




Population

The map below illustrates the population distribution in Phoenix by census tract. The U.S. Census Bureau
annually adjusts census tracts to maintain a target population of approximately 4,000 residents per tract.
While the map does not depict population density, it highlights population changes since the previous
census.

Phoenix is a very densely populated city, with many census tracts exhibiting populations exceeding 4,000
residents. There are several areas with fewer than 3,000 residents, and some falling below 2,000. These
variations indicate potential population shifts and re-concentrations across different areas of the city,
reflecting trends such as urban migration, housing development patterns, or demographic changes.




Change in Population

Between 2018 and 2023, Phoenix experienced an overall population growth of 10.3%. However, this
growth was not evenly distributed across the city. Census tracts within Phoenix exhibited varied patterns
of population change, with some areas experiencing significant increases while others saw declines. Many
census tracts recorded growth, with certain areas exceeding a 20% increase in population. Conversely,
neighboring tracts experienced population decreases over 10%. These sporadic changes suggest that
growth dynamics in Phoenix are influenced by localized factors, such as housing availability, economic
opportunities, or community-specific characteristics.




Median Household Income

Phoenix exhibits considerable variation in median household income across its neighborhoods, reflecting
economic disparities throughout the city. Many areas report median incomes between $50,000 and
$100,000, while several census tracts, particularly in the downtown area, have annual incomes below
$50,000. In contrast, higher-income neighborhoods, especially along the northern, southern, and eastern
perimeters, as well as north of downtown, report MHIs exceeding $125,000. These disparities underscore
income inequality within Phoenix and highlight the need for targeted economic development initiatives
and balanced resource distribution to support lower-income communities and promote wide-ranging
growth.




Poverty

The poverty map for Phoenix reveals pronounced disparities in poverty rates across the city. Many census
tracts, particularly in the central and southern regions, show poverty rates exceeding 25%, with some
exceeding 35% highlighting areas of concentrated economic hardship. Conversely, adjacent tracts display
significantly lower poverty rates, with some northern areas reporting rates below 15% and even below
5%. These stark contrasts underscore the uneven distribution of economic resources and opportunities
within Phoenix. Addressing these disparities will require targeted interventions aimed at reducing poverty
and fostering equitable economic development across the city.




Number of Households Table

0-30% >30-50% >50-80% >80-100% >100%
HAMFI HAMFI HAMFI HAMFI HAMFI


Total Households 71,680 69,380 113,080 60,800 264,940

Small Family Households 20,770 23,400 41,165 25,190 129,480

Large Family Households 7,960 10,895 15,645 7,700 26,815

Household contains at least one
15,720 13,000 21,030 11,960 53,945
person 62-74 years of age

Household contains at least one
8,740 8,605 9,865 4,035 14,745
person age 75 or older

Households with one or more
14,185 16,235 22,065 10,200 40,660
children 6 years old or younger

Table 6 - Total Households Table

Data Source: 2017-2021 CHAS


Number Households

In the above table, data from HUD’s 2017-2021 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS)
provides a detailed look at households in Phoenix, using the HUD Area Median Family Income (HAMFI) as
a baseline. HAMFI is commonly referred to as the “Area Median Income” (AMI). This document will use
the following income group definitions:
● Extremely Low Income: 0-30% AMI
● Very Low Income: 30-50% AMI
● Low Income: 50-80% AMI
● Moderate Income: 80-100% AMI
● Above Moderate Income: >100% AMI

According to 2017-2021 CHAS data, around 43.8% (254,140) of Phoenix’s households earn below 80% of
the Area Median Income (AMI), classifying them as low-income. Among these households earning below
80%, small households make up approximately 33.5% or 85,335 households, while large households
represent only 13.6% or 34,500 households. There is a strong link between household composition and
income level: around 47.6% of elderly households (those with at least one member aged 62 or older) fall
within lower-income brackets, and nearly 50.8% of households with children under six are considered
low-income. These trends emphasize diverse housing and service needs across age and income groups,
highlighting the need for targeted support for these demographics in Phoenix.




Housing Needs Summary Tables

1. Housing Problems (Households with one of the listed needs)

Renter Owner


0-30% >30- >50- >80- Total 0-30% >30- >50- >80- Total
AMI 50% 80% 100% AMI 50% 80% 100%
AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI


NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS


Substandard
Housing -
Lacking
complete 1,190 585 585 310 2670 410 305 375 240 1,330
plumbing or
kitchen
facilities

Severely
Overcrowded -
With >1.51
people per
1,795 1,570 1,965 690 6,020 365 415 675 255 1,710
room (and
complete
kitchen and
plumbing)

Overcrowded -
With 1.01-1.5
people per
room (and 4,020 4,025 3,670 1,705 13,420 760 1,605 2,200 1,140 5,705
none of the
above
problems)




Renter Owner


0-30% >30- >50- >80- Total 0-30% >30- >50- >80- Total
AMI 50% 80% 100% AMI 50% 80% 100%
AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI


Housing cost
burden greater
than 50% of
income (and 27,815 14,210 3,935 285 46,245 12,895 7,125 4,350 785 25,155
none of the
above
problems)

Housing cost
burden greater
than 30% of
income (and 3,370 16,785 26,250 4,430 50,835 3,630 6,720 13,370 5,540 29,260
none of the
above
problems)

Zero/negative
Income (and
none of the 4,820 0 0 0 4,820 2,515 0 0 0 2,515
above
problems)

Table 7 – Housing Problems Table

Data Source: 2017-2021 CHAS


Housing Needs Summary

The table above summarizes housing issues in Phoenix by income group up to 100% AMI and tenure
(renter or homeowner) using 2017-2021 CHAS data. Among the households in Table 7, the primary issues
are cost-burden and overcrowding. Specifically, 97,080 renters and 54,415 homeowners in Phoenix are
cost-burdened, spending 30% or more of their income on housing. Of these, approximately 47.6% of
renters and 46.2% of homeowners are severely cost-burdened, with housing expenses consuming more
than 50% of their income. Additionally, overcrowding affects a significant number of households, with
approximately 19,440 renters and 7,415 homeowners living in conditions exceeding 1.01 persons per
room. This high prevalence of cost-burdened households highlights the financial strain of housing costs
on Phoenix residents, which could be leading to higher rates of overcrowding.




2. Housing Problems 2 (Households with one or more Severe Housing Problems: Lacks kitchen or
complete plumbing, severe overcrowding, severe cost burden)

Renter Owner


0-30% >30- >50- >80- Total 0-30% >30- >50- >80- Total
AMI 50% 80% 100% AMI 50% 80% 100%
AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI


NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS


Having 1 or more
of four housing 38,185 37,170 36,410 7,420 119,185 18,055 16,165 20,975 7,960 63,155
problems


Having none of
four housing 4,515 5,185 24,730 21,475 55,905 3,585 10,855 30,965 23,940 69,345
problems


Household has
negative income,
but none of the 4,820 0 0 0 4,820 2,515 0 0 0 2,515
other housing
problems

Table 8 – Housing Problems 2

Data Source: 2017-2021 CHAS


Severe Housing Problems

Severe housing problems are prevalent amongst all lower-income households in Phoenix. Among
households earning between 0% and 100% AMI, around 68.9% of the 179,910 renter households and
48.6% of the 135,015 owner households experience at least one documented housing issue. These
challenges are especially acute for those with extremely low incomes, with 90.5% of renter households
and around 85.2% of homeowners earning between 0-30% of AMI facing at least one housing problem.
Data from Tables 3 and 4 indicate that cost burden remains the most widespread housing issue in Phoenix,
as many households struggle to meet housing expenses. This underscores the urgent need for targeted
efforts to improve housing affordability, particularly for lower-income households.




3. Cost Burden > 30%

Renter Owner


0-30% >30-50% >50-80% Total 0-30% >30-50% >50-80% Total
AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI


NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS


Small Related 1,030 2,470 11,385 14,885 1,040 3,005 12,095 16,140


Large Related 210 1,750 5,055 7,015 640 2,495 6,050 9,185


Elderly 1,925 980 1,880 4,785 1,425 3,385 5,760 10,570


Other 1,460 1,625 9,810 12,895 450 1,205 3,875 5,530


Total need by
4,625 6,825 28,130 39,580 3,555 10,090 27,780 41,425
income

Table 9 – Cost Burden > 30%

Data Source: 2017-2021 CHAS


Housing Cost-Burdened

The table, based on 2017-2021 CHAS data, offers an in-depth analysis of cost-burdened households in
Phoenix within income ranges from 0% to 80% AMI, showing variations across household types. Among
LMI cost-burdened renter households, 37.6% are small households, while large households account for
only 17.7%. For LMI homeowners, the percentages are slightly higher overall, with approximately 39.0%
of small homeowner households facing cost burdens, compared to 22.2% of large homeowner
households.

Elderly households show a distinct pattern in cost burdens, with 12.1% of renters and 25.5% of
homeowners in this category. This indicates that older residents, whether homeowners or renters, though
there is a much higher percentage of homeowners that may face persistent financial challenges related
to housing costs, underscoring unique pressures on elderly residents within Phoenix's low-income
brackets.

As with many economic indicators, the likelihood of a household being cost-burdened is influenced by
location, as shown by the following maps using ACS data. These maps illustrate cost-burdened households
by census tracts across Phoenix, highlighting geographic disparities. Factors impacting housing supply and




demand contribute to these variations, with lower-income areas showing a higher need for affordable
housing, while areas with elevated median home values often place housing costs out of reach for many
residents.




Homeowner Cost Burden

Cost-burdened homeowners are distributed across Phoenix, with varying levels of prevalence among
census tracts. In most areas, over 20% of households face housing cost burdens, spending more than 30%
of their income on housing expenses. Notably, a few tracts report even higher rates, with over 40% of
homeowners in those areas experiencing significant financial strain. This widespread challenge
underscores the issue of housing affordability for homeowners throughout much of Phoenix, highlighting
the need for targeted measures to alleviate cost burdens.




Cost Burdened Renters

Cost-burdened renters are prevalent across much of Phoenix, with moderate to high concentrations in
many areas. In several census tracts, more than 40% of renters allocate over 30% of their income toward
housing costs, and in some areas, this rate exceeds 50%. Meanwhile, neighboring tracts report lower cost-
burden rates, with less than 30% of renters affected. This widespread affordability challenge highlights
the pressing need for targeted housing interventions to increase affordability, reduce financial strain on
renters, and promote long-term stability for households throughout the city.




4. Cost Burden > 50%

Renter Owner


0-30% >30-50% >50-80% Total 0-30% >30-50% >50-80% Total
AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI


NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS


Small Related 10,520 5,210 1,175 16,905 3,790 2,160 1,670 7,620


Large Related 4,150 1,750 85 5,985 1,095 1,030 455 2,580


Elderly 5,805 980 845 7,630 4,465 2,410 695 7,570


Other 11,065 5,705 1,720 18,490 2,705 1,170 905 4,780


Total need by
31,540 13,645 3,825 49,010 12,055 6,770 3,725 22,550
income

Table 10 – Cost Burden > 50%

Data Source: 2017-2021 CHAS


Severe Cost Burden

In Phoenix, a substantial proportion of LMI cost-burdened households are classified as severely cost-
burdened, spending more than 50% of their income on housing. This leaves them highly vulnerable to
financial instability. Among LMI renters with severe cost burdens, small, related households account for
approximately 34.5%, while large households constitute around 12.2%. For LMI homeowners, small,
related households represent 33.8% of those severely cost-burdened, with large households making up
just 11.4%. Elderly households are particularly affected, with severe cost burdens more prevalent among
elderly homeowners than renters.

Severely cost-burdened households face heightened risks of instability, as unexpected expenses such as
rising utility bills or medical costs can jeopardize their housing security, increasing the likelihood of
displacement or homelessness. To mitigate these risks, these households may benefit from targeted
resources, such as financial assistance or housing subsidies, to promote housing stability. Addressing the
challenges faced by severely cost-burdened households is crucial to preventing housing crises and
ensuring long-term stability for vulnerable residents in Phoenix.




5. Crowding (More than one person per room)

Renter Owner


0-30% >30- >50- >80- Total 0-30% >30- >50- >80- Total
AMI 50% 80% 100% AMI 50% 80% 100%
AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI


NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS


Single family
5,125 4,910 4,330 1,740 16,105 920 1,685 1,690 835 5,130
households


Multiple, unrelated
445 670 875 505 2,495 230 360 1,180 565 2,335
family households


Other, non-family
345 75 490 175 1,085 10 10 25 0 45
households


Total need by
5,915 5,655 5,695 2,420 19,685 1,160 2,055 2,895 1,400 7,510
income

Table 11 – Crowding Information – 1/2

Data Source: 2017-2021 CHAS


Overcrowding

HUD defines an overcrowded household as one with more than 1.01 occupants per room. In Phoenix,
overcrowding patterns vary significantly by housing tenure, with renters accounting for the majority of
overcrowded households. The table above provides the numbers of overcrowded households in Phoenix
within income ranges from 0% to 100% AMI There are 19,685 overcrowded renter households compared
to 7,510 among homeowners. This issue disproportionately affects lower-income households, as around
58.8% of overcrowded renter households and 42.8% of overcrowded homeowner households fall below
50% AMI, classifying them as very low-income. These findings emphasize the significant impact of
overcrowding on low-income households, particularly renters, highlighting the need for targeted
strategies to address both space limitations and affordability challenges for these residents.




Renter Owner


0-30% >30- >50- Total 0-30% >30- >50- Total
AMI 50% 80% AMI 50% 80%
AMI AMI AMI AMI


Households with
10,880 11,140 12,755 34,775 3,305 5,095 9,310 17,710
Children Present

Table 12 – Crowding Information – 2/2

Data Source: 2017-2021 CHAS



In Phoenix, the distribution of children among low-income renter and homeowner households reflects a
notable pattern. In households classified as extremely low income (earning less than 30% AMI), the
presence of children increases as household income approaches the upper limit of this income category.
This trend demonstrates a clear relationship between income levels, housing tenure, and family structure,
emphasizing how economic status shapes living conditions and household composition across the city.
Understanding these dynamics is essential for designing effective housing policies and support programs
tailored to the needs of families.

Describe the number and type of single person households in need of housing assistance.

Single-person households in Phoenix face increased risks of housing instability due to lower income levels
and limited resources. According to ACS 2019–2023 data, the median income for a single-person
household is $44,787—nearly half the median income of a two-person household at $88,644. These
households also encounter reduced transportation options, as they are less likely to own a vehicle, further
complicating commuting and access to essential services.

Single-person households are more prevalent among renters, with approximately 93,885 single-person
renter households compared to 76,043 single-person homeowner households. Data from Tables 9 and 10
indicate that around 65.1% of small lower-income households are cost-burdened, translating to an
estimated 49,504 single-person households potentially in need of housing assistance. These findings
underscore the vulnerability of single-person households, particularly regarding housing affordability and
transportation challenges, highlighting the need for targeted support to address these issues.




Estimate the number and type of families in need of housing assistance who are disabled or victims of
domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking.
In Phoenix, approximately 184,831 individuals, or 11.5% of the population, have a disability. Disability
rates increase significantly among older residents, reflecting the higher prevalence of disabilities with age.
The most commonly reported disability is ambulatory difficulty, affecting 83,975 individuals. These
statistics highlight the need for accessible housing, infrastructure, and services to support individuals with
disabilities, particularly as the city’s population continues to age.

Victims of Rape and Domestic Violence
Based on data from the Phoenix Police Department’s 2023 Annual Report and the FBI Crime Data Explorer,
there were 13,033 violent crimes reported in Phoenix in 2023 which was slightly less than in 2022 when
13,515 violent crimes were reported. These included 191 offenses of Criminal Homicides, 8,950 of
Aggravated Assault, 2,803 of Robbery, 1,089 actual offenses of Sexual Assault (Forcible Rape), and 26 of
Human Trafficking (Commercial Sex Act). The FBI Crime Data Explorer also recorded 104 offenses against
family and children in 2023.

Given the U.S. Department of Justice's estimate that only 42% of violent victimizations are reported, it is
projected that approximately 2,593 rapes may have occurred in Phoenix during this period. These
statistics underscore the critical need for housing and comprehensive support services to provide safety,
stability, and recovery resources for survivors of violence, particularly those facing violence within their
homes.

What are the most common housing problems?
Phoenix faces significant housing challenges, including cost burden, low vacancy rates, overcrowding,
aging housing stock, and housing instability. Cost burden is a particularly pressing issue, especially among
lower-income households, with many spending more than 30% of their income on housing—and a
significant portion allocating over half. This underscores an urgent need for affordable housing solutions
to alleviate financial strain. Overcrowding is another common challenge, primarily affecting lower-income
renters, due to a shortage of affordable, family-sized housing units.

Homeownership opportunities are limited, with a homeowner vacancy rate of just 0.9% compared to 4.1%
for rental properties, according to 2019–2023 ACS data. This limited availability exacerbates overcrowding
and housing instability, disproportionately impacting single-person households, elderly residents, and
lower-income families who struggle to secure stable housing and essential services. Addressing these
challenges is essential to improving housing conditions and fostering economic stability for Phoenix's
residents.

HUD guidelines identify lead-based paint hazards (LBPHs) as a significant risk in older homes, particularly
those built before 1978. In Phoenix, 272,139 housing units were built before 1980, with 27,508 dating to
pre-1950. These units, along with other potential environmental hazards such as asbestos, require
ongoing updates for safety.

Are any populations/household types more affected than others by these problems?




Phoenix faces a range of housing challenges, including cost burden, low vacancy rates, overcrowding,
aging housing stock, and housing instability. Cost burden is particularly acute for lower-income
households, with many spending over 30%, and in some cases more than half of their income on housing.
This underscores the pressing need for affordable housing options to alleviate financial strain.
Overcrowding, driven by a shortage of affordable, family-sized units, is another prevalent issue,
particularly among lower-income renters.

Homeownership opportunities are also limited, with 343,369 owner-occupied units compared to 258,028
renter-occupied units and a homeowner vacancy rate of only 0.9%, according to 2019–2023 ACS data.
This constrained availability exacerbates overcrowding and housing instability, disproportionately
impacting single-person households, elderly residents, and lower-income families who struggle to access
stable housing and essential services.

These housing constraints are particularly challenging for vulnerable populations. Approximately 11.9%
of Phoenix’s population is over the age of 65, highlighting the need for housing that accommodates the
specific needs of elderly households. Additionally, about 11.5% of the population reports a disability, often
requiring accessible housing and incurring higher costs due to modifications and accommodations.
Extremely low-income households, which account for 71,680 households in Phoenix according to 2017–
2021 CHAS data, are particularly at risk of housing instability. Addressing these issues is critical to
improving housing conditions and supporting the city's most vulnerable residents.

Describe the characteristics and needs of Low-income individuals and families with children (especially
extremely low-income) who are currently housed but are at imminent risk of either residing in shelters
or becoming unsheltered 91.205(c)/91.305(c)). Also discuss the needs of formerly homeless families
and individuals who are receiving rapid re-housing assistance and are nearing the termination of that
assistance

HUD defines extremely low-income households as those earning 0–30% AMI and classifies households
spending over 50% of their income on housing as severely cost-burdened. According to 2017–2021 CHAS
data from the Housing Needs Summary Tables, Phoenix’s extremely low-income households and families
with children face critical shortages of affordable housing. Approximately 12,055 extremely low-income
homeowner households and 31,540 renter households in Phoenix are severely cost-burdened, spending
more than half of their income on housing. These 43,595 households are at a high risk of housing instability
and potential homelessness.

The data also shows that Phoenix has 14,185 extremely low-income households with children under the
age of 6, the majority of whom are renters. These families face severe housing challenges, underscoring
the urgent need for targeted interventions to stabilize housing for the city’s most vulnerable residents.
Addressing these affordability issues is critical to preventing housing instability and ensuring long-term
security for low-income families and households in Phoenix.

If a jurisdiction provides estimates of the at-risk population(s), it should also include a description of
the operational definition of the at-risk group and the methodology used to generate the estimates:




The City of Phoenix does not provide additional estimates of at-risk populations.

Specify particular housing characteristics that have been linked with instability and an increased risk of
homelessness

In Phoenix, several housing characteristics contribute to instability and increase the risk of homelessness.
With 42.3% of housing structures built before 1980, many properties require costly repairs, leaving low-
income tenants vulnerable to displacement when maintenance issues render units uninhabitable. Limited
housing availability, with a 0.9% homeowner vacancy rate and 4.1% rental vacancy rate, exacerbates the
shortage of affordable housing, as reflected in the high proportion of cost-burdened households. These
factors highlight the urgent need for affordable and stable housing solutions to reduce homelessness risks
in Phoenix.

Discussion

N/A




NA-15 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Problems – 91.205 (b)(2)
Assess the need of any racial or ethnic group that has disproportionately greater need in comparison to
the needs of that category of need as a whole.

Introduction

To understand community needs, it's essential to identify whether any racial or ethnic groups face greater
housing challenges. This section compares housing problems across racial and ethnic groups within each
income category, using HUD guidelines that define a disproportionately greater need when a group
experiences housing problems at a rate at least 10 percentage points higher than the city’s average
highlighting whether certain groups in Phoenix are more affected by these housing problems.

The following series of tables looks at the existence of housing problems amongst different racial and
ethnic groups across the 0% -30%, 30%-50%, 50%-80%, and 80%-100% AMI cohorts.

0%-30% of Area Median Income

Housing Problems Has one or more of Has none of the Household has
four housing four housing no/negative
problems problems income, but none
of the other
housing problems


Jurisdiction as a whole 56,240 15,430 0


White 22,865 6,740 0


Black / African American 5,960 2,000 0


Asian 1,640 40 0


American Indian, Alaska Native 965 475 0


Pacific Islander 35 75 0


Hispanic 23,225 5,100 0

Table 13 - Disproportionally Greater Need 0 - 30% AMI

Data Source: 2017-2021 CHAS


*The four housing problems are:




1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than one person per room, 4.Cost Burden
greater than 30%




30%-50% of Area Median Income

Housing Problems Has one or more of Has none of the Household has
four housing four housing no/negative
problems problems income, but none
of the other
housing problems


Jurisdiction as a whole 53,335 16,040 0


White 20,925 7,130 0


Black / African American 4,555 990 0


Asian 1,125 345 0


American Indian, Alaska Native 620 510 0


Pacific Islander 0 60 0


Hispanic 24,590 6,790 0

Table 14 - Disproportionally Greater Need 30 - 50% AMI

Data Source: 2017-2021 CHAS


*The four housing problems are:

1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than one person per room, 4.Cost Burden
greater than 30%




50%-80% of Area Median Income

Housing Problems Has one or more of Has none of the Household has
four housing four housing no/negative
problems problems income, but none
of the other
housing problems


Jurisdiction as a whole 57,385 55,695 0


White 24,670 23,050 0


Black / African American 6,245 3,225 0


Asian 1,320 1,190 0


American Indian, Alaska Native 945 1,000 0


Pacific Islander 65 90 0


Hispanic 22,255 25,825 0

Table 15 - Disproportionally Greater Need 50 - 80% AMI

Data Source: 2017-2021 CHAS


*The four housing problems are:

1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than one person per room, 4.Cost Burden
greater than 30%




80%-100% of Area Median Income

Housing Problems Has one or more of Has none of the Household has
four housing four housing no/negative
problems problems income, but none
of the other
housing problems


Jurisdiction as a whole 15,380 45,415 0


White 7,665 21,490 0


Black / African American 1,085 3,755 0


Asian 580 1,170 0


American Indian, Alaska Native 330 565 0


Pacific Islander 0 45 0


Hispanic 105 17,015 0

Table 16 - Disproportionally Greater Need 80 - 100% AMI

Data Source: 2017-2021 CHAS


*The four housing problems are:

1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than one person per room, 4.Cost Burden
greater than 30%

Discussion

Extremely Low Income: The jurisdiction-wide rate of households with a housing problem in this income
group is 78.5%. Asian households in this income range experience disproportionately greater need.

Very Low Income: In this income group, 76.9% of households report a housing problem. No racial or ethnic
population groups experience disproportionately greater need.

Low Income: The jurisdiction-wide rate of households with a housing problem in this income group is
50.7%. Black / African American households in this income range experience disproportionately greater
need.




Moderate Income: In this income group, 50.7% of households report a housing problem. American Indian
and Alaska Native households in this income range experience disproportionately greater need.




NA-20 Disproportionately Greater Need: Severe Housing Problems – 91.205
(b)(2)
Assess the need of any racial or ethnic group that has disproportionately greater need in comparison to
the needs of that category of need as a whole.

Introduction

To understand community needs, it's essential to identify whether any racial or ethnic groups face greater
housing challenges. This section compares severe housing problems across racial and ethnic groups within
each income category, using HUD guidelines that define a disproportionately greater need when a group
experiences housing problems at a rate at least 10 percentage points higher than the city’s average
highlighting whether certain groups in Phoenix are more affected by these housing problems.

The following series of tables looks at the existence of severe housing problems amongst different racial
and ethnic groups across the 0% -30%, 30%-50%, 50%-80%, and 80%-100% AMI cohorts.

0%-30% of Area Median Income

Severe Housing Problems* Has one or more of Has none of the Household has
four housing four housing no/negative
problems problems income, but none
of the other
housing problems


Jurisdiction as a whole 49,245 22,430 0


White 19,815 9,790 0


Black / African American 5,325 2,635 0


Asian 1,485 40 0


American Indian, Alaska Native 880 560 0


Pacific Islander 35 75 0


Hispanic 20,260 8,065 0

Table 17 – Severe Housing Problems 0 - 30% AMI

Data Source: 2017-2021 CHAS




*The four severe housing problems are:

1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than 1.5 persons per room, 4.Cost Burden
over 50%

30%-50% of Area Median Income

Severe Housing Problems* Has one or more of Has none of the Household has
four housing four housing no/negative
problems problems income, but none
of the other
housing problems


Jurisdiction as a whole 29,830 39,545 0


White 11,825 16,230 0


Black / African American 2,445 3,100 0


Asian 670 795 0


American Indian, Alaska Native 425 700 0


Pacific Islander 0 60 0


Hispanic 13,735 17,640 0

Table 18 – Severe Housing Problems 30 - 50% AMI

Data Source: 2017-2021 CHAS


*The four severe housing problems are:

1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than 1.5 persons per room, 4.Cost Burden
over 50%




50%-80% of Area Median Income

Severe Housing Problems* Has one or more of Has none of the Household has
four housing four housing no/negative
problems problems income, but none
of the other
housing problems


Jurisdiction as a whole 17,765 95,315 0


White 6,570 41,155 0


Black / African American 1,520 7,955 0


Asian 635 1,875 0


American Indian, Alaska Native 405 1,540 0


Pacific Islander 45 110 0


Hispanic 8,310 39,775 0

Table 19 – Severe Housing Problems 50 - 80% AMI

Data Source: 2017-2021 CHAS


*The four severe housing problems are:

1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than 1.5 persons per room, 4.Cost Burden
over 50%




80%-100% of Area Median Income

Severe Housing Problems* Has one or more of Has none of the Household has
four housing four housing no/negative
problems problems income, but none
of the other
housing problems


Jurisdiction as a whole 5,415 55,385 0


White 1,455 27,700 0


Black / African American 365 4,475 0


Asian 305 1,445 0


American Indian, Alaska Native 185 715 0


Pacific Islander 0 45 0


Hispanic 70 19,245 0

Table 20 – Severe Housing Problems 80 - 100% AMI

Data Source: 2017-2021 CHAS


*The four severe housing problems are:

1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than 1.5 persons per room, 4.Cost Burden
over 50%

Discussion

Extremely Low Income: The jurisdiction-wide severe housing problem rate in this income group is 68.7%.
Asian households in this income range experience disproportionately greater need.

Very Low Income: In this income group, 43.0% of households report a severe housing problem. No racial
or ethnic population groups experience disproportionately greater need.

Low Income: The jurisdiction-wide severe housing problem rate in this income group is 15.7%. Pacific
Islander households in this income range experience disproportionately greater need.

Moderate Income: In this income group, 8.9% of households report a severe housing problem. American
Indian and Alaska Native households in this income range experience disproportionately greater need.




NA-25 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Cost Burdens – 91.205 (b)(2)
Assess the need of any racial or ethnic group that has disproportionately greater need in comparison to
the needs of that category of need as a whole.

Introduction:

To understand community needs, it's essential to identify whether any racial or ethnic groups face greater
housing challenges. This section compares housing cost burdens across racial and ethnic groups, using
HUD guidelines that define a disproportionately greater need when a group experiences housing
problems at a rate at least 10 percentage points higher than the city’s average highlighting whether
certain groups in Phoenix are more affected by these housing problems.

Housing Cost Burden

Housing Cost Burden <=30% 30-50% >50% No / negative
income (not
computed)


Jurisdiction as a whole 393,825 98,360 79,790 7,920


White 21,5710 46,205 37,370 3,290


Black / African
22,795 9,210 7,975 1,085
American


Asian 16,980 2,215 2,290 290


American Indian, Alaska
5,225 1,270 1,185 325
Native


Pacific Islander 640 20 40 75


Hispanic 120,785 36,095 28,920 2,635

Table 21 – Greater Need: Housing Cost Burdens AMI

Data Source: 2017-2021 CHAS


Discussion:

Cost Burden: The jurisdiction-wide housing cost burden rate (30% to 50% of household income) is 17.0%.
No racial or ethnic population groups experience disproportionately greater need.




Severe Cost Burden: The jurisdiction-wide rate of severe housing cost burden (over 50% of household
income) is 13.8%. No racial or ethnic population groups experience disproportionately greater need.




NA-30 Disproportionately Greater Need: Discussion – 91.205(b)(2)
Are there any Income categories in which a racial or ethnic group has disproportionately greater need
than the needs of that income category as a whole?

Overall, no racial or ethnic group stands out as having disproportionately greater housing needs across all
income levels. However, at specific income levels, certain racial and ethnic groups experience
disproportionate housing challenges. Extremely low-income Asian households and low-income Pacific
Islander households face severe housing problems, though their populations are small. Additionally,
Black/African American households at the low-income level and American Indian and Alaska Native
households at the moderate-income level experience disproportionate housing problems. A summary of
these disparities is provided below.

Housing Problems
● Extremely Low Income: Asian Households
● Very Low Income: No racial or ethnic groups
● Low Income: Black / African American households
● Moderate Income: American Indian and Alaska Native households
Severe Housing Problems
● Extremely Low Income: Asian households
● Very Low Income: No racial or ethnic groups
● Low Income: Pacific Islander households
● Moderate Income: American Indian and Alaska Native households
Housing Cost Burden
● Cost Burden: No racial or ethnic groups
● Severe Cost Burden: No racial or ethnic groups

If they have needs not identified above, what are those needs?

An additional analysis of the relationship between race and ethnicity, income, and housing problems is
included in section MA-50.

Are any of those racial or ethnic groups located in specific areas or neighborhoods in your
community?

The relationship between racial and ethnic groups with specific neighborhoods and low-income areas is
discussed in MA-50.




NA-35 Public Housing – 91.205(b)
Introduction

Public housing was established to provide decent and safe rental housing for eligible low- and moderate-income families, the elderly, and persons
with disabilities. Public housing includes federally subsidized, affordable housing that is owned and operated by the public housing authorities.
Phoenix is primarily served by the City of Phoenix Housing Department (COPHD) who oversees HCV/ Section 8, Affordable Housing, and Public
Housing administration. The COPHD also oversees the Housing Phoenix Plan program which establishes a goal of creating or preserving 50,000
homes by 2030 to address the housing shortage in Phoenix.

Data Note: The Totals in Use table is based on data from the PIH HCV Data Dashboard and the PIH Public Housing Dashboard, current as of
November 2024. However, these sources do not provide resident characteristics, racial demographics, or ethnicity data. Therefore, data for the
Characteristics of Residents table, the Race of Residents table, and the Ethnicity of Residents table was sourced from the PIC, which relies on an
older dataset. As a result, there may be discrepancies in total counts between tables due to differences in reporting periods.

Totals in Use

Program Type

Certificate Mod- Public Vouchers
Rehab Housing
Total Project - Tenant - Special Purpose Voucher
based based
Veterans Family Disabled
Affairs Unification *
Supportive Program
Housing

# of units vouchers in use - - 882 7,135 1572 4,680 827 185 220
Table 22 - Public Housing by Program Type

*includes Non-Elderly Disabled, Mainstream One-Year, Mainstream Five-year, and Nursing Home Transition

Data Source: HUD PIC (PIH HCV Data Dashboard 2024); HUD PIH Public Housing Dashboard 2024




Characteristics of Residents

Program Type

Certificate Mod- Public Vouchers
Rehab Housing
Total Project - Tenant - Special Purpose Voucher
based based
Veterans Affairs Family
Supportive Unification
Housing Program

Average Annual Income 0 0 5,281 11,697 11,110 8,268 11,190 10,053

Average length of stay 0 0 2 6 6 0 7 0

Average Household size 0 0 1 2 3 2 3 1

# Homeless at admission 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0

# of Elderly Program Participants
(>62) 0 0 13 594 656 2 624 30

# of Disabled Families 0 0 40 429 1,613 14 1,488 111

# of Families requesting accessibility
features 0 0 89 2,149 5,029 34 4,726 269

# of HIV/AIDS program participants 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

# of DV victims 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Table 24 – Characteristics of Public Housing Residents by Program Type

Data Source: PIC (PIH Information Center)




Race of Residents

Program Type

Race Certificate Mod- Public Vouchers
Rehab Housing
Total Project - Tenant - Special Purpose Voucher
based based
Veterans Family Disabled
Affairs Unification *
Supportive Program
Housing

White 0 58 1,564 2,786 13 2,604 169 0 0

Black/African American 0 16 495 2,004 18 1,903 83 0 0

Asian 0 0 30 45 1 42 2 0 0

American Indian/Alaska
Native 0 15 56 177 2 164 11 0 0

Pacific Islander 0 0 4 17 0 13 4 0 0

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0



*includes Non-Elderly Disabled, Mainstream One-Year, Mainstream Five-year, and Nursing Home Transition

Table 25 – Race of Public Housing Residents by Program Type

Data Source: PIC (PIH Information Center)




Ethnicity of Residents

Program Type

Ethnicity Certificate Mod- Public Vouchers
Rehab Housing
Total Project - Tenant - Special Purpose Voucher
based based
Veterans Family Disabled
Affairs Unification *
Supportive Program
Housing

Hispanic 14 1,236 1,698 18 1,639 41 0 0 14

Not Hispanic 75 913 3,331 16 3,087 228 0 0 75


*includes Non-Elderly Disabled, Mainstream One-Year, Mainstream Five-year, and Nursing Home Transition




Table 26 – Ethnicity of Public Housing Residents by Program Type

Data Source: PIC (PIH Information Center)




Section 504 Needs Assessment: Describe the needs of public housing tenants and applicants on the
waiting list for accessible units:

In Phoenix, public housing tenants and applicants requiring accessible units face specific challenges under
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Section 504 mandates that federally funded housing
providers ensure accessibility for individuals with disabilities, including a requirement that at least 5% of
housing units be accessible for persons with mobility disabilities and an additional 2% for individuals with
hearing or vision impairments..

The City of Phoenix Housing Department offers fully accessible, ADA-compliant apartments for those in
need. However, demand for these units frequently surpasses availability, resulting in extended waiting
periods. According to Affordable Housing Online (2024), the average wait time for public housing units in
Phoenix is approximately 37 months, underscoring the significant demand for accessible housing.

To address these needs, the Phoenix Housing Department allows individuals with disabilities to apply to
all housing programs and provides reasonable accommodations to ensure equal access to housing
opportunities. Despite these efforts, the limited availability of accessible units and long waiting lists
emphasize the need for additional resources to meet the requirements of Section 504 and support the
diverse needs of Phoenix residents with disabilities.

Most immediate needs of residents of Public Housing and Housing Choice voucher holders

Residents of public housing and HCV holders in Phoenix face several pressing challenges, including
affordability concerns and accessibility barriers. While compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973 ensures a baseline level of accessibility, many needs remain unmet. Additionally, low-income
households experience financial instability, housing insecurity, and limited access to essential services.
Key challenges include the following:

Availability of Accessible Housing
The demand for accessible units exceeds supply, resulting in extended wait times for residents with
mobility or sensory impairments. The limited availability of fully accessible units presents ongoing
challenges for individuals who require housing accommodations.

Adaptive Technology and Supportive Services
Residents who require adaptive technologies, such as hearing aids, visual alert systems, or communication
devices, may experience difficulties obtaining them. Additionally, some individuals need in-home
supportive services, including personal care assistance and mental health counseling, to maintain stability
in their housing.

Affordable Housing and Rent Burden
Many public housing residents and HCV holders experience financial strain due to the cost of rent and
other necessary expenses such as utilities, transportation, and healthcare. Even with housing assistance,
households often struggle to cover these costs, impacting overall financial stability.




Employment and Economic Barriers
Many low-income households, particularly those in public housing, face difficulties securing stable
employment due to job availability, educational attainment, and the need for childcare services. Limited
access to workforce training and career advancement opportunities affects financial independence.

Transportation Access
Public housing residents and HCV holders often encounter challenges related to transportation. Public
transit routes may not align with employment centers, healthcare facilities, or essential services, making
commuting difficult. Transportation barriers can limit access to jobs, medical care, and other necessary
resources.

Food Insecurity and Healthcare Access
Some residents face food insecurity due to financial constraints and geographic barriers to grocery stores
with affordable, nutritious options. Limited healthcare access, particularly for preventive and specialty
care, remains a concern for low-income households.

Residents of public housing and HCV holders in Phoenix face financial, accessibility, and service-related
challenges. The availability of affordable housing, transportation access, employment stability, and
supportive services all play a role in housing security and overall well-being.

How do these needs compare to the housing needs of the population at large

The housing needs of public housing residents and Housing Choice Voucher holders in Phoenix differ from
those of the general population due to additional financial and service-related challenges. While the
broader population primarily faces concerns related to housing affordability, transportation access, and
utility costs, public housing residents and HCV holders often experience more acute financial strain and
barriers to stable housing.

In addition to affordability challenges, some residents require housing accommodations such as accessible
units, adaptive technologies, and supportive services. Limited availability of these resources can create
longer wait times and restrict housing options for certain populations. Furthermore, factors such as
employment instability, food insecurity, and transportation barriers disproportionately impact low-
income households, making it more difficult to maintain housing stability.

These differences underscore the distinct challenges faced by public housing residents and HCV holders
compared to the general population, highlighting the role of affordability, accessibility, and supportive
services in meeting their housing needs.




NA-40 Homeless Needs Assessment – 91.205(c)
Introduction:

Homelessness is a challenging and multifaceted issue that affects communities nationwide, including
Phoenix. Its complexity lies in the overlapping causes that contribute to an individual or family becoming
homeless. These causes can be economic, such as unemployment, poverty, or the lack of affordable
housing options. They can also be health-related, with many homeless individuals facing mental illness,
physical disabilities, substance abuse, or chronic health conditions like HIV/AIDS. Additionally, social
factors such as domestic violence, limited educational attainment, and systemic inequalities also
contribute significantly to homelessness. Often, these causes are interconnected, requiring a
comprehensive, collaborative, and community-based approach to effectively address homelessness.

The Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act provides a clear definition of homelessness, identifying
a "homeless individual" as someone lacking a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence. This
includes those residing in:

● Supervised shelters or temporary accommodations, such as welfare hotels, congregate shelters,
or transitional housing;

● Institutions providing temporary housing for individuals awaiting institutionalization;

● Public or private spaces not intended for regular sleeping accommodations.

The AZ-502 Phoenix, Mesa/ Maricopa County Continuum of Care (CoC), also known as Maricopa Regional
Continuum of Care, coordinates the region’s response to homelessness, including conducting the annual
Point-In-Time (PIT) Count. The PIT Count is conducted annually in late January to get a snapshot of
sheltered and unsheltered homelessness in the community. The PIT Count provides valuable insights into
the scope of homelessness, helping to shape targeted strategies that address the complex needs of
homeless individuals and families. The data in this section comes from the 2024 PIT Count, conducted by
the CoC, and estimates from the local Homeless Management Information System (HMIS). The data
provided in this section are for the entirety of Maricopa County.

While the PIT Count and HMIS data below offer a broad view of homelessness, a closer look at the City of
Phoenix in 2024 reveals that a total of 26,440 households were served, encompassing 29,223 clients.
Among these households, 299 included both adults and minors, totaling 1,116 individuals (473 adults and
643 minors). Additionally, 25,965 households were composed solely of adults, accounting for 27,819
individuals, while 176 child-only households consisted of 288 minors.




Homeless Needs Assessment

Population Estimate the # of persons Estimate the # Estimate the # Estimate the # Estimate the #
experiencing homelessness on experiencing becoming exiting of days persons
a given night homelessness homeless each homelessness experience
each year year each year homelessness

Sheltered Unsheltered

Persons in Households with Adult(s)
5,460 5,300 3,342 128
and Child(ren) 1,867 222

Persons in Households with Only
69 64 14 230
Children 21 17

Persons in Households with Only
12,526 12,077 2,878 114
Adults 3,471 3,837

Chronically Homeless Individuals 1,318 645 4,833 4,660 981 135

Chronically Homeless Families 160 108 681 661 423 137

Veterans 346 93 1,467 1,417 795 125

Unaccompanied Child 21 17 69 64 14 230

Persons with HIV 175 144 5,460 5,300 3,342 128
Table 27 - Homeless Needs Assessment

Data Source: AZ-502 Phoenix, Mesa/ Maricopa County CoC 2024 Point in Time Count; Estimates using data from HMIS




Indicate if the homeless population is: Has No Rural Homeless




If data is not available for the categories "number of persons becoming and exiting homelessness each
year," and "number of days that persons experience homelessness," describe these categories for each
homeless population type (including chronically homeless individuals and families, families with
children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth):

Chronically Homeless Individuals and Families

Chronically homeless individuals and families experience prolonged or recurring homelessness, often due
to mental health conditions, substance use disorders, or physical disabilities. These individuals require
intensive support services and permanent housing solutions to achieve stability. In the CoC region, there
are 1,318 chronically homeless individuals in shelters and 645 unsheltered, demonstrating a significant
need for targeted interventions.

Families with Children

Homeless families with children often face economic instability, domestic violence, or a lack of affordable
housing, which disrupts children's education, healthcare access, and overall well-being. In the CoC region,
1,867 individuals in families with children are sheltered, while 222 remain unsheltered, emphasizing the
need for family-specific housing initiatives.

Veterans and Their Families

Veterans experiencing homelessness often struggle with physical disabilities, PTSD, or other mental health
conditions linked to their military service. These individuals require specialized healthcare and housing
assistance. In the CoC region, 346 homeless veterans are sheltered, while 93 remain unsheltered,
reflecting ongoing challenges for this vulnerable population.

Unaccompanied Youth

Unaccompanied youth, typically under 24, often lack parental or guardian care due to family rejection,
aging out of foster care, or abusive environments, leaving them vulnerable to exploitation, mental health
issues, and barriers to education and employment. In the CoC region, 21 unaccompanied youth are in
shelters, and 17 are unsheltered, indicating a population in need of targeted interventions.

While the data table provides insights at the CoC level, a closer look at the City of Phoenix reveals that in
2024, a total of 26,440 households were served, encompassing 29,223 clients. Among these, 299
households consisted of both adults and minors, totaling 1,116 individuals (473 adults and 643 minors).
Additionally, 25,965 households were composed solely of adults, accounting for 27,819 individuals. There
were also 176 child-only households, consisting of 288 minors.




Nature and Extent of Homelessness: (Optional)

Race: Sheltered: Unsheltered (optional)


White 2,904 2807


Black or African American 1,854 853


Asian 40 18


American Indian or Alaska Native 280 285


Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 44 25


Middle Eastern/North African 2,904 2807


Ethnicity: Sheltered: Unsheltered (optional)


Hispanic 1,277 1,278


Not Hispanic/Multiple Race 4,082 2,798




Data Source: Balance of State Continuum of Care 2018 PIT Count


Data Source
Comments: AZ-502 Phoenix, Mesa/Maricopa County CoC


Estimate the number and type of families in need of housing assistance for families with children and
the families of veterans.

Families with Children: The most recent Continuum of Care Point-in-Time (PIT) Count reports 2,089
sheltered individuals in families with at least one adult and one child within the Phoenix, Mesa/Maricopa
County CoC. Of these, 1,867 are in emergency shelters or transitional housing and 222 are unsheltered.
Additionally, there are 268 identified chronically homeless families with 160 in emergency shelters and
108 unsheltered. This significant number highlights the need for expanded resources to support stable,
long-term housing solutions for at-risk families. Increasing access to permanent housing options is crucial
to reducing the risk of recurring homelessness and ensuring stability for these families.




Veterans: The PIT Count identifies 439 veterans experiencing homelessness within the Phoenix,
Mesa/Maricopa County CoC, with 346 sheltered and 93 unsheltered. These figures emphasize the ongoing
need for targeted interventions to transition veterans into permanent housing, reducing the likelihood of
repeated homelessness and providing essential stability and support for this vulnerable population.

Describe the Nature and Extent of Homelessness by Racial and Ethnic Group.

DATA NOTE: The table above does not include a category for people that identified their race as Middle Eastern,
North African, or “multiple races”. Therefore, the numbers in the above table do not match the total number
of people actually counted in the 2024 Point in Time Count.

Among those who responded to racial and ethnic questions in the 2024 Point-in-Time Count, 61%
identified as White, while 29% identified as Black or African American. American Indian individuals made
up 6%, and 3% identified as multiracial. Less than 1% of respondents identified as Pacific Islander, Asian,
or Middle Eastern/North African. In terms of ethnicity, 27% identified as Hispanic.

Describe the Nature and Extent of Unsheltered and Sheltered Homelessness.

Approximately 56.8% of individuals experiencing homelessness within the Phoenix, Mesa/Maricopa CoC
jurisdiction are sheltered, with the majority being individuals without children. This group also represents
the highest percentage of unsheltered individuals, emphasizing the critical need for housing solutions and
support services tailored to single adults. Of all persons surveyed in the 2024 Point-in-Time Count, 22%
were experiencing chronic homelessness, underscoring the need for long-term housing and supportive
services. Additionally, 14% reported having a serious mental illness, and 14% reported a substance use
disorder, demonstrating the need for integrated healthcare and housing solutions. Furthermore, 7% of
individuals surveyed identified as fleeing or surviving domestic violence, highlighting the necessity of
trauma-informed housing and support programs. Addressing the unique challenges faced by these groups
requires targeted interventions to ensure both immediate relief and long-term stability.

According to a recent study by Julius Happonen and Sara Shuman from Northern Arizona University (NAU),
Arizona's homeless rate rose by 23.4% between 2020 and 2023, one of the largest increases in the U.S.
The state’s climate and terrain present unique challenges for those experiencing unsheltered
homelessness, with extreme conditions ranging from frigid temperatures in Flagstaff to record-breaking
heat in Phoenix. Addressing unsheltered homelessness is critical for improving health equity and ensuring
safety for vulnerable populations.




NA-45 Non-Homeless Special Needs Assessment - 91.205 (b,d)
Introduction:

The non-homeless special needs assessment includes the elderly, developmentally disabled individuals,
persons with disabilities, persons with HIV/AIDS, and individuals with drug and alcohol addictions. These
populations often face challenges in securing stable housing due to limited income, accessibility needs, or
ongoing medical and supportive service requirements. Services for these groups are critical in the
prevention of homelessness, as gaps in healthcare, supportive housing, or financial assistance can lead to
housing instability. Addressing these needs requires a coordinated approach that integrates affordable
housing, accessible transportation, and specialized care to ensure long-term housing stability and
improved quality of life.

Describe the characteristics of special needs populations in your community:

Elderly: The elderly population in Phoenix faces significant challenges, emphasizing the need for
affordable, accessible housing to support their health, independence, and emotional well-being.
Remaining in familiar settings is particularly important for this group, but limited incomes and disabilities
often place financial strain on elderly residents, reducing their independence. Rising living costs further
exacerbate these challenges, as this population generally cannot increase their income to keep pace.

According to the latest data, approximately 11.9% of Phoenix’s residents are aged 65 or older. Within this
group, 32.5% have a disability, and 11.7% live below the poverty level. Elderly residents are more likely to
live in owner-occupied housing (74.9%) compared to renter-occupied housing (25.1%), yet nearly 26.3%
are cost-burdened, spending more than 30% of their income on housing. These figures underscore the
need for targeted housing solutions that address affordability, accessibility, and stability for Phoenix's
aging population.

HIV/AIDS: See discussion below.

Alcohol and Drug Addiction: Gathering accurate data about alcohol and drug addiction within a
community is difficult. Addiction often goes unrecognized because people don’t seek help due to fear of
criminal charges and/or the social stigma associated with addiction and other medical issues. Often only
when someone overdoses, gets arrested, or seeks treatment are they counted in statistics.

Substance use remains a critical public health concern in Arizona, with alcohol, opioids, and other illicit
drugs being the most commonly used substances. According to data from the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention (CDC) – Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) Prevalence and Trends Data
Portal – in 2023, 51.9% of adults in the Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ Statistical Area reported consuming
at least one drink within a 30-day period. Additionally, 5.6% of adults were classified as heavy drinkers,
defined as men consuming more than 14 drinks per week and women consuming more than seven.

Data from September 2021 to August 2022 revealed 2,466 suspected nonfatal opioid overdoses, with
fentanyl present in 47.7% of toxicology reports and methamphetamines in 46.2%. Additionally,
polysubstance use, involving combinations of these and other drugs, was detected in over three-quarters




of tested cases. These trends align with a broader regional crisis where opioid misuse, especially involving
fentanyl, continues to drive overdoses and fatalities. To address this, Maricopa County has implemented
harm reduction strategies, including naloxone education and distribution programs, to mitigate overdose
risks.

In 2023, Phoenix introduced a free naloxone distribution program to expand access to this life-saving
medication. Naloxone kits, available at all 17 Phoenix Public Library locations and through community
organizations, include two doses of nasal spray naloxone, rubber gloves, a face shield for rescue breaths,
and instructions for use. By making naloxone easily accessible, the city aims to empower residents to
respond to opioid overdoses effectively. This countywide initiative reflects the reality that substance use
does not adhere to city limits and requires a collaborative regional approach to protect the health and
safety of the entire community.

Disability: According to 2019–2023 ACS data, 184,831 individuals in Phoenix, or 11.5% of the population,
live with a disability. Disability rates increase significantly with age, with residents aged 65 and older
accounting for 33.4% (61,793 individuals) of this group. Conversely, disabilities are less common among
children and youth, with 18,158 individuals aged 17 or younger reported as having a disability, including
1,199 under the age of 5.

Individuals with disabilities experience a range of mobility, cognitive, sensory, and independent living
challenges that can affect their ability to access housing, transportation, employment, and healthcare.
Older adults with disabilities often face additional barriers, such as fixed incomes, higher medical needs,
and limited availability of accessible housing. Households with elderly individuals or children with
disabilities may require modifications to their living environments, in-home care, or specialized support
services.

What are the housing and supportive service needs of these populations and how are these needs
determined?

Elderly: The elderly population in Phoenix faces challenges related to affordability, accessibility, and
access to essential services. Many older adults rely on fixed incomes, making affordable housing with
features such as ramps, widened doorways, and grab bars essential. Additionally, proximity to healthcare
facilities, public transportation, and grocery stores is vital for maintaining independence and quality of
life.

Supportive services, including in-home care, meal delivery, and transportation assistance, are crucial for
enabling elderly residents to age in place safely and comfortably. These needs are identified through
community assessments and public consultations conducted by local organizations and government
initiatives, which highlight service gaps and prioritize areas for investment. Addressing these challenges is
vital to promoting stability, dignity, and an improved quality of life for Phoenix’s aging population.

HIV/AIDS: See discussion below.




Alcohol and Drug Addiction: The 2023 Maricopa County Substance Use Provider Needs Assessment
highlights significant housing and supportive service needs for populations impacted by alcohol and
substance use disorders. These needs include:

● Access to Stable Housing: Individuals recovering from substance use often face barriers to stable
housing, exacerbating the risk of relapse. The lack of affordable sober living environments and
transitional housing options is a critical gap. Stable housing provides a foundation for recovery and
supports reintegration into the community.

● Comprehensive Supportive Services: Populations with substance use disorders require wraparound
services, including mental health counseling, employment assistance, case management, and access
to healthcare. These services are essential for addressing co-occurring disorders and building long-
term stability.

● Access to Recovery-Oriented Housing Models: There is a need for housing models specifically
designed to support recovery, such as sober living facilities and residential treatment programs. These
environments promote peer support, accountability, and a structured path toward recovery.

These needs are determined through a combination of methods, including surveys of service providers,
interviews with individuals impacted by substance use, and data analysis from local and state health
systems. Providers have identified significant gaps in resources, such as the insufficient availability of
affordable housing options that align with recovery needs and the fragmented delivery of supportive
services. This comprehensive approach helps prioritize interventions and allocate resources effectively to
meet the needs of this vulnerable population.

Disability: In Phoenix, approximately 184,831 individuals, or 11.5% of the population, live with disabilities,
with prevalence increasing significantly among older residents. This population faces persistent challenges
in accessing housing that is both affordable and physically accessible. Key features of accessible housing
include ramps, widened doorways, modified bathrooms, and other accommodations that eliminate
physical barriers. However, the availability of such housing options remains insufficient to meet demand,
especially for individuals relying on fixed incomes, such as Social Security Disability Insurance or
Supplemental Security Income.

Supportive services are equally critical to ensuring stability and independence for individuals with
disabilities. These services include case management to assist with navigating housing applications and
accessing benefits, in-home support for daily living activities, and transportation services tailored to
mobility needs. Community assessments and housing data analyses consistently reveal significant gaps in
resources, underscoring the need for expanded investment in both accessible housing units and
comprehensive support systems. Addressing these needs is vital to enhancing quality of life and fostering
greater self-sufficiency among Phoenix’s disabled residents.




Discuss the size and characteristics of the population with HIV/AIDS and their families within the Eligible
Metropolitan Statistical Area:

In Maricopa County, the population living with HIV/AIDS has experienced a notable increase, reflecting
broader state and county trends. In 2022, Arizona reported 975 new HIV/AIDS cases, a 20% rise from the
previous year. Maricopa County, which includes Phoenix, accounted for 647 of these cases, representing
approximately 66% of the state’s total. This surge is partly attributed to reduced testing during the COVID-
19 pandemic, leading to delayed diagnoses. The majority of new HIV diagnoses in Arizona were among
males, who constituted over 86% of the cases. Men who have sex with men (MSM) remained the most
affected group, accounting for 56% of new infections. Additionally, Hispanic individuals represented 42%
of new cases, highlighting significant racial and ethnic disparities in HIV transmission.

To address the housing and supportive service needs of individuals living with HIV/AIDS, Phoenix offers a
range of programs. The Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA) program, administered by
the City of Phoenix Housing Department, provides critical housing assistance such as Tenant-Based Rental
Assistance (TBRA), Transitional Housing, Permanent Housing Placement (PHP) and Short-Term Rent,
Mortgage, and Utility (STRMU) Assistance. These programs aim to ensure stable housing, which is vital for
maintaining continuity with treatment. Additionally, organizations like the Area Agency on Aging’s,
Region OneHIV Care Directions, funded by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) Ryan
White HIV/AIDS Program (RWHAP), offers comprehensive services, including medical case management,
medical and financial resources with. Other local providers, funded by RWHAP, also provide medical care,
medications, and support services to people with HIV who meet income qualifications and lack adequate
insurance coverage.

The determination of housing and supportive service needs involves several methodologies. Surveillance
reports help identify trends in HIV transmission and affected demographics, while community feedback
engages individuals living with HIV/AIDS to better understand their challenges and service gaps.
Healthcare and social service providers also contribute insights on resource utilization and unmet needs.
Addressing the rising cases of HIV/AIDS in Phoenix requires a multifaceted approach that includes
expanding testing, enhancing prevention efforts, and ensuring comprehensive supportive services to
improve health outcomes for affected individuals.

If the PJ will establish a preference for a HOME TBRA activity for persons with a specific category of
disabilities (e.g., persons with HIV/AIDS or chronic mental illness), describe their unmet need for
housing and services needed to narrow the gap in benefits and services received by such persons. (See
24 CFR 92.209(c)(2) (ii))

N/A. The City will not be using HOME funds for TBRA activities.




NA-50 Non-Housing Community Development Needs – 91.215 (f)
Describe the jurisdiction’s need for Public Facilities:

Phoenix has identified a significant need for enhanced public facilities to support its growing population
and address service gaps in underserved areas. Key priorities include the development and improvement
of community centers, health facilities, parks, and emergency shelters to meet the needs of vulnerable
populations, such as low-income families, seniors, and individuals experiencing homelessness. Facilities
supporting mental health, childcare, and recreational activities are particularly essential to promote
equitable access and improve the quality of life for residents.

How were these needs determined?

These needs were identified through a comprehensive assessment process that included citizen
participation surveys conducted as part of the Consolidated Planning process, public hearings, and data
analysis of community demographics and service gaps. A community-wide survey provided direct input
from residents on housing and service priorities. Additionally, collaborations with stakeholders, including
the Maricopa Association of Governments and city departments, further highlighted key areas requiring
facility investments to align with Phoenix’s strategic goals. Other citywide reports and plans were also
reviewed to ensure a well-rounded understanding of community needs and priorities.

Describe the jurisdiction’s need for Public Improvements:

Public infrastructure improvements in Phoenix are crucial to support sustainable growth and enhance the
livability of neighborhoods. Priorities include upgrading sidewalks, roadways, and drainage systems;
expanding access to broadband internet; and addressing environmental challenges through green
infrastructure initiatives. Investment in neighborhood revitalization and ADA-compliant infrastructure is
also a focus to promote accessibility and equity across the city.

How were these needs determined?

These needs were identified through a comprehensive assessment process that included citizen
participation surveys conducted as part of the Consolidated Planning process, public hearings, and data
analysis of community demographics and service gaps. A community-wide survey provided direct input
from residents on housing and service priorities. Additionally, data from neighborhood assessments,
infrastructure condition reports, and collaboration with regional planning entities informed the
prioritization of public improvement projects. Phoenix’s economic development and housing plans further
emphasized the link between public infrastructure and community well-being.




Describe the jurisdiction’s need for Public Services:

Phoenix requires expanded public services to address pressing community needs, particularly for low-
income families, individuals experiencing homelessness, and vulnerable populations. Services such as job
training, mental health counseling, substance use treatment, and emergency rental assistance are critical
to stabilizing at-risk households. Additionally, programs for youth engagement, senior services, and
transportation assistance remain high priorities to enhance accessibility and quality of life

How were these needs determined?

These needs were identified through a comprehensive assessment process that included citizen
participation surveys conducted as part of the Consolidated Planning process, public hearings, and data
analysis of community demographics and service gaps. A community-wide survey provided direct input
from residents on housing and service priorities. Additionally, analysis of demographic and economic
trends, as well as feedback from the Continuum of Care and other regional collaborations, provided insight
into service gaps and emerging priorities. Public participation processes ensured that resident voices were
integral to shaping the service delivery strategy Other citywide reports and plans were also reviewed to
ensure a well-rounded understanding of community needs and priorities..




Housing Market Analysis

MA-05 Overview
Housing Market Analysis Overview:

This section examines Phoenix’s housing market and supply through an analysis of key housing indicators.
The assessment evaluates housing structure types, property age, pricing trends, and tenure patterns
(ownership versus rental) to provide a comprehensive understanding of the city’s housing stock. This
analysis highlights critical issues such as affordability, availability, and the condition of housing units across
Phoenix’s diverse neighborhoods.

Phoenix offers unique attributes that make it a desirable place to live, including its growing economy,
which is bolstered by industries such as technology, healthcare, and advanced manufacturing. The city’s
proximity to major transportation hubs, its vibrant arts and cultural scene, and its abundance of outdoor
recreational opportunities further enhance its appeal as a residential destination. Additionally, Phoenix’s
warm climate and expansive suburban development contribute to its attractiveness for families and
retirees alike.

Beyond traditional housing, the analysis includes an evaluation of homeless shelters, special needs
housing, and other facilities designed to support vulnerable populations. Resources such as transitional
housing, housing for individuals with disabilities, and Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS
(HOPWA) are critical in addressing the needs of Phoenix’s most vulnerable residents. Non-housing
community development resources, such as public services and infrastructure investments, are also
considered to understand Phoenix’s broader housing environment.

Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping is employed to visualize and analyze housing trends and
disparities, offering a spatial understanding of housing needs across Phoenix’s diverse neighborhoods.
This comprehensive approach informs strategies for addressing Phoenix’s housing challenges while
leveraging its unique assets to improve affordability, accessibility, and overall quality of life for all
residents.




MA-10 Number of Housing Units – 91.210(a)&(b)(2)
Introduction

This section examines Phoenix’s housing stock in terms of housing type and tenure, detailing the number
of units per structure, the distribution of multifamily housing, and unit sizes. It also analyzes the balance
between owner-occupied and renter-occupied housing, providing a clearer understanding of the city’s
housing landscape and the availability of different housing options across the jurisdiction.

All residential properties by number of units

Property Type Number %

1-unit detached structure 385,021 59.9%

1-unit, attached structure 30,143 4.7%

2-4 units 39,764 6.2%

5-19 units 70,329 10.9%

20 or more units 98,161 15.3%

Mobile Home, boat, RV, van, etc 19,449 3.0%

Total 642,867 100%
Table 31 – Residential Properties by Unit Number

Data Source: 2019-2023 ACS


The table above outlines Phoenix's housing stock by structure type and count. Traditional single-family
detached homes comprise approximately 59.9% of all housing units, representing the majority of the city’s
residential inventory. Multifamily housing, defined by HUD as buildings with more than four units,
accounts for 26.2% of the total housing stock, showcasing Phoenix’s emphasis on higher-density living
options.

Single-unit attached structures, such as townhomes, make up only 4.7% of the housing stock, a relatively
small portion compared to other housing types. Multifamily housing is further categorized by size, with
small buildings (3–19 units), medium buildings (20–49 units), and large developments (50+ units)
contributing significantly to the housing mix. This variety accommodates diverse household sizes and
preferences, reflecting the city's ongoing efforts to address the housing needs of a growing and diverse
population. However, the limited availability of single-unit attached properties, combined with the
prevalence of cost-burdened households, indicates a potential need to expand this housing type to
provide more affordable options for moderate-income families and individuals.




Multifamily Development Distribution

Phoenix has a total of 198,368 multifamily housing units within developments containing three or more
units, according to 2019–2023 ACS data. Of these, the majority—100,207 units—are located in small
multifamily buildings with 3 to 19 units. The remaining 98,161 units are part of larger multifamily
developments with 20 or more units. This distribution highlights Phoenix’s diverse multifamily housing
stock, with a notable emphasis on smaller-scale developments that offer flexible and accessible housing
options for a variety of residents, including young professionals, small families, and individuals seeking
affordable rental choices.

Unit Size by Tenure

Owners Renters


Number % Number %


No bedroom 2,125 0.6% 20,576 8.0%


1 bedroom 6,215 1.8% 70,084 27.2%


2 bedrooms 51,137 14.9% 94,342 36.6%


3 or more bedrooms 283,892 82.7% 73,026 28.3%

Total 343,369 100% 258,028 100%

Table 32 – Unit Size by Tenure

Data Source: 2019-2023 ACS


Unit Size by Tenure

The size of available housing units in Phoenix varies significantly between owner-occupied and renter-
occupied properties. Rental units are more evenly distributed by size, with 35.2% consisting of one
bedroom or less, 36.6% featuring two bedrooms, and 28.3% having three or more bedrooms. In contrast,
owner-occupied units tend to be much larger, with approximately 82.7% of these homes featuring three
or more bedrooms. This disparity highlights a gap in housing options for certain populations, such as
single-person households or first-time homebuyers looking to purchase a home. The limited availability
of smaller, more affordable ownership properties may create barriers to homeownership for these
groups, forcing them to remain in rental housing or seek alternative living arrangements. The lack of
diverse ownership housing options could also impact long-term housing stability for seniors on fixed
incomes who may prefer to downsize but are unable to find suitable properties.




Describe the number and targeting (income level/type of family served) of units assisted with federal,
state, and local programs.

Phoenix’s housing programs, administered by the City of Phoenix Housing Department (COPHD) and
supported by federal initiatives, address the needs of low-income families, seniors, veterans, and
individuals with disabilities. These programs include public housing, Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers,
Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) properties, and Section 202 supportive housing.

● Public Housing Units: Phoenix has 890 occupied public housing units out of a total of 1,029 public
housing units managed directly by the COPHD. These units provide critical affordable housing options
for low-income residents, ensuring access to stable housing. Additionally, the COPHD collaborates
with nonprofit and private developers to expand the availability of affordable housing, supplementing
resources for families and individuals in need.

● Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers: The COPHD administers the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher
program, providing rental assistance to qualified Phoenix residents, including low-income families,
elderly individuals, and people with disabilities. This program helps recipients afford private rental
housing, addressing affordability challenges across the city. In September 2024, the Housing
Department was recognized at the National Association of Housing Redevelopment Officials (NAHRO)
Annual Conference with an Award of Merit in Administrative Innovation for the successful opening of
the 2023 Phoenix Housing Choice Voucher Program waitlist, which resulted in more than 43,000 pre-
applications received. . The City collaborated with internal/external partners to solicit input on critical
documents and designed an innovative marketing plan to advertise the opening. The opening and all
documents were publicized in eight languages online, television, radio, newspapers, all Phoenix
Libraries and more, to create an accessible process for the community. Currently, the city of Phoenix
administers over 7,700vouchers to assist low-income individuals and families within the HCV program.

● Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Properties: Phoenix has 812,504 total units within LIHTC
developments, of which 4,464 are designated as assisted units, providing affordable rental housing
for low-income families, seniors, and individuals with disabilities. These properties form a significant
portion of the city’s affordable housing stock, addressing diverse needs. Notable examples include
developments tailored to seniors, veterans, and families, with accessible features and supportive
services integrated into their designs.

● Section 202 Supportive Housing: Phoenix has 1,237 units within Section 202 properties, specifically
designed for low-income seniors aged 62 and older. These properties ensure affordability by requiring
residents to pay no more than 30% of their adjusted income for rent, with HUD subsidies covering the
remainder. Section 202 housing in Phoenix also includes accessible features and on-site supportive
services, such as transportation assistance and case management, to promote independence and
well-being.

● Community Development Block Grant (CDBG): CDBG funds support multiple housing initiatives,
including:




● Owner-Occupied Rehabilitation Program, assisting low- and moderate-income homeowners
with emergency repairs, health and safety improvements, and energy efficiency upgrades.
● Rental Rehabilitation Program, providing financing for landlords to preserve affordable rental
housing for LMI tenants.
● ADA Home Accessibility Modifications, improving housing accessibility for disabled and elderly
LMI residents.
● Infill Program, redeveloping vacant or previously blighted properties into affordable single-
family and multifamily housing.
● Down Payment Assistance Program, helping LMI households achieve homeownership after
completing required housing counseling.
● HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME): HOME funds support the development and
rehabilitation of affordable housing for low-income households earning 80% or below AMI and assist
first time homebuyers with down payment assistance. The program is expected to assist in the
following activities; acquisition/new construction/rehabilitation of multifamily rental housing, down
payment assistance to first time homebuyers, and rehabilitation of owner-occupied residences.
Additionally, Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDO’s) receive HOME set aside funds
to build/rehabilitate and manage affordable housing communities.

● Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG): ESG funds provide homeless housing and services, including
emergency shelters, rapid rehousing, and homelessness prevention. These services assist individuals
and families experiencing or at risk of homelessness by offering short-term rental assistance and
supportive case management.

Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA): HOPWA provides housing assistance and
supportive services for individuals with an HIV/AIDS diagnosis and their families that are at or below 80%
of the Area Median Income (AMI). Funds support Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (TBRA); Transitional
Housing; emergency eviction prevention financial assistance for rent, mortgage and utilities, move-in
financial assistance; multiple supportive services programs and housing information and referrals.

Phoenix’s affordable housing programs address the unique needs of its population, including seniors,
veterans, and individuals with disabilities. However, the growing demand for housing and long waitlists
underscore the need for additional resources and investment to expand housing options and enhance
supportive services. By continuing to develop and improve these programs, Phoenix can ensure more
equitable access to housing for its residents.

Provide an assessment of units expected to be lost from the affordable housing inventory for any
reason, such as expiration of Section 8 contracts.

There are currently 58 properties in Phoenix with active Section 8 contracts. However, before the end of
the period covered by this plan, 21 of these contracts are set to expire, potentially affecting 853 assisted
units. These units serve as critical housing resources for low-income households in the city.

The table below outlines the properties at risk of contract expiration. It includes the property names, the
number of assisted units in each development, the type of assistance provided, and a breakdown of units




by bedroom size. This information is essential for identifying and addressing potential gaps in affordable
housing if these contracts are not renewed.




Section 8 Contracts Expiring within 5 years

Development Contract # of Program Number of Units based on
Expiration Assisted Type Bedrooms
Date Units
0 BR 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR


Casa De Shanti 28-Feb-2025 24 PRAC/811 0 16 8 0

Mihalic's Project 28-Feb-2025 10 PRAC/811 0 2 8 0

Sweetwater Gardens 31-Mar-2025 24 202/8 NC 0 24 0 0

Peoria Place 30-Apr-2025 14 PRAC/811 0 12 2 0

KC Casa De Paz 202/162
31-Jul-2025 19 15 4 0 0
(202/162 NC/PAC) NC

Camelot Casitas 31-Jul-2025 8 PRAC/811 1 7 0 0

Plazas De Merced 31-Aug-2025 25 PRAC/811 1 4 18 2

Sunland Terrace 31-Aug-2025 80 Sec 8 NC 0 80 0 0

Cplc Villas 30-Sep-2025 41 202/8 NC 10 31 0 0

CASA DE PAZ
30-Sep-2025 14 PRAC/811 0 14 0 0
APARTMENTS

Desert Sol 30-Sep-2025 14 PRAC/811 0 13 1 0

Colter Commons 30-Sep-2025 45 PRAC/202 0 45 0 0

Urban League Manor 31-Aug-2026 151 202/8 NC 0 144 7 0

Broadway House 30-Nov-2027 80 LMSA 0 48 32 0

St. Mary's Manor 31-Mar-2028 40 PRAC/202 10 30 0 0

Christian Care Manor III 30-Jun-2028 43 PRAC/202 0 43 0 0

Fillmore Courtyard 30-Sep-2028 24 PRAC/202 0 24 0 0

Hong Lok 31-Dec-2028 41 PRAC/202 0 41 0 0




Casa Mia 30-Apr-2029 63 PRAC/202 0 63 0 0

Casa Pedro F. Ruiz 31-Aug-2029 48 PRAC/202 0 48 0 0

Paseo Abeytia 31-Aug-2029 45 PRAC/202 0 45 0 0


Does the availability of housing units meet the needs of the population?

Phoenix's housing market faces significant challenges in meeting residents' needs. While rental units may
suffice quantitatively, the homeowner market is constrained by a 0.9% vacancy rate, leaving limited
options for prospective buyers. High home values and rents put much of the housing stock out of reach,
with nearly 585,000 households cost-burdened. Additionally, only 2.4% of owner-occupied units have one
bedroom or less, highlighting a shortage of affordable options for first-time buyers. Expanding affordable
homeownership opportunities and increasing the housing supply are critical to addressing these gaps.

Describe the need for specific types of housing:

Phoenix faces a significant need for more affordable housing options and greater variety in the owner-
occupied and renter-occupied markets. Specifically, there is a shortage of smaller, affordable units for
prospective homeowners who may not require three or more bedrooms in a starter home.

For those pursuing homeownership, Phoenix's extremely low homeowner vacancy rate of 0.9% further
limits housing availability, making it difficult for buyers to find and afford homes. This constrained market
reduces opportunities for families and individuals to transition from renting to owning, particularly low-
and moderate-income (LMI) households who may struggle to compete in a highly competitive housing
market. The high demand and limited supply of affordable for-sale homes also contribute to rising housing
costs, making homeownership less accessible for many residents.

Additionally, the demand for affordable rental units remains high, particularly for low-income families,
seniors, and individuals with disabilities who require accessible housing options.

Expanding the availability of diverse, affordable housing types is essential to meeting Phoenix’s growing
housing needs and ensuring greater stability for residents.




MA-15 Housing Market Analysis: Cost of Housing - 91.210(a)
Introduction

This section analyzes the cost of housing in Phoenix for both homeowners and renters. It includes a review
of current home values and rental rates, along with an assessment of recent changes in these costs.
Additionally, the section provides an in-depth examination of housing affordability for residents,
evaluating how well the existing housing stock meets the financial needs of the city's population. This
analysis is crucial for understanding the housing market's impact on residents and identifying affordability
challenges within the community.

Cost of Housing

Base Year: 2013 Most Recent Year: 2023 % Change


Median Home Value $158,000 $381,900 141.7%


Median Contract Rent $723 $1,274 76.2%

Table 33 - Cost of Housing

Data Source: 2019-2023 ACS




Rent Paid Number %


Less than $500 8,731 3.5%


$500-999 33,780 13.5%


$1,000-1,499 90,574 36.2%


$1,500-1,999 72,834 29.1%


$2,000 or more 44,608 17.8%

Table 34 - Rent Paid

Data Source: 2019-2023 ACS




Housing Costs

Housing costs in Phoenix have seen significant increases over the past decade, though home prices have
risen far more sharply than rents. Between 2013 and 2023, home prices surged by 141.7%, while rents
increased by 76.2%. These rising costs have substantially impacted affordability for residents. According
to recent data, 46.9% of renters in Phoenix pay $1,500 or more per month for rent, exceeding the city’s
median rent. This trend highlights the financial strain on the majority of renters in the city. Later in this
section, rental rates will be analyzed as a percentage of household income to better understand the
affordability challenges faced by Phoenix’s residents and the broader implications of these rising housing
costs.

Median Home Values

The map below illustrates significant disparities in median home values across Phoenix by Block Group.
Northern, eastern, and southern areas show the highest values, with many tracts exceeding $450,000 and
some surpassing $550,000. Conversely, central and southern areas display considerably lower values, with
many tracts below $350,000 and a substantial number under $250,000. These patterns underscore the
uneven distribution of housing affordability and value across the city, reflecting broader economic and
market trends. Addressing these disparities will require targeted investments and policies to expand
access to affordable housing and ensure equitable development that meets the needs of all residents.




Median Rent

The map below illustrates median gross rent by census tract across Phoenix, highlighting geographic
disparities in rental affordability. Higher rental rates, exceeding $1,500 and, in some areas, surpassing
$1,750, are primarily concentrated in the northern and southwestern regions of the city. In contrast,
rental rates across much of the central and southern portions of Phoenix generally range between $1,000
and $1,500, with several areas below $1,000. These variations highlight significant differences in housing
affordability across the city. Higher-cost areas may present greater financial strain for renters, particularly
for lower-income households. Identifying and addressing these disparities is critical for developing
strategies that ensure equitable access to affordable rental housing across all regions of Phoenix.




Housing Affordability

Number of Units affordable to Renter Owner
Households earning


30% HAMFI 10,045 No Data


50% HAMFI 46,940 18,860


80% HAMFI 150,845 72,690


100% HAMFI No Data 111,195

Table 35 – Housing Affordability

Data Source: 2016-2020 CHAS


Data Source The most recent data for the Housing Affordability table above is from the 2016-2020 CHAS. HUD does not provide updated
Comments: data through the Consolidated Planning/CHAS Data website, and this information was generated from HUD's Integrated
Disbursement and Information System (IDIS).


Housing affordability in Phoenix varies significantly by income level and tenure. For renters, there are
approximately 10,045 units affordable to households earning 30% of the HUD Area Median Family Income
(HAMFI), increasing to 46,940 units at 50% HAMFI and 150,845 units at 80% HAMFI. For homeowners,
affordability starts at 50% HAMFI with 18,860 units, rising to 72,690 units at 80% HAMFI and 111,195 units
at 100% HAMFI. The data reflects a shortage of affordable rental units for lower-income households and
a broader range of options for homeownership at higher income levels.

Monthly Rent

Monthly Rent ($) Efficiency (no 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom
bedroom)


Fair Market Rent 1,460 1,599 1,877 2,541 2,890


High HOME Rent 1,150 1,233 1,482 1,703 1,880


Low HOME Rent 900 963 1,157 1,336 1,491

Table 36 – Monthly Rent




Data Source: HUD FMR and HOME Rents 2024 (Phoenix/Mesa/Scottsdale, AZ MSA)


HUD FMR and HOME Rent Limit

Fair Market Rents (FMRs), set annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD),
are used to determine payment standards for HUD programs. These estimates are calculated for
metropolitan areas defined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), HUD-defined subdivisions
of OMB metropolitan areas, and nonmetropolitan counties. Phoenix is part of the Phoenix-Mesa-
Scottsdale, AZ MSA.

HOME Rent Limits, derived from HUD-published FMRs, establish the maximum allowable rent for units
assisted through the HOME program. These limits apply to new leases for HOME-assisted rental units,
ensuring affordability for low-income households while aligning with local market conditions.

Is there sufficient housing for households at all income levels?

As outlined in Phoenix’s Needs Assessment, the city faces a shortage of affordable housing, particularly
smaller homeowner units that would accommodate young households moving out on their own and
elderly households seeking to downsize. This shortage contributes to the high rate of cost-burdened
households, as many residents struggle to find appropriately sized and affordable housing. This challenge
is further exacerbated by a homeowner vacancy rate of just 0.9%. Rising home prices and competition
from investors further restrict opportunities for first-time buyers, making it even more difficult for
moderate-income households to achieve homeownership. On the rental side, the supply of units
affordable to extremely low-income households remains insufficient, leaving many renters vulnerable to
housing instability or forced to allocate a disproportionate share of their income toward rent. These
factors highlight the urgent need for expanded affordable housing options to ensure residents at all
income levels have access to stable and suitable housing.

How is affordability of housing likely to change considering changes to home values and/or rents?

Predicting changes in home values and rents in Phoenix is complex, as both metrics have experienced
significant growth over the past decade. Between 2013 and 2023, the median home value in Phoenix
increased by 141.7%, far outpacing the median contract rent increase of 76.2% over the same period.
These trends highlight the rapid escalation in homeownership costs compared to rental costs, further
exacerbating affordability challenges for prospective buyers. At the same time, the substantial rise in
rental housing costs risks pricing lower-income households out of the housing market entirely, increasing
the potential for displacement and housing insecurity across the city.

While rental cost increases may stabilize in the near future, the combined effects of rising home values
and rents underscore the need for a substantial expansion of affordable housing options. Without
targeted efforts to address these disparities, housing affordability challenges will persist, leaving many
households—especially those with limited incomes—vulnerable to financial strain and instability.
Expanding the housing supply at affordable price points is critical to ensuring that all residents have access
to stable, secure housing.




How do HOME rents / Fair Market Rent compare to Area Median Rent? How might this impact your
strategy to produce or preserve affordable housing?

The median contract rent in Phoenix is $1,274, placing it below all HOME Fair Market Rental Limits. It
exceeds both the low and high limits for efficiency and one-bedroom units, while falling between these
limits for two-bedroom units. For units with three or more bedrooms, the median rent is below both the
low and high limits. Notably, the median rent figure does not account for unit size, but based on data from
the MA-10, 71.8% of rental units in Phoenix are two-bedroom or smaller. This suggests that the majority
of renters are facing affordability challenges in smaller units, where rents often exceed HOME program
limits. As a result, strategies to produce or preserve affordable housing should prioritize smaller units to
better meet the needs of low-income households struggling with rising rents.




MA-20 Housing Market Analysis: Condition of Housing – 91.210(a)
Introduction
The tables and maps in this section offer insights into the condition of housing units across Phoenix by
examining factors such as age, vacancy rates, and the occurrence of housing issues. HUD identifies four
key housing conditions as problematic:
1. Homes lacking complete or adequate kitchen facilities.
2. Homes lacking complete or adequate plumbing facilities.
3. Overcrowding which is defined as more than one person per room.
4. Households that are cost burdened, spending more than 30% of their income on housing costs.

These factors provide a comprehensive overview of housing quality and affordability challenges
throughout the city.

Describe the jurisdiction's definition of "standard condition" and "substandard condition but suitable
for rehabilitation":
In Phoenix, housing units are classified based on their compliance with local building codes, which are
adaptations of the International Building Code (IBC). Units in "standard condition" adhere to the Phoenix
Building Construction Code (PBCC), ensuring they meet all safety and habitability requirements.
Conversely, "substandard housing" refers to units with one or more serious code violations, such as the
absence of complete plumbing or a functional kitchen. Some substandard units may be deemed "suitable
for rehabilitation" if the necessary repairs are both financially and structurally feasible. This classification
framework helps distinguish between compliant housing and units needing intervention.

According to Section 39-8 of the Phoenix City Building Code, a building or structure is considered a
nuisance and subject to abatement if any of the following conditions exist:
● The building's interior walls or other vertical structural members list, lean, or buckle to such an
extent that a plumb line passing through the center of gravity falls outside the middle third of its
base.
● The building, excluding the foundation, has 33% or more damage or deterioration to supporting
members or structural assemblies, or 50% damage or deterioration to non-supporting enclosing
or outside walls or coverings.
● The building is infested by rodents, insects, or other noxious pests, rendering it uninhabitable.
● The building exhibits conditions that present actual hazards or dangers.
● The building has been vacant and unsecured for more than 48 hours on more than one occasion
during a 12-month period.
● The building or its contents represent an imminent hazard.
These criteria ensure that structures posing health or safety risks are identified and addressed in
accordance with city regulations.




Condition of Units

Condition of Units Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied


Number % Number %


With one selected Condition 77,114 22.5% 121,189 47.0%


With two selected Conditions 2,967 0.9% 11,938 4.6%


With three selected Conditions 293 0.1% 466 0.2%


With four selected Conditions 0 0.0% 61 0.0%


No selected Conditions 262,995 76.6% 124,374 48.2%


Total 343,369 100% 258,028 100%

Table 37 - Condition of Units

Data Source: 2019-2023 ACS


Housing Conditions

The table above outlines the number of owner and renter households in Phoenix that experience at least
one housing condition. HUD identifies four housing conditions as problems: (1) lacking complete or
adequate kitchen facilities, (2) lacking complete or adequate plumbing facilities, (3) overcrowding (defined
as more than one person per room), and (4) cost burden, where households spend more than 30% of their
income on housing costs.

Approximately 23.4% of all owner-occupied housing units in Phoenix face at least one of these conditions,
while 51.8% of renter households experience at least one. Instances of households with multiple housing
problems are relatively uncommon. However, when compared to affordability statistics, it is evident that
the overwhelming majority of housing problems in Phoenix stem from cost burden, disproportionately
affecting lower-income households. This highlights the critical need for more affordable housing options
to alleviate financial strain and improve overall housing stability.




Year Unit Built

Year Unit Built Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied


Number % Number %


2000 or later 85,642 24.9% 70,814 27.4%


1980-1999 103,073 30.0% 87,961 34.1%


1950-1979 139,513 40.6% 88,985 34.5%


Before 1950 15,141 4.4% 10,268 4.0%


Total 343,369 100% 258,028 100%

Table 38 – Year Unit Built

Data Source: 2019-2023 ACS


Year Unit Built

In Phoenix, a significant portion of the housing stock was built before 1980, putting many units at risk for
lead-based paint hazards due to the widespread use of lead paint prior to its ban in 1978. Approximately
45.0% of owner-occupied units and 38.5% of renter-occupied units fall into this category, potentially
exposing an estimated 253,907 households to lead hazards. This poses a serious public health concern,
particularly for vulnerable populations such as young children, emphasizing the need for targeted
mitigation strategies to reduce exposure risks.

To address this issue, Phoenix offers the Lead Safe Phoenix Program, which provides no-cost lead
inspections and remediation services for eligible properties. This program is particularly focused on
housing built before 1978 and aims to reduce childhood lead poisoning by creating lead-safe
environments. This program plays a critical role in ensuring safer living conditions for households at risk,
especially for young children who are most vulnerable to the harmful effects of lead exposure.




Age of Housing

The following map illustrates the prevalence of housing units in Phoenix built before 1980, which are at a
higher risk of containing lead-based paint. The darker shaded areas represent census tracts with higher
concentrations of older housing stock, predominantly located in and around the downtown area, where
many tracts show over 40%, with some exceeding 80%. In contrast, housing built before 1980 is far less
common in the northern and southern areas of the city, with most tracts reporting less than 20%.

This geographic distribution highlights the critical need for targeted lead mitigation efforts in
neighborhoods with the highest concentrations of older housing stock. Programs such as the Lead Safe
Phoenix Program play a vital role in addressing these risks, particularly for vulnerable populations like
young children in the most affected areas.




Risk of Lead-Based Paint Hazard


Risk of Lead-Based Paint Hazard Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied

Number % Number %

Total Number of Units Built Before 1980. 149,994 46% 111,195 43%

Housing units built before 1980 with 58,835 18% 29,750 11%
children present
Table 39 – Risk of Lead-Based Paint

Data Source: 2016-2020 ACS (Total Units) 2016-2020 CHAS (Units with Children present)



Data Source The most recent data for the Housing units built before 1980 w/ children is from the 2016-2020 CHAS. 2016-2020 ACS data was
Comments: used to match the data time period.

Lead-Based Paint Hazard

As mentioned previously, any housing unit built prior to 1980 may contain lead-based paint in portions of
the home. The most common locations are window and door frames, walls, and ceilings, and in some
cases, throughout the entire home. Thus, it is generally accepted that these homes at least have a risk of
lead-based paint hazards and should be tested in accordance with HUD standards. The greatest potential
for lead-based paint and other environmental and safety hazards is in homes built before 1980. Within
the city, there are over 261,189 housing units built before 1980, and based on the latest available data
from the 2016-2020 CHAS, approximately 88,585 of these units have children present.

Vacant Units

Suitable for Not Suitable for Total
Rehabilitation Rehabilitation

Vacant Units 41,470 - 41,470

Abandoned Vacant Units - - -

REO Properties - - -

Abandoned REO Properties - - -
Table 40 - Vacant Units

Data Source: 2019-2023 ACS Data




Data Source Vacant units data is from the 2019-2023 ACS. The City does not track the number of abandoned vacant units, REO properties
Comments: and abandoned REP properties.



Vacancy Rate

The map illustrates housing vacancy rates across Phoenix, highlighting notable variations between
neighborhoods. The highest vacancy rates, exceeding 10% and with some tracts surpassing 20%, are
concentrated in the downtown area and a portion of the northeastern region, as indicated by the darkest
shading. These areas may reflect a combination of underutilized housing stock and economic factors
influencing occupancy. In contrast, most other areas of the city display moderate vacancy rates, ranging
between 3% and 10%. This distribution underscores the need to address localized factors contributing to
high vacancy rates, particularly in areas with persistent vacancies, while ensuring that vacant units can be
leveraged to meet housing demand across Phoenix.




Need for Owner and Rental Rehabilitation

The City of Phoenix has a growing need for housing rehabilitation due to the prevalence of aging housing
units. As these homes continue to age, maintaining safe and secure housing becomes increasingly
important, particularly for low-income households residing in older properties. Financial constraints often
prevent these residents from making essential repairs, leading to potential safety hazards and
deteriorating living conditions. Addressing this need is essential for preserving the housing stock and
ensuring long-term livability for residents.

Estimated Number of Housing Units Occupied by Low or Moderate Income Families with LBP Hazards

Housing units built before 1980 in Phoenix may contain lead-based paint (LBP) in areas such as window
and door frames, walls, ceilings, or even throughout the entire structure. These homes are considered at
risk for LBP hazards and should be tested according to HUD standards. As indicated by the Age of Housing
table and maps, 45.0% of owner-occupied and 38.5% of renter-occupied units in Phoenix were built before
1980. Given the potential risks, it is safest to assume that all homes with LBP hazards are occupied by LMI
households, affecting approximately 253,907 units. This underscores the need for targeted interventions
to mitigate potential health risks for these residents, particularly vulnerable populations.




MA-25 Public and Assisted Housing – 91.210(b)
Introduction

Public housing in the City of Phoenix is managed by the City of Phoenix Housing Department (COPHD). The department’s mission is “to provide
sustainable and affordable rental housing and homeownership opportunities to Phoenix residents.” COPHD oversees eleven public housing
properties, comprising 882 leased units out of a total of 1,023 public housing units in the city. In addition to public housing, the department
administers the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program, which provides rental assistance to low-income households, and oversees other
affordable housing initiatives throughout Phoenix. These programs play a critical role in addressing housing affordability challenges and ensuring
access to stable housing for the city’s most vulnerable populations.

Totals Number of Units

Program Type

Certificate Mod- Public Vouchers
Rehab Housing
Total Project - Tenant - Special Purpose Voucher
based based
Veterans Family Disabled
Affairs Unification *
Supportive Program
Housing

# of units vouchers available - - 1023 7,797 1,572 4,862 903 189 241

# of accessible units - - - - - - - - -


*includes Non-Elderly Disabled, Mainstream One-Year, Mainstream Five-year, and Nursing Home Transition

Table 41 – Total Number of Units by Program Type

Data Source: HUD PIC (PIH HCV Data Dashboard 2024); HUD PIH Public Housing Dashboard 2024




Describe the supply of public housing developments:

Phoenix's affordable housing portfolio includes a range of public and privately managed properties. The
1,023 units, 882 of which are currently leased. In addition, there are 58 HUD Multifamily properties in the
city, providing 4,057 assisted units, including 13 Section 202 developments with 1,237 units designated
for elderly residents. The city also has 122 Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) properties, offering
12,504 low-income units. This diverse housing stock highlights the city's efforts to address affordability
challenges, though the aging public housing developments and growing demand underscore the need for
continued investment and expansion.

Describe the number and physical condition of public housing units in the jurisdiction, including those
that are participating in an approved Public Housing Agency Plan:

The public housing stock in Phoenix, managed by the COPHD, consists of 11 developments that vary in
age, condition, and inspection outcomes. Maintaining and modernizing this aging housing portfolio
presents ongoing challenges. Recent Uniform Physical Condition Standards (UPCS) inspections reveal
mixed results:

● Inspection scores for these developments range from 48c to 93c, with several properties scoring
in the 60–80 range, indicating the need for maintenance and rehabilitation efforts.
● Older developments often face structural challenges and deferred maintenance, contributing to
moderate or lower inspection scores, such as Henson Villages - Phase 1, which scored 48c.
● Newer or recently renovated properties, such as Aeroterra Phase II and III, achieved higher scores
(93c and 92b, respectively), reflecting better conditions.

The combination of aging units and limited inventory underscores the importance of investing in
rehabilitation and modernization to ensure these properties continue to meet the needs of Phoenix's low-
income residents. These challenges also highlight the need to expand the city's affordable housing stock
to address growing demand and prevent further strain on existing resources.

See the following table.




Public Housing Condition

Public Housing Development Average Inspection Score


Aeroterra Phase II 93c*

Aeroterra Phase III 92b

Henson Villages - Seniors 90c

The Symphony 87c*

MARCOS DE NIZA 80c*

Scattered Sites AZ1-40 75c

Summit Apartments 74c*

Henson Villages - Phase 4 66c*

Henson Villages - Phase 3 63c*

Henson Villages - Phase 1 48c*

Table 42 - Public Housing Condition

Data Source: PH_UPC Inspection Data (Phoenix, AZ 2024)


Describe the restoration and revitalization needs of public housing units in the jurisdiction:

The inspection scores for public housing developments in Phoenix reveal a range of conditions, with
several properties requiring maintenance or renovations to address safety, livability, and compliance
issues. Lower scores indicate areas with more pressing needs for repairs and modernization, reflecting
the challenges associated with maintaining an aging housing portfolio.

These conditions underscore the ongoing demand for investment in critical infrastructure improvements
to ensure the housing stock meets federal standards and provides adequate living environments for low-
and moderate-income households. Addressing these deficiencies is essential not only for maintaining
compliance with HUD regulations but also for sustaining the long-term availability of affordable housing
in Phoenix.




Describe the public housing agency's strategy for improving the living environment of low- and
moderate-income families residing in public housing:

The City of Phoenix has initiated several programs to address the maintenance and renovation needs of
its public housing developments:

● Housing Phoenix Plan: Launched in 2020, this plan aims to create or preserve 50,000 housing units
by 2030. It includes strategies for rehabilitating existing public housing to ensure safety and
compliance with current standards.
● Choice Neighborhoods Initiative: In July 2018, Phoenix received a $30 million Choice
Neighborhoods Implementation Grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development. This funding supports the transformation of the Edison-Eastlake Community,
replacing outdated public housing units with new mixed-income housing and enhancing
neighborhood amenities.
● General Obligation Bonds: In December 2022, the Phoenix City Council approved a $500 million
General Obligation Bonds Program, allocating $63 million to housing, human services, and
homelessness. These funds are designated for the rehabilitation of existing public housing units
and the development of new affordable housing projects.
● Girasol Apartments Development: In November 2024, the City of Phoenix Housing Department,
in partnership with Gorman & Company, broke ground on Girasol Apartments. This project will
replace 145 outdated public housing units with 364 new affordable and market-rate apartments
in the Edison-Eastlake Community, demonstrating a commitment to modernizing the city's
housing stock.

These initiatives reflect Phoenix's proactive approach to addressing the challenges within its public
housing system, focusing on modernization, safety, and expanding affordable housing options for
residents.




MA-30 Homeless Facilities and Services – 91.210(c)
Introduction

The Phoenix, Mesa/Maricopa County Continuum of Care (CoC) is a regional collaborative network dedicated to addressing homelessness within
Maricopa County, including Phoenix and Mesa. The CoC coordinates services among local governments, nonprofits, and community organizations
to provide shelter, housing, and supportive services. Its efforts focus on preventing and ending homelessness by facilitating access to resources,
promoting housing stability, and implementing strategic initiatives aligned with federal guidelines. The following table presents data from the
2024 Maricopa Regional CoC Housing Inventory Chart (HIC). It is important to note that the HIC reflects bed availability across the entire CoC
region, covering all of Maricopa County, not just Phoenix.

Facilities and Housing Targeted to Homeless Households

Emergency Shelter Beds Transitional Permanent Supportive Housing Beds
Housing Beds

Year Round Beds Voucher / Seasonal Current & New Current & New Under
(Current & New) / Overflow Beds Development

Households with Adult(s) and Child(ren)
1,808 0 513 1,321 -

Households with Only Adults 3,044 25 728 4,843 -

Chronically Homeless Households 0 0 0 1,687 -

Veterans 0 0 196 1,413 -

Unaccompanied Youth 115 0 118 0 -
Table 43 - Facilities and Housing Targeted to Homeless Households

Data Source: HUD 2024 CoC Housing Inventory Chart (HIC)




Describe mainstream services, such as health, mental health, and employment services to the extent
those services are use to complement services targeted to homeless persons

Phoenix offers a comprehensive array of mainstream services that complement targeted programs for
individuals experiencing homelessness. These integrated efforts address essential needs, including health,
mental health, food, shelter, and employment services, creating a robust support network to promote
stability and self-sufficiency.

Health and Behavioral Health Services

● Circle the City: Provides mobile medical outreach, offering primary health care and mental health
services to individuals facing homelessness across Maricopa County. Their street medicine teams
deliver care directly in encampments, ensuring accessibility for those unable to visit fixed sites.
● PHX C.A.R.E.S.: A coordinated response initiative by the City of Phoenix, connecting individuals
experiencing homelessness with essential services, including health and mental health resources.
The program also facilitates encampment cleanups and offers education to promote public health
and safety.

Food Services

● Phoenix Rescue Mission: Serves nearly 1,000 meals daily at their Community Services Center,
addressing immediate nutritional needs of individuals experiencing homelessness. They also
provide emergency shelter and supportive services to promote long-term stability.
● Nourish Phoenix: Offers food assistance and basic living essentials to those in need, contributing
to the reduction of food insecurity among vulnerable populations.

Shelter Services

● Central Arizona Shelter Services (CASS): Operates the largest emergency shelter in Arizona,
providing nightly accommodations and supportive services to individuals experiencing
homelessness. CASS focuses on facilitating transitions to permanent housing and self-sufficiency.
● Salvation Army: Offers emergency shelter services and support to individuals and families,
assisting them in establishing permanent homes and achieving self-sufficiency.

Employment Services

● St. Joseph the Worker: Provides employment services, including job readiness training, resume
assistance, and job placement, to help individuals experiencing homelessness secure and
maintain employment.
● Phoenix Rescue Mission's Vocational Development Program: Offers career preparation, literacy
skills, financial coaching, and job placement services to assist individuals in achieving economic
independence.

These services reflect Phoenix's commitment to addressing the multifaceted needs of its homeless
population. By combining health, food, shelter, and employment services, the city provides a holistic




approach to tackling homelessness. Partnerships with community organizations and local agencies further
strengthen this support network, enabling individuals and families to transition to stable housing and
achieve long-term self-sufficiency. These collaborative efforts underscore Phoenix's dedication to
fostering a resilient and wide-ranging community.

The City of Phoenix provides comprehensive and regularly updated resources to support individuals
experiencing homelessness. Programs such as PHX C.A.R.E.S. connect individuals to essential services,
including health, mental health, food, shelter, and employment assistance. The Human Services
Department maintains current information on various programs aimed at preventing and addressing
homelessness. Additionally, directories like the Homeless Shelter Directory offer updated listings of
shelters, transitional housing, and supportive services across the city. These resources ensure individuals
have access to the most up-to-date support needed to achieve stability and self-sufficiency.

List and describe services and facilities that meet the needs of homeless persons, particularly chronically
homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their families, and
unaccompanied youth. If the services and facilities are listed on screen SP-40 Institutional Delivery
Structure or screen MA-35 Special Needs Facilities and Services, describe how these facilities and
services specifically address the needs of these populations.

Phoenix offers a variety of services and facilities tailored to meet the needs of individuals experiencing
homelessness, including chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans
and their families, and unaccompanied youth. These services are designed to address the unique
challenges faced by each group, providing comprehensive support to promote stability and self-
sufficiency.

Chronically Homeless Individuals and Families

● Central Arizona Shelter Services (CASS): As the largest provider in Arizona, CASS offers emergency
shelter and supportive services to individuals experiencing chronic homelessness. Their programs
include case management, healthcare referrals, and assistance in transitioning to permanent
housing.
● Native American Connections: Manages several permanent supportive housing communities in
metro-Phoenix, providing housing stability and wraparound support services to low-income and
chronically homeless individuals.

Families with Children

● UMOM New Day Centers: The largest shelter for homeless families in Phoenix, offering
emergency shelter, transitional housing, and supportive services aimed at helping families achieve
stability and self-sufficiency.
● Family Housing Hub: Serves as a centralized intake for families seeking shelter, connecting them
to appropriate housing resources and support services.

Veterans and Their Families




● VA Phoenix Health Care System: Provides comprehensive services for homeless veterans,
including immediate food and shelter, job training, life skills development, and healthcare.
Homeless services care coordinators assist veterans in accessing these resources.
● MANA House: A peer-support organization offering transitional housing and support services to
homeless veterans, focusing on reintegration and self-sufficiency.

Unaccompanied Youth

● Phoenix Children's Homeless Youth Outreach (HYO): Operates clinics and mobile services
providing comprehensive healthcare to unaccompanied youth experiencing homelessness,
ensuring access to medical care and support.
● Safe Place Program: Offers immediate help and safety for youth in crisis. Teens can text "Safe"
and their address to 44357 or call 602-841-5799 to access services.

The City of Phoenix provides a regularly updated list of resources and services available to individuals
experiencing homelessness. Through programs like PHX C.A.R.E.S. and the Office of Homeless Solutions
(OHS), residents can access information on health services, shelters, transitional housing, and other
essential support. Additionally, directories such as the Homeless Shelter Directory offer comprehensive
and current listings of emergency shelters, food services, and housing programs across the city. These
resources ensure individuals can readily find the support they need to achieve stability and self-
sufficiency. These targeted services and facilities in Phoenix are designed to address the specific needs of
diverse homeless populations, providing essential support and pathways toward stability and
independence.




MA-35 Special Needs Facilities and Services – 91.210(d)
Introduction

Within the City of Phoenix, four primary non-homeless special needs groups have been identified: the
elderly and frail elderly, individuals affected by HIV/AIDS and their families, those experiencing alcohol
and/or drug addiction, and people with mental or physical disabilities. Each group requires tailored
support, including age-friendly and accessible housing, comprehensive medical care, rehabilitation
programs, and affordable living options. Phoenix is actively working to meet these needs through
specialized housing developments, integrated service programs, and partnerships with local
organizations. However, ongoing efforts are essential to expand and enhance these support systems,
ensuring that these vulnerable populations receive adequate and sustainable care and accommodations.

Including the elderly, frail elderly, persons with disabilities (mental, physical, developmental), persons
with alcohol or other drug addictions, persons with HIV/AIDS and their families, public housing
residents and any other categories the jurisdiction may specify, and describe their supportive housing
needs

Elderly: In Phoenix, housing options for elderly residents include independent living, assisted living,
nursing homes, and adult day care centers. Key considerations for elderly housing include affordability,
proximity to healthcare services, and ease of maintenance. As seniors face increased health challenges
with age, access to healthcare, assistance with daily activities (such as meal preparation, shopping, and
housekeeping), and transportation is essential to maintaining independence and quality of life. Safety is a
significant concern, particularly for elderly individuals living alone, and housing modifications, like
accessibility features, are often necessary to accommodate common aging-related disabilities.

Persons with Disabilities (Mental, Physical, Developmental): Phoenix's population includes individuals
with a range of disabilities, each requiring varying levels of support to maintain a stable living
environment. Many individuals with disabilities face limited incomes, narrowing their housing options to
affordable or subsidized units. Independent individuals benefit from accessible, subsidized housing, while
those needing more intensive care may reside in publicly funded community homes or private care
facilities. Essential supportive needs include accessible transportation, case management, and assistance
with daily living activities, all of which help residents maintain independence and improve their quality of
life.

Persons with Alcohol or Drug Addictions: In Phoenix, supportive housing options for individuals dealing
with substance abuse include sober living environments, which provide structured, substance-free
settings crucial for recovery. Stable housing is often paired with employment support services, as stable
income significantly contributes to long-term sobriety. Additionally, proximity to healthcare facilities
ensures access to essential medical and psychological support. Connections with family and social
networks offer emotional support, helping to reduce relapse rates and promote sustained recovery.

Persons with HIV/AIDS and Their Families: Phoenix has an ongoing need for stable, affordable housing
for individuals living with HIV/AIDS, as housing stability directly impacts health outcomes. Supportive




housing that combines affordable living options with access to healthcare is essential, particularly for
residents who cannot afford market-rate housing. Accessible housing options are also necessary to
address the healthcare needs of aging residents. Comprehensive community services, including
healthcare, mental health support, substance use services, and case management, are vital for effectively
managing their condition and supporting high-risk groups.

Public Housing Residents: Phoenix’s public housing residents often require additional support beyond
affordable housing, such as access to job readiness programs, childcare, healthcare, and transportation.
Many residents face financial barriers that hinder housing stability or economic improvement. Support
services offering job training, educational opportunities, health care access, and family resources are
crucial to assisting residents in achieving self-sufficiency and maintaining their quality of life within public
housing.

Unaccompanied Youth: For unaccompanied youth, Phoenix provides emergency shelters and transitional
housing options linked to education, job training, and counseling services. Youth often need access to life
skills training, such as financial literacy, employment readiness, and health education, to prepare for
independent adulthood. Supportive housing integrated with these social and educational services is vital
for helping unaccompanied youth achieve stability and avoid prolonged homelessness.

These supportive housing options across categories aim to provide stable, accessible, and affordable
environments that meet the unique needs of Phoenix’s most vulnerable residents, enhancing their ability
to lead independent and healthy lives.




Describe programs for ensuring that persons returning from mental and physical health institutions
receive appropriate supportive housing

In Phoenix, several programs are in place to ensure that individuals transitioning from mental and physical
health institutions receive appropriate supportive housing. These initiatives, provided by both
government agencies and local organizations, aim to facilitate a smooth reintegration into the community
by offering stable housing coupled with essential support services.

● Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS) Housing Programs: AHCCCS offers
permanent supportive housing and supportive services, primarily for members designated with
Serious Mental Illness (SMI). These programs provide housing subsidies and supportive services,
including case management and assistance with daily living skills, to promote independence and
reduce homelessness among individuals transitioning from institutional settings.
● Community Bridges, Inc. (CBI): CBI provides a full continuum of substance use and mental health
services, including housing resources such as Rapid Rehousing and Permanent Supportive
Housing. These programs offer safe and stable housing options for individuals transitioning from
institutional care, coupled with supportive services to maintain housing stability and improve
overall quality of life.
● Lifewell Behavioral Wellness: Lifewell offers Community Living programs, including Transitional
Living and Permanent Supportive Housing, integrating behavioral health treatment to help
members achieve independence. These programs provide affordable, high-quality housing
options and support services tailored to individuals transitioning from mental and physical health
institutions.
● Open Hearts Family Wellness: Open Hearts operates "The Diamond," a transitional housing
facility offering programs such as life skills training, financial literacy, psychiatric/mental health
sessions, and employment assistance. These services empower individuals transitioning from
institutional care for successful reintegration into the community.

These programs collectively work to ensure that individuals transitioning from mental and physical health
institutions in Phoenix have access to supportive housing options that cater to their unique needs,
promoting stability and independence within the community.




Specify the activities that the jurisdiction plans to undertake during the next year to address the housing
and supportive services needs identified in accordance with 91.215(e) with respect to persons who are
not homeless but have other special needs. Link to one-year goals. 91.315(e)

In the upcoming fiscal year, the City of Phoenix plans to undertake several activities to address the housing
and supportive service needs of non-homeless individuals with special needs, in alignment with 24 CFR
91.215(e). These initiatives include:

● Housing Rehabilitation: The City intends to utilize CDBG funds to support the rehabilitation of
rental and owner-occupied housing units. This effort aims to preserve and increase the availability
of accessible and affordable housing options for individuals with special needs.
● Affordable Housing Development: The HOME program will fund affordable rental housing
development, down payment assistance and housing rehab activities that will benefit low- to
moderate-income households Phoenix.
● Supportive Services Expansion: Through the CDBG program, Phoenix plans to fund various
supportive services for individuals and families at-risk of or experiencing homelessness in Phoenix.

These planned activities align with Phoenix's one-year goals to enhance housing affordability, expand
supportive services, and improve accessibility for non-homeless individuals with special needs, fostering
a more all-encompassing and supportive community.

For entitlement/consortia grantees: Specify the activities that the jurisdiction plans to undertake during
the next year to address the housing and supportive services needs identified in accordance with
91.215(e) with respect to persons who are not homeless but have other special needs. Link to one-year
goals. (91.220(2))

See above.




MA-40 Barriers to Affordable Housing – 91.210(e)
Negative Effects of Public Policies on Affordable Housing and Residential Investment

Public policies at the local, regional, and state levels have unintentionally created barriers to affordable
housing development and residential investment in Phoenix, Arizona. The following highlights key areas
where such policies have negatively impacted housing affordability:

● Insufficient Funding and Incentives: State-level policies in Arizona limit funding mechanisms for
affordable housing initiatives. For example, while local governments are allowed to charge impact
fees, these funds cannot legally be used for affordable housing purposes. This restriction,
highlighted by the Morrison Institute, reduces the financial resources available for creating
affordable housing, forcing Phoenix to rely on limited federal programs to fill the gap.
● Community Opposition (NIMBYism): Community resistance to affordable housing, known as
NIMBYism, often delays or prevents developments in Phoenix. This resistance is frequently based
on misconceptions that affordable housing will negatively impact property values or
neighborhood character. Reports from The State Press indicate that this opposition influences
local decision-making, creating additional challenges for securing approvals for affordable housing
projects.
● Preemption of Local Authority: Arizona’s state preemption laws prevent cities like Phoenix from
implementing rent control or other housing policies to address affordability issues locally. As
reported by AZ Mirror, this restriction limits Phoenix’s ability to adopt tailored solutions to its
housing affordability crisis, leaving the city reliant on state-led initiatives that may not adequately
address local needs.
● Gentrification and Displacement: Urban revitalization efforts in Phoenix, while intended to
promote economic growth, often lead to increased property values and the displacement of low-
income residents. According to the Phoenix New Times, without proper safeguards such as rent
protections or affordable housing requirements, these policies disproportionately harm
vulnerable populations, exacerbating housing affordability challenges.

Addressing these challenges requires strategic policy reforms, such as revising zoning and funding
mechanisms, enhancing local authority to implement housing solutions, and implementing safeguards
against displacement. These actions are crucial to creating a more inclusive and fair housing market in
Phoenix.




MA-45 Non-Housing Community Development Assets – 91.215 (f)
Introduction

The following section provides insight into the non-housing assets within the City of Phoenix. It examines
economic activity and education levels, using data to identify areas of economic concern and sectors
where targeted support could have a meaningful impact. This analysis incorporates data from the Census
Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) and the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), among other
sources.

Economic Development Market Analysis

Business Activity

Business by Sector Number of Number of Share of Share of Jobs Jobs less
Workers Jobs Workers % workers
% %


Agriculture, Mining, Oil & Gas Extraction 3,618 1,962 0% 0% 0%

Arts, Entertainment, Accommodations 80,128 80,603 10% 8% -2%

Construction 69,808 63,058 9% 6% -3%

Education and Health Care Services 158,444 189,669 19% 19% 0%

Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 80,968 93,022 10% 9% -1%

Information 14,800 18,156 2% 2% 0%

Manufacturing 57,389 52,641 7% 5% -2%

Other Services 37,982 28,322 5% 3% -2%

Professional, Scientific, Management
14% 20% 6%
Services 117,944 199,338

Public Administration 27,888 51,332 3% 5% 2%

Retail Trade 95,742 85,096 12% 9% -3%

Transportation & Warehousing 49,288 79,120 6% 8% -2%

Wholesale Trade 19,557 47,630 2% 5% 3%

Grand Total 813,556 989,949 -- -- –
Table 45 - Business Activity




Data Source: 2017-2021 ACS (Workers), 2021 Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (Jobs)


The table above illustrates the distribution of workers and jobs by sector in the City of Phoenix,
highlighting key workforce trends and employment gaps. Notably, there are over 176,000 more jobs than
available workers across the local economy. This disparity is particularly pronounced in the Professional,
Scientific, and Management Services sector, which has the largest gap, with 81,394 more jobs than
workers. Other sectors with significant imbalances include Education and Healthcare Services, Public
Administration, and Transportation and Warehousing, all of which show a high demand for workers.

While the city has an overall surplus of jobs, certain industries still experience a notable shortage of
positions relative to workforce availability. For example, the Arts, Entertainment, and Accommodations
sector shows a shortfall of 16,800 workers, indicating significant employment opportunities within this
field. Similarly, Construction, Manufacturing, and Other Services exhibit a mismatch between job supply
and workforce demand. Additionally, the Retail Trade sector faces an imbalance, with 10,650 more
workers than available jobs, suggesting a need for job creation or sector diversification.

Addressing these sector-specific workforce imbalances is critical to ensuring that Phoenix’s labor force is
aligned with industry needs. Strengthening workforce development and training programs will be
essential in closing skill gaps, expanding career pathways, and optimizing economic growth throughout
the city.




Labor Force




Total Population in the Civilian Labor Force 869,141


Civilian Employed Population 16 years and
824,783
over


Unemployment Rate 3.5%


Unemployment Rate for Ages 16-24 11.6%


Unemployment Rate for Ages 25-65 4.2%

Table 46 - Labor Force

Data Source: 2019-2023 ACS; BLS Unemployment Rate 2023


Unemployment

There are several methods for measuring unemployment, each with distinct advantages and limitations.
The U.S. Census collects annual unemployment data by census tract, enabling geographic comparisons of
unemployment rates across smaller areas. However, this data is typically two or more years old, making
it less useful for real-time analysis. In contrast, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) provides monthly
unemployment data, which is more current but only available at the city level, limiting its ability to reflect
localized trends within specific neighborhoods or tracts.

Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

3.2 3.2 3.1 3.0 3.4 3.8 3.8 4.0 3.8 3.8 3.4 3.4

Unemployment Rate in 2023, BLS – Phoenix, AZ

In 2023, Phoenix maintained a consistently low unemployment rate with minor fluctuations throughout
the year. The year began with an unemployment rate of 3.2% in January, which declined to its lowest
point of 3.0% in April. During the summer, the rate experienced a modest increase, peaking at 4.0% in
August, before steadily declining to 3.4% in December. This trend closely paralleled the patterns observed
in 2022, reflecting consistent external factors influencing the region's employment dynamics. The annual
average unemployment rate for 2023 was 3.5%, aligning closely with the 2022 average of 3.4%,
demonstrating ongoing strength in Phoenix's job market.




Unemployment

The map below highlights that unemployment rates in Phoenix remain below 3% across most areas of the
city, reflecting the city's overall strong job market. However, a few areas exhibit elevated unemployment
rates above 7%, scattered across various parts of the city. These localized disparities suggest potential
challenges in access to employment opportunities or workforce development resources in specific
neighborhoods, emphasizing the need for targeted economic initiatives to address unemployment in
these higher-rate areas.




Occupations by Sector Number of People


Management, business and financial 321,917


Farming, fisheries and forestry occupations 2,114


Service 139,508


Sales and office 182,142


Construction, extraction, maintenance and repair 76,420


Production, transportation and material moving 102,682

Table 47 – Occupations by Sector

Data Source: 2019-2023 ACS


Occupations by Sector

The "Occupations by Sector" table illustrates the distribution of job types across various industries in
Phoenix, differing from a previous table that focused on the distribution of jobs within specific sectors.
For instance, managerial positions, whether in corporate offices or retail, are classified under
"Management, Business, and Financial" in this table but would be categorized by industry in the earlier
table.

In Phoenix, the largest occupational group is the Management, business, and financial sector, with
approximately 321,917 jobs. The second-largest group is the Sales and Office sector, comprising 182,142
jobs. These sectors encompass vital roles such as managers, financial analysts, business professionals,
retail workers, administrative staff, and customer service representatives, emphasizing the importance of
professional and office-related occupations in the city's workforce.




Travel Time

Travel Time Number Percentage


< 30 Minutes 421,545 62.5%


30-59 Minutes 213,808 31.7%


60 or More Minutes 39,119 5.8%


Total 674,472 100%

Table 48 - Travel Time

Data Source: 2019-2023 ACS


Commute Travel Time

Based on 2019-2023 ACS data, long commutes are not a significant issue for most residents of Phoenix.
Nearly 62.5% of all persons commuting to work have a commute of less than 30 minutes each way. Only
5.8% have a commute that is an hour or longer. The mean travel time to work for Phoenix residents was
25.7 minutes in 2023, slightly shorter than Maricopa County’s mean travel time of 26.1 minutes.

Education:

Educational Attainment by Employment Status (Population 16 and Older)

Educational Attainment In Labor Force


Civilian Employed Unemployed Not in Labor Force


Less than high school graduate 84,889 6,742 48,430


High school graduate (includes
145,691 11,647 49,653
equivalency)


Some college or Associate’s
193,232 12,313 47,743
degree


Bachelor’s degree or higher 245,396 7,445 34,075

Table 49 - Educational Attainment by Employment Status




Data Source: 2019-2023 ACS


The table above details educational attainment by employment status for persons 16 years of age and
older within the City. Unemployment is lower and labor force participation is generally higher for residents
who have achieved a higher level of educational attainment.

Educational Attainment by Age

Age


18–24 yrs 25–34 yrs 35–44 yrs 45–65 yrs 65+ yrs


Less than 9th grade 3,390 9,209 16,875 37,781 18,775


9th to 12th grade, no
23,373 19,456 22,698 31,565 10,708
diploma


High school graduate,
59,895 69,641 50,443 84,251 43,023
GED, or alternative


Some college, no degree 49,216 59,406 43,414 79,661 43,888


Associate’s degree 7820 20,024 17,833 30,939 16,049


Bachelor’s degree 15,543 61,750 45,600 72,290 33,232


Graduate or professional
1,248 25,760 32,383 48,560 27,169
degree

Table 50 - Educational Attainment by Age

Data Source: 2019-2023 ACS


Educational Attainment by Age

The previous table outlines educational attainment by age for individuals aged 18 and older in Phoenix. It
highlights the varying levels of education achieved across different age groups, providing insights into the
city's educational landscape and its potential impact on workforce development and economic
opportunities.

A notable trend in the data is that higher educational attainment increases with age until the 45–65 age
group, then declines in the 65+ population. The largest share of individuals with a bachelor’s or graduate




degree falls within the 25–65 age range, indicating a workforce with advanced skills and education.
However, a significant portion of adults, particularly those 45 and older, have only a high school diploma
or some college but no degree, suggesting potential gaps in educational advancement. The relatively high
number of individuals with less than a high school diploma, especially in the 18–24 age group, highlights
the need for adult education programs, workforce training initiatives, and pathways to higher education
to improve economic mobility and job prospects.

Educational Attainment – Median Earnings in the Past 12 Months

Educational Attainment Median Earnings in the Past 12 Months


Less than high school graduate $33,674


High school graduate (includes equivalency) $38,995


Some college or Associate’s degree $46,107


Bachelor’s degree $66,771


Graduate or professional degree $85,296

Table 51 – Median Earnings in the Past 12 Months

Data Source: 2019-2023 ACS


Median Earnings by Educational Attainment

Educational attainment is a key determinant of potential earnings and financial stability. In Phoenix,
individuals with higher education levels experience significantly greater median earnings. For instance, a
person with a Bachelor's degree typically earns around double the income of someone without a high
school diploma, while those with a graduate or professional degree can expect to earn just over twice
what someone earns with a high school education. Over the span of a career, this income disparity
becomes even more pronounced. An individual with a Bachelor’s degree working from age 23 to 62 can
expect to earn around $2.6 million, compared to around $1.5 million for someone with a high school
diploma working from age 18 to 62—an earnings difference of nearly $1,100,000. This gap in lifetime
earnings contributes significantly to wealth accumulation, further supported by the higher likelihood of
home ownership, investments, and retirement savings often associated with higher salaries.

Based on the Business Activity table above, what are the major employment sectors within your
jurisdiction?

In Phoenix, the Professional, Scientific, and Management Services sector, along with Education and Health
Care Services, plays a critical role in the local economy. These industries account for 199,338 and 189,669




jobs, respectively, collectively representing 39% of all jobs in the city. Additionally, they employ 33% of
the workforce, underscoring their significance in Phoenix's labor market.

The Professional, Scientific, and Management Services sector supports a wide range of high-skilled jobs,
including positions in engineering, finance, business consulting, and technology development. This sector
is instrumental in driving innovation, attracting investment, and fostering economic expansion. As Phoenix
continues to grow as a regional business hub, demand for workers in this field is expected to increase,
requiring a strong pipeline of talent with advanced skills and education.

Similarly, the Education and Health Care Services sector is vital to both economic stability and community
well-being. The healthcare industry, in particular, has expanded rapidly due to population growth and an
aging demographic, increasing demand for medical professionals, support staff, and specialized care
providers. Meanwhile, education remains a cornerstone of the local economy, with schools, colleges, and
universities playing a crucial role in workforce development and preparing residents for future
employment opportunities.

Describe the workforce and infrastructure needs of the business community:

Phoenix's business community is experiencing significant growth, particularly in high-tech industries such
as semiconductor manufacturing and data centers. This expansion has created an increased demand for
a skilled workforce and robust infrastructure to support these developments.

Workforce Needs

According to the Financial Times, the establishment of major facilities, such as the Taiwan Semiconductor
Manufacturing Company (TSMC) complex, underscores the need for a highly specialized labor force in
Phoenix. However, the region has faced challenges due to a limited pool of skilled workers, leading to
delays in project timelines for TSMC’s operations (Financial Times, 2023). To address these challenges, the
Phoenix Business and Workforce Development Board has developed a strategic plan that focuses on
aligning training programs with industry demands. Based on information provided by Arizona at Work,
this initiative involves partnerships with educational institutions and community organizations to
strengthen the local workforce system and meet employer needs (Arizona at Work, 2023).

Infrastructure Needs

The rapid industrial and population growth in Phoenix has led to increased demands for infrastructure
improvements. According to American City & County, significant construction activity is underway to
address needs in transportation, utilities, and industrial facilities, driven by developments in high-tech
industrial, commercial, and residential sectors (American City & County, 2023). To support this growth,
the Greater Phoenix Leadership Community Infrastructure Committee collaborates with stakeholders to
influence key policy decisions that promote sustainable infrastructure development. Based on
information provided by the Greater Phoenix Leadership, these efforts aim to ensure that Phoenix can
sustain its rapid economic expansion while meeting the demands of its residents and businesses (Greater
Phoenix Leadership, 2023).




Phoenix's business community requires targeted workforce development initiatives and infrastructure
investments to sustain economic growth and meet the evolving needs of industries and residents.
Addressing these challenges is essential for maintaining the city’s economic momentum and ensuring
long-term success.

Describe any major changes that may have an economic impact, such as planned local or regional
public or private sector investments or initiatives that have affected or may affect job and business
growth opportunities during the planning period. Describe any needs for workforce development,
business support or infrastructure these changes may create.

Phoenix is poised for significant economic transformation due to several major public and private sector
investments and initiatives. These developments are expected to impact job creation and business growth
opportunities during the planning period.

Major Investments and Initiatives

Halo Vista Development:

According to the New York Post, the Halo Vista project, a $7 billion development surrounding the Taiwan
Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) complex, will span nearly 30 million square feet and
include hotels, residential areas, and educational facilities. This "city within a city" is anticipated to create
approximately 10,000 permanent jobs and an additional 80,000 indirect jobs in the surrounding area (New
York Post, 2024).

Phoenix Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan:

Based on information from AZBEX, Phoenix has proposed a nearly $10 billion Five-Year Capital
Improvement Plan, focusing on critical sectors such as aviation, information technology, public transit,
street transportation, and water and wastewater services. This investment aims to strengthen
infrastructure, accommodate population growth, and support economic expansion (AZBEX, 2024).

Rio Salado Revitalization:

The Phoenix City Council recently approved a development agreement to revitalize the Rio Salado
riverfront. According to Orion Property Partners, this initiative includes the creation of the Resource
Innovation Campus, which will transform the area into a hub for sustainability and innovation, driving
both environmental and economic benefits (Orion Property Partners, 2024).

Implications for Workforce Development, Business Support, and Infrastructure

Workforce Development:

The influx of high-tech industries and large-scale developments will require a skilled labor force. According
to Arizona at Work, targeted training programs and partnerships with educational institutions and private
sector stakeholders are essential to align workforce skills with industry demands (Arizona at Work, 2023).




Business Support:

New and expanding businesses will require support through streamlined permitting processes, tax
incentives, and access to capital. The City of Phoenix’s Economic Development Programs, as outlined on
the city's official website, are designed to stimulate commercial growth and provide assistance during this
period of expansion (City of Phoenix, 2024).

Infrastructure Enhancement:

The planned developments will significantly increase demands on transportation networks, utilities, and
public services. As reported by Phoenix Budget Documents, investments in infrastructure revitalization are
critical to supporting this growth and maintaining a high quality of life for residents (City of Phoenix
Budget, 2024).

In summary, Phoenix’s economic landscape is set to undergo substantial changes due to these
transformative investments and initiatives. Addressing workforce development, business support, and
infrastructure needs will be vital to sustaining economic growth and ensuring the city’s long-term
success.

How do the skills and education of the current workforce correspond to employment opportunities in
the jurisdiction?

The skills and education of Phoenix's workforce generally align with employment opportunities in key
sectors, but notable gaps exist. The Education and Health Care Services sector demonstrates strong
alignment, employing 19% of the workforce and representing the same proportion of jobs. However, the
Professional, Scientific, and Management Services sector, accounting for 20% of jobs but only 14% of
workers, highlights a need for more highly skilled professionals. Similarly, Transportation and
Warehousing faces a worker shortage, while sectors like Retail Trade and Construction show slight worker
surpluses, potentially leading to underemployment.

Educational attainment in Phoenix supports many sectors, with a significant portion of the workforce
holding bachelor's degrees or higher, aligning with professional and technical roles. However, gaps in
specific skills for high-demand sectors suggest a need for enhanced vocational training and advanced
education programs. Expanding workforce development efforts will be critical to bridging these disparities
and sustaining Phoenix’s economic growth.

Describe any current workforce training initiatives, including those supported by Workforce
Investment Boards, community colleges and other organizations. Describe how these efforts will
support the jurisdiction's Consolidated Plan.

Phoenix has implemented several workforce training initiatives through collaborations among Workforce
Investment Boards, community colleges, and various organizations to align with the city's short- and long-
term economic goals.
ARIZONA@WORK Initiatives




ARIZONA@WORK, the statewide workforce development network, offers several programs to enhance
employee skills:
● Incumbent Worker Training Program: This program assists current employees in acquiring skills
necessary to retain employment and prevent job loss. Training activities are conducted by the local
workforce development board in partnership with employers.
● On-the-Job Training: Employers may receive reimbursements for staff engaged in productive work
while participating in on-the-job training, facilitating skill development directly in the workplace.
● Customized Training Program: Designed to meet specific employer requirements, this program
relates to new production or service procedures, upgrading to new jobs requiring new skills,
workplace literacy, or other purposes identified by the local board. Employers commit to employing
individuals who complete the training.
Phoenix Business and Workforce Development Board (PBWD)
The PBWD Board serves as a catalyst in identifying and addressing the evolving business needs of Greater
Phoenix. By convening partners, it provides customer-centric solutions and resources, offering employers
access to a skilled workforce.
Community College Partnerships
Community colleges in Phoenix collaborate with workforce development programs to align educational
training with necessary job skills. These partnerships focus on providing work-based learning, including
apprenticeships and internships, to prepare talent for open positions.
Greater Phoenix Chamber Foundation
The Foundation's workforce collaboratives aim to:
● Align educational training to necessary job skills.
● Provide work-based learning, including apprenticeships and internships, to prepare future talent.
● Promote career awareness and opportunities for underrepresented populations in local industries.
Workforce Leadership Academy
The Workforce Leadership Academy is a fellowship program for Arizona workforce development
professionals. It brings together leaders from various sectors to foster change and strengthen
organizational and systems leadership skills.
Hospitality Workforce Training Initiative
An innovative workforce training program is being developed through a public-private-university
partnership to train workers in the hospitality industry. This initiative aims to prepare the next cohort of
hospitality professionals, supporting Phoenix's reputation as a top travel destination.
Alignment with Phoenix's Goals
These initiatives support Phoenix's short- and long-term goals by:




● Enhancing Workforce Competitiveness: By providing targeted training programs, the city ensures
that workers possess skills aligned with industry demands, attracting and retaining businesses.
● Promoting Economic Growth: A skilled workforce contributes to economic development, making
Phoenix a desirable location for business investment.
● Supporting Industry Needs: Customized training programs address specific employer requirements,
ensuring that local industries have access to a talent pool tailored to their operational needs.

Through these collaborative efforts, Phoenix is proactively developing a workforce equipped to meet
current and future economic challenges, fostering a resilient and dynamic local economy.

Does your jurisdiction participate in a Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS)?

The City of Phoenix does not have its own standalone Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy
(CEDS). Instead, it collaborates with regional organizations that develop and implement CEDS to promote
economic growth and resilience.

If so, what economic development initiatives are you undertaking that may be coordinated with the
Consolidated Plan? If not, describe other local/regional plans or initiatives that impact economic
growth.

Phoenix and regional organizations are actively pursuing several economic development initiatives that
align with the city's short- and long-term goals:


● Community and Economic Development Department (CEDD): According to Invest in Phoenix, the
CEDD focuses on attracting high-quality jobs and training the workforce to fill them. The
department manages innovation and retail initiatives, oversees the Phoenix Foreign Trade Zone,
and collaborates with businesses to strengthen the community (Invest in Phoenix).
● Economic Development Strategic Plan: Based on information from the City of Phoenix, the City
Council has adopted a strategic plan to guide CEDD’s work. This plan emphasizes supporting
growth in critical sectors, increasing outreach to businesses, and fostering collaboration with
external organizations to expand capacity (Phoenix.gov).

Regional Economic Development Initiatives

● Greater Phoenix Economic Council (GPEC): GPEC assists companies in starting or relocating their
businesses to the region. Its strategic plan for fiscal years 2023-2025 focuses on enhancing
economic competitiveness, attracting quality businesses, and advocating for regional
competitiveness (GPEC).
● GPEC's Action Plan FY24: This plan highlights strategies to amplify opportunities for action on
economic imperatives. It includes setting regional economic health metrics and convening
community leaders to articulate a vision for the region's future (GPEC Action Plan FY24).




Collaborative Initiatives

● Partnership for Economic Innovation (PEI): According to PEI, the organization enables Arizona
innovators through initiatives like The Connective, which focuses on connectivity, mobility, equity,
and sustainability (PEI).
● Arizona State University (ASU) Office of Economic Development: ASU supports Arizona’s business
attraction, retention, and expansion strategies. According to ASU, the university contributed $4.6
billion to the state’s gross product in FY 2020 (ASU Office of Economic Development).

Major Development Projects

● Halo Vista Development: As reported by the New York Post, the $7 billion Halo Vista project
surrounding the TSMC complex will create a "city within a city," including hotels, residential areas,
and educational facilities. This development is expected to generate 10,000 permanent jobs and
80,000 indirect jobs (New York Post, 2024).

Alignment with Phoenix's Goals

These initiatives support Phoenix's goals by:

● Job Creation: Attracting businesses and creating high-quality employment opportunities (GPEC).

● Workforce Development: Aligning educational training with industry needs through collaborations
with institutions like ASU (ASU Office of Economic Development).

● Infrastructure Enhancement: Investing in projects that improve connectivity and sustainability, such
as The Connective (PEI).

● Economic Diversification: Encouraging growth across multiple sectors to build a resilient economy
(Phoenix.gov).

Through these coordinated efforts, Phoenix and its regional partners are fostering sustainable economic
growth and prosperity.




MA-50 Needs and Market Analysis Discussion
Are there areas where households with multiple housing problems are concentrated? (include a
definition of "concentration")

HUD defines “housing problems” based on four specific data points: cost burden, overcrowding, lack of
complete plumbing facilities, and lack of complete kitchen facilities. In Phoenix, housing issues are
infrequent overall, except for cost burden. According to the 2019-2023 ACS 5-Year Estimates, the citywide
rates are as follows:

● Cost Burden Renters: 50.7%
● Cost Burden Homeowners: 21.0%
● Overcrowding: 6.1%
● Lack of Complete Plumbing Facilities: 0.6%
● Lack of Complete Kitchen Facilities: 0.7%

For an area to be considered "concentrated" with housing issues, it must exhibit two or more problems
significantly above the citywide averages, using HUD's definition of “disproportionate.” This threshold in
Phoenix is set at 10 percentage points higher than the city average, equating to: a cost burdened renter
above 60.7%, a cost burdened homeowner above 31.0%, overcrowding above 16.1%, lack of plumbing
facilities above 10.6%, and lack of kitchen facilities above 10.7%.

In Phoenix, the following census tracts experience concentrations of more than one of the above
mentioned housing problems:

● Census Tract #04013112100: Lack of Complete Plumbing Facilities (11.23%); Lack of Complete
Kitchen Facilities (11.05%); Overcrowded Renters (19.81%)
● Census Tract #04013112516: Overcrowded Renters (21.16%); Cost Burden Homeowners (38.8%)
● Census Tract #04013109706: Overcrowded Renters (24.8%); Cost Burden Renters (74.67%)

Are there any areas in the jurisdiction where racial or ethnic minorities or low-income families are
concentrated? (include a definition of "concentration")

For the purposes of this analysis a “racial or ethnic concentration” will be any Census Tract where a racial
or ethnic minority group makes up 10 percent or more of the population than the city as a whole.
According to the 2019-2023 ACS 5-Year estimates the racial and ethnic breakdown of Phoenix’s population
is:

● Black, non-Hispanic: 7.4%
● White, non-Hispanic: 41.3%
● American Indian and Alaska Native, non-Hispanic: 1.4%
● Asian, non-Hispanic: 3.8%
● Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, non-Hispanic: 0.2%
● Other Race, non-Hispanic: 0.4%
● Two or More Races, non-Hispanic: 3.6%




● Hispanic or Latino: 41.8%

The following maps show concentrations of populations based on race or ethnicity. Maps for populations
without concentrations are not provided.

Concentration Black/African American (non-Hispanic) households over 17.4%




Concentration White (non-Hispanic) households over 51.3%




Concentration American Indian and Alaska Native (non-Hispanic) households over 11.4%




Concentration Asian (non-Hispanic) households over 13.8%




Concentration Hispanic/Latino households over 51.8%




Low-Income Households: The Median Household Income in the City is $77,041. Any household making
80% or less ($61,632) is considered “low-income” concentration. As shown in the following map, there
are many tracts throughout Phoenix with median household incomes falling below the low-income
threshold with particular concentrations of tracts in and around the downtown region as well as in the
south western region and some areas northwest of downtown.




What are the characteristics of the market in these areas/neighborhoods?

Downtown Phoenix has undergone significant revitalization, yet pockets of low-income communities
remain, particularly in older housing stock and areas with higher concentrations of cost-burdened renters.




While the district has seen an influx of investment in commercial and residential developments, many
low-income residents face affordability challenges due to rising housing costs. The area also continues to
experience economic disparities, with job opportunities expanding in professional and technical fields, yet
many lower-income residents lack access to the skills and training needed for these industries. Despite
ongoing redevelopment efforts, economic inequality persists, particularly for renters and long-time
residents.

Are there any community assets in these areas/neighborhoods?

Despite economic challenges, these areas contain critical community assets, including public schools,
parks, and local nonprofits that provide essential services to low-income households. Health clinics, food
banks, and housing assistance programs serve as key resources for residents. Additionally, public
transportation options, though somewhat limited compared to central Phoenix, connect these
communities to employment centers and essential services. Community organizations continue to
advocate for infrastructure improvements and increased economic development funding to address long-
standing disparities.

Are there other strategic opportunities in any of these areas?

Phoenix is actively pursuing strategic opportunities to address economic disparities, particularly in low-
income neighborhoods such as downtown, southwest, and central west areas. These initiatives aim to
uncover untapped potential, bridge income gaps, and improve overall community resilience.
Economic Development and Investment Initiatives
1. Neighborhood Economic Development Programs: The City of Phoenix’s Neighborhood Services
Department (NSD) provides business assistance and financial incentives to encourage commercial
development in low- to moderate-income (LMI) areas. The Neighborhood Economic Development
(NED) program funds façade improvements and infrastructure enhancements to attract new
businesses and revitalize underserved communities.
2. Opportunity Zones: Phoenix has designated Opportunity Zones in low-income communities to
attract private investment. This federal program encourages investors to reinvest capital gains
into targeted neighborhoods, supporting economic revitalization, job creation, and affordable
housing development.
3. Addressing Inequalities in South Phoenix: Initiatives focused on South Phoenix are addressing
disparities in food security, healthcare access, and workforce training. The Equality Health
Foundation has partnered with community leaders to implement programs improving health
outcomes and economic opportunities.
4. Affordable Housing Expansion: The City of Phoenix is expanding affordable housing initiatives to
address shortages in low-income areas. Recent updates from the Phoenix Housing Department
highlight ongoing and planned projects aimed at increasing affordable rental and homeownership
opportunities for residents.
5. Equitable Financing for Green Infrastructure: Phoenix is developing financing strategies for green
infrastructure projects to promote sustainability in underserved communities. These initiatives

Consolidated Plan PHOENIX 138
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

focus on creating more livable environments and supporting community-led projects that address
long-standing disparities (GIEquity.org).
6. Workforce Development and Education: Efforts to reduce income inequality include expanding
access to job training and vocational programs. Strategies such as childcare support,
transportation assistance, and healthcare access aim to remove barriers to employment and help
low-income individuals acquire skills for higher-paying jobs.
Transportation and Infrastructure Investments
1. Transportation 2050 (T2050) Initiative: A long-term transportation plan to expand bus and light
rail services, improve street infrastructure, and enhance mobility options for residents citywide
(T2050.org).
2. South Central Light Rail Extension (2025 Completion):A 5.5-mile light rail extension along
Central Avenue to improve transit access in South Phoenix, connecting residents to jobs and
services.
3. Northwest Phase II Light Rail Extension (2024 Completion): A newly completed 1.6-mile
expansion into the West Valley, improving connectivity for lower-income residents in western
Phoenix (ENR.com).
4. Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) System (2026-2028): A high-capacity transit system in development to
improve travel times and increase connectivity for transit-dependent neighborhoods.
5. Downtown Transportation Plan Update (Ongoing): A city-led initiative to improve accessibility,
reduce congestion, and accommodate economic growth in downtown Phoenix.
6. Capital Improvement Program ($750 Million Investment): A five-year infrastructure plan
focused on street maintenance, safety enhancements, and public works projects to support
economic development.

Phoenix is leveraging economic development programs, infrastructure investments, and workforce
initiatives to bridge income disparities and revitalize low-income neighborhoods. Expanding public
transportation, incentivizing business investment, and increasing access to affordable housing will help
create economic mobility and long-term stability for residents. These strategic opportunities ensure that
all areas of Phoenix, particularly historically underserved communities, benefit from the city’s overall
economic growth and development.




Consolidated Plan PHOENIX 139
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

MA-60 Broadband Needs of Housing occupied by Low- and Moderate-Income
Households - 91.210(a)(4), 91.310(a)(2)

Describe the need for broadband wiring and connections for households, including low- and
moderate-income households and neighborhoods.

Internet access is a critical component of modern communication and information-sharing, enabling users
to benefit from the growing interconnectedness of business, education, commerce, and everyday
activities. Reliable internet connectivity has become essential for success in today’s economic landscape.
Communities without broadband access face significant challenges in keeping pace with the rest of the
country. The lack of broadband infrastructure limits residents' ability to access educational and
entrepreneurial opportunities, which is especially concerning in low- to moderate-income (LMI) areas
where economic opportunities are often limited.

Research from the Pew Research Center underscores the vital role that high-speed internet plays in
enhancing educational and employment opportunities, particularly in underserved communities. The
center's studies have shown that individuals with reliable broadband access are more likely to engage in
online learning, apply for jobs, and participate in economic activities that can improve their quality of life.

Similarly, reports from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) highlight the direct correlation
between broadband availability and economic development. The FCC's findings indicate that regions with
robust internet infrastructure experience higher rates of job creation, educational attainment, and overall
community growth.

Phoenix, Arizona, enjoys comprehensive broadband coverage, with the vast majority of the city offering
multiple internet service provider options, including in LMI areas. The average Phoenix household has
access to four (4) broadband-quality internet service options. According to ISPReports.og, Phoenix
benefits from a variety of infrastructure options, including cable, fiber, fixed wireless, and DSL. Ninety-
two percent (92%) of Phoenix households have an internet connection with 99.46% availability. Of those
households, 78% have fiber, cable, or DSL, 8% have satellite, 0% are still on dial-up, and 2% of households
have internet but don’t pay for a subscription because it’s subsidized by the Affordable Connectivity
Program. The following map illustrates broadband availability throughout Phoenix, defined as advertised
internet speeds of 768 kilobits per second or higher.

See map below: Broadband Access

Describe the need for increased competition by having more than one broadband Internet service
provider serve the jurisdiction.

To ensure high-quality broadband service, it is crucial to foster competition among service providers. A
lack of competition, where a single provider dominates an area, can diminish the incentive to deliver
reliable and consistent services. According to ISPReports.org, Phoenix is served by twenty-five (25)


Consolidated Plan PHOENIX 140
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

Internet providers offering residential service. Among these, Cox and CenturyLink stand out as the leading
providers in terms of coverage and speed. Internet providers throughout the city include:

CenturyLink (DSL and Fiber)

Cox (Cable and Fiber)

Quantum Fiber (Fiber)

Wyyerd (Fiber)

Mediacom (Cable)

Orbitel Communications (Cable)

EarthLink (Fixed Wireless)

AT&T (Fixed Wireless)

AireBeam (Fixed Wireless)

BAM Broadband (Fixed Wireless)

CopperNet Systems (Fixed Wireless)

T-Mobile Home Internet (Fixed Wireless)

Verizon (Fixed Wireless)

Triad Wireless (Fixed Wireless)

Phoenix Internet (Fixed Wireless)

AirFiber (Fixed Wireless)

Resound Networks (Fixed Wireless)

TREPIC Networks (Fixed Wireless)

WeLink (Fixed Wireless)

Mojo Broadband (Fixed Wireless)

Dish (Satellite)

DirecTV (Satellite)

HughesNet (Satellite)

Viasat Internet (Satellite)

Consolidated Plan PHOENIX 141
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

Starlink (Satellite)

The following map shows the number of broadband service providers by census tract. Most of the city of
Phoenix has at least four (4) options of high-speed internet with competitive providers. This variety
ensures that residents have multiple choices for reliable and affordable internet access throughout the
city.

See map below: Highspeed Internet Providers

Broadband Access




Consolidated Plan PHOENIX 142
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

Highspeed Internet Providers




Consolidated Plan PHOENIX 143
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

MA-65 Hazard Mitigation - 91.210(a)(5), 91.310(a)(3)
Describe the jurisdiction’s increased natural hazard risks associated with climate change.

Phoenix, Arizona, situated within Maricopa County, faces a range of natural hazard risks, including
drought, extreme heat, flooding, severe winds, and wildfires, as detailed in Maricopa County’s Multi-
Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP). The MJHMP underscores that climate change is
intensifying these threats, leading to rising temperatures, prolonged droughts, and an increased
frequency of wildfires. These environmental changes contribute to reduced water supply reliability,
negatively affecting agriculture and the economic stability of rural communities. Additionally, urban
centers like Phoenix face heightened health risks due to extreme heat, along with potential disruptions to
electricity and water services. According to the FEMA National Risk Index, Maricopa County is particularly
susceptible to hazards such as hail, heat waves, lightning, strong winds, and wildfires.

Although Phoenix is an inland city located approximately 200 miles from the coast, the impacts of rising
sea levels and increased storm activity in coastal regions may drive population displacement. A potential
influx of climate migrants seeking more stable environments could place additional pressure on local
housing markets, job availability, and essential resources. According to the MJHMP, Phoenix experienced
a 13.5% population increase from 2010 to 2020, with projections indicating an additional 10.7% increase
by 2030. While it is uncertain whether this growth is directly linked to climate change, the increasing risks
to vulnerable coastal regions may contribute to migration patterns that influence Phoenix’s housing
demand and infrastructure capacity.

Addressing climate-related challenges requires proactive planning and resilience-building strategies to
mitigate risks and safeguard public health. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
emphasizes that climate change, combined with other environmental and human-induced stressors,
exacerbates existing public health threats and introduces new risks, highlighting the need for
comprehensive preparedness efforts. Similarly, the National Climate Assessment underscores the
importance of adaptive mitigation planning, as traditional hazard probability models may no longer be
sufficient in an evolving climate.

To effectively navigate these challenges, Phoenix must prioritize forward-thinking policies and adaptation
strategies that account for climate-related risks and population shifts. The city's Climate Action Plan aims
for carbon neutrality and zero waste by 2050, focusing on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and
strengthening community resilience. To combat extreme heat, Phoenix has established an Office of Heat
Response and Mitigation, implementing cooling corridors, expanding urban tree cover, and utilizing
reflective materials to lower temperatures while providing cooling centers and hydration stations for
vulnerable populations. Community engagement is also a key component, with programs like the Urban
Heat Leadership Academy, which educates residents on urban heat, air quality, and water issues,
empowering them to implement local solutions. Through these initiatives, Phoenix is actively working to
mitigate climate risks and promote long-term sustainability, ensuring resilience in the face of changing
environmental and demographic conditions.


Consolidated Plan PHOENIX 144
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

Describe the vulnerability to these risks of housing occupied by low- and moderate-income
households based on an analysis of data, findings, and methods.

Low- and moderate-income households, whether renting or owning, are particularly vulnerable to climate
change and natural disasters due to limited financial resources. Rising electricity and housing costs can
push them into unstable living conditions, increasing the risk of homelessness or substandard housing.
The 2024 America’s Rental Housing Study from Harvard’s Joint Center for Housing Studies highlights how
escalating insurance premiums and coverage withdrawals in high-risk areas make securing protection
against climate-related losses increasingly difficult, while stagnant operating income further limits
property owners' ability to invest in climate resilience. The 2021 EPA study on Climate Change and Social
Vulnerability reinforces these concerns, revealing that low-income individuals are more likely to live in
areas experiencing rising mortality rates from extreme temperatures and face the highest labor hour
losses due to weather exposure. Rural communities are especially disadvantaged, often lacking
emergency support and resources for climate-related home repairs. As climate threats intensify,
strengthening resilience among low- and moderate-income households is essential to ensuring their
safety, stability, and long-term well-being.

FEMA’s National Risk Index identifies Maricopa County as having a relatively low level of community
resilience, indicating that its residents are less equipped to prepare for, adapt to, and recover from natural
hazards. This assessment encompasses six broad categories: social, economic, community capital,
institutional, infrastructural, and environmental factors at the county level. The map below illustrates
FEMA’s qualitative risk to natural hazards at the census tract level in Phoenix, AZ, providing an intuitive
way to gauge community risk based on Expected Annual Loss (EAL), Social Vulnerability, and Community
Resilience scores.

While most of the city is classified as having a "very low" risk, certain areas are designated as having
"relatively low" to "relatively moderate" risk. This suggests that while the overall risk remains low, some
neighborhoods may require targeted resources and interventions to address specific hazards, making
them more vulnerable than other parts of the city. These two indexes measure risk from different
perspectives—FEMA’s risk index evaluates a community's ability to respond to hazards (resilience), while
the city’s qualitative assessment concentrates on the likelihood and severity of those hazards. This dual
approach ensures that resources are allocated where they are most needed, promoting both
preparedness and targeted intervention.

As part of the Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP), Phoenix works to
reduce risks to people and property, lower disaster recovery costs, and promote long-term sustainability.
The plan identifies key hazards and outlines actions to prevent recurring damage from future disasters. It
specifically highlights the vulnerability of low-income households to extreme heat, emphasizing that many
lack access to adequate cooling resources, increasing their health risks. To address this, the plan stresses
the need for targeted strategies to protect these communities from climate-related threats.

Recognizing that climate change disproportionately impacts low-income and minority communities,
Phoenix is directing resources toward infrastructure improvements, air quality enhancements, and

Consolidated Plan PHOENIX 145
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

expanded access to green spaces, as outlined in the city’s Climate Action Plan. The plan also includes
health impact assessments to identify and mitigate climate-related health risks, particularly in areas most
affected by extreme heat and pollution. Beyond environmental resilience, Phoenix acknowledges that
climate action is integral to economic growth and job creation. The city prioritizes workforce development
in emerging green industries, ensuring equitable employment opportunities while advancing
sustainability initiatives.

Phoenix is committed to educating and preparing its community for multi-hazard mitigation through a
comprehensive approach that emphasizes communication, collaboration, and preparedness. The City
utilizes its Homeland Security and Emergency Management website and social media platforms to provide
timely updates and critical information. Residents can also access resources through the Maricopa County
Emergency Management website, social media channels, the Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA) system,
the Community Emergency Notification System (CENS), and the Emergency Broadcast System (EAS) for TV
and radio notifications. These efforts are further reinforced by the Maricopa County Community
Organizations Active in Disaster (COAD), which enhances resilience through coordinated collaboration.
Phoenix remains committed to strengthening community preparedness to hazard hazards and investing
in adaptive strategies to address emerging challenges effectively.

See map: Risk to All Natural Hazards




Consolidated Plan PHOENIX 146
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

Risk to All Natural Hazards




Consolidated Plan PHOENIX 147
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

Strategic Plan

SP-05 Overview
Strategic Plan Overview

The Strategic Plan outlines the City of Phoenix’s housing and community development goals for the 2025-
2029 Consolidated Plan. It details how the City plans to utilize CDBG, HOME, HOPWA and ESG funds to
achieve HUD’s objectives of ensuring a suitable living environment; providing safe, decent, and affordable
housing for low- to moderate-income households; and expanding economic opportunity in the City.

Through data analysis in the Needs Assessment and Market Analysis and a comprehensive citizen
participation process that involved input from the community and stakeholder organizations; the City was
able to identify the priority needs that exist in Phoenix. The goals developed in the Strategic Plan address
these needs over the five-year plan period.

The City has also identified three target areas where funds will be directed. The first two target areas are
the Edison-Eastlake and Marcos de Niza-Grant Park communities. The Edison-Eastlake Community is the
target of a Choice Neighborhoods Implementation Grant and is also a Neighborhood Revitalization
Strategy Area (NRSA). In 2024, the Housing Department was awarded a $500,000 Choice Neighborhoods
Planning Grant to begin a community planning effort with the residents of the Marcos de Niza public and
affordable housing community (AMP 22, 374 units, a mix of 281 Public Housing and 93 Section 8 PBV).
This will begin in calendar year 2024 and will focus on completing a community-driven Neighborhood
Transformation Plan to guide the revitalization of Marcos de Niza and the surrounding neighborhood.
Local City of Phoenix funding will be used for the effort along with Choice Neighborhoods funds and any
other sources that are available at the time. The transformation plan will form the basis for future
implementation efforts including an application for Choice Neighborhoods Implementation grant funding.

The third target area does not traditionally target a certain neighborhood in Phoenix but expands the
reach of programs and services to all low/mod income areas and also directly to eligible low- to moderate-
income households in the City. Low/mod areas (LMA) are primarily residential and have at least 51 percent
of residents who are considered low- and moderate-income persons as defined by HUD. The boundaries
of these areas are defined at the block group tract level. The City also provides assistance to low- and
moderate-income individuals and households (LMC/LMH) who earn 80% of the Area Median Income
(AMI) or less. This assistance is provided citywide and is based on eligibility.

Low/mod areas are eligible for certain types of activities funded by CDBG. For example, public
improvements such as those to neighborhood facilities, community centers or infrastructure like streets
and sidewalks can be targeted to these low/mod block group tracts. Direct services to individuals and
families are not targeted to areas; however, they must meet income qualifications in order to be eligible.
These activities can be direct affordable housing assistance and public services. HOME, ESG and HOPWA
funds are directed towards eligible households citywide under the guidance of each program.

Consolidated Plan PHOENIX 148
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

The following are the eight (8) priority needs and associated goals identified in the Strategic Plan. More
details of the priority needs are given in the SP-25 and the goals are detailed in the SP-45.

Priority Need: Affordable Housing
1A Develop & Preserve Affordable Housing

Priority Need: Public Services
2A Public Services for LMI & Special Need

Priority Need: Public Facilities & Infrastructure Investment
3A Improve Public Facilities & Infrastructure

Priority Need: Economic Development
4A Economic Development

Priority Need: Removal of Slum & Blight
5A Removal of Slum & Blight

Priority Need: Housing & Services for the Homeless
6A Homeless Housing & Services

Priority Need: Housing & Services for Persons w/ HIV/AIDS
7A Housing & Services for Persons w/ HIV/AIDS

Priority Need: Effective Program Administration
8A Effective Program Administration




Consolidated Plan PHOENIX 149
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

SP-10 Geographic Priorities – 91.215 (a)(1)
Geographic Area

Table 4 - Geographic Priority Areas

1 Area Name: Citywide Low/Mod Eligible
Area Type: Local Target area
Other Target Area Description: N/A
HUD Approval Date: N/A
% of Low/ Mod: N/A
Revital Type: Comprehensive
Other Revital Description: N/A
Identify the neighborhood boundaries The City of Phoenix designates certain areas within its
for this target area. boundaries as low/mod areas (LMA) if they meet certain
criteria. These areas are primarily residential and have
at least 51 percent of residents who are considered low-
and moderate-income persons as defined by HUD. The
boundaries of these areas are defined at the block
group tract level. The City also provides assistance to
low- and moderate-income individuals and households
(LMC/LMH) who earn 80% of the Area Median Income
(AMI) or less. This assistance is provided citywide and
based on eligibility.
Include specific housing and From 2013 to 2023, the population in Phoenix has seen
commercial characteristics of this a gradual growth of 10%. While there has been an
target area. increase in housing development over the past couple
decades, there remains a demand to meet this need.
Much of the housing stock remains very old as
approximately 45% of owner-occupied housing and 39%
of renter-occupied housing units were built before 1980
(Source: 2019-2023 ACS). These housing units will
naturally have higher instances of deferred
maintenance, deteriorating conditions and a greater risk
of lead-based paint hazards.




Consolidated Plan PHOENIX 150
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

How did your consultation and citizen The City works with various agencies, organizations, and
participation process help you to service providers to gather different viewpoints and
identify this neighborhood as a target input of local housing and service needs. These needs
area? were identified through discussions with public officials
and citizens, as well as an online survey for citizens and
stakeholders. Furthermore, a public hearing and
comment period were conducted to enable citizens to
take part in the development of the plan.
Identify the needs in this target area. Affordable housing development and preservation has
been identified as one of the highest needs in Phoenix.
Activities that will help to address affordable housing
are housing rehab programs, new housing development
and rental assistance for the most vulnerable groups in
the City. Some of the key findings in the City 2024
Housing Needs Assessment include rising home prices, a
widening gap in housing affordable to households
earning below 50% AMI, a need to add multi-family
housing units, increasing cost burden concerns for low-
income households.
There is a need to expand and improve public
infrastructure as well as improve access to public
facilities in Phoenix. Public infrastructure improvements
will improve access to all residents, including seniors
and persons with a disability. Improving access to public
facilities is a need as support for neighborhood facilities
will help improve the lives of low- and moderate-
income households.
There is a need for expanded and improved public
services to provide support LMI households and
individuals with special needs. Persons with special
needs include the elderly, persons with a disability and
victims of domestic violence.
There is a need for homeless services. Support for
emergency shelters, street outreach services, homeless
prevention activities and rapid rehousing rental
assistance will help to end homelessness in Phoenix.
There is also a need to provide housing opportunities
for individuals with HIV/AIDS and their families. This
group needs housing that is located near medical clinics
and service providers that meet their unique needs.

Consolidated Plan PHOENIX 151
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

What are the opportunities for Investment towards low/mod areas and low- to
improvement in this target area? moderate-income persons will improve the quality of
life for citizens in the City of Phoenix.
The removal of slum and blight will improve the health
and safety of low/mod areas in Phoenix, and encourage
revitalization efforts.
Increasing affordable housing opportunities will
promote population growth while ensuring a healthy
development for residents across all income levels.
Are there barriers to improvement in Access to funding is a barrier to improvements in the
this target area? City.
2 Area Name: Edison-Eastlake Choice Neighborhoods
Area Type: Local Target area
Other Target Area Description: N/A
HUD Approval Date: N/A
% of Low/ Mod: N/A
Revital Type: Comprehensive
Other Revital Description: N/A
Identify the neighborhood boundaries The Edison-Eastlake Choice Neighborhoods Community
for this target area. is a Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Area (NRSA).
Generally, the boundaries range from 16th Street on the
west, Interstate 10 on the east, Interstate 10 on the
north and the Union Pacific Railroad on the south.




Consolidated Plan PHOENIX 152
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

Include specific housing and This is a very small geographic area consisting of block
commercial characteristics of this groups 330.11, 330.14 and 390.02 with just over 2,700
target area. population. Of the approximately 1,474 dwelling units,
only 1,059 are occupied with about 8.4% being owner-
occupied (89) and 91.6% being renter occupied (970).
The remaining 415 units are vacant housing (28.2%).
Two of the block groups (330.11 & 330.14) have
experienced much housing development over the past
couple decades and the median age of housing has risen
to 2000 and above. Block group 390.02 still remains
very old and in need new housing development as the
median age of housing in this tract is 1963.
The public housing developments are among the oldest
dwelling units in the area and are no longer a quality
housing option due to obsolete infrastructure and poor
design.
There are over 150 businesses in the area, which are
primarily concentrated along 16th Street. The area also
has direct access to Highway 10, assisting with making
commute times shorter to and from work, large
shopping centers, hospitals and health centers.
How did your consultation and citizen The City works with various agencies, organizations, and
participation process help you to service providers to gather different viewpoints and
identify this neighborhood as a target input of local housing and service needs. These needs
area? were identified through discussions with public officials
and citizens, as well as an online survey for citizens and
stakeholders. Furthermore, a public hearing and
comment period were conducted to enable citizens to
take part in the development of the plan.
The Phoenix NRSA shares the same target area as the
Edison-Eastlake Choice Neighborhoods target area due
to its high poverty rate, concentration of obsolete public
housing units, and lack of neighborhood amenities and
services. Through an extensive community engagement
process, residents and stakeholders created the Choice
Neighborhoods Transformation Plan, called the One
Vision Plan, to identify strategies to improve housing,
lift people up, and improve neighborhood conditions
overall within the defined target area.


Consolidated Plan PHOENIX 153
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

Identify the needs in this target area. The needs of the Edison-Eastlake Choice Neighborhoods
Community were identified in the Edison-Eastlake
Choice Neighborhoods One Vision Plan. This plan
includes activities targeted to the following three
categories:
HOUSING - Replace distressed public housing with high-
quality mixed-income housing that is well-managed and
responsive to the needs of the surrounding
neighborhood.
PEOPLE - Improve educational outcomes, health
outcomes, and intergenerational mobility for youth with
services and supports delivered directly to youth and
their families.
NEIGHBORHOOD - Create the conditions necessary for
public and private reinvestment in distressed
neighborhoods to offer the kinds of amenities and
assets, including safety, good schools, and commercial
activity, that are important to families’ choices about
their community.
What are the opportunities for The opportunities for improvement in the Edison-
improvement in this target area? Eastlake Choice Neighborhoods are connected to the
activities targeted to the area, which are described
above in the three categories of: Housing, People and
Neighborhood.
Are there barriers to improvement in The Choice Neighborhoods Grant is an extensive
this target area? revitalization process over a period of 5 years.
Coordinating all the elements of this revitalization effort
will take extensive resources and organization. Access
to funding is also a barrier to improvements in the
Edison-Eastlake Choice Neighborhoods.
3 Area Name: Marcos de Niza-Grant Park Choice Neighborhoods
Area Type: Local Target area
Other Target Area Description: N/A
HUD Approval Date: N/A
% of Low/ Mod: N/A
Revital Type: Comprehensive
Other Revital Description: N/A

Consolidated Plan PHOENIX 154
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

Identify the neighborhood boundaries The Marcos de Niza-Grant Park Choice Neighborhoods is
for this target area. located within the block groups tracts of 420.01 and
490.01. The boundaries of these block groups range
from S. 7th Ave on the west, South Central Ave. on the
east, Jackson Street on the north and the Maricopa
Freeway to the south.
Include specific housing and This is a very small geographic area consisting of block
commercial characteristics of this groups 420.01 and 490.01 with a population of
target area. 3,196. The median age of housing in the area is very old
as all three BG tracts have a median age below 1972. Of
the 1,555 households, the vast majority are renters
(80%) with 1,247 households while only 308 are
homeowners (20%). The public housing developments
are also old and need to be replaced.
The median housing income (MHI) in all three BG tracts
are well below the City MHI, and in particular BG 490.01
with only $17,733 MHI.
How did your consultation and citizen The City works with various agencies, organizations, and
participation process help you to service providers to gather different viewpoints and
identify this neighborhood as a target input of local housing and service needs. These needs
area? were identified through discussions with public officials
and citizens, as well as an online survey for citizens and
stakeholders. Furthermore, a public hearing and
comment period were conducted to enable citizens to
take part in the development of the plan.




Consolidated Plan PHOENIX 155
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

Identify the needs in this target area. The needs of the Marcos de Niza-Grant Park Choice
Neighborhoods Community were identified through
community workshops, focus groups and Resident and
Youth Leadership Councils. This plan includes activities
targeted to the following three categories:
HOUSING - Replace distressed public housing with high-
quality mixed-income housing that is well-managed and
responsive to the needs of the surrounding
neighborhood.
PEOPLE - Improve educational outcomes, health
outcomes, and intergenerational mobility for youth with
services and supports delivered directly to youth and
their families.
NEIGHBORHOOD - Create the conditions necessary for
public and private reinvestment in distressed
neighborhoods to offer the kinds of amenities and
assets, including safety, good schools, and commercial
activity, that are important to families’ choices about
their community.
What are the opportunities for The opportunities for improvement in the Marcos de
improvement in this target area? Niza-Grant Park Choice Neighborhoods are connected
to the activities targeted to the area, which are
described above in the three categories of: Housing,
People and Neighborhood.
Are there barriers to improvement in The Choice Neighborhoods Grant is an extensive
this target area? revitalization process over a period of 5 years.
Coordinating all the elements of this revitalization effort
will take extensive resources and organization. Access
to funding is also a barrier to improvements in the
Marcos de Niza-Grant Park Choice Neighborhoods.
4 Area Name: HOPWA EMSA
Area Type: Other
Other Target Area Description: N/A
HUD Approval Date: N/A
% of Low/ Mod: N/A
Revital Type: Other
Other Revital Description: N/A

Consolidated Plan PHOENIX 156
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

Identify the neighborhood boundaries The HOPWA Eligible Metropolitan Statistical Area
for this target area. consists of Maricopa County and Pinal County.
Include specific housing and Maricopa County and Pinal County are among the most
commercial characteristics of this populous counties in Arizona. Both counties have
target area. experienced a significant population growth over the
past decade, and as a result continues to have steady
housing development to meet this need. Maricopa
County is home to the largest urban area in Arizona, and
serves as the economic hub in the area.
How did your consultation and citizen The City works with various agencies, organizations, and
participation process help you to service providers to gather different viewpoints and
identify this neighborhood as a target input of local housing and service needs. These needs
area? were identified through discussions with public officials
and citizens, as well as an online survey for citizens and
stakeholders. Furthermore, a public hearing and
comment period were conducted to enable citizens to
take part in the development of the plan.
Identify the needs in this target area. Persons and their families living with HIV/AIDS need
housing subsidy assistance and supportive services.
What are the opportunities for HOPWA programs provide housing stability, services
improvement in this target area? that reduce the risk of homelessness, and improve
access to healthcare and other needed supportive
services.
Are there barriers to improvement in Access to funding is a barrier to quality of life
this target area? improvements for all persons living with HIV/AIDS in the
two-county HOPWA EMSA target area.

General Allocation Priorities

Describe the basis for allocating investments geographically within the jurisdiction (or within the EMSA for
HOPWA)

The City has identified three target areas where funds will be directed. These target areas are the Edison-
Eastlake Choice Neighborhoods Community, the Marcos de Niza-Grant Park Choice Neighborhoods and
Citywide Low/Mod Eligible (areas and households), which expands the reach of programs and services to
all low/mod income areas and also directly to eligible low- to moderate-income households in the City.

Citywide Low/Mod Eligible




Consolidated Plan PHOENIX 157
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

For Citywide Low/Mod Eligible, the City of Phoenix does not allocate funding based solely on geographic
areas. Most of the funding from the HUD Federal programs are available for use in any of the targeted
low/mod income neighborhoods or citywide, depending on the specific activities. Direct services such as
public services and affordable housing benefits are based on household income eligibility rather than area
benefit. Improvements to public facilities and infrastructure have a low/moderate income benefit across
a wider area, and the distribution of funds is based on need within eligible target areas. ESG funds may
target those experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness citywide. HOPWA funding is available
for use for individuals living with HIV/AIDS across the two-county HOPWA EMSA area, Maricopa and Pinal
Counties. The City of Phoenix will continue to allocate HOPWA resources to serve client’s meeting the
program requirement of being at or below 80 percent of the Area Median Income who reside in the EMSA.
The funding that will be allocated to each HOPWA program will be dependent on the demonstrated need,
identified gaps in services and feedback from the community outreach.

In particular to CDBG, when planned activities are intended to serve individuals or households directly
(LMC/LMH), beneficiaries must meet income qualifications, as well as residency requirements (residing
within the City), in order to receive assistance from the program. In these instances, City staff and/or one
of its partner agencies will complete an eligibility status review of the applicant before the activity is
initiated.

The City has also identified infrastructure and public facility improvement activities. In which case, the
planned activities will serve a low/mod community or neighborhood (LMA). These activities are said to
have an “area-wide” benefit. Per HUD requirements, these areas must be within an eligible Low/Mod
Block Group Tract, as defined by HUD-CDBG regulations, whereby the majority of the residents are low-
to moderate-income (or 51%). Public improvements which target special need groups such as the
homeless, elderly or persons with a disability will be reported using the LMC designation.

To determine LMI tracts the City utilizes HUD’s CDBG Low Mod Income Summary Data (LMISD) from the
HUD Exchange website, which has defined the eligible block group tracts within the jurisdiction. The tracts
can be at: https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/acs-low-mod-summary-data/.




Consolidated Plan PHOENIX 158
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

FY 2023 HUD LMISD




Consolidated Plan PHOENIX 159
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

SP-25 Priority Needs - 91.215(a)(2)
Priority Needs

Table 5 – Priority Needs Summary
1 Priority Need Affordable Housing
Name
Priority Level High
Population Extremely Low
Low
Moderate
Families with Children
Elderly
Public Housing Residents
Geographic Areas Citywide Low/Mod Eligible
Affected Edison-Eastlake Choice Neighborhoods
Marcos de Niza-Grant Park Choice Neighborhoods
Associated Goals 1A Develop & Preserve Affordable Housing
Description There is a need for housing development and preservation as the City is
growing and much of the housing stock remains old. From 2013-2023 the
population grew 10% to 1,624,832 persons. Approximately 45% of owner-
occupied housing and 39% of renter-occupied housing units were built
before 1980 (Source: 2019-2023 ACS). The NA also identified that cost
burden was the biggest housing issue in the City (households paying at least
30% of their income towards housing costs). An estimated 26% of
homeowners with a mortgage and 51% of renters are cost burdened.
The 2024 HNA reports that the City has benefited from a relatively ample
supply of naturally occurring affordable housing (privately-owned housing
affordable to households earning less than 80% AMI), however those units
represent a vulnerable share of the overall rental supply. Market shifts are
not subject to regulatory control and rent increases can increase drastically
causing housing instability among LMI households. According to the most
recent ACS, median contract rent has increased 76% from 2013 to 2023.
Due to this, there is a need to provide housing rehabilitation for both
owners and renters; increase affordable homeownership opportunities; and
increase rental assistance for LMI renters.




Consolidated Plan PHOENIX 160
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

Basis for Relative Through community participation and consultation of local stakeholder
Priority partners and organizations the need for the preservation and development
of affordable housing was identified. Additionally, fair housing is a
requirement of HUD funded program. The basis for this need is to provide
LMI residents with affordable housing.
2 Priority Need Public Services
Name
Priority Level High
Population Extremely Low
Low
Moderate
Families with Children
Elderly
Frail Elderly
Persons with Mental Disabilities
Persons with Physical Disabilities
Persons with Developmental Disabilities
Persons with a Disability
Non-housing Community Development
Geographic Areas Citywide Low/Mod Eligible
Affected Edison-Eastlake Choice Neighborhoods
Marcos de Niza-Grant Park Choice Neighborhoods
Associated Goals 2A Public Services for LMI & Special Need
Description Provide supportive services for LMI and special needs persons in
Phoenix. Services will focus on improving the lives of LMI and special needs
persons, and help to alleviate housing instability that may lead to
homelessness. Programs and services will be aimed at reducing poverty in
Phoenix as currently 14.3% are living in poverty in Phoenix (Source: 2019-
2023 ACS).
Basis for Relative Through community participation and consultation of local stakeholder
Priority partners and organizations the need for Public Services was identified. The
basis for this need is to provide all citizens with access to services and
sustainability for residents.
3 Priority Need Public Facilities & Infrastructure Investment
Name
Priority Level High




Consolidated Plan PHOENIX 161
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

Population Extremely Low
Low
Moderate
Non-housing Community Development
Geographic Areas Citywide Low/Mod Eligible
Affected Edison-Eastlake Choice Neighborhoods
Marcos de Niza-Grant Park Choice Neighborhoods
Associated Goals 3A Improve Public Facilities & Infrastructure
Description Expand and improve public infrastructure in low/mod areas of
Phoenix. The City will also improve access to public facilities that will
benefit LMI and special need persons living in low/mod areas. The City will
continue to invest funding towards rehabilitating the current infrastructure,
develop new infrastructure, or revitalize specific neighborhoods to meet
community needs related to street and alley improvements, sidewalk
improvements, tree planting and landscape improvements, and community
centers.
Basis for Relative Through community participation and consultation of local stakeholder the
Priority need to improve public infrastructure and facilities was identified. The basis
is to improve accessibility for all residents and create a suitable living
environment.
4 Priority Need Economic Development
Name
Priority Level High
Population Extremely Low
Low
Moderate
Non-housing Community Development
Geographic Areas Citywide Low/Mod Eligible
Affected Edison-Eastlake Choice Neighborhoods
Marcos de Niza-Grant Park Choice Neighborhoods
Associated Goals 4A Economic Development
Description Increase economic and workforce development opportunities for LMI
residents throughout the City. Assistance to small businesses will help
create and retain jobs.




Consolidated Plan PHOENIX 162
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

Basis for Relative Through community participation and consultation of local stakeholder the
Priority need to provide economic development opportunities was identified. The
basis is to improve accessibility and create financial sustainability for all
residents.
5 Priority Need Removal of Slum & Blight
Name
Priority Level High
Population Extremely Low
Low
Moderate
Non-housing Community Development
Geographic Areas Citywide Low/Mod Eligible
Affected Edison-Eastlake Choice Neighborhoods
Marcos de Niza-Grant Park Choice Neighborhoods
Associated Goals 5A Removal of Slum & Blight
Description The removal of slum and blight will improve the health and safety of
low/mod areas in Phoenix, and encourage revitalization efforts.
Basis for Relative Through community participation and consultation of local stakeholder
Priority partners and organizations the need for the removal of slum and blight was
identified. The basis for this need is to create a suitable environment and
affordable housing opportunities.
6 Priority Need Housing & Services for the Homeless
Name
Priority Level High




Consolidated Plan PHOENIX 163
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

Population Extremely Low
Low
Moderate
Families with Children
Elderly
Chronic Homelessness
Individuals
Families with Children
Mentally Ill
Chronic Substance Abuse
veterans
Victims of Domestic Violence
Unaccompanied Youth
Persons with Mental Disabilities
Persons with Physical Disabilities
Persons with Developmental Disabilities
Persons with Alcohol or Other Addictions
Persons with HIV/AIDS and their Families
Victims of Domestic Violence
Non-housing Community Development
Geographic Areas Citywide Low/Mod Eligible
Affected Edison-Eastlake Choice Neighborhoods
Marcos de Niza-Grant Park Choice Neighborhoods
Associated Goals 6A Homeless Housing & Services
Description There is a need to address homelessness in Phoenix. According to the
Phoenix, Mesa/ Maricopa County CoC 2024 Point in Time count there were
over 7,000 homeless adults without children, and 2,000 homeless in
families (with adults and children) on the night of survey across the entire
CoC, which includes Phoenix. The City will address these needs through
funding support for homeless prevention, rapid rehousing rental assistance
activities and overnight emergency shelter operations.
Basis for Relative Through community participation and consultation of local stakeholder
Priority organizations the need for homeless services and strategies to address
homelessness in Phoenix was identified. The basis for this need is to
provide accessibility and sustainability for persons experiencing
homelessness.
7 Priority Need Housing & Supportive Services for People Living with HIV/AIDS
Name
Priority Level High

Consolidated Plan PHOENIX 164
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

Population Extremely Low
Low
Moderate
Persons with HIV/AIDS
Geographic Areas HOPWA EMSA
Affected
Associated Goals 7A Housing & Supportive Services for People Living with HIV/AIDS
Description There is a need to support individuals and their families living with HIV/AIDS
in Phoenix. The City will address these needs through funding support for
supportive services and housing subsidy programs such as TBRA, STRMU,
and permanent housing placement activities.
Basis for Relative Through community participation and consultation of local stakeholder
Priority organizations the need to support individuals and their families living with
HIV/AIDS in Phoenix was identified. The basis for this need is to provide
accessibility and affordable housing for persons living with HIV/AIDS.
8 Priority Need Effective Program Administration
Name
Priority Level High
Population Extremely Low
Low
Moderate
Non-housing Community Development
Geographic Areas Citywide Low/Mod Eligible
Affected Edison-Eastlake Choice Neighborhoods
Marcos de Niza-Grant Park Choice Neighborhoods
HOPWA EMSA
Associated Goals 8A Effective Program Administration
Description Effective program management will include general administration and
planning of HUD grant programs, monitoring subrecipients, and keeping
strict grant-based accounting. Comprehensive planning requirements will
include the development of AAPs, an evaluation of the performance of the
programs through annual reports, and meeting citizen participation
requirements.
Basis for Relative There is a need to provide effective program management of HUD grant
Priority programs that will ensure compliance with each respective grant and their
regulations and that programs meet their established objectives.



Consolidated Plan PHOENIX 165
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

SP-30 Influence of Market Conditions – 91.215 (b)
Influence of Market Conditions

Affordable Market Characteristics that will influence
Housing Type the use of funds available for housing type
Tenant Based TBRA will be provided in response to the needs of LMI and at-risk of homeless
Rental Assistance households identified below:
(TBRA)
- Housing cost burden is the most significant housing problem facing LMI
households.as reported in the NA-10, especially for renters.
- A growing population and healthy economy has resulted in an increase
in housing costs. Unfortunately, this has also resulted in an increase in
housing costs limiting the supply of affordable housing.
- The cost of rent has increased tremendously in the past decade. Median
contract rent has increased 76% from 2013 to 2023.
- Fair Market Rents (FMR) are out of reach for the lowest income
households.
- Homeless households have a need for stable housing as they work
towards self-sustainability.
- There is a need for additional Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV) as the
PHA maintains a long waiting list. With a wait of 2- 3 years before
qualifying waitlisted households receive an HCV voucher, LMI
households are at great risk of homelessness. Even with rental vouchers
in-hand, LMI renters are experiencing difficulties finding affordable
market rate housing or landlords willing to rent to them.
- As reported in the MA-15, there is a shortage of affordable rental units
for lower income households.
TBRA for Non- TBRA will be provided in response to the needs of non- homeless special needs
Homeless Special households such as those in the HOPWA program identified below:
Needs
- Due to high housing costs within Phoenix it is difficult to transition
program participants from HOPWA funded housing into the private
rental market without rental subsidies. This puts those living with
HIV/AIDS at a higher risk of becoming homeless.
- There will also be an increase in the number of those needing services
as those living with HIV/AIDS age, placing further strain on the already
scarce resources.
- The need for housing near available health services and resources.
- See above about the limited supply of affordable housing.




Consolidated Plan PHOENIX 166
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

Affordable Market Characteristics that will influence
Housing Type the use of funds available for housing type
New Unit New Unit Production will be provided in response to the needs identified below:
Production
- There is a limited supply of affordable housing for LMI households as
housing cost burden is the most significant housing problem in the
City. An estimated 26% of homeowners with a mortgage and 51% of
renters are cost burdened.
- Housing production cost is high for both rental and homeownership
properties. These high development costs limit the construction of
affordable housing. These include high construction and labor costs,
prohibitive fees and permitting processes, and constrictive zoning and
building codes.
- The median home value remains high for potential LMI homebuyers. As
of the 2019-2023 ACS, the median home value was $381,900.
- The cost of rent has increased dramatically in the past decade. Median
contract rent has increased 76% from 2013 to 2023.
- As reported in the MA-15, there is a shortage of affordable homeowner
and rental units for lower income households.
- The 2024 HNA reports that there is an increased demand for housing,
however the market is constrained by the limited supply and existing
owners with very low interest rates.
Rehabilitation Housing Rehabilitation activities will be provided in response to the needs
identified below:

- Much of the housing stock is very old and a significant number of units
may be in need of repairs. As reported in the MA, approximately 45% of
owner-occupied housing with a mortgage and 39% of renter-occupied
housing units were built before 1980 (Source: 2019-2023 ACS).
Households often reside in older and aging housing units, and without
assistance may lack the finances to maintain their homes.
- The cost of new construction and/or housing replacement is prohibitive
for lower income households.
- Similar constraints to producing new housing also applies to
rehabilitation, specifically the cost of materials and labor. These costs
impact the LMI community in being able to invest in home
improvements, as well as challenges public sector funders to provide
adequate affordable housing to meet the needs of the community.
- The condition of older housing units are also likely to require higher
maintenance costs.
- There is a higher risk of lead-based paint hazards for older housing built
before 1978.

Consolidated Plan PHOENIX 167
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

Affordable Market Characteristics that will influence
Housing Type the use of funds available for housing type
Acquisition, Acquisition, for the purpose of rehabilitation will be provided in response to the
including needs identified below:
preservation
- The high cost of housing and land, and the persistent need for
affordable rents, lead to insufficient resources to adequately provide
enough income-restricted housing. However, the City is committed to
identifying affordable housing units nearing the end of their income-
restricted affordability terms and leveraging resources to extend that
affordability. As a result, the City is investigating several avenues
through which to expand the affordable housing stock, including
utilizing publicly owned properties.
- See above on the need for housing rehab.
Table 6 – Influence of Market Conditions




Consolidated Plan PHOENIX 168
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

SP-35 Anticipated Resources - 91.215(a)(4), 91.220(c)(1,2)
Introduction
The City of Phoenix receives an annual allocation of funds from four federal formula grant programs: the Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG), the HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME), Housing Opportunities for Persons Living With AIDS (HOPWA), and the Emergency Solutions
Grants (ESG) programs. These grant funds support various initiatives, including community development programs, affordable housing
development and preservation, housing subsidy programs and supportive services for individuals with HIV/AIDS and their families, and efforts to
address homelessness. Program Year 2025 is the first year of the Five-Year Consolidated Plan for 2025-2029, and the City anticipates receiving
similar allocation amounts each year throughout this period.




Consolidated Plan PHOENIX 169
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

Anticipated Resources

Program Source Uses of Funds Expected Amount Available Year 1 Expected Amount Available Narrative
of Annual Program Prior Year Total: Reminder of ConPlan Description
Funds Allocation: Income: $ Resources: $ $ $
$
CDBG public PY 2025 is the
- first program
federal year of the
ConPlan. The
funds expected
Acquisition for the remainder
Admin and Planning of ConPlan is 4x
Economic Development more years of the
Housing annual allocation
Public Improvements and program
Public Services 14,461,954 500,000 21,709,428 36,671,382 59,847,816 income.




Consolidated Plan PHOENIX 170
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

Program Source Uses of Funds Expected Amount Available Year 1 Expected Amount Available Narrative
of Annual Program Prior Year Total: Reminder of ConPlan Description
Funds Allocation: Income: $ Resources: $ $ $
$
HOME public PY 2025 is the
- first program
federal year of the
ConPlan. The
funds expected
for the remainder
of ConPlan is 4x
more years of the
annual allocation
and program
income. Annual
Homebuyer assistance Allocation =
Homeowner rehab $5,137,276
Multifamily rental
acquisition with new PI = 2,715,559
construction/rehabilitation
TBRA 5,137,276 2,715,559 0 7,852,835 31,411,340 Total = 7,852,835
HOPWA public Permanent housing in FY 2025 is the
- facilities first program
federal Permanent housing year of the
placement ConPlan. The
Short term or transitional funds expected
housing facilities for the remainder
STRMU of ConPlan is 4x
Supportive services more years of the
TBRA 5,499,307 0 0 5,499,307 21,997,228 annual allocation.


Consolidated Plan PHOENIX 171
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

Program Source Uses of Funds Expected Amount Available Year 1 Expected Amount Available Narrative
of Annual Program Prior Year Total: Reminder of ConPlan Description
Funds Allocation: Income: $ Resources: $ $ $
$
ESG public Conversion and rehab for PY 2025 is the
- transitional housing first program
federal Financial Assistance year of the
Overnight shelter ConPlan. The
Rapid re-housing (rental funds expected
assistance) for the remainder
Rental Assistance of ConPlan is 4x
Services more years of the
Transitional housing 1,355,765 0 350,000 1,705,765 5,423,060 annual allocation.
Table 7 - Anticipated Resources




Consolidated Plan PHOENIX 172
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

Explain how federal funds will leverage those additional resources (private, state and local funds), including a description of how
matching requirements will be satisfied

The CDBG program does not require matching funds; however, it provides opportunities to leverage private, local, state, and other federal funds
for public service activities. To maximize the effectiveness of the formula grant funding, the City partners with various nonprofit organizations,
private lending institutions, and other federal programs to enhance program funding.

The HOME program requires a matching contribution of at least 25% of the funds spent on affordable housing. The City utilizes a combination of
federal, state, and local funds, as well as other non-federal resources, to fulfill this matching requirement. Examples of these funds include tax-
exempt General Obligation Bond funds, tax-exempt bonds, and tax credits. The State of Arizona also plays a significant role in providing affordable
housing in Phoenix through various means. This includes offering funding to applicants from the HOME Program and the Housing Trust Fund, as
well as managing the distribution of tax-exempt development bonds and tax credit allocations. The state offers a State Low-Income Housing Tax
Credit program designed for both 4% metro projects and 9% rural projects. The City of Phoenix will continue to encourage the State to take a more
active role in addressing the demand for affordable housing. Additionally, the City will explore and promote opportunities for the State to offer
tax incentives, such as tax credits and property tax waivers, for lands and structures that support affordable housing initiatives.

The City promotes the involvement of private businesses and nonprofit organizations in creating affordable and assisted housing. This is achieved
by utilizing funds from the National Affordable Housing Act, Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, and the HOME program.
Additionally, the City will continue to use funds from its General Obligation Bond Program, when available, to implement comprehensive
revitalization strategies in neighborhoods.

ESG has a 100% match requirement, which means funds must be matched dollar for dollar. The City of Phoenix fulfills ESG match funds with the
City’s General-Purpose funds. HOPWA does not have a match requirement.

On June 7, 2022, the Phoenix City Council approved an allocation of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds for Affordable Housing Programs -
gap financing and a Community Land Trust (CLT). $6 million in funding was allocated for the acquisition, rehabilitation, and/or new construction
of affordable housing units to help fill financing gaps and encourage projects to stay on track toward completion. The Phoenix City Council allocated
$5 million in APRA funds toward a CLT program with the goal of funding an all-inclusive CLT. A CLT looks to ensure permanent affordability by
holding the land in a trust and selling the home to an eligible low-income home buyer. On June 14, 2023, the Phoenix City Council approved gap
financing for four affordable housing developments that will support the creation of 544 affordable housing units and a CLT program administrator.
Additionally, Council allocated ARPA funds towards a landlord incentive program to incentivize participating in the Housing Choice Voucher

Consolidated Plan PHOENIX 173
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

Program. On September 15, 2023, an additional $2.3 million was added to the program’s previous $4 million tranche in funds. A total of $7.8
million in CARES Act and ARPA funds were completely allocated by Fall of 2024. Over 5,000 units were preserved, and 900 new landlords joined
the voucher program.

With the strong support of the Phoenix City Council, the Landlord Incentive Program delivered a one-time $2,000 incentive payment to landlords
who rented units to Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) participants. Backed by $7.3 million in American Rescue Plan Act funding, the program
successfully disbursed over 4,000 incentives to more than 1,400 landlords, bringing in over 800 new landlords to the HCV program by its
conclusion in August 2024. The HCV program now engages over 2,300 active landlords, playing a vital role in meeting the escalating demand for
affordable housing and ensuring that thousands of low-income Phoenix residents have access to essential housing assistance.


If appropriate, describe publicly owned land or property located within the jurisdiction that may be used to address the needs
identified in the plan

The Housing Phoenix Plan documents the findings of the city's Affordable Housing Initiative, which launched in 2019 with the goal of completing
a housing needs assessment and establishing policy recommendations to address the city's current housing challenge. Through extensive research
and community outreach, the plan identifies the community's housing needs, documents the housing gap, compiles nationwide best practices,
and recommends nine policy initiatives to reach the goal of creating a stronger and more vibrant Phoenix through increased housing options for
all. As the fifth largest city in the country, Phoenix has experienced consistent population growth which has outpaced the growth of the housing
market.

This nine-point initiative plan was created to establish zoning incentives for affordable housing developers, create allowances for accessory
dwelling units, increase resources, streamline processes, and establish an education campaign.

The City has properties set aside for public and private partnership in direct support of activities such as the CDBG Slum and Blight Acquisition,
Infill Program. This program will allow new construction of single- and or multifamily homes on vacant lots within residential neighborhoods
located in neighborhood initiative and redevelopment areas. In addition, the City will provide CDBG funds for homebuyer assistance to low- and
moderate-income homebuyers. The Housing Department has identified underutilized parcels within the City’s portfolio. These parcels will be made
available to non-profit and for-profit developers through a Request for Proposal (RFP) process for redevelopment that would result in increased
affordable housing units throughout the City of Phoenix. Progress has been made in 2024 to issue multiple RFPs, and a total of three have been
awarded within the year. An RFP for four residential parcels in the Sunnyslope/Village Center neighborhood was awarded by Council on May 29,

Consolidated Plan PHOENIX 174
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

2024. Two other RFPs including parcels under the Housing Phoenix Plan, including the Central and Columbus mixed income rental housing project
and the Glendale and 27th Avenue affordable homeownership development project, were both awarded by Council on December 18, 2024. The
most recent RFPs released by the Neighborhood Services Department include two parcels for the development of affordable housing in the
Oakland Historic District. The solicitation for these parcels closed on December 13, 2024. Additionally, the Neighborhood Services Department
released an RFP for an additional 8 parcels in the Sunnyslope/Village Center on December 16, 2024, which will close on March 14, 2025.

The City of Phoenix regularly commits publicly owned land or property to induce the development of desired affordable housing, supportive
housing, homeless, economic development and neighborhood revitalization projects and programs. The commitment of such resources is
executed through development agreements typically executed with development entities selected through a competitive process.




Consolidated Plan PHOENIX 175
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

SP-40 Institutional Delivery Structure – 91.215(k)
Explain the institutional structure through which the jurisdiction will carry out its consolidated plan
including private industry, non-profit organizations, and public institutions.

Responsible Entity Responsible Entity Role Geographic Area
Type Served
Neighborhood Services Development
Department Non-homeless special
needs
Planning
neighborhood
improvements
public facilities
public services
Department needs
Ownership
Public Housing
Rental
Services Dept. public services
Opportunity
Department
Maricopa Association Continuum of care Planning Region
of Governments Homelessness
Table 8 - Institutional Delivery Structure

Assess of Strengths and Gaps in the Institutional Delivery System

The City of Phoenix has a comprehensive system for implementing housing and community development
projects. Several city departments are responsible for planning and executing grant programs, all
managed by the Neighborhood Services Department. This includes the Housing Department, which
oversees affordable housing initiatives and administers public housing within the city. Additionally, the
Human Services Department manages homeless programs and provides various services for low and
moderate-income residents, as well as those with special needs.

The City actively participates in the Maricopa Regional Continuum of Care (CoC), with the Director of the
staff members are involved in CoC collaboratives, workgroups, and activities. The CoC members offer a



Consolidated Plan PHOENIX 176
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

range of essential services to the community, including emergency shelter, homelessness prevention, and
permanent supportive housing.

The City of Phoenix's Public Housing Authority (PHA) operates as part of the city's governmental structure,
specifically within the Housing Department. The PHA is actively involved in developing affordable housing
plans and plays a consultative role throughout the Annual Action Plan process.

The City departments and regional collaborations mentioned above represent key strengths in the
delivery system, stemming from years of ongoing efforts to improve the lives of low- and moderate-
income (LMI) residents in Phoenix. The City will maintain its leadership role by coordinating with housing
and community development providers to address the needs of its residents.

Gaps in the delivery system are primarily due to the general lack of funding to meet all the needs of
residents. To address these gaps, the City will promote collaboration between non-profit agencies and
City departments. Whenever possible, it will connect service providers with funding sources, offer
technical assistance to new organizations to enhance their program capacity, and provide funding to
organizations with a proven track record of effectively and efficiently delivering services.

Availability of services targeted to homeless persons and persons with HIV and mainstream
services

Homelessness Prevention Available in the Targeted to Targeted to People
Services Community Homeless with HIV
Homelessness Prevention Services
Counseling/Advocacy X X X
Legal Assistance X X
Mortgage Assistance X
Rental Assistance X X X
Utilities Assistance X X X
Street Outreach Services
Law Enforcement X
Mobile Clinics X X
Other Street Outreach Services X X
Supportive Services
Alcohol & Drug Abuse X X
Child Care X X
Education X X
Employment and Employment
Training X X X
Healthcare X X
HIV/AIDS X X X
Life Skills X X X
Mental Health Counseling X X

Consolidated Plan PHOENIX 177
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

Supportive Services
Transportation X X X
Other

Table 9 - Homeless Prevention Services Summary



Describe how the service delivery system including, but not limited to, the services listed above
meet the needs of homeless persons (particularly chronically homeless individuals and
families, families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth)

The City of Phoenix actively participates in the Maricopa Regional County Continuum of Care (CoC), which
is organized and led by the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG). The CoC is a collaboration
among non-profit organizations, social service agencies, and various government entities, all aimed at
addressing the needs of the homeless population in the area.

Through the services provided by CoC members, homeless individuals and families receive assistance that
includes emergency shelter, transitional housing, rapid rehousing programs, homelessness prevention
activities, and street outreach services. The CoC also works closely with mental health providers and
regional governmental agencies to offer coordinated support to individuals and families experiencing
homelessness.

The Maricopa Regional County Continuum of Care is responsible for the Coordinated Entry system, which
is the primary system to assess and refer individuals and families to appropriate need-based housing and
services. Any person at-risk or experiencing homelessness may be served through the Coordinated Entry
system at one of the may access points throughout the region and the City of Phoenix. The CoC Board
serves as the Governance body for Coordinated Entry. As the Governance body, the Board meets at least
monthly, and more often as necessary. Access points can be found at the following link:
https://azmag.gov/Portals/0/Homelessness/Resources/Coordinated-Entry-Access-
Points.pdf?ver=WNyrsxAPdfKpyZOIFsVbFw%3D%3D

Describe the strengths and gaps of the service delivery system for special needs population and
persons experiencing homelessness, including, but not limited to, the services listed above

A significant strength of the service delivery system is the network of nonprofit service providers in the
to meet the needs of special populations, including the elderly, individuals with disabilities, victims of
domestic violence, and those living with HIV/AIDS, along with their families. Comprehensive services are
available throughout the city and surrounding areas to support these vulnerable groups.

The homeless Continuum of Care network for individuals experiencing homelessness is coordinated by
the Maricopa Regional Continuum of Care, which utilizes coordinated entry to connect households with
available services across the region.


Consolidated Plan PHOENIX 178
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

However, a major gap in the service delivery system is the general lack of resources to fund programs and
services that address the needs of the homeless and special populations. The number of requests for
assistance often exceeds the available funding from the City's CDBG, HOME, ESG and HOPWA grant
programs.

Provide a summary of the strategy for overcoming gaps in the institutional structure and
service delivery system for carrying out a strategy to address priority needs

The City’s strategy to address gaps in the institutional structure and delivery system involves ongoing
collaboration with various service providers in Phoenix. The City has established a committee to address
community needs through the budgetary priorities outlined in this Consolidated Plan, resulting in targeted
budget allocations. Additionally, the City will leverage and match other funding sources, including federal
funds for public facility improvements and public services. Private resources will also be utilized, including
contributions from Arizona Public Service, Southwest Gas, Salt River Project, and general public donations,
to support housing programs for low- and moderate-income (LMI) families.

Furthermore, the City will continue to collaborate with the region’s CoC and nonprofit partners to address
service gaps and reduce homelessness while working towards the goals of this Strategic Plan. The City will
hold frequent HOPWA meetings and maintain regular communication with agencies to gather feedback
on client needs. This collaboration will also enable Project Sponsors to assess service gaps effectively.




Consolidated Plan PHOENIX 179
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

SP-45 Goals Summary – 91.215(a)(4)
Goals Summary Information

Sort Goal Name Start End Category Geographic Area Needs Funding Goal Outcome Indicator
Order Year Year Addressed
1 1A Develop & 2025 2029 Affordable Citywide Low/Mod Affordable CDBG: $26,085,665 HOME Rental units constructed:
Preserve Housing Eligible Housing HOME: $36,695,540 750 Household Housing Unit
Affordable Edison-Eastlake Choice
Housing Neighborhoods HOME Rental Units Constructed
Marcos de Niza-Grant via (CHDO): 250 Household
Park Choice Housing Unit
Neighborhoods
Homeowner Housing
Rehabilitated: 380 (HOME = 1)
Household Housing Unit

HOME Direct Financial
Assistance to Homebuyers:
12 Households Assisted

Housing Code Enforcement/
Foreclosed Property Care:
150 Households Assisted




Consolidated Plan PHOENIX 180
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

Sort Goal Name Start End Category Geographic Area Needs Funding Goal Outcome Indicator
Order Year Year Addressed
2 2A Public 2025 2029 Non-Housing Citywide Low/Mod Public Services CDBG: $6,194,905 Public service activities for
Services for LMI Community Eligible Low/Moderate Income Housing
& Special Need Development Edison-Eastlake Choice Benefit:
Neighborhoods 19175 Persons Assisted
Marcos de Niza-Grant Public service activities for
Park Choice Low/Moderate Income Housing
Neighborhoods Benefit:
400 Households Assisted
3 3A Improve 2025 2029 Non-Housing Citywide Low/Mod Public CDBG: $34,258,888 Public Facility or Infrastructure
Public Facilities Community Eligible Facilities & Activities other than
& Infrastructure Development Edison-Eastlake Choice Infrastructure Low/Moderate Income Housing
Neighborhoods Investment Benefit:
Marcos de Niza-Grant 156000 Persons Assisted
Park Choice
Neighborhoods
4 4A Economic 2025 2029 Non-Housing Citywide Low/Mod Economic CDBG: $2,017,785 Facade treatment/business
Development Community Eligible Development building rehabilitation:
Development Edison-Eastlake Choice 10 Business
Neighborhoods Businesses assisted:
Marcos de Niza-Grant 125 Businesses Assisted
Park Choice
Neighborhoods




Consolidated Plan PHOENIX 181
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

Sort Goal Name Start End Category Geographic Area Needs Funding Goal Outcome Indicator
Order Year Year Addressed
5 5A Removal of 2025 2029 Non-Housing Citywide Low/Mod Removal of CDBG: $13,500,000 Buildings Demolished: 20
Slum & Blight Community Eligible Slum & Blight Buildings
Development Edison-Eastlake Choice Housing Code Enforcement/
Neighborhoods Foreclosed Property Care:
Marcos de Niza-Grant 200 Households Assisted
Park Choice
Neighborhoods
6 6A Homeless 2025 2029 Homeless Citywide Low/Mod Housing & ESG: $6,620,415 Tenant-based rental assistance /
Housing & Eligible Services for Rapid Rehousing: 200
Services Edison-Eastlake Choice the Homeless Households Assisted
Neighborhoods Homelessness Prevention: 500
Marcos de Niza-Grant Persons Assisted
Park Choice Homeless Person Overnight
Neighborhoods Shelter: 14700 Persons Assisted
7 7A Housing & 2025 2029 Non-Housing HOPWA EMSA Housing & HOPWA: $26,671,639 Tenant-based rental assistance /
Supportive Community Supportive Rapid Rehousing: 825
Services for Development Services for Households Assisted
People Living People Living Homelessness Prevention: 550
with HIV/AIDS with HIV/AIDS Persons Assisted
HIV/AIDS Housing Operations:
650 Household Housing Unit
Other (Supportive Services):




Consolidated Plan PHOENIX 182
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

Sort Goal Name Start End Category Geographic Area Needs Funding Goal Outcome Indicator
Order Year Year Addressed
8 8A Effective 2025 2029 Non-Housing Citywide Low/Mod Effective CDBG: $14,461,955 Other: 5
Program Community Eligible Program ESG: $508,410
Administration Development Edison-Eastlake Choice Administration HOME: $2,568,638
Neighborhoods HOPWA: $824,896
Marcos de Niza-Grant
Park Choice
Neighborhoods
HOPWA EMSA
Table 10 – Goals Summary




Consolidated Plan PHOENIX 183
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

Goal Descriptions

1 Goal Name 1A Develop & Preserve Affordable Housing
Goal Promote and fund new affordable housing development such as homeownership opportunities for low- and moderate-
Description income households; development of new rental housing inventory; homeowner housing rehabilitation activities; and
CHDO affordable housing development activities in the city. Code enforcement activities will revitalize communities and
help improve the health and safety of low/mod neighborhoods.
2 Goal Name 2A Public Services for LMI & Special Need
Goal Provide for supportive services for low- to moderate-income and special need populations. Services for LMI will include
Description youth programs, health services, employment training, housing information and referral services and other eligible
services under the CDBG program. Public services assisting special needs populations may include homeless programs,
senior services, services for persons with a disability, services for victims of domestic violence.
3 Goal Name 3A Improve Public Facilities & Infrastructure
Goal Provide funds to improve and expand public facilities and infrastructure such as neighborhood facilities, parks and rec
Description centers, water/sewer systems, sidewalks, and streets. Public facility improvements may also help special need groups
and may be directed towards homeless shelters, senior centers and community centers.
4 Goal Name 4A Economic Development
Goal Provide support for activities and promote job retention or creation for low- and moderate-income residents. Activities
Description may include financial aid and technical assistance. There is also a need to provide support for façade improvements to
commercial sites located in low/mod areas in Phoenix.
5 Goal Name 5A Removal of Slum & Blight
Goal Provide support for the removal of slum and blight in low/mod areas in Phoenix. Demolition activities of aging and
Description dilapidated structures will encourage revitalization efforts, and help improve the health and safety of these areas.




Consolidated Plan PHOENIX 184
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

6 Goal Name 6A Homeless Housing & Services
Goal Provide support for overnight shelter services for individuals and families experiencing homelessness. Emergency
Description shelter will include wraparound services that help individuals and families gain self-sufficiency. The City will also provide
homeless prevention services for those at-risk of homelessness, and rapid rehousing assistance to homeless individuals
and families with the goal of eliminating or reducing homelessness in the City.
7 Goal Name 7A Housing & Supportive Services for People Living with HIV/AIDS
Goal Provide funding support for housing subsidy activities for people living with HIV/AIDS, which include Transitional
Description Housing, Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (TBRA), Short-Term Rent, Mortgage and Utility (STRM) Assistance and
Permanent Housing Placement (PHP). Several supportive services activities address the needs of eligible clients,
increase accessibility to medical care and other vital resources.
8 Goal Name 8A Effective Program Administration
Goal Effective program management of HUD grant programs will ensure compliance with each respective grant and their
Description regulations and that programs meet their established objectives. This includes a range of activities such as general
administration and planning of the CDBG, ESG, HOME and HOPWA grant programs, monitoring subrecipients, fair
housing activities and keeping strict grant-based accounting.


Estimate the number of extremely low-income, low-income, and moderate-income families to whom the jurisdiction will provide
affordable housing as defined by HOME 91.315(b)(2)

The City of Phoenix estimates that it will assist low- to moderate-income households with CDBG and HOME funds over the next five years of the
2025-2029 Consolidated Plan with affordable housing activities:

Rental units constructed (HOME/5-Yr goal): 750 Household Housing Unit
Rental units constructed (CHDO HOME/5-Yr goal): 250 Household Housing Unit
Direct Financial Assistance to Homebuyers (HOME/5-Yr goal): 12 Households Assisted
Homeowner Housing Rehabilitated (HOME/5-Yr goal): 1 unit
CDBG Homeowner Housing Rehabilitated (5-Yr goal): 380 Household Housing Unit


Consolidated Plan PHOENIX 185
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

SP-50 Public Housing Accessibility and Involvement – 91.215(c)
Need to Increase the Number of Accessible Units (if Required by a Section 504 Voluntary
Compliance Agreement)

Unlike most areas in the country, Phoenix's Public Housing Authority (PHA) operates within the
governmental structure of the City of Phoenix (CoP) and is known as its Housing Department (HOU). The
majority of HOU's activities are similar to those of a traditional PHA. Currently, HOU administers 1,023
traditional public housing units and 7,797 Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV). In accordance with Section 504
and ADA requirements, all new construction and major renovation projects incorporate these accessibility
standards as part of HOU's development program. If any households require accessible units, HOU is
committed to making reasonable accommodations to meet their needs. At present, there is no
requirement to increase the number of accessible units.

Activities to Increase Resident Involvements

The City’s Housing Department is dedicated to providing a variety of programs designed to empower
residents of public and assisted housing with economic opportunities and avenues for developing social
support. Current activities and initiatives include: The Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS) program offers long-
term case management services to assist low-income households living in subsidized housing. Its goal is
to help these households overcome barriers to self-sufficiency and achieve financial independence. FSS
participants can access educational training, job training, job coaching, life skills training, and facilitated
employment opportunities for up to seven years.

The Phoenix Housing Department manages a public housing program for seniors aged 62 and older, as
well as for individuals with disabilities. This program operates in five apartment complexes and two
affordable housing sites. On-site Service Coordinators are available to connect residents with services that
support independent living. There are also recreational and social activities offered, such as bingo,
exercise classes, workshops, and community gardening. Additionally, the Jobs Plus Program, known as
iWORK (Improving Work Opportunities and Resident Knowledge), is affiliated with ARIZONA@WORK. The
iWORK program focuses on job-driven strategies to enhance earnings and improve employment
outcomes for residents of the Marcos de Niza Community. It provides work readiness training, employer
connections, job placement services, educational advancement, technology skills training, and financial
literacy education.

Choice Neighborhoods: In July 2017, the City was awarded a $30 million Choice Neighborhoods Grant to
support a six-year implementation process in the Edison-Eastlake Community. This initiative allowed the
Housing Department to redevelop three outdated public housing sites into high-quality, mixed-income
communities equipped with modern amenities. Additionally, the Housing Department applied for a
Choice Neighborhoods Planning Grant and initiated community planning efforts with residents of the
Marcos de Niza public and affordable housing community, which consists of 374 units, including 281 Public
Housing units and 93 Section 8 units. The primary goal was to develop a community-driven Neighborhood
Transformation Plan to guide the revitalization of Marcos de Niza and its surrounding neighborhood. Local
Annual Action Plan 186
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

funding from the City of Phoenix will also be utilized for this effort, alongside the Choice Neighborhoods
funds (if received) and any other available sources at that time. The completed transformation plan will
serve as the foundation for future implementation efforts, including an application for Choice
Neighborhoods Implementation Grant funding.

Is the public housing agency designated as troubled under 24 CFR part 902?

No

Plan to remove the ‘troubled’ designation

N/A. The City of Phoenix HOU (AZ001) is a Standard PHA, and not designated as a troubled public housing
agency.




Annual Action Plan 187
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

SP-55 Barriers to affordable housing – 91.215(h)
Barriers to Affordable Housing

Public policies at the local, regional, and state levels have unintentionally created barriers to affordable
housing development and residential investment in Phoenix, Arizona. The following highlights key areas
where such policies have negatively impacted housing affordability:

● Insufficient Funding and Incentives: State-level policies in Arizona limit funding mechanisms for
affordable housing initiatives. For example, while local governments are allowed to charge impact
fees, these funds cannot legally be used for affordable housing purposes. This restriction,
highlighted by the Morrison Institute, reduces the financial resources available for creating
affordable housing, forcing Phoenix to rely on limited federal programs to fill the gap.
● Community Opposition (NIMBYism): Community resistance to affordable housing, known as
NIMBYism, often delays or prevents developments in Phoenix. This resistance is frequently based
on misconceptions that affordable housing will negatively impact property values or
neighborhood character. Reports from The State Press indicate that this opposition influences
local decision-making, creating additional challenges for securing approvals for affordable housing
projects.
● Preemption of Local Authority: Arizona’s state preemption laws prevent cities like Phoenix from
implementing rent control or other housing policies to address affordability issues locally. As
reported by AZ Mirror, this restriction limits Phoenix’s ability to adopt tailored solutions to its
housing affordability crisis, leaving the city reliant on state-led initiatives that may not adequately
address local needs.
● Gentrification and Displacement: Urban revitalization efforts in Phoenix, while intended to
promote economic growth, often lead to increased property values and the displacement of low-
income residents. According to the Phoenix New Times, without proper safeguards such as rent
protections or affordable housing requirements, these policies disproportionately harm
vulnerable populations, exacerbating housing affordability challenges.

Addressing these challenges requires strategic policy reforms, such as revising zoning and funding
mechanisms, enhancing local authority to implement housing solutions, and implementing safeguards
against displacement. These actions are crucial to creating a more all-encompassing and reasonable
housing market in Phoenix.

Strategy to Remove or Ameliorate the Barriers to Affordable Housing

The City may undertake any of the following actions to help foster the removal of barriers for affordable
housing production. Actions to implement the strategies may vary during this reporting year:
• Ongoing availability of down payment and closing costs assistance for 1st time homebuyers at or
below 80% area median income
• Ensure housing needs of special needs populations are met by setting aside funding for specialized


Annual Action Plan 188
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

projects
• Competition for Low-income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) for the purpose of replacing aging public
housing units with new, energy efficient units
• Acquisition of properties by the City through its non-profit organization, Phoenix Residential
Investment Development Effort (PRIDE)
• Inclusion of a refinancing option using HOME funds for non-profit developers/owners of
affordable housing who include major rehabilitation to the property
• Willingness to provide loan modifications for City loans when cash flow problems are not caused
by poor financial or property management
• Provide HOME and CDBG funds for aging properties with rent restricted units which need major
rehabilitation
• Participation in Choice Neighborhoods Program by which public housing units can be increased
and replaced with updated units
• Utilize the RAD program to redevelop Public Housing units
• Identification of underutilized Public Land for housing redeveloped by non-profit and for-profit
developers
• Project-based Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers and public housing units
• Utilization of VASH Vouchers

The implementation of the nine policy initiatives included in the Housing Phoenix Plan will establish zoning
incentives for affordable housing developers, create allowances for accessory dwelling units, increase
resources (such as grants and loans for affordable housing developers), streamline processes, and
continue to implement an education campaign to help communicate the importance of housing in our
community.

Updating zoning regulations will make it easier and cheaper to build or preserve a variety of housing
options while preserving the character of the neighborhood. The Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) text
amendment (TA) was approved by City Council on September 6, 2023, to help increase the overall supply
of housing as well as offer an additional housing option within a neighborhood, and updates have been
approved to address state statute changes. The Walkable Urban Code (WU) text amendment was
approved by City Council on February 2, 2022, to create the opportunity for more flexible infill
development and adaptive reuse without requiring the property owner to complete the rezoning process.
Two out of the three Mobile Home text amendments proposed were approved by City Council on June
28, 2023, to aid in affordable housing choices. The first text amendment added definitions for the different
mobile home models and revised the ordinance to outline offsite manufactured home developments
while the second text amendment allows existing mobile home developments to expand the number of
units through an administrative review. A multifamily parking text amendment was approved by Council
on January 24, 2024, which decreased the minimum number of required parking spots per unit, to
eliminate possible barriers to housing development. Additional text amendments are being evaluated to
help facilitate more housing options in the city such as the Affordable Housing Framework text


Annual Action Plan 189
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

amendment that was initiated by the Planning Commission.

Development of affordable housing requires additional subsidies to ensure long-term affordability. This
can be achieved through grants, loans, and tax programs or can be achieved through a reduction of other
costs associated with development or operating affordable housing such as pre-development design costs
and permitting fees. There are continual efforts to discover alternative funding sources to help aid in the
reduction of planning and permitting fees, along with plans to increase public support for and developer
interest in affordable housing. In November 2024, the Housing Department was awarded a Technical
Assistance Grant to assist in continuing a targeted education campaign to provide residents and
developers with essential information on affordable housing in Phoenix. This will be an ongoing effort
throughout 2025.

Discussion:

The Open Doors Down Payment Assistance (DPA) is a City-wide program targeting first-time homebuyers.
Eligible families receive direct subsidy of down payment and/or closing costs assistance through a zero
percent interest forgivable loan. The home must be used as their primary residence during the period of
affordability. The Housing Department has contracted with HUD approved Housing Counseling Agencies
(HCA) to administer the program and assist families through the close of escrow.

Soluna I, the first phase of the Edison-Eastlake Community redevelopment completed in Dec. 2021,
includes 111 units and Soluna II with 66 units completed in April 2022. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2022-23, as part
of the second phase, Harmony at the Park (HATP) I, located on the former Frank Luke Homes site, that
includes 120 units opened in February 2023, and during FY 2023-24, HATP II with 115 units was completed
in December 2023. Redevelopment of the former Sidney P. Osborn site, now known as Girasol, began in
FY 2024-25 as Phase One (115 units) commenced in February 2025. During FYs 2024-2025 and 2025-26,
the following developments, as part of the third and fourth phases will be underway: Construction of the
third phase, HATP III, a 90-unit residential community, commenced in October 2023 and is anticipated to
be completed in summer 2025 while demolition of the former A.l. Krohn (ALK) site was completed to make
way for Horizon on Villa, a 109-unit mixed-income community. The fourth phase includes the demolition
and redevelopment of the former Sidney P. Osborn site into a 364-unit apartment community, now known
as Girasol, to be developed in three phases: Phase One construction of 115-units, is anticipated to
commence in March 2025. Construction on Phase II, to include 109 units is anticipated to begin in spring
2025, and Phase III with 140 units is expected to commence in early 2026. All phases of the CN multi-
family redevelopment projects will include Section 8 project-based vouchers, Low Income Housing Tax
Credits and market-rate units. Lastly, construction of the 44-unit mixed-income homeownership
townhome community (29 affordable and 15 market-rate) is anticipated to begin in summer 2025.
Neighborhood: Planned improvements include new and expanded parks featuring shade and modern
family-friendly amenities. Construction of the Edison Park Expansion and new Linear Park projects will
commence in summer 2025, while the redevelopment of Kana Park as part of the SPO/Girasol Phase Three
housing community is expected to begin in early 2026. Other neighborhood improvements include open
space; bike lanes, pedestrian safety upgrades; beautification; public art; Wi-Fi; and digital literacy. In
Annual Action Plan 190
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

addition, targeted demolition and rehabilitation of the former Crippled Children’s Hospital into the Edison
Impact Hub (to be renamed “Thash Mahd”) is anticipated to begin in March 2025. Thash Mahd will house
a behavioral and health clinic, community kitchen, workforce development center, digital literacy lab,
office space, and classrooms/meeting rooms. People: Supportive services that are being offered include
case management; relocation assistance; workforce/employment; healthy living and educational needs;
youth services; and resident and community engagement. The Aeroterra Community Center, located
within the EEC, was the first HUD-approved EnVision Center in Arizona, where public-private and
nonprofit partners provide services designed to assist residents in achieving self-sufficiency.

For the 25-26 Fiscal Year, Aeroterra II and Aeroterra III will continue to pursue conversion through the
RAD Program without any rehabilitation. This will convert the properties subsidy from Public Housing to
Project-Based Section 8 which is a more sustainable long term funding source and provides more flexibility
for future capital improvements.




Annual Action Plan 191
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

SP-60 Homelessness Strategy – 91.215(d)
Reaching out to homeless persons (especially unsheltered persons) and assessing their
individual needs

The City of Phoenix established the Office of Homeless Solutions (OHS) in 2022 to enhance and implement
initiatives related to homelessness within the city. OHS operates under the City Manager’s Office and
demonstrates the City’s commitment to increasing transparency and direct outreach to the community.
OHS is the largest funder of street outreach in the region. The office includes 16 positions focused on
community-facing activities, such as outreach caseworkers, PHX C.A.R.E.S. workers, and Homeless
Liaisons. Additionally, OHS provides funding to partners for rapid rehousing, temporary emergency
shelter, shelter operations, navigation services, and behavioral health support. OHS is dedicated to
assisting individuals experiencing homelessness and is committed to ending homelessness through a
comprehensive regional approach. This includes providing shelter and heat relief, outreach, supportive
and behavioral health services, homelessness prevention, and housing solutions. The office has primarily
focused on creating new indoor shelter beds through significant capital investments and offering heat
relief during the hot summer months.

The City has restructured its services and outreach efforts to make them more effective and to reduce
barriers that prevent people from accepting assistance, which is a major reason why individuals are now
more willing to seek help. The City now offers shelters that allow pets, spaces where couples can stay
together, and storage options so that individuals can keep their belongings when entering a shelter.

Additionally, City staff provides direct outreach and engagement services through an innovative
partnership called Phoenix C.A.R.E.S. This initiative brings together the Human Services, Office of
Homeless Solutions, Police, Neighborhood Services, Street Transportation, and Public Works departments
to address the increasing number of homeless encampments throughout the city. This collaborative team,
in partnership with community-based crisis intervention and outreach providers, works together to
eliminate homeless encampments and reconnect individuals to housing and services through a
combination of support, enforcement, and abatement strategies.

Finally, the City collaborates with the Maricopa County Outreach Collaborative to develop and implement
regional best practices for street outreach services. This partnership also coordinates outreach activities
and initiatives across the region. Additionally, the City supports and takes part in Project Connect events
organized by the Valley of the Sun United Way, which aim to connect or reconnect individuals
experiencing homelessness with necessary services.




Annual Action Plan 192
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

Addressing the emergency and transitional housing needs of homeless persons

The City is committed to supporting emergency shelter services for individuals and families through
various contracts with non-profit providers. These include Central Arizona Shelter Services (for single
adults), United Methodist Outreach Ministries (for single women and families), and Chicanos Por La Causa
(for families). Funding for these services comes from Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) and Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. Additionally, the City is using General Funds and American Rescue
Plan Act funds to support new shelter projects in the area. These projects will provide accommodations
for seniors, single adults, and family units.

The City is committed to regional efforts aimed at reducing the duration of homelessness by adopting a
Housing First approach, which is an initiative shared by the CoC. To accomplish this goal, the City is
prioritizing resources for rapid rehousing interventions. These interventions are generally more flexible
and efficient than traditional transitional housing models, which can be time-consuming and resource-
intensive.

The Housing Department (HOU) was awarded 390 Emergency Housing Vouchers (EHVs) effective July 1,
2021. These vouchers are intended for individuals and families who are: (1) homeless; (2) at risk of
homelessness; (3) fleeing or attempting to flee domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking,
or human trafficking; or (4) recently homeless and in need of rental assistance to prevent further
homelessness or housing instability.

The HOU collaborates with the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) and the Coordinated Entry
System to receive referred applicants and provide housing search and leasing assistance to eligible
populations. EHVs operate similarly to the HOU's tenant-based voucher program, unless otherwise
specified in the applicable Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Administrative Plan. Additionally, the HOU has
applied for an allocation of Stability Vouchers (SVs). If awarded, the HOU plans to administer these SVs to
serve the homeless, those at risk of homelessness, individuals fleeing or attempting to flee domestic
violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, or human trafficking, as well as veterans and families
that include a veteran family member meeting one of the aforementioned criteria. SVs will operate in the
same manner as the HOU's tenant-based voucher program, except as specified in the HCV Administrative
Plan.

Helping homeless persons (especially chronically homeless individuals and families, families
with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth) make the transition to
permanent housing and independent living, including shortening the period of time that
individuals and families experience homelessness, facilitating access for homeless individuals
and families to affordable housing units, and preventing individuals and families who were
recently homeless from becoming homeless again.

The City of Phoenix has been focused on increasing the number of available shelter beds in the region
while also providing homelessness prevention services, street outreach, and rapid re-housing programs.
Additionally, the city is emphasizing the impact of innovative collaborations and partnerships aimed at
Annual Action Plan 193
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

achieving regional results. By working with the Continuum of Care, the region is aligning contracted
services for Emergency Shelter, Outreach, and Rapid Re-Housing through the ESG Collaborative. This
alignment will enhance regional reporting and enable service providers to use consistent measurements,
ensuring that they report the same outcomes regardless of the funding source. Ultimately, this will allow
for the ability to "right size" interventions and ensure that resources are allocated where they are needed
most.

The Maricopa County region has established a Coordinated Entry System aimed at prioritizing resources
for the most vulnerable individuals and reducing the length of time spent in homelessness. This system
includes five primary points of entry: 1. The Family Hub, dedicated to families with children. 2. The
Welcome Center, serving single men and women. 3. Centralized Screening for victims of domestic
violence. 4. An entry point for unaccompanied youth. 5. A specific entry point for US military veterans.
The Continuum of Care (CoC) has adopted the Vulnerability Index Service Prioritization Decision
Assistance Tool (VI-SPDAT) as its regional housing needs assessment tool. Individuals, families, and
unaccompanied youth are prioritized for housing and services based on their acuity, chronicity, and length
of time experiencing homelessness. Recently, the CoC introduced a pilot program to refine assessment
and prioritization processes moving forward.

The City of Phoenix's Human Services and Housing Departments have collaborated to provide permanent
supportive housing for 33 chronically homeless individuals and families, with a preference for veterans,
at a new public housing site called Aeroterra. Previously known as Luke Krohn, Aeroterra is a unique,
affordable master-planned housing development that accommodates individuals and families from mixed
income levels, including seniors. The 33 chronically homeless individuals and families are identified and
referred through the regional Coordinated Entry System established by the Maricopa Association of
Governments Regional Continuum of Care. In addition to offering permanent supportive housing,
Aeroterra provides on-site intensive case management services to ensure that these individuals and
families receive the necessary support and resources to successfully transition from homelessness to
stable and thriving homes.

The Human Services and Housing Departments will continue their partnership with the Veterans
Administration (VA) in the coming year to support move-in assistance and rent/utility deposits for
Veterans receiving VASH vouchers. Through this partnership, the lease-up process has decreased to as
little as 30-days from identification to housing.

The City has also increased affordable units by overcoming barriers that limited the City from certain
acquisition opportunities through the creation of the Phoenix Residential Investment Development Effort
(PRIDE) Board, a 501c3 nonprofit agency. PRIDE was created by the City to pursue development or
acquisition opportunities to increase the supply of affordable housing for low- and moderate income
families. As a non-profit entity, PRIDE is able to access various funding sources not directly available to
the City or to acquire/construct single and multi-family housing.

Help low-income individuals and families avoid becoming homeless, especially extremely low-
income individuals and families who are likely to become homeless after being discharged from
Annual Action Plan 194
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

a publicly funded institution or system of care, or who are receiving assistance from public and
private agencies that address housing, health, social services, employment, education or youth
needs

The Human Services Department addresses emergency housing and service needs through a variety of
programs and services. Three Phoenix Family Services Centers operate year-round, offering case
management, navigation, and financial assistance to clients by utilizing a diverse range of funding
resources. Through this direct service system, staff at the Family Services Centers help clients prevent
eviction and foreclosure, as well as assist families in moving to more affordable or suitable living
environments by covering move-in deposits and providing rental and utility assistance. Additionally, the
department collaborates closely with organizations that offer behavioral health and detox services for
individuals and families in crisis.




Annual Action Plan 195
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

SP-65 Lead based paint Hazards – 91.215(i)
Actions to address LBP hazards and increase access to housing without LBP hazards

The reduction of Lead-Based Paint (LBP) hazards remains a priority in Phoenix. The City offers housing
rehabilitation programs funded by HUD to help homeowners protect children and families from the
dangers of LBP. The Lead Safe Phoenix program is available to individuals living in homes built before 1978
who have children under the age of six or a pregnant woman in the household. Eligibility is also limited to
residents in specific high-risk zip codes identified for lead poisoning. Initial rehabilitation procedures
include inspections and assessments conducted by EPA-certified Lead-Based Paint inspectors to test for
lead hazards in eligible homes.

Certified lead abatement contractors offer remediation and abatement services for lead hazards, and
residents are temporarily relocated until the unit passes clearance tests. EPA-certified housing
rehabilitation specialists prepare work scopes and oversee all activities conducted. Lead-safe housing
units are listed on a publicly accessible rental registry website.

Lead Safe Phoenix is a program funded by HUD through the Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy
Homes (OLHCHH). This program conducts educational initiatives focused on the dangers of lead-based
paint, targeting healthcare providers, case managers, home health professionals, and other key
stakeholders. Homes enrolled in the program are assessed for lead-based paint hazards by EPA-certified
testing consultants. If lead hazards are detected, the homes are further evaluated for other health and
safety issues. Certified housing rehabilitation specialists then prepare a plan to address any identified
hazards. Lead hazard removal is conducted by EPA-certified contractors. In cases where lead hazards are
found, residents may be temporarily relocated from their homes until the hazards are safely removed,
allowing them to return once it is deemed safe. Lead Safe Phoenix concentrates on reducing childhood
exposure to lead-based paint hazards by providing community education and implementing housing
rehabilitation interventions that help create safe and healthy living environments.

How are the actions listed above related to the extent of lead poisoning and hazards?

In Phoenix, much of the housing stock is very old as approximately 45% of owner-occupied housing and
39% of renter-occupied housing units were built before 1980 (Source: 2019-2023 ACS). These housing
units will naturally have higher instances of deferred maintenance, deteriorating conditions and a greater
risk of lead-based paint hazards.

The Neighborhood Services Department (NSD) focuses on properties within specific targeted areas for
neighborhood preservation and revitalization. These areas typically contain some of the oldest housing in
Phoenix and are the focus of comprehensive revitalization efforts, which provide additional resources. To
qualify for grant funds, properties must house families with incomes at or below 80% of the Area Median
Income and include a child under the age of six. Eligible housing must have been constructed prior to
1978.



Annual Action Plan 196
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

All eligible properties undergo thorough testing for lead in soil, dust, and paint. They receive a
combination of lead abatement and interim controls to manage lead hazards, all at a minimal per-unit
cost, in accordance with HUD Guidelines. Testing, remediation, blood lead testing, parent education, and
any necessary temporary relocation are funded by grants at no cost to property owners or tenants. In
Arizona, state law requires that all children tested and found to have elevated blood lead levels (EBLL) be
reported to the Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS). Cases involving children living in Phoenix
are referred by ADHS to the NSD for assistance. If a child resides in pre-1978 owner-occupied housing that
qualifies for the Emergency Home Repair program, the home will be tested for lead and remediated. For
children with EBLL living in rental housing, consultation services will be provided by ADHS and NSD.

How are the actions listed above integrated into housing policies and procedures?

The City requires all rehabilitation contractors to obtain EPA Renovate, Repair, and Paint (RRP)
certification. Additionally, subrecipients and other partners must be informed about regulations
concerning LBP and lead-safe work practices. These requirements are included in various City documents,
such as the CDBG Program Guidelines, the annually updated Housing Department Administrative Plan
(which includes the HCV Administrative Plan and TBRA Administrative Plans), as well as contracts,
agreements, memorandums of understanding, Notices of Funding Availability, project checklists, and HUD
regulations, manuals, guidebooks, and checklists.




Annual Action Plan 197
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

SP-70 Anti-Poverty Strategy – 91.215(j)
Jurisdiction Goals, Programs and Policies for reducing the number of Poverty-Level Families

The activities developed in this Strategic Plan are designed to directly reduce poverty and alleviate
homelessness in Phoenix. The CDBG public improvements focus on enhancing accessibility and the overall
quality of life for residents. Public services will specifically target low-income individuals by providing
assistance that improve their quality of life, promotes housing stability, and avoid homelessness through
initiatives that encourage self-sustainability. Additionally, supportive services will support special needs
groups, including the elderly, individuals with disabilities, persons recovering from substance abuse, and
victims of domestic violence. Economic development activities will work to promote job retention or
creation new jobs for low- and moderate-income residents.

HOME funded affordable housing development and preservation programs will create and maintain living
conditions that help LMI households avoid homelessness. ESG funds will fund homeless prevention
activities and homeless services. These programs are designed to help them attain economic
sustainability. HOPWA funds will support housing subsidy programs and supportive services that will
increase the accessibility of opportunities for persons living with HIV/AIDS.

The City of Phoenix Human Services Department’s Family Services Centers provide a variety of social
services for low-income households facing crises. These services are offered through three Family Services
Centers that are strategically located throughout the city. Each center offers a wide range of support to
residents with urgent needs, including assistance with utility bills, eviction prevention, rent or mortgage
payments, as well as move-in and deposit costs. Caseworkers also offer help with employment, budgeting,
benefit applications, and the development of social and life skills through case management and
navigation. These services aim to help families and individuals identify and overcome barriers to poverty,
ultimately leading them toward self-sufficiency.

The Volunteer Income Tax Assistance (VITA) Program, administered by the City of Phoenix Human Services
Department, aims to help low- to moderate-income households access free tax preparation services. This
includes assistance with filing for the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which is recognized as the largest
and most effective anti-poverty program in the nation. In the 2022-2023 period, 259 volunteers prepared
tax returns for 3,574 households, resulting in over $4.3 million in federal refunds. These refunds not only
provide essential financial relief to recipients but also benefit the entire community economically.
Additionally, volunteers offer financial education related to filing income tax returns, helping to raise
awareness of the income tax preparation process.

How are the Jurisdiction poverty reducing goals, programs, and policies coordinated with this
affordable housing plan

During the five-year Consolidated Plan period, the City will select projects for funding that are designed
to reduce the number of persons in poverty. The City will collaborate with other City departments,
nonprofit service providers and local/county organizations that operate programs that similarly have a

Annual Action Plan 198
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

goal of reducing the poverty level in Phoenix. Actions that the City will implement over the 2025-2029
Consolidated Plan include:

• Target federal resources to low/mod block group tracts which are likely have high poverty rates;
• Expand and improve public facilities and infrastructure in low/mod areas;
• Provide public services for LMI and special needs such as the elderly, persons with a disability, and
persons at-risk or experiencing homelessness;
• Fund housing rehab activities for LMI households;
• Support and fund homeownership activities for LMI households;
• Expand and the affordable rental housing stock through new construction developments;
• Fund CHDO affordable housing development activities;
• Provide economic development opportunities that support small businesses to create and retain
jobs;
• Provide for the removal of slum and blight in affected low/mod areas to help improve the
revitalization of these neighborhoods;
• Provide homeless prevention activities for individuals and families at risk of homelessness
• Provide housing and supportive services that meet the needs of persons with HV/AIDS and their
families.




Annual Action Plan 199
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

SP-80 Monitoring – 91.230
Describe the standards and procedures that the jurisdiction will use to monitor activities
carried out in furtherance of the plan and will use to ensure long-term compliance with
requirements of the programs involved, including minority business outreach and the
comprehensive planning requirements

CDBG & ESG Monitoring Procedures: The City’s works with organizations that receive CDBG & ESG to
ensure funds are used appropriately and in the most effective manner possible. Prior to the start of the
contract, the City provides a comprehensive orientation to assist subrecipients in understanding their
contract, effective administration and performance goals. Federal and local regulations, reimbursement
procedures, reporting requirements and monitoring procedures are reviewed and discussed and
subrecipient organizations may meet with City staff to discuss. For ESG, staff meet on a quarterly basis
with subrecipients to review spending and provide technical assistance. ESG Subrecipients are required
to submit monthly contract payment requests, program reports, and outcome status reports to ensure
that funds are drawn down appropriately and services are provided to their target population. For CDBG,
reimbursements to contractors were based on the monthly or periodic submission of a financial statement
and progress report by each contractor. A financial report is prepared monthly by the staff, and financial
and programmatic monitoring of all contracts is carried out annually. A formal fiscal monitoring is
conducted once a year by an outside auditing firm for ESG subrecipients. Additionally, a desk review of
supporting documentation takes place every month during the processing of monthly invoices. Onsite
programmatic monitoring visits are conducted for ESG recipients.

HOME Monitoring Procedures: Housing Department staff monitors HOME properties during the period of
affordability.. Any findings as a result of monitoring are followed-up on until all appropriate actions are
taken to resolve the issue(s). Monitoring responsibilities include but are not limited to a risk assessment,
compliance with rent limits, review of supporting documentation for income eligibility, property visits,
outreach to minority businesses, and review of expenditures and income. The City monitors all HOME
Program activities in accordance with HUD regulations. The City has updated its Monitoring Policies and
Procedures Manual for recipients of HOME Program funds. The manual is designed to provide guidance
to HOME Program participants to assist them in maintaining program and project records; records
pertaining to rents, tenant income and affirmative fair housing guidelines throughout the affordability
period; and compliance with minimum housing quality standards for safe, decent, and sanitary housing.
Recipients of the HOME Program must comply with all amendments and updates to the federal HOME
Program rules and regulations.

HOPWA Monitoring Procedures: The Project Sponsors receiving HOPWA funding are required to submit
monthly reports on persons served. Invoices are submitted with supporting documentation that details
hours worked in support of the program and direct costs associated with program delivery. The City
generates a monthly financial report for the HOPWA funds detailing funds committed and expended. The
City’s monthly financial reports are used to complete IDIS draws. The Housing Department conducts both
desk and on-site audits to support its monitoring functions and provides technical assistance to ensure
Annual Action Plan 200
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

that funds are used effectively to meet both City and federal HOPWA Program objectives. Additionally,
the Housing Department performs Housing Quality Standards (HQS) inspections on designated HOPWA
units. The department will maintain its current monitoring processes and develop new initiatives as
necessary.




Annual Action Plan 201
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

Expected Resources

AP-15 Expected Resources – 91.220(c)(1,2)
Introduction
The City of Phoenix receives an annual allocation of funds from four federal formula grant programs: the Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG), the HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME), Housing Opportunities for Persons Living With AIDS (HOPWA), and the Emergency Solutions
Grants (ESG) programs. These grant funds support various initiatives, including community development programs, affordable housing
development and preservation, housing subsidy programs and supportive services for individuals with HIV/AIDS and their families, and efforts to
address homelessness. Program Year 2025 is the first year of the Five-Year Consolidated Plan for 2025-2029, and the City anticipates receiving
similar allocation amounts each year throughout this period.

Anticipated Resources

Program Source Uses of Funds Expected Amount Available Year 1 Expected Narrative Description
of Annual Program Prior Year Total: Amount
Funds Allocation: Income: $ Resources: $ Available
$ $ Remainder of
ConPlan
$
CDBG public - Acquisition PY 2025 is the first program year
federal Admin and Planning of the ConPlan. The funds
Economic expected for the remainder of
Development ConPlan is 4x more years of the
Housing annual allocation and program
Public income.
Improvements
Public Services 14,461,954 500,000 21,709,428 36,671,382 59,847,816




Annual Action Plan 202
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

Program Source Uses of Funds Expected Amount Available Year 1 Expected Narrative Description
of Annual Program Prior Year Total: Amount
Funds Allocation: Income: $ Resources: $ Available
$ $ Remainder of
ConPlan
$
HOME public - Acquisition PY 2025 is the first program year
federal Homebuyer of the ConPlan. The funds
assistance expected for the remainder of
Homeowner rehab ConPlan is 4x more years of the
Multifamily rental annual allocation and program
new construction income. Annual Allocation =
Multifamily rental $5,137,276
rehab
New construction PI = 2,715,559
for ownership
TBRA 5,137,276 2,715,559 0 7,852,835 31,411,340 Total = 7,852,835
HOPWA public - Permanent housing FY 2025 is the first program year
federal in facilities of the ConPlan. The funds
Permanent housing expected for the remainder of
placement ConPlan is 4x more years of the
Short term or annual allocation.
transitional housing
facilities
STRMU
Supportive services
TBRA 5,499,307 0 0 5,499,307 21,997,228




Annual Action Plan 203
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

Program Source Uses of Funds Expected Amount Available Year 1 Expected Narrative Description
of Annual Program Prior Year Total: Amount
Funds Allocation: Income: $ Resources: $ Available
$ $ Remainder of
ConPlan
$
ESG public - Conversion and PY 2025 is the first program year
federal rehab for of the ConPlan. The funds
transitional housing expected for the remainder of
Financial Assistance ConPlan is 4x more years of the
Overnight shelter annual allocation.
Rapid re-housing
(rental assistance)
Rental Assistance
Services
Transitional housing 1,355,765 0 350,000 1,705,765 5,423,060
Table 11 - Expected Resources – Priority Table




Annual Action Plan 204
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

Explain how federal funds will leverage those additional resources (private, state and local funds), including a description of how
matching requirements will be satisfied

The CDBG program does not require matching funds; however, it provides opportunities to leverage private, local, state, and other federal funds
for public service activities. To maximize the effectiveness of the formula grant funding, the City partners with various nonprofit organizations,
private lending institutions, and other federal programs to enhance program funding.

The HOME program requires a matching contribution of at least 25% of the funds spent on affordable housing. The City utilizes a combination of
federal, state, and local funds, as well as other non-federal resources, to fulfill this matching requirement. Examples of these funds include tax-
exempt General Obligation Bond funds, tax-exempt bonds, and tax credits. The State of Arizona also plays a significant role in providing affordable
housing in Phoenix through various means. This includes offering funding to applicants from the HOME Program and the Housing Trust Fund, as
well as managing the distribution of tax-exempt development bonds and tax credit allocations. The state offers a State Low-Income Housing Tax
Credit program designed for both 4% metro projects and 9% rural projects. The City of Phoenix will continue to encourage the State to take a more
active role in addressing the demand for affordable housing. Additionally, the City will explore and promote opportunities for the State to offer
tax incentives, such as tax credits and property tax waivers, for lands and structures that support affordable housing initiatives.

The City promotes the involvement of private businesses and nonprofit organizations in creating affordable and assisted housing. This is achieved
by utilizing funds from the National Affordable Housing Act, Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, and the HOME program.
Additionally, the City will continue to use funds from its General Obligation Bond Program, when available, to implement comprehensive
revitalization strategies in neighborhoods.

ESG has a 100% match requirement, which means funds must be matched dollar for dollar. The City of Phoenix fulfills ESG match funds with the
City’s General Purpose funds. HOPWA does not have a match requirement.

On June 7, 2022, the Phoenix City Council approved an allocation of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds for Affordable Housing Programs -
gap financing and a Community Land Trust (CLT). $6 million in funding was allocated for the acquisition, rehabilitation, and/or new construction
of affordable housing units to help fill financing gaps and encourage projects to stay on track toward completion. The Phoenix City Council allocated
$5 million in APRA funds toward a CLT program with the goal of funding an all-inclusive CLT. A CLT looks to ensure permanent affordability by
holding the land in a trust and selling the home to an eligible low-income home buyer. On June 14, 2023, the Phoenix City Council approved gap
financing for four affordable housing developments that will support the creation of 544 affordable housing units and a CLT program administrator.
Additionally, Council allocated ARPA funds towards a landlord incentive program to incentivize participating in the Housing Choice Voucher
Annual Action Plan 205
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

Program. On September 15, 2023, an additional $2.3 million was added to the program’s previous $4 million tranche in funds. A total of $7.8
million in CARES Act and ARPA funds were completely allocated by Fall of 2024. Over 5,000 units were preserved, and 900 new landlords joined
the voucher program.

With the strong support of the Phoenix City Council, the Landlord Incentive Program delivered a one-time $2,000 incentive payment to landlords
who rented units to Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) participants. Backed by $7.3 million in American Rescue Plan Act funding, the program
successfully disbursed over 4,000 incentives to more than 1,400 landlords, bringing in over 800 new landlords to the HCV program by its conclusion
in August 2024. The HCV program now engages over 2,300 active landlords, playing a vital role in meeting the escalating demand for affordable
housing and ensuring that thousands of low-income Phoenix residents have access to essential housing assistance.

If appropriate, describe publicly owned land or property located within the jurisdiction that may be used to address the needs
identified in the plan

The Housing Phoenix Plan documents the findings of the city's Affordable Housing Initiative, which launched in 2019 with the goal of completing
a housing needs assessment and establishing policy recommendations to address the city's current housing challenge. Through extensive research
and community outreach, the plan identifies the community's housing needs, documents the housing gap, compiles nationwide best practices,
and recommends nine policy initiatives to reach the goal of creating a stronger and more vibrant Phoenix through increased housing options for
all. As the fifth largest city in the country, Phoenix has experienced consistent population growth which has outpaced the growth of the housing
market.

This nine-point initiative plan was created to establish zoning incentives for affordable housing developers, create allowances for accessory
dwelling units, increase resources, streamline processes, and establish an education campaign.

The City has properties set aside for public and private partnership in direct support of activities such as the CDBG Slum and Blight Acquisition,
Infill Program. This program will allow new construction of single- and or multifamily homes on vacant lots within residential neighborhoods
located in neighborhood initiative and redevelopment areas. In addition, the City will provide CDBG funds for homebuyer assistance to low- and
moderate-income homebuyers. The Housing Department has identified underutilized parcels within the City’s portfolio. These parcels will be made
available to non-profit and for-profit developers through a Request for Proposal (RFP) process for redevelopment that would result in increased
affordable housing units throughout the City of Phoenix. Progress has been made in 2024 to issue multiple RFPs, and a total of three have been
awarded within the year. An RFP for four residential parcels in the Sunnyslope/Village Center neighborhood was awarded by Council on May 29,

Annual Action Plan 206
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

2024. Two other RFPs including parcels under the Housing Phoenix Plan, including the Central and Columbus mixed income rental housing project
and the Glendale and 27th Avenue affordable homeownership development project, were both awarded by Council on December 18, 2024. The
most recent RFPs released by the Neighborhood Services Department include two parcels for the development of affordable housing in the
Oakland Historic District. The solicitation for these parcels closed on December 13, 2024. Additionally, the Neighborhood Services Department
released an RFP for an additional 8 parcels in the Sunnyslope/Village Center on December 16, 2024, which will close on March 14, 2025.

The City of Phoenix regularly commits publicly owned land or property to induce the development of desired affordable housing, supportive
housing, homeless, economic development and neighborhood revitalization projects and programs. The commitment of such resources is
executed through development agreements typically executed with development entities selected through a competitive process.




Annual Action Plan 207
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

Annual Goals and Objectives

AP-20 Annual Goals and Objectives
Goals Summary Information

Sort Goal Name Start End Category Geographic Area Needs Funding Goal Outcome Indicator
Order Year Year Addressed
1 1A Develop & 2025 2029 Affordable Citywide Low/Mod Affordable CDBG: $13,217,133 HOME Rental units
Preserve Housing Eligible Housing HOME: $7,339,108 constructed:
Affordable Edison-Eastlake 252 Household Housing Unit
Housing Choice
Neighborhoods
Marcos de Niza-Grant HOME Rental Units
Park Choice Constructed via (CHDO): 161
Neighborhoods Household Housing Unit


Homeowner Housing
Rehabilitated: 76 (HOME=1)
Household Housing Unit


HOME Direct Financial
Assistance to Homebuyers: 8
Households Assisted


Housing Code Enforcement/
Foreclosed Property Care:
30 Households Assisted

Annual Action Plan 208
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

Sort Goal Name Start End Category Geographic Area Needs Funding Goal Outcome Indicator
Order Year Year Addressed
2 2A Public 2025 2029 Non-Housing Citywide Low/Mod Public Services CDBG: $1,238,981 Public service activities for
Services for LMI Community Eligible Low/Moderate Income
& Special Need Development Edison-Eastlake Housing Benefit:
Choice 3835 Persons Assisted
Neighborhoods Public service activities for
Marcos de Niza-Grant Low/Moderate Income
Park Choice Housing Benefit:
Neighborhoods 80 Households Assisted
3 3A Improve 2025 2029 Non-Housing Citywide Low/Mod Public CDBG: $16,219,320 Public Facility or
Public Facilities Community Eligible Facilities & Infrastructure Activities other
& Infrastructure Development Edison-Eastlake Infrastructure than Low/Moderate Income
Choice Investment Housing Benefit:
Neighborhoods 31200 Persons Assisted
Marcos de Niza-Grant
Park Choice
Neighborhoods
4 4A Economic 2025 2029 Non-Housing Citywide Low/Mod Economic CDBG: $403,557 Facade treatment/business
Development Community Eligible Development building rehabilitation:
Development Edison-Eastlake 2 Business
Choice Businesses assisted:
Neighborhoods 25 Businesses Assisted
Marcos de Niza-Grant
Park Choice
Neighborhoods




Annual Action Plan 209
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

Sort Goal Name Start End Category Geographic Area Needs Funding Goal Outcome Indicator
Order Year Year Addressed
5 5A Removal of 2025 2029 Non-Housing Citywide Low/Mod Removal of CDBG: $2,700,000 Buildings Demolished: 4
Slum & Blight Community Eligible Slum & Blight Buildings
Development Edison-Eastlake Housing Code Enforcement/
Choice Foreclosed Property Care:
Neighborhoods 40 Households Assisted
Marcos de Niza-Grant
Park Choice
Neighborhoods
6 6A Homeless 2025 2029 Homeless Citywide Low/Mod Housing & ESG: $1,604,083 Tenant-based rental
Housing & Eligible Services for assistance / Rapid Rehousing:
Services Edison-Eastlake the Homeless 40 Households Assisted
Choice Homelessness Prevention:
Neighborhoods 100 Persons Assisted
Marcos de Niza-Grant Homeless Person Overnight
Park Choice Shelter: 2940 Persons Assisted
Neighborhoods
7 7A Housing & 2025 2029 Non-Housing HOPWA EMSA Housing & HOPWA: $5,334,328 Tenant-based rental
Supportive Community Supportive assistance / Rapid Rehousing:
Services for Development Services for 165 Households Assisted
People Living People Living Homelessness Prevention:
with HIV/AIDS with HIV/AIDS 110 Persons Assisted
HIV/AIDS Housing Operations:
130 Household Housing Unit
Other (Supportive Services):




Annual Action Plan 210
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

Sort Goal Name Start End Category Geographic Area Needs Funding Goal Outcome Indicator
Order Year Year Addressed
8 8A Effective 2025 2029 Non-Housing Citywide Low/Mod Effective CDBG: $2,892,391 Other: 1
Program Community Eligible Program ESG: $101,682
Administration Development Edison-Eastlake Administration HOME: $513,728
Choice HOPWA: $164,979
Neighborhoods
Marcos de Niza-Grant
Park Choice
Neighborhoods
HOPWA EMSA
Table 12 – Goals Summary




Annual Action Plan 211
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

Goal Descriptions

1 Goal Name 1A Develop & Preserve Affordable Housing
Goal Promote and fund new affordable housing development such as homeownership opportunities for low- and moderate-
Description income households; development of new rental housing inventory; homeowner housing rehabilitation activities; and
CHDO affordable housing development activities in the City. Code enforcement activities will revitalize communities and
help improve the health and safety of low/mod neighborhoods.
2 Goal Name 2A Public Services for LMI & Special Need
Goal Provide for supportive services for low- to moderate-income and special need populations. Services for LMI will include
Description youth programs, health services, employment training, housing information and referral services and other eligible
services under the CDBG program. Public services assisting special needs populations may include homeless programs,
senior services, services for persons with a disability, services for victims of domestic violence.
3 Goal Name 3A Improve Public Facilities & Infrastructure
Goal Provide funds to improve and expand public facilities and infrastructure such as neighborhood facilities, parks and rec
Description centers, water/sewer systems, sidewalks, and streets. Public facility improvements may also help special need groups
and may be directed towards homeless shelters, senior centers and community centers.
4 Goal Name 4A Economic Development
Goal Provide support for activities and promote job retention or creation for low- and moderate-income residents. Activities
Description may include financial aid and technical assistance. There is also a need to provide support for façade improvements to
commercial sites located in low/mod areas in Phoenix.
5 Goal Name 5A Removal of Slum & Blight
Goal Provide support for the removal of slum and blight in low/mod areas in Phoenix. Demolition activities of aging and
Description dilapidated structures will encourage revitalization efforts, and help improve the health and safety of these areas.




Annual Action Plan 212
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

6 Goal Name 6A Homeless Housing & Services
Goal Provide support for overnight shelter services for individuals and families experiencing homelessness. Emergency
Description shelter will include wraparound services that help individuals and families gain self-sufficiency. The City will also provide
homeless prevention services for those at-risk of homelessness, and rapid rehousing assistance to homeless individuals
and families with the goal of eliminating or reducing homelessness in the City.
7 Goal Name 7A Housing & Supportive Services for People Living with HIV/AIDS
Goal Provide funding support for housing subsidy activities for people living with HIV/AIDS, which include Transitional
Description Housing, Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (TBRA), Short-Term Rent, Mortgage and Utility (STRM) Assistance and
Permanent Housing Placement (PHP). Several supportive services activities address the needs of eligible clients,
increase accessibility to medical care and other vital resources.
8 Goal Name 8A Effective Program Administration
Goal Effective program management of HUD grant programs will ensure compliance with each respective grant and their
Description regulations and that programs meet their established objectives. This includes a range of activities such as general
administration and planning of the CDBG, ESG, HOME and HOPWA grant programs, monitoring subrecipients, fair
housing activities and keeping strict grant-based accounting.




Annual Action Plan 213
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

Projects

AP-35 Projects – 91.220(d)
Introduction

The projects included in this section are designed to address the needs of the Phoenix community as
outlined in the Consolidated Plan.

CDBG will fund public service programs, public facilities and infrastructure improvements, housing
rehabilitation activities, economic development, the removal of slum and blight, and admin of the
program. The CDBG program has a 20% grant cap allowed for administrative costs and no more than 15%
of the grant may be allocated towards public services.

HOME will fund affordable housing development and preservation and Community Housing Development
Organization (CHDO) development activities as required under grant guidelines. There is a 10% grant cap
for administrative activities and 15% of the total grant is reserved for CHDO activities.

ESG will fund homeless programs such as homelessness prevention, rapid rehousing rental assistance,
street outreach services and shelter operations. For ESG, there is a 7.5% grant cap for administrative
activities, and no more than 60% may be allocated towards emergency shelter operations.

HOPWA will fund housing programs and supportive services for eligible people living with HIV/AIDS.
Projects are listed by HOPWA Project Sponsors. There is a 3% grant cap for administrative costs.

Projects

# Project Name
1 CDBG Administration
2 CDBG Affordable Housing
3 CDBG Public Services
4 CDBG Homeless Programs
5 CDBG Public Facilities & Infrastructure
6 CDBG Economic Development
7 CDBG Removal of Slum & Blight
8 HOME Administration
9 HOME CHDO Set-Aside (15%)
10 HOME Projects
11 ESG25 Phoenix
12 2025-2028 City of Phoenix AZH25F001 (COP)
13 2025-2028 Southwest Behavioral & Health Services AZH25F001 (SBH)

Annual Action Plan 214
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

# Project Name
14 2025-2028 Area Agency on Aging AZH25F001 (AAA)
Table 13 - Project Information

Describe the reasons for allocation priorities and any obstacles to addressing underserved
needs

The City of Phoenix allocates funds based on the needs identified in the 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan. The
priority needs were affordable housing, public services, public facility and infrastructure improvements,
economic development opportunities, the removal of slum and blight, housing for homeless and homeless
services and addressing the needs of individuals and their families living with HIV/AIDS. Projects funded
in PY 2025 will address several of these priorities.

Public facilities and infrastructure improvements and expanded access have been identified as a need in
Phoenix, specifically in low- and moderate-income areas. These improvements may include activities such
as streets, sidewalks, water/sewer systems, neighborhood facilities, parks and rec centers, senior centers
and homeless shelters.

Public services that provide basic needs for LMI and special needs are a high priority. These services focus
on helping individuals and families avoid homeless and gain self-sufficiency. Often times this need exceeds
the amount of funds available. CDBG has a 20% admin and 15% public services grant cap.

The preservation and development of affordable housing, for both rental and homeownership
opportunities, remains one of the highest priorities in the City. These needs are addressed by CDBG and
HOME funds as eligible under each grant guideline. Activities include direct financial assistance, rental
housing construction, existing homeowner housing rehab, tenant-based rental assistance and other
homeownership opportunities. HOME has a 10% admin grant cap and must allocation at least 15%
towards CHDO affordable housing development.

Economic development to support activities that promote job retention or creation for low- and
moderate-income residents in a priority. Activities may include financial aid and technical assistance.
There is also a need to provide support for façade improvements to commercial sites located in low/mod
areas in Phoenix.

Homeless services that work to end homelessness in Phoenix are a priority and this need is addressed
through the ESG program. The City will fund programs that help with homeless prevention and rapid
rehousing activities to help families avoid homelessness, as well as emergency shelter services for persons
experiencing homelessness. ESG has a 7.5% admin grant and shelter services are limited as there is a 60%
grant cap allocation for this type of activity.

The removal of slum and blight is also a priority for Phoenix. Demolition activities of aging and dilapidated
structures will encourage revitalization efforts, and help improve the health and safety of these areas.



Annual Action Plan 215
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

Supportive services and housing subsidy programs are vital for individuals and families living with
HIV/AIDS as any housing instability may greatly affect the ability for this group to receive the care they
need. HOPWA has an admin cap of 3%.




Annual Action Plan 216
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

AP-38 Project Summary
Project Summary Information

1 Project Name CDBG Administration
Target Area Citywide Low/Mod Eligible
Edison-Eastlake Choice Neighborhoods
Marcos de Niza-Grant Park Choice Neighborhoods
Goals Supported 8A Effective Program Administration
Needs Addressed Effective Program Administration
Funding CDBG: $2,892,391
Description National Objective: 24 CFR 570.208(d)(4) Program Administration
Matrix Code: 24 CFR 570.206 21A-General Program Admin Funds will
be used to administer the CDBG program.
Target Date 6/30/2026
Estimate the number N/A.
and type of families
that will benefit from
the proposed activities
Location Description Citywide, eligible.
Planned Activities CDBG admin funding covers a broad range of activities to include
compliance and reporting activities, neighborhood coordination and
support, and neighborhood outreach. Additionally, CDBG admin funds
are utilized by partner departments for critical services to include:

1. The Housing Department’s Development Division to oversee critical
affordable housing activities.

2 Project Name CDBG Affordable Housing
Target Area Citywide Low/Mod Eligible
Edison-Eastlake Choice Neighborhoods
Marcos de Niza-Grant Park Choice Neighborhoods
Goals Supported 1A Develop & Preserve Affordable Housing
Needs Addressed Affordable Housing
Funding CDBG: $2,717,133 EN +$500,000 PI + $10,000,000 prior year funds



Annual Action Plan 217
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

Description Utilize CDBG current year, prior year, and/or Program Income funds to
increase and preserve affordable rental housing and homeowner
housing for low- and moderate-income residents. Activities,
corresponding National Objectives and matrix codes, that support this
project may include:

Housing Department:
1. CDBG Housing Development Operations, Project Delivery and
Request for Proposal - Housing Department, National Objective:
24 CFR 570.208(a)(3) LMH-Low/Mod Housing Benefit, Eligible
Activity: 24 CFR 570.02 (a)(1), (b)(1), IDIS Matrix Code: 14B, 14J
funds operations costs to support the Housing Department’s Call
for Interest in identifying HOME eligible affordable multi-family
housing development projects and project delivery for HOME
funded DPA program. Funded with 2025-2026 CDBG funds.
Neighborhood Services Revitalization Division:
1. Infill Program (Staff and Request for Proposal), National Objective:
24 CFR 570.208(b)(1) SBA-Slum/Blight Area Benefit, 24 CFR
570.208(b)(2) SBS-Slum/Blight Spot Benefit, Eligible Activity: 24
CFR 570.201(a), (b), (d), (i), IDIS Matrix Code: Various 01, 02, 04,
04A, 06, 08, supporting acquisition, disposition, clearance and
demolition, relocation to support affordable housing construction.
2. Down Payment Assistance, National Objective: 24 CFR
570.208(a)(3) LMH - Low/Mod Housing Benefit, Eligible Activity:
570.201(n), IDIS Matrix Code: 13B Homeownership Assistance-
excluding Housing Counseling (Housing Counseling to be reported
under 13A as separate activity).
3. Housing Counseling, National Objective: 24 CFR 570.208(a)(3)
LMH-Low/Mod Housing Benefit, Eligible Activity: 24 CFR
570.201(e), IDIS Matrix Code: 05U.
Neighborhood Services Revitalization Division, Housing Rehabilitation
Section:
1. Owner Occupied Rehabilitation Program, National Objective: 24
CFR 570.208(a)(3) LMH-Low/Mod Housing Benefit, Eligible
Activity: 24 CFR 570.202 (a)(1), IDIS Matrix Code: 14A-Rehab.
2. Rental Rehabilitation Program, National Objective: 24 CFR
570.208(a)(3) LMH-Low/Mod Housing Benefit, Eligible Activity: 24
CFR 570.202 (a)(1), IDIS Matrix Code: 14A-Rehab.
3. Housing Rehab Request for Proposal (ADA Modifications), National
Objective: 24 CFR 570.208(a)(3) LMH-Low/Mod Housing Benefit,

Annual Action Plan 218
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

Eligible Activity: 24 CFR 570.202 (a)(1), IDIS Matrix Code: 14A-
Rehab.
4. Hardship Assistance Program, National Objective: 24 CFR
570.208(a)(3) LMH-Low/Mod Housing Benefit, Eligible Activity: 24
CFR 570.202(a)(1). Matrix Code: 14A-RehabHardship Assistance
Program (HAP).
Neighborhood Preservation Division:
1. Code Enforcement, National Objective: 24 CFR 570.208(a)(1)
LMA-Low/Mod Area Benefit, Eligible Activity 24 CFR
570.201(c), Matrix Code: 15-Code Enforcement LMA Low/Mod
Area Benefit. 2025-26 Funding
Target Date 6/30/2026




Annual Action Plan 219
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

Estimate the number Housing Department:
and type of families 1. CDBG Housing Development Operations, Project Delivery and
that will benefit from Request for Proposal - Goal Outcome Indicator: Rental Units
the proposed activities Constructed. Quantity: 413. Unit of Measure: Household Housing
Unit and Goal Outcome Indicator: Direct Financial Assistance to
Homebuyers. Quantity: 8. Unit of Measure: Households Assisted. 1
owner occupied rehab assisted w/HOME Funds.
Neighborhood Services Revitalization Division:
1. Infill Program (Staff and Request for Proposal) - Goal Outcome
Indicator: Homeowner Housing Added. Quantity: TBD. Unit of
Measure: Household Housing Unit. Quantity to be determined if
funded.
2. Down Payment Assistance- Goal Outcome Indicator: Direct
Financial Assistance to Homebuyers. Quantity: TBD. Unit of
Measure: Households Assisted. Quantity to be determined if
funded.
3. Housing Counseling - Goal Outcome Indicator: Direct Financial
Assistance to Homebuyers. Quantity: 0. Unit of Measure:
Households Assisted. Quantity to be determined if funded.

Neighborhood Services Revitalization Division, Housing Rehabilitation
Section:
1. Owner Occupied Housing Rehab- Goal Outcome Indicator:
Homeowner Housing Rehab. Quantity: 50. Unit of Measure:
Household Housing Unit
2. Rental Rehab- Goal Outcome Indicator: Homeowner Housing
Rehab. Quantity: TBD. Unit of Measure: Household Housing
Unit. Quantity to be determined if funded.
3. Housing Rehab Request for Proposal (ADA Modifications- Goal
Outcome Indicator: Homeowner Housing Rehab. Quantity: 10.
Unit of Measure: Household Housing Unit
4. Hardship Assistance- Goal Outcome Indicator: Homeowner
Housing Rehab. Quantity: 15. Unit of Measure: Household Housing
Unit
Neighborhood Preservation Division:

1. Code Enforcement - Goal Outcome Indicator: Housing Code
Enforcement Quantity: 30 Unit of Measure: Household Housing
Unit
Location Description Citywide, eligible.
Annual Action Plan 220
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

Planned Activities Planned activities to preserve and develop affordable rental housing
and homeowner housing for low- and moderate-income residents may
include:
Housing Department:
1. Housing Department Development Operations funds the initiation
and administration of many diverse housing programs, all of which
increase the supply of affordable rental housing or home-
ownership opportunities for lower income households. These
housing programs concentrate on providing assistance to
households with incomes at or below 80% of area median income
with HOME funded affordable housing development and Down
Payment assistance programs.
Neighborhood Services Revitalization Division:
1. Infill Program (Staff and Request for Proposal) conveys previously
slum and blighted and or strategically acquired properties to
nonprofit agencies and/or for-profit developers through a
competitive request for proposals (RFP) process for construction
and disposition of single- family homes or multifamily projects.
The construction may be funded through private financing and or
a combination of federal and private funds.
2. Down Payment Assistance program provides financial
homeownership assistance to LMI households purchasing a home
after completing housing counseling requirements.
3. Housing Counseling Request for Proposal funds a subrecipient to
provide comprehensive housing counseling services to assist
homebuyers and homeowners meeting HUD's low-moderate
criteria of up to 80 percent Area Median Income (AMI) with HOME
funded affordable housing development and Down Payment
assistance programs.
Neighborhood Services Revitalization Division, Housing Rehabilitation
Section:
1. Owner Occupied Rehabilitation Program provides financial
assistance (in the form of grants or loans) to eligible low- and
moderate-income homeowners for emergency home repairs that
address health or safety hazards. The program may also address
non-emergency home repairs to stabilize critical home systems
(electrical, mechanical, plumbing, roofing), to remediate lead
hazards, to improve the homes energy efficiency, and to meet
healthy homes standards.

Annual Action Plan 221
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

2. Rental Rehabilitation Program provides flexible financing for the
rehabilitation of single family/multifamily rental units intended to
be occupied by low- and moderate-income tenants. Owner
contribution/matching funds may be required.
3. ADA Home Accessibility Modifications Program Rehab Request for
Proposal will fund a subrecipient to perform repairs to improve
the accessibility of homes of low- and moderate-income disabled
and or elderly residents.
4. Hardship Assistance Program (HAP) provides assistance (in the
form of grants or loans) to low- and moderate-income eligible
Phoenix homeowners to correct potential or existing exterior
violations of the Neighborhood Preservation and Zoning
ordinances, and or health and safety codes
Neighborhood Preservation Division:
1. Code Enforcement Program focus on addressing common blight
violations included in the Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance
(high and/or dry vegetation, accumulation of litter/debris, outdoor
storage of personal property and inoperable vehicles,
unsecured/vacant structures, fences in disrepair, graffiti and
vehicles parked on non-dustproof surfaces).
3 Project Name CDBG Public Services
Target Area Citywide Low/Mod Eligible
Edison-Eastlake Choice Neighborhoods
Marcos de Niza-Grant Park Choice Neighborhoods
Goals Supported 2A Public Services for LMI & Special Need
Needs Addressed Public Services
Funding CDBG: $71,699




Annual Action Plan 222
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

Description The City will fund for public services to low- and moderate-income
residents in Phoenix. No more than 15% of the CDBG annual allocation
may be allocated towards public service activities.
Housing Department:
1. Family Self-Sufficiency Program - Housing Department, National
Objective: 24 CFR 570.208(a)(2) LMC-Low/Mod Limited Clientele
Benefit, Eligible Activity: 24 CFR 570.201(e), IDIS Matrix Code: 05Z-
Other Public Services Not Listed in 03T and 05A-05Y. Funded with
2025-2026 CDBG funds.
2. Aeroterra Program - Housing Department, National Objective: 24
CFR 570.208(a)(2) LMC-Low/Mod Limited Clientele Benefit, Eligible
Activity: 24 CFR 570.201(e), IDIS Matrix Code: 05D-Youth Services.
3. Phoenix Starfish Place - Housing Department, National Objective:
24 CFR 570.208(a)(2) LMC-Low/Mod Limited Clientele Benefit,
Eligible Activity: 24 CFR 570.201(e), IDIS Matrix Code: 05Z-Other
Public Services Not Listed in 03T and 05A-05Y. Funded with 2025-
2026 CDBG funds.
Neighborhood Engagement Division:
1. Neighborhood Engagement Coordination (Neighborhood
Specialist), National Objective: 24 CFR 570.208(a)(1) LMA-
Low/Mod Area Benefit, Eligible Activity: 24 CFR 570.201(e), IDIS
Matrix Code: 05Z-Other Public Services Not Listed in 03T and
05A05Y. Activity is funded with 2025-2026 CDBG fund.
Neighborhood Revitalization Division, Neighborhood Enhancement
Section
1. Utilize CDBG current year and/or CDBG-CV funds for public and
community services to Low/Mod Limited Clientele, including
vulnerable populations with special needs. Activities,
corresponding National Objectives and matrix codes, that support
this project may include: Public Services Notice of Funding
Opportunity and Homeless Services Support, National Objective:
24 CFR 570.208(a)(2) LMC-Low/Mod Limited Clientele Benefit. IDIS
Matrix Code: 05A through 05Z.
Target Date 6/30/2026




Annual Action Plan 223
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

Estimate the number Housing Department:
and type of families 1. Family Self-Sufficiency Program - Housing Department - Goal
that will benefit from Outcome Indicator: Public service activities for Low/Moderate
the proposed activities Income Housing Benefit. Quantity: 300. Unit of Measure:
Households Assisted
2. Aeroterra Program – Housing Department – Goal Outcome
Indicator: Public service activities for Low/Moderate Income
Housing Benefit. Quantity: 65-70. Unit of Measure: Households
Assisted
3. Phoenix Starfish Place - Housing Department - Goal Outcome
Indicator: Public service activities for Low/Moderate Income
Housing Benefit. Quantity: 15. Unit of Measure: Households
Assisted
Neighborhood Engagement Division:
1. Neighborhood Engagement Coordination (Neighborhood
Specialist) - Goal Outcome Indicator: Public service activities other
than Low/Moderate Income Housing Benefit. Quantity: 500. Unit
of Measure: Persons Assisted.
Neighborhood Revitalization Division, Neighborhood Enhancement
Section
1. It is estimated that approximately 0 vulnerable individuals will
benefit from public service activities funded in FY 25.

Location Description Citywide, eligible.




Annual Action Plan 224
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

Planned Activities Planned public service activities may include:
Housing Department:
1. The FSS Program, administered by the City Housing Department,
provides direct case management through Housing Department
staff to support families in Section 8, conventional, and scattered
site housing. The program focuses on identifying and eliminating
barriers to self-sufficiency, empowering families to achieve
financial independence and long-term stability.
2. The Aeroterra Program, administered by the City of Phoenix
Housing Department, is a vital investment in the long-term
stability of families transitioning from chronic homelessness.
Targeted on-site counseling and case management for youth
struggling to adjust to permanent housing significantly increase
the likelihood of maintaining stable housing and improving family
outcomes.
3. Phoenix Starfish Place is administered by the City Housing
Department and is a city owned fifteen-unit apartment complex
where victims of sex and human trafficking receive supportive
services, direct counseling, assistance developing life and
parenting skills, assistance with their educational goals and with
gaining meaningful employment. provide direct services in a
residential setting to the victims of sex and human trafficking and
their immediate families.
Neighborhood Engagement Division:
1. Neighborhood Engagement Coordination (Neighborhood
Specialists) funds support various neighborhood engagement
efforts in low- to moderate-income areas to foster successful
coordination and valuable feedback on neighborhood
revitalization projects.
Neighborhood Revitalization Division, Neighborhood Enhancement
Section
1. Public Services Notice of Funding Opportunity and Homeless
Services Support.

4 Project Name CDBG Homeless Programs
Target Area Citywide Low/Mod Eligible
Edison-Eastlake Choice Neighborhoods
Marcos de Niza-Grant Park Choice Neighborhoods

Annual Action Plan 225
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

Goals Supported 2A Public Services for LMI & Special Need
Needs Addressed Public Services
Funding CDBG: $1,167,282




Annual Action Plan 226
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

Description Utilize CDBG funds to assist individuals and families gain stable
housing after experiencing homelessness or prevent a housing crisis.
Activities, corresponding National Objectives, and matrix codes that
support this project may include:
Human Services Department:
1. Landlord and Tenant Education Program (Staff) - Human Services
Department, National Objective: 24 CFR 570.208(a)(2) LMC-
Low/Mod Limited Clientele Benefit, Eligible Activity: 24 CFR
570.201(e), IDIS Matrix Code: OSK Tenant/Landlord Counseling.
Activity is funded with 2025-26 CDBG fund.
2. Tenant Emergency Assistance - Human Services Department,
National Objective: 24 CFR 570.208(a)(2) LMC- Low/Mod Limited
Clientele Benefit, Eligible Activity: 24 CFR 570.201(e), 24 CFR
570.207(b)(4) and 24 CFR 570.408(c)(2), IDIS Matrix Code: 05Q
Subsistence Payments (emergency payments on behalf of
individuals or families). Activity is funded with 2025-26 CDBG fund.

Office of Homeless Solutions
1. Emergency Shelter - Office of Homeless Solutions, National
Objective: 24 CFR 570.208(a)(2) LMC-Low/Mod Limited Clientele
Benefit, Eligible Activity: 24 CFR 570.201(e), IDIS Matrix Code: 03T-
Homeless/AIDS Patients. Activity is funded with 2025-26 CDBG
fund.
2. Navigation and Wrap Around Services for Justice Involved
Individuals Experiencing Homelessness - Office of Homeless
Solutions, National Objective: 24 CFR 570.208(a)(2) LMC-Low/Mod
Limited Clientele, Eligible Activity: 24 CFR 570.201(e), IDIS Benefit
Matrix Code: 05Z-Other Public Services Not Listed in 03T and 05A-
05Y. Activity is funded with 2025-26 CDBG fund.
3. Rapid Rehousing and Housing Stabilization Support- Office of
Homeless Solutions, National Objective: 24 CFR 570.208(a)(2)
LMC-Low/Mod Limited Clientele Benefit, Eligible Activity: 24 CFR
570.201(e), IDIS Matrix Code: 05Z-Other Public Services Not Listed
in 03T and 05A-05Y. Activity is funded with $0 in 2025-26 CDBG
funds, if funded, will be funded with prior year funds.
4. Outreach and Engagement for Persons Experiencing Homelessness
- Office of Homeless Solutions, National Objective: 24 CFR
570.208(a)(2) LMC-Low/Mod Limited Clientele Benefit, Eligible
Activity: 24 CFR 570.201(e), IDIS Matrix Code: 05Z-Other Public


Annual Action Plan 227
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

Services Not Listed in 03T and 05A-05Y. Activity is funded with
2025-26 CDBG fund.
Target Date 6/30/2026
Estimate the number Human Services Department:
and type of families 1. Landlord and Tenant Education Program (Staff) - Human Services
that will benefit from Department - Outcome Goal Indicator: Public services activities for
the proposed activities Low/Moderate Income Housing Benefit. Quantity: 3,500. Unit of
Measure: Persons assisted.
2. Tenant Emergency Assistance - Human Services Department - Goal
Outcome Indicator: Public services activities for Low/Moderate
Income Housing Benefit. Quantity: 10. Unit of Measure: Persons
Assisted

Office of Homeless Solutions
1. Emergency Shelter – Office of Homeless Solutions - Goal Outcome
Indicator: Homeless Person Overnight Shelter. Quantity: TBD. Unit
of Measure: Persons Assisted. Quantity to be determined once the
subrecipient is awarded a contract.
2. Navigation and Wrap Around Services for Justice Involved
Individuals Experiencing Homelessness - Office of Homeless
Solutions - Goal Outcome Indicator: Public service activities for
Low/Moderate Income Housing Benefit. Quantity: TBD. Unit of
Measure: Households Assisted. Quantity to be determined once
the subrecipient is awarded a contract.
3. Rapid Rehousing and Housing Stabilization Support- Office of
Homeless Solutions - Goal Outcome Indicator: Public service
activities for Low/Moderate Income Housing Benefit. Quantity:
TBD. Unit of Measure: Households Assisted. Quantity to be
determined once the subrecipient is awarded a contract.
4. Outreach and Engagement for Persons Experiencing Homelessness
- Office of Homeless Solutions - Goal Outcome Indicator: Public
service activities for Low/Moderate Income Housing Benefit.
Quantity: TBD. Unit of Measure: Households Assisted. Quantity to
be determined once the subrecipient is awarded a contract.
Location Description Citywide, eligible.




Annual Action Plan 228
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

Planned Activities Utilize CDBG funds to assist individuals and families gain stable
housing after experiencing homelessness or prevent a housing crisis
with activities that may include:
Human Services Department:
1. Landlord and Tenant Education Program (Staff) administered by
the Human Services Department, provides education and
counseling to tenants and landlords via the telephone, e-mails and
face to face sessions and also conducts regular educational
sessions/workshops on the Arizona Residential Landlord and
Tenant Act and the Arizona Mobile Home Act.
2. Tenant Emergency Assistance administered by the Human Services
Department, provides emergency one-time assistance to Phoenix
tenants whose income is low- and moderate-income and are
facing homelessness as a direct result of code enforcement for
imminent hazards or other health and safety conditions.

Office of Homeless Solutions
1. Emergency Shelter – Office of Homeless Solutions will administer a
request for proposal to identify a subrecipient, or subrecipients,
for emergency shelter operations and services, for families
identified by City Police, Fire and Office of Homeless Solutions
Officials.
2. Navigation and Wrap Around Services for Justice Involved
Individuals Experiencing Homelessness - Office of Homeless
Solutions, a request for proposal will identify a subrecipient, or
subrecipients, to support persons experiencing homelessness who
become involved in the criminal justice system, within the City of
Phoenix.
3. Rapid Rehousing and Housing Stabilization Support- Office of
Homeless Solutions, a request for proposal will identify a
subrecipient, or subrecipients, to support individuals moving from
sheltered or unsheltered homelessness to permanent housing
using a Housing First model.
4. Outreach and Engagement for Persons Experiencing Homelessness
- Office of Homeless Solutions, a request for proposal to identify a
subrecipient, or subrecipients, to support outreach and
engagement services for persons experiencing homelessness.
Project Name CDBG Public Facilities & Infrastructure



Annual Action Plan 229
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

5 Target Area Citywide Low/Mod Eligible
Edison-Eastlake Choice Neighborhoods
Marcos de Niza-Grant Park Choice Neighborhoods
Goals Supported 3A Improve Public Facilities & Infrastructure
Needs Addressed Public Facilities & Infrastructure Investment
Funding CDBG: $4,509,892 EN + $11,709,428 prior year funds




Annual Action Plan 230
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

Description Utilize CDBG current year, prior year, and/or Program Income, and/or
CDBG-CV funds to foster the development of vibrant and thriving
neighborhoods by investing in facilities, infrastructure and addressing
blight. Activities, corresponding National Objectives and matrix codes,
that support this project may include:
Housing Department:
1. CDBG Project Delivery, National Objective: 24 CFR 570.208(a)(1)
LMA - Low/Mod Area Benefit, 24 CFR 570.208(a)(2) LMC -
Low/Mod Limited Clientele Benefit, Eligible Activity: 24 CFR
570.201(c), Matrix Code: 03A Senior Centers, 03B Facilities for
Persons w. Disabilities, 03C Homeless Facilitates (not operating
costs), 03D Youth Centers, 03E Neighborhood Facilities, 03F Parks,
Recreational Facilities, 03G Parking Facilities, 03H Solid Waste
Disposal Improvements, 03I Flood Drainage Improvements, 03J
Water/Sewer Improvements, 03K Street Improvements, 03L
Sidewalks, 03M Child Care Centers, 03N Tree Planting, 03O Fire
Stations/Equipment, 03P Health Facilities, 03Q Facilities for
Abused and Neglected Children, 03R Asbestos Removal, 03S
Facilities for AIDS Patients (not operating costs), 03Z-Other Public
Improvements Not Listed in 03A-03S. This activity incorporates
staff costs for project management and monitoring of cross
cutting requirements.
2. Neighborhood Enhancement and Infrastructure Program, National
Objective: 24 CFR 570.208(a)(1) LMA-Low/Mod Area Benefit, 24
CFR 570.208(a)(2) LMC - Low/Mod Limited Clientele Benefit,
Eligible Activity: Eligible Activity: 24 CFR 570.201(c), IDIS Matrix
Code: Various 03A-03S and 03Z Other Public Improvements not
listed in 03A-03S. 2024 Funding: $0 will use prior year funds if
funded.
Neighborhood Preservation Division:
1. Graffiti Removal, National Objective: 24 CFR 570.208(a)(1) LMA-
Low/Mod Area Benefit, Eligible Activity: 24 CFR 570.201(c), Matrix
Code: 03Z Other Public Improvements not listed in 03A-03S. 2025-
26 Funding
Neighborhood Services Revitalization Division:
1. Strategic Acquisition (Affordable Housing Development, Shelter
Support, & other Public Facilities), National Objective: 24 CFR
570.208(a)(1) LMA-Low/Mod Area Benefit, Eligible Activity: 24 CFR
570.201(a), (c), (d), (i), IDIS Matrix Code: 01, 03C, 03Z, 04, 08,

Annual Action Plan 231
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

supporting acquisition, clearance and demolition, relocation to
support affordable housing development, shelter support and
other Public Facilities.

Neighborhood Revitalization Division, Neighborhood Enhancement
Section

1. CDBG Project Delivery, National Objective: 24 CFR 570.208(a)(1)
LMA - Low/Mod Area Benefit, 24 CFR 570.208(a)(2) LMC -
Low/Mod Limited Clientele Benefit, Eligible Activity: 24 CFR
570.201(c), Matrix Code: IDIS Matrix Code: 01, 02, 04, and 08, 03A
through 03S and 03Z. This activity incorporates staff costs for
project management and monitoring of cross-cutting
requirements. Funding: $0.00 will use prior year funds if needed.
2. Neighborhood Enhancement and Infrastructure Program, National
Objective: 24 CFR 570.208(a)(1) LMA-Low/Mod Area Benefit, 24
CFR 570.208(a)(2) LMC - Low/Mod Limited Clientele Benefit, IDIS
Matrix Code: Various 03A through 03S and 03Z.
3. Public Facilities Notice of Funding Opportunity, National Objective:
24 CFR 570.208(a)(1) LMA-Low/Mod Area Benefit, 24 CFR
570.208(a)(2) LMC - Low/Mod Limited Clientele, IDIS Matrix Code:
Various 03A through 03S and 03Z.
4. Strategic Acquisition and Disposition (Affordable Housing
Development, Shelter Support, & other Public Facilities), National
Objective: 24 CFR 570.208(a)(1) LMA-Low/Mod Area Benefit, 24
CFR 570.208(a)(2) LMC - Low/Mod Limited Clientele Benefit,
Eligible Activity: 24 CFR 570.201(a), (c), (d), (i), IDIS Matrix Code:
01, 02, 04, and 08, 03A through 03S and 03Z. Funding: $0.00 will
use prior year funds if funded.
Target Date 6/30/2026




Annual Action Plan 232
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

Estimate the number Housing Department:
and type of families 1. Project Delivery and Environmental Support - Goal Outcome
that will benefit from Indicator: Public Facilities or Infrastructure other than Housing
the proposed activities Benefit. Quantity: 200 Unit of Measure: Persons Assisted.
2. Neighborhood Enhancement and Infrastructure Program - Goal
Outcome Indicator: Public Facilities or Infrastructure other than
Housing Benefit. Quantity: TBD Unit of Measure: Persons Assisted.

Neighborhood Preservation Division:

1. Graffiti Removal - Goal Outcome Indicator: Other Quantity: 30,000
Unit of Measure: Other (Households Assisted).
Neighborhood Services Revitalization Division:
1. Strategic Acquisition (Affordable Housing Development, Shelter
Support, & other Public Facilities) - Goal Outcome Indicator:
Other. Quantity: 0. Unit of Measure: Properties acquired. Quantity
to be determined if funded.

Neighborhood Revitalization Division, Neighborhood Enhancement
Section

1. Project Delivery and Environmental Support - Goal Outcome
Indicator: Public Facilities or Infrastructure other than Housing
Benefit. Quantity: 0 Unit of Measure: Persons Assisted
2. Neighborhood Enhancement and Infrastructure Program - Goal
Outcome Indicator: Public Facility or Infrastructure other than
Housing Benefit. Quantity: 1000 Unit of Measure: Persons Assisted
3. Public Facilities Notice of Funding Opportunity - Goal Outcome
Indicator: Public Facility or Infrastructure activity other than
Housing Benefit. Quantity: 0. Unit of Measure: Number of Persons
Assisted.
4. Strategic Acquisition and Disposition (Affordable Housing
Development, Shelter Support, & other Public Facilities) - Goal
Outcome Indicator: Other. Quantity: TBD. Unit of Measure:
Properties acquired. Quantity to be determined if funded.

Location Description Citywide, eligible.




Annual Action Plan 233
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

Planned Activities Utilize CDBG current year, prior year, and/or Program Income, and/or
CDBG-CV funds to foster the development of vibrant and thriving
neighborhoods by investing in facilities, infrastructure and addressing
blight through activities that may include:

Housing Department:
1. Project Delivery and Environmental Support will ensure the
implementation of CDBG-funded projects. Project Management
staff will ensure CBDG projects are compliant with all federal and
cross-cutting requirements. Beneficiaries for this program are
derived from various Public Facility projects.
2. Neighborhood Enhancement and Infrastructure Program will
include funding projects through a combination of city or
community-driven Needs Assessments, review of unsolicited
proposals or emergency-based requests from non-profits, and
issuance of Notices of Funding Opportunities (NOFO), Open
Application Funding Opportunities (OAFO), and Request for
Proposals (RFP) to fund the creation of new or improvements to
existing public facilities that support a low-and-moderate income
clientele or area and public infrastructure improvements in low-
and-moderate income areas. Funds will be focused on city,
community, and non-profit organizations demonstrating a need
for the improvement, a low-and-moderate income clientele or
area, a lack of funding, a manageable risk, and alignment with city
departments, community-based organizations/associations, and
areas that have improvement goals and strategies in place.
Neighborhood Preservation Division:
2. Graffiti Removal Program removes graffiti in all low- and
moderate-income areas from rights-of-way and approved public
facilities open to the public.
3. Code Enforcement Program focus on addressing common blight
violations included in the Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance
(high and/or dry vegetation, accumulation of litter/debris, outdoor
storage of personal property and inoperable vehicles,
unsecured/vacant structures, fences in disrepair, graffiti and
vehicles parked on non-dustproof surfaces).
4. Demolition Program addresses vacant structures that pose a
threat to the health, safety and welfare of residents and adjacent
properties through education and enforcement of the
Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance, including contractual

Annual Action Plan 234
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

demolition of deteriorated, unsafe, and uninhabitable vacant
structures.
5. Abatement Coordination addresses open and unsecured, vacant
structures that pose a threat to the health, safety and welfare of
residents and adjacent properties through education and
enforcement of the Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance,
including contractual board up of deteriorated and unsafe vacant
structures.
Neighborhood Services Revitalization Division:
1. Strategic Acquisition (Affordable Housing Development, Shelter
Support, & other Public Facilities) utilizes funds for the acquisition
and related costs of strategic properties located in targeted areas
for single family infill and/or neighborhood commercial infill
redevelopment projects. Funds used are to support strategic
acquisition activities and must align with current redevelopment
efforts.

Neighborhood Revitalization Division, Neighborhood Enhancement
Section

1. Project Delivery and Environmental Support will ensure the
implementation of CDBG-funded projects. Project Management
staff will ensure CBDG projects are compliant with all federal and
cross-cutting requirements. Beneficiaries for this program are
derived from various Public Facility projects.
2. Neighborhood Enhancement and Infrastructure Program will
include funding projects through a combination of city or
community-driven Needs Assessments, review of unsolicited
proposals or emergency-based requests from non-profits, and
issuance of Notices of Funding Opportunities (NOFO), Open
Application Funding Opportunities (OAFO), and Request for
Proposals (RFP) to fund the creation of new or improvements to
existing public facilities that support a low-and-moderate income
clientele or area and public infrastructure improvements in low-
and-moderate income areas. Funds will be focused on city,
community, and non-profit organizations demonstrating a need
for the improvement, a low-and-moderate income clientele or
area, a lack of funding, a manageable risk, alignment with city
departments, community-based organizations/associations, and
areas that have improvement goals and strategies in place, or a
combination of those factors.

Annual Action Plan 235
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

3. Public Facilities Notice of Funding Opportunity will fund the
acquisition, construction, energy efficiency upgrades, and
rehabilitation of senior and youth centers, neighborhood facilities,
childcare facilities, domestic violence shelters, Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) projects, and other facility improvements
benefitting low-income areas and persons.

4. Strategic Acquisition and Disposition (Affordable Housing
Development, Shelter Support, & other Public Facilities) will utilize
funds for the acquisition and disposition, including related costs,
of strategic properties that address blight (including demolition
and clearance), support single-family, multi-family and/ or
neighborhood commercial infill and redevelopment projects, and
public facilities and improvements benefitting low-income areas
and persons.
6 Project Name CDBG Economic Development
Target Area Citywide Low/Mod Eligible
Edison-Eastlake Choice Neighborhoods
Marcos de Niza-Grant Park Choice Neighborhoods
Goals Supported 4A Economic Development
Needs Addressed Economic Development
Funding CDBG: $403,557




Annual Action Plan 236
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

Description Utilize CDBG funds to enhance the City's economic stability by
investing in opportunities to develop and strengthen small businesses
and micro-enterprises through activities that may include:

Neighborhood Revitalization Division, Neighborhood Enhancement
Section:
1. Neighborhood Commercial Rehabilitation (Subrecipient,
Operations and Projects), National Objective: 24 CFR 570.208(a)(1)
LMA-Low/Mod Area Benefit, Eligible Activity: 24 CFR
570.202(a)(3), IDIS Matrix Code: Various, 14-E, 16B, 17A through
17D, 18A through 18C,19C and 19E. 2024 Funding: $0
2. Small Business and Microenterprise Support Programs
(Subrecipient, Consultants and Operations), National Objective: 24
CFR 570.208(a)(1) LMA-Low/Mod Area Benefit, 24 CFR
570.208(a)(2) LMC-Low/Mod Clientele Benefit, 24 CFR
570.208(a)(4) LMJ-Low/Mod Job Creation or Retention Activities,
Eligible Activity: 24 CFR 570.203(c), 24 CFR 570.201(o), IDIS Matrix
Code: 18B and 18C. 2024 Funding: $389,704
Target Date 6/30/2026
Estimate the number Neighborhood Revitalization Division, Neighborhood Enhancement
and type of families Section:
that will benefit from 1. Goal Outcome Indicator: Businesses assisted. Quantity: 25. Unit of
the proposed activities Measure: Businesses Assisted.
2. Goal Outcome Indicator: Facade treatment/business building
rehabilitation. Quantity: 2. Unit of Measure: Business. Quantity to
be determined if funded.

Location Description Citywide, eligible.
Planned Activities Utilize CDBG funds to enhance the City's economic stability by
investing in opportunities to develop and strengthen small businesses
and micro-enterprises through activities that may include:

Neighborhood Revitalization Division, Neighborhood Enhancement
Section:
1. Neighborhood Commercial Rehabilitation Programs (Subrecipient,
Operations and Projects), including façade improvement for
privately owned businesses serving low-income areas and persons.
2. Small Business and Microenterprise Support Programs
(Subrecipient, Consultants & Operations), including management
technical assistance.
Annual Action Plan 237
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

7 Project Name CDBG Removal of Slum & Blight
Target Area Citywide Low/Mod Eligible
Edison-Eastlake Choice Neighborhoods
Marcos de Niza-Grant Park Choice Neighborhoods
Goals Supported 5A Removal of Slum & Blight
Needs Addressed Removal of Slum & Blight
Funding CDBG: $2,700,000
Description The City will fund the removal of slum and blight in low/mod areas in
Phoenix. Demolition activities of aging and dilapidated structures will
encourage revitalization efforts, and help improve the health and
safety of these areas.
Neighborhood Preservation Division:
1. Demolition, National Objective: 24 CFR 570.208(b)(2) SBS-
Slum/Blight Spot Benefit, Eligible Activity: 24 CFR 570.201(d),
IDIS Matrix Code: 04-Clearance and Demolition. 2025-26
Funding
2. Abatement Coordination, National Objective: 24 CFR
570.208(b)(2) SBS-Slum/Blight Spot Benefit, Eligible Activity:
24 CFR 570.202(a)(1), Matrix Code: 04-Clearance and
Demolition. 2025-26 Funding
Target Date 6/30/2026
Estimate the number Neighborhood Preservation Division:
and type of families
that will benefit from 1. Demolition - Goal Outcome Indicator: Building Demolished
Quantity: 4 Units of Measure: Buildings
the proposed activities
2. Abatement Coordination - Goal Outcome Indicator: Housing
Code Enforcement Quantity: 40 Unit of Measure: Household
Housing Unit
Location Description Citywide, eligible.




Annual Action Plan 238
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

Planned Activities Planned activities include:
Neighborhood Preservation Division:
1. Demolition Program addresses vacant structures that pose a
threat to the health, safety and welfare of residents and adjacent
properties through education and enforcement of the
Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance, including contractual
demolition of deteriorated, unsafe, and uninhabitable vacant
structures.
2. Abatement Coordination addresses open and unsecured, vacant
structures that pose a threat to the health, safety and welfare of
residents and adjacent properties through education and
enforcement of the Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance,
including contractual board up of deteriorated and unsafe vacant
structures.
8 Project Name HOME Administration
Target Area Citywide Low/Mod Eligible
Edison-Eastlake Choice Neighborhoods
Marcos de Niza-Grant Park Choice Neighborhoods
Goals Supported 8A Effective Program Administration
Needs Addressed Effective Program Administration
Funding HOME: $513,728
Description Administration of the 2025 HOME Program. No more than 10% of the
HOME annual allocation may be allocated towards admin costs.
Target Date 6/30/2026
Estimate the number N/A.
and type of families
that will benefit from
the proposed activities
Location Description Citywide, eligible.
Planned Activities Administration of the 2025 HOME Program.
9 Project Name HOME CHDO Set-Aside (15%)
Target Area Citywide Low/Mod Eligible
Edison-Eastlake Choice Neighborhoods
Marcos de Niza-Grant Park Choice Neighborhoods
Goals Supported 1A Develop & Preserve Affordable Housing

Annual Action Plan 239
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

Needs Addressed Affordable Housing
Funding HOME: $770,591
Description The City will provide HOME resources to a local certified CHDO to
develop affordable housing units for low- to moderate-income
households in Phoenix. There is a 15% set-aside of the HOME grant for
CHDO development activities.
Target Date 6/30/2026
Estimate the number Rental Housing constructed (CHDO): 161 Household Housing Unit
and type of families
that will benefit from
the proposed activities
Location Description Citywide, eligible.
Planned Activities Planned activities include affordable housing development by a
certified CHDO.
10 Project Name HOME Projects
Target Area Citywide Low/Mod Eligible
Edison-Eastlake Choice Neighborhoods
Marcos de Niza-Grant Park Choice Neighborhoods
Goals Supported 1A Develop & Preserve Affordable Housing
Needs Addressed Affordable Housing
Funding HOME: $3,852,957
Description The City will fund affordable rental housing development, down
payment assistance and housing rehab activities that will benefit low-
to moderate-income households Phoenix.
Target Date 6/30/2026
Estimate the number Rental units constructed: 252 Household Housing Unit
and type of families Direct Financial Assistance to Homebuyers: 8 Households Assisted
that will benefit from
the proposed activities Homeowner Housing Rehabilitated: 1 Household Housing Unit

Location Description Citywide, eligible.




Annual Action Plan 240
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

Planned Activities Planned affordable housing activities may include acquisition and/or
rehabilitation of multifamily projects; new construction of multifamily
housing units; special needs multifamily rental housing; owner-
occupied housing rehabilitation; homeownership assistance in the
form of a direct subsidy to be used to assist homebuyers with down
payment and/or closing cost; acquisition and/or rehabilitation of
homebuyer properties; and new construction of homeowner housing.
11 Project Name ESG25 Phoenix
Target Area Citywide Low/Mod Eligible
Edison-Eastlake Choice Neighborhoods
Marcos de Niza-Grant Park Choice Neighborhoods
Goals Supported 6A Homeless Housing & Services
Needs Addressed Housing & Services for the Homeless
Funding ESG: $1,355,765 + $350,000 prior year funds
Description The City will fund homeless prevention for individual and families at-
risk of homelessness, rapid rehousing rental assistance activities,
street outreach services and emergency and transitional shelter
facilities.
Target Date 6/30/2026
Estimate the number Tenant-based rental assistance / Rapid Rehousing: 40 Households
and type of families Assisted
that will benefit from Homelessness Prevention: 100 Persons Assisted
the proposed activities Homeless Person Overnight Shelter: 2940 Persons Assisted
Location Description Citywide, eligible.
Planned Activities Planned activities include:
ESG Program Administration: $101,682
Costs associated with administering the ESG program will be funded at
7.5% of the total grant. Emergency shelter and street outreach
services may not exceed 60% of the total ESG annual allocation
funding, and the balance of funds will be allocated towards homeless
prevention and rapid rehousing activities (32.5%).
12 Project Name 2025-2028 City of Phoenix AZH25F001 (COP)
Target Area HOPWA EMSA
Goals Supported 7A Housing & Supportive Services for People Living with HIV/AIDS
Needs Addressed Housing & Supportive Services for People Living with HIV/AIDS

Annual Action Plan 241
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

Funding HOPWA: $3,955,083
Description The City will fund Resource Identification for planning and
collaboration; Permanent housing through the Tenant-Based Rental
Assistance (TBRA) housing program; Short-Term Rent, Mortgage and
Utility (STRMU) Assistance to assist with preventing homelessness;
Permanent Housing Placement (PHP) funds to assist with move-in
housing expenses and associated costs. The Housing Advocate assists
eligible HIV/AIDS clients and their families with maintaining housing
stability by helping resolve landlord/tenant issues and providing
additional supportive services and referrals. The City will also provide
funds for the administration and coordination of program
management for the HOPWA program, not to exceed 3% of the total
grant allocation.
Target Date 6/30/2026
Estimate the number Tenant-based Rental Assistance (TBRA) : 165 Households
and type of families Permanent Housing Placement (PHP): 35 Households – Short-Term,
that will benefit from Rent, Mortgage and Utility (STRMU) Assistance: 75 Households
the proposed activities Housing Advocacy: 50 Households

Location Description Maricopa and Pinal Counties
Planned Activities Planned activities include:
Grantee Administration (not to exceed 3% of the total grant
allocation)
Resource Identification
Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (TBRA)
Short-Term, Rent, Mortgage and Utility (STRMU) Assistance
Permanent Housing Placement (PHP)
Housing Advocacy
13 Project Name 2025-2028 Southwest Behavioral & Health Services AZH25F001 (SBH)
Target Area HOPWA EMSA
Goals Supported 7A Housing & Supportive Services for People Living with HIV/AIDS
Needs Addressed Housing & Supportive Services for People Living with HIV/AIDS
Funding HOPWA: $1,350,607




Annual Action Plan 242
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

Description Southwest Behavioral & Health Services provides Transitional and
Emergency Housing for individuals living with HIV/AIDS. Funding will
be provided for leasing and operating for persons experiencing
homelessness, at risk for homelessness or unstably housed. Both
master-leased and agency owned units are utilized for the Transitional
Housing program. Transitional Housing Supportive Services are also
provided to housed clients. Employment Services are provided to
assist persons with preparing for and securing employment.
Target Date 6/30/2026
Estimate the number Transitional Housing Leasing and Operating/Emergency Housing: 130
and type of families Households
that will benefit from Transitional Housing Supportive Services: 130 households
the proposed activities
Employment Services: 75 households
Location Description Maricopa and Pinal Counties
Planned Activities Planned activities include:
Transitional Leasing and Operating/Emergency Housing
Transitional Housing Supportive Services
Employment Services
14 Project Name 2025-2028 Area Agency on Aging AZH25F001 (AAA)
Target Area HOPWA EMSA
Goals Supported 7A Housing & Supportive Services for People Living with HIV/AIDS
Needs Addressed Housing & Supportive Services for People Living with HIV/AIDS
Funding HOPWA: $193,617
Description The Area Agency on Aging provides Housing Information Services,
Housing Advocacy and Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (TBRA)
Supportive Services. The Housing Information Services program assists
people living with HIV/AIDS to match housing needs with appropriate
housing providers in Maricopa and Pinal Counties. The Housing
Advocate assists eligible HIV/AIDS clients and their families with
maintaining housing stability by helping resolve landlord/tenant issues
and providing additional supportive services and referrals. The
Housing Case Managers provide ongoing supportive services to clients
housed through the HOPWA TBRA program.
Target Date 6/30/2026


Annual Action Plan 243
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

Estimate the number Housing Information Services: 450 Households
and type of families Tenant-Based Rental Assistance(TBRA)) Supportive Services: 165
that will benefit from Households
the proposed activities
Location Description Maricopa and Pinal Counties
Planned Activities Planned activities include:
Housing Information Services
Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) Supportive Services




Annual Action Plan 244
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

AP-50 Geographic Distribution – 91.220(f)
Description of the geographic areas of the entitlement (including areas of low-income and
minority concentration) where assistance will be directed

The City of Phoenix identified three target areas where funds will be directed. The first two target areas
are the Edison-Eastlake and Marcos de Niza-Grant Park communities. The Edison-Eastlake Community is
the target of a Choice Neighborhoods Implementation Grant and is also a Neighborhood Revitalization
Strategy Area (NRSA). In 2024, the Housing Department was awarded a $500,000 Choice Neighborhoods
Planning Grant to begin a community planning effort with the residents of the Marcos de Niza public and
affordable housing community (AMP 22, 374 units, a mix of 281 Public Housing and 93 Section 8 PBV).
This will begin in calendar year 2024 and will focus on completing a community-driven Neighborhood
Transformation Plan to guide the revitalization of Marcos de Niza and the surrounding neighborhood.
Local City of Phoenix funding will be used for the effort along with Choice Neighborhoods funds and any
other sources that are available at the time. The transformation plan will form the basis for future
implementation efforts including an application for Choice Neighborhoods Implementation grant funding.

The third target area does not traditionally target a certain neighborhood in Phoenix, but expands the
reach of programs and services to all low/mod income areas and also directly to eligible low- to moderate-
income households in the City. Low/mod areas (LMA) are primarily residential and have at least 51 percent
of residents who are considered low- and moderate-income persons as defined by HUD. The boundaries
of these areas are defined at the block group tract level. The City also provides assistance to low- and
moderate-income individuals and households (LMC/LMH) who earn 80% of the Area Median Income
(AMI) or less. This assistance is provided citywide and is based on eligibility.

A description of the areas of low-income and minority concentration are located in the “Discussion”.

Geographic Distribution

Target Area Percentage of Funds
Edison-Eastlake Choice Neighborhoods 1
Marcos de Niza-Grant Park Choice Neighborhoods 1
Citywide Low/Mod Eligible 98
HOPWA EMSA 100
Table 14 - Geographic Distribution

Rationale for the priorities for allocating investments geographically

Funding is generally used throughout the City of Phoenix in low-income areas, however funding may be
prioritized for specific targeted areas, such as deteriorated and deteriorating areas for Code Enforcement
activities, or as leverage for other funding opportunities, such as the designated area in the Phoenix
Choice Neighborhoods Grant, a Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Areas (NSRA). Less than 1% of the
Annual Action Plan 245
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

2025 CDBG allocation will be expended in each of the Edison-Eastlake and Marcos de Niza-Grant Park
Choice Neighborhoods Target Areas.

Citywide Low/Mod Eligible

For Citywide Low/Mod Eligible, the City of Phoenix does not allocate funding based solely on geographic
areas. Most of the funding from the HUD Federal programs are available for use in any of the targeted
low/mod income neighborhoods or citywide, depending on the specific activities. Direct services such as
public services and affordable housing benefits are based on household income eligibility rather than area
benefit. Improvements to public facilities and infrastructure have a low/moderate income benefit across
a wider area, and the distribution of funds is based on need within eligible target areas. ESG funds may
target those experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness citywide. HOPWA funding is available
for use for individuals living with HIV/AIDS across the two-county HOPWA EMSA area, Maricopa and Pinal
Counties. The City of Phoenix will continue to allocate HOPWA resources to serve client’s meeting the
program requirement of being at or below 80 percent of the Area Median Income who reside in the EMSA.
The funding that will be allocated to each HOPWA program will be dependent on the demonstrated need,
identified gaps in services and feedback from the community outreach.

In particular to CDBG, when planned activities are intended to serve individuals or households directly
(LMC/LMH), beneficiaries must meet income qualifications, as well as residency requirements (residing
within the City), in order to receive assistance from the program. In these instances, City staff and/or one
of its partner agencies will complete an eligibility status review of the applicant before the activity is
initiated.

The City has also identified infrastructure and public facility improvement activities. In which case, the
planned activities will serve a low/mod community or neighborhood (LMA). These activities are said to
have an “area-wide” benefit. Per HUD requirements, these areas must be within an eligible Low/Mod
Block Group Tract, as defined by HUD-CDBG regulations, whereby the majority of the residents are low-
to moderate-income (or 51%). Public improvements which target special need groups such as the
homeless, elderly or persons with a disability will be reported using the LMC designation.

To determine LMI tracts the City utilizes HUD’s CDBG Low Mod Income Summary Data (LMISD) from the
HUD Exchange website, which has defined the eligible block group tracts within the jurisdiction. The tracts
can be at: https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/acs-low-mod-summary-data/.

Discussion

Low-Income Households

Households earning less than 80% of the area median income (AMI) are considered low-income. To be
considered a tract with a concentration of low-income households, the tract's median household income
is less than 80% of the area’s median household income.
Annual Action Plan 246
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

The City’s AMI is $77,041, and at 80% AMI, low income is estimated at $61,633. Based on this criteria, the
majority of tracts with a concentration of low-income households are scattered in and around the
downtown areas of the City. There are also a few tracts with a concentration just north of Pima Freeway,
and running north and south along Black Canyon Freeway.

Minority Concentrations:

For the purposes of this analysis, a concentration is any Census tract where the racial or ethnic minority
group makes up 10% more than the Citywide average. Data was taken from the most recent 2019-2023
ACS. Minority groups that made up less than 1% were not included in this analysis.

Black and African American, non-Hispanic persons comprise of an estimated 7.4% of the population in
Phoenix, and a tract with a concentration is 17.4% or more. The majority of tracts with a concentration of
this minority group is located in the southwest part of Phoenix.

American Indian and Alaska Native, non-Hispanic persons are 1.4% of the population, and a tract with a
concentration is 11.4% or more. There are four tracts with a concentration, with three located in the
downtown area (04013110600, 04013113000 & 04013113900), and one located centrally in the City
(04013103702) just south of East Thunderbird Rd and in between North 7th St. and North Cave Creek Rd.

Asian, non-Hispanic persons make up an estimated 3.8% of the population in Phoenix, and a tract with a
concentration is 13.8% or more. The majority of tracts with a concentration of this minority group are
located in scattered tracts in the northern part of the City.

Finally, persons that are ethnically Hispanic make up 41.8% of the City's total population. This would make
a tract with a concentration 51.8% or more. The vast majority of tracts with a concentration of Hispanic
persons is located in the southwest part of the City, from the downtown area to the western city limits.




Annual Action Plan 247
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

Affordable Housing

AP-55 Affordable Housing – 91.220(g)
Introduction

The need for affordable housing in Phoenix for lower-income persons with a broad range of needs is well
documented. The City is planning to utilize HOME funds for rental housing development activities to assist
LMI households attain affordable housing and to avoid homelessness. Funds will also support homeowner
opportunities such as rehabilitation and downpayment assistance. As per HOME grant regulations, the
City has set aside 15% for CHDO development activities for eligible LMI households. CDBG funds will
support owner-occupied housing rehabilitation activities.

The annual goals listed in the AP-20 specify the following goals and outcomes for affordable housing
assistance for non-homeless populations. The terms for affordable housing are defined in 24 CFR
92.252 for rental housing and 24 CFR 92.254 for homeownership. This section only reports grant program
activities under the CDBG and HOME programs.

One Year Goals for the Number of Households to be Supported
Homeless 0
Non-Homeless 422
Special-Needs 0
Total 422
Table 15 - One Year Goals for Affordable Housing by Support Requirement


One Year Goals for the Number of Households Supported Through
Rental Assistance 0
The Production of New Units 421
Rehab of Existing Units 1
Acquisition of Existing Units 0
Total 422
Table 16 - One Year Goals for Affordable Housing by Support Type


Discussion
Rental units constructed: 252 Household Housing Unit
Rental units rehabilitated: 15 Household Housing Unit (Housing Dept/HOME = 0)
Homeowner Housing Added (CHDO): 161 Rental Household Housing Units Constructed
Homeowner Housing Rehabilitated (CDBG & HOME): 76 Household Housing Unit (1 = HOME Housing
Dept)
Direct Financial Assistance to Homebuyers (CDBG & HOME): 13 Households Assisted (8 = HOME/HOU
Dept. )
Annual Action Plan 248
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

Housing Dept Total = 422 (252 New rental const, 161 CHDO New rental const, 8 DPA, 1 Homeowner
Occupied Housing Rehab)




Annual Action Plan 249
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

AP-60 Public Housing – 91.220(h)
Introduction

Unlike most areas in the country, Phoenix's Public Housing Authority (PHA) operates within the
governmental structure of the City of Phoenix (CoP) and is known as its Housing Department (HOU). The
majority of HOU's activities are similar to those of a traditional PHA. Currently, HOU administers 1023
traditional public housing units and 7,797 Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV). The Housing Department
Director reports to an executive in the City Manager’s Office who then reports to the City Manager. All
Housing Department employees, including those who provide public housing services, are hired in
accordance with the City's civil service rules and regulations.

Contracting and procurement by the HOU is also accomplished through the City's Administrative Rules.
Any federal considerations are incorporated into the contracting and procurement processes. Services
benefitting the Housing Department and its tenants that are funded by the City of Phoenix include various
recreation programs through the Parks and Recreation and Library departments and case management
services from the Human Services Department.

Any proposed development sites, which are selected in accordance with the relevant policies in the
Consolidated Plan, must be approved by the City Council before they are purchased. The City's Five-Year
and Annual Public Housing Authority (PHA) Plan is also approved by the City Council.

Actions planned during the next year to address the needs to public housing

For the 25-26 FY, COP HOU will submit an allocation plan to HUD for the Capital Fund Program formula
grant for $3,500,000. Funding will support the Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) conversion at
Maryvale Parkway Terrace. This is a HUD program that will convert Maryvale from public housing to a
Section 8 Project-Based property. This is a more sustainable funding source that is long term and allows
more flexible funding options when the property needs capital improvements in the future.

In 2018, HOU was awarded a $30 million HUD CN Implementation Grant to revitalize the Edison-Eastlake
Community (EEC) located east of downtown Phoenix. In 2023, HOU was awarded a $10 million CN
Supplemental Grant, and in 2024, was awarded an additional $2.5 million in Supplemental Grant funds to
further support the development of replacement housing in conjunction with the EEC’s Transformation
Plan. Through CN, HOU is charged with redeveloping public housing sites into new, energy-efficient mixed-
income housing, revitalizing and improving conditions in the surrounding neighborhood, and providing
supportive services to individuals, families and youth in the area. The grant involves a six-year
comprehensive implementation process with residents, City departments, private partners and
community stakeholders. Using the EEC’s Transformation Plan, known as the community-driven One
Vision Plan (OVP), to address Housing, People and Neighborhoods, Phoenix will leverage and finance
development activities that will initiate neighborhood change. Housing: Redevelop the EEC’s three aged
and obsolete public housing developments that include 577 units, Sidney P. Osborn Homes (SPO), A.L.

Annual Action Plan 250
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

Krohn Homes (ALK), and Frank Luke Homes (FLH) into 1,019 units of high quality, mixed-income living with
modern amenities. Soluna is the first phase of the redevelopment: Soluna I, completed in Dec. 2021,
includes 111 units while Soluna II, completed in April 2022, includes 66 units. Harmony at the Park (HATP)
I includes 120 units opened in February 2023 while HATP II with 115 units was completed in December
2023. During Fiscal Year 2025-26, the following developments, as part of the third and fourth phases will
be underway and/or completed: Construction of HATP III, a 90-unit residential community that
commenced in October 2023 is anticipated to be completed in October 2025 while Horizon on Villa, a 109-
unit community that will include the historic preservation of five historic buildings and repurposed into a
Family Education Center, is slated to commence construction in summer 2025. The fourth phase includes
the demolition and redevelopment of SPO into a 364-unit apartment community named “Girasol”, to be
developed in three phases. Construction of Girasol Phase One (115 units) commenced in February 2025
while construction on Phase II (109 units) is anticipated to begin in spring 2025. Girasol Phase III (140
units) is expected to commence in early 2026 and will include the redevelopment of an existing on-site
park. All phases of the CN multi-family redevelopment projects will include Section 8 project-based
vouchers, LIHTC Credits and market-rate units. All multi-family communities will incorporate public art to
contribute to neighborhood beautification/revitalization. Lastly, construction is anticipated to begin in
summer 2025 on the 44-unit mixed-income homeownership townhome community: 29 will be affordable,
15 market-rate.

In 2024, the Housing Department was awarded a $500,000 Choice Neighborhoods Planning Grant to begin
a community planning effort with the residents of the Marcos de Niza public and affordable housing
community (AMP 22, 374 units, a mix of 281 Public Housing and 93 Section 8 PBV). This will begin in
calendar year 2024 and will focus on completing a community-driven Neighborhood Transformation Plan
to guide the revitalization of Marcos de Niza and the surrounding neighborhood. Local City of Phoenix
funding will be used for the effort along with Choice Neighborhoods funds and any other sources that are
available at the time. The transformation plan will form the basis for future implementation efforts
including an application for Choice Neighborhoods Implementation grant funding.

Actions to encourage public housing residents to become more involved in management and
participate in homeownership

The City is increasing homeownership activities with the Section 32 Program that will assist approximately
10 first time homebuyers through the purchase of their first home. The Housing Department has been
approved to sell two hundred ninety-nine homes from the City of Phoenix public housing portfolio to low-
income first-time homebuyers through the Section 32 Program. As part of this program, families must
maintain the home as their permanent residence for ten years to receive a forgivable down payment
assistance loan equal to a 20% discount off the home’s appraised value. The Housing Department is
planning to sell thirty-five (35) homes during FY 2025-2026. During the FY 2025-2026, the Housing
Department anticipates selling ten (10) homes through the Section 32 Program and twenty-five (25)



Annual Action Plan 251
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

homes through the Section 18 Program.

The City’s Housing Department is dedicated to providing a variety of programs designed to empower
residents of public and assisted housing with economic opportunities and avenues for developing social
support. Current activities and initiatives include: The Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS) program offers long-
term case management services to assist low-income households living in subsidized housing. Its goal is
to help these households overcome barriers to self-sufficiency and achieve financial independence. FSS
participants can access educational training, job training, job coaching, life skills training, and facilitated
employment opportunities for up to seven years.

The Jobs Plus Program, known as iWORK (Improving Work Opportunities and Resident Knowledge), is
affiliated with ARIZONA@WORK. The iWORK program focuses on job-driven strategies to enhance
earnings and improve employment outcomes for residents of the Marcos de Niza Community. It provides
work readiness training, employer connections, job placement services, educational advancement,
technology skills training, and financial literacy education. These activities help improve homeownership
prospects for public housing residents.

For a description of other programs the HOU provides for residents of publicly supported housing, see the
“Discussion”.

If the PHA is designated as troubled, describe the manner in which financial assistance will be
provided or other assistance

The PHA is not designated as troubled.

Discussion

The Housing Supportive Service (HSS) Program is committed to programs that promote economic
opportunity and social integration for residents of public/assisted housing. HSS’s Housing Coalition of
Service Providers (CSP) consists of over 100 social services, education, employment, health care, youth,
and elderly care service providers to assist residents in becoming self-sufficient and enhance their quality
of life. These centers offer technology enrichment resources for households who do not have personal
access to a computer/internet such as open lab, tutoring, and employment assistance.

The Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS) Program has dedicated case management staff linking families to
services that promote economic growth and financial independence. Of the total number of case closures
in 2024, there was a successful graduation rate of 74%, with 54 participants graduating and 6 individuals
purchasing homes. FSS participant income increased approximately 2.9 times from enrollment to
graduation ($844K to $2.5M). Approximately $633,325 in escrow funds was disbursed to successful
graduates, a 59% increase from the prior year.

The Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) Youth Program provides intervention and prevention services
for the children in families living at Aeroterra’s PSH units. This includes individual case management,
Annual Action Plan 252
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

counseling and afterschool programming with homework assistance, Science, Technology, Engineering,
Arts and Math (STEAM) activities, Kids Cafe meals and daily rotations to the HIVE technology center. The
program serves approximately 65 to 70 youth to ensure youth remain successfully in school.

Phoenix Starfish Place converted to a Transitional Housing Model effective January 2024 to provide more
comprehensive services to the participants. The program serves fifteen households of women who have
been sexually trafficked, and their children. Two full-time case managers provide trauma informed case
management and support services on-site to resident households.

The Senior Service Coordination Program provides Service Coordinators are located onsite at each Senior
Housing facility to assist elderly and disabled residents in maintaining independent living. Coordinators
work with local community resources to provide medical and behavioral health care; wellness and
prevention services; meals/food boxes; counseling; transportation; nutrition; financial assistance; and
housekeeping services. Services are available for up to 612 Senior Participants at the various locations.

The iWORK (Improving Work Opportunities and Resident Knowledge) Center offers sustainability
services post-Jobs Plus grant, providing residents access to health, nutrition, education, youth
programming, financial literacy, and employment opportunities. ARIZONA@WORK delivers employment
services on-site weekly, while additional partnerships with local organizations offer personalized support
to enhance quality of life, job readiness services, self-sufficiency, technology skills, and financial literacy.
Marcos de Niza is a Choice Neighborhoods Planning Grant site, engaging residents in the process.

The 2017/18 Choice Neighborhoods People component delivers comprehensive case management and
coordinated services to support families in the Edison Eastlake community. This initiative is dedicated to
enhancing residents' quality of life by improving economic stability, employment opportunities, health
outcomes, and educational success. Serving families, individuals and youth, over 557 families have been
provided services.

The ROSS Service Coordinator Program offers on-site service coordination at Aeroterra and Henson
Village Communities. These coordinators collaborate with the CSP to deliver case management and
facilitate access to resources, including financial education, college readiness programs, post-secondary
financial aid, digital literacy education, health and wellness initiatives, including food distributions, and
programs aimed at enhancing education and self-sufficiency.

The HIVE, powered by IDIA - Institute for Digital Inclusion Acceleration, located at both Aeroterra and
Community Training and Education Center (CTEC), is a pioneering institute dedicated to advancing digital
inclusion and bridging the digital divide. Through innovative programs, research, and strategic
partnerships, HIVE empowers underserved communities with access to technology, digital literacy, and
economic opportunities. The institute focuses on accelerating digital adoption by fostering education,
entrepreneurship, and workforce development in the digital economy. The Hive is outfitted with
computers, 3D printers, interactive sensory tools, and Digital Navigators who provide onsite digital skills

Annual Action Plan 253
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

training. The goal of the space is to help close the digital divide and ensure equal access to tech support
and digital skill-building.




Annual Action Plan 254
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

AP-65 Homeless and Other Special Needs Activities – 91.220(i)
Introduction
The City of Phoenix is actively involved in local and regional planning efforts aimed at reducing and
ultimately ending homelessness. This is achieved through collaborations and partnerships with both
internal and external organizations from various sectors.

Internally, multiple City departments—including Housing, Human Services, Neighborhood Services,
Police, Fire, Parks and Recreation, Libraries, and Courts—work together to coordinate services and
maximize resources. On a regional level, the City participates in the Continuum of Care coordinated by
the Maricopa Association of Governments and collaborates with numerous external organizations,
including state and county governments, private and non-profit organizations, and the faith community,
to create a collective impact. Services and support to combat homelessness are provided directly by City
staff and through contracts with sub-recipient organizations.

Describe the jurisdictions one-year goals and actions for reducing and ending homelessness
including:

Reaching out to homeless persons (especially unsheltered persons) and assessing their
individual needs

The City of Phoenix established the Office of Homeless Solutions (OHS) in 2022 to enhance and implement
initiatives related to homelessness within the city. OHS operates under the City Manager’s Office and
demonstrates the City’s commitment to increasing transparency and direct outreach to the community.
OHS is the largest funder of street outreach in the region. The office includes 16 positions focused on
community-facing activities, such as outreach caseworkers, PHX C.A.R.E.S. workers, and Homeless
Liaisons. Additionally, OHS provides funding to partners for rapid rehousing, temporary emergency
shelter, shelter operations, navigation services, and behavioral health support. OHS is dedicated to
assisting individuals experiencing homelessness and is committed to ending homelessness through a
comprehensive regional approach. This includes providing shelter and heat relief, outreach, supportive
and behavioral health services, homelessness prevention, and housing solutions. The office has primarily
focused on creating new indoor shelter beds through significant capital investments and offering heat
relief during the hot summer months.

The City has restructured its services and outreach efforts to make them more effective and to reduce
barriers that prevent people from accepting assistance, which is a major reason why individuals are now
more willing to seek help. The City now offers shelters that allow pets, spaces where couples can stay
together, and storage options so that individuals can keep their belongings when entering a shelter.

Additionally, City staff provides direct outreach and engagement services through an innovative
partnership called Phoenix C.A.R.E.S. This initiative brings together the Human Services, Office of
Homeless Solutions, Police, Neighborhood Services, Street Transportation, and Public Works departments
to address the increasing number of homeless encampments throughout the city. This collaborative team,
Annual Action Plan 255
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

in partnership with community-based crisis intervention and outreach providers, works together to
eliminate homeless encampments and reconnect individuals to housing and services through a
combination of support, enforcement, and abatement strategies.

Finally, the City collaborates with the Maricopa County Outreach Collaborative to develop and implement
regional best practices for street outreach services. This partnership also coordinates outreach activities
and initiatives across the region. Additionally, the City supports and takes part in Project Connect events
organized by the Valley of the Sun United Way, which aim to connect or reconnect individuals
experiencing homelessness with necessary services.

Addressing the emergency shelter and transitional housing needs of homeless persons

The City is committed to supporting emergency shelter services for individuals and families through
various contracts with non-profit providers. These include Central Arizona Shelter Services (for single
adults), United Methodist Outreach Ministries (for single women and families), and Chicanos Por La Causa
(for families). Funding for these services comes from Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) and Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. Additionally, the City is using General Funds and American Rescue
Plan Act funds to support new shelter projects in the area. These projects will provide accommodations
for seniors, single adults, and family units.

The City is committed to regional efforts aimed at reducing the duration of homelessness by adopting a
Housing First approach, which is an initiative shared by the CoC. To accomplish this goal, the City is
prioritizing resources for rapid rehousing interventions. These interventions are generally more flexible
and efficient than traditional transitional housing models, which can be time-consuming and resource-
intensive.

The Housing Department (HOU) was awarded 390 Emergency Housing Vouchers (EHVs) effective July 1,
2021. These vouchers are intended for individuals and families who are: (1) homeless; (2) at risk of
homelessness; (3) fleeing or attempting to flee domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking,
or human trafficking; or (4) recently homeless and in need of rental assistance to prevent further
homelessness or housing instability.

The HOU collaborates with the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) and the Coordinated Entry
System to receive referred applicants and provide housing search and leasing assistance to eligible
populations. EHVs operate similarly to the HOU's tenant-based voucher program, unless otherwise
specified in the applicable Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Administrative Plan. Additionally, the HOU has
applied for an allocation of Stability Vouchers (SVs). If awarded, the HOU plans to administer these SVs to
serve the homeless, those at risk of homelessness, individuals fleeing or attempting to flee domestic
violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, or human trafficking, as well as veterans and families
that include a veteran family member meeting one of the aforementioned criteria. SVs will operate in the
same manner as the HOU's tenant-based voucher program, except as specified in the HCV Administrative
Plan.


Annual Action Plan 256
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

Helping homeless persons (especially chronically homeless individuals and families, families
with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth) make the transition to
permanent housing and independent living, including shortening the period of time that
individuals and families experience homelessness, facilitating access for homeless individuals
and families to affordable housing units, and preventing individuals and families who were
recently homeless from becoming homeless again

The City of Phoenix has been focused on increasing the number of available shelter beds in the region
while also providing homelessness prevention services, street outreach, and rapid re-housing programs.
Additionally, the city is emphasizing the impact of innovative collaborations and partnerships aimed at
achieving regional results. By working with the Continuum of Care, the region is aligning contracted
services for Emergency Shelter, Outreach, and Rapid Re-Housing through the ESG Collaborative. This
alignment will enhance regional reporting and enable service providers to use consistent measurements,
ensuring that they report the same outcomes regardless of the funding source. Ultimately, this will allow
for the ability to "right size" interventions and ensure that resources are allocated where they are needed
most.

The Maricopa County region has established a Coordinated Entry System aimed at prioritizing resources
for the most vulnerable individuals and reducing the length of time spent in homelessness. This system
includes five primary points of entry: 1. The Family Hub, dedicated to families with children. 2. The
Welcome Center, serving single men and women. 3. Centralized Screening for victims of domestic
violence. 4. An entry point for unaccompanied youth. 5. A specific entry point for US military veterans.
The Continuum of Care (CoC) has adopted the Vulnerability Index Service Prioritization Decision
Assistance Tool (VI-SPDAT) as its regional housing needs assessment tool. Individuals, families, and
unaccompanied youth are prioritized for housing and services based on their acuity, chronicity, and length
of time experiencing homelessness. Recently, the CoC introduced a pilot program to refine assessment
and prioritization processes moving forward.

The City of Phoenix's Human Services and Housing Departments have collaborated to provide permanent
supportive housing for 33 chronically homeless individuals and families, with a preference for veterans,
at a new public housing site called Aeroterra. Previously known as Luke Krohn, Aeroterra is a unique,
affordable master-planned housing development that accommodates individuals and families from mixed
income levels, including seniors. The 33 chronically homeless individuals and families are identified and
referred through the regional Coordinated Entry System established by the Maricopa Association of
Governments Regional Continuum of Care. In addition to offering permanent supportive housing,
Aeroterra provides on-site intensive case management services to ensure that these individuals and
families receive the necessary support and resources to successfully transition from homelessness to
stable and thriving homes.

The Human Services and Housing Departments will continue their partnership with the Veterans
Administration (VA) in the coming year to support move-in assistance and rent/utility deposits for


Annual Action Plan 257
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

Veterans receiving VASH vouchers. Through this partnership, the lease-up process has decreased to as
little as 30-days from identification to housing.

The City has also increased affordable units by overcoming barriers that limited the City from certain
acquisition opportunities through the creation of the Phoenix Residential Investment Development Effort
(PRIDE) Board, a 501c3 nonprofit agency. PRIDE was created by the City to pursue development or
acquisition opportunities to increase the supply of affordable housing for low- and moderate income
families. As a non-profit entity, PRIDE is able to access various funding sources not directly available to
the City or to acquire/construct single and multi-family housing.

Helping low-income individuals and families avoid becoming homeless, especially extremely
low-income individuals and families and those who are: being discharged from publicly funded
institutions and systems of care (such as health care facilities, mental health facilities, foster
care and other youth facilities, and corrections programs and institutions); or, receiving
assistance from public or private agencies that address housing, health, social services,
employment, education, or youth needs.

The Human Services Department addresses emergency housing and service needs through a variety of
programs and services. Three Phoenix Family Services Centers operate year-round, offering case
management, navigation, and financial assistance to clients by utilizing a diverse range of funding
resources. Through this direct service system, staff at the Family Services Centers help clients prevent
eviction and foreclosure, as well as assist families in moving to more affordable or suitable living
environments by covering move-in deposits and providing rental and utility assistance. Additionally, the
department collaborates closely with organizations that offer behavioral health and detox services for
individuals and families in crisis.

Discussion

The focus of the 2025-26 year for the City of Phoenix is to increase the number of shelter beds available
in the region, provide homelessness prevention, street outreach, and provide rapid re-housing programs.
In addition, the City of Phoenix is the impact of innovative collaboration and partnerships focused on
regional impact. Through work with the Continuum of Care, the region is aligning contracted services for
Emergency Shelter, Outreach and Rapid Re-Housing through the ESG Collaborative. This alignment will
improve regional reporting and will enable providers to utilize consistent measurements and report the
same outcomes regardless of the funding source. This alignment will ultimately lead to the ability to “right
size” interventions and ensure resources are utilized where they are needed most.

During fiscal year 2025-26, the Housing Department will implement the following:

By October 1, 2025, or HUD extension date, Housing Quality Standards (HQS) will be replaced with
National Standards for the Physical Inspection of Real Estate (NSPIRE) for the housing choice and project-


Annual Action Plan 258
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

based voucher programs.

The Housing Department HCV program will comply with all Housing Opportunity through Modernization
Act (HOTMA) requirements pending HUD’s anticipated compliance date during fiscal year 2025-2026.
Currently, HUD does not have a secure systems software program ready and is also still working with the
software vendors for HOTMA implementation.
Program highlights and success during fiscal year 2024-25 were as follows:

On January 1, 2025, the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program adopted Small Area Fair Market Rents
(SAFMRs). SAFMRs are calculated at the zip code level rather than the larger metropolitan area level,
which allows Housing Agencies to establish payment standards that better reflect the local market and
help voucher holders access neighborhoods of their choice.

In September 2024, the Housing Department was recognized at the National Association of Housing and
Redevelopment Officials (NAHRO) Annual Conference with an Award of Merit in Administrative
Innovation for the successful opening of the 2023 Phoenix Housing Choice Voucher Program waitlist,
which resulted in more than 43,000 pre-applications received. The City collaborated with
internal/external partners to solicit input on critical documents and designed an innovative marketing
plan to advertise the opening. The opening and all documents were publicized in eight languages online,
television, radio, newspapers, all Phoenix libraries, and more, to create an accessible and just process for
the community.

With the strong support of the Phoenix City Council, the Landlord Incentive Program delivered a one-time
$2,000 incentive payment to landlords who rented units to Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) participants.
Backed by $7.3 million in American Rescue Plan Act funding, the program successfully disbursed over
4,000 incentives to more than 1,400 landlords, bringing in over 800 new landlords to the HCV program by
its conclusion in August 2024. The HCV program now engages over 2,300 active landlords, playing a vital
role in meeting the escalating demand for affordable housing and ensuring that thousands of low-income
Phoenix residents have access to essential housing assistance.

In August 2024, the Housing Department submitted a Registration of Interest for more Veterans Affairs
Supportive Housing (VASH) vouchers in response to PIH Notice 2024-18. In December 2024, HUD notified
Phoenix of its eligibility for more VASH vouchers and offered 100 vouchers, of which Phoenix accepted all
100. Phoenix is awaiting the official award letter and Consolidated Annual Contributions Contract
Amendment for the new allocation. The Housing Department has worked collaboratively with the local
VA and has significantly increased current utilization, ending calendar year 2024 with approximately 93%
of the 903 VASH vouchers leased, the highest utilization rate since the program’s inception. This
performance significantly exceeds the national average of 75 percent among Public Housing.




Annual Action Plan 259
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

AP-70 HOPWA Goals– 91.220 (l)(3)
One year goals for the number of households to be provided housing through the use of HOPWA
for:

Short-term rent, mortgage, and utility assistance to
prevent homelessness of the individual or family 75
Tenant-based rental assistance 165
Units provided in permanent housing facilities
developed, leased, or operated with HOPWA funds 35
Units provided in transitional short-term housing
facilities developed, leased, or operated with HOPWA
funds 130
Total 405




Annual Action Plan 260
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

AP-75 Barriers to affordable housing – 91.220(j)
Introduction:
Public policies at the local, regional, and state levels have unintentionally created barriers to affordable
housing development and residential investment in Phoenix, Arizona. The following highlights key areas
where such policies have negatively impacted housing affordability:

● Insufficient Funding and Incentives: State-level policies in Arizona limit funding mechanisms for
affordable housing initiatives. For example, while local governments are allowed to charge impact
fees, these funds cannot legally be used for affordable housing purposes. This restriction,
highlighted by the Morrison Institute, reduces the financial resources available for creating
affordable housing, forcing Phoenix to rely on limited federal programs to fill the gap.
● Community Opposition (NIMBYism): Community resistance to affordable housing, known as
NIMBYism, often delays or prevents developments in Phoenix. This resistance is frequently based
on misconceptions that affordable housing will negatively impact property values or
neighborhood character. Reports from The State Press indicate that this opposition influences
local decision-making, creating additional challenges for securing approvals for affordable housing
projects.
● Preemption of Local Authority: Arizona’s state preemption laws prevent cities like Phoenix from
implementing rent control or other housing policies to address affordability issues locally. As
reported by AZ Mirror, this restriction limits Phoenix’s ability to adopt tailored solutions to its
housing affordability crisis, leaving the city reliant on state-led initiatives that may not adequately
address local needs.
● Gentrification and Displacement: Urban revitalization efforts in Phoenix, while intended to
promote economic growth, often lead to increased property values and the displacement of low-
income residents. According to the Phoenix New Times, without proper safeguards such as rent
protections or affordable housing requirements, these policies disproportionately harm
vulnerable populations, exacerbating housing affordability challenges.

Addressing these challenges requires strategic policy reforms, such as revising zoning and funding
mechanisms, enhancing local authority to implement housing solutions, and implementing safeguards
against displacement. These actions are crucial to creating a more inclusive and balanced housing market
in Phoenix.

Actions it planned to remove or ameliorate the negative effects of public policies that serve as
barriers to affordable housing such as land use controls, tax policies affecting land, zoning
ordinances, building codes, fees and charges, growth limitations, and policies affecting the
return on residential investment

The City may undertake any of the following actions to help foster the removal of barriers for affordable
housing production. Actions to implement the strategies may vary during this reporting year:
• Ongoing availability of down payment and closing costs assistance for 1st time homebuyers at or

Annual Action Plan 261
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

below 80% area median income.
• Ensure housing needs of special needs populations are met by setting aside funding for specialized
projects
• Competition for Low-income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) for the purpose of replacing aging public
housing units with new, energy efficient units
• Acquisition of properties by the City through its non-profit organization, Phoenix Residential
Investment Development Effort (PRIDE)
• Inclusion of a refinancing option using HOME funds for non-profit developers/owners of
affordable housing who include major rehabilitation to the property
• Willingness to provide loan modifications for City loans when cash flow problems are not caused
by poor financial or property management
• Provide HOME and CDBG funds for aging properties with rent restricted units which need major
rehabilitation
• Participation in Choice Neighborhoods Program by which public housing units can be increased
and replaced with updated units
• Utilize the RAD program to redevelop Public Housing units
• Identification of underutilized Public Land for housing redeveloped by non-profit and for-profit
developers
• Project-based Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers and public housing units
• Utilization of VASH Vouchers

The implementation of the nine policy initiatives included in the Housing Phoenix Plan will establish zoning
incentives for affordable housing developers, create allowances for accessory dwelling units, increase
resources (such as grants and loans for affordable housing developers), streamline processes, and
continue to implement an education campaign to help communicate the importance of housing in our
community.

Updating zoning regulations will make it easier and cheaper to build or preserve a variety of housing
options while preserving the character of the neighborhood. The Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) text
amendment (TA) was approved by City Council on September 6, 2023, to help increase the overall supply
of housing as well as offer an additional housing option within a neighborhood, and updates have been
approved to address state statute changes. The Walkable Urban Code (WU) text amendment was
approved by City Council on February 2, 2022, to create the opportunity for more flexible infill
development and adaptive reuse without requiring the property owner to complete the rezoning process.
Two out of the three Mobile Home text amendments proposed were approved by City Council on June
28, 2023, to aid in affordable housing choices. The first text amendment added definitions for the different
mobile home models and revised the ordinance to outline offsite manufactured home developments
while the second text amendment allows existing mobile home developments to expand the number of
units through an administrative review. A multifamily parking text amendment was approved by Council
on January 24, 2024, which decreased the minimum number of required parking spots per unit, to
eliminate possible barriers to housing development. Additional text amendments are being evaluated to

Annual Action Plan 262
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

help facilitate more housing options in the city such as the Affordable Housing Framework text
amendment that was initiated by the Planning Commission.

Development of affordable housing requires additional subsidies to ensure long-term affordability. This
can be achieved through grants, loans, and tax programs or can be achieved through a reduction of other
costs associated with development or operating affordable housing such as pre-development design costs
and permitting fees. There are continual efforts to discover alternative funding sources to help aid in the
reduction of planning and permitting fees, along with plans to increase public support for and developer
interest in affordable housing. In November 2024, the Housing Department was awarded a Technical
Assistance Grant to assist in continuing a targeted education campaign to provide residents and
developers with essential information on affordable housing in Phoenix. This will be an ongoing effort
throughout 2025.

Discussion:

The Open Doors Down Payment Assistance (DPA) is a City-wide program targeting first-time homebuyers.
Eligible families receive direct subsidy of down payment and/or closing costs assistance through a zero
percent interest forgivable loan. The home must be used as their primary residence during the period of
affordability. The Housing Department has contracted with HUD approved Housing Counseling Agencies
(HCA) to administer the program and assist families through the close of escrow. Housing Department
received approval from HUD to utilize a waiver on the Maximum Purchase Price for the DPA Program. The
Housing Department is currently utilizing this waiver.

Soluna I, the first phase of the Edison-Eastlake Community redevelopment completed in Dec. 2021,
includes 111 units and Soluna II with 66 units completed in April 2022. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2022-23, as part
of the second phase, Harmony at the Park (HATP) I, located on the former Frank Luke Homes site, that
includes 120 units opened in February 2023, and during FY 2023-24, HATP II with 115 units was completed
in December 2023. Redevelopment of the former Sidney P. Osborn site, now known as Girasol, began in
FY 2024-25 as Phase One (115 units) commenced in February 2025. During FYs 2024-2025 and 2025-26,
the following developments, as part of the third and fourth phases will be underway: Construction of the
third phase, HATP III, a 90-unit residential community, commenced in October 2023 and is anticipated to
be completed in summer 2025 while demolition of the former A.l. Krohn (ALK) site was completed to make
way for Horizon on Villa, a 109-unit mixed-income community. The fourth phase includes the demolition
and redevelopment of the former Sidney P. Osborn site into a 364-unit apartment community, now known
as Girasol, to be developed in three phases: Phase One construction of 115-units, is anticipated to
commence in March 2025. Construction on Phase II, to include 109 units is anticipated to begin in spring
2025, and Phase III with 140 units is expected to commence in early 2026. All phases of the CN multi-
family redevelopment projects will include Section 8 project-based vouchers, Low Income Housing Tax
Credits and market-rate units. Lastly, construction of the 44-unit mixed-income homeownership
townhome community (29 affordable and 15 market-rate) is anticipated to begin in summer 2025.
Neighborhood: Planned improvements include new and expanded parks featuring shade and modern
family-friendly amenities. Construction of the Edison Park Expansion and new Linear Park projects will
Annual Action Plan 263
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

commence in summer 2025, while the redevelopment of Kana Park as part of the SPO/Girasol Phase Three
housing community is expected to begin in early 2026. Other neighborhood improvements include open
space; bike lanes, pedestrian safety upgrades; beautification; public art; Wi-Fi; and digital literacy. In
addition, targeted demolition and rehabilitation of the former Crippled Children’s Hospital into the Edison
Impact Hub (to be renamed “Thash Mahd”) is anticipated to begin in March 2025. Thash Mahd will house
a behavioral and health clinic, community kitchen, workforce development center, digital literacy lab,
office space, and classrooms/meeting rooms. People: Supportive services that are being offered include
case management; relocation assistance; workforce/employment; healthy living and educational needs;
youth services; and resident and community engagement. The Aeroterra Community Center, located
within the EEC, was the first HUD-approved EnVision Center in Arizona, where public-private and
nonprofit partners provide services designed to assist residents in achieving self-sufficiency.

For the 25-26 Fiscal Year, Aeroterra II and Aeroterra III will continue to pursue conversion through the
RAD Program without any rehabilitation. This will convert the properties subsidy from Public Housing to
Project-Based Section 8 which is a more sustainable long term funding source and provides more flexibility
for future capital improvements.




Annual Action Plan 264
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

AP-85 Other Actions – 91.220(k)
Introduction:
This section outlines how the City of Phoenix is addressing the needs of the community through additional
actions not previously described in the Annual Action Plan. The actions and activities described here
enhance the programmatic response to support those who are identified as underserved.

Actions planned to address obstacles to meeting underserved needs

The City of Phoenix Housing Department is facing a great challenge in serving families at 0% to 50% of
median income. The City‘s wait lists for all its assisted housing programs – public housing, senior housing,
and the Housing Choice Voucher program – have many more families than can be served in a reasonable
length of time. Currently there are over 160,000 households on the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher
waitlist, In addition there are approximately 33,000 households on the public housing waitlist and the
Housing Department’s affordable/senior housing portfolio waitlist is seeing record numbers at around
8,000.

Another indication of the housing affordability problem is:

According to “State of Housing in Arizona” report out of the Morrison Institute in partnership with ASU
“The median sales price of a home has increased by 57% from 2019 to 2023, to $423,400. At the same
time, high home values and lower interest rates during the pandemic allowed existing homeowners to
refinance and lower their housing costs, which reduced the supply of houses for sale. That lack of supply,
along with higher interest rates, put home-buying out of reach for many first-time homebuyers.

Arizona’s population growth has outpaced the growth of all types of housing. Since 2010, the population
has grown by 22% but housing units have increased by only 12%.

Arizona rents have increased by 71% from 2010 to 2022, the highest among comparison states. Minimum
wage workers would need to work 86 hours per week or have more than 2 full-time jobs in order to afford
a 2-bedroom home. In 2022, nearly half of all renters were cost-burdened, the highest percentage of cost
burden since 2010.

As of 2022, it was estimated that Arizona had a deficit of 133,684 affordable and available rental units for
extremely low-income households and a deficit of 183,072 affordable and available rental units for low
income households.

The City’s housing affordability issue is well documented and is highlighted in the Needs Assessment (NA)
of the 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan. The NA identified that cost burden is the most significant housing
problem in the City, defined as households paying at least 30% of their income towards housing costs.
Approximately 26% of homeowners with a mortgage and 51% of renters are considered cost burdened.


Annual Action Plan 265
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

The availability of affordable housing for very-low-income individuals on minimum wage or living on SSI
payments is quickly diminishing. This unavailability of affordable housing at the very-low-income level can
only exacerbate the problem of homelessness.

To enhance the delivery system and address any service gaps, the City will promote private participation
through nonprofit organizations and seek additional funding sources. Furthermore, the City will continue
to establish partnerships with other government agencies and municipalities that are confronting these
regional challenges.

Actions planned to foster and maintain affordable housing

The City utilizes HOME and CDBG funds for the acquisition, construction, and rehabilitation of affordable
rental housing units. Each year, a public Call for Interest is issued to encourage the affordable housing
development community to apply for funding. Additionally, the City collaborates with the Phoenix
Industrial Development Authority, which offers tax-exempt bond funding, as well as the Arizona
Department of Housing, which provides Low-Income Housing Tax Credits to help create affordable
housing opportunities in Phoenix.

Affordable Housing program goals include: Preservation of Housing Department (HD) investments &
continued affordability; improvement of distressed/foreclosed properties; creation and expansion of
long-term affordability; investment in location-critical properties, such as those near employment and
transportation centers as well as in areas lacking affordable rental units; leveraging federal funding with
private equity and investment.

The HD administers a down payment assistance program for first-time homebuyers. Eligible families
receive down payment assistance in the form of a zero-interest due on sale loan as long as the home
remains the family’s principal residence during the affordability period. The HD contracts with agencies
to assist potential homeowners in obtaining a mortgage, and works with lenders and title agencies to help
with closing. The City also funds homeownership programs that: construct new homes in neighborhoods
undergoing revitalization; utilize mortgage financing to lower interest rates and increase overall
community participation in developing homeownership opportunities.

Phoenix City Council unanimously approved the first-ever Housing Phoenix Plan (HPP). As the fastest
growing city in the nation, this initiative works to address our many housing needs and recommends
solution-oriented policies to create a better Phoenix. The HPP documents the findings of the city's
Affordable Housing Initiative, which launched in 2019 with the goal of completing a housing needs
assessment and establishing policy recommendations to address the city's current housing challenge.

Through extensive research and community outreach, the plan identifies the community's housing needs,
documents the housing gap, compiles nationwide best practices and recommends the following 9 policy
initiatives to reach the goal of creating a stronger and more vibrant Phoenix through increased housing


Annual Action Plan 266
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

options:

1. Prioritize New Housing in Areas of Opportunity
2. Amend Current Zoning Ordinance to Facilitate More Housing Options (Affordable Housing
Developer Incentives, Accessory Dwelling Unit Allowances, Expand Walkable Urban Code)
3. Redevelop City-Owned Land with Mixed Income Housing (City Council approved parcel list)
4. Enhance Public-Private Partnerships and Increase Public, Private, and Philanthropic Financing
5. Building Innovations and Cost Saving Practices (Assigned Review Teams with the Planning and
Development Department, Affordable Housing Advocacy, Infrastructure Fund for Affordable
Housing Developers, Continuing Ongoing Research into cost-saving practices)
6. Increase Affordable Housing Developer Representation (Boards, Commissions and Committees
such as Planning Commission and Village Planning Committee)
7. Expand Efforts to Preserve Existing Housing Stock (Strategic Acquisitions, Community Land Trust,
Expand Landlord Incentive Program, Expand Rental Rehabilitation Program).
8. Support Affordable Housing Legislation
9. Education Campaign

Phoenix has experienced consistent population growth which has outpaced the growth of the housing
market. The City created this nine-point initiative plan to establish zoning incentives for affordable
housing developers, create allowances for accessory dwelling units, increase resources, streamline
processes, and establish an education campaign.

Another element of the Housing Phoenix Plan was a goal to create or preserve 50,000 homes by 2030,
which the City reached at the end of 2024– five years ahead of its goal. For years, the City has prioritized
increasing the supply of housing for all income levels and family sizes to create a stronger and more vibrant
city. The initiatives helped to accelerate action to address the region’s housing needs and aimed at
ensuring housing is affordable, equitable, and attainable. Of the more than 53,000 units created or
preserved to date, more than 11,000 (20.7%) are considered affordable units, and about 12,800 (24.7%)
are considered workforce units, resulting in nearly half of all new or preserved homes in the city geared
toward households earning 120% or less of the area median income. Housing affordability is a complex
issue impacting cities across the country, and influenced by many factors outside of cities’ control,
including population growth, the pace of housing construction, mortgage rates, costs of labor and
materials, supply chain, and the proliferation of investor-owned short-term rentals. Throughout 2025, the
City will continue to track units and implement the nine initiatives included within the Plan. Progress
reports will be provided quarterly at the following website: https://www.phoenix.gov/housing/plan.

Actions planned to reduce lead-based paint hazards

The reduction of Lead-Based Paint (LBP) hazards remains a top priority in Phoenix. Housing rehabilitation
programs funded by HUD assist homeowners and landlords in protecting children and their families from
the dangers of lead-based paint and other health and safety hazards in the home. Initially, EPA-certified
LBP inspectors conduct inspections and assessments to identify lead hazards in properties built before
Annual Action Plan 267
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

January 1, 1978. If lead hazards are found, EPA-certified lead abatement contractors are brought in to
perform remediation and abatement while residents are temporarily relocated until the unit passes the
required clearance. Additionally, EPA-certified housing rehabilitation specialists prepare scopes of work
and monitor all the work performed. Lead-safe housing units are listed on a publicly accessible rental
registry website.

The City implements a two-tiered educational program in collaboration with its partners. This program is
designed for parents of high-risk children and leaders in communities at elevated risk for lead poisoning.
Additionally, it includes professional education for physicians, nurses, housing staff, teachers, landlords,
and other key individuals. The goal is to reduce children's exposure to lead hazards by promoting
interventions that parents can carry out and encouraging the safe maintenance of lead paint in older
homes.

The City works together with County and State health service departments to provide education for
parents and caregivers of children with elevated blood lead levels. For children identified with moderate
to severe blood lead levels, a comprehensive environmental investigation is conducted. Additionally, data
is shared with the City, including blood lead level results, sources of unusual lead exposure, and areas with
high rates of lead poisoning. These collaborations aim to promote policies and programs that will reduce
lead exposure and completely eliminate environmental lead hazards in Arizona.

Actions planned to reduce the number of poverty-level families

The City of Phoenix Human Services Department’s Volunteer Income Tax Assistance (VITA) Program is
dedicated to helping low-to-moderate income households by providing free tax preparation services,
including assistance with filing for the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). EITC is recognized as one of the
largest and most effective anti-poverty programs in the nation. The tax refunds generated not only offer
financial relief to recipients but also provide economic benefits to the entire community. Additionally, our
volunteers offer financial education related to the income tax filing process, aiming to raise awareness
and understanding of tax preparation.

The Human Services Department’s Family Services Centers provide a variety of social services to low-
income households facing crises. These services are offered through three centers located throughout the
city. Each center assists Phoenix residents with urgent needs, including utility support, eviction
prevention, rent or mortgage payments, and move-in costs. Additionally, caseworkers offer guidance in
employment, budgeting, and social and life skills development through case management. These services
help families and individuals identify and overcome current barriers, ultimately leading them toward self-
sufficiency.

The City of Phoenix will provide Rapid Re-housing Services to those clients who meet the Category 1
definition of Homeless by targeting chronically homeless, VASH eligible Veterans, as well as other
homeless individuals and families.



Annual Action Plan 268
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

Actions planned to develop institutional structure

The City of Phoenix works closely with its public nonprofit and private partners in order to develop
institutional structure. The opportunities described below will be explored to further develop the
institutional structure:

• Explore alternative funding sources to tackle priorities set out in the Consolidated Plan.
• Deliver focused technical assistance to encourage affordable housing for lower income persons
in addition to special needs and homeless persons as well as priority community development
needs.
• Continue to foster the participation of an increasing number of private and non-profit entities to
deliver affordable and special needs housing. Increase and fortify partnerships with the
development community to focus and innovatively attend to affordable housing needs and issues.
• Utilize public funds with other private, non-profit, foundation and other alternative sources to
stimulate affordable housing, homeless and special needs housing production as well as
neighborhood revitalization and stabilization.
• Work cooperatively on homeless and supportive housing issues through the 'continuum of care'
process.
• Pursue local sources of financing for priority affordable and special needs housing production,
neighborhood preservation and community development.

Actions planned to enhance coordination between public and private housing and social
service agencies

The City’s Housing Department conducts regular public forums to receive input from private and nonprofit
housing developers. A List-Serve has been established to communicate with the housing community any
updates, regulatory changes, available funding for housing development and public meetings related to
housing development or services. Housing Supportive Services (HSS) has established a Housing Coalition
of Service Providers, which consists of education, employment, health care, youth, and elderly care
service providers to help connect low-income residents to services and resources. This Coalition has grown
to over 100 different programs and agencies. A subcommittee of this Coalition is the Early Childhood
Action Team (ECAT) comprised of agencies serving children ages 0-5 and elementary school aged children.
Quarterly meetings are held with each group’s members.

The method for selecting HOPWA Project Sponsors is to conduct an open, competitive Request for
Proposal (RFP) process. This includes providing full access to community-based nonprofit organizations,
public agencies and minority owned businesses providing HIV/AIDS services. Prior to the issuance of a
RFP, community outreach, meetings and communication through email occurs to ensure community
organizations are aware of the upcoming RFP and to receive feedback on current services and/or gaps in
services.


Annual Action Plan 269
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

Program Specific Requirements

AP-90 Program Specific Requirements – 91.220(l)(1,2,4)
Introduction:
This section provides program specific requirements for the CDBG, HOME, ESG and HOPWA programs.

Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG)
Reference 24 CFR 91.220(l)(1)

Projects planned with all CDBG funds expected to be available during the year are identified in the Projects
Table. The following identifies program income that is available for use that is included in projects to be
carried out.



1. The total amount of program income that will have been received before the start of the next
program year and that has not yet been reprogrammed 0
2. The amount of proceeds from section 108 loan guarantees that will be used during the year to
address the priority needs and specific objectives identified in the grantee's strategic plan. 0
3. The amount of surplus funds from urban renewal settlements 0
4. The amount of any grant funds returned to the line of credit for which the planned use has not
been included in a prior statement or plan 0
5. The amount of income from float-funded activities 0
Total Program Income: 0

Other CDBG Requirements

1. The amount of urgent need activities 0

2. The estimated percentage of CDBG funds that will be used for activities that
benefit persons of low and moderate income. Overall Benefit - A consecutive
period of one, two or three years may be used to determine that a minimum
overall benefit of 70% of CDBG funds is used to benefit persons of low and
moderate income. Specify the years covered that include this Annual Action Plan. 70.00%




Annual Action Plan 270
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME)
Reference 24 CFR 91.220(l)(2)

1. A description of other forms of investment being used beyond those identified in Section 92.205 is as
follows:

Not Applicable.

2. A description of the guidelines that will be used for resale or recapture of HOME funds when used for
homebuyer activities as required in 92.254, is as follows:

The City conducts homebuyer activities solely through its Open Doors Down Payment Assistance
Program. This program provides direct subsidies to low-income households in the form of a forgivable
loan used for down payments and closing costs. The City utilizes a recapture method for this program
through a forgivable loan which offers a pro rata reduction of the loan balance during the period of
affordability. As long as the borrower is able to own, occupy and use the property as their principal
residence, the loan balance is partially forgiven over time until it is fully released at the end of the
period of affordability. These requirements as well as the forgiveness schedule are stated in the down
payment assistance loan documents and secured through a recorded deed of trust on the property as
well as a recorded affordability covenant running with the land. Period of affordability is as follows:

1. 5-year period of affordability for loan amounts up to $14,999
2. 10-year period of affordability for loan amounts of $15,000 to $40,000
3. 15-year period of affordability for loan amounts over $40,000.

The following forgiveness schedule is used for this program:

4. Loans of $14,999 or less - 25% of the loan is forgiven each year beginning on the second
anniversary/year of the recording of the Deed of Trust
5. Loans $15,000 to $40,000 - 20% of the loan is forgiven annually beginning on the sixth
anniversary/year of the recording of the Deed of Trust
6. Loan amounts over $40,000 - 10% of the loan is forgiven annually beginning on the sixth
anniversary/year of the recording of the Deed of Trust.

If, during the period of affordability, the borrower ceases to own, occupy and use the property as their
principal residence, the City will recapture either all or a portion of the original loan amount. If the
borrower voluntarily or involuntarily transfers their interest in the property (e.g., the property is sold
or foreclosed upon), the City will recapture the loan amount less any forgiveness in accordance with
the loan agreement. These funds will be recaptured from available net proceeds. Net proceeds are
defined as the sales price minus superior loan repayment (other than HOME funds) and any closing
costs. If the borrower continues to own the property but ceases to occupy and use the property as

Annual Action Plan 271
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

the borrower’s principal residence (e.g., the property is rented or vacant), the borrower will pay an
immediate recapture amount of the full original loan balance.

3. A description of the guidelines for resale or recapture that ensures the affordability of units acquired
with HOME funds? See 24 CFR 92.254(a)(4) are as follows:

The HOME multifamily program ensures affordability by placing a land use restriction on the
property/land that is recorded with the Maricopa County Recorder's Office. This restriction assists in
securing the affordable HOME units for the required affordability period.

4. Plans for using HOME funds to refinance existing debt secured by multifamily housing that is
rehabilitated with HOME funds along with a description of the refinancing guidelines required that
will be used under 24 CFR 92.206(b), are as follows:

The Housing Department may consider a citywide refinancing program, as an investment strategy for
acquisition and/or rehabilitation of affordable rental projects sponsored by nonprofit housing
developers with a minimum HOME investment of $1,000 per unit. All rehabilitated units must be
located within Phoenix City Limits and meet the City of Phoenix Minimum Property Standards. Priority
will be given to projects already supported by City funds. While refinancing may be an eligible activity
in the preservation of affordable rental housing, it will not be eligible as the primary purpose of the
Department’s refinancing investment strategy. “Taking out” or “cashing out” by developer/borrower
of capital equity will not be permitted under the Department’s refinancing investment strategy.

Nonprofit housing developers may be eligible to refinance existing debt using Housing Department
funds when rehabilitation of the project and refinancing is necessary to create or continue long- term
affordability rental restrictions. Through an application process, projects must provide a management
plan and 15-year proforma. City staff will review and underwrite the project to determine feasibility.
Aspects such as property management, financial need, long term financial feasibility, market demand
and level of rehabilitation will be reviewed to determine the project feasibility. Housing Department
funds utilizing federal block grant funds such as HOME Investment Partnerships Program cannot be
used to refinance FHA loans and/or multifamily mortgage loans made or insured by any federal
program including the Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG). Projects must be
developed by a nonprofit agency and located jurisdiction wide (anywhere within the City of Phoenix).
The new investment must create additional affordable units and/or be used to maintain current
affordable units.

All projects are subject to long-term affordability restrictions which limit resident incomes and rents
based on levels of area median income (AMI) established annually by the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD). All units receiving Department refinancing assistance must be
reserved for households below 60% of AMI. An affordability restriction of at least 30 to 40 years will
be required on all units assisted through the refinancing investment strategy. Specific project

Annual Action Plan 272
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

requirements will determine period of affordability restriction.

5. If applicable to a planned HOME TBRA activity, a description of the preference for persons with special
needs or disabilities. (See 24 CFR 92.209(c)(2)(i) and CFR 91.220(l)(2)(vii)).

N/A. The City’s Housing Department does not plan to fund TBRA with HOME funds.

6. If applicable to a planned HOME TBRA activity, a description of how the preference for a specific
category of individuals with disabilities (e.g. persons with HIV/AIDS or chronic mental illness) will
narrow the gap in benefits and the preference is needed to narrow the gap in benefits and services
received by such persons. (See 24 CFR 92.209(c)(2)(ii) and 91.220(l)(2)(vii)).

N/A. The City’s Housing Department does not plan to fund TBRA with HOME funds.

7. If applicable, a description of any preference or limitation for rental housing projects. (See 24 CFR
92.253(d)(3) and CFR 91.220(l)(2)(vii)). Note: Preferences cannot be administered in a manner that
limits the opportunities of persons on any basis prohibited by the laws listed under 24 CFR 5.105(a).

In accordance with 24 CFR 92.253(d)(3), an owner of rental housing assisted with HOME funds must
comply with the affirmative marketing requirements established by the City of Phoenix, which is the
participating jurisdiction (PJ) pursuant to 24 CFR 92.351(a). The owner of the rental housing project
must adopt and follow written tenant selection policies and criteria, which include that it may give a
preference to a particular segment of the population if permitted in its written agreement with the PJ
such as persons with a disability or other special needs. However, at this time there is no limit to
eligibility or preference given to any particular segment of the population with rental housing projects
funded by the City’s HOME program funds. HOME funds must however target low- to moderate-
income households. The City does not discriminate and provides equal access to all eligible
households.




Annual Action Plan 273
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG)
Reference 91.220(l)(4)

1. Include written standards for providing ESG assistance (may include as attachment)

The City of Phoenix utilizes the Maricopa Regional Continuum of Care Community ESG Written
Standards developed and approved through the Maricopa Regional CoC in the direct provision of ESG
assistance. Likewise, the City contractually requires sub recipients to provide ESG assistance in
alignment with applicable standards.

2. If the Continuum of Care has established centralized or coordinated assessment system that meets
HUD requirements, describe that centralized or coordinated assessment system.

The CoC operates a Coordinated Entry (CE) system for all people experiencing homelessness. The
Access Points use a common assessment tool to determine the housing intervention that is best suited
for the client(s). The assessment tool is then utilized to determine if domestic violence is a factor and
if so, the victim’s immediate safety is subsequently assessed. Client(s) may then be referred to the DV
Centralized Screening (CS) system, the parallel system for victims of domestic violence. Once safety is
addressed, then the housing assessment tool is administered by CE and referrals are made based on
the substantiated need. Client choice is also considered when making a referral as many housing
options are presented and the client choice is paramount to the success of the intervention. Many DV
providers were involved in the development of the CE system to ensure that survivor remains safe
and connection to the DV system as well as the variety of housing options.

The Family Housing Hub serves as the main point of entry for families experiencing homelessness in
Maricopa County. The Family Housing Hub coordinates shelter and housing referrals for families. The
Welcome Center serves as the main access point wherein single adult individuals experiencing
homelessness are engaged. In addition to these two main points of entry, there are over 40 mobile
teams that act as access points as well as phone services. The CoC approved the VI-SPDAT and Family
VI-SPDAT as the common assessment tool for coordinated entry. Staff at the Family Housing Hub and
Welcome Center, as well as other trained partners, administer the VI-SPDAT to determine which
intervention best meets the needs of the individual or family. The Coordinated Entry leads make the
referral to the housing and/or service provider based on the needs identified. People are first assessed
for safety and, as appropriate, triaged to other systems of care for crisis or domestic violence.

3. Identify the process for making sub-awards and describe how the ESG allocation available to private
nonprofit organizations (including community and faith-based organizations).

Current City of Phoenix ESG subrecipients were granted awarded through a Request for Qualifications
(RFQ) process in FY 2025 to establish a Qualified Vendor List (QVL). Contracts are awarded based on
program or project need and proposal response. Contracts are monitored annually for progress
towards performance outcomes and compliance with federal, state, and local regulations. The City
Annual Action Plan 274
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

works closely with subrecipients to provide training, technical assistance, and ongoing support as
needed.

4. If the jurisdiction is unable to meet the homeless participation requirement in 24 CFR 576.405(a), the
jurisdiction must specify its plan for reaching out to and consulting with homeless or formerly
homeless individuals in considering policies and funding decisions regarding facilities and services
funded under ESG.

The City of Phoenix Human Services Commission, which serves as the Human Services Department’s
governing board includes representation of person(s) who are homeless or formerly homeless and
organizations which serve persons currently experiencing homelessness.

5. Describe performance standards for evaluating ESG.

Performance standards are included in the Maricopa Regional Continuum of Care Community
Performance Measures approved by the Maricopa Regional CoC and required for all ESG assistance
activities. Subrecipients provide monthly demographic reports and quarterly performance reports to
track progress towards annual outcomes.

HOPWA Selection of Project Sponsors

Project Sponsors submitted proposals for a Request for Proposals (RFP) in March 2025. Project Sponsors
were selected through this RFP process in which experience; qualifications; methodology; design and
capacity were among criteria considered during the evaluation process. New housing and service
contracts began on July 1, 2025. Prior to the issuance of the most recent RFP, community outreach
occurred to all agencies providing HIV/AIDS services, including minority owned businesses, to ensure all
were aware of the upcoming RFP.




Annual Action Plan 275
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)




Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
2025-26 Neighborhood Services Department Housing Rehabilitation Programs
(Ordinance S-52061) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to apply for, accept, and if
awarded grant funds, enter into any necessary agreements to implement the
Neighborhood Services Department (NSD) Housing Rehabilitation Programs. Further
request authorization for the City Treasurer to accept, and the City Controller to
disburse, all funds related to this item. There is no impact to the General Fund.

Summary
NSD manages a diverse catalogue of Housing Rehabilitation Programs that enhance
the low- and moderate-income Phoenix residents' quality of life by repairing single-
and multi-family, owner- and tenant-occupied, properties. These programs benefit
eligible households by removing health and safety hazards, promoting energy
efficiency and sustainability, and supporting accessibility and aging in place.
Furthermore, Housing Rehabilitation Programs protect affordability, preserve the
aesthetic character of surrounding neighborhoods, and stimulate and expand
residential and commercial development in communities across Phoenix. Housing
rehabilitation projects are funded through a variety of federal, state and local grant
funds, outlined below.

· U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnership (HOME)
funds finance housing rehabilitation contracts between low- and moderate-income
property owners and contractors on the Approved Contractor List (ACL). These
contracts may also be supplemented with funding from the U.S. Department of
Energy, utility providers, and other state and local agencies.
· U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Energy
Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) funds provided through the Arizona
Department of Housing; Arizona Public Service; Salt River Project; Southwest Gas;
the Utility Repair, Replacement and Deposit program; the Low-Income Home
Energy Assistance Program; and Wildfire support NSD's continuous commitment of
providing weatherization assistance services. These services include installing attic
insulation, sunscreens, duct sealing, performing room pressure relief/air balancing,
and repairing or replacing heating and cooling systems in owner-occupied and


rental households that meet federal poverty guidelines.

NSD will maintain an ACL to increase the number of eligible small businesses that
perform housing rehabilitation activities, and maintain efficient program operations. In
order to be added to the ACL as an eligible contractor and receive bid opportunities to
perform construction services on housing rehabilitation projects, contractors must be
screened and qualified on an individual basis and meet and maintain all eligibility
requirements set forth in NSD's Housing Rehab Contractor Application Packet, located
on NSD's website. The ACL will remain open to local contractors that meet the
applicable criteria in the Contractor Application Packet to promote and expand small
business participation in the program. Contractors on the ACL will be selected to
submit bids based on their certifications, licenses, and other criteria determined by
Housing Rehabilitation Programs.

NSD seeks authorization to proceed with all actions necessary or appropriate to
implement and administer its grant-funded Housing Rehabilitation Programs, including
applying for and accepting up to $6 million in funding. In addition to allocating up to
$2.7 million in CDBG funds, NSD expects to be awarded approximately $3.3 million in
WAP funds.

Actions include:
· If awarded, enter into any necessary contracts or agreements with the grantor(s) to
fund existing and future contracts in accordance with the grant terms.
· Enter into and amend contracts with eligible property owners to perform
rehabilitation services; enter into contracts with private contractors; issue Request
for Proposals, Request for Qualifications, Calls for Interest, and Requests for Bids
for Housing Rehabilitation Program services; award, negotiate, and execute
contracts with the successful responders; and negotiate and/or amend existing
contracts with various contractors and service providers to perform work on eligible
housing and rental rehabilitation projects.
· Maintain an ACL of qualified contractors to enter into agreements with low- and
moderate-income property owners funded by NSD, pursuant to the grant terms.
These funds may be disbursed to the property owner or contractor.
· Take all other action necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of this item
and implement and administer the Housing Rehabilitation Program grants according
to their terms.

Procurement Information
As needed to implement and administer NSD's Housing Rehabilitation Programs,
services may be procured using procurement procedures in accordance with



Administrative Regulation 3.10.

Financial Impact
These programs are funded with federal, state and local grants. There is no impact to
the General Fund.

Public Outreach
The ACL and/or other procurement opportunities will be advertised in local print media
and will also be posted on NSD's website.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the
Neighborhood Services Department.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Keep Phoenix Beautiful Fiscal Agent Agreement for Neighborhood Grants
(Ordinance S-52133) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with the non-profit Keep Phoenix Beautiful, Inc. to serve as the City's fiscal agent for a
term of five years, to manage and disburse grant funds for the Love Your Block and
other Neighborhood Services Department grant programs, in an amount not to exceed
$60,000 per year. Further request authorization for the City Controller to disburse and
the City Treasurer to accept all funding related to this item.

Summary
The City of Phoenix's Love Your Block (LYB) grant program was established in 2015
with the goal of empowering neighborhood groups to lead revitalization efforts through
small-scale projects that enhance community pride and engagement. In the past, the
LYB grant program received funding from the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC) and
the Public Works Department totaling $40,000 per year. Additionally, through GRIC
funding, the Neighborhood Services Department piloted a Business Alliance grant
program for up to $20,000 per year, as well as other grant funded neighborhood
support.

Keep Phoenix Beautiful, Inc. has agreed to serve as the City's fiscal agent with respect
to management and disbursement of these grant funds.

Contract Term
The agreement term will be for five years beginning on or around June 23, 2025.

Financial Impact
The aggregate value will not exceed $300,000 and no General Fund impact is
anticipated.

Previous Council Action
On March 23, 2022, City Council approved an agreement for Keep Phoenix Beautiful,
Inc. to lease space within Phoenix City Hall and to administer and develop
sustainability education, events, and volunteer coordination throughout the City via
Ordinance S-48398.




Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the
Neighborhood Services Department.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Lead, Asbestos, and Radon Testing and Mitigation Services - NSD-RFQu-25-002 -
Amendment (Ordinance S-52131) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to allow additional
expenditures under Contracts 162604 with Dominion Environmental Consultants, Inc.,
and 162605 Statewide Restoration Services, LLC. for lead, asbestos testing, and
radon testing and mitigation services for the Housing Department through
amendments to those contracts. Further request to authorize the City Controller to
disburse all funds related to this item. The additional expenditures will not exceed $1.2
million. There is no impact to the General Fund.

Summary
The contracts will provide asbestos testing, lead-based paint testing, and radon
testing, along with mitigation services on an as needed basis for Housing Department
programs.

Contract Term
The contract term remains unchanged, ending on June 30, 2030.

Financial Impact
These programs are funded with federal, state and local grants. There is no impact to
the General Fund.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request:
· 2024-25 Neighborhood Services Department Housing Rehabilitation Programs
Contracts 162604 and 162605 (Ordinance S-50822) on May 1, 2024.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Gina Montes and Alan Stephenson
and the Housing and Neighborhood Services departments.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
1305 and 1410 W. Polk Street - Authorization for Sale and Development
(Ordinance S-52106) - District 7

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to separately enter into a
development agreement, and other agreements as necessary, (collectively, the
"Agreements") with Habitat for Humanity Central Arizona ("Developer") for the sale and
development of 1305 and 1410 W. Polk Street for affordable housing projects. Further
request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item and
City Treasurer to accept funds received as program income.

Summary
The Developer submitted its proposal in response to the Neighborhood Services
Department (NSD) Request for Proposals (RFP) for the purchase and development of
two vacant residential City-owned lots located in the Oakland Historic District at 1305
and 1410 W. Polk Street. The Developer's proposal aligns with the goals outlined in
the Housing Phoenix Plan which addresses the critical need for affordable housing in
the City of Phoenix.

The proposed business terms include:
· The residential lot at 1305 W. Polk Street will be developed into a three-bedroom,
two-bathroom single-family detached owner-occupied home and maintain
permanent affordability through land use restrictions.
· The commercial lot at 1410 W. Polk Street will be rezoned residential and
developed into a two-unit owner-occupied single-family duplex and maintain
permanent affordability through land use restrictions. NSD will provide up to
$150,000 in city assistance from program income received from the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funded programs to assist
with development and homeownership assistance costs.
· Developer will enter into a Sale and Development Agreement within six months, and
each project shall have development benchmarks for construction. Estimated
construction completion is approximately 30 months.
· The three residential units that the two projects create will be made available to
households with income levels not to exceed 80 percent area median income, as
defined annually by HUD.
· Affordability requirements will be secured through a Declaration of Affirmative Land


Use Restrictive Covenant.

The development of the two lots will add affordable housing opportunities, generate
jobs and economic activity, increase revenue at local businesses, increase tax
revenue, and improved quality of life.

Procurement Information
NSD issued an RFP for the purchase and development of 1305 and 1410 W. Polk
Street in August 2023. When this solicitation closed in October 2023, it was deemed
unsuccessful due to zero proposals being submitted. In September 2024, NSD re-
issued an RFP for the two subject lots and when this solicitation closed in December
2024, NSD received one proposal. Upon review, staff deemed the proposal responsive
and complete. An Award Recommendation naming Habitat for Humanity Central
Arizona was posted in January 2025 and staff initiated negotiations regarding the
terms, design and construction of the proposed developments.

Contract Term
The contract term of the Agreements will be three-year contract terms, with two one-
year options to extend, which may be exercised by the City Manager, or designee. The
Agreements will include other terms and conditions deemed necessary by the City.

Financial Impact
Funding will be provided to the 1410 W. Polk Street proposed development project
with the funds originating from HUD. No city financial assistance is being sought for
the 1305 W. Polk Street development project. No General Funds are required.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
On June 16, 2020, Phoenix City Council approved nine policy initiatives listed in the
Housing Phoenix Plan. The two projects fall under Initiative number three.

Public Outreach
A virtual community meeting was held on June 29, 2023 with the residents and
business owners located in the Oakland Historic District regarding the RFP and to
solicit input on the development of these lots.

Location
1305 W. Polk Street and 1410 W. Polk Street
Council District: 7






Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Alan Stephenson and Gina Montes
and the Neighborhood Services and Housing departments.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Mailing Services with Electronic Transfer - Professional Services Agreement
161139 - Amendment (Ordinance S-52129) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to amend Contract 161139
with Standard Printing Company Inc dba Information Outsource to assigned vendor,
Sebis Direct, Inc. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item. No additional funds are needed, request to continue using
Ordinance S-50849.

Summary
This contract provides mailing services for the Neighborhood Services Department
(NSD). NSD must mail regular, certified and restricted notices and citations to
residents, agents and financial entities regarding violations to NSD enforced
ordinances. Other important services provided include printing and stuffing envelopes,
and providing electronic status reports. Approval is requested to amend this contract
accordingly and continue receiving services from Sebis Direct, Inc.

Contract Term
The contract term remains unchanged, ending on June 30, 2029.

Financial Impact
The aggregate value of the contract will not exceed $180,000 and no additional funds
are needed.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request:
• Mailing Services with Electronic Transfer - Contract 161139 (Ordinance S-50849) on
May 15, 2024.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the
Neighborhood Services Department.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Grant of Access Easement and Authorization to License a Portion of City-Owned
Property to the Arizona Jewish Historical Society at 1221 N. Central Avenue
(Ordinance S-52095) - District 7

Request authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to grant an access
easement to the Arizona Jewish Historical Society (AJHS), an Arizona non-profit
corporation, for perpetual, non-exclusive, access for fire service and refuse disposal
across City-owned property at 1221 N. Central Avenue (Burton Barr Central Library
parking lot).

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a revocable
license to allow AJHS to conduct construction staging on City-owned property. Use of
this area is necessary for construction and renovation of the Hilton Family Holocaust
Education Center which is adjacent to the Burton Barr Central Library parking lot.

Summary
AJHS is scheduled to begin construction to renovate and expand its facility located at
122 E. Culver Street, which is adjacent to the Library parking lot. The project
contemplates, among other things, the demolition of existing structures in accordance
with City Council directives specified in Ordinance S-46698. Although the City's fire and
refuse removal vehicles have adequate ingress onto the AJHS property from Culver
Street, an access easement is needed for the vehicles to exit through the adjacent
library parking lot. There will not be adequate area for large vehicles to turn around and
exit back to Culver.

A revocable license for use of a portion of the Burton Barr Central Library parking lot is
needed for material and equipment storage and staging during the course of
construction. The term of the license should be 18 months from commencement of
construction with an option for a six-month extension. The licensee shall provide
insurance and indemnification acceptable to the City's Risk Management Division and
Law Department.

Both the Library Department and the Office of Arts and Culture support the granting





of the perpetual non-exclusive access easement and a revocable license. This
construction and renovation project will be funded, in part, through the 2023
General Obligation Bond Project under the Office of Arts and Culture.

Location
Southeast corner of Central Avenue and Willetta Street
1221 N. Central Avenue
Assessor's Parcel Number: 111-35-104
Council District: 7

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Inger Erickson, Deputy City
Manager David Mathews, the Library Department and Office of Arts and Culture.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Artist Contracts for Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport Terminal 3
Modernization Public Art Project (Ordinance S-52126) - District 8

Request authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into four
contracts with artists Kenaim Al-Shatti, Erwin Redl (Paramedia LLC), Lily Reeves (with
Grace Fox, May Ling Tang, Preston Williams), and Nancy Hou with Josh de Sousa,
each in an amount not to exceed $100,000 (for a total of $400,000), to work with the
Aviation Department design team to create artwork for the Phoenix Sky Harbor
International Airport Terminal 3 Modernization Project. Val Britton (Britton Studio LLC)
and Casey Farina were chosen as alternates, who would be contracted only if the
selected artists could not complete the projects. Further request authorization for the
City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.

Summary
The Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-29 Public Art Plan includes funding for multiple artworks to
be integrated into the Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport’s Terminal 3
Modernization Project. In collaboration with the Aviation Department, Arts and Culture
sought to commission artwork and amenities to be integrated into the Project, which is
currently in the design phase.

The new North Concourse at Terminal 3 will be approximately 140,000 square feet
over three levels and add six gates to the terminal. In addition, two new connectors will
link the new concourse with Terminal 4 and other areas of Terminal 3 for easier
transfers. As part of this project, artists will be expected to design artwork that will
enrich the passenger experience with bold artistic statements and make traveling more
enjoyable by creating immersive and memorable spaces.

A Request for Qualifications for the project was released on July 24, 2024, with a
submission deadline of August 30, 2024. Nearly 400 applications were received. On
May 6, 2025, a five-member artist selection panel reviewed qualified applications and
selected the following artists:
· Kenaim Al-Shatti;
· Erwin Redl (Paramedia LLC);
· Lily Reeves (with Grace Fox, May Ling Tang, Preston Williams); and
· Nancy Hou with Josh de Sousa.



The artists were recommended based on their potential to create exceptional artwork
and their ability to work effectively with complex design teams. Val Britton (Britton
Studio LLC) and Casey Farina were chosen as alternates, who would be contracted
only if the selected artists could not complete the projects. The selection panel
included Kati Ballares, Director of Public Art, Scottsdale Arts; Nicole Armstrong-Best,
Director, S'edav Va'aki Museum; Haley Hinds, Manager, Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport
Museum; Frank Cauthen, Senior Project Designer, HOK Architecture and Planning;
and Rembrandt Quiballo, artist and Phoenix resident.

Financial Impact
The Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport Terminal 3 Modernization Public Art
Project is one of 48 projects in the FY 2024-29 Public Art Plan that the City Council
approved on July 1, 2024. The total budget is $4,500,000. The four proposed
$100,000 design contracts (totaling $400,000) will cover all costs related to the artists
working with City staff and the Aviation Design Team to develop final designs for public
art projects. Additional funding in the Plan for this project covers fabrication,
construction, staff time, contingency, and other administrative costs.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Phoenix Arts and Culture Commission reviewed and approved the recommended
artists at its May 20, 2025, meeting by a vote of 11-0.

Location
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, 3400 E. Sky Harbor Boulevard.
Council District: 8

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager David Mathews and the Office of Arts
and Culture.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Fiscal Year 2025-30 Public Art Plan (Ordinance S-52123) - Citywide

Request approval of the Phoenix Office of Arts and Culture's Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-30
Public Art Plan.

Summary
The City's Office of Arts and Culture was established to champion, promote, and
sustain the City's arts and culture community that makes Phoenix a great place to live,
work and visit. The department manages the City's public art program, which is funded
through the percent-for-art ordinance that City Council adopted in 1986. The ordinance
requires one percent of Capital Improvement Program (CIP) funds to be invested to
enhance the design and experience of public infrastructure, buildings and spaces
through public art.

The percent-for-art ordinance requires the department, upon the recommendation of
the Phoenix Arts and Culture Commission, to submit an annual Five-Year Public Art
Plan (Attachment A) in advance of each new FY. The Plan is developed by the Office
of Arts and Culture in consultation with City departments, City Council offices and
community groups.

The proposed FY 2025-30 Public Art Plan includes $24,406,654 to fund 45 public art
projects over the next five years (Attachment B). This total includes 42 continuing
projects totaling $24,056,654 and three new projects totaling $350,000. The public art
projects within the plan are prioritized based on opportunities to integrate artwork into
individual CIP projects and their potential impact on the neighborhood and broader arts
community. Under these parameters, the plan focuses on the equitable distribution of
funds, as allowable by the percent-for-art ordinance, and the diversification of the
public art collection through broadening the types of project opportunities and
continued outreach to new artists and arts organizations.

Other Information
Of the 45 projects outlined in the Plan, eight address major retrofits or refurbishments,
seven support broader Citywide initiatives like heat mitigation, and three are a
component of long-ranged planning efforts like RIO PHX. These CIP funds can only be
used for public art. They cannot be used to hire City workers, such as librarians, police



or firefighters, or pay to operate public buildings, like libraries, parks or senior centers.

Additionally, public involvement is critical to the success of public art projects.
Neighborhood organizations, village planning committees, schools and City
departments are included as important participants throughout the public art process.
The Office Arts and Culture develops each project with the community in mind and
works to provide ample opportunities for feedback and collaboration.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Phoenix Arts and Culture Commission reviewed and approved the FY 2025-30
Public Art Plan at its May 20, 2025, meeting by a vote of 11-0. The item was reviewed
and approved by the Economic Development and Housing Subcommittee at their May
28, 2025 meeting by a vote of 3-0.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager David Mathews and the Office of Arts
and Culture.





ATTACHMENT A




PHOENIX OFFICE OF ARTS AND CULTURE
FY 2025-2030 PUBLIC ART PLAN




phoenix.gov/arts
Cover Artwork

Top Left:
Jenny Boehme and Josie Davis
The Burrow
Roesley Park, District 7
¡Sombra! Experiments in Shade temporary installation

Top Right:
Ariana Enriquez
The Creek Carves A Path
305 W. Washington Payment Center, District 7

Bottom:
Lisa Bernal Brethour
Moon Dance
Perry Park, District 8





Table of Contents



Introduction and Goals………..……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 5

Fiscal Year (FY) 2024-2025 Completed Public Art Projects…………………………………………………………. 7

FY 2024-2025 Completed Retrofit and Refurbishment Projects.…….……………………………….…………… 10

FY 2024-2025 Awards and Accomplishments………………………………………………………………….…………… 12

FY 2025-2030 Public Art Project List………………………………………………………………………………………….… 13

Organized by Project Number
General Obligation Bond: Proposition 1 14
General Obligation Bond: Proposition 2 14
General Obligation Bond: Proposition 3 14
General Obligation Bond: Proposition 4 15
32nd Street Drought Pipeline and Neighborhood Improvements 15
Shade, Cooling, and Heat Mitigation 15
Dobbins Road Improvement Project (Loop 202 to 27th Avenue) 16
3rd Street Connector (Rio Salado to Lincoln Street) 16
State Route 303 16
McDowell Road Revitalization Project 15
NEW: State Road 30 17
Portable Works at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport 17
Terminal 3 Modernization at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport 17
Aviation Pooled Funds (Deer Valley Airport) 18
NEW: 35th Avenue Overpass at Grand Avenue 18
27th Avenue Solid Waste Management Facility 18
Public Works Community Projects 18
Artist Initiatives 19
Civic Space Park: Her Secret is Patience (Refurbishment and Retrofit) 19
Mountain Preserve Enhancements – South Mountain Park and Preserve 19
Reach 11 Sports Complex: The Wings (Refurbishment and Retrofit) 20
Dreamy Draw Pedestrian Bridge (Refurbishment and Retrofit) 20
Laveen Heritage Park 20
Lone Mountain Park 20
3rd Street Rio Salado Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge 21
Lookout Mountain Park: Desert Passages (Refurbishment and Retrofit) 21
100 W. Washington Street 21
North Phoenix Reservoir 22
Harmon Park: River of Shade (Refurbishment and Retrofit) 22
Sunnyslope Canal Demonstration Project (Refurbishment and Retrofit) 22

Arizona Falls: Waterworks (Refurbishment and Retrofit) 22
Water Services West Yard 23
Community Well Site Enhancements 23
Cortez Park and Well Site 23
Maryvale Grand Canal Crossing 23
El Reposo Park 24
Sueño Park 24
Paradise Valley Park 24
Western Canalscape (Phase 1 and 2) 24
Collaborative Neighborhood Projects 25
Identification Plaques and Interpretive Signage 25
NEW: Major Refurbishments, Restorations, and Routine Maintenance 25
Tres Rios Wetlands 26
Lift Stations and Neighborhood Facilities 26
Rio Reimagined 26

FY 2025-2030 Multi-Year Initiatives………..…….…………………………….……………………………………….……… 27

FY 2025-2030 Public Art Plan Summary…………………….………………………………………………………………… 29

FY 2025-2030 Public Art Plan Budget……………………………..……………………………………………….………….. 30





Introduction and Goals



Introduction

The Phoenix Office of Arts and Culture is the City's designated local arts agency. It champions,
promotes, and supports the local arts and culture community, making Phoenix a great place
to live, work, and visit.

The Phoenix Office of Arts and Culture (POAC) is a local and national leader in the public art
field and has garnered numerous awards for design excellence, including Design for
Transportation awards from the U.S. Department of Transportation and Public Art Network
Year in Review awards from Americans for the Arts.

Established in 1986, the Public Art Program works with local, national, and international artists
to create a more beautiful and vibrant city. By ordinance, one percent of the Capital
Improvement Program is utilized to enhance the design of public buildings, infrastructure, and
spaces within the City of Phoenix. Since its inception, the program has completed more than
200 major projects, including airport terminals, community centers, streetscapes, parks, canals,
transit centers, bridges, underpasses, recycling centers, and public safety buildings.

A competitive procurement process identifies artists for public art projects. The process utilizes
a selection panel containing art and design professionals, project stakeholders, and community
representatives relevant to the project's location. City staff and project team members often
serve as non-voting advisors to the panel. Panelists are responsible for reviewing applications
submitted in response to a Call to Artists, interviewing finalists, and making recommendations
to the Arts and Culture Commission, a volunteer citizen advisory board appointed by City
Council. The quality of work, suitability for the project, and the ability to work well with the
community and other design professionals influence the selection panel's final
recommendations. The Phoenix City Council approves the final recommendation before the
contract is executed and artists begin work.

POAC develops the Public Art Plan annually with input and assistance from the Mayor and
and the Arts and Culture Commission. The timing of the plan coincides with the annual Capital
Improvement Program budgeted per fiscal year (July 1 – June 30; for example, FY 2025-2026 =
July 2025 – June 2026). The plan outlines several project types, including design team projects,
permanent commissions, purchases of existing artwork, temporary commissions, art
refurbishment and retrofits, and master planning.





Goals

Public art projects within the FY 2025-2030 Public Art Plan are prioritized based on
opportunities to integrate artwork into individual Capital Improvement Program projects and
their potential impact on the neighborhood and the broader arts community. These decisions
are made closely with funding departments and City Council offices. Under these parameters,
the FY 2025-2030 Public Art Plan focuses on the equitable distribution of funds, as allowable by
the percent-for-art ordinance, and the diversification of the public art collection through
broadening the types of project opportunities and continued outreach to new artists and arts
organizations. This year, only a few new projects were added based on the City’s focus on
General Obligation Bond projects (previously included in the Plan) and the addition of grant-
funded projects.

Additionally, POAC strives to develop project opportunities and program policies that align with
strategic goals outlined in several long-range planning documents, like the Climate Action Plan
and the Shade and Tree Master Plan. Some of these efforts are realized through the FY 2025-
2030 Public Art Plan, like promoting the use of sustainable materials and sourcing methods to
commissioned artists and proactively seeking community input on project opportunities. As the
FY 2025-2030 Public Art Plan is implemented, POAC will continue integrating these important
citywide goals.

For more information about the Phoenix Office of Arts and Culture and the Public Art Program,
visit www.pheonix.gov/arts.





FY 2024-2025 Completed Public Art Projects


CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECTS

Solano Park
Council District 4

Artists Tom Drugan and Laura Haddad were contracted to
create artwork for Solano Park, with a particular focus on
the skate park. The artwork, titled Pipe Dreams, was
designed in partnership with the Parks Department, the
local skate community, and area residents. It references a
late 1970s skate spot known as the “Desert Pipes,” a series
of large concrete pipe sections temporarily stockpiled in
the desert. The artwork includes three steel pipes; the
outer pipes are skateable. This project was dedicated in
November 2024.




Perry Park
Council District 8

This artwork by Lisa Bernal Brethour depicts a
modern “tortoise and the hare” story with 9
lithomosaics scattered throughout the park. At the
center of the park, a lithomosaic labyrinth with a
night-blooming cereus desert flower encourages
visitors to move like a bee into the center of the
flower. In the skate plaza, pictured right, a trompe
l’oeil lithomosiac depicts a canyon for skaters to
jump that complements other obstacles in the
plaza. Also at the skate plaza are seven vertical
shade panels (pictured on the cover) that provide
much needed respite for skaters. This project was
dedicated in April 2025.





305 W. Washington Mural
Council District 7

Artist Ariana Enriquez completed an
interior mural for the utility payment
center lobby at 305 W. Washington.
The mural embodies the calm
characteristics of water by using a cool
color palette of blues, greens and
violets. The foreground is abundant
with botanicals, birds and butterflies
that are native to Arizona.





EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL PARTNERSHIP PROJECTS

HIV/AIDS Awareness Mural
Council District 7


Mayor Kate Gallego, in partnership with
the Phoenix Office of Arts and Culture,
Southwest Center, One N Ten, and Aunt
Rita's Foundation, and with support from
Artlink Inc., commissioned a semi-
permanent mural for the south wall of
The Parsons Center for Health and
Wellness located in central Phoenix.

The goal of this project was to raise awareness about HIV prevention, testing, and treatment,
inspire community engagement, and reduce stigma around HIV. It is to serve as a visual, public
reminder of the importance of proactive health measures and support for those affected by
HIV, encouraging people to take action through education, testing, and advocacy while
enhancing the experience of those seeking health, wellness, and community services from the
organizations located on the property.


Sidewalk Shade project
City-wide
(Partial completion)

Providing shade for pedestrians and bicycle riders
can improve public health and the economic
vitality of communities. The City will construct 19
shade structures in high-traffic public rights-of-
way at major intersections and crosswalks where
people are forced to wait for signal changes. Three
local artists, Isaac Caruso, Heidi Dauphin, and Sara
Altieri, were hired to contribute aesthetic designs
to the canopies. The Office of Heat Response and
Mitigation, the Streets Transportation
Department, and the Phoenix Office of Arts and
Culture are working in partnership to complete
this project by Spring 2026.

Canopy Design by Isaac Caruso





Nature Fest PHX Temporary Installation
District 8

In partnership with the Office of Environmental Programs and
the Parks and Recreation Department, artist Martin Moreno
was commissioned to create an interactive artwork for Nature
Fest PHX held in November and located at the Rio Salado
Habitat Restoration Area. The temporary interactive sculpture,
Pachamama, was featured as part of the annual event that
celebrates urban green spaces, wildlife, and community.
Throughout the event, Martin guided attendees to paint the
sculpture that honored mother earth and her habitat around
Rio Salado (Salt River).





FY 2024-2025 Completed Refurbishment and Retrofit Projects




Our Shared Environment
Council District 4

Specialists experienced with the
building material adobe completed
extensive renovations of Our Shared
Environment by Marylin Zwak. Several
issues were addressed, including water
damage, cracking, and soot from
vehicle exhaust. The wall treatments
are at the intersection of SR51 and
Thomas Road. The 3-year project was
completed in the April 2025.




Desert Spring
Council District 2

This artwork was damaged by a vehicular crash in 2023. Several linear feet of damage occurred
to the mosaic glass tiles incorporated into bridges along Desert Sonoran Blvd. Pedestrians and
cyclists using the sidewalk can appreciate the intricate design of desert flora created by artists
R & R Studios. Repairs were completed in February 2025.





River of Shade
Council District 8

This artwork, located at Harmon Park, was created
in 2010 and needed several repairs. Artist Stacy
Levy designed paths embedded with colorful glass
invoking the flow of water that are integrated into
the design of the park. The project repaired
cracked and uneven pavement and replaced worn
areas of the embedded glass. This work was
completed in January 2025.





FY 2024-2025 Awards and Accomplishments



Bloomberg Philanthropies Public Art Challenge Award
In October 2023, Bloomberg Philanthropies selected Phoenix as
one of eight winners of its prestigious Public Art Challenge. This
unique program supports temporary public art projects that
address important local civic issues in cities nationwide.
Phoenix's project, ¡Sombra! Experiments in Shade,
received $1,000,000 to commission nine artists to create
shading and cooling installations in response to extreme
urban heat.

These temporary projects were installed at parks across
Phoenix in Spring 2025 and will be on view through
September 2025. The project will conclude with a celebration
at Memorial Hall at Steele Indian School Park on September 20.
For mor information, visit www.sombraphx.org.


US Water Prize – Outstanding Artist
Bobby Zokaites

Nominated by the Water Services Department, artist
Bobby Zokaites was selected as a winner for the 2025
US Water Prize in the Outstanding Artist category.
According to the US Water Alliance, Bobby has “gone
above and beyond in terms of One Water solutions.”
The award will be made public at their annual
conference, One Water Summit, in July 2025.

Example of Bobby’s Zokaites’ work (pictured right):
A Time Machine Called Tinaja, 2020
Council District 5





FY 2025-2030 Public Art Project List


(Organized by Project Number)

Project Number AR00000027
Project Title Proposition 1: Fire, Police, Streets, and Storm Drainage
Location Various project locations
Type of Project Design Team and Permanent Commission
Funding Sources General Obligation Bonds
Budget $1,632,629
Council District 1, 3, 5, 6, 8

Artists will be commissioned to work with design teams to integrate public artwork into capital
improvement projects within this bond proposition. Projects include: Fire Station 7, Fire Station
13, Fires Station 15, and Fire Station 51. For more information about the General Obligation
Bond Program, visit: www.phoenix.gov/bond.

Project Number AR00000028
Project Title Proposition 2: Library, Parks, and Historic Preservation
Location Various project locations
Type of Project Design Team and Permanent Commission
Funding Sources General Obligation Bonds
Budget $903,583
Council District 2, 7

Artists will be commissioned to work with design teams to integrate public artwork into capital
improvement projects within this bond proposition. Projects include: Estrella Civic Space and
Branch Library and Desert View Civic Space and Branch Library. For more information about
the General Obligation Bond Program, visit: www.phoenix.gov/bond.

Project Number AR00000029
Project Title Proposition 3: Economic Develop., Environment, and Cultural Facilities
Location Various project locations
Type of Project Design Team and Permanent Commission
Funding Sources General Obligation Bonds
Budget $624,603
Council District TBD

Artists will be commissioned to work with design teams to integrate public artwork into capital
improvement projects within this bond proposition. Tentative projects include the Latino
Cultural Center (a location has not yet been designated for this new facility). For more
information about the General Obligation Bond Program, visit: www.phoenix.gov/bond.



Project Number AR00000030
Project Title Proposition 4: Affordable Housing, Senior Centers
Location Various project locations
Type of Project Design Team and Permanent Commission
Funding Sources General Obligation Bonds
Budget $600,649
Council District 4, 7, 8

Artists will be commissioned to work with design teams to integrate public artwork into capital
improvement projects within this bond proposition. Projects include: McDowell Senior Center
and the Choice Neighborhood Housing Development. For more information about the General
Obligation Bond Program, visit: www.phoenix.gov/bond.

Project Number AR63000030
Project Title 32nd Street and Drought Pipeline Neighborhood Improvements
Location Pipeline Corridor, from Cheryl Dr. to Cholla St.
Type of Project Design Team and Permanent Commission
Funding Sources Water Capital Funds
Budget $438,187
Council District 3

Artist Bobby Zokaites was contracted in a previous fiscal year to work with the community,
Street Transportation and Water Services, to integrate public art elements into the North 32nd
Street corridor design between Cheryl Drive Blvd. and Cholla St. following the Drought Pipeline
improvements. This project is in the fabrication phase and is expected to be complete in fall
2025.

Project Number AR63000032
Project Title Shade, Cooling, and Heat Mitigation
Location Various
Type of Project Design Team, Permanent and Temporary Commissions
Funding Sources Streets, Wastewater and Water Capital Funds
Budget $1,208,141
Council District Citywide

Artists will be contracted to work with various City Departments to enhance the pedestrian
experience as part of the City's heat mitigation and cool corridors initiatives. These projects,
including the 55th Avenue Promenade with artist Creative Machines, are in the planning and
design and fabrication phases. This fund also contains supporting funds for the Bloomberg
Philanthropies Public Art Challenge grant.





Project Number AR63000034
Project Title Dobbins Road Improvement Project
Location Loop 202 to 27th Avenue
Type of Project Design Team and Permanent Commission
Funding Sources AHUR and Wastewater Capital Funds
Budget $475,000
Council District 7, 8

Artists Daniel Nez and Miguel Angel Godoy were contracted in a previous fiscal year to work
with Street Transportation, the community, and the project design team to integrate artwork
into the Dobbins Road Improvements Project. This project is in the design phase.

Project Number AR63000035
Project Title 3rd Street Connector
Location Rio Salado to Lincoln Street
Type of Project Design Team and Permanent Commission
Funding Sources AHUR, Wastewater and Water Capital Funds
Budget $587,720
Council District 8

An artist will be commissioned to work with Street Transportation, the community, and the
project design team to enhance the pedestrian experience as part of the 3rd Street Connector
project. This project is in the planning phase.

Project Number AR63850021
Project Title State Route 303
Location Lake Pleasant Parkway to I-17 Interchange
Type of Project Design Team and Permanent Commission
Funding Source AHUR and Water Capital Funds
Budget $524,906
Council District 1

In partnership with Maricopa Association of Governments and AZ Department of
Transportation, the City will complete State Route 303 from Lake Pleasant to the I-17
interchange. Project opportunities include four new ramps/bridges that will be built over
existing roads, the 67th Avenue interchange, and the Lake Pleasant Parkway interchange. Artist
Eric Powell was contracted in a previous fiscal year to work with the design team to incorporate
permanent public art to enhance the roadway improvements. This project is in the design
phase and is expected to be complete in 2026.

Project Number AR63850022
Project Title McDowell Road Revitalization Project
Location McDowell Rd, between 7th St. and SR 51
Type of Project Design Team and Permanent Commission
Funding Source Street Transportation, Water and Wastewater Capital Funds
Budget $300,205
Council District 4

The City is in the early planning stages of a project to revitalize the McDowell Road corridor
between 7th Street and State Route 51. The focus of this study is to identify and confirm
community-supported safety and aesthetic improvements to achieve four main goals: creating
a safer and more inviting area for people walking or riding bicycles to locations along the
corridor; improving navigation in and around the retail areas; enhancing access to transit; and
fostering a sense of place and identity. An artist will be commissioned to create artwork in
support of these goals. This project is in the planning phase.

Project Number AR63850023 (NEW)
Project Title State Road 30
Location South of Interstate 10 in the southwest Valley
Type of Project Design Team and Permanent Commission
Funding Source AHUR Capital Funds
Budget $100,000
Council District 7

In partnership with Arizona Department of Transpiration, the City is in the early planning stages
of a project to build an east-west roadway to extend 13 miles between the Loop 202 South
Mountain Freeway in Phoenix and Sarival Avenue, near Loop 303 in Goodyear. The approved
alignment is located approximately 4 miles south of and parallel to Interstate 10. This project is
in the planning phase.

Project Number AR66000021
Project Title Portable Works
Location Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport
Type of Project Purchase of Existing Artwork, Temporary Commissions
Funding Source Aviation Capital Funds
Budget $184,330
Council District 8

Artworks will be commissioned and purchased to support the Phoenix Airport Museum’s
collection. The Museum’s collection presents themed exhibitions in more than 40 display areas
throughout the Airport system. The artwork enhances the visitor's experience by creating a
memorable environment, promoting Arizona’s unique artistic and cultural heritage, and
honoring the airport's aviation history. These projects are in the planning phase.

Project Number AR66000046
Project Title Terminal 3 Modernization
Location Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport
Type of Project Design Team and Permanent Commissions
Funding Sources Aviation Capital Funds
Budget $4,500,000
Council District 8

Multiple artists will be commissioned to work with Aviation and the project design team to
integrate artwork into the Terminal 3 Modernization project. This project is in the artist
selection phase.

Project Number AR66000047
Project Title Aviation Pooled Funds
Location Deer Valley Airport
Type of Project Permanent Commission
Funding Source Aviation Capital Funds
Budget $706,492
Council District 1

Funds remaining from previously completed public art projects at the airport have been pooled
to create a new opportunity to support the ongoing modernization of Deer Valley Airport.
Specific locations and scopes of work will be developed in partnership with the Aviation
Department. This project is in the planning phase.


Project Number AR67000014 (NEW)
Project Title 35th Avenue/Grand Avenue Overpass
Location Intersection of 35th Avenue, Grand Avenue, and Indian School Rd.
Type of Project Permanent Commission
Funding Source Streets Capital Funds
Budget $100,000
Council District 5

An artist will be commissioned to work with Street Transportation and Arizona Department of
Transportation to integrate artwork into the new overpass at 35 th Avenue and Indian School Rd.
The project is in the planning phase.

Project Number AR70160001
Project Title 27th Avenue Solid Waste Management Facility
Location 3060 S. 27th Ave. (at Lower Buckeye Rd.)
Type of Project Temporary and Permanent Commission
Funding Source Solid Waste Capital Funds
Budget $132,611
Council District 7

Artist Katharine Leigh Simpson was contracted in a previous fiscal year to create artwork from
materials commonly found in the City’s recycling stream. The work is currently installed at the
Phoenix Convention Center and was slated to be reinstalled at the 27th Avenue Solid Waste
Management Facility, however a new location is being sought. The relocation is in the planning
phase.

Project Number AR70160004
Project Title Public Works Community Projects
Location Various
Type of Project Temporary Commissions
Funding Sources Solid Waste Capital Funds
Budget $167,671
Council District Citywide

Artists will be contracted to integrate temporary artwork into capital improvements in Public
Works facilities that will connect the community with the circular economy concepts and
bolster City efforts to increase awareness about recycling and resource management. These
projects are in the planning phase.

Project Number AR74000014
Project Title Artist Initiatives
Location Various Sites
Type of Project Temporary Commissions
Funding Sources Wastewater and Water Capital Funds
Budget $776,074
Council District Citywide

This program supports creating and presenting original, new, or in-process temporary work by
practicing Phoenix artists. Awarded artists must complete a public presentation inside city
boundaries that primarily benefits Phoenix residents. Awards are given to artists who activate
public buildings and spaces with various artistic installations, performances, cultural events,
and media. These projects are on-going.

Project Number AR74000017
Project Title Civic Space Park: Her Secret is Patience
Location Civic Space Park at 1st Ave. and Taylor St.
Type of Project Refurbishments and Retrofits
Funding Sources Parks and Water Capital Funds
Budget $406,050
Council District 7

Contractors will be hired to replace existing lighting with more efficient LED fixtures for the
park’s award-winning landmark sculpture, Her Secret is Patience by Janet Echelman, which was
installed in 2006. This project is in the construction phase and is expected to be complete in
2026.

Project Number AR74000019
Project Title Mountain Preserve Enhancements
Location South Mountain Park and Preserve
Type of Project Permanent and Temporary Commissions
Funding Sources Parks and Water Capital Funds
Budget $932,003
Council District 6, 8

Artists commissioned for this project may create permanent or temporary artwork, interpretive
elements, or cultural events to celebrate this beloved natural and cultural amenity. This project
is in the planning phase.





Project Number AR74000023
Project Title Reach 11 Sports Complex: The Wings
Location 2425 E. Deer Valley Dr.
Type of Project Refurbishments and Retrofits
Funding Source Parks and Water Capital Funds
Budget $15,000
Council District 2

Contractors will be hired to repaint this functional artwork by artist Yang Chyi Lee. The project
was completed in 2012 and sees heavy use from park users. This project is in the
implementation phase and is expected to be complete in 2025.

Project Number AR74000025
Project Title Dream Draw Pedestrian Bridge
Location State Road 51 at 29th Street
Type of Project Refurbishments and Retrofits
Funding Source AHUR, Water Capital Funds
Budget $690,491
Council District 3

Contractors will be hired to repaint this functional artwork by artist Vicki Scuri. The project was
completed in 1994 and sees heavy use from pedestrians and bicyclists. This project is in the
planning phase.

Project Number AR74000026
Project Title Laveen Heritage Park
Location 6925 W. Meadows Loop
Type of Project Permanent Commission
Funding Source Parks and Wastewater Capital Funds
Budget $268,627
Council District 7

Artist Dixie Friend Gay was contracted in a previous fiscal year to work with the project design
team to enhance the new Laveen Heritage Park. This project is in the fabrication phase and is
expected to be complete in 2025.

Project Number AR740000028
Project Title Lone Mountain Park
Location North 56th St & East Montgomery Rd
Type of Project Design Team and Permanent Commission
Funding Source Parks and Water Capital Funds
Budget $424,171
Council District 2

Artist team WOWHAUS was contracted in a previous fiscal year to work with the project design
team to enhance the new Lone Mountain Park. The project is in the design phase and is
expected to be complete in 2026.

Project Number AR74000029
Project Title Rio Salado Bike/Pedestrian Bridge
Location 3rd Street at Rio Salado
Type of Project Design Team and Permanent Commission
Funding Source Parks and Water Capital Funds
Budget $530,687
Council District 8

This project will provide a comfortable, low-stress connection for residents walking or riding
bicycles from downtown Phoenix to or across the Rio Salado and was assigned high priority for
the South Downtown Neighborhoods Mobility Study Area. Barbara Grygutis was contracted in
a previous fiscal year to work with the design team to integrate artwork into the bridge design
to enhance the bike and pedestrian experience. This project is in the design phase and is
expected to be complete in 2026.

Project Number AR74000030
Project Title Lookout Mountain Park: Desert Passages
Location 14441 N 18th St.
Type of Project Refurbishments and Retrofits
Funding Source Parks and Wastewater Capital Funds
Budget $220,000
Council District 3

A contractor will be hired to repair elements of Desert Passages by Roger Asay and Rebecca
Davis. The project was completed in 1990 and will be restored to the original design, in
collaboration with the Parks and Recreation Department and the artists. This project is in the
implementation phase and is expected to be complete in 2025.

Project Number AR76000004
Project Title 100 W. Washington Street
Location West Washington St. and 1st Ave.
Type of Project Design Team and Permanent Commission
Funding Sources Excise Tax Revenue Bond and Water Capital Funds
Budget $360,000
Council District 7

Artist Maria Salenger was contracted in a previous fiscal year to work with the design team to
improve the security and appearance of 100 W. Washington building, and adjacent areas, which
will be the new Phoenix Police Department Headquarters. This project is in the design phase
and is expected to be complete in 2026.





Project Number AR84800000
Project Title North Phoenix Reservoir
Location Cave Creek Rd.
Type of Project Design Team and Permanent Commission
Funding Sources Water and Wastewater Capital Funds
Budget $577,356
Council District 2

An artist will be commissioned to work with Water Services and the community to enhance the
new North Phoenix Reservoir. This project is in the planning phase.

Project Number AR84800001
Project Title Harmon Park: River of Shade
Location 1425 S. 5th Ave.
Type of Project Refurbishments and Retrofits
Funding Source Water Capital Funds
Budget $150,000
Council District 8

A contractor will be hired to repair elements of River of Shade by artist Stacy Levy. The project
was completed in 2010 and will be restored to the original design, in collaboration with the
artist. Some repairs were made in fiscal year 2024-2025. This project is in the planning phase.

Project Number AR84800002
Project Title Sunnyslope Canal Demonstration Project
Location Arizona Canal between Dunlap Ave. and Northern Blvd.
Type of Project Refurbishments and Retrofits
Funding Source Water Capital Funds
Budget $100,000
Council District 3, 6

A contractor will be hired to repair elements of the Sunnyslope Canal Demonstration project by
artists Jackie Ferrara and Doug Hollis. The project was completed in 2000 and will be restored
to the original design, in collaboration with the artists. This project is in the planning phase.

Project Number AR84850019
Project Title Arizona Falls: Waterworks
Location Arizona Canal at 58th St.
Type of Project Refurbishments and Retrofits
Funding Source Water Capital Funds
Budget $100,000
Council District 6

Major safety features, such as security lighting, drainage, fencing, and landscape improvements
will be upgraded as part of improvements to the site. This project was completed in 2003 and
will be improved in collaboration with the artists, Lajos Heder and Mags Harries. The project is
in the planning phase.

Project Number AR84850033
Project Title Water Services West Yard
Location North 47th Ave. and West Camelback Rd.
Type of Project Design Team and Permanent Commission
Funding Sources Wastewater Capital Funds
Budget $38,650
Council District 5

An artist will be contracted to work with Water Services and its project team to add
enhancements to publicly accessible areas of the planned West Yard Facility and Customer
Service Center. This project is currently on hold.

Project Number AR84850035
Project Title Community Well Site Enhancements
Location Various
Type of Project Permanent Commissions
Funding Sources Water Capital Funds
Budget $250,000
Council District Citywide

Artists will be commissioned to work with the Water Services Department to enhance or
upgrade the design of new and existing Water facilities. These projects are currently on hold
until suitable sites can be identified. To view previously completed well sites, visit
www.pheonix.gov/arts.

Project Number AR84850036
Project Title Cortez Park and Well Site
Location 35th Ave. and Arizona Canal
Type of Project Design Team and Permanent Commission
Funding Sources Water Capital Funds
Budget $200,000
Council District 1

John Randall Nelson was contracted in a previous fiscal year to work with Water Services, Parks
and Recreation, and Neighborhood Services to design enhancements to improve the safety and
security of this Aquifer Storage and Recovery well site and surrounding public spaces along the
Arizona Canal and Cortez Park. This project is in the fabrication phase and is expected to be
complete in 2026.

Project Number AR84850038
Project Title Maryvale Grand Canal Crossing
Location Grand Canal and 51st Ave.
Type of Project Permanent Commission
Funding Sources Water Capital Funds
Budget $200,000
Council District 5


Reinaldo Correra was contracted in a previous fiscal year to work with Street Transportation, SRP,
and the community to enhance the design of the Grand Canal trail and crossing near 51st Ave.
in Maryvale. This project is in the design phase and is expected to be complete in 2026.

Project Number AR84850040
Project Title El Reposo Park
Location 502 East Alta Vista Rd.
Type of Project Refurbishments and Retrofits
Funding Sources Water and Wastewater Capital Funds
Budget $344,483
Council District 7

Due to new construction, a previously completed artwork titled Bloomcanopy by Matter
Architecture Practice will be relocated and integrated into the landscape at El Reposo Park. The
project is in the design phase and is expected to be complete in 2026.

Project Number AR84850041
Project Title Sueño Park
Location 4401 West Encanto Blvd.
Type of Project Permanent Commission
Funding Sources Water Capital Funds
Budget $166,700
Council District 4

An artist will be commissioned to work with Parks and the community to enhance the
experience of Sueño Park. This project is in the planning phase and will utilize artists from the
Pre-Qualified Roster for City Parks.

Project Number AR84850042
Project Title Paradise Valley Park
Location 17642 North 40th St.
Type of Project Permanent Commission
Funding Sources Water Capital Funds
Budget $371,785
Council District 2

Artist Donald Lipski was contracted in a previous fiscal year to work with Parks and the
community to enhance the experience of Paradise Valley Park. This project is in the design
phase and is expected to be complete in 2026.

Project Number AR84850044
Project Title Western Canalscape (Phase 1 and 2)
Location Western Canal, 4th Avenue to 24th Street
Type of Project Purchase of Existing Artwork, Permanent Commission
Funding Sources Water Capital Funds
Budget $592,339
Council District 7, 8

Existing three-dimensional artwork was purchased from artists Ken McCall and Hector Ortega
for placement along the Western Canal at 20th Street. Phase 1 of this project is in the
construction phase; Phase 2 is in the planning phase where new opportunities for public art will
be identified.

Project Number AR84850045
Project Title Collaborative Neighborhood Projects
Location Various
Type of Project Temporary and Permanent Commissions, Purchase of Existing Artwork
Funding Sources Water and Wastewater Capital Funds
Budget $675,496
Council District Citywide

Artists will be selected to work directly with neighborhood and business associations to
enhance parks, business corridors, and other community amenities. Two projects are currently
underway with the Hatcher Urban Business and the Bell Road Business Alliance. These projects
are in construction and design phases, respectively.

Project Number AR84850046
Project Title Identification Plaques and Interpretive Signage
Location Various
Type of Project Refurbishments and Retrofits
Funding Sources Water Capital Funds
Budget $225,000
Council District Citywide

Contractors will be selected to work with Arts and Culture to update, replace, and produce
identification plaques and interpretive signage for the public art collection. This project is in the
planning phase and will be on-going.

Project Number AR84850048 (NEW)
Project Title Major Refurbishments, Restorations, and Routine Maintenance
Location Various
Type of Project Refurbishments and Retrofits
Funding Sources Water and Wastewater Capital Funds
Budget $150,000
Council District Citywide

Specialty contractors will be selected to work with Arts and Culture to plan, budget, and
schedule major refurbishments and restorations, and routine maintenance of existing public
art projects. This project is in the planning phase and will be on-going.





Project Number AR84900010
Project Title Tres Rios Wetlands
Location 91st Ave. and Baseline Rd.
Type of Project Design Team and Permanent Commission
Funding Source Wastewater Capital Funds
Budget $1,745,000
Council District 7

Adam Kuby was contracted in a previous fiscal year to work with a design team, various City
departments, consultants, and the community to create significant recreation and
environmental education experiences as part of this multi-year effort to improve the seven-
mile, 1,500-acre wetland at the confluence of the Salt and Gila Rivers in southwestern Phoenix.
Kuby and the team have designed raptor towers, viewing areas, paths, and demonstration
gardens in the wetlands. This project is currently on hold pending federal funds.

Project Number AR84900011
Project Title Lift Stations and Neighborhood Facilities
Location Citywide
Type of Project Permanent Commissions
Funding Source Wastewater Capital Funds
Budget $47,500
Council District Citywide

Artists will be contracted to work with City consultants to enhance or upgrade the design of
new or existing lift stations and other neighborhood facilities essential to the City's wastewater
collection system. In addition to wall enhancements, the projects may include upgraded
landscaping, security fencing, and other features. This project is currently on hold.

Project Number AR84900015
Project Title Rio Reimagined
Location 7th St. to 7th Ave.
Type of Project Design Team, Temporary and Permanent Commissions
Funding Source Wastewater Capital Funds
Budget $662,515
Council District 7, 8

The Rio Reimagined Project is a vision to revitalize the Rio Salado (Salt River), Aqua Fria, and
Gila Rivers, and the region by transforming over 45 miles of the river stretching from the Salt
River Pima Maricopa Indian Community at the eastern most boundary to the City of Buckeye to
the west and encompassing more than 78,000 acres. Artists will be selected at several phases
of the project to engage the community and design permanent and temporary artwork to
enhance the visitor experience. This project is in the planning phase.





FY 2025-2030 Multi-Year Initiatives



Completing the following projects requires significant funding resources over the next five fiscal
years. Funding for the planning and implementation of these projects is included in the FY
2025-2030 Public Art Plan. Funding of all projects is subject to City Council approval through
future plans.

General Obligation Bond Program
On November 7, 2023 Phoenix voters passed the City Council approved $500 million General
Obligation (GO) Bond Program. GO Bond programs help to fund critical infrastructure and
rehabilitation needs of City facilities such as parks, libraries, fire and police stations, affordable
housing, streets, and storm drains. Approved projects are prioritized and allocated over the
five-year period of fiscal year 2025-2026 to fiscal year 2029-2030 and included in the
Preliminary Capital Improvement Program (CIP) scheduled approved by City Council on March
19, 2024. Each of the four proposition includes a percent-for-art calculation which must be
spent on projects in each proposition. A breakdown of proposed public art projects is in the
next section.

Artist Initiatives
On-going temporary installations provide crucial professional development opportunities for
emerging artists and those new to public art. Temporary installations can also activate
underutilized spaces and provide neighborhoods with new ways to engage with artists. This
program is guided by the Office of Arts and Culture’s Temporary Art Guidelines.

Collaborative Neighborhood Projects
Artists will be selected to work directly with neighborhood and business associations, such as
theHUB (Hatcher Urban Businesses) and the Bell Road Business Alliance, to enhance parks,
business corridors, and other community amenities. These enhancements foster community
collaboration and external partnerships that expand the reach of the public art program.

Community Water Facilities Improvements
Over the years, multiple artists have been contracted to work with the community and the
Water Services Department to improve the security and appearance of community water
facilities citywide, including well sites and lift stations.

Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport’s new terminal modernizations represent the City's
most significant opportunity to reach the widest public with integrated public art and design.
PSHIA handles more than 40 million passengers annually. POAC staff continue to work with
Aviation staff and its design teams to carry out a comprehensive plan to integrate significant art
and design to enhance travelers’ experience. Projects will be implemented in step with the
airport modernization phases.


Public Works Recycling and Sustainability Initiative
POAC has worked with the Public Works Department since 1990 to involve artists in the design
of innovative recycling centers, and in building awareness of the need for recycling and
sustainable resource management. Artists will be contracted to create artworks that expand
awareness about recycling and sustainable resource management by introducing new ways to
reuse materials and bolster City efforts to increase recycling citywide.

Rio Reimagined
Rio Reimagined is the Valley’s most impactful green infrastructure project in a century. Rio
Salado, or the Salt River, is a historically significant and underutilized natural resource
reimagined as a unifying public space. A creative and collective effort is underway to
integrate priorities of public open space, environmental quality, housing, transportation,
economic and workforce development, community sustainability, and resilience. POAC staff
will work with the Planning Department to identify and integrate permanent and temporary
public art opportunities.

Shade, Cooling, and Heat Mitigation
Artists will be contracted to work with the community and various City departments to enhance
the pedestrian experience by increasing shade options and improving shaded connectivity. The
enhancements will be coordinated with City efforts to reduce the impact of urban heat and
improve mobility citywide through initiatives like Cool Corridors. The initiative also includes
supporting funds for the Bloomberg Philanthropies Public Art Challenge grant.

Tres Rios Wetlands
Adam Kuby has been selected to work with City departments, consultants and the community
to create significant environmental recreation and education opportunities at Tres Rios
Wetlands. This project is part of this multi-year effort to improve the seven-mile, 1,500-acre
wetland at the confluence of the Salt and Gila Rivers in southwestern Phoenix.





FY 2025-2030 Public Art Plan Summary and Map



Public Art Plan Summary
Number of New Projects 3 $350,000

General Obligation Bond Program* 4 $3,761,464

Number of Continuing Projects 38 $20,295,190
Total Funded Projects 45 $24,406,654




*General Obligation (GO) Bond Program – tentative public art projects
Proposition 1 4 $1,632,629
Fire Station 7
Fire Station 13
Fire Station 15
Fire Station 51

Proposition 2 2 $903,853
Estrella Civic Space + Branch Library
Desert View Civic Space + Branch Library
1 $624,603
Proposition 3
Latino Cultural Center

Proposition 4 2 $600,649
Choice Neighborhoods Housing
Development
McDowell Senior Center

Total Funded GO Bond Projects 9 $3,761,464





ATTACHMENT B



FY 2025-2030 Public Art Plan Budget




PUBLIC ART PLAN BUDGET FY 25-26 FY 26-27 FY 27-28 FY 28-29 FY 29-30 TOTAL


AR00000027 - PCT-for-Art Prop 1
3388 2023 GO Cultural Fac-% for Arts Prop 1 411,865 820,764 400,000 0 0 1632629
411865 820764 400000 0 0 1632629



AR00000028 - PCT-for-Art Prop 2
3393 2023 GO Cultural Fac-% for Arts Prop 2 124,600 320,758 458,225 0 0 903583
124600 320758 458225 0 0 903583



AR00000029 - PCT-for-Art Prop 3
3398 2023 GO Cultural Fac-% for Arts Prop 3 91,991 219,311 313,301 0 0 624603
91991 219311 313301 0 0 624603



AR00000030 - PCT-for-Art Prop 4
3401 2023 GO Cultural Fac-% for Arts Prop 4 297,825 302,824 0 0 0 600649
297825 302824 0 0 0 600649



AR63000030 - North 32nd Street Improvements
0051 Water Revenue 438,187 0 0 0 0 438,187
0 0 0 0 0 438,187



AR63000032 - Shade Cooling and Heat Mitigation
0007 AZ Highway Users - 30% - Street Imp. 0 0 0 0 0 0
0051 Water Revenue 249,183 0 0 0 0 249183
0090 Wastewater Revenue 494,072 200,000 0 0 0 694,072
2051 Transportation Tax 2050-Streets 0 0 264,886 0 0 264886
743255 200000 264886 0 0 1208141



AR63000034 - Dobbins Road from Loop 202 to 27th Ave
0007 AZ Highway Users - 30% - Street Imp. 0 0 0 0 0 0
0090 Wastewater Revenue 275,000 200,000 0 0 0 475000
275000 200000 0 0 0 475000



AR63000035 - 3rd St Connector (Rio Salado to Lincoln St)
0007 AZ Highway Users - 30% - Street Imp. 0 0 0 0 0 0
0051 Water Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 0
0090 Wastewater Revenue 423,000 164,720 0 0 0 587720
423000 164720 0 0 0 587720


AR63850021 - State Road 303
0007 AZ Highway Users - 30% - Street Imp. 260,020 0 0 0 0 260020
0090 Wastewater Revenue 264,886 0 0 0 0 264886
524906 0 0 0 0 524906



AR63850022 - McDowell Rd Revitalization
0007 AZ Highway Users - 30% - Street Imp. 107,441 0 0 0 0 107441
0090 Wastewater Revenue 98,800 0 0 0 0 98800
2050 Transportation Tax 2050-Transit 93,964 0 0 0 0 93964
300205 0 0 0 0 300205



AR63850023 - State Road 30
0007 AZ Highway Users - 30% - Street Imp. 0 100,000 0 0 0 100000
0 100000 0 0 0 100000



AR66000021 - PSHIA Portable Works
0042 Aviation Improvement 0 0 0 0 0 0
1430 Passenger Facility Charge #6 - Expense 0 0 0 0 0 0
1731 2019A CFC Bond 0 184,330 0 0 0 184330
0 184330 0 0 0 184330



AR66000046 - PSHIA Terminal Improvements
1728 2024 Airport Revenue Bonds 4,500,000 0 0 0 0 4500000
1732 2019B Airport Revenue Bonds 0 0 0 0 0 0
4500000 0 0 0 0 4500000



AR66000047 - PSHIA Pooled Funds (Deer Valley Airport)
1732 2019B Airport Revenue Bonds 685,000 21,492 0 0 0 706492
685000 21492 0 0 0 706492



AR67000014 - 35th Ave/Grand Ave Overpass
2050 Transportation Tax 2050-Transit 100,000 0 0 0 0 100000
100000 0 0 0 0 100000



AR70160001 - 27th Ave Solid Waste Facility
0037 Solid Waste Disposal-Operating 47,551 0 0 0 0 47551
0090 Wastewater Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 0
68031 SWD Equipment Facilities CIC Bonds 2020A 85,060 0 0 0 0 85060
132611 0 0 0 0 132611



AR70160004 - Public Works Community Projects
0037 Solid Waste Disposal-Operating 44,040 0 0 0 0 44040
68031 SWD Equipment Facilities CIC Bonds 2020A 123,631 0 0 0 0 123631
167671 0 0 0 0 167671


AR74000014 - Artists Initiative
0051 Water Revenue 118,150 0 0 0 0 118150
0090 Wastewater Revenue 250,000 207,924 200,000 0 0 657924
368150 207924 200000 0 0 776074



AR74000017 - Civic Space Park
0024 Sports Facilities 6,050 0 0 0 0 6050
0051 Water Revenue 185,000 100,000 0 0 0 285000
1022 Parks and Preserves Initiative SRF 115,000 0 0 0 0 115000
306050 100000 0 0 0 406050



AR74000019 - Mountain Preserve Enhance (South Mountain)
0051 Water Revenue 304,703 290,769 25,000 0 0 620472
1437 PPPI 40% Mtn & Desert Preserves 220,000 91,531 0 0 0 311531
524703 382300 25000 0 0 932003



AR74000023 - Reach 11 Sports Complex
0051 Water Revenue 15,000 0 0 0 0 15000
1022 Parks and Preserves Initiative SRF 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 15000



AR74000025 - Dreamy Draw Ped. Bridge
0007 AZ Highway Users - 30% - Street Imp. 15,000 199,416 0 0 0 214416
0051 Water Revenue 376,761 0 0 0 0 37671
1021 Capital Construction 0 99,314 0 0 0 99314
391761 298730 0 0 0 690491



AR74000026 - Laveen Heritage Park
0090 Wastewater Revenue 249,046 0 0 0 0 249046
1022 Parks and Preserves Initiative SRF 19,581 0 0 0 0 19581
268627 0 0 0 0 268627



AR74000028 - Lone Mountain Park
0051 Water Revenue 300,000 0 0 0 0 300000
0090 Wastewater Revenue 50,000 0 0 0 0 50000
1022 Parks and Preserves Initiative SRF 0 74,171 0 0 0 74171
1437 PPPI 40% Mtn & Desert Preserves 0 0 0 0 0 0
350000 74171 0 0 0 424171



AR74000029 - Rio Salado Bike/Ped. Bridge
0051 Water Revenue 497,155 0 0 0 0 497155
1022 Parks and Preserves Initiative SRF 33,532 0 0 0 0 33532
530687 0 0 0 0 530687




AR74000030 - Lookout Mountain Park
0090 Wastewater Revenue 200,000 0 0 0 0 200000
1022 Parks and Preserves Initiative SRF 20,000 0 0 0 0 20000
220000 0 0 0 0 220000



AR76000004 - 100 W Washington St.
0051 Water Revenue 360,000 0 0 0 0 360000
68036 Ex Tax Rev Bond 2022 Tax-Exempt 0 0 0 0 0 0
360000 0 0 0 0 360000



AR84800000 - North Phoenix Reservoir
0051 Water Revenue 150,000 227,356 0 0 0 377356
0090 Wastewater Revenue 0 200,000 0 0 0 200000
150000 427356 0 0 0 577356



AR84800001 - River of Shade
0051 Water Revenue 0 0 150,000 0 0 150000
0 0 150000 0 0 150000



AR84800002 - Sunnyslope Canal Demonstration
0051 Water Revenue 0 100,000 0 0 0 100000
0 100000 0 0 0 100000



AR84850019 - Arizona Falls
0051 Water Revenue 100,000 0 0 0 0 100000
100000 0 0 0 0 100000



AR84850033 - Water Serfvices West Yard
0090 Wastewater Revenue 38,650 0 0 0 0 38650
38650 0 0 0 0 38650



AR84850035 - Community Well Site Gates
0051 Water Revenue 250,000 0 0 0 0 250000
25000 0 0 0 0 250000



AR84850036 - Cortez Park and Well Site
0051 Water Revenue 200,000 0 0 0 0 200000
200000 0 0 0 0 200000



AR84850038 - Maryvale Grand Canal Crossing
0051 Water Revenue 200,000 0 0 0 0 200000
200000 0 0 0 0 200000



AR84850040 - El Reposo Park Public Art Project
0051 Water Revenue 125,400 0 0 0 0 125400


0090 Wastewater Revenue 219,083 0 0 0 0 219083
344483 0 0 0 0 344483



AR84850041 - Sueno Park
0051 Water Revenue 66,700 0 0 0 0 66700
0090 Wastewater Revenue 100,000 0 0 0 0 100000
166700 0 0 0 0 166700



AR84850042 - Paradise Valley Park
0051 Water Revenue 321,785 50,000 0 0 0 371785
321785 50000 0 0 0 371785



AR84850044 - Western Canal (Phase 1 and 2)
0051 Water Revenue 500,000 0 0 0 0 500000
0090 Wastewater Revenue 0 92,339 0 0 0 92339
500000 92339 0 0 0 592339



AR84850045 - Coll. Neighborhood Projects
0051 Water Revenue 100,496 100,000 100,000 0 0 300496
0090 Wastewater Revenue 275,000 100,000 0 0 0 375000
375496 200000 100000 0 0 675496



AR84850046 - Identification Plaques & Int. Signage
0051 Water Revenue 75,000 75,000 75,000 0 0 225000
75000 75000 75000 0 0 225000



AR84850048 - Public Art Major Refurb and Restorations
0051 Water Revenue 75,000 0 0 0 0 75000
0090 Wastewater Revenue 75,000 0 0 0 0 75000
150000 0 0 0 0 150000



AR84900010 - Tres Rios Wetlands
0090 Wastewater Revenue 275,000 1,470,000 0 0 0 1745000
275000 1470000 0 0 0 1745000



AR84900011 - Lift Station Projects
0090 Wastewater Revenue 47,500 0 0 0 0 47500
47500 0 0 0 0 47500



AR84900015 - Rio Reimagined Public Art Project
0090 Wastewater Revenue 250,000 250,000 162,515 0 0 662515
250000 250000 162515 0 0 662515


Total 15,995,708 6,262,019 2,148,927 0 0 24,406,654







Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Purchase of a Stump Grinder (Ordinance S-52086) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
Vermeer Mountain West, Inc. to purchase a stump grinder. Further request to
authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The total value of
the contract will not exceed $101,452.

Summary
The Public Works Department seeks authorization to purchase a stump grinder for the
Parks and Recreation Department. This specialized equipment will be utilized to
maintain and repair the City's infrastructure and provide continuous operations of
clearing trees throughout the City.

Procurement Information
In accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10, standard competition was waived
as a result of an approved Determination Memo based on the following reason:
Special Circumstances Without Competition due to the unique specifications reviewed
and deemed necessary and acceptable by the Parks and Recreation and Public Works
departments.

Contract Term
The item will be for a one-time purchase of a stump grinder, starting on or about, June
19, 2025.

Financial Impact
The contract value will not exceed $101,452.

Funding is available in the Parks and Recreation Department.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers John Chan and Mario Paniagua and
the Parks and Recreation and Public Works departments.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Grant of a Public Utility Easement on City-Owned Property Located at 10201 S.
Central Avenue for South Mountain Activity Center Renovations (Ordinance S-
52083) - District 8

Request the City Council, to grant a public utility easement, for consideration of one
dollar and/or other valuable consideration, for the installation of new service to a City-
owned property in the Salt River Project service area, and further ordering the
ordinance recorded.

Summary
The public utility easement is needed to provide utilities to the South Mountain Activity
Center at 10201 S. Central Avenue. The complex is being renovated and consists of
upgrades to 10 park ramadas, restroom renovation, and other necessary work. This
includes the installation of underground electrical conductor, transformer, and
equipment pads.

The public utility easement is more fully described in the legal description ("Easement
Premises") recorded with the ordinance and will be granted to all public service
corporations, agricultural improvement districts, and telecommunication corporations
providing utility service to the property located at 10201 S. Central Avenue (collectively
"Grantee") for an indefinite period, 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 (or drill any well) 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
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
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 Street; (4) Fire Department headquarters located at 150 S. 12th Street;
(5) City Hall located at 200 W. Washington Street; (6) City Court Building located at
300 W. Washington Street; (7) Calvin C. Goode Building located at 251 W.
Washington Street; (8) Transit Operations Center located at 320 N. 1st Avenue or
West Transit Facility located at 405 N. 79th Avenue; or (9) in a secured or fenced
area.

Location
10201 S. Central Avenue, within Maricopa County Assessor's Parcel Numbers 300-67-
009A, 300-67-004D, 300-67-008, 300-69-001, 300-69-002.
Council District: 8

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager John Chan and the Parks and
Recreation and Finance departments.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Acquisition of Real Property from Arizona State Land Department for Phoenix
Sonoran Desert Preserve Located North 39th Avenue and West Hackamore Drive
(Ordinance S-52053) - District 1

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to acquire real property and
related property interests voluntarily from Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), at a
purchase price determined by the City Manager, or his designee, to be reasonable
under the circumstances and in the best interests of the City and upon such other
terms as are established at ASLD's public auction for Mountain Preserve purposes 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.

Further request the City Council to grant an exception pursuant to Phoenix City Code
42-20 to authorize inclusion of indemnification and assumption of liability provisions
that otherwise would be prohibited by Phoenix City Code 42-18, as ASLD's form
documents include such provisions.

Summary
The purpose of the Phoenix Sonoran Desert Preserve is to protect and preserve
Phoenix's natural desert vegetation and mountain preserves. Acquisition of
approximately 158.70 acres will add land to the existing Mountain Preserve. The
acquisition will expand the City's system of outdoor recreational opportunities for
residents and visitors, while preserving the natural desert habitat for wildlife in the
area. The hillside property will provide connectivity between the Phoenix Sonoran
Desert Preserve and Deem Hills recreation trail system, located in northern Phoenix.

The parcel affected by acquisition and included in this request is identified by Maricopa
County Assessor's Parcel Number 201-10-987 located at 25250 N. 35th Avenue.

The property is a single parcel totaling approximately 220.27 acres, of which
approximately 61.57 acres is leased by the Deer Valley Unified School District
(DVUSD). The lease between ASLD and DVUSD will not affect the City's acquisition of
the remaining approximately 158.70 acres of the parcel.




Financial Impact
Funding for this project is available in the Parks and Recreation Department's Capital
Improvement Program budget utilizing Phoenix Parks and Preserve Initiative (PPPI)
funding.

Location
Located North 39th Avenue and West Hackamore Drive
Council District: 1

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager John Chan and the Parks and
Recreation and Finance departments.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Swimming Pool Maintenance Supplies, Accessories, and Repair Parts Contract -
PKS-IFB-25-0740 - Request for Award (Ordinance S-52117) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into contracts with
Leslie's Poolmart, Inc., Landmark Aquatic, Aquavida Pools, and Poolman 2000 LLC
DBA Amenity Pool Services of Phoenix to supply swimming pool maintenance
supplies, accessories, and repair parts for the Parks and Recreation Department.
Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this
item. The total value of the contracts will not exceed $1 million.

Summary
The Parks and Recreation Department (Department) manages aquatic facilities and
splash pads located throughout the City. The department requires various commercial
grade swimming pool parts, supplies, and equipment to perform maintenance activities
on multiple systems, including but not limited to filtration systems, pumps, impellor's,
motors, chemical injection systems, and other infrastructure. This contract will provide
the department with a wide variety of swimming pool maintenance supplies,
accessories, and repair parts to enhance and support the quality of these facilities
which are utilized by residents of Phoenix.

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

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

Selected Bidders
Leslie's Poolmart, Inc.
Landmark Aquatic
Aquavida Pools
Poolman 2000 LLC DBA Amenity Pool Services of Phoenix





Contract Term
The contracts will begin on or about July 1, 2025 for a five-year term with no options to
extend.

Financial Impact
The aggregate value of the contracts will not exceed $1 million. Funding is available in
the Parks and Recreation Department Operating Program budget.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager John Chan and the Parks and
Recreation Department.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Issuance of Multifamily Housing Revenue Construction/Permanent Note (Wild
Rose Flats Project), Series 2025 (Resolution 22314) - District 4

Requests City Council approval for the issuance of Multifamily Housing Revenue
Construction/Permanent Note (Wild Rose Flats Project), Series 2025, to be issued in
one or more tax-exempt and/or taxable series, in an aggregate principal amount not to
exceed $25,000,000.

Summary
Request City Council adoption of a Resolution (Attachment A) granting approval of
the proceedings under which The Industrial Development Authority of the City of
Phoenix, Arizona (the “Phoenix IDA”) has previously resolved to issue its Multifamily
Housing Revenue Construction/Permanent Note (Wild Rose Flats Project), Series
2025, in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $25,000,000 (the “Governmental
Lender Note”), for use by Wild Rose Owner LLC, an Arizona limited liability company
(together with its successors, assignees and designees, the “Borrower”), to finance,
and/or refinance, as applicable, all or a portion of the costs of:

a. The acquisition, construction, improvement, equipping and/or operating of a
qualified residential rental facility (including improvements and facilities functionally
related and subordinate thereto), which is expected to be comprised of
approximately 72 units (the “Facilities”); and
b. Funding any required reserve funds, paying capitalized interest on the
Governmental Lender Note, if any, and paying the costs of issuance of the
Governmental Lender Note (collectively, the “Project”).

The issuance of the Governmental Lender Note and the plan of financing for the
Project, for purposes of Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
amended.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Phoenix IDA Board has previously resolved to issue the Governmental Lender
Note at its meeting held on May 28, 2025.





Location
The Facility is located at or near 2911 and 2941 N. 43rd Avenue.
Council District: 4

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





ATTACHMENT A


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




RESOLUTION _____

A RESOLUTION GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
ISSUANCE OF AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED




AF
$25,000,000.00 PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF MULTIFAMILY
HOUSING REVENUE CONSTRUCTION/PERMANENT
NOTE (WILD ROSE FLATS PROJECT), SERIES 2025, OF
THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE
CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA




T _______________


WHEREAS, The Industrial Development Authority of the City of Phoenix, Arizona (the

“Authority”), is a nonprofit corporation designated a political subdivision of the State of Arizona

(the “State”) incorporated with the approval of the City of Phoenix, Arizona (the “City”); and




R WHEREAS, Title 35, Chapter 5, of the Arizona Revised Statutes, Section 35-701 et seq.,

as amended (the “Act”), authorizes the Authority to issue its Governmental Lender Note for the

purposes set forth in the Act, including the making of secured and unsecured loans to finance or



D
refinance the development, acquisition, construction, improvement, equipping or operation of a

“project” (as defined in the Act) whenever the Board of Directors of the Authority finds such loans

to further advance the interests of the Authority or the public interest, and to refund outstanding

obligations incurred by an enterprise to finance the costs of a “project” when the Board of Directors

of the Authority finds that the refinancing is in the public interest; and




119621230.4 700
WHEREAS, Wild Rose Owner LLC, an Arizona limited liability company, (together with its

successors, assignees, and designees, the “Borrower”), has requested the Authority to issue its

Multifamily Housing Revenue Construction/Permanent Note (Wild Rose Flats Project), Series

2025, in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $25,000,000.00 (the “Governmental Lender

Note”), pursuant to a Funding Loan Agreement (the “Funding Loan Agreement”) between the

Authority and Citibank, N.A., a national banking association (the “Funding Lender”), whereby the

Funding Lender will advance funds (the “Funding Loan”) to or for the account of the Authority to

make a loan (the “Borrower Loan”) to the Borrower to finance and/or refinance, as applicable, all or




AF
a portion of the costs of: (i) the acquisition, construction, improvement, equipping and/or operating

of a qualified residential rental facility (including improvements and facilities functionally related and

subordinate thereto) which is expected to be referred to as “Wild Rose Flats” and comprised of




T
approximately 72 units (the “Facilities”), situated on 4.562± acres of real property located at 2911 &

2941 N. 43rd Avenue, City of Phoenix, Arizona (the “Property”); (ii) funding any required reserve

funds; (iii) paying capitalized interest on the Governmental Lender Note, if any; and (iv) paying the

costs of issuance of the Governmental Lender Note (collectively, the “Project”);




R WHEREAS, simultaneously with the Funding Loan Agreement, the Authority and the

Borrower will enter into a Borrower Loan Agreement, to be dated as of the first day of the month in

which the Governmental Lender Note is issued (the “Borrower Loan Agreement”), whereby the




D
Borrower agrees to make loan payments to the Authority in an amount which, when added to other

funds available from the Funding Loan Agreement, will be sufficient to enable the Authority to repay

the Funding Loan and to pay all costs and expenses related thereto when due; and


WHEREAS, the Borrower represents that all or a portion of the units at the Facility will be

set aside for occupancy by low- to moderate-income tenants in accordance with that certain

Declaration of Affirmative Land Use and Restrictive Covenants in Furtherance of Public Purpose,

recorded on April 9, 2025 as Instrument No. Document 20250197433 in the official records of


Maricopa County (the “Declaration”) for the benefit of the City of Phoenix (the “City”), encumbering

the Property and requiring the Property to be used to further City’s public purpose of increasing the

supply of quality housing options for its citizens through causing the Property to be developed as an

affordable residential apartment development, thereby satisfying the public purpose requirement of

A.R.S. §15-342(7); and


WHEREAS, the Authority, by Resolution 2025-__, duly adopted by the Board of Directors

of the Authority at a lawful meeting called and held on May 28, 2025 granted approval of the

issuance and assignment of the Governmental Lender Note in an aggregate principal amount not




AF
to exceed $25,000,000.00; and


WHEREAS, Section 35-721(B) of the Act provides that the proceedings of the Authority




T
under which the Governmental Lender Note is to be issued require the approval of the Council of

the City; and


WHEREAS, Section 147(f) of the Code requires that an “applicable elected

representative” (as that term is defined in the Code) approve the issuance of the Governmental




R
Lender Note and the plan of finance for the Project following a public hearing, which public hearing

was held by the Authority on May 30, 2025; and


WHEREAS, information regarding the Project to be financed with the proceeds of the



D
Governmental Lender Note has been presented to the Council of the City; and


WHEREAS, it is intended that this Resolution shall constitute approval by the Council of

the City pursuant to Section 35-721(B) of the Act and of the “applicable elected representative”

as defined in Section 147(f) of the Code with respect to the Governmental Lender Note.


NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX,

ARIZONA as follows:


SECTION 1. The proceedings of the Authority under which the Governmental Lender

Note is to be issued are hereby approved.


SECTION 2. The issuance of the Governmental Lender Note and the plan of finance for

the Project are hereby approved for purposes of Section 147(f) of the Code.


SECTION 3. Notice of Arizona Revised Statutes Section 38-511 is hereby given. The

provisions of that statute are by this reference incorporated herein to the extent of their

applicability to matters contained herein.





AF





T
R
D
PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA this ___ day of June,

2025.




MAYOR


ATTEST:



Denise Archibald, City Clerk



APPROVED AS TO FORM:

AF
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney



By:


T
Chief Counsel David H. Benton



REVIEWED BY:




R
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager




D



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Issuance of Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds (Broadway Farms at Hurley
Station, Phase I Project) and Multifamily Housing Revenue Note (Broadway
Farms at Hurley Station, Phase I Project) (Resolution 22315) - District 7

Requests City Council approval for the issuance of Multifamily Housing Revenue
Bonds (Broadway Farms at Hurley Station, Phase I Project), and Multifamily Housing
Revenue Note (Broadway Farms at Hurley Station, Phase I Project) to be issued in
one or more tax-exempt and/or taxable series, in a combined aggregate principal
amount not to exceed $60,000,000.

Summary
Request City Council adoption of a Resolution (Attachment A) granting approval of
the proceedings under which The Industrial Development Authority of the City of
Phoenix, Arizona (the “Phoenix IDA”) has previously resolved to issue a combined
aggregate principal amount not to exceed $60,000,000 of its Multifamily Housing
Revenue Bonds (Broadway Farms at Hurley Station, Phase I Project) and Multifamily
Housing Revenue Note (Broadway Farms at Hurley Station, Phase I Project), in one or
more tax-exempt and/or taxable series (the “Obligations”) for use by 4201 S 91st
Avenue Owner, LLLP, an Arizona limited liability limited partnership (together with its
successors, assignees and designees, the “Borrower”), to finance, and/or refinance, as
applicable, all or a portion of the costs of:

a. The acquisition, construction, development, improvement, equipping and/or
operating of a qualified residential rental facility (including improvements and
facilities functionally related and subordinate thereto), which is expected to be
comprised of approximately 190 units in Tolleson, Arizona , (collectively, the
“Facility”); and
b. Funding any required reserve funds, paying capitalized interest on the Obligations,
if any, and paying fees, expenses and costs incurred in connection with the
authorization, issuance and sale of the Obligations (collectively, the “Project”).

The issuance of the Obligations and the plan of financing for the Project, for purposes
of Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.





Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Phoenix IDA Board has previously resolved to issue its Multifamily Housing
Revenue Bonds and Multifamily Housing Revenue Note for this Project at its meeting
held on May 28, 2025.

Location
The Facility is located at or near 4141 S. 91st Avenue, Tolleson, AZ, annexed recently
into the City of Phoenix.
Council District: 7

With the exception of certain housing bonds, the Phoenix IDA can finance projects
located anywhere in Arizona. In addition, the Phoenix IDA may issue bonds to finance
projects outside of Arizona, if the out-of-state project provides a benefit within the
State.

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





ATTACHMENT A


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




RESOLUTION _____

A RESOLUTION GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF THE




AF
ISSUANCE OF A COMBINED AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL
AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $60,000,000 OF MULTIFAMILY
HOUSING REVENUE BONDS (BROADWAY FARMS AT
HURLEY STATION, PHASE I PROJECT) IN ONE OR MORE
TAX-EXEMPT AND/OR TAXABLE SERIES AND
MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVENUE NOTE (BROADWAY




T
FARMS AT HURLEY STATION, PHASE I PROJECT) IN ONE
OR MORE TAX­ EXEMPT AND/OR TAXABLE SERIES, OF
THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE
CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA

_______________




R WHEREAS, The Industrial Development Authority of the City of Phoenix, Arizona

(the “Authority”), is a nonprofit corporation designated a political subdivision of the State

of Arizona (the “State”) incorporated with the approval of the City of Phoenix, Arizona (the



D
“City”); and


WHEREAS, Title 35, Chapter 5, of the Arizona Revised Statutes, Section 35-701

et seq., as amended (the “Act”), authorizes the Authority to issue revenue bonds for the

purposes set forth in the Act, including the making of secured and unsecured loans to

finance or refinance the development, acquisition, construction, improvement, equipping

or operation of a “project” (as defined in the Act) whenever the Board of Directors of the


Broadway Farms at Hurley Station, Phase I Project


Authority finds such loans to further advance the interests of the Authority or the public

interest, and to refund outstanding obligations incurred by an enterprise to finance the

costs of a “project” when the Board of Directors of the Authority finds that the refinancing

is in the public interest; and


WHEREAS, 4201 S 91st Avenue Owner, LLLP, an Arizona limited liability limited

partnership (together with its successors, assignees, and designees, the “Borrower”), has

requested that the Authority (i) issue its Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds (Broadway




AF
Farms at Hurley Station, Phase I Project) in one or more tax-exempt and/or taxable series

(the “Bonds”), (ii) authorize, upon the mandatory tender of the Bonds and the payment by

UMB Bank, N.A. (the “Trustee”), of the purchase price of the Bonds from the proceeds of




T
a funding loan made pursuant to a funding loan agreement between the Authority and

Citibank, N.A., as funding lender, and (iii) authorize the execution and delivery of its

Multifamily Housing Revenue Note (Broadway Farms at Hurley Station, Phase I Project),

in one or more tax-exempt and/or taxable series (the “Governmental Lender Note” and



R
together with the Bonds, the “Obligations”) to be exchanged for the Bonds, pursuant to a

plan of financing in a combined aggregate principal amount of not to exceed $60,000,000,

the proceeds of which Obligations will be used by the Borrower to finance and/or


D
refinance, as applicable, all or a portion of the costs of: (a) the acquisition, construction,

development, improvement, equipping and/or operating of a qualified residential rental

facility (including improvements and facilities functionally related and subordinate

thereto), which is expected to be comprised of approximately 190 units (all or a portion of

which will be set aside for occupancy by low- to moderate-income tenants) situated on

approximately 8.20 net acres of real property generally located at or near 4141 South 91st



Broadway Farms at Hurley Station, Phase I Project 2 Resolution No. ______
Avenue, Tolleson, AZ 85353 (collectively, the “Facility”); (b) funding any required reserve

funds; (c) paying capitalized interest on the Obligations, if any; and (d) paying fees,

expenses and costs incurred in connection with the authorization, issuance and sale of

the Obligations (collectively, the “Project”), all in accordance with the Act; and


WHEREAS, in furtherance of the purposes of the Act and in the interest of the

Authority and the public thereunder, the Authority proposes to issue the Obligations and

loan the proceeds thereof to the Borrower to finance all or a portion of the costs of the

Project; and




AF
WHEREAS, the Authority, by Resolution 2025-__, duly adopted by the Board of




T
Directors of the Authority at a lawful meeting called and held on May 28, 2025 granted

approval of the issuance and assignment of the Obligations in an aggregate principal

amount not to exceed $60,000,000; and


WHEREAS, Section 35-721(B) of the Act provides that the proceedings of the



R
Authority under which the Obligations are to be issued require the approval of the Council

of the City; and




D WHEREAS, Section 147(f) of the Code requires that an “applicable elected

representative” (as that term is defined in the Code) approve the issuance of the

Obligations and the plan of finance for the Project following a public hearing, which public

hearing was held by the Authority on May 30, 2025; and


WHEREAS, information regarding the Project to be financed with the proceeds of

the Obligations has been presented to the Council of the City; and



Broadway Farms at Hurley Station, Phase I Project 3 Resolution No. ______
WHEREAS, it is intended that this Resolution shall constitute approval by the

Council of the City pursuant to Section 35-721(B) of the Act and of the “applicable elected

representative” as defined in Section 147(f) of the Code with respect to the Obligations.


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

PHOENIX, ARIZONA as follows:


SECTION 1. The proceedings of the Authority under which the Obligations are to

be issued are hereby approved.




AF
SECTION 2. The issuance of the Obligations and the plan of finance for the

Project are hereby approved for purposes of Section 147(f) of the Code.




T
SECTION 3. Notice of Arizona Revised Statutes Section 38-511 is hereby given.

The provisions of that statute are by this reference incorporated herein to the extent of

their applicability to matters contained herein.




R
D
Broadway Farms at Hurley Station, Phase I Project 4 Resolution No. ______
PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA this ___ day

of June, 2025.




MAYOR


ATTEST:




AF
Denise Archibald, City Clerk



APPROVED AS TO FORM:




T
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney



By:
Chief Counsel David H. Benton




R
REVIEWED BY:



Jeffrey Barton, City Manager


D
Broadway Farms at Hurley Station, Phase I Project 5 Resolution No. ______



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Security Services Contract - RFA PCC 26-0011 - Request for Award (Ordinance S-
52119) - Districts 7 & 8

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
Contemporary Services Corporation (CSC), (Vendor 3062270) to provide Event
Security Services for the Phoenix Convention Center. Further request to authorize the
City Treasurer to accept, and the City Controller to disburse, all funds related to this
item. The gross sales for the contract is estimated to produce $9,701,629 over the
approximately 54-month aggregate term, resulting in approximately $776,130 in
revenue to the City.

Summary
This contract will provide event security services to the Phoenix Convention Center
(PCC) clients. Services include exclusive event security services for shows open to the
general public and non-exclusive event security for events not open to the general
public. On a limited basis, event security services are provided for PCC or other City
departments for various City-sponsored events. This contract will replace the previous
event security services Contract 159404 terminated by the City.

Procurement Information
In accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10, standard competition was waived
as a result of an approved Determination Memo based on the following reason:
Emergency Procurement. This action is necessary due to an immediate operational
need where there is not sufficient time to reinitiate a competitive process without
risking disruption to essential services. The emergency presents a critical operational
risk, with potential impacts to public safety and the City's ability to support scheduled
activities, which could result in significant cost consequences.

The original Revenue Contract Solicitation process was completed competitively and
in full compliance with Administrative Regulation 3.10, resulting in five vendor
submissions. CSC was evaluated and ranked as the second highest responsive and
responsible respondent based on the published evaluation criteria. The highest ranked
vendor was initially awarded the contract; however, that contract was subsequently
terminated.




Given the essential and time sensitive nature of the services required, the City cannot
afford a lapse in coverage. CSC, having already been vetted through the competitive
process and receiving a strong evaluation score of 849, well above the minimum
competitive range qualifying score of 700, is well positioned to assume the
responsibilities.

Awarding this contract to CSC under the emergency determination allows the City to
maintain service continuity, mitigate operational risk, and ensure uninterrupted delivery
of critical services.

The evaluation panel recommendations were reached by consensus in consideration
of published selection criteria with total points ranging from 0 to 1,000. CSC exceeds
the minimum range of 700 with a score of 849.

Method of Approach (0-300 points)
Company Resources (0-300 points)
Qualifications and Experience (0-200 points)
Financial Return to the City (0-200 points)

The following Proposer is selected for award:

Selected Vendor
Contemporary Services Corporation - 849

Additional Proposers:
Pride Group, LLC. - 964.20, Contract Terminated
Best Crowd Management - 601.40
Providers International - 435
Professional Protection Services International - 319.60

Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about June 18, 2025, for an approximate 54-month term,
expiring December 31, 2029 with no options to extend.

Financial Impact
The Contractor will pay 10 percent commission over the five-year term, resulting in
approximately $776,130 in revenue to the City.

Location
Phoenix Convention Center and Venues
Council Districts: 7 and 8



Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager John Chan and the Phoenix
Convention Center Department.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
***REQUEST TO CONTINUE (SEE ATTACHED MEMO)*** (CONTINUED FROM
JUNE 4, 2025) - NVLS (LEARN) Database Subscription Services - RFA 18-011 -
Amendment (Ordinance S-52035) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute amendment to
Contract 150498 with Vigilant Solutions, LLC. for an entity change to Motorola
Solutions, Inc. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item. No additional funds are needed, request to continue using
Ordinance S-45846.

Summary
This contract will provide the Phoenix Police Department with automatic license plate
reader equipment and subscription services to the National Vehicle Location Service
(NVLS) database. The service also includes the Law Enforcement Archival and
Reporting Network (LEARN) database, an online analytic platform that allows license
plate data and images to be aggregated and analyzed for law enforcement. LEARN
provides agencies with a way to manage vehicle hotlists, query historical license plate
reader data and use advanced analytics for enhanced investigations. LEARN is a
hosted solution that allows data sharing and interoperability with other law
enforcement agencies nationwide. Together, NVLS-LEARN subscriptions service helps
the department reduce auto thefts and related crime involving vehicles, increases auto
theft vehicle recovery rates and increases investigative leads to reduce auto thefts and
vehicles used in gateway crimes (i.e robbery, burglary of residence).

This item has been reviewed and approved by the Information Technology Services
Department.

Contract Term
The contract term remains unchanged, ending on June 18, 2029.

Financial Impact
The aggregate value of the contract will not exceed $2,427,000, and no additional
funds are needed.





Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request:
· National Vehicle Location Service Database - Contract 150498 Ordinance S-45846
on June 26, 2019.
· National Vehicle Location Service Database - Contract 150498 Ordinance S-46372
on February 19, 2020.
· National Vehicle Location Service Database - Contract 150498 Ordinance S-50944
on May 29, 2024.

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








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Training Textbooks Contract - IFB-25-0602 -
Request for Award (Ordinance S-52101) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
Gift of Words LLC dba GBS Books to provide textbooks and related materials for the
Fire Department. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item. The total value of the contract will not exceed $600,000.

Summary
This contract will provide paramedic textbooks and related materials to support
firefighters' training to obtain Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) and Advanced Life
Support (ALS) certification. The Fire Department Emergency Medical Services Division
has an accredited paramedic training program and is an approved training center for
the American Heart Association. Textbooks and training materials are used to train
firefighters to become certified emergency medical technicians and paramedics who
provide advanced life support treatment.

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

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

Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about July 1, 2025, for a five-year term with no options to
extend.

Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $600,000. Funds are available in the Fire
Department's operating budget.





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








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Proficiency Tests Contract - RFA 25-0474 - Request for Award (Ordinance S-
52057) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
Collaborative Testing Services, Inc. to provide proficiency tests for the Police
Department. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item. The total value of the contract will not exceed $90,000.

Summary
This contract will provide proficiency tests for the Police Department's Laboratory
Services Bureau. The tests are vital to the Laboratory Services Bureau to provide
testing in the areas of controlled substances, firearms, latent print examination,
forensic biology, blood alcohol, crime scene, arson and questioned documents. The
laboratory accreditation through ANSI National Accreditation Board (ANAB) requires
mandatory administration of a proficiency testing program using external test providers
for all analysis disciplines of the laboratory and also that a portion of the tests be
acquired from an approved external proficiency test vendor. These tests are a critical
part of the Police Department's effort to provide life safety services to the public and for
use in critical incidents and complicated scenes.

This item has been reviewed and approved by the Information Technology Services
Department.

Procurement Information
In accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10, standard competition was waived
as a result of an approved Determination Memo based on the following reason:
Special Circumstances Without Competition. Collaborative Testing Services, Inc. is
accredited by ANAB to ISO/IEC 17043 standards and offers the largest inventory of
proficiency tests within each discipline. The large selection of tests makes it more
efficient for the Laboratory Services Bureau to manage and complete the testing of its
100 examiners. The tests are sold directly to the laboratories, without the use of
distributors.

Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about June 4, 2025, for a five-year term with no options to



extend.

Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $90,000 for the five-year aggregate term.
Funding is available in the Police Department’s operating budget.

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








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Police Records Management System (RMS) - Requirements Contract - ITR 22-
052 - Amendment (Ordinance S-52056) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute amendment to
Contract 155980 with Motorola Solutions, Inc. to modify scope of work in relation to
Motorola Solutions PremierOne (P1) Advanced and Managed Services, extend
contract term through June 30, 2030, and add additional expenditures. Further request
to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. Additional
expenditures will not exceed $3,400,000.

Summary
This contract will provide Motorola Solutions P1 Advanced and Managed Services to
sustain the hardware infrastructure, oversee cybersecurity and maintain the records
management application following the implementation of the Motorola P1 system for
the Phoenix Police Department beginning in or around July 2025. This Managed
Services Agreement (MSA) includes an Onsite System Administrator (OSA) to sustain
the hardware and manage cybersecurity and an Onsite System Application
Administrator (OSAA) to maintain the PremierOne Records system.

This item has been reviewed and approved by the Information Technology Services
Department.

Contract Term
Upon approval, the term of the contract will be extended through June 30, 2030.

Financial Impact
Upon approval of $3,400,000 in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contract will not exceed $11,900,000. Funds are available in the Police Department’s
operating budget.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request:
· Police Records Management System (RMS) - Contract 155980 (Ordinance S-
48216) on December 15, 2021.




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








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
inPURSUIT Records Management System Professional and Support -
Amendment (Ordinance S-52050) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Contract 148218 with Intergraph Corporation dba Hexagon Safety & Infrastructure to
extend contract term for continued maintenance of inPURSUIT Records Management
System for the Phoenix Police Department. Further request to authorize the City
Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. No additional funds are needed;
request to continue using Ordinance S-44430.

Summary
This contract will provide annual licensing, software maintenance, support and
professional services in support of the heavily customized Records Management
System (RMS) for the Police Department. The additional contract term will allow the
City to transition and replace its current system.

This item has been reviewed and approved by the Information Technology Services
Department.

Contract Term
Upon approval, the contract will be extended through October 31, 2025.

Financial Impact
The aggregate value of the contract will not exceed $11,560,593, and no additional
funds are needed.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request:
· inPURSUIT Records Management System, Contract 148218, (Ordinance S-44430)
on April 4, 2018.
· InPURSUIT Records Management System, Contract 148218, (Ordinance S-49935)
on June 28, 2023.

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




Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Retroactive Authorization to Apply for and Accept the FY26 Full-Service
Forensic Crime Laboratory Grant (Ordinance S-52102) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to allow the Police
Department to retroactively apply for, accept, and enter into an agreement for state
grant funds through the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission's FY 2026 Full-Service
Forensic Crime Laboratory grant program. Funding provided under this grant will not
exceed $540,000. Further request authorization for the City Treasurer to accept, and
the City Controller to disburse, all funds related to this item.

Summary
The Police Department's Laboratory Services Bureau has applied for and been
awarded funds through this grant program for several years. The purpose of this grant
is to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the State's various full-service crime
laboratories. If awarded, grant funding will be used to pay for overtime, related fringe
benefits, travel expenses, training costs, supplies and equipment.

The grant application was due by June 16, 2025. If authorization is denied, the grant
application will be rescinded.

Contract Term
The term of the contract will be for two years beginning July 1, 2025 through June 30,
2027.

Financial Impact
No matching funds are required.

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








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
***REQUEST TO WITHDRAW (SEE ATTACHED MEMO)*** Approval to Enter into
Agreements with Various Local Law Enforcement Agencies for the Use of the
Phoenix Police Department's Records Management System (Ordinance S-52082)
- Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to allow the Police
Department to enter into Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA) with various local Law
Enforcement Agencies for the use of the Phoenix Police Department's Record
Management System (RMS), Motorola's Premiere One, for criminal investigative
purposes.

Summary
The IGA is created to enhance and foster the exchange of criminal justice information,
to assist in criminal investigations, and improve officer/public safety. When conducting
criminal investigations, law enforcement agencies work together to determine if
information exists in other jurisdictions related to their criminal investigation.

In order to reduce the amount of time it may take to receive critical information from a
Phoenix Police Department employee conducting research and gathering all significant
information, specified personnel from identified agencies are able to access the Police
Department's Records Management System and perform their own research which
supports obtaining all applicable and essential information by the established court
deadlines.

The Department anticipates entering into agreements with the following law
enforcement agencies:
Glendale Police Department
Surprise Police Department
Federal Bureau of Investigation
United States District Court, District of Arizona
Arizona Department of Public Safety
Maricopa County Attorney's Office






Contract Term
The terms of the agreements will be for 10 years from the date of execution, with
varying execution dates.

Financial Impact
There is no financial impact associated with this IGA.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
· Agreements 138710-0 and 138716-0 were recorded with the City Clerk in July
2014.

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








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Law Enforcement Mental Health and Wellness Act Implementation Grant
(Ordinance S-52111) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to allow the Police
Department to apply for, accept, and enter into an agreement with the Community
Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Office for the FY25 Law Enforcement Mental
Health and Wellness Act (LEMHWA) Implementation Grant. The grant amount is not to
exceed $200,000. Further request authorization for the City Treasurer to accept, and
the City Controller to disburse, all funds related to this item.

Summary
This program will support efforts to protect the mental health and well-being of law
enforcement officers. The goal of this grant is to improve the delivery and access to
mental health and wellness services for law enforcement officers and their families
through the implementation of peer support, training, family resources, suicide
prevention and other promising practices for wellness programs.

The Employee Wellness Unit has initiated new programs focused on building
resilience in employees so they can better prevent, mitigate and recover from the
cumulative stress and exposure to traumatic incidents they experience as unique
elements of their work life. One of the new resiliency-based programs created for
Police Department employees is the Mental Performance and Development Referral
Program. This program provides mental performance services through the
implementation of peer support, training, family resources, suicide prevention and
other promising practices for wellness programs to employees who have presented
physical, verbal, behavioral and cognitive indicators of performance anxiety, while
involved in high-stress, rapidly evolving law enforcement situations.

The Employee Wellness Unit will use this grant funding to expand the current program,
which will provide proactive wellness practices to the entire Police Department. The
funding will help encourage resilient wellness strategies for the challenges faced by
police employees through the Mental Performance and Development Referral
Program.

The grant application is due on June 24, 2025. If approved, the Police Department will



move forward with submitting the application.

Contract Term
The project period is for three years and will begin on October 1, 2025.

Financial Impact
No matching funds are required.

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








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
***REQUEST TO CONTINUE (SEE ATTACHED MEMO)*** (CONTINUED FROM
JUNE 4, 2025) - Photo Enforcement Cameras - COOP 25-0615 - Request for
Award (Ordinance S-51964) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
American Traffic Solutions, Inc. dba Verra Mobility to provide Photo Enforcement
Camera Services for the Street Transportation Department's Traffic Safety Photo
Enforcement program. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all
funds related to this item. The total value of the contract will not exceed $12,000,000.

Summary
This contract provides the services associated with Mobile Speed Photo Radar
Vehicles, Portable Speed Photo Radar Units and Intersection Enforcement Camera
Systems to enhance public safety by addressing red light and speed limit violations,
thereby reducing traffic collisions, injuries and property damage. The program will
focus on high-collision areas, school zones and locations identified through traffic data.

Procurement Information
In accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10, standard competition was waived
as a result of an approved Determination Memo based on the following reason:
Special Circumstances Alternative Competition. The City of Scottsdale awarded
contract RFP032023-075 using a competitive process consistent with the City's
procurement processes, as set forth in the Phoenix City Code, Chapter 43. Use of the
cooperative agreement allows the City of Phoenix to streamline the procurement
process to ensure pricing is equal to or better than the Contractor's most favorable
pricing while complying with competitive procurement requirements.

Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about June 15, 2025, and continue through March 31,
2026, with four one-year options to extend.

Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $12,000,000 for the aggregate contract
term. Funding is available in the Street Transportation Department's operating budget.





Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Inger Erickson and the Street
Transportation Department.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Voluntary Acquisition of Real Property Located at 211 S. 28th Street for Phoenix
Sky Harbor International Airport (Ordinance S-52084) - District 8

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to perform all acts necessary
to acquire real property located at 211 S. 28th Street in fee simple title, together with
associated improvements and appurtenances. Acquisition is to be by voluntary
purchase from Logotec Arizona, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company, which
converted from Logotec, Inc., a North Dakota corporation (Logotec) at a price not to
exceed the City's appraised value plus usual and customary closing costs. Further
request authorization to provide relocation assistance as federally allowed, to execute
a lease and other agreements to allow the occupants time to relocate, as may be
necessary to and in furtherance of this acquisition. The purchase agreement may
contain other terms and conditions deemed necessary or appropriate, including a
waiver of mineral rights from the Union Pacific Railroad and associated costs.

Additionally, request authorization for the City Controller to disburse, and for the City
Treasurer to accept, all funds related to this item.

Summary
The real property to be acquired is owned by Logotec, totals approximately 40,511
square feet, and is adjacent to Aviation controlled property. The real property is
strategically located north of Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport's (Airport) north
airfield operations and is within the Airport's North Voluntary Property Acquisition
Program. This property consists of one parcel and is improved with an approximately
20,150 square foot industrial warehouse building and associated land improvements.
The property is currently occupied by Nick's Menswear, LLC. The Airport will lease 211
S. 28th Street to the current occupant for a term of 24 months at a rental rate based on
market rent to allow the occupant time to relocate.

Once the real property is acquired and the property is vacated, the Aviation
Department will continue to occupy the property for its own use.

The parcel to be acquired is located at 211 S. 28th Street, identified by Maricopa
County Assessor's Parcel Number 121-60-017.




Financial Impact
Funding is available in the Aviation Department's Capital Improvement Program.

Location
211 S. 28th Street
Council District: 8

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Aviation and
Finance departments.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Video Surveillance System Licensing, Maintenance and Repair Services
Contract - IFB 25-0536 - Request for Award (Ordinance S-52063) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
Wilson Electric Services Corporation, dba Netsian Technologies Group, to provide
video surveillance system licensing, maintenance, and repair services for the Aviation,
Arts and Culture, Phoenix Convention Center, and Water Services departments.
Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this
item. The total value of the contract will not exceed $11,600,000.

Summary
The City of Phoenix owns and maintains video surveillance systems and passenger
emergency duress systems that utilize thousands of video cameras at multiple
locations across City-owned properties. These systems require ongoing software
licensing, software patching and updates, and regular preventative maintenance and
break-fix to ensure the systems are operational and maintain the City's security
capabilities. This contract allows multiple City departments to purchase these services
as well as provide repair and replacement services on an as-needed basis.

This item has been reviewed and approved by the Information Technology Services
Department.

Procurement Information
An Invitation for Bid was processed in accordance with City of Phoenix Administrative
Regulation 3.10. Ten vendors submitted bids deemed to be responsive to posted
specifications and responsible to provide the required goods and services. Following
an evaluation based on price, the procurement officer recommends award to:

Selected Bidder
Wilson Electric Services Corporation, dba Netsian Technologies Group

Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about July 1, 2025, for a five-year term with no options to
extend.




Financial Impact
The total contract value for all five departments will not exceed $11,600,000 for the
total five-year term.

Funding is available in the Aviation, Arts and Culture, Phoenix Convention Center, and
Water Services departments' Operating budgets.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Phoenix Aviation Advisory Board Business and Development Subcommittee:
· Recommended approval of this item, by a vote of 3-0 on May 1, 2025.

The Phoenix Aviation Advisory Board:
· Recommended approval of this item, by a vote of 7-0 on May 15, 2025.

The Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee:
· Recommended approval of this item, by a vote of 3-0 on May 21, 2025.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Inger Erickson, Deputy City
Managers Mario Paniagua, Gina Montes, David Mathews, John Chan and Ginger
Spencer and the Aviation, Arts and Culture, Phoenix Convention Center and Water
Services departments.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Baggage Handling Systems - Operations, Maintenance, Repair, and Controls
System Design, Programming, and Integration Services Contract - AVN RFP 24-
0156 - Request for Award (Ordinance S-52080) - District 8

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
JSM Airport Services LLC to provide baggage handling systems operations,
maintenance, repair, and controls system design, programming, and integration
services for the Aviation Department. Further request to authorize the City Controller to
disburse all funds related to this item. The total value of the contract will be up to
$41,264,973.

Summary
This contract will provide operations, maintenance, repair, and controls system design,
programming, and integration services for the baggage handling systems (BHS) at
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (PHX). The Aviation Department maintains
BHS in Terminals 3 and 4 at PHX. The BHS are conveyor systems that transport
checked baggage from ticket counters to the airline's baggage locations. These
services are critical to PHX operations to ensure all checked baggage are efficiently
and securely processed and arrive at the airline's designated airline's baggage location
in a timely manner.

Procurement Information
A Request for Proposal was processed in accordance with City of Phoenix
Administrative Regulation 3.10.

Two vendors submitted proposals deemed responsive and responsible. An evaluation
committee evaluated those offers based on the following criteria with a maximum
possible point total of 1,000:

Method of Approach to Scope of Services (0-350 points)
Fee Schedule (0-250 points)
Qualifications and Experience of Firm (0-225 points)
Qualifications and Experience of Proposed On-Site Manager (0-175 points)

After reaching consensus, the evaluation committee recommends award to the



following vendor:

JSM Airport Services LLC: 850 points

Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about September 1, 2025, for a five-year term with two
one-year options to extend, which may be exercised at the sole discretion of the
Aviation Director, for a total seven-year contract term.

Financial Impact
The total contract value will be up to $41,264,973 for the total seven-year contract
term. Funding is available in the Aviation Department's Operating budget.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Phoenix Aviation Advisory Board Business and Development Subcommittee:
· Recommended approval of this item, by a vote of 4-0, on March 3, 2025.

The Phoenix Aviation Advisory Board:
· Recommended approval of this item, by a vote of 7-0, on April 17, 2025.

Location
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, 2485 E. Buckeye Road
Council District: 8

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Aviation
Department.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
ABB Variable Frequency Drives Hardware Replacement, Maintenance, and
Repair Services Contract - RFA 25-0763 - Request for Award (Ordinance S-52081)
- Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
ThermAir Systems, LLC (ThermAir) to provide variable frequency drives installation,
replacement, maintenance and repair services for the Aviation, Phoenix Convention
Center, and Water Services departments. Further request to authorize the City
Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The total value of the contract will
be up to $2,000,000.

Summary
This contract will provide ongoing installation, replacement, maintenance and repair
services on over 200 ABB brand HVAC variable frequency drives (VFD) throughout
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, Phoenix Deer Valley Airport and Phoenix
Goodyear Airport (the Airports). The Phoenix Convention Center and Water Services
departments also have ABB VFDs located in several City-owned facilities. The efficient
and reliable operation of HVAC systems is necessary to ensure the safety of
passengers, employees and the public visiting and working in the Airports, Phoenix
Convention Center and other City-owned facilities.

Procurement Information
In accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10, standard competition was waived
as a result of an approved Determination Memo based on the following reason:
Special Circumstances Without Competition. ThermAir is the sole authorized
distributor of ABB brand VFDs. It is necessary to utilize Original Equipment
Manufacturer equipment, parts and services to ensure proper maintenance and repairs
of the equipment.

Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about July 1, 2025, for a total five-year term.

Financial Impact
The total contract value will be up to $2,000,000 for the total five-year contract term.




Funding is available in the Aviation, Phoenix Convention Center and Water Services
departments' operating budgets.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Ginger Spencer, John Chan and
Mario Paniagua and the Aviation, Phoenix Convention Center and Water Services
departments.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Amend Food and Beverage Concession Lease with Kind Hospitality, Inc.
(Ordinance S-52115) - District 1

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to amend Food and Beverage
Concession Lease 157069 (Lease) with Kind Hospitality, Inc., dba Barrio Brewing
(Barrio) to apply rent credits in the amount of $13,500 for replacement of a ventilation
system at Phoenix Deer Valley Airport (DVT).

Summary
Barrio operates a restaurant in the DVT terminal building under the Lease, which
allocates maintenance responsibilities to both parties. Barrio is responsible for the
maintenance and replacement of restaurant fixtures, while the City maintains air
conditioning and ventilation systems. The existing commercial restaurant kitchen
exhaust system has reached the end of its useful life and needs replacement. The
restaurant kitchen exhaust system is integrated with a return air ventilation system that
replaces air removed from the kitchen during the restaurant operations. After
evaluation, Barrio and the City have determined that the exhaust system components
constitute restaurant fixture under Barrio's responsibility and that the integrated
ventilation systems fall under the City's maintenance obligations of DVT terminal
building's overall heat, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) infrastructure.

Contract Term
This amendment will not impact the existing term of this Lease.

Financial Impact
The total estimated project cost is $27,000. Barrio will select a contractor to complete
the exhaust system replacement and any associated repairs to the Terminal building
HVAC infrastructure in compliance with Title 34. Due to shared responsibility of the
integrated systems, the cost will be split equally between the parties. The City's portion
of costs will not exceed $13,500, which will be reimbursed to Barrio through rent
credits upon project completion.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Food and Beverage Concession Lease 157069 was authorized by City Ordinance
S-48472 on April 6, 2022.




Location
Phoenix Deer Valley Airport, 702 W. Deer Valley Road
Council District: 1

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Aviation
Department.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Authorization to Amend License Agreement 141668 with Cellco Partnership
(Ordinance S-52065) - District 7

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to amend License Agreement
141668 with Cellco Partnership, successor-in-interest to Verizon Wireless (VAW), LLC,
to extend license for occupancy at 305 W. Washington Street, a City-owned property,
for five years and to provide for two additional five-year automatic renewal options to
extend. Further request authorization for the City Treasurer to accept all funds related
to this item.

Summary
Cellco Partnership, successor-in-interest to Verizon Wireless (VAW), LLC, currently
licenses approximately 313 square feet and eight wall-mounted antennas on City-
owned property located at 305 W. Washington Street, to maintain and operate
telecommunications equipment and related facilities. The monthly rental rate per
antenna is $1,150. Base rent during the first year of the extended term is $9,200 per
month, plus applicable taxes, which is within the range of market rents as determined
by the Real Estate Division. Base rent will be adjusted three percent annually on each
anniversary of commencement date.

All other terms and conditions will remain the same.

Contract Term
The term of the License Agreement will be for five years beginning on November 1,
2025, through October 31, 2030 with two additional five-year automatic renewal
options to extend.

Financial Impact
Revenue during the first year of the extended term will be $110,400, plus applicable
taxes, with an adjustment of three percent annually on each anniversary of
commencement date.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
Agreement 141668, Ordinance S-41634 adopted April 22, 2015.
Agreement 141668-1, Ordinance S-48577 adopted May 11, 2022.




Location
305 W. Washington Street
Council District: 7

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Public Works
and Finance departments.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Miscellaneous Building Repairs - IFB 26-FMD-007 - Request for Award
(Ordinance S-52062) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into contracts with
BWC Enterprises, Inc. dba Woodruff Construction, Bio-Janitorial Service, Inc., and
DMS Companies, Inc. dba Hernandez Companies to provide miscellaneous building
repairs at locations citywide. Further request authorization for the City Controller to
disburse all funds related to this item. The total amount will not exceed $3,300,000.

Summary
Miscellaneous building repairs are needed to supplement internal City of Phoenix
trades staff for building repairs and tenant improvements when there is an increase in
demand. These services are required to provide building repairs and to extend the
useful life of City structures and properties.

Procurement Information
An Invitation for Bid was processed in accordance with City of Phoenix Administrative
Regulation 3.10. Five bids were received, one of which was deemed non-responsive.
Four bids were deemed to be responsive to the posted specifications and responsible
for providing the required services. Following an evaluation based on price, the
procurement officer recommends an award to the following bidders:

Selected Bidders:
BWC Enterprises, Inc. dba Woodruff Construction: $7,980
Bio-Janitorial Service, Inc.: $8,340
DMS Companies, Inc. dba Hernandez Companies: $11,975

Other Bidder:
New Resources: $20,000

Contract Term
The contracts will begin on or about October 1, 2025, for a one-year term with two one
-year options to extend.






Financial Impact
The contracts will have a combined total value that will not exceed $3,300,000. Funds
are available in the Aviation and Public Works departments' operating budgets.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Aviation and
Public Works departments.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Heavy Equipment Rental Non-Operated - COOP 25-0482 - Request for Award
(Ordinance S-52069) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
Empire Southwest, LLC to provide heavy equipment rentals for the Public Works
Department. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item. The total value of the contract will not exceed $2,012,484.

Summary
This contract will provide various Heavy Equipment Rentals which includes, but is not
limited to: aerial equipment, air compressors, compaction equipment, earth moving
equipment, landscape equipment, pavement equipment, power sweeping equipment,
trenchers, trucks, miscellaneous tools and equipment, in addition to other related
products, parts, accessories, and services.

The wide range of high-quality and specialized machinery is crucial for the City’s
infrastructure projects. Heavy equipment rentals provide access to current equipment
ensuring efficiency and safety, access to technical support and cost-effectiveness as
the City reduces the responsibility of maintenance and repairs.

Procurement Information
In accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10, standard competition was waived
as a result of an approved Determination Memo based on the following reason:
Special Circumstances - Alternative Competition. The State of Arizona, Heavy
Equipment Rental Non-Operated contract, CTR066395, was awarded using a
competitive process consistent with the City's procurement processes set forth in the
Phoenix City Code, Chapter 43. This cooperative purchasing agreement best aligns
with the City’s needs and offers competitive pricing.

Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about June 23, 2025, for a one-year term with three one-
year options to extend.

Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $2,012,484. Funding is available in the



Public Works Department's operating budget.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Public Works
Department.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Automated Vehicle Location Services Contract - RFA-2324-WAD-531 -
Amendment (Ordinance S-52072) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Contract 159835 with Manhattan Telecommunications Corp. LLC, dba MetTel to
provide additional funds and allow the Public Works Department to utilize the contract.
Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this
item. The additional expenditures will not exceed $180,000.

Summary
This contract provides telematic hardware and data monitoring services for tracking
vehicles and obtaining essential data for vehicle maintenance for over 1,000 City
vehicles, which is essential for continuity of operations.

Contract Term
The contract term remains unchanged, ending on January 2, 2029.

Financial Impact
Upon approval of $180,000 in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contract will not exceed $2,174,400. Funds are available in the Public Works and
Water Services departments' budgets.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously approved Contract 159835 (Ordinance S-50486) on
January 3, 2024.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Mario Paniagua and Ginger Spencer
and the Public Works and Water Services departments.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Public Works Fleet Services Rate Study (Ordinance S-52088) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
NewGen Strategies and Solutions, LLC to provide consulting services and contract
analysis of fleet services for the Public Works Department. Further request to
authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The total value of
the contract will not exceed $195,000.

Summary
The Public Works Department Fleet Management Division is responsible for the
maintenance and repair of a majority of the City-owned fleet, and are primarily funded
through an interdepartmental billing system. This analysis will assist in determining the
industry's best practices for billing labor, commodity, and maintenance costs. This
study will also identify process improvements to reduce overall costs through work flow
efficiency.

Procurement Information
In accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10, standard competition was waived
as a result of an approved Determination Memo based on the following reason:
Special Circumstances Without Competition due to the need to maintain continuity with
previously completed studies.

Contract Term
This item will be for the one-time purchase of a rate study and will begin on or about
June 19, 2025.

Financial Impact
The contract value will not exceed $195,000.

Funding is available in the Public Works Department's budget.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Public Works
Department.






Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Valley Youth Theatre - Architectural Services - AR00000026 (General Obligation
Bond) (Ordinance S-52059) - District 7

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with DLR Group, Inc. to provide Architectural Services that include programming,
study, site assessment design, and possible construction administration and
observation services for the Valley Youth Theatre General Obligation Bond 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
$1,000,000.

Additionally, request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to take all action
as may be necessary or appropriate and to execute all design and construction
agreements, licenses, permits, and requests for utility services related to the
development, design and construction of the project. Such utility services include, but
are not limited to: electrical, water, sewer, natural gas, telecommunication, cable
television, railroads and other modes of transportation. Further request the City
Council to grant an exception to Phoenix City Code 42-20 to authorize inclusion in the
documents pertaining to this transaction of indemnification and assumption of liability
provisions that otherwise should be prohibited by Phoenix City Code 42-18. This
authorization excludes any transaction involving an interest in real property.

Summary
The purpose of this project is to design a new facility as a permanent home for the
Valley Youth Theatre. The facility will include an Americans with Disabilities Act
compliant 300-seat feature theatre plus a 99-seat studio theatre for smaller
productions. Also included are office and meeting space, restrooms,
rehearsal/workshop space, dance studios, galleries and space for set, costumes, prop
shops and storage.

DLR, Group, Inc., services shall include, but not be limited to, coordinate with the City
and Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR) during design, submit and retrieve all
required documents to and from various agencies, coordinate all permits and
approvals from the federal, state, county and local utility authorities, develop



preliminary plans and renderings to present concepts and verify course of project,
prepare and reconcile cost models and preliminary timelines for the project, develop
project program to meet requirements of the City of Phoenix and Valley Youth Theatre,
prepare necessary exhibits and make presentation to stakeholders, participate in City
coordinated public information, public relation services and community outreach,
develop studies to lead the recommended solutions during the decision-making
process, address stakeholder and CMAR design/constructability review comments
from milestone reviews, prepare construction cost estimates for each design phase
milestone, review recommendations regarding cost models/GMPs provided by the
CMAR contractor, perform value engineering, identify private and public utility
easements, conduct geotechnical engineering and investigations of project site,
investigate and design utilities and infrastructure for project development (including but
not limited to water, sewer, and storm water), coordinate with CMAR in developing
design documents, coordinate and submit design packages to CMAR to bid to
subcontractors, design and prepare project plans and specifications for construction,
work with City and stakeholders for space planning and layout requirements, work with
stakeholders from various agencies as required, other services as required to support
successful completion of the work and the City's and Valley Youth Theatre interests,
and provide possible construction administration and observation services.

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, the City may not publicly release information on proposals received or
the scoring results until an agreement is awarded. A total of 11 firms submitted
proposals and are listed in Attachment A.

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 DLR Group, Inc. will not exceed $1,000,000, including all
subconsultant and reimbursable costs.

Funding is available in the Arts and Culture Capital Improvement Program budget
utilizing the General Obligation Bond funds. 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
Valley Youth Theatre
Council District: 7

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Inger Erickson, Deputy City Manager
David Mathews, the Arts and Culture Department and the City Engineer.





ATTACHMENT A


Selected Firm
Rank 1: DLR Group, Inc.


Additional Proposers
Rank 2: Holly Street, LLC
Rank 3: Multi Studio, Inc.
Rank 4: Jones Studio, Inc.
Rank 5: M. Arthur Gensler Jr. Associates, Inc.
Rank 6: Architekton, Inc.
Rank 7: RSP Architects, Ltd.
Rank 8: Richard Kennedy Architects, LLC
Rank 9: Rakkhaus, LLC
Rank 10: Wilson & Company, Inc., Engineers and Architects
Rank 11: SuoLL, LLC







Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Intergovernmental Agreements with Maricopa County for the Connected Vehicle
Acceleration Zone Project (Ordinance S-52045) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into
Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA) with Maricopa County Department of
Transportation (MCDOT) to deploy interoperable Connected Vehicle (CV) and Vehicle
to Everything (V2X) technologies for a total not to exceed $1,987,000 (City local
match). Further request the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.
Further request an exemption of the prohibition set forth in Phoenix City Code Section
42-18 for a governmental entity pursuant to Phoenix City Code Section 42-20.

Summary
In June 2024, MCDOT was awarded approximately $19.7 million in federal funding
under the Saving Lives with Connectivity: Accelerating V2X Deployment Program to
advance connected and interoperable vehicle technologies. MCDOT will lead this large
-scale deployment of V2X technologies to connect 750 physical and virtual roadside
units to an estimated 400 vehicle on-board units targeting transit, emergency and
freight fleets. The project will deploy Emergency Vehicle Preemption, Vulnerable User
Road Detection, Transit Signal Priority, and Freight Signal Priority applications in the
Cities of Phoenix, Tolleson, Avondale, and unincorporated Maricopa County, as well as
along US 60.

In association with MCDOT, the Street Transportation Department (Streets) is
participating in this federally funded multi-jurisdictional project to install up to 650
roadside and virtual units at signalized intersections throughout the City. Streets will
own, operate, and maintain the equipment installed upon completion of the project.
The Fire Department is also participating in this project to install up to 230 on-board
units on emergency vehicles. The Street Transportation and Fire departments will
enter into separate IGAs with MCDOT.

Contract Term
The term of the IGAs will begin on or around July 1, 2025, and shall extend for a
period of five years during the post-deployment phase.





Financial Impact
The total estimated project cost is $27.45 million with approximately $19.7 million of
federal funding. The City of Phoenix local match contribution is $1.987 million and is
available in the Street Transportation Department's Capital Improvement Program. The
remaining $5.763 million local match requirement will be funded by Maricopa County,
Tolleson and Avondale.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Managers Inger Erickson and Lori Bays and
the Street Transportation and Fire departments.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Traffic Signal Head and LED Indications Contract - IFB 25-0529 - Request for
Award (Ordinance S-52064) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into contracts with AM
Signal, LLC; Clark Electric Sales, Inc. dba Clark Transportation Solutions; and JTB
Supply Company, Inc., to purchase traffic signal heads and LED indications for the
Street Transportation Department. Further request to authorize the City Controller to
disburse all funds related to this item. The total value of the contracts will not exceed
$8,500,000.

Summary
These contracts will allow the Street Transportation Department to maintain the traffic
signal infrastructure throughout the City, thereby supporting the safe movement of
vehicular and pedestrian traffic. The Traffic Services Division is responsible for traffic
operations, traffic maintenance, and safety. The traffic signal components and LED
indications are used at all intersections as well as High Intensity Activated CrossWalk
(HAWK) installations, school zone installations and other warning devices throughout
the signalized infrastructure.

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

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

Selected Bidders:
· AM Signal, LLC
· Clark Electric Sales, Inc. dba Clark Transportation Solutions
· JTB Supply Company, Inc.

Contract Term
The contracts will begin on or about August 1, 2025, for a five-year term with no
options to extend.



Financial Impact
The aggregate contracts value will not exceed $8,500,000. Funding is available in the
Street Transportation Department's operating budget.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Inger Erickson and the Street
Transportation Department.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Parking Pay-by-Phone Agreement - RFP 63-0028 - Amendment (Ordinance S-
52066) - Districts 7 & 8

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Contract 146492 with ParkMobile, LLC to extend the contract term. Further request to
authorize the City Treasurer to accept all funds related to this ordinance. No additional
funds are needed, request to continue using Ordinance S-43909.

Summary
This contract provides Parking Pay-by-Phone services for individuals who wish to pay
for parking meters in the downtown area using a smart phone. The existing contract
will expire June 30, 2025. Additional time is needed in order to allow the Street
Transportation Department to develop a new revenue contract solicitation without
interruption in service. The scope of work for services is being expanded to incorporate
enforcement functionalities to reduce the need for a law enforcement officer to have to
log into a different software program to see if a parking meter has been paid, deploy
enhancements, collect data and incorporate into a parking master plan. This service is
critical to the City's effort to provide parking options in the downtown area.

This item has been reviewed and approved by the Information Technology Services
Department.

Contract Term
Upon approval the contract will be extended through June 30, 2026, with two option
years to extend through June 30, 2028.

Financial Impact
This is a revenue-generating contract. The estimated annual income is approximately
$500,000 from credit card based transactions via smart phone. There is no financial
cost to the City. Convenience fees are paid by the end user paid directly to the Pay-by-
Phone services contractor. No additional funds are needed.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request:
• Parking Pay-by-Phone Contract 146492 (Ordinance S-43909) on September 20,



2017; and
• Parking Pay-by-Phone Contract 146492-005 (Ordinance S-50164) on September 20,
2023.

Location
The parking meters are located in Downtown Phoenix.
Council Districts: 7 and 8

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Inger Erickson and the Street
Transportation Department.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Agreement with Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) for the State
Route 303 (SR 303) between 51st Avenue and Interstate 17 (I-17) (Ordinance S-
52089) - Districts 1 & 2

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an
Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with ADOT for the SR 303 between 51st Avenue
and I-17 for the installation of new landscape and irrigation, public art enhancements,
and to define maintenance responsibilities. Further request City Council to grant an
exception pursuant to Phoenix City Code Section 42-20 to authorize indemnification
and assumption of liability provisions that otherwise would be prohibited by Phoenix
City Code Section 42-18.

Summary
The purpose of this agreement is to define the operations and maintenance
responsibilities and City's aesthetic enhancement responsibilities associated with
ADOT's project. The project includes new general purpose lanes on SR 303 between
51st Avenue and I-17, freeway system interchange ramps at SR 303 and I-17,
installation of irrigated landscaping within ADOT's right of way and City aesthetic
enhancements. The City will be solely responsible for the water cost for all landscaping
after the warranty period and all maintenance associated with landscape, irrigation,
and routine minor maintenance in accordance with the ADOT and City Master
Maintenance Agreement 18-0006976-I. In addition, the City will be responsible for the
additional aesthetic enhancements that are beyond ADOT's baseline features per
ADOT Aesthetic Guidelines dated July 2021.

Contract Term
The terms, conditions, and provisions of this agreement shall remain in full force and
effect until substantial completion of the Project.

Financial Impact
There is no financial impact to the City.

Location
SR 303 between 51st Avenue and I-17.
Council Districts: 1 and 2




Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Inger Erickson and the Street
Transportation Department.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Authorization to Apply for and Accept Transportation Funding for Arterial
Widening Program and Arterial Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Program
Grants Through Maricopa Association of Governments for Fiscal Years 2025
through 2028 (Ordinance S-52113) - Districts 2, 3, 7 & 8

Request to retroactively authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to apply for,
accept and, if awarded, enter into agreements for transportation funding through the
Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) Arterial Rehabilitation and
Reconstruction Program (ARRP) and Arterial Widening Program (AWP) grants. Further
request an exemption from the indemnification prohibition set forth in the Phoenix City
Code Section 42-18 for a governmental entity pursuant to Phoenix City Code Section
42-20. The total grant funds applied for will not exceed $46 million and the City's local
match will not exceed $20 million.

Summary
MAG has announced and shared the grant schedule for the upcoming Call for
Projects for its AWP and ARRP grant opportunities. These programs provide
funding to improve capacity on existing roadways in their communities. There is
$53 million in available funding for the AWP program and $93 million for the ARRP
for a total of $146 million. The goals of eligible projects under the AWP and ARRP
are focused on improving the capacity and condition on existing roadways.

The Street Transportation Department has identified five projects to submit for
consideration of funding.
1. Lower Buckeye Road: 27th to 19th Avenue
2. 7th Avenue: Southern Avenue to Broadway Road
3. 27th Avenue: Lower Buckeye to Buckeye Road
4. 35th Avenue: I-10 to Camelback Road
5. Cave Creek Road: Angela Drive to Beardsley Road

Financial Impact
The estimated total cost for the projects will not exceed $66 million. If awarded, the
maximum amount of the grant(s) would not exceed $46 million and the City's cost
would not exceed $20 million.





Funding for the local match is available in the Street Transportation Department's
Capital Improvement Program budget.

Location
Council Districts: 2, 3, 7 and 8

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Inger Erickson and the Street
Transportation Department.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Apply for U.S. Department of Transportation Safe Streets and Roads for All
Grant Opportunity for Federal Fiscal Year 2024-25 - Federal Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law Funding (Ordinance S-52114) - Districts 1, 3, 4 & 7

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to apply for, accept and, if
awarded, enter into an agreement for disbursement of Federal funding from the U.S.
Department of Transportation (USDOT) through the Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2024-25
Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) grant opportunity. If awarded, the funding will be
used to implement projects and strategies in the Vision Zero Road Safety Action Plan
(RSAP). Further request to authorize the City Treasurer to accept, and the City
Controller to disburse, all funds related to this item. Funding for this grant opportunity
is available through the Federal Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. The total grant funds
applied for will not exceed $25 million, and the City's local match would not exceed
$6.25 million.

Summary
SS4A is a funding program under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which was signed
into law on November 15, 2021. USDOT issued a Notice of Funding Opportunity
(NOFO) on March 28, 2025, for the SS4A program for the fourth year of the program
offering $982,260,494 in funding for FFY 2024-25. The intent of the program is to offer
a competitive discretionary grant opportunity to support planning, infrastructure,
behavioral, and operational initiatives to prevent death and serious injuries involving all
roadway users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, public transportation users, personal
conveyance and micromobility users, motorists, and commercial vehicle operators.

In September 2022, City Council approved the Street Transportation Department's
RSAP, which is one of the key SS4A grant requirements to apply for funding
designated under the implementation grants category. Street Transportation
Department staff is evaluating the opportunity to submit for an implementation grant
with a broader focus that blends a corridor safety improvement along Dunlap Road
from 35th to 19th avenues with other safety improvements Citywide at other key High
Injury Network (HIN) locations. Staff continues to finalize the details of the
implementation grant in collaboration with other key Citywide department initiatives
and two potential partners, including the Maricopa County Health Department which
has a vested interest in expanding Safe Routes to Schools to nearby impacted



elementary schools, and Valleywise Health which has a vested interest in expanding
educational safety campaigns for project impacted area drivers. The City expects that
both the Maricopa County Health Department and Valleywise Health will have a
financial contribution to the grant effort if awarded. We expect a financial contribution
up to 20 percent of their scope specific element including safe routes to schools and
an educational campaign. Details on their financial commitment will be finalized in a
separate agreement following the grant award.

Staff continues to evaluate all the grant criteria to ensure a competitive final grant
submittal is achieved with a focus on these grant priorities as defined in the 2025
SS4A NOFO:
· Employing low cost, high-impact strategies that can improve safety over a wide
geographic area.
· Ensuring investment in the safety needs of under-served communities, which
includes under-served urban communities.
· Incorporating evidence-based projects and strategies and adopt innovative
technologies and strategies.
· Demonstrating engagement with a variety of public and private stakeholders.

The City intends to submit an implementation grant application with a total project cost
up to $31.25 million, which includes final design, environmental, and construction costs
with a goal to improve roadway safety.

The SS4A grant submittal deadline is June 26, 2025.

Financial Impact
The estimated total cost for the project is approximately $31.25 million. The maximum
federal participation rate is 80 percent, with a minimum local match of 20 percent of
the total eligible project cost. If awarded, the federal match would not exceed $25
million (80 percent) and the City’s costs would be approximately $6.25 million (20
percent) for the local match.

Funding for the local match is available in the Street Transportation Department’s
Capital Improvement Program budget. Potential grant funding received is available
through the Federal Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, from USDOT through the FFY 2024-
25 SS4A grant opportunity.

Location
Council Districts: 1, 3, 4 and 7




Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Inger Erickson, Deputy City Manager
Mario Paniagua and the Street Transportation Department.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Network Infrastructure Services License Agreement with Zoom Tech Arizona
Limited (Ordinance S-52124) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute a non-exclusive,
revocable license with Zoom Tech Arizona Limited to construct, install, operate,
maintain, and use the Public Highways in the City of Phoenix to provide fiber optic
facilities in, under, over, and across public rights-of-way and public utility easements in
the City, subject to the terms and conditions contained in the license and Phoenix City
Code. Further request to authorize the City Treasurer to accept all funds related to this
item. Additionally request that the Licensee sign the license within 60 days of Council
action, or this authorization will expire.

Summary
Zoom Tech Arizona Limited desires to install facilities in City of Phoenix rights-of-way
and public utility easements to provide fiber-optic based services to the public. The
license will be for a period of five years with an option for one-time five-year renewal,
contain appropriate insurance and indemnification provisions, require a performance
bond and a security fund, provide for terms of transfer and revocation, and provide for
compensation for the commercial use of public rights-of-way while permitting the City
to manage the rights-of-way.

Contract Term
The request is for a five-year Network Infrastructure Services License with an option
for a one time five-year renewal.

Financial Impact
There is no financial impact to the City. Licensee will pay an annual fee based on a
formula using number of homes passed or a percentage of monthly gross revenues,
with the fees subject to increases based on the Consumer Price Index.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Inger Erickson, the Street
Transportation Department and the City Engineer.







Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Network Infrastructure Services License Agreement with PRIME Fiber
(Ordinance S-52125) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute a non-exclusive,
revocable license with PRIME Fiber to construct, install, operate, maintain, and use the
Public Highways and public utility easements in the City of Phoenix to provide fiber
optic facilities in, under, over, and across public rights-of-way and public utility
easements in the City, subject to the terms and conditions contained in the license and
Phoenix City Code. Further request to authorize the City Treasurer to accept all funds
related to this item. Additionally request that the Licensee sign the license within 60
days of Council action, or this authorization will expire.

Summary
PRIME Fiber desires to install facilities in the City of Phoenix rights-of-way and public
utility easements to provide fiber-optic based services to the public. The license will be
for a period of five years with an option for a one-time five-year renewal, contain
appropriate insurance and indemnification provisions, require a performance bond and
a security fund, provide for terms of transfer and revocation, and provide
compensation for the commercial use of public rights-of-way while permitting the City
to manage the rights-of-way.

Contract Term
The request is for a five-year Network Infrastructure Services License with an option
for a one time five-year renewal.

Financial Impact
There is no financial impact to the City. Licensee will pay an annual fee based on a
formula using number of homes passed or a percentage of monthly gross revenues,
with the fees subject to increases based on the Consumer Price Index.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Inger Erickson, the Street
Transportation Department and the City Engineer.







Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Network Infrastructure Services License Agreement with BAM Broadband
OPCO, LLC (Ordinance S-52127) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute a non-exclusive,
revocable license with BAM Broadband OPCO, LLC to construct, install, operate,
maintain, and use the Public Highways in the City of Phoenix to provide fiber optic
facilities in, under, over, and across public rights-of-way and public utility easements in
the City, subject to the terms and conditions contained in the license and Phoenix City
Code. Further request to authorize the City Treasurer to accept all funds related to this
item. Additionally request that the Licensee sign the license within 60 days of Council
action, or this authorization will expire.

Summary
BAM Broadband OPCO, LLC desires to install facilities in City of Phoenix rights-of-way
and public utility easements to provide fiber-optic based services to the public. The
license will be for a period of five years with an option for one time five-year renewal,
contain appropriate insurance and indemnification provisions, require a performance
bond and a security fund, provide for terms of transfer and revocation, and provide for
compensation for the commercial use of public rights-of-way while permitting the City
to manage the rights-of-way.

Contract Term
The request is for a five-year Network Infrastructure Services License with an option
for one time five-year renewal.

Financial Impact
There is no financial impact to the City. Licensee will pay an annual fee based on a
formula using the number of homes passed or a percentage of monthly gross
revenues, with the fees subject to increases based on the Consumer Price Index.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Inger Erickson, the Street
Transportation Department and the City Engineer.







Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Network Infrastructure Services License Agreement with Flying Bull Internet,
LLC d/b/a NOVOS Fiber (Ordinance S-52128) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute a non-exclusive,
revocable license with Flying Bull Internet, LLC d/b/a NOVOS Fiber to construct,
install, operate, maintain, and use the Public Highways and public utility easements in
the City of Phoenix to provide fiber optic facilities in, under, over, and across public
rights-of-way in the City, subject to the terms and conditions contained in the license
and Phoenix City Code. Further request to authorize the City Treasurer to accept all
funds related to this item. Additionally request that the Licensee sign the license within
60 days of Council action, or this authorization will expire.

Summary
Flying Bull Internet, LLC d/b/a NOVOS Fiber desires to install facilities in City of
Phoenix rights-of-way and public utility easements to provide fiber-optic based
services to the public. The license will be for a period of five years with an option for a
one-time five-year renewal, contain appropriate insurance and indemnification
provisions, require a performance bond and a security fund, provide for terms of
transfer and revocation, and provide compensation for the commercial use of public
rights-of-way while permitting the City to manage the rights-of-way.

Contract Term
The request is for a five-year Network Infrastructure Services License with an option
for one time five-year renewal.

Financial Impact
There is no financial impact to the City. Licensee will pay an annual fee based on a
formula using the number of homes passed or a percentage of monthly gross
revenues, with the fees subject to increases based on the Consumer Price Index.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Inger Erickson, the Street
Transportation Department and the City Engineer.







Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Statewide Analytical and Other Equipment Maintenance Managed Services
Contract - COOP-25-0618 (Ordinance S-52071) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
Electronic Risks Consultants, Inc. to provide analytical and other equipment
maintenance managed services for the Water Services Department. Further request to
authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The total value of
the contract will not exceed $500,000.

Summary
This contract will provide citywide analytical and other equipment maintenance
managed services on an as-needed basis for repairs and replacement of parts for
commercial water systems and laboratory equipment. The repairs will ensure systems
are in compliance with Arizona Department of Health Services and National
Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference requirements.

Procurement Information
In accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10, standard competition was waived
as a result of an approved Determination Memo based on the following reason:
Special Circumstance Alternative Competition. This cooperative contract was
established by the State of Arizona using a competitive process consistent to the City's
procurement processes set forth in the Phoenix City Code, Chapter 43, and allows the
purchase of services at a discounted price.

Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about July 1, 2025, through August 13, 2029, with a one-
year option to extend.

Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $500,000 for the aggregate term.
Funding is available in the Water Services Department's operating budget.

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





Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Modular Storage and Dosing Systems for Ferrous Chloride - Maintenance and
Supply - Amendment (Ordinance S-52079) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Agreement 152379 with US Peroxide, LLC to provide additional time and funding to
the agreement. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item. The additional expenditures included in this amendment will not
exceed $2.8 million.

Summary
The purpose of the amendment is to extend the term of the agreement for an
additional two years and add funds to continue the full service monitoring and
maintenance for the modular storage and dosing system while allowing the Water
Services Department (WSD) time to conduct an industry study and to perform a
solicitation. The contract will provide a full-service odor control management program
for the WSD. This program will optimize the wastewater collection system odor control
treatment process.

Contract Term
The amendment will extend the end date of the agreement term from June 30, 2025 to
June 30, 2027.

Financial Impact
The initial authorization for Modular Storage and Dosing Systems for Ferrous Chloride
- Maintenance and Supply was for an expenditure not to exceed $7 million. This
amendment will increase the authorization for the agreement by an additional $2.8
million for a new total not to exceed agreement value of $9.8 million.

Funding is available in the Water Services Department Operating budget.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved:
· Modular Storage and Dosing Systems for Ferrous Chloride - Maintenance and
Supply Agreement 152379 (Ordinance S-46667) on June 3, 2020.




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








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality Operator Certification Program
Training Services Contract - RFP-2425-WST-703 - Request for Award (Ordinance
S-52090) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
American Water College, LLC to provide Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
(ADEQ) Certification Training Services for the Water Services Department. Further
request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The
total value of the contract will not exceed $125,000.

Summary
This contract will provide the Water Services Department (WSD) with online training
services to prepare WSD employees for the ADEQ Operator Certification Program
Examination. This certification is required for some WSD employee job classifications
to ensure compliance with water industry requirements, City, State, and Federal Safety
regulations.

Procurement Information
A Request for Proposal procurement was processed in accordance with City of
Phoenix Administrative Regulation 3.10.

Two vendors submitted proposals deemed responsive and responsible. An evaluation
committee of City staff evaluated the offers based on the following criteria with a
maximum possible point total of 1,000:

Qualifications and Experience (0-405 points)
Method of Approach (0-300 points)
Price (0-295 points)

After reaching consensus, the evaluation committee recommends award to the
following vendor:

American Water College, LLC (791.50 points) - Online Training






Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about June 30, 2025 for a three-year term with two one-
year options to extend.

Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $125,000.

Funding is available in the Water Services Department Operating budget.

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








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Agilent Laboratory Instruments and Equipment Contract - RFA-25-0756 -
Request for Award (Ordinance S-52099) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
Agilent Technologies, Inc. to provide Laboratory Instruments and Equipment for the
Water Services Department. Further request to authorize the City Controller to
disburse all funds related to this item. The total value of the contract will not exceed
$10,000,000.

Summary
The contract will provide Agilent laboratory instruments, consumables, and equipment
to conduct laboratory testing and analysis for the Water Services and Police
departments. Contractors will also install parts and provide preventative maintenance
and repairs on an as needed basis.

The item has been reviewed and approved by the Information Technology Services
Department.

Procurement Information
The selection was made using a direct selection process set forth in City of Phoenix
Administrative Regulation 3.10. A direct selection was made because Agilent
Technologies, Inc. is the only qualified vendor that can provide the necessary
laboratory instruments and related parts and services. Service agreements and
warranties on current Agilent laboratory instruments will become void if a third-party
technician performs any work, or provides non-Original Equipment Manufacturer parts
and consumables.

Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about July 1, 2025, for a seven-year term with no options
to extend.

Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $10,000,000 for the seven-year
aggregate term. Funds are available in the Water Services and Police departments'
operating budget.




Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays, Deputy City Manager
Ginger Spencer and the Police and Water Services departments.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Risk Management Program Services Contract - RFP-2425-WES-677 - Request for
Award (Ordinance S-52105) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
Safety & Risk Management Group, LLC to provide risk management services for the
Water Services Department. Further request to authorize the City Controller to
disburse all funds related to this item. The total value of the contract will not exceed
$450,000.

Summary
This contract will allow the Water Services Department (WSD) the ability to minimize
potential damage and maximize opportunities by taking preventative measures and
making informed decisions based on potential threats and uncertainties. The
contractor will provide risk management plans, process hazard analyses and triennial
compliance audits to ensure WSD maintains compliance with Risk Management
Program Rules that govern chlorine processes.

Procurement Information
A Request for Proposal was processed in accordance with City of Phoenix
Administrative Regulation 3.10. One vendor submitted a proposal that was deemed
responsive and responsible. An evaluation committee of City staff evaluated the offer
based on the following criteria with a maximum possible point total of 1,000:

Method of Approach (0-470 points)
Experience (0-430 points)
Cost (0-100 points)

After reaching consensus, the evaluation committee recommends award to the
following vendor:

Safety & Risk Management Group, LLC: (700.00 points)

Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about July 1, 2025, for a three-year base term with two
one-year options to extend.




Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $450,000 for the five-year aggregate
terms.

Funding is available in the Water Services Departments Operating budget.

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








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Odor Abatement Services for Sanitary Sewer Systems - RFA-1718-WWC-35 -
Amendment (Ordinance S-52134) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Agreement 147863 with US Peroxide LLC. to provide additional time and funding to
the agreement. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item. The additional expenditures included in this amendment will not
exceed $2.2 million.

Summary
The purpose of the amendment is to extend the term of the agreement for an
additional two years while allowing the Water Services Department (WSD) time to
conduct an industry study and perform a solicitation. The additional time and funds will
allow US Peroxide to continue to provide a full-service Peroxide Regenerated Iron-
Sulfite Control technology dosing system for WSD. This technology optimizes
hydrogen peroxide to regenerate spent iron. Iron salts are added to the sewer
collection system to control hydrogen sulfite-caused odors.

Contract Term
This amendment will extend the end date of the agreement term from June 30, 2025 to
June 30, 2027.

Financial Impact
The initial authorization for Odor Abatement Services for Sanitary Sewer Systems was
for an expenditure not to exceed $5.9 million. This amendment will increase the
authorization for the agreement by an additional $2.2 million for a new total not-to-
exceed agreement value of $8.1 million.

Funding is available in the Water Services Department's Operating budget.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously approved:
· Odor Abatement Services for Sanitary Sewer Systems Agreement 147863
(Ordinance S-44678) on June 6, 2018.




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








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Abandonment of Right-of-Way - ABND 220053 - Northeast Corner of 9th Street
and Greenway Parkway (Resolution 22313) - District 3

Abandonment: 220053
Project: 21-5083
Applicant: Noel Griemsmann
Request: To abandon the right-of-way and deceleration lane approximately 125-feet
from the northeast corner of 9th Street and Greenway Parkway.
Date of Hearing: October 13, 2025

Location
Generally located at the northeast corner of 9th Street and Greenway Parkway.
Council District: 3

Financial Impact
Pursuant to Phoenix City Code Article 5, Section 31-64(e), the City acknowledges the
public benefit received by the generation of additional revenue from the private tax
rolls and by the elimination of third-party general liability claims against the City,
maintenance expenses, and undesirable traffic patterns, and also by the replatting of
the area with alternate roadways and new development, to be sufficient and
appropriate consideration in this matter.

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








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Abandonment of Easements - ABND 250009 - 5983 N. Elsie Avenue (Resolution
22312) - District 6

Abandonment: 250009
Project: 04-684
Applicant: Elevation Civil Engineers LLC
Request: To abandon portions of an existing 8-foot public utility easement and portion
of an existing 40-foot electric easement and telephone easement within Assessor
Parcel Numbers 172-12-086B and 172-12-068A.
Date of Hearing: April 15, 2025

Location
Generally located at 5983 N. Elsie Avenue
Council District: 6

Financial Impact
Pursuant to Phoenix City Code Article 5, Section 31-64(e), the City acknowledges the
public benefit received by the generation of additional revenue from the private tax
rolls and by the elimination of third-party general liability claims against the City,
maintenance expenses, and undesirable traffic patterns, and also by the replatting of
the area with alternate roadways and new development, to be sufficient and
appropriate consideration in this matter.

None. No consideration on the fee is required as a part of this submittal, although filing
fees were paid.

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








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Public Hearing - Biennial Certified Audit of Land Use Assumptions,
Infrastructure Improvement Plan and Development Fees - Citywide

Request to hold a public hearing regarding the Biennial Certified Audit of Land Use
Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvement Plans, and Development Impact Fees, as
required by State statute.

Summary
Arizona Revised Statute Section 9-463.05 requires a biennial certified audit of
municipalities' land use assumptions (LUA), infrastructure improvement plans (IIP),
and development fees to be conducted by a qualified professional. This statute further
specifies that the City shall conduct a public hearing on the audit findings within 60
days of posting the audit report on the City's website. Willdan Financial Services
(Willdan) was retained to perform the biennial audit. The audit reviewed development
impact fees and water resource acquisition fees for the period of July 1, 2022, through
June 30, 2024.

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 impact fee funds are spent by
the City. The next required biennial audit will review the period of July 1, 2024, through
June 30, 2026.

The final audit report titled: City of Phoenix, AZ FY 2023 & FY 2024 Development
Impact Fee Audit is available on the Planning and Development website at:
phoenix.gov/pdd/devfees/impactfeedocs.

Biennial Audit Conclusions
Review of LUAs identified minor differences between projected and actual
development, but anticipated that development over the 10-year study period will not
significantly vary from projections.

Review of the progress of IIPs identified projects that were either accelerated from the
projected schedule or delayed based on the projected schedule, but all projects for
which funds were expended were included in the adopted IIPs.




Review of collections and expenditures of development impact fees for each project in
the plan indicated that all expenditures made with development impact fee funds were
on projects or debt expenses as identified in the 2020 Plan.

Evaluation of any inequities in implementing the plan or imposing the development
impact fees indicated that the fees were assessed in an appropriate manner based
upon the size and type of the development.

Review of sample permits did not identify any cases where a development was
assessed an incorrect fee based on development type, square footage, or water meter
size.

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





ATTACHMENT A



Biennial Impact Fee Audit
FY 2022-23 and FY 2023-24




Table of Contents
Section 1 - Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1. Background ........................................................................................................................................ 1
1.2. Organization of the Audit Report...................................................................................................... 1
1.3. Audit Approach .................................................................................................................................. 2
1.4. Audit Objectives ................................................................................................................................ 2
1.5. Audit Results ...................................................................................................................................... 3
1.6. Audit Limitations ............................................................................................................................... 4
Section 2 - Fire Review ................................................................................................................................. 5
2.1. Fee Development............................................................................................................................... 5
2.2. Land Use Assumptions....................................................................................................................... 5
2.3. Infrastructure Improvement Plan ..................................................................................................... 7
2.4. Level of Service .................................................................................................................................. 9
2.5. Audit Results .................................................................................................................................... 10
Section 3 - Police......................................................................................................................................... 11
3.1. Fee Development............................................................................................................................. 11
3.2. Land Use Assumptions..................................................................................................................... 11
3.3. Infrastructure Improvement Plan ................................................................................................... 13
3.4. Level of Service ................................................................................................................................ 15
3.5. Audit Results .................................................................................................................................... 15
Section 4 - Parks.......................................................................................................................................... 17
4.1. Fee Development............................................................................................................................. 17
4.2. Land Use Assumptions..................................................................................................................... 17
4.3. Infrastructure Improvement Plan ................................................................................................... 19
4.4. Level of Service ................................................................................................................................ 21
4.5. Audit Results .................................................................................................................................... 21
Section 5 - Libraries .................................................................................................................................... 23
5.1. Fee Development............................................................................................................................. 23
5.2. Land Use Assumptions..................................................................................................................... 23
5.3. Infrastructure Improvement Plan ................................................................................................... 25




Development Impact Fee Biennial Audit
Final Report
May 28, 2025



5.4. Level of Service ................................................................................................................................ 27
5.5. Audit Results .................................................................................................................................... 27
Section 6 - Major Arterials.......................................................................................................................... 29
6.1. Fee Development............................................................................................................................. 29
6.2. Land Use Assumptions..................................................................................................................... 29
6.3. Infrastructure Improvement Plan ................................................................................................... 30
6.4. Level of Service ................................................................................................................................ 31
6.5. Audit Results .................................................................................................................................... 31
Section 7 - Storm Drainage ......................................................................................................................... 33
7.1. Fee Development............................................................................................................................. 33
7.2. Land Use Assumptions..................................................................................................................... 33
7.3. Infrastructure Improvement Plan ................................................................................................... 34
7.4. Level of Service ................................................................................................................................ 35
7.5. Audit Results .................................................................................................................................... 35
Section 8 - Water System ........................................................................................................................... 37
8.1. Fee Development............................................................................................................................. 37
8.2. Land Use Assumptions..................................................................................................................... 37
8.3. Infrastructure Improvement Plan ................................................................................................... 38
8.4. Level of Service ................................................................................................................................ 40
8.5. Audit Results .................................................................................................................................... 40
Section 9 - Water Resource ........................................................................................................................ 41
9.1. Fee Development............................................................................................................................. 41
9.2. Land Use Assumptions..................................................................................................................... 41
9.3. Infrastructure Improvement Plan ................................................................................................... 42
9.4. Level of Service ................................................................................................................................ 43
9.5. Audit Results .................................................................................................................................... 43
Section 10 - Wastewater ............................................................................................................................ 44
10.1. Fee Development ........................................................................................................................... 44
10.2. Land Use Assumptions................................................................................................................... 44
10.3. Infrastructure Improvement Plan ................................................................................................. 47



P a g e | ii
Development Impact Fee Biennial Audit
Final Report
May 28, 2025
10.4. Level of Service .............................................................................................................................. 51
10.5. Audit Results .................................................................................................................................. 52
Section 11 - Permit Sampling ..................................................................................................................... 53
11.1. Sampling Results............................................................................................................................ 53
Section 12 - Conclusions ............................................................................................................................. 54
12.1. Land Use Assumptions................................................................................................................... 54
12.2. Infrastructure Improvement Plan ................................................................................................. 54
12.3. Level of Service .............................................................................................................................. 54
12.4. Permit Sampling ............................................................................................................................ 54
12.5. Final Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 54




P a g e | iii
Section 1 - Introduction

1.1. Background

Willdan Financial Services (Willdan) was retained by the City of Phoenix, Arizona (City) to conduct a
Development Impact Fee (DIF) Audit (Audit) as required under Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS) 9-
463.05(G)(2).1 This report details the results of the audit for the period fiscal year (FY) 2022-23 and FY
2023-24. The City’s fiscal year is the 12-month period from July 1 through the following June 30.

This Audit compares the development projections through the land use assumptions (LUA); capital needs
as identified in the adopted Infrastructure Improvements Plan (IIP); and level of service (LOS) plan. The
adopted plan was the City of Phoenix Infrastructure Financing Plan: 2020 Update with fees effective April
13, 2020 (Plan). The projection of development, revenues and expenditures were compared to those
actually experienced by the City in FYs 2022-23 and 2023-24.

1.2. Organization of the Audit Report

This audit report is organized as follows:

• Section 1 - Introduction
• Section 2 – Fire Review
• Section 3 – Police Review
 Section 4 – Parks Review
• Section 5 – Libraries Review
• Section 6 – Major Arterials Review
• Section 7 – Storm Drainage Review
• Section 8 – Water System Review
• Section 9 – Water Resources Review
• Section 10 – Wastewater System Review
• Section 11 – Permit Sampling Results
• Section 12 – Conclusions and Recommendations
The appendices to this report are as follows:

For reference, a copy of this statute appears in Appendix A.




Development Impact Fee Biennial Audit
Final Report
May 28, 2025



 Appendix A - ARS§ 9-463.05
• Appendix B – Fire Analysis
 Appendix C – Police Analysis
 Appendix D – Parks Analysis
• Appendix E – Libraries Analysis
• Appendix F – Major Arterials Analysis
• Appendix G – Storm Drainage Analysis
• Appendix H – Water System Analysis
• Appendix I – Water Resource Analysis
• Appendix J –Wastewater Analysis
• Appendix K – Permit Sampling Results

1.3. Audit Approach

Willdan performed this Audit between September 2023 and January 2024. All Willdan staff supporting
the Audit meet the definition of “Qualified Professional” as set forth in ARS§ 9-463.05(T)(8). Consistent
with the requirements of ARS§ 9-463.05(G)(2), Willdan audit staff were neither employees or officials of
the City of Phoenix nor did they prepare the IIP.

Audit activities consisted solely of document review and discussions with City staff via email and
teleconference. Audit activities did not include site visits, first-hand data collection, or independent
verification of data submitted by the City.

In particular, in support of this audit, Willdan:

a) Reviewed IIP forecast and actual expenditures.
b) Reviewed projected and actual IIP-related fee offsets or credits.
c) Reviewed LUA forecasted and actual developments.
d) Reviewed LOS at two points in time: time of the initial plan and the audit timeframe.
e) Permit data for purposes of sampling to verify the accuracy of the application of the fees.

1.4. Audit Objectives

The primary objectives of the Audit were to:




P a g e |2
Development Impact Fee Biennial Audit
Final Report
May 28, 2025



a) Audit the City’s Biennial Development Impact Fees for the periods FY 2022-23 and FY 2023-24;
b) Comply with ARS§ 9-463.05 by:
i. Reviewing the progress of anticipated development as identified in the LUA;
ii. Reviewing the progress of the infrastructure improvements plan;
iii. Reviewing collections and expenditures of development impact fees for each project in
the plan; and
iv. Evaluating any inequities in implementing the plan or imposing the development impact
fees.

1.5. Audit Results

Based on Willdan’s scope of services performed as part of this Audit as documented in this Report, the
results of this audit follow.

a) The City’s Biennial Development Impact Fees for the periods FY 2022-23 and FY 2023-24 comply
with ARS§ 9-463.05 as further discussed in Sections two through ten;
b) With respect to ARS§ 9-463.05 compliance:
i. Willdan’s review of the progress of the LUA, identified minor differences between
projected and actual development, but anticipates the development over the 10-year
study period will not significantly vary from projections. The audit of the LUA is further
discussed in sections two through ten;
ii. Willdan’s review of the progress of the IIP identified projects that differed from the
projected schedule, but all projects for which funds were expended were included in the
adopted IIP as further discussed in sections two through ten;
iii. Willdan’s review of collections and expenditures of the development impact fees for each
project in the plan, indicate that all expenditures made with development impact fee
funds were on projects or debt expenses as identified in the 2020 Plan, as further
discussed in sections two through ten; and
iv. Willdan’s evaluation of any inequities in implementing the plan or imposing the
development impact fees indicates that the fees were assessed in an appropriate manner
based upon the size and type of the development as further discussed in section eleven.




P a g e |3
Development Impact Fee Biennial Audit
Final Report
May 28, 2025



1.6. Audit Limitations

Willdan’s role in this Audit was solely that of third-party independent auditor. The results presented in
this Audit Report are predicated upon information provided by the City and representations made by City
personnel. Willdan made reasonable efforts given the nature of this audit to assess the reasonableness of
such representations. However, Willdan has no means to determine the extent to which material facts
concerning information provided have been fully and accurately disclosed, nor is this a forensic audit. All
findings in this report are based solely on Willdan’s review of materials furnished by the City as identified
or publicly available information as cited as well as information obtained by Willdan through emails and
meetings with key City staff involved in this audit. Review of additional documentation or disclosure or
discovery of material facts could change the findings cited in this Report.

This report documents the audit for the sole purpose of demonstrating compliance with the requirements
of ARS§ 9-463.05(G)(2); no other use is expressed or implied. Nothing in this report can be considered a
legal opinion.




P a g e |4
Development Impact Fee Biennial Audit
Final Report
May 28, 2025



Section 2 - Fire Review

This section of the Audit Report presents Willdan’s review of the City’s fire development impact fees.

2.1. Fee Development

The fire DIFs were calculated using the incremental (a forward looking) approach to develop a cost per
equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) as the basis for assessing fees. Fees were developed for four service areas:

 Northwest
 Northeast
 Southwest
 Ahwatukee

The resulting DIFs per development type are identified in Table 2-1.

Table 2-1
Fire DIFs
Single Family Multifamily Com/Ret Office Ind/WH Pub/Inst
Service Area (per Unit) (per unit) (per 1,000 sqft) (per 1,000 sqft) (per 1,000 sqft) (per 1,000 sqft)
Northwest $516 $387 $418 $330 $144 $299
Northeast 551 413 446 353 154 320
Southwest 487 365 394 312 136 282
Ahwatukee 470 353 381 301 132 273

2.2. Land Use Assumptions

The biennial audit includes comparing the growth projections adopted in the City’s LUA to the actual
growth by development type. Tables 2-2 through 2-5 summarize the projected equivalent demand unit
(EDU) development from the Plan and the actual development experienced by the City in FY 2023 and FY
2024.

Table 2-2
Northwest Projected versus Actual Development FY 2023 & FY 2024
Single Family Multifamily Com/Ret Office Ind/WH Pub/Inst
Year (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs)
Actual 2023 312.00 155.00 2.32 0.00 0.00 0.00
Projected 2023 (1) 688.30 144.80 164.40 67.50 22.20 88.10
Difference (376.30) 10.20 (162.08) (67.50) (22.20) (88.10)
Actual 2024 417.00 1,799.75 29.13 0.00 5.50 0.00
Projected 2024 (1) 688.30 144.80 164.40 67.50 22.20 88.10
Difference (271.30) 1,654.95 (135.27) (67.50) (16.70) (88.10)
(1) Projections are the average annual over the 10-year study period, rather than specific development by year. Plan page 13.
As indicated in Table 2-2, Northwest actual developments in 2023 exceeded the projected level of
development for only the multifamily land use classifications and fell short of projections for all other
designations. The actual developments in 2024 again saw actual multifamily development exceed




P a g e |5
Development Impact Fee Biennial Audit
Final Report
May 28, 2025



projections, but the actual development for all other land use classifications fell short of the projected
development in the Plan.

Table 2-3
Northeast Projected versus Actual Development FY 2023 & FY 2024
Single Family Multifamily Com/Ret Office Ind/WH Pub/Inst
Year (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs)
Actual 2023 213.00 192.50 6.88 0.00 0.00 0.00
Projected 2023 (1) 1,133.90 471.80 97.60 55.00 0.00 153.40
Difference (920.90) (279.30) (90.72) (55.00) 0.00 (153.40)
Actual 2024 271.00 432.00 74.82 265.53 0.00 6.08
Projected 2024 (1) 1,133.90 471.80 97.60 55.00 0.00 153.40
Difference (862.90) (39.80) (27.78) 210.53 0.00 (147.32)
(1) Projections are the average annual over the 10-year study period, rather than specific development by year. Plan page 13.
As indicated in Table 2-3, Northeast actual developments in 2023 fell short of projections for all land use
designations except the industrial/warehouse category which did not anticipate any new development.
Office development in 2024 exceeded projections, the industrial/warehouse classification did not
anticipate nor experience any new development, and all other classifications fell short of projects.

Table 2-4
Southwest Projected versus Actual Development FY 2023 & FY 2024
Single Family Multifamily Com/Ret Office Ind/WH Pub/Inst
Year (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs)
Actual 2023 1,489.00 374.00 33.44 0.00 0.00 0.00
Projected 2023 (1) 1,580.50 462.20 290.80 167.70 367.30 369.30
Difference (91.50) (88.20) (257.36) (167.70) (367.30) (369.30)
Actual 2024 1,863.00 301.00 67.33 9.57 469.24 29.14
Projected 2024 (1) 1,580.50 462.20 290.80 167.70 367.30 369.30
Difference 282.50 (161.20) (223.47) (158.13) 101.94 (340.16)
(1) Projections are the average annual over the 10-year study period, rather than specific development by year. Plan page 13.
As indicated in Table 2-4, for 2023 Southwest actual developments fell short of projections for all land
use classifications. In 2024 Single family and industrial/warehouse development exceeded projections
while the multifamily, commercial/retail, office and public/institution fell short of projections.

Table 2-5
Ahwatukee Projected versus Actual Development FY 2023 & FY 2024
Single Family Multifamily Com/Ret Office Ind/WH Pub/Inst
Year (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs)
Actual 2023 3.00 83.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Projected 2023 (1) 141.40 38.70 11.40 18.20 0.00 0.00
Difference (138.40) 44.30 (11.40) (18.20) 0.00 0.00
Actual 2024 1.00 0.00 1.59 0.00 0.00 0.00
Projected 2024 (1) 141.40 38.70 11.40 18.20 0.00 0.00
Difference (140.40) (38.70) (9.81) (18.20) 0.00 0.00
(1) Projections are the average annual over the 10-year study period, rather than specific development by year. Plan page 13.
As indicated in Table 2-5, Ahwatukee actual developments for the multifamily classifications exceeded
projections while single family, commercial/retail and office classifications fell short of 2023 projections.
In 2024 none of the development classification exceeded projections. There was no anticipated
development for the industrial/warehouse and public/institutional classifications in either year.


P a g e |6
Development Impact Fee Biennial Audit
Final Report
May 28, 2025



Development of forward-looking financial plans, DIF studies rely on the best available forecast at a point
in time. Actual conditions often vary from projections. Tables 2-2 through 2-5 represent a “snapshot” in
time for the 10-year study period. Over time new studies are undertaken as circumstances change and
new information becomes available. It should also be noted that projections in the report were made for
a 10-year period in aggregate and not for individual years within the study period. As such, development
in aggregate should be considered the focus rather than fluctuations from year to year.

2.3. Infrastructure Improvement Plan

The Plan identified capital projects to be constructed or acquired over the 10-year study period as
opposed to specific years. Capital projects to be completed for the Northwest, Northeast and
Southwest zones included:

 Fire stations;

 Fire station land;

 Fire vehicles and equipment; and

 Record management system.

Capital needs for the Ahwatukee zone included:

 Fire station;

 Fire vehicles and equipment; and

 Record management system.

Northwest Zone

During FY 2023 and FY 2024 the City generated $2,124,561 in fire DIF revenues as well as an additional
$151,024 in interest income for total revenues of $2,275,585. During the same period the City did not
expend any funds on capital projects resulting in revenues exceeding expenditures during the two-year
period. Appendix B provides a summary of the revenues and expenditures for the fire DIF funds. The
financials are summarized in Table 2-6.




P a g e |7
Development Impact Fee Biennial Audit
Final Report
May 28, 2025



Table 2-6
Northwest Fire DIF Revenues and Expenditures FY 2023 & FY 2024
Revenues Expenditures
Advance
Fiscal DIF Interest Repayments
Year Collections Income CIP & Debt
2023 $890,721 $43,161 $0 $0
2024 1,233,840 107,863 0 0
Total $2,124,561 $151,024 $0 $0
It should be noted that in some cases collection of DIF revenues do not have an exact matching between
the year in which the revenues are recorded and the development occurs.

Northeast Zone

During FY 2023 and FY 2024 the City generated $764,132 in fire DIF revenues as well as an additional
$233,742 in interest income for total revenues of $997,874. During the same period the City did not
expend any funds on capital projects resulting in revenues exceeding expenditures during the two-year
period. Appendix B provides a summary of the revenues and expenditures for the fire DIF funds. The
financials are summarized in Table 2-7.

Table 2-7
Northeast Fire DIF Revenues and Expenditures FY 2023 & FY 2024
Revenues Expenditures
Advance
Fiscal DIF Interest Repayments
Year Collections Income CIP & Debt
2023 $224,110 $80,038 $0 $0
2024 540,022 153,704 0 0
Total $764,132 $233,742 $0 $0
It should be noted that in some cases collection of DIF revenues do not have an exact matching between
the year in which the revenues are recorded and the development occurs.

Southwest Zone

During FY 2023 and FY 2024 the City generated $2,250,949 in fire DIF revenues as well as an additional
$398,672 in interest income for total revenues of $2,649,621. During the same period the City expended
$6,877,918 on fire stations resulting in expenditures exceeding revenues during the two-year period.
Appendix B provides a summary of the revenues and expenditures for the fire DIF funds. The financials
are summarized in Table 2-8.




P a g e |8
Development Impact Fee Biennial Audit
Final Report
May 28, 2025



Table 2-8
Southwest Fire DIF Revenues and Expenditures FY 2023 & FY 2024
Revenues Expenditures
Advance
Fiscal DIF Interest Repayments
Year Collections Income CIP & Debt
2023 $1,020,037 $159,802 $6,729,514 $0
2024 1,230,912 238,870 148,404 0
Total $2,250,949 $398,672 $6,877,918 $0
It should be noted that in some cases collection of DIF revenues do not have an exact matching between
the year in which the revenues are recorded and the development occurs.

Ahwatukee Zone

During FY 2023 and FY 2024 the City generated $20,745 in fire DIF revenues as well as an additional
$37,344 in interest income for total revenues of $58,089. During the same period the City expended
$908,622 on capital projects resulting in expenditures exceeding revenues during the two-year period.
Appendix B provides a summary of the revenues and expenditures for the fire DIF funds. The financials
are summarized in Table 2-9.

Table 2-9
Ahwatukee Fire DIF Revenues and Expenditures FY 2023 & FY 2024
Revenues Expenditures
Advance
Fiscal DIF Interest Repayments
Year Collections Income CIP & Debt
2023 $16,639 $19,319 $92,622 $0
2024 4,106 18,025 816,000 0
Total $20,745 $37,344 $908,622 $0
It should be noted that in some cases collection of DIF revenues do not have an exact matching between
the year in which the revenues are recorded and the development occurs.

2.4. Level of Service

Level of service projections are intended to ensure that new development is assessed for facilities or
capital needs at the existing level of service (LOS), not at an increased overall level of service, unless a
corresponding funding source from existing development is also provided. The Northwest and Northeast
zones expenditures fell short of the annual average expenditures identified in the Plan. The Southwest
and Ahwatukee zones expenditures exceeded the annual average expenditures identified in the Plan.
During the study period, the actual LOS will fluctuate as compared to that identified in the Plan based on
the timing of construction or acquisition of new facilities relative to new development. As of the end of
FY 2024, due to new development outpacing acquisition and construction of new facilities, the LOS for
fire for the Northwest and Northeast zones is below that in the Plan (the growth-related needs for
identified fire facilities were not met). The Southwest and Ahwatukee expenditures outpaced new
development indicating an increase in the level of service. However, the LOS should be monitored over



P a g e |9
Development Impact Fee Biennial Audit
Final Report
May 28, 2025



the entire study period compared to the level identified in the Plan over the remaining study period as
the full IIP and LUA projections are realized.

2.5. Audit Results

Through our audit of the fire DIFs we identified some differences between what was projected in the Plan
and actual occurrences, such as differences in the projected and actual developments. These differences
are the results of projections being made based on the available data at the time. Our review of the
current development environment is consistent with the regulations set forth in ARS§ 9-463.05. The LUA,
IIP and LOS should continue to be monitored over the 10-year study period on which the Plan was based.

Based on Willdan’s review of the fire DIF, we are of the opinion that:

a) City’s Biennial DIFs for fire in FY 2023 and FY 2024 comply with ARS§ 9-463.05;
b) With respect to ARS§ 9-463.05 compliance:
i. Willdan’s review of the progress of the LUA, identified differences between projected and
actual development, but anticipates development over the current 10-year study period
will not significantly vary from projections;
ii. Willdan’s review of the progress of the IIP identified the projects for which funds were
expended were included in the adopted IIP; and
iii. Willdan’s review of collections and expenditures of development impact fees indicate
that all expenditures made with DIF funds were on projects as identified in the Plan.




P a g e | 10
Development Impact Fee Biennial Audit
Final Report
May 28, 2025



Section 3 - Police

This section of the Audit Report presents Willdan’s review of City’s police DIFs.

3.1. Fee Development

The police DIFs were calculated using the incremental (a forward looking) approach to develop a cost per
equivalent demand unit (EDU) as the basis for assessing fees. Fees were developed for four service areas:

 Northwest
 Northeast
 Southwest
 Ahwatukee

The resulting DIFs per development type are identified in Table 3-1.

Table 3-1
Police DIFs
Single Family Multifamily Com/Ret Office Ind/WH Pub/Inst
Service Area (per Unit) (per unit) (per 1,000 sqft) (per 1,000 sqft) (per 1,000 sqft) (per 1,000 sqft)
Northwest $293 $220 $237 $188 $82 $170
Northeast 314 236 254 201 88 182
Southwest 285 214 231 182 80 165
Ahwatukee 342 257 277 219 96 198

3.2. Land Use Assumptions

The biennial audit includes comparing the growth projections adopted in the City’s LUA to the actual
equivalent demand unit growth by development type. Tables 3-2 through 3-5 summarize the projected
development from the Plan and the actual development experienced by the City in FY 2023 and FY 2024.

Table 3-2
Northwest Projected versus Actual Development FY 2023 & FY 2024
Single Family Multifamily Com/Ret Office Ind/WH Pub/Inst
Year (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs)
Actual 2023 312.00 155.00 2.32 0.00 0.00 0.00
Projected 2023 (1) 688.30 144.80 164.40 67.50 22.20 88.10
Difference (376.30) 10.20 (162.08) (67.50) (22.20) (88.10)
Actual 2024 417.00 1,799.75 29.13 0.00 5.50 0.00
Projected 2024 (1) 688.30 144.80 164.40 67.50 22.20 88.10
Difference (271.30) 1,654.95 (135.27) (67.50) (16.70) (88.10)
(1) Projections are the average annual over the 10-year study period, rather than specific development by year. Plan page 13.
As indicated in Table 3-2, Northwest actual developments in 2023 exceeded the projected level of
development for the multifamily land use classification but fell short of projections for all other
designations. The actual developments in 2024 saw actual multifamily development exceed projections,
but the actual development for all other land use classifications fell short of the projected development
in the Plan.


P a g e | 11
Development Impact Fee Biennial Audit
Final Report
May 28, 2025



Table 3-3
Northeast Projected versus Actual Development FY 2023 & FY 2024
Single Family Multifamily Com/Ret Office Ind/WH Pub/Inst
Year (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs)
Actual 2023 213.00 192.50 6.88 0.00 0.00 0.00
Projected 2023 (1) 1,133.90 471.80 97.60 55.00 0.00 153.40
Difference (920.90) (279.30) (90.72) (55.00) 0.00 (153.40)
Actual 2024 271.00 432.00 74.82 265.53 0.00 6.08
Projected 2024 (1) 1,133.90 471.80 97.60 55.00 0.00 153.40
Difference (862.90) (39.80) (22.78) 210.53 0.00 (147.32)
(1) Projections are the average annual over the 10-year study period, rather than specific development by year. Plan page 13.
As indicated in Table 3-3, Northeast actual developments in 2023 fell short of projections for all land use
classifications except the industrial/warehouse (no development projected), and in 2024 fell short of
projections for all other land use designations except office which exceeded projections and the
industrial/warehouse category which did not anticipate any new development.

Table 3-4
Southwest Projected versus Actual Development FY 2023 & FY 2024
Single Family Multifamily Com/Ret Office Ind/WH Pub/Inst
Year (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs)
Actual 2023 1,489.00 374.00 33.44 0.00 0.00 0.00
Projected 2023 (1) 1,580.50 462.20 290.80 167.70 367.30 369.30
Difference (91.50) (88.20) (257.36) (167.70) (367.30) (369.30)
Actual 2024 1,863.00 301.00 67.33 9.57 469.24 29.14
Projected 2024 (1) 1,580.50 462.20 290.80 167.70 367.30 369.30
Difference 282.50 (161.20) (223.47) (158.13) 101.94 (340.16)
(1) Projections are the average annual over the 10-year study period, rather than specific development by year. Plan page 13.
As indicated in Table 3-4, for 2023 Southwest actual developments for all categories fell short of
projections. In 2024 Single family and industrial/warehouse development exceeded projections while
the multifamily, commercial/retail, office and public/institution fell short of projections.

Table 3-5
Ahwatukee Projected versus Actual Development FY 2023 & FY 2024
Single Family Multifamily Com/Ret Office Ind/WH Pub/Inst
Year (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs)
Actual 2023 3.00 83.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Projected 2023 (1) 141.40 38.70 11.40 18.20 0.00 0.00
Difference (138.40) 44.30 (11.40) (18.20) 0.00 0.00
Actual 2024 1.00 0.00 1.59 0.00 0.00 0.00
Projected 2024 (1) 141.40 38.70 11.40 18.20 0.00 0.00
Difference (140.40) (38.70) (9.81) (18.20) 0.00 0.00
(1) Projections are the average annual over the 10-year study period, rather than specific development by year. Plan page 13.
As indicated in Table 3-5, Ahwatukee actual developments for the multifamily category exceeded
projections while single family, commercial/retail and office fell short of 2023 projections. In 2024 all
developments fell short of projections. There were no developments projected for the
industrial/warehouse or public/institutional in either year.

Development of forward-looking financial plans, DIF studies rely on the best available forecast at a point
in time. Actual conditions often vary from projections. Tables 3-2 through 3-5 represent a “snapshot” in


P a g e | 12
Development Impact Fee Biennial Audit
Final Report
May 28, 2025



time for the 10-year study period. Over time new studies are undertaken as circumstances change and
new information becomes available. It should also be noted that projections in the report were made for
a 10-year period in aggregate and not for individual years within the study period. As such, development
in aggregate should be considered the focus rather than fluctuations from year to year.

3.3. Infrastructure Improvement Plan

The Plan identified capital projects to be constructed or acquired over the 10-year study period as
opposed to specific years. Capital projects to be completed for all four zones included:

 Police precincts

 Police station land

 Police vehicles and radios

 Record management system

Northwest Zone

During FY 2023 and FY 2024 the City generated $1,092,311 in police DIF revenues as well as an additional
$164,782 in interest income for total revenues of $1,257,093. During the same period the City did not
have any expenditures, resulting in revenues exceeding expenditures during the two-year period.
Appendix C provides a summary of the revenues and expenditures for the police DIF funds. The financials
are summarized in Table 3-6.

Table 3-6
Northwest Police DIF Revenues and Expenditures FY 2023 & FY 2024
Revenues Expenditures
Advance
Fiscal DIF Interest Repayments
Year Collections Income CIP & Debt
2023 $478,816 $55,506 $0 $0
2024 613,495 109,276 0 0
Total $1,092,311 $164,782 $0 $0
It should be noted that in some cases collection of DIF revenues do not have an exact matching between
the year in which the revenues are recorded and the development occurs.

Northeast Zone

During FY 2023 and FY 2024 the City generated $435,458 in police DIF revenues as well as an additional
$180,268 in interest income for total revenues of $615,726. During the same period the City did not have
any expenditures, resulting in revenues exceeding expenditures during the two-year period. Appendix C
provides a summary of the revenues and expenditures for the police DIF funds. The financials are
summarized in Table 3-7.



P a g e | 13
Development Impact Fee Biennial Audit
Final Report
May 28, 2025



Table 3-7
Northeast Police DIF Revenues and Expenditures FY 2023 & FY 2024
Revenues Expenditures
Advance
Fiscal DIF Interest Repayments
Year Collections Income CIP & Debt
2023 $127,713 $64,542 $0 $0
2024 307,745 115,726 0 0
Total $435,458 $180,268 $0 $0
It should be noted that in some cases collection of DIF revenues do not have an exact matching between
the year in which the revenues are recorded and the development occurs.

Southwest Zone

During FY 2023 and FY 2024 the City generated $1,434,846 in police DIF revenues as well as an additional
$376,794 in interest income for total revenues of $1,811,640. During the same period the City did not
have any expenditures, resulting in revenues exceeding expenditures during the two-year period.
Appendix C provides a summary of the revenues and expenditures for the police DIF funds. The financials
are summarized in Table 3-8.

Table 3-8
Southwest Police DIF Revenues and Expenditures FY 2023 & FY 2024
Revenues Expenditures
Advance
Fiscal DIF Interest Repayments
Year Collections Income CIP & Debt
2023 $625,007 $131,568 $0 $0
2024 809,839 245,226 0 0
Total $1,434,846 $376,794 $0 $0
It should be noted that in some cases collection of DIF revenues do not have an exact matching between
the year in which the revenues are recorded and the development occurs.

Ahwatukee Zone

During FY 2023 and FY 2024 the City generated $15,322 in police DIF revenues as well as an additional
$22,344 in interest income for total revenues of $37,666. During the same period the City did not have
any expenditures, resulting in revenues exceeding expenditures during the two-year period. Appendix C
provides a summary of the revenues and expenditures for the police DIF funds. The financials are
summarized in Table 3-9.




P a g e | 14
Development Impact Fee Biennial Audit
Final Report
May 28, 2025



Table 3-9
Ahwatukee Police DIF Revenues and Expenditures FY 2023 & FY 2024
Revenues Expenditures
Advance
Fiscal DIF Interest Repayments
Year Collections Income CIP & Debt
2023 $11,766 $8,207 $0 $0
2024 3,556 14,137 0 0
Total $15,322 $22,344 $0 $0
It should be noted that in some cases collection of DIF revenues do not have an exact matching between
the year in which the revenues are recorded and the development occurs.

3.4. Level of Service

Level of service projections are intended to ensure that new development is assessed for facilities or
capital needs at the existing level of service (LOS), not at an increased overall level of service, unless a
corresponding funding source from existing development is also provided. In each of the four zones
expenditures fell short of the annual average expenditures identified in the Plan. During the study period,
the actual LOS will fluctuate as compared to that identified in the Plan based on the timing of construction
or acquisition of new facilities relative to new development. As of the end of FY 2024, due to new
development outpacing acquisition and construction of new facilities, the LOS for police for all zones is
below that in the Plan (the growth-related needs for identified police facilities were not met). However,
the LOS should be monitored over the entire study period compared to the level identified in the Plan
over the remaining study period as the full IIP and LUA projections are realized.

3.5. Audit Results

Through our audit of the police DIFs we identified some differences between what was projected in the
Plan and actual occurrences, such as differences in the projected and actual developments. These
differences are the results of projections being made based on the available data at the time. Our review
of the current development environment is consistent with the regulations set forth in ARS§ 9-463.05.
The LUA, IIP and LOS should continue to be monitored over the 10-year study period on which the Plan
was based.

Based on Willdan’s review of the police DIF, we are of the opinion that:

a) City’s Biennial DIFs for police in FY 2023 and FY 2024 comply with ARS§ 9-463.05;
b) With respect to ARS§ 9-463.05 compliance:
i. Willdan’s review of the progress of the LUA, identified differences between projected and
actual development, but anticipates development over the current 10-year study period
will not significantly vary from projections;




P a g e | 15
Development Impact Fee Biennial Audit
Final Report
May 28, 2025



ii. Willdan’s review of the progress of the IIP identified the projects for which funds were
expended were included in the adopted IIP; and
iii. Willdan’s review of collections and expenditures of development impact fees indicate
that all expenditures made with DIF funds were on projects as identified in the Plan.




P a g e | 16
Development Impact Fee Biennial Audit
Final Report
May 28, 2025



Section 4 - Parks

This section of the Audit Report presents Willdan’s review of City’s parks DIFs.

4.1. Fee Development

The parks DIFs were calculated using the incremental (a forward looking) approach to develop a cost per
equivalent demand unit (EDU) as the basis for assessing fees. Fees were developed for four service areas:

 Northwest
 Northeast
 Southwest
 Ahwatukee

The resulting DIFs per development type are identified in Table 4-1.

Table 4-1
Parks DIFs
Single Family Multifamily Com/Ret Office Ind/WH Pub/Inst
Service Area (per Unit) (per unit) (per 1,000 sqft) (per 1,000 sqft) (per 1,000 sqft) (per 1,000 sqft)
Northwest $1,368 $1,026 $68 $96 $27 $68
Northeast 1,236 927 62 87 25 62
Southwest 1,241 931 62 87 25 62
Ahwatukee 1,225 919 61 86 25 61

4.2. Land Use Assumptions

The biennial audit includes comparing the growth projections adopted in the City’s LUA to the actual
growth by development type. Tables 4-2 through 4-5 summarize the projected development from the
Plan and the actual equivalent demand units of development experienced by the City in FY 2023 and FY
2024.

Table 4-2
Northwest Projected versus Actual Development FY 2023 & FY 2024
Single Family Multifamily Com/Ret Office Ind/WH Pub/Inst
Year (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs)
Actual 2023 312.00 155.00 2.32 0.00 0.00 0.00
Projected 2024 (1) 688.30 144.80 10.20 7.40 1.60 7.60
Difference (376.30) 10.20 (7.88) (7.40) (1.60) (7.60)
Actual 2024 417.00 1,799.75 29.13 0.00 5.50 0.00
Projected 2024 (1) 688.30 144.80 10.20 7.40 1.60 7.60
Difference (271.30) 1,654.95 18.93 (7.40) 3.90 (7.60)
(1) Projections are the average annual over the 10-year study period, rather than specific development by year. Plan page 14.
As indicated in Table 4-2, Northwest actual developments in 2023 exceeded the projected level of
development for the multifamily land use classification but fell short of projections for all other
designations. The actual developments in 2024 saw actual multifamily, commercial/retail and




P a g e | 17
Development Impact Fee Biennial Audit
Final Report
May 28, 2025



industrial/warehouse development exceed projections, but the actual development for all other land
use classifications fell short of the projected development in the Plan.

Table 4-3
Northeast Projected versus Actual Development FY 2023 & FY 2024
Single Family Multifamily Com/Ret Office Ind/WH Pub/Inst
Year (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs)
Actual 2023 213.00 192.50 6.88 0.00 0.00 0.00
Projected 2023 (1) 1,133.90 471.80 6.00 6.00 0.00 13.20
Difference (920.90) (279.30) 0.88 (6.00) 0.00 (13.20)
Actual 2024 271.00 432.00 74.82 265.53 0.00 6.08
Projected 2024 (1) 1,133.90 471.80 6.00 6.00 0.00 13.20
Difference (862.90) (39.80) 68.82 259.53 0.00 (7.12)
(1) Projections are the average annual over the 10-year study period, rather than specific development by year. Plan page 14.
As indicated in Table 4-3, Northeast actual developments in 2023 fell short of projections for all land use
classifications except commercial/retail which exceeded projections and the industrial/warehouse
category which did not anticipate new development. In 2024 commercial/retail and office classifications
exceeded projections while the other categories fell short of projections except for the
industrial/warehouse category which did not anticipate any new development.

Table 4-4
Southwest Projected versus Actual Development FY 2023 & FY 2024
Single Family Multifamily Com/Ret Office Ind/WH Pub/Inst
Year (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs)
Actual 2023 1,489.00 374.00 33.44 0.00 0.00 0.00
Projected 2023 (1) 1,580.50 462.20 18.00 18.30 26.20 31.80
Difference (91.50) (88.20) 15.44 (18.30) (26.20) (31.80)
Actual 2024 1,863.00 301.00 67.33 9.57 33.49 29.14
Projected 2024 (1) 1,580.50 462.20 18.00 18.30 26.20 31.80
Difference 282.50 (161.20) 49.33 (8.73) 7.29 (2.66)
(1) Projections are the average annual over the 10-year study period, rather than specific development by year. Plan page 14.
As indicated in Table 4-4, for 2023 Southwest actual developments for the commercial/retails category
exceeded projections while the other land use classifications fell short of projections. In 2024 Single
family, commercial/retail and industrial/warehouse development exceeded projections while the
multifamily, office and public/institution fell short of projections.

Table 4-5
Ahwatukee Projected versus Actual Development FY 2023 & FY 2024
Single Family Multifamily Com/Ret Office Ind/WH Pub/Inst
Year (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs)
Actual 2023 3.00 83.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Projected 2023 (1) 141.40 38.70 0.70 2.00 0.00 0.00
Difference (138.40) 44.30 (0.70) (2.00) 0.00 0.00
Actual 2024 1.00 0.00 1.59 0.00 0.00 0.00
Projected 2024 (1) 141.40 38.70 0.70 2.00 0.00 0.00
Difference (140.40) (38.70) 0.89 (2.00) 0.00 0.00
(1) Projections are the average annual over the 10-year study period, rather than specific development by year. Plan page 14.
As indicated in Table 4-5, Ahwatukee actual developments for the multifamily category exceeded
projections while single family, commercial/retail and office fell short of 2023 projections. In 2024 only


P a g e | 18
Development Impact Fee Biennial Audit
Final Report
May 28, 2025



commercial/retail development exceeded projections. No development was anticipated for
industrial/warehouse or public/institutional in either year.

Development of forward-looking financial plans, DIF studies rely on the best available forecast at a point
in time. Actual conditions often vary from projections. Tables 4-2 through 4-5 represent a “snapshot” in
time for the 10-year study period. Over time new studies are undertaken as circumstances change and
new information becomes available. It should also be noted that projections in the report were made for
a 10-year period in aggregate and not for individual years within the study period. As such, development
in aggregate should be considered the focus rather than fluctuations from year to year.

4.3. Infrastructure Improvement Plan

The Plan identified capital projects to be constructed or acquired over the 10-year study period as
opposed to specific years. Capital projects to be completed for the Northwest zone included:

 Park development

 Land acquisition

Capital projects for the remaining three zones assumed “park development” in each zone.

Northwest Zone

During FY 2023 and FY 2024 the City generated $2,000,056 in parks DIF revenues as well as an additional
$291,986 in interest income for total revenues of $2,292,042. During the same period the City expended
$17,255 on capital resulting in revenues exceeding expenditures during the two-year period. Appendix
D provides a summary of the revenues and expenditures for the parks DIF funds. The financials are
summarized in Table 4-6.

Table 4-6
Northwest Parks DIF Revenues and Expenditures FY 2023 & FY 2024
Revenues Expenditures
Advance
Fiscal DIF Interest Repayments
Year Collections Income CIP & Debt
2023 $392,218 $92,665 $0 $0
2024 1,607,838 199,321 17,255 0
Total $2,000,056 $291,986 $17,255 $0
It should be noted that in some cases collection of DIF revenues do not have an exact matching between
the year in which the revenues are recorded and the development occurs.

Northeast Zone

During FY 2023 and FY 2024 the City generated $3,098,059 in parks DIF revenues as well as an additional
$682,083 in interest income for total revenues of $3,780,142. During the same period the City expended



P a g e | 19
Development Impact Fee Biennial Audit
Final Report
May 28, 2025



$952,515 on park development resulting in revenues exceeding expenditures during the two-year period.
Appendix D provides a summary of the revenues and expenditures for the parks DIF funds. The financials
are summarized in Table 4-7.

Table 4-7
Northeast Parks DIF Revenues and Expenditures FY 2023 & FY 2024
Revenues Expenditures
Advance
Fiscal DIF Interest Repayments
Year Collections Income CIP & Debt
2023 $923,672 $229,648 $7,375 $0
2024 2,174,387 452,435 945,140 0
Total $3,098,059 $682,083 $952,515 $0
It should be noted that in some cases collection of DIF revenues do not have an exact matching between
the year in which the revenues are recorded and the development occurs.

Southwest Zone

During FY 2023 and FY 2024 the City generated $4,477,789 in parks DIF revenues as well as an additional
$881,412 in interest income for total revenues of $5,359,201. During the same period the City expended
$13,038,247 on park development resulting in expenditures exceeding revenues during the two-year
period. Appendix D provides a summary of the revenues and expenditures for the parks DIF funds. The
financials are summarized in Table 4-8.

Table 4-8
Southwest Parks DIF Revenues and Expenditures FY 2023 & FY 2024
Revenues Expenditures
Advance
Fiscal DIF Interest Repayments
Year Collections Income CIP & Debt
2023 $1,898,980 $347,725 $4,178,889 $0
2024 2,578,809 533,687 8,859,358 0
Total $4,477,789 $881,412 $13,038,247 $0
It should be noted that in some cases collection of DIF revenues do not have an exact matching between
the year in which the revenues are recorded and the development occurs.

Ahwatukee Zone

During FY 2023 and FY 2024 the City generated $106,279 in parks DIF revenues as well as an additional
$43,768 in interest income for total revenues of $150,047. During the same period the City did not expend
any funds on capital resulting in revenues exceeding expenditures during the two-year period. Appendix
D provides a summary of the revenues and expenditures for the parks DIF funds. The financials are
summarized in Table 4-9.




P a g e | 20
Development Impact Fee Biennial Audit
Final Report
May 28, 2025



Table 4-9
Ahwatukee Parks DIF Revenues and Expenditures FY 2023 & FY 2024
Revenues Expenditures
Advance
Fiscal DIF Interest Repayments
Year Collections Income CIP & Debt
2023 $100,417 $15,344 $0 $0
2024 5,862 28,424 0 0
Total $106,279 $43,768 $0 $0
It should be noted that in some cases collection of DIF revenues do not have an exact matching between
the year in which the revenues are recorded and the development occurs.

4.4. Level of Service

Level of service projections are intended to ensure that new development is assessed for facilities or
capital needs at the existing level of service (LOS), not at an increased overall level of service, unless a
corresponding funding source from existing development is also provided. For the Northwest, Northeast
and Ahwatukee zones expenditures fell short of the annual average expenditures identified in the Plan
which would result in a lowering of the level of service. The expenditures for the Southwest zone
exceeded planned improvements resulting in an increase in level of service. During the study period, the
actual LOS will fluctuate as compared to that identified in the Plan based on the timing of construction or
acquisition of new facilities relative to new development. However, the LOS should be monitored over
the entire study period compared to the level identified in the Plan over the remaining study period as
the full IIP and LUA projections are realized.

4.5. Audit Results

Through our audit of the parks DIFs we identified some differences between what was projected in the
Plan and actual occurrences, such as differences in the projected and actual developments. These
differences are the results of projections being made based on the available data at the time. Our review
of the current development environment is consistent with the regulations set forth in ARS§ 9-463.05.
The LUA, IIP and LOS should continue to be monitored over the 10-year study period on which the Plan
was based.

Based on Willdan’s review of the parks DIF, we are of the opinion that:

a) City’s Biennial DIFs for parks in FY 2023 and FY 2024 comply with ARS§ 9-463.05;
b) With respect to ARS§ 9-463.05 compliance:
i. Willdan’s review of the progress of the LUA, identified differences between projected and
actual development, but anticipates development over the current 10-year study period
will not significantly vary from projections;




P a g e | 21
Development Impact Fee Biennial Audit
Final Report
May 28, 2025



ii. Willdan’s review of the progress of the IIP identified the projects for which funds were
expended were included in the adopted IIP; and
iii. Willdan’s review of collections and expenditures of development impact fees indicate
that all expenditures made with DIF funds were on projects as identified in the Plan.




P a g e | 22
Development Impact Fee Biennial Audit
Final Report
May 28, 2025



Section 5 - Libraries

5.1. Fee Development

The libraries DIFs were calculated using the incremental (a forward looking) approach to develop a cost
per equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) as the basis for assessing fees. Fees were developed for four service
areas:

 Northwest
 Northeast
 Southwest
 Ahwatukee

The resulting DIFs per development type are identified in Table 5-1.

Table 5-1
Libraries DIFs
Single Family Multifamily Com/Ret Office Ind/WH Pub/Inst
Service Area (per Unit) (per unit) (per 1,000 sqft) (per 1,000 sqft) (per 1,000 sqft) (per 1,000 sqft)
Northwest $105 $79 $5 $7 $2 $5
Northeast 105 79 5 7 2 5
Southwest 105 79 5 7 2 5
Ahwatukee 105 79 5 7 2 5

5.2. Land Use Assumptions

The biennial audit includes comparing the growth projections adopted in the City’s LUA to the actual
equivalent demand units of growth by development type. Tables 5-2 through 5-5 summarize the
projected development from the Plan and the actual development experienced by the City in FY 2023 and
FY 2024.

Table 5-2
Northwest Projected versus Actual Development FY 2023 & FY 2024
Year Single Family Multifamily Com/Ret Office Ind/WH Pub/Inst
(EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs)
Actual 2023 312.00 155.00 2.32 0.00 0.00 0.00
Projected 2024 (1) 688.30 144.80 10.20 7.40 1.60 7.60
Difference (376.30) 10.20 (7.88) (7.40) (1.60) (7.60)
Actual 2024 417.00 1,799.75 29.13 0.00 5.50 0.00
Projected 2024 (1) 688.30 144.80 10.20 7.40 1.60 7.60
Difference (271.30) 1,654.95 18.93 (7.40) 3.90 (7.60)
(1) Projections are the average annual over the 10-year study period, rather than specific development by year. Plan page 14.
As indicated in Table 5-2, Northwest actual developments in 2023 exceeded the projected level of
development for the multifamily land use classification but fell short of projections for all other
designations. The actual developments in 2024 saw actual multifamily, commercial/retail and
industrial/warehouse development exceed projections, but the actual development for all other land
use classifications fell short of the projected development in the Plan.


P a g e | 23
Development Impact Fee Biennial Audit
Final Report
May 28, 2025



Table 5-3
Northeast Projected versus Actual Development FY 2023 & FY 2024
Single Family Multifamily Com/Ret Office Ind/WH Pub/Inst
Year (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs)
Actual 2023 213.00 192.50 6.88 0.00 0.00 0.00
Projected 2023 (1) 1,133.90 471.80 6.00 6.00 0.00 13.20
Difference (920.90) (279.30) 0.88 (6.00) 0.00 (13.20)
Actual 2024 271.00 432.00 74.82 265.53 0.00 6.08
Projected 2024 (1) 1,133.90 471.80 6.00 6.00 0.00 13.20
Difference (862.90) (39.80) 68.82 259.53 0.00 (7.12)
(1) Projections are the average annual over the 10-year study period, rather than specific development by year. Plan page 14.
As indicated in Table 5-3, Northeast actual developments in 2023 fell short of projections for all land use
classifications except the commercial/retail class which exceeded projections and the
industrial/warehouse (no development projected). In 2024 commercial/retail and office classifications
exceeded projections while all other classifications fell short of projections for all other land use
designations except the industrial/warehouse category which did not anticipate any new development.

Table 5-4
Southwest Projected versus Actual Development FY 2023 & FY 2024
Single Family Multifamily Com/Ret Office Ind/WH Pub/Inst
Year (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs)
Actual 2023 1,489.00 374.00 33.44 0.00 0.00 0.00
Projected 2023 (1) 1,580.50 462.20 18.00 18.30 26.20 31.80
Difference (91.50) (88.20) 15.44 (18.30) (26.20) (31.80)
Actual 2024 1,863.00 301.00 67.33 9.57 33.49 29.14
Projected 2024 (1) 1,580.50 462.20 18.00 18.30 26.20 31.80
Difference 282.50 (161.20) 49.33 (8.73) 7.29 (2.66)
(1) Projections are the average annual over the 10-year study period, rather than specific development by year. Plan page 14.
As indicated in Table 5-4, for 2023 Southwest actual developments for the commercial/retail category
exceeded projections while the other land use classifications fell short of projections. In 2024 Single
family, commercial/retail and industrial/warehouse development exceeded projections while the
multifamily, office and public/institution fell short of projections.

Table 5-5
Ahwatukee Projected versus Actual Development FY 2023 & FY 2024
Single Family Multifamily Com/Ret Office Ind/WH Pub/Inst
Year (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs)
Actual 2023 3.00 83.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Projected 2023 (1) 141.40 38.70 0.70 2.00 0.00 0.00
Difference (138.40) 44.30 (0.70) (2.00) 0.00 0.00
Actual 2024 1.00 0.00 1.59 0.00 0.00 0.00
Projected 2024 (1) 141.40 38.70 0.70 2.00 0.00 0.00
Difference (140.40) (38.70) 0.89 (2.00) 0.00 0.00
(1) Projections are the average annual over the 10-year study period, rather than specific development by year. Plan page 14.
As indicated in Table 5-5, Ahwatukee actual developments for the multifamily category exceeded
projections while single family, commercial/retail and office fell short of 2023 projections. In 2024 only
commercial/retail development exceeded projections. No development was anticipated for
industrial/warehouse or public/institutional in either year.



P a g e | 24
Development Impact Fee Biennial Audit
Final Report
May 28, 2025



Development of forward-looking financial plans, DIF studies rely on the best available forecast at a point
in time. Actual conditions often vary from projections. Tables 5-2 through 5-5 represent a “snapshot” in
time for the 10-year study period. Over time new studies are undertaken as circumstances change and
new information becomes available. It should also be noted that projections in the report were made for
a 10-year period in aggregate and not for individual years within the study period. As such, development
in aggregate should be considered the focus rather than fluctuations from year to year.

5.3. Infrastructure Improvement Plan

The Plan identified “library planned costs” as the only projected capital for each zone.

Northwest Zone

During FY 2023 and FY 2024 the City generated $280,073 in libraries DIF revenues as well as $43,045 in
interest income for total revenues of $323,118. During the same period the City did not expend any funds
on capital resulting in revenues exceeding expenditures during the two-year period. Appendix E provides
a summary of the revenues and expenditures for the libraries DIF funds. The financials are summarized
in Table 5-6.

Table 5-6
Northwest Libraries DIF Revenues and Expenditures FY 2023 & FY 2024
Revenues Expenditures
Advance
Fiscal DIF Interest Repayments
Year Collections Income CIP & Debt
2023 $62,972 $15,677 $0 $0
2024 217,101 27,368 0 0
Total $280,073 $43,045 $0 $0
It should be noted that in some cases collection of DIF revenues do not have an exact matching between
the year in which the revenues are recorded and the development occurs.

Northeast Zone

During FY 2023 and FY 2024 the City generated $122,882 in libraries DIF revenues as well as an additional
$77,958 in interest income for total revenues of $200,840. During the same period the City did not expend
any funds on capital resulting in revenues exceeding expenditures during the two-year period. Appendix
E provides a summary of the revenues and expenditures for the libraries DIF funds. The financials are
summarized in Table 5-7.




P a g e | 25
Development Impact Fee Biennial Audit
Final Report
May 28, 2025




Table 5-7
Northeast Libraries DIF Revenues and Expenditures FY 2023 & FY 2024
Revenues Expenditures
Advance
Fiscal DIF Interest Repayments
Year Collections Income CIP & Debt
2023 $42,094 $27,480 $0 $0
2024 80,788 50,478 0 0
Total $122,882 $77,958 $0 $0
It should be noted that in some cases collection of DIF revenues do not have an exact matching between
the year in which the revenues are recorded and the development occurs.

Southwest Zone

During FY 2023 and FY 2024 the City generated $437,005 in libraries DIF revenues as well as an additional
$189,153 in interest income for total revenues of $626,158. During the same period the City did not
expend any funds on capital. The result is revenues exceeding revenues during the two-year period.
Appendix E provides a summary of the revenues and expenditures for the libraries DIF funds. The
financials are summarized in Table 5-8.

Table 5-8
Southwest Libraries DIF Revenues and Expenditures FY 2023 & FY 2024
Revenues Expenditures
Advance
Fiscal DIF Interest Repayments
Year Collections Income CIP & Debt
2023 $198,608 $65,754 $0 $0
2024 238,397 123,399 0 0
Total $437,005 $189,153 $0 $0
It should be noted that in some cases collection of DIF revenues do not have an exact matching between
the year in which the revenues are recorded and the development occurs.

Ahwatukee Zone

During FY 2023 and FY 2024 the City generated $11,019 in libraries DIF revenues as well as an additional
$23,327 in interest income for total revenues of $34,346. During the same period the City did not expend
any funds on capital resulting in revenues exceeding expenditures during the two-year period. Appendix
E provides a summary of the revenues and expenditures for the libraries DIF funds. The financials are
summarized in Table 5-9.




P a g e | 26
Development Impact Fee Biennial Audit
Final Report
May 28, 2025



Table 5-9
Ahwatukee Libraries DIF Revenues and Expenditures FY 2023 & FY 2024
Revenues Expenditures
Advance
Fiscal DIF Interest Repayments
Year Collections Income CIP & Debt
2023 $8,067 $8,427 $0 $0
2024 2,412 14,900 0 0
Total $11,019 $23,327 $0 $0
It should be noted that in some cases collection of DIF revenues do not have an exact matching between
the year in which the revenues are recorded and the development occurs.

5.4. Level of Service

Level of service projections are intended to ensure that new development is assessed for facilities or
capital needs at the existing level of service (LOS), not at an increased overall level of service, unless a
corresponding funding source from existing development is also provided. In each of the four zones
expenditures fell short of the annual average expenditures identified in the Plan. During the study period,
the actual LOS will fluctuate as compared to that identified in the Plan based on the timing of construction
or acquisition of new facilities relative to new development. As of the end of FY 2024, due to new
development outpacing acquisition and construction of new facilities, the LOS for library for all zones is
below that in the Plan (the growth-related needs for identified library facilities were not met). However,
this was intended as the facilities were over built with the intention of the overall LOS being lowered over
time.

5.5. Audit Results

Through our audit of the libraries DIFs we identified some differences between what was projected in the
Plan and actual occurrences, such as differences in the projected and actual developments. These
differences are the results of projections being made based on the available data at the time. Our review
of the current development environment is consistent with the regulations set forth in ARS§ 9-463.05.
The LUA, IIP and LOS should continue to be monitored over the 10-year study period on which the Plan
was based.

Based on Willdan’s review of the libraries DIF, we are of the opinion that:

a) City’s Biennial DIFs for libraries in FY 2023 and FY 2024 comply with ARS§ 9-463.05;
b) With respect to ARS§ 9-463.05 compliance:
i. Willdan’s review of the progress of the LUA, identified differences between projected and
actual development, but anticipates development over the current 10-year study period
will not significantly vary from projections;




P a g e | 27
Development Impact Fee Biennial Audit
Final Report
May 28, 2025



ii. Willdan’s review of the progress of the IIP identified the projects for which funds were
expended were included in the adopted IIP; and
iii. Willdan’s review of collections of development impact fees were consistent with State
Statutes.




P a g e | 28
Development Impact Fee Biennial Audit
Final Report
May 28, 2025



Section 6 - Major Arterials

6.1. Fee Development

The major arterials DIFs were calculated using the hybrid approach to develop a cost per equivalent
dwelling unit (EDU) as the basis for assessing fees. Fees were developed for two service areas:

 Northern
 Southwest

The resulting DIFs per development type are identified in Table 6-1.

Table 6-1
Major Arterials DIFs
Service Single Family Multifamily Com/Ret Office Industrial Pub/Inst Mini-Warehouse Hotel
Area (per Unit) (per unit) (per 1,000 sqft) (per 1,000 sqft) (per 1,000 sqft) (per 1,000 sqft) (per 1,000 sqft) (room)
Northern $3,080 $2,310 $3,758 $1,694 $986 $1,386 $277 $1,078
Southwest 1,928 1,446 2,352 1,060 617 868 174 675

6.2. Land Use Assumptions

The biennial audit includes comparing the growth projections adopted in the City’s LUA to the actual
equivalent demand units of growth by development type. Tables 6-2 and 6-3 summarize the projected
development from the Plan and the actual development experienced by the City in FY 2023 and FY 2024.

Table 6-2
Northern Projected versus Actual Development FY 2023 & FY 2024
Single Family Multifamily Com/Ret Office Ind/WH Pub/Inst
Year (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs)
Actual 2023 525.00 347.50 9.20 0.00 0.00 0.00
Projected 2023 (1) 1,822.20 616.60 394.70 105.20 25.40 187.30
Difference (1,297.20) (269.10) (385.50) (105.20) (25.40) (187.30)
Actual 2024 688.00 2,231.75 103.95 265.53 5.50 6.08
Projected 2024 (1) 1,822.20 616.60 394.70 105.20 25.40 187.30
Difference (1,134.20) 1,615.15 (290.75) 160.33 (19.90) (181.22)
(1) Projections are the average annual over the 10-year study period, rather than specific development by year. Plan page 15.
As indicated in Table 6-2, Northern actual developments in 2023 fall short of the projected level of
development for all designations. The actual developments in 2024 saw actual multifamily and office
developments exceed projections, but the actual development for all other land use classifications fell
short of the projected development in the Plan.




P a g e | 29
Development Impact Fee Biennial Audit
Final Report
May 28, 2025



Table 6-3
Southwest Projected versus Actual Development FY 2023 & FY 2024
Single Family Multifamily Com/Ret Office Ind/WH Pub/Inst
Year (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs)
Actual 2023 1,489.00 374.00 33.44 0.00 0.00 0.00
Projected 2023 (1) 1,580.50 462.20 438.00 144.10 419.80 286.60
Difference (91.50) (88.20) (404.56) (144.10) (419.80) (286.60)
Actual 2024 1,863.00 301.00 67.33 9.57 343.17 29.14
Projected 2024 (1) 1,580.50 462.20 438.00 144.10 419.80 286.60
Difference 282.50 (161.20) (370.67) (134.53) (76.63) 257.46
(1) Projections are the average annual over the 10-year study period, rather than specific development by year. Plan page 15.
As indicated in Table 6-3, Southwest actual developments in 2023 fell short of projected development
for all land use classifications. In 2024 single family and public/institutional classifications exceeded
projections while all other land use classifications fell short of projections.

Development of forward-looking financial plans, DIF studies rely on the best available forecast at a point
in time. Actual conditions often vary from projections. Tables 6-2 and 6-3 represent a “snapshot” in time
for the 10-year study period. Over time new studies are undertaken as circumstances change and new
information becomes available. It should also be noted that projections in the report were made for a 10-
year period in aggregate and not for individual years within the study period. As such, development in
aggregate should be considered the focus rather than fluctuations from year to year.

6.3. Infrastructure Improvement Plan

The Plan identified major arterial roads, culverts and bridges capital projects for the Northern zone and
major arterial roads, storm drains and bridges for the southwest zone.

Northern Zone

During FY 2023 and FY 2024 the City generated $17,281,852 in major arterial DIF revenues. During the
same period the City expended $1,065,355 on capital resulting in revenues exceeding expenditures during
the two-year period. Appendix F provides a summary of the revenues and expenditures for the major
arterials DIF funds. The financials are summarized in Table 6-4.

Table 6-4
Northern Major Arterials DIF Revenues and Expenditures FY 2023 & FY 2024
Revenues Expenditures
Advance
Fiscal DIF Interest Repayments
Year Collections Income CIP & Debt
2023 $6,657,485 $462,809 $921,386 $0
2024 9,390,482 771,076 143,969 0
Total $16,047,967 $1,233,885 $1,065,355 $0
It should be noted that in some cases collection of DIF revenues do not have an exact matching between
the year in which the revenues are recorded and the development occurs.




P a g e | 30
Development Impact Fee Biennial Audit
Final Report
May 28, 2025



Southwest Zone

During FY 2023 and FY 2024 the City generated $9,958,069 in major arterials DIF revenues as well as an
additional $1,271,101 in interest income for total revenues of $11,229,170. During the same period the
City expended $18,405 on capital resulting in revenues exceeding expenditures during the two-year
period. Appendix F provides a summary of the revenues and expenditures for the major arterials DIF
funds. The financials are summarized in Table 6-5.

Table 6-5
Southwest Major Arterials DIF Revenues and Expenditures FY 2023 & FY 2024
Revenues Expenditures
Advance
Fiscal DIF Interest Repayments &
Year Collections Income CIP Debt
2023 $4,403,407 $396,683 $2,376 $0
2024 5,554,662 874,418 (2,305,994) 0
Total $9,958,069 $1,271,101 ($2,303,618) $0
The negative capital expenditure in FY 2024 represents cancelled encumbrances. It should be noted that
in some cases collection of DIF revenues do not have an exact matching between the year in which the
revenues are recorded and the development occurs.

6.4. Level of Service

Level of service projections are intended to ensure that new development is assessed for facilities or
capital needs at the existing level of service (LOS), not at an increased overall level of service, unless a
corresponding funding source from existing development is also provided. In each of the two zones
expenditures fell short of the annual average expenditures identified in the Plan. During the study period,
the actual LOS will fluctuate as compared to that identified in the Plan based on the timing of construction
or acquisition of new facilities relative to new development. As of the end of FY 2024, due to new
development outpacing acquisition and construction of new facilities, the LOS for major arterials for both
zones is below that in the Plan (the growth-related needs for identified major arterials infrastructure were
not met). However, the LOS should be monitored over the entire study period compared to the level
identified in the Plan over the remaining study period as the full IIP and LUA projections are realized.

6.5. Audit Results

Through our audit of the major arterials DIFs we identified some differences between what was projected
in the Plan and actual occurrences, such as differences in the projected and actual developments. These
differences are the results of projections being made based on the available data at the time. Our review
of the current development environment is consistent with the regulations set forth in ARS§ 9-463.05.
The LUA, IIP and LOS should continue to be monitored over the 10-year study period on which the Plan
was based.

Based on Willdan’s review of the major arterials DIF, we are of the opinion that:


P a g e | 31
Development Impact Fee Biennial Audit
Final Report
May 28, 2025



a) City’s Biennial DIFs for major arterials in FY 2023 and FY 2024 comply with ARS§ 9-463.05;
b) With respect to ARS§ 9-463.05 compliance:
i. Willdan’s review of the progress of the LUA, identified differences between projected and
actual development, but anticipates development over the current 10-year study period
will not significantly vary from projections;
ii. Willdan’s review of the progress of the IIP identified the projects for which funds were
expended were included in the adopted IIP; and
iii. Willdan’s review of collections and expenditures of development impact fees indicate
that all expenditures made with DIF funds were on projects as identified in the Plan.




P a g e | 32
Development Impact Fee Biennial Audit
Final Report
May 28, 2025



Section 7 - Storm Drainage

This section of the Audit Report presents Willdan’s review of City’s storm drainage DIFs.

7.1. Fee Development

Fees were developed for three service areas:

 Northeast
 Estrella
 Laveen

The storm drainage DIFs were calculated using the plan based approach for the Northeast zone and a
hybrid approach for Estrella and Laveen to develop a cost per equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) as the basis
for assessing fees. The fees were then translated to a per dwelling unit or per acre basis for different
customer classes.

The resulting DIFs per development type are identified in Table 7-1.

Table 7-1
Storm Drainage DIFs
Single Family Multifamily Com/Ret Office Industrial Pub/Inst
Service Area (per Unit) (per acre) (per acre) (per acre) (per acre) (per acre)
Northeast $1,715 $6,860 $6,860 $6,860 $6,860 $6,860
Estrella 770 3,080 3,080 3,080 3,080 3,080
Laveen 1,037 4,148 4,148 4,148 4,148 4,148

7.2. Land Use Assumptions

The biennial audit includes comparing the growth projections adopted in the City’s LUA to the actual
growth by development type. Table 7-2 summarizes the projected development from the Plan and the
actual development experienced by the City in FY 2023 and FY 2024.

Table 7-2
Northeast Projected versus Actual Development FY 2023 & FY 2024
Multifamily &
Single Family Nonresidential
Year (EDU) (EDU)
Actual 2023 0 0.00
Projected 2023 (1) 276 111.60
Difference (276) (111.60)
Actual 2024 0 0.00
Projected 2024 (1) 276 111.60
Difference (276) (111.60)
(1) Projections are the average annual over the 10-year study
period, rather than specific development by year




P a g e | 33
Development Impact Fee Biennial Audit
Final Report
May 28, 2025



As indicated in Table 7-2, there was no Northeast storm water related development in either 2023 or
2024.

Table 7-3
Estrella & Laveen Projected versus Actual Development FY 2023 & FY 2024
Multifamily &
Single Family Nonresidential
Year (EDU) (EDU)
Actual 2023 1,487 468.72
Projected 2023 (1) 1,581 964.50
Difference (94) (495.78)
Actual 2024 1,863 497.57
Projected 2024 (1) 1,581 964.50
Difference 283 (466.93)
(1) Projections are the average annual over the 10-year
study period, rather than specific development by year
As indicated in Table 7-3, single family developments in Estrella and Laveen actual development
exceeded projections for 2024 but not 2023, whereas multifamily and nonresidential developments fell
short of projections for both 2023 and 2024.

Development of forward-looking financial plans, DIF studies rely on the best available forecast at a point
in time. Actual conditions often vary from projections. Tables 7-2 and 7-3 represent a “snapshot” in time
for the 10-year study period. Over time new studies are undertaken as circumstances change and new
information becomes available. It should also be noted that projections in the report were made for a 10-
year period in aggregate and not for individual years within the study period. As such, development in
aggregate should be considered the focus rather than fluctuations from year to year.

7.3. Infrastructure Improvement Plan

The Plan identified NE Phoenix/Rawhide Wash capital projects for the Northeast zone and existing and
planned drainage facility costs for Estrella & Laveen.

Northeast Zone

The City did not generate any revenue nor were any funds expended in the Northeast storm drainage
zone.

Estrella & Laveen Zones

During FY 2023 and FY 2024 the City generated $3,721,439 in storm drainage DIF revenues as well as an
additional $869,566 in interest income for total revenues of $4,591,005. During the same period the City
expended $1,244,760 on Laveen drainage capital resulting in revenues exceeding expenditures during the
two-year period. Appendix G provides a summary of the revenues and expenditures for the storm
drainage DIF funds. The financials are summarized in Table 7-4.




P a g e | 34
Development Impact Fee Biennial Audit
Final Report
May 28, 2025



Table 7-4
Estrella & Laveen DIF Revenues and Expenditures FY 2023 & FY 2024
Revenues Expenditures
Advance
Fiscal DIF Interest Repayments
Year Collections Income CIP & Debt
2023 $1,576,875 $307,495 $0 $0
2024 2,144,564 562,071 1,244,760 0
Total $3,721,439 $869,566 1,244,760 $0
It should be noted that in some cases collection of DIF revenues do not have an exact matching between
the year in which the revenues are recorded and the development occurs.

7.4. Level of Service

Level of service projections are intended to ensure that new development is assessed for facilities or
capital needs at the existing level of service (LOS), not at an increased overall level of service, unless a
corresponding funding source from existing development is also provided. In each of the zones
expenditures fell short of the annual average expenditures identified in the Plan. During the study period,
the actual LOS will fluctuate as compared to that identified in the Plan based on the timing of construction
or acquisition of new facilities relative to new development. As of the end of FY 2024, due to new
development outpacing acquisition and construction of new facilities, the LOS for storm drainage for the
three zones is below that in the Plan (the growth-related needs for identified storm drainage
infrastructure were not met). However, the LOS should be monitored over the entire study period
compared to the level identified in the Plan over the remaining study period as the full IIP and LUA
projections are realized.

7.5. Audit Results

Through our audit of the storm drainage DIFs we identified some differences between what was projected
in the Plan and actual occurrences, such as differences in the projected and actual developments. These
differences are the results of projections being made based on the available data at the time. Our review
of the current development environment is consistent with the regulations set forth in ARS§ 9-463.05.
The LUA, IIP and LOS should continue to be monitored over the 10-year study period on which the Plan
was based.

Based on Willdan’s review of the storm drainage DIF, we are of the opinion that:

a) City’s Biennial DIFs for storm drainage in FY 2023 and FY 2024 comply with ARS§ 9-463.05;
b) With respect to ARS§ 9-463.05 compliance:
i. Willdan’s review of the progress of the LUA, identified differences between projected and
actual development, but anticipates development over the current 10-year study period
will not significantly vary from projections;



P a g e | 35
Development Impact Fee Biennial Audit
Final Report
May 28, 2025



ii. Willdan’s review of the progress of the IIP identified the projects for which funds were
expended were included in the adopted IIP; and
iii. Willdan’s review of collections and expenditures of development impact fees indicate
that all expenditures made with DIF funds were on projects as identified in the Plan.




P a g e | 36
Development Impact Fee Biennial Audit
Final Report
May 28, 2025



Section 8 - Water System

This section of the Audit Report presents Willdan’s review of City’s water system DIFs.

8.1. Fee Development

The water system DIFs were calculated using a mix of incremental (forward looking) and buy-in
approaches to develop a cost per equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) as the basis for assessing fees. Fees were
developed for two service areas:

 Northern
 Southern

The resulting DIFs per development type are identified in Table 8-1.

Table 8-1
Water System DIFs
Meter Size Northern Southern
Single Family up to 1-inch $6,330 $4,016
Single Family 1.5-inch 22,477 14,771
Single Family 2-inch 36,337 24,003
Multifamily unit 2,273 1,394
¾-inch Displacement (nonres) 14,092 9,186
1- inch Displacement (nonres) 23,032 14,841
1.5-inch Displacement (nonres) 46,166 29,829
2- inch Displacement (nonres) 73,809 47,661
2- inch Turbine Class II 85,801 54,747
3- inch Compound Class II 162,209 104,960
3- inch Turbine Class II 196,829 125,696
4- inch Compound Class II 278,832 180,719
4-inch Turbine Class II 349,290 226,648
6-inch Compound Class II 633,522 412,767
6-inch Turbine Class II 746,006 484,385
8-inch Compound Class II 735,506 473,885
8-inch Turbine Class II 1,317,170 859,322

8.2. Land Use Assumptions

The biennial audit includes comparing the growth projections adopted in the City’s LUA to the actual
growth by development type. Tables 8-2 and 8-3 summarize the projected development from the Plan
and the actual development experienced by the City in FY 2023 and FY 2024.




P a g e | 37
Development Impact Fee Biennial Audit
Final Report
May 28, 2025



Table 8-2
Northern Projected versus Actual Development FY 2023 & FY 2024
Single Family Multifamily Com/Ret Office Ind/WH Pub/Inst
Year (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs)
Actual 2023 528.00 185.24 69.94 0.00 259.90 11.30
Projected 2023 (1) 1,822.20 427.50 139.10 53.60 17.50 91.60
Difference (1,294.20) (242.26) (69.16) (53.60) 242.40 (80.30)
Actual 2024 688.00 970.00 81.96 53.00 11.30 7.06
Projected 2024 (1) 1,822.20 427.50 139.10 53.60 17.50 91.60
Difference (1,134.20) 542.50 (57.14) (0.60) (6.20) (84.54)
(1) Projections are the average annual over the 10-year study period, rather than specific development by year
As indicated in Table 8-2, Northern actual developments in 2023 exceeded the projected level of
development for the industrial/warehouse land use classification but fell short of projections for all
other designations. The actual developments in 2024 saw actual multifamily developments exceed
projections, but the actual development for all other land use classifications fell short of the projected
development in the Plan.

Table 8-3
Southern Projected versus Actual Development FY 2023 & FY 2024
Single Family Multifamily Com/Ret Office Ind/WH Pub/Inst
Year (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs)
Actual 2023 1,458.00 176.36 488.14 0.00 146.94 0.00
Projected 2023 (1) 1,721.90 347.30 160.40 81.30 288.60 140.10
Difference (263.90) (170.94) 327.74 (81.30) (141.66) (140.10)
Actual 2024 1,858.00 273.00 214.82 10.60 153.98 10.60
Projected 2024 (1) 1,721.90 347.30 160.40 81.30 288.60 140.10
Difference 136.10 (74.30) 54.42 (70.70) (134.62) (129.50)
(1) Projections are the average annual over the 10-year study period, rather than specific development by year
As indicated in Table 8-3, Southern actual developments in 2023 exceeded projected development for
only the commercial/retail classification and fell short of projections for all other classifications. In 2024
single family and commercial/retail developments exceeded projections while all other land use
classifications fell short of projections.

Development of forward-looking financial plans, DIF studies rely on the best available forecast at a point
in time. Actual conditions often vary from projections. Tables 8-2 and 8-3 represent a “snapshot” in time
for the 10-year study period. Over time new studies are undertaken as circumstances change and new
information becomes available. It should also be noted that projections in the report were made for a 10-
year period in aggregate and not for individual years within the study period. As such, development in
aggregate should be considered the focus rather than fluctuations from year to year.

8.3. Infrastructure Improvement Plan

The Plan identified the following capital projects for the Northern zone:

 New transmission mains
 New booster stations
 New PRV stations


P a g e | 38
Development Impact Fee Biennial Audit
Final Report
May 28, 2025



 New wells

The Plan identified the following capital projects for the Southern zone:

 New transmission mains
 New PRV stations

Northern Zone

During FY 2023 and FY 2024 the City generated $19,583,646 in water system DIF revenues and an
additional $2,819,622 in interest earnings for total revenues of $22,403,268. During the same period the
City expended $2,177,615 on water system capital and $5,554,747 on advance repayments and debt
service resulting in revenues exceeding expenditures during the two-year period. Appendix H provides a
summary of the revenues and expenditures for the water system DIF funds. The financials are
summarized in Table 8-4.

Table 8-4
Northern Water System DIF Revenues and Expenditures FY 2023 & FY 2024
Revenues Expenditures
Advance
Fiscal DIF Interest Repayments
Year Collections Income CIP & Debt
2023 $5,983,104 $895,741 $1,873,319 $0
2024 13,600,542 1,923,881 304,297 5,554,747
Total $19,583,646 $2,819,622 $2,177,616 $5,554,747
It should be noted that in some cases collection of DIF revenues do not have an exact matching between
the year in which the revenues are recorded and the development occurs.

Southern Zone

During FY 2023 and FY 2024 the City generated $18,038,364 in water system DIF revenues as well as an
additional $3,365,654 in interest income for total revenues of $21,404,018. During the same period the
City expended $5,640,446 on water system capital and $6,384,361 on advance repayments and debt
service resulting in revenues exceeding expenditures during the two-year period. Appendix H provides a
summary of the revenues and expenditures for the water system DIF funds. The financials are
summarized in Table 8-5.

Table 8-5
Southern Water System DIF Revenues and Expenditures FY 2023 & FY 2024
Revenues Expenditures
Advance
Fiscal DIF Interest Repayments
Year Collections Income CIP & Debt
2023 $9,021,143 $1,123,333 $43,261 $0
2024 9,017,221 2,242,321 5,597,185 6,384,361
Total $18,038,364 $3,365,654 $5,640,446 $6,384,361




P a g e | 39
Development Impact Fee Biennial Audit
Final Report
May 28, 2025



It should be noted that in some cases collection of DIF revenues do not have an exact matching between
the year in which the revenues are recorded and the development occurs.

8.4. Level of Service

Level of service projections are intended to ensure that new development is assessed for facilities or
capital needs at the existing level of service (LOS), not at an increased overall level of service, unless a
corresponding funding source from existing development is also provided. The Northern zone capital
expenditures fell short of projections resulting in a decrease in the level of service whereas the Southern
zone expenditures slightly exceeded projections resulting in a slight increase in the level of service.
However, the LOS should be monitored over the entire study period compared to the level identified in
the Plan over the remaining study period as the full IIP and LUA projections are realized.

8.5. Audit Results

Through our audit of the water system DIFs we identified some differences between what was projected
in the Plan and actual occurrences, such as differences in the projected and actual developments. These
differences are the results of projections being made based on the available data at the time. Our review
of the current development environment is consistent with the regulations set forth in ARS§ 9-463.05.
The LUA, IIP and LOS should continue to be monitored over the 10-year study period on which the Plan
was based.

Based on Willdan’s review of the water system DIF, we are of the opinion that:

a) City’s Biennial DIFs for water system in FY 2023 and FY 2024 comply with ARS§ 9-463.05;
b) With respect to ARS§ 9-463.05 compliance:
i. Willdan’s review of the progress of the LUA, identified differences between projected and
actual development, but anticipates development over the current 10-year study period
will not significantly vary from projections;
ii. Willdan’s review of the progress of the IIP identified the projects for which funds were
expended were included in the adopted IIP; and
iii. Willdan’s review of collections and expenditures of development impact fees indicate
that all expenditures made with DIF funds were on projects as identified in the Plan.




P a g e | 40
Development Impact Fee Biennial Audit
Final Report
May 28, 2025



Section 9 - Water Resource

This section of the Audit Report presents Willdan’s review of City’s water resource DIFs.

9.1. Fee Development

The water resource DIFs were calculated using the incremental (forward looking) approach to develop a
cost per equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) as the basis for assessing fees. Water resource fees are divided
into two service areas:

 On-Project
 Off-Project

Only development within the off-project zone are assessed fees. The resulting DIFs per development type
are identified in Table 9-1.

Table 9-1
Water Resource DIFs
Off-Project
Meter Size EDUs Fee/EDU
Single Family up to 1-inch 1.00 $583
Single Family 1.5-inch 3.33 1,940
Single Family 2-inch 5.33 3,106
Multifamily and Mobile Home (indoor) 0.38 221
¾-inch Displacement (nonres) 2.12 1,235
1- inch Displacement (nonres) 3.54 12,063
1.5-inch Displacement (nonres) 7.06 2,063
2- inch Displacement (nonres) 11.30 4,114
2- inch Turbine Class II 13.42 6,584
3- inch Compound Class II 24.74 7,820
3- inch Turbine Class II 30.74 14,416
4- inch Compound Class II 42.40 17,912
4-inch Turbine Class II 53.00 24,707
6-inch Compound Class II 95.40 30,884
6-inch Turbine Class II 113.06 55,590
8-inch Compound Class II 113.06 65,881
8-inch Turbine Class II 197.86 115,295

9.2. Land Use Assumptions

The biennial audit includes comparing the growth projections adopted in the City’s LUA to the actual
growth by development type. Table 9-2 summarizes the projected development from the Plan and the
actual development experienced by the City in FY 2023 and FY 2024.




P a g e | 41
Development Impact Fee Biennial Audit
Final Report
May 28, 2025



Table 9-2
Off-Project Projected versus Actual Development FY 2023 & FY 2024
Single Family Multifamily Nonresidential
Year (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs)
Actual 2023 23.32 1,201.94 2,011.66
Projected 2023 (1) 2,204.10 614.50 589.30
Difference (2,180.78) 587.44 1,422.36
Actual 2024 42.97.00 1,725.20 1,196.24
Projected 2024 (1) 2,204.10 614.50 589.30
Difference (2,161.13) 1,110.70 606.94
(1) Projections are the average annual over the 10-year study period, rather
than specific development by year
As indicated in Table 9-2, actual developments in both 2023 and 2024 fell short of the projected level of
development for single family development designations, but exceeded projections for the multifamily
and nonresidential categories.

Development of forward-looking financial plans, DIF studies rely on the best available forecast at a point
in time. Actual conditions often vary from projections. Table 9-2 represents a “snapshot” in time for the
10-year study period. Over time new studies are undertaken as circumstances change and new
information becomes available. It should also be noted that projections in the report were made for a 10-
year period in aggregate and not for individual years within the study period. As such, development in
aggregate should be considered the focus rather than fluctuations from year to year.

9.3. Infrastructure Improvement Plan

The Plan identified the following water resource capital projects:

 Arizona state land department CAP allocation
 New service area ASR wells

During FY 2023 and FY 2024 the City generated $4,833,537 in water resource DIF revenues and an
additional $1,866,581 in interest earnings for total revenues of $6,700,118. During the same period the
City did not expend any funds on water resource capital resulting in revenues exceeding expenditures
during the two-year period. Appendix I provides a summary of the revenues and expenditures for the
water system DIF funds. The financials are summarized in Table 9-3.

Table 9-3
Water Resource DIF Revenues and Expenditures FY 2023 & FY 2024
Revenues Expenditures
Interest Advance
Fiscal DIF Income Repayments
Year Collections CIP & Debt
2023 $2,097,325 $687,692 ($5,017) $0
2024 2,736,212 1,178,889 0 0
Total $4,833,537 $1,866,581 ($5,017) $0




P a g e | 42
Development Impact Fee Biennial Audit
Final Report
May 28, 2025



The negative capital expenditure in FY 2024 represents cancelled encumbrances. It should be noted that
in some cases collection of DIF revenues do not have an exact matching between the year in which the
revenues are recorded and the development occurs.

9.4. Level of Service

Level of service projections are intended to ensure that new development is assessed for facilities or
capital needs at the existing level of service (LOS), not at an increased overall level of service, unless a
corresponding funding source from existing development is also provided. Expenditures fell short of the
annual average expenditures identified in the Plan. During the study period, the actual LOS will fluctuate
as compared to that identified in the Plan based on the timing of construction or acquisition of new
facilities relative to new development. As of the end of FY 2024, due to new development outpacing
acquisition and construction of new facilities, the LOS water resources are below that in the Plan (the
growth-related needs for identified water resource infrastructure were not met). However, the LOS
should be monitored over the entire study period compared to the level identified in the Plan over the
remaining study period as the full IIP and LUA projections are realized.

9.5. Audit Results

Through our audit of the water resource DIFs we identified some differences between what was projected
in the Plan and actual occurrences, such as differences in the projected and actual developments. These
differences are the results of projections being made based on the available data at the time. Our review
of the current development environment is consistent with the regulations set forth in ARS§ 9-463.05.
The LUA, IIP and LOS should continue to be monitored over the 10-year study period on which the Plan
was based.

Based on Willdan’s review of the water resource DIF, we are of the opinion that:

a) City’s Biennial DIFs for water resource in FY 2023 and FY 2024 comply with ARS§ 9-463.05;
b) With respect to ARS§ 9-463.05 compliance:
i. Willdan’s review of the progress of the LUA, identified differences between projected and
actual development, but anticipates development over the current 10-year study period
will not significantly vary from projections;
ii. Willdan’s review of the progress of the IIP identified the projects for which funds were
expended were included in the adopted IIP; and
iii. Willdan’s review of collections of development impact fees indicate that all expenditures
were consistent with State statutes.




P a g e | 43
Development Impact Fee Biennial Audit
Final Report
May 28, 2025



Section 10 - Wastewater

This section of the Audit Report presents Willdan’s review of City’s wastewater DIFs.

10.1. Fee Development

The wastewater DIFs were calculated using a mix of the buy-in, incremental (forward looking) and plan
development fee approaches to develop a cost per equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) as the basis for
assessing fees. Fees were developed for seven service areas:

 Northern (Northwest and Northeast)
 Deer Valley
 Estrella North
 Estrella South
 Laveen West
 Laveen East
 Ahwatukee

The resulting DIFs per development type are identified in Table 10-1.

Table 10-1
Wastewater DIFs
Estrella North,
Laveen East & Estrella Laveen
Meter Size Northern Deer Valley Ahwatukee South West
Single Family up to 1-inch $3,303 $1,380 $1,380 $3,787 $3,630
Single Family 1.5-inch 12,397 5,993 5,993 14,008 13,486
Single Family 2-inch 20,203 9,953 9,953 22,782 21,946
Multifamily unit 1,552 610 610 1,789 1,712
¾-inch Displacement (nonres) 8,182 3,855 3,855 9,271 8,917
1-inch Displacement (nonres) 13,175 5,945 5,945 14,995 14,405
1.5-inch Displacement (nonres) 26,473 12,070 12,070 30,098 28,922
2-inch Displacement (nonres) 42,297 19,240 19,240 48,100 46,218
2-inch Turbine Class II 48,379 20,995 20,995 55,271 53,035
3-inch Compound Class II 93,252 42,754 42,754 105,962 101,839
3-inch Turbine Class II 111,155 48,407 48,407 126,948 121,825
4-inch Compound Class II 160,635 74,100 74,100 182,415 175,350
4-inch Turbine Class II 201,544 93,375 93,375 228,769 219,937
6-inch Compound Class II 367,579 172,875 172,875 416,584 400,687
6-inch Turbine Class II 430,821 200,080 200,080 488,896 470,058
8-inch Compound Class II 420,321 189,580 189,580 478,396 459,558
8-inch Turbine Class II 765,591 361,780 361,780 867,226 834,258

10.2. Land Use Assumptions

The biennial audit includes comparing the growth projections adopted in the City’s LUA to the actual
growth by development type. Tables 10-2 through 10-8 summarize the projected development from the
Plan and the actual development experienced by the City in FY 2023 and FY 2024.


P a g e | 44
Development Impact Fee Biennial Audit
Final Report
May 28, 2025



Table 10-2
Northern Projected versus Actual Development FY 2023 & FY 2024
Single Family Multifamily Com/Ret Office Ind/WH Pub/Inst
Year (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs)
Actual 2023 447.00 96.04 19.48 0.00 35.97 11.99
Projected 2023 (1) 1,817.20 403.50 138.20 51.50 18.10 93.10
Difference (1,340.20) (307.46) (118.72) (51.50) 17.87 (81.11)
Actual 2024 648.00 253.83 35.97 48.76 0.00 7.49
Projected 2024 (1) 1,817.20 403.50 138.20 51.50 18.10 93.10
Difference (1,169.20) (149.67) (102.23) (2.74) (18.10) (85.61)
(1) Projections are the average annual over the 10-year study period, rather than specific development by year
As indicated in Table 10-2, Northern actual developments in 2023 exceeded the projected level of
development for the industrial/warehouse land use classification but fell short of projections for all
other designations. The actual developments in 2024 saw all land use classifications fall short of the
projected development in the Plan.

Table 10-3
Deer Valley Projected versus Actual Development FY 2023 & FY 2024
Single Family Multifamily Com/Ret Office Ind/WH Pub/Inst
Year (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs)
Actual 2023 51.00 100.94 2.25 0.00 0.00 0.00
Projected 2023 (1) 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.70
Difference 46.00 100.94 2.25 0.00 0.00 (1.70)
Actual 2024 36.00 314.94 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Projected 2024 (1) 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.70
Difference 31.00 314.94 0.00 0.00 0.00 (1.70)
(2) Projections are the average annual over the 10-year study period, rather than specific development by year
As indicated in Table 10-3, Deer Valley actual developments in 2023 exceeded projections for all land
use classification except the public/institutional classification which fell short of projections. In 2024
both single family and multifamily land uses exceeded projections while the public/institutional land use
classification fell short of projections. No development was projected for office or industrial/warehouse
in either year.

Table 10-4
Estrella North Projected versus Actual Development FY 2023 & FY 2024
Single Family Multifamily Com/Ret Office Ind/WH Pub/Inst
Year (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs)
Actual 2023 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Projected 2023 (1) 1.00 23.10 10.60 8.80 119.50 17.60
Difference (1.00) (23.10) (10.60) (8.80) (119.50) (17.60)
Actual 2024 2.00 0.00 19.48 0.00 43.46 7.49
Projected 2024 (1) 1.00 23.10 10.60 8.80 119.50 17.60
Difference 1.00 (23.10) 8.88 (8.80) (76.04) (10.11)
(1) Projections are the average annual over the 10-year study period, rather than specific development by year
As indicated in Table 10-4, Estrella North actual developments in 2023 fell short of projections for all
land use classifications. In 2024 both the single family and the commercial/retail actual developments
exceeded projections while all other land use classification fell short of projections.




P a g e | 45
Development Impact Fee Biennial Audit
Final Report
May 28, 2025



Table 10-5
Estrella South Projected versus Actual Development FY 2023 & FY 2024
Single Family Multifamily Com/Ret Office Ind/WH Pub/Inst
Year (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs)
Actual 2023 485.00 0.00 26.23 0.00 69.72 0.00
Projected 2023 (1) 554.50 112.60 54.30 31.10 174.80 62.80
Difference (69.50) (112.60) (28.07) (31.10) (105.08) (62.80)
Actual 2024 623.00 18.62 32.24 0.00 47.96 0.00
Projected 2024 (1) 554.50 112.60 54.30 31.10 174.80 62.80
Difference 68.50 (93.98) (22.06) (31.10) (126.84) (62.80)
(1) Projections are the average annual over the 10-year study period, rather than specific development by year
As indicated in Table 10-5, Estrella South actual developments in both 2023 and 2024 all development
fell short of projected development with the exception of single family in 2024 which exceeded
projections.

Table 10-6
Laveen West Projected versus Actual Development FY 2023 & FY 2024
Single Family Multifamily Com/Ret Office Ind/WH Pub/Inst
Year (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs)
Actual 2023 661.00 150.92 132.66 0.00 11.99 0.00
Projected 2023 (1) 830.10 166.80 65.90 30.70 4.30 52.20
Difference (169.10) (15.88) 66.76 (30.70) 7.69 (52.20)
Actual 2024 920.00 42.63 15.75 3.76 0.00 0.00
Projected 2024 (1) 830.10 166.80 65.90 30.70 4.30 52.20
Difference 89.90 (124.17) (50.15) (26.94) (4.30) (52.20)
(1) Projections are the average annual over the 10-year study period, rather than specific development by year
As indicated in Table 10-6, Laveen West actual developments for the commercial/retail and
industrial/warehouse land use classification exceeded projections in 2023, while all other land use
classifications fell short. In 2024, single family developments exceed projected development while all
other land use classification fell short of projections.

Table 10-7
Laveen East Projected versus Actual Development FY 2023 & FY 2024
Single Family Multifamily Com/Ret Office Ind/WH Pub/Inst
Year (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs)
Actual 2023 309.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Projected 2023 (1) 194.90 0.00 22.50 0.00 0.00 12.30
Difference 114.10 0.00 (22.50) 0.00 0.00 (12.30)
Actual 2024 196.00 15.68 7.52 0.00 15.75 0.00
Projected 2024 (1) 194.90 0.00 22.50 0.00 0.00 12.30
Difference 1.10 15.68 (14.98) 0.00 15.75 (12.30)
(1) Projections are the average annual over the 10-year study period, rather than specific development by year
As indicated in Table 10-7, single family exceeded projections and commercial/retail and
public/institutional feel short of projections in 2023. In 2024, single family and industrial/ warehouse
developments exceed projected development, while commercial/retail and public/institutional land use
classification fell short of projections. No development was anticipated in either year for multifamily,
office or industrial/warehouse.




P a g e | 46
Development Impact Fee Biennial Audit
Final Report
May 28, 2025



Table 10-8
Ahwatukee Projected versus Actual Development FY 2023 & FY 2024
Single Family Multifamily Com/Ret Office Ind/WH Pub/Inst
Year (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs) (EDUs)
Actual 2023 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Projected 2023 (1) 141.40 25.30 6.00 7.70 0.00 0.00
Difference (138.40) (25.30) (6.00) (7.70) 0.00 0.00
Actual 2024 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Projected 2024 (1) 141.40 25.30 6.00 7.70 0.00 0.00
Difference (140.40) (25.30) (6.00) (7.70) 0.00 0.00
(1) Projections are the average annual over the 10-year study period, rather than specific development by year
As indicated in Table 10-8, all developments fell short of projections in 2023 and 2024. The exception Is
industrial/warehouse and public/institutional which did not anticipate any development.

Development of forward-looking financial plans, DIF studies rely on the best available forecast at a point
in time. Actual conditions often vary from projections. Tables 10-2 through 10-8 represent a “snapshot”
in time for the 10-year study period. Over time new studies are undertaken as circumstances change and
new information becomes available. It should also be noted that projections in the report were made for
a 10-year period in aggregate and not for individual years within the study period. As such, development
in aggregate should be considered the focus rather than fluctuations from year to year.

10.3. Infrastructure Improvement Plan

The Plan identified the following capital projects by zone:

Northern

 New sewers
 WWTP expansion
 New force mains
 New lift stations

Deer Valley

 WWTP expansion

Estrella North

 WWTP expansion

Estrella South

 New sewers
 WWTP expansion
 New force mains
 New lift stations


P a g e | 47
Development Impact Fee Biennial Audit
Final Report
May 28, 2025



Laveen West

 New sewers
 WWTP expansion
 New force mains
 New lift stations

Laveen East

 WWTP expansion

Ahwatukee

 WWTP expansion

Northern Zone

During FY 2023 and FY 2024 the City generated $7,727,123 in wastewater DIF and DIF related revenues.
During the same period the City expended $8,569,718 on capital and expended $2,224,130 on advance
repayments and debt service resulting in expenditures exceeding revenues during the two-year period.
Appendix J provides a summary of the revenues and expenditures for the wastewater DIF funds. The
financials are summarized in Table 10-9.

Table 10-9
Northern Wastewater DIF Revenues and Expenditures FY 2023 & FY 2024
Revenues Expenditures
Advance
Fiscal DIF Interest Repayments
Year Collections Income CIP & Debt
2023 $1,679,114 $299,228 $714,941 $0
2024 5,229,681 519,100 7,854,777 2,224,130
Total $6,908,795 $818,328 $8,569,718 $2,224,130
It should be noted that in some cases collection of DIF revenues do not have an exact matching between
the year in which the revenues are recorded and the development occurs.

Deer Valley Zone

During FY 2023 and FY 2024 the City generated $543,841 in wastewater DIF revenues as well as an
additional $32,369 in interest income for total revenues of $576,210. During the same period the City did
not expend any funds on capital, but did expend $518,861 in advance repayments and debt service
resulting in revenues exceeding expenditures during the two-year period. Appendix J provides a summary
of the revenues and expenditures for the wastewater DIF funds. The financials are summarized in Table
10-10.




P a g e | 48
Development Impact Fee Biennial Audit
Final Report
May 28, 2025



Table 10-10
Deer Valley Wastewater DIF Revenues and Expenditures FY 2023 & FY 2024
Revenues Expenditures
Advance
Fiscal DIF Interest Repayments
Year Collections Income CIP & Debt
2023 $198,841 $10,431 $0 $0
2024 345,000 21,938 0 518,861
Total $543,841 $32,369 $0 $518,861
It should be noted that in some cases collection of DIF revenues do not have an exact matching between
the year in which the revenues are recorded and the development occurs.

Estrella North Zone

During FY 2023 and FY 2024 the City generated $154,410 in wastewater DIF revenues as well as an
additional $17,078 in interest income for total revenues of $171,488. During the same period the City did
not expend any funds on capital but did expend $304,800 in advance repayments and debt service
resulting in revenues exceeding expenditures during the two-year period. Appendix J provides a summary
of the revenues and expenditures for the wastewater DIF funds. The financials are summarized in Table
10-11.

Table 10-11
Estrella North Wastewater DIF Revenues and Expenditures FY 2023 & FY 2024
Revenues Expenditures
Advance
Fiscal DIF Interest Repayments
Year Collections Income CIP & Debt
2023 $34,480 $6,291 $0 $0
2024 115,930 10,787 0 304,800
Total $154,410 $17,078 $0 $304,800
It should be noted that in some cases collection of DIF revenues do not have an exact matching between
the year in which the revenues are recorded and the development occurs.

Estrella South Zone

During FY 2023 and FY 2024 the City generated $3,174,117 in wastewater DIF revenues as well as an
additional $493,222 in interest income for total revenues of $3,667,339. During the same period the City
expended $5,959,799 on capital resulting in expenditures exceeding revenues during the two-year period.
Appendix J provides a summary of the revenues and expenditures for the wastewater DIF funds. The
financials are summarized in Table 10-12.




P a g e | 49
Development Impact Fee Biennial Audit
Final Report
May 28, 2025



Table 10-12
Estrella South Wastewater DIF Revenues and Expenditures FY 2023 & FY 2024
Revenues Expenditures
Advance
Fiscal DIF Interest Repayments
Year Collections Income CIP & Debt
2023 $1,184,780 $212,671 $4,349,792 $0
2024 1,989,337 280,551 1,610,007 0
Total $3,174,117 $493,222 $5,959,799 $0
It should be noted that in some cases collection of DIF revenues do not have an exact matching between
the year in which the revenues are recorded and the development occurs.

Laveen West Zone

During FY 2023 and FY 2024 the City generated $7,205,003 in wastewater DIF revenues as well as an
additional $471,569 in interest income for total revenues of $7,676,572. During the same period the City
expended $15,861 on capital and expended $3,529,122 in advance repayments and debt service resulting
in revenues exceeding expenditures during the two-year period. Appendix J provides a summary of the
revenues and expenditures for the wastewater DIF funds. The financials are summarized in Table 10-13.

Table 10-13
Laveen West Wastewater DIF Revenues and Expenditures FY 2023 & FY 2024
Revenues Expenditures
Advance
Fiscal DIF Interest Repayments
Year Collections Income CIP & Debt
2023 $3,436,127 $132,396 ($722,193) $0
2024 3,768,876 339,173 15,861 3,529,122
Total $7,205,003 $471,569 ($706,322) $3,529,122
The negative capital expenditure in FY 2024 represents cancelled encumbrances. It should be noted that
in some cases collection of DIF revenues do not have an exact matching between the year in which the
revenues are recorded and the development occurs.

Laveen East Zone

During FY 2023 and FY 2024 the City generated $750,921 in wastewater DIF revenues as well as an
additional $48,715 in interest income for total revenues of $799,636. During the same period the City did
not expend any funds on capital and expended $856,253 in advance repayments and debt service
resulting in revenues exceeding expenditures during the two-year period. Appendix J provides a summary
of the revenues and expenditures for the wastewater DIF funds. The financials are summarized in Table
10-14.




P a g e | 50
Development Impact Fee Biennial Audit
Final Report
May 28, 2025



Table 10-14
Laveen East Wastewater DIF Revenues and Expenditures FY 2023 & FY 2024
Revenues Expenditures
Advance
Fiscal DIF Interest Repayments
Year Collections Income CIP & Debt
2023 $419,520 $14,526 $0 $0
2024 331,401 34,189 0 856,253
Total $750,921 $48,715 $0 $856,253
It should be noted that in some cases collection of DIF revenues do not have an exact matching between
the year in which the revenues are recorded and the development occurs.

Ahwatukee Zone

During FY 2023 and FY 2024 the City generated $10,369 in wastewater DIF revenues as well as an
additional $5,252 in interest income for total revenues of $15,621. During the same period the City did
not expend any funds on capital and expended $98,333 in advance repayments and debt service resulting
in expenditures exceeding revenues during the two-year period. Appendix J provides a summary of the
revenues and expenditures for the wastewater DIF funds. The financials are summarized in Table 10-15.

Table 10-15
Ahwatukee Wastewater DIF Revenues and Expenditures FY 2023 & FY 2024
Revenues Expenditures
Advance
Fiscal DIF Interest Repayments
Year Collections Income CIP & Debt
2023 $4,140 $2,123 $0 $0
2024 6,229 3,129 0 98,333
Total $10,369 $5,252 $0 $98,333
It should be noted that in some cases collection of DIF revenues do not have an exact matching between
the year in which the revenues are recorded and the development occurs.

10.4. Level of Service

Level of service projections are intended to ensure that new development is assessed for facilities or
capital needs at the existing level of service (LOS), not at an increased overall level of service, unless a
corresponding funding source from existing development is also provided. In each of the seven zones
expenditures fell short of the annual average expenditures identified in the Plan. During the study period,
the actual LOS will fluctuate as compared to that identified in the Plan based on the timing of construction
or acquisition of new facilities relative to new development. As of the end of FY 2024, due to new
development outpacing acquisition and construction of new facilities, the LOS for wastewater for all zones
are below that in the Plan (the growth-related needs for identified wastewater infrastructure were not
met). However, the LOS should be monitored over the entire study period compared to the level
identified in the Plan over the remaining study period as the full IIP and LUA projections are realized.




P a g e | 51
Development Impact Fee Biennial Audit
Final Report
May 28, 2025



10.5. Audit Results

Through our audit of the wastewater DIFs we identified some differences between what was projected in
the Plan and actual occurrences, such as differences in the projected and actual developments. These
differences are the results of projections being made based on the available data at the time. Our review
of the current development environment is consistent with the regulations set forth in ARS§ 9-463.05.
The LUA, IIP and LOS should continue to be monitored over the 10-year study period on which the Plan
was based.

Based on Willdan’s review of the wastewater DIF, we are of the opinion that:

c) City’s Biennial DIFs for wastewater in FY 2023 and FY 2024 comply with ARS§ 9-463.05;
d) With respect to ARS§ 9-463.05 compliance:
i. Willdan’s review of the progress of the LUA, identified differences between projected and
actual development, but anticipates development over the current 10-year study period
will not significantly vary from projections;
ii. Willdan’s review of the progress of the IIP identified the projects for which funds were
expended were included in the adopted IIP; and
iii. Willdan’s review of collections and expenditures of development impact fees indicate
that all expenditures made with DIF funds were on projects as identified in the Plan.




P a g e | 52
Development Impact Fee Biennial Audit
Final Report
May 28, 2025



Section 11 - Permit Sampling

11.1. Sampling Results

As part of the audit process Willdan took a random sample of residential and non-residential permits
that were issued between FY 2023 and FY 2024 (approximately 60 residential and 60 non-residential
permits by zone for each year). The purpose of the sampling was to identify any instances where the fee
that was assessed to the development varied from the fee that should have been assessed based on
number of dwelling units, square footage of development or meter size. We did not find any
discrepancies and did not identify any developments that were assessed incorrect DIFs. The full sample
data is shown in Appendix K.




P a g e | 53
Development Impact Fee Biennial Audit
Final Report
May 28, 2025



Section 12 - Conclusions

12.1. Land Use Assumptions

Willdan conducted an audit of City’s actual development projections for FY 2023 and FY 2024 and
compared the actual new development with the development projections in the Plan. While there were
variances between what had been originally projected and what actually occurred, the original
projections were based on the best available data at the time of the Plan. We believe that the actual
developments for FY 2023 and FY 2024 are still consistent with the overall development projections for
the 10-year study period.

12.2. Infrastructure Improvement Plan

We reviewed the projects that were anticipated to be completed in FY 2023 and FY 2024 timeframe of
the study period (per the Plan). As was the case with the LUA, the IIP was developed based on the best
available information at the time of the analysis, and the actual expenditures differed from what was
projected. However, the differences that did occur were related to the timing of projects that were
originally anticipated rather than the addition of new projects. We therefore conclude that the
expenditures were consistent with the overall capital needs objectives identified in the IIP.

12.3. Level of Service

The level of service for a given fee area is in flux over time and will change as new projects are
incorporated into City’s existing facilities and networks or as development within City changes. There
are cases where it is not possible to exactly match the existing level of service with the required level of
service based on new development. For example, the new development over FY 2023 and FY 2024 may
require the construction of 1/5 of a fire station. Building a fraction of a fire station is not feasible or
realistic, but not building the fraction of a fire station would technically result in a lowering of the overall
level of service. The City intends to meet the level of service goals by the end of the 10-year study
period.

12.4. Permit Sampling

Our review of the sample permits did not identify any cases where a development was assessed an
incorrect fee based on development type, square footage or meter size.

12.5. Final Conclusion

Based on Willdan’s scope of services performed as part of this Audit as documented in this Report, the
results of this Audit follow.




P a g e | 54
Development Impact Fee Biennial Audit
Final Report
May 28, 2025



a) The City’s Biennial development impact fees for the periods FY 2023 and FY 2024 comply with
ARS§ 9-463.05;
b) With respect to ARS§ 9-463.05 compliance:
i. Willdan’s review of the progress of the LUA, identified minor differences between
projected and actual development, but anticipates the development over the 10-year
study period will not significantly vary from projections as summarized in Table 12-1;
Table 12-1
Land Use Assumptions Summary
Actual Projected Accuracy
Fee Category EDUs EDUs of LUA
Fire & Police 8,907 13,069 68%
Library & Parks 8,471 9,621 88%
Major Arterials 8,692 12,965 67%
Storm Drainage 4,316 5,865 74%
Water 7,656 10,582 72%
Wastewater 7,940 10,518 75%
WRAF 6,201 6,816 91%
ii. Willdan’s review of the progress of the IIP identified projects that were either accelerated
from the projected schedule or delayed based on the projected schedule, but all projects
for which funds were expended were included in the adopted IIP. The capital
expenditures are identified in Table 12-2;
Table 12-2
Actual Capital Expenditures by Fee Area
Capital
Fee Category Expenditures
Fire $7,7856,540
Parks 14,008,017
Storm Drainage 1,244,760
Water 7,818,062
Wastewater 14,529,517
iii. Willdan’s review of collections and expenditures of the development impact fees for each
project in the plan, indicate that all expenditures made with DIF funds were on projects
or debt expenses as identified in the Plan. The DIF revenues (and associated interest) that
were collected by Fee area is summarized in Table 12-3; and




P a g e | 55
Development Impact Fee Biennial Audit
Final Report
May 28, 2025



Table 12-3
Actual DIF Revenue by Fee Area
Fee Category DIF Revenue
Fire $5,981,169
Police 3,722,124
Parks 11,581,432
Library 1,184,462
Major Arterials 28,511,022
Storm Drainage 4,591,005
Water 43,807,286
Wastewater 20,633,989
WRAF 6,700,118
iv. Willdan’s evaluation of any inequities in implementing the plan or imposing the system
development fees indicates that the fees were assessed in an appropriate manner based
upon the size and type of the development.




P a g e | 56
Appendix A
9-463.05. Development fees; imposition by cities and towns; infrastructure improvements plan; annual
report; advisory committee; limitation on actions; definitions

A. A municipality may assess development fees to offset costs to the municipality associated with
providing necessary public services to a development, including the costs of infrastructure,
improvements, real property, engineering and architectural services, financing and professional
services required for the preparation or revision of a development fee pursuant to this section,
including the relevant portion of the infrastructure improvements plan.
B. Development fees assessed by a municipality under this section are subject to the following
requirements:
1. Development fees shall result in a beneficial use to the development.
2. The municipality shall calculate the development fee based on the infrastructure
improvements plan adopted pursuant to this section.
3. The development fee shall not exceed a proportionate share of the cost of
necessary public services, based on service units, needed to provide necessary
public services to the development.
4. Costs for necessary public services made necessary by new development shall be
based on the same level of service provided to existing development in the service
area.
5. Development fees may not be used for any of the following:
(a) Construction, acquisition or expansion of public facilities or assets other than
necessary public services or facility expansions identified in the infrastructure
improvements plan.
(b) Repair, operation or maintenance of existing or new necessary public services
or facility expansions.
(c) Upgrading, updating, expanding, correcting or replacing existing necessary
public services to serve existing development in order to meet stricter safety,
efficiency, environmental or regulatory standards.
(d) Upgrading, updating, expanding, correcting or replacing existing necessary
public services to provide a higher level of service to existing development.
(e) Administrative, maintenance or operating costs of the municipality.
6. Any development for which a development fee has been paid is entitled to the use
and benefit of the services for which the fee was imposed and is entitled to receive
immediate service from any existing facility with available capacity to serve the new
service units if the available capacity has not been reserved or pledged in
connection with the construction or financing of the facility.
7. Development fees may be collected if any of the following occurs:
(a) The collection is made to pay for a necessary public service or facility
expansion that is identified in the infrastructure improvements plan and the
municipality plans to complete construction and to have the service available
within the time period established in the infrastructure improvement plan, but
in no event longer than the time period provided in subsection H, paragraph 3
of this section.
(b) The municipality reserves in the infrastructure improvements plan adopted
pursuant to this section or otherwise agrees to reserve capacity to serve future
development.




ARS 9-463.05 A-1
(c) The municipality requires or agrees to allow the owner of a development to
construct or finance the necessary public service or facility expansion and any of
the following apply:
i. The costs incurred or money advanced are credited against or
reimbursed from the development fees otherwise due from a
development.
ii. The municipality reimburses the owner for those costs from the
development fees paid from all developments that will use those
necessary public services or facility expansions.
iii. For those costs incurred the municipality allows the owner to assign the
credits or reimbursement rights from the development fees otherwise
due from a development to other developments for the same category
of necessary public services in the same service area.
8. Projected interest charges and other finance costs may be included in determining
the amount of development fees only if the monies are used for the payment of
principal and interest on the portion of the bonds, notes or other obligations issued
to finance construction of necessary public services or facility expansions identified
in the infrastructure improvements plan.
9. Monies received from development fees assessed pursuant to this section shall be
placed in a separate fund and accounted for separately and may only be used for
the purposes authorized by this section. Monies received from a development fee
identified in an infrastructure improvements plan adopted or updated pursuant to
subsection D of this section shall be used to provide the same category of necessary
public services or facility expansions for which the development fee was assessed
and for the benefit of the same service area, as defined in the infrastructure
improvements plan, in which the development fee was assessed. Interest earned on
monies in the separate fund shall be credited to the fund.
10. The schedule for payment of fees shall be provided by the municipality. Based on
the cost identified in the infrastructure improvements plan, the municipality shall
provide a credit toward the payment of a development fee for the required or
agreed to dedication of public sites, improvements and other necessary public
services or facility expansions included in the infrastructure improvements plan and
for which a development fee is assessed, to the extent the public sites,
improvements and necessary public services or facility expansions are provided by
the developer. The developer of residential dwelling units shall be required to pay
development fees when construction permits for the dwelling units are issued, or at
a later time if specified in a development agreement pursuant to section 9-500.05.
If a development agreement provides for fees to be paid at a time later than the
issuance of construction permits, the deferred fees shall be paid no later than
fifteen days after the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The development
agreement shall provide for the value of any deferred fees to be supported by
appropriate security, including a surety bond, letter of credit or cash bond.
11. If a municipality requires as a condition of development approval the construction
or improvement of, contributions to or dedication of any facilities that were not
included in a previously adopted infrastructure improvements plan, the
municipality shall cause the infrastructure improvements plan to be amended to
include the facilities and shall provide a credit toward the payment of a




ARS 9-463.05 A-2
development fee for the construction, improvement, contribution or dedication of
the facilities to the extent that the facilities will substitute for or otherwise reduce
the need for other similar facilities in the infrastructure improvements plan for
which development fees were assessed.
12. The municipality shall forecast the contribution to be made in the future in cash or
by taxes, fees, assessments or other sources of revenue derived from the property
owner towards the capital costs of the necessary public service covered by the
development fee and shall include these contributions in determining the extent of
the burden imposed by the development. Beginning August 1, 2014, for purposes of
calculating the required offset to development fees pursuant to this subsection, if a
municipality imposes a construction contracting or similar excise tax rate in excess
of the percentage amount of the transaction privilege tax rate imposed on the
majority of other transaction privilege tax classifications, the entire excess portion
of the construction contracting or similar excise tax shall be treated as a
contribution to the capital costs of necessary public services provided to
development for which development fees are assessed, unless the excess portion
was already taken into account for such purpose pursuant to this subsection.
13. If development fees are assessed by a municipality, the fees shall be assessed
against commercial, residential and industrial development, except that the
municipality may distinguish between different categories of residential,
commercial and industrial development in assessing the costs to the municipality of
providing necessary public services to new development and in determining the
amount of the development fee applicable to the category of development. If a
municipality agrees to waive any of the development fees assessed on a
development, the municipality shall reimburse the appropriate development fee
accounts for the amount that was waived. The municipality shall provide notice of
any such waiver to the advisory committee established pursuant to subsection G of
this section within thirty days.
14. In determining and assessing a development fee applying to land in a community
facilities district established under title 48, chapter 4, article 6, the municipality shall
take into account all public infrastructure provided by the district and capital costs
paid by the district for necessary public services and shall not assess a portion of the
development fee based on the infrastructure or costs.

C. A municipality shall give at least thirty days' advance notice of intention to assess a
development fee and shall release to the public and post on its website or the website of an
association of cities and towns if a municipality does not have a website a written report of the
land use assumptions and infrastructure improvements plan adopted pursuant to subsection D
of this section. The municipality shall conduct a public hearing on the proposed development
fee at any time after the expiration of the thirty day notice of intention to assess a development
fee and at least thirty days before the scheduled date of adoption of the fee by the governing
body. Within sixty days after the date of the public hearing on the proposed development fee, a
municipality shall approve or disapprove the imposition of the development fee. A municipality
shall not adopt an ordinance, order or resolution approving a development fee as an emergency
measure. A development fee assessed pursuant to this section shall not be effective until
seventy-five days after its formal adoption by the governing body of the municipality. Nothing in
this subsection shall affect any development fee adopted before July 24, 1982.




ARS 9-463.05 A-3
D. Before the adoption or amendment of a development fee, the governing body of the
municipality shall adopt or update the land use assumptions and infrastructure improvements
plan for the designated service area. The municipality shall conduct a public hearing on the land
use assumptions and infrastructure improvements plan at least thirty days before the adoption
or update of the plan. The municipality shall release the plan to the public, post the plan on its
website or the website of an association of cities and towns if the municipality does not have a
website, including in the posting its land use assumptions, the time period of the projections, a
description of the necessary public services included in the infrastructure improvements plan
and a map of the service area to which the land use assumptions apply, make available to the
public the documents used to prepare the assumptions and plan and provide public notice at
least sixty days before the public hearing, subject to the following:
1. The land use assumptions and infrastructure improvements plan shall be approved
or disapproved within sixty days after the public hearing on the land use
assumptions and infrastructure improvements plan and at least thirty days before
the public hearing on the report required by subsection C of this section. A
municipality shall not adopt an ordinance, order or resolution approving the land
use assumptions or infrastructure improvements plan as an emergency measure.
2. An infrastructure improvements plan shall be developed by qualified professionals
using generally accepted engineering and planning practices pursuant to subsection
E of this section.
3. A municipality shall update the land use assumptions and infrastructure
improvements plan at least every five years. The initial five year period begins on
the day the infrastructure improvements plan is adopted. The municipality shall
review and evaluate its current land use assumptions and shall cause an update of
the infrastructure improvements plan to be prepared pursuant to this section.
4. Within sixty days after completion of the updated land use assumptions and
infrastructure improvements plan, the municipality shall schedule and provide
notice of a public hearing to discuss and review the update and shall determine
whether to amend the assumptions and plan.
5. A municipality shall hold a public hearing to discuss the proposed amendments to
the land use assumptions, the infrastructure improvements plan or the
development fee. The land use assumptions and the infrastructure improvements
plan, including the amount of any proposed changes to the development fee per
service unit, shall be made available to the public on or before the date of the first
publication of the notice of the hearing on the amendments.
6. The notice and hearing procedures prescribed in paragraph 1 of this subsection
apply to a hearing on the amendment of land use assumptions, an infrastructure
improvements plan or a development fee. Within sixty days after the date of the
public hearing on the amendments, a municipality shall approve or disapprove the
amendments to the land use assumptions, infrastructure improvements plan or
development fee. A municipality shall not adopt an ordinance, order or resolution
approving the amended land use assumptions, infrastructure improvements plan or
development fee as an emergency measure.
7. The advisory committee established under subsection G of this section shall file its
written comments on any proposed or updated land use assumptions,
infrastructure improvements plan and development fees before the fifth business




ARS 9-463.05 A-4
day before the date of the public hearing on the proposed or updated assumptions,
plan and fees.
8. If, at the time an update as prescribed in paragraph 3 of this subsection is required,
the municipality determines that no changes to the land use assumptions,
infrastructure improvements plan or development fees are needed, the
municipality may as an alternative to the updating requirements of this subsection
publish notice of its determination on its website and include the following:
(a) A statement that the municipality has determined that no change to the land
use assumptions, infrastructure improvements plan or development fee is
necessary.
(b) A description and map of the service area in which an update has been
determined to be unnecessary.
(c) A statement that by a specified date, which shall be at least sixty days after the
date of publication of the first notice, a person may make a written request to
the municipality requesting that the land use assumptions, infrastructure
improvements plan or development fee be updated.
(d) A statement identifying the person or entity to whom the written request for
an update should be sent.
9. If, by the date specified pursuant to paragraph 8 of this subsection, a person
requests in writing that the land use assumptions, infrastructure improvements
plan or development fee be updated, the municipality shall cause, accept or reject
an update of the assumptions and plan to be prepared pursuant to this subsection.
10. Notwithstanding the notice and hearing requirements for adoption of an
infrastructure improvements plan, a municipality may amend an infrastructure
improvements plan adopted pursuant to this section without a public hearing if the
amendment addresses only elements of necessary public services in the existing
infrastructure improvements plan and the changes to the plan will not, individually
or cumulatively with other amendments adopted pursuant to this subsection,
increase the level of service in the service area or cause a development fee increase
of greater than five per cent when a new or modified development fee is assessed
pursuant to this section. The municipality shall provide notice of any such
amendment at least thirty days before adoption, shall post the amendment on its
website or on the website of an association of cities and towns if the municipality
does not have a website and shall provide notice to the advisory committee
established pursuant to subsection G of this section that the amendment complies
with this subsection.

E. For each necessary public service that is the subject of a development fee, the infrastructure
improvements plan shall include:
1. A description of the existing necessary public services in the service area and the
costs to upgrade, update, improve, expand, correct or replace those necessary
public services to meet existing needs and usage and stricter safety, efficiency,
environmental or regulatory standards, which shall be prepared by qualified
professionals licensed in this state, as applicable.
2. An analysis of the total capacity, the level of current usage and commitments for
usage of capacity of the existing necessary public services, which shall be prepared
by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable.




ARS 9-463.05 A-5
3. A description of all or the parts of the necessary public services or facility
expansions and their costs necessitated by and attributable to development in the
service area based on the approved land use assumptions, including a forecast of
the costs of infrastructure, improvements, real property, financing, engineering and
architectural services, which shall be prepared by qualified professionals licensed in
this state, as applicable.
4. A table establishing the specific level or quantity of use, consumption, generation or
discharge of a service unit for each category of necessary public services or facility
expansions and an equivalency or conversion table establishing the ratio of a
service unit to various types of land uses, including residential, commercial and
industrial.
5. The total number of projected service units necessitated by and attributable to new
development in the service area based on the approved land use assumptions and
calculated pursuant to generally accepted engineering and planning criteria.
6. The projected demand for necessary public services or facility expansions required
by new service units for a period not to exceed ten years.
7. A forecast of revenues generated by new service units other than development
fees, which shall include estimated state-shared revenue, highway users revenue,
federal revenue, ad valorem property taxes, construction contracting or similar
excise taxes and the capital recovery portion of utility fees attributable to
development based on the approved land use assumptions, and a plan to include
these contributions in determining the extent of the burden imposed by the
development as required in subsection B, paragraph 12 of this section.

F. 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. If the number of service units increases, the
new or increased portion of a modified development fee shall be limited to the amount
attributable to the additional service units. The twenty-four month period shall not be extended
by a renewal or amendment of the site plan or the final subdivision plat that was the subject of
the final approval. The municipality shall issue, on request, a written statement of the
development fee schedule applicable to the development. If, after the date of the municipality's
final approval of a development, the municipality reduces the development fee assessed on
development, the reduced fee shall apply to the development.

G. A municipality shall do one of the following:
1. Before the adoption of proposed or updated land use assumptions, infrastructure
improvements plan and development fees as prescribed in subsection D of this
section, the municipality shall appoint an infrastructure improvements advisory
committee, subject to the following requirements:
(a) The advisory committee shall be composed of at least five members who are
appointed by the governing body of the municipality. At least fifty per cent of
the members of the advisory committee must be representatives of the real




ARS 9-463.05 A-6
estate, development or building industries, of which at least one member of the
committee must be from the home building industry. Members shall not be
employees or officials of the municipality.
(b) The advisory committee shall serve in an advisory capacity and shall:
i. Advise the municipality in adopting land use assumptions and in
determining whether the assumptions are in conformance with the
general plan of the municipality.
ii. Review the infrastructure improvements plan and file written
comments.
iii. Monitor and evaluate implementation of the infrastructure
improvements plan.
iv. Every year file reports with respect to the progress of the infrastructure
improvements plan and the collection and expenditures of
development fees and report to the municipality any perceived
inequities in implementing the plan or imposing the development fee.
v. Advise the municipality of the need to update or revise the land use
assumptions, infrastructure improvements plan and development fee.
(c) The municipality shall make available to the advisory committee any
professional reports with respect to developing and implementing the
infrastructure improvements plan.
(d) The municipality shall adopt procedural rules for the advisory committee to
follow in carrying out the committee’s duties.
2. 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.

H. On written request, an owner of real property for which a development fee has been paid after
July 31, 2014 is entitled to a refund of a development fee or any part of a development fee if:
1. Pursuant to subsection B, paragraph 6 of this section, existing facilities are available
and service is not provided.
2. The municipality has, after collecting the fee to construct a facility when service is
not available, failed to complete construction within the time period identified in
the infrastructure improvements plan, but in no event later than the time period
specified in paragraph 3 of this subsection.
3. For a development fee other than a development fee for water or wastewater
facilities, any part of the development fee is not spent as authorized by this section
within ten years after the fee has been paid or, for a development fee for water or




ARS 9-463.05 A-7
wastewater facilities, any part of the development fee is not spent as authorized by
this section within fifteen years after the fee has been paid.

I. If the development fee was collected for the construction of all or a portion of a specific item of
infrastructure, and on completion of the infrastructure the municipality determines that the
actual cost of construction was less than the forecasted cost of construction on which the
development fee was based and the difference between the actual and estimated cost is
greater than ten per cent, the current owner may receive a refund of the portion of the
development fee equal to the difference between the development fee paid and the
development fee that would have been due if the development fee had been calculated at the
actual construction cost.

J. A refund shall include any interest earned by the municipality from the date of collection to the
date of refund on the amount of the refunded fee. All refunds shall be made to the record
owner of the property at the time the refund is paid. If the development fee is paid by a
governmental entity, the refund shall be paid to the governmental entity.

K. A development fee that was adopted before January 1, 2012 may continue to be assessed only
to the extent that it will be used to provide a necessary public service for which development
fees can be assessed pursuant to this section and shall be replaced by a development fee
imposed under this section on or before August 1, 2014. Any municipality having a development
fee that has not been replaced under this section on or before August 1, 2014 shall not collect
development fees until the development fee has been replaced with a fee that complies with
this section. Any development fee monies collected before January 1, 2012 remaining in a
development fee account:
1. Shall be used towards the same category of necessary public services as authorized
by this section.
2. If development fees were collected for a purpose not authorized by this section,
shall be used for the purpose for which they were collected on or before January 1,
2020, and after which, if not spent, shall be distributed equally among the
categories of necessary public services authorized by this section.

L. A moratorium shall not be placed on development for the sole purpose of awaiting completion
of all or any part of the process necessary to develop, adopt or update development fees.

M. In any judicial action interpreting this section, all powers conferred on municipal governments
in this section shall be narrowly construed to ensure that development fees are not used to
impose on new residents a burden all taxpayers of a municipality should bear equally.

N. Each municipality that assesses development fees shall submit an annual report accounting for
the collection and use of the fees for each service area. The annual report shall include the
following:
1. The amount assessed by the municipality for each type of development fee.
2. The balance of each fund maintained for each type of development fee assessed as
of the beginning and end of the fiscal year.
3. The amount of interest or other earnings on the monies in each fund as of the end
of the fiscal year.




ARS 9-463.05 A-8
4. The amount of development fee monies used to repay:
(a) Bonds issued by the municipality to pay the cost of a capital improvement
project that is the subject of a development fee assessment, including the
amount needed to repay the debt service obligations on each facility for which
development fees have been identified as the source of funding and the time
frames in which the debt service will be repaid.
(b) Monies advanced by the municipality from funds other than the funds
established for development fees in order to pay the cost of a capital
improvement project that is the subject of a development fee assessment, the
total amount advanced by the municipality for each facility, the source of the
monies advanced and the terms under which the monies will be repaid to the
municipality.
5. The amount of development fee monies spent on each capital improvement project
that is the subject of a development fee assessment and the physical location of
each capital improvement project.
6. The amount of development fee monies spent for each purpose other than a capital
improvement project that is the subject of a development fee assessment.

O. Within ninety days following the end of each fiscal year, each municipality shall submit a copy of
the annual report to the city clerk and post the report on the municipality's website or the
website of an association of cities and towns if the municipality does not have a website. Copies
shall be made available to the public on request. The annual report may contain financial
information that has not been audited.

P. A municipality that fails to file the report and post the report on the municipality's website or
the website of an association of cities and towns if the municipality does not have a website as
required by this section shall not collect development fees until the report is filed and posted.

Q. Any action to collect a development fee shall be commenced within two years after the
obligation to pay the fee accrues.

R. A municipality may continue to assess a development fee adopted before January 1, 2012 for
any facility that was financed before June 1, 2011 if:
1. Development fees were pledged to repay debt service obligations related to the
construction of the facility.
2. After August 1, 2014, any development fees collected under this subsection are
used solely for the payment of principal and interest on the portion of the bonds,
notes or other debt service obligations issued before June 1, 2011 to finance
construction of the facility.
S. Through August 1, 2014, a development fee adopted before January 1, 2012 may be used to
finance construction of a facility and may be pledged to repay debt service obligations if:
1. The facility that is being financed is a facility that is described under subsection T,
paragraph 7, subdivisions (a) through (g) of this section.
2. The facility was included in an infrastructure improvements plan adopted before
June 1, 2011.
3. The development fees are used for the payment of principal and interest on the
portion of the bonds, notes or other debt service obligations issued to finance




ARS 9-463.05 A-9
construction of the necessary public services or facility expansions identified in the
infrastructure improvement plan.

T. For the purposes of this section:
1. "Dedication" means the actual conveyance date or the date an improvement,
facility or real or personal property is placed into service, whichever occurs first.
2. "Development" means:
(a) The subdivision of land.
(b) The construction, reconstruction, conversion, structural alteration, relocation
or enlargement of any structure that adds or increases the number of service
units.
(c) Any use or extension of the use of land that increases the number of service
units.
3. "Facility expansion" means the expansion of the capacity of an existing facility that
serves the same function as an otherwise new necessary public service in order that
the existing facility may serve new development. Facility expansion does not include
the repair, maintenance, modernization or expansion of an existing facility to better
serve existing development.
4. "Final approval" means:
(a) For a nonresidential or multifamily development, the approval of a site plan or,
if no site plan is submitted for the development, the approval of a final
subdivision plat.
(b) For a single family residential development, the approval of a final subdivision
plat.
5. "Infrastructure improvements plan" means a written plan that identifies each
necessary public service or facility expansion that is proposed to be the subject of a
development fee and otherwise complies with the requirements of this section, and
may be the municipality's capital improvements plan.
6. "Land use assumptions" means projections of changes in land uses, densities,
intensities and population for a specified service area over a period of at least ten
years and pursuant to the general plan of the municipality.
7. "Necessary public service" means any of the following facilities that have a life
expectancy of three or more years and that are owned and operated by or on
behalf of the municipality:
(a) Water facilities, including the supply, transportation, treatment, purification
and distribution of water, and any appurtenances for those facilities.
(b) Wastewater facilities, including collection, interception, transportation,
treatment and disposal of wastewater, and any appurtenances for those
facilities.
(c) Storm water, drainage and flood control facilities, including any appurtenances
for those facilities.
(d) Library facilities of up to ten thousand square feet that provide a direct benefit
to development, not including equipment, vehicles or appurtenances.
(e) Street facilities located in the service area, including arterial or collector streets
or roads that have been designated on an officially adopted plan of the
municipality, traffic signals and rights-of-way and improvements thereon.




ARS 9-463.05 A-10
(f) Fire and police facilities, including all appurtenances, equipment and vehicles.
Fire and police facilities do not include a facility or portion of a facility that is
used to replace services that were once provided elsewhere in the municipality,
vehicles and equipment used to provide administrative services, helicopters or
airplanes or a facility that is used for training firefighters or officers from more
than one station or substation.
(g) Neighborhood parks and recreational facilities on real property up to thirty
acres in area, or parks and recreational facilities larger than thirty acres if the
facilities provide a direct benefit to the development. Park and recreational
facilities do not include vehicles, equipment or that portion of any facility that is
used for amusement parks, aquariums, aquatic centers, auditoriums, arenas,
arts and cultural facilities, bandstand and orchestra facilities, bathhouses,
boathouses, clubhouses, community centers greater than three thousand
square feet in floor area, environmental education centers, equestrian facilities,
golf course facilities, greenhouses, lakes, museums, theme parks, water
reclamation or riparian areas, wetlands, zoo facilities or similar recreational
facilities, but may include swimming pools.
(h) Any facility that was financed and that meets all of the requirements
prescribed in subsection R of this section.
8. "Qualified professional" means a professional engineer, surveyor, financial analyst
or planner providing services within the scope of the person's license, education or
experience.
9. "Service area" means any specified area within the boundaries of a municipality in
which development will be served by necessary public services or facility expansions
and within which a substantial nexus exists between the necessary public services
or facility expansions and the development being served as prescribed in the
infrastructure improvements plan.
10. "Service unit" means a standardized measure of consumption, use, generation or
discharge attributable to an individual unit of development calculated pursuant to
generally accepted engineering or planning standards for a particular category of
necessary public services or facility expansions.




ARS 9-463.05 A-11
Appendix B
Fire - Northwest
FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Total
Revenues
Impact Fees $890,721 $1,233,840 $2,124,561
Interest Income 43,161 107,863 151,024
Total Revenues 933,882 1,341,703 2,275,585

Expenditures
Capital Outlay 0 0 0
Advance Repayments & Debt Service 0 0 0
Total Expenditures 0 0 0


Fire - Northwest Projected in IFP
Development (EDUs) FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Total FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24
Single Family Residential 312.00 417.00 729.00 688.30 688.30
Multifamily Residential 155.00 1,799.75 1,954.75 144.80 144.80
Commercial/Retail 2.32 29.13 31.45 164.40 164.40
Office 0.00 0.00 0.00 67.50 67.50
Industrial/Warehouse 0.00 5.50 5.50 22.20 22.20
Public/Institutional 0.00 0.00 0.00 88.10 88.10




Expenditure Detail (1)
Fire Stations 0 0 0 475,162 475,162
Fire Station Land 0 0 0 54,243 54,243
Fire Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 172,717 172,717
Record Management System 0 0 0 25,857 25,857
Total 0 0 0 727,980 727,980

(1) Represents IIP identified costs for 2020 through 2029




Fire B-1
Fire - Northwest
FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Total
Revenues
Impact Fees $890,721 $1,233,840 $2,124,561
Interest Income 43,161 107,863 151,024
Total Revenues 933,882 1,341,703 2,275,585

Expenditures
Capital Outlay 0 0 0
Advance Repayments & Debt Service 0 0 0
Total Expenditures 0 0 0


Fire - Northwest Projected in IFP
Development (EDUs) FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Total FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24
Single Family Residential 312.00 417.00 729.00 688.30 688.30
Multifamily Residential 155.00 1,799.75 1,954.75 144.80 144.80
Commercial/Retail 2.32 29.13 31.45 164.40 164.40
Office 0.00 0.00 0.00 67.50 67.50
Industrial/Warehouse 0.00 5.50 5.50 22.20 22.20
Public/Institutional 0.00 0.00 0.00 88.10 88.10




Expenditure Detail (1)
Fire Stations 0 0 0 475,162 475,162
Fire Station Land 0 0 0 54,243 54,243
Fire Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 172,717 172,717
Record Management System 0 0 0 25,857 25,857
Total 0 0 0 727,980 727,980

(1) Represents IIP identified costs for 2020 through 2029




Fire B-2
Fire - Southwest
FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Total
Revenues
Impact Fees $1,020,037 $1,230,912 $2,250,949
Interest Income 159,802 238,870 398,672
Total Revenues 1,179,839 1,469,782 2,649,621

Expenditures
Capital Outlay 6,729,514 148,404 6,877,918
Advance Repayments & Debt Service 0 0 0
Total Expenditures 6,729,514 148,404 6,877,918


Fire - Southwest Projected in IFP
Development (EDUs) FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Total FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24
Single Family Residential 1,489.00 1,863.00 3,352.00 1,580.50 1,580.50
Multifamily Residential 374.00 301.00 675.00 462.20 462.20
Commercial/Retail 33.44 67.33 100.77 290.80 290.80
Office 0.00 9.57 9.57 167.70 167.70
Industrial/Warehouse 0.00 469.24 469.24 367.30 367.30
Public/Institutional 0.00 29.14 29.14 369.30 369.30




Expenditure Detail (1)
Fire Station 62 6,729,514 148,404 6,877,918 1,309,011 1,309,011
Fire Station Land 0 0 0 55,607 55,607
Fire Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 475,814 475,814
Record Management System 0 0 0 71,222 71,222
Total 6,729,514 148,404 6,877,918 1,911,654 1,911,654

(1) Represents IIP identified costs for 2020 through 2029




Fire B-3
Fire - Ahwatukee
FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Total
Revenues
Impact Fees $16,639 $4,106 $20,745
Interest Income 19,319 18,025 37,344
Total Revenues 35,958 22,131 58,089

Expenditures
Capital Outlay 92,622 816,000 908,622
Advance Repayments & Debt Service 0 0 0
Total Expenditures 92,622 816,000 908,622


Fire - Ahwatukee Projected in IFP
Development (EDUs) FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Total FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24
Single Family Residential 3.00 1.00 4.00 141.40 141.40
Multifamily Residential 83.00 0.00 83.00 38.70 38.70
Commercial/Retail 0.00 1.59 1.59 11.40 11.40
Office 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.20 18.20
Industrial/Warehouse 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Public/Institutional 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00




Expenditure Detail (1)
Fire Station 74 92,622 816,000 908,622 84,780 84,780
Fire Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 30,817 30,817
Record Management System 0 0 0 4,613 4,613
Total 92,622 816,000 908,622 120,210 120,210

(1) Represents IIP identified costs for 2020 through 2029




Fire B-4
Appendix C
Police - Northwest
FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Total
Revenues
Impact Fees $478,816 $613,495 $1,092,311
Interest Income 55,506 109,276 164,782
Total Revenues 534,322 722,771 1,257,093

Expenditures
Capital Outlay 0 0 0
Advance Repayments & Debt Service 0 0 0
Total Expenditures 0 0 0


Police - Northwest Projected in IFP
Development (EDUs) FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Total FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24
Single Family Residential 312.00 417.00 729.00 688.30 688.30
Multifamily Residential 155.00 1,799.75 1,954.75 144.80 144.80
Commercial/Retail 2.32 29.13 31.45 164.40 164.40
Office 0.00 0.00 0.00 67.50 67.50
Industrial/Warehouse 0.00 5.50 5.50 22.20 22.20
Public/Institutional 0.00 0.00 0.00 88.10 88.10




Expenditure Detail (1)
Police Precincts 0 0 0 146,371 146,371
Police Station Land 0 0 0 35,520 35,520
Police Vehicles 0 0 0 155,258 155,258
Police Radios 0 0 0 23,008 23,008
Record Management System 0 0 0 37,610 37,610
Total 0 0 0 397,766 397,766

(1) Represents IIP identified costs for 2020 through 2029




Police C-1
Police - Northeast
FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Total
Revenues
Impact Fees $127,713 $307,745 $435,458
Interest Income 64,542 115,726 180,268
Total Revenues 192,255 423,471 615,726

Expenditures
Capital Outlay 0 0 0
Advance Repayments & Debt Service 0 0 0
Total Expenditures 0 0 0


Police - Northeast Projected in IFP
Development (EDUs) FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Total FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24
Single Family Residential 213.00 271.00 484.00 1,133.90 1,133.90
Multifamily Residential 192.50 432.00 624.50 471.80 471.80
Commercial/Retail 6.88 74.82 81.70 97.60 97.60
Office 0.00 265.53 265.53 55.00 55.00
Industrial/Warehouse 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Public/Institutional 0.00 6.08 6.08 153.40 153.40




Expenditure Detail (1)
Police Precincts 0 0 0 237,853 237,853
Police Station Land 0 0 0 101,400 101,400
Police Vehicles 0 0 0 248,413 248,413
Police Radios 0 0 0 37,649 37,649
Record Management System 0 0 0 61,174 61,174
Total 0 0 0 686,489 686,489

(1) Represents IIP identified costs for 2020 through 2029




Police C-2
Police - Southwest
FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Total
Revenues
Impact Fees $625,007 $809,839 $1,434,846
Interest Income 131,568 245,226 376,794
Total Revenues 756,575 1,055,065 1,811,640

Expenditures
Capital Outlay 0 0 0
Advance Repayments & Debt Service 0 0 0
Total Expenditures 0 0 0


Police - Southwest Projected in IFP
Development (EDUs) FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Total FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24
Single Family Residential 1,489.00 1,863.00 3,352.00 1,580.50 1,580.50
Multifamily Residential 374.00 301.00 675.00 462.20 462.20
Commercial/Retail 33.44 67.33 100.77 290.80 290.80
Office 0.00 9.57 9.57 167.70 167.70
Industrial/Warehouse 0.00 469.24 469.24 367.30 367.30
Public/Institutional 0.00 29.14 29.14 369.30 369.30




Expenditure Detail (1)
Police Precincts 0 0 0 411,669 411,669
Police Station Land 0 0 0 70,200 70,200
Police Vehicles 0 0 0 419,197 419,197
Police Radios 0 0 0 63,794 63,794
Record Management System 0 0 0 103,610 103,610
Total 0 0 0 1,068,469 1,068,469

(1) Represents IIP identified costs for 2020 through 2029




Police C-3
Police - Ahwatukee
FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Total
Revenues
Impact Fees $11,766 $3,556 $15,322
Interest Income 8,207 14,137 22,344
Total Revenues 19,973 17,693 37,666

Expenditures
Capital Outlay 0 0 0
Advance Repayments & Debt Service 0 0 0
Total Expenditures 0 0 0


Police - Ahwatukee Projected in IFP
Development (EDUs) FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Total FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24
Single Family Residential 3.00 1.00 4.00 141.40 141.40
Multifamily Residential 83.00 0.00 83.00 38.70 38.70
Commercial/Retail 0.00 1.59 1.59 11.40 11.40
Office 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.20 18.20
Industrial/Warehouse 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Public/Institutional 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00




Expenditure Detail (1)
Police Precincts 0 0 0 27,445 27,445
Police Station Land 0 0 0 11,700 11,700
Police Vehicles 0 0 0 31,052 31,052
Police Radios 0 0 0 4,183 4,183
Record Management System 0 0 0 6,710 6,710
Total 0 0 0 81,090 81,090

(1) Represents IIP identified costs for 2020 through 2029




Police C-4
Appendix D
Parks - Northwest
FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Total
Revenues
Impact Fees $392,218 $1,607,838 $2,000,056
Interest Income 92,665 199,321 291,986
Total Revenues 484,883 1,807,159 2,292,042

Expenditures
Capital Outlay 0 17,255 17,255
Advance Repayments & Debt Service 0 0 0
Total Expenditures 0 17,255 17,255


Parks - Northwest Projected in IFP
Development (EDUs) FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Total FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24
Single Family Residential 312.00 417.00 729.00 688.30 688.30
Multifamily Residential 155.00 1,799.75 1,954.75 144.80 144.80
Commercial/Retail 2.32 29.13 31.45 10.20 10.20
Office 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.40 7.40
Industrial/Warehouse 0.00 5.50 5.50 1.60 1.60
Public/Institutional 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.60 7.60




Expenditure Detail (1)
Park Development 0 17,255 17,255 1,119,888 1,119,888
Land Acquisition 0 0 0 132,000 132,000
Total 0 17,255 17,255 1,251,888 1,251,888

(1) Represents IIP identified costs for 2020 through 2029




Parks D-1
Parks - Northeast
FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Total
Revenues
Impact Fees $923,672 $2,174,387 $3,098,059
Interest Income 229,648 452,435 682,083
Total Revenues 1,153,320 2,626,822 3,780,142

Expenditures
Capital Outlay 7,375 945,140 952,515
Advance Repayments & Debt Service 0 0 0
Total Expenditures 7,375 945,140 952,515


Parks - Northeast Projected in IFP
Development (EDUs) FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Total FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24
Single Family Residential 213.00 271.00 484.00 1,133.90 1,133.90
Multifamily Residential 192.50 432.00 624.50 471.80 471.80
Commercial/Retail 6.88 74.82 81.70 6.00 6.00
Office 0.00 265.53 265.53 6.00 6.00
Industrial/Warehouse 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Public/Institutional 0.00 6.08 6.08 13.20 13.20




Expenditure Detail (1)
Park Development 7,375 945,140 952,515 2,159,784 2,159,784
Total 7,375 945,140 952,515 2,159,784 2,159,784

(1) Represents IIP identified costs for 2020 through 2029




Parks D-2
Parks - Southwest
FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Total
Revenues
Impact Fees $1,898,980 $2,578,809 $4,477,789
Interest Income 347,725 533,687 881,412
Total Revenues 2,246,705 3,112,496 5,359,201

Expenditures
Capital Outlay 4,178,889 8,859,358 13,038,247
Advance Repayments & Debt Service 0 0 0
Total Expenditures 4,178,889 8,859,358 13,038,247


Parks - Southwest Projected in IFP
Development (EDUs) FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Total FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24
Single Family Residential 1,489.00 1,863.00 3,352.00 1,580.50 1,580.50
Multifamily Residential 374.00 301.00 675.00 462.20 462.20
Commercial/Retail 33.44 67.33 100.77 18.00 18.00
Office 0.00 9.57 9.57 18.30 18.30
Industrial/Warehouse 0.00 33.49 33.49 26.20 26.20
Public/Institutional 0.00 29.14 29.14 31.80 31.80




Expenditure Detail (1)
Park Development 4,178,889 8,859,358 13,038,247 2,839,716 2,839,716
Total 4,178,889 8,859,358 13,038,247 2,839,716 2,839,716

(1) Represents IIP identified costs for 2020 through 2029




Parks D-3
Parks - Ahwatukee
FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Total
Revenues
Impact Fees $100,417 $5,862 $106,279
Interest Income 15,344 28,424 43,768
Total Revenues 115,761 34,286 150,047

Expenditures
Capital Outlay 0 0 0
Advance Repayments & Debt Service 0 0 0
Total Expenditures 0 0 0


Parks - Ahwatukee Projected in IFP
Development (EDUs) FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Total FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24
Single Family Residential 3.00 1.00 4.00 141.40 141.40
Multifamily Residential 83.00 0.00 83.00 38.70 38.70
Commercial/Retail 0.00 1.59 1.59 0.70 0.70
Office 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00
Industrial/Warehouse 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Public/Institutional 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00




Expenditure Detail (1)
Park Development 0 0 0 2,399,760 2,399,760
Total 0 0 0 2,399,760 2,399,760

(1) Represents IIP identified costs for 2020 through 2029




Parks D-4
Appendix E
Libraries - Northwest
FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Total
Revenues
Impact Fees $62,972 $217,101 $280,073
Interest Income 15,677 27,368 43,045
Total Revenues 78,649 244,469 323,118

Expenditures
Capital Outlay 0 0 0
Advance Repayments & Debt Service 0 0 0
Total Expenditures 0 0 0


Libraries - Northwest Projected in IFP
Development (EDUs) FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Total FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24
Single Family Residential 312.00 417.00 729.00 688.30 688.30
Multifamily Residential 155.00 1,799.75 1,954.75 144.80 144.80
Commercial/Retail 2.32 29.13 31.45 10.20 10.20
Office 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.40 7.40
Industrial/Warehouse 0.00 5.50 5.50 1.60 1.60
Public/Institutional 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.60 7.60




Expenditure Detail (1)
Library Plan Cost 0 0 0 90,290 90,290
Total 0 0 0 90,290 90,290

(1) Represents IIP identified costs for 2020 through 2029




Libraries E-1
Libraries - Northeast
FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Total
Revenues
Impact Fees $42,094 $80,788 $122,882
Interest Income 27,480 50,478 77,958
Total Revenues 69,574 131,266 200,840

Expenditures
Capital Outlay 0 0 0
Advance Repayments & Debt Service 0 0 0
Total Expenditures 0 0 0


Libraries - Northeast Projected in IFP
Development (EDUs) FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Total FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24
Single Family Residential 213.00 271.00 484.00 1,133.90 1,133.90
Multifamily Residential 192.50 432.00 624.50 471.80 471.80
Commercial/Retail 6.88 74.82 81.70 6.00 6.00
Office 0.00 265.53 265.53 6.00 6.00
Industrial/Warehouse 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Public/Institutional 0.00 6.08 6.08 13.20 13.20




Expenditure Detail (1)
Library Plan Cost 0 0 0 171,245 171,245
Total 0 0 0 171,245 171,245

(1) Represents IIP identified costs for 2020 through 2029




Libraries E-2
Libraries - Southwest
FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Total
Revenues
Impact Fees $198,608 $238,397 $437,005
Interest Income 65,754 123,399 189,153
Total Revenues 264,362 361,796 626,158

Expenditures
Capital Outlay 0 0 0
Advance Repayments & Debt Service 0 0 0
Total Expenditures 0 0 0


Libraries - Southwest Projected in IFP
Development (EDUs) FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Total FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24
Single Family Residential 1,489.00 1,863.00 3,352.00 1,580.50 1,580.50
Multifamily Residential 374.00 301.00 675.00 462.20 462.20
Commercial/Retail 33.44 67.33 100.77 18.00 18.00
Office 0.00 9.57 9.57 18.30 18.30
Industrial/Warehouse 0.00 33.49 33.49 26.20 26.20
Public/Institutional 0.00 29.14 29.14 31.80 31.80




Expenditure Detail (1)
Library Plan Cost 0 0 0 224,385 224,385
Total 0 0 0 224,385 224,385

(1) Represents IIP identified costs for 2020 through 2029




Libraries E-3
Libraries - Ahwatukee
FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Total
Revenues
Impact Fees $8,607 $2,412 $11,019
Interest Income 8,427 14,900 23,327
Total Revenues 17,034 17,312 34,346

Expenditures
Capital Outlay 0 0 0
Advance Repayments & Debt Service 0 0 0
Total Expenditures 0 0 0


Libraries - Ahwatukee Projected in IFP
Development (EDUs) FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Total FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24
Single Family Residential 3.00 1.00 4.00 141.40 141.40
Multifamily Residential 83.00 0.00 83.00 38.70 38.70
Commercial/Retail 0.00 1.59 1.59 0.70 0.70
Office 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00
Industrial/Warehouse 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Public/Institutional 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00




Expenditure Detail (1)
Library Plan Cost 0 0 0 19,194 19,194
Total 0 0 0 19,194 19,194

(1) Represents IIP identified costs for 2020 through 2029




Libraries E-4
Appendix F
Major Arterials - Northern
FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Total
Revenues
Impact Fees $6,657,485 $9,390,482 $16,047,967
Interest Income 462,809 771,076 1,233,885
Total Revenues 7,120,294 10,161,558 17,281,852

Expenditures
Capital Outlay 921,386 143,969 1,065,355
Advance Repayments & Debt Service 0 0 0
Total Expenditures 921,386 143,969 1,065,355


Major Arterials - Northern Projected in IFP
Development (EDUs) FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Total FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24
Single Family Residential 525.00 688.00 1,213.00 1,822.20 1,822.20
Multifamily Residential 347.50 2,231.75 2,579.25 616.60 616.60
Commercial/Retail 9.20 103.95 113.15 394.70 394.70
Office 0.00 265.53 265.53 105.20 105.20
Industrial/Warehouse 0.00 5.50 5.50 25.40 25.40
Public/Institutional 0.00 6.08 6.08 187.30 187.30




Expenditure Detail (1)
Major Arterial Roads 921,541 142,507 1,064,048 7,020,889 7,020,889
Culverts 0 0 0 3,314,174 3,314,174
Bridges (155) 1,462 1,307 9,402,118 9,402,118
Total 921,386 143,969 1,065,355 19,737,181 19,737,181

(1) Represents IIP identified costs for 2020 through 2029




Major Arterials F-1
Major Arterials - Southwest
FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Total
Revenues
Impact Fees $4,403,407 $5,554,662 $9,958,069
Interest Income 396,683 874,418 1,271,101
Total Revenues 4,800,090 6,429,080 11,229,170

Expenditures
Capital Outlay 2,376 (2,305,994) (2,303,618)
Advance Repayments & Debt Service 0 0 0
Total Expenditures 2,376 (2,305,994) (2,303,618)


Major Arterials - Southwest Projected in IFP
Development (EDUs) FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Total FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24
Single Family Residential 1,489.00 1,863.00 3,352.00 1,580.50 1,580.50
Multifamily Residential 374.00 301.00 675.00 462.20 462.20
Commercial/Retail 33.44 67.33 100.77 438.00 438.00
Office 0.00 9.57 9.57 144.10 144.10
Industrial/Warehouse 0.00 343.17 343.17 419.80 419.80
Public/Institutional 0.00 29.14 29.14 286.60 286.60




Expenditure Detail (1)
Major Arterial Roads 2,376 (2,321,688) (2,319,312) 2,886,821 2,886,821
Storm Drains 0 15,694 15,694 1,990,383 1,990,383
Bridges 0 0 0 2,815,914 2,815,914
Total 2,376 (2,305,994) (2,303,618) 7,693,119 7,693,119

(1) Represents IIP identified costs for 2020 through 2029




Major Arterials F-2
Appendix G
Storm Drainage - Paradise Ridge
FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Total
Revenues
Impact Fees $0 $0 $0
Interest Income 0 0 0
Total Revenues 0 0 0

Expenditures
Capital Outlay 0 0 0
Advance Repayments & Debt Service 0 0 0
Total Expenditures 0 0 0


Storm Drainage - Paradise Ridge Projected in IFP
Development FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Total FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24
Single Family Residential (1) 0 0 0 276 276
Multifamily (1) 0.00 0.00 0.00 38.00 38.00
Retail (2) 0.00 0.00 0.00 52.40 52.40
Office (2) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
(2)
Industrial 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
(2)
Public/Institutional 0.00 0.00 0.00 21.20 21.20
(1) Dwelling units
(2) 1,000's of square feet


Expenditure Detail (3)
NE Phoenix/Rawhide Wash 0 0 0 2,144,607 2,144,607
Total 0 0 0 2,144,607 2,144,607

(3) Represents IIP identified costs for 2020 through 2029




Storm Drainage G-1
Storm Drainage - Estrella
FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Total
Revenues
Impact Fees $577,531 $881,332 $1,458,863
Interest Income 198,210 372,954 571,164
Total Revenues 775,741 1,254,286 2,030,027

Expenditures
Capital Outlay 0 0 0
Advance Repayments & Debt Service 0 0 0
Total Expenditures 0 0 0


Storm Drainage - Estrella Projected in IFP
Developmentt FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Total FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24
Single Family Residential 515 744 1,259 556 556
Non-residential and MF 308.68 422.15 730.83 652.40 652.40

Expenditure Detail (1)
Estrella 0 0 0 4,295,945 4,295,945
Total 0 0 0 4,295,945 4,295,945

(1) Represents IIP identified costs for 2020 through 2029




Storm Drainage G-2
Storm Drainage - Laveen
FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Total
Revenues
Impact Fees $999,344 $1,263,232 $2,262,576
Interest Income 109,285 189,117 298,402
Total Revenues 1,108,629 1,452,349 2,560,978

Expenditures
Capital Outlay 0 1,244,760 1,244,760
Advance Repayments & Debt Service 0 0 0
Total Expenditures 0 1,244,760 1,244,760


Storm Drainage - Laveen Projected in IFP
Development FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Total FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24
Single Family Residential 972 1,119 2,091 1,025 1,025
Non-residential and MF 160.04 75.42 235.46 312.10 312.10

Expenditure Detail (1)
Laveen 0 1,244,760 1,244,760 5,237,571 5,237,571
Total 0 1,244,760 1,244,760 5,237,571 5,237,571

(1) Represents IIP identified costs for 2020 through 2029




Storm Drainage G-3
Appendix H
Water - Northern
FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Total
Revenues
Impact Fees $5,983,104 $13,600,542 $19,583,646
Interest Income 895,741 1,923,881 2,819,622
Total Revenues 6,878,845 15,524,423 22,403,268

Expenditures
Capital Outlay 1,873,319 304,297 2,177,616
Advance Repayments & Debt Service 0 5,554,747 5,554,747
Total Expenditures 1,873,319 5,859,044 7,732,363


Water - Northern Projected in IFP
Connections (EDU) FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Total FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24
Water D
Single Family 528.00 688.00 1,216.00 1,822.20 1,822.20
Multifamily 152.76 871.00 1,023.76 427.50 427.50
Commercial/Retail 20.48 33.90 54.38 139.10 139.10
Office 0.00 45.94 45.94 53.60 53.60
Industrial/Warehouse 33.90 0.00 33.90 17.50 17.50
Public/Institutional 11.30 7.06 18.36 91.60 91.60

Water L
Single Family 0 0 0
Multifamily 32.48 99.00 131.48
Commercial/Retail 49.46 48.06 97.52
Office 0.00 7.06 7.06
Industrial/Warehouse 226.00 11.30 237.30
Public/Institutional 0.00 0.00 0.00

Expenditure Detail (1)
New Transmission Mains 0 304,297 304,297 5,798,659 5,798,659
New Booster Stations 1,873,319 0 1,873,319 1,108,688 1,108,688
New PRV Stations 0 0 0 321,750 321,750
New Wells 0 0 0 642,312 642,312
Total 1,873,319 304,297 2,177,616 7,871,409 7,871,409

(1) Represents IIP identified costs for 2020 through 2029




Water System H-1
Water - Southern
FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Total
Revenues
Impact Fees $9,021,143 $9,017,221 $18,038,364
Interest Income 1,123,333 2,242,321 3,365,654
Total Revenues 10,144,476 11,259,542 21,404,018

Expenditures
Capital Outlay 43,261 5,597,185 5,640,446
Advance Repayments & Debt Service 0 6,384,361 6,384,361
Total Expenditures 43,261 11,981,546 12,024,807


Water - Southern Projected in IFP
Connections (EDU) FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Total FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24
Single Family 1,458.00 1,858.00 3,316.00 1,721.90 1,721.90
Multifamily 176.36 273.00 449.36 347.30 347.30
Commercial/Retail 488.14 214.82 702.96 160.40 160.40
Office 0.00 10.60 10.60 81.30 81.30
Industrial/Warehouse 146.94 153.98 300.92 288.60 288.60
Public/Institutional 0.00 10.60 10.60 140.10 140.10

Expenditure Detail (1)
New Transmission Mains 41,883 5,597,185 5,639,068 2,461,206 2,461,206
New PRVs 1,378 0 1,378 100,738 100,738
Total 43,261 5,597,185 5,640,446 2,561,943 2,561,943

(1) Represents IIP identified costs for 2020 through 2029




Water System H-2
Appendix I
Water Resources - Off-Project
FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Total
Revenues
Impact Fees $2,097,325 $2,736,212 $4,833,537
Interest Income 687,692 1,178,889 1,866,581
Total Revenues 2,785,017 3,915,101 6,700,118

Expenditures
Capital Outlay (5,017) 0 (5,017)
Advance Repayments & Debt Service 0 0
Total Expenditures (5,017) 0 (5,017)


Water Resources - Off-Project Projected in IFP
Connections (EDUs) FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Total FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24
Single Family 23.32 42.97 66.29 2,204.10 2,204.10
Multifamily 1,201.94 1,725.20 2,927.14 614.50 614.50
Nonresidential 2,011.66 1,196.24 3,207.90 589.30 589.30

Expenditure Detail (1)
Arizona State Land Department CAP Allocation (5,007) 0 (5,007) 323,766 323,766
New Service Area ASR Wells (10) 0 (10) 1,662,012 1,662,012
Total (5,017) 0 (5,017) 1,985,778 1,985,778


(1) Represents IIP identified costs for 2020 through 2029




Water Resource I-1
Appendix J
Wastewater - Northern
FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Total
Revenues
Impact Fees $1,679,114 $5,229,681 $6,908,795
Interest Income 299,228 519,100 818,328
Total Revenues 1,978,342 5,748,781 7,727,123

Expenditures
Capital Outlay 714,941 7,854,777 8,569,718
Advance Repayments & Debt Service 0 2,324,130 2,324,130
Total Expenditures 714,941 10,178,907 10,893,848


Wastewater - Northern Projected in IFP
Connections (EDUs) FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Total FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24
Single Family 477.00 648.00 1,125.00 1,817.20 1,817.20
Multifamily 96.04 253.83 349.87 403.50 403.50
Commercial/Retail 19.48 35.97 55.45 138.20 138.20
Office 0.00 48.76 48.76 51.50 51.50
Industrial/Warehouse 35.97 0.00 35.97 18.10 18.10
Public/Institutional 11.99 7.49 19.48 93.10 93.10

Expenditure Detail (1)
New Sewers 0 0 0 3,683,915 3,683,915
New Force Mains 0 0 0 289,850 289,850
WWTP Expansion 0 0 0 15,254,531 15,254,531
New Lift Stations 714,941 7,854,777 8,569,718 538,938 538,938
Total 714,941 7,854,777 8,569,718 19,767,233 19,767,233


(1) Represents IIP identified costs for 2020 through 2029




Wastewater System J-1
Wastewater - Deer Valley
FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Total
Revenues
Impact Fees $198,841 $345,000 $543,841
Interest Income 10,431 21,938 32,369
Total Revenues 209,272 366,938 576,210

Expenditures
Capital Outlay 0 0 0
Advance Repayments & Debt Service 0 518,861 518,861
Total Expenditures 0 518,861 518,861


Wastewater - Deer Valley Projected in IFP
Connections (EDUs) FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Total FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24
Single Family 51.00 36.00 87.00 5.00 5.00
Multifamily 100.94 314.94 415.88 0.00 0.00
Commercial/Retail 2.25 0.00 2.25 0.00 0.00
Office 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Industrial/Warehouse 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Public/Institutional 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.70 1.70

Expenditure Detail (1)
WWTP Expansion 0 0 0 15,254,531 15,254,531
Total 0 0 0 15,254,531 15,254,531


(1) Represents IIP identified costs for 2020 through 2029




Wastewater System J-2
Wastewater - Estrella North
FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Total
Revenues
Impact Fees $38,480 $115,930 $154,410
Interest Income 6,291 10,787 17,078
Total Revenues 44,771 126,717 171,488

Expenditures
Capital Outlay 0 0 0
Advance Repayments & Debt Service 0 304,800 304,800
Total Expenditures 0 304,800 304,800


Wastewater - Estrella North Projected in IFP
Connections (EDUs) FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Total FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24
Single Family 0.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00
Multifamily 0.00 0.00 0.00 23.10 23.10
Commercial/Retail 0.00 19.48 19.48 10.60 10.60
Office 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.80 8.80
Industrial/Warehouse 0.00 43.46 43.46 119.50 119.50
Public/Institutional 0.00 7.49 7.49 17.60 17.60

Expenditure Detail (1)
WWTP Expansion 0 0 0 15,254,531 15,254,531
Total 0 0 0 15,254,531 15,254,531


(1) Represents IIP identified costs for 2020 through 2029




Wastewater System J-3
Wastewater - Estrella South
FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Total
Revenues
Impact Fees $1,184,780 $1,989,337 $3,174,117
Interest Income 212,671 280,551 493,222
Total Revenues 1,397,451 2,269,888 3,667,339

Expenditures
Capital Outlay 4,349,792 1,610,007 5,959,799
Advance Repayments & Debt Service 0 0 0
Total Expenditures 4,349,792 1,610,007 5,959,799


Wastewater - Estrella South Projected in IFP
Connections (EDUs) FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Total FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24
Single Family 485.00 623.00 1,108.00 554.50 554.50
Multifamily 0.00 18.62 18.62 112.60 112.60
Commercial/Retail 26.23 32.24 58.47 54.30 54.30
Office 0.00 0.00 0.00 31.10 31.10
Industrial/Warehouse 69.72 47.96 117.68 174.80 174.80
Public/Institutional 0.00 0.00 0.00 62.80 62.80

Expenditure Detail (1)
New Sewers 4,308,245 886,309 5,194,554 1,212,599 1,212,599
WWTP Expansion 0 0 0 15,254,531 15,254,531
New Force Mains 0 0 0 751,793 751,793
New Lift Stations 41,547 723,698 765,245 983,750 983,750
Total 4,349,792 1,610,007 5,959,799 18,202,672 18,202,672


(1) Represents IIP identified costs for 2020 through 2029




Wastewater System J-4
Wastewater - Laveen West
FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Total
Revenues
Impact Fees $3,436,127 $3,768,876 $7,205,003
Interest Income 132,396 339,173 471,569
Total Revenues 3,568,523 4,108,049 7,676,572

Expenditures
Capital Outlay (722,193) 15,861 (706,332)
Advance Repayments & Debt Service 0 3,529,122 3,529,122
Total Expenditures (722,193) 3,544,983 2,822,790


Wastewater - Laveen West Projected in IFP
Connections (EDUs) FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Total FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24
Single Family 661.00 920.00 1,581.00 830.10 830.10
Multifamily 150.92 42.63 193.55 166.80 166.80
Commercial/Retail 132.66 15.75 148.41 65.90 65.90
Office 0.00 3.76 3.76 30.70 30.70
Industrial/Warehouse 11.99 0.00 11.99 4.30 4.30
Public/Institutional 0.00 0.00 0.00 52.20 52.20

Expenditure Detail (1)
New Sewers (722,193) 15,861 (706,332) 1,153,155 1,153,155
WWTP Expansion 0 0 0 15,254,531 15,254,531
New Lift Stations 0 0 0 177,200 177,200
Total (722,193) 15,861 (706,332) 16,584,885 16,584,885


(1) Represents IIP identified costs for 2020 through 2029




Wastewater System J-5
Wastewater - Laveen East
FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Total
Revenues
Impact Fees $419,520 $331,401 $750,921
Interest Income 14,526 34,189 48,715
Total Revenues 434,046 365,590 799,636

Expenditures
Capital Outlay 0 0 0
Advance Repayments & Debt Service 0 856,253 856,253
Total Expenditures 0 856,253 856,253


Wastewater - Laveen East Projected in IFP
Connections (EDUs) FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Total FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24
Single Family 309.00 196.00 505.00 194.90 194.90
Multifamily 0.00 15.68 15.68 0.00 0.00
Commercial/Retail 0.00 7.52 7.52 22.50 22.50
Office 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Industrial/Warehouse 0.00 15.75 15.75 0.00 0.00
Public/Institutional 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.30 12.30

Expenditure Detail (1)
WWTP Expansion 0 0 0 15,254,531 15,254,531
Total 0 0 0 15,254,531 15,254,531


(1) Represents IIP identified costs for 2020 through 2029




Wastewater System J-6
Wastewater - Ahwatukee
FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Total
Revenues
Impact Fees $4,140 $6,229 $10,369
Interest Income 2,123 3,129 5,252
Total Revenues 6,263 9,358 15,621

Expenditures
Capital Outlay 0 0 0
Advance Repayments & Debt Service 0 98,333 98,333
Total Expenditures 0 98,333 98,333


Wastewater - Ahwatukee Projected in IFP
Connections (EDUs) FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Total FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24
Single Family 3.00 1.00 4.00 141.40 141.40
Multifamily 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.30 25.30
Commercial/Retail 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 6.00
Office 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.70 7.70
Industrial/Warehouse 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Public/Institutional 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Expenditure Detail (1)
WWTP Expansion 0 0 0 15,254,531 15,254,531
Total 0 0 0 15,254,531 15,254,531


(1) Represents IIP identified costs for 2020 through 2029




Wastewater System J-7
Appendix K
Residential
Sample No. Location Receipt Development Type Fee Category Assessed Fee Fee in Effect Difference Notes
FY 2022-23 1 Ahwatukee RPRCT116377 Single Family Wastewater $1,380.00 $1,380.00 $0.00 up to 1-inch
2 Ahwatukee RPRCT116377 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
3 Ahwatukee RPRCT116377 Single Family Fire 470.00 470.00 0.00
4 Ahwatukee RPRCT116377 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
5 Ahwatukee RPRCT116377 Single Family Police 342.00 342.00 0.00
6 Ahwatukee RPRCT116377 Single Family Parks 1,125.00 1,125.00 0.00
7 Ahwatukee CTR-102203006 Single Family Fire 470.00 470.00 0.00
8 Ahwatukee CTR-102203006 Single Family Wastewater 1,380.00 1,380.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
9 Ahwatukee CTR-102203006 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
10 Ahwatukee CTR-102203006 Single Family Police 342.00 342.00 0.00
11 Ahwatukee CTR-102203006 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
12 Ahwatukee CTR-102203006 Single Family Parks 1,125.00 1,125.00 0.00
13 Ahwatukee CTR-102203559 Single Family Fire 470.00 470.00 0.00
14 Ahwatukee CTR-102203559 Single Family Wastewater 1,380.00 1,380.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
15 Ahwatukee CTR-102203559 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
16 Ahwatukee CTR-102203559 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
17 Ahwatukee CTR-102203559 Single Family Police 342.00 342.00 0.00
18 Ahwatukee CTR-102203559 Single Family Parks 1,125.00 1,125.00 0.00




Permit Sampling K-1
Residential
Sample No. Location Receipt Development Type Fee Category Assessed Fee Fee in Effect Difference Notes
FY 2022-23 1 Deer Valley CTR-102200931 Single Family Library $105.00 $105.00 $0.00
2 Deer Valley CTR-102200931 Single Family Major Arterials 3,080.00 3,080.00 0.00
3 Deer Valley CTR-102202068 Single Family Wastewater 1,380.00 1,380.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
4 Deer Valley CTR-102202068 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
5 Deer Valley CTR-102201854 Single Family Parks 1,368.00 1,368.00 0.00
6 Deer Valley RPRC 2203097 Single Family Water 6,330.00 6,330.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
7 Deer Valley CTR-1022200952 Single Family Wastewater 1,380.00 1,380.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
8 Deer Valley CTR-1022200952 Single Family Police 293.00 293.00 0.00
9 Deer Valley RPRC 2201924 Single Family Major Arterials 3,080.00 3,080.00 0.00
10 Deer Valley CTR-102202714 Single Family Water 6,330.00 6,330.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
11 Deer Valley CTR-102202952 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
12 Deer Valley CTR-102202952 Single Family Major Arterials 3,080.00 3,080.00 0.00
13 Deer Valley CTR-102204338 Single Family Wastewater 1,380.00 1,380.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
14 Deer Valley CTR-102204340 Single Family Police 293.00 293.00 0.00
15 Deer Valley CTR-102204340 Single Family Fire 516.00 516.00 0.00
16 Deer Valley CTR-102205807 Single Family Parks 1,368.00 1,368.00 0.00
17 Deer Valley CTR-102204746 Single Family Water 6,330.00 6,330.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
18 Deer Valley CTR-102300228 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
19 Deer Valley CTR-102300228 Single Family Major Arterials 3,080.00 3,080.00 0.00
20 Deer Valley CTR-102300916 Single Family Wastewater 1,380.00 1,380.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
21 Deer Valley CTR-102300920 Single Family Police 293.00 293.00 0.00
22 Deer Valley CTR-102300920 Single Family Fire 516.00 516.00 0.00
23 Deer Valley CTR-102300917 Single Family Parks 1,368.00 1,368.00 0.00
24 Deer Valley CTR-102300922 Single Family Water 6,330.00 6,330.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
25 Deer Valley CTR-102300918 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
26 Deer Valley CTR-102300918 Single Family Major Arterials 3,080.00 3,080.00 0.00
27 Deer Valley CTR-102300914 Single Family Wastewater 1,380.00 1,380.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
28 Deer Valley CTR-102300921 Single Family Police 293.00 293.00 0.00
29 Deer Valley CTR-102300921 Single Family Fire 516.00 516.00 0.00
30 Deer Valley CTR-102300919 Single Family Parks 1,368.00 1,368.00 0.00
31 Deer Valley CTR-102206075 Single Family Water 6,330.00 6,330.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
32 Deer Valley CTR-102300939 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
33 Deer Valley CTR-102300939 Single Family Major Arterials 3,080.00 3,080.00 0.00
34 Deer Valley CTR-102301291 Single Family Wastewater 1,380.00 1,380.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
35 Deer Valley CTR-102301292 Single Family Major Arterials 3,080.00 3,080.00 0.00
36 Deer Valley CTR-102301408 Single Family Wastewater 1,380.00 1,380.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
37 Deer Valley CTR-102302554 Single Family Police 293.00 293.00 0.00
38 Deer Valley CTR-102302554 Single Family Fire 516.00 516.00 0.00
39 Deer Valley CTR-102302555 Single Family Parks 1,368.00 1,368.00 0.00
40 Deer Valley CTR-102303293 Single Family Water 6,330.00 6,330.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
41 Deer Valley CTR-102303208 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
42 Deer Valley CTR-102303208 Single Family Major Arterials 3,080.00 3,080.00 0.00
43 Deer Valley CTR-102303807 Single Family Wastewater 1,380.00 1,380.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
44 Deer Valley CTR-102304332 Single Family Police 293.00 293.00 0.00
45 Deer Valley CTR-102304332 Single Family Fire 516.00 516.00 0.00
46 Deer Valley CTR-102304062 Single Family Parks 1,368.00 1,368.00 0.00
47 Deer Valley CTR-102304373 Single Family Water 6,330.00 6,330.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
48 Deer Valley CTR-102305013 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
49 Deer Valley CTR-102305013 Single Family Major Arterials 3,080.00 3,080.00 0.00
50 Deer Valley CTR-102305010 Single Family Wastewater 1,380.00 1,380.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
51 Deer Valley CTR-102305144 Single Family Police 293.00 293.00 0.00
52 Deer Valley CTR-102305144 Single Family Fire 516.00 516.00 0.00
53 Deer Valley CTR-102304691 Single Family Parks 1,368.00 1,368.00 0.00
54 Deer Valley CTR-102305302 Single Family Water 6,330.00 6,330.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
55 Deer Valley CTR-102305295 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
56 Deer Valley CTR-102305295 Single Family Major Arterials 3,080.00 3,080.00 0.00
57 Deer Valley CTR-102305354 Single Family Wastewater 1,380.00 1,380.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
58 Deer Valley CTR-102305357 Single Family Police 293.00 293.00 0.00
59 Deer Valley CTR-102305916 Single Family Parks 1,368.00 1,368.00 0.00
60 Deer Valley CTR-102305357 Single Family Fire 516.00 516.00 0.00




Permit Sampling K-2
Residential
Sample No. Location Receipt Development Type Fee Category Assessed Fee Fee in Effect Difference Notes
FY 2022-23 1 Estrella-North CTR-102207720 Single Family Wastewater $1,380.00 $1,380.00 $0.00 up to 1-inch
2 Estrella-North CTR-102207720 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
3 Estrella-North CTR-102207720 Single Family Fire 487.00 487.00 0.00
4 Estrella-North CTR-102207720 Single Family Major Arterials 1,928.00 1,928.00 0.00
5 Estrella-North CTR-102207720 Single Family Parks 1,241.00 1,241.00 0.00
6 Estrella-North CTR-102207720 Single Family Storm 770.00 770.00 0.00
7 Estrella-North CTR-102207720 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
8 Estrella-North CTR-102207720 Single Family Police 285.00 285.00 0.00
9 Estrella-North CTR-102304377 Single Family Wastewater 1,380.00 1,380.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
10 Estrella-North CTR-102304377 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
11 Estrella-North CTR-102304377 Single Family Fire 487.00 487.00 0.00
12 Estrella-North CTR-102304377 Single Family Major Arterials 1,928.00 1,928.00 0.00
13 Estrella-North CTR-102304377 Single Family Parks 1,241.00 1,241.00 0.00
14 Estrella-North CTR-102304377 Single Family Storm 770.00 770.00 0.00
15 Estrella-North CTR-102304377 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
16 Estrella-North CTR-102304377 Single Family Police 285.00 285.00 0.00




Permit Sampling K-3
Residential
Sample No. Location Receipt Development Type Fee Category Assessed Fee Fee in Effect Difference Notes
FY 2022-23 1 Estrella-South RM 20026192 Single Family Water $46,319.00 $46,319.00 $0.00 11.3 EDUs
2 Estrella-South CTR-102201471 Single Family Fire 487.00 487.00 0.00
3 Estrella-South CTR-102201684 Single Family Fire 487.00 487.00 0.00
4 Estrella-South CTR-102202823 Single Family Fire 487.00 487.00 0.00
5 Estrella-South CTR-102203424 Single Family Fire 487.00 487.00 0.00
6 Estrella-South CTR-102203538 Single Family Police 285.00 285.00 0.00
7 Estrella-South CTR-102205674 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
8 Estrella-South CTR-102205797 Single Family Police 285.00 285.00 0.00
9 Estrella-South CTR-102206274 Single Family Major Arterials 1,928.00 1,928.00 0.00
10 Estrella-South CTR-102205886 Single Family Parks 1,241.00 1,241.00 0.00
11 Estrella-South CTR-102206294 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
12 Estrella-South CTR-102205586 Single Family Fire 487.00 487.00 0.00
13 Estrella-South CTR-102206782 Single Family Fire 487.00 487.00 0.00
14 Estrella-South CTR-102207294 Single Family Parks 1,241.00 1,241.00 0.00
15 Estrella-South CTR-102300083 Single Family Parks 1,241.00 1,241.00 0.00
16 Estrella-South CTR-102204968 Single Family Parks 1,241.00 1,241.00 0.00
17 Estrella-South CTR-102300716 Single Family Fire 487.00 487.00 0.00
18 Estrella-South CTR-102301215 Single Family Parks 1,241.00 1,241.00 0.00
19 Estrella-South CTR-102301453 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
20 Estrella-South CTR-102301868 Single Family Police 285.00 285.00 0.00
21 Estrella-South CTR-102302054 Single Family Wastewater 3,787.00 3,787.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
22 Estrella-South CTR-102302490 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
23 Estrella-South CTR-102302490 Single Family Parks 1,241.00 1,241.00 0.00
24 Estrella-South CTR-102302723 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
25 Estrella-South CTR-102204981 Single Family Parks 1,241.00 1,241.00 0.00
26 Estrella-South CTR-102204981 Single Family Major Arterials 1,928.00 1,928.00 0.00
27 Estrella-South CTR-102302395 Single Family Major Arterials 1,928.00 1,928.00 0.00
28 Estrella-South CTR-102303242 Single Family Fire 487.00 487.00 0.00
29 Estrella-South CTR-102303499 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
30 Estrella-South CTR-102302804 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
31 Estrella-South CTR-102302879 Single Family Parks 1,241.00 1,241.00 0.00
32 Estrella-South CTR-102303166 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
33 Estrella-South CTR-102303338 Single Family Police 285.00 285.00 0.00
34 Estrella-South CTR-102303120 Single Family Fire 487.00 487.00 0.00
35 Estrella-South CTR-102303867 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
36 Estrella-South CTR-102303963 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
37 Estrella-South CTR-102304553 Single Family Parks 1,241.00 1,241.00 0.00
38 Estrella-South CTR-102304391 Single Family Fire 487.00 487.00 0.00
39 Estrella-South CTR-102304370 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
40 Estrella-South CTR-102304546 Single Family Fire 487.00 487.00 0.00
41 Estrella-South CTR-102304621 Single Family Parks 1,241.00 1,241.00 0.00
42 Estrella-South CTR-102304898 Single Family Parks 1,241.00 1,241.00 0.00
43 Estrella-South CTR-102305233 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
44 Estrella-South CTR-102305570 Single Family Parks 1,241.00 1,241.00 0.00
45 Estrella-South CTR-102305236 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
46 Estrella-South CTR-102305585 Single Family Parks 1,241.00 1,241.00 0.00
47 Estrella-South CTR-102305053 Single Family Major Arterials 1,928.00 1,928.00 0.00
48 Estrella-South CTR-102305053 Single Family Police 285.00 285.00 0.00
49 Estrella-South CTR-102305291 Single Family Parks 1,241.00 1,241.00 0.00
50 Estrella-South CTR-102306095 Single Family Major Arterials 1,928.00 1,928.00 0.00
51 Estrella-South CTR-102306023 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
52 Estrella-South CTR-102306128 Single Family Fire 487.00 487.00 0.00
53 Estrella-South CTR-102200512 Single Family Major Arterials 1,928.00 1,928.00 0.00
54 Estrella-South CTR-102306336 Single Family Police 285.00 285.00 0.00
55 Estrella-South CTR-102305908 Single Family Fire 487.00 487.00 0.00
56 Estrella-South CTR-102304513 Single Family Wastewater 3,787.00 3,787.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
57 Estrella-South CTR-102306644 Single Family Major Arterials 1,928.00 1,928.00 0.00
58 Estrella-South CTR-102306792 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
59 Estrella-South CTR-102306792 Single Family Major Arterials 1,928.00 1,928.00 0.00
60 Estrella-South CTR-102205102 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00 up to 1-inch




Permit Sampling K-4
Residential
Sample No. Location Receipt Development Type Fee Category Assessed Fee Fee in Effect Difference Notes
FY 2022-23 1 Laveen-East RSF T880833 Single Family Fire $487.00 $487.00 $0.00
2 Laveen-East CTR-102200294 Single Family Parks 1,241.00 1,241.00 0.00
3 Laveen-East CTR-102200344 Single Family Major Arterials 1,928.00 1,928.00 0.00
4 Laveen-East CTR-102201571 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
5 Laveen-East CTR-102200949 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
6 Laveen-East CTR-102202157 Single Family Major Arterials 1,928.00 1,928.00 0.00
7 Laveen-East CTR-102202056 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
8 Laveen-East CTR-102202209 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
9 Laveen-East CTR-102202258 Single Family Major Arterials 1,928.00 1,928.00 0.00
10 Laveen-East CTR-102202578 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
11 Laveen-East CTR-102202634 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
12 Laveen-East CTR-102202614 Single Family Major Arterials 1,928.00 1,928.00 0.00
13 Laveen-East CTR-102202777 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
14 Laveen-East CTR-102202959 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
15 Laveen-East CTR-102203033 Single Family Major Arterials 1,928.00 1,928.00 0.00
16 Laveen-East CTR-102204016 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
17 Laveen-East CTR-102204007 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
18 Laveen-East CTR-102200200 Single Family Fire 487.00 487.00 0.00
19 Laveen-East CTR-102205243 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
20 Laveen-East CTR-102205069 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
21 Laveen-East CTR-102205213 Single Family Major Arterials 1,928.00 1,928.00 0.00
22 Laveen-East CTR-102205180 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
23 Laveen-East CTR-102203496 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
24 Laveen-East CTR-102206344 Single Family Major Arterials 1,928.00 1,928.00 0.00
25 Laveen-East CTR-102206205 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
26 Laveen-East CTR-102203416 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
27 Laveen-East CTR-102206064 Single Family Major Arterials 1,928.00 1,928.00 0.00
28 Laveen-East CTR-102207018 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
29 Laveen-East CTR-102206934 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
30 Laveen-East CTR-102206128 Single Family Major Arterials 1,928.00 1,928.00 0.00
31 Laveen-East CTR-102207206 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
32 Laveen-East CTR-102206072 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
33 Laveen-East CTR-102207450 Single Family Major Arterials 1,928.00 1,928.00 0.00
34 Laveen-East CTR-102207519 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
35 Laveen-East CTR-102300265 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
36 Laveen-East CTR-102300814 Single Family Major Arterials 1,928.00 1,928.00 0.00
37 Laveen-East CTR-102301421 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
38 Laveen-East CTR-102301434 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
39 Laveen-East CRT-102302599 Single Family Major Arterials 1,928.00 1,928.00 0.00
40 Laveen-East CTR-102302749 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
41 Laveen-East CTR-102302605 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
42 Laveen-East CTR-102302603 Single Family Major Arterials 1,928.00 1,928.00 0.00
43 Laveen-East CTR-102303162 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
44 Laveen-East CTR-102303376 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
45 Laveen-East CTR-102303533 Single Family Major Arterials 1,928.00 1,928.00 0.00
46 Laveen-East CTR-102303750 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
47 Laveen-East CTR-102303535 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
48 Laveen-East CTR-102303793 Single Family Major Arterials 1,928.00 1,928.00 0.00
49 Laveen-East CTR-102303759 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
50 Laveen-East CTR-102304185 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
51 Laveen-East CTR-102303901 Single Family Major Arterials 1,928.00 1,928.00 0.00
52 Laveen-East CTR-102303898 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
53 Laveen-East CTR-102304713 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
54 Laveen-East CTR-102304713 Single Family Major Arterials 1,928.00 1,928.00 0.00
55 Laveen-East CTR-102304889 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
56 Laveen-East CTR-102201453 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
57 Laveen-East CTR-102305806 Single Family Major Arterials 1,928.00 1,928.00 0.00
58 Laveen-East CTR-102305806 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
59 Laveen-East CTR-102305883 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
60 Laveen-East CTR-102306452 Single Family Major Arterials 1,928.00 1,928.00 0.00




Permit Sampling K-5
Residential
Sample No. Location Receipt Development Type Fee Category Assessed Fee Fee in Effect Difference Notes
FY 2022-23 1 Laveen-West RSF T882005 Single Family Fire $487.00 $487.00 $0.00
2 Laveen-West CTR-102200494 Single Family Fire 487.00 487.00 0.00
3 Laveen-West CTR-102200978 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
4 Laveen-West CTR-102201734 Single Family Police 285.00 285.00 0.00
5 Laveen-West CTR-102201777 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
6 Laveen-West CTR-102201871 Single Family Parks 1,241.00 1,241.00 0.00
7 Laveen-West CTR-102202156 Single Family Major Arterials 1,928.00 1,928.00 0.00
8 Laveen-West CTR-102202396 Single Family Fire 487.00 487.00 0.00
9 Laveen-West CTR-102202405 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
10 Laveen-West CTR-102202601 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
11 Laveen-West CTR-1022010504 Single Family Major Arterials 1,928.00 1,928.00 0.00
12 Laveen-West CTR-102202702 Single Family Major Arterials 105.00 105.00 0.00
13 Laveen-West CTR-102203268 Single Family Police 285.00 285.00 0.00
14 Laveen-West CTR-102203675 Single Family Fire 487.00 487.00 0.00
15 Laveen-West CTR-102204041 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
16 Laveen-West RSF T887841 Single Family Police 285.00 285.00 0.00
17 Laveen-West CTR-102204244 Single Family Major Arterials 1,928.00 1,928.00 0.00
18 Laveen-West CTR-102204797 Single Family Major Arterials 1,928.00 1,928.00 0.00
19 Laveen-West CTR-102205450 Single Family Major Arterials 1,928.00 1,928.00 0.00
20 Laveen-West CTR-102205165 Single Family Parks 1,241.00 1,241.00 0.00
21 Laveen-West CTR-102206334 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
22 Laveen-West CTR-102206330 Single Family Parks 1,241.00 1,241.00 0.00
23 Laveen-West CTR-102207508 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
24 Laveen-West CTR-102300022 Single Family Police 285.00 285.00 0.00
25 Laveen-West CTR-102300547 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
26 Laveen-West CTR-102300834 Single Family Fire 487.00 487.00 0.00
27 Laveen-West CTR-102300852 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
28 Laveen-West CTR-102301206 Single Family Police 285.00 285.00 0.00
29 Laveen-West CTR-102301359 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
30 Laveen-West CTR-102301470 Single Family Police 285.00 285.00 0.00
31 Laveen-West CTR-102302411 Single Family Fire 487.00 487.00 0.00
32 Laveen-West CTR-102301770 Single Family Parks 1,241.00 1,241.00 0.00
33 Laveen-West CTR-102203055 Single Family Major Arterials 1,928.00 1,928.00 0.00
34 Laveen-West CTR-102207271 Single Family Major Arterials 1,928.00 1,928.00 0.00
35 Laveen-West CTR-102202175 Single Family Major Arterials 1,928.00 1,928.00 0.00
36 Laveen-West CTR-102302611 Single Family Parks 1,241.00 1,241.00 0.00
37 Laveen-West CTR-102302045 Single Family Major Arterials 1,928.00 1,928.00 0.00
38 Laveen-West CTR-102302195 Single Family Parks 1,241.00 1,241.00 0.00
39 Laveen-West CTR-102302093 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
40 Laveen-West CTR-102303225 Single Family Police 285.00 285.00 0.00
41 Laveen-West CTR-102302771 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
42 Laveen-West CTR-102302850 Single Family Police 285.00 285.00 0.00
43 Laveen-West CTR-102303124 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
44 Laveen-West CTR-102303142 Single Family Parks 1,241.00 1,241.00 0.00
45 Laveen-West CTR-102303026 Single Family Major Arterials 1,928.00 1,928.00 0.00
46 Laveen-West CTR-102303884 Single Family Fire 487.00 487.00 0.00
47 Laveen-West CTR-102303855 Single Family Major Arterials 1,928.00 1,928.00 0.00
48 Laveen-West CTR-102304429 Single Family Police 285.00 285.00 0.00
49 Laveen-West CTR-102304411 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
50 Laveen-West CTR-102304403 Single Family Parks 1,241.00 1,241.00 0.00
51 Laveen-West CTR-102304891 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
52 Laveen-West CTR-102304913 Single Family Police 285.00 285.00 0.00
53 Laveen-West CTR-102305376 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
54 Laveen-West CTR-102305607 Single Family Parks 1,241.00 1,241.00 0.00
55 Laveen-West CTR-102305738 Single Family Major Arterials 1,928.00 1,928.00 0.00
56 Laveen-West CTR-102306014 Single Family Fire 487.00 487.00 0.00
57 Laveen-West CTR-102306200 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
58 Laveen-West CTR-102306242 Single Family Fire 487.00 487.00 0.00
59 Laveen-West CTR-102306532 Single Family Fire 487.00 487.00 0.00
60 Laveen-West CTR-102306532 Single Family Police 285.00 285.00 0.00




Permit Sampling K-6
Residential
Sample No. Location Receipt Development Type Fee Category Assessed Fee Fee in Effect Difference Notes
FY 2022-23 1 Northeast CTR-102201924 Single Family Parks $1,236.00 $1,236.00 $0.00
2 Northeast CTR-102201924 Single Family Water 6,330.00 6,330.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
3 Northeast CTR-102202093 Single Family Wastewater 3,303.00 3,303.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
4 Northeast CTR-102201421 Single Family Fire 551.00 551.00 0.00
5 Northeast CTR-102205219 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
6 Northeast CTR-102205322 Single Family Police 314.00 314.00 0.00
7 Northeast CTR-102204859 Single Family Major Arterials 3,080.00 3,080.00 0.00
8 Northeast CTR-102206791 Single Family Parks 1,236.00 1,236.00 0.00
9 Northeast CTR-102206822 Single Family Water 6,330.00 6,330.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
10 Northeast CTR-102204498 Single Family Wastewater 3,303.00 3,303.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
11 Northeast CTR-102204499 Single Family Fire 551.00 551.00 0.00
12 Northeast CTR-102206919 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
13 Northeast CTR-102207264 Single Family Police 314.00 314.00 0.00
14 Northeast CTR-102207279 Single Family Major Arterials 3,080.00 3,080.00 0.00
15 Northeast CTR-102207621 Single Family Parks 1,236.00 1,236.00 0.00
16 Northeast CTR-102300476 Single Family Water 6,330.00 6,330.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
17 Northeast CTR-102300476 Single Family Wastewater 3,303.00 3,303.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
18 Northeast CTR-102300788 Single Family Fire 551.00 551.00 0.00
19 Northeast CTR-102300804 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
20 Northeast CTR-102301641 Single Family Police 314.00 314.00 0.00
21 Northeast CTR-102301659 Single Family Major Arterials 3,080.00 3,080.00 0.00
22 Northeast CTR-10301758 Single Family Parks 1,236.00 1,236.00 0.00
23 Northeast CTR-102301420 Single Family Water 6,330.00 6,330.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
24 Northeast CTR-102302229 Single Family Wastewater 3,303.00 3,303.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
25 Northeast CTR-102302227 Single Family Fire 551.00 551.00 0.00
26 Northeast CTR-102302272 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
27 Northeast CTR-102302345 Single Family Police 314.00 314.00 0.00
28 Northeast CTR-102302350 Single Family Major Arterials 3,080.00 3,080.00 0.00
29 Northeast CTR-102302353 Single Family Parks 1,236.00 1,236.00 0.00
30 Northeast CTR-102302353 Single Family Water 6,330.00 6,330.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
31 Northeast CTR-102301784 Single Family Wastewater 3,303.00 3,303.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
32 Northeast CTR-102301713 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
33 Northeast CTR-102301786 Single Family Fire 551.00 551.00 0.00
34 Northeast CTR-102302895 Single Family Police 314.00 314.00 0.00
35 Northeast CTR-102302991 Single Family Major Arterials 3,080.00 3,080.00 0.00
36 Northeast CTR-102302996 Single Family Parks 1,236.00 1,236.00 0.00
37 Northeast CTR-102303110 Single Family Water 6,330.00 6,330.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
38 Northeast CTR-102302658 Single Family Wastewater 3,303.00 3,303.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
39 Northeast CTR-102302658 Single Family Wastewater 3,303.00 3,303.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
40 Northeast CTR-102304242 Single Family Fire 551.00 551.00 0.00
41 Northeast CTR-102304267 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
42 Northeast CTR-102304250 Single Family Police 314.00 314.00 0.00
43 Northeast CTR-102304283 Single Family Major Arterials 3,080.00 3,080.00 0.00
44 Northeast CTR-102304311 Single Family Parks 1,236.00 1,236.00 0.00
45 Northeast CTR-102304306 Single Family Parks 1,236.00 1,236.00 0.00
46 Northeast CTR-102304368 Single Family Water 6,330.00 6,330.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
47 Northeast CTR-102304519 Single Family Wastewater 3,303.00 3,303.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
48 Northeast CTR-102304561 Single Family Fire 551.00 551.00 0.00
49 Northeast CTR-102304748 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
50 Northeast CTR-102304752 Single Family Police 314.00 314.00 0.00
51 Northeast CTR-102304481 Single Family Police 314.00 314.00 0.00
52 Northeast CTR-102304874 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
53 Northeast CTR-102304252 Single Family Police 314.00 314.00 0.00
54 Northeast CTR-102304718 Single Family Major Arterials 3,080.00 3,080.00 0.00
55 Northeast CTR-102305252 Single Family Major Arterials 3,080.00 3,080.00 0.00
56 Northeast CTR-102305345 Single Family Parks 1,236.00 1,236.00 0.00
57 Northeast CTR-102300723 Single Family Water 6,330.00 6,330.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
58 Northeast CTR-102305843 Single Family Major Arterials 3,080.00 3,080.00 0.00
59 Northeast CTR-102306441 Single Family Parks 1,236.00 1,236.00 0.00
60 Northeast CTR-102306525 Single Family Wastewater 3,303.00 3,303.00 0.00 up to 1-inch




Permit Sampling K-7
Residential
Sample No. Location Receipt Development Type Fee Category Assessed Fee Fee in Effect Difference Notes
FY 2022-23 1 Northwest CTR-102200607 Single Family Water $6,330.00 $6,330.00 $0.00 up to 1-inch
2 Northwest CTR-102201790 Single Family Police 293.00 293.00 0.00
3 Northwest CTR-102201827 Single Family Water 6,330.00 6,330.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
4 Northwest CTR-102201914 Single Family Parks 1,368.00 1,368.00 0.00
5 Northwest CTR-102202033 Single Family Major Arterials 3,080.00 3,080.00 0.00
6 Northwest CTR-102202038 Single Family Fire 516.00 516.00 0.00
7 Northwest CTR-102202570 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
8 Northwest CTR-102202947 Single Family Police 293.00 293.00 0.00
9 Northwest CTR-102203482 Single Family Water 6,330.00 6,330.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
10 Northwest CTR-102203692 Single Family Parks 1,368.00 1,368.00 0.00
11 Northwest CTR-102203854 Single Family Major Arterials 3,080.00 3,080.00 0.00
12 Northwest CTR-102203875 Single Family Fire 516.00 516.00 0.00
13 Northwest CTR-102203361 Single Family Major Arterials 3,080.00 3,080.00 0.00
14 Northwest CTR-102203365 Single Family Wastewater 3,303.00 3,303.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
15 Northwest CTR-102203365 Single Family Fire 516.00 516.00 0.00
16 Northwest CTR-102204777 Single Family Parks 1,368.00 1,368.00 0.00
17 Northwest CTR-102204794 Single Family Major Arterials 3,080.00 3,080.00 0.00
18 Northwest CTR-102205011 Single Family Fire 516.00 516.00 0.00
19 Northwest CTR-102205012 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
20 Northwest CTR-102205357 Single Family Major Arterials 3,080.00 3,080.00 0.00
21 Northwest CTR-102205424 Single Family Water 6,330.00 6,330.00 0.00
22 Northwest CTR-102206238 Single Family Parks 1,368.00 1,368.00 0.00
23 Northwest CTR-102206234 Single Family Major Arterials 3,080.00 3,080.00 0.00
24 Northwest CTR-102206163 Single Family Fire 516.00 516.00 0.00
25 Northwest CTR-102205338 Single Family Parks 1,368.00 1,368.00 0.00
26 Northwest CTR-102205384 Single Family Police 293.00 293.00 0.00
27 Northwest CTR-102205868 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
28 Northwest CTR-102206165 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
29 Northwest CTR-102300349 Single Family Police 293.00 293.00 0.00
30 Northwest CTR-102300894 Single Family Water 6,330.00 6,330.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
31 Northwest CTR-102301299 Single Family Police 293.00 293.00 0.00
32 Northwest CTR-102301523 Single Family Police 293.00 293.00 0.00
33 Northwest CTR-102301327 Single Family Water 6,330.00 6,330.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
34 Northwest CTR-102301333 Single Family Parks 1,368.00 1,368.00 0.00
35 Northwest CTR-102302328 Single Family Water 6,330.00 6,330.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
36 Northwest CTR-102302335 Single Family Parks 1,368.00 1,368.00 0.00
37 Northwest CTR-102302370 Single Family Parks 1,368.00 1,368.00 0.00
38 Northwest CTR-102302337 Single Family Fire 516.00 516.00 0.00
39 Northwest CTR-102302447 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
40 Northwest CTR-102302767 Single Family Police 293.00 293.00 0.00
41 Northwest CTR-102303088 Single Family Fire 516.00 516.00 0.00
42 Northwest CTR-102303510 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
43 Northwest CTR-102303455 Single Family Police 293.00 293.00 0.00
44 Northwest CTR-102303788 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
45 Northwest CTR-102303386 Single Family Fire 516.00 516.00 0.00
46 Northwest CTR-102200188 Single Family Major Arterials 3,080.00 3,080.00 0.00
47 Northwest CTR-102304425 Single Family FIre 516.00 516.00 0.00
48 Northwest CTR-102304043 Single Family Parks 1,368.00 1,368.00 0.00
49 Northwest CTR-102304495 Single Family Police 293.00 293.00 0.00
50 Northwest CTR-102304672 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
51 Northwest CTR-102305035 Single Family Parks 1,368.00 1,368.00 0.00
52 Northwest CTR-102305021 Single Family Police 293.00 293.00 0.00
53 Northwest CTR-102305023 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
54 Northwest CTR-102305482 Single Family Major Arterials 3,080.00 3,080.00 0.00
55 Northwest CTR-102305780 Single Family Fire 516.00 516.00 0.00
56 Northwest CTR-102306486 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
57 Northwest CTR-102306207 Single Family Police 293.00 293.00 0.00
58 Northwest CTR-102304497 Single Family Wastewater 3,303.00 3,303.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
59 Northwest CTR-102306849 Single Family Police 293.00 293.00 0.00
60 Northwest CTR-102307077 Single Family Water 6,330.00 6,330.00 0.00 up to 1-inch




Permit Sampling K-8
Residential
Sample No. Location Receipt Development Type Fee Category Assessed Fee Fee in Effect Difference Notes
FY 2022-23 1 Pardise Ridge CTR-102205299 Single Family Wastewater $3,303.00 $3,303.00 $0.00 up to 1-inch
2 Pardise Ridge CTR-102205299 Single Family Water 6,330.00 6,330.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
3 Pardise Ridge CTR-102205299 Single Family Major Arterials 3,080.00 3,080.00 0.00
4 Pardise Ridge CTR-102205299 Single Family Libraries 105.00 105.00 0.00
5 Pardise Ridge CTR-102205324 Single Family Wastewater 3,303.00 3,303.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
6 Pardise Ridge CTR-102205324 Single Family Water 6,330.00 6,330.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
7 Pardise Ridge CTR-102205324 Single Family Major Arterials 3,080.00 3,080.00 0.00
8 Pardise Ridge CTR-102205324 Single Family Libraries 105.00 105.00 0.00




Permit Sampling K-9
Residential
Sample No. Location Receipt Development Type Fee Category Assessed Fee Fee in Effect Difference Notes
FY 2023-24 1 Ahwatukee CTR-102313018 Single Family Fire $470.00 $470.00 $0.00
2 Ahwatukee CTR-102313018 Single Family Wastewater 1,380.00 1,380.00 0.00
3 Ahwatukee CTR-102313018 Single Family Libraries 105.00 105.00 0.00
4 Ahwatukee CTR-102313018 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00
5 Ahwatukee CTR-102313018 Single Family Police 342.00 342.00 0.00
6 Ahwatukee CTR-102313018 Single Family Parks 1,225.00 1,225.00 0.00
7 Ahwatukee CTR-102305895 Single Family Fire 470.00 470.00 0.00
8 Ahwatukee CTR-102305895 Single Family Wastewater 1,380.00 1,380.00 0.00
9 Ahwatukee CTR-102305895 Single Family Libraries 105.00 105.00 0.00
10 Ahwatukee CTR-102305895 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00
11 Ahwatukee CTR-102305895 Single Family Police 342.00 342.00 0.00
12 Ahwatukee CTR-102305895 Single Family Parks 1,225.00 1,225.00 0.00




Permit Sampling K-10
Residential
Sample No. Location Receipt Development Type Fee Category Assessed Fee Fee in Effect Difference Notes
FY 2023-24 1 Deer Valley CTR-1023027342 Single Family Wastewater $1,380.00 $1,380.00 $0.00
2 Deer Valley CTR-102307626 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
3 Deer Valley CTR102307626 Single Family Water 6,330.00 6,330.00 0.00
4 Deer Valley CTR-102307626 Single Family Fire 516.00 516.00 0.00
5 Deer Valley CTR-102300305 Single Family Wastewater 1,380.00 1,380.00 0.00
6 Deer Valley CTR-102300305 Single Family Major Arterials 3,080.00 3,080.00 0.00
7 Deer Valley CTR-102307981 Single Family Police 293.00 293.00 0.00
8 Deer Valley CTR-102307981 Single Family Major Arterials 3,080.00 3,080.00 0.00
9 Deer Valley CTR-102307888 Single Family Water 6,330.00 6,330.00 0.00
10 Deer Valley CTR-102307888 Single Family Fire 516.00 516.00 0.00
11 Deer Valley CTR-102203251 Single Family Wastewater 1,380.00 1,380.00 0.00
12 Deer Valley CTR-102308242 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
13 Deer Valley CTR-102308242 Single Family Parks 1,368.00 1,368.00 0.00
14 Deer Valley CTR-102308216 Single Family Police 293.00 293.00 0.00
15 Deer Valley CTR-102308216 Single Family Major Arterials 3,080.00 3,080.00 0.00
16 Deer Valley CTR-102308557 Single Family Water 6,330.00 6,330.00 0.00
17 Deer Valley CTR-102308557 Single Family Fire 516.00 516.00 0.00
18 Deer Valley CTR-102308670 Single Family Wastewater 1,380.00 1,380.00 0.00
19 Deer Valley CTR-102300824 Single Family Police 293.00 293.00 0.00
20 Deer Valley CTR-102300824 Single Family Major Arterials 3,080.00 3,080.00 0.00
21 Deer Valley CTR-102300827 Single Family Water 6,330.00 6,330.00 0.00
22 Deer Valley CTR-102300827 Single Family Fire 516.00 516.00 0.00
23 Deer Valley CTR-102309684 Single Family Wastewater 1,380.00 1,380.00 0.00
24 Deer Valley CTR-102309783 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
25 Deer Valley CTR-102309783 Single Family Parks 1,368.00 1,368.00 0.00
26 Deer Valley CTR-102309792 Single Family Police 293.00 293.00 0.00
27 Deer Valley CTR-102309792 Single Family Major Arterials 3,080.00 3,080.00 0.00
28 Deer Valley CTR-102309786 Single Family Water 6,330.00 6,330.00 0.00
29 Deer Valley CTR-102309786 Single Family Fire 516.00 516.00 0.00
30 Deer Valley CTR-102309787 Single Family Wastewater 1,380.00 1,380.00 0.00
31 Deer Valley CTR-102309788 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
32 Deer Valley CTR-102309788 Single Family Parks 1,368.00 1,368.00 0.00
33 Deer Valley CTR-102309775 Single Family Police 293.00 293.00 0.00
34 Deer Valley CTR-102309775 Single Family Major Arterials 3,080.00 3,080.00 0.00
35 Deer Valley CTR-102309782 Single Family Water 6,330.00 6,330.00 0.00
36 Deer Valley CTR-102309782 Single Family Fire 516.00 516.00 0.00
37 Deer Valley CTR-102310007 Single Family Wastewater 1,380.00 1,380.00 0.00
38 Deer Valley CTR-102310004 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
39 Deer Valley CTR-102310004 Single Family Police 293.00 293.00 0.00
40 Deer Valley CTR-102310004 Single Family Major Arterials 3,080.00 3,080.00 0.00
41 Deer Valley CTR-102310369 Single Family Water 6,330.00 6,330.00 0.00
42 Deer Valley CTR-102310369 Single Family Fire 516.00 516.00 0.00
43 Deer Valley CTR-102310374 Single Family Wastewater 1,380.00 1,380.00 0.00
44 Deer Valley CTR-102310376 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
45 Deer Valley CTR-102310376 Single Family Parks 1,368.00 1,368.00 0.00
46 Deer Valley CTR-102310458 Single Family Police 293.00 293.00 0.00
47 Deer Valley CTR-102310458 Single Family Major Arterials 3,080.00 3,080.00 0.00
48 Deer Valley CTR-102310453 Single Family Water 6,330.00 6,330.00 0.00
49 Deer Valley CTR-102310453 Single Family Wastewater 1,380.00 1,380.00 0.00
50 Deer Valley CTR-102310378 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
51 Deer Valley CTR-102310378 Single Family Parks 1,368.00 1,368.00 0.00
52 Deer Valley CTR-102312063 Single Family Police 293.00 293.00 0.00
53 Deer Valley CTR-102312063 Single Family Major Arterials 3,080.00 3,080.00 0.00
54 Deer Valley CTR-102312066 Single Family Water 6,330.00 6,330.00 0.00
55 Deer Valley CTR-102312066 Single Family Fire 516.00 516.00 0.00
56 Deer Valley CTR-102312065 Single Family Wastewater 1,380.00 1,380.00 0.00
57 Deer Valley CTR-102312064 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
58 Deer Valley CTR-102312064 Single Family Parks 1,368.00 1,368.00 0.00
59 Deer Valley CTR-102312064 Single Family Fire 516.00 516.00 0.00
60 Deer Valley CTR-102312148 Single Family Water 6,330.00 6,330.00 0.00




Permit Sampling K-11
Residential
Sample No. Location Receipt Development Type Fee Category Assessed Fee Fee in Effect Difference Notes
FY 2023-24 1 Estrella-North CTR-102207720 Single Family Wastewater $1,380.00 $1,380.00 $0.00
2 Estrella-North CTR-102207720 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00
3 Estrella-North CTR-102207720 Single Family Fire 487.00 487.00 0.00
4 Estrella-North CTR-102207720 Single Family Major Arterials 1,928.00 1,928.00 0.00
5 Estrella-North CTR-102207720 Single Family Parks 1,241.00 1,241.00 0.00
6 Estrella-North CTR-102207720 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
7 Estrella-North CTR-102207720 Single Family Police 285.00 285.00 0.00
8 Estrella-North CTR-102304377 Single Family Wastewater 1,380.00 1,380.00 0.00
9 Estrella-North CTR-102304377 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00
10 Estrella-North CTR-102304377 Single Family Fire 487.00 487.00 0.00
11 Estrella-North CTR-102304377 Single Family Major Arterials 1,928.00 1,928.00 0.00
12 Estrella-North CTR-102304377 Single Family Parks 1,241.00 1,241.00 0.00
13 Estrella-North CTR-102304377 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
14 Estrella-North CTR-102304377 Single Family Police 285.00 285.00 0.00




Permit Sampling K-12
Residential
Sample No. Location Receipt Development Type Fee Category Assessed Fee Fee in Effect Difference Notes
FY 2023-24 1 Estrella-South CTR-102301465 Single Family Wastewater $3,787.00 $3,787.00 $0.00 up to 1-inch
2 Estrella-South CTR-102307324 Single Family Parks 1,241.00 1,241.00 0.00
3 Estrella-South CTR-102307677 Single Family Police 285.00 285.00 0.00
4 Estrella-South CTR-102308055 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
5 Estrella-South CTR-102308426 Single Family Parks 1,241.00 1,241.00 0.00
6 Estrella-South CTR-102309659 Multifamily Wastewater 1,789.63 1,789.63 0.00
7 Estrella-South CTR-102309828 Multifamily Major Arterials 1,446.00 1,446.00 0.00
8 Estrella-South CTR-102309869 Multifamily Police 213.75 213.75 0.00
9 Estrella-South CTR-102310064 Multifamily Fire 365.25 365.25 0.00
10 Estrella-South CTR-102310075 Multifamily Police 213.75 213.75 0.00
11 Estrella-South CTR-102308964 Single Family Parks 1,241.00 1,241.00 0.00
12 Estrella-South CTR-102310142 Multifamily Major Arterials 1,446.00 1,446.00 0.00
13 Estrella-South CTR-102309092 Single Family Major Arterials 1,928.00 1,928.00 0.00
14 Estrella-South CTR-102309234 Single Family Fire 487.00 487.00 0.00
15 Estrella-South CTR-102309267 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
16 Estrella-South CTR-102309498 Single Family Wastewater 3,787.00 3,787.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
17 Estrella-South CTR-102309524 Single Family Police 285.00 285.00 0.00
18 Estrella-South CTR-102309899 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
19 Estrella-South CTR-102310390 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
20 Estrella-South CTR-102310809 Single Family Wastewater 3,787.00 3,787.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
21 Estrella-South CTR-102310674 Single Family Police 285.00 285.00 0.00
22 Estrella-South CTR-102310677 Single Family Parks 1,241.00 1,241.00 0.00
23 Estrella-South CTR-102311193 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
24 Estrella-South CTR-102311427 Single Family Parks 1,241.00 1,241.00 0.00
25 Estrella-South CTR-102311435 Single Family Major Arterials 1,928.00 1,928.00 0.00
26 Estrella-South CTR-102311677 Single Family Fire 487.00 487.00 0.00
27 Estrella-South CTR-102312003 Single Family Fire 487.00 487.00 0.00
28 Estrella-South CTR-102312026 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
29 Estrella-South CTR-102312100 Single Family Wastewater 3,787.00 3,787.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
30 Estrella-South CTR-102312407 Single Family Police 285.00 285.00 0.00
31 Estrella-South CTR-102312420 Single Family Parks 1,241.00 1,241.00 0.00
32 Estrella-South CTR-102312624 Single Family Major Arterials 1,928.00 1,928.00 0.00
33 Estrella-South CTR-102312740 Single Family Fire 487.00 487.00 0.00
34 Estrella-South CTR-102311358 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
35 Estrella-South CTR-102313204 Single Family Wastewater 3,787.00 3,787.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
36 Estrella-South CTR-102313543 Single Family Police 285.00 285.00 0.00
37 Estrella-South CTR-102313639 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
38 Estrella-South CTR-102313624 Single Family Parks 1,241.00 1,241.00 0.00
39 Estrella-South CTR-102313675 Single Family Major Arterials 1,928.00 1,928.00 0.00
40 Estrella-South CTR-102314165 Single Family Police 285.00 285.00 0.00
41 Estrella-South CTR-102314506 Single Family Police 285.00 285.00 0.00
42 Estrella-South CTR-102314925 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
43 Estrella-South CTR-102314900 Single Family Parks 1,241.00 1,241.00 0.00
44 Estrella-South CTR-102314891 Single Family Major Arterials 1,928.00 1,928.00 0.00
45 Estrella-South CTR-102314918 Single Family Fire 487.00 487.00 0.00
46 Estrella-South CTR-102401197 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
47 Estrella-South CTR-102400767 Single Family Wastewater 3,787.00 3,787.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
48 Estrella-South CTR-102401732 Single Family Police 285.00 285.00 0.00
49 Estrella-South CTR-102402305 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
50 Estrella-South CTR-102402954 Single Family Police 285.00 285.00 0.00
51 Estrella-South CTR-102402362 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
52 Estrella-South CTR-102403864 Single Family Fire 487.00 487.00 0.00
53 Estrella-South CTR-102404929 Single Family Major Arterials 1,928.00 1,928.00 0.00
54 Estrella-South CTR-102403596 Single Family Police 285.00 285.00 0.00
55 Estrella-South CTR-102402424 Single Family Wastewater 3,787.00 3,787.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
56 Estrella-South CTR-102405663 Single Family Fire 487.00 487.00 0.00
57 Estrella-South CTR-102406027 Single Family Police 285.00 285.00 0.00
58 Estrella-South CTR-102406584 Single Family Parks 1,241.00 1,241.00 0.00
59 Estrella-South CTR-102406441 Single Family Fire 487.00 487.00 0.00
60 Estrella-South CTR-102405421 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00 up to 1-inch




Permit Sampling K-13
Residential
Sample No. Location Receipt Development Type Fee Category Assessed Fee Fee in Effect Difference Notes
FY 2023-24 1 Laveen-East CTR-102304860 Single Family Wastewater $1,380.00 $1,380.00 $0.00 up to 1-inch
2 Laveen-East CTR-102305958 Single Family Wastewater 1,380.00 1,380.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
3 Laveen-East CTR-102306172 Single Family Wastewater 1,380.00 1,380.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
4 Laveen-East CTR-102306887 Single Family Wastewater 1,380.00 1,380.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
5 Laveen-East CTR-102306886 Single Family Wastewater 1,380.00 1,380.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
6 Laveen-East CTR-102307295 Single Family Wastewater 1,380.00 1,380.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
7 Laveen-East CTR-102307386 Single Family Wastewater 1,380.00 1,380.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
8 Laveen-East CTR-102307453 Single Family Wastewater 1,380.00 1,380.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
9 Laveen-East CTR-102307715 Single Family Wastewater 1,380.00 1,380.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
10 Laveen-East CTR-102308444 Single Family Police 285.00 285.00 0.00
11 Laveen-East CTR-102305798 Single Family Wastewater 1,380.00 1,380.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
12 Laveen-East CTR-102306001 Single Family Wastewater 1,380.00 1,380.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
13 Laveen-East CTR-102307099 Single Family Parks 1,241.00 1,241.00 0.00
14 Laveen-East CTR-102305991 Single Family Wastewater 1,380.00 1,380.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
15 Laveen-East CTR-102306003 Single Family Wastewater 1,380.00 1,380.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
16 Laveen-East CTR-102307100 Single Family Wastewater 1,380.00 1,380.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
17 Laveen-East CTR-102307103 Single Family Wastewater 1,380.00 1,380.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
18 Laveen-East CTR-102305997 Single Family Wastewater 1,380.00 1,380.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
19 Laveen-East CTR-102305998 Single Family Wastewater 1,380.00 1,380.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
20 Laveen-East CTR-102307118 Single Family Wastewater 1,380.00 1,380.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
21 Laveen-East CTR-102308483 Single Family Wastewater 1,380.00 1,380.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
22 Laveen-East CTR-102308466 Single Family Wastewater 1,380.00 1,380.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
23 Laveen-East CTR-102308597 Single Family Wastewater 1,380.00 1,380.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
24 Laveen-East CTR-102308838 Single Family Wastewater 1,380.00 1,380.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
25 Laveen-East CRT-102309177 Single Family Wastewater 1,380.00 1,380.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
26 Laveen-East CTR-102309240 Single Family Wastewater 1,380.00 1,380.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
27 Laveen-East CTR-102309164 Single Family Wastewater 1,380.00 1,380.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
28 Laveen-East CTR-102309285 Single Family Wastewater 1,380.00 1,380.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
29 Laveen-East CTR-102309433 Single Family Wastewater 1,380.00 1,380.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
30 Laveen-East CTR-102309598 Single Family Wastewater 1,380.00 1,380.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
31 Laveen-East CTR-102309990 Single Family Wastewater 1,380.00 1,380.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
32 Laveen-East CTR-102309880 Single Family Wastewater 1,380.00 1,380.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
33 Laveen-East CTR-102310295 Single Family Wastewater 1,380.00 1,380.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
34 Laveen-East CTR-102310293 Single Family Wastewater 1,380.00 1,380.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
35 Laveen-East CTR-102310574 Single Family Wastewater 1,380.00 1,380.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
36 Laveen-East CTR-102311656 Single Family Wastewater 1,380.00 1,380.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
37 Laveen-East CTR-102312402 Single Family Wastewater 1,380.00 1,380.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
38 Laveen-East CTR-102312403 Single Family Wastewater 1,380.00 1,380.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
39 Laveen-East CTR-102312648 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
40 Laveen-East CTR-102313330 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
41 Laveen-East CTR-102313334 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
42 Laveen-East CTR-102313556 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
43 Laveen-East CTR-102313564 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
44 Laveen-East CTR-102313558 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
45 Laveen-East CTR-102314080 Single Family Wastewater 1,380.00 1,380.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
46 Laveen-East CTR-102314075 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
47 Laveen-East CTR-102314076 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
48 Laveen-East CTR-102314247 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
49 Laveen-East CTR-102314482 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
50 Laveen-East CTR-102314977 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
51 Laveen-East CTR-102400061 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
52 Laveen-East CTR-102400067 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
53 Laveen-East CTR-102401069 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
54 Laveen-East CTR-102401925 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
55 Laveen-East CTR-102402594 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
56 Laveen-East CTR-102403013 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
57 Laveen-East CTR-102403503 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
58 Laveen-East CTR-102207522 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
59 Laveen-East CTR-102404702 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
60 Laveen-East CTR-102405994 Single Family Wastewater 1,380.00 1,380.00 0.00 up to 1-inch




Permit Sampling K-14
Residential
Sample No. Location Receipt Development Type Fee Category Assessed Fee Fee in Effect Difference Notes
FY 2023-24 1 Laveen-West CTR-102300302 Single Family Wastewater $3,630.00 $3,630.00 $0.00 up to 1-inch
2 Laveen-West CTR-102305181 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
3 Laveen-West CTR-102306899 Single Family Wastewater 3,630.00 3,630.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
4 Laveen-West CTR-102307629 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
5 Laveen-West CTR-102307730 Single Family Wastewater 3,630.00 3,630.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
6 Laveen-West CTR-102307402 Single Family Police 285.00 285.00 0.00
7 Laveen-West CTR-102307798 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
8 Laveen-West CTR-102307783 Single Family Parks 1,241.00 1,241.00 0.00
9 Laveen-West CTR-102307835 Single Family Major Arterials 1,928.00 1,928.00 0.00
10 Laveen-West CTR-102308314 Single Family Fire 487.00 487.00 0.00
11 Laveen-West CTR-102308226 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
12 Laveen-West CTR-102308588 Single Family Wastewater 3,630.00 3,630.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
13 Laveen-West CTR-102308747 Single Family Police 285.00 285.00 0.00
14 Laveen-West CTR-102308897 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
15 Laveen-West CTR-102309377 Single Family Parks 1,241.00 1,241.00 0.00
16 Laveen-West CTR-102309170 Single Family Major Arterials 1,928.00 1,928.00 0.00
17 Laveen-West CTR-102309741 Single Family Fire 487.00 487.00 0.00
18 Laveen-West CTR-102309936 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
19 Laveen-West CTR-102310540 Single Family Wastewater 3,630.00 3,630.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
20 Laveen-West CTR-102310707 Single Family Wastewater 3,630.00 3,630.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
21 Laveen-West CTR-102311311 Single Family Police 285.00 285.00 0.00
22 Laveen-West CTR-102311642 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
23 Laveen-West CTR-102311786 Single Family Major Arterials 1,928.00 1,928.00 0.00
24 Laveen-West CTR-102312045 Single Family Major Arterials 1,928.00 1,928.00 0.00
25 Laveen-West CTR-102312306 Single Family Fire 487.00 487.00 0.00
26 Laveen-West CTR-102312446 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
27 Laveen-West CTR-102312981 Single Family Wastewater 3,630.00 3,630.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
28 Laveen-West CTR-102313323 Single Family Police 285.00 285.00 0.00
29 Laveen-West CTR-102313605 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
30 Laveen-West CTR-102313829 Single Family Parks 1,241.00 1,241.00 0.00
31 Laveen-West CTR-102314032 Single Family Major Arterials 1,928.00 1,928.00 0.00
32 Laveen-West CTR-102314306 Single Family Fire 487.00 487.00 0.00
33 Laveen-West CTR-102314417 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
34 Laveen-West CTR-102313942 Single Family Wastewater 3,630.00 3,630.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
35 Laveen-West CTR-102400066 Single Family Police 285.00 285.00 0.00
36 Laveen-West CTR-102400393 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
37 Laveen-West CTR-102400615 Single Family Parks 1,241.00 1,241.00 0.00
38 Laveen-West CTR-102400834 Single Family Major Arterials 1,928.00 1,928.00 0.00
39 Laveen-West CTR-102400943 Single Family Fire 487.00 487.00 0.00
40 Laveen-West CTR-102401166 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
41 Laveen-West CTR-102401457 Single Family Wastewater 3,630.00 3,630.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
42 Laveen-West CTR-102401586 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
43 Laveen-West CTR-102401563 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
44 Laveen-West CTR-102314450 Single Family Parks 1,241.00 1,241.00 0.00
45 Laveen-West CTR-102402413 Single Family Major Arterials 1,928.00 1,928.00 0.00
46 Laveen-West CTR-102402582 Single Family Fire 487.00 487.00 0.00
47 Laveen-West CTR-102402816 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
48 Laveen-West CTR-102403164 Single Family Wastewater 3,630.00 3,630.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
49 Laveen-West CTR-102403361 Single Family Police 285.00 285.00 0.00
50 Laveen-West CTR-102403280 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
51 Laveen-West CTR-102403563 Single Family Parks 1,241.00 1,241.00 0.00
52 Laveen-West CTR-102403924 Single Family Police 285.00 285.00 0.00
53 Laveen-West CTR-102403755 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
54 Laveen-West CTR-102404245 Single Family Parks 1,241.00 1,241.00 0.00
55 Laveen-West CTR-102404510 Single Family Water 4,016.00 4,016.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
56 Laveen-West CTR-102404660 Single Family Major Arterials 1,928.00 1,928.00 0.00
57 Laveen-West CTR-102404265 Single Family Parks 1,241.00 1,241.00 0.00
58 Laveen-West CTR-102404954 Single Family Major Arterials 1,928.00 1,928.00 0.00
59 Laveen-West CTR-102405350 Single Family Wastewater 3,630.00 3,630.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
60 Laveen-West CTR-102405688 Single Family Police 285.00 285.00 0.00




Permit Sampling K-15
Residential
Sample No. Location Receipt Development Type Fee Category Assessed Fee Fee in Effect Difference Notes
FY 2023-24 1 Northeast CTR-102303984 Single Family Wastewater 3,303.00 3,303.00 $0.00 up to 1-inch
2 Northeast CTR-102307855 Single Family Wastewater 3,303.00 3,303.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
3 Northeast CTR-102307861 Single Family Parks 1,236.00 1,236.00 0.00
4 Northeast CTR-102307966 Single Family Police 314.00 314.00 0.00
5 Northeast CTR-102307951 Single Family Fire 551.00 551.00 0.00
6 Northeast CTR-102308173 Single Family Water 6,330.00 6,330.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
7 Northeast CTR-102308169 Single Family Major Arterials 3,080.00 3,080.00 0.00
8 Northeast CTR-102307947 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
9 Northeast CTR-102308454 Single Family Wastewater 3,303.00 3,303.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
10 Northeast CTR-102308006 Single Family Parks 1,236.00 1,236.00 0.00
11 Northeast CTR-102302228 Single Family Parks 1,236.00 1,236.00 0.00
12 Northeast CTR-102308994 Single Family Fire 551.00 551.00 0.00
13 Northeast CTR-102308941 Single Family Water 6,330.00 6,330.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
14 Northeast CTR-102308991 Single Family Major Arterials 3,080.00 3,080.00 0.00
15 Northeast CTR-102309084 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
16 Northeast CTR-102308996 Single Family Wastewater 3,303.00 3,303.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
17 Northeast CTR-102309544 Single Family Parks 1,236.00 1,236.00 0.00
18 Northeast CTR-102309602 Single Family Police 314.00 314.00 0.00
19 Northeast CTR-102309910 Single Family Fire 551.00 551.00 0.00
20 Northeast CTR-102309912 Single Family Water 6,330.00 6,330.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
21 Northeast CTR-102310478 Single Family Major Arterials 3,080.00 3,080.00 0.00
22 Northeast CTR-102310643 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
23 Northeast CTR-102310883 Single Family Fire 551.00 551.00 0.00
24 Northeast CTR-102311017 Single Family Water 6,330.00 6,330.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
25 Northeast CTR-102311018 Single Family Major Arterials 3,080.00 3,080.00 0.00
26 Northeast CTR-102309087 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
27 Northeast CTR-102311250 Single Family Wastewater 3,303.00 3,303.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
28 Northeast CTR-102311556 Single Family Parks 1,236.00 1,236.00 0.00
29 Northeast CTR-102311559 Single Family Police 314.00 314.00 0.00
30 Northeast CTR-102311603 Single Family Fire 551.00 551.00 0.00
31 Northeast CTR-102312249 Single Family Water 6,330.00 6,330.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
32 Northeast CTR-102312253 Single Family Major Arterials 3,080.00 3,080.00 0.00
33 Northeast CTR-102312265 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
34 Northeast CTR-102312590 Single Family Wastewater 3,303.00 3,303.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
35 Northeast CTR-102312543 Single Family Parks 1,236.00 1,236.00 0.00
36 Northeast CTR-102312547 Single Family Police 314.00 314.00 0.00
37 Northeast CTR-102312552 Single Family Fire 551.00 551.00 0.00
38 Northeast CTR-102312602 Single Family Water 6,330.00 6,330.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
39 Northeast CTR-102312679 Single Family Major Arterials 3,080.00 3,080.00 0.00
40 Northeast CTR-102312851 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
41 Northeast CTR-102312881 Single Family Wastewater 3,303.00 3,303.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
42 Northeast CTR-102312853 Single Family Parks 1,236.00 1,236.00 0.00
43 Northeast CTR-102312858 Single Family Police 314.00 314.00 0.00
44 Northeast CTR-102312850 Single Family Fire 551.00 551.00 0.00
45 Northeast CTR-102313337 Single Family Water 6,330.00 6,330.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
46 Northeast CTR-102312889 Single Family Major Arterials 3,080.00 3,080.00 0.00
47 Northeast CTR-102314466 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
48 Northeast CTR-102400652 Single Family Wastewater 3,303.00 3,303.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
49 Northeast CTR-102402187 Single Family Parks 1,236.00 1,236.00 0.00
50 Northeast CTR-102402246 Single Family Police 314.00 314.00 0.00
51 Northeast CTR-102402858 Single Family Fire 1,102.00 1,102.00 0.00 2 EDUs
52 Northeast CTR-102403087 Single Family Water 12,660.00 12,660.00 0.00 2 up to 1-inch
53 Northeast CTR-102403086 Single Family Major Arterials 6,160.00 6,160.00 0.00 2 EDUs
54 Northeast CTR-102403756 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
55 Northeast CTR-102404175 Single Family Wastewater 3,303.00 3,303.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
56 Northeast CTR-102405147 Single Family Parks 1,236.00 1,236.00 0.00
57 Northeast CTR-102405755 Single Family Police 628.00 628.00 0.00 2 EDUs
58 Northeast CTR-102303415 Single Family Fire 551.00 551.00 0.00
59 Northeast CTR-102302893 Single Family Water 6,330.00 6,330.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
60 Northeast CTR-102304481 Single Family Wastewater 3,303.00 3,303.00 0.00 up to 1-inch




Permit Sampling K-16
Residential
Sample No. Location Receipt Development Type Fee Category Assessed Fee Fee in Effect Difference Notes
FY 2023-24 1 Northwest CTR-102304003 Single Family Library $105.00 $105.00 $0.00
2 Northwest CTR-102307517 Single Family Police 293.00 293.00 0.00
3 Northwest CTR-102305643 Single Family Wastewater 3,303.00 3,303.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
4 Northwest CTR-102308080 Single Family Water 6,330.00 6,330.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
5 Northwest CTR-102305659 Single Family Parks 1,368.00 1,368.00 0.00
6 Northwest CTR-102305394 Single Family Major Arterials 3,080.00 3,080.00 0.00
7 Northwest CTR-102307170 Single Family Fire 516.00 516.00 0.00
8 Northwest CTR-102308342 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
9 Northwest CTR-102308340 Single Family Police 293.00 293.00 0.00
10 Northwest CTR-102308504 Single Family Wastewater 3,303.00 3,303.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
11 Northwest CTR-102308502 Single Family Water 6,330.00 6,330.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
12 Northwest CTR-102308565 Single Family Parks 1,368.00 1,368.00 0.00
13 Northwest CTR-102308594 Single Family Major Arterials 3,080.00 3,080.00 0.00
14 Northwest CTR-102308850 Single Family Fire 516.00 516.00 0.00
15 Northwest CTR-102309133 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
16 Northwest CTR-102309370 Single Family Police 293.00 293.00 0.00
17 Northwest CTR-102309369 Single Family Wastewater 3,303.00 3,303.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
18 Northwest CTR-102309685 Single Family Water 6,330.00 6,330.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
19 Northwest CTR-102309666 Single Family Parks 1,368.00 1,368.00 0.00
20 Northwest CTR-102309662 Single Family Major Arterials 3,080.00 3,080.00 0.00
21 Northwest CTR-102309725 Single Family Fire 516.00 516.00 0.00
22 Northwest CTR-102309678 Single Family Fire 516.00 516.00 0.00
23 Northwest CTR-102310665 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
24 Northwest CTR-102310739 Single Family Police 293.00 293.00 0.00
25 Northwest CTR-102310764 Single Family Wastewater 3,303.00 3,303.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
26 Northwest CTR-102311035 Single Family Water 6,330.00 6,330.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
27 Northwest CTR-102311287 Single Family Parks 1,368.00 1,368.00 0.00
28 Northwest CTR-102311465 Single Family Major Arterials 3,080.00 3,080.00 0.00
29 Northwest CTR-102311632 Single Family Fire 516.00 516.00 0.00
30 Northwest CTR-102310678 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
31 Northwest CTR-102312171 Single Family Police 293.00 293.00 0.00
32 Northwest CTR-102312282 Single Family Wastewater 3,303.00 3,303.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
33 Northwest CTR-102312277 Single Family Water 6,330.00 6,330.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
34 Northwest CTR-102312321 Single Family Parks 1,368.00 1,368.00 0.00
35 Northwest CTR-102312527 Single Family Major Arterials 3,080.00 3,080.00 0.00
36 Northwest CTR-102207451 Single Family Fire 516.00 516.00 0.00
37 Northwest CTR-102313507 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
38 Northwest CTR-102313597 Single Family Police 293.00 293.00 0.00
39 Northwest CTR-102313602 Single Family Wastewater 3,303.00 3,303.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
40 Northwest CTR-102313569 Single Family Water 6,330.00 6,330.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
41 Northwest CTR-102313625 Single Family Parks 1,368.00 1,368.00 0.00
42 Northwest CTR-102313820 Single Family Major Arterials 3,080.00 3,080.00 0.00
43 Northwest CTR-102314126 Single Family Fire 516.00 516.00 0.00
44 Northwest CTR-102314125 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
45 Northwest CTR-102314070 Single Family Police 293.00 293.00 0.00
46 Northwest CTR-102313999 Single Family Wastewater 3,303.00 3,303.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
47 Northwest CTR-102314298 Single Family Water 6,330.00 6,330.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
48 Northwest CTR-102400362 Single Family Parks 1,368.00 1,368.00 0.00
49 Northwest CTR-102400363 Single Family Major Arterials 3,080.00 3,080.00 0.00
50 Northwest CTR-102401326 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
51 Northwest CTR-102401591 Single Family Water 6,330.00 6,330.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
52 Northwest CTR-102401501 Single Family Fire 516.00 516.00 0.00
53 Northwest CTR-102401470 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
54 Northwest CTR-102400370 Single Family Police 293.00 293.00 0.00
55 Northwest CTR-102400375 Single Family Wastewater 3,303.00 3,303.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
56 Northwest CTR-102402518 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
57 Northwest CTR-102402743 Single Family Major Arterials 3,080.00 3,080.00 0.00
58 Northwest CTR-102402726 Single Family Fire 516.00 516.00 0.00
59 Northwest CTR-102402744 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
60 Northwest CTR-102404010 Single Family Police 293.00 293.00 0.00




Permit Sampling K-17
Residential
Sample No. Location Receipt Development Type Fee Category Assessed Fee Fee in Effect Difference Notes
FY 2023-24 1 Paradise Ridge CTR-102303523 Single Family Fire $551.00 $551.00 $0.00
2 Paradise Ridge CTR-102303523 Single Family Parks 1,236.00 1,236.00 0.00
3 Paradise Ridge CTR-102303523 Single Family Police 314.00 314.00 0.00
4 Paradise Ridge CTR-102303517 Single Family Fire 551.00 551.00 0.00
5 Paradise Ridge CTR-102303517 Single Family Water 6,330.00 6,330.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
6 Paradise Ridge CTR102303517 Single Family Major Arterials 3,080.00 3,080.00 0.00
7 Paradise Ridge CTR-102303517 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
8 Paradise Ridge CTR-102303483 Single Family Wastewater 3,303.00 3,303.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
9 Paradise Ridge CTR-102303483 Single Family Parks 1,236.00 1,236.00 0.00
10 Paradise Ridge CTR-102303483 Single Family Police 314.00 314.00 0.00
11 Paradise Ridge CTR-102303482 Single Family Fire 551.00 551.00 0.00
12 Paradise Ridge CTR-102303482 Single Family Water 6,330.00 6,330.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
13 Paradise Ridge CTR-102303482 Single Family Major Arterials 3,080.00 3,080.00 0.00
14 Paradise Ridge CTR-102303482 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
15 Paradise Ridge CTR-102303524 Single Family Wastewater 3,303.00 3,303.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
16 Paradise Ridge CTR-102303524 Single Family Parks 1,236.00 1,236.00 0.00
17 Paradise Ridge CTR-102303524 Single Family Police 314.00 314.00 0.00
18 Paradise Ridge CTR-102304483 Single Family Fire 551.00 551.00 0.00
19 Paradise Ridge CTR-102304483 Single Family Water 6,330.00 6,330.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
20 Paradise Ridge CTR-102304483 Single Family Major Arterials 3,080.00 3,080.00 0.00
21 Paradise Ridge CTR-102304483 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
22 Paradise Ridge CTR-102303521 Single Family Wastewater 3,303.00 3,303.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
23 Paradise Ridge CTR-102303521 Single Family Parks 1,236.00 1,236.00 0.00
24 Paradise Ridge CTR-102303521 Single Family Police 314.00 314.00 0.00
25 Paradise Ridge CTR-102305835 Single Family Fire 551.00 551.00 0.00
26 Paradise Ridge CTR-102305835 Single Family Wastewater 3,303.00 3,303.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
27 Paradise Ridge CTR-102305835 Single Family Parks 1,236.00 1,236.00 0.00
28 Paradise Ridge CTR-102305835 Single Family Police 314.00 314.00 0.00
29 Paradise Ridge CTR-102305835 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
30 Paradise Ridge CTR-102305837 Single Family Wastewater 3,303.00 3,303.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
31 Paradise Ridge CTR-102305837 Single Family Major Arterials 3,080.00 3,080.00 0.00
32 Paradise Ridge CTR-102305837 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
33 Paradise Ridge CTR-102305836 Single Family Fire 551.00 551.00 0.00
34 Paradise Ridge CTR-102305836 Single Family Water 6,330.00 6,330.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
35 Paradise Ridge CTR-102305836 Single Family Major Arterials 3,080.00 3,080.00 0.00
36 Paradise Ridge CTR-102305836 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
37 Paradise Ridge CTR-102305838 Single Family Wastewater 3,303.00 3,303.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
38 Paradise Ridge CTR-102305838 Single Family Parks 1,236.00 1,236.00 0.00
39 Paradise Ridge CTR-102305838 Single Family Police 314.00 314.00 0.00
40 Paradise Ridge CTR-102307459 Single Family Fire 551.00 551.00 0.00
41 Paradise Ridge CTR-102307459 Single Family Water 6,330.00 6,330.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
42 Paradise Ridge CTR-102307459 Single Family Major Arterials 3,080.00 3,080.00 0.00
43 Paradise Ridge CTR-102307459 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
44 Paradise Ridge CTR-102307454 Single Family Wastewater 3,303.00 3,303.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
45 Paradise Ridge CTR-102307454 Single Family Parks 1,236.00 1,236.00 0.00
46 Paradise Ridge CTR-102307454 Single Family Police 314.00 314.00 0.00
47 Paradise Ridge CTR-102306884 Single Family Fire 551.00 551.00 0.00
48 Paradise Ridge CTR-102306884 Single Family Water 6,330.00 6,330.00 0.00
49 Paradise Ridge CTR-102306884 Single Family Major Arterials 3,080.00 3,080.00 0.00
50 Paradise Ridge CTR-102306884 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
51 Paradise Ridge CTR-102311530 Single Family Wastewater 3,303.00 3,303.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
52 Paradise Ridge CTR-102311530 Single Family Parks 1,236.00 1,236.00 0.00
53 Paradise Ridge CTR-102311530 Single Family Police 314.00 314.00 0.00
54 Paradise Ridge CTR-102312466 Single Family Fire 551.00 551.00 0.00
55 Paradise Ridge CTR-102312466 Single Family Water 6,330.00 6,330.00 0.00
56 Paradise Ridge CTR-102312466 Single Family Major Arterials 3,080.00 3,080.00 0.00
57 Paradise Ridge CTR-102312466 Single Family Library 105.00 105.00 0.00
58 Paradise Ridge CTR-102310836 Single Family Wastewater 3,303.00 3,303.00 0.00 up to 1-inch
59 Paradise Ridge CTR-102310836 Single Family Parks 1,236.00 1,236.00 0.00
60 Paradise Ridge CTR-102310836 Single Family Police 314.00 314.00 0.00




Permit Sampling K-18
Non-Residential
Sample No. Location Receipt Development Type Fee Category Square Feet/EDU DIF/sqft/unit Assessed Fee Fee in Effect Difference Notes
FY 2022-23 1 Ahwatukee 23000515 Hotel to Multifamily Fire 32 $353 $6,918.00 $6,918.00 $0.00
2 Ahwatukee 23000515 Hotel to Multifamily Library 32 79 3,273 3,273 0.00
3 Ahwatukee 23000515 Hotel to Multifamily Parks 32 919 38,183 38,183 0.00
4 Ahwatukee 23000515 Hotel to Multifamily Police 32 257 5,035 5,035 0.00
5 Ahwatukee 23000517 Hotel to Multifamily Fire 24 353 3,922 3,922 0.00
6 Ahwatukee 23000517 Hotel to Multifamily Library 24 79 2,419 2,419 0.00
7 Ahwatukee 23000517 Hotel to Multifamily Parks 24 919 28,216 28,216 0.00
8 Ahwatukee 23000517 Hotel to Multifamily Police 24 257 2,854 2,854 0.00
9 Ahwatukee 23000518 Hotel to Multifamily Library 2 79 182 182 0.00
10 Ahwatukee 23000518 Hotel to Multifamily Parks 2 919 2,127 2,127 0.00




Permit Sampling K-19
Non-Residential
Sample No. Location Receipt Development Type Fee Category Square Feet/Acres DIF/sqft/Acre/DU Assessed Fee Fee in Effect Difference Notes
FY 2022-23 1 Deer Valley 23005059 Commercial-Retail Water-D n/a n/a $14,092.00 $14,092.00 $0.00 3/4-inch
2 Deer Valley 23005059 Commercial-Retail Wastewater-M n/a n/a 3,855.00 3,855.00 0.00 3/4-inch
3 Deer Valley 23012235 Commercial-Retail Water-L n/a n/a 14,092.00 14,092.00 0.00 3/4-inch
4 Deer Valley 22022809 Multifamily Water-D n/a n/a 45,468.00 45,468.00 0.00 8 EDU
5 Deer Valley 22022809 Multifamily Wastewater-M n/a n/a 12,204.00 12,204.00 0.00 10 EDU
6 Deer Valley 22022809 Multifamily Fire n/a 387 7,740.00 7,740.00 0.00 15 EDU
7 Deer Valley 22022809 Multifamily Library n/a 79 1,575.00 1,575.00 0.00 15 EDU
8 Deer Valley 22022809 Multifamily Major Arterials n/a 2,310 46,200.00 46,200.00 0.00 15 EDU
9 Deer Valley 22022809 Multifamily Parks n/a 1,026 20,520.00 20,520.00 0.00 15 EDU
10 Deer Valley 22022809 Multifamily Police n/a 220 4,395.00 4,395.00 0.00 15 EDU
11 Deer Valley 22022810 Multifamily Water-D n/a n/a 45,468.00 45,468.00 0.00 8 EDU
12 Deer Valley 22022810 Multifamily Wastewater-M n/a n/a 12,204.00 12,204.00 0.00 10 EDU
13 Deer Valley 22022810 Multifamily Fire n/a 387 7,740.00 7,740.00 0.00 15 EDU
14 Deer Valley 22022810 Multifamily Library n/a 79 1,575.00 1,575.00 0.00 15 EDU
15 Deer Valley 22022810 Multifamily Major Arterials n/a 2,310 46,200.00 46,200.00 0.00 15 EDU
16 Deer Valley 22022810 Multifamily Parks n/a 1,026 20,520.00 20,520.00 0.00 15 EDU
17 Deer Valley 22022810 Multifamily Police n/a 220 4,395.00 4,395.00 0.00 15 EDU
18 Deer Valley 22022811 Multifamily Water-D n/a n/a 45,468.00 45,468.00 0.00 8 EDU
19 Deer Valley 22022811 Multifamily Wastewater-M n/a n/a 12,204.00 12,204.00 0.00 10 EDU
20 Deer Valley 22022811 Multifamily Fire n/a 387 7,740.00 7,740.00 0.00 15 EDU
21 Deer Valley 22022811 Multifamily Library n/a 79 1,575.00 1,575.00 0.00 15 EDU
22 Deer Valley 22022811 Multifamily Major Arterials n/a 2,310 46,200.00 46,200.00 0.00 15 EDU
23 Deer Valley 22022811 Multifamily Parks n/a 1,026 20,520.00 20,520.00 0.00 15 EDU
24 Deer Valley 22022811 Multifamily Police n/a 220 4,395.00 4,395.00 0.00 15 EDU
25 Deer Valley 22022812 Multifamily Water-D n/a n/a 45,468.00 45,468.00 0.00 8 EDU
26 Deer Valley 22022812 Multifamily Wastewater-M n/a n/a 12,204.00 12,204.00 0.00 10 EDU
27 Deer Valley 22022812 Multifamily Fire n/a 387 7,740.00 7,740.00 0.00 15 EDU
28 Deer Valley 22022812 Multifamily Library n/a 79 1,575.00 1,575.00 0.00 15 EDU
29 Deer Valley 22022812 Multifamily Major Arterials n/a 2,310 46,200.00 46,200.00 0.00 15 EDU
30 Deer Valley 22022812 Multifamily Parks n/a 1,026 20,520.00 20,520.00 0.00 15 EDU
31 Deer Valley 22022812 Multifamily Police n/a 220 4,395.00 4,395.00 0.00 15 EDU
32 Deer Valley 22022813 Multifamily Water-D n/a n/a 45,468.00 45,468.00 0.00 8 EDU
33 Deer Valley 22022813 Multifamily Wastewater-M n/a n/a 12,204.00 12,204.00 0.00 10 EDU
34 Deer Valley 22022813 Multifamily Fire n/a 387 7,740.00 7,740.00 0.00 15 EDU
35 Deer Valley 22022813 Multifamily Library n/a 79 1,575.00 1,575.00 0.00 15 EDU
36 Deer Valley 22022813 Multifamily Major Arterials n/a 2,310 46,200.00 46,200.00 0.00 15 EDU
37 Deer Valley 22022813 Multifamily Parks n/a 1,026 20,520.00 20,520.00 0.00 15 EDU
38 Deer Valley 22022813 Multifamily Police n/a 220 4,395.00 4,395.00 0.00 15 EDU
39 Deer Valley 22022814 Multifamily Water-D n/a n/a 45,468.00 45,468.00 0.00 8 EDU
40 Deer Valley 22022814 Multifamily Wastewater-M n/a n/a 12,204.00 12,204.00 0.00 10 EDU
41 Deer Valley 22022814 Multifamily Fire n/a 387 7,740.00 7,740.00 0.00 15 EDU
42 Deer Valley 22022814 Multifamily Library n/a 79 1,575.00 1,575.00 0.00 15 EDU
43 Deer Valley 22022814 Multifamily Major Arterials n/a 2,310 46,200.00 46,200.00 0.00 15 EDU
44 Deer Valley 22022814 Multifamily Parks n/a 1,026 20,520.00 20,520.00 0.00 15 EDU
45 Deer Valley 22022814 Multifamily Police n/a 220 4,395.00 4,395.00 0.00 15 EDU
46 Deer Valley 22022815 Multifamily Water-D n/a n/a 45,468.00 45,468.00 0.00 8 EDU
47 Deer Valley 22022815 Multifamily Wastewater-M n/a n/a 12,204.00 12,204.00 0.00 10 EDU
48 Deer Valley 22022815 Multifamily Fire n/a 387 7,740.00 7,740.00 0.00 15 EDU
49 Deer Valley 22022815 Multifamily Library n/a 79 1,575.00 1,575.00 0.00 15 EDU
50 Deer Valley 22022815 Multifamily Major Arterials n/a 2,310 46,200.00 46,200.00 0.00 15 EDU
51 Deer Valley 22022815 Multifamily Parks n/a 1,026 20,520.00 20,520.00 0.00 15 EDU
52 Deer Valley 22022815 Multifamily Police n/a 220 4,395.00 4,395.00 0.00 15 EDU
53 Deer Valley 22022816 Multifamily Water-D n/a n/a 45,468.00 45,468.00 0.00 8 EDU
54 Deer Valley 22022816 Multifamily Wastewater-M n/a n/a 12,204.00 12,204.00 0.00 10 EDU
55 Deer Valley 22022816 Multifamily Fire n/a 387 7,740.00 7,740.00 0.00 15 EDU
56 Deer Valley 22022816 Multifamily Library n/a 79 1,575.00 1,575.00 0.00 15 EDU
57 Deer Valley 22022816 Multifamily Major Arterials n/a 2,310 46,200.00 46,200.00 0.00 15 EDU
58 Deer Valley 22022816 Multifamily Parks n/a 1,026 20,520.00 20,520.00 0.00 15 EDU
59 Deer Valley 22022816 Multifamily Police n/a 220 4,395.00 4,395.00 0.00 15 EDU
60 Deer Valley 22022817 Multifamily Water-D n/a n/a 45,468.00 45,468.00 0.00 8 EDU




Permit Sampling K-20
Non-Residential
Sample No. Location Receipt Development Type Fee Category Square Feet/Acres DIF/sqft/Acre Assessed Fee Fee in Effect Difference Notes
FY 2022-23 1 Estrella-North 22033052 Industrial-Warehouse Library 3,094 $0.002 $6.00 $6.00 $0.00 Rounded
2 Estrella-North 22033052 Industrial-Warehouse Parks 3,094 0.025 75.00 75.00 0.00 Rounded
3 Estrella-North 22033052 Industrial-Warehouse Fire 3,094 0.136 423.00 423.00 0.00 Rounded
4 Estrella-North 22033052 Industrial-Warehouse Police 3,094 0.080 248.00 248.00 0.00 Rounded
5 Estrella-North 22033052 Industrial-Warehouse Major Arterials 3,094 0.617 1,909.00 1,909.00 0.00 Rounded
6 Estrella-North 23004228 Industrial-Warehouse Water-L n/a n/a 14,841.00 14,841.00 0.00 1-inch
7 Estrella-North 22031244 Commercial-Retail Library 7,837 0.005 41.00 41.00 0.00 Rounded
8 Estrella-North 22031244 Commercial-Retail Parks 7,837 0.062 484.00 484.00 0.00 Rounded
9 Estrella-North 22031244 Commercial-Retail Fire 7,837 0.394 3,093.00 3,093.00 0.00 Rounded
10 Estrella-North 22031244 Commercial-Retail Police 7,837 0.231 1,810.00 1,810.00 0.00 Rounded
11 Estrella-North 22031244 Commercial-Retail Major Arterials 7,837 2.352 18,432.00 18,432.00 0.00 Rounded
12 Estrella-North 23003411 Industrial-Warehouse Library 3,562 0.002 7.00 7.00 0.00 Rounded
13 Estrella-North 23003411 Industrial-Warehouse Parks 3,562 0.025 87.00 87.00 0.00 Rounded
14 Estrella-North 23003411 Industrial-Warehouse Fire 3,562 0.136 487.00 487.00 0.00 Rounded
15 Estrella-North 23003411 Industrial-Warehouse Police 3,562 0.080 285.00 285.00 0.00 Rounded
16 Estrella-North 23003411 Industrial-Warehouse Major Arterials 3,562 0.617 2,198.00 2,198.00 0.00 Rounded
17 Estrella-North 23010789 Industrial-Warehouse Library 71,500 0.002 143.00 143.00 0.00 Rounded
18 Estrella-North 23010789 Industrial-Warehouse Parks 67,480 0.025 1,687.00 1,687.00 0.00 Rounded
19 Estrella-North 23010789 Industrial-Warehouse Fire 68,324 0.136 9,292.00 9,292.00 0.00 Rounded
20 Estrella-North 23010789 Industrial-Warehouse Police 67,963 0.080 5,437.00 5,437.00 0.00 Rounded
21 Estrella-North 23010789 Industrial-Warehouse Major Arterials 68,120 0.617 42,030.00 42,030.00 0.00 Rounded
22 Estrella-North 23000863 Industrial-Warehouse Library 21,500 0.002 43.00 43.00 0.00 Rounded
23 Estrella-North 23000863 Industrial-Warehouse Parks 20,360 0.025 509.00 509.00 0.00 Rounded
24 Estrella-North 23000863 Industrial-Warehouse Fire 109,125 0.136 14,841.00 14,841.00 0.00 Rounded
25 Estrella-North 23000863 Industrial-Warehouse Police 34,888 0.080 2,791.00 2,791.00 0.00 Rounded
26 Estrella-North 23000863 Industrial-Warehouse Major Arterials 2,647 0.617 1,633.00 1,633.00 0.00 Rounded
27 Estrella-North 23000863 Industrial-Warehouse Storm 7 3,080.000 20,359.00 20,359.00 0.00 Rounded
28 Estrella-North 22022976 Industrial-Warehouse Water-D n/a n/a 47,661.00 47,661.00 0.00 2-inch
29 Estrella-North 22022976 Industrial-Warehouse Wastewater-M n/a n/a 19,240.00 19,240.00 0.00 2-inch
30 Estrella-North 22026793 Industrial-Warehouse Water-D n/a n/a 47,661.00 47,661.00 0.00 2-inch
31 Estrella-North 22026793 Industrial-Warehouse Wastewater-M n/a n/a 19,240.00 19,240.00 0.00 2-inch




Permit Sampling K-21
Non-Residential
Sample No. Location Receipt Development Type Fee Category Square Feet/Acres DIF/sqft/Acre Assessed Fee Fee in Effect Difference Notes
FY 2022-23 1 Estrella-South 22025365 Industrial-Warehouse Library 103,760 $0.002 $219.00 $219.00 $0.00 Rounded
2 Estrella-South 22025365 Industrial-Warehouse Parks 103,760 0.025 2,594.00 2,594.00 0.00 Rounded
3 Estrella-South 22025365 Industrial-Warehouse Water-D n/a n/a 47,661.00 47,661.00 0.00 2-inch
4 Estrella-South 22025365 Industrial-Warehouse Water-L n/a n/a 47,661.00 47,661.00 0.00 2-inch
5 Estrella-South 22025365 Industrial-Warehouse Wastewater-M n/a n/a 48,100.00 48,100.00 0.00 2-inch
6 Estrella-South 22025365 Industrial-Warehouse Storm 6 3,080.000 18,480.00 18,480.00 0.00 Rounded
7 Estrella-South 22025365 Industrial-Warehouse Fire 104,681 0.136 14,274.00 14,274.00 0.00 Rounded
8 Estrella-South 22025365 Industrial-Warehouse Police 104,681 0.080 8,353.00 8,353.00 0.00 Rounded
9 Estrella-South 22025365 Industrial-Warehouse Major Arterials 104,681 0.617 64,588.00 64,588.00 0.00 Rounded
10 Estrella-South 22025367 Industrial-Warehouse Library 80,500 0.002 161.00 161.00 0.00 Rounded
11 Estrella-South 22025367 Industrial-Warehouse Parks 75,920 0.025 1,898.00 1,898.00 0.00 Rounded
12 Estrella-South 22025367 Industrial-Warehouse Water-D n/a n/a 47,661.00 47,661.00 0.00 2-inch
13 Estrella-South 22025367 Industrial-Warehouse Wastewater-M n/a n/a 48,100.00 48,100.00 0.00 2-inch
14 Estrella-South 22025367 Industrial-Warehouse Fire 76,402 0.136 10,417.00 10,417.00 0.00 Rounded
15 Estrella-South 22025367 Industrial-Warehouse Police 76,402 0.080 6,096.00 6,096.00 0.00 Rounded
16 Estrella-South 22025367 Industrial-Warehouse Storm 6 3,080.000 18,480.00 18,480.00 0.00 Rounded
17 Estrella-South 22025367 Industrial-Warehouse Major Arterials 76,402 0.617 47,140.00 47,140.00 0.00 Rounded
18 Estrella-South 22023178 Commercial-Retail Library 2,180 0.005 12.00 12.00 0.00 Rounded
19 Estrella-South 22023178 Commercial-Retail Parks 2,180 0.062 136.00 136.00 0.00 Rounded
20 Estrella-South 22023178 Commercial-Retail Fire 2,180 0.394 857.00 857.00 0.00 Rounded
21 Estrella-South 22023178 Commercial-Retail Police 2,180 0.231 502.00 502.00 0.00 Rounded
22 Estrella-South 22023178 Commercial-Retail Major Arterials 2,180 2.352 5,128.00 5,128.00 0.00 Rounded
23 Estrella-South 22023178 Commercial-Retail Storm 1 3,080.000 3,049.00 3,049.00 0.00 Rounded
24 Estrella-South 22023178 Commercial-Retail Water-D n/a n/a 28,829.00 28,829.00 0.00 1.5-inch
25 Estrella-South 22023178 Commercial-Retail Wastewater-M n/a n/a 30,098.00 30,098.00 0.00 1.5-inch
26 Estrella-South 22032644 Commercial-Retail Library 1,262 0.005 6.00 6.00 0.00 Rounded
27 Estrella-South 22032644 Commercial-Retail Parks 1,262 0.062 75.00 75.00 0.00 Rounded
28 Estrella-South 22032644 Commercial-Retail Fire 1,262 0.394 497.00 497.00 0.00 Rounded
29 Estrella-South 22032644 Commercial-Retail Police 1,262 0.231 291.00 291.00 0.00 Rounded
30 Estrella-South 22032644 Commercial-Retail Major Arterials 1,262 2.352 2,969.00 2,969.00 0.00 Rounded
31 Estrella-South 22032644 Commercial-Retail Storm 1 3,080.000 2,518.00 2,518.00 0.00 Rounded
32 Estrella-South 22032644 Commercial-Retail Water-D n/a n/a 14,841.00 14,841.00 0.00 1-inch
33 Estrella-South 22032644 Commercial-Retail Wastewater-M n/a n/a 14,995.00 14,995.00 0.00 1-inch
34 Estrella-South 23011136 Commercial-Retail Library 6,000 0.005 30.00 30.00 0.00 Rounded
35 Estrella-South 23011136 Commercial-Retail Parks 5,790 0.062 359.00 359.00 0.00 Rounded
36 Estrella-South 23011136 Commercial-Retail Water-L n/a n/a 14,841.00 14,841.00 0.00 1-inch
37 Estrella-South 23011136 Commercial-Retail Fire 5,894 0.394 2,328.00 2,328.00 0.00 Rounded
38 Estrella-South 23011136 Commercial-Retail Police 5,894 0.231 1,362.00 1,362.00 0.00 Rounded
39 Estrella-South 23011136 Commercial-Retail Water-D n/a n/a 29,829.00 29,829.00 0.00 1.5-inch
40 Estrella-South 23011136 Commercial-Retail Major Arterials 5,894 2.352 13,862.00 13,862.00 0.00 Rounded
41 Estrella-South 23011136 Commercial-Retail Wastewater-M n/a n/a 30,098.00 30,098.00 0.00 1.5-inch
42 Estrella-South 23011136 Commercial-Retail Storm 2 3,080.000 6,006.00 6,006.00 0.00 Rounded
43 Estrella-South 23011151 Commercial-Retail Library 451 0.005 2.00 2.00 0.00 Rounded
44 Estrella-South 23011151 Commercial-Retail Parks 451 0.062 25.00 25.00 0.00 Rounded
45 Estrella-South 23011151 Commercial-Retail Fire 451 0.394 175.00 175.00 0.00 Rounded
46 Estrella-South 23011151 Commercial-Retail Police 451 0.231 103.00 103.00 0.00 Rounded
47 Estrella-South 23011151 Commercial-Retail Major Arterials 451 2.352 1,060.00 1,060.00 0.00 Rounded
48 Estrella-South 23011587 Commercial-Retail Library 3,959 0.005 21.00 21.00 0.00 Rounded
49 Estrella-South 23011587 Commercial-Retail Parks 3,959 0.062 248.00 248.00 0.00 Rounded
50 Estrella-South 23011587 Commercial-Retail Fire 3,959 0.394 1,563.00 1,563.00 0.00 Rounded
51 Estrella-South 23011587 Commercial-Retail Police 3,959 0.231 915.00 915.00 0.00 Rounded
52 Estrella-South 23011587 Commercial-Retail Major Arterials 3,959 2.352 9,312.00 9,312.00 0.00 Rounded
53 Estrella-South 22024332 Industrial-Warehouse Library 25,000 0.002 50.00 50.00 0.00 Rounded
54 Estrella-South 22024332 Industrial-Warehouse Parks 23,904 0.025 596.00 596.00 0.00 Rounded
55 Estrella-South 22024332 Industrial-Warehouse Water-L n/a n/a 14,841.00 14,841.00 0.00 1-inch
56 Estrella-South 22024332 Industrial-Warehouse Fire 23,904 0.136 3,258.00 3,258.00 0.00 Rounded
57 Estrella-South 22024332 Industrial-Warehouse Police 23,904 0.080 1,907.00 1,907.00 0.00 Rounded
58 Estrella-South 22024332 Industrial-Warehouse Water-D n/a n/a 29,829.00 29,829.00 0.00 1.5-inch
59 Estrella-South 22024332 Industrial-Warehouse Wastewater-M n/a n/a 30,098.00 30,098.00 0.00 1.5-inch
60 Estrella-South 22024332 Industrial-Warehouse Major Arterials 23,904 0.617 14,749.00 14,749.00 0.00 Rounded




Permit Sampling K-22
Non-Residential
Sample No. Location Receipt Development Type Fee Category Square Feet/Acres DIF/sqft/Acre Assessed Fee Fee in Effect Difference Notes
FY 2022-23 1 Laveen-East 22023922 Commercial-Retail Water-L n/a n/a $32,589.00 $32,589.00 $0.00 7 EDU
2 Laveen-East 22023923 Commercial-Retail Water-L n/a n/a 52,161.00 52,161.00 0.00 11 EDU
3 Laveen-East 22034031 Multifamily Water-L n/a n/a 16,341.00 16,341.00 0.00 4 EDU




Permit Sampling K-23
Non-Residential
Sample No. Location Receipt Development Type Fee Category Square Feet/Acres DIF/sqft/Acre Assessed Fee Fee in Effect Difference Notes
FY 2022-23 1 Laveen-West 23000337 Commercial-Retail Library 1,295 0.005 $6.00 $6.00 $0.00 Rounded
2 Laveen-West 23000337 Commercial-Retail Fire 1,295 0.394 512.00 512.00 0.00 Rounded
3 Laveen-West 23000337 Commercial-Retail Major Arterials 1,295 2.352 3,046.00 3,046.00 0.00 Rounded
4 Laveen-West 23000337 Commercial-Retail Water-L n/a n/a 14,841.00 14,841.00 0.00 1-inch
5 Laveen-West 23000337 Commercial-Retail Wastewater-M n/a n/a 14,405.00 14,405.00 0.00 1-inch
6 Laveen-West 23002578 Commercial-Retail Parks 1,926 0.062 124.00 124.00 0.00 Rounded
7 Laveen-West 23002578 Commercial-Retail Police 1,926 0.231 445.00 445.00 0.00 Rounded
8 Laveen-West 23002578 Commercial-Retail Water-D n/a n/a 14,841.00 14,841.00 0.00 1-inch
9 Laveen-West 23002578 Commercial-Retail Wastewater-M n/a n/a 14,405.00 14,405.00 0.00 1-inch
10 Laveen-West 23009565 Industrial-Warehouse Library 131,491 0.002 276.00 276.00 0.00 Rounded
11 Laveen-West 23009565 Industrial-Warehouse Water-L n/a n/a 29,829.00 29,829.00 0.00 1.5-inch
12 Laveen-West 23009565 Industrial-Warehouse Wastewater-M n/a n/a 46,218.00 46,218.00 0.00 2-inch
13 Laveen-West 23009565 Industrial-Warehouse Police 131,491 0.080 10,494.00 10,494.00 0.00 Rounded
14 Laveen-West 23009565 Industrial-Warehouse Major Arterials 131,491 0.617 81,130.00 81,130.00 0.00 Rounded
15 Laveen-West 23005600 Commercial-Retail Library 4,878 0.005 25.00 25.00 0.00 Rounded
16 Laveen-West 23005600 Commercial-Retail Water-L n/a n/a 14,841.00 14,841.00 0.00 1-inch
17 Laveen-West 23005600 Commercial-Retail Police 4,878 0.231 1,126.00 1,126.00 0.00 Rounded
18 Laveen-West 23005600 Commercial-Retail Major Arterials 4,878 2.352 11,472.00 11,472.00 0.00 Rounded
19 Laveen-West 23005600 Commercial-Retail Wastewater-M n/a n/a 28,922.00 28,922.00 0.00 1.5-inch
20 Laveen-West 23005602 Commercial-Retail Parks 4,000 0.062 248.00 248.00 0.00 Rounded
21 Laveen-West 23005602 Commercial-Retail Police 3,922 0.231 906.00 906.00 0.00 Rounded
22 Laveen-West 22025643 Commercial-Retail Library 5,303 0.005 28.00 28.00 0.00 Rounded
23 Laveen-West 22025643 Commercial-Retail Water-L n/a n/a 14,841.00 14,841.00 0.00 1-inch
24 Laveen-West 22025643 Commercial-Retail Police 5,303 0.231 1,225.00 1,225.00 0.00 Rounded
25 Laveen-West 22025643 Commercial-Retail Storm 2 4,148.000 7,300.00 7,300.00 0.00 Rounded
26 Laveen-West 22025643 Commercial-Retail Wastewater-M n/a n/a 28,922.00 28,922.00 0.00 1.5-inch
27 Laveen-West 23002528 Commercial-Retail Parks 4,922 0.062 310.00 310.00 0.00 Rounded
28 Laveen-West 23002528 Commercial-Retail Police 4,922 0.231 1,137.00 1,137.00 0.00 Rounded
29 Laveen-West 22024658 Commercial-Retail Parks 42,964 0.062 2,668.00 2,668.00 0.00 Rounded
30 Laveen-West 22024658 Commercial-Retail Storm 4 4,148.000 18,417.00 18,417.00 0.00 Rounded
31 Laveen-West 22024658 Commercial-Retail Fire 42,964 0.394 16,928.00 16,928.00 0.00 Rounded
32 Laveen-West 23004072 Commercial-Retail Library 5,996 0.005 32.00 32.00 0.00 Rounded
33 Laveen-West 23004072 Commercial-Retail Storm 1 4,148.000 2,945.00 2,945.00 0.00 Rounded
34 Laveen-West 23004072 Commercial-Retail Police 5,996 0.231 1,385.00 1,385.00 0.00 Rounded
35 Laveen-West 23006016 Commercial-Retail Library 5,759 0.005 30.00 30.00 0.00 Rounded
36 Laveen-West 23006016 Commercial-Retail Fire 5,759 0.394 2,269.00 2,269.00 0.00 Rounded
37 Laveen-West 23006016 Commercial-Retail Storm 1 4,148.000 6,056.00 6,056.00 0.00 Rounded
38 Laveen-West 22026603 Commercial-Retail Library 11,484 0.005 60.00 60.00 0.00 Rounded
39 Laveen-West 22026603 Commercial-Retail Storm 2 4,148.000 6,263.00 6,263.00 0.00 Rounded
40 Laveen-West 22026603 Commercial-Retail Fire 11,484 0.394 4,529.00 4,529.00 0.00 Rounded
41 Laveen-West 22026603 Commercial-Retail Water-D n/a n/a 47,661.00 47,661.00 0.00 2-inch
42 Laveen-West 22026603 Commercial-Retail Major Arterials 11,484 2.352 27,011.00 27,011.00 0.00 Rounded
43 Laveen-West 23009478 Commercial-Retail Library 3,772 0.005 20.00 20.00 0.00 Rounded
44 Laveen-West 23009478 Commercial-Retail Fire 3,772 0.394 1,486.00 1,486.00 0.00 Rounded
45 Laveen-West 23009478 Commercial-Retail Water-L n/a n/a 14,841.00 14,841.00 0.00 1-inch
46 Laveen-West 23009478 Commercial-Retail Water-D n/a n/a 29,829.00 29,829.00 0.00 1.5-inch
47 Laveen-West 22023133 Commercial-Retail Library 4,615 0.005 24.00 24.00 0.00 Rounded
48 Laveen-West 22023133 Commercial-Retail Fire 4,615 0.394 1,822.00 1,822.00 0.00 Rounded
49 Laveen-West 22023133 Commercial-Retail Major Arterials 4,615 2.352 10,855.00 10,855.00 0.00 Rounded
50 Laveen-West 22023133 Commercial-Retail Wastewater-M n/a n/a 46,218.00 46,218.00 0.00 2-inch
51 Laveen-West 22023134 Commercial-Retail Parks 4,909 0.062 310.00 310.00 0.00 Rounded
52 Laveen-West 22023134 Commercial-Retail Police 4,909 0.231 1,134.00 1,134.00 0.00 Rounded
53 Laveen-West 22023134 Commercial-Retail Water-D n/a n/a 47,661.00 47,661.00 0.00 2-inch
54 Laveen-West 23016212 Commercial-Retail Wastewater-M n/a n/a 14,405.00 14,405.00 0.00 1-inch
55 Laveen-West 23016212 Commercial-Retail Storm 2 4,148.000 6,263.00 6,263.00 0.00 Rounded
56 Laveen-West 23014593 Commercial-Retail Wastewater-M n/a n/a 46,218.00 46,218.00 0.00 2-inch
57 Laveen-West 23009478 Commercial-Retail Water-D n/a n/a 29,829.00 29,829.00 0.00 1.5-inch
58 Laveen-West 23009478 Commercial-Retail Wastewater-M n/a n/a 28,922.00 28,922.00 0.00 1.5-inch
59 Laveen-West 23009565 Industrial-Warehouse Water-D n/a n/a 47,661.00 47,661.00 0.00 2-inch
60 Laveen-West 23009565 Industrial-Warehouse Wastewater-M Wastewater-M n/a n/a 46,218.00 46,218.00 2-inch




Permit Sampling K-24
Non-Residential
Sample No. Location Receipt Development Type Fee Category Square Feet/Acres DIF/sqft/Acre Assessed Fee Fee in Effect Difference Notes
FY 2022-23 1 Northeast 22023721 Commercial-Retail Library 4,647 $0.005 $24.00 $24.00 $0.00 Rounded
2 Northeast 22023721 Commercial-Retail Parks 4,647 0.062 285.00 285.00 0.00 Rounded
3 Northeast 22023721 Commercial-Retail Water-L n/a n/a 23,032.00 23,032.00 0.00 1-inch
4 Northeast 22023721 Commercial-Retail Fire 4,647 0.446 2,072.00 2,072.00 0.00 Rounded
5 Northeast 22023721 Commercial-Retail Police 4,647 0.254 1,181.00 1,181.00 0.00 Rounded
6 Northeast 22023721 Commercial-Retail Major Arterials 4,647 3.758 17,464.00 17,464.00 0.00 Rounded
7 Northeast 22023721 Commercial-Retail Water-D n/a n/a 73,809.00 73,809.00 0.00 2-inch
8 Northeast 22023721 Commercial-Retail Wastewater-M n/a n/a 42,297.00 42,297.00 0.00 2-inch
9 Northeast 22033312 Commercial-Retail Library 2,237 0.005 12.00 12.00 0.00 2-inch
10 Northeast 22033312 Commercial-Retail Parks 2,237 0.062 136.00 136.00 0.00 2-inch
11 Northeast 22033312 Commercial-Retail Fire 2,237 0.446 998.00 998.00 0.00 2-inch
12 Northeast 22033312 Commercial-Retail Police 2,237 0.254 569.00 569.00 0.00 2-inch
13 Northeast 22033312 Commercial-Retail Major Arterials 2,237 3.758 8,408.00 8,408.00 0.00 2-inch




Permit Sampling K-25
Non-Residential
Sample No. Location Receipt Development Type Fee Category Square Feet/Acres DIF/sqft/Acre Assessed Fee Fee in Effect Difference Notes
FY 2022-23 1 Northwest 203-03-036A Commercial-Retail Library 1,500 $0.005 $8.00 $8.00 $0.00 Rounded
2 Northwest 203-03-036A Commercial-Retail Fire 1,500 0.418 629.00 629.00 0.00 Rounded
3 Northwest 203-03-036A Commercial-Retail Major Arterials 1,500 3.758 5,636.00 5,636.00 0.00 Rounded
4 Northwest 203-03-036A Commercial-Retail Wastewater-M n/a n/a 26,473.00 26,743.00 270.00 1.5-inch
5 Northwest 204-09-005 Industrial-Warehouse Library 2,880,643 0.002 6,052.00 6,052.00 0.00 Rounded
6 Northwest 204-09-005 Industrial-Warehouse Fire 2,880,643 0.144 416,365.00 416,365.00 0.00 Rounded
7 Northwest 204-09-005 Industrial-Warehouse Major Arterials 2,880,643 0.986 2,840,314.00 2,840,314.00 0.00 Rounded
8 Northwest 204-09-005 Industrial-Warehouse Parks 348,074 0.027 9,398.00 9,398.00 0.00 Rounded
9 Northwest 204-09-005 Industrial-Warehouse Police 348,074 0.082 28,196.00 28,196.00 0.00 Rounded
10 Northwest 204-09-005 Industrial-Warehouse Library 207,479 0.002 436.00 436.00 0.00 Rounded
11 Northwest 204-09-005 Industrial-Warehouse Fire 207,479 0.144 29,990.00 29,990.00 0.00 Rounded
12 Northwest 204-09-005 Industrial-Warehouse Major Arterials 207,479 0.986 204,574.00 204,574.00 0.00 Rounded
13 Northwest 204-09-005 Industrial-Warehouse Parks 79,037 0.027 2,134.00 2,134.00 0.00 Rounded
14 Northwest 204-09-005 Industrial-Warehouse Police 79,037 0.082 6,414.00 6,414.00 0.00 Rounded
15 Northwest 204-09-005 Industrial-Warehouse Library 5,998 0.002 13.00 13.00 0.00 Rounded
16 Northwest 204-09-005 Industrial-Warehouse Fire 5,998 0.144 867.00 867.00 0.00 Rounded
17 Northwest 204-09-005 Industrial-Warehouse Major Arterials 5,998 0.986 5,914.00 5,914.00 0.00 Rounded
18 Northwest 204-09-005 Industrial-Warehouse Parks 5,998 0.027 137.00 137.00 0.00 Rounded
19 Northwest 204-09-005 Industrial-Warehouse Police 5,998 0.082 414.00 414.00 0.00 Rounded
20 Northwest 204-09-005 Industrial-Warehouse Library 12,370 0.002 26.00 26.00 0.00 Rounded
21 Northwest 204-09-005 Industrial-Warehouse Fire 12,370 0.144 1,791.00 1,791.00 0.00 Rounded
22 Northwest 204-09-005 Industrial-Warehouse Major Arterials 12,370 0.986 12,197.00 12,197.00 0.00 Rounded
23 Northwest 204-09-005 Industrial-Warehouse Parks 4,037 0.027 109.00 109.00 0.00 Rounded
24 Northwest 204-09-005 Industrial-Warehouse Police 4,037 0.082 325.00 325.00 0.00 Rounded
25 Northwest 204-09-005 Industrial-Warehouse Library 78,156 0.002 164.00 164.00 0.00 Rounded
26 Northwest 204-09-005 Industrial-Warehouse Fire 78,156 0.144 11,295.00 11,295.00 0.00 Rounded
27 Northwest 204-09-005 Industrial-Warehouse Major Arterials 78,156 0.986 77,062.00 77,062.00 0.00 Rounded
28 Northwest 204-09-005 Industrial-Warehouse Parks 6,074 0.027 164.00 164.00 0.00 Rounded
29 Northwest 204-09-005 Industrial-Warehouse Police 6,074 0.082 492.00 492.00 0.00 Rounded
30 Northwest 204-09-005 Industrial-Warehouse Library 5,029 0.002 11.00 11.00 0.00 Rounded
31 Northwest 204-09-005 Industrial-Warehouse Fire 5,029 0.144 728.00 728.00 0.00 Rounded
32 Northwest 204-09-005 Industrial-Warehouse Major Arterials 5,029 0.986 4,959.00 4,959.00 0.00 Rounded
33 Northwest 204-09-005 Industrial-Warehouse Parks 12,667 0.027 342.00 342.00 0.00 Rounded
34 Northwest 204-09-005 Industrial-Warehouse Police 12,667 0.082 1,017.00 1,017.00 0.00 Rounded
35 Northwest 204-09-005 Industrial-Warehouse Library 3,968 0.002 8.00 8.00 0.00 Rounded
36 Northwest 204-09-005 Industrial-Warehouse Fire 3,968 0.144 573.00 573.00 0.00 Rounded
37 Northwest 204-09-005 Industrial-Warehouse Major Arterials 3,968 0.986 3,912.00 3,912.00 0.00 Rounded
38 Northwest 204-09-005 Industrial-Warehouse Parks 201,148 0.027 5,431.00 5,431.00 0.00 Rounded
39 Northwest 204-09-005 Industrial-Warehouse Police 201,148 0.082 16,300.00 16,300.00 0.00 Rounded
40 Northwest 204-09-001C Industrial-Warehouse Library 81,124 0.002 170.00 170.00 0.00 Rounded
41 Northwest 204-09-001C Industrial-Warehouse Fire 81,124 0.144 11,729.00 11,729.00 0.00 Rounded
42 Northwest 204-09-001C Industrial-Warehouse Major Arterials 81,124 0.986 79,988.00 79,988.00 0.00 Rounded
43 Northwest 204-09-001C Industrial-Warehouse Parks 6,074 0.027 164.00 164.00 0.00 Rounded
44 Northwest 204-09-001C Industrial-Warehouse Police 6,074 0.082 492.00 492.00 0.00 Rounded
45 Northwest 204-09-001C Industrial-Warehouse Library 5,029 0.002 11.00 11.00 0.00 Rounded
46 Northwest 204-09-001C Industrial-Warehouse Fire 5,029 0.144 728.00 728.00 0.00 Rounded
47 Northwest 204-09-001C Industrial-Warehouse Major Arterials 5,029 0.986 4,959.00 4,959.00 0.00 Rounded
48 Northwest 204-09-001C Industrial-Warehouse Parks 12,667 0.027 342.00 342.00 0.00 Rounded
49 Northwest 204-09-001C Industrial-Warehouse Police 12,667 0.082 1,017.00 1,017.00 0.00 Rounded
50 Northwest 204-09-001C Industrial-Warehouse Library 3,968 0.002 8.00 8.00 0.00 Rounded
51 Northwest 204-09-001C Industrial-Warehouse Fire 3,968 0.144 573.00 573.00 0.00 Rounded
52 Northwest 204-09-001C Industrial-Warehouse Major Arterials 3,968 0.986 3,912.00 3,912.00 0.00 Rounded
53 Northwest 204-09-002A Industrial-Warehouse Library 9,403 0.002 20.00 20.00 0.00 Rounded
54 Northwest 204-09-002A Industrial-Warehouse Fire 9,403 0.144 1,357.00 1,357.00 0.00 Rounded
55 Northwest 204-09-002A Industrial-Warehouse Major Arterials 9,403 0.986 9,271.00 9,271.00 0.00 Rounded
56 Northwest 204-09-002A Industrial-Warehouse Parks 1,939 0.027 54.00 54.00 0.00 Rounded
57 Northwest 204-09-002A Industrial-Warehouse Police 1,939 0.082 159.00 159.00 0.00 Rounded
58 Northwest 204-09-002A Industrial-Warehouse Library 437 0.002 1.00 1.00 0.00 Rounded
59 Northwest 204-09-002A Industrial-Warehouse Fire 437 0.144 62.00 62.00 0.00 Rounded
60 Northwest 204-09-002A Industrial-Warehouse Major Arterials 437 0.986 431.00 431.00 0.00 Rounded




Permit Sampling K-26
Non-Residential
Sample No. Location Receipt Development Type Fee Category Square Feet/Acres DIF/sqft/Acre Assessed Fee Fee in Effect Difference Notes
FY 2022-23 1 Paradise Ridge 23005931 Commercial-Retail Library 820 $0.005 $4.00 $4.00 $0.00 Rounded
2 Paradise Ridge 23005931 Commercial-Retail Parks 820 0.062 49.00 49.00 0.00 Rounded
3 Paradise Ridge 23005931 Commercial-Retail Fire 820 0.446 364.00 364.00 0.00 Rounded
4 Paradise Ridge 23005931 Commercial-Retail Police 820 0.254 207.00 207.00 0.00 Rounded
5 Paradise Ridge 23005931 Commercial-Retail Major Arterials 820 3.758 3,080.00 3,080.00 0.00 Rounded




Permit Sampling K-27
Non-Residential
Sample No. Location Receipt Development Type Fee Category Square Feet DIF/sqft Assessed Fee Fee in Effect Difference Notes
FY 2023-24 1 Ahwatukee 23023855 Commercial-Retail Library 1,600 $0.005 $8 $8 $0.00 Rounded
2 Ahwatukee 23023855 Commercial-Retail Parks 1,600 0.061 98 98 0.00 Rounded
3 Ahwatukee 23023855 Commercial-Retail Fire 1,600 0.381 606 606 0.00 Rounded
4 Ahwatukee 23023855 Commercial-Retail Police 1,600 0.277 441 441 0.00 Rounded




Permit Sampling K-28
Non-Residential
Sample No. Location Receipt Development Type Fee Category Square Feet/Acres DIF/sqft/Acre Assessed Fee Fee in Effect Difference Notes
FY 2023-24 1 Estrella-North 23015673 Commercial-Retail Library 5,909 $0.005 $30.00 $30.00 $0.00 Rounded
2 Estrella-North 23015673 Commercial-Retail Parks 5,909 0.062 359.00 359.00 0.00 Rounded
3 Estrella-North 23015673 Commercial-Retail Water- L n/a n/a 14,841.00 14,841.00 0.00 1-inch
4 Estrella-North 23015673 Commercial-Retail Storm 1.120 3,080.000 3,450.00 3,450.00 0.00 Rounded
5 Estrella-North 23015673 Commercial-Retail Fire 5,909 0.394 2,328.00 2,328.00 0.00 Rounded
6 Estrella-North 23015673 Commercial-Retail Police 5,909 0.231 1,362.00 1,362.00 0.00 Rounded
7 Estrella-North 23015673 Commercial-Retail Water-D n/a n/a 29,829.00 29,829.00 0.00 1.5-inch
8 Estrella-North 23015673 Commercial-Retail Major Arterials 5,900 2.352 13,862.00 13,862.00 0.00 Rounded
9 Estrella-North 23015673 Commercial-Retail Wastewater-M n/a n/a 12,070.00 12,070.00 0.00 1.5-inch
10 Estrella-North 23015675 Commercial-Retail Library 3,861 0.005 20.00 20.00 0.00 Rounded
11 Estrella-North 23015675 Commercial-Retail Parks 3,861 0.062 236.00 236.00 0.00 Rounded
12 Estrella-North 23015675 Commercial-Retail Fire 3,861 0.394 1,525.00 1,525.00 0.00 Rounded
13 Estrella-North 23015675 Commercial-Retail Police 3,861 0.231 892.00 892.00 0.00 Rounded
14 Estrella-North 23015675 Commercial-Retail Major Arterials 3,861 2.352 9,081.00 9,081.00 0.00 Rounded
15 Estrella-North 23015676 Commercial-Retail Library 444 0.005 2.00 2.00 0.00 Rounded
16 Estrella-North 23015676 Commercial-Retail Parks 444 0.062 25.00 25.00 0.00 Rounded
17 Estrella-North 23015676 Commercial-Retail Fire 444 0.394 175.00 175.00 0.00 Rounded
18 Estrella-North 23015676 Commercial-Retail Police 444 0.231 103.00 103.00 0.00 Rounded
19 Estrella-North 23015676 Commercial-Retail Major Arterials 444 2.352 1,060.00 1,060.00 0.00 Rounded
20 Estrella-North 23016185 Commercial-Retail Water-D n/a n/a 47,661.00 47,661.00 0.00 2-inch
21 Estrella-North 23016185 Commercial-Retail Wastewater-M n/a n/a 19,240.00 19,240.00 0.00 2-inch
22 Estrella-North 24006027 Commercial-Retail Water-L n/a n/a 29,829.00 29,829.00 0.00 1.5-inch
23 Estrella-North 23015294 Industrial-Warehouse Library 11,650 0.002 24.00 24.00 0.00 Rounded
24 Estrella-North 23015294 Industrial-Warehouse Parks 11,650 0.025 286.00 286.00 0.00 Rounded
25 Estrella-North 23015294 Industrial-Warehouse Fire 11,650 0.136 1,592.00 1,592.00 0.00 Rounded
26 Estrella-North 23015294 Industrial-Warehouse Police 11,650 0.08 932.00 932.00 0.00 Rounded
27 Estrella-North 23015294 Industrial-Warehouse Water-L n/a n/a 14,841.00 14,841.00 0.00 1-inch
28 Estrella-North 23015294 Industrial-Warehouse Storm 0.900 3,080.000 2,772.00 2,772.00 0.00 Rounded
29 Estrella-North 23015294 Industrial-Warehouse Major Arterials 11,650 0.617 7,191.00 7,191.00 0.00 Rounded
30 Estrella-North 23015294 Industrial-Warehouse Water-D n/a n/a 29,829.00 29,829.00 0.00 1.5-inch
31 Estrella-North 23015294 Industrial-Warehouse Wastewater-M n/a n/a 12,070.00 12,070.00 0.00 1.5-inch
32 Estrella-North 24011133 Public-Institutional Library 28,170 0.005 148.00 148.00 0.00 Rounded
33 Estrella-North 24011133 Public-Institutional Parks 28,170 0.062 1,750.00 1,750.00 0.00 Rounded
34 Estrella-North 24011133 Public-Institutional Water-L n/a n/a 14,841.00 14,841.00 0.00 1-inch
35 Estrella-North 24011133 Public-Institutional Water-D n/a n/a 29,829.00 29,829.00 0.00 1.5-inch
36 Estrella-North 24011133 Public-Institutional Wastewater-M n/a n/a 12,070.00 12,070.00 0.00 1.5-inch
37 Estrella-North 24011133 Public-Institutional Storm 2.160 3,080.000 6,653.00 6,653.00 0.00 Rounded
38 Estrella-North 24011133 Public-Institutional Major Arterials 28,170 0.868 24,408.00 24,408.00 0.00 Rounded
39 Estrella-North 24011133 Public-Institutional Fire 28,170 0.282 7,943.00 7,943.00 0.00 Rounded
40 Estrella-North 24011133 Public-Institutional Police 28,170 0.165 4,648.00 4,648.00 0.00 Rounded
41 Estrella-North 24011132 Public-Institutional Library 1,018 0.005 5.00 5.00 0.00 Rounded
42 Estrella-North 24011132 Public-Institutional Parks 1,018 0.062 62.00 62.00 0.00 Rounded
43 Estrella-North 24011132 Public-Institutional Major Arterials 1,018 0.868 887.00 887.00 0.00 Rounded
44 Estrella-North 24011132 Public-Institutional Fire 1,018 0.282 287.00 287.00 0.00 Rounded
45 Estrella-North 24011132 Public-Institutional Police 1,018 0.165 168.00 168.00 0.00 Rounded
46 Estrella-North 24009145 Industrial-Warehouse Library 300,950 0.002 633.00 633.00 0.00 Rounded
47 Estrella-North 24009145 Industrial-Warehouse Parks 300,950 0.025 7,483.00 7,483.00 0.00 Rounded
48 Estrella-North 24009145 Industrial-Warehouse Water-L n/a n/a 29,829.00 29,829.00 0.00 1.5-inch
49 Estrella-North 24009145 Industrial-Warehouse Water-D n/a n/a 47,661.00 47,661.00 0.00 2-inch
50 Estrella-North 24009145 Industrial-Warehouse Wastewater-M n/a n/a 19,240.00 19,240.00 0.00 2-inch
51 Estrella-North 24009145 Industrial-Warehouse Storm 14.235 3,080.000 43,844.00 43,844.00 0.00 Rounded
52 Estrella-North 24009145 Industrial-Warehouse Fire 300,950 0.136 41,142.00 41,142.00 0.00 Rounded
53 Estrella-North 24009145 Industrial-Warehouse Police 300,950 0.08 24,076.00 24,076.00 0.00 Rounded
54 Estrella-North 24009145 Industrial-Warehouse Major Arterials 300,950 0.868 186,148.00 186,148.00 0.00 Rounded
55 Estrella-North 24009150 Industrial-Warehouse Library 310,500 0.002 621.00 621.00 0.00 Rounded
56 Estrella-North 24009150 Industrial-Warehouse Parks 293,360 0.025 7,334.00 7,334.00 0.00 Rounded
57 Estrella-North 24009150 Industrial-Warehouse Water-L n/a n/a 29,829.00 29,829.00 0.00 1.5-inch
58 Estrella-North 24009150 Industrial-Warehouse Water-D n/a n/a 47,661.00 47,661.00 0.00 2-inch
59 Estrella-North 24009150 Industrial-Warehouse Wastewater-M n/a n/a 19,240.00 19,240.00 0.00 2-inch
60 Estrella-North 24009150 Industrial-Warehouse Storm 14.000 3,080.000 43,120.00 13,120.00 30,000.00 Rounded




Permit Sampling K-29
Non-Residential
Sample No. Location Receipt Development Type Fee Category Square Feet/Acres DIF/sqft/Acre Assessed Fee Fee in Effect Difference Notes
FY 2023-24 1 Estrella-South 24007712 Miniwarehouse Library 101,809 $0.002 $213.00 $213.00 $0.00 Rounded
2 Estrella-South 24007712 Miniwarehouse Water-L n/a n/a 14,841.00 14,841.00 0.00 1-inch
3 Estrella-South 24007712 Miniwarehouse Major Arterials 101,809 0.174 17,622.00 17,622.00 0.00 Rounded
4 Estrella-South 24007712 Miniwarehouse Wastewater-M n/a n/a 48,100.00 48,100.00 0.00 2-inch
5 Estrella-South 24007712 Miniwarehouse Fire 101,809 0.136 13,846.00 13,846.00 0.00 Rounded
6 Estrella-South 23021024 Industrial-Warehouse Library 102,425 0.002 215.00 215.00 0.00 Rounded
7 Estrella-South 23021024 Industrial-Warehouse Water-D n/a n/a 47,661.00 47,661.00 0.00 2-inch
8 Estrella-South 23021024 Industrial-Warehouse Police 102,425 0.080 8,194.00 8,194.00 0.00 Rounded
9 Estrella-South 23021024 Industrial-Warehouse Storm 9.95 3,080.000 30,631.00 30,631.00 0.00 Rounded
10 Estrella-South 23021060 Industrial-Warehouse Parks 175,713 0.025 4,368.00 4,368.00 0.00 Rounded
11 Estrella-South 23021060 Industrial-Warehouse Water-D n/a n/a 47,661.00 47,661.00 0.00 2-inch
12 Estrella-South 23021060 Industrial-Warehouse Storm 9.95 3,080.000 30,631.00 30,631.00 0.00 Rounded
13 Estrella-South 23021060 Industrial-Warehouse Police 175,713 0.080 14,057.00 14,057.00 0.00 Rounded
14 Estrella-South 23019813 Commercial-Retail Library 1,828 0.005 9.00 9.00 0.00 Rounded
15 Estrella-South 23019813 Commercial-Retail Fire 1,828 0.394 721.00 721.00 0.00 Rounded
16 Estrella-South 23019813 Commercial-Retail Major Arterials 1,828 2.352 4,299.00 4,299.00 0.00 Rounded
17 Estrella-South 23019813 Commercial-Retail Water-D n/a n/a 14,841.00 14,841.00 0.00 2-inch
18 Estrella-South 23019813 Commercial-Retail Wastewater-M n/a n/a 14,995.00 14,995.00 0.00 1-inch
19 Estrella-South 23022368 Commercial-Retail Parks 1,713 0.062 112.00 112.00 0.00 Rounded
20 Estrella-South 23022368 Commercial-Retail Police 1,713 0.231 396.00 396.00 0.00 Rounded
21 Estrella-South 23022368 Commercial-Retail Major Arterials 1,713 2.352 4,030.00 4,030.00 0.00 Rounded
22 Estrella-South 23022368 Commercial-Retail Water-D n/a n/a 29,829.00 29,829.00 0.00 1.5-inch
23 Estrella-South 23022368 Commercial-Retail Wastewater-M n/a n/a 30,098.00 30,098.00 0.00 1.5-inch
24 Estrella-South 24007170 Commercial-Retail Library 3,401 0.005 18.00 18.00 0.00 Rounded
25 Estrella-South 24007170 Commercial-Retail Fire 3,401 0.394 1,340.00 1,340.00 0.00 Rounded
26 Estrella-South 24007170 Commercial-Retail Water-L n/a n/a 14,841.00 14,841.00 0.00 1-inch
27 Estrella-South 24007170 Commercial-Retail Water-D n/a n/a 29,829.00 29,829.00 0.00 1.5-inch
28 Estrella-South 24007170 Commercial-Retail Storm 1.95 3,080.000 6,006.00 6,006.00 0.00 Rounded
29 Estrella-South 24000444 Industrial-Warehouse Parks 254,900 0.025 6,341.00 6,341.00 0.00 Rounded
30 Estrella-South 24000444 Industrial-Warehouse Police 254,900 0.080 20,392.00 20,392.00 0.00 Rounded
31 Estrella-South 23022164 Commercial-Retail Library 770 0.005 4.00 4.00 0.00 Rounded
32 Estrella-South 23022164 Commercial-Retail Fire 770 0.394 302.00 302.00 0.00 Rounded
33 Estrella-South 23022164 Commercial-Retail Major Arterials 770 2.352 1,812.00 1,812.00 0.00 Rounded
34 Estrella-South 23022164 Commercial-Retail Water-D n/a n/a 14,841.00 14,841.00 0.00 2-inch
35 Estrella-South 23022164 Commercial-Retail Wastewater-M n/a n/a 14,995.00 14,995.00 0.00 1-inch
36 Estrella-South 23014474 Commercial-Retail Wastewater-M n/a n/a 9,271.00 9,271.00 0.00 3/4-inch
37 Estrella-South 23020106 Industrial-Warehouse Library 3,188 0.002 6.00 6.00 0.00 Rounded
38 Estrella-South 23020106 Industrial-Warehouse Fire 3,188 0.136 433.00 433.00 0.00 Rounded
39 Estrella-South 23020106 Industrial-Warehouse Major Arterials 3,188 0.617 1,967.00 1,967.00 0.00 Rounded
40 Estrella-South 23023614 Industrial-Warehouse Police 188 0.080 15.00 15.00 0.00 Rounded
41 Estrella-South 24005054 Commercial-Retail Library 5,022 0.005 26.00 26.00 0.00 Rounded
42 Estrella-South 24005054 Commercial-Retail Water-D n/a n/a 14,841.00 14,841.00 0.00 2-inch
43 Estrella-South 24005054 Commercial-Retail Police 5,022 0.231 1,160.00 1,160.00 0.00 Rounded
44 Estrella-South 24005054 Commercial-Retail Water-D n/a n/a 29,829.00 29,829.00 0.00 1.5-inch
45 Estrella-South 24005054 Commercial-Retail Storm 3.10 3,080.000 9,548.00 9,548.00 0.00 Rounded
46 Estrella-South 24005053 Commercial-Retail Library 4,763 0.005 25.00 25.00 0.00 Rounded
47 Estrella-South 24005053 Commercial-Retail Parks 4,763 0.062 298.00 298.00 0.00 Rounded
48 Estrella-South 24005053 Commercial-Retail Fire 4,763 0.394 1,879.00 1,879.00 0.00 Rounded
49 Estrella-South 24005053 Commercial-Retail Police 4,763 0.231 1,100.00 1,100.00 0.00 Rounded
50 Estrella-South 24005053 Commercial-Retail Major Arterials 4,763 2.352 11,202.00 11,202.00 0.00 Rounded
51 Estrella-South 23022164 Commercial-Retail Police 766 0.231 177.00 177.00 0.00 Rounded
52 Estrella-South 24001080 Industrial-Warehouse Library 300,011 0.002 630.00 630.00 0.00 Rounded
53 Estrella-South 24001080 Industrial-Warehouse Parks 300,011 0.025 7,446.00 7,446.00 0.00 Rounded
54 Estrella-South 24001080 Industrial-Warehouse Water-L n/a n/a 29,829.00 29,829.00 0.00 1.5-inch
55 Estrella-South 24001080 Industrial-Warehouse Water-D n/a n/a 47,661.00 47,661.00 0.00 2-inch
56 Estrella-South 24001080 Industrial-Warehouse Wastewater-M n/a n/a 48,100.00 48,100.00 0.00 2-inch
57 Estrella-South 24001080 Industrial-Warehouse Fire 300,011 0.136 40,913.00 40,913.00 0.00 Rounded
58 Estrella-South 24001080 Industrial-Warehouse Police 300,011 0.080 23,943.00 23,943.00 0.00 Rounded
59 Estrella-South 24001080 Industrial-Warehouse Major Arterials 300,011 0.617 185,107.00 185,107.00 0.00 Rounded
60 Estrella-South 24001080 Industrial-Warehouse Storm 30.06 3,080.000 92,585.00 92,585.00 0.00 Rounded




Permit Sampling K-30
Non-Residential
Sample No. Location Receipt Development Type Fee Category Square Feet/Acres DIF/sqft/Acre Assessed Fee Fee in Effect Difference Notes
FY 2023-24 1 Laveen-East 23017076 Commercial-Retail Library 2,164 $0.005 $12.00 $12.00 $0.00 Rounded
2 Laveen-East 23017076 Commercial-Retail Parks 2,164 0.062 136.00 136.00 0.00 Rounded
3 Laveen-East 23017076 Commercial-Retail Fire 2,164 0.394 853.00 853.00 0.00 Rounded
4 Laveen-East 23017076 Commercial-Retail Police 2,164 0.231 499.00 499.00 0.00 Rounded
5 Laveen-East 23017076 Commercial-Retail Major Arterials 2,164 2.352 5,090.00 5,090.00 0.00 Rounded
6 Laveen-East 23017076 Commercial-Retail Storm 3.58 4,148.000 14,841.00 14,841.00 0.00 Rounded
7 Laveen-East 23018725 Commercial-Retail Library 1,574 0.005 8.00 8.00 0.00 Rounded
8 Laveen-East 23018725 Commercial-Retail Parks 1,574 0.062 99.00 99.00 0.00 Rounded
9 Laveen-East 23018725 Commercial-Retail Fire 1,574 0.394 623.00 623.00 0.00 Rounded
10 Laveen-East 23018725 Commercial-Retail Police 1,574 0.231 364.00 364.00 0.00 Rounded
11 Laveen-East 23018725 Commercial-Retail Major Arterials 1,574 2.352 3,702.00 3,702.00 0.00 Rounded
12 Laveen-East 23018725 Commercial-Retail Water-D n/a n/a 14,841.00 14,841.00 0.00 1-inch
13 Laveen-East 23018725 Commercial-Retail Water-L n/a n/a 14,841.00 14,841.00 0.00 1-inch
14 Laveen-East 23018725 Commercial-Retail Wastewater-M n/a n/a 5,945.00 5,945.00 0.00 1-inch
15 Laveen-East 24005297 Miniwarehouse Parks 87,775 0.025 2,184.00 2,184.00 0.00 Rounded
16 Laveen-East 24005297 Miniwarehouse Water-D n/a n/a 14,841.00 14,841.00 0.00 1-inch
17 Laveen-East 24005297 Miniwarehouse Water-L n/a n/a 14,841.00 14,841.00 0.00 1-inch
18 Laveen-East 24005297 Miniwarehouse Wastewater-M n/a n/a 5,945.00 5,945.00 0.00 1-inch
19 Laveen-East 24005297 Miniwarehouse Major Arterials 87,775 0.174 15,270.00 15,270.00 0.00 Rounded
20 Laveen-East 24005297 Miniwarehouse Storm 5.20 4,148.000 21,570.00 21,570.00 0.00 Rounded
21 Laveen-East 24005297 Miniwarehouse Fire 87,775 0.136 12,000.00 12,000.00 0.00 Rounded
22 Laveen-East 24005297 Miniwarehouse Police 87,775 0.080 7,022.00 7,022.00 0.00 Rounded
23 Laveen-East 24005298 Miniwarehouse Library 5,728 0.002 12.00 12.00 0.00 Rounded
24 Laveen-East 24005298 Miniwarehouse Major Arterials 5,728 0.174 983.00 983.00 0.00 Rounded
25 Laveen-East 24005298 Miniwarehouse Fire 5,728 0.136 779.00 779.00 0.00 Rounded
26 Laveen-East 24005298 Miniwarehouse Police 5,728 0.080 456.00 456.00 0.00 Rounded
27 Laveen-East 24005299 Miniwarehouse Library 7,475 0.002 16.00 16.00 0.00 Rounded
28 Laveen-East 24005299 Miniwarehouse Parks 7,475 0.025 186.00 186.00 0.00 Rounded
29 Laveen-East 24005299 Miniwarehouse Major Arterials 7,475 0.174 1,311.00 1,311.00 0.00 Rounded
30 Laveen-East 24005299 Miniwarehouse Fire 7,475 0.136 1,023.00 1,023.00 0.00 Rounded
31 Laveen-East 24005299 Miniwarehouse Police 7,475 0.080 598.00 598.00 0.00 Rounded
32 Laveen-East 24005300 Miniwarehouse Library 14,960 0.002 32.00 32.00 0.00 Rounded
33 Laveen-East 24005300 Miniwarehouse Parks 14,960 0.025 373.00 373.00 0.00 Rounded
34 Laveen-East 24005300 Miniwarehouse Major Arterials 14,960 0.174 2,603.00 2,603.00 0.00 Rounded
35 Laveen-East 24005300 Miniwarehouse Fire 14,960 0.136 2,045.00 2,045.00 0.00 Rounded
36 Laveen-East 24005300 Miniwarehouse Police 14,960 0.080 1,197.00 1,197.00 0.00 Rounded
37 Laveen-East 24005301 Miniwarehouse Library 4,213 0.002 8.00 8.00 0.00 Rounded
38 Laveen-East 24005301 Miniwarehouse Parks 4,213 0.025 99.00 99.00 0.00 Rounded
39 Laveen-East 24005301 Miniwarehouse Major Arterials 4,213 0.174 733.00 733.00 0.00 Rounded
40 Laveen-East 24005301 Miniwarehouse Fire 4,213 0.136 574.00 574.00 0.00 Rounded
41 Laveen-East 24005301 Miniwarehouse Police 4,213 0.080 336.00 336.00 0.00 Rounded
42 Laveen-East 24005302 Miniwarehouse Library 6,759 0.002 15.00 15.00 0.00 Rounded
43 Laveen-East 24005302 Miniwarehouse Parks 6,759 0.025 174.00 174.00 0.00 Rounded
44 Laveen-East 24005302 Miniwarehouse Major Arterials 6,759 0.174 1,176.00 1,176.00 0.00 Rounded
45 Laveen-East 24005302 Miniwarehouse Fire 6,759 0.136 925.00 925.00 0.00 Rounded
46 Laveen-East 24005302 Miniwarehouse Police 6,759 0.080 541.00 541.00 0.00 Rounded
47 Laveen-East 24005303 Miniwarehouse Library 4,431 0.002 9.00 9.00 0.00 Rounded
48 Laveen-East 24005303 Miniwarehouse Parks 4,431 0.025 112.00 112.00 0.00 Rounded
49 Laveen-East 24005303 Miniwarehouse Major Arterials 4,431 0.174 771.00 771.00 0.00 Rounded
50 Laveen-East 24005303 Miniwarehouse Fire 4,431 0.136 599.00 599.00 0.00 Rounded
51 Laveen-East 24005303 Miniwarehouse Police 4,431 0.080 351.00 351.00 0.00 Rounded
52 Laveen-East 24005304 Miniwarehouse Library 7,000 0.002 14.00 14.00 0.00 Rounded
53 Laveen-East 24005304 Miniwarehouse Parks 6,540 0.025 162.00 162.00 0.00 Rounded
54 Laveen-East 24005304 Miniwarehouse Major Arterials 6,540 0.174 1,138.00 1,138.00 0.00 Rounded
55 Laveen-East 24005304 Miniwarehouse Fire 6,540 0.136 901.00 901.00 0.00 Rounded
56 Laveen-East 24005304 Miniwarehouse Police 6,540 0.080 528.00 528.00 0.00 Rounded
57 Laveen-East 23022631 Industrial-Warehouse Storm 1.68 4,148.000 6,969.00 6,969.00 0.00 Rounded
58 Laveen-East 23022631 Industrial-Warehouse Water-D n/a n/a 47,661.00 47,661.00 0.00 2-inch
59 Laveen-East 23022631 Industrial-Warehouse Wastewater-M n/a n/a 19,240.00 19,240.00 0.00 2-inch
60 Laveen-East 23022480 Industrial-Warehouse Major Arterials 1,593 0.617 983.00 983.00 0.00 Rounded




Permit Sampling K-31
Non-Residential
Sample No. Location Receipt Development Type Fee Category Square Feet/Acres DIF/sqft/Acre Assessed Fee Fee in Effect Difference Notes
FY 2023-24 1 Laveen-West 23016212 Commercial-Retail Library 975 $0.005 $5.00 $5.00 $0.00 Rounded
2 Laveen-West 23016212 Commercial-Retail Parks 975 0.062 62.00 62.00 0.00 Rounded
3 Laveen-West 23016212 Commercial-Retail Fire 975 0.394 385.00 385.00 0.00 Rounded
4 Laveen-West 23016212 Commercial-Retail Police 975 0.231 225.00 225.00 0.00 Rounded
5 Laveen-West 23016212 Commercial-Retail Major Arterials 975 2.352 2,294.00 2,294.00 0.00 Rounded
6 Laveen-West 23016212 Commercial-Retail Storm 0.59 4,148.000 2,447.00 2,447.00 0.00 Rounded
7 Laveen-West 23016212 Commercial-Retail Water-D n/a n/a 14,841.00 14,841.00 0.00 1-inch
8 Laveen-West 23016212 Commercial-Retail Water-L n/a n/a 14,841.00 14,841.00 0.00 1-inch
9 Laveen-West 23018916 Commercial-Retail Library 1,213 0.005 6.00 6.00 0.00 1-inch
10 Laveen-West 23018916 Commercial-Retail Parks 1,213 0.062 75.00 75.00 0.00 Rounded
11 Laveen-West 23018916 Commercial-Retail Fire 1,213 0.394 477.00 477.00 0.00 Rounded
12 Laveen-West 23018916 Commercial-Retail Major Arterials 1,213 2.352 2,853.00 2,853.00 0.00 Rounded
13 Laveen-West 23018916 Commercial-Retail Storm 1.59 4,148.000 6,595.00 6,595.00 0.00 Rounded
14 Laveen-West 24010267 Commercial-Retail Library 21,706 0.005 114.00 144.00 30.00 Rounded
15 Laveen-West 24010267 Commercial-Retail Parks 21,706 0.062 1,353.00 1,353.00 0.00 Rounded
16 Laveen-West 24010267 Commercial-Retail Fire 21,706 0.394 8,561.00 8,561.00 0.00 Rounded
17 Laveen-West 24010267 Commercial-Retail Police 21,706 0.231 5,010.00 5,010.00 0.00 Rounded
18 Laveen-West 24010267 Commercial-Retail Storm 4.67 4,148.000 19,371.00 19,371.00 0.00 Rounded
19 Laveen-West 24010267 Commercial-Retail Major Arterials 21,706 2.352 51,053.00 51,053.00 0.00 Rounded
20 Laveen-West 24010268 Commercial-Retail Library 1,254 0.005 6.00 6.00 0.00 Rounded
21 Laveen-West 24010268 Commercial-Retail Parks 1,254 0.062 75.00 75.00 0.00 Rounded
22 Laveen-West 24010268 Commercial-Retail Fire 1,254 0.394 492.00 492.00 0.00 Rounded
23 Laveen-West 24010268 Commercial-Retail Police 1,254 0.231 288.00 288.00 0.00 Rounded
24 Laveen-West 24010268 Commercial-Retail Major Arterials 1,254 2.352 2,950.00 2,950.00 0.00 Rounded
25 Laveen-West 23019582 Office Library 10,000 0.007 70.00 70.00 0.00 Rounded
26 Laveen-West 23019582 Office Parks 9,552 0.087 831.00 831.00 0.00 Rounded
27 Laveen-West 23019582 Office Water-D n/a n/a 14,841.00 14,841.00 0.00 1-inch
28 Laveen-West 23019582 Office Wastewater-M n/a n/a 14,405.00 14,405.00 0.00 1-inch
29 Laveen-West 23019582 Office Major Arterials 9,586 1.060 10,161.00 10,161.00 0.00 Rounded
30 Laveen-West 23019582 Office Fire 9,571 0.312 2,986.00 2,986.00 0.00 Rounded
31 Laveen-West 23019582 Office Police 9,599 0.182 1,747.00 1,747.00 0.00 Rounded
32 Laveen-West 23019582 Office Water-L n/a n/a 29,829.00 29,829.00 0.00 1.5-inch
33 Laveen-West 23019582 Office Storm 2.02 4,148.000 8,379.00 8,379.00 0.00 Rounded




Permit Sampling K-32
Non-Residential
Sample No. Location Receipt Development Type Fee Category Square Feet/Acres DIF/sqft/Acre Assessed Fee Fee in Effect Difference Notes
FY 2023-24 1 Northeast 24010854 Office Water-D n/a n/a $23,032.00 $23,032.00 $0.00 1-inch
2 Northeast 24010854 Office Wastewater-M n/a n/a 13,175.00 13,175.00 0.00 1-inch
3 Northeast 24010854 Office Water-L n/a n/a 46,166.00 46,166.00 0.00 1.5-inch
4 Northeast 24010854 Office Library 265,527 0.007 1,952.00 1,952.00 0.00 Rounded
5 Northeast 24010854 Office Parks 265,527 0.087 22,977.00 22,977.00 0.00 Rounded
6 Northeast 24010854 Office Water-D n/a n/a 278,832.00 278,832.00 0.00 4-inch
7 Northeast 24010854 Office Wastewater-M n/a n/a 160,635.00 160,635.00 0.00 4-inch
8 Northeast 24010854 Office Major Arterials 265,527 1.694 449,803.00 449,803.00 0.00 Rounded
9 Northeast 24010854 Office Fire 265,527 0.353 93,637.00 93,637.00 0.00 Rounded
10 Northeast 24010854 Office Police 265,527 0.201 53,361.00 53,361.00 0.00 Rounded




Permit Sampling K-33
Non-Residential
Sample No. Location Receipt Development Type Fee Category Square Feet/Acres DIF/sqft/Acre Assessed Fee Fee in Effect Difference Notes
FY 2023-24 1 Northwest 23021703 Commercial-Retail Water-D n/a n/a $73,809.00 $73,809.00 $0.00 2-inch
2 Northwest 23021703 Commercial-Retail Wastewater-M n/a n/a 42,297.00 42,297.00 0.00 2-inch
3 Northwest 23016370 Industrial-Warehouse Water-L n/a n/a 73,809.00 73,809.00 0.00 2-inch
4 Northwest 23016370 Industrial-Warehouse Library 3,155 0.002 6.00 6.00 0.00 Rounded
5 Northwest 23016370 Industrial-Warehouse Parks 3,155 0.027 82.00 82.00 0.00 Rounded
6 Northwest 23016370 Industrial-Warehouse Fire 3,155 0.144 454.00 454.00 0.00 Rounded
7 Northwest 23016370 Industrial-Warehouse Police 3,155 0.082 257.00 257.00 0.00 Rounded
8 Northwest 23016370 Industrial-Warehouse Major Arterials 3,155 0.986 3,111.00 3,111.00 0.00 Rounded
9 Northwest 23022421 Commercial-Retail Library 6,450 0.005 34.00 34.00 0.00 Rounded
10 Northwest 23022421 Commercial-Retail Parks 6,450 0.068 438.00 438.00 0.00 Rounded
11 Northwest 23022421 Commercial-Retail Fire 6,450 0.418 2,693.00 2,693.00 0.00 Rounded
12 Northwest 23022421 Commercial-Retail Police 6,450 0.237 1,529.00 1,529.00 0.00 Rounded
13 Northwest 23022421 Commercial-Retail Water-L n/a n/a 46,166.00 46,166.00 0.00 1.5-inch
14 Northwest 23022421 Commercial-Retail Major Arterials 6,450 3.758 24,240.00 24,240.00 0.00 Rounded
15 Northwest 23022421 Commercial-Retail Water-D n/a n/a 73,809.00 73,809.00 0.00 2-inch
16 Northwest 23022421 Commercial-Retail Wastewater-M n/a n/a 42,297.00 42,297.00 0.00 2-inch
17 Northwest 23022423 Commercial-Retail Library 6,409 0.005 34.00 34.00 0.00 Rounded
18 Northwest 23022423 Commercial-Retail Parks 6,409 0.068 438.00 438.00 0.00 Rounded
19 Northwest 23022423 Commercial-Retail Fire 6,409 0.418 2,678.00 2,678.00 0.00 Rounded
20 Northwest 23022423 Commercial-Retail Police 6,409 0.237 1,520.00 1,520.00 0.00 Rounded
21 Northwest 23022423 Commercial-Retail Major Arterials 6,409 3.758 24,086.00 24,086.00 0.00 Rounded
22 Northwest 23022424 Commercial-Retail Library 8,138 0.005 43.00 43.00 0.00 Rounded
23 Northwest 23022424 Commercial-Retail Parks 8,138 0.068 561.00 561.00 0.00 Rounded
24 Northwest 23022424 Commercial-Retail Fire 8,138 0.418 3,405.00 3,405.00 0.00 Rounded
25 Northwest 23022424 Commercial-Retail Police 8,138 0.237 1,934.00 1,934.00 0.00 Rounded
26 Northwest 23022424 Commercial-Retail Major Arterials 8,138 3.758 30,584.00 30,584.00 0.00 Rounded
27 Northwest 23022424 Commercial-Retail Water-D n/a n/a 73,809.00 73,809.00 0.00 2-inch
28 Northwest 23022424 Commercial-Retail Wastewater-M n/a n/a 42,297.00 42,297.00 0.00 2-inch
29 Northwest 23022425 Commercial-Retail Library 8,138 0.005 43.00 43.00 0.00 Rounded
30 Northwest 23022425 Commercial-Retail Parks 8,138 0.068 561.00 561.00 0.00 Rounded
31 Northwest 23022425 Commercial-Retail Fire 8,138 0.418 3,400.00 3,400.00 0.00 Rounded
32 Northwest 23022425 Commercial-Retail Police 8,138 0.237 1,930.00 1,930.00 0.00 Rounded
33 Northwest 23022425 Commercial-Retail Major Arterials 8,138 3.758 30,584.00 30,584.00 0.00 Rounded
34 Northwest 23017739 Industrial-Warehouse Library 375 0.002 1.00 1.00 0.00 Rounded
35 Northwest 23017739 Industrial-Warehouse Parks 375 0.027 14.00 14.00 0.00 Rounded
36 Northwest 23017739 Industrial-Warehouse Fire 375 0.144 57.00 57.00 0.00 Rounded
37 Northwest 23017739 Industrial-Warehouse Police 375 0.082 32.00 32.00 0.00 Rounded
38 Northwest 23017739 Industrial-Warehouse Major Arterials 375 0.986 370.00 370.00 0.00 Rounded
39 Northwest 23023394 Industrial-Warehouse Library 1,874 0.002 4.00 4.00 0.00 Rounded
40 Northwest 23023394 Industrial-Warehouse Parks 1,874 0.027 54.00 54.00 0.00 Rounded
41 Northwest 23023394 Industrial-Warehouse Fire 1,874 0.144 273.00 273.00 0.00 Rounded
42 Northwest 23023394 Industrial-Warehouse Police 1,874 0.082 155.00 155.00 0.00 Rounded
43 Northwest 23023394 Industrial-Warehouse Major Arterials 1,874 0.986 1,848.00 1,848.00 0.00 Rounded




Permit Sampling K-34
Non-Residential
Sample No. Location Receipt Development Type Fee Category Square Feet/Acres DIF/sqft/Acre Assessed Fee Fee in Effect Difference Notes
FY 2023-24 1 Paradise Ridge 2302684 Commercial-Retail Library 74,820 0.005 $393.00 $393.00 $0.00 Rounded
2 Paradise Ridge 2302684 Commercial-Retail Parks 74,820 0.062 4,623.00 4,623.00 0.00 Rounded
3 Paradise Ridge 2302684 Commercial-Retail Fire 74,820 0.446 33,396.00 33,396.00 0.00 Rounded
4 Paradise Ridge 2302684 Commercial-Retail Police 74,820 0.254 19,032.00 19,032.00 0.00 Rounded
5 Paradise Ridge 2302684 Commercial-Retail Major Arterials 74,820 3.758 281,173.00 281,173.00 0.00 Rounded
6 Paradise Ridge 24003386 Public-Institutional Library 6,089 0.005 32.00 32.00 0.00 Rounded
7 Paradise Ridge 24003386 Public-Institutional Parks 6,089 0.062 371.00 371.00 0.00 Rounded
8 Paradise Ridge 24003386 Public-Institutional Major Arterials 6,089 1.386 8,439.00 8,439.00 0.00 Rounded
9 Paradise Ridge 24003386 Public-Institutional Fire 6,089 0.320 1,945.00 1,945.00 0.00 Rounded
10 Paradise Ridge 24003386 Public-Institutional Police 6,089 0.182 1,108.00 1,108.00 0.00 Rounded




Permit Sampling K-35



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Ordinance Adoption - Adoption of the 2024 Phoenix Building Construction Code
with Amendments (Ordinance G-7397) - Citywide

Request the City Council to hold a public hearing on adoption of 15 model codes as
amended by the City and request City Council to authorize amendment of Chapter 9-1
of the City Code by repealing the existing Construction Code of the City of Phoenix
and replacing said code by adopting these model codes, with amendments by the City,
as the new Construction Code of the City of Phoenix.

Summary
The Phoenix Building Construction Code establishes the minimum requirements for
building construction in Phoenix to protect public health, safety, and general welfare.
The Planning and Development Department (PDD) periodically reviews and adopts
new construction codes to ensure development standards reflect current trends, safety
advances, new materials, and technologies. Additionally, the adoption and use of
current building codes is a significant factor in the City's Insurance Services Office
(ISO) rating, which impacts insurance rates and assists with the City’s ability to obtain
grants.

Building code adoption in the City of Phoenix is an open and public process. PDD uses
a five-step code adoption process for evaluation and adoption of new codes that is
consistent with City Council Resolution 19015. This five-step process involves staff
review, Development Advisory Board (DAB) subcommittee review, DAB review, City
Council subcommittee review, and ultimately City Council adoption. Stakeholder input
is solicited throughout the process.

The codes are national standards, therefore, amendments generally consist of
alterations to the national standards to accommodate local conditions and practices.
For instance, the City of Phoenix always amends the code to require minimum cooling
standards, which is critical in Phoenix's climate. PDD staff proposed several
amendments consistent with previous code cycles along with new amendments.
Members of public stakeholders and industry have also proposed amendments. Newly
proposed amendments center on electrical vehicle charging infrastructure, reduction in
water consumption, inclusive home design, easing refrigerant installation in multi-



family development, eliminating specific permits to align with PDD process
improvements, and compliance with revised Arizona Statutes. A high-level summary of
the amendments is attached (Attachment A).

The Phoenix Building Construction Code (PBCC) consists of a group of codes from the
International Code Council (ICC), the National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA), the
International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials (IAPMO), and the
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME). Together these codes establish
the construction requirements for building construction in the City of Phoenix. The
PBCC does not include the Phoenix Fire Code, which is administered by the Fire
Department.

These amendments are available for reference in the attachment (Attachment B).

The following codes comprise the 2024 PBCC:

· 2024 International Building Code (IBC), including Appendix E
· 2024 International Residential Code (IRC), including Appendices BA, BB, BF, BG,
BI, BJ, BO, CA, CB, CD, CE, CF, NB, and NE
· 2024 International Mechanical Code (IMC)
· 2024 International Fuel Gas Code (IFGC)
· 2024 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC)
· 2024 International Existing Building Code (IEBC)
· 2024 International Swimming Pool and Spa Code (ISPSC)
· 2024 International Plumbing Code (IPC), including Appendices C and E
· 2024 Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC), including Appendices A, B, C, I, and M
· 2023 National Electrical Code (NEC)
· 2022 ASME A17.1, Safety Code for Elevators and Escalators
· 2023 ASME A17.3, Safety Code for Existing Elevators and Escalators
· 2022 ASME A17.6, Standard for Elevator Suspension, Compensation, and
Governor Systems
· 2023 ASME A18.1, Safety Standard for Platform Lifts and Stairway Chairlifts
· 2024 International Green Construction Code (IgCC) - optional

Financial Impact
Code books and training for staff on the new codes are all included in the PDD's
Development Fund. No General Funds will be used for the implementation of the 2024
Phoenix Building Construction Code.




Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Development Advisory Board approved the adoption of the 2024 Phoenix Building
Construction Code per the recommendation of the DAB Subcommittee at a public
hearing on April 22, 2025.

The Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning (TIP) Subcommittee approved the
adoption of the 2024 Phoenix Building Construction Code per the memo dated May
21, 2025 from the PDD Director at a public hearing held on May 21, 2025. The memo
outlined modifications to the amendment proposal to the IRC Section R322 (Inclusive
Home Design). The TIP approved amendment for Section R322 is included in
Attachment B.

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





PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT



To: Mayor and City Council Date: June 13, 2025

From: Joshua Bednare�
Planning and Development Director

Subject: ITEM 149 ON THE JUNE 18, 2025, FORMAL AGENDA- PUBLIC HEARING -
AMEND CITY CODE - ORDINANCE ADOPTION - ADOPTION OF THE 2024
PHOENIX BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE WITH AMENDMENTS
(ORDINANCE G-7397)

The Phoenix Building Construction Code (Code) establishes minimum requirements to
safeguard the public health, safety and general welfare through building standards for
construction in Phoenix. The City Council last approved an update to the Code in 2018.
Periodic reviews and adoptions of new construction codes ensure development standards
reflect current trends, safety advances, materials and technologies.

The Planning and Development Department (POD), in collaboration with the
Development Advisory Board (DAB), initiated an update of the Code in the summer
of 2024. The update included the formation of a DAB Building Code Subcommittee
comprised of DAB members and industry representatives. The DAB Building Code
Subcommittee and POD staff teams met for several months, and eight meetings
reviewing the 15 codes and developed dozens of Phoenix specific amendments. The
DAB Building Code Subcommittee recommended approval of the updated set of
codes and amendments on March 27, 2025. The full DAB recommended approval of
the subcommittee's recommendation on April 22, 2025. The Transportation,
Infrastructure and Planning (TIP) Subcommittee approved adoption of the 2024
Phoenix Building Construction Code with modifications to International Residential
Code (IRC) Section R322 (Inclusive Home Design) at their meeting on May 21, 2025.
The TIP Subcommittee also requested POD continue to work with the elevator
industry on potential modifications to American Society of Mechanical Engineers
(ASME) Code A17.1 Section 2.7.5.1.

As a result of ongoing collaboration between Councilwoman Stark, the Mayor's
Strategic Workgroup on Accessibility and the Homebuilders Association of Central
Arizona, additional modifications to the IRC Section R322.1 (Inclusive Home Design)
are proposed. The modifications include - the front entrance doors do not require
maximum opening forces or closing speeds, ramps to the front entrance do not
require side rails where they don't have drop offs on the sides, interior doorways and
hallways do not require minimum widths other than to one restroom and one other
space, door hardware is allowed to be higher where serving as a pool barrier,
thermostat and other controls do not have a required height where they can be
operated remotely (such as by a phone application}, and a restroom is not required



ATTACHMENT A

SUMMARY OF 2024 PHOENIX BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE UPDATES

Planning and Development Department (PDD) staff began reviewing the 2024 base
codes and drafting proposed amendments in the Summer of 2024. A dedicated
webpage and social media campaign was launched in the fall of 2024 giving the public
an opportunity to provide input and submit amendment proposals. In addition, over 600
emails were sent to stakeholders announcing the process. In the Spring of 2025, the
Development Advisory Board Building Code Subcommittee began an intensive review
of the codes and amendments and provided recommendations of approval to the full
Development Advisory Board. The Development Advisory Board recommended
approval on April 22, 2025, and the Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning
Subcommittee recommended approval on May 21, 2025.
The effective date of the 2024 Phoenix Building Construction Code is August 1, 2025.
The implementation plan allows for flexibility to accommodate the needs of development
and workload management for staff. The 2018 Phoenix Building Construction Code
may be used for plans submitted through December 31, 2025, for the following:

• Building plans for projects currently in the review process
• Building plans submitted prior to August 1, 2025 – Permits can be purchased
within one year of approval without requiring a building code update
• Other plans on a case-by-case basis with Building Official or Deputy Director
approval

Standard plans approved under the 2018 Phoenix Building Construction Code will
remain in effect until July 31, 2026. Standard plans submitted for review beginning
August 1, 2026, will need to comply with the 2024 Phoenix Building Construction Code.

2024 Phoenix Building Construction Code Highlights

• Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure in one- and two- family dwellings and
townhouses to align with council approved Transportation Electrification Action
Plan

• Reduce maximum water usage of faucets, showers, and toilets to align with EPA
Water Sense standards and city council resolution 22129

• Exempt permits for:
o Shipping containers used for storage

o Replacement of fences accessory to a single-family residence




• Code modification no longer required for water/sewer crossing private property
lines

• Ease installation of refrigerant lines in multi-family development

• More robust dwelling unit fire separation when fire sprinklers are not provided
because of new state statute

• Buildings with occupiable roofs that are above 75’ considered high rise (base
code)

• Mass timber allowed for buildings up to 18 stories (base code)

• Inclusive home design amendments provide enhanced standards for entrances,
interior circulation paths, operable parts, toilet rooms and bathrooms
o Exceptions for site and cost conditions

o Limited habitable space on ground floor

o Standard plans

o Limits floor space requirements to one restroom on ground floor

• Elevator Code amendment for enhanced safety for repair personnel




ATTACHMENT B


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




ORDINANCE G-

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 9-1 OF THE CITY
CODE BY REPEALING THE EXISTING PHOENIX



T
CONSTRUCTION CODE ON FILE WITH THE CITY CLERK
AND REPLACING SAID CODE BY ADOPTING 15 MODEL
CODES, WITH AMENDMENTS BY THE CITY, AS THE
NEW PHOENIX CONSTRUCTION CODE; AND
ESTABLISHING EFFECTIVE DATE AND PROVIDING FOR
APPLICATION OF EXCEPTIONS.




follows:
AF ____________


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



SECTION 1. That the existing Construction Code of the City of Phoenix on

file with the City Clerk, as adopted pursuant to Section 9-1 of the City Code, is hereby




R
repealed and replaced with certain codes, as amended by the City, now adopted

pursuant to Section 2 of this Ordinance.

SECTION 2. The following codes are hereby adopted in their entirety,




D
subject to amendments by the City referenced below, which are attached to this

Ordinance (with deletions struck through and additions underlined) and incorporated

here by reference, with each code to be filed with the City Clerk and marked, known,

and designated as a separate document of the Construction Code of the City of Phoenix

under Section 9-1 of the City Code:




• 2024 International Building Code (IBC), including Appendix E;

• 2024 International Residential Code (IRC), including Appendices BA, BB, BF,

BG, BI, BJ, BO, CA, CB, CD, CE, CF, NB, and NE;

• 2024 International Mechanical Code (IMC);

• 2024 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC);

• 2024 International Fuel Gas Code (IFGC);






T
2024 International Existing Building Code (IEBC);

2024 International Swimming Pool and Spa Code (ISPSC);

2024 International Plumbing Code (IPC), including Appendices C and E;










AF
2024 Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC), including Appendices A, B, C, I, and M;

2023 National Electrical Code (NEC);

2022 ASME A17.1, Safety Code for Elevators and Escalators;

2023 ASME A17.3, Safety Code for Existing Elevators and Escalators;

2022 ASME A17.6, Standard for Elevator Suspension, Compensation, and




R •


Governor Systems;

2023 ASME A18.1, Safety Standard for Platform Lifts and Stairway Chairlifts; and

2024 International Green Construction Code (IgCC) (optional)

SECTION 3. That the 2024 International Building Code (IBC), including



D
Appendix E, as adopted above is hereby amended as set forth in the attachment to this

Ordinance.

SECTION 4. That the 2024 International Residential Code (IRC), including

Appendices BA, BB, BF, BG, BI, BJ, BO, CA, CB, CD, CE, CF, NB, and NE, as adopted

above is hereby amended as set forth in the attachment to this Ordinance.



2 Ordinance G-
SECTION 5. That the 2024 International Mechanical Code (IMC) as

adopted above is hereby amended as set forth in the attachment to this Ordinance.

SECTION 6. That the 2024 International Energy Conservation Code

(IECC) as adopted above is hereby amended as set forth in the attachment to this

Ordinance.

SECTION 7. That the 2024 International Fuel Gas Code (IFGC) as




T
adopted above is hereby amended as set forth in the attachment to this Ordinance.

SECTION 8. That the 2024 International Existing Building Code (IEBC) as

adopted above is hereby amended as set forth in the attachment to this Ordinance.




AF
SECTION 9. That the 2024 International Swimming Pool and Spa Code

(ISPSC) as adopted above is hereby amended as set forth in the attachment to this

Ordinance.

SECTION 10. That the 2024 International Plumbing Code (IPC), including

Appendices C and E, as adopted above is hereby amended as set forth in the

attachment to this Ordinance.




R SECTION 11. That the 2024 Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC), including

Appendices A, B, C, I, and M, as adopted above is hereby amended as set forth in the

attachment to this Ordinance.




D SECTION 12. That the 2023 National Electrical Code (NEC) as adopted

above is hereby amended as set forth in the attachment to this Ordinance.

SECTION 13. That the American Society of Mechanical Engineers

(ASME) A17.1-2022, Safety Code for Elevators and Escalators, as adopted above is

hereby amended as set forth in the attachment to this Ordinance.




3 Ordinance G-
SECTION 14. That the American Society of Mechanical Engineers

(ASME) A17.3-2023, Safety Code for Existing Elevators and Escalators, as adopted

above is hereby amended as set forth in the attachment to this Ordinance.

SECTION 15. That the American Society of Mechanical Engineers

(ASME) A17.6-2022, Standard for Elevator Suspension, Compensation, and Governor

Systems, as adopted above is not currently subject to any amendments by the City.




T
SECTION 16. That the American Society of Mechanical Engineers

(ASME) A18.1-2023, Safety Standard for Platform Lifts and Stairway Chairlifts, as

adopted above is not currently subject to any amendments by the City.




AF
SECTION 17. That the 2024 International Green Construction Code

(IgCC) as adopted above (as an optional code) is hereby amended as set forth in the

attachment to this Ordinance.



2025.
SECTION 18. That this Ordinance shall become effective on August 1,



SECTION 19. That after the effective date of this Ordinance, any person




R
who has already substantially completed the design work on any project may request

that the Planning and Development Director allow completion of the design using the

preceding Construction Code of the City of Phoenix. If allowed at the Director’s option




D
and sole discretion, such a person will have until December 31, 2025 to finish the

design work and submit a complete permit application to the City for review.

Section 20. That after the effective date of this Ordinance, any standard

plans, as defined by this adopted Construction Code of the City of Phoenix, that were




4 Ordinance G-
approved under the preceding Construction Code of the City of Phoenix shall remain in

effect and permits may be issued from these plans until July 31, 2026.

PASSED by the City Council of the City of Phoenix this 18th day of June

2025.


___________________________________
MAYOR
___________________________________



ATTEST: T Date




AF
____________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk


APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney


BY: ____________________________________

____________________________________
MRA




R
REVIEWED BY:


_________________________




D
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager

MRA:smb:LF25-1274:6/18/25: 4896-4143-5467 v.1.docx




5 Ordinance G-
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Chapter 1 [A], Section 101.1

Submitted by: International Building Code Committee

[A] 101.1 Title
These regulations shall be known as the International Building Code as Amended by the City of
Phoenix Building Code of [NAME OF JURISDICTION], hereinafter referred to as “this code.”
These regulations are one document of the overall Phoenix Building Construction Code as
defined by the adopting ordinance.


T
Justification: All the adopted and amended building code documents taken together are known
as the Phoenix Building Construction Code. Each code document is a separate document of the
Phoenix Building Construction Code. This document is the International Building Code as




AF
Amended by the City of Phoenix. This document is intended to apply where a code or referenced
standard identifies the International Building Code as being applicable.


Cost Impact: No cost impact.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
YES NO


Date: 01/27/2025
No action taken




R
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved Denied
Date: 02/20/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:




D Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Chapter 1 [A], Section 101.2

Submitted by: International Building Code Committee

[A] 101.2 Scope.
The provisions of this code shall apply to the construction, alteration, relocation, enlargement,
replacement, repair, equipment, use and occupancy, location, maintenance, removal and
demolition of every building or structure or any appurtenances connected or attached to such
buildings or structures.


T
Exception: Detached one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses not more than three
stories above grade plane in height with a separate means of egress, and their accessory
structures not more than three stories above grade plane in height, shall comply with this code
or the International Residential Code.




AF
Exceptions. The provisions of this code shall not apply to:

1. Projects or properties owned by governmental entities other than the City of Phoenix to
the extent they are exempted from this code by applicable state, federal, or county law.
2. Work primarily located within a public way such as streets, roads, sidewalks, bridges,
drainage structures, street lights and traffic control signs or equipment. Pedestrian
tunnels or bridges which cross a public way are regulated by this code when they
directly connect one or more buildings located outside of the public way.
3. Canals, dams and hydraulic flood control structures constructed by or under contract
with a governmental agency or jurisdiction.
4. Utility towers, poles, equipment or systems under the exclusive control of an electric
utility and directly used to generate, transmit, transform, control or distribute electrical




R energy to utility customers. Electrical installations in buildings used by the electric utility,
such as office buildings, that are not an integral part of a generating plant, substation or
control center, and electrical installations located on the premises of a utility customer,
such as exterior lighting, service entrance equipment or customer- owned substation
equipment, are regulated by this code.
5. Installation of communications equipment under the exclusive control of
communications utilities and located outdoors or in building spaces used exclusively for




D such installations. Communications wiring run inside a building is regulated by this
code.
6. Piping and equipment owned and operated by a public service utility and directly used
to produce, treat, distribute or meter water to utility customers, or directly used to
collect, treat or dispose of sewage or waste water from utility customers. Domestic
plumbing systems within water or sewer utility plants are regulated by this code.
7. Piping and equipment owned and operated by a public service utility and directly used
to produce, distribute or meter natural gas to utility customers.
8. Construction means, methods, and sequencing, except as specifically provided for in
this code.




9. Construction site safety. The property owner(s), the contractor(s) and all construction
workers are each responsible for compliance with applicable federal and state
occupational health and safety laws and regulations.

[A] 101.2.1 Appendices.
Provisions in the appendices shall not apply unless specifically adopted.


Justification: These provisions for scoping more accurately delineate the City’s responsibilities
and establish the limits of this code pertaining to utilities, jobs under construction and other
jurisdictions, per applicable Federal, State, and County laws and regulations.


Cost Impact: No cost impact.




T
Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
YES NO


Date: 01/282025
No action taken




AF
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted




Approved as submitted
Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Date: 02/20/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




R
D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Chapter 1 [A], Section 101.3

Submitted by: International Building Code Committee

[A] 101.3 Purpose.
The purpose of this code is to establish the minimum requirements to provide a reasonable level
of safety, health and general welfare through structural strength, means of egress, stability,
sanitation, light and ventilation, energy conservation, and for providing a reasonable level of life



T
safety and property protection from the hazards of fire, explosion or dangerous conditions, and to
provide a reasonable level of safety to fire fighters and emergency responders during emergency
operations.

The purpose of this Code is not to create or otherwise establish or designate any particular class
or group of persons who will or should be especially protected or benefitted by the terms of this




AF
code. Although the Planning & Development Department Director (hereinafter referred to as the
“Director”) or designee is directed to obtain substantial compliance with the provisions of this
code, a guarantee that all buildings, structures or utilities have been constructed in accordance
with all provisions of the code is neither intended nor implied.


Justification: This establishes that the Director will endeavor to obtain substantial compliance
with the Code but cannot guarantee that the project complies in all respects. The responsibility
for compliance with this code lies with the owner of the project.


Cost Impact: No cost impact.




R
Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
YES NO


Date: 01/27/2025
No action taken




D
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted




Approved as submitted
Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Date: 02/20/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Chapter 1 [A], Section 101.4

Submitted by: International Building Code Administrative Committee

[A] 101.4 Referenced codes.
The other codes listed in Sections 101.4.1 through 101.4.710 and referenced elsewhere in this
code shall be considered part of the requirements of this code to the prescribed extent of each
such reference.

[A] 101.4.1 Gas.

T
The provisions of the International Fuel Gas Code, as amended, shall apply to the
installation of gas piping from the point of delivery, gas appliances and related
accessories as covered in this code. These requirements apply to gas piping systems
extending from the point of delivery to the inlets connections of appliances and the




AF
installation and operation of residential and commercial gas appliances and related
accessories.

[A] 101.4.2 Mechanical.
The provisions of the International Mechanical Code, as amended, shall apply to the
installation, alterations, repairs and replacement of mechanical systems, including
equipment, appliances, fixtures, fittings and appurtenances, including ventilating, heating,
cooling, air-conditioning and refrigeration systems, incinerators and other energy related
systems.

[A] 101.4.3 Plumbing.
The provisions of the Uniform Plumbing Code or International Plumbing Code, as




R amended, shall apply to the installation, alteration, repair and replacement of plumbing
systems, including equipment, appliances, fixtures, fittings and appurtenances, and
where connected to a water or sewage system and all aspects of a medical gas system.
The provisions of the , International Private Sewage Disposal Code Uniform Plumbing
Code or International Plumbing Code shall also apply to private sewage disposal
systems.




D [A] 101.4.4 Property maintenance. Reserved.
The provisions of the International Property Maintenance Code shall apply to existing
structures and premises; equipment and facilities; light, ventilation, space heating,
sanitation, life and fire safety hazards; responsibilities of owners, operators and
occupants; and occupancy of existing premises and structures.

[A] 101.4.5 Fire prevention.
The provisions of the International Fire Code, as amended, shall apply to matters
affecting or relating to structures, processes and premises from the hazard of fire and
explosion arising from the storage, handling or use of structures, materials or devices;
from conditions hazardous to life, property or public welfare in the occupancy of
structures or premises; and from the construction, extension, repair alteration or removal
of fire suppression, automatic sprinkler systems and alarm systems of fire hazards in the
structure or on the premises from occupancy or operations.


[A] 101.4.6 Energy.
The provisions of the International Energy Conservation Code, as amended, shall apply
to all matters governing the design and construction of buildings for energy efficiency.

[A] 101.4.7 Existing buildings.
The provisions of the International Existing Building Code, as amended, shall apply to
matters governing the repair, alteration, change of occupancy, addition to and relocation
of existing buildings.

[A] 101.4.8 Electrical.
The provisions of the National Electrical Code, as amended, shall apply to the installation
of electrical systems, including alterations, repairs, replacement, equipment, appliances,
fixtures, fittings and appurtenances thereto.

[A] 101.4.9 Residential.


T
Detached one and two-family dwellings and townhouses not more than three stories
above grade plane in height with a separate means of egress, and their accessory
structures not more than three stories above grade plane in height, shall comply with this
code or the International Residential Code, as amended.




AF
[A] 101.4.10 Swimming pools.
The provisions of the International Swimming Pool and Spa Code, as amended, shall
apply to the construction of public and private swimming pools and spas.


Justification: This amendment recognizes administrative amendments are made to each of the
reference codes. It also recognizes the National Electrical Code, International Residential Code,
and the International Swimming Pool and Spa Code as adopted reference codes. The Phoenix
Fire Code is technically the International Fire Code with Phoenix Amendments per its adopting
ordinance, which is a different ordinance than adopts this code.

The International Property Maintenance Code is not adopted by the city. Rather, property




R
maintenance is regulated by the Neighborhood Services Department Preservation Ordinance.


Cost Impact: No cost impact.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process: YES NO




D
ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted


Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Denied

Denied
Date: 01/27/2025
No action taken
Date: 02/20/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Chapter 1 [A], Section 101.5

Submitted by: International Building Code Administrative Committee

[A] 101.5 Administrative Provisions
Chapter 1 of this document applies to all the documents of the Phoenix Building Construction
Code. The administrative provisions in other documents of the Phoenix Building Construction
Code apply to the document in which they appear.

[A] 101.5.1 Administrative Conflicts

T
Where conflicts occur between the administrative provisions of this document and the
administrative provisions in other documents of the Phoenix Building Construction Code
that are specific to the document in which they appear, the provisions specific to the
document in which they appear shall apply.




AF
Justification: All the adopted and amended building code documents taken together are known
as the Phoenix Building Construction Code. Each code document is a separate document of the
Phoenix Building Construction Code. Generally, all of the administrative provisions for all of the
separate documents come from the Chapter 1 provisions of this International Building Code, but
some administrative provisions are retained in other documents where they apply only to those
documents they apply in, as they are specific to that document.


Cost Impact: No cost impact.




R
Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Denied
YES NO


Date: 01/27/2025
No action taken
Date: 02/20/2025




D Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Chapter 1[A], Section 102.4.1

Submitted by: International Building Code Administrative Committee

[A] 102.4.1 Conflicts.
Other than as described in Section 101.5.1, where conflicts occur between provisions of this
code and referenced codes and standards, the provisions of this code shall apply.




T
Justification: This section regulates conflicts in non-administrative provisions of the codes.
Section 101.5.1 regulates conflicts in administrative provisions.


Cost Impact: No cost impact.




AF
Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
YES NO


Date: 01/27/2025
No action taken
Date: 02/20/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025




R Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Chapter 1 [A], Section 102.6

Submitted by: International Building Code Administrative Committee

[A] 102.6 Existing structures.
The legal occupancy of any structure existing on the date of adoption of this code shall be
permitted to continue without change, except as otherwise specifically provided in this code, the
International Existing Building Code and the International Property Maintenance Code or the
International Fire Code. Phoenix Fire Code.


T
[A] 102.6.1 Buildings not previously occupied.
A building or portion of a building that has not been previously occupied or used for its
intended purpose in accordance with the laws in existence at the time of its completion
shall comply with the provisions of this code or the International Residential Code, as




AF
applicable, for new construction or with any current permit for such occupancy.

[A] 102.6.2 Buildings previously occupied.
The legal occupancy of any building existing on the date of adoption of this code shall be
permitted to continue without change, except as otherwise specifically provided in this
code, the Phoenix Fire Code International Fire Code or International Property
Maintenance Code, or as is deemed necessary by the building official for the general
safety and welfare of the occupants and the public.


Justification: The City uses the Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance for maintenance of
existing and abandoned buildings; therefore, the Property Maintenance Code is not adopted.




R
The Phoenix Fire Department separately adopts the International Fire Code with amendments
and that code with amendments is called the Phoenix Fire Code.


Cost Impact: No cost impact




D
Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted

Approved as submitted

Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Modified and approved Denied
YES NO


Date: 01/27/2025
No action taken
Date: 02/20/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken


BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Chapter 1 [A], Section 103

Submitted by: International Building Code Administrative Committee

SECTION 103 CODE COMPLIANCE AGENCY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT

[A] 103.1 Creation of enforcement agency.



T
The [insert name of department] is hereby created and the official in charge thereof shall be
known as the building official. The function of the agency shall be the implementation,
administration and enforcement of the provisions of this code. The authority and responsibility for
administration and enforcement of this code is hereby assigned to the Director of the Planning &
Development Department. The Director may designate a person or persons to fulfill these duties.




AF
[A] 103.2 Appointment.
The building official responsibilities shall be appointed delegated by the chief appointing authority
of the jurisdiction. Director of the Planning & Development Department.

[A] 103.3 Deputies.
In accordance with the prescribed procedures of this jurisdiction and with the concurrence of the
appointing authority, the building official Director of the Planning & Development Department
shall have the authority to appoint a deputy building officials, other related technical officers,
inspectors and other employees. Such employees shall have powers as delegated by the
building official.




R
Justification: This amendment follows the organizational structure of the department.


Cost Impact: No cost impact


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process: YES NO




D
ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted


Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Denied

Denied
Date: 01/27/2025
No action taken
Date: 02/20/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Chapter 1 [A], Section 104.2.3

Submitted by: International Building Code Administrative Committee

[A] 104.2.3 Alternative materials, design and methods of construction and equipment.
The provisions of this code are not intended to prevent the installation of any material or to
prohibit any design or method of construction not specifically prescribed by this code, provided
that any such alternative has been approved.



T
Exception: Performance-based alternative materials, designs or methods of construction
and equipment complying with the International Code Council Performance Code. This
exception shall not apply to alternative structural materials or to alternative structural
designs.




AF
Justification: The City is not adopting the International Code Council Performance Code. The
subsections to this code Section already provide full flexibility and allowance to approve
alternative designs including those following the provisions of the International Code Council
Performance Code without it being a specific adopted standard.


Cost Impact: No cost impact.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:
This code provision is entirely new to this version of the IBC.
YES NO




R
ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Denied

Denied
Date: 01/27/2025
No action taken
Date: 02/20/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025




D Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Chapter 1 [A], Section 104.2.4

Submitted by: International Building Code Administrative Committee

[A] 104.2.4 Modifications. Appeals to the Building Official, interpretations, modifications
and appeals to the Development Advisory Board.
Any person dissatisfied with a code enforcement decision made by a Planning & Development
Department employee may request an appeal, formal interpretation, or a modification of a code
requirement.


T
[A] 104.2.4.1 Flood hazard areas. The building official shall not grant modifications to
any provision required in flood hazard areas as established by Section 1612.3 unless a
determination has been made that:




AF
1. A showing of good and sufficient cause that the unique characteristics of the size,
configuration or topography of the site render the elevation standards of Section
1612 inappropriate.
2. A determination that failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional
hardship by rendering the lot undevelopable.
3. A determination that the granting of a variance will not result in increased flood
heights, additional threats to public safety, extraordinary public expense, cause
fraud on or victimization of the public, or conflict with existing laws or ordinances.
A determination that the variance is the minimum necessary to afford relief,
considering the flood hazard.
4. Submission to the applicant of written notice specifying the difference between the
design flood elevation and the elevation to which the building is to be built, stating
that the cost of flood insurance will be commensurate with the increased risk




R resulting from the reduced floor elevation, and stating that construction below the
design flood elevation increases risks to life and property.
[A] 104.2.4.1 Appeal to the Building Official.
Any person dissatisfied with a code enforcement decision made by a Planning &
Development Department employee may request a review of that decision by the
employee's supervisor or supervisor’s designee.




D Any person dissatisfied with a decision of the supervisor or supervisor’s designee may
appeal that decision to the building official. The appeal shall be made in writing on a form
provided by the Planning & Development Department and shall be accompanied by a fee
as set forth in Appendix A.2 of the Phoenix City Code. The decision of the building official
shall be recorded in the files of the Department. The decision of the building official shall
be final except as provided in Section 113 of these administrative provisions.
[A] 104.2.4.2 Interpretation.
Any person may request a written interpretation of a code requirement as applied to a
specific situation. The request shall be in writing on a form provided by the Planning &
Development Department, shall include all information, calculations or other data
necessary to describe the specific situation in detail, and shall be accompanied by a fee



as set forth in Appendix A.2 of the Phoenix City Code. The decision of the building official
shall be recorded in the files of the Department.
[A] 104.2.4.3 Modifications.
Where there are practical difficulties involved in carrying out the provisions of this code,
the building official shall have the authority to grant modifications for individual cases,
upon application of the owner or the owner’s authorized agent, provided that the building
official shall first find that one or more special individual reason makes the strict letter of
this code impractical, and that the modification is in compliance with the intent and
purpose of this code and that such modification does not lessen health, accessibility, life
and fire safety or structural requirements. The details of the written request for and action
granting modifications shall be recorded and entered in the files of the department of
building safety.
Requests for modification of a code requirement shall be made in writing on a form




T
provided by the Planning & Development Department and shall be accompanied by a fee
as set forth in Appendix A.2 of the Phoenix City Code. The applicant is responsible for
providing all information, calculations or other data necessary to document or
substantiate each request. The building official may approve, approve with stipulations,
or deny the application based upon the substantiating data submitted. In deciding each
modification, the building official may consider or require alternate methods or systems to




AF
be used in compensation for the particular code provision to be modified. The details of
action granting modifications shall be recorded and entered in the files of the Department.
[A] 104.2.4.3.1 Multiple Modifications.
Where the building official has granted a code modification three or more times for
the same issue, the building official shall have the authority to write an
interpretation or policy for this issue that shall be enforceable as if it was a
provision in this code.
[A] 104.2.4.4 Appeal to the Development Advisory Board.
Any person may appeal a decision made by the building official to the Development
Advisory Board as set forth in Section 113 of these administrative provisions.




R
Justification: This sets up a policy of second opinions, appeals, interpretations and
modifications providing customers with a means of appealing a decision made by an employee
of Planning & Development.

Flood hazard areas are determined by floodplain management.

Cost Impact: No cost impact.




D
Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted

Approved as submitted

Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Modified and approved Denied
YES


Date: 01/27/2025
No action taken
Date: 02/20/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
NO




No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken


BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Chapter 1 [A], Section 104.7

Submitted by: International Building Code Administrative Committee

[A] 104.7 Official records.
The building official shall keep official records in accordance with the retention schedules set by
the Phoenix City Clerk Department Records Management Program. as required by Sections
104.7.1 through 104.7.5. Such official records shall be retained for not less than 5 years or for as



T
long as the building or structure to which such records relate remains in existence, unless
otherwise provided by other regulations.

[A] 104.7.1 Approvals.
A record of approvals shall be maintained by the building official and shall be available for
public inspection during business hours in accordance with applicable laws.




AF
[A] 104.7.2 Inspections.
The building official shall keep a record of each inspection made, including notices and
orders issued, showing the findings and disposition of each.

[A] 104.7.3 Code alternatives and modifications.
Application for alternative materials, design and methods of construction and equipment
in accordance with Section 104.2.3; modifications in accordance with Section 104.2.4;
and documentation of the final decision of the building official for either shall be in writing
and shall be retained in the official records.

[A] 104.7.4 Tests.




R The building official shall keep a record of tests conducted to comply with Sections
104.2.2.4 and 104.2.3.5.

[A] 104.7.5 Fees.
The building official shall keep a record of fees collected and refunded in accordance
with Section 109.




D
Justification: This coordinates policy City-wide so that there are no conflicting requirements,
and the policy can be set by the appropriate department.


Cost Impact: No cost impact.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
YES NO


Date: 01/27/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee Date: 02/20/2025


Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Date: 04/22/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee Date: 05/21/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken




T
AF
R
D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Chapter 1 [A], Section 104.10

Submitted by: International Building Code Administrative Committee

[A] 104.10 Lot Lines.

[A] 104.10.1 Building across a lot line
No structure shall be built across a lot line.

Exceptions:

T
1. If the provisions of Sections 104.10.1.1 or 104.10.1.2 are satisfied, a lot line does not exist
for the purposes of Section 104.10.1.
2. Nonstructural coverings between double walls that separate townhouse units, as designed
to the International Residential Code, are allowed to be built on lot lines.




AF
3. Fire walls that are built as party walls are allowed to be built on lot lines.
4. Common walls that separate townhouse units are allowed to be built on lot lines if
plumbing, mechanical, electrical, piping, or other services in any form do not traverse from
one side to the other of these common walls and these common walls do not serve as
gravity load bearing walls.

[A] 104.10.1.1 Lot combinations.
Where the owner(s) of two or more adjacent lots wish for the lots to be considered as one
lot for the purposes of this code, the owner(s) may exercise one of the following options:
1. The lots may be combined into a single lot by platting or re-platting.
2. The building official may approve a permanent, nonrevocable lot combination
agreement in a form approved by the building official that shows the lots combined by
recording in the deed records of Maricopa County for all the lots involved. As part of this




R application the property owner shall provide evidence that all the lots combined are
taxed and assessed by the Maricopa County Assessor as a single tax parcel.

[A] 104.10.1.2 Covenants to hold properties as one.
The building official may approve a permanent agreement between adjacent property
owners for the purposes of considering two or more separately owned lots as one lot for the
purposes of this code. Such agreement shall stipulate the reasons for the lot consolidation




D and the permanent requirements or prohibitions necessary to fully comply with this code as
if all improvements were located on the same single lot.

[A] 104.10.2 Open space location
Required yards and open spaces shall be on the same lot as the structure.

Exceptions:
1. If the provisions of Sections 104.10.1.1, 104.10.1.2 or 104.10.2.1 are satisfied, a lot line does
not exist for the purposes of Section 104.10.2.
2. Where this code specially allows measuring distances on a public way.

[A] 104.10.2.1 Open space easements.




The building official may approve a permanent open space, nonbuilding easement on a lot
for the purposes of providing yards or open space sufficient to satisfy separation distance or
egress requirements on an adjacent lot.

[A] 104.10.3 Sewer, water, or electric service across property lines
No sewer service, water service, or electric wiring methods and equipment shall be built across a
lot line, other than a lot line separating the lot being serviced from the adjacent public way.

Exception: Where the provisions of Sections 104.10.1.1, 104.10.1.2 or 104.10.3.1 are satisfied,
a lot line does not exist for the purposes of Section 104.10.3.

[A] 104.10.3.1 Utility easements.
The building official may approve the provision of sewer service, water service, or electric
wiring methods and equipment to a lot when such service is located within a permanent,
non-revocable private utility easement duly-recorded in the deed records of Maricopa
County for all the properties involved.

[A] 104.10.4 Agreement conditions.
T
Agreements proposed or required under Section 104.10 shall be permanent and binding on all
property owners, their heirs and assigns. The agreements shall be in writing, shall be approved
by the building official and shall be recorded in the deed records of Maricopa County for all the
properties involved. The agreements shall be enforceable by the building official and by each of




AF
the property owners, their heirs and assigns. The agreements shall require physical modification
of any structures to fully comply with all applicable code requirements prior to alteration or
expiration of the agreement. Alteration of the agreements or any condition or provision therein, or
expiration or elimination of any such agreement, is prohibited except with the prior written
approval of the building official. The building official shall have authority to revoke any
agreement for noncompliance with any of its provisions, and thereafter to require the property
owners to individually make each of their properties fully compliant with all applicable code
requirements, without benefit of the agreement conditions.


Justification: To maintain building code requirements, there must be owner control over the
spaces that could impact that compliance. Additionally, ownership over something that is needed




R
by another owner to use their property is inappropriate. These provisions lay out the necessary
safeguards to ensure that ownership control can be exercised.


Cost Impact: Minimal cost impact. Showing proof of sufficient ownership stake in situations may
increase costs for design but will greatly reduce costs if ownership disagreements occur.




D
Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted

Approved as submitted

Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Modified and approved Denied
YES NO


Date: 01/27/2025
No action taken
Date: 02/20/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken


BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Chapter 1 [A], Section 105.1

Submitted by: International Building Code Administrative Committee

[A] 105.1 Required.
Any owner or owner’s authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move,
demolish or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter,
repair, remove, convert or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system, the



T
installation of which is regulated by this code, or to cause any such work to be performed, shall
first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit.

1. Separate permits shall be obtained for automatic fire extinguishing systems, fire alarm
systems, and other uses or equipment regulated by the Phoenix Fire Code.




AF
2. Separate permits shall be obtained from the Planning & Development Department for
work within the public right of way including off-site sewer or water extensions; sewer or
water taps and all connections to public sewer and water; paving, curb cuts, driveways
and sidewalks, and landscaping. See Chapter 32 of the International Building Code for
permits and restrictions on work within the public right of way.

3. Separate permits shall be obtained from the Planning & Development Department for site
development work in accordance with the Phoenix City Code.

4. Factory-built buildings, manufactured homes and mobile homes require permits from both
the State of Arizona Office of Manufactured Housing in accordance with applicable
Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS), and from the Planning & Development Department in




R accordance with Chapter 31 of the International Building Code or Appendix BA of the
International Residential Code.

[A] 105.1.1 Annual permit.
Instead of an individual permit for each alteration to an already approved electrical, gas,
mechanical or plumbing installation, the building official is authorized to issue an annual
permit upon application therefor to any person, firm or corporation regularly employing one or




D more qualified tradespersons in the building, structure or on the premises owned or operated
by the applicant for the permit.

[A] 105.1.2 Annual permit records.
The person to whom an annual permit is issued shall keep a detailed record of alterations
made under such annual permit. The building official shall have access to such records at all
times or such records shall be filed with the building official as designated.


Justification: Carried over from previous codes. This amendment specifies requirements for
permits from other city departments. Requirements for annual permits are specified in Section
117 of the International Building Code.




Cost Impact: No cost impact. Separate permits, required to meet city codes and ordinances,
may not result in a net increase in project fees.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process: YES NO

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee Date: 01/27/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee Date: 02/20/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Date: 04/22/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee Date: 05/21/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Approved as submitted

T
Modified and approved Denied
Date:
No action taken




AF
R
D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Chapter 1 [A], Section 105.2

Submitted by: International Building Code Administrative Committee

[A] 105.2 Work exempt from permit.
Exemptions from permit requirements of this code shall not be deemed to grant authorization for
any work to be done in any manner in violation of the provisions of this code or any other laws or
ordinances of this jurisdiction the City of Phoenix. Permits shall not be required for the following:

Building:

T
1. Other than storm shelters, one-story detached accessory structures used as tool and
storage sheds, playhouses, non-cantilevered shade structures, and similar uses,
provided that the floor area is not greater than 120 square feet (11 mm) 200 square




AF
feet, except for unaltered Intermodal Shipping Containers not greater than 320
square feet, and the structure complies with city of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance
requirements.
2. Fences, other than swimming pool barriers, not over 7 (2134 mm) 3 feet (914.4 mm)
high. Replacement of an existing permitted fence of the same material, height, and
location, and accessory to a single-family residence. Fences between 3 feet and 7
feet high require a permit for City code and Zoning Ordinance requirements only.
3. Oil derricks.
4. Retaining walls that are not over 4 feet (1219) 40 inches (1016 mm) in height
measured from the bottom top of the footing to the top of the retaining wall, unless
supporting a surcharge or impounding Class I, II or IIIA liquids.
5. Water tanks supported directly on grade if the capacity is not greater than 5,000




R gallons (18,925 L) and the ratio of height to diameter or width is not greater than 2:1.
6. Interior and exterior platforms, sidewalks and driveways not more than 30 inches (762
mm) above adjacent grade, and not over any basement or story below and are not
part of an accessible route.
7. Painting, papering, tiling excluding toilets areas, bathrooms and showers, carpeting,
cabinets and counter tops replacements in same location, and similar finish work.
8. Temporary motion picture, television, seasonal celebration and theater stage sets




D and scenery. Associated bleachers and grandstands are not included in this
exemption.
9. Prefabricated swimming pools accessory to a Group R-3 occupancy that are less
than 24 inches (610 mm) 18 inches (457 mm) deep, are not greater than 5,000
gallons (18,925 L) and are installed entirely above ground.
10. Shade cloth type structures constructed used for nursery or agricultural purposes, not
including service systems.
11. Swings and other playground equipment accessory to detached one- and two-family
dwellings.
12. Window awnings in Group R-3 and U occupancies, supported by an exterior wall that
do not project more than 54 inches (1372 mm) from the exterior wall and do not
require additional support.
13. Nonfixed and movable Fixtures, cases, racks, counters and partitions not over 5 feet
9 inches (1753 mm) in height and not an accessible surface.


14. Ground or roof supported structures, such as radio and television antenna towers,
light poles, and flagpoles which do not exceed 200 pounds (90 kg) in weight or 45
feet (13,700 mm) in height above the ground surface.
15. Contractors' temporary construction offices which are associated with a permitted
construction project in compliance with the city of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance and are
intended to be removed from the site upon completion of the project. Structures which
include sales offices which are open to the public do require a permit.
16. Roof covering replacement or roof recover with the same type of material as the
original roofing.
17. Installation of a nonstructural weatherproof exterior covering over an existing
weatherproof covering on an existing structure so long as the new covering will not
affect the fire-resistive classification of the existing structure.

Exception: Installation of an Exterior Insulation and Finish System (EIFS) requires a permit.




T
1. Minor repair or replacement in kind of non-structural components such as, glass or
glazing materials, sash, doors, patching walls or ceilings and replacing pieces of
siding, soffits or facia. Installation of locking or security hardware on egress doors, or
changing the types of locking devices requires a permit.

Electrical:




AF
1. Repairs and maintenance: Minor repair work, including the replacement of lamps or
the connection of approved portable electrical equipment to approved permanently
installed receptacles.
2. Radio and television transmitting stations: The provisions of this code shall not
apply to electrical equipment used for radio and television transmissions, but do apply
to equipment and wiring for a power supply and the installations of towers and
antennas.
3. Temporary testing systems: A permit shall not be required for the installation of any
temporary system required for the testing or servicing of electrical equipment or
apparatus.
1. Installation or replacement of equipment such as appliances, lamp holders, lamps and




R other utilization equipment manufactured, approved and identified for cord- and plug-
connection to suitable permanently installed receptacles.
2. Repair or replacement of motors rated 50 HP or less, transformers rated 45 kVA or
less, or fixed approved appliances of the same type and rating in the same location.
3. Temporary decorative lighting approved and identified for cord- and plug-connection.
4. Repair or replacement in kind of any switch, other than a service disconnect,
receptacle, contactor, control device or other utilization equipment rated 60 amperes




D or less.
5. Replacement in kind of any circuit breaker other than a service disconnect, rated at
125 amperes or less, or any fuse.
6. Repair or replacement of electrodes or transformers of the same size and capacity for
signs or gas tube systems.
7. Temporary wiring for experimental purposes in suitable experimental laboratories.
8. Temporary wiring for theaters, motion picture and television studios, performance
areas, and similar locations where not accessible to the general public.
9. Class 2 and Class 3 control and signal circuits not essential for safety to human life.
10. Installation, repair or replacement of electrical systems and components within
machinery or equipment which is not defined by this Code as building service
equipment.

Gas:


1. Portable heating appliance.
2. Replacement of any minor part that does not alter approval of equipment or make
such equipment unsafe.

Mechanical:

1. Portable heating appliance.
2. Portable ventilation equipment.
3. Portable cooling unit.
4. Steam, hot or chilled water piping within any heating or cooling equipment regulated
by this code.
5. Replacement of any part that does not alter its approval or make it unsafe.
6. Portable evaporative cooler.
7. Self-contained refrigeration system containing 10 pounds (4.54 kg) or less of

8.

T
refrigerant and actuated by motors of 1 horsepower (0.75 kW) or less.
Repair or replacement in kind of refrigeration units not over 5 tons (17.5 kW) of
refrigeration capacity, when located outdoors. Replacement equipment shall be in the
same location and equal to or less than the weight of that which is replaced. Repair or
replacement of refrigeration systems located inside a building shall require a permit
and compliance with all requirements of this Code for the classification of refrigerant


Plumbing:



AF
utilized in the new equipment.



1. The stopping of leaks in drains, water, soil, waste or vent pipe, provided, however,
that if any concealed trap, drainpipe, water, soil, waste or vent pipe becomes
defective and it becomes necessary to remove and replace the same with new
material, such work shall be considered as new work and a permit shall be obtained
and inspection made as provided in this code.
2. The clearing of stoppages or the repairing of leaks in pipes, valves or fixtures and the
removal and reinstallation of water closets, provided such repairs do not involve or
require the replacement or rearrangement of valves, pipes or fixtures.




R 3. Replacement of water closets, valves or fixtures with new valves or fixtures complying
with the water conservation requirements of this Code, except that a permit shall be
required for the relocation of any valves, pipes or fixtures.
4. Repair or replacement of portable or built-in appliances which are not regulated by
this code as building service equipment and which connect to the building water, drain
or gas piping systems by approved means.
5. Replacement, in kind, of an existing water heater in one-and two-family dwellings




D when the work is performed by a licensed contractor.
6. Repair or replacement of existing 2” and smaller secondary backflow prevention
assemblies. A test report, completed by a certified backflow assembly tester, shall be
submitted for approval to the authority having jurisdiction at the time of installation or
repair.


Justification: This amendment was approved in previous code adoptions. It has subsequently
been evaluated by the committee for applicability to the 2024 IBC and carried forward as
presented.


Cost Impact: Minimal Cost Impact. Specific exemptions save the customer time and money if a
permit is not required.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process: YES NO

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee Date: 2/4/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee Date: 02/20/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Date: 04/22/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee Date: 05/21/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken



T
AF
R
D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Chapter 1 [A], Section 105.3

Submitted by: International Building Code Administrative Committee

[A] 105.3 Application for permit or standard plan.

To obtain a permit or standard plan approval, the applicant shall first file an application therefore
in writing on a form furnished by the department of building safety Planning & Development



T
Department for that purpose. Such application shall:

1. Identify and describe the work to be covered by the permit for which application is made.
2. Describe the land on which the proposed work is to be done by legal description, street
address or similar description that will readily identify and locate the proposed building or
work.




AF
3. Indicate the use and occupancy for which the proposed work is intended.
4. Be accompanied by construction documents and other information as required in Section
107.
5. State the valuation of the proposed work.
6. Be signed by the applicant owner, or the applicant’s owner’s authorized agent.
7. Give such other data and information as required by the building official.


Justification: Clarifies department responsibilities and identifies who can apply for the permit.


Cost Impact: No cost impact.




R
Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
YES


Date: 01/27/2025
NO



No action taken




D
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted




Approved as submitted
Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Date: 02/20/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Chapter 1 [A], Section 105.3.1

Submitted by: International Building Code Administrative Committee
[A] 105.3.1 Action on application.
The building official shall examine or cause to be examined applications for permits and
amendments thereto within a reasonable time after filing. If the application or the construction
documents do not conform to the requirements of pertinent laws, the building official shall reject
such application in writing, stating the reasons therefor. If the building official is satisfied that the
proposed work conforms to the requirements of this code and laws and ordinances applicable



T
thereto, the building official shall issue a permit therefor as soon as practicable.
[A] 105.3.1.1 Action for demolition permit.
Application for exterior demolition permits for commercial buildings 50 years of age or
older as well as all properties located in the Downtown Code District (Chapter 12 of the
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance) that are 50 years of age or older require public notice and




AF
shall be held for 30 calendar days from the date of application and evidence of such
notice. Buildings identified as individually eligible for historic designation in the Phoenix
Historic Property Register (Chapter 8 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance) require public
notice and shall be held for 60 calendar days from the date of application and evidence of
such notice.


Justification: Since implementation of the provision of the code amendment for the 30-day hold
that went into effect December 2, 2016, and was subsequently amended on July 6, 2018 to
include properties 50 years of age or older in the Downtown Code District, the Historic
Preservation Commission (HPC) has expressed concern regarding the limited window of time in
which to engage with property owners of historically eligible properties proposed for demolition in
advance of the expiration of the 30-day hold. The HPC would like to see the hold with notice




R
period extended from 30 to 60 days for properties the Historic Preservation Office has
determined eligible for historic designation.


Cost Impact: The cost impact is that of the demolition application plan review fee as noted in
the Planning and Development Fee Schedule, Chapter 9 Appendix A.2 of the Phoenix City
Code.




D
Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted

Approved as submitted

Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Modified and approved Denied
YES


Date: 01/27/2025
No action taken
Date: 02/20/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
NO




No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken


BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Chapter 1 [A], Section 105.3.2

Submitted by: International Building Code Administrative Committee

[A] 105.3.2 Time limitation of application.

An application for a permit or standard plan approval for any proposed work shall be deemed to
have been abandoned 12 months 180 days after the date of filing, unless such application has



T
been pursued in good faith or a permit has been issued; except that the building official is
authorized to grant one or more extensions of time for additional periods not exceeding 90 180
days each. The extension shall be requested in writing and justifiable cause demonstrated. The
application for extension shall include payment of a non-refundable fee as set forth in Appendix
A.2 of the Phoenix City Code.




AF
[A] 105.3.2.1 Standard plan expiration.

Standard plans shall expire upon the adoption of a new code.


Justification: The proposed change provides more flexibility to complete projects and allows
PDD to recover administrative costs associated with the application extension.


Cost Impact: Minimal cost impact. Extension application fees are set in Appendix A.2 of the
Phoenix City Code. The additional time could save the developer money, lost time in plan
resubmittal, and review.




R
Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
YES NO


Date: 01/27/2025
No action taken




D
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted




Approved as submitted
Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Date: 02/20/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Section 105.5

Submitted by: International Building Code Administrative Committee

[A] 105.5 Expiration.

Every permit issued, except demolition permits and permits subject to section 114 of this code,
shall expire 24 months after the date of permit issuance, unless an extension is granted in



T
accordance with section 105.5.1. shall become invalid unless the work on the site authorized by
such permit is commenced within 180 days after its issuance, or if the work authorized on
the site by such permit is suspended or abandoned for a period of 180 days after the time the
work is commenced. The building official is authorized to grant, in writing, one or more
extensions of time, for periods not more than 180 days each. The extension shall be requested
in writing and justifiable cause demonstrated.




AF
[A] 105.5.1 Extension.

The building official is authorized to grant, in writing, one or more extensions of time, for
periods not more than one year each. The extension shall be requested in writing prior to
permit expiration and justifiable cause demonstrated. The application for extension shall
include payment of a non-refundable fee as set forth in Appendix A.2 of the Phoenix City
Code.

Exception: The building official is authorized to adjust the fee for such extension based
on the inspection hours left to complete the permit and shall include an administrative fee
based on the general hourly plan review rate (two-hour minimum) as set forth in




R Appendix A.2 of the Phoenix City Code.

[A] 105.5.2 Reinstatement.

When a permit has expired, as described in section 105.5, the building official is authorized
to grant, in writing, reinstatement of the permit for a period of not more than one year
provided the following conditions are met:




D 1. No changes have been made or will be made in the original plans and specifications for
such work; and
2. The original permit expired less than one year from the request to reinstate. The
reinstatement shall be requested in writing and justifiable cause demonstrated. The
application for reinstatement shall include payment of a non-refundable fee as set forth in
Appendix A.2 of the Phoenix City Code.

Exception: The building official is authorized to adjust the fee for such extension based
on the inspection hours left to complete the permit and shall include an administrative fee
based on the general hourly plan review rate (two-hour minimum) as set forth in
Appendix A.2 of the Phoenix City Code.




[A] 105.5.3 Demolition.

Demolition permits shall expire if the work authorized by such permit is not completed within
60 days from the date of permit issuance, which includes clearance of all debris from the
site. Reasonable and continuous progress shall be made to complete all demolition work as
expeditiously as possible. See Section 3303 of the International Building Code for demolition
permit conditions.

The building official is authorized to grant, in writing, one or more extensions of not more
than 30 days. Additional time may be granted if justifiable cause can be demonstrated. The
extension shall be requested in writing. The application for extension shall include payment
of a non-refundable fee as set forth in Appendix A.2 of the Phoenix City Code.

The building official is authorized to grant, in writing, reinstatement of an expired demolition
permit, for a period of not more than 30 days. Additional time may be granted if justifiable



T
cause can be demonstrated. The reinstatement shall be requested in writing. The
application for reinstatement shall include payment of a non-refundable fee as set forth in
Appendix A.2 of the Phoenix City Code.


Justification: The changes provide flexibility of administrative oversight and additional




AF
consistency to extend and reinstate permits and allows PDD to recover administrative costs
associated with the approvals.


Cost Impact: Minimal cost impact. Greater flexibility with extensions and reinstatements saves
the developer unnecessary costs associated with resubmittal of plans and payment of new
permit fees.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
YES NO




R
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Date: 01/27/2025
No action taken
Date: 02/20/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025




D Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Chapter 1 [A], Section 105.6

Submitted by: International Building Code Administrative Committee

[A] 105.6 Suspension or revocation.

The building official is authorized to suspend or revoke a permit issued under the provisions of
this code wherever the permit is issued in error or on the basis of incorrect, inaccurate or



T
incomplete information, or in violation of any ordinance or regulation or any of the provisions of
this code., or reasonable and continuous progress has not been made to complete the
construction, or the continuance of any work becomes dangerous to life or property.

It shall be unlawful to proceed with any work for which a permit was issued after notice of permit
suspension or revocation is served on the permit holder, the owner or the person having




AF
responsible charge of the work. Reinstatement of a suspended permit shall be by written notice
from the building official authorizing work to resume, with or without conditions. Revoked permits
shall be canceled and the permit fee shall not be refunded except as may be provided in Section
109.6 of these administrative provisions.


Justification: Carried over from previous codes and gives the building official greater flexibility
to suspend or revoke a permit when necessary.


Cost Impact: The cost impact for this amendment is the cost associated with reinstating a
suspended or revoked permit. Additional fees per section 114 of this code shall be assessed if




R
any work is conducted or work continues after a permit has been suspended or revoked, without
being reinstated or a new permit issued.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
YES NO




D
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted


Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Denied

Denied
Date: 01/27/2025
No action taken
Date: 02/20/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Chapter 1 [A], Section 105.7

Submitted by: International Building Code Administrative Committee

[A] 105.7 Placement of permit.

The building permit or copy shall be kept on the site of the work until the completion of the
project. The permit holder shall post a visible sign which identifies the permit number and the



T
street address or suite number where construction work is authorized until completion of the
project. Other forms of identification may be used when approved by the building official.


Justification: Carried over from previous codes, Informs the public of permitted construction
activity, and identifies premises for construction inspections.




AF
Cost Impact: Minimal cost impact for posting of sign.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
YES NO


Date: 01/27/2025
No action taken
Date: 02/20/2025
No action taken




R
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Chapter 1 [A], Section 105.8

Submitted by: International Building Code Administrative Committee

[A] 105.8 Record changes.

[A] 105.8.1 Owner name change.




T
Any time after a permit has been issued a new owner may be substituted for the original
owner, provided the new owner submits an affidavit of ownership and agrees to assume
all code compliance obligations related to the permit, including responsibility for
correcting any work previously installed in violation of any code requirement.

[A] 105.8.2 Business name change.




AF
Any time after a permit has been issued, the name of the tenant or business may be
changed provided the intended occupancy or use of the premises is not changed.

[A] 105.8.3 Contractor change.

Any time after a permit has been issued, the recorded owner of the property may by
affidavit request substitution of a new contractor for the contractor named on the original
permit, provided the new contractor agrees to assume all code compliance obligations
related to the permit including assuming responsibility for correcting any work previously
installed in violation of any code requirement. Nothing in this section shall be construed
as preventing a new contractor from obtaining a new permit to authorize only that work




R intended to be performed by the new contractor.

[A] 105.8.4 Registered design professional change.

Any time after a permit has been issued, where the registered design professional in
responsible charge is changed see Section 107.3.4. Any time after a permit has been
issued and changes are required to the construction documents see Section 107.4 and




D the rules governing registered design professionals as required by the State of Arizona.
Any time the registered design professional in charge of a special inspections or
observation program is changed, a new certificate indicating this responsibility certificate
shall be submitted.

[A] 105.8.5 Address changes.

A permit is not transferable from one property to another and no address change shall be
processed which would have this effect. Any time after a permit has been issued or any
time a property owner wishes to change the official address of any property, the recorded
owner may request an address change in writing on a form provided by the department.
The application shall be accompanied by a nonrefundable processing fee as set forth in
section 109 of these administrative provisions. The department shall assign all addresses
in accordance with established City regulations and may approve, modify or deny any


request accordingly. Where an address change requires revising more than 10 records,
the department may charge an administrative fee based upon the hourly rate for plan
revisions.

[A] 105.8.6 Scope of work changes.

Permit records shall be changed to increase or decrease the scope of work or valuation
of any project. Any increase in scope of work or valuation requires an application for a
new permit and payment of additional permit fees for the supplemental work. Any
decrease in scope of work or valuation will be grounds for changing the permit record. In
the case where a project scope is reduced after permit issuance, the original permit shall
be revised to authorize the reduced scope of work, or, if no work has been started, the
owner may in writing request to cancel the original permit and obtain a refund in
accordance with Section 109.6 of these administrative provisions. In this case a new
permit shall then be obtained for the actual work proposed.

[A] 105.8.7 Fees.

T
The fee for record changes shall be as set forth in Appendix A-2 of The Phoenix City
Code.




AF
Justification: Carried over from previous codes and gives specific requirements for various
record changes.


Cost Impact: No cost impact.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
YES NO


Date: 01/27/2025




R Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
No action taken
Date: 02/20/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken




D
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Chapter 1 [A], Section 105.9

Submitted by: International Building Code Administrative Committee

[A] 105.9 Annexations.

A building under construction with a building permit issued by the Maricopa County Building
Department (County) prior to the effective date of annexation, and where the footings and stem



T
walls have been completed and approved by the County, shall obtain a permit from the City of
Phoenix (City) to establish the scope of work and ensure the building is constructed in
compliance with the County approved plans. Fees will be collected to recover the cost of City
inspections as set forth in Appendix A.2 of the Phoenix City Code.

Building plans approved and permitted by the County for which no construction has commenced,




AF
or building(s) that are under construction and completed to a lesser degree than stated above on
the effective date of annexation, shall be required to obtain a building permit from the City and
pay fees based on the estimated cost of construction, as set forth in Appendix A.2 of the Phoenix
City Code.

Construction shall conform to pertinent County zoning regulations in effect at the time the County
permit is issued, prior to annexation.


Justification: Carried over from previous codes. Provides requirements for projects permitted
by Maricopa County and then annexed into the city of Phoenix.




R
Cost Impact: Minimal Cost Impact. The customer will be responsible for the hourly Inspection
fees related to the remainder of the work completed after annexation into the City of Phoenix, or
for permit fees based on the valuation of construction if building plans were approved but never
permitted in the County.




D
Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted


Development Advisory Board (DAB)


Approved as submitted
Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted

Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Denied
YES NO


Date: 01/27/2025
No action taken
Date: 02/20/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken



BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Chapter 1 [A], Section 107.1

Submitted by: International Building Code Administrative Committee

[A] 107.1 General.
Submittal documents consisting of construction documents, statement of special inspections,
structural calculations, geotechnical report and other data shall be submitted in two or more sets
or a digital format where allowed by the building official, with each permit application. The



T
construction documents shall be prepared by a registered design professional where required by
the statutes of the jurisdiction in which the project is to be constructed. as required by the State
of Arizona. Where special conditions exist, the building official is authorized to require additional
construction documents to be prepared by a registered design professional licensed by the State
of Arizona.




AF
Exception: The building official is authorized to waive the submission of construction
documents and other data not required to be prepared by a registered design
professional if it is found that the nature of the work applied for is such that review of
construction documents is not necessary to obtain compliance with this code.


Justification: Retained as the team still feels that this provides necessary clarification on the
requirement for professional registration.


Cost Impact: No cost impact.




R
Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Denied
YES


Date: 01/23/2025
No action taken
Date: 02/20/2025
NO




D Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Chapter 1 [A], Section 107.2

Submitted by: International Building Code Administrative Committee

[A] 107.2 Construction documents.
Construction documents shall be in accordance with Sections 107.2.1 through 107.2.8.

[A] 107.2.1 Information on construction documents.



T
Construction documents shall be dimensioned and drawn upon suitable material.
Electronic media documents are permitted to be submitted where approved by the
building official. Construction documents shall be of sufficient clarity to indicate the
location, nature and extent of the work proposed and show in detail that it will conform to
the provisions of this code and relevant laws, ordinances, rules and regulations, as
determined by the building official.




AF[A] 107.2.1.1 Fire life safety report (FLSR).
Prior to submitting construction drawings for high-rise buildings, covered mall
buildings, buildings containing atriums and other structures as determined by the
building official or fire marshall, the design team shall prepare and submit a Fire
Life Safety Report. This FLSR shall provide a description of the occupancies,
design codes, egress, emergency systems, smoke control and other related
systems, and a conceptual description of the suppression system. The first
submittal of the building construction plans must incorporate the first review
comments of the FLSR.

[A] 107.2.2 Fire protection system shop drawings.




R Shop drawings for the fire protection system(s) shall be submitted to indicate
conformance to this code and the construction documents and shall be approved prior to
the start of system installation. Shop drawings shall contain all information as required by
the referenced installation standards in Chapter 9.

[A] 107.2.3 Means of egress.
The construction documents shall show in sufficient detail the location, construction, size




D and character of all portions of the means of egress including the path of the exit
discharge to the public way in compliance with the provisions of this code. In other than
occupancies in Groups R-2, R-3, and I-1, the construction documents shall designate the
number of occupants to be accommodated on every floor, and in all rooms and spaces.

[A] 107.2.4 Exterior wall envelope.
Construction documents for all buildings shall describe the exterior wall envelope in
sufficient detail to determine compliance with this code. The construction documents shall
provide details of the exterior wall envelope as required, including flashing, intersections
with dissimilar materials, corners, end details, control joints, intersections at roof, eaves
or parapets, means of drainage, water-resistive membrane and details around openings.

The construction documents shall include manufacturer’s installation instructions that
provide supporting documentation that the proposed penetration and opening details


described in the construction documents maintain the weather resistance of the exterior
wall envelope. The supporting documentation shall fully describe the exterior wall system
which was tested, where applicable, as well as the test procedure used.

[A] 107.2.5 Exterior balconies and elevated walking surfaces.
Where balconies or other elevated walking surfaces are exposed to water from direct or
blowing rain, snow, or irrigation, and the structural framing is protected by an impervious
moisture barrier, the construction documents shall include details for all elements of the
impervious moisture barrier system. The construction documents shall include
manufacturer's installation instructions.

[A] 107.2.6 Site plan.
A site plan shall be submitted prior to submittal of construction documents. The site plan
shall include information as specified on the published City of Phoenix pre-application
submittal requirements. Upon receipt of preliminary site plan approval, construction
documents may be submitted.


T
The construction documents submitted with the application for permit shall be
accompanied by a site plan showing to scale the size and location of new construction
and existing structures on the site, distances from lot lines, the established street grades
and the proposed finished grades and, as applicable, flood hazard areas, floodways, and




AF
design flood elevations; and it shall be drawn in accordance with an accurate boundary
line survey. In the case of demolition, the site plan shall show construction to be
demolished and the location and size of existing structures and construction that are to
remain on the site or plot. The building official is authorized to waive or modify the
requirement for a site plan when the application for permit is for alteration or repair or
when otherwise warranted.

[A] 107.2.6.1 Design flood elevations.
Where design flood elevations are not specified, they shall be established in
accordance with Section 1612.3.1.

[A] 107.2.7 Structural information.




R The construction documents shall provide the information specified in Section 1603.

[A] 107.2.8 Relocatable buildings.
Construction documents for relocatable buildings shall comply with Section 3112 3113.


Justification: Sections 107.2.1.1 and 107.2.6 defines submittal requirements.




D
Section 107.2.8 corrects typographical error in base code. The Phoenix Fire Code section
105.4.2.2 requires a fire life safety report.


Cost Impact: Minimal cost impact associated with the fire life safety report.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
YES


Date: 02/4/2025
NO



No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee Date: 02/20/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken


Development Advisory Board (DAB) Date: 04/22/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee Date: 05/21/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken




T
AF
R
D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Chapter 1 [A], Section 107.5

Submitted by: International Building Code Administrative Committee

[A] 107.5 Retention of construction documents.
One set of approved construction documents shall be retained by the building official for a period
of not less than 180 days from date of completion of the permitted work, or as required by state
or local laws. in accordance with the retention schedules set by the Phoenix City Clerk
Department Records Management Program.

107.5.1 Standard plans.
T
Standard plans are valid under the code in effect at the time of submittal and valid for the
duration of the code cycle as long as the plan remains active. Upon adoption of a new code,
standard plans shall expire and be discarded by the building official in accordance with the




AF
retention schedules set by the Phoenix City Clerk Department Records Management
Program.


Justification: Coordinates department policy with city clerk records management program
requirements.


Cost Impact: No cost impact.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process: YES NO




R
ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Denied

Denied
Date: 02/4/2025
No action taken
Date: 02/20/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025




D Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Chapter 1 [A], Section 108

Submitted by: International Building Code Administrative Committee

SECTION 108 TEMPORARY STRUCTURES, USES, EQUIPMENT AND SYSTEMS.

[A] 108.1 General.
The building official is authorized to issue a permit for temporary structures, uses, equipment or



T
systems. Such permits shall be limited as to time of service, but shall not be permitted for more
than 180 days. The building official is authorized to grant extensions for demonstrated cause.
Structures designed to comply with Section 3103.6 shall not be in service for a period of more
than 1 year unless an extension of time is granted.

[A] 108.2 Conformance.




AF
Temporary structures shall comply with the requirements in Section 3103.

[A] 108.3 Temporary service utilities.
The building official is authorized to give permission to temporarily supply service utilities in
accordance with Section 112.

[A] 108.4 Termination of approval.
The building official is authorized to terminate such permit for a temporary structure, use,
equipment or system and to order the same to be discontinued.


Justification:




R
During the 2024 IBC changes the potential for a temporary use was unintentionally removed in
the model code, and it is being added back here to provide the same conformance requirements
to temporary uses. This will allow the interdepartmental temporary indoor building uses policy.

The 2024 IBC will now define:
• Public-Occupancy Temporary Structure
• Service Life




D • Temporary Event
• Temporary Structure


Cost Impact: Minimal cost impact. This code change proposal will reduce the cost for temporary
uses to allow them to comply with the temporary provisions of the code.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
YES NO


2024 Code Committee Date: 01/27/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken



Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee Date: 02/20/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Date: 04/22/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee Date: 05/21/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken




T
AF
R
D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Chapter 1 [A], Section 109.2

Submitted by: International Building Code Administrative Committee

[A] 109.2 Schedule of plan review and permit fees.
Where a permit is required, a fee for each plan review and permit shall be paid as required, in
accordance with the schedule as established by the applicable governing authority set forth in
Phoenix City Code Appendix A.2. Fees paid for plan reviews, permits or other services are not
transferable.

[A] 109.2.1 Supplemental permits.
T
The fee for a supplemental plan review and permit to cover any additional work or
additional valuation not included in the original permit shall be computed based on the
valuation of the supplemental work. A new permit for a building addition shall be required




AF
to increase the building area authorized by a permit. Supplemental work started prior to
obtaining a supplemental permit is subject to an investigation fee set forth in Section
109.4 of these administrative provisions.


Justification: References our established fee schedule and clarifies fees are not transferable.
Clarify that an increase in scope requires a separate permit.


Cost Impact: No cost impact




R
Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
YES NO


Date: 01/27/2025
No action taken
Date: 02/20/2025
No action taken




D
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Chapter 1 [A], Section 109.3

Submitted by: International Building Code Administrative Committee

[A] 109.3 Permit valuations.
The applicant for a permit shall provide an estimated value of the work for which the permit is
being issued at time of application. Such estimated valuation shall include the total value of work,
including materials and labor, for which the permit is being issued, such as electrical, gas,



T
mechanical, plumbing equipment and permanent systems. Where, in the opinion of the building
official, the valuation is underestimated, the permit shall be denied, unless the applicant can
show detailed estimates acceptable to the building official. Estimated valuation is the higher of
the valuation as calculated by the Planning & Development Department, or the valuation as
provided by the applicant. Estimated valuation is calculated using the International Code Council
Building Valuation Data adjusted for the City of Phoenix. The building official shall have the




AF
authority to adjust the final valuation for permit fees.

Justification: Aligns with language in Phoenix City Code, Chapter 9, Appendix A.2


Cost Impact: No cost impact.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
YES NO


Date: 01/27/2025




R Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
No action taken
Date: 02/20/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken




D
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Chapter 1 [A], Section 109.7

Submitted by: International Building Code Administrative Committee

[A] 109.7 Inspection and re-inspections.
Permit fees provide for customary inspections only. When inspections are requested for
weekends, holidays, or anytime other than the regular working hours of the building official, an
additional fee will be required as set forth in Phoenix City Code Appendix A.2. A re-inspection



T
fee may be assessed for each inspection or re-inspection when such portion of work for which
inspection is called is not complete or when corrections called for are not made.

Re-inspection fees may also be assessed when the approved plans are not readily available to
the inspector, for failure to provide access on the date for which inspection is requested, or for
deviating from plans requiring the approval of the building official. When re-inspections are




AF
requested for weekends, holidays, or anytime other than the regular Planning & Development
Department inspection hours, an additional fee will be required.


Justification: Clarifies fees for inspections and re-inspections in accordance with Phoenix City
Code Appendix A.2


Cost Impact: Minimal cost impact attributed to irregular inspections or re-inspection fees.
Potential decrease associated with maintaining project schedules.




R
Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
YES NO


Date: 01/23/2025
No action taken
Date: 02/20/2025
No action taken




D
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Chapter 1 [A], Section 110.1

Submitted by: International Building Code Administrative Committee

[A] 110.1 General.
Construction or work for which a permit is required shall be subject to inspection by the building
official and such construction or work shall remain visible and able to be accessed for inspection
purposes until approved. Approval as a result of an inspection shall not be construed to be an



T
approval of a violation of the provisions of this code or of other ordinances of the jurisdiction.
Inspections presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of this code or of other
ordinances of the jurisdiction shall not be valid. It shall be the duty of the owner or the owner’s
authorized agent to cause the work to remain visible and able to be accessed for inspection
purposes. Neither the building official nor the jurisdiction shall be liable for expense entailed in
the removal or replacement of any material required to allow inspection. A survey of the lot may




AF
be required by the building official to verify that the structure is located in accordance with the
approved plans.


Justification: This amendment allows requiring a survey where there are disputes regarding lot
lines.


Cost Impact: Minimal cost impact. The cost of the survey.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process: YES NO




R
ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Denied

Denied
Date: 02/04/2025
No action taken
Date: 02/20/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025




D Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Chapter 1 [A], Section 110.3.10.1

Submitted by: International Building Code Administrative Committee

[A] 110.3.10 Other inspections.

[A] 110.3.10.1 Building service equipment inspections.
All building service equipment for which a permit is required by this Code shall be inspected by



T
the building official. No portion of any building service equipment intended to be concealed by
any permanent portion of the building shall be concealed until inspected and approved. When
the installation of any building service equipment is complete, an additional and final inspection
shall be made. Building service equipment regulated by the technical codes shall not be
connected to the water, fuel, power supply or sewer system until authorized by the building
official.




AF
1. Electrical inspections.
A rough-in inspection is required for all conduit, semi-rigid piping or wiring after
installation, but prior to being concealed. A final inspection is required when all conduit,
wires, fixtures and equipment including covers has been installed and connected, but
prior to energizing any such circuit or equipment.

2. Mechanical inspections.
All mechanical equipment and systems for which a permit is required by this Code,
including all associated ductwork, flues, condensate and refrigeration lines, shall be
subject to inspection and shall remain accessible and exposed for inspection purposes
until approved.




R 3. Plumbing inspections.
A rough-in or underground inspection is required for all sewer, drainage and vent piping,
and for all water and gas distribution systems prior to their being buried or concealed. A
final inspection is required when all fixtures are set and operating or ready to operate
pending final utility connection. Tests shall be performed as required by the applicable
Plumbing Code.




D 4. Operation of building service equipment.
The requirements of this section shall not be considered to prohibit the operation of any
building service equipment installed to replace existing equipment serving an occupied
portion of the building in the event a request for inspection of such equipment has been
filed with the building official not more than 72 hours after such replacement work is
completed and before any portion of such equipment is concealed by any permanent
portion of the building.


Justification: Clarifies the required inspections for building service equipment.


Cost Impact: No cost impact..


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process: YES NO

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee Date: 01/23/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee Date: 02/20/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Date: 04/22/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee Date: 05/21/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken



T
AF
R
D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Chapter 1 [A], Section 110.3.10.2

Submitted by: International Building Code Administrative Committee

[A] 110.3.10.2 Swimming pool inspections.
A rough-in inspection is required after all fixed metal parts are in place and electrically bonded
but prior to concealing or placement of any concrete or gunite. An inspection is required before
plaster is placed and before the pool is filled with water. At the time of final inspection, all of the
following must be complete:


T
1. Installation of all motors, lights and electrical circuits, including connection to approved
overcurrent protection devices.
2. Installation and electrical bonding of all fixed metal parts within 5 feet (1524 mm) of the
inside edge of the pool.




AF
3. Installation of approved backflow prevention devices on the nearest hose bib(s) providing
water supply for the pool.
4. Installation of all pool enclosures and barriers required by this Code.


Justification: This section clarifies the required inspections for the construction of swimming
pools. By changing “A final” to “An inspection”, this allows inspection staff to require an additional
inspection/s if needed for pools being constructed with an automatic pool cover.


Cost Impact:
No cost impact. Clarifying the required minimum inspections.




R
Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process: YES

This amendment was approved in previous code adoptions. It has subsequently been evaluated
by the committee for applicability to the 2024 IBC and carried forward as presented.
NO




D
ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted


Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Denied

Denied
Date: 01/23/2025
No action taken
Date: 02/20/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Chapter 1 [A], Section 111

Submitted by: International Building Code Administrative Committee

SECTION 111 CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY

[A] 111.1 Change of Use and occupancy.
A building or structure shall not be used or occupied in whole or in part, and a change of



T
occupancy of a building or structure or portion thereof shall not be made, until the building official
has issued a certificate of occupancy therefore as provided herein. Issuance of a certificate of
occupancy shall not be construed as an approval of a violation of the provisions of this code or of
other ordinances of the jurisdiction City of Phoenix. Certificates presuming to give authority to
violate or cancel the provisions of this code or other ordinances of the jurisdiction City of Phoenix
shall not be valid.




AF
Exception: Certificates of occupancy are not required for work exempt from permits in
accordance with Section 105.2.

[A] 111.1.1 Change of occupancy.
Application may be made for the building official to consider issuing a new certificate of
occupancy for a change in use or for new use of an existing building when no
construction permit has been issued. Application for such a certificate shall be on a form
provided by the Planning and Development Department and shall include payment of a
nonrefundable application and inspection fee. This fee shall be in addition to any plan
review fee or subsequent permit fee that may be required by Section 109 of these
administrative provisions.




R
[A] 111.2 Certificate issued.
After the building official inspects the building or structure and does not find violations of the
provisions of this code or other laws that are enforced by the department, the building official
shall issue a certificate of occupancy that contains the following:
1. The permit number.
2. The address of the structure.




D 3. The name and address of the owner or the owner’s authorized agent.
4. A description of that portion of the structure for which the certificate is issued.
5. A statement that the described portion of the structure has been inspected for compliance
with the requirements of this code.
6. The name of the building official date of issuance.
7. The edition of the code under which the permit was issued.
8. The use and occupancy, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 3.
9. The type of construction as defined in Chapter 6.
10. The area, story location, and the design occupant load for each occupancy group in the
building.
11. Where an automatic sprinkler system is provided, whether the sprinkler system is
required.
12. Any special stipulations and conditions of the building permit.



[A] 111.3 Temporary occupancy.
The building official is authorized to issue a temporary certificate of occupancy before the
completion of the entire work covered by the permit, provided that such portion or portions shall
be occupied safely. The building official shall set a time period during which the temporary
certificate of occupancy is valid.

[A] 111.3.1 Application.
Application for a temporary certificate of occupancy shall be on a form supplied by the
Planning & Development Department and shall include payment of a nonrefundable
inspection fee as set forth in Section 109 of these administrative provisions. Issuance of a
temporary certificate of occupancy shall be subject to the property owner and the permit
holder agreeing in writing to compliance with all stipulations set forth by the Planning and
Development Department.

[A] 111.3.2 Duration.


T
The maximum duration for temporary occupancy of a building, or a portion thereof, shall
be the expiration date of the permit under which the temporary Certificate of Occupancy
was issued, at which time all requirements of the Phoenix Building Construction Code,
Phoenix Fire Code, the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance and other applicable codes and
ordinances shall have been completed.




AF
[A] 111.4 Revocation.
The building official is authorized to suspend or revoke a certificate of occupancy or completion
issued under the provisions of this code, in writing, wherever the certificate is issued in error, or
on the basis of incorrect information supplied, or where it is determined that the building
or structure or portion thereof is in violation of the provisions of this code or other ordinance of
the jurisdiction City of Phoenix.


Justification: To be consistent with current administrative code language and procedures.
Section 111.1 - Keep 2018 IBC language in heading.




R
Section 111.3 – 111.3.2 allows for a temporary certificate of occupancy and provides clarification
to the application terms / stipulations and the temporary certificate of occupancy duration.

Cost Impact: No cost impact


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process: YES NO




D
ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted


Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Denied

Denied
Date: 01/23/2025
No action taken
Date: 02/20/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Chapter 1 [A], Section 113

Submitted by: International Building Code Administrative Committee

SECTION 113 MEANS OF APPEALS

[A] 113.1 General.
In order to hear and decide appeals of orders, decisions or determinations made by the building
official relative to the application and interpretation of this code, there shall be and is hereby
created a board of appeals called the Development Advisory Board (hereinafter called “the
board”). The board of appeals shall be appointed by the applicable governing authority and shall




T
hold office at its pleasure. The board shall be governed by City Code Chapter 2, Article IX. adopt
rules of procedure for conducting its business. The board shall render all decisions and findings
in writing to the appellant and to the building official.

[A] 113.2 Limitations on authority. Reserved.
An application for appeal shall be based on a claim that the true intent of this code or the rules
legally adopted thereunder have been incorrectly interpreted, the provisions of this code do not




AF
fully apply or an equivalent or better form of construction is proposed. The board shall not have
authority to waive requirements of this code.

[A] 113.3 Qualifications. Reserved.
The board of appeals shall consist of members who are qualified by experience and training to
pass on matters pertaining to building construction and are not employees of the jurisdiction.

[A] 113.4 Administration.
The building official shall take action without delay in accordance with the decision of the board.


Justification: To provide the name of the City’s Board of Appeals and the City Code section
that governs the Board.




R
Development Advisory Board members are appointed by City Council as designated in City
Code Chapter 2, Article IX.


Cost Impact: No cost impact




D
Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted

Approved as submitted

Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Modified and approved Denied
YES NO


Date: 01/28/2025
No action taken
Date: 02/20/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken


BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Chapter 1 [A], Section 114

Submitted by: International Building Code Administrative Committee

SECTION 114 VIOLATIONS

[A] 114.1 Unlawful acts.
It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to erect, construct, alter, extend, repair,



T
move, remove, demolish or occupy any building, structure or equipment regulated by this code,
or cause same to be done, in conflict with or in violation of any of the provisions of this code.
Whenever, by the provisions of this Code, the performance of any act is prohibited or wherever
any regulation, dimension or limitation is imposed on the erection, construction, alteration, repair,
maintenance, demolition or occupancy of any building, structure or building service equipment, a
failure to comply with the provisions of this Code shall be unlawful and constitute a violation.




AF
Every day on which a violation exists shall constitute a separate violation and a separate
offense. The remedies herein are cumulative, and the City of Phoenix may proceed under one or
more such remedies.

114.1.1 Responsible parties.
For the purpose of this Code, unless a particular section, subsection or clause placed
compliance responsibility upon a different person, the property owner, the tenant or occupant
in responsible control of the premises and the person, firm or corporation performing the
work, all have the duty to ensure that all applicable requirements of this Code are complied
with. Failure to comply with the provisions of this Code or with a lawful order of the Building
official, subjects the owner, the tenant or occupant, and the person, firm or corporation
performing the work to the criminal penalties and civil remedies prescribed in this section.




R 114.1.2 Submittal information.
It shall be unlawful and a violation of this Code for any person, firm or corporation to falsify or
to materially misrepresent information submitted to the Building official as part of any
application or request for approval required by this Code.

114.1.3 Alternate methods, materials and equipment.




D It shall be unlawful and a violation of this Code for any person, firm or corporation to use any
method, material or equipment as an alternate to the methods, materials or equipment
permitted by this Code without first having obtained approval from the Building official in the
manner provided in this Code.

114.1.4 Permits.
It shall be unlawful and a violation of this Code for any person, firm or corporation to:
1. Perform any work, for which a permit is required by this Code, until such permit has been
obtained from the building official and been posted on the premises where the work is to
be performed. Working beyond the authorized scope of a permit constitutes work without
a permit.
2. Occupy, use or maintain any building, structure or other property improvement that was
built, erected, altered or improved without a valid permit issued by the building official
when such permit is required by this Code.


114.1.4.1 Nonpermitted construction enforcement.
In cases of nonpermitted construction, an investigation shall be made before a permit
may be issued for the work. Nonpermitted construction is grounds for the building official
to stop all work on the project until appropriate permits are obtained. Nonpermitted
construction cases shall be subject to the enforcement procedures set forth herein.

114.1.4.1.1 Application for permit.
The applicant must apply for or obtain a permit by the date indicated on the notice
of violation by which to obtain a permit.

Exception: Additional time may be granted when deemed necessary depending
on the complexity of work or other justifiable circumstances prohibiting meeting
the designated date to obtain a permit.




T
114.1.4.1.2 Time limitation of application.
Permits for work commenced without a permit must be obtained no later than 60
calendar days from the date of application.

Exception: Additional time may be granted when deemed necessary depending
on the complexity of work or other justifiable circumstances prohibiting meeting




AF the designated date to obtain a permit by.

114.1.4.1.3 Fees.
Any person who commences any work on a building, structure, electrical, gas,
mechanical or plumbing system without first obtaining the necessary permit(s)
shall be subject to the following penalties and fees in addition to the required
permit fees.

1. Investigation fee. An investigation fee, in addition to the permit fee, shall be
assessed whether or not a permit is then or subsequently issued. The
investigation fee shall be as set forth in Appendix A.2 of the Phoenix City
Code.




R 2. Permit fees. The permit fee for work commenced without permits shall be
twice the published permit fees as set forth in Appendix A.2 of the Phoenix
City Code.

3. Job-site meeting fee. The fee for the job-site meeting shall be set forth in
Appendix A.2 of the Phoenix City Code.




D Exceptions:

1. The Planning and Development Department may waive the investigation fee
and/or additional permit fee where it can be demonstrated that the
nonpermitted construction was completed by a previous owner.
2. When work without permits is to be demolished by the owner, the demolition
permit fee shall be as set forth in Appendix A.2 of the Phoenix City Code.

114.1.4.1.4 Job-site meeting.
Upon issuance of the permit(s), a job meeting will be scheduled for the inspector
to meet with the owner or authorized agent at the job site. The purpose of the job
meeting is to determine corrective action required for compliance and to establish
an inspection schedule. The fee for the job-site meeting shall be set forth in


Appendix A.2 of the Phoenix City Code. The Planning and Development
Department may waive the job-site meeting fee where it can be demonstrated that
the nonpermitted construction was completed by a previous owner. The permit
shall be suspended if the jobsite meeting or inspection is not held within 45
calendar days of permit issuance.

114.1.4.1.5 Expiration
All work must be completed within 12 months from date of permit issuance. No
action or inaction by the City shall relieve the permit holder or property owner from
their duty to complete construction or request the required inspections within 12
months from the date of permit issuance.

114.1.4.1.6 Extension.
A one-time extension, not-to-exceed 90 calendar days, may be granted with the
approval of the building official and is subject to a fee as set forth in Appendix A.2



T
of the Phoenix City Code. Applications for permit extensions must be received
prior to expiration of the permit.

114.1.4.1.7 Reinstatement.
When a permit issued subject to section 114 has expired, section 105.5.2 applies
with the exception of the expiration date shall not exceed 90 calendar days from




AFthe date of reinstatement. (Note: The exception to 105.5.2 does not apply).

114.1.5 Inspections.
It shall be unlawful and a violation of this Code for any person, firm or corporation to:

1. Fail to request all inspections required by the provisions of this Code.
2. Cover or conceal any work requiring inspection until such inspection has been made
and approved by the building official.

114.1.6 Occupancy violation.
It shall be unlawful and a violation of this Code for any person, firm or corporation to:




R
1. Occupy or use any building or structure without first having obtained a Certificate of
Occupancy as required by the provisions of this Code,
2. Occupy or use any building or structure for any use or activity other than that
authorized by a Certificate of Occupancy for such building or structure.
3. Change the occupancy, use or character or use of any building or structure without
first obtaining a new Certificate of Occupancy for such new use,
4. Continue to occupy or use any building or structure in violation of the conditions of




D any temporary Certificate of Occupancy or after the expiration of a temporary
Certificate of Occupancy.

114.1.7 Unsafe buildings and building service equipment.
It shall be unlawful and a violation of this Code for any person, firm or corporation to:
1. Cause or to create any unsafe condition as defined in this Code,
2. Use or occupy any building or structure, or to use or operate any building service
equipment, when such building, structure or building service equipment has been
declared unsafe in accordance with the provisions of this Code. These requirements
shall apply to all buildings, structures and building service equipment, whether new,
existing, under construction or being demolished,
3. Fail to make repairs or otherwise fail to correct or abate any unsafe condition as
defined in this Code,



4. Fail to comply with an unsafe condition abatement order issued by the building official
in accordance with Section 116.8 of these administrative provisions.

114.1.8 Rubbish and debris.
It shall be unlawful and a violation of this Code for any person, firm or corporation to allow
any rubbish, refuse or loose material resulting from construction operations associated
with a valid building permit to remain uncontained or to be swept, thrown, blown or
deposited on any public property or any adjoining private property.

114.1.9 Lawful orders.
It shall be unlawful and a violation of this Code for any person, firm or corporation to fail
to comply with any lawful notice or order of the building official issued in accordance with
the provisions of this Code.

114.2 Notice of violation.



T
The building official is authorized to serve a notice of violation or order on the person responsible
for the erection, construction, alteration, extension, repair, moving, removal, demolition or
occupancy of a building or structure in violation of the provisions of this code, or in violation of a
permit or certificate issued under the provisions of this code. Such order shall direct the
discontinuance of the illegal action or condition and the abatement of the violation.




AF
Notices of violation of this Code shall be in writing and shall be served by personal service or by
certified mail with return receipt requested. Service shall be deemed complete upon delivery.

The notice of violation shall identify the address or legal description of the property in question
and shall state the nature and extent of the violation in such detail as to allow the correction or
abatement of the violation. The notice shall provide the name and phone number of a City
representative to contact concerning the violation and acceptable methods of correction or
abatement.

Nothing herein shall preclude the building official from giving additional verbal or written
information notices. Nothing herein shall require the issuance of a notice of violation prior to
commencement of emergency abatement or civil or criminal violation proceedings.




R 114.2.1 Recording a violation.
The City of Phoenix may record a notice of violation with the County recorder. A recorded
notice of violation shall run with the land. Failure to record a notice of violation shall not
affect the validity of the notice as to persons who receive the notice. When the property is
brought into compliance, a satisfaction of notice of violation shall be filed at the request of
the owner or responsible party.




D
114.3 Prosecution of violation.
If the notice of violation is not complied with promptly, the building official is authorized to request
the legal counsel of the jurisdiction to institute the appropriate proceeding at law or in equity to
restrain, correct or abate such violation, or to require the removal or termination of the unlawful
occupancy of the building or structure in violation of the provisions of this code or of the order or
direction made pursuant thereto.

114.4 Violation penalties.
Any person who violates a provision of this code or fails to comply with any of the requirements
thereof or who erects, constructs, alters or repairs a building or structure in violation of the
approved construction documents or directive of the building official, or of a permit or certificate
issued under the provisions of this code, shall be subject to penalties as prescribed by law.



114.4.1 Civil actions.
Any person, firm or corporation who causes, permits, facilitates, aids or abets any
violation of this Code or who fails to perform any act or duty required by this Code is
subject to a civil sanction of not less than 500 dollars ($500.00) nor more than 2,500
dollars ($2,500.00).

114.4.2 Commencement of civil action.
Any civil action to enforce the provisions of this Code shall be commenced, and
summons shall be issued, in accordance with the procedures set forth in Arizona Revised
Statutes, City ordinance or as provided in the Local Rules of Practice and Procedure –
City Court – City of Phoenix.


Justification:
This section clarifies the necessary procedures and steps to abate violations of this code. The



T
permit expiration dates mentioned in Section 114.1.4.1.5 Expiration, have been changed from a
6-month permit to a 12-month permit expiration. This provides the customer additional time to
bring their property into compliance, as well as make the expiration date of permit subject to this
section half the timeframe of a standard permit expiration of 24 months.




AF
Cost Impact: The cost of fees associated with correcting violations.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
YES


Date: 01/23/2025
No action taken
Date: 02/20/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
NO




R
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Chapter 1 [A], Section 115.4

Submitted by: International Building Code Administrative Committee

[A] 115.4 Failure to comply.
Any person who shall continue any work after having been served with a stop work order, except
such work as that person is directed to perform to remove a violation or unsafe condition, shall
be subject to fines and fees established by the authority having jurisdiction for each offense.


Justification:
T
Fines associated with violation of a lawful order are established by civil sanctions issued by the
Phoenix Municipal Court through adjudication. This process is further detailed in section 114 of
this code. The Planning and Development department will assess Investigation Fees each




AF
instance a person is in violation of this section.


Cost Impact: Minimal cost impact. The cost of enforcement of these code sections is subsidized
by the citizens who purchase permits.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
YES NO


Date: 01/28/2025
No action taken




R
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved Denied
Date: 02/20/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:




D Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Chapter 1 [A], Section 116

Submitted by: International Building Code Administrative Committee

SECTION 116 UNSAFE STRUCTURES AND EQUIPMENT

[A] 116.1 Unsafe Conditions
Structures or existing equipment that are or hereafter become unsafe, insanitary, or deficient



T
because of inadequate means of egress facilities, inadequate light, and ventilation, or which
constitute a fire hazard, or are otherwise dangerous to human life or the public welfare, or that
involve illegal or improper occupancy or inadequate maintenance, shall be deemed an unsafe
condition. Unsafe structures shall be taken down and removed or made safe, as the building
official deems necessary and as provided for in this section. A vacant structure that is not
secured against unauthorized entry shall be deemed unsafe An unsafe condition is any condition




AF
that, as deemed by the building official, poses a danger to human life or the public welfare,
including, but not limited to, the following:
1. inadequate structural performance,
2. inadequate sanitary system performance,
3. inadequate means of egress facilities,
4. inadequate light,
5. inadequate ventilation,
6. constituting an explosion hazard,
7. constituting a fire hazard,
8. constituting a shock hazard,
9. constituting a toxicity hazard, or
10. involve occupancy of a higher relative hazard than the structure is built to support or




R shelter.

Unsafe structures or equipment shall be taken down and removed or made safe, as the building
official deems necessary and as provided for in this section.

Sections 116.2 through 116.5 are removed in their entirety and replaced with the
following:




D
[A] 116.2 Definitions. Unsafe structures and equipment shall be classified as being an unsafe
or imminent unsafe condition in accordance with the following definitions:

UNSAFE CONDITION is a hazard that has the potential to cause harm or damage to life,
health, or property if not corrected.

IMMINENT UNSAFE CONDITION is an unsafe condition that is a high, real, and immediate
risk to life, health, or property.

[A] 116.3 Immediate Self Abatement and Notification
The person or persons occupying or having control of any unsafe building, structure or building
service equipment who knows or should have known an unsafe condition exists shall take
immediate steps to vacate the building or structure and to safeguard the health and safety of the


public and all building occupants, and shall notify the appropriate agency or agencies of the
situation as follows:

1. The fire department shall be notified immediately of all personal injuries, fires, explosions
or hazardous materials incidents.
2. The Water Services Department shall be notified immediately of all backflow, back
siphonage, or cross-connection incidents.
3. The gas utility shall be notified immediately of any unsafe conditions relating to gas piping
or gas-fired building service equipment.
4. The electric utility shall be notified immediately of any shock injuries, fire, or explosion
relating to any electrical building service equipment.
5. The building official shall be notified within four hours of the occurrence of any imminently
unsafe condition, including structural failure.
6. The building official shall be notified within 72 hours of any unsafe condition including
damage to required building service equipment, any plumbing cross-connection, any fire



T
that caused structural damage, or any other unsafe condition relating to building service
equipment.

[A] 116.4 Authority for inspection and evaluation.
The building official shall follow the procedures for right of entry noted in Section 104.4.




AF
When the building official has reason to suspect that an unsafe condition exists, the building
official is authorized to immediately issue abatement orders in accordance with Section 116.6, or
the building official may require the property owner to obtain a detailed engineering evaluation of
the suspected unsafe condition before the building official determines the extent of abatement
required. Where an engineering evaluation is performed, all the following are required:

1. When so ordered by the building official, the owner of any building or property suspected
of containing an unsafe condition shall engage the services of a registered design
professional to conduct a detailed investigation and analysis of the suspected unsafe
condition. The cost of such an investigation and report shall be borne by the property
owner.
2. The registered design professional retained by the owner shall conduct a detailed




R investigation and evaluation of the suspected unsafe condition and shall issue a written
report to the property owner and to the building official on the condition of the building,
structure, or building service equipment, including recommendations for steps necessary
to abate any unsafe condition found. The report shall be delivered to the building official
on or before the date specified in the building official order requiring such report.
3. The content, findings and recommendations contained in the owner’s engineering report
may be utilized by the building official to determine whether or not an unsafe condition




D exists, whether it creates an imminent unsafe condition and what, if any, abatement
orders shall be issued. The building official is not required to accept the contents, findings,
and recommendations contained in the owner’s engineering report.
4. Failure of a property owner to produce an engineering report on or before the date
specified in the building official order shall be grounds for the building official to proceed
with abatement proceedings up to and including orders to immediately vacate or demolish
the subject building or structure.

[A] 116.5 Notice of violation.
The building official shall serve a written notice of violation on the person or persons occupying
or having control of the building, structure or building service equipment and on the person or
persons having recorded interest in the property for unsafe conditions.




Notices of violation shall describe the unsafe conditions and declare any unsafe conditions that
are determined to be an imminent unsafe condition. A specified time must be stated on the
notice by which the unsafe conditions must be abated. A building permit must also be obtained
to request an inspection to verify the unsafe conditions have been abated.

The notice of violation shall identify the address and legal description of the property in question
and shall state the nature and extent of the unsafe condition in such detail as to allow the
property owner to identify and abate the unsafe condition. The notice shall provide the name and
phone number of a city representative to contact concerning the unsafe condition and acceptable
methods of abatement.

Notices of violation declaring imminent unsafe conditions shall be served by personal service or
by certified mail return receipt requested. Service shall be deemed complete upon delivery.

Nothing shall preclude the building official from giving additional oral or written information
notices.


T
[A] 116.6 Abatement of unsafe buildings, structures or building service equipment.
The building official shall, after inspection, determine whether a building, structure, or building
service equipment is an unsafe condition and, if so, whether it constitutes an imminent unsafe
condition, as defined in Sections 116.1 and 116.2 of these administrative provisions.




AF
[A] 116.6.1 Unsafe conditions.
If a building, a structure or any building service equipment is determined to be in an unsafe
condition but not an imminent unsafe condition, the building official shall issue a written notice
to the property owner or occupant of the premises per Section 116.5. The time allowed for
repair or abatement shall be not less than that indicated on the Notice of Violation. Failure to
repair or abate the unsafe condition within the time specified shall constitute grounds for the
building official to initiate formal abatement procedures as described in Section 116.6.2.

[A] 116.6.2 Imminent unsafe conditions.
If a building, structure, or any building service equipment is determined to be in an imminent
unsafe condition Sections 116.6.2.1 through 116.6.2.7 shall be followed.




R [A] 116.6.2.1 Imminent unsafe: notice of violation
A notice of violation shall be issued. The notice of violation shall contain the information
described in Section 116.5 as well as this section and declare the imminent unsafe
condition to be a nuisance and shall order its immediate abatement in accordance with the
provisions of this section.




D The notice shall state the City’s authority to abate the violation if the owner fails to do so
and the City’s ability to assess the costs of such abatement against the property. The
notice shall state the procedures to follow should the owner wish to appeal the decision of
the building official.

Nothing herein shall require the issuance of a notice of violation prior to commencement of
emergency abatement or civil or criminal violation proceedings.

[A] 116.6.2.2 Imminent unsafe: buildings or structures.
In the case of an unsafe building or structure containing imminent unsafe conditions, the
building official shall order the abatement by repair or by demolition of the building or
structure. The unsafe building or structure and any buildings or structures placed in
jeopardy by the unsafe buildings or structures shall be posted in accordance with Section



116.6.2.4. The buildings or structures shall not be occupied or reoccupied until determined
safe by the building official.

[A] 116.6.2.3 Imminent unsafe: building service equipment.
In the case of an unsafe building service equipment installation containing imminent unsafe
conditions, the building official shall attach or affix a warning red tag to the equipment
declared to be unsafe. Where equipment is declared to be in an imminent unsafe
condition, the building official shall order such equipment disconnected or its use
discontinued until the condition is abated. In addition, the building official may order any
building or structure which is placed in jeopardy by the unsafe equipment to be vacated, or
the building official may order the disconnection of the affected utility service to the
building, structure, or equipment, and these buildings or structures shall not be occupied,
reoccupied or building service equipment reconnected until determined safe by the building
official.




T
[A] 116.6.2.4 Imminent unsafe: posting of signs.
When necessary to protect life, health, or public welfare, the building official shall post
signs which shall prohibit entry into an unsafe building or structure. With permission of the
building official, it shall be lawful to enter the building for the purposes of removing
personal property. It shall be unlawful to remove any such posted sign without permission
from the building official.




AF
[A] 116.6.2.5 Imminent unsafe: emergency barricades.
If any building or structure is a hazard to life or limb to persons using a public way, the
public way shall be barricaded to prevent public use. Barricades shall be erected as
deemed necessary by the building official. The costs for barricading of a public way under
this section shall be assessed to and borne by the owner of the unsafe building or structure
causing the need for such barricades.

[A] 116.6.2.6 Imminent unsafe: emergency abatement.
Where the continued existence of a building, structure, or building service equipment
constitutes an imminent unsafe condition to life, health, or other property, the building
official may cause such building or structure to be demolished, building service equipment




R removed or disconnected, swimming pool fenced or pumped dry or a cesspool or tank
filled at once, all without notice. Such abatement shall be limited to the minimum work
necessary to remove the imminent unsafe condition. The reasonable costs of any
abatement shall be the responsibility of the owner.

[A] 116.6.2.7 Imminent unsafe: Court-ordered abatement.
In addition to any other abatement procedures provided in this Code, the building official




D may apply to the Municipal Court of the City of Phoenix for an order allowing the City to
abate any unsafe condition. The reasonable costs of any abatement permitted by the
court’s order shall be the responsibility of the owner.

[A] 116.7 Appeals.
Decisions, orders, and notices of violation relating to unsafe buildings, structures, or building
service equipment may be appealed to the building official and then to the Development
Advisory Board in accordance with Section 113 of this Code


Justification: These provisions are necessary to establish to procedures and lawful
requirements that the Planning and Development Department is to follow when dealing with
potentially unsafe and unsafe conditions. The procedures and requirements differ depending on
the perceived immediacy of the condition. This breakdown is defined as unsafe versus


imminently unsafe in Section 116.2. Department policy documents should be developed to go
into specific guidelines for establishing unsafe conditions and which are imminently unsafe.

Vacant structures are addressed in Phoenix City Code Section 39-8 and are better dealt with by
the Neighborhood Services Department.

Abatement efforts by the City and Court ordered abatement efforts should look to Phoenix City
Code Chapter 39 Sections 39-20 and 39-22 through 39-24 for both guidance on ways to operate
as well as other possible enforcement routes.


Cost Impact: No cost impact. This is clarifying language for how the Planning and Development
Department approaches unsafe conditions




T
Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Denied
YES NO


Date: 01/23/2025
No action taken
Date: 02/20/2025




AF
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




R
D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Chapter 1 [A], Section 117

Submitted by: International Building Code Administrative Committee

[A] SECTION 117 ANNUAL FACILITIES PERMIT

[A] 117.1 Scope.
The Annual Facilities Program is an administrative system intended to simplify the permitting and



T
inspection process for qualified facilities. This program allows inspector review of plans and
maintains an inspection staff familiar with the construction history of qualified facilities. Additional
permits shall be required in accordance with Section 105 of these administrative provisions. The
Annual Facilities Program shall administer all permits issued for qualified facilities registered
under this program. This permit process shall not preempt compliance with the technical
requirements of this Code or with other city, county, state or federal laws and regulations.




AF
[A] 117.2 Definitions. For the purpose of this section, certain terms are defined as follows:

AGENT means a person employed by a qualified facility owner as full-time staff or by
contract, who is an architect or engineer registered in the State of Arizona.

CAMPUS means two or more buildings located on the same property and under the
control of the qualified facility owner.

QUALIFIED FACILITY means a building, campus, structure, or building service
equipment registered with the Annual Facilities Permit Program.




R QUALIFIED FACILITY OWNER means a firm, corporation, political entity or property
management company that occupies or controls the buildings, campus, structure or
building service equipment and maintains such buildings and equipment in compliance
with all provisions of this Code.

[A] 117.3 Annual facilities permits.




D [A] 117.3.1 Initial application.
Every applicant for an Annual Facilities Permit shall fill out a form provided by the
Planning & Development Department and shall pay an application and registration fee as
set forth in
Appendix A.2 of the Phoenix City Code. The form shall include the following:

1. The name of the person authorized to act on behalf of the qualified facility
owner(s).

2. The name of the agent who will be responsible for code compliance of the
work performed under the Annual Facilities Permit. When the agent is
employed by contract, the builder and the person who is authorized to act on
behalf of the qualified facility owners cannot be the same individual.



3. The location and total square footage of the entire facility at the site(s)
intended to be included in the program. The building official shall take action
on the application and the applicant shall be notified accordingly.

[A] 117.3.2 Validity of the annual facilities permits.
An Annual Facilities Permit shall be valid only as long as the named agent remains in the
employ of the qualified facility owner in an active capacity.

If the agent should leave the employ of the qualified facility owner, such facility shall
notify the building official within seven calendar days. The qualified facility owner shall
obtain a replacement agent within 45 days of notification to the building official. If the
building official is not notified within the prescribed period that a new agent has been
obtained, the Annual Facilities Permit shall be suspended until such agent is obtained.

[A] 117.3.3 Annual facilities permit transfers.



T
An Annual Facilities Permit is not transferable.

[A] 117.4 Annual facilities permit renewal.
Annual Facilities Permits shall be renewed every 12 months by payment of a renewal fee as set
forth in Appendix A.2 of the Phoenix City Code. Renewal fees shall be due and payable before
the date of expiration of the permit or when a new application is required.




AF
Any work performed after expiration or without a permit as specified in Section 105 of these
administrative provisions shall be a violation of this code.

[A] 117.5 Annual Facilities Permit operation.
The agent shall notify the Planning & Development Department before the start of any work on
facilities registered with the Annual Facilities Permit Program. The building official shall
determine the nature and extent of plan review or inspections required. The qualified facility shall
pay to the Planning & Development Department an hourly fee for professional services rendered
as set forth in the Appendix A.2 of the Phoenix City Code.

The agent shall be responsible for ensuring that qualified facilities comply with the substantive




R
provisions of this code. The agent, as authorized by rules established by the Arizona Board of
Technical Registration, shall assure work has been performed in accordance with this code.

[A] 117.5.1 Plan reviews.
Plans, drawings, diagrams, and /or other data describing such work shall be provided to
the building official for review before work commences. Plans shall be complete and
comply with all the codes and ordinances applicable to the proposed work.




D [A] 117.5.2 Work report and inspections.
All structural, architectural, plumbing, mechanical and electrical installations or
construction shall be inspected in accordance with this code. Facilities shall be subject to
inspection at regular intervals not to exceed six months.

[A] 117.5.3 Construction compliance.
The agent and the qualified facility owner are jointly responsible for assuring that all work
performed at the qualified facility complies with all technical requirements of all applicable
construction codes whether or not such work is specifically inspected.

[A] 117.6 Revocation of annual facilities permit.
The building official may suspend or revoke an Annual Facilities Permit when the qualified facility
fails to comply with any of the program policies or for willful violation of any provision of this


Code. Violations that may result in annual permit suspension or revocation include, but are not
limited to, one or more of the following:

1. Performing construction work without an agent as required in this section.
2. Performing construction work without the agent’s knowledge or consent.
3. Concealing work without inspection approval or authorization.
4. Refusal to uncover concealed work.
5. Construction or installing work contrary to inspection orders.
6. Performing construction work prior to approval from the Annual Facilities Program.
7. Failure to report all construction work done under authority of the annual permit.
8. Refusal to eliminate unsafe hazards listed in Section 116 of these administrative
provisions.
9. Failure to remain current on payment for plan review and inspection services.

An Annual Facilities Permit may be reinstated after all violations have been remedied to the



T
satisfaction of the building official. If compliance involves actual work, a separate permit as
required under Section 105 of these administrative provisions must be obtained and such permit
is subject to regular permit fees as required under Section 109 of these administrative
provisions. An investigation fee shall be paid in the amount equal to that prescribed in Section
114 of these administrative provisions.




AF
Reinstatement of an annual permit, which has been suspended or revoked, requires payment of
a new Annual Facilities Permit Fee, as prescribed in this Section.


Justification: These provisions create the Annual Facilities Permit Program. Section 117.1
Scope has been revised to clarify that Permits are required per section 105 of this code.


Cost Impact: Minimal Cost Impact. This program frequently represents a time and cost savings
for customers.




R
Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
YES NO


Date: 01/28/2025
No action taken
Date: 02/20/2025
No action taken




D
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Chapter 1 [A], Section 118

Submitted by: International Building Code Administrative Committee

[A] SECTION 118 BUILDING MAINTENANCE REGISTRATION

[A] 118.1 General.
The holder of a building maintenance registration is exempt from Section 105.1 of these



T
administrative provisions for Level 1 alterations as defined in Section 503 of the International
Existing Building Code and repair or maintenance of the electrical, mechanical or plumbing
equipment in or on buildings, structures or premises owned and controlled by the registrant when
he or she complies with all the provisions of this section. All other provisions of this code shall be
complied with, including but not limited to, requirements for city inspection of structural, plumbing,
mechanical or electrical installations prior to covering any such work.




AF
[A] 118.2 Definition. For the purpose of this section, this term is defined as follows:

Building Maintenance Registration Means authority granted to a person, firm, corporation or
political entity to perform work as specifically authorized in this section when such parties have full-
time supervisory employees in the proper classification as described in Section 118.3 of these
administrative provisions.

[A] 118.3 Supervisor(s) required.
All electrical, mechanical or plumbing work done under a building maintenance registration shall
be performed or supervised by a licensed supervisor of the proper classification.




R 1.
2.
3.
4.
A licensed electrical supervisor may perform or supervise the electrical work.
A licensed mechanical supervisor may perform or supervise the mechanical work.
A licensed plumbing supervisor may perform or supervise the plumbing work
A licensed contractor may perform the duties and responsibilities of a licensed supervisor.

[A] 118.3.1 Application and fee for supervisor licenses.
The application shall be accompanied by a nonrefundable application fee as set forth in




D Appendix A.2 of the Phoenix City Code. Unless revoked for cause, a supervisor’s license shall
run with the building maintenance registration as long as the supervisor is employed by the
registrant.

[A] 118.3.2 Supervisor qualification.
A qualified supervisor must meet one of the following criteria:

1. A person licensed by the State of Arizona as a licensed contractor (qualified person) in
a category of work covered by this section.
2. A licensed electrical supervisor must hold a current IAEI Electrical General or ICC
Commercial Electrical Inspector certification.
3. A licensed mechanical supervisor must hold a current IAPMO Mechanical Inspector or
ICC Commercial Mechanical Inspector certification.



4. A licensed plumbing supervisor must hold a current IAPMO Plumbing Inspector or
ICC Commercial Plumbing Inspector certification.

[A] 118.3.3 Revocation of supervisor’s license.
The building official may revoke or temporarily suspend any supervisor’s license granted
hereunder for cause. Before taking such action, the building official shall request, in writing,
the person against who such action is contemplated to appear before him or her to show
cause why such disciplinary action should not be taken. The supervisor whose license is
revoked or suspended shall be notified of such action by certified mail. It shall be unlawful to
perform any work in conflict with such notice.

[A] 118.4 Application and fee for building maintenance registration.
Every applicant for a building maintenance registration shall fill out a form provided by the
Planning and Development Department and shall pay an application fee at time of filing in the
amount as set forth in Appendix A.2 of the Phoenix City Code for each class of supervisor in his or



T
her employ. The form shall include at least the following:

1. The name of the holder of the registration who is authorized and has the authority to act
for the building owner(s).
2. The name of the licensed supervisor(s) or the contractor who will supervise or perform the
work.




AF
3. Copies of current code certifications for each supervisor.
4. Action shall be taken by the building official on such application and the applicant shall be
notified accordingly.

[A] 118.5 Registration renewal.
Registrations shall be renewed not later than 12 months after initial registration by payment of a
renewal fee equal to the application fee. Any work performed after expiration shall be a violation of
this Code.

[A] 118.6 Validity of registration.
The registrations shall be valid only as long as the named licensed supervisor(s) shall remain in
the employ of the registrant in an active full-time capacity. If these personnel should leave the




R
employ of the registrant, the registrant shall notify the building official immediately. The registrant
shall be required to obtain proper personnel according to the requirements of this code within 90
days of notification to the building official. If personnel are not obtained within the 90-day period,
the registration shall be deemed suspended until such personnel are obtained.

[A] 118.7 Revocation of registration.
The building official may suspend or revoke a registration when the registrant fails to comply with




D
any of the registration responsibilities or for violation of any provision of this code. Violations which
may result in revocation of a building maintenance registration include, but are not limited to, one
or more of the following:

1. Performing construction work outside the scope of the registration without obtaining a
separate permit.
2. Performing construction work without a licensed supervisor as required in this section, or
without the supervisor’s knowledge, consent or oversight.
3. Concealing work without inspection approval or authorization.
4. Refusal to uncover concealed work.
5. Constructing or installing work contrary to inspection orders.
6. Failure to report all construction work done under authority of the building maintenance
registration.
7. Refusal to eliminate unsafe conditions listed in Section 116 of this code.


When the building official determines that a violation has occurred and that suspension or
revocation of the registration is warranted, the registrant shall be notified in writing by certified mail
and shall be given an opportunity for an administrative hearing with the building official. The
suspension or revocation shall take effect 10 days after the date of notification unless, within such
time, the registrant requests an administrative hearing. When an administrative hearing is
requested, the building official shall consider all evidence submitted at the hearing and shall notify
the registrant in writing of the final decision within 10 days following such hearing. All final
decisions of the building official to suspend or revoke a building maintenance registration may be
appealed in accordance with Section 113 of these administrative provisions.

[A] 118.8 Work report and inspections.
A brief outline of all work done under the registration shall be prepared by the licensed
supervisor(s) and shall be available to the building official during periodic inspections. Work shall
not be concealed without first obtaining inspection approval from the building official. Work



T
performed under the building maintenance registration shall be inspected at regular intervals not
exceeding six months.


Justification: These provisions create the Building Maintenance Registration and are carried
forward and expanded from previous editions of the Phoenix Building Construction Code. This




AF
allows minor work to be done under the supervision of a Licensed Supervisor without plan review
or prior approval from Planning & Development Department.


Cost Impact: Minimal Cost Impact. This simplification and streamlining of the process for minor
projects at registered facilities would save customers time and money.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
YES


Date: 01/28/2025
NO




R Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
No action taken
Date: 02/20/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken




D
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Chapter 1 [A], Section 119

Submitted by: International Building Code Administrative Committee

[A] SECTION 119 JOURNEYMAN AND APPRENTICE LICENSES

[A] 119.1 License required.
All work performed on plumbing and mechanical systems where a permit is required according to



T
Section 105 of these administrative provisions, is required to be performed by a Licensed
Journeyman or by an Apprentice as defined in this section.

Exceptions:
1. A person licensed by the State of Arizona as a licensed contractor (qualified person) in a
category of work covered by this section.




AF
2. The owner/occupant of a single-family residence when performing work covered by this
section on their residence or accessory buildings or structures.
3. Persons installing private water services, sewers or private sewage disposal systems as
defined in the Phoenix Plumbing Code need not obtain a Journeyman or Apprentice
license.

[A] 119.2 Definitions. For purposes of this section, terms are defined as follows:

1. Journeyman Licenses is the authority to perform or observe work requiring certain skills
as identified in this section and is issued by the building official upon successful
completion of an examination administered by the City of Phoenix.




R 2. Licensed Journeyman is a person skilled in an area of work covered by this section with
sufficient work experience to pass the Journeyman Test administered by the City of
Phoenix and is capable of performing work covered by their Journeyman License and
supervising the work of Apprentices covered by this section.

3. Apprentice is a person learning a skill and working in an area of work covered by this
section and working under the direct supervision of a Licensed Journeyman or State of




D Arizona Licensed Contractor.

[A] 119.3 Journeyman licenses.
Journeyman licenses shall be divided into classifications as follows:

1. Journeyman plumber. A Journeyman plumber may install plumbing systems within the
scope of the Phoenix Building Construction Code.
2. Journeyman gas fitter. A Journeyman gas fitter may install gas appliances, including
the piping and venting of these appliances within the scope of the Phoenix Building
Construction Code.
3. Journeyman mechanical systems installer. A Journeyman mechanical systems
installer may install all heating, ventilating, cooling, refrigeration or other mechanical
systems and equipment within the scope of the Phoenix Building Construction Code.



4. Apprentice. An Apprentice license may be issued to an individual who cannot qualify for
the Journeyman status in one of the categories listed above. Apprentice licenses are
valid for a period of one year.

[A] 119.4 Apprentice.
An apprentice must work under the supervision of a Licensed Journeyman or Arizona State
Licensed Contractor at all times work is being performed. The Licensed Journeyman or state
licensed contractor is responsible for the work of the apprentice.

[A] 119.5 Application for licenses.
Applicants shall submit either verification of experience (Journeyman) or notarized letter of
request (Apprentice) with appropriate fees and application forms supplied by the Planning &
Development Department. Applicants for Journeyman licenses shall schedule a test date
subsequent to their application being accepted, or provide evidence that they have passed an
approved third-party Journeyman license exam.

[A] 119.6 Fees.

T
Fees shall be paid upon submittal of the application for licensing. Test fees are refundable with
cause prior to any test being taken. No fees are refundable after a test has been taken,
regardless of the outcome. Fees are set forth in Appendix A.2 of the Phoenix City Code.




AF
[A] 119.7 Examinations.

[A] 119.7.1 Frequency of examinations.
Approved third-party agencies shall hold examinations no less frequently than once every three
months, in a suitable place, and for each classification for which there are applications on file.
Examinations shall be held more frequently when necessary. The Planning & Development
Department may also hold examinations when necessary.

[A] 119.7.2 Scope of examinations.
Each written examination shall relate specifically to that aspect of the trade(s) for which licensing
is being requested. Examinations shall be in writing, and shall be sufficiently comprehensive to
test the Code related knowledge of an applicant seeking Journeyman status. A prerequisite to




R
testing is verification that the applicant has four or more years of practical experience in the
discipline for which licensing is requested.

[A] 119.7.3 Notification of test results.
Licenses shall be issued to successful candidates within reasonable time after successful
completion of an examination. Applicants who fail to pass their examination(s) shall be notified
within 10 days after the examination. A retest date shall be established within 30 days.




D
[A] 119.8 Expiration and renewal.
Unless revoked for cause, all Journeyman licenses shall expire 36 months after the month in
which they were issued. To renew a Journeyman license, it is necessary to pass a renewal
examination and to pay a renewal fee as set forth in Appendix A.2 of the Phoenix City Code. An
examination will be mailed to each holder of a Journeyman license prior to expiration of the
current license. This examination is to be completed and returned within 60 days of license
expiration. Failure to renew within 60 days after expiration of a license will result in its revocation,
and will require that the initial Journeyman examination be taken before issuance of a new
Journeyman license.

[A] 119.9 Journeyman or apprentice identification card.
At the time of licensing each Journeyman or Apprentice, and at the time of renewing each
license, the Planning & Development Department shall provide each successful applicant with an


identification card showing the classification for which that person is licensed. At all times when
performing work that requires a license, such person shall have a Journeyman or Apprentice
card in their immediate possession, and shall produce it upon request of a Planning &
Development Department representative. It shall be the responsibility of the contractor to
determine that their workers are properly licensed.

Journeyman or apprentice licenses shall be issued only to individual persons and shall not be
transferable.

[A] 119.10 Revocation of licenses.
The Planning & Development Department may revoke any license granted hereunder for cause.
Upon notification, the licensee shall be given 30 days to justify in writing why revocation of the
license is unwarranted. Failure to respond to such notification will be taken as voluntary forfeiture
of the license and acceptance of any action revoking said license. Appeal of a final
administrative decision may be filed within 10 days of formal notification as provided in Section
113 of these administrative provisions.


T
Justification: This retains the Journeyman Licensing program that has historically been in
place in Phoenix. The program helps to ensure quality construction and is supported by the
construction industry.




AF
Cost Impact: Minimal Cost Impact. There may be a minimal additional cost to a project due to
the requirement to use qualified staff, however, this is frequently offset by reduction in rework.
The provision has been included in the Phoenix Building Construction Code for many years.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
YES NO


Date: 01/17/2025
No action taken




R
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved Denied
Date: 02/20/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:




D Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Section 202

Submitted by: International Building Code Committee

ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATION. One or more vehicle spaces served by an electric
vehicle charging system, including the electric vehicle charging system.

HIGH-RISE BUILDING. A building with an occupied floor or occupied occupiable roof located



T
more than 75 feet (22 860 mm) above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access.

Justification: To maintain consistency with the terminology in the U.S. Access Board’s
proposed rule to amend their accessibility guidelines for the Americans with Disabilities Act, the
added wording clarifies that the electrical vehicle charging system is part of the electric vehicle
charging station.




AF
The 2024 Code edition changed the terminology used throughout from occupied roof to
occupiable roof. The terminology in the definition did not get changed. This amendment corrects
this oversight, so the definition uses the same terminology as the rest of the Code.

Cost Impact: No cost impact. Use of consistent terminology.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
YES NO


Date: 12/18/2024




R Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
No action taken
Date: 02/27/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken




D
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Section 310.4.1

Submitted by: International Building Code Committee

310.4.1 Care facilities within a dwelling.
Care facilities for five or fewer persons receiving care that are within a single-family dwelling are
permitted to comply with the International Residential Code. provided Other than where
preempted by Arizona State Law, an automatic sprinkler system is installed in accordance



T
with Section 903.3.1.3 of this code or Section P2904 of the International Residential Code shall
be provided.

Justification: The Phoenix Fire Code has provisions brought in with the Bret Tarver Sprinkler
Ordinance for when fire sprinklers are required. See Section 903 of the Phoenix Fire Code.




AF
Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) 9-807 prohibits municipalities from requiring sprinklers in one-
and two-family dwellings but allowed the Bret Tarver Sprinkler Ordinance to do so, due to the
age of the Bret Tarver Sprinkler Ordinance. The Bret Tarver Sprinkler Ordinance’s requirement
places a threshold of 5,000 square feet on R-3 occupancies for where a sprinkler is required. As
such, this base code section cannot be enforced other than through that 5,000 square foot lens
associated with Bret Tarver. Where preempted, in single-family dwellings less than 5,000 square
feet, sprinklers are not required.

Cost Impact: Minimal cost impact. Where state law disallows the requirement for fire sprinklers,
there will be a cost reduction.




R
Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
YES NO


Date: 01/29/2025
No action taken
Date: 02/27/2025
No action taken




D
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Section 420.4

Submitted by: International Building Code Committee

[F] 420.4 Automatic sprinkler system.
Other than where preempted by Arizona State Law, Group R occupancies shall be equipped
throughout with an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903.2.8. Group I-1
occupancies shall be equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system in accordance



T
with Section 903.2.6. Quick-response or residential automatic sprinklers shall be installed in
accordance with Section 903.3.2.

Justification: The Phoenix Fire Code has provisions brought in with the Bret Tarver Sprinkler
Ordinance for when fire sprinklers are required that is more conservative than base code. See
Section 903 of the Phoenix Fire Code.




AF
Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) 9-807 prohibits municipalities from requiring sprinklers in one-
and two-family dwellings but allowed Bret Tarver to do so, due to the age of the Bret Tarver
ordinance.

The newly adopted Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) 9-462.13 has been interpreted at this time
to disallow requiring an automatic sprinkler system for all structures containing up to four
dwelling units. With the potential for this law to be altered or clarified, the provisions for fire
sprinklers are not removed from the code but are specifically pointing the user to the potential of
state preemption for their requirement. Where preempted, sprinklers are not required.

Cost Impact: Minimal cost impact. Where state law disallows the requirement for fire sprinklers,




R
there will be a cost reduction.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
YES NO


Date: 01/09/2025




D Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted

Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied




Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date: 02/27/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Section 706.1.1

Submitted by: International Building Code Committee

706.1.1 Party Walls.
Any wall located on a lot line between adjacent buildings, which is used or adapted for joint joint
service between the two buildings, shall be a party wall and constructed as a fire wall in
accordance with Section 706. Party walls shall be constructed without openings and shall create
separate buildings.
Exceptions:

T
1. Openings in a party wall separating an anchor building and a mall shall be in accordance
with Section 402.4.2.2.1.
2. Party walls and firewalls are not required on lot lines dividing a building for ownership
purposes where the aggregate height and area of the portions of the building located on




AF
both sides of the lot line do not exceed the maximum height and area requirements of
this code. The height of the portions of the building on each side of the lot line shall not
exceed the maximum height requirements of this code. For the building official’s review
and approval, the official shall be provided with copies of dedicated access easements
and contractual agreements that permit the owners of portions of the building located on
either side of the lot line access to the other side for purposes of maintaining fire and life
safety systems necessary for the operation of the building.

Justification: Italicizing the word “joint” is not appropriate because the code definition is not
related to the use of the word in this context.

The term “party wall” must be incorporated into the first sentence of the code text because titles




R
are only provided as general descriptions of the section, and not adopted as part of the code
text.

It is appropriate to aggregate the area of portions of the building on both sides of the lot line for
compliance with the maximum area requirements of this code. However, aggregating the height
of each portion of the building is inappropriate for determining compliance with maximum height
requirements of this code.




D
Cost Impact: No cost impact.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Denied

Denied
YES NO


Date: 12/18/2024
No action taken
Date: 02/27/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee Date: 05/21/2025


Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken




T
AF
R
D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Section 708.3

Submitted by: International Building Code Committee

708.3 Fire-resistance rating.
Fire partitions shall have a fire-resistance rating of not less than 1 hour except when required by
Section 420.2 in a building that does not have an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with
Section 903.2.8. Where fire partitions are required by Section 420.2 and the building does not



T
have an automatic sprinkler system the fire-resistance rating shall be not less than 2 hours.
Where the fire partitions have a required fire-resistance rating of more than 1 hour, opening
protectives shall be provided in accordance with Table 716.1(2) for fire barriers having a fire-
resistance rating greater than 1 hour.
Exceptions:
1. Corridor walls permitted to have a 1/2-hour fire-resistance rating by Table 1020.2.




AF
2. Dwelling unit and sleeping unit separations in buildings of Types IIB, IIIB and VB
construction shall have fire-resistance ratings of not less than 1/2 hour
in buildings equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system in accordance
with Section 903.3.1.1.

Justification: The newly adopted Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) 9-462.13 has been
interpreted at this time to disallow requiring an automatic sprinkler system for all structures
containing up to four dwelling units.

The base code of the International Residential Code (IRC) includes provisions for structures
containing up to four dwelling units without automatic sprinkler systems by increasing the fire-
resistance rating of walls and horizontal assemblies in structures without automatic sprinkler




R
systems. This amendment brings this concept into the IBC for consistency. The fire-resistance
rating in this amendment is in line with the increase specified in the IRC.

Cost Impact: Minimal cost impact. Where state law disallows the requirement for fire sprinklers,
there may be a net cost increase or decrease from base code depending on the cost of the
additional passive fire protection versus the cost of the sprinkler system.




D
Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted

Approved as submitted

Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Modified and approved Denied
YES


Date: 12/18/2024
No action taken
Date: 02/27/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
NO




No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken


BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Section 711.2.4.3

Submitted by: International Building Code Committee

711.2.4.3 Dwelling units and sleeping units.
Horizontal assemblies serving as dwelling or sleeping unit separations in accordance
with Section 420.3 shall be not less than 1-hour fire-resistance-rated construction where the
building has an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903.2.8. The horizonal



T
assemblies shall have not less than a 2-hour fire-resistance rating for a building without an
automatic sprinkler system.
Exception: Horizontal assemblies separating dwelling units and sleeping units shall be not
less than 1/2-hour fire-resistance-rated construction in a building of Types IIB, IIIB and VB
construction, where the building is equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system in
accordance with Section 903.3.1.1.




AF
Justification: The newly adopted Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) 9-462.13 has been
interpreted at this time to disallow requiring an automatic sprinkler system for all structures
containing up to four dwelling units.

The base code of the International Residential Code (IRC) includes provisions for structures
containing up to four dwelling units without automatic sprinkler systems by increasing the fire-
resistance rating of walls and horizontal assemblies in structures without automatic sprinkler
systems. This amendment brings this concept into the IBC for consistency. The fire-resistance
rating in this amendment is in line with the increase specified in the IRC.

Cost Impact: Minimal cost impact. Where state law disallows the requirement for fire sprinklers,




R
there may be a net cost increase or decrease from base code depending on the cost of the
additional passive fire protection versus the cost of the sprinkler system.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
YES NO




D
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted


Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Denied

Denied
Date: 12/18/2024
No action taken
Date: 02/27/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Section 714.4.1.2

Submitted by: International Building Code Committee

714.4.1 Through penetrations.
Through penetrations of fire-resistance-rated walls shall comply with Section
714.4.1.1 or 714.4.1.2.
Note: The exception is not amended. See base code.

714.4.1.1 Fire-resistance-rated assemblies.

T
Through penetrations shall be protected using systems installed as tested in the approved fire-
resistance-rated assembly.

714.4.1.2 Through-Penetration firestop system.




AF
Through penetrations and non-recessed membrane penetrations shall be protected by
an approved penetration firestop system installed as tested in accordance with ASTM
E814 or UL 1479, with a minimum positive pressure differential of 0.01 inch of water (2.49 Pa)
and shall have an F rating of not less than the required fire-resistance rating of the wall
penetrated. Recessed fixtures shall comply with one of the exceptions to Section 714.4.2.

714.4.2 Membrane penetrations
Membrane penetrations shall comply with Section 714.4.1. Where walls or partitions are required
to have a fire-resistance rating, recessed fixtures shall be installed such that the required fire
resistance will not be reduced.
Note: The exceptions are not amended. See base code.




R
Justification:
The only amendment is to section 714.4.1.2. This is a clarification of a long-standing issue with
interpreting the IBC with respect to recessed membrane penetrations other than electrical boxes
and whether they need a T rating when tested to ASTM E814 or UL 1479. They do.

Exception 4 to Section 714.4.2 has a requirement for an F and T rating for these non-electrical




D
boxes, but the base code points the user to the potential to use Section 714.4.1.2 for these
situations that only contains an F rating. The use of base code Section 714.4.1.2 for only an F
rating is at odds with the second sentence of Section 714.4.2. See the definition of fire resistance
that includes retarding the passage of excessive heat. Due to the presence of this second
sentence of Section 714.4.2 the use of base code Section 714.4.1.2 without a T rating is not
currently allowed for recessed membrane penetrations. This amendment will clarify this.

Section 714.4.1.2 is amended as opposed to amending Section 714.4.2 directly, so that the
option of Section 714.4.1.1 is maintained. 714.4.1.1 allows the penetration to be just as it was
installed, where it was part of the wall’s test for the wall’s fire rating.


Cost Impact: No cost impact.
The second sentence of Section 714.4.2 already requires this. This is clarification.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process: YES NO

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee Date: 02/12/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee Date: 02/27/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Date: 04/22/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee Date: 05/21/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken



T
AF
R
D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Section 901

Submitted by: International Building Code Committee

901.1 Scope.
The provisions of this chapter shall specify where fire protection and life safety systems are
required and shall apply to the design, installation and operation of fire protection and life safety
systems.



T
901.1.1 City of Phoenix amendments to fire protection and life safety systems
The City of Phoenix amendments to the fire protection and life safety systems are found in
Chapter 9 of the most recently adopted version of the Phoenix Fire Code. Where conflicts
occur between the provisions of this chapter and Chapter 9 of the Phoenix Fire Code, the
provisions of the Phoenix Fire Code shall apply.




AF
Justification:
To better coordinate the fire protection and life safety systems requirements found in both the
Building Code and Fire Code and to avoid conflicts that may occur when providing the same
information in two separate locations, this amendment has been provided in the Building Code to
reference Chapter 9 of the Phoenix Fire Code for all City of Phoenix amendments to Chapter 9
fire protection and life safety systems.


Cost Impact: No cost impact.
This amendment will not in and of itself revise any code requirements.




R
Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
YES NO


Date: 04/16/2025
No action taken




D
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted




Approved as submitted
Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Date: N/A
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Section 1025.1

Submitted by: International Building Code Committee

1025.1 General.
Approved luminous egress path markings delineating the exit path shall be provided in all high-
rise buildings of Group A, B, E, I-1, M or R-1 occupancies in accordance with this section.




T
Justification: Removing the specific occupancy types and adding the verbiage of all will help
align the building department requirements with what is already required by the fire department.

Cost Impact: No cost impact.




AF
Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted


Development Advisory Board (DAB)


Approved as submitted
Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted

Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Denied
YES NO


Date: 12/18/2024
No action taken
Date: 02/27/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:




R Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken




D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Section 1025.2

Submitted by: International Building Code Committee

1025.2 Markings within exit components.
Egress path markings shall be provided in all interior exit stairways, interior exit ramps and exit
passageways in accordance with Sections 1025.2.1 through 1025.2.6.3.




T
Justification: This amendment clarifies that all interior exit stairways, interior exit ramps, and
exit passageways, in a high-rise building are required to have luminous egress path markings.
This provides consistency with the provisions in the Phoenix Fire Department policies and
eliminates unintended interpretation.

Cost Impact: No cost impact.




AF
Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
YES NO


Date: 12/18/2024
No action taken
Date: 02/27/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025




R Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Section 1101.1

Submitted by: International Building Code Committee

1101.1 Scope.
The provisions of this chapter and the Arizona Revised Statutes ARS sections 41-1492 through
41-1492.12 shall control the design and construction of facilities for accessibility for individuals
with disabilities.



T
Justification: It is required by state law to be included in the Phoenix Building Construction
Code.

Cost Impact: No cost impact.




AF
Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted

Approved as submitted

Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Modified and approved Denied
YES


Date: 12/18/2024
No action taken
Date: 02/27/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
NO




No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken




R
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
Date:
No action taken




D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Section 1102.1

Submitted by: International Building Code Committee

1102.1 Design.
Buildings and facilities shall be designed and constructed to be accessible in accordance with
this code and ICC A117.1 and in accordance with provisions State of Arizona Attorney General
Administrative Rules R10-3-401 through R-10-3-404 (2010 ADA Standards for Accessible



T
Design, referred to as “2010 Standards”, adopted by the U.S. Department of Justice), whichever
standard provides the greatest degree of accessibility.

The word “accessible”, appearing in all instances in Chapter 11, shall be italicized, including
when hyphenated with another word.




AF
Justification: It is required by State law to be included in the Phoenix Building Construction
Code.

The use of the term “accessible” and “accessible” in this chapter is inconsistent. To mitigate
misinterpretation, all instances of this term must be italicized to clearly indicate the requirement
to comply with the provisions of this chapter.

Cost Impact: No cost impact.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process: YES NO




R
ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Date: 12/18/2024
No action taken
Date: 02/27/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken




D
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Section 1103.2.3

Submitted by: Strategic Workgroup on Accessibility

1103.2.3 Detached dwellings Detached one- and two- family dwellings, their accessory
structures and their associated sites and facilities are not required to comply with this chapter
shall comply with Section R322 of the International Residential Code.




T
Justification: The general exception to accessibility is removed and a reference is provided to
the inclusive home design criteria in amended IRC Section R322.


Cost Impact: Minimal cost impact to provide these features during construction but can be a




AF
significant cost when these features need to be retrofitted into an already constructed home.


Staff Committee Rationale for Recommendation: Please see rationale on IRC R322
proposals.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
YES


Date: 03/18/2025
No action taken
NO




R
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved Denied
Date: 03/27/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:




D Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Section 1103.2.5

Submitted by: International Building Code Committee

1103.2.5 Construction sites.
Structures, sites, and equipment directly associated with the actual processes of construction
including, but not limited to, scaffolding, bridging, materials hoists, materials storage, or
construction trailers are not required to comply with this chapter. The public portions of



T
temporary sales offices/trailers shall be accessible. Accessible parking and an accessible route
from the accessible parking to the sales office/trailer and throughout the public portions of the
office/trailer, including the design center, shall be provided. Accessible toilet rooms shall be
provided.

Justification: This is an issue that has caused confusion in the past, so this clarification helps




AF
avoid that confusion.

Cost Impact: No cost impact.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
YES NO


Date: 12/18/2024
No action taken
Date: 02/27/2025
No action taken




R
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Section 1103.2.11

Submitted by: Strategic Workgroup on Accessibility

1103.2.11 Residential Group R-1 or R-3. Buildings of Group R-1 containing not more than five
dwelling units and sleeping units in aggregate for rent or hire that are also occupied as the
residence of the proprietor are not required to comply with this chapter. B and buildings of Group
R-3 congregate living facilities (transient) or boarding houses (transient) containing not more



T
than five sleeping units for rent or hire that are also occupied as the residence of the proprietor
are not required to comply with this chapter. shall comply with Section R322 of the International
Residential Code.


Justification: The general exception to accessibility is removed and a reference is provided to




AF
the inclusive home design criteria in amended IRC Section R322.


Cost Impact: Minimal cost impact to provide these features during construction but can be a
significant cost when these features need to be retrofitted into an already constructed home.


Staff Committee Rationale for Recommendation: Please see rationale on IRC R322
proposals.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process: YES NO




R
ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Denied

Denied
Date: 03/18/2025
No action taken
Date: 03/27/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025




D Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Section 1104.1

Submitted by: International Building Code Committee

1104.1 Site arrival points.
At least one accessible route within the site shall be provided from public transportation stops,
accessible parking, accessible electric vehicle charging spaces, accessible passenger loading
zones, and public streets or sidewalks to the accessible building entrance served.



T
Exception: Other than in buildings or facilities containing or serving Type B units,
an accessible route shall not be required between site arrival points and
the building or facility entrance if the only means of access between them is a vehicular way
not providing for pedestrian access.




AF
Justification: Added accessible electric vehicle charging spaces as site arrival points because
these are not necessarily accessible parking spaces; and EV charging spaces are proposed to
be identified in the ADA as site arrival points.

Cost Impact: No cost impact.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
YES


Date: 12/18/24
NO



No action taken




R
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved Denied
Date: 03/27/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:




D Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Section 1104.4

Submitted by: International Building Code Committee

1104.4 Multistory Multilevel buildings and facilities.
At least one accessible route shall connect each accessible story, mezzanine and occupiable
roofs in multilevel buildings and facilities.




T
Justification: The use of the term “multistory” instead of “multilevel” in this title has been
interpreted in the past to limit Section 1104.4 to multistory buildings and not multilevel buildings.
Confusion has stemmed from the related Section 206.2.3 of the 2010 ADA that uses the term
“multi-story” instead of multilevel. However, the definition of “story” in the ADA differs from the
definition in the Code. Section 1104.4 is written in such a way to meet or exceed the
requirements of the ADA and it is written in consideration of multilevel buildings and facilities, not




AF
just multistory buildings, and facilities.

Cost Impact: No cost impact.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
YES


Date: 12/18/24
NO



No action taken
Date: 02/27/2025
No action taken




R
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Section 1106.2

Submitted by: International Building Code Committee

1106.2 Required.
Where parking is provided, accessible parking spaces shall be provided in compliance with Table
1106.2, except as required by Sections 1106.3 through 1106.5. Where more than one parking
facility is provided on a site, the number of parking spaces required to be accessible shall be



T
calculated separately for each parking facility.
Exception: This section does not apply to parking spaces used exclusively for buses, trucks,
other delivery vehicles, law enforcement vehicles or vehicular impound and motor pools where
lots accessed by the public are provided with an accessible passenger loading zone.

Where parking lots, garages or passenger loading zones are provided, accessible parking




AF
spaces and accessible passenger loading zones shall be provided in accordance with the
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance and the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design.

Table 1106.2
1106.3
1106.4
1106.5
1106.6
1106.7

1106.8 Parking meters and pay stations.
Where parking meters and pay stations serve accessible parking spaces, such parking meters




R
and pay stations shall be accessible.

1106.9

Justification: The Phoenix Zoning Ordinance provides the scoping and technical provisions for
accessible parking and accessible passenger loading zones. This amendment deletes the
provisions in the PBCC and provides a reference to the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance and the ADA




D
Standards for Accessible Design to eliminate redundant provisions.

Cost Impact: No cost impact.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
YES


Date: 12/18/24
NO



No action taken
Date: 02/27/2025
No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Date: 04/22/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken


Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee Date: 05/21/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken




T
AF
R
D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Section 1107.2

Submitted by: International Building Code Committee

1107.2 Electric vehicle charging stations.
Electrical vehicle charging stations shall comply with Sections 1107.2.1, and 1107.2.2., 1107.2.3,
and 1007.2.4.




T
An electric vehicle charging station is not required to be a parking space, but if it also serves to
provide vehicle parking required by the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, it shall be considered a
separate parking facility and shall comply with the most restrictive requirements of both vehicle
space types.

Exceptions:




AF
1. Electrical vehicle charging stations provided to serve Group R-3 and R-4 occupancies are
not required to comply with this section.
2. Electric vehicle charging stations used exclusively by buses, trucks, other delivery vehicles,
law enforcement vehicles and motor pools are not required to comply with this section.

1107.2.1 Number of accessible vehicle spaces.
Not less than 5 percent of vehicle spaces on the site served by electrical vehicle charging
systems, but not fewer than one for each type of electric vehicle charging system, shall be
accessible.

At least 5 percent but not less than one electric vehicle charging space for each type of electric
vehicle charging system in an electric vehicle charging station shall be accessible.




R
When an accessible route from an electric vehicle charging station is provided to an accessible
entrance, the accessible electric vehicle charging spaces shall be placed on the shortest
practical accessible route to the accessible entrance relative to the other electric vehicle
charging spaces at the electric vehicle charging station.

1107.2.2 Vehicle space size.




D
Accessible electric vehicle charging spaces shall be comply with the requirements for a van
accessible parking space that is 132 inches (3350 mm) minimum in width and 240 inches (6096
mm) minimum in length with an adjoining access aisle that is 60 inches (1525 mm) minimum in
width. Access aisles shall extend the full length of the electric vehicle charging space. An
accessible electric vehicle charging space access aisle adjoining two accessible electric vehicle
charging spaces or an accessible parking space may be shared.

Accessible vehicle charging spaces, access aisles, and the vehicular ways serving them, shall
have a vertical clearance of 98 inches (2490 mm) minimum.

Measurement of accessible electric vehicle charging spaces and access aisles shall be made
from the centerline of the markings.
Exception: Where accessible electric vehicle charging spaces or their access aisles are not
adjacent to another accessible electric vehicle charging space or its access aisle, or


accessible parking space; measurements may include the full width of the line defining the
accessible electric vehicle charging space or its access aisle.

Access aisles shall adjoin an accessible route required by Sections 1104.1 and 1104.2.

Accessible electric vehicle charging spaces shall be designed to allow a stationary vehicle in the
accessible vehicle charging space from obstructing the required accessible route, the access
aisle, and the accessible operable parts clear floor space.

1107.2.3 Accessible electric vehicle space and access aisle surfaces.

Accessible electric vehicle charging spaces and access aisles shall have accessible floor
surfaces with slopes not steeper than 1:48. Changes in level are not permitted in the access
aisles.




T
Access aisles shall be on the same level as the vehicle charging spaces they serve, shall not
overlap vehicular ways, and shall be marked to discourage parking in them.

1107.2.4 Accessible electric vehicle charging system.

An electric vehicle charging system serving an accessible electric vehicle charging space shall be




AF
accessible, and on an accessible route; and shall comply with Section 1107.2.4.

Clear floor space at accessible operable parts shall be positioned for a parallel approach and
shall be centered on the operable part, except where multiple accessible operable parts are
present the clear floor space may be centered on the group of operable parts if the reach range
to each operable part is not exceeded.

Electric vehicle charging cables that exceed 5 pounds (22.2N) shall include a cable management
system to support the excess weight.

Except where a handset-type device is provided, an electric vehicle charging system that allows
for private listening shall provide a mode of operation for controlling the volume.




R
Except where a handset-type device is provided, an electric vehicle charging system that
provides non-private listening shall include an incremental volume control with output
amplification up to a level of at least 65dB. The volume shall automatically reset to the default
level after every use.

The content on a display screen, for an electric vehicle charging system that provides a display




D
screen, shall be visible from a point located 40 inches (1015mm) above the center of the clear
floor space for the display screen.

At least one mode of characters on a display screen, for an electric vehicle charging system that
provides a display screen, shall be in a sans serif font. Where a display zoom feature is not
provided, characters shall be 3/16 inch (4.8 mm) minimum in height based on the uppercase
letter ‘‘I’’. Characters shall contrast with their background with either light characters on a dark
background or dark characters on a light background.

Where flashing is used to convey information, indicate an action, prompt a response, or
distinguish a visual element, flashes shall not exceed a rate of three per second.

Where provided, status indicators shall be discernible visually, and by touch or sound.



Where provided, color coding shall not be used as the only means to convey information,
indicate an action, prompt a response, or distinguish a visual element.

Where provided, audible signals or cues shall not be used as the only means to convey
information, indicate an action, prompt a response, or distinguish a visual element.

Where provided, handset-type devices designed to be held to the ear shall provide volume gain
conforming to 47 CFR 68.317. If the handset-type device is corded, the cord shall be 29 inches
(735 mm) minimum in length. Handset-type devices shall reduce interference with hearing aid
technologies and provide a means for effective magnetic wireless coupling in conformance with
TIA–1083–B.

Where an electric vehicle charging system provides real-time video, the quality of the video shall
be sufficient to support communication using sign language.




T
Where an electric vehicle charging system displays or processes video with audio, synchronized
captioning of the audio shall be provided.


Justification: This amendment contains both scoping provisions and technical criteria for
accessible electric vehicle charging stations and associated elements in compliance with the




AF
requirements that are included in the U.S. Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance
Board’s (aka U.S. Access Board) proposed rule that will amend the accessibility guidelines which
are a codified part of the Americans with Disabilities Act. This amendment provides necessary
information in compliance with the proposed rule that was not available at the time the 2024 IBC
and the referenced ICC A117.1-17 was developed but will be required with amendment, in the
near future by the ADA. The minimum size of the space and the aisle are coordinated not to
conflict with the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance.


Cost Impact: No cost impact. The 2024 IBC already requires accessible EV charging stations
but neither the IBC, nor the ICC A117.1-17, include adequate technical criteria to make these
accessible. The technical criteria required to make these accessible will be specified by the ADA




R
shortly, so this amendment will have no impact on the cost of an EV charging station in Phoenix
relative to other jurisdictions.

Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
YES


Date: 3/10/2025
NO




D Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted

Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied




Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date: 3/27/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Section 1108.6.2.2.1

Submitted by: International Building Code Committee

1108.6.2.2.1 Type A units.
In Group R-2 occupancies containing more than 20 dwelling units or sleeping units, at least 2
percent but not less than one of the units shall be a Type A unit. All Group R-2 units on
a site shall be considered to determine the total number of units and the required number



T
of Type A units. Type A units shall be dispersed among the various classes of units. Where two
or more Type A units are provided, at least 5 percent but not less than one Type A unit shall
include a bathroom with a shower complying with ICC A117.1 for Type A units. In Group R-2
occupancies containing more than 20 dwelling units or sleeping units that are located within a
thirteen hundred twenty-foot radius of a light rail station platform, at least 6 percent, but not less
than one of the units within that radius shall be a Type A unit.




AF
Justification: This increases availability of more adaptable dwelling units and sleeping units
within a ¼ mile radius of a light rail station.

Cost Impact: No cost impact.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
YES NO


Date: 12/18/2024
No action taken




R
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved Denied
Date: 02/27/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:




D Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Section 1108.7.2

Submitted by: International Building Code Committee

1108.7.2 Multistory units.
A multistory dwelling unit or sleeping unit that is not provided with elevator service is not required
to be a Type A or Type B unit. Where a multistory unit is provided with external elevator service
to only one floor, the floor provided with elevator service shall be the primary entry to the unit,



T
shall comply with the requirements for a Type B unit and, where provided within the unit, a living
area, a kitchen, and a toilet facility shall be provided on that floor.

Justification: The Type A unit is a more adaptable version of the Type B unit. If a Type B unit is
not required, then a Type A unit is also not required.




AF
Cost Impact: No cost impact.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
YES


Date: 12/18/24
NO



No action taken
Date: 02/27/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken




R
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Section 1109.2

Submitted by: International Building Code Committee

1109.2 Assembly area seating.
A building, room or space used for assembly purposes with fixed
seating, bleachers, grandstands or folding and telescopic seating shall comply with Sections
1109.2.1 through 1109.2.5. Lawn seating shall comply with Section 1109.2.6. Assistive listening



T
systems shall comply with Section 1109.2.7. Performance areas viewed from assembly seating
areas shall comply with Section 1109.2.8. Dining areas shall comply with Section 1109.2.9
1110.14.

Justification: The 2024 IBC added Section 1110.14 for dining surfaces and created a potentially
confusing redundancy. This amendment provides reference to Section 1110.14 and removes




AF
reference to Section 1109.2.9 which is deleted by a separate amendment.

Cost Impact: No cost impact.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
YES


Date: 12/18/24
NO



No action taken
Date: 02/27/2025
No action taken




R
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Section 1109.2.9

Submitted by: International Building Code Committee

1109.2.9 Dining and drinking areas.
In dining and drinking areas, all interior and exterior floor areas shall be accessible and be on
an accessible route.
Exceptions:



T
1. An accessible route between accessible levels and stories above or below is not required
where permitted by Section 1104.4, Exception 1.
2. An accessible route to dining and drinking areas in a mezzanine is not required, provided
that the mezzanine contains less than 25 percent of the total combined area for dining
and drinking and the same services, and decor are provided in the accessible area.
3. In sports facilities, tiered dining areas providing seating required to be accessible shall be




AF
required to have accessible routes serving at least 25 percent of the dining area, provided
that accessible routes serve accessible seating and where each tier is provided with the
same services.
4. Employee-only work areas shall comply with Sections 1103.2.2 and 1104.3.1.

1109.2.9.1 Dining surfaces.
Where dining surfaces for the consumption of food or drink are provided, at least 5 percent, but
not less than one, of the dining surfaces for the seating and standing spaces shall be accessible
and be distributed throughout the facility and located on a level accessed by an accessible route.

Justification: Section 1109.2.9 is being deleted and the information included in Section 1110.14
by a separate amendment to eliminate a potentially confusing redundancy.




R
Cost Impact: No cost impact. No technical provisions have been changed.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
YES NO




D
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted


Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Denied

Denied
Date: 12/18/2024
No action taken
Date: 02/27/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Section 1110.2

Submitted by: International Building Code Committee

1110.2 Toilet and bathing facilities.

Exceptions:




T
3. Where multiple single-user toilet rooms or bathing rooms are clustered at a single location,
at least 50 percent but not less than one room for each use at each cluster shall be accessible.

Justification: The 2010 ADA Standards for Accessibility Design does not include bathrooms in
this exception. This amendment eliminates a conflict with the ADA provision.




AF
Cost Impact: No cost impact.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
YES


Date: 12/18/24
NO



No action taken
Date: 02/27/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken




R
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Section 1110.14.1

Submitted by: International Building Code Committee

1110.14.1 Dining surfaces.
Not less than 5 percent of the seating and standing space provided at fixed, built-in, and
movable dining surfaces shall be accessible. Where dining surfaces for the consumption of food
or drink are provided, at least 5 percent, but not less than one of the fixed or built-in dining



T
surfaces for the seating and standing spaces shall be accessible and at least 5 percent, but not
less than one of the moveable dining surfaces for the seating and standing spaces shall be
accessible.
In dining and drinking areas, all interior and exterior floor areas shall be accessible and be on
an accessible route.
Exceptions:




AF
1. An accessible route between accessible levels and stories above or below is not
required where permitted by Section 1104.4, Exception1.
2. An accessible route to dining and drinking areas in a mezzanine is not required,
provided that the mezzanine contains less than 25 percent of the total combined area
for dining and drinking and the same services, and decor are provided in the
accessible area.
3. In sports facilities, tiered dining areas providing seating required to be accessible shall
be required to have accessible routes serving at least 25 percent of the dining area,
provided that accessible routes serve accessible seating and where each tier is
provided with the same services.
4. Employee-only work areas shall comply with Section 1103.2.2 and 1104.3.1.




R
Justification: Title II and Title III of the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessibility Design regulates
fixed and built-in elements only. This clarifies that fixed and built-in dining surfaces must be
considered as a group separately from moveable dining surfaces to comply with the ADA. A
moveable accessible dining surface will not satisfy the requirement for an accessible fixed or
built-in dining surface. 5 percent of the moveable accessible dining surfaces were also required
by the 2018 Code and must be provided in the same area as the non-accessible moveable
dining surfaces. This amendment includes provisions originally in Sections 1109.2.9 and




D
1109.2.9.1 of the 2024 edition which have been deleted by a separate amendment and placed
into this Section to eliminate a potentially confusing redundancy.

Cost Impact: No cost impact. No technical provisions have been changed.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
YES


Date: 12/18/24
NO



No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee Date: 02/27/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken



Development Advisory Board (DAB) Date: 04/22/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee Date: 05/21/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken




T
AF
R
D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Section 1110.14.3

Submitted by: International Building Code Committee

1110.14.3 Dispersion.
Accessible seating and standing space at accessible fixed, built-in, or moveable dining or work
surfaces shall be distributed throughout the space or facility containing such elements and that
type of dining surface. Accessible seating and standing space at fixed or built-in accessible work



T
surfaces shall be distributed throughout the space or facility containing that type of work surface.
Accessible dining and work surfaces shall be located on a level accessed by an accessible
route.

Justification: The 2010 ADA Standards for Accessibility Design regulates fixed and built-in
elements only. This clarifies that fixed and built-in dining surfaces must be considered as a group




AF
separately from moveable dining surfaces and must be located in the same area as the non-
accessible fixed or built-in dining surfaces are located to comply with the ADA. A moveable
accessible dining surface will not satisfy the requirement for an accessible fixed or built-in dining
surface. Five percent of the moveable accessible dining surfaces were also required by the 2018
code and must be provided in the same area as the non-accessible moveable dining surfaces in
order not to conflict with Title II of the ADA when it applies. This amendment includes provisions
originally in Section 1109.2.9.1 of the 2024 edition which has been deleted by a separate
amendment and placed into this section to eliminate a potentially confusing redundancy.

Cost Impact: No cost impact.




R
Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
YES


Date: 1/9/25
NO



No action taken
Date: 02/27/2025
No action taken




D
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Section 1112.1

Submitted by: International Building Code Committee

1112.1 Signs. Required accessible elements shall be identified by the International Symbol of
Accessibility at the following locations.

11. Accessible electric vehicle charging spaces. Signs shall be 60 inches (1525 mm)



T
minimum above the surface of the electric vehicle charging space to the bottom of the sign.
Exception: In residential facilities, where electric vehicle charging spaces are
assigned spaces, identification of accessible electric vehicle charging spaces shall not
be required.

Justification: Added item 11 to comply with the requirement that is included in the U.S. Access




AF
Board’s proposed rule to amend their accessibility guidelines for the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

Cost Impact: The cost of a sign at each accessible EV charging space.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Denied
YES


Date: 01/9/2025
NO



No action taken
Date: 02/27/2025




R Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Section 1203.1

Submitted by: International Building Code Committee

SECTION 1203 TEMPERATURE CONTROL

1203.1 Equipment and systems.
Interior spaces intended for human occupancy shall be provided with active or passive space-



T
heating and cooling systems capable of maintaining an indoor temperature not less than 68°F
(20°C) between 70°F (21°C) and 82°F (28°C) (if cooled by air conditioning, and 86°F (30°C) if
cooled by evaporative cooling), measured at a point 3 feet (914mm) above the floor in the center
of the room. on the design heating day The installation of portable space heaters or coolers
shall not be used to achieve compliance with this section.




AF
Exception: Space heating and cooling systems are not required for:

1. Interior spaces where the primary purpose of the space is not associated with human
comfort.
2. Group F, H, S or U occupancies.


Justification: This amendment requires newly constructed buildings to comply with City of
Phoenix Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance Sec. 39-5(B)(1)(b), which deals with buildings
that are rented. All newly constructed buildings may be rented at some point in their life.




R
Cost Impact: Significant cost impact; this amendment requires cooling in all interior spaces
intended for human occupancy, which the base code does not.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process: YES NO




D
ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted


Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Denied

Denied
Date: 01/09/2025
No action taken
Date: 03/27/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Section 1607.1

Submitted by: International Building Code Committee

TABLE 1607.1 MINIMUM UNIFORMLY DISTRIBUTED LIVE LOADS, L0, AND MINIMUM
CONCENTRATED LIVE LOADS
UNIFORM CONCENTRATED ALSO SEE
OCCUPANCY OR USE (psf) (POUNDS) SECTION

27. Residential
T
One- and two-family dwellings:
Habitable attics and
sleeping areas
All other areas
30 40

-
Section
1607.21




AF
Justification: Actual live loads applied to spaces at any given moment in time are dramatically
lower than the values shown throughout the building code, however the structure must be
capable of sustaining and not failing under the maximum reasonable load that it will be exposed
to during short-duration, high-intensity, extraordinary, or transient loading events. This could
include building material placements during remodels as well as crowding in special or
emergency situations. The commentary to ASCE 7-16 identifies the mean maximum load for
owner occupied residential uses as 38 psf. The mean maximum load for sleeping areas used
only for that purpose is not identified and may not have been studied but is likely at or below
30psf. During the structure’s reasonable lifetime, the potential for the use of a bedroom to be
used in the same manner as other areas in residential occupancies is quite high and so this
amendment is maintained from previous code versions to make failure during the loading
scenarios identified less likely.




R
Cost Impact: No cost impact. This code amendment will not be a change from previous editions
of the Phoenix building codes.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process: YES NO




D
ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted


Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Denied

Denied
Date: 1/9/25
No action taken
Date: 02/27/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Section 1611.1

Submitted by: International Building Code Committee

1611.1 Design rain loads
Each portion of a roof shall be designed to sustain the load of rainwater as per the requirements
of Chapter 8 of ASCE 7. Rain loads shall be based on the summation of the static head, ds,
hydraulic head, dh, and ponding head, dp, using Equation 16-20. The hydraulic head shall be



T
based on hydraulic tests data or hydraulic calculations assuming a flow rate corresponding to a
rainfall intensity equal to or greater than the 15-minute duration storm with return period given in
Table 1611.1. Rainfall intensity shall be determined in inches per hour for 15-minute duration
storms for the risk categories given in Table 1611.1 for the location of the structure. Approved
15-minute duration rainfall intensity values are available at https://asce7hazardtool.online, or an
approved equivalent. The ponding head shall be based on structural analysis as the depth of




AF
water due to deflections of the roof subjected to unfactored rain load and unfactored dead load.

Justification: The 2024 IBC is using rainfall intensity based on a 15-minute duration. The base
model code previously used a 60-minute intensity. Previous editions of the code provided figures
to determine the intensity of rainfall. The code removed the figures when it changed to 15-minute
average rainfall intensity. This leaves the designer to find an acceptable source of rainfall data
and provide it when they did not need to before. This code amendment will directly allow the use
of the data from the ASCE website, as it is already frequently used for seismic accelerations and
wind speeds. The website identified in this code amendment is in the base model code in
Section 1609.3 for identifying acceptable sources for wind speeds.

Cost Impact: No cost impact.




R
Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
YES


Date: 01/9/2025
NO



No action taken




D
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted




Approved as submitted
Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Date: 02/27/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Section 1612.3

Submitted by: International Building Code Committee

1612.3 Establishment of flood hazard areas.
To establish flood hazard areas, the applicable governing authority shall adopt a flood hazard
map and supporting data. The flood hazard map shall include, at a minimum, areas of special
flood hazard as identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in an engineering



T
report entitled “The Flood Insurance Study for [insert name of jurisdiction],”dated [insert date
of issuance], as amended or revised with the accompanying Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)
and Flood Boundary and Floodway Map (FBFM) and related supporting data along with any
revisions thereto. The adopted flood hazard map and supporting data are hereby adopted by
reference and declared to be part of this section.




AF
Flood hazard areas for use in this code are established in Phoenix City Code Chapter 32B

Justification: The City Code establishes the City’s flood hazard areas.

Cost Impact: No cost impact.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
YES NO


Date: 01/9/2025
No action taken




R
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved Denied
Date: 02/27/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:




D Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Section 1613.1

Submitted by: International Building Code Committee

1613.1.1 Risk Category III and IV Seismic Design Category.
ASCE 7-22 Section 11.7 is amended as follows:

Risk Category I and II buildings and other structures assigned to Seismic Design Category A



T
need only comply with the requirements of Section 1.4. Nonstructural components in SDC A are
exempt from seismic design requirements. In addition, tanks assigned to Risk Category IV shall
satisfy freeboard requirement in Section 15.6.5.1. Risk Category III and IV structures shall be
designed to a minimum seismic design category of B.

Exception: Where the site class is determined via shear wave velocity testing of the top 100 feet




AF
of soil and Section 11.6 indicates so, Risk Category III and IV structures are permitted to be
designed to Seismic Design Category A and only comply with Section 1.4.

Justification: The seismic design category of a structure is dependent upon risk category,
location, and soil properties at the site. Frequently, the soil properties are estimated, as opposed
to directly investigated. This estimation method is much less robust than direct measurement of
the soil’s shear wave velocity. As such, when this estimation method is used to determine a
seismic design category of A at a site, there is a large risk that this is incorrectly assigned, and
that risk is too high for structures that represent a substantial hazard to human life or serve as
essential facilities.

Cost Impact: Cost impact is minimal. Possible cost of earthquake analysis for high-risk category




R
structures.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
YES


Date: 01/9/2025
NO




D Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted

Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied




Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date: 02/27/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Section 1704.1

Submitted by: International Building Code Committee

SECTION 1704
SPECIAL INSPECTIONS AND TESTS, CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBILITY AND
STRUCTURAL OBSERVATION
1704.1 General.



T
Special inspections and tests, statements of special inspections, responsibilities of contractors,
submittals to the building official and structural observations shall meet the applicable
requirements of this section.

Justification: This section includes observations for electrical, mechanical, and plumbing, not
just structural.




AF
Cost Impact: No cost impact.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Denied

Denied
YES


Date: 01/9/2025
NO



No action taken
Date: 03/27/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025




R Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Section 1704.6

Submitted by: International Building Code Committee

1704.6 Structural observations
Where required by the provisions of Section 1704.6.1, the owner or the owner’s authorized agent
shall employ a the registered design professional responsible for the structural design, or
another registered design professional who is familiar with the structural design and is



T
acceptable to the building official to perform structural observations. The structural observer shall
visually observe representative locations of structural systems, details and load paths for general
conformance to the approved construction documents. Structural observation does not include or
waive the responsibility for the inspections in Section 110 or the special inspections in Section
1705 or other sections of this code. Structural observation shall be performed, at a minimum, at
significant stages of the construction. Prior to the commencement of observations, the structural




AF
observer shall submit to the building official a written statement identifying the frequency and
extent of structural observations. At the conclusion of the work included in the permit, the
structural observer shall submit to the building official a written statement that the site visits have
been made and identify any reported deficiencies that, to the best of the structural observer’s
knowledge, have not been resolved.

1704.6.1 Structural observations for structures
Structural observations shall be provided for those structures where one or more of the
following conditions exist:
1. The structure is classified as Risk Category III or IV.
2. The structure is a high-rise building.
3. The structure is assigned to Seismic Design Category E, and is greater than two stories




R above grade plane.
4. Such observation is required by the registered design professional responsible for the
structural design.
5. Such observation is specifically required by the building official.
6. The structure contains elevated post-tensioned concrete floors or roofs.
7. The building height is greater than 75 feet.
8. The structure is greater than three stories above grade plane.




D 1704.6.2 Statement of Observations
Where observations are required, the construction documents shall show a statement of
observations. This statement shall identify the frequency and extent of observations. The
frequency and extent shall be acceptable to the building official based on the complexity and
scope of work on the permit.

1704.6.3 Procedures
The registered design professional responsible for structural observation shall personally visit
the site prior to completion of the Certificate of Compliance and periodically during the course
of construction requiring structural observation as set forth in the inspection and observation
program for each project.




The registered design professional responsible for performing structural observation shall
complete a signed written report after each site visit. A copy of each report shall be kept on
the job site for review by an inspector at all times until the inspector has issued final approval.
Any and all deviations from the approved plans or specifications shall be immediately
reported to the contractor for correction and then, if uncorrected, shall be reported to the
registered design professional in responsible charge and to the building official.

In addition to individual reports, the registered design professional responsible for structural
observation shall file with the building official a written monthly progress report indicating the
dates of each site visit, the observations performed, any deviations noted from approved
plans and specifications and any resulting instructions or change orders issued to the
contractor.

1704.6.4 Certificate of compliance.
Upon completion of the portions of the work requiring structural observation, a Certificate of



T
Compliance shall be issued to the building official under the seal and signature of the
registered design professional responsible for such observation. A Certificate of Occupancy
will not be issued until the building official receives all required observation reports and the
Certificate of Compliance.

The Certificate of Compliance for structural observation shall read as follows:




AF
“I certify to the best of my knowledge the structural requirements of the Phoenix Building
Construction Code and approved plans and specifications have been complied with
insofar as the portion of the work requiring structural observation is concerned, except for
those deviations that have been previously reported. A guarantee that the contractor has
constructed the building in full accord with the plans and specifications is neither intended
nor implied.”

Justification: These requirements are necessary to outline the functioning of the required
observations for projects that are complex enough to require an engineer to visit the site to assist
having the complex project be constructed as designed.




R
Post-tensioned concrete relies more heavily on accurate placement of post-tensioned tendons
and mild reinforcement when compared to other types of concrete.

There had previously been an amendment for deferred units part of the lateral force resisting
system that was capturing more situations than intended, so this was removed, but policy can
still be set by the building official per item 5, where this should be required.




D
Cost Impact: Minimal cost impact. This amendment will require some complex structures to
have a site visit by a structural engineer.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Denied

Denied
YES


Date: 01/9/2025
NO



No action taken
Date: 03/27/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee Date:


Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken




T
AF
R
D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Section 1704.7

Submitted by: International Building Code Committee

1704.7 Electrical observations.
The owner shall employ the registered design professional responsible for the electrical design,
or another registered design professional who is familiar with the electrical design and is
acceptable to the building official to perform visual observation of complex electrical equipment



T
and systems for general conformance to the approved plans and specifications, including but not
limited to, placement and interconnection of equipment. Electrical observation shall be
performed at significant stages of the construction and when the installation is complete and
ready to be inspected. Electrical Observations are in addition to the inspections required by
Section 110 and the special inspections required by Section 1705.21, and shall be provided
when one of the following conditions exist:




AF
1. Installation or alteration of that portion of health care facility electrical systems which falls
within the scope of Article 517 of the National Electrical Code, including such systems
installed in facilities where outpatient surgical procedures are performed.
2. Installations or alteration of electrical systems over 600v.
3. Installation or alteration of electrical systems within locations classified as hazardous by
provisions of the National Electrical Code, except for gasoline dispensing installations and
systems located within storage garages, repair garages or lubritoriums.
4. When such observation is required by the registered design professional responsible for
the electrical design.
5. When such observation is specifically required by the building official.




R 1704.7.1 Statement of Observations
Where observations are required, the construction documents shall show a statement of
observations. This statement shall identify the frequency and extent of observations. The
frequency and extent shall be acceptable to the building official based on the complexity and
scope of work on the permit.

1704.7.2 Procedures.




D The registered design professional responsible for electrical observation shall personally visit
the site prior to completion of the Certificate of Compliance and periodically during the course
of construction requiring electrical observation as set forth in the inspection and observation
program for each project.

The registered design professional responsible for performing electrical observation shall
complete a signed written report after each site visit. A copy of each report shall be kept on
the job site for review by an inspector at all times until the inspector has issued final approval.
Any and all deviations from the approved plans or specifications shall be immediately
reported to the contractor for correction and then, if uncorrected, shall be reported to the
registered design professional in responsible charge and to the building official.

In addition to individual reports, the registered design professional responsible for electrical
observation shall file with the building official a written monthly progress report indicating the


dates of each site visit, the observations performed, any deviations noted from approved
plans and specifications and any resulting instructions or change orders issued to the
contractor.

1704.7.3 Certificate of compliance.
Upon completion of the portions of the work requiring electrical observation, a Certificate of
Compliance shall be issued to the building official under the seal and signature of the
registered design professional responsible for such observation. A Certificate of Occupancy
will not be issued until the building official receives all required observation reports and the
Certificates of Compliance.

The Certificate of Compliance for electrical observation shall read as follows:

“I certify to the best of my knowledge the electrical requirements of the Phoenix Building
Construction Code and approved plans and specifications have been complied with



T
insofar as the portion of the work requiring electrical observation is concerned, except for
those deviations that have been previously reported. A guarantee that the contractor has
constructed the building in full accord with the plans and specifications is neither intended
nor implied.”

Justification: The above types of electrical work requiring Electrical Observations involve higher




AF
hazards and more complex systems. In addition to electrical inspections performed by City of
Phoenix electrical inspectors and any required Special Electrical Inspections; these work types
require Electrical Observations performed by a (State of Arizona) Registered Professional
Electrical Engineer.

Cost Impact: Minimal Cost Impact. This amendment will require some complex structures to
have a site visit by an electrical engineer.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
YES NO




R
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Date: 01/9/2025
No action taken
Date: 03/27/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025




D Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Section 1704.8

Submitted by: International Building Code Committee

1704.8 Mechanical observations.
The owner shall employ the registered design professional responsible for the mechanical
design, or another registered design professional who is familiar with the mechanical design and
is acceptable to the building official, to perform visual observation of complex mechanical



T
equipment and systems for general conformance to the approved plans and specifications,
including, but not limited to, placement and interconnection of equipment. Mechanical
observation shall be performed at significant stages of the construction and when the installation
is complete and ready to be inspected. Mechanical observations are in addition to the
inspections required by Section 110 and the special inspections required by Section 1705.20,
and shall be provided when one of the following conditions exist:




AF
1. Outdoor Air Engineered Ventilation System per the exception to International Mechanical
Code Section 403.2
2. Appliances and equipment that are not listed and labeled and are approved via Section
104.2.3.
3. When such observation is required by the registered design professional responsible for
the mechanical design.
4. When such observation is specifically required by the building official.

1704.8.1 Statement of Observations
Where observations are required, the construction documents shall show a statement of
observations. This statement shall identify the frequency and extent of observations. The




R frequency and extent shall be acceptable to the building official based on the complexity and
scope of work on the permit.

1704.8.2 Procedures.
The registered design professional responsible for mechanical observation shall personally
visit the site prior to completion of the Certificate of Compliance and periodically during the
course of construction requiring mechanical observation as set forth in the inspection and




D observation program for each project.

The registered design professional responsible for performing mechanical observation shall
complete a signed written report after each site visit. A copy of each report shall be kept on
the job site for review by an inspector at all times until the inspector has issued final approval.
Any and all deviations from the approved plans or specifications shall be immediately
reported to the contractor for correction and then, if uncorrected, shall be reported to the
registered design professional in responsible charge and to the building official.

In addition to individual reports, the registered design professional responsible for mechanical
observation shall file with the building official a written monthly progress report indicating the
dates of each site visit, the observations performed, any deviations noted from approved
plans and specifications and any resulting instructions or change orders issued to the
contractor.


1704.8.3 Certificate of compliance.
Upon completion of the portions of the work requiring mechanical observation, a Certificate of
Compliance shall be issued to the building official under the seal and signature of the
registered design professional responsible for such observation. A Certificate of Occupancy
will not be issued until the building official receives all required observation reports and the
Certificates of Compliance.

The Certificate of Compliance for mechanical observation shall read as follows:

“I certify to the best of my knowledge the mechanical requirements of the Phoenix
Building Construction Code and approved plans and specifications have been
complied with insofar as the portion of the work requiring mechanical observation is
concerned, except for those deviations that have been previously reported. A
guarantee that the contractor has constructed the building in full accord with the plans



T
and specifications is neither intended nor implied.”

Justification: The above types of mechanical work requiring Mechanical Observations involve
more complex systems. In addition to mechanical inspections performed by City of Phoenix
mechanical inspectors and any required Special Mechanical Inspections; these work types
require mechanical observations performed by a (State of Arizona) Registered Professional




AF
Mechanical Engineer.

Cost Impact: Minimal Cost Impact. Increased costs associated with hiring a registered design
professional to perform mechanical observations.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Denied
YES


Date: 01/9/2025
NO



No action taken
Date: 03/27/2025




R Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Section 1704.9

Submitted by: International Building Code Committee

1704.9 Plumbing observations.
The owner shall employ the registered design professional responsible for the plumbing design,
or another registered design professional who is familiar with the plumbing design and is
acceptable to the building official, to perform visual observation of complex plumbing equipment



T
and systems for general conformance to the approved plans and specifications, including, but
not limited to, placement and interconnection of equipment. Plumbing observation shall be
performed at significant stages of the construction and when the installation is complete and
ready to be inspected. Plumbing observations are in addition to the inspections required by
Section 110 and the special inspections required by Section 1705.21 and shall be provided when
one of the following conditions exist:

1.
2.
3.
4.
AF
Siphonic Roof Drainage Systems
Alternative Engineered Designs per the International Plumbing Code.
Peak water demand and pipe sizing per the Uniform Plumbing Code.
When such observation is required by the registered design professional responsible for
the plumbing design.
5. When such observation is specifically required by the building official.

1704.9.1 Statement of Observations
Where observations are required, the construction documents shall show a statement of
observations. This statement shall identify the frequency and extent of observations. The
frequency and extent shall be acceptable to the building official based on the complexity and




R
scope of work on the permit.

1704.9.2 Procedures.
The registered design professional responsible for plumbing observation shall personally visit
the site prior to completion of the Certificate of Compliance and periodically during the course
of construction requiring plumbing observation as set forth in the inspection and observation
program for each project.




D The registered design professional responsible for performing plumbing observation shall
complete a signed written report after each site visit. A copy of each report shall be kept on
the job site for review by an inspector at all times until the inspector has issued final approval.
Any and all deviations from the approved plans or specifications shall be immediately
reported to the contractor for correction and then, if uncorrected, shall be reported to the
registered design professional in responsible charge and to the building official.

In addition to individual reports, the registered design professional responsible for plumbing
observation shall file with the building official a written monthly progress report indicating the
dates of each site visit, observations performed, any deviations noted from approved plans
and specifications and any resulting instructions or change orders issued to the contractor.




1704.9.3 Certificate of compliance.
Upon completion of the portions of the work requiring plumbing observation, a Certificate of
Compliance shall be issued to the building official under the seal and signature of the
registered design professional responsible for such observation. A Certificate of Occupancy
will not be issued until the building official receives all required observation special inspection
reports and the Certificates of Compliance.

The Certificate of Compliance for plumbing observation shall read as follows:

“I certify to the best of my knowledge the plumbing requirements of the Phoenix
Building Construction Code and approved plans and specifications have been
complied with insofar as the portion of the work requiring plumbing observation is
concerned, except for those deviations that have been previously reported. A
guarantee that the contractor has constructed the building in full accord with the plans
and specifications is neither intended nor implied.”



T
Justification: The above types of plumbing work requiring Plumbing Observations involve more
complex systems. In addition to plumbing inspections performed by City of Phoenix plumbing
inspectors and any required Special Plumbing Inspections; these work types require plumbing
observations performed by a (State of Arizona) registered design professional.




AF
Cost Impact: Minimal Cost Impact. Increased costs associated with hiring a registered design
professional to perform plumbing observations.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Denied

Denied
YES


Date: 01/9/2025
NO



No action taken
Date: 03/27/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025




R Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Section 1705.21

Submitted by: International Building Code Committee

1705.21 Electrical special inspections.
The types of equipment or installations noted below shall be tested or inspected by a special
inspector.




T
1. Ground-fault protection performance tests for equipment provided with ground-fault
protection.
2. Switchboards, panelboards, motor control centers and other equipment rated at 1,000
amperes or more, or over 600 volts.
3. Transformers rated 100 KVA or more, single phase; or 300 KVA or more, three phase.
4. Conductors that supply equipment rated at 1,000 amperes or more, or over 600 volts.




AF
5. Emergency and standby power systems, including switchboards, panelboards, distribution
boards, transfer equipment, power source, conductors, fire pumps and exhaust and
ventilation fans.
6. Selective Coordination - This includes verification of the installation in accordance with the
required selective coordination study.
7. Special cases – Work which, in the opinion of the building official, involves unusual
hazards or conditions.

Exception: The building official may waive the requirement for special inspection if the
construction is of a minor nature.

Justification: These requirements were previously included in an amendment in 2018 IBC and




R
specify the items in electrical design that require Special Inspection. The above types of
electrical work requiring Special Electrical Inspections involve higher hazards and more complex
systems. In addition to electrical inspections performed by City of Phoenix electrical inspectors;
these work types require Special Electrical Inspections by qualified third-party special inspectors.

These special inspections generally include:
1. Visual inspection for physical damage, proper device settings, and verification of




D compliance with the engineered drawings and specifications.
2. Electrical inspection to test for proper mechanical operation, and
3. Electrical testing to test for proper electrical connection / functioning and to detect
damaged electrical components prior to the equipment being cleared to be energized.

Cost Impact: Minimal Cost Impact
The cost is associated with hiring qualified electrical special inspectors.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
YES NO


2024 Code Committee Date: 12/12/2024
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken


Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee Date: 03/27/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Date: 04/22/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee Date: 05/21/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken




T
AF
R
D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Section 1705.22

Submitted by: International Building Code Committee

1705.22 Mechanical special inspections.
The types of equipment or installations noted below shall be tested or inspected by a special
inspector in accordance with regulations established by the building official:




T
1. Duct smoke detectors for air distribution systems as required by International
Mechanical Code section 606.5.
2. Fire, fire / smoke, radiation and smoke damper operation for dampers required by
International Mechanical Code section 607.2.
3. Installation of grease duct enclosure alternative systems allowed under the exceptions
to the International Mechanical Code section 506.3.11.




AF
4. Special cases—Work which, in the opinion of the building official, involves unusual
hazards or conditions.
5. Test and Balance report for air balance of ventilation systems installed in ambulatory
care and I-2 occupancies designed and installed in accordance with ASHRAE 170 as
required by International Mechanical Code section 407.1.

Exception: The building official may waive the requirement for special inspection if the
construction is of a minor nature.

Justification: These requirements were previously included in an amendment in 2018 IBC and
specify the items in mechanical design that require Special Inspection. The above types of
mechanical work requiring Special Mechanical Inspections involve more complex systems and




R
currently the City of Phoenix Inspection staff does not perform these types of inspections. In
addition to mechanical inspections performed by City of Phoenix mechanical inspectors; these
work types require Special Mechanical Inspections by qualified third-party special inspectors.

These special inspections generally include:
1. Visual inspection for physical damage, proper device settings, and verification of
compliance with the engineered drawings and specifications.




D 2. Mechanical inspection to test for proper mechanical operation.

Cost Impact: Minimal cost impact. The cost is associated with hiring qualified mechanical
special inspectors.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Denied
YES NO


Date: 12/18/2024
No action taken
Date: 03/27/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Date: 04/22/2025


Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee Date: 05/21/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken




T
AF
R
D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Section 1705.23

Submitted by: International Building Code Committee

1705.23 Plumbing special inspections.
The types of equipment or installations noted below shall be tested or inspected by a special
inspector.




T
1. Medical Gas and Vacuum Systems as required by International Plumbing Code
section 1202 and Uniform Plumbing Code Chapter 13.
2. Special cases - Work which, in the opinion of the building official, involves unusual
hazards or conditions.

Exception: The building official may waive the requirement for special inspection if the




AF
construction is of a minor nature.

Justification: These requirements were previously included in an amendment in 2018 IBC and
specify the items in plumbing design that require Special Inspection. The above types of
plumbing work requiring Special Plumbing Inspections involve more complex systems and
currently the City of Phoenix Inspection staff does not perform these types of inspections. In
addition to plumbing inspections performed by City of Phoenix plumbing inspectors; these work
types require Special Plumbing Inspections by qualified third-party special inspectors.

These special inspections generally include:
1. Visual inspection for physical damage, proper device settings, and verification of
compliance with the engineered drawings and specifications.




R 2. Plumbing inspection to test for proper mechanical operation.

Cost Impact: Minimal cost impact. The cost is associated with hiring qualified plumbing special
inspectors.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process: YES NO




D
ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted


Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Denied

Denied
Date: 12/18/2024
No action taken
Date: 03/27/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Section 1803.2

Submitted by: International Building Code Committee

1803.2 Investigation required.
Geotechnical investigations shall be conducted in accordance with Section 1803.3 through
1803.5.
Exceptions:



T
1. The building official shall be permitted to waive the requirement for a geotechnical
investigation where satisfactory data from adjacent areas is available that demonstrates
an investigation is not necessary for any of the conditions in Section 1803.5.1 through
1803.5.6 and Section 1803.5.10 and 1803.5.11
2. The building official shall be permitted to waive the requirement for a geotechnical
investigation for lightweight or temporary structures where reasonable presumptive load




AF
bearing values are used.

Justification: Phoenix has had a long-standing policy to allow the use of presumptive load-
bearing soil values found elsewhere in the code in lieu of a full geotechnical investigation for
some structures as these can be a large financial burden for projects that only involve small-
scale structures with low loads. This provision does not undo the powers found elsewhere in the
code for requiring a geotechnical investigation where the classification, strength, moisture
sensitivity or compressibility of the soil is in doubt. Additionally, the code compels a geotechnical
investigation where the area is likely to have expansive soil.

Cost Impact: Minimal cost impact. This amendment reduces the cost of construction for small
projects by not requiring a full geotechnical investigation.




R
Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
YES


Date: 01/9/2024
NO



No action taken




D
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted




Approved as submitted
Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Date: 02/27/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Section 1803.5.13

Submitted by: International Building Code Committee

1803.5.13 Post-tensioned slabs on ground.
A geotechnical investigation is required for the design of all structural post-tensioned slabs on
ground. A geotechnical investigation is not required where the post-tensioning is added only for
crack control with individual wall and column footings provided. Where required, the investigation



T
report shall include all soil parameters as outlined in PTI DC-10.5. Information required on the
drawings includes, but is not limited to, slab type, soil parameters, bearing value and depth,
coefficient of subgrade friction, soil subgrade modulus, em and ym for expansive soils and all
special inspection requirements.

Justification: Structural post-tensioned slabs on ground are complicated to design structurally




AF
and can only be designed correctly with soil information from the specific construction site.

Cost Impact: Minimal cost impact. A geotechnical investigation is required to complete these
designs.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Denied
YES


Date: 01/9/2024
NO



No action taken
Date: 02/27/2025




R Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Section 1806.2

Submitted by: International Building Code Committee

1806.2 Presumptive load-bearing values.
The load-bearing values used in design for undisturbed supporting soils, compacted fill per the
exception to Section 1804.6, and rock near the surface shall not exceed the values specified in
Table 1806.2 unless data to substantiate the use of higher values are submitted and approved.



T
Where the building official has reason to doubt the classification, strength or compressibility of
the soil or rock, the requirements of Section 1803.5.2 shall be satisfied.

Presumptive load-bearing values shall apply to materials with similar physical and engineering
characteristics. Mud, organic silt and organic clays (OL, OH), peat (Pt) and undocumented fill
shall not be assumed to have a presumptive load-bearing capacity unless data to substantiate




AF
the use of such a value are submitted.

Exception: A presumptive load-bearing capacity shall be permitted to be used where the
building official deems the load-bearing capacity is adequate for the support of lightweight or
temporary structures.

Justification: The presumptive values are associated with undisturbed soils of that classification
or with compacted fill of that classification. This is reflected in the code that undocumented fill
shall not be assumed to have a presumptive capacity. This change is simply to make this point
more obvious to increase clarity of the code and reduce confusion.

A querying of local geotechnical professionals as to what is considered undisturbed and how




R
long soil needs to return to an undisturbed state resulted in answers that it was at least
thousands of years. Once disturbed, soil is always disturbed and to obtain similar bearing values
again it must be appropriately compacted.

Cost Impact: No cost impact.




D
Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted


Development Advisory Board (DAB)


Approved as submitted
Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted

Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Denied
YES


Date: 01/9/2024
NO



No action taken
Date: 02/27/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken



BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Section 1807.3

Submitted by: International Building Code Committee

1807.3 Embedded posts and poles.
Designs to resist both axial and lateral loads employing posts or poles as columns embedded in
earth or in concrete footings in earth shall be in accordance with Sections 1807.3.1 through
1807.3.3 or ASABE EP 486.3

1807.3.1 Limitations

T
The design procedures outlined in this section are subject to the following limitations:
1. The frictional resistance for structural walls and slabs on silts and clays shall be limited to
one-half of the normal force imposed on the soil by the weight of the footing or slab.
2. Posts embedded in earth shall not be used to provide lateral support for structural or




AF
nonstructural materials such as plaster, masonry or concrete unless bracing is provided
that develops the limited deflection required.
3. The embedded posts or poles designed to these provisions are allowed to be considered
shallow foundations if the ratio of the depth of embedment to the least horizontal
dimension of the footing is less than or equal to six.

Wood poles shall be treated in accordance with AWPA U1 for sawn timber posts (Commodity
Specification A, Use Category 4B) and for round timber posts (Commodity Specification B, Use
Category 4B).

1807.3.2.3 Vertical Load.
The resistance to vertical loads shall be determined using the vertical foundation pressure set




R
forth in Table 1806.2, the downward shaft resistance of Section 1810.3.3.1.4, or as determined
in a geotechnical report specifically for this type of foundation.

Justification: Structures such as parking lot shade structures, canopies, drive through menus,
pole barns, and other structures are frequently supported by embedded posts and poles. The
question frequently comes up as to whether the more stringent deep foundation provisions need
to be applied over the shallow foundation provisions, which would void the purpose of this




D
section existing. This amendment answers this common question to reduce confusion.

These embedded posts and poles were added in the code as the foundation’s deformation under
lateral load is small, so that foundation movement approximates rigid body motion. This is the
definition of a shallow post foundation in the Shallow Post and Pier Foundation Design document
by the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers. This same concept is in IBC
Section 1810.2.4 for when the foundation is permitted to be idealized as rigid, so its identified
ratio is used here.

The 12-foot limitation is already in the code, but hidden in the terms of an equation, so this
amendment seeks to bring greater prominence to it.

The vertical load amendment is included here to allow shaft resistance to be used for these
types of low embedment footings in the prescriptive manner shown in 1810.3.3.1.4.


Cost Impact: Minimal cost impact. This amendment will reduce the cost of construction by
allowing these types of foundations to not follow the provisions in the deep foundations section.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process: YES NO

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee Date: 01/22/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee Date: 02/27/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Date: 04/22/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee Date: 05/21/2025
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
T
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




AF
R
D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Section 1905.6

Submitted by: International Building Code Committee

1905.6.1 Seismic Design Categories A and B.
In structures assigned to Seismic Design Category A or B, detached one- and two-family
dwellings three stories or less in height constructed with stud-bearing walls are permitted to have
plain concrete footings without longitudinal reinforcement.



T
1905.6.2 Seismic Design Categories A, B, C, D, E and F.
Structures assigned to Seismic Design Category C, D, E or F shall not have elements of
structural plain concrete, and structures of any Seismic Design Category shall not have any new
elements of structural plain concrete, except as follows:




AF
Amendment to Item 3, exception 1:

1. Where assigned to Seismic Design Category A, B, and C, detached one- and two-family
dwellings three stories or less in height constructed with stud-bearing walls are permitted
to have plain concrete footings without longitudinal reinforcement.

Justification: Unreinforced concrete structures exhibit poor performance from soil settlement
and in wind and earthquake events. Minimum reinforcing in concrete elements provides a
minimal level of structural integrity and crack mitigation to help with these performance issues.
This amendment maintains previous code requirements for reinforcing.

Cost Impact: Minimal cost impact. This will require minimum reinforcement in concrete that




R
does not meet an exception.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
YES


Date: 01/9/2025
NO




D Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted

Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied




Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date: 02/27/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Section 1907.2

Submitted by: International Building Code Committee

1907.2 Nonstructural slabs-on-ground.
Nonstructural slabs-on-ground shall be required to comply with Sections 1904.2, 1907.3, and
1907.4, and 1907.5. Portions of the nonstructural slabs-on-ground used to resist uplift forces or
overturning shall be designed in accordance with accepted engineering practice throughout the



T
entire portion designated as dead load to resist uplift forces or overturning.

Justification: Many structures have, and continue to be, constructed with post-tensioned slabs
on ground. If a tendon is cut throughout the life of the structure, it can cause serious injury to
people in the area. This amendment clarifies permanent identification of such slabs is required
for both structural and nonstructural slabs-on-ground.




AF
Cost Impact: No cost impact.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Denied

Denied
YES


Date: 01/9/2025
NO



No action taken
Date: 02/27/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025




R Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Section 1907.5

Submitted by: International Building Code Committee

1907.5 Post-tensioned slabs on ground.
All post-tensioned slabs on ground shall be permanently stamped, marked, or otherwise
identified in a conspicuous location indicated the slab is a post-tensioned slab. Conspicuous
locations include, but are not limited to, entrance porches, slabs at garage doors, or patio slabs.



T
Justification: Many structures have been, and continue to be, constructed with post-tensioned
slabs on ground. If a tendon is cut throughout the life of the structure, it can cause serious injury
to people in the area. The stamp provides a rapid identification that the slab is constructed with
tendons and the contractor will know to identify tendon locations prior to cutting or drilling into the
slab.




AF
Cost Impact: No cost impact.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Denied

Denied
YES


Date: 01/9/2025
NO



No action taken
Date: 02/27/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025




R Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Section 2106.1

Submitted by: International Building Code Committee

2106.1 Seismic design requirements for masonry.
Masonry structures and components shall comply with the requirements in Chapter 7 of TMS
402 depending on the structure’s seismic design category. All new participating and
nonparticipating masonry elements, regardless of seismic design category, shall meet the
following minimum reinforcement requirements:


T
Exception: Masonry veneer does not require this minimum reinforcement.

1. Vertical wall reinforcement of at least 0.20 square inch (129 mm2) in cross-sectional area
shall be provided continuously from support to support at each corner, at each side of




AF
each opening, at the ends of walls, at each side of movement joints, and at a maximum
spacing of 4 feet (1219 mm) apart horizontally throughout the wall.

2. Horizontal wall reinforcement not less than 0.20 square inch (129 mm2) in cross-
sectional area shall be provided (1) at the bottom and top of wall openings and extend at
least 24 inches (610 mm) but not less than 40 bar diameters past the opening, (2)
continuously at structurally connected roof and floor levels and at the top of walls, (3) at
the bottom of walls or in the top of foundations when doweled in walls, and (4) at a
maximum spacing of 10 feet (3048 mm) unless uniformly distributed joint reinforcement is
provided. Nonparticipating horizontally spanning masonry elements shall also comply
with the minimum requirements per TMS 420 7.4.3.1.1.




R 3. Where anchor bolts are used to connect horizontal elements to the tops of columns,
anchor bolts shall be placed within lateral ties. Lateral ties shall enclose both the vertical
bars in the column and the anchor bolts. There shall be a minimum of two No. 4 (M #13)
or three No. 3 (M #10) in the top 5 inches (127 mm) of the column.

Justification: Unreinforced masonry structures exhibit poor structural performance. Phoenix has
historically required minimal reinforcing in masonry structures to provide a minimal level of




D
structural integrity and crack mitigation to help with these performance issues. This amendment
maintains previous code requirements for reinforcing and provides clarification for participating
and nonparticipating masonry elements as defined by TMS.

Cost Impact: Minimal cost impact. This will require minimum reinforcement to be provided in
new masonry elements.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
YES


Date: 01/9/2025
NO



Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee Date: 02/27/2025


Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Date: 04/22/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee Date: 05/21/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken




T
AF
R
D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Section 2701.1

Submitted by: International Building Code Committee

2701.1 Scope.
The provisions of this chapter and NFPA 70 shall govern the design, construction, erection and
installation of the electrical components, appliances, equipment and systems used in buildings
and structures covered by this code. The International Fire Code, the International Property



T
Maintenance Code and NFPA 70 shall govern the use and maintenance of electrical
components, appliances, equipment and systems. The International Existing Building Code and
NFPA 70 shall govern the alteration, repair, relocation, replacement and addition of electrical
components, appliances, or equipment and systems. Emergency power systems shall be as
defined in the National Electrical Code (NFPA 70) Section 700.2. Standby power systems shall
be as defined in the National Electrical Code (NFPA 70) Section 701.2.




AF
Justification: Clarifies the definition of emergency and standby power systems consistent with
the installation code covering these systems, the National Electrical Code.

Cost Impact: No cost impact.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
YES NO


Date: 01/9/2025
No action taken




R
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved Denied
Date: 02/27/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:




D Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Section 2902.2

Submitted by: International Plumbing Code Committee

2902.2 Separate facilities.
Where plumbing fixtures are required, separate toilet facilities shall be provided for each sex.

Exceptions:



T
1. Separate toilet facilities shall not be required for dwelling units and sleeping units.
2. Separate toilet facilities shall not be required in structures or tenant spaces with a
total occupant load, including both employees and customers, of 15 or fewer.
3. Separate toilet facilities shall not be required in mercantile occupancies in which the
maximum occupant load is 50 100 or fewer.




AF
4. Separate toilet facilities shall not be required in business occupancies in which the
maximum occupant load is 25 50 or fewer.
5. Separate toilet facilities shall not be required to be designated by sex where single-
user toilet rooms are provided in accordance with Section 2902.1.2.
6. Separate toilet facilities shall not be required where rooms having both water closets
and lavatory fixtures are designed for use by all persons regardless of sex and privacy
is provided for water closets in accordance with Section 405.3.4 of the International
Plumbing Code and for urinals in accordance with Section
405.3.5 of the International Plumbing Code.



Justification: These revisions are made to provide consistency between the 2024 UPC section




R
422.2, 2024 IBC section 2902.2 and the 2024 IPC to allow for small business and mercantile
occupancies to provide a single toilet facility for up to 50 occupants.

Cost Impact: Cost savings and increases will vary.

Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process: YES NO




D
ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted


Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Denied

Denied
Date: 01/09/2025
No action taken
Date: N/A
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Section 2902.6

Submitted by: International Building Code Committee

2902.6 Small occupancies.
Drinking fountains shall not be required for an occupant load of 15 50 or fewer.




T
Justification: This amendment is made to provide relief to small businesses from the cost of
installing drinking fountains, but also to save the physical space they would take up. This revision
is made to provide consistency between UPC, IPC, and IBC.


Cost Impact: Minimal cost impact. Cost savings.




AF
Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
YES


Date: 1/29/2025
NO



No action taken
Date: 02/27/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025




R Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Section 3002.4

Submitted by: ASME/Elevator Code Committee

3002.4 Elevator car to accommodate ambulance stretcher.
Where elevators are provided in buildings four or more stories above or four or more stories
below, grade plane, not fewer than one elevator shall be provided for fire department and
emergency medical access to all floors. The elevator car shall be of such a size and



T
arrangement to accommodate an ambulance stretcher 24 inches by 84 inches (610 mm by 2134
mm) with not less than 5-inch (127mm) radius corners, in the horizontal, open position and shall
be identified by the international symbol for emergency symbol for emergency medical services
(star of life). The symbol shall be not less than 3 inches (76 mm) in height and shall be placed
inside on both sides of the hoistway entrance. All elevators that require emergency medical
access shall be in accordance with 3002.4.1 through 3002.4.5.




AF
3002.4.1 Size of the emergency access elevator (EMS) cab.
The elevator car shall be of such a size and arrangement to accommodate ambulance
stretchers 24-inch by 84-inch (610mm by 2134mm) with not less than 5-inch (127mm)
radius corners, in the horizontal, open position. On Alterations to existing elevators,
insufficient car size will not be required to meet the stretcher accommodation size.

3002.4.2 Identification of the emergency access elevator.
All EMS elevators shall be identified by the international symbol for emergency medical
services (star of life). The symbol shall not be less than 3 inches (76mm) in height and
shall be placed on both sides of the elevator hoistway door frames at all floors.




R 3002.4.3 Emergency medical access (EMS) key switches and markings.
1. The medical service operation shall be activated and or controlled by a two position
on/off keyed switch, mounted near the elevator at every elevator floor landing and in
the elevator cab enclosure. key shall be removable only in the “off” position at the
lobbies and in the elevator cab enclosure.
2. Keys for EMS shall be of tubular 7 pin style 137 construction and shall have a biting
code of 6143521. the key shall be coded "FEOK1"




D 3. All fixtures for EMS shall be provided with a jewel light which will illuminate when
activated and shall be identified with the words "Medical Emergency”.
4. The "Medical Emergency" lettering shall be a minimum of 6 mm (0.25 in.) in height
with a color blue background.

3002.4.4 Lobby medical emergency operation.
1. When any of the elevator lobby EMS key switch are turned to the "on" position it shall
activate a continuous audible signal in the car. it shall also activate a visual "Medical
Emergency” signal in the car and at the floor landing where initiated.
2. After turning the switch to the “on" position the elevator shall return non-stop to the
floor where activated. All car calls shall be cancelled and unable to be registered. An
elevator on EMS shall not respond to hall calls.
3. Upon arrival to a floor in response to the EMS call, the elevator audible signal shall
cease, and the doors shall remain open until the lobby key switch is turned to the "off"


position. If the key switch is turned to the "off" position the visual indication shall
remain illuminated for 60 seconds. During this time emergency personnel must
activate the car EMS key switch to retain control of the car. Upon expiration of the
delay without activation of the car EMS switch the car shall return to normal service.

3002.4.5 Car operation.
1. Upon entering the car, it shall not accept a car call until the in-car EMS key switch is
turned to the "on" position. After turning the key on and registering a call, the car shall
automatically close and proceed to the call. All door zone detection devices shall be
operative. If more than one call is registered it shall stop at the nearest call and
cancel all others at which time a second choice can be made.
2. Upon arriving at the desired floor, the doors shall open automatically, and the elevator
shall remain on EMS until the key is turned to the "off" position.
3. If the car is on any other form of special service such as inspection, fire fighters, etc.
when EMS service is initiated, the audible and visual signal shall be activated but the



T
elevator shall not respond to the EMS call.
4. If the car has responded to a medical emergency call prior to a fire fighters service
call the EMS service shall not be overridden by fire fighters service call until the car
returns to the main floor, but the fireman service audible and visual signal shall be
activated.




AF
Justification: Original request in 2006 from Phoenix Fire Department. 2012 request for
clarification from elevator companies. 2025 clarification and wording for 2022 code.

Cost Impact: Minimal cost impact.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Denied
YES


Date: 01/9/2025
NO



No action taken
Date: 02/27/2025




R Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Section 3003.1.4

Submitted by: ASME/Elevator Code Committee

[F] 3003.1.4 Venting.
Where standby power is connected to elevators, the machine room, machine space,
control room or control space air conditioning ventilation or air conditioning shall be
connected to the standby power source.



T
Justification: To prevent elevator equipment from overheating while on building stand-by
power. To clarify existing policy.

Cost Impact: Cost of independent air conditioning system to offset cost of maintenance and
repairs.




AF
Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
YES


Date: 11/4/2024
NO



No action taken
Date: 02/27/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025




R Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Section 3005.2

Submitted by: ASME/Elevator Code Committee

3005.2 Temperature Control.
Elevator machine rooms, machinery spaces that contain the driving machine, and control rooms
or spaces that contain the operation or motion controller for elevator operation shall be provided
with an independent ventilation or air-conditioning system to protect against the overheating of



T
the electrical equipment. The system shall be capable of maintaining temperatures within the
range established for the elevator equipment not greater than 90 degrees to ensure safe and
normal operation of the elevator.

Justification: (1) Experience with existing elevator equipment that have been installed with air




AF
conditioning set to the upper limit of the manufacture’s operating range has shown a higher
percentage of equipment failures and shortened life cycle occur due to the extreme temperatures
in Phoenix. (2) To eliminate unsafe conditions created from heat related problems such as
controller doors being left open, and fans added to equipment rooms. (3) To avoid shutdowns.

Cost Impact: Cost of independent air conditioning system.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
YES


Date: 11/4/2024
NO



No action taken




R
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved Denied
Date: 02/27/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:




D Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Section 3105

Submitted by: International Building Code Committee

3105.1 General.
Awnings, shade structures, and canopies shall comply with the requirements of Sections 3105.2
and 3105.3 this section and other applicable sections of this code. All provisions of this code
shall apply to shade structures except as specifically modified by this section.



T
3105.1.5 Definitions. The following terms for the purposes of this section and as used
elsewhere in this code, shall have the meanings shown herein.

INDUSTRIAL SHADE CANOPY. An industrial shade canopy is an awning or canopy structure
which provides solar protection for outdoor Group F or Group S factory, industrial, or storage




AF
uses or equipment. Industrial shade canopies shall be individually classified as to occupancy
classification.

MERCANTILE SHADE CANOPY. A mercantile shade canopy is an awning or canopy structure
which provides solar protection for the outdoor display and sale of merchandise as well as
incidental storage as a Group M occupancy and a part of a Group M occupancy, and includes
the following:
1. A roof structure with not less than 50 percent of its perimeter wall area unenclosed; or
2. A slatted, lattice or louvered roof structure with not less than 25 percent of the roof area
open to the sky; or
3. An open structural framework covered with shade cloth fabric as specified in Section
3105.3. Mercantile shade canopies shall not apply to motor fuel dispensing facilities.




R
NON-IRC PATIO COVER. A non-IRC patio cover is an awning or canopy structure which
provides solar protection for outdoor seating, dining, walkway or pedestrian entry areas
accessory to a building of any occupancy, and includes the following:
1. A roof structure with not less than 50 percent of its perimeter wall area unenclosed; or
2. A slatted, lattice or louvered roof structure with not less than 25 percent of the roof area open
to the sky; or




D
3. An open structural framework covered with shade cloth fabric as specified in Section 3105.3.
Non-IRC patio covers shall not apply to canopies or roof structures over vehicle drive-through
lanes or porte-cocheres used by motor vehicles.

PARKING LOT SHADE STRUCTURE. A parking lot shade structure is a modified Group S-2
open parking garage. A parking lot shade structure is a freestanding roof supported on columns
and entirely open on all sides with no enclosures beneath the roof.

RETRACTABLE AWNING. A retractable awning is a cover with a frame that retracts against a
building or other structure to which it is entirely supported.




3105.2 Design and construction.
Awnings, shade structures, and canopies shall be designed and constructed to withstand wind or
other lateral loads, and live loads as required by Chapter 16 with due allowance for shape, open
construction and similar features that relieve the pressures or loads. Structural members shall be
protected to prevent deterioration. Awnings shall have frames of noncombustible material, fire-
retardant treated wood, heavy timber complying with Section 2304.11, or 1-hour construction
with combustible or noncombustible covers and shall be either fixed, retractable, folding or
collapsible.

3105.3 Awnings, shade structure, and canopy materials.
Awnings, shade structures, and canopies shall be provided with an approved covering that
complies with one of the following:
1. The fire propagation performance criteria of Test Method 1 or Test Method 2, as
appropriate, of NFPA 701.2.
2. Has a flame spread index not greater than 25 when tested in accordance with ASTM E84
or UL 723.3.


T
3. Meets all of the following criteria when tested in accordance with NFPA 286:
3.1 During the 40 kW exposure, flames shall not spread to the ceiling.
3.2 Flashover, as defined in NFPA 286, shall not occur.
3.3 The flame shall not spread to the outer extremity of the sample on any wall or ceiling.
3.4 The peak heat release rate throughout the test shall not exceed 800 kW.




AF
Exception: The fire propagation performance and flame spread index requirements shall not
apply to awnings installed on detached one- and two-family dwellings.

3105.4 Industrial shade canopies.
Industrial shade canopies shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 3 for their designated
occupancy except as specifically modified below.

3105.4.1 Construction and height.
Industrial shade canopies shall be limited to one story in height and shall be entirely of non-
combustible construction.




R 3105.4.2 Location on property.
Industrial shade canopies shall comply with Table 601 and 705.2 for fire-resistive protection.
Shade canopies attached to unlimited area buildings shall not encroach within the required
60 foot (18288 mm) open yard area. Not less than 50 percent of the shade canopy perimeter
area shall be unenclosed.

3105.4.3 Allowable area.




D Industrial shade canopies may be attached to a Group F or a Group S occupancy building of
any construction type when the total combined area of the building and the shade canopy
does not exceed the area limits specified in Sections 503 and 506 for the type of
construction for the building.

3105.4.4 Sprinkler systems.
Industrial shade canopies shall be protected by an automatic sprinkler system if required by
the Phoenix Fire Code.

3105.5 Mercantile shade canopies and non-IRC patio covers. Mercantile shade canopies and
non-IRC patio covers shall comply with the provisions of this code for their designated
occupancy, except as specifically modified below.




3105.5.1 Construction and height.
Mercantile shade canopies and non-IRC patio covers shall be limited to one story in
height and shall be entirely of non-combustible construction. Tables 601 and 705.2 shall
not apply for these structures.

Exceptions:

1. Shade membrane fabric compliant with Section 3105.3.

3105.5.2 Location on property.
Mercantile shade canopies and non-IRC patio covers shall be located not less than 5 feet
(915 mm) from the property line. Mercantile shade canopies and non-IRC patio covers
attached to unlimited area buildings shall not encroach within the required 60 foot (18 288
mm) open yard area.

3105.5.3 Allowable area.


T
Mercantile shade canopies may be attached to a Group M occupancy building and non-
IRC patio covers may be attached to any non-IRC building when the total combined area
of the building and the shade canopy does not exceed the area limits specified in
Sections 503 and 506 for the occupancy and type of construction of the building.
Mercantile shade canopies and non-IRC patio covers with a roof covering of shade




AF
membrane fabric shall not exceed 5,000 square feet in area.

3105.5.4 Sprinkler systems.
Mercantile shade canopies and non-IRC patio covers shall be protected by an automatic
sprinkler system as specified in this code and the Phoenix Fire Code.

3105.6 Parking lot shade structures.
Parking lot shade structures shall be used exclusively for the solar protection of parked motor
vehicles and shall not be used to shelter any other use.

3105.6.1 Construction and height.
Parking lot shade structures shall be entirely of noncombustible construction.




R Exceptions:

1. Shade membrane fabric compliant with Section 3105.4, can only be used with
a maximum allowable area of 12,000 square feet in compliance with Section
3105.7.3.




D Parking lot shade structures shall have a clear height of not less than 7 feet (2134
mm). Where van accessible shaded parking is required by this code or by the
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, the clear height shall be not less than 98 inches (2490
mm).

3105.6.2 Location on property.
Parking lot shade structures shall be located not less than 3 feet (915 mm) from any
building or property line. Parking lot shade structures which meet all the requirements of
this section shall be permitted in any required yard, without affecting any of the general
building limitations specified in Chapter 5 of this code.

3105.6.3 Allowable area.
Parking lot shade structures shall not exceed 300 feet (91440 mm) in length or 40 feet
(12192 mm) in width. A clear separation of not less than 20 feet (6096 mm) shall be


maintained between shade structures on the same property. No shade structure shall
cover or encroach into any required fire lane.

3105.6.3.1 Allowable area for minimum 21 feet clear high parking lot shade
structures.
The allowable area may be determined by Section 406.5.5 of this code provided the
site fire apparatus access is approved by the Fire Marshal.

3105.6.4 Roof-top shade structures.
Parking lot shade structures complying with the provisions of this section may be installed to
shade open parking on the roof of Group S-2 parking garages. This installation shall not be
construed as affecting the construction type, allowable area, height, or number of tiers of the
parking garage. Where the parking garage is required to be protected by an automatic sprinkler
system, all parking lot shade structures on the roof shall also be so protected.

3105.6.5 Sprinkler systems.


T
Parking lot shade structures shall be protected by an automatic sprinkler system as specified in
this code and the Phoenix Fire Code.

Justification:
The intent of this section is to provide less restrictive construction standards than this Code




AF
would otherwise require, provided all of the special design and construction requirements of
these sections are met.

Mercantile shade canopies and non-IRC shade structures may be located 5 feet from a property
line for the following reasons:

The framework is of non-combustible construction, open on all sides and limiting the fire loading
area to 5,000 square feet, it seemed rational that the radiant heat from either a fire in the
structure or from an adjacent structure would affect the frame in the same way. Therefore, the
allowance of an unrated frame at 5 feet versus the 10 feet required by strict adherence to the
code, seems reasonable since the code would allow a combustible roof overhang to project
within 5 feet of a property line. The fire loading underneath the overhang would be allowed by




R
code. The columns in these structures are not considered exterior walls, per the definition of wall
in the code, opening protection would not be required.

Limiting the area to 5,000 square feet was based on Group M occupancies used for display and
sale of upholstered furniture or mattresses where an automatic sprinkler system would not be
required under base code.




D
Parking lot shade structures meeting the following criteria have been allowed in the City of
Phoenix for over a decade: maximum 40 feet by 300 feet in area, non-combustible framework, a
minimum of 3 feet from a property line with a non-combustible or shade membrane fabric roof.
The need to expand the area is a result of solar industry utilizing established parking lots for their
product. By placing the minimum height and fire apparatus access requirements to increase the
area of non-combustible construction, it seemed rational the effect on building safety would be
no more severe than the original uncovered parking lot. The setback of 3 feet is allowed for a
non-combustible roof overhang with the same reasoning as above for not rating the frame.

Cost Impact: No cost impact.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process: YES NO



ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee Date: 01/9/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee Date: 02/27/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Date: 04/22/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee Date: 05/21/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken




T
AF
R
D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Section 3110.1

Submitted by: International Building Code Committee

3110.1 General.
Automatic vehicular gates shall comply with the requirements of Sections 3110.2, and 3110.3,
and other applicable sections of this code, and the Phoenix Fire Code.




T
Justification: This amendment refers the applicants to the Phoenix Fire Code for additional
design and permitting requirements.

Cost Impact: No cost impact.




AF
Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted


Development Advisory Board (DAB)


Approved as submitted
Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted

Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Denied
YES


Date: 01/9/2025
No action taken
Date: 02/27/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
NO




No action taken
Date:




R Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken




D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Section 3113

Submitted by: International Building Code Committee

SECTION 3113 RELOCATABLE AND FACTORY-BUILT BUILDINGS

3113.1 General.
The provisions of this section shall apply to relocatable buildings. Relocatable buildings



T
manufactured after the effective date of this code shall comply with the applicable provisions of
this code.
Exception: This section shall not apply to manufactured housing used as dwellings.

3113.1.1 Compliance.
A newly constructed relocatable building shall comply with the requirements of this code for new




AF
construction. An existing relocatable building that is undergoing alteration, addition, change of
occupancy or relocation shall comply with Chapter 14 of the International Existing Building Code.

3113.2 Supplemental information.
Supplemental information specific to a relocatable building shall be submitted to the authority
having jurisdiction. It shall, as a minimum, include the following in addition to the information
required by Section 105:
1. Manufacturer’s name and address.
2. Date of manufacture.
3. Serial number of modular.
4. Manufacturer’s design drawings.
5. Type of construction in accordance with Section 602.




R6. Design loads including: roof live load, roof snow load, floor live load, wind load and seismic
site. class, use group and design category.
7. Additional building planning and structural design data.
8. Site-built structure or appurtenance attached to the relocatable building.

3113.3 Manufacturer’s data plate.
Each relocatable module shall have a data plate that is permanently attached on or adjacent to




D
the electrical panel, and shall include the following information:
1. Occupancy group.
2. Manufacturer’s name and address.
3. Date of manufacture.
4. Serial number of module.
5. Design roof live load, design floor live load, snow load, wind and seismic design.
6. Approved quality assurance agency or approved inspection agency.
7. Codes and standards of construction.
8. Envelope thermal resistance values.
9. Electrical service size.
10. Fuel-burning equipment and size.
11. Special limitations if any.




3113.4 Inspection agencies.
The building official is authorized to accept reports of inspections conducted by approved
inspection agencies during off-site construction of the relocatable building, and to satisfy the
applicable requirements of Sections 110.3 through 110.3.11.1. 3113.1

3113.1 General.
Factory-built buildings, manufactured homes, and mobile homes shall comply with applicable
laws of the State of Arizona and this code. The provisions of this section for factory-built
buildings, manufactured homes, and mobile homes take precedence over other code provisions
which are inconsistent therewith. The general provisions of this code shall apply in all areas
where there are not specific provisions in this section.

3113.1.1 Arizona law.
The construction of factory-built buildings and manufactured homes is regulated by the



T
State of Arizona, Arizona Revised Statutes ARS 41-4001 through ARS 41-4010 and is
not included in this Code.

3113.1.2 Factory-built building installation.
The installation of factory-built buildings, manufactured homes, and mobile homes
including their foundations and direct connection to sewer, water, gas or electric utilities,




AF
is regulated by the State of Arizona and is not included in this code, except that a City of
Phoenix On-Site Permit is required for compliance with Phoenix Zoning Ordinance
requirements and with Building Code requirements pertaining to location on property and
setback from other buildings or structures on the property. A City of Phoenix building
permit is required for all on-site construction (except foundations) including connection to
or alteration of existing on-site sewer, water, gas or electrical systems, and for
construction of all site improvements required by the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance such as
design review elements, signs, parking, landscaping, site amenities and disabled
accessibility. Connection to a City water or sewer tap requires a separate permit from the
Planning and Development Department.

3113.1.3 Alterations and additions.
Repairs, alterations and site-built additions to factory-built buildings, mobile homes, and




R manufactured homes are regulated by this code and by the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance
and require City of Phoenix permits.

3113.1.4 Occupancy and use.
Occupancy and use of a factory built-building, manufactured home or mobile home is
prohibited without first obtaining inspection approval and a certificate of occupancy from
the building official, to verify compliance with the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance and other




D applicable city codes and ordinances.

3113.2 Definitions. For the purpose of this Section, the following definitions shall apply:

FACTORY BUILT BUILDING is a residential or non-residential building including a dwelling unit
or habitable room thereof which is either wholly or in substantial part manufactured at an off-site
location to be assembled on-site, except it does not include a manufactured home, recreational
vehicle or mobile home.D

MANUFACTURED HOME is a structure built in accordance with the National Manufactured
Home Construction and Safety Standards Act.

MOBILE HOME is a structure built prior to June 15, 1976, on a permanent chassis, capable of


being transported in one or more sections and designed to be used with or without a permanent
foundation as a dwelling when connected to on-site utilities except that it does not include
recreational vehicles or factory-built buildings.

ON-SITE PERMIT is the permit issued by the building official which authorizes the placement of
a factory-built building, manufactured home, or mobile home on a site. The on-site permit shall
authorize only the placement, foundation or unit tie-down, and specific connections to utility
services which are authorized by a permit issued by the State of Arizona Office of Manufactured
Housing. All other work on the site shall require a building permit issued by the building official in
accordance with Section 105 of this code. Connection to a City water or sewer tap requires a
separate permit from the Planning and Development Department.

3113.3 Installation requirements.
No factory-built building, manufactured home, or mobile home shall be moved onto or installed
on any lot or site in the City of Phoenix except in compliance with these provisions.

3113.3.1 State insignia required.

T
No person, firm or corporation shall move onto any site any factory-built building or
manufactured home building unless such building bears a current, valid insignia of
approval of the State of Arizona.




AF
3113.3.2 State permit required.
No person, firm or corporation shall move onto any site any factory-built building,
manufactured home or mobile home unless and until a permit for such installation has
been obtained from the State of Arizona.

3113.3.3 On-site permit required.
No person firm or corporation shall move onto any site, or relocate on any site, any
factory-built building, manufactured home, or mobile home until an On-Site Permit has
been issued by the City of Phoenix building official.

A site plan shall be submitted to the building official which shows all utility connections
and all other information necessary to ascertain compliance with the separation and area




R restrictions of other sections of this code and with all provisions of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance. If the building official is satisfied that the work described by the documents
submitted conform to this section and other applicable law, the On-Site Permit shall be
issued to the owner of the site or his authorized agent.

3113.3.4 Building permit required.
The person, firm or corporation obtaining the On-Site Permit shall also apply for and




D obtain a building permit from the building official when one or more of the following
conditions apply:

1. For all on-site construction which connects to or alters existing buildings or
existing onsite sewer, water, gas or electrical systems.

2. For all on-site construction which is required by or regulated by the Phoenix
Zoning Ordinance, such as for design review elements, signs, parking,
landscaping, site amenities and accessibility.

3. For all construction or alteration which is not part of the State-approved factory-
built building, manufactured home, or mobile home including all interior fit-up,
tenant improvement or remodeling work which is not specifically included in such
State permit.


4. When a City of Phoenix inspection is requested by the installer for work otherwise
included in the State of Arizona installation permit, including but not limited to
requests for utility clearance inspections.

3113.4 Repairs, alterations, and additions.
No person shall repair, alter or add on to a factory-built building, manufactured home or a mobile
home after the unit has been installed without first having obtained a permit from the building
official for the specific work to be performed. All such work shall comply with the requirements of
this Code.

3113.5 Fire protection.
Factory-built buildings shall be protected pursuant to the Phoenix Fire Code.

Justification: The 2018 IBC added a section for Relocatable Buildings; however, the State of



T
Arizona has jurisdiction to regulate the construction of these buildings including manufactured
housing used as dwellings. The City of Phoenix has worked extensively, and will continue to
work, with the State of Arizona on the construction of these buildings. This is an existing
amendment carrying forward.

Cost Impact: No cost impact.




AF
Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
YES NO


Date: 01/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 03/27/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025




R Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Building Code (IBC)
Section Appendices A through N

Submitted by: International Building Code Committee

Adopt
Appendix E: Supplementary Accessibility Requirements. Amended as outlined below:

The word “accessible”, appearing in all instances in Appendix E, shall be italicized, including
when hyphenated with another word.


T
Justification: Adoption only of Appendix E as an amendment for the 2024 IBC. The
requirements of this appendix do not match the 2010 ADA Standards and includes sections not
subject to enforcement by the Phoenix Building Construction Code such as laundry equipment,
mailboxes, telephones and clocks. The 2010 ADA Standards were adopted as part of the




AF
Phoenix Building Construction Code and those requirements are adequate. The use of the term
accessible and accessible in this Appendix is inconsistent.

Appendix E amended to clarify all instances of this term must be italicized to clearly indicate the
requirement to comply with the provisions of this code and Chapter 11.

Appendices A, B, C, D, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M where needed are already covered by existing
ordinances.

Cost Impact: No cost impact.




R
Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
YES NO


Date: 01/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 02/27/2025
No action taken




D
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Residential Code (IRC)
Chapter 1

Submitted by: International Residential Code Committee

CHAPTER 1 SCOPE AND ADMINISTRATION

Notes:




T
1. For reserved sections herein, refer to the amendments and requirements in Chapter 1
of the International Building Code for these code requirements.
2. For sections that remain unchanged from base code, the term “see this section of the
2024 IRC” shall refer to the unchanged base code.

R101.1 Title. These provisions shall be known as the International Residential Code Residential




AF
Code for One- and Two-Family Dwellings of as amended by the city of Phoenix and shall be
cited as such and will be referred to herein as “this code.” These regulations are one document
of the overall Phoenix Building Construction Code as defined by the adopting ordinance.

R101.2 Scope. The provisions of this code or the International Building Code shall apply to the
construction, alteration, movement, enlargement, replacement, repair, equipment, use and
occupancy, location, removal and demolition of detached one- and two-family dwellings and
townhouses not more than three stories above grade plane in height, with a separate means of
egress and their accessory structures not more than three stories above grade plane in height.

Exception: The following shall be permitted to be constructed in accordance with this code.
where provided with an automatic sprinkler system complying with Section P2904:




R 1. Live/work units located in one- and two-family dwellings, or townhouses and complying
with the requirements of Section 508.5 of the International Building Code.
2. Owner-occupied lodging houses with five or fewer guestrooms.
3. A care facility with five or fewer persons receiving custodial care within a dwelling unit.
4. A care facility with five or fewer persons receiving medical care within a dwelling unit.
5. A day care facility for five or fewer persons of any age receiving care within a dwelling
unit.




D
R101.2.1 Appendices. - See this section of the 2024 IRC

R101.3 Purpose. - See this section of the 2024 IRC

SECTION R102 APPLICABILITY – Reserved, except as noted below.

R102.6.1 Additions, alterations or repairs. - See this section of the 2024 IRC

SECTION R103 CODE COMPLIANCE AGENCY – Reserved.

SECTION R104 DUTIES AND POWERS OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL – Reserved.




SECTION R105 PERMITS – Reserved.

SECTION R106 CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS – Reserved.

SECTION R107 TEMPORARY STRUCTURES AND USES – Reserved.

SECTION R108 FEES – Reserved.

SECTION R109 INSPECTIONS – Reserved.

SECTION R110 CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY – Reserved.

SECTION R111 SERVICE UTILITIES – Reserved.

SECTION R112 MEANS OF APPEALS – Reserved.

SECTION R113 VIOLATIONS – Reserved.

SECTION R114 STOP WORK ORDER – Reserved. T
AF
Justification: All the adopted and amended building code documents taken together are known
as the Phoenix Building Construction Code. Each code document is a separate document of the
Phoenix Building Construction Code. This document is the International Residential Code as
Amended by the City of Phoenix. This document is intended to apply where a code or referenced
standard identifies the International Residential Code as being applicable.

The reserved provisions are contained in the Phoenix Building Construction Code –
Administrative Provisions (Chapter 1 of the International Building Code).


Cost Impact: No cost impact




R
Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Denied
YES NO


Date: 01/24/2025
No action taken
Date: 3/20/2025




D Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Residential Code (IRC)
Chapter 2: Definition: Standard Plans

Submitted by: International Residential Code Committee

SECTION R202 DEFINITIONS

[RB] STANDARD PLANS. Plans authorized by the Planning & Development Department to be
used in construction on a repetitive basis. Standard plans may include options allowing



T
variations to the building design that may alter the interior and exterior appearance.


Justification: The definition allows standard plans to be used in lieu of separate submittals for
each production home.




AF
Cost Impact: The use of standard plans reduces the cost for the department and the home
builders.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
YES


Date: 12/6/2024
NO



No action taken
Date: 03/20/2025
No action taken




R
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Residential Code (IRC)
Chapter 2 Definition: Fire Separation Distance

Submitted by: International Residential Code Committee and modified by the DAB Building
Code Subcommittee

SECTION R202 DEFINITIONS

[RB] FIRE SEPARATION DISTANCE. The shortest distance measured from the building face
to one of the following:

1. To the closest interior lot line.
T
2. To the centerline of a street, an alley or a public way.
3. To an imaginary line between two buildings or townhouse units on the lot.




AF
The distance shall be measured at a right angle from the face of the wall framing.


Justification: This amendment acknowledges that fire does not necessarily spread at 90
degrees to the face of exterior walls and therefore removes the last sentence to make it the true
shortest distance measurement.
Previous amendments have indicated that the measurement point was to the wall framing, as
this frequently aligned with the face of the concrete stem wall below and made the measurement
point easier to identify earlier in construction and simplified lot layouts. Where the exterior wall
finishes do not appreciably reduce the distance, the building face could be interpreted within
reasonable tolerances to the same point as the previous amendments.




R
Cost Impact: Minor cost impact. Where property lines or imaginary lot lines are not parallel to
the building face, this may require the wall to be fire rated when by base code it would not be.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process: YES NO




D
ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted


Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Denied

Denied
Date: 3/24/2025
No action taken
Date: 3/27/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Residential Code (IRC)
Section R301.1.5

Submitted by: International Residential Code Committee

R301.1.5 Access to a public way.
All buildings shall be located on lots fronting a public way or other approved access to a public
way. Such approved access shall be recorded with the county of Maricopa, with the approval of
the building official or recorded on the approved plot plat in accordance with the Phoenix City



T
Code. The access shall be in compliance with the Phoenix Fire Code.



Justification: Clarifies access requirements for all lots. Carried forward from the previous
amendments.




AF
Cost Impact: No cost impact. No additional cost impact above what was approved in the 2012
& 2018 amendments.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Denied
YES NO


Date: 01/16/2025
No action taken
Date: 03/20/2025




R Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Residential Code (IRC)
Section R301.1.6

Submitted by: International Residential Code Committee

R301.1.6 Lot Corner Identification.
In construction applications where legally surveyed lot corner identification markers are not
readily verifiable or are missing, the building official, when deemed necessary, shall require lot
boundary markers to be surveyed and permanently identified in accordance with State law at the



T
owner’s or applicant’s expense. The survey shall be executed by a registrant licensed to do such
work by the Arizona State Board of Technical Registration.



Justification: Often construction is started without locating the legal corners of a lot, leading to




AF
disputes after substantial completion of the work. This requirement would limit such cases and
ensure compliance to both the Residential Code and the Zoning Ordinance.



Cost Impact: Minimal cost impact. While there could be a possible cost for a survey, this code
amendment could save costs by preventing construction in a prohibited location. The same text
is used in this proposal as approved on 12-01-06, 5-15-13 and 11-8-17 amendments.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process: YES NO




R
ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Date: 01/16/2025
No action taken
Date: 03/20/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken




D
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Residential Code (IRC)
Section R301.2 and Table R301.2

Submitted by: International Residential Code Committee

R301.2 Climatic and geographic design criteria.
Buildings shall be constructed in accordance with the provisions of this code as limited by the
provisions of this section. Additional criteria shall be established by the local jurisdiction and set
forth in table R301.2.



T
Table R301.2

CLIMATIC AND GEOGRAPHIC DESIGN CRITERIA
(Due to space limitations, the table could not be reproduced, only the values




AF
Ground snow load°
Wind speed (mph):
Topographic effectsᵏ:
Special wind regionᶦ:
Windborne debris zone :ͫ
Seismic design categoryᶠ:
Weathering ͣ:
Frost line depthᵇ:
Termiteᶜ:
Winter design temperature :ͤ
Ice barrier underlayment required ͪ
are listed)
N/A
NO
NO
NO
B
Negligible
Moderate to heavy
None to slight
No




R Flood hazardsᵍ
Air freezing indexᶤ
Mean annual temperature

MANUAL J DESIGN CRITERIA
Refer to Section M1401.3 and N1103.7 of the 2024 IRC
See Phoenix city code
N/A
71.2°F




D
Elevation:
Latitude:
Winter heating:
Summer cooling:
Altitude correction factor:
Indoor temperature design:
Design temperature cooling:
Heating temperature difference:
Cooling temperature difference:
Wind velocity heating:
Wind velocity cooling:
Coincident wet bulb:
Daily range:
Winter humidity:


Summer humidity:

For SI: 1 pound per square foot = 0.0479 kPa, 1 mike per hour = 0.447 m/s.

a. Where weathering requires a higher strength concrete or grade of masonry than
necessary to satisfy the structural requirements of this code, the frost line depth strength
required for weathering shall govern. The weathering column shall be filled in with the
weathering index, “negligible,” “moderate” or “severe” for concrete as determined from
Figure R301.2(4). The grade of masonry units shall be determined from ASTM C34, C55,
C62, C73, C90, C129, C145, C216 or C652.
b. Where the frost line depth requires deeper footings than indicated in Figure R403.1(1),
the frost line depth strength required for weathering shall govern. The jurisdiction shall fill
in the frost line depth column with the minimum depth of footing below finish grade.
c. The jurisdiction shall fill in this part of the table to indicate the need for protection
depending on whether there has been a history of local subterranean termite damage.



T
d. The jurisdiction shall fill in this part of the table with the wind speed from the basic wind
speed map [Figure R301.2(5) A]. Wind exposure category shall be determined on a site
specific basis in accordance with Section R301.2.1.4.
e. The outdoor design dry-bulb temperature shall be selected from the columns of 971 /2-
percent values for winter from Appendix D of the International Plumbing Code. Deviations
from the Appendix D temperatures shall be permitted to reflect local climates or local




AF
weather experience as determined by the building official. [Also see Figure R301.2(1).]
f. The jurisdiction shall fill in this part of the table with the seismic design category
determined from Section R301.2.2.1.
g. The jurisdiction shall fill in this part of the table with (a) the date of the jurisdictions’ entry
into the National Flood Insurance Program (dated of adoption of the fires code or
ordinance for management of flood hazard areas), (b) the date(s) of the Flood Insurance
Study and the (c) the panel numbers and dates of the currently effective FIRM’ and
FBFMs or other flood hazard map adopted by the authority having jurisdiction, as
amended.
h. In accordance with Sections R905.1.2, R905.4.3.1, R905.5.3.1m R905.6.3.1, R905.7.3.1
and R905.8.3.1, where there has been a history of local damage from the effects of ice
damming, the jurisdiction shall fill in this part of the table with “YES.” Otherwise the




R jurisdiction shall fill in this part of the table with “NO.”
i. The jurisdiction shall fill in this part of the table with the 100-year return period air freezing
index (FG-days) from Figure R403.3(2) or from the 100-year (99 percent) value on the
National Climatic Data Center data table “Air Freezing Index-USA Method (Base 32o F).”
j. The jurisdiction shall fill in this part of the table with the mean annual temperature from
the National Climatic Data Center data table “Air Freezing Index-USA Method (Base 32o
F).”
k. In accordance with Section R301.2.1.5, where there is local historical data documenting




D structural damage to buildings due to topographic wind speed-up effects, the jurisdiction
shall fill in this part of the table with “YES.” Otherwise, the jurisdiction shall indicate “NO”
in this part of the table.
l. In accordance with Figure R301.2(5) A, where there are local historical data documenting
unusual wind conditions, the jurisdiction shall fill in the part of the table with “YES” and
identify any specific requirements. Otherwise, the jurisdiction shall indicate “NO” in this
part of the table.
m. In accordance with Section R301.2.1.2 the jurisdiction shall indicate the wind-borne
debris wind zones(s). Otherwise, the jurisdiction shall indicate “NO” in this part of the
table.
n. The jurisdiction shall fill in these sections of the table to establish the design criteria using
Table 1a or 1b form ACCA Manual J or established criteria determined by the jurisdiction.
n. The jurisdiction shall fill in this section of the table using the Ground Snow Loads.


Justification: In order for this document to be adopted. The completed reference table has to
be a part of it. The deleted sentence is not required as the amendment refers to another code
section rather than providing data.



Cost Impact: No cost impact.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process: YES NO

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee Date: 01/24/2025
Approved as submitted


T
Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
No action taken
Date: 03/20/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025




AF
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




R
D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Residential Code (IRC)
Section R301.2.4

Submitted by: International Residential Code Committee

R301.2.4 Floodplain construction
Buildings and structures constructed in whole or in part in flood hazard areas as established in
Table R301.2, and substantial improvement and repair of substantial damage of buildings and
structures in whole or in part in flood hazard areas, shall be designed and constructed in



T
accordance with Section R306. Chapter 32B of the Phoenix City Code. Buildings and structures
that are located in more than one flood hazard area, including A Zones, coastal A Zones and V
Zones, shall comply with the provisions associated with the most restrictive flood hazard area.
Building and structures located in whole or in part in identified floodways shall be designed and
constructed in accordance with ASCE 24.




AF
R301.2.4.1 Alternative provisions.
As an alternative to the requirements in Section R306, ASCE 24 is permitted subject to the
limitations of this code and limitations therein.


Justification: The city’s floodplain ordinance is contained in Chapter 32B of the Phoenix city
code.


Cost Impact: No cost impact. Current city code requirements are in place.




R
Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
YES NO


Date: 01/16/2025
No action taken
Date: 3/20/2025
No action taken




D
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Residential Code (IRC)
Section Table R301.5

Submitted by: International Residential Code Committee

Table R301.5
MINIMUM UNIFORMLY DISTRIBUTED LIVE LOADS
(in pounds per square foot)

USE


T
Habitable attics and attics served with fixed
stairs
Sleeping rooms
LIVE LOAD
30 40

30 40




AF
Justification:
Habitable attics and sleeping rooms can be used as floor space and 40 psf more closely reflects
floor live loading. The code change reflects the changes made to the 2018 IBC and is
recommended by the Structural Sub-Committee.


Cost Impact: Minimal cost impact.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process: YES NO




R
ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Denied

Denied
Date: 01/16/2025
No action taken
Date: 03/20/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025




D Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Residential Code (IRC)
Section R302.2

Submitted by: International Residential Code Committee

R302.2 Townhouses.
Walls separating townhouse units shall be constructed in accordance with Section R302.2.1 or
R302.2.2 and shall comply with Sections R302.2.3 through R302.2.5. No plumbing, mechanical,
electrical, piping, or other services in any form are allowed to traverse from one side to the other



T
side of the wall or walls separating townhouse units.


Justification:
Townhouse units, as defined in this code, extend from the foundation to the roof. Townhouses
do not have ownership agreements between unit owners for common spaces and elements, like




AF
condominiums are required to per Arizona state law. This requires the code to regulate their
independent functioning with respect to utilities and structural independence, so that one
neighbor does not impair the ability of the other to be able to use their fully functioning property.

Fire sprinkler piping and electrical installations are allowed within the common wall framing
cavity, so long as they only serve the same-side unit, for the same ownership reasons as
discussed above.


Cost Impact: Minimal cost impact. Services will have to be delivered individually to each
townhouse unit.




R
Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Denied
YES


Date: 02/12/2025
NO



No action taken
Date: 03/20/2025




D Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Residential Code (IRC)
Section R302.2.6

Submitted by: International Residential Code Committee

R302.2.6 Structural independence. Each townhouse unit shall be structurally independent.
Exceptions:
1. Foundations supporting exterior walls, or common walls.
2. Structural roof and wall sheathing from each unit not exceeding ¾” thickness fastened to
the common wall framing.
3. Nonstructural wall and roof coverings.

T
4. Flashing at termination of roof covering over common wall.
5. Townhouse units separated by a common wall as provided in Section R302.2.2, Item 1 or
2.
6. Townhouse units protected by an automatic sprinkler system complying with Section




AF
P2904 or NFPA 13D.


Justification: Unlike in the International Building Code, there is no maximum size to structures
built to the IRC, as such the separation of the units under fire conditions are very important to
stop a fire in one unit from spreading to all the units and causing the entire unlimited sized
townhouse from being lost.

Note that the townhouse units themselves have no required fire-resistance, just the wall between
them. The point of structural independence is so that common walls function so that a fire in one
unit causing structural collapse of that unit does not cause the structural collapse of the common
wall, as such these walls should not serve as gravity load bearing walls. Doing so greatly




R
increases the chances of the wall being pulled down from one unit collapsing. Gravity framing
will have large resistance to vertical failure at the plane of the wall, unlike sheathing. Exceptions
5 and 6 are removed to reinforce this functioning. Exception 2 remains such that the common
walls can still be used as braced walls. The ¾” thickness maximum is taken from the exception
to IBC Section 706.2 for fire walls that allow floor and roof sheathing to cross the fire wall. This
maximum dimension is necessary to restrict the maximum strength of the sheathing, so that it
can fail on the fire side during a fire without pulling down the common wall.




D
Cost Impact: Minimal cost impact. Framing cannot bear on common walls.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
YES NO


Date: 02/12/2025
No action taken
Date: 03/20/2025
No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Date: 04/22/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken


Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee Date: 05/21/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken




T
AF
R
D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Residential Code (IRC)
Section R302.5.1

Submitted by: International Residential Code Committee

R302.5.1 Opening protection.
Openings from a private garage or carport directly into a room used for sleeping purposes or a
hallway that only accesses sleeping room(s) shall not be permitted. Other openings between the
garage or carport and dwelling unit shall be equipped with solid wood doors not less than 1 3/8



T
inches (35 mm) in thickness, solid or honeycomb-core steel doors not less than 1 3/8 inches (35
mm) thick, or 20-minute fire-rated door or windows. Doors shall be self-latching and equipped
with a self-closing or automatic-closing device.


Justification: Whether a garage or carport, the rooms used for sleeping purposes should




AF
be protected from the hazard inherent in this use. Industry is supportive of the self-
closing provisions to provide an additional level of safety.



Cost Impact: Minimal cost impact.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
YES NO


Date: 01/16/2025




R Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
No action taken
Date: 03/20/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken




D
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Residential Code (IRC)
Section R309

Submitted by: International Residential Code Committee

SECTION R309 AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEMS

R309.1 Townhouse automatic sprinkler systems.
Other than where preempted by Arizona State Law, an automatic sprinkler system shall be
installed in townhouses.


T
Exception: An automatic sprinkler system shall not be required where additions or alterations
are made to existing townhouses that do not have an automatic sprinkler system installed
when not required in accordance with the Phoenix Fire Code.
R309.1.1 Design and Installation. Automatic sprinkler systems for townhouses shall be
designed and installed in accordance with Section P2904 or NFPA 13D.




AF
R309.2 One- and two-family dwellings automatic sprinkler systems.
Other than where preempted by Arizona State Law, an automatic sprinkler system shall be
installed in one- and two-family dwellings.
Exception: An automatic sprinkler system shall not be required for additions or alterations to
existing buildings that are not already provided with a sprinkler system when not required in
accordance with the Phoenix Fire Code.
R309.2.1 Design and Installation. Automatic sprinkler systems shall be designed and
installed in accordance with Section P2904 or NFPA 13D.




R
Justification: The Phoenix Fire Code has provisions brought in with the Bret Tarver Sprinkler
Ordinance for when fire sprinklers are required that is more conservative than base code. See
Section 903 of the Phoenix Fire Code.

Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) 9-807 prohibits municipalities from requiring sprinklers in one-
and two-family dwellings but allowed Bret Tarver to do so, due to the age of the Bret Tarver
ordinance.




D
The newly adopted Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) 9-462.13 has been interpreted at this time
to disallow requiring an automatic sprinkler system for all structures containing up to four
dwelling units and all townhomes. With the potential for this law to be altered or clarified, the
provisions for fire sprinklers are not removed from the code but are specifically pointing the user
to the likelihood of state preemption for their requirement. Where preempted, sprinklers are not
required.


Cost Impact: Minimal cost impact. Where state law disallows the requirement for fire sprinklers,
there will be a cost reduction.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process: YES NO


ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee Date: 1/17/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee Date: 3/20/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Date: 04/22/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee Date: 05/21/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken




T
AF
R
D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Residential Code (IRC)
Section R310.6 & R311.6

Submitted by: International Residential Code Committee

R310.6 Power Source

Smoke alarms shall receive their primary power from the building wiring where such wiring is
served from a commercial power source and, where primary power is interrupted, shall receive



T
power from a battery. Wiring shall be permanent and without a disconnecting switch other than
those required for overcurrent protection.

Exceptions:

1. Smoke alarms shall be permitted to be battery operated where installed in buildings




AF
without commercial power.
2. Smoke alarms installed in accordance with Section R310.2.2 shall be permitted to be
battery powered. where alteration or repairs do not result in the removal of interior wall or
ceiling finishes unless there is an attic or crawl space or basement available which could
provide access for hardwiring of smoke alarms.

R311.6 Power Source

Carbon monoxide alarms shall receive their primary power from the building wiring where such
wiring is served from a commercial power source and, where primary power is interrupted, shall
receive power from a battery. Wiring shall be permanent and without a disconnecting switch
other than those required for overcurrent protection.




R Exceptions:

1. Carbon monoxide alarms shall be permitted to be battery operated where installed in
buildings without commercial power.
2. Carbon monoxide alarms installed in accordance with Section R311.2.2 shall be
permitted to be battery powered. where alteration or repairs do not result in the removal




D of interior wall or ceiling finishes unless there is an attic or crawl space or basement
available which could provide access for hardwiring of smoke alarms.


Justification: The base code language would allow projects that fall under the technical
definition of alteration and repair that are complete gut remodels, whole house rewires, etc. to
only be required to provide battery powered smoke and carbon monoxide alarms. It also lends
to suggesting that additions that are receiving new electrical wiring could also be constructed
with smoke and carbon monoxide alarms that are not hardwired. This is not consistent with the
intent of the smoke and carbon monoxide alarm provisions of providing consistent, redundant
levels of safety for sleeping occupants in the building. It stands to reason that such projects
should fall under the same requirement for power source as newly constructed dwelling units.
The language used in the amendment is language that has been derived from previous versions
of the code.


Cost Impact: Minimal cost impact


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process: YES NO

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee Date: 01/31/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee Date: 03/27/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Date: 04/22/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee Date: 05/21/2025
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
T
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




AF
R
D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Residential Code (IRC)
Section R319.4.4

Submitted by: International Residential Code Committee

R319.4.4 Bars, grilles, covers and screens.

Where bars, grilles, covers, screens or similar devices are placed over emergency escape and
rescue openings, bulkhead enclosures or area wells that serve such openings, the minimum net



T
clear opening size shall comply with sections R319.2.1 through R319.2.2 and R319.4.1. Such
devices shall be releasable or removable from the inside without the use of a key or tool or
special knowledge or force greater than that required for the normal operation of the escape and
rescue opening. The dwelling shall be equipped with smoke alarms installed in accordance with
Section R310.




AF
Justification: Retains current requirements for smoke detectors when quick release security
bars over bedroom windows are installed. Carryover.


Cost Impact: Minimal cost impact.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
YES NO


Date: 01/24/2025




R Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
No action taken
Date: 03/20/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken




D
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Residential Code (IRC)
Section R319.5

Submitted by: International Residential Code Committee

R319.5 Replacement windows for emergency escape and rescue openings.

Replacement for emergency escape and rescue openings installed in buildings meeting the
scope of this code shall be exempt from Sections R319.2 and R319.4.4, provided that the



T
replacement window meets the following conditions:

1. The replacement window is the manufacturer’s largest standard size window that will
fit within the same size as the existing frame or existing rough opening. The
replacement window shall be permitted to be of the same operating style as the
existing window or a an operating style that provides for an equal or greater the




AF
greatest window opening area, height dimensions, and width dimensions., than the
existing window. If an operating style can meet the requirements of 319.2, that
operating style shall be provided.
2. The replacement window is not part of a change of occupancy. See Section 319.7.1


Justification: Aligns with current city policy established in 2007. Replacement emergency
escape and rescue openings should meet minimum code requirements where possible. When it
is not possible, the emergency escape and rescue opening should not be further reduced in size
but instead improved where possible. Further reducing the size of emergency escape and
rescue openings creates a higher hazard for occupants and rescue personnel.




R
Cost Impact: Minimal cost impact.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
YES NO




D
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted


Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Denied

Denied
Date: 03/14/2025
No action taken
Date: 03/27/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Residential Code (IRC)
Section R319.6

Submitted by: International Residential Code Committee

R319.6 Dwelling additions

Where dwelling unit additions contain sleeping rooms, an emergency escape and rescue
opening shall be provided in each new sleeping room. Where dwelling unit additions have



T
basements, an emergency escape and rescue opening shall be provided in the new basement.

Exceptions:

1. An emergency escape and rescue opening is not required in a new basement that
contains a sleeping room with an emergency escape and rescue opening that meets




AF
the requirements of R319.2.1 through R319.4.4.
2. An emergency escape and rescue opening is not required in a new basement where
there is an emergency escape and rescue opening that meets the requirements of
R319.2.1 through R319.4.4 in an existing basement that is accessed from the new
basement.
3. An operable window complying with Section R319.7.1 shall be acceptable as an
emergency escape and rescue opening.


Justification: Provides clarification of requirements for existing emergency escape and rescue
openings. Removes added language allowing for less safe emergency and escape and rescue
openings. Aligns with current city polices and requirements established in 2007.




R
Cost Impact: Minimal cost impact.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process: YES NO




D
ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted


Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Denied

Denied
Date: 03/14/2025
No action taken
Date: 03/27/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Residential Code (IRC)
Section R319.7

Submitted by: International Residential Code Committee

R319.7 Alterations or repairs of existing basements.

New sleeping rooms created in an existing basement shall be provided with emergency escape
and rescue openings in accordance with Section R319.1 and R319.2. Other than new sleeping



T
rooms, wWhere existing basements undergo alterations or repairs, an emergency escape and
rescue opening shall be provided in accordance with R319.1 and R319.2 is not required.

Exception: An operable window complying with R319.7.1 shall be acceptable as an
emergency escape and rescue opening. For existing basements not containing habitable
space, where alterations or repairs do not result in new habitable space, an emergency




AF
escape and rescue opening shall not be required.


Justification: Clarifies section reference for sizing requirements of emergency escape and
rescue openings. Also removes added language allowing for less safe emergency and escape
and rescue openings. Aligns with current city policy and requirements established in 2007.
Allowing a reduced size for emergency escape and rescue openings creates a hazard for
occupants and rescue personnel.


Cost Impact: Minimal cost impact.




R
Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Denied
YES NO


Date: 03/14/2025
No action taken
Date: 03/27/2025




D Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Residential Code (IRC)
Section R319.7.1

Submitted by: International Residential Code Committee

R319.7.1 Existing emergency escape and rescue openings.

Where a change of occupancy would require an emergency escape and rescue opening in
accordance Section R319.1, operable windows serving as the emergency escape and rescue



T
opening shall comply with the following: R319.1.1 through R319.4.4.

1. An existing operable window shall provide a minimum net clear opening of 4 square feet
(0.38 m2) with a minimum net clear opening height of 22 inches (559 mm) and a minimum
net clear opening width of 20 inches (508 mm)




AF
2. A replacement window where such window complies with both of the following:
2.1. The replacement window meets the size requirements in Item 1.
2.2. The replacement window is the manufacturer’s largest standard-size window
that will fit within the existing frame or existing rough opening. The replacement
window shall be permitted to be of the same operating style as the existing window
or a style that provides for an equal or greater window opening area than the
existing window.


Justification: Most changes of occupancies in Residential construction result in a higher
occupant load, and/or involve the care of individuals. Maintaining the city’s current and
longstanding policy (2007) of emergency and escape and rescue openings provides for an
increased level of safety and a higher probability of escape and rescue in an emergency.




R
Allowing a reduction in the size requirements of emergency and rescue openings creates a
hazard for occupants and rescue personnel.


Cost Impact: Minimal cost impact.




D
Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted

Approved as submitted

Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Modified and approved Denied
YES NO


Date: 03/14/2025
No action taken
Date: 03/27/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken


BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Residential Code (IRC)
Section R322

Submitted and modified by: Strategic Workgroup on Accessibility and further modified by staff

R322.1 Dwelling units or sleeping units. Where there are four or more dwelling units or
sleeping units in a single structure, the provisions of Chapter 11 of the International Building
Code for Group R-3 shall apply. Other dwelling unit and sleeping unit containing structures
shall comply with Section R322.1.1.



T
Exception: Owner-occupied lodging houses with five or fewer guestrooms are not
required to be accessible.

R322.1.1 Dwelling units.
Dwelling units and sleeping units shall comply with the inclusive home design features of




AF
Section R322.1.1

Exceptions: The following are not required to comply with Section R322.1.1:
1. All portions of the dwelling units or sleeping units not on the floor level that contains the
accessible entrance.
2. A raised or sunken floor area in a portion of a living, dining, or sleeping room.
3. Where a dwelling unit or sleeping unit contains less than 70 square feet of habitable
space on the dwelling’s primary entrance level.
4. Standard plans approved for use in a residential subdivision that received preliminary
site plan approval prior to the adoption of the 2024 Phoenix Building Construction
Code.
5. Upon determination by the building official that by virtue of terrain or other unusual




R characteristics of the building site, there are practical difficulties associated with
compliance of any specific provision of Section R322.1.1 and that the additional cost to
comply with the applicable provisions of this standard shall exceed three hundred
dollars, as shown by clear and convincing evidence presented by the applicant.

R322.1.1.1 Entrance.




D At least one dwelling unit entrance shall be accessible and on an accessible route from the
street or sidewalk, the dwelling unit’s driveway, or the dwelling unit’s garage or carport in
compliance with Chapter 4 of ICC A117.1 - 2017, except the clear width need not exceed 36
inches (815 mm) minimum. The required accessible entrance shall not be to a bedroom.

R322.1.1.2 Interior circulation paths.

Interior circulation paths shall have a clear width of 36 inches (815 mm) minimum as
measured between fixed or built-in elements. Exceptions in ICC A117.1-2017 Section
1104.4.1 are permitted to be used.

User passage doors shall have a clear opening width of 32 inches (805 mm) minimum;
measured on a swinging door between the face of the door open to 90 degrees and the door
stop.


Door hardware shall have a shape that is easy to grasp with one hand and does not require
tight grasping, pinching, or twisting of the wrist to operate, except locks used only for security
and not used for normal operation. Operable parts of hardware shall be 34 inches (865 mm)
minimum and 48 inches (1220 mm) maximum above the floor.

R322.1.1.3 Operable parts.

Lighting controls, electrical switches and receptacle outlets, user controls for thermostats, and
user controls for security or intercom systems shall be placed 15 inches (380 mm) minimum
and 48 inches (1220 mm) maximum above the floor.

Exception: Floor receptacle outlets, controls mounted on ceiling fans, controls mounted
on appliances, controls mounted on smoke detectors and carbon monoxide detectors.

R322.1.1.4 Toilet rooms and bathrooms.


T
Toilet rooms and bathrooms on the floor level that contains the accessible entrance shall be
provided with wall reinforcements for future grab bars where walls occur around toilets,
showers, and bathtubs in compliance with Section 1104.11.1 of ICC A117.1-2017.




AF
One bathroom on the floor level that contains the accessible entrance shall be provided with a
bathtub or a shower and shall contain a lavatory and a water closet. This bathroom shall be
provided with floor clearance space that complies with either Section 304 or 1104.11.2 and
1104.11.3 of ICC A117.1-2017.

Exception: Where there are no spaces used for sleeping purposes on the level that
contains the accessible entrance, the bathroom is not required to be provided with a
bathtub or a shower.


Justification: Inclusive home design criteria has been in effect in Pima County and the City of
Tucson since 2003. People over 65 years are the fastest growing sector of the American
population and Phoenix is a retirement destination. Inclusive home design criteria allows people




R
to stay in their homes and their neighborhood longer as they age.

Modifications to this amendment were approved by the Strategic Workgroup on Accessibility on
05/09/2025 to be presented to the Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee.

Further modifications were made on 05/20/2025 following discussions between members of the
strategic workgroup, home builders, and a councilmember.




D
Cost Impact: minimal cost impact to provide these features during construction but can be a
significant cost when these features need to be retrofitted into an already constructed home.


Staff Committee Rationale for Recommendation: The amendment proposal aligns with the
goals of the City of Phoenix Strategic Work Group on Accessibility. Members of the work group
were appointed by the City Manager.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process: YES NO



ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee Date: 03/18/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee Date: 03/27/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Date: 04/22/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee Date: 05/21/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken




T
AF
R
D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Residential Code (IRC)
Section R322.2

Submitted by: International Residential Code Committee

SECTION R322 ACCESSIBILITY

R322.2 Model home complex.

R322.2.1 No-step entrance.


T
At least one single family dwelling as part of a Model Home Complex, as described in the
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, shall have a no-step entrance as described in Section R322.2.2.

R322.2.2 Dwellings.
Residential single family dwellings, as part of a Model Home Complex, as described in the




AF
Zoning Ordinance, shall have a route of travel as described herein. The route of travel shall
be a continuous no–step path connecting each subdivision sales office or public way to the
primary entry.

The route of travel shall conform to the following requirements:
1. The running slope shall not exceed 1:12.
2. Routes of travel complying with this section are not required to have handrails.
3. The route of travel shall be a firm, stable, and slip resistant surface for a minimum
width of 36 inches (914 mm) continuous and clear for a height of 7 feet (2.134 m)
above the route.
4. The entry to the model home shall have a maneuvering space of a minimum 48
inches (1219 mm) by 48 inches (1219 mm) on the exterior side of the entry door.




R 5. The threshold at the entry shall not exceed ½ inch (13 mm).
6. The no step entry shall be identified by a readily viewable sign.


Justification: To provide a somewhat accessible route to the model home to allow access
without traversing steps or steep slopes. This requirement was approved by the Development
Advisory Board on May 17th, 2001 and has been in the Phoenix Building Construction Code




D
since that time.


Cost Impact: Minimal cost impact.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Denied
YES NO


Date: 01/15/2025
No action taken
Date: 03/27/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Date: 04/22/2025


Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee Date: 05/21/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken




T
AF
R
D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Residential Code (IRC)
Section R325.8

Submitted by: International Residential Code Committee

R325.8 - Required heating and cooling.
Where the winter design temperature in table R301.2 is below 60° F (16° C), every dwelling unit
Interior spaces intended for human occupancy shall be provided with heating and cooling




T
facilities capable of maintaining a room temperature of not less than 68° F (20°C) between 70°F
(21°C) and 82°F (28°C) (if cooled by air conditioning, and 86°F (30°C) if cooled by evaporative
cooling), measured at a point 3 feet (914mm) above the floor in the center of the room. and 2
feet (610 mm) from the exterior walls in habitable rooms at the design temperature. The
installation of one more portable space heaters or portable space coolers shall not be used to
achieve compliance with this section.




AF
Justification:
This amendment requires newly constructed buildings to comply with City of Phoenix
Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance Sec. 39-5(B)(1)(b), which deals with buildings that are
rented. All newly constructed buildings may be rented at some point in their life.


Cost Impact: Significant cost impact; this amendment requires cooling in all interior spaces
intended for human occupancy, which the base code does not.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process: YES NO




R
ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Denied

Denied
Date: 02/28/2025
No action taken
Date: 03/20/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025




D Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Residential Code (IRC)
Section R330.3.1

Submitted by: International Residential Code Committee

R330.3.1 Spacing

Individual units shall be separated from each other by not less than 3 feet (914 mm) except
where other separation distances are specified by the ESS listing and the manufacturer’s



T
installation instructions., or as permitted in accordance with the Phoenix Fire Code.


Justification:

New code section. Installation of ESS systems are also reviewed and inspected by the Phoenix




AF
Fire Department. Language is provided to ensure compliance with and allowances provided by
the Phoenix Fire Code. The Phoenix Fire Code has provisions for permitted locations based on
large scale fire testing. Many manufacturers conduct large scale fire testing of their own
equipment, which may provide more possible installation locations for the customer.


Cost Impact: No cost impact. Possible cost savings.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
YES NO




R
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Date: 03/14/2025
No action taken
Date: 03/27/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025




D Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Residential Code (IRC)
Section R330.4

Submitted by: International Residential Code Committee

R330.4 Locations

ESS shall be installed only in the following locations:




T
1. Detached garages and detached accessory structures.
2. Attached garages separated from the dwelling unit living space in accordance with
Section R302.6
3. Outdoors or on the exterior side of exterior walls located not less than 3 feet (914 mm)
from doors and windows directly entering the dwelling unit, except where smaller
separation distances are permitted by the UL 9540 listing and manufacturer’s installation




AF
instructions., or as permitted in accordance with the Phoenix Fire Code.
4. Enclosed utility closets, basements, storage or utility spaces within dwelling units with
finished or noncombustible walls and ceilings. Walls and ceilings of unfinished wood-
framed construction shall be provided with not less than 5/8-inch (15.9 mm) Type
Xgypsum wallboard. Openings into the dwelling shall be equipped with solid wood doors
not less than 1-3/8 inches (35 mm) in thickness, solid or honeycomb-core steel doors not
less than 1-3/8 inches (35 mm) in thickness, or doors with a 20-minute fire protection
rating. Doors shall be self-latching and equipped with a self-latching or an automatic-
closing device. Penetrations through the required gypsum wallboard into the dwelling
shall be protected as required by Section R302.11, Item 4.

ESS shall not be installed in sleeping rooms, or closets or spaces opening directly into sleeping




R
rooms.


Justification:

New code section. Installations of ESS systems are also reviewed and inspected by the Phoenix
Fire Department. Language is provided to ensure compliance with and allowances provided by




D
the Phoenix Fire Code. The Phoenix Fire Code has provisions for permitted locations based on
large scale fire testing. Many manufacturers conduct large scale fire testing of their own
equipment, which may provide more possible installation locations for the customer.


Cost Impact: No cost impact. Possible cost savings.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
YES


Date: 3/14/2025
NO



Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee Date: 3/27/2025


Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Date: 04/22/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee Date: 05/21/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken




T
AF
R
D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Residential Code (IRC)
Section R333

Submitted by: International Residential Code Committee

R333 Fireplace Restrictions

R333.1 Definitions.




T
For the purpose of this section, the following words and terms shall be defined as follows:

FIREPLACE: A built-in-place masonry hearth and fire chamber or a factory-built appliance,
designed to burn solid fuel or to accommodate gas or electric log insert or similar device, and
which is intended for occasional recreational or aesthetic use, not for cooking, heating, or
industrial processes.




AF
SOLID FUEL: Includes but is not limited to, wood, coal, or other non-gaseous or non-liquid fuels,
including those fuels defined by the Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Officer as
“inappropriate fuel” to burn in residential wood burning devises.

WOOD STOVE: A solid fuel burning heating appliance including a pellet stove, which is either
freestanding or designed to be inserted into a fireplace.

R333.2 General.

In accordance with the City of Phoenix Council adopted Ordinance G-4062, on or after
December 31, 1998, no person, firm or corporation shall construct or install a fireplace or a wood
stove, and the Building Official shall not approve or issue a permit to construct or install a




R
fireplace or a wood stove, unless the fireplace or wood stove complies with one of the following.

1. A fireplace which has a permanently installed gas or electric log insert.
2. A fireplace, wood stove or other solid burning appliance which has been certified by the
United States Environmental Protection Agency as conforming to 40 Code of Federal
Regulations part 60, subpart AAA.
3. A fireplace, wood stove or other solid fuel burning appliance that has been tested and




D listed by a nationally recognized testing agency to meet performance standards
equivalent to those adopted by 40 Code of Federal Regulations part 60, subpart AAA.
4. A fireplace, wood stove or other solid fuel burning appliance which has been determined
by the Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Officer to meet performance standards
equivalent to those adopted by 40 Code of Federal Regulations part 60, subpart AAA, as
in effect on July 1, 1990.
5. A fireplace which has a permanently installed wood stove insert which complies with
subparagraph 2, 3, or 4 above.

Exceptions: The following installations are not regulated and are not prohibited by this section:
1. Furnaces, boilers, incinerators, kilns, and other similar space heating or industrial
process equipment.
2. Cook stoves, barbecue grills, and similar appliances designed primarily for cooking.
3. Fire pits, barbecue grills, and other outdoor fireplaces.


R333.3 Fireplace or wood stove alterations prohibited.

Fireplaces constructed or installed on or after December 31, 1998, that contain a gas or electric
log insert or a wood stove insert, shall not be altered to directly burn wood or any other solid fuel.
On or after December 31, 1998, no person, firm, or corporation shall alter a fireplace, wood
stove, or other solid fuel burning appliance in any manner that would void its certification or
operational compliance with the provisions of this section.

Fireplaces constructed or installed on or after December 31, 1998, shall not be altered without
first obtaining a permit from the City to ensure compliance with this section.


Justification: This amendment is included to comply with Chapter 40 of the Phoenix City Code
and with Maricopa County Air Pollution Control regulations.



T
Cost Impact: No cost impact. Matches existing regulations.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process: YES NO




AF
ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted


Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Denied

Denied
Date: 01/15/2025
No action taken
Date: 03/20/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




R
D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Residential Code (IRC)
Section R401.3

Submitted by: International Residential Code Committee

R401.3 Drainage.
Delete the text of this section of the IRC and replace it with: All drainage shall conform to the
requirements of Chapter 32A of the Phoenix City Code.




T
Justification: The City’s Grading and Drainage ordinance is contained in Chapter 32A of the
Phoenix City Code. This amendment eliminates any potential conflicts.


Cost Impact: No cost impact. The City Code requirements are applicable whether this




AF
amendment exists or not.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
YES


Date: 04/17/2025
NO



No action taken
Date: N/A
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken




R
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Residential Code (IRC)
Section R401.4.1

Submitted by: International Residential Code Committee

R401.4.1 Geotechnical evaluation.
In lieu of a complete geotechnical evaluation, the presumptive load-bearing values in Table
R401.4.1(1) and the soil classifications in Table R401.4.1(2) shall be assumed for undisturbed
supporting soils near the surface when approved by the building official.



T
Presumptive load-bearing values shall apply to materials with similar physical and engineering
characteristics. Mud, organic silt and organic clays, peat, disturbed soils and undocumented fill
shall not be assumed to have a presumptive load-bearing capacity unless data to substantiate
the use of such a value are submitted.




AF
Justification: This amendment is intended to further assist the design community in clarifying
when a geotechnical evaluation is required. Unprepared fill materials, disturbed soils, mud,
muck, peat, organic silt and soft clays have no presumptive load-bearing capacity without soil
tests. Authorization for construction on these exceptionally weak soils should be provided by a
geotechnical engineer.

Table R401.4.1(2) is intended as a guide to aid soil classification when that is not done as part of
a full geotechnical report. Indicating that the designer is required to assume a soil classification is
dangerous to the property without any type of soil knowledge being present. The Table should
be used as a guide when already knowing the local soil expansion and collapse potential along
with the soil particle size distribution.




R
Cost Impact: Minimal cost impact. The cost of a geotechnical evaluation and testing is minimal
when compared to the cost of repairs for foundation failures that may occur as a result of
structures being supported on weak soils.

Soil testing for particle size distribution alone to classify the soil is quite cheap when you bring a




D
small soil sample into a laboratory, at approximately $30, however many soil testing companies
that aren't just laboratories will attempt to sell the customer an entire geotechnical investigation,
and that is much more expensive.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
YES


Date: 01/24/2025
NO



No action taken
Date: 03/20/2025
No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Date: 04/22/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken


Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee Date: 05/21/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken




T
AF
R
D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Residential Code (IRC)
Section 403.1

Submitted by: International Residential Code Committee

R403.1 General

All exterior walls shall be supported on continuous solid or fully grouted masonry or concrete
footings, crushed stone footings, wood foundations, or other approved structural systems that



T
shall be of sufficient design to accommodate all loads according to Section R301and to transmit
the resulting loads to the soil within the limitations as determined from the character of the soil.
Footings shall be supported on undisturbed natural soils or engineered fill. Concrete footing shall
be designed and constructed in accordance with the provisions of Section R403 or in
accordance with ACI 332.




AF
Exception: For enclosure of existing carport and patio covers, non-bearing wood framed
exterior walls within the projection of the existing roof may be supported on an existing,
uncracked concrete slab. The minimum slab thickness shall be 3.5 inches and the
construction shall comply with the requirements of R304 for protection against decay.


Justification: This will allow enclosure of existing covered areas without requiring construction
of a new footing. The only loads on the base of the wall are lateral loads from wind, which can be
resisted by existing slab.


Cost Impact: Minimal cost impact. Reduce cost for carport and patio enclosures.




R
Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
YES NO


Date: 01/16/2025
No action taken




D
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted




Approved as submitted
Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Date: 03/20/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Residential Code (IRC)
Section R502.3.1

Submitted by: International Residential Code Committee

R502.3.1 Sleeping areas and attic joists.

Table R502.3.1(1 2) shall be used to determine the maximum allowable span of floor joists
that support sleeping areas and attics that are accessed by means of a fixed stairway in



T
accordance with Section R318.7 provided that the design live load does not exceed 30 40
pounds per square foot (1.44 1.92 kPa) and the design dead load does not exceed 20
pounds per square foot (0.96 kPa). The allowable span of ceiling joists that support attics
used for limited storage or no storage shall be determined in accordance with Section
R802.5.




AF
Justification: This will coordinate the required design table with the proposed amendment to
Table R301.5 for live loads in sleeping areas.


Cost Impact: Minimal cost impact.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
YES NO


Date: 01/23/2025




R Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
No action taken
Date: 03/20/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken




D
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Residential Code (IRC)
Section R606.12

Submitted by: International Residential Code Committee

R606.12 Seismic requirements

All new masonry elements shall meet the minimum reinforcing requirements of R606.12.2.2.3,
R606.12.2.3.2 and R606.12.2.3.3. In addition, the seismic requirements of this section shall



T
apply to the design of masonry and the construction of masonry building elements located in
Seismic Design Category D0, D1, or D2. Townhouses in Seismic Design Category C shall
comply with the requirements of Section R606.12.2. These requirements shall not apply to glass
unit masonry conforming to Section R607, anchored masonry veneer conforming to Section
R703.8 or adhered masonry veneer conforming to Section R703.12.




AF
Justification: This will require minimum reinforcing in all new masonry construction. This
reinforcing has been required in previous editions of the Phoenix Construction Code at the
recommendation of the Structural Engineers Association of Arizona as an inexpensive way to
significantly increase the safety of masonry construction. The code change reflects the changes
made to the 2018 IBC and is recommended by the Structural Sub-Committee.


Cost Impact: Minimal cost impact


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process: YES NO




R
ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Denied

Denied
Date: 01/16/2025
No action taken
Date: 03/20/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025




D Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Residential Code (IRC)
Chapter 11, Section N1101.4.1

Submitted by: Home Builders Association of Central Arizona

N1101.4.1 RESNET testing & inspection protocol.
The Residential Energy Services Network (RESNET) Mortgage Industry National Home Energy
Rating System Standards (MINHERS) for third party testing and inspections shall be deemed to
meet the requirements of sections N1102.5.1, N1102.5.1.2 and N1103.3.7 and shall meet the
following conditions:


T
1. Third Party Testing & Inspections shall be completed by RESNET certified Raters or
Rating Field Inspectors and shall be subject to RESNET Quality Assurance Field
Review Procedures.




AF
2. Sampling in accordance with Chapter 6 of the MINHERS Standards shall be performed
by Raters or Rating Field Inspectors Working under a RESNET Accredited Sampling
Provider.

3. Third Party Testing is required for the following items:
a. N1102.5.1– Building Envelope – Thermal Air Barrier Checklist
b. N1102.5.1.2– Testing – Air Leakage Rate
c. N1103.3.7– Sealing – Duct Tightness
d. Any other testing and inspections required under the code.

4. Alternate testing and inspection programs and protocols shall be allowed when
approved by the Building Code Official.




R
Justification: From HBACA - This amendment was developed in collaboration between the
MAG Building Codes Committee Members, SRP, APS, and the HBACA and has been adopted
in many municipalities throughout the region. It is also included in MAG’s Building Code
Amendment and Standards Manual. Note that this proposed amendment is slightly different than
the amendment adopted in 2018 and 2021 to reflect changing code sections.




D
Staff Committee Rationale for Recommendation: Amendment carried forward. Doesn’t lower
standards but allows less dwelling units to be tested.

Current disallowance of MINHERS standards for sampling of single-family homes per MINHERS
addendum 78i effective January 1, 2025, subject to RESNET change.


Cost Impact: Applicant did not provide any information.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process: YES NO



ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee Date: 03/25/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee Date: 03/27/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Date: 04/22/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee Date: 05/21/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken




T
AF
R
D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Residential Code (IRC)
Section N1104.1.5

Submitted by: International Residential Code Committee


N1104.1.5 (R404.1.5) Gas lighting.
Gas-fired lighting appliances shall not be equipped with a continuous pilot and shall be
equipped with an on-demand pilot, Intermittent ignition or interrupted ignition as defined be
ANSI Z21.20.


T
Justification: These products as described are not currently readily available, nor are they
popular in our jurisdiction.




AF
The gas piping systems for this installation are complex and expensive to install already. These
requirements would dramatically drive up the cost of the devices if chosen to be installed.

This is not a building safety issue and as such should be optional for the homeowner/builder if
they desire to mitigate the cost of operation over the life of the system.



Cost Impact: No Cost Impact




R
Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
YES NO


Date: 01/24/2025
No action taken
Date: 3/20/2025
No action taken




D
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Residential Code (IRC)
Section N1104.2 – N1104.3.1

Submitted by: International Residential Code Committee


N1104.2 (R404.2) Interior lighting controls.

All permanently installed luminaires shall be controlled as required in Sections N1104.2.1
and N1104.2.2.


T
Exception: Lighting controls shall not be required for safety or security lighting.


N1104.2.1 (R404.2.1) Habitable spaces.




AF
All permanently installed luminaires in habitable spaces shall be controlled with a manual
dimmer or with an automatic shutoff control that automatically turns off lights within 20
minutes after all occupants have left the space and shall incorporate a manual control to
allow occupants to turn the lights on or off.

N1104.2.2 (R404.2.2) Specific locations.

All permanently installed luminaires in garages, unfinished basements, laundry rooms
and utility rooms shall be controlled by an automatic shutoff control that automatically
turns off lights within 20 minutes after all occupants have left the space and shall
incorporate a manual control to allow occupants to turn the lights on or off.




R N1104.3 (R404.3) Exterior lighting controls.

Exterior lighting controls shall comply with Section N1104.3.1.
N1104.3.1 (R404.3.1) Controls for individual dwelling units.
Where the total permanently installed exterior lighting power is greater than 30 watts, the
permanently installed exterior lighting shall comply with the following:
1. Lighting shall be controlled by a manual on and off switch that permits automatic shutoff




D actions.

2. Lighting shall be automatically shut off when daylight is present and satisfies the
lighting needs.

3. Controls that override automatic shutoff actions shall not be allowed unless the override
automatically returns automatic control to its normal operation within 24 hours.



Justification: Not all commercially available residential lights are dimmable and installing
motion sensors poses safety concerns with lights going off unexpectedly, such as in bathrooms,
garages, laundry rooms etc., as it is typical with motion sensors if they are not installed with a
high level of detailed attention paid due to the limited range and positioning of the sensor. To


achieve full range of motion sensor functionality, additional ceiling mounted sensors would be
required to mitigate safety concerns especially in large spaces. These additional sensors are not
readily available for residential applications, are expensive, difficult to install in a residential
application, and can be finicky at best for the intended function of this code.

The exterior lighting requirements are difficult to achieve as these control products are not
readily available in the current market. Systems that do exist are expensive and complicated to
install, driving up costs overall. Most commercially available residential exterior lights are already
equipped with photocells, which shut the light of when daylight is sensed automatically, meeting
most of the intent of this section of this code already. Additionally, most commercially available
security lights contain photocells AND motion sensor capabilities.

Manufacturing of incandescent lighting has not been allowed for some time now, and new/old
stocks is dwindling by the day if one can even source them anymore. The Other portions of this
code make the installation of incandescent lighting next to impossible to install and comply. With



T
the code requirements for high efficiency lighting, combined with required high efficiency lighting
manufacturing requirements, the market is saturated with these efficient products vastly reducing
energy consumption on a large scale in alignment with the intent of this code. Implementing
these code requirements proposed to strike, will not drastically increase the desired consumption
reduction in any measurable way. The increased safety hazards posed do not outweigh any
potential energy savings which will be minimal at best while increasing costs significantly.




AF
This section of the code, as written, is not a building safety concern and should be optional for
any homeowner/builder to pursue to their heart and pocketbooks content

Cost Impact: No Cost Impact


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
YES


Date: 1/24/2025
NO



No action taken




R
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved Denied
Date: 3/20/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:




D Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Residential Code (IRC)
Section P2903.2

Submitted by: International Residential Code Committee

P2903.2 Maximum flow and water consumption.

The maximum water consumption flow rates and quantities for plumbing fixtures and fixture
fittings shall be in accordance with Table P2903.2.




T
TABLE P2903.2 MAXIMUM FLOW RATES AND CONSUMPTION FOR PLUMBING FIXTURES
AND FIXTURE FITTINGSb

PLUMBING FIXTURE OR FIXTURE
FITTING
Lavatory faucet
MAXIMUM FLOW RATE OR
QUANTITY
2.2 1.5 gpm at 60 psi




AF
Shower heada
Sink faucet
Water closet
2.5 2.0 gpm at 80 psi
2.2 1.5 gpm at 60 psi
1.6 1.28 gallons per flushing cycle

For SI: 1 gallon per minute = 3.785 L/m, 1 pound per square inch = 6.895 kPa.
a. A hand-held shower shall be considered to be a shower head.
b. Consumption tolerances shall be determined from referenced standards.


Justification: Per Council Resolution 22129, “A Resolution Addressing the Future Water
Consumption of New Development”, Section 2.2.b.i., staff will propose updates to the Building
Code for water efficiency standards that would be consistent with the water usage best practices.




R
The proposed changes are consistent with the current EPA Water Sense standards.



Cost Impact: No cost impact. These proposed fixture standards are consistent with most of the
fixtures on the market.




D
Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted

Approved as submitted

Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Modified and approved Denied
YES


Date: 01/16/2025
No action taken
Date: 3/20/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
NO




Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken


BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Residential Code (IRC)
Section P2904

Submitted by: International Residential Code Committee
SECTION P2904 DWELLING UNIT AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEMS
P2904.1 General.
The design and installation of automatic sprinkler systems shall be in accordance with NFPA




T
13D or Section P2904, which shall be considered to be equivalent to NFPA 13D. the Phoenix
Fire Code. Partial automatic sprinkler systems shall be permitted to be installed only in buildings
not required to be equipped with an automatic sprinkler system. Section P2904 shall apply to
stand-alone and multipurpose wet-pipe sprinkler systems that do not include the use of
antifreeze. A multipurpose automatic sprinkler system shall provide domestic water to both fire
sprinklers and plumbing fixtures. A stand-alone automatic sprinkler system shall be separate




AF
and independent from the water distribution system. A backflow preventer shall not be required
to separate an automatic sprinkler system from the water distribution system, provided that the
sprinkler system complies with all of the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
The system complies with NFPA 13D or Section P2904.
The piping material complies with Section P2906.
The system does not contain antifreeze.
The system does not have a fire department connection.

DELETE ALL REMAINING SECTIONS OF P2904


Justification: Aligns with state law and Phoenix Fire Code for installation of automatic sprinkler
systems. The IRC base code has many references to sprinkler installations that reference P2904




R
for installation. By amending P2904 to point to the Phoenix Fire Code, it is not necessary to
amend all the other provisions containing references to P2904.


Cost Impact: No cost impact.




D
Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted

Approved as submitted

Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Modified and approved Denied
YES


Date: 01/16/2025
No action taken
Date: 3/20/2025
NO




No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken


BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Residential Code (IRC)
Section E3704.7

Submitted by: International Residential Code Committee

E3704.7 Townhouses

Feeders supplying townhouse units shall not pass underneath, through, or above other
townhouse units.



T
Justification: Added feeders for townhouses to clarify and to include the intent of the section.
Individually owned townhouse units create logistical challenges as it relates to access, service of
equipment, repairs, fires, remodels, etc. that significantly impact the electrical supply for other
units.




AF
Cost Impact: No cost impact.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
YES


Date: 01/16/2025
No action taken
Date: 03/20/2025
No action taken
NO




R
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Residential Code (IRC)
Section E3901.4.2 - E3901.4.3

Submitted by: Home Builders Association of Central Arizona

E3901.4.2 Island and peninsular countertops and work surfaces .
Receptacle outlets, if installed to serve an island or peninsular countertop or work surface, shall
be installed in accordance with Section E3901.4.3. If a receptacle outlet is not provided to serve
an island or peninsular countertop or work surface, provisions shall be provided at the island or



T
peninsula for future addition of a receptacle outlet to serve the island or peninsular countertop or
work surface. At least one receptacle shall be installed at each island and peninsular countertop
space with a long dimension of 600 mm (24 in.) or greater and a short dimension of 300 mm (12
in.) or greater. A peninsular countertop is measured from the connected perpendicular wall.

E3901.4.3 Receptacle outlet location.




AF
Receptacle outlets rendered not readily accessible by appliances fastened in place, appliance
garages, sinks, or rangetops as covered in the exception to Section E3901.4.1, or appliances
occupying assigned spaces shall not be considered as these required outlets. Required
receptacle outlets shall be located in one or more of the following:
1. On or above, but not more than 20 inches (508 mm) above, the countertop or work
surface.
2. In a countertop using receptacle outlet assemblies listed for the use in countertops.
3. In a work surface using receptacle outlet assemblies listed for use in work surfaces or
listed for use in countertops. [210.52(C)(3)]

Exception: To comply with the following conditions (1) and (2), receptacle outlets shall be
permitted to be mounted not more than 300 mm (12 in.) below the countertop or work




R surface. Receptacles mounted below a countertop or work surface in accordance with this
exception shall not be located where the countertop or work surface extends more than 150
mm (6 in.) beyond its support base.
1. Construction for the physically impaired
2. On island and peninsular countertops or work surface where the surface is flat
across its entire surface (no backsplashes, dividers, etc.) and there are no means
to mount a receptacle within 500 mm (20 in.) above the countertop or work
surface, such as an overhead cabinet




D
Justification: From NAHB and HBACA - There is inadequate justification to prohibit receptacles
below the countertop or work surface. It is important to remember that the NEC is a minimum
code, and its requirements should reflect that. Data from the U.S. Consumer Protection Safety
Commission was presented as support for this change. However, the incidents recorded by the
CPSC does not specifically indicate that receptacles below the countertops of islands and
peninsulas were the cause. There is also no proof that the changes made to the 2023 NEC will
be beneficial.
The ultimate responsibility during the use of electrical appliances falls upon the user. To that
end, appliance manufacturers have taken measures to address the concern. Manufacturers of
cooking appliances already include multiple warnings in their instruction manuals. Below are
examples from a single instruction manual of one appliance.


- “Close supervision is necessary when any appliance is used by or near children.”
- “Do not let cord hang over edge of table or counter or touch hot surfaces.”
- “Use deep fryer only on a clean, dry, level, stable, and heat-resistant surface, away from
countertop edge.”
- “Close supervision is necessary when any appliance is used by or near children. Hot oil can
cause serious and painful burns.”
Most notably, manufacturers have already addressed the issue through innovations, such as
magnetic cords that are designed to detach easily from the appliance if pulled. This design
feature would prove effective in all circumstances, including all of the existing receptacles
located below the countertop.
Surprisingly, the proposed change does not actually prohibit all receptacles from being installed
below a countertop on an island or peninsula, and therefore, will have limited effect. There are
two reasons for this. First, only receptacles installed “to serve” an island or peninsular countertop
or work surface would need to be installed in the areas specified by 210.52(C)(4). Convenience
receptacles (at the standard height of 18 inches above finished floor) installed in an island or



T
peninsula do not serve the countertop or work surface, and therefore, would be allowed.
Secondly, this provision is located under Part III. of article 210 titled Required Outlets (beginning
at Section 210.50). Because this section only applies to required outlets, additional outlets would
be allowed below the countertop as usual.
The reason given during the panel meeting for the new requirement under 210.52(C)(2) was that
it would be too difficult to install a receptacle in an island or peninsula on a slab-on-grade floor




AF
after the home was completed. However, over a third of all new single-family homes are built
over either a basement or a crawl space (source: https://eyeonhousing.org/2021/08/65-of-new-
single-family-homes-used-slab-foundationin-2020/). In these cases, it would be possible to
access the island or peninsula from below if a future receptacle were to be installed. Requiring
all homes to meet the proposed text is too restrictive. There is also concern about how
inspectors may enforce this provision differently. “Provisions shall be provided” is a very open
requirement and can lead to differing guidance from no additional work needed (such as when
there is access from below) to providing a powered circuit terminating in an electrical box.
Requirements that are open to interpretation can be enforced much more strictly than those that
clearly state what is intended—adding unnecessary costs to the homeowner.
This is yet another major change to the IRC and NEC with possible unintended consequences;
adopting it can conceivably result in problems requiring future changes. These constant changes




R
lead to confusion among all users of the code.



Cost Impact:




D
Staff Committee Rationale for Recommendation:
The NEC Committee recommended this proposed amendment to be denied as it does not
address the additional safety hazard associated with the documented cases of children being
burned by pulling the appliance cord that is plugged into a receptacle located below the counter.
The intent of NEC 210.52 (and much of the electrical code) is to provide receptacle outlets
located to preclude the need for extension cords. The code has long required at least one
receptacle outlet, (located below the respective countertop), to serve island or peninsular
countertops. However, due to numerous instances of burn injuries, a direct result of spilling hot
contents of countertop cooking appliances onto children that pulled the appliance cord; the 2023
NEC was revised to no longer allow receptacle outlets to be located below the countertop.
An amendment is proposed by the NEC Committee to address concerns with extension cords by
requiring at least one receptacle at island and peninsula spaces.

Note that the informational notes refer to NEC code sections, but this amendment is in the IRC.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process: YES NO

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee Date: 02/11/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee Date: 03/20/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Date: 04/22/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee Date: 05/21/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken



T
AF
R
D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Residential Code (IRC)
Section E3901.9

Submitted by: International Residential Code Committee

E3901.9 Basements, garages and accessory buildings.
Not less than one receptacle outlet, in addition to any provided for specific equipment, shall be
installed in each separate unfinished portion of a basement; in each vehicle bay at not less than
(18) inches (457 mm) and not more than 5.5 feet (1676 mm) above the floor in attached garages;



T
in each vehicle bay at not less than (18) inches (457 mm) and not more than 5.5 feet (1676 mm)
above the floor in detached garages that are provided with electric power and in accessory
buildings that are provided with electric power. [210.52(G)(1), (2), and (3)]


Justification: 2024 IRC Section G2408.2 (305.3) Elevation of ignition source. This section




AF
states that Equipment and appliances having an ignition source shall be elevated such that the
source of the ignition is not less than 18 inches (457 mm) above the floor in hazardous locations
and public garages, private garages, repair garages, motor fuel dispensing facilities and parking
garages. Many private/dwelling garages are utilized to work on vehicles or other equipment that
contain volatile fuels or other liquids and gases. Other jurisdictions around the United States
have amended this section of NEC article 210.52 to address this situation. The receptacles
outlets, if installed below the 18 inches, could possibly become an ignition source which could
cause fire, property damage, injury, or death if these volatile liquids or gases are present. This
proposed amendment to the 2024 IRC is to mirror the proposed amendment to the 2023 NEC
article 210.52(G)(1), which has been voted on by the 2023 NEC code adoption committee. The
2024 NEC code adoption committee voted to accept the amendment as written to add the
minimum receptacle height.




R
Cost Impact: No cost impact. Receptacle outlets are required in the dwelling garages as per the
NEC and IRC. All wiring and associated electrical equipment do not change from the NEC and
IRC standard requirement.




D
Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted


Development Advisory Board (DAB)


Approved as submitted
Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted

Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Denied
YES


Date: 1/29/2025
No action taken
Date: 3/20/2025
NO




No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken



BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Residential Code (IRC)
Section E3908.9

Submitted by: International Residential Code Committee

E3908.9 Types of Equipment Grounding Conductors. The equipment grounding conductor
run with or enclosing the circuit conductors shall be one or more or a combination of the
following:




T
(4) Electrical metallic tubing with an additional equipment grounding conductor.


Justification:
This amendment requires that specific wiring methods include an individual equipment-
grounding conductor. This amendment is more restrictive than the NEC, but provides for a




AF
higher degree of equipment grounding safety. The intent of the amendment is to supplement the
low impedance path to ground and to attain reasonable compliance with requirements for the
performance of the fault current path.


Cost Impact: Minor increase. Cost due to additional grounding conductor.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
YES NO


Date: 11/21/2024




R Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
No action taken
Date: 3/20/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken




D
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Residential Code (IRC)
Appendix BA

Submitted by: International Residential Code Committee

Adopt Appendix BA and replace entire Appendix BA with the following text:

APPENDIX BA MANUFACTURED HOUSING USED AS DWELLINGS AND FACTORY
BUILT BUILDINGS

BA101.1 General.
T
Factory-built buildings, manufactured homes and mobile homes shall comply with applicable
laws of the State of Arizona and this code. The provisions of this section for factory-built
buildings, manufactured homes and mobile homes take precedence over other code provisions




AF
which are inconsistent therewith. The general provisions of this code shall apply in all areas
where there are not specific provisions in this section.

BA101.1.1 Arizona law.
The construction of factory-built buildings and manufactured homes is regulated by the State
of Arizona, Arizona Revised Statutes ARS 41-4001 through ARS 41-4010 and is not
included in this Code.

BA101.1.2 Factory-built building installation.
The installation of factory-built buildings, manufactured homes, and mobile homes including
their foundations and direct connection to sewer, water, gas or electric utilities, is regulated
by the State of Arizona and is not included in this code, except that a City of Phoenix On-
Site Permit is required for compliance with Phoenix Zoning Ordinance requirements and with




R Building Code requirements pertaining to location on property and setback from other
buildings or structures on the property. A City of Phoenix building permit is required for all
on-site construction (except foundations) including connection to or alteration of existing on-
site sewer, water, gas or electrical systems, and for construction of all site improvements
required by the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance such as design review elements, signs, parking,
landscaping, site amenities and disabled accessibility. Connection to a City water or sewer
tap requires a separate permit from the Planning and Development Department.




D BA101.1.3 Alterations and additions.
Repairs, alterations and site-built additions to factory-built buildings, mobile homes and
manufactured homes are regulated by this code and by the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance and
require City of Phoenix permits.

BA101.1.4 Occupancy and use.
Occupancy and use of a factory built-building, manufactured home or mobile home is
prohibited without first obtaining inspection approval and a certificate of occupancy from the
building official, to verify compliance with the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance and other
applicable city codes and ordinances.




BA101.2 Definitions. For the purpose of this Section, the following definitions shall apply:

FACTORY BUILT BUILDING is a residential or non-residential building including a dwelling unit
or habitable room thereof which is either wholly or in substantial part manufactured at an off-site
location to be assembled on-site, except it does not include a manufactured home, recreational
vehicle or mobile home.

MANUFACTURED HOME is a structure built in accordance with the National Manufactured
Home Construction and Safety Standards Act.

MOBILE HOME is a structure built prior to June 15, 1976, on a permanent chassis, capable of
being transported in one or more sections and designed to be used with or without a permanent
foundation as a dwelling when connected to on-site utilities except that it does not include
recreational vehicles or factory-built buildings.



T
ON-SITE PERMIT is the permit issued by the building official which authorizes the placement of
a factory-built building, manufactured home or mobile home on a site. The on-site permit shall
authorize only the placement, foundation or unit tie-down, and specific connections to utility
services which are authorized by a permit issued by the State of Arizona Office of Manufactured
Housing. All other work on the site shall require a building permit issued by the building official in




AF
accordance with Section 105 of this code. Connection to a City water or sewer tap requires a
separate permit from the Planning and Development Department.

BA101.3 Installation requirements.
No factory-built building, manufactured home or mobile home shall be moved onto or installed on
any lot or site in the City of Phoenix except in compliance with these provisions.

BA101.3.1 State insignia required.
No person, firm or corporation shall move onto any site any factory-built building or
manufactured home building unless such building bears a current, valid insignia of approval
of the State of Arizona.




R BA101.3.2 State permit required.
No person, firm or corporation shall move onto any site any factory-built building,
manufactured home or mobile home unless and until a permit for such installation has been
obtained from the State of Arizona.

BA101.3.3 On-site permit required.
No person firm or corporation shall move onto any site, or relocate on any site, any factory




D built building, manufactured home or mobile home until an On-Site Permit has been issued
by the City of Phoenix building official.

A site plan shall be submitted to the building official which shows all utility connections and
all other information necessary to ascertain compliance with the separation and area
restrictions of other sections of this code and with all provisions of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance. If the building official is satisfied that the work described by the documents
submitted conform to this section and other applicable law, the On-Site Permit shall be
issued to the owner of the site or his authorized agent.

BA101.3.4 Building permit required.
The person, firm or corporation obtaining the On-Site Permit shall also apply for and obtain a
building permit from the building official when one or more of the following conditions apply:



1. For all on-site construction which connects to or alters existing buildings or existing
onsite sewer, water, gas or electrical systems.

2. For all on-site construction which is required by or regulated by the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance, such as for design review elements, signs, parking, landscaping, site
amenities and accessibility.

3. For all construction or alteration which is not part of the State-approved factory-built
building, manufactured home, or mobile home including all interior fit-up, tenant
improvement or remodeling work which is not specifically included in such State
permit.

4. When a City of Phoenix inspection is requested by the installer for work otherwise
included in the State of Arizona installation permit, including but not limited to requests
for utility clearance inspections.

BA101.4 Repairs, alterations, and additions.

T
No person shall repair, alter or add on to a factory-built building, manufactured home or a
mobile home after the unit has been installed without first having obtained a permit from the
building official for the specific work to be performed. All such work shall comply with the
requirements of this Code.




AF
BA101.5 Fire protection.
Factory-built buildings shall be protected pursuant to the Phoenix Fire Code.



Justification:
Appendix BA Manufactured Housing Used as Dwellings does not address the State of Arizona
having jurisdiction to regulate the construction of these buildings including manufactured housing
used as dwellings. The City of Phoenix has worked extensively, and will continue to work, with
the State of Arizona on the construction of these buildings. This is an existing amendment
carrying forward.




R
Cost Impact: No cost impact.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process: YES NO




D
ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted


Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Denied

Denied
Date: 01/15/2025
No action taken
Date: 3/20/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Residential Code (IRC)
Appendix BB

Submitted by: International Residential Code Committee

Appendix BB, Section BB102-Definitions

TINY HOUSE. A dwelling that is no more than 400 square feet (37 m2 ) and no less than
200 square feet (18.58 m2 ) or less in floor area excluding lofts.



Justification: T
Referencing the Coconino County policies and to keep requirements uniform throughout the
state.




AF
Cost Impact: No cost impact


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
YES NO


Date: 2/14/2025
No action taken
Date: 3/20/2025
No action taken




R
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Residential Code (IRC)
Section Appendix NE

Submitted by: International Residential Code Committee

Adopt Appendix NE

NE101.1 (RE101.1) Definitions.




T
AUTOMOBILE PARKING SPACE. A space within a building or private or public parking lot,
exclusive of driveways, ramps, columns, office and work areas, for the parking of an automobile.

ELECTRIC VEHICLE (EV). An automotive-type vehicle for on-road use, such as passenger
automobiles, buses, trucks, vans, neighborhood electric vehicles and electric motorcycles,
primarily powered by an electric motor that draws current from a building electrical service,




AF
electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE), a rechargeable storage battery, a fuel cell, a
photovoltaic array or another source of electric current.

ELECTRIC VEHICLE CAPABLE SPACE (EV CAPABLE SPACE). A designated automobile
parking space that is provided with electrical infrastructure such as, but not limited to, raceways,
cables, electrical capacity, a panelboard or other electrical distribution equipment space
necessary for the future installation of an EVSE.

ELECTRIC VEHICLE READY SPACE (EV READY SPACE). An automobile parking space that
is provided with a branch circuit and an outlet, junction box or receptacle that will support an
installed EVSE.




R
ELECTRIC VEHICLE SUPPLY EQUIPMENT (EVSE). Equipment for plug-in power transfer,
including ungrounded, grounded and equipment grounding conductors; electric vehicle
connectors; attached plugs; any personal protection system; and all other fittings, devices, power
outlets or apparatus installed specifically for the purpose of transferring energy between the
premises wiring and the electric vehicle.

ELECTRIC VEHICLE SUPPLY EQUIPMENT INSTALLED SPACE (EVSE SPACE). An




D
automobile parking space that is provided with a dedicated EVSE connection.

NE101.2 (RE101.2) Electric vehicle power transfer infrastructure.
New residential automobile parking spaces for residential buildings shall be provided with electric
vehicle power transfer infrastructure in accordance with Sections NE101.2.1 through NE101.2.5

NE101.2.1 (RE101.2.1) Quantity
New one-and two-family dwellings and townhouses with a designated attached or detached
garage or other on-site private parking provided adjacent to the dwelling unit shall be provided
with one EV capable, EV ready or EVSE space per dwelling unit.

Exceptions:
1. Where the local electric distribution entity certifies in writing that it is not able to provide
100 percent of the necessary distribution capacity within 2 years after the estimated


certificate of occupancy date, the required EV charging infrastructure shall be reduced
based on the available existing electric distribution capacity
2. Where substantiation is approved that meeting the requirements of Section NE101.2.5
will alter the local utility infrastructure design requirements on the utility side of the meter
so as to increase the utility side cost to the builder or developer by more than $450 per
dwelling unit.

NE101.2.2 (RE101.2.2) EV Capable spaces
Each EV capable space used to meet the requirements of Section NE101.2.1 shall comply with
the following:
1. A continuous raceway or cable assembly shall be installed between a suitable
panelboard or other on-site electrical distribution equipment and an enclosure or outlet
located within 6 feet (1828 mm) of the EV capable space.
2. The installed raceway of cable assembly shall be sized and rated to supply minimum
circuit capacity in accordance with Section NE101.2.5.



T
3. The electrical distribution equipment to which the raceway or cable assembly connects
shall have sufficient dedicated space and spare electrical capacity for a two-pole circuit
breaker or set of fuses.
4. The electrical enclosure or outlet and the electrical distribution equipment directory shall
be marked: ”For future electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE).”




AF
NE101.2.3 (RE101.2.3) EV Ready spaces
Each branch circuit serving EV ready spaces shall comply with all of the following:
1. Termination at an outlet or enclosure located within 6 feet (1828mm) of each EV ready
space it serves and marked ” For electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE).”
2. Service by and electrical distribution system and circuit capacity in accordance with
Section NE101.2.5.
3. Designation on the panelboard or other electrical distribution equipment directory as” For
electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE).”


NE101.2.4 (RE101.2.4) EVSE Spaces
An installed EVSE with multiple output connections shall be permitted to serve multiple EVSE




R
spaces. Each EVSE serving either a single EVSE space or multiple EVSE spaces shall comply
with the following:
1. Be served by an electrical distribution system in accordance with Section NE101.2.5.
2. Have a nameplate charging capacity of not less than 6.2 kVA (or 30A at 208/240V) per
EVSE space served. Where an EVSE serves three or more EVSE spaces and is
controlled by an energy management system in accordance with Section NE101.2.5, the
nameplate charging capacity shall be not less than 2.1 kVA per EVSE space served.
3. Be located within 6 feet (1828 mm) of each EVSE space it serves.




D 4. Be installed in accordance with NFPA 70 and be listed and labeled in accordance with UL
2202 or UL 2594.

NE101.2.5 (RE101.2.5) Electrical distribution system capacity.
The branch circuits and electrical distribution system serving each EV capable space, EV ready
space and EVSE space used to comply with section NE101.2.1 shall comply with one of the
following:
1. Sized for a calculated EV charging load of not less than 6.2 kVA per EVSE, EV ready or
EV capable space. Where a circuit is shared or managed, it shall be in accordance with
NFPA 70.
2. The capacity of the electrical distribution system and each branch circuit serving multiple
EVSE spaces, EV ready spaces or EV capable spaces designed to be controlled by an
energy management system in accordance with NFPA 70 shall be sized for calculated


EV charging load of not less than 2.1 kVA per space. Where an energy management
system is used to control EV charging loads for the purpose of this section, it shall not be
configured to turn off electrical power to EVSE or EV ready spaces used to comply with
Section NE101.2.1


Justification:
This is not a proposed amendment to IRC Appendix NE. Base code requires appendices to be
adopted individually. This simply proposes adoption of IRC Appendix NE. Adoption of IRC
Appendix NE aligns with the City of Phoenix Transportation Electrification Action as approved by
public hearing process.


Cost Impact: Cost impact will vary based on EV Capable, EV Ready and EVSE space. This



T
would require the installation of electrical infrastructure to parking locations not currently
required.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process: YES NO




AF
ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted


Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Denied

Denied
Date: 03/18/2025
No action taken
Date: 03/27/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




R
D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Residential Code (IRC)
Appendices Adoption

Submitted by: International Residential Code Committee

Adopt the following appendices:

Appendix BA – Manufactured Housing Used as Dwellings and Factory Built Buildings

Appendix BB – Tiny Houses

Appendix BF – Patio Covers

Appendix BG – Sound Transmission
T
AF
Appendix BI – Light Straw – Clay Construction

Appendix BJ – Strawbale Construction

Appendix BO – Existing Buildings and Structures

Appendix CA – Sizing and Capacities of Gas Piping

Appendix CB – Sizing of Venting Systems Serving Appliances Equipped with
Draft Hoods, Category I Appliances and Appliances Listed for Use with Type B Vents.

Appendix CD – Piping Standards for Various Appliances




R
Appendix CE – Venting Methods

Appendix CF – Sizing of Water Piping System

Appendix NB – (Rb) Solar-Ready Provisions – Detached One- and Two-Family Dwellings
and Townhouses




D
Appendix BA – Manufactured Housing Used as Dwellings and Factory Built Buildings
Justification: Continues factory-built building requirements.

Appendix BB – Tiny Houses
Justification: Useful information for inspectors and customers.

Appendix BF – Patio Covers
Justification: Continuation of less restrictive structural requirements for patio covers.

Appendix BG – Sound Transmission
Justification: Incorporates Phoenix Amendment for sound mitigation around city airport.



Appendix BI – Light Straw – Clay Construction
Justification: Development options

Appendix BJ – Strawbale Construction
Justification: Development options

Appendix BO – Existing Buildings and Structures
Justification: Allows additional design flexibility when modifying an existing building

Appendix CA – Sizing and Capacities of Gas Piping
Justification: Provides guidance on piping sizing with all the methods of sizing.

Appendix CB – Sizing of Venting Systems Serving Appliances Equipped with Draft Hoods,
Category I Appliances and Appliances Listed for Use with Type B Vents
Justification: Provides a guide for inspectors and customers.



T
Appendix CD – Piping Standards for Various Appliances
Justification: Provides guidance on piping sizing with all the methods of sizing.

Appendix CE – Venting Methods
Justification: Provides useful guidance for residential plumbing situations.




AF
Appendix CF – Sizing of Water Piping System
Justification: Provides useful guidance for pipe sizing.

Appendix NB – (Rb) Solar-Ready Provisions – Detached One- and Two-Family Dwellings and
Townhouses
Justification: Development options and guidance for builders.


Cost Impact: Minimal cost impact.




R
Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
YES


Date: 01/31/2025
NO



No action taken
Date: 03/27/2025
No action taken




D
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Mechanical Code (IMC)
Section 101.1

Submitted by: International Mechanical Code Committee

Chapter 1 Scope and administration

Notes:




T
1. For reserved sections herein, refer to the amendments and requirements in Chapter 1
of the International Building Code for these code requirements.
2. For sections that remain unchanged from base code, the term “see this section of the


101.1 Title
2024 IMC” shall refer to the unchanged base code.




AF
These regulations shall be known as the International Mechanical Code as amended by the City
of Phoenix Building Code of [NAME OF JURISDICTION], hereinafter referred to as “this code.”
These regulations are one document of the overall Phoenix Building Construction Code as
defined by the adopting ordinance.

101.2 Scope. - see this section of the 2024 IMC

101.2.1 Appendices. - see this section of the 2024 IMC

101.3 Purpose. - see this section of the 2024 IMC

101.4 Severability. - Reserved.




R
102.1 General. - Reserved.

102.2 Existing installations. - see this section of the 2024 IMC

102.2.1 Existing buildings. - see this section of the 2024 IMC




D
102.3 Maintenance. - see this section of the 2024 IMC

102.4 Additions, alterations or repairs. - see this section of the 2024 IMC

102.5 Change in occupancy. - see this section of the 2024 IMC

102.6 Historic buildings. - see this section of the 2024 IMC

102.7 Moved buildings. - see this section of the 2024 IMC

102.8 Referenced codes and standards. - Reserved
Exception: Where enforcement of a code provision would violate the conditions of the listing
of the equipment or appliance, the conditions of the listing and the manufacturer’s installation
instructions shall apply.


102.8.1 Conflicts. - Reserved.

102.8.2 Provisions in referenced codes and standards. - Reserved.

102.9 Requirements not covered by this code. - see this section of the 2024 IMC

102.10 Other laws. - Reserved.

102.11 Application of references. - Reserved.

Section 103 Code compliance agency - Reserved.

Section 104 Duties and powers of the code official - Reserved.

Section 105 Permits - Reserved.


T
Section 106 Construction documents - Reserved.

Section 107 Notice of approval - Reserved.




AF
Section 108 Fees - Reserved.

Section 109 Service utilities - Reserved.

Section 110 Temporary uses, equipment and systems - Reserved.

Section 111 Inspections and testing - Reserved.

Section 112 Means of appeals - Reserved.

Section 113 Board of appeals - Reserved.




R
Section 114 Violations - Reserved.

Section 115 Stop work order - Reserved.


Justification: All the adopted and amended building code documents taken together are known
as the Phoenix Building Construction Code. Each code document is a separate document of the




D
Phoenix Building Construction Code. This document is the International Mechanical Code as
Amended by the City of Phoenix. This document is intended to apply where a code or referenced
standard identifies the International Mechanical Code as being applicable.

The reserved provisions are contained in the Phoenix Building Construction Code –
Administrative Provisions (Chapter 1 of the International Building Code).


Cost Impact: No cost impact.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process: YES NO

ACTION TAKEN:


2024 Code Committee Date: 01/28/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee Date: 02/13/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Date: 04/22/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee Date: 05/21/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken




T
AF
R
D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Mechanical Code (IMC)
Section 307.2.2

Submitted by: International Mechanical Code Committee

307.2.2 Drain pipe materials and sizes.
Nonmetalic piping shall not be installed in exposed locations. Components of the condensate
disposal system shall be ABS, cast iron, copper and copper alloy, CPVC, cross-linked
polyethylene, galvanized steel, PE-RT, polyethylene, polypropylene, PVC or PVDF pipe or



T
rigid tubing. Components shall be selected for the pressure and temperature rating of the
installation. Joints and connections shall be made in accordance with the applicable
provisions of Chapter 7 of the International Plumbing Code relative to the material type.
Condensate waste and drain line size shall be not less than 3/4-inch pipe size and shall not
decrease in size from the drain pan connection to the place of condensate disposal. Where
the drain pipes from more than one unit are manifolded together for condensate drainage,




AF
the pipe or tubing shall be sized in accordance with Table 307.2.2.


Justification: Due to our extreme weather conditions, it is recommended that all nonmetallic
condensate piping be prohibited from areas of direct sunlight, such as roofs. Nonmetallic piping
subject to extreme heat will soften and sag between supports. This causes low spots in the
drainage system and prevents gravity flow to the point of disposal. In addition, exposure to UV
rays from the sun causes the pipe to become brittle and subject to fracture when placed under
stress or strain. Both of these conditions lead to condensate disposal failure with the likely result
of water ponding on the roof.




R
Cost Impact: Minor cost impact. Increase in cost of materials. This item is in the current 2018
code.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
YES NO




D
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted


Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Denied

Denied
Date: 11/24/2024
No action taken
Date: 02/13/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Mechanical Code (IMC)
Section 309.1

Submitted by: International Mechanical Code Committee

[BG] 309.1 Space-heating systems. Heating and cooling systems.
Interior spaces intended for human occupancy shall be provided with active or passive space-
heating and cooling systems capable of maintaining an indoor temperature of not less than 68°F




T
(20°C) between 70°F (21°C) and 82°F (28°C) (if cooled by air conditioning, and 86°F (30°C) if
cooled by evaporative cooling), measured at a point 3 feet (914mm) above the floor in the center
of the room. on the design heating day. The installation of portable space heaters or coolers
shall not be used to achieve compliance with this section.

Exceptions:




AF
1. Space heating and cooling systems are not required for interior spaces where the
primary purpose is not associated with human comfort.
2. Group F, H, S, and U occupancies.


Justification: This amendment requires newly constructed buildings to comply with City of
Phoenix Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance Sec. 39-5(B)(1)(b), which deals with buildings
that are rented. All newly constructed buildings may be rented at some point in their life.


Cost Impact: Significant cost impact; this amendment requires cooling in all interior spaces




R
intended for human occupancy, which the base code does not.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
YES


Date: 01/08/2024
NO




D Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted

Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied




Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date: 02/13/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Mechanical Code (IMC)
Section 402.1

Submitted by: International Mechanical Code Committee

402.1 Natural ventilation.
Natural ventilation of an occupied space in a residential dwelling unit within a commercial
building shall be through windows, doors, louvers or other openings to the outdoors. The



T
operating mechanism for such openings shall be provided with ready access so that the
openings are readily controllable by the building occupants. Natural ventilation of all other
occupied spaces within commercial buildings shall be through permanently fixed openings to the
outdoors.




AF
Justification: Natural ventilation in a residential dwelling unit within a commercial building
depends on operable openings such as doors, windows, louvers, or other openings to the
outdoors. Whenever a dwelling unit within a commercial building has occupants and the
qualifying window or door is open to the outdoors, then the ventilation requirement of IMC 401.3
is met All other spaces within a commercial building with space cooling and heating
requirements would rarely leave windows or doors in the open position. Openings such as
windows and doors in a commercial building cannot be reliably depended upon to remain open
whenever occupants are present.


Cost Impact: Minimal cost impact.




R
Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Denied
YES NO


Date: 11/16/2024
No action taken
Date: 02/13/2025




D Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Mechanical Code (IMC)
Section 407.1.1

Submitted by: International Mechanical Code Committee

407.1 General.
Mechanical ventilation for ambulatory care facilities and Group I-2 occupancies shall be
designed and installed in accordance with this code and ASHRAE 170.

407.1.1


T
Mechanical systems designed and installed in accordance with IMC 407.1 and ASHRAE
170 shall be verified by a qualified third party Special Inspector. The Special
Inspector/testing agency shall be an independent third party individual or firm and shall
not be the installing contractor. A report shall be generated by the third party individual or
firm showing compliance. Special inspections shall be as specified in Chapter 17 of the




AF
International Building Code as amended.


Justification
The ventilation systems for Group I-2 and ambulatory facilities face the possibility of
communicating and perpetuating airborne diseases. Special inspections are required to ensure
that life safety systems and public health standards are met. It is imperative that the ventilation
systems required by IMC 407.1 are designed to control the spread of disease and operate as
designed. This can only be accomplished by verification through proper testing. The Registered
Design Professional in Responsible Charge shall follow the guidelines set forth in the 2024 IBC
as specified in Chapter 17.




R
Cost Impact: No cost impact. Currently Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS)
requires that the ventilation systems are balanced and tested.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process: YES NO




D
ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted


Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Denied

Denied
Date: 01/08/2025
No action taken
Date: 02/13/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Mechanical Code (IMC)
Section 408

Submitted by: International Mechanical Code Committee

408 MARIJUANA RELATED OCCUPANCIES

408.1 General.
Any building used to cultivate, produce, infuse or dispense marijuana shall be designed such that



T
there shall be no emission of dust, fumes, vapors, or odors into the environment from the
premise. A ventilation system shall be designed to prevent the distribution of odors to other
occupied parts of the building or adjacent properties. Design of the odor control system shall be
based on accepted engineering practices. All equipment and filter media shall be listed and
labeled for the application. Exhaust systems used in odor control systems shall meet the
requirements of Section 501.




AF
408.1.1 Exhaust outlets.
The termination point for exhaust outlets shall be in accordance with Section 501.3. Exhaust
from cultivation and production facilities shall be in accordance with Section 501.3.1(2) and
for dispensaries in accordance with Section 501.3.1(3).


Justification: This is a current amendment to the 2018 IMC. This new section provides design
guidance for required odor control systems, per City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance.


Cost Impact: Moderate cost impact due to additional equipment necessary to comply with air




R
quality requirements mandated by the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ).


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
YES NO


Date: 11/16/2024




D Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted

Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied




Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date: 02/13/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Mechanical Code (IMC)
Section 502.14

Submitted by: International Mechanical Code Committee

502.14 Motor vehicle operation.
In areas where motor vehicles operate, mechanical ventilation shall be provided in accordance
with Section 403 Additionally, areas in which stationary motor vehicles are operated shall be
provided with a source capture system that connects directly to the motor vehicle exhaust



T
systems. Makeup air for the required exhaust systems in areas where motor vehicles operate
shall be provided through permanent unobstructed openings to the outdoors, such as louvers
and grills. Mechanical equipment and louvers used for makeup air purposes shall be electrically
interlocked with the exhaust system. Such system shall be engineered by a registered design
professional or shall be factory-built equipment designed and sized for the purpose.




AF
Exceptions:
1. This section shall not apply where the motor vehicles being operated or repaired are
electrically powered.
2. This section shall not apply to one- and two-family dwellings.
3. This section shall not apply to motor vehicle service areas where engines are operated
inside the building only for the duration necessary to move the motor vehicles in and out
ot the building.


Justification: Motor vehicle operation in a building depletes oxygen and causes a build-up of
carbon monoxide and other products of combustion which could be fatal to occupants. It is
critical to the health of occupants to remove these emissions from the occupied space. From




R
IMC section 403, an exhaust rate of 0.75 cfm/ft2 is specified for both repair garages and
enclosed parking garages. Repair garages that have stationary vehicle operation, such as
engine tune-up services, radiator or transmission flushing, etc. require dedicated exhaust
systems. This proposal adds specific requirements to provide permanent building openings for
makeup air or use mechanical makeup air units. This eliminates the use of open doors, which
cannot be reliable. It also requires any mechanical equipment or mechanical louvers used for
makeup air to be electrically interlocked with the dedicated exhaust system.




D
Cost Impact: Minimal cost impact.Minimal cost increase to install openings. This requirement is
also an amendment carried forward from the 2018 IMC.




Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process: YES NO

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee Date: 11/16/2024
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee Date: 02/13/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Date: 04/22/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee Date: 05/21/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken




T
AF
R
D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Mechanical Code (IMC)
Section 502.21

Submitted by: International Mechanical Code Committee

502.21 Storage and use of liquid carbon dioxide (CO2) systems.
Indoor or outdoor areas that contain liquid carbon dioxide (CO2) stored in ASME pressure vessels
in new and existing facilities shall be provided with mechanical exhaust ventilation in accordance
with this section.



T
Exception: Outdoor storage areas in non-enclosed spaces designed to prevent the collection
of vapors when approved by the Fire Marshal.

502.21.1 System requirements.




AF
Exhaust ventilation systems for liquid carbon dioxide CO2 tanks shall comply with all of the
following:

1. The installation shall be in accordance with this code and the Phoenix Fire Code, PFC
Chapter 53 Compressed Gases, Section 5307.2.2, Gas Ventilation Requirements.
2. Mechanical ventilation shall be provided at a rate of not less than 1 cfm per square foot
[0.00508 m3/(s • m2)] of floor area over the storage area.
3. The system shall operate continuously unless alternate designs are approved by the
Fire Marshal.
4. A manual start control shall be provided outside of the room in a position adjacent to the
access door to the room or in another approved location. The switch shall be a break-
glass or other approved type and shall be labeled: VENTILATION SYSTEM
EMERGENCY ON-ONLY.




R 5. Exhaust ventilation shall be designed to consider the density of the potential vapors
released. For liquid Co2 systems, exhaust shall be taken from a point within 12 inches
(305 mm) of the floor.
6 Makeup air shall be provided. The location of both the exhaust and makeup air
openings shall be designed to provide air movement across all portions of the floor or
room to prevent the accumulation of vapors.
7. Exhaust air shall not be recirculated to occupied areas. Exhaust termination shall be




D located where it will not allow for a dangerous accumulation of vapors and in
accordance with Section 501.3.1 (2).
8. Sensors, controls, alarms, piping and all accessory components as prescribed by the
Phoenix Fire Department.

Justification: This amendment determines the requirement for a mechanical ventilation system
for liquid carbon dioxide (CO2) bulk storage systems regardless of quantity. Businesses that
provide carbonated drinks have been increasingly switching from dry to liquid CO2 storage
systems. Liquid CO2 storage systems have been deemed potentially hazardous to human health
by the Phoenix Fire Department. Separate Fire Department permits are also required for CO2
systems. This requirement is also an amendment carried forward from the 2018 IMC.




Cost Impact: Additional costs are due to the requirement for installation of dedicated
mechanical exhaust system in the area of liquid CO2 tanks.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process: YES NO

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee Date: 11/16/2024
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee Date: 02/13/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Date: 04/22/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken



T
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




AF
R
D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Mechanical Code (IMC)
Section 606.2.1

Submitted by: International Mechanical Code Committee

606.2 Where required.
Smoke detectors shall be installed where indicated in Sections 606.2.1 through 606.2.3.



T
Exception: Smoke detectors shall not be required where air distribution systems are
incapable of spreading smoke beyond the enclosing walls, floors and ceilings of the room or
space in which the smoke is generated.

606.2.1 Return air systems. Air distribution systems.




AF
Smoke detectors shall be installed in return air systems with air distribution systems
downstream of the filters and ahead of any branch connections in systems having a design
capacity greater than 2,000 cfm (0.9 m3/s). in the return air duct or plenum upstream of any
filters, exhaust air connections, outdoor air connections, or decontamination equipment and
appliances.

Exception: Smoke detectors are not required in the return air system where all portions
of the building served by the air distribution system are protected by area smoke
detectors connected to a fire alarm system in accordance with the International Fire
Code. The area smoke detection system shall comply with Section 606.4.


Justification: Committee recommends that this section be revised to correlate with NFPA 90A




R
Installation of Air-Conditioning and Ventilating Systems. The 2024 IMC references NFPA 72
National Fire Alarm Code, which in turn references NFPA 90A for installation of smoke detectors.
These NFPA Standards are generally recognized as the national standards for smoke detector
installation. A large amount of air distribution systems installed in Phoenix utilize a filtered grill for
return air, typically installed in a ceiling or wall. In order to place a duct detector in front of this
filter without having it attached to the grill, an additional length of plenum or duct is required. This
leads to added construction costs and space restraints. The duct smoke detector may also be




D
subjected to a higher frequency of false alarms from contaminants in the room. The committee
reasons that any appreciable amount of smoke entering the return air system will pass through
the filtered grill and reach the probe for the smoke detector. This proposed amendment will help
to keep down the design costs while still providing an equivalent level of life safety based on the
national standard. This amendment is carried forward from the 2018 IMC.


Cost Impact: Saves cost of additional duct work.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process: YES NO




ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee Date: 11/16/2024
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee Date: 02/13/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Date: 04/22/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee Date: 05/21/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken




T
AF
R
D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Mechanical Code (IMC)
Section 606.5

Submitted by: International Mechanical Code Committee

606.5 Testing.
Smoke detectors shall be tested by an approved testing agency or a qualified third party Special
Inspector. The Special Inspector/ testing agency shall be an independent third party and shall
not be the installing contractor. Special inspections shall be as specified in Chapter 17 of the
International Building Code as amended.




T
Justification: Smoke detectors can save lives when they operate correctly. The Mechanical
code requires that these devices be installed at specific locations in the building air distribution
systems. Testing of the operation of each smoke detector is required to be completed by a
special inspector that is independent of the installer. Such special inspector must also be




AF
qualified to complete the work. Special Inspections is covered in the International Building Code
and has been extended in the City of Phoenix to include several life safety items related to
Mechanical design. Due to the importance of these life safety devices, it is recommended by the
committee that a Special Inspector submit a final report certifying that all devices operate as
designed and the Registered Design Professional in Responsible Charge signs the certificate.
To maintain consistency with the Special Inspections program, the testing agency and the
registrant shall follow the guidelines set forth in the 2024 IBC, as specified in Chapter 17.


Cost Impact: Increase costs associated with hiring a Special Inspector. However, this
amendment is carried forward from the 2006 IMC and has been in place for the past eighteen
years.




R
Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Denied
YES NO


Date: 11/21/2024
No action taken
Date: 02/13/2025




D Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Mechanical Code (IMC)
Section 607.2

Submitted by: International Mechanical Code Committee

[BF] 607.2 Installation.
Fire dampers, smoke dampers, combination fire/smoke dampers and ceiling radiation dampers



T
located within air distribution and smoke control systems shall be installed in accordance with the
manufacturer’s instructions, the dampers’ listing and Sections 607.2.1 through 607.2.3. Dampers
shall be tested by an approved testing agency or a qualified third party special inspector. The
special Inspector/testing agency shall be an independent third party individual or firm and shall
not be the installing contractor. Special inspections shall be as specified in Chapter 17 of the
International Building Code as amended.




AF
Justification: Fire and smoke dampers can save lives when they operate correctly. The
Mechanical code requires that these devices be installed at specific locations to prevent fire and
smoke from spreading throughout a building. The IMC requires all dampers to be listed and
tested at the factory. This proposal will verify that the dampers operate correctly after they are
installed in the building. This amendment requires that testing of dampers shall be performed by
a qualified third party testing agency and all results shall be verified by the professional design
engineer. Special inspection requirements are listed in the 2024 IBC and a reference is provided
in this proposal.


Cost Impact: Increase costs associated with hiring a Special Inspector. However, this




R
amendment is carried forward from the 2018 IMC and has been in place for the past twelve
years.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
YES NO




D
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted


Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Denied

Denied
Date: 11/21/2024
No action taken
Date: 02/13/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Mechanical Code (IMC)
Section 608.1

Submitted by: International Mechanical Code Committee

608.1 Balancing.
Air distribution, ventilation and exhaust systems shall be provided with means to adjust the
system to achieve the design airflow rates and shall be balanced by an approved method.
Ventilation air distribution shall be balanced by an approved method and such balancing shall



T
verify that the air distribution system is capable of supplying and exhausting the airflow rates
required by Chapter 4.

The ventilation air distribution system shall be provided with means to adjust the system to
achieve not less than the minimum ventilation airflow rate as required by sections 403.3 and
403.3.1.2. Ventilation systems shall be balanced using a nationally accepted air balancing test




AF
method. Such balancing shall verify that the ventilation system is capable of supplying and
exhausting the airflow rates required by Sections 403.3 and 403.3.1.2. A final report shall be
provided to the engineer of record and the mechanical inspector.


Justification: This is a current amendment to the 2018 IMC 403.1.5 and is now currently located
in 2024 IMC 608.1. The proposed amendment will require an approved test and balance agency
/ individual to perform balancing of ventilation air systems in commercial buildings. The original
code language does not define what type of “approved method” is acceptable. The proposal will
further require that such agency / individual follow national standards for air balancing methods.




R
Cost Impact: Minimal cost impact. Minimal impact of nationally accepted air balancing test.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
YES NO


Date: 01/08/2025




D Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted

Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied




Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date: 02/13/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Mechanical Code (IMC)
Section 928.1

Submitted by: International Mechanical Code Committee
SECTION 928 EVAPORATIVE COOLING EQUIPMENT

928.1 General.
Evaporative cooling equipment shall:
1. Be installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions.



T
2. Be installed on level platforms in accordance with Section 304.10.
3. Have openings in exterior walls or roofs flashed in accordance with the
International Building Code.
4. Be provided with an approved water supply, sized for peak demand. The
quality of water shall be provided in accordance with
the equipment manufacturer’s recommendations. The piping system and protection of




AF
the potable water supply system shall be installed as required by the International
Plumbing Code.
5. Have air intake opening locations in accordance with Section 401.4.
6. A permanent relief opening or other engineered design sufficient to assure positive
airflow shall balance intake air.
7. Outside air shall be provided as specified in Section 403.2.
8. Air ducts and dampers, which are a portion of an evaporative cooling system, shall
comply with Chapter 6.
9. Overflow drains shall be provided that discharge to an approved disposal location.


Justification: This amendment clarifies installation requirements for evaporative coolers.




R
Cost Impact: Minimal cost impact. Requires positive airflow design. These requirements are
carried forward from the 2018 IMC.

Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:
ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
YES

Date: 11/21/2024
NO




D Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted

Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied




Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date: 02/13/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Mechanical Code (IMC)
Section 932

Submitted by: International Mechanical Code Committee

SECTION 932 WOOD STOVE/FIREPLACE INSTALLATION
DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this section, the following words and terms shall have the
meaning ascribed thereto:




T
FIREPLACE: A built-in-place masonry hearth and fire chamber or a factory-built appliance,
designed to burn solid fuel or to accommodate gas or electric log insert or similar device,
and which is intended for occasional recreational or aesthetic use, not for cooking, heating,
or industrial processes.

SOLID FUEL: Includes, but is not limited to, wood, coal, or other non-gaseous or non-liquid




AF
fuels, including those fuels defined by the Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Officer as
"inappropriate fuel" to burn in residential wood burning devices.

WOODSTOVE: A solid-fuel burning heating appliance including a pellet stove, which is
either freestanding or designed to be inserted into a fireplace.

932.1 General.
In accordance with the Phoenix City Council adopted Ordinance G-4062, on or after December
31, 1998, no person, firm or corporation shall construct or install a fireplace or a wood stove,
and the Building Official shall not approve or issue a permit to construct or install a fireplace or
a wood stove, unless the fireplace or wood stove complies with one of the following:




R 1. A fireplace which has a permanently installed gas or electric log insert;
2. A fireplace, wood stove or other solid fuel burning appliance which has been certified by
the United States Environmental Protection Agency as conforming to 40 Code of Federal
Regulations part 60, subpart AAA;
3. A fireplace, woodstove or other solid fuel burning appliance that has been tested and
listed by a nationally recognized testing agency to meet performance standards
equivalent to those adopted by 40 Code of Federal Regulations part 60, subpart AAA;




D 4. A fireplace, wood stove or other solid fuel burning appliance which has been determined
by the Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Officer to meet performance standards
equivalent to those adopted by 40 Code of Federal Regulations part 60, subpart AAA, as
in effect on July 1, 1990.
5. A fireplace which has a permanently installed wood stove insert which complies with
subparagraph 2, 3, or 4 above.

Exceptions: The following installations are not regulated and are not
prohibited by this section: Furnaces, boilers, incinerators, kilns, and other
similar space heating or industrial process equipment. Cook stoves,
barbecue grills, and similar appliances designed primarily for cooking. Fire
pits, barbecue grills, and other outdoor fireplaces.




Fireplace or wood stove alterations prohibited.
Fireplaces constructed or installed on or after December 31,1998, that contain a gas or electric
log insert or a woodstove insert, shall not be altered to directly burn wood or any other solid
fuel. On or after December 31, 1998, no person, firm, or corporation shall alter a fireplace,
woodstove, or other solid-fuel burning appliance in any manner that would void its certification
or operational compliance with the provisions of thissection.

Fireplaces constructed or installed on or after December 31, 1998, shall not be altered
without first obtaining a permit from the City to ensure compliance with this section.


Justification: Recommendation to include code language based on City Ordinance G-4062 and
Maricopa County wood burning restriction ordinance. This amendment is carried over from the
2018 IMC and is also found in the 2018 IRC as Section R325.


Cost Impact: No cost impact.

T
Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process: YES NO




AF
ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted


Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Denied

Denied
Date: 11/21/2024
No action taken
Date: 02/13/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




R
D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Mechanical Code (IMC)
Section 1105.10

Submitted by: International Mechanical Code Committee

1105.10 Dimensions.
Refrigeration machinery rooms shall be of such dimensions that all system parts are readily
accessible with adequate space for service, maintenance, and operations. A minimum
unobstructed walking space at least three (3) feet (914 mm) in width and six (6) feet eight (8)



T
inches (2032 mm) in height or approved manufacturer’s installation or required clearances shall
be maintained throughout, allowing free access to at least two sides of all moving machinery and
approaching each stop valve. Access to refrigeration machinery rooms shall be restricted to
authorized personnel and posted with permanent signage.




AF
Justification: This addition to this section is needed to ensure adequate safe working space
around the equipment in a refrigeration machinery room. Previously incorporated into the 2018
IMC.


Cost Impact: Minimal cost impact.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
YES


Date: 11/21/2024
NO




R Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
No action taken
Date: 02/13/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken




D
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Mechanical Code (IMC)
Section 1109.2.5

Submitted by: International Mechanical Code Committee

1109.2.5 Refrigerant pipe shafts.
Refrigerant piping that penetrates two or more floor/ceiling assemblies shall be enclosed in a fire-
resistance-rated shaft enclosure. The fire-resistance-rated shaft enclosure shall comply with
Section 713 of the International Building Code.

Exceptions:


T
1. Refrigeration systems using R-718 refrigerant (water).
2. Piping in a direct refrigeration system using Group A1 refrigerant where the refrigerant
quantity does not exceed the limits of Table 1103.1 for the smallest occupied space
through which the piping passes.
3. Piping located on the exterior of the building where vented to the outdoors.




AF
Justification: This amendment will make IMC 1109.2.5 consistent with ASHRAE 15-2022
which is a currently approved reference standard in the 2024 IMC. IMC 1109.2.2 still requires
refrigerant piping to be protected within the building or protective enclosures. Shaft enclosures
shall have a fire-resistance rating of not less than 2 hours where connecting four stories or more,
and not less than 1 hour where connecting less than four stories, IBC 713.4.

This section was added to the 2021 IMC before changes were completed and implemented in
ASHRAE 15-2022. It has been determined that any refrigerant meeting the maximum allowable
quantities of IMC Table 1103.1 are safe to install without a shaft enclosure. This amendment
proposal is consistent with AHRAE 15-22




R
Cost Impact: This proposal will more than minimally decrease the cost of multistory multifamily
housing due to allowing construction to continue in its current practices without introducing shaft
enclosure that will alter the floor plans that are already developed and require larger lots for the
same number of dwellings.




D
Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted

Approved as submitted

Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Modified and approved Denied
YES NO


Date: 01/15/2024
No action taken
Date: 02/13/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken


BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC)
Chapter 1 [CE], Sections C101 – C110

Submitted by: International Energy Conservation Code Committee

Notes:

1. For reserved sections herein, refer to the amendments and requirements in Chapter 1
of the International Building Code for these code requirements.



T
2. For sections that remain unchanged from base code, the term “see this section of the
2024 IECC” shall refer to the unchanged base code.

SECTION C101 SCOPE AND GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

C101.1 Title




AF
This code shall be known as the International Energy Conservation Code as amended by the
code.” These regulations are one document of the overall Phoenix Building Construction Code
as defined by the adopting ordinance.

C101.2 Scope.
This code applies to the design and construction of buildings not covered by the scope of the
IECC-Residential Provisions. Group R-2 when defined as a Commercial Building by section
C202, shall have the option of complying under the Residential Provisions of the code,
regardless of height. Once defined as such on the submittal documents, all components of the
Residential Provisions shall be followed.




R
C101.2.1 Appendices. – See this section of the 2024 IECC

C101.3 Intent. – See this section of the 2024 IECC

C101.4 Compliance.
Residential buildings shall meet the provisions of IECC—Residential Provisions. Commercial
buildings shall meet the provisions of IECC—Commercial Provisions. Group R-2 when defined




D
as a Commercial Building by section C202, shall have the option of complying under the
Residential Provisions of the code, regardless of height. Once defined as such on the submittal
documents, all components of the Residential Provisions shall be followed.

C101.4.1 Compliance materials – See this section of the 2024 IECC

SECTION C102 APPLICABILITY – Reserved, except as noted below

C102.1.1 Mixed residential and commercial buildings. – See this section of the 2024 IECC

SECTION C103 CODE COMPLIANCE AGENCY – Reserved

SECTION C104 ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS, DESIGN AND METHODS OF CONSTRUCTION
AND EQUIPMENT – Reserved


SECTION C105 CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS – Reserved

SECTION C106 FEES -– Reserved

SECTION C107 INSPECTIONS – Reserved

SECTION C108 NOTICE OF APPROVAL – Reserved

SECTION C109 MEANS OF APPEALS – Reserved

SECTION C110 STOP WORK ORDER – Reserved

Justification:




T
All the adopted and amended building code documents taken together are known as the Phoenix
Building Construction Code. Each code document is a separate document of the Phoenix
Building Construction Code. This document is the International Energy Conservation Code as
Amended by the City of Phoenix. This document is intended to apply where a code or referenced
standard identifies the International Energy Conservation Code as being applicable.




AF
Allows a multi-family developer the choice between residential and commercial provisions
regardless of height for multi-family construction.

The reserved provisions are contained in the Phoenix Building Construction Code –
Administrative Provisions (Chapter 1 of the International Building Code).


Cost Impact: No cost impact.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
YES NO




R
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Date: 01/30/2025
No action taken
Date: 03/06/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025




D Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC)
Chapter 4 [CE], Section C401.2.1

Submitted by: International Energy Conservation Code Committee

C401.2.1 International Energy Conservation Code
Commercial buildings shall comply with one of the following:
1. Prescriptive Compliance. The Prescriptive Compliance option requires compliance with
Sections C402 through C406 and Sections C408. Dwelling units and sleeping units in



T
Group R-2 buildings shall be deemed to be in compliance with this chapter, provided
that they comply with Section R406.
2. Simulated Building Performance. The Simulated Building Performance option requires
compliance with Section C407.

Exceptions:




AF
1. Additions, alterations, repairs, and changes of occupancy to existing buildings
complying with Chapter 5.
2. Compliance with the provisions of Section C408 is optional.



Justification: The 2024 IECC added references for mandatory compliance with Section C408 in
Section C401.2.1. This amendment revises the requirements of Section C408 from mandatory to
optional.

While the City of Phoenix encourages compliance with Section C408 Maintenance Information
and System Commissioning; this function will occur after the C of O is issued.




R
Cost Impact: Cost will be reduced if the Commissioning is not done.

Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
YES NO




D
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted


Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Denied

Denied
Date: 10/31/2024
No action taken
Date: 03/06/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC)
Chapter 4 [CE], Section C401.2.2

Submitted by: International Energy Conservation Code Committee

C401.2.2 ASHRAE 90.1. (as it relates to C401.2.1 International Conservation Code –
Prescriptive Compliance)
Commercial buildings shall comply with the requirements of ANSI/ASHRAE/IES 90.1.



T
1. Compliance with the provisions of Section C408 are optional.


Justification: Section C401.2 of the 2024 IECC states: Commercial buildings shall comply with
Section C401.2.1 or C401.2.2.




AF
The 2024 IECC Section C401.2.1 for The Prescriptive Compliance option has references for
required compliance with Section C408.

This amendment revises Section C401.2.2’s requirement of adherence to Section C408 to be
optional.

While the City of Phoenix encourages compliance with Section C408 Maintenance Information
and System Commissioning; it recommends deferring the mandatory requirement to a future
code cycle to reduce the cost of this relatively new non-life safety requirement.


Cost Impact: cost reduction




R
Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
YES NO


Date: 10/31/2024
No action taken




D
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted




Approved as submitted
Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Date: 03/06/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC)
Chapter 4 [CE], Section C405.12

Submitted by: Darrel R. Miller, PE, LEED-AP, ICC Certified Electrical Plans Examiner and
modified by the National Electrical Code Committee

C405.12 Reserved
This section is deleted in its entirety.
Note: The corresponding requirements in ASHRAE 90.1 8.4.2 Automatic Receptacle Control is
also deleted in its entirety.

C405.12 Automatic receptacle control.
T
The following shall have automatic receptacle control complying with Section C405.12.1:
1. At least 50 percent of all 125V, 15- and 20-amp receptacles installed in enclosed offices,
conference rooms, rooms used primarily for copy or print functions, breakrooms,




AF
classrooms and individual workstations, including those installed in modular partitions
and module office workstation systems.
2. At least 25 percent of branch circuit feeders installed for modular furniture not shown on
the construction documents.

C405.12.1 Automatic receptacle control function.
Automatic receptacle controls shall comply with the following:
1. Either split controlled receptacles shall be provided with the top receptacle controlled, or
a controlled receptacle shall belocated within 12 inches (304.8 mm) of each uncontrolled
receptacle.
2. One of the following methods shall be used to provide control:
2.1. A scheduled basis using a time-of-day operated control device that turns




R receptacle power off at specific programmed times and can be programmed
separately for each day of the week. The control device shall be configured to
provide an independent schedule for each portion of the building of not more than
5,000 square feet (464.5 m2) and not more than one floor. The occupant shall be
able to manually override an area for not more than 2 hours. Any individual
override switch shall control the receptacles of not more than 5,000 feet (1524 m).
2.2. An occupant sensor control that shall turn off receptacles within 20 minutes of




D all occupants leaving a space.
2.3. An automated signal from another control or alarm system that shall turn off
receptacles within 20 minutes after determining that the area is unoccupied.
3. All controlled receptacles shall be permanently marked in accordance with NFPA 70 and
be uniformly distributed throughout the space.
4. Plug-in devices shall not comply.

Exceptions: Automatic receptacle controls are not required for the following:
1. Receptacles specifically designated for equipment requiring continuous operation (24
hours per day, 365 days per year).
2. Spaces where an automatic control would endanger the safety or security of the room or
building occupants.




3. Within a single modular office workstation, noncontrolled receptacles are permitted to be
located more than 12 inches (304.8 mm), but not more than 72 inches (1828 mm) from
the controlled receptacles serving that workstation.


Justification: 2024 IECC C405.12 Proposed Change – A postulate against implementation.

This proposal is based on the assumption that the City of Phoenix wants to be known as a
business friendly city. One way this can be achieved is by the establishment of practical building
codes that focus on public safety, rather than unrelated requirements that have no benefit to the
citizens of the City and add a cost burden to the conforming business or property owner.

This electrical system requirement offers an extremely low return on investment and is such an
item that detracts from a business-friendly environment. If this item was assessed on a basis of
payback, it would never be implemented based on the number of years it would take to recover



T
the investment costs. It is my opinion this requirement should not be codified, rather it should be
left to the conscious of the individual business as to how they spend their money.

If a business chooses to be more energy conscious the proposed code change (deletion) will not
prevent implementing a more stringent requirement on themselves. For other businesses that do
not have the same environmental concerns there would be no penalty.




AF
What is this Code provision addressing? This section of the code pertains to "parasitic plug
loads" which are known to be extremely small (milliwatts) and equipment “standby loads”. Each
represents inconsequential loads for the building power system. The management of these loads
as required in the proposed 2024 IECC C405.12 language implements an additional control
system previously not a part of the 2018 IECC, currently adopted. The new requirements have
targeted areas of a building that are most likely to have the previously described loads, offices
(enclosed and open), conference rooms, copy/print rooms, break rooms, classrooms, individual
workstations (stand alone or modular type) mandating 50% of the receptacles in the space to be
controlled by a system (choose one of (3) options. None of which are practical).

Implementation will introduce the following:




R • 50% loss of the continuous power receptacles within the space or increase the receptacle
quantity by 100% so as to maintain the original quantity available prior to implementation
of this code.
• Invoke training for new space occupants as to the functionality (or dysfunctionality) of the
power receptacle system in the space they will be working in. Likely inclusive of how to
avoid use of the controlled receptacles to assure your tablets and phones and computer
batteries are always functional when you need them.




D • Specially marked receptacles identifying they are controlled. Thanks to California Energy
Codes, these are available from the majority of device manufacturers.
• Dedicated wiring system from dedicated relays or panels or other type of controller.
• Control systems to provide independent control of each area up to 5,000 SF at no less
that one zone of control per floor.
• Control override buttons allowing a control override for up to 2 hours separately for each
of the spaces controlled by such override buttons (limited to 5,000 SF per button or no
less than one per floor).
• Not specifically mentioned but certainly will be required for clarity to those using the
system, each button station will need an associated placard/graphic indicating the spaces
controlled by such override buttons.




• Where modular furniture is not shown specifically on the design plans, and it is commonly
not shown, a mandate that 25% of the branch circuits to the identified modular furniture
must be dedicated to controlled receptacles. This could be a large number of circuit
additions in larger open office spaces.
Indirect effects of implementation:

• Increased Building Safety Department plan review time to assure design compliance.
• Increased Building Safety inspection time to assure actual compliance.
• Nuisance operation of the electrical system for the user of the space.
Real world issues:
Consider that your cell phone is plugged into a charger while you are out at lunch. Why? You
need to have it for an out of office meeting following lunch. Your battery was low, so you plugged




T
it in. You come back and find the charger has been off starting 20 minutes following your
departure from your enclosed office. Why? Because the control system for the lighting also shuts
off the controlled receptacle with the lights (one of the most cost effective ways to control these
receptacles that is listed in the prescriptive choices). Yes, this is how the controlled receptacles
are intended to operate.




AF
Now consider a Police sergeant or detective in your office at the station going in for a briefing.
The officer plugs in a Taser for a refresh charge. The briefing goes long. When arriving back in
the office to retrieve the Taser, finds the outlet has shut off with the lights. Now it is not ready for
use. Same with the cell phone, laptop, radio, or any other battery device necessary for their tour.
If the lighting system turns off due to a lack of occupants in the space, the controlled receptacles
also will turn off. This is one of the prescribed choices in the code, and it happens to be the most
cost effective as well. The other prescribed choices do not practically work in a building such as
are designed for law enforcement, and I would argue, Fire Departments as well.
This code has no occupancy type exceptions to practically apply it to Public Safety facilities. This
is a problem.
Controlled receptacles for printers and copy machines – Implementing the controlled receptacle




R
requirement for copiers and other office equipment is unnecessary and potentially harmful for the
equipment. A hard restart is not a desired shut down method for the office equipment. This is
effectively what the controlled receptacle is doing, an abrupt power down, equivalent to a utility
power outage. Additionally, shutting off power to the equipment based on occupancy or even
based on a time clock will cause a restart cycle, delaying its use. The downtime for office staff is
calculable and adds to the operational costs to the business. It is in the business owner’s best




D
interest to purchase office equipment with energy star certifications. This will naturally occur just
from availability and benefits. Equipment with an Energy Star certification must meet strict
energy efficiency criteria set by the EPA, including features like low power consumption in sleep
mode, quick transition to sleep mode after inactivity, and efficient power supplies. By definition,
Energy Star Certified equipment is performing the functions the IECC mandates are attempting
to provide but without the pitfalls. The IECC requirements in C405.12 are impractical. Cord and
plug equipment control should be left to up to the business owner rather than a dictate from City
Hall.
Recommendation:
Strike 2024 IECC C405.12 from adoption based on the above arguments.




Striking this provision for controlled receptacles has no effect on the plan review, inspections, or
design community. It shows Phoenix is willing to maintain a logical approach to energy
conservation while retaining a business friendly environment. It means there will be no related
workload burden placed on the Electrical Plans Reviewers or Electrical Inspector. There will be
no need for plan review fee increases to the public related to this issue.
Note: This proposed amendment was reviewed by the 2024 NEC Committee and
recommended to be Approved as Modified.


Cost Impact: Cost Reduction


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process: YES NO

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted
T
Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Denied

Denied
Date: 01/16/2025
No action taken
Date: 03/06/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025




AF
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date:
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




R
D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC)
Chapter 4 [CE], Section C405.13

Submitted by: Darrel R. Miller, PE, LEED-AP, ICC Certified Electrical Plans Examiner and
modified by the National Electrical Code Committee

C405.13 Reserved
This section is deleted in its entirety.
Note: The corresponding requirements in ASHRAE 90.1 8.4.3 Electrical Energy Monitoring is
also deleted in its entirety.


C405.13 Energy monitoring. T
New buildings with a gross conditioned floor area of not less than 10,000 square feet (929 m2)
shall be equipped to measure, monitor, record and report energy consumption in accordance




AF
with Sections C405.13.1 through C405.13.6 for load categories indicated in Table
C405.13.2 and Sections C405.13.7 through C405.13.11 for end-use categories indicated
in Table C405.13.8.
Exceptions:
1. 1.Dwelling units in R-2 occupancies.
2. 2.Individual tenant spaces are not required to comply with this section provided that the
space has its own utility services and meters and has less than 5,000 square feet (464.5
m2) of conditioned floor area.

C405.13.1 Electrical energy metering.
For electrical energy supplied to the building and its associated site, including but not limited to
site lighting, parking, recreational facilities and other areas that serve the building and its




R
occupants, meters or other measurement devices shall be provided to collect energy
consumption data for each end-use category required by Section C405.13.2.

C405.13.2 End-use electric metering categories.
Meters or other approved measurement devices shall be provided to collect energy use data for
each end-use category indicated in Table C405.13.2. Where multiple meters are used to
measure any end-use category, the data acquisition system shall total all of the energy used by




D
that category. Not more than 5 percent of the design load for each of the end-use categories
indicated in Table C405.13.2 shall be permitted to be from a load that is not within that category.
Exceptions:
1. 1.HVAC and water heating equipment serving only an individual dwelling unit shall not
require end-use metering.
2. 2.End-use metering shall not be required for fire pumps, stairwell pressurization fans or
any system that operates only during testing or emergency.
3. 3.End-use metering shall not be required for an individual tenant space having a floor
area not greater than 2,500 square feet (232 m2) where a dedicated source meter
complying with Section C405.13.3 is provided.

TABLE C405.13.2
ELECTRICAL ENERGY USE CATEGORIES
LOAD CATEGORY DESCRIPTION OF ENERGY USE


Heating, cooling and ventilation, including but not limited to fans,
pumps, boilers, chillers and water heating. Energy used by 120-volt
Total HVAC system equipment, or by 208/120-volt equipment that is located in a building
where the main service is 480/277-volt power, is permitted to be
excluded from total HVAC system energy use.
Interior lighting Lighting systems located within the building.
Exterior lighting Lighting systems located on the building site but not within the building.
Plug loads Devices, appliances and equipment connected to convenience
receptacle outlets.
Any single load that is not included in an HVAC, lighting or plug load
Process load category and that exceeds 5 percent of the peak connected load of the
whole building, including but not limited to data centers, manufacturing
equipment and commercial kitchens.
The remaining loads not included elsewhere in this table, including but
Building operations
and other
miscellaneous loads
Electric hot water
heating for uses other
T
not limited to vertical transportation systems, automatic doors,
motorized shading systems, ornamental fountains, fireplaces,
swimming pools, spas and snow-melt systems.
Electricity used to generate hot water.
Exception: Electric water heating with design capacity that is less than
than space
conditioning




AF 10 percent of the building service rating.

C405.13.3 Electrical meters.
Meters or other measurement devices required by this section shall be configured to
automatically communicate energy consumption data to the data acquisition system required
by Section C405.13.4. Source meters shall be allowed to be any digital-type meter. Lighting,
HVAC or other building systems that can self-monitor their energy consumption shall be
permitted instead of meters. Current sensors shall be permitted, provided that they have a tested
accuracy of ±2 percent. Required metering systems and equipment shall have the capability to
provide at least hourly data that is fully integrated into the data acquisition system and graphical
energy report in accordance with Sections C405.13.4 and C405.13.5. Nonintrusive load
monitoring (NILM) packages that extract energy consumption data from detailed electric




R
waveform analysis shall be permitted to substitute for individual meters if the equivalent data is
available for collection in Section C405.13.4 and reporting in Section C405.13.5.

C405.13.4 Electrical energy data acquisition system.
A data acquisition system shall have the capability to store the data from the required meters
and other sensing devices for a minimum of 36 months. The data acquisition system shall have
the capability to store real-time energy consumption data and provide hourly, daily, monthly and




D
yearly logged data for each end-use category required by Section C405.13.2. The data
acquisition system shall have the capability of providing building total peak electric demand and
the time(s) of day and time(s) per month at which the peak occurs. Peak demand shall be
integrated over the same time period as the underlying whole-building meter reading rate.

C405.13.5 Graphical energy report.
A permanent and readily available reporting mechanism shall be provided in the building for
access by building operation and management personnel. The reporting mechanism shall have
the capability to graphically provide the energy consumption for each end-use category required
by Section C405.13.2 not less than every hour, day, month and year for the previous 36 months.

C405.13.6 Renewable energy.




On-site renewable energy sources shall be metered with no less frequency than nonrenewable
energy systems in accordance with Section C405.13.3.

C405.13.7 Nonelectrical energy submetering.
For all nonelectrical energy supplied to the building and its associated site that serves
the building and its occupants, submeters or other measurement devices shall be provided to
collect energy consumption data for each end-use category required by Section C405.13.8.
Exceptions:
1. 1.HVAC and water heating equipment serving only an individual dwelling unit shall not
require end-use submetering.
2. 2.End-use submetering shall not be required for fire pumps, stairwell pressurization fans
or any system that operates only during testing or emergency.
3. 3.End-use submetering shall not be required for an individual tenant space having a floor
area not greater than 2,500 square feet (232 m2) where a dedicated source meter
complying with Section C405.13.9 is provided.



T
4. 4.Equipment powered primarily by solid fuels serving loads other than building heating
and service water heating loads.

C405.13.8 End-use nonelectrical submetering categories.
Submeters or other approved measurement devices shall be provided to collect energy use data
for each end-use category indicated in Table C405.13.8. Where multiple submeters are used to




AF
measure any end-use category, the data acquisition system shall total all of the energy used by
that category. Not more than 5 percent of the design load for each of the end-use categories
indicated in Table C405.13.8 shall be permitted to be from a load that is not within that category.

TABLE C405.13.8
NONELECTRICAL ENERGY USE CATEGORIES
END USE
CATEGORY

Total HVAC
system
DESCRIPTION OF END USE
Heating and cooling systems, including but not limited to boilers, chillers and
furnaces. District heating and cooling energy entering the building’s
distribution system shall be monitored at the point of entry to the building
distribution system.




R Any single load that is not included in the HVAC or service water heating
categories where the rated fuel gas or fuel oil input of the load and that is not
Process loads less than 5 percent of the sum of the rated fuel gas or fuel oil input of all


Other
monitored equipment, including but not limited to manufacturing equipment,
process equipment, commercial kitchens, and commercial laundry equipment.
The remaining loads not included elsewhere in this table, including but not
miscellaneous limited to fireplaces, swimming pools, spas, gas lighting, and snow-melt




D
loads
Service water
heating
systems.
Fuel used to heat potable water.
Exception: Water heating with design capacity that is less than 10 percent of
the sum of the rated fuel gas or fuel oil input of all monitored equipment.

C405.13.9 Nonelectrical submeters.
Submeters or other measurement devices required by this section shall be configured to
automatically communicate energy consumption data to the data acquisition system required
by Section C405.13.10. Source submeters shall be allowed to be any digital-type meter that can
provide a digital output to the data acquisition system. Required submetering systems and
equipment shall be fully integrated into the data acquisition system and graphical energy report
that updates at least hourly in accordance with Sections C405.13.10 and C405.13.11.



C405.13.10 Nonelectrical energy data acquisition system.
A data acquisition system shall have the capability to store the data from the required submeters
and other sensing devices for not less than 36 months. The data acquisition system shall have
the capability to store real-time energy consumption data and provide hourly, daily, monthly and
yearly logged data for each end-use category required by Section C405.13.8. The data
acquisition system shall have the capability of providing building total nonelectrical peak demand
and the time(s) of day and time(s) per month at which the peak occurs. Where applicable as
determined by the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ), peak demand shall be integrated over the
same time period as the underlying whole-building meter reading rate.

C405.13.11 Graphical energy report.
A permanent and readily accessible reporting mechanism shall be provided in the building that is
accessible by building operation and management personnel. The reporting mechanism shall
have the capability to graphically provide the nonelectrical energy consumption for each end-use
category required by Section C405.13.8 not less than every hour, day, month and year for the



T
previous 36 months. The graphical report shall incorporate natural gas interval data from the
submeter or the ability to enter gas utility bills into the report.


Justification: 2024 IECC C405.13 Proposed Change – A postulate against implementation.




AF
This proposal is based on the assumption that the City of Phoenix wants to be known as a
business friendly city. One way this can be achieved is by the establishment of practical building
codes that focus on public safety, rather than unrelated requirements that have no benefit to the
citizens of the City and add a cost burden to the conforming business or property owner.

This electrical system requirement offers little benefit to unsophisticated owners uninterested in
the minute detail of the energy consumption of their building. Owners that have concerns about
their own energy consumption and related costs will be interested in energy monitoring already
but only to a level that matches their budgets. The requirements of this section are extremely
costly to the initial construction, potentially by hundreds of thousands of dollars in addition to the
additional design related costs.




R
A Code with an implementation cost to the building owner of this magnitude unrelated to Public
Safety should not be accepted without extensive debate and wide-eyed review by all effected
parties. This Code section is nearly a copy of the California Energy Code (Title 24 Vol. 6)
mandates which started 15 years ago.

Looking at the construction cost budget on projects I have been involved with for prisons,
Highway Patrol buildings, City, County, and State government buildings, libraries, etc. have all




D
been struggling with construction budget issues only being hampered by burdening mandates.
This section of the Code is one of those mandates, reconfigured by the ICC using nearly
identical language.

If a business chooses to be more energy conscious, the proposed code change (deletion) will
not prevent implementing a more stringent requirement on themselves. For other businesses
that do not have the same environmental concerns there would be no penalty.

I have lived and worked in Phoenix all my life and am sorry to see this level of mandate even
being considered for this great town. This is effectively an anti-business proposal. We are
saying, “You don’t know how to run your business; we know what is best for you.”. It would seem
a deterrent rather than an invitation to come do business here. Maybe a little less big brother and
more of “Hey, we want to partner with you for your success.”



If you are unaware, here are the impacts, electrically:

• Energy meters (apart from the utility meters we already have available to us doing the
same thing) for the power supplied to the site and all related buildings, electrical
apparatus, site lighting. The power companies do not give out free power, so there is
already a meter covering all this.
• Next the energy usages are broken down into sub uses which each require sub-metering.
See Table C405.13.2. This lists out “Load Categories” as follows:
o Total HVAC Systems (so this is every AC unit, supply and exhaust fan, Energy
Recovery Unit, boiler, chiller, pump, water heating for space conditioning)
o Interior Lighting (All.)
o Exterior Lighting (All. Interestingly enough, we could calculate this with just the
electrical site plan and the fixture data and the hours of operation. What is the
point of metering? Who is going to turn off the lighting to save energy over and




T
above site security? Guarantee this will be reversed once the first crime spree
occurs)
o Plug loads (These are all the receptacle devices you plug anything into 15-60
amp receptacles throughout the building. These loads are variable in the fact the
items are “plugged” in and may or may not be there from one day to the next)
o Process Load (This is all the rest of the loads within the building that are not in the




AF above categories, oh but exempted as long as it is below 5% of the total building
peak connected load – what is this exactly? The NEC does not attempt to
calculate this value and has multiple factors to increase and decrease loads to
conclude what its compliance value should be. An example of this is the
receptacle load that looks at each receptacle as 180 VA (watts essentially) of load
and recognizes that not all receptacles are used. This metering requirement
appears to introduce a new set of calculations that sums up all the loads that are
in the building as the “connected load” and assumes all are on at once making up
a “peak” load, certainly will never be more than that!).
o Building Operations and other misc. loads (essentially the elevators, escalators,
automatic doors, motorized shades, fountains, pools, spas, fireplaces, snow melt
systems are all included, but there could be more if you have them. You will just




R •
know.)
Electrical hot water heating for uses other than space conditioning (but only if the electric
water heater is rated greater than 10% of the building service rating, otherwise not)
As is made evident by this list, there are many segregations in the system that when
implemented, dictate many meters. To minimize the metering challenges, the loads are typically
grouped into the above categories to be metered by a single feeder with a meter on that supply.




D
That can get you down to a (7) sub meters. Making it a total of (8) because you still need a main
system meter. Remember the utility meter is not good enough here.
This differs from normal distribution in that there are usually larger panels feeding an area with
sub panels supplied out of them into subsequent smaller areas. This is beneficial for load
management and voltage drop management and has been the design style since the beginning
of modern electrical distributions. Westinghouse published books on these concepts starting in
the 1940’s and the IEEE has enshrined distribution methods in their literature as well.
To accomplish this metering requirement In C405.13 is no small feat. There will be additional
panels needed to meet the required load segregation described for metering. You can’t get
around it. It is only a matter of how many you can avoid adding.



Looking at the only other current solution for load segregation involves metered breakers. This is
a system that uses the traditional panel distribution methods and then applies a metering node to
each breaker. The nodes are gathered into a common system, and each node is assigned a load
type corresponding to this aforementioned table. This is a metering system and normally is
standalone apart from the Building Automation System. This, as you can imagine, is a high end
system with a related high end expense. Yet at some point, it is more cost effective than adding
a whole lot of panels.
In C405.13.3 Electrical Meters, it mentions the use of non-intrusive Load Monitoring (NILM)
technology. In researching this technology, I found various documentation on the technology but
no systems. It appears the US Dept of Energy Pacific Northwest National Laboratory was
compiling data on the use of the technology up until 2016 where they were attempting to
establish standards for the products to meet. It is unclear what this product’s availability is. If,
and when this technology comes to market, it appears to use electrical impulse and wave




T
signatures in the power system to determine the type of equipment present. It uses this
information to disaggregate the loads into each respective load type. In this case, there would
not be a need for dedicated meters or metered breakers; just several of these NILM devices
applied at strategic points in the electrical distribution system to extract the data. This means it
would be retrofittable system for any building.




AF
Indirect effects of implementation:







Increased Building Safety Department plan review time to assure design compliance for
addressing load segregations, load calculations for limitations, added panels, metering
components.
Increased Building Safety inspection time to assure actual compliance for load
segregations, additional panels, metering systems.
Added complexity in building electrical systems creating an ongoing cost to the Owner. It
is my opinion this decreases building safety by complications in power distribution.
Real world issues:
The presence of the metering systems does not mean they will be used for anything. I have seen




R
such systems in place but when attempting to get data from the system for electrical analysis, it
was unavailable, not working, or never set up to fully function or record data. These
requirements to put in the sophisticated equipment are insufficient to get results hoped for
without the necessary follow up and ongoing maintenance. Unless the owner intends to use the
system, it will likely be set aside shortly after installation. Any benefits that might be gained will
be lost.




D
When the building owner wants to handle this level of sophisticated building management, they
will hire facilities personnel with higher skill levels to accomplish it or hire outside third parties to
gather and manage the data. This is an ongoing operational cost to that building owner. As a
result, it is a personal decision by that management team. Without this level of buy-in, there will
be no ongoing implementation.
Rather than mandate this metering be part of the Owners program, it would be far more effective
to allow the owner to do the math, determine the ROI for the particular system selected to meet
their particular desired end, and implement that system. This section is full of too many
mandates that drive design. This in turn drives up cost for everyone. At some point, we must ask
ourselves, what is the purpose of this requirement? Can’t economics drive the results instead of
the City Codes?



Recommendation:
Strike 2024 IECC C405.13 from adoption based on the above arguments.
Striking this provision for metering has no effect on the plan review, inspections, or design
community. It shows Phoenix is willing to maintain a logical approach to energy conservation
while retaining a business friendly environment. It means there will be no related workload
burden placed on the Electrical Plans Reviewers or Electrical Inspector. There will be no need
for plan review fee increases to the public related to this issue.
Note: This amendment was reviewed by the 2024 National Electrical Code Committee and
recommended to be Approved as Modified.


Cost Impact: Cost reduction.




T
Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
YES


Date: 1/16/2025
NO




AF
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted

Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied




Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date: 03/06/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




R
D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC)
Chapter 4 [CE], Section C405.15

Submitted by: National Electrical Code Committee

C405.15 Reserved
This section is deleted in its entirety.
Note: The corresponding requirements in ASHRAE 90.1 10.5.1 Renewable Energy Resources is
also deleted in its entirety.

C405.15 Renewable energy systems.

T
Buildings in Climate Zones 0 through 7 shall comply with Sections C405.15.1 through C405.15.4.

C405.15.1 On-site renewable energy systems.
Buildings shall be provided with on-site renewable electricity generation systems with a direct




AF
current (DC) nameplate power rating of not less than 0.75 watts per square foot (8.1 W/m2)
multiplied by the sum of the gross conditioned floor area of all floors, not to exceed the combined
gross conditioned floor area of the three largest floors.
Exceptions: The following buildings or building sites shall comply with Section C405.15.2:
1. A building site located where an unshaded flat plate collector oriented toward the equator
and tilted at an angle from horizontal equal to the latitude receives an annual daily
average incident solar radiation less than 1.1 kBtu/ft2 per day (3.5 kWh/m2/day).
2. A building where more than 80 percent of the roof area is covered by any combination of
permanent obstructions such as, but not limited to, mechanical equipment, vegetated
space, access pathways or occupied roof terrace.
3. Any building where more than 50 percent of the roof area is shaded from direct-beam
sunlight by natural objects or by structures that are not part of the building for more than




R 2,500 annual hours between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.
4. A building with gross conditioned floor area less than 5,000 square feet (465 m2).

C405.15.2 Off-site renewable energy.
Buildings that qualify for one or more of the exceptions to Section C405.15.1 or do not meet the
requirements of Section C405.15.1 with an on-site renewable energy system shall procure off-
site renewable electrical energy, in accordance with Sections C405.15.2.1 and C405.15.2.2, that




D
shall be not less than the total off-site renewable electrical energy determined in accordance with
Equation 4-11.

TREoff = (RENoff x 0.75W/sqft x FLRA - IREon) x 15

where:
Equation 4-11


TREoff = Total off-site renewable electrical energy in kilowatt-hours (kWh) to be procured in
accordance with Table C405.15.2.
RENoff = Annual off-site renewable electrical energy from Table C405.15.2, in units of kilowatt-
hours per watt of array capacity.
FLRA = The sum of the gross conditioned floor area of all floors not to exceed the combined
floor area of the three largest floors.




IRE on = Annual on-site renewable electrical energy generation of a new on-site renewable
energy system, to be installed as part of the building project, whose rated capacity is less than
the rated capacity required in Section C405.15.1.

TABLE C405.15.2
ANNUAL OFF-SITE RENEWABLE ENERGY REQUIREMENTS
ANNUAL OFF-SITE RENEWABLE ELECTRICAL ENERGY
CLIMATE ZONE
(kWh/W)
1A, 2B, 3B, 3C, 4B and
1.75
5B
0A, 0B, 1B, 2A, 3A and
1.55
6B
4A, 4C, 5A, 5C, 6A and
1.35

C405.15.2.1 Off-site procurement.

T
The building owner, as defined in the International Building Code, shall procure and be credited
for the total amount of off-site renewable electrical energy, not less than required in accordance
with Equation 4-11, with one or more of the following:
1. Physical renewable energy power purchase agreement.




AF
2. Financial renewable energy power purchase agreement.
3. Community renewable energy facility.
4. Off-site renewable energy system owned by the building property owner.
5. Renewable energy investment fund.
6. Green retail tariff.
The generation source shall be located where the energy can be delivered to the building site by
any of the following:
1. Direct connection to the off-site renewable energy facility.
2. The local utility or distribution entity.
3. An interconnected electrical network where energy delivery capacity between the
generator and the building site is available.

C405.15.2.2 Off-site contract.




R
The renewable energy shall be delivered or credited to the building site under an energy contract
with a duration of not less than 10 years. The contract shall be structured to survive a partial or
full transfer of ownership of the building property.

C405.15.3 Renewable energy certificate (REC) documentation.
The property owner or owner’s authorized agent shall demonstrate that where renewable energy
certificates (RECs) or energy attribute certificates (EACs) are associated with on-site and off-site




D
renewable energy production required by Sections C405.15.1 and C405.15.2, all of the following
criteria for RECs and EACs shall be met:
1. The RECs and EACs are retained and retired by or on behalf of the property owner or
tenant for a period of not less than 15 years or the duration of the contract in Section
C405.15.2.2, whichever is less.
2. The RECs and EACs are created within a 12-month period of the use of the REC.
3. The RECs and EACs are from a generating asset placed in service not more than 5
years before the issuance of the certificate of occupancy.

C405.15.4 Renewable energy certificate purchase.
A building that qualifies for one or more of the exceptions to Section C405.15.1, and where it can
be demonstrated to the code official that the requirements of Section C405.15.2 cannot be met,
the building owner shall contract the purchase of renewable electricity products before the


certificate of occupancy is issued. The purchase of renewable electricity products shall comply
with the Green-e Energy National Standard for renewable electricity products equivalent to five
times the amount of total off-site renewable energy calculated in accordance with Equation 4-11.


Justification: 2024 IECC C405.15 requires on-site renewable electricity generation systems to
be installed on ALL commercial buildings. If the buildings qualify for one or more of the
exceptions to Section C405.15.1 or do not meet the requirements of Section C405.15.1 with an
on-site renewable energy system, the building owner is mandated to procure off-site renewable
electrical energy in an amount equivalent to 15 times the on-site amount. This is illustrated in
the following calculations based on the formulas stated in the respective code sections.

C405.15.1
On-site renewable energy required = (1.75KWh/W x 0.75W/sqft x sqft of gross conditioned floor
area)

C405.15.2

T
Off-site renewable energy contract required = (1.75KWh/W x 0.75W/sqft x sqft of gross
conditioned floor area – on-site installed KWh/yr) x 15

The owner is required to obtain the off-site renewable energy by entering into a contract with a




AF
duration of not less than 10 years. Furthermore, the contract is required to survive a partial or full
transfer of ownership of the building property.

The intent of the International Energy Conservation Code is to promote the efficient use of
energy. This is accomplished by requiring the components and systems (insulation, fenestration,
heating / cooling systems, water heating, lighting, etc.) that are installed in a building to be
energy efficient. Although not related to life safety, the goal of this intent is appropriate as it is
applied to the items of the building that are requisite to a habitable space.

However, C405.15 goes well beyond this intent and imposes a heavy-handed mandate that the
building owner must either purchase and install an on-site renewable electricity generation
system or face a draconian penalty of procuring contracted off-site generated renewable




R
electrical energy, sized at 15 times the on-site system size, for a minimum of 10 years. If the
building owner needed to sell the building during the contract period, the building would include
an encumbrance of this contract that would apply to the prospective owner that may hinder the
owner’s ability to sell the property. This is not an appropriate or reasonable requirement to force
the building owner (current and future) to purchase a generation system product that they had no
intention of installing or face a 10 year penalty.




D
This amendment recommends removing this requirement by striking C405.15 in its entirety.


Cost Impact: Cost reduction


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Denied
YES


Date: 1/29/2025
NO



No action taken
Date: 03/06/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Date: 04/22/2025


Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee Date: 05/21/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken




T
AF
R
D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC)
Chapter 1 [RE], Sections R101 – R110

Submitted by: International Energy Conservation Code Committee

Notes:

1. For reserved sections herein, refer to the amendments and requirements in Chapter 1
of the International Building Code for these code requirements.



T
2. For sections that remain unchanged from base code, the term “see this section of the
2024 IECC” shall refer to the unchanged base code.

SECTION R101 - SCOPE AND GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

R101.1 Title.




AF
This code shall be known as the International Energy Conservation Code as amended by the
“this code.” These regulations are one document of the overall Phoenix Building Construction
Code as defined by the adopting ordinance.

R101.2 Scope.
This code applies to the design and construction of detached one- and two-family dwellings and
multiple single-family dwellings (townhouses) and Group R-2, R-3 and R-4 buildings three stories
or less in height above grade plane. Group R-2, when defined as a Residential Building by
section R202, shall have the option of complying under the Commercial Provisions of the code,
regardless of height. Once defined as such on the submittal documents, all components of the
Commercial Provisions shall be followed.




R
R101.2.1 Appendices. – See this section of the 2024 IECC

R101.3 Intent. – See this section of the 2024 IECC

R101.4 Compliance.
Residential buildings shall meet the provisions of IECC—Residential Provisions. Commercial




D
buildings shall meet the provisions of IECC—Commercial Provisions. Group R-2, when defined
as a Residential Building by section R202, shall have the option of complying under the
Commercial Provisions of the code, regardless of height. Once defined as such on the submittal
documents, all components of the Commercial Provisions shall be followed.

R101.4.1 Compliance materials. – See this section of the 2024 IECC

SECTION R102 - APPLICABILITY – Reserved, except as noted below

R102.1.1 Mixed residential and commercial buildings. – See this section of the 2024 IECC

SECTION R103 - CODE COMPLIANCE AGENCY – Reserved




SECTION R104 - ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS, DESIGN AND METHODS OF
CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPMENT – Reserved

SECTION R105 - CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS – Reserved

SECTION R106 - FEES – Reserved

SECTION R107 - INSPECTIONS – Reserved

SECTION R108 - NOTICE OF APPROVAL – Reserved

SECTION R109 - MEANS OF APPEALS – Reserved

SECTION R110 - STOP WORK ORDER – Reserved


Justification:

T
All the adopted and amended building code documents taken together are known as the Phoenix
Building Construction Code. Each code document is a separate document of the Phoenix
Building Construction Code. This document is the International Energy Conservation Code as
Amended by the City of Phoenix. This document is intended to apply where a code or referenced




AF
standard identifies the International Energy Conservation Code as being applicable.

Allows a multi-family developer the choice between residential and commercial provisions
regardless of height for multi-family construction.

The reserved provisions are contained in the Phoenix Building Construction Code –
Administrative Provisions (Chapter 1 of the International Building Code).


Cost Impact: No cost impact.




R
Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
YES NO


Date: 01/30/2025
No action taken
Date: 03/06/2025
No action taken




D
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC)
Chapter 1 [RE], Section R104

Submitted by: Home Builders Association of Central Arizona

R104.1.2 RESNET testing & inspection protocol.
The Residential Energy Services Network (RESNET) Mortgage Industry National Home Energy
Rating System Standard (MINHERS) for third party testing and inspections shall be deemed to
meet the requirements of sections R402.5.1, R402.5.1.2 and R403.3.7 and shall meet the
following conditions:


T
1. Third Party Testing & Inspections shall be completed by RESNET certified Raters or
Rating Field Inspectors and shall be subject to RESNET Quality Assurance Field
Review Procedures.




AF
2. Sampling in accordance with Chapter 6 of the MINHERS Standards shall be performed
by Raters or Rating Field Inspectors Working under a RESNET Accredited Sampling
Provider.

3. Third Party Testing is required for the following items:
a. R402.5.1– Building Envelope – Thermal Air Barrier Checklist
b. R402.5.1.2 – Testing – Air Leakage Rate
c. R403.3.7 – Sealing – Duct Tightness
d. Any other testing and inspections required under the code.

4. Alternate testing and inspection programs and protocols shall be allowed when
approved by the Building Code Official.




R
Justification: From HBACA - This amendment was developed in collaboration between the
MAG Building Codes Committee Members, SRP, APS, and the HBACA and has been adopted
in many municipalities throughout the region. It is also included in MAG’s Building Code
Amendment and Standards Manual. Note that this proposed amendment is slightly different than
the amendment adopted in 2018 and 2021 to reflect changing code sections.




D
Staff Committee Rationale for Recommendation: Amendment carried forward. Doesn’t lower
standards but allows less dwelling units to be tested.

Current disallowance of MINHERS standards for sampling of single-family homes per MINHERS
addendum 78i effective January 1, 2025, subject to RESNET change.


Cost Impact: Applicant did not provide any information.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process: YES NO



ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee Date: 03/25/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee Date: 03/27/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Date: 04/22/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee Date: 05/21/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken




T
AF
R
D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC)
Chapter 4 [RE], Section R404.1.5

Submitted by: International Residential Code Committee

R404.1.5 Gas lighting.

Gas-fired lighting appliances shall not be equipped with a continuous pilot and shall be equipped
with an on-demand pilot, intermittent ignition or interrupted ignition as defined by ANSI Z21.20.



T
Justification: These products as described are not currently available. There is an alternate in
the IFGC that has been readily available since at least 2012.




AF
Cost Impact: No Cost Impact


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
YES NO


Date: 01/30/2025
No action taken
Date: 03/06/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken




R
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC)
Chapter 4 [RE], Sections R404.2 – R404.3.1

Submitted by: International Residential Code Committee

R404.2 Interior lighting controls.
All permanently installed luminaires shall be controlled as required in Sections R404.2.1 and
R404.2.2.
Exception: Lighting controls shall not be required for safety or security lighting.

R404.2.1 Habitable spaces.

T
All permanently installed luminaires in habitable spaces shall be controlled with a manual
dimmer or with an automatic shutoff control that automatically turns off lights within 20 minutes
after all occupants have left the space and shall incorporate a manual control to allow occupants
to turn the lights on or off.




AF
R404.2.2 Specific locations.
All permanently installed luminaires in garages, unfinished basements, laundry rooms and utility
rooms shall be controlled by an automatic shutoff control that automatically turns off lights within
20 minutes after all occupants have left the space and shall incorporate a manual control to allow
occupants to turn the lights on or off.

R404.3 Exterior lighting controls.
Exterior lighting controls shall comply with Section R404.3.1.

R404.3.1 Controls for individual dwelling units.
Where the total permanently installed exterior lighting power is greater than 30 watts, the




R
permanently installed exterior lighting shall comply with the following:
1. Lighting shall be controlled by a manual on and off switch which permits automatic
shut-off actions.

2. Lighting shall be automatically shut off when daylight is present and satisfies the
lighting needs.




D 3. Controls that override automatic shut-off actions shall not be allowed unless the
override automatically returns automatic control to its normal operation within 24 hours.


Justification: Coordinates with the 2024 amendment to N1104.2 – N1104.3.1 submitted by the
International Residential Code Committee

Not all commercially available residential lights are dimmable and installing motion sensors
poses safety concerns with lights going off unexpectedly, such as in bathrooms, garages,
laundry rooms etc. This is typical with motion sensors if they are not installed with a high level of
detailed attention paid. To achieve full range of motion sensor functionality, additional ceiling
mounted sensors would be required to mitigate safety concerns especially in large spaces.
These additional sensors are not readily available for residential applications, are expensive,



difficult to install in a residential application, and can be finicky at best for the intended function of
this code.

The exterior lighting requirements are difficult to achieve as these control products are not
readily available in the current market. Systems that do exist are expensive and complicated to
install, driving up costs overall. Most commercially available residential exterior lights are already
equipped with photocells, which shut the light off when daylight is sensed automatically, meeting
most of the intent of this section of this code already. Additionally, most commercially available
security lights contain photocells AND motion sensor capabilities.

Manufacturing incandescent lighting has not been allowed for some time now, and new/old
stocks are dwindling by the day, if one can even source them anymore. The other portions of this
code make the installation of incandescent lighting next to impossible to install and comply. With
the code requirements for high efficiency lighting, combined with required high efficiency lighting
manufacturing requirements, the market is saturated with these efficient products vastly reducing



T
energy consumption on a large scale in alignment with the intent of this code. Implementing
these code requirements proposed to strike, will not drastically increase the desired consumption
reduction in any measurable way. The increased safety hazards posed do not outweigh any
potential energy savings which will be minimal at best while increasing costs significantly.

This section of the code, as written, is not a building safety concern and should be optional for




AF
any homeowner/builder to pursue to their heart and pocketbook’s content.


Cost Impact: Cost Reduction


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Denied
YES


Date: 01/29/2025
NO



No action taken
Date: 03/06/2025




R Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC)
Chapter 4 [RE], Section R402, Table R402.5.1.1

Submitted by: Home Builders Association of Central Arizona and modified by the International
Energy Conservation Code Committee

SECTION R402 BUILDING THERMAL ENVELOPE

TABLE R402.5.1.1 AIR BARRIER, AIR SEALING AND INSULATION INSTALLATIONa

COMPONENT

Rim joists T
AIR BARRIER CRITERIA INSULATION
Rim joists shall include an air barrier. The
junctions of the rim board to the sill plate
and the rim board and the subfloor shall be
air sealed, unless the air barrier is provided
INSTALLATION CRITERIA
Rim joists shall be insulated
so that the insulation
maintains permanent contact
with the exterior rim board.




AF elsewhere.

No changes to footnotes.


Justification: From NAHB - This amendment simplifies the provisions and allows the building
designer the choice of selecting an air barrier based on the specific wall assembly design. Any
air barrier at the rim will constitute an exterior air barrier because the rim is always located at the
exterior of the structure. Having the additional word “exterior” can lead to misinterpretation that
the air barrier always must be outboard of the rim joist’s exterior face. That was never the intent
of the change that was approved for the 2021 and 2024 IECC as evidenced by the supporting
reason statement that was included by the proponent of the change.




R
Examples of acceptable air barrier options that meet the intent of the code include (not an
exhaustive list):
• Sealing the entire rim joist from the interior with closed-cell spray foam;
• Sealing the rim joist boundaries and joints with caulk from the interior;
• Taping or sealing the joints on the exterior face of the rim joist;
• Installing mechanically attached membrane (i.e., house wrap) taped at all seams and




D boundaries;
• Installing exterior rigid foam sheathing taped or sealed at all joints and boundaries;
• Installing a fluid-applied membrane on the exterior face of walls;
• Installing a peel-and-stick membrane on the exterior face of walls.
It is noted that a whole-building tightness test is required to verify the overall air tightness of the
house.


Staff Committee Rationale for Recommendation: In recognition that the air barrier may be
exterior to the rim board.




Cost Impact: Applicant provided no information


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process: YES NO

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee Date: 02/18/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee Date: 03/06/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Date: 04/22/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee Date: 05/21/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Approved as submitted


T
Modified and approved Denied No action taken




AF
R
D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Fuel Gas Code (IFGC)
Section 101.1

Submitted by: International Fuel Gas Code Committee

Chapter 1 Scope and Administration

Notes:




T
1. For reserved sections herein, refer to the amendments and requirements in Chapter 1
of the International Building Code for these code requirements.
2. For sections that remain unchanged from base code, the term “see this section of the


101.1 Title
2024 IFGC” shall refer to the unchanged base code.




AF
These regulations shall be known as the International Fuel Gas Code as amended by the City of
Phoenix Building Code of [NAME OF JURISDICTION], hereinafter referred to as “this code.”
These regulations are one document of the overall Phoenix Building Construction Code as
defined by the adopting ordinance.

101.2 Scope. - see this section of the 2024 IFGC

101.2.1 Appendices. - see this section of the 2024 IFGC

101.2.2 Gaseous hydrogen systems. - see this section of the 2024 IFGC

101.2.3 Piping systems. - see this section of the 2024 IFGC




R
101.2.4 Gas appliances. - see this section of the 2024 IFGC

101.2.5 Systems, appliances and equipment outside the scope. - see this section of the
2024 IFGC

101.2.6 Other fuels. - see this section of the 2024 IFGC




D
101.3 Purpose. - see this section of the 2024 IFGC

101.4 Severability. - Reserved.

102.1 General. - Reserved.

102.2 Existing installations. - see this section of the 2024 IFGC

102.2.1 Existing buildings. - see this section of the 2024 IFGC

102.3 Maintenance. - see this section of the 2024 IFGC

102.4 Additions, alterations or repairs. - see this section of the 2024 IFGC


102.5 Change in occupancy. - see this section of the 2024 IFGC

102.6 Historic buildings. - see this section of the 2024 IFGC

102.7 Moved buildings. - see this section of the 2024 IFGC

102.8 Referenced codes and standards. - Reserved
Exception: Where enforcement of a code provision would violate the conditions of the listing
of the equipment or appliance, the conditions of the listing and the manufacturer’s installation
instructions shall apply.

102.8.1 Conflicts. - Reserved.

102.8.2 Provisions in referenced codes and standards. - Reserved.



T
102.9 Requirements not covered by code. - see this section of the 2024 IFGC

102.10 Other laws. - Reserved.

102.11 Application of references. - see this section of the 2024 IFGC




AF
Section 103 (IFGC) Code compliance agency - Reserved.

Section 104 (IFGC) Duties and powers of the code official - Reserved.

Section 105 (IFGC) Permits - Reserved.

Section 106 (IFGC) Construction documents - Reserved.

Section 107 (IFGC) Notice of approval - Reserved.

Section 108 (IFGC) Fees - Reserved.




R
Section 109 (IFGC) Service utilities - Reserved.

Section 110 (IFGC) Temporary uses, equipment and systems - Reserved.

Section 111 (IFGC) Inspections and testing - Reserved.




D
Section 112 (IFGC) Means of Appeals - Reserved.

Section 113 (IFGC) Violations - Reserved.

Section 114 (IFGC) Stop Work Order - Reserved.


Justification: All the adopted and amended building code documents taken together are known
as the Phoenix Building Construction Code. Each code document is a separate document of the
Phoenix Building Construction Code. This document is the International Fuel Gas Code as
Amended by the City of Phoenix. This document is intended to apply where a code or referenced
standard identifies the International Fuel Gas Code as being applicable.




The reserved provisions are contained in the Phoenix Building Construction Code –
Administrative Provisions (Chapter 1 of the International Building Code).


Cost Impact: No cost impact.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process: YES NO

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee Date: 01/15/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee Date: 02/06/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Date: 04/22/2025
Approved as submitted


T
Modified and approved Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




AF
R
D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Fuel Gas Code (IFGC)
Section 403.11

Submitted by: International Fuel Gas Code Committee

403.11 Flanges.
Flanges and flange gaskets shall comply with Sections 403.11.1 through 403.11.7.

403.11.1 Cast iron.
Cast-iron flanges shall be in accordance with ASME B16.1

403.11.2 Steel.

T
Steel flanges shall be in accordance with ASME B16.5 or ASME B16.47.

403.11.3 Nonferrous.
Nonferrous flanges shall be in accordance with ASME B16.24 except listed components




AF
using aluminum flange connections constructed in accordance with dimensional
specifications of ANSI/ASME B16.5.

403.11.4 Ductile iron.
Ductile-iron flanges shall be in accordance with ASME B16.42.

403.11.5 Raised face.
Raised face flanges shall not be joined to flat faced cast-iron, ductile-iron or nonferrous
material flanges.

403.11.6 Flange facings.
Standard facings shall be permitted for use under this code. Where 150-pound (1034 kPa)
pressure-rated steel flanges are bolted to Class 125 cast-iron flanges, the raised face on the




R steel flange shall be removed.

403.11.7 Lapped flanges.
Lapped flanges shall be used only above ground or in exposed locations accessible for
inspection.




D
Justification: Modifying the flange will void the ASME rating and the manufacturer’s listing.


Cost Impact: No cost impact.




Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process: YES NO

This amendment was approved in previous code adoptions. It has subsequently been evaluated
by the committee for applicability to the 2024 IFGC and carried forward as presented.

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee Date: 12/05/2024
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee Date: 02/06/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Date: 04/22/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee Date: 05/21/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Approved as submitted


T
Modified and approved Denied
Date:
No action taken




AF
R
D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Existing Building Code (IEBC)
Section 101

Submitted by: International Existing Building Code Committee

CHAPTER 1 SCOPE AND ADMINISTRATION

Notes:




T
1. For reserved sections herein, refer to the amendments and requirements in Chapter 1
of the International Building Code for these code requirements.
2. For sections that remain unchanged from base code, the term “see this section of the


101.1 Title
2024 IEBC” shall refer to the unchanged base code.




AF
These regulations shall be known as the International Existing Building Code as Amended by the
“this code.” These regulations are one document of the overall Phoenix Building Construction
Code as defined by the adopting ordinance.

101.2 Scope. - See this section of the 2024 IEBC

101.2.1 Appendices. - See this section of the 2024 IEBC

101.2.2 Application of fire code.
Where work regulated by this code is also regulated by the construction requirements for existing
buildings in Chapter 11 of the Phoenix International Fire Code, such work shall comply with




R
applicable requirements in both codes.

101.3 Purpose. - See this section of the 2024 IEBC

101.4 Applicability. - See this section of the 2024 IEBC

101.4.1 Buildings not previously occupied. – See this section of the 2024 IEBC




D
101.4.2 Buildings previously occupied. - See this section of the 2024 IEBC

101.5 Safeguards during construction. - Reserved

101.6 Correction of violations of other codes. - See this section of the 2024 IEBC

Section 102 Applicability - Reserved

Section 103 Code compliance agency - Reserved

Section 104 Duties and powers of code official - Reserved

Section 105 Permits - Reserved


Section 106 Construction documents - Reserved

Section 107 Temporary uses, equipment and systems - Reserved

Section 108 Fees - Reserved

Section 109 Inspections - Reserved

Section 110 Certificate of occupancy - Reserved

Section 111 Service utilities - Reserved

Section 112 Means of appeals - Reserved

Section 113 Violations - Reserved

Section 114 Stop work order - Reserved
T
Section 115 Unsafe structures and equipment - Reserved




AF
Section 116 Emergency measures - Reserved

Section 117 Demolition - Reserved

Justification: All the adopted and amended building code documents taken together are known
as the Phoenix Building Construction Code. Each code document is a separate document of the
Phoenix Building Construction Code. This document is the International Existing Building Code
as Amended by the City of Phoenix. This document is intended to apply where a code or
referenced standard identifies the International Existing Building Code as being applicable.

The reserved provisions are contained in the Phoenix Building Construction Code –
Administrative Provisions (Chapter 1 of the International Building Code).




R
Cost Impact: No cost impact.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
YES NO




D
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted


Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Denied

Denied
Date: 01/29/2025
No action taken
Date: 02/27/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendments to 2024 International Existing Building Code (IEBC)
Section 202

Submitted by: International Existing Building Code Committee

SECTION 202 GENERAL DEFINITIONS

[A] HISTORIC BUILDING. Any building or structure that is one or more of the following:




T
1. Listed, or certified as eligible for listing, by the State Historic Preservation Officer or
the Keeper of the National Register of Historic Places, in the National Register of
Historic Places.
2. Designated as historic under an applicable state or local law.
3. Certified as a contributing resource within a National Register, state designated or
locally designated historic district.




AF
4. Recommended by the City of Phoenix Historic Preservation Officer for listing on the
Phoenix Historic Property Register either as an individually eligible property or as a
contributing resource to an eligible historic district.

Justification: This requirement is consistent with state and federal practices where eligible
historic properties are treated the same as listed properties for design review purposes.

Cost Impact: Minimal cost impact. This will reduce the financial and technical infeasibility for
historic eligible projects.


Approved in previous Code Adoption process: YES NO




R
ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Denied

Denied
Date: 01/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 02/27/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025




D Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Existing Building Code (IEBC)
Section 306.7.12

Submitted by: International Existing Building Code Committee

306.7.12 Toilet rooms.
Where it is technically infeasible to alter existing toilet rooms to be accessible, one accessible
single-user toilet room or one accessible family or assisted-use toilet room constructed in
accordance with Section 1110.2.1 of the International Building Code is permitted. This toilet



T
room shall be located on the same floor and in the same area as the existing toilet rooms. At the
inaccessible toilet rooms, directional signs indicating the location of the nearest such toilet room
shall be provided. These directional signs shall include the International Symbol of Accessibility,
and sign characters shall meet the visual character requirements in accordance
with ICC A117.1. One of two or more fixtures (water closets and/or urinals) may be removed to
create space for one wheelchair accessible toilet compartment in each existing toilet room. The




AF
resulting reduction in water closets is permitted to create a conforming wheelchair accessible
toilet compartment in each existing toilet room. Alterations under this section shall not reduce
other accessibility requirements including, but not limited to, required clear floor spaces and
clearances.

Justification: This supports barrier removal, an important part of the ADA law.

Cost Impact: Reduced cost for compliance.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process: YES NO




R
ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Date: 01/15/2025
No action taken
Date: 02/27/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken




D
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Existing Building Code (IEBC)
Section 502.3

Submitted by: International Existing Building Code Committee
[BS] 502.3 Existing structural elements carrying gravity load.
Any existing gravity load-carrying structural element for which an addition and its related
alterations cause an increase in design gravity loads dead, live or snow load, including snow drift
effects, of more than 5 percent shall be replaced or altered as needed to carry the gravity loads
required by the International Building Code for new structures. Any existing gravity load-carrying
structural element whose vertical load-carrying capacity is decreased as part of the addition and
its related alterations shall be considered to be an altered element subject to the requirements of



T
Section 503.3. Any existing element that will form part of the lateral load path for any part of the
addition shall be considered to be an existing lateral load-carrying structural element subject to
the requirements of Section 502.3.
Exceptions:




AF
1. Buildings of Group R occupancy with not more than five dwelling or sleeping units used
solely for residential purposes where the existing building and the addition together
comply with the conventional light-frame construction methods of the International
Building Code or the provisions of the International Residential Code.
2. Structural elements whose design gravity load combination is increased by not more than
5 percent and whose gravity load-carrying capacity has not been decreased.
Determination of the percent increase shall account for the cumulative effects of additions
or alterations since original construction.

Justification: The base code requirement is that if load is increased, the member must be
structurally evaluated per the current code for new structures and replaced or altered as
necessary. The base code allowing up to a 5 percent increase in gravity loads is an exception.
This amendment provides the necessary clarification that this is an exception, and that the




R
exception applies to gravity load combinations, rather than individual loads. Additionally, the
gravity loads listed in the base code are not comprehensive. Updating the section to apply to
gravity loads, rather than a specific list of loads, leaves it to the designer to determine which
loads are applicable.

Cost Impact: No Cost Impact.




D
Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
YES NO


Date: 01/09/2025
No action taken
Date: 02/27/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken

BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Existing Building Code (IEBC)
Section 503.3

Submitted by: International Existing Building Code Committee

[BS] 503.3 Existing structural elements carrying gravity load.
Any existing gravity load-carrying structural element for which an alteration causes an increase
in design gravity loads dead, live or snow load, including snow drift effects, of more than 5
percent shall be replaced or altered as needed to carry the gravity loads required by the



T
International Building Code for new structures. Any existing gravity load-carrying structural
element whose gravity load-carrying capacity is decreased as part of the alteration shall be
shown to have the capacity to resist the applicable design gravity loads dead, live and snow
loads including snow drift effects required by the International Building Code for new structures.

Exceptions:




AF
1. Buildings of Group R occupancy with not more than five dwelling or sleeping units used
solely for residential purposes where the altered building complies with the conventional
light-frame construction methods of the International Building Code or the provisions of
the International Residential Code.
2. Buildings in which the increased dead load is due entirely to the addition of a second
layer of roof covering weighing 3 pounds per square foot (0.1437 kN/m2) or less over an
existing single layer of roof covering.
3. Structural elements whose design gravity load combination is increased by not more than
5 percent and whose gravity load-carrying capacity has not been decreased.
Determination of the percent increase shall account for the cumulative effects of additions
or alterations since original construction.




R
Justification: The base code requirement is that if load is increased, the member must be
structurally evaluated per the current code for new structures and replaced or altered as
necessary. The base code allowing up to a 5 percent increase in gravity loads is an exception.
This amendment provides the necessary clarification that this is an exception, and that the
exception applies to gravity load combinations, rather than individual loads. Additionally, the
gravity loads listed in the base code are not comprehensive. Updating the section to apply to




D
gravity loads, rather than a specific list of loads, leaves it to the designer to determine which
loads are applicable.

Cost Impact: No Cost Impact.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Denied
YES NO


Date: 01/09/2025
No action taken
Date: 02/27/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Date: 04/22/2025


Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee Date: 05/21/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken




T
AF
R
D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Existing Building Code (IEBC)
Section 706.2
Submitted by: International Existing Building Code Committee
[BS] 706.2 Addition or replacement of roofing or replacement of equipment.
Any existing gravity load-carrying structural element for which an alteration causes an increase
in design gravity loads dead, live or snow load, including snow drift effects, of more than 5
percent shall be replaced or altered as needed to carry the gravity loads required by the
International Building Code for new structures.
Exceptions:

T
1. Buildings of Group R occupancy with not more than five dwelling or sleeping units used
solely for residential purposes where the altered building complies with the conventional
light-frame construction methods of the International Building Code or the provisions of
the International Residential Code.




AF
2. Buildings in which the increased dead load is due entirely to the addition of a second
layer of roof covering weighing 3 pounds per square foot (0.1437 kN/m2) or less over an
existing single layer of roof covering.
3. Structural elements whose design gravity load combination is increased by not more than
5 percent and whose gravity load-carrying capacity has not been decreased.
Determination of the percent increase shall account for the cumulative effects of additions
or alterations since original construction.

Justification: The base code requirement is that if load is increased, the member must be
structurally evaluated per the current code for new structures and replaced or altered as
necessary. The base code allowing up to a 5 percent increase in gravity loads is an exception.
This amendment provides the necessary clarification that this is an exception, and that the




R
exception applies to gravity load combinations, rather than individual loads. Additionally, the
gravity loads listed in the base code are not comprehensive. Updating the section to apply to
gravity loads, rather than a specific list of loads, leaves it to the designer to determine which
loads are applicable.

Cost Impact: No Cost Impact.




D
Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted

Approved as submitted

Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Modified and approved Denied
YES NO


Date: 01/09/2025
No action taken
Date: 02/27/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken


BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Existing Building Code (IEBC)
Section 805.2

Submitted by: International Existing Building Code Committee

[BS] 805.2 Addition or replacement of roofing or replacement of equipment.
Any existing gravity load-carrying structural element for which an alteration causes an increase
in design gravity loads dead, live or snow load, including snow drift effects, of more than 5
percent shall be replaced or altered as needed to carry the gravity loads required by the



T
International Building Code for new structures. Any existing gravity load-carrying structural
element whose gravity load-carrying capacity is decreased as part of the alteration shall be
shown to have the capacity to resist the applicable design gravity loads dead, live and snow
loads, including snow drift effects, required by the International Building Code for new structures.

Exceptions:




AF
1. Buildings of Group R occupancy with not more than five dwelling or sleeping units used
solely for residential purposes where the altered building complies with the conventional
light-frame construction methods of the International Building Code or the provisions of
the International Residential Code.
2. Buildings in which the increased dead load is attributable to the addition of a second layer
of roof covering weighing 3 pounds per square foot (0.1437 kN/m2) or less over an
existing single layer of roof covering.
3. Structural elements whose design gravity load combination is increased by not more than
5 percent and whose gravity load-carrying capacity has not been decreased.
Determination of the percent increase shall account for the cumulative effects of additions
or alterations since original construction.




R
Justification: The base code requirement is that if load is increased, the member must be
structurally evaluated per the current code for new structures and replaced or altered as
necessary. The base code allowing up to a 5 percent increase in gravity loads is an exception.
This amendment provides the necessary clarification that this is an exception, and that the
exception applies to gravity load combinations, rather than individual loads. Additionally, the




D
gravity loads listed in the base code are not comprehensive. Updating the section to apply to
gravity loads, rather than a specific list of loads, leaves it to the designer to determine which
loads are applicable.

Cost Impact: No cost impact.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
YES NO


Date: 01/09/2025
No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee Date: 02/27/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken


Development Advisory Board (DAB) Date: 04/22/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee Date: 05/21/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken




T
AF
R
D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Existing Building Code (IEBC)
Section 1103.1

Submitted by: International Existing Building Code Committee

[BS] 1103.1 Additional Gravity Loads
Any existing gravity load-carrying structural element for which an addition and its related
alterations cause an increase in design gravity loads dead, live or snow load, including snow drift
effects, of more than 5 percent shall be replaced or altered as needed to carry the gravity loads



T
required by the International Building Code for new structures. Any existing gravity load-carrying
structural element whose gravity load-carrying capacity is decreased as part of the addition and
its related alterations shall be considered to be an altered element subject to the requirements of
Section 805.2. Any existing element that will form part of the lateral load path for any part of the
addition shall be considered to be an existing lateral load-carrying structural element subject to
the requirements of Section 1103.2.




AF
Exceptions:

1. Buildings of Group R occupancy with not more than five dwelling units or sleeping units
used solely for residential purposes where the existing building and the addition together
comply with the conventional light-frame construction methods of the International
Building Code or the provisions of the International Residential Code.
2. Structural elements whose design gravity load combination is increased by not more than
5 percent and whose gravity load-carrying capacity has not been decreased.
Determination of the percent increase shall account for the cumulative effects of additions
or alterations since original construction.




R
Justification: The base code requirement is that if load is increased, the member must be
structurally evaluated per the current code for new structures and replaced or altered as
necessary. The base code allowing up to a 5 percent increase in gravity loads is an exception.
This amendment provides the necessary clarification that this is an exception, and that the
exception applies to gravity load combinations, rather than individual loads. Additionally, the
gravity loads listed in the base code are not comprehensive. Updating the section to apply to




D
gravity loads, rather than a specific list of loads, leaves it to the designer to determine which
loads are applicable.

Cost Impact: No cost Impact.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
YES NO


Date: 01/09/2025
No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee Date: 02/27/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken


Development Advisory Board (DAB) Date: 04/22/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee Date: 05/21/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken




T
AF
R
D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendments to 2024 International Existing Building Code (IEBC)
Section 1201.1.1

Submitted by: International Existing Building Code Committee

1201.1 Scope.
This chapter is intended to provide means for the preservation of historic buildings. Historic
buildings shall comply with the provisions of this chapter relating to their repair, alteration,
relocation and change of occupancy.



T
1201.1.1 Preliminary meeting. If an applicant requests that a building meet the requirements
of this chapter and the project is a project involving alterations and/or a change of occupancy,
then the Planning and Development Department shall offer a preliminary meeting with the
applicant upon payment of a fee as set forth in Appendix A.2 of Phoenix City Code, prior to the
submission of a permit application. The preliminary meeting shall, to the extent possible,




AF
include the officials responsible for permit approval and enforcement with respect to the
Phoenix Building Construction Code, Phoenix Fire Code and historic preservation ordinances.


Justification: This allows applicants to meet with the City to discuss code application for historic
buildings and allows for greater collaboration between plan review sections in the processing of
permit applications.


Cost Impact: Minimal cost impact. The objective of this meeting is to identify proactively all the
code, technical and policy requirements as early as feasible.




R
Approved in previous Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Denied
YES


Date: 1/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 02/27/2025
NO




D Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendments to 2024 International Existing Building Code (IEBC)
Section 1201.4

Submitted by: International Existing Building Code Committee

[BS] 1201.4 Flood hazard areas. In flood hazard areas, if all proposed work, including repairs,
work required because of a change of occupancy, and alterations, constitutes substantial
improvement, then the existing building shall comply with Section 1612 of the International
Building Code, or Section R306 of the International Residential Code, as applicable.



T
Exception: If a historic building will continue to be a historic building after the proposed
work is completed, then the proposed work is not considered a substantial improvement.
For the purposes of this exception, a historic building is any of the following:

1. Listed or preliminarily determined to be eligible for listing in the National Register




AFof Historic Places.
2. Determined by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Interior to contribute to the
historical significance of a registered historic district or a district preliminarily
determined to qualify as a historic district.
3. Designated as historic under a state or local historic preservation program that is
approved by the Department of the Interior.
4. Determined to be eligible for listing in a local historic property register, either
individually or as a contributor to a historic district, by a local historic preservation
program approved by the Department of the Interior.


Justification: This requirement is consistent with state and federal practices where eligible




R
historic properties are treated the same as listed properties for design review purposes.
Phoenix’s historic preservation program is approved by the department of the interior.


Cost Impact: This cost-saving measure is intended to reduce the financial and technical
infeasibility for projects.




D
Approved in previous Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted

Approved as submitted

Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Modified and approved Denied
YES


Date: 01/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 02/27/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
NO




Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken


BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendments to 2024 International Existing Building Code (IEBC)
Section 1201.6

Submitted by: International Existing Building Code Committee

1201.6 Energy efficiency. Exterior alterations to a historic building shall be exempt from the
provisions of the International Energy Conservation Code. New construction within designated
historic districts shall be subject to the provisions of the International Energy Conservation Code.




T
Justification: Maintaining the original exterior materials of a historic building is important for a
building to retain its historic status.

Cost Impact: This cost-saving measure is intended to reduce the financial and technical
infeasibility of energy upgrades to the entire building.


Approved in previous Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:

AF
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted

Approved as submitted

Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Modified and approved Denied
YES


Date: 01/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 02/27/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
NO




R
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
Date:
No action taken




D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendments to 2024 International Existing Building Code (IEBC)
Section 1202.2

Submitted by: International Existing Building Code Committee

1202.2 Repair and Replacement.
Repair and replacement of existing or missing features using original materials shall be
permitted. Partial replacement for repairs that match the original in configuration, height, and size
shall be permitted. Glazing is subject to the requirements of Section 1203.8. Replacement



T
glazing in hazardous locations shall comply with the safety glazing requirements of Chapter 24 of
the International Building Code.

Exception: Glass block walls, louvered windows, and jalousies repaired with like materials.

Justification: This requirement was previously amended in the 2018 IEBC section 1202.2, and




AF
is consistent with departmental policies.

Cost Impact: This cost-saving measure is intended to reduce the financial and technical
infeasibility of uncomplicated projects.


Approved in previous Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board Technical Subcommittee
Denied
YES NO


Date: 01/29/2025
No action taken
Date: 02/27/2025




R Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendments to 2024 International Existing Building Code (IEBC)
Section 1203.3

Submitted by: International Existing Building Code Committee

1203.3 Means of egress and emergency escape and rescue.
Where, in the opinion of the code official, there is sufficient width and height for a person to pass
through the opening or traverse the means of egress, existing window and door openings, and
corridor and stairway widths are not required to meet the widths required by the International



T
Building Code or this code. Where approved by the code official, the front or main exit doors
need not swing in the direction of the path of exit travel, provided that other approved means of
egress having sufficient capacity to serve the total occupant load are provided.

Justification: This requirement was previously amended in the 2018 IEBC section 1203.3, and
is consistent with departmental policies. This clarifies that this sections also applies to




AF
emergency escape and rescue openings.

Cost Impact: This cost-saving measure is intended to reduce the financial and technical
infeasibility for projects.


Approved in previous Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board Technical Subcommittee
Denied
YES NO


Date: 01/29/2025
No action taken
Date: 02/27/2025




R Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendments to 2024 International Existing Building Code (IEBC)
Section 1204.6

Submitted by: International Existing Building Code Committee

1204.6 Means of egress and emergency escape and rescue.
Existing window and door openings and corridor and stairway widths less than those that would
be acceptable for nonhistoric buildings under these provisions shall be approved, provided that,
in the opinion of the code official, there is sufficient width and height for a person to pass through



T
the opening or traverse the exit and that the capacity of the exit system is adequate for the
occupant load, or where other operational controls to limit occupancy are approved by the code
official.

Justification: This requirement was previously amended in 2018 IEBC section 1204.6, and is
consistent with departmental policies. This clarifies that this sections also applies to emergency




AF
escape and rescue openings.

Cost Impact: This cost-saving measure is intended to reduce the financial and technical
infeasibility for projects.


Approved in previous Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board Technical Subcommittee
Denied
YES NO


Date: 01/29/2025
No action taken
Date: 02/27/2025




R Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendments to 2024 International Existing Building Code (IEBC)
Section 1204.14

Submitted by: International Existing Building Code Committee

1204.14 Natural light.
Where it is determined by the code official and the historic preservation officer that compliance
with the natural light requirements of Section 1010.1 will lead to loss of historic character or
historic materials in the building, the existing level of natural lighting shall be considered to be
acceptable.


T
Justification: This requirement was previously amended in 2018 IEBC section 1204.14, and is
consistent with departmental policies. The Historic Preservation Officer is a better authority for
determining loss of historic character.




AF
Cost Impact: This cost-saving measure is intended to reduce the financial and technical
infeasibility for projects.


Approved in previous Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board Technical Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board
Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
YES NO


Date: 01/29/2025
No action taken
Date: 02/27/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025




R Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Swimming Pool and Spa Code (ISPSC)
Chapter 1

Submitted by: International Swimming Pool and Spa Code Committee

CHAPTER 1 SCOPE AND ADMINISTRATION

Notes:




T
1. For reserved sections herein, refer to the amendments and requirements in Chapter 1
of the International Building Code for these code requirements.
2. For sections that remain unchanged from base code, the term “see this section of the
2024 ISPSC” shall refer to the unchanged base code.

101.1 Title. These regulations shall be known as the International Swimming Pool and Spa
Code of as amended by the City of Phoenix, herein after referred to as “this code.” These




AF
regulations are one document of the overall Phoenix Building Construction Code as defined by
the adopting ordinance.

101.2 Scope. - See this section of the 2024 ISPSC

101.2.1 Appendices. - See this section of the 2024 ISPSC

101.2.2 Flotation tanks. - See this section of the 2024 ISPSC

101.3 Purpose. - See this section of the 2024 ISPSC

101.4 Severability. - Reserved




R
Section 102 Applicability

102.1 General. - Reserved

102.2 Existing installations. - See this section of the 2024 ISPSC

102.3 Maintenance. - See this section of the 2024 ISPSC




D
102.4 Alterations or repairs. - See this section of the 2024 ISPSC

102.5 Historic buildings. - See this section of the 2024 ISPSC

102.6 Moved pools and spas. - See this section of the 2024 ISPSC

102.7 Referenced codes and standards. - Reserved.

102.8 Requirements not covered by code. - See this section of the 2024 ISPSC

102.9 Other laws. - Reserved.

102.10 Application of references. - Reserved.




Section 103 Code compliance agency – Reserved

Section 104 Duties and powers of the code official – Reserved

Section 105 Permits - Reserved

Section 106 Temporary structures, equipment and systems - Reserved

Section 107 Construction documents - Reserved

Section 108 Notice of approval - Reserved

Section 109 Fees - Reserved

Section 110 Service utilities - Reserved

Section 111 Inspections - Reserved

Section 112 Means of appeals - Reserved

Section 113 Violations - Reserved

Section 114 Stop work order - Reserved
T
AF
Justification: All the adopted and amended building code documents taken together are known
as the Phoenix Building Construction Code. Each code document is a separate document of the
Phoenix Building Construction Code. This document is the International Swimming Pool and Spa
Code as Amended by the City of Phoenix. This document is intended to apply where a code or
referenced standard identifies the International Swimming Pool and Spa Code as being
applicable.

The reserved provisions are contained in the Phoenix Building Construction Code –
Administrative Provisions (Chapter 1 of the International Building Code).




R
Cost Impact: No cost impact


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
YES NO


Date: 01/15/2025




D Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted

Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied




Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date: 03/20/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Swimming Pool and Spa Code (ISPSC)
Chapter 2

Submitted by: International Swimming Pool and Spa Code Committee

Section 202 Definitions

RESIDENTIAL SWIMMING POOL (RESIDENTIAL POOL). A pool intended for use, that is
accessory to a residential setting and available only to the household and its guests including any



T
structure intended for swimming or recreational bathing that contains water over 18 inches
(457.2mm) deep. This includes in-ground, above ground and on ground swimming pools, hot tubs,
spas, and fixed in place wading pools. All Oother pools shall be considered to be public pools
for the purpose of this code.




AF
Justification: The added text enhances this important definition and keeps us in line with
previous code language. 18 inch depth is in accordance with A,R.S., Section 36-1681.



Cost Impact: No cost impact.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
YES NO




R
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Date: 01/23/2025
No action taken
Date: 03/20/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025




D Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Swimming Pool and Spa Code (ISPSC)
Section 305.1

Submitted by: International Swimming Pool and Spa Code Committee

305.1 General.
The provisions of this section shall apply to the design of barriers for restricting entry into areas
having pools and spas. Where spas or hot tubs are equipped with a lockable safety cover
complying with ASTM F1346 and swimming pools are equipped with a powered safety cover that



T
complies with ASTM F1346, the areas where those spas, hot tubs or pools are located shall not
be required to comply with Sections 305.2 through 305.7.

It is the responsibility of the property owner and any other person in responsible charge of a
swimming pool to ensure that the required swimming pool barrier, including all gates, doors,
locks, latches, and other portions of the barrier are maintained safe and in good working order at




AF
all times. No person shall alter or remove any portion of a swimming pool barrier except to repair,
reconstruct, or replace the barrier in compliance with the provisions of this section. All barriers
shall be installed, inspected, and approved prior to plastering or filling with water.


Justification: This paragraph was located in section AG105.2 of the IRC Appendix G. It
provides important information for the pool owner and should be included in the new ISPSC.


Cost Impact: No cost impact.




R
Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
YES NO


Date: 01/23/2025
No action taken
Date: 03/20/2025
No action taken




D
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Swimming Pool and Spa Code (ISPSC)
Section 305.2.1

Submitted by: International Swimming Pool and Spa Code Committee

305.2.1. (1) Barrier height and clearances.
Barrier heights and clearances shall be in accordance with all of the following:

1. The top of the barrier shall be not less than 48 inches (1219 mm) 60 inches (1524 mm) above



T
grade where measured on the side of the barrier that faces away from the pool or spa. Such
height shall exist around the entire perimeter of the barrier and for a distance of 3 feet (914
mm) measured horizontally from the outside of the required barrier.


Justification: The provision for the required pool barrier fence height was set at five feet in the




AF
previous 2012 IRC, Appendix G. This is in accordance with A.R.S. § 36-1681 and City of
Phoenix Ordinance G 3316, adopted on May 4, 1990.


Cost Impact: No cost impact.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
YES NO


Date: 02/14/2025
No action taken




R
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved Denied
Date: 03/20/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:




D Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Swimming Pool and Spa Code (ISPSC)
Section 305.2.8

Submitted by: International Swimming Pool and Spa Code Committee

305.2.8 Chain link dimensions.
The maximum opening formed by a chain link fence shall be not more than 1 ¾ inches (44 mm).
Where the fence is provided with slats fastened at the top and bottom that reduce the openings,
such openings shall be not greater than 1 ¾ inches (44 mm). The mesh shall not be less than 11
wire gauge.


T
Justification: The provision for chain link wire gauge was in the 2012 IRC Appendix G.




AF
Cost Impact: No cost impact.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
YES NO


Date: 01/15/2025
No action taken
Date: 03/20/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken




R
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Swimming Pool and Spa Code (ISPSC)
Section 305.3.2

Submitted by: International Swimming Pool and Spa Code Committee

305.3.2 Double or multiple doors and gates.
Double Doors and gates or multiple doors and gates. If a set of double doors and gates or
multiple doors and gates are the only access to the yard where the pool is located, they shall
have not fewer than one leaf secured in place and the adjacent leaf shall be self-closing and be
secured with a self-latching device.



T
The gate and barrier shall not have openings larger than 1 /2 inch (12.7 mm) within 18 inches
(457 mm) of the latch release mechanism. The self-latching device shall comply with the
requirements of Section 305.3 If a pedestrian gate is present in conjunction with the double or
multiple gates, the double or multiple gates need not be self-closing or self-latching and shall be
equipped with a padlock or similar locking device. Where the release mechanism of the self-




AF
latching device is located less than 54 inches (1372 mm) from the bottom of the gate, the release
mechanism and openings shall comply with the following:

A. The release mechanism shall be located on the pool side of the gate at least 3 inches
(76 mm) below the top of the gate, and
B. The gate and barrier shall have no opening greater than 0.5 inch (12.7 mm) within 18
inches (457 mm) of the release mechanism.


Justification: The 2012 IRC, Appendix G, section AG 105.2.8 did not address RV type double
gates as being required to meet section AG 105.2 (1) through (7). (Self-closing, self-latching,
etc.) This clarifies that it is necessary if it is the only gate to the yard area with the pool. The
second paragraph is taken from the 2012 IRC, Appendix G with added clarification to exclude




R
RV type gates if there is also a pedestrian gate present that meets the 2024 ISPSC section
305.3.


Cost Impact: Minimal cost impact. Some cost may be realized to properly equip an RV type
gate if required.




D
Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted

Approved as submitted

Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Modified and approved Denied
YES NO


Date: 01/16/2025
No action taken
Date: 03/20/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken


BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Swimming Pool and Spa Code (ISPSC)
Section 305.4

Submitted by: International Swimming Pool and Spa Code Committee

305.4 Structure wall as a barrier.
Where a wall of a dwelling or structure serves as part of the barrier and where doors, gates or
windows provide direct access to the pool or spa through that wall, one of the following shall be
required:



T
1. Operable windows having a sill height of less than 48 inches (1219 mm) above the indoor
finished floor, doors and gates shall have an alarm that produces an audible warning
when the window, door or their screens are opened. The alarm shall be listed and labeled
as a water hazard entrance alarm in accordance with UL 2017.
1. The pool shall be equipped with a key operated powered safety cover in compliance with
ASTM F1346. The keyed pool cover switch shall be located not less than 54 inches




AF
(1372 mm) above the floor adjacent ground level and where the entire pool cover can be
visually inspected; or

2. In dwellings not required to be Accessible units, Type A units or Type B units, the
operable parts of the alarm deactivation switches shall be located at not less than 54
inches (1372 mm) above the finished floor.
2. All doors leading from the dwelling unit or guest room, directly into a yard with a swimming
pool, shall swing away from the pool, shall be self-closing and self-latching, and shall be
equipped with a locking device. The release mechanism for the latch or a secondary locking
device, shall be located not less than 54 inches (1372 mm) above the floor. A locking latch
which uses a key, electronic opener, or integral combination lock may be located at any
height on the door. Sliding doors shall not form any part of a required barrier unless the self-




R closing and self-latching mechanism is specifically approved.

3. In dwellings that are required to be Accessible units, Type A units or Type B units, the
operable parts of the alarm deactivation switches shall be located not greater than 54
inches (1372 mm) and not less than 48 inches (1219 mm) above the finished floor.
3. Multi panel sliding doors or walls shall meet the requirements of ISPSC 305.4.2. or shall be
secured in place by a permanent fastening method that requires a tool to remove. If a sliding




D door or panel is the only door to the pool area it shall meet the requirements of ISPSC
305.4.2.

4. In structures other than dwellings, the operable parts of the alarm deactivation switches
shall be located not greater than 54 inches (1372 mm) and not less than 48 inches (1220
mm) above the finished floor.
4.Windows used for emergency escape or rescue which face into a yard with a swimming
pool shall be equipped with a latching device located not less than 54 inches (1372 mm)
above the floor. All other operable dwelling unit windows facing into a yard with a swimming
pool shall be equipped with a screwed in place wire mesh screen, a keyed lock that prevents
opening the window more than 4 inches (102 mm), or a latching device not less than 54
inches (1372 mm) above the floor.




5. A safety cover that is listed and labeled in accordance with ASTM F1346 is installed for
the pools and spas.

6. An approved means of protection, such as self-closing doors with self-latching devices, is
provided. Such means of protection shall provide a degree of protection that is not less
than the protection afforded by Item 1 or 2.


Justification: The ISPSC allows audible alarms as part of the barrier system which was not
acceptable in the previously adopted 2012 IRC Appendix G. This provision for house barriers
was in the previous Appendix G.


Cost Impact: Minimal cost impact. Some cost may be realized to properly equip and RV type
gate, if required.



T
Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
YES NO


Date: 01/23/2025
No action taken




AF
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted




Approved as submitted
Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Date: 03/20/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




R
D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Swimming Pool and Spa Code (ISPSC)
Section 305.9

Submitted by: International Swimming Pool and Spa Code Committee

305.9 Barrier exceptions.

1. For portable spas and or hot tubs with a safety cover which complies with ASTM F 1346, as
listed in Section 305.4.2 shall be exempt from the provisions of this section.



T
2. For spas and hot tubs, a hard safety cover which is latched or locked may be used provided
the spa or hot tub is not more than 8 feet (2.44 m) in width at any point.
3. Existing swimming pools located on a one-family dwelling property on or before May 4,
1990, need not be retroactively fitted with a barrier between the dwelling and the pool provided
all occupants of the dwelling are at least six years of age or older. All other portions of the
swimming pool barrier se11arating properties shall be installed and maintained as required by




AF
Section 105.2.

Exception:

1. This exception does not eliminate an owner's responsibility for providing a temporary
barrier or otherwise physically restricting visiting children's direct access from the
dwelling to the swimming pool.
2. This exception shall expire and the required 11ermanent barrier shall be retroactively
installed between the dwelling and the swimming pool whenever:
a. One or more children under six years of age become occupants of the property.
b. There is a change of use or character to theprimary building occupancy on the
property.




R c. A new pool or spa is being installed on the same property including spa additions to
the existing swimming pool or alterations to the existing pool that change size or shape.
d. Alterations to existing buildings: New work that changes an existing element of the
pool barrier (whether the barrier is compliant or not) shall meet the current barrier
requirements of Section 305.




D
Justification: This section is not included in the 2018 ISPSC, however it was part of Appendix
Gin the 2012 IRC. A new section 305.8 is added to the 2018 ISPSC to allow for this text. This
language is added to provide an exception to barriers for pools constructed prior to May 4, 1990,
in accordance with City of Phoenix Ordinance G-3316.


Cost Impact: Minimal cost impact. There could be a minor increase in cost for homes that do
not have barriers present, depending on barrier type affected.

Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process: YES NO


ACTION TAKEN:

2024 Code Committee Date: 01/23/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee Date: 03/20/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Date: 04/22/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee Date: 05/21/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken




T
AF
R
D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Swimming Pool and Spa Code (ISPSC)
Section 307.2.2

Submitted by: International Swimming Pool and Spa Code Committee

307.2.2 Materials and structural design.
Pools and spas shall conform to one or more of the standards indicated in Table 307.2.2. The
structural design of pools and spas shall be in accordance with the International Building Code or
the International Residential Code, as applicable in accordance with Section 102.7.1 of this
code.


T
Exception: Pools and spas constructed with reinforced concrete or reinforced shotcrete
with a A minimum compressive strength of 2,500 pounds per square inch (175.8 kg/cm2)
shall be permitted for all reinforced concrete and reinforced shotcrete pools and spas
when as designed by a design professional registered design professional and approved




AF
by the building official. shall be permitted.


Justification:
This amendment clarifies that concrete shall be designed to comply with ACI 318 but allows an
exception for a reduced minimum required compressive strength for pools and spas.


Cost Impact: Minimal cost impact.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process: YES NO




R
ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Denied

Denied
Date: 01/24/2025
No action taken
Date: 03/20/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025




D Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Swimming Pool and Spa Code (ISPSC)
Section 411.1.4

Submitted by: International Swimming Pool and Spa Code Committee

411.1.4 Pools greater than 30 20 feet wide.

Swimming pools greater than 30 (9144mm) 20 feet (6096 mm) in width shall be provided
with entries and exits on each side of the deep area of the pool. The entries and exits on



T
the sides of the deep area of a pool shall be located not more than 82 feet (25 m) apart.



Justification: This change maintains consistency with the Maricopa County Environmental
Health Code, Chapter VI, Section 6: Public Swimming Pools.




AF
Cost Impact: Minimal cost impact. For some pools, this may increase cost by the addition of a
ladder for egress.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:


ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
YES NO



Date: 01/24/2025
No action taken




R
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved Denied
Date: 03/20/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:




D Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Plumbing Code (IPC)
Section 101.1

Submitted by: International Plumbing Code Committee

CHAPTER 1 SCOPE AND GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

Notes:




T
1. For reserved sections herein, refer to the amendments and requirements in Chapter 1
of the International Building Code for these code requirements.
2. For sections that remain unchanged from base code, the term “see this section of the


101.1 Title
2024 IPC” shall refer to the unchanged base code.




AF
These regulations shall be known as the International Plumbing Code as amended by the City of
Phoenix Building Code of [NAME OF JURISDICTION], hereinafter referred to as “this code.”
These regulations are one document of the overall Phoenix Building Construction Code as
defined by the adopting ordinance.

101.2 Scope. - See this section of the 2024 IPC

101.2.1 Appendices. - See this section of the 2024 IPC

101.3 Purpose. - See this section of the 2024 IPC

101.4 Severability. - Reserved.




R
102.1 General. - Reserved.

102.2 Existing installations. - See this section of the 2024 IPC

102.3 Maintenance. - See this section of the 2024 IPC




D
102.4 Additions, alterations or repairs. - See this section of the 2024 IPC

102.5 Change in occupancy. - See this section of the 2024 IPC

102.6 Historic buildings. - See this section of the 2024 IPC

102.7 Moved buildings. - See this section of the 2024 IPC

102.8 Referenced codes and standards. - Reserved

102.8.1 Conflicts. - Reserved.

102.8.2 Provisions in referenced codes and standards. - Reserved.



102.9 Requirements not covered by code. - See this section of the 2024 IPC

102.10 Other laws. - Reserved.

102.11 Application of references. - Reserved.

SECTION 103 CODE COMPLIANCE AGENCY – Reserved.

SECTION 104 DUTIES AND POWERS OF THE CODE OFFICIAL – Reserved.

SECTION 105 PERMITS – Reserved.

SECTION 106 CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS – Reserved.

SECTION 107 NOTICE OF APPROVAL – Reserved.

SECTION 108 FEES – Reserved.

SECTION 109 SERVICE UTILITIES – Reserved. T
SECTION 110 TEMPORARY USES, EQUIPMENT AND SYSTEMS – Reserved.




AF
SECTION 111 INSPECTIONS AND TESTING – Reserved.

SECTION 112 MEANS OF APPEALS – Reserved.

SECTION 113 BOARD OF APPEALS – Reserved.

SECTION 114 VIOLATIONS – Reserved.

SECTION 115 STOP WORK ORDER – Reserved.




R
Justification: All the adopted and amended building code documents taken together are known
as the Phoenix Building Construction Code. Each code document is a separate document of the
Phoenix Building Construction Code. This document is the International Plumbing Code as
Amended by the City of Phoenix. This document is intended to apply where a code or referenced
standard identifies the International Building Code as being applicable.

The reserved provisions are contained in the Phoenix Building Construction Code –




D
Administrative Provisions (Chapter 1 of the International Building Code).


Cost Impact: No cost impact.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Denied
YES NO


Date: 01/28/2025
No action taken
Date: 02/06/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken



Development Advisory Board (DAB) Date: 04/22/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee Date: 05/21/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken




T
AF
R
D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Plumbing Code (IPC)
Section 202

Submitted by: International Plumbing Code Committee

202 GENERAL DEFINITIONS

GREASE INTERCEPTOR




T
Gravity. Plumbing appurtenances of not less than 500 gallons (1893 L) capacity that are
installed in the sanitary drainage system to intercept free-floating fats, oils and grease from
wastewater discharge. Separation is accomplished by gravity during a retention time of not less
than 30 minutes approved by the Authority Having Jurisdiction.




AF
Justification: City of Phoenix Water Department’s Office of Environmental Programs and
surrounding cities use a minimum 12-minute retention time. The additional requirements
establish construction parameters for interceptors.


Cost Impact: Minimal cost impact. This amendment reduces cost. Adopting a 30-minute
retention time would increase the size of required grease interceptors, adding extra expense to
the purchase and installation of gravity grease interceptors. The additional requirements are
carried over from 2018 UPC.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process: YES NO




R
ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Denied

Denied
Date: 01/25/2025
No action taken
Date: 02/06/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025




D Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Plumbing Code (IPC)
Section 202 (GRD)

Submitted by: International Plumbing Code Committee

202 GENERAL DEFINITIONS

GREASE REMOVAL DEVICE, AUTOMATIC (GRD). A plumbing appurtenance that is installed
in the sanitary drainage system to intercept free-floating fats, oils and grease from wastewater



T
discharge. Such a device operates on a time-or event-controlled basis and has the ability to
remove free-floating fats, oils and grease automatically without intervention from the user except
for maintenance. These devices must be able to perform as a gravity interceptor if mechanical
or electrical power is lost, and provide continuous separation.




AF
Justification: Some grease removal devices rely on moving parts and electricity to separate
grease from the waste stream. This amendment requires that if moving parts break down or
electrical power is lost the device will still be able to operate as a passive device and prevent
grease from entering the sewer system.


Cost Impact: Minimal cost impact. This disallows some types of devices, so the remaining
options may be more expensive.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process: YES NO




R
ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Date: 12/19/2024
No action taken
Date: 02/06/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken




D
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Plumbing Code (IPC)
Section 312.11.2

Submitted by: International Plumbing Code Committee

SECTION 312 TESTS AND INSPECTIONS

312.11.2 Testing.
Reduced pressure principle, double check, pressure vacuum breaker, reduced pressure



T
detector fire protection, double check detector fire protection, and spill-resistant vacuum
breaker backflow preventer assemblies and hose connection backflow preventers shall be
tested at the time of installation, immediately after repairs or relocation and at least annually.
The testing procedure shall be performed in accordance with one of the following standards
ASSE 5013, ASSE 5015, ASSE 5020, ASSE 5047, ASSE 5048, ASSE 5052, ASSE 5056,
CSA B64.10 or CSA B64.10.1. Testing gauges shall comply with ASSE 1064. Testing or




AF
maintenance shall be performed by a certified backflow assembly tester or repairer in
accordance with ASSE Series 5000, or otherwise approved by the Authority Having
Jurisdiction.


Justification:
1. Allows the AHJ the ability to use the test procedures outlined in the most current edition
of the USC Foundation for Cross-Connection Control and Hydraulic Research Manual of
Cross-Connection Control, mandated by State Rule R18-4-215 and Phoenix City Code
Chapter 37, Article XII. Backflow Prevention.
2. Mirrors identical requirements found in 2018 UPC Section 603.2 “Approval of Devices” or
Assemblies.




R
Cost Impact: Minimal cost increase.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process: YES NO




D
ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted


Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Denied

Denied
Date: 01/02/2025
No action taken
Date: 02/06/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Plumbing Code (IPC)
Section 403.2

Submitted by: International Plumbing Code Committee

403.2 Separate facilities.
Where plumbing fixtures are required, separate toilet facilities shall be provided for each sex.

Exceptions:



T
1. Separate toilet facilities shall not be required for dwelling units and sleeping units.
2. Separate toilet facilities shall not be required in structures or tenant spaces with a
total occupant load, including both employees and customers, of 15 or fewer.
3. Separate toilet facilities shall not be required in mercantile occupancies in which the
maximum occupant load is 50 100 or fewer.




AF
4. Separate toilet facilities shall not be required in business occupancies in which the
maximum occupant load is 25 50 or fewer.
5. Separate toilet facilities shall not be required to be designated by sex where single-
user toilet rooms are provided in accordance with Section 403.1.2.
6. Separate toilet facilities shall not be required where rooms having both water closets
and lavatory fixtures are designed for use by all persons regardless of sex and privacy
is provided for water closets in accordance with Section 405.3.4 and for urinals in
accordance with Section 405.3.5.



Justification: These revisions are made to provide consistency between the 2024 UPC section




R
422.2, 2024 IBC section 2902.2 and the 2024 IPC to allow for small business and mercantile
occupancies to provide a single toilet facility for up to 50 occupants.

Cost Impact: Cost savings and increases will vary.

Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
YES NO




D
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted


Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Denied

Denied
Date: 01/09/2025
No action taken
Date: 02/06/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Plumbing Code (IPC)
Section 410.2

Submitted by: International Plumbing Code Committee

410.2 Small occupancies.
Drinking fountains shall not be required for an occupant load of 15 50 or fewer.




T
Justification: This amendment is made to provide a relief to small businesses from the cost of
installing drinking fountains, but also to save the physical space they would take up.


Cost Impact: Minimal cost impact. Cost savings.




AF
Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted

Approved as submitted

Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Modified and approved Denied
YES NO


Date: 01/16/2025
No action taken
Date: 02/06/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken




R
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
Date:
No action taken




D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Plumbing Code (IPC)
Section 424.2

Submitted by: International Plumbing Code Committee

424.2 Substitution for water closets.
In each bathroom or toilet room, urinals shall not be substituted for more than 67 percent of the
required water closets for males according to Table 403.1 in assembly and educational
occupancies. Urinals shall not be substituted for more than 50 percent of the required water



T
closets for males according to Table 403.1 in all other occupancies.


Justification: These revisions are made to provide consistency between the UPC and IPC and
the minimum plumbing fixture table that is found in the 2024 International Building Code.




AF
Cost Impact: Minimal cost impact. The cost increase will be greater for assembly and educational
occupancies.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
YES NO


Date: 01/16/2025
No action taken
Date: 02/06/2025
No action taken




R
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Plumbing Code (IPC)
Section 604.4

Submitted by: International Plumbing Code Committee

604.4 Maximum flow and water consumption.
The maximum water consumption flow rates and quantities for all plumbing fixtures and fixture fittings shall
be in accordance with Table 604.4(1).

Exceptions: Situations meeting exceptions 1 through 5 are not required to comply with Table 604.4(1) nor



T
Table 604.4(2). Situations meeting exceptions 6 through 12 shall comply with Table 604.4(2).
1. Blowout design water closets having a water consumption not greater than 3 1/2 gallons (13 L) per
flushing cycle.
2. Vegetable sprays.
3. Clinical sinks having a water consumption not greater than 4 1/2 gallons (17 L) per flushing cycle.
4. Service sinks.




AF
5. Emergency showers.
6. The building does not have a demand recirculation water system and includes one or more
centralized potable water-heater systems serving two or more dwelling units or sleeping units.
7. The building is more than six (6) stories above grade plane or is more than ten (10) stories.
8. The building is larger than 50,000 ft2 (5000 m2) and contains one or more potable water booster
pumps.
9. The building is a facility where 5 or more people, excluding staff, receive custodial care or medical
care on a 24-hour basis.
10. The building contains one or more areas for the purpose of surgery, or for housing or treating
occupants receiving treatment for burns, chemotherapy for cancer, or solid organ transplantation or
bone marrow transplantation.
11. The building contains areas for the purpose of housing or treating people that are




R immunocompromised, are taking drugs that weaken the immune system, have renal disease,
diabetes, or chronic lung disease.
12. The plumbing fixtures serve a space whose primary purpose is housing occupants under the age of 2
years or over the age of 65 years.




D
TABLE 604.4 (1)
MAXIMUM FLOW RATES AND CONSUMPTION FOR PLUMBING FIXTURES AND FIXTURE
FITTINGS

PLUMBING FIXTURE OR FIXTURE FITTING MAXIMUM FLOW RATE OR QUANTITYb
Lavatory, private 1.5 2.2 gpm at 60 psi
Lavatory, public (metering) 0.25 gallon per metering cycle
Lavatory, public (other than metering) 0.5 gpm at 60 psi
Shower head a,c
2.0 gpm at 80 psi
Sink faucet 1.5 2.2 gpm at 60 psi
Urinal 0.5 1.0 gallon per flushing cycle
Water closet 1.28 1.6 gallon per flushing cycle



T
For SI: 1 gallon = 3.785 L, 1 gallon per minute = 3.785 L/m, 1 pound per square inch = 6.895
kPa.
a. A hand-held shower spray is a shower head.
b. Consumption tolerances shall be determined from referenced standards.




AF
c. Shower heads shall comply with all requirements for high-efficiency showerheads in ASME
A112.18.1-2020/CSA B125.1.


TABLE 604.4 (2)
MAXIMUM FLOW RATES AND CONSUMPTION FOR PLUMBING FIXTURES AND FIXTURE
FITTINGS

PLUMBING FIXTURE OR FIXTURE FITTING
Lavatory, private
Lavatory, public (metering)
MAXIMUM FLOW RATE OR QUANTITYb
2.2 gpm at 60 psi
0.25 gallon per metering cycle




R
Lavatory, public (other than metering)
Shower head a,c
Sink faucet
Urinal
Water closet
0.5 gpm at 60 psi
2.0 gpm at 80 psi
2.2 gpm at 60 psi
1.0 gallon per flushing cycle
1.6 gallon per flushing cycle




D
For SI: 1 gallon = 3.785 L, 1 gallon per minute = 3.785 L/m, 1 pound per square inch = 6.895
kPa.
a. A hand-held shower spray is a shower head.
b. Consumption tolerances shall be determined from referenced standards.
c. Shower heads shall comply with all requirements for high-efficiency showerheads in ASME
A112.18.1-2020/CSA B125.1.




Justification: Per Council Resolution 22129, “A Resolution Addressing the Future Water Consumption of
New Development”, Section 2.2.b.i., staff will propose updates to the Building Code for water efficiency
standards that would be consistent with water usage best practices. The proposed changes are consistent
with the current EPA Water Sense standards.

Exceptions 6 through 12: During review of these proposed changes, it was identified that some situations
could potentially be at higher risk of waterborne pathogens where the length of piping in the building was
particularly long, due to the decay of disinfectant with time. Higher flow rates help move this water through
the system faster, allow less time for disinfectant decay. Additionally, some populations are at higher risk for
these pathogens, and they are the reason for some of the other exceptions. See ASHRAE Standard 188,
and ASHRAE Standard 514, ASHRAE Guideline 12, NASEM Consensus Report on the Management of
Legionella in Building Water Systems, and ASPE Engineering Methodologies to Reduce the Risk of
Legionella in Premise Plumbing Systems Design Guide.

Note: Phoenix City Code Chapter 37, Article 3, pertaining to large water users, greater than 250,000 gallons
per day, sec. 37-52-02.



T
Cost Impact: Minimal cost impact. These proposed fixture standards are consistent with most of the
fixtures available on the market.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted


Development Advisory Board (DAB)


Approved as submitted
AF Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted

Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Denied
YES NO


Date: 03/19/2025
No action taken
Date: 03/27/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:




R Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken




D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendments to 2024 International Plumbing Code (IPC)
Section 605.25

Submitted by: International Plumbing Code Committee

605.25 Non-Metallic Potable Water Pipe, Fittings, and Valves
Non-Metallic potable water pipe, fittings, and valves shall not be exposed in exterior outdoor
locations. Components of the exterior exposed potable water system shall be metallic only and
approved metallic materials, fittings, and valves are listed in IPC Table 605.3, IPC Table 605.4,
IPC Table 605.5, and IPC Table 605.6.


T
Justification: Due to extreme exterior summer weather conditions, all nonmetallic potable water
pipe, fittings, and valves shall be prohibited from areas of direct sunlight, such as roofs, ground
surfaces, and exterior wall locations. Nonmetallic pipe, fittings, and valves would be subjected to




AF
extreme exterior heat and will soften and sag between pipe supports. In addition, exposure to UV
rays from the sun will cause the pipe to become brittle and be subjected to fracture and
breakage when placed under stress or strain. Both conditions will lead to water breaks and
failures with the likely result of heavy property damage.


Cost Impact: Minimal. This amendment increases the initial construction cost. This amendment
reduces the cost associated with future water breaks, property damage, and personal financial
liability.


Approved in previous Code Adoption process: YES NO




R
ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Denied

Denied
Date: 01/15/2025
No action taken
Date: 02/06/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025




D Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Plumbing Code (IPC)
Section 608.7.2

Submitted by: International Plumbing Code Committee

SECTION 608
PROTECTION OF POTABLE WATER SUPPLY

608.7 Cross connection control.



T
Cross connections shall be prohibited, except where approved backflow prevention assemblies,
backflow prevention devices or other means or methods are installed to protect the potable water
supply.

608.7.1 Private water supplies.
Cross connections between a private water supply and a potable public supply shall be




AF
prohibited.

608.7.2 Secondary backflow protection.
The following activities or facilities shall have a Secondary Reduced Pressure Principle
Backflow Prevention assembly installed as close as practicable to each point of service
delivery: Hospitals, surgical clinics, medical buildings, laboratories, morgues, mortuaries,
veterinary hospitals, animal grooming shops, industrial occupancies, packing plants,
slaughter houses, chemical plants, municipal waste treatment facilities, auxiliary water
systems, construction water services or as otherwise listed in the most current edition of
Phoenix City Code Chapter 37 ARTICLE XII. Backflow Prevention.

Note: Multiple water services which are interconnected onsite shall be provided with not less




R than a Double Check Valve Assembly at each service connection.


Justification: ADEQ, Maricopa County and City of Phoenix Water Department all require
secondary protection for the services cited.




D
Cost Impact: Yes there will be a cost increase due to the requirement for an additional backflow
preventer. This amendment carries over from previous code cycles.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Denied

Denied
YES NO


Date: 01/23/2025
No action taken
Date: 02/06/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee Date: 05/21/2025


Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken




T
AF
R
D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Plumbing Code (IPC)
Section 608.8.1

Submitted by: International Plumbing Code Committee

608.8 Valves and outlets prohibited below grade.
Potable water outlets and combination stop-and-waste valves shall not be installed underground
or below grade. A freezeproof yard hydrant that drains the riser into the ground shall be
considered as having a stop-and-waste valve below grade.



T
Exception: Freezeproof yard hydrants that drain the riser into the ground shall be permitted
to be installed, provided that the potable water supply to such hydrants is protected in
accordance with Section 608.14.2 or 608.14.5 ASSE 1057 Freeze Resistant Sanitary Yard
Hydrant with Backflow Protection, and the hydrants and the piping from the backflow
preventer to the hydrant are identified in accordance with Section 608.9.




AF
608.8.1 Prohibited Locations.
Backflow prevention devices shall not be installed in pits, underground vaults, or submerged
locations.


Justification:
1. Phoenix City Code Chapter 37-144 (d) regarding backflow assembly accessibility and
testing presents design constraints for adequate clearance and drainage in a proposed
vault installation. Proposed vault dimensions typically restrict full accessibility to all parts
of an assembly.
2. Eliminates the possibility of installing a backflow prevention assembly in a pit or vault.




R 3. Reflects installation drawings shown in City of Phoenix Standard Details P1351 through
P1355.
4. Corresponds to manufacturer’s installation instructions which restrict underground
installations to AHJ approval.
5. Above ground installation assures that Fire Department personnel have visual access to
fire line backflow prevention assembly shut off valves and verifies that the assembly
OS&Y (outside stem & yoke) shut-off valves are open by presence of a rising stem.




D
Cost Impact: Minimal cost impact. Requires compliance with ASSE 1057 instead of the other
standards in Section 608.14.2 or 608.14.5.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
YES


Date: 01/23/2025
NO



No action taken
Date: 02/06/2025
No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Date: 04/22/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken


Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee Date: 05/21/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken




T
AF
R
D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Plumbing Code (IPC)
Section 608.15.3

Submitted by: International Plumbing Code Committee

608.15 Location of backflow preventers.
Access shall be provided to backflow preventers as specified by the manufacturer's instructions.

608.15.1 Outdoor enclosures for backflow prevention devices.



T
Outdoor enclosures for backflow prevention devices shall comply with ASSE 1060.

608.15.2 Protection of backflow preventers.
Backflow preventers shall not be located in areas subject to freezing except where they can
be removed by means of unions or are protected from freezing by heat, insulation or both.




AF
608.15.2.1 Relief port piping.
The termination of the piping from the relief port or air gap fitting of a backflow preventer
shall discharge to an approved indirect waste receptor or to the outdoors where it will not
cause damage or create a nuisance. The indirect waste receptor and drainage piping
shall be sized to drain the maximum discharge flow rate from the relief port as published
by the backflow preventer manufacturer.

608.15.3 Access and clearance.
Access and clearance shall be provided for the required testing, maintenance, and repair.
Access and clearance shall be in accordance with manufacturer’s instructions, and not less
than 12 inches between the lowest portion of the assembly and grade, floor, or platform.
Elevated installations that exceed 5 feet above the floor or grade shall be provided with a




R platform capable of supporting a tester or maintenance person. Secondary backflow
assemblies shall be installed above ground, as close as practicable to the point of service
delivery. A minimum 3-foot (914 mm) clear space shall be maintained for testing,
maintenance, and repair.


Justification:




D 1. Inserts code language regarding elevated installations.
2. Clarifies that secondary backflow prevention assemblies shall be installed above ground.
3. Clarifies the minimum required clearance dimensions for secondary backflow prevention
assemblies.
4. Coordinates with Phoenix Fire Code requirements for access to fire protection
equipment.


Cost Impact: Yes due to more labor intensive requirements.




Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process: YES NO

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee Date: 01/23/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee Date: 02/06/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Date: 04/22/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee Date: 05/21/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken




T
AF
R
D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Plumbing Code (IPC)
Section 704.1

Submitted by: International Plumbing Code Committee

704.1 Slope of horizontal drainage piping.
Horizontal drainage piping shall be installed in uniform alignment at uniform slopes. The slope of
a horizontal drainage pipe shall be not less than that indicated in Table 704.1 except that where
the drainage piping is upstream of a grease interceptor, the slope of the piping shall be not less
than 1/4 inch per foot (2-percent slope).


T
AF
Exception: The Authority Having Jurisdiction may approve a lesser slope for building sewers
in lieu of a sewage ejector or pumping station when a registered engineer or architect
certifies the building sewer design and its installation, and when the building owner agrees in
writing under notary to accept the lesser slope. The minimum slope permitted shall be
calculated from Manning’s Formula using a coefficient roughness of 0.013 and a sewage




R velocity of 2 feet per second. See chart below for calculated pipe slope and flow. (Arizona
Administrative Code, R18-9-E301 Paragraph D, 2.e).

Manning's Formula Solution - Friction Factor =

Slop
Full
Flow Full Flow
1/2 Full
Full Flow Flow




D Pipe Size
(inches)
e
(%)
Velocity

0.85
0.50
0.33
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.15
(ft/s)
2.01
2.02
2.00
2.01
2.03
2.04
2.13
Rate
(cfs)
0.18
0.40
0.70
1.10
1.59
2.50
2.97
Rate
(GPM)
1,123
1,334
Rate
(GPD)
113,410
256,451
450,954
708,085
1,029,85
1,617,13
1,920,75
Rate
(GPM)

A low slope sewer certificate of compliance is required to be provided to the code official for
designs and installations that utilize this exception.


Justification: This amendment adds the option of using a lesser slope for building sewers
based on engineering calculations. The owner will be required to sign under notary that they
have accepted the lesser slope. The registrant shall certify the design and final installation.


Cost Impact: This amendment will reduce the costs associated with the previous approval
process for low slope sewer installations.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process: YES NO

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted


T
Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Date: 01/15/2025
No action taken
Date: 02/13/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken




AF
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




R
D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Plumbing Code (IPC)
Section 803.1

Submitted by: International Plumbing Code Committee

803.1 Neutralizing device required for corrosive wastes.
Corrosive liquids, spent acids or other harmful chemicals that destroy or injure a drain, sewer,
soil or waste pipe, or create noxious or toxic fumes or interfere with the sewage treatment
processes shall not be discharged into the plumbing system without being thoroughly diluted,



T
neutralized, or treated by passing through an approved dilution or neutralizing device. Such
devices shall be automatically provided with a sufficient supply of diluting water or neutralizing
medium so as to make the contents noninjurious before discharge into the drainage system.
The nature of the corrosive or harmful waste and the method of its treatment or dilution shall be
approved prior to installation.




AF
Justification: Diluting chemical wastes is prohibited by the Clean Water Act, 40 CFR, 403.6 (d).


Cost Impact: Minimal Cost Impact. This requires neutralizing mediums in lieu of dilution.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
YES NO


Date: 01/25/2025
No action taken




R
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved Denied
Date: 02/06/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:




D Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Plumbing Code (IPC)
Section 1003.2

Submitted by: International Plumbing Code Committee

1003.2 Approval.
The size, type and location of each interceptor and of each separator shall be designed and
installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions and the requirements of this section
based on the anticipated conditions of use the Authority Having Jurisdiction. Wastes that do not



T
require treatment or separation shall not be discharged into any interceptor or separator.


Justification: Phoenix City Code Section 28–13 gives approval authority for all interceptors to the
Director of Water Services. This code change is an administrative change to clarify approval
authority for these devices in the International Plumbing Code.




AF
Cost Impact: Minimal cost impact. Restricts the types of interceptors to those only approved by
the Director of the Water Services Department.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Denied
YES NO


Date: 01/25/2025
No action taken
Date: 02/06/2025




R Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Plumbing Code (IPC)
Section 1003.3.1
Submitted by: International Plumbing Code Committee

1003.3.1 Grease interceptors and automatic grease removal devices required.
A grease interceptor or automatic grease removal device shall be required to receive the
drainage from fixtures and equipment with grease laden waste located in food preparation
areas, such as in restaurants, hotel kitchens, hospitals, school kitchens, bars, factory
cafeterias and clubs. Fixtures and equipment shall include, but are not limited to pot sinks,



T
prerinse sinks; soup kettles or similar devices; wok stations; floor drains or sinks into which
kettles are drained; automatic hood wash units., and dishwashers without prerinse sinks.
Commercial dishwashers and food waste disposal units shall discharge to a gravity grease
interceptor. Grease interceptors and automatic grease removal devices shall receive waste
only from fixtures and equipment that allow fats, oils or grease to be discharged. Where lack
of space or other constraints prevent the installation or replacement or a grease interceptor,




AF
one or more grease interceptors shall be permitted to be installed on or above the floor and
upstream of an existing grease interceptor.


Justification: Automatic grease removal devices are not allowed as a standalone device by the
grease interceptors upstream of an existing interceptor does not increase the flow capacity of the
existing grease interceptor.


Cost Impact: Minimal cost impact. Disallows automatic grease removal devices which may be
cheaper than a grease interceptor.




R
Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
YES NO


Date: 01/25/2025
No action taken




D
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted




Approved as submitted
Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Date: 02/06/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Plumbing Code (IPC)
Section, 1003.3.2

Submitted by: International Plumbing Code Committee

1003.3.2 Food waste disposers restriction. Reserved
A food waste disposer shall not discharge to a grease interceptor.




T
Justification: Commercial food waste disposers are required to discharge to a gravity grease
interceptor, per the City of Phoenix Water Department’s Office of Environmental Programs.


Cost Impact: Minimal cost impact. Reduces cost by allowing discharge to a grease interceptor.




AF
Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted

Approved as submitted

Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Modified and approved Denied
YES NO


Date: 01/25/2025
No action taken
Date: 02/06/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken




R
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
Date:
No action taken




D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Plumbing Code (IPC)
Section 1003.3.5

Submitted by: International Plumbing Code Committee

1003.3.5 Hydromechanical grease interceptors, fats, oils and greases disposal systems
and automatic grease removal devices.
Hydromechanical grease interceptors shall be sized in accordance with Section 1003.3.5.1.
Fats, oils, and greases disposal systems and automatic grease removal devices shall be



T
sized in accordance with ASME A112.14.3, ASME A112.14.4, ASME A112.14.6, CSA B481.3
or PDI G101. Hydromechanical grease interceptors; fats, oils, and greases disposal systems
and automatic grease removal devices shall be designed and tested in accordance with
ASME A112.14.3, ASME A112.14.4, CSA B481.1, PDI G101 or PDI G102. Hydromechanical
grease interceptors; fats, oils, and greases disposal systems and automatic grease removal
devices shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. Where




AF
manufacturer's instructions are not provided, hydromechanical grease interceptors; fats, oils,
and greases disposal systems and automatic grease removal devices shall be installed, in
compliance with the Authority Having Jurisdiction. ASME A112.14.3, ASME A112.14.4,
ASME A112.14.6, CSA B481.3 or PDI G101.


Justification: To clarify hydromechanical grease interceptor sizing for the public as required by
the City of Phoenix’s Water Department Pollution Control and create consistency in sizing with
Uniform Plumbing Code.


Cost Impact: Yes there is a possible cost increase with the increased sizing criteria.




R
This requirement is an amendment carried forward from the 2018 International Plumbing Code.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
YES NO


Date: 01/20/2025




D Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted

Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied




Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date: 02/06/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Plumbing Code (IPC)
Section: Table 1003.3.5.1

Submitted by: International Plumbing Code Committee

Amend existing table title, values and add an additional column for fixtures connected.


TABLE 1003.3.5.1



T
CAPACITY OF GREASE INTERCEPTORS

TOTAL FLOW-THROUGH
RATING (gpm)
GREASE RETENTION
CAPACITY (pounds)




AF 6




R 35

TABLE 1003.3.5.1




D HYDROMECHANICAL GREASE INTERCEPTOR SIZING BASED ON FIXTURE COUNT ab

Maximum Number of
Fixtures Connected

Total Flow-Through Rating
(gpm)

Grease Retention
Capacity Equal to or
Greater Than (pounds)




For SI Units: 1 gallon per minute = 3.785 L/m, 1 pound = 0.454 kg.


a. For total flow-through ratings greater than 100 (gpm), double the flow-through rating to
determine the grease retention capacity (pounds) 50 (gpm) shall be specially approved
by the Authority Having Jurisdiction.

b. For installations with more than (4) fixtures, The Authority Having Jurisdiction may permit
the use of larger devices.


Justification:
The purpose of amending this table is to provide the public with prescriptive sizing guidelines for
hydromechanical grease interceptors as required by the City of Phoenix Water Department’s
Office of Environmental Programs.


Cost Impact: Yes there will be a possible increase due to the increased sizing criteria.
This requirement is an amendment carried forward from the 2018 International Plumbing Code.




T
Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Denied
YES


Date: 01/23/2025
No action taken
Date: 02/06/2025
NO




AF
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




R
D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Plumbing Code (IPC)
Section, 1003.3.5.3

Submitted by: International Plumbing Code Committee

1003.3.5 Hydromechanical grease interceptors, fats, oils and greases disposal
systems
and automatic grease removal devices.

1003.3.5.1 Grease interceptor capacity.


T
Grease interceptors shall have the grease retention capacity indicated in Table
1003.3.5.1 for the flow-through rates indicated.

1003.3.5.2 Rate of flow controls.
Grease interceptors shall be equipped with devices to control the rate of water flow so




AF
that the water flow does not exceed the rated flow. The flow-control device shall be
vented and terminate not less than 6 inches (152 mm) above the flood rim level or be
installed in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.

1003.3.5.3 Interceptor maintenance.
A two-way cleanout shall be installed on the discharge side of all hydromechanical grease
interceptors.


Justification: The purpose of this code section is to provide an entry point to clean the line
downstream of the device and back to the device.




R
Cost Impact: Minimal cost impact. To install additional piping for cleanouts. This requirement is
an amendment carried forward from the 2018 Uniform and International Plumbing Code.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process: YES NO




D
ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted

Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Denied

Denied
Date: 01/20/2025
No action taken
Date: 02/06/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Plumbing Code (IPC)
Section 1003.3.7

Submitted by: International Plumbing Code Committee

1003.3.7 Gravity grease interceptors and gravity grease interceptors with fats, oils, and
greases disposal systems.
The required capacity of gravity grease interceptors and gravity grease interceptors with fats,
oils, and greases disposal systems shall be determined by multiplying the peak drain flow



T
into the interceptor in gallons per minute by a retention time of 30 minutes total DFU’s x 3-
gpm x 12-minute retention time with no food waste disposers or, total DFU’s x 3-gpm x 17-
minute retention time with food waste disposers. Gravity grease interceptors shall be
designed and tested in accordance with IAPMO/ANSI Z1001. Gravity grease interceptors
with fats, oils, and greases disposal systems shall be designed and tested in accordance with
ASME A112.14.6 and IAPMO/ANSI Z1001. Gravity grease interceptors and gravity grease




AF
interceptors with fats, oils, and greases disposal systems shall be installed in accordance
with manufacturer’s instructions and the Authority Having Jurisdiction. Gravity grease
interceptors shall comply with the requirements of Chapter 10 or shall be designed by a
registered professional engineer and approved by the Authority Having Jurisdiction. 500
gallon interceptors shall have a minimum of two compartments and two man-ways.
Interceptors 750 gallons and above shall have a minimum of two compartments and three
man-ways. All man-ways shall have a minimum 20” inside diameter. The grade rings (risers)
of gravity grease interceptors shall be grouted with shrink proof grout. Gravity grease
interceptors shall be installed outside unless otherwise approved by the Authority Having
Jurisdiction. Where manufacturer’s instructions are not provided, gravity grease interceptors
and gravity grease interceptors with fats, oils, and greases disposal systems shall be
installed in compliance with the Authority Having Jurisdiction ASME A112.14.6 and




R IAPMO/ANSI Z1001.

Example: Take the total DFU’s going to grease waste, multiply by three (3) gallons per
minute (GPM), multiply by a 12-minute detention time and this will give the interceptor size in
gallons. If there is a disposal, use a 17-minute detention time.




D
Justification: To clarify retention time, construction, and gravity grease interceptor sizing for the
public and to align with UPC. Gravity interceptors are generally installed outside to prevent
sewer gases and odors from entering the building.


Cost Impact: Yes, due to larger interceptor sizes based on sizing criteria. This requirement is an
amendment carried forward from the 2018 Uniform Plumbing Code.




Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process: YES NO

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee Date: 01/02/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee Date: 02/06/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Date: 04/22/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee Date: 05/21/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken




T
AF
R
D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Plumbing Code (IPC)
Section 1106.1

Submitted by: International Plumbing Code Committee

SECTION 1106 SIZE OF CONDUCTORS, LEADERS AND STORM DRAINS

1106.1 General.
The size of the vertical conductors and leaders, building storm drains, building storm sewers,



T
and any horizontal branches of such drains or sewers shall be based on an hourly rainfall rate of
three (3) inches per hour. the 100-year hourly rainfall rate indicated in Figures 1106.1(1) through
1106.1(5) or on other rainfall rates determined from approved local weather data.


Justification: The 2024 UPC and the 2024 IPC list rainfall rates for Phoenix as 2.2 and 2.5




AF
inches per hour, respectively. It is recommended that a rainfall rate of three (3) inches per hour
be used to remain consistent with previous amendments and for ease of using the sizing tables.


Cost Impact: Minimal cost impact. Due to drain and pipe size increase.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
YES NO


Date: 01/06/2025
No action taken




R
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved Denied
Date: 02/06/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:




D Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Plumbing Code (IPC)
Section 1109

Submitted by: International Plumbing Code Committee

SECTION 1109 - COMBINED SANITARY AND STORM PUBLIC SEWER Reserved

1109.1 General.
Where the public sewer is a combined system for both sanitary and storm water, the storm



T
sewer shall be connected independently to the public sewer.


Justification: The city of Phoenix does not allow for combined sanitary and storm drainage
systems. This type of combined system is under the jurisdiction of the city of Phoenix Water
Services Department.




AF
Cost Impact: No Cost Impact. The base code section did not trigger any requirements by
remaining, as the City does not have a combined system.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Denied
YES NO


Date: 01/06/2025
No action taken
Date: 02/06/2025




R Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Plumbing Code (IPC)
Appendices

Submitted by: International Plumbing Code Committee

Adopt Appendices C & E.


Justification: Appendix “C” contains structural safety provisions that match those found in the



T
IBC and the UPC. Appendix “E” provides two methods of water pipe sizing not provided in the
body of the code.


Cost Impact: Minimal cost impact. Reduces cost by increasing water pipe sizing options.




AF
Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted

Approved as submitted

Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Modified and approved Denied
YES NO


Date: 01/06/2025
No action taken
Date: 02/06/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken




R
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
Date:
No action taken




D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC)
Section 101.1

Submitted by: Uniform Plumbing Code Committee

CHAPTER 1 ADMINISTRATION

Notes:




T
1. For reserved sections herein, refer to the amendments and requirements in Chapter 1
of the International Building Code for these code requirements.
2. For sections that remain unchanged from base code, the term “see this section of the


101.1 Title
2024 UPC” shall refer to the unchanged base code.




AF
This document shall be known as the “Uniform Plumbing Code,” as amended by the City of
Phoenix. may be cited a such, and will be referred to herein as “this code.” hereinafter referred to
as “this code.” These regulations are one document of the overall Phoenix Building Construction
Code as defined by the adopting ordinance.

101.2 Scope. - see this section of the 2024 UPC

101.3 Purpose. - see this section of the 2024 UPC

101.4 Unconstitutional. - Reserved.

101.5 Validity. - Reserved.




R
102.1 Conflicts Between Codes. - Reserved.

102.2 Existing Installations. - see this section of the 2024 UPC

102.3 Maintenance. - see this section of the 2024 UPC




D
102.4 Additions, Alterations, Renovations, or Repairs. - see this section of the 2024 UPC

102.4.1 Building Sewers and Drains. - see this section of the 2024 UPC

102.4.2 Openings. - see this section of the 2024 UPC

102.5 Health and Safety - see this section of the 2024 UPC

102.6 Changes in Building Occupancy. - see this section of the 2024 UPC

102.7 Moved Structures. - see this section of the 2024 UPC

102.8 Appendices. - see this section of the 2024 UPC



103.0 DUTIES AND POWERS OF THE AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION. – Reserved.

104.0 PERMITS. – Reserved.

105.0 INSPECTIONS AND TESTING. – Reserved.

106.0 VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES. – Reserved.

107.0 BOARD OF APPEALS. – Reserved.


Justification:
All the adopted and amended building code documents taken together are known as the Phoenix
Building Construction Code. Each code document is a separate document of the Phoenix
Building Construction Code. This document is the Uniform Plumbing Code as Amended by the



T
identifies the Uniform Plumbing Code as being applicable.

The reserved provisions are contained in the Phoenix Building Construction Code –
Administrative Provisions (Chapter 1 of the International Building Code).




AF
Cost Impact: No cost impact.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Denied

Denied
YES NO


Date: 01/28/2025
No action taken
Date: 02/13/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025




R Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date: 05/22/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC)
Section 209.0

Submitted by: Uniform Plumbing Code Committee

CHAPTER 2 DEFINITIONS

209.0 Gravity Grease Interceptor. A plumbing appurtenance or appliance that is installed in a
sanitary drainage system to intercept nonpetroleum fats, oils and greases (FOG) from a



T
wastewater discharge and is identified by volume, 30 12 or 17-minute retention time, baffle(s),
not less than two compartments, a total volume of not less than 300 500 gallons (1135 1895 L),
and gravity separation. [These interceptors comply with the requirements of Chapter 10 or are
designed by a registered design professional and approved by the Authority Having Jurisdiction.]
Gravity grease interceptors are generally shall be installed outside unless otherwise approved by
the Authority Having Jurisdiction.




AF
Justification: The larger interceptor has two man-ways and two compartments which makes it
easier for the user to clean and maintain the device. The 12 and 17-minute retention time is
currently used to size interceptors in the City of Phoenix Water Department’s Office of
Environmental Programs and was developed based on feedback from three public forums held
in 1997 to address sizing of commercial grease interceptors. Gravity interceptors are generally
installed outside to prevent sewer gases and odors from entering the building.


Cost Impact: Minimal cost impact. The cost impact to install a 500-gallon interceptor versus a
300-gallon interceptor is minimal. This requirement is an amendment carried forward from the




R
2012 Uniform Plumbing Code.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
YES NO


Date: 12/12/2024




D Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted

Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied




Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date: 02/13/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/22/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC)
Section 209.0 (GRD)

Submitted by: Uniform Plumbing Code Committee

CHAPTER 2 DEFINITIONS

209.0 Grease Removal Device (GRD). A hydromechanical grease interceptor that
automatically, mechanically removes non-petroleum fats, oils and grease (FOG) from the



T
interceptor, the control of which are either automatic or manually initiated. These devices must
be able to perform as a gravity interceptor if mechanical or electrical power is lost and be able to
provide continued separation.


Justification: Grease removal devices rely on moving parts and electricity to separate grease




AF
from the waste stream; therefore, if moving parts break down or electrical power is lost the
device will still be able to operate as a passive device and prevent grease from entering the
sewer system.

**2012 DAB Technical asked for the last sentence to be reworked and accepted as modified.


Cost Impact: Possibly increased due to increased performance requirements.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process: YES NO




R
ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Date: 12/12/2024
No action taken
Date: 02/13/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken




D
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Date: 05/22/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC)
Section 225.0

Submitted by: Uniform Plumbing Code Committee

CHAPTER 2 DEFINITIONS

225.0 Add new definitions as follows:




T
Water Dispenser. A plumbing fixture that is manually controlled by the user for the purpose of
dispensing potable drinking water into a receptacle such as a cup, glass or bottle. Such fixture is
connected to the potable water distribution system of the premises. This definition also includes
a freestanding apparatus for the same purpose that is not connected to the potable water
distribution system and that is supplied with potable water from a container, bottle or reservoir.




AF
Water Cooler. A drinking fountain that incorporates a means of reducing the temperature of the
water supplied to it from the potable water distribution system.


Justification: There is often confusion regarding what is or is not a water cooler. Currently the
code does not define any of the terms. In reality, drinking fountains are drinking fountains and
everything else is some form of a water dispenser. The code does not require cooled water. The
code can be simplified in Section 415.2 by referring only to drinking fountains or their alternative,
water dispensers. The new definitions establish that a drinking fountain and a water dispenser
that is connected to the potable water supply system are both plumbing fixtures by definition and
a bottled water dispenser is not a plumbing fixture by definition.




R
Cost Impact: No cost impact. This requirement is an amendment carried forward from the 2012
Uniform Plumbing Code.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
YES NO




D
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted


Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Denied

Denied
Date: 12/12/2024
No action taken
Date: 02/13/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/22/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC)
Sections 401.3, 407.2.1, 408.3, 411.2, 412.1, and 420.2

Submitted by: Uniform Plumbing Code Committee

401.3 Maximum Flow Rates. Plumbing fixtures shall have maximum flow rates or maximum
consumptions as required by this chapter.
Exceptions: Situations meeting exceptions 1 through 5 are not required to comply with the
maximum flow rates or maximum consumptions of Sections 407.2.1, 407.2.1.1, 408.3,



T
408.3.1, 411.2, 411.2.1, 412.1, 412.1.1, 420.2, and 420.2.1. Situations meeting exceptions 6
through 12 shall comply with the maximum flow rates or maximum consumptions of Sections
407.2.1.1, 408.3.1, 411.2.1, 412.1.1, and 420.2.1
1. Blowout design water closets having a water consumption not greater than 3 1/2
gallons (13 L) per flushing cycle.
2. Vegetable sprays.




AF
3. Clinical sinks having a water consumption not greater than 4 1/2 gallons (17 L) per
flushing cycle.
4. Service sinks.
5. Emergency showers.
6. The building does not have a demand recirculation water system and includes one or
more centralized potable water-heater systems serving two or more dwelling units or
sleeping units.
7. The building is more than six (6) stories above grade plane or is more than ten (10)
stories.
8. The building is larger than 50,000 ft2 (5000 m2) and contains one or more potable water
booster pumps.
9. The building is a facility where 5 or more people, excluding staff, receive custodial care




R or medical care on a 24-hour basis.
10. The building contains one or more areas for the purpose of surgery, or for housing or
treating occupants receiving treatment for burns, chemotherapy for cancer, or solid
organ transplantation or bone marrow transplantation.
11. The building contains areas for the purpose of housing or treating people that are
immunocompromised, are taking drugs that weaken the immune system, have renal
disease, diabetes, or chronic lung disease.




D 12. The plumbing fixtures serve a space whose primary purpose is housing occupants
under the age of 2 years or over the age of 65 years.

407.2.1 Maximum Flow Rate. The maximum flow rate for public lavatory faucets shall not
exceed 0.5 gpm at 60 psi (1.9 L/m at 414 kPa) and 1.5 2.2 gpm at 60 psi (5.68 8.3 L/m at 414
kPa) for private lavatory faucets.

407.2.1.1 Maximum Flow Rate. Where exceptions 6 through 12 to Section 401.3 are applicable,
the maximum flow rate for public lavatory faucets shall not exceed 0.5 gpm at 60 psi (1.9 L/m at
414 kPa) and 2.2 gpm at 60 psi (8.3 L/m at 414 kPa) for private lavatory faucets.

408.3 Water Consumption. Showerheads shall have a maximum flow rate of not more than 2.0
2.5 gpm at 80 psi (7.57 9.5 L/m at 552 kPa). Body sprays shall have a flow rate of not more than
2.0 2.5 gpm at 80 psi (7.57 9.5 L/m at 552 kPa).


408.3.1 Water Consumption. Where exceptions 6 through 12 to Section 401.3 are applicable,
showerheads shall have a maximum flow rate of not more than 2.5 gpm at 80 psi (9.5 L/m at 552
kPa). Where exceptions 6 through 12 to Section 401.3 are applicable, body sprays shall have a
flow rate of not more than 2.5 gpm at 80 psi (9.5 L/m at 552 kPa).

411.2 Water Consumption. Water closets shall have a maximum consumption not to exceed
1.28 1.6 gallons (4.8 6.0 Lpf) of water per flush.

411.2.1 Water Consumption. Where exceptions 6 through 12 to Section 401.3 are applicable,
water closets shall have a maximum consumption not to exceed 1.6 gallons (6.0 Lpf) of water
per flush.

412.1 Application. Urinals shall comply with ASME A112.19.2/CSA B45.1, ASME A112.19.19,
or CSA B45.5/IAPMO Z124. Urinals shall have an average water consumption not to exceed 0.5
1 gallon (1.9 3.8 Lpf) of water per flush.


T
412.1.1 Application. Where exceptions 6 through 12 to Section 401.3 are applicable, urinals
shall have an average water consumption not to exceed 1 gallon (3.8 Lpf) of water per flush.

420.2 Water Consumption. Sink faucets shall have a maximum flow rate of not more than 1.5




AF
2.2 gpm at 60 psi (5.68 8.3 L/m at 414 kPa).

420.2.1 Water Consumption. Where exceptions 6 through 12 to Section 401.3 are applicable,
sink faucets shall have a maximum flow rate of not more than 2.2 gpm at 60 psi (8.3 L/m at 414
kPa).

Justification: Per Council Resolution 22129, “A Resolution Addressing the Future Water
Consumption of New Development”, Section 2.2.b.i., staff will propose updates to the Building
Code for water efficiency standards that would be consistent with water usage best practices.
The proposed changes are consistent with the current EPA Water Sense standards.

Exceptions 6 through 12: During review of these proposed changes, it was identified that some




R
situations could potentially be at higher risk of waterborne pathogens where the length of piping
in the building was particularly long, due to the decay of disinfectant with time. Higher flow rates
help move this water through the system faster, allow less time for disinfectant decay.
Additionally, some populations are at higher risk for these pathogens, and they are the reason
for some of the other exceptions. See ASHRAE Standard 188, and ASHRAE Standard 514,
ASHRAE Guideline 12, NASEM Consensus Report on the Management of Legionella in Building
Water Systems, and ASPE Engineering Methodologies to Reduce the Risk of Legionella in




D
Premise Plumbing Systems Design Guide.

Note: Phoenix City Code Chapter 37, Article 3, pertaining to large water users, greater than
250,000 gallons per day, sec. 37-52-02.

These UPC sections were updated to match the similar requirements in the 2024 IPC to create
consistency between the two codes.


Cost Impact: Minimal Cost Impact. These proposed fixture standards are consistent with “Water
Sense” fixtures already available on the market.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process: YES NO


ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee Date: 03/19/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee Date: 03/27/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Date: 04/22/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee Date: 05/22/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken




T
AF
R
D
BUILDING CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC)
Sections 415.2, 415.4

Submitted by: Uniform Plumbing Code Committee

415.0 Drinking Fountains.

415.2 Drinking Fountain Alternatives. Where restaurants provide drinking water in a container
free of charge, drinking fountains shall not be required in those restaurants. In other occupancies



T
where drinking fountains are required, water dispensers shall be permitted to be substituted for
not more than 50 percent of the required number of drinking fountains. Bottle filling stations shall
be permitted to be substituted for drinking fountains up to 50 percent of the requirements for
drinking fountains. Drinking fountains shall not be required for an occupant load of 30 50 or less.

415.4 Location. Drinking fountains, water coolers and water dispensers shall not be installed in




AF
toilet rooms.


Justification: These terms were added to the above sections to align with the 2024 IBC chapter
29. These terms are defined in 2024 UPC amended Section 225.0.

The number of occupants amendment is made to provide a relief to small businesses from the
cost of installing drinking fountains.


Cost Impact:
Minimal cost impact. Cost savings by replacing drinking fountain installations with water dispense




R
Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
YES


Date: 12/12/2024
No action taken
NO




D
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted




Approved as submitted
Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Date: 02/13/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/22/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC)
Table 422.1

Submitted by: Uniform Plumbing Code Committee

422.0 Minimum Number of Required Fixtures.

Table 422.1
Minimum Plumbing Facilities



T
Replace UPC Table 422.1 and footnotes with 2024 International Plumbing (IPC) Table 403.1 &
footnotes.
add new footnotes, “g” & “h” in this replacement table.
Delete all references to the IPC from this replacement table.




AF
g. Drinking fountains are not required for an occupant load of 15 50 or fewer.

h. Where urinals are provided they may be substituted for water closets, provided the
number of water closets is not reduced to less than 50% of the minimum required by Table
422.1.


Justification: These revisions are made to provide consistency between the 2024 UPC and the
minimum plumbing fixture table that is found in the 2024 IPC.


Cost Impact: Minimal cost impact. Cost savings.




R
Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
YES NO


Date: 12/12/2024
No action taken




D
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted




Approved as submitted
Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Date: 02/13/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/22/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC)
Section 603.4.3

Submitted by: Uniform Plumbing Code Committee

603.4.3 Access and Clearance. Access and clearance shall be provided for the required
testing, maintenance, and repair. Access and clearance shall be in accordance with
manufacturer’s instructions, and not less than 12 inches between the lowest portion of the
assembly and grade, floor, or platform. Installations elevated Elevated installations that



T
exceed 5 feet above the floor or grade shall be provided with a platform capable of supporting
a tester or maintenance person.

Secondary backflow assemblies shall be installed above ground, as close as practicable to
the point of service delivery. A minimum 3-foot (914 mm) clear space shall be maintained for
testing, maintenance and repair.


Justification:


AF
• Clears up original grammatically incorrect code language regarding elevated installations.
• Clarifies that secondary backflow prevention assemblies shall be installed above ground.
• Clarifies the minimum required clearance dimensions for secondary backflow prevention
assemblies.


Cost Impact: No cost impact.




R
Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
YES NO


Date: 01/30/2025
No action taken
Date: 02/13/2025
No action taken




D
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/22/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC)
Section 603.4.9

Submitted by: Uniform Plumbing Code Committee

603.4.9 Prohibited Locations. Backflow prevention devices with atmospheric vents or ports
shall not be installed in pits, underground vaults, or submerged locations. Backflow preventers
shall not be located in an area containing fumes that are toxic, poisonous, or corrosive.




T
Justification: Phoenix City Code Chapter 37-144 (d) regarding backflow assembly accessibility
and testing presents design constraints for adequate clearance and drainage in a proposed vault
installation. Proposed vault dimensions typically restrict full accessibility to all parts of an
assembly.




AF
Eliminates the possibility of installing a backflow prevention assembly in a pit or vault.

Adds the word vault to better define underground locations.

Reflects installation drawings shown in City of Phoenix Standard Details P1351 through P1355.

Corresponds to manufacturer’s installation instructions which restrict underground installations to
AHJ approval.



Cost Impact: No cost impact.




R
Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
YES NO


Date: 01/23/2025
No action taken




D
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted




Approved as submitted
Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Date: 02/13/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/22/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC)
Section 603.4.10

Submitted by: Uniform Plumbing Code Committee

603.4.10 Secondary Backflow Protection. The following activities or facilities shall have a
Secondary Reduced Pressure Principle Backflow Prevention assembly installed as close as
practical to each point of service delivery: Hospitals, surgical clinics, medical buildings,
laboratories, morgues, mortuaries, veterinary hospitals, animal grooming shops, industrial



T
occupancies, packing plants, slaughter houses, chemical plants, municipal waste treatment
facilities, auxiliary water systems, construction water services or as otherwise listed in the
most current edition of Phoenix City Code Chapter 37 ARTICLE XII. Backflow Prevention.
Note: Multiple water services which are interconnected onsite shall be provided with not less
than a Double Check Valve Assembly at each service connection.




AF
Justification: ADEQ, Maricopa County and City of Phoenix Water Services Department all
require secondary protection for the services cited.


Cost Impact: No Cost Impact


Approved in the previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
YES


Date: 01/23/2025
NO




R Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
No action taken
Date: 02/13/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/22/2025
No action taken




D
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendments to 2024 Uniform Plumbing Code
Section 604.14

Submitted by: Uniform Plumbing Code Committee

604.14 Non-Metallic Potable Water Pipe, Fittings, and Valves
Non-Metallic potable water pipe, fittings, and valves shall not be exposed in exterior outdoor
locations. Components of the exterior exposed potable water system shall be metallic only and
approved metallic materials, fittings, and valves are listed in UPC Table 604.1



T
Justification: Due to extreme exterior summer weather conditions, all nonmetallic potable
water pipe, fittings, and valves shall be prohibited from areas of direct sunlight, such as roofs,
ground surfaces, and exterior wall locations. Nonmetallic pipe, fittings, and valves would be




AF
subjected to extreme exterior heat and will soften and sag between pipe supports. In addition,
exposure to UV rays from the sun will cause the pipe to become brittle and be subjected to
fracture and breakage when placed under stress or strain. Both conditions will lead to water
breaks and failures with the likely result of heavy property damage.


Cost Impact: Minimal. This amendment addresses the reduction of future water breaks, property
damage, and personal financial liability.


Approved in previous Code Adoption process: YES NO




R
ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Date: 01/15/2025
No action taken
Date: 02/13/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken




D
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Date: 05/22/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC)
Section 612.0

Submitted by: Uniform Plumbing Code Committee

Sections: 612.0 Residential Fire Sprinkler System.

Delete Section 612.0 in its entirety.




T
Justification: Design, installation and inspection of Fire Sprinkler Systems in one and two-family
dwellings or townhouses is regulated by the Phoenix Fire Code.


Cost Impact: No cost impact.




AF
Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
YES NO


Date: 01/25/2025
No action taken
Date: 02/13/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/22/2025




R Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC)
Section 718.1

Submitted by: Uniform Plumbing Code Committee

718.1 Slope.
Building sewers shall be run in practical alignment and at a uniform slope of not less than ¼
inch per foot (20.0mm/m) toward the point of disposal.

Exceptions:


T
1. Where approved by the Authority Having Jurisdiction and where it is impractical, due to
the depth of the street sewer, the structural features or the arrangement of a building or
structure, to obtain a slope of 1⁄4 inch per foot (20.8 mm/m), piping 4 inches (100 mm)
through 6 inches (150 mm) shall be permitted to have a slope of not less than 1⁄8 inch
per foot (10.4 mm/m) and such piping 8 inches (200 mm) and larger shall be permitted to




AF
have a slope of not less than 1⁄16 inch per foot (5.2 mm/m). The maximum and minimum
fixture unit loading shall be in accordance with Table 717.1.

2. The Authority Having Jurisdiction may approve a lessor slope in lieu of a sewage ejector or
pumping station when a registered engineer or architect certifies the sewer design and its
installation, and when the building owner agrees in writing under notary to accept the lessor
slope. The minimum slope permitted shall be calculated from Manning’s Formula using a
coefficient roughness of 0.013 and a sewage velocity of 2 feet per second. See chart below
for calculated pipe slope and flow. (Arizona Administrative Code, R18-9-E301 Paragraph D,
2, e).

Manning's Formula Solution - Friction Factor - n




R = 013


Pipe Size
(inches)
Slop
e
(%)
Velocity

0.85
0.50
(ft/s)
2.01
2.02
Full
Flow
Rate
(cfs)
Full Flow
Rate
(GPM)
0.18
0.40
Full Flow Flow
Rate
(GPD)
113,410
256,451
1/2 Full

Rate
(GPM)




D 8
0.33
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.15
2.00
2.01
2.03
2.04
2.13
0.70
1.10
1.59
2.50
2.97

designs and installations that utilize this exception.
1,123
1,334
450,954
708,085
1,029,85
1,617,13
1,920,75
A low slope sewer certificate of compliance is required to be provided to the building official for



Justification: This amendment adds the option of using a lessor slope for building sewers
based on engineering calculations. The owner will be required to sign under notary that they
have accepted the lessor slope. The registrant shall certify the design and final installation.



Cost Impact:
This amendment will reduce the costs associated with the current approval process for low slope
sewer installations.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process: YES NO

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee Date: 01/15/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee Date: 02/13/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Date: 04/22/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken



T
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Date: 05/22/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




AF
R
D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC)
Section 1014.1

Submitted by: Uniform Plumbing Code Committee

1014.0 Grease Interceptors.

1014.1 General. Where it is determined by the Authority Having Jurisdiction that waste
pretreatment is required, an approved type of grease interceptor(s) shall comply with ASME



T
A112.14.3, ASME A112.14.4, CSA B481, ANSI/CAN/IAPMO Z1001, PDI G-101, or PDI G-102,
and sized in accordance with Section 1014.2.1 or Section 1014.3.6, shall be installed in
accordance with the manufacturer’s installation instructions to receive the drainage from fixtures
or equipment that produce grease-laden waste. Grease-laden waste fixtures shall include, but
not be limited to, sinks and drains, such as floor drains, floor sinks, and other fixtures or
equipment in serving establishments, such as restaurants, cafes, lunch counters, cafeterias, bars




AF
and clubs, hotels, hospitals, sanitariums, factory or school kitchens, or other establishments
where grease is introduced into the drainage or sewage system in quantities that can effect line
stoppage or hinder sewage treatment or private sewage disposal systems. A Where approved by
the Authority Having Jurisdiction, a combination of hydromechanical, gravity grease interceptors
and engineered systems shall be allowed to meet this code and other applicable requirements of
the Authority Having Jurisdiction where space or existing physical constraints of existing
buildings necessitate such installations. A grease interceptor shall not be required for individual
dwelling units or private living quarters. Water closets, urinals, and other plumbing fixtures
conveying human waste shall not drain into or through the grease interceptor.


Justification: Combination pretreatment systems are generally not allowed by the Water




R
Services Department’s Environmental Services Division but will be considered on a case by case
basis.


Cost Impact: No cost impact.




D
Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted


Development Advisory Board (DAB)


Approved as submitted
Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted

Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Denied
YES NO


Date: 11/14/2024
No action taken
Date: 02/13/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/22/2025
No action taken
Date:
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken



BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC)
Section 1014.1.3

Submitted by: Uniform Plumbing Code Committee

1014.0 Grease Interceptors.

1014.1.3 Food Waste Disposers and Dishwashers. All food waste disposers and
dishwashers installed in commercial applications shall be connected to and / or discharge



T
into a gravity grease interceptor unless approved by the Authority Having Jurisdiction. No
food waste disposer or dishwasher shall be connected to or discharge into a grease
interceptor. Commercial food waste disposers shall be permitted to discharge directly into the
building’s drainage system.

Exception: Food waste disposers shall be permitted to discharge to grease interceptors that




AF
are designed to receive the discharge of food waste.


Justification: This code change is necessary to positively identify where disposers and
dishwashers shall be discharged. Connecting a commercial disposer unit and/or dishwasher to
a hydromechanical interceptor will have a negative effect on the operation, separation and
grease retention efficiency of the device. This is required by the Water Service Department’s
Office of Environmental Programs.


Cost Impact: No cost impact. This requirement is an amendment carried forward from the 2018
Uniform Plumbing Code.




R
Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
YES NO


Date: 11/13/20204
No action taken




D
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted




Approved as submitted
Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Date: 02/13/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/22/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC)
Section 1014.2.1

Submitted by: Uniform Plumbing Code Committee

1014.2 Hydromechanical Grease Interceptors.

1014.2.1 Capacity. The total capacity in gallons (gal) (L) of fixtures discharging into a
hydromechanical grease interceptor shall not exceed two and one-half times the certified gallon



T
per minute (gpm) (L/s) flow rate of the interceptor in accordance with Table 1014.2.1(1) and
1014.2.1(2). No hydromechanical interceptor shall be installed which has an approved rate of
flow greater than fifty (50) gallons per minute (3.5 L/s), nor less than twenty (20) gallons per
minute (1.3 L/s) except where approved by the Authority Having Jurisdiction.

For this section, the term “fixture” shall mean and include each plumbing fixture, appliance,




AF
apparatus, or other equipment required to be connected to or discharged into a grease
interceptor by a provision of this section.




DIAMETER OF
GREASE WASTE
PIPE (Inches)


(gpm)2
TABLE 1014.2.1(1)
HYDROMECHANICAL GREASE INTERCEPTOR SIZING
USING GRAVITY FLOW RATES1
MAXIMUM FULL
PIPE FLOW



ONE-MINUTE
DRANINAGE
PERIOD
(gpm)
TWO-MINUTE
DRANINAGE
PERIOD
(gpm)

20 10




R 3
For SI units: 1 inch = 25 mm, 1 gallon per minute = 0.06L/s
Notes:




D
For interceptor sizing by the fixture capacity see the example below.
¼ inch slope per foot (20.8 mm/m) based on Manning’s formula with friction factor N = 0.012.

TABLE 1014.2.1(2)
HYDROMECHANICAL GREASE INTERCEPTOR SIZING BASED ON FIXTURE COUNT
Total Number of
Grease Retention
Fixtures Connected
Total Flow-Through Rating (gpm) Grease Retention Capacity


Equal to or Greater Than
(pounds)
For SI units: 1 gallon per minute = 0.06 L/s, 1 pound = 0.454 kg.



Justification: The purpose of this code change is to provide the public with prescriptive sizing
guidelines for hydromechanical grease interceptors. This is required by the Water Service
Department’s Office of Environmental Programs.


Cost Impact: Minimal cost impact to adding/changing the requirements for interceptors.
This requirement is an amendment carried forward from the 2018 Uniform Plumbing Code.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process: YES NO

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee Date: 11/14/2024
Approved as submitted


T
Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
No action taken
Date: 03/27/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/22/2025




AF
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




R
D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC)
Section 1014.2.3

Submitted by: Uniform Plumbing Code Committee

1014.2 Hydromechanical Grease Interceptors.

1014.2.3 Maintenance. An approved two-way cleanout shall be installed on the discharge
side of all separators, interceptors, (clarifiers) and hydromechanical grease interceptors.



T
Justification: The purpose of this code section is to provide an entry point to clean the line
downstream of the device and back to the device.




AF
Cost Impact: Minimal cost impact. The cost impact is minimal to install additional piping for
cleanouts. This requirement is an amendment carried forward from the 2018 Uniform Plumbing
Code.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
YES NO


Date: 11/14/2024
No action taken
Date: 02/13/2025
No action taken




R
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/22/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC)
Section 1014.3.5

Submitted by: Uniform Plumbing Code Committee
1014.3 Gravity Grease Interceptors.
1014.3.5 Construction Requirements. Gravity grease interceptors shall be designed to
remove grease from effluent and shall be sized in accordance with this section. Gravity
grease interceptors shall also be designed to retain grease until accumulations can be
removed by pumping the interceptor. When provided, a sample box shall be located at the
outlet end if gravity grease interceptors so that the Authority Having Jurisdiction can



T
periodically sample effluent quality. The minimum gravity grease interceptor capacity shall be
500 gallons and the maximum capacity shall be 5000 gallons unless otherwise approved by
the Authority Having Jurisdiction. A 500-gallon interceptor shall have a minimum of two
compartments and two man-ways. Interceptors 750 gallons and above shall have a minimum
of two compartments and three man-ways. All man-ways shall have a minimum 20” inside
diameter. All interceptors shall have a vented two-way cleanout on the discharge side of the




AF
interceptor. All interceptors shall have a separate set of approved plans on file with the
Environmental Services Division. The plans shall be sealed by a registered professional
engineer and be approved by the Authority Having Jurisdiction. These plans shall be on file
with the city before installation can be completed.

The grade rings (risers) of gravity grease interceptors shall be grouted with shrink and water
proof grout. The interceptor lids shall be just above grade so as to prevent rain water
infiltration. All interceptors shall have gas tight and/or traffic rated lids where required.

Justification: The Water Service Department’s Environmental Services Division does not
sample effluent discharges from grease interceptors therefore providing a sample box is an
unnecessary expense for a facility. The additional requirements establish construction




R
parameters for interceptors.

Cost Impact: Minimal Cost Impact. Additional requirements for grease interceptors.

Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process: YES NO




D
ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted


Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Denied

Denied
Date: 11/28/2024
No action taken
Date: 02/13/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/22/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC)
Section 1014.3.6

Submitted by: Uniform Plumbing Code Committee

1014.3 Gravity Grease Interceptors.

1014.3.6 Sizing criteria. The volume of the interceptor shall be determined by calculating
drainage fixture units (DFUs) using Table 1014.3.6 702.1. Where drainage fixture units



T
(DFUs) are not known, the interceptor shall be sized based on the maximum DFUs allowed
for the pipe size connected to the inlet of the interceptor. Refer to Table 703.2, Drainage
Piping, Horizontal.

Example: Take the total DFUs going to grease waste, multiply by three (3) gallons per
minute (GPM), multiply by a 12-minute detention time and this will give the interceptor size in




AF
gallons. If there is a disposal, use a 17-minute detention time.



Justification: The purpose of this code change is to define how an interceptor will be sized.
The sizing criteria was developed from three public forums held in 1997 to standardize gravity
grease interceptor sizing.


Cost Impact: Minimal cost increase due to changing the sizing criteria.
This requirement is an amendment carried forward from the 2006, 2012, and 2018 Uniform
Plumbing Codes.




R
Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
YES NO


Date: 11/28/2024
No action taken




D
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted




Approved as submitted
Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Date: 02/13/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/22/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC)
Section: Table 1014.3.6

Submitted by: Uniform Plumbing Code Committee

1014.3 Gravity Grease Interceptors.

Delete TABLE 1014.3.6 GRAVITY GREASE INTERCEPTOR SIZING




T
Justification: Gravity grease interceptor sizing is defined in 2024 UPC amended section
1014.3.6 and amended section Example 1014.3.6. This requirement is an amendment carried
forward from the 2018 Uniform Plumbing Code.




AF
Cost Impact: Minimal cost increase due to changing the sizing criteria.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
YES NO


Date: 11/28/2024
No action taken
Date: 02/13/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken




R
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Date: 05/22/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC)
Section: Example 1014.3.6

Submitted by: Uniform Plumbing Code Committee

1014.3 Gravity Grease Interceptors.

EXAMPLE 1014.3.6
GRAVITY GREASE INTERCEPTOR SIZING EXAMPLE



T
Given: A restaurant with the following fixtures and equipment.

One food preparation sink; three floor drains – one in the food prep area, one in the grill area,
and one receiving the indirect waste from the ice machine and mop sink.




AF
Kitchen Drain Line DFU Count (from Table 702.1):
3 floor drains at 2 DFUs each = 6 DFUs
Mop sink at 3 DFUs each = 3 DFUs
Food prep sink at 3 DFUs each = 3 DFUs
Total = 12 DFUs
Using Table 1014.3.6, the grease interceptor will be sized at 750 gallons (2389 L). Using
UPC 1014.3.6:

12 DFUs x 3 GPM x 12-minute detention time = 432 gallons. The interceptor will be sized at
500 gallons (1893 L).




R
Justification: The purpose of this code change is to provide a design example that clearly
illustrates how to size an interceptor.


Cost Impact: No cost impact.

Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process: YES NO




D
ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted

Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Denied

Denied
Date: 11/28/2024
No action taken
Date: 02/13/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/22/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC)
Section 1101.12.1

Submitted by: Uniform Plumbing Code Committee

1101.12 Roof Drainage.

1101.12.1 Primary Roof Drainage. Roof areas of a building shall be drained by roof drains,
scuppers or gutters. The location and sizing of drains and gutters shall be coordinated with



T
the structural design and pitch of the roof. Scuppers shall be sized to prevent the depth of
ponding water from exceeding that for which the roof was designed as determined by this
section. Scupper openings shall be not less than 4 inches (102 mm) in height and have an
opening width equal to the circumference of the roof drain required for the area served, sized
in accordance with Table 1101.12. Unless otherwise required by the Authority Having
Jurisdiction, roof drains, scuppers, gutters, vertical conductors or leaders, and horizontal




AF
storm drains for primary drainage shall be sized based on a rainfall rate of three (3) inches
per hour storm of 60 minutes duration and 100 year return period. Refer to Table D 101.1 (in
Appendix D) for 100 years, 60-minute storms at various locations.


Justification: Current language in the 2024 UPC implies that scuppers are only approved for
secondary roof drainage. It has been a long-standing practice in Phoenix to allow the use of
scuppers as primary roof drains. This proposal adds the acceptance of scuppers as primary roof
drains and matches the sizing criteria found for the secondary scuppers in Section 1101.12.2.1.
The annual rainfall rate is given in the Appendix D of this code as 2.2 inches per hour. It is
proposed to round this number up to 3 inches for ease of use of the sizing Tables.




R
Cost Impact: Minimal cost increase as increasing the expected rainfall rate will require larger
drains. Carried over from 2018 Amendment.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process: YES NO




D
ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted


Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Denied

Denied
Date: 11/21/2024
No action taken
Date: 02/13/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/22/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC)
Sections 1101.12.2.2 & 1101.12.2.2.2

Submitted by: Uniform Plumbing Code Committee
1101.12 Roof Drainage.
1101.12.2.2 Secondary Roof Drain. Secondary roof drains shall be provided. The
secondary roof drains shall be located not less than 2 inches (51 mm) above the roof




T
surface. The maximum height of the roof drains shall be a height to prevent the depth of
ponding water from exceeding that for which the roof was designed as determined by
Section 1101.12.1. The secondary roof drains shall connect to a piping system in
accordance with Section 1101.12.2.2.1. or Section 1101.12.2.2.2.
1101.12.2.2.1 Separate Piping System. The secondary drainage system shall be
separate system of piping, independent of the primary roof drainage system. The




AF
discharge shall be above grade, in a location observable by the building occupants or
maintenance personnel. Secondary roof drain systems shall be sized in accordance
with Section 1101.12.1 based on rainfall rate for which the primary system is sized.
1101.12.2.2.2 Combined System. The secondary roof drains shall connect to the
vertical piping of the primary storm drainage conductor downstream of the last
horizontal offset located below the roof. The primary storm drainage system shall
connect to the building storm water that connects to an underground public storm
sewer. The combined secondary and primary roof drain systems shall be sized in
accordance with Section 1103.0 based on double rainfall rate for the local area.

Justification: The city of Phoenix does not allow for combined primary and secondary rainwater




R
removal systems. A combined system does not have any way to indicate there is a blockage in
the primary drain.

Cost Impact: Minimal Cost Impact. Remove the combined system option.

Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process: YES NO




D
ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Date: 11/21/2024
No action taken
Date: 02/13/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/22/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC)
Section 1101.16.2

Submitted by: Uniform Plumbing Code Committee

1101.16 Leaders, Conductors, and Connections. Leaders or conductors shall not be used as
soil, waste, or vent pipes nor shall soil, waste, or vent pipes be used as leaders or conductors.

1101.16.1 Protection of Leaders. Leaders installed along alleyways, driveways, or other



T
locations where exposed to damage shall be protected by metal guards, recessed into the
wall, or constructed from the ferrous pipe.

1101.16.2 Combining Storm with Sanitary Drainage. The sanitary and storm drainage
system of a building shall be entirely separate, except where a combined sewer is used, in
which case the building storm drain shall be connected in the same horizontal plane through




AF
a single wye fitting to the combined building sewer not less than 10 feet (3048 mm)
downstream from a soil stack.


Justification: The city of Phoenix does not allow for combined sanitary and storm drainage
systems. This type of combined system is under the jurisdiction of the city of Phoenix Water
Services Department.


Cost Impact: No cost impact.




R
Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
YES NO


Date: 11/21/2024
No action taken
Date: 02/13/2025
No action taken




D
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/22/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC)
Section 1208.5.11.

Submitted by: Uniform Plumbing Code Committee

1208.5.11 Flange Specification.
Flanges shall comply with Section 128.5.11.1 through Section 1208.5.11.7.

1208.5.11.1 Cast Iron Flanges



T
Cast iron flanges shall be in accordance with ASME B16.1. [NFPA 54:5.5.9.1.1]

1208.5.11.2 Steel Flanges.
Steel flanges shall be in accordance with one of the following:
(1) ASME B16.5 or
(2) ASME B16.47. [NFPA 54:5.5.9.1.2]




AF
1208.5.11.3 Non-Ferrous Flanges.
Non-ferrous flanges shall be in accordance with ASME B16.24. [NFPA 54:5.5.9.1.2]

1208.5.11.4 Ductile Iron Flanges.
Ductile iron flanges shall be in accordance with ASME B16.42. [NFPA 54:5.5.9.1.4]

1208.5.11.5 Dissimilar Flange Connections.
Raised-face flanges shall not be joined to flat-faced cast iron, ductile iron or nonferrous
material flanges. [NFPA54:5.5.9.2]

1208.5.11.6 Flange Facings.




R Standard facings shall be permitted for use under this code. Where 150 psi (1034 kPa)
steel flanges are bolted to Class 125 cast iron flanges, the raised face on the steel flange
shall be removed. [NFPA 54:5.5.9.3]

1208.5.11.7 Lapped Flanges.
Lapped flanges shall be used only aboveground or in exposed locations accessible for
inspection. [NFPA 54:5.5.9.4]




D
Justification: Defacing a listed product voids its certification to a design standard. This
amendment is consistent with the amended similar section in the 2024 International Fuel Gas
Code.


Cost Impact: No cost impact.




Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process: YES NO

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee Date: 12/12/2024
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee Date: 02/13/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Date: 04/22/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee Date: 05/22/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken




T
AF
R
D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC)
Section: Appendices

Submitted by: Uniform Plumbing Code Committee

Adopt Appendices A, B, C, I, & M


Justification: Appendix A provides an alternative engineered method of water pipe sizing.



T
Appendix B provides supplemental and explanatory information on combination waste and vent
systems. Appendix I contains installation standards for PEX tubing systems. Appendix M
provides a method for estimating water supply requirements for single and multi-family dwelling
units using water conserving plumbing fixtures. Appendix M is also in line with the current City of
Phoenix water conservation ordinances.




AF
Cost Impact: Minor Cost Impact. Potential cost decrease for alternative water pipe sizing.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Denied

Denied
YES NO


Date: 12/12/2024
No action taken
Date: 02/13/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025




R Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date: 05/22/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2023 National Electrical Code (NEC)
Article 100

Submitted by: National Electrical Code Committee

ARTICLE 100 Definitions

Building. A structure that stands alone or that is separated from adjoining structures by fire
walls. Fire walls shall be as defined by the International Building Code. For purposes of



T
compliance with this code, a townhouse dwelling unit shall be considered a building if the
townhouse dwellings units are separated from adjoining townhouse dwelling units by either fire
walls or by double walls or common walls that do not serve as gravity load bearing walls. For the
purposes of this definition, see the International Residential Code for double wall and common
wall provisions for townhouses.




AF
Elevator Disconnect Room or Closet.
An enclosed room or closet, with full-height door, located outside the hoistway, intended to be
accessed with or without full bodily entry that is dedicated to electrical and/or mechanical
equipment used directly in connection with the elevator when the elevator controller is located in
the hoistway. The elevator disconnect required in 620.51(A), and the other elevator related
disconnects, overcurrent devices, lighting, receptacles, etc. required by 620.22, 620.23, and
620.25 shall be located in this room or closet. In other than one- and two-family dwellings, and
unless special permission is granted, the room or closet shall be located on the same level as
the controller, within 50 feet of travel distance from the hoistway, shall be accessed directly from
the corridor, and shall be accessible to qualified persons only. A label shall be provided at the
elevator controller location identifying the location of the elevator disconnect room or closet. In
one- and two-family dwellings only, an elevator disconnect room or closet shall not be required




R
where the disconnecting means is located outside the hoistway in a readily accessible location
and accessible to qualified persons only by being lockable in both the open and closed position
and labeled in accordance with 110.22(A). The provisions for locking shall remain in place with
or without the lock installed. The other disconnects, overcurrent devices, lighting, and
receptacles required by 620.22, 620.23, and 620.25 shall be located adjacent to the disconnect
required in 620.51(A).




D
Justification:

Building. The definition of Building when referenced by the NEC has been expanded to include
townhouse dwelling units when separated by double walls or common walls that do not serve as
gravity load bearing walls. This provides clarity related to townhouses with respect to NEC
compliance.

Elevator Disconnect Room or Closet. A new definition has been added for Elevator
Disconnect Room or Closet to define the dedicated space that is required to contain the elevator
disconnects when the elevator controller is located in the hoistway. MRL (Machine Room Less)
elevators typically have the elevator controller located in the hoistway. The code requires that
disconnecting means for the elevator and related equipment be located outside the hoistway in a
readily accessible location that is accessible to qualified persons only. This new definition of this
location defined as a room or closet with a full height door is necessary to avoid confusion as to


an acceptable space that meets the various code sections related to these disconnects,
including but not limited to NEC 620.51(C)(1), 620.22, 620.23, 620.25, 100, and 110.26.
It is also important that the location of the room or closet is near the hoistway on the same level
as the controller to allow quick access to the disconnects by first responders and elevator
personnel in the event of an emergency. This is further emphasized by the requirement for a
label indicating the location of the room or closet. In one- and two-family dwellings only, the
room or closet is optional. However, if the room or closet is not provided, the disconnect must
still be located outside the hoistway in a readily accessible location that is accessible to qualified
persons only by being lockable in both the open and closed position and labeled as to its
purpose. The other disconnects, overcurrent devices, lighting, and receptacles required by
620.22, 620.23, and 620.25 shall be located adjacent to the disconnect required in 620.51(A).



Cost Impact: Minimal cost impact.



T
Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
YES NO


Date: 01/10/2025




AF
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted

Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied




Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date: 03/13/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




R
D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2023 National Electrical Code (NEC)
Section 210.52(C)(2) and (3)

Submitted by: Home Builders Association of Central Arizona

210.52(C)(2) Island and Peninsular Countertops and Work Surfaces.
Receptacle outlets, if installed to serve an island or peninsular countertop or work surface, shall
be installed in accordance with 210.52(C)(3). If a receptacle outlet is not provided to serve an
island or peninsular countertop or work surface, provisions shall be provided at the island or



T
peninsula for future addition of a receptacle outlet to serve the island or peninsular countertop or
work surface.
At least one receptacle shall be installed at each island and peninsular countertop space with a
long dimension of 600 mm (24 in.) or greater and a short dimension of 300 mm (12 in.) or
greater. A peninsular countertop is measured from the connected perpendicular wall.




AF
210.52(C)(3)Receptacle Outlet Location.
Receptacle outlets shall be located in one or more of the following:
(1) On or above, but not more than 500 mm (20 in.) above, a countertop or work surface
(2) In a countertop using receptacle outlet assemblies listed for use in countertops
(3) In a work surface using receptacle outlet assemblies listed for use in work surfaces or
listed for use in countertops
Receptacle outlets rendered not readily accessible by appliances fastened in place, appliance
garages, sinks, or rangetops as covered in 210.52(C)(1), Exception No. 1, or appliances
occupying assigned spaces shall not be considered as these required outlets.
Exception: To comply with the following conditions (1) and (2), receptacle outlets shall be
permitted to be mounted not more than 300 mm (12 in.) below the countertop or work surface.
Receptacles mounted below a countertop or work surface in accordance with this exception shall




R
not be located where the countertop or work surface extends more than 150 mm (6 in.) beyond
its support base.
(1) Construction for the physically impaired
(2) On island and peninsular countertops or work surface where the surface is flat across its
entire surface (no backsplashes, dividers, etc.) and there are no means to mount a
receptacle within 500 mm (20 in.) above the countertop or work surface, such as an
overhead cabinet




D
Informational Note No. 1: See 406.5(E) for installation of receptacles in countertops
and 406.5(F) for installation of receptacles in work surfaces. See 380.10 for installation of
multioutlet assemblies.
Informational Note No. 2: See Informative Annex J and ANSI/ICC A117.1-2009, Standard on
Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities, for additional information.



Justification:
There is inadequate justification to prohibit receptacles below the countertop or work surface. It
is important to remember that the NEC is a minimum code, and its requirements should reflect
that. Data from the U.S. Consumer Protection Safety Commission was presented as support for
this change. However, the incidents recorded by the CPSC does not specifically indicate that


receptacles below the countertops of islands and peninsulas were the cause. There is also no
proof that the changes made to the 2023 NEC will be beneficial.
The ultimate responsibility during the use of electrical appliances falls upon the user. To that
end, appliance manufacturers have taken measures to address the concern. Manufacturers of
cooking appliances already include multiple warnings in their instruction manuals. Below are
examples from a single instruction manual of one appliance.
- “Close supervision is necessary when any appliance is used by or near children.”
- “Do not let cord hang over edge of table or counter or touch hot surfaces.”
- “Use deep fryer only on a clean, dry, level, stable, and heat-resistant surface, away from
countertop edge.”
- “Close supervision is necessary when any appliance is used by or near children. Hot oil can
cause serious and painful burns.”
Most notably, manufacturers have already addressed the issue through innovations, such as
magnetic cords that are designed to detach easily from the appliance if pulled. This design




T
feature would prove effective in all circumstances, including all of the existing receptacles
located below the countertop.
Surprisingly, the proposed change does not actually prohibit all receptacles from being installed
below a countertop on an island or peninsula, and therefore, will have limited effect. There are
two reasons for this. First, only receptacles installed “to serve” an island or peninsular countertop
or work surface would need to be installed in the areas specified by 210.52(C)(4). Convenience




AF
receptacles (at the standard height of 18 inches above finished floor) installed in an island or
peninsula do not serve the countertop or work surface, and therefore, would be allowed.
Secondly, this provision is located under Part III. of article 210 titled Required Outlets (beginning
at Section 210.50). Because this section only applies to required outlets, additional outlets would
be allowed below the countertop as usual.
The reason given during the panel meeting for the new requirement under 210.52(C)(2) was that
it would be too difficult to install a receptacle in an island or peninsula on a slab-on-grade floor
after the home was completed. However, over a third of all new single-family homes are built
over either a basement or a crawl space (source: https://eyeonhousing.org/2021/08/65-of-new-
single-family-homes-used-slab-foundationin-2020/). In these cases, it would be possible to
access the island or peninsula from below if a future receptacle were to be installed. Requiring
all homes to meet the proposed text is too restrictive. There is also concern about how
inspectors may enforce this provision differently. “Provisions shall be provided” is a very open




R
requirement and can lead to differing guidance from no additional work needed (such as when
there is access from below) to providing a powered circuit terminating in an electrical box.
Requirements that are open to interpretation can be enforced much more strictly than those that
clearly state what is intended—adding unnecessary costs to the homeowner.
This is yet another major change to the NEC with possible unintended consequences; adopting it
can conceivably result in problems requiring future changes. These constant changes lead to
confusion among all users of the code.




D
Cost Impact:


Staff Committee Rationale for Recommendation:
The NEC Committee recommended this proposed amendment to be denied as it does not
address the additional safety hazard associated with the documented cases of children being
burned by pulling the appliance cord that is plugged into a receptacle located below the counter.
The intent of NEC 210.52 (and much of the electrical code) is to provide receptacle outlets
located to preclude the need for extension cords. The code has long required at least one
receptacle outlet, (located below the respective countertop), to serve island or peninsular


countertops. However, due to numerous instances of burn injuries as a result of spilling hot
contents of countertop cooking appliances on children that pulled the appliance cord; the 2023
NEC was revised to no longer allow receptacle outlets to be located below the countertop.
An amendment is proposed by the NEC Committee to address concerns with extension cords by
requiring at least one receptacle at island and peninsula spaces.



Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process: YES NO

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee Date: 2/11/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee Date: 03/13/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted

T
Modified and approved Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




AF
R
D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2023 National Electrical Code (NEC)
Section 210.52(G)(1)

Submitted by: National Electrical Code Committee

ARTICLE 210 Branch Circuits

210.52(G)(1) Garages. In each attached garage and in each detached garage with electric
power, at least one receptacle outlet shall be installed in each vehicle bay at not less than



T
(18) inches and not more than 1.7 m (5 ½ ft.) above the floor.



Justification:
2024 IRC section G2408.2 (305.3) Elevation of ignition source. This section states that




AF
equipment and appliances having an ignition source shall be elevated such that the source of the
ignition is not less than 18 inches (457 mm) above the floor in hazardous locations and public
garages, private garages, repair garages, motor fuel dispensing facilities and parking garages.

Many private/dwelling garages are utilized to work on vehicles or other equipment that contain
volatile fuels or other liquids and gases. Other jurisdictions around the United States have
amended this section of NEC article 210.52 to address this situation. The receptacles outlets, if
installed below the 18 inches, could possibly become an ignition source which could cause fire,
property damage, injury, or death if these volatile liquids or gases are present.


Cost Impact: No cost impact. Receptacle outlets are required in the dwelling garages as per the




R
NEC. All wiring and associated electrical equipment do not change from the NEC standard
requirement.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
YES NO




D
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted


Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Denied

Denied
Date: 11/21/2024
No action taken
Date: 03/13/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2023 National Electrical Code (NEC)
Section 215.25

Submitted by: National Electrical Code Committee

ARTICLE 215 Feeders

215.25 Feeder Circuits in Attached Single-Family Dwellings (Townhouses).
Dwelling Unit Feeders. Feeder circuits in each dwelling unit of attached one-family dwellings



T
(townhouses) shall supply only loads within that dwelling unit or loads associated with that
dwelling unit. Feeders serving adjoining townhouse dwelling units shall not pass through, above,
below, or be attached to other townhouse dwelling units. This applies regardless of ownership of
the individual townhouse units.




AF
Justification:
Matching the intent of 210.25 for branch circuits with dwelling units, a new section was added to
215.25 for feeders serving attached one-family dwellings (townhouses). This new section
clarifies that since the townhouse dwelling unit includes all spaces from foundation to roof, that
feeders that do not serve an individual townhouse unit shall not pass through, above, below, or
be attached to that unit. Townhouses can be sold as individual units. This section ensures that
any work requiring access to the feeder does not require entry into another owner’s unit.


Cost Impact: No cost impact. Feeders are not permitted to enter another person’s property.




R
Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Denied
YES NO


Date: 12/20/2024
No action taken
Date: 03/13/2025




D Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2023 National Electrical Code (NEC)
Section 250.118(4)

Submitted by: National Electrical Code Committee

ARTICLE 250 Grounding and Bonding

250.118 Types of Equipment Grounding Conductors. The equipment grounding conductor
run with or enclosing the circuit conductors shall be one or more or a combination of the
following:


T
(4) Electrical metallic tubing with an additional equipment grounding conductor.


Justification:




AF
This amendment requires that specific wiring methods include an individual equipment-
grounding conductor. This amendment is more restrictive than the NEC, but provides for a
higher degree of equipment grounding safety. The intent of the amendment is to supplement the
low impedance path to ground and to attain reasonable compliance with requirements for the
performance of the fault current path.


Cost Impact: Minor increase. Cost due to additional grounding conductor.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process: YES NO




R
ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Date: 11/21/2024
No action taken
Date: 03/13/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken




D
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2023 National Electrical Code (NEC)
Section 310.12

Submitted by: National Electrical Code Committee

ARTICLE 310 Conductors for General Wiring

310.12 120/240-Volt, Single-Phase Dwelling Services and Feeders. For one-family dwellings
and the individual dwelling units of two-family and multifamily dwellings, service and feeder



T
conductors supplied by a single-phase, 120/240-volt system shall be permitted to be sized in
accordance with 310.12(A) through (D).

For one-family dwellings and the individual dwelling units of two-family and multifamily dwellings,
single-phase feeder conductors consisting of two ungrounded conductors and the neutral
conductor from a 208Y/120 volt system shall be permitted to be sized in accordance with




AF
310.12(A) through (C).

(A) Services. For a service rated 100 amperes through 400 amperes, the service conductors
supplying the entire load associated with a one-family dwelling, or the service conductors
supplying the entire load associated with an individual dwelling unit in a two-family or multifamily
dwelling, shall be permitted to have an ampacity not less than 83 percent of the service rating. If
no adjustment or correction factors are required, Table 310.12(A) shall be permitted to be
applied.

(B) Feeders. For a feeder rated 100 amperes through 400 amperes, the feeder conductors
supplying the entire load associated with a one-family dwelling, or the feeder conductors
supplying the entire load associated with an individual dwelling unit in a two-family or multifamily




R
dwelling, shall be permitted to have an ampacity not less than 83 percent of the feeder rating. If
no adjustment or correction factors are required, Table 310.12(A) shall be permitted to be
applied.

(C) Feeder Ampacities. In no case shall a feeder for an individual dwelling unit be required to
have an ampacity greater than that specified in 310.12(A) or (B).




D
(D) Grounded Conductors. Grounded conductors shall be permitted to be sized smaller than
the ungrounded conductors, if the requirements of 220.61 and 230.42 for service conductors or
the requirements of 215.2 and 220.61 for feeder conductors are met.

Where correction or adjustment factors are required by 310.15(B) or (C), they shall be permitted
to be applied to the ampacity associated with the temperature rating of the conductor.

Informational Note No. 1: See 240.6(A) for standard ampere ratings for fuses and inverse time
circuit breakers.

Informational Note No. 2: See Informative Annex D, Example D7.




Justification:
Conductor ampacity is required by the code to be selected per the ampacity tables and adjusted
for conditions that cause heating of the conductor. The ampacity of a conductor is affected by
heat, including both the heat generated by current flowing in the conductor, and other adjacent
conductors, and from the ambient temperature surrounding the conductors.

The ampacities in Table 310.16 are based on three current-carrying conductors in a
raceway or cable and an ambient temperature of 86°F.

The code requires that if there are more than three current-carrying conductors, that the
allowable ampacity be adjusted by the factors listed in Table 310.15(C)(1). This is due to the
additional heating effects of having more current-carrying conductors in the same raceway or
cable. Similarly, the code requires the ampacity to be adjusted if the ambient temperature is
greater than the 86° F that Table 310.16 is based upon. The ampacity must be adjusted



T
by the factors listed in Table 310.15(B)(1)(1). This is because the higher ambient temperature
reduces the ampacity of the conductor as well as hinders the dissipation of heat from the
conductor.

The 2017 NEC added 208Y/120-volt single-phase 3-wire systems to Section 310.15(B)(7). This
presented an unsafe installation.




AF
Consider the electrical characteristics of a single-phase 120/240V system, which has two
ungrounded conductors and a neutral conductor. The ungrounded conductors are 180 degrees
out of phase with each other. Therefore, for a balanced load, the neutral current would be zero
and for an unbalanced load the neutral current will be a small value based on the unbalance.
This system essentially represents two current-carrying conductors since the neutral current is
negligible.

However, in a 208Y/120-volt single-phase system, with two ungrounded conductors and a
neutral conductor, the ungrounded conductors are 120 degrees out of phase with each other.
This results in neutral current that is the same as the phase current for a balanced load and
almost as large as the phase current for an unbalanced load. Therefore, this system represents




R
three current-carrying conductors.

Prior to the 2017 edition, NEC 310.15(B)(7), (now 2023 NEC 310.12), has historically only been
applicable to 120/240-volt single phase dwelling services and feeders. This is due to considering
only two current-carrying conductors and allowing an increase in ampacity in those conductors
due to less heat being generated by the conductors. However, since 208V single-phase
systems must be considered three current-carrying conductors, the ampacities in Table 310.16
must be used and 310.12 should not apply. Allowing the use of this ampacity adjustment on




D
208Y/120-volt systems will result in conductors being undersized based on the load and the
overcurrent device intended to protect them. This will be an unsafe installation that could result
in fire.

This amendment removes 208Y/120-volt systems from the code section. NEC 310.12 is
only applicable to 120/240V single-phase dwellings.



Cost Impact: Minor increase.




Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process: YES NO

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee Date: 11/21/2024
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee Date: 03/13/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Date: 04/22/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee Date: 05/21/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken




T
AF
R
D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2023 National Electrical Code (NEC)
Section 312.5(C) Exception No. 2

Submitted by: National Electrical Code Committee

ARTICLE 312 Cabinets, Cutout Boxes, and Meter Socket Enclosures

312.5(C) Cables.




T
Exception No. 2: For one- and two-family dwellings, cables with entirely nonmetallic sheaths
shall be permitted to enter the back of a surface-mounted enclosure through one or more
nonflexible raceways not more than 3 inches in diameter, and not less than 3 inches and not
more than 24 inches in length, provided all of the following conditions are met:
1. Each cable is fastened within 8 inches, measured along the sheath of the outer end of
the raceway.




AF
2. The raceway extends directly into an enclosed wall space.
3. A fitting is provided on each end of the raceway to protect the cable(s) from abrasion.
4. The raceway is sealed or plugged using approved means so as to prevent access to the
enclosure through the raceway.
5. The cable sheath is continuous through the raceway and extends into the enclosure
beyond the fitting not less than 2 inches.
6. The raceway, if greater than 12 inches, is fastened at its outer end in accordance with the
applicable article.
7. The raceway shall be permitted to be filled to 60 percent of its total cross-sectional area,
and 310.15(B)(3)(a) adjustment factors need not apply to this condition.

Exception No. 2 3: Single conductors and multiconductor cables shall be permitted to enter




R
enclosures in accordance with 392.46(A) or (B).


Justification:
The intent of NEC 312.5(C) is to secure the cables and protect them from abrasion.
The method described in the code is to secure each cable separately to the panel enclosure.
The exception to the code allows multiple NM cables to be installed in a conduit sleeve




D
connected to the top of the panel and stubbed into the ceiling space of an interior room (such as
an unfinished basement). Securement happens within 12 inches of the point the NM cables
emerge from the other end of the sleeve.

The standard practice in the Phoenix area of installing a short conduit sleeve from the back of an
exterior mounted panel enclosure into the wall cavity of one- or two-family dwellings and
installing multiple type NM cables through the sleeve complies with the intent of NEC 312.5(C)
and its exception. The cables are required to be secured within 8 inches of emerging from the
sleeve in the wall cavity, the sleeve is required to be sealed on the outside and inside, the cable
sheath is continuous within the raceway and for a minimum of 2 inches upon entering the
enclosure, and the sleeve is required to have fittings installed to prevent abrasion of the cables.


Cost Impact: No cost impact.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process: YES NO

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee Date: 12/16/2024
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee Date: 03/13/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Date: 04/22/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee Date: 05/21/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken



T
AF
R
D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2023 National Electrical Code (NEC)
Section 334.10

Submitted by: National Electrical Code Committee

ARTICLE 334 Nonmetallic-Sheathed Cable: Types NM and NMC

Part II. Installation




T
334.10 Uses Permitted. Type NM and Type NMC cables shall be permitted to be used in the
following, except as prohibited in 334.12:

(1) One- and two-family dwellings and their attached or detached garages, and their storage
buildings.




AF
(2) Dwelling units in mMulti-family dwellings and their detached garages permitted to be of
Types III, IV, and V construction.

(3) Other structures permitted to be of Types III, IV, and V construction. Cables shall be



(4)
concealed within walls, floors, or ceilings that provide a thermal barrier of material that
has at least a 15-minute finish rating as identified in listings of fire-rated ass


(3) Cable trays in dwellings in accordance with 334.10(1) or in dwelling units, in accordance
with 334.10(2), structures permitted to be Types III, IV, or V where the cables are
identified for the use.




R (5)
(4) Dwelling units in Types I and II construction where installed within raceways permitted to
be installed in Types I and II construction.


Justification:
The use of Nonmetallic-Sheathed cable in commercial buildings has not typically been permitted




D
in the Phoenix metropolitan area as well as many surrounding cities. Nonmetallic-Sheathed
cable (NM) is traditionally used in dwelling units, whereas a stouter wiring method enclosed
within raceways is traditionally used in commercial buildings.

The code restrictions of the NEC, with respect to allowing type NM cable in a commercial
building, would tend to make the installation impractical in most cases, (i.e. NM cable would not
be allowed underground or in drop ceilings), and at best the resulting installation would likely be
a mixture of several different wiring methods, (each with their own requirements). This type of
mixture would actually tend to make the installation more complex, creating a larger hurdle to
providing a code compliant installation.

Concerns also exist that Nonmetallic-Sheathed Cable would be more subject to damage, such
as nicks in the insulation, etc. The integrity of the insulation is critical to the safety of the
electrical installation. In dwelling units, the NEC requires AFCI (Arc-Fault Circuit Interrupter)


protection for most circuits since a nick in the insulation, such as from a nail for hanging a
picture, can cause an arcing fault which may not be cleared by a normal circuit breaker before a
fire starts.

The AFCI breaker was developed specifically to detect and clear arcing faults; however, the NEC
does not require AFCI protection in most non-dwelling occupancies.

It is therefore the general consensus of the electrical section, and supported in general by the
Electrical Focus Group, (made up of members of the local electrical engineering community and
others members of the industry), that the use of Nonmetallic-Sheathed Cable should be
restricted to dwellings, as described within this document, to provide a higher degree of electrical
safety in other occupancies.



Cost Impact:


T
Additional cost due to the cost difference between an installation consisting of Nonmetallic-
Sheathed Cable and an installation consisting of another wiring method, depending on the wiring
method chosen.




AF
Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted


Development Advisory Board (DAB)


Approved as submitted
Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted

Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Denied
YES NO


Date: 12/16/2024
No action taken
Date: 03/13/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:




R Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken




D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2023 National Electrical Code (NEC)
Section 620.6(B)

Submitted by: National Electrical Code Committee

ARTICLE 620 Elevators, Dumbwaiters, Escalators, Moving Walks, Platform Lifts, and
Stairway Chairlifts

620.6 Ground-Fault Circuit-Interrupter Protection for Personnel.



T
(B) Machine Rooms, Control Spaces, Machinery Spaces, Control Rooms, Elevator
Disconnect Rooms or Closets, and Truss Interiors. All 125-volt, single-phase, 15- and 20-
ampere receptacles installed in machine rooms, control spaces, machinery spaces, control
rooms, elevator disconnect rooms or closets, and truss interiors shall have listed Class A
ground-fault circuit-interrupter protection for personnel.




AF
Justification:
A new definition has been added for Elevator Disconnect Room or Closet to define the space
that is required to contain the elevator disconnects, overcurrent devices, and related lighting and
receptacles when the elevator controller is located in the hoistway. This amendment adds
references to the elevator disconnect room or closet.


Cost Impact: Minor increase.




R
Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Denied
YES NO


Date: 01/10/2025
No action taken
Date: 03/13/2025




D Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2023 National Electrical Code (NEC)
Section 620.22

Submitted by: National Electrical Code Committee

ARTICLE 620 Elevators, Dumbwaiters, Escalators, Moving Walks, Platform Lifts, and
Stairway Chairlifts

620.22 Branch Circuits for Car Lighting, Receptacle(s), Ventilation, Heating, and Air-
Conditioning.


T
(A) Car Light Receptacles, Auxiliary Lighting, and Ventilation.
A separate branch circuit shall supply the car lights. The car lights branch circuit shall be
permitted to supply receptacles (alarm devices, emergency responder radio coverage (ERRC),
car ventilation purification systems, monitoring devices not part of the control system), auxiliary




AF
lighting power source, car emergency signaling, communications devices (including their
associated charging circuits), and ventilation on each elevator car or inside the operation
controller. The overcurrent device protecting the branch circuit shall be located in the elevator
machine room, control room, machinery space, or control space. Where there is no machine
room, control room, machinery space, or control space outside the hoistway, the overcurrent
device shall be located outside the hoistway in an elevator disconnect room or closet and
accessible to qualified persons only.

Required lighting shall not be connected to the load side of a ground-fault circuit interrupter.

(B) Air-Conditioning and Heating Source.




R
A separate branch circuit shall supply the air-conditioning and heating units on each elevator car.
The overcurrent device protecting the branch circuit shall be located in the elevator machine
room, control room, machinery space, or control space. Where there is no machine room, control
room, machinery space, or control space outside the hoistway, the overcurrent device shall be
located outside the hoistway in an elevator disconnect room or closet and accessible only to
qualified persons.




D
Justification:
A new definition has been added for Elevator Disconnect Room or Closet to define the space
that is required to contain the elevator disconnects, overcurrent devices, and related lighting and
receptacles when the elevator controller is located in the hoistway. This amendment adds
references to the elevator disconnect room or closet.


Cost Impact: Minor increase.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process: YES NO



ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee Date: 01/10/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee Date: 03/13/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Date: 04/22/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee Date: 05/21/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken




T
AF
R
D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2023 National Electrical Code (NEC)
Section 620.23

Submitted by: National Electrical Code Committee

ARTICLE 620 Elevators, Dumbwaiters, Escalators, Moving Walks, Platform Lifts, and
Stairway Chairlifts

620.23 Branch Circuits for Machine Room, Control Room/Machinery Space, Control



T
Space, Elevator Disconnect Room or Closet, or Truss Interior Lighting and Receptacle(s).

(A) Separate Branch Circuits.
The branch circuits supplying the lighting for machine rooms, control rooms, machinery
spaces, control spaces, elevator disconnect rooms or closets, or truss interiors, where
required, shall be separate from the branch circuits supplying the receptacles in those places.




AF
These circuits shall supply no other loads.

Required lighting shall not be connected to the load side of a ground-fault circuit interrupter.

(B) Lighting Switch.
The machine room, control room/machinery space, or control space, or elevator disconnect room
or closet lighting switch shall be located at the point of entry.

(C) Duplex Receptacle.
At least one 125-volt, single-phase, 15- or 20-ampere duplex receptacle shall be provided in
each machine room, control room and machinery space, control space, elevator disconnect
room or closet, and in truss interiors where required.




R
Justification:
A new definition has been added for Elevator Disconnect Room or Closet to define the space
that is required to contain the elevator disconnects, overcurrent devices, and related lighting and
receptacles when the elevator controller is located in the hoistway. This amendment adds




D
references to the elevator disconnect room or closet.


Cost Impact: Minor increase.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Denied
YES NO


Date: 01/10/2025
No action taken
Date: 03/13/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Date: 04/22/2025


Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee Date: 05/21/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken




T
AF
R
D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2023 National Electrical Code (NEC)
Section 620.25(B)

Submitted by: National Electrical Code Committee

ARTICLE 620 Elevators, Dumbwaiters, Escalators, Moving Walks, Platform Lifts, and
Stairway Chairlifts

620.25 Branch Circuits for Other Utilization Equipment.

(B) Overcurrent Devices.

T
The overcurrent devices protecting the branch circuit(s) shall be located in the elevator machine
room, control room, machinery space, or control space. Where there is no machine room, control
room, machinery space, or control space outside the hoistway, or for escalator and moving walk
applications, the overcurrent device shall be located outside the hoistway in an elevator




AF
disconnect room or closet and accessible only to qualified persons.



Justification:
A new definition has been added for Elevator Disconnect Room or Closet to define the space
that is required to contain the elevator disconnects, overcurrent devices, and related lighting and
receptacles when the elevator controller is located in the hoistway. This amendment adds
references to the elevator disconnect room or closet.


Cost Impact: Minor increase.




R
Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
YES NO


Date: 01/10/2025
No action taken




D
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted




Approved as submitted
Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Date: 03/13/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2023 National Electrical Code (NEC)
Section 620.51(C)(1)

Submitted by: National Electrical Code Committee

ARTICLE 620 Elevators, Dumbwaiters, Escalators, Moving Walks, Platform Lifts, and
Stairway Chairlifts

620.51(C) Location.



T
The disconnecting means shall be located where it is readily accessible to qualified persons.

(1) On Elevators Without Generator Field Control.
On elevators without generator field control, the disconnecting means shall be located within
sight of the motor controller. Where the motor controller is located in the elevator hoistway, the




AF
disconnecting means required by 620.51(A) shall be located outside the hoistway in an elevator
disconnect room or closet and accessible to qualified persons only. An additional fused or non-
fused, enclosed, externally operable motor-circuit switch that is lockable open in accordance with
110.25 to disconnect all ungrounded main power-supply conductors shall be located within sight
of the motor controller. The additional switch shall be a listed device and shall comply with
620.91(C).

Driving machines or motion and operation controllers not within sight of the disconnecting means
shall be provided with a manually operated switch installed in the control circuit to prevent
starting. The manually operated switch(es) shall be installed adjacent to this equipment.

Where the driving machine of an electric elevator or the hydraulic machine of a hydraulic




R
elevator is located in a remote machine room or remote machinery space, a single means for
disconnecting all ungrounded main power-supply conductors shall be provided and be lockable
open in accordance with 110.25.



Justification:




D
A new definition has been added for Elevator Disconnect Room or Closet to define the space
that is required to contain the elevator disconnects, overcurrent devices, and related lighting and
receptacles when the elevator controller is located in the hoistway. This amendment adds
references to the elevator disconnect room or closet.


Cost Impact: Minor increase.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
YES NO


2024 Code Committee Date: 01/10/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken


Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee Date: 03/13/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Date: 03/13/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee Date: 04/22/2025
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken




T
AF
R
D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2022 American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
A17.1 Section 2.2.5.3

Submitted by: ASME/Elevator Code Committee

2.2.5.3 The light switch shall be located to be accessible from the pit access door, and:
1. Shall be mounted 50” above the access door floor.
2. Shall not be controlled by automatic means other than allowed by A17.1 section 2.1.7 or
IBC 3007.5.2
3. Shall be illuminated.


T
4. Shall be permitted to control all pit lights in a multi-car bank of elevators sharing the same
hoistway.




AF
Justification:
1. To facilitate locating the light switch when entering hazardous darkened areas.
2. To eliminate the possibility of all illumination turning off while working in these spaces.
3. To harmonize with NEC 110.26(D)


Cost Impact: Minimal


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
YES NO




R
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Date: 10/28/2024
No action taken
Date: 02/13/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025




D Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2022 American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
A17.1 Section 2.7.5.1

Submitted by: ASME/Elevator Code Committee

2.7.5.1 Working Areas in the Car or on the Car Top. The requirements of 2.7.5.1.1 through
2.7.5.1.4 shall be complied with if maintenance or inspections of when the elevator driving-
machine brake, emergency brake, elevator motion controller, or motor controller are located in
the hoistway. to be carried out from inside the car or from the car top.



T
2.7.5.1.1 If When Maintenance or inspection any work is performed of to the elevator driving-
machine brake or an emergency brake, or of elevator motion controllers or motor controllers
from inside the car or from the car top that could result in unexpected vertical car movement,
a means to prevent this movement shall be provided.




AF
Justification: To prevent the possibility of accidental disengagement of the brakes both
electrically and mechanically during work being performed on equipment located in the hoistway.


Cost Impact: Minimal


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
YES NO




R
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Date: 11/25/2024
No action taken
Date: 02/20/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025




D Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2022 American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
A17.1 Section 2.7.9.1

Submitted by: ASME/Elevator Code Committee

2.7.9.1 Lighting. Permanently installed electric lighting shall be provided in all machinery
spaces, machine rooms, control spaces, and control rooms. The illumination shall be not less
than 200 lx (19 fc) at the floor level, at the standing surface of a working platform (see 2.7.5.3),
or at the level of the standing surface when the car is in the blocked position (see 2.7.5.1). The
light switch shall be located


T
(a) For machinery spaces and control spaces, at the point of entry
(b) For machine rooms and control rooms, inside the room and, where practicable, on the
lock-jamb side of the access door
(c) All light switches for access to any elevator or escalator machine room, control room,
machine space, or control space:




AF
Justification:
1. Shall be illuminated.
2. Shall not be controlled by automatic means other than allowed by A17.1
Section 2.1.7 or IBC 3007.5.2.




(1) To facilitate locating the light switch when entering hazardous darkened areas.
(2) To eliminate the possibility of all illumination turning off while working in these spaces
(3) To harmonize with NEC 110.26(D)




R
Cost Impact: Minimal cost impact.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
YES


Date: 10/28/2024
NO




D Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted

Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied




Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date: 02/13/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2022 American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
A17.1 Section 2.27.8

Submitted by: ASME/Elevator Code Committee

2.27.8 Switch Keys.
The key switches required by 2.27.2 through 2.27.5 and 2.27.11 for all elevators in a building
shall be operable by the FEO-K1 same key. The keys shall be Group 3 Security (see Section
8.1). A separate key shall be provided for each switch. These keys shall be kept on the premises



T
in a location readily accessible to firefighters and emergency personnel, but not where they are
available to the public. This key shall be of a tubular, 7 pin, style 137 construction and shall have
a biting code of 6143521 starting at the tab sequenced clockwise as viewed from the barrel end
of the key; cutting depths shall be in accordance with Figure 2.27.8. The key shall be coded the
FEO-K1. “AZFS” key as designated by the authority having jurisdiction. The possession of the
“FEO-K1” “AZFS” key shall be limited to elevator personnel, emergency personnel, elevator




AF
equipment manufacturers, and authorized personnel during checking of Firefighters’ Emergency
Operation (see Section 8.1 and 8.6.11.1).
Where provided, a lock box, including its lock and other components, shall conform to the
requirements of UL 1037 (see Part 9).
Note (2.27.8): Local authorities may specify additional requirements for a uniform keyed lock box and its
location, to contain the necessary keys.


Justification: Existing fire service key used by fire department and emergency personnel. This
amendment reflects some wording changes with the 2022 code.




R
Cost Impact: Existing keys are already changed over to “AZFS”.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
YES NO


Date: 11/25/2024




D Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted

Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied




Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date: 02/13/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2022 American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
A17.1 Section 5.3.1.8.1

Submitted by: ASME/Elevator Code Committee

5.3.1.8.1 Hoistway Enclosure Provided. Where a hoistway enclosure is provided landing
openings shall be protected by swinging or horizontally sliding doors. The full height and width of
the landing openings in solid hoistway enclosures shall be protected by solid swinging or
horizontally sliding doors except



T
a) For swing doors, the clearance between the door panel and the frame shall not exceed.
1) 10 mm (0.375 in.) on the side and top of the door
2) 13 mm (0.5 in.) at the bottom of the door
b) For horizontally sliding doors, door panels shall.
1) overlap the top and sides of the opening by not less than 13 mm (0.5 in.)
2) not exceed 10 mm (0.375 in.) above the sill




AF
3) have a clearance between the panel and the frame not exceeding 10 mm (0.375 in.)
The doors’ fire-protection rating shall be not less than required by the building code (see
Section 1.3). The doors shall be designed to withstand a force of 670 N (150 lbf) applied
horizontally, in either direction, over an area 100 mm x 100 mm (4 in. x 4 in.) in the center of
the doors without permanent displacement of deformation.
Swing doors shall be of one-piece construction with no additional baffles, space guards, or
elevator door guards as fillers to meet clearance specifications.


Justification: Clarification that removable panels are not to be used to meet required
clearances.




R
Cost Impact: None


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
YES NO


Date: 11/25/2024




D Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted

Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied




Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date: 02/13/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2022 American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
A17.1 Section 8.6.1.4.1
Submitted by: ASME/Elevator Code Committee
8.6.1.4.1 On-Site Maintenance Records
(a) Maintenance Control Program Records
(1) A record that shall include the maintenance tasks listed with the associated requirements
of Section 8.6 identified in the MCP (8.6.1.2.1), other tests (see 8.6.1.2.2), examinations and
adjustments, and the specified scheduled intervals shall be maintained.



T
(2) The specified scheduled maintenance intervals (see section 1.3) shall, as applicable, be
based on the criteria given in 8.6.1.2.1(e).
(3) MCP records shall be viewable on-site by elevator personnel in either hard copy or
electronic format acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction, located in the elevator machine
room or on the car top, and shall include, but are not limited to, the following:
(-a) sight name and address




AF
(-b) service provider name
(-c) conveyance identification (I.D.) and type
(-d) date of record
(-e) a description of the maintenance tasks, interval, and associated requirements of
section 8.6
(-f) indication of completion of maintenance task
NOTE [8.6.1.4.1(a)]: The recommended format for documenting MCP records can be found in
Nonmandatory Appendix Y. This is only an example format. A specific MCP that includes all
maintenance needs is required for each unit.
(b) Repair and Replacement Records. The following repairs and replacements shall be
recorded and kept on-site for viewing by elevator personnel in either hard copy or electronic
format, located in the elevator machine room or on the car top.




R
Justification:
To maximize inspection efficiency by having required documents readily accessible on-site.


Cost Impact: No Cost impact.




D
Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted

Approved as submitted

Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Modified and approved Denied
YES NO


Date: 11/25/2024
No action taken
Date: 02/13/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken


BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2022 American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
A17.1 Section 8.6.1.7.2

Submitted by: ASME/Elevator Code Committee

8.6.1.7.2. Periodic Test Record. A periodic test record for each all periodic test(s) containing
the applicable Code requirement(s) and date(s) performed, and the name of the person or firm
performing the test, shall be installed to be readily visible and adjacent to or securely attached to
the controller of each unit in the form of a metal tag conforming to 8.13.3. If any of the alternative



T
test methods contained in 8.6.4.20 were performed, then the test tag shall indicate alternative
testing was used for the applicable requirement.
A written periodic test report containing the applicable code requirement(s) shall be located in
the maintenance records and kept on site readily available in the machine room or the car top.

Justification: Remove redundant records and reduce cost of metal tags.




AF
Cost Impact: None, Metal tags with code requirements required larger more expensive tags.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
YES NO


Date: 11/25/2024
No action taken
Date: 02/13/2025
No action taken




R
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2022 American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
A17.1 Section 8.7.1.13

Submitted by: ASME/Elevator Code Committee

8.7.1.13 Separation of Multiple Hoistways. When an alteration is performed in a multiple
hoistway with one or more elevators in normal use, and work is to be performed in an adjacent
portion of that multiple hoistway there shall be a full separation of the elevator hoistways
between the elevators. The material used for this separation shall:



T
1. Be as strong as or stronger than 1.110 mm (0.0437 in.) diameter wire.
2. Have openings not exceeding 25 mm (1 in.)
3. Be supported and braced so to prevent contact between the enclosure material and the
car or counterweight when subjected to a pressure of 890 N (200 lbf) applied at right
angles at any point on an area 100 mm x 100 mm (4 in. x 4 in.).




AF
Justification: Protection of passengers and equipment of elevators running beside elevators
that construction or alterations are being performed.



Cost Impact: Minimal


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process: YES NO




R
ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Date: 11/25/2024
No action taken
Date: 02/13/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken




D
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2022 American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
A17.1 Section 8.11.1.3

Submitted by: ASME/Elevator Code Committee

8.11.1.3 Periodic Inspection and Test Frequency. The frequency of periodic inspections and
tests shall be established by the authority having jurisdiction. Periodic inspections shall be
performed every 12 months. Periodic Tests shall be performed according to Non-Mandatory
Appendix N, Table N-1-1.



T
Justification: To Clarify when the City of Phoenix performs the Periodic Inspections and when
periodic tests are required.




AF
Cost Impact: None


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
YES NO


Date: 11/25/2024
No action taken
Date: 02/13/2025
No action taken




R
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2023 American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
A17.3 Section 3.10.12

Submitted by: ASME/Elevator Code Committee

3.10.12 System to Monitor and Prevent Automatic Operation of the Elevator With Faulty
Door Contact Circuits
Means shall be provided to monitor the position of power-operated car doors that are
mechanically coupled with the landing doors while the car is in the landing zone, in order



T
(a) to prevent automatic operation of the car if the car door is not closed [see 3.4.2(c)],
regardless of whether the portion of the circuits incorporating the car door contact or the
interlock contact of the landing door coupled with the car door, or both, are closed or
open, except as permitted in 3.10.7.
(b) to prevent the power closing of the doors during automatic operation if the car door is
fully open and any of the following conditions exist:




AF (1) The car door contact is closed, or the portion of the circuit incorporating this
contact is bypassed.
(2) The interlock contact of the landing door that is coupled to the opened car
door is closed, or the portion of the circuit incorporating this contact is bypassed.
(3) The car door contact and the interlock contact of the door that is coupled to
the opened car door are closed, or the portions of the circuits incorporating these
contacts are bypassed.
(c) Compliance date to be no later than four (4) years from the date of adoption.

Justification: To provide owners with reasonable time to facilitate any necessary planning
required to comply.




R
Cost Impact: Moderate. Cost of modifying controls to accommodate new circuitry.

Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
YES NO


Date: 11/13/2024
No action taken




D
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted




Approved as submitted
Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Date: 02/13/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2023 American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
A17.3 Section 3.13.3

Submitted by: ASME/Elevator Code Committee

Section 3.13.3 Compliance
Note: Items 3.13.1 through 3.13.2.2 shall have a compliance date to be no later than four (4)
years from the date of adoption.




T
Justification: To provide owners with reasonable time to facilitate any necessary planning
required to comply.




AF
Cost Impact: Minimal


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Denied

Denied
YES NO


Date: 11/25/2024
No action taken
Date: 02/13/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025




R Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2023 American Society of Mechanical Engineers Code (ASME)
A17.3 Section 3.14

Submitted by: ASME/Elevator Code Committee

3.14 Car Tops. MITIGATION OF FALL HAZARDS ON OR AROUND CAR TOPS.
All passenger and freight elevator car tops that have a fall hazard as described by OSHA
1926.501(b) and ASME a17.1-2022 section 2.14.1.7 shall meet the requirements of ASME
a17.1-2022 section 2.14.1.7, and 8.7.2.14.5.



T
Compliance date to be no later than four (4) years from the date of adoption.



Justification: To reduce the possibility of loss of life or limb to Elevator Personnel during
Maintenance, Testing, and Inspections. Increase of Safety factor for buildings.




AF
Cost Impact: Minimal Cost of handrail installation only on elevators with fall hazards.


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Denied
YES NO


Date: 11/13/2024
No action taken
Date: 02/13/2025




R Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




D
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2023 American Society of Mechanical Engineers Code (ASME)
A17.3 Section 4.10

Submitted by: ASME/Elevator Code Committee

4.10 Car Tops. Mitigation of fall hazards on or around car tops.
All passenger and freight elevator car tops that have a fall hazard as described by OSHA
1926.501(b) and ASME A17.1-2022 Section 2.14.1.7 shall meet the requirements of ASME
A17.1-2022 Section 2.14.1.7, and 8.7.2.14.5.



T
Compliance date to be no later than four (4) years from the date of adoption.



Justification: To reduce the possibility of loss of life or limb to Elevator Personnel during




AF
Maintenance, Testing, and Inspections. Increase of Safety factor for buildings.



Cost Impact: Minimal. Cost of handrail installation only on elevators with fall hazards


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process:

ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
YES NO


Date: 11/13/2024
No action taken




R
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved Denied
Date: 02/13/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:




D Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2023 American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
A17.3 Section 5.3.13

Submitted by: ASME/Elevator Code Committee

5.3.13 Combplate Vertical Safety Device
Combplate vertical safety devices shall be provided that will cause the opening of the power
circuit to the escalator driving-machine motor and brake if a resultant vertical force not greater
than 670 N (150 lbf) in the upward direction is applied at the center of the front of the comb-plate



T
at each landing. These devices shall be the manual reset type.
Comb-step impact devices conforming to the requirements
of ASME Al 7.1 or ASME Al 7.1/CSA B44 meet these
requirements.
(a) Compliance date to be no later than four (4) years from the date of adoption.




AF
Justification: To provide owners with reasonable time to facilitate any necessary planning
required to comply.


Cost Impact: Moderate.



Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process: YES NO




R
ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Denied

Denied

Denied
Date: 01/15/2025
No action taken
Date: 02/13/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025
No action taken




D
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken




BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL
Amendment to 2024 International Green Construction Code (IgCC)
Chapter 1, Sections 101 - 110

Submitted by: International Green Construction Code Committee

Notes:

1. For reserved sections herein, refer to the amendments and requirements in Chapter 1
of the International Building Code for these code requirements.



T
2. For sections that remain unchanged from the base code the term “see this section of


101.1 Title
the 2024 IgCC” shall refer to the unchanged base code.


These regulations shall be known as the International Green Construction Code as amended by
the City of Phoenix of [NAME OF JURISDICTION], hereinafter referred to as “this code.” These




AF
regulations are one document of the overall Phoenix Building Construction Code as defined by
the adopting ordinance.

101.2 (2.3) General
The use of this code is optional, unless specifically required through ordinance by the city of
Phoenix. This code is an overlay document to be used in conjunction with the other codes and
standards adopted by the jurisdiction. This code is not intended to be used as a standalone
construction regulation document and permits are not to be issued under this code. This code is
not intended to abridge or supersede safety, health or environmental requirements under other
applicable codes or ordinances.
This code is intended to provide minimum requirements to be used in conjunction with the other
codes and standards adopted by the jurisdiction. The requirements in this code shall not be used




R
to circumvent any applicable safety, health or environmental requirements.

101.3 Scope. See this section of the 2024 IgCC.

101.3.1 (2.2) Applicability. See this section of the 2024 IgCC.

101.3.2 Appendices. See this section of the 2024 IgCC.




D
101.4 (1.1) Intent. See this section of the 2024 IgCC.

101.5 (4.1 & 4.2) Compliance. See this section of the 2024 IgCC.

101.5.1 Jurisdictional options. Reserved.

101.5.2 (4.3.2) Normative appendices. See this section of the 2024 IgCC.

101.5.3 (4.3.3) Informative appendices. See this section of the 2024 IgCC.

101.5.4 (4.3.4) Referenced standard reproduction annexes. Reserved.

SECTION 102 – APPLICABILITY - Reserved.


SECTION 103 - CODE COMPLIANCE AGENCY - Reserved.

SECTION 104 - DUTIES AND POWERS OF THE AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION -
Reserved.

SECTION 105 – PERMITS - Reserved.

SECTION 106 - CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS - Reserved.

SECTION 107 – FEES - Reserved.

SECTION 108 - INSPECTIONS - Reserved.

SECTION 109 - CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY - Reserved.

SECTION 110 - MEANS OF APPEALS - Reserved.

T
Justification: All the adopted and amended building code documents taken together are known
as the Phoenix Building Construction Code. Each code document is a separate document of the




AF
Phoenix Building Construction Code. This document is the International Green Construction
Code as Amended by the City of Phoenix. This document is intended to apply where a code or
referenced standard identifies the International Green Construction Code as being applicable.

The reserved provisions are contained in the Phoenix Building Construction Code –
Administrative Provisions (Chapter 1 of the International Building Code).


Cost Impact: No cost impact


Approved in previous 2018 Code Adoption process: YES NO




R
ACTION TAKEN:
2024 Code Committee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB) Subcommittee
Approved as submitted Modified and approved
Development Advisory Board (DAB)
Denied

Denied
Date: 01/30/2025
No action taken
Date: 03/13/2025
No action taken
Date: 04/22/2025




D Approved as submitted Modified and approved Denied
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Approved as submitted
Approved as submitted
Modified and approved

Modified and approved
Denied

Denied
No action taken
Date: 05/21/2025
No action taken
Date:
No action taken







Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Public Hearing - Amend City Code - Ordinance Adoption - Multi-Family
Conversion Text Amendment - Z-TA-3-25-Y (Ordinance G-7395) - Citywide

Request to hold a public hearing on a proposed text amendment Z-TA-3-25-Y and to
request City Council approval, per the Planning Commission recommendation which
amends the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 7, Section 711 (Multi-Family
Conversion) to update regulations for multi-family conversion.

Summary
Governor Hobbs signed House Bill (HB) 2110 on April 7, 2025 with an emergency
clause requiring municipalities to update their ordinances to comply with the updated
provisions by July 6, 2025. HB 2110 makes further modifications to Arizona Revised
Statute Section 9-462 (Commercial buildings; multifamily residential development;
adaptive reuse; prohibition on rezoning or municipal review; objective standards;
applicability; definitions) which became state law last year. In compliance with the
modifications, this text amendment modifies the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance regarding
references from “building” to “parcel” when appropriate for compliance with the revised
legislation; changes “multi-family zoning” to
“properties with multi-family zoning entitlements"; and also clarifies the relationship of
adaptive reuse of existing commercial buildings to multi-family use due to a minor
definition change in the bill.

Applicant: City of Phoenix, Planning Commission
Representative: City of Phoenix, Planning and Development Department

Staff Recommendation: Approval of Z-TA-3-25-Y, per the language proposed in Exhibit
A.
PC Action: The Planning Commission is scheduled to hear this item on June 5, 2025.

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




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 7, SECTION 711 (MULTI-FAMILY
CONVERSION) TO REVISE STANDARDS FOR MULTI-FAMILY
CONVERSION OF OBSOLETE COMMERCIAL, OFFICE, AND/OR
MIXED-USE BUILDINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHANGES TO
STATE REQUIREMENTS.


BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as follows:

SECTION 1: Chapter 7, Section 711 (Multi-Family Conversion), is hereby

amended to read as follows:

Section 711. Multi-Family Conversion

***

E. Development Review for Multi-Family Conversion. A property that has been
verified as eligible for multi-family conversion per the provisions of this section may
proceed with development review as set forth in Section 507, with the following
additional requirements:

***

5. Limits and Occupancy Requirements.

a. Limit on Number of Eligible Buildings PARCELS. No more than
ten percent of the PARCELS HAVING A commercial, office, or mixed-
use buildings within the City of Phoenix as of March 21, 2025, may be
redeveloped under the provisions of Section 711.

***


1 Ordinance G-

F. Development Standards and Requirements. Multi-family conversion
developments shall comply with the following standards and requirements:

***

4. Density. The maximum density permitted shall be as follows:

a. For sites zoned Downtown Code (DTC), unlimited density is permitted.

b. For sites located within a designated Transit-Oriented Community
(TOC) but not zoned DTC, unlimited density is permitted.

c. For sites not located within a designated TOC, the same as required
for multi-family development zoned R-3 (Section 615), as may be
modified by any existing special planning district, specific plan,
neighborhood plan, or similar regulatory plan applicable to the site.

d. Additional Density Provision. Upon request by the applicant, a site
shall be permitted a maximum density equivalent to an existing site
having multi-family zoning located within the City of Phoenix and within
one mile of the proposed multi-family conversion site. If there is no site
having multi-family zoning in the City of Phoenix within one mile of the
site to be redeveloped, the maximum density permitted shall be
equivalent to what is allowed for the next closest site having multi-
family zoning located in the City of Phoenix. The applicant shall
identify the site to be used by staff for evaluation of this provision.

d. ADDITIONAL DENSITY PROVISION. UPON REQUEST BY THE
APPLICANT, A MULTI-FAMILY CONVERSION DEVELOPMENT
SHALL BE PERMITTED A MAXIMUM DENSITY EQUIVALENT TO
ANOTHER EXISTING SITE LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF
PHOENIX WHEN IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL OF THE
FOLLOWING:

(1) THE OTHER SITE MUST HAVE EXISTING ENTITLEMENTS
FOR MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT;

(2) THE OTHER SITE MUST NOT HAVE BEEN REDEVELOPED
AS A MULTI-FAMILY CONVERSION UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION;

(3) THE OTHER SITE MUST BE LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF
PHOENIX; AND




2 Ordinance G-

(4) THE OTHER SITE MUST BE LOCATED WITHIN ONE MILE OF
THE MULTI-FAMILY CONVERSION DEVELOPMENT, OR IF
NO SUCH SITE EXISTS WITHIN ONE MILE, IS THE NEXT
CLOSEST SITE HAVING MULTI-FAMILY ENTITLEMENTS.

THE APPLICANT SHALL IDENTIFY THE SITE TO BE USED BY
STAFF FOR EVALUATION OF THE ADDITIONAL DENSITY
PROVISION.
***

6. RELATION TO ADAPTIVE REUSE. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 712,
ADAPTIVE REUSE, ALSO APPLY TO MULTI-FAMILY CONVERSIONS OF
EXISTING ECONOMICALLY AND FUNCTIONALLY OBSOLETE
BUILDINGS THAT ARE NOT DEMOLISHED. IF A CONFLICT OCCURS,
THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 712 SHALL APPLY TO THE EXISTING
BUILDING(S).

***


PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 18th day of June, 2025.



________________________________
MAYOR


ATTEST:


_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk


APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney




By:
_________________________
_________________________




3 Ordinance G-

REVIEWED BY:


_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager




4 Ordinance G-

ATTACHMENT B




Staff Report
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment
Z-TA-3-25-Y
May 28, 2025


Application No. Z-TA-3-25-Y: Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 7,
Section 711 (Multi-Family Conversion) to update regulations for multi-family conversion.

Staff recommendation: Staff recommends approval of Z-TA-3-25-Y per the language
proposed in Exhibit A.

BACKGROUND
This text amendment is a response to House Bill 2110 (2025), signed by the Governor
on April 7, 2025 which modified certain provisions of Section 9-462.10, Arizona Revised
Statutes regarding the conversion and/or adaptive reuse of economically or functionally
obsolete commercial, office, or mixed use buildings to multi-family developments. The
bill was approved with an emergency clause and a 90-day implementation time frame.

REQUIRED REVISIONS
HB 2110 changed the requirements of Section 9-462.10 to require evaluation of
commercial, office, and mixed-use parcels, rather than buildings. This was a change
supported by most municipalities, since it is easier to count and enforce. HB 2110 also
changed the requirements of Section 9-462.10 to allow any site with one mile and
zoned with multi-family development entitlements to be used for evaluation of the
comparable density and height, rather than any site within one mile and having multi-
family zoning. This means sites zoned commercial (C-1, C-2, C-3) and zoned for
mixed uses (WU Code, DTC) may qualify.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT
This text amendment changes references from “building” to “parcel” when appropriate
for compliance with the revised legislation; changes “multi-family zoning” to “properties
with multi-family zoning entitlements”; and also clarifies the relationship to adaptive
reuse of existing commercial buildings to multi-family use due to a minor definition



Staff Report: Z-TA-3-25-Y
May 28, 2025
Page 2

change in HB 2110.

CONCLUSION
HB 2110 requires only minor changes to the existing Section 711, Multi-Family
Conversion, and does not significantly change how the City must implement the
provisions. Staff recommends approval of Z-TA-3-25-Y per the language proposed in
Exhibit A.


Writer
C. DePerro
May 28, 2025

Exhibits

A. Proposed Language




Exhibit A: Z-TA-3-25-Y
May 28, 2025
Page 3

Exhibit A

Staff proposed language that may be modified during the public hearing process is as
follows:
Section 711. Multi-Family Conversion
Amend Chapter 7, Section 711 (Multi-Family Conversion) to read as follows:

Section 711. Multi-Family Conversion

***

E. Development Review for Multi-Family Conversion. A property that has been
verified as eligible for multi-family conversion per the provisions of this section may
proceed with development review as set forth in Section 507, with the following
additional requirements:

***

5. Limits and Occupancy Requirements.

a. Limit on Number of Eligible Buildings PARCELS. No more than
ten percent of the PARCELS HAVING A commercial, office, or mixed-
use buildings within the City of Phoenix as of March 21, 2025, may be
redeveloped under the provisions of Section 711.

***

F. Development Standards and Requirements. Multi-family conversion
developments shall comply with the following standards and requirements:

***

4. Density. The maximum density permitted shall be as follows:

a. For sites zoned Downtown Code (DTC), unlimited density is permitted.

b. For sites located within a designated Transit-Oriented Community
(TOC) but not zoned DTC, unlimited density is permitted.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-3-25-Y
May 28, 2025
Page 4

c. For sites not located within a designated TOC, the same as required
for multi-family development zoned R-3 (Section 615), as may be
modified by any existing special planning district, specific plan,
neighborhood plan, or similar regulatory plan applicable to the site.

d. Additional Density Provision. Upon request by the applicant, a site
shall be permitted a maximum density equivalent to an existing site
having multi-family zoning located within the City of Phoenix and within
one mile of the proposed multi-family conversion site. If there is no site
having multi-family zoning in the City of Phoenix within one mile of the
site to be redeveloped, the maximum density permitted shall be
equivalent to what is allowed for the next closest site having multi-
family zoning located in the City of Phoenix. The applicant shall
identify the site to be used by staff for evaluation of this provision.

d. ADDITIONAL DENSITY PROVISION. UPON REQUEST BY THE
APPLICANT, A MULTI-FAMILY CONVERSION DEVELOPMENT
SHALL BE PERMITTED A MAXIMUM DENSITY EQUIVALENT TO
ANOTHER EXISTING SITE LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF
PHOENIX WHEN IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL OF THE
FOLLOWING:

(1) THE OTHER SITE MUST HAVE EXISTING ENTITLEMENTS
FOR MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT;

(2) THE OTHER SITE MUST NOT HAVE BEEN REDEVELOPED
AS A MULTI-FAMILY CONVERSION UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION;

(3) THE OTHER SITE MUST BE LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF
PHOENIX; AND

(4) THE OTHER SITE MUST BE LOCATED WITHIN ONE MILE OF
THE MULTI-FAMILY CONVERSION DEVELOPMENT, OR IF
NO SUCH SITE EXISTS WITHIN ONE MILE, IS THE NEXT
CLOSEST SITE HAVING MULTI-FAMILY ENTITLEMENTS.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-3-25-Y
May 28, 2025
Page 5

THE APPLICANT SHALL IDENTIFY THE SITE TO BE USED BY
STAFF FOR EVALUATION OF THE ADDITIONAL DENSITY
PROVISION.
***

6. RELATION TO ADAPTIVE REUSE. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 712,
ADAPTIVE REUSE, ALSO APPLY TO MULTI-FAMILY CONVERSIONS OF
EXISTING ECONOMICALLY AND FUNCTIONALLY OBSOLETE
BUILDINGS THAT ARE NOT DEMOLISHED. IF A CONFLICT OCCURS,
THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 712 SHALL APPLY TO THE EXISTING
BUILDING(S).

***




ATTACHMENT C

REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
June 5, 2025

ITEM NO: 4
DISTRICT NO.: Citywide
SUBJECT:

Application #: Z-TA-3-25-Y
Location: Citywide
Request: Text Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to address recent revisions to
state statutes regarding multifamily residential development and adaptive
reuse (HB 2110).
Proposal: Text Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to amend Section 711 (Multi-
Family Conversion) to address recent revisions to state statutes regarding
multifamily residential development and adaptive reuse (HB 2110).
Applicant: City of Phoenix, Planning Commission
Representative: City of Phoenix, Planning and Development Department

ACTIONS:

Staff Recommendation: Approval, per Exhibit A of the staff report.

Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Village Planning Committees did not review this item.

Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the staff recommendation.

Motion Discussion: N/A

Motion details: Commissioner Jaramillo made a MOTION to approve Z-TA-3-25-Y, per the staff
recommendation.

Maker: Jaramillo
Second: Matthews
Vote: 9-0
Absent: None
Opposition Present: No

Findings: House Bill 2110 requires only minor changes to the existing Section 711, Multi-family
Conversion, and does not significantly change how the City must implement the provisions.

Proposed Language:

Amend Chapter 7, Section 711 (Multi-Family Conversion) to read as follows:

Section 711. Multi-Family Conversion

***




E. Development Review for Multi-Family Conversion. A property that has been
verified as eligible for multi-family conversion per the provisions of this section may
proceed with development review as set forth in Section 507, with the following
additional requirements:

***

5. Limits and Occupancy Requirements.

a. Limit on Number of Eligible Buildings PARCELS. No more than
ten percent of the PARCELS HAVING A commercial, office, or mixed-
use buildings within the City of Phoenix as of March 21, 2025, may be
redeveloped under the provisions of Section 711.

***

F. Development Standards and Requirements. Multi-family conversion
developments shall comply with the following standards and requirements:

***

4. Density. The maximum density permitted shall be as follows:

a. For sites zoned Downtown Code (DTC), unlimited density is permitted.

b. For sites located within a designated Transit-Oriented Community
(TOC) but not zoned DTC, unlimited density is permitted.

c. For sites not located within a designated TOC, the same as required
for multi-family development zoned R-3 (Section 615), as may be
modified by any existing special planning district, specific plan,
neighborhood plan, or similar regulatory plan applicable to the site.

d. Additional Density Provision. Upon request by the applicant, a site
shall be permitted a maximum density equivalent to an existing site
having multi-family zoning located within the City of Phoenix and within
one mile of the proposed multi-family conversion site. If there is no site
having multi-family zoning in the City of Phoenix within one mile of the
site to be redeveloped, the maximum density permitted shall be
equivalent to what is allowed for the next closest site having multi-
family zoning located in the City of Phoenix. The applicant shall
identify the site to be used by staff for evaluation of this provision.

d. ADDITIONAL DENSITY PROVISION. UPON REQUEST BY THE
APPLICANT, A MULTI-FAMILY CONVERSION DEVELOPMENT
SHALL BE PERMITTED A MAXIMUM DENSITY EQUIVALENT TO
ANOTHER EXISTING SITE LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF
PHOENIX WHEN IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL OF THE
FOLLOWING:

(1) THE OTHER SITE MUST HAVE EXISTING ENTITLEMENTS
FOR MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT;

(2) THE OTHER SITE MUST NOT HAVE BEEN REDEVELOPED
AS A MULTI-FAMILY CONVERSION UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION;

(3) THE OTHER SITE MUST BE LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF
PHOENIX; AND

(4) THE OTHER SITE MUST BE LOCATED WITHIN ONE MILE OF
THE MULTI-FAMILY CONVERSION DEVELOPMENT, OR IF
NO SUCH SITE EXISTS WITHIN ONE MILE, IS THE NEXT
CLOSEST SITE HAVING MULTI-FAMILY ENTITLEMENTS.

THE APPLICANT SHALL IDENTIFY THE SITE TO BE USED BY
STAFF FOR EVALUATION OF THE ADDITIONAL DENSITY
PROVISION.
***

6. RELATION TO ADAPTIVE REUSE. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 712,
ADAPTIVE REUSE, ALSO APPLY TO MULTI-FAMILY CONVERSIONS OF
EXISTING ECONOMICALLY AND FUNCTIONALLY OBSOLETE
BUILDINGS THAT ARE NOT DEMOLISHED. IF A CONFLICT OCCURS,
THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 712 SHALL APPLY TO THE EXISTING
BUILDING(S).

***


This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact
Saneeya Mir at 602-686-6461, saneeya.mir@phoenix.gov, TTY: Use 7-1-1.







Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
***REQUEST TO CONTINUE (SEE ATTACHED MEMO)*** Public Hearing and
Resolution Adoption - General Plan Amendment GPA-2-25-Y - Data Centers
(Resolution 22316) - Citywide

Request to hold a public hearing on a General Plan Amendment for the following
item to consider the Planning Commission recommendation and the related
resolution if approved. This request is to amend the General Plan to incorporate
policy guidance on data centers. This is a companion case to Z-TA-2-25-Y and
should be heard first, followed by Z-TA-2-25-Y.

Summary
Application: GPA-2-25-Y
1. The proposal will act as the policy guidance for data centers which supports the
Zoning Ordinance text amendment Z-TA-2-25-Y for regulations related to data
centers.
2. The proposal will guide data center development away from cores, centers, and
corridors, where mixed-use, walkable communities are envisioned and will guide
data centers to blend with the surrounding environment while limiting negative
impacts to existing communities.
3. The proposal is consistent with and relates to other adopted policies in the General
Plan, such as the Blueprint for a More Connected Phoenix, including Cores,
Centers, and Corridors, Village Cores, Employment Corridors, and Tech Corridors;
Create a Network of Vibrant Cores, Centers, and Corridors; and Build the Most
Sustainable Desert City, including Water Sensitive Planning, Green Building,
Energy Infrastructure, and Community Shade.

Applicant: City of Phoenix, Planning Commission
Representative: City of Phoenix, Planning and Development Department

Staff Recommendation: Approval of GPA-2-25-Y (Attachment B).
VPC Action: Fourteen Village Planning Committees considered the request. Seven
VPCs recommended approval, per the staff recommendation; three VPCs
recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, with direction; two VPCs
recommended denial; two VPCs recommended denial, with direction and one VPC



did not have quorum, as reflected in Attachment C.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this item on June 5, 2025 and
recommended approval, per the memo from the Planning and Development
Department Deputy Director dated June 5, 2025, by a vote of 9-0.

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





ATTACHMENT A




PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT



To: Alan Stephenson Date: June 11, 2025
Deputy City Manager

From: Joshua Bednare�
Planning and DeJ1iopment Director

Subject: CONTINUANCE OF ITEM 151 ON THE JUNE 18, 2025, FORMAL AGENDA -
PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION ADOPTION - GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT - DATA CENTERS - GPA-2-25-Y (RESOLUTION 22316) -
CITYWIDE
Item 151, General Plan Amendment No. GPA-2-25-Y is a request to amend the General
Plan to incorporate design and location criteria for data centers.

Staff recommends continuing this item to the July 2, 2025, City Council Formal meeting to
evaluate comments and suggestions received.




Approved:
AdiSJ#iiL
Deputy City Manager




ATTACHMENT B




GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
STAFF ANALYSIS
May 1, 2025

Application: GPA-2-25-Y

Applicant: City of Phoenix Planning Commission

Representative: City of Phoenix Planning and Development
Department

Location: Citywide

Request: Minor General Plan Amendment to develop policy
guidance on data centers

Planning Commission June 5, 2025
Hearing Date:

Staff Recommendation: Approval

FINDINGS:

1) The proposal will act as the policy guidance for data centers which supports the
Zoning Ordinance text amendment Z-TA-2-25-Y for regulations related to data
centers.

2) The proposal will guide data center development away from cores, centers, and
corridors, where mixed-use, walkable communities are envisioned and will guide
data centers to blend with the surrounding environment while limiting negative
impacts to existing communities.

3) The proposal is consistent with and relates to other adopted policies in the
General Plan, such as the Blueprint for a More Connected Phoenix, including
Cores, Centers, and Corridors, Village Cores, Employment Corridors, and Tech
Corridors; Create a Network of Vibrant Cores, Centers, and Corridors; and Build
the Most Sustainable Desert City, including Water Sensitive Planning, Green
Building, Energy Infrastructure, and Community Shade.




Staff Analysis
GPA-2-25-Y
Page 2

BACKGROUND

In 2024, the Mayor and City Council directed City staff to create new policy guidance
and zoning regulations related to data centers, in response to the increased frequency
and development of these types of facilities. Data centers house a large collection of
technological equipment designed to store, process, and manage vast amounts of
digital information. One major concern with data centers is that their energy demand is
expected to increase significantly, in large part due to Artificial Intelligence. Another
major concern is the scale at which these types of facilities are built and how they can
negatively affect the surrounding community they are built in. This General Plan
Amendment would add a section in the 2025 General Plan to provide policy guidance
for data centers addressing the major concerns they pose to the community and to the
city.

Staff researched other cities in the nation that have adopted ordinances related to data
centers for best practices and looked at ways Phoenix could enhance those ordinances.
Text Amendment Case No. Z-TA-2-25-Y is a request to amend the Zoning Ordinance to
add a definition for data centers, clarify which zoning districts they are permitted in, and
add performance standards, development standards, and design guidelines specific to
data centers. This General Plan Amendment would act as the adopted policy guidance
for the Text Amendment, and future rezoning requests where data centers are
proposed.

RELATIONSHIP TO GENERAL PLAN CORE VALUES AND PRINCIPLES

CREATE A NETWORK OF VIBRANT CORES, CENTERS AND CORRIDORS

• TRANSIT ORIENTED COMMUNITIES.

Data centers are very large in scale and do not provide the type of scale and mix
of uses desired for transit-oriented communities. The proposal will guide data
centers to be located away from high-capacity transit stations, where mixed-use,
walkable communities are envisioned for transit-oriented communities. This will
protect transit-oriented communities from this type of large-scale development
that is incompatible with the vision for transit-oriented communities.

BUILD THE MOST SUSTAINABLE DESERT CITY

• GREEN BUILDING; GOAL: Establish Phoenix as a leader in green and
sustainable building through the use of green-sustainable building
techniques in private and public development.

The proposal will adopt energy and sustainability policy specifically for data
centers, encourage that they are designed utilizing green construction codes to
maximize energy efficiency.



Staff Analysis
GPA-2-25-Y
Page 3


CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends approval of GPA-2-25-Y. The proposed General Plan policy
language will act as the adopted policy guidance for data center development. The
companion text amendment case, Z-TA-2-25-Y, will build on this policy guidance and
create zoning regulations related to data centers.

Writer
Adrian Zambrano
May 1, 2025

Team Leader
Racelle Escolar

Exhibit
A. Proposed Language (2 pages)




Staff Analysis
GPA-2-25-Y
Page 4

Exhibit A

Staff proposed language that may be modified during the public hearing process is as
follows:


DATA CENTERS
WITH CONTINUAL ADVANCEMENTS IN TECHNOLOGY, SUCH AS ARTIFICIAL
INTELLIGENCE (AI) AND THE DIGITAL “CLOUD”, THERE HAS BEEN A GROWING
DEMAND TO CONSTRUCT DATA CENTERS IN ORDER TO SUPPORT THE DIGITAL
WORLD. DATA CENTERS HOUSE A LARGE COLLECTION OF TECHNOLOGICAL
EQUIPMENT DESIGNED TO STORE, PROCESS, AND MANAGE VAST AMOUNTS
OF DIGITAL INFORMATION. ALTHOUGH DATA CENTERS ARE INFRASTRUCTURE
FOR ADVANCING TECHNOLOGY THAT MANY COMPANIES AND ORGANIZATIONS
NOW RELY ON, THEY ALSO COME WITH POTENTIAL CHALLENGES, INCLUDING
A LOSS OF LAND FOR JOBS AND HOUSING, NOISE POLLUTION, SIGNIFICANT
ENERGY DEMAND, INACTIVE FRONTAGES ALONG PUBLIC STREETS, AND
CONFLICTS WITH THE CITY’S APPROACH OF MAXIMIZING TRANSPORTATION
INVESTMENTS WITH WALKABLE COMMUNITIES. MEASURES SHOULD BE TAKEN
TO IDENTIFY AREAS THAT ARE MOST APPROPRIATE FOR DEVELOPMENT AND
TO ADDRESS THE NOISE, ENERGY, AND DESIGN ISSUES THAT THEY COME
WITH.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOCATION CRITERIA POLICY DESIGN POLICY
1. LOCATE AWAY FROM 1. PROVIDE ENHANCED
IDENTIFIED CORES, LANDSCAPE SETBACKS WITH
CENTERS, AND CORRIDORS A GREATER DENSITY OF
WHERE HIGHER-INTENSITY TREES AND SHRUBS.
DEVELOPMENT IS 2. PROVIDE DETACHED
ENCOURAGED FOR MIXED- SIDEWALKS WITH
USE, WALKABLE PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES AND
COMMUNITIES. SHADE.
2. LOCATE IN IDENTIFIED 3. PROVIDE ART IN PRIVATE
REDEVELOPMENT AREAS DEVELOPMENT.
WHERE INFRASTRUCTURE 4. UTILIZE DARK SKY LIGHTING.
INVESTMENTS ARE NEEDED. 5. MINIMIZE NOISE POLLUTION
TO NEARBY RESIDENTIAL
THROUGH USE OF LARGE
SETBACKS, STRUCTURAL
SCREENING ELEMENTS,
ARCHITECTURALLY



Staff Analysis
GPA-2-25-Y
Page 5

INTEGRATED STRUCTURES, ENERGY AND SUSTAINABILITY
AND/OR LANDSCAPING. POLICY
6. PROVIDE VISUAL INTEREST
1. PROVIDE A WILL-SERVE
TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES
LETTER FROM THE LOCAL
AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY WITH
UTILITY COMPANY TO
ENHANCED ARCHITECTURAL
ENSURE THAT THERE IS
DESIGN THAT INCLUDES A
SUFFICIENT CAPACITY IN THE
VARIATION IN COLORS,
POWER GRID TO SUPPLY THE
MATERIALS, ARTICULATION,
DATA CENTER WITH ITS
FENESTRATION, AND
REQUIRED ENERGY DEMAND.
BREAKING OF MASSING,
2. ENCOURAGE USE OF THE
RATHER THAN A CONCRETE
PHOENIX GREEN
BOX THAT HAS A NEGATIVE
CONSTRUCTION CODE TO
VISUAL APPEARANCE TO THE
MAXIMIZE ENERGY
SURROUNDING COMMUNITY.
EFFICIENCY OF DATA CENTER
BUILDINGS.




ATTACHMENT C
GPA-2-25-Y: Amendment to the General Plan to incorporate
design and location criteria for data centers
Village Planning Committee Summary Results

Recommendation
Village Recommendation Vote
Date
Ahwatukee
5/19/25 Denial 10-0
Foothills
Alhambra 5/20/25 Approval 11-0
Denial with direction to:
• Revise the noise
requirement to an
objective decibel level to
be verified by the City.
• Allow for an additional 90-
day review period to
include a review of
Camelback
6/3/25 ordinances from other 17-0
East
municipalities, including
Chandler.
• Add separation
requirements for data
centers from other data
centers and from
residential uses.

Central City 5/12/25 Approval 6-3-1

Deer Valley 5/20/25 No quorum -
Approval, with direction to
ensure the General Plan policies
Desert View 6/3/25 8-3
align with the directed
modifications of Z-TA-2-25-Y
Encanto 6/2/25 Denial 9-4-1

Estrella 5/20/25 Approval 3-1

Laveen 5/12/25 Approval 13-0
Approval, with direction to
amend the language to include
Maryvale 5/14/25 13-0
sustainable energy, solar
sources and reclaimed water
North
5/8/25 Approval 8-0
Gateway
North
5/21/25 Approval 8-4-1
Mountain

Attachment C – Page 1 of 2 1379
Paradise
6/2/25 Approval 12-2
Valley
Denial, with direction to allow
Rio Vista 5/13/25 3-2
more time for stakeholder input
Approval, with direction:
• Provide buffering from
schools
• Encourage recycling of
water
9-7
• 60 days for public
comment
• Distance requirement
from Rio Salado Habitat
South Restoration area
5/13/25
Mountain

• Will serve letter required
by the time of Certificate
of Occupancy
• Projects in the permitting
process and phased
plans be allowed to
construct governed by the
current zoning regulations




Attachment C – Page 2 of 2 1380
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y

Date of VPC Meeting May 19, 2025
Request Amend the General Plan to incorporate design and
location criteria for data centers
VPC Recommendation Denial
VPC Vote 10-0


VPC DISCUSSION:

Item Nos. 4 (GPA-2-25-Y) and 5 (Z-TA-2-25-Y) are companion cases and were heard
concurrently.

Two members of the public registered to speak on this item, one in support, and one
in opposition.

STAFF PRESENTATION
Anthony Grande, staff, provided a presentation regarding the proposed General Plan
Amendment, including background and details of the location criteria, design, and
energy and sustainability policies proposed to be added for data centers, further
providing information about the proposed Text Amendment, including a definition for
data centers, design guidelines, and a requirement for a Special Permit and
performance standards, finally noting the timeline for the proposals.

QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
Chair Gasparro asked for clarification on the noise requirement, noting that in areas
with higher ambient decibel levels, a 5% increase could be significant. Mr. Grande
replied that the proposed language is taking into account existing ambient levels. Vice
Chair Mager suggested redefining the noise requirement based on decibels.

Committee Member Fisher stated concerns about Phoenix becoming a location with
many data centers in the future, noting some issues, including that they can pull
power off the grid by having first right to power. Mr. Grande noted that the text
amendment would add additional regulations for data centers, including a requirement
for a Special Permit, which does not exist today.

Committee Member Slobodzian stated there are concerns with water usage for data
centers.


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1381
Ahwatukee Foothills Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary - May 19, 2025
GPA-2-25-Y


Vice Chair Mager commented that it appears the motivation is to allow the City to
have more control over approving data centers. Committee Member Fisher stated a
concern with the number of zoning districts would permit data centers. Mr. Grande
clarified that this proposal would add a Special Permit requirement where it doesn’t
exist today, and suggested that the Committee could approve with direction for any
items of concern, including the inclusion of C-2 and C-3 zoning districts in the list.

PUBLIC COMMENTS
Cepand Alizadeh with the Arizona Technology Council spoke in favor of the
proposal, but noting several concerns: a lack of clarity regarding the 5% requirement
for decibel level measurements and how emergencies are handled and that the 2-
year will serve letter from utility companies is not feasible.

Chair Gasparro stated a concern about asking for a 10-year will serve letter
requirement. Committee Member Fisher noted that it appears that the facilities
would be stating they don’t have the power to serve them.

Committee Member Fisher asked about the appeal of locating data centers in the
that these could be redevelopments. Mr. Fisher noted that in any case, they are
massive buildings. Committee Member Barua noted that they do not have a good
understanding of the number of employees that are typically at a data center. Mr.
Alizadeh commented that the tech industry is booming in Phoenix and companies
want to be here.

Henry Hardy with Rose Law Group spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating that
he had never seen a text amendment move this quickly through the process, that
there should be a 90-day extension in the process, that the will serve letter will result
in no more data centers locating in Phoenix, and that there are Proposition 207 issues
with the proposal.

Chair Gasparro asked if Mr. Hardy had clients that resulted in him attending this
meeting. Mr. Hardy replied that data center stakeholders have been involved. Chair
Gasparro asked for clarification on the will serve letter request. Mr. Hardy stated that
the request is for 10 years, noting that many developments are phased.

Mr. Fisher asked who is pushing this item. Mr. Hardy said he did not know.

Committee Member Blackman asked if they wanted the will serve letter requirement
removed, noting concerns about possible blackouts. Mr. Hardy replied that they want
the requirement to align with industry standards and that the will serve letters allow
the utility companies to plan for the future to ensure sufficient capacity. Ms.
Blackman followed up with a question about whether the data centers will need to
pay for the infrastructure. Mr. Hardy replied that they would.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1382
Ahwatukee Foothills Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary - May 19, 2025
GPA-2-25-Y


Committee Member Slobodzian asked what changes would be looked at if more
time is given for review. Mr. Hardy replied that they would like to review the will serve
letter requirement and issues around existing rights.

Committee Member Jain asked if data centers currently participate in demand
response. Mr. Hardy replied that he is not sure, but they do have comprehensive
independent generation systems.

Committee Member Fisher stated he was nervous about extending the timeframe
for will serve letters, adding it is not clear where all the power will come from, and
data centers do not provide a lot of jobs.

Committee Member Barua added that utility companies give discounts to data
centers.

Chair Gasparro asked if staff can look into any comments received from utility
companies.

COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
Committee Member Fisher suggested voting for a continuance in order to slow the
process down, noting that the Committee doesn’t have time to get answers to their
questions.

Chair Gasparro noted that voting for a continuance may not slow it down, as the
Planning Commission could still move it forward, and it could result in losing the
opportunity to put the Committee’s concerns on record.

Vice Chair Mager suggested the Committee put their concerns into a formal motion,
noting a possibility of approval with direction to staff. Committee Members discussed
the various options for motions. Mr. Fisher suggested a motion for denial, noting the
following items:
• Decibel clarification to industry standards;
• Confusion about ramifications of will serve letter requirement; and
• The speed of the process and not including stakeholders.

Mr. Grande noted that the Committee’s concerns would be written in the minutes for
review by the Planning Commission if the Committee recommends denial.

Committee Member Slobodzian stated that the most effective motion would be for
denial.

MOTION (GPA-2-25-Y)
Alyson Slobodzian made a motion to recommend denial of GPA-2-25-Y. Prakshal
Jain seconded the motion.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1383
Ahwatukee Foothills Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary - May 19, 2025
GPA-2-25-Y


VOTE (GPA-2-25-Y)
10-0; motion to recommend denial of GPA-2-25-Y passed; Committee Members
Barua, Blackman, Fisher, Golden, Jain, Maloney, Ostendorp, Slobodzian, Mager, and
Gasparro in favor.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1384
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y
Date of VPC Meeting May 20, 2025
Request Amend the General Plan to incorporate design and
location criteria for data centers
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation
VPC Vote 11-0

VPC DISCUSSION

Item Nos. 4 (GPA-2-25-Y) and 5 (Z-TA-2-25-Y) are companion cases and were heard
concurrently.

Two members of the public registered to speak in opposition to these items.

STAFF PRESENTATION

John Roanhorse, staff, provided a presentation on the Data Center General Plan
Amendment noting the development background, review process, and the rationale
behind the proposed amendment. Mr. Roanhorse stated that the proposed text
amendment is a companion to the General Plan Amendment and is intended to support
the regulatory framework for data centers. Mr. Roanhorse stated that the City Council
had initiated creation of new policy guidance in response to the growing number of
requests for data center facilities, which possess unique characteristics not currently
addressed. Mr. Roanhorse expressed the importance of the General Plan Amendment
due to land use considerations, the need for adaptation to existing developments, and
the importance of connecting these facilities to infrastructure. Mr. Roanhorse noted that
one of the primary reasons for the amendment is that data centers are not directly
addressed in either the General Plan or the Zoning Ordinance and previous
developments have been permitted through informal interpretations. Mr. Roanhorse
discussed the key elements of the amendment, including location criteria, design
policies, and sustainability measures. Mr. Roanhorse reviewed site placement criteria,
highlighting core areas and centers as not preferred locations, and noted various
suitability factors. Mr. Roanhorse discussed required setbacks, the integration of art
features, dark sky compliance, noise mitigation, and architectural design standards. Mr.
Roanhorse noted the energy demands associated with data centers and the importance
of incorporating energy efficiency measures. Mr. Roanhorse stated that the amendment
would offer additional detail regarding definitions, guidelines, and performance
standards.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Alhambra Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y
May 20, 2025



QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE

Committee Member Jim DeGraffenreid asked if Data Centers would require additional
water use and if water was mainly used for cooling. Mr. Roanhorse responded that
water is a concern, however it is addressed within the sustainability component of the
text amendment. Mr. Roanhorse stated based on information provided data centers
recycle water and take measures to prevent increasing water use.

Committee Member David Krietor asked if Data Centers could be developed in
existing buildings as an adaptive reuse and that it appears that there might not be many
places for Data Centers in the Alhambra Village. Mr. Roanhorse responded that it is
less likely that a data center would be developed on an existing site however in the past
there are data centers that have been established in existing buildings but typically their
sizes are limited.

Committee Member Alexander Malkoon commented the increase of Data Centers
reflects the growth of technology like artificial intelligence and the facilities house
substantial servers and equipment. Committee Member Malkoon commented that the
Text Amendment responds to the needs but asked if what is presented is appropriate to
the level of development. Mr. Roanhorse responded that the preparation of the text
amendment included interaction with stakeholders and an analysis of existing data
centers and the direction of current technology development in other cities that have
widely developed data center facilities.

Committee Member DeGraffenreid commented that he is supportive of Data Centers
and the Text Amendment but does have concern that water and energy issues will not
be addressed. Mr. Roanhorse responded that water use is a concern and the text
amendment does provide sustainability details as part of the proposal.

Vice Chair Melisa Camp asked if there will be sufficient requirements in response to
mitigate increased heat temperatures. Mr. Roanhorse responded that the operation of
a data center does generate internal heat which has cooling and other mechanical
systems to maintain the temperature for the development and factors on the site such
as shading, landscaping and other features would contribute to external heat reduction
and mitigation. Mr. Roanhorse discussed the proposed design guidelines, which include
setback requirements, perimeter landscaping, and specific landscape coverage
standards. Mr. Roanhorse discussed enhancements to architectural elements, including
building frontages with the integration of art, color, texture, and orientation, along with
requirements for pedestrian amenities and sidewalks. Mr. Roanhorse displayed the
proposed timeline for both the General Plan and Text Amendments and indicated that
both items would proceed to the Planning Commission and ultimately to the City Council
by June 2025.

Committee Member Alexander Malkoon asked the time frame for access to utility

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1386
Alhambra Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y
May 20, 2025


service for a Data Center. Mr. Roanhorse responded that it would depend on the timing
and application of the data center submittal. Mr. Roanhorse noted that as part of the
process the applicant would have to provide the will serve letter.

Committee Member Jim DeGraffienried asked if energy use for a Data Center will
increase over the years. Mr. Roanhorse responded that typically data centers would
have sufficient energy provided as part of the utility grid they are in. Mr. Roanhorse
noted that the utilities have provided information regarding energy use for proposed
data centers.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

Samantha DeMoss, representing Rose Law Group, introduced herself and stated that
Data Centers are an expanding use and reflect an important economic sector for the
Phoenix area. Ms. DeMoss stated that addressing Data Centers is very important and
will have long-term implications for growth and development. Ms. DeMoss stated there
are concerns with the current General Plan Amendment specifically that with process
review and timing and the design criteria. Ms. DeMoss stated that additional review time
would be necessary to review and address many of the incomplete details in the
General Plan Amendment as presented. Ms. DeMoss said that additional review time
would allow more stakeholder review and input. Ms. DeMoss stated that the committee
consider a 90-day period be granted to allow for more time for a thorough review and
comment.

Cepand Alizadeh, representing the Arizona Technology Council, introduced himself
and shared a personal experience to illustrate the importance of access to electronic
medical information and the critical role of Data Centers. Mr. Alizadeh explained that he
works with an organization that provides information and supports a variety of
technology industries, emphasizing its alignment with economic development efforts.
Mr. Alizadeh stated that correspondence outlining the Arizona Technology Council’s
position on the proposed text amendment had been submitted to the Mayor's Office and
members of the City Council. Mr. Alizadeh stated that data centers are an essential
component of the modern economy, noting that several facilities are either under
consideration or already under construction in different areas of the city, with more
expected in the near future. Mr. Alizadeh also pointed out that data centers vary in size
and capacity, both in terms of the volume of information housed and the operations
conducted within the facilities. Mr. Alizadeh stated that he works with a range of
businesses and organizations that develop services, maintain technology systems, and
ensure that critical information remains readily available. Mr. Alizadeh said on behalf of
the Arizona Technology Council, he expressed concerns about the proposed text
amendment, specifically regarding the process timeline and the requirements for sound
abatement. Mr. Alizadeh stated that additional time is needed to allow for a
comprehensive review and to provide informed feedback on the proposed amendment.
Mr. Alizadeh further noted that the draft text amendment does not sufficiently address


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1387
Alhambra Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y
May 20, 2025


appropriate sound control measures that would be consistent with the functional and
operational needs of data centers.

DISCUSSION

Vice Chair Camp asked if there has been consultation with utility companies regarding
the development of data centers. Ms. DeMoss responded that there has been some
discussion with the utility companies, however, like many other details this proposed
amendment is moving quickly and more discussion and review would be beneficial to all
parties.

Committee Member John Owens asked if there was information on existing data
centers and their locations. Committee Member Owens commented that typically data
centers and more similar uses would be aligned with freeway corridors and what would
be the best approach to have balanced locations to accommodate connection to the
infrastructure grid. Ms. DeMoss responded that there are many potential locations for
data centers but locating them in the appropriate place would consider many factors
and they are evaluating such options but more time to review the proposed General
Plan Amendment would be a good starting point to ensure all details are addressed
appropriately.

Committee Member John Owens asked what other cities in the area are developing
data centers and what issues have been presented with them. Mr. Alizadeh responded
that most adjacent cities have data centers including Tempe and Chandler. Mr. Alizadeh
stated that the city of Chandler has been responsive and on the forefront of data center
development and has ordinance and policies to accommodate them.

Committee Member Malkoon asked how the City of Chandler responded to the issue
of noise abatement with data centers in their jurisdiction. Mr. Alizadeh responded that
the City of Chandler has information in their ordinance for noise mitigation for data
centers and it is more appropriately suited to the current type of designs that are being
developed.

Committee Member Malkoon commented that he had experience in the development
of call centers and was familiar with the scope of large-scale development. Committee
Member Malkoon asked if back up power generators will be included in data centers
and how much sound is expected. Mr. Alizadeh responded that yes data centers do
include backup generators and currently they are powered by diesel fuel so there would
be some sound associated with the current data centers, but physical measures would
dramatically reduce any loud noises associated with data centers.

Committee Member Owens commented that data centers are part of the future growth
for the city and the economy and asked what measures are being taken to bring more
data centers to the area. Mr. Alizadeh responded that yes data centers are a growing
industry, and Phoenix is an ideal location for this growing industry. Mr. Alizadeh stated

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1388
Alhambra Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y
May 20, 2025


that having a responsive ordinance and policies is necessary to accommodate data
centers and provide jobs and tax revenue for the local economies.

Committee Member Carlos Velasco commented that the Alhambra Village is land
locked however it is important to promote economic opportunities, create jobs and
promote tax benefits. Committee Member Velasco asked what type of jobs come with
data centers and is there a higher pay scale. Mr. Alizadeh responded that jobs
associated with data centers are high paying and will promote economic development.
Mr. Alizadeh stated that in addition to jobs being provided data centers will also
contribute to local economies by the services and supporting needs from local
businesses in the area.

FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: MOTION, DISCUSSION, AND VOTE

MOTION
Committee Member Alexander Malkoon made a motion to recommend approval of
GPA-2-25-Y per the staff recommendation. Committee Member David Krietor
seconded the motion.

VOTE
11-0, motion to recommend approval of GPA-2-25-Y per the staff recommendation
passed with Committee Members DeGraffenreid, Ender, Gamiño Guerrero, Krietor,
Malkoon, Owens, Smith, Vallo, Velasco, Camp and Sanchez in favor.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

Staff has no comment.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1389
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y
Date of VPC Meeting May 12, 2025
Amend the General Plan to incorporate design and
Request
location criteria for data centers
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation
VPC Vote 6-3-1


VPC DISCUSSION:

Item Nos. 6 (GPA-2-25-Y) and 7 (Z-TA-2-25-Y) are companion cases and were heard
concurrently.

One member of the public registered to speak in opposition on this item.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Samuel Rogers, staff, provided a presentation regarding the proposed General Plan
Amendment, including background and details of the location criteria, design, and
energy and sustainability policies proposed to be added for data centers. Mr. Rogers
provided information about the proposed Text Amendment, including a definition for
data centers, design guidelines, and a requirement for a Special Permit and
performance standards, finally noting the timeline for the proposals.

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE

Committee Member Frazier Johnson asked what happens if a facility leases data
services. Samuel Rogers, staff, stated that if a facility is proposing to lease data
services it would not be allowed and explained the definition of a data center.

Committee Member Faith Burton stated that dead office towers are leasing their
space for data centers and asked if the proposal would impact those uses. Mr. Rogers
stated that staff is working through what will have grandfathered rights. Committee
Member Burton explained that there are many dead office towers with excess power
capacity that will likely never be used due to modern office uses not requiring high
energy loads.

Vice Chair Darlene Martinez asked if there is a reason data centers are not allowed to
lease their data services. Mr. Rogers explained that the intent is to prevent the primary



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Central City Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
May 12, 2025
GPA-2-25-Y

use of data centers from being external data hosting and to discourage expansion
solely to accommodate off-site users.

Committee Member Burton explained that many data centers lease services to
businesses without office space.

Chair Cyndy Gaughan asked if staff is working through the issue of existing
conditions. Mr. Rogers confirmed Chair Gaughan’s inquiry.

Committee Member Zach Burns asked what prevents a facility from leasing out data
services. Mr. Rogers explained that a facility must meet all the requirements in the
definition of a data center to be considered a data center. Chair Gaughan stated that
enforcement would be the challenge.

Committee Member Janey Pearl Starks asked why shade was not included in the
General Plan Amendment’s design policy slide. Mr. Rogers explained that data
centers would need to go through the Special Permit process and be subject to
rezoning stipulations, which could address those design elements.

Committee Member Ian O’Grady asked if there are other uses that require a Will
Serve Letter. Mr. Rogers stated that he is not aware of any other uses requiring a Will
Serve Letter.

Committee Member Ali Nervis asked whether the perception is that data centers are
inherently negative. Mr. Rogers stated that public outreach has revealed concerns
about data centers, explained that data centers are currently allowed in zoning districts
which allow offices, without any performance or design standards, and reiterated that
data centers use significant amounts of energy.

Committee Member Frazier Johnson asked whether there has been an increase in
data centers within the Central City Village. Mr. Rogers stated that he is not aware of
the number of data centers in the Central City Village and explained that there has
been an increase in data centers over time within the City.

Chair Gaughan stated that there is land around the airport that could be suitable for
data centers and noted that data centers are currently somewhat unregulated.

Committee Member Nate Sonoskey asked for confirmation that data centers can
currently be built anywhere office uses are allowed and asked about what requirements
currently apply to data centers. Mr. Rogers confirmed that data centers can currently
be built wherever office uses are allowed and explained that an informal interpretation
from 20 years ago considered data centers analogous to office uses. Mr. Rogers stated
that data center demands have significantly changed and stated that data centers are
not currently subject to any data center specific performance or design standards.
Committee Member Sonoskey asked how many data centers have been built in office

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1391
Central City Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
May 12, 2025
GPA-2-25-Y

zones. Mr. Rogers stated that he does not have data on the number of data centers in
Phoenix.

Committee Member Sonoskey asked whether the City is considering allowing data
centers by right in industrial areas and stated that it is common to allow data centers in
industrial zones. Mr. Rogers stated that most cities in the Phoenix metro area do not
have specific regulations for data centers.

Chair Gaughan stated that data centers are not sustainable job creators.

Committee Member Nervis asked whether there are any requirements regarding
energy efficiency. Mr. Rogers stated that he is not knowledgeable about energy
efficiency requirements.

Committee Member Sonoskey asked if the proposal would go into effect immediately,
asked whether the City has received any pushback from large companies, and stated
that many companies have already acquired land for data centers.

Mr. Rogers explained that the proposal would be subject to a 30-day appeal period
and stated that some developers have expressed concerns.

Committee Member Frazier Johnson stated that there are data centers everywhere
but people do not know they are present because they do not look like data centers.

Committee Member Burton stated that many developments do not have other
options, explained that data centers can give a development a second life, and
explained concerns about how overreaching the proposal is.

Mr. Rogers stated that the goal of the proposal is not to eliminate data centers but to
establish a formalized review process.

Committee Member Frazier Johnson asked about the timeline. Mr. Rogers
described the timeline for upcoming public hearings.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Henry Hardy introduced himself, explained that he works for Rose Law Group, stated
that he represents data center stakeholders, and explained that the stakeholders were
made aware of the text amendment only two weeks prior. Mr. Hardy stated that the
amendment is moving too quickly, requested a recommendation for continuation,
acknowledged there are positive elements in the proposal, and stated some
components would make data centers unfeasible. Mr. Hardy explained that data
centers can provide 80 to 150 high-paying jobs and are essential to the region’s
technology infrastructure, expressed concern that the proposal creates uncertainty
around property rights and may result in Proposition 207 litigation, stated that requiring
a Will Serve Letter is inconsistent with current utility processes and will hinder projects,
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1392
Central City Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
May 12, 2025
GPA-2-25-Y

and emphasized the limited time between village planning committee reviews and City
Council hearings.

Committee Member Frazier Johnson asked what specific concerns the stakeholders
have. Mr. Hardy described concerns with the Will Serve Letter, Proposition 207
implications, and existing properties planning future expansions. Mr. Hardy stated that
there are long lead times on data center developments.

Vice Chair Martinez asked if data center users are conducting outreach. Mr. Hardy
stated that outreach is being conducted through agents such as himself and reiterated
that the current timeline is short.

Committee Member O’Grady asked how much power a typical data center requires.
Mr. Hardy explained that power needs vary, stated that it is often impossible to obtain
a utility commitment for under ten years, stated the Will Serve Letter requirement is
impractical, and stated that while data centers may not employ large numbers of
people, they still provide employment. Mr. Hardy clarified that the stakeholders are not
opposed to the text amendment itself but believe additional time for discussion is
necessary.

STAFF RESPONSE

Mr. Rogers stated that the City’s Law Department has not raised any concerns
regarding Proposition 207 and stated that he could not speak to wet utility
requirements.

Committee Member Starks noted that the proposal is on an expedited timeline and
asked how long a standard text amendment process typically takes. Mr. Rogers
explained that text amendments are usually processed over a longer period, but staff
was directed to bring the General Plan Amendment and Text Amendment to City
Council prior to the summer break. Mr. Rogers stated that past text amendments were
typically presented for information only and for recommendation the following month at
each of the three hearing bodies. Committee Member Starks asked for confirmation
that the hearing schedule is limited to two months. Mr. Rogers confirmed Committee
Member Starks’ inquiry.

Committee Member Sonoskey asked whether other village planning committees had
already reviewed the item. Mr. Rogers stated that one village heard the item the
previous week and explained that he was unaware of the outcome due to staff
absences. Mr. Hardy stated that he attended the previous village meeting and noted
that both items were recommended for approval.

Committee Member Sonoskey asked for clarification on the difference between the
General Plan Amendment and the Text Amendment. Mr. Rogers explained that the
General Plan Amendment sets policy direction, while the Text Amendment defines the
ordinance requirements.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1393
Central City Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
May 12, 2025
GPA-2-25-Y


Committee Member Nervis asked why the City Council wants to consider the items
before the summer break. Mr. Rogers stated that he was unaware of any specific
reason for the timeline, explained that his department was instructed to complete the
process before the summer break, and stated that a delay would postpone the items
until September.

Committee Member Sonoskey expressed concern that extending the process would
cause significant confusion and delay due to heavy investment in data center land
acquisition. Committee Member Sonoskey stated that the General Plan Amendment is
only a partial step, stated that policy is needed, and stated that the Text Amendment
contains substantive requirements, but it has not been sufficiently discussed.
Committee Member Sonoskey questioned how utility providers such as APS and SRP
view the Will Serve Letter requirement. Mr. Rogers stated that APS and SRP
participated in the stakeholder meetings.

FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: MOTION, DISCUSSION, AND VOTE

Motion #1:
Committee Member Rachel Frazier Johnson made a motion to recommend approval
of GPA-2-25-Y per the staff recommendation, with direction that 60 days be provided
for public comment. Vice Chair Darelene Martinez seconded the motion.

Vote #1:
3-6-1, motion to recommend approval of GPA-2-25-Y per the staff recommendation,
with direction that 60 days be provided for public comment fails with Committee
Members Frazier Johnson, Martinez, and Gaughan in favor, Committee Members
Burns, Burton, Nervis, Sonoskey, Starks, and Vargas opposed, and Committee
Member O’Grady abstained.

Motion #2:
Committee Member Janey Pearl Starks made a motion to recommend approval of
GPA-2-25-Y per the staff recommendation. Committee Member Ali Nervis seconded
the motion.

Vote #2:
6-3-1, motion to recommend approval of GPA-2-25-Y per the staff recommendation,
passes with Committee Members Burns, Frazier Johnson, Nervis, Starks, Vargas, and
Martinez in favor, Committee Members Burton, Sonoskey, and Gaughan opposed, and
Committee Member O’Grady. abstained.

Committee Member Frazier Johnson explained that she supports the motion but
believes there should be more time for public comment.

Vice Chair Martinez echoed Committee Member Frazier Johnson’s comments.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1394
Central City Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
May 12, 2025
GPA-2-25-Y



STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:
None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1395
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y

Date of VPC Meeting June 3, 2025
Request Amend the General Plan to incorporate design and
location criteria for data centers
VPC Recommendation Denial with direction
VPC Vote 17-0


VPC DISCUSSION:

Item Nos. 4 (GPA-2-25-Y) and 5 (Z-TA-2-25-Y) are companion cases and were heard
concurrently.

Two members of the public registered to speak on this item, both in opposition. One
member of the public registered in opposition, not wishing to speak.

STAFF PRESENTATION
Anthony Grande, staff, provided a presentation regarding the proposed General Plan
Amendment, including background and details of the location criteria, design, and
energy and sustainability policies proposed to be added for data centers, further
providing information about the proposed Text Amendment, including a definition for
data centers, design guidelines, and a requirement for a Special Permit and
performance standards, finally noting the timeline for the proposals.

QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
Committee Member Eichelkraut asked if the text made a distinction between different
types of data centers, noting that data centers becoming AI data centers in the future
could be an issue. Mr. Grande replied that the text did not make a distinction.

Committee Member Swart asked if City staff is able to measure decibel levels. Mr.
Grande replied that there are some parts of the code that have decibel limits, and the
Neighborhood Services Department needs to enforce those requirements.

Committee Member Schmieder stated that the noise limit should simply be a flat
decibel limit, rather than a percentage.

Committee Member Augusta asked for clarification on how the location criteria policy
would be enforced. Mr. Grande replied that each data center will be required to go

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Camelback East Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary - June 3, 2025
GPA-2-25-Y


through the Special Permit process, where staff and the Committee can review the
request in relation to the location criteria in the policy.

Committee Member Whitesell stated that it would be better if City staff conducted the
noise readings, rather than the applicant, and that C-2 and C-3 are not appropriate for
data centers, which should be limited to industrial districts. Chair Fischbach noted that
Proposition 207 could have been a concern when drafting the language.

Committee Member Todd asked for clarification that if this text is approved, every data
center will be a rezoning case. Mr. Grande replied that they would be. Mr. Todd added
that data centers in C-2 is concerning and that the landscaping requirements seem too
extreme. Chair Fischbach noted that the plants would be drought-tolerant, which
alleviates some water usage concerns.

Committee Member Schmieder asked for clarification on the landscaping requirement
and if it would be consistent with the environment in industrial districts. Mr. Grande
replied with background about industrial zoning landscaping requirements.

Committee Member Eichelkraut asked if there is a requirement for separation
between data centers. Mr. Grande replied that there is not.

Committee Member Whitesell asked for clarification that the requirement is for a
Special Permit, not a Use Permit. Mr. Grande replied that the text is clear that it is a
Special Permit requirement.

Committee Member Eichelkraut stated a concern about the future with energy
consumption of data centers that will evolve over time.

Vice Chair Paceley provided background regarding the requirements with utility
companies, noting that data centers would be responsible for the required infrastructure
and have to sign favorable agreements with utility companies.

Chair Fischbach stated that the primary issue with developing data centers is the need
for power, noting that their development can be positive in some ways while highlighting
a challenge presented with power supply at a data center on 40th Street.

Committee Member Schmieder asked if APS and SRP will be able to handle the
growth into the future. Vice Chair Paceley replied that the utilities are planning far into
the future to meet future demand.

Committee Member Whitesell asked for clarification on the will serve letter. Vice
Chair Paceley provided clarification.

PUBLIC COMMENTS
Melissa Rhodes introduced herself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, noting that
this proposal does not incorporate the stricter standards found in the data center

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1397
Camelback East Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary - June 3, 2025
GPA-2-25-Y


ordinances of other municipalities, such as Chandler, adding that the development of
data centers in commercial districts will be detrimental to neighborhoods and that we
don’t have the energy for data centers.

Samantha DeMoss with Rose Law Group, introduced herself and spoke in opposition
to the proposal, noting that this process is moving too fast for a code change like this,
that it doesn’t address grandfathering, and that as written, this is a moratorium on data
centers, requesting a denial and a 90-day continuance.

Chair Fischbach asked for an example scenario related to the grandfathering issue.
Ms. DeMoss stated that someone could have purchased property with CP/GCP zoning
under the assumption that they could develop a data center but that this text
amendment would remove that right, especially considering the will serve letter
requirement.

COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
Chair Fischbach stated that based on the discussion so far, one option would be to
recommend approval with direction to City staff.

MOTION 1:
Committee Member Schmieder made a motion to recommend approval of GPA-2-25-
Y, per the staff recommendation, with direction to City staff to:
• Revise the noise requirement to an objective decibel level to be verified by the
City.
• Allow for an additional 90-day review period.

Committee Member Whitesell seconded the motion.

Committee Member Eichelkraut requested a friendly amendment to add the following
to the list: Review Chandler’s requirements and the lessons learned. Committee
Members Schmieder and Whitesell accepted the friendly amendment.

Committee Member Sharaby asked why they would approve it, considering the
concerns, suggest they recommend denial instead.

Committee Members Schmieder and Whitesell withdrew the motion.

MOTION 2:
Committee Member Sharaby made a motion to recommend denial of GPA-2-25-Y with
direction to City staff to:
• Revise the noise requirement to an objective decibel level to be verified by the
City.
• Allow for an additional 90-day review period to include a review of ordinances
from other municipalities, including Chandler.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1398
Camelback East Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary - June 3, 2025
GPA-2-25-Y


Committee Member Whitesell seconded the motion and requested a friendly
amendment to add the following to the list: Add separation requirements for data
centers from other data centers and from residential uses. Committee Member
Sharaby accepted the friendly amendment.

Committee Member Eichelkraut noted that the Planning Commission does take the
comments of the Committee into consideration.

Chair Fischbach stated a concern that this motion could send the wrong message
about the Committee’s view on data center regulations.

Committee Member Beckerleg Thraen stated a hope that the additional review
doesn’t delay the process too long, and she is voting yes.

Committee Member Eichelkraut stated agreement with Ms. Beckerleg Thraen’s
comments and voted yes.

Committee Member Noel voted yes, adding that we need to do something about data
centers, but we need to take the time to get it right.

Committee Member Schmieder voted yes, adding that progress should be over
perfection, that we are moving in the right direction, but the vote is to ensure that due
diligence is done.

Committee Member Sharaby stated that the proposal is too broad without enough time
to research and consider other cities, and he is voting yes.

Chair Fischbach stated that he fully supports what the City is trying to do, and he is
voting yes with a hope that this vote doesn’t get interpreted as supporting data centers.

VOTE 2:
17-0; motion to recommend denial of GPA-2-25-Y with direction passed; Committee
Members Abbott, Augusta, Beckerleg Thraen, Eichelkraut, Garcia, Langmade,
McClelland, Noel, Schmieder, Sharaby, Siegel, Swart, Todd, Whitesell, Williams,
Paceley, and Fischbach in favor.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

Staff has no comments.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1399
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y



Date of VPC Meeting June 3, 2025
Request Amend the General Plan to incorporate design and
location criteria for data centers
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation, with direction
VPC Vote 8-3


VPC DISCUSSION:

Agenda Item 3 (GPA-2-25-Y) and Agenda Item 4 (Z-TA-2-25-Y) are companion cases
and were heard concurrently.

Committee Member Michelle Santoro declared a conflict of interest and recused herself
from this item, bringing the quorum to 11 members.

Three members of the public registered to speak on this item, in opposition.

Staff Presentation:
Adrian Zambrano, staff, provided background on GPA-2-25-Y and Z-TA-2-25-Y. Mr.
Zambrano discussed concerns with data centers that the General Plan Amendment and
Text Amendment are trying to address. Mr. Zambrano explained the policy guidance for
data centers that the General Plan Amendment includes. Mr. Zambrano then discussed
the three main components of the Text Amendment. Mr. Zambrano shared the
proposed Zoning Ordinance definition for a data center. Mr. Zambrano then discussed
the proposed design guidelines and their purpose. Mr. Zambrano shared the zoning
districts that data centers would be permitted in, subject to a Special Permit and other
performance standards, and noted that Special Permits go through the same public
hearing process as rezoning cases. Mr. Zambrano stated that a noise study would be
required if the data center is within a certain distance from residential. Mr. Zambrano
shared the upcoming public hearing schedule and stated that staff recommends
approval per the language in Exhibit A of the staff reports.

Questions from Committee:
Committee Member Rick Nowell asked why a large data center would be considered
within a small commercially-zoned shopping center. Mr. Zambrano responded that
there would have to be a large enough area that is commercially zoned in order for the

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1400
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y

data center to fit. Mr. Zambrano added that a rezoning may be required in some cases
to one of the zoning districts that a data center would be permitted in.

Chair Steven Bowser asked if there are any other zoning districts, other than those
already listed, that a Special Permit would not be required. Mr. Zambrano responded
that data centers would only be permitted within the C-2, C-3, CP/GCP, A-1 and A-2
zoning districts, subject to a Special Permit, and they would not be permitted in any
other zoning districts. Chair Bowser asked if a data center would be permitted in a
heavy industrial district. Mr. Zambrano responded that A-1 is the light industrial district
and A-2 is the heavy industrial district, and a Special Permit would still be required.

Committee Member David Kollar asked which zoning districts data centers are
currently located in. Mr. Zambrano responded that data centers have previously been
permitted through an informal interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance and were
determined to be analogous to an office use, so any zoning district that permitted an
office use is where they have been permitted. Mr. Zambrano stated that the commercial,
commerce park, and industrial districts all permit office use. Mr. Zambrano added that
some data centers have gone through the PUD (Planned Unit Development) process to
permit them.

Vice Chair Louis Lagrave asked what the typical size is of a data center. Mr.
Zambrano responded that they are typically very large in scale and could cover many
acres of land. Mr. Zambrano added that they typically are not small-scale. Vice Chair
Lagrave asked for clarification that it most likely would not be able to fit within a mostly
vacant shopping center. Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively.

Committee Member Kollar stated that some vacant high-rises have been retrofitted for
data centers. Committee Member Kollar stated that a large amount of space is needed
for a successful data center development. Committee Member Kollar added that data
centers are very particular with mechanical, electrical and water needs. Vice Chair
Lagrave asked if the space in this example would be less than 10 percent of the floor
area of the entire development. Committee Member Kollar responded that unless it is
for a specific user that has their own data needs, a data center is typically a giant empty
warehouse with a lot of racks that need to be cooled. Mr. Kollar reiterated that a lot of
square footage is needed. Mr. Kollar stated that a majority of the space is taken up by
data infrastructure and a small remainder of the space is used for office space. Vice
Chair Lagrave asked if the noise is continuously generated 24/7. Committee Member
Kollar responded that data centers generate noise from rooftop mechanical equipment
and there may be some light humming from the racks and servers in the interior.
Committee Member Kollar added that the massive air handlers that support cooling of
the equipment also generate noise.

Committee Member Reginald Younger asked about data center water usage. Mr.
Zambrano responded that some data centers may use water cooling to help cool their
data infrastructure.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1401
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y

Committee Member Nowell expressed concerns with allowing a five percent increase
in the ambient noise level in residential areas. Committee Member Nowell asked why
the Text Amendment would allow an increase in the ambient noise level. Mr. Zambrano
responded that this language was based off of what other municipalities have done that
have adopted a data center ordinance. Committee Member Nowell suggested that
Phoenix take the lead and say that the ambient noise level cannot be exceeded.

Committee Member Kollar asked if there is a decibel range that is considered an
ambient noise level. Mr. Zambrano responded that the noise study would determine
what the ambient noise level is, which would be conducted by an acoustical engineer.
Committee Member Kollar stated that an acceptable decibel range would make more
sense.

Committee Member Jason Israel stated that noise levels inside data centers typically
range from 80 to 90 dBa (A-weighted decibels) and peak levels can reach up to 96 dBa.
Committee Member Israel concurred with clarifying the ambient noise level requirement.
Mr. Zambrano responded that the ambient noise level would be the baseline noise
level before a data center is built in the area. Mr. Zambrano added that the ambient
noise level can vary based on the surrounding context of a site and a specific decibel
number would not cover the entire city, since noise level can vary from one part of the
city to another.

Committee Member Barbara Reynolds stated that smaller data centers can operate in
buildings from 5,000 to 10,000 square feet and larger facilities require up to 300 acres.
Committee Member Reynolds agreed with not allowing data centers in commercial
areas.

Committee Member Richard Carlucci expressed concerns with the noise study
requirement, noting that developers could go to the nearest street during the busiest
time of the day and measure the noise levels from there to get the highest ambient
noise level. Committee Member Carlucci stated that the noise study needs more
objective standards. Committee Member Carlucci asked why a Special Permit is
needed. Mr. Zambrano responded that the Special Permit requirement would allow
community input, which would not happen if a data center was allowed by-right in a
zoning district. Committee Member Carlucci stated that data center developers that
invest a lot of money into a site deserve some certainty. Mr. Zambrano responded that
part of the Village Planning Committee (VPC) recommendation is determining whether a
Special Permit is appropriate for all zoning districts or not and if data centers should be
permitted in the listed zoning districts or not, or if there are additional zoning districts
they should be permitted in.

Chair Bowser stated that a Special Permit is different from a Use Permit. Chair Bowser
clarified that a Use Permit is typically for a use such as a drive-through and a Special
Permit is similar to a rezoning case. Chair Bowser stated that data centers are used on
a daily basis without knowing it. Chair Bowser added that Phoenix is an area that does
not have natural disasters like other parts of the country and thus, Phoenix is a prime
area to build data centers. Chair Bowser stated that there should be more incentives to

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1402
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y

encourage data centers in old industrial areas and old retail areas that need to be
redeveloped.

Committee Member Carlucci asked if the will-serve letter would require a confirmation
of energy from the utility company within two years. Mr. Zambrano responded
affirmatively. Committee Member Carlucci asked why the will-serve letter would be
required. Mr. Zambrano responded that the purpose was to ensure that there is not a
significant strain on the power grid due to data centers, which require a significant
amount of energy. Committee Member Carlucci asked if the City is concerned that the
utility company will mismanage their resources, make commitments they cannot meet,
and put the power grid in danger. Mr. Zambrano responded that generally, energy
usage is one of the major concerns of data centers, and it is not just a City concern. Mr.
Zambrano stated that the City wants to ensure there is sufficient energy supply for data
centers. Mr. Zambrano added that if the VPC does not agree with the two-year
timeframe, then part of the VPC recommendation could be to modify it.

Committee Member Kollar asked if the proposed definition for a data center was
defined by the City or by another source. Mr. Zambrano responded that the City looked
at other municipalities and how they defined a data center. Mr. Zambrano stated that
the definition was intended to be simplified. Committee Member Kollar expressed
concerns with the second part of the proposed definition for data centers, noting that
some accessory data center uses may exceed 10 percent of the gross floor area. Mr.
Zambrano shared and explained the proposed definition again. Mr. Kollar asked if a
software company would be considered a data services company if they have servers
and racks that exceed 10 percent of their gross floor area. Mr. Zambrano responded
that based on the proposed definition, if they exceeded the 10 percent threshold, then
they would be considered a primary data center use. Mr. Kollar expressed concerns
with software and technology companies, since they have robust servers and racks for
the nature of their business, which may exceed 10 percent of their gross floor area. Mr.
Zambrano responded that the 10 percent threshold came from another municipality and
how they defined a data center as an accessory use. Mr. Zambrano added that this
could be another modification that could be a part of the VPC recommendation.

Chair Bowser asked if 50 percent of the gross floor area is more common. Committee
Member Kollar responded that it is not uncommon. Committee Member Kollar stated
that there are a lot of technology companies in the area that would probably need more
than 10 percent of their gross floor area in order to not be considered a data center.
Committee Member Kollar added that some may be able to fit in a closet, but
companies’ floor areas are shrinking as more people are teleworking, which also
increases server needs.

Mr. Zambrano stated that there is an established Zoning Ordinance definition for gross
floor area and noted that it would cover the floor area of each floor of a multi-story
building.

Committee Member Gary Kirkilas asked if the first part of the proposed definition
would cover companies with facilities that are not primarily used for data services.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1403
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y

Committee Member Kollar responded that it would depend on how data services is
defined. Committee Member Kirkilas asked for clarification on encouraging energy
efficiency.

Mr. Zambrano responded that data centers would be encouraged to utilize the Phoenix
Green Construction Code in order to maximize their energy efficiency, since data
centers have such high energy demand. Mr. Zambrano added that maximizing energy
efficiency would reduce their energy demand.

Committee Member Carlucci stated that the architectural requirements would add
more areas for energy to leak out rather than a flat façade that could better retain
energy. Mr. Zambrano responded that the surrounding community to a data center
would not want to see a large, monolithic, concrete box right next to their community.
Mr. Zambrano stated that the architectural requirements address the negative visual
impact that data centers could have on the surrounding community.

Vice Chair Lagrave expressed concerns with the 10 percent threshold in the definition.

Committee Member Younger expressed concerns with energy efficiency not being a
requirement. Committee Member Younger asked if energy efficiency could be changed
to a standard requirement. Mr. Zambrano responded that encouraging energy
efficiency is from the General Plan Amendment, which would be the policy guidance.
Mr. Zambrano added that if data centers are required to obtain a Special Permit, then
City staff would look at the adopted policy guidance during that process and try to
ensure the development is being consistent with adopted policy. Mr. Zambrano added
that the VPC recommendation could include modifying this to a requirement.

Public Comments:
Benjamin Graff, with Quarles & Brady, LLP, introduced himself as a representative of
American Express, opposed to this item. Mr. Graff displayed the existing American
Express campus at the southeast corner of Mayo Boulevard and 56th Street, noting that
the site is zoned CP/BP (Commerce Park District, Business Park Option). Mr. Graff
noted that data centers were previously permitted in the CP/BP zoning district by right.
Mr. Graff stated that American Express leased the land from the Arizona State Land
Department with the intention of building two companion data centers in the vacant land
to the north of the existing campus. Mr. Graff stated that these data centers would not
be leased out and would support the American Express operations. Mr. Graff stated that
the 10 percent threshold in the proposed definition would be exceeded by the proposed
data centers, and the CP/BP zoning district would not permit data centers in the current
draft ordinance. Mr. Graff added that Text Amendments typically take a year to go
through the process and stakeholders like American Express are contacted and brought
into stakeholder meetings. Mr. Graff stated that there has been no outreach that he is
aware of to American Express. Mr. Graff requested that the Text Amendment be slowed
down. Mr. Graff recommended that the 10 percent threshold in the proposed definition
be removed and that the CP/BP zoning district be added to the zoning districts that
permit data centers. Mr. Graff added that American Express has final site plan approval
for Phase II of the American Express campus, which includes their first data center. Mr.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1404
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y

Graff stated that if it becomes a legal non-conforming use overnight, it would create
many issues with lenders and financing that previously had other assurances.

Ty Utton, representative with Rose Law Group, introduced himself as a representative
of a broad coalition of data centers, opposed to this item. Mr. Utton echoed Mr. Graff
regarding the Text Amendment schedule. Mr. Utton stated that it was not an inclusive
process and was not the delivered approach typically seen from the City of Phoenix. Mr.
Utton expressed concerns with Proposition 207. Mr. Utton requested that the Text
Amendment be delayed.

Cepand Alizadeh, representative with the Arizona Technology Council (AZTC),
introduced himself as a stakeholder opposed to this item. Mr. Alizadeh shared a story
about a car accident, noting that his medical records were readily available to the
hospital because of a data center. Mr. Alizadeh stated that AZTC is a coalition of over
750 tech companies across Arizona, including numerous data center partners. Mr.
Alizadeh expressed concerns with the fast schedule for the Text Amendment. Mr.
Alizadeh stated that the City of Chandler took 20 months, and the City of Surprise took
24 months, to come up with a data center ordinance. Mr. Alizadeh stated that the will-
serve letter would not be possible, noting that data centers take years to develop. Mr.
Alizadeh expressed concerns with the noise study, noting that there is no mention of
measuring the noise in decibels. Mr. Alizadeh stated that the Text Amendment is
missing key language and stakeholders have not had any time to provide input. Mr.
Alizadeh requested that the Text Amendment be slowed down and noted that other
VPCs at the meetings he has attended have all denied it.

Staff Response:
Mr. Zambrano responded that projects with preliminary site plan approval before the
Text Amendment is adopted and goes into effect would still be able to develop and
would be considered a legal non-conforming use. Mr. Zambrano added that if they
wanted to expand in the future, then that is when the new zoning regulations would
apply. Mr. Zambrano stated that Proposition 207 concerns are a concern of the City
Council and should not be a concern at the VPC level. Mr. Zambrano stated that the
VPC recommendation could modify the 10 percent threshold of the proposed definition
as well as the noise study requirement. Mr. Zambrano added that the Mayor and City
Council requested that these items be before them to vote on before their summer
recess, which is why the schedule is rushed.

Discussion:
Committee Member Joseph Barto asked if the schedule is a normal timeframe or if it
is a faster schedule. Mr. Zambrano responded that the public hearing schedule is a bit
more rushed, noting that the VPC, Planning Commission, and City Council meetings are
usually a month apart, resulting in at least a three-month public hearing schedule. Mr.
Zambrano stated that the public hearing schedule for these items is scheduled at about
a month and a half, so it is a faster timeline in that sense. Mr. Zambrano added that it
has been in the works since the beginning of the year and there have been three
stakeholder meetings. Mr. Zambrano stated that City staff is actively working with
stakeholders to get their input.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1405
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y


Committee Member Carlucci stated that although data centers are not a large source
of traditional jobs, they are a large source of construction jobs. Committee Member
Carlucci expressed concerns with major employers not coming to Phoenix if data
centers do not get built because of this Text Amendment. Committee Member Carlucci
added that data centers are critical national security infrastructure and are critical to
helping win the race for Artificial Intelligence (AI). Committee Member Carlucci stated
that the Text Amendment seems more like a ban on data centers. Committee Member
Carlucci stated that data centers need to be built faster and bigger. Committee Member
Carlucci stated that energy concerns should be addressed by the power companies on
how they can scale up energy production. Committee Member Carlucci expressed
opposition for these items.

Chair Bowser stated that he believes there are appropriate areas for data centers,
such as a large commerce park area, and a Special Permit requirement seems like an
overreach for those areas. Chair Bowser added that old retail areas may be more
appropriate for a Special Permit requirement due to proximity to residential.

Committee Member Kirkilas asked what the stakeholder input has been so far. Mr.
Zambrano responded that he has not been involved in the stakeholder meetings, so he
cannot say what has been discussed in those meetings. Mr. Zambrano reiterated that
the Mayor and City Council requested these items to be before them to vote on before
their summer recess, which is why City staff is moving forward with the current
schedule.

Committee Member Kollar asked if stakeholder comments were considered and
incorporated into the Text Amendment. Mr. Zambrano responded that there was one
stakeholder meeting at the time the staff report was written. Mr. Zambrano added that
City staff may make some modifications to the draft ordinance language for the
Planning Commission and the City Council meetings, based on feedback heard from
the stakeholder meetings and the VPC meetings. Committee Member Kollar stated that
it seems pre-mature to vote on the Text Amendment if it is going to be amended.
Committee Member Kollar expressed concerns with stakeholder input not being
incorporated into the Text Amendment. Committee Member Kollar stated that the
current draft ordinance seems over-prohibitive. Mr. Zambrano responded that these are
all factors that the VPC can consider, and this is part of the discussion. Mr. Zambrano
stated that the main question is whether the VPC agrees with the current draft
ordinance or not, and if not, which parts does the VPC not agree with and how can
those parts be modified. Mr. Zambrano added that this information will be used for
further discussions with the Planning Commission and the City Council.

Vice Chair Lagrave stated that the Text Amendment seems incomplete. Vice Chair
Lagrave stated that the issues he sees are the 10 percent threshold of the proposed
definition, the exclusion of the CP/BP zoning district, the noise study requirements, and
proximity to residential. Vice Chair Lagrave stated that these issues need to be
addressed. Vice Chair Lagrave asked which type of motion would be more likely to be
heard. Mr. Zambrano responded that there are a few different options, including

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1406
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y

recommending denial with direction, with the direction to take another look at the items
of concern. Mr. Zambrano added that the VPC could recommend approval, per the staff
recommendation, with modifications, and recommend certain modifications to the text
amendment.

Committee Member Reynolds recommended adding the will-serve letter requirement
to the list of concerns.

Committee Member Israel asked for clarification if the calculation for the 10 percent
threshold of the accessory data centers for the American Express site would include the
gross floor area of all on-site buildings of Phase I, Phase II, and Phase III, based on the
proposed definition. Mr. Zambrano responded that if the data centers are solely serving
the enterprise functions of American Express, then the gross floor area would include all
buildings on the campus, including the existing American Express buildings. Committee
Member Israel asked for clarification if the proposed definition would not allow data
services to be leased to third parties. Mr. Zambrano clarified that this part of the
definition intends to clarify that a data center would be considered an accessory use
only if it is used for the on-site enterprise and is not leased to other entities.

Committee Member Carlucci asked if there are other zoning districts that could be
added in addition to the CP/BP zoning district, such as industrial districts. Chair
Bowser responded that the A-1 and A-2 industrial zoning districts are already listed.
Committee Member Carlucci stated that part of the recommendation should include
removing the Special Permit requirement.

Mr. Zambrano asked for clarification if the recommendation would include removing the
Special Permit requirement for only the industrial zoning districts or for all the zoning
districts. Committee Member Carlucci suggested that the Special Permit requirement
be removed from all the zoning districts.

Vice Chair Lagrave stated that the Special Permit requirement should be retained for
the commercial zoning districts.

Mr. Zambrano repeated that the VPC wanted to add data centers as a permitted use in
the CP/BP zoning district and that the VPC wanted to allow more time for stakeholder
input. Mr. Zambrano asked for clarification if the VPC wanted to increase the 10 percent
threshold in the proposed definition. Vice Chair Lagrave responded that it should be
removed. Mr. Zambrano asked for clarification if the VPC wants to increase the number
of years for the will-serve letter requirement or remove it altogether. Vice Chair Lagrave
responded that it should be removed. Vice Chair Lagrave added that the Special Permit
should remain required for the C-2 and C-3 zoning districts but should not be required
for the CP/BP, CP/GCP, A-1 or A-2 zoning districts.

Committee Member Nowell stated that the ambient noise level should not be
exceeded. Vice Chair Lagrave responded that the noise level must be measured in
decibels. Vice Chair Lagrave stated that he was okay with leaving the five percent
allowance to exceed the ambient noise level.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1407
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y

Committee Member Kirkilas asked for clarification that the Special Permit requirement
would be recommended to be kept near residential areas. Vice Chair Lagrave
responded affirmatively, noting that it would kept for the commercial zoning districts.

Committee Member Nowell asked why the ambient noise level should be increased by
five percent for data centers in commercial zoning districts near residential areas. Vice
Chair Lagrave responded that the noise level could be addressed at the time that the
data center developer goes through the Special Permit process.

MOTION – GPA-2-25-Y:
Vice Chair Lagrave made a motion to recommend approval of GPA-2-25-Y, per the
staff recommendation, with direction to ensure that the General Plan policies align with
the directed modifications of the companion case Z-TA-2-25-Y. Committee Member
Kirkilas seconded the motion.

VOTE – GPA-2-25-Y:
8-3; the motion to recommend approval of GPA-2-25-Y per the staff recommendation
with direction passes with Committee Members Barto, Birchby, Israel, Kirkilas, Kollar,
Nowell, Lagrave and Bowser in favor and Committee Members Carlucci, Reynolds, and
Younger opposed.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

Staff has no comments.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1408
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y


Date of VPC Meeting May 20, 2025
Request Amend the General Plan to incorporate design and
location criteria for data centers
VPC Recommendation No quorum
VPC Vote No quorum


VPC DISCUSSION:

No quorum.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1409
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y


Date of VPC Meeting June 2, 2025
Request Amend the General Plan to incorporate design and
location criteria for data centers
VPC Recommendation Denial
VPC Vote 9-4-1

VPC DISCUSSION:

Item Nos. 5 (GPA-2-25-Y) and 6 (Z-TA-2-25-Y) are companion cases and were heard
concurrently.

Two members of the public registered to speak on these items in opposition.

STAFF PRESENTATION:

John Roanhorse, staff, provided a presentation on the Data Center General Plan
Amendment noting the development background, review process, and the rationale
behind the proposed amendment. Mr. Roanhorse stated that the proposed text
amendment is a companion to the General Plan Amendment and is intended to support
the regulatory framework for data centers. Mr. Roanhorse stated that the City Council
had initiated creation of new policy guidance in response to the growing number of
requests for data center facilities, which possess unique characteristics not currently
addressed. Mr. Roanhorse expressed the importance of the General Plan Amendment
due to land use considerations, the need for adaptation to existing developments, and
the importance of connecting these facilities to infrastructure. Mr. Roanhorse noted that
one of the primary reasons for the amendment is that data centers are not directly
addressed in either the General Plan or the Zoning Ordinance and previous
developments have been permitted through informal interpretations. Mr. Roanhorse
discussed the key elements of the amendment, including location criteria, design
policies, and sustainability measures. Mr. Roanhorse reviewed site placement criteria,
highlighting core areas and centers as not preferred locations, and noted various




Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y

suitability factors. Mr. Roanhorse discussed required setbacks, the integration of art
features, dark sky compliance, noise mitigation, and architectural design standards. Mr.
Roanhorse noted the energy demands associated with data centers and the importance
of incorporating energy efficiency measures. Mr. Roanhorse stated that the amendment
would offer additional detail regarding definitions, guidelines, and performance
standards.

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE:

Committee Member Opal Wagner asked if an assessment was done regarding data
centers and if there were potential sites within the Encanto Village and how large of a
footprint data centers would require. John Roanhorse, staff, responded that there were
not many suitable sites available for a large data center and made an initial review and
noted that most of the areas within Encanto Village are already developed. Mr.
Roanhorse stated that the scale and magnitude of many proposed data centers would
likely not be feasible due to structural limitations but also because of existing
development and the Encanto Village probably would not be an ideal location for such
facilities.

Committee Member Robert Warnicke stated there were two main concerns with the
presented text amendment. Committee Member Warnicke stated first, is a perceived
contradiction in the criteria for data center locations and noted that while the guidelines
discourage placement within or adjacent to identified cores centers and corridors, they
simultaneously encourage data centers in redevelopment areas where infrastructure
investment is needed. Committee Member Warnicke stated that, in his experience,
developers often promote zoning changes by emphasizing the infrastructure
improvements their projects will bring and there is concern that this approach has been
made in other villages and might create confusion or loopholes in applying the criteria
consistently. Committee Member Warnicke said his second concern was more technical
and related to the definition of a data center and noted a portion of the definition states
a data center as a facility primarily used for data services but includes a carve-out
stating the facility is not used to lease data services to third parties. Committee Member
Warnicke stated there is confusion over the purpose of that clause and asked why it
was included. Committee Member Warnicke stated that such a carve-out might allow
companies to build facilities for their own use while leasing excess capacity to others,
potentially bypassing the intended regulatory framework. Committee Member Warnicke
said the carve-out as is much like the tail wagging the dog and warned that it could be
exploited, allowing data centers to be built anywhere as a private use. Mr. Roanhorse
responded that the city is currently focused on regulating developments that are already
in progress and while also considering future plans. Mr. Roanhorse stated the city has
met with stakeholders and has presented the text amendment information at the Village
Planning Committees to get feedback and promote consistency.




Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y

Committee Member Robert Warnicke echoed his concern and stated that the
business model whether the data services are leased out or used internally should not
affect how a facility is regulated. Committee Member Warnicke stated that the impact on
the city and surrounding areas would be the same regardless of the business structure
and stated there should be more analysis of this issue.

Committee Member Rick Mahrle commented on a point of clarification regarding the
carve-out and stated that the text language is not used to lease data services to third
parties and should be read as excluding facilities that are solely serving their own
enterprises. Committee Member Mahrle stated an example of a law firm that operates a
large computer storage system occupying less than 10 percent of its gross floor area.
Committee Member Mahrle noted that as long as that system is not used to lease
services externally and solely supports the business itself it should not be classified as a
data center. Committee Member Mahrle stated that this was his interpretation noting
Committee Member Warnicke’s concern and clarified that the purpose of the clause is
to distinguish private enterprise systems from commercial data centers.

Committee Member Mark Cardenas stated that he agreed with the concerns
previously stated and noted that major corporations such as Amazon, Google, and
Microsoft already operate data centers and infrastructure within the Phoenix area.
Committee Member Cardenas said that when individuals use services like Microsoft
Outlook, Cortana, or cloud storage, they are essentially leasing storage space from
these companies and that he personally purchases additional storage to save family
vacation photos and said that this kind of licensing arrangement is common. Committee
Member Cardenas said there is a concern that under the current definition, if companies
like Amazon or Google choose to build new data centers in Phoenix, they could avoid
regulation simply by stating that they are not leasing the space but in reality, they are
selling licenses to the public. Committee Member Cardenas emphasized that Phoenix’s
1.6 million residents purchase data licenses from these companies every day, and that
the language in the proposed text amendment excluding facilities that do not lease data
services is problematic. Committee Member Cardenas stated that this exception creates
a loophole that undermines the intent of the regulation. Mr. Roanhorse noted that from
the city’s perspective, the distinction lies in how data is managed and licensed and
noted that individual consumers are not directly investing in or operating data
infrastructure but are instead purchasing licenses or subscriptions. Mr. Roanhorse
stated that data is often transferred between entities, and that the bulk of such
information is typically owned and managed by larger corporations, not individual users.
Committee Member Cardenas replied that this understanding was not entirely accurate
and as a business owner operating an LLC, that purchases increased email storage or
data capacity, he is not buying hardware or servers directly he is licensing space in a
data center. Committee Member Cardenas stated the definition excludes leased




Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y

services and his business would technically be unable to continue purchasing additional
data storage from companies like Microsoft and this interpretation could restrict the
ability of local businesses to operate effectively and questioned whether the current
language adequately reflects the real-world use of data center services. Mr. Joshua
Bednarek, Planning and Development Department Director, responded by stating that
Committee Member Cardenas’s explanation was essentially correct and aligned with
the intent behind the current definition and that the language was designed to prevent
large organizations that operate internal data systems from being classified as
commercial data centers. Mr. Bednarek stated that as long as an entity demonstrates
that its data center is used exclusively for internal operations, it would not be considered
a regulated data center under the proposed definition and further explained, the
definition was to provide flexibility for larger employers with legitimate internal data
needs, without unintentionally subjecting them to data center regulations.

Committee Member Sabrina Perez asked about the location criteria policy and stated
that her organization works extensively with data centers and expressed concern with
the language that states data centers are discouraged within and adjacent to identified
cores centers and corridors. Committee Member Perez stated that, in her experience
data centers are often located adjacent to housing and financial centers and, over time,
they begin to create their own core areas and economic corridors. Committee Member
Perez stated that the intent seems counterintuitive that the policy would discourage data
centers from being near such areas given that the growth and presence of data centers
can actively contribute to the formation of vibrant economic hubs. Committee Member
Perez stated that rather than being out of place, data centers often become integral to
the development of their surroundings, supporting an ecosystem of businesses and
services. Committee Member Perez stated the policy language that encourages data
centers in identified redevelopment areas and noted that many of these locations
already contain existing space and are positioned to support ancillary services and
suggested the language may be misaligned with how these areas are practically
developing. Committee Member Perez stated there is a technical concern about utility
infrastructure and data centers often build their own substations on site for power
generation and that the Department of Energy (DOE) has invested in small modular
reactors (SMRs) that can be integrated into such developments. Committee Member
Perez stated that utility will-serve letters are increasingly irrelevant in these cases
because data centers are largely self-sustaining in terms of power needs. Mr.
Bednarek responded stating that the proposal involves two components: a general plan
amendment and a text amendment where the general plan amendment includes
location criteria that are meant to guide decision-making, while the text amendment
introduces specific zoning tools to regulate data centers such as the requirement of a
special permit, similar to what is currently required for self-storage facilities.

Mr. Bednarek stated the general plan language is not absolute and is intended to serve
as a policy foundation and framework to help committees and staff evaluate whether a



Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y

proposed data center aligns with the city’s long-term goals. Mr. Bednarek stated that a
location example of Thomas Road and Central Avenue, a designated core area where
residents and city leaders have expressed a desire for amenities like restaurants and
gathering places and if there were to propose a data center in that area, the location
criteria would serve as a signal to pause and consider whether the proposed use is
appropriate.

Mr. Bednarek stated that while the criteria provide guidance, a special permit process
allows for case-by-case evaluation, which includes input from staff, the committee, and
ultimately the City Council and reiterated that the intent of the proposed changes is to
ensure that data centers are subject to thoughtful planning and design standards, and
that such policies are reflected both in the general plan and the zoning ordinance.

Committee Member Tom Doescher stated a concern about the low energy rates being
promoted by the Arizona Corporation Commission and noted that the Commission has
opened public comment on this issue, and emphasized that the more data centers are
developed, the more electricity and energy they will consume. Committee Member
Doescher said that the Commission does not want consumers to bear the financial
burden of these increased energy demands and asked how the city plans to address
potential issues related to the size and location of smaller modular reactors (SMRs),
especially when these reactors are situated adjacent to existing buildings. Mr.
Bednarek responded, stating that the purpose of the general plan amendment and the
accompanying text amendment is to better the position the city in response to the
growing needs of the data center industry and emphasized that the city wants to ensure
that the location of new data centers is subject to discussion and evaluation, much like
other land uses. Mr. Bednarek stated that presently no such discussion takes place
before a data center is developed, not with this committee, not with neighboring
residents, and not with the City Council. Mr. Bednarek said the proposed amendments
would establish a regulatory framework that enables those conversations to occur. Mr.
Bednarek further explained that, under this proposed process, both large and small data
center proposals would be evaluated to determine whether they are appropriate for a
given location and that evaluation would include considerations such as energy
demand, infrastructure capacity, and community impacts that are not currently part of
the review process.

Committee Member Mahrle commented that the committee's concerns should not be
interpreted as opposition to data centers and stated the need for careful and thoughtful
regulation, especially in response to concerns raised about the clarity of the definition
language in the proposed text amendment. Committee Member Mahrle suggested that
the Planning Commission should revisit the definition to ensure it accurately captures
the intended meaning and scope. Committee Member Mahrle commented that the issue
of infrastructure improvements, referencing the general plan's encouragement of data
centers in redevelopment areas and stated he is supportive of the idea of placing data
centers in locations where infrastructure upgrades are needed, with the understanding




Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y

that developers would contribute financially by constructing required improvements such
as half-streets, traffic signals, and road upgrades. Committee Mahrle stated that this is a
sound concept, and he wants to ensure it is clearly reflected in the final policy language.

Committee Member Cardenas commented on an earlier point made by Mr. Bednarek
and expressed his support for the creation of general policies governing the location
and design of data centers. Committee Member Cardenas stated a concern about the
accelerated timeline of the current process. Committee Member Cardenas said that with
the Preserve Historic Plan and this data center amendment it is moving faster than any
other text amendment he has seen. Committee Member Cardenas asked why the
process is being rushed, pointing out that the amendment is scheduled to go through all
Village Planning Committees in June 2025, Historic Preservation Commission in July,
Planning Commission in August, Subcommittee review in September, and City Council
vote in October. Committee Member Cardenas stated that if the city intends for the
policy to have a long-term impact, the current speed of adoption does not appear
appropriate. Mr. Bednarek responded that he understood the concerns expressed by
the committee regarding the sense of urgency behind the amendment. Mr. Bednarek
stated that currently, the City does not have any policy framework in place to guide or
regulate data centers. Mr. Bednarek said this absence of a well-developed framework
like the city already has for historic preservation, noting that the lack of a similar
structure for data centers is problematic given the sheer volume of space and capital
investment involved.

Mr. Bednarek stated that the proposed text amendment is not a prohibition on data
centers, just as current zoning policies do not prohibit self-storage facilities instead, it is
about establishing a process for reviewing such developments that allows community
members to participate meaningfully. Mr. Bednarek stated that the goal is to determine
whether a framework is needed, and if so, to ensure that future data center proposals
are subject to public input and formal review. Mr. Bednarek stated that there are two key
questions: Do we need a policy framework, and should the community have a role in
evaluating future proposals?

Committee Member Cardenas commented that when the issue of regulating data
centers had surfaced months ago, he shared that he had texted city staff about the
matter as early as February and was told they would be notified when the draft was
ready. Committee Member Cardenas stated that now the draft is available, he
expressed concern that the process appears rushed, particularly in comparison to
previous planning efforts and cited a prior presentation in which a four-month review
period was provided, allowing for feedback and adjustments before finalizing this
proposal in contrast appears to be on an accelerated timeline, raising concerns about
potential unintended consequences and insufficient public engagement. Mr. Cardenas
stated there were issues when pushing the amendment through quickly could lead to
blowback from companies like TSMC, which are closely tied to the semiconductor and
data storage sectors. Committee Member Cardenas stated that as a resident in the fifth-




Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y

largest city in the country, he emphasized that his concerns were not trivial and
requested that the City pump the brakes and slow the timeline, expressing doubt that a
Planning Commission hearing scheduled just two days away would allow for proper
consideration of the issues raised. Committee Member Cardenas stated concern
regarding the reliability of will-serve letters, which utilities are expected to provide as
evidence that they can meet future energy needs. Committee Member Cardenas stated
that the time frames for service projections may exceed four years, and such letters
could be invalid if no action occurs for several years. Mr. Bednarek responded by
acknowledging the concerns related to the current wording of the will-serve letter
requirement, stating that staff was prepared to propose modifications to that section and
noted that all other Village Planning Committees had already offered recommendations
on the draft amendment, and that there was a strong sense of urgency from the City
Council to adopt a framework sooner rather than later. Mr. Bednarek encouraged
committee members to submit specific suggestions regarding any language they felt
needed revision, particularly if they had concerns beyond the will-serve language. Mr.
Bednarek emphasized that all feedback would be considered during Planning
Commission and City Council deliberations.

Committee Member Procaccini asked about energy usage and asked whether there
had been any analysis related to promoting energy infrastructure improvements and
green building standards. Committee Member Procaccini inquired if the city was
considering standards such as requiring lighter colored roofs or limiting the amount of
power used. Mr. Bednarek responded that those types of considerations could certainly
be addressed as part of a Special Permit request, should the proposed text amendment
be adopted. Mr. Bednarek stated that, currently, the city does not have the opportunity
to evaluate such design and infrastructure elements. Mr. Bednarek stated that if the
proposed framework is approved, special permit applications could include
requirements related to energy efficiency and sustainability, such as solar installations
and design standards. Mr. Bednarek noted that some provisions in the draft already
address issues like shading within project streets but emphasized that the special
permit process would allow for case-by-case refinement of requirements through
conversations between applicants, planning staff, and the community.

Committee Member Perez asked about the intention of the will-serve letter and if there
could be language requiring it to be reviewed annually based on available utility
resources and acknowledged that this might result in additional paperwork, but stated
that given the long development timelines for data centers, there should be an annual
reassessment to ensure that commitments made in the letter remain valid. Committee
Member Perez asked how the city would hold developers accountable if they were
leasing their space to third parties. Mr. Bednarek responded that the concern about
third-party leasing was valid and said that the intent of the will-serve letter requirement
is to ensure the city has a clear understanding of future energy demand and is not
allowing data centers to consume limited energy capacity, thereby displacing other
community-serving uses like housing, restaurants, or recreational facilities. Mr.




Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y

Bednarek stated that the proposed language is being refined, and the goal is to prevent
large parcels of land from sitting idle for years while awaiting energy infrastructure
buildout. Mr. Bednarek stated that third-party leasing is not explicitly addressed in the
current draft but is being discussed and that enforcement would occur through NSD
(Neighborhood Services Department) if a facility violated its zoning approval. Mr.
Bednarek said if a campus-based user such as a hospital or major employer proposed a
data facility for internal operations, the city would verify the use during the permitting
process and if the purpose changed later, it could trigger a zoning ordinance violation.

Committee Member Perez commented that, with over 20 years of experience as an
engineer and significant involvement in data center projects, she believes the general
public lacks the technical understanding to adequately evaluate the implications of such
a text amendment. Committee Member Perez stated that many residents and
committee members may not have the necessary background to assess these facilities,
and that relying on a few informed stakeholders places an unfair burden on the public.
Committee Member Perez stated the process as overly aggressive, noting that not
everyone has recently gained familiarity with the industry the way some committee
members or their clients have.

Committee Member Cardenas expressed appreciation for Mr. Bednarek’s repeated
acknowledgment that the language is still being refined and that he understands staff
have constraints and must sell proposals up the chain of command but emphasized that
the lack of clarity on certain provisions particularly around third-party leasing remains
troubling. Committee Member Cardenas stated that there is no current process outlined
for situations where a company like Amazon builds a data center and later leases space
to small businesses or third-party operators. Committee Member Cardenas stated that
the definition section of the draft text amendment does not sufficiently address or
distinguish these scenarios and said this as a critical oversight, noting that the ambiguity
could lead to unintended consequences if the city fails to differentiate between internal-
use data centers and commercial or leased data facilities. Mr. Bednarek responded by
stating that the intention of the language is to address owner-operated facilities, such as
Amazon using a data center solely for its own internal operations the facility is still
considered a data center under the proposed language. Mr. Bednarek commented that
leasing scenarios where a facility is marketed to third-party users are not clearly
addressed in the draft and stated that refining the language to provide clarity on these
distinctions is under active consideration, and that additional comments and
suggestions from the committee would be welcomed during the Planning Commission
and City Council review phases.

Committee Member Cardenas stated that the current definitions and structure of the
proposed amendment do not capture the complexity of how data centers may be used
and noted that projects such as Microsoft’s facility or others where land was donated or
where terms were negotiated could fall into gray areas not currently addressed.




Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y

Committee Member Cardenas stated he disagreed with Mr. Bednarek’s interpretation
and urged further revisions to ensure transparent and enforceable definitions.

Committee Member Warnicke commented that there was uncertainty in a comment
made earlier and that may have been a misunderstanding and with the previous
discussion the issue has more clarity but there should be some adjustments to the
definition.

Committee Member Mahrle asked for clarification on the data center definition and
asked for help understanding a hypothetical scenario where a company such as Infinix
were to build a facility and use the entire building to house servers, would that qualify as
a data center even if the space was dedicated to internal use only. Committee Member
Mahrle asked if a hospital could have extensive computer systems in place to support
its medical operations and if the data and server space remained under 10 percent of
the gross floor area of the hospital’s onsite buildings, would this be classified as a data
center under the proposed definition. Committee Member Mahrle expressed that this
exemption appeared to be based on usage and proportion of floor area, unless the
hospital began leasing the data capacity to third-party entities, which would then
reclassify it as a data center.

Committee Member Cardenas asked how many hospitals currently exceed that 10
percent threshold and whether some of them might already be marketing or using their
facilities in ways that could bring them under this definition. Committee Member
Cardenas stated that this gray area could lead to confusion about when an otherwise
exempt facility becomes subject to the proposed regulations. Mr. Bednarek responded
that the intent of the definition is to allow institutions like hospitals or universities to
manage their own internal data operations without triggering the full regulatory
framework. Mr. Bednarek stated that as long as the use remains internal and under the
10 percent gross floor area threshold, such facilities would not be considered data
centers under the ordinance, however, if they began leasing server space to third
parties, they would then fall within the scope of the data center designation. Mr.
Bednarek said that this flexibility was intended to accommodate facilities that have
legitimate internal data needs, such as hospitals, while ensuring that purpose-built
commercial data centers are subject to community oversight through the proposed
special permit process.

Committee Member Cardenas asked for confirmation that any facility with server or
data operations occupying more than 10 percent of the gross floor area regardless of
intended use would be defined as a data center under the text amendment. Mr.
Bednarek responded that this was correct.

Committee Member Perez commented that Google has started doing tenant
improvements and this may suggest they may not own their buildings on their own land
and may be leasing space for a data center. Committee Member Perez asked if this



Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y

situation has been considered and what would the response be. Mr. Bednarek
responded this would be treated just like the adoption any new ordinance if you were in
the middle of a building permit and, those are the things that we're going to have to sort
out on a case-by-case basis with every property owner depending on where they are at
in the process. Mr. Bednarek stated in the new framework for data centers is
appropriate and it is the simplest process, but some adjustments will be made, and staff
will work through it properly.


PUBLIC COMMENT:

Cepand Alizadeh, representing the Arizona Technology Council, introduced himself
and shared a personal experience to illustrate the importance of access to electronic
medical information and the critical role of Data Centers. Mr. Alizadeh explained that he
works with an organization that provides information and supports a variety of
technology industries, emphasizing its alignment with economic development efforts.
Mr. Alizadeh stated that correspondence outlining the Arizona Technology Council’s
position on the proposed text amendment had been submitted to the Mayor's Office and
members of the City Council. Mr. Alizadeh stated that data centers are an essential
component of the modern economy, noting that several facilities are either under
consideration or already under construction in different areas of the city, with more
expected in the near future. Mr. Alizadeh also pointed out that data centers vary in size
and capacity, both in terms of the volume of information housed and the operations
conducted within the facilities. Mr. Alizadeh stated that he works with a range of
businesses and organizations that develop services, maintain technology systems, and
ensure that critical information remains readily available. Mr. Alizadeh said on behalf of
the Arizona Technology Council, he expressed concerns about the proposed text
amendment, specifically regarding the process timeline and the requirements for sound
abatement. Mr. Alizadeh stated that additional time is needed to allow for a
comprehensive review and to provide informed feedback on the proposed amendment.
Mr. Alizadeh further noted that the draft text amendment does not sufficiently address
appropriate sound control measures that would be consistent with the functional and
operational needs of data centers.

Samantha DeMoss, representing Rose Law Group, introduced herself and stated that
Data Centers are an expanding use and reflect an important economic sector for the
Phoenix area. Ms. DeMoss stated that addressing Data Centers is very important and
will have long-term implications for growth and development. Ms. DeMoss stated there
are concerns with the current General Plan Amendment specifically that with process
review and timing and the design criteria. Ms. DeMoss stated that additional review time
would be necessary to review and address many of the incomplete details in the
General Plan Amendment as presented. Ms. DeMoss said that additional review time
would allow more stakeholder review and input. Ms. DeMoss stated that the committee




Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y

consider a 90-day period be granted to allow for more time for a thorough review and
comment.

STAFF RESPONSE:

Mr. Bednarek responded that industry participation in the stakeholder discussion has
been included in the current language regarding sound levels and is within 5 percent so
that could be adjusted to the ambient levels in the area if it were next to a neighborhood
that they can extend to another location Mr. Bednarek stated that if there's a desire by
the committee to insert a specific decibel level right now the idea was that for sound
they are required to hire an engineer to do a study that shows the level next to the
adjacent property and what will be done to maintain appropriate sound levels.

Mr. Bednarek responded that the review process has moved quickly and noted there is
a sense of urgency from the Mayor and Council and many of the policy issues have
been discussed. Mr. Bednarek stated that currently data centers are not addressed in
the zoning ordinance, and this is a great concern.


FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: MOTION, DISCUSSION, AND VOTE

MOTION 1:
Committee Member Robert Warnicke made a motion to recommend approval of
GPA-2-25-Y per the staff recommendation. Committee Member Rick Mahrle
seconded the motion.

Committee Member Kleinman asked what the results were from other Village
Planning Committees regarding data centers. Mr. Bednarek responded that there has
been a split with up to five committees in opposition and some approvals with direction.

Committee Member Perez asked if there was information on the committees that voted
for denial, did any have any active plans for data centers. Mr. Bednarek responded a
few are in progress but any new policy and framework will not prohibit data centers from
moving forward.

Committee Member Cardenas commented that there is a stakeholder process and
other actions such as the adoption of marijuana facilities had an extensive public
engagement and with data centers there are many issues and more discussion is
needed.

Committee Member Warnicke commented that he was concerned with data centers
being allowed in C-2 and C-3 zoning areas and this may have an impact in the Encanto
Village. Committee Member Warnicke stated he was less concerned with the sound
mitigation which would be addressed in a special permit or variance action. Mr.




Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y

Bednarek responded that the General Plan Amendment, which is land use criteria, and
a special permit will still be required.

Committee Member George asked if motion were to be approved would there be
guidance attached to clarify the committee’s position. Mr. Roanhorse responded that
the committee may add comments or provide direction for the vote.

Committee Member Wagner commented that with the information presented and the
discussion more work needs to be done on data centers. Committee Wagner stated that
with audible level they are logarithmic not linear and a small increment can mean
massive change so specific units should be addressed.

VOTE 1:
5-9, motion to recommend approval of GPA-2-25-Y per the staff recommendation does
not pass with Committee Members George, Mahrle, Proccaccini, Tedhams and
Mathews in favor with Cardenas, Doescher, Garcia, Kleinman, Perez, Picos, Schiller,
Wagner and Warnicke in opposition.

MOTION 2:
Committee Member Robert Warnicke made a motion to deny GPA-2-25-Y.
Committee Member Mark Cardenas seconded the motion.

VOTE: 2
9-4-1; motioned to recommend denial of GPA-2-25-Y passes with Committee Members
Cardenas, Doescher, Garcia, Kleinman, Perez, Picos, Schiller, Wagner, Warnicke in
favor and Mahrle, Procaccini, Tedhams and Matthews in opposition with George
abstaining.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

None.




Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y

Date of VPC Meeting May 20, 2025
Request Amend the General Plan to incorporate design and locatio
criteria for data centers
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation
VPC Vote 3-1

VPC DISCUSSION:

Item Nos. 5 (GPA-2-25-Y) and 6 (Z-TA-2-25-Y) are companion cases and were heard
concurrently.

One member of the public registered to speak on this item.

Staff Presentation:

Nayeli Sanchez Luna, staff, stated that the proposed general plan amendment and text
amendment were to add a definition for data centers in the Zoning Ordinance and
implement performance standards and location criteria. Ms. Sanchez Luna noted that
the general plan amendment would discourage data centers from being located in
centers, cores, and corridors. Ms. Sanchez Luna provided the proposed data center
definition and noted that the text amendment would require a Special Permit for data
centers. Ms. Sanchez Luna concluded the presentation by summarizing the proposed
design improvements and noting that staff recommends approval of both the general
plan amendment and text amendment.

Questions from the Committee:

Chair Parris Wallace noted that the majority of her questions were answered. Chair
Wallace asked if anyone has discussed the increase in internet infrastructure because
communities could benefit from the added infrastructure. Ms. Sanchez Luna stated that
that was not something that has been discussed in detail with internal staff. Chair Wallace
asked for more information regarding traffic. Ms. Sanches Luna added that this would not
produce the same levels of traffic as a multifamily project but that commercial and semi-
trailer traffic would be present.

Romona Burris asked if there were any data centers in the area. Ms. Sanchez Luna
stated that she will have to follow up with that information.


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1422
Chair Wallace asked if the text amendment would apply to new and stand-alone data
centers. Ms. Sanchez Luna confirmed that the text amendment would apply to new data
centers and reiterated that this would not apply to collage campuses like Grand Canyon
University.

Ms. Burris asked if they there were data centers for general operations such as artificial
intelligence. Ms. Sanchez Luna confirmed. Ms. Burris asked for more information
regarding sustainability measures. Ms. Sanchez Luna stated that they will be required to
obtain a letter from the utility company and that the general plan amendment would help
implement sustainability measures. Ms. Sanchez Luna added that other Village Planning
Committees have made motions with direction if they wished to approve the text
amendment and general plan amendment and still provide more direction. Ms. Burris
stated that she would like to ensure that water conservation is added.

Public Comment:

Jon Gillespie stated that he was a land use attorney that represented numerous data
center companies and emphasized that this industry is important for the City. Mr. Gillespie
noted that the City is an attractive place for data centers because of the lack of natural
disasters, available land, and low cost. Mr. Gillespie added that electric companies are
aware of the higher demand for power but have ensured that the cost would not increase
for residents. Mr. Gillespie noted that data centers are an important economic driver and
that they should be involved in the text amendment process. Mr. Gillespie added that data
centers have been decreasing the amount of water needed to keep an adequate climate.
Mr. Gillespie supported the idea of researching ways to implement more water
conservation. Mr. Gillespie stated that the required “will serve letter” would rush
development and possibly discouraging other companies from building in Phoenix. Mr.
Gillespie requested the text amendment and general plan be denied with a
recommendation of a 90 day extension to evaluate all the concerns from the committee
and industry owners. Mr. Gillespie added that there are concerns with Proposition 207
since the text amendment would require additional zoning requirements that have not
been previously established.

Committee Discussion/Motion/Vote:

Ms. Burris stated that the west side of the City is approximately 5 degrees hotter and
asked how the data centers would be mitigating heat. Mr. Gillespie stated that he was
unaware of any data centers in the Estrella Village. Mr. Gillespie stated that there has not
been significant research that demonstrates that data centers contribute to the heat island
effect. Ms. Burris asked for clarification on the motion that Mr. Gillespie would like to see.
Mr. Gillespie stated that he would like the text amendment and general plan amendment
to be denied with a 90 day extension so that they can have time to involve industry
stakeholders, gather data and address concerns regarding heat. Ms. Burris asked for
more information on why the data center industry was opposed to the text amendment.
Mr. Gillespie stated that one major concern was the “will serve” letter because it would
require site plan approval and certificate of occupancy to be completed within two years
which is an unreasonable condition. Mr. Gillespie added that he did not want the text
amendment to discourage data center companies from building in Phoenix and investing
in the community. Ms. Burris asked why the City wanted to implement restrictions on data
centers. Ms. Sanchez Luna stated that a lot of available land for job opportunities and

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1423
housing has been lost to data center development, and that the development does not
create a walkable pedestrian environment.

Chase Hales, with the Planning and Development Department, stated that by allowing a
Special Permit, then only a data center would be allowed on site unless otherwise stated.
Mr. Hales noted that the “will serve” letter would ensure development rather than allowing
companies to sit on vacant properties and not built.

Mr. Thrower asked for more information regarding the lack of jobs associated with data
centers. Mr. Gillespie stated that larger data centers only employ approximately 80 to 100
on site technicians of high paying jobs. Mr. Gillespie noted that someone from Mesa could
come to the Phoenix data center and work on site. Mr. Gillespie encouraged the free
market of being able to develop data centers where they were permitted. Mr. Gillespie
cited the importance of technology and artificial intelligence. Mr. Gillespie clarified that his
intent is for the text amendment to be denied allowing for a 90 day extension.

Renee Dominguez asked for the average square footage of a data center that employs
80 to 100 people. Mr. Gillespie state that it ranged from 5 acres to 60 acres and from 500
square feet to 500,000 square feet. Mr. Gillespie provided an example along the Loop 202
Freeway. Mr. Gillespie emphasized that his intent was to extend the text amendment to
allow for more stakeholder involvement and for staff to study the economic and job impact.
Mr. Gillespie stated that the zoning districts where data centers are located do not allow
for residential use.

Chair Wallace stated that C-2 and C-3 do allow for multifamily housing. Ms. Sanchez
Luna confirmed. Chair Wallace noted that housing was a key priority. Mr. Gillespie
stated that C-2 and C-3 are not the target sites for data centers. Mr. Gillespie realized that
housing conservation is important.

Mr. Gillespie noted that his request was a denial to allow more stakeholder engagement
and to address issues with water resources and housing and the economic and job
industry. Mr. Gillespie added that the extension would also allow for clarification regarding
Proposition 207.

Chair Wallace clarified that her biggest issue is housing and that she did not want to lose
available C-2 and C-3 land to data centers. Ms. Burris asked what incentives the data
center industry provides since they would be taking land that was intendent for housing.
Ms. Burris asked if the data center industry had some sort of program to help first-time
home buyers. Mr. Gillespie stated that he was aware of the concern regarding losing
available land but that data centers provide high paying wages and produce millions of
dollars that are invested in the community. Mr. Gillespie agreed that C-2 and C-3 should
be preserved for housing but that this would affect areas that already have CP/GCP, A-1
and A-2 zoning which are areas that are already primarily industrial.

Motion 1:
Renee Dominguez made a motion to approve GPA-2-25-Y per the staff recommendation.
Chair Parris Wallace seconded.

Ms. Burris asked for more information on what a yes vote would mean and what a no vote
would mean. Ms. Sanchez Luna clarified the intent and proposed changes in the general
plan amendment and text amendment. Ms. Burris asked for clarification and asked if
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1424
approving it would limit data centers. Ms. Sanchez Luna stated that the text amendment
would limit where they could be placed and allow for a Special Permit. Ms. Burris
suggested an extension of 90 days so that the necessary data could be gathered and
presented to the committee. Ms. Sanchez Luan clarified that a yes vote would mean that
she supported the initiatives to limit data center development.

Vote 1:
2-2, Motion to recommend approval of GPA-2-25-Y did not pass with Committee Members
Dominguez and Wallace in favor and Committee Members Burris and Thrower in
opposition.

Chair Wallace stated that she would like to explain her vote. Chair Wallace stated that C-
2 and C-3 properties would be able to service the community and that she would prefer
businesses that generated jobs in the community rather than outside resources. Chair
Wallace noted that these decisions will affect all children in the future and stated that the
text amendment was forward thinking.

Ms. Burris noted that individuals with high paying jobs could find houses they could afford
in the City. Ms. Burris stated that she supported incentives to help first-time homeowners
purchase a house and keep individuals in their community. Ms. Sanchez Luna clarified
that any sort of incentive to assist first-time home buyers would not be enforceable by the
Planning and Development Department. Ms. Sanchez Luna stated that the intent of these
amendments was in relation to land use policy and development standards.

Mr. Thrower stated that the text amendment was too broad. Mr. Thrower noted that a
Special Permit made sense in C-2, C-3, and CP/GCP, but that he did not want to limit any
potential business investments in A-1 and A-2. Ms. Sanchez Luna noted that an
alternative motion could be to recommend approval with the modification that a Special
Permit be required in C-2, C-3, and CP/GCP.

Ms. Sanchez Luna noted that the previous motion did not pass.

Motion 2:
Chair Parris Wallace made a motion to approve GPA-2-25-Y per the staff
recommendation. Renee Domingez seconded.

Vote 2:
3-1, Motion to recommend approval of GPA-2-25-Y passed with Committee Members
Dominguez, Thrower, and Wallace in favor and Committee Members Burris in opposition.

Staff Comments Regarding VPC Recommendation:

None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1425
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y


Date of VPC Meeting May 12, 2025
Amend the General Plan to incorporate design and
Request
location criteria for data centers
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation
VPC Vote 13-0

VPC DISCUSSION:

Item No. 5 (GPA-2-25-Y) and Item No. 6 (Z-TA-2-25-Y) were heard together.

Two members of the public registered to speak on this item.

Staff Presentation:

Nayeli Sanchez Luna, staff, stated that the proposed general plan amendment and text
amendment were to add a definition for data centers in the Zoning Ordinance and
implement performance standards and location criteria. Ms. Sanchez Luna noted that
the general plan amendment would discourage data centers from being located in
centers, cores, and corridors. Ms. Sanchez Luna provided the proposed data center
definition and noted that the text amendment would require a special permit for data
centers. Ms. Sanchez Luna concluded the presentation by summarizing the proposed
design improvements and noting that staff recommends approval of both the general
plan amendment and text amendment.

Questions from the Committee:

Chair Stephanie Hurd stated that Amazon had recently purchased a large piece of
land within the South Mountain Tech Corridor, severely limiting employment
opportunities. Chair Hurd noted that property owners were encouraged to not sell their
land to data centers but after SRP’s announcement regarding the South Mountain
Transmission Project, data center companies are pushing to purchase land. Chair Hurd
voiced her disappointment in losing land that was meant for employment opportunities.
Chair Hurd added that this request would protect Laveen and the City of Phoenix. Chair
Hurd asked staff to explain what would happen with properties that have been recently
rezoned to allow C-2, C-3, and CP/GCP uses. Ms. Sanchez Luna stated that that
question has been presented to staff and that there has been discussion internally, but
that the determination would be made by the Law Department and Mayor and Council.
Chair Hurd noted that several data center representatives have been present at VPC
meetings.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1426
Laveen Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y
May 12, 2025
Page 2

Rebecca Perrera asked if the performance standards regarding sustainability would
also address water. Ms. Sanchez Luna confirmed. Ms. Sanchez Luna added that data
centers utilize a lot of water. Ms. Perrera noted that these data centers should be
finding solutions to recycle water and utilize their water to maintain landscaping areas.
Ms. Perrera suggested adding more provisions on water conservation.

Juanita Darby stated that her husband works in the data center industry. Ms. Darby
noted that her husband and her were opposed to the proposed Amazon data center.
Ms. Darby added that data centers use a lot of energy and that in other cities they are
unable to generate any additional power. Ms. Darby stated that they should voice their
concerns to protect Laveen and the City of Phoenix. Ms. Darby was opposed to data
centers in the area.

Kristi McCann asked if the Gila Foothills PUD was identified as a Center or a Corridor,
would it discourage data centers from being developed in the area. Chair Hurd noted
that the text amendment would help prevent data centers in the Gila Foothills PUD area.
Ms. Sanchez Luna added that from a policy standpoint, if the General Plan does not
support data centers in a Center, then staff would not be supportive of a proposed data
center.

Patrick Nasser-Taylor noted that he did not like the word “discourage” presented in the
presentation. Mr. Nasser-Taylor stated that since the employment corridor was along
the Loop 202, would this prevent any future data centers. Ms. Sanchez Luna noted that
it would be discouraged and that a Special Permit would be required. Mr. Nasser-
Taylor asked if the amendments could have changes in the language. Ms. Sanchez
Luna stated that similar to previous text amendments, the committee could vote to
approve the amendment but add to the recommendation in the form of direction.

Mixen Rubio-Raffin was aware of the high-water usage and noted that new technology
like artificial intelligence have increased the demand for data centers. Ms. Rubio-Raffin
added that in terms of technology and policy, policy seems to be a few steps behind
technology. Ms. Rubio-Raffin advocated for a water efficiency plan to be added to the
text amendment.

Michael Doromal noted that data centers utilize a lot of power. Mr. Doromal suggested
data centers be required to self-generate a portion of their required power so they don’t
put a strain on the community.

Chair Hurd asked Committee Member Darby if she had any information on energy
conservation. Ms. Darby asked her husband, Brian Darby, for clarification. Brian Darby
stated that so much energy is required that the development can’t generate all of it’s
power through solar panels. Mr. Doromal noted that he was requesting a portion of it to
be generated. Mr. Darby added that other projects have implemented alternative forms
but that the data center requires constant power. Mr. Doromal added that the data
center will be part of the community and should contribute. Mr. Doromal wanted a
percentage of self-generating power.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1427
Laveen Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y
May 12, 2025
Page 3


Carlos Ortega wanted to vote on the item. Mr. Ortega stated that data centers also
benefit schools via impact fees.

Linda Abegg voiced her appreciation for the Mayor and Council regarding getting the
text amendment approved quickly. Ms. Abegg stated that she will support the case
moving forward. Ms. Abegg noted that she was aware of a subcommittee being
implemented for this text amendment. Ms. Abegg added that she expected the
language to be reviewed by the Law Department to ensure enforceability.

Ms. Perrera stated that Committee Member Ortega’s comment was incorrect. Ms.
Perrera stated that data centers receive a lot of tax breaks.

Mr. Nasser-Taylor stated that he was concerned on how this would affect Laveen. Mr.
Nasser-Taylor noted that the Gila Foothills PUD allows C-2 uses and asked how this
would affect the allowed uses. Ms. Sanchez Luna stated that that was being discussed
with the Law Department but that any future properties would need to be rezoned to
obtain a Special Permit. Mr. Nasser-Taylor asked if this would mean that the case
would be presented to the Village for recommendation. Ms. Sanchez Luna confirmed.
Ms. Sanchez Luna added that the text amendment would prevent data centers to be
allowed by right in C-2, C-3, CP/GCP, A-1 and A-2.

Ms. Abegg stated that the Council Members were the ones that initiated the request
which she would assume meant that they are opposed to data centers being built
anywhere.

JoAnne Jensen agreed with Committee Member Abegg and Rubio-Raffin. Ms. Jensen
noted that the Gila Foothills PUD area was designated as a Major Urban Center. Ms.
Jensen suggested implanting language regarding water. Ms. Jensen also had concerns
with the noise requirements and added that there should be no noise permitted on
weekends, holidays, and at night. Ms. Jensen voiced her appreciation for Mayor and
Council.

Ms. Rubio-Raffin suggested limiting the data center height to two stories and ensuring
that some sort of art feature is implemented. Chair Hurd noted that the art and
architectural embellishments were already part of the text amendment.

Public Comment:

Tom Galvin noted that there were numerous concerns regarding the text amendment.
Mr. Galvin stated that data centers have contributed millions of dollars to the City of
Phoenix. Mr. Galvin added that data centers require million of dollars of investments.
Mr. Galvin stated that the cases were being rushed and that he was requesting a
minimum 60-day continuance. Mr. Galvin stated that there could be issues with
Proposition 207 and that no text amendment has been going through the process so
quickly. Ms. Abegg stated that when the data center company bought land, they did not

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1428
Laveen Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y
May 12, 2025
Page 4

present nor contact members of the committee. Ms. Abegg said it was unusual for
representatives to request a continuation when they never bothered to speak to the
community or the committee. Mr. Galvin asked if the committee supported the lack of
interaction from stakeholders. Chair Hurd noted that this was the public comment
portion of the hearing.

Anirudh Krishna voiced his concerns regarding water usage and that he agreed with
all the comments provided by the committee.

Committee Discussion/Motion/Vote:

Ms. Abegg suggested adding language regarding energy and water conservation.

Vice Chair Jensen suggested more noise standards.

Mr. Ortega suggested larger impact fees.

Ms. Rubio-Raffin suggested limiting the square footage of land. Ms. Rubio-Raffin
added that there needed to be more than two stories. Ms. Abegg voiced her concerns
regarding enforceability. Ms. Abegg recommended special attention and minimizing
square footage.

Motion:
Linda Abegg motioned to recommend approval of GPA-2-25-Y per the staff
recommendation. Carlos Ortega seconded the motion.

Vote:
13-0, motion to recommend approval of GPA-2-25-Y passed with Committee Members
Abegg, Darby, Doromal, McCann, Nasser-Taylor, Ortega, Perrera, Rouse, Rubio-Raffin,
Serrette, Barraza, Jensen, and Hurd in favor.

Staff Comments Regarding VPC Recommendation:

None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1429
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y

Date of VPC Meeting May 14, 2025
Request Amend the General Plan to incorporate design and
location criteria for data centers

VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation, with direction
VPC Vote 13-0


VPC DISCUSSION:

Item Nos. 4 (GPA-2-25-Y) and 5 (Z-TA-2-25-Y) are companion cases and were
heard concurrently.

One member of the public registered to speak on this item.

Committee Member Chris Demarest left during this item bringing quorum to 13.

Staff Presentation
Matteo Moric, staff, shared information on how the Village Planning Committee
can stay involved with the General Plan Amendment and Text Amendment
throughout the entire process. Mr. Moric explained how comments will be
forwarded onto Planning Commission on June 5th and City Council on June 18th
prior to the City Council break.

Mr. Moric stated the Mayor and City Council in December of 2024 requested staff
to create policy guidance and zoning regulations for data centers. Mr. Moric
explained how the City was working under previous informal interpretations
completed about 20 years ago. Mr. Moric stated the location criteria is to be for
the General Plan item and the areas in which they would be encouraged and
discouraged. Mr. Moric reminded the Committee that usually when development
comes in it is already required to provide infrastructure such as sidewalks,
shading, bus stops, etc.

Mr. Moric identified design guidelines being proposed for these facilities. Mr.
Moric added the design guidelines of the architecture which are typically required
in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Moric stated the zoning districts by which these
facilities were proposed to require a Special Permit.

Questions from the Committee/Public Comments
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1430
Maryvale Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y


Chris Demarest said he was familiar with the data center on 40th Street and
McDowell Road.

Ken DuBose thought these data centers were needed because of all the new
Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology.

Al DePascal said they need lots of water.

Saundra Cole asked if they could request solar on the buildings. Mr. Moric said
yes and that the end decision will be made by City Council, but at the same time it
could inform City Council of what the VPC would like to see at these new
facilities.

Meli Acevedo emphasized the importance of water. Mr. Moric said he was not
sure how these facilities actually operate and if they need to be close to the end
user or if they could be far away from the community of users.

Chair Barba said that after the presentation perhaps the guest speaker could
provide additional information.

Ms. Cole asked how many jobs would be provided. Mr. Moric said that the data
center facilities he knew of were not big employment generators, but said the
guest speaker could probably clarify this.

Public Comment
John Gillespie, a land use attorney from the Rose Law Group, said they
represent a large stakeholder group of the data center industry. Mr. Gillespie said
there is a great economic impact to the community and it provides many high
paying jobs with 80 to 150 onsite jobs with an average pay of $97,000 per year.
Mr. Gillespie said they need a good regulatory process in place. Mr. Gillespie said
they were concerned with the timeline for the text amendment changes and it was
a little fast with limited stakeholder engagement. Mr. Gillespie asked for 60 more
days to allow the industry to interact with city staff and leaders to iron out the
kinks. Mr. Gillespie said many sites had a vested right to build data centers. Mr.
Gillespie added that projects in the pipeline should not be stopped and should be
able to continue. Mr. Gillespie also identified a concern with the “will serve” letter
which is a commitment from a public utility company that power will be for a
minimum timeframe. Mr. Gillespie noted the desire for the timeline to be extended
or taken away so they can work with utilities. Mr. Gillespie said without provisions
the City could expose themselves to Proposition 207 waiver of claims. Mr.
Gillespie felt more direction should be given to staff and respectfully urged more
time to work out the kinks.

Chair Barba asked on average how much space is needed for a data center. Mr.
Gillespie responded that some projects are on 10-acre sites and others on 50 to
60 acres. Chair Barba asked what size site Mr. Gillespie based the average 80 to

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1431
Maryvale Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y


100 jobs on. Mr. Gillespie responded on the 50-to-60-acre site. Chair Barba
asked about job training for the data center jobs. Mr. Gillespie said that here in
Phoenix it currently has people with the right schooling and education to support
the technology.

Chair Barba felt the VPC responsibility was to be good stewards not only to
provide a good place to live and work. Chair Barba asked if there was a
commitment from Mr. Gillespie’s clients to support educational assistance for
these sorts of jobs. Mr. Gillespie was not sure about the commitment of his
clients to these types of jobs, but he recognized it as a good question and noted
he would investigate it more with his clients and would like to follow-up on it.

Mr. DuBose said we were always lagging behind and with the growth of AI and
emphasized the need for data centers and that AI was the next largest growth in
any community. Mr. DuBose shared frustration of how the rail system is 25 years
behind when it was voted 30 to 40 years ago. Mr. DuBose expressed the
importance of knowing the issues of how much water would be used and how
much energy is needed. Mr. DuBose recognized the need to come together with a
smart plan but also expressed fear of falling behind.

Mr. Gillespie said that the data center industry wants to be on the front edge of
AI and it sees Phoenix as an attractive area since it does not have natural
disasters, it has a low regulatory environment and a good climate. Mr. Gillespie
added it has the right people to support the industry. Mr. Gillespie expressed
concern about creating a roadblock to this industry. Mr. Gillespie noted the
technology has advanced to not be a high water user but rather a high energy
power electricity user.

Mr. DuBose noted he would like to see Maryvale have an IT program for their
high school kids.

Mr. Gillespie mentioned companies like Google and Apple want to invest in
Arizona, but data centers is a nationwide industry. Mr. Gillespie was not certain of
who the top Arizona companies are with interest here but knew there was a
nationwide interest.

Ms. Acevedo reminded the VPC of the many deaths in Maricopa County due to
extreme heat. Ms. Acevedo has concerns with energy and housing shortages.
Ms. Acevedo said too often we put profit over people. Ms. Acevedo asked about
water.

Mr. Gillespie said the amount of water needed has gone down and they could
potentially use grey water. Mr. Gillespie noted heat as a real issue facing Arizona.
Mr. Gillespie said he was not aware of heat increasing due to the data center. Mr.
Gillespie admitted heat was an issue, but did not believe the off-put of a data
center was any different than heavy industrial type of uses. Mr. Gillespie did not

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1432
Maryvale Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y


know if more heat would be generated from A-1 and A-2 type of uses. Mr.
Gillespie added they were not asking for data centers to be built in any other area
than currently allowed and added that it was a commercial and industrial use and
that’s where it should be.

Ms. Acevedo expressed concern about providing energy for computers versus
people.

Mr. Gillespie said the number one priority of SRP and APS power companies is
they need solar and their number one priority is to protect consistent customers.

Chair Barba asked about increases of prices to the surrounding communities on
utilities. Mr. Gillespie said that there are no reports of that.

Chair Barba expressed concerns that consumers have to offset the costs. Mr.
Gillespie said that the text amendment would require proof they could get
electricity.

Mr. Gillespie said data centers want to locate near good infrastructure.

Chair Barba asked about noise associated with these facilities. Mr. Gillespie felt
the noise study of no more than 5 percent increase should resolve this issue.

Vice Chair Derie brought to the Committee’s attention the topic of Motorola
coming to Arizona in 1950’s and 60’s and now data centers are the next leap in
technology and reminded the VPC of the large nuclear power plant nearby. Vice
Chair Derie wanted all forms of energy sources to be considered and utilized.

Mr. Gillespie said the Arizona State Government has a pro-technology stance
and favorable regulatory environment for data centers. Mr. Gillespie said at the
municipality level is where control is desired.

Vice Chair Derie said communities jumped on the idea of light rail and all of a
sudden the State says we don’t like light rail and had hoped light rail would be in
Maryvale already.

Mr. Gillespie said the industry itself is driving the demand and said it’s a different
animal than the light rail.

Ms. Cole asked what the backers were if they were mainly American and she
asked if there are international ones.

Warren Norgaard stated the main question is not if they want data centers but if
they are proposed what the specific language is for their guidance. Mr. Norgaard
expressed concerns with data centers running on methane gas generators which
are causing people to get ill.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1433
Maryvale Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y



Mr. Gillespie said they should let the developers show they have an alternative
source of energy or for there to be a creative solution.

Victoria Stahl asked about projects to be grandfathered in, without following the
guidelines. Mr. Gillespie said there are more than 5 to 10 projects that are
currently in the process. Mr. Gillespie said there could be more but needless to
say these are millions of dollars to purchase land, design buildings and sites. Mr.
Gillespie said grandfathering language allows projects to continue and felt there
was a need for 60 more days of stakeholder engagement.

Al DePascal asked why Mr. Gillespie wants a 60-day delay. Mr. Gillespie said
this text amendment is going faster than other text amendments.

Mr. Gillespie explained the second phase of existing sites and facilities may have
to come through a special permit. Mr. Gillespie expressed concern over a 207
waiver of claims since sites for data centers may have been purchased and
invested in. Mr. Gillespie said many data centers are in the queue to complete
these facilities and hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on the land to
develop these sites and this could lead to a battle with the City with a 207 waiver
issue. Mr. Gillespie said these facilities would still have to go through the
permitting process. To modify a building limits the number of changes permitted
or otherwise it would have to follow today’s codes.

Mr. Moric asked if Mr. Gillespie knew why the stakeholder group did not include
Planned Unit Developments (PUD’s) requiring the special permits. Mr. Gillespie
wanted some districts not to go through special permit processes such as A-1 or
A-2. Mr. Gillespie said that it might make sense to include the PUD’s in the text
amendment.

Floor/Public Discussion Closed: Motion, Discussion, and Vote.

MOTION 1:
Warren Norgaard motioned to recommend approval of GPA-2-25-Y per the staff
recommendation. Vice Chair Gene Derie seconded the motion.

Meli Acevedo recommended to include language in the motion for sustainable
energy, solar sources and reclaimed water.

MOTION 2:
Vice Chair Derie motioned to recommend approval of GPA-2-25-Y per the staff
recommendation with direction to include sustainable energy, solar sources and
reclaimed water. Victoria Stahl seconded the motion.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1434
Maryvale Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y


VOTE
13-0, Motion to recommend approval of GPA-2-25-Y with direction passed, with
Committee Members Acevedo, Alonzo, Cole, DePascal, DuBose, Galaviz,
Jimenez, Norgaard, Ramirez, Stahl, Weber, Derie and Barba in favor.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1435
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y



Date of VPC Meeting May 8, 2025
Request Amend the General Plan to incorporate design and
location criteria for data centers
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation
VPC Vote 8-0


VPC DISCUSSION:

Agenda Item 3 (GPA-2-25-Y) and Agenda Item 4 (Z-TA-2-25-Y) are companion cases
and were heard concurrently.

One member of the public registered to speak on this item, in opposition.

Staff Presentation:
Adrian Zambrano, staff, provided an overview of GPA-2-25-Y and Z-TA-2-25-Y. Mr.
Zambrano discussed concerns with data centers that the General Plan Amendment and
Text Amendment are trying to address. Mr. Zambrano explained the policy guidance for
data centers that the General Plan Amendment includes. Mr. Zambrano then discussed
the three main components of the Text Amendment. Mr. Zambrano shared the
proposed Zoning Ordinance definition for a data center. Mr. Zambrano then discussed
the proposed design guidelines and their purpose. Mr. Zambrano shared the zoning
districts that data centers would be permitted in, subject to a Special Permit and other
performance standards, and noted that Special Permits go through the same public
hearing process as rezoning cases. Mr. Zambrano stated that a noise study would be
required if the data center is within a certain distance from residential. Mr. Zambrano
shared the upcoming public hearing schedule and stated that staff recommends
approval per the language in Exhibit A of the staff report.

Questions from Committee:
Committee Member Kylie Kennelly asked if there are any successful cases where
data centers have been integrated into communities. Mr. Zambrano responded that
some of the design guidelines were inspired by the Evans Churchill APS substation in
Downtown Phoenix, which is hidden behind an enhanced design interface with murals
and art installations.


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1436
North Gateway Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y

Vice Chair Michelle Ricart stated that data centers should be separated from each
other. Vice Chair Ricart asked for clarification that data centers usually do not employ
many people and do not bring many jobs to an area. Mr. Zambrano responded
affirmatively.

Public Comments:
Henry Hardy, with Rose Law Group, introduced himself as a stakeholder opposed to
this item. Mr. Hardy stated that stakeholders were only made aware of this about a
week and a half ago. Mr. Hardy stated that the public hearing process would be about
a month and a half, which they believe is extremely abbreviated. Mr. Hardy requested
a continuance or delay in the process for more stakeholder input. Mr. Hardy stated that
their primary concern is with existing data centers and data centers that are currently
being developed. Mr. Hardy asked that those data centers be grandfathered-in under
the existing code. Mr. Hardy expressed concerns with Proposition 207 for diminution in
property value. Mr. Hardy noted that each data center is billions of dollars of
development being brought into the City of Phoenix and tens of millions of dollars
coming back to the City in the form of tax revenue. Mr. Hardy added that data centers
are an essential element of tech infrastructure and are essential for Phoenix to remain
a competitive employment hub and tech hub. Mr. Hardy reiterated that they just want
more time to talk about the proposal with staff and with stakeholders.

Staff Response:
Mr. Zambrano responded that Proposition 207 concerns are a City Council concern
and should not be a concern at the Village Planning Committee level. Mr. Zambrano
added that existing data centers would be considered legal non-conforming and would
be “grandfathered-in”, but if they want to expand in the future, then that is when the
new regulations would apply.

Discussion:
Committee Member Scott McGill asked if there are any data centers that are coming
into North Phoenix or the North Gateway Village at this time. Mr. Hardy responded that
he is not aware of any. Mr. Hardy stated that there has been an increased demand for
them, and the industry is getting ready to build more to meet that demand. Committee
Member McGill asked for clarification that data centers are not generators of job
growth. Mr. Hardy responded that data centers are typically not major employers and
could have between five to 20 employees within the data center. Mr. Hardy expressed
concerns with the will-serve letter from the power company, noting that it is not
consistent with industry standards and would make development not feasible. Mr.
Hardy stated that a 10-year timeframe for the will-serve letter would be better since
data centers are typically phased and their energy demand would be related to when
each phase is built. Mr. Hardy asked for more time to work through these details with
staff and stakeholders. Committee Member McGill asked how long of a continuance
Mr. Hardy is asking for. Mr. Hardy responded that there is no specific timeline, but staff
and stakeholders could discuss it over the summer.

Vice Chair Ricart stated that fire departments are concerned with data centers as well
due to their massive size, complex floor plans, and the type of equipment and batteries
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1437
North Gateway Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y

within them. Vice Chair Ricart stated that she agrees with the Special Permit
requirement because the community needs to be able to have an input on data centers
before they are approved. Vice Chair Ricart stated that self-service storage facilities
also require a Special Permit and noted that it is good for the surrounding community
to know that a data center is being proposed nearby their community. Vice Chair Ricart
stated that she likes the location criteria and design policy proposed.

Committee Member Thomas Salow asked for clarification if the turnaround time for
the public hearing process is typical or expedited. Mr. Zambrano responded that it is
expedited by about a month, noting that the Mayor and City Council has directed staff
to get these two items to the City Council before their summer recess, which is why
staff is moving forward with the proposed schedule. Mr. Zambrano stated that rezoning
cases typically have at least a three-month public hearing process with the Village
Planning Committee, Planning Commission, and City Council hearings a month apart.
Mr. Zambrano added that he was not involved in the stakeholder meetings but believes
there have been one or two meetings so far.

Vice Chair Ricart added that there are 14 other Village Planning Committee hearings
that are coming up.

Committee Member Kennelly asked what the difference is between the General Plan
Amendment and the Text Amendment. Mr. Zambrano responded that the General
Plan Amendment would amend the 2025 General Plan, which is the policy guidance,
and the Text Amendment would amend the Zoning Ordinance to create zoning
regulations for data centers.

Committee Member Andrea Crouch asked if the design guidelines for data centers
are intended to blend the data center into the surrounding area, similar to how some
cellphone towers look like trees. Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively, noting that the
design guidelines are trying to discourage massive, monolithic buildings and are trying
to soften the design.

Vice Chair Ricart asked if tattoo parlors also require a Special Permit. Mr. Zambrano
responded that they require a Use Permit, which goes through a different process. Mr.
Zambrano stated that Special Permits are heard by the Village Planning Committee
and go through the rezoning process. Vice Chair Ricart reminded Committee members
that they could abstain from the vote.

MOTION – GPA-2-25-Y:
Committee Member Andrea Crouch motioned to recommend approval of GPA-2-25-
Y, per the staff recommendation. Committee Member Aaron Stein seconded the
motion.

VOTE – GPA-2-25-Y:
8-0; the motion to recommend approval of GPA-2-25-Y per the staff recommendation
passes with Committee members Crouch, Kennelly, Li, Manion, McGill, Salow, Stein,
and Ricart in favor.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1438
North Gateway Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1439
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y


Date of VPC Meeting May 21, 2025
Request Amend the General Plan to incorporate design and
location criteria for data centers
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation
VPC Vote 8-4-1


VPC DISCUSSION:

Item No. 6 (GPA-2-25-Y) and Item No. 7 (Z-TA-2-25-Y) are companion cases and
were heard together.

Two members of the public registered to speak on this item.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Robert Kuhfuss, staff, provided a presentation regarding both proposals, reviewing
the background, concerns, proposed policy changes, proposed regulatory changes,
and the staff recommendations. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that both items were scheduled
for Planning Commission on June 5, 2025 and City Council on June 18, 2025.

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE

Committee Member Jason Barraza asked if staff had consulted with the industry
regarding the proposed changes. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that it was his understanding
that staff consulted with the industry, but did not know the number of groups that were
contacted. Committee Member Barraza asked if will-serve letters were commonly
used in the City of Phoenix or if it was novel to data centers. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that
he did not specifically know the extent to which the City of Phoenix requires will-serve
letters but was aware of other jurisdictions that routinely require will-serve letters.

Committee Member Fred Hepperle stated that data centers are generally quiet and
that servers do not care about looking out a window. Committee Member Hepperle
stated that employees working in a data center would not necessarily care about the
distance to a transit center. Committee Member Hepperle stated that the ability to
serve could be compared to a water service provider. Committee Member Hepperle
stated that he did not see a reason to pause the General Plan Amendment.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1440
North Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y

Vice Chair Joshua Matthews asked if there were any Proposition 207 concerns and
if there were any zoning districts today that allow data centers that would not be
allowed if the Zoning Text Amendment were to be approved. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that
the City’s Legal Department has evaluated the risk associated with Proposition 207
and has determined there is minimal risk. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that the zoning
ordinance was silent on data centers and that data centers were currently being
allowed as a result of an informal interpretation of the zoning ordinance.

Committee Member Steve Pamperin asked what the results were from the other
villages. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that one village did not have quorum and that some
villages were supportive while others were apprehensive.

Committee Massimo Sommacampagna asked about the 5% over ambient noise
provision. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that a noise study would be required prior to
preliminary site plan approval and that the noise study would require that ambient
noise levels would be taken at the site, presumably over a period of time, to obtain an
average. Mr. Kuhfuss stated the data center would then be allowed to operate at a
level that is 5% above the measured ambient level.

Committee Member Steve Pamperin stated that Arizona Public Service was in the
process of seeking approval from the Arizona Corporation Commission to allow a rate
increase to offset the cost of the energy and infrastructure needed to support data
centers, and that the General Plan Amendment should include language that places
more cost burden on the data centers as opposed to the costs being absorbed by the
homeowners. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that the issue ties back to the reason for the will-
serve letter and that if the electrical provider does not have the capacity or
infrastructure available to serve the facility, the provider would not issue a will-serve
letter. Committee Member Pamperin expressed concerns that residents would be
required to pay for the infrastructure needed to support data centers when the data
center operators should be responsible for any infrastructure improvements needed to
support the facility. Committee Member Pamperin reiterated that residents should not
have to pay for the infrastructure needed to support data centers. Mr. Kuhfuss stated
that it appeared there were two issues being discussed: one being a rate increase
being considered by the Arizona Corporation Commission versus a city requirement
that the developer make those investments. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that the discussion
should not necessarily mix the city’s proposed General Plan Amendment with Arizona
Corporation Commission’s policy. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that if there was some additional
policy that could be included in the General Plan Amendment, the Committee could
consider those changes.

Committee Massimo Sommacampagna asked if there was language that would
encourage adaptive reuse. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that he did not recall specific
language in the proposed Zoning Text Amendment regarding adaptive reuse but there
was existing language in the zoning code that might apply.

Chair Stephanie Fogelson stated that she has been part of the Village Planning
Committee for approximately four to five years and has never received a phone call
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1441
North Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y

from the Mayor’s Office expressing an opinion regarding the Mayor’s position on a
proposed case and asked if that was common practice. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that he
did not know the Council’s common practice, but understands there is some urgency
regarding the matter, which has led to the June 18th City Council date. Chair
Fogelson asked what the urgency was. Mr. Kuhfuss referenced a slide containing six
bullet points that expressed the rationale for the proposed General Plan Amendment
and Zoning Text Amendment. Chair Fogelson stated that many of those issues
seemed to be based on opinion rather than data and wanted to know where the
urgency is coming from. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that he did not know specifically.

Committee Member Fred Hepperle asked if the art installations would be internal to
the building or visible to the public. Mr. Kuhfuss stated they would be visible to the
public.

Committee Member Jason Barraza stated that his understanding is that nothing like
this currently exists in the city and that data centers pretty much have free reign
currently. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that he would not classify it as “free reign” and
reiterated the existence of the informal interpretation of the code. Committee Member
Barraza asked if there were any existing data centers in the city that would not be in
compliance if the proposed Zoning Text Amendment were to be approved. Mr.
Kuhfuss stated that he did not have the answer to that question.

Committee Member Massimo Sommacampagna asked about the timing of the
hearing schedule. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that the timing of the matter was handed to us.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Cepand Alizadah stated that he is the Government Relations Specialist with the
Arizona Technology Council. Mr. Alizadah stated that he was present during the
Alhambra Village Planning Committee meeting the previous night and had also
attended the Ahwatukee Village Planning Committee meeting. Mr. Alizadah stated
anecdotally that he had emergency surgery a month prior as a result of a car accident
in a remote area and that all of his medical data was readily available to the medical
staff as it had been saved to a data center, which gave the healthcare team access to
his allergies and other health conditions. Mr. Alizadah stated that the Arizona
Technology Council is a trade association that represents 750 technology companies
of all sizes. Mr. Alizadah stated that the future of technology is Artificial Intelligence
and that AI’s backbone is data centers. Mr. Alizadah stated that data centers are job
creators, not only in manufacturing, but during operation, ranging from 10 to 15
employees for a small facility to as many as 50 employees for a large facility and
generate hundreds of thousands of dollars in wages. Mr. Alizadah stated that data
centers generate tax revenue and pay permit fees. Mr. Alizadah stated that the City of
Chandler passed a data center ordinance in February of 2022, which has been well
received by the data center community, and that he wished to speak on two specific
aspects of the proposed Zoning Text Amendment. Mr. Alizadah stated that audio
engineers do not measure sound levels as percentages but use an A-Weighted
decibel threshold and asked the Committee to replace the language relating to
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1442
North Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y

percentages with language referencing an A-Weighted decibel threshold, and to
include period measurement specifications. Mr. Alizadah also expressed concerns
over the requirement for a utility will-serve letter stating that a will-serve letter is
common, but the two-year item frame is too short as data centers require several
years of planning. Mr. Alizadah stated that a ten-year time frame is more appropriate.
Mr. Alizadah stated that the Ahwatukee Village Planning Committee did not vote in
favor of the General Plan Amendment or Zoning Text Amendment citing concerns
over the noise measurement standards and a desire for more stakeholder
engagement.

Samantha DeMoss, with Rose Law Group, asked for either a denial of the proposed
General Plan Amendment and Zoning Text Amendment or a 90-day continuance. Ms.
DeMoss stated that the current General Plan Amendment and Zoning Text
Amendment is moving through the process too quickly for such a complex use with no
stakeholder input, or Village input prior to the public hearing process. Ms. DeMoss
stated that the proposed language of the Zoning Text Amendment would effectively
constitute a ban on data centers. Ms. DeMoss also expressed concerns over the
requirement for a will-serve letter stating that Arizona Public Service currently has an
eight- to twelve-year back up on major projects and that a two-year window would
make data centers impossible to achieve. Ms. DeMoss expressed concerns over
Proposition 207 with respect to data centers that are already being sought out. Ms.
DeMoss stated there is a lot of conversation around job creation and that data centers
create jobs both directly and indirectly. Ms. DeMoss stated that for every direct job
there are six related but indirect jobs and that there are currently 200,000 jobs within
the City of Phoenix that are affiliated with data centers. Ms. DeMoss also stated that
data centers create tens of millions of dollars in tax revenue. Ms. DeMoss reiterated
that the currently proposed language would make data centers infeasible and
requested the Committee deny the request with a 90-day continuance to allow a
redraft following appropriate stakeholder input. Committee Member
Sommacampagna asked for additional clarification regarding will-serve letters. Ms.
DeMoss stated that the utility company issues a letter stating that they will provide
services in a specified amount of time based on capacity. Ms. DeMoss stated that
utility companies are ramping up production and data centers will need to wait their
turn but that will not happen within two years, which makes financial feasibility
improbable. Ms. DeMoss stated that co-location also becomes difficult as only 10%
may be shared. Committee Member Pérez-Pawloski asked who is responsible for
obtaining a will-serve letter. Ms. DeMoss stated that it was the developer’s
responsibility, and that it is probable that a facility may be constructed in more than
one phase which may require multiple will-serve letters and should be addressed in
the proposed language. Committee Member Pérez-Pawloski stated that it was her
recollection that data centers were allowed with a Special Permit. Ms. DeMoss stated
that data centers do not currently require a Special Permit but rely on an informal
interpretation. Ms. DeMoss stated that the proposed language came out too fast and
there would be Proposition 207 implications if approved as proposed. Committee
Member Pamperin asked about water and whether data centers would be
considered high water users. Ms. DeMoss stated that was the case but that water
consumption associated with data centers has decreased over the years.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1443
North Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y

COMMITTEE DISCUSSION

Committee Member Heather Garbarino stated that a Proposition 207 Waiver is an
option that the city could offer to a developer seeking to build a data center.
Committee Member Garbarino stated that she has read Chandler’s ordinance
regarding data centers and finds the language to be very similar to that being
proposed.

Vice Chair Joshua Matthews stated that the issue with Proposition 207 is that a
change to the zoning ordinance could render a potential site ineligible for a data
center and if that site was already under contract, the property owner could claim
diminution of value. Vice Chair Matthews stated that he had been contacted by a
zoning attorney who stated that he did not object to the idea of enacting new
language but that the currently proposed language was being rushed. Vice Chair
Matthews stated that it was his understanding that the stakeholder input process had
been run concurrently with the Village Planning Committee hearing process as
opposed to it being a linear process. Vice Chair Matthews stated that typically, a
proposed Text Amendment would go to the stakeholder and neighborhood meetings,
then incorporate changes to the proposed language prior to it coming before the
Village Planning Committee. Vice Chair Matthews stated that he supported what the
city is trying to accomplish but expressed concerns that it was being rushed through
the process. Vice Chair Matthews stated that he did not understand why a three-
month delay was not possible. Vice Chair Matthews stated that he was leaning
towards denial.

Committee Member Massimo Sommacampagna stated that he agreed with the
Vice Chair and that the city can do a better job.

Chair Stephanie Fogelson reiterated that this was the first time that she had been
contacted by a city official regarding a proposal and stated that she did not appreciate
the unwelcome influence.

Committee Member Heather Garbarino stated that she generally prefers to support
staff but, in this instance, waiting another three months to allow additional discussion
seems more appropriate.

Vice Chair Joshua Matthews emphasized that he in no way was being critical of
staff as they are responding to directions from the Mayor and City Council. Vice Chair
Matthews stated that he does question the intent of the elected officials. Vice Chair
Matthews stated that in his capacity as a Planning Commissioner, the Planning
Commission is often presented with an urgent matter that needs to be addressed,
including changes in state law that must be implemented within a certain time frame
to avoid consequences. Vice Chair Matthews stated that without a compelling
explanation, there is no reason not to delay action for three months to allow time for
more discussions with the stakeholders.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1444
North Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y

Committee Member Fred Hepperle stated that he was supportive of the proposed
General Plan Amendment but was not supportive of the proposed Zoning Text
Amendment.

Committee Member Elizabeth Pérez-Pawloski stated that if a developer wants to
build in the city, they should expect to meet certain requirements but also stated that
the will-serve letter component was too quick.

Committee Member Jason Barraza stated that he was supportive of the language of
the Zoning Text Amendment as currently written with respect to noise levels but had
concerns with requiring a will-serve letter from the power company in that his
understanding is that the state legislature was considering a bill that would allow data
centers to internalize their own power production in which case a will-serve letter
would be unnecessary. Committee Member Barraza stated there were also
discussions regarding nuclear power and its potential effect on data center locations
and expressed concerns with rushing forward just to get something on the books
when that may not be appropriate at this time given that information is evolving.

Vice Chair Joshua Matthews stated that the noise level methodology implies that if
the ambient noise level was 10 decibels, then a specified percent increase would
bring the noise level up to a certain higher level; however, that noise level may not be
disruptive since we live in an environment that operates about 40 to 70 decibels. Vice
Chair Matthews stated that working with industry standards up to a certain level could
be an acceptable option. Vice Chair Matthews stated that it could be worked out, but
more time was needed.

MOTION:
Committee Elizabeth Pérez-Pawloski motioned to recommend approval of GPA-2-
25-Y per the staff recommendation. Committee Member Fred Hepperle seconded
the motion.

VOTE:
8-4-1, motion to recommend approval of GPA-2-25-Y per the staff recommendation
passes with Committee Members Garbarino, Harris, Hepperle, Jaramillo, Larson,
Pamperin, Pérez-Pawloski, Sommacampagna in favor; with Committee Members
Alauria, Barraza, Matthews, and Fogelson opposed; and Committee Member
Edwards in abstention.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

None




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1445
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y



Date of VPC Meeting June 2, 2025
Request Amend the General Plan to incorporate design and
location criteria for data centers
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation
VPC Vote 12-2


VPC DISCUSSION:

Item Nos. 3 (GPA-2-25-Y) and 4 (Z-TA-2-25-Y) are companion cases and were heard
concurrently.

One member of the public registered to speak on this item.

Staff Presentation

Matteo Moric, staff, provided an overview related to the data center agenda items. Mr.
Moric explained that the general plan amendment and text amendment would be heard
together, however, each would require its own vote. Mr. Moric noted the Mayor and
Council provided direction to staff in December of 2024 to work on the policies for data
centers. Mr. Moric explained “the why” for why the data center policy is necessary. Mr.
Moric mentioned the policy for the general plan amendment would focus on three key
areas, including: location criteria policy, design policy, and energy and sustainability
policy. Mr. Moric stated the location criteria policy was to identify areas to discourage
and encourage data centers while the design policy focused on design elements to
incorporate within the site and facilities, and the energy and sustainability policy was to
ensure capacity and efficiency.

Mr. Moric noted the main components of the proposed text amendment to include a
provision for a definition, specific design guidelines and special permit requirements and
performance standards.

Mr. Moric concluded by laying out the staff recommendations.

Questions from Committee



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1446
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y


Regina Schmidt was concerned there were energy requirements but no water
requirements.

Marc Soronson said he was specifically concerned about land use placement when the
Arizona Republic building in Downtown Phoenix was converted into a technology center
which led to an immense decrease in employment relative to the previous user.

Diane Petersen also expressed concerns with the water supply and asked if staff
reviewed the water issue. Mr. Moric said that when new facilities come in they would
need to go through the Water Services Department and ensure there was an assured
water supply.

Ms. Petersen expressed additional concern with the rushing of the policy and text
amendment through the process. Mr. Moric indicated the Council is seeking direction
and if the Committee sees fit to do so they should add a concern regarding the water
issue.

Patrice Marcolla wanted to understand the stakeholders involved in establishing these
amendments and questioned the “will serve” letter. Ms. Marcolla believed it was an
unknown item of understanding with APS and SRP, and thought there was more time
needed prior to making a decision.

Anna Sepic was concerned with the high power and water usage of data centers. Ms.
Sepic indicated not being in favor of C-1 and C-2 zoning, as that is typically where you
would see retail centers and shops and those properties are high community-traffic
areas. Ms. Sepic felt these sites should be located in heavy industrial areas such as
where A-2 zoning can be found. Ms. Sepic felt locating these sites where there was
already existing higher manufacturing and energy support was appropriate.

Public Comments
Ty Utton with Rose Law Group indicated he represented a broad coalition of data
center developers and land use attorneys. Mr. Utton noted they were just recently
notified about these data center policies and this was an unusually fast for a text
amendment especially as it is one of the most capital intense land uses out there. Mr.
Utton requests a recommendation of denial so it can be sent back to staff and have
more stakeholder engagement. Mr. Utton explained the stakeholder engagement was
three meetings with five people at the first meeting and one hundred people at the last
meeting. Mr. Utton said there needed to be more engagement and voiced concerns
about the fairness and legal exposure to the City and added concern about the
language not including a grandfather clause for landowners and developers as many
companies have already invested millions of dollars into the planning of these facilities
and the purchasing of land. Mr. Utton felt this could be a regulatory taking of property
rights. Mr. Utton also does not like the vague provision of “will serve” letter, and feels
the stakeholders investing in this need to be engaged. Mr. Utton emphasized the
proposal leaves significant risks for the City and wants the utility language to be
clarified. Mr. Utton concluded that he did not want the City to stop the Ordinance

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1447
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y


change but just to get it right. Mr. Utton wanted the proposal to be denied or delayed so
they could work together. Mr Utton provided a response to the water question, that all
the data center projects he had been working on do not use water as data centers used
to because of the newer technology and most of the cooling was done by electric
power. Mr. Utton noted that some of the data centers still use a lot of water.

Ms. Sepic asked how much energy was being used and thought data centers should
have a green energy component.

Ms. Marcolla reminded the Committee of the previous case for an 8-lot subdivision and
said it was going through the development process for 2 ½ years and believed the short
turnaround time for the data center text amendment is a concern. Ms. Marcolla believed
with the limited information that it was not clear where data centers shall be placed
within the community.

Ms. Sepic initially felt the item needed to be postponed and there needed to be further
clarification and input. Additionally, Ms. Sepic said there should be heat mapping to
determine where these data centers should be strategically placed.

Ms. Petersen wanted to better understand what the difference would be between a
denial and a postponement and how it would affect the outcome of these policies. Ms.
Petersen did not want to see it postponed then come up in another 45 days or deny with
a caveat that certain components be done before it gets brought back to the Committee.
Mr. Moric said it would be at the discretion of the Committee, but the recommendation
would still get moved forward to the Planning Commission and City Council since there
are 15 Villages it goes through.

Robert Goodhue reiterated that it goes to 15 different Village Planning Committees and
the Committee could act or deny the proposal, but it would still get forwarded on for
action to the Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. Goodhue reminded the
Committee of their role as an advisory body and the VPC’s decision would help the
future decision makers get a pulse of the community. Mr. Goodhue said there are no
adequate requirements for data centers and there are a lot coming in and would hate for
there to be black outs because of all the electricity being used up. Mr. Goodhue
emphasized his feeling that this was coming in front of the Committee since it is an
important issue.

Marc Soronson reminded the VPC that they were an advisory group and he wanted to
better understand why it was being fast tracked and said he would be reluctant to deny
this proposal and would support the staff recommendation as written.

Roy Wise felt a denial would be better as it would set a stronger message to the
Planning Commission and City Council.

Robert Gubser was afraid there was not enough input in the process. Mr. Moric
reminded the Committee that the City was working under the old interpretation from 20

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1448
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y


years ago and said that he heard there were at least 5 to 10 data center cases coming
in now and said the City is trying to play catchup.

Chair Mortensen asked if there is a motion to postpone the item. Anna Sepic stated it
would not make sense to allow data centers on the C-1 and C-2 zoned properties and
had concerns of them going too close to residential areas. Ms. Sepic added that she
thought it would make the most sense to locate data centers in A-2 and maybe in A-1
zoned areas.

MOTION 1:
Ms. Sepic motioned to recommend denial or postponement of Z-TA-2-25-Y. Roy Wise
seconded the motion.

Committee Discussion:
Ms. Sepic asked to see the list of districts where a special permit would be required and
explained that the C-2 and C-3 districts allow any type of retail uses and C-3 zoning
allows for heavy material storage but materials are not supposed to be stored outside in
these districts. Ms. Sepic reiterated that she does not want data centers near residential
areas and felt these data centers would be better suited in heavy industrial areas where
there are more intense energy users. Ms. Sepic favored the denial of any C-2 and C-3
areas and wanted to limit them to A-1 and A-2 areas.

Robert Goodhue asked if Ms. Sepic thought it should be eliminated in the C-2, C-3 and
CP/GCP zoned areas. Ms. Sepic thought this was the best and believed they should
only be allowed in A-1 and A-2 zoned areas. Mr. Goodhue then said the motion would
need to be amended.

Ms. Sepic said she wanted to amend her motion to only allow data centers in A-1 and
A-2 zoned areas.

Mr. Utton said there were good points but he said that it would not be allowed by right
in C-2 and C-3 zoned areas but the proposal required a special permit. Mr. Utton noted
a lot of companies such American Express have data centers to support their campus.

Ms. Sepic said it’s hard to find A-1 or A-2 sites over ten acres and it should be limited
and thought they would be allowed if a PUD was crafted. Ms. Sepic felt if the likes of
Google would develop a campus they would not pick A-1 or A-2 as a mandatory box
and most likely go to create a PUD.

Ms. Petersen said it brings up a point for grandfathering such as an American Express.
Mr. Utton said grandfathering is an issue of concern.

Ms. Marcolla noted this type of data center use does not drive a lot of traffic and usually
requires larger lots.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1449
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y


Ms. Sepic said additional use permits are not the same process as rezoning and would
not protect the community. Ms. Sepic said lots of communities do not like data centers
as they do not generate many jobs and they put a constraint on the grid system. Ms.
Sepic added they push land prices up but are not a great benefit. Ms. Sepic voiced her
support for approval within the A-1 and A-2 zoned areas only. Ms. Sepic repeated the
motion that she requests an amendment only to allow them within A-1 and A-2 and
wanted to remove them from the C-2, C-3 and CP districts.

Mr. Moric indicated the general plan item is usually heard first.

Ms. Sepic asked where data centers were allowed on the General Plan.

Ms. Sepic withdrew her earlier motion, and Roy Wise withdrew the second.

MOTION 2
Patrice Marcolla motioned to recommend denial of GPA-2-25-Y. Roy Wise seconded
the motion.

Committee Discussion:
Ms. Marcolla felt the language in the staff report is too vague.

Rob Gubser raised the comment on the General Plan Amendment to the Committee
that it sets the goals and policies and is vital to set the framework.

Daniel Mazza felt he did not know how someone could vote against the General Plan
Amendment.

Ms. Sepic said to deny the GPA language as it stands and thought maybe to just deny
because the language was too vague and a second came from Roy Wise.

Mr. Mazza asked if it would be a denial with comments.

Mr. Moric said direction could be provided.

Chair Mortensen repeated that the motion was too vague.

Ms. Sepic felt these data centers would conflict with areas like Metro Center and
redevelopment areas. Ms. Sepic thought Metro Center was a PUD.

Rob Gubser said the general plan sets goals and directions to give staff the directive to
create the text amendment and the policy would be implemented with a text
amendment.


MOTION 3


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1450
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y


Daniel Mazza motioned to recommend approval of GPA-2-25-Y per the staff
recommendation. Robert Goodhue seconded the motion.

Mr. Gubser would have preferred to have staff who wrote the policies to better address
questions and with the background.

Amber Sommer said the General Plan would add policies and felt it should be more
stringent with details added to the policy.

Ms. Marcolla asked if approving this would give staff the ability to locate where the data
centers should go, and she felt they were not ready for that.

Ms. Sepic then asked if staff would then investigate what sites data centers should go
on. Mr. Moric reiterated that the general plan was the framework or vision and general
policy for the locations and then the teeth of the ordinance would be with the text
amendment. Ms. Sepic indicated concern with so much area of the City being zoned C-
2, C-3, CP, A-1 and A-2. Ms. Sepic said she would not be in favor of locating these data
centers in the cores, light rail corridors, and within the C-2 and C-3 zoning districts. Ms.
Sepic did not feel the General Plan language or text amendment made sense.

Roy Wise said that the General Plan was nothing more than an umbrella.

Larisa Balderrama expressed concern with data centers stating it is like we are in the
wild west as was with the sober living facilities years ago and wanted the General Plan
Amendment approved with parameters.

MOTION 4
Daniel Mazza motioned to recommend approval of GPA-2-25-Y per the staff
recommendation. Robert Goodhue seconded the motion.

Vote
12-2; motion to recommend approval of GPA-2-25-Y per the staff recommendation
passes with Committee Members Balderrama, Franks, Goodhue, Gubser, Hamra,
Marcolla, Mazza, Petersen, Schmidt, Soronson, Wise, and Mortensen in favor; and
Committee Members Sepic and Sommer in opposition.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1451
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y



Date of VPC Meeting May 13, 2025
Request Amend the General Plan to incorporate design and
location criteria for data centers
VPC Recommendation Denial, with direction
VPC Vote 3-2


VPC DISCUSSION:

Agenda Item 4 (GPA-2-25-Y) and Agenda Item 5 (Z-TA-2-25-Y) are companion cases
and were heard concurrently.

One member of the public registered to speak on this item, in opposition.

Staff Presentation:
John Roanhorse, staff, provided an overview of GPA-2-25-Y and Z-TA-25-Y. Mr.
Roanhorse discussed why the General Plan Amendment and Text Amendment are
needed. Mr. Roanhorse summarized and explained the policy guidance for data centers
that the General Plan Amendment includes. Mr. Roanhorse then discussed the three
main components of the Text Amendment. Mr. Roanhorse shared the proposed Zoning
Ordinance definition for a data center and proposed design guidelines. Mr. Roanhorse
shared the zoning districts that data centers would be permitted in, subject to a Special
Permit and other performance standards. Mr. Roanhorse shared the upcoming public
hearing schedule and stated that staff recommends approval per the language in Exhibit
A of the Staff Report.

Questions from Committee:
Committee Member Ozzie Virgil stated that these cases are going through the
process very quickly and asked what they are needed for. Mr. Roanhorse responded
that data centers are used for storage and processing of digital data, such as photos
saved in the digital cloud.

Vice Chair Scott Lawrence stated that municipalities did not have to worry about data
centers because they did not exist 20 to 30 years ago, so they are trying to find a way to
make them more aesthetically pleasing and to fit into the community.


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1452
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y

Chair Dino Cotton stated that there are some existing data centers around and more
are being built.

Vice Chair Lawrence asked why it would matter if data services are leased to third
parties or not. Mr. Roanhorse responded that existing data centers would likely be
retrofitted.

Committee Member Virgil asked how many data centers will be built. Mr. Roanhorse
responded that it is unknown, and the market is open for data centers to be built at a
number of different locations.

Chair Cotton stated that Tricia Gomes, Deputy Director with the Planning and
Development Department, reached out to him to discuss the proposed General Plan
Amendment and Text Amendment.

Committee Member Virgil expressed concerns with the rushed public hearing
schedule.

Chair Cotton asked Mr. Roanhorse to clarify the water usage of data centers. Mr.
Roanhorse stated that he is not too familiar with how a data center functions, but they
likely use a large amount of water for cooling.

Committee Member Eileen Baden stated that this topic came up during the Maricopa
County Comprehensive Plan Framework 2040 conference and members of the public
were concerned with increased water usage. Committee Member Baden added that the
Maricopa County Planning and Development Director said that they could add into the
Comprehensive Plan that they will work more closely with cities and towns when these
big projects come in. Committee Member Baden asked if there would need to be some
coordination with Maricopa County if the project is over a certain size. Mr. Roanhorse
responded that there would not be. Mr. Roanhorse stated that for all rezoning cases,
utilities are looked at to ensure there is access and capacity for water, wastewater, and
electricity. Committee Member Baden expressed concerns with affecting the power grid
due to the increased energy demand created from data centers. Committee Member
Baden recommended increasing the sidewalk width to eight feet so emergency
response vehicles could use the sidewalk path in the event of an emergency.
Committee Member Baden added that language could be added that improvements for
data centers may be needed off-site due to the larger impact they could have on the
surrounding community. Mr. Roanhorse responded that those comments can be
included in the recommendation and added that capacity is always looked at for any
development before it is approved.

Committee Member Virgil expressed concerns with what was being stored in data
centers.

Chair Cotton clarified that the Village Planning Committee is reviewing the land use
and design, not what is inside of the data center.


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1453
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y

Mr. Roanhorse clarified the elements that the design guidelines would affect.

Committee Member Will Holton asked if there is a maximum square footage
requirement for data centers. Mr. Roanhorse responded that there is not. Mr.
Roanhorse clarified that the main concern is how data centers can best fit into a
location. Committee Member Holton expressed concerns with building height.
Committee Member Holton asked if data centers have backup generators. Mr.
Roanhorse responded that the three data centers he is aware of do.

Committee Member Baden recommended increasing the sidewalk width required
around data center sites to eight or 10 feet.

Chair Cotton expressed concerns with widening the sidewalks due to the urban heat
island effect.

Vice Chair Lawrence agreed with the design guidelines, noting that they make an
unattractive building that a developer could get away with more community-friendly.
Vice Chair Lawrence stated that it would be more important where the data center
building is placed on a site rather than how tall it is.

Committee Member Holton stated that it would be seen regardless due to the height.

Chair Cotton stated that a comment could be added that the Committee does not want
data centers to be tall.

Committee Member Baden stated that a difference of two feet in the sidewalk width
would likely not make a difference in the urban heat island effect. Committee Member
Baden expressed concerns with accessibility and connectivity.

Public Comments:
Henry Hardy, with Rose Law Group, introduced himself as a representative of
stakeholders in the industry, opposed to the proposal. Mr. Hardy stated that they were
made aware of this proposal about two weeks ago. Mr. Hardy stated that the public
hearing process is a very quick turnaround time. Mr. Hardy added that the Accessory
Dwelling Unit (ADU) Text Amendment public hearing process was about a seven-month
process. Mr. Hardy stated that they would like more time to go through the details of this
proposal. Mr. Hardy stated that the data center stakeholders are fine with the
architectural and landscape standards and understand that data centers should fit
properly into a community. Mr. Hardy explained that there are elements of the proposal
that do not align with investment and do not address how existing investments for data
centers would be affected. Mr. Hardy expressed concerns with Proposition 207 for
diminution of property values. Mr. Hardy asked for a continuance to allow more time
over the summer for everyone to understand the impacts. Mr. Hardy stated that
although data centers do not employ as many employees as other major employers,
each data center could employ between 80 to 150 people and are high-paying jobs with
median incomes of $95,000 annually. Mr. Hardy added that recent studies said indirect
employment in this industry in Phoenix is around 80,000 employees and direct
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1454
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y

employment is about 20,000 employees. Mr. Hardy stated that the will-serve letter
requirement is not consistent with how data centers are developed. Mr. Hardy stated
that other business leaders and investors are watching this amendment and see it as
anti-enterprise legislation. Mr. Hardy stated that they understand that data centers
should better the community and should not be forced upon a community. Mr. Hardy
clarified that they need more engagement.

Staff Response:
None.

Discussion:
Committee Member Holton asked how data centers specifically benefit the
community. Committee Member Holton asked how long the amendment has been in the
works. Mr. Hardy responded that they were notified of the amendment about two weeks
ago. Committee Member Holton asked how many major cities are doing a similar
amendment. Mr. Hardy responded that he was not sure. Mr. Hardy stated that nationally
there is a lot of discussion around data centers and some cities are trying to attract
them. Committee Member Holton asked how data centers are benefiting the community.
Mr. Hardy responded that data centers are multi-billion-dollar investments that each
return tens of millions of dollars to the City in tax revenue. Committee Member Holton
asked what data centers do. Mr. Hardy responded that data centers handle everything
from the GPS system in a car to the data storage where people work. Mr. Hardy stated
that every time a file is saved to the computer or to the phone, it is saved somewhere in
the cloud, which is stored and processed by data centers. Mr. Hardy stated that the
future is data centers.

Vice Chair Lawrence stated that the City seems to be contradicting of wanting to be a
tech center by wanting investment from the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing
Company (TSMC) but not wanting investment from data centers.

Committee Member Holton stated that he could understand how TSMC could make
something that he would actually use versus a data center.

Mr. Hardy stated that TSMC is making chips that go into data centers. Mr. Hardy stated
that it is the future of the economy nationally and globally. Mr. Hardy asked the
Committee to express concerns that the timeline is too fast and to come back with a
better proposal.

Chair Cotton asked for clarification if the data center industry is wanting more time to
go through the design guidelines and make them less restrictive. Mr. Hardy responded
that the design guidelines are not an issue. Mr. Hardy stated that their issues are
Proposition 207, that the text does not say anything about existing data centers and
how the text amendment would affect them, and the text does not say anything about
proposed data centers currently in the development review process and how the text
amendment could affect their existing investments. Mr. Hardy added that the will-serve
letter from the power company to be able to serve the power of the data center in two
years is another major concern. Mr. Hardy stated that a data center cannot get a
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1455
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y

commitment for power within two years, and it is probably more around 10 years. Mr.
Hardy added that the power company would ask if the data center has a permit from the
local municipality before providing a will-serve letter. Chair Cotton stated that it seems
the City is trying to rush the text amendment to avoid legal input.

Committee Member Virgil stated that he feels like he does not have enough
information to vote on this item, such as what the height is.

Vice Chair Lawrence concurred.

Mr. Hardy stated that this is the fastest they have seen a text amendment go through
the public hearing process.

Committee Member Holton asked where data centers are being proposed within the
Rio Vista Village.

Committee Member Baden stated that they would be allowed anywhere where that is
zoned for them.

Chair Cotton stated that he does not believe the Village Planning Committee asking for
a continuance would have any impact, since it is still scheduled to be heard by the
Planning Commission and the City Council on their scheduled dates.

Mr. Hardy stated that they want that concern to be passed along to the Planning
Commission and City Council.

Mr. Roanhorse stated that the City has a narrow timeframe to approve or deny a
request due to the State Legislature, and a continuance is typically reserved for the City
Council.

Committee Member Holton stated that he does not understand how the proposal
would impact pending permits.

Vice Chair Lawrence stated that if all the Village Planning Committees vote against it,
then the City Council may negotiate a longer term for this proposal.

Committee Member Baden stated that she believes the City is trying to minimize the
impacts that data centers have. Committee Member Baden stated that she is generally
supportive of a majority of the proposal. Committee Member Baden stated that she
understands there are a few elements that may need some more discussion and more
review.

Committee Member Cotton concurred and stated that he is supportive of the design
guidelines and would vote to approve the design guidelines.

Committee Member Baden added that the Fire Department should have sufficient time
to review this proposal because they are supportive of perimeter paths around new
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1456
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y

developments, which help with accessibility and connectivity. Committee Member
Baden requested that the sidewalk requirement be widened so emergency vehicles
could use them in the event of an emergency. Committee Member Baden added that
language should be added to state that data centers may require off-site improvements
for fire safety of very large data centers.

MOTION – GPA-2-25-Y:
Vice Chair Lawrence motioned to recommend denial of GPA-2-25-Y, with direction to
allow more time for stakeholder input. Committee Member Holton seconded the
motion.

VOTE – GPA-2-25-Y:
3-2; the motion to recommend denial of GPA-2-25-Y with direction passed with
Committee members Holton, Virgil and Lawrence in favor and Committee members
Baden and Cotton opposed.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1457
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y

Date of VPC Meeting May 13, 2025
Amend the General Plan to incorporate design and
Request
location criteria for data centers
Approval, per the staff recommendation, with direction
VPC Recommendation
VPC Vote 9-7


Item Nos. 5 (GPA-2-25-Y) and 6 (Z-TA-2-25-Y) are companion cases and were heard
concurrently.

Two members of the public registered to speak on this item, one in support, and one that
did not indicate support or opposition.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Samuel Rogers, staff, provided a presentation regarding the proposed General Plan
Amendment, including background and details of the location criteria, design, and energy
and sustainability policies proposed to be added for data centers. Mr. Rogers provided
information about further about the proposed Text Amendment, including a definition for
data centers, design guidelines, and a requirement for a Special Permit and performance
standards, finally noting the timeline for the proposals.

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE

Committee Member Greg Brownell asked if they could add a requirement to not allow
Data Centers within one mile of the Rio Salado Restoration Area. Mr. Rogers stated that
the requirement could be recommended as a part of the motion.

Committee Member Gene Holmerud explained that Iceland is a popular location for
data centers, stated that places like Iceland make more sense because data centers
produce so much heat, and stated he was surprised there is a demand for data centers in
Phoenix.

Committee Member Trent Marchuk explained that the lack of natural disasters in the
Phoenix area make it an attractive place to locate data centers and asked about the
definition of high-capacity transit. Mr. Rogers explained that high-capacity transit options
are the light rail and bus rapid transit. Committee Member Marchuk asked about existing
data centers. Mr. Rogers stated that existing data centers would be grandfathered and
explained staff is still looking into other items such as phased developments.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1458
South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y
May 13, 2025


Committee Member Petra Falcon asked for staff to display the slide showing the public
hearing dates. Mr. Rogers displayed the slide.

Committee Member Tamala Daniels asked how health hazards are being addressed
and explained that data centers contribute to noise pollution, air pollution, respiratory
illnesses, heat emissions, traffic congestion, and security risks. Mr. Rogers explained
that data centers will be required to go through the Special Permit process and the
Village Planning Committees will have the opportunity to analyze if a site is appropriate.
Mr. Rogers explained a Will Serve letter will be required to ensure data centers are not
over burdening the electric grid, stated that a noise study will be required, stated that data
centers will not be allowed to exceed five percent of the area’s ambient noise, explained
that some data centers have been in the news because of pollution generated from
natural gas fueled fans, and stated that he expects the data centers in Phoenix to get
their power from the electric grid.

Committee Member Mark Beehler echoed Committee Member T. Daniels’ concerns,
stated the cases that the Village Planning Committee (VPC) recommends for denial are
not always ultimately denied by the City Council, stated that he foresees data centers as
something that will be dumped on South Phoenix, and echoed Committee Member
Brownell’s concerns about data centers near the Rio Salado Habitat Restoration area.
Mr. Rogers explained that General Plan Amendment includes guidance to not allow data
centers near corridors and explained that the Rio Salado area is one of the potential
corridors that will be designated as a part of the General Plan implementation.

Committee Member Kay Shepard asked about rezoning requirements. Mr. Rogers
explained that a Special Permit would be needed to allow a data center.

Committee Member Ralph Thompson II asked about the number of data centers in
South Phoenix and asked how many jobs data centers generate. Mr. Rogers stated that
he does not have data on the number of data centers in South Phoenix and explained
that at the Central City Village Planning Committee an attorney had stated that data
centers create 80 to 150 jobs. Chair Arthur Greathouse III stated that a further
breakdown of the jobs would be needed to understand the job creation.

Committee Member George Brooks stated that the issues of data centers will continue
to increase, asked if this is something we can spend more time on, described
environmental concerns, and stated that data centers have loud air conditioning units and
heat pumps that will make areas hotter. Committee Member Brooks stated he does not
want data centers to be dumped on South Phoenix, stated that savvy attorneys will argue
for permitting data centers, and stated that more time should be spent on the topic.




South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y
May 13, 2025

Committee Member Lee Coleman asked for confirmation that data centers can
currently go into any office location. Mr. Rogers explained that data centers are currently
allowed anywhere an office use is allowed.

Committee Member Fred Daniels asked if there are any data centers that are currently
in the pipeline. Mr. Rogers explained he is not aware of any data centers currently in the
pipeline in South Mountain, but he is aware of others around the City.

Chair Greathouse asked about a buffer between data centers and residential and stated
that there is a data center on 40th Street and McDowell Road that is right next to
residential. Committee Member Marcia Busching stated that there is a 150-foot buffer
required from residential. Chair Greathouse stated that 150 feet is not very far.

Committee Member Busching stated that landscape setbacks are required, but walls
are not addressed, stated that there is not a definition of live coverage, stated that water
consumption is not addressed, explained that the buildings have architecture
requirements indicating that the building will likely be able to be seen from the street, and
stated that she likes the idea of a distance requirement from the Rio Salado Habitat
Restoration area.

Mr. Rogers stated that live coverage is often a stipulation on rezoning cases, explained
that live coverage means the area that is covered in trees and shrubs, stated that walls
greater than three feet are not allowed in landscape setbacks, and explained that
additional architecture concerns can be addressed through stipulations during the Special
Permit process.

Committee Member Edward Aldama asked for confirmation that data centers are
currently allowed anywhere an office is and asked if the text amendment will create a
formalized process for the data centers. Mr. Rogers confirmed the General Plan
Amendment and Text Amendment requests will create a formalized process to permit
data centers and mitigate their impacts.

Committee Member Marchuk explained that he had visited a data center for work,
explained that the site he visited had a water treatment facility on site that processed grey
water, and stated that using grey water would be something that would be interesting to
investigate. Mr. Rogers explained that the city has high water user requirements that
require a certain percent of water be recycled.

Committee Member Marchuk asked about the location policy that encourages data
centers in identified redevelopment areas where infrastructure investments are needed
and asked about identified redevelopment areas within South Mountain. Mr. Rogers
explained there is the Target Area B Redevelopment Area in South Mountain, stated
much of it is along proposed and existing corridors, and explained that areas with needed




South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y
May 13, 2025

infrastructure investments are generally areas on the periphery of the city that need roads
and utilities.

Committee Member Brownell described some of the challenges of South Mountain and
explained attorneys will argue for data centers. Mr. Rogers explained that this is putting
in a process to regulate data centers rather than the status quo that lets data centers
come in wherever an office use is allowed.

Committee Member Brownell asked about live coverage and asked about the height
limitations. Mr. Rogers explained live coverage is provided through shrubs and tree
coverage and stated that building heights will be regulated through the underlying zoning
district. Committee Member Brownell stated that he would rather have a human scale
wall closer to the sidewalk than a large wall further from the sidewalk.

Committee Member T. Daniels asked if data centers can be restricted to only be
allowed on industrially and commercially zoned parcels. Mr. Rogers explained that the
proposal only allows for data centers to be allowed on industrially and commercially
zoned properties.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Jon Gillespie introduced himself, explained that he is from Rose Law Group, described
tax revenue generated from data centers, stated he is concerned about the timeline of
the process, stated he would like at least 60 more days for public comment, stated that
there has been a lot of investment by data center users, discussed grandfathering of
developments, expressed concerns about phased developments, explained potential
Proposition 207 litigation, and explained the Will Serve Letter requirement is unfeasible.

Ron Norse explained that he is a building inspector, stated that he is a former City of
Phoenix inspector, offered a tour of a data center, and stated that he has been inspecting
microchip factories for the last 5 years.

Kay Shepard asked if data centers are the same thing as chip makers. Mr. Rogers
stated that it is his understanding that they are different.

Gene Holmerud described different sound decibel levels and stated he wants to know
more about the sound regulations.

STAFF RESPONSE

Mr. Rogers explained that the City’s Law Department has determined there will not be
any Proposition 207 issues, stated that the City is still working on what projects will be
grandfathered in, and explained that the Central City Village Planning Committee had
asked for more time.




South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y
May 13, 2025


Committee Member Marchuk asked about phased data center developments. Mr.
Rogers explained that his team is still working through questions about what projects will
be grandfathered in.

Committee Member Kay Shepard asked about how the other villages have voted. Mr.
Rogers summarized the results of the other villages that have heard the items.

Vice Chair Emma Viera stated that she appreciates that we are putting regulations on
data centers and stated that she would like to see distance requirements for schools and
residential. Mr. Rogers stated that there is a distance requirement from residential areas
but not from schools. Vice Chair Viera stated that 150 feet is not enough and stated that
a distance requirement from schools should be added.

Committee Member Brownell stated support for a distance requirement from schools,
stated that there are high asthma rates in Arizona schools, and explained data centers
will make it worse.

Mark Beehler stated that determining specific distance requirements is out of the Village
Planning Committee’s scope and stated that he agrees that distance from schools should
be added.

Committee Member Busching stated that she would like any motion on the General
Plan amendment to include direction to encourage recycling of water.

Committee Member Marchuk asked about the motion and providing direction versus
requiring modifications. Mr. Rogers explained that other committees have made motions
with direction.

FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: MOTION, DISCUSSION, AND VOTE

Motion:
Committee Member Lee Coleman made a motion to recommend approval of GPA-2-
25-Y with direction to not allow data centers within one mile of the Rio Salado Habitat
Restoration Area, that data centers only be allowed on sites with C-3 zoning or more
intense, require a minimum of 60 days for public comment, and that the Will Serve Letter
be required by the Certificate of Occupancy. Committee Member Shepard seconded
the motion.

Vice Chair Emma Viera introduced a friendly amendment to require a distance
requirement from schools. Committee Member Coleman explained that there is not
much C-3 or higher zoning that is near schools and accepted the friendly amendment.




South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y
May 13, 2025

Chair Greathouse asked if it matters what directions are recommended in the General
Plan Amendment versus the Text Amendment. Mr. Rogers explained that the General
Plan is the policy guidance, and the Text Amendment is the actual regulations.

Committee Member Trent Marchuk asked if the General Plan Amendment or Text
Amendment needs to be heard first. Mr. Rogers explained that the General Plan
Amendment needs to be heard first.

Committee Member Busching introduced a friendly amendment to require recycling of
water. Committee Member Lee Coleman accepted the friendly amendment

Committee Member Marchuk asked about requiring the Will Serve Letter by the
Certificate of Occupancy. Committee Member Coleman explained that a development
will not be able to get a Certificate of Occupancy until they get a Will Serve Letter.

Committee Member Beehler stated requiring the Will Serve Letter by the Certificate of
Occupancy is too late in the process. Committee Member Brownell stated the Will
Serve Letter will be one of the first things the developer will get. Chair Greathouse
stated that requiring a Will Serve Letter after the land acquisition is completed in
unrealistic. Mr. Rogers clarified that in the current proposal a Will Serve Letter will be
required by Preliminary Site Plan approval.

Committee Member Brownell asked if there is any way to require that the Will Serve
Letter include a percent of the power that has to come from renewable energy sources.
Mr. Rogers explained that he cannot speak to utility companies’ processes and what
they require in the Will Serve Letter. Mr. Rogers stated that data centers use a lot of
energy and explained that he does not know if it is feasible to get a large portion of a data
center’s required energy from renewable resources.

Committee Member Marchuk asked if direction should be added to look at the
grandfather language.

Committee Member Tamala Daniels asked how the other villages voted. Mr. Rogers
explained how the other villages voted. Committee Member T. Daniels asked about
adding additional architectural and setback requirements. Mr. Rogers stated that the
General Plan Amendment already includes policy direction regarding increased setbacks
and architectural requirements.

Committee Member Marchuk requested an amendment that allows projects in the
permitting process and phased plans be allowed to construct governed by the current
zoning regulations. Committee Member Coleman accepted the friendly amendment.

Vote:
9-7, motion to recommend approval of GPA-2-25-Y with direction to not allow data




South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y
May 13, 2025

centers within one mile of the Rio Salado Habitat Restoration Area, that data centers only
be allowed on sites with C-3 zoning or more intense, require a minimum of 60 days for
public comment, that the Will Serve Letter be required by the Certificate of Occupancy,
encourage the recycling of water, require a buffer distance from schools, and that
projects in the permitting process and phased plans be allowed to construct governed by
the current zoning regulations passed with Committee Members Aldama, Beehler,
Coleman, F. Daniels, T. Daniels, Jackson, Shepard, Viera, and Greathouse in favor and
Committee Members Brooks, Brownell, Busching, Falcon, Holmerud, Marchuk, and
Thompson opposed.

Committee Member Busching stated that she disagrees with the Will Serve Letter not
being required until the Certificate of Occupancy, that projects in the process should be
allowed to develop under the current zoning regulations, and that the public comment
period should be extended.

Committee Member Brooks stated that when decisions are rushed mistakes can be
made.

Committee Member Holmerud echoed Committee Member Brooks’ comments.

Committee Member Marchuk explained that he believed the language could be refined.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

None.




ATTACHMENT D




To: City of Phoenix Planning Commission Date: June 5, 2025


From: Tricia Gomes
Planning and Development Deputy Director

Subject: BACK UP TO ITEM NO. 2 – GPA-2-25-Y – DATA CENTERS GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT


General Plan Amendment No. GPA-2-25-Y is a request to amend the General Plan to
incorporate design and location criteria for data centers.

The Village Planning Committees considered the request throughout May and beginning
of June. Seven VPCs recommended approval, per the staff recommendation; three VPCs
recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, with direction; two VPCs
recommended denial; two VPCs recommended denial, with direction; and one VPC did not
have quorum.

Three stakeholder meetings were held with individuals representing a wide range of
interests in data center development such as land use attorneys, real estate and
construction professionals, data center operators, and utility companies.

The language in this proposed general plan amendment has been modified to address
some of the primary concerns as recommended by the Village Planning Committees and
shared at the stakeholder meetings including the following concerns: obtaining a will-
service letter and removing the Phoenix Green Construction Code reference. These
modifications will also ensure the General Plan policies align with the modifications in
Z-TA-2-25-Y.

Staff recommends approval, per the modified language in bold font below:




GPA-2-25-Y Backup Memo
June 5, 2025
Page 2



DATA CENTERS

WITH CONTINUAL ADVANCEMENTS IN TECHNOLOGY, SUCH AS ARTIFICIAL
INTELLIGENCE (AI) AND THE DIGITAL “CLOUD”, THERE HAS BEEN A GROWING
DEMAND TO CONSTRUCT DATA CENTERS IN ORDER TO SUPPORT THE
DIGITAL WORLD. DATA CENTERS HOUSE A LARGE COLLECTION OF
TECHNOLOGICAL EQUIPMENT DESIGNED TO STORE, PROCESS, AND
MANAGE VAST AMOUNTS OF DIGITAL INFORMATION. ALTHOUGH DATA
CENTERS ARE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR ADVANCING TECHNOLOGY THAT
MANY COMPANIES AND ORGANIZATIONS NOW RELY ON, THEY ALSO COME
WITH POTENTIAL CHALLENGES, INCLUDING A LOSS OF LAND FOR JOBS AND
HOUSING, NOISE POLLUTION, SIGNIFICANT ENERGY DEMAND, INACTIVE
FRONTAGES ALONG PUBLIC STREETS, AND CONFLICTS WITH THE CITY’S
APPROACH OF MAXIMIZING TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENTS WITH
WALKABLE COMMUNITIES. MEASURES SHOULD BE TAKEN TO IDENTIFY
AREAS THAT ARE MOST APPROPRIATE FOR DEVELOPMENT AND TO
ADDRESS THE NOISE, ENERGY, AND DESIGN ISSUES THAT THEY COME WITH.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

LOCATION CRITERIA POLICY

1. LOCATE AWAY FROM IDENTIFIED CORES, CENTERS, AND CORRIDORS
WHERE HIGHER-INTENSITY DEVELOPMENT IS ENCOURAGED FOR
MIXED-USE, WALKABLE COMMUNITIES.
2. LOCATE IN IDENTIFIED REDEVELOPMENT AREAS WHERE
INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS ARE NEEDED.

DESIGN POLICY

1. PROVIDE ENHANCED LANDSCAPE SETBACKS WITH A GREATER
DENSITY OF TREES AND SHRUBS.
2. PROVIDE DETACHED SIDEWALKS WITH PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES AND
SHADE.
3. PROVIDE ART IN PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT.
4. UTILIZE DARK SKY LIGHTING.
5. MINIMIZE NOISE POLLUTION TO NEARBY RESIDENTIAL THROUGH USE
OF LARGE SETBACKS, STRUCTURAL SCREENING ELEMENTS,
ARCHITECTURALLY INTEGRATED STRUCTURES, AND/OR
LANDSCAPING.
6. PROVIDE VISUAL INTEREST TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND RIGHTS-
OF-WAY WITH ENHANCED ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN THAT INCLUDES A
VARIATION IN COLORS, MATERIALS, ARTICULATION, FENESTRATION,
AND BREAKING OF MASSING, RATHER THAN A CONCRETE BOX THAT
HAS A NEGATIVE VISUAL APPEARANCE TO THE SURROUNDING
COMMUNITY.



GPA-2-25-Y Backup Memo
June 5, 2025
Page 3



ENERGY AND SUSTAINABILITY POLICY

1. PROVIDE AN WILL-SERVE LETTER AGREEMENT FROM THE LOCAL
UTILITY COMPANY TO ENSURE THAT THERE IS SUFFICIENT CAPACITY
IN THE POWER GRID TO SUPPLY THE DATA CENTER WITH ITS
REQUIRED ENERGY DEMAND.
2. ENCOURAGE USE OF THE PHOENIX GREEN CONSTRUCTION CODE TO
MAXIMIZE ENERGY EFFICIENCY OF DATA CENTER BUILDINGS.




ATTACHMENT E

REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
June 5, 2025

ITEM NO: 2
DISTRICT NO.: Citywide
SUBJECT:

Application #: GPA-2-25-Y (Companion Case Z-TA-2-25-Y)
Location: Citywide
Request: Amendment to the General Plan to incorporate design and location criteria
for data centers.
Applicant: City of Phoenix, Planning Commission
Representative: City of Phoenix, Planning and Development Department

ACTIONS:

Staff Recommendation: Approval.

Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Ahwatukee Foothills 5/19/2025 Denial. Vote: 10-0.
Alhambra 5/20/2025 Approval. Vote: 11-0.
Camelback East 6/3/2025 Denial with direction. Vote: 17-0.
Central City 5/12/2025 Approval. Vote: 6-3-1.
Deer Valley 5/20/2025 No quorum.
Desert View 6/3/2025 Approval with direction. Vote: 8-3.
Encanto 6/2/2025 Denial. Vote: 9-4-1.
Estrella 5/20/2025 Approval 3-1.
Laveen 5/12/2025 Approval. Vote: 13-0.
Maryvale 5/14/2025 Approval, with direction. Vote: 13-0.
North Gateway 5/8/2025 Approval. Vote: 8-0.
North Mountain 5/21/2025 Approval. Vote: 8-4-1.
Paradise Valley: 6/2/2025 Approval. Vote: 12-2.
Rio Vista 5/13/2025 Denial, with direction. Vote: 3-2.
South Mountain 5/13/2025 Approval, with direction. Vote: 9-7.

Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the staff memo dated June 5, 2025.

Motion Discussion: N/A.

Motion details: Commissioner Matthews made a MOTION to approve GPA-2-25-Y, per the staff
memo dated June 5, 2025.

Maker: Matthews
Second: Jaramillo
Vote: 9-0
Absent: None.
Opposition Present: Yes.

Findings:

1. The proposal will act as the policy guidance for data centers which supports the Zoning
Ordinance text amendment Z-TA-2-25-Y for regulations related to data centers.


2. The proposal will guide data center development away from cores, centers, and
corridors, where mixed-use, walkable communities are envisioned and will guide data
centers to blend with the surrounding environment while limiting negative impacts to
existing communities.

3. The proposal is consistent with and relates to other adopted policies in the General
Plan, such as the Blueprint for a More Connected Phoenix, including Cores, Centers,
and Corridors, Village Cores, Employment Corridors, and Tech Corridors; Create a
Network of Vibrant Cores, Centers, and Corridors; and Build the Most Sustainable
Desert City, including Water Sensitive Planning, Green Building, Energy Infrastructure,
and Community Shade.


This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact
Saneeya Mir at 602-686-6461, saneeya.mir@phoenix.gov, TTY: Use 7-1-1.




ATTACHMENT F




Correspondence for GPA-2-25-Y and Z-TA-2-
25-Y are available on the staff report website
under Z-TA-2-25-Y:


https://www.phoenix.gov/administration/dep
artments/pdd/about-us/reports-data/staff-
reports.html







Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
***REQUEST TO CONTINUE (SEE ATTACHED MEMO)*** Public Hearing -Amend
City Code - Ordinance Adoption - Data Centers - Z-TA-2-25-Y
(Ordinance G-7396) - Citywide

Request to hold a public hearing on a proposed text amendment Z-TA-2-25-Y and to
request City Council approval per the Planning Commission recommendation which
amends the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2, Section 202 (Definitions) to add a
definition for data centers; amend Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A.II.D
(Guidelines for Design Review, City-Wide Design Review Guidelines, Specialized
Uses) to modify the section title and add design standards for data centers; and amend
Chapter 6, Section 647 (Special Permit Uses), Section 647.A.2 to add data centers
within the C-2 (Intermediate Commercial), C-3 (General Commercial), CP/GCP
(Commerce Park/General Commerce Park), A-1 (Light Industrial), and A-2 (Industrial)
zoning districts, with a Special Permit and performance standards. This is a companion
case to GPA-2-25-Y and should be heard following GPA-2-25-Y.

Summary
The intent of the proposed text amendment is to create a regulatory framework for data
centers where no City Council approved framework currently exists. Data centers are
not defined nor are they explicitly listed as a permitted use in the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance; therefore were addressed via informal interpretation based upon land use
characteristics of early smaller scale data center type uses. This text amendment will
create a new definition for “data center”; create design guidelines such as setback
requirements and screening design standards for equipment enclosures and accessory
public utility buildings and facilities, such as electrical substations; and create
enhanced landscaping, architectural, and streetscape standards to soften the design of
data centers so they can better blend into the surrounding environment they are built
in; and develop location criteria and performance standards for data centers. This
includes spacing from high-capacity transit; noise standards to reduce the impact of
data centers when located within a certain distance from residential; and allow data
centers only in the following zoning districts: C-2, C-3, CP/GCP, A-1 and A-2 with a
Special Permit.






Applicant: City of Phoenix, Planning Commission
Representative: City of Phoenix, Planning and Development Department

Staff Recommendation: Approval of Z-TA-2-25-Y as shown in Exhibit A of the Staff
Report (Attachment B).
VPC Action: Fourteen Village Planning Committees have considered the request.
Two VPCs recommended approval, per the staff recommendation; three VPCs
recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, with direction; one VPC
recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, with a modification; one VPC
recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, with a modification and
direction; three VPCs recommended denial; four VPCs recommended denial, with
direction; and one VPC did not have quorum, as reflected in Attachment C. PC
Action: The Planning Commission heard this item on June 5, 2025 and recommended
approval, per the memo from the Planning and Development Department Deputy
Director dated June 4, 2025, by a vote of 9-0.

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





ATTACHMENT A




PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT



Alan Stephenson June 11, 2025
Deputy City Manager
To: Date:


Joshua Bednare�
Planning and Development Director
From:


CONTINUANCE OF ITEM 152 ON THE JUNE 18, 2025, FORMAL AGENDA­
PUBLIC HEARING - AMEND CITY CODE - ORDINANCE ADOPTION - DATA
Subject:

CENTERS - Z-TA-2-25-Y (ORDINANCE G-7396) - CITYWIDE

Item 1 52, Text Amendment No. Z-TA-2-25-Y is a request to amend the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance Chapter 2, Section 202 (Definitions) to add a definition for data centers; amend
Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A.I1.D (Guidelines for Design Review, City-Wide Design
Review Guidelines, Specialized Uses) to modify the section title and add design standards
for data centers; and amend Chapter 6, Section 647 (Special Permit Uses), Section
647.A.2 to add data centers within the C-2 (Intermediate Commercial), C-3 (General
Commercial), CP/GCP (Commerce Park/General Commerce Park), A-1 (Light Industrial),
and A-2 (Industrial) zoning districts, with a Special Permit and performance standards.

Staff recommends continuing this item to the July 2, 2025, City Council Formal meeting to
evaluate comments and suggestions received.




Approved:
Alan Stephenso
�-�
Deputy City Manager




ATTACHMENT B




`
Staff Report
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment
Z-TA-2-25-Y
May 1, 2025

Application No. Z-TA-2-25-Y: Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2,
Section 202 (Definitions) to add a definition for data centers; amend Chapter 5, Section
507 Tab A.II.D (Guidelines for Design Review, City-Wide Design Review Guidelines,
Specialized Uses) to modify the section title and add design standards for data centers;
and amend Chapter 6, Section 647 (Special Permit Uses), Section 647.A.2 to add data
centers within the C-2 (Intermediate Commercial), C-3 (General Commercial), CP/GCP
(Commerce Park/General Commerce Park), A-1 (Light Industrial), and A-2 (Industrial)
zoning districts, with a Special Permit and performance standards

Staff recommendation: Staff recommends approval of Z-TA-2-25-Y as shown in the
proposed text in Exhibit A.

BACKGROUND
In 2024, the Mayor and City Council directed City staff to create new policy guidance
and zoning regulations related to data centers, in response to the increased frequency
and development of these types of facilities. Data centers house a large collection of
technological equipment designed to store, process, and manage vast amounts of
digital information. One major concern with data centers is that their energy demand is
expected to increase significantly, in large part due to Artificial Intelligence. Another
major concern is the scale at which these types of facilities are built and how they can
negatively affect the surrounding community they are built in. The companion general
plan amendment, GPA-2-25-Y is a request to amend the 2025 General Plan to add a
section to provide policy guidance for data centers addressing the major concerns they
pose to the community and to the city.

Staff researched other cities in the nation that have adopted ordinances related to data
centers for best practices and looked at ways Phoenix could enhance those ordinances.




Staff Report: Z-TA-2-25-Y
May 1, 2025
Page 2

PURPOSE
The intent of the proposed text amendment is to create a regulatory framework for data
centers. Data centers are not defined nor are they explicitly listed as a permitted use in
the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance; therefore were addressed via informal interpretation.
This text amendment will create a new definition for “data center”; create design
guidelines such as setback requirements and screening design standards for equipment
enclosures and accessory public utility buildings and facilities, such as electrical
substations; and create enhanced landscaping, architectural, and streetscape standards
to soften the design of data centers so they can better blend into the surrounding
environment they are built in; and develop location criteria and performance standards
for data centers. This includes spacing from high-capacity transit; noise standards to
reduce the impact of data centers when located within a certain distance from
residential; and allow data centers only the following zoning districts: C-2, C-3, CP/GCP,
A-1 and A-2 with a Special Permit.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED TEXT
The proposed text amendment includes three main components: Definitions, Data
Center-Specific Design Guidelines, and special permit requirements and performance
standards:

1. Definitions:
The Zoning Ordinance currently does not have a definition for the term “data center”.
The proposed definition states generally what a data center is and when it may be
considered as an accessory use to a non-residential use, if it occupies no more than
10 percent of the building footprint, is used to serve the enterprise functions of the
on-site property owner, is not used to lease data storage and processing services to
third parties and is not housed in a separate stand-alone structure on the site.

2. Data Center-Specific Design Guidelines:
The proposed regulations for data centers were based and built upon established
practices in other municipalities. Equipment enclosures would need to be setback a
minimum of 150 feet from abutting rights-of-way and residentially zoned properties,
and screened by a decorative solid wall or building. Mechanical equipment, such as
an electrical substation, would also need to meet similar setbacks and decorative
screening requirements. Since data centers are very large in scale, enhanced
streetscape, landscape setback and planting standards will help to soften the edges
of data center sites and will beautify the edges of the site that interacts with the
surrounding community. Enhanced architectural design guidelines, such as variation
in colors, materials, patterns, textures, height, window fenestration, and articulation,
and standards for art in private development, will help to avoid large, monotonous,
undifferentiated surfaces and avoid large, monolithic buildings, and instead will
provide an enhanced design interface with a visual interest for the surrounding
community.




Staff Report: Z-TA-2-25-Y
May 1, 2025
Page 3

3. Special Permit Requirements and Performance Standards:
The Zoning Ordinance currently does not have development regulations for data
centers. The proposed text amendment would allow data centers in the C-2, C-3,
CP/GCP, A-1 and A-2 zoning districts with a Special Permit. The performance
standards for data centers include a half a mile spacing from approved high-capacity
transit, noise study and noise mitigation requirements for data centers located within
300 feet of a residential zoned district and a will-server letter from the utility company
that it can serve the energy demand within two years.

Conclusion:
This text amendment will create a process for data centers to be proposed and
evaluated through a public hearing process. The text amendment will provide standards
to address major concerns that data centers cause. By adding a definition for the term
“data center”, clarifying the districts in which they are permitted, and adding standards
for data centers to follow, Phoenix will be leading in ensuring that data centers blend
with the surrounding environment while limiting negative impacts to existing
communities.

Staff recommends approval of the changes to the Zoning Ordinance as proposed in Exhibit
A.


Writer
Adrian Zambrano
May 1, 2025

Team Leader
Racelle Escolar

Exhibit
A. Proposed Language




Staff Report: Z-TA-2-25-Y
May 1, 2025
Page 4

Exhibit A

Staff Proposed Language That May Be Modified During the Public Hearing Process is
as follows:
Section 202. Definitions.
Amend Chapter 2, Section 202 (Definitions) to add a definition for data centers.

Section 202. Definitions.

***

DATA CENTER: A FACILITY USED PRIMARILY FOR DATA SERVICES, INCLUDING
THE STORAGE, PROCESSING, MANAGEMENT, AND TRANSMISSION OF DIGITAL
DATA. A FACILITY SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED A DATA CENTER WHEN IT DOES
NOT EXCEED 10% OF THE GROSS FLOOR AREA OF ALL ON-SITE BUILDINGS; IS
USED TO SERVE THE ENTERPRISE FUNCTIONS OF THE ON-SITE PROPERTY
OWNER; AND IS NOT USED TO LEASE DATA SERVICES TO THIRD PARTIES.

***

Amend Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A.II.D (Guidelines for Design Review, City-Wide
Design Review Guidelines, Specialized Uses) to modify the section title and add
design standards for data centers, and to read as follows:

Section 507 Tab A. Guidelines for design review.

***

II. CITY-WIDE DESIGN REVIEW GUIDELINES. The design review guidelines
indicate specific standards of implementation and are categorized as Requirements
(R), Presumptions (P), or Considerations (C). INDICATED WITH THE MARKERS
(R), (R*), (P), (T), AND (C) SHALL BE APPLIED AND ENFORCED IN THE SAME
MANNER AS INDICATED IN SECTION 507. ITEMS NOT INDICATED WITH AN
(R), (R*), (P), (T), AND (C) SHALL BE TREATED AS (R).

***

D. Specialized Uses.

***

5. DATA CENTERS.




Staff Report: Z-TA-2-25-Y
May 1, 2025
Page 5

5.1. SETBACKS. ALL MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ELECTRICAL
TRANSFORMERS AND GENERATORS, SHALL BE SET
BACK A MINIMUM OF 150 FEET FROM ABUTTING RIGHT-
OF-WAY OR RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY; IN
ADDITION TO THE FOLLOWING: (R*)

5.1.1. THE EQUIPMENT MUST BE FULLY SCREENED BY
A BUILDING THAT IS VISUALLY INTEGRATED
WITH THE DESIGN OF THE OVERALL
DEVELOPMENT; OR

5.1.2 THE EQUIPMENT MUST BE FULLY SCREENED BY
A DECORATIVE SCREEN WALL HAVING
VARIATIONS IN COLORS, MATERIALS,
PATTERNS, TEXTURES, AND/OR AN ART
INSTALLATION SUCH AS A MURAL.

RATIONALE: GROUND EQUIPMENT SHOULD BE
ENCLOSED AND SET BACK TO PROVIDE VISUAL
SCREENING AND REDUCE NOISE LEVELS.

5.2. LANDSCAPE SETBACK. A MINIMUM 30-FOOT WIDE
PERIMETER LANDSCAPE SETBACK SHALL BE
PROVIDED, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:

5.4.1. TWO STAGGERED ROWS OF LARGE CANOPY
SHADE TREES PLANTED 20 FEET ON CENTER OR
IN EQUIVALENT GROUPING SHALL BE
PROVIDED, AS APPROVED BY THE PDD
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. (T)

5.4.2 FIVE 5-GALLON SHRUBS PER TREE SHALL BE
PROVIDED, AT A MINIMUM. (T)

5.4.3 GROUNDCOVERS SHALL BE PROVIDED TO
SUPPLEMENT THE TREES AND SHRUBS SO THAT
A MINIMUM 75% LIVE COVERAGE IS ATTAINED.
(T)

RATIONALE: AN ENHANCED LANDSCAPE SETBACK
WITH A DENSE NUMBER OF TREES AND SHRUBS
HELPS TO MITIGATE NEGATIVE VISUAL IMPACTS.

5.3. ARCHITECTURE.




Staff Report: Z-TA-2-25-Y
May 1, 2025
Page 6


5.3.1. BUILDING FACADES THAT EXCEED 100 FEET
SHOULD CONTAIN ARCHITECTURAL
EMBELLISHMENTS AND DETAILING SUCH AS
TEXTURAL CHANGES, PILASTERS, OFFSETS,
RECESSES, WINDOW FENESTRATION
(INCLUDING FAUX WINDOWS), SHADOW BOXES,
AND OVERHEAD/CANOPIES. (P)

5.3.2. ALL SIDES OF A BUILDING/STRUCTURE SHOULD
PROVIDE AN ENHANCED DESIGN INCLUDING A
VARIATION IN COLORS, MATERIALS, PATTERNS,
TEXTURES, HEIGHT, WINDOWS (INCLUDING
FAUX WINDOWS), ARTICULATION, AND/OR ART
INSTALLATIONS. (P)

5.3.3. EACH MAIN ENTRANCE SHOULD INCLUDE A
FEATURE THAT DIFFERENTIATES IT FROM THE
REMAINDER OF THE BUILDING FACADE BY A
CHANGE IN BUILDING MATERIAL, PATTERN,
TEXTURE, COLOR, AND/OR ACCENT MATERIAL,
AND THAT PROJECTS OR IS RECESSED FROM
THE ADJOINING BUILDING PLANE. (P)

5.3.4. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN SHOULD TAKE INTO
ACCOUNT THE SOLAR CONSEQUENCES OF
BUILDING HEIGHT, BULK, AND AREA. (C)

RATIONALE: DATA CENTER BUILDINGS SHOULD
INCLUDE ENHANCED ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
FEATURES IN ORDER TO PROVIDE VISUAL INTEREST,
TO BREAK UP THE MASS OF THE
BUILDING/STRUCTURE AND TO PROVIDE AN
ENHANCED DESIGN INTERFACE WHERE VISIBLE FROM
A RIGHT-OF-WAY AND/OR RESIDENTIALLY ZONED
PROPERTY.

5.4. STREETSCAPE. FOR EACH STREET FRONTAGE, A
MINIMUM 6-FOOT-WIDE DETACHED SIDEWALK
SEPARATED FROM THE CURB BY A MINIMUM 8-FOOT-
WIDE LANDSCAPE STRIP, SUBJECT TO THE
FOLLOWING:




Staff Report: Z-TA-2-25-Y
May 1, 2025
Page 7

5.4.1. SINGLE-TRUNK, LARGE CANOPY SHADE TREES,
PLANTED 20 FEET ON CENTER OR IN
EQUIVALENT GROUPINGS, SHALL BE PROVIDED
ON BOTH SIDES OF THE SIDEWALK AND
PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 75% SHADE. (T)

5.4.2 A MIXTURE OF SHRUBS, ACCENTS, AND
VEGETATIVE GROUNDCOVERS WITH A MAXIMUM
MATURE HEIGHT OF TWO FEET SHALL BE
DISTRIBUTED THROUGHOUT THE LANDSCAPE
AREAS TO ACHIEVE A MINIMUM OF 75% LIVE
COVERAGE. (T)

5.4.3 ALL EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITIES WITHIN THE
RIGHTS-OF-WAY ABUTTING THE DEVELOPMENT
SHALL BE PLACED UNDERGROUND, UNLESS
OTHERWISE APPROVED THROUGH A TECHNICAL
APPEAL. (T)

RATIONALE: AN ENHANCED STREETSCAPE HELPS TO
SOFTEN THE EDGE OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF A
LARGER NON-RESIDENTIAL USE.

5.5. SHADE.

5.5.1. ALL ON-SITE PEDESTRIAN PATHWAYS SHOULD
BE SHADED A MINIMUM OF 75% BY A
STRUCTURE, LANDSCAPING, OR A
COMBINATION OF THE TWO. (P)

5.5.2 DEDICATED MULTI-USE TRAILS ADJACENT TO
THE SITE SHOULD BE SHADED A MINIMUM OF
50% AT TREE MATURITY. (P)

RATIONALE: ENHANCED PEDESTRIAN COMFORT
SHOULD BE PRIORITIZED ADJACENT TO AND WITHIN
DATA CENTER DEVELOPMENTS ACROSS THE CITY.

***




Staff Report: Z-TA-2-25-Y
May 1, 2025
Page 8

Amend Chapter 6, Section 647 (Special Permit Uses), Section 647.A.2 to add data
centers within the C-2 (Intermediate Commercial), C-3 (General Commercial),
CP/GCP (Commerce Park/General Commerce Park), A-1 (Light Industrial) and A-2
(Industrial) zoning districts, with performance standards to read as follows:

Section 647. Special Permit Uses.

***

A. Permitted uses. There shall be permitted, in addition to the uses enumerated in
the several use districts, certain additional uses subject to the requirements of this
section.

***

2. A special permit may be granted by the Council upon recommendation of
the Commission to establish the following uses in the use districts named:

***

KK. DATA CENTERS IN THE C-2, C-3, CP/GCP, A-1 AND A-2 ZONING
DISTRICTS, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:

(1) THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE NO CLOSER THAN 2,640
FEET FROM AN APPROVED HIGH-CAPACITY TRANSIT
STATION.

(2) PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL WILL NOT BE
GRANTED FOR A DATA CENTER UNTIL SUCH TIME
THAT A LOCAL UTILITY COMPANY CONFIRMS IN
WRITING WITH A “WILL-SERVE” LETTER THAT IT CAN
SERVE THE ENERGY DEMAND WITHIN TWO YEARS
FOR THE PROPOSED DATA CENTER. THE LETTER
FROM THE UTILITY COMPANY SHALL BE SUBMITTED
TO PDD CONCURRENT WITH THE PRELIMINARY SITE
PLAN.

(3) THE FOLLOWING SHALL APPLY WHEN THE SITE IS
LOCATED WITHIN 300 FEET OF A RESIDENTIAL ZONING
DISTRICT:




Staff Report: Z-TA-2-25-Y
May 1, 2025
Page 9

(a) PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A DATA
CENTER SHALL NOT BE GRANTED UNLESS IT
HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED THAT THE DATA
CENTER, INCLUDING ALL ON-SITE MECHANICAL
EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES, WILL NOT EXCEED
THE EXISTING AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL FOR THE
SITE BY MORE THAN 5%. (T)

(b) TO DETERMINE COMPLIANCE WITH THE PRIOR
SUBSECTION, THE DEVELOPER SHALL SUBMIT A
NOISE STUDY TO PDD PRIOR TO OR
CONCURRENT WITH THE PRELIMINARY SITE
PLAN. THE NOISE STUDY SHALL BE
PERFORMED BY A THIRD-PARTY ACOUSTICAL
ENGINEER TO DOCUMENT BASELINE NOISE
LEVELS IN THE AREA OF THE PROPOSED DATA
CENTER, INCLUDING NOISE LEVELS MEASURED
AT THE PROPERTY LINE OF THE NEAREST
RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT TO THE
PROPOSED DATA CENTER PROPERTY.

(c) UPON APPROVAL OF THE NOISE STUDY, THE
METHODS PROPOSED TO MITIGATE NOISE
SHALL BE STIPULATED AS A CONDITION OF
FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL. A FINAL
CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY SHALL NOT BE
ISSUED IF THE AMBIENT NOISE EXCEEDS THE
PRIOR EXISTING NOISE LEVEL BY MORE THAN
5%.

(4) THE DEVELOPMENT IS SUBJECT TO ALL APPLICABLE
DESIGN GUIDELINES SET FORTH IN SECTION 507 TAB
A, INCLUDING THOSE FOR SECTION II.D.5, DATA
CENTERS.

***




ATTACHMENT C
Z-TA-2-25-Y: Text Amendment to address data centers
Village Planning Committee Summary Results

Recommendation
Village Recommendation Vote
Date
Ahwatukee
5/19/25 Denial 10-0
Foothills
Alhambra 5/20/25 Denial 11-0
Denial with direction to:
• Revise the noise
requirement to an
objective decibel level to
be verified by the City.
• Allow for an additional 90-
day review period to
Camelback include a review of
6/3/25 ordinances from other 17-0
East
municipalities, including
Chandler.
• Add separation
requirements for data
centers from other data
centers and from
residential uses.
Approval, with direction:
• Allow a minimum of 60 days
for public comment
• Remove the special permit
Central City 5/12/25 requirement for A-1, A-2, or 8-1-1
CP/GCP
• Remove the "will serve letter"
requirement

Deer Valley 5/20/25 No quorum -
Denial, with direction:
• Allow more time for
stakeholder input
• Remove the provision in
the proposed definition
for a facility that is not
Desert View 6/3/25 11-0
considered a data center
to not exceed 10% of the
gross floor area of all on-
site buildings
• Clarify the noise study
requirements and ensure

Attachment C – Page 1 of 3
the noise is measured in
decibels
• Remove the will-serve
letter requirement
• Add data centers as a
permitted use in the
CP/BP zoning district
• Only require a Special
Permit in the C-2 and C-3
commercial zoning
districts

Encanto 6/2/25 Denial 13-0-1
Approval, with the modification
that a Special Permit will be
required for C-2, C-3, and
Estrella 5/20/25 CP/GCP but not A-1 and A-2; 4-0
and with direction regarding
water conservation and heat
mitigation implementation
Approval, with direction
regarding water and power
Laveen 5/12/25 conservation, square footage 13-0
limitations, noise mitigation, and
increased impact fees

Maryvale 5/14/25 Approval 13-0
North
5/8/25 Approval 8-0
Gateway
Denial, with direction to
North reengage with the stakeholder
5/21/25 community and bring the matter 12-0-1
Mountain
back to the VPC in 90 days
Approval, with the modification
Paradise to only allow data centers within 8-5-1
6/2/25 the A-1 and A-2 zoning districts
Valley
with a Special Permit.
Denial, with direction to allow
Rio Vista 5/13/25 more time for stakeholder input 3-2

Approval, with direction:
• No data centers be
allowed within 1.5 miles
of the Rio Salado
South
5/13/25 Restoration area 14-1-1
Mountain
• 5.1 be modified to include
setback requirements
from the mechanical
equipment and the
Attachment C – Page 2 of 3
building from residential
zoned property and
schools
• Include provision that
encourages recycling of
water and usage of
recycled water on site




Attachment C – Page 3 of 3
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y

Date of VPC Meeting May 19, 2025
Request Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2,
Section 202 (Definitions) to add a definition for data
centers; amend Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A.II.D
(Guidelines for Design Review, City-Wide Design
Review Guidelines, Specialized Uses) to modify the
section title and add design standards for data
centers and amend Chapter 6, Section 647 (Special
Permit Uses), Section 647.A.2 to add data centers
within the C-2 (Intermediate Commercial), C-3
(General Commercial), CP/GCP (Commerce
Park/General Commerce Park), A-1 (Light Indus-trial)
and A-2 (Industrial) zoning districts, with performance
standards.
VPC Recommendation Denial
VPC Vote 10-0


VPC DISCUSSION:

Item Nos. 4 (GPA-2-25-Y) and 5 (Z-TA-2-25-Y) are companion cases and were heard
concurrently.

Two members of the public registered to speak on this item, one in support, and one
in opposition.

STAFF PRESENTATION
Anthony Grande, staff, provided a presentation regarding the proposed General Plan
Amendment, including background and details of the location criteria, design, and
energy and sustainability policies proposed to be added for data centers, further
providing information about the proposed Text Amendment, including a definition for
data centers, design guidelines, and a requirement for a Special Permit and
performance standards, finally noting the timeline for the proposals.

QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
Chair Gasparro asked for clarification on the noise requirement, noting that in areas
with higher ambient decibel levels, a 5% increase could be significant. Mr. Grande


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1486
Ahwatukee Foothills Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary - May 19, 2025
Z-TA-2-25-Y


replied that the proposed language is taking into account existing ambient levels. Vice
Chair Mager suggested redefining the noise requirement based on decibels.

Committee Member Fisher stated concerns about Phoenix becoming a location with
many data centers in the future, noting some issues, including that they can pull
power off the grid by having first right to power. Mr. Grande noted that the text
amendment would add additional regulations for data centers, including a requirement
for a Special Permit, which does not exist today.

Committee Member Slobodzian stated there are concerns with water usage for data
centers.

Vice Chair Mager commented that it appears the motivation is to allow the City to
have more control over approving data centers. Committee Member Fisher stated a
concern with the number of zoning districts would permit data centers. Mr. Grande
clarified that this proposal would add a Special Permit requirement where it doesn’t
exist today, and suggested that the Committee could approve with direction for any
items of concern, including the inclusion of C-2 and C-3 zoning districts in the list.

PUBLIC COMMENTS
Cepand Alizadeh with the Arizona Technology Council spoke in favor of the
proposal, but noting several concerns: a lack of clarity regarding the 5% requirement
for decibel level measurements and how emergencies are handled and that the 2-
year will serve letter from utility companies is not feasible.

Chair Gasparro stated a concern about asking for a 10-year will serve letter
requirement. Committee Member Fisher noted that it appears that the facilities
would be stating they don’t have the power to serve them.

Committee Member Fisher asked about the appeal of locating data centers in the
that these could be redevelopments. Mr. Fisher noted that in any case, they are
massive buildings. Committee Member Barua noted that they do not have a good
understanding of the number of employees that are typically at a data center. Mr.
Alizadeh commented that the tech industry is booming in Phoenix and companies
want to be here.

Henry Hardy with Rose Law Group spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating that
he had never seen a text amendment move this quickly through the process, that
there should be a 90-day extension in the process, that the will serve letter will result
in no more data centers locating in Phoenix, and that there are Proposition 207 issues
with the proposal.

Chair Gasparro asked if Mr. Hardy had clients that resulted in him attending this
meeting. Mr. Hardy replied that data center stakeholders have been involved. Chair


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1487
Ahwatukee Foothills Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary - May 19, 2025
Z-TA-2-25-Y


Gasparro asked for clarification on the will serve letter request. Mr. Hardy stated that
the request is for 10 years, noting that many developments are phased.

Mr. Fisher asked who is pushing this item. Mr. Hardy said he did not know.

Committee Member Blackman asked if they wanted the will serve letter requirement
removed, noting concerns about possible blackouts. Mr. Hardy replied that they want
the requirement to align with industry standards and that the will serve letters allow
the utility companies to plan for the future to ensure sufficient capacity. Ms.
Blackman followed up with a question about whether the data centers will need to
pay for the infrastructure. Mr. Hardy replied that they would.

Committee Member Slobodzian asked what changes would be looked at if more
time is given for review. Mr. Hardy replied that they would like to review the will serve
letter requirement and issues around existing rights.

Committee Member Jain asked if data centers currently participate in demand
response. Mr. Hardy replied that he is not sure, but they do have comprehensive
independent generation systems.

Committee Member Fisher stated he was nervous about extending the timeframe
for will serve letters, adding it is not clear where all the power will come from, and
data centers do not provide a lot of jobs.

Committee Member Barua added that utility companies give discounts to data
centers.

Chair Gasparro asked if staff can look into any comments received from utility
companies.

COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
Committee Member Fisher suggested voting for a continuance in order to slow the
process down, noting that the Committee doesn’t have time to get answers to their
questions.

Chair Gasparro noted that voting for a continuance may not slow it down, as the
Planning Commission could still move it forward, and it could result in losing the
opportunity to put the Committee’s concerns on record.

Vice Chair Mager suggested the Committee put their concerns into a formal motion,
noting a possibility of approval with direction to staff. Committee Members discussed
the various options for motions. Mr. Fisher suggested a motion for denial, noting the
following items:
• Decibel clarification to industry standards;
• Confusion about ramifications of will serve letter requirement; and
• The speed of the process and not including stakeholders.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1488
Ahwatukee Foothills Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary - May 19, 2025
Z-TA-2-25-Y



Mr. Grande noted that the Committee’s concerns would be written in the minutes for
review by the Planning Commission if the Committee recommends denial.

Committee Member Slobodzian stated that the most effective motion would be for
denial.

MOTION (Z-TA-2-25-Y)
Alyson Slobodzian made a motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-2-25-Y. Prakshal
Jain seconded the motion.

VOTE (Z-TA-2-25-Y)
10-0; motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-2-25-Y passed; Committee Members
Barua, Blackman, Fisher, Golden, Jain, Maloney, Ostendorp, Slobodzian, Mager, and
Gasparro in favor.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1489
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y
Date of VPC Meeting May 20, 2025
Request Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2,
Section 202 (Definitions) to add a definition for data
centers; amend Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A.II.D
(Guidelines for Design Review, City-Wide Design
Review Guidelines, Specialized Uses) to modify the
section title and add design standards for data centers
and amend Chapter 6, Section 647 (Special Permit
Uses), Section 647.A.2 to add data centers within the
C-2 (Intermediate Commercial), C-3 (General
Commercial), CP/GCP (Commerce Park/General
Commerce Park), A-1 (Light Indus-trial) and A-2
(Industrial) zoning districts, with performance
standards.
VPC Recommendation Denial
VPC Vote 11-0

VPC DISCUSSION

Item Nos. 4 (GPA-2-25-Y) and 5 (Z-TA-2-25-Y) are companion cases and were heard
concurrently.

Two members of the public registered to speak in opposition to these items.

STAFF PRESENTATION

John Roanhorse, staff, provided a presentation on the Data Center General Plan
Amendment noting the development background, review process, and the rationale
behind the proposed amendment. Mr. Roanhorse stated that the proposed text
amendment is a companion to the General Plan Amendment and is intended to support
the regulatory framework for data centers. Mr. Roanhorse stated that the City Council
had initiated creation of new policy guidance in response to the growing number of
requests for data center facilities, which possess unique characteristics not currently
addressed. Mr. Roanhorse expressed the importance of the General Plan Amendment
due to land use considerations, the need for adaptation to existing developments, and
the importance of connecting these facilities to infrastructure. Mr. Roanhorse noted that
one of the primary reasons for the amendment is that data centers are not directly
addressed in either the General Plan or the Zoning Ordinance and previous


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Alhambra Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y
May 20, 2025


developments have been permitted through informal interpretations. Mr. Roanhorse
discussed the key elements of the amendment, including location criteria, design
policies, and sustainability measures. Mr. Roanhorse reviewed site placement criteria,
highlighting core areas and centers as not preferred locations, and noted various
suitability factors. Mr. Roanhorse discussed required setbacks, the integration of art
features, dark sky compliance, noise mitigation, and architectural design standards. Mr.
Roanhorse noted the energy demands associated with data centers and the importance
of incorporating energy efficiency measures. Mr. Roanhorse stated that the amendment
would offer additional detail regarding definitions, guidelines, and performance
standards.

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE

Committee Member Jim DeGraffenreid asked if Data Centers would require additional
water use and if water was mainly used for cooling. Mr. Roanhorse responded that
water is a concern, however it is addressed within the sustainability component of the
text amendment. Mr. Roanhorse stated based on information provided data centers
recycle water and take measures to prevent increasing water use.

Committee Member David Krietor asked if Data Centers could be developed in
existing buildings as an adaptive reuse and that it appears that there might not be many
places for Data Centers in the Alhambra Village. Mr. Roanhorse responded that it is
less likely that a data center would be developed on an existing site however in the past
there are data centers that have been established in existing buildings but typically their
sizes are limited.

Committee Member Alexander Malkoon commented the increase of Data Centers
reflects the growth of technology like artificial intelligence and the facilities house
substantial servers and equipment. Committee Member Malkoon commented that the
Text Amendment responds to the needs but asked if what is presented is appropriate to
the level of development. Mr. Roanhorse responded that the preparation of the text
amendment included interaction with stakeholders and an analysis of existing data
centers and the direction of current technology development in other cities that have
widely developed data center facilities.

Committee Member DeGraffenreid commented that he is supportive of Data Centers
and the Text Amendment but does have concern that water and energy issues will not
be addressed. Mr. Roanhorse responded that water use is a concern and the text
amendment does provide sustainability details as part of the proposal.

Vice Chair Melisa Camp asked if there will be sufficient requirements in response to
mitigate increased heat temperatures. Mr. Roanhorse responded that the operation of
a data center does generate internal heat which has cooling and other mechanical
systems to maintain the temperature for the development and factors on the site such
as shading, landscaping and other features would contribute to external heat reduction

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1491
Alhambra Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y
May 20, 2025


and mitigation. Mr. Roanhorse discussed the proposed design guidelines, which include
setback requirements, perimeter landscaping, and specific landscape coverage
standards. Mr. Roanhorse discussed enhancements to architectural elements, including
building frontages with the integration of art, color, texture, and orientation, along with
requirements for pedestrian amenities and sidewalks. Mr. Roanhorse displayed the
proposed timeline for both the General Plan and Text Amendments and indicated that
both items would proceed to the Planning Commission and ultimately to the City Council
by June 2025.

Committee Member Alexander Malkoon asked the time frame for access to utility
service for a Data Center. Mr. Roanhorse responded that it would depend on the timing
and application of the data center submittal. Mr. Roanhorse noted that as part of the
process the applicant would have to provide the will serve letter.

Committee Member Jim DeGraffienried asked if energy use for a Data Center will
increase over the years. Mr. Roanhorse responded that typically data centers would
have sufficient energy provided as part of the utility grid they are in. Mr. Roanhorse
noted that the utilities have provided information regarding energy use for proposed
data centers.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

Samantha DeMoss, representing Rose Law Group, introduced herself and stated that
Data Centers are an expanding use and reflect an important economic sector for the
Phoenix area. Ms. DeMoss stated that addressing Data Centers is very important and
will have long-term implications for growth and development. Ms. DeMoss stated there
are concerns with the current General Plan Amendment specifically that with process
review and timing and the design criteria. Ms. DeMoss stated that additional review time
would be necessary to review and address many of the incomplete details in the
General Plan Amendment as presented. Ms. DeMoss said that additional review time
would allow more stakeholder review and input. Ms. DeMoss stated that the committee
consider a 90-day period be granted to allow for more time for a thorough review and
comment.

Cepand Alizadeh, representing the Arizona Technology Council, introduced himself
and shared a personal experience to illustrate the importance of access to electronic
medical information and the critical role of Data Centers. Mr. Alizadeh explained that he
works with an organization that provides information and supports a variety of
technology industries, emphasizing its alignment with economic development efforts.
Mr. Alizadeh stated that correspondence outlining the Arizona Technology Council’s
position on the proposed text amendment had been submitted to the Mayor's Office and
members of the City Council. Mr. Alizadeh stated that data centers are an essential
component of the modern economy, noting that several facilities are either under
consideration or already under construction in different areas of the city, with more
expected in the near future. Mr. Alizadeh also pointed out that data centers vary in size

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1492
Alhambra Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y
May 20, 2025


and capacity, both in terms of the volume of information housed and the operations
conducted within the facilities. Mr. Alizadeh stated that he works with a range of
businesses and organizations that develop services, maintain technology systems, and
ensure that critical information remains readily available. Mr. Alizadeh said on behalf of
the Arizona Technology Council, he expressed concerns about the proposed text
amendment, specifically regarding the process timeline and the requirements for sound
abatement. Mr. Alizadeh stated that additional time is needed to allow for a
comprehensive review and to provide informed feedback on the proposed amendment.
Mr. Alizadeh further noted that the draft text amendment does not sufficiently address
appropriate sound control measures that would be consistent with the functional and
operational needs of data centers.

DISCUSSION

Vice Chair Camp asked if there has been consultation with utility companies regarding
the development of data centers. Ms. DeMoss responded that there has been some
discussion with the utility companies, however, like many other details, this proposed
amendment is moving quickly and more discussion and review would be beneficial to all
parties.

Committee Member John Owens asked if there was information on existing data
centers and their locations. Committee Member Owens commented that typically data
centers and more similar uses would be aligned with freeway corridors and what would
be the best approach to have balanced locations to accommodate connection to the
infrastructure grid. Ms. DeMoss responded that there are many potential locations for
data centers but locating them in the appropriate place would consider many factors
and they are evaluating such options but more time to review the proposed General
Plan Amendment would be a good starting point to ensure all details are addressed
appropriately.

Committee Member John Owens asked what other cities in the area are developing
data centers and what issues have been presented with them. Mr. Alizadeh responded
that most adjacent cities have data centers including Tempe and Chandler. Mr. Alizadeh
stated that the city of Chandler has been responsive and on the forefront of data center
development and has ordinance and policies to accommodate them.

Committee Member Malkoon asked how the City of Chandler responded to the issue
of noise abatement with data centers in their jurisdiction. Mr. Alizadeh responded that
the City of Chandler has information in their ordinance for noise mitigation for data
centers and it is more appropriately suited to the current type of designs that are being
developed.

Committee Member Malkoon commented that he had experience in the development
of call centers and was familiar with the scope of large-scale development. Committee
Member Malkoon asked if back up power generators will be included in data centers

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1493
Alhambra Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y
May 20, 2025


and how much sound is expected. Mr. Alizadeh responded that yes data centers do
include backup generators and currently they are powered by diesel fuel so there would
be some sound associated with the current data centers, but physical measures would
dramatically reduce any loud noises associated with data centers.

Committee Member Owens commented that data centers are part of the future growth
for the city and the economy and asked what measures are being taken to bring more
data centers to the area. Mr. Alizadeh responded that yes data centers are a growing
industry, and Phoenix is an ideal location for this growing industry. Mr. Alizadeh stated
that having a responsive ordinance and policies is necessary to accommodate data
centers and provide jobs and tax revenue for the local economies.

Committee Member Carlos Velasco commented that the Alhambra Village is land
locked however it is important to promote economic opportunities, create jobs and
promote tax benefits. Committee Member Velasco asked what type of jobs come with
data centers and is there a higher pay scale. Mr. Alizadeh responded that jobs
associated with data centers are high paying and will promote economic development.
Mr. Alizadeh stated that in addition to jobs being provided data centers will also
contribute to local economies by the services and supporting needs from local
businesses in the area.


FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: MOTION, DISCUSSION, AND VOTE

MOTION
Committee Member Alexander Malkoon motioned to recommend the denial of Z-TA-
2-25-Y. Member Keith Ender seconded the motion.

VOTE
11-0, motion to deny Z-TA-2-25-Y passed with Committee Members DeGraffenreid,
Ender, Gamiño Guerrero, Krietor, Malkoon, Owens, Smith, Vallo, Velasco, Camp and
Sanchez in favor.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

Staff has no comment.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1494
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y
Date of VPC Meeting May 12, 2025
Request Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2,
Section 202 (Definitions) to add a definition for data
centers; amend Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A.II.D
(Guidelines for Design Review, City-Wide Design
Review Guidelines, Specialized Uses) to modify the
section title and add design standards for data
centers and amend Chapter 6, Section 647 (Special
Permit Uses), Section 647.A.2 to add data centers
within the C-2 (Intermediate Commercial), C-3
(General Commercial), CP/GCP (Commerce
Park/General Commerce Park), A-1 (Light Indus-trial)
and A-2 (Industrial) zoning districts, with performance
standards.
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation, with
direction
VPC Vote 8-1-1

Item Nos. 6 (GPA-2-25-Y) and 7 (Z-TA-2-25-Y) are companion cases and were heard
concurrently.

One member of the public registered to speak in opposition on this item.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Samuel Rogers, staff, provided a presentation regarding the proposed General Plan
Amendment, including background and details of the location criteria, design, and
energy and sustainability policies proposed to be added for data centers. Mr. Rogers
provided information about the proposed Text Amendment, including a definition for
data centers, design guidelines, and a requirement for a Special Permit and
performance standards, finally noting the timeline for the proposals.

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE

Committee Member Frazier Johnson asked what happens if a facility leases data
services. Samuel Rogers, staff, stated that if a facility is proposing to lease data
services it would not be allowed and explained the definition of a data center.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Central City Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
May 12, 2025
Z-TA-2-25-Y

Committee Member Faith Burton stated that dead office towers are leasing their
space for data centers and asked if the proposal would impact those uses. Mr. Rogers
stated that staff is working through what will have grandfathered rights. Committee
Member Burton explained that there are many dead office towers with excess power
capacity that will likely never be used due to modern office uses not requiring high
energy loads.

Vice Chair Darlene Martinez asked if there is a reason data centers are not allowed to
lease their data services. Mr. Rogers explained that the intent is to prevent the primary
use of data centers from being external data hosting and to discourage expansion
solely to accommodate off-site users.

Committee Member Burton explained that many data centers lease services to
businesses without office space.

Chair Cyndy Gaughan asked if staff is working through the issue of existing
conditions. Mr. Rogers confirmed Chair Gaughan’s inquiry.

Committee Member Zach Burns asked what prevents a facility from leasing out data
services. Mr. Rogers explained that a facility must meet all the requirements in the
definition of a data center to be considered a data center. Chair Gaughan stated that
enforcement would be the challenge.

Committee Member Janey Pearl Starks asked why shade was not included in the
General Plan Amendment’s design policy slide. Mr. Rogers explained that data
centers would need to go through the Special Permit process and be subject to
rezoning stipulations, which could address those design elements.

Committee Member Ian O’Grady asked if there are other uses that require a Will
Serve Letter. Mr. Rogers stated that he is not aware of any other uses requiring a Will
Serve Letter.

Committee Member Ali Nervis asked whether the perception is that data centers are
inherently negative. Mr. Rogers stated that public outreach has revealed concerns
about data centers, explained that data centers are currently allowed in zoning districts
which allow offices, without any performance or design standards, and reiterated that
data centers use significant amounts of energy.

Committee Member Frazier Johnson asked whether there has been an increase in
data centers within the Central City Village. Mr. Rogers stated that he is not aware of
the number of data centers in the Central City Village and explained that there has
been an increase in data centers over time within the City.

Chair Gaughan stated that there is land around the airport that could be suitable for
data centers and noted that data centers are currently somewhat unregulated.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1496
Central City Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
May 12, 2025
Z-TA-2-25-Y

Committee Member Nate Sonoskey asked for confirmation that data centers can
currently be built anywhere office uses are allowed and asked about what requirements
currently apply to data centers. Mr. Rogers confirmed that data centers can currently
be built wherever office uses are allowed and explained that an informal interpretation
from 20 years ago considered data centers analogous to office uses. Mr. Rogers stated
that data center demands have significantly changed and stated that data centers are
not currently subject to any data center specific performance or design standards.
Committee Member Sonoskey asked how many data centers have been built in office
zones. Mr. Rogers stated that he does not have data on the number of data centers in
Phoenix.

Committee Member Sonoskey asked whether the City is considering allowing data
centers by right in industrial areas and stated that it is common to allow data centers in
industrial zones. Mr. Rogers stated that most cities in the Phoenix metro area do not
have specific regulations for data centers.

Chair Gaughan stated that data centers are not sustainable job creators.

Committee Member Nervis asked whether there are any requirements regarding
energy efficiency. Mr. Rogers stated that he is not knowledgeable about energy
efficiency requirements.

Committee Member Sonoskey asked if the proposal would go into effect immediately,
asked whether the City has received any pushback from large companies, and stated
that many companies have already acquired land for data centers.

Mr. Rogers explained that the proposal would be subject to a 30-day appeal period
and stated that some developers have expressed concerns.

Committee Member Frazier Johnson stated that there are data centers everywhere
but people do not know they are present because they do not look like data centers.

Committee Member Burton stated that many developments do not have other
options, explained that data centers can give a development a second life, and
explained concerns about how overreaching the proposal is.

Mr. Rogers stated that the goal of the proposal is not to eliminate data centers but to
establish a formalized review process.

Committee Member Frazier Johnson asked about the timeline. Mr. Rogers
described the timeline for upcoming public hearings.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Henry Hardy introduced himself, explained that he works for Rose Law Group, stated
that he represents data center stakeholders, and explained that the stakeholders were
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1497
Central City Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
May 12, 2025
Z-TA-2-25-Y

made aware of the text amendment only two weeks prior. Mr. Hardy stated that the
amendment is moving too quickly, requested a recommendation for continuation,
acknowledged there are positive elements in the proposal, and stated some
components would make data centers unfeasible. Mr. Hardy explained that data
centers can provide 80 to 150 high-paying jobs and are essential to the region’s
technology infrastructure, expressed concern that the proposal creates uncertainty
around property rights and may result in Proposition 207 litigation, stated that requiring
a Will Serve Letter is inconsistent with current utility processes and will hinder projects,
and emphasized the limited time between village planning committee reviews and City
Council hearings.

Committee Member Frazier Johnson asked what specific concerns the stakeholders
have. Mr. Hardy described concerns with the Will Serve Letter, Proposition 207
implications, and existing properties planning future expansions. Mr. Hardy stated that
there are long lead times on data center developments.

Vice Chair Martinez asked if data center users are conducting outreach. Mr. Hardy
stated that outreach is being conducted through agents such as himself and reiterated
that the current timeline is short.

Committee Member O’Grady asked how much power a typical data center requires.
Mr. Hardy explained that power needs vary, stated that it is often impossible to obtain
a utility commitment for under ten years, stated the Will Serve Letter requirement is
impractical, and stated that while data centers may not employ large numbers of
people, they still provide employment. Mr. Hardy clarified that the stakeholders are not
opposed to the text amendment itself but believe additional time for discussion is
necessary.

STAFF RESPONSE

Mr. Rogers stated that the City’s Law Department has not raised any concerns
regarding Proposition 207 and stated that he could not speak to wet utility
requirements.

Committee Member Starks noted that the proposal is on an expedited timeline and
asked how long a standard text amendment process typically takes. Mr. Rogers
explained that text amendments are usually processed over a longer period, but staff
was directed to bring the General Plan Amendment and Text Amendment to City
Council prior to the summer break. Mr. Rogers stated that past text amendments were
typically presented for information only and for recommendation the following month at
each of the three hearing bodies. Committee Member Starks asked for confirmation
that the hearing schedule is limited to two months. Mr. Rogers confirmed Committee
Member Starks’ inquiry.

Committee Member Sonoskey asked whether other village planning committees had
already reviewed the item. Mr. Rogers stated that one village heard the item the
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1498
Central City Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
May 12, 2025
Z-TA-2-25-Y

previous week and explained that he was unaware of the outcome due to staff
absences. Mr. Hardy stated that he attended the previous village meeting and noted
that both items were recommended for approval.

Committee Member Sonoskey asked for clarification on the difference between the
General Plan Amendment and the Text Amendment. Mr. Rogers explained that the
General Plan Amendment sets policy direction, while the Text Amendment defines the
ordinance requirements.

Committee Member Nervis asked why the City Council wants to consider the items
before the summer break. Mr. Rogers stated that he was unaware of any specific
reason for the timeline, explained that his department was instructed to complete the
process before the summer break, and stated that a delay would postpone the items
until September.

Committee Member Sonoskey expressed concern that extending the process would
cause significant confusion and delay due to heavy investment in data center land
acquisition. Committee Member Sonoskey stated that the General Plan Amendment is
only a partial step, stated that policy is needed, and stated that the Text Amendment
contains substantive requirements, but it has not been sufficiently discussed.
Committee Member Sonoskey questioned how utility providers such as APS and SRP
view the Will Serve Letter requirement. Mr. Rogers stated that APS and SRP
participated in the stakeholder meetings.

FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: MOTION, DISCUSSION, AND VOTE

Motion #1:
Committee Member Ali Nervis made a motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-2-25-
Y per the staff recommendation. Committee Member Janey Pearl Starks seconded
the motion.

Vote #1:
4-5-1, motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-2-25-Y per the staff recommendation.
fails with Committee Members Burns, Nervis, Starks, and Vargas in favor, Committee
Members Burton, Frazier Johnson, Sonoskey, Martinez, and Gaughan opposed, and
Committee Member O’Grady. abstained.

Committee Member Frazier Johnson explained that she believes there should be
more time for public comment.

Committee Member Burton suggested allowing data centers on industrially zoned
properties by right and expressed concerns with the definition of data center.

Committee Member Burns stated that the Committee is not happy with the timeframe.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1499
Central City Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
May 12, 2025
Z-TA-2-25-Y

Committee Member Sonoskey explained that he could see data centers being
allowed on industrially zoned properties and stated that the Will Serve Letter is a very
hard ask.

Committee Member O’Grady explained that he does not know if a utility company will
give a Will Serve Letter without a permit being issued. Committee Member Burns
stated that APS will typically not review a project until a permit is issued.

Committee Member Burton explained that she understands the timeline but stated
that data centers are a huge component of economy.

Committee Member Starks stated that she wonders why the City would do this and
stated that the City knows the power that is about to come against the Text
Amendment.

Committee Member O’Grady explained that Phoenix is the second largest market for
data centers behind Virginia and stated that development is occurring quickly.

Vice Chair Martinez explained that a Special Permit is difficult to get.

Committee Member O’Grady asked about the landscape setback for industrially
zoned properties. Mr. Rogers explained that the proposed 30-foot landscape setback
is consistent with industrial zoning district requirements and clarified that the Special
Permit process is the same process as the rezoning process.

Committee Member O’Grady stated that he could motion to continue. Mr. Rogers
explained that the item is already scheduled for Planning Commission and City
Council.

Motion #2:
Vice Chair Darelene Martinez made a motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-2-25-Y
per the staff recommendation, with direction to allow 60-days for public comment.
Chair Cyndy Gaughan seconded the motion.

Vote #2:
2-7-1, made a motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-2-25-Y per the staff
recommendation, with direction to allow 60-days for public comment fails with
Committee Members Martinez and Gaughan in favor, Committee Members Burns,
Burton, Frazier Johnson, Nervis, Sonoskey, Starks, and Vargas opposed, and
Committee Member O’Grady. abstained.

Committee Member Sonoskey stated that the proposal needs more time and stated
that it looks like the City is moving forward.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1500
Central City Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
May 12, 2025
Z-TA-2-25-Y

Mr. Hardy stated that whether the Text Amendment is recommended to be approved
or denied, the most important thing is the Committee express their concerns with the
proposal.

Committee Member Frazier Johnson stated that the Committee wants City Council to
know the Village Planning Committee’s concerns. Committee Member O’Grady
explained that staff will draft meeting minutes that will include the Village Planning
Committee’s concerns. Mr. Rogers confirmed that he will draft a recommendation form
that will be available for the Planning Commission and City Council

Committee Member Burton suggested a motion to deny with direction to narrow the
scope and requirements.

Mr. Rogers summarized the concerns that have been discussed.

Committee Member Frazier Johnson asked how the Committee can express
concerns that the proposal will eliminate Phoenix in the data center market. Mr.
Rogers encouraged the committee members to provide comments when they vote on
the item.

Motion #3:
Committee Member Ali Nervis made a motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-2-25-
Y per the staff recommendation, with direction to allow a minimum of 60-days for public
comment, allow data centers by right in A-1, A-2, and CP/GCP with performance
standards, and remove the requirement for the Will Serve Letter. Vice Chair Martinez
seconded the motion.

Vote #3:
8-1-1, motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-2-25-Y per the staff recommendation,
with direction to allow a minimum of 60-days for public comment, allow data centers by
right in A-1, A-2, and CP/GCP with performance standards, and remove the
requirement for the Will Serve Letter passed with Committee Members Burns, Frazier
Johnson, Nervis, Sonoskey, Starks, Vargas, Martinez, and Gaughan in favor,
Committee Member Burton opposed, and Committee Member O’Grady. abstained.

Committee Member Frazier Johnson explained she would like to figure out a way
that the proposal can work for businesses and the community and stated she does not
want to be in a situation where the City of Phoenix is not in the game for data centers.

Committee Member Sonoskey explained that the definition and requirements should
be further refined during the recommended additional public comment period.

Committee Member Vargas stated that it does not feel like there has been a real
stakeholder meeting and stated that he believes the State will take up this issue in the
next year.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1501
Central City Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
May 12, 2025
Z-TA-2-25-Y

Vice Chair Martinez echoed Committee Member Vargas’ comments.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:
None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1502
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y

Date of VPC Meeting June 3, 2025
Request Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2,
Section 202 (Definitions) to add a definition for data
centers; amend Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A.II.D
(Guidelines for Design Review, City-Wide Design
Review Guidelines, Specialized Uses) to modify the
section title and add design standards for data centers
and amend Chapter 6, Section 647 (Special Permit
Uses), Section 647.A.2 to add data centers within the
C-2 (Intermediate Commercial), C-3 (General
Commercial), CP/GCP (Commerce Park/General
Commerce Park), A-1 (Light Industrial) and A-2
(Industrial) zoning districts, with performance
standards
VPC Recommendation Denial with direction
VPC Vote 17-0


VPC DISCUSSION:

Item Nos. 4 (GPA-2-25-Y) and 5 (Z-TA-2-25-Y) are companion cases and were heard
concurrently.

Two members of the public registered to speak on this item, both in opposition. One
member of the public registered in opposition, not wishing to speak.

STAFF PRESENTATION
Anthony Grande, staff, provided a presentation regarding the proposed General Plan
Amendment, including background and details of the location criteria, design, and
energy and sustainability policies proposed to be added for data centers, further
providing information about the proposed Text Amendment, including a definition for
data centers, design guidelines, and a requirement for a Special Permit and
performance standards, finally noting the timeline for the proposals.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Camelback East Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary - June 3, 2025
Z-TA-2-25-Y


QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
Committee Member Eichelkraut asked if the text made a distinction between different
types of data centers, noting that data centers becoming AI data centers in the future
could be an issue. Mr. Grande replied that the text did not make a distinction.

Committee Member Swart asked if City staff is able to measure decibel levels. Mr.
Grande replied that there are some parts of the code that have decibel limits, and the
Neighborhood Services Department needs to enforce those requirements.

Committee Member Schmieder stated that the noise limit should simply be a flat
decibel limit, rather than a percentage.

Committee Member Augusta asked for clarification on how the location criteria policy
would be enforced. Mr. Grande replied that each data center will be required to go
through the Special Permit process, where staff and the Committee can review the
request in relation to the location criteria in the policy.

Committee Member Whitesell stated that it would be better if City staff conducted the
noise readings, rather than the applicant, and that C-2 and C-3 are not appropriate for
data centers, which should be limited to industrial districts. Chair Fischbach noted that
Proposition 207 could have been a concern when drafting the language.

Committee Member Todd asked for clarification that if this text is approved, every data
center will be a rezoning case. Mr. Grande replied that they would be. Mr. Todd added
that data centers in C-2 is concerning and that the landscaping requirements seem too
extreme. Chair Fischbach noted that the plants would be drought-tolerant, which
alleviates some water usage concerns.

Committee Member Schmieder asked for clarification on the landscaping requirement
and if it would be consistent with the environment in industrial districts. Mr. Grande
replied with background about industrial zoning landscaping requirements.

Committee Member Eichelkraut asked if there is a requirement for separation
between data centers. Mr. Grande replied that there is not.

Committee Member Whitesell asked for clarification that the requirement is for a
Special Permit, not a Use Permit. Mr. Grande replied that the text is clear that it is a
Special Permit requirement.

Committee Member Eichelkraut stated a concern about the future with energy
consumption of data centers that will evolve over time.

Vice Chair Paceley provided background regarding the requirements with utility
companies, noting that data centers would be responsible for the required infrastructure
and have to sign favorable agreements with utility companies.


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1504
Camelback East Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary - June 3, 2025
Z-TA-2-25-Y


Chair Fischbach stated that the primary issue with developing data centers is the need
for power, noting that their development can be positive in some ways while highlighting
a challenge presented with power supply at a data center on 40th Street.

Committee Member Schmieder asked if APS and SRP will be able to handle the
growth into the future. Vice Chair Paceley replied that the utilities are planning far into
the future to meet future demand.

Committee Member Whitesell asked for clarification on the will serve letter. Vice
Chair Paceley provided clarification.

PUBLIC COMMENTS
Melissa Rhodes introduced herself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, noting that
this proposal does not incorporate the stricter standards found in the data center
ordinances of other municipalities, such as Chandler, adding that the development of
data centers in commercial districts will be detrimental to neighborhoods and that we
don’t have the energy for data centers.

Samantha DeMoss with Rose Law Group, introduced herself and spoke in opposition
to the proposal, noting that this process is moving too fast for a code change like this,
that it doesn’t address grandfathering, and that as written, this is a moratorium on data
centers, requesting a denial and a 90-day continuance.

Chair Fischbach asked for an example scenario related to the grandfathering issue.
Ms. DeMoss stated that someone could have purchased property with CP/GCP zoning
under the assumption that they could develop a data center but that this text
amendment would remove that right, especially considering the will serve letter
requirement.

COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
Chair Fischbach stated that based on the discussion so far, one option would be to
recommend approval with direction to City staff.

MOTION:
Committee Member Schmieder made a motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-2-25-Y
with direction to City staff to:
• Revise the noise requirement to an objective decibel level to be verified by the
City.
• Allow for an additional 90-day review period to include a review of ordinances
from other municipalities, including Chandler.
• Add separation requirements for data centers from other data centers and from
residential uses.

Committee Member Noel seconded the motion.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1505
Camelback East Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary - June 3, 2025
Z-TA-2-25-Y


VOTE:
17-0; motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-2-25-Y with direction passed; Committee
Members Abbott, Augusta, Beckerleg Thraen, Eichelkraut, Garcia, Langmade,
McClelland, Noel, Schmieder, Sharaby, Siegel, Swart, Todd, Whitesell, Williams,
Paceley, and Fischbach in favor.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

Staff has no comments.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1506
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y



Date of VPC Meeting June 3, 2025
Request Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2,
Section 202 (Definitions) to add a definition for data
centers; amend Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A.II.D
(Guidelines for Design Review, City-Wide Design
Review Guidelines, Specialized Uses) to modify the
section title and add design standards for data centers
and amend Chapter 6, Section 647 (Special Permit
Uses), Section 647.A.2 to add data centers within the
C-2 (Intermediate Commercial), C-3 (General
Commercial), CP/GCP (Commerce Park/General
Commerce Park), A-1 (Light Industrial) and A-2
(Industrial) zoning districts, with performance
standards.
VPC Recommendation Denial, with direction
VPC Vote 11-0


VPC DISCUSSION:

Agenda Item 3 (GPA-2-25-Y) and Agenda Item 4 (Z-TA-2-25-Y) are companion cases
and were heard concurrently.

Committee Member Michelle Santoro declared a conflict of interest and recused herself
from this item, bringing the quorum to 11 members.

Three members of the public registered to speak on this item, in opposition.

Staff Presentation:
Adrian Zambrano, staff, provided background on GPA-2-25-Y and Z-TA-2-25-Y. Mr.
Zambrano discussed concerns with data centers that the General Plan Amendment and
Text Amendment are trying to address. Mr. Zambrano explained the policy guidance for
data centers that the General Plan Amendment includes. Mr. Zambrano then discussed
the three main components of the Text Amendment. Mr. Zambrano shared the
proposed Zoning Ordinance definition for a data center. Mr. Zambrano then discussed
the proposed design guidelines and their purpose. Mr. Zambrano shared the zoning

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1507
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y

districts that data centers would be permitted in, subject to a Special Permit and other
performance standards, and noted that Special Permits go through the same public
hearing process as rezoning cases. Mr. Zambrano stated that a noise study would be
required if the data center is within a certain distance from residential. Mr. Zambrano
shared the upcoming public hearing schedule and stated that staff recommends
approval per the language in Exhibit A of the staff reports.

Questions from Committee:
Committee Member Rick Nowell asked why a large data center would be considered
within a small commercially-zoned shopping center. Mr. Zambrano responded that
there would have to be a large enough area that is commercially zoned in order for the
data center to fit. Mr. Zambrano added that a rezoning may be required in some cases
to one of the zoning districts that a data center would be permitted in.

Chair Steven Bowser asked if there are any other zoning districts, other than those
already listed, that a Special Permit would not be required. Mr. Zambrano responded
that data centers would only be permitted within the C-2, C-3, CP/GCP, A-1 and A-2
zoning districts, subject to a Special Permit, and they would not be permitted in any
other zoning districts. Chair Bowser asked if a data center would be permitted in a
heavy industrial district. Mr. Zambrano responded that A-1 is the light industrial district
and A-2 is the heavy industrial district, and a Special Permit would still be required.

Committee Member David Kollar asked which zoning districts data centers are
currently located in. Mr. Zambrano responded that data centers have previously been
permitted through an informal interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance and were
determined to be analogous to an office use, so any zoning district that permitted an
office use is where they have been permitted. Mr. Zambrano stated that the commercial,
commerce park, and industrial districts all permit office use. Mr. Zambrano added that
some data centers have gone through the PUD (Planned Unit Development) process to
permit them.

Vice Chair Louis Lagrave asked what the typical size is of a data center. Mr.
Zambrano responded that they are typically very large in scale and could cover many
acres of land. Mr. Zambrano added that they typically are not small-scale. Vice Chair
Lagrave asked for clarification that it most likely would not be able to fit within a mostly
vacant shopping center. Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively.

Committee Member Kollar stated that some vacant high-rises have been retrofitted for
data centers. Committee Member Kollar stated that a large amount of space is needed
for a successful data center development. Committee Member Kollar added that data
centers are very particular with mechanical, electrical and water needs. Vice Chair
Lagrave asked if the space in this example would be less than 10 percent of the floor
area of the entire development. Committee Member Kollar responded that unless it is
for a specific user that has their own data needs, a data center is typically a giant empty
warehouse with a lot of racks that need to be cooled. Mr. Kollar reiterated that a lot of
square footage is needed. Mr. Kollar stated that a majority of the space is taken up by
data infrastructure and a small remainder of the space is used for office space. Vice

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1508
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y

Chair Lagrave asked if the noise is continuously generated 24/7. Committee Member
Kollar responded that data centers generate noise from rooftop mechanical equipment
and there may be some light humming from the racks and servers in the interior.
Committee Member Kollar added that the massive air handlers that support cooling of
the equipment also generate noise.

Committee Member Reginald Younger asked about data center water usage. Mr.
Zambrano responded that some data centers may use water cooling to help cool their
data infrastructure.

Committee Member Nowell expressed concerns with allowing a five percent increase
in the ambient noise level in residential areas. Committee Member Nowell asked why
the Text Amendment would allow an increase in the ambient noise level. Mr. Zambrano
responded that this language was based off of what other municipalities have done that
have adopted a data center ordinance. Committee Member Nowell suggested that
Phoenix take the lead and say that the ambient noise level cannot be exceeded.

Committee Member Kollar asked if there is a decibel range that is considered an
ambient noise level. Mr. Zambrano responded that the noise study would determine
what the ambient noise level is, which would be conducted by an acoustical engineer.
Committee Member Kollar stated that an acceptable decibel range would make more
sense.

Committee Member Jason Israel stated that noise levels inside data centers typically
range from 80 to 90 dBa (A-weighted decibels) and peak levels can reach up to 96 dBa.
Committee Member Israel concurred with clarifying the ambient noise level requirement.
Mr. Zambrano responded that the ambient noise level would be the baseline noise
level before a data center is built in the area. Mr. Zambrano added that the ambient
noise level can vary based on the surrounding context of a site and a specific decibel
number would not cover the entire city, since noise level can vary from one part of the
city to another.

Committee Member Barbara Reynolds stated that smaller data centers can operate in
buildings from 5,000 to 10,000 square feet and larger facilities require up to 300 acres.
Committee Member Reynolds agreed with not allowing data centers in commercial
areas.

Committee Member Richard Carlucci expressed concerns with the noise study
requirement, noting that developers could go to the nearest street during the busiest
time of the day and measure the noise levels from there to get the highest ambient
noise level. Committee Member Carlucci stated that the noise study needs more
objective standards. Committee Member Carlucci asked why a Special Permit is
needed. Mr. Zambrano responded that the Special Permit requirement would allow
community input, which would not happen if a data center was allowed by-right in a
zoning district. Committee Member Carlucci stated that data center developers that
invest a lot of money into a site deserve some certainty. Mr. Zambrano responded that
part of the Village Planning Committee (VPC) recommendation is determining whether a

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1509
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y

Special Permit is appropriate for all zoning districts or not and if data centers should be
permitted in the listed zoning districts or not, or if there are additional zoning districts
they should be permitted in.

Chair Bowser stated that a Special Permit is different from a Use Permit. Chair Bowser
clarified that a Use Permit is typically for a use such as a drive-through and a Special
Permit is similar to a rezoning case. Chair Bowser stated that data centers are used on
a daily basis without knowing it. Chair Bowser added that Phoenix is an area that does
not have natural disasters like other parts of the country and thus, Phoenix is a prime
area to build data centers. Chair Bowser stated that there should be more incentives to
encourage data centers in old industrial areas and old retail areas that need to be
redeveloped.

Committee Member Carlucci asked if the will-serve letter would require a confirmation
of energy from the utility company within two years. Mr. Zambrano responded
affirmatively. Committee Member Carlucci asked why the will-serve letter would be
required. Mr. Zambrano responded that the purpose was to ensure that there is not a
significant strain on the power grid due to data centers, which require a significant
amount of energy. Committee Member Carlucci asked if the City is concerned that the
utility company will mismanage their resources, make commitments they cannot meet,
and put the power grid in danger. Mr. Zambrano responded that generally, energy
usage is one of the major concerns of data centers, and it is not just a City concern. Mr.
Zambrano stated that the City wants to ensure there is sufficient energy supply for data
centers. Mr. Zambrano added that if the VPC does not agree with the two-year
timeframe, then part of the VPC recommendation could be to modify it.

Committee Member Kollar asked if the proposed definition for a data center was
defined by the City or by another source. Mr. Zambrano responded that the City looked
at other municipalities and how they defined a data center. Mr. Zambrano stated that
the definition was intended to be simplified. Committee Member Kollar expressed
concerns with the second part of the proposed definition for data centers, noting that
some accessory data center uses may exceed 10 percent of the gross floor area. Mr.
Zambrano shared and explained the proposed definition again. Mr. Kollar asked if a
software company would be considered a data services company if they have servers
and racks that exceed 10 percent of their gross floor area. Mr. Zambrano responded
that based on the proposed definition, if they exceeded the 10 percent threshold, then
they would be considered a primary data center use. Mr. Kollar expressed concerns
with software and technology companies, since they have robust servers and racks for
the nature of their business, which may exceed 10 percent of their gross floor area. Mr.
Zambrano responded that the 10 percent threshold came from another municipality and
how they defined a data center as an accessory use. Mr. Zambrano added that this
could be another modification that could be a part of the VPC recommendation.

Chair Bowser asked if 50 percent of the gross floor area is more common. Committee
Member Kollar responded that it is not uncommon. Committee Member Kollar stated
that there are a lot of technology companies in the area that would probably need more
than 10 percent of their gross floor area in order to not be considered a data center.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1510
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y

Committee Member Kollar added that some may be able to fit in a closet, but
companies’ floor areas are shrinking as more people are teleworking, which also
increases server needs.

Mr. Zambrano stated that there is an established Zoning Ordinance definition for gross
floor area and noted that it would cover the floor area of each floor of a multi-story
building.

Committee Member Gary Kirkilas asked if the first part of the proposed definition
would cover companies with facilities that are not primarily used for data services.
Committee Member Kollar responded that it would depend on how data services is
defined. Committee Member Kirkilas asked for clarification on encouraging energy
efficiency.

Mr. Zambrano responded that data centers would be encouraged to utilize the Phoenix
Green Construction Code in order to maximize their energy efficiency, since data
centers have such high energy demand. Mr. Zambrano added that maximizing energy
efficiency would reduce their energy demand.

Committee Member Carlucci stated that the architectural requirements would add
more areas for energy to leak out rather than a flat façade that could better retain
energy. Mr. Zambrano responded that the surrounding community to a data center
would not want to see a large, monolithic, concrete box right next to their community.
Mr. Zambrano stated that the architectural requirements address the negative visual
impact that data centers could have on the surrounding community.

Vice Chair Lagrave expressed concerns with the 10 percent threshold in the definition.

Committee Member Younger expressed concerns with energy efficiency not being a
requirement. Committee Member Younger asked if energy efficiency could be changed
to a standard requirement. Mr. Zambrano responded that encouraging energy
efficiency is from the General Plan Amendment, which would be the policy guidance.
Mr. Zambrano added that if data centers are required to obtain a Special Permit, then
City staff would look at the adopted policy guidance during that process and try to
ensure the development is being consistent with adopted policy. Mr. Zambrano added
that the VPC recommendation could include modifying this to a requirement.

Public Comments:
Benjamin Graff, with Quarles & Brady, LLP, introduced himself as a representative of
American Express, opposed to this item. Mr. Graff displayed the existing American
Express campus at the southeast corner of Mayo Boulevard and 56th Street, noting that
the site is zoned CP/BP (Commerce Park District, Business Park Option). Mr. Graff
noted that data centers were previously permitted in the CP/BP zoning district by right.
Mr. Graff stated that American Express leased the land from the Arizona State Land
Department with the intention of building two companion data centers in the vacant land
to the north of the existing campus. Mr. Graff stated that these data centers would not
be leased out and would support the American Express operations. Mr. Graff stated that

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1511
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y

the 10 percent threshold in the proposed definition would be exceeded by the proposed
data centers, and the CP/BP zoning district would not permit data centers in the current
draft ordinance. Mr. Graff added that Text Amendments typically take a year to go
through the process and stakeholders like American Express are contacted and brought
into stakeholder meetings. Mr. Graff stated that there has been no outreach that he is
aware of to American Express. Mr. Graff requested that the Text Amendment be slowed
down. Mr. Graff recommended that the 10 percent threshold in the proposed definition
be removed and that the CP/BP zoning district be added to the zoning districts that
permit data centers. Mr. Graff added that American Express has final site plan approval
for Phase II of the American Express campus, which includes their first data center. Mr.
Graff stated that if it becomes a legal non-conforming use overnight, it would create
many issues with lenders and financing that previously had other assurances.

Ty Utton, representative with Rose Law Group, introduced himself as a representative
of a broad coalition of data centers, opposed to this item. Mr. Utton echoed Mr. Graff
regarding the Text Amendment schedule. Mr. Utton stated that it was not an inclusive
process and was not the delivered approach typically seen from the City of Phoenix. Mr.
Utton expressed concerns with Proposition 207. Mr. Utton requested that the Text
Amendment be delayed.

Cepand Alizadeh, representative with the Arizona Technology Council (AZTC),
introduced himself as a stakeholder opposed to this item. Mr. Alizadeh shared a story
about a car accident, noting that his medical records were readily available to the
hospital because of a data center. Mr. Alizadeh stated that AZTC is a coalition of over
750 tech companies across Arizona, including numerous data center partners. Mr.
Alizadeh expressed concerns with the fast schedule for the Text Amendment. Mr.
Alizadeh stated that the City of Chandler took 20 months, and the City of Surprise took
24 months, to come up with a data center ordinance. Mr. Alizadeh stated that the will-
serve letter would not be possible, noting that data centers take years to develop. Mr.
Alizadeh expressed concerns with the noise study, noting that there is no mention of
measuring the noise in decibels. Mr. Alizadeh stated that the Text Amendment is
missing key language and stakeholders have not had any time to provide input. Mr.
Alizadeh requested that the Text Amendment be slowed down and noted that other
VPCs at the meetings he has attended have all denied it.

Staff Response:
Mr. Zambrano responded that projects with preliminary site plan approval before the
Text Amendment is adopted and goes into effect would still be able to develop and
would be considered a legal non-conforming use. Mr. Zambrano added that if they
wanted to expand in the future, then that is when the new zoning regulations would
apply. Mr. Zambrano stated that Proposition 207 concerns are a concern of the City
Council and should not be a concern at the VPC level. Mr. Zambrano stated that the
VPC recommendation could modify the 10 percent threshold of the proposed definition
as well as the noise study requirement. Mr. Zambrano added that the Mayor and City
Council requested that these items be before them to vote on before their summer
recess, which is why the schedule is rushed.


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1512
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y

Discussion:
Committee Member Joseph Barto asked if the schedule is a normal timeframe or if it
is a faster schedule. Mr. Zambrano responded that the public hearing schedule is a bit
more rushed, noting that the VPC, Planning Commission, and City Council meetings are
usually a month apart, resulting in at least a three-month public hearing schedule. Mr.
Zambrano stated that the public hearing schedule for these items is scheduled at about
a month and a half, so it is a faster timeline in that sense. Mr. Zambrano added that it
has been in the works since the beginning of the year and there have been three
stakeholder meetings. Mr. Zambrano stated that City staff is actively working with
stakeholders to get their input.

Committee Member Carlucci stated that although data centers are not a large source
of traditional jobs, they are a large source of construction jobs. Committee Member
Carlucci expressed concerns with major employers not coming to Phoenix if data
centers do not get built because of this Text Amendment. Committee Member Carlucci
added that data centers are critical national security infrastructure and are critical to
helping win the race for Artificial Intelligence (AI). Committee Member Carlucci stated
that the Text Amendment seems more like a ban on data centers. Committee Member
Carlucci stated that data centers need to be built faster and bigger. Committee Member
Carlucci stated that energy concerns should be addressed by the power companies on
how they can scale up energy production. Committee Member Carlucci expressed
opposition for these items.

Chair Bowser stated that he believes there are appropriate areas for data centers,
such as a large commerce park area, and a Special Permit requirement seems like an
overreach for those areas. Chair Bowser added that old retail areas may be more
appropriate for a Special Permit requirement due to proximity to residential.

Committee Member Kirkilas asked what the stakeholder input has been so far. Mr.
Zambrano responded that he has not been involved in the stakeholder meetings, so he
cannot say what has been discussed in those meetings. Mr. Zambrano reiterated that
the Mayor and City Council requested these items to be before them to vote on before
their summer recess, which is why City staff is moving forward with the current
schedule.

Committee Member Kollar asked if stakeholder comments were considered and
incorporated into the Text Amendment. Mr. Zambrano responded that there was one
stakeholder meeting at the time the staff report was written. Mr. Zambrano added that
City staff may make some modifications to the draft ordinance language for the
Planning Commission and the City Council meetings, based on feedback heard from
the stakeholder meetings and the VPC meetings. Committee Member Kollar stated that
it seems pre-mature to vote on the Text Amendment if it is going to be amended.
Committee Member Kollar expressed concerns with stakeholder input not being
incorporated into the Text Amendment. Committee Member Kollar stated that the
current draft ordinance seems over-prohibitive. Mr. Zambrano responded that these are
all factors that the VPC can consider, and this is part of the discussion. Mr. Zambrano
stated that the main question is whether the VPC agrees with the current draft

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1513
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y

ordinance or not, and if not, which parts does the VPC not agree with and how can
those parts be modified. Mr. Zambrano added that this information will be used for
further discussions with the Planning Commission and the City Council.

Vice Chair Lagrave stated that the Text Amendment seems incomplete. Vice Chair
Lagrave stated that the issues he sees are the 10 percent threshold of the proposed
definition, the exclusion of the CP/BP zoning district, the noise study requirements, and
proximity to residential. Vice Chair Lagrave stated that these issues need to be
addressed. Vice Chair Lagrave asked which type of motion would be more likely to be
heard. Mr. Zambrano responded that there are a few different options, including
recommending denial with direction, with the direction to take another look at the items
of concern. Mr. Zambrano added that the VPC could recommend approval, per the staff
recommendation, with modifications, and recommend certain modifications to the text
amendment.

Committee Member Reynolds recommended adding the will-serve letter requirement
to the list of concerns.

Committee Member Israel asked for clarification if the calculation for the 10 percent
threshold of the accessory data centers for the American Express site would include the
gross floor area of all on-site buildings of Phase I, Phase II, and Phase III, based on the
proposed definition. Mr. Zambrano responded that if the data centers are solely serving
the enterprise functions of American Express, then the gross floor area would include all
buildings on the campus, including the existing American Express buildings. Committee
Member Israel asked for clarification if the proposed definition would not allow data
services to be leased to third parties. Mr. Zambrano clarified that this part of the
definition intends to clarify that a data center would be considered an accessory use
only if it is used for the on-site enterprise and is not leased to other entities.

Committee Member Carlucci asked if there are other zoning districts that could be
added in addition to the CP/BP zoning district, such as industrial districts. Chair
Bowser responded that the A-1 and A-2 industrial zoning districts are already listed.
Committee Member Carlucci stated that part of the recommendation should include
removing the Special Permit requirement.

Mr. Zambrano asked for clarification if the recommendation would include removing the
Special Permit requirement for only the industrial zoning districts or for all the zoning
districts. Committee Member Carlucci suggested that the Special Permit requirement
be removed from all the zoning districts.

Vice Chair Lagrave stated that the Special Permit requirement should be retained for
the commercial zoning districts.

Mr. Zambrano repeated that the VPC wanted to add data centers as a permitted use in
the CP/BP zoning district and that the VPC wanted to allow more time for stakeholder
input. Mr. Zambrano asked for clarification if the VPC wanted to increase the 10 percent
threshold in the proposed definition. Vice Chair Lagrave responded that it should be

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1514
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y

removed. Mr. Zambrano asked for clarification if the VPC wants to increase the number
of years for the will-serve letter requirement or remove it altogether. Vice Chair Lagrave
responded that it should be removed. Vice Chair Lagrave added that the Special Permit
should remain required for the C-2 and C-3 zoning districts but should not be required
for the CP/BP, CP/GCP, A-1 or A-2 zoning districts.

Committee Member Nowell stated that the ambient noise level should not be
exceeded. Vice Chair Lagrave responded that the noise level must be measured in
decibels. Vice Chair Lagrave stated that he was okay with leaving the five percent
allowance to exceed the ambient noise level.

Committee Member Kirkilas asked for clarification that the Special Permit requirement
would be recommended to be kept near residential areas. Vice Chair Lagrave
responded affirmatively, noting that it would kept for the commercial zoning districts.

Committee Member Nowell asked why the ambient noise level should be increased by
five percent for data centers in commercial zoning districts near residential areas. Vice
Chair Lagrave responded that the noise level could be addressed at the time that the
data center developer goes through the Special Permit process.

MOTION – Z-TA-2-25-Y:
Vice Chair Lagrave made a motion to recommend denial, with direction to allow more
time for stakeholder input, to remove the threshold for 10 percent of the gross floor area
of all on-site buildings in the proposed definition, to clarify the noise study requirements
and ensure that noise is measured in decibels, to remove the will-serve letter
requirement, to add data centers as a permitted use in the CP/BP zoning district, and to
only require a Special Permit for the C-2 and C-3 commercial zoning districts.
Committee Member Carlucci seconded the motion.

VOTE – Z-TA-2-25-Y:
11-0; the motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-2-25-Y with direction passes with
Committee Members Barto, Birchby, Carlucci, Israel, Kirkilas, Kollar, Nowell, Reynolds,
Younger, Lagrave and Bowser in favor.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

Staff has no comments.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1515
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y


Date of VPC Meeting May 20, 2025
Request Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2,
Section 202 (Definitions) to add a definition for data
centers; amend Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A.II.D
(Guidelines for Design Review, City-Wide Design
Review Guidelines, Specialized Uses) to modify the
section title and add design standards for data centers
and amend Chapter 6, Section 647 (Special Permit
Uses), Section 647.A.2 to add data centers within the
C-2 (Intermediate Commercial), C-3 (General
Commercial), CP/GCP (Commerce Park/General
Commerce Park), A-1 (Light Indus-trial) and A-2
(Industrial) zoning districts, with performance
standards.
VPC Recommendation No quorum
VPC Vote No quorum

VPC DISCUSSION:

No quorum.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1516
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y

Date of VPC Meeting June 2, 2025
Request Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2,
Section 202 (Definitions) to add a definition for data
centers; amend Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A.II.D
(Guidelines for Design Review, City-Wide Design
Review Guidelines, Specialized Uses) to modify the
section title and add design standards for data centers
and amend Chapter 6, Section 647 (Special Permit
Uses), Section 647.A.2 to add data centers within the C-
2 (Intermediate Commercial), C-3 (General
Commercial), CP/GCP (Commerce Park/General
Commerce Park), A-1 (Light Indus-trial) and A-2
(Industrial) zoning districts, with performance standards.
VPC Recommendation Denial
VPC Vote 13-0-1

VPC DISCUSSION:

Item Nos. 5 (Z-TA-25-Y) and 6 (Z-TA-2-25-Y) are companion cases and were heard
concurrently.

Two members of the public registered to speak on these items in opposition.

STAFF PRESENTATION:

John Roanhorse, staff, provided a presentation on the Data Center General Plan
Amendment noting the development background, review process, and the rationale
behind the proposed amendment. Mr. Roanhorse stated that the proposed text
amendment is a companion to the General Plan Amendment and is intended to support
the regulatory framework for data centers. Mr. Roanhorse stated that the City Council
had initiated creation of new policy guidance in response to the growing number of
requests for data center facilities, which possess unique characteristics not currently
addressed. Mr. Roanhorse expressed the importance of the General Plan Amendment
due to land use considerations, the need for adaptation to existing developments, and
the importance of connecting these facilities to infrastructure. Mr. Roanhorse noted that
one of the primary reasons for the amendment is that data centers are not directly
addressed in either the General Plan or the Zoning Ordinance and previous
developments have been permitted through informal interpretations. Mr. Roanhorse
discussed the key elements of the amendment, including location criteria, design
policies, and sustainability measures. Mr. Roanhorse reviewed site placement criteria,

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1517
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y

highlighting core areas and centers as not preferred locations, and noted various
suitability factors. Mr. Roanhorse discussed required setbacks, the integration of art
features, dark sky compliance, noise mitigation, and architectural design standards. Mr.
Roanhorse noted the energy demands associated with data centers and the importance
of incorporating energy efficiency measures. Mr. Roanhorse stated that the amendment
would offer additional detail regarding definitions, guidelines, and performance
standards.

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE:
Committee Member Opal Wagner asked if an assessment was done regarding data
centers and if there were potential sites within the Encanto Village and how large of a
footprint data centers would require. John Roanhorse, staff, responded that there were
not many suitable sites available for a large data center and made an initial review and
noted that most of the areas within Encanto Village are already developed. Mr.
Roanhorse stated that the scale and magnitude of many proposed data centers would
likely not be feasible due to structural limitations but also because of existing
development and the Encanto Village probably would not be an ideal location for such
facilities.
Committee Member Robert Warnicke stated there were two main concerns with the
presented text amendment. Committee Member Warnicke stated first, is a perceived
contradiction in the criteria for data center locations and noted that while the guidelines
discourage placement within or adjacent to identified cores centers and corridors, they
simultaneously encourage data centers in redevelopment areas where infrastructure
investment is needed. Committee Member Warnicke stated that, in his experience,
developers often promote zoning changes by emphasizing the infrastructure
improvements their projects will bring and there is concern that this approach has been
made in other villages and might create confusion or loopholes in applying the criteria
consistently. Committee Member Warnicke said his second concern was more technical
and related to the definition of a data center and noted a portion of the definition states
a data center as a facility primarily used for data services but includes a carve-out
stating the facility is not used to lease data services to third parties. Committee Member
Warnicke stated there is confusion over the purpose of that clause and asked why it
was included. Committee Member Warnicke stated that such a carve-out might allow
companies to build facilities for their own use while leasing excess capacity to others,
potentially bypassing the intended regulatory framework. Committee Member Warnicke
said the carve-out as is much like the tail wagging the dog and warned that it could be
exploited, allowing data centers to be built anywhere as a private use. Mr. Roanhorse
responded that the city is currently focused on regulating developments that are already
in progress and while also considering future plans. Mr. Roanhorse stated the city has
met with stakeholders and has presented the text amendment information at the Village
Planning Committees to get feedback and promote consistency.
Committee Member Robert Warnicke echoed his concern and stated that the
business model whether the data services are leased out or used internally should not
affect how a facility is regulated. Committee Member Warnicke stated that the impact on


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1518
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y

the city and surrounding areas would be the same regardless of the business structure
and stated there should be more analysis of this issue.
Committee Member Rick Mahrle commented on a point of clarification regarding the
carve-out and stated that the text language is not used to lease data services to third
parties and should be read as excluding facilities that are solely serving their own
enterprises. Committee Member Mahrle stated an example of a law firm that operates a
large computer storage system occupying less than 10 percent of its gross floor area.
Committee Member Mahrle noted that as long as that system is not used to lease
services externally and solely supports the business itself it should not be classified as a
data center. Committee Member Mahrle stated that this was his interpretation noting
Committee Member Warnicke’s concern and clarified that the purpose of the clause is
to distinguish private enterprise systems from commercial data centers.

Committee Member Mark Cardenas stated that he agreed with the concerns
previously stated and noted that major corporations such as Amazon, Google, and
Microsoft already operate data centers and infrastructure within the Phoenix area.
Committee Member Cardenas said that when individuals use services like Microsoft
Outlook, Cortana, or cloud storage, they are essentially leasing storage space from
these companies and that he personally purchases additional storage to save family
vacation photos and said that this kind of licensing arrangement is common. Committee
Member Cardenas said there is a concern that under the current definition, if companies
like Amazon or Google choose to build new data centers in Phoenix, they could avoid
regulation simply by stating that they are not leasing the space but in reality, they are
selling licenses to the public. Committee Member Cardenas emphasized that Phoenix’s
1.6 million residents purchase data licenses from these companies every day, and that
the language in the proposed text amendment excluding facilities that do not lease data
services is problematic. Committee Member Cardenas stated that this exception creates
a loophole that undermines the intent of the regulation. Mr. Roanhorse noted that from
the city’s perspective, the distinction lies in how data is managed and licensed and
noted that individual consumers are not directly investing in or operating data
infrastructure but are instead purchasing licenses or subscriptions. Mr. Roanhorse
stated that data is often transferred between entities, and that the bulk of such
information is typically owned and managed by larger corporations, not individual users.
Committee Member Cardenas replied that this understanding was not entirely accurate
and as a business owner operating an LLC, that purchases increased email storage or
data capacity, he is not buying hardware or servers directly he is licensing space in a
data center. Committee Member Cardenas stated the definition excludes leased
services and his business would technically be unable to continue purchasing additional
data storage from companies like Microsoft and this interpretation could restrict the
ability of local businesses to operate effectively, and questioned whether the current
language adequately reflects the real-world use of data center services. Mr. Joshua
Bednarek, Planning and Development Department Director, responded by stating that
Committee Member Cardenas’s explanation was essentially correct and aligned with
the intent behind the current definition and that the language was designed to prevent
large organizations that operate internal data systems from being classified as
commercial data centers. Mr. Bednarek stated that as long as an entity demonstrates
that its data center is used exclusively for internal operations, it would not be considered
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1519
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y

a regulated data center under the proposed definition and further explained, the
definition was to provide flexibility for larger employers with legitimate internal data
needs, without unintentionally subjecting them to data center regulations.

Committee Member Sabrina Perez asked about the location criteria policy and stated
that her organization works extensively with data centers and expressed concern with
the language that states data centers are discouraged within and adjacent to identified
cores centers and corridors. Committee Member Perez stated that, in her experience
data centers are often located adjacent to housing and financial centers and, over time,
they begin to create their own core areas and economic corridors. Committee Member
Perez stated that the intent seems counterintuitive that the policy would discourage data
centers from being near such areas given that the growth and presence of data centers
can actively contribute to the formation of vibrant economic hubs. Committee Member
Perez stated that rather than being out of place, data centers often become integral to
the development of their surroundings, supporting an ecosystem of businesses and
services. Committee Member Perez stated the policy language that encourages data
centers in identified redevelopment areas and noted that many of these locations
already contain existing space and are positioned to support ancillary services and
suggested the language may be misaligned with how these areas are practically
developing. Committee Member Perez stated there is a technical concern about utility
infrastructure and data centers often build their own substations on site for power
generation and that the Department of Energy (DOE) has invested in small modular
reactors (SMRs) that can be integrated into such developments. Committee Member
Perez stated that utility will-serve letters are increasingly irrelevant in these cases
because data centers are largely self-sustaining in terms of power needs. Mr.
Bednarek responded stating that the proposal involves two components: a general plan
amendment and a text amendment where the general plan amendment includes
location criteria that are meant to guide decision-making, while the text amendment
introduces specific zoning tools to regulate data centers such as the requirement of a
special permit, similar to what is currently required for self-storage facilities. Mr.
Bednarek stated the general plan language is not absolute and is intended to serve as a
policy foundation and framework to help committees and staff evaluate whether a
proposed data center aligns with the city’s long-term goals. Mr. Bednarek stated that a
location example of Thomas Road and Central Avenue, a designated core area where
residents and city leaders have expressed a desire for amenities like restaurants and
gathering places and if there were to propose a data center in that area, the location
criteria would serve as a signal to pause and consider whether the proposed use is
appropriate.
Mr. Bednarek stated that while the criteria provide guidance, a special permit process
allows for case-by-case evaluation, which includes input from staff, the committee, and
ultimately the City Council and reiterated that the intent of the proposed changes is to
ensure that data centers are subject to thoughtful planning and design standards, and
that such policies are reflected both in the general plan and the zoning ordinance.
Committee Member Tom Doescher stated a concern about the low energy rates being
promoted by the Arizona Corporation Commission and noted that the Commission has

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1520
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y

opened public comment on this issue, and emphasized that the more data centers are
developed, the more electricity and energy they will consume. Committee Member
Doescher said that the Commission does not want consumers to bear the financial
burden of these increased energy demands and asked how the city plans to address
potential issues related to the size and location of smaller modular reactors (SMRs),
especially when these reactors are situated adjacent to existing buildings. Mr.
Bednarek responded, stating that the purpose of the general plan amendment and the
accompanying text amendment is to better the position the city in response to the
growing needs of the data center industry and emphasized that the city wants to ensure
that the location of new data centers is subject to discussion and evaluation, much like
other land uses. Mr. Bednarek stated that presently no such discussion takes place
before a data center is developed, not with this committee, not with neighboring
residents, and not with the City Council. Mr. Bednarek said the proposed amendments
would establish a regulatory framework that enables those conversations to occur. Mr.
Bednarek further explained that, under this proposed process, both large and small data
center proposals would be evaluated to determine whether they are appropriate for a
given location and that evaluation would include considerations such as energy
demand, infrastructure capacity, and community impacts that are not currently part of
the review process.
Committee Member Mahrle commented that the committee's concerns should not be
interpreted as opposition to data centers and stated the need for careful and thoughtful
regulation, especially in response to concerns raised about the clarity of the definition
language in the proposed text amendment. Committee Member Mahrle suggested that
the Planning Commission should revisit the definition to ensure it accurately captures
the intended meaning and scope. Committee Member Mahrle commented that the issue
of infrastructure improvements, referencing the general plan's encouragement of data
centers in redevelopment areas and stated he is supportive of the idea of placing data
centers in locations where infrastructure upgrades are needed, with the understanding
that developers would contribute financially by constructing required improvements such
as half-streets, traffic signals, and road upgrades. Committee Mahrle stated that this is a
sound concept, and he wants to ensure it is clearly reflected in the final policy language.
Committee Member Cardenas commented on an earlier point made by Mr. Bednarek
and expressed his support for the creation of general policies governing the location
and design of data centers. Committee Member Cardenas stated a concern about the
accelerated timeline of the current process. Committee Member Cardenas said that with
the Preserve Historic Plan and this data center amendment it is moving faster than any
other text amendment he has seen. Committee Member Cardenas asked why the
process is being rushed, pointing out that the amendment is scheduled to go through all
Village Planning Committees in June 2025, Historic Preservation Commission in July,
Planning Commission in August, Subcommittee review in September, and City Council
vote in October. Committee Member Cardenas stated that if the city intends for the
policy to have a long-term impact, the current speed of adoption does not appear
appropriate. Mr. Bednarek responded that he understood the concerns expressed by
the committee regarding the sense of urgency behind the amendment. Mr. Bednarek
stated that currently, the City does not have any policy framework in place to guide or

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1521
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y

regulate data centers. Mr. Bednarek said this absence of a well-developed framework
like the city already has for historic preservation, noting that the lack of a similar
structure for data centers is problematic given the sheer volume of space and capital
investment involved.
Mr. Bednarek stated that the proposed text amendment is not a prohibition on data
centers, just as current zoning policies do not prohibit self-storage facilities instead, it is
about establishing a process for reviewing such developments that allows community
members to participate meaningfully. Mr. Bednarek stated that the goal is to determine
whether a framework is needed, and if so, to ensure that future data center proposals
are subject to public input and formal review. Mr. Bednarek stated that there are two key
questions: Do we need a policy framework, and should the community have a role in
evaluating future proposals?
Committee Member Cardenas commented that when the issue of regulating data
centers had surfaced months ago, he shared that he had texted city staff about the
matter as early as February and was told they would be notified when the draft was
ready. Committee Member Cardenas stated that now the draft is available, he
expressed concern that the process appears rushed, particularly in comparison to
previous planning efforts and cited a prior presentation in which a four-month review
period was provided, allowing for feedback and adjustments before finalizing this
proposal in contrast appears to be on an accelerated timeline, raising concerns about
potential unintended consequences and insufficient public engagement. Mr. Cardenas
stated there were issues when pushing the amendment through quickly could lead to
blowback from companies like TSMC, which are closely tied to the semiconductor and
data storage sectors. Committee Member Cardenas stated that as a resident in the fifth-
largest city in the country, he emphasized that his concerns were not trivial and
requested that the City pump the brakes and slow the timeline, expressing doubt that a
Planning Commission hearing scheduled just two days away would allow for proper
consideration of the issues raised. Committee Member Cardenas stated concern
regarding the reliability of will-serve letters, which utilities are expected to provide as
evidence that they can meet future energy needs. Committee Member Cardenas stated
that the time frames for service projections may exceed four years, and such letters
could be invalid if no action occurs for several years. Mr. Bednarek responded by
acknowledging the concerns related to the current wording of the will-serve letter
requirement, stating that staff was prepared to propose modifications to that section and
noted that all other Village Planning Committees had already offered recommendations
on the draft amendment, and that there was a strong sense of urgency from the City
Council to adopt a framework sooner rather than later. Mr. Bednarek encouraged
committee members to submit specific suggestions regarding any language they felt
needed revision, particularly if they had concerns beyond the will-serve language. Mr.
Bednarek emphasized that all feedback would be considered during Planning
Commission and City Council deliberations.
Committee Member Procaccini asked about energy usage and asked whether there
had been any analysis related to promoting energy infrastructure improvements and
green building standards. Committee Member Procaccini inquired if the city was
considering standards such as requiring lighter colored roofs or limiting the amount of
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1522
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y

power used. Mr. Bednarek responded that those types of considerations could certainly
be addressed as part of a Special Permit request, should the proposed text amendment
be adopted. Mr. Bednarek stated that, currently, the city does not have the opportunity
to evaluate such design and infrastructure elements. Mr. Bednarek stated that if the
proposed framework is approved, special permit applications could include
requirements related to energy efficiency and sustainability, such as solar installations
and design standards. Mr. Bednarek noted that some provisions in the draft already
address issues like shading within project streets but emphasized that the special
permit process would allow for case-by-case refinement of requirements through
conversations between applicants, planning staff, and the community.
Committee Member Perez asked about the intention of the will-serve letter and if there
could be language requiring it to be reviewed annually based on available utility
resources and acknowledged that this might result in additional paperwork, but stated
that given the long development timelines for data centers, there should be an annual
reassessment to ensure that commitments made in the letter remain valid. Committee
Member Perez asked how the city would hold developers accountable if they were
leasing their space to third parties. Mr. Bednarek responded that the concern about
third-party leasing was valid and said that the intent of the will-serve letter requirement
is to ensure the city has a clear understanding of future energy demand and is not
allowing data centers to consume limited energy capacity, thereby displacing other
community-serving uses like housing, restaurants, or recreational facilities. Mr.
Bednarek stated that the proposed language is being refined, and the goal is to prevent
large parcels of land from sitting idle for years while awaiting energy infrastructure
buildout. Mr. Bednarek stated that third-party leasing is not explicitly addressed in the
current draft but is being discussed and that enforcement would occur through NSD
(Neighborhood Services Department) if a facility violated its zoning approval. Mr.
Bednarek said if a campus-based user such as a hospital or major employer proposed a
data facility for internal operations, the city would verify the use during the permitting
process and if the purpose changed later, it could trigger a zoning ordinance violation.
Committee Member Perez commented that, with over 20 years of experience as an
engineer and significant involvement in data center projects, she believes the general
public lacks the technical understanding to adequately evaluate the implications of such
a text amendment. Committee Member Perez stated that many residents and
committee members may not have the necessary background to assess these facilities,
and that relying on a few informed stakeholders places an unfair burden on the public.
Committee Member Perez stated the process as overly aggressive, noting that not
everyone has recently gained familiarity with the industry the way some committee
members or their clients have.
Committee Member Cardenas expressed appreciation for Mr. Bednarek’s repeated
acknowledgment that the language is still being refined and that he understands staff
have constraints and must sell proposals up the chain of command but emphasized that
the lack of clarity on certain provisions particularly around third-party leasing remains
troubling. Committee Member Cardenas stated that there is no current process outlined
for situations where a company like Amazon builds a data center and later leases space
to small businesses or third-party operators. Committee Member Cardenas stated that
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1523
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y

the definition section of the draft text amendment does not sufficiently address or
distinguish these scenarios and said this as a critical oversight, noting that the ambiguity
could lead to unintended consequences if the city fails to differentiate between internal-
use data centers and commercial or leased data facilities. Mr. Bednarek responded by
stating that the intention of the language is to address owner-operated facilities, such as
Amazon using a data center solely for its own internal operations the facility is still
considered a data center under the proposed language. Mr. Bednarek commented that
leasing scenarios where a facility is marketed to third-party users are not clearly
addressed in the draft and stated that refining the language to provide clarity on these
distinctions is under active consideration, and that additional comments and
suggestions from the committee would be welcomed during the Planning Commission
and City Council review phases.
Committee Member Cardenas stated that the current definitions and structure of the
proposed amendment do not capture the complexity of how data centers may be used
and noted that projects such as Microsoft’s facility or others where land was donated or
where terms were negotiated could fall into gray areas not currently addressed.
Committee Member Cardenas stated he disagreed with Mr. Bednarek’s interpretation
and urged further revisions to ensure transparent and enforceable definitions.
Committee Member Warnicke commented that there was uncertainty in a comment
made earlier and that may have been a misunderstanding and with the previous
discussion the issue has more clarity but there should be some adjustments to the
definition.
Committee Member Mahrle asked for clarification on the data center definition and
asked for help understanding a hypothetical scenario where a company such as Infinix
were to build a facility and use the entire building to house servers, would that qualify as
a data center even if the space was dedicated to internal use only. Committee Member
Mahrle asked if a hospital could have extensive computer systems in place to support
its medical operations and if the data and server space remained under 10 percent of
the gross floor area of the hospital’s onsite buildings, would this be classified as a data
center under the proposed definition. Committee Member Mahrle expressed that this
exemption appeared to be based on usage and proportion of floor area, unless the
hospital began leasing the data capacity to third-party entities, which would then
reclassify it as a data center.
Committee Member Cardenas asked how many hospitals currently exceed that 10
percent threshold and whether some of them might already be marketing or using their
facilities in ways that could bring them under this definition. Committee Member
Cardenas stated that this gray area could lead to confusion about when an otherwise
exempt facility becomes subject to the proposed regulations. Mr. Bednarek responded
that the intent of the definition is to allow institutions like hospitals or universities to
manage their own internal data operations without triggering the full regulatory
framework. Mr. Bednarek stated that as long as the use remains internal and under the
10 percent gross floor area threshold, such facilities would not be considered data
centers under the ordinance, however, if they began leasing server space to third
parties, they would then fall within the scope of the data center designation. Mr.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1524
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y

Bednarek said that this flexibility was intended to accommodate facilities that have
legitimate internal data needs, such as hospitals, while ensuring that purpose-built
commercial data centers are subject to community oversight through the proposed
special permit process.
Committee Member Cardenas asked for confirmation that any facility with server or
data operations occupying more than 10 percent of the gross floor area regardless of
intended use would be defined as a data center under the text amendment. Mr.
Bednarek responded that this was correct.
Committee Member Perez commented that Google has started doing tenant
improvements and this may suggest they may not own their buildings on their own land
and may be leasing space for a data center. Committee Member Perez asked if this
situation has been considered and what would the response be. Mr. Bednarek
responded this would be treated just like the adoption any new ordinance if you were in
the middle of a building permit and, those are the things that we're going to have to sort
out on a case-by-case basis with every property owner depending on where they are at
in the process. Mr. Bednarek stated in the new framework for data centers is
appropriate and it is the simplest process, but some adjustments will be made, and staff
will work through it properly.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Cepand Alizadeh, representing the Arizona Technology Council, introduced himself
and shared a personal experience to illustrate the importance of access to electronic
medical information and the critical role of Data Centers. Mr. Alizadeh explained that he
works with an organization that provides information and supports a variety of
technology industries, emphasizing its alignment with economic development efforts.
Mr. Alizadeh stated that correspondence outlining the Arizona Technology Council’s
position on the proposed text amendment had been submitted to the Mayor's Office and
members of the City Council. Mr. Alizadeh stated that data centers are an essential
component of the modern economy, noting that several facilities are either under
consideration or already under construction in different areas of the city, with more
expected in the near future. Mr. Alizadeh also pointed out that data centers vary in size
and capacity, both in terms of the volume of information housed and the operations
conducted within the facilities. Mr. Alizadeh stated that he works with a range of
businesses and organizations that develop services, maintain technology systems, and
ensure that critical information remains readily available. Mr. Alizadeh said on behalf of
the Arizona Technology Council, he expressed concerns about the proposed text
amendment, specifically regarding the process timeline and the requirements for sound
abatement. Mr. Alizadeh stated that additional time is needed to allow for a
comprehensive review and to provide informed feedback on the proposed amendment.
Mr. Alizadeh further noted that the draft text amendment does not sufficiently address
appropriate sound control measures that would be consistent with the functional and
operational needs of data centers.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1525
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y

Samantha DeMoss, representing Rose Law Group, introduced herself and stated that
Data Centers are an expanding use and reflect an important economic sector for the
Phoenix area. Ms. DeMoss stated that addressing Data Centers is very important and
will have long-term implications for growth and development. Ms. DeMoss stated there
are concerns with the current General Plan Amendment specifically that with process
review and timing and the design criteria. Ms. DeMoss stated that additional review time
would be necessary to review and address many of the incomplete details in the
General Plan Amendment as presented. Ms. DeMoss said that additional review time
would allow more stakeholder review and input. Ms. DeMoss stated that the committee
consider a 90-day period be granted to allow for more time for a thorough review and
comment.

STAFF RESPONSE

Mr. Bednarek responded that industry participation in the stakeholder discussion has
been included in the current language regarding sound levels and is within 5 percent so
that could be adjusted to the ambient levels in the area if it were next to a neighborhood
that they can extend to another location Mr. Bednarek stated that if there's a desire by
the committee to insert a specific decibel level right now the idea was that for sound
they are required to hire an engineer to do a study that shows the level next to the
adjacent property and what will be done to maintain appropriate sound levels.

Mr. Bednarek responded that the review process has moved quickly and noted there is
a sense of urgency from the Mayor and Council and many of the policy issues have
been discussed. Mr. Bednarek stated that currently data centers are not addressed in
the zoning ordinance, and this is a great concern.

FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: MOTION, DISCUSSION, AND VOTE.

Committee Member Kleinman asked what the results were from other Village
Planning Committees regarding data centers. Mr. Bednarek responded that there has
been a split with up to five committees in opposition and some approvals with direction.

Committee Member Perez asked if there was information on the committees that voted
for denial, did any have any active plans for data centers. Mr. Bednarek responded a
few are in progress but any new policy and framework will not prohibit data centers from
moving forward.

Committee Member Cardenas commented that there is a stakeholder process and
other actions such as the adoption of marijuana facilities had an extensive public
engagement and with data centers there are many issues and more discussion is
needed.

Committee Member Warnicke commented that he was concerned with data centers
being allowed in C-2 and C-3 zoning areas and this may have an impact in the Encanto
Village. Committee Member Warnicke stated he was less concerned with the sound
mitigation which would be addressed in a special permit or variance action. Mr.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1526
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y

Bednarek responded that the General Plan Amendment, which is land use criteria, and
a special permit will still be required.

Committee Member George asked if motion were to be approved would there be
guidance attached to clarify the committee’s position. Mr. Roanhorse responded that
the committee may add comments or provide direction for the vote.

Committee Member Wagner commented that with the information presented and the
discussion more work needs to be done on data centers. Committee Wagner stated that
with audible level they are logarithmic not linear and a small increment can mean
massive change so specific units should be addressed.

VOTE
13-0-1, motion to deny Z-TA-2-25-Y passes with Committee Members Cardenas,
Doescher, Garcia, Kleinman, Mahrle, Perez, Picos, Procaccini, Schiller, Tedhams,
Wagner, Warnicke and Matthews with George abstaining.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1527
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y

Date of VPC Meeting May 20, 2025
Request Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2, Section
202 (Definitions) to add a definition for data centers; amen
Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A.II.D (Guidelines for Design
Review, City-Wide Design Review Guidelines, Specialized
Uses) to modify the section title and add design standards
for data centers and amend Chapter 6, Section 647
(Special Permit Uses), Section 647.A.2 to add data center
within the C-2 (Intermediate Commercial), C-3 (General
Commercial), CP/GCP (Commerce Park/General
Commerce Park), A-1 (Light Indus-trial) and A-2 (Industria
zoning districts, with performance standards.
VPC Recommendation Approval, with a modification and direction
VPC Vote 4-0

VPC DISCUSSION:

Item Nos. 5 (GPA-2-25-Y) and 6 (Z-TA-2-25-Y) are companion cases and were heard
concurrently.

One member of the public registered to speak on this item.

Staff Presentation:

Nayeli Sanchez Luna, staff, stated that the proposed general plan amendment and text
amendment were to add a definition for data centers in the Zoning Ordinance and
implement performance standards and location criteria. Ms. Sanchez Luna noted that
the general plan amendment would discourage data centers from being located in
centers, cores, and corridors. Ms. Sanchez Luna provided the proposed data center
definition and noted that the text amendment would require a Special Permit for data
centers. Ms. Sanchez Luna concluded the presentation by summarizing the proposed
design improvements and noting that staff recommends approval of both the general
plan amendment and text amendment.

Questions from the Committee:

Chair Parris Wallace noted that the majority of her questions were answered. Chair
Wallace asked if anyone has discussed the increase in internet infrastructure because
communities could benefit from the added infrastructure. Ms. Sanchez Luna stated that
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1528
that was not something that has been discussed in detail with internal staff. Chair Wallace
asked for more information regarding traffic. Ms. Sanches Luna added that this would not
produce the same levels of traffic as a multifamily project but that commercial and semi-
trailer traffic would be present.

Romona Burris asked if there were any data centers in the area. Ms. Sanchez Luna
stated that she will have to follow up with that information.

Chair Wallace asked if the text amendment would apply to new and stand-alone data
centers. Ms. Sanchez Luna confirmed that the text amendment would apply to new data
centers and reiterated that this would not apply to collage campuses like Grand Canyon
University.

Ms. Burris asked if they there were data centers for general operations such as artificial
intelligence. Ms. Sanchez Luna confirmed. Ms. Burris asked for more information
regarding sustainability measures. Ms. Sanchez Luna stated that they will be required to
obtain a letter from the utility company and that the general plan amendment would help
implement sustainability measures. Ms. Sanchez Luna added that other Village Planning
Committees have made motions with direction if they wished to approve the text
amendment and general plan amendment and still provide more direction. Ms. Burris
stated that she would like to ensure that water conservation is added.

Public Comment:

Jon Gillespie stated that he was a land use attorney that represented numerous data
center companies and emphasized that this industry is important for the City. Mr. Gillespie
noted that the City is an attractive place for data centers because of the lack of natural
disasters, available land, and low cost. Mr. Gillespie added that electric companies are
aware of the higher demand for power but have ensured that the cost would not increase
for residents. Mr. Gillespie noted that data centers are an important economic driver and
that they should be involved in the text amendment process. Mr. Gillespie added that data
centers have been decreasing the amount of water needed to keep an adequate climate.
Mr. Gillespie supported the idea of researching ways to implement more water
conservation. Mr. Gillespie stated that the required “will serve letter” would rush
development and possibly discouraging other companies from building in Phoenix. Mr.
Gillespie requested the text amendment and general plan be denied with a
recommendation of a 90 day extension to evaluate all the concerns from the committee
and industry owners. Mr. Gillespie added that there are concerns with Proposition 207
since the text amendment would require additional zoning requirements that have not
been previously established.

Committee Discussion/Motion/Vote:

Ms. Burris stated that the west side of the City is approximately 5 degrees hotter and
asked how the data centers would be mitigating heat. Mr. Gillespie stated that he was
unaware of any data centers in the Estrella Village. Mr. Gillespie stated that there has not
been significant research that demonstrates that data centers contribute to the heat island
effect. Ms. Burris asked for clarification on the motion that Mr. Gillespie would like to see.
Mr. Gillespie stated that he would like the text amendment and general plan amendment
to be denied with a 90 day extension so that they can have time to involve industry
stakeholders, gather data and address concerns regarding heat. Ms. Burris asked for
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1529
more information on why the data center industry was opposed to the text amendment.
Mr. Gillespie stated that one major concern was the “will serve” letter because it would
require site plan approval and certificate of occupancy to be completed within two years
which is an unreasonable condition. Mr. Gillespie added that he did not want the text
amendment to discourage data center companies from building in Phoenix and investing
in the community. Ms. Burris asked why the City wanted to implement restrictions on data
centers. Ms. Sanchez Luna stated that a lot of available land for job opportunities and
housing has been lost to data center development, and that the development does not
create a walkable pedestrian environment.

Chase Hales, with the Planning and Development Department, stated that by allowing a
Special Permit, then only a data center would be allowed on site unless otherwise stated.
Mr. Hales noted that the “will serve” letter would ensure development rather than allowing
companies to sit on vacant properties and not built.

Mr. Thrower asked for more information regarding the lack of jobs associated with data
centers. Mr. Gillespie stated that larger data centers only employ approximately 80 to 100
on site technicians of high paying jobs. Mr. Gillespie noted that someone from Mesa could
come to the Phoenix data center and work on site. Mr. Gillespie encouraged the free
market of being able to develop data centers where they were permitted. Mr. Gillespie
cited the importance of technology and artificial intelligence. Mr. Gillespie clarified that his
intent is for the text amendment to be denied allowing for a 90 day extension.

Renee Dominguez asked for the average square footage of a data center that employs
80 to 100 people. Mr. Gillespie state that it ranged from 5 acres to 60 acres and from 500
square feet to 500,000 square feet. Mr. Gillespie provided an example along the Loop 202
Freeway. Mr. Gillespie emphasized that his intent was to extend the text amendment to
allow for more stakeholder involvement and for staff to study the economic and job impact.
Mr. Gillespie stated that the zoning districts where data centers are located do not allow
for residential use.

Chair Wallace stated that C-2 and C-3 do allow for multifamily housing. Ms. Sanchez
Luna confirmed. Chair Wallace noted that housing was a key priority. Mr. Gillespie
stated that C-2 and C-3 are not the target sites for data centers. Mr. Gillespie realized that
housing conservation is important.

Mr. Gillespie noted that his request was a denial to allow more stakeholder engagement
and to address issues with water resources and housing and the economic and job
industry. Mr. Gillespie added that the extension would also allow for clarification regarding
Proposition 207.

Chair Wallace clarified that her biggest issue is housing and that she did not want to lose
available C-2 and C-3 land to data centers. Ms. Burris asked what incentives the data
center industry provides since they would be taking land that was intendent for housing.
Ms. Burris asked if the data center industry had some sort of program to help first-time
home buyers. Mr. Gillespie stated that he was aware of the concern regarding losing
available land but that data centers provide high paying wages and produce millions of
dollars that are invested in the community. Mr. Gillespie agreed that C-2 and C-3 should
be preserved for housing but that this would affect areas that already have CP/GCP, A-1
and A-2 zoning which are areas that are primarily industrial.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1530
Ms. Burris asked for more information on what a yes vote would mean and what a no vote
would mean. Ms. Sanchez Luna clarified the intent and proposed changes in the general
plan amendment and text amendment. Ms. Burris asked for clarification and asked if
approving it would limit data centers. Ms. Sanchez Luna stated that the text amendment
would limit where they could be placed and allow for a special permit. Ms. Burris
suggested an extension of 90 days so that the necessary data could be gathered and
presented to the committee. Ms. Sanchez Luan clarified that a yes vote would mean that
she supported the initiatives to limit data center development.

Chair Wallace stated that she would like to explain her vote. Chair Wallace stated that C-
2 and C-3 properties would be able to service the community and that she would prefer
businesses that generated jobs in the community rather than outside resources. Chair
Wallace noted that these decisions will affect all children in the future and stated that the
text amendment was forward thinking.

Ms. Burris noted that individuals with high paying jobs could find houses they could afford
in the City. Ms. Burris stated that she supported incentives to help first-time homeowners
purchase a house and keep individuals in their community. Ms. Sanchez Luna clarified
that any sort of incentive to assist first-time home buyers would not be enforceable by the
Planning and Development Department. Ms. Sanchez Luna stated that the intent of these
amendments was in relation to land use policy and development standards.

Mr. Thrower stated that the text amendment was too broad. Mr. Thrower noted that a
special permit made sense in C-2, C-3, and CP/GCP, but that he did not want to limit any
potential business investments in A-1 and A-2. Ms. Sanchez Luna noted that an
alternative motion could be to recommend approval with the modification that a special
permit be required in C-2, C-3, and CP/GCP.

Motion:
Chair Parris Wallace recommended to approve Z-TA-2-25-Y per the staff
recommendation with a modification that would require a Special Permit for C-2, C-3, and
CP/GCP but not A-1 and A-2 and with direction to include a water conservation plan and
heat mitigation implementation. Dustin Thrower seconded.

Vote:
4-0, Motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-2-25-Y, per the staff recommendation with a
modification and direction passed with Committee Members Burris, Dominguez, Thrower,
and Wallace in favor.


Staff Comments Regarding VPC Recommendation:

None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1531
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y


Date of VPC Meeting May 12, 2025
Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2,
Section 202 (Definitions) to add a definition for data
centers; amend Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A.II.D
(Guidelines for Design Review, City-Wide Design
Review Guidelines, Specialized Uses) to modify the
section title and add design standards for data centers
Request
and amend Chapter 6, Section 647 (Special Permit
Uses), Section 647.A.2 to add data centers within the C-
2 (Intermediate Commercial), C-3 (General
Commercial), CP/GCP (Commerce Park/General
Commerce Park), A-1 (Light Indus-trial) and A-2
(Industrial) zoning districts, with performance standards.
VPC Recommendation Approval, per staff recommendation, with direction
VPC Vote 13-0

VPC DISCUSSION:

Item No. 5 (GPA-2-25-Y) and Item No. 6 (Z-TA-2-25-Y) were heard together.

Two members of the public registered to speak on this item.

Staff Presentation:

Nayeli Sanchez Luna, staff, stated that the proposed general plan amendment and text
amendment were to add a definition for data centers in the Zoning Ordinance and
implement performance standards and location criteria. Ms. Sanchez Luna noted that
the general plan amendment would discourage data centers from being located in
centers, cores, and corridors. Ms. Sanchez Luna provided the proposed data center
definition and noted that the text amendment would require a special permit for data
centers. Ms. Sanchez Luna concluded the presentation by summarizing the proposed
design improvements and noting that staff recommends approval of both the general
plan amendment and text amendment.

Questions from the Committee:

Chair Stephanie Hurd stated that Amazon had recently purchased a large piece of
land within the South Mountain Tech Corridor, severely limiting employment
opportunities. Chair Hurd noted that property owners were encouraged to not sell their
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1532
Laveen Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y
May 12, 2025
Page 2

land to data centers but after SRP’s announcement regarding the South Mountain
Transmission Project, data center companies are pushing to purchase land. Chair Hurd
voiced her disappointment in losing land that was meant for employment opportunities.
Chair Hurd added that this request would protect Laveen and the City of Phoenix. Chair
Hurd asked staff to explain what would happen with properties that have been recently
rezoned to allow C-2, C-3, and CP/GCP uses. Ms. Sanchez Luna stated that that
question has been presented to staff and that there has been discussion internally, but
that the determination would be made by the Law Department and Mayor and Council.
Chair Hurd noted that several data center representatives have been present at VPC
meetings.

Rebecca Perrera asked if the performance standards regarding sustainability would
also address water. Ms. Sanchez Luna confirmed. Ms. Sanchez Luna added that data
centers utilize a lot of water. Ms. Perrera noted that these data centers should be
finding solutions to recycle water and utilize their water to maintain landscaping areas.
Ms. Perrera suggested adding more provisions on water conservation.

Juanita Darby stated that her husband works in the data center industry. Ms. Darby
noted that her husband and her were opposed to the proposed Amazon data center.
Ms. Darby added that data centers use a lot of energy and that in other cities they are
unable to generate any additional power. Ms. Darby stated that they should voice their
concerns to protect Laveen and the City of Phoenix. Ms. Darby was opposed to data
centers in the area.

Kristi McCann asked if the Gila Foothills PUD was identified as a Center or a Corridor,
would it discourage data centers from being developed in the area. Chair Hurd noted
that the text amendment would help prevent data centers in the Gila Foothills PUD area.
Ms. Sanchez Luna added that from a policy standpoint, if the General Plan does not
support data centers in a Center, then staff would not be supportive of a proposed data
center.

Patrick Nasser-Taylor noted that he did not like the word “discourage” presented in the
presentation. Mr. Nasser-Taylor stated that since the employment corridor was along
the Loop 202, would this prevent any future data centers. Ms. Sanchez Luna noted that
it would be discouraged and that a Special Permit would be required. Mr. Nasser-
Taylor asked if the amendments could have changes in the language. Ms. Sanchez
Luna stated that similar to previous text amendments, the committee could vote to
approve the amendment but add to the recommendation in the form of direction.

Mixen Rubio-Raffin was aware of the high-water usage and noted that new technology
like artificial intelligence have increased the demand for data centers. Ms. Rubio-Raffin
added that in terms of technology and policy, policy seems to be a few steps behind
technology. Ms. Rubio-Raffin advocated for a water efficiency plan to be added to the
text amendment.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1533
Laveen Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y
May 12, 2025
Page 3

Michael Doromal noted that data centers utilize a lot of power. Mr. Doromal suggested
data centers be required to self-generate a portion of their required power so they don’t
put a strain on the community.

Chair Hurd asked Committee Member Darby if she had any information on energy
conservation. Ms. Darby asked her husband, Brian Darby, for clarification. Brian Darby
stated that so much energy is required that the development can’t generate all of it’s
power through solar panels. Mr. Doromal noted that he was requesting a portion of it to
be generated. Mr. Darby added that other projects have implemented alternative forms
but that the data center requires constant power. Mr. Doromal added that the data
center will be part of the community and should contribute. Mr. Doromal wanted a
percentage of self-generating power.

Carlos Ortega wanted to vote on the item. Mr. Ortega stated that data centers also
benefit schools via impact fees.

Linda Abegg voiced her appreciation for the Mayor and Council regarding getting the
text amendment approved quickly. Ms. Abegg stated that she will support the case
moving forward. Ms. Abegg noted that she was aware of a subcommittee being
implemented for this text amendment. Ms. Abegg added that she expected the
language to be reviewed by the Law Department to ensure enforceability.

Ms. Perrera stated that Committee Member Ortega’s comment was incorrect. Ms.
Perrera stated that data centers receive a lot of tax breaks.

Mr. Nasser-Taylor stated that he was concerned on how this would affect Laveen. Mr.
Nasser-Taylor noted that the Gila Foothills PUD allows C-2 uses and asked how this
would affect the allowed uses. Ms. Sanchez Luna stated that that was being discussed
with the Law Department but that any future properties would need to be rezoned to
obtain a Special Permit. Mr. Nasser-Taylor asked if this would mean that the case
would be presented to the Village for recommendation. Ms. Sanchez Luna confirmed.
Ms. Sanchez Luna added that the text amendment would prevent data centers to be
allowed by right in C-2, C-3, CP/GCP, A-1 and A-2.

Ms. Abegg stated that the Council Members were the ones that initiated the request
which she would assume meant that they are opposed to data centers being built
anywhere.

JoAnne Jensen agreed with Committee Member Abegg and Rubio-Raffin. Ms. Jensen
noted that the Gila Foothills PUD area was designated as a Major Urban Center. Ms.
Jensen suggested implanting language regarding water. Ms. Jensen also had concerns
with the noise requirements and added that there should be no noise permitted on
weekends, holidays, and at night. Ms. Jensen voiced her appreciation for Mayor and
Council.

Ms. Rubio-Raffin suggested limiting the data center height to two stories and ensuring

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1534
Laveen Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y
May 12, 2025
Page 4

that some sort of art feature is implemented. Chair Hurd noted that the art and
architectural embellishments were already part of the text amendment.

Public Comment:

Tom Galvin noted that there were numerous concerns regarding the text amendment.
Mr. Galvin stated that data centers have contributed millions of dollars to the City of
Phoenix. Mr. Galvin added that data centers require million of dollars of investments.
Mr. Galvin stated that the cases were being rushed and that he was requesting a
minimum 60-day continuance. Mr. Galvin stated that there could be issues with
Proposition 207 and that no text amendment has been going through the process so
quickly. Ms. Abegg stated that when the data center company bought land, they did not
present nor contact members of the committee. Ms. Abegg said it was unusual for
representatives to request a continuation when they never bothered to speak to the
community or the committee. Mr. Galvin asked if the committee supported the lack of
interaction from stakeholders. Chair Hurd noted that this was the public comment
portion of the hearing.

Anirudh Krishna voiced his concerns regarding water usage and that he agreed with
all the comments provided by the committee.

Committee Discussion/Motion/Vote:

Ms. Abegg suggested adding language regarding energy and water conservation.

Vice Chair Jensen suggested more noise standards.

Mr. Ortega suggested larger impact fees.

Ms. Rubio-Raffin suggested limiting the square footage of land. Ms. Rubio-Raffin
added that there needed to be more than two stories. Ms. Abegg voiced her concerns
regarding enforceability. Ms. Abegg recommended special attention and minimizing
square footage.

Motion:
Linda Abegg motioned to recommend Z-TA-2-25-Y per the staff recommendation with
direction to incorporate more water and power conservation, limit square footage,
implement noise mitigation, and increase impact fees. Jeniffer Rouse seconded the
motion.

Vote:
13-0, motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-2-25-Y, per staff recommendation with
direction passed with Committee Members Abegg, Darby, Doromal, McCann, Nasser-
Taylor, Ortega, Perrera, Rouse, Rubio-Raffin, Serrette, Barraza, Jensen, and Hurd in
favor.


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1535
Laveen Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y
May 12, 2025
Page 5

Staff Comments Regarding VPC Recommendation:

None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1536
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y

Date of VPC Meeting May 14, 2025
Request Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2,
Section 202 (Definitions) to add a definition for data
centers; amend Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A.II.D
(Guidelines for Design Review, City-Wide Design
Review Guidelines, Specialized Uses) to modify the
section title and add design standards for data centers
and amend Chapter 6, Section 647 (Special Permit
Uses), Section 647.A.2 to add data centers within the
C-2 (Intermediate Commercial), C-3 (General
Commercial), CP/GCP (Commerce Park/General
Commerce Park), A-1 (Light Indus-trial) and A-2
(Industrial) zoning districts, with performance
standards.
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation
VPC Vote 13-0


VPC DISCUSSION:

Item Nos. 4 (GPA-2-25-Y) and 5 (Z-TA-2-25-Y) are companion cases and were
heard concurrently.

One member of the public registered to speak on this item.

Committee Member Chris Demarest left during this item bringing quorum to 13.

Staff Presentation
Matteo Moric, staff, shared information on how the Village Planning Committee can
stay involved with the General Plan Amendment and Text Amendment throughout the
entire process. Mr. Moric explained how comments will be forwarded onto Planning
Commission on June 5th and City Council on June 18th prior to the City Council
break.

Mr. Moric stated the Mayor and City Council in December of 2024 requested staff to
create policy guidance and zoning regulations for data centers. Mr. Moric explained
how the City was working under previous informal interpretations completed about 20
years ago. Mr. Moric stated the location criteria is to be for the General Plan item and
the areas in which they would be encouraged and discouraged. Mr. Moric reminded
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1537
Maryvale Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y


the Committee that usually when development comes in it is already required to
provide infrastructure such as sidewalks, shading, bus stops, etc.

Mr. Moric identified design guidelines being proposed for these facilities. Mr. Moric
added the design guidelines of the architecture which are typically required in the
Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Moric stated the zoning districts by which these facilities were
proposed to require a Special Permit.

Questions from the Committee/Public Comments
Chris Demarest said he was familiar with the data center on 40th Street and
McDowell Road.

Ken DuBose thought these data centers were needed because of all the new
Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology.

Al DePascal said they need lots of water.

Saundra Cole asked if they could request solar on the buildings. Mr. Moric said yes
and that the end decision will be made by City Council, but at the same time it could
inform City Council of what the VPC would like to see at these new facilities.

Meli Acevedo emphasized the importance of water. Mr. Moric said he was not sure
how these facilities actually operate and if they need to be close to the end user or if
they could be far away from the community of users.

Chair Barba said that after the presentation perhaps the guest speaker could provide
additional information.

Ms. Cole asked how many jobs would be provided. Mr. Moric said that the data
center facilities he knew of were not big employment generators, but said the guest
speaker could probably clarify this.

Public Comment
John Gillespie, a land use attorney from the Rose Law Group, said they represent a
large stakeholder group of the data center industry. Mr. Gillespie said there is a great
economic impact to the community and it provides many high paying jobs with 80 to
150 onsite jobs with an average pay of $97,000 per year. Mr. Gillespie said they need
a good regulatory process in place. Mr. Gillespie said they were concerned with the
timeline for the text amendment changes and it was a little fast with limited
stakeholder engagement. Mr. Gillespie asked for 60 more days to allow the industry to
interact with city staff and leaders to iron out the kinks. Mr. Gillespie said many sites
had a vested right to build data centers. Mr. Gillespie added that projects in the
pipeline should not be stopped and should be able to continue. Mr. Gillespie also
identified a concern with the “will serve” letter which is a commitment from a public
utility company that power will be for a minimum timeframe. Mr. Gillespie noted the
desire for the timeline to be extended or taken away so they can work with utilities.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1538
Maryvale Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y


Mr. Gillespie said without provisions the City could expose themselves to Proposition
207 waiver of claims. Mr. Gillespie felt more direction should be given to staff and
respectfully urged more time to work out the kinks.

Chair Barba asked on average how much space is needed for a data center. Mr.
Gillespie responded that some projects are on 10-acre sites and others on 50 to 60
acres. Chair Barba asked what size site Mr. Gillespie based the average 80 to 100
jobs on. Mr. Gillespie responded on the 50-to-60-acre site. Chair Barba asked about
job training for the data center jobs. Mr. Gillespie said that here in Phoenix it currently
has people with the right schooling and education to support the technology.

Chair Barba felt the VPC responsibility was to be good stewards not only to provide a
good place to live and work. Chair Barba asked if there was a commitment from Mr.
Gillespie’s clients to support educational assistance for these sorts of jobs. Mr.
Gillespie was not sure about the commitment of his clients to these types of jobs, but
he recognized it as a good question and noted he would investigate it more with his
clients and would like to follow-up on it.

Mr. DuBose said we were always lagging behind and with the growth of AI and
emphasized the need for data centers and that AI was the next largest growth in any
community. Mr. DuBose shared frustration of how the rail system is 25 years behind
when it was voted 30 to 40 years ago. Mr. DuBose expressed the importance of
knowing the issues of how much water would be used and how much energy is
needed. Mr. DuBose recognized the need to come together with a smart plan but also
expressed fear of falling behind.

Mr. Gillespie said that the data center industry wants to be on the front edge of AI
and it sees Phoenix as an attractive area since it does not have natural disasters, it
has a low regulatory environment and a good climate. Mr. Gillespie added it has the
right people to support the industry. Mr. Gillespie expressed concern about creating a
roadblock to this industry. Mr. Gillespie noted the technology has advanced to not be
a high water user but rather a high energy power electricity user.

Mr. DuBose noted he would like to see Maryvale have an IT program for their high
school kids.

Mr. Gillespie mentioned companies like Google and Apple want to invest in Arizona,
but data centers is a nationwide industry. Mr. Gillespie was not certain of who the top
Arizona companies are with interest here but knew there was a nationwide interest.

Ms. Acevedo reminded the VPC of the many deaths in Maricopa County due to
extreme heat. Ms. Acevedo has concerns with energy and housing shortages. Ms.
Acevedo said too often we put profit over people. Ms. Acevedo asked about water.

Mr. Gillespie said the amount of water needed has gone down and they could
potentially use grey water. Mr. Gillespie noted heat as a real issue facing Arizona. Mr.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1539
Maryvale Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y


Gillespie said he was not aware of heat increasing due to the data center. Mr.
Gillespie admitted heat was an issue, but did not believe the off-put of a data center
was any different than heavy industrial type of uses. Mr. Gillespie did not know if more
heat would be generated from A-1 and A-2 type of uses. Mr. Gillespie added they
were not asking for data centers to be built in any other area than currently allowed
and added that it was a commercial and industrial use and that’s where it should be.

Ms. Acevedo expressed concern about providing energy for computers versus
people.

Mr. Gillespie said the number one priority of SRP and APS power companies is they
need solar and their number one priority is to protect consistent customers.

Chair Barba asked about increases of prices to the surrounding communities on
utilities. Mr. Gillespie said that there are no reports of that.

Chair Barba expressed concerns that consumers have to offset the costs. Mr.
Gillespie said that the text amendment would require proof they could get electricity.

Mr. Gillespie said data centers want to locate near good infrastructure.

Chair Barba asked about noise associated with these facilities. Mr. Gillespie felt the
noise study of no more than 5 percent increase should resolve this issue.

Vice Chair Derie brought to the Committee’s attention the topic of Motorola coming to
Arizona in 1950’s and 60’s and now data centers are the next leap in technology and
reminded the VPC of the large nuclear power plant nearby. Vice Chair Derie wanted
all forms of energy sources to be considered and utilized.

Mr. Gillespie said the Arizona State Government has a pro-technology stance and
favorable regulatory environment for data centers. Mr. Gillespie said at the
municipality level is where control is desired.

Vice Chair Derie said communities jumped on the idea of light rail and all of a sudden
the State says we don’t like light rail and had hoped light rail would be in Maryvale
already.

Mr. Gillespie said the industry itself is driving the demand and said it’s a different
animal than the light rail.

Ms. Cole asked what the backers were if they were mainly American and she asked if
there are international ones.

Warren Norgaard stated the main question is not if they want data centers but if they
are proposed what the specific language is for their guidance. Mr. Norgaard


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1540
Maryvale Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y


expressed concerns with data centers running on methane gas generators which are
causing people to get ill.

Mr. Gillespie said they should let the developers show they have an alternative
source of energy or for there to be a creative solution.

Victoria Stahl asked about projects to be grandfathered in, without following the
guidelines. Mr. Gillespie said there are more than 5 to 10 projects that are currently
in the process. Mr. Gillespie said there could be more but needless to say these are
millions of dollars to purchase land, design buildings and sites. Mr. Gillespie said
grandfathering language allows projects to continue and felt there was a need for 60
more days of stakeholder engagement.

Al DePascal asked why Mr. Gillespie wants a 60-day delay. Mr. Gillespie said this
text amendment is going faster than other text amendments.

Mr. Gillespie explained the second phase of existing sites and facilities may have to
come through a special permit. Mr. Gillespie expressed concern over a 207 waiver of
claims since sites for data centers may have been purchased and invested in. Mr.
Gillespie said many data centers are in the queue to complete these facilities and
hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on the land to develop these sites and
this could lead to a battle with the City with a 207 waiver issue. Mr. Gillespie said
these facilities would still have to go through the permitting process. To modify a
building limits the number of changes permitted or otherwise it would have to follow
today’s codes.

Mr. Moric asked if Mr. Gillespie knew why the stakeholder group did not include
Planned Unit Developments (PUD’s) requiring the special permits. Mr. Gillespie
wanted some districts not to go through special permit processes such as A-1 or A-2.
Mr. Gillespie said that it might make sense to include the PUD’s in the text
amendment.

Floor/Public Discussion Closed: Motion, Discussion, and Vote.

MOTION
Ken DuBose motioned to recommend approval of Z-TA-2-25-Y per the staff
recommendation. Warren Norgaard seconded the motion.

VOTE
13-0, Motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-2-25-Y per the staff recommendation
passed, with Committee Members Acevedo, Alonzo, Cole, DePascal, DuBose,
Galaviz, Jimenez, Norgaard, Ramirez, Stahl, Weber, Derie and Barba in favor.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1541
Maryvale Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y


STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1542
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y



Date of VPC Meeting May 8, 2025
Request Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2,
Section 202 (Definitions) to add a definition for data
centers; amend Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A.II.D
(Guidelines for Design Review, City-Wide Design
Review Guidelines, Specialized Uses) to modify the
section title and add design standards for data centers
and amend Chapter 6, Section 647 (Special Permit
Uses), Section 647.A.2 to add data centers within the
C-2 (Intermediate Commercial), C-3 (General
Commercial), CP/GCP (Commerce Park/General
Commerce Park), A-1 (Light Indus-trial) and A-2
(Industrial) zoning districts, with performance
standards.
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation
VPC Vote 8-0


VPC DISCUSSION:

Agenda Item 3 (GPA-2-25-Y) and Agenda Item 4 (Z-TA-2-25-Y) are companion cases
and were heard concurrently.

One member of the public registered to speak on this item, in opposition.

Staff Presentation:
Adrian Zambrano, staff, provided an overview of GPA-2-25-Y and Z-TA-2-25-Y. Mr.
Zambrano discussed concerns with data centers that the General Plan Amendment and
Text Amendment are trying to address. Mr. Zambrano explained the policy guidance for
data centers that the General Plan Amendment includes. Mr. Zambrano then discussed
the three main components of the Text Amendment. Mr. Zambrano shared the
proposed Zoning Ordinance definition for a data center. Mr. Zambrano then discussed
the proposed design guidelines and their purpose. Mr. Zambrano shared the zoning
districts that data centers would be permitted in, subject to a Special Permit and other
performance standards, and noted that Special Permits go through the same public
hearing process as rezoning cases. Mr. Zambrano stated that a noise study would be

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1543
North Gateway Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y

required if the data center is within a certain distance from residential. Mr. Zambrano
shared the upcoming public hearing schedule and stated that staff recommends
approval per the language in Exhibit A of the staff report.

Questions from Committee:
Committee Member Kylie Kennelly asked if there are any successful cases where
data centers have been integrated into communities. Mr. Zambrano responded that
some of the design guidelines were inspired by the Evans Churchill APS substation in
Downtown Phoenix, which is hidden behind an enhanced design interface with murals
and art installations.

Vice Chair Michelle Ricart stated that data centers should be separated from each
other. Vice Chair Ricart asked for clarification that data centers usually do not employ
many people and do not bring many jobs to an area. Mr. Zambrano responded
affirmatively.

Public Comments:
Henry Hardy, with Rose Law Group, introduced himself as a stakeholder opposed to
this item. Mr. Hardy stated that stakeholders were only made aware of this about a
week and a half ago. Mr. Hardy stated that the public hearing process would be about
a month and a half, which they believe is extremely abbreviated. Mr. Hardy requested
a continuance or delay in the process for more stakeholder input. Mr. Hardy stated that
their primary concern is with existing data centers and data centers that are currently
being developed. Mr. Hardy asked that those data centers be grandfathered-in under
the existing code. Mr. Hardy expressed concerns with Proposition 207 for diminution in
property value. Mr. Hardy noted that each data center is billions of dollars of
development being brought into the City of Phoenix and tens of millions of dollars
coming back to the City in the form of tax revenue. Mr. Hardy added that data centers
are an essential element of tech infrastructure and are essential for Phoenix to remain
a competitive employment hub and tech hub. Mr. Hardy reiterated that they just want
more time to talk about the proposal with staff and with stakeholders.

Staff Response:
Mr. Zambrano responded that Proposition 207 concerns are a City Council concern
and should not be a concern at the Village Planning Committee level. Mr. Zambrano
added that existing data centers would be considered legal non-conforming and would
be “grandfathered-in”, but if they want to expand in the future, then that is when the
new regulations would apply.

Discussion:
Committee Member Scott McGill asked if there are any data centers that are coming
into North Phoenix or the North Gateway Village at this time. Mr. Hardy responded that
he is not aware of any. Mr. Hardy stated that there has been an increased demand for
them, and the industry is getting ready to build more to meet that demand. Committee
Member McGill asked for clarification that data centers are not generators of job
growth. Mr. Hardy responded that data centers are typically not major employers and
could have between five to 20 employees within the data center. Mr. Hardy expressed
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1544
North Gateway Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y

concerns with the will-serve letter from the power company, noting that it is not
consistent with industry standards and would make development not feasible. Mr.
Hardy stated that a 10-year timeframe for the will-serve letter would be better since
data centers are typically phased and their energy demand would be related to when
each phase is built. Mr. Hardy asked for more time to work through these details with
staff and stakeholders. Committee Member McGill asked how long of a continuance
Mr. Hardy is asking for. Mr. Hardy responded that there is no specific timeline, but staff
and stakeholders could discuss it over the summer.

Vice Chair Ricart stated that fire departments are concerned with data centers as well
due to their massive size, complex floor plans, and the type of equipment and batteries
within them. Vice Chair Ricart stated that she agrees with the Special Permit
requirement because the community needs to be able to have an input on data centers
before they are approved. Vice Chair Ricart stated that self-service storage facilities
also require a Special Permit and noted that it is good for the surrounding community
to know that a data center is being proposed nearby their community. Vice Chair Ricart
stated that she likes the location criteria and design policy proposed.

Committee Member Thomas Salow asked for clarification if the turnaround time for
the public hearing process is typical or expedited. Mr. Zambrano responded that it is
expedited by about a month, noting that the Mayor and City Council has directed staff
to get these two items to the City Council before their summer recess, which is why
staff is moving forward with the proposed schedule. Mr. Zambrano stated that rezoning
cases typically have at least a three-month public hearing process with the Village
Planning Committee, Planning Commission, and City Council hearings a month apart.
Mr. Zambrano added that he was not involved in the stakeholder meetings but believes
there have been one or two meetings so far.

Vice Chair Ricart added that there are 14 other Village Planning Committee hearings
that are coming up.

Committee Member Kennelly asked what the difference is between the General Plan
Amendment and the Text Amendment. Mr. Zambrano responded that the General
Plan Amendment would amend the 2025 General Plan, which is the policy guidance,
and the Text Amendment would amend the Zoning Ordinance to create zoning
regulations for data centers.

Committee Member Andrea Crouch asked if the design guidelines for data centers
are intended to blend the data center into the surrounding area, similar to how some
cellphone towers look like trees. Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively, noting that the
design guidelines are trying to discourage massive, monolithic buildings and are trying
to soften the design.

Vice Chair Ricart asked if tattoo parlors also require a Special Permit. Mr. Zambrano
responded that they require a Use Permit, which goes through a different process. Mr.
Zambrano stated that Special Permits are heard by the Village Planning Committee


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1545
North Gateway Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y

and go through the rezoning process. Vice Chair Ricart reminded Committee members
that they could abstain from the vote.

MOTION – Z-TA-2-25-Y:
Committee Member Andrea Crouch motioned to recommend approval of Z-TA-2-25-
Y, per the staff recommendation. Committee Member Kylie Kennelly seconded the
motion.

VOTE – Z-TA-2-25-Y:
8-0; the motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-2-25-Y per the staff recommendation
passes with Committee members Crouch, Kennelly, Li, Manion, McGill, Salow, Stein,
and Ricart in favor.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1546
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y


Date of VPC Meeting May 21, 2025
Request Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2,
Section 202 (Definitions) to add a definition for data
centers; amend Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A.II.D
(Guidelines for Design Review, City-Wide Design
Review Guidelines, Specialized Uses) to modify the
section title and add design standards for data centers
and amend Chapter 6, Section 647 (Special Permit
Uses), Section 647.A.2 to add data centers within the
C-2 (Intermediate Commercial), C-3 (General
Commercial), CP/GCP (Commerce Park/General
Commerce Park), A-1 (Light Industrial) and A-2
(Industrial) zoning districts, with performance
standards.
VPC Recommendation Denial, with direction
VPC Vote 12-0-1


VPC DISCUSSION:

Item No. 6 (GPA-2-25-Y) and Item No. 7 (Z-TA-2-25-Y) are companion cases and
were heard together.

Two members of the public registered to speak on this item.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Robert Kuhfuss, staff, provided a presentation regarding both proposals, reviewing
the background, concerns, proposed policy changes, proposed regulatory changes,
and the staff recommendations. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that both items were scheduled
for Planning Commission on June 5, 2025 and City Council on June 18, 2025.

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE

Committee Member Jason Barraza asked if staff had consulted with the industry
regarding the proposed changes. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that it was his understanding
that staff consulted with the industry, but did not know the number of groups that were
contacted. Committee Member Barraza asked if will-serve letters were commonly
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1547
North Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y

used in the City of Phoenix or if it was novel to data centers. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that
he did not specifically know the extent to which the City of Phoenix requires will-serve
letters but was aware of other jurisdictions that routinely require will-serve letters.

Committee Member Fred Hepperle stated that data centers are generally quiet and
that servers do not care about looking out a window. Committee Member Hepperle
stated that employees working in a data center would not necessarily care about the
distance to a transit center. Committee Member Hepperle stated that the ability to
serve could be compared to a water service provider. Committee Member Hepperle
stated that he did not see a reason to pause the General Plan Amendment.

Vice Chair Joshua Matthews asked if there were any Proposition 207 concerns and
if there were any zoning districts today that allow data centers that would not be
allowed if the Zoning Text Amendment were to be approved. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that
the City’s Legal Department has evaluated the risk associated with Proposition 207
and has determined there is minimal risk. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that the zoning
ordinance was silent on data centers and that data centers were currently being
allowed as a result of an informal interpretation of the zoning ordinance.

Committee Member Steve Pamperin asked what the results were from the other
villages. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that one village did not have quorum and that some
villages were supportive while others were apprehensive.

Committee Massimo Sommacampagna asked about the 5% over ambient noise
provision. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that a noise study would be required prior to
preliminary site plan approval and that the noise study would require that ambient
noise levels would be taken at the site, presumably over a period of time, to obtain an
average. Mr. Kuhfuss stated the data center would then be allowed to operate at a
level that is 5% above the measured ambient level.

Committee Member Steve Pamperin stated that Arizona Public Service was in the
process of seeking approval from the Arizona Corporation Commission to allow a rate
increase to offset the cost of the energy and infrastructure needed to support data
centers, and that the General Plan Amendment should include language that places
more cost burden on the data centers as opposed to the costs being absorbed by the
homeowners. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that the issue ties back to the reason for the will-
serve letter and that if the electrical provider does not have the capacity or
infrastructure available to serve the facility, the provider would not issue a will-serve
letter. Committee Member Pamperin expressed concerns that residents would be
required to pay for the infrastructure needed to support data centers when the data
center operators should be responsible for any infrastructure improvements needed to
support the facility. Committee Member Pamperin reiterated that residents should not
have to pay for the infrastructure needed to support data centers. Mr. Kuhfuss stated
that it appeared there were two issues being discussed: one being a rate increase
being considered by the Arizona Corporation Commission versus a city requirement
that the developer make those investments. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that the discussion
should not necessarily mix the city’s proposed General Plan Amendment with Arizona
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1548
North Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y

Corporation Commission’s policy. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that if there was some additional
policy that could be included in the General Plan Amendment, the Committee could
consider those changes.

Committee Massimo Sommacampagna asked if there was language that would
encourage adaptive reuse. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that he did not recall specific
language in the proposed Zoning Text Amendment regarding adaptive reuse but there
was existing language in the zoning code that might apply.

Chair Stephanie Fogelson stated that she has been part of the Village Planning
Committee for approximately four to five years and has never received a phone call
from the Mayor’s Office expressing an opinion regarding the Mayor’s position on a
proposed case and asked if that was common practice. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that he
did not know the Council’s common practice, but understands there is some urgency
regarding the matter, which has led to the June 18th City Council date. Chair
Fogelson asked what the urgency was. Mr. Kuhfuss referenced a slide containing six
bullet points that expressed the rationale for the proposed General Plan Amendment
and Zoning Text Amendment. Chair Fogelson stated that many of those issues
seemed to be based on opinion rather than data and wanted to know where the
urgency is coming from. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that he did not know specifically.

Committee Member Fred Hepperle asked if the art installations would be internal to
the building or visible to the public. Mr. Kuhfuss stated they would be visible to the
public.

Committee Member Jason Barraza stated that his understanding is that nothing like
this currently exists in the city and that data centers pretty much have free reign
currently. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that he would not classify it as “free reign” and
reiterated the existence of the informal interpretation of the code. Committee Member
Barraza asked if there were any existing data centers in the city that would not be in
compliance if the proposed Zoning Text Amendment were to be approved. Mr.
Kuhfuss stated that he did not have the answer to that question.

Committee Member Massimo Sommacampagna asked about the timing of the
hearing schedule. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that the timing of the matter was handed to us.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Cepand Alizadah stated that he is the Government Relations Specialist with the
Arizona Technology Council. Mr. Alizadah stated that he was present during the
Alhambra Village Planning Committee meeting the previous night and had also
attended the Ahwatukee Village Planning Committee meeting. Mr. Alizadah stated
anecdotally that he had emergency surgery a month prior as a result of a car accident
in a remote area and that all of his medical data was readily available to the medical
staff as it had been saved to a data center, which gave the healthcare team access to
his allergies and other health conditions. Mr. Alizadah stated that the Arizona
Technology Council is a trade association that represents 750 technology companies
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1549
North Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y

of all sizes. Mr. Alizadah stated that the future of technology is Artificial Intelligence
and that AI’s backbone is data centers. Mr. Alizadah stated that data centers are job
creators, not only in manufacturing, but during operation, ranging from 10 to 15
employees for a small facility to as many as 50 employees for a large facility and
generate hundreds of thousands of dollars in wages. Mr. Alizadah stated that data
centers generate tax revenue and pay permit fees. Mr. Alizadah stated that the City of
Chandler passed a data center ordinance in February of 2022, which has been well
received by the data center community, and that he wished to speak on two specific
aspects of the proposed Zoning Text Amendment. Mr. Alizadah stated that audio
engineers do not measure sound levels as percentages but use an A-Weighted
decibel threshold and asked the Committee to replace the language relating to
percentages with language referencing an A-Weighted decibel threshold, and to
include period measurement specifications. Mr. Alizadah also expressed concerns
over the requirement for a utility will-serve letter stating that a will-serve letter is
common, but the two-year item frame is too short as data centers require several
years of planning. Mr. Alizadah stated that a ten-year time frame is more appropriate.
Mr. Alizadah stated that the Ahwatukee Village Planning Committee did not vote in
favor of the General Plan Amendment or Zoning Text Amendment citing concerns
over the noise measurement standards and a desire for more stakeholder
engagement.

Samantha DeMoss, with Rose Law Group, asked for either a denial of the proposed
General Plan Amendment and Zoning Text Amendment or a 90-day continuance. Ms.
DeMoss stated that the current General Plan Amendment and Zoning Text
Amendment is moving through the process too quickly for such a complex use with no
stakeholder input, or Village input prior to the public hearing process. Ms. DeMoss
stated that the proposed language of the Zoning Text Amendment would effectively
constitute a ban on data centers. Ms. DeMoss also expressed concerns over the
requirement for a will-serve letter stating that Arizona Public Service currently has an
eight- to twelve-year back up on major projects and that a two-year window would
make data centers impossible to achieve. Ms. DeMoss expressed concerns over
Proposition 207 with respect to data centers that are already being sought out. Ms.
DeMoss stated there is a lot of conversation around job creation and that data centers
create jobs both directly and indirectly. Ms. DeMoss stated that for every direct job
there are six related but indirect jobs and that there are currently 200,000 jobs within
the City of Phoenix that are affiliated with data centers. Ms. DeMoss also stated that
data centers create tens of millions of dollars in tax revenue. Ms. DeMoss reiterated
that the currently proposed language would make data centers infeasible and
requested the Committee deny the request with a 90-day continuance to allow a
redraft following appropriate stakeholder input. Committee Member
Sommacampagna asked for additional clarification regarding will-serve letters. Ms.
DeMoss stated that the utility company issues a letter stating that they will provide
services in a specified amount of time based on capacity. Ms. DeMoss stated that
utility companies are ramping up production and data centers will need to wait their
turn but that will not happen within two years, which makes financial feasibility
improbable. Ms. DeMoss stated that co-location also becomes difficult as only 10%
may be shared. Committee Member Pérez-Pawloski asked who is responsible for
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1550
North Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y

obtaining a will-serve letter. Ms. DeMoss stated that it was the developer’s
responsibility, and that it is probable that a facility may be constructed in more than
one phase which may require multiple will-serve letters and should be addressed in
the proposed language. Committee Member Pérez-Pawloski stated that it was her
recollection that data centers were allowed with a Special Permit. Ms. DeMoss stated
that data centers do not currently require a Special Permit but rely on an informal
interpretation. Ms. DeMoss stated that the proposed language came out too fast and
there would be Proposition 207 implications if approved as proposed. Committee
Member Pamperin asked about water and whether data centers would be
considered high water users. Ms. DeMoss stated that was the case but that water
consumption associated with data centers has decreased over the years.

COMMITTEE DISCUSSION

Committee Member Heather Garbarino stated that a Proposition 207 Waiver is an
option that the city could offer to a developer seeking to build a data center.
Committee Member Garbarino stated that she has read Chandler’s ordinance
regarding data centers and finds the language to be very similar to that being
proposed.

Vice Chair Joshua Matthews stated that the issue with Proposition 207 is that a
change to the zoning ordinance could render a potential site ineligible for a data
center and if that site was already under contract, the property owner could claim
diminution of value. Vice Chair Matthews stated that he had been contacted by a
zoning attorney who stated that he did not object to the idea of enacting new
language but that the currently proposed language was being rushed. Vice Chair
Matthews stated that it was his understanding that the stakeholder input process had
been run concurrently with the Village Planning Committee hearing process as
opposed to it being a linear process. Vice Chair Matthews stated that typically, a
proposed Text Amendment would go to the stakeholder and neighborhood meetings,
then incorporate changes to the proposed language prior to it coming before the
Village Planning Committee. Vice Chair Matthews stated that he supported what the
city is trying to accomplish but expressed concerns that it was being rushed through
the process. Vice Chair Matthews stated that he did not understand why a three-
month delay was not possible. Vice Chair Matthews stated that he was leaning
towards denial.

Committee Member Massimo Sommacampagna stated that he agreed with the
Vice Chair and that the city can do a better job.

Chair Stephanie Fogelson reiterated that this was the first time that she had been
contacted by a city official regarding a proposal and stated that she did not appreciate
the unwelcome influence.

Committee Member Heather Garbarino stated that she generally prefers to support
staff but, in this instance, waiting another three months to allow additional discussion
seems more appropriate.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1551
North Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y


Vice Chair Joshua Matthews emphasized that he in no way was being critical of
staff as they are responding to directions from the Mayor and City Council. Vice Chair
Matthews stated that he does question the intent of the elected officials. Vice Chair
Matthews stated that in his capacity as a Planning Commissioner, the Planning
Commission is often presented with an urgent matter that needs to be addressed,
including changes in state law that must be implemented within a certain time frame
to avoid consequences. Vice Chair Matthews stated that without a compelling
explanation, there is no reason not to delay action for three months to allow time for
more discussions with the stakeholders.

Committee Member Fred Hepperle stated that he was supportive of the proposed
General Plan Amendment but was not supportive of the proposed Zoning Text
Amendment.

Committee Member Elizabeth Pérez-Pawloski stated that if a developer wants to
build in the city, they should expect to meet certain requirements, but also stated that
the will-serve letter component was too quick.

Committee Member Jason Barraza stated that he was supportive of the language of
the Zoning Text Amendment as currently written with respect to noise levels but had
concerns with requiring a will-serve letter from the power company in that his
understanding is that the state legislature was considering a bill that would allow data
centers to internalize their own power production in which case a will-serve letter
would be unnecessary. Committee Member Barraza stated there were also
discussions regarding nuclear power and its potential effect on data center locations
and expressed concerns with rushing forward just to get something on the books
when that may not be appropriate at this time given that information is evolving.

Vice Chair Joshua Matthews stated that the noise level methodology implies that if
the ambient noise level was 10 decibels, then a specified percent increase would
bring the noise level up to a certain higher level; however, that noise level may not be
disruptive since we live in an environment that operates about 40 to 70 decibels. Vice
Chair Matthews stated that working with industry standards up to a certain level could
be an acceptable option. Vice Chair Matthews stated that it could be worked out, but
more time was needed.

MOTION:
Vice Chair Joshua Matthews motioned to recommend denial of Z-TA-2-25-Y, with
direction for the city to reengage with the stakeholders and return to the Committee
with revised language in 90 days. Committee Member Gabriel Jaramillo seconded
the motion.

VOTE:
12-0-1, motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-2-25-Y, with direction for the city to
reengage with the stakeholders and return to the Committee with revised language in
90 days passes with Committee Members Alauria, Barraza, Garbarino, Harris,
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1552
North Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y

Hepperle, Jaramillo, Larson, Pamperin, Pérez-Pawloski, Sommacampagna,
Matthews, and Fogelson in favor; and Committee Member Edwards in abstention.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

None




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1553
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y

Date of VPC Meeting June 2, 2025
Request Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2,
Section 202 (Definitions) to add a definition for data
centers; amen Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A.II.D
(Guidelines for Design Review, City-Wide Design
Review Guidelines, Specialized Uses) to modify the
section title and add design standards for data centers
and amend Chapter 6, Section 647 (Special Permit
Uses), Section 647.A.2 to add data center within the C-
2 (Intermediate Commercial), C-3 (General
Commercial), CP/GCP (Commerce Park/General
Commerce Park), A-1 (Light Indus-trial) and A-2
(Industria zoning districts, with performance standards.
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation with
modifications
VPC Vote 8-5-1


VPC DISCUSSION:

Item Nos. 3 (GPA-2-25-Y) and 4 (Z-TA-2-25-Y) are companion cases and were heard
concurrently.

One member of the public registered to speak on this item.

Staff Presentation

Matteo Moric, staff, provided an overview related to the data center agenda items. Mr.
Moric explained that the general plan amendment and text amendment would be heard
together, however, each would require its own vote. Mr. Moric noted the Mayor and
Council provided direction to staff in December of 2024 to work on the policies for data
centers. Mr. Moric explained “the why” for why the data center policy is necessary. Mr.
Moric mentioned the policy for the general plan amendment would focus on three key
areas, including: location criteria policy, design policy, and energy and sustainability
policy. Mr. Moric stated the location criteria policy was to identify areas to discourage
and encourage data centers while the design policy focused on design elements to
incorporate within the site and facilities, and the energy and sustainability policy was to
ensure capacity and efficiency.


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1554
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y


Mr. Moric noted the main components of the proposed text amendment to include a
provision for a definition, specific design guidelines and special permit requirements and
performance standards.

Mr. Moric concluded by laying out the staff recommendations.

Questions from Committee

Regina Schmidt was concerned there were energy requirements but no water
requirements.

Marc Soronson said he was specifically concerned about land use placement when the
Arizona Republic building in Downtown Phoenix was converted into a technology center
which led to an immense decrease in employment relative to the previous user.

Diane Petersen also expressed concerns with the water supply and asked if staff
reviewed the water issue. Mr. Moric said that when new facilities come in they would
need to go through the Water Services Department and ensure there was an assured
water supply.

Ms. Petersen expressed additional concern with the rushing of the policy and text
amendment through the process. Mr. Moric indicated the Council is seeking direction
and if the Committee sees fit to do so they should add a concern regarding the water
issue.

Patrice Marcolla wanted to understand the stakeholders involved in establishing these
amendments and questioned the “will serve” letter. Ms. Marcolla believed it was an
unknown item of understanding with APS and SRP, and thought there was more time
needed prior to making a decision.

Anna Sepic was concerned with the high power and water usage of data centers. Ms.
Sepic indicated not being in favor of C-1 and C-2 zoning, as that is typically where you
would see retail centers and shops and those properties are high community-traffic
areas. Ms. Sepic felt these sites should be located in heavy industrial areas such as
where A-2 zoning can be found. Ms. Sepic felt locating these sites where there was
already existing higher manufacturing and energy support was appropriate.

Public Comments
Ty Utton with Rose Law Group indicated he represented a broad coalition of data
center developers and land use attorneys. Mr. Utton noted they were just recently
notified about these data center policies and this was an unusually fast for a text
amendment especially as it is one of the most capital intense land uses out there. Mr.
Utton requests a recommendation of denial so it can be sent back to staff and have
more stakeholder engagement. Mr. Utton explained the stakeholder engagement was
three meetings with five people at the first meeting and one hundred people at the last
meeting. Mr. Utton said there needed to be more engagement and voiced concerns

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1555
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y


about the fairness and legal exposure to the City and added concern about the
language not including a grandfather clause for landowners and developers as many
companies have already invested millions of dollars into the planning of these facilities
and the purchasing of land. Mr. Utton felt this could be a regulatory taking of property
rights. Mr. Utton also does not like the vague provision of “will serve” letter, and feels
the stakeholders investing in this need to be engaged. Mr. Utton emphasized the
proposal leaves significant risks for the City and wants the utility language to be
clarified. Mr. Utton concluded that he did not want the City to stop the Ordinance
change but just to get it right. Mr. Utton wanted the proposal to be denied or delayed so
they could work together. Mr Utton provided a response to the water question, that all
the data center projects he had been working on do not use water as data centers used
to because of the newer technology and most of the cooling was done by electric
power. Mr. Utton noted that some of the data centers still use a lot of water.

Ms. Sepic asked how much energy was being used and thought data centers should
have a green energy component.

Ms. Marcolla reminded the Committee of the previous case for an 8-lot subdivision and
said it was going through the development process for 2 ½ years and believed the short
turnaround time for the data center text amendment is a concern. Ms. Marcolla believed
with the limited information that it was not clear where data centers shall be placed
within the community.

Ms. Sepic initially felt the item needed to be postponed and there needed to be further
clarification and input. Additionally, Ms. Sepic said there should be heat mapping to
determine where these data centers should be strategically placed.

Ms. Petersen wanted to better understand what the difference would be between a
denial and a postponement and how it would affect the outcome of these policies. Ms.
Petersen did not want to see it postponed then come up in another 45 days or deny with
a caveat that certain components be done before it gets brought back to the Committee.
Mr. Moric said it would be at the discretion of the Committee, but the recommendation
would still get moved forward to the Planning Commission and City Council since there
are 15 Villages it goes through.

Robert Goodhue reiterated that it goes to 15 different Village Planning Committees and
the Committee could act or deny the proposal, but it would still get forwarded on for
action to the Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. Goodhue reminded the
Committee of their role as an advisory body and the VPC’s decision would help the
future decision makers get a pulse of the community. Mr. Goodhue said there are no
adequate requirements for data centers and there are a lot coming in and would hate for
there to be black outs because of all the electricity being used up. Mr. Goodhue
emphasized his feeling that this was coming in front of the Committee since it is an
important issue.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1556
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y


Marc Soronson reminded the VPC that they were an advisory group and he wanted to
better understand why it was being fast tracked and said he would be reluctant to deny
this proposal and would support the staff recommendation as written.

Roy Wise felt a denial would be better as it would set a stronger message to the
Planning Commission and City Council.

Robert Gubser was afraid there was not enough input in the process. Mr. Moric
reminded the Committee that the City was working under the old interpretation from 20
years ago and said that he heard there were at least 5 to 10 data center cases coming
in now and said the City is trying to play catchup.

Chair Mortensen asked if there is a motion to postpone the item. Anna Sepic stated it
would not make sense to allow data centers on the C-1 and C-2 zoned properties and
had concerns of them going too close to residential areas. Ms. Sepic added that she
thought it would make the most sense to locate data centers in A-2 and maybe in A-1
zoned areas.

MOTION 1:
Anna Sepic motioned to recommend denial or postponement of Z-TA-2-25-Y. Roy
Wise seconded the motion.

Committee Discussion:
Ms. Sepic asked to see the list of districts where a special permit would be required and
explained that the C-2 and C-3 districts allow any type of retail uses and C-3 zoning
allows for heavy material storage but materials are not supposed to be stored outside in
these districts. Ms. Sepic reiterated that she does not want data centers near residential
areas and felt these data centers would be better suited in heavy industrial areas where
there are more intense energy users. Ms. Sepic favored the denial of any C-2 and C-3
areas and wanted to limit them to A-1 and A-2 areas.

Robert Goodhue asked if Ms. Sepic thought it should be eliminated in the C-2, C-3 and
CP/GCP zoned areas. Ms. Sepic thought this was the best and believed they should
only be allowed in A-1 and A-2 zoned areas. Mr. Goodhue then said the motion would
need to be amended.

Ms. Sepic said she wanted to amend her motion to only allow data centers in A-1 and
A-2 zoned areas.

Mr. Utton said there were good points but he said that it would not be allowed by right
in C-2 and C-3 zoned areas but the proposal required a special permit. Mr. Utton noted
a lot of companies such American Express have data centers to support their campus.

Ms. Sepic said it’s hard to find A-1 or A-2 sites over ten acres and it should be limited
and thought they would be allowed if a PUD was crafted. Ms. Sepic felt if the likes of


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1557
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y


Google would develop a campus they would not pick A-1 or A-2 as a mandatory box
and most likely go to create a PUD.

Ms. Petersen said it brings up a point for grandfathering such as an American Express.
Mr. Utton said grandfathering is an issue of concern.

Ms. Marcolla noted this type of data center use does not drive a lot of traffic and usually
requires larger lots.

Ms. Sepic said additional use permits are not the same process as rezoning and would
not protect the community. Ms. Sepic said lots of communities do not like data centers
as they do not generate many jobs and they put a constraint on the grid system. Ms.
Sepic added they push land prices up but are not a great benefit. Ms. Sepic voiced her
support for approval within the A-1 and A-2 zoned areas only. Ms. Sepic repeated the
motion that she requests an amendment only to allow them within A-1 and A-2 and
wanted to remove them from the C-2, C-3 and CP districts.

Mr. Moric indicated the general plan item is usually heard first.

Ms. Sepic asked where data centers were allowed on the General Plan.

Ms. Sepic withdrew her earlier motion, and Roy Wise withdrew the second.

MOTION 2:
Diane Petersen motioned to deny Z-TA-2-25-Y. Anna Sepic seconded the motion.

Ms. Sepic said she was concerned by the performance standards.

Mr. Goodhue expressed confusion about making a full denial when the Committee
already approved the General Plan Amendment. Mr. Goodhue thought Ana’s earlier
recommendation was good as the Planning Commission and City Council could look at
what was approved and potentially modify it.

Ms. Sepic felt it may be approved in A-1 and A-2 with a caveat of performance
standards.

Rob Gubser said it would not make sense in the C-2 and C-3 zoning districts. Mr.
Gubser said this is where he thought there should be a modification to the text
amendment recommendation.

Ms. Sepic said she only wanted to see data centers in the A-1 and A-2 zoned areas.

Ms. Petersen said to keep the motion as a denial and there was a new second by Ms.
Marcolla.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1558
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y


Ms. Balarama asked if she could abstain since she felt there was not enough
information. Mr. Moric said yes, if that is what you feel comfortable with.

MOTION 3:
Diane Petersen motioned to deny Z-TA-2-25-Y. Ms. Marcolla seconded the motion.

Vote
5-8-1; Motion to recommend denial per staff recommendation fails with Committee
Members Franks, Marcolla, Petersen, Wise and Sommer in favor. Goodhue, Gubser,
Hamra, Mazza, Schmidt, Sepic, Soronson, and Mortensen in opposition. Balderrama
abstained.

Ms. Marcolla asked if the Committee was comfortable with all the other performance
standards within the proposed text amendment. Ms. Marcolla also expressed concerns
with the “will serve” letter from the utility companies.

Mr. Mazza offered a friendly amendment to modify the “will serve” letter.

Mr. Goodhue said data centers use a lot of energy.

Mr. Mazza said it was Mr. Goodhue’s motion and left the friendly amendment up to him.

Mr. Goodhue said data centers use a lot of energy and they will use more and more
and by putting it in the text amendment it will allow the discussion between the City and
the utility companies. Mr. Goodhue said that it would probably take up to two years to
build these data centers.

Ms. Marcolla was concerned that data centers have invested lots of money and that a
guarantee for electricity would be difficult.

Mr. Gubser was concerned that this text amendment was being rushed.

Mr. Mazza said that he hoped the Planning Commission and City Council would look
more into the “will serve” letter and possibly remove it.

Ms. Schmidt echoed Mr. Gubser concern of needing more time.

Ms. Sepic felt if the rezoning and site plan for an 8-lot subdivision took 2 years that she
did not want these data centers being rushed as they would have a massive impact on
the grid system. Ms. Sepic explained she does not want Phoenix to turn into California
or Texas where there is a possibility of no air conditioning in the summertime. Ms. Sepic
said utility companies may need to upgrade their grid system and does not want a
rushed process.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1559
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y


MOTION 4:
Robert Goodhue motioned to recommend the approval of the text amendment with the
modification to require the Special Permit, but to only allow it within the A-1 and A-2
Zoning Districts. Danielle Mazza seconded the motion.

Vote
8-5-1; Motion to recommend the approval of the text amendment with the modification
to require the Special Permit, but to only allow it within the A-1 and A-2 Zoning Districts,
passes with Committee Members Franks, Goodhue, Hamra, Mazza, Sepic, Soronson,
Wise, and Mortensen in favor; Gubser, Marcolla, Petersen, Schmidt, and Sommer
opposed; and Balderrama abstained.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1560
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y



Date of VPC Meeting May 13, 2025
Request Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2,
Section 202 (Definitions) to add a definition for data
centers; amend Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A.II.D
(Guidelines for Design Review, City-Wide Design
Review Guidelines, Specialized Uses) to modify the
section title and add design standards for data centers
and amend Chapter 6, Section 647 (Special Permit
Uses), Section 647.A.2 to add data centers within the
C-2 (Intermediate Commercial), C-3 (General
Commercial), CP/GCP (Commerce Park/General
Commerce Park), A-1 (Light Industrial) and A-2
(Industrial) zoning districts, with performance
standards.
VPC Recommendation Denial, with direction
VPC Vote 3-2


VPC DISCUSSION:

Agenda Item 4 (GPA-2-25-Y) and Agenda Item 5 (Z-TA-2-25-Y) are companion cases
and were heard concurrently.

One member of the public registered to speak on this item, in opposition.

Staff Presentation:
John Roanhorse, staff, provided an overview of GPA-2-25-Y and Z-TA-25-Y. Mr.
Roanhorse discussed why the General Plan Amendment and Text Amendment are
needed. Mr. Roanhorse summarized and explained the policy guidance for data centers
that the General Plan Amendment includes. Mr. Roanhorse then discussed the three
main components of the Text Amendment. Mr. Roanhorse shared the proposed Zoning
Ordinance definition for a data center and proposed design guidelines. Mr. Roanhorse
shared the zoning districts that data centers would be permitted in, subject to a Special
Permit and other performance standards. Mr. Roanhorse shared the upcoming public
hearing schedule and stated that staff recommends approval per the language in Exhibit
A of the Staff Report.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1561
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y

Questions from Committee:
Committee Member Ozzie Virgil stated that these cases are going through the
process very quickly and asked what they are needed for. Mr. Roanhorse responded
that data centers are used for storage and processing of digital data, such as photos
saved in the digital cloud.

Vice Chair Scott Lawrence stated that municipalities did not have to worry about data
centers because they did not exist 20 to 30 years ago, so they are trying to find a way to
make them more aesthetically pleasing and to fit into the community.
Chair Dino Cotton stated that there are some existing data centers around and more
are being built.

Vice Chair Lawrence asked why it would matter if data services are leased to third
parties or not. Mr. Roanhorse responded that existing data centers would likely be
retrofitted.

Committee Member Virgil asked how many data centers will be built. Mr. Roanhorse
responded that it is unknown, and the market is open for data centers to be built at a
number of different locations.

Chair Cotton stated that Tricia Gomes, Deputy Director with the Planning and
Development Department, reached out to him to discuss the proposed General Plan
Amendment and Text Amendment.

Committee Member Virgil expressed concerns with the rushed public hearing
schedule.

Chair Cotton asked Mr. Roanhorse to clarify the water usage of data centers. Mr.
Roanhorse stated that he is not too familiar with how a data center functions, but they
likely use a large amount of water for cooling.

Committee Member Eileen Baden stated that this topic came up during the Maricopa
County Comprehensive Plan Framework 2040 conference and members of the public
were concerned with increased water usage. Committee Member Baden added that the
Maricopa County Planning and Development Director said that they could add into the
Comprehensive Plan that they will work more closely with cities and towns when these
big projects come in. Committee Member Baden asked if there would need to be some
coordination with Maricopa County if the project is over a certain size. Mr. Roanhorse
responded that there would not be. Mr. Roanhorse stated that for all rezoning cases,
utilities are looked at to ensure there is access and capacity for water, wastewater, and
electricity. Committee Member Baden expressed concerns with affecting the power grid
due to the increased energy demand created from data centers. Committee Member
Baden recommended increasing the sidewalk width to eight feet so emergency
response vehicles could use the sidewalk path in the event of an emergency.
Committee Member Baden added that language could be added that improvements for
data centers may be needed off-site due to the larger impact they could have on the
surrounding community. Mr. Roanhorse responded that those comments can be
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1562
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y

included in the recommendation and added that capacity is always looked at for any
development before it is approved.

Committee Member Virgil expressed concerns with what was being stored in data
centers.

Chair Cotton clarified that the Village Planning Committee is reviewing the land use
and design, not what is inside of the data center.

Mr. Roanhorse clarified the elements that the design guidelines would affect.

Committee Member Will Holton asked if there is a maximum square footage
requirement for data centers. Mr. Roanhorse responded that there is not. Mr.
Roanhorse clarified that the main concern is how data centers can best fit into a
location. Committee Member Holton expressed concerns with building height.
Committee Member Holton asked if data centers have backup generators. Mr.
Roanhorse responded that the three data centers he is aware of do.

Committee Member Baden recommended increasing the sidewalk width required
around data center sites to eight or 10 feet.

Chair Cotton expressed concerns with widening the sidewalks due to the urban heat
island effect.

Vice Chair Lawrence agreed with the design guidelines, noting that they make an
unattractive building that a developer could get away with more community-friendly.
Vice Chair Lawrence stated that it would be more important where the data center
building is placed on a site rather than how tall it is.

Committee Member Holton stated that it would be seen regardless due to the height.

Chair Cotton stated that a comment could be added that the Committee does not want
data centers to be tall.

Committee Member Baden stated that a difference of two feet in the sidewalk width
would likely not make a difference in the urban heat island effect. Committee Member
Baden expressed concerns with accessibility and connectivity.

Public Comments:
Henry Hardy, with Rose Law Group, introduced himself as a representative of
stakeholders in the industry, opposed to the proposal. Mr. Hardy stated that they were
made aware of this proposal about two weeks ago. Mr. Hardy stated that the public
hearing process is a very quick turnaround time. Mr. Hardy added that the Accessory
Dwelling Unit (ADU) Text Amendment public hearing process was about a seven-month
process. Mr. Hardy stated that they would like more time to go through the details of this
proposal. Mr. Hardy stated that the data center stakeholders are fine with the
architectural and landscape standards and understand that data centers should fit
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1563
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y

properly into a community. Mr. Hardy explained that there are elements of the proposal
that do not align with investment and do not address how existing investments for data
centers would be affected. Mr. Hardy expressed concerns with Proposition 207 for
diminution of property values. Mr. Hardy asked for a continuance to allow more time
over the summer for everyone to understand the impacts. Mr. Hardy stated that
although data centers do not employ as many employees as other major employers,
each data center could employ between 80 to 150 people and are high-paying jobs with
median incomes of $95,000 annually. Mr. Hardy added that recent studies said indirect
employment in this industry in Phoenix is around 80,000 employees and direct
employment is about 20,000 employees. Mr. Hardy stated that the will-serve letter
requirement is not consistent with how data centers are developed. Mr. Hardy stated
that other business leaders and investors are watching this amendment and see it as
anti-enterprise legislation. Mr. Hardy stated that they understand that data centers
should better the community and should not be forced upon a community. Mr. Hardy
clarified that they need more engagement.

Staff Response:
None.

Discussion:
Committee Member Holton asked how data centers specifically benefit the
community. Committee Member Holton asked how long the amendment has been in the
works. Mr. Hardy responded that they were notified of the amendment about two weeks
ago. Committee Member Holton asked how many major cities are doing a similar
amendment. Mr. Hardy responded that he was not sure. Mr. Hardy stated that nationally
there is a lot of discussion around data centers and some cities are trying to attract
them. Committee Member Holton asked how data centers are benefiting the community.
Mr. Hardy responded that data centers are multi-billion-dollar investments that each
return tens of millions of dollars to the City in tax revenue. Committee Member Holton
asked what data centers do. Mr. Hardy responded that data centers handle everything
from the GPS system in a car to the data storage where people work. Mr. Hardy stated
that every time a file is saved to the computer or to the phone, it is saved somewhere in
the cloud, which is stored and processed by data centers. Mr. Hardy stated that the
future is data centers.

Vice Chair Lawrence stated that the City seems to be contradicting of wanting to be a
tech center by wanting investment from the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing
Company (TSMC) but not wanting investment from data centers.

Committee Member Holton stated that he could understand how TSMC could make
something that he would actually use versus a data center.

Mr. Hardy stated that TSMC is making chips that go into data centers. Mr. Hardy stated
that it is the future of the economy nationally and globally. Mr. Hardy asked the
Committee to express concerns that the timeline is too fast and to come back with a
better proposal.


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1564
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y

Chair Cotton asked for clarification if the data center industry is wanting more time to
go through the design guidelines and make them less restrictive. Mr. Hardy responded
that the design guidelines are not an issue. Mr. Hardy stated that their issues are
Proposition 207, that the text does not say anything about existing data centers and
how the text amendment would affect them, and the text does not say anything about
proposed data centers currently in the development review process and how the text
amendment could affect their existing investments. Mr. Hardy added that the will-serve
letter from the power company to be able to serve the power of the data center in two
years is another major concern. Mr. Hardy stated that a data center cannot get a
commitment for power within two years, and it is probably more around 10 years. Mr.
Hardy added that the power company would ask if the data center has a permit from the
local municipality before providing a will-serve letter. Chair Cotton stated that it seems
the City is trying to rush the text amendment to avoid legal input.

Committee Member Virgil stated that he feels like he does not have enough
information to vote on this item, such as what the height is.

Vice Chair Lawrence concurred.

Mr. Hardy stated that this is the fastest they have seen a text amendment go through
the public hearing process.

Committee Member Holton asked where data centers are being proposed within the
Rio Vista Village.

Committee Member Baden stated that they would be allowed anywhere where that is
zoned for them.

Chair Cotton stated that he does not believe the Village Planning Committee asking for
a continuance would have any impact, since it is still scheduled to be heard by the
Planning Commission and the City Council on their scheduled dates.

Mr. Hardy stated that they want that concern to be passed along to the Planning
Commission and City Council.

Mr. Roanhorse stated that the City has a narrow timeframe to approve or deny a
request due to the State Legislature, and a continuance is typically reserved for the City
Council.

Committee Member Holton stated that he does not understand how the proposal
would impact pending permits.

Vice Chair Lawrence stated that if all the Village Planning Committees vote against it,
then the City Council may negotiate a longer term for this proposal.

Committee Member Baden stated that she believes the City is trying to minimize the
impacts that data centers have. Committee Member Baden stated that she is generally
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1565
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y

supportive of a majority of the proposal. Committee Member Baden stated that she
understands there are a few elements that may need some more discussion and more
review.

Committee Member Cotton concurred and stated that he is supportive of the design
guidelines and would vote to approve the design guidelines.

Committee Member Baden added that the Fire Department should have sufficient time
to review this proposal because they are supportive of perimeter paths around new
developments, which help with accessibility and connectivity. Committee Member
Baden requested that the sidewalk requirement be widened so emergency vehicles
could use them in the event of an emergency. Committee Member Baden added that
language should be added to state that data centers may require off-site improvements
for fire safety of very large data centers.

MOTION – Z-TA-2-25-Y:
Vice Chair Lawrence motioned to recommend denial of Z-TA-2-25-Y, with direction to
allow more time for stakeholder input. Committee Member Holton seconded the
motion.

VOTE – Z-TA-2-25-Y:
3-2; the motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-2-25-Y with direction passed with
Committee members Holton, Virgil and Lawrence in favor and Committee members
Baden and Cotton opposed.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1566
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y

Date of VPC Meeting May 13, 2025
Request Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2,
Section 202 (Definitions) to add a definition for data
centers; amend Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A.II.D
(Guidelines for Design Review, City-Wide Design
Review Guidelines, Specialized Uses) to modify the
section title and add design standards for data
centers and amend Chapter 6, Section 647 (Special
Permit Uses), Section 647.A.2 to add data centers
within the C-2 (Intermediate Commercial), C-3
(General Commercial), CP/GCP (Commerce
Park/General Commerce Park), A-1 (Light Indus-trial)
and A-2 (Industrial) zoning districts, with performance
standards.
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation, with
direction
VPC Vote 14-1-1

Item Nos. 5 (GPA-2-25-Y) and 6 (Z-TA-2-25-Y) are companion cases and were heard
concurrently.

Two members of the public registered to speak on this item, one in support, and one that
did not indicate support or opposition.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Samuel Rogers, staff, provided a presentation regarding the proposed General Plan
Amendment, including background and details of the location criteria, design, and energy
and sustainability policies proposed to be added for data centers. Mr. Rogers provided
information about further about the proposed Text Amendment, including a definition for
data centers, design guidelines, and a requirement for a Special Permit and performance
standards, finally noting the timeline for the proposals.

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE

Committee Member Greg Brownell asked if they could add a requirement to not allow
Data Centers within one mile of the Rio Salado Restoration Area. Mr. Rogers stated that
the requirement could be recommended as a part of the motion.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1567
South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y
May 13, 2025

Committee Member Gene Holmerud explained that Iceland is a popular location for
data centers, stated that places like Iceland make more sense because data centers
produce so much heat, and stated he was surprised there is a demand for data centers in
Phoenix.

Committee Member Trent Marchuk explained that the lack of natural disasters in the
Phoenix area make it an attractive place to locate data centers and asked about the
definition of high-capacity transit. Mr. Rogers explained that high-capacity transit options
are the light rail and bus rapid transit. Committee Member Marchuk asked about existing
data centers. Mr. Rogers stated that existing data centers would be grandfathered and
explained staff is still looking into other items such as phased developments.

Committee Member Petra Falcon asked for staff to display the slide showing the public
hearing dates. Mr. Rogers displayed the slide.

Committee Member Tamala Daniels asked how health hazards are being addressed
and explained that data centers contribute to noise pollution, air pollution, respiratory
illnesses, heat emissions, traffic congestion, and security risks. Mr. Rogers explained
that data centers will be required to go through the Special Permit process and the
Village Planning Committees will have the opportunity to analyze if a site is appropriate.
Mr. Rogers explained a Will Serve letter will be required to ensure data centers are not
over burdening the electric grid, stated that a noise study will be required, stated that data
centers will not be allowed to exceed five percent of the area’s ambient noise, explained
that some data centers have been in the news because of pollution generated from
natural gas fueled fans, and stated that he expects the data centers in Phoenix to get
their power from the electric grid.

Committee Member Mark Beehler echoed Committee Member T. Daniels’ concerns,
stated the cases that the Village Planning Committee (VPC) recommends for denial are
not always ultimately denied by the City Council, stated that he foresees data centers as
something that will be dumped on South Phoenix, and echoed Committee Member
Brownell’s concerns about data centers near the Rio Salado Habitat Restoration area.
Mr. Rogers explained that General Plan Amendment includes guidance to not allow data
centers near corridors and explained that the Rio Salado area is one of the potential
corridors that will be designated as a part of the General Plan implementation.

Committee Member Kay Shepard asked about rezoning requirements. Mr. Rogers
explained that a Special Permit would be needed to allow a data center.

Committee Member Ralph Thompson II asked about the number of data centers in
South Phoenix and asked how many jobs data centers generate. Mr. Rogers stated that
he does not have data on the number of data centers in South Phoenix and explained
that at the Central City Village Planning Committee an attorney had stated that data




South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y
May 13, 2025

centers create 80 to 150 jobs. Chair Arthur Greathouse III stated that a further
breakdown of the jobs would be needed to understand the job creation.

Committee Member George Brooks stated that the issues of data centers will continue
to increase, asked if this is something we can spend more time on, described
environmental concerns, and stated that data centers have loud air conditioning units and
heat pumps that will make areas hotter. Committee Member Brooks stated he does not
want data centers to be dumped on South Phoenix, stated that savvy attorneys will argue
for permitting data centers, and stated that more time should be spent on the topic.

Committee Member Lee Coleman asked for confirmation that data centers can
currently go into any office location. Mr. Rogers explained that data centers are currently
allowed anywhere an office use is allowed.

Committee Member Fred Daniels asked if there are any data centers that are currently
in the pipeline. Mr. Rogers explained he is not aware of any data centers currently in the
pipeline in South Mountain, but he is aware of others around the City.

Chair Greathouse asked about a buffer between data centers and residential and stated
that there is a data center on 40th Street and McDowell Road that is right next to
residential. Committee Member Marcia Busching stated that there is a 150-foot buffer
required from residential. Chair Greathouse stated that 150 feet is not very far.

Committee Member Busching stated that landscape setbacks are required, but walls
are not addressed, stated that there is not a definition of live coverage, stated that water
consumption is not addressed, explained that the buildings have architecture
requirements indicating that the building will likely be able to be seen from the street, and
stated that she likes the idea of a distance requirement from the Rio Salado Habitat
Restoration area.

Mr. Rogers stated that live coverage is often a stipulation on rezoning cases, explained
that live coverage means the area that is covered in trees and shrubs, stated that walls
greater than three feet are not allowed in landscape setbacks, and explained that
additional architecture concerns can be addressed through stipulations during the Special
Permit process.

Committee Member Edward Aldama asked for confirmation that data centers are
currently allowed anywhere an office is and asked if the text amendment will create a
formalized process for the data centers. Mr. Rogers confirmed the General Plan
Amendment and Text Amendment requests will create a formalized process to permit
data centers and mitigate their impacts.

Committee Member Marchuk explained that he had visited a data center for work,
explained that the site he visited had a water treatment facility on site that processed grey




South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y
May 13, 2025

water, and stated that using grey water would be something that would be interesting to
investigate. Mr. Rogers explained that the city has high water user requirements that
require a certain percent of water be recycled.

Committee Member Marchuk asked about the location policy that encourages data
centers in identified redevelopment areas where infrastructure investments are needed
and asked about identified redevelopment areas within South Mountain. Mr. Rogers
explained there is the Target Area B Redevelopment Area in South Mountain, stated
much of it is along proposed and existing corridors, and explained that areas with needed
infrastructure investments are generally areas on the periphery of the city that need roads
and utilities.

Committee Member Brownell described some of the challenges of South Mountain and
explained attorneys will argue for data centers. Mr. Rogers explained that this is putting
in a process to regulate data centers rather than the status quo that lets data centers
come in wherever an office use is allowed.

Committee Member Brownell asked about live coverage and asked about the height
limitations. Mr. Rogers explained live coverage is provided through shrubs and tree
coverage and stated that building heights will be regulated through the underlying zoning
district. Committee Member Brownell stated that he would rather have a human scale
wall closer to the sidewalk than a large wall further from the sidewalk.

Committee Member T. Daniels asked if data centers can be restricted to only be
allowed on industrially and commercially zoned parcels. Mr. Rogers explained that the
proposal only allows for data centers to be allowed on industrially and commercially
zoned properties.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Jon Gillespie introduced himself, explained that he is from Rose Law Group, described
tax revenue generated from data centers, stated he is concerned about the timeline of
the process, stated he would like at least 60 more days for public comment, stated that
there has been a lot of investment by data center users, discussed grandfathering of
developments, expressed concerns about phased developments, explained potential
Proposition 207 litigation, and explained the Will Serve Letter requirement is unfeasible.

Ron Norse explained that he is a building inspector, stated that he is a former City of
Phoenix inspector, offered a tour of a data center, and stated that he has been inspecting
microchip factories for the last 5 years.

Kay Shepard asked if data centers are the same thing as chip makers. Mr. Rogers
stated that it is his understanding that they are different.




South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y
May 13, 2025

Gene Holmerud described different sound decibel levels and stated he wants to know
more about the sound regulations.

STAFF RESPONSE

Mr. Rogers explained that the City’s Law Department has determined there will not be
any Proposition 207 issues, stated that the City is still working on what projects will be
grandfathered in, and explained that the Central City Village Planning Committee had
asked for more time.

Committee Member Marchuk asked about phased data center developments. Mr.
Rogers explained that his team is still working through questions about what projects will
be grandfathered in.

Committee Member Kay Shepard asked about how the other villages have voted. Mr.
Rogers summarized the results of the other villages that have heard the items.

Vice Chair Emma Viera stated that she appreciates that we are putting regulations on
data centers and stated that she would like to see distance requirements for schools and
residential. Mr. Rogers stated that there is a distance requirement from residential areas
but not from schools. Vice Chair Viera stated that 150 feet is not enough and stated that
a distance requirement from schools should be added.

Committee Member Brownell stated support for a distance requirement from schools,
stated that there are high asthma rates in Arizona schools, and explained data centers
will make it worse.

Mark Beehler stated that determining specific distance requirements is out of the Village
Planning Committee’s scope and stated that he agrees that distance from schools should
be added.

Committee Member Busching stated that she would like any motion on the General
Plan amendment to include direction to encourage recycling of water.

Committee Member Marchuk asked about the motion and providing direction versus
requiring modifications. Mr. Rogers explained that other committees have made motions
with direction.

FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: MOTION, DISCUSSION, AND VOTE

Motion:
Committee Member Marcia Busching made a motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-
2-25-Y with direction that no data centers be allowed within 1.5 miles of the Rio Salado
Habitat Restoration Area, that II.D.5.1 be modified to require a 150-foot setback from




South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y
May 13, 2025

schools, and that a provision be included that encourages the recycling of water and
usage of recycled water on site. Committee Member Greg Brownell seconded the
motion.

Committee Member Beehler introduced a friendly amendment to modify II.D.5.1 to
require that the setback requirement be from a building. Committee Member Busching
stated that she accepts the friendly amendment.

Committee Member Shepard introduced a friendly amendment to only allow data
centers on properties that have A-1 or A-2 zoning. Committee Member Marchuk stated
that C-2 had been removed in the General Plan Amendment motion. Committee
Member Busching did not accept the friendly amendment.

Committee Member Marchuk stated something should be added regarding
grandfathering in projects that are already in the process or that have phased plans.
Chair Greathouse stated that his company has land that has grandfathered rights,
stated that governance will understand grandfathered rights, and stated that he expects
that projects will have to abide by the rules and regulations at the time they applied.
Committee Member Marchuk stated that there is still ambiguity and stated that providing
some direction on the matter will be beneficial. Committee Member Brownell suggested
having a five-year timeframe for projects to be constructed under the current code. Chair
Greathouse stated he does not like the idea of a five-year timeframe and stated that there
could be an event like a pandemic that causes delays. Committee Member Beehler
stated that he does not think that there should be grandfathering rights.

Committee Member Busching called the question.

Vice Chair Viera asked if Committee Member Busching would be open to adding a
requirement regarding the usage of renewable energy. Committee Member Busching
stated that the question has been called so she is not open to an amendment.

Vote:
14-1-1, motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-2-25-Y with direction that no data centers
be allowed within 1.5 miles of the Rio Salado Habitat Restoration Area, that a provision
be included that encourages the recycling of water and usage of recycled water on site,
and that II.D.5.1 be modified to require a 150-foot setback from schools and that that the
setback be measured from a building, passed with Committee Members Aldama,
Beehler, Brooks, Brownell, Busching, Coleman, F. Daniels, T. Daniels, Falcon, Jackson,
Marchuk, Thompson, Viera, and Greathouse in favor, Committee Member Shepard
opposed, and Committee Member Holmerud abstained.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

None.




ATTACHMENT D




To: City of Phoenix Planning Commission Date: June 4, 2025


From: Tricia Gomes
Planning and Development Deputy Director

Subject: BACK UP TO ITEM NO. 3 – Z-TA-2-25-Y – DATA CENTERS TEXT
AMENDMENT


Text Amendment No. Z-TA-2-25-Y is a request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance
Chapter 2, Section 202 (Definitions) to add a definition for data centers; amend Chapter 5,
Section 507 Tab A.II.D (Guidelines for Design Review, City-Wide Design Review
Guidelines, Specialized Uses) to modify the section title and add design standards for data
centers; and amend Chapter 6, Section 647 (Special Permit Uses), Section 647.A.2 to add
data centers within the C-2 (Intermediate Commercial), C-3 (General Commercial),
CP/GCP (Commerce Park/General Commerce Park), A-1 (Light Industrial), and A-2
(Industrial) zoning districts, with a Special Permit and performance standards.

The Village Planning Committees considered the request throughout May and beginning
of June. Two VPCs recommended approval, per the staff recommendation; three VPCs
recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, with direction; one VPC
recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, with a modification; one VPC
recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, with a modification and direction;
three VPCs recommended denial; four VPCs recommended denial, with direction; and one
VPC did not have quorum.

Three stakeholder meetings were held with individuals representing a wide range of
interests in data center development such as land use attorneys, real estate and
construction professionals, data center operators, and utility companies.

The language in this proposed text amendment has been modified to address some of the
primary concerns as recommended by the Village Planning Committees and shared at the
stakeholder meetings including the following concerns: undergrounding of large utility
lines, obtaining a will serve letter within two years, noise standards and applicability of the
new development standards and requirement to secure a Special Permit.

Staff recommends approval, per the modified language in bold font below:




Z-TA-2-25-Y Backup Memo
June 4, 2025
Page 2


Amend Chapter 2, Section 202 (Definitions) to add a definition for data centers.

Section 202. Definitions.

***

DATA CENTER: A FACILITY USED PRIMARILY FOR DATA SERVICES, INCLUDING
THE STORAGE, PROCESSING, MANAGEMENT, AND TRANSMISSION OF DIGITAL
DATA. A FACILITY SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED A DATA CENTER WHEN IT DOES
NOT EXCEED 10% OF THE GROSS FLOOR AREA OF ALL ON-SITE BUILDINGS; IS
USED TO SERVE THE ENTERPRISE FUNCTIONS OF THE ON-SITE PROPERTY
OWNER; AND IS NOT USED TO LEASE DATA SERVICES TO THIRD PARTIES.

***


Amend Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A.II.D (Guidelines for Design Review, City-Wide
Design Review Guidelines, Specialized Uses) to modify the section title and add
design standards for data centers, and to read as follows:

Section 507 Tab A. Guidelines for design review.

***

II. CITY-WIDE DESIGN REVIEW GUIDELINES. The design review guidelines
indicate specific standards of implementation and are categorized as Requirements
(R), Presumptions (P), or Considerations (C). INDICATED WITH THE MARKERS
(R), (R*), (P), (T), AND (C) SHALL BE APPLIED AND ENFORCED IN THE SAME
MANNER AS INDICATED IN SECTION 507. ITEMS NOT INDICATED WITH AN
(R), (R*), (P), (T), AND (C) SHALL BE TREATED AS (R).

***

D. Specialized Uses.

***

5. DATA CENTERS.

***




Z-TA-2-25-Y Backup Memo
June 4, 2025
Page 3


5.1. SETBACKS. ALL MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ELECTRICAL
TRANSFORMERS AND GENERATORS, SHALL BE SET
BACK A MINIMUM OF 150 FEET FROM ABUTTING RIGHT-
OF-WAY OR RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY; IN
ADDITION TO THE FOLLOWING: (R*)

5.1.1. THE EQUIPMENT MUST BE FULLY SCREENED BY
A BUILDING THAT IS VISUALLY INTEGRATED
WITH THE DESIGN OF THE OVERALL
DEVELOPMENT; OR

5.1.2 THE EQUIPMENT MUST BE FULLY SCREENED BY
A DECORATIVE SCREEN WALL HAVING
VARIATIONS IN COLORS, MATERIALS,
PATTERNS, TEXTURES, AND/OR AN ART
INSTALLATION SUCH AS A MURAL.

RATIONALE: GROUND EQUIPMENT SHOULD BE
ENCLOSED AND SET BACK TO PROVIDE VISUAL
SCREENING AND REDUCE NOISE LEVELS.

5.2. LANDSCAPE SETBACK. A MINIMUM 30-FOOT WIDE
PERIMETER LANDSCAPE SETBACK SHALL BE
PROVIDED, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:

5.4.1. TWO STAGGERED ROWS OF LARGE CANOPY
SHADE TREES PLANTED 20 FEET ON CENTER OR
IN EQUIVALENT GROUPING SHALL BE
PROVIDED, AS APPROVED BY THE PDD
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. (T)

5.4.2 FIVE 5-GALLON SHRUBS PER TREE SHALL BE
PROVIDED, AT A MINIMUM. (T)

5.4.3 GROUNDCOVERS SHALL BE PROVIDED TO
SUPPLEMENT THE TREES AND SHRUBS SO THAT
A MINIMUM 75% LIVE COVERAGE IS ATTAINED.
(T)

RATIONALE: AN ENHANCED LANDSCAPE SETBACK
WITH A DENSE NUMBER OF TREES AND SHRUBS
HELPS TO MITIGATE NEGATIVE VISUAL IMPACTS.

5.3. ARCHITECTURE.




Z-TA-2-25-Y Backup Memo
June 4, 2025
Page 4


5.3.1. BUILDING FACADES THAT EXCEED 100 FEET
SHOULD CONTAIN ARCHITECTURAL
EMBELLISHMENTS AND DETAILING SUCH AS
TEXTURAL CHANGES, PILASTERS, OFFSETS,
RECESSES, WINDOW FENESTRATION
(INCLUDING FAUX WINDOWS), SHADOW BOXES,
AND OVERHEAD/CANOPIES. (P)

5.3.2. ALL SIDES OF A BUILDING/STRUCTURE SHOULD
PROVIDE AN ENHANCED DESIGN INCLUDING A
VARIATION IN COLORS, MATERIALS, PATTERNS,
TEXTURES, HEIGHT, WINDOWS (INCLUDING
FAUX WINDOWS), ARTICULATION, AND/OR ART
INSTALLATIONS. (P)

5.3.3. EACH MAIN ENTRANCE SHOULD INCLUDE A
FEATURE THAT DIFFERENTIATES IT FROM THE
REMAINDER OF THE BUILDING FACADE BY A
CHANGE IN BUILDING MATERIAL, PATTERN,
TEXTURE, COLOR, AND/OR ACCENT MATERIAL,
AND THAT PROJECTS OR IS RECESSED FROM
THE ADJOINING BUILDING PLANE. (P)

5.3.4. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN SHOULD TAKE INTO
ACCOUNT THE SOLAR CONSEQUENCES OF
BUILDING HEIGHT, BULK, AND AREA. (C)

RATIONALE: DATA CENTER BUILDINGS SHOULD
INCLUDE ENHANCED ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
FEATURES IN ORDER TO PROVIDE VISUAL INTEREST,
TO BREAK UP THE MASS OF THE
BUILDING/STRUCTURE AND TO PROVIDE AN
ENHANCED DESIGN INTERFACE WHERE VISIBLE FROM
A RIGHT-OF-WAY AND/OR RESIDENTIALLY ZONED
PROPERTY.

5.4. STREETSCAPE. FOR EACH STREET FRONTAGE, A
MINIMUM 6-FOOT-WIDE DETACHED SIDEWALK
SEPARATED FROM THE CURB BY A MINIMUM 8-FOOT-
WIDE LANDSCAPE STRIP, SUBJECT TO THE
FOLLOWING:

5.4.1. SINGLE-TRUNK, LARGE CANOPY SHADE TREES,
PLANTED 20 FEET ON CENTER OR IN
EQUIVALENT GROUPINGS, SHALL BE PROVIDED
ON BOTH SIDES OF THE SIDEWALK AND
PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 75% SHADE. (T)


Z-TA-2-25-Y Backup Memo
June 4, 2025
Page 5


5.4.2 A MIXTURE OF SHRUBS, ACCENTS, AND
VEGETATIVE GROUNDCOVERS WITH A MAXIMUM
MATURE HEIGHT OF TWO FEET SHALL BE
DISTRIBUTED THROUGHOUT THE LANDSCAPE
AREAS TO ACHIEVE A MINIMUM OF 75% LIVE
COVERAGE. (T)

5.4.3 ALL NEW OR RELOCATED ELECTRIC LINES 12
KV AND SMALLER, COMMUNICATIONS AND
CABLE TELEVISION AND ALL ON PREMISE
WIRING SHALL BE PLACED UNDERGROUND IN
ALL DEVELOPMENTS WHERE VISIBLE FROM
STREETS OR ADJOINING PROPERTIES EXISTING
OVERHEAD UTILITIES WITHIN THE RIGHTS-OF-
WAY ABUTTING THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE
PLACED UNDERGROUND, UNLESS OTHERWISE
APPROVED THROUGH A TECHNICAL APPEAL. (T)

RATIONALE: AN ENHANCED STREETSCAPE HELPS TO
SOFTEN THE EDGE OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF A
LARGER NON-RESIDENTIAL USE.

5.5. SHADE.

5.5.1. ALL ON-SITE PEDESTRIAN PATHWAYS SHOULD
BE SHADED A MINIMUM OF 75% BY A
STRUCTURE, LANDSCAPING, OR A
COMBINATION OF THE TWO. (P)

5.5.2 DEDICATED MULTI-USE TRAILS ADJACENT TO
THE SITE SHOULD BE SHADED A MINIMUM OF
50% AT TREE MATURITY. (P)

RATIONALE: ENHANCED PEDESTRIAN COMFORT
SHOULD BE PRIORITIZED ADJACENT TO AND WITHIN
DATA CENTER DEVELOPMENTS ACROSS THE CITY.

***
Amend Chapter 6, Section 647 (Special Permit Uses), Section 647.A.2 to add data
centers within the C-2 (Intermediate Commercial), C-3 (General Commercial), CP/GCP
(Commerce Park/General Commerce Park), A-1 (Light Industrial) and A-2 (Industrial)
zoning districts, with performance standards to read as follows:

Section 647. Special Permit Uses.

***



Z-TA-2-25-Y Backup Memo
June 4, 2025
Page 6


2. A special permit may be granted by the Council upon recommendation of
the Commission to establish the following uses in the use districts named:

***

KK. DATA CENTERS IN THE C-2, C-3, CP/GCP, A-1 AND A-2 ZONING
DISTRICTS, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:

(1) THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE NO CLOSER THAN 2,640
FEET FROM AN APPROVED HIGH-CAPACITY TRANSIT
STATION.

(2) PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL WILL NOT BE
GRANTED FOR A DATA CENTER UNTIL SUCH TIME
THAT A LOCAL UTILITY COMPANY CONFIRMS IN
WRITING WITH A “WILL-SERVE” LETTER PROVIDES A
CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT THAT IT CAN AFFIRMS
ITS CAPACITY AND COMMITMENT TO SERVE THE
ENERGY DEMAND WITHIN TWO YEARS FOR THE
PROPOSED DATA CENTER. THE LETTER AGREEMENT
FROM THE UTILITY COMPANY SHALL BE SUBMITTED
TO PDD CONCURRENT WITH THE PRELIMINARY SITE
PLAN.

(3) THE FOLLOWING SHALL APPLY WHEN THE SITE IS
LOCATED WITHIN 300 FEET OF A RESIDENTIAL ZONING
DISTRICT:

(a) PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A DATA
CENTER SHALL NOT BE GRANTED UNLESS IT
HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED THAT THE DATA
CENTER, INCLUDING ALL ON-SITE MECHANICAL
EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES, WILL NOT EXCEED
THE EXISTING AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL FOR THE
SITE BY MORE THAN 5% OR A SPECIFIC NOISE
STANDARD MAY BE STIPULATED AS A
CONDITION OF AN APPROVED SPECIAL PERMIT.




Z-TA-2-25-Y Backup Memo
June 4, 2025
Page 7


(b) TO DETERMINE COMPLIANCE WITH THE PRIOR
SUBSECTION, THE DEVELOPER SHALL SUBMIT A
NOISE STUDY TO PDD PRIOR TO OR
CONCURRENT WITH THE PRELIMINARY SITE
PLAN. THE NOISE STUDY SHALL BE
PERFORMED BY A THIRD-PARTY ACOUSTICAL
ENGINEER TO DOCUMENT BASELINE NOISE
LEVELS IN THE AREA OF THE PROPOSED DATA
CENTER, INCLUDING NOISE LEVELS MEASURED
AT THE PROPERTY LINE OF THE NEAREST
RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT TO THE
PROPOSED DATA CENTER PROPERTY.

(c) UPON APPROVAL OF THE NOISE STUDY, THE
METHODS PROPOSED TO MITIGATE NOISE
SHALL BE STIPULATED AS A CONDITION OF
FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL. A FINAL
CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY SHALL NOT BE
ISSUED IF THE AMBIENT NOISE EXCEEDS THE
PRIOR EXISTING NOISE LEVEL BY MORE THAN
5%.

(4) THESE REGULATIONS AND THE DESIGN GUIDELINES
SET FORTH IN SECTION 507 TAB A.II.D.5., DATA
CENTERS ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO DATA CENTERS
WHICH HAVE RECEIVED FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL;
OR A DATA CENTER USE THAT IS SPECIFICALLY
LISTED AS A PERMITTED USE OR SPECIFICALLY
DISCUSSED IN A COUNCIL ADOPTED PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT NARRATIVE PRIOR TO [THE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE]. OTHERWISE,
THE DEVELOPMENT IS SUBJECT TO THESE
REGULATIONS AND ALL APPLICABLE DESIGN
GUIDELINES SET FORTH IN SECTION 507 TAB A,
INCLUDING THOSE FOR SECTION II.D.5, DATA
CENTERS.

***




ATTACHMENT E

REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
June 5, 2025

ITEM NO: 3
DISTRICT NO.: Citywide
SUBJECT:

Application #: Z-TA-2-25-Y (Companion Case GPA-2-25-Y)
Location: Citywide
Proposal: Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2, Section 202 (Definitions)
to add a definition for data centers; amend Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab
A.II.D (Guidelines for Design Review, City-Wide Design Review
Guidelines, Specialized Uses) to modify the section title and add design
standards for data centers; and amend Chapter 6, Section 647 (Special
Permit Uses), Section 647.A.2 to add data centers within the C-2
(Intermediate Commercial), C-3 (General Commercial), CP/GCP
(Commerce Park/General Commerce Park), A-1 (Light Industrial), and A-2
(Industrial) zoning districts, with a Special Permit and performance
standards.
Applicant: City of Phoenix Planning Commission
Representative: City of Phoenix, Planning and Development Department

ACTIONS:

Staff Recommendation: Approval, per the staff memo dated June 4, 2025.

Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Ahwatukee Foothills 5/19/2025 Denial. Vote: 10-0.
Alhambra 5/20/2025 Denial. Vote: 11-0.
Camelback East 6/3/2025 Denial, with direction. Vote: 17-0.
Central City 5/12/2025 Approval, with direction. 8-1-1.
Deer Valley 5/20/2025 No quorum.
Desert View 6/3/2025 Denial, with direction. Vote 11-0.
Encanto 6/2/2025 Denial. Vote 13-0-1.
Estrella 5/20/2025 Approval, with direction and a modification. Vote: 4-0.
Laveen 5/12/2025 Approval, with direction. Vote: 13-0.
Maryvale 5/14/2025 Approval. Vote: 13-0.
North Gateway 5/8/2025 Approval. Vote: 8-0.
North Mountain 5/21/2025 Denial, with direction. Vote: 12-0-1.
Paradise Valley 6/2/2025 Approval, with a modification. Vote: 8-5-1.
Rio Vista 5/13/2025 Denial, with direction. Vote: 3-2.
South Mountain 5/13/2025 Approval, with direction. Vote: 14-1-1.

Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the staff memo dated June 4, 2025, with
direction.

Motion Discussion:

Commissioner Matthews made a MOTION to approve Z-TA-2-25-Y, per the staff memo dated
June 4, 2025. Commissioner James seconded that motion.

Vice-Chairman Boyd proposed an AMENDED MOTION to include direction to evaluate issues
with decibel level restrictions, allowance in Commerce Park zoning, co-location of data centers

and the 10% size reduction, and grandfathered use and 207 waivers. Commissioner Gorraiz
seconded the motion to amend.

Chairperson Busching asked if they would be amenable to adding direction to also evaluate
heat mitigation and a de-minimus exception.

Vice-Chairperson Boyd and Commissioner Gorraiz agreed.

Motion details: Vice-Chairperson Boyd made a MOTION to approve Z-TA-2-25-Y per the staff
memo dated June 4, 2025, with direction to evaluate issues with decibel level restrictions,
allowance in Commerce Park zoning, co-location of data centers and the 10% size reduction,
grandfathered use and 207 waivers, heat mitigation, and a de-minimus exception.

Maker: Vice-Chairperson Boyd
Second: Gorraiz
Vote: 9-0
Absent: None.
Opposition Present: Yes.

Findings: This text amendment will create a process for data centers to be proposed and
evaluated through a public hearing process. The text amendment will provide standards to
address major concerns that data centers cause.

Proposed Language:

Amend Chapter 2, Section 202 (Definitions) to add a definition for data centers.

Section 202. Definitions.

***

DATA CENTER: A FACILITY USED PRIMARILY FOR DATA SERVICES, INCLUDING THE
STORAGE, PROCESSING, MANAGEMENT, AND TRANSMISSION OF DIGITAL DATA. A
FACILITY SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED A DATA CENTER WHEN IT DOES NOT EXCEED
10% OF THE GROSS FLOOR AREA OF ALL ON-SITE BUILDINGS; IS USED TO SERVE THE
ENTERPRISE FUNCTIONS OF THE ON-SITE PROPERTY OWNER; AND IS NOT USED TO
LEASE DATA SERVICES TO THIRD PARTIES.

***


Amend Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A.II.D (Guidelines for Design Review, City-Wide Design
Review Guidelines, Specialized Uses) to modify the section title and add design standards
for data centers, and to read as follows:

Section 507 Tab A. Guidelines for design review.

***




II. CITY-WIDE DESIGN REVIEW GUIDELINES. The design review guidelines indicate
specific standards of implementation and are categorized as Requirements (R),
Presumptions (P), or Considerations (C). INDICATED WITH THE MARKERS (R), (R*), (P),
(T), AND (C) SHALL BE APPLIED AND ENFORCED IN THE SAME MANNER AS
INDICATED IN SECTION 507. ITEMS NOT INDICATED WITH AN (R), (R*), (P), (T), AND
(C) SHALL BE TREATED AS (R).

***

D. Specialized Uses.

***

5. DATA CENTERS.

***
5.1. SETBACKS. ALL MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT, INCLUDING BUT
NOT LIMITED TO ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMERS AND
GENERATORS, SHALL BE SET BACK A MINIMUM OF 150
FEET FROM ABUTTING RIGHT-OF-WAY OR RESIDENTIALLY
ZONED PROPERTY; IN ADDITION TO THE FOLLOWING: (R*)

5.1.1. THE EQUIPMENT MUST BE FULLY SCREENED BY A
BUILDING THAT IS VISUALLY INTEGRATED WITH THE
DESIGN OF THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT; OR

5.1.2 THE EQUIPMENT MUST BE FULLY SCREENED BY A
DECORATIVE SCREEN WALL HAVING VARIATIONS IN
COLORS, MATERIALS, PATTERNS, TEXTURES,
AND/OR AN ART INSTALLATION SUCH AS A MURAL.

RATIONALE: GROUND EQUIPMENT SHOULD BE ENCLOSED
AND SET BACK TO PROVIDE VISUAL SCREENING AND
REDUCE NOISE LEVELS.

5.2. LANDSCAPE SETBACK. A MINIMUM 30-FOOT WIDE
PERIMETER LANDSCAPE SETBACK SHALL BE PROVIDED,
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:

5.4.1. TWO STAGGERED ROWS OF LARGE CANOPY SHADE
TREES PLANTED 20 FEET ON CENTER OR IN
EQUIVALENT GROUPING SHALL BE PROVIDED, AS
APPROVED BY THE PDD LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. (T)

5.4.2 FIVE 5-GALLON SHRUBS PER TREE SHALL BE
PROVIDED, AT A MINIMUM. (T)

5.4.3 GROUNDCOVERS SHALL BE PROVIDED TO
SUPPLEMENT THE TREES AND SHRUBS SO THAT A
MINIMUM 75% LIVE COVERAGE IS ATTAINED. (T)


RATIONALE: AN ENHANCED LANDSCAPE SETBACK WITH A
DENSE NUMBER OF TREES AND SHRUBS HELPS TO
MITIGATE NEGATIVE VISUAL IMPACTS.

5.3. ARCHITECTURE.

5.3.1. BUILDING FACADES THAT EXCEED 100 FEET SHOULD
CONTAIN ARCHITECTURAL EMBELLISHMENTS AND
DETAILING SUCH AS TEXTURAL CHANGES,
PILASTERS, OFFSETS, RECESSES, WINDOW
FENESTRATION (INCLUDING FAUX WINDOWS),
SHADOW BOXES, AND OVERHEAD/CANOPIES. (P)

5.3.2. ALL SIDES OF A BUILDING/STRUCTURE SHOULD
PROVIDE AN ENHANCED DESIGN INCLUDING A
VARIATION IN COLORS, MATERIALS, PATTERNS,
TEXTURES, HEIGHT, WINDOWS (INCLUDING FAUX
WINDOWS), ARTICULATION, AND/OR ART
INSTALLATIONS. (P)

5.3.3. EACH MAIN ENTRANCE SHOULD INCLUDE A FEATURE
THAT DIFFERENTIATES IT FROM THE REMAINDER OF
THE BUILDING FACADE BY A CHANGE IN BUILDING
MATERIAL, PATTERN, TEXTURE, COLOR, AND/OR
ACCENT MATERIAL, AND THAT PROJECTS OR IS
RECESSED FROM THE ADJOINING BUILDING PLANE.
(P)

5.3.4. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN SHOULD TAKE INTO
ACCOUNT THE SOLAR CONSEQUENCES OF BUILDING
HEIGHT, BULK, AND AREA. (C)

RATIONALE: DATA CENTER BUILDINGS SHOULD INCLUDE
ENHANCED ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN FEATURES IN ORDER
TO PROVIDE VISUAL INTEREST, TO BREAK UP THE MASS OF
THE BUILDING/STRUCTURE AND TO PROVIDE AN
ENHANCED DESIGN INTERFACE WHERE VISIBLE FROM A
RIGHT-OF-WAY AND/OR RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY.

5.4. STREETSCAPE. FOR EACH STREET FRONTAGE, A MINIMUM
6-FOOT-WIDE DETACHED SIDEWALK SEPARATED FROM
THE CURB BY A MINIMUM 8-FOOT-WIDE LANDSCAPE STRIP,
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:

5.4.1. SINGLE-TRUNK, LARGE CANOPY SHADE TREES,
PLANTED 20 FEET ON CENTER OR IN EQUIVALENT
GROUPINGS, SHALL BE PROVIDED ON BOTH SIDES
OF THE SIDEWALK AND PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 75%
SHADE. (T)




5.4.2 A MIXTURE OF SHRUBS, ACCENTS, AND VEGETATIVE
GROUNDCOVERS WITH A MAXIMUM MATURE HEIGHT
OF TWO FEET SHALL BE DISTRIBUTED THROUGHOUT
THE LANDSCAPE AREAS TO ACHIEVE A MINIMUM OF
75% LIVE COVERAGE. (T)

5.4.3 ALL NEW OR RELOCATED ELECTRIC LINES 12 KV AND
SMALLER, COMMUNICATIONS AND CABLE
TELEVISION AND ALL ON PREMISE WIRING SHALL BE
PLACED UNDERGROUND IN ALL DEVELOPMENTS
WHERE VISIBLE FROM STREETS OR ADJOINING
PROPERTIES EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITIES WITHIN
THE RIGHTS-OF-WAY ABUTTING THE DEVELOPMENT
SHALL BE PLACED UNDERGROUND, UNLESS
OTHERWISE APPROVED THROUGH A TECHNICAL
APPEAL. (T)

RATIONALE: AN ENHANCED STREETSCAPE HELPS TO
SOFTEN THE EDGE OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF A LARGER
NON-RESIDENTIAL USE.

5.5. SHADE.

5.5.1. ALL ON-SITE PEDESTRIAN PATHWAYS SHOULD BE
SHADED A MINIMUM OF 75% BY A STRUCTURE,
LANDSCAPING, OR A COMBINATION OF THE TWO. (P)

5.5.2 DEDICATED MULTI-USE TRAILS ADJACENT TO THE
SITE SHOULD BE SHADED A MINIMUM OF 50% AT
TREE MATURITY. (P)

RATIONALE: ENHANCED PEDESTRIAN COMFORT SHOULD
BE PRIORITIZED ADJACENT TO AND WITHIN DATA CENTER
DEVELOPMENTS ACROSS THE CITY.

***
Amend Chapter 6, Section 647 (Special Permit Uses), Section 647.A.2 to add data centers within
the C-2 (Intermediate Commercial), C-3 (General Commercial), CP/GCP (Commerce
Park/General Commerce Park), A-1 (Light Industrial) and A-2 (Industrial) zoning districts, with
performance standards to read as follows:

Section 647. Special Permit Uses.

***

2. A special permit may be granted by the Council upon recommendation of the
Commission to establish the following uses in the use districts named:

***

KK. DATA CENTERS IN THE C-2, C-3, CP/GCP, A-1 AND A-2 ZONING
DISTRICTS, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:


(1) THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE NO CLOSER THAN 2,640
FEET FROM AN APPROVED HIGH-CAPACITY TRANSIT
STATION.

(2) PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL WILL NOT BE GRANTED
FOR A DATA CENTER UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT A LOCAL
UTILITY COMPANY CONFIRMS IN WRITING WITH A “WILL-
SERVE” LETTER PROVIDES A CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT
THAT IT CAN AFFIRMS ITS CAPACITY AND COMMITMENT TO
SERVE THE ENERGY DEMAND WITHIN TWO YEARS FOR THE
PROPOSED DATA CENTER. THE LETTER AGREEMENT
FROM THE UTILITY COMPANY SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO
PDD CONCURRENT WITH THE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN.

(3) THE FOLLOWING SHALL APPLY WHEN THE SITE IS LOCATED
WITHIN 300 FEET OF A RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT:

(a) PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A DATA
CENTER SHALL NOT BE GRANTED UNLESS IT HAS
BEEN DEMONSTRATED THAT THE DATA CENTER,
INCLUDING ALL ON-SITE MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT
AND FACILITIES, WILL NOT EXCEED THE EXISTING
AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL FOR THE SITE BY MORE THAN
5% OR A SPECIFIC NOISE STANDARD MAY BE
STIPULATED AS A CONDITION OF AN APPROVED
SPECIAL PERMIT.

(b) TO DETERMINE COMPLIANCE WITH THE PRIOR
SUBSECTION, THE DEVELOPER SHALL SUBMIT A
NOISE STUDY TO PDD PRIOR TO OR CONCURRENT
WITH THE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN. THE NOISE
STUDY SHALL BE PERFORMED BY A THIRD-PARTY
ACOUSTICAL ENGINEER TO DOCUMENT BASELINE
NOISE LEVELS IN THE AREA OF THE PROPOSED
DATA CENTER, INCLUDING NOISE LEVELS
MEASURED AT THE PROPERTY LINE OF THE
NEAREST RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT TO THE
PROPOSED DATA CENTER PROPERTY.

(c) UPON APPROVAL OF THE NOISE STUDY, THE
METHODS PROPOSED TO MITIGATE NOISE SHALL BE
STIPULATED AS A CONDITION OF FINAL SITE PLAN
APPROVAL. A FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY
SHALL NOT BE ISSUED IF THE AMBIENT NOISE
EXCEEDS THE PRIOR EXISTING NOISE LEVEL BY
MORE THAN 5%.




(4) THESE REGULATIONS AND THE DESIGN GUIDELINES SET
FORTH IN SECTION 507 TAB A.II.D.5., DATA CENTERS ARE
NOT APPLICABLE TO DATA CENTERS WHICH HAVE
RECEIVED FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL; OR A DATA CENTER
USE THAT IS SPECIFICALLY LISTED AS A PERMITTED USE
OR SPECIFICALLY DISCUSSED IN A COUNCIL ADOPTED
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT NARRATIVE PRIOR TO [THE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE]. OTHERWISE, THE
DEVELOPMENT IS SUBJECT TO THESE REGULATIONS AND
ALL APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES SET FORTH IN
SECTION 507 TAB A, INCLUDING THOSE FOR SECTION II.D.5,
DATA CENTERS.

***

This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact
Saneeya Mir at 602-686-6461, saneeya.mir@phoenix.gov, TTY: Use 7-1-1.




ATTACHMENT F




Correspondence for GPA-2-25-Y and Z-TA-2-
25-Y are available on the staff report website
under Z-TA-2-25-Y:


https://www.phoenix.gov/administration/dep
artments/pdd/about-us/reports-data/staff-
reports.html







Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Consideration of Citizen Petition by Estela Varela Related to Community Safety -
Citywide

This report provides the City Council with information in response to a citizen petition
submitted by Estela Varela at the June 4, 2025, Formal City Council meeting,
requesting the Mayor and Council's adoption of a resolution that encompasses 10
policy and administrative items related to community safety. The petitioner's request
was extensive and mentions multiple City departments and functions including the
Phoenix Police Department, the Parks and Recreation Department, the Law
Department, and the Office of Accountability and Transparency. The items are detailed
in the citizen petition on Attachment A.

Summary
The petitioner requests the City Council adopt the resolution that directs or establishes
the following:
1. The Police Department implement cite and release practices for all non-violent
offenses, to the fullest extent allowed by law.
2. The Police Department end traffic stops that have historically been used as a
pretext for searches and seizures, including, but not limited to, stops based solely
on equipment violations or other non-moving-related violations, unless such
violations pose an immediate and demonstrable threat to public safety.
3. The Police and Parks and Recreation departments end stops for quality of life
offenses, including, but not limited to, sleeping at a bus stop, public urination, and
manifestation. If a response is requested, the City will dispatch service providers
that will not result in criminalization.
4. The Police Department end the use of sanctioned and unsanctioned arrest, citation,
and stops quotas, including the use of discipline if an officer has a reduced number
of stops, citations, or arrests.
5. To not use General Fund dollars to carry out immigration enforcement.
6. To collect and publicly report comprehensive data from the Police Department on all
traffic stops, pedestrian stops, arrests, and citations, disaggregated by race,
ethnicity, age, gender, reason for the stop, and outcome of the stop.
7. To have the City Manager, with the Office of Accountability and Transparency,
develop and implement a community feedback system, so the community can
provide feedback on these policies and police interactions.



8. The City Attorney to review existing City ordinances and policies to ensure
consistency with this resolution and to recommend any necessary revisions to
ensure alignment with the resolution.
9. The City Attorney to identify all municipal codes, criminal and civil, that punish
residents beyond the extent required by Arizona Revised Statutes, and present
those codes within 90 days of this resolution taking effect so City Council can vote
to remove them.
10.The resolution to take effect immediately upon adoption.

The City of Phoenix is committed to providing public safety that is equitable,
transparent and responsive to the diverse needs of the community. With direction from
the Phoenix City Council and community input, the City of Phoenix has implemented a
comprehensive effort to improve public safety. In September 2024, the Mayor and City
Council took action to approve a series of staff recommendations and formal action
items as well as Council-directed enhancements within the Police Department, the Fire
Department's Community Assistance Program, the Office of Homelessness Solutions
and the Office of Accountability and Transparency. These public safety improvement
efforts, along with existing department policies and operations, already address many
of the items within the petitioner's resolution.

Examples of these public safety improvement efforts include:
· Continued the expansion of the Community Assistance Program (CAP), which was
a $15 million investment made by the Mayor and City Council. As of March 30,
2025, CAP has established dispatch coverage 24/7 as directed by the Council.
· After receiving public feedback, in February 2025, the Police Department
implemented a new use of force policy, which states officers "shall use only the
force that is objectively reasonable, necessary, and proportional to effectively and
safely resolve an incident." The new policy requires all use of force encounters to
be reported, which increases the standards for reporting to provide a better
understanding in making future policy and training decisions.
· Implemented a continuous improvement framework with ongoing data collection
and policy improvements based on national best practices. This framework includes
a process of public engagement and feedback on major policy revisions, such as
the Youth Interactions policy currently in development. As of June 3, 2025, over
2,000 responses have been received to the youth interaction survey, which will be
incorporated into the policy draft that will be released for further public comment.
· Office of Accountability and Transparency and Phoenix Police Department have
implemented an updated Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to ensure a
seamless working relationship in facilitating accountability.
· Approved the conversion of 14 temporary positions within the Office of Homeless



Solutions (OHS) to permanent positions to continue OHS's work in the community
in connecting individuals experiencing homelessness with resources and services.
· With leadership from Mayor and City Council, the Phoenix Community Court
launched in 2024 to provide an alternative to the traditional criminal justice system
to empower, assist, and provide unsheltered individuals with the tools and
resources necessary to establish stable housing, receive services to assist with any
addiction issues, connect with mental health professionals, and reduce repetitive
criminal behavior.
· Implementation of a new Records Management System (RMS) in progress and
expected to be completed later this year. This system will allow for improved data
collection and reporting, both internally and to the public.

Staff provides a comprehensive update on all public safety improvement efforts each
quarter. The most recent presentations to the Mayor and City Council occurred on
December 10, 2024, and April 15, 2025. Information about these updates is also
provided to the Civilian Review Board.

With consideration of the comprehensive ongoing public safety improvement efforts
already approved by Mayor and City Council and being implemented by City staff, staff
recommends the City Council deny the citizen petition. The citizen petition, as
presented, is complex and extensive in scope, contains items already in place or in
progress as noted above which do not require additional Council action, recommends
sweeping policy changes that differ from recent City Council direction, creates
potential conflicts with state law, and requires extensive research and vetting regarding
the potential implications of such changes. Additionally, the petition was presented in
the form of a formal resolution, which does not adhere to the intended purpose and
process for citizen petitions. Petitions submitted in this manner are improper. Formal
resolutions for consideration by the Mayor and City Council should be written by City
staff and appropriately vetted by the City's Law Department after appropriate policy
discussion and direction.

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





Attachment A

(!./TV ,., , r
CITIZEN'S PETITION • ' ; L!...:::_:'"'. 1\ !J:Ji-· T
ZllZ5 JUN -l• PLt
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENrx, r S: 53
ARIZONA, FOR THRIVING COMMUNITIES: COMMUNITY SAFETY FOR ALL

WHEREAS, the City of Phoenix is committed to ensuring the safety and well-being of all its
residents, regardless of race, ethnicity, immigration status, gender identity, mental health or
housing status; and

WHEREAS, the United States Department of Justice, following a comprehensive investigation,
announced findings that the Phoenix Police Department and the City of Phoenix engage in a
pattern or practice of conduct that violates the U.S. Constitution and federal law, including but
not limited to, excessive force, unlawful treatment of people experiencing homelessness,
discriminatory enforcement against Black, Hispanic, and Native American individuals, violations
of protected speech, and discrimination against people with mental health conditions.

WHEREAS, racial profiling by law enforcement has devastating consequences for individuals,
families, and communities, including but not limited to, wrongful arrests, incarceration,
deportation, job loss, housing instability, and separation from loved ones; and

WHEREAS, Mayor Kate Gallego's Review and Implementation Ad Hoc Committee
recommended on September 1, 2020:
1) Implement the aspect of CPTI (Community Police Trust Initiative) recommendation 2 to
seek "least harm" for minor infractions and recommendation 4 for building community
trust through Mayor and Council actions in:
a) A review of all policies regarding Phoenix PD updating those policies that
prioritize least harm options of enforcement in all situations, including but not
limited to:
i) Prioritizing "cite and release" options over "arrest and send to the
Maricopa County Sheriff's Office,"
ii) interactions with federal immigration authorities,
iii) adding a requirement to report the time in which a stop begins and ends
where there is an attempt to contact Immigration & Customs Enforcement
(ICE).
2) Publishing on the Phoenix PD website such policies regarding interactions with federal
immigration authorities as well as contracts the City enters where officers may interact
with federal immigration authorities.
3) A review of City ordinances that result in minor infractions, imply criminal penalty, and
are enforced with penalties (i.e. accessing light rail platforms, manifestation laws).

WHEREAS, the City of Phoenix recognizes the importance of fostering public safety for all and
the protection of civil rights; and




WHEREAS, the City of Phoenix desires to create a more just, equitable, and transparent city;
and
WHEREAS, there is a need to address concerns regarding disproportionate enforcement of
certain laws and ordinances, which can lead to discriminatory outcomes and perpetuate cycles
of poverty and instability; and

WHEREAS, the City of Phoenix desires to end racial disparities in interactions between law
enforcement and the public; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA, as follows:

SECTION 1: The Phoenix Police Department is hereby directed to implement cite and release
practices for all non-violent offenses, to the fullest extent allowed by law.

SECTION 2: The Phoenix Police Department is hereby directed to end traffic stops that have
historically been used as a pretext for searches and seizures, including, but not limited to, stops
based solely on equipment violations or other non-moving-related violations, unless such
violations pose an immediate and demonstrable threat to public safety.

SECTION 3: The Phoenix Police Department and Parks and Recreation Department are hereby
directed to end stops for quality of life offenses, including, but not limited to, sleeping at a bus
stop, public urination, and manifestation. If a response is requested, the City will dispatch
service providers that will not result in criminalization.

SECTION 4: The Phoenix Police Department is hereby directed to end the use of sanctioned
and unsanctioned arrest, citation, and stops quotas, including the use of discipline if an officer
has a reduced number of stops, citations, or arrests.

SECTION 5: The Phoenix Police Department shall not use General Fund dollars to carry out
immigration enforcement.

SECTION 6: The Phoenix Police Department shall collect and publicly report comprehensive
data on all traffic stops, pedestrian stops, arrests, and citations, disaggregated by race, ethnicity,
age, gender, reason for the stop, and outcome of the stop. This data shall be made readily
accessible to the public, including by posting it online and updated monthly, and shall be used to
assess the effectiveness of these policies and identify any disparities in enforcement. The data
collected shall include, at a minimum, the following:

1. The race and ethnicity of the individual stopped;
2. The age and gender of the individual stopped;
3. The stated reason for the stop;
4. The outcome of the stop (e.g., warning, citation, arrest);
5. The location, time, and length of the stop,




6. If a search was conducted:
a. The justification and results of the search, including whether the search turned up
contraband.
b. If consent was given for the search, whether such consent was given voluntarily.
7. If the stop was extended beyond the initial reason for the stop, the specific reason for the
extension (e.g., DUI investigation, language barrier, training stop, etc.)

SECTION 7: The City Manager, in conjunction with the Office of Accountability and
Transparency, shall develop and implement a community feedback system, so the community
can provide feedback on these policies and police interactions.

SECTION 8: The City Attorney is directed to review existing city ordinances and policies to
ensure consistency with this resolution and to recommend any necessary revisions to ensure
alignment with the resolution.

SECTION 9: The City Attorney is directed to identify all municipal codes, criminal and civil, that
punish residents beyond the extent required by Arizona Revised Statutes, and present those
codes within 90 days of this resolution taking effect so City Council can vote to remove them.

SECTION 10: This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.




PETICION DE LOS CIUDADANOS


RESOLUCION DEL ALCALDE Y DEL AYUNTAMIENTO DE LA CIUDAD DE PHOENIX,
ARIZONA, PARA COMUNIDADES PROSPERAS: SEGURIDAD COMUNITARIA PARA TODOS

CONSIDERANDO QUE la ciudad de Phoenix se compromete a garantizar la seguridad y el
bienestar de todos sus residentes, independientemente de su raza, origen etnico, estatus
migratorio, identidad de genera, salud mental o situacion de vivienda; y

CONSIDERANDO QUE, tras una investigacion exhaustiva, el Departamento de Justicia de los
Estados Unidos anuncio sus conclusiones de que el Departamento de Policia de Phoenix y la
ciudad de Phoenix incurren en un patron o practica de conducta que viola la Constitucion de los
Estados Unidos y la legislacion federal, incluyendo, entre otros, el uso excesivo de la fuerza, el
trato ilegal a las personas sin hogar, la aplicacion discriminatoria de la ley contra personas
negras, hispanas y nativas americanas, las violaciones de la libertad de expresion protegida y
la discriminacion contra personas con trastornos mentales.

CONSIDERANDO que la discriminacion racial por parte de las fuerzas del orden tiene
consecuencias devastadoras para las personas, las familias y las comunidades, incluyendo,
entre otras, detenciones injustificadas, encarcelamiento, deportacion, perdida del empleo,
inestabilidad en la vivienda y separacion de los seres queridos; y
\-0.d \tc;x_
#CONSIDERANDO QUE, el Comite Ad Hoc de Revision e lmplementacion de la alcaldesa Kate
Gallego recomendo el 1 de septiembre de 2020:

1) lmplementar el aspecto de la recomendacion 2 de la CPTI (lniciativa de Confianza en la
Policfa Comunitaria) para buscar el «menor dafio» en infracciones menores y la
recomendacion 4 para fomentar la confianza de la c?munidad a traves de las acciones
del alcalde y el consejo en:

a) Una revision de todas las polfticas relativas al Departamento de Policia de
Phoenix, actualizando aquellas politicas que priorizan las opciones de aplicacion
de la ley que causen el menor dario posible en todas las situaciones, incluyendo,
entre otras:

i) Dar prioridad a las opciones de «citar y liberar» frente a «detener y enviar
a la Oficina del Sheriff del Condado de Maricopa»,

ii) interacciones con las autoridades federales de inmigracion,

iii) Afiadir el requisite de informar de la hora en que comienza y termina una
detencion cuando se intenta contactar con el Servicio de lnmigracion y
Control de Aduanas (ICE).




2) Publicar en el sitio web del Departamento de Policia de Phoenix las pol[ticas relativas a
las interacciones con las autoridades federales de inmigraci6n, as[ como los contratos
que celebra la ciudad en los que los agentes pueden interactuar con las autoridades
federales de inmigraci6n.

3) Una revision de las ordenanzas municipales que dan lugar a infracciones leves, implican
sanciones penales y se aplican con sanciones (por ejemplo, el acceso a las plataformas
del tren ligero, las leyes sobre manifestaciones).

CONSIDERANDO QUE la ciudad de Phoenix reconoce la importancia de fomentar la seguridad
publica para todos y la protecci6n de los derechos civiles; y

CONSIDERANDO QUE la ciudad de Phoenix desea crear una ciudad mas justa, equitativa y
transparente; y

CONSIDERANDO que es necesario abordar las preocupaciones relativas a la aplicaci6n
desproporcionada de determinadas leyes y ordenanzas, que pueden dar lugar a resultados
discriminatorios y perpetuar los ciclos de pobreza e inestabilidad; y

CONSIDERANDO QUE la ciudad de Phoenix desea poner fin a las disparidades raciales en las
interacciones entre las fuerzas del orden y el publico; y

POR LO TANTO, EL ALCALDE Y EL CONSEJO MUNICIPAL DE LA CIUDAD DE PHOENIX,
ARIZONA, RESUELVEN LO SIGUIENTE:


SECCION 1: Por la presente se ordena al Departamento de Policia de Phoenix que aplique
practicas de citaci6n y liberaci6n para todos los delitos no violentos, en la medida en que lo
permita la ley.

SECCION 2: Por la presente se ordena al Departamento de Policia de Phoenix que ponga fin a
las paradas de trafico que hist6ricamente se han utilizado como pretexto para registros y
confiscaciones, incluyendo, entre otras, las paradas basadas unicamente en infracciones
relacionadas con el equipamiento u otras infracciones no relacionadas con la circulaci6n, a
menos que dichas infracciones supongan una amenaza inmediata y demostrable para la
seguridad publica.

SECCION 3: Se ordena al Departamento de Policia de Phoenix y al Departamento de Parques
y Recreaci6n que pongan fin a las detenciones por delitos contra la calidad de vida, incluyendo,
entre otros, dormir en una parada de autobus, orinar en publico y manifestarse. Si se solicita
una respuesta, la ciudad enviara proveedores de servicios que no daran lugar a la
criminalizaci6n.


SECCION 4: Por la presente se ordena al Departamento de Policia de Phoenix que ponga fin al
uso de cuotas de arrestos, citaciones y detenciones sancionadas y no sancionadas, incluyedo




el uso de medidas disciplinarias si un agente reduce el numero de detenciones, citaciones o
arrestos.

SECCION 5: El Departamento de Policia de Phoenix no utilizara fondos del Fondo General
para llevar a cabo medidas de control migratorio.

SECCION 6: El Departamento de Policia de Phoenix recopilara y publicara dates exhaustivos
sobre todas las detenciones de trafico, detenciones de peatones, arrestos y citaciones,
desglosados por raza, etnia, edad, genero, motive de la detenci6n y resultado de la misma.
Estes dates se pondran a disposici6n del publico, entre otras cosas, publicandolos en linea y
actualizandolos mensualmente, y se utilizaran para evaluar la eficacia de estas politicas e
identificar cualquier disparidad en su aplicaci6n. Los dates recopilados incluiran, como minimo,
lo siguiente:

1. La raza y el origen etnico de la persona detenida;

2. La edad y el sexo de la persona detenida;

3. El motive declarado para la detenci6n;

4. El resultado de la detenci6n (por ejemplo, advertencia, citaci6n, arresto);

5. El lugar, la hora y la duraci6n de la detenci6n;

6. Si se realiz6 un registro:

7. La justificaci6n y los resultados del registro, incluyendo si se encontr6 contrabando.

8. Si se dio consentimiento para el registro, si dicho consentimiento se dio de forma
voluntaria.

9. Si la detenci6n se prolong6 mas alla del motive inicial de la misma, el motive especifico
de la prolongaci6n (por ejemplo, investigaci6n por conducir bajo los efectos del alcohol,
barrera linguistica, detenci6n para formaci6n, etc.).



SECCION 7: El Administrador Municipal, en colaboraci6n con la Oficina de Rendici6n de
Cuentas y Transparencia, desarrollara e implementara un sistema de retroalimentaci6n
comunitaria, para que la comunidad pueda proporcionar comentarios sobre estas politicas y las
interacciones policiales.



SECCION 8: Se ordena al Fiscal Municipal que revise las ordenanzas y politicas municipales
vigentes para garantizar su coherencia con la presente resoluci6n y que recomiende las
revisiones necesarias para garantizar su alineaci6n con la resoluci6n.




SECCION 9: Se ordena al Fiscal Municipal que identifique todos las c6digos municipales,
penales y civiles, que castigan a las residentes mas alla de lo exigido par las Estatutos
Revisados de Arizona, y que presente dichos c6digos en un plaza de 90 dias a partir de la
entrada en vigor de la presente resoluci6n, para que el Ayuntamiento pueda votar su
eliminaci6n.

SECCION 1 O: La presente resoluci6n entrara en vigor inmediatamente despues de su
adopci6n.

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

153 item(s)