Meeting Economic Development and the Arts Subcommittee-6/12/2024 complete
2024-06-12 · Economic Development and the Arts Subcommittee
Economic Development and the Arts Subcommittee
Item text
the Formal Meeting on Jan. 5, 2022
Summary
This item transmits the minutes of the Formal Meeting of Jan. 5, 2022, for review,
correction and/or approval by the City Council.
The minutes are available for review in the City Clerk Department, 200 W. Washington
St., 15th Floor.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 17
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Summary
This item transmits the minutes of the Formal Meeting of Feb. 2, 2022, for review,
correction and/or approval by the City Council.
The minutes are available for review in the City Clerk Department, 200 W. Washington
St., 15th Floor.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 18
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Summary
This item transmits the minutes of the Formal Meeting of Feb. 16, 2022, for review,
correction and/or approval by the City Council.
The minutes are available for review in the City Clerk Department, 200 W. Washington
St., 15th Floor.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 19
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Summary
This item transmits the minutes of the Formal Meeting of March 2, 2022, for review,
correction and/or approval by the City Council.
The minutes are available for review in the City Clerk Department, 200 W. Washington
St., 15th Floor.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 20
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Summary
This item transmits the minutes of the Formal Meeting of Oct. 18, 2023, for review,
correction and/or approval by the City Council.
The minutes are available for review in the City Clerk Department, 200 W. Washington
St., 15th Floor.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 21
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
This item transmits recommendations from the Mayor and Council for appointment or
reappointment to City Boards and Commissions.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by the Mayor's Office.
Page 22
ATTACHMENT A
To: City Council Date: June 12, 2024
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:
Heritage Commission
I recommend the following for appointment:
Janis Merrill
Ms. Merrill is a retiree and a resident of District 6. She fills a vacancy for a term to expire
June 12, 2027.
Historic Preservation Commission
I recommend the following for appointment:
Dr. Chad Gestson
Dr. Gestson is the Director of the Arizona Institute for Education and the Economy at
Northern Arizona University and a resident of District 4. He replaces Greta Rayle for a
term to expire June 12, 2027.
Human Services Commission
I recommend the following for appointment as Vice Chair:
Petra Falcon
Ms. Falcon will serve her first term as Vice Chair to expire June 30, 2025.
Page 23
I recommend the following for appointment:
Samantha Weiss
Ms. Weiss is an Interpersonal Violence Program Specialist for the Department of
Economic Security and a resident of District 4. She fills a Category II vacancy for a term
to expire June 30, 2026.
Mayor’s Human Trafficking Task Force
Councilman Jim Waring recommends the following for appointment:
Heidi Chance
Ms. Chance is a Special Agent at the Arizona Attorney General’s Office. She fills a
vacancy for a term to expire June 12, 2028.
Neighborhood Block Watch Fund Oversight Committee
I recommend the following for appointment:
Isabel Gutierrez
Ms. Gutierrez is a neighborhood leader and will serve a term as a Block Watch Advisory
Board representative for a term to expire June 12, 2026.
North Gateway Village Planning Committee
Councilwoman Ann O’Brien recommends the following for appointment:
Paul Carver
Mr. Carver is a Governing Board Member at the Deer Valley Unified School District and
a resident of District 1. He fills a vacancy for a partial term to expire November 19,
2024.
Angela Crouch
Ms. Crouch is a Team Leader at eXp Realty- The Crouch Group and a resident of
District 2. She fills a vacancy for a term to expire November 19, 2025.
Planning Commission
I recommend the following for appointment:
Abraham James
Mr. James is an Architect Designer at C&H Associates LLC and a resident of District 8.
He replaces Lachele Mangum for a term to expire April 15, 2028.
Page 24
Public Defender Review Committee
I recommend the following for appointment:
Angela DeMarse
Ms. DeMarse is an Attorney at the Maricopa County Office of the Public Defender and
a resident of District 3. She replaces Carey Lackey as a County Public Defender
representative for a term to expire April 15, 2028.
Page 25
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request for a Series 15 - Special Event liquor license for the temporary sale of all
liquors.
Summary
Applicant
Ronald McClure
Location
3901 W. Pioneer Road
Council District: 1
Function
Winter Wonderland Festival
Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
Dec. 17, 2024 - 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. / 1,500 attendees
Dec. 18, 2024 - 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. / 1,500 attendees
Dec. 19, 2024 - 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. / 1,500 attendees
Dec. 20, 2024 - 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. / 1,500 attendees
Dec. 21, 2024 - 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. / 1,500 attendees
Dec. 22, 2024 - 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. / 1,500 attendees
Dec. 23, 2024 - 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. / 1,500 attendees
Dec. 24, 2024 - 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. / 1,500 attendees
Dec. 25, 2024 - 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. / 1,500 attendees
Dec. 26, 2024 - 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. / 1,500 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.
Page 26
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request for a Series 15 - Special Event liquor license for the temporary sale of all
liquors.
Summary
Applicant
Charles Ellis
Location
3901 W. Pioneer Road
Council District: 1
Function
Winter Wonderland Festival
Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
Dec. 27, 2024 - 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. / 1,500 attendees
Dec. 28, 2024 - 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. / 1,500 attendees
Dec. 29, 2024 - 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. / 1,500 attendees
Dec. 30, 2024 - 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. / 1,500 attendees
Dec. 31, 2024 - 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. / 1,500 attendees
Jan. 1, 2025 - 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. / 1,500 attendees
Jan. 2, 2025 - 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. / 1,500 attendees
Jan. 3, 2025 - 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. / 1,500 attendees
Jan. 4, 2025 - 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. / 1,500 attendees
Jan. 5, 2025 - 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. / 1,500 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.
Page 27
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request for a Series 15 - Special Event liquor license for the temporary sale of all
liquors.
Summary
Applicant
Joseph Villasenor
Location
3901 W. Pioneer Road
Council District: 1
Function
Winter Wonderland Festival
Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
Dec. 7, 2024 - 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. / 1,500 attendees
Dec. 8, 2024 - 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. / 1,500 attendees
Dec. 9, 2024 - 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. / 1,500 attendees
Dec.10, 2024 - 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. / 1,500 attendees
Dec.11, 2024 - 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. / 1,500 attendees
Dec.12, 2024 - 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. / 1,500 attendees
Dec.13, 2024 - 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. / 1,500 attendees
Dec.14, 2024 - 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. / 1,500 attendees
Dec.15, 2024 - 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. / 1,500 attendees
Dec.16, 2024 - 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. / 1,500 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.
Page 28
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request for a Series 15 - Special Event liquor license for the temporary sale of all
liquors.
Summary
Applicant
Roy Davis
Location
3901 W. Pioneer Road
Council District: 1
Function
Winter Wonderland Festival
Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
Nov. 27, 2024 - 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. / 1,500 attendees
Nov. 28, 2024 - 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. / 1,500 attendees
Nov. 29, 2024 - 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. / 1,500 attendees
Nov. 30, 2024 - 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. / 1,500 attendees
Dec. 1, 2024 - 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. / 1,500 attendees
Dec. 2, 2024 - 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. / 1,500 attendees
Dec. 3, 2024 - 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. / 1,500 attendees
Dec. 4, 2024 - 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. / 1,500 attendees
Dec. 5, 2024 - 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. / 1,500 attendees
Dec. 6, 2024 - 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. / 1,500 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.
Page 29
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request for a Series 15 - Special Event liquor license for the temporary sale of all
liquors.
Summary
Applicant
Tonya Piatt
Location
3901 W. Pioneer Road
Council District: 1
Function
Winter Wonderland Festival
Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
Nov. 17, 2024 - 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. / 1,500 attendees
Nov. 18, 2024 - 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. / 1,500 attendees
Nov. 19, 2024 - 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. / 1,500 attendees
Nov. 20, 2024 - 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. / 1,500 attendees
Nov. 21, 2024 - 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. / 1,500 attendees
Nov. 22, 2024 - 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. / 1,500 attendees
Nov. 23, 2024 - 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. / 1,500 attendees
Nov. 24, 2024 - 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. / 1,500 attendees
Nov. 25, 2024 - 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. / 1,500 attendees
Nov. 26, 2024 - 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. / 1,500 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.
Page 30
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 294058.
Summary
Applicant
James Chavez Rivera, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
475 E. Bell Road, Ste. 172
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.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is June 24, 2024.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Page 31
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“We train all of our employees in responsible liquor service and conduct regular audits
to ensure they comply.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“We would like the ability to offer our patrons of legal drinking age and adult beverage
with their meal should they choose to have one.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Attachment - Dave's Hot Chicken - Data
Attachment - Dave's Hot Chicken - Map
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 32
Liquor License Data: DAVE'S HOT CHICKEN
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 2 1
Beer and Wine Bar 7 3 1
Liquor Store 9 7 3
Beer and Wine Store 10 9 4
Restaurant 12 20 18
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 64.2 188.74 413.26
Violent Crimes 12.31 24.84 51.91
*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 44 31
Total Violations 75 62
Page 33
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1036043 1058 42 16 4
1036111 1396 66 14 3
1036121 649 0 41 18
1036122 1023 87 8 12
1036123 1542 94 8 0
1036124 1189 0 19 32
6189001 1603 54 10 6
6189004 1183 83 15 1
6189005 1013 0 37 22
6191001 2198 0 11 23
6191002 617 22 45 19
6192002 1223 0 15 29
Average 0 61 13 19
Page 34
Liquor License Map: DAVE'S HOT CHICKEN
475 E BELL RD
Ü
Date: 4/26/2024
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 35
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 294641.
Summary
Applicant
Jamil Jabbar, Agent
License Type
Series 10 - Beer and Wine Store
Location
5026 W. Thomas Road
Zoning Classification: C-1
Council District: 4
This request is for a new liquor license for a convenience store that does not sell gas.
This location was previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim
permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is June 25, 2024.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
The ownership of this business has an interest in other active liquor license(s) in the
Page 36
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.
Quik Corner Liquors (Series 9)
5121 W. Thomas Road, Phoenix
Calls for police service: 5
Liquor license violations: None
Jimmies Market (Series 10)
6011 W. Thomas Road, Phoenix
Calls for police service: 10
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 have owned this store as a liquor store for over 18 years. I am converting it to a
smoke shop with beer and wine.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“I want to keep the location open and accessible to my 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 - 51st Avenue Mini Market - Data
Attachment - 51st Avenue Mini Market - Map
Page 37
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 38
Liquor License Data: 51ST AVENUE MINI MARKET
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 3 0
Beer and Wine Bar 7 2 0
Liquor Store 9 7 1
Beer and Wine Store 10 10 3
Restaurant 12 5 1
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 64.2 203.07 197.66
Violent Crimes 12.31 47.9 47.77
*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 44 146
Total Violations 76 267
Page 39
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1099001 877 82 16 25
1099004 697 77 17 19
1100011 1818 78 8 20
1100012 1781 69 8 14
1100021 1671 82 16 11
1123021 1045 48 24 28
1123022 1551 48 25 28
1123023 1472 59 12 59
1124011 1191 48 18 26
1124013 1653 64 17 20
Average 0 61 13 19
Page 40
Liquor License Map: 51ST AVENUE MINI MARKET
5026 W THOMAS RD
Ü
Date: 4/30/2024
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 41
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 291692.
Summary
Applicant
Alan Delgado, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
2919 N. 59th Ave.
Zoning Classification: PSC
Council District: 4
This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was previously
licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is June 22, 2024.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Page 42
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 owned Tatemados restaurant since 2021 and open to public since january
2023 and have always maintain compliance with all government agencies with regards
to our business.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Tatemados, is a fast casual Mexican restaurant, located in the heart of the Maryavale
area in Phoenix, Arizona. serving our community and visitors from different parts of the
Phoenix metropolitan area, enjoying great acceptance and popularity with our guests.
Having an alcohol license for the restaurant will result in better service for our
customers, since it is common to enjoy a couple of drinks to accompany their meals,
and create a better experience in the service of a Mexican restaurant.”
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 - Tatemados - Data
Attachment - Tatemados - Map
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 43
Liquor License Data: TATEMADOS
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 1 0
Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 0
Liquor Store 9 6 2
Beer and Wine Store 10 5 2
Restaurant 12 4 0
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 64.2 138.19 165.39
Violent Crimes 12.31 36.46 46.7
*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 44 84
Total Violations 76 165
Page 44
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1098021 2573 85 3 21
1098022 1443 66 8 42
1098023 952 82 14 50
1099001 877 82 16 25
1099003 3146 54 16 33
1099004 697 77 17 19
1124011 1191 48 18 26
1124012 2494 70 5 36
1125041 1741 90 17 25
1125042 1274 0 24 61
Average 0 61 13 19
Page 45
Liquor License Map: TATEMADOS
2919 N 59TH AVE
Ü
Date: 5/7/2024
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 46
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 291790.
Summary
Applicant
Benyam Hagos, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
3527 W. Bethany Home Road
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 5
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 24, 2024.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, consideration should be given only to the applicant's
personal qualifications.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
Page 47
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I am responsible and care deeply about my business and the well being of my
customers and community.”
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.
Page 48
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 294323.
Summary
Applicant
Abion Acoy, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
8052 N. 19th Ave.
Zoning Classification: PSCOD
Council District: 5
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 21, 2024.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Page 49
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 a reliable team in place to ensure compliance with all regulations and laws. I
also have a good standing with the community and a reputation for responsible
business practices.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“The business will implement responsible alcohol service practices, including staff
training and age verification, to ensure the safety and well-being of Patrons and the
community.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Attachment - Ace of Wingz - Data
Attachment - Ace of Wingz - Map
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 50
Liquor License Data: ACE OF WINGZ
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 1 0
Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 0
Liquor Store 9 3 2
Beer and Wine Store 10 8 4
Restaurant 12 6 3
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 64.2 219.9 345.32
Violent Crimes 12.31 51.11 67.3
*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 44 62
Total Violations 76 108
Page 51
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1054001 1427 100 3 4
1054002 981 85 7 5
1054003 1321 52 9 12
1055011 1055 38 6 59
1055021 777 0 25 45
1055031 93 0 24 67
1055032 782 25 26 16
1055033 2109 1 18 38
1060021 1678 27 14 27
1060022 872 25 29 35
1061002 841 95 17 0
Average 0 61 13 19
Page 52
Liquor License Map: ACE OF WINGZ
8052 N 19TH AVE
Ü
Date: 4/24/2024
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 53
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 294185.
Summary
Applicant
Jeffrey Miller, Agent
License Type
Series 6 - Bar
Location
101 N. 1st Ave., Ste. 160
Zoning Classification: DTC-Business Core
Council District: 7
This request is for an ownership transfer of a liquor license for a bar. This location was
previously licensed for liquor sales and may currently operate with an interim permit.
This location requires a Use Permit to allow outdoor liquor service.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is June 17, 2024.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Page 54
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:
“Both owners have attended Title 4 basic and management liquor training courses. We
will ensure their employees are trained in order to comply with Arizona's Title 4 liquor
laws.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Rose Garden will continue to benefit the community as the previous business did. It
will provide a location for patrons to meet, discuss, and gather and share cultural
experiences in the City of Phoenix.”
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 - Rose Garden Cocktail Lounge - Data
Attachment - Rose Garden Cocktail Lounge - Map
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 55
Liquor License Data: ROSE GARDEN COCKTAIL LOUNGE
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Producer 1 1 1
Microbrewery 3 3 1
Wholesaler 4 1 0
Government 5 7 4
Bar 6 48 34
Beer and Wine Bar 7 13 6
Liquor Store 9 3 2
Beer and Wine Store 10 15 2
Hotel 11 8 7
Restaurant 12 112 53
Club 14 3 0
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 64.2 251.72 383.65
Violent Crimes 12.31 70.67 90.12
*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 44 33
Total Violations 76 47
Page 56
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1129002 815 37 22 24
1129003 1372 4 18 40
1131001 1015 7 8 28
1131002 1242 3 7 33
1141001 2299 16 37 44
1142001 1321 36 22 50
1143011 1389 22 15 57
Average 0 61 13 19
Page 57
Liquor License Map: ROSE GARDEN COCKTAIL LOUNGE
101 N 1ST AVE
Ü
Date: 4/22/2024
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 58
PAYMENT ORDINANCE (Ordinance S-50945) (Items 18-26)
Ordinance S-50945 is a request to authorize the City Controller to
disburse funds, up to amounts indicated below, for the purpose of
paying vendors, contractors, claimants and others, and providing
additional payment authority under certain existing city contracts. This
section also requests continuing payment authority, up to amounts
indicated below, for the following contracts, contract extensions and/or
bids awarded. As indicated below, some items below require payment
pursuant to Phoenix City Code Section 42-13.
18 Federal Aviation Administration Reimbursable
Agreement
For $200,000 in payment authority for a new reimbursable agreement with
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to perform oversight services
on the design and construction of new Crossfield Taxiway U at Phoenix
Sky Harbor International Airport for the Aviation Department. This scope
of work is necessary because the taxiway project intersects with FAA
utility lines that require their review and coordination throughout the design
and construction. The term of the agreement is through completion of the
project or no more than five years from execution of the agreement.
19 American Association of Airport Executives
For $290,000 in payment authority for the Aviation Department's Fiscal
Year 2024-25 American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE)
enterprise membership. AAAE membership provides industry-specific
professional development training and certification programs for
employees to ensure Aviation staff are proficient on issues impacting the
industry. AAAE provides important information, alerts, updates and insight
on legislation and proposed regulations, security policy, and
congressional hearing reports that position the Aviation Department to
proactively represent issues important to the City and surrounding region.
Page 59
20 SunPower Corporation Systems dba Solar Star Arizona
II, LLC
For $754,880 in payment authority for solar power services for Phoenix
Sky Harbor International Airport, paid to SunPower Corporation Systems
dba Solar Star Arizona II, LLC, from July 1, 2024 through June 30, 2025,
as provided in the Aviation Department Facilities and Services annual
operating budget. The power produced is purchased by the City at a
fixed, reduced rate and used to offset energy expenses from Arizona
Public Services (APS).
21 Public Safety Personnel Retirement System
For $93,450 in annual payment authority to purchase the Fiscal Year
2024-25 employer cost of the Firefighter and Peace Officer Cancer
Insurance Policy program for the Fire Department.
22 Little Stinker Septic, LLC
For $50,000 in payment authority for a new contract with Little Stinker
Septic, LLC, entered on or about June 1, 2024, for a five-year period, for
port-a-john services at Camp Colley, located in Happy Jack, Arizona, for
the Parks and Recreation Department. The contract will provide all labor,
materials and supplies necessary to supply, service, and maintain two
portable toilets at Camp Colley.
23 JFK Electric, LLC
For $80,000 in payment authority to purchase one-time electrical services
to remove and replace 312 electrical light fixtures on the third and fourth
floors of the 302 Transit Building for the Public Transit Department.
24 Combs Construction Company, Inc.
For $686,000 in additional payment authority for Contract 157795,
Change Orders 1 and 2 (ST85100198), 27th Avenue and Thomas Road
Burlington Northern-Santa Fe Railroad Crossing Design-Bid-Build
Services for the Street Transportation Department. The Change Orders
are necessary because the project requires additional allowances for
railroad flaggers, waterline relocation, removal of thickened asphalt
pavement, and potential extra work and permits. The project uses Arizona
Highway User Revenue funds from the Street Transportation
Page 60
Department's Capital Improvement Program budget.
25 BTE Body Company, Inc.
For $60,000 in additional payment authority for Contract 157557 for
cement silo inspection and maintenance services for the Street
Transportation Department. The cement silo is utilized by Street
Transportation staff to load cement directly into a mobile mix concrete
truck used to deliver concrete materials to field staff that maintain and/or
repair various road infrastructures throughout the City. The additional
funds are needed to increase maintenance services and the frequency of
inspections to comply with warranty requirements.
26 Settlement of Claim(s) Ortega v. City of Phoenix
To make payment of up to $40,000 in settlement of claim(s) in Ortega v.
Department pursuant to Phoenix City Code Chapter 42. This is a
settlement of a claim involving the Police Department that occurred on
April 27, 2021.
Page 61
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
of the Final 2024-25 Annual Budget
As required by State statute, this item requests the City Council hold a public hearing
on the City's proposed Property Tax Levy and Truth in Taxation and the adoption of the
final 2024-25 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.
Page 62
CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA
Summary Schedule of Estimated Revenues and Expenditures/Expenses
Fiscal Year 2024-25
(In Thousands)
FUNDS
S
c
Fiscal h Special Revenue Capital Projects Enterprise Reappropriation
Year General Fund Fund Debt Service Fund Fund Funds Available Funds Total All Funds
2024 Adopted/adjusted budgeted expenditures/expenses* E 2,028,668 2,528,426 134,897 2,635,916 2,058,046 2,237,406 11,623,359
2024 Actual expenditures/expenses** E 1,855,479 1,748,251 134,894 1,169,537 1,748,781 1,375,494 8,032,436
Beginning fund balance/(deficit) or net position/(deficit)
2025 at July 1*** 276,590 1,260,022 100 592,902 1,273,658 3,051,187 6,454,459
2025 Primary property tax levy B 215,419 215,419
2025 Secondary property tax levy B 138,549 138,549
2025 Estimated revenues other than property taxes C 275,087 3,511,075 3,552 1,191,981 1,865,581 6,847,276
2025 Other financing sources D 2,000 2,822 630,000 7,302 642,124
2025 Other financing (uses) D
2025 Interfund transfers in D 1,530,403 826,322 168,050 136,440 2,661,215
2025 Interfund Transfers (out) D 167,740 2,209,929 2,256 207,474 88,697 2,676,096
Reduction for fund balance reserved for future budget
Page 63 2025 year expenditures
LESS: Maintained for future debt retirement
Maintained for future capital projects
Maintained for future financial stability
Maintained for future retirement contributions
2025 Total Financial Resources Available **** 2,131,759 3,390,312 139,945 2,375,459 3,194,284 3,051,187 14,282,946
2025 Budgeted Expenditures/Expenses **** E 2,131,759 2,674,060 139,845 2,681,622 2,298,181 3,051,187 12,976,654
EXPENDITURE LIMITATION COMPARISON 2024 2025
1. Budgeted expenditures/expenses $ 9,385,953 $ 9,925,467
2. Add/subtract: estimated net reconciling items (969,972) (117,568)
3. Budgeted expenditures/expenses adjusted for reconciling items 8,415,981 9,807,899
4. Less: estimated exclusions
5. Amount subject to the expenditure limitation $ 8,415,981 $ 9,807,899
6. EEC expenditure limitation $ 11,623,359 $ 12,976,654
* 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 2024-25
(In Thousands)
2023-24 2024-25
1. Maximum allowable primary property tax levy.
A.R.S. §42-17051(A) $ 209,026 $ 217,597
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 $ 209,026 $ 217,597
B. Secondary property taxes 132,416 139,948
C. Total property tax levy amounts $ 341,442 $ 357,545
4. Property taxes collected*
A. Primary property taxes
(1) Current year's levy $ 207,980
(2) Prior years’ levies 371
(3) Total primary property taxes $ 208,351
B. Secondary property taxes
(1) Current year's levy $ 131,754
(2) Prior years’ levies 234
(3) Total secondary property taxes $ 131,988
C. Total property taxes collected $ 340,339
5. Property tax rates
A. City/Town tax rate
(1) Primary property tax rate 1.2851 1.2658
(2) Secondary property tax rate 0.8141 0.8141
(3) Total city/town tax rate 2.0992 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 zero special assessment districts for which secondary
property taxes are levied. For information pertaining to these special assessment districts
and their tax rates, please contact the city/town.
* The 2024-25 planned primary and secondary levies are $217,597,043 and $139,947,664,
respectively. Historically, actual property tax collections have been slightly lower than the amount
levied. For 2024-25, actual collections for primary and secondary property taxes are estimated to
be $215,419,000 and $138,548,664, or 99% of the levy amount.
** Includes actual property taxes collected as of the date the proposed budget was prepared, plus
estimated property tax collections for the remainder of the fiscal year.
Arizona Auditor General's Office Schedule B Official City/Town Budget Forms
Page 64
CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA
Revenues Other Than Property Taxes
Fiscal Year 2024-25
(In Thousands)
ESTIMATED ACTUAL ESTIMATED
REVENUES REVENUES * REVENUES
SOURCE OF REVENUES 2023-24 2023-24 2024-25
GENERAL FUND
Intergovernmental
County Vehicle License Tax $ 85,627 $ 82,227 $ 86,148
Charges for services
Fire Emergency Transportation Services $ 51,332 $ 73,070 $ 75,990
Hazardous Materials Inspection Fee 1,700 1,450 1,500
Planning 1,811 1,852 2,142
Police 14,511 14,998 15,105
Street Transportation 6,976 8,178 8,028
Other Service Charges 27,592 29,927 30,153
Fines and forfeits
Moving Violations $ 4,099 $ 4,182 $ 4,182
Parking Violations 693 629 629
Driving While Intoxicated 586 530 530
Defensive Driving Program 1,648 2,000 2,000
Other Receipts 1,739 1,776 1,776
Interest on investments
Interest on investments $ 14,540 $ 28,786 $ 21,589
Contributions
SRP In-Lieu Taxes $ 2,126 $ 2,248 $ 2,248
Miscellaneous
Miscellaneous $ 7,569 $ 10,244 $ 9,411
Parks and Recreation 6,371 6,922 6,614
Libraries 439 497 462
Cable Communications 8,000 7,175 6,580
Total General Fund $ 237,358 $ 276,691 $ 275,087
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
Highway User Revenue Fund
Incorporated Cities Share $ 125,272 $ 123,387 $ 127,046
300,000 Population Share 32,683 32,148 33,101
Interest/Other 520 6,666 5,274
$ 158,475 $ 162,201 $ 165,421
Arizona Auditor General's Office SCHEDULE C Official City/Town Budget Forms
Page 65
CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA
Revenues Other Than Property Taxes
Fiscal Year 2024-25
(In Thousands)
ESTIMATED ACTUAL ESTIMATED
REVENUES REVENUES * REVENUES
SOURCE OF REVENUES 2023-24 2023-24 2024-25
Excise Tax Fund
Local Taxes $ 696,224 $ 726,913 $ 733,578
Stormwater 5,194 6,556 6,622
Jet Fuel 823 957 964
Marijuana Sales Tax Earmarked for Public Safety Pension 14,691 12,311 12,865
License & Permits 6,075 6,569 6,567
State Sales Tax 248,655 249,557 259,787
State Income Tax 435,656 435,754 353,170
Neighborhood Protection 53,422 55,468 56,002
2007 Public Safety Expansion 106,843 110,932 112,008
Public Safety Enhancement 29,845 31,837 33,131
Parks and Preserves 53,420 55,465 56,005
Transportation 2050 364,773 378,645 381,630
Capital Construction 5,623 7,458 7,502
Sports Facilities 28,488 30,827 32,668
Convention Center 86,163 91,940 95,516
$ 2,135,896 $ 2,201,187 $ 2,148,015
Other Special Revenue Funds
Neighborhood Protection $ 366 $ 1,042 $ 847
2007 Public Safety Expansion 278 1,291 969
Parks and Preserves 2,777 3,502 2,627
Transportation 2050 37,491 49,035 41,118
Capital Construction 534 1,155 866
Sports Facilities 3,964 6,809 6,355
Development Services 84,311 80,578 82,133
Regional Transit 82,429 77,263 85,226
Community Reinvestment 11,905 6,726 11,092
Impact Fee Administration 628 759 684
Regional Wireless Cooperative 7,156 7,675 6,610
Golf 10,130 12,146 12,279
Court Awards 4,673 4,337 5,011
$ 246,642 $ 252,318 $ 255,817
Other Restricted Funds
Court Special Fees $ 764 $ 859 $ 826
Vehicle Impound Program 2,471 1,987 1,966
Other Restricted Funds 22,351 42,370 23,564
Affordable Housing Program 7,889 11,342 43,874
$ 33,475 $ 56,558 $ 70,230
Federal Funds
Public Housing $ 194,819 $ 211,265 $ 242,290
Human Services 69,662 82,893 79,071
Federal Transit Administration 136,908 68,461 121,894
Community Development 44,010 32,429 42,000
Criminal Justice/Public Safety 11,703 12,383 12,547
Other Federal & State Grants 325,223 173,701 373,790
$ 782,325 $ 581,131 $ 871,593
Total Special Revenue Funds $ 3,356,813 $ 3,253,395 $ 3,511,075
Arizona Auditor General's Office SCHEDULE C Official City/Town Budget Forms
Page 66
CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA
Revenues Other Than Property Taxes
Fiscal Year 2024-25
(In Thousands)
ESTIMATED ACTUAL ESTIMATED
REVENUES REVENUES * REVENUES
SOURCE OF REVENUES 2023-24 2023-24 2024-25
DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
Secondary Property Tax $ 3,846 $ 3,846 $ 3,552
Total Debt Service Funds $ 3,846 $ 3,846 $ 3,552
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS
Bond Funds $ $ 24,495 $
Capital Gifts 500
Capital Grants 817,368 520,574 700,925
Capital Reserves 950 2,284
Customer Facility Charges 55,902 59,406 60,060
Federal, State and Other Participation 551,312 38,059 262,891
Impact Fees 56,386
Joint Ventures 42,931 61,490 62,335
Passenger Facility Charges 91,340 96,976 98,071
Solid Waste Remediation 154
Other Capital Funds 14,123 7,200
Total Capital Projects Funds $ 1,559,802 $ 873,947 $ 1,191,981
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Convention Center $ 26,834 $ 35,322 $ 35,574
Solid Waste 197,194 207,563 208,591
Aviation 528,508 583,342 595,697
Water System 627,172 619,359 715,025
Wastewater System 289,188 294,045 310,694
Total Enterprise Funds $ 1,668,897 $ 1,739,632 $ 1,865,581
TOTAL ALL FUNDS $ 6,826,717 $ 6,147,511 $ 6,847,276
* Includes actual revenues recognized on the modified accrual or accrual basis as of the date the proposed budget was prepared, plus
estimated revenues for the remainder of the fiscal year.
Arizona Auditor General's Office SCHEDULE C Official City/Town Budget Forms
Page 67
CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA
Other Financing Sources/
Fiscal Year 2024-25
(In Thousands)
OTHER FINANCING INTERFUND TRANSFERS
2024-25 2024-25
FUND SOURCES
GENERAL FUND
General Fund $ 2,000 $ $ 1,402,033 $ 162,151
Library 10,961 4,082
Parks 117,409
Cable Communications 1,507
Total General Fund $ 2,000 $ $ 1,530,403 $ 167,740
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
Excise $ $ $ $ 2,148,015
Arizona Highway User Revenue 901 4,475
Capital Construction 143 7,502
City Improvement 84,178
Community Reinvestment 6 2,067
Court Awards 19
Development Services 145 6,528
Golf 1
Neighborhood Protection 63,502 986
Parks and Preserves 56,005 239
Public Safety Enhancement 33,131 15,514
Public Safety Expansion 115,758 2,188
Regional Transit 3
Sports Facilities 32,668 16,582
Transportation 2050 1,350 381,630 11,923
Other Restricted 45 51,948 1,262
Grant Funds 209 150
Total Special Revenue Funds $ 2,822 $ $ 826,322 $ 2,209,929
DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
Secondary Property Tax $ $ $ $ 2,256
Total Debt Service Funds $ $ $ $ 2,256
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS
2023 General Obligation Bonds $ 250,000 $ $ $
Aviation Bonds 200,000
Other Bonds 180,000 152,800 166,800
Capital Reserves 15,250
Customer Facility Charges 19,674
Federal, State and Other Participation 21,000
Total Capital Projects Funds $ 630,000 $ $ 168,050 $ 207,474
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Aviation $ 2,767 $ $ 19,924 $ 15,510
Convention Center 324 95,516 4,566
Solid Waste 325 14,089
Wastewater 1,475 16,000 20,800
Water 2,411 5,000 33,732
Total Enterprise Funds $ 7,302 $ $ 136,440 $ 88,697
TOTAL ALL FUNDS $ 642,124 $ $ 2,661,215 $ 2,676,096
Arizona Auditor General's Office SCHEDULE D Official City/Town Budget Forms
Page 68
CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA
Expenditures/Expenses by Fund
Fiscal Year 2024-25
(In Thousands)
ADOPTED EXPENDITURE/
BUDGETED EXPENSE ACTUAL BUDGETED
EXPENDITURES/ ADJUSTMENTS EXPENDITURES/ EXPENDITURES/
EXPENSES APPROVED EXPENSES* EXPENSES
FUND/DEPARTMENT 2023-24 2023-24 2023-24 2024-25
GENERAL FUND
General: $ $ $ $
General Government 229,683 225,706 249,186
Criminal Justice 45,265 44,805 47,381
Public Safety 1,222,556 1,220,562 1,248,049
Transportation 25,473 25,359 25,252
Community Development 39,424 38,935 41,112
Community Enrichment 50,179 47,850 51,797
Environmental Services 38,527 33,026 38,051
Contingencies/Non-Departmental** 73,247 3,000 148,875
Capital Budget 114,217 31,028 86,768
Parks and Recreation
Operatin g 128,060 127,917 134,037
Capital 5,600 2,000 3,600
Library
Operatin g 49,528 820 49,600 51,120
Capital 2,115 (820) 952 1,456
Cable Communications 4,794 4,738 5,073
Total General Fund $ 2,028,668 $ $ 1,855,479 $ 2,131,759
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
$ $ $ $
Arizona Highway User Revenue
Operatin g 94,493 87,862 90,387
Capital 114,864 76,082 130,609
Capital Construction
Operatin g 140 10 140 140
Capital 24,792 (10) 10,302 31,415
City Improvement 78,972 2,500 80,472 84,178
Community Reinvestment
Operatin g 2,292 1,070 3,291 2,317
Capital 7,924 (1,070) 3,195 6,479
Court Awards 4,671 4,331 5,008
Development Services
Operatin g 87,446 450 87,450 91,977
Contingencies 8,000
Capital 29,165 2,000 28,107 8,635
Federal Community Development
Operatin g 47,691 23,517 35,100
Capital 10,888 9,077 6,904
Federal & State Grants
Operatin g 225,709 149,321 296,301
Capital 63,761 32,713 49,726
Federal Transit
Operatin g 21,578 13,230 34,121 13,057
Capital 115,329 (13,230) 34,301 108,837
Golf Course
Operatin g 9,288 1,500 9,977 10,803
Arizona Auditor General's Office SCHEDULE E Official City/Town Budget Forms
Page 69
CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA
Expenditures/Expenses by Fund
Fiscal Year 2024-25
(In Thousands)
ADOPTED EXPENDITURE/
BUDGETED EXPENSE ACTUAL BUDGETED
EXPENDITURES/ ADJUSTMENTS EXPENDITURES/ EXPENDITURES/
EXPENSES APPROVED EXPENSES* EXPENSES
FUND/DEPARTMENT 2023-24 2023-24 2023-24 2024-25
Capital 1,440 1,440
HOPE VI Grant
Operating 5,678 3,641 15,445
Capital 27,244 10,189 25,045
Human Services Grants
Operatin g 69,671 8,040 76,184 76,071
Capital 10,000 8,145 3,000
Neighborhood Protection 60,547 59,287 59,962
Other Restricted Funds
Fees and Contributions 101,883 74,028 90,667
Capital 17,059 8,455 44,764
Parks and Preserves
Operatin g 7,923 7,799 8,121
Capital 120,293 71,202 117,390
Public Housing
Operatin g 171,354 170,214 217,090
Capital 38,400 28,638 47,817
Public Safety Enhancement 37,112 31,010 32,246
Public Safety Expansion 125,877 110,737 128,878
Public Transit (RPTA )
Operating 61,925 5,100 65,707 67,282
Capital 17,839 (5,100) 6,075 14,810
Regional Wireless Cooperative 6,881 810 7,538 6,223
Sports Facilities
Operatin g 2,805 2,773 2,960
Contingencies 2,500 2,500
Capital 2,127 2,109 5,685
Transportation 2050
Operatin g 250,370 239,506 268,611
Contingencies 4,000 4,000
Capital 454,661 (31,465) 89,316 463,621
$ $ $ $
Total Special Revenue Funds $ 2,534,591 $ (6,165) $ 1,748,251 $ 2,674,060
DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
$ $ $ $
Secondary Property Tax and G.O. 134,892 5 134,894 139,845
Total Debt Service Funds $ 134,892 $ 5 $ 134,894 $ 139,845
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS
$ $ $ $
Arts and Cultural Facilities 902 5 18,716
Aviation 959,959 601,836 809,738
Economic Development 5,250
Environmental Programs 1,000
Facilities Management 21,026 5,130 47,005
Finance 1,031 1,031
Fire Protection 32,669 5,106 76,130
Historic Preservation and Plannin g 2,000
Housin g 13,165 4,535 32,373
Arizona Auditor General's Office SCHEDULE E Official City/Town Budget Forms
Page 70
CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA
Expenditures/Expenses by Fund
Fiscal Year 2024-25
(In Thousands)
ADOPTED EXPENDITURE/
BUDGETED EXPENSE ACTUAL BUDGETED
EXPENDITURES/ ADJUSTMENTS EXPENDITURES/ EXPENDITURES/
EXPENSES APPROVED EXPENSES* EXPENSES
FUND/DEPARTMENT 2023-24 2023-24 2023-24 2024-25
Human Services 600 317
Information Technology 8,137 3,944 25,370
Libraries 5,295 2,091
Non-Departmental Capital 631,407 104,272 219,495
Parks, Recreation and Mtn Preserves 26,723 14,537 36,146
Phoenix Convention Center 36,770 22,063 55,360
Police Protection 17,759 8,357 40,233
Public Art Program 5,244 3,190 3,749
Public Transit 257 119
Regional Wireless Cooperative 6,001 6,000
Solid Waste Disposal 23,761 10,655 10,264
Street Transportation and Drainage 163,659 23,893 330,449
Wastewater 246,887 163,814 578,183
Water 434,663 197,050 381,753
Total Capital Projects Funds $ 2,635,916 $ $ 1,169,537 $ 2,681,622
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
$ $ $ $
Aviation
Operatin g 443,121 435,057 513,141
Contingencies 25,000 25,000
Capital 237,893 97,342 362,305
Convention Center
Operatin g 79,340 79,242 100,964
Contingencies 3,000 3,000
Capital 10,617 7,775 11,071
Solid Waste
Operatin g 183,403 3,670 183,403 198,897
Contingencies 1,000 1,000
Capital 17,631 (3,670) 7,411 34,836
Wastewater
Operatin g 226,634 6,160 228,223 214,956
Contingencies 10,000 10,000
Capital 145,256 105,115 106,600
Water
Operatin g 476,884 464,259 479,539
Contingencies 22,000 22,000
Capital 170,106 140,953 214,871
Total Enterprise Funds $ 2,051,886 $ 6,160 $ 1,748,781 $ 2,298,181
REAPPROPRIATION FUNDS
$ $ $ $
Genera l
General Government 27,043 26,881 43,962
Criminal Justice 4,242 1,170 3,697
Public Safety 70,211 38,344 82,782
Transportation 4,754 701 3,631
Environmental Services 32,233 26,799 36,755
Community Development 6,926 3,812 5,424
Community Enrichment 7,224 3,486 11,321
Capital Improvements 30,969 21,161 27,787
Librar y
Community Enrichment 6,958 3,809 6,226
Arizona Auditor General's Office SCHEDULE E Official City/Town Budget Forms
Page 71
CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA
Expenditures/Expenses by Fund
Fiscal Year 2024-25
(In Thousands)
ADOPTED EXPENDITURE/
BUDGETED EXPENSE ACTUAL BUDGETED
EXPENDITURES/ ADJUSTMENTS EXPENDITURES/ EXPENDITURES/
EXPENSES APPROVED EXPENSES* EXPENSES
FUND/DEPARTMENT 2023-24 2023-24 2023-24 2024-25
Parks and Recreation
Community Enrichment 22,472 11,776 24,562
Cable Communications
General Government 458 244 505
Arizona Highway User Revenue
Street and Highway purposes 109,091 74,411 95,481
Aviation
Transportation 117,198 69,773 191,873
Capital Construction
Capital Improvements 5,164 3,040 4,360
City Improvement Operating
Debt Service 247 253
Community Reinvestment
Community Development 5,543 888 1,402
Court Awards
Criminal Justice 3,728 2,545 3,024
Development Services
Community Development 17,736 10,642 47,076
Federal and State Grants
Operating grants 79,092 23,180 94,166
Federal Community Development
Community Development 9,702 3,888 8,534
Federal Transit
Transportation 41,953 19,903 58,946
Golf
Community Enrichment 1,370 609 2,958
HOPE Grant
Community Development 3,778 899 4,601
Human Services
Community Enrichment 32,769 4,486 16,908
Neighborhood Protection
Public Safety 5,694 2,328 2,755
Other Restricte d
Community Development 45,526 6,636 43,351
Parks and Preserves
Capital Improvements 39,851 30,768 69,908
Phoenix Convention Center
Community Enrichment 15,050 5,849 21,124
Public Housing
Community Development 30,001 3,520 75,322
Public Safety Enhancement Funds
Public Safety 35 23 32
Public Safety Expansion Funds
Public Safet y 2,465 941 771
Regional Transit Authority
Transportation 18,307 10,618 17,049
Regional Wireless Cooperative
General Government 1,903 136 4,846
Secondary Property Tax
Debt Service 933 902
Solid Waste
Environmental Services 60,787 31,873 30,648
Sports Facilities
Community Enrichment 4,554 1,270 2,411
Transportation 2050
Transportation 219,456 107,217 174,933
Wastewater
Environmental Services 116,093 63,759 131,854
Water
Environmental Services 203,367 146,028 252,371
Capital
Arizona Auditor General's Office SCHEDULE E Official City/Town Budget Forms
Page 72
CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA
Expenditures/Expenses by Fund
Fiscal Year 2024-25
(In Thousands)
ADOPTED EXPENDITURE/
BUDGETED EXPENSE ACTUAL BUDGETED
EXPENDITURES/ ADJUSTMENTS EXPENDITURES/ EXPENDITURES/
EXPENSES APPROVED EXPENSES* EXPENSES
FUND/DEPARTMENT 2023-24 2023-24 2023-24 2024-25
1988 Parks, Recreation, Facilities, Library Bonds 1,763
2001 Educational, Youth and Cultural Facility Bonds 15
2001 Neighborhood Protection & Senior Center Bonds 12
2006 Affordable Housing & Neighborhood Bonds 35
2006 Police and Fire Protection Bonds 32 20
2023 Prop 1 Public Safety and Streets 800
2023 Prop 2 Neighborhood and Parks 1,000
2023 Prop 3 Arts, Econ Dev, Environment 10
2023 Prop 4 Housing and Human Services 150
Aviation Capital 121,495 120,311 673,627
Capital Reserves 19,926 12,454 10,492
City Improvement 126,946 124,248 130,116
CPBC - Senior Lien Excise Tax 4,167 4,250
Development Impact Fees 31,250 28,792 42,961
Multi-City Wastewater Capital 82,055 70,130 88,045
Public Housing Capital 13,732 8,509 9,786
Solid Waste Capital 26,021 3,744 7,461
Streets Capital 46,895 20,913 20,770
Wastewater Capital 80,767 67,076 163,878
Water Capital 277,412 155,884 293,330
Total Reappropriation Funds $ 2,237,406 $ $ 1,375,494 $ 3,051,187
TOTAL ALL FUNDS $ 11,623,359 $ $ 8,032,436 $ 12,976,654
* 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
Page 73
CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA
Expenditures/Expenses by Department
Fiscal Year 2024-25
(In Thousands)
ADOPTED EXPENDITURE/
BUDGETED EXPENSE ACTUAL BUDGETED
EXPENDITURES/ ADJUSTMENTS EXPENDITURES/ EXPENDITURES/
EXPENSES APPROVED EXPENSES* EXPENSES
DEPARTMENT/FUND 2023-24 ** 2023-24 2023-24 2024-25
Community Development: $ $ $ $
Aviation 74 74 74
Community Development 45,639 (25) 21,519 33,163
Community Reinvestment 2,292 1,070 3,291 2,317
Convention Center 642 627 642
Development Services 87,446 450 87,450 91,977
Federal and State Grants 38,909 (11,250) 27,423 26,140
General 39,424 38,935 41,112
HOPE VI 5,493 3,641 15,445
Neighborhood Protection 860 850 100
Other Restricted 16,921 15,685 26,511
Public Housing 171,353 (360) 169,863 217,089
Sports Facilities 194 190 194
Water 30 30 30
Department Total $ 408,416 $ (9,255) $ 369,578 $ 454,794
Community Enrichment: $ $ $
Community Development 1,752 1,680 1,612
Convention Center 61,217 61,135 76,632
Federal and State Grants 60,184 22,000 82,181 47,558
General 50,179 47,850 51,797
Golf Course 9,288 1,500 9,977 10,803
HOPE VI 185
Human Services Grants 69,671 8,040 76,184 76,071
Library 49,528 820 49,600 51,120
Other Restricted 8,490 6,929 9,648
Parks and Preserves 7,923 7,799 8,121
Parks and Recreation 128,060 127,917 134,037
Public Housing 2 360 352 2
Sports Facilities 596 593 683
Wastewater 155 1,000 318 318
Water 225 250 462 462
Department Total $ 447,454 $ 33,970 $ 472,975 $ 468,863
Contingencies/Non-Departmental: $ $ $
Aviation 25,000 25,000
Convention Center 3,000 3,000
Development Services 8,000
Federal and State Grants 76,000 35,000
General 73,247 3,000 148,875
Solid Waste 1,000 1,000
Sports Facilities 2,500 2,500
Transportation 2050 4,000 4,000
Wastewater 10,000 10,000
Water 22,000 22,000
Department Total $ 224,747 $ $ 3,000 $ 251,375
Criminal Justice: $ $ $
General 45,265 44,805 47,381
Other Restricted 2,703 2,145 530
Department Total $ 47,968 $ $ 46,950 $ 47,911
Environmental Services: $ $ $
Capital Construction 70 5 70 70
Federal and State Grants 3,388 410 3,795 152,081
General 38,527 33,026 38,051
Other Restricted 3,484 70 3,546 4,412
Solid Waste 173,599 2,670 173,593 188,516
Wastewater 139,594 137,849 150,802
Arizona Auditor General's Office SCHEDULE F Official City/Town Budget Forms
Page 74
CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA
Expenditures/Expenses by Department
Fiscal Year 2024-25
(In Thousands)
ADOPTED EXPENDITURE/
BUDGETED EXPENSE ACTUAL BUDGETED
EXPENDITURES/ ADJUSTMENTS EXPENDITURES/ EXPENDITURES/
EXPENSES APPROVED EXPENSES* EXPENSES
DEPARTMENT/FUND 2023-24 ** 2023-24 2023-24 2024-25
Water 327,782 (7,570) 307,620 331,263
Department Total $ 686,445 $ (4,415) $ 659,500 $ 865,195
General Government: $ $ $
Aviation 522 517 536
Cable 4,794 4,738 5,073
Community Development 300 25 318 326
Court Awards 52 52 52
Federal and State Grants 17,715 (11,920) 5,664 8,278
General 229,683 225,706 249,186
Other Restricted 3,433 1,515 3,627
Regional Wireless Cooperative 6,881 810 7,538 6,223
Solid Waste 223 1,000 229 233
Sports Facilities 159 134 134
Wastewater 490 160 506 506
Water 1,309 70 1,376 1,572
Department Total $ 265,560 $ (9,855) $ 248,294 $ 275,745
Public Safety: $ $ $
Court Awards 4,619 4,280 4,956
Federal and State Grants 29,469 650 30,113 27,105
General 1,222,556 1,220,562 1,248,049
Neighborhood Protection 60,547 (1,820) 57,487 58,912
Other Restricted 61,629 (70) 39,040 40,610
Public Safety Enhancement 37,112 31,010 32,246
Public Safety Expansion 125,877 110,737 128,878
Sports Facilities 1,857 1,857 1,950
Department Total $ 1,543,666 $ (1,240) $ 1,495,086 $ 1,542,706
Transportation: $ $ $
Arizona Highway Users Revenue 94,493 87,862 90,387
Aviation 338,174 337,737 410,809
Capital Construction 70 5 70 70
Federal and State Grants 44 110 144 140
Federal Transit Authority 21,578 13,230 34,121 13,057
General 25,473 25,359 25,252
Neighborhood Protection 960 950 950
Other Restricted 5,224 5,169 5,329
Transit - RPTA 61,925 5,100 65,707 67,282
Transportation 2050 250,370 239,506 268,611
Department Total $ 797,350 $ 19,405 $ 796,624 $ 881,886
Debt: $ $
Aviation 104,352 96,730 101,722
City Improvement 78,972 2,500 80,472 84,178
Convention Center 17,481 17,480 23,690
Secondary Property Tax 134,892 5 134,894 139,845
Solid Waste 9,581 9,581 10,148
Wastewater 86,395 5,000 89,549 63,330
Water 147,538 7,250 154,771 146,213
Department Total $ 579,210 $ 14,755 $ 583,476 $ 569,125
Pay As You Go **
Arizona Highway Users Revenue 114,864 76,082 130,609
Arizona Auditor General's Office SCHEDULE F Official City/Town Budget Forms
Page 75
CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA
Expenditures/Expenses by Department
Fiscal Year 2024-25
(In Thousands)
ADOPTED EXPENDITURE/
BUDGETED EXPENSE ACTUAL BUDGETED
EXPENDITURES/ ADJUSTMENTS EXPENDITURES/ EXPENDITURES/
EXPENSES APPROVED EXPENSES* EXPENSES
DEPARTMENT/FUND 2023-24 ** 2023-24 2023-24 2024-25
Aviation 237,893 97,342 362,305
Capital Construction 24,792 (10) 10,302 31,415
Community Development 10,888 9,077 6,904
Community Reinvestment 7,924 (1,070) 3,195 6,479
Convention Center 10,617 7,775 11,071
Development Services 29,165 2,000 28,107 8,635
Federal and State Grants 63,761 32,713 49,726
Federal Transit Authority 115,329 (13,230) 34,301 108,837
General 114,217 31,028 86,768
Golf Course 1,440 1,440
HOPE VI 27,244 10,189 25,045
Human Services Grants 10,000 8,145 3,000
Library 2,115 (820) 952 1,456
Other Restricted 17,059 8,455 44,764
Parks and Preserves 120,293 71,202 117,390
Parks and Recreation 5,600 2,000 3,600
Public Housing 38,400 28,638 47,817
Transit - RPTA 17,839 (5,100) 6,075 14,810
Solid Waste 17,631 (3,670) 7,411 34,836
Sports Facilities 2,127 2,109 5,685
Transportation 2050 454,661 (31,465) 89,316 463,621
Wastewater 145,256 105,115 106,600
Water 170,106 140,953 214,871
Department Total $ 1,749,222 $ (43,365) $ 811,921 $ 1,886,245
$ $ $ $
Capita $ $ $ $
Bond Funds 856,507 699,251 1,178,238
Other Capital 1,779,409 470,286 1,503,385
Department Total $ 2,635,916 $ $ 1,169,537 $ 2,681,622
$ $ $ $
Reappropriation: 2,237,406 1,375,494 3,051,187
Department Total $ 2,237,406 $ $ 1,375,494 $ 3,051,187
Total All Departments $ 11,623,359 $ $ 8,032,436 $ 12,976,65
* 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.
**
The Pay As You Go category is newly created and reports the capital projects funded by operating funds, which were
previously included in the other existing Department/Fund categories.
Arizona Auditor General's Office SCHEDULE F Official City/Town Budget Forms
Page 76
Total Estimated
Full-Time Employee Salaries Other Benefit Personnel
Equivalent (FTE) and Hourly Costs Retirement Costs Healthcare Costs Costs Compensation
FUND 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25
GENERAL FUND
General 8,080 $ 774,366 $ 428,616 $ 121,581 $ 127,604 = 1,452,167
Library 392 21,846 5,503 3,441 4,424 35,214
Parks and Recreation 953 49,427 11,559 7,793 8,685 77,463
Cable Communications 23 2,462 683 325 516 3,986
Total General Fund 9,448 $ 848,101 $ 446,361 $ 133,140 $ 141,228 = 1,568,830
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
Arizona Highway User Revenue 695 $ 38,794 $ 16,041 $ 10,314 $ 10,007 = 75,155
Community Reinvestment 3 357 108 20 69 554
Development Services 493 40,462 12,884 7,617 8,228 69,191
Federal Community Development 78 6,103 1,749 1,140 1,207 10,199
Federal and State Grants 177 11,124 5,265 2,003 2,355 20,747
Golf Course 32 1,842 267 117 258 2,484
Page 77 HOPE VI 20 1,287 395 235 284 2,201
Human Services 161 10,589 3,000 2,258 2,016 17,863
Neighborhood Protection 278 28,521 22,631 3,828 3,190 58,171
Other Restricted 113 9,800 18,446 1,770 2,064 32,080
Parks and Preserves 78 4,230 992 717 829 6,768
Public Safety Enhancement 255 15,845 11,881 2,990 3,053 33,769
Public Safety Expansion 675 75,109 54,879 10,134 8,398 148,520
Public Housing 61 4,033 1,427 914 908 7,281
Regional Wireless Cooperative 5 481 110 48 102 740
Transportation 2050 129 11,279 3,757 1,683 2,519 19,238
Total Special Revenue Funds 3,253 $ 259,854 $ 153,833 $ 45,786 $ 45,486 = 504,959
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Aviation 924 $ 67,413 $ 4,633 $ 13,375 $ 14,442 = 99,863
Convention Center 219 14,913 4,505 2,877 3,154 25,448
Solid Waste 630 46,181 13,990 8,958 7,991 77,120
Wastewater 339 26,591 1,752 5,003 5,245 38,591
Water 1,199 86,420 28,468 16,844 18,392 150,124
Total Enterprise Funds 3,311 $ 241,519 $ 53,347 $ 47,056 $ 49,224 = 391,146
TOTAL ALL FUNDS 16,012 $ 1,349,474 $ 653,541 $ 225,982 $ 235,938 = 2,464,936
Tax Notice Explained
The accompanying Truth in Taxation notice is required by state law. The required
notice addresses the citys 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 Phoenixs proposed primary property tax rate for 2024-25 of $1.2658
per $100 of assessed valuation is reduced from its 2023-24 rate of $1.2851 per
$100 of assessed valuation. However, overall increases in assessed valuation
result in a 2% 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 citys
secondary property tax. The citys secondary property tax rate for 2024-25 will be
unchanged from its 2023-24 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 24, 2024 and June 3, 2024.
Additionally included in published estimates of revenues and expenses:
The Record Reporter June 10, 2024.
Page 78
TRUTH IN
TAXATION HEARING
NOTICE OF TAX INCREASE
In compliance with section 42-17107, Arizona Revised Statutes, the city of
Phoenix is notifying its property taxpayers of the city of Phoenix’s intention
to raise its primary property taxes over last year’s level. The city of Phoenix
is proposing an increase in primary property taxes of $4,177,285 or 2.00%.
For example, the proposed tax increase will cause the city of Phoenix’s
primary property taxes on a $100,000 home to be $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
$124.10.
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 12, 2024 at 2:30 p.m. at the city
of Phoenix Council Chambers, 200 W. Jefferson St.
Page 79
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
In accordance with State statute, this item requests the City Council formally convene
a special meeting for the purpose of considering adoption of the final 2024-25 budget.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the Budget and Research
Department.
Page 80
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
In compliance with requirements of the City Charter and Code and State statutes, 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, 2024 and ending June 30, 2025 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, 2024 Policy meeting and at the May 29, 2024 Formal
meeting to adopt the tentative Fiscal Year 2024-25 operating budget ordinance.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the Budget and Research
Department.
Page 81
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, 2024, AND ENDING JUNE 30, 2025; 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, 2024, and ending June 30, 2025; 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 29th day of May, 2024, 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-
Page 82
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 12th day of June, 2024, at which meeting any taxpayer was
privileged to appear and be heard in favor of or against any of the proposed
expenditures or tax levies; and
WHEREAS, publication has been duly made as required by law, of said
estimates together with a notice that the City Council will meet on the 1st day of July,
2024, at the hour of 10:00 a.m. in the City Council Chambers of the City of Phoenix,
200 West Jefferson St., Phoenix, Arizona for the purpose of making tax levies as set
forth in said estimates; and
WHEREAS, the sums to be raised by primary taxation, as specified
herein, do not in the aggregate amount exceed that amount as computed pursuant to
A.R.S. § 42-17102;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PHOENIX as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council has determined and adopted the following
estimates of the proposed expenditures therein named and set forth for the conduct of
the business of the City government of the City of Phoenix for the fiscal year beginning
July 1, 2024, and ending June 30, 2025, and that the same shall constitute the official
annual budget of the City for said fiscal year.
-2- Ordinance S-
Page 83
CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA
PURPOSES OF PROPOSED PUBLIC EXPENSE
Amount of Appropriation
Purpose 2024-2025
GENERAL FUNDS
General Government $249,186,141
Public Safety 1,248,049,161
Criminal Justice 47,381,126
Transportation 25,251,872
Community Development 41,112,446
Community Enrichment 51,797,135
Environmental Services 38,051,147
Contingencies/Non-Departmental 148,875,350
Capital Improvements 86,768,033
Total General Funds $1,936,472,411
PARKS AND RECREATION FUNDS
Parks and Recreation Operations and Maintenance, and $137,637,763
Capital Improvements.
LIBRARY FUNDS
Library Operations and Maintenance, and Capital $52,575,946
Improvements.
CABLE COMMUNICATION FUNDS
Cable Communication Operations and Maintenance. $5,073,054
ARIZONA HIGHWAY USER REVENUE FUNDS
Street Maintenance, Major Street Improvements, Traffic $220,996,185
Improvements and other Street Improvements.
AVIATION FUNDS
Aviation Operations and Maintenance, Debt Service and $875,446,280
Capital Improvements.
Contingencies 25,000,000
Total Aviation Funds $900,446,280
-3- Ordinance S-
Page 84
Amount of Appropriation
Purpose 2024-2025
CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION FUNDS
Capital Improvements in the Street Transportation, $31,554,960
Public Art, and Environmental Programs, and related
Operations and Maintenance.
CITY IMPROVEMENT FUND
Debt Service Payments for Excise Tax Bond-Funded $84,178,052
Projects Including Information Technology
Improvements; Vehicle and Equipment Replacements;
Facility Construction and Improvements; Street
Improvements; and Other Capital Projects.
COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT FUNDS
Community Reinvestment Operations and Maintenance, $8,796,395
and Capital Improvements.
COURT AWARD FUNDS
Criminal Justice Programs. $5,008,088
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES FUNDS
Development Services Operations and Maintenance, $100,612,350
and Capital Improvements.
FEDERAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUNDS
Community Development Program. $42,004,078
FEDERAL OPERATING TRUST FUNDS
Federal and State Grant Programs. $346,027,568
FEDERAL TRANSIT FUND
Transit Operations and Maintenance, and Capital $121,893,990
Improvements.
GOLF COURSE FUNDS
Golf Course Operations and Maintenance. $10,803,290
-4- Ordinance S-
Page 85
Amount of Appropriation
Purpose 2024-2025
HOPE VI FEDERAL GRANT FUNDS
HOPE VI Program. $40,489,553
HUMAN SERVICES FEDERAL TRUST FUNDS
Human Services Program. $79,071,208
NEIGHBORHOOD PROTECTION FUNDS
Eligible Police, Fire, and Block Watch Operations and $59,961,606
Maintenance Expenditures Funded with Privilege
License and Excise Taxes in accordance with Ordinance
G-3696.
OTHER RESTRICTED FUNDS
Other Restricted Funds Operations and Maintenance, $135,430,546
and Capital Improvements.
PARKS AND PRESERVES FUNDS
Parks and Preserves Operations and Maintenance, and $125,511,049
Capital Improvement Expenditures Funded with
Privilege License and Excise Taxes in accordance with
the Phoenix Parks and Preserves initiative approved by
the Phoenix voters in a ballot measure on May 20, 2008.
PHOENIX CONVENTION CENTER FUNDS
Phoenix Convention Center Operations and $112,034,511
Maintenance, Debt Service, and Capital Improvements.
Contingencies 3,000,000
Total Phoenix Convention Center Funds $115,034,511
PUBLIC HOUSING FUNDS
Public Housing Operations and Maintenance, and $264,907,047
Capital Improvements.
PUBLIC SAFETY ENHANCEMENT FUNDS
Police, Fire, and Emergency Management Operations $32,245,585
and Maintenance Expenditures Funded with Privilege
License and Excise Taxes in accordance with Ordinance
S-31877.
-5- Ordinance S-
Page 86
Amount of Appropriation
Purpose 2024-2025
PUBLIC SAFETY EXPANSION FUNDS
Police and Fire Personnel and Service Expansion $128,877,753
Funded with Privilege License and Excise Taxes in
accordance with Ordinance G-4987.
REGIONAL TRANSIT FUNDS
Regional Transportation Operations and Maintenance, $82,091,466
and Capital Improvements.
REGIONAL WIRELESS COOPERATIVE FUNDS
Operations and Maintenance of the Regional Wireless $6,222,607
Cooperative.
SECONDARY PROPERTY TAX FUNDS
Debt Service on and Early Redemption of Outstanding $139,844,624
Bonds and Long-Term Obligations.
SOLID WASTE FUNDS
Solid Waste Operations and Maintenance, Debt Service $233,733,575
and Capital Improvements.
Contingencies 1,000,000
Total Solid Waste Funds $234,733,575
SPORTS FACILITIES FUNDS
Sports Facilities Operations and Maintenance, and $8,645,833
Capital Improvements.
Contingencies 2,500,000
Total Sports Facilities Funds $11,145,833
TRANSPORTATION 2050 FUNDS
Transit and Streets Operations and Maintenance, and $732,231,667
Capital Improvement Expenditures Funded with
Privilege License and Excise Taxes in accordance with
Ordinance G-6051.
Contingencies 4,000,000
-6- Ordinance S-
Page 87
Amount of Appropriation
Purpose 2024-2025
Total Transportation 2050 Funds $736,231,667
WASTEWATER SYSTEM FUNDS
Wastewater System Operations and Maintenance, Debt $321,555,973
Service and Capital Improvements.
Contingencies 10,000,000
Total Wastewater Funds $331,555,973
WATER FUNDS
Water System Operations and Maintenance, Debt $694,410,386
Service and Capital Improvements.
Contingencies 22,000,000
Total Water Funds $716,410,386
TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS 2024-2025 $7,243,845,399
SECTION 2. Upon the approval of the City Manager, funds may be
transferred within purposes set forth in Section 1, or within the purposes of separately
adopted portions of this budget.
SECTION 3. Upon recommendation by the City Manager and with the
approval of the City Council, expenditures may be made from the appropriation for
contingencies.
SECTION 4. In the case of an emergency, the City Council may authorize
the transfer of funds between purposes set forth in Section 1, if funds are available and
-7- Ordinance S-
Page 88
the transfer does not conflict with the limitations provided by law (A.R.S. § 42-17106).
SECTION 5. The City Council may authorize appropriation increases, if
funds are available, for purpose of expenditures that are exempt from the limitation
provided in Article IX, Section 20, Constitution of Arizona.
SECTION 6. Money from any fund may be used for any of these
purposes set forth in Section 1, except money specifically restricted by State law or by
City Charter or City ordinances and resolutions.
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix on this 12th day of
June, 2024.
_________________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
, Acting City Attorney
REVIEWED BY:
-8- Ordinance S-
Page 89
, City Manager
-9- Ordinance S-
Page 90
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
In compliance with requirements of the City Charter and Code and State statutes, this
item requests to adopt an ordinance (Attachment A) adopting the final Capital Funds
Budget for the City of Phoenix for the fiscal year 2024-25.
Summary
This adopts the final 2024-25 Capital Funds Budget for the fiscal year beginning July
1, 2024, and ending June 30, 2025. 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 May
29, 2024, Formal meeting to adopt the tentative budget ordinances and is consistent
with the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program resolution approved by Council at the
May 29, 2024, Formal meeting.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the Budget and Research
Department.
Page 91
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE
FINAL, ADOPTED ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE S-#####
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE FINAL
CAPITAL FUNDS BUDGET FOR THE CITY
OF PHOENIX FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
BEGINNING JULY 1, 2024, AND ENDING
JUNE 30, 2025; DECLARING THAT SUCH
SHALL CONSTITUTE THE CAPITAL FUNDS
BUDGET FOR THE CITY OF PHOENIX FOR
SUCH FISCAL YEAR.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX as
follows:
SECTION 1. The schedule set forth as Section 2 below is hereby adopted as the
final 2024-25 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, 2024 and ending June 30, 2025.
SECTION 2. This Council has determined and adopted the following estimates of
proposed Capital expenditure improvements for the various purposes therein named for the
fiscal year beginning July 1, 2024, and ending June 30, 2025.
-1- S-#####
Page 92
Appropriation
Amount
Purpose 2024-25
ARTS AND CULTURAL FACILITIES
2001 General Obligation Bonds, 2023 General Obligation Bonds $18,716,343
AVIATION
Aviation Bonds, Capital Grants, Customer Facility Charges, $809,737,804
Passenger Facility Charges
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
2023 General Obligation Bonds $5,250,000
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS
2023 General Obligation Bonds $1,000,000
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
2023 General Obligation Bonds, Capital Grants, Other Bonds, Other $47,005,058
Capital
FIRE PROTECTION
2023 General Obligation Bonds, Capital Grants, Impact Fees, Other $76,130,417
Bonds
HISTORIC PRESERVATION & PLANNING
2023 General Obligation Bonds $2,000,000
HOUSING
2023 General Obligation Bonds, Capital Grants $32,372,734
HUMAN SERVICES
2006 General Obligation Bonds, 2023 General Obligation Bonds $316,555
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
Other Bonds $25,370,311
-2- S-#####
Page 93
Appropriation
Amount
Purpose 2024-25
LIBRARIES
2023 General Obligation Bonds, Impact Fees $2,091,111
NON-DEPARTMENTAL CAPITAL
Aviation Bonds, Capital Grants, Customer Facility Charges, Federal, $219,495,202
State and Other Participation, Other Bonds, Passenger Facility
Charges, Water Bonds
PARKS, RECREATION & MOUNTAIN PRESERVES
2023 General Obligation Bonds, Capital Gifts, Capital Grants, Capital $36,146,192
Reserves, Impact Fees, Other Capital
PHOENIX CONVENTION CENTER
Other Bonds $55,360,000
POLICE PROTECTION
2023 General Obligation Bonds, Capital Reserves, Impact Fees $40,233,224
PUBLIC ART PROGRAM
2023 General Obligation Bonds, Aviation Bonds, Other Bonds, Solid $3,749,169
Waste Bonds, Water Bonds
REGIONAL WIRELESS COOPERATIVE
Other Cities' Share in Joint Ventures $6,000,000
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
Capital Grants, Capital Reserves, Solid Waste Bonds, Solid $10,263,938
Waste Remediation
STREET TRANSPORTATION & DRAINAGE
2023 General Obligation Bonds, Capital Reserves, Federal, $330,448,610
State and Other Participation, Impact Fees
WASTEWATER
Capital Grants, Impact Fees, Other Cities' Share in Joint $578,183,180
Ventures, Wastewater Bonds
-3- S-#####
Page 94
Appropriation
Amount
Purpose 2024-25
WATER
Capital Grants, Impact Fees, Other Cities' Share in Joint $381,752,608
Ventures, Water Bonds
TOTAL $2,681,622,456
SECTION 3. Upon the approval of the City Manager, funds may be transferred
within purposes set forth in Section 2.
SECTION 4. The City Council may authorize appropriation increases, if funds
are available, for purpose of expenditures that are exempt from the limitation provided in Article
IX, Section 20, Constitution of Arizona.
-4- S-#####
Page 95
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 12th day of June, 2024.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Acting City Attorney
REVIEWED BY:
City Manager
-5- S-#####
Page 96
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
50950)
In compliance with requirements of the City Charter and Code and State statutes, 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 2023-24
Operating and Capital Fund budgets of the City of Phoenix but remaining as
unexpended funds as of June 30, 2024.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The reappropriated funds budget ordinance reflects the action taken at the May 29,
2024 Formal meeting to adopt the tentative 2024-25 reappropriated funds budget
ordinance.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the Budget and Research
Department.
Page 97
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 2023-2024 FISCAL YEAR OPERATING AND CAPITAL
FUND BUDGETS OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX BUT
REMAINING AS UNEXPENDED FUNDS AS OF
JUNE 30, 2024.
_____________
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 2023-2024; 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
2023-2024 substantial amounts represented by executed but unfulfilled contracts; and
-1- Ordinance S-
Page 98
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 2024-2025 from funds
budgeted for the fiscal year 2023-2024 but remaining unexpended as of the close of the
fiscal year on June 30, 2024.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PHOENIX as follows:
SECTION 1. This Council has determined and adopted the following
estimates of proposed capital and operating fund expenditures as hereinafter set forth
presenting a reappropriation of items previously budgeted for the fiscal year 2023-2024
but remaining unexpended at the close of said fiscal year, and representing amounts
encumbered by means of outstanding contracts as of the close of said fiscal year. That
said amounts and the purposes therefore are set forth in the schedule below as follows:
-2- Ordinance S-
Page 99
2024-2025 REAPPROPRIATED FUNDS
Fund Amount
OPERATING FUNDS:
General Funds
General Government $43,962,000
Criminal Justice 3,697,000
Public Safety 82,782,000
Transportation 3,631,000
Environmental Services 36,755,000
Community Development 5,424,000
Community Enrichment 11,321,000
Capital Improvements 27,787,000
Total General Funds $215,359,000
Parks and Recreation Funds
Parks and Recreation Operations and Maintenance, and $24,562,000
Capital Improvements.
Library Funds
Library Operations and Maintenance, and Capital $6,226,000
Improvements.
Cable Communication Funds
Cable Communication Operations and Maintenance. $505,000
Arizona Highway User Revenue Funds
Street Maintenance, Major Street Improvements, Traffic $95,481,000
Improvements and Other Street Improvements.
-3- Ordinance S-
Page 100
Fund Amount
Aviation Funds
Aviation Operations and Maintenance, and Capital $191,873,000
Improvements.
Capital Construction Funds
Capital Improvements in Street Transportation and $4,360,000
Drainage.
City Improvement Operating Funds
Debt Service Related Costs associated with City $253,000
Improvement.
Community Reinvestment Funds
Community Reinvestment Program. $1,402,000
Court Award Funds
Criminal Justice Program. $3,024,000
Development Services Funds
Development Services Operations and Maintenance, and
Capital Improvements. $47,076,000
Federal Community Development Funds
Community Development Program. $8,534,000
Federal Operating Trust Funds
Federal and State Grants. $94,166,000
-4- Ordinance S-
Page 101
Fund Amount
Federal Transit Funds
Federal Transit Grant Program. $58,946,000
Golf Course Funds
Golf Course Operations and Maintenance, and Capital $2,958,000
Improvements.
HOPE VI Federal Grant Funds
HOPE VI Program. $4,601,000
Human Services Federal Trust Funds
Human Services Program. $16,908,000
Neighborhood Protection Funds
Eligible Police, Fire and Blockwatch Operations and $2,755,000
Maintenance Expenditures Funded with Privilege License
and Excise Taxes in accordance with Ordinance G-3696.
Other Restricted Funds
Other Restricted Funds Operations and Maintenance, and $43,351,000
Capital Improvements.
Parks and Preserves Funds
Parks and Preserves Operations and Maintenance, and $69,908,000
Capital Improvement Expenditures Funded with Privilege
License and Excise Taxes in accordance with the Phoenix
Parks and Preserves initiative approved by the Phoenix
voters in a ballot measure on May 20, 2008.
-5- Ordinance S-
Page 102
Fund Amount
Phoenix Convention Center Funds
Phoenix Convention Center Operations and Maintenance, $21,124,000
and Capital Improvements.
Public Housing Funds
Public Housing Operations and Maintenance, and Capital $75,322,000
Improvements.
Public Safety Enhancement Funds
Police, Fire, and Emergency Management Operations and $32,000
Maintenance Expenditures Funded with Privilege License
and Excise Taxes in accordance with Ordinance S-31877.
Public Safety Expansion Funds
Police and Fire Personnel and Service Expansion Funded $771,000
with Privilege License and Excise Taxes in accordance
with Ordinance G-4987.
Regional Transit Authority Funds
Regional Transit Operations and Maintenance, and $17,049,000
Capital Improvements.
Regional Wireless Cooperative Funds
Regional Wireless Cooperative Operations and $4,846,000
Maintenance.
Secondary Property Tax Funds
Debt Service on and Early Redemption of Outstanding $902,000
Bonds and Long-Term Obligations.
-6- Ordinance S-
Page 103
Fund Amount
Solid Waste Funds
Solid Waste Operations and Maintenance, and Capital $30.648,000
Improvements.
Sports Facilities Funds
Sports Facilities Operations and Maintenance, and Capital $2,411,000
Improvements.
Transportation 2050 Funds
Transit and Streets Operations and Maintenance, and $174,933,000
Capital Improvement Expenditures Funded with Privilege
License and Excise Taxes in accordance with Ordinance
G-6051.
Wastewater System and Multi-City Wastewater Funds
Wastewater System Operations and Maintenance, and $131,854,000
Capital Improvements.
Water Funds
Water System Operations and Maintenance, and Capital $252,371,000
Improvements.
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS:
2023 Prop 1 Public Safety and Streets Bond Funds $800,000
2023 Prop 2 Neighborhood and Parks Bond Funds $1,000,000
2023 Prop 3 Arts, Economic Development, and $10,000
Environment Bond Funds
2023 Prop 4 Housing and Human Services Bond Funds $150,000
-7- Ordinance S-
Page 104
Fund Amount
Aviation Capital Funds $673,627,000
Capital Reserve Funds $10,492,000
City Improvement Capital Funds $130,116,000
Civic Plaza Building Corporation Funds $4,250,000
Development Impact Fee Funds $42,961,000
Multi-City Wastewater Capital Funds $88,045,000
Public Housing Capital Funds $9,786,000
Solid Waste Capital Funds $7,461,000
Streets Capital Funds $20,770,000
Wastewater Capital Funds $163,878,000
Water Capital Funds $293,330,000
TOTAL $3,051,187,000
SECTION 2. In case of an emergency, the City Council may authorize the
transfer of funds between the purposes set forth in Section 1 above if the funds are
available and the transfer does not conflict with the limitations provided by law under
A.R.S. § 42-17106.
SECTION 3. Money from any fund may be used for any of these
purposes set forth hereinabove, except money specifically restricted by state law or by
-8- Ordinance S-
Page 105
City Charter or City ordinances and resolutions.
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 12th day of June 2024.
_________________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
, Acting City Attorney
REVIEWED BY:
City Manager
-9- Ordinance S-
Page 106
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Funds (Ordinance S-50948)
An ordinance (Attachment A) amending Ordinance S-49813 adopting the 2023-24
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 2023-24 Operating Budget will allow the City to
close out the current fiscal year's budgetary accounts and proceed with the annual
independent audit. This is a standard end-of-year process required to close the books.
State law precludes any expenditure not included in the budget even if additional funds
become available. This means all expenditures require an appropriation. An
appropriation is the formal recognition in the City's official accounting records that the
transfer spending authority between line items in the adopted budget. This does not
represent an actual transfer of funds, but rather, only transfers of spending authority
between specific areas. As a result, the total bottom line budget amount for 2023-24
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) 2024-25 that actually occurred during FY 2023-24. 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 2023-24 Operating Budget require City Council approval to
move spending authority from areas where excess authority is available to other areas
Page 107
where insufficient authority was originally provided due to normal changes during the
year.
Decreases in 2023-24 appropriation authority are requested in the following:
· Transportation 2050 Funds due to Public Transit and Street Transportation capital
expenditures originally planned for 2023-24 that are now projected for 2024-25.
Increases in 2023-24 appropriation authority are requested in the following:
· City Improvement Funds due to higher than anticipated interest rates for the
Transportation 2050 revolver loan.
· Development Services Funds due to costs for the ShapePHX project planned for
2024-25 that may occur in 2023-24 and due to the increased need for contractual
plan review services.
· Golf Course Funds as a result of continued elevated usage of City golf courses
increasing operations and maintenance costs.
· Human Services Grant Funds for grant awards received after the 2023-24 budget
was developed.
· Regional Wireless Cooperative Funds as a result of less credits received because
of an adjustment to operating and maintenance charges.
· Wastewater Funds due to debt service payments and increased costs for chemicals
needed to treat wastewater.
· The following fund to provide for minor year-end variances: Secondary Property
Tax.
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.
Page 108
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-49813
DETERMINING AND ADOPTING ESTIMATES AND
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES BY THE CITY OF PHOENIX
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 2023 AND
ENDING JUNE 30, 2024, BY REALLOCATING CERTAIN
EXPENDITURES AND APPROPRIATIONS.
______________
WHEREAS, during the fiscal year 2023-2024, the resources in certain
funds will be more than originally anticipated in the 2023-2024 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-49813 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-
Page 109
previously appropriated from said funds as follows:
(a) Reallocating and increasing the appropriation for City Improvement
Funds from $78,971,564 to $81,471,564;
(b) Reallocating and increasing the appropriation for Development
Services Funds from $124,610,402 to $127,060,402;
(c) Reallocating and increasing the appropriation for Golf Course
Funds from $10,727,741 to $12,227,741;
(d) Reallocating and increasing the appropriation for Human Services
Federal Trust Funds from $69,670,897 to $87,710,897;
(e) Reallocating and increasing the appropriation for Regional Wireless
Cooperative Funds from $6,881,164 to $7,691,164;
(f) Reallocating and increasing the appropriation for Secondary
Property Tax Funds from $134,891,525 to $134,896,525;
(g) Reallocating and decreasing the appropriation for Transportation
2050 Funds from $709,030,673 to $677,565,673;
(h) Reallocating and increasing the appropriation for Wastewater
Funds from $381,890,796 to $388,050,796;
(i) Leaving the total appropriation adopted for 2023-2024 unchanged
at $6,750,037,027.
-2- Ordinance S-
Page 110
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 12th day of June 2024.
_________________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
, Acting City Attorney
REVIEWED BY:
, City Manager
-3- Ordinance S-
Page 111
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Presiding Judge
Request City Council approval of reappointment of Judge B. Don Taylor III as Phoenix
Municipal Court Chief Presiding Judge for an annual term and for a four-year term as
Judge of the Phoenix Municipal Court. Further request City Council to set the annual
salary for the Chief Presiding Judge at $235,539.20 annually, which represents a five
percent increase commensurate with regular City of Phoenix employee annual
increases.
Summary
On April 12, 2024, the Judicial Selection Advisory Board recommended reappointment
of Chief Presiding Judge B. Don Taylor III for another annual term as Chief Presiding
Judge that would end on June 30, 2025, and for another four-year term as Judge of
the Phoenix Municipal Court that will end Feb. 9, 2029.
On May 1, 2024, the Public Safety and Justice Subcommittee also recommended
reappointment of Chief Presiding Judge B. Don Taylor III for another annual term as
Chief Presiding Judge that would end on June 30, 2025, and for another four-year
term as Judge of the Phoenix Municipal Court that will end Feb. 9, 2029.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously approved:
· On May 31, 2023, reappointment of Judge B. Don Taylor III as Chief Presiding
Judge as Chief Presiding Judge for an annual term expiring June 30, 2024; and
· On June 3, 2020, reappointment of Judge B. Don Taylor III as Judge of the Phoenix
Municipal Court for a four-year term expiring Feb. 9, 2025.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the City Council
Office.
Page 112
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
the Remainder of the Council District 7 Vacancy Term to be Held on Nov. 5,
2024, Conducted by Maricopa County (Ordinance S-51048)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with Maricopa County to conduct the City of Phoenix Mayor and Council Election
and Special Election to fill the remainder of the Council District 7 vacancy term, to
be held on Nov. 5, 2024, in conjunction with the State General Election according to
State law, and authorizing payment to Maricopa County not to exceed $400,000.
Further authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.
Summary
In August 2018, voters passed Proposition 411, which moved regularly scheduled
even-numbered years to be part of the State General Election. Maricopa County will
conduct the election according to State law applicable to the General Election.
The regularly scheduled Mayor and Council Election and the Special Election to fill
the remainder of the Council District 7 vacancy term will be held on Nov. 5, 2024. In
this election, qualified registered voters who reside in the City of Phoenix will elect a
Mayor and qualified voters residing in Council Districts 1, 3, 5 and 7 will elect
Council Members. Qualified voters in Council District 7 will also elect a Council
Member to serve out the remainder of the vacancy term ending April 21, 2025.
Additionally, qualified registered voters who reside in the City of Phoenix will also
consider for their approval or rejection three ballot measures related to the locally
controlled expenditure limitation, the City's general plan, and salary increase for
Mayor and City Council Members as recommended by the Citizen's Commission on
Salaries for Elected City Officials.
This request seeks City Council authorization to permit the City Manager, or his
designee, to enter into an agreement with Maricopa County Elections Department
to conduct the Mayor and Council and Special Election to fill the remainder of the
Council District 7 vacancy term, by placing the candidate races for Mayor and
Council Districts 1, 3, 5 and 7; the candidate race for District 7 to fill the remainder
Page 113
of the District 7 vacancy term; and the three City ballot measures on the County
ballot for the General Election; to conduct early voting and voting on Election Day;
to process and tabulate the ballots; and to provide unofficial results of all ballots
tabulated. This item authorizes the County Board of Supervisors to designate voting
locations and appoint election board workers for the conduct of the election, as
needed.
Voters on the Active Early Voting List (AEVL) will receive notification of the election
and will automatically be sent a ballot by mail unless the voter requests that a ballot
not be mailed. The City will design, print and mail a Publicity Pamphlet, to be paid
for by the City. Households with one or more registered voters will receive the
Publicity Pamphlet, which contains general information about the election, including
key dates related to when early ballots are due and where to find information about
voting locations. The pamphlet will include the official title and text of the City ballot
measures and any arguments filed supporting or opposing the ballot measures.
Several publications and news releases will be provided throughout the election
process and shared on a variety of platforms, including print and social media. The
estimated total cost of the election including payment to the County and City
expenses, is approximately $600,000.
All election information will be provided in English and Spanish and will be available
at www.phoenix.gov/elections.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 114
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL, ADOPTED
ORDINANCE.
ATTACHMENT A
ORDINANCE S-XXXXX
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE CONDUCT OF A
REGULARLY SCHEDULED MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
ELECTION OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, THE SPECIAL
ELECTION IN COUNCIL DISTRICT 7, AND THE REFERRAL
OF THREE PROPOSITIONS TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER
5, 2024; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER
INTO AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH
MARICOPA COUNTY TO CONDUCT THE REGULARLY
SCHEDULED ELECTION AND SPECIAL ELECTION IN
COUNCIL DISTRICT 7 TO BE HELD CONCURRENTLY
WITH THE STATE GENERAL ELECTION IN ACCORDANCE
WITH STATE LAW; PROVIDING THAT THE ELECTION
SHALL BE CONDUCTED USING COUNTY DESIGNATED
VOTING LOCATIONS; DESIGNATING THAT THE VOTING
LOCATIONS AND POLL WORKERS SHALL BE THOSE
APPOINTED BY MARICOPA COUNTY FOR THE STATE
GENERAL ELECTION; SETTING FORTH CERTAIN
PROCEDURES FOR THE CONDUCT OF THE ELECTION;
AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY CONTROLLER TO
DISBURSE ALL NECESSARY FUNDS.
______________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council calls the regularly scheduled election for
Mayor and City Council to be held on November 5, 2024, for the purpose of allowing the
qualified electors of the City of Phoenix to elect a Mayor and the qualified electors from
Council Districts 1, 3, 5, and 7 to elect a Council Member. Qualified electors of Council
District 7 will also elect a council member for that district to serve the remainder of the
3 Ordinance S-XXXXX
Page 115
vacancy term ending on April 21, 2025 as required by the City Charter in a special
election previously called by the City Council by Ordinance S-50781. Additionally, the
qualified electors of the City of Phoenix will also consider for their approval or rejection
three ballot measures related to the locally controlled expenditure limitation, the City’s
general plan, and salary increase for the Mayor and City Councilmembers as
recommended by the Citizen’s Commission on Salaries for Elected City Officials
(collectively, the “City Elections").
SECTION 2. On November 5, 2024, Maricopa County (the “County”) will
conduct the State General Election. The City Manager, or his designee, is authorized to
enter into an intergovernmental agreement with the County to conduct the City Elections
as part of the State General Election.
SECTION 3. The City Elections shall be conducted according to
applicable state law and shall conform whenever possible to the provisions of the city
code. The duties of City Clerk in connection with the conduct of the City Elections shall
be performed by County election officials unless stated otherwise in the
intergovernmental agreement.
SECTION 4. The Election shall be conducted using voting locations
designated by the County. The voting locations for precincts in the City of Phoenix shall
be the voting locations established by the County Board of Supervisors for the State
General Election. The voting locations shall be open from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m. on Election
Day.
SECTION 5. The election boards for the Election shall be those appointed
by the County Board of Supervisors for the State General Election.
4 Ordinance S-XXXXX
Page 116
SECTION 6. Phoenix City Hall may serve as a voting location for the
State General Election, as established by the County for voting, and Phoenix City Hall
shall also serve as a drop-off location for early ballots for the State General Election.
SECTION 7. The City Clerk shall prepare and distribute a publicity
pamphlet for the City Elections as provided by the city code for city elections. The
publicity pamphlet shall provide a list of candidates for all city elected offices and ballot
language for city propositions, and information related to how to locate early voting and
voting locations.
SECTION 8. The Spanish translation for the publicity pamphlet for city
propositions shall be prepared and provided by the City to maintain consistency in
translation and terminology for city elections to the extent possible.
SECTION 9. The County shall process and tabulate the votes for the City
Elections, and shall provide the unofficial results of the tally for each to the City Clerk as
provided by state law.
SECTION 10. The City Council shall canvass the votes of said Election
and declare the results of the Election at the next available meeting of the City Council
following receipt of the final unofficial results from the County.
SECTION 11. To the extent this Ordinance or any part thereof conflicts
with any other ordinance, this Ordinance will govern.
SECTION 12. The costs of the Election conducted by the County that are
attributable to the City of Phoenix shall not exceed four hundred thousand dollars
($400,000).
4 Ordinance S-XXXXX
Page 117
SECTION 13. The City Controller is authorized to disburse all related
funds in furtherance of the purposes of this Ordinance.
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 12th day of June 2024.
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
__________________________ City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________ City Attorney
REVIEWED BY:
__________________________ City Manager
4 Ordinance S-XXXXX
Page 118
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
the District 7 Vacancy Term (Ordinance S-51047)
This report requests City Council approval of an ordinance establishing the form of the
ballot (Attachment A) for among other things the regular City of Phoenix Mayor and
Council Election and the Special Election to fill the remainder of the District 7 vacancy
term, both to be held on Tuesday, Nov. 5, 2024.
Summary
This ordinance establishes the language that will be printed on the ballot. In this
election, registered voters who reside in the City of Phoenix will elect a Mayor and
decide three ballot measures related to the locally controlled alternative expenditure
limitation; the general plan; and the recommendation of the Citizens’ Commission on
Salaries for Elected City Officials. Additionally, voters residing in City Council Districts
1, 3, 5, and 7 will elect Council Members, and voters in Council District 7 will also elect
a Council Member to serve out the remainder of the vacancy term ending April 21,
2025.
The form of the ballot for this election is consistent with the requirement for the State
General Election ballot, as Maricopa County will be conducting the election.
Public Outreach
Voters on the Active Early Voting List (AEVL) will receive notification of the election
and will automatically be sent a ballot by mail unless the voter requests that a ballot
not be mailed. Households with one or more registered voters will receive a Publicity
Pamphlet, which contains general information about the election, including key dates
related to when early ballots are due and when voting locations will be open. Several
publications and news releases will be provided throughout the election process and
shared on a variety of platforms, including print and social media. All election
information will be provided in English and Spanish and will be available at
www.phoenix.gov/elections.
Page 119
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 120
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL, ADOPTED ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE S-XXXXX
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE FORM OF THE BALLOT FOR THE CITY OF
PHOENIX MAYOR AND COUNCIL ELECTION, THE SPECIAL ELECTION FOR COUNCIL
DISTRICT 7 TO FILL THE REMAINDER OF THE VACANCY TERM, THE ELECTION TO
CONTINUE THE EXISTING LOCALLY CONTROLLED ALTERNATIVE EXPENDITURE
LIMITATION, RATIFY THE CITY OF PHOENIX GENERAL PLAN AND ACCEPT THE
RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITIZENS’ COMMISSION ON SALARIES FOR ELECTED
CITY OFFICIALS, TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2024.
_______________________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as follows:
SECTION 1. That the form of the ballot for the City of Phoenix Mayor and Council
Election and Special Election for District 7, both being held on November 5, 2024, shall be
established to read substantially as follows, consistent with the form of the ballot
requirements for the Maricopa County General Election:
(FOR ALL BALLOTS)
(Precinct Name)
OFFICIAL BALLOT
NOVEMBER 5, 2024
(FOR ALL BALLOTS)
NONPARTISAN BALLOT
CITY OF PHOENIX
MAYOR
(Vote For Not More Than 1)
(Candidates for Mayor as certified and filed by the City
Clerk pursuant to Chapter XII, Section 3 of the City
Charter shall be listed here.)
(FOR BALLOTS IN COUNCIL DISTRICTS 1, 3, 5 & 7)
NONPARTISAN BALLOT
CITY OF PHOENIX
COUNCIL MEMBER
(Vote For Not More Than 1)
(Candidates for Council as certified and filed by the City
Clerk pursuant to Chapter XII, Section 3 of the City
Charter shall be listed here.)
Page 121
(FOR BALLOTS IN COUNCIL DISTRICT 7)
NONPARTISAN BALLOT
CITY OF PHOENIX
COUNCIL MEMBER TO FILL REMAINDER OF VACANCY TERM ENDING APRIL 21,
(Vote For Not More Than 1)
(Candidates for Council District 7 as certified and filed
by the City Clerk pursuant to Chapter XII, Section 3 of
the City Charter shall be listed her
(FOR BALLOTS IN DISTRICTS 2, 4, 6 & 8)
AS A RESULT OF THE STAGGERED FOUR-YEAR TERMS FOR THE MAYOR AND
COUNCIL THERE IS NO REGULAR ELECTION FOR COUNCIL MEMBERS IN THESE
DISTRICTS THIS YEAR.
(FOR ALL BALLOTS)
PROPOSITIONS SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS
PROPOSITION NUMBER 487
LOCALLY CONTROLLED ALTERNATIVE EXPENDITURE LIMITATION
OFFICIAL TITLE: Resolution No. 22209
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX PROPOSING
THE CONTINUANCE OF A LOCALLY CONTROLLED ALTERNATIVE
EXPENDITURE LIMITATION. THIS ALTERNATIVE EXPENDITURE LIMITATION
WOULD SET THE LIMIT EQUAL TO THE BUDGET ADOPTED BY THE CITY
COUNCIL.
Descriptive Title
Continue the existing locally controlled alternative expenditure limitation allowed by Article IX,
Section 20 (9) of the Arizona Constitution. If approved, it would keep the annual expenditure
limitation equal to the City Council adopted budget for the next four years. Constitutional and
previously authorized voter exclusions shall continue to apply.
Page 122
Effect
A “Yes” vote shall have the effect of continuing local control by allowing the Mayor and City
Council, by a majority vote, and after obtaining community input on the proposed spending
plan to establish a local expenditure limitation.
A “No” vote shall have the effect of the city operating under the state-imposed expenditure
limitation formula based on 1979-80 expenditures adjusted for inflation and population. This
will result in an estimated $2.1 billion reduction in the fiscal year 2025-26 budgeted
expenditures and reductions in or eliminations across all City services.
Question
Shall the Alternative Expenditure Limitation set forth in Phoenix City Council Resolution
No. 22209 be adopted as part of the local expenditure control program of the City of
Phoenix?
YES
NO
PROPOSITION NUMBER 488
GENERAL PLAN
OFFICIAL TITLE:
RATIFICATION OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX GENERAL PLAN
Descriptive Title
Proposed ratification of the City of Phoenix General Plan, pursuant to A.R.S. § 9-461.06(M),
as set forth in Resolution 22191 adopting the Phoenix General Plan, approved by the Council
of the City of Phoenix on April 17, 2024. The General Plan provides direction for development,
conservation and infrastructure investments in the City. It does not change any current land
use designations, zoning or raise any taxes.
Question
Shall the City of Phoenix General Plan as set forth in Resolution 22191 adopted by the
Phoenix City Council on April 17, 2024 be approved?
YES
NO
Page 123
PROPOSITION NUMBER 489
CITIZENS’ COMMISSION ON SALARIES FOR ELECTED CITY OFFICIALS
OFFICIAL TITLE:
A PROPOSAL BY THE CITIZENS’ COMMISSION ON SALARIES FOR ELECTED
CITY OFFICIALS TO ESTABLISH THE MAYOR’S SALARY AT $103,840 PER YEAR
AND TO ESTABLISH EACH COUNCIL MEMBER’S SALARY AT $77,000 PER
YEAR, LAST INCREASE APPROVED SEPTEMBER 2005, TO TAKE EFFECT ON
APRIL 21, 2025.
Question
Shall the recommendation of the Citizens’ Commission on Salaries for Elected City
Officials of $103,840 per annum for the Mayor, and $77,000 per annum for each Council
Member be accepted?
YES
NO
SECTION 2. If space limitation on the ballot requires the language of the locally controlled
alternative expenditure limitation proposition submitted to the qualified electors of the City of
Phoenix to be shortened, the proposition shall read substantially as follows:
(FOR ALL BALLOTS)
PROPOSITIONS SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS
PROPOSITION NUMBER 487
LOCALLY CONTROLLED ALTERNATIVE EXPENDITURE LIMITATION
Question
Shall the Alternative Expenditure Limitation set forth in Phoenix City Council Resolution No.
22209 be adopted as part of the local expenditure control program of the City of Phoenix?
A “Yes” vote shall have the effect of continuing local control by allowing the Mayor and City
Council, by majority vote, and after obtaining community input on the proposed spending plan
to establish a local expenditure limitation. Constitutional and previously authorized voter
Page 124
exclusions shall continue to apply.
A “No” vote shall have the effect of the city operating under the state-imposed expenditure
limitation formula based on 1979-80 expenditures adjusted for inflation and population.
This will result in an estimated $2.1 billion reduction in the fiscal year 2025-26 budgeted
expenditures and reductions in or eliminations across all City services.
YES
NO
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 12th day of June 2024.
__________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________
City Attorney
REVIEWED BY:
____________________________
City Manager
Page 125
To: Ginger Spencer Date: June 11, 2024
Deputy City Manager
From: Julie Kriegh!hn, J)
City AttorneW/1 /\A '
Subject: REQUEST TO REVISE ITEM 35, AMEND THE OFFICIAL TITLE FOR
PROPOSITON NUMBER 489 - CITIZENS' COMMISSION ON SALARIES
FOR ELECTED CITY OFFICIALS, ON JUNE12, 2024, FORMAL AGENDA
The City Attorney requests approval to revise Item 35, Amend language in the Official
Title for Proposition Number 489 from the June 12, 2024, Formal Agenda. The purpose
of this memo is a revision to the draft copy of Ordinance S-51047.
1. Update PROPOSITION NUMBER 489 CITIZENS' COMMISSION ON SALARIES
FOR ELECTED CITY OFFICIALS. OFFICIAL TITLE: A PROPOSAL BY THE
CITIZENS' COMMISSION ON SALARIES FOR ELECTED CITY OFFICIALS TO
ESTABLISH THE MAYOR'S SALARY AT $103,840 PER YEAR AND TO
ESTABLISH EACH COUNCIL MEMBER'S SALARY AT $77,000 PER YEAR TO
TAKE EFFECT ON APRIL 21, 2025, AND REPLACE THE SALARIES VOTERS
APPROVED IN SEPTEMBER 2005.
APPROVED:
Ginger
Deputy
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Camelback Road Park-and-Ride to Crown Castle (Ordinance S-50946)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to lease City-owned property
within the 19th Avenue and Camelback Road Park-and-Ride to Crown Castle for a two
-year term plus three additional, one-year options to extend. Further request to
authorize the City Treasurer to accept all funds related to this item.
Summary
Crown Castle, successor-in-interest to Sprint Spectrum, LP, currently leases
approximately 665 square feet of land within the 19th Avenue and Camelback Road
Park-and-Ride through July 31, 2024. The City will enter into a new lease with Crown
Castle (Lessee) to replace Lease Agreement 120554, entered into on Jan. 22, 2007.
The existing lease was assumed as part of a settlement in which the cell tower
equipment and related facilities were relocated and incorporated into the park-and-ride
improvements.
The proposed term of the lease will be two years beginning Aug. 1, 2024, through July
31, 2026, with three additional, one-year options to extend upon mutual agreement of
both parties. Base rent during the first year of the lease will be $3,000 per month, plus
applicable taxes, and will be adjusted three percent annually, which is within the range
of market rents as determined by the Real Estate Division. Lessee is responsible for all
costs associated with operation and maintenance of the leased site, including but not
limited to the fencing and enclosure, permits, utilities, and environmental compliance.
Lessee will have non-exclusive rights for reasonable access to the leased site, not to
interfere with the use and operation of the park-and-ride. Lessee shall provide
insurance and indemnification acceptable to the City’s Risk Management Division and
the Law Department.
The lease may be canceled pursuant to Arizona Revised Statute 38-511, or either
party may cancel the lease upon 90-days prior written notice. The lease may contain
other terms and conditions deemed necessary by the City.
Contract Term
The lease term will be two years with three additional, one-year options to extend.
Page 126
Financial Impact
Revenue during the first year of the lease is $36,000 per year, plus applicable taxes,
and will increase three percent annually.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
2007.
Location
Southeast corner of 19th Avenue and Camelback Road, within Maricopa County
Assessor parcel number 155-53-072.
Council District: 4
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Public Transit
and Finance departments.
Page 127
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Improvements for the Mobility Area 5 - 35th Avenue and Buckeye Road
Project (Ordinance S-50961)
Request the City Council amend Ordinance S-50447 for authorization to acquire
additional easements required for roadway improvements for the Mobility Area 5 -
35th Avenue and Buckeye Road Project.
Summary
Ordinance S-50447 authorized the acquisition of easements to facilitate
construction of roadway improvements to enhance the mobility, safety, and
connectivity of the neighborhood. Improvements include street lighting, Americans
with Disabilities Act compliant sidewalks and curbs. Acquisition of easements from
two parcels not identified during preliminary design is necessary to accommodate
project construction.
The additional parcels impacted by this project and included in this request are
Maricopa County Assessor parcel number (APN) 109-58-104 located at 3333 W.
Maricopa St., and APN 109-58-124 located at 3417 W. Maricopa St.
All other conditions and stipulations stated in Ordinance S-50447 remain the same.
Financial Impact
Funding is available in the Street Transportation Department's Capital Improvement
Program budget.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
Ordinance S-50447 was adopted at the Jan. 3, 2024 Formal meeting.
Location
33rd to 35th avenues and Hadley Street to Buckeye Road.
Council District: 7
Page 128
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Street
Transportation and Finance departments.
Page 129
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Multi-Use Trail, and Shared-Use Path Purposes within City-owned Property for
Laveen Heritage Park (Ordinance S-50962)
Request the City Council to dedicate to public use right-of-way for roadway purposes
and easements for sidewalk, multi-use trail, and shared-use path purposes within City-
owned property for the Laveen Heritage Park; further ordering the ordinance recorded.
Summary
The right-of-way and easement dedications are stipulations required by the Planning
and Development Department, Project 00-7281; DEDI 240022, for construction of the
Laveen Heritage Park.
Right-of-Way (a)
Purpose: Roadway
Location: 70th Avenue cul-de-sac, approximately 803 feet south of Meadows Loop
West
Easement (b)
Purpose: Sidewalk
Location: Along the east side of the 70th Avenue cul-de-sac, south of Meadows Loop
West
Easement (c)
Purpose: Multi-Use Trail
Location: Along the south side of Meadows Loop West, east of 70th Avenue
Easement (d)
Purpose: Shared-Use Path
Location: Along the south side of Meadows Loop West, east of 70th Avenue
Location
70th Avenue and Meadows Loop West, within Maricopa County Assessor parcel
numbers 300-01-321 and 300-01-005V.
Council District: 7
Page 130
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager John Chan and the Parks and
Recreation and Finance departments.
Page 131
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Canal Near the Northwest Corner of Central Avenue and Baseline Road
(Ordinance S-50968)
Request for the City Council to dedicate to public use a multi-use trail across City-
owned property along the Western Canal near the northwest corner of Central Avenue
and Baseline Road; further ordering the ordinance recorded.
Summary
Dedication of a multi-use trail is required for the Western Canal Project along Central
Avenue from 4th Avenue to 24th Street, which aims to re-integrate canals with
surrounding communities by providing a pathway for improved visibility, access, and
use of the canal system; and by incorporating public art, landscaping, and
neighborhood access points. The improvements will enhance commuter and
recreational routes for bicycle and pedestrian traffic along the canal bank for safe
crossing at street intersections, and for access to a park-and-ride site.
Location
Near the northwest corner of Central Avenue and Baseline Road, within Maricopa
County Assessor's parcel number 114-14-103 (formerly 114-14-006A, 114-14-014A,
and 114-14-014D).
Council District: 7
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Public Transit
and Finance departments.
Page 132
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
50972)
Request for the City Council to accept easements for drainage and access purposes;
further ordering the ordinance recorded.
Summary
Accepting the property interests below meets the Planning and Development
Department's Single Instrument Dedication Process requirement prior to releasing any
permits to applicants.
Easement (a)
Applicant: AZ Deer Valley Industrial, LP; its successor and assigns
Purpose: Drainage
Location: 400 E. Pinnacle Peak Road
File: 240035
Council District: 1
Easement (b)
Applicant: The Village at Bronco Trail, LLC; its successor and assigns
Purpose: Access
Location: 32000 N. 29th Ave.
File: 240021
Council District: 2
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development and Finance departments.
Page 133
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Roadway Purposes (Ordinance S-50974)
Request for the City Council to accept and dedicate easements and a deed for public
utility and roadway purposes; further ordering the ordinance recorded.
Summary
Accepting the property interests below meets the Planning and Development
Department's Single Instrument Dedication Process requirement prior to releasing any
permits to applicants.
Easement (a)
Applicant: H & H Developers, LLC; its successor and assigns
Purpose: Public Utility
Location: 18809 N. 30th St.
File: 240012
Council District: 2
Easement (b)
Applicant: Elite Acquisition, LLC; its successor and assigns
Purpose: Public Utility
Location: 839 E. Apollo Road (850 E. Vineyard Road)
File: 240034
Council District: 8
Deed (c)
Applicant: Elite Acquisition, LLC; its successor and assigns
Purpose: Roadway
Location: 839 E. Apollo Road (850 E. Vineyard Road)
File: 240034
Council District: 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development and Finance departments.
Page 134
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
near 91st Avenue and Durango Street (Ordinance S-50960)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to grant an irrigation
easement to Salt River Project (SRP) within the South 91st Avenue right-of-way, south
of Durango Street, for consideration in the amount of the appraised value and other
consideration. Further request authorization for the City Treasurer to accept all funds
related to this item.
Summary
The development of Park 91 requires SRP irrigation facilities to be relocated from an
open distribution ditch to an underground pipeline, partially within the City's right-of-
way and partially within private property owned by Martens Park 91 Land, LLC
(Developer). The approximate 871 square foot easement within the 91st Avenue right-
of-way will connect SRP's irrigation pipe to the relocated facilities. The Developer is
paying for all costs related to the easement.
Financial Impact
Revenue will be reflective of the market value of the easement.
Location
Within the South 91st Avenue right-of-way, south of West Durango Street.
Council District: 7
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Street
Transportation and Finance departments.
Page 135
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
COOP-24-0200 - Request for Award (Ordinance S-50952)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into contract with
Cintas Corporation, to provide fire extinguisher inspection, testing and maintenance
services throughout the City. Further request authorization for the City Controller to
disburse all funds related to this item. The total value of the contract will not exceed
$3,000,000.
Summary
The contract is necessary for ongoing inspection, testing and maintenance of the fire
extinguishers located throughout City buildings and many City vehicles. Maintaining
operable fire extinguishers is crucial for emergency preparedness. The National Fire
Protections Association (NFPA) requires monthly inspections and annual maintenance
of fire extinguishers. All services provided shall be in accordance with applicable state
and local fire codes, as well as the NFPA. These regularly scheduled inspection,
testing and maintenance services enhance safety for employees and visitors within
City buildings.
The contract is available Citywide with heavy usage by Aviation and Public Works
departments.
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 contract was awarded through a
competitive process consistent with the City's procurement processes, as set forth in
the Phoenix City Code, Chapter 43. The use of this cooperative contract will provide
the City the competitive national discounts for these services.
Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about July 1, 2024, and expire on June 1, 2028, with five
one-year options to extend.
Page 136
Financial Impact
The aggregate contracts value will not exceed $3,000,000. Funding is available in
various department budgets.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the Finance Department.
Page 137
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
(Ordinance S-50957)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into contracts with
Kary Environmental Services, Inc.; GrayMar Environmental Services, Inc.; and Clean
Harbors Environmental Services, Inc., to provide decontamination services for
departments Citywide. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all
funds related to this item. The total value of the contracts will not exceed $4,000,000.
Summary
These contracts will provide decontamination and disposal services for the City on an
as-needed basis. In addition to general decontamination services, the contracts will
include transportation and disposal of bio hazardous waste, disposal and autoclave of
medical waste collected at City facilities, and decontamination at crime scenes and
encampment clean ups. The contracts will be available for Citywide departments, with
heavy usage from the Human Services, Police, and Street Transportation
departments.
Procurement Information
A Request for Proposal procurement was processed in accordance with 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, including:
· Capacity (0-350 points)
· Method of Approach (0-250 points)
· Experience (0-200 points)
· Price (0-200 points)
After reaching consensus, the evaluation committee recommends award to the
following vendors:
· Kary Environmental Services, Inc., 912.39 points
· GrayMar Environmental Services, Inc., 886.85 points
Page 138
· Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc., 816.55 points
Contract Term
The contracts will begin on or about June 1, 2024, for a five-year term, with no options
to extend.
Financial Impact
The aggregate contracts value will not exceed $4,000,000. Funding is available in
various department budgets.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the Finance Department.
Page 139
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
(Ordinance S-50959)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a cooperative
agreement with Sierra Auction Management, Inc., to provide Auctioneering Services
for departments Citywide. Further request to authorize the City Treasurer to accept,
and the City Controller to disburse, all funds related to this item. This contract is
estimated to generate $8,500,000 in revenue over the term of the contract.
Summary
This contract will provide auctioneering services to all City departments. Auction
services are required to meet the controls required by Administrative Regulation (A.R.)
5.13, to protect the City's investments in fixed, sensitive and low value property. City
departments will transfer property to the contractor for auction and the contractor will
collect auction proceeds, and in turn remit proceeds to the City.
Procurement Information
In accordance with A.R. 3.10, standard competition was waived as a result of an
approved Determination Memo based upon the following reason: Special
Circumstances - Alternative Competition. The State of Arizona Auctioneering Services
contract was awarded using a competitive process consistent with the City's
procurement processes set forth in the Phoenix City Code, Chapter 43.
Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about June 12, 2024, and end June 24, 2027 with a one
year option to extend.
Financial Impact
The contract is estimated to generate an aggregate revenue of $8,500,000 for the City
over the contract term.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the Finance Department.
Page 140
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Award (Ordinance S-50979)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into contracts with
GLOBO Holdings I, LLC, dba GLOBO Language Solutions, LLC; Homeland Language
Services; Lango SW, LLC; Translation & Interpretation Network, LLC; and
TransPerfect Holdings, LLC, dba TransPerfect Remote Interpreting, to provide foreign
language translation services for Citywide departments. Further request to authorize
the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The total value of the
contracts will not exceed $3,181,000.
Summary
This contract will provide written documentation translation services, and on-site, over-
the-phone, and video remote interpretation services, on an as-needed basis. Qualified
foreign language translators and/or interpreters provide services for non-English
speaking and Limited English Proficient (LEP) community members involved in City
business matters. The objective is to decrease language and other communication
barriers by ensuring accessibility for any City department, office, board, and
community members who converse in languages other than English. The contracts will
be available to all City departments.
Procurement Information
A Request for Qualifications procurement was processed in accordance with
Administrative Regulation 3.10 to establish a Qualified Vendor List (QVL).
Eighteen offerors submitted qualifications and five were deemed to be responsive and
responsible. The procurement officer evaluated those offers as a pass or fail based on
the following minimum qualifications:
· Experience
· Qualifications
· Capacity
The procurement officer recommends award to the following Offerors:
· GLOBO Holdings I, LLC, dba GLOBO Language Solutions, LLC
Page 141
· Homeland Language Services
· Lango SW, LLC
· Translation & Interpretation Network, LLC
· TransPerfect Holdings, LLC, dba TransPerfect Remote Interpreting
Contract Term
The contracts will begin on or about June 17, 2024, for a five-year term with no options
to extend.
Financial Impact
The aggregate contracts value will not exceed $3,181,000. Funding is available in
various Citywide department budgets.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the Finance Department.
Page 142
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
(Ordinance S-50986)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into contracts with
Berry Dunn McNeil & Parker, LLC; Clifton Larson Allen, LLP; Heinfield Meech & Co.;
Macias Gini & O'Connell, LLP; MGT of America Consulting, LLC; Public Sector
Performance Associates, LLC; UHY Advisors Mid-Atlantic, Inc.; and Weaver and
Tidwel, LLP, to provide auditing consulting services for the City Auditor and Finance
departments. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item. The total value of the contracts will not exceed $1,571,650.
Summary
This contract will provide City Auditor 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,
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. In addition, this contract will provide the Finance Department
the ability to provide financial accounting and reporting division external expertise for
auditing financial statements for the Healthcare Benefit Trust, Long-Term Disability and
Risk Management Trust as required by the respective boards in accordance with the
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States.
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 through a process that aligns with the City's
procurement requirements. 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.
Page 143
Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about June 12, 2024 and continue through August 31,
2026 with an option to extend three additional years.
Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $1,571,650 for the five-year aggregate
term. Funding is available in the City Auditor and Finance department budgets.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the City Auditor and
Finance departments.
Page 144
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
51002)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into contracts with
Red Wing Brands of America, Inc.; Industrial Safety Shoe Company, Inc., dba
Industrial Shoeworks; Boot Barn of Arizona, Inc.; and Paul's Scottsdale Hardware, Inc.,
dba Paul's ACE Hardware, to provide Protective Footwear for Citywide departments.
Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this
item. The total value of the contracts will not exceed $2,100,000.
Summary
This contract will provide Protective Footwear to meet Occupational Safety and Health
Act Section 5(a)(1) General Duty Clause which requires employers to provide
employees with a work environment free from recognized hazards that are causing or
are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to its employees. The requested
footwear is essential to employee safety throughout the City.
Procurement Information
A Request for Qualifications procurement was processed in accordance with
Administrative Regulation 3.10 to establish a Qualified Vendor List (QVL).
Five offerors submitted qualifications and four were deemed to be responsive and
responsible. The procurement officer evaluated those offers as a pass or fail based on
the following minimum qualifications:
· Experience
· Qualifications
· Capacity
The procurement officer recommends award to the following offerors:
· Red Wing Brands of America, Inc.
· Industrial Safety Shoe Company, Inc., dba Industrial Shoeworks
· Boot Barn of Arizona, Inc.
· Paul's Scottsdale Hardware, Inc., dba Paul's ACE Hardware
Page 145
Contract Term
The contracts will begin on or about June 12, 2024 for a five-year term with no options
to extend.
Financial Impact
The aggregate contracts value will not exceed $2,100,000. Funding is available in the
various Citywide department budgets.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the Finance Department.
Page 146
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
0418 - Amendment (Ordinance S-51003)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute amendments to
Contracts 150970 with Jim Brown & Sons Roofing Company, Inc.; and 150971 with
Centimark Corporation, dba Centimark, to extend the contract terms. 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-46033.
Summary
These contracts provide the City with roof and roofing systems installations, products,
and services. This month-to-month extension supports the public interest because
these contracts make it possible to acquire roofing services such as installation, repair,
restoration, products, and various other services for a wide variety of roof types to
meet the City's ongoing needs for roof system replacement and repairs on an "as
required, when required" basis.
Contract Term
Upon approval, these contracts will be extended through March 30, 2025.
Financial Impact
The aggregate value of the contracts will not exceed $6,500,000 and no additional
funds are needed.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request:
· Roof and Roofing Systems - Installation, Products, and Services Contracts 150970
and 150971 (Ordinance S-46033) on Sept. 18, 2019.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the Finance Department.
Page 147
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
PRO-0418 - Amendment (Ordinance S-51008)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute amendment to
Contract 150228 with Progressive Services, Inc., dba Progressive Roofing, to extend
the contract term. 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-45693.
Summary
This contract provides the City with roof and roofing systems installations, products,
and services. This month-to-month extension supports the public interest because this
contract makes it possible to acquire roofing services such as installation, repair,
restoration, products, and various other services for a wide variety of roof types to
meet the City's ongoing needs for roof system replacement and repairs on an "as
required, when required" basis.
Contract Term
Upon approval, this contract will be extended through Jan. 1, 2025.
Financial Impact
The aggregate value of the contract will not exceed $5,918,000 and no additional
funds are needed.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request:
· Roof and Roofing Systems - Installation, Products, and Services Contract 150228
(Ordinance S-45693) on June 5, 2019;
· Roof and Roofing Systems - Installation, Products, and Services Contract 150228
(Ordinance S-49671) on May 3, 2023.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the Finance Department.
Page 148
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
(Ordinance S-50953)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to allow additional
expenditures under Contract 155775 with Western Roof Evaluation Corporation;
Contract 155776 with Weatherproofing Technologies, Inc.; and Contract 155795 with
Bluefin LLC for the purchase of Roofing Analysis and Consultative Services for various
departments. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item. The additional expenditures will not exceed $900,000.
Summary
The contracts will provide roofing consulting services to inspect and assess current
roofing structures of City-owned buildings to ensure roofs are properly maintained and
repaired in accordance with building codes for the safety of occupants, employees,
and the public. In addition, roofing assessments are necessary for building
maintenance to ensure that buildings meet the City’s building codes and are available
to the public.
The Contractors will continue to perform consultative roofing services for City-owned
buildings that include comprehensive assessments of a building’s roof structure to
produce a Building Assessment Survey and Evaluation (BASE) Study and
Specification Document. The BASE Study and Specification Document outlines the
work that needs to be completed by City-contracted roofing suppliers. In addition, the
Contractors will continue to conduct periodic on-site quality assurance inspections to
ensure the roofing contractor’s work is in accordance with the BASE Study and
Specification Document.
Contract Term
The contracts terms remain unchanged.
Financial Impact
Upon approval of $900,000 in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contract will not exceed $1,260,000. Funds are available in the Public Works
Department’s budget.
Page 149
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request:
• Roofing Analysis Consultant Contracts 155775, 155776, and 155795 (Ordinance S-
48176) on Dec. 15, 2021.
• Roofing Analysis Consultant Contract 155776 amendment (Ordinance S-48629) on
May 25, 2022.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Public Works
Department.
Page 150
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
(Ordinance S-51007)
Request to adopt a Pension Funding Policy applicable to City of Phoenix Employee
Retirement System (COPERS) and Public Safety Personnel Retirement System
(PSPRS). A Pension Funding Policy to clearly communicate the City's funding
objectives is a requirement adopted by the State Legislature in 2018 as 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 PSPRS, for the sixth 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 both
COPERS and PSPRS can be found in Attachments B and C. A final City Pension
Funding Policy must be adopted and posted on the City's website by July 1 each year.
Over the last several years the Phoenix City Council and voters have taken
responsible actions to ensure the pension systems are financially stable while
maintaining services to the public. Fluctuations in unfunded pension liabilities
(Attachment D) and annual costs (Attachment E) have placed significant budgetary
constraints on the City’s ability to provide employee wage and non-pension benefit
increases, public services and infrastructure maintenance. While currently
manageable, this pressure will continue into the foreseeable future. Further, credit
rating agencies and lenders place strong consideration on the funding plan and
funding levels of the City’s pension 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,
Page 151
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. 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.
4. 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 COPERS pension reform that the City Council and
voters have implemented since 2013 and the statewide PSPRS pension reform
passed by the voters in 2016.
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 69.29 percent for fiscal year ending 2023, up from 68.65 percent in fiscal
year ending 2022 (Attachment F).
The funded ratio for PSPRS was 42.77 and 46.41 percent for Police and Fire,
respectively, for fiscal year ending 2023 and was 42.44 and 45.20 percent for Police
and Fire, respectively, for fiscal year ending 2022 (Attachment F). 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
Page 152
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, $31.4
million has been collected and remitted to PSPRS, above the Actuarially Determined
Contribution (ADC). The City is anticipating approximately $14 million in collections by
Fiscal Year-End 2023-24.
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 (Attachments G and H)
and must approve Pension Funding Policies (Attachments B and C) by July 1, 2024.
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 2024-25. 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 systems are not currently fully funded, the strategy to pay the ADC
and pay down the liability over a set period (17 years remaining for PSPRS and 14
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, PSPRS will be 100
percent funded by June 30, 2042 (Attachment I) and COPERS will be 100 percent
funded by June 30, 2039 (Attachment I). Under the leadership of the City Council, the
City can continue to take steps to ensure current funding expectations are achieved on
this schedule, or even reach 100 percent funded within a shorter time frame.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the Finance Department.
Page 153
01231034ÿ26728ÿ9 Attachment A 62ÿÿÿÿÿ
'()(*'+,-+ÿ/012341ÿ5617318ÿ94:3;302<ÿ0=9:4>0?2
@+ÿAB;Cÿ84D0?1318ÿE47>ÿ45ÿB1ÿ0=9:4>0?ÿ2CB::ÿB116B::>F
-+ÿ@749GÿBÿ9012341ÿ5617318ÿ94:3;>ÿ54?ÿGC0ÿ2>2G0=ÿ54?ÿ0=9:4>002ÿHC4ÿH0?0ÿC3?07ÿE054?0ÿI6:>ÿ-JÿK,-L+ÿÿMC0
9012341ÿ5617318ÿ94:3;>ÿ2CB::ÿ31;:670ÿ5617318ÿ4EN0;G3D02ÿGCBGÿB77?022ÿBGÿ:0B2GÿGC0ÿ54::4H318F
OBPÿQ4HÿG4ÿ=B31GB31ÿ2GBE3:3G>ÿ45ÿGC0ÿ84D0?1318ÿE47>R2ÿ;41G?3E6G3412ÿG4ÿGC0ÿ2>2G0=+
OEPÿQ4HÿB17ÿHC01ÿGC0ÿ84D0?1318ÿE47>R2ÿ5617318ÿ?0S63?0=01G2ÿ45ÿGC0ÿ2>2G0=ÿH3::ÿE0ÿ=0G+
O;PÿT0531318ÿGC0ÿ84D0?1318ÿE47>R2ÿ561707ÿ?BG34ÿGB?80Gÿ6170?ÿGC0ÿ2>2G0=ÿB17ÿGC0ÿG3=0:310ÿ54?ÿ?0B;C318ÿGC0ÿGB?80G07
561707ÿ?BG34+
K+ÿU4?=B::>ÿB;;09GÿGC0ÿ0=9:4>0?R2ÿ2CB?0ÿ45ÿGC0ÿB220G2ÿB17ÿ:3BE3:3G302ÿ6170?ÿGC0ÿ2>2G0=ÿEB207ÿ41ÿGC0ÿ2>2G0=R2
B;G6B?3B:ÿDB:6BG341ÿ?094?G+
V+ÿMC0ÿ84D0?1318ÿE47>ÿ2CB::ÿ942GÿGC0ÿ9012341ÿ5617318ÿ94:3;>ÿ41ÿGC0ÿ84D0?1318ÿE47>R2ÿ96E:3;ÿH0E23G0ÿB17
G?B12=3GÿGC0ÿ9012341ÿ5617318ÿ94:3;>ÿG4ÿGC0ÿE4B?7+
!""711###$%&1$1 166 62!" Page 154 212
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, 2023, actuarial valuation report, which are detailed below.
Unfunded Funded
Trust Fund Assets Liabilities Liability Ratio
Phoenix $3,384,094,555 $4,884,161,894 $1,500,067,339 69.29%
For comparative purposes, the City of Phoenix total Unfunded Liability for the prior fiscal year
ending June 30, 2022, was $1.48 billion and the funded ratio was 68.65%.
Page 155
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 $1.5 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 24 is $218.4 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
Page 156
Attachment C
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.
Page 157
Council formally accepts the assets and liabilities of the City’s PSPRS trust funds from the
June 30, 2023, actuarial valuation report, which are detailed below:
Unfunded Funded
Trust Fund Assets Liabilities Liability Ratio
Phoenix Police $1,846,143,902 $4,316,230,933 $2,470,087,031 42.77%
Phoenix Fire 1,071,788,274 2,309,507,106 1,237,718,832 46.41%
For comparative purposes, the City of Phoenix total Unfunded Liability for the prior fiscal year
ending June 30, 2022, was $3.49 billion and the funded ratio was 43.41%.
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 $3.7 billion which should be paid over time to avoid a huge burden to
current taxpayers by either significantly decreasing services or an increase in taxes. This
taxpayer burden must be balanced with being fiscally responsible and committed in providing
pensions to retirees.
The Council’s 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 24 is $405.4 million,
which is $80.8 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, $31.4 million has been collected and
remitted to PSPRS, above the ADC. The City is anticipating approximately
$14.0 million in collections by Fiscal Year-End 2023-24.
o Established the Pension Stabilization Reserve Fund to ensure annual payment
during downturns in the economy. As of fiscal year ended June 30, 2023, there
was $47.2 million in the reserve fund.
Page 158
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
Page 159
Attachment D:
Total Unfunded Pension Liability
$4,000,000
$3,500,000
$3,000,000
$2,500,000
Page 160
$2,000,000
thousands
$1,500,000
$1,000,000
$500,000
$0
2013‐14 2014‐15 2015‐16 2016‐17 2017‐18 2018‐19 2019‐20 2020‐21 2021‐22 2022‐23
COPERS PSPRS
Attachment E: Total Pension ADC
by Plan and Payment Source
COPERS & PSPRS
$500,000
$450,000
$400,000
$350,000
$300,000
Page 161
thousands
$250,000
$200,000
$150,000
$100,000
$50,000
$0
COPERS General Fund COPERS Other COPERS Paydowns PSPRS General Fund PSPRS Other
Attachment F:
Historical Total Funding Percentage of Pension Plans
90.0%
Funding Percentage
80.0%
* Largest U.S. Cities
Median 70.6%
70.0%
Page 162
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
2013‐14 2014‐15 2015‐16 2016‐17 2017‐18 2018‐19 2019‐20 2020‐21 2021‐22 2022‐23
COPERS PSPRS‐Police PSPRS‐Fire
*S&P Global Ratings – “Pension Funded Ratios Fall for Most U.S. Big Cities on Weakened Investment Returns,” October 19, 2023.
Attachment G
Retirement System
ACTUARIAL VALUATION REPORT AS OF
June 30, 2023
Page 163
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, 2022 to June 30, 2023.
Exhibit A.1
Executive Summary
June 30, 2023 June 30, 2022
1. Total Actuarially Determined Contribution
a. Dollar Amount $ 227,381,527 $ 215,036,318
b. As a % of Payroll 33.96% 35.24%
2. Funded Status
a. Actuarial Accrued Liability $ 4,884,161,894 $ 4,723,290,827
b. Actuarial Value of Assets (AVA) 3,517,450,807 3,361,409,190
c. Unfunded Liability (AVA-basis) 1,366,711,087 1,361,881,637
d. Funded Ratio (AVA-basis) 72.02% 71.17%
e. Market Value of Assets (MVA) $ 3,384,094,555 $ 3,242,686,938
f. Unfunded Liability (MVA-basis) 1,500,067,339 1,480,603,889
g. Funded Ratio (MVA-basis) 69.29% 68.65%
3. Summary of Census Data
a. Actives
i.(a) Tier 1 Count 3,769 4,110
i.(b) Tier 2 Count 521 541
i.(c) Tier 3 Count 4,117 3,287
i.(d) Total Active Count 8,407 7,938
ii. Total Annual Compensation $ 653,605,811 $ 595,761,181
iii. Average Projected Compensation 77,745 75,052
iv. Average Age 46.2 46.7
v. Average Service 11.0 11.8
b. Deferred Vested Member Counts 1,149 1,109
c. Retiree Counts 6,547 6,363
d. Beneficiary and Alternate Payee Counts 1,226 1,195
e. Disability Counts 213 222
f. Total Members Included in Valuation 17,542 16,827
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.
Page 164
ATTACHMENT H
ARIZONA PUBLIC SAFETY PERSONNEL
RETIREMENT SYSTEM
PHOENIX POLICE DEPT. (022)
ACTUARIAL VALUATION
AS OF JUNE 30, 2023
CONTRIBUTIONS APPLICABLE TO THE
PLAN/FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2025
Page 165
Arizona Public Safety Personnel Retirement System
Actuarial Valuation Report as of June 30, 2023 – Phoenix Police Dept. (022) 9
III. LIABILITY SUPPORT
Liabilities and Funded Ratios by Benefit - Tiers 1 & 2
June 30, 2023 June 30, 2022
Pension
Actuarial Present Value of Benefits (PVB)
Retirees and Beneficiaries $ 2,632,758,995 $ 2,479,004,213
DROP Members 527,177,478 529,097,058
Vested Members 9,657,529 10,051,229
Active Members 1,418,648,651 1,250,630,624
Total Actuarial Present Value of Benefits 4,588,242,653 4,268,783,124
See next page for
Actuarial Accrued Liability (AAL)
combined totals
All Inactive Members 3,169,594,002 3,018,152,500
for Tiers 1, 2, 3
Active Members 1,111,214,310 957,381,236
Total Actuarial Accrued Liability 4,280,808,312 3,975,533,736
Actuarial Value of Assets (AVA) 1,808,746,472 1,671,512,140
Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability 2,472,061,840 2,304,021,596
PVB Funded Ratio (AVA / PVB) 39.4% 39.2%
AAL Funded Ratio (AVA / AAL) 42.3% 42.0%
Health
Actuarial Present Value of Benefits (PVB)
Retirees and Beneficiaries $ 24,197,726 $ 25,287,707
DROP Members 7,195,172 7,405,775
Active Members 20,399,273 21,142,368
Total Present Value of Benefits 51,792,171 53,835,850
Actuarial Accrued Liability (AAL)
All Inactive Members 31,392,898 32,693,482
Active Members 15,993,375 16,244,444
Total Actuarial Accrued Liability 47,386,273 48,937,926
Actuarial Value of Assets (AVA) 73,859,652 72,606,016
Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (26,473,379) (23,668,090)
PVB Funded Ratio (AVA / PVB) 142.6% 134.9%
AAL Funded Ratio (AVA / AAL) 155.9% 148.4%
Health liabilities were increased by $13,083 under the lateral transfer methodology. Pension liabilities were
not impacted.
Page 166
Arizona Public Safety Personnel Retirement System
Actuarial Valuation Report as of June 30, 2023 – Phoenix Police Dept. (022) 10
Liabilities and Funded Ratios by Benefit - Tier 3
June 30, 2023 June 30, 2022
Pension
Actuarial Present Value of Benefits (PVB)
Retirees and Beneficiaries $ 2,014,057 $ 1,029,102
Vested Members 1,611,963 1,125,417
Active Members 149,128,607 113,986,050
Total Actuarial Present Value of Benefits 152,754,627 116,140,569
Actuarial Accrued Liability (AAL)
All Inactive Members 3,626,020 2,154,519
Active Members 31,796,601 20,441,170
Total Actuarial Accrued Liability 35,422,621 22,595,689
Actuarial Value of Assets (AVA) 37,397,430 25,356,675
Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (1,974,809) (2,760,986)
PVB Funded Ratio (AVA / PVB) 24.5% 21.8%
AAL Funded Ratio (AVA / AAL) 105.6% 112.2%
Health
Actuarial Present Value of Benefits (PVB)
Retirees and Beneficiaries 25,295 25,363
Active Members 1,704,206 1,357,463
Total Present Value of Benefits 1,729,501 1,382,826
Actuarial Accrued Liability (AAL)
All Inactive Members 25,295 25,363
Active Members 407,089 275,487
Total Actuarial Accrued Liability 432,384 300,850
Actuarial Value of Assets (AVA) 898,342 606,537
Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (465,958) (305,687)
PVB Funded Ratio (AVA / PVB) 51.9% 43.9%
AAL Funded Ratio (AVA / AAL) 207.8% 201.6%
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) $4,316,230,933
Total Actuarial Value of Assets (AVA) 1,846,143,902
Total Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability 2,470,087,031
AAL Funded Ratio (AVA / AAL) 42.77%
Page 167
ARIZONA PUBLIC SAFETY PERSONNEL
RETIREMENT SYSTEM
PHOENIX FIRE DEPT. (021)
ACTUARIAL VALUATION
AS OF JUNE 30, 2023
CONTRIBUTIONS APPLICABLE TO THE
PLAN/FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2025
Page 168
Arizona Public Safety Personnel Retirement System
Actuarial Valuation Report as of June 30, 2023 – Phoenix Fire Dept. (021) 9
III. LIABILITY SUPPORT
Liabilities and Funded Ratios by Benefit - Tiers 1 & 2
June 30, 2023 June 30, 2022
Pension
Actuarial Present Value of Benefits (PVB)
Retirees and Beneficiaries $ 1,217,054,920 $ 1,159,113,928
DROP Members 352,527,109 331,120,886
Vested Members 3,102,890 2,689,622
Active Members 1,008,214,153 955,949,937
Total Actuarial Present Value of Benefits 2,580,899,072 2,448,874,373
See next page for Actuarial Accrued Liability (AAL)
combined totals All Inactive Members 1,572,684,919 1,492,924,436
for Tiers 1, 2, 3 Active Members 720,958,808 670,461,541
Total Actuarial Accrued Liability 2,293,643,727 2,163,385,977
Actuarial Value of Assets (AVA) 1,054,706,255 971,671,898
Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability 1,238,937,472 1,191,714,079
PVB Funded Ratio (AVA / PVB) 40.9% 39.7%
AAL Funded Ratio (AVA / AAL) 46.0% 44.9%
Health
Actuarial Present Value of Benefits (PVB)
Retirees and Beneficiaries $ 11,670,371 $ 13,719,400
DROP Members 3,994,633 3,920,048
Active Members 12,712,615 12,860,741
Total Present Value of Benefits 28,377,619 30,500,189
Actuarial Accrued Liability (AAL)
All Inactive Members 15,665,004 17,639,448
Active Members 9,144,330 9,054,898
Total Actuarial Accrued Liability 24,809,334 26,694,346
Actuarial Value of Assets (AVA) 42,321,880 41,337,162
Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (17,512,546) (14,642,816)
PVB Funded Ratio (AVA / PVB) 149.1% 135.5%
AAL Funded Ratio (AVA / AAL) 170.6% 154.9%
Health liabilities were increased by $25,886 under the lateral transfer methodology. Pension liabilities were
not impacted.
Page 169
Arizona Public Safety Personnel Retirement System
Actuarial Valuation Report as of June 30, 2023 – Phoenix Fire Dept. (021) 10
Liabilities and Funded Ratios by Benefit - Tier 3
June 30, 2023 June 30, 2022
Pension
Actuarial Present Value of Benefits (PVB)
Retirees and Beneficiaries $ 166,708 $ 163,872
Vested Members 144,737 60,367
Active Members 103,999,846 78,265,428
Total Actuarial Present Value of Benefits 104,311,291 78,489,667
Actuarial Accrued Liability (AAL)
All Inactive Members 311,445 224,239
Active Members 15,551,934 9,771,673
Total Actuarial Accrued Liability 15,863,379 9,995,912
Actuarial Value of Assets (AVA) 17,082,019 10,743,385
Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (1,218,640) (747,473)
PVB Funded Ratio (AVA / PVB) 16.4% 13.7%
AAL Funded Ratio (AVA / AAL) 107.7% 107.5%
Health
Actuarial Present Value of Benefits (PVB)
Retirees and Beneficiaries 0 0
Active Members 1,377,390 1,080,762
Total Present Value of Benefits 1,377,390 1,080,762
Actuarial Accrued Liability (AAL)
All Inactive Members 0 0
Active Members 225,255 142,304
Total Actuarial Accrued Liability 225,255 142,304
Actuarial Value of Assets (AVA) 303,819 190,109
Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (78,564) (47,805)
PVB Funded Ratio (AVA / PVB) 22.1% 17.6%
AAL Funded Ratio (AVA / AAL) 134.9% 133.6%
The liabilities shown on this page are the liabilities for Phoenix Fire Dept. Tier 3 members.
All Fire Tiers, Combined Total
Total Actuarial Accrued Liability (AAL) $2,309,507,106
Total Actuarial Value of Assets (AVA) 1,071,788,274
Total Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability 1,237,718,832
AAL Funded Ratio (AVA / AAL) 46.41%
Page 170
Attachment I:
Total Unfunded Pension Liability
$4,000
$3,500
$3,000
$2,500
Page 171
$2,000
millions
$1,500
$1,000
$500
$0
COPERS PSPRS
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
(Ordinance S-51011)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to purchase various property
and casualty insurance policies on behalf of the City from July 2024 through June
2025. Further request authorization for the City Controller to disburse funds, not to
exceed $24,612,900.
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 $24,612,900 for Fiscal Year 2024-25, up from $20,961,068 in the
current year. The increase of $3,651,832 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 may be updated to reflect present-day value which will increase premiums
within the next 12 months; (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 cyber-attacks 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.
Page 172
Insurance Policy Overview
Blanket Property and Boiler and Machinery Insurance
Department: Citywide
Estimated Cost: $10,284,000
Excess Liability Insurance (Multiple Layers)
Department: Citywide
Estimated Cost: $10,296,600
Excess Workers' Compensation
Department: Citywide
Estimated Cost: $432,500
Network Security and Cyber
Department: Citywide
Estimated Cost: $1,761,800
Police Aircraft Liability and Hull Insurance
Department: Police
Estimated Cost: $564,100
Aviation Airport Liability Insurance
Department: Aviation
Estimated Cost: $740,600
Miscellaneous Property and Casualty Insurance
Department: Citywide
Estimated Cost: $533,300
Financial Impact
The amount will not exceed $24,612,900, comprised of funds from the Risk
Management Self-Insurance Fund, and are included in the Fiscal Year 2024-25
budget.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the Finance Department.
Page 173
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute amendment to
Contract 149554 with Lee Davis and Associates, Inc., to extend contract term. No
additional funds are needed; request to continue using Ordinance S-45468.
Summary
This contract will provide the Law Department with qualified paralegal services for
litigation cases. Paralegal support for in-house attorneys assists the City in lowering
outside counsel fees and reducing the City's overall litigation costs. Lee Davis and
Associates, Inc., provides services such as document management, medical record
analysis, legal research and other duties to support the City's litigation section.
Contract Term
Upon approval the contract will be extended through June 30, 2025 with an option to
extend through June 30, 2026.
Financial Impact
The aggregate value of the contract will not exceed $2,250,000 and no additional
funds are needed.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request:
· Paralegal Services Contract 149554 (Ordinance S-45468) on March 20, 2019.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the Law Department.
Page 174
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
RFP 24-0232 - Request for Award (Ordinance S-51033)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
American Water Resources, LLC, dba Oncourse Home Solutions, to provide a utility
service line maintenance and repair warranty program for the City Manager's Office.
Further request to authorize the City Treasurer to accept, and the City Controller to
disburse, all funds related to this item. The total aggregate sales for the contract is
estimated to produce $24,921,600 over a five-year term, resulting in approximately
$5,738,240 in revenue to the City.
Summary
This contract will establish a comprehensive utility maintenance and repair warranty
program available to property owners who receive City-provided utilities and opt into
the program, specifically for sewer and potable water services. The program extends
coverage from the resident's structure to critical points such as the sewer main or
water meter box, encompassing external sewer and water lines for which the property
owner holds responsibility. Additionally, the contractor will be responsible for fee
collection from the participating property owners, facilitating repair services through
qualified contractors as necessary, and implementing marketing strategies targeting
property owners who are customers of the City's utility services. This initiative aims to
provide homeowners with assurance regarding essential utility maintenance and
repairs while fostering a proactive approach to property management and community
welfare.
Under this contract the City will receive an annual licensing fee of $400,000 for the use
of City references and logos, in addition to a 15 percent revenue share based on the
participation rates of property owners in the warranty program. Property owners in the
program will pay $4.99 per month for water line coverage, with a limit of up to $10,000
per occurrence and no annual cap, and $7.99 per month for sewer line coverage with
a limit of up to $8,000 per occurrence and no annual cap.
Procurement Information
The Utility Line Maintenance and Repair Warranty Program Request for Proposals
(RFP) was issued on March 14, 2024, and was conducted in accordance with
Page 175
Administrative Regulation 3.10. The City received three proposals deemed to be
responsive and responsible to the RFP's requirements. An evaluation committee
evaluated the proposals based on the following criteria with a maximum possible point
total of 1,000:
· Experience and Qualifications (0-400 points)
· Method of Approach (0-300 points)
· Price (0-200 points)
· References (0-100 points)
Staff recommends the proposal offered by American Water Resources, LLC, dba
Oncourse Home Solutions, as the highest-scored responsive and responsible
proposal.
Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about July 1, 2024, for a five-year term, with no options to
extend.
Financial Impact
The contractor will pay an annual fee of $400,000 in addition to a 15 percent revenue
share, resulting in approximately $5,738,240 in revenue to the City over the life of the
contract.
Concurrent/Previous Council Action
The Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee recommended approval
of this item on May 15, 2024.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton, Deputy City Manager Ginger
Spencer and the City Manager's Office, Finance and Water Services departments.
Page 176
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
and Adopt a New Combined Ordinance for a Classification Plan and Pay Plan
with Pay Rates and Compensation (Ordinance S-51039)
Request City Council to repeal Ordinances S-49802 and S-5815, and all amendments
thereto, and to adopt a new combined Ordinance for a City Council-approved
Classification Plan and Pay Plan with gross pay rates and other compensation for a
two-year period covered by the 2024-26 Memoranda of Understanding, as defined
under the Meet and Confer Ordinance. The combined Ordinance also includes gross
rates of pay and other compensation for employees covered by the Meet and Discuss
Ordinance, and gross pay rates and other compensation for all unrepresented
employees. The combined Ordinance will become effective on July 8, 2024 (the first
day of the first full pay period of the new fiscal year).
Summary
Changes Effective July 8, 2024
The combined Ordinance for a Classification Plan and Pay Plan provides
specifications for each position in the classified and unclassified service of the City.
The combined Ordinance also outlines changes to pay rates and other compensation
for employees covered by the Meet and Confer Ordinance, employees covered by the
Meet and Discuss Ordinance, and employees represented by the City Manager, such
as confidential office and clerical, middle managers, and executives. This is consistent
with the City Council’s formal Resolution on May 15, 2024 adopting the 2024-26
Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with the five Meet and Confer employee
groups. This is also consistent with the City Manager’s authority to approve 2024-26
Memoranda of Agreement (MOAs) for employee associations, and to approve pay
rates and other compensation for employees represented by the City Manager. The
proposed language for the new combined Ordinance is included in Attachment A.
Administrative Regulations and other policy documents will be amended to address
those items agreed to with the employee groups that are not part of the combined
Ordinance.
Page 177
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
· City Council approved, by formal Resolution, the MOUs with the five Meet and
Confer groups on May 15, 2024.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Human Resources
Department.
Page 178
Attachment A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE S-_______
AN ORDINANCE REPEALING EXISTING PAY
ORDINANCE S-49802 AND CLASSIFICATION
ORDINANCE S-5815; AND ADOPTING A NEW COMBINED
ORDINANCE FOR A CLASSIFICATION PLAN, PAY RATES
AND COMPENSATION; AND FURTHER AUTHORIZING
THE CITY CONTROLLER TO DISBURSE ALL FUNDS FOR
T
THE PURPOSES OF THIS ORDINANCE.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX as
follows:
AF
SECTION 1. Ordinance No. S-49802, which adopted a "Gross Pay
Schedule" of all employees of the City of Phoenix, and all amendments thereto, are
repealed as of the effective date of this Ordinance.
SECTION 2. Ordinance No. S-5815, which adopted a “Classification Plan,”
D
is repealed as of the effective date of this Ordinance.
R SECTION 3. A Classification Plan providing specifications for each
position in the classified and unclassified service of the City is attached as Exhibit A,
which is incorporated herein by this reference.
SECTION 4. On July 8, 2024, the effective date of this Ordinance, all
compensation to be paid to employees of the City of Phoenix shall be computed from
Exhibit B, which is incorporated herein by this reference. Exhibit B includes those
compensation changes set forth in Section 7 hereof.
SECTION 5. The City Manager is authorized to provide a benefits program
Ordinance S-_______
Page 179
for City employees as described by various administrative regulations and the benefits
reference guides.
SECTION 6. On and after the effective date of this Ordinance, employees
of the City of Phoenix shall be compensated on a biweekly schedule in accordance with
the attached Exhibit B and in accordance with those certain Memoranda of
Understanding, to wit:
Memorandum of Understanding 2024-2026 by and between
the City of Phoenix and the Laborers International Union of
T
North America, Local 777, AFL-CIO, covering Field Unit 1.
Memorandum of Understanding 2024-2026 by and between
the City of Phoenix and the American Federation of State,
County and Municipal Employees, Local 2384, AFL-CIO,
AF
covering Field Unit 2.
Memorandum of Understanding 2024-2026 by and between
the City of Phoenix and the American Federation of State,
County and Municipal Employees, Local 2960, AFL-CIO,
covering Office and Clerical Unit 3.
Memorandum of Understanding 2024-2026 between the
DR
covering Police Officers Unit 4.
Memorandum of Understanding 2024-2026 by and between
the City of Phoenix and Phoenix Firefighters Association,
Local 493, IAFF, covering Unit 5.
and shall work a schedule of hours in accordance with applicable administrative
regulations and ordinances and consistent with the determination of work hours by the
City, based on the needs of the City.
SECTION 7. Compensation
The compensation schedules set forth in Exhibit B shall be effective
and/or modified in accordance with the following:
Ordinance S-_______
Page 180
(a) Full-time Unit 1 employees will receive a non-continuous payment
of $1,421.00 and part-time Unit 1 employees will receive a non-
continuous payment of $100.00, to be paid on the first full pay period
in August 2024.
(b) Full-time Unit 2 employees will receive a non-continuous payment
of 2.5% of their annual base wage and part-time Unit 2 employees
will receive a non-continuous payment of 2.5% of base wages paid
during the 26 preceding pay periods, to be paid on the first full pay
period in August 2024.
(c) Full-time Unit 3 employees will receive a non-continuous payment
of $1,480.00 and part-time Unit 3 employees will receive a non-
continuous payment of $554.00, to be paid on the first full pay period
(d)
in August 2024.
T
All Unit 4 employees will receive a non-continuous payment of 2.5%
of their annual base wage to be paid on the first full pay period in
August 2024.
(e)
(f)
AF
Each Unit 5 member/employee will receive a non-continuous
payment of $2,135.00, to be paid on the first full pay period in
August 2024.
All Unit 6 employees will receive a non-continuous payment of 2.5%
of their annual base wage to be paid on the first full pay period in
August 2024.
D
(g)
R
(h)
Full-time Unit 7 employees will receive a non-continuous payment
of 2.5% of their annual base wage and part-time Unit 7 employees
will receive a non-continuous payment of 2.5% of their annual base
wages paid during the 26 preceding pay periods, to be paid on the
first full pay period in August 2024.
Each full-time Unit 8 employee will receive a non-continuous
payment of 2.5% of their base wage and part-time Unit 8 employees
will receive a non-continuous payment of 2.5% of base wages paid
during the 26 preceding pay periods, to be paid on the first full pay
period in August 2024.
(i) All Unit 9 and 10 employees (except for part-time judges) will
receive a noncontinuous payment of 2.5% of their annual base
wage to be paid on the first full pay period in August 2024, after
completing requirements set forth by the City Manager relative to
their performance evaluations.
Ordinance S-_______
Page 181
(j) All Unit 17 and 19 employees will receive a non-continuous
payment of 2.5% of their annual base wage to be paid on the first
full pay period in August 2024, after completing requirements set
forth by the City Manager relative to their performance evaluations.
(k) All Unit 16 and 18 employees will receive a non-continuous
payment of 2.5% of their annual base wage to be paid on the first
full pay period in August 2024, after completing requirements set
forth by the City Manager relative to their performance evaluations.
(l) All employees in Council Office Staff Salary Plan 023 will receive a
non-continuous payment of 2.5% of their annual base wage to be
paid on the first full pay period in August 2024.
T
SECTION 8. On July 8, 2024, the effective date of this Ordinance, the pay
rates for employees of the City of Phoenix shall be that shown in Exhibit B, except that
employees designated as Election Workers, Council Office Staff, Executives, or Middle
AF
Managers or enrolled in an apprenticeship program and assigned to apprentice
compensation grades shall have a salary set by the City Manager which shall be at or
between the minimum and maximum rates assigned to that classification.
SECTION 9. On and after the effective date of this Ordinance, no overtime
D
work shall be authorized, unless it shall have first been approved as provided by
administrative regulation.
R SECTION 10. New Hire Salary
New employees shall be hired at the minimum entry rate of the established
grade for each classification. Full-time, part-time, and non-seasonal employees will be
hired at a rate no lower than the City's established minimum entry rate of $15.00 per
hour. An employee hired into a position responsible for regularly supervising employees
shall receive one additional step increase above the minimum hiring rate in accordance
with the provisions of Section 20 (f) of this Ordinance if they regularly supervise a higher
Ordinance S-_______
Page 182
paid subordinate. A department head may authorize a beginning rate up to the median
step of the pay grade after conducting an analysis with Human Resources. The City
Manager and Human Resources Director may authorize a beginning rate above the
median step of the pay grade in the event of labor market requirements or due to the
unusual qualifications of a candidate. In cases where a pay grade has an even number
of steps, the larger value shall be used as the median. If existing steps are not available
to be used, they shall not be included in the determination of the median step. Certified
T
Police Officer candidates from other jurisdictions may be brought in at a higher step
based upon the number of years of experience they have after receiving certification as
a law enforcement officer.
AF
SECTION 11.
(a)
(b)
Salary Review Date
The salary review date of employees shall be the date on which
they were hired.
An employee on a continuous leave of absence of one hundred
eighty (180) calendar days or longer, whether such leave is paid or
unpaid, shall have the salary review date adjusted to account for
DR
the period of absence from the one hundred and eightieth day until
the employee's return-to-work effective date. An employee who
returns to work following a continuous industrial leave of one
hundred eighty (180) calendar days or longer shall have the salary
review date adjusted to the return-to-work effective date only if the
salary review was due during the continuous industrial leave; if the
salary review was not due during the continuous industrial leave,
the salary review date will remain unadjusted. This provision does
not apply when the leave involved is military leave unless the
employee is probationary and has been on probation for less than
nine months.
(c) Salary review dates for incumbents of positions which are
reclassified and/or regraded shall be handled in accordance with
Section 21(c) of this Ordinance.
SECTION 12. Merit Increases
Ordinance S-_______
Page 183
In recognition of continued meritorious service, full-time employees
become eligible to be considered for a merit pay increase on each salary review date
until they have advanced to the maximum step in their pay grade. Employees eligible
for merit increases shall be advanced one step in the pay grade in accordance with this
section only upon approval of the department head or the City Manager, except that:
(a) Employees designated as Executive and Middle Manager and
assigned to executive and middle manager compensation grades
may be advanced within their assigned pay grade by the City
Manager based upon periodic review of the individual employee's
(b)
work performance.
T
Employees designated as Council Office Staff and assigned to
council office staff compensation grades may be advanced within
their assigned pay grade by the Executive Assistant to City Council
(c)
AF
based upon periodic review of the individual employee's work
performance.
Sworn employees in the classifications of Police Sergeant and
Police Lieutenant, who meet performance expectations and have
not already reached the top step of the pay range, will receive a
one-step merit increase when they have completed twenty (20)
years of continuous service with the Phoenix Police Department.
The effective date of the one-step merit pay increase shall become
DR
(d)
the salary review date for future merit pay increases.
Sworn employees in the ranks of Firefighter, Fire Engineer and Fire
Captain shall be considered for merit pay increases on each salary
review date until they have advanced to the maximum step in their
pay grade. Employees eligible for merit increases shall be
advanced one step in the pay grade in accordance with this section
only upon approval of the department head or the City Manager in
accordance with the structure outlined in the compensation
schedule and structure set forth in Exhibit B.
(e) Part-time employees, excluding seasonal employees, may be
considered for advancement to the next step and each subsequent
step in a grade after working two thousand eighty (2,080) hours at
each step. Part-time employees, upon returning from military leave,
will be given credit for working the average number of hours they
would normally have worked during the time of leave.
Ordinance S-_______
Page 184
(f) It is further provided that a special merit pay increase for superior
performance or a step adjustment for unusual circumstances may
be granted at lesser intervals for any employee, upon
recommendation of the employee's department head and approval
by the Human Resources Director.
(g) Employees enrolled in an apprenticeship program and assigned to
apprentice compensation grades may be advanced within their
assigned pay grade by the City Manager based upon periodic
review of the individual employee's work performance.
(h) Employees designated as Election Workers may be advanced
within their assigned pay grade by the City Manager based upon
periodic review of the individual employee's work performance.
T
SECTION 13. Assignment Pay, Differential, Standby and Other
(a)
Additional Compensation
Rules for designated holidays and premium pay shall be
(b)
AF
established by administrative regulations, applicable Memoranda of
Understanding and applicable Memoranda of Agreement.
Employees shall receive the assignment pay provided for certain
classifications only during the period they are working on these
assignments.
1. Employees shall receive an immediate increase upon
entering an assignment, provided the assignment is
DR 2.
allocated to a higher grade than the base classification,
which corresponds to the next step in the employee's present
pay grade, or to the minimum entry rate of the new
assignment, whichever is greater. If no such rate exists, the
employee shall be placed in the closest step which is not less
than that amount, regardless of the number of steps in the
differential above the base classification.
An employee in an assignment will be eligible to receive
productivity enhancement pay at the time the employee
would have received productivity enhancement pay had the
employee stayed in the base classification, even though the
employee may not yet be at top step in the assignment.
3. In cases of assignments in Public Safety Middle Manager or
Executive category classifications, employees shall receive
a pay rate that is a minimum of 5% higher than their current
rate, but not higher than the maximum pay rate of the new
Ordinance S-_______
Page 185
pay grade, using a formula established by the Human
Resources Director.
4. When an employee is no longer working in the assignment,
the employee shall be returned to the base class at the step
at which they would be had they never been placed in the
assignment.
(c) Sworn employees at the rank of Police Officer who are Field
Training Officers or who the department selects to conduct
department approved officer field training will receive an additional
5% of their regular pay rate for each day they are assigned to an
officially authorized field training position. Employees assigned to
train an officer-in-training in traffic/DUI enforcement will receive 5%
T
training pay for each day the employee actually trains. Employees
assigned as Canine Unit Training Officers will receive 5% training
pay for each day they are assigned to an officially authorized
Canine Unit Trainer position. Employees assigned as Team
Leaders on SAU squads will receive an additional 5% base hourly
(d)
AF
rate of pay while assigned to this position. Detectives whom the
department selects to conduct department-approved new Detective
training will receive an additional 5% of their base rate of pay for
every day the Detective is training.
Sworn employees at the rank of Police Sergeant who supervise a
designated Field Training Officer (FTO) squad will receive 10%
additional pay while assigned. Sergeants who supervise a Field
Training Officer (FTO) training in place will receive 5% additional
D
(e)
R
(f)
pay while an Officer In Training (OIT) is assigned to the squad.
Employees working in positions which, because of unusual hours,
should receive extra compensation may receive a shift differential
as provided by administrative regulation.
Certain Unit 2 employees required by the City to maintain a
Commercial Driver License (CDL) as a secondary part of their
regular position duties shall receive an additional twenty cents
($0.20) per hour.
(g) Unit 3 and Confidential Office and Clerical employees who are
authorized, certified, and required by management to use a
language other than English to conduct official City business may
receive bilingual pay as provided by administrative regulation.
(h) Phoenix Firefighters Association Unit 5 employees who speak
Spanish to conduct official City business may receive bilingual pay
Ordinance S-_______
Page 186
as provided by administrative regulation.
(i) Municipal Court employees performing legal, verbatim, and formal
translation duties may receive bilingual pay as provided by
administrative regulation.
(j) Qualified sworn personnel in the Police Department who are
requested to perform verbal interpretation or written translation in a
language other than English, or signing activities, while conducting
police-related investigations may receive bilingual pay of ten dollars
($10.00) per hour as provided by the Unit 4 Memorandum of
Understanding.
(k) Certified/registered Unit 1 employees who are assigned to
(I)
T
continuous, non-incidental application of herbicides or pesticides
may receive premium pay of one dollar ($1.00) per hour as provided
in the Unit 1 Memorandum of Understanding.
Certified/registered Unit 2 employees who are assigned to
(m) AF
continuous, non-incidental application of herbicides or pesticides
may receive premium pay of fifty cents ($0.50) per hour as provided
in the Unit 2 Memorandum of Understanding.
Any Aviation Dispatcher, Fire Emergency Dispatcher, Police
Communications Operator, or Police Communications
Operator*Radio/911 who is selected by their Department to conduct
department approved field training will be paid a one-step
differential or a minimum of three percent (3%) of base wages,
DR
(n)
(o)
whichever is higher, for those hours actually spent training other
staff members.
Trained and certified employees in the classifications of User
Technology Specialist, Senior User Technology Specialist, and
Lead User Technology Specialist may receive a per diem of fifty
dollars ($50.00) when required to climb wireless communication
towers in the performance of their assigned duties.
Fire Management Command Officers who are assigned to and work
in the Constant Staffing Program may receive monthly premium pay
as provided by administrative regulation.
(p) Upon recommendation of the employee's department head and
approval of the Human Resources Director, a premium payment of
up to two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00) per week may be
authorized to be paid to exempt employees for taking on substantial
special projects, projects or events requiring significant extended
Ordinance S-_______
Page 187
hours or weekends, or considerable additional duties due to staffing
shortages, as provided by administrative regulation.
(q) Exempt personnel may receive additional pay, as provided by
administrative regulation, for performance of their usual City duties
in catastrophic field conditions in extreme and protracted
emergency events involving a state or federal non-military
deployment in which circumstances do not permit normal work and
rest cycles. For an employee to be eligible for the additional
payment, the deployment must be approved by the department
head and City Manager. The deployment must exceed forty (40)
continuous hours and the payment amount will be determined
based on a formula determined by the Human Resources Director
and shall be consistent for all personnel deployed. Such payment
(r)
T
may be approved only if it meets all reimbursement guidelines
specified by the state or federal agency.
Specific employees recruited or trained in specific advanced
information technology fields, as such employees and job fields are
(s)
AF
approved by the Chief Information Officer, Human Resources
Director, and City Manager, may receive specialty skills premium
pay not to exceed 10% of base salary as provided by administrative
regulation.
Compensation for employees who are assigned to standby duty
shall be calculated at a rate which, over a twenty-four (24) hour
period, shall not exceed the prevailing federal or state minimum
hourly wage, whichever is higher.
D
(t)
R
Sworn Police Officers below the rank of Sergeant and Unit 3
employees assigned to court standby shall receive the following:
1. Sworn Police Officers below the rank of Sergeant may
receive two (2) hours of pay at one and one-half (1-1/2) times
the base hourly rate for court dockets scheduled before
12:00 p.m. (noon), and an additional two (2) hours of pay at
one and one-half (1-1/2) times the base hourly rate for court
dockets scheduled after 12:00 p.m. (noon). If an employee
is required to remain on standby after 12:00 p.m. (noon), the
employee may receive an additional one (1) hour of pay at
one and one-half (1-1/2) times the base hourly rate of pay.
For each day a court proceeding continues in session and
the officer remains subject to call, the employee may be
entitled to court standby compensation as provided in this
paragraph and in the Unit 4 Memorandum of Understanding.
Ordinance S-_______
Page 188
2. As provided in the Unit 3 Memorandum of Understanding,
Unit 3 employees shall be compensated the greater of either
$100 per day or in accordance with the current provisions of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
(u) Sworn Police Supervisory and Professional employees assigned to
court standby may receive two (2) hours of pay at one and one half
(1½) times the base hourly rate per day for court standby. An
additional hour of pay at one and one half (1½) times the base pay
rate shall be paid if the employee is required to remain on standby
after noon.
(v) The City Manager is authorized to provide call-out pay to hourly
employees, as provided by administrative regulation. Where
(w)
T
appropriate, these payments shall be made in accordance with the
applicable Memoranda of Understanding or applicable Memoranda
of Agreement.
The City Manager is authorized to provide out of class pay
(x)
(y)
AF
differential to employees, as provided by administrative regulation.
The City Manager is authorized to award additional vacation leave
to an employee, when it is in the best interest of the City as
determined by the City Manager.
Sworn employees at the rank of Police Officer who are department
qualified/certified Drug Recognition Experts (DRE) who are current
in all training and requirements set forth in Police, and have
DR
(z)
completed all necessary training, shall be paid a premium of $15.00
per hour, calculated to the nearest ¼ hour, in addition to their base
hourly rate for each hour they are engaged in DRE activities.
Sworn employees at the rank of Police Officer who are department
qualified/certified phlebotomists who are current in all training and
requirements set forth in Police, and have completed all necessary
training, shall be paid a premium of $15.00 per hour, calculated to
the nearest ¼ hour, in addition to their base hourly rate for each
hour they are engaged in phlebotomy activities.
SECTION 14. Awards Programs
(a) An employee suggestion program shall be established by
administrative regulation. Employees may be eligible for a cash
award or for other awards for making suggestions which qualify
under the program. The cash award to employees, per suggestion,
shall not exceed sixteen thousand six hundred sixty-seven dollars
Ordinance S-_______
Page 189
($16,667).
(b) An employee safety awards program may be established by
administrative regulation. Employees may be eligible for a one-time
cash award or other awards as part of the City safety program. Any
single cash award shall not exceed one hundred dollars ($100).
(c) A program to recognize employee excellence may be established
by administrative regulation. The total allocation per department
shall not exceed one dollar ($1.00) per full-time equivalent
employee or three hundred dollars ($300) per year or one shift (not
to exceed 10 hours) of performance recognition leave per
recognition award.
(d)
(e)
T
The City Manager is authorized to establish a performance-based
cash award program for employees.
The City Manager is authorized to implement incentive programs to
reward employees for exceptional performance and/or substantial
(f)
AF
savings to the City.
The City Manager is authorized to establish a hiring incentive cash
award not to exceed seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500)
for employees hired into critical positions, positions that are hard to
fill, or positions that require a rare skill set, when it is in the best
interest of the City as determined by the Human Resources Director
and the City Manager. This award is not applicable to rehires within
3 years. The provisions of this paragraph do not apply to retirees.
D
(g)
R
(h)
The City Manager is authorized to establish a cash award program
for employees who refer successful candidates for City
employment, when it is in the best interest of the City. The cash
award to employees, per successful candidate, shall not exceed
two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500).
The City Manager is authorized to establish a retention incentive
cash award not to exceed seven thousand five hundred dollars
($7,500) to retain employees in critical positions, positions that are
hard to fill, or positions that require a rare skill set, when it is in the
best interest of the city as determined by the Human Resources
Director and the City Manager. Employees receiving this award
must meet performance standards as determined by the City
Manager. Retention incentives may not be awarded to an employee
more than once every two years and employees may be required
to repay awards if they leave the city sooner than two years after
receiving an award.
Ordinance S-_______
Page 190
SECTION 15. Allowances and Reimbursements
(a) The City Manager is authorized to provide for a transportation
allowance for employees designated as Executive and Middle
Managers and certain professional staff in the Offices of the Mayor
and City Council who are not assigned a City vehicle on a regular
basis.
(b) Elected City officials shall receive the benefits package of their
choice as provided for in the Charter.
(c) The City Manager is authorized to provide to elected officials either
(1) a transportation allowance as provided in the chosen benefits
T
package, or (2) a mileage expense reimbursement when using a
personal vehicle for travel in carrying out official duties. Such
reimbursement shall include mileage expenses of elected officials
traveling from their places of residence to their City offices or City
functions/events. These expenses are determined to be necessary
(d) AF
expenses in the conduct of an elected official's office.
Reimbursement will be provided at the prevailing mileage rate set
by the Finance Department for all City employees.
The City Manager is authorized to establish a program to provide
payment of moving expenses, relocation expenses, and housing
allowance. The reimbursement amount per employee shall not
exceed $20,000.
D
(e)
R
(f)
The City Manager is authorized to establish a program for payment
of a communications allowance paid monthly for eligible Middle
Managers, Executives, and certain professional staff in the Offices
of the Mayor and City Council. To be eligible for the communication
allowance, employees are required to provide a cellular phone and
be responsible for all related expenses.
Clothing allowances shall be established by administrative
regulation and in accordance with applicable Memoranda of
Understanding or applicable Memoranda of Agreement.
(g) The City Manager is authorized to establish a program for
distributing public safety uniform allowance funds for sworn public
safety employees.
(h) Employees covered by the Unit 2 Memorandum of Understanding
who are required to provide their own tools for work shall receive
up to six hundred dollars ($600) per year to replace and repair such
Ordinance S-_______
Page 191
tools, as provided in the Unit 2 Memorandum of Understanding, and
as specified by administrative regulation.
(i) The City Manager is authorized to provide reimbursement to
employees for actual and necessary expenses incurred while
engaged in City business. The requirements for such
reimbursement shall be set forth in administrative regulation.
(j) The City Manager is authorized to provide a stipend for volunteers
in the Police Department for certain expenses incurred as a result
of their volunteer duties. This may include expenses incurred as a
result of court appearances and for maintaining a uniform and
equipment.
(k)
T
The City Manager is authorized to provide reimbursement to
employees or make payments in advance for tuition-related
expenses incurred for training in employment-related courses,
memberships, and seminars only for employment-related courses
that have been approved in advance and are consistent with
(I)
AF
administrative regulations, applicable Memoranda
Understanding, and applicable Memoranda of Agreement.
of
Employees who have received advanced tuition reimbursement for
tuition related expenses shall agree in writing to repay the City for
any failure to meet the criteria set forth in the administrative
regulations concerning reimbursement. Any unpaid balances may
be deducted from the employee's pay.
D
(m)
R
The City Manager is authorized to provide:
1.
2.
At the City Manager's discretion, reimbursement of individual
development expenses up to an annual maximum equal to
two thousand six dollars ($2,006) for Executives and Middle
Managers. Any reimbursement to an employee under the
provisions of this paragraph shall be deducted from the total
amount of tuition funds available for the individual employee
pursuant to Section 15(k).
Reimbursement for professional memberships and seminars
of up to one thousand dollars ($1,000) for employees
designated as Supervisory or Professional. Any
reimbursement to an employee under the provisions of this
paragraph shall be deducted from the total amount of tuition
funds available for the individual employee, pursuant to
Section 15(k).
Ordinance S-_______
Page 192
3. Reimbursement for Police Officers at the ranks of Sergeant
and Lieutenant for professional memberships and seminars
of up to eight hundred dollars ($800). Any reimbursement to
an employee under the provisions of this paragraph shall be
deducted from the total amount of tuition funds available for
the individual employee, pursuant to Section 15(k).
4. Reimbursement for Police Officers below the rank of
Sergeant for professional memberships and seminars of up
to five hundred dollars ($500). Any reimbursement to an
employee under the provisions of this paragraph shall be
deducted from the total amount of tuition funds available for
the individual employee, pursuant to Section 15(k).
5.
T
Reimbursement for Confidential Office and Clerical
employees for professional memberships and seminars of
up to four hundred fifty dollars ($450). Any reimbursement to
an employee under the provisions of this paragraph shall be
deducted from the total amount of tuition funds available for
AF
6.
the individual employee, pursuant to Section 15(k).
Reimbursement for Office and Clerical employees in
classifications specified in the Unit 3 Memorandum of
Understanding of up to two hundred twenty-five dollars
($225) to attend one-day, in-state, City-related
seminars/training, and professional memberships. Any
reimbursement to an employee under the provisions of this
paragraph shall be deducted from the total amount of tuition
DR
7.
8.
funds available for the individual employee, pursuant to
Section 15(k).
Reimbursement for all Unit 1 employees up to one hundred
fifty dollars ($150) to attend one-day, in-state, City-related
seminars/training. Any reimbursement to an employee under
the provisions of this paragraph shall be deducted from the
total amount of tuition funds available for the individual
employee, pursuant to Section 15(k).
Certain employees specified in the Unit 3 Memorandum of
Understanding shall be reimbursed on a one-time basis only
for expenses incurred as a result of passing a required
certification test as provided in the Unit 3 Memorandum of
Understanding and as specified by administrative regulation.
9. Reimbursement for certain Unit 2 employees for CDL
endorsements as provided in the Unit 2 Memorandum of
Ordinance S-_______
Page 193
Understanding and as specified by administrative regulation.
10. Certain employees specified in the Unit 1 Memorandum of
Understanding, Unit 2 Memorandum of Understanding, and
the Unit 7 Memorandum of Agreement shall be reimbursed
for expenses incurred as a result of renewing commercial
driver licenses and endorsements, including HazMat
background screening fees, as provided in the
aforementioned memoranda, and as specified by
administrative regulation.
(n) Employees who are called to military service with presidential call-
up orders may receive "gap pay" as defined in the applicable
administrative regulations. They must first exhaust their paid
T
military leave benefit.
SECTION 16. Vacation/Compensatory Time Sell-Back
(a) At the City Manager's discretion, employees designated as either
(b)
AF
General Executive or General Middle Manager for each fiscal year
may be paid for up to a maximum of eighty (80) hours of
accumulated vacation time payable in November. The payment is
contingent upon the use of two (2) regular weeks of vacation time
during the same calendar year.
At the City Manager's discretion, employees designated as either
Police Executive or Police Middle Manager for each fiscal year may
be paid for up to a maximum of eighty (80) hours of accumulated
DR
(c)
vacation time payable in November. The payment is contingent
upon the use of two (2) regular weeks of vacation time during the
same calendar year.
At the City Manager's discretion, employees designated as either
Fire Executive or Middle Managers who work a 40-hour shift for
each fiscal year may be paid for up to a maximum of eighty (80)
hours of accumulated vacation time payable in November.
Employees who work a 56-hour shift may be paid for up to a
maximum of one hundred and twelve (112) hours of accumulated
vacation time payable in November. The payments are contingent
upon the use of two (2) regular weeks of vacation time during the
same calendar year.
(d) Employees designated as Unit 1 for each fiscal year may be paid
up to a maximum of forty (40) hours of accumulated vacation hours,
twice per year, for an annual maximum of eighty (80) hours, after
accumulating a minimum of one hundred seventy-five (175) hours
Ordinance S-_______
Page 194
of vacation leave, contingent upon the use of forty (40) hours of
vacation/compensatory time during the same calendar year.
(e) Employees designated as Unit 2 for each fiscal year may be paid
up to a maximum of forty (40) hours of accumulated vacation time
twice per calendar year, after accumulating a minimum of one
hundred twenty (120) hours of vacation leave, contingent upon the
use of forty (40) hours of vacation/compensatory time during the
same calendar year.
(f) Employees designated as Unit 3 for each fiscal year may be paid
up to a maximum of forty (40) hours of accumulated vacation time
twice per calendar year, after accumulating a minimum of one
hundred twenty (120) hours of vacation leave, contingent upon the
T
use of forty (40) hours of vacation/compensatory time during the
same calendar year. Employees designated as Confidential
Office/Clerical for each fiscal year may be paid up to a maximum of
one hundred twenty (120) hours of accumulated compensatory time
as specified by administrative regulation. Payments of up to sixty
(g)
AF
(60) hours each will be made effective the last pay day in August
and the first pay day in December.
Employees designated as Confidential Office/Clerical for each fiscal
year may be paid up to a maximum of one hundred twenty (120)
hours of accumulated compensatory time as specified by
administrative regulation. Payments of up to sixty (60) hours each
will be made effective the last pay day in August and the first pay
day in December.
D
(h)
R
(i)
Employees designated as Confidential Office/Clerical for each
fiscal year may be paid up to a maximum of forty (40) hours of
accumulated vacation time, one time per calendar year, contingent
upon the use of forty (40) hours of vacation/compensatory time
during the same calendar year.
Employees designated as Unit 4 and Unit 5 for each fiscal year may
be paid for accumulated compensatory time as specified by the
applicable Memorandum of Understanding.
(j) Police Officer employees may be paid for up to a maximum of eighty
(80) hours of accumulated vacation time contingent upon their use
of forty (40) hours of vacation/compensatory time during the same
calendar year. Payment shall be made effective on the first pay day
in December.
(k) Employees designated as Unit 5 may be paid up to a maximum of
Ordinance S-_______
Page 195
eighty (80) hours of accumulated vacation time if it will not cause
their total bank of hours to drop below 150 or 210 hours, depending
upon the work schedule. This benefit shall not exceed a total of 80
hours and may be used as follows: 40 hours on the last pay period
in November and/or May of each M.O.U. year.
(l) Police Sergeant and Police Lieutenant employees may be paid for
up to a maximum of forty (40) hours of accumulated vacation time
contingent upon their use of forty (40) hours of
vacation/compensatory time during the same calendar year. The
requirement to use time may be waived in the calendar year prior
to retirement provided the employee submits a written notice of
intent to retire on a specific date the following year. Payment shall
be made effective on the first pay day in December.
(m)
(n)
T
Eligible sworn Public Safety personnel may receive a lump sum
payment for accrued vacation time.
Employees designated as Supervisory/Professional for each fiscal
(o)
AF
year may be paid twice per year up to a combined maximum of
eighty (80) hours of accumulated vacation time each year
contingent upon their use of eighty (80) hours of vacation time
during the same calendar year.
Hourly (non-exempt) employees designated as Supervisory and
Professional for each fiscal year may be paid for accumulated
compensatory time as specified by administrative regulation.
D
SECTION 17. Productivity Enhancement/Performance-Based Cash
R
(a)
(b)
Award Program
The City Manager is authorized to establish a productivity
enhancement program, as specified by administrative regulation, to
pay qualifying employees up to two hundred fifty dollars ($250) per
year of service up to a maximum of six thousand one hundred
twelve dollars ($6,112).
The City Manager is authorized to establish a performance-based
cash award program for those Middle Managers and Executives
who are at the equivalent of the top step of their salary ranges.
SECTION 18. Deferred Compensation Program and Post Employment
Retirement Accounts
(a) The City will contribute 0.45% of base annual salary to the 401(a)
Defined Contribution Plan under the Phoenix Employees' Deferred
Ordinance S-_______
Page 196
Compensation Program for those employees designated as
represented by Unit 1 for each fiscal year. If contributions from all
sources exceed the federal maximum allowed for 401(a) defined
contribution plans, excess City contributions will be contributed to
the 457(b) Deferred Compensation Plan under the Phoenix
Employees' Deferred Compensation Program. If the full amount of
the excess City contributions cannot be contributed to the 457(b)
Deferred Compensation Plan due to federal 457(b) deferred
compensation plan contribution limits, including catch-up
provisions, the balance of the City contributions converts to ordinary
wages.
(b) The City will contribute 3.62% of base wages to the 401(a) Defined
Contribution Plan under the Phoenix Employees' Deferred
T
Compensation Program for those employees designated as
represented by Unit 2 for each fiscal year. If contributions from all
sources exceed the federal maximum allowed for 401(a) defined
contribution plans, excess City contributions will be contributed to
the 457(b) Deferred Compensation Plan under the Phoenix
(c)
AF
Employees' Deferred Compensation Program. If the full amount of
the excess City contributions cannot be contributed to the 457(b)
Deferred Compensation Plan due to federal 457(b) deferred
compensation plan contribution limits, including catch-up
provisions, the balance of the City contributions converts to ordinary
wages.
The City will contribute 2.36% of monthly base wages to the 401(a)
Defined Contribution Plan under the Phoenix Employees' Deferred
DR
Compensation Program for those employees designated as
represented by Unit 3. If contributions from all sources exceed the
federal maximum allowed for 401(a) defined contribution plans,
excess City contributions will be contributed to the 457(b) Deferred
Compensation Plan under the Phoenix Employees' Deferred
Compensation Program. If the full amount of the excess City
contributions cannot be contributed to the 457(b) Deferred
Compensation Plan due to federal 457(b) deferred compensation
plan contribution limits, including catch-up provisions, the balance
of the City contributions converts to ordinary wages.
(d) The City will contribute 2.56% of monthly gross wages to the 401(a)
Defined Contribution Plan under the Phoenix Employees' Deferred
Compensation Program for those employees designated as
represented by Unit 4 for each fiscal year. If contributions from all
sources exceed the federal maximum allowed for 401(a) defined
contribution plans, excess City contributions will be contributed to
the 457(b) Deferred Compensation Plan under the Phoenix
Ordinance S-_______
Page 197
Employees' Deferred Compensation Program. If the full amount of
the excess City contributions cannot be contributed to the 457(b)
Deferred Compensation Plan due to federal 457(b) deferred
compensation plan contribution limits, including catch-up
provisions, the balance of the City contributions converts to ordinary
wages.
(e) The City will contribute 4.42% of each employee's biweekly gross
pay to the 401(a) Defined Contribution Plan under the Phoenix
Employees' Deferred Compensation Program for those employees
designated as represented by Unit 5 for each fiscal year. If
contributions from all sources exceed the federal maximum allowed
for 401(a) defined contribution plans, excess City contributions will
be contributed to the 457(b) Deferred Compensation Plan under the
T
Phoenix Employees' Deferred Compensation Program. If the full
amount of the excess City contributions cannot be contributed to
the 457(b) Deferred Compensation Plan due to federal 457(b)
deferred compensation plan contribution limits, including catch-up
provisions, the balance of the City contributions converts to ordinary
(f)
AF
wages.
The City will contribute 1.5% of base annual salary to the 401(a)
Defined Contribution Plan under the Phoenix Employees' Deferred
Compensation Program for those employees designated as sworn
Police Supervisory and Professional for each fiscal year. If
contributions from all sources exceed the federal maximum allowed
for 401(a) defined contribution plans, excess City contributions will
be contributed to the 457(b) Deferred Compensation Plan under the
DR
(g)
Phoenix Employees' Deferred Compensation Program. If the full
amount of the excess City contributions cannot be contributed to
the 457(b) Deferred Compensation Plan due to federal 457(b)
deferred compensation plan contribution limits, including catch-up
provisions, the balance of the City contributions converts to ordinary
wages.
The City will contribute 1.92% of base annual salary to the 401(a)
Defined Contribution Plan under the Phoenix Employees' Deferred
Compensation Program for those employees designated as
Confidential Office/Clerical for each fiscal year. If contributions from
all sources exceed the federal maximum allowed for 401(a) defined
contribution plans, excess City contributions will be contributed to
the 457(b) Deferred Compensation Plan under the Phoenix
Employees' Deferred Compensation Program. If the full amount of
the excess City contributions cannot be contributed to the 457(b)
Deferred Compensation Plan due to federal 457(b) deferred
compensation plan contribution limits, including catch-up
Ordinance S-_______
Page 198
provisions, the balance of the City contributions converts to ordinary
wages.
(h) The City will contribute 6.5% of base annual salary to the 401(a)
Defined Contribution Plan under the Phoenix Employees' Deferred
Compensation Program for those employees designated as
Supervisory/Professional for each fiscal year. If contributions from
all sources exceed the federal maximum allowed for 401(a) defined
contribution plans, excess City contributions will be contributed to
the 457(b) Deferred Compensation Plan under the Phoenix
Employees' Deferred Compensation Program. If the full amount of
the excess City contributions cannot be contributed to the 457(b)
Deferred Compensation Plan due to federal 457(b) deferred
compensation plan contribution limits including catch-up provisions,
(i) T
the balance of the City contributions converts to ordinary wages.
The City will contribute 9.0% of gross annual salary to the 401(a)
Defined Contribution Plan under the Phoenix Employees' Deferred
Compensation Program for anyone authorized to have an
AF
Executive or Middle Manager benefit package. If the 9.0% of gross
annual salary does not equal at least $9,500.00, the City will
contribute the remaining amount not to exceed a combined
maximum of $9,500.00. If contributions from all sources exceed the
federal maximum allowed for 401(a) defined contribution plans,
excess City contributions will be contributed to the 457(b) Deferred
Compensation Plan under the Phoenix Employees' Deferred
Compensation Program up to the annual Internal Revenue Service
defined maximum. If the full amount of the excess City contributions
DR
(j)
cannot be contributed to the 457(b) Deferred Compensation Plan
due to federal 457(b) deferred compensation plan contribution limits
including catch-up provisions, the balance of the City contributions
converts to ordinary wages.
The City will contribute one hundred fifty dollars ($150) per month
to a post-employment health plan (PEHP) for eligible employees.
The eligibility of employees will be determined by the City Manager,
or his designee. The City will contribute one hundred fifty dollars
($150) each month the employee is eligible.
SECTION 19. Retirement, Pensions, Termination, Death Benefits
(a) Sworn Public Safety personnel may receive a cash lump sum
payment for accrued sick leave as provided by administrative
regulation.
(b) The City Manager is authorized to establish guidelines to have a
Ordinance S-_______
Page 199
portion of accumulated sick leave hours at retirement converted to
service credit under the City of Phoenix Employees' Retirement
Plan or converted to an employer contribution to the 401(a) Defined
Contribution Plan.
(c) The City Manager is authorized to provide a retirement incentive for
retirement eligible employees who occupy positions affected by a
requirements of a City Council approved incentive plan, as
established in administrative regulation.
(d) The City Manager is authorized to provide for the payment of
severance pay to certain employees as established in
administrative regulation.
(e)
T
The City Manager is authorized to grant a partial benefit package to
employees who occupy full-time regular positions at the time their
positions are reduced by the City to less than full-time because of
funding limitations.
(f)
(g)
AF
The City Manager is authorized to pay all or a portion of accrued
sick leave to an Executive or Middle Manager employee when it is
in the best interest of the City for the separation of the employee
from City employment.
The City Manager is authorized to grant the following:
1. Police Officers, upon approval of the Police Chief, may
DR 2.
purchase, at the time of retirement or medical retirement,
their breast badge mounted on a plaque, their retired flat
badge and holder, and a specified duty weapon for one dollar
($1.00); and
Within thirty (30) days of death, the spouse or adult survivor
of a Police Officer who has died in the line of duty may elect
to receive the deceased officer's breast badge mounted on
a plaque, and the department issued service weapon for one
dollar ($1.00).
(h) The City Manager is authorized to grant the continuation of health
insurance coverage for eligible surviving dependents of a City
employee who has died in the line of duty with the City as specified
by administrative regulation and in accordance with applicable
Memoranda of Understanding or applicable Memoranda of
Agreement.
Ordinance S-_______
Page 200
(i) The City Manager is authorized to provide that, upon the in-line-of-
duty death or death resulting from an in-line-of-duty injury of any
City employee, the City will pay the full cash value of the accrued
sick leave existing at the time of the employee's death.
(j) The City Manager is authorized to provide that, upon the death of a
Unit 2 employee while on active work status or on an approved
leave status, the City will pay the full cash value of the accrued sick
leave existing at the time of the employee's death. Paid leave
status, as the term is used in this paragraph, excludes retired
employees, employees on suspension, and employees on long-
term disability or unpaid leave.
(k) The City Manager is authorized to provide that, upon the death of a
T
Unit 3 employee while on active work status or on an approved
leave status, the City will pay the full cash value of the accrued sick
leave existing at the time of the employee's death. Paid leave
status, as the term is used in this paragraph, excludes retired
employees, employees on suspension, and employees on long-
(I)
AF
term disability or unpaid leave.
The City Manager is authorized to provide that, upon the death of a
sworn Police employee while on active work status or on an
approved leave status, the City will pay the full cash value of the
accrued sick leave existing at the time of the employee's death.
Paid leave status, as the term is used in this paragraph, excludes
retired employees, employees on suspension, and employees on
long-term disability or unpaid leave.
D
SECTION 20. Promotion
R
The following rules concerning promotions shall apply to employees:
(a) Upon promotion to another classification as a result of competitive
appointment, an employee shall receive a rate of pay that
corresponds to the next step in the employee's present pay grade
except that if no such rate exists, the employee shall be placed in
the closest step which is not less than that amount. If the employee
is currently at the top of their pay grade, but not yet receiving
productivity enhancement pay, the employee shall be placed in the
closest step which is not less than 4.9% above their current rate of
pay.
(b) Upon promotion, employees who are receiving productivity
enhancement pay shall be moved to at least that step of the new
grade which is not less than 4.9% above their combined base pay
Ordinance S-_______
Page 201
and previous productivity enhancement amount. Placement in the
new grade will be limited to the maximum step in the grade.
(c) Employees eligible to be considered for a merit pay increase within
ninety (90) calendar days of the effective date of a promotion shall
be entitled to receive the promotional increase based upon the
amount they would have received at the next merit increase
pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section.
(d) In cases of promotions into General or Public Safety Middle
Manager or Executive category classifications, employees shall
receive a pay rate which is a minimum of 5% higher than their
current rate, but not higher than the maximum pay rate of the new
pay grade.
(e)
T
Part-time or job share employees who have worked at least one
thousand forty (1,040) hours since their last merit increase and are
promoted into a full-time position shall be entitled to receive the
promotional increase based upon the amount they would have
(f)
AF
received at the next merit increase pursuant to paragraph (a) of this
section.
An employee hired or promoted into a position responsible for
regularly supervising employees shall receive one additional step
increase above the minimum hiring rate or normal promotional
increase if they regularly supervise a higher paid subordinate. The
additional step increase shall not apply in the following cases: the
supervisor laterally transfers into a situation where a subordinate is
DR
higher paid; a higher paid subordinate rotates into the supervisor's
work group; a higher paid subordinate is hired after the supervisor
is hired or promoted; the subordinate is being paid higher than the
salary range [Y-rated pursuant to the provisions of Section 21(c)];
the subordinate is higher paid due to receiving special assignment
pay; or the subordinate is higher paid due to specialized technical
skills as determined by the Human Resources Director. The
applicability of this provision shall be determined by the Human
Resources Director. This section does not apply to Middle Manager
or Executive employees.
(g) In Public Safety promotions, employees promoted to a supervisory
position shall receive a rate of pay that is at least one step higher
than the maximum base rate of pay of the highest paid sworn rank
they may supervise, excluding any special assignment pay in the
lower rank and excluding any employees paid higher than the salary
range [Y-rated pursuant to the provisions of Section 21(c)].
Ordinance S-_______
Page 202
(h) In cases of promotion from Police Officer to Police Sergeant,
employees who have been receiving Productivity Enhancement
Pay shall have that amount factored along with their base pay when
calculating the promotional rate.
(i) In cases of promotions from Police Sergeant to Police Lieutenant,
employees receiving a pay increase of less than 3% shall have their
merit increase date set six (6) months from the date of promotion.
(k) In cases of promotions into the sworn classifications of Police
Sergeant and Police Lieutenant, employees who at the time of
promotion have already completed a minimum of twenty (20) years
of continuous service with the Phoenix Police Department shall
receive one additional pay step above regular promotional
(l)
T
calculations, but not higher than the maximum pay rate of the new
pay grade.
Employees who receive a promotion to a higher classification and
receive a pay increase of less than 3% shall have their merit increase
AF
date set six (6) months from the date of promotion.
(m) A department head may authorize a promotional increase up to the
median step of the pay grade after conducting an analysis with
Human Resources. The City Manager and Human Resources
Director may authorize a promotional increase above the median
step of the pay grade in the event of labor market requirements or
due to the unusual qualifications of a candidate. In cases where a
pay grade has an even number of steps, the larger value shall be
DR
used as the median. The provisions of this paragraph shall not apply
to individuals entering the classifications of Police Recruit and
Firefighter, Assign: Recruit.
SECTION 21. Reclassification or Grade Change
The following rules concerning reclassifications or grade changes shall
apply to employees in impacted positions:
(a) When a position is reclassified to a classification at a different
grade, or when the classification is assigned to a different pay
grade, the affected employee shall be assigned to that step of the
new grade which corresponds to the employee's present pay rate
except that if no such rate exists, the employee shall be placed in
the closest step which does not result in a pay decrease. The
employee’s next salary review date shall not be affected by
adjustments under this paragraph.
Ordinance S-_______
Page 203
1. Placement in the new grade will be limited to the maximum
step in that grade.
2. Affected employees who are receiving productivity
enhancement pay shall be moved to that step of the new
grade which corresponds the closest to their combined
current base pay and previous productivity enhancement
amount, and which does not result in a decrease from that
combined amount.
3. When the reclassified position is changed from non-
supervisory to supervisory, and the incumbent will be
responsible for supervising higher paid subordinates, the
(b)
T
employee shall be moved up one additional step in the new
grade. Any applicable circumstances as described in Section
20(g) are not affected by this paragraph.
In unusual circumstances, the City Manager may permit a
AF
reclassified employee to remain at a pay rate which is above the
maximum rate of the lower classification for a period not to exceed
two (2) years for each pay grade the classification is reduced. (This
practice is known as "Y rating.") This procedure may also be
followed in determining pay rates of employees in a classification
for which the pay grade has been reduced. Employees paid above
the maximum step rate for their classification will be moved to the
maximum step of the appropriate grade, with the salary difference
required to maintain the present rate to be entered as a payroll
DR
adjustment for a period not to exceed two (2) years for each pay
grade the classification is reduced.
(c) If a position is reclassified to a classification at a different grade, or
when the classification is assigned to a different pay grade, and the
affected employee does not have a next salary review date or the
employee was previously at the top step but will be moving to a step
less than the top step; the employee's next salary review date shall
be established based on the percentage of increase in pay the
employee received at the time of implementation as shown in the
following table. If the employee has received a merit increase during
the 30 calendar days prior to the effective date of the reclassification
or grade change, the percentage of pay change for determining the
next salary review date shall be calculated from the employee's pay
rate prior to the adjustment.
Ordinance S-_______
Page 204
Calendar Days from date of
implementation to next
salary
review date
% Change (NSRD)
0 NO CHANGE TO NSRD
>0 - <.5 30
.5 - < 1 60
1 - < 1.5 90
1.5 - < 2 120
2 - < 2.5 150
2.5 - < 3 180
3 - < 3.5 210
3.5 - < 4 240
4 - < 4.5
4.5 - < 5
5 or more
T 270
AF
(d) It is further provided that an adjustment to an employee’s NSRD for
unusual circumstances may be granted upon recommendation of the
employee's department head and approval by the Human
Resources Director.
SECTION 22. Demotion
Employees who are demoted shall have their pay reduced, unless
otherwise provided for in this section.
DR
(a)
(b)
Under certain circumstances, employees who voluntarily demote to
a lower paid classification may be retained at their present rates of
pay with the approval of the City Manager, if their rate of pay is
within the pay grade of the new classification in which they are
placed.
Employees who are involuntarily demoted for the purpose of
discipline or failure to meet the requirements of their classification
of work shall have their pay reduced at a rate determined by the
Human Resources Director, but which shall not exceed the
maximum rate of the lower classification.
SECTION 23. Re-employment
Employees reemployed or recalled to a full-time position in the same
classification or a related classification within five (5) years of separation from city
Ordinance S-_______
Page 205
service shall be placed at a pay rate that is not less than the rate of pay the employee
was receiving at the time of layoff, demotion, or separation, except where concessions
remain in effect thereby reducing the previous rate of pay by a percentage respective to
the employee Unit. Under no circumstances will an employee be placed above the
maximum rate of the grade into which they are being re-employed or recalled. The
applicability of this provision shall be determined by the Human Resources Director. The
provisions of this paragraph do not apply to promotions after reemployment.
SECTION 24. Transfer
T
If an employee transfers within the same classification, but in a different
meet and confer unit, the Human Resources Director is authorized to designate the pay
AF
step to which the employee shall be assigned.
SECTION 25. Underpayments and Overpayments
Retroactive corrections to underpayments or overpayments will not
exceed 3 years from the date the employee notifies the Human Resources Department
D
in writing of a payment dispute, or an overpayment is discovered and brought to the
attention of the Human Resources Director. Final authority regarding any corrections to
R
be made under this section rests with the Human Resources Director.
SECTION 26. The City Controller is authorized to disburse the necessary
funds for the purposes of this ordinance. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions of
this Ordinance shall be effective as of the 8th day of July, 2024.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Phoenix this ____ day of
__________, 2024.
MAYOR
Ordinance S-_______
Page 206
ATTEST:
_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney
BY: _________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
T
AF
_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager
DR
Ordinance S-_______
Page 207
EXHIBIT A
CLASSIFICATION PLAN
OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA
I. Classification of Positions
The Human Resources Director is responsible for the establishment and
maintenance of job classifications. Departments will work with Human Resources
to identify new and emerging business needs that may warrant a new classification
or new assignment, or to identify changes to the business environment that
T
necessitate changes to the title, minimum qualifications, or responsibilities of a job
or job family.
All positions which have similar closely-related essential functions (e.g.,
AF
duties, tasks, and responsibilities bearing the same relationships to other classes
and levels and calling for substantially the same test of knowledge, skills, and
abilities) shall be included in the same classification. Classifications may also be
grouped into job families or functions.
II. Uses of a Classification Plan
A classification plan provides the basic structure for personnel matters. It
permits the consideration of pay policy to be made in relation to duties,
responsibilities, and work requirements rather than in relation to personalities. It
D
also provides a uniform and meaningful terminology for position titles. It assures
the individual employee that the requirements of their job have been analyzed
properly, and that they will receive the same treatment in salary and other matters
R
as other employees with similar duties.
When work requirements indicate the need for new positions, City officials
may use the classification plan to place the new positions within established
classes or determine whether a new classification needs to be established. If
positions are placed within established classes, questions as to the type of
employee to be recruited and the proper pay level for the position are immediately
answered. If the work requires a new class to be established, the plan provides a
framework for where to insert the new class. The proper pay level can then be
determined by an evaluation of the new class in accordance with the City’s pay
philosophy. The classification plan indicates to department heads and employees
the lines of promotion within general types of work, and the employee is able to
determine their chances for advancement within the municipal service.
A classification plan deals only with the types of work existing at the time
the plan is prepared. It evaluates the duties that have been assigned to employees
Page 208
and are performed by them. A classification plan does not reflect the way an
individual performs their duties or their competence, efficiency, capability, length of
service, or experience. Classification deals with positions, not with individuals.
The Classification Plan is not static and is not intended to fix positions
permanently into classes. The plan is administered continually to adapt to
changing conditions, including the provision of new services, the expansion or
contraction of certain activities, changes in organization or methods, etc. The plan
is reviewed periodically to determine the adequacy of class descriptions and the
allocation of positions to classes.
III. The Classification Process
T
The Classification Plan for positions in the City of Phoenix has been
developed over the course of many years. It does not include elected officials and
members of boards and commissions.
AF
The following steps were taken in developing the City’s Classification Plan:
1.
2.
3.
The work requirements of positions in the classified service were
analyzed.
Classes of positions were established, appropriate and descriptive
class titles were selected, and written descriptions of work were
prepared.
Positions were allocated to the classes established.
D Over time, as the duties and responsibilities involved in positions change,
the City may choose to gather and review information to ensure that positions are
R
properly classified. This process may include some or all of the following:
•
•
Gathering information from employees and supervisors through
questionnaires and/or in person interviews and task assessments.
Assessing comparable jobs in the industry and market at the time of the
review.
• Other appropriate methods of analysis.
• Writing and/or updating job descriptions to establish or more accurately
describe the classification.
The City attempts to develop uniform and descriptive class titles that
conform as much as possible to existing working titles. Because the Classification
Page 209
Plan standardizes all the jobs in the municipal service, some position titles are
somewhat generalized. The class titles are used in payrolls, budgets and for other
clerical records and for internal and administrative uses. However, approved
working and legal titles may be used for public contact and legal purposes.
IV. Class Titles
A list of the class titles currently in use at the City is set forth in Attachment
1. A class title is a brief and descriptive designation of the type of work performed.
V. Job Descriptions
The job descriptions for all classes and assignments in the City are
T
available online at: City of Phoenix Job Descriptions and Pay Ranges. Class titles
are organized alphabetically under “Job Title.” Job descriptions are available by
clicking on the job titles. The pay grades, pay ranges and benefit categories for
each class are also included on this site.
AF
Job descriptions include a general description of the class, with emphasis
on the basic factors that distinguish the class from other classes above and below
it in the same series or in closely-related series. Included are factors such as
supervision received and exercised, responsibility and difficulty, hazards, the way
in which work is assigned and results are reviewed, etc. The distinguishing
features of the class establish the level of the class by evaluating it in terms of
relative difficulty and responsibility.
Job descriptions also include a list of the essential functions of each
D
classification. These are the fundamental job duties of the class, and do not
include marginal functions. In addition, they list the knowledge, skills and abilities
that must be possessed by applicants for a position allocated to the class. These
R
are considered as prerequisites to successful performance of the work of the
class. “Knowledge” generally means familiarity with and comprehension of the
listed tasks or subjects. “Skills” generally refer to the physical, mental, and social
processes employed in performing the job. “Abilities” means the present state of
development of innate capacities making it possible to apply the knowledge and
skills to work situations. In some classes, physical capacities required for adequate
performance in the class are listed.
Some classes have requirements limiting the practice of a profession or
occupation to persons who possess a specific license or certificate issued by a
licensing agency. Generally, the job description lists specific prerequisites which
must be met by applicants for positions in the class before otherwise qualifying. It
also lists critical physical or other practical requirements for specific classes.
Lastly, job descriptions include a statement of the training and experience
that ordinarily would provide a person with the knowledge, skills, and abilities
Page 210
necessary for successful performance of the work of the class.
VI. Assignments
Because of unusual conditions of employment, certain positions are placed
in an assignment which may have a pay range different than that of other positions
in the same job class. This pay is granted only when an employee is usually
performing the duties that clearly differentiate the position from others in the
classification and warrant the assignment pay. Assignments also have Job
Descriptions as described in Section V of this exhibit.
Selection to and removal of employees from authorized assignment
positions is solely within the discretion of department management. The
T
assignment pay rate and related benefits shall apply only when the employee is
performing the duties identified as requiring the assignment status and shall be
determined in accordance with Section 13 (b) of the Pay Ordinance. The employee
shall also continue to receive the higher pay when on paid leave of absence and
AF
when eligible for make-up pay under the Industrial Insurance program. Placement
within an assignment range is not a "promotion" and the removal of an individual
from an assignment position is not a "demotion.”
DR
Page 211
Pay Plan Draft Pay Ordinance Schedule
Effective: 7/8/2024
FLSA Ben Cat Salary
Job Code Job Title Status Code Plan Grade
00010 General Apprentice-U1 (NC) N 001 100 190
00020 General Apprentice-U2 (NC) N 002 200 290
00030 General Apprentice-U3 (NC) N 003 300 390
00070 General Apprentice-U7 (NC) N 007 700 090
00100 Clerical Trainee (NC) N 003 006 321
00110 Clerk I N 003 006 324
00120 Clerk II N 003 006 330
00160 Clerk III N 003 006 334
Mail Service Worker
Mail Service Supervisor
Clerical Supervisor
Secretary II
Secretary II*U8
T N
N
N
N
N
AF
Secretary II*Office Automation
Secretary II*Precinct
Secretary III
Secretary III*Council Reporter
Police Automated System Sec
Police Automated System Sec*Ld
Council Reporter
Courier
Court/Legal Clerk I
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
DR
Court/Legal Clerk II
Court/Legal Clerk III
Court/Legal Clerk III*Pros
Municipal Court Administrator
Asst Court Administrator
Court Supervisor
Court Supervisor*Interpreter
Court Interpreter
Court Interpreter*Credentialed
Secretary to City Manager(NC)
N
N
N
N
E
E
N
E
N
E
01020 Legal Secretary N 003 006 343
01022 Legal Secretary*U8 N 008 012 743
01023 Legal Secretary*Lead N 007 001 047
01024 Legal Secretary*PERB (NC) N 007 001 047
01030 Admin Secretary N 007 001 041
01031 Admin Secretary*Council Agenda N 007 001 043
01070 Council Aide (NC) E 007 023 C10
01080 Customer Service Clerk N 003 006 331
01083 Customer Service Clerk*Lead-U7 N 007 001 041
Page 212
Pay Plan Draft Pay Ordinance Schedule
Effective: 7/8/2024
FLSA Ben Cat Salary
Job Code Job Title Status Code Plan Grade
01085 Customer Service Clerk*Plans N 003 006 337
01120 Records Clerk N 003 006 333
01121 Records Clerk*Lead N 003 006 337
01130 Senior Records Clerk N 007 001 035
01140 Records Supervisor N 007 001 047
01150 Airport Access Agent N 003 006 337
01210 Police Records Clk N 003 006 341
01212 Police Records Clk*Lead N 003 006 345
Fingerprint Technician
Fingerprint Technician*Lead
Police Coding Clerk
Police Statistical Rsrch Aide
Meter Collection Clerk
T N
N
N
N
N
AF
Account Clerk II
Account Clerk III
Account Clerk III*U8
Account Clerk Supervisor
Utilities Service Trainee (NC)
Utilities Service Spec
Utilities Service Spec*Lead
Utilities Service Spec*Water
Human Resources Clerk
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
DR
Senior Human Resources Clerk
Auto Parts Clerk I
Auto Parts Clerk II
Auto Parts Clerk III
Library Clerk I
Library Clerk I*Extension Svcs
Library Clerk II
Library Support Services Supv
Library Circulation Attnd I
Library Circulation Attnd II
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
01570 Library Circulation Attnd III N 007 001 049
01580 Library Page N 999 006 323
01590 Inventory Control Specialist N 007 001 043
01600 Supplies Clerk II N 001 002 135
01601 Supplies Clerk II*U2 N 002 004 235
01602 Supplies Clerk II*U3 N 003 006 335
01620 Supplies Clerk III N 001 002 139
01621 Supplies Clerk III*U2 N 002 004 239
01623 Supplies Clerk III*U7 N 007 001 043
Page 213
Pay Plan Draft Pay Ordinance Schedule
Effective: 7/8/2024
FLSA Ben Cat Salary
Job Code Job Title Status Code Plan Grade
01670 Supplies Clerk I N 001 002 129
01671 Supplies Clerk I*U2 N 002 004 229
01672 Supplies Clerk I*U3 N 003 006 329
01680 Inventory Management Coord E 007 001 063
01690 Police Property Supervisor N 007 001 045
01700 Police Property Technician N 003 006 339
01800 Police Comm Shift Supervisor E 007 001 061
01801 Police Comm Shift Supv*Lead E 007 001 061
Communications Dispatcher
Fire Emergency Dispatcher
Fire Emergency Dispatcher*Lead
Police Comm Operator
Police Comm Op*Radio/911
T N
N
N
N
N
AF
Police Comm Op*Lead Radio/911
Mobile Dispatcher
Fire Communications Supervisor
Police Communications Supv
Desktop Publisher
Asst Housing Supervisor
Housing Program Representative
Repro & Bindery Equip Operator
Offset Press Operator
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
E
N
DR
Offset Press Op*Special Press
Printing Services Foreman
Printing Services Supervisor
Rehabilitation Loan Processor
Payroll Supervisor
Investment Manager
Accountant I
Accountant II
Accountant III
Accountant IV
N
N
N
E
E
E
N
E
E
E
03270 Tax Hearing Officer E 007 001 067
03280 Accounting Supervisor E 007 001 069
03300 Auditor Intern (NC) N 003 006 343
03310 Associate Auditor N 007 001 053
03330 Internal Auditor E 007 001 059
03340 Tax Auditor N 007 001 054
03350 Senior Tax Auditor E 007 001 058
03370 Senior Internal Auditor E 007 001 063
03371 Senior Internal Auditor*IT E 007 001 065
Page 214
Pay Plan Draft Pay Ordinance Schedule
Effective: 7/8/2024
FLSA Ben Cat Salary
Job Code Job Title Status Code Plan Grade
03390 Investment and Debt Manager E 007 001 073
03570 Treasury Collections Supv E 007 001 051
03600 License Inspector N 003 006 343
03610 Treasury Collections Rep N 003 006 343
03611 Treasury Collections Rep*TAR N 003 006 343
03670 Business License Service Clerk N 003 006 343
03720 Deputy City Auditor E 009 013 842
03730 Asst City Auditor E 010 018 912
City Auditor (NC)
Rate Analyst
Supplies Supervisor
Petroleum Supplies Supervisor
Quality Assurance Engineer
T E
E
E
E
E
Buyer Aide
Buyer
AF
Senior Buyer
Finance Procurement Officer
Finance Procurement Ofcr*Lead
Procurement Manager
Procurement Manager*Finance
Industrial Hygienist
Benefits Aide
N
N
E
E
E
E
E
E
N
DR
Training Specialist
Human Resources Aide
Human Resources Aide*U7
Human Resources Aide*Court
Curriculum/Training Coord
Curriculum/Trng Coord*Supv Dev
Safety Analyst I
Safety Analyst II
Human Resources Analyst
Human Resources Analyst*Court
N
N
N
N
N
E
E
N
E
N
05120 Senior Human Resources Analyst E 007 001 055
05130 Human Resources Supervisor E 007 001 069
05180 Asst Human Resources Director E 010 018 916
05190 Human Resources Director (NC) E 010 018 926
05200 Labor Relations Adm (NC) E 010 018 914
05220 Human Resources Officer E 007 001 066
05221 Human Resources Officer*Court E 007 001 066
05260 Operations Analyst E 007 001 059
05300 Management Intern (NC) N 007 001 047
Page 215
Pay Plan Draft Pay Ordinance Schedule
Effective: 7/8/2024
FLSA Ben Cat Salary
Job Code Job Title Status Code Plan Grade
05310 Management Asst I E 007 001 057
05320 Management Asst II E 007 001 065
05323 Management Asst II*CMO E 007 001 065
05330 Management Asst III E 009 013 830
05332 Management Asst III*PBS E 009 013 832
05350 Deputy Budget & Research Dir E 009 013 846
05360 Management Services Adm E 009 013 836
05370 Retirement Assistant N 007 001 045
Benefits Analyst II
Benefits Analyst II*IT
Benefits Analyst I
Deputy Human Resources Dir
Budget Analyst III
T E
E
N
E
E
AF
Budget Analyst II
Budget Analyst I
Department Budget Supervisor
Fiscal Manager
Budget & Research Director(NC)
Retirement Program Adm
Business Assistance Coord
Budget & Research Analyst
Senior Budget/Research Analyst
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
DR
Principal B&R Analyst
Admin Intern (NC)
Admin Aide
Admin Aide*U7
Admin Aide*U8
Admin Aide*Empl Parking Coord
Admin Asst I
Admin Asst II
Admin Asst III
Special Asst to City Mgr (NC)
E
N
N
N
N
N
N
E
E
E
06070 Exec Asst to Mayor (NC) E 010 018 918
06080 Deputy City Manager (NC) E 010 018 930
06090 Exec Asst to the City Mgr (NC) E 010 018 908
06100 Asst City Manager (NC) E 010 018 935
06110 Asst to the City Manager (NC) E 010 018 904
06130 Exec Asst to City Council (NC) E 010 018 908
06140 Senior Exec Asst/City Mgr (NC) E 010 018 918
06150 Special Asst / City Council E 009 013 830
06160 Asst to the Mayor (a) (NC) E 010 018 904
Page 216
Pay Plan Draft Pay Ordinance Schedule
Effective: 7/8/2024
FLSA Ben Cat Salary
Job Code Job Title Status Code Plan Grade
06161 Asst to the Mayor (b) (NC) E 010 018 902
06190 Emergency Management Coord E 009 013 832
06220 Chief Sustainability Off (NC) E 010 018 914
06230 Intergovern Affairs Coord (NC) E 010 018 922
06250 Protocol Program Adm (NC) E 009 013 830
06270 Asst Protocol Program Adm (NC) E 007 001 064
06300 Council Secretary (NC) N 007 023 C11
06320 Council Research Analyst (NC) E 007 023 C17
Council Assistant (NC)
Mayor's Assistant (NC)
Public Information Officer
Senior Public Info Officer
Deputy Public Info Director
T E
E
E
E
E
C22
C22
AF
Public Information Specialist
Public Information Dir (NC)
Video Station Manager
Video Productions Coordinator
Labor Compliance Supervisor
Labor Compliance Specialist
Contracts Specialist I
Contracts Specialist II
Contracts Specialist II*Lead
E
E
E
E
E
N
N
E
E
DR
Deputy Equal Opportunity Dir
Equal Opportunity Dir (NC)
OAT Director (NC)
OAT Attorney (NC)
OAT Executive Admin Asst
OAT Monitor
OAT Senior Monitor
OAT Monitor Supervisor
Workforce Development Supv
Workforce Development Spec N
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
06940 Senior Workforce Dev Spec E 007 001 058
07040 Equal Opportunity Specialist E 007 001 057
07042 Equal Opportunity Spec*Lead E 007 001 059
07050 Equal Opportunity Progrms Asst N 007 001 055
07090 Caseworker III E 007 001 059
07091 Caseworker III*Workforce Dev E 007 001 060
07100 Caseworker I N 003 006 345
07110 Caseworker II N 007 001 051
07112 Caseworker II*MentalHealthSpec N 007 001 055
Page 217
Pay Plan Draft Pay Ordinance Schedule
Effective: 7/8/2024
FLSA Ben Cat Salary
Job Code Job Title Status Code Plan Grade
07120 Youth Services Coordinator E 007 001 061
07130 Human Services Center Supv E 007 001 058
07180 Dietitian E 007 001 049
07220 Youth Counselor N 003 006 343
07260 Casework Aide N 003 006 333
07320 Community Worker II N 003 006 332
07330 Community Worker III N 007 001 038
07340 Senior Programs Supervisor II E 007 001 061
Senior Programs Supervisor I
Community Outreach Supervisor
Senior Center Assistant
Head Start Area Supervisor
Head Start Educator
T N
N
E
E
E
AF
Head Start Educator*Prog Asst
Head Start Education Spec
Casework Services Coordinator
Deputy Human Services Director
Human Services Program Coord
Asst Human Services Director
Human Services Director (NC)
Housing Rehabilitation Supv
Housing Investigator
N
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
N
DR
Landlord/Tenant Counselor
Housing Program Assistant
Housing Prog Asst*Property Mgr
Housing Supervisor
Asst Housing Director
Program Manager
Special Projects Administrator
Project Management Assistant
Project Manager
Housing Development Manager
N
N
N
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
08710 Housing Rehabilitation Spec N 003 006 351
08730 Housing Development Specialist E 007 001 057
08740 Housing Manager E 007 001 069
08750 Economic Development Prog Mgr E 007 001 069
08760 Housing Director (NC) E 010 018 922
08770 Deputy Housing Director E 009 013 842
08780 Modernization Manager E 007 001 059
08810 Economic Dev Executive Officer E 010 018 908
08830 Economic Development Spec E 007 001 055
Page 218
Pay Plan Draft Pay Ordinance Schedule
Effective: 7/8/2024
FLSA Ben Cat Salary
Job Code Job Title Status Code Plan Grade
09260 Data Control Specialist N 003 006 334
09320 Info Tech Supervisor E 007 001 057
09321 Info Tech Supv*1st Shift E 007 001 057
09330 Computer Production Scheduler N 007 001 048
09440 Info Tech Project Manager E 007 001 071
09510 Computer Operator N 003 006 338
09520 Senior Computer Operator N 003 006 342
09560 Information Tech Systems Spec E 007 001 063
Senior Info Tech Systems Spec
Lead Info Tech Systems Spec
Info Tech Analyst/Prg I
Info Tech Analyst/Prg II
Info Tech Analyst/Prg III
T E
E
E
E
E
AF
User Support Specialist
Lead User Technology Spec
Senior User Technology Spec
User Technology Specialist
User Technology Specialist*U3
User Technology Specialist*U2
Business Systems Analyst
Senior Business Systems Anlyst
Lead Business Systems Analyst
N
N
N
N
E
E
E
E
E
DR
Info Tech Service Specialist
GIS Technician
Senior GIS Technician
GIS Coordinator
Enterprise Technology Manager
Chief Information Officer(NC)
Asst Chief Information Officer
Deputy Chief Information Off
Regional Wireless Coop Dir
Legal Assistant
E
N
N
E
E
E
E
E
E
N
10040 Legal Assistant Supervisor E 007 001 055
10050 Municipal Court Hrng Off (NC) E 009 013 860
10060 Presiding Court Hrng Off (NC) E 009 013 870
10120 Asst City Atty II (NC) E 007 001 068
10121 Asst City Atty II*Pros (NC) E 007 001 068
10130 Asst City Atty III (NC) E 009 013 824
10131 Asst City Atty III*Pros (NC) E 009 013 824
10140 Asst City Atty IV (NC) E 009 013 826
10141 Asst City Atty IV*Pros (NC) E 009 013 826
Page 219
Pay Plan Draft Pay Ordinance Schedule
Effective: 7/8/2024
FLSA Ben Cat Salary
Job Code Job Title Status Code Plan Grade
10170 City Prosecutor (NC) E 010 018 922
10180 Chief Asst City Attorney (NC) E 010 018 918
10190 City Attorney (NC) E 010 018 929
10200 Chief Counsel (NC) E 010 018 914
10210 Asst Chief Counsel (NC) E 009 013 848
10220 Deputy City Prosecutor (NC) E 009 013 848
10221 Deputy City Pros (NC)*Chf Asst E 010 018 912
10230 Public Defender (NC) E 010 018 922
Forensic Toxicology Expert(NC)
Bailiff
Bailiff*Lead
City Judge (NC)
Asst Chief Presiding Judge(NC)
T E
N
N
E
E
AF
Chief Presiding Judge (NC)
Municipal Court Exec Officer
Municipal Court Info Sys Off
Elections/Annexation Spec II
Elections/Annexation Spec I
Elections/Annexation Aide
Elections Coordinator
Elections Coord*Citizen Supprt
Property Specialist
N
N
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
DR
Review Appraiser
Asst Tax & License Adm
Real Estate Program Manager
Deputy City Clerk
City Clerk (NC)
Asst City Clerk
Deputy Finance Director
Asst Finance Director
Chief Financial Officer (NC)
Risk Management Coordinator
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
12330 Claims Adjuster II E 007 001 063
12360 Risk Management Program Mgr E 007 001 069
12400 Finance Supervisor E 007 001 065
16340 Relocation Specialist E 007 001 049
17810 Transit Ops Contract Supv E 007 001 053
17820 Transit Superintendent E 007 001 070
17830 Transit Field Operations Mgr E 007 001 064
17870 Asst Public Transit Director E 010 018 912
17880 Deputy Public Transit Director E 009 013 842
Page 220
Pay Plan Draft Pay Ordinance Schedule
Effective: 7/8/2024
FLSA Ben Cat Salary
Job Code Job Title Status Code Plan Grade
17890 Public Transit Director (NC) E 010 018 922
18020 Planning Technician N 003 006 341
18030 Senior Planning Technician N 003 006 347
18040 Planning Graphic Designer N 003 006 353
18200 Historic Preservation Officer E 009 013 832
18210 Planner I E 007 001 049
18220 Planner II E 007 001 055
18221 Planner II*Village E 007 001 059
Planner III
Principal Planner
Neighborhood Services Dir (NC)
Deputy Neighborhood Svcs Dir
Neighborhood Specialist
T E
E
E
E
E
AF
Compliance Supervisor
Asst Neighborhood Services Dir
Senior Construction Insp
Senior Construction Insp*U1
Chief Construction Insp
Chief Construction Insp*U1
Chief Construction Insp*U7
Construction Insp Supv
Survey Aide
E
E
N
N
N
N
N
E
N
DR
Instrument Technician
Party Chief
Senior Party Chief
Survey Supervisor
Construction Drafting Tech
Senior Drafting Technician
Chief Drafting Technician
Materials Technician
Senior Materials Technician
Chief Materials Technician
N
N
N
N
E
N
N
N
N
N
19190 Chief Materials Plant Insp N 002 004 246
19200 Materials Supervisor E 007 001 053
19230 Engineering Tech N 003 006 340
19232 Engineering Tech*Traffic Count N 003 006 340
19240 Senior Engineering Tech N 003 006 350
19241 Senior Engineering Tech*U1 N 001 002 150
19250 Chief Engineering Tech N 003 006 354
19251 Chief Engineering Tech*U7 N 007 001 054
19260 Principal Engineering Tech E 007 001 060
Page 221
Pay Plan Draft Pay Ordinance Schedule
Effective: 7/8/2024
FLSA Ben Cat Salary
Job Code Job Title Status Code Plan Grade
19270 Water Services Tech Sup Coord E 007 001 071
20150 Mechanical Engineer E 007 001 067
20170 Energy Management Engineer E 007 001 060
20190 Survey Engineer E 007 001 070
20200 Hydrologist E 007 001 063
20210 Civil Engineer I N 007 001 057
20220 Civil Engineer II E 007 001 063
20230 Civil Engineer III E 007 001 067
Civil Engineer III*Team Ldr
Engineering Supervisor
Asst City Engineer
City Engineer (NC)
Energy Management Specialist
T E
E
E
E
E
AF
Signal Systems Specialist I
Signal Systems Specialist II
Traffic Engineer I
Traffic Engineer II
Traffic Engineer III
Traffic Engineering Supervisor
Engineering Manager
Asst Street Transportation Dir
Street Transportation Dir (NC)
N
N
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
DR
Deputy Street Transp Director
Water Services Proc Cont Spec
Communications Engineer
Environmental Program Mgr
Architect
Landscape Architect I
Landscape Architect II
Principal Landscape Architect
Laboratory Technician
Chemist I
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
N
N
23411 Chemist I*Quality Assurance E 007 001 051
23412 Chemist I*Specialty N 007 001 049
23420 Chemist II E 007 001 054
23421 Chemist II*Specialty E 007 001 056
23430 Chemist III E 007 001 058
23431 Chemist III*Specialty E 007 001 060
23510 Planning & Dev Team Ldr E 007 001 071
23520 Electrical Plans Engineer E 007 001 067
23530 Mechanical Plans Engineer E 007 001 067
Page 222
Pay Plan Draft Pay Ordinance Schedule
Effective: 7/8/2024
FLSA Ben Cat Salary
Job Code Job Title Status Code Plan Grade
23540 Structural Plans Engineer E 007 001 067
23630 Fire Protection Engineer E 007 001 066
23633 Fire Protection Engineer*Lead E 007 001 068
24000 Airport Security Guard N 002 004 240
24010 Airport Operations Assistant N 003 006 344
24100 Aviation Dispatcher N 003 006 344
24110 Aviation Dispatch Supv I N 007 001 049
24120 Aviation Dispatch Supv II E 007 001 055
Airfield Maint Worker I
Airfield Maint Worker II
Asst Aviation Director
Aviation Director (NC)
Deputy Aviation Dir
T N
N
E
E
E
AF
Aviation Superintendent
Aviation Supv III
Aviation Supv II
Aviation Supv I
Aviation Supv I*Special Maint
Aviation Marketing Supervisor
Airport Operations Technician
Sales Manager
Sales Supervisor
N
E
E
N
N
E
N
E
E
DR
Production Assistant
Senior Sales/Marketing Supv
Convention Center Maint Supt
Production Coordinator
Asst Production Services Mgr
Production Services Manager
Ticket Seller
Asst Ticket Services Supv
Ticket Services Supervisor
Events Representative
N
N
N
N
E
E
E
E
N
N
27460 Events Coordinator N 007 001 051
27480 Deputy Economic Dev Director E 009 013 844
27490 Community & Econ Dev Dir (NC) E 010 018 924
27500 Asst Com/Econ Dev Dir E 010 018 914
27530 Facility Coordinator E 007 001 061
27600 Deputy Convention Center Dir E 009 013 844
27610 Convention Center Dir (NC) E 010 018 924
27620 Asst Convention Center Dir E 010 018 914
30120 Library Technical Assistant N 003 006 335
Page 223
Pay Plan Draft Pay Ordinance Schedule
Effective: 7/8/2024
FLSA Ben Cat Salary
Job Code Job Title Status Code Plan Grade
30190 Volunteer Coordinator E 007 001 055
30200 Library Assistant N 007 001 039
30210 Librarian I N 007 001 049
30220 Librarian II E 007 001 053
30230 Librarian III E 007 001 065
30260 Deputy Library Director E 009 013 842
30280 Asst City Librarian E 010 018 912
30290 Library Services Director (NC) E 010 018 922
Librarian IV
Urban Forestry Tech Trnee (NC)
Urban Forestry Technician
Groundskeeper
Gardener
T N
E
N
N
N
AF
Gardener*Sprinkler System
Gardener*U2
Parks Foreman I
Parks Foreman II
Park Ranger III
Park Ranger II
Parks Maint Mechanic
Parks Maint Mech*Plumb Install
Parks Equipment Mechanic
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
DR
Horticulturist
Park Manager
Parks Supervisor
Parks & Recreation Aide
Parks & Recreation Aide*Cash
Parks Special Operations Supv
Golf Course Supervisor
Golf Course Supervisor*Lead
Head Golf Professional
Head Golf Professional*Lead
N
E
E
E
N
E
E
E
E
E
40580 Asst Golf Professional E 007 001 061
41010 Lifeguard N 999 017 S29
41090 Recreation Programmer N 003 006 342
41140 Recreation Coordinator II E 007 001 065
41160 Recreation Coordinator III E 007 001 058
41161 Recreation Coord III*Aquatics E 007 001 059
41170 Recreation Supervisor E 007 001 060
41172 Recreation Supv*Aquatics E 007 001 061
41200 Arts & Culture Administrator E 010 018 912
Page 224
Pay Plan Draft Pay Ordinance Schedule
Effective: 7/8/2024
FLSA Ben Cat Salary
Job Code Job Title Status Code Plan Grade
41210 Arts Specialist E 007 001 049
41220 Senior Arts Specialist E 007 001 058
41660 Deputy Parks & Rec Director E 009 013 844
41670 Asst Parks & Rec Director E 010 018 914
41700 Parks & Recreation Dir (NC) E 010 018 924
42010 Museum Aide N 003 006 341
42020 Pueblo Grande Administrator E 007 001 059
42050 Museum Curator E 007 001 053
Museum Assistant
City Archaeologist
Recreation Instructor
Recreation Leader
Asst Pool Manager
T N
N
E
N
N
AF
Pool Manager
Water Meter Reader
Senior Utilities Svc Spec
Water Services Technician
Water Services Specialist
Water Customer Services Spv I
Water Customer Services Spv II
Water Customer Svc Spvr II*Fld
Environ Health & Safety Spec
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
E
E
DR
Senior Utility Operator
Senior Utility Operator*SCBA
Ops & Maint Tech Trnee (NC)
Ops & Maintenance Tech
Ops & Maintenance Tech*SCBA
Ops & Maintenance Supervisor
Water Facilities Supervisor
Utility Helper
Utility Mechanic
Utility Mechanic*SCBA
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
E
N
N
50430 Industrial Maintenance Mech N 002 004 250
50440 Maintenance Planner/Scheduler N 002 004 252
50720 Laboratory Superintendent E 007 001 067
50790 Water Systems Operator N 003 006 355
50791 Water Systems Operator*Lead N 007 001 059
50830 Water Services Project Coord E 007 001 063
51120 Instrumentation & Cont Supv N 007 001 061
51130 Instrumentation & Cont Spec N 002 004 251
51131 Instrumentation & Cont Spec*Ld N 002 004 253
Page 225
Pay Plan Draft Pay Ordinance Schedule
Effective: 7/8/2024
FLSA Ben Cat Salary
Job Code Job Title Status Code Plan Grade
51210 Senior Water Quality Inspector N 002 004 246
51220 Chief Water Quality Inspector E 007 001 053
51260 Water Quality Inspector N 002 004 240
51280 Asst Customer Svcs Adm E 007 001 064
51300 Environmental Programs Admr E 010 018 912
51330 Water Resources Mgt Advsr (NC) E 010 018 912
51380 Water Resource Specialist E 007 001 063
51390 Water Services Director (NC) E 010 018 928
Asst Water Services Dir
Deputy Water Services Director
Water Services Superintendent
Environmental Quality Spec
Water & Wastewtr Econ Anlst
T E
E
E
E
E
AF
Utility Technician Trainee(NC)
Utility Technician
Utility Specialty Technician
Senior Utility Technician
Utility TV Technician
Utility Crew Chief
Utility Supervisor
Structural Inspector I
Structural Insp Field Supv
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
E
DR
General Inspector I
General Insp Field Supv
Annual Facilities Program Supv
Const Permit Supv
Const Permit Spec I
Mechanical Plans Examiner I
Mechanical Plans Examiner II
Electrical Plans Examiner I
Electrical Plans Examiner II
Structural Inspector II
N
N
N
E
E
E
N
N
N
N
60121 Structural Inspector II*Ind/PR N 003 006 357
60140 Structural Plans Examiner I N 003 006 355
60150 Structural Plans Examiner II N 003 006 359
60160 General Inspector II N 003 006 353
60170 Const Permit Spec II N 003 006 357
60200 Building Code Examiner N 003 006 359
60201 Building Code Examiner*Lead N 003 006 361
60210 Electrical Inspector I N 003 006 347
60220 Electrical Insp Field Supv E 007 001 063
Page 226
Pay Plan Draft Pay Ordinance Schedule
Effective: 7/8/2024
FLSA Ben Cat Salary
Job Code Job Title Status Code Plan Grade
60230 Electrical Inspector II N 003 006 353
60231 Electrical Insp II*Ind/PR N 003 006 357
60260 Civil Inspector I N 003 006 347
60270 Civil Inspector II N 003 006 353
60280 Civil Inspector III N 003 006 357
60320 Elevator Inspector II N 003 006 353
60330 Elevator Inspector I N 003 006 347
60340 Elevator Insp Field Supv E 007 001 063
Civil Inspections Field Supv
Plumbing/Mech Insp II
Plumbing/Mech Insp II*Ind/PR
Plumbing/Mech Insp I
Plumbing/Mech Insp Field Supv
T E
N
N
N
E
AF
Neighborhood Maint Tech I
Neighborhood Maint Tech II
Neighborhood Preserv Insp I
Neighborhood Preserv Insp II
Sign Inspector
Site Development Supervisor
Planning & Dev Dir (NC)
Asst Planning & Dev Dir
Deputy Planning & Dev Dir
N
N
N
E
N
E
E
E
E
DR
6101A
6101B
6101C
6101D
6101E
6101F
6101G
Plan Review Coordinator
Firefighter Trainee (NC)
Firefighter 56hr
Firefighter 56hr*SO
Firefighter 56hr*HMT&TRT
Firefighter 56hr*Para
Firefighter 56hr*SO/Para
Firefighter 56 hr*HMT&TRT/Para
Firefighter*40hr
Firefighter*40hr SO
N
N
E
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
6101H Firefighter*40hr HMT&TRT N 005 009 553
6101I Firefighter*40hr Para N 005 009 553
6101J Firefighter*40hr SO/Para N 005 009 555
6101K Firefighter*40hr HMT&TRT/Para N 005 009 557
6101L Firefighter*Recruit (NC) N 005 009 528
61020 Fire Engineer 56hr N 005 008 555
6102A Fire Engineer 56hr*SO N 005 008 557
6102B Fire Engineer 56hr*HMT&TRT N 005 008 559
6102C Fire Engineer 56hr*Para N 005 008 559
Page 227
Pay Plan Draft Pay Ordinance Schedule
Effective: 7/8/2024
FLSA Ben Cat Salary
Job Code Job Title Status Code Plan Grade
6102D Fire Engineer 56hr*SO/Para N 005 008 561
6102E Fire Engineer 56hr HMT&TRT/Par N 005 008 563
6102F Fire Engineer*40hr N 005 009 559
6102G Fire Engineer*40hr SO N 005 009 561
6102H Fire Engineer*40hr HMT&TRT N 005 009 563
6102I Fire Engineer*40hr Para N 005 009 563
6102J Fire Engineer*40hr SO/Para N 005 009 565
6102K Fire Engineer*40hrHMT&TRT/Para N 005 009 567
6104A
6104B
6104C
6104D
Fire Captain 56hr
Fire Captain 56hr*SO
Fire Captain 56hr*HMT&TRT
Fire Captain 56hr*Para
Fire Captain 56hr*SO/Para
T N
N
N
N
N
6104E
6104F
6104G
6104H
6104I
6104J
6104K
AF
Fire Captain 56hr*HMT&TRT/Para
Fire Captain*40hr
Fire Captain*40hr SO
Fire Captain*40hr HMT&TRT
Fire Captain*40hr Para
Fire Captain*40hr SO/Para
Fire Captain*40hr HMT&TRT/Para
Fire Equipment Service Worker
Fire Prevention Spec Trnee(NC)
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
DR
Fire Prevention Spec II
Fire Prevention Spec II*Ind/PR
Fire Prevention Spec I
Fire Prevention Supervisor
Fire Performance Auditor
Fire Battalion Chief 56hr
Fire Batt Chf*Division
Fire Batt Chf*Deputy
Fire Batt Chf*Asst Chief
Fire Batt Chf*Exec Asst Chief
N
N
N
N
E
E
E
E
E
E
61376 Fire Batt Chief*DepChfShftCmdr E 017 014 854
61500 Asst to the Fire Chief E 010 018 904
61501 Asst to the Fire Chief*P & R E 009 013 834
61590 Fire Chief (NC) E 019 025 956
61600 Fire Marshal E 009 013 844
62000 Fire 911 Administrator E 009 013 834
62020 Medical Billing Supervisor E 007 001 065
62030 Paramedic Training Coordinator E 007 001 059
62080 Multimedia Specialist N 007 001 055
Page 228
Pay Plan Draft Pay Ordinance Schedule
Effective: 7/8/2024
FLSA Ben Cat Salary
Job Code Job Title Status Code Plan Grade
62120 Detention Officer Trainee (NC) N 003 006 338
62130 Detention Officer N 003 006 343
62150 Detention Supervisor N 007 001 047
62160 Police Assistant N 003 006 343
62163 Police Asst*Detention Off Trne N 003 006 338
62180 Police Aide N 003 006 324
62200 Police Recruit (NC) N 004 007 450
62210 Police Officer N 004 007 451
Police Officer*Pilot
Police Officer*Rescue Pilot
Police Officer*Flight Instr
Police Officer*Chief Pilot
Police Sergeant
T N
N
N
N
N
AF
Police Lieutenant
Police Commander
Police Commander*Asst Chief
Police Commander*Exec Asst Chf
Forensic Photo Spec
Forensic Photo Spec*Ld
Police Administrator
Police R & I Bureau Shift Supv
Police R & I Operations Supv
N
E
E
E
N
N
E
N
E
DR
Polygraph Examiner
Asst Crime Lab Administrator
Criminal Intelligence Analyst
Police Civilian Investigator
Police Research Analyst
Police Research Supervisor
Police Chief (NC)
Crime Scene Specialist I
Crime Scene Specialist II
Crime Scene Specialist III
N
N
N
E
E
E
N
E
E
E
62830 Crime Scene Shift Supervisor E 007 001 056
62840 Crime Scene Section Supervisor E 007 001 064
62910 Forensic Scientist I (NC) N 003 006 347
62920 Forensic Scientist II N 007 001 051
62930 Forensic Scientist III N 007 001 057
62940 Forensic Scientist IV E 007 001 065
62950 Forensic Science Section Supv E 007 001 067
69990 Laborer N 001 002 130
69991 Laborer*U2 N 002 004 230
Page 229
Pay Plan Draft Pay Ordinance Schedule
Effective: 7/8/2024
FLSA Ben Cat Salary
Job Code Job Title Status Code Plan Grade
70030 Solid Waste Worker N 001 002 134
70060 Trades Helper N 001 002 137
70061 Trades Helper*U2 N 002 004 237
70100 Weigh Station Clerk N 003 006 330
70120 Street Maint Worker N 001 002 147
70121 Street Maint Worker*Rapid N 001 002 147
70122 Street Maint Wkr*Crew Ldr N 001 002 149
71040 Solid Waste Landfill Foreman N 007 001 054
Street Maint Foreman I
Street Maint Foreman II
Street Maint Foreman III
Street Maint Supervisor
Street Maint Superintendent
T N
N
N
E
E
AF
Solid Waste Foreman
Solid Waste Admin Analyst
Support Services Aide
Solid Waste Superintendent
Solid Waste Environ Spec
Solid Waste Environ Spec*Ld
Solid Waste Supervisor
Solid Waste Supv*Inspections
Solid Waste Administrator
N
E
N
E
N
N
N
N
E
DR
Traffic Maintenance Worker
Traffic Maintenance Frmn II
Traffic Maintenance Frmn III
Sign Specialist I
Sign Specialist II
Sign Specialist II*U2
Equipment Op I
Equipment Op I*U2
Equipment Op II
Equipment Op II*U2
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
72022 Equipment Op II*Gangmower Op N 001 002 141
72030 Equipment Op III N 001 002 143
72031 Equipment Op III*Asphalt N 001 002 145
72032 Equipment Op III*Lead Striper N 001 002 145
72033 Equipment Op III*U2 N 002 004 243
72034 Equipment Op III*Aprt Striper N 002 004 245
72036 Equipment Op III*Concrete N 001 002 145
72080 Solid Waste Equipment Operator N 001 002 143
72090 Landfill Equipment Operator N 001 002 145
Page 230
Pay Plan Draft Pay Ordinance Schedule
Effective: 7/8/2024
FLSA Ben Cat Salary
Job Code Job Title Status Code Plan Grade
72110 Equipment Op IV N 001 002 149
72111 Equipment Op IV*U2 N 002 004 249
72112 Equipment Op IV*Fuel Distrib N 002 004 251
72160 Motor Broom Operator N 001 002 141
72161 Motor Broom Operator*U2 N 002 004 241
72200 Landscape Equipment Operator N 001 002 137
73030 Equipment Services Aide N 003 006 334
73060 Equipment Service Wkr I N 002 004 233
Equipment Service Wkr II
Auto Technician
Auto Technician*Master Tech
Heavy Equip Mech
Heavy Equip Mech*Mobile Repair
T N
N
N
N
N
AF
Heavy Equip Mech*Emer Repair
Heavy Equip Mech*Landfill Mech
Equipment Repair Spec
Body Repair Specialist
Methods & Standards Analyst
Equipment Control Specialist
Equipment Analyst
Equipment Shop Foreman
Equipment Fabrication Foreman
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
E
N
DR
Fuel Management Specialist
Equipment Maintenance Supv
Tire Program Supervisor
Equipment Maintenance Supt
Fuel System Support Technician
Public Works Operations Mgr
Cement Finisher
Cement Finisher*U2
Traffic Services Supt
Traffic Signal Supervisor
N
N
N
E
N
E
E
N
E
E
74090 Electrician Helper N 002 004 232
74120 Electrician N 002 004 249
74121 Electrician*Lead N 002 004 253
74130 Traffic Signal Technician Frmn N 007 001 055
74140 Electrical Maint Crew Chief N 007 001 055
74160 Electrical Facilities Supv E 007 001 059
74190 Traffic Signal Technician N 002 004 248
74200 Electronic Systems Specialist N 002 004 248
74230 Telecommunications Svcs Asst E 007 001 049
Page 231
Pay Plan Draft Pay Ordinance Schedule
Effective: 7/8/2024
FLSA Ben Cat Salary
Job Code Job Title Status Code Plan Grade
74250 Machinist N 002 004 251
74270 Telecommunications Aide N 003 006 334
74370 Security Systems Supervisor E 007 001 059
74380 Parking Meter Specialist N 001 002 135
74390 Parking Meter Repair Supv N 007 001 041
74400 Welder N 001 002 149
74401 Welder*U2 N 002 004 249
74470 Asst Security Systems Supv E 007 001 053
Building Equip Op I
Building Equip Op II
Building Equipment Supervisor
Senior Building Equipment Supv
Building Maint Foreman
T N
N
N
E
N
AF
Building Facilities Supt
Energy Management Supt
Public Works Director (NC)
Deputy Public Works Director
Asst Public Works Director
Building Maint Worker
Building Maint Worker*U2
Building Maint Wrkr*Plumber-U1
Building Maint Wrkr*Plumber-U2
N
N
N
E
E
E
E
E
N
DR
Building Maintenance Supv
Property Manager
Locksmith
Aircraft Technician
Aircraft Technician*QA
Aircraft Maintenance Supv
Court Security Officer
Court Security Supervisor
Court Security Systems Manager
Public Service Trainee (NC) N
E
E
N
N
N
E
N
N
E
80050 Municipal Security Guard N 003 006 340
80070 Senior Municipal Security Grd N 007 001 042
80090 Custodial Worker I N 001 002 127
80091 Custodial Worker I*U2 N 002 004 227
80120 Custodial Worker II N 002 004 231
80121 Custodial Worker II*Window N 002 004 233
80130 Facilities Projects Planner N 002 004 259
80140 Facility Contract Compl Spec N 003 006 350
80141 Facility Contr Compl Spec*Ld N 007 001 054
Page 232
Pay Plan Draft Pay Ordinance Schedule
Effective: 7/8/2024
FLSA Ben Cat Salary
Job Code Job Title Status Code Plan Grade
80150 Facilities Service Coordinator E 007 001 055
80160 Event Services Worker N 002 004 237
80170 Event Services Lead N 007 001 041
80180 Event Services Supervisor N 007 001 047
80190 Event Services Manager E 007 001 059
80200 Asst Event Services Manager E 007 001 053
80210 Custodial Supervisor I N 007 001 037
80220 Custodial Supervisor II N 007 001 041
Mayor
Council Member
City Manager (NC)
T E
E
E
AF
DR
Page 233
Pay Plan 001 Supervisory & Professional
Effective: 7/8/2024
Grade Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8 Step 9 Step 10 Step 11 Step 12 Step 13 Step 14 Step 15 Step 16 Step 17
HRLY $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58 $67.81 $71.20 $74.76 $78.49 $82.42 $86.54
ANNUAL $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326 $141,045 $148,096 $155,501 $163,259 $171,434 $180,003
HRLY $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00 $66.15 $69.46 $72.93 $76.58 $80.41 $84.43
ANNUAL $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592 $144,477 $151,694 $159,286 $167,253 $175,614
HRLY $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58 $67.81 $71.20 $74.76 $78.49 $82.42
ANNUAL $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326 $141,045 $148,096 $155,501 $163,259 $171,434
HRLY $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00 $66.15 $69.46 $72.93 $76.58 $80.41
ANNUAL $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592 $144,477 $151,694 $159,286 $167,253
HRLY $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58 $67.81 $71.20 $74.76 $78.49
ANNUAL $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326 $141,045 $148,096 $155,501 $163,259
HRLY $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00 $66.15 $69.46 $72.93 $76.58
ANNUAL $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592 $144,477 $151,694 $159,286
HRLY $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58 $67.81 $71.20 $74.76
ANNUAL $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326 $141,045 $148,096 $155,501
HRLY $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00 $66.15 $69.46 $72.93
ANNUAL $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592 $144,477 $151,694
HRLY
HRLY
$32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64
$31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68
$41.63
$40.61
$43.71
$42.64
$45.89
$44.77
$48.19
$47.01
$50.60
$49.36
T
$53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58 $67.81 $71.20
ANNUAL $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326 $141,045 $148,096
$51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00 $66.15 $69.46
ANNUAL $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592 $144,477
HRLY $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58 $67.81
Page 234
ANNUAL $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326 $141,045
HRLY $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00 $66.15
F
ANNUAL $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592
HRLY $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58
ANNUAL $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326
HRLY $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00
ANNUAL $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040
HRLY $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50
ANNUAL $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920
HRLY $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68
A
$40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15
ANNUAL $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800
$60.00
HRLY $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57
ANNUAL $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826
HRLY $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15
ANNUAL $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872
HRLY $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78
R
ANNUAL $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022
HRLY $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83
ANNUAL $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194
$54.42
HRLY $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13
ANNUAL $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510
HRLY $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83
ANNUAL $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806
D 1
Pay Plan 001 Supervisory & Professional
Effective: 7/8/2024
Grade Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8 Step 9 Step 10 Step 11 Step 12 Step 13 Step 14 Step 15 Step 16 Step 17
HRLY $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60
ANNUAL $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248
HRLY $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36
ANNUAL $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669
HRLY $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19
ANNUAL $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235
HRLY $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01
ANNUAL $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781
HRLY $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89
ANNUAL $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451
HRLY $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77
ANNUAL $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122
HRLY $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71
ANNUAL $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917
HRLY $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64
ANNUAL $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691
HRLY $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08
ANNUAL $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926
HRLY $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54
$23.18
$48,214
$22.61
$24.34
$50,627
$23.74
$25.56
$53,165
$24.93
$26.83
$55,806
$26.18
$28.17
$58,594
$27.49
$29.58
$61,526
$28.86
T
$31.06
$64,605
$30.31
$32.62
$67,850
$31.82
$34.25
$71,240
$33.41
$35.96
$74,797
$35.08
$37.76 $39.64 $41.63
$78,541 $82,451 $86,590
$36.84 $38.68 $40.61
Page 235 ANNUAL $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469
HRLY $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64
ANNUAL $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451
HRLY
HRLY
$17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51
ANNUAL $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661
$17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02
$21.54
$44,803
$21.02
$22.61
$47,029
$22.08
$23.74
$49,379
$23.18
$24.93
$51,854
$24.34
$26.18
$54,454
$25.56
$27.49
$57,179
$26.83
F$28.86
$60,029
$28.17
$30.31
$63,045
$29.58
$31.82
$66,186
$31.06
$33.41
$69,493
$32.62
$35.08 $36.84
$72,966 $76,627 $80,454
$34.25 $35.96
$38.68
$37.76
ANNUAL $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541
HRLY $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84
ANNUAL $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627
HRLY $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96
ANNUAL $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797
HRLY $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60
ANNUAL $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688
$19.54
$40,643
$20.51
$42,661
$21.54
$44,803
$22.61
$47,029
A$23.74
$49,379
$24.93
$51,854
$26.18
$54,454
$27.49
$57,179
$28.86
$60,029
$30.31
$63,045
$31.82 $33.41 $35.08
$66,186 $69,493 $72,966
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62
ANNUAL
HRLY
ANNUAL
$32,635 $34,258 $35,984
$15.31 $16.07 $16.88
$31,845 $33,426 $35,110
$37,773
$17.72
$36,858
$39,666
$18.60
$38,688
R
$41,642
$19.54
$40,643
$43,722
$20.51
$42,661
$45,926
$21.54
$44,803
$48,214
$22.61
$47,029
$50,627
$23.74
$49,379
$53,165
$24.93
$51,854
$55,806
$26.18
$54,454
$58,594
$27.49
$57,179
$61,526 $64,605 $67,850
$28.86 $30.31 $31.82
$60,029 $63,045 $66,186
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045
D 2
Pay Plan 001 Supervisory & Professional
Effective: 7/8/2024
Grade Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8 Step 9 Step 10 Step 11 Step 12 Step 13 Step 14 Step 15 Step 16 Step 17
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854
HRLY
ANNUAL
HRLY
$15.69
$32,635
$15.31
$16.47
$34,258
$16.07
$17.30
$35,984
$16.88
T
$18.16
$37,773
$17.72
$19.07
$39,666
$18.60
$20.02
$41,642
$19.54
$21.02
$43,722
$20.51
$22.08
$45,926
$21.54
$23.18
$48,214
$22.61
$24.34
$50,627
$23.74
Page 236 ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214
HRLY
ANNUAL
HRLY
$15.31
$31,845
$16.07
$33,426
$15.69
F$16.88
$35,110
$16.47
$17.72
$36,858
$17.30
$18.60
$38,688
$18.16
$19.54
$40,643
$19.07
$20.51
$42,661
$20.02
$21.54
$44,803
$21.02
$22.61
$47,029
$22.08
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722
HRLY
ANNUAL
A $15.31
$31,845
$16.07
$33,426
$16.88
$35,110
$17.72
$36,858
$18.60
$38,688
$19.54
$40,643
$20.51
$42,661
R
D 3
Pay Plan 002 Field Unit I
Effective: 7/8/2024
Grade Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8 Step 9 Step 10 Step 11 Step 12 Step 13 Step 14 Step 15 Step 16 Step 17
HRLY $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58 $67.81 $71.20 $74.76 $78.49 $82.42 $86.54
ANNUAL $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326 $141,045 $148,096 $155,501 $163,259 $171,434 $180,003
HRLY $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00 $66.15 $69.46 $72.93 $76.58 $80.41 $84.43
ANNUAL $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592 $144,477 $151,694 $159,286 $167,253 $175,614
HRLY $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58 $67.81 $71.20 $74.76 $78.49 $82.42
ANNUAL $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326 $141,045 $148,096 $155,501 $163,259 $171,434
HRLY $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00 $66.15 $69.46 $72.93 $76.58 $80.41
ANNUAL $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592 $144,477 $151,694 $159,286 $167,253
HRLY $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58 $67.81 $71.20 $74.76 $78.49
ANNUAL $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326 $141,045 $148,096 $155,501 $163,259
HRLY $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00 $66.15 $69.46 $72.93 $76.58
ANNUAL $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592 $144,477 $151,694 $159,286
HRLY $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58 $67.81 $71.20 $74.76
ANNUAL $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326 $141,045 $148,096 $155,501
HRLY $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00 $66.15 $69.46 $72.93
ANNUAL $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592 $144,477 $151,694
HRLY
HRLY
$32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64
$31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68
$41.63
$40.61
$43.71
$42.64
$45.89
$44.77
$48.19
$47.01
$50.60
$49.36
T
$53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58 $67.81 $71.20
ANNUAL $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326 $141,045 $148,096
$51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00 $66.15 $69.46
ANNUAL $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592 $144,477
HRLY $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58 $67.81
Page 237
ANNUAL $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326 $141,045
HRLY $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00 $66.15
F
ANNUAL $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592
HRLY $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58
ANNUAL $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326
HRLY $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00
ANNUAL $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040
HRLY $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50
ANNUAL $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920
HRLY $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68
A
$40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15
ANNUAL $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800
$60.00
HRLY $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57
ANNUAL $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826
HRLY $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15
ANNUAL $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872
HRLY $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78
R
ANNUAL $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022
HRLY $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83
ANNUAL $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194
$54.42
HRLY $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13
ANNUAL $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510
HRLY $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83
ANNUAL $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806
D 1
Pay Plan 002 Field Unit I
Effective: 7/8/2024
Grade Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8 Step 9 Step 10 Step 11 Step 12 Step 13 Step 14 Step 15 Step 16 Step 17
HRLY $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60
ANNUAL $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248
HRLY $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36
ANNUAL $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669
HRLY $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19
ANNUAL $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235
HRLY $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01
ANNUAL $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781
HRLY $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89
ANNUAL $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451
HRLY $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77
ANNUAL $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122
HRLY $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71
ANNUAL $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917
HRLY $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64
ANNUAL $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691
HRLY $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08
ANNUAL $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926
HRLY $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54
$23.18
$48,214
$22.61
$24.34
$50,627
$23.74
$25.56
$53,165
$24.93
$26.83
$55,806
$26.18
$28.17
$58,594
$27.49
$29.58
$61,526
$28.86
T
$31.06
$64,605
$30.31
$32.62
$67,850
$31.82
$34.25
$71,240
$33.41
$35.96
$74,797
$35.08
$37.76 $39.64 $41.63
$78,541 $82,451 $86,590
$36.84 $38.68 $40.61
Page 238 ANNUAL $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469
HRLY $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64
ANNUAL $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451
HRLY
HRLY
$17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51
ANNUAL $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661
$17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02
$21.54
$44,803
$21.02
$22.61
$47,029
$22.08
$23.74
$49,379
$23.18
$24.93
$51,854
$24.34
$26.18
$54,454
$25.56
$27.49
$57,179
$26.83
F$28.86
$60,029
$28.17
$30.31
$63,045
$29.58
$31.82
$66,186
$31.06
$33.41
$69,493
$32.62
$35.08 $36.84
$72,966 $76,627 $80,454
$34.25 $35.96
$38.68
$37.76
ANNUAL $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541
HRLY $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84
ANNUAL $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627
HRLY $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96
ANNUAL $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797
HRLY $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60
ANNUAL $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688
$19.54
$40,643
$20.51
$42,661
$21.54
$44,803
$22.61
$47,029
A$23.74
$49,379
$24.93
$51,854
$26.18
$54,454
$27.49
$57,179
$28.86
$60,029
$30.31
$63,045
$31.82 $33.41 $35.08
$66,186 $69,493 $72,966
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62
ANNUAL
HRLY
ANNUAL
$32,635 $34,258 $35,984
$15.31 $16.07 $16.88
$31,845 $33,426 $35,110
$37,773
$17.72
$36,858
$39,666
$18.60
$38,688
R
$41,642
$19.54
$40,643
$43,722
$20.51
$42,661
$45,926
$21.54
$44,803
$48,214
$22.61
$47,029
$50,627
$23.74
$49,379
$53,165
$24.93
$51,854
$55,806
$26.18
$54,454
$58,594
$27.49
$57,179
$61,526 $64,605 $67,850
$28.86 $30.31 $31.82
$60,029 $63,045 $66,186
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045
D 2
Pay Plan 002 Field Unit I
Effective: 7/8/2024
Grade Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8 Step 9 Step 10 Step 11 Step 12 Step 13 Step 14 Step 15 Step 16 Step 17
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854
HRLY
ANNUAL
HRLY
$15.69
$32,635
$15.31
$16.47
$34,258
$16.07
$17.30
$35,984
$16.88
T
$18.16
$37,773
$17.72
$19.07
$39,666
$18.60
$20.02
$41,642
$19.54
$21.02
$43,722
$20.51
$22.08
$45,926
$21.54
$23.18
$48,214
$22.61
$24.34
$50,627
$23.74
Page 239 ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214
HRLY
ANNUAL
HRLY
$15.31
$31,845
$16.07
$33,426
$15.69
F$16.88
$35,110
$16.47
$17.72
$36,858
$17.30
$18.60
$38,688
$18.16
$19.54
$40,643
$19.07
$20.51
$42,661
$20.02
$21.54
$44,803
$21.02
$22.61
$47,029
$22.08
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722
HRLY
ANNUAL
A $15.31
$31,845
$16.07
$33,426
$16.88
$35,110
$17.72
$36,858
$18.60
$38,688
$19.54
$40,643
$20.51
$42,661
R
D 3
Pay Plan 004 Field Unit II
Effective: 7/8/2024
Grade Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8 Step 9 Step 10 Step 11 Step 12 Step 13 Step 14 Step 15 Step 16 Step 17
HRLY $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58 $67.81 $71.20 $74.76 $78.49 $82.42 $86.54
ANNUAL $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326 $141,045 $148,096 $155,501 $163,259 $171,434 $180,003
HRLY $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00 $66.15 $69.46 $72.93 $76.58 $80.41 $84.43
ANNUAL $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592 $144,477 $151,694 $159,286 $167,253 $175,614
HRLY $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58 $67.81 $71.20 $74.76 $78.49 $82.42
ANNUAL $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326 $141,045 $148,096 $155,501 $163,259 $171,434
HRLY $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00 $66.15 $69.46 $72.93 $76.58 $80.41
ANNUAL $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592 $144,477 $151,694 $159,286 $167,253
HRLY $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58 $67.81 $71.20 $74.76 $78.49
ANNUAL $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326 $141,045 $148,096 $155,501 $163,259
HRLY $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00 $66.15 $69.46 $72.93 $76.58
ANNUAL $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592 $144,477 $151,694 $159,286
HRLY $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58 $67.81 $71.20 $74.76
ANNUAL $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326 $141,045 $148,096 $155,501
HRLY $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00 $66.15 $69.46 $72.93
ANNUAL $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592 $144,477 $151,694
HRLY
HRLY
$32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64
$31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68
$41.63
$40.61
$43.71
$42.64
$45.89
$44.77
$48.19
$47.01
$50.60
$49.36
T
$53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58 $67.81 $71.20
ANNUAL $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326 $141,045 $148,096
$51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00 $66.15 $69.46
ANNUAL $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592 $144,477
HRLY $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58 $67.81
Page 240
ANNUAL $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326 $141,045
HRLY $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00 $66.15
F
ANNUAL $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592
HRLY $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58
ANNUAL $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326
HRLY $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00
ANNUAL $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040
HRLY $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50
ANNUAL $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920
HRLY $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68
A
$40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15
ANNUAL $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800
$60.00
HRLY $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57
ANNUAL $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826
HRLY $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15
ANNUAL $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872
HRLY $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78
R
ANNUAL $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022
HRLY $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83
ANNUAL $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194
$54.42
HRLY $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13
ANNUAL $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510
HRLY $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83
ANNUAL $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806
D 1
Pay Plan 004 Field Unit II
Effective: 7/8/2024
Grade Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8 Step 9 Step 10 Step 11 Step 12 Step 13 Step 14 Step 15 Step 16 Step 17
HRLY $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60
ANNUAL $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248
HRLY $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36
ANNUAL $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669
HRLY $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19
ANNUAL $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235
HRLY $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01
ANNUAL $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781
HRLY $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89
ANNUAL $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451
HRLY $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77
ANNUAL $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122
HRLY $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71
ANNUAL $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917
HRLY $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64
ANNUAL $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691
HRLY $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08
ANNUAL $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926
HRLY $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54
$23.18
$48,214
$22.61
$24.34
$50,627
$23.74
$25.56
$53,165
$24.93
$26.83
$55,806
$26.18
$28.17
$58,594
$27.49
$29.58
$61,526
$28.86
T
$31.06
$64,605
$30.31
$32.62
$67,850
$31.82
$34.25
$71,240
$33.41
$35.96
$74,797
$35.08
$37.76 $39.64 $41.63
$78,541 $82,451 $86,590
$36.84 $38.68 $40.61
Page 241 ANNUAL $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469
HRLY $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64
ANNUAL $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451
HRLY
HRLY
$17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51
ANNUAL $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661
$17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02
$21.54
$44,803
$21.02
$22.61
$47,029
$22.08
$23.74
$49,379
$23.18
$24.93
$51,854
$24.34
$26.18
$54,454
$25.56
$27.49
$57,179
$26.83
F$28.86
$60,029
$28.17
$30.31
$63,045
$29.58
$31.82
$66,186
$31.06
$33.41
$69,493
$32.62
$35.08 $36.84
$72,966 $76,627 $80,454
$34.25 $35.96
$38.68
$37.76
ANNUAL $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541
HRLY $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84
ANNUAL $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627
HRLY $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96
ANNUAL $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797
HRLY $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60
ANNUAL $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688
$19.54
$40,643
$20.51
$42,661
$21.54
$44,803
$22.61
$47,029
A$23.74
$49,379
$24.93
$51,854
$26.18
$54,454
$27.49
$57,179
$28.86
$60,029
$30.31
$63,045
$31.82 $33.41 $35.08
$66,186 $69,493 $72,966
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62
ANNUAL
HRLY
ANNUAL
$32,635 $34,258 $35,984
$15.31 $16.07 $16.88
$31,845 $33,426 $35,110
$37,773
$17.72
$36,858
$39,666
$18.60
$38,688
R
$41,642
$19.54
$40,643
$43,722
$20.51
$42,661
$45,926
$21.54
$44,803
$48,214
$22.61
$47,029
$50,627
$23.74
$49,379
$53,165
$24.93
$51,854
$55,806
$26.18
$54,454
$58,594
$27.49
$57,179
$61,526 $64,605 $67,850
$28.86 $30.31 $31.82
$60,029 $63,045 $66,186
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045
D 2
Pay Plan 004 Field Unit II
Effective: 7/8/2024
Grade Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8 Step 9 Step 10 Step 11 Step 12 Step 13 Step 14 Step 15 Step 16 Step 17
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854
HRLY
ANNUAL
HRLY
$15.69
$32,635
$15.31
$16.47
$34,258
$16.07
$17.30
$35,984
$16.88
T
$18.16
$37,773
$17.72
$19.07
$39,666
$18.60
$20.02
$41,642
$19.54
$21.02
$43,722
$20.51
$22.08
$45,926
$21.54
$23.18
$48,214
$22.61
$24.34
$50,627
$23.74
Page 242 ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214
HRLY
ANNUAL
HRLY
$15.31
$31,845
$16.07
$33,426
$15.69
F$16.88
$35,110
$16.47
$17.72
$36,858
$17.30
$18.60
$38,688
$18.16
$19.54
$40,643
$19.07
$20.51
$42,661
$20.02
$21.54
$44,803
$21.02
$22.61
$47,029
$22.08
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722
HRLY
ANNUAL
A $15.31
$31,845
$16.07
$33,426
$16.88
$35,110
$17.72
$36,858
$18.60
$38,688
$19.54
$40,643
$20.51
$42,661
R
D 3
Pay Plan 006 Office & Clerical
Effective: 7/8/2024
Grade Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8 Step 9 Step 10 Step 11 Step 12 Step 13 Step 14 Step 15 Step 16 Step 17
HRLY $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58 $67.81 $71.20 $74.76 $78.49 $82.42 $86.54
ANNUAL $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326 $141,045 $148,096 $155,501 $163,259 $171,434 $180,003
HRLY $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00 $66.15 $69.46 $72.93 $76.58 $80.41 $84.43
ANNUAL $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592 $144,477 $151,694 $159,286 $167,253 $175,614
HRLY $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58 $67.81 $71.20 $74.76 $78.49 $82.42
ANNUAL $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326 $141,045 $148,096 $155,501 $163,259 $171,434
HRLY $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00 $66.15 $69.46 $72.93 $76.58 $80.41
ANNUAL $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592 $144,477 $151,694 $159,286 $167,253
HRLY $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58 $67.81 $71.20 $74.76 $78.49
ANNUAL $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326 $141,045 $148,096 $155,501 $163,259
HRLY $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00 $66.15 $69.46 $72.93 $76.58
ANNUAL $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592 $144,477 $151,694 $159,286
HRLY $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58 $67.81 $71.20 $74.76
ANNUAL $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326 $141,045 $148,096 $155,501
HRLY $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00 $66.15 $69.46 $72.93
ANNUAL $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592 $144,477 $151,694
HRLY
HRLY
$32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64
$31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68
$41.63
$40.61
$43.71
$42.64
$45.89
$44.77
$48.19
$47.01
$50.60
$49.36
T
$53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58 $67.81 $71.20
ANNUAL $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326 $141,045 $148,096
$51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00 $66.15 $69.46
ANNUAL $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592 $144,477
HRLY $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58 $67.81
Page 243
ANNUAL $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326 $141,045
HRLY $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00 $66.15
F
ANNUAL $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592
HRLY $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58
ANNUAL $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326
HRLY $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00
ANNUAL $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040
HRLY $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50
ANNUAL $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920
HRLY $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68
A
$40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15
ANNUAL $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800
$60.00
HRLY $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57
ANNUAL $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826
HRLY $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15
ANNUAL $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872
HRLY $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78
R
ANNUAL $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022
HRLY $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83
ANNUAL $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194
$54.42
HRLY $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13
ANNUAL $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510
HRLY $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83
ANNUAL $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806
D 1
Pay Plan 006 Office & Clerical
Effective: 7/8/2024
Grade Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8 Step 9 Step 10 Step 11 Step 12 Step 13 Step 14 Step 15 Step 16 Step 17
HRLY $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60
ANNUAL $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248
HRLY $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36
ANNUAL $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669
HRLY $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19
ANNUAL $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235
HRLY $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01
ANNUAL $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781
HRLY $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89
ANNUAL $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451
HRLY $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77
ANNUAL $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122
HRLY $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71
ANNUAL $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917
HRLY $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64
ANNUAL $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691
HRLY $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08
ANNUAL $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926
HRLY $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54
$23.18
$48,214
$22.61
$24.34
$50,627
$23.74
$25.56
$53,165
$24.93
$26.83
$55,806
$26.18
$28.17
$58,594
$27.49
$29.58
$61,526
$28.86
T
$31.06
$64,605
$30.31
$32.62
$67,850
$31.82
$34.25
$71,240
$33.41
$35.96
$74,797
$35.08
$37.76 $39.64 $41.63
$78,541 $82,451 $86,590
$36.84 $38.68 $40.61
Page 244 ANNUAL $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469
HRLY $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64
ANNUAL $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451
HRLY
HRLY
$17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51
ANNUAL $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661
$17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02
$21.54
$44,803
$21.02
$22.61
$47,029
$22.08
$23.74
$49,379
$23.18
$24.93
$51,854
$24.34
$26.18
$54,454
$25.56
$27.49
$57,179
$26.83
F$28.86
$60,029
$28.17
$30.31
$63,045
$29.58
$31.82
$66,186
$31.06
$33.41
$69,493
$32.62
$35.08 $36.84
$72,966 $76,627 $80,454
$34.25 $35.96
$38.68
$37.76
ANNUAL $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541
HRLY $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84
ANNUAL $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627
HRLY $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96
ANNUAL $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797
HRLY $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60
ANNUAL $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688
$19.54
$40,643
$20.51
$42,661
$21.54
$44,803
$22.61
$47,029
A$23.74
$49,379
$24.93
$51,854
$26.18
$54,454
$27.49
$57,179
$28.86
$60,029
$30.31
$63,045
$31.82 $33.41 $35.08
$66,186 $69,493 $72,966
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62
ANNUAL
HRLY
ANNUAL
$32,635 $34,258 $35,984
$15.31 $16.07 $16.88
$31,845 $33,426 $35,110
$37,773
$17.72
$36,858
$39,666
$18.60
$38,688
R
$41,642
$19.54
$40,643
$43,722
$20.51
$42,661
$45,926
$21.54
$44,803
$48,214
$22.61
$47,029
$50,627
$23.74
$49,379
$53,165
$24.93
$51,854
$55,806
$26.18
$54,454
$58,594
$27.49
$57,179
$61,526 $64,605 $67,850
$28.86 $30.31 $31.82
$60,029 $63,045 $66,186
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045
D 2
Pay Plan 006 Office & Clerical
Effective: 7/8/2024
Grade Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8 Step 9 Step 10 Step 11 Step 12 Step 13 Step 14 Step 15 Step 16 Step 17
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854
HRLY
ANNUAL
HRLY
$15.69
$32,635
$15.31
$16.47
$34,258
$16.07
$17.30
$35,984
$16.88
T
$18.16
$37,773
$17.72
$19.07
$39,666
$18.60
$20.02
$41,642
$19.54
$21.02
$43,722
$20.51
$22.08
$45,926
$21.54
$23.18
$48,214
$22.61
$24.34
$50,627
$23.74
Page 245 ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214
HRLY
ANNUAL
HRLY
$15.31
$31,845
$16.07
$33,426
$15.69
F$16.88
$35,110
$16.47
$17.72
$36,858
$17.30
$18.60
$38,688
$18.16
$19.54
$40,643
$19.07
$20.51
$42,661
$20.02
$21.54
$44,803
$21.02
$22.61
$47,029
$22.08
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722
HRLY
ANNUAL
A $15.31
$31,845
$16.07
$33,426
$16.88
$35,110
$17.72
$36,858
$18.60
$38,688
$19.54
$40,643
$20.51
$42,661
R
D 3
Pay Plan 007 Police
Effective: 7/8/2024
Grade Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8 Step 9 Step 10 Step 11 Step 12 Step 13 Step 14 Step 15 Step 16 Step 17
HRLY $54.69 $57.28 $60.01
ANNUAL $119,142 $124,821
HRLY $52.76 $55.26 $57.88
ANNUAL $109,741 $114,941 $120,390
HRLY $50.83 $53.26 $55.79
ANNUAL $105,726 $110,781 $116,043
HRLY $49.02 $51.35 $53.79
ANNUAL $101,962 $106,808 $111,883
HRLY $35.75 $37.44 $39.22 $41.09 $43.04 $45.08 $47.23 $49.48 $51.84
ANNUAL $74,360 $77,875 $81,578 $85,467 $89,523 $93,766 $98,238 $102,918 $107,827
HRLY $33.72 $35.41
ANNUAL $70,138 $73,653
T
Page 246
A F
R
D 1
Pay Plan Fire - 56 Hour 008
Effective: 7/8/2024
Grade Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8 Step 9 Step 10 Step 11 Step 12 Step 13 Step 14 Step 15 Step 16 Step 17
HRLY $28.314 $29.736 $31.221 $32.779 $34.421 $36.143 $37.950 $39.843 $41.836 $43.929 $46.129 $48.436 $50.857 $53.400 $56.064 $58.871 $61.814
ANNUAL $86,591 $90,916 $95,452 $100,234 $105,248 $110,510 $116,023 $121,826 $127,921 $134,328 $141,046 $148,096 $155,501 $163,258 $171,432 $180,002
HRLY $27.629 $29.007 $30.457 $31.979 $33.579 $35.257 $37.021 $38.871 $40.821 $42.857 $45.000 $47.250 $49.614 $52.093 $54.700 $57.436 $60.307
ANNUAL $80,456 $84,468 $88,691 $93,123 $97,782 $102,668 $107,805 $113,192 $118,871 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592 $144,476 $151,695 $159,286 $167,254 $175,614
HRLY $26.971 $28.314 $29.736 $31.221 $32.779 $34.421 $36.143 $37.950 $39.843 $41.836 $43.929 $46.129 $48.436 $50.857 $53.400 $56.064 $58.871
ANNUAL $78,540 $82,450 $86,591 $90,916 $95,452 $100,234 $105,248 $110,510 $116,023 $121,826 $127,921 $134,328 $141,046 $148,096 $155,501 $163,258 $171,432
HRLY $26.314 $27.629 $29.007 $30.457 $31.979 $33.579 $35.257 $37.021 $38.871 $40.821 $42.857 $45.000 $47.250 $49.614 $52.093 $54.700 $57.436
ANNUAL $76,626 $80,456 $84,468 $88,691 $93,123 $97,782 $102,668 $107,805 $113,192 $118,871 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592 $144,476 $151,695 $159,286 $167,254
HRLY $25.686 $26.971 $28.314 $29.736 $31.221 $32.779 $34.421 $36.143 $37.950 $39.843 $41.836 $43.929 $46.129 $48.436 $50.857 $53.400 $56.064
ANNUAL $74,798 $78,540 $82,450 $86,591 $90,916 $95,452 $100,234 $105,248 $110,510 $116,023 $121,826 $127,921 $134,328 $141,046 $148,096 $155,501 $163,258
HRLY $25.057 $26.314 $27.629 $29.007 $30.457 $31.979 $33.579 $35.257 $37.021 $38.871 $40.821 $42.857 $45.000 $47.250 $49.614 $52.093 $54.700
ANNUAL $72,966 $76,626 $80,456 $84,468 $88,691 $93,123 $97,782 $102,668 $107,805 $113,192 $118,871 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592 $144,476 $151,695 $159,286
HRLY $24.464 $25.686 $26.971 $28.314 $29.736 $31.221 $32.779 $34.421 $36.143 $37.950 $39.843 $41.836 $43.929 $46.129 $48.436 $50.857 $53.400
ANNUAL $71,239 $74,798 $78,540 $82,450 $86,591 $90,916 $95,452 $100,234 $105,248 $110,510 $116,023 $121,826 $127,921 $134,328 $141,046 $148,096 $155,501
HRLY
ANNUAL
HRLY
$23.864
$69,492
$23.300
$25.057
$72,966
$24.464
$26.314
$76,626
$25.686
$27.629 $29.007 $30.457 $31.979 $33.579 $35.257 $37.021
$80,456 $84,468 $88,691 $93,123 $97,782 $102,668 $107,805
$26.971 $28.314 $29.736 $31.221 $32.779 $34.421 $36.143
T
$38.871
$113,192
$37.950
$40.821 $42.857 $45.000 $47.250 $49.614 $52.093
$118,871 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592 $144,476 $151,695
$39.843 $41.836 $43.929 $46.129 $48.436 $50.857
Page 247 ANNUAL $67,850 $71,239 $74,798 $78,540 $82,450 $86,591 $90,916 $95,452 $100,234 $105,248 $110,510 $116,023 $121,826 $127,921 $134,328 $141,046 $148,096
HRLY $22.729 $23.864 $25.057 $26.314 $27.629 $29.007 $30.457 $31.979 $33.579 $35.257 $37.021 $38.871 $40.821 $42.857 $45.000 $47.250 $49.614
ANNUAL $66,187 $69,492 $72,966 $76,626 $80,456 $84,468 $88,691 $93,123 $97,782 $102,668 $107,805 $113,192 $118,871 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592 $144,476
HRLY
ANNUAL
HRLY
$22.186
$64,606
$21.650
$23.300
$67,850
$22.729
$24.464
$71,239
$23.864
$25.686 $26.971 $28.314 $29.736 $31.221 $32.779 $34.421
$74,798 $78,540 $82,450 $86,591 $90,916 $95,452 $100,234
$25.057 $26.314 $27.629 $29.007 $30.457 $31.979 $33.579
F
$36.143
$105,248
$35.257
$37.950 $39.843 $41.836 $43.929 $46.129 $48.436
$110,510 $116,023 $121,826 $127,921 $134,328 $141,046
$37.021 $38.871 $40.821 $42.857 $45.000 $47.250
ANNUAL $63,045 $66,187 $69,492 $72,966 $76,626 $80,456 $84,468 $88,691 $93,123 $97,782 $102,668 $107,805 $113,192 $118,871 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592
HRLY $21.129 $22.186 $23.300 $24.464 $25.686 $26.971 $28.314 $29.736 $31.221 $32.779 $34.421 $36.143 $37.950 $39.843 $41.836 $43.929 $46.129
ANNUAL $61,528 $64,606 $67,850 $71,239 $74,798 $78,540 $82,450 $86,591 $90,916 $95,452 $100,234 $105,248 $110,510 $116,023 $121,826 $127,921 $134,328
HRLY
ANNUAL
HRLY
$20.614
$60,028
$20.121
$21.650
$63,045
$21.129
$22.729
$66,187
$22.186
A
$23.864 $25.057 $26.314 $27.629 $29.007 $30.457 $31.979
$69,492 $72,966 $76,626 $80,456 $84,468 $88,691 $93,123
$23.300 $24.464 $25.686 $26.971 $28.314 $29.736 $31.221
$33.579
$97,782
$32.779
$35.257 $37.021 $38.871 $40.821 $42.857 $45.000
$102,668 $107,805 $113,192 $118,871 $124,800 $131,040
$34.421 $36.143 $37.950 $39.843 $41.836 $43.929
ANNUAL $58,592 $61,528 $64,606 $67,850 $71,239 $74,798 $78,540 $82,450 $86,591 $90,916 $95,452 $100,234 $105,248 $110,510 $116,023 $121,826 $127,921
HRLY $19.636 $20.614 $21.650 $22.729 $23.864 $25.057 $26.314 $27.629 $29.007 $30.457 $31.979 $33.579 $35.257 $37.021 $38.871 $40.821 $42.857
ANNUAL $57,180 $60,028 $63,045 $66,187 $69,492 $72,966 $76,626 $80,456 $84,468 $88,691 $93,123 $97,782 $102,668 $107,805 $113,192 $118,871 $124,800
HRLY $19.164 $20.121 $21.129 $22.186 $23.300 $24.464 $25.686 $26.971 $28.314 $29.736 $31.221 $32.779 $34.421 $36.143 $37.950 $39.843 $41.836
ANNUAL
HRLY
ANNUAL
$55,806
$18.700
$54,454
$58,592
$19.636
$57,180
$61,528
$20.614
$60,028
R
$64,606 $67,850 $71,239 $74,798 $78,540 $82,450 $86,591
$21.650 $22.729 $23.864 $25.057 $26.314 $27.629 $29.007
$63,045 $66,187 $69,492 $72,966 $76,626 $80,456 $84,468
$90,916
$30.457
$88,691
$95,452 $100,234 $105,248 $110,510 $116,023 $121,826
$31.979 $33.579 $35.257 $37.021 $38.871 $40.821
$93,123 $97,782 $102,668 $107,805 $113,192 $118,871
HRLY $18.257 $19.164 $20.121 $21.129 $22.186 $23.300 $24.464 $25.686 $26.971 $28.314 $29.736 $31.221 $32.779 $34.421 $36.143 $37.950 $39.843
ANNUAL $53,164 $55,806 $58,592 $61,528 $64,606 $67,850 $71,239 $74,798 $78,540 $82,450 $86,591 $90,916 $95,452 $100,234 $105,248 $110,510 $116,023
HRLY $17.807 $18.700 $19.636 $20.614 $21.650 $22.729 $23.864 $25.057 $26.314 $27.629 $29.007 $30.457 $31.979 $33.579 $35.257 $37.021 $38.871
ANNUAL $51,854 $54,454 $57,180 $60,028 $63,045 $66,187 $69,492 $72,966 $76,626 $80,456 $84,468 $88,691 $93,123 $97,782 $102,668 $107,805 $113,192
D 1
Pay Plan Fire - 56 Hour 008
Effective: 7/8/2024
Grade Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8 Step 9 Step 10 Step 11 Step 12 Step 13 Step 14 Step 15 Step 16 Step 17
HRLY $17.386 $18.257 $19.164 $20.121 $21.129 $22.186 $23.300 $24.464 $25.686 $26.971 $28.314 $29.736 $31.221 $32.779 $34.421 $36.143 $37.950
ANNUAL $50,628 $53,164 $55,806 $58,592 $61,528 $64,606 $67,850 $71,239 $74,798 $78,540 $82,450 $86,591 $90,916 $95,452 $100,234 $105,248 $110,510
HRLY $16.957 $17.807 $18.700 $19.636 $20.614 $21.650 $22.729 $23.864 $25.057 $26.314 $27.629 $29.007 $30.457 $31.979 $33.579 $35.257 $37.021
ANNUAL $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,180 $60,028 $63,045 $66,187 $69,492 $72,966 $76,626 $80,456 $84,468 $88,691 $93,123 $97,782 $102,668 $107,805
HRLY $16.557 $17.386 $18.257 $19.164 $20.121 $21.129 $22.186 $23.300 $24.464 $25.686 $26.971 $28.314 $29.736 $31.221 $32.779 $34.421 $36.143
ANNUAL $48,214 $50,628 $53,164 $55,806 $58,592 $61,528 $64,606 $67,850 $71,239 $74,798 $78,540 $82,450 $86,591 $90,916 $95,452 $100,234 $105,248
HRLY $16.150 $16.957 $17.807 $18.700 $19.636 $20.614 $21.650 $22.729 $23.864 $25.057 $26.314 $27.629 $29.007 $30.457 $31.979 $33.579 $35.257
ANNUAL $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,180 $60,028 $63,045 $66,187 $69,492 $72,966 $76,626 $80,456 $84,468 $88,691 $93,123 $97,782 $102,668
HRLY $15.771 $16.557 $17.386 $18.257 $19.164 $20.121 $21.129 $22.186 $23.300 $24.464 $25.686 $26.971 $28.314 $29.736 $31.221 $32.779 $34.421
ANNUAL $45,925 $48,214 $50,628 $53,164 $55,806 $58,592 $61,528 $64,606 $67,850 $71,239 $74,798 $78,540 $82,450 $86,591 $90,916 $95,452 $100,234
HRLY $15.386 $16.150 $16.957 $17.807 $18.700 $19.636 $20.614 $21.650 $22.729 $23.864 $25.057 $26.314 $27.629 $29.007 $30.457 $31.979 $33.579
ANNUAL $44,804 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,180 $60,028 $63,045 $66,187 $69,492 $72,966 $76,626 $80,456 $84,468 $88,691 $93,123 $97,782
HRLY $15.014 $15.771 $16.557 $17.386 $18.257 $19.164 $20.121 $21.129 $22.186 $23.300 $24.464 $25.686 $26.971 $28.314 $29.736 $31.221 $32.779
ANNUAL $43,721 $45,925 $48,214 $50,628 $53,164 $55,806 $58,592 $61,528 $64,606 $67,850 $71,239 $74,798 $78,540 $82,450 $86,591 $90,916 $95,452
HRLY
ANNUAL
HRLY
$14.650
$42,661
$14.300
$15.386
$44,804
$15.014
$16.150
$47,029
$15.771
$16.957
$49,379
$16.557
$17.807
$51,854
$17.386
$18.700
$54,454
$18.257
$19.636
$57,180
$19.164
$20.614
$60,028
$20.121
$21.650
$63,045
$21.129
$22.729
$66,187
$22.186
T
$23.864
$69,492
$23.300
$25.057
$72,966
$24.464
$26.314
$76,626
$25.686
$27.629 $29.007 $30.457 $31.979
$80,456 $84,468 $88,691 $93,123
$26.971 $28.314 $29.736 $31.221
Page 248 ANNUAL $41,642 $43,721 $45,925 $48,214 $50,628 $53,164 $55,806 $58,592 $61,528 $64,606 $67,850 $71,239 $74,798 $78,540 $82,450 $86,591 $90,916
HRLY $13.957 $14.650 $15.386 $16.150 $16.957 $17.807 $18.700 $19.636 $20.614 $21.650 $22.729 $23.864 $25.057 $26.314 $27.629 $29.007 $30.457
ANNUAL $40,643 $42,661 $44,804 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,180 $60,028 $63,045 $66,187 $69,492 $72,966 $76,626 $80,456 $84,468 $88,691
HRLY
ANNUAL
$13.621
$39,664
$14.300
$41,642
$15.014
$43,721
$15.771
$45,925
$16.557
$48,214
$17.386
$50,628
$18.257
$53,164
$19.164
$55,806
$20.121
$58,592
$21.129
$61,528
F
$22.186
$64,606
$23.300
$67,850
$24.464
$71,239
$25.686 $26.971 $28.314 $29.736
$74,798 $78,540 $82,450 $86,591
HRLY $13.286 $13.957 $14.650 $15.386 $16.150 $16.957 $17.807 $18.700 $19.636 $20.614 $21.650 $22.729 $23.864 $25.057 $26.314 $27.629 $29.007
ANNUAL $38,689 $40,643 $42,661 $44,804 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,180 $60,028 $63,045 $66,187 $69,492 $72,966 $76,626 $80,456 $84,468
HRLY $12.971 $13.621 $14.300 $15.014 $15.771 $16.557 $17.386 $18.257 $19.164 $20.121 $21.129 $22.186 $23.300 $24.464 $25.686 $26.971 $28.314
ANNUAL $37,772 $39,664 $41,642 $43,721 $45,925 $48,214 $50,628 $53,164 $55,806 $58,592 $61,528 $64,606 $67,850 $71,239 $74,798 $78,540 $82,450
HRLY
ANNUAL
HRLY
$12.657
$36,857
$12.357
$13.286
$38,689
$12.971
$13.957
$40,643
$13.621
$14.650
$42,661
$14.300
$15.386
$44,804
$15.014
$16.150
$47,029
$15.771
$16.957
$49,379
$16.557
$17.807
$51,854
$17.386
A
$18.700
$54,454
$18.257
$19.636
$57,180
$19.164
$20.614
$60,028
$20.121
$21.650
$63,045
$21.129
$22.729
$66,187
$22.186
$23.864 $25.057 $26.314 $27.629
$69,492 $72,966 $76,626 $80,456
$23.300 $24.464 $25.686 $26.971
ANNUAL $35,984 $37,772 $39,664 $41,642 $43,721 $45,925 $48,214 $50,628 $53,164 $55,806 $58,592 $61,528 $64,606 $67,850 $71,239 $74,798 $78,540
HRLY $12.057 $12.657 $13.286 $13.957 $14.650 $15.386 $16.150 $16.957 $17.807 $18.700 $19.636 $20.614 $21.650 $22.729 $23.864 $25.057 $26.314
ANNUAL $35,110 $36,857 $38,689 $40,643 $42,661 $44,804 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,180 $60,028 $63,045 $66,187 $69,492 $72,966 $76,626
HRLY $11.764 $12.357 $12.971 $13.621 $14.300 $15.014 $15.771 $16.557 $17.386 $18.257 $19.164 $20.121 $21.129 $22.186 $23.300 $24.464 $25.686
ANNUAL
HRLY
ANNUAL
$34,257
$11.479
$33,427
$35,984
$12.057
$35,110
$37,772
$12.657
$36,857
$39,664
$13.286
$38,689
$41,642
$13.957
$40,643
$43,721
$14.650
$42,661
R$45,925
$15.386
$44,804
$48,214
$16.150
$47,029
$50,628
$16.957
$49,379
$53,164
$17.807
$51,854
$55,806
$18.700
$54,454
$58,592
$19.636
$57,180
$61,528
$20.614
$60,028
$64,606 $67,850 $71,239 $74,798
$21.650 $22.729 $23.864 $25.057
$63,045 $66,187 $69,492 $72,966
HRLY $11.207 $11.764 $12.357 $12.971 $13.621 $14.300 $15.014 $15.771 $16.557 $17.386 $18.257 $19.164 $20.121 $21.129 $22.186 $23.300 $24.464
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,257 $35,984 $37,772 $39,664 $41,642 $43,721 $45,925 $48,214 $50,628 $53,164 $55,806 $58,592 $61,528 $64,606 $67,850 $71,239
HRLY $10.936 $11.479 $12.057 $12.657 $13.286 $13.957 $14.650 $15.386 $16.150 $16.957 $17.807 $18.700 $19.636 $20.614 $21.650 $22.729 $23.864
ANNUAL $31,846 $33,427 $35,110 $36,857 $38,689 $40,643 $42,661 $44,804 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,180 $60,028 $63,045 $66,187 $69,492
D 2
Pay Plan Fire - 56 Hour 008
Effective: 7/8/2024
Grade Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8 Step 9 Step 10 Step 11 Step 12 Step 13 Step 14 Step 15 Step 16 Step 17
HRLY $11.207 $11.764 $12.357 $12.971 $13.621 $14.300 $15.014 $15.771 $16.557 $17.386 $18.257 $19.164 $20.121 $21.129 $22.186 $23.300
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,257 $35,984 $37,772 $39,664 $41,642 $43,721 $45,925 $48,214 $50,628 $53,164 $55,806 $58,592 $61,528 $64,606 $67,850
HRLY $10.936 $11.479 $12.057 $12.657 $13.286 $13.957 $14.650 $15.386 $16.150 $16.957 $17.807 $18.700 $19.636 $20.614 $21.650 $22.729
ANNUAL $31,846 $33,427 $35,110 $36,857 $38,689 $40,643 $42,661 $44,804 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,180 $60,028 $63,045 $66,187
HRLY $11.207 $11.764 $12.357 $12.971 $13.621 $14.300 $15.014 $15.771 $16.557 $17.386 $18.257 $19.164 $20.121 $21.129 $22.186
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,257 $35,984 $37,772 $39,664 $41,642 $43,721 $45,925 $48,214 $50,628 $53,164 $55,806 $58,592 $61,528 $64,606
HRLY $10.936 $11.479 $12.057 $12.657 $13.286 $13.957 $14.650 $15.386 $16.150 $16.957 $17.807 $18.700 $19.636 $20.614 $21.650
ANNUAL $31,846 $33,427 $35,110 $36,857 $38,689 $40,643 $42,661 $44,804 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,180 $60,028 $63,045
HRLY $11.207 $11.764 $12.357 $12.971 $13.621 $14.300 $15.014 $15.771 $16.557 $17.386 $18.257 $19.164 $20.121 $21.129
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,257 $35,984 $37,772 $39,664 $41,642 $43,721 $45,925 $48,214 $50,628 $53,164 $55,806 $58,592 $61,528
HRLY $10.936 $11.479 $12.057 $12.657 $13.286 $13.957 $14.650 $15.386 $16.150 $16.957 $17.807 $18.700 $19.636 $20.614
ANNUAL $31,846 $33,427 $35,110 $36,857 $38,689 $40,643 $42,661 $44,804 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,180 $60,028
HRLY $11.207 $11.764 $12.357 $12.971 $13.621 $14.300 $15.014 $15.771 $16.557 $17.386 $18.257 $19.164 $20.121
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,257 $35,984 $37,772 $39,664 $41,642 $43,721 $45,925 $48,214 $50,628 $53,164 $55,806 $58,592
HRLY
ANNUAL
HRLY
$10.936
$31,846
$11.479
$33,427
$11.207
$12.057
$35,110
$11.764
$12.657
$36,857
$12.357
$13.286
$38,689
$12.971
$13.957
$40,643
$13.621
T
$14.650
$42,661
$14.300
$15.386
$44,804
$15.014
$16.150
$47,029
$15.771
$16.957
$49,379
$16.557
$17.807
$51,854
$17.386
$18.700
$54,454
$18.257
$19.636
$57,180
$19.164
Page 249 ANNUAL $32,635 $34,257 $35,984 $37,772 $39,664 $41,642 $43,721 $45,925 $48,214 $50,628 $53,164 $55,806
HRLY $10.936 $11.479 $12.057 $12.657 $13.286 $13.957 $14.650 $15.386 $16.150 $16.957 $17.807 $18.700
ANNUAL $31,846 $33,427 $35,110 $36,857 $38,689 $40,643 $42,661 $44,804 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454
HRLY
ANNUAL
$11.207
$32,635
$11.764
$34,257
$12.357
$35,984
$12.971
$37,772
F
$13.621
$39,664
$14.300
$41,642
$15.014
$43,721
$15.771
$45,925
$16.557
$48,214
$17.386
$50,628
$18.257
$53,164
HRLY $10.936 $11.479 $12.057 $12.657 $13.286 $13.957 $14.650 $15.386 $16.150 $16.957 $17.807
ANNUAL $31,846 $33,427 $35,110 $36,857 $38,689 $40,643 $42,661 $44,804 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854
HRLY $11.207 $11.764 $12.357 $12.971 $13.621 $14.300 $15.014 $15.771 $16.557 $17.386
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,257 $35,984 $37,772 $39,664 $41,642 $43,721 $45,925 $48,214 $50,628
HRLY
ANNUAL
HRLY
$10.936
$31,846
A
$11.479
$33,427
$11.207
$12.057
$35,110
$11.764
$12.657
$36,857
$12.357
$13.286
$38,689
$12.971
$13.957
$40,643
$13.621
$14.650
$42,661
$14.300
$15.386
$44,804
$15.014
$16.150
$47,029
$15.771
$16.957
$49,379
$16.557
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,257 $35,984 $37,772 $39,664 $41,642 $43,721 $45,925 $48,214
HRLY $10.936 $11.479 $12.057 $12.657 $13.286 $13.957 $14.650 $15.386 $16.150
ANNUAL $31,846 $33,427 $35,110 $36,857 $38,689 $40,643 $42,661 $44,804 $47,029
HRLY $11.207 $11.764 $12.357 $12.971 $13.621 $14.300 $15.014 $15.771
ANNUAL
HRLY
ANNUAL
R $32,635
$10.936
$31,846
$34,257
$11.479
$33,427
$35,984
$12.057
$35,110
$37,772
$12.657
$36,857
$39,664
$13.286
$38,689
$41,642
$13.957
$40,643
$43,721
$14.650
$42,661
$45,925
$15.386
$44,804
HRLY $11.207 $11.764 $12.357 $12.971 $13.621 $14.300 $15.014
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,257 $35,984 $37,772 $39,664 $41,642 $43,721
HRLY $10.936 $11.479 $12.057 $12.657 $13.286 $13.957 $14.650
ANNUAL $31,846 $33,427 $35,110 $36,857 $38,689 $40,643 $42,661
D 3
Pay Plan Fire - 40 Hour Staff 009
Effective: 7/8/2024
Grade Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8 Step 9 Step 10 Step 11 Step 12 Step 13 Step 14 Step 15 Step 16 Step 17
HRLY $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58 $67.81 $71.20 $74.76 $78.49 $82.42 $86.54
ANNUAL $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326 $141,045 $148,096 $155,501 $163,259 $171,434 $180,003
HRLY $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00 $66.15 $69.46 $72.93 $76.58 $80.41 $84.43
ANNUAL $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592 $144,477 $151,694 $159,286 $167,253 $175,614
HRLY $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58 $67.81 $71.20 $74.76 $78.49 $82.42
ANNUAL $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326 $141,045 $148,096 $155,501 $163,259 $171,434
HRLY $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00 $66.15 $69.46 $72.93 $76.58 $80.41
ANNUAL $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592 $144,477 $151,694 $159,286 $167,253
HRLY $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58 $67.81 $71.20 $74.76 $78.49
ANNUAL $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326 $141,045 $148,096 $155,501 $163,259
HRLY $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00 $66.15 $69.46 $72.93 $76.58
ANNUAL $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592 $144,477 $151,694 $159,286
HRLY $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58 $67.81 $71.20 $74.76
ANNUAL $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326 $141,045 $148,096 $155,501
HRLY $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00 $66.15 $69.46 $72.93
ANNUAL $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592 $144,477 $151,694
HRLY
HRLY
$32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64
$31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68
$41.63
$40.61
$43.71
$42.64
$45.89
$44.77
$48.19
$47.01
$50.60
$49.36
T
$53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58 $67.81 $71.20
ANNUAL $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326 $141,045 $148,096
$51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00 $66.15 $69.46
ANNUAL $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592 $144,477
HRLY $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58 $67.81
Page 250
ANNUAL $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326 $141,045
HRLY $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00 $66.15
F
ANNUAL $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592
HRLY $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58
ANNUAL $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326
HRLY $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00
ANNUAL $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040
HRLY $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50
ANNUAL $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920
HRLY $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68
A
$40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15
ANNUAL $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800
$60.00
HRLY $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57
ANNUAL $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826
HRLY $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15
ANNUAL $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872
HRLY $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78
R
ANNUAL $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022
HRLY $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83
ANNUAL $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194
$54.42
HRLY $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13
ANNUAL $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510
HRLY $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83
ANNUAL $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806
D 1
Pay Plan Fire - 40 Hour Staff 009
Effective: 7/8/2024
Grade Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8 Step 9 Step 10 Step 11 Step 12 Step 13 Step 14 Step 15 Step 16 Step 17
HRLY $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60
ANNUAL $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248
HRLY $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36
ANNUAL $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669
HRLY $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19
ANNUAL $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235
HRLY $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01
ANNUAL $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781
HRLY $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89
ANNUAL $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451
HRLY $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77
ANNUAL $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122
HRLY $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71
ANNUAL $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917
HRLY $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64
ANNUAL $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691
HRLY $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08
ANNUAL $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926
HRLY $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54
$23.18
$48,214
$22.61
$24.34
$50,627
$23.74
$25.56
$53,165
$24.93
$26.83
$55,806
$26.18
$28.17
$58,594
$27.49
$29.58
$61,526
$28.86
T
$31.06
$64,605
$30.31
$32.62
$67,850
$31.82
$34.25
$71,240
$33.41
$35.96
$74,797
$35.08
$37.76 $39.64 $41.63
$78,541 $82,451 $86,590
$36.84 $38.68 $40.61
Page 251 ANNUAL $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469
HRLY $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64
ANNUAL $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451
HRLY
HRLY
$17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51
ANNUAL $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661
$17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02
$21.54
$44,803
$21.02
$22.61
$47,029
$22.08
$23.74
$49,379
$23.18
$24.93
$51,854
$24.34
$26.18
$54,454
$25.56
$27.49
$57,179
$26.83
F$28.86
$60,029
$28.17
$30.31
$63,045
$29.58
$31.82
$66,186
$31.06
$33.41
$69,493
$32.62
$35.08 $36.84
$72,966 $76,627 $80,454
$34.25 $35.96
$38.68
$37.76
ANNUAL $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541
HRLY $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84
ANNUAL $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627
HRLY $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96
ANNUAL $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797
HRLY $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60
ANNUAL $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688
$19.54
$40,643
$20.51
$42,661
$21.54
$44,803
$22.61
$47,029
A$23.74
$49,379
$24.93
$51,854
$26.18
$54,454
$27.49
$57,179
$28.86
$60,029
$30.31
$63,045
$31.82 $33.41 $35.08
$66,186 $69,493 $72,966
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62
ANNUAL
HRLY
ANNUAL
$32,635 $34,258 $35,984
$15.31 $16.07 $16.88
$31,845 $33,426 $35,110
$37,773
$17.72
$36,858
$39,666
$18.60
$38,688
R
$41,642
$19.54
$40,643
$43,722
$20.51
$42,661
$45,926
$21.54
$44,803
$48,214
$22.61
$47,029
$50,627
$23.74
$49,379
$53,165
$24.93
$51,854
$55,806
$26.18
$54,454
$58,594
$27.49
$57,179
$61,526 $64,605 $67,850
$28.86 $30.31 $31.82
$60,029 $63,045 $66,186
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045
D 2
Pay Plan Fire - 40 Hour Staff 009
Effective: 7/8/2024
Grade Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8 Step 9 Step 10 Step 11 Step 12 Step 13 Step 14 Step 15 Step 16 Step 17
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854
HRLY
ANNUAL
HRLY
$15.69
$32,635
$15.31
$16.47
$34,258
$16.07
$17.30
$35,984
$16.88
T
$18.16
$37,773
$17.72
$19.07
$39,666
$18.60
$20.02
$41,642
$19.54
$21.02
$43,722
$20.51
$22.08
$45,926
$21.54
$23.18
$48,214
$22.61
$24.34
$50,627
$23.74
Page 252 ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214
HRLY
ANNUAL
HRLY
$15.31
$31,845
$16.07
$33,426
$15.69
F$16.88
$35,110
$16.47
$17.72
$36,858
$17.30
$18.60
$38,688
$18.16
$19.54
$40,643
$19.07
$20.51
$42,661
$20.02
$21.54
$44,803
$21.02
$22.61
$47,029
$22.08
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722
HRLY
ANNUAL
A $15.31
$31,845
$16.07
$33,426
$16.88
$35,110
$17.72
$36,858
$18.60
$38,688
$19.54
$40,643
$20.51
$42,661
R
D 3
Pay Plan 011 Police Supv & Professional
Effective: 7/8/2024
Grade Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8 Step 9 Step 10 Step 11 Step 12 Step 13 Step 14 Step 15 Step 16 Step 17
HRLY $68.39 $71.64 $75.05 $78.63 $82.39
ANNUAL $149,011 $156,104 $163,550 $171,371
HRLY $52.20 $54.59 $57.07 $59.68 $62.40 $65.25 $68.23
ANNUAL $108,576 $113,547 $118,706 $124,134 $129,792 $135,720 $141,918
T
Page 253
A F
R
D 1
Pay Plan 012 Confidential Ofc & Clerical
Effective: 7/8/2024
Grade Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8 Step 9 Step 10 Step 11 Step 12 Step 13 Step 14 Step 15 Step 16 Step 17
HRLY $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58 $67.81 $71.20 $74.76 $78.49 $82.42 $86.54
ANNUAL $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326 $141,045 $148,096 $155,501 $163,259 $171,434 $180,003
HRLY $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00 $66.15 $69.46 $72.93 $76.58 $80.41 $84.43
ANNUAL $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592 $144,477 $151,694 $159,286 $167,253 $175,614
HRLY $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58 $67.81 $71.20 $74.76 $78.49 $82.42
ANNUAL $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326 $141,045 $148,096 $155,501 $163,259 $171,434
HRLY $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00 $66.15 $69.46 $72.93 $76.58 $80.41
ANNUAL $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592 $144,477 $151,694 $159,286 $167,253
HRLY $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58 $67.81 $71.20 $74.76 $78.49
ANNUAL $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326 $141,045 $148,096 $155,501 $163,259
HRLY $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00 $66.15 $69.46 $72.93 $76.58
ANNUAL $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592 $144,477 $151,694 $159,286
HRLY $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58 $67.81 $71.20 $74.76
ANNUAL $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326 $141,045 $148,096 $155,501
HRLY $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00 $66.15 $69.46 $72.93
ANNUAL $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592 $144,477 $151,694
HRLY
HRLY
$32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64
$31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68
$41.63
$40.61
$43.71
$42.64
$45.89
$44.77
$48.19
$47.01
$50.60
$49.36
$53.13
$51.83
T $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58 $67.81 $71.20
ANNUAL $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326 $141,045 $148,096
$54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00 $66.15 $69.46
ANNUAL $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592 $144,477
HRLY $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58 $67.81
Page 254
ANNUAL $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326 $141,045
HRLY $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00 $66.15
F
ANNUAL $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040 $137,592
HRLY $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50 $64.58
ANNUAL $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920 $134,326
HRLY $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15 $60.00 $63.00
ANNUAL $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800 $131,040
HRLY $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57 $61.50
ANNUAL $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826 $127,920
HRLY $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68
A
$40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15
ANNUAL $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872 $124,800
$60.00
HRLY $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78 $58.57
ANNUAL $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022 $121,826
HRLY $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83 $54.42 $57.15
ANNUAL $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194 $118,872
HRLY $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13 $55.78
R
ANNUAL $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510 $116,022
HRLY $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83
ANNUAL $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806 $113,194
$54.42
HRLY $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60 $53.13
ANNUAL $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248 $110,510
HRLY $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36 $51.83
ANNUAL $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669 $107,806
D 1
Pay Plan 012 Confidential Ofc & Clerical
Effective: 7/8/2024
Grade Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8 Step 9 Step 10 Step 11 Step 12 Step 13 Step 14 Step 15 Step 16 Step 17
HRLY $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19 $50.60
ANNUAL $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235 $105,248
HRLY $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01 $49.36
ANNUAL $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781 $102,669
HRLY $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89 $48.19
ANNUAL $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451 $100,235
HRLY $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77 $47.01
ANNUAL $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122 $97,781
HRLY $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71 $45.89
ANNUAL $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917 $95,451
HRLY $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64 $44.77
ANNUAL $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691 $93,122
HRLY $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64 $41.63 $43.71
ANNUAL $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451 $86,590 $90,917
HRLY $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84 $38.68 $40.61 $42.64
ANNUAL $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469 $88,691
HRLY $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08
ANNUAL $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926
HRLY $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54
$23.18
$48,214
$22.61
$24.34
$50,627
$23.74
$25.56
$53,165
$24.93
$26.83
$55,806
$26.18
$28.17
$58,594
$27.49
$29.58
$61,526
$28.86
T
$31.06
$64,605
$30.31
$32.62
$67,850
$31.82
$34.25
$71,240
$33.41
$35.96
$74,797
$35.08
$37.76 $39.64 $41.63
$78,541 $82,451 $86,590
$36.84 $38.68 $40.61
Page 255 ANNUAL $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627 $80,454 $84,469
HRLY $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96 $37.76 $39.64
ANNUAL $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541 $82,451
HRLY
HRLY
$17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51
ANNUAL $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661
$17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02
$21.54
$44,803
$21.02
$22.61
$47,029
$22.08
$23.74
$49,379
$23.18
$24.93
$51,854
$24.34
$26.18
$54,454
$25.56
$27.49
$57,179
$26.83
F$28.86
$60,029
$28.17
$30.31
$63,045
$29.58
$31.82
$66,186
$31.06
$33.41
$69,493
$32.62
$35.08 $36.84
$72,966 $76,627 $80,454
$34.25 $35.96
$38.68
$37.76
ANNUAL $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797 $78,541
HRLY $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41 $35.08 $36.84
ANNUAL $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493 $72,966 $76,627
HRLY $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25 $35.96
ANNUAL $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240 $74,797
HRLY $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60
ANNUAL $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688
$19.54
$40,643
$20.51
$42,661
$21.54
$44,803
$22.61
$47,029
A$23.74
$49,379
$24.93
$51,854
$26.18
$54,454
$27.49
$57,179
$28.86
$60,029
$30.31
$63,045
$31.82 $33.41 $35.08
$66,186 $69,493 $72,966
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62 $34.25
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605 $67,850 $71,240
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31 $31.82 $33.41
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045 $66,186 $69,493
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06 $32.62
ANNUAL
HRLY
ANNUAL
$32,635 $34,258 $35,984
$15.31 $16.07 $16.88
$31,845 $33,426 $35,110
$37,773
$17.72
$36,858
$39,666
$18.60
$38,688
R
$41,642
$19.54
$40,643
$43,722
$20.51
$42,661
$45,926
$21.54
$44,803
$48,214
$22.61
$47,029
$50,627
$23.74
$49,379
$53,165
$24.93
$51,854
$55,806
$26.18
$54,454
$58,594
$27.49
$57,179
$61,526 $64,605 $67,850
$28.86 $30.31 $31.82
$60,029 $63,045 $66,186
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58 $31.06
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526 $64,605
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86 $30.31
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029 $63,045
D 2
Pay Plan 012 Confidential Ofc & Clerical
Effective: 7/8/2024
Grade Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8 Step 9 Step 10 Step 11 Step 12 Step 13 Step 14 Step 15 Step 16 Step 17
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17 $29.58
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594 $61,526
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49 $28.86
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179 $60,029
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83 $28.17
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806 $58,594
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18 $27.49
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454 $57,179
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56 $26.83
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165 $55,806
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93 $26.18
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854 $54,454
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18 $24.34 $25.56
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214 $50,627 $53,165
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854
HRLY
ANNUAL
HRLY
$15.69
$32,635
$15.31
$16.47
$34,258
$16.07
$17.30
$35,984
$16.88
T
$18.16
$37,773
$17.72
$19.07
$39,666
$18.60
$20.02
$41,642
$19.54
$21.02
$43,722
$20.51
$22.08
$45,926
$21.54
$23.18
$48,214
$22.61
$24.34
$50,627
$23.74
Page 256 ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02 $22.08 $23.18
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926 $48,214
HRLY
ANNUAL
HRLY
$15.31
$31,845
$16.07
$33,426
$15.69
F$16.88
$35,110
$16.47
$17.72
$36,858
$17.30
$18.60
$38,688
$18.16
$19.54
$40,643
$19.07
$20.51
$42,661
$20.02
$21.54
$44,803
$21.02
$22.61
$47,029
$22.08
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722 $45,926
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803
HRLY $15.69 $16.47 $17.30 $18.16 $19.07 $20.02 $21.02
ANNUAL $32,635 $34,258 $35,984 $37,773 $39,666 $41,642 $43,722
HRLY
ANNUAL
A $15.31
$31,845
$16.07
$33,426
$16.88
$35,110
$17.72
$36,858
$18.60
$38,688
$19.54
$40,643
$20.51
$42,661
R
D 3
Pay Plan 013 Middle Management
Effective: 7/8/2024
Hourly Hourly
Plan Grade Annual Min Annual Max
Min Max
013 880 $94.96 $94.96 $197,516.80 $197,516.80
013 870 $80.72 $80.72 $167,897.60 $167,897.60
013 860 $66.47 $66.47 $138,257.60 $138,257.60
013 848 $65.62 $92.42 $136,489.60 $192,234.00
013 846 $63.59 $84.02 $132,267.20 $174,762.00
013 844 $59.52 $80.87 $123,801.60 $168,209.60
013 842 $56.25 $77.02 $117,000.00 $160,201.60
013 836 $56.25 $77.02 $117,000.00 $160,201.60
013 834 $51.65 $67.15 $107,432.00 $139,672.00
$49.30
$47.16
$60.93
$52.99
T
$64.09
$61.31
$85.31
$74.18
$102,544.00
$98,092.80
$126,734.40
$110,219.20
$133,307.20
$127,524.80
$177,444.80
$154,294.40
AF
DR
Page 257
Pay Plan 014 Middle Management - Fire 56
Effective: 7/8/2024
Hourly Hourly
Grade Annual Min Annual Max
Min Max
854 $50.36 $65.46 $146,639.58 $190,631.17
851 $39.81 $51.75 $115,917.98 $150,696.00
T
AF
DR
Page 258
Pay Plan 016 Elected Officials
Effective: 7/8/2024
Hourly Hourly
Grade Annual Min Annual Max
Min Max
998 $42.31 $42.31 $87,999.50 $87,999.50
997 $29.62 $29.62 $61,600.00 $61,600.00
T
AF
DR
Page 259
Pay Plan 017 Temporary - Seasonal
Effective: 7/8/2024
Grade Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8 Step 9 Step 10 Step 11 Step 12 Step 13 Step 14 Step 15 Step 16 Step 17
HRLY $15.31 $16.07 $16.88 $17.72 $18.60 $19.54 $20.51 $21.54 $22.61 $23.74 $24.93
S29
ANNUAL $31,845 $33,426 $35,110 $36,858 $38,688 $40,643 $42,661 $44,803 $47,029 $49,379 $51,854
T
Page 260
A F
R
D 1
Pay Plan 018 Executive
Effective: 7/8/2024
Hourly Hourly
Grade Annual Min Annual Max
Min Max
980 As approved by City Council
970 $104.46 $104.46 $217,276.80 $217,276.80
940 $152.24 $228.37 $316,659.20 $475,009.60
935 $125.48 $175.67 $260,998.40 $365,393.60
930 $104.56 $146.39 $217,484.80 $304,491.20
929 $99.58 $139.42 $207,126.40 $289,993.60
928 $102.37 $133.08 $212,929.60 $276,806.40
926 $93.06 $120.98 $193,564.80 $251,638.40
924 $84.60 $109.98 $175,968.00 $228,758.40
$76.91
$85.31
$77.55
$70.50
$99.99
T $159,972.80 $207,979.20
$110.90 $177,444.80 $230,672.00
$100.82 $161,304.00 $209,705.60
$91.65 $146,640.00 $190,632.00
AF
$64.09
$71.09
$64.63
$54.10
$49.19
$83.32
$92.42
$84.02
$75.75
$68.86
$133,307.20 $173,305.60
$147,867.20 $192,233.60
$134,430.40 $174,761.60
$112,528.00 $157,560.00
$102,315.20 $143,228.80
DR
Page 261
Pay Plan 023 Council Office Staff
Effective: 7/8/2024
Hourly Hourly
Grade Annual Min Annual Max
Min Max
C22 $39.76 $55.66 $82,700.80 $115,772.80
C17 $30.76 $43.07 $63,980.80 $89,585.60
C11 $24.06 $33.68 $50,044.80 $70,054.40
C10 $22.92 $32.08 $47,673.60 $66,726.40
T
AF
DR
Page 262
Pay Plan 024 Middle Management - Fire 40
Effective: 7/8/2024
Hourly Hourly
Grade Annual Min Annual Max
Min Max
854 $70.50 $91.65 $146,640.00 $190,632.00
852 $61.30 $79.70 $127,504.00 $165,776.00
T
AF
DR
Page 263
Pay Plan 025 Executive - Fire
Effective: 7/8/2024
Hourly Hourly
Grade Annual Min Annual Max
Min Max
956 $101.91 $132.48 $211,972.80 $275,558.40
952 $80.04 $104.05 $166,483.20 $216,424.00
950 $75.93 $98.71 $157,934.40 $205,316.80
T
AF
DR
Page 264
Pay Plan 026 Middle Management - Police
Effective: 7/8/2024
Hourly Hourly
Grade Annual Min Annual Max
Min Max
865 $84.30 $105.39 $175,344.00 $219,211.20
T
AF
DR
Page 265
Pay Plan 027 Executive - Police
Effective: 7/8/2024
Hourly Hourly
Grade Annual Min Annual Max
Min Max
976 $112.17 $145.82 $233,313.60 $303,305.60
972 $104.34 $119.99 $217,027.20 $249,579.20
970 $94.85 $113.82 $197,288.00 $236,745.60
T
AF
DR
Page 266
Pay Plan 100 Field Unit I Apprentice
Effective: 7/8/2024
Hourly Hourly
Grade Annual Min Annual Max
Min Max
190 $16.14 $37.64 $33,571.20 $78,291.20
T
AF
DR
Page 267
Pay Plan 200 Field Unit II Apprentice
Effective: 7/8/2024
Hourly Hourly
Grade Annual Min Annual Max
Min Max
290 $16.12 $37.60 $33,529.60 $78,208.00
T
AF
DR
Page 268
Pay Plan 300 Ofc & Clerical Apprentice
Effective: 7/8/2024
Hourly Hourly
Grade Annual Min Annual Max
Min Max
390 $16.06 $37.48 $33,404.80 $77,958.40
T
AF
DR
Page 269
Pay Plan 700 Sup & Prof Apprentice
Effective: 7/8/2024
Hourly Hourly
Grade Annual Min Annual Max
Min Max
090 $16.06 $37.48 $33,404.80 $77,958.40
T
AF
DR
Page 270
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Committee 626 Recommendations (Ordinance S-51042)
The following amendments to the Pay Ordinance (Ordinance S-49802) are proposed
in accordance with the recommendation of Human Resources Committee 626, to be
effective on July 22, 2024. The proposal will also require modifications to the City’s
Classification Plan (Ordinance S-5815), which will be processed under a separate
ordinance.
Establish the classification of Community Assistance Program Administrator, Job
Code: 07780, Salary Plan: 013, Grade/Range: 842 ($114,858 - $149,302/annual),
Benefit Category: 009, Labor Unit Code: Non-Represented Groups, EEO-4 Category:
Office/Administrators, FLSA Status: Exempt.
Reclassify the filled position (# 00098118) of Human Services Deputy Director, Job
Code: 07790, Salary Plan: 013, Grade/Range: 842 ($114,858 - $149,302/annual),
Labor Unit Code: 009, Benefit Category: Non-Represented Groups, EEO-4 Category:
Office/Administrators, FLSA Status: Exempt to Title: Community Assistance Program
Administrator, Job Code: 07780, Salary Plan: 013, Grade/Range: 842 ($114,858 -
$149,302/annual), Benefit Category: 009, Labor Unit Code: Non-Represented Groups,
EEO-4 Category: Office/Administrators, FLSA Status: Exempt.
Establish the classification of Crisis Intervention Supervisor, Job Code: 07190, Salary
Plan: 001, Grade/Range: 059 ($49,379 - $107,806/annual), Benefit Category: 007,
Labor Unit Code: 007, EEO-4 Category: Professionals, FLSA Status: Exempt.
Reclassify the 52 positions, listed in Attachment A, assigned in the Community
Assistance Program in the classification of Caseworker III, Job Code: 07090, Salary
Plan: 001, Grade/Range: 059 ($49,379 - $107,806/annual), Labor Unit Code: 007,
Benefit Category: 007, EEO-4 Category: Professionals, FLSA Status: Exempt to the
classification of Crisis Intervention Supervisor, Job Code: 07190, Salary Plan: 001,
Grade/Range: 059 ($49,379 - $107,806/annual), Benefit Category: 007, Labor Unit
Code: 007, EEO-4 Category: Professionals, FLSA Status: Exempt.
Establish the classification of Crisis Intervention Specialist, Job Code: 07170, Salary
Page 271
Plan: 001, Grade/Range: 053 ($42,661 - $93,122/annual), Benefit Category: 007,
Labor Unit Code: 007, EEO-4 Category: Professionals, FLSA Status: Nonexempt.
Reclassify the 133 positions, listed in Attachment B, assigned in the Community
Assistance Program in the classification of Caseworker II, Job Code: 07110, Salary
Plan: 001, Grade/Range: 051 ($40,643 - $88,691/annual), Labor Unit Code: 007,
Benefit Category: 007, EEO-4 Category: Professionals, FLSA Status: Nonexempt to
the classification of Crisis Intervention Specialist, Job Code: 07170, Salary Plan: 001,
Grade/Range: 053 ($42,661 - $93,122/annual), Benefit Category: 007, Labor Unit
Code: 007, EEO-4 Category: Professionals, FLSA Status: Nonexempt.
Regrade the classification of Human Services Center Supervisor, Job Code: 07130,
Salary Plan: 001, Grade/Range: 058 ($48,214 - $105,248/annual), Labor Unit Code:
007, Benefit Category: 007, EEO-4 Category: Professionals, FLSA Status: Exempt to
Grade/Range: 062 ($53,165 - $116,022/annual).
Regrade the classification of Petroleum Supplies Supervisor, Job Code: 04160, Salary
Plan: 001, Grade/Range: 051 ($40,643 - $88,691/annual), Labor Unit Code: 007,
Benefit Category: 007, EEO-4 Category: Professionals, FLSA Status: Exempt to
Grade/Range: 055 ($44,803 - $97,781/annual).
Retitle and regrade the classification of Pueblo Grande Administrator, Job Code:
42020, Salary Plan: 001, Grade/Range: 059 ($49,379 - $107,806/annual), Labor Unit
Code: 007, Benefit Category: 007, EEO-4 Category: Professionals, FLSA Status:
Exempt to Title: Museum Administrator, Grade/Range: 069 ($63,045 -
$137,592/annual).
Regrade the classification of City Archeologist, Job Code: 42100, Salary Plan: 001,
Grade/Range: 057 ($47,029 - $102,689/annual), Labor Unit Code: 007, Benefit
Category: 007, EEO-4 Category: Professionals, FLSA Status: Exempt to
Grade/Range: 067 ($60,029 - $131,040/annual).
Regrade the assignment to the classification of Court/Legal Clerk III*Pros, Job Code:
00531, Salary Plan: 001, Grade/Range: 045 ($35,110 - $76,627/annual), Labor Unit
Code: 007, Benefit Category: 007, EEO-4 Category: Administrative Support, FLSA
Status: Nonexempt to Grade/Range: 049 ($38,688 - $84,469/annual).
Regrade the classification of Electronic Systems Specialist, Job Code: 74200, Salary
Plan: 004, Grade/Range: 248 ($37,773 - $82,451/annual), Labor Unit Code: 002,
Benefit Category: 002, EEO-4 Category: Technicians, FLSA Status: Nonexempt to
Grade/Range: 254 ($43,722 - $95,451/annual).
Page 272
Summary
The Classification and Compensation study was implemented rapidly to address a
systemic staffing and labor market crisis throughout the City. Adjustments to grade and
salary ranges are necessary as the City adapts to the new pay structures that took
effect on Aug. 7, 2023. These recommendations balance internal alignment with
external market focus. As a result of the changes made during the Classification and
Compensation study, staff requests that the adjustments listed above be approved.
Financial Impact
The estimated cost for this action for the first year is $40,400.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
On May 15, 2024, Human Resources Committee 626 reviewed and recommended
these modifications for approval effective on July 22, 2024.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Human Resources
Department.
Page 273
Attachment A
Pos # Job Title Pos # Job Title Pos # Job Title
00097624 Caseworker III 00098110 Caseworker III 00052440 Caseworker III
00098091 Caseworker III 00098111 Caseworker III 00052441 Caseworker III
00098092 Caseworker III 00098112 Caseworker III 00052442 Caseworker III
00098093 Caseworker III 00098113 Caseworker III 00052443 Caseworker III
00098094 Caseworker III 00098114 Caseworker III 00052444 Caseworker III
00098095 Caseworker III 00098115 Caseworker III 00052449 Caseworker III
00098096 Caseworker III 00098116 Caseworker III 00052450 Caseworker III
00098097 Caseworker III 00052427 Caseworker III 00052451 Caseworker III
00098098 Caseworker III 00052428 Caseworker III 00052452 Caseworker III
00098099 Caseworker III 00052429 Caseworker III 00052453 Caseworker III
00098100 Caseworker III 00052430 Caseworker III 00052454 Caseworker III
00098101 Caseworker III 00052431 Caseworker III 00052455 Caseworker III
00098102 Caseworker III 00052432 Caseworker III
00098103 Caseworker III 00052433 Caseworker III
00098104 Caseworker III 00052434 Caseworker III
00098105 Caseworker III 00052435 Caseworker III
00098106 Caseworker III 00052436 Caseworker III
00098107 Caseworker III 00052437 Caseworker III
00098108 Caseworker III 00052438 Caseworker III
00098109 Caseworker III 00052439 Caseworker III
Page 274
Attachment B - Caseworker II
Pos # Job Title Pos # Job Title Pos # Job Title
00097619 Caseworker II 00098070 Caseworker II 00052323 Caseworker II
00097620 Caseworker II 00098071 Caseworker II 00052324 Caseworker II
00097621 Caseworker II 00098072 Caseworker II 00052325 Caseworker II
00098025 Caseworker II 00098073 Caseworker II 00052390 Caseworker II
00098026 Caseworker II 00098074 Caseworker II 00052391 Caseworker II
00098027 Caseworker II 00098075 Caseworker II 00052392 Caseworker II
00098028 Caseworker II 00098076 Caseworker II 00052393 Caseworker II
00098029 Caseworker II 00098077 Caseworker II 00052394 Caseworker II
00098030 Caseworker II 00098078 Caseworker II 00052395 Caseworker II
00098031 Caseworker II 00098079 Caseworker II 00052396 Caseworker II
00098032 Caseworker II 00098080 Caseworker II 00052397 Caseworker II
00098033 Caseworker II 00098081 Caseworker II 00052398 Caseworker II
00098034 Caseworker II 00098082 Caseworker II 00052399 Caseworker II
00098035 Caseworker II 00098083 Caseworker II 00052400 Caseworker II
00098036 Caseworker II 00098084 Caseworker II 00052401 Caseworker II
00098037 Caseworker II 00098085 Caseworker II 00052402 Caseworker II
00098038 Caseworker II 00098086 Caseworker II 00052403 Caseworker II
00098039 Caseworker II 00098087 Caseworker II 00052404 Caseworker II
00098040 Caseworker II 00098088 Caseworker II 00052405 Caseworker II
00098041 Caseworker II 00098089 Caseworker II 00052406 Caseworker II
00098042 Caseworker II 00098090 Caseworker II 00052407 Caseworker II
00098043 Caseworker II 00052106 Caseworker II 00052408 Caseworker II
00098044 Caseworker II 00052107 Caseworker II 00052409 Caseworker II
00098045 Caseworker II 00052108 Caseworker II 00052410 Caseworker II
00098046 Caseworker II 00052109 Caseworker II 00052411 Caseworker II
00098047 Caseworker II 00052110 Caseworker II 00052412 Caseworker II
00098048 Caseworker II 00052111 Caseworker II 00052413 Caseworker II
00098049 Caseworker II 00052112 Caseworker II 00052414 Caseworker II
00098050 Caseworker II 00052113 Caseworker II 00052415 Caseworker II
00098051 Caseworker II 00052114 Caseworker II 00052416 Caseworker II
00098052 Caseworker II 00052115 Caseworker II 00052417 Caseworker II
00098053 Caseworker II 00052116 Caseworker II 00052418 Caseworker II
00098054 Caseworker II 00052117 Caseworker II 00052419 Caseworker II
00098055 Caseworker II 00052118 Caseworker II 00052420 Caseworker II
00098056 Caseworker II 00052119 Caseworker II 00052421 Caseworker II
00098057 Caseworker II 00052120 Caseworker II 00052422 Caseworker II
00098058 Caseworker II 00052121 Caseworker II 00052423 Caseworker II
00098059 Caseworker II 00052122 Caseworker II 00052424 Caseworker II
00098060 Caseworker II 00052123 Caseworker II 00052425 Caseworker II
00098061 Caseworker II 00052124 Caseworker II 00052426 Caseworker II
00098062 Caseworker II 00052125 Caseworker II
00098063 Caseworker II 00052126 Caseworker II
00098064 Caseworker II 00052127 Caseworker II
00098065 Caseworker II 00052128 Caseworker II
00098066 Caseworker II 00052129 Caseworker II
00098067 Caseworker II 00052320 Caseworker II
00098068 Caseworker II 00052321 Caseworker II
00098069 Caseworker II 00052322 Caseworker II
Page 275
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Human Resources Committee 626 Recommendations (Ordinance S-51041)
The following amendments to the Classification Plan (Ordinance S-5815) are proposed
in accordance with the recommendation of Human Resources Committee 626, to be
effective on July 22, 2024. The proposal will also require modifications to the City’s
Pay Ordinance (S-49802), which will be processed under a separate ordinance.
Establish the classification of Community Assistance Program Administrator, Job
Code: 07780, Salary Plan: 013, Grade/Range: 842 ($114,858 - $149,302/annual),
Benefit Category: 009, Labor Unit Code: Non-Represented Groups, EEO-4 Category:
Office/Administrators, FLSA Status: Exempt.
Reclassify the filled position (# 00098118) of Human Services Deputy Director, Job
Code: 07790, Salary Plan: 013, Grade/Range: 842 ($114,858 - $149,302/annual),
Labor Unit Code: 009, Benefit Category: Non-Represented Groups, EEO-4 Category:
Office/Administrators, FLSA Status: Exempt to Title: Community Assistance Program
Administrator, Job Code: 07780, Salary Plan: 013, Grade/Range: 842 ($114,858 -
$149,302/annual), Benefit Category: 009, Labor Unit Code: Non-Represented Groups,
EEO-4 Category: Office/Administrators, FLSA Status: Exempt.
Establish the classification of Crisis Intervention Supervisor, Job Code: 07190, Salary
Plan: 001, Grade/Range: 059 ($49,379 - $107,806/annual), Benefit Category: 007,
Labor Unit Code: 007, EEO-4 Category: Professionals, FLSA Status: Exempt.
Reclassify the 52 positions, listed in Attachment A, assigned in the Community
Assistance Program in the classification of Caseworker III, Job Code: 07090, Salary
Plan: 001, Grade/Range: 059 ($49,379 - $107,806/annual), Labor Unit Code: 007,
Benefit Category: 007, EEO-4 Category: Professionals, FLSA Status: Exempt to the
classification of Crisis Intervention Supervisor, Job Code: 07190, Salary Plan: 001,
Grade/Range: 059 ($49,379 - $107,806/annual), Benefit Category: 007, Labor Unit
Code: 007, EEO-4 Category: Professionals, FLSA Status: Exempt.
Establish the classification of Crisis Intervention Specialist, Job Code: 07170, Salary
Plan: 001, Grade/Range: 053 ($42,661 - $93,122/annual), Benefit Category: 007,
Page 276
Labor Unit Code: 007, EEO-4 Category: Professionals, FLSA Status: Nonexempt.
Reclassify the 133 positions, listed in Attachment B, assigned in the Community
Assistance Program in the classification of Caseworker II, Job Code: 07110, Salary
Plan: 001, Grade/Range: 051 ($40,643 - $88,691/annual), Labor Unit Code: 007,
Benefit Category: 007, EEO-4 Category: Professionals, FLSA Status: Nonexempt to
the classification of Crisis Intervention Specialist, Job Code: 07170, Salary Plan: 001,
Grade/Range: 053 ($42,661 - $93,122/annual), Benefit Category: 007, Labor Unit
Code: 007, EEO-4 Category: Professionals, FLSA Status: Nonexempt.
Regrade the classification of Human Services Center Supervisor, Job Code: 07130,
Salary Plan: 001, Grade/Range: 058 ($48,214 - $105,248/annual), Labor Unit Code:
007, Benefit Category: 007, EEO-4 Category: Professionals, FLSA Status: Exempt to
Grade/Range: 062 ($53,165 - $116,022/annual).
Regrade the classification of Petroleum Supplies Supervisor, Job Code: 04160, Salary
Plan: 001, Grade/Range: 051 ($40,643 - $88,691/annual), Labor Unit Code: 007,
Benefit Category: 007, EEO-4 Category: Professionals, FLSA Status: Exempt to
Grade/Range: 055 ($44,803 - $97,781/annual).
Retitle and regrade the classification of Pueblo Grande Administrator, Job Code:
42020, Salary Plan: 001, Grade/Range: 059 ($49,379 - $107,806/annual), Labor Unit
Code: 007, Benefit Category: 007, EEO-4 Category: Professionals, FLSA Status:
Exempt to Title: Museum Administrator, Grade/Range: 069 ($63,045 -
$137,592/annual).
Regrade the classification of City Archeologist, Job Code: 42100, Salary Plan: 001,
Grade/Range: 057 ($47,029 - $102,689/annual), Labor Unit Code: 007, Benefit
Category: 007, EEO-4 Category: Professionals, FLSA Status: Exempt to
Grade/Range: 067 ($60,029 - $131,040/annual).
Regrade the assignment to the classification of Court/Legal Clerk III*Pros, Job Code:
00531, Salary Plan: 001, Grade/Range: 045 ($35,110 - $76,627/annual), Labor Unit
Code: 007, Benefit Category: 007, EEO-4 Category: Administrative Support, FLSA
Status: Nonexempt to Grade/Range: 049 ($38,688 - $84,469/annual).
Regrade the classification of Electronic Systems Specialist, Job Code: 74200, Salary
Plan: 004, Grade/Range: 248 ($37,773 - $82,451/annual), Labor Unit Code: 002,
Benefit Category: 002, EEO-4 Category: Technicians, FLSA Status: Nonexempt to
Grade/Range: 254 ($43,722 - $95,451/annual).
Page 277
Summary
The Classification and Compensation study was implemented rapidly to address a
systemic staffing and labor market crisis throughout the City. Adjustments to grade and
salary ranges are necessary as the City adapts to the new pay structures that took
effect on Aug. 7, 2023. These recommendations balance internal alignment with
external market focus. As a result of the changes made during the Classification and
Compensation study, staff requests that the adjustments listed above be approved.
Financial Impact
The estimated cost for this action for the first year is $40,400.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
On May 15, 2024, Human Resources Committee 626 reviewed and recommended
these modifications for approval effective on July 22, 2024.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Human Resources
Department.
Page 278
Attachment A - Caseworker III
Pos # Job Title Pos # Job Title Pos # Job Title
00097624 Caseworker III 00098110 Caseworker III 00052440 Caseworker III
00098091 Caseworker III 00098111 Caseworker III 00052441 Caseworker III
00098092 Caseworker III 00098112 Caseworker III 00052442 Caseworker III
00098093 Caseworker III 00098113 Caseworker III 00052443 Caseworker III
00098094 Caseworker III 00098114 Caseworker III 00052444 Caseworker III
00098095 Caseworker III 00098115 Caseworker III 00052449 Caseworker III
00098096 Caseworker III 00098116 Caseworker III 00052450 Caseworker III
00098097 Caseworker III 00052427 Caseworker III 00052451 Caseworker III
00098098 Caseworker III 00052428 Caseworker III 00052452 Caseworker III
00098099 Caseworker III 00052429 Caseworker III 00052453 Caseworker III
00098100 Caseworker III 00052430 Caseworker III 00052454 Caseworker III
00098101 Caseworker III 00052431 Caseworker III 00052455 Caseworker III
00098102 Caseworker III 00052432 Caseworker III
00098103 Caseworker III 00052433 Caseworker III
00098104 Caseworker III 00052434 Caseworker III
00098105 Caseworker III 00052435 Caseworker III
00098106 Caseworker III 00052436 Caseworker III
00098107 Caseworker III 00052437 Caseworker III
00098108 Caseworker III 00052438 Caseworker III
00098109 Caseworker III 00052439 Caseworker III
Page 279
Attachment B - Caseworker II
Pos # Job Title Pos # Job Title Pos # Job Title
00097619 Caseworker II 00098070 Caseworker II 00052323 Caseworker II
00097620 Caseworker II 00098071 Caseworker II 00052324 Caseworker II
00097621 Caseworker II 00098072 Caseworker II 00052325 Caseworker II
00098025 Caseworker II 00098073 Caseworker II 00052390 Caseworker II
00098026 Caseworker II 00098074 Caseworker II 00052391 Caseworker II
00098027 Caseworker II 00098075 Caseworker II 00052392 Caseworker II
00098028 Caseworker II 00098076 Caseworker II 00052393 Caseworker II
00098029 Caseworker II 00098077 Caseworker II 00052394 Caseworker II
00098030 Caseworker II 00098078 Caseworker II 00052395 Caseworker II
00098031 Caseworker II 00098079 Caseworker II 00052396 Caseworker II
00098032 Caseworker II 00098080 Caseworker II 00052397 Caseworker II
00098033 Caseworker II 00098081 Caseworker II 00052398 Caseworker II
00098034 Caseworker II 00098082 Caseworker II 00052399 Caseworker II
00098035 Caseworker II 00098083 Caseworker II 00052400 Caseworker II
00098036 Caseworker II 00098084 Caseworker II 00052401 Caseworker II
00098037 Caseworker II 00098085 Caseworker II 00052402 Caseworker II
00098038 Caseworker II 00098086 Caseworker II 00052403 Caseworker II
00098039 Caseworker II 00098087 Caseworker II 00052404 Caseworker II
00098040 Caseworker II 00098088 Caseworker II 00052405 Caseworker II
00098041 Caseworker II 00098089 Caseworker II 00052406 Caseworker II
00098042 Caseworker II 00098090 Caseworker II 00052407 Caseworker II
00098043 Caseworker II 00052106 Caseworker II 00052408 Caseworker II
00098044 Caseworker II 00052107 Caseworker II 00052409 Caseworker II
00098045 Caseworker II 00052108 Caseworker II 00052410 Caseworker II
00098046 Caseworker II 00052109 Caseworker II 00052411 Caseworker II
00098047 Caseworker II 00052110 Caseworker II 00052412 Caseworker II
00098048 Caseworker II 00052111 Caseworker II 00052413 Caseworker II
00098049 Caseworker II 00052112 Caseworker II 00052414 Caseworker II
00098050 Caseworker II 00052113 Caseworker II 00052415 Caseworker II
00098051 Caseworker II 00052114 Caseworker II 00052416 Caseworker II
00098052 Caseworker II 00052115 Caseworker II 00052417 Caseworker II
00098053 Caseworker II 00052116 Caseworker II 00052418 Caseworker II
00098054 Caseworker II 00052117 Caseworker II 00052419 Caseworker II
00098055 Caseworker II 00052118 Caseworker II 00052420 Caseworker II
00098056 Caseworker II 00052119 Caseworker II 00052421 Caseworker II
00098057 Caseworker II 00052120 Caseworker II 00052422 Caseworker II
00098058 Caseworker II 00052121 Caseworker II 00052423 Caseworker II
00098059 Caseworker II 00052122 Caseworker II 00052424 Caseworker II
00098060 Caseworker II 00052123 Caseworker II 00052425 Caseworker II
00098061 Caseworker II 00052124 Caseworker II 00052426 Caseworker II
00098062 Caseworker II 00052125 Caseworker II
00098063 Caseworker II 00052126 Caseworker II
00098064 Caseworker II 00052127 Caseworker II
00098065 Caseworker II 00052128 Caseworker II
00098066 Caseworker II 00052129 Caseworker II
00098067 Caseworker II 00052320 Caseworker II
00098068 Caseworker II 00052321 Caseworker II
00098069 Caseworker II 00052322 Caseworker II
Page 280
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Initiative Funds to Finance AHCCCS Payments to Phoenix Children’s Hospital
(Ordinance S-51043)
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. Given the challenges PCH faced as a result of COVID-19, AHCCCS sought
federal approval for enhanced payments to PCH. PCH has not received federal
assistance through the Coronavirus Aid Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act
because relief for hospitals has been distributed through the Medicare program (in
which PCH, as a children’s hospital, does not participate). There is an opportunity for
the Pediatric Health Care Initiative Fund to help finance these and other AHCCCS
payments, 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 has increased its
matching rate for AHCCCS services; PCH will receive $4 for every $1 provided by the
City. An IGA is required to enable the City to transfer the funds to AHCCCS for this
purpose, and to outline the terms of AHCCCS’ use of those funds.
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.
Page 281
· City Council approved Ordinance S-50190 on Sept. 20, 2023.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the Law and Finance
departments.
Page 282
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Sheriff's Office (Ordinance S-51044)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to extend Contract 156906
(IGA) with the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (MCSO) to conduct independent
investigative services for the Phoenix Police Department (PPD) due to a conflict of
interest for the PPD that prevents PPD from conducting the investigation.
Summary
On July 1, 2022, Phoenix City Council approved Ordinance S-48887, and the City
entered into the IGA with MCSO for independent investigative services through June
30, 2023. On June 14, 2023, Phoenix City Council approved Ordinance S-49855, and
the City and MCSO executed an amendment extending the services through June 30,
2024. The parties seek to further extend the term and funding period of this agreement
concerning independent investigative services to assist with conflict cases for the City
of Phoenix for which an external prosecuting agency has also been designated
through June 30, 2025.
MCSO agreed to act as an investigative body on the City's behalf in a case where
PPD has a conflict. MCSO needed to hire an outside investigator to assist with the
investigation. The City agreed to pay the invoices for the outside investigator hired by
MCSO after MCSO reviews and approves the charges for the investigation. MCSO will
hire and supervise the investigator to maintain the separation from Phoenix as
required for the assignment of the conflict.
Contract Term
The term of the contract is extended through June 30, 2025.
Financial Impact
Funds are available in the Law Department budget for legal services, and no additional
funds are needed.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously approved this IGA and a related extension:
· Intergovernmental Agreement with Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office - Contract
Page 283
156906 (Ordinance S-48887) on July 1, 2022.
· Amendment to Intergovernmental Agreement with Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office
- Contract 156906-1 (Ordinance S-49855) on June 14, 2023.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the Law Department.
Page 284
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to apply, accept, and if
awarded, enter into related agreements for up to $225,000 in new funding from Fort
McDowell Yavapai Nation under the 2024 funding cycle. Further request authorization
for the City Treasurer to accept, and the City Controller to disburse, funds by Fort
McDowell Yavapai Nation in connection with these grants.
Summary
If awarded, these monies would be applied, as directed by Fort McDowell Yavapai
Nation towards the following:
Nonprofit Applications
· Advance Community: $10,000 for the Food as Medicine program, which will provide
health education for individuals with Type II or pre-diabetes through the Education
Empowerment program, as well as provide healthy food boxes (Food as Medicine
program) designed specifically for individuals with diabetes and under-resourced
Latino families.
· Amanda Hope Rainbow Angels: $25,000 for the Comfort and Care program, which
will provide mental health services for children experiencing cancer and other life-
threatening illnesses, and their families.
· Arizona Association for Foster and Adoptive Parents: $25,000 for the Embracing
Foster, Kinship and Adoptive Families program, which will provide support for foster,
kinship, and adoptive families.
· Arizona Cancer Foundation for Children: $10,000 for the Improving Outcomes for
Low-Income Children with Cancer and Their Families program, which will provide
social, emotional, and financial support to primarily low-income children who have
cancer and their families.
· Arizona Educational Foundation: $20,000 for the teachSTEM program, which is an
early intervention program that provides both access to science, technology,
engineering and mathematics (STEM) learning for students and builds awareness
about the need for STEM teachers and job opportunities in mainstream STEM
fields.
· Arizona Forward: $50,000 for the Arizona Forward: A Grant for Sustainable
Page 285
Progress and Community Impact project, which is a comprehensive funding
initiative to support the organization's overarching mission covering programs,
operations, events, and essential functions aimed at fostering sustainable
development and making a positive impact on communities throughout the state.
· Arizona Science Center: $10,000 for the Arizona Science Center Focused Field
Trips and Science On Wheels initiatives, which focus on STEM learning programs
for low-income children from Title 1 schools in the 2024-25 academic year.
· Banner Health Foundation: $35,000 for Banner Health's Injury Prevention - Safety
Town program, which is a free mobile educational tool that reaches both adult and
child audiences, statewide.
· Gabriel's Angels: $10,000 for the Pet Therapy program, which will ensure
vulnerable children receive critical assistance in developing reading skills, ensure
success in school and assist in developing core behaviors that will prevent at-risk
behaviors as adults.
· Heard Museum: $10,000 for the Heard Museum K-12 Free Admission and School
Tours program, which will provide arts education, particularly American Indian art
and culture, for Arizona school children and educators.
· Kid in the Corner: $10,000 for the Penny Pledge Youth Suicide Prevention and
Mental Health Awareness program, which will provide suicide prevention and
mental health awareness education to grade 4-12 students.
· Tooth B.U.D.D.S., Inc.: $10,000 for the Phoenix School and Site-Based Oral Health
program, which will improve oral health of low-income, at-risk populations by
providing preventive dental hygiene health care services for children preK-12, using
evidence-based clinical best practices to include oral hygiene education,
screenings, intraoral camera images, dental cleanings, sealants, fluoride treatment,
and silver diamine fluoride application.
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 service that benefit the public, including education, public safety, health,
environment and community development. The Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation will
notify the City, by intergovernmental agreement of the Tribal Council, if it desires to
convey to the City or local nonprofits a portion of its annual 12 percent local revenue
sharing contribution.
Financial Impact
There is no budgetary impact to the City and no General Fund dollars are required.
Entities that receive gaming grants are responsible for the management of those
funds.
Page 286
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the Office of Government
Relations.
Page 287
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to apply, accept, and if
awarded, enter into related agreements for up to $539,956 in new funding from the Ak-
Chin Indian Community under the 2024 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
· Housing Department: $5,000 for the After-School Enrichment project, which will
improve the Aeroterra After-School program, which serves the underprivileged
youth living in the City-owned housing community Aeroterra. The program provides
after-school and summer camp programming.
· Office of Heat Response and Mitigation: $50,000 for the second phase of the We're
Cool communication campaign, which will fund summer outreach to prevent heat-
related illness and death. The campaign promotes working with volunteers and
caseworkers to distribute heat relief supplies, share information about community
cooling resources, and connect residents to critical social services including shelter,
housing, identification, food, hygiene facilities, and transportation.
· Phoenix Fire Department: $49,956 for the Phoenix Stop the Bleed program, which
will provide funding for bleeding control stations and kits that will be deployed in City
buildings. Stop the Bleed is a national awareness campaign that trains the public to
help in a bleeding emergency before professional help arrives.
· Phoenix Police Department: $50,000 for the Traffic Safety project, which will provide
traffic control during an emergency to ensure the safe flow of traffic while minimizing
risks to both officers and the public. By ensuring illuminated cones and flare
patterns, first responders can provide a safe environment for emergency alternative
routes around an emergency crime scene or serious vehicle collision.
· Phoenix Police Department: $50,000 for the Heat Mitigation for Victims, Witnesses,
and those in Custody project, which will allow the Phoenix Police Department to
Page 288
provide heavy duty, durable mobile cold storage units, water, and electrolyte
products to law enforcement in efforts to aid the community and mitigate the lack of
water during major and minor incidents that leave individuals in the Arizona summer
months outside waiting on the investigation.
· Phoenix Police Department: $50,000 for the Public Affairs Bureau Production
Studio, which includes outfitting and maintaining a new media production studio to
be used for communications of emergency and public safety messaging for the
Phoenix Police Department.
· Phoenix Public Library: $50,000 for the Early Literacy in an Underserved
Community project, which will build a museum-quality early learning space at
Harmon Library.
· Phoenix Sister Cities: $30,000 for the Phoenix Sister Cities Annual Taipei Chinese
Culture Summer Camp of Arizona, which will introduce Taiwanese culture to
elementary school students in Phoenix.
Nonprofit Applications
· Arizona Forward: $20,000 for the Emerging Sustainable Leadership program, which
will enhance the program with more field trips, a volunteer/capstone project, and a
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Scholarship Fund with the Emerging
Sustainable Leadership Education Project.
· Foundation for Blind Children: $25,000 for the Braille Textbooks project, which will
assist in the purchasing of 10 Braille textbooks for students who are blind or visually
impaired from across Arizona.
· Gabriel's Angels: $10,000 for the Pet Therapy program, which will provide pet
therapy programming to vulnerable children and youth through partnerships with
schools and child-serving agencies.
· Liberty Wildlife: $100,000 for the Liberty Wildlife Environmental Education and
Outreach program, which will engage in educational outreach working with K-12
public, private, and charter schools, in addition to groups of home-schooled children
and other business and community groups.
· MIKID Mentally Ill Kids in Distress: $50,000 for the Children's Behavioral Health
Vehicle, which will allow it to provide transportation to families and children that
would otherwise be unable to access behavioral health support.
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-
Page 289
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.
Page 290
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Partnership Funding (Ordinance S-50955)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to extend authority under
Ordinance S-46464 for the Head Start Birth to Five and Early Head Start Child Care
Partnership Grant to continue necessary purchases and payments of up to $9 million,
enter into or execute all contracts, documents, and agreements, and take all other
action necessary or appropriate to implement the Head Start Birth to Five and Early
Head Start Child Care Partnership grants subject to any necessary approval by the
Head Start Birth to Five Governing Board through June 29, 2027. 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
Authority under Ordinance S-46464 for the Head Start Birth to Five and Early Head
Start Child Care Partnership currently expires June 30, 2024. Staff requests an
extension through June 29, 2027.
The extension will provide the necessary time to obligate unspent funds of up to $9
million for ongoing projects and extend the liquidation period. It will enable two Child
Care Partner contracts to be extended from July 1, 2024, through Jan. 31, 2025, and
allow time to reissue a solicitation for 84 Early Head Start slots that were not awarded
in the previous round.
The extension will also address three building projects that need completion. First, a
modular building will be constructed in Deer Valley Unified School District to replace
the current 30-year-old building housing a Head Start classroom. Second, an
administrative modular building will be added to the Booker T. Washington Child
Development Center, which has outgrown its capacity due to increased slots. Third, a
Community Hub will be located at Calvary United Methodist Church in Maryvale, which
will host two Head Start classrooms, office space for Head Start Birth to Five staff, and
open space for community-based agencies.
The extension also includes funding for the Parent U program, which allows parents to
obtain a Childhood Development Associates (CDA) credential, which may assist
Page 291
parents in becoming employed in a Head Start classroom. Finally, the extension will
provide funding to update play structures and add shade structures and fencing.
Contract Term
Upon approval, the ordinance and certain contracts described above will be extended
through June 29, 2027.
Financial Impact
There is no impact to the General Fund. Funds are available through the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
· City Council approved the existing funding on March 18, 2020 (Ordinance S-
46464); and
· The Head Start Birth to Five Policy Council recommended approval of this item on
March 13, 2023, by a vote of 21-0.
Locations
Alhambra Elementary School District, 4510 N. 37th Ave.
Cartwright Elementary School District, 5220 W. Indian School Road
Deer Valley Unified School District, 20402 N. 15th Ave.
Fowler Elementary School District, 1617 S. 67th Ave.
Isaac School District, 3348 W. McDowell Road
Laveen Elementary School District, 5601 W. Dobbins Road
Murphy Elementary School District, 3140 W. Buckeye Road
Pendergast Elementary School District, 3802 N. 91st Ave.
Phoenix Elementary School District, 1817 N. 7th St.
Riverside Elementary School District, 1414 S. 51st Ave.
Roosevelt Elementary School District, 6000 S. 7th St.
Washington Elementary School District, 4650 W. Sweetwater Ave.
Wilson Elementary School District, 3025 E. Fillmore St.
Immanuel Care for Children, 1620 W. Camelback Road
Out of this World Christian Childcare, 3849 W. Encanto Blvd.
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.
Page 292
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
(Ordinance S-50987)
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 $3.1 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, Family Services Centers, Community Initiatives, Senior
Services, and infant and toddler programs at public libraries.
Procurement Information
A Request for Qualifications, RFQu-24-HSD-79, was processed in accordance with
The Human Services Department received 13 offers on March 15, 2024. Ten of the
offers were deemed to be responsive and responsible. An evaluation committee
evaluated those offers based on the following criteria with a maximum possible point
total of 1,000:
· Experience and Qualifications
· Method of Approach and Delivery of Services
· Cost
After reaching a consensus, the evaluation committee recommends award to the
following offerors:
· Lakeshore Parent, LLC and Lakeshore Learning Materials, LLC: 1,000 points
· STEMfinity, LLC: 953 points
Page 293
· Chalk Spinner, LLC dba Kodo Kids: 863 points
· S&S Worldwide, Inc.: 860 points
· Kaplan Early Learning Company: 826 points
· Earlychildhood, LLC dba Discount School Supply: 790 points
· Really Good Stuff, LLC: 790 points
· eSpecial Needs, LLC: 766 points
· School Health Corporation: 700 points
· Complete Book & Media Supply, LLC: 610 points
Contract Term
The contracts will begin on or about July 1, 2024, for a five-year term with no options
to extend.
Financial Impact
The aggregate value of all contracts will not exceed $3.1 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 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 May 13, 2024, by a vote
of 10-0.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Gina Montes and Inger Erickson, and
the Human Services and Library departments.
Page 294
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance Grant Funding (Ordinance S-51005)
Request retroactive authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to apply for
and accept U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) Second
Chance Act Pay for Success Program grant funding in an amount not to exceed
$250,000. Further request to authorize the City Treasurer to accept, and the City
Controller to disburse, all funds related to this item for the life of the grant.
Summary
The BJA has a funding opportunity available to develop Performance Based
Contracting (PBC) and provide Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) for reentry
populations exiting prison or jail or experiencing homelessness, with the goal of
reducing recidivism and building capacity to administer and pay for performance and
outcomes. The Office of Homeless Solutions has applied for support to develop
capacity to ensure staff and service providers have training and process to implement
PBCs, monitor and validate outcomes for PSH, and develop incentive-based payment
approvals. This request is retroactive because there was a short window to apply, and
there was not adequate time to request authority prior to the submission due date.
Contract Term
The grant term will begin on or about Oct. 1, 2024, and end on or about June 30, 2026.
Financial Impact
Funding in an amount up to $250,000 may be provided by BJA. No matching funds are
required. There is no impact to the General Fund.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Human Services
Department.
Page 295
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance Grant Funding (Ordinance S-51023)
Request to retroactively authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to apply for and
accept U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) Mental Health
Collaboration Program grant funding in an amount not to exceed $550,000. Further
request to authorize the City Treasurer to accept, and the City Controller to disburse,
all funds related to this item for the life of the grant.
Summary
The BJA has a funding opportunity available to support cross-system collaboration to
improve public safety responses and outcomes for individuals with mental health
disorders or co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders who are involved
in the criminal justice system. The funding will be used to expand Community Court to
add additional navigation services as the program grows. In addition, staff will work to
further complete data matching between the homeless system and the court system.
This request is retroactive because there was a short window to apply, and there was
not adequate time to request authority prior to the submission due date.
Contract Term
The grant term will begin on or about Oct. 1, 2024, and will end on or about June 30,
2027.
Financial Impact
Funding in an amount up to $550,000 may be provided by BJA. Matching funds of
$158,000 are required. Matching funds are available in the Human Services
Department General Fund.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Human Services
Department.
Page 296
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Association dba Wildfire (Ordinance S-51009)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with the Arizona Community Action Association dba Wildfire to accept local utility funds
in an amount not to exceed $410,280 for the period July 1, 2024, through June 30,
2025. Further request to authorize the City Treasurer to accept, and the City Controller
to disburse, all funds related to this item.
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 funding will allow the Human Services Department to provide
emergency financial assistance to approximately 1,025 households.
Contract Term
The contract term is one year beginning July 1, 2024, through June 30, 2025.
Financial Impact
Funding for Fiscal Year 2024-25 will be provided by various local funding sources
listed in Attachment A. There is no impact to the General Fund.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Human Services
Department.
Page 297
Attachment A
FY25 Wildfire Allocated Funds
URRD $ 39,900.00
Arizona Public Service (APS)
Crisis Bill Assistance $ 167,170.00
SWG LIEC $ 46,890.00
SWG Energy Share $ 20,900.00
Salt River Project (SRP) Bill
Assistance $ 135,420.00
$ 410,280.00
Page 298
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
0191 - Request for Award (Ordinance S-51020)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into contract with
LeCroy & Milligan Associates, Inc. (Consultant) to conduct a Community Needs
Assessment for the Human Services Department (HSD). Further request authorization
for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. Expenditures will not to
exceed $151,998 over the life of the contract. Funds are available from a combination
of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) Head Start funding,
Community Services Block Grant funding, and City of Phoenix General Funds,
contingent upon annual budget approval.
Summary
Every three years, as a requirement of accepting funding, DHHS requires a community
needs assessment be performed of the service area to determine whether there have
been significant changes in the demographics and needs of Phoenix residents. The
community needs assessment must be updated annually to better serve adults,
children, and families. The assessment data is analyzed and used in HSD's
programmatic planning process including but not limited to: long-term and short-term
goals, fiscal considerations, needed services, program options, recruitment area, and
program selection criteria. A comprehensive report is completed in the first year with
updates completed in the subsequent two years.
Procurement Information
Request for Proposals, RFP-GGS-24-0191, was conducted in accordance with the
2024, which were all determined responsive and responsible to the solicitation
requirements.
An Evaluation Panel evaluated all five proposals based on the established evaluation
criteria, responsiveness to all the specifications, terms and conditions, and
responsibility to provide the required service. Evaluation Criteria was as follows with a
maximum possible total of 1,000 points:
Page 299
Criteria Points:
· Method of Approach (0 - 375 points)
· Qualifications and Experience (0 - 375 points)
· Price Proposal (0 - 250 points)
The Evaluation Panel scored all proposals as follows:
· LeCroy & Milligan Associates, Inc. 981
· Omni Institute 803
· Burns & Associates 693
· Accountable Care Transactions, Inc., DBA Activate Care 689
· Devin Intitium Health 562
Contract Term
The contract term will begin on or about July 1, 2024, and end June 30, 2025, with
two, one-year options to extend. Each extension option may be exercised by the City
Manager or designee.
Financial Impact
Expenditures will not exceed $151,998. Funds are available from a combination of
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Head Start funding, Community
Services Block Grant funding, and City of Phoenix General Funds, contingent upon
annual budget approval.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Human Services
Department.
Page 300
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
(Ordinance S-50966)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Contracts 159400 with Landscape Structures, Inc. and 159425 with Miracle Recreation
Equipment Company dba PlayPower, Inc. to authorize the Human Services
Department to purchase playground, fitness, and related equipment and to add
additional expenditures in an amount not to exceed $6 million. Further request to
authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.
Summary
These contracts support efforts to repair and replace current playground and outdoor
fitness equipment, that is at the end of its lifecycle, throughout the City. Human
Services administers the Head Start program, which includes 78 sites with
playgrounds. These contracts will ensure the Department can purchase a wide variety
of new equipment, which will enhance and support the quality of recreational programs
and services provided to the residents of Phoenix.
Contract Term
The contract term remains unchanged, ending on Oct. 31, 2028.
Financial Impact
Upon approval of $6 million in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contracts will not exceed $12 million. Funds are available in the Human Services
Department's Head Start budget.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request:
· Playground Fitness And Related Equipment Contracts 159400 and 159425
(Ordinance S-50248) on Oct. 18, 2023.
Locations
Alhambra Elementary School District, 4510 N. 37th Ave.
Cartwright Elementary School District, 5220 W. Indian School Road
Deer Valley Unified School District, 20402 N. 15th Ave.
Page 301
Fowler Elementary School District, 1617 S. 67th Ave.
Isaac School District, 3348 W. McDowell Road
Laveen Elementary School District, 5601 W. Dobbins Road
Murphy Elementary School District, 3140 W. Buckeye Road
Pendergast Elementary School District, 3802 N. 91st Ave.
Phoenix Elementary School District, 1817 N. 7th St.
Riverside Elementary School District, 1414 S. 51st Ave.
Roosevelt Elementary School District, 6000 S. 7th St.
Washington Elementary School District, 4650 W. Sweetwater Ave.
Wilson Elementary School District, 3025 E. Fillmore St.
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.
Page 302
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
S-51046)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
EnvisionWare, Inc. to provide public computer and printing management software for
the Library Department. Further request an exception to the indemnity and assumption
of liability provisions of Phoenix City Code section 42.18. Further request to authorize
the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The total value of the
contract will not exceed $185,000.
Summary
This contract will provide public computer and printing management software for the
Library Department. The software to be purchased include the PC Reservation module
to be used as a self-service computer reservation system for verification of a library
cardholder's good standing, the Print Management module that allows customers to
print from the personal devices of choice, and the EnvisionWare eCommerce Solution
module that lets customers pay library fees using a credit card. The software is
necessary to handle a customer sign-in process or their reservation, and it
automatically logs the customer out of the session when their reservation is concluded.
This item has been reviewed and approved by the Information Technology Services
Department.
Procurement Information
In accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10, standard competition was waived
as a result of an approved Determination Memo based on the following reason:
Special Circumstances - Without Competition. The City of Phoenix has been using
EnvisionWare software since 2003 for over 1,000 computers across 17 library
locations and retaining EnvisionWare, Inc. as its vendor will provide cost savings from
manual tracking of data, testing, staff training and eliminating the need for installing
new software to over 1,000 computers.
Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about June 17, 2024, for a five-year term with no options
to extend.
Page 303
Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $185,000 for the five-year aggregate
term.
Funding is available in the Library Department's budget.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Library
Department.
Page 304
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Enforcement Policy
Request City Council approval of changes to the Neighborhood Services Department's
(NSD) Code Enforcement Policy (CEP), based on the annual review.
Summary
The CEP provides guidelines for enforcement of the Neighborhood Preservation
Ordinance, Zoning Ordinance and portions of other City codes/ordinances enforced by
NSD (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 June 28, 2023. The information in this report is intended to initiate the review
process and recommend updates for consideration.
The CEP is comprised of five sections. Sections I through III of the CEP establish the
purpose of standard code enforcement and the notification and enforcement options
available to inspection staff; define recidivist person/properties and the possible
consequences for repeat offenders; and describe the inspection and enforcement
protocols for resident complaints with exceptions for proactive code enforcement in the
immediate area of a complaint and in strategic initiative areas. Section IV includes
information encouraging the use of hardship assistance programs for low- and
moderate-income households where funding is available 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 provides guidance for NSD to work cooperatively with other
departments and agencies to resolve complex and hazardous cases.
Based on NSD's annual review of the CEP, staff is proposing the following updates:
· Remove the term "commercial business violations" and replace with "home
occupation standards," where applicable, to be consistent with City Code section 41
-608.
· Add language to allow proactive enforcement of the new text amendments related
Page 305
to Short Term Rentals and the Vacant Property Registry.
· Add language to allow inspection of Short Term Rentals for compliance with the
Standards and Operating Requirements in City Code section 10-205.
· Correct minor formatting and grammar issues.
All staff recommended updates to the CEP are highlighted in Attachment B, with the
current CEP provided as Attachment A for reference.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
On May 8, 2024, the Economic Development and Housing Subcommittee unanimously
recommended City Council approval of the CEP updates by a vote of 4-0.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the
Neighborhood Services Department.
Page 306
Attachment A
NEIGHBORHOOD
SERVICES
DEPARTMENT
CODE
ENFORCEMENT
POLICY
The Code Enforcement Policy,
adopted by the Phoenix City
Council, provides guidelines for
enforcement of the Neighborhood
Preservation Ordinance, Zoning
Ordinance and portions of other
codes and ordinances.
Effective June 28, 2023
Page 307
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.
Effective June 28, 2023
Page 308
Code Enforcement Policy
Statement of Intent
The Code Enforcement Policy is to be used to guide the efforts of the Neighborhood Services
Department to address violations of the City Code. To achieve compliance, it is the intent of the
department to lead with education, provide resources when hardships exist, and enforce when
necessary. Code enforcement is intended to be used to foster partnership with residents to support
the overall health, safety, and welfare of the City, and to protect neighborhoods against hazardous,
blighting, and deteriorating influences or conditions. Neighborhood Preservation Inspectors provide
excellent customer service and will operate with fairness, integrity, transparency, and consistent
professionalism while working to meet the department’s intent.
I. Standard Code Enforcement
A. Purpose
It is the intent of the city of Phoenix to promote the health, safety, and welfare of
the residents of Phoenix, Arizona. Part of this responsibility includes protecting
neighborhoods from blighting and deteriorating conditions that have a negative
impact on area property values and encourage social disorder and crime. This is
achieved through ordinances and by establishing a policy to guide enforcement of
the ordinances.
B. Standard Enforcement Policy
maintain the physical environment of their neighborhoods through standards set in
local ordinances. To assist in this endeavor, the following code enforcement policy
has been established to guide the city in addressing properties with code
violations.
The following actions will be taken on properties where there has been no case history or
history of violations and/or previous enforcement action:
1. Inspection/Pre-notification
When a property complaint is received, the city will respond in the following
manner:
a. Immediate Inspections
If the alleged violation concerns a potential health or safety hazard to the
neighborhood or neighbors, inclusive of open/vacant buildings, fire and/or
health hazards, unsecured pools or other health and safety hazards, the city
will respond with an immediate inspection.
b. Pre-Notification Letter
If the alleged violation is not a potential health or safety hazard, if the
property is occupied and if a mailing address is available, the city will issue a
pre- notification letter to the owner/responsible parties notifying them that
specific complaints have been received and that an inspection will be
Effective June 28, 2023 3
Page 309
Code Enforcement Policy
conducted within ten days. Information on the most common blighting
violations will also be included with the pre-notification letter.
2. Formal Notice of Ordinance Violation (NOV)
Except in cases involving health and safety violations, cases with previous
history of code violations, violations of a transient nature such as commercial
business violations, home occupation violations and violations involving
vendors, the responsible party or parties will be officially notified that a
violation has been discovered through an inspection and will be advised of
specific corrective action required. They will also be advised through this
process of what further action will be taken by the city if they do not comply. In
addition, owners/responsible parties will be advised of available appropriate
assistance as enumerated in Section IV.B. of this policy.
a. Timelines for NOV Reinspection
i. Standard – 15 days (minor violations)
ii. Standard – 35 days (significant cost to correct)
iii. Abatement – 35 days
iv. Hazard – 0 to 24 hours
v. Graffiti – 10 days
vi. Rental Registration – 10 days
vii. Illegal Signs - 5 days
viii. Mobile Vending – 0 to 15 days
The NOV will include an explanation that recidivists will receive only one
official notice for a violation and that future offenses of city ordinances may
result in legal action without issuance of further notices of ordinance violation.
Information on the most common blighting violations will also be included with
the NOV.
3. Civil Citation
Owners/responsible parties who fail to comply will be subject to the issuance
of a civil citation that will be adjudicated by a hearing officer/judge. In the case
of properties that are not owner occupied the following general guidelines will
apply:
• In general, tenants/occupants will be held responsible for items concerning
routine maintenance and for personal property items.
• In situations where tenants/occupants have failed to fulfill their responsibility for
compliance with city ordinances, owners/responsible parties may also be held
accountable.
• In cases involving unoccupied properties, owners/ responsible parties will be
held accountable for all property conditions.
Effective June 28, 2023 4
Page 310
Code Enforcement Policy
4. Criminal Complaint
Failure to comply with any of the preceding actions will be cause to proceed
with a criminal complaint.
5. City Abatement
The city, at its own discretion, may choose to directly abate and assess
(lien) for any and all violations that remain in non-compliance with city
ordinances or regulations.
6. Exceptions
Exceptions to the standard code enforcement policy are as follows:
Episodic Violations
a. An episodic violation is one that occurs intermittently. 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, as well as many of the
common issues experienced with Short Term Rentals.
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.
Effective June 28, 2023 5
Page 311
Code Enforcement Policy
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.
B. Notification Policy
Cases with violation which have been determined to be recidivist or chronic recidivist
will not be issued a pre-notification letter or standard NOV, and will proceed
immediately to one of the following code enforcement actions based on the unique
facts of the case:
• issue a NOV requiring the abatement of the violations
• issue a civil citation
• issue a criminal summons
III. Inspection/Enforcement
A. Purpose
The Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance, Zoning Ordinance and other ordinances
and codes enforced by the Neighborhood Services Department are enforced on a
complaint basis. This is designed to encourage resident, neighborhood association,
block watch or other city department participation in the enforcement process. The
graffiti supplies non- access regulations (Section 39-10 D) of the Neighborhood
Preservation Ordinance and mobile vending regulations are enforced proactively.
Anonymous complaints will be accepted with the following exceptions: illegal
commercial business complaints; when past complaints for the same alleged violation
on the same property have been found to be invalid on three or more occasions; and
in situations when a street address is not provided. Complaints in these categories will
require that the complainant provide a name and contact phone number.
B. Exceptions
Exceptions to the complaint-based enforcement policy are as follows:
1. Active Neighborhood Fight Back Areas
The Neighborhood Fight Back Program is a resident mobilization effort that
provides a temporary increase in city services to assist in community
revitalization efforts. The increased services are targeted to reduce crime,
eliminate, or prevent blight and help restore or stabilize neighborhoods.
Deviation from the complaint-based enforcement process will take place at the
request of, and with the active support and cooperation of, area residents.
Effective June 28, 2023 6
Page 312
Code Enforcement Policy
2. Neighborhood Initiative Areas
Combined with the city's long-standing commitment to improve distressed
areas, the Neighborhood Services Department is focusing resources for
concentrated and comprehensive revitalization in five Neighborhood Initiative
Areas. The concept is to concentrate resources, complete revitalization, then
move to other areas of need. The neighborhoods identified and selected
require a comprehensive approach for restoration and revitalization. Staff
works with residents so that success can be defined, and a strategy developed
to achieve it.
These and future designated NIAs will allow for non-complaint-based
inspections and enforcement.
3. Redevelopment Areas, Neighborhood Revitalization Areas, or other Target
Areas
The Neighborhood Services Department works with resident advisory
committees and neighborhood organizations in the city's designated
Redevelopment Areas and other Target Areas to eliminate blight and to
promote residential and commercial redevelopment and revitalization. In order
to support and complement redevelopment and revitalization efforts within the
designated redevelopment and Target Areas, systematic and non-complaint-
based code enforcement may be required.
At the request of Phoenix City Council members, certain Neighborhood
Revitalization Areas are designated by the Neighborhood Services
Department for neighborhood organization and revitalization activities. Based
upon the request of, and in partnership with, the neighborhood organization,
non- complaint-based code enforcement may be implemented in these areas.
4. Properties in the Immediate Area which are an Obvious Detriment or Blight
When an initial inspection is conducted, based on a complaint, the inspector
may:
a. Expand upon the initial complaint on the same property and determine
whether violations exist on the following items identified by City Council:
• High weeds/grass or dead/dry bushes, trees, weeds and/or other
vegetation
• Inoperable vehicles
• Junk, litter and/or debris
• Open/vacant buildings and structures
• Outside storage
• Fences in disrepair
• Vehicles parked on a non-dust proofed surface or in non-permitted
areas of residential front or side yards
• Graffiti
Effective June 28, 2023 7
Page 313
Code Enforcement Policy
b. Inspect additional properties in the immediate area of the initial reported
violation
c. Limit the inspection to those items, which appeared as violations on the
initial property on which the complaint was received; and the items listed in
III (B)(4)(a).
d. Initiate appropriate enforcement action
5. Environmental, Imminent Hazard and/or Fire Safety Conditions
In order to maintain and protect neighborhoods from imminent hazards,
environmental hazards, fire hazards and other types of similar conditions that
may immediately endanger or place residents in peril, the city will summarily
inspect/abate any and all conditions which are discovered without benefit of
complaint.
6. Seamless Service Efforts
The Neighborhood Services Department may be called upon by other
departments or governmental agencies to partner on issues of community
concern in areas outside of the city’s designated Target Areas. It is the
department’s goal to provide seamless and coordinated service in such
circumstances to facilitate the resolution of an identified community problem.
In order to support and complement these interagency/interdepartmental
efforts, systematic and non-complaint-based code enforcement may be
implemented with the approval of the City Manager or designee.
7. City-designated Slum Properties
In an effort to comprehensively and effectively address multiple violations at
city- designated slum properties, the Neighborhood Services Department may
implement non-complaint-based code enforcement.
8. Recidivist/Chronic Recidivist Properties
To address frequently recurring violations on recidivist properties, the
Neighborhood Services Department may initiate non-complaint-based
inspections/ code enforcement on recidivist properties after case resolution to
check for a recurrence of the same violation(s) and/or any of the common
blight violations as identified in Section III. (B) (4) (a).
To assure lasting compliance on chronic recidivist properties, the
Neighborhood Services Department shall initiate non-complaint based exterior
inspections/ code enforcement on designated chronic recidivist properties after
case resolution, to check for a recurrence of the same violation(s) and/or any
of the common blight violations as identified in Section III. B. (4) (a).
Effective June 28, 2023 8
Page 314
Code Enforcement Policy
9. Private Communities
Enforcement of violations within private communities with private roads and/or
limited public access are generally the responsibility of the owner(s),
responsible party, property manager, and/or park managers. NSD will enforce
violations visible from the property boundaries and health and safety violations
reported by residents within the community.
IV. Hardship Assistance
A. Purpose
It is the intent of the city to provide assistance to all low- and moderate-
income households that are eligible for financial assistance, and support
for owners/responsible parties who are impacted by homelessness.
Assistance and support will be provided in the form of information, referral,
counseling, outreach, the provision of volunteer labor and/or the provision
of direct financial assistance. Additional time to achieve compliance may
also be necessary due to the resources offered.
B. Available Resources
Based upon funding availability and in some cases participant eligibility the
Neighborhood Services Department will provide or coordinate the following
types of assistance:
• Information
• Housing, financial, landlord/tenant counseling
• Referral to public, private, or nonprofit sources of assistance
• Tool lending
• Volunteer labor assistance
• Graffiti abatement supplies and assistance
• Financial assistance to bring violations into compliance
• Housing rehabilitation/reconstruction (limited geographic areas only)
V. Interdepartmental/Interagency Cooperation
A. Purpose
The Neighborhood Services Department will cooperate with other
departments and agencies when appropriate to further the mutual goals of
nuisance abatement and neighborhood maintenance for the benefit of the
entire community.
B. Cooperation From Other Departments
Upon the request of the director or designee, the Police Department and
any other department of the city will assist and cooperate with the director
in the performance of duties related to the enforcement of ordinances. This
cooperation may include assistance in enforcement or abatement actions,
Effective June 28, 2023 9
Page 315
Code Enforcement Policy
including removal of persons from buildings or structures to be
demolished.
C. Hazardous Conditions
The city manager or designee may order immediate abatement of a hazard
without notice. The Neighborhood Services Department may also request
official concurrence from other departments as to whether immediate
abatement action is necessary. These departments or agencies include,
but are not limited to, Police, Fire, Public Works, Development Services,
and the Maricopa County Environmental Services departments.
VI. Annual Review by City Council
This Code Enforcement Policy will be reviewed and evaluated annually by the City
Council.
Effective June 28, 2023 10
Page 316
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: TBD
Page 317
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.
Page 318
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.
Page 319
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.
Page 320
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
Page 321
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.
Page 322
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.
Page 323
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)
Page 324
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.
Page 325
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Amendment (Ordinance S-50977)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to allow additional funding for
Indoor/Outdoor Sport Court Resurfacing and Repair Services Contract 154058 with
Elite Sports Builders, LLC and Contract 154056 with Arizona Gym Floors, LLC for the
Parks and Recreation Department. Further request to authorize the City Controller to
disburse all funds related to this item. The additional expenditures will not exceed $3
million.
Summary
These contracts currently provide resurfacing and repair services for indoor, multi-use
wood floors and outdoor concrete sport courts. The Parks and Recreation Department
uses these services to resurface and repair indoor/outdoor sport court floors such as
tennis, volleyball, pickleball and basketball courts located at various recreation
facilities. The services include floor screening, line striping, floor repair, and wood floor
refinishing and maintenance.
Contract Term
The contract terms remain unchanged, ending on March 31, 2026.
Financial Impact
Upon approval of $3 million in additional funding, the revised aggregate value of the
contracts will not exceed $5.35 million. Funds are available in the Park and Recreation
Department's budget.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request:
· Indoor/Outdoor Sport Court Resurfacing and Repair Services Contracts 154058 and
154056 (Ordinance S-47347) on March 3, 2021.
· City Council approved adding $1 million in American Rescue Plan Act funds
(Ordinance S-50145) on Sept. 6, 2023.
Page 326
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager John Chan and the Parks and
Recreation Department.
Page 327
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
1920-WFM-247 - Amendment (Ordinance S-50978)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute amendments to
Contracts 152361, 152375, 152362, 152363 and 152364 with ABM Building Services
LLC, Adobe Insulation, Inc. dba Adobe Energy Management, Artic Air Heating &
Cooling, Goliath Mechanical LLC., and HACI Services LLC to allow additional
expenditures for the Parks and Recreation Department. Further request to authorize
the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The additional
expenditures will not exceed $750,000.
Summary
This contract will provide Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC)
maintenance and repair services to various types of buildings such as community
centers, golf courses and educational centers that have different types of heating and
cooling systems that serve them. As some are getting older, they are requiring more
maintenance and repairs. This contract will assist the Parks and Recreation
Department in providing a better maintenance plan and faster response times when
the systems have failed and need to be repaired.
Contract Term
The contract term remains unchanged, ending on June 30, 2025.
Financial Impact
Upon approval of $750,000 in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contracts will not exceed $10,073,000. Funds are available in the Parks and
Recreation Department’s budget.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request:
· HVAC Maintenance and Repair Services for Water Services Department - Contracts
152375, 152362, 152364 (Ordinance S-50730) on April 3, 2024, for an additional
$1,823,000.
· HVAC Maintenance and Repair Services for Water Services Department - Contracts
152361, 152375, 152362, 152363, 152364 (Ordinance S-46664) on June 3, 2020.
Page 328
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers John Chan and Ginger Spencer, and
the Parks and Recreation and Water Services departments.
Page 329
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
- PKS-RFA-24-0350 - Request for Award (Ordinance S-50998)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
Stabilizer Solutions, Inc. for the purchase, installation and maintenance of Pro Red
infield mix 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 contract
will not exceed $750,000.
Summary
Services provided under this contract include purchase, installation and maintenance
of Pro Red infield mix for baseball and softball in-field surfacing throughout City parks.
The products provided under this contract fortify the soil and assist in the ongoing
maintenance of the fields used by the public for recreational play, tournaments and
league games.
Procurement Information
In accordance with City of Phoenix Administrative Regulation 3.10, standard
competition was waived as a result of an approved Determination Memo based on the
following reasons:
· Pro Red is the infield mix currently used at all City park facilities with softball and
baseball fields since 2012.
· In order to maintain the current field composition and color, other manufacturer
products cannot be mixed with the Pro Red infield mix.
· Mixing infield products also voids warranties and creates additional maintenance.
· If the City were to completely remove and replace the current infield mix with a new
material, it would cost significantly more and require the closure of fields for long
periods of time to complete the replacement.
· Stabilizer Solutions, Inc. is the only distributor of the matching Pro Red infield mix in
the Phoenix Metropolitan area.
Page 330
Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about July 1, 2024, for a five-year term with no options to
extend.
Financial Impact
The contract value will not exceed $750,000 for the five-year term. Funding is available
in the Parks and Recreation Department's budget.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager John Chan and the Parks and
Recreation Department.
Page 331
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
- Amendment (Ordinance S-51027)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Contract 150494 with Fluoresco Services LLC 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 $83,000.
Summary
This contract provides the City of Phoenix Parks and Recreation Department (Parks)
with specialty lighting repair and maintenance services for more than 180 parks,
mountain preserves and golf courses throughout the City. Contractual services include
periodic scheduled maintenance and as-needed repair services to ensure all sports,
area lighting and scoreboards are working properly. Parks staff is requesting an
extension beyond term for six months to finalize two projects that Fluoresco has
started and allow time to successfully complete a new solicitation. The current contract
with Fluoresco expires June 30, 2024, and the added time will ensure services are not
interrupted.
Contract Term
Upon approval the contract will be extended through Dec. 31, 2024.
Financial Impact
Upon approval of $83,000 in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contract will not exceed $179,000. Funds are available in the Parks and Recreation
Department’s Operating budget.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request:
· Sports Lighting, Scoreboard and Area Lighting Repair and Maintenance Services -
Contract 150494 (Ordinance S-45872) on June 26, 2019.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager John Chan and the Parks and
Recreation Department.
Page 332
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Amendment (Ordinance S-51028)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Contract 152164 with Simpson Norton Corporation to provide mid-size lawnmowers
and associated maintenance services for the Parks and Recreation Department and
increase expenditure authority for the contract. Further request authorization for the
City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The additional expenditures
will not exceed $120,000.
Summary
The Parks and Recreation Department (Parks) currently utilizes a fleet of gang
mowers, as well as leases mid-sized mowers in order to increase efficiency and
reduce costs by ensuring less equipment downtime and lower repair costs. This
contract provides a lease of five mid-sized mowers with a lease that expires in 2025.
The additional expenditures will cover the lease for an additional five mowers that were
leased through a Citywide COOP that has expired. The contract includes a service
plan to cover maintenance and repairs. Parks will evaluate the usefulness of continued
mid-size mower use for lease and/or purchase and complete a future solicitation to
enter into a new contract.
Contract Term
The contract with Simpson Norton Corporation expires May 31, 2025.
Financial Impact
Upon approval of $120,000 in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contract will not exceed $701,000. Funds are available in the Parks and Recreation
Department's Operating budget.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously approved this request:
· Mid-Size Mowers Lease and Blade/Preventative Maintenance - Contract 152164
(Ordinance S-46635) on May 20, 2020.
Page 333
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager John Chan and the Parks and
Recreation Department.
Page 334
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Services - PA75200709 (Ordinance S-51016)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with Black & Veatch Corporation to provide Engineering Services that include design,
consultant coordination, condition assessments and inspections services for the
Papago Park and Phoenix Zoo Dams Formal Inspection Services project. Further
request to authorize execution of amendments to the agreement as necessary within
the Council-approved expenditure authority as provided below, and for the City
Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The fee for services will not exceed
$1 million.
Additionally, request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to take all action
as may be necessary or appropriate and to execute all design and construction
agreements, licenses, permits, and requests for utility services related to the
development, design and construction of the project. Such utility services include, but
are not limited to: electrical, water, sewer, natural gas, telecommunication, cable
television, railroads and other modes of transportation. Further request the City
Council to grant an exception to Phoenix City Code 42-20 to authorize inclusion in the
documents pertaining to this transaction of indemnification and assumption of liability
provisions that otherwise should be prohibited by Phoenix City Code 42-18. This
authorization excludes any transaction involving an interest in real property.
Summary
The Street Transportation Department conducts inspections of eight earthen dams in
the Phoenix Mountains Preserve for the Parks and Recreation Department. The Street
Transportation Department also recently performed an inspection of the Papago Park
dams for the Parks and Recreation Department, which has resulted in the need for
additional evaluation and potential repairs to the Papago Park dams.
Black & Veatch Corporation’s services include, but are not limited to: conduct planning
and initial site preparation for the completion of formal inspections, develop dam
specific plans for required vegetation removal or thinning, pre-inspection work, formal
inspections, facilitation of Failure Mode and Effects Analysis, Stakeholder
communications with Salt River Project, Arizona Department of Water Resources,
Page 335
Flood Control District, and Maricopa County Emergency Management, support public
outreach, and other work as required.
Procurement Information
The selection was made using a qualifications-based selection process set forth in
section 34-603 of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.). In accordance with A.R.S.
section 34-603(H), the City may not publicly release information on proposals received
or the scoring results until an agreement is awarded. Two firms submitted proposals
and are listed below.
Selected Firm
Rank 1: Black & Veatch Corporation
Additional Proposer
Rank 2: HDR Engineering, Inc.
Contract Term
The term of the agreement is five years from the issuance of the Notice to Proceed.
Work scope identified and incorporated into the agreement prior to the end of the term
may be agreed to by the parties, and work may extend past the termination of the
agreement. No additional changes may be executed after the end of the term.
Financial Impact
The agreement value for Black & Veatch Corporation will not exceed $1 million,
including all subconsultant and reimbursable costs.
Funding is available in the Parks and Recreation Department's Capital Improvement
Program budget. The Budget and Research Department will separately review and
approve funding availability prior to execution of any amendments. Payments may be
made up to agreement limits for all rendered agreement services, which may extend
past the agreement termination.
Location
625 N. Galvin Parkway, Papago Park
Council District: 6
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Inger Erickson and John Chan, the
Street Transportation and Parks and Recreation departments and the City Engineer.
Page 336
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
(Ordinance S-51029)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with Haydon Companies, LLC to provide Construction Manager at Risk
Preconstruction and Construction Services for the Lone Mountain Park 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
$10.8 million.
Summary
The purpose of this project is to construct Lone Mountain Park, a new park that sits on
40-acres and will serve residents in northeast Phoenix. The department worked with
the surrounding community to develop a master plan approved by the Phoenix Parks
and Recreation Board. The project will include new park amenities, hardscape, and
infrastructure. Development of the site components include play features, fields,
courts, ramadas, paths, walkways and general park features. New amenities include,
parking lot improvements, ramadas, restrooms, hardscape improvements, landscape
improvements, landscape irrigation, site furniture, and lighting improvements.
Haydon Companies, LLC will begin in an agency support role for Construction
Manager at Risk Preconstruction Services. Haydon Companies, LLC will assume the
risk of delivering the project through a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) agreement.
Haydon Companies, LLC's Preconstruction Services include, but are not limited to:
detailed cost estimating, project planning and scheduling, construction phasing, long
lead procurement, assist in permitting process, advise on green building materials,
protect the City's sensitivity to safety and environmental factors, participating with the
City in a process to establish a Small Business Enterprise (SBE) goal for the project,
and other work as required for the preconstruction phase.
Haydon Companies, LLC's initial Construction Services will include preparation of a
GMP proposal provided under the agreement. Haydon Companies, LLC will be
responsible for construction means and methods related to the project and fulfilling the
Page 337
SBE program requirements. Haydon Companies, LLC will be required to solicit bids
from prequalified subcontractors and to perform the work using the City’s
subcontractor selection process. Haydon Companies, LLC may also compete to self-
perform limited amounts of work.
Haydon Companies, LLC's additional Construction Services include, but not be limited
to: construct the Lone Mountain Park, select subcontractors and suppliers, prepare
GMP proposals, coordinate with various City departments, utility companies and other
agencies as required, schedule and manage site operations, procurement of materials
and equipment, bid, award and manage all construction related contracts while
meeting City bid requirements, provide quality controls, bond and insure the
construction, and other work as required for a complete project.
Procurement Information
The selection was made using a qualifications-based selection process set forth in
section 34-603 of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.). In accordance with A.R.S.
section 34-603(H), the City may not publicly release information on proposals received
or the scoring results until an agreement is awarded. Six firms submitted proposals
and are listed below.
Selected Firm
Rank 1: Haydon Companies, LLC
Additional Proposers
Rank 2: Valley Rain Construction Corporation
Rank 3: Hunter Contracting, Co.
Rank 4: Willmeng Construction Corporation
Rank 5: Chasse Building Team
Rank 6: Brycon Corporation
Contract Term
The term of the agreement is five years from issuance of the Notice to Proceed. Work
scope identified and incorporated into the agreement prior to the end of the term may
be agreed to by the parties, and work may extend past the termination of the
agreement. No additional changes may be executed after the end of the term.
Financial Impact
The agreement value for Haydon Companies, LLC will not exceed $10.8 million,
including all subcontractor and reimbursable costs.
Funding is available in the Parks and Recreation Department's Capital Improvement
Page 338
Program budget. The Budget and Research Department will separately review and
approve funding availability prior to execution of any amendments. Payments may be
made up to agreement limits for all rendered agreement services, which may extend
past the agreement termination.
Location
56th Street and Montgomery Road
Council District: 2
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers John Chan and Inger Erickson, the
Parks and Recreation Department and the City Engineer.
Page 339
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
Dig Studio, Inc. to provide Engineering Services that include design for the Lone
Mountain Park project. Further request to authorize execution of amendments to the
agreement as necessary within the Council-approved expenditure authority as
provided below, and for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.
The fee for services will not exceed $500,000.
Additionally, request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to take all action
as may be necessary or appropriate and to execute all design and construction
agreements, licenses, permits, and requests for utility services related to the
development, design and construction of the project. Such utility services include, but
are not limited to: electrical, water, sewer, natural gas, telecommunication, cable
television, railroads and other modes of transportation. Further request the City
Council to grant an exception to Phoenix City Code 42-20 to authorize inclusion in the
documents pertaining to this transaction of indemnification and assumption of liability
provisions that otherwise should be prohibited by Phoenix City Code 42-18. This
authorization excludes any transaction involving an interest in real property.
Summary
The purpose of this project is to integrate the master plan update alternative design
themes that include new park amenities, hardscape, landscape, and infrastructure.
Dig Studio's services include, but are not limited to: design of the site components
including play features, fields, courts, ramadas, restrooms, paths, walkways,
landscape irrigation, site furniture, lighting improvements, and general park features.
Procurement Information
Dig Studio, Inc. was chosen for this project using a Direct Select process set forth in
section 34-103 of the Arizona Revised Statutes. The Direct Select process will reduce
the time to procure engineering services as opposed to an advertised selection
process, meeting the project deadline, ensuring continuity of service and the most
efficient use of staff and funding resources.
Page 340
Contract Term
The term of the agreement is one year 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 Dig Studio, Inc. will not exceed $500,000, including all
subconsultant and reimbursable costs.
Funding is available in the Parks and Recreation Department's Capital Improvement
Program budget. The Budget and Research Department will separately review and
approve funding availability prior to execution of any amendments. Payments may be
made up to agreement limits for all rendered agreement services, which may extend
past the agreement termination.
Location
56th Street and Montgomery Road
Council District: 2
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers John Chan and Inger Erickson, the
Parks and Recreation Department and the City Engineer.
Page 341
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
HUUB, LLC (Ordinance S-51036)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to extend Contract 153515
with HUUB, LLC (formerly CO+HOOTS LLC) (Contractor), to continue
PHXbizConnect, a technology-driven Small Business Community Platform, to support
small businesses. There is no impact to the General Fund. Funding will not exceed
$110,000 and is available through the City's allocation of the American Rescue Plan
Act (ARPA) funding received from the federal government and is under the City's Small
Business Workforce Program category. Further request to authorize the City Controller
to disburse all funds related to this item.
Summary
In May 2020, City Council allocated $100,000 in federal Coronavirus Relief Funds for a
program to assist Phoenix small businesses with pandemic recovery efforts. On Nov.
4, 2020, City Council authorized a six-month contract with this Contractor to initiate
PHXbizConnect, which was launched in March 2021. PHXbizConnect is a social
media platform where business owners connect, ask questions, share successes and
find solutions to business-related issues. The platform is available in both English and
Spanish, streamlines support for small businesses in one central, virtual location, and
helps boost the resilience of Phoenix small businesses. Businesses do not pay to
participate in PHXbizConnect. Subsequently, City Council has authorized three one-
year contract extensions that continued the program and added a free technical
assistance consulting program to provide one-on-one consulting from business
advisors.
The platform is an effective tool for reaching and supporting micro businesses and
under-represented communities. As of May 2024, more than 1,100 Phoenix business
owners are registered PHXbizConnect members, many of whom operate restaurants
and retail shops or offer professional services. Eighty-three of the members have
fewer than 10 employees, 53 percent identify as woman-owned and 50 percent identify
as people of color.
Procurement Information
Contractor was selected through the alternative competition process based on its
Page 342
experience creating a similar program for the City of Mesa.
Contract Term
If approved, the proposed extension would begin on July 1, 2024 with a term of six
months.
Financial Impact
Funding to extend the contract for six months will not exceed $110,000. If this
extension is approved, the aggregate value of this contract will not exceed $1,050,500.
There is no impact to the General Fund. Funding is available through the City's
allocation of ARPA funds in the Small Business Workforce Program category.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
At the May 5, 2020 City Council Policy meeting, City Council allocated ARPA funding
to create a tool that would connect small businesses to resources during the COVID
pandemic. On Nov. 4, 2020, City Council authorized this contract. City Council
authorized subsequent contract extensions on July 1, 2021, May 25, 2022, and April 5,
2023.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager John Chan and the Community and
Economic Development Department.
Page 343
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request City Council approval for (1) the issuance and sale of single family mortgage
revenue bonds, (2) the related Standards and Requirements and General Plan, and
(3) the execution of a Cooperative/Intergovernmental Agreement.
Summary
Request City Council adoption of a resolution 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 up to $400,000,000 of the Series 2024
Single Family Mortgage Revenue Bonds (the “Series 2024 Program Bonds”) (
Attachment A), to be jointly issued with The Industrial Development Authority of the
County of Maricopa (the “Maricopa IDA”) in multiple series pursuant to a plan of
finance (the “Series 2024 Program”).
The Phoenix IDA and Maricopa IDA propose to use the proceeds of the Series 2024
Program Bonds to finance mortgage loans and homebuyer assistance for single family
homes to be owned and occupied by persons of low and moderate income in Maricopa
County, including the City of Phoenix.
In accordance with the Industrial Development Financing Act, the Standards and
Requirements (Attachment B) and General Plan (Attachment C) adopted by the
Phoenix IDA for the Series 2024 Program Bonds and Series 2024 Program require the
approval of City Council.
The Phoenix IDA and Maricopa IDA intend to jointly issue the Series 2024 Program
Bonds to implement the Series 2024 Program benefiting the citizens of their combined
jurisdictions pursuant to Attachment D, the Cooperative/Intergovernmental
Agreement.
Pursuant to Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, City
Council must approve the issuance of the Series 2024 Program Bonds after a public
hearing following reasonable public notice. The public hearing is being held by a
representative of the Phoenix IDA on June 7, 2024.
Page 344
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Phoenix IDA Board has previously resolved to issue the Series 2024 Program
Bonds, approve the Standards and Requirements and General Plan, and approve
entering into the Cooperative/Intergovernmental Agreement at its meeting held on May
16, 2024.
Location
The Series 2024 Program will be implemented for the entire Phoenix/Maricopa County
area.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer.
Page 345
Attachment A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE
FINAL ADOPTED RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION NO. ______
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ISSUANCE BY
THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF
THE CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA, OF SINGLE
FAMILY MORTGAGE REVENUE BONDS, IN ONE
OR MORE SERIES PURSUANT TO A PLAN OF
FINANCE, IN AN AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL
AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $400,000,000, TO
FINANCE THE SERIES 2024 SINGLE FAMILY
MORTGAGE REVENUE BOND PROGRAM OF THE
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE
CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA AND THE
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE
COUNTY OF MARICOPA, AND APPROVING A
COOPERATIVE/INTERGOVERNMENTAL
AGREEMENT, THE STANDARDS AND
REQUIREMENTS AND THE GENERAL PLAN
RELATING TO THE PROGRAM AND THE BONDS;
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS
DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE ALL NECESSARY
DOCUMENTS
___________________
WHEREAS, The Industrial Development Authority of the City of Phoenix,
Arizona (the “Phoenix 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
WHEREAS, The Industrial Development Authority of the County of
Maricopa (the “Maricopa Authority” and, together with the Phoenix Authority, the
“Authorities”) is a nonprofit corporation designated a political subdivision of the
4877-9909-4971.3
Page 346
State incorporated with the approval of Maricopa County, Arizona (“Maricopa
County”); and
WHEREAS, Title 35, Chapter 5, of the Arizona Revised Statutes, Sections
35-701 et seq., as amended (the “Act”), authorizes the Authorities and each of
them to issue revenue bonds to finance and refinance directly or indirectly the
acquisition, construction, improvement or equipping of projects which are owner-
occupied single-family dwelling units to be occupied by persons of low and
moderate income; and
WHEREAS, the Authorities currently operate a joint program to finance and
refinance directly or indirectly, the acquisition, construction, improvement, or
equipping of projects which are owner-occupied single-family dwelling units to be
occupied by persons of low and moderate income throughout the area within
Maricopa County, including the City (the “Single Family Housing Program”); and
WHEREAS, the Authorities, the City and Maricopa County will enter into an
agreement (the “Cooperative/Intergovernmental Agreement”) providing for the
Authorities’ cooperation in the continued operation of the Single Family Housing
Program by jointly issuing bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed
$400,000,000 (the “Series 2024 Program Bonds”) to finance their Series 2024
Single Family Mortgage Revenue Bond Program (the “Series 2024 Program”) to
finance and refinance directly or indirectly the acquisition, construction,
improvement or equipping of projects which are owner-occupied single-family
dwelling units to be occupied by persons of low and moderate income throughout
the area within Maricopa County (the “Project”) and providing that the combined
2 Resolution No. ____
4877-9909-4971.3
Page 347
jurisdictions of the Phoenix Authority and the Maricopa Authority will be the
jurisdiction of both of the Authorities for purposes of the Series 2024 Program; and
WHEREAS, Section 35-706(D) of the Act provides that the Standards and
Requirements adopted by the Authorities for the Series 2024 Program and the
Series 2024 Program Bonds requires the approval of the Council of the City; and
WHEREAS, Section 35-726(A) of the Act provides that the General Plan
adopted by the Authorities for the Series 2024 Program and the Series 2024
Program Bonds requires the approval of the Council of the City; and
WHEREAS, the Phoenix Authority, by Resolution No. 2024-07, duly
adopted by the Board of Directors of the Phoenix Authority at a lawful meeting
called and held on May 16, 2024, granted approval to the issuance and sale by the
Phoenix Authority, jointly with the Maricopa Authority, of one or more series of the
Series 2024 Program Bonds pursuant to a plan of finance in an aggregate principal
amount not to exceed $400,000,000; and
WHEREAS, 35-721(B) of the Act provides that the proceedings of the
Phoenix Authority under which the Series 2024 Program Bonds are to be issued
require the approval of the Council of the City for the issuance of the Series 2024
Program Bonds; and
WHEREAS, Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
amended (the “Code”) requires that an “applicable elected representative” (as that
term is defined in the Code) approve the issuance of the Series 2024 Program
Bonds and the plan of finance for the Project following a public hearing, which
3 Resolution No. ____
4877-9909-4971.3
Page 348
public hearing was jointly held by the Phoenix Authority and the Maricopa Authority
on June 7, 2024, to the extent the interest on such Series 2024 Program Bonds is
intended to be excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes; and
WHEREAS, information regarding the Series 2024 Program and the Series
2024 Program Bonds 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 Sections 35-706(D), 35-726(A) and 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 Series 2024 Project Bonds.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA as follows:
SECTION 1. The Cooperative/Intergovernmental Agreement relating to the
Series 2024 Program is hereby approved. The City Manager, or his designee, is
hereby authorized to execute the Cooperative/Intergovernmental Agreement. The
Cooperative/Intergovernmental Agreement is to be in substantially the form now
before the Council at this meeting and hereby approved, or with such changes
therein as shall be approved by the City Manager, or his designee, the officers of
the Authorities executing the same and by all other necessary parties, their
execution thereof to constitute conclusive evidence of their approval of any and all
changes or revisions therein from the form of the Cooperative/Intergovernmental
Agreement now before this Council.
4 Resolution No. ____
4877-9909-4971.3
Page 349
SECTION 2. The Standards and Requirements adopted by the Authorities
for the Series 2024 Program and the Series 2024 Program Bonds are hereby
approved. The Standards and Requirements are to be in substantially the form
now before the Council at this meeting and hereby approved, or with such changes
therein as shall be approved by the officers of the Authorities executing the same
and by all other necessary parties, their execution thereof to constitute conclusive
evidence of their approval of any and all changes or revisions therein from the form
of the Standards and Requirements now before this Council.
SECTION 3. The General Plan adopted by the Authorities for the Series
2024 Program and the Series 2024 Program Bonds is hereby approved. The
General Plan is to be in substantially the form now before the Council at this
meeting and hereby approved, or with such changes therein as shall be approved
by the officers of the Authorities executing the same and by all other necessary
parties, their execution thereof to constitute conclusive evidence of their approval
of any and all changes or revisions therein from the form of the General Plan now
before this Council.
SECTION 4. The proceedings of the Phoenix Authority under which the
Series 2024 Program Bonds are to be issued are hereby approved.
SECTION 5. The issuance of the Series 2024 Program Bonds and the plan
of finance for the Project are hereby approved for purposes of Section 147(f) of the
Code.
SECTION 6. The City Manager, or his designee, is hereby authorized to
execute all necessary documents.
5 Resolution No. ____
4877-9909-4971.3
Page 350
SECTION 7. 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 under the laws of the
State.
6 Resolution No. ____
4877-9909-4971.3
Page 351
PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA this
12th day of June, 2024.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Acting City Attorney
REVIEWED BY:
City Manager
7 Resolution No. ____
4877-9909-4971.3
Page 352
Attachment B
The Industrial Development Authority of the City of Phoenix, Arizona and
The Industrial Development Authority of the County of Maricopa
Series 2024 Single Family Mortgage Revenue Bond Program
STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS
Pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes Section 35-706.D., The Industrial Development
Authority of the City of Phoenix, Arizona and The Industrial Development Authority of the County
of Maricopa (collectively, the “Authorities”) have established the following Standards and
Requirements for the financing of mortgage loans (the “Mortgage Loans”) pursuant to the
Authorities’ Series 2024 Single Family Mortgage Revenue Bond Program (the “Program”). The
bonds issued to finance the Program (the “Program Bonds”) are to be issued and the Program is
to be administered in accordance with Title 35, Chapter 5, Arizona Revised Statutes (the “Act”),
and certain Program Bonds may be “qualified mortgage bonds” as defined in Section 143 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Tax Code”), and bear interest which is excluded
from gross income for federal income tax purposes. The Authorities intend to issue the Program
Bonds in multiple tax-exempt and/or taxable series/subseries pursuant to a plan of finance. The
proceeds of the Program Bonds are to be used to finance and refinance mortgage loans on
residences in all areas within Maricopa County, Arizona, including within the City of Phoenix,
Arizona, but not in any incorporated city or town which exercises its statutory right to prohibit
mortgage loans financed by the Program on residences within its boundaries (the “Mortgage
Loans”).
Any and all portions of these Standards and Requirements are subject to change from time
to time as approved by the Authorities in accordance with the Act.
1. Eligibility of Mortgage Lenders. In order to be eligible to originate Mortgage
Loans pursuant to the Program, each participating mortgage lender (collectively, the “Lenders”)
must:
(a) Be approved as a mortgagee by the Federal Housing Administration
(“FHA”), the United States Department of Agriculture, Rural Housing Service (“RHS”),
and/or the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”), and be approved as sellers and servicers
of mortgage loans by Fannie Mae (formerly known as the Federal National Mortgage
Association) or the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“Freddie Mac”), as
required by the Act.
(b) Be approved as a mortgagee by the United States Department of Housing
and Urban Development (“HUD”), if the Lender is to originate Mortgage Loans guaranteed
by HUD.
(c) Be organized and existing under the laws of the State, another state, or the
United States and be qualified to do business in the State as required by the Act.
4895-5546-0019.3
Page 353
(d) Agree to such terms and conditions as shall be approved by the Authorities
and set forth in one or more Program guides for the origination of Mortgage Loans
(collectively, the “Program Guidelines”).
The Authorities may permit nonprofit organizations to participate in the Program by
agreement with one or more Lenders having the qualifications set forth above.
Mortgage Loans originated by the Lenders will be acquired from the Lenders by the loan
servicer for the Program (the “Servicer”) and serviced by the Servicer. The trustee (the “Trustee”)
under the trust indenture pursuant to which the Program Bonds will be issued (the “Indenture”)
will acquire from the Servicer guaranteed mortgage certificates (“Certificates”) backed by
Mortgage Loans originated by Lenders and sold to the Servicer. The Certificates will be
guaranteed as to timely payment of principal and interest by the Government National Mortgage
Association (“GNMA”), Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, other approved issuers of Certificates or other
credit enhancement. The Trustee will also reimburse the Servicer for second-lien mortgage loans
made by the Authorities in connection with a first Mortgage Loan backing a Certificate to finance
a Mortgagor’s (as defined below) down payment and closing costs with respect such first Mortgage
Loan (each a “DPA Second-Lien Mortgage Loan”). The Lenders must originate each Mortgage
Loan in conformity with the requirements of FHA, RHS, VA, the United States Department of
Agriculture, HUD Section 184, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or other credit enhancer, as applicable,
existing at the time of such origination.
2. Time Period for Disbursements for Mortgage Loans. Generally, Lenders must
originate and deliver Mortgage Loans within the period or periods set forth in the Program
Guidelines and, with respect to any tax-exempt Program Bonds, the period or periods set forth in
the Tax Code.
3. Character of Residences. The character of the residences to be financed by
Mortgage Loans will be residences permitted under the Act, provided that any residences financed
by Mortgage Loans which are, in turn, financed with the proceeds of tax-exempt Program Bonds
shall also satisfy the requirements of the Tax Code and the regulations thereunder.
4. Eligibility of Persons of Low and Moderate Income. Participating mortgagors (the
“Mortgagors”) in the Program:
(a) Must have a family income at the time of origination of the Mortgage Loan
not in excess of the maximum amount to be established from time to time by the
Authorities, which amount, subject to adjustment by the Authorities if and to the extent
permitted by applicable law, shall not exceed either the amount permitted by the Act or,
for Mortgage Loans financed with the proceeds of tax-exempt Program Bonds, the amount
permitted by the Tax Code.
(b) As and to the extent required by the Act, must not have received, during the
three-year period immediately preceding the date of origination of the Mortgage Loan,
another Mortgage Loan financed directly or indirectly from the proceeds of obligations
issued by the Authorities under the Act.
(c) As and to the extent required by the Tax Code for Mortgage Loans financed
with the proceeds of tax-exempt Program Bonds, must not have had an ownership interest
4895-5546-0019.3
Page 354
in a principal residence at any time during the three-year period ending on the date of
execution of the Mortgage Loan, except that this requirement does not apply to any
Mortgage Loan for a target area residence or to any qualified rehabilitation loan or
qualified-home improvement loan (each as defined in the Tax Code) or to a qualified
veteran (as defined in 38 U.S.C. Section 101).
(d) As and to the extent required by the Tax Code for Mortgage Loans financed
with the proceeds of tax-exempt Program Bonds and as permitted by FHA, RHS, VA,
GNMA, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or other credit enhancer, if a Mortgagor is assuming a
Mortgage Loan previously financed in the Program, the assuming mortgagor must meet
the tests provided for in paragraph 3 and in paragraphs 4(a), 4(b) and 4(c), and the purchase
price for the residence must not be in excess of the applicable maximum purchase price on
the date of assumption.
5. Terms and Conditions of the Mortgage Loans. Each Mortgage Loan:
(a) Will have a term of not to exceed 30 years.
(b) Will provide for approximately level monthly payments for principal and
interest for the life of the Mortgage Loan.
(c) Will have an interest rate not greater than 12.0% per annum and may
provide down payment and closing cost assistance in the form of a DPA Second-Lien
Mortgage Loan in an amount not to exceed 5.0% of the principal amount of the Mortgage
Loan.
(d) May be assumable, subject to the requirements described in paragraph 4(d).
(e) Will be secured by a first lien on the property financed by the Mortgage
Loan and satisfy either or both of the credit or credit enhancement requirements of the
Program as set forth in the Program Guidelines.
(f) May have an interest rate buy-down to the extent permitted by FHA, RHS,
VA, HUD, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, as applicable.
6. Insurance. The following amounts and types of insurance will be required:
(a) On each Mortgage Loan, FHA insurance, a VA guarantee, an RHS
guarantee, a HUD Section 184 guarantee or such private mortgage guaranty insurance as
may be required by GNMA, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or other credit enhancer, as
applicable.
(b) On the property financed by each Mortgage Loan, such casualty insurance
and flood insurance as may be required by FHA, VA, RHS, HUD, GNMA, Fannie Mae,
Freddie Mac or other credit enhancer, as applicable.
(c) An American Land Title Association approved mortgage guaranty title
insurance policy in an amount at least equal to the outstanding principal amount of each
Mortgage Loan insuring title to the real property financed by such Mortgage Loan, subject
to customary exceptions.
4895-5546-0019.3
Page 355
(d) Any other insurance required by FHA, VA, RHS, HUD, GNMA, Fannie
Mae, Freddie Mac or other credit enhancer, as applicable.
If deemed advisable by the Authorities, financial guaranty insurance may be obtained on
all or a portion of any series/subseries of the Program Bonds.
7. Representations and Warranties of Mortgage Lenders. In order to ensure
compliance with these Standards and Requirements, each Lender shall make representations or
warranties to the Authorities with regard to such Lender’s eligibility to participate in the Program
and such other matters deemed appropriate by the Authorities, which representations and
warranties shall be provided for in the Program Guidelines.
8. Restrictions as to Interest Rate, Terms of Mortgage Loans and Return Realized
by Mortgage Lenders. The stated interest rate on the Mortgage Loans shall be determined by the
Authorities from time to time and shall not exceed the maximum rates described in paragraph 5(c).
Other terms and conditions of the Mortgage Loans shall be as provided in paragraphs 4 and 5
hereof.
Each Lender originating a Mortgage Loan may charge (to the extent permitted by
applicable law), subject to further limitation by the Authorities:
(a) An origination fee not to exceed 1.0% of the unpaid principal amount of the
Mortgage Loan which may be collected and retained by the Lender from the Mortgagor in
connection with the origination of the Mortgage Loan.
(b) Discount points not to exceed 1.0% of the unpaid principal amount of the
Mortgage Loan.
(c) Closing costs customarily and usually charged by lenders in originating and
processing comparable mortgage loans in Maricopa County not financed through tax-
exempt bond programs.
(d) If the Lender has paid an extension fee for a longer origination period for
origination of a Mortgage Loan for new construction, an amount equal to such extension
fee.
The purchase price for each Mortgage Loan paid to the Lender by the Servicer will
reimburse the Lender for any down payment and closing cost assistance advanced by the Lender
to the Mortgagor in connection with a DPA Second-Lien Mortgage Loan, if applicable, and
provide the Lender with a net compensation, including the 1.0% origination fee described in (i)
above and the discount points described in (ii) above, not to exceed 2.50% of the purchased
Mortgage Loan.
The Servicer will service the Mortgage Loans. The Servicer shall retain from the monthly
payments on each Mortgage Loan a servicing fee in an amount not to exceed 1.00% per annum of
the outstanding principal balance of the Mortgage Loans serviced. The Servicer will pay all
GNMA, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac fees with respect to the Mortgage Loans from such servicing
fee.
4895-5546-0019.3
Page 356
9. Collateral Security. The Trustee, on behalf of the Authorities, will disburse
Program Bond proceeds to acquire Certificates and to reimburse DPA Second-Lien Mortgage
Loans. The Program Bonds will be limited obligations of the Authorities payable from and secured
by all right, title and interest of the Authorities in and to the Certificates, the Mortgage Loans, the
DPA Second-Lien Mortgage Loans, the revenues pledged under the Indenture, the net proceeds of
the sale of each series/subseries of the Program Bonds and other moneys on deposit in funds held
by the Trustee pursuant to the Indenture. Each Mortgage Loan will be secured by a first lien
Mortgage on the residence financed. Each DPA Second-Lien Mortgage Loan will be secured a
second lien Mortgage on the residence financed.
10. Assignment of Mortgage Loans to the Trustee. Pursuant to the Indenture, the
Trustee will purchase and/or reimburse Certificates and DPA Second-Lien Mortgages, as
applicable, in order to finance the origination of Mortgage Loans by the Lenders. The Trustee
shall act on behalf of the Authorities as provided in the Indenture and, as and to the extent required
by the Act, shall be (i) either a bank or trust company qualified to do business in the State, having
an officially reported combined capital surplus, undivided profits and reserves of not less than
$15,000,000, and (ii) approved to sell mortgages to and to service mortgages for GNMA, Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac.
11. Other Matters. Standards and requirements not set forth above shall be set forth in
the Authorities’ general plan for the Program, the Program Guidelines, one or more guides for the
servicing of Mortgage Loans, the Indenture, the resolutions providing for the issuance of the
Program Bonds, and the Authorities’ Master Mortgage Purchase Agreement, all in form and
substance that have been approved by the Authorities.
[Remainder of page intentionally left blank.]
4895-5546-0019.3
Page 357
The foregoing Standards and Requirements were established by The Industrial
Development Authority of the City of Phoenix, Arizona and by The Industrial Development
Authority of the County of Maricopa on the date(s) indicated below.
THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX,
ARIZONA
By:
Name: Juan Salgado
Its: Chief Executive Officer
Date: May 16, 2024
THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF
MARICOPA
By:
Name: Shelby Scharbach
Its: Executive Director
Date: May 14, 2024
[SIGNATURE PAGE TO STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS]
4895-5546-0019.3
Page 358
Attachment C
The Industrial Development Authority of the City of Phoenix, Arizona and
The Industrial Development Authority of the County of Maricopa
Series 2024 Single Family Mortgage Revenue Bond Program
GENERAL PLAN
In connection with the hereinafter-described Program, The Industrial Development
Authority of the City of Phoenix, Arizona and The Industrial Development Authority of the County
of Maricopa (the “Authorities”) propose to issue one or more tax-exempt and/or taxable series of
bonds (the “Program Bonds”) the proceeds of which are to be used to finance and refinance
mortgage loans (“Mortgage Loans”) to acquire residences in all areas within Maricopa County,
Arizona (“Maricopa County”), including within the City of Phoenix, Arizona, but not within any
city or town which exercises its statutory right to prohibit mortgage loans financed with proceeds
of the Program Bonds within its boundaries.
The Program Bonds are to be issued for the purpose of funding the Authorities’ Series 2024
Single Family Mortgage Revenue Bond Program (the “Program”) for persons of low and
moderate income residing in Maricopa County. The Program Bonds are to be issued and the
Program administered in accordance with Title 35, Chapter 5, Arizona Revised Statutes (the
“Act”), and certain Program Bonds may be “qualified mortgage bonds” as defined in Section 143
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Tax Code”), and bear interest which is
excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes. The Authorities intend to issue the
Program Bonds in multiple series/subseries pursuant to a plan of finance.
The following paragraphs discuss the specific matters required by Arizona Revised
Statutes Section 35-726.A. to be described in this General Plan. Statutory references are to
particular provisions of such Section. Any and all portions of the General Plan are subject to
change from time to time as approved by the Authorities and in accordance with the Act.
1. The Amount of the Proposed Program Bonds: Section 35-726.A.1. The aggregate
principal amount of all series/subseries of the proposed Program Bonds will not exceed
$400,000,000; provided that Program Bonds may be issued to refund any outstanding Program
Bonds that have been issued for the purpose of preserving an allocation of the “state ceiling” (as
defined in A.R.S. § 35-901.22) and the proceeds of which have not been used to purchase
Certificates (as defined below) or Mortgage Loans without regard to this maximum principal
amount.
2. The Maximum Term of the Program Bonds: Section 35-726.A.2. The term of
each series/subseries of the Program Bonds will not exceed 40 years.
3. The Maximum Interest Rate on the Program Bonds: Section 35-726.A.3. The
maximum effective interest rate on each series/subseries of the Program Bonds (taking into
account initial issue premium and discount) is not expected to exceed 10.0% per annum. The
Authorities do not intend to proceed with the issuance of a particular series/subseries of the
Program Bonds unless, in the judgment of the Authorities, such series/subseries of the Program
Bonds can be underwritten, on a basis consistent with standards of housing finance prevailing at
4875-0975-3523.3
Page 359
the time of such issuance, at an interest cost (taking into consideration costs of issuance,
underwriters’ compensation and additional discounts, if any, on such series/subseries of the
Program Bonds) that will permit the Mortgage Loans to be (a) originated at an interest rate not
greater than 12.0% per annum and with down payment and closing cost assistance in an amount
not to exceed 5.0% of the principal amount of the Mortgage Loan, and (b) financed in the Program
on the terms and at the prices referred to in paragraph 5 below.
4. The Need for the Program Bond Issue: Section 35-726.A.4. The Authorities have
determined that within Maricopa County there is a critical shortage of housing within the financial
means of persons and families of low and moderate income; that this shortage constitutes a threat
to the health, safety and welfare of all residents of Maricopa County, contributes to the growth of
slum and blighted areas and inhibits the sound economic growth of Maricopa County; that this
shortage deprives Maricopa County and the incorporated cities and towns therein of an adequate
tax base, results in excessive unemployment and depressed economic conditions and causes
Maricopa County, the incorporated cities and towns therein and the State of Arizona (the “State”)
to make excessive expenditures for crime prevention and control, public health, welfare and safety
and other public services; and that this shortage of affordable housing can be relieved through the
encouragement of investment and lending by private enterprise and the use of financing as
described herein.
5. The Terms and Conditions for Originating or Purchasing Mortgage Loans:
Section 35-726.A.5. Mortgage Loans will be originated by qualified lenders (the “Lenders”).
Mortgage Loans may be financed through the purchase of guaranteed mortgage certificates
(“Certificates”) backed by the Mortgage Loans and guaranteed as to timely payment of principal
and interest by the Government National Mortgage Association (“GNMA”), Fannie Mae
(formerly known as the Federal National Mortgage Association), the Federal Home Loan
Mortgage Corporation (“Freddie Mac”), other approved issuers of Certificates or other credit
enhancement in accordance with one or more Program guidelines approved by the Authorities for
origination of the Mortgage Loans (collectively, the “Program Guidelines”) or through the
purchase of second-lien mortgage loans, made in connection with a first Mortgage Loan backing
a Certificate, to finance the mortgagor’s down payment and closing costs with respect to such first
Mortgage Loan backing a Certificate (each, a “DPA Second-Lien Mortgage Loan”).
(a) In order to qualify for the Program, a Lender must be a bank, trust company,
mortgage company, mortgage banker, national banking association, savings bank, savings
and loan association, building and loan association or any other financial institution which
is qualified to do business in the State as required by the Act, must be currently approved
as a mortgagee by the Federal Housing Administration (“FHA”), the United States
Department of Agriculture, Rural Housing Service (“RHS”), and/or the Department of
Veterans Affairs (“VA”) and as a seller and servicer of mortgage loans by Fannie Mae or
Freddie Mac, as required by the Act, and be approved as a mortgagee by the United States
Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”), if the Lender is to originate
Mortgage Loans guaranteed by HUD. The Authorities may permit nonprofit organizations
to participate in the Program by agreements with one or more Lenders having the
qualifications set forth in the preceding sentence.
(b) Each Mortgage Loan must be originated in conformity with the
requirements of FHA, RHS, VA, HUD Section 184, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or other
credit enhancer, as applicable. The mortgage instrument relating to each Mortgage Loan
4875-0975-3523.3
Page 360
must create a first lien on a residence (a “Mortgage”), subject to permitted encumbrances,
and be made substantially in accordance with the standards of FHA, RHS, VA, HUD,
Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or other credit enhancement, as applicable.
(c) Each Mortgage Loan shall provide for approximately level monthly
payments over the life of the Mortgage Loan of approximately 30 years. Sellers of
residences and mortgagors will be permitted to provide for interest buy-downs on
Mortgage Loans to the extent permitted by FHA, RHS, VA, HUD, Fannie Mae or Freddie
Mac, as applicable, as provided in the Program Guidelines.
(d) Generally, the Lenders must originate and deliver Mortgage Loans within
the period or periods set forth in the Program Guidelines and, with respect to any tax-
exempt Program Bonds, the period or periods set forth in the Tax Code. To the extent
required by the Tax Code, up to 20% of the funds from each series of the Program Bonds
available to finance Mortgage Loans will be made available for one year to finance
Mortgage Loans on targeted area residences (as defined in the Tax Code) (“Targeted Area
Loans”) and after such one year period will be available to finance all Mortgage Loans.
As and to the extent required by the Act, in areas other than a redevelopment area, 30% of
the funds from each series of the Program Bonds available to finance Mortgage Loans will
be set aside for 60 days to finance Mortgage Loans for persons and families whose income
is below the median family income of the State. As and to the extent required by the Act,
10% of the funds from each series of the Program Bonds available to finance Mortgage
Loans will be set aside for three months to finance Mortgage Loans on manufactured
housing. Notwithstanding the forgoing, the Authorities may provide for the origination of
Mortgage Loans in such targeted areas and for other set-asides in such other manner which,
in the opinion of counsel, will not adversely affect the exclusion of interest on any Program
Bonds from gross income for federal income tax purposes and/or is consistent with the Act.
(e) Each Mortgage Loan must be approved by the loan servicer for the Program
(the “Servicer”) and the program administrator for the Program (the “Program
Administrator”) for compliance with Program requirements.
(f) In connection with each Mortgage Loan, the Lender is required to make
certain warranties or representation with respect to the eligibility of the residence and the
mortgagor under the Program requirements, the due recording and terms of the Mortgage
securing the Mortgage Loan, the applicability of certain insurance described in paragraph
8 below, and the current status of and title to the property and other warranties and
representations customarily made in privately funded mortgage banking transactions.
(g) The purchase price for Mortgage Loans approved by the Servicer and the
Program Administrator is described in paragraph 7(a) below.
(h) The mortgagors under a Mortgage Loan must make a down payment of an
amount sufficient to comply with existing requirements of VA, RHS, FHA, HUD, Fannie
Mae, Freddie Mac or other credit enhancement, as applicable.
6. The Area in Which the Single Family Dwelling Units to be Financed May be
Located: Section 35-726.A.6. The general location of the dwelling units will be throughout
Maricopa County, subject to certain reservations and limitations.
4875-0975-3523.3
Page 361
7. The Proposed Fees, Charges and Expenditures To Be Paid for Originators,
Servicers, Trustee, Custodians, Mortgage Administrators and Others: Section 35-726.A.7. The
following fees, charges and expenditures are proposed to be imposed in connection with the
Program:
(a) Originators: Each Lender originating a Mortgage Loan may charge (to the
extent permitted by applicable law):
(i) An origination fee not to exceed 1.0% of the unpaid principal
amount of the Mortgage Loan which may be collected and retained by the Lender
from the mortgagor in connection with the origination of the Mortgage Loan.
(ii) Discount points not to exceed 1.0% of the unpaid principal amount
of the Mortgage Loan.
(iii) Closing costs customarily and usually charged by lenders in
originating and processing comparable mortgage loans in Maricopa County not
financed through tax-exempt bond programs.
(iv) If the Lender has paid an extension fee for a longer origination
period for origination of a Mortgage Loan for new construction, an amount equal
to such extension fee.
The purchase price for each Mortgage Loan paid to the Lender by the Servicer will
reimburse the Lender for any down payment and closing cost assistance advanced by the
Lender to the mortgagor in connection with a DPA Second-Lien Mortgage Loan, if
applicable, and provide the Lender with a net compensation, including the 1.0% origination
fee described in (a)(i) above and the discount points described in (a)(ii) above, not to exceed
2.50% of the purchased Mortgage Loan.
(b) Servicer: The Servicer shall retain from the monthly payments on each
Mortgage Loan a servicing fee in an amount not to exceed 1.00% per annum of the
outstanding principal amount of such Mortgage Loan. The Servicer will pay all GNMA,
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac fees with respect to Mortgage Loans from such servicing fee
(see “Other Parties” in (d) below). The Servicer may be paid reasonable compensation for
services as compliance agent to the extent permitted by the guide or guides approved by
the Authorities for servicing of the Mortgage Loans.
(c) Trustee: The trustee is to be paid reasonable compensation for all services
rendered as trustee and paying agent under the trust indenture pursuant to which the
Program Bonds will be issued (the “Indenture”) as well as reasonable out-of-pocket
expenses. Compensation will be paid from Program Bond proceeds and from moneys
available for such purposes under the Indenture, including investment earnings and
monthly payments of interest.
(d) Other Parties: The following additional fees and charges shall be paid ( to
the extent required by the Program):
4875-0975-3523.3
Page 362
(i) GNMA, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will be paid a guaranty fee in
consideration for their respective guarantees of the Certificates. Such fees will be
paid by the Servicer from the servicing fee described in (b) above.
(ii) An FHA insurance fee in the amount payable at such times as
prescribed by FHA in consideration for FHA insurance of Mortgage Loans. Such
fee will be paid by the mortgagor.
(iii) An RHS guaranty fee in the amount and payable at such times as
prescribed by RHS in consideration for RHS guaranty of Mortgage Loans. Such
fee will be paid by the mortgagor.
(iv) A fee, if any, owed to VA, as prescribed by VA, in exchange for the
VA guaranty of Mortgage Loans or HUD, as prescribed by HUD, in exchange for
the HUD Section 184 guaranty of Mortgage Loans. Such fee will be paid by the
mortgagor.
(v) A fee for private mortgage guaranty insurance policies required by
Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. Such a fee will be paid by the mortgagor.
(vi) The Program Administrator, if one or more is appointed by the
Authorities, is to be paid a reasonable fee for all services rendered as well as
reasonable out-of-pocket expenses. Such fee will be paid by the mortgagor.
(e) Costs of Issuance: The costs of issuance for the Program are estimated not
to exceed an amount equal to the sum of 8.0% of the amount of any one or more
series/subseries of the Program Bonds sold at substantially the same time. These costs
include, among others, fees of bond counsel, counsel to the Authorities, counsel to the
underwriters, disclosure counsel and trustee’s counsel; fees and charges of the Program
Administrator and its counsel, the Servicer and its counsel, and the Authorities’ municipal
advisor; printing costs; costs of reproducing documents; filing and recording fees;
computer charges in structuring the Program; any expenses incurred by the Authorities in
relation to the issuance of the Program Bonds; expenses incurred in connection with
qualifying the Program Bonds for sale under the securities laws of various jurisdictions and
of preparing Blue Sky and legal investment memoranda; initial fees and charges of the
trustee as such, as bond registrar, and as paying agent; legal fees and charges; professional
consultants fees; costs of credit ratings; costs of the demand study, if any; fees and charges
for execution, transportation and safekeeping of Program Bonds; costs of advertising the
availability of funds; the fees for reports as to the status of the Mortgage Loans, the
Certificates and the Program; and other costs, charges and fees in connection with the
Program and for any of the foregoing.
(f) Compensation of Underwriters: The underwriters’ compensation for any
one or more series/subseries of the Program Bonds sold at substantially the same time
excluding any original issue discount will not exceed 1.0% of the principal amount of such
series/subseries of the Program Bonds issued.
(g) IDA Contribution. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, the
Authorities may pay and/or fund any and all Program expenses, DPA Second Lien
4875-0975-3523.3
Page 363
Mortgage Loans, Costs of Issuance, reserves, fees, charges and expenditures described
herein from other legally available and authorized moneys of the Authorities contributed
to fund the Program (the “IDA Contribution”).
8. All Insurance Requirements with respect to Mortgage Loans, Mortgaged
Property, Mortgagors, Originators, Servicers and Trustees: Section 35-726.A.8. The following
amounts and types of insurance will be required:
(a) On each Mortgage Loan, FHA insurance, a VA guarantee, an RHS
guarantee, a HUD Section 184 guaranty or such private mortgage guaranty insurance as
may be required by GNMA, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or other credit enhancement, as
applicable.
(b) On the property subject to each Mortgage, such casualty insurance and flood
insurance as may be required by FHA, VA, RHS, HUD, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or other
credit enhancement, as applicable.
(c) An American Land Title Association-approved mortgage guaranty title
insurance policy in an amount at least equal to the outstanding principal amount of the
Mortgage Loan insuring title to the real property subject to each Mortgage, subject to
customary exceptions.
(d) Any other insurance on Mortgage Loans and/or property subject to a
Mortgage required by FHA, VA, RHS, HUD, GNMA, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or other
credit enhancement, as applicable.
(e) With respect to the Lenders and with respect to the Servicer, errors and
omission insurance and fidelity bonds, at their expense, in substance and amounts, if any,
as would be required by GNMA, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or other credit enhancement.
(f) With respect to the trustee, none.
9. The Anticipated Date of Issuance of Program Bonds: Section 35-726.A.9. It is
anticipated that all series/subseries of the Program Bonds will be issued not later than December
31, 2026.
4875-0975-3523.3
Page 364
The foregoing General Plan was approved by The Industrial Development Authority of the
on the date(s) indicated below.
THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX,
ARIZONA
By:
Name: Juan Salgado
Its: Chief Executive Officer
Date: May 16, 2024
THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF
MARICOPA
By:
Name: Shelby Scharbach
Its: Executive Director
Date: May 14, 2024
[SIGNATURE PAGE TO GENERAL PLAN]
Page 365
Attachment D
COOPERATIVE/INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
FOR
THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA
AND THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA
SERIES 2024 SINGLE FAMILY MORTGAGE REVENUE BOND PROGRAM
This COOPERATIVE/INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT, dated and effective as of July 1,
2024 (this “Agreement”), is between THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX, ARIZONA (the “Phoenix Authority”), and THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
OF THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA (the “Maricopa Authority” and, together with the Phoenix Authority, the
“Authorities”), each a nonprofit corporation recognized, existing under and designated as a political subdivision
of the State of Arizona, pursuant to the Industrial Development Financing Act, Title 35, Chapter 5, of the Arizona
Revised Statutes (the “Act”), the CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA, an Arizona municipal corporation (the
“City”), and MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, a body politic and corporate of the State of Arizona (the
“County”).
RECITALS
A. The public purpose of the Phoenix Authority and the Maricopa Authority as expressed in the
legislative history of the Act, includes, among other things, the encouragement of investment and lending by
private enterprise for, and the stimulation of construction and rehabilitation of, housing for low and moderate
income families.
B. Under the Act, the Phoenix Authority and the Maricopa Authority have the power, either
individually or jointly, to issue single family mortgage revenue bonds and mortgage credit certificates.
C. The Authorities have determined that it is desirable to develop a meaningful home ownership
program to serve the needs of low and moderate income families and it is in the best interest of the citizens of
the City and Maricopa County to cooperate in the creation and implementation of a joint single family mortgage
revenue bond program for the entire Phoenix/Maricopa County area.
D. The Authorities intend to jointly issue mortgage revenue bonds in multiple series and subseries
(the “Series 2024 Program Bonds”) to implement the Series 2024 Program (as defined herein) pursuant to a plan
of finance approved by each of the Authorities to benefit the citizens of their combined jurisdictions during the
mortgage loan origination period to occur in the calendar years 2024, 2025 and 2026.
E. Consistent with the terms and conditions set forth below and as contained in the summary of Series
2024 Program terms, attached hereto as Exhibit A (the “Program Summary”), and pursuant to Sections 11-952,
35-706.G and 35-761 of the Arizona Revised Statutes, the Phoenix Authority, the Maricopa Authority, the City and
the County desire to enter into this Agreement, specifying the terms and conditions under which the Authorities
agree to jointly create and implement the Series 2024 Program beginning in calendar year 2024.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, the Phoenix Authority, the Maricopa Authority, the City and the County hereby
agree as follows:
1. Definitions. The following words and phrases shall have the following meanings unless
otherwise expressed or provided or unless the context clearly requires otherwise.
“Administration Fees” means all issuer or administrative fees to be received by the Authorities under
the Indenture.
1101244865\4\AMERICAS
Page 366
“Agreement” means this Cooperative/Intergovernmental Agreement.
“Authority” means either the Phoenix Authority or the Maricopa Authority, as applicable.
“Authority Staff” means (i) in the case of the Phoenix Authority, Juan Salgado, Chief Executive Officer,
and Murray Boess, Chief Financial Officer, and (ii) in the case of the Maricopa Authority, Shelby Scharbach,
Executive Director, Julie Arvo MacKenzie, Legal Counsel, Janis Larson, Administrator, and Mary Misic,
Administrator.
“City” means the City of Phoenix, Arizona.
“Co-Team Leaders” means (i) the representative acting on behalf of the Phoenix Authority as may be
appointed by the Phoenix Authority from time to time with written notice to the Maricopa Authority, and (ii) the
representative acting on behalf of the Maricopa Authority as may be appointed by the Maricopa Authority from
time to time with written notice to the Phoenix Authority, both of whom shall jointly manage the Series 2024
Program as provided in Section 4.6 of this Agreement and take such other action as provided in this Agreement,
and each of whom shall be initially, (a) in the case of the Phoenix Authority, Murray Boess, and (b) in the case of
the Maricopa Authority, Julie Arvo MacKenzie.
“County” means Maricopa County, Arizona.
“Financing Team” means the attorneys, financial advisors, investment bankers, program administrators,
corporate trustees, rebate analysts, and other professionals, specialists and consultants necessary to design,
implement and administer the Series 2024 Program, as selected jointly by the Phoenix Authority and the
Maricopa Authority. The Financing Team does not include Authority Staff.
“General Indenture” means the General Indenture of Trust, dated as of November 1, 2023, among the
Authorities and U.S. Bank Trust Company, National Association, as trustee.
“Indenture” means, together, the General Indenture and one or more series indentures pursuant to which
one or more series or subseries of the Series 2024 Program Bonds are issued and secured.
“Maricopa Authority” means The Industrial Development Authority of the County of Maricopa.
“Phoenix Authority” means The Industrial Development Authority of the City of Phoenix, Arizona.
“Program Costs” means all fees, costs, and expenses incurred in connection with the development,
implementation and administration of the Series 2024 Program, including the fees and expenses of the Financing
Team, that shall be paid as provided in Section 3 of this Agreement.
“Program Summary” shall have the meaning assigned to it in Recital E of this Agreement.
“Residual Assets” means assets held under the Indenture, including cash, securities and outstanding
mortgage loans, after full defeasance of the Indenture and payment of all related fees, expenses and arbitrage rebate
liability, if any.
“Rule” shall have the meaning assigned to it in Section 4.5.1 of this Agreement.
“Series 2024 Program” means The Industrial Development Authority of the City of Phoenix, Arizona
and The Industrial Development Authority of the County of Maricopa Series 2024 Single Family Mortgage
Revenue Bond Program.
1101244865\4\AMERICAS
Page 367
“Series 2024 Program Bonds” means single family mortgage revenue bonds issued jointly by the
Authorities in multiple series and subseries pursuant to a plan of finance, in an aggregate amount of not to exceed
$400 million, whose proceeds will be available to finance mortgage loans under the Series 2024 Program within
the County; provided that Series 2024 Program Bonds may be issued to refund any Series 2024 Program Bonds
outstanding under the Indenture that have been issued for the purpose of preserving an allocation of the “state
ceiling” (as defined in A.R.S. § 35-901.22) and the proceeds of which have not been used to finance mortgage
loans under the Series 2024 Program without regard to this maximum principal amount.
“State” means the State of Arizona.
“Termination Date” shall have the meaning assigned to it under Section 5.2.1 of this Agreement.
“Volume Cap” means any State of Arizona Private Activity Bond Volume Cap contributed by the
Phoenix Authority and/or the Maricopa Authority to a series or subseries of Series 2025 Program Bonds under
the Series 2024 Program.
2. Purpose. The purpose of this Agreement is to set forth the terms and conditions under which
the Authorities will create, implement and administer the Series 2024 Program. It is the intent of each party that
this Agreement will constitute a cooperative and intergovernmental agreement pursuant to Sections 11-952,
35-706.G and 35-761 of the Arizona Revised Statutes.
3. Participation.
3.1 Scope of Participation. The Phoenix Authority and the Maricopa Authority will
participate in the Series 2024 Program as set forth in this Section 3.
3.2 Shared Control. The Phoenix Authority and the Maricopa Authority will have shared
control and responsibility for developing, implementing and managing the Series 2024 Program.
3.3 Program Development.
3.3.1 Program Summary. The Series 2024 Program shall initially be structured as
described in the Program Summary. Mutual consent of both the Phoenix Authority and the Maricopa Authority
is required for modifications, adjustments or additions to the Program Summary.
3.3.2 Reservations. The amount of the Series 2024 Program’s funds to be reserved
and the type of loans for which the Series 2024 Program’s funds will be reserved, if any, will be as specified in
the Program Summary. The targeted area reservation amount will comply with federal tax law.
3.3.3 Types of Loans. The type of mortgage loans to be offered by the Series 2024
Program will be as specified in the Program Summary.
3.4 Shared Revenues and Expenses.
3.4.1 Program Costs. Except as set forth in Section 3.5.2 below, the Authorities shall
share equally all fees, costs and expenses incurred in connection with the development, implementation and
administration of the Series 2024 Program, including the fees and expenses of the Financing Team, and such fees,
costs and expenses shall be paid first from the proceeds of or the revenues generated by the Series 2024 Program
and second from funds contributed by the Authorities to the extent necessary to pay these fees, costs and expenses;
provided that each Authority has the right, but not the obligation, to contribute such other monies or property as
it deems necessary or appropriate.
1101244865\4\AMERICAS
Page 368
3.4.2 Administration Fees and Residual Assets. Each Authority will share the
Administration Fees and the Residual Assets equally.
3.5 Program Participants.
3.5.1 Financing Team. The Authorities will have shared control and responsibility
for negotiating the compensation for the Financing Team for the Series 2024 Program. Each selected member
of the Financing Team will be required to sign a letter of engagement, addressed to each of the Phoenix Authority
and the Maricopa Authority, setting forth the scope of the duties to be performed and the basis for compensation
and reimbursement of such member, with copies submitted to each addressee.
3.5.2 Consultants. Each Authority, in its sole discretion, has the right to hire
consultants, advisors and attorneys in addition to the members of the jointly selected Financing Team and the
respective Authority Staff; provided that the fees, costs and other compensation of any additional consultants,
advisors and attorneys will be the sole responsibility of the applicable Authority, unless arrangements for cost
sharing have been otherwise agreed to by the other Authority in writing.
3.5.3 Duty of Loyalty. If requested by the Authorities, each member of the Financing
Team shall agree as a condition of their engagement in connection with the Series 2024 Program that: (i) the member
owes a duty of loyalty to each Authority and, in view of the duty, will not take or omit to take any action to the
prejudice of one Authority over another; and (ii) the member shall endeavor to keep each Authority and its respective
Authority Staff fully apprised about the status of the Series 2024 Program and promptly reply to requests for
information from each Authority and its respective Authority Staff.
3.6. Consent. No Authority can legally bind any other Authority without that Authority’s
express written consent.
4. Program Requirements.
4.1 Program Documents. The documents for the Series 2024 Program must contain
provisions as are reasonably necessary or appropriate to (i) assure that each Authority has timely access to such
information as is reasonably necessary to monitor the status of the Series 2024 Program and the balance and
disposition of Administration Fees or Residual Assets, (ii) protect each Authority’s respective interest in any
Administration Fees or Residual Assets, and (iii) assure that each Authority consents to fully comply and
cooperate with respect to compliance with federal tax laws and State laws applicable to the Series 2024 Program.
4.2 Refunding Opportunities.
4.2.1 To the extent permitted by law, the Authorities may agree on the manner that
refunding and recycling opportunities relating to the contributed Volume Cap utilized in the Series 2024 Program
for the Series 2024 Program Bonds will be allocated between them, regardless of how much Volume Cap, if any,
an Authority contributed to a particular series or subseries of the Series 2024 Program Bonds. In the absence of
any specific agreement between the Authorities for a particular series or subseries of Series 2024 Program Bonds,
the refunding and recycling opportunities with respect to the contributed Volume Cap shall be shared by the
Authorities equally.
4.2.2 To the extent permitted by law, the Series 2024 Program documents and any
other necessary directions to members of the Financing Team will contain the provisions necessary to effectuate
Section 4.2 of this Agreement.
4.3 Allocation of Mortgage Loan Funds. To the extent that the Authorities mutually
determine that the Series 2024 Program will not be operated on a first-come, first-served basis among lenders
participating in the Series 2024 Program, the Authorities will mutually determine an alternative method for
1101244865\4\AMERICAS
Page 369
allocating (and, if applicable, re-allocating) mortgage loan funds among lenders participating in the Series 2024
Program.
4.4. Consent.
4.4.1 Any action taken in connection with the Series 2024 Program will be with the
mutual consent of the Phoenix Authority and the Maricopa Authority, unless otherwise identified or described
in this Agreement, the Indenture or any of the other documents executed by both the Phoenix Authority and the
Maricopa Authority in connection with the Series 2024 Program.
4.4.2 Without limiting the generality of the foregoing Section 4.4.1, the following
list of items requires the mutual consent of the Phoenix Authority and the Maricopa Authority:
(a) optional redemption of each series or subseries of Series 2024 Program
Bonds;
(b) engagement of legal and financial professionals or other consultants,
except as engaged pursuant to Section 3.5.2;
(c) audits of funds and accounts held under the Indenture or other aspects
of the Series 2024 Program;
(d) directing legal or administrative proceedings in connection with the
enforcement of obligations under the Series 2024 Program of the trustee, servicer, lenders, underwriters, or any
other participant of the Series 2024 Program;
(e) extensions or other modifications of the origination period;
(f) approval of the Series 2024 Program’s marketing plan and any
material changes or modifications thereto; and
(g) form and content of all filings required by the Internal Revenue Code
and related regulations or by any other state or federal agency.
4.5 Continuing Disclosure Undertaking.
4.5.1 Each Authority acknowledges and agrees to provide disclosure information
for purposes of the Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 15c2-12 (the “Rule”).
4.5.2 Approval of each Authority is required of any documentation proposed to be
submitted in compliance with the Rule; provided that if any Authority is concerned about the form, substance,
accuracy or completeness of any submission, and the concern is not otherwise addressed, then the difficulty will
be resolved by a written opinion given by an independent law firm experienced in related disclosure matters.
4.6 Program Oversight; Communication Protocol.
4.6.1 The development, implementation and management of the Series 2024
Program shall be overseen by the Chief Executive Officer of the Phoenix Authority and the Executive Director
of the Maricopa Authority. Each of the Chief Executive Officer of the Phoenix Authority and the Executive
Director of the Maricopa Authority shall be responsible for obtaining in a timely manner such authorizations,
approvals and consents from the Board of Directors of the Phoenix Authority or the Maricopa Authority,
respectively, as may be necessary or appropriate to develop, implement and manage the Series 2024 Program.
1101244865\4\AMERICAS
Page 370
4.6.2 Except for those matters that the Chief Executive Officer of the Phoenix
Authority or the Executive Director of the Maricopa Authority have expressly reserved for their judgment and
any matters that may have a material and adverse effect on the Series 2024 Program, the authority to develop,
implement and manage the Series 2024 Program in accordance with the Program Summary, including, without
limitation, the daily management of the Financing Team, is hereby delegated to the Co-Team Leaders. The
Co-Team Leaders will have joint responsibility for making decisions concerning the development of the Series
2024 Program. In the event the Co-Team Leaders are not able to reach consensus with respect to a given issue,
the Co-Team Leaders shall take or omit to take such actions with respect to the issue as are necessary to further
the implementation of the Series 2024 Program until such a time as the Chief Executive Officer of the Phoenix
Authority and the Executive Director of the Maricopa Authority can be consulted for a final determination.
4.6.3 Commencing the date of this Agreement and continuing through the date of
issuance of all of the Series 2024 Program Bonds, the Co-Team Leaders will submit reports on the status of the
Series 2024 Program to the Board of Directors of the Phoenix Authority or the Maricopa Authority, as applicable,
at intervals established by Board of Directors of the Phoenix Authority or the Maricopa Authority, as necessary.
Status reports may be in writing and given orally, as directed by the applicable Board of Directors.
4.6.4 The implementation of the Series 2024 Program will be overseen by the
Authorities, including but not limited to decisions relating to the number of series or subseries of Series 2024
Program Bonds, the sizing and pricing of each series or subseries of Series 2024 Program Bonds, mortgage loan
rates and issuer fees.
4.6.5 All parties will cause routinely available information and reports on the Series
2024 Program and reports available on a commercially reasonable basis to be provided to all other parties as
may be reasonably requested from time to time. The costs for providing such reports shall be Program Costs.
Special reports may be made available at the sole cost of the requesting party. The determination as to whether
information and reports are routinely available, available on a commercially reasonable basis or special reports
shall be within the reasonable judgment of the Co-Team Leaders.
5. Term.
5.1 Effective Date. Unless this Agreement is terminated earlier as set forth in the provisions
of Section 5.2 below, this Agreement shall be effective upon the execution by all of the parties and shall remain
effective (a) with respect to matters relating to the issuance of Series 2024 Program Bonds and origination of the
mortgage loans funded thereby, in calendar years 2024, 2025 and 2026, and (b) with respect to all other matters
relating to the Series 2024 Program, as long any Series 2024 Program Bonds remain outstanding.
5.2 Termination.
5.2.1 Prior to the issuance of the first series of the Series 2024 Program Bonds, this
Agreement may be terminated by either the Phoenix Authority or the Maricopa Authority upon giving 15 days
written notice, the notice shall state the date of termination (the “Termination Date”).
5.2.2 In the event that all or any portion of the Series 2024 Program Bonds are not
issued under the Series 2024 Program as contemplated herein or this Agreement is terminated in accordance
with Section 5.2.1, all fees, costs and expenses incurred in connection with the development of the Series 2024
Program, including any fees and expenses payable to members of the Financing Team, will be paid by the
Authorities equally or as otherwise may be agreed to by the Authorities.
5.2.3 In the event a notice of termination of this Agreement is given pursuant to
Section 5.2.1, the parties agree to comply with the following procedure:
1101244865\4\AMERICAS
Page 371
(a) The Co-Team Leaders will prepare or cause to be prepared an
accounting of all fees, costs and expenses incurred by or on behalf of each Authority for the development of the
Series 2024 Program (the “Accounting”) that, together with supporting invoices, receipts and other records, shall
be submitted to the Board of Directors of each Authority no later than the Termination Date.
(b) Within 15 days of the Termination Date, each Authority will tender
payment or reimbursement of all amounts the Authority is responsible for paying as set forth in the Accounting.
(c) Notwithstanding any provision herein to the contrary, if either the
Co-Team Leaders or any Authority disagrees in good faith as to the amount, allocation or appropriateness of any fee,
cost or expense of developing the Series 2024 Program, the payment or reimbursement of the fee, cost or expense
will be segregated from the balance of the Accounting and will be addressed in accordance with the procedure
provided in Section 8.7.
6. Representations of the Phoenix Authority.
6.1 Authorization. The Phoenix Authority has full power and authority to enter into this
Agreement and the execution, delivery and consummation of this Agreement by the Phoenix Authority has been
duly authorized.
6.2 No Violation of Laws. Neither the execution, delivery nor performance of this
Agreement by the Phoenix Authority violates or will violate the Phoenix Authority’s articles or bylaws, the Act,
or any resolution of the Phoenix Authority.
7. Representations of the Maricopa Authority.
7.1 Authorization. The Maricopa Authority has full power and authority to enter into this
Agreement and the execution, delivery and consummation of this Agreement by the Maricopa Authority has
been duly authorized.
7.2 No Violation of Laws. Neither the execution, delivery nor performance of this
Agreement by the Maricopa Authority violates or will violate the Maricopa Authority’s articles or bylaws, the
Act, or any resolution of the Maricopa Authority.
8. General Provisions. Except to the extent inconsistent with the express language of the foregoing
provisions of this Agreement, the following provisions shall govern the interpretation, application, construction
and enforcement of this Agreement.
8.1 Notices. Any document, notice, consent or other communication (“Notice”) required
or permitted under this Agreement shall be in writing and either delivered in person, sent by facsimile
transmission or email, or deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
Notices to the Phoenix Authority shall be sent to:
Juan Salgado
Chief Executive Officer
The Industrial Development Authority
of the City of Phoenix, Arizona
2201 East Camelback Road, Suite 405B
Phoenix, Arizona 85016
Email: jsalgado@phoenixida.com
with a copy to:
1101244865\4\AMERICAS
Page 372
Murray Boess
Chief Financial Officer
The Industrial Development Authority
of the City of Phoenix, Arizona
2201 East Camelback Road, Suite 405B
Phoenix, Arizona 85016
Email: mboess@phoenixida.com
and
Brigitte Finley Green, Esq.
Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP
2325 East Camelback Road, Suite 700
Phoenix, Arizona 85014
FAX: (602) 253-8129
Email: brigitte.finleygreen@squirepb.com
Notices to the Maricopa Authority shall be sent to:
Shelby Scharbach
Executive Director
The Industrial Development Authority
of the County of Maricopa
8687 East Via de Ventura, Suite 306
Scottsdale, Arizona 85258
Email: shelby@mcida.com
with a copy to:
Julie Arvo MacKenzie, Esq.
Legal Counsel
The Industrial Development Authority
of the County of Maricopa
8687 East Via de Ventura, Suite 306
Scottsdale, Arizona 85258
Email: julie@mcida.com
and
The Industrial Development Authority
of the County of Maricopa
Attn: Administrator
8687 East Via de Ventura, Suite 306
Scottsdale, Arizona 85258
Email: janis@mcida.com and mary@mcida.com
and
1101244865\4\AMERICAS
Page 373
Brigitte Finley Green, Esq.
Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP
2325 East Camelback Road, Suite 700
Phoenix, Arizona 85014
FAX: (602) 253-8129
Email: brigitte.finleygreen@squirepb.com
A Notice shall be deemed received at the time it is personally served, on the day it is sent by
facsimile transmission or email, or, if mailed, five calendar days after the Notice is deposited in the United States
mail addressed as above provided. Any time period stated in a Notice shall be computed from the time the Notice
is deemed received. A party may change its address or the person to receive Notice by notifying the other parties
as provided in this paragraph. Notices sent by facsimile transmission or email shall also be sent by regular mail
to the recipient at the above address. This requirement for duplicate notice is not intended to change the effective
date of the Notice sent by facsimile transmission or email.
8.2 Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is declared void or unenforceable, the
provision shall be deemed severed from this Agreement, and the Agreement shall otherwise remain in full force
and effect.
8.3 Additional Acts and Documents. Each party agrees to do all things and take all actions,
and to make, execute and deliver other documents and instruments, as shall be reasonably requested to carry out
the provisions, intent and purpose of this Agreement.
8.4 Assignment. This Agreement may not be assigned.
8.5 Conflict of Interest. All parties acknowledge that this Agreement is subject to
cancellation pursuant to the provisions of Arizona Revised Statutes Section 38-511, as amended. By this
reference, the provisions of said statute are incorporated herein to the extent of their applicability to
contracts of the nature of this Agreement under the laws of the State.
8.6 Third Party Beneficiaries. The parties do not intend for any other party to be a
beneficiary under this Agreement.
8.7 Dispute Resolution.
8.7.1 In the event that a dispute arises under this Agreement that cannot be settled
through negotiation, the dispute shall be resolved (a) first by the parties trying in good faith to settle the dispute
by non-binding mediation, the mediation session to be held in Phoenix, Arizona, and to be commenced within
14 days of the appointment of a mediator by the parties, or (b) if the dispute cannot be settled by mediation, then
by arbitration pursuant to the Arizona Uniform Arbitration Act (A.R.S. § 12-1501 et seq.) the arbitration to be
held in Phoenix, Arizona, before a single arbitrator selected by the parties, and judgment on the award rendered
by the arbitrator may be entered in any court having jurisdiction. If the parties are unable to agree on a mediator
or an arbitrator, they agree to apply to the Superior Court for Maricopa County for the appointment of a mediator
or arbitrator. The prevailing party shall be entitled to payment or reimbursement of all of its reasonable fees and
expenses, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses.
8.7.2 In the event of a dispute under this Agreement, an Authority is entitled to
recover only any fees, costs and expenses allocable to the Authority under Section 5.2.3 and any fees and
expenses payable under Section 8.7.1.
8.8 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, as such
counterparts shall be deemed to constitute one and the same instrument, and each counterpart is deemed an
original.
1101244865\4\AMERICAS
Page 374
8.9 Governing Law. This Agreement is governed by the laws of the State.
9. Role of the City and the County.
9.1 Authorization and Consent. Each of the City and the County acknowledges that the
exercise of joint powers as set forth in this Agreement is in furtherance of the best interests of its respective
constituencies, and on this basis, each of the City and the County consents and agrees to the exercise of the joint
powers of each Authority, to the extent necessary, within its respective jurisdiction in accordance with the terms
and conditions set forth above.
9.2 Limit of Liability. Notwithstanding any provision here to the contrary, the parties
acknowledge and agree that neither the City nor the County shall have any pecuniary liability with respect to
(i) the development of the Series 2024 Program, (ii) the issuance and sale of the Series 2024 Program Bonds,
(iii) the administration of the Series 2024 Program, or (iv) any fees and expenses incurred by any of the parties
to this Agreement. This provision is a material inducement to each of the City and the County approving and
entering into this Agreement.
[Remainder of page intentionally left blank.]
1101244865\4\AMERICAS
Page 375
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed as of the date and year first written above.
THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX,
ARIZONA, an Arizona nonprofit corporation
By:
Name: Juan Salgado
Its: Chief Executive Officer
APPROVED AS TO FORM IN ACCORDANCE
WITH A.R.S. § 11-952.D:
Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP
Counsel to The Industrial Development
Authority of the City of Phoenix, Arizona
[PHOENIX AUTHORITY SIGNATURE PAGE TO
COOPERATIVE/INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT]
1101244865\4\AMERICAS
Page 376
THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF
MARICOPA, an Arizona nonprofit corporation
By:
Name: Shelby Scharbach
Its: Executive Director
APPROVED AS TO FORM IN ACCORDANCE
WITH A.R.S. § 11-952.D:
Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP
Counsel to The Industrial Development
Authority of the County of Maricopa
[MARICOPA AUTHORITY SIGNATURE PAGE TO
COOPERATIVE/INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT]
1101244865\4\AMERICAS
Page 377
CITY OF PHOENIX, a municipal corporation
JEFF BARTON, City Manager
By:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM IN ACCORDANCE
WITH A.R.S. § 11-952.D:
City Attorney
[CITY SIGNATURE PAGE TO
COOPERATIVE/INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT]
1101244865\4\AMERICAS
Page 378
MARICOPA COUNTY
By:
Its:
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM IN ACCORDANCE
WITH A.R.S. § 11-952.D:
Maricopa County Attorney
[COUNTY SIGNATURE PAGE TO
COOPERATIVE/INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT]
1101244865\4\AMERICAS
Page 379
EXHIBIT A
PROGRAM SUMMARY
(Attached)
1101244865\4\AMERICAS
Page 380
The Industrial Development Authority of the City of Phoenix, Arizona and
The Industrial Development Authority of the County of Maricopa
$400 Million Series 2024 Single Family Mortgage Revenue Bond Program (the “Series 2024 Program”)
Program Summary
May 9, 2024
The IDA Partnership
• The IDAs of the City of Phoenix and Maricopa County (the “IDAs”) have been joint issuers of single family
mortgage revenue bonds (“SFMRBs”) since 2000. To date, the IDAs have jointly issued $855 million in
SFMRBs.
• The IDAs also jointly sponsor the non-bond, market priced Home In Five Advantage Program (the
“Advantage Program”).
• In 2023, the IDAs began operating a new joint single family mortgage revenue bond program known as the
Home In Five Platinum Program (the “Platinum Program”). During 2023 and 2024, the IDAs applied for
private activity bond authorization to issue $200 million of SFMRBs. To date, the IDAs have issued $130
million of 2023A, 2024A and 2024B SFMRBs under the Platinum Program (the “Series 2023 Program
Bonds”).
• To date, the Platinum Program has received $139,801,000 of rate locks on behalf of 398 qualified
homebuyers, enough mortgage loans to fully originate, net of projected loan cancellations, the $130 million
of Series 2023 Program Bonds issued.
• The final $70 million of Series 2023 Program Bonds (2024C) will be issued in late June 2024 and is expected
to be fully originated by July 2024 for the benefit of an additional 200 homebuyers.
To continue the Platinum Program’s success, the IDAs expect to seek additional 2024 private activity bond
authorization and use their 2025 and 2026 private activity bond authorization to issue an additional $400 million
of SFMRBs (the “Series 2024 Program Bonds”).
• Current market conditions for the issuance of the Series 2024 Program Bonds are still favorable: (i) there is
a still a considerable spread between tax-exempt and market (taxable) bond rates and (ii) an inverted yield
curve allows bond proceeds to be invested at a rate of return close or equal to the bond yield as Mortgage
Loans are originated. Series 2024 Program Bond loan rates will be roughly 1%-1.25% lower than at market
loan rates.
Currently, the IDAs are offering a 6.25% mortgage loan rate with a 4% sized deferred payment 7 year
forgivable Second loan as down payment assistance, compared to a 7.22% “at market” loan rate with no
assistance as reported that same day by Mortgage News Daily. The IDAs may change the mortgage loan
rate periodically to remain at least 1% below the 30-year fixed market loan rate.
• The underlying Mortgage Loans are subject to IRS defined income limits (by family size) and income
calculations, purchase price limits and first-time homebuyer requirements.
Income Limit (by Family Size) Family of 2 or less Family of 3 or more) Purchase Price Limit
Non-Targeted Borrowers $96,072 $110,483 $540,422
Targeted Borrowers $112,200 $130,900 $660,515
1401 Lawrence Street, Suite 900, Denver CO 80202 | www.stifel.com/publicfinance
Page 381
Platinum Program Participants
• Joint Issuers: The Industrial Development Authority of the City of Phoenix, Arizona and The Industrial
Development Authority of the County of Maricopa
• Issuers’ Counsel: Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP
• Bond Counsel: Kutak Rock LLP
• Bond Trustee: US Bank Trust Company, National Association
• Financial Advisor: CSG Advisors Incorporated
• Bond Underwriter: Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated
• Bond Underwriter’s Counsel: Greenberg Traurig, LLP
• Servicer: Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC
• Program Administrator: Housing and Development Services, Inc., dba eHousingPLUS
General Indenture
• The IDAs are seeking Board authorization to issue up to $400 million of Series 2024 Program Bonds over
the next 3 years pursuant to a “master” General Indenture. The Series 2024 Program Bonds will be issued
in estimated series of $50-$100 million to allow for the repricing of first Mortgage Loan rates from time to
time in order to remain competitive relative to market 30-year fixed mortgage loan rates.
• The IDAs will apply for private activity volume cap for the initial series of Series 2024 Program Bonds which
are expected to be issued in August or September 2024. Issuance of Series 2024 Program Bonds during the
remainder of calendar year 2024 is subject to availability of volume cap.
Bond and Mortgage Loan Structure
• The General Indenture allows for a significant amount of flexibility with respect to how the Series 2024
Program Bonds are structured, including but not limited to the issuance of fixed rate serials, par term bonds
and premium call protected “planned amortization class” (“PAC”) term bonds.
• The Series 2024 Program Bonds will qualify for an expected rating of no less than “Aa2” from Moody’s.
• The Series 2024 Program Bonds are limited obligations of the IDAs, secured solely by the pledged assets
and revenues. There is no recourse or liability to the IDAs.
• The General Indenture also allows for flexibility with respect to the first Mortgage Loans and the form and
terms of down payment assistance Second Loans offered.
The initial Series 2024 Program Bonds will offer FHA insured and VA guaranteed Mortgage Loans; future series
may include USDA-RD guaranteed and Fannie Mae and/or Freddie Mac eligible Mortgage Loans.
The initial Series 2024 Program Bonds will provide a Second Loan (4% of the first Mortgage Loan amount) with a
0% stated interest rate, for which principal is deferred, due in full upon sale or refinance, but forgiven in full on the
7-year anniversary date. For future series, Second Loan size and terms may be modified at the IDAs’ discretion.
• Once the Series 2024 Program Bonds are issued, proceeds will be deposited into qualified investments and
used to purchase, over an approximate 6-month period, mortgage backed securities (“MBS”), guaranteed
as to timely payment by GNMA, Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac.
1401 Lawrence Street, Suite 900, Denver CO 80202 | www.stifel.com/publicfinance
Page 382
IDA Financial Contribution
• Once the Series 2024 Program Bonds are issued, the available sources of funds are applied against the total
uses of funds. In the event of a shortfall, an IDA contribution will be required (to fund capitalized interest
and costs of issuance and/or a portion of down payment assistance). The IDAs previously committed up to
$7 million each from their own resources (the “IDA Contribution”) for the Series 2023 Program Bonds issued
(or to be issued) under the General Indenture and are requesting an additional $7 million each from their
own resources for the upcoming $400 million Series 2024 Program Bonds.
• Expected sources and uses for the initial series of Series 2024 Program Bonds (2024D) are as follows:
Series 2024D Sources of Funds Series 2024D Uses of Funds
Bonds Issued $70,000,000 Acquisition of MBS [1] $70,700,000
PAC Bond Premium 2,175,940 Down Payment Assistance (4%) [1] 2,800,000
IDA Contribution 4,207,156 Capitalized Interest [2] 2,250,000
Bond Issuance Costs 633,096
Total Sources of Funds $76,383,096 Total Uses of Funds $76,383,096
[1] MBS are purchased by the Bond Trustee at a 104.5 price.
[2] This assumes a 0% Bond proceeds reinvestment rate.
• Currently, there are no investment vehicles for Series 2024 Program Bond proceeds offering a guaranteed
fixed rate return that satisfies rating agency requirements. Therefore, for Series 2024 Program Bond cash
flow purposes, the rating agencies will require a 0% reinvestment rate.
• Series 2024 Program Bond proceeds can be invested in attractive qualified money market funds, and the
investment earnings can be retained by the IDAs to recoup much of the IDA Contribution. Current money
market returns are in the 5% range.
A portion of the IDA Contribution can be recouped from investment earnings soon after the MBS acquisition
period. The remaining “unreimbursed” portion of the IDA Contribution will be recouped over time from
ongoing fees paid to the IDAs while the Series 2024 Program Bonds are outstanding as well as surplus cash
flow after the Series 2024 Program Bonds are redeemed in full.
“Unreimbursed” Portion of the IDA Contribution/Net Economic Benefit
• For each series of Series 2024 Program Bonds, the Municipal Advisor shall provide the IDAs with the
following:
o the IDA Contribution required;
o a projection on the reimbursement of the IDA Contribution the IDAs may expect from realized
reinvestment earnings after the loan origination period; and
o a projection on the ongoing IDA Fee from surplus cash flow after the Series 2024 Program Bonds
are redeemed in full (in present value terms) in relation to the “unreimbursed” amount of the IDA
Contribution (the “Net Economic Benefit”).
1401 Lawrence Street, Suite 900, Denver CO 80202 | www.stifel.com/publicfinance
Page 383
Current cash flow projections for a $70 million series of Series 2024 Program Bonds indicate that the sum of the
cash flows to the IDAs generated from the ongoing IDA fee and the surplus after the Series 2024 Program Bonds
are redeemed in full, less the unreimbursed portion of the IDA Contribution, are summarized as follows:
• For the Series 2023 Program Bonds issued to date, the IDA ongoing fees and surplus generated after the
Series 2023 Program Bonds are redeemed in full are projected to generate a good return to the IDAs.
Economic Benefit Analysis 2023 Series A, 2024 Series A, and 2024 Series B
Revenue Source to the IDAs 100% PSA 150% PSA 200% PSA 300% PSA 400% PSA
Ongoing IDA Fee (0.20%) $1,948,786 $1,636,600 $1,406,291 $1,097,132 $900,858
Surplus after Bonds Redeemed $7,151,111 $6,397,158 $5,862,745 $5,202,468 $4,914,838
Less: IDA Unreimbursed Contribution ($4,039,021) ($4,039,021) ($4,039,021) ($4,039,021) ($4,039,021)
Net PV Economic Benefit $5,060,875 $3,994,737 $3,230,015 $2,260,580 $1,776,675
As a % of Bonds Issued 3.89% 3.07% 2.48% 1.74% 1.37%
• The Economic Benefit to the IDAs for the initial series of Series 2024 Program Bonds ($70,000,000 2024D)
is projected to be the following:
Economic Benefit Analysis Initial $70,000,000 Program Bond Series 2024 D
Revenue Source to the IDAs 100% PSA 150% PSA 200% PSA 300% PSA 400% PSA
Ongoing IDA Fee (0.18%) $1,002,391 $840,613 $721,183 $560,211 $458,768
Surplus after Bonds Redeemed 3,879,353 3,480,385 3,200,747 2,852,518 2,677,890
Less: IDA Unreimbursed Contribution (1,957,156) (1,957,156) (1,957,156) (1,957,156) (1,957,156)
Net PV Economic Benefit $2,924,587 $2,363,842 $1,964,774 $1,455,573 $1,179,502
As a % of Bonds Issued 4.18% 3.38% 2.81% 2.08% 1.69%
Home In 5 Platinum Program
- The Loan Origination Process -
Lender Network
• The IDAs solicited existing Advantage Program originating lenders and lenders interested in participating
in the Platinum Program (“Participating Lenders”) signed a Master Mortgage Purchase Agreement and are
currently offering Mortgage Loans under the Platinum Program.
1401 Lawrence Street, Suite 900, Denver CO 80202 | www.stifel.com/publicfinance
Page 384
• Participating Lenders must also be approved as correspondent lenders with the designated Servicer,
Lakeview Loan Servicing, which will purchase all first Mortgage Loans and receive the Second Loans (which
are originated in the names of the IDAs) from the Participating Lenders for servicing for the IDAs.
• Participating Lenders must abide by the IDA’s Program Guidelines and the Servicer’s Lender Guide.
Bond Series Release Date and Loan Applications
Once a series of Series 2024 Program Bonds are priced:
• Participating Lenders will be notified of all key series information, including but not limited to the availability
of funds, the applicable income limits and purchase price limits, the first Mortgage Loan rate, the size and
terms of the Second Loan and the timeframe (dates) during which loans may be submitted to the Servicer
for purchase.
• Participating Lenders may begin accepting borrower applications per the Platinum Program eligibility
guidelines.
• Participating Lenders will rate lock (60-day commitments) through the eHousingPlus on-line lender portal.
• Within 45 days of the rate lock, the first Mortgage Loans must have been underwritten by the Participating
Lender.
• Within 60 days of rate lock, the first Mortgage Loans close and fund. The Participating Lender will advance
the Second Loan assistance for the benefit of the borrower(s) on behalf of the IDAs.
Pre-Purchase Compliance Revenue by eHousingPlus
• After the loan closing, the Participating Lender will submit a file of loan documents to eHousingPlus for its
review to ensure that the Mortgage Loan meets the key federal/state rules, specifically:
o The household income does not exceed the applicable Income Limit
o The First Time Homebuyer requirement is met (unless exempt)
o All required affidavits and certifications are accurate and signed
o Arizona set aside rules for low income and manufactured housing are met, and federal rules for
target area requirements are met.
Lender Compensation (2.5% total)
• Participating Lenders are permitted to charge the borrower(s) an Origination Fee of up to 1%.
Additionally, Participating Lenders may charge “customary and reasonable” per loan fees (appraisal, title,
credit reports, etc.).
• The Servicer will pay Participating Lenders 1.5% as first Mortgage Loans are purchased.
Loan Aggregation and Pooling into Securities/Delivery to the Bond Trustee
• Mortgage Loans will be pooled into MBS and delivered to the Bond Trustee, delivery versus payment, at a
purchase price equal to 104.5%.
• Participating Lenders will provide the Servicer with representations and warranties that the first Mortgage
Loan is eligible for pooling into MBS.
1401 Lawrence Street, Suite 900, Denver CO 80202 | www.stifel.com/publicfinance
Page 385
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Stipend Program (Ordinance S-50981)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to retroactively apply for, and
accept, if awarded, up to $7,500 from 100 Club of Arizona's Safety Enhancement
Stipend program to fund Fire Investigators personal safety equipment. Further request
authorization for the City Treasurer to accept and for the City Controller to disburse all
funds related to this item. The grant application period closed on June 1, 2024. If not
approved, the grant, if awarded, would be turned down.
Summary
The 100 Club of Arizona’s Safety Enhancement Stipend (SES) program was created in
2004 to provide assistance to public safety agencies for equipment to enhance the
safety of officers and firefighters. The SES Program allows agencies to obtain
equipment and training that is otherwise unavailable through other funding. The SES
program allows agencies to obtain crucial safety equipment to keep their first
responders safe.
Ballistic Vests for Fire Investigators
The Phoenix Fire Department has six fire investigators certified by the Arizona Peace
Officer Standards and Training Board (AZ-POST). These investigators have
undergone rigorous training to obtain Peace Officer certification, enabling them to
perform duties like those of police officers. This certification is particularly vital for
investigators who frequently interact with suspects during arson investigations. To
ensure their safety, these investigators must have access to up-to-date ballistic vests,
which are crucial for the protection of all peace officers. The total investment for this
initiative is estimated at $7,500.
Contract Term
Term requirements are provided at the time of award; however, all funds will be
expended by the Fire Department within one year of award acceptance.
Financial Impact
There is no financial impact to the City of Phoenix.
Page 386
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Fire Department.
Page 387
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Fiscal Year 2024-25 (Ordinance S-51031)
Request authorization for the City Manager to adopt the Fire Department's Fiscal Year
2024-25 Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) payments to be charged to: (1) the cities of
Avondale, Buckeye, Chandler, El Mirage, Glendale, Goodyear, Maricopa, Peoria,
Scottsdale, Surprise, Tempe, and Tolleson; (2) the fire districts of Buckeye Valley,
Daisy Mountain, Harquahala, and Sun City; (3) the Towns of Guadalupe and Paradise
Valley; (4) Arizona Fire and Medical Authority; and (5) Dignity Health. Further request
to authorize the City Treasurer to accept and for the City Controller to disburse these
funds.
Summary
The City Council approved agreements with each of the above jurisdictions, which
included CAD fees and charges to be updated regularly. Attachment A outlines Fiscal
Year 2024-25 CAD fees and charges. The City of Phoenix has Automatic and/or
Mutual Aid Agreements with these jurisdictions and provides dispatching for their fire
and emergency medical units. Each CAD member pays a dispatching fee for each call
dispatched, as well as charges for equipment and network maintenance.
Financial Impact
The General Fund revenue to be generated from these Intergovernmental Agreements
for Fiscal Year 2024-25 is estimated at $10,208,952.99 and is intended to offset a
portion of the operating costs of the City's Regional Dispatch Center, including salaries
of Dispatch Center staff. The $5,577,752 balance of the funds collected pays for
communications system and equipment maintenance and modernization.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Fire Department.
Page 388
Attachment A
Phoenix Fire Department
Fiscal Year 24-25 Projected Total CAD Revenues
Exhibit A Fees for Technical Services
CAD Partner Revenue
Arizona Fire & Medical Authority $880,519.80
City of Avondale $782,960.38
City of Buckeye $507,739.33
Buckeye Valley Fire District $493,092.42
City of Chandler $1,618,912.22
Daisy Mountain Fire District $446,684.75
City of El Mirage $242,938.76
City of Glendale $2,327,087.15
City of Goodyear $883,985.31
Town of Guadalupe $89,918.16
Harquahala Fire District $26,506.07
City of Maricopa $464,270.90
Town of Paradise Valley $125,392.84
City of Peoria $1,248,464.66
City of Scottsdale $2,477,420.93
Sun City Fire District $599,243.59
City of Surprise $1,012,106.30
City of Tempe $1,325,987.06
City of Tolleson $195,834.84
Dignity Health $37,639.52
Total FY 2024/2025 $15,786,704.99
Page 389
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
the Cities Program (Ordinance S-50980)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to retroactively enter into a
Subrecipient Agreement with Maricopa County for participation in the Maricopa County
Securing the Cities (STC) Program. Further request authorization for the City
Treasurer to accept and for the City Controller to disburse funds related to this item.
Summary
On Dec. 7, 2022, Council approved an Intergovernmental Agreement to establish the
formal commitment and active participation of the City of Phoenix Fire Department
(PFD) in the Maricopa County STC Program. The STC Program is a regional effort
geared to enhance radiological and nuclear detection and interdiction (Preventative
Radiological and Nuclear Detection or PRND) capabilities in Maricopa County. The
Maricopa County STC Program is funded by the STC Program grant from the United
States Department of Homeland Security Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction
Office. The grant is awarded to Maricopa County to assist participants in acquiring
equipment, training, and support to enhance PRND capabilities in Maricopa County.
Maricopa County and the PFD request to execute this Subrecipient Agreement, as
authorized by the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, to allow for the
reimbursement by grant funds of certain personnel costs relating to training, exercise,
drills, and the use by PFD of certain County equipment.
Contract Term
The term of the agreement began on July 1, 2023, and will remain in effect through
June 30, 2024.
Financial Impact
If awarded, the City of Phoenix Fire Department will receive up to $270,760 in grant
funding for personnel costs relating to training, exercise, and drills as part of its
participation in the STC Program.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Fire Department.
Page 390
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
to the Community Assistance Program (Ordinance S-51037)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an
Intergovernmental Agreement with the Arizona Board of Regents, Arizona State
University (ASU), for digital low literacy versions of resources and SolarSPELL digital
library systems in support of the Community Assistance Program (CAP).
Summary
The purpose of this agreement is for ASU to provide support to the CAP. Using
evidence-based practices for low literacy communication, ASU will create and provide
digital low literacy versions of CAP resources that are provided to customers after a
traumatic incident. In addition, ASU will create and provide digital child trauma toolkit
resources and SolarSPELL digital library systems for resource deployment. ASU will
also provide training, monitoring, and evaluation of the digital resource implementation.
As part of this agreement, ASU will donate the following items to CAP:
· 10 SolarSPELL units with crisis response materials
· 10 Amazon Fire (or similar) tablets
· 10 ruggedized cases for tablets
Contract Term
Upon Council approval, the term of the agreement will be for one year with four one-
year optional renewals.
Financial Impact
There is no financial impact to the City of Phoenix.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays, Deputy City Manager
Ginger Spencer, and the Fire Department.
Page 391
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into agreements
with Arizona Fire and Medical Authority, Avondale Fire and Medical, Buckeye Fire-
Medical-Rescue, Buckeye Valley Fire District, Chandler Fire Department, Daisy
Mountain Fire and Medical, El Mirage Fire Department, Gila River Fire Department,
Gilbert Fire and Rescue, Glendale Fire Department, Goodyear Fire Department,
Guadalupe Fire Department, Harquahala Fire District, Maricopa Fire Department,
Mesa Fire and Medical, Peoria Fire Medical Department, Queen Creek Fire and
Medical, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Fire Department, Scottsdale Fire Department, Sun
City Fire and Medical Department, Superstition Fire and Medical District, Surprise Fire-
Medical Department, Tempe Fire Medical Rescue Department, and Tolleson Fire
Department to loan fire apparatus on an as-needed basis for the purpose of fire
prevention and firefighting. Further request authorization for the City Treasurer to
accept all funds related to this item.
Summary
The purpose of these agreements is to allow the Phoenix Fire Department (PFD) to
loan various fire apparatus to partner agencies on an as-needed basis for the purpose
of ensuring that emergency fire services for the region can be maintained. The
provision of the fire apparatus loans to other jurisdictions will not negatively impact City
of Phoenix public safety personnel or fire operations. Fire apparatus will only be
loaned to the PFD regional partner agencies when a critical need arises and the
apparatus is available. Additionally, partner agencies will be responsible for all
operating costs and costs to maintain and return the equipment in good repair,
condition and working order.
Contract Term
The agreements shall be effective upon approval and execution and shall remain in
effect for a term of five years.
Financial Impact
There is no financial impact to the City of Phoenix.
Page 392
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Fire Department.
Page 393
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
(Ordinance S-50983)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute amendment to
Contract 150562 with International Corporate Apparel, Inc. to extend contract term.
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-45850.
Summary
This contract will continue to provide the City of Phoenix, as a sponsoring agency for
Arizona Task Force One (AZ-TF1), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
and Urban Search and Rescue (US&R) Task Force, with the ability to maintain a cache
of equipment, which includes uniforms and AZ-TF1 clothing for the Fire Department.
The department is one of 28 national US&R response system task forces that can
rapidly deploy skilled personnel and state-of-the-art equipment to sites of natural
disasters, terrorist attacks, and building collapses. The Fire Department must maintain
standardized equipment, including uniforms, for deployment to national incidents at the
request of FEMA.
Contract Term
Upon approval the contract will be extended through June 26, 2025, with the option to
extend through June 26, 2026.
Financial Impact
The aggregate value of the contract will not exceed $348,050 and no additional funds
are needed.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request:
· Arizona Task Force One Uniforms and Clothing - Contract 150562 (Ordinance S-
45850) on June 26, 2019.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Fire Department.
Page 394
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
(Ordinance S-50956)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
Dignity Health, dba St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center to provide cadaver lab
training to the Fire Department's paramedics. Further request to authorize the City
Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The total value of the contract will
not exceed $280,000.
Summary
This contract will provide cadaver lab training to the City of Phoenix Fire Department.
These lab training sessions will provide the Fire Department's paramedics and
paramedic trainees with a hands-on experience, bridging the gap between theoretical
knowledge and practical application. Through cadaver lab training, the paramedics will
gain a deeper understanding of human anatomy, enabling them to perform medical
procedures with increased accuracy and confidence to better serve our community.
Procurement Information
An Invitation for Bid procurement was processed in accordance with City of Phoenix
Administrative Regulation 3.10. Two vendors submitted bids which were deemed to be
responsive and responsible to the posted specifications to provide the required
services. Following an evaluation process based on price, the procurement officer
recommends award to the following vendor:
· Dignity Health, dba St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center
Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about July 1, 2024, for a five-year term with no options to
extend.
Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $280,000. Funds are available in the Fire
Department's budget.
Page 395
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Fire Department.
Page 396
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Agreement to Extend Contract for Aircraft Parts and Services with
AugustaWestland Philadelphia Corporation (Ordinance S-50963)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into Letter of
Agreement with AugustaWestland Philadelphia Corporation, to continue to provide
aircraft parts and services for the Phoenix Police Department's Air Support Unit.
Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this
item. No additional funds are needed, request to continue using Ordinances S-45150,
S-47600 and S-49197.
Summary
The purpose of this Letter of Agreement is to continue to provide services, parts,
hardware, materials, airframe, engine, and electrical systems for the City of Phoenix
aircraft per Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and manufacturer's regulations.
Contract Term
The term of the Letter of Agreement will begin on or about June 12, 2024 through Nov.
30, 2024, and includes an option to extend through Nov. 30, 2028.
Financial Impact
The aggregate value of the contract will not exceed $10,975,270 and no additional
funds are needed.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request:
· Aircraft Parts and Services - Requirements Contract 148991 (Ordinance S-45150)
on Nov. 14, 2018.
· Aircraft Parts and Services - Requirements Contract 148991 (Ordinance S-47600)
on June. 2, 2021.
· Aircraft Parts and Services - Requirements Contract 148991 (Ordinance S-49197)
on Dec. 7, 2022.
Page 397
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Police Department.
Page 398
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
51026)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into contracts with
The Fetch Foundation to place facility therapy canines with the Phoenix Police
Department. Each canine will be paired with a trained canine handler and used in the
Phoenix Police Department to assist with employee wellness.
Summary
The Fetch Foundation (Fetch) is a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization that works closely
with animal rescue organizations and shelters to identify canines that have the
potential to be trained to become search and service canines or therapy canines. The
Fetch's Homeless to Heroes program takes homeless shelter canines and repurposes
them to work in situations appropriate to their abilities. Fetch has thoroughly assessed
the canines for temperament and ability to provide therapy services to employees of
Phoenix Police Department (PPD), or anyone who may come into contact with the
canine during the performance of these services.
In support of PPD’s ongoing commitment to employee wellness, Police staff partnered
with Fetch to provide trained facility canines to be placed at various locations within the
PPD, paired with trained canine handlers who are Department employees. Canines
with their assigned handler receive 35 hours training both off-site and on-site. The
facility therapy canines help alleviate the pressures and emotional stresses the law
enforcement job can have on employees. PPD previously received facility canines
from Fetch that were placed with trained canine handlers and provided benefits to
employees dealing with high stress and traumatic incidents. Several of these canines
have since been retired. Due to the success of this program, PPD would like Fetch to
place additional canines in other areas of the Department.
Contract Term
Upon execution of each contract, the canine’s care will be the responsibility of the City.
Fetch will retain ownership of the canine and regularly assess the canine’s ability to
work in the PPD. For as long as the City desires, Fetch will replace canines that reach
the end of their service life and replace them with other trained and assessed facility
therapy canines paired with trained canine handlers.
Page 399
Financial Impact
Minimal annual maintenance costs will be required for food, veterinary visits and
miscellaneous supplies not provided by the Fetch. Funds for these expenses are
available in the Police Department's budget.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Police Department.
Page 400
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
(Ordinance S-50995)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
Alliance Towing, LLC to provide towing services 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 $165,000.
Summary
This contract will provide towing services at the Arizona State Fair for the Traffic Unit of
the Phoenix Police Department. The Arizona State Fair is held annually during the
months of September and October. During these months, towing services will be used
on an as needed basis to remove or relocate illegally parked vehicles. The tow vehicle
service is essential for the Police Department to meet mandated Arizona Revised
Statutes, Phoenix City Codes and department policies.
Procurement Information
An Invitation for Bid procurement was processed in accordance with City of Phoenix
Administrative Regulation 3.10.
Two vendors submitted bids which were deemed to be responsive to the posted
specifications and responsible to provide the required goods and services. Following
an evaluation process based on price, the procurement officer recommends award to
the following vendor:
· Alliance Towing, LLC
Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about June 1, 2024, for a five year term with no options to
extend.
Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $165,000. Funding is available in the
Police Department's budget.
Page 401
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Police Department.
Page 402
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
51012)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into multiple master
contracts with Fisher Scientific Company, LLC, Devi Enterprises LLC dba Head to
Heels Safety Supplies, Scientific Specialties Service Inc., The Capricorn Group LLC,
and KTEC Equipment and Supplies Inc. to provide Laboratory Supplies and
Equipment for the Police and Water Services departments. Further request to
authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The total value
between all contracts will not exceed $8,873,345.
Summary
This contract will provide vital laboratory equipment and supplies for the Police and
Water Services departments daily operations. The contract will allow the Police
Department Laboratory Services Bureau to generate accurate, impartial, and timely
scientific examinations and opinions for the criminal justice system in the interest of
enhancing public safety. The contract will also provide the Water Services Department
with the tools needed to ensure the City and wastewater facilities protect public health
and the environment by maintaining compliance with environmental laws.
Procurement Information
An Invitation for Bid procurement was processed in accordance with City of Phoenix
Administrative Regulation 3.10.
Six vendors submitted bids and five were 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
· Fisher Scientific Company, LLC
· Devi Enterprises LLC dba Head to Heels Safety Supplies
· Scientific Specialties Service Inc.
· The Capricorn Group LLC
· KTEC Equipment and Supplies Inc.
Page 403
Contract Term
The contracts will begin on or about June 12, 2024 for a five-year term, with no options
to extend.
Financial Impact
The aggregate value of the contracts will not exceed $8,873,345. Funding is available
in the Police and Water Services departments budgets.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and Deputy City Manager
Ginger Spencer, and the Police and Water Services departments.
Page 404
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
School Resource Officers (Ordinance S-50964)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to allow the Police
Department to enter into Intergovernmental Agreements or contracts with various
school districts and charter schools at the school district's or charter school's request
for placement of School Resource Officers (SROs). These agreements are for the
2024-2025 school year. Further request authorization for the City Treasurer to accept
and for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. Cost to the City is
the 25 percent match for the SRO salary and fringe benefits.
Summary
At the request of school districts, the Police Department enters into Intergovernmental
Agreements with various school districts to assist with the cost of SROs deployed in
schools. Funding for these 69 SROs is provided through partnerships with the Arizona
Department of Education and individual school districts. Through this partnership,
school district funds reimburse the City for 75 percent of the SRO's salary, while the
remaining 25 percent is paid by the City.
The 2023-2024 school year included agreements for SRO services at 77 schools for a
total deployment of 67 SROs. The 2024-2025 school year will include agreements for
SRO services at 81 schools for a total of 69 SROs, with three of these positions being
funded by school districts.
2024-2025 SRO School Districts:
ASU Preparatory Academy
Cartwright Elementary District
Cave Creek Unified District
Deer Valley Unified District
Empower College Prep.
Glendale Union High School District
Horizon Community Learning Center
Kaizen Education Foundation
Kyrene Elementary District
Laveen Elementary District
Page 405
Murphy Elementary District
Paradise Valley Unified District
Phoenix Union High School District
Premier Charter High School
Scottsdale Unified
Tempe Union High School District
Tolleson Elementary District
Tolleson Union High School District
Washington Elementary School District
Wilson Elementary District
Contract Term
The terms of these agreements are for one year with varying start and end dates to
coincide with each school's 2024-2025 school year.
Financial Impact
Cost to the City is the 25 percent match for the SRO salary and fringe benefits, which
is already included in the Police Department budget.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This item was heard at the Public Safety and Justice Subcommittee meeting on June
5, 2024.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Police Department.
Page 406
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Policing Development Grant (Ordinance S-50969)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to allow the Police
Department to retroactively apply for, accept, and enter into an agreement with the
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services for the Promoting Access to Crisis
Teams - Community Policing Development grant. Further request authorization for the
City Treasurer to accept, and for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this
item. The grant amount is not to exceed $400,000.
Summary
The Promoting Access to Crisis Teams - Community Policing Development grant
provides funding to support the implementation of crisis intervention teams, including
embedding behavioral or mental health professionals with law enforcement agencies,
training for law enforcement officers and embedded behavioral or mental health
professionals in crisis intervention response, or a combination of these.
The Police Department has a Crisis Intervention Team that is apprised of a small
amount of officers that are responsible to respond to active scenes and citizens
currently in crisis. They are not designed to be out doing proactive work with our
outreach team. The Maryvale Precincts Community Action Squad, made up of one
sergeant and four officers has created the Community Health and Outreach for
Individuals with Coordinated Encouragement (CHOICE) program. The mission of the
CHOICE program is to assist unsheltered citizens by connecting them with the correct
entities to provide them with needed assistance; while at the same time keeping the
community safe, removal of blight concerns and proactively addressing open air drug
use and nuisance crimes.
Grant funds would support training for officers within the CHOICE program, therefore
embedding Crisis Intervention trained officers in the team. The goal would be to equip
all officers with the skills necessary to address mental health crises, substance abuse
issues, and the complexities of homelessness. Grant funds would support training for
officers within the CHOICE program to provide crisis intervention trained officers on an
outreach team.
Page 407
Funding would provide the officers within the CHOICE program crisis intervention
training, overtime and supplies necessary to address mental health crises, substance
abuse issues, and the complexities of homelessness.
Currently the CHOICE program is limited to the availability of the Office of Homeless
Solutions, and their vendor Community Bridges, to provide mental health support for
the team. With this grant funded training, the CHOICE program would be able to
facilitate more outreach programs, and provide a better service to individuals
experiencing homelessness. Office of Homeless Solutions responds with the police
department unit on their CHOICE projects days and is in regular contact with the police
department unit throughout the week. That being said, Office of Homeless Solutions
cannot respond to our location until it is made completely safe for them as they are
civilians. Office of Homeless Solutions skill set cannot be utilized until after the fact
which is often times too late. Training and embedding Crisis Intervention Teams police
officers on the Community Action Unit would allow for the immediate understanding
and dealing with an individual or individuals in crisis which could then be handed off to
our Office of Homeless Solutions partners in a much more ideal situation.
The grant application is due on May 21, 2024. If authorization is not approved, staff will
rescind application.
Contract Term
The project period is for two years and will begin on Oct. 1, 2024.
Financial Impact
No matching funds are required.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Police Department.
Page 408
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Grant (Ordinance S-51034)
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 Bureau of
Justice Assistance (BJA) STOP School Violence Program Competitive Grant. The
grant amount is not to exceed $1,000,000. Further request authorization for the City
Treasurer to accept, and the City Controller to disburse, all funds related to this item.
Summary
The BJA FY24 STOP School Violence Program provides funding to increase school
safety by implementing solutions that will improve school climate. Solutions include
school-based behavioral threat assessments and/or intervention teams to identify
school violence risks among students, technological innovations that are shown to
increase school safety such as anonymous reporting technology, training and other
school safety strategies that assist in preventing violence.
If awarded, the Police Department will use grant funding to get school resource officers
enhanced training on school safety concepts, threat assessment, crisis intervention
procedures, de-escalating with youth, restorative justice and trust-based relational
intervention (TBRI) training.
Contract Term
The project period is for three years and will begin on Oct. 1, 2024.
Financial Impact
No matching funds are required.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Police Department.
Page 409
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Drug Trafficking Area Grant Funds (Ordinance S-51001)
Request to authorize the City Manger, or his designee, to allow the Police Department
to retroactively enter into various agreements with the Office of National Drug Control
Policy and the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office for up to $2.5 million in funding through
the Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-26 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA). Further
request authorization for the City Treasurer to accept and for the City Controller to
disburse all funds related to this item.
Summary
The Police Department has applied for and accepted HIDTA funds annually for more
than 15 years. Historically, HIDTA funds are used to support and enhance the Police
Department's Drug Enforcement Bureau's investigations into illegal narcotic
distribution enterprises in the Phoenix metropolitan area and throughout the State of
Arizona. These complex investigations usually involve partnerships with other local,
state and federal law enforcement agencies. The investigations focus on identifying
and disrupting drug trafficking organizations.
The Arizona Alliance Planning Committee HIDTA Executive Board makes all of the
HIDTA funding decisions. The Police Department is requesting approval to accept
funds and enter into various agreements for any HIDTA funds made available during
the funding period. The funding reimburses the City for salary, overtime,15 percent of
the associated fringe benefits and operational supplies associated with the drug
trafficking investigations.
Grant applications were due by May 10, 2024. If authorization is not approved, staff
will rescind application.
Contract Term
The term of the contract is two years from Jan. 1, 2025 through Dec. 31, 2026.
Financial Impact
No matching funds are required.
Page 410
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Police Department.
Page 411
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Formula Grant Program (Ordinance S-
51038)
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 Arizona Criminal
Justice Commission for the FY 2024 Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement
Formula grant program in an amount not to exceed $150,000. 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 has applied for these grant funds over the past several years.
Funding is used to implement innovative solutions to the backlog issues facing many
crime laboratories nationwide. The Police Department's Crime Laboratory has made
significant strides in addressing these issues by utilizing these grant funds as part of a
comprehensive approach to support and enhance the services provided to the criminal
justice community. Funding will be utilized for overtime, related fringe benefits, and
supplies to improve the timeliness of forensic science services and to address the
backlogs in the analysis of forensic evidence.
Anticipated maximum dollar amount per award is based on a population formula.
The grant application is due by June 14, 2024. If approved, the Police Department will
move forward with submitting their application.
Contract Term
The contract term is two years beginning Oct. 1, 2024.
Financial Impact
No matching funds are required.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Police Department.
Page 412
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Competitive Grant Program
(Ordinance S-51040)
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 Arizona Criminal
Justice Commission for the FY 2024 Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement
Competitive grant program in an amount not to exceed $500,000. 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 has applied for these grant funds over the past several years.
The purpose of this grant is to implement innovative solutions to the increase efficiency
as well as provide enhanced forensic services in the collection, documentation and
analysis of evidence. Funding will be utilized for innovative equipment and supplies
necessary to maintain and increase the timeliness of forensic science services and
thereby addressing the backlogs in the analysis of forensic evidence.
The grant application is due by July 1, 2024. If approved, the Police Department will
move forward with submitting their application.
Contract Term
The contract term is three years beginning Oct. 1, 2024.
Financial Impact
No matching funds are required.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Police Department.
Page 413
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
System Controls - Construction Manager at Risk Preconstruction Services -
PW26480024 (Ordinance S-51022)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with Kitchell Contractors, Inc. of Arizona to provide Construction Manager at Risk
Preconstruction Services for the Police Crime Lab Heating, Ventilation, Air
Conditioning and Building Automation System Controls 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 $250,000.
Summary
The purpose of this project is to repair or replace the current heating, ventilation, and
air conditioning system and the building automation system equipment in the Police
Department Crime Lab to ensure the building has proper control of airflows within the
laboratories, as well as in the fume hoods and biosafety cabinets used during
preparation and analysis of crime scene evidence.
Kitchell Contractors, Inc. of Arizona (Kitchell) will begin in an agency support role for
Construction Manager at Risk Preconstruction Services. Kitchell will assume the risk of
delivering the project through a Guaranteed Maximum Price agreement.
Kitchell's Preconstruction Services include, but are not limited to: evaluation of existing
systems, phasing and sequencing analysis, develop a detailed construction schedule,
collaboration with technical subcontractors, constructability review of plans, and
participating with the City in a process to establish a Small Business Enterprise (SBE)
goal for the project.
Procurement Information
The selection was made using a qualifications-based selection process set forth in
section 34-603 of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.). In accordance with A.R.S.
section 34-603(H), the City may not publicly release information on proposals received
or the scoring results until an agreement is awarded. Three firms submitted proposals
and are listed below.
Page 414
Selected Firm
Rank 1: Kitchell Contractors, Inc. of Arizona
Additional Proposers
Rank 2: M.A. Mortenson Company
Rank 3: McCarthy Building Companies, Inc.
Contract Term
The term of the agreement is 180 calendar days from issuance of the Notice to
Proceed. Work scope identified and incorporated into the agreement prior to the end of
the term may be agreed to by the parties, and work may extend past the termination of
the agreement. No additional changes may be executed after the end of the term.
Financial Impact
The agreement value for Kitchell Contractors, Inc. of Arizona will not exceed $250,000,
including all subcontractor and reimbursable costs.
Funding is available in the Public Works Department's Capital Improvement Program
budget. The Budget and Research Department will separately review and approve
funding availability prior to execution of any amendments. Payments may be made up
to agreement limits for all rendered agreement services, which may extend past the
agreement termination.
Location
621 W. Washington St.
Council District: 7
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Mario Paniagua and Inger Erickson,
the Public Works Department and the City Engineer.
Page 415
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Replacement - Construction Manager at Risk Services - PW26700051 (Ordinance
S-50970)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with Caliente Construction, Inc. to provide Construction Manager at Risk
Preconstruction and Construction Services for the Phoenix Municipal Court Sanitary
Waste, Vent, and Storm Drain Piping System Replacement project. Further request to
authorize execution of amendments to the agreement as necessary within the Council-
approved expenditure authority as provided below, and for the City Controller to
disburse all funds related to this item. The fee for services will not exceed $11.5
million.
Summary
The purpose of this project is to replace approximately 9,970 linear feet of cast iron
sanitary waste and vent piping, and approximately 465 linear feet of storm pipe.
Caliente Construction, Inc. will begin in an agency support role for Construction
Manager at Risk Preconstruction Services. Caliente Construction, Inc. will assume the
risk of delivering the project through a Guaranteed Maximum Price agreement.
Caliente Construction, Inc.'s Preconstruction Services include, but are not limited to:
provide detailed cost estimating and knowledge of marketplace conditions, provide
project planning and scheduling, provide for construction phasing and scheduling that
will minimize interruption to Municipal Court operations, provide alternate systems
evaluation and constructability studies, advise City on ways to gain efficiencies in
project delivery, provide long-lead procurement studies and initiate procurement of
long-lead items, assist in the permitting processes, and participating with the City in a
process to establish a Small Business Enterprise (SBE) goal for the project.
Caliente Construction, Inc.'s initial Construction Services will include preparation of a
Guaranteed Maximum Price proposal provided under the agreement. Caliente
Construction, Inc. will be responsible for construction means and methods related to
the project and fulfilling the SBE program requirements. Caliente Construction, Inc. will
be required to solicit bids from prequalified subcontractors and to perform the work
Page 416
using the City’s subcontractor selection process. Caliente Construction, Inc. may also
compete to self-perform limited amounts of work.
Caliente Construction, Inc.’s additional Construction Services include: constructing the
renovations of the items included in the project and any other related plumbing,
mechanical, electrical, or structural work that may be required; attending regular
meetings; providing timely reports; successfully collaborating with the City, Engineer
and Owner's representative; arranging for procurement of materials and equipment;
scheduling and managing site operations; providing quality controls; and addressing all
federal, state and local permitting requirements.
Procurement Information
The selection was made using a qualifications-based selection process set forth in
section 34-603 of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.). In accordance with A.R.S.
section 34-603(H), the City may not publicly release information on proposals
received, including the scoring results, until an agreement is awarded. Three firms
submitted proposals and are listed below:
Selected Firm
Rank 1: Caliente Construction, Inc.
Additional Proposers
Rank 2: Brycon Corporation
Rank 3: D. L. Norton General Contracting, Inc.
Contract Term
The term of the agreement is two years from issuance of the Notice to Proceed. Work
scope identified and incorporated into the agreement prior to the end of the term may
be agreed to by the parties, and work may extend past the termination of the
agreement. No additional changes may be executed after the end of the term.
Financial Impact
The agreement value for Caliente Construction, Inc. will not exceed $11.5 million,
including all subcontractor and reimbursable costs.
Funding is available in the Public Works Department's Capital Improvement Program
budget. The Budget and Research Department will separately review and approve
funding availability prior to execution of any amendments. Payments may be made up
to agreement limits for all rendered agreement services, which may extend past the
agreement termination.
Page 417
Location
300 W. Washington St.
Council District: 7
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Mario Paniagua and Inger Erickson,
the Public Works Department and the City Engineer.
Page 418
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
CP10500007 (Ordinance S-51004)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Agreement 157076 with Rider Levett Bucknall LTD to provide additional Owner's
Representative Services for the 100 W. Washington Renovation project. Further
request to authorize execution of amendments to the agreement as necessary within
the Council-approved expenditure authority as provided below, and for the City
Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The additional fee for services
included in this amendment will not exceed $700,000.
Summary
The purpose of this project is to provide a replacement facility for the current police
headquarters, which is obsolete and insufficient at 156,000 square feet. The current
headquarters was built when Phoenix had one-third its current population.
This amendment is necessary because a Needs Assessment completed in 2019
anticipates 470,000 square feet of space is needed to accommodate the long-term
needs of the City's police headquarters functions. The renovated 100 West facility will
provide functional, efficient space that caters to the unique needs of the dedicated staff
who provide 911 and other police services to the community.
This amendment will provide additional funds to the agreement.
Contract Term
The term of the agreement remains unchanged. Work scope identified and
incorporated into the agreement prior to the end of the term may be agreed to by the
parties, and work may extend past the termination of the agreement. No additional
changes may be executed after the end of the term.
Financial Impact
The initial agreement for Owner's Representative Services was approved for an
amount not to exceed $3 million, including all subconsultant and reimbursable costs.
This amendment will increase the agreement by an additional $700,000, for a new
total amount not to exceed $3.7 million, including all subconsultant and reimbursable
Page 419
costs.
Funding for this amendment is available in the Phoenix Convention Center
Department's Capital Improvement Program budget. The Budget and Research
Department will separately review and approve funding availability prior to the
execution of any amendments. Payments may be made up to agreement limits for all
rendered agreement services, which may extend past the agreement termination.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved:
· Owner's Representative Services Agreement 157076 (Ordinance S-48995) on Sept.
21, 2022;
· Architectural Services Agreement 157077 (Ordinance S-49013) on Sept. 21, 2022;
· Construction Manager at Risk Services Agreement 157078 on Sept. 21, 2022; and
· Construction Manager at Risk Services Agreement 157078 Amendment pending
June 12, 2024 agenda.
Location
100 W. Washington St.
Council District: 7
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers John Chan and Alan Stephenson, the
Phoenix Convention Center Department, and the City Engineer.
Page 420
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Amendment - CP10500007 (Ordinance S-51018)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Agreement 157078 to provide additional Construction Manager at Risk Construction
Services for the 100 W. Washington Renovation project. Further request to authorize
execution of amendments to the agreement as necessary within the Council-approved
expenditure authority as provided below, and for the City Controller to disburse all
funds related to this item. The additional fee for services included in this amendment
will not exceed $17 million.
Summary
The purpose of this project is to provide a replacement facility for the current police
headquarters, which is obsolete and insufficient at 156,000 square feet. The current
headquarters was built when Phoenix had one-third its current population.
This amendment is necessary because of a Needs Assessment completed in 2019
and updated in 2022. The study anticipates 470,000 square feet of space is needed to
accommodate the long-term needs of the City's police headquarters functions. The
renovated 100 West facility will provide functional, efficient space that caters to the
unique needs of the dedicated staff who provide 911 and other police services to the
community.
This amendment will provide additional funds to the agreement.
Contract Term
The term of the agreement remains unchanged. Work scope identified and
incorporated into the agreement prior to the end of the term may be agreed to by the
parties, and work may extend past the termination of the agreement. No additional
changes may be executed after the end of the term.
Financial Impact
The initial agreement for Construction Manager at Risk Services was approved for an
amount not to exceed $121 million, including all subcontractor and reimbursable costs.
This amendment will increase the agreement by an additional $17 million, for a new
Page 421
total amount not to exceed $138 million, including all subcontractor and reimbursable
costs.
Funding for this amendment is available in the Phoenix Convention Center
Department's Capital Improvement Program budget. The Budget and Research
Department will separately review and approve funding availability prior to the
execution of any amendments. Payments may be made up to agreement limits for all
rendered agreement services, which may extend past the agreement termination.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved:
· Construction Manager at Risk Services Agreement 157078 (Ordinance S-49014) on
Sept. 21, 2022;
· Owner's Representative Services Agreement 157076 (Ordinance S-48995) on Sept.
21, 2022;
· Architectural Services Agreement 157077 (Ordinance S-49013) on Sept. 21, 2022;
and
· Owner's Representative Services Amendment to Agreement 157076 pending on
June 12, 2024 agenda.
Location
100 W. Washington St.
Council District: 7
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers John Chan and Inger Erickson, the
Phoenix Convention Center Department, and the City Engineer.
Page 422
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Replacement - Design-Build Services Amendment - AV21000102 (Ordinance S-
50971)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Agreement 155436 with Chasse Building Team, Inc. to provide additional Design-Build
Services for the Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport Terminal 4 Infrastructure Fire
Alarm Replacement project. Further request to authorize execution of amendments to
the agreement as necessary within the Council-approved expenditure authority as
provided below, and for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.
The additional fee for services included in this amendment will not exceed $1.7 million.
Summary
The purpose of this project is to replace the existing Terminal 4 (T4) Fire Alarm/Voice
Evacuation System with a new updated system at Phoenix Sky Harbor International
Airport. The existing fire alarm system in T4 has been in place since 2003 and some
parts of the system much longer than that. The existing system has reached the end of
its service life, according to the manufacturer. To minimize the impact on terminal
operations, this project will proceed in phases while the existing system stays active.
Night work and multiple shifts will be required to expedite the work at certain locations.
This amendment is necessary to begin the next phase of construction services and
begin construction administration and inspection services for this project. This will
allow for the entire T4 fire alarm system to work cohesively, and migrate to the
Emergency Communication System (ECS). This amendment will provide additional
funds to the agreement.
Chasse Building Team, Inc.’s additional services include, but are not limited to: review
submittals and respond to Requests for Information, perform site visits and prepare
field observation reports; certify construction progress payment applications; prepare
monthly construction progress reports; review proposal requests and change orders;
participate in equipment commissioning process and provide system acceptance
testing and documentation; participate in substantial completion walkthrough and
develop punch list; participate in final walkthrough; participate in the 11.5 month
warranty inspection; prepare and submit all required Federal, State, County, and City
Page 423
reports; and notify owner of any unsafe conditions observed at the construction sites.
Contract Term
The term of the agreement amendment will remain unchanged. Work scope identified
and incorporated into the agreement prior to the end of the term may be agreed to by
the parties, and work may extend past the termination of the agreement. No additional
changes may be executed after the end of the term.
Financial Impact
· The initial agreement for Design-Build Services was approved for an amount not to
exceed $1 million, including all subconsultant/subcontractor and reimbursable
costs.
· Amendment 1 to Agreement 155436 for Design-Build Services was approved for an
additional amount not to exceed $9 million, including all
subconsultant/subcontractor and reimbursable costs.
· This amendment will increase the agreement by an additional $1.7 million, for a new
total amount not to exceed $11.7 million, including all subconsultant/subcontractor
and reimbursable costs.
Funding for this amendment is available in the Aviation Department's Capital
Improvement Program. The Budget and Research Department will separately review
and approve funding availability prior to the execution of any amendments. Payments
may be made up to agreement limits for all rendered agreement services, which may
extend past the agreement termination.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved:
· Design-Build Services Agreement 155436 (Ordinance S-48075) on Nov. 3, 2021;
and
· Amendment 1 to Design-Build Services Agreement 155436 (Ordinance S-49731) on
May 31, 2023.
Location
2485 E. Buckeye Road
Council District: 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Mario Paniagua and Inger Erickson,
the Aviation Department and the City Engineer.
Page 424
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Services - IFB 19-007 - Amendment (Ordinance S-50996)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Contract 149031 with Quantum Integrated Solutions, Inc. to extend the term. No
additional funds are needed and further request to continue using Ordinances S-
45225, S-49334, and S-50119.
Summary
This contract provides technical support, including design, programming, integration
and architectural controls of the Baggage Handling Systems (BHS) at Phoenix Sky
Harbor International Airport, 24 hours-a-day, seven days-a-week, 365 days a year. The
contract, along with an existing contract for the operation, maintenance and repair
service, are two contracts that provide critical support to the operation of the BHS. To
better meet its operational needs and to achieve service and pricing efficiencies, the
Aviation Department has issued a Request for Proposal to combine both contracts into
one solicitation which will result in one contract to provide full and comprehensive
services and maintenance to the BHS. The extension is essential to allow sufficient
time to complete the solicitation for these services.
Contract Term
Upon approval, the contract will be extended for a period not to exceed six months, or
until a new contract is in place, whichever occurs first.
Financial Impact
The value of the contract remains up to $2,375,000 and no additional funds are
requested.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously approved these requests:
· Baggage Handling Controls System Design, Programming and Integration Services
Contract (Ordinance S-45225) on Dec. 12, 2018.
· Purchase of Baggage Handling Controls System Design, Programming and
Integration - IFB 19-007 - Amendment (Ordinance S-49334) on Jan. 25, 2023.
Page 425
· Baggage Handling Controls System Design, Programming and Integration Services
- IFB 19-007 - Amendment (Ordinance S-50119) on Sept. 6, 2023.
Location
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, 2548 E. Buckeye Road
Council District: 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Aviation
Department.
Page 426
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
-008 - Amendment (Ordinance S-50997)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Contract 149845 with Daifuku Services America Corporation 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 be up to $1.5
million.
Summary
This contract provides operation, maintenance and repair services for the Baggage
Handling System (BHS) at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (PHX) which is
critical to PHX operations to ensure all checked baggage are efficiently and securely
processed and arrive at the airline's designated bag makeup location. The contract,
along with an existing contract for the baggage handling controls system design,
programming and integrations services, are two contracts that provide critical support
to the BHS. To better meet its operational needs and to achieve service and pricing
efficiencies, the Aviation Department has issued a Request for Proposal to combine
both contracts into one solicitation which will result in one contract to provide full and
comprehensive services and maintenance to the BHS. The extension is essential to
allow sufficient time to complete the solicitation for these services.
Contract Term
Upon approval, the contract will be extended for a term not to exceed six months, or
until a new contract is in place, whichever occurs first.
Financial Impact
Upon approval of $1.5 million in additional funds, the revised value of the contract will
be up to $16.5 million. Funds are available in the Aviation Department's budget.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
• Baggage Handling Controls System Design, Programming and Integration Services
Contract (Ordinance S-45225) on Dec. 12, 2018.
• Baggage Handling System Operation, Maintenance and Repair Services - RFP 19-
008 - Amendment (Ordinance S-50390) on Dec. 6, 2023.
Page 427
Location
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, 2485 E. Buckeye Road
Council District: 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Aviation
Department.
Page 428
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Extension - RFP PTD19-004 (Ordinance S-51015)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract
amendment to extend Contract 150229 with Ability360, Inc. for the purpose of
providing professional administration services for the Quality Assurance Monitoring
Program for the City of Phoenix Dial-a-Ride service. Further request to authorize the
City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The total cost of the
amendment will not exceed $85,265.
Summary
The City of Phoenix Public Transit Department (PTD) provides complementary
paratransit service, at a minimum, in all areas of Phoenix that are within 3/4 of a mile
of local bus service or light rail stations, for people with disabilities through its Dial-a-
Ride program. PTD is committed to ensuring that its paratransit services comply with
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements and also meet passenger
expectations. The Phoenix Dial-a-Ride (DAR) Quality Assurance Monitoring Program
was established to evaluate paratransit service through independent monitoring and
provide the City with objective, accurate, and measurable data to validate current
service trends, identify conditions that may require corrective action, and recommend
areas for improvement.
The contractor employs monitoring staff who are ADA certified to use paratransit
service to conduct assessments of a minimum of 100 trips per month.
Procurement Information
Ability360, Inc. was selected through a competitive solicitation (RFP PTD19-004) in
2019. PTD is working on a new solicitation for these DAR Quality Assurance
Monitoring services and requires additional time to revise the scope of work to better
align with current DAR service needs and encourage industry competition. This
extension will provide the time needed for a new, competitive solicitation. A lapse in
service would adversely impact the City’s ability to monitor DAR service, which serves
vulnerable populations within Phoenix.
Page 429
Contract Term
The current contract expires on Aug. 31, 2024. The 10-month extension would begin
on Sept. 1, 2024, and end on June 30, 2025.
Financial Impact
The cost of the 10-month contract extension will not exceed $85,265, bringing the
aggregate value of the contract to no more than $585,465.
Funds are available in the Public Transit operating budget.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved:
· Phoenix Dial-a-Ride Quality Assurance Monitoring Program Services - RFP PTD19-
004 on June 5, 2019, by a vote of 9-0 (Ordinance S-45706).
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Public Transit
Department.
Page 430
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
for Award (Ordinance S-50967)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
PLG, LLC to provide non-traffic light pole supply and service. Further request to
authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The total
aggregate amount of the contract will not exceed $250,000.
Summary
The purpose of the contract is to provide non-traffic light pole supply and service on an
as-needed basis for the Public Works Department. The work includes but is not limited
to: supplying non-traffic light poles, associated parts, inspection services that include
the submission of an inspection report after completion of the pole and foundation
inspection, and specification drawings that depict construction details, materials,
dimensions and profiles, and finishes for each type of pole manufactured.
Procurement Information
Request for Quotation 24-FMD-040 was conducted in accordance with City of Phoenix
Administrative Regulation 3.10. The Public Works Department, Procurement Section,
received one quote that was based on price and responsiveness to all specifications
and responsibility to provide the required service. The quote received by PLG, LLC
was deemed fair and reasonable.
Selected Bidder:
PLG, LLC
Contract Term
The three-year contract term shall begin on or about July 1, 2024, with two options to
extend in increments of up to one year, for a total contract term of five years.
Financial Impact
The contract will have an estimated annual expenditure of $50,000, with a total
aggregate amount of $250,000 over the life of the contract. Funds are available in the
Public Works Department Operating budget.
Page 431
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Public Works
Department.
Page 432
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Amendment (Ordinance S-50976)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Contracts 155266 with Trane US, Inc. and 155049 with Arizona Control Specialists,
Inc. to provide additional funding for Energy Management Control Systems (EMCS)
New Installations and Upgrades. Further request to authorize the City Controller to
disburse all funds related to this item. The additional expenditures included in the
amendment will not exceed $9,616,793.
Summary
The purpose of this amendment is to provide additional payment authority that is
necessary to execute planned Building Automation/Energy Savings upgrades to
Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning systems in multiple downtown facilities. The
Automation/Energy Savings upgrades were identified as General Obligation Bond
priority projects that will be executed over a 36-month period.
The contractors are responsible for upgrading, enhancing, and mitigating risk to failing
components that have reached their end of life.
Contract Term
The contract expiration date is July 31, 2024, with two one-year option years.
Financial Impact
The initial authorization for the contract was for an amount not-to-exceed $5,000,000.
This amendment will increase the authorization for the contract by an additional
$9,616,793, for a new amount not-to-exceed $14,616,793. Funding for this
amendment is available in the Public Works Department Capital Improvement
Program budget.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously approved EMCS New Installations and Upgrades
Contracts 155266 and 155049 (Ordinance S-47797) on July 1, 2021.
Page 433
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Public Works
Department.
Page 434
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Engineering Services - PW16700020 (Ordinance S-51013)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with Gannett Fleming, Inc. to provide Engineering Services that include design,
construction administration, special inspection, and technical services during
construction of the 27th Avenue Transfer Station, Materials Recovery Facility
Upgrades 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 $175,000.
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 complete owner requested modifications to the
structural supports, and out-of-scope electrical designs to facilitate the commissioning
of the new Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) equipment.
Gannett Fleming, Inc. has provided design efforts and inspection services for this
facility, is familiar with the site, and has the industry expertise to efficiently complete
the work.
Procurement Information
Gannett Fleming, Inc. was chosen for this project using a Direct Select process set
forth in section 34-103 of the Arizona Revised Statutes. The Direct Select process will
Page 435
reduce the time to procure engineering services as opposed to an advertised selection
process, meeting the project deadline, ensuring continuity, and the most efficient use
of staff and funding resources. With prior experience at the MRF, Gannett Fleming, Inc.
has extensive knowledge and is familiar with the requirements and operations of the
27th Avenue Transfer Station MRF.
Contract Term
The term of the agreement is three 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 Gannett Fleming, Inc. will not exceed $175,000, including all
subconsultant and reimbursable costs.
Funding is available in the Public Works Department's Capital Improvement Program
budget. The Budget and Research Department will separately review and approve
funding availability prior to execution of any amendments. Payments may be made up
to agreement limits for all rendered agreement services, which may extend past the
agreement termination.
Location
3060 S. 27th Ave.
Council District: 7
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Mario Paniagua and Inger Erickson,
the Public Works Department, and the City Engineer.
Page 436
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Plan - Engineering Services - ST87500055 (Ordinance S-50951)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with Cole Design Group, Inc. to provide Engineering Services that include evaluation,
survey, design, and cost estimating services for the Street Transportation Department
Americans with Disabilities Act Transition Plan 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 all services will not exceed $7,125,000.
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 update the Street Transportation Department's
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan to the Public Right-of-Way
Accessibility Guidelines as the standard and allow for Technical Infeasibility studies to
provide lesser options that still meet the 2010 ADA Standard.
Cole Design Group, Inc.'s services include, but are not limited to: develop standards
and methodology used to conduct the self-evaluation; provide a summary of self-
evaluation findings, including barrier details and locations; provide cost estimates and
recommended implementation schedule for remediation based on an assessment of
current and possible new funding sources; prioritize recommendations for barrier
removal, including methodology for prioritization; develop procedures and forms for
monitoring the implementation of the ADA Transition Plan, evaluating and documenting
Page 437
additional barriers, and filing Requests for Accommodation; identify design guidelines
and construction standard for implementation, including design of standard details and
special details drawings for barrier remediation methods; and develop a Technical
Infeasibility test and process for documenting. All work shall conform to the US Access
Board, Federal Highway Administration, and Arizona Department of Transportation
policies and procedures.
Procurement Information
The selection was made using a qualifications-based selection process set forth in
section 34-603 of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.). In accordance with A.R.S.
section 34-603(H), the City may not publicly release information on proposals
received, including scoring results, until an agreement is awarded. Three firms
submitted proposals and are listed below:
Selected Firm
Rank 1: Cole Design Group, Inc.
Additional Proposers
Rank 2: Bureau Veritas Technical Assessments LLC
Rank 3: Blue Accessibility Consultants, LLC
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 Cole Design Group, Inc. will not exceed $7,125,000,
including all subconsultant and reimbursable costs.
Funding is available in the Street Transportation Department's Capital Improvement
Program budget. The Budget and Research Department will separately review and
approve funding availability prior to execution of any amendments. Payments may be
made up to agreement limits for all rendered agreement services, which may extend
past the agreement termination.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson, the Street
Transportation Department and the City Engineer.
Page 438
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Services - RFQu 63-2001 (Ordinance S-50954)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to allow additional
expenditures under Contracts 151323 with Gunn Communications, Inc.; 151324 with
HDR Engineering, Inc.; 151325 with RIESTER Sonoran, LLC; 151326 with Urias
Communications, LLC; and 151327 with Your Project Marketing & Outreach, LLC for
Public Outreach and Community Engagement services for the Street Transportation
Department. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item. The additional expenditures will not exceed $400,000.
Summary
The Street Transportation Department uses contracted public engagement firms to
assist with capital improvement projects and projects that affect large numbers of
parcels. Enhanced public engagement helps shape projects and create awareness for
people who may be temporarily affected by construction. The current contracts allow
the department to effectively problem-solve, obtain temporary construction easements,
provide public notification, prepare public meeting materials, and operate project
hotlines. Additionally, the contracted firms provide graphic design and multimedia
support to help the department reach broad and diverse audiences regarding
transportation-related programs, projects, and services. The existing contracts will
expire Jan. 31, 2025.
With passage of the Vision Zero Road Safety Action Plan, the Street Transportation
Department was tasked with educating all road users about safety as part of the "Five
Es" (Evaluation, Engineering, Enforcement, Equity and Education) effort and has seen
success and traction with the Scan the Street for Wheels and Feet public safety
awareness campaign. The success helped the department successfully compete and
win a $120,000 grant from the Governor's Office of Highway Safety. Additionally,
$250,000 in funding specifically allocated for education in the Vision Zero Road Safety
Action Plan will be used to further leverage the safety campaign. A small additional
amount may be needed for production of creative elements such as social media
graphics, clips for social media use, media planning, and campaign scheduling. The
Street Transportation Department requests a total of $400,000 in additional capacity to
be able to use the grant and for Vision Zero Road Safety Action Plan public
Page 439
engagement and education.
Contract Term
The contract term remains unchanged, ending on Jan. 31, 2025.
Financial Impact
Upon approval of $400,000 in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contracts will not exceed $2,618,900. Funds are available in the Street Transportation
Department’s budget.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously approved:
· Street Transportation Department Public Outreach and Community Engagement
Services - Contracts 151322, 151323, 151324, 151325, 151326, 151327 -
(Ordinance S-46184) on Nov. 20, 2019;
· Street Transportation Department Public Outreach and Community Engagement
Services - Contract 151323 - (Ordinance S-48129) on Nov. 17, 2021;
· Arizona Governor's Office of Highway Safety Grant Agreement - Amendment -
Contract 136645 (Ordinance S-49026) on Sept. 21, 2022;
· Street Transportation Department Public Outreach and Community Engagement
Services - Contracts 151322, 151323, 151324, 151325, 151326, 151327 -
(Ordinance S-50165) on Sept. 20, 2023; and
· Street Transportation Department Public Outreach and Community Engagement
Services - Contracts 151322, 151323, 151324, 151325, 151326, 151327 -
(Ordinance S-50277-0020) on Nov. 1, 2023.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Street
Transportation Department.
Page 440
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Inspection On-Call Services for Fiscal Years 2024-25 to 2026-27 (Ordinance S-
50988)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into separate
agreements with the five consultants listed below, to provide Commercial AFP Plan
Review and Inspection On-Call services for the Planning and Development
Department for Fiscal Years 2024-25 to 2026-27. Further request to authorize
execution of amendments to the agreements as necessary within the Council-
approved expenditure authority as provided below, and for the City Controller to
disburse all funds related to this item. The total fee for all services will not exceed $1.7
million aggregate.
Additionally, request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to take all action
as may be necessary or appropriate and to execute all design and construction
agreements, licenses, permits, and requests for utility services relating to the
development, design, and construction of the project. Such utility services include, but
are not limited to: electrical, water, sewer, natural gas, telecommunications, cable
television, railroads and other modes of transportation. Further request the City
Council to grant an exception pursuant to Phoenix City Code 42-20 to authorize
inclusion in the documents pertaining to this transaction of indemnification and
assumption of liability provisions that otherwise should be prohibited by Phoenix City
Code 42-18. This authorization excludes any transaction involving an interest in real
property.
Summary
The On-Call consultants will be responsible for providing Commercial AFP Plan
Review and Inspection On-Call services that include, but are not limited to: review of
plans and inspections of new construction, alterations, and repairs submitted by
commercial property owners for compliance with the Phoenix Building Construction
Code and Fire Code.
Procurement Information
The selections were made using a qualifications-based selection process set forth in
section 34-604 of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.). In accordance with A.R.S.
Page 441
section 34-604(H), the City may not publicly release information on proposals received
or the scoring results until an agreement is awarded. Eight firms submitted proposals
and are listed below.
Selected Firms
Rank 1: OnSite Engineering, P.L.C.
Rank 2: Willdan Engineering, Inc.
Rank 3: Bureau Veritas North America, Inc.
Rank 4: Shums Coda Associates, Inc.
Rank 5: SAFEbuilt Arizona, LLC
Additional Proposers
Rank 6: Nova Performance Group, LLC
Rank 7: Coffman Engineers, Inc.
Rank 8: MZ Engineering, LLC
Contract Term
The term of each agreement is up to three years, or up to $1.7 million, whichever
occurs first. Work scope identified and incorporated into the agreement prior to the end
of the term may be agreed to by the parties, and work may extend past the termination
of the agreement. No additional changes may be executed after the end of the term.
Financial Impact
The agreement value for each of the On-Call consultants will not exceed $1.7 million,
including all subconsultant and reimbursable costs. The total fee for all services will not
exceed $1.7 million aggregate with no one contract to exceed $1.7 million.
Funding is available in the Planning and Development Department’s Operating budget.
The Budget and Research Department will review and approve funding availability
prior to issuance of any On-Call task order of $100,000 or more. Payments may be
made up to agreement limits for all rendered agreement services, which may extend
past the agreement termination.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Alan Stephenson and Inger Erickson,
the Planning and Development Department and the City Engineer.
Page 442
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Building Field Inspection On-Call Services for Fiscal Years 2024-25 to 2026-27
(Ordinance S-50989)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into separate
agreements with the eight consultants listed below, to provide Residential, Commercial
and Fire Building Field Inspection On-Call services for the Planning and Development
Department for Fiscal Years 2024-25 to 2026-27. Further request to authorize
execution of amendments to the agreements as necessary within the Council-
approved expenditure authority as provided below, and for the City Controller to
disburse all funds related to this item. The total fee for all services will not exceed
$6.25 million aggregate.
Additionally, request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to take all action
as may be necessary or appropriate and to execute all design and construction
agreements, licenses, permits, and requests for utility services relating to the
development, design, and construction of the project. Such utility services include, but
are not limited to: electrical, water, sewer, natural gas, telecommunications, cable
television, railroads and other modes of transportation. Further request the City
Council to grant an exception pursuant to Phoenix City Code 42-20 to authorize
inclusion in the documents pertaining to this transaction of indemnification and
assumption of liability provisions that otherwise should be prohibited by Phoenix City
Code 42-18. This authorization excludes any transaction involving an interest in real
property.
Summary
The On-Call consultants will be responsible for providing Residential, Commercial and
Fire Building Field Inspection On-Call services that include, but are not limited to: field
inspections of new construction, alterations, remodels and repairs submitted by
residential and commercial property owners for compliance with the Phoenix Building
Construction Code and Fire Code.
Procurement Information
The selections were made using a qualifications-based selection process set forth in
section 34-604 of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.). In accordance with A.R.S.
Page 443
section 34-604(H), the City may not publicly release information on proposals received
or the scoring results until an agreement is awarded. Nine firms submitted proposals
and are listed below.
Selected Firms
Rank 1: Willdan Engineering, Inc.
Rank 2: Shums Coda Associates, Inc.
Rank 3: OnSite Engineering, P.L.C.
Rank 4: Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.
Rank 5: Bureau Veritas North America, Inc.
Rank 6: Grubbs Consulting, LLC
Rank 7: True North Compliance Services, Inc.
Rank 8: SAFEbuilt Arizona, LLC
Additional Proposer
Rank 9: Coffman Engineers, Inc.
Contract Term
The term of each agreement is up to three years, or up to $6.25 million, whichever
occurs first. Work scope identified and incorporated into the agreement prior to the end
of the term may be agreed to by the parties, and work may extend past the termination
of the agreement. No additional changes may be executed after the end of the term.
Financial Impact
The agreement value for each of the On-Call consultants will not exceed $6.25 million,
including all subconsultant and reimbursable costs. The total fee for all services will not
exceed $6.25 million aggregate with no one contract to exceed $6.25 million.
Funding is available in the Planning and Development Department’s Operating budget.
The Budget and Research Department will review and approve funding availability
prior to issuance of any On-Call task order of $100,000 or more. Payments may be
made up to agreement limits for all rendered agreement services, which may extend
past the agreement termination.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Alan Stephenson and Inger Erickson,
the Planning and Development Department and the City Engineer.
Page 444
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Building Plan Review On-Call Services for Fiscal Years 2024-25 to 2026-27
(Ordinance S-50990)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into separate
agreements with the ten consultants to provide Residential, Commercial and Fire
Building Plan Review On-Call services for the Planning and Development Department
for Fiscal Years 2024-25 to 2026-27. Further request to authorize execution of
amendments to the agreements as necessary within the Council-approved expenditure
authority as provided below, and for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to
this item. The total fee for all services will not exceed $5 million aggregate.
Additionally, request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to take all action
as may be necessary or appropriate and to execute all design and construction
agreements, licenses, permits, and requests for utility services relating to the
development, design, and construction of the project. Such utility services include, but
are not limited to: electrical, water, sewer, natural gas, telecommunications, cable
television, railroads and other modes of transportation. Further request the City
Council to grant an exception pursuant to Phoenix City Code 42-20 to authorize
inclusion in the documents pertaining to this transaction of indemnification and
assumption of liability provisions that otherwise should be prohibited by Phoenix City
Code 42-18. This authorization excludes any transaction involving an interest in real
property.
Summary
The On-Call consultants will be responsible for providing Residential, Commercial and
Fire On-Call services that include, but are not limited to: reviews of plans for new
construction, alterations, remodels and repairs submitted by residential and
commercial property owners for compliance with the Phoenix Building Construction
Code and Fire Code.
Procurement Information
The selections were made using a qualifications-based selection process set forth in
section 34-604 of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.). In accordance with A.R.S.
section 34-604(H), the City may not publicly release information on proposals received
Page 445
or the scoring results until an agreement is awarded. Fourteen firms submitted
proposals and are listed in Attachment A.
Contract Term
The term of each agreement is up to three years, or up to $5 million, whichever occurs
first. Work scope identified and incorporated into the agreement prior to the end of the
term may be agreed to by the parties, and work may extend past the termination of the
agreement. No additional changes may be executed after the end of the term.
Financial Impact
The agreement value for each of the On-Call consultants will not exceed $5 million,
including all subconsultant and reimbursable costs. The total fee for all services will not
exceed $5 million aggregate with no one contract to exceed $5 million.
Funding is available in the Planning and Development Department’s Operating budget.
The Budget and Research Department will review and approve funding availability
prior to issuance of any On-Call task order of $100,000 or more. Payments may be
made up to agreement limits for all rendered agreement services, which may extend
past the agreement termination.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Alan Stephenson and Inger Erickson,
the Planning and Development Department and the City Engineer.
Page 446
Attachment A
Selected Firms
Rank 1: 4LEAF, Inc.
Rank 2: Bureau Veritas North America, Inc.
Rank 3: Brown & Associates Certified Inspection Services, Inc.
Rank 4: SAFEbuilt Arizona, LLC
Rank 5: Willdan Engineering, Inc.
Rank 6: Shums Coda Associates, Inc.
Rank 7: OnSite Engineering, P.L.C.
Rank 8: Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.
Rank 9: MZ Engineering, LLC
Rank 10: Precision Design Consultants, PLLC
Additional Proposers
Rank 11: Coffman Engineers, Inc.
Rank 12: True North Compliance Services, Inc.
Rank 13: West Coast Code Consultants, Inc.
Rank 14: Nova Performance Group, LLC
Page 447
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
for Fiscal Years 2024-25 to 2026-27 (Ordinance S-50991)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into separate
agreements with the seven consultants to provide Civil Field Inspection On-Call
services for the Planning and Development Department for Fiscal Years 2024-25 to
2026-27. Further request to authorize execution of amendments to the agreements as
necessary within the Council-approved expenditure authority as provided below, and
for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The total fee for all
services will not exceed $6.5 million aggregate.
Additionally, request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to take all action
as may be necessary or appropriate and to execute all design and construction
agreements, licenses, permits, and requests for utility services relating to the
development, design, and construction of the project. Such utility services include, but
are not limited to: electrical, water, sewer, natural gas, telecommunications, cable
television, railroads and other modes of transportation. Further request the City
Council to grant an exception pursuant to Phoenix City Code 42-20 to authorize
inclusion in the documents pertaining to this transaction of indemnification and
assumption of liability provisions that otherwise should be prohibited by Phoenix City
Code 42-18. This authorization excludes any transaction involving an interest in real
property.
Summary
The On-Call consultants will be responsible for providing Civil Field Inspection On-Call
services that include, but are not limited to: civil field inspections of site for grading and
drainage, sewer, water, storm drain concrete and paving projects, and civil
infrastructure construction associated with private developments.
Procurement Information
The selections were made using a qualifications-based selection process set forth in
section 34-604 of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.). In accordance with A.R.S.
section 34-604(H), the City may not publicly release information on proposals received
or the scoring results until an agreement is awarded. Fourteen firms submitted
proposals and are listed in Attachment A.
Page 448
Contract Term
The term of each agreement is up to three years, or up to $6.5 million, whichever
occurs first. Work scope identified and incorporated into the agreement prior to the end
of the term may be agreed to by the parties, and work may extend past the termination
of the agreement. No additional changes may be executed after the end of the term.
Financial Impact
The agreement value for each of the On-Call consultants will not exceed $6.5 million,
including all subconsultant and reimbursable costs. The total fee for all services will not
exceed $6.5 million aggregate with no one contract to exceed $6.5 million.
Funding is available in the Planning and Development Department’s Operating budget.
The Budget and Research Department will review and approve funding availability
prior to issuance of any On-Call task order of $100,000 or more. Payments may be
made up to agreement limits for all rendered agreement services, which may extend
past the agreement termination.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Alan Stephenson and Inger Erickson,
the Planning and Development Department and the City Engineer.
Page 449
Attachment A
Selected Firms
Rank 1: Tristar Engineering & Management, Inc.
Rank 2: Quality Testing, LLC
Rank 3: Consulting Engineering, Inc.
Rank 4: Elite Pride Inspection Consulting, LLC
Rank 5: Civil Solutions Engineering & Management, LLC
Rank 6: 2nd Round Consulting, LLC
Rank 7: Ardurra Group, Inc.
Additional Proposers
Rank 8: Sama Construction Services Corporation
Rank 9: Tam Consulting Services, LLC
Rank 10: Wood, Patel & Associates, Inc.
Rank 11: T.Y. Lin International, Inc.
Rank 12: True North Compliance Services, Inc.
Rank 13: Alta CMTI, LLC dba Alta Arizona
Rank 14: Bureau Veritas North America, Inc.
Page 450
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Fiscal Years 2024-25 to 2026-27 (Ordinance S-50992)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into separate
agreements with the ten consultants to provide Civil Plan Review On-Call services for
the Planning and Development Department for Fiscal Years 2024-25 to 2026-27.
Further request to authorize execution of amendments to the agreements as
necessary within the Council-approved expenditure authority as provided below, and
for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The total fee for all
services will not exceed $3.25 million aggregate.
Additionally, request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to take all action
as may be necessary or appropriate and to execute all design and construction
agreements, licenses, permits, and requests for utility services relating to the
development, design, and construction of the project. Such utility services include, but
are not limited to: electrical, water, sewer, natural gas, telecommunications, cable
television, railroads and other modes of transportation. Further request the City
Council to grant an exception pursuant to Phoenix City Code 42-20 to authorize
inclusion in the documents pertaining to this transaction of indemnification and
assumption of liability provisions that otherwise should be prohibited by Phoenix City
Code 42-18. This authorization excludes any transaction involving an interest in real
property.
Summary
The On-Call consultants will be responsible for providing Civil Plan Review On-Call
services that include, but are not limited to: civil reviews of plans as submitted to the
City by private property owners for permit issuance purposes. These code reviews
include grading and drainage, storm water management, storm drain facilities,
concrete, and street paving.
Procurement Information
The selections were made using a qualifications-based selection process set forth in
section 34-604 of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.). In accordance with A.R.S.
section 34-604(H), the City may not publicly release information on proposals received
or the scoring results until an agreement is awarded. Sixteen firms submitted
Page 451
proposals and are listed in Attachment A.
Contract Term
The term of each agreement is up to three years, or up to $3.25 million, whichever
occurs first. Work scope identified and incorporated into the agreement prior to the end
of the term may be agreed to by the parties, and work may extend past the termination
of the agreement. No additional changes may be executed after the end of the term.
Financial Impact
The agreement value for each of the On-Call consultants will not exceed $3.25 million,
including all subconsultant and reimbursable costs. The total fee for all services will not
exceed $3.25 million aggregate with no one contract to exceed $3.25 million.
Funding is available in the Planning and Development Department's Operating budget.
The Budget and Research Department will review and approve funding availability
prior to issuance of any On-Call task order of $100,000 or more. Payments may be
made up to agreement limits for all rendered agreement services, which may extend
past the agreement termination.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Alan Stephenson and Inger Erickson,
the Planning and Development Department and the City Engineer.
Page 452
Attachment A
Selected Firms
Rank 1: Strand Associates, Inc.
Rank 2: Entellus, Inc.
Rank 3: Bowman Consulting Group, Ltd.
Rank 4: SAFEbuilt Arizona, LLC
Rank 5: Olsson, Inc.
Rank 6: Ardurra Group, Inc.
Rank 7: Sunrise Engineering, Inc.
Rank 8: Willdan Engineering, Inc.
Rank 9: Huitt-Zollars, Inc.
Rank 10: 2nd Round Consulting, LLC
Additional Proposers
Rank 11: T.Y. Lin International, Inc.
Rank 12: True North Compliance Services, Inc.
Rank 13: FS Engineering, LLC
Rank 14: TriStar Engineering & Management, Inc.
Rank 15: Nova Performance Group, Inc.
Rank 16: Bureau Veritas North America, Inc.
Page 453
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Call Services for Fiscal Years 2024-25 to 2026-27 (Ordinance S-50993)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into separate
agreements with the three consultants listed below, to provide Elevator Plan Review
and Inspection On-Call services for the Planning and Development Department for
Fiscal Years 2024-25 to 2026-27. Further request to authorize execution of
amendments to the agreements as necessary within the Council-approved expenditure
authority as provided below, and for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to
this item. The total fee for all services will not exceed $625,000 aggregate.
Additionally, request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to take all action
as may be necessary or appropriate and to execute all design and construction
agreements, licenses, permits, and requests for utility services relating to the
development, design, and construction of the project. Such utility services include, but
are not limited to: electrical, water, sewer, natural gas, telecommunications, cable
television, railroads and other modes of transportation. Further request the City
Council to grant an exception pursuant to Phoenix City Code 42-20 to authorize
inclusion in the documents pertaining to this transaction of indemnification and
assumption of liability provisions that otherwise should be prohibited by Phoenix City
Code 42-18. This authorization excludes any transaction involving an interest in real
property.
Summary
The On-Call consultants will be responsible for providing Elevator Plan Review and
Inspection On-Call services that include, but are not limited to: equipment plan review
and/or periodic inspections per American Society of Mechanical Engineers Elevator
Code for traction elevators, hydraulic elevators, escalators, lifts, and dumbwaiters for
work as submitted to the City by private property owners for permit issuance purposes.
Procurement Information
The selections were made using a qualifications-based selection process set forth in
section 34-604 of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.). In accordance with A.R.S.
section 34-604(H), the City may not publicly release information on proposals received
or the scoring results until an agreement is awarded. Three firms submitted proposals
Page 454
and are listed below.
Selected Firms
Rank 1: ATIS Elevator Inspections, LLC
Rank 2: Shums Coda Associates, Inc.
Rank 3: Bureau Veritas - National Elevator Inspection Services, Inc.
Contract Term
The term of each agreement is up to three years, or up to $625,000, whichever occurs
first. Work scope identified and incorporated into the agreement prior to the end of the
term may be agreed to by the parties, and work may extend past the termination of the
agreement. No additional changes may be executed after the end of the term.
Financial Impact
The agreement value for each of the On-Call consultants will not exceed $625,000,
including all subconsultant and reimbursable costs. The total fee for all services will not
exceed $625,000 aggregate with no one contract to exceed $625,000.
Funding is available in the Planning and Development Department's Operating budget.
The Budget and Research Department will review and approve funding availability
prior to issuance of any On-Call task order of $100,000 or more. Payments may be
made up to agreement limits for all rendered agreement services, which may extend
past the agreement termination.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Alan Stephenson and Inger Erickson,
the Planning and Development Department and the City Engineer.
Page 455
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
and Inventory/Salvage Plan Review and Inspections On-Call Services for Fiscal
Years 2024-25 to 2026-27 (Ordinance S-50994)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into separate
agreements with the four consultants listed below, to provide Residential and
Commercial Landscape and Inventory/Salvage Plan Review and Inspections On-Call
services for the Planning and Development Department for Fiscal Years 2024-25 to
2026-27. Further request to authorize execution of amendments to the agreements as
necessary within the Council-approved expenditure authority as provided below, and
for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The total fee for all
services will not exceed $2.2 million aggregate.
Additionally, request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to take all action
as may be necessary or appropriate and to execute all design and construction
agreements, licenses, permits, and requests for utility services relating to the
development, design, and construction of the project. Such utility services include, but
are not limited to: electrical, water, sewer, natural gas, telecommunications, cable
television, railroads and other modes of transportation. Further request the City
Council to grant an exception pursuant to Phoenix City Code 42-20 to authorize
inclusion in the documents pertaining to this transaction of indemnification and
assumption of liability provisions that otherwise should be prohibited by Phoenix City
Code 42-18. This authorization excludes any transaction involving an interest in real
property.
Summary
The On-Call consultants will be responsible for providing Residential and Commercial
Landscape and Inventory/Salvage Plan Review and Inspections On-Call services that
include, but are not limited to: conducting code reviews of or preparing plans for
hillside/grading and drainage, inventory and salvage of existing native and non-native
plants, and new proposed landscaping and irrigation as submitted to the City by
private property owners for permit issuance purposes.
Procurement Information
The selections were made using a qualifications-based selection process set forth in
Page 456
section 34-604 of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.). In accordance with A.R.S.
section 34-604(H), the City may not publicly release information on proposals received
or the scoring results until an agreement is awarded. Four firms submitted proposals
and are listed below.
Selected Firms
Rank 1: Terracon Consultants, Inc.
Rank 2: Waibel & Associates Landscape Architecture, LLC
Rank 3: AZTEC Engineering Group, Inc.
Rank 4: Harrington Planning & Design, LLC
Contract Term
The term of each agreement is up to three years, or up to $2.2 million, whichever
occurs first. Work scope identified and incorporated into the agreement prior to the end
of the term may be agreed to by the parties, and work may extend past the termination
of the agreement. No additional changes may be executed after the end of the term.
Financial Impact
The agreement value for each of the On-Call consultants will not exceed $2.2 million,
including all subconsultant and reimbursable costs. The total fee for all services will not
exceed $2.2 million aggregate with no one contract to exceed $2.2 million.
Funding is available in the Planning and Development Department’s Operating budget.
The Budget and Research Department will review and approve funding availability
prior to issuance of any On-Call task order of $100,000 or more. Payments may be
made up to agreement limits for all rendered agreement services, which may extend
past the agreement termination.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Alan Stephenson and Inger Erickson,
the Planning and Development Department and the City Engineer.
Page 457
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Park - PA75200680-1 (Ordinance S-51030)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a Distribution
Design and Construction Contract with Salt River Project (SRP) for work associated
with City of Phoenix project PA75200680-1, Harvest Park at 5400 W. Gwen St. Further
request the City Council to grant an exception pursuant to Phoenix City Code 42-20 to
authorize inclusion in the documents pertaining to this transaction of indemnification
and assumption of liability provisions that otherwise would be prohibited by Phoenix
City Code 42-18. Additionally request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all
funds related to this item. The total value of this contract will not exceed $37,086.52.
Summary
The Parks and Recreation Department constructed a new neighborhood park at 5400
W. Gwen St., that required new electrical facilities for irrigation, ramada and sport court
lighting. The contract represents the cost of SRP’s design and construction services
required to provide new power to the site. The work associated with this contract is in
conjunction with City project PA75200680-1.
Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about June 26, 2024, and will expire when the project is
complete and payment is received by SRP.
Financial Impact
Funding in the amount of $37,086.52 is available in the Parks and Recreation
Department Capital Improvement Program budget.
Location
55th Avenue and Gwen Street
Council District: 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers John Chan and Inger Erickson, the
Parks and Recreation Department and the City Engineer.
Page 458
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
(Ordinance S-51017)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to accept Hunter Contracting
Co. as the lowest-priced, responsive and responsible bidder and to enter into an
agreement with Hunter Contracting Co. for Design-Bid-Build Services for the Lift
Station 76 Phase II Expansion project. Further request to authorize the City Controller
to disburse all funds related to this item. The fee for services will not exceed
$5,872,522.70, including any change orders.
Summary
The purpose of this project is to construct a 2.2 millions of gallons per day (MGD)
expansion. The expansion will include a new larger wetwell, submersible pumps,
above ground force main header piping and appurtenances, odor control system,
chemical facility, and an 18-inch gravity sewer extension.
Hunter Contracting Co.'s services include, but are not limited to: construction and
installation of a new sanitary sewer pipeline, manholes, biofilter and ancillary
equipment, lift station wet well, force main, reconnection to existing on-site electrical
and instrumentation equipment, and de-energize and/or decommission energized Lift
Station 76 equipment.
Procurement Information
The selection was made using an Invitation for Bids procurement process set forth in
section 34-201 of the Arizona Revised Statutes. Two bids were received on May 7,
2024, and were sent to the Equal Opportunity Department for review to determine
subcontractor eligibility and contractor responsiveness in demonstrating
responsiveness to Small Business Enterprise program requirements.
The Opinion of Probable Cost and the two lowest responsive, responsible bidders are
listed below:
· Opinion of Probable Cost: $5,077,350
· Hunter Contracting Co.: $5,338,657
· Walker River Construction, Inc.: $6,593,593
Page 459
Due to volatile material costs and increased labor prices in the construction industry, a
10 percent contingency is being requested to allow for project uncertainties. The initial
contract will be executed at the bid amount of $5,338,657. Use of the 10 percent
contingency above the amount will not be allowed without the prior written approval of
the Water Services Department Director and the City Engineer. The bid award amount
is within the total budget for this project.
Contract Term
The term of the agreement is 548 calendar days from issuance of the Notice to
Proceed. Work scope identified and incorporated into the agreement prior to the end of
the term may be agreed to by the parties, and work may extend past the termination of
the agreement. No additional changes may be executed after the end of the term.
Financial Impact
The initial agreement value for Hunter Contracting Co. will not exceed $5,338,657,
including all subcontractor and reimbursable costs. The total agreement value,
including any change orders, for Hunter Contracting Co. will not exceed
$5,872,522.70, including all subcontractor and reimbursable costs.
Funding is available in the Water Services Department's Capital Improvement Program
budget. The Budget and Research Department will separately review and approve
funding availability prior to execution of any amendments. Payments may be made up
to agreement limits for all rendered agreement services, which may extend past the
agreement termination.
Location
Interstate 17 north of Joy Ranch Road
Council District: 1
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Ginger Spencer and Inger Erickson,
the Water Services Department and the City Engineer.
Page 460
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
On-Call Services (Ordinance S-51021)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into separate
agreements with the three consultants listed below to provide Dam and Levee Safety
Advisor Engineering On-Call Services for the Street Transportation Department.
Further request to authorize execution of amendments to the agreements as
necessary within the Council-approved expenditure authority as provided below, and
for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The total fee for all
services will not exceed $15 million.
Additionally, request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to take all action
as may be necessary or appropriate and to execute all design and construction
agreements, licenses, permits, and requests for utility services relating to the
development, design, and construction of the project. Such utility services include, but
are not limited to: electrical, water, sewer, natural gas, telecommunications, cable
television, railroads and other modes of transportation. Further request the City
Council to grant an exception pursuant to Phoenix City Code 42-20 to authorize
inclusion in the documents pertaining to this transaction of indemnification and
assumption of liability provisions that otherwise should be prohibited by Phoenix City
Code 42-18. This authorization excludes any transaction involving an interest in real
property.
Summary
The purpose of this On-Call is to provide a broad range of services crucial for the
effective inspection and maintenance of dams and levees.
The On-Call consultants will be responsible for providing Dam and Levee Safety
Advisor Engineering On-Call services that include, but are not limited to: hydraulic and
hydrology modeling and design analysis, geotechnical investigations, design, material
selection and specifications, environmental considerations, and monitoring systems,
regular visual inspections according to industry standards and regulatory
requirements, prepare detailed reports, quality assurance and quality control,
compliance and permitting, emergency response, and other work as required.
Page 461
Procurement Information
The selections were made using a qualifications-based selection process set forth in
section 34-604 of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.). In accordance with A.R.S.
section 34-604(H), the City may not publicly release information on proposals received
or the scoring results until an agreement is awarded. Five firms submitted proposals
and are listed below.
Selected Firms
Rank 1: Gannett Fleming, Inc.
Rank 2: Black & Veatch Corporation
Rank 3: HDR Engineering, Inc.
Additional Proposers
Rank 4: Wilson & Company, Inc., Engineers & Architects
Rank 5: Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
Contract Term
The term of each agreement is up to five years, or up to $5 million, whichever occurs
first. Work scope identified and incorporated into the agreement prior to the end of the
term may be agreed to by the parties, and work may extend past the termination of the
agreement. No additional changes may be executed after the end of the term.
Financial Impact
The agreement value for each of the On-Call consultants will not exceed $5 million,
including all subconsultant and reimbursable costs. The total fee for all services will not
exceed $15 million.
Funding is available in the Street Transportation Department’s Capital Improvement
Program budget. The Budget and Research Department will review and approve
funding availability prior to issuance of any On-Call task order of $100,000 or more.
Payments may be made up to agreement limits for all rendered agreement services,
which may extend past the agreement termination.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson, the Street
Transportation Department and the City Engineer.
Page 462
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Homes of Arizona, Inc. and Seasons at Vista Del Sur Development (Ordinance S-
51024)
Request authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into the
Maintenance Agreement with Richmond American Homes of Arizona, Inc. a Delaware
Corporation, the developer, and owner of Seasons at Vista Del Sur Development to
reimburse the City for maintenance of force main facilities.
Summary
Developer or successor-in-interest (collectively, "Developer") is constructing a 153-lot
subdivision located on the northeast corner of 99th and Southern avenues in Phoenix,
Arizona.
The property requires force main facilities to provide wastewater service to the
development. The force main facilities consist of two three-inch sewer force mains for
connection to city sewer infrastructure in and along Mobile Lane, through 99th Avenue,
in a Maricopa County Right of Way. Because the county will not allow privately owned
force main sewers in its right of way, the Developer will dedicate the force main
facilities to the city.
The City is willing to accept the force main facilities subject to the Developer agreeing
to pay for the maintenance and replacement costs.
Contract Term
The Agreement extends in perpetuity provided Developer makes all payments in
accordance with the agreement or until cancelled by written agreement of the parties.
The revenue will go into the operational funds cost center for Lift Stations.
Financial Impact
The Developer shall pay an annual payment maintenance payment of $3,000 on or
before May 30, of each year and continuing for the term of the Agreement.
In addition, Developer shall reimburse the city for the replacement costs if the city
Page 463
determines all or part of the force main facilities require replacement.
The Developer shall reimburse the city for maintenance and replacement costs within
30 days after the receipt of the City's invoice or interest will accrue at the rate
prescribed by Arizona Revised Statutes 44-1201.
Location
In and along Mobile Lane through 99th Avenue
Council District: 7
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Water
Services Department.
Page 464
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
2028-29 - Engineering Services - 8425302000 (Ordinance S-50965)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with Wilson Engineers, LLC to provide Engineering Services for the Sub-Regional
Operating Group Support Services Fiscal Years 2024-25 through 2028-29 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
$4.5 million.
Additionally, request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to take all action
as may be necessary or appropriate and to execute all design and construction
agreements, licenses, permits, and requests for utility services related to the
development, design and construction of the project. Such utility services include, but
are not limited to: electrical, water, sewer, natural gas, telecommunication, cable
television, railroads and other modes of transportation. Further request the City
Council to grant an exception to Phoenix City Code 42-20 to authorize inclusion in the
documents pertaining to this transaction of indemnification and assumption of liability
provisions that otherwise should be prohibited by Phoenix City Code 42-18. This
authorization excludes any transaction involving an interest in real property.
Summary
The purpose of this project is to provide services in support of the Sub-Regional
Operating Group (SROG) and the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for the 91st
Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) and Tres Rios Wetlands. The 91st
Avenue WWTP is located on an approximately 667-acre site just east of 91st Avenue,
south of Broadway Road and north of Southern Avenue. The Tres Rios Wetlands is
located on an approximately 500-acre site just west of 91st Avenue, south of
Broadway Road and north of the Salt River. The operating costs are shared among the
SROG cities by measuring the wastewater flow and collecting samples to determine
the wastewater strength each city contributes to the 91st Avenue WWTP.
Consequently, there are 14 billing meter stations, nine inline meter stations, and five
monitoring meter stations within the SROG wastewater conveyance system. The
monthly billing and annual year end settlement are based upon the JEPA reporting and
Page 465
related support services. Consulting engineering firms have been performing these
support services for over 25 years. A model has been developed which processes
pertinent data to calculate the billing amounts. Portions of this model are currently
running on the SROG Management Information System website.
Wilson Engineers, LLC’s services include, but are not limited to: weekly flow meter
monitoring, monthly flow reports, monthly flow and loading reports, monthly biogas
production reports, monthly air permitting reports, quarterly biogas delivery and
payment reports, year-end flow and loading reporting, year-end effluent delivery report,
audit of meters and sampling stations, future projections (91st Avenue WWTP flow and
loading, SROG cities flow and loading, Tres Rios usage, Palo Verde Nuclear
Generating Station usage), maintenance of SROG Management Information System
website, and special requests by SROG cities.
The 91st Avenue WWTP, Tres Rios Wetlands, associated interceptors (Salt River
Outfall and Southern Avenue Interceptor), and metering/sampling stations are owned
by SROG and operated by the City of Phoenix.
Procurement Information
The selection was made using a qualifications-based selection process set forth in
section 34-603 of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.). In accordance with A.R.S.
section 34-603(H), the City may not publicly release information on proposals received
or the scoring results until an agreement is awarded. One firm submitted a proposal
and is listed below.
Selected Firm
Rank 1: Wilson Engineers, LLC
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 Wilson Engineers, LLC will not exceed $4.5 million, including
all subconsultant and reimbursable costs.
Funding is available in the Water Services Department's Operating budget utilizing
SROG funds. The Budget and Research Department will separately review and
approve funding availability prior to execution of any amendments. Payments may by
Page 466
made up to agreement limits for all rendered agreement services, which may extend
past the agreement termination.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The SROG advisors authorized the project on July 14, 2023.
Location
91st Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant, Tres Rios Wetlands, and metering stations
located throughout the City.
Council Districts: 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and Out of City
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Ginger Spencer and Inger Erickson,
the Water Services Department, and the City Engineer.
Page 467
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute amendments to
Agreement 139903 with Evoqua Water Technologies, LLC dba EWT Holdings III
Corporation to provide additional funding to the agreement. Further request to
authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The additional
expenditures will not exceed $1,000,000.
Summary
The purpose of the amendment is to request additional spending authority to continue
to provide the Water Services Department with the supply of odor and corrosion
control services. The additional funds are needed to continue to provide odor control
and corrosion chemicals, dosing equipment, monitoring services and onsite testing for
various sites. Furthermore, following tank tests, units may be deemed end of life which
will result in the purchase of replacement tanks at the respective sites.
This agreement is necessary for the as-needed supply of odor control and corrosion
chemicals, monitoring services, and replacement equipment.
Contract Term
The contract term remains unchanged, ending on Dec. 31, 2024.
Financial Impact
Currently, the authorization for Odor and Corrosion Control Services is
$21,197,717.88. This request will amend the agreement to increase the not-to-exceed
value by $1,000,000 for a new total of $22,197,717.88.
Funding is available in the Water Services Department's Operating budget.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved:
· Odor and Corrosion Control Services Agreement 139903 (Ordinance S-41365) on
Dec. 17, 2014, for up to $10,097,717.88;
· Odor and Corrosion Control Services Agreement 139903 (Ordinance S-46059) on
Page 468
Oct. 2, 2019, for an additional $6,500,000 and;
· Odor and Corrosion Control Services Agreement 139903 (Ordinance S-49242) on
Dec. 14, 2022, for an additional $5,800,000.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Water
Services Department.
Page 469
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Electrical, Instrumentation and Control Inspections and Testing - Engineering
Support Services - WS90200037 and WS90400078 (Ordinance S-50975)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into separate
agreements with two consultants listed below to provide Engineering Support Services
during design, construction, startup and commissioning for all projects associated with
the 23rd Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant and Wastewater Remote Facilities
Electrical Instrumentation and Control Inspections and Testing Engineering Services
project. Further request to authorize execution of amendments to the agreements as
necessary within the Council-approved expenditure authority as provided below, and
for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The total fee for all
services will not exceed $3.6 million.
Additionally, request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to take all action
as may be necessary or appropriate and to execute all design and construction
agreements, licenses, permits, and requests for utility services related to the
development, design and construction of the project. Such utility services include, but
are not limited to: electrical, water, sewer, natural gas, telecommunication, cable
television, railroads and other modes of transportation. Further request the City
Council to grant an exception to Phoenix City Code section 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 section 42-18. This authorization excludes any transaction involving an interest
in real property.
Summary
The purpose of this project is to assist with projects at the facility to improve the
functionality, efficiency, and maintenance of the electrical, instrumentation and control
systems. The City has developed electrical, instrumentation and control standards for
the entire Water Services Department which are used to provide consistency
throughout the department. One of the objectives will be to assist the City in ensuring
adherence to these standards on all projects during the design, construction,
calibration, testing and commissioning of the electrical, instrumentation and control
systems. They will provide operations and maintenance support when City staff are
Page 470
replacing existing equipment or installing new equipment. Additionally, they will provide
Arc Flash Hazard Analysis services by providing support to update and maintain Arc
Flash modeling and documentation for compliance with National Fire Protection
Agency (NFPA) requirements.
The Engineering consultants services include, but are not limited to:
Design support services consisting of technical support and consultations relative to
installation techniques and procedures, ensuring adherence to the City standards, and
ensuring adherence to applicable electrical codes. They will attend design meetings
and demonstrations, support research of existing conditions, conduct design reviews,
and support facility-wide understanding of the Water Services Department's standards
for electrical, instrumentation and control systems. In addition, they may be required to
support City staff in updating and maintaining the Water Services Department's
standards as necessary.
Construction support services consist of reviewing equipment submittals, conducting
reviews on the equipment installation, providing field observations reports, participating
in factory testing, reviewing the completeness of required equipment testing
documentation and witnessing the instrumentation calibrations and loop checks.
Commissioning support services consist of providing assistance on computer control
strategy checkout, tuning of control loops, and performing loop tests, troubleshooting
for the computer control system programmers, maintaining designated instruments
through final acceptance, educating the plant staff on the systems, supporting the
maintenance staff on developing maintenance procedures for designated equipment
and reviewing the accuracy of the as-built documentation for electrical drawings and
the process and instrumentation diagrams.
They will be required to provide Arc Flash Hazardous Testing services using a
professional electrical engineer. The Arc Flash Hazardous Testing will include as-
building existing single line diagrams, conducting load calculations for motor control
centers, switchgear and power panels, and having the knowledge to conduct a power
system study. The selected firm will be required to access energized equipment and
provide all arc flash safety personal protective gear that meets the requirements of
NFPA.
Procurement Information
The selections were made using a qualifications-based selection process set forth in
section 34-604 of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.). In accordance with A.R.S.
section 234-604(H), the City may not publicly release information on proposals
Page 471
received or the scoring results until an agreement is awarded. Four firms submitted
proposals and are listed below.
Selected Firms
Rank 1: Arcadis U.S., Inc.
Rank 2: Black & Veatch Corporation
Additional Proposers
Rank 3: OZ Engineering
Rank 4: Stanley Consultants, Inc.
Contract Term
The term of each agreement is five years from the issuance of the Notice to Proceed.
Work scope identified and incorporated into the agreement prior to the end of the term
may be agreed to by the parties, and work may extend past the termination of the
agreement. No additional changes may be executed after the end of the term.
Financial Impact
The total fee for all services will not exceed $3.6 million, including all subconsultant
and reimbursable costs.
Funding is available in the Water Services Department's Capital Improvement Program
budget. The Budget and Research Department will separately review and approve
funding availability prior to execution of any amendments. Payments may be made up
to agreement limits for all rendered agreement services, which may extend past the
agreement termination.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Ginger Spencer and Inger Erickson,
the Water Services Department and the City Engineer.
Page 472
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
WS90500303 (Ordinance S-50973)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to accept Talis Construction
Corporation as the lowest-priced, responsive and responsible bidder and to enter into
an agreement with Talis Construction Corporation for Design-Bid-Build Services for the
35th Avenue and Camelback Road Relief Sewer project. Further request to authorize
the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The fee for services will not
exceed $5,234,116, including any change orders.
Summary
The purpose of this project is to replace approximately 5,200 linear feet of existing 15-
inch sanitary sewer with new 21-inch sewer and approximately 800 linear feet of
existing 18-inch sanitary sewer with new 21-inch sewer in the area of 35th Avenue and
Camelback Road.
Talis Construction Corporation's services included, but are not limited to: providing a
construction schedule; removal and disposal of existing sewer pipe and manholes;
remove existing ornamental fencing and securely store until time for reinstallation;
flush all abandoned-in-place sewer lines prior to abandonment; and employ methods
and procedures that mitigate the generation and discharge of objectionable odors to
the surface environment at all times.
Procurement Information
The selection was made using an Invitation for Bids procurement process set forth in
section 34-201 of the Arizona Revised Statutes. Six bids were received on April 2,
2024, and were sent to the Equal Opportunity Department for review to determine
subcontractor eligibility and contractor responsiveness in demonstrating
responsiveness to Small Business Enterprise program requirements.
The Opinion of Probable Cost and the six lowest responsive, responsible bidders are
listed below:
Opinion of Probable Cost: $5,500,855
· Talis Construction Corporation: $4,758,286.86
Page 473
· Arrowmark LLC dba Local Underground Construction: $5,752,245.54
· TF Contracting Services LLC: $7,041,798.59
· Hunter Contracting Co.: $7,707,479
· TPL Construction Co.: $8,297,598.64
· Action Direct LLC dba Redpoint Contracting: $8,674,770
Due to volatile material costs and increased labor prices in the construction industry, a
10 percent contingency is being requested to allow for project uncertainties. The initial
contract will be executed at the bid amount of $4,758,286.86. Use of the 10 percent
contingency above the amount will not be allowed without the prior written approval of
the Water Services Department Director and the City Engineer. The bid award amount
is within the total budget for this project.
Contract Term
The term of the agreement is 280 calendar days from issuance of the Notice to
Proceed. Work scope identified and incorporated into the agreement prior to the end of
the term may be agreed to by the parties, and work may extend past the termination of
the agreement. No additional changes may be executed after the end of the term.
Financial Impact
The initial agreement value for Talis Construction Corporation will not exceed
$4,758,286.86, including all subcontractor and reimbursable costs. The total
agreement value, including any change orders, for Talis Construction Corporation will
not exceed $5,234,116, including all subcontractor and reimbursable costs.
Funding is available in the Water Services Department's Capital Improvement Program
budget. The Budget and Research Department will separately review and approve
funding availability prior to execution of any amendments. Payments may be made up
to agreement limits for all rendered agreement services, which may extend past the
agreement termination.
Location
Area Bounded by: 35th Avenue and Camelback Road
Council Districts: 4 and 5
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Ginger Spencer and Inger Erickson,
the Water Services Department and the City Engineer.
Page 474
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Services - WS85050019 (Ordinance S-50958)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with Black & Veatch Corporation, to provide Engineering Services that include design
and possible construction administration and inspection services for the Val Vista
Water Treatment Plant Reservoir 3 Major Rehabilitation project. Further request to
authorize execution of amendments to the agreement as necessary within the Council-
approved expenditure authority as provided below, and for the City Controller to
disburse all funds related to this item. The fee for services will not exceed $4.5 million.
Additionally, request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to take all action
as may be necessary or appropriate and to execute all design and construction
agreements, licenses, permits, and requests for utility services related to the
development, design and construction of the project. Such utility services include, but
are not limited to: electrical, water, sewer, natural gas, telecommunication, cable
television, railroads and other modes of transportation. Further request the City
Council to grant an exception to Phoenix City Code 42-20 to authorize inclusion in the
documents pertaining to this transaction of indemnification and assumption of liability
provisions that otherwise should be prohibited by Phoenix City Code 42-18. This
authorization excludes any transaction involving an interest in real property.
Summary
The purpose of this project is to provide a complete rehabilitation of Reservoir 3 at the
Val Vista Water Treatment Plant. The existing reservoir has a concrete potable water
reservoir with hopper-style side slopes and metal roof. The protective interior liner and
the roof have reached the end of their operational lifespan and need to be replaced.
Black & Veatch Corporation's services include, but are not limited to: assessment and
inspection of the reservoir as required for design; preparation of design documentation
and demolition plan for the removal and demolition of the existing membrane liner and
metal roof; prepare and submit an Opinion of Probable Construction Cost estimate;
and data collection and field survey, including geotechnical evaluation for construction
purposes.
Page 475
Procurement Information
The selection was made using a qualifications-based selection process set forth in
section 34-603 of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.). In accordance with A.R.S.
section 34-603(H), the City may not publicly release information on proposals received
or the scoring results until an agreement is awarded. Three firms submitted a proposal
and are listed below.
Selected Firm
Rank 1: Black & Veatch Corporation
Non-Selected Firms
Rank 2: Carollo Engineers, Inc.
Rank 3: HDR Engineering, Inc.
Contract Term
The term of the agreement is five years from the issuance of the Notice to Proceed.
Work scope identified and incorporated into the agreement prior to the end of the term
may be agreed to by the parties, and work may extend past the termination of the
agreement. No additional changes may be executed after the end of the term.
Financial Impact
The agreement value for Black & Veatch Corporation will not exceed $4.5 million,
including all subconsultant and reimbursable costs.
Funding is available in the Water Services Department's Capital Improvement Program
budget. The Budget and Research Department will separately review and approve
funding availability prior to execution of any amendments. Payments may be made up
to agreement limits for all rendered agreement services, which may extend past the
agreement termination.
Location
Gilbert Road and McDowell Road
Council District: Out of City
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Ginger Spencer and Inger Erickson,
the Water Services Department and the City Engineer.
Page 476
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Engineering Services - Amendment - WS85400001, WS85230054 and
WS85350009 (WS85400001 and WS85230054) (Ordinance S-50947)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Agreement 156391 with Wilson Engineers, LLC to provide additional Engineering
Services that include design and construction administration and inspection for the
Water Treatment Plants Job Order Contract Engineering Support Services project.
Further request to authorize execution of amendments to the agreement as necessary
within the Council-approved expenditure authority as provided below, and for the City
Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The additional fee for services
included in this amendment will not exceed $5 million.
Additionally, request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to take all action
as may be necessary or appropriate and to execute all design and construction
agreements, licenses, permits, and requests for utility services related to the
development, design and construction of the project. Such utility services include, but
are not limited to: electrical, water, sewer, natural gas, telecommunication, cable
television, railroads and other modes of transportation. Further request the City
Council to grant an exception to Phoenix City Code 42-20 to authorize inclusion in the
documents pertaining to this transaction of indemnification and assumption of liability
provisions that otherwise should be prohibited by Phoenix City Code 42-18. This
authorization excludes any transaction involving an interest in real property.
Summary
The purpose of this project is to perform design and construction administration and
inspection services on an as-needed basis for the Water Treatment Plants to support
the work of the Job Order Contract (JOC) contractors. Individual projects will be
identified by City staff for implementation under the JOC Program. Construction
projects will differ in size, scope, and complexity and typically have a cost range of
$5,000 to $4 million.
The amendment is necessary to add capacity to provide support for the Lake Pleasant
Water Treatment Plant. This amendment will provide additional funds and time to the
agreement.
Page 477
Wilson Engineers' additional services include, but are not limited to: performing project
assessments, alternative analysis, preparing construction documents, obtaining
required permits, coordinating with the City and JOC contractor, shop drawing review
and approval, construction inspection, preparing and coordinating Maintenance of
Plant Operations action plans, updating facility Electronic Operation & Maintenance
manuals, and providing asset hierarchy updates including retiring assets, new assets,
asset attributes, and preventive maintenance information.
Contract Term
The term of the agreement amendment is two years from the issuance of the Notice to
Proceed. Work scope identified and incorporated into the agreement prior to the end of
the term may be agreed to by the parties, and work may extend past the termination of
the agreement. No additional changes may be executed after the end of the term.
Financial Impact
· The initial agreement for Engineering Services was approved for an amount not to
exceed $8.8 million, including all subconsultant and reimbursable costs.
· This amendment will increase the agreement by an additional $5 million, for a new
total amount not to exceed $13.8 million, including all subconsultant and
reimbursable costs.
Funding is available in the Water Services Department's Capital Improvement Program
budget. The Budget and Research Department will separately review and approve
funding availability prior to execution of any amendments. Payments may be made up
to agreement limits for all rendered agreement services, which may extend past the
agreement termination.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved Job Order Contract Engineering Support Services
Agreement 156391 (Ordinance S-48715) on June 15, 2022.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Ginger Spencer and Inger Erickson,
the Water Services Department and the City Engineer.
Page 478
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Services - JOC230 (Ordinance S-51014)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into separate master
agreements with four contractors listed below, to provide Wastewater Treatment
Facilities Process Improvements Job Order Contracting services for the Water
Services Department. Further request to authorize execution of amendments to the
agreements as necessary within the Council-approved expenditure authority as
provided below, and for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.
The total fee for all services will not exceed $160 million.
Additionally, request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to take all action
as may be necessary or appropriate and to execute all design and construction
agreements, licenses, permits, and requests for utility services relating to the
development, design, and construction of the project. Such utility services include, but
are not limited to: electrical, water, sewer, natural gas, telecommunications, cable
television, railroads and other modes of transportation. Further request the City
Council to grant an exception pursuant to Phoenix City Code 42-20 to authorize
inclusion in the documents pertaining to this transaction of indemnification and
assumption of liability provisions that otherwise should be prohibited by Phoenix City
Code 42-18. This authorization excludes any transaction involving an interest in real
property.
Summary
The Job Order Contracting (JOC) contractors’ services will be used on an as-needed
basis to provide Wastewater Treatment Facilities Process Improvements Job Order
Contracting services for the installation or replacement of mechanical, electrical and
instrumentation and control equipment, programming, emergency repairs, pre and post
-construction services, and engineering design services as requested at City
wastewater facilities. Additionally, the JOC contractors will be responsible for fulfilling
Small Business Enterprise program requirements.
Procurement Information
The selections were made using a qualifications-based selection process set forth in
section 34-604 of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.). In accordance with A.R.S.
Page 479
section 34-604(H), the City may not publicly release information on proposals received
or the scoring results until an agreement is awarded. Four firms submitted proposals
and are listed below.
Selected Firms
Rank 1: Felix Construction Company
Rank 2: PCL Construction, Inc.
Rank 3: MGC Contractors, Inc.
Rank 4: KEAR Civil Corporation
Contract Term
The term of each master agreement is for up to five years, or up to $40 million,
whichever occurs first. Work scope identified and incorporated into the master
agreement prior to the end of the term may be agreed to by the parties, and work may
extend past the termination of the master agreement. No additional changes may be
executed after the end of the term.
Financial Impact
The master agreement value for each of the JOC contractors will not exceed $40
million, including all subcontractor and reimbursable costs. The total fee for all services
will not exceed $160 million.
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute job order
agreements performed under these master agreements for up to $4 million each. In no
event will any job order agreement exceed this limit without Council approval to
increase the limit.
Funding is available in the Water Services Department’s Capital Improvement Program
budget. The Budget and Research Department will review and approve funding
availability prior to issuance of any job order agreement. Payments may be made up to
agreement limits for all rendered agreement services, which may extend past the
agreement termination.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Ginger Spencer and Inger Erickson,
the Water Services Department and the City Engineer.
Page 480
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Zones 3 and 4 - Design-Bid-Build Services - WS90500273 (Ordinance S-50999)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to accept Degan Construction,
LLC as the lowest-priced, responsive and responsible bidder and to enter into an
agreement with Degan Construction, LLC for Design-Bid-Build Services for the Large
Diameter Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Grade 5 and 4 Manholes - North - Zones 3
and 4 project. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item. The fee for services will not exceed $4,509,585, including any
change orders.
Summary
The purpose of this project is to rehabilitate 99 active sanitary sewer manholes or
structures, identified by the Large Diameter Sanitary Sewer Condition Assessment
Report. Rehabilitation may include installation of corrosion coating systems, structural
inserts, and liner repairs in all parts of the existing manholes. There will be bypass
pumping for select manholes identified and use of small diameter flow-through plugs
may need to be utilized to complete work.
Degan Construction, LLC's services include, but are not limited to: providing all
materials, equipment, and labor necessary to perform the work, lighting, odor control,
personnel facilities, traffic control, pavement replacement, manhole rehabilitation,
noise control and safety and health equipment.
Procurement Information
The selection was made using an Invitation for Bids procurement process set forth in
section 34-201 of the Arizona Revised Statutes. Three bids were received on April 2,
2024, and were sent to the Equal Opportunity Department for review to determine
subcontractor eligibility and contractor responsiveness in demonstrating
responsiveness to Small Business Enterprise program requirements.
The Opinion of Probable Cost and the three lowest responsive, responsible bidders
are listed below:
Opinion of Probable Cost: $3,549,810
Page 481
· Degan Construction, LLC: $4,099,622
· Arrowmark LLC dba Local Underground Construction: $5,089,560
· Hunter Contracting Co.: $5,668,267
Due to volatile material costs and increased labor prices in the construction industry, a
10 percent contingency is being requested to allow for project uncertainties. The initial
contract will be executed at the bid amount of $4,099,622. Use of the 10 percent
contingency above the amount will not be allowed without the prior written approval of
the Water Services Department Director and the City Engineer. The bid award amount
is within the total budget for this project.
Contract Term
The term of the agreement is 300 calendar days from issuance of the Notice to
Proceed. Work scope identified and incorporated into the agreement prior to the end of
the term may be agreed to by the parties, and work may extend past the termination of
the agreement. No additional changes may be executed after the end of the term.
Financial Impact
The initial agreement value for Degan Construction, LLC will not exceed $4,099,622,
including all subcontractor and reimbursable costs. The total agreement value,
including any change orders, for Degan Construction, LLC will not exceed $4,509,585,
including all subcontractor and reimbursable costs.
Funding is available in the Water Services Department's Capital Improvement Program
budget. The Budget and Research Department will separately review and approve
funding availability prior to execution of any amendments. Payments may be made up
to agreement limits for all rendered agreement services, which may extend past the
agreement termination.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Ginger Spencer and Inger Erickson,
the Water Services Department and the City Engineer.
Page 482
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Services - WS90500272 (Ordinance S-51000)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to accept B & F Contracting,
Inc. as the lowest-priced, responsive and responsible bidder and to enter into an
agreement with B & F Contracting, Inc. for Design-Bid-Build Services for the 2017 PVC
-Lined Concrete Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation project. Further request to authorize the
City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The fee for services will not
exceed $5,283,327.50, including any change orders.
Summary
The purpose of this project is the rehabilitation of large diameter PVC-lined sanitary
sewer pipe, access manholes, and structures throughout the City. Work includes
cleaning and debris removal, pre and post closed-circuit television, cured-in-place-pipe
(CIPP) lining installation, manhole coating repair, odor mitigation, providing bypass
diversion and/or control of sanitary sewerage flows and dewatering.
B & F Contracting, Inc.'s services include, but are not limited to: providing traffic control
on streets, maintaining access to alleys and driveways, during construction as
necessary; cleaning; debris removal; pre and post pipe CCTV; CIPP lining installation;
manhole coating repair and odor mitigation.
Procurement Information
The selection was made using an Invitation for Bids procurement process set forth in
section 34-201 of the Arizona Revised Statutes. Two bids were received on April 23,
2024, and were sent to the Equal Opportunity Department for review to determine
subcontractor eligibility and contractor responsiveness in demonstrating
responsiveness to Small Business Enterprise program requirements.
The Opinion of Probable Cost and the two lowest responsive, responsible bidders are
listed below:
Opinion of Probable Cost: $6,000,000
· B & F Contracting, Inc.: $4,803,025
Page 483
· TF Contracting Services LLC: $5,149,318.35
Due to volatile material costs and increased labor prices in the construction industry, a
10 percent contingency is being requested to allow for project uncertainties. The initial
contract will be executed at the bid amount of $4,803,025. Use of the 10 percent
contingency above the amount will not be allowed without the prior written approval of
the Water Services Department Director and the City Engineer. The bid award amount
is within the total budget for this project.
Contract Term
The term of the agreement is 210 calendar days from issuance of the Notice to
Proceed. Work scope identified and incorporated into the agreement prior to the end of
the term may be agreed to by the parties, and work may extend past the termination of
the agreement. No additional changes may be executed after the end of the term.
Financial Impact
The initial agreement value for B & F Contracting, Inc. will not exceed $4,803,025,
including all subcontractor and reimbursable costs. The total agreement value,
including any change orders, for B & F Contracting, Inc. will not exceed $5,283,327.50,
including all subcontractor and reimbursable costs.
Funding is available in the Water Services Department's Capital Improvement Program
budget. The Budget and Research Department will separately review and approve
funding availability prior to execution of any amendments. Payments may be made up
to agreement limits for all rendered agreement services, which may extend past the
agreement termination.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Ginger Spencer and Inger Erickson,
the Water Services Department and the City Engineer.
Page 484
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Inspection Services - 8423600000 (Ordinance S-50982)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with Tristar Engineering and Management, Inc., to provide Construction Administration
and Inspection Services in support of the Water Services Department Concrete and
Asphalt Restoration Job Order Contract program. Further request to authorize
execution of amendments to the agreement as necessary within the Council-approved
expenditure authority as provided below, and for the City Controller to disburse all
funds related to this item. The fee for services will not exceed $14 million.
Additionally, request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to take all action
as may be necessary or appropriate and to execute all design and construction
agreements, licenses, permits, and requests for utility services related to the
development, design and construction of the project. Such utility services include, but
are not limited to: electrical, water, sewer, natural gas, telecommunication, cable
television, railroads and other modes of transportation. Further request the City
Council to grant an exception to Phoenix City Code 42-20 to authorize inclusion in the
documents pertaining to this transaction of indemnification and assumption of liability
provisions that otherwise should be prohibited by Phoenix City Code 42-18. This
authorization excludes any transaction involving an interest in real property.
Summary
The purpose of this project is to provide construction administration and inspection
services on an as-needed basis to support the work of the Water Services Department
(WSD) Concrete and Asphalt Restoration Job Order Contract (JOC) program. The
WSD Concrete and Asphalt Restoration JOC program will replace concrete and
asphalt citywide and at adjacent jurisdictions. The JOC will also implement the
required work under the City of Phoenix Standard Detail P1200, including ABC and/or
Controlled Low Strength Material backfill, and other services as may be required,
incidental to the JOC.
Tristar Engineering and Management, Inc.'s services include, but are not limited to:
performing on-site examination of materials, equipment, and workmanship; conduct
pre-construction conferences and hold subsequent meetings, as necessary, with the
Page 485
project team; provide daily interaction with contractor to clarify job requirements;
arrange and coordinate special inspection for structural, mechanical, and electrical
work as required and conduct a substantial and final completion inspection.
Procurement Information
The selection was made using a qualifications-based selection process set forth in
section 34-604 of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.). In accordance with A.R.S.
section 34-604(H), the City may not publicly release information on proposals received
or the scoring results until an agreement is awarded. Four firms submitted a proposal
and are listed below.
Selected Firm
Rank 1: Tristar Engineering and Management, Inc.
Non-Selected Firms
Rank 2: Entellus, Inc.
Rank 3: Gannett Fleming, Inc.
Rank 4: BO ARCH, LLC
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 Tristar will not exceed $14 million, including all subconsultant
and reimbursable costs.
Funding is available in the Water Services Department's Operating budget. The
Budget and Research Department will separately review and approve funding
availability prior to execution of any amendments. Payments may be made up to
agreement limits for all rendered agreement services, which may extend past the
agreement termination.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Ginger Spencer and Inger Erickson,
the Water Services Department, and the City Engineer.
Page 486
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Award (Ordinance S-51006)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
Western Environmental Equipment Co., to provide storm water and wastewater
sampling equipment, system software licenses, and repair 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 $850,000.
Summary
The Water Services Department utilizes Teledyne ISCO storm water and wastewater
sampling equipment, distributed by Western Environmental Equipment Co., to analyze
and test water samples to satisfy the requirements for various regulatory permits,
including Phoenix's Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System and National and
Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permits.
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. Western Environmental Equipment Co.,
is the sole source distributor for Teledyne ISCO equipment. Teledyne ISCO does not
certify other vendors to supply or maintain its proprietary equipment.
Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about July 1, 2024, for a five-year term with no options to
extend.
Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $850,000 for the five-year aggregate
term.
Page 487
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Water
Services Department.
Page 488
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
606 - Request for Award (Ordinance S-51019)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
Farwest Corrosion Control Company and Accurate Corrosion Control Inc., to provide
cathodic protection inspection and testing 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 agreement will not exceed $2,800,000.
Summary
This agreement will provide cathodic protection inspection, testing and maintenance
services on the cathodic protection and distribution systems within the City's Water
Production and Distribution Divisions. Cathodic protection systems mitigate corrosion
damage to metal surfaces, including water pipelines, water treatment plant
infrastructure, and storage tanks. It is essential that the cathodic protection systems
are inspected and maintained on a regular basis to extend the service life of the
facilities and to prevent service disruption.
Procurement Information
The recommendation was made using an Invitation for Bid. Procurement was
processed in accordance with the City of Phoenix Administrative Regulation 3.10.
Six 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
Farwest Corrosion Control Company
Accurate Corrosion Control Inc.
Additional Bidders
Corrpro Companies Inc.
Piping & Corrosion Specialties, Inc.
Coffman Engineers, Inc.
PureHM U.S. Inc.
Page 489
Contract Term
The contracts will begin on or about Aug. 1, 2024, for a three-year term with two single
year options to extend.
Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $2,800,000.
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.
Page 490
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
(Resolution 22221)
Request to adopt a resolution to support formation of the Beverly Park Irrigation Water
Delivery District (IWDD) through Maricopa County. The proposed IWDD includes the
single-family residential properties bounded by Missouri Avenue to the south,
Montebello Avenue to the north, 18th Street to the west, and 20th Street to the east.
This action has no financial impact to the City of Phoenix.
Summary
Under the provisions of Arizona Revised Statutes Chapter 20, title 48, Irrigation Water
Delivery Districts, when the majority of the lot or parcel owners entitled to or capable of
receiving irrigation water from the same system want irrigation water delivered to their
lands, they may propose organization of an IWDD. Maricopa County requires that
applicants for an IWDD within City of Phoenix boundaries obtain City Council support
before the County will start the process of forming or re-establishing a district.
If approved by the City Council, landowning neighbors seeking an IWDD complete a
special taxation impact statement and submit this document to the Maricopa County
Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors, along with Salt River Project (SRP),
will decide if a petition to organize an IWDD may be circulated. See Attachment A for
the Consent from SRP to the Board of Supervisors and map of the SRP delivery
system.
This request has been reviewed by the Street Transportation and Water Services
departments.
Financial Impact
This action has no financial impact to the City of Phoenix.
Public Outreach
On April 18, 2024, the City received a formal written request from a City of Phoenix
resident to pursue City Council approval to form an IWDD with Maricopa County (
Attachment B).
Page 491
Location
The proposed IWDD includes the single-family residential properties bounded by
Missouri Avenue to the south, Montebello Avenue to the north, 18th Street to the west,
and 20th Street to the east.
Council District: 6
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Inger Erickson and Ginger Spencer,
and the Street Transportation and Water Services departments.
Page 492
Attachment A - Consent from SRP Board of Supv and Map of SRP Delivery System
Page 493
Beverly Park IWDD
164-49-149
N 17th St N 18th Pl N 19th St N 19th Pl 0th Pl
N2
E Montebello Ave E Montebello Ave
N 21 s t
164-47-021
164-51-051B
St
- 055 16
E San -52 2
N 17th St 164 4-5
Miguel Ave -087 164-47-020 164-47-022
E San Miguel Ave E San Miguel Ave
164-51-159A
N 20th Pl
E San E San Juan Ave
Juan Ave
E Luke Ave
N 19th St N 19th Pl
¬
« N 18th St
N 20th St
51 E Luke Ave
164-47-079
Page 494
¬
« 164-47-060
EM
arshall Ave
164-47-063A 64A
164-51-060E
164-47-0
E Marshall Ave E Marshall Ave
4- 52
E Marshall Ave 16
4-5
-12
2-0 16
164-47-056A
164-47-058 164-47-057 164-47-054
Legend
E Missouri Ave
Beverly Park IWDD
164-54-237A 164-54-013A 164-54-236 164-58-021A
164-55-183C 164-54-010C Streets 164-58-022 164-58-023
Tax Parcels
0 200 400 800 1,200 1,600
/ Feet Date: 4/16/2024
Attachment B
To: City of Phoenix
CC: Salt River Project
April 18, 2024
From: Timothy Borg
RE: Request for Formation of Irrigation Water Delivery District
Dear City of Phoenix,
We as a neighborhood Beverly Park, are requesting consent to form an Irrigation Water
Delivery District (IWDD) from the City of Phoenix. The purpose of an IWDD is to create an
equitable distribution of costs associated with the use and maintenance of the private
neighborhood irrigation system. This is accomplished using an annual Maricopa County
property assessment. We are asking the City of Phoenix to pass this request of resolution,
authorizing the formation of Beverly Park IWDD .
Enclosed you will find Salt River Project’s approval along with maps of the proposed district,
legal description, and the homeowner list. I will be the representative for the proposed
IWDD. Once we receive approval from the City of Phoenix, an Impact Statement to form
will be sent to the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors to move the process forward. We
appreciate your attention to this request. For questions please contact me at the number
below.
Sincerely,
Timothy Borg
Page 495
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
The Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 2 North, Range 3 East, of the
Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, Maricopa County, Arizona:
Page 496
Beverly Park IWDD
164-49-149
N 17th St N 18th Pl N 19th St N 19th Pl 0th Pl
N2
E Montebello Ave E Montebello Ave
N 21 s t
164-47-021
164-51-051B
St
- 055 16
E San -52 2
N 17th St 164 4-5
Miguel Ave -087 164-47-020 164-47-022
E San Miguel Ave E San Miguel Ave
164-51-159A
N 20th Pl
E San E San Juan Ave
Juan Ave
E Luke Ave
N 19th St N 19th Pl
¬
« N 18th St
N 20th St
51 E Luke Ave
164-47-079
Page 497
¬
« 164-47-060
EM
arshall Ave
164-47-063A 64A
164-51-060E
164-47-0
E Marshall Ave E Marshall Ave
4- 52
E Marshall Ave 16
4-5
-12
2-0 16
164-47-056A
164-47-058 164-47-057 164-47-054
Legend
E Missouri Ave
Beverly Park IWDD
164-54-237A 164-54-013A 164-54-236 164-58-021A
164-55-183C 164-54-010C Streets 164-58-022 164-58-023
Tax Parcels
0 200 400 800 1,200 1,600
/ Feet Date: 4/16/2024
PROPOSED BEVERLY PARK IWDD
04/16/2024
Net
Total Average
Count Assessed
Parcel Number Tax Year Owner Name Mailing Address City State Zip Situs Address Situs City Zip Acreag Lot
Value
e Size
LPV
1 164-52-024 2024 5534 N 19TH STREET LLC 1502 E SAN MIGUEL AVE PHOENIX AZ 85014 5534 N 19TH ST PHOENIX 85016 20,899 0.164
2 164-52-111 2024 1936 E MARSHALL LLC 27231 N 71ST PL SCOTTSDALE AZ 85262 1936 E MARSHALL AVE PHOENIX 85016 22,805 0.217
3 164-52-004 2024 ALAWI SABRI 1822 E MISSOURI AVE PHOENIX AZ 85016 1822 E MISSOURI AVE PHOENIX 85016 19,547 0.199
4 164-52-019 2024 ALLING ROBERT E/JACQUELINE R 5535 N 19TH ST PHOENIX AZ 85016 5535 N 19TH ST PHOENIX 85016 30,296 0.165
5 164-52-071 2024 ANDREA T FORREST REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST 1907 E MONTEBELLO AVE PHOENIX AZ 85016 1907 E MONTEBELLO AVE PHOENIX 85016 24,271 0.191
6 164-52-014 2024 AYRAUD CAROL A 1827 E MARSHALL PHOENIX AZ 85016 1827 E MARSHALL AVE PHOENIX 85016 26,958 0.195
7 164-52-088 2024 BAKER KATHRYN MARY TR 5618 N 19TH PL PHOENIX AZ 85016 5618 N 19TH PL PHOENIX 85016 28,638 0.182
8 164-52-035 2024 BANO LLC 3255 E VALLEY VISTA LN PARADISE VALLEY AZ 85253 1821 E LUKE AVE PHOENIX 85016 26,193 0.208
9 164-52-112 2024 BARR VIKKI 1932 E MARSHALL AVE PHOENIX AZ 85016 1932 E MARSHALL AVE PHOENIX 85016 26,095 0.203
10 164-52-081 2024 BAYHAM BRYAN/DIANI RIOPELLE/ALAN/DEBRA G 2125 E SOLANO DR PHOENIX AZ 85016 1946 E SAN MIGUEL AVE PHOENIX 85016 24,694 0.195
11 164-52-007A 2024 BLAHETA DOUG 1808 E MISSOURI AVE PHOENIX AZ 85016 1808 E MISSOURI AVE PHOENIX 85016 33,409 0.304
12 164-52-085 2024 BLAKE THOMAS REILLY JR/JENNIFER HART 1924 E SAN MIGUEL AVE PHOENIX AZ 85016 1924 E SAN MIGUEL AVE PHOENIX 85016 39,208 0.216
13 164-52-136 2024 BLUE CARD PROPERTIES LLC 818 E OSBORN RD PHOENIX AZ 85014 1914 E MISSOURI AVE PHOENIX 85016 19,390 0.097
14 164-52-002 2024 BOBODZHANOV RAFFAIL 1812 E MARSHALL AVE PHOENIX AZ 85016 1832 E MISSOURI AVE PHOENIX 85016 29,340 0.292
15 164-52-065 2024 BORG TIMOTHY S 1811 E MONTEBELLO AVE PHOENIX AZ 85016 1811 E MONTEBELLO AVE PHOENIX 85016 24,564 0.190
16 164-52-098 2024 BRAFF SAMUEL B 1947 E SAN MIGUEL AVE PHOENIX AZ 85016 1947 E SAN MIGUEL AVE PHOENIX 85016 47,546 0.232
17 164-52-010 2024 BROGARD BRUCE B 1807 E MARSHALL AVE PHOENIX AZ 85016 1807 E MARSHALL AVE PHOENIX 85016 22,723 0.200
18 164-52-021 2024 CALDERON JOSEPH 3919 N 13TH PL PHOENIX AZ 85014 5545 N 19TH ST PHOENIX 85016 27,333 0.167
19 164-52-047 2024 CALDERON-ESTRADA GENARO IVAN/UHLING AUBREY 5612 N 19TH ST PHOENIX AZ 85016 5612 N 19TH ST PHOENIX 85016 24,564 0.167
20 164-52-069 2024 CAMPBELL JAMES C 428 14TH ST UNIT C HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 1831 E MONTEBELLO AVE PHOENIX 85016 25,697 0.188
21 164-52-116 2024 CARICO VIRGINIA E 5548 N 19TH PL PHOENIX AZ 85018 5548 N 19TH PL PHOENIX 85016 25,238 0.192
22 164-52-079 2024 CARLSON THOMAS/MICHELLE 1953 E MONTEBELLO AVE PHOENIX AZ 85016 1953 E MONTEBELLO AVE PHOENIX 85016 50,735 0.235
23 164-52-131 2024 CECE JOSEPH D 1936 MISSOURI AVE PHOENIX AZ 850163024 1936 E MISSOURI AVE PHOENIX 85016 26,650 0.214
24 164-52-017 2024 CERBINO CHRISTOPHER/MADISON 5525 N 19TH ST PHOENIX AZ 85016 5525 N 19TH ST PHOENIX 85016 24,548 0.227
25 164-52-057 2024 CHILDRESS DENNIS KENNETH/MAY KOESTNER 1826 E SAN MIGUEL AVE PHOENIX AZ 85016 1826 E SAN MIGUEL AVE PHOENIX 85016 28,196 0.191
Page 498 26 164-52-095 2024 CINDEE M BADALAMENTE LIVING TRUST 1931 E SAN MIGUEL AVE PHOENIX AZ 85016 1931 E SAN MIGUEL AVE PHOENIX 85016 25,183 0.217
27 164-52-115 2024 CM UDVARE TRUST 5547 N 19TH PL PHOENIX AZ 85016 5547 N 19TH PL PHOENIX 85016 30,927 0.195
28 164-52-135 2024 CRAIG MICHELLE N 1910 E MISSOURI AVE PHOENIX AZ 85016 1910 E MISSOURI AVE PHOENIX 85016 37,335 0.097
29 164-52-082 2024 DARCY OLSEN LIVING TRUST 1942 E SAN MIGUEL AVE PHOENIX AZ 85016 1942 E SAN MIGUEL AVE PHOENIX 85016 25,753 0.196
30 164-52-130 2024 DAVID BREMSON REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST 1942 E MISSOURI AVE PHOENIX AZ 85016 1942 E MISSOURI AVE PHOENIX 85016 26,583 0.217
31 164-52-125 2024 DAVIDSON ROBERT HAYES/MICHELA TR 1943 E MARSHALL AVE PHOENIX AZ 85016 1943 E MARSHALL AVE PHOENIX 85016 31,698 0.208
32 164-52-013 2024 DAVIS ALBERT PO BOX 44081 PHOENIX AZ 85064 1821 E MARSHALL AVE PHOENIX 85016 23,342 0.202
33 164-52-129 2024 DAVIS JEAN E 1948 E MISSOURI PHOENIX AZ 85016 1948 E MISSOURI AVE PHOENIX 85016 22,837 0.221
34 164-52-101 2024 DAVIS SONYA I/JEFFREY B 1946 E LUKE AVE PHOENIX AZ 85016 1946 E LUKE AVE PHOENIX 85016 28,359 0.264
35 164-52-090 2024 DERUNGS FAMILY 2016 REVOCABLE TRUST 5608 N 19TH PL PHOENIX AZ 85016 5608 N 19TH PL PHOENIX 85016 29,622 0.167
36 164-52-053 2024 DI VITO ERNEST A II/MEGHAN A 5615 N 19TH ST PHOENIX AZ 85016 5615 N 19TH ST PHOENIX 85016 23,261 0.158
37 164-52-046 2024 DONAHUE JULIE A 1825 E SAN MIGUEL AVE PHOENIX AZ 85016 1825 E SAN MIGUEL AVE PHOENIX 85016 28,050 0.222
38 164-52-127 2024 DONNER DENNIS D 1951 E MARSHALL AVE PHOENIX AZ 85016 1951 E MARSHALL AVE PHOENIX 85016 25,444 0.244
39 164-52-031 2024 DRAKE JOHN ELLIS II 1801 E LUKE AVE PHOENIX AZ 85016 1801 E LUKE AVE PHOENIX 85016 22,072 0.215
40 164-52-096 2024 DURYEA/AMBROSE TRUST 1935 E SAN MIGUEL AVE PHOENIX AZ 85016 1935 E SAN MIGUEL AVE PHOENIX 85016 34,875 0.234
41 164-52-104 2024 FAIRLEY TRUST 1935 E LUKE AVE PHOENIX AZ 85016 1935 E LUKE AVE PHOENIX 85016 38,261 0.258
42 164-52-119 2024 FOLEY KYLE 1667 N PRIEST DR TEMPE AZ 85281 5530 N 19TH PL PHOENIX 85016 24,271 0.172
43 164-52-121 2024 GARY AND MARY COFFMAN LIVING TRUST 1923 E MARSHALL AVE PHOENIX AZ 85016 1923 E MARSHALL AVE PHOENIX 85016 27,729 0.218
44 164-52-099 2024 GIANNINI STEPHEN CAMILLO/KARIN LYNN 1953 E SAN MIGUEL AVE PHOENIX AZ 85016 1953 E SAN MIGUEL AVE PHOENIX 85016 28,948 0.259
45 164-52-075 2024 GJRM TRUST 1929 E MONTEBELLO AVE PHOENIX AZ 85016 1929 E MONTEBELLO AVE PHOENIX 85016 26,681 0.209
46 164-52-063 2024 GROOM MEG LOUISE 1801 E MONTEBELLO AVE PHOENIX AZ 85016 1801 E MONTEBELLO AVE PHOENIX 85016 26,388 0.192
47 164-52-040 2024 H TIMOTHY EWING LIVING TRUST 241 PERKINS ST UNIT E403 JAMAICA PLAIN MA 02130 1802 E LUKE AVE PHOENIX 85016 30,191 0.211
48 164-52-117 2024 HARRINGTON CHESTER BRADFORD IV 5542 N 19TH PL PHOENIX AZ 85016 5542 N 19TH PL PHOENIX 85016 25,112 0.167
49 164-52-108 2024 HARRIS SHAN 1952 E MARSHALL AVE PHOENIX AZ 85016 1952 E MARSHALL AVE PHOENIX 85016 27,477 0.240
50 164-52-026 2024 HART ZACHARY TAYLOR THOMAS 1822 E MARSHALL AVE PHOENIX AZ 85016 1822 E MARSHALL AVE PHOENIX 85016 31,622 0.208
51 164-52-070 2024 HATRICK WILLIAM/MADELYNN 1901 E MONTEBELLO AVE PHOENIX AZ 85016 1901 E MONTEBELLO AVE PHOENIX 85016 30,004 0.190
52 164-52-073 2024 HAVILAND JAMES/JENA 1917 E MONTEBELLO AVE PHOENIX AZ 85016 1917 E MONTEBELLO AVE PHOENIX 85016 24,193 0.208
1 OF 3
PROPOSED BEVERLY PARK IWDD
04/16/2024
53 164-52-102 2024 HEMMEN AND ZWICK LIVING TRUST 1940 E LUKE AVE PHOENIX AZ 85016 1940 E LUKE AVE PHOENIX 85016 34,307 0.258
54 164-52-128 2024 HERNANDEZ RAY JR ESTATE OF/HAYWARD MARK A 1954 E MISSOURI AVE PHOENIX AZ 85016 1954 E MISSOURI AVE PHOENIX 85016 22,919 0.245
55 164-52-059 2024 HOUSTON WILLIAM ANDREW/CAROL D TR 1818 E SAN MIGUEL PHOENIX AZ 85016 1818 E SAN MIGUEL AVE PHOENIX 85016 24,206 0.198
56 164-52-105 2024 HUGHES MEGAN ELIZABETH 1941 E LUKE AVE PHOENIX AZ 85016 1941 E LUKE AVE PHOENIX 85016 30,232 0.256
57 164-52-084 2024 HUTCHISON JIMMIE LEE 1930 E SAN MIGUEL AVE PHOENIX AZ 85016 1930 E SAN MIGUEL AVE PHOENIX 85016 28,424 0.199
58 164-52-076 2024 INIGUEZ HERMILIO/OLIVIA 1935 E MONTEBELLO PHOENIX AZ 85016 1935 E MONTEBELLO AVE PHOENIX 85016 26,404 0.209
59 164-52-027 2024 JANE R COLE TRUST 1818 E MARSHALL AVE PHOENIX AZ 85016 1818 E MARSHALL AVE PHOENIX 85016 23,798 0.215
60 164-52-011 2024 JASON AND AMY QUINTEL LIVING TRUST 7321 N 4TH DR PHOENIX AZ 85021 1811 E MARSHALL AVE PHOENIX 85016 22,690 0.203
61 164-52-020 2024 JASON D VARGAS & MARIA A GOMEZ FAMILY TRUST 5539 N 19TH ST PHOENIX AZ 85016 5539 N 19TH ST PHOENIX 85016 22,739 0.163
62 164-52-003 2024 KAESTNER PAUL D 1828 E MISSOURI AVE PHOENIX AZ 85016 1828 E MISSOURI AVE PHOENIX 85016 20,757 0.194
63 164-52-050 2024 KEATON WILLIAM R 5601 N 19TH ST PHOENIX AZ 85016 5601 N 19TH ST PHOENIX 85016 21,795 0.158
64 164-52-067 2024 KELLY MARA 6643 N MAJORCA WAY E PHOENIX AZ 850161319 1821 E MONTEBELLO AVE PHOENIX 85016 22,593 0.184
65 164-52-022 2024 KELLY PATRICK M/ALISON L 5546 N 19TH ST PHOENIX AZ 85016 5546 N 19TH ST PHOENIX 85016 22,935 0.158
66 164-52-049 2024 KOREN SCOTT 5602 N 19TH ST PHOENIX AZ 85016 5602 N 19TH ST PHOENIX 85016 23,053 0.161
67 164-52-054 2024 L S LEGACY 3 LLC 5621 N 19TH ST PHOENIX AZ 85016 5621 N 19TH ST PHOENIX 85016 23,912 0.230
68 164-52-078 2024 LANDERS JUDITH A 1947 E MONTEBELLO AVE PHOENIX AZ 85016 1947 E MONTEBELLO AVE PHOENIX 85016 24,449 0.211
69 164-52-001 2024 LAROSA ANTONIO/KRISTINA E 1906 E MISSOURI AVE PHOENIX AZ 85016 1906 E MISSOURI AVE PHOENIX 85016 27,251 0.299
70 164-52-091 2024 LATONA MELISSA 5602 N 19TH PL PHOENIX AZ 85016 5602 N 19TH PL PHOENIX 85016 33,329 0.190
71 164-52-039 2024 LISCANO MICHAEL G 1808 E LUKE AVE PHOENIX AZ 85016 1808 E LUKE AVE PHOENIX 85016 23,570 0.210
72 164-52-037 2024 LUKE 1818 LLC 2 BILTMORE EST 202 PHOENIX AZ 850162857 1818 E LUKE AVE PHOENIX 85016 24,108 0.208
73 164-52-097 2024 MALMBORG FAMILY TRUST 1941 E SAN MIGUEL AVE PHOENIX AZ 85016 1941 E SAN MIGUEL AVE PHOENIX 85016 25,102 0.223
74 164-52-118 2024 MCCARTHY RITA J 5536 N 19TH PL PHOENIX AZ 85016 5536 N 19TH PL PHOENIX 85016 22,757 0.164
75 164-52-016 2024 MCFALL FRANCES B 1835 E MARSHALL AVE PHOENIX AZ 85016 1835 E MARSHALL AVE PHOENIX 85016 25,525 0.295
76 164-52-086 2024 MDS TRUST 1920 E SAN MIGUEL AVE PHOENIX AZ 85016 1920 E SAN MIGUEL AVE PHOENIX 85016 34,024 0.272
77 164-52-009 2024 MEDSTAR LLC 1728 W GLENDALE AVE 204 PHOENIX AZ 85016 1801 E MARSHALL AVE PHOENIX 85016 24,385 0.206
77 164-52-012 2024 MEDSTAR LLC 1817 E MARSHALL AVE PHOENIX AZ 85016 1817 E MARSHALL AVE PHOENIX 85016 30,868 0.200
78 164-52-100 2024 MERCER LAURA TERESE 1952 E LUKE AVE PHOENIX AZ 85016 1952 E LUKE AVE PHOENIX 85016 30,267 0.255
79 164-52-041 2024 MERRILL MARK T 1801 E SAN MIGUEL AVE PHOENIX AZ 85016 1801 E SAN MIGUEL AVE PHOENIX 85016 29,922 0.221
80 164-52-133 2024 MERTZ RYAN W/JILLIAN 1924 E MISSOURI AVE PHOENIX AZ 85016 1924 E MISSOURI AVE PHOENIX 85016 26,600 0.230
Page 499 81 164-52-114 2024 MEYERS GARY D/JENNIFER D 5541 N 19TH PL PHOENIX AZ 85016 5541 N 19TH PL PHOENIX 85016 20,899 0.168
82 164-52-055 2024 MILLER RONALD A/CHANDLER KATIE GRACE 1836 E SAN MIGUEL AVE PHOENIX AZ 85016 1836 E SAN MIGUEL AVE PHOENIX 85016 36,388 0.290
83 164-52-132 2024 MISSOURI LLC 2633 E INDIAN SCHOOL RD STE 250 PHOENIX AZ 85016 1930 E MISSOURI AVE PHOENIX 85016 23,741 0.223
84 164-52-123 2024 MITCHELL PATRICK W/MELISSA M 1933 E MARSHALL AVE PHOENIX AZ 85016 1933 E MARSHALL AVE PHOENIX 85016 28,701 0.206
85 164-52-060 2024 MORENO GAMALIEL JR 1812 E SAN MIGUEL AVE PHOENIX AZ 85016 1812 E SAN MIGUEL AVE PHOENIX 85016 29,465 0.192
86 164-52-061 2024 MORENO JOAQUIN 1808 E SAN MIGUEL AVE PHOENIX AZ 85016 1808 E SAN MIGUEL AVE PHOENIX 85016 25,804 0.192
87 164-52-036 2024 MUNZ GEORGE ROBERT & PAMELA BROWN 1822 E LUKE PHOENIX AZ 85016 1822 E LUKE AVE PHOENIX 85016 22,511 0.206
88 164-52-137 2024 MURIEL JOHN/ENG JOYCE PO BOX 45244 PHOENIX AZ 85064 1918 E MISSOURI AVE PHOENIX 85016 41,105 0.233
88 164-52-138 2024 MURIEL JOHN/ENG JOYCE PO BOX 45244 PHOENIX AZ 85064 1916 E MISSOURI AVE PHOENIX 85016 18,273 0.086
89 164-52-032 2024 MY TNT LLC 3255 E VALLEY VISTA LN PARADISE VALLEY AZ 85253 1807 E LUKE AVE PHOENIX 85016 24,705 0.211
90 164-52-092 2024 NEWLEN DON/ALLISON 2040 E RANCHO DR PHOENIX AZ 85016 5601 N 19TH PL PHOENIX 85016 11,655 0.196
91 164-52-072 2024 NOVAK JAY/ANNE 1911 E MONTEBELLO AVE PHOENIX AZ 850162608 1911 E MONTEBELLO AVE PHOENIX 85016 24,724 0.215
92 164-52-030 2024 NUGENT SEAN/MELANIE 1802 E MARSHALL AVE PHOENIX AZ 85016 1802 E MARSHALL AVE PHOENIX 85016 27,284 0.216
93 164-52-077 2024 OMOHUNDRO JOHN GARRETT/CULLITON MARGARET 1941 E MONTEBELLO AVE PHOENIX AZ 85016 1941 E MONTEBELLO AVE PHOENIX 85016 24,727 0.210
94 164-52-025 2024 OPLINGER CYNTHIA SUSAN 1828 E MARSHALL PHOENIX AZ 85016 1828 E MARSHALL AVE PHOENIX 85016 15,036 0.198
95 164-52-068 2024 ORTIZ ALI 1827 E MONTEBELLO AVE PHOENIX AZ 85016 1827 E MONTEBELLO AVE PHOENIX 85016 23,780 0.190
96 164-52-066 2024 PACHECO HANNAH E MCGUIRE/RAPHAEL E 1817 E MONTEBELLO AVE PHOENIX AZ 85016 1817 E MONTEBELLO AVE PHOENIX 85016 28,962 0.196
97 164-52-028 2024 PAPPAS MICAH E/JANAINA 1812 E MARSHALL AVE PHOENIX AZ 85016 1812 E MARSHALL AVE PHOENIX 85016 27,398 0.214
98 164-52-058 2024 PARAMUS ENTERPRISE 3 LLC 2518 E CAMPBELL AVE PHOENIX AZ 85016 1822 E SAN MIGUEL AVE PHOENIX 85016 29,320 0.190
99 164-52-008 2024 PARKE TROY 8420 N SMITH ST PORTLAND OR 97203 1802 E MISSOURI AVE PHOENIX 85016 18,293 0.203
100 164-52-107 2024 PAUL J AND ANITA D LAYEUX LIVING TRUST 1953 E LUKE AVE PHOENIX AZ 85016 1953 E LUKE AVE PHOENIX 85016 36,404 0.257
101 164-52-094 2024 PEBBLEWOOD LLC 1923 E SAN MIGUEL AVE PHOENIX AZ 85016 1923 E SAN MIGUEL AVE PHOENIX 85016 32,337 0.273
102 164-52-038 2024 PETRAS DAVID S 133 TUDOR AVE NEW ORLEANS LA 70123 1812 E LUKE AVE PHOENIX 85016 35,933 0.210
103 164-52-064 2024 PINZIE LLC 2235 E PALMAIRE AVE PHOENIX AZ 85020 1807 E MONTEBELLO AVE PHOENIX 85016 32,145 0.185
104 164-52-034 2024 QUIGLEY LAUREN G 1817 E LUKE AVE PHOENIX AZ 85016 1817 E LUKE AVE PHOENIX 85016 23,261 0.210
105 164-52-042 2024 R & D INVESTMENTS LLC 3630 98TH PL PLEASANT PRAIRIE WI 53158 1807 E SAN MIGUEL AVE PHOENIX 85016 22,877 0.227
106 164-52-089 2024 RAPUANO PAUL A 5612 N 19TH PL PHOENIX AZ 85016 5612 N 19TH PL PHOENIX 85016 21,045 0.168
2 OF 3
PROPOSED BEVERLY PARK IWDD
04/16/2024
107 164-52-109 2024 RAUL DISARUFINO LIVING TRUST/DISARUFINO KAREN H 6055 N COUNTRY CLUB DR FLAGSTAFF AZ 860048752 1948 E MARSHALL AVE PHOENIX 85016 26,111 0.219
108 164-52-120 2024 RAYMOND G FRANK AND GAIL P FRANK FAMILY TRUST 1608 W FRIER DR PHOENIX AZ 85021 5526 N 19TH PL PHOENIX 85016 31,633 0.276
109 164-52-044 2024 REAL ESTATE TRUST AGREEMENT OF HELEN S LEVINE 1817 E SAN MIGUEL PHOENIX AZ 85016 1817 E SAN MIGUEL AVE PHOENIX 85016 24,775 0.227
110 164-52-074 2024 REDDY MICHAEL/SHARON 1923 E MONTEBELLO AVE PHOENIX AZ 85016 1923 E MONTEBELLO AVE PHOENIX 85016 26,111 0.208
111 164-52-062 2024 RICHARD AND SHIRLEY JOHNSON TRUST 1802 E SAN MIGUEL AVE PHOENIX AZ 85016 1802 E SAN MIGUEL AVE PHOENIX 85016 28,066 0.197
112 164-52-033 2024 RICHARD C ERICKSON AND MARIAN J EDWARDS TRUST 1811 E LUKE AVE PHOENIX AZ 85016 1811 E LUKE AVE PHOENIX 85016 34,702 0.215
113 164-52-048 2024 ROBINSON KAREN S 5606 N 19TH ST PHOENIX AZ 85016 5606 N 19TH ST PHOENIX 85016 26,339 0.172
114 164-52-087 2024 ROSENBAUM JOSHUA 5622 N 19TH PL PHOENIX AZ 85016 5622 N 19TH PL PHOENIX 85016 37,628 0.281
115 164-52-056 2024 SANDWEG JOHN R 4353 E PALO VERDE DR PHOENIX AZ 85018 1832 E SAN MIGUEL AVE PHOENIX 85016 22,251 0.184
116 164-52-051 2024 SARAH E GMYR-MAEZ TRUST PO BOX 90334 ALBUQUERQUE NM 87199 5605 N 19TH ST PHOENIX 85016 22,332 0.168
117 164-52-023 2024 SAUER JOHN/AMY 5540 N 19TH ST PHOENIX AZ 85016 5540 N 19TH ST PHOENIX 85016 24,673 0.163
118 164-52-122 2024 SCHMIT MICHAEL/KAREN M 1929 E MARSHALL PHOENIX AZ 85012 1929 E MARSHALL AVE PHOENIX 85016 36,341 0.213
119 164-52-126 2024 SEBESTA MILAN A 1949 E MARSHALL AVE PHOENIX AZ 85016 1949 E MARSHALL AVE PHOENIX 85016 31,579 0.207
120 164-52-110 2024 SELAGINELA DRAGAN TRUST 1942 E MARSHALL AVE PHOENIX AZ 85016 1942 E MARSHALL AVE PHOENIX 85016 34,660 0.217
121 164-52-093 2024 SHAWN DUCUSIN LIVING TRUST 5607 N 19TH PL PHOENIX AZ 85016 5607 N 19TH PL PHOENIX 85016 31,237 0.179
122 164-52-106 2024 SIZER JOHN C/GABRIELA TR 1947 E LUKE AVE PHOENIX AZ 85016 1947 E LUKE AVE PHOENIX 85016 24,526 0.269
123 164-52-103 2024 STAUFFENBERG GARY/NANCY 1934 E LUKE PHOENIX AZ 85016 1934 E LUKE AVE PHOENIX 85016 28,098 0.262
124 164-52-015 2024 STRACK NATHAN M 1831 E MARSHALL AVE PHOENIX AZ 85016 1831 E MARSHALL AVE PHOENIX 85016 24,040 0.197
125 164-52-080 2024 SUN VALLEY EQUITY LLC 743 E FIELDSTONE PL CHANDLER AZ 85249 1952 E SAN MIGUEL AVE PHOENIX 85016 35,933 0.233
126 164-52-018 2024 TARYN AND JOHN OFFENBACHER LIVING TRUST 5529 N 19TH ST PHOENIX AZ 85016 5529 N 19TH ST PHOENIX 85016 26,879 0.163
127 164-52-083 2024 VELASQUEZ JONATHAN 1300 S MIAMI AVE UNIT 3101 MIAMI FL 33130 1936 E SAN MIGUEL AVE PHOENIX 85016 29,126 0.191
128 164-52-005 2024 WALKER JASON 1818 E MISSOURI AVE PHOENIX AZ 85016 1818 E MISSOURI AVE PHOENIX 85016 25,932 0.297
129 164-52-052 2024 WARD TIMOTHY S 5611 N 19TH ST PHOENIX AZ 85016 5611 N 19TH ST PHOENIX 85016 27,968 0.169
130 164-52-045 2024 WARTHER ANDREW MARTIN/STEWART NICOLE MARIE 1821 E SAN MIGUEL AVE PHOENIX AZ 85016 1821 E SAN MIGUEL AVE PHOENIX 85016 27,646 0.214
131 164-52-124 2024 WEBB KIRK S/SEVIER BRIAN R 535 S NIAGARA ST BURBANK CA 91505 1937 E MARSHALL AVE PHOENIX 85016 26,486 0.209
132 164-52-113 2024 WHELAN-GONZALES DMITRIUS P 1928 E MARSHALL AVE PHOENIX AZ 850163018 1928 E MARSHALL AVE PHOENIX 85016 30,411 0.267
133 164-52-043 2024 WILHARDT-SMITH STEPHANIE S/SMITH LOGAN W 1811 E SAN MIGUEL AVE PHOENIX AZ 85016 1811 E SAN MIGUEL AVE PHOENIX 85016 28,832 0.225
134 164-52-029 2024 ZUEGE MICHAEL/DEBORAH 1808 E MARSHALL AVE PHOENIX AZ 85016 1808 E MARSHALL AVE PHOENIX 85016 28,981 0.211
Page 500 3,718,745 28.433 0.209
3 OF 3
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Delivery District (Resolution 22222)
Request to adopt a resolution to support formation of the Wrigley Terrace-Tangerine
Park Irrigation Water Delivery District (IWDD) through Maricopa County. The proposed
IWDD includes the single-family residential properties bounded by Montebello Avenue
to the south, Bethany Home Road to the north, 16th Street to the west, and 20th Street
to the east. This action has no financial impact to the City of Phoenix.
Summary
Under the provisions of Arizona Revised Statutes Chapter 20, title 48, Irrigation Water
Delivery Districts, when the majority of the lot or parcel owners entitled to or capable of
receiving irrigation water from the same system want irrigation water delivered to their
lands, they may propose organization of an IWDD. Maricopa County requires that
applicants for an IWDD within City of Phoenix boundaries obtain City Council support
before the County will start the process of forming or re-establishing a district.
If approved by the City Council, landowning neighbors seeking an IWDD complete a
special taxation impact statement and submit this document to the Maricopa County
Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors, along with Salt River Project (SRP),
will decide if a petition to organize an IWDD may be circulated. See Attachment A for
the Consent from SRP to the Board of Supervisors and map of the SRP delivery
system.
This request has been reviewed by the Street Transportation and Water Services
departments.
Financial Impact
This action has no financial impact to the City of Phoenix.
Public Outreach
On April 23, 2024, the City received a formal written request from a City of Phoenix
resident to pursue City Council approval to form an IWDD with Maricopa County (
Attachment B).
Page 501
Location
The proposed IWDD includes the single-family residential properties bounded by
Montebello Avenue to the south, Bethany Home Road to the north, 16th Street to the
west, and 20th Street to the east.
Council District: 6
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Inger Erickson and Ginger Spencer,
and the Street Transportation and Water Services departments.
Page 502
Attachment A - Consent from SRP Board of Spvr and Map of SRP Delivery System
EXHIBIT "C".
BEFORE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF MARICOPA COUNTY
In the Matter of the A pplication and ) CONSENT OF SALT RIVER PROJECT
Petition for the Formation of an Irrigation) AGRICULTURAL IMPROVEMENT
Water Delivery District to be known as: ) AND POWER DISTRICT AND SALT
Wrigley Terrace- Tangerine Park RIVER VALLEY WATER USERS'
Irrigation Water ) Delivery District of ASSOCIATION, COLLECTIVELY
Maricopa County) REFERRED TO AS SRP.
TO: THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF MARICOPA COUNTY,
STATE OF ARIZONA
Erica Trapp, being first duly sworn upon her oath, deposes and says:
That she is the Director of Water Delivery Services of the SRP.
That the lands to be included within the Wrigley Terrace- Tangerine Park
Irrigation Water Delivery District are within the Salt River Project Agricultural
Improvement and Power District and the Salt River Valley Water Users' Association.
That the Board of Directors of the Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and
Power District and the Board of Governors of the Salt River Valley Water Users'
Association consent to the formation of said Irrigation Water Delivery District and said
action was duly authorized by resolutions dated March 5, 2001.
That she has read this Consent and knows the content thereof and that the matters
and things contained herein are true and correct to the best of her own knowledge,
information, and belief.
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this/� day of �kv� \ ',Z.02-{
My commission expires:
"""'""""""' •"""""
STEPHANIE Jo-ANN BERRY
MAR!COPACOUNTY
CommlNion I 821201
���
Exj)lres Marcil 2. 2026
Page 503
Wrigley Terrace-Tangerine Park IWDD
E Rovey 161-10-013 E 164-41-022 164-42-004A
N 17th Pl
Ave Cir Rovey
N 17th St 164-41-023 164-42-012T
N 18th St E Rovey Ave E Rovey
E Rovey Ave 164-42-005B Ave
164-42-001
164-41-025 St
161-10-012 N2
B 1 st
H eth 164-42-005A
N 20th St
N 16th Pl
o
161-10-011B
me a n y 164-42-026
E BETHANY HOME RD E Rd
E Bethany Home Rd
a
E P rd e lo
164-50-072 164-48-017H 164-48-067 Ve
164-48-017E 164-48-017F 164-48-017G Dr
E Palo Verde Dr
E Palo Verde Dr
162-01-076C
E Rancho Dr
E Rancho Dr 51
¬
« N 18th Pl
E Rancho Dr 17th Pl 51
Page 504
¬
« E Solano Dr E Solano Dr
N 16th Pl E Solano Dr
E Solano Dr
N 16TH ST
N 19th St
E Solano Dr
N 19th Pl
N 20th St
ello
N 18th St 164-49-149 N2
E Mon t eb 0th
E Solano Ave N 17th St Pl
Dr
E Montebello Ave E Montebello Ave
E San Miguel Ave Legend N 21s
t St
N 17th St E San Miguel Ave
E San Miguel Ave E San Miguel Ave Wrigley Terrace-
164-51-159A N 20th
Tangerine Park IWDD
Pl
N 19th St
N 19th Pl City of Phoenix
E San Juan Ave E San E San Juan Ave
Juan Ave Streets
164-51-060E
E Luke Ave Tax Parcels
0 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
/ Feet Date: 4/18/2024
Attachment B
To: City of Phoenix
CC: Salt River Project
April 23, 2024
From: Paul Harbinson
RE: Request for Formation of Irrigation Water Delivery District
Dear City of Phoenix,
We as a neighborhood Wrigley Terrace – Tangerine Park, are requesting consent to form an
Irrigation Water Delivery District (IWDD) from the City of Phoenix. The purpose of an IWDD
is to create an equitable distribution of costs associated with the use and maintenance of
the private neighborhood irrigation system. This is accomplished using an annual Maricopa
County property assessment. We are asking the City of Phoenix to pass this request of
resolution, authorizing the formation of Wrigley Terrace – Tangerine Park IWDD.
Enclosed you will find Salt River Project’s approval along with maps of the proposed district,
legal description, and the homeowner list. I will be the representative for the proposed
IWDD. Once we receive approval from the City of Phoenix, an Impact Statement to form
will be sent to the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors to move the process forward. We
appreciate your attention to this request. For questions please contact me at the number
below.
Sincerely,
Paul Harbinson
Page 505
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
The North Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 2 North, Range 3 East, of the Gila and
Salt River Base and Meridian, Maricopa County, Arizona:
Excepting therefrom the West 270 Feet of the North 251 Feet thereof; and
Except the South 300.59 Feet of the West 165 Feet thereof.
Page 506
Wrigley Terrace-Tangerine Park IWDD
E Rovey 161-10-013 E 164-41-022 164-42-004A
N 17th Pl
Ave Cir Rovey
N 17th St 164-41-023 164-42-012T
N 18th St E Rovey Ave E Rovey
E Rovey Ave 164-42-005B Ave
164-42-001
164-41-025 St
161-10-012 N2
B 1 st
H eth 164-42-005A
N 20th St
N 16th Pl
o
161-10-011B
me a n y 164-42-026
E BETHANY HOME RD E Rd
E Bethany Home Rd
a
E P rd e lo
164-50-072 164-48-017H 164-48-067 Ve
164-48-017E 164-48-017F 164-48-017G Dr
E Palo Verde Dr
E Palo Verde Dr
162-01-076C
E Rancho Dr
E Rancho Dr 51
¬
« N 18th Pl
E Rancho Dr 17th Pl 51
Page 507
¬
« E Solano Dr E Solano Dr
N 16th Pl E Solano Dr
E Solano Dr
N 16TH ST
N 19th St
E Solano Dr
N 19th Pl
N 20th St
ello
N 18th St 164-49-149 N2
E Mon t eb 0th
E Solano Ave N 17th St Pl
Dr
E Montebello Ave E Montebello Ave
E San Miguel Ave Legend N 21s
t St
N 17th St E San Miguel Ave
E San Miguel Ave E San Miguel Ave Wrigley Terrace-
164-51-159A N 20th
Tangerine Park IWDD
Pl
N 19th St
N 19th Pl City of Phoenix
E San Juan Ave E San E San Juan Ave
Juan Ave Streets
164-51-060E
E Luke Ave Tax Parcels
0 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
/ Feet Date: 4/18/2024
Wrigley Terrace‐Tangerine Park Ownership Report
4/23/2024
Net Average
Parcel Exempt Total
Tax Year Owner Name In Care Of Mailing Address City State Zip Situs Address Situs City Zip Assessed Lot Size
Count Number Status Acreage
Value LPV
1 164-50-011 2024 1638 E PALO VERDE L L C PHOENIX 85016 16,323 0.219
2 164-49-145 2024 1930 E MONTEBELLO AVE LLC PHOENIX 85016 28,506 0.178
3 164-49-066 2024 1999 KNOPF FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST KNOPF PHILIP/BONNIE A TR PHOENIX 85016 35,184 0.178
164-50-099 2024 2012 LOWRANCE REVOCABLE LIVING PHOENIX 85016 35,718 0.390
4 FAMILY TRUST
5 164-50-016 2024 ABRAM JEFFREY/KELLY PHOENIX 85016 35,896 0.346
6 164-50-007 2024 ACTIVE LEARNING CENTER LLC PHOENIX 85016 27,740 0.208
7 164-49-125 2024 AGUILAR JORGE JR PHOENIX 85016 30,756 0.172
8 164-49-082 2024 AMAYA MIXAEL/VELAZQUEZ ROSA A PHOENIX 85016 36,162 0.228
9 164-50-004 2024 AMINOV ARSEN/ANNA PHOENIX 85016 26,339 0.201
164-49-039 2024 ANDERSON ELIZABETH ANN/LEE PHOENIX 85016 30,949 0.184
10 E/AUSTEN C
11 164-50-006 2024 ANGERBRANDT AARON PHOENIX 85016 31,226 0.206
12 164-49-036 2024 APPELBE THERESE L PHOENIX 85016 28,506 0.168
13 164-50-037 2024 APR INVESTMENTS LLC PHOENIX 85016 22,631 0.204
14 164-50-017A 2024 ARIZONA DP CONSULTING LLC PHOENIX 85016 59,553 0.212
15 164-49-014 2024 AYRAUD CORAL J P PHOENIX 85016 16,350 0.174
16 164-49-031 2024 BAKER CLYDE EDWARD/AVALYN PHOENIX 85016 28,441 0.174
17 164-49-137 2024 BAKER JESSE/JULIA A TR PHOENIX 85016 33,963 0.213
164-49-037 2024 BANNON THOMAS MARTIN/HALE PHOENIX 85016 25,020 0.193
18 JESSICA MARIE
19 164-49-108 2024 BARANOWSKI CLEMENT ROCCO PHOENIX 85016 18,438 0.179
164-49-089 2024 BARBARA ANN STOKES FAMILY LIVING PHOENIX 85016 21,805 0.188
20 TRUST
21 164-49-109 2024 BARBER LAURIE A PHOENIX 85016 32,203 0.178
22 164-49-093 2024 BARBER PAUL KEENAN/JEANNE PHOENIX 85016 36,504 0.217
23 164-49-094 2024 BARRY NEISENT LIVING TRUST PHOENIX 85016 33,055 0.214
24 164-49-009 2024 BARTELS KENNETH PHOENIX 85016 27,561 0.176
25 164-50-051 2024 BAZZI FOUAD/DEWNYA PHOENIX 85016 27,836 0.183
Page 508
26 164-49-099 2024 BELFIGLIO MARIE/SANTE PHOENIX 85016 29,923 0.176
27 164-50-012 2024 BETHANY HOME REAL ESTATE LLC PHOENIX 85016 38,685 0.191
27 164-50-014 2024 BETHANY HOME REAL ESTATE LLC PHOENIX 85016 36,338 0.193
27 164-50-015 2024 BETHANY HOME REAL ESTATE LLC PHOENIX 85016 74,516 0.196
28 164-50-034 2024 BEVERLY K GRINDEY TRUST PHOENIX 85016 21,666 0.201
29 164-49-045 2024 BILBAO TOMAS/EMILY PHOENIX 85016 32,252 0.179
30 164-49-025 2024 BILDHAUER MATHIAS/RYDEN ANITA M PHOENIX 85016 25,537 0.171
31 164-50-101 2024 BISHOP STEPHEN J/UMBLE SUZANN J PHOENIX 85016 15,338 0.206
32 164-50-054 2024 BLACK ANGELA M PHOENIX 85016 16,216 0.181
33 164-49-005 2024 BOLAND TIMOTHY M PHOENIX 85016 27,056 0.179
34 164-49-102 2024 BOOK MICHAEL EDWARD PHOENIX 85016 29,729 0.172
35 164-49-072 2024 BORGESEN PAUL III/AMY PHOENIX 85016 32,496 0.193
36 164-50-046 2024 BRADLEY KURTIS PHOENIX 85016 34,337 0.188
37 164-50-094 2024 BRANDON W HARGIS FAMILY TRUST PHOENIX 85016 31,301 0.194
38 164-49-103 2024 BROOKS-LANGONE DEBORAH K PHOENIX 85016 29,053 0.176
39 164-49-042 2024 BROWN FRANK/TREJO-BROWN VIRGINIA PHOENIX 85016 34,418 0.189
164-49-012 2024 BROWN GIRDNER LIVING TRUST BROWN KOFI B/GIRDNER PHOENIX 85016 24,938 0.173
40 DEVIN A TR
41 164-50-079G 2024 BRUER NATHAN/BETHANY PHOENIX 85016 6,836 0.235
42 164-49-019 2024 BYER JOHN ALBERT TR PHOENIX 85016 24,482 0.172
43 164-49-067 2024 CARTY CHARLES/BRYAN JANET E PHOENIX 85016 28,701 0.178
44 164-49-070 2024 CARY BRIAN PHOENIX 85016 32,822 0.203
45 164-49-038 2024 CHRISMAN WALTER W/CATHERINE E PHOENIX 85016 34,174 0.179
46 164-50-005 2024 CHRISTA PARR REVOCABLE TRUST PARR CHRISTA RENEE TR PHOENIX 85016 18,760 0.211
47 164-49-024 2024 CONDRO MATTHEW D PHOENIX 85016 30,053 0.164
48 164-50-050 2024 COOK DEAN/DULAK ALEXANDRA PHOENIX 85016 22,650 0.188
49 164-49-149 2024 CRULL DANIEL W/SUSAN TR PHOENIX 85016 68,305 0.799
Wrigley Terrace‐Tangerine Park Ownership Report
4/23/2024
50 164-49-041 2024 DALE BIKIN REVOCABLE TRUST PHOENIX 85016 45,137 0.190
51 164-50-056 2024 DENNIS C RIGGS TRUST PHOENIX 85016 20,534 0.185
52 164-49-048 2024 DENNIS MARIA E PHOENIX 85016 33,262 0.233
53 164-49-068 2024 DIAB THOMAS S/LORI A PHOENIX 85016 32,708 0.176
54 164-49-047 2024 DUNCAN ISAAK L/ELIZABETH R PHOENIX 85016 31,861 0.171
55 164-49-086 2024 DURAN JESSICA A PHOENIX 85016 30,435 0.224
56 164-50-076A 2024 DURKEE FAMILY LIVING TRUST DURKEE BRETT E/NANCY A PHOENIX 85016 8,236 0.318
57 164-50-087A 2024 DZANANOVIC REDZO/SENIJADA PHOENIX 85016 10,011 0.205
58 164-50-047 2024 EDWARDS DIANA E TR PHOENIX 85016 29,350 0.177
59 164-50-129 2024 EIDSON LASTASSIA PHOENIX 85016 24,767 0.219
164-50-127 2024 EIDSON LASTASSIA ALICIA/FAVORS PHOENIX 85016 22,899 0.200
60 FREEMAN F III
61 164-50-128 2024 ELISE RACHEL PHOENIX 85016 28,687 0.196
62 164-49-119 2024 ELLIOTT ALEXANDRA E PHOENIX 85016 34,266 0.180
63 164-50-052 2024 ELLIOTT FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST PHOENIX 85016 22,966 0.185
64 164-50-048 2024 ELLIOTT SPENCER DAVID PHOENIX 85016 16,431 0.190
65 164-50-122 2024 ELY NICHOLAS/RACHEL PHOENIX 85016 25,623 0.199
66 164-49-058 2024 ERICK AND SARAH GORIN FAMILY PHOENIX 85016 32,595 0.175
67 164-50-074A 2024 ERNYEI BENJAMIN W/KUSTER SUSAN PHOENIX 85016 6,615 0.229
67 164-50-075A 2024 ERNYEI BENJAMIN W/KUSTER SUSAN PHOENIX 85016 2,240 0.106
68 164-49-143 2024 FABER HARVEY E/CYNTHIA SUE PHOENIX 85016 36,618 0.184
69 164-49-065 2024 FALCH JOSHUA JAMES/WRIGHT PHOENIX 85016 36,848 0.178
70 164-50-100 2024 FARHAT JOSEPH PHOENIX 85016 21,358 0.201
71 164-50-097 2024 FEIGLE CHRISTIAN A PHOENIX 85016 19,225 0.183
72 164-50-033 2024 FLEMING REBECCA/JEROME PHOENIX 85016 44,298 0.194
73 164-50-053 2024 FLORES ALFRED B/ALICE D PHOENIX 85016 20,892 0.185
74 164-49-090 2024 FRANCINE MOORE TRUST PHOENIX 85016 28,233 0.243
164-49-146 2024 GAFFNEY FAMILY TRUST GAFFNEY JEFFREY PHOENIX 85016 32,950 0.182
75 J/PAULETTE K TR
76 164-49-128 2024 GANGADEN RAJENDRA N PHOENIX 85016 27,109 0.176
Page 509 77 164-50-145 2024 GARZA JOHN M PHOENIX 85016 15,499 0.189
78 164-49-116 2024 GERI LYNN CEGLOWSKI TRUST PHOENIX 85016 32,039 0.186
79 164-50-042 2024 GINGERICH EARL L PHOENIX 85016 27,192 0.147
80 164-49-097 2024 GONZALES CHRISTOPHER MARK JR PHOENIX 85016 34,484 0.179
81 164-49-006 2024 GONZALEZ CESAR/ROSEANNE C PHOENIX 85016 27,203 0.175
82 164-50-010 2024 GONZALEZ GUILLERMO E/YEARWOOD PHOENIX 85016 29,366 0.213
83 164-49-088 2024 GONZALEZ MARIE VICTORIA PHOENIX 85016 33,393 0.183
84 164-49-075 2024 GOWER KIM PHOENIX 85016 35,217 0.181
164-50-008 2024 GRACE Y LAU/CHARLES TSUI FAMILY GRACE Y LAU TR PHOENIX 85016 52,007 0.210
85 TRUST
164-49-076 2024 GRIFFIN REVOCABLE TRUST JACK C/IRMA A GRIFFIN PHOENIX 85016 43,432 0.181
86 TRUSTEES
87 164-49-059 2024 GUERRERO VICTOR PHOENIX 85016 33,197 0.169
164-49-107 2024 HACKMAN FAMILY TRUST HACKMAN COURTNEY PHOENIX 85016 43,567 0.222
88 THEODORE/AMANDA KAY TR
89 164-49-130 2024 HAINLEN JON/MAUREEN PHOENIX 85016 34,114 0.252
164-49-046 2024 HARBINSON PAUL D/JANET MARIE PAUL D & JANET MARIE PHOENIX 85016 28,093 0.174
90 QUICK QUICK HARBINSON
164-49-049 2024 HARDY A LASKIN AND MARY G PHOENIX 85016 31,128 0.167
91 HOFFMANN FAMILY TRUST
92 164-50-039 2024 HARRIS DARRIN/HOLMES MARION PHOENIX 85016 21,645 0.189
93 164-49-087 2024 HASENSTAB JEFFREY R/STEPHANIE PHOENIX 85016 41,257 0.220
94 164-50-090A 2024 HAYES MARILYN M PHOENIX 85016 5,909 0.205
95 164-49-008 2024 HAZELTINE DANIELLE M/JOE B PHOENIX 85016 28,555 0.175
96 164-49-133 2024 HEALEY CLARA W PHOENIX 85016 34,337 0.179
97 164-50-103A 2024 HEBRARD JEAN KAREN TR PHOENIX 85016 18,845 0.231
164-49-134 2024 HEISTAND SHERI/MONET C/O MONET SHERRI PHOENIX 85016 28,799 0.182
98 SHERI/CLAXTON ELIZABETH
99 164-49-053 2024 HELLER STEPHANIE PHOENIX 85016 29,923 0.181
100 164-49-057 2024 HENRY TRACY FAYE TR PHOENIX 85016 26,200 0.181
Wrigley Terrace‐Tangerine Park Ownership Report
4/23/2024
101 164-49-136 2024 HESS SARA C/CARL T PHOENIX 85016 44,599 0.218
102 164-49-100 2024 HINTZE FAMILY FARM LLC PHOENIX 85016 23,608 0.172
103 164-49-051 2024 HOGLAND AUSTIN/KATHRYN PHOENIX 85016 36,129 0.185
104 164-50-144 2024 HOLDEN JEREMY PHOENIX 85016 20,372 0.178
105 164-49-144 2024 HOLMES BRADFORD R/LANA T PHOENIX 85016 29,776 0.240
106 164-50-078A 2024 HOWE CHERIE L/FULTON-LOTHROP PHOENIX 85016 5,898 0.212
107 164-49-061 2024 HOWE WILLIAM R/WERNER KAREN K PHOENIX 85016 33,474 0.198
108 164-49-091 2024 HUEBNER BETH/JOSEPH PHOENIX 85016 34,007 0.219
109 164-49-120 2024 HUSBAND LAURA A PHOENIX 85016 31,494 0.182
110 164-49-085 2024 HYLAND ANN-MARIE PHOENIX 85016 42,726 0.218
111 164-50-019A 2024 ILIOI MIHAI PHOENIX 85016 22,426 0.302
112 164-49-001 2024 IRISH JAFFERY K/JUDY L PHOENIX 85016 25,541 0.173
112 164-49-003 2024 IRISH JAFFERY K/JUDY L 1,792 0.086
113 164-49-029 2024 JOHNSON MORGAN K/DAVIS DERRICK G PHOENIX 85016 37,009 0.173
114 164-49-111 2024 JONES JOHN W PHOENIX 85016 32,220 0.181
164-49-077 2024 JUETTEN RACHEL ELIZABETH/EYSTER PHOENIX 85016 29,011 0.182
115 KYLE JAMES
164-49-054 2024 JUSTIN G CROSSMAN AND ASHLEY F CROSSMAN JUSTIN G/ASHLEY PHOENIX 85016 33,697 0.179
116 CROSSMAN TRUST F TR
117 164-49-050 2024 KARABIN FAMILY TRUST KARABIN RANDI TR PHOENIX 85016 43,166 0.179
118 164-49-126 2024 KAZANAS KEVIN/CARLY A PHOENIX 85016 34,990 0.175
119 164-49-104 2024 KERSHNER STEVEN MCNEIL/MICHELLE PHOENIX 85016 28,636 0.175
120 164-49-123 2024 KLEIN JARRETT L TR PHOENIX 85016 33,262 0.194
121 164-50-133 2024 KLOSTER MELISSA PHOENIX 85016 20,964 0.192
122 164-49-084 2024 KNAPP JAMES RICHARD/CARA PHOENIX 85016 36,667 0.221
123 164-49-062 2024 KOKOPELLI FAMILY TRUST HILL JAMES L/EMILY A TR PHOENIX 85016 28,832 0.181
124 164-49-148 2024 KOLESAR CHARLES R PHOENIX 85016 30,884 0.220
125 164-50-095 2024 KRIGEL KAMDEN STORM PHOENIX 85016 27,537 0.181
126 164-50-003 2024 KULOW DARRELL A/METZGER SHANA A PHOENIX 85016 27,182 0.195
127 164-50-102A 2024 KYLE HAGAN HANLON LIVING TRUST PHOENIX 85016 34,670 0.178
Page 510 128 164-49-007 2024 LAU GRACE Y/TSUI CHARLES TR PHOENIX 85016 22,669 0.177
129 164-49-063 2024 LAUREN K COWLEY TRUST COWLEY ROBERT CHARLES PHOENIX 85016 29,581 0.178
130 164-49-013 2024 LAWRENCE SIMON PHOENIX 85016 31,515 0.170
131 164-49-015 2024 LEDESMA BRIAN/STACIA PHOENIX 85016 28,757 0.169
132 164-50-141 2024 LEIGH AND EMMA HANSEN TRUST PHOENIX 85016 20,671 0.172
133 164-49-139 2024 LEWIN MICHAEL L/JAMIE L TR PHOENIX 85016 28,832 0.184
164-49-096 2024 LIEBERG GREGORY JAMES/TIJERINA PHOENIX 85016 35,184 0.178
134 LAVERNE ROSE
135 164-49-095 2024 LOBACK DOUGLAS R/AMANDA L PHOENIX 85016 30,563 0.176
136 164-50-040 2024 LOCKWOOD MATTHEW A PHOENIX 85016 17,112 0.163
137 164-49-017 2024 LOPEZ MELISSA JAYNE PHOENIX 85016 26,329 0.167
138 164-50-009 2024 LOUIS JOHN L & CONNIE L PHOENIX 85016 26,304 0.212
139 164-50-018A 2024 LUNA JOSE MARTIN/MARISA PHOENIX 85016 28,025 0.224
140 164-49-018 2024 LUZZI GARRETT PHOENIX 85016 28,662 0.170
141 164-50-121 2024 LYONS FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST LYONS CARL F/ROXIE L TR PHOENIX 85016 22,837 0.208
142 164-50-132 2024 MARTIN BROOK F/JOANN E PHOENIX 85016 28,232 0.201
143 164-50-134A 2024 MARTYNIUK CATHERINE F/RICHARD D PHOENIX 85016 36,105 0.359
144 164-50-045 2024 MASON AARON/NICOLE PHOENIX 85016 19,047 0.188
145 164-49-020 2024 MASON RICHARD M/JUANITA R PHOENIX 85016 28,261 0.216
146 164-49-131 2024 MASTERSON KALAH J/RYAN W PHOENIX 85016 34,595 0.190
147 164-49-023 2024 MATCHETT JODI L/THOMAS W PHOENIX 85016 29,039 0.168
148 164-50-086A 2024 MATTHEWS PATRICK/GANDOLFI PHOENIX 85016 5,590 0.223
149 164-49-021 2024 MATUS MICHAEL/LAWRENCE TERESA PHOENIX 85016 29,174 0.191
150 164-49-118 2024 MAY KATHRYN PHOENIX 85016 27,869 0.179
151 164-49-064 2024 MCCORMICK PATRICK A/MARY S PHOENIX 85016 28,668 0.178
152 164-49-055 2024 MCLEOD RODD PHOENIX 85016 36,943 0.176
153 164-50-031 2024 MCMANAMON PATRICK PHOENIX 85016 22,416 0.251
154 164-49-032 2024 MILLER RONALD A PHOENIX 85016 29,646 0.170
Wrigley Terrace‐Tangerine Park Ownership Report
4/23/2024
164-50-043A 2024 MITCHELL AND KAYLA WOLFE FAMILY PHOENIX 85016 25,997 0.186
155 TRUST
156 164-50-001 2024 MITCHELL JACK H PHOENIX 85016 13,277 0.175
164-49-122 2024 MONTEILH DEWEY FAMILY TRUST DEWEY RYAN/MONTEILH PHOENIX 85016 26,041 0.175
157 CECILIA TR
158 164-49-098 2024 MORTEL ZENAIDA V/PAVLICK CHRISTINE PHOENIX 85016 32,103 0.176
159 164-50-143 2024 MOSKOVICH ASSAF PHOENIX 85016 17,380 0.178
160 164-49-140 2024 MULLIGAN FAMILY TRUST PHOENIX 85016 29,360 0.194
161 164-49-011 2024 MURILLO JOSE J/PATRICIA K PHOENIX 85016 25,264 0.176
162 164-49-081 2024 NAJARIAN BARBARA J TR PHOENIX 85016 35,966 0.294
163 164-49-092 2024 NALLY KRISTINE/STEPHEN PHOENIX 85016 34,321 0.209
164-50-104A 2024 NAU FAMILY TRUST NAU LOUIS T/CAROL V PHOENIX 85016 29,762 0.201
164 TRUSTEES
164-50-055 2024 NELSON REY PALMER III/MONROE- PHOENIX 85016 18,133 0.184
165 NELSON CAMILLE MARIE
166 164-49-129 2024 NELSON RYAN C/MANDI F PHOENIX 85016 28,864 0.187
167 164-49-035 2024 NEWCOMER STEVEN J/ELIZABETH T PHOENIX 85016 35,722 0.176
168 164-49-069 2024 NEWLEN FAMILY TRUST NEWLEN DONALD H JR TR PHOENIX 85016 33,857 0.181
169 164-50-136 2024 NEWSOME JESSE MIKAH PHOENIX 85016 18,868 0.176
170 164-49-027 2024 NICKERSON EDITH MARIE PHOENIX 85016 31,654 0.165
171 164-49-016 2024 NUMKENA ANTHONY E/NORA TR PHOENIX 85016 27,665 0.173
172 164-50-002 2024 OCOLMAIN COLM PHOENIX 85016 19,764 0.191
173 164-49-052 2024 OCOLMAIN SARAH J PHOENIX 85016 33,098 0.176
174 164-49-028 2024 OCOYNE GREGORY L/SCHULTZ JENNY E PHOENIX 85016 28,522 0.168
164-50-142 2024 ODELL BRANDI LYNN/SHAW JAMES PHOENIX 85016 20,319 0.180
175 DELOS II
176 164-49-073 2024 PALIK JOHN/ANTONETA PHOENIX 85016 37,579 0.183
177 164-50-131 2024 PATEL MARK B PHOENIX 85016 17,918 0.196
178 164-49-142 2024 PATRICIA LYNN LAWSTON TRUST PHOENIX 85016 28,750 0.188
164-50-035 2024 PETRIE FAMILY LIVING TRUST PETRIE WILLIAM M PHOENIX 85016 23,317 0.208
179 JR/KIMBERLY C TR
Page 511 164-50-077A 2024 PHOENIX CITY OF PROPERTY MANAGEMENT PHOENIX 85016 E 0 0.212
E ADMINISTRATOR
180 164-49-022 2024 POHLAD TIMOTHY D/JULIE L TR PHOENIX 85016 30,991 0.179
181 164-49-010 2024 POWER JAMES E PHOENIX 85016 26,502 0.176
182 164-49-141 2024 PREVATT RICHARD MATTHEW PHOENIX 85016 33,669 0.242
183 164-50-089A 2024 PRICE DANA PHOENIX 85016 25,887 0.205
184 164-50-041 2024 PROPERTIES 1621 LLC PHOENIX 85016 18,850 0.151
185 164-49-034 2024 RAPANAN JOSE JR PHOENIX 85016 34,989 0.165
186 164-50-036 2024 REILLY CATHERINE A/ROBERT E PHOENIX 85016 18,204 0.210
187 164-49-030 2024 RICHARDS LEA ANN/SEAN KELLY PHOENIX 85016 33,083 0.172
188 164-50-092A 2024 RICHARDSON JACQUELINE F PHOENIX 85016 7,376 0.205
189 164-49-056 2024 RJ SCHUETTE LIVING TRUST PHOENIX 85016 29,280 0.181
190 164-50-032 2024 ROBLES DEMITRIA PHOENIX 85016 26,222 0.199
191 164-49-113 2024 ROSATI CHELSEA/ZANONI DOMINIC PHOENIX 85016 29,858 0.178
192 164-50-058 2024 S&H VENTURES LLC PHOENIX 85016 12,752 0.179
193 164-49-147 2024 SANDERS JOEL/TEGETHOFF KRISTIN PHOENIX 85016 32,545 0.172
194 164-49-071 2024 SCHMIDT JEMIMA PHOENIX 85016 37,644 0.230
195 164-49-074 2024 SCHMITT BRIAN T PHOENIX 85016 32,288 0.177
164-50-130 2024 SCHREMP JONATHAN DOUGLAS/JANES PHOENIX 85016 25,282 0.222
196 JENNIFER ELIZABETH
197 164-49-033 2024 SCHROCK STEVEN C PHOENIX 85016 32,513 0.174
198 164-49-044 2024 SEAN CAMPBELL LIVING TRUST SEAN DOUGLAS CAMPBELL PHOENIX 85016 32,610 0.186
199 164-50-091A 2024 SEATON YVONNE PHOENIX 85016 6,824 0.205
200 164-49-060 2024 SERAFIN JERZY J/NIKKI N PHOENIX 85016 30,184 0.197
201 164-49-114 2024 SHARON K OBRIEN LIVING TRUST PHOENIX 85016 28,506 0.165
202 164-49-101 2024 SHARP DOUGLAS E/DEBORAH J PHOENIX 85016 28,473 0.177
203 164-50-096 2024 SHERRICK ROGER D/CHERYL L PHOENIX 85016 21,376 0.178
204 164-50-038 2024 SKOLOFF BRIAN/OYAN KATIE J PHOENIX 85016 20,426 0.200
205 164-49-040 2024 SLEIGHT LLC PHOENIX 85016 28,603 0.183
Wrigley Terrace‐Tangerine Park Ownership Report
4/23/2024
206 164-49-079A 2024 SPENCE TRUST SPENCE STEVE F/KELLY A TR PHOENIX 85016 43,378 0.278
207 164-49-110 2024 SPONCIL SARAH MARIE PHOENIX 85016 29,662 0.177
164-50-079F 2024 STALLONE THEODORE PHOENIX 85016 27,529 0.212
208 GREGORY/BASTIEN JULIE MICHELLE
209 164-49-078 2024 STEPHANIE BROOKS LIVING TRUST PHOENIX 85016 30,446 0.181
210 164-49-083 2024 STIESMEYER VERA A PHOENIX 85016 30,563 0.225
211 164-49-132 2024 STITES SUZZANNE L PHOENIX 85016 29,695 0.183
164-49-124 2024 STROPKO FAMILY TRUST STROPKO PHOENIX 85016 31,927 0.189
LOGAN/HENDRICKSON
212 ASHLEIGH TR
213 164-49-105 2024 SUCHAND BRANDON/NICOLE PHOENIX 85016 29,581 0.174
214 164-49-117 2024 SUSAN BUSH REVOCABLE TRUST PHOENIX 85016 28,766 0.181
215 164-49-002 2024 SVRU5 LLC PHOENIX 85016 2,101 0.093
215 164-49-004 2024 SVRU5 LLC PHOENIX 85016 32,755 0.223
164-49-043 2024 SWENSON FAMILY TRUST SWENSON PHOENIX 85016 34,328 0.185
216 INGRID/HERINGTON
217 164-50-044A 2024 THERRIEN CONSTANCE M PHOENIX 85016 15,517 0.147
164-50-098 2024 TIFFANY FAMILY TRUST TIFFANY MICHAEL EDWARD PHOENIX 85016 24,852 0.360
218 JR TR
219 164-49-106 2024 TIRUPALA LLC PHOENIX 85016 31,307 0.210
220 164-49-026 2024 UDVARE MICHAEL J PHOENIX 85016 36,357 0.173
221 164-50-079E 2024 UMBLE SUZANN J PHOENIX 85016 29,328 0.212
222 164-50-093A 2024 UPTOWN RANCHO LLC PHOENIX 85016 28,451 0.227
223 164-50-057 2024 VEGA ANDRES BENAVIDES PHOENIX 85016 21,281 0.187
224 164-49-138 2024 VOGEL CLAUDE PHOENIX 85016 33,735 0.186
164-49-135 2024 W & L SPONCIL LIVING TRUST BONESTROO MATTHEW PHOENIX 85016 32,627 0.182
THOMAS/SPONCIL REBECCA
225 A TR
226 164-50-049 2024 WALKER & MARTIN INC PHOENIX 85016 23,794 0.179
227 164-49-112 2024 WATSON WILLIAM T/MEGAN A PHOENIX 85016 28,082 0.178
228 164-50-088A 2024 WHEAT PAUL D/SUSAN RENELL PHOENIX 85016 5,920 0.205
229 164-49-127
Page 512 2024 WILLIAMS DIANE W PHOENIX 85016 31,286 0.181
164-49-115 2024 WOLVEN CHRISTOPHER L/RASSAS PHOENIX 85016 32,008 0.227
230 HAYDEN C
231 164-50-106 2024 WRIGHT EMILY KATHERINE PHOENIX 85016 24,072 0.202
232 164-49-121 2024 YARISH STEFAN MARC/GABRIELA PHOENIX 85016 38,312 0.179
233 164-50-013 2024 YEAGER ANTHONY S/APRIL A PHOENIX 85016 25,658 0.329
164-50-105A 2024 ZARAH PEARSON TRUST PEARSON ZARAH/HUNTER PHOENIX 85016 30,156 0.221
234 SARAH TR
6,773,900 47.254 0.197
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Drive (Resolution 22220)
Abandonment: 240010
Project: 94-0008704
Applicant: Michael Ashbrook
Request: To abandon a portion of an existing drainage easement that is located at
4602 W. Honeysuckle Drive and 4601 W. Honeysuckle Drive.
Date of Decision: April 16, 2024
Location
Generally located at 4601 and 4602 W. Honeysuckle Drive
Council District: 1
Financial Impact
Pursuant to Phoenix City Code Article 5, section 31-64 (e) as the City acknowledges
the public benefit received by the generation of additional revenue from the private tax
rolls and by the elimination of third-party general liability claims against the City,
maintenance expenses, and undesirable traffic patterns, also replatting of the area
with alternate roadways and new development as sufficient and appropriate
consideration in this matter.
None. No fee was required as a part of this easement abandonment, although filing
fees were paid.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 513
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
22219)
Abandonment: 240013
Project: 20-1996
Applicant: Anthony Pappas
Request: To abandon a portion of an existing 20-foot wide drainage easement that is
located at 905 W. Peoria Ave.
Date of Decision: April 10, 2024
Location
Generally located at 905 W. Peoria Ave.
Council District: 3
Financial Impact
Pursuant to Phoenix City Code Article 5, section 31-64 (e) as the City acknowledges
the public benefit received by the generation of additional revenue from the private tax
rolls and by the elimination of third-party general liability claims against the City,
maintenance expenses, and undesirable traffic patterns, also replatting of the area
with alternate roadways and new development as sufficient and appropriate
consideration in this matter.
None. No fee was required as a part of this easement abandonment, although filing
fees were paid.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 514
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
(Resolution 22218)
Abandonment: 200501
Project: 20-245
Applicant: Taylor Earl, Earl & Curley, PC
Request: To abandon approximately 30 feet of excess right-of-way, dedicated by
Ordinance S-6274, adjacent to the south property line.
Date of Hearing: March 19, 2020
Location
Generally located at 1018 E. Roosevelt St.
Council District: 8
Financial Impact
A fee was also collected as part of this abandonment in the amount of $550.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 515
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Approximately 2,260 Feet North of the Northeast Corner of North Black Canyon
Highway and Circle Mountain Road (Ordinance G-7267)
Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the
C-2 (Intermediate Commercial) and R-2 (Multifamily Residence District) to R-2
(Multifamily Residence District) to allow single-family residential.
Summary
Current Zoning: C-2 (13.74 acres) and R-2 (0.55 acres)
Proposed Zoning: R-2
Acreage: 14.29
Proposal: Single-family residential
Owner: Circle Mountain Holdings, LLC
Applicant/Representative: Adam Baugh, Withey Morris Baugh, PLC
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The Rio Vista Village Planning Committee heard this item on April 9,
2024, and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a vote of 4-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this item on May 2, 2024, and
recommended approval, per the Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
recommendation, by a vote of 9-0.
Location
Approximately 2,260 feet north of the northeast corner of North Black Canyon Highway
and Circle Mountain Road
Council District: 1
Parcel Address: 45111 N. Black Canyon Highway
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 516
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE G-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED
HEREIN (CASE Z-124-23-1) FROM C-2 (INTERMEDIATE
COMMERCIAL) AND R-2 (MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE
DISTRICT) TO R-2 (MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT
DISTRICT).
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning of a 14.29-acre site located approximately 2,260
feet north of the northeast corner of North Black Canyon Highway and Circle Mountain
Road in a portion of Section 3, Township 6 North, Range 2 East, as described more
specifically in Exhibit “A,” is hereby changed from 13.74 acres of “C-2” (Intermediate
Commercial) and 0.55 acres of “R-2” (Multifamily Residence District) to “R-2”
(Multifamily Residence District).
SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to
modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification
change as shown in Exhibit “B.”
Page 517
SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use
district applied for by the applicant, this rezoning is subject to the following stipulations,
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:
1. The maximum density shall be 5.04 dwelling units per gross acre.
2. A minimum of 10% of common open space shall be provided, and shall be
evenly dispersed throughout the development, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department.
3. The building elevations for single-family residential development shall comply
with the following standards, and if multifamily residential development occurs it
shall comply with a and b below, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
a. Materials and colors shall blend with the natural desert environment.
b. Enhanced building materials and four-sided architecture shall be
provided.
c. A minimum of nine varying elevations shall be provided.
d. A minimum of five architectural styles shall be provided.
e. A minimum of six of the elevations shall include a front covered porch
measuring a minimum of 6 feet deep by 12 feet and 7 inches wide.
f. A maximum of three of the elevations may include a covered entry with
a minimum width of 2 feet and 6 inches.
g. Enhanced decorative windows shall be used on all front sides of homes.
h. Elevations shall have varying rooflines of the homes.
i. All garage doors shall have windows and recessed panels.
4. A minimum building setback of 58 feet shall be provided along the west
property line, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
5. A minimum landscaped setback of 30 feet shall be provided along the west
property line, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
Page 518
6. All perimeter landscape setbacks adjacent to public streets shall be planted to
the following standards, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
a. Minimum 50% 2-inch caliper and 50% 3-inch caliper, large canopy,
drought-tolerant, shade trees, planted 20 feet on center, or in equivalent
groupings with a staggered row of trees for every 20 feet of setback.
b. In areas using non-salvaged drought tolerant shrubs, accents, and
vegetative groundcovers, a minimum of 75% live coverage at maturity
shall be achieved.
c. In areas using salvaged native desert shrubs, accents, and vegetative
groundcovers, a minimum of 50% live coverage at maturity shall be
achieved.
7. A minimum of 10% of the required shrubs shall be a milkweed or other native
nectar species and shall be planted in groups of three or more, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.
8. All pedestrian pathways and trails, including sidewalks, shall be shaded by a
structure, landscaping, or a combination of the two to provide minimum 75%
shade, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
9. If multifamily residential development occurs, where pedestrian walkways cross
a vehicular path, the pathway shall be constructed of decorative pavers,
stamped or colored concrete, or other pavement treatments that visually
contrasts parking and drive aisle surfaces, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
10. If a pedestrian walkway or trail crosses private lots, a pedestrian access
easement shall be dedicated across the private lots, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
11. Guest bicycle parking spaces shall be provided at a minimum rate of 0.05
spaces per unit. Bicycle parking spaces shall be provided through Inverted U
and/or artistic racks located near open space areas and installed per the
requirements of Section 1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department. Artistic racks shall adhere to the
Master Plan.
12. If multifamily residential development occurs, a minimum of 0.25 secured
bicycle parking spaces per dwelling unit shall be provided, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
13. If multifamily residential development occurs, a minimum of 10% of the required
Page 519
bicycle parking spaces shall include standard electrical receptacles for electric
bicycle charging capabilities.
14. If multifamily residential development occurs, a bicycle repair station (“fix it
station”) shall be provided and maintained on site within an amenity area or
near a primary site entrance. The bicycle repair station (“fix it station”) shall be
provided in an area of high visibility and separated from vehicular maneuvering
areas, where applicable. The repair station shall include, but not be limited to,
standard repair tools affixed to the station, a tire gauge and pump affixed to the
base of the station or the ground, and a bicycle repair stand which allows
pedals and wheels to spin freely while making adjustments to the bike.
15. A Water Master Plan, Wastewater Master Plan, and Trails and Pedestrian
Circulation Master Plan for the overall development, per the requirements of the
Planned Community District (PCD), Section 636 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance, shall be submitted for review and shall include the following
elements, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
a. A 30-foot-wide multi-use trail easement (MUTE) shall be dedicated
along the west side of the property adjacent to the I-17 frontage road
and a minimum 10-foot-wide multi-use trail (MUT) shall be constructed
within the easement in accordance with the MAG supplemental detail.
b. A north-south pedestrian connection shall be provided through the
center of the overall development to provide an ultimate connection
from Circle Mountain Road to Jenny Lin Road and shall comply with
Section 1304.H of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance.
c. One pedestrian connection shall be provided from the site leading to the
adjacent trails directly east or west of the site, adjacent to the
development, which may be provided along the minor collector road
along the southern boundary of the development.
d. Pedestrian access shall be provided, adjacent to the development, to
future development to the east, which may be provided along the minor
collector road along the southern boundary of the development.
16. The indoor noise levels of residential units shall not exceed a decibel day-night
level (DNL) of 45 decibels, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department. Certification by an acoustical consultant with a proficiency in
residential sound mitigation or noise control shall be included with the building
plans submitted for Phoenix Building Construction Code compliance review to
the Planning and Development Department. The acoustical consultant shall
note in the analysis that the building design is capable of achieving the required
noise level reduction.
17. Noise mitigation walls shall be provided adjacent to the western perimeter of the
Page 520
site. The wall height shall be a minimum of 8 feet tall or higher, as determined
through a noise analysis prepared by an Acoustical Consultant. The wall shall
be constructed of minimum 8-inch-thick concrete masonry units (CMU) or of
cast-in-place concrete; and contain no openings unless they are above the
minimum height required for adequate noise mitigation, for drainage, or for
pedestrian connections to the multi-use trail, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
18. Perimeter walls, noise walls, and other walls adjacent to perimeter streets shall
vary by a minimum of four feet every 400 lineal feet to visually reflect a
meandering or staggered setback, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
19. Where perimeter walls are provided, including the noise wall, they shall
incorporate stone veneer, stonework, or integral color CMU block, and shall use
materials as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
20. Where walls are provided and longer than 55 feet, a combination of view
walls/fencing and partial view walls/fencing (with minimum two feet of view
fence atop the wall) shall be incorporated along property lines adjacent to
dedicated public or private open space areas, natural and/or improved
drainageways or recreational areas, except adjacent to a perimeter street, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
21. Perimeter walls, including the noise wall, and interior walls (where provided)
shall use materials and colors that blend with the natural desert environment, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
22. Drainage channels shall be designed to look natural in the desert setting
through color, texture, landscaping, or other means, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
23. If multifamily residential development occurs, a minimum of 10% of surface
parking lot areas, exclusive of perimeter landscape setbacks, shall be
landscaped. The surface parking lot areas shall be landscaped with minimum 2-
inch caliper, large canopy, drought-tolerant, shade trees, and shall be dispersed
throughout the parking area to achieve a minimum 25% shade, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.
24. If multifamily residential development occurs, a minimum of 10% of the required
parking spaces shall include Electric Vehicle (EV) Installed infrastructure, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
25. A minimum of two green infrastructure (GI) techniques for stormwater
management shall be implemented per the Greater Phoenix Metro Green
Infrastructure and Low Impact Development Details for Alternative Stormwater
Management, as approved or modified by the Planning and Development
Page 521
Department.
26. Natural turf shall only be utilized on individual single-family lots (behind the front
yard); required retention areas (bottom of basin); and functional turf areas within
common areas, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
27. Pressure regulating sprinkler heads and drip lines shall be utilized in any turf
areas to reduce water waste.
28. A leak detection device shall be installed for the irrigation system of retention
areas larger than 10,000 square feet.
29. Landscaping shall be maintained by permanent and automatic/water efficient
WaterSense labeled irrigation controllers (or similar smart controller) to
minimize maintenance and irrigation water consumption for all on and offsite
landscape irrigation.
30. Only landscape materials listed in the Phoenix Active Management Area Low-
Water-Use/Drought-Tolerant Plant List shall be utilized in the common areas
and within the front yards of individual residential lots, as approved or modified
by the Planning and Development Department.
31. Participation in the City of Phoenix Homeowner’s Association Water Efficiency
Program shall be incorporated into to Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions
for the subdivision, prior to final site plan approval.
32. Minimum 5-foot-wide detached sidewalks separated by minimum 5-foot-wide
landscape strips located between the back of curb and sidewalk shall be
constructed along both sides of all streets within the development, excluding
private accessways used only for rear alley garage loading if technical appeals
for this design are granted, planted to the following standards, and as approved
by the Planning and Development Department.
a. Minimum 2-inch caliper, single-trunk, large canopy, drought-tolerant,
shade trees, planted 20 feet on center, or in equivalent groupings.
b. Drought tolerant shrubs, accents, and vegetative groundcovers with a
maximum mature height of two feet to achieve a minimum of 50% live
coverage.
Where utility conflicts arise, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on an alternative design solution consistent with a
pedestrian environment.
33. A minimum of 65 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated for the east half of the I-
17 frontage road and shall be constructed per the Maricopa County Department
of Transportation (MCDOT) Rural Minor Arterial cross section, as required and
Page 522
approved by MCDOT.
34. A minimum 5-foot-wide detached sidewalk, or wider to meet Maricopa County
Department of Transportation (MCDOT) minimum standards, separated by a
minimum 5-foot-wide landscape strips located between the back of curb and
sidewalk, or wider to meet MCDOT minimum standards, shall be constructed
along the east side of the I-17 frontage road, planted to the following standards.
The developer shall record a landscaping maintenance agreement with the
Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) requiring the
landowner and/or property management company/homeowners’ association to
maintain the installed landscaping within MCDOT right-of-way, as approved by
MCDOT and the Planning and Development Department.
a. Minimum 2-inch caliper, single-trunk, large canopy, drought-tolerant,
shade trees, planted 20 feet on center, or in equivalent groupings.
b. Drought tolerant shrubs, accents, and vegetative groundcovers with a
maximum mature height of two feet to achieve a minimum of 75% live
coverage.
Where utility conflicts arise, the developer shall work with the MCDOT and the
Planning and Development Department on an alternative design solution
consistent with a pedestrian environment.
35. A minimum of 60 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated and constructed for the
full width of a minor collector street along the southern boundary of the site,
adjacent to the development. The improvements shall be consistent with the
Minor Collector Cross Section F, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
36. Minimum 5-foot-wide detached sidewalks separated by minimum 8-foot-wide
landscape strips located between the back of curb and sidewalk shall be
constructed along both sides of the minor collector street along the southern
boundary of the development, planted to the following standards, and as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
a. Minimum 2-inch caliper, single-trunk, large canopy, drought-tolerant,
shade trees, planted 20 feet on center, or in equivalent groupings.
b. Drought tolerant shrubs, accents, and vegetative groundcovers with a
maximum mature height of two feet to achieve a minimum of 50% live
coverage.
Where utility conflicts arise, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on an alternative design solution consistent with a
pedestrian environment.
Page 523
37. Where the north-south pedestrian connection and multi-use trail cross a street,
the walkways shall be constructed of an alternative pavement material that
visually contrasts the street surface, as approved by the Street Transportation
Department and the Planning and Development Department.
38. All streets within and adjacent to the development shall be constructed with
paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands,
landscaping, and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and
Development Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA
accessibility standards.
39. The property owner shall record documents that disclose to prospective
purchasers and renters of property within the development the existence of
noise from the I-17 Freeway. The form and content of such documents shall be
according to the templates and instructions provided, which have been
reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.
40. If determined necessary by the Phoenix Archeology Office, the applicant shall
conduct Phase I data testing and submit an archaeological survey report of the
development area for review and approval by the City Archeologist prior to
clearing and grubbing, landscape salvage, and/or grading approval.
41. If Phase I data testing is required, and if, upon review of the results from Phase
I data testing, the City Archeologist, in consultation with a qualified archeologist,
determines such data recovery excavations are necessary, the applicant shall
conduct Phase II archeological data recovery excavations.
42. In the event archeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archeologist, and allow time for the
Archeology Office to properly assess the materials.
43. Prior to final site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207
waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County
Recorder’s Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning
application file for record.
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the
decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity
of the remaining portions hereof.
Page 524
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 12th day of June,
2024.
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney
By:
_________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager
Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (1 Page)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
Page 525
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description
A portion of land being situated within Section 3, Township 6 NORTH, Range 2
EAST of the Gila and Salt River Meridian, MARICOPA County, Arizona, being
more particularly described as follows:
COMMENCING at the Center of said Section 3, marked by a found ½” rebar
with tag “RLS 38862”, from which the North Quarter corner, marked by a found
1” iron pipe with no I.D., thereof bears North 00°00’26” East, 2647.85 feet;
THENCE North 00°00’26’ East, 792.67 feet on the Easterly boundary of the
THENCE South 89°59’34” West 391.86 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE South 04°16'48" West, 686.35 feet; to the beginning of a tangent
curve concave to the left, having a radius of 500.00 feet;
THENCE along said curve, through a central angle of 23°55'39", an arc length
of 208.81 feet to a tangent line;
THENCE South 19°38’51” East, 77.53 feet;
THENCE South 19°42'17" East, 60.00 feet;
THENCE South 70°17'43" West, 25.00 feet; to a non-tangent curve, concave
left, having a radius of 20.00 feet, the center of which bears
South 70°17'43" West;
THENCE along said curve, through a central angle of 90°00'00", an arc length
of 31.42 feet to a non-tangent line;
THENCE South 70°17'43" West, 161.54 feet; to the beginning of a tangent
curve concave to the left, having a radius of 300.00 feet;
THENCE along said curve, through a central angle of 13°40'04", an arc length
of 71.57 feet to a tangent line;
THENCE South 56°37'38" West, 9.97 feet; to the beginning of a tangent curve
concave to the right, having a radius of 290.00 feet;
THENCE along said curve, through a central angle of 35°50'39", an arc length
of 181.42 feet to a tangent line;
THENCE North 87°37'08" West, 192.20 feet;
THENCE North 04°16'45" East, 1174.58 feet;
THENCE South 87°21'11" East, 527.65 feet; to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Page 526
Page 527
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Northwest Corner of 83rd Avenue and Broadway Road (Ordinance G-7265)
Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the
-1 (Ranch or Farm Residence) to C-2 (Intermediate Commercial) and C-2 HGT/WVR
DNS/WVR (Intermediate Commercial, Height Waiver, Density Waiver) to allow
commercial and multifamily residential.
Summary
Current Zoning: S-1
Proposed Zoning: C-2 (6.46 acres) and C-2 HGT/WVR DNS/WVR (12.34 acres)
Acreage: 18.80
Proposed Use: Commercial and multifamily residential
Owner: New World Properties, Inc., Manager of New Era Phoenix, LLC
Applicant: Stephanie Watney, Withey Morris Baugh, PLC
Representative: Jason Morris, Withey Morris Baugh, PLC
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The Estrella Village Planning Committee heard this item on Feb. 20, 2024,
and continued the item, by a vote of 8-0. The Estrella Village Planning Committee was
scheduled to hear this item on March 19, 2024, for recommendation; however, there
was no quorum. The Estrella Village Planning Committee heard this item on April 16,
2024, and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, with deletions, a
modification, and an additional stipulation, by a vote of 9-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this item on May 2, 2024, and
recommended approval, per the staff memo dated April 29, 2024, by a vote of 9-0.
Location
Northwest corner of 83rd Avenue and Broadway Road
Council District: 7
Parcel Address: N/A
Page 528
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 529
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE G-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED
HEREIN (CASE Z-9-24-7) FROM S-1 (RANCH OR FARM
RESIDENCE) TO C-2 (INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL) AND C-2
HGT/WVR DNS/WVR (INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL, HEIGHT
WAIVER, DENSITY WAIVER).
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning of an 18.80-acre site located at the northwest
corner of 83rd Avenue and Broadway Road in a portion of Section 22, Township 1
North, Range 1 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit “A,” is hereby changed
from “S-1” (Ranch or Farm Residence) to 6.46 acres of “C-2” (Intermediate Commercial)
and 12.34 acres of “C-2 HGT/WVR DNS/WVR” (Intermediate Commercial, Height
Waiver, Density Waiver).
SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to
modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification
change as shown in Exhibit “B.”
Page 530
SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use
district applied for by the applicant, this rezoning is subject to the following stipulations,
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:
Overall Development
1. The development shall conform with the Estrella Village Arterial Street
Landscaping Program landscape palette and landscaping standards along
arterial streets in the Estrella Village, except as otherwise noted herein, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
2. Only landscape materials listed in the Phoenix Active Management
Area Low-Water-Use/Drought-Tolerant Plant List shall be utilized internal to the
site, as approved or modified by the Planning and Development Department.
3. A minimum of 25% of the surface parking areas shall be shaded, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department. Shade may be achieved by
structures or by minimum 2-inch caliper, drought tolerant, shade trees, or a
combination thereof.
4. Landscaping shall be maintained by permanent and automatic/water efficient
WaterSense labeled irrigation controllers (or similar smart controller) to
minimize maintenance and irrigation water consumption for all on and offsite
landscape irrigation.
5. Pressure regulating sprinkler heads and drip lines shall be utilized in any turf
areas to reduce water waste.
6. A minimum of two green infrastructure (GI) techniques for stormwater
management shall be implemented per the Greater Phoenix Metro Green
Infrastructure and Low-Impact Development Details for Alternative Stormwater
Management, as approved or modified by the Planning and Development
Department.
7. Where pedestrian walkways cross a vehicular path, the pathway shall be
constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or other
pavement treatments that visually contrasts parking and drive aisle surfaces, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
8. A minimum of 10% of the required shrubs, shall be a milkweed or other native
nectar species, and shall be planted in groups of three or more, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.
Page 531
9. A bus stop pad shall be constructed on westbound Broadway Road, locate from
83rd Avenue according to City of Phoenix Standard Detail P1258. The bus pad
shall be designed according to City of Phoenix Standard Detail P1260 with a
depth of 10 feet.
10. A minimum 55 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated for the west half of 83rd
Avenue, adjacent to the development.
11. A minimum 70-foot flared intersection tapering to a minimum 55-foot right-of-
way shall be dedicated for the west half of 83rd Avenue, adjacent to the
development.
12. Dedication of right-of-way and construction of all roadway improvements to the
west half of 83rd Avenue shall be for the entire extent of the rezoning boundary
and completed during the first phase of development. Improvements to the west
half of 83rd Avenue shall be consistent with the arterial CM cross section
consisting of a 14-foot raised and landscaped center median and a minimum 6-
foot-wide detached sidewalk separated by a minimum 10-foot-wide landscape
area, adjacent to the development. The landscape strip shall be planted with
minimum 2-inch caliper, single trunk, drought-tolerant, shade trees to provide a
minimum of 75% shade, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department. Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the
Planning and Development Department on alternative design solutions
consistent with a pedestrian environment.
13. The developer shall dedicate and construct all roadway improvements along
Broadway Road for the entire extent of the rezoning boundary during the first
phase of development and in coordination with review and approval from
Maricopa County Department of Transportation. Documentation of the county
review and approval shall be provided prior to preliminary site plan approval.
14. A minimum 30-foot wide Multi-Use Trail Easement (MUTE) shall be dedicated
adjacent to Broadway Road. Construction of the Multi-Use Trail shall comply
with the Estrella Multi-Purpose Trail Plan.
15. Clearly defined pedestrian pathway(s), consisting of decorative material
such as brick, pavers or alternative material providing shall be provided
connecting the residences throughout the site to the Broadway Multi-Use Trail
and the adjacent commercial site, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
16. An enhanced pedestrian entryway shall be provided on the southern site
boundary, adjacent to the trail, to allow for direct pedestrian access to site and
the trail system.
17. A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) shall be submitted to the City for this development.
No preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until the study is reviewed and
Page 532
approved by the Street Transportation Department. The TIS shall include signal
warrant analysis for 83rd Avenue and Broadway Road. If the approved TIS
determines that a signal is warranted at this intersection, the developer shall be
required to fund 100% of the cost and construct the signal. If the TIS does not
warrant the signal, the developer shall be required to contribute 25% of traffic
signal cost in an escrow account to the Street Transportation Department.
18. All existing electrical utilities within the public right-of-way shall be
undergrounded, adjacent to the development. The developer shall coordinate
with the affected utility companies for their review and permitting.
19. All streets within and adjacent to the development shall be constructed with
paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands,
landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and
Development Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA
accessibility standards.
20. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
21. Prior to final site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207
waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County
Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in the
rezoning application file for record.
Multifamily development as depicted on the site plan date stamped February 2,
22. The development shall be in general conformance with the elevations date
stamped January 8, 2024, as modified by the following stipulations and
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
23. The maximum height shall be 2 stories or 30 feet for the first 100 feet adjacent
to the north property line.
24. The R-4 Planned Residential Development Option shall be utilized for the
development.
25. The north landscape setback shall be planted with minimum 2-inch caliper large
canopy, evergreen trees, planted 25 feet on center or in equivalent groupings,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
26. All pedestrian walkways, including sidewalks, shall be shaded by a structure,
landscaping, or a combination of the two to provide a minimum of 75% shade,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department. Where utility
Page 533
conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and Development
Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a pedestrian
environment.
27. The development shall incorporate bicycle infrastructure as described below
and approved by the Planning and Development Department
a. The developer shall provide secure bicycle parking per Section 1307 of
the Zoning Ordinance.
b. Guest bicycle parking shall be provided at a minimum rate of 0.05 spaces
per unit, up to a maximum of 50 spaces. Parking spaces shall be
provided through Inverted U and/or artistic racks located near the
community center and/or clubhouse and open space areas, and installed
per the requirements of Section 1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance. Artistic racks shall adhere to the City of Phoenix Preferred
Designs in Appendix K of the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan.
c. A bicycle repair station (“fix it station”) shall be provided and maintained
on site within an amenity area or near a primary site entrance, and
separated from vehicular maneuvering areas, where applicable. The
repair station shall include, but not be limited to standard repair tools
affixed to the station, a tire gauge and pump affixed to the base of the
station or the ground, and a bicycle repair stand which allows pedals and
wheels to spin freely while making adjustments to the bike.
d. Bicycle parking spaces shall be shaded by a structure, landscaping, or a
combination of the two to provide a minimum of 75% shade, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department.
e. A minimum of 10% of the required bicycle parking spaces shall be
include standard electrical receptacles for electric bicycle charging
capabilities.
28. A minimum of 2% of the required parking spaces shall include EV Installed
infrastructure. A minimum of 5% of the required parking spaces shall include EV
Capable spaces.
29. Prior to final site plan approval, documentation shall be provided that
demonstrates a commitment to participate in the Water Efficiency Checkup for a
minimum of 10 years, or as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
30. Landscape areas shall be planted with minimum 2-inch caliper, large canopy,
drought-tolerant, shade trees planted 25 feet on center or in equivalent
groupings, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
Page 534
Commercial Portion as depicted on the site plan date stamped February 2, 2024
31. The conceptual site plan and elevations for the future commercial development
as depicted on the site plan date stamped February 2, 2024, shall be reviewed
and approved by the Planning Hearing Officer through the public hearing
process for stipulation modifications prior to preliminary site plan approval. This
is a legislative review for conceptual purposes only. Specific development
standards and requirements will be determined by the Planning Hearing Officer
and the Planning and Development Department. They site plan shall
incorporate the following elements:
a. Accessible pedestrian pathways that connect building entrances and
public sidewalks using the most direct route for pedestrians.
b. Pedestrian connections between adjacent commercial developments (if
developed across multiple phases).
c. At least two pedestrian pathway shall be provided to connect the
proposed multifamily development to the proposed commercial
development.
32. A minimum 5-foot wide landscape setback shall be provided along the
commercial perimeter adjacent to multifamily, planted with evergreen trees, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
33. The development shall incorporate bicycle infrastructure as described below
and approved by the Planning and Development Department
a. Bicycle parking spaces shall be provided per the requirements of
Section 1307.H of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance through inverted U
and/or artistic racks located near the office and installed per the
requirements of Section 1307.H of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance.
Artistic racks shall adhere to the City of Phoenix Preferred Designs in
Appendix K of the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan.
b. A minimum of 5% of the required bicycle parking spaces shall include
standard electrical receptables for electric bicycle charging capabilities.
34. A minimum of 5% of the required parking spaces shall include EV Ready
infrastructure.
35. Prior to final site plan approval, documentation shall be provided that
demonstrates a commitment to participate in the City of Phoenix Business
Water Efficiency Program for a minimum of 10 years, or as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
Page 535
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the
decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity
of the remaining portions hereof.
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 12th day of June,
2024.
_______________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney
By:
_________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager
Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (2 Pages)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
Page 536
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-9-24-7
C-2:
That part of the South Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter Section
22, Township 1 North, Range 1 East, of the Gila and Salt River Meridian, Maricopa
County, Arizona, more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the Brass Cap flush marking Southeast Corner of said Section 22, from
which the Brass Cap flush marking the South Quarter Corner of said Section 22 bears
South 82°34'33" West, a distance of 2631.83 feet;
Thence South 82°34'33" West, along the South line of said Southeast Quarter, a
distance of 695.00 feet;
Thence North 02°11'37" West, departing said South line, a distance of 33.14 feet to the
Point of Beginning
Thence continuing North 02°11'37" West, departing said South line, a distance of
310.29 feet to a point on a line parallel with and 342.00 feet North from said South line;
Thence North 82°34'33" East, along said parallel line, a distance of 411.84 feet to a
point on a line parallel with and 283.00 feet West from the East line of said South Half;
Thence North 02°00'36" West, along said parallel line, a distance of 241.85 feet;
Thence North 82°36'36" East, departing said parallel line, a distance of 284.25 feet to a
point on the East line of said South Half;
Thence South 02°00'36" East, along said East line, a distance of 545.03 feet to a point
on a line parallel with and 40.00 North from said South line;
Thence South 82°34'33" West, departing said East line and along said parallel line, a
distance of 33.15 feet to a point on a line parallel with and 33.00 feet West from said
East line;
Thence South 02°00'36" East, and along said parallel line, a distance of 7.03 feet to a
point on a line parallel with and 33.00 feet North of said South line;
Thence South 82°34'33" West, along said parallel line, a distance of 661.96 feet to the
Point of Beginning.
Containing 283,128 Square Feet or 6.500 Acres, more or less.
Page 537
C-2 HGT/WVR DNS/WVR:
That part of the South Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter Section
22, Township 1 North, Range 1 East, of the Gila and Salt River Meridian, Maricopa
County, Arizona, more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the Brass Cap flush marking Southeast Corner of said Section 22, from
which the Brass Cap flush marking the South Quarter Corner of said Section 22 bears
South 82°34'33" West, a distance of 2631.83 feet;
Thence South 82°34'33" West, along the South line of said Southeast Quarter, a
distance of 1301.85 feet;
Thence North 01°56'00" West, departing said South line, a distance of 33.15 feet to a
point on a line which is parallel with and 14.00 feet Easterly from the West line of said
South Half, being the Point of Beginning,
Thence continuing North 01°56'00" West, along said parallel line, a distance of 132.41
feet;
Thence South 82°35'06" West, departing said parallel line, a distance of 14.06 feet to a
point on said West line;
Thence North 01°56'00" West, along said West line, a distance of 496.69 feet to the
Northwest corner of said South Half;
Thence North 82°36'45" East, departing said West line and along the North line of said
South Half, a distance of 1314.95 feet to a point on the Northeast corner said South
Half;
Thence South 02°00'36" East, along the East line of said South Half, a distance of
76.12 feet;
Thence South 82°36'36" West, departing said East line, a distance of 284.25 feet to a
point on a line parallel with and 283.00 feet West from said East line;
Thence South 02°00'36" East, along said parallel line, a distance of 241.85 feet;
Thence South 82°34'33" West, departing said parallel line, a distance of 411.84 feet;
Thence South 02°11'37" East, a distance of 310.29 feet to a point on a line which is
parallel with and 33.00 feet North from the South line of said Southeast Quarter;
Thence South 82°34'33" West, along said parallel line, a distance of 606.70 feet to the
Point of Beginning.
Containing 537,991 Square Feet or 12.351 Acres, more or less.
Page 538
Page 539
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Approximately 1,400 Feet South of the Southeast Corner of 69th Avenue and Van
Buren Street (Ordinance G-7266)
Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the
A-1 (Light Industrial District) and RE-43 (One-Family Residence) to A-1 (Light
Industrial District) to allow light industrial.
Summary
Current Zoning: A-1 (6.12 acres) and RE-43 (2.36 acres)
Proposed Zoning: A-1
Acreage: 8.48
Proposed Use: Light industrial
Owner: Franklin E. Gilbert Properties, LLC c/o George Gilbert, et. al.
Applicant/Representative: Shaine Alleman, Tiffany & Bosco, P.A.
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The Estrella Village Planning Committee heard this item on April 16, 2024,
and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, with an additional
stipulation, by a vote of 9-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this item on May 2, 2024, and
recommended approval, per the staff memo dated April 29, 2024, by a vote of 9-0.
Location
Approximately 1,400 feet south of the southeast corner of 69th Avenue and Van Buren
Street
Council District: 7
Parcel Address: 32, 208, and 216 S. 67th Ave.; and 11, 13, 15, and 223 S. 69th Ave.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 540
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE G-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED
HEREIN (CASE Z-14-24-7) FROM A-1 (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
DISTRICT) AND RE-43 (ONE-FAMILY RESIDENCE) TO A-1
(LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT).
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning of an 8.48-acre site located approximately 1,400
feet south of the southeast corner of 69th Avenue and Van Buren Street in a portion of
Section 12, Township 1 North, Range 1 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit
“A,” is hereby changed from 6.12 acres of “A-1” (Light Industrial District) and 2.36 acres
of “RE-43” (One-Family Residence) to “A-1” (Light Industrial District).
SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to
modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification
change as shown in Exhibit “B.”
SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use
district applied for by the applicant, this rezoning is subject to the following stipulations,
Page 541
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:
1. The development shall be in general conformance with the site plan date
stamped March 12, 2024, as modified by the following stipulations, and as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
2. Roll-up garage doors shall be prohibited along the 67th Avenue frontage and
the northwest perimeter, adjacent to single-family residential zoning.
3. The maximum building height shall be 46 feet.
4. One outdoor employee resting area of no less than 400 square feet or two
200- square foot areas shall be provided on site. Each required pedestrian
area shall include a minimum of two pedestrian seating benches, constructed
of quality and durable materials, and shaded to a minimum of 75% using
minimum 2-inch caliper, large canopy, drought-tolerant, shade trees, and/or
architectural shade, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
5. Bicycle parking spaces shall be provided per the requirements of Section
1307.H of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance through inverted U and/or artistic
racks located near the office and installed per the requirements of Section
1307.H of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance. Artistic racks shall adhere to the
Bicycle Master Plan.
6. A minimum of 10% of the required bicycle parking spaces shall include
standard electrical receptacles for electric bicycle charging capabilities.
7. Where pedestrian walkways cross a vehicular path, the pathway shall
incorporate decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, striping or other
pavement treatments that visually contrast parking and drive aisle surfaces, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
8. Only landscape materials listed in the Phoenix Active Management Area Low
Water-Use/Drought-Tolerant Plant List shall be utilized internal to the site, as
approved or modified by the Planning and Development Department.
9. Landscape areas shall be planted with minimum 2-inch caliper, large canopy,
drought-tolerant, shade trees planted 25 feet on center or in equivalent
groupings, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. Where
utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a
pedestrian environment.
Page 542
10. A minimum of 25% of uncovered employee and customer surface parking lot
areas shall be shaded, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department. Shade may be achieved by structures or by minimum 2-inch
caliper, drought tolerant, shade trees, or a combination thereof.
11. The development shall conform with the Estrella Village Arterial Street
Landscaping Program landscape palette and landscaping standards along
arterial streets in the Estrella Village, except as otherwise noted herein, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
12. Landscaping shall be maintained by permanent and automatic/water efficient
WaterSense labeled irrigation controllers (or similar smart controller) to
minimize maintenance and irrigation water consumption for all on and offsite
landscape irrigation.
13. Pressure regulating sprinkler heads and drip lines shall be utilized in any turf
areas to reduce water waste.
14. A minimum of one green infrastructure (GI) techniques for stormwater
management shall be implemented per the Greater Phoenix Metro Green
Infrastructure and Low-Impact Development Details for Alternative Stormwater
Management, as approved or modified by the Planning and Development
Department.
15. Any wet-cooling systems shall be designed and installed per the standards in
the latest version of the International Green Construction Code (IGCC).
16. A minimum of 5% of the required parking shall be EV Capable.
17. A minimum 55-feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated and constructed,
including a raised center median, for the west half of 67th Avenue.
18. Only one full access driveway shall be permitted along 67th Avenue, in
compliance with the Street Transportation Department Street Planning and
Design Guidelines Manual for access control and spacing.
19. The sidewalk along 67th Avenue shall be a minimum of 6 feet in width and
detached with a minimum 10-foot-wide landscape strip located between the
sidewalk and back of curb and planted to the following standards, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department.
a. Minimum 2-inch caliper, drought-tolerant, single trunk, shade trees that
provide a minimum of 75 percent shade at maturity.
b. Drought-tolerant vegetation to achieve 75 percent live coverage at
maturity.
Page 543
c. The landscape palette and planting standards, unless otherwise
provided herein, shall conform with the Estrella Village Arterial Street
Landscaping Program requirements for the village parkway of 67th
Avenue.
Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a
pedestrian environment.
20. A minimum 5-foot-wide sidewalk shall be constructed on the north side of
Farmer Road, adjacent to the development.
21. A minimum 5-foot-wide sidewalk shall be constructed on the east side of 69th
Avenue, adjacent to the development.
22. Existing SRP facilities along 67th Avenue are to be relocated outside of City
right-of-way, unless otherwise approved by the Street Transportation
Department. Relocations that require additional dedications or land transfer
require completion prior to obtaining plat and/or civil plan review approval.
23. Replace unused driveways with sidewalk, curb, and gutter. Also, replace any
broken or out-of-grade curb, gutter, sidewalk, and curb ramps on all streets
and upgrade all off-site improvements to be in compliance with current ADA
guidelines.
24. All streets within and adjacent to the development shall be constructed with
paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands,
landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and
Development Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA
accessibility standards.
25. If determined necessary by the Phoenix Archaeology Office, the applicant
shall conduct Phase I data testing and submit an archaeological survey report
of the development area for review and approval by the City Archaeologist
prior to clearing and grubbing, landscape salvage, and/or grading approval.
26. If Phase I data testing is required, and if, upon review of the results from the
Phase I data testing, the City Archaeologist, in consultation with a qualified
archaeologist, determines such data recovery excavations are necessary, the
applicant shall conduct Phase II archaeological data recovery excavations.
27. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for
the Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
28. Prior to final site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207
Page 544
waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County
Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning
application file for record.
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the
decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity
of the remaining portions hereof.
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 12th day of June,
2024.
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney
By:
_________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager
Page 545
Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (3 Pages)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
Page 546
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-14-24-7
APN: 104-09-026
Section 12, Township 1N, Range 1E, The South 100 feet of Tract 9, WESTERN
ACRES, according to Book 29 of Maps, page 23, records of Maricopa County,
Arizona.
Gross Acreage: 0.76
APN: 104-09-027A
Section 12, Township 1N, Range 1E, Tract 9, WESTERN ACRES, according to
Book 29 of Maps, page 23, records of Maricopa County, Arizona; EXCEPT the
South 100 feet thereof; and EXCEPT the North 135 feet thereof.
Gross Acreage: 0.54
APN: 104-09-028C
Section 12, Township 1N, Range 1E, Tract PARCEL 10, #1: WESTERN ACRES,
according to Book 29 of Maps, page 23, records of Maricopa County, Arizona,
EXCEPT the North 110 feet.
Gross Acreage: 1.07
APN: 104-09-028D
Section 12, Township 1N, Range 1E, North 110 feet, Tract Ten, Western Acres,
according to the plat of record in the office of the Maricopa County Recorder in
Book 29, page 15, of Maps, Maricopa County, Arizona.
Gross Acreage: 0.83
APN: 104-09-029B
Section 12, Township 1N, Range 1E, That portion of Tract 11, WESTERN
ACRES, according to Book 29 of Maps, page 23, records of Maricopa County,
Arizona, described as follows:
COMMENCING at a point 65 feet North of the Southeast corner of the North 220
feet of said Tract 11;
THENCE Westerly 165 feet along the South line of the North 155 feet to the
TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of the parcel of land herein described;
THENCE continuing Westerly along the South line of the North 155 feet to the
point of intersection with the Southwesterly line of said Tract 11;
THENCE Northwesterly and Northerly along the Southwesterly line and the
Westerly line of said Tract 11 to the Northwest corner of said Tract 11;
Page 547
THENCE Easterly along the North line of said Tract 11 to a point which is 165
feet West of the Northeast corner of said Tract 11;
THENCE South 155 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
TOGETHER WITH that portion of Farmer Road abutting the Southwesterly line of
the above-described property as abandoned in Resolution No. 16630 recorded in
Document No. 85-332282, records of Maricopa County, Arizona.
Gross Acreage: 1.67
APN: 104-09-029C
Section 12, Township 1N, Range 1E, That portion of Tract 11, of WESTERN
ACRES, according to the plat of record in the office of the County Recorder of
Maricopa County, Arizona, recorded in Book 29 of Maps, Page 23, described as
follows:
BEGINNING at Northeast corner of said Tract 11;
Thence South, a distance of 90.00 feet along the East line of said Tract 11;
Thence West, a distance of 165.00 feet;
Thence North, a distance of 90.00 feet;
Thence East, a distance of 165.00 feet to the Northeast corner of said Tract 11
and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
EXCEPT the East 8.00 feet thereof as conveyed to the City of Phoenix by deed
recorded in Document No. 91-0261549, of Official Records.
Gross Acreage: 0.32
APN: 104-09-030A
Section 12, Township 1N, Range 1E, That part of the North 220 feet of Tract 11
of WESTERN ACRES, according to the plat thereof record in the office of the
County Recorder of Maricopa County, Arizona, recorded in Book 29 of Maps,
Page 23, thereof, described as follows:
COMMENCING at a point 65 feet North of the South-East corner of the North
220 feet of said Tract 11 in WESTERN ACRES;
Thence North 65 feet;
Thence West 165 feet;
Thence South 65 feet;
Thence East 165 feet to the point of beginning;
EXCEPT the East 8 feet thereof as conveyed to the City of Phoenix in warranty
deed recorded in recording No. 91-398642.
Gross Acreage: 0.24
Page 548
APN: 104-09-034
Section 12, Township 1N, Range 1E, The South half of Tract 12, WESTERN
ACRES, according to Book 29 of Maps, page 23, records of Maricopa County,
Arizona.
Gross Acreage: 2.36
Page 549
Page 550
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Abandonment of Right-of-Way - ABND 230055 - Harrison Street, Between 7th
Avenue and 9th Avenue
Abandonment: 230055
Project: 03-263
Abandonment Applicant: Jordan Evan Greenman
Date of Abandonment Hearing Officer’s Decision: Jan. 12, 2024
Appellant: Jordan Evan Greenman
Summary
Rationale: Appeal to Stipulation 3, per conditional approval report. The stipulation
states the following: "This abandonment request shall not be completed and conveyed
in fee title until such time that the additional ROW for Harrison Street between 7th
Avenue and 9th Avenue is also abandoned through a separate abandonment case.
Both cases, upon receiving conditional approval, must be finalized by Council
concurrently".
Location
Generally located at Harrison Street, between 7th Avenue and 9th Avenue
Council District: 7
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 551
Page 552
ATTACHMENT B
Planning and Development Department
CONDITIONAL APPROVAL – ABND 230055
Your abandonment request was granted CONDITIONAL APPROVAL by Christopher DePerro,
Abandonment Hearing Officer.
This request will NOT be completed until all the stipulations have been met and this request is
formally adopted by City Council. It is the APPLICANT’S RESPONSIBILITY to ensure that all
stipulations are satisfied. Please contact Dru Maynus at 602-262-7403 for questions and
notification of your completion of the stipulations.
Upon completion of the stipulations your request will be scheduled for City Council action.
If the stipulations of abandonment are not completed within two years from the date of your
conditional approval (your expiration date is January 12, 2025), this request will then expire.
At that time a new submittal will be required along with the required payment for the abandonment
process. A one time, one year extension can be requested prior to the expiration date, with
applicable extension fee due.
Page 553
Planning and Development Department
January 12, 2024
Preliminary Abandonment Staff Report: ABND 230055
Project# 03-263
Quarter Section: 10-26
District#: 7
Location: Harrison Street, between 9th Avenue and 7th
Avenue
Applicant: Greenman Law – Jordan Greenman
Request: To abandon a 60-foot-wide right-of-way
located north of Harrison Street between 9th
Avenue and 7th Avenue.
Purpose of request: The applicant states the abandonment will
increase the size of their property.
Hearing date: November 9, 2023: TAKEN UNDER
ADVISEMENT
January 12, 2024: CONDITIONAL
APPROVAL GRANTED
Page 554
Hearing Summary
Ms. Dru Maynus, Abandonment Coordinator read ABND 230055 into the record, stating the
location, applicant, request, purpose of request and City Staff research.
Mr. Christopher DePerro, Abandonment Hearing Officer asked the applicant if they wanted to
present or add to the case.
Mr. Jordan Greenman, the applicant presented the abandonment area, stating the history of the
area and how difficult it was to get approval from the railroads. Mr. Greenman also stated what
easements would be retained in the abandonment area.
Mr. Josh Rogers, Street Transportation Representative stated how the additional right of way to
the south would need to be added to the request. The request included only the north 60’ of the
fully 85’ dedicated, and Streets could not support this request without fully abandoning all of
Harrison Street between 7th Avenue and 9th Avenue.
Mr. Greenman stated how difficult it is to obtain approval from the railroads to sign off on the
abandonment request, and asked if it would be required since they own the properties to the south
of the additional ROW. Mr. Rogers stated that a revised petition including the properties abutting
the south side of Harrison Street would be required to move forward with the abandonment
Hearing Officer DePerro took ABND 230055 under advisement.
Page 555
Stipulations of Conditional Approval
The request of abandonment is conditionally approved by the Abandonment Hearing Officer.
The following stipulations will need to be met:
1. Either a or b shall be complied with:
a. All utilities shall be relocated to locations approved by each affected utility company.
All work is to be done by each affected utility company at no expense to the affected
utility company. An appropriate performance agreement, in an approved form and
cost amount, must be posted with the Planning and Development Department to
guarantee the improvements.
b. All rights-of-way shall be retained as a public utilities easement with 24-hour vehicle
maintenance access.
2. Consideration which provides a public benefit to the City is required in accordance with
City Code Art. 5, Sec. 31-64 and Ordinance G-5332. Cost for abandoned Right-of-Way
adjacent to property not zoned single family residential will be $500 OR Fair Market
Value whichever is greater. Cost for property zoned single family residential is $1.00 a
square foot for the first 500 square feet, $0.10 a square foot thereafter: OR Fair Market
Value at the option of the Planning and Development Director or designee. The applicant
shall submit calculation and fee to Planning and Development Department. The
applicant shall request a selection of approved appraisers from the current list
maintained by the Real Estate division of the Finance Department.
3. This abandonment request shall not be completed and conveyed in fee title until such
time that the additional ROW for Harrison Street between 7th Avenue and 9th Avenue is
also abandoned through a separate abandonment case. Both cases, upon receiving
conditional approval, must be finalized by Council concurrently.
4. All stipulations must be completed within two years from the Abandonment Hearing
Officer’s decision.
This conditional approval has been reviewed and approved by the Abandonment Hearing Officer.
Hearing Officer Signature: ____________________________________ Date: 1.12.24
__________
REPORT SUBMITTED BY: Alyssa Neitzel, Site Planning Administrative Supervisor
cc: Applicant/Representative, Greenman Law – Jordan Greenman
Christopher DePerro, Abandonment Hearing Officer
Page 556
ATTACHMENT C
Abandonment
Decision Appeal
In accordance with Section 31-70, Article V of the City Code, the decision of the Abandonment
Hearing Officer regarding the abandonment of public rights-of way may be appealed. Any
decision of the Abandonment Hearing Officer shall be considered final unless a person
aggrieved thereby, files a written Notice of Abandonment Appeal with the Planning &
Development Department within fifteen calendar days after the decision is made. The
completed abandonment appeal form and filing fee* must be submitted to the Planning &
Development Department, Check-In/Information Counter, located at 200 West Washington
Street, 2nd floor, Phoenix, Arizona 85003.
*All fees are pursuant to the current Fee Schedule contained in Appendix A.2. of the
Phoenix City Code.
Appellant’s Name: Jordan Greenman - Greenman Law Firm
Address: 1111 W Woodland Ave Phoenix AZ 85007 City: State: Zip:
Phone: 248-225-0428 Email: jordan@greenmanlawfirm.com
Affiliation: Attorney - Applicant
Appeal to City Council
Be specific as to what you are appealing. Include the rationale for your appeal. Attachments
may be included.
Abandonment # ABND 230055 Date Heard: 11/9/2023
Located at approximately: 60 Foot ROW located north of Harrison Street between 9th Avenue and 7th Avenue
Abandonment Hearing Officer: Approved Denied
Appealing Decision:
Appealing Stipulation: #3 - See attached narrative with full language and rationale.
Appealing Stipulation:
Appealing Stipulation:
------------------------------------------------------------- Staff Use Only --------------------------------------------------------------
Received By: Receipt #: Date:
Reviewed By: Receipt #: Date:
An applicant may receive a clarification from the city of its interpretation or application of a statute, ordinance, code or authorized substantive
policy statement. To request clarification or to obtain further information on the application process and applicable review time frames, please
call 602-262-7811 or visit our website at http://phoenix.gov/pdd/licensetimes.html. This publication can be made available in alternate formats
(Braille, large print, or digital media) upon request. Contact Planning & Development at (602) 262-7811 voice or (602) 534-5500 TTY.
P:\Abandonment Decision Appeal TRT/DOC/00005
WEB\ EXTERNAL dsd_trt_pdf_00005 Rev. 11/12
Page 557
ATTACHMENT D
Jordan Evan Greenman
1111 W Woodland Ave
Phoenix, AZ 85007
Phone: 248.225.0428
jordan@greenmanlawfirm.com
January 24, 2024
Phoenix City Council
200 West Jefferson Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Formal Appeal of Stipulation Three in Abandonment #230055
Dear Phoenix City Council,
On behalf of 9th and Jackson Real Estate Holding LLC, Greenman Law submits this Abandonment
Stipulation Appeal for stipulation three of ABND 230055. The stipulation reads as follows: 'This
abandonment request shall not be completed and conveyed in fee title until such time that the
additional ROW for Harrison Street between 7th Avenue and 9th Avenue is also abandoned through
a separate abandonment case. Both cases, upon receiving conditional approval, must be finalized by
Council concurrently.”
The right of way in question, as per ABND 230055, is immediately south of parcels addressed at 317
South Ninth Avenue (APN: 112-05-026B) and 314 South Seventh Avenue (APN: 112-05-128). The
requested abandonment area is approximately 60 feet deep and 590 feet wide, as depicted in Exhibit
A. Stipulation three requests an additional 25 feet of right of way (Harrison Street) south of the original
request to be abandoned through a separate case for the approval of ABND 230055.
We appeal this stipulation due to the unique circumstances surrounding this right of way, particularly
that the right of way is atypical and encumbered by railroad lines. The City's request in the third
stipulation involves two railroad companies on the southern side of the right of way, who have used
the land freely for over 100 years, to apply for the abandonment, repurchase the right of way from the
City, and then continue usage. It is unlikely that they will comply. Furthermore, abandoning the
requested 25 feet will not alter the functionality of the area.
Given the exceptional nature of the rights of way in this area and the challenges posed by the railroads,
we request a reconsideration of the stipulation. We believe this case presents a unique set of
circumstances warranting an exception to the standard procedure. This stipulation would be better
suited for usable, traversable roadways, whereas the current rights of way are encumbered by railroad
lines. We appreciate your attention to this matter and seek a fair and reasonable resolution considering
the specific challenges faced in this abandonment request.
Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to discussing this request in more detail
at our scheduled hearing date. Please refer to the attached exhibits, and feel free to contact me with
any questions.
Page 558
Sincerely,
Jordan Evan Greenman
Greenman Law
EXHIBITS ATTACHED BELOW:
• EXHIBIT A – Original Abandonment Exhibit for 60 Feet
• EXHIBIT B – Stipulation Three Request
• EXHIBIT C – Current Aerial Photograph
Page 559
EXHIBIT A – Original Abandonment Exhibit for 60 Feet
Page 560
Note: Abandonment area is approximately 60’ x 590’
EXHIBIT B – Stipulation Three Request
Page 561
EXHIBIT C – Current Aerial Photograph
Page 562
ATTACHMENT E
Planning and Development Department
November 9, 2023
Preliminary Abandonment Staff Report: ABND 230055
Project# 03-263
Quarter Section: 10-26
District#: 7
Location: Harrison Street, between 9th Avenue and 7th
Avenue
Applicant: Greenman Law – Jordan Greenman
Request: To abandon a 60-foot-wide right-of-way
located north of Harrison Street between 9th
Avenue and 7th Avenue.
Purpose of request: The applicant states the abandonment will
increase the size of their property.
Hearing date: November 9, 2023
Page 563
City Staff Research
City Staff research shows that the 60-foot wide right-of-way which was originally known as Gray
Street was dedicated through the Neahr’s Addition Sudivision Plat, Book 2, Page 77 of the
Maricopa County Recorder on January 25, 1900. If abandoned, the right-of-way land will be
conveyed back in ownership to the adjacent parcels.
City Staff Comments
This request was routed to various City departments for their recommendations. Listed below
are the responses from each department.
Street Transportation Department – Josh Rogers
1. Partial abandonment of right-of-way is prohibited. The full 85-foot width would
need to be requested for abandonment in order for it to be considered.
Street Transportation Utility Coordination Department– Rozanna Brown
No comment received.
PDD Traffic Department – Derek Fancon
Recommend approval.
PDD Planning Department – Dru Maynus
Recommend Approval.
Streetlights – Jason Fernandez
Recommend approval.
Page 564
Solid Waste - Robert Lopez
No comment received.
Water Services – Don Reynolds
WSD has NO stipulations for this Abandonment.
PDD Village Planner – Sarah Stockham
No comment received.
PDD Civil Department – Travis Tomich
No comment received.
Neighborhood Services – Yvette Roder
No comment received.
Public Transit Department – Michael Pierce
The Public Transit Department has no comment on this project.
Utility Comments
The request was also routed to outside utility companies for their input. Listed below are the
responses from each utility.
Cox – Zach Lawson
COX has no facilities within the easement and therefore we approve your request to abandon.
Southwest Gas – Susan R. Mulanax
There are no apparent conflicts between the Southwest Gas system and your proposed
abandonment.
Arizona Public Service – James Generoso
APS has no objection to the abandonment requested in ABND 230055, we have no facilities
within the abandonment area.
CenturyLink – Glady Zeilstra
No comment received.
Salt River Project – Michael Laguna
SRP has no objection to the abandonment of the 60-foot Public Right of Way.
Recommended Stipulations of Approval
The request of abandonment, if approved by the Abandonment Hearing Officer, will be subject
to the following stipulations:
1. Either a or b shall be complied with:
a. All utilities shall be relocated to locations approved by each affected utility company.
All work is to be done by each affected utility company at no expense to the affected
utility company. An appropriate performance agreement, in an approved form and
cost amount, must be posted with the Planning and Development Department to
guarantee the improvements.
Page 565
b. All rights-of-way shall be retained as a public utilities easement with 24-hour vehicle
maintenance access.
2. Consideration which provides a public benefit to the City is required in accordance with
City Code Art. 5, Sec. 31-64 and Ordinance G-5332. Cost for abandoned Right-of-Way
adjacent to property not zoned single family residential will be $500 OR Fair Market
Value whichever is greater. Cost for property zoned single family residential is $1.00 a
square foot for the first 500 square feet, $0.10 a square foot thereafter: OR Fair Market
Value at the option of the Planning and Development Director or designee. The applicant
shall submit calculation and fee to Planning and Development Department. The
applicant shall request a selection of approved appraisers from the current list
maintained by the Real Estate division of the Finance Department.
3. All stipulations must be completed within two years from the Abandonment Hearing
Officer’s decision.
For assistance regarding the above stipulations, please contact the Abandonment
Coordinator at 602-256-3487.
REPORT SUBMITTED BY: Dru Maynus, Abandonment Coordinator.
cc: Applicant/Representative, Greenman Law – Jordan Greenman
Christopher DePerro, Abandonment Hearing Offi
If the area to be abandoned is within or adjacent to a redevelopment area established pursuant to
A.R.S.§36-1471 ET.SEQ., Consideration may be given to the restrictions upon the property and the
covenants, conditions and obligations assumed by the redeveloper in the determination of fair market value.
Page 566
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-69-23-6 (Camelback Lakes
Residential PUD) - Approximately 125 Feet North and 450 Feet East of the
Northeast Corner of 26th Street and Camelback Road (Ordinance G-7268)
Request to hold a public hearing and amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section
601, the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix, by adopting Rezoning Application Z-69-23-
6 and rezone the site from C-O CEPCSP (Commercial Office - Restricted Commercial,
Camelback East Primary Core Specific Plan) to PUD CEPCSP (Planned Unit
Development, Camelback East Primary Core Specific Plan) to allow multifamily
residential.
Summary
Current Zoning: C-O CEPCSP
Proposed Zoning: PUD CEPCSP
Acreage: 1.57
Proposal: Multifamily residential
Owner: G&I IX Camelback Lakes, LLC
Applicant: Hannah Bleam, Withey Morris Baugh, PLC
Representative: Withey Morris Baugh, PLC
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Info: The Camelback East Village Planning Committee heard this item on Jan. 9,
2024, for information only.
VPC Action: The Camelback East Village Planning Committee heard this item on April
2, 2024, and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, with modifications
and additional stipulations, by a vote of 16-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this item on May 2, 2024, and
recommended approval, per the staff memo dated May 2, 2024, by a vote of 9-0.
The Planning Commission recommendation was appealed by a community member
on May 9, 2024.
Page 567
Location
Approximately 125 feet north and 450 feet east of the northeast corner of 26th Street
and Camelback Road
Council District: 6
Parcel Address: 2710, 2720 and 2730 E. Camelback Road
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 568
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE G-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED
HEREIN (CASE Z-69-23-6) FROM C-O CEPCSP (COMMERCIAL
OFFICE – RESTRICTED COMMERICAL, CAMELBACK EAST
PRIMARY CORE SPECIFIC PLAN) TO PUD CEPCSP (PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT, CAMELBACK EAST PRIMARY CORE
SPECIFIC PLAN).
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning of a 1.57-acre site located approximately 125 feet
north and 450 feet east of the northeast corner of 26th Street and Camelback Road in a
portion of Section 14, Township 2 North, Range 3 East, as described more specifically
in Exhibit “A,” is hereby changed from “C-O CEPCSP” (Commercial Office – Restricted
Commercial, Camelback East Primary Core Specific Plan) to “PUD CEPCSP” (Planned
Unit Development, Camelback East Primary Core Specific Plan).
SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to
modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification
change as shown in Exhibit “B.”
Page 569
SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use
district applied for by the applicant, this rezoning is subject to the following stipulations,
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:
1. An updated Development Narrative for the Camelback Lakes Residential
reflecting the changes approved through this request shall be submitted to the
Planning and Development Department within 30 days of City Council approval
of this request. The updated Development Narrative shall be consistent with the
Development Narrative date stamped March 20, 2024, as modified by the
following stipulations:
a. Front cover: Revise the date information on the cover page to the
following: City Council Adopted: [Add Adoption Date]
b. Page 4, Table of Contents:
Add a new Section K titled “Items Agreed Upon By The Developer
And Neighbors, But Not Enforceable By The City” and rename
“Exhibits” as Section L.
Add the proposed construction plan to the list of exhibits.
c. Page 10, Development Standards Table, Maximum Density: Update the
density to 38.22 dwelling per acre, 60 units.
d. Page 10, C. List of Uses, 1. Permitted Land Uses: Amend Statement A as
follows:
Uses are limited to those allowed in the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Section
608 (Residence Districts) and the multifamily and office uses from the R-5
zoning district (Section 618).
There shall be no outdoor live music on the site.
e. Page 11, D. Development Standards, 2. Landscape Standards Table,
Parking Lot Area Landscape Standards: Add the following two sentences
as separate rows:
Parking lot landscape planters adjacent to the west side of the building
shall be a minimum of 5 feet wide and planted with 24-inch boxed Desert
Museum Palo Verde trees, or a mutually acceptable species.
Page 570
A landscaping barrier shall be provided between parking stalls for the
exclusive use of the restaurant and any adjacent sidewalks in order to
prevent unauthorized parking.
f. Page 12, D. Development Standards, 3. Parking, A. Vehicle Parking: Add
the following sentence to the first paragraph:
A minimum of 27 parking stalls shall be provided adjacent to the restaurant
parcel for exclusive use of restaurant customers and employees.
g. Page 14, E. Design Guidelines, Exterior Materials: Add the following
standard after the last sentence:
Reflective building materials are prohibited.
h. Page 14, E. Design Guidelines, Color Palette: Add the following after the
first sentence:
No paint colors shall be used which have a Light Reflective Value (LVR)
greater than 75%.
i. Page 15, E. Design Guidelines, Glazing: Add the following after the last
sentence:
Reflectivity of windows shall be limited to 20%. There shall be no more
than 50% glazing or glass material along the western facing façade.
j. Page 16, E. Design Guidelines: Add a new row at the end of the table titled
Exterior Lighting and add the following:
Exterior lighting, specifically on the portion of the new residential building
facing the restaurant shall be minimized to avoid adversely affecting guest
experience.
Lighting shall be a maximum of 3,000 Kelvin with no spot lighting directed
at the restaurant.
New landscape island lighting shall match the existing restaurant lighting.
The adjacent restaurant shall retain the right to review and provide input on
plans for exterior lighting in efforts to minimize impact on guest experience.
k. Page 16, F. Signs: Revise the second paragraph to read as follows:
Wall signs for the multifamily residential uses may include projecting/blade
signs perpendicular to the building facade and placed no higher than the
Page 571
top of the second story as required by the CEPCSP.
l. Page 16, F. Signs: Add the following as a third paragraph:
There shall be no signage on the portion of the new residential building
immediately facing the restaurant.
m. Page 21, K. Update title to “Items Agreed Upon By The Developer And
Neighbors, But Not Enforceable By The City” and add the following items
in a list.
(1) The developer shall work with the adjacent restaurant owner to
determine mutually agreeable colors, materials, and building
design on the building facing the restaurant parcel (western
façade).
(2) Construction on the property shall be limited as follows:
(a) Outdoor construction activity and exterior
construction shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m.
to 5:00 p.m. on weekdays unless notice is provided
to RN Properties at Attn: Jerel Campbell, 4455 E.
Camelback Rd, Ste. C-140, Phoenix, AZ 85018 one
week before any deviation from this schedule.
(b) No outdoor construction activity or exterior
construction shall occur on weekends.
(c) Interior construction shall be allowed only after the
building’s exterior is completed and only between
8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
(d) The developer shall, prior to demolition and
construction provide construction schedules to the
owner of the property designated APN 164-14-027A.
Construction shall not begin on the property before
June 2025.
(e) During construction, traffic, property access, loading,
unloading, worker parking, storage of construction
equipment, and staging shall conform to the
proposed construction plan date stamped April 2,
2024 (consisting of one page) and shall not occur
outside the hours defined above.
Page 572
The storage area noted on the northwest side of the
property/existing parking structure shall be screened
with a temporary wall.
The property owner shall review construction traffic
access on a traffic study and all possible times, use
its best efforts to utilize alternative access away from
26th Street.
(3) After issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the structure,
the noise level shall not exceed 55 dB (Ldn) at the property line.
(4) Prior to final site plan approval, Items (2) and (3) above shall be
recorded against the property in favor of Maricopa County APN
164-14-027A.
(5) The developer will plant a dense row of shrubs on the Arizona
Biltmore golf course side of the 8-foot wall for the entire length of
the wall. Plant material shall be Privet, Ficus, Fotinia, or equal.
The Arizona Biltmore golf course will provide irrigation and
maintenance for the shrubs.
(6) The residential building operator or manager shall, at the time of
conveyance to tenants or unit purchasers, mandate disclosures
that inform the following:
(i) Designate assigned parking spaces for residents and
identify adjacent areas which are not to be used for
resident and guest parking.
(ii) Detail the rules and regulations addressing prohibited
uses of balcony and patio areas of the residential
building.
(iii) The Arizona Biltmore golf course is a private course
for the exclusive use of the members and daily fee
players and is not for recreational use of the
community at any time.
n. Pages 21 and 81, Exhibit J: Add the proposed construction plan date
stamped April 2, 2024.
o. Pages 40 to 43, Exhibit E: Replace the elevations with the elevations dated
March 29, 2024 (and date stamped April 2, 2024).
Page 573
2. The developer shall submit a Traffic Impact Study for this development, no
preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until the study has been reviewed
and approved by the City. The developer shall be responsible for any
dedications, funding and construction of all recommendations in the study.
3. Replace unused driveways with sidewalk, curb and gutter. Also, replace any
broken or out-of-grade curb, gutter, sidewalk, and curb ramps on all streets and
upgrade all off-site improvements to be in compliance with current ADA
guidelines.
4. All streets within and adjacent to the development shall be constructed with
paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands,
landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and
Development Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA
accessibility standards.
5. Only landscape materials listed in the Phoenix Active Management Area Low-
Water-Use/Drought-Tolerant Plant List shall be utilized, as approved or modified
by the Planning and Development Department.
6. Landscaping shall be maintained by permanent and automatic/water efficient
WaterSense labeled irrigation controllers (or similar smart controller) to minimize
maintenance and irrigation water consumption for all on and offsite landscape
irrigation.
7. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
8. Prior to final site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207
waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County
Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning
application file for record.
9. Development shall generally conform to the conceptual site plan dated March
19, 2024, Level 1 Plan dated March 19, 2024, Lower-Level Plan dated August
31, 2023, and elevations dated March 29, 2024 (included in the PUD narrative)
with specific regard to:
a. Parking structure entrances and the number and placement of structured
and surface parking spaces;
b. Dumpster location;
c. Location of only a maximum of two dwelling units, neither with a balcony,
Page 574
on the northernmost (northeast facing) portion of the 5th floor; and
d. Location of the 5th floor amenity deck on the south side of the building;
e. Main building entrance location on southern side of building and not
immediately facing the adjacent restaurant, no secondary or other
entrances facing restaurant.
10. Before commencement of demolition or construction on the property, the
developer shall install an 8-foot high, block wall along the north/northeast
perimeter adjacent to the golf course, as shown on the proposed construction
plan date stamped April 2, 2024. The wall will be constructed with stucco on the
north side.
11. Prior to final site plan approval, the property owner shall record documents that
disclose to purchasers of property or tenants within the development(s) that:
a. Designate assigned parking spaces for residents and identify adjacent
areas which are not to be used for resident and guest parking; and
b. Detail the rules and regulations addressing prohibited uses of balcony
and patio areas of the residential building.
c. The Arizona Biltmore golf course is a private course for the exclusive use
of the members and daily fee players and is not for recreational use of the
community at any time.
12. The developer shall erect an 8-foot wall as a replacement for the existing pipe
and chain link structure, along the northeast side of the property, which resides
entirely on the developer and/or seller’s property. The 8-foot wall shall be
topped with a “top golf” type netting as a complete replacement for the existing
pipe and chain link safety screen.
13. Prior to final site plan approval, the developer shall provide a fully executed and
recorded copy of the amended and restated parking easement agreement and
use restrictions, amended and restated from the previously recorded parking
easement and agreement, recorded in the office of the Maricopa County
Recorder on May 18, 1998 as document number 98-0412811.
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the
Page 575
decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity
of the remaining portions hereof.
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 12th day of June,
2024.
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney
By:
_________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager
Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (2 Pages)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
Page 576
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-69-23-6
THAT PORTION OF LOT 2, CAMELBACK LAKES CORPORATE CENTER-PARCEL
38, RECORDED IN BOOK 449 OF MAPS, PAGE 14, RECORDS OF MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA, LYING WITHIN A PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER
OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 2 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT
RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, BEING MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT A 3-INCH CITY OF PHOENIX BRASS CAP IN HANDHOLE
MARKING THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 14, FROM WHICH A 3-
INCH CITY OF PHOENIX BRASS CAP IN HANDHOLE MARKING THE SOUTH
QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 14 BEARS NORTH 87 DEGREES 29
MINUTES 45 SECONDS EAST 2,626.08 FEET, SAID LINE BEING THE BASIS OF
BEARINGS FOR THIS DESCRIPTION;
THENCE NORTH 87 DEGREES 29 MINUTES 45 SECONDS EAST 1927.73 FEET
ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER;
THENCE NORTH 02 DEGREES 30 MINUTES 15 SECONDS WEST 189.06 FEET TO
THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF SAID LOT 2 AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHWEST LINE THE FOLLOWING FIVE COURSES AND
DISTANCES:
THENCE NORTH 45 DEGREES 37 MINUTES 39 SECONDS WEST 106.99 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 48 DEGREES 32 MINUTES 32 SECONDS EAST 4.01 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 45 DEGREES 37 MINUTES 39 SECONDS WEST 57.35 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 44 DEGREES 22 MINUTES 21 SECONDS WEST 8.00 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 45 DEGREES 37 MINUTES 39 SECONDS WEST 57.38 FEET TO
THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 2;
THENCE NORTH 48 DEGREES 34 MINUTES 55 SECONDS EAST 339.40 FEET TO
THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 2;
THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE THE FOLLOWING TWO COURSES AND
SITRANCES;
THENCE SOUTH 32 DEGREES 30 MINUTES 15 SECONDS EAST 120.00 FEET;
Page 577
THENCE NORTH 87 DEGREES 29 MINUTES 45 SECONDS EAST 115.86 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 44 DEGREES 18 MINUTES 19 SECONDS WEST 391.80 FEET TO
THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
COMPRISING 69,386 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS.
Page 578
Page 579
ATTACHMENT B
Staff Report: Z-69-23-6
(Camelback Lakes Residential PUD)
March 22, 2024
Camelback East Village Planning April 2, 2024
Committee Meeting Date:
Planning Commission Hearing Date: May 2, 2024
Request From: C-O CEPCSP (Commercial Office - Restricted
Commercial, Camelback East Primary Core
Specific Plan) (1.57 acres)
Request To: PUD CEPCSP (Planned Unit Development,
Camelback East Primary Core Specific Plan)
(1.57 acres)
Proposal: Multifamily residential
Location: Approximately 125 feet north and 450 feet east
of the northeast corner of 26th Street and
Camelback Road
Owner: G&I IX Camelback Lakes, LLC
Applicant/Representative: Hannah Bleam, Withey Morris Baugh, PLC
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations
General Plan Conformity
General Plan Land Use Map Designation Commercial
Camelback Road Arterial 70-foot north half street
Street Map
Classification 21.5-foot east half
26th Street Local
street
The rezoning site is not directly adjacent to the right-of-way,
however it does have direct access through a drive aisle to 26th
Street and Camelback Road.
CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE; OPPORTUNITY SITES; LAND
USE PRINCIPLE: Promote and encourage compatible development and
redevelopment with a mix of housing types in neighborhoods close to
employment centers, commercial areas, and where transit or transportation
Page 580
Staff Report: Z-69-23-6
March 22, 2024
alternatives exist.
The proposed development will provide multifamily residential development with access to
Camelback Road, an arterial street with public transit options, and within close proximity to
employment and commercial areas within the Camelback Corridor Major Employment
Center.
CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES; HEALTHY NEIGHBORHOODS; Plan
and design communities and neighborhoods to be pedestrian friendly and
walkable.
The proposed PUD narrative contains a pedestrian circulation path to allow pedestrians to
access nearby commercial uses and transit.
BUILD THE SUSTAINABLE DESERT CITY CORE VALUE; TREES AND SHADE;
DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Integrate trees and shade into the design of new development
and redevelopment projects throughout Phoenix.
The proposed development will provide trees and shade within the site and along
pedestrian routes which will reduce the urban heat island effect while also improving
thermal comfort to site users.
Applicable Plan, Overlays, and Initiatives
Camelback East Primary Core Specific Plan – See Background Item No. 12.
Phoenix Climate Action Plan – See Background Item No. 13.
Housing Phoenix Plan – See Background Item No. 14.
Tree and Shade Master Plan – See Background Item No. 15.
Complete Streets Guiding Principles – See Background Item No. 16.
Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan – See Background Item No. 17.
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Staff Report: Z-69-23-6
March 22, 2024
Surrounding Land Uses/Zoning
Land Use Zoning
On Site Parking Structure C-O CEPCSP
Northwest Hotel and parking lot C-2 CEPCSP
Northeast Golf Course GC
Southwest Restaurant and parking lot C-2 CEPCSP
Southeast Office C-O CEPCSP
Background/Issues/Analysis
SUBJECT SITE
1. This request is to rezone a 1.57-acre site located approximately 125 feet north and
450 feet east of the northeast corner of 26th Street and Camelback Road from C-O
CEPCSP (Commercial Office - Restricted Commercial, Camelback East Primary
Core Specific Plan) to PUD CEPCSP (Planned Unit Development, Camelback East
Primary Core Specific Plan) to allow a multifamily residential development.
2. The General Plan Land Use Map designation for the subject site is Commercial. The
Commercial land use designation accommodates office, retail, restaurant and
multifamily development at varying scales and intensity of uses. This request is not
consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map designation as it proposes a higher
density than what is allowed within commercial zoning districts (R-3). A General Plan
amendment is not required as the site is less than 10 acres.
General Plan Land Use Map Source: City of Phoenix Planning and Development Department
Page 582
Staff Report: Z-69-23-6
March 22, 2024
The General Plan Land Use Map designation to the north is Parks and Open Space.
The designation to the south, east and west is Commercial.
EXISTING CONDITIONS & SURROUNDING ZONING
3. The site is developed with a two-level parking structure for the adjacent office
complex to the southwest zoned C-O CEPCSP (Commercial Office - Restricted
Commercial, Camelback East Primary Core Specific Plan). The site has automobile
access from Camelback Road to the south and from an interior drive to the west.
There is pedestrian access to the adjacent office building to the southeast and to
Camelback Road. The surrounding land uses are as follows:
Southeast
To the southeast is an office complex zoned C-O CEPCSP (Commercial Office -
Restricted Commercial, Camelback East Primary Core Specific Plan).
Southwest
To the southwest is a restaurant and parking lot zoned C-2 CEPCSP (Intermediate
Commercial, Camelback East Primary Core Specific Plan).
Northwest
To the northwest is a hotel and parking lot zoned C-2 CEPCSP (Intermediate
Commercial, Camelback East Primary Core Specific Plan).
Northeast
To the northeast is a private golf course zoned GC (Golf Course District).
Zoning Map Source: City of Phoenix Planning and Development Department
Page 583
Staff Report: Z-69-23-6
March 22, 2024
4. The proposal was developed utilizing the PUD zoning district. The Planned Unit
Development (PUD) is intended to create a built environment that is superior to that
produced by conventional zoning districts and design guidelines. Using a
collaborative and comprehensive approach, an applicant authors and proposes
standards and guidelines that are tailored to the context of a site on a case-by-case
basis. Where the PUD Development Narrative is silent on a requirement, the
applicable Zoning Ordinance provisions will be applied.
5. Land Use
The PUD narrative proposes to allow all uses within the R-5 Zoning District.
6. Development Standards
The PUD proposes a multifamily residential development with a maximum of 75
units and a maximum building height of 56 feet. The building height and standards
are consistent with the CEPCSP.
The proposed PUD narrative lists enhanced building setbacks, bicycle parking and
bicycle amenities, parking lot shading, and open space standards above the
minimum requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
The proposal has one sublevel parking area with 37 spaces. Additional parking will
be provided adjacent to the building and there will be an approved shared parking
agreement with the adjacent office and restaurant development to allow a total of
one parking space for each unit. Electric Vehicle (EV) infrastructure will be installed
for two percent of the required parking for a minimum of 15 spaces. Secured bicycle
parking will be provided with 0.25 spaces per dwelling unit for residences up to a
maximum of 50 spaces and 0.05 spaces for guests, up to a maximum of 50 spaces.
The proposal will include electrical bicycle charging capabilities for ten percent of the
required bicycle parking. A bicycle repair station (“fix it station”) will be provided and
maintained on site within an amenity area. The bicycle repair station shall be
provided in an area of high visibility and separated from vehicular maneuvering
areas, where applicable.
The proposal includes various indoor and outdoor amenities which will include a
lobby lounge, coworking lounge, fitness center, pool/spa, patios, outdoor living
rooms and a gaming area. The pool, spa and outdoor patio will be located on the
second level facing the southeast. A minimum of ten percent of the gross site area
will be open space, which is more than the minimum open space requirements for
multifamily residential uses in the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance.
The primary vehicular access will be from Camelback Road to the south which will
include enhanced driveway features.
Page 584
Staff Report: Z-69-23-6
March 22, 2024
Conceptual Site Plan, Withey Morris Baugh, PLC
Below is a summary of the key development standards set forth in the narrative.
Development Standards
Standard Proposed
Maximum Density *46 dwelling units per acre
Maximum Building Height 56 feet
Minimum Open Space 10%
Maximum Lot Coverage 50%
Minimum Building Setbacks
Northwest 15 feet
Southwest 40 feet
Northeast 75 feet
Southeast 13 feet
Page 585
Staff Report: Z-69-23-6
March 22, 2024
Minimum Parking Standards
Residents 1 space per dwelling unit
Bicycle parking: 0.25 spaces per dwelling unit, maximum 50
spaces
Guest bicycle parking: 0.05 spaces per dwelling unit, maximum of
50 spaces
10% of required bicycle parking spaces
shall include standard electrical receptacles
1 bicycle repair fix it station
EV Parking: 2% of required parking spaces shall be EV
installed
* Standard to be adjusted by recommended stipulation.
Stipulation 1.b. is provided to clarify the proposed maximum density stated in the
PUD Narrative corresponds to the maximum unit count.
7. Landscape Standards
The PUD establishes standards to provide shading along walkways, in the pool
amenity area and along the southwest property line. Interior sidewalks will be
shaded to 50 percent. All landscaped areas are required to have a minimum two-
inch caliper trees with 75 percent live coverage. This exceeds the Zoning Ordinance
Standards. Structural shading will also be included to extend overall shade
coverage.
The PUD requires a minimum four-foot landscape setback along the northeast
portion of the property and a 12-foot landscape setback along the southeast portion
of the property. The 12-foot setback exceeds the Zoning Ordinance standards.
Page 586
Staff Report: Z-69-23-6
March 22, 2024
The following exhibit depicts the landscape concept for the site.
Conceptual Landscape Plan, Source: Withey Morris Baugh, PLC
8. Fences/Walls: Shall comply with all standards as per the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance
Section 703.
9. Shade: A combination of architectural and vegetative elements will provide shading
throughout the proposed development. Sidewalk and pathway coverage will be
shaded to a minimum of 50 percent. Shade is also addressed in the Design
Guidelines section of the PUD narrative.
10. Lighting: Onsite illumination shall be provided for safety and convenience throughout
the proposed development. Lighting provisions are consistent with the Zoning
Ordinance and City Code standards.
11. Design Guidelines
The PUD proposes enhanced design guidelines to ensure the building is
aesthetically pleasing and compatible with the surrounding area. The residential
Page 587
Staff Report: Z-69-23-6
March 22, 2024
design concept includes elevation features and materials that enhance the building’s
appearance with colors, textures and stylized architectural elements. White and
other selected exterior colors will be consistent with the surrounding developments
and will minimize heat gain. Materials such as glass, stucco and masonry will be
used within each elevation to provide a balanced and creative visual articulation that
incorporate into existing developments. Primary access to the building will be from
Camelback Road. The drive into the sublevel parking in the building will include
enhanced treatments, structural shading and architectural features as well as an
enhanced pedestrian route to distinguish the building entry.
The proposal also meets the design guidelines for the CEPCSP. The proposal
conforms to landscape species, ground level architecture, pedestrian access, and
parking.
Site Rendering, Source: PUD Narrative
AREA PLANS, OVERLAY DISTRICTS, AND INITIATIVES
12. Camelback East Primary Core Specific Plan
Originally adopted in 1991, with an update in 2006, the Camelback East Primary
Core Specific Plan (CEPCSP) provides guidance on land use, transportation,
infrastructure investments and desirable design features for properties within the
defined Core Center and Core Gradient. The Core Center is generally bounded by
SR 51 (Piestewa Freeway), 26th Street, Camelback Road and Highland Avenue
whereas the Core Gradient generally extends from the boundaries of the Core
Center to Medlock Drive, Campbell Avenue, 16th Street and 28th Street. The
subject site is located in Core Gradient 2 of the plan and is subject to the
requirements and guidelines set forth therein. The Core Plan designates the site as
Office on the Land Use Map. The proposed narrative allows R-5 uses, which permit
office uses.
Page 588
Staff Report: Z-69-23-6
March 22, 2024
Source: City of Phoenix Planning and Development Department
The proposed development incorporates several of the plan’s prominent elements
including improved pedestrian circulation, and location and concealment of the
parking garage structure to minimize pedestrian interruption in the area.
13. Phoenix Climate Action Plan
In October 2021, the Phoenix City Council approved the Climate Action Plan. The
Climate Action Plan will serve as a long-term plan to achieve greenhouse gas
emissions reductions and resiliency goals from local operations and community
activities as well as prepare for the impacts of climate change. This plan contains
policy and initiatives regarding stationary energy, transportation, waste
management, air quality, local food systems, heat, and water. Goal W2 (Water),
Action W2.4, pertains to the implementation of the Greater Phoenix Metro Green
Infrastructure (GI) and Low Impact Development Details for Alternative Stormwater
Management to benefit the environment, promote water conservation, reduce urban
heat, improve the public health, and create additional green spaces. This is
addressed in the Design Guidelines Section of the PUD narrative.
14. Housing Phoenix Plan
In June 2020, the Phoenix City Council approved the Housing Phoenix Plan. This
Plan contains policy initiatives for the development and preservation of housing with
a vision of creating a stronger and more vibrant Phoenix through increased housing
options for residents at all income levels and family sizes. Phoenix’s rapid
population growth and housing underproduction has led to a need for over 163,000
new housing units. Current shortages of housing supply relative to demand are a
Page 589
Staff Report: Z-69-23-6
March 22, 2024
primary reason why housing costs are increasing. The proposed development
supports the Plan’s goal of preserving or creating 50,000 housing units by 2030.
15. Tree and Shade Master Plan
The Tree and Shade Master Plan has a goal of treating the urban forest as
infrastructure to ensure that trees are an integral part of the city’s planning and
development process. By investing in trees and the urban forest, the city can
reduce its carbon footprint, decrease energy costs, reduce storm water runoff,
increase biodiversity, address the urban heat island effect, clean the air, and
increase property values. In addition, trees can help to create walkable streets and
vibrant pedestrian places. The PUD includes shading guidelines to reduce the
urban heat island effect.
16. Complete Streets Guiding Principles
In 2014, the City of Phoenix City Council adopted the Complete Streets Guiding
Principles. The principles are intended to promote improvements that provide an
accessible, safe, connected transportation system to include all modes, such as
bicycles, pedestrians, transit, and vehicles. The development will activate the
connectivity to adjacent offices, shopping centers and restaurants and provide
enhanced landscaping and shade along the pedestrian routes. This is addressed in
the PUD narrative.
17. Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan
The City of Phoenix adopted the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan in 2014 to
guide the development of its bikeway system and supportive infrastructure. The
Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan supports options for both short- and long-term
bicycle parking as a means of promoting bicyclist traffic to a variety of destinations.
The proposal incorporates requirements for bicycle parking, a fix it repair station,
and electrical charging for 10 percent of the required spaces to support
micromobility.
18. Zero Waste PHX
The City of Phoenix is committed to its waste diversion efforts and has set a goal to
become a zero-waste city, as part of the city’s overall 2050 Environmental
Sustainability Goals. One of the ways Phoenix can achieve this is to improve and
expand its recycling and other waste diversion programs. Section 716 of the
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance establishes standards to encourage the provision of
recycling containers for multifamily, commercial, and mixed-use developments
meeting certain criteria. The PUD narrative states that recycling will be encouraged
as part of the development with bins provided in the waste enclosures.
19. Conservation Measures for New Development
In June 2023, the Phoenix City Council adopted the Conservation Measures for
New Development policy as part of a resolution addressing the future water
consumption of new development (Resolution 22129). This resolution addresses
Page 590
Staff Report: Z-69-23-6
March 22, 2024
the future water consumption of new development to support one of the City’s Five
Core Values in the General Plan which calls for Phoenix to - Build the Sustainable
Desert City. The Conservation Measures for New Development policy includes
direction to develop standards for consideration as stipulations for all rezoning
cases that will address best practices related to water usage in nine specific
categories. This is addressed in Stipulation Nos. 5 and 6.
COMMUNITY INPUT SUMMARY
20. At the time this staff report was written, one letter in opposition has been received.
Concerns stated were regarding increased density, traffic and building height.
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
21. The Street Transportation Department requested that a Traffic Impact Study be
submitted, that unused driveways be replaced with sidewalk, curb and gutter and
that all street improvements be made to city and ADA standards. These are
addressed in Stipulation Nos. 2 through 4.
22. The Fire Department commented that the fire apparatus access road on the north
and east sides of the property do not meet Section 503 requirements.
OTHER
23. Staff has not received a completed form for the Waiver of Claims for Diminution in
Value of Property under Proposition 207 (A.R.S. 12-1131 et seq.), as required by
the rezoning application process. Therefore, a stipulation has been added to require
the form be completed and submitted prior to final site plan approval. This is
addressed in Stipulation No. 8.
24. The site has not been identified as being archaeologically sensitive. However, in the
event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, all ground
disturbing activities must cease within 33-feet of the discovery and the City of
Phoenix Archaeology Office must be notified immediately and allowed time to
properly assess the materials. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 7.
25. Development and use of the site is subject to all applicable codes and ordinances.
Zoning approval does not negate other ordinance requirements. Other formal
actions such as, but not limited to, zoning adjustments and abandonments, may be
required.
Findings
1. The site is appropriately located within close proximity to the Village Core and with
access to an arterial street.
2. The proposal will develop an underutilized site and provide additional housing
options within the Camelback East Village.
Page 591
Staff Report: Z-69-23-6
March 22, 2024
3. The proposed PUD sets forth design and development standards that will facilitate
pedestrian-oriented design and promote a safer pedestrian environment.
Stipulations
1. An updated Development Narrative for the Camelback Lakes Residential
reflecting the changes approved through this request shall be submitted to the
Planning and Development Department within 30 days of City Council approval of
this request. The updated Development Narrative shall be consistent with the
Development Narrative date stamped March 20, 2024, as modified by the following
stipulations:
a. Front cover: Revise the date information on the cover page to the following:
b. Page 10, Development Standards Table, Maximum Density: Update the
density to 47.77 dwelling per acre.
2. The developer shall submit a Traffic Impact Study for this development, no
preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until the study has been reviewed
and approved by the City. The developer shall be responsible for any dedications,
funding and construction of all recommendations in the study.
3. Replace unused driveways with sidewalk, curb and gutter. Also, replace any
broken or out-of-grade curb, gutter, sidewalk, and curb ramps on all streets and
upgrade all off-site improvements to be in compliance with current ADA guidelines.
4. All streets within and adjacent to the development shall be constructed with
paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands,
landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and
Development Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA accessibility
standards.
5. Only landscape materials listed in the Phoenix Active Management Area Low-
Water-Use/Drought-Tolerant Plant List shall be utilized, as approved or modified
by the Planning and Development Department.
6. Landscaping shall be maintained by permanent and automatic/water efficient
WaterSense labeled irrigation controllers (or similar smart controller) to minimize
maintenance and irrigation water consumption for all on and offsite landscape
irrigation.
Page 592
Staff Report: Z-69-23-6
March 22, 2024
7. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
8. Prior to final site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207
waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County
Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning
application file for record.
Writer
John Roanhorse
March 22, 2024
Team Leader
Racelle Escolar
Exhibits
Sketch Map
Aerial Map
Conceptual Site Plan date stamped January 5, 2024
Conceptual Elevations date stamped January 5, 2024 (4 pages)
Conceptual Renderings date stamped January 5, 2024 (2 pages)
Community Correspondence (1 page)
Camelback Lakes Residential PUD development narrative date stamped March 20, 2024
Page 593
PAD-14 *
Z-119-74 RE-24
PSC
ORANGE DR RE-35 * BILTMORE ESTATES RE-35 *
PSC * Z-119-B-74 RE-35 * Z-119-B-74
Z-119-C-74 Z-119-B-74 Z-SP-12-76
PSC *
P-2 *
C/Z-148-88
RE-24 Z-SP-12-A-76
C/Z-148-88 C/Z-7-91
C/Z-7-91
C-2 * GC *
Z-92-97
C-2 H-R * Z-119-J-74
Z-124-99
Z-86-06
C-1 *
PSC C-O * Z-119-K-74 RE-3
Z-119-J-74
PSC * Z-119-B
26TH ST
Z-119-74
Camelback East CAMELBACK RD
Primary Core
C-2
Specific Plan C-O
Z-169-70
PUD*
H-R * Z-70-15
C-2 * C-O 28TH ST
Z-4-85 R-5 M-R *
Z-5-85 Z-80-06 C-O*
Z-5-A-85
Z-SP-12-91 Z-111-90
Z-130-72
R-5 M-R *
Z-80-06
Z-301-81
R1-10
Z-SP-14-92
Z-SP-20-94 C-2 H-R *
Z-140-96 Z-50-06 P-2 * Maricopa County Assessor's
I
Miles
Z-69-23 NORTHERN AVE
GLENDALE AVE
BETHANY HOME RD
0.05 0.025 0 0.05
CAMELBACK EAST VILLAGE 7TH ST
CAMELBACK RD
INDIAN SCHOOL RD
16TH ST
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 6 SR 51
THOMAS RD
24TH ST
MC DOWELL RD
32ND ST
VAN BUREN ST
40TH ST
WASHINGTON ST
64TH ST
48TH ST 56TH ST
APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
Withey Morris Baugh, PLC
FROM:
C-O CEPCSP ( 1.57 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
10/02/2023
Z-69-23 REVISION DATES:
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
QUARTER SEC. NO.
1.57 Acres QS 19-33 H-9 TO: PUD CEPCSP ( 1.57 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
C-O CEPCSP N/A N/A
PUD CEPCSP 75 N/A
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus Page 594
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2023\Z-69-23.mxd
PAD-14 *
Z-119-74 RE-24
PSC
ORANGE DR RE-35 * BILTMORE ESTATES RE-35 *
PSC * Z-119-B-74 RE-35 * Z-119-B-74
Z-119-C-74 Z-119-B-74 Z-SP-12-76
PSC *
P-2 *
C/Z-148-88
RE-24 Z-SP-12-A-76
C/Z-148-88 C/Z-7-91
C/Z-7-91
C-2 * GC *
Z-92-97
C-2 H-R * Z-119-J-74
Z-124-99
Z-86-06
C-1 *
PSC C-O * Z-119-K-74 RE-3
Z-119-J-74
PSC * Z-119-B
26TH ST
Z-119-74
Camelback East CAMELBACK RD
Primary Core
C-2
Specific Plan C-O
Z-169-70
PUD*
H-R * Z-70-15
C-2 * C-O 28TH ST
Z-4-85 R-5 M-R *
Z-5-85 Z-80-06 C-O*
Z-5-A-85
Z-SP-12-91 Z-111-90
Z-130-72
R-5 M-R *
Z-80-06
Z-301-81
R1-10
Z-SP-14-92
Z-SP-20-94 C-2 H-R *
Z-140-96 Z-50-06 P-2 *
I
Miles
Z-69-23 NORTHERN AVE
GLENDALE AVE
BETHANY HOME RD
0.05 0.025 0 0.05
CAMELBACK EAST VILLAGE 7TH ST
CAMELBACK RD
INDIAN SCHOOL RD
16TH ST
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 6 SR 51
THOMAS RD
24TH ST
MC DOWELL RD
32ND ST
VAN BUREN ST
40TH ST
WASHINGTON ST
64TH ST
48TH ST 56TH ST
APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
Withey Morris Baugh, PLC
FROM:
C-O CEPCSP ( 1.57 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
10/02/2023
Z-69-23 REVISION DATES:
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
QUARTER SEC. NO.
1.57 Acres QS 19-33 H-9 TO: PUD CEPCSP ( 1.57 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
C-O CEPCSP N/A N/A
PUD CEPCSP 75 N/A
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus Page 595
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2023\Z-69-23.mxd
'(9(/230(1767$1'$5'6 .(<127(/(*(1'
352-(&77($0 *(1(5$/6,7(3/$1127(6
3523(57<$''5(66 (&$0(/%$&.5'3+2(1,;$= 2)),&(3$5.,1*&2817 2:1(5
180%(5 '(6&5,37,21 '(9(/230(17$1'86(2)7+,66,7(:,//&21)250:,7+$//
0$,1675((7&$3,7$/3$571(56
$33/,&$%/(&2'(6$1'25',1$1&(6
& 6+(3/(<%8/),1&+
$31 (;,67,1*2)),&( 56) :(67&200(5&,$/%28/(9$5'68,7(
7+,6352-(&7,6/2&$7(',17+(&,7<2)3+2(1,;:$7(56(59,&(6
(;,67,1*63$&(6 3('(675,$1$&&(663$7+
$5($$1'+$6%((1'(6,*1$7('$6+$9,1*$1$6685(':$7(5
&855(17*5266/27$5($ VI (;,67,1**$5$*('(02 [ 9,6,%,/,7<75,$1*/(12,7(06 :$//6/$1'6&$3( )257/$8'(5'$/()/
6833/<
3/$17,1*(7& (;&((',1*,1+(,*+76+$//%(/2&$7(',1 &217$&7'$9,':$55(1
$//1(:255(/2&$7('87,/,7,(6:,//%(3/$&('81'(5*5281'
352326('*5266$5($/27 VI$FUHV 5(0$,1,1*2)),&(63$&(6 7+,6$5($ (0$,/':$55(1#0$,1675((7&$3,7$/&20
6758&785(6$1'/$1'6&$3,1*:,7+,1$75,$1*/(0($685('%$&.
352326('*5266$5($/27 VI$FUHV
)5207+(3523(57</,1($1' $/21*7+(3523(57</,1(21
87/,=(63$&(6$7/)252)),&(86( $5&+,7(&7 ($&+6,'(2)7+('5,9(:$<6(175$1&(6:,//%(0$,17$,1('$7$
=21,1*6800$5< 6+(3/(<%8/),1&+ 0$;,080+(,*+72)
727$/63$&(6)252)),&(86( 5$7,2 1257+&(175$/$9(652781'$ 6758&785(6$1'/$1'6&$3,1*:,7+,1$75,$1*/(0($685,1* ;
(;,67,1*=21,1* &25(675,&7('&200(5&,$/2)),&( 3+2(1,;$= $/21*7+(3523(57</,1(6:,//%(0$,17$,1('$7$0$;,080 1RUWK&HQWUDO$YH6RXWK5RWXQGD
&$0(/%$&.($6735,0$5<&25(63(&,),&3/$1 7
5(6,'(17,$/352-(&73$5.,1*&2817 +(,*+72) 3KRHQL[$=
&217$&71$7$/,(6+877%$1.6 $1</,*+7,1*:,//%(3/$&('62$672',5(&7/,*+7$:$<)520 $5&+,7(&7 7_)
/(9(/ 2)),&(86( (0$,/16+877%$1.6#6+(3/(<%8/),1&+&20 $'-$&(175(6,'(17,$/',675,&76$1':,//127(;&(('21()227 VKHSOH\EXOILQFKFRP
352326('=21,1* 3/$11('81,7'(9(/230(17 /2:(5/(9(/ // &$1'/($77+(3523(57</,1(1212,6(2'25259,%5$7,21:,//
&$0(/%$&.($6735,0$5<&25(63(&,),&3/$1 /276$/(6 < 1[ %((0,77('$7$1</(9(/(;&((',1*7+(*(1(5$//(9(/2)12,6(
727$/63$&(6)255(6,'(17,$/86( 81,75$7,2 2'25259,%5$7,21(0,77('%<86(6,17+($5($2876,'(2)7+(
3(50,77('86(6 3(53+2(1,;=21,1*&2'(%5(6,'(17,$/86(
6,7(
127$//2:('38'255(=21(5(48,5(' 2:1(5
352-(&7'$7$ 2:1(562)3523(57<$'-$&(177238%/,&5,*+762):$<:,//
81,7&2817 +$9(7+(5(63216,%,/,7<)250$,17$,1,1*$///$1'6&$3,1*
/276$/(6 12 352-(&7$''5(66 /2&$7(':,7+,17+(5,*+762):$<,1$&&25'$1&(:,7+
6WXGLR8QLWV &$0(/%$&./$.(6&25325$7(&(17(5 $33529('3/$16
%HGURRPEDWK $335;1(2)1(&2)7+67$1'&$0(/%$&.5' $)7(5),1$/$33529$/7+(352-(&7:,//%(,163(&7(')25=21,1*
':(//,1*81,7'(16,7< '8$FUH %HGURRP%DWK 3+2(1,;$= &203/,$1&('85,1*&216758&7,21$1'35,25722&&83$1&<7+(
$33/,&$17,672127,)<3''35,25722&&83$1&<72$55$1*()25
81,7$&5( /RW 727$/81,76 352-(&7'(6&5,37,21 ,163(&7,216&$//$1'5(48(67$'(6,*15(9,(:
'(02/,7,212)(;,67,1*3$5.,1**$5$*()251(: ,163(&7,21
/27&29(5$*($//2:(' 0$;,080 &216758&7,212)$3$570(176352-(&7 $//522)723(48,30(17$1'6$7(//,7(',6+(66+$//%(6&5((1('
727+(+(,*+72)7+(7$//(67(48,30(17
352326('/27&29(5$*( %8,/',1*&2'(6 $//6(59,&(6$5($66+$//%(6&5((1('72&21&($/75$6+
WRWDOFRYHUDJHVTIWQHWORWDUHD $60( (/(9$725&2'(6 &217$,1(56/2$',1*'2&.675$16)250(56%$&.)/2:
,17(51$7,21$/%8,/',1*&2'( ,%& 35(9(17(56$1'27+(50(&+$1,&$/25(/(&75,&$/(48,30(17 /(*$/&281&(/
,17(51$7,21$/5(6,'(17,$/&2'( ,5& )520(<(/(9(/$'-$&(1772$//38%/,&675((76
,17(51$7,21$/0(&+$1,&$/&2'( ,0& %$5%('5$=2525&21&(57,1$:,5( 256,0,/$5 6+$//127%(
,17(51$7,21$/3/80%,1*&2'( ,3& 86('217+,66,7(:+(5(9,6,%/()52038%/,&675((7625
0$;%8,/',1*+(,*+7 0$;+(,*+7 81,)2503/80%,1*&2'( 83& $'-$&(175(6,'(17,$/$5($6
3529,'(' ,17(51$7,21$/)8(/*$6&2'( ,)*& $//6,*1$*(5(48,5(6$6(3$5$7(5(9,(:$1'3(50,7
WRIODWURRIVXUIDFH ,17(51$7,21$/(1(5*<&216(59$7,21&2'( 602.(*$6$1'2'25(0,66,2166+$//&203/<:,7+5(*8/$7,21,,,
,(&& 2)7+(0$5,&23$&2817<$,532//87,21&21752/58/(6$1'
%8,/',1*6(7%$&.6 6(7%$&.63529,'(' $31 ,17(51$7,21$/(;,67,1*%8,/',1*&2'( ,(%& 5(*8/$7,216
*& ,17(51$7,21$/6:,00,1*322/$1'63$&2'( 7+(',6326$/2)$//:$67(0$7(5,$/66+$//&203/<:,7+7,7/(
$ ,636& &+$37(5$57,&/(6$1'2)7+(+$=$5'286:$67(
$XWKRU $/21*,17(51$/1257+:(67'5,9( 1$7,21$/(/(&75,&$/&2'( 1(& 5(*8/$7,216$6$'237('%<7+($5,=21$+($/7+'(3$570(17
&KHFNHU $/21*,17(51$/6287+:(67'5,9( ,&&$ 7+($9(5$*(12,6(/(9(/0($685('$77+(3523(57</,1(6+$//
$SSURYHU $/21*,17(51$/1257+($67'5,9( $'$67$1'$5'6)25$&&(66,%/('(6,*1 127(;&(('G% GQ :+(10($685('21$1$:(,*+7('6281'
$/21*,17(51$/6287+($67'5,9( /(9(/0(7(5$1'$&&25',1*727+(352&('85(62)7+(
(19,5210(17$/3527(&7,21$*(1&<
&216758&7,217<3( 9,$ (;3/26,9(25+$=$5'286352&(66(6 ,)$33/,&$%/(
&(57,),&$7,216+$//%(3529,'('%<7+(3+2(1,;),5('(3$570(17
35(9(17,21%85($87+$7$//0$18)$&785,1*6725$*($1':$67(
7 352&(66(6217+(6,7(6+$//0((76$)(7<$1'(19,5210(17$/
6(
&2168/7$17
$31 67$1'$5'6$6$'0,1,67(5('%<7+(%85($8
%$ 5( 7+(6$1,7$5<6(:(5&2//(&7,216<67(06:,7+,17+,6352-(&7
&.
:,//%($35,9$7(6<67(02:1('$1'0$,17$,1('%<7+(3523(57<
2:1(5 6 25$662&,$7,217+(6<67(0:,//%(5(9,(:('$1'
,163(&7('%<7+(%8,/',1*6$)(7<6(&7,212)7+(3/$11,1*$1'
'(9(/230(176(59,&(6'(3$570(17
$//216,7(:$7(5/,1(66+$//%(35,9$7(3/80%,1*/,1(668%-(&7
727+(3+2(1,;3/80%,1*&2'(
+27(/
%8,/',1*6)727$/
$31 35 $31$ /(9(/ 63$&(7<3( 727$/6)
=21,1**& 23 =21,1**&
$%29(*5$'( /HYHO
(5
7< /HYHO $0(1,7< 6)
/,1 /HYHO &20021$5($ 6)
67$03
(
6(
7% /HYHO 6(59,&($5($ 6)
$& 6)
. 3523(57</,1(
3$5.,1*
6758&785( /HYHO
( /HYHO $0(1,7< 6)
,1
/ /HYHO &20021$5($ 6)
7<
5 VHFRQGDU\ /HYHO 5(681,7 6)
Page 596
3( 352326(' HQWUDQFH
2 /HYHO 6(59,&($5($ 6)
35 /276) 6)
352326('/27 (;,67,1*&29(5('3.*
63/,7$5($ /HYHO
/HYHO &20021$5($ 6)
/HYHO 5(681,7 6)
35 /HYHO 6(59,&($5($ 6)
23 6)
(5 ,668$1&(6
12 '$7( '(6&5,37,21
. 352326(' $0(1,7< 7<
$& /HYHO
7% 6725< '(&. /,1 /HYHO &20021$5($ 6)
(
6( 5(6,'(17,$/ /HYHO 5(681,7 6)
%8,/',1* /HYHO 6(59,&($5($ 6) %,/7025((67$7(6'5
6)
25$1*('5
5$03
( /HYHO 6,7(
,1 /HYHO $0(1,7< 6)
/
7< 38' /HYHO &20021$5($ 6)
5 2)),&(
3( /HYHO 5(681,7 6)
5 /HYHO 6(59,&($5($ 6)
3
(: 6)
1 &$0(/%$&.5'
'
6( //
32 7+67 7+67 7+67 7+67 6767 1'67
2 (;,67,1* // &20021$5($ 6)
2)),&(72 // 3$5.,1* 6)
(63/$1$'(/1
5(0$,1 6)
727$/*52666) 6)
9,&,1,7<0$3
352326('
/276) $31 1
=21,17& (;,67,1*),5(
2 +<'5$17
3(
7<
/
,1
(
+,//6721( 1
$31 7+
=21,1*& 67
&DPHOEDFN/DNHV
352-(&7,1)250$7,21
(&$0(/%$&.5'3+2(1,;$=
-2%12
&21&(378$/6,7(
(;,67,1*),5(
3523(57</,1(
+<'5$17 3/$1
PDLQUHVLGHQW &$0(/%$&.52$'
HQWUDQFH
.,9$
38'
3$33
6'(9
30
&DPHOEDFN/DNHV
&?5HYLW/RFDOV?&DPHOEDFN/DNHVUBMRQDKEXVLFNUYW
6&$/(
'5$:,1*,1)250$7,21
46
&21&(378$/6,7(3/$1
7+(25,*,1$/2)7+,6'5$:,1*,6;,)7+,6&23<,6$1<27+(56,=(,7+$6(,7+(5%((15('8&('25(1/$5*('7$.($335235,$7(35(&$87,216$&&25',1*/<
@----
0--
0--
Page 597
�·I,
l vl b :lb
gb Jb .,Jb ..lb
"'I·'
.:8 !i� �-1,�
"Zj• l'
�i::i !i.:
_,,_ iJ,;
_,.
1, 1, I, 1,
1 J>•�I
1 .O•,U
1 .Q•J I
1 .() • .U
1 .o• 1,It
0-
0---
0-
0---
©-
0-----
0-
Page 598
i�
I I I I I I
Ji� ..:1:, ....
f_,;
-0
j:R -1· � �� -1-
{ JJ•Zl < .D•.u 'J< .D·,U
, .0•,H ,..., ..o•.u 'J
'J <
0--
0-
0--
Page 599
.,l "'l
-'i, "'� b J
'\
..!!, b . .!,
"I.
�i:i 11-' l.: 11.:.
�; 1 -'ji:i -;-
'a"-( ..0·.ZI { .O•,tl •{ .o·.u I{ ..O·,H I{ .O • ,II �
0--
anu
0---
,,·......
..;:x:::::
.,� ..........
0- ,,..
.............
0--
e--
0--
Page 600
Page 601
Page 602
John Roanhorse
From: Colleen Geretti
Sent: Monday, January 8, 2024 3:43 PM
To: John Roanhorse
Subject: Concerns RE: Rezoning - Z-69-23-6 Camelback Lakes PUD | Rezoning - Z-52-21-6 Biltmore Lakes
PUD
Mr. Roanhorse,
Thank you for your time earlier today and our open discussion regarding the (2) proposed PUD rezoning applications
indicated above.
As I expressed, I and the neighbors I represent, have a number of serious concerns regarding these two developments.
Following are only a few of those concerns:
The EXTREME density of both proposed PUD developments:
o Case No. Z-69-23-6 Camelback Lakes PUD, 27th Street, 75 units on 1.57 acre site.
o Case No. Z-52-21-6 Biltmore Lakes PUD, 29th Street, 360 units on 4.85-acre site (75 dwelling units per
acre).
Net units between the two developments = a staggering 435 units.
Their close proximity to one another, only two blocks apart on an already VERY congested E. Camelback
Road. One located at E. 27th Street and one at E. 29th Street.
Limited parking available for residents and particularly guests.
Increase in traffic, density, building heights, etc.
The amount of existing residential hi-rises and those proposed along E. Camelback Road from 24th Street to
32nd Street is considerable.
I have lived in my neighborhood for 24 years and have witnessed first-hand the explosion of development along E.
Camelback Road - particularly from 24th Street to 32nd Street. I am not anti-development, I understand development will
occur, however, I am for SMART development.
Allowing the neighborhoods to still enjoy a quality of life while enduring all that comes with growth and
development.
Development that is designed to peacefully co-exist with the well established surrounding neighborhoods.
Listening to the neighbors and incorporating what is important to meet and maintain their needs - not just about a
development "penciling out".
I would appreciate your consideration of the above points when these two cases become "action items" before the City.
Thank you for your time,
Colleen Geretti
President
Brentwood Estates Neighborhood Association
(N. 32nd Street and E. Camelback Road)
T. 602.505.9777
E. cgeretti@q.com
Page 603
ATTACHMENT C
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-69-23-6
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting January 9, 2024
Request From C-O CEPCSP
Request To PUD CEPCSP
Proposed Use Multifamily residential
Location Approximately 125 feet north and 450 feet east of the
northeast corner of 26th Street and Camelback Road
VPC DISCUSSION
Vice Chair Fischbach arrived bring the quorum to 16 members (11 being required for
quorum).
Three members of the public registered to speak on this item.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION:
William Allison representative and applicant with Whitey Morris Baugh, PLC
introduced himself and provided an initial review of the proposal noting the location, size
and features of the site. Mr. Allison noted that the site is currently an underutilized
parking structure and located between an active restaurant and office building. Mr.
Allison stated the project will include the development of luxury apartment building with
studios, one- and two-bedroom units with a density of 46 dwelling units per acre, the
underlying density allows 98 units per acre in accordance with the Camelback East
Primary Core Specific Plan area. Mr. Allison stated the proposal will be 56 feet high, five
stories and will complement the existing area and the Fashion Park to the west. Mr.
Allison stated there will be shared parking available including subgrade spaces for
residents and the adjacent office development. Mr. Allison stated they have actively
engaged with the existing restaurant and office building representatives to ensure there
is sufficient parking available. Mr. Allison described the building layout, design, features
and amenities. Mr. Allison displayed the site plan, noting the layout, availability of
electric vehicle (EV) parking, enhanced bicycle parking and shared automobile parking
on the property. Mr. Allison discussed the landscaping, circulation plan and building
renderings. Mr. Allison concluded his presentation and stated he expects to have all the
details worked out by the time he returns for formal committee review and action.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 604
Camelback East Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-69-23-6
January 9, 2024
Page 2
QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE:
Committee Member Paceley asked for a description of the parking situation and how
the shared parking would work. Mr. Allison responded each unit will have a parking
space and sublevel spaces will provide additional parking for residents and there is
excess surface parking that can be utilized which will be part of the shared use. Mr.
Allison stated they have evaluated the peak parking demands and there will be ample
parking available on site.
Committee Member Paceley stated the Application Review Committee (ARC) had an
initial review of the project and the presentation was well received, and Mr. Allision
provided a detailed review of the parking availability. Committee Member Paceley
stated the ARC did have some concern about the walk up to the proposed building and
the committee expects to see a sidewalk adjacent to the drive. Mr. Allision stated that
the walkway will be enhanced and presented at the next review. Committee Member
stated from the presentation with the ARC, he is supportive of this proposal.
Chair Swart stated that remaining details should be resolved before the next committee
presentation. Chair Swart stated that Mr. Allison should contact representatives of the
adjacent golf course and the Arizona Biltmore Association prior to the next meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Bill Lally with Tiffany and Bosco, PA stated he is representing Hillstone Group which
includes the existing restaurant next to the proposed site. Mr. Lally stated there are
numerous impacts from the proposal and he has been working with the developer for
the last few months. Mr. Lally stated he is working with Mr. Allison to document the
agreements and developments including parking. Mr. Lally stated he is confident that
they can coordinate any agreements and is supportive of the project.
Charles J. Carey introduced himself and stated he is present on behalf of one of the
adjacent property owners. Mr. Carey stated he does not have any objections to the
proposal but does have concern and since this is an information only presentation. Mr.
Carey stated he is consulting legal counsel regarding some of the details on the
proposal. Chair Swart asked who is the concerned party. Mr. Carey responded a party
in the Biltmore Estates.
Colleen Geretti introduced herself as the president of the Brentwood Estates
Homeowners Association and expressed concern for the proposal and an ongoing
development at 29th Street and Camelback Road. Ms. Geretti stated that between the
two developing projects there will be 435 residential units, and this raises a concern
about the proximity to each other. Ms. Geretti stated that Camelback Road is very
congested and there is limited parking available for residents and guests. Ms. Geretti
stated the current proposal has 75 units and there will not be sufficient parking
available. Ms. Geretti stated that there will be an increase in traffic and with the density,
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 605
Camelback East Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-69-23-6
January 9, 2024
Page 3
building height this will impact the mountain views. Ms. Geretti stated the existing and
proposed high rise residential developments from 24th Street to 32nd Street has
drastically increased, and this has impacted traffic flow in the area. Ms. Geretti stated as
a result of the increased traffic many neighborhoods are being used for cut through
traffic. Ms. Geretti stated she is supportive of smart development which includes
allowing current residents to enjoy their neighborhoods and quality of life. Ms. Geretti
stated that development should be implemented peacefully and coexist with the well-
established surrounding area. Ms. Geretti said she was invited by Ryan Companies
when a development was built at 32nd Street and Camelback Road and they listened to
the community’s input and incorporated some of their ideas and designs and the
neighborhood was very appreciative. Ms. Geretti stated the developer needs to take
these concerns into consideration when the committee considers this proposal for
action. Ms. Geretti thanked the committee and concluded her comments.
APPLICANT RESONSE:
Bill Allison responded noting that they are bringing the cleanest case they can, and
they will reach out to the neighborhoods.
FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSION CLOSED: COMMITTEE DISCUSSION:
Chair Swart commented that it is important to hear from the neighborhood associations
and noted the association wants to be heard on this case, and it is always beneficial to
get issues worked out before coming to the committee. Chair Swart stated the applicant
should be in contact with the neighborhood association as soon as possible. Mr.
Allison respond that he is committed to meeting with the neighborhood association.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 606
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-69-23-6
Date of VPC Meeting April 2, 2024
Request From C-O CEPCSP
Request To PUD CEPCSP
Proposal Multifamily residential
Location Approximately 125 feet north and 450 feet east of the
northeast corner of 26th Street and Camelback Road
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation with
modifications and additional stipulations
VPC Vote 16-0
VPC DISCUSSION:
Vice Chair Fischbach declared a conflict of interest, bringing the quorum to 16 members.
Two members of the public registered to speak in support of this item.
Four members of the public registered in support, not wishing to speak.
STAFF PRESENTATION:
John Roanhorse, staff, provided a summary overview of the rezoning request noting that
the committee will vote on the case. Mr. Roanhorse discussed the proposal location, the
existing and proposed zoning districts, and surrounding land uses and adjacent streets. Mr.
Roanhorse displayed the site plan and proposed PUD (Planned Unit Development)
standards for building height, setbacks, streetscapes and open space. Mr. Roanhorse
discussed the General Plan Land Use Map designation and noted this proposal was
introduced to the Village Committee at an information only presentation in January. Mr.
Roanhorse shared the staff findings and recommendation for approval subject to
stipulations.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION:
Jason Morris, the applicant and representative with Whitey Morris Baugh, PLC introduced
himself and provided a list of updated stipulations based on meetings conducted with the
property owners from the adjacent areas. Mr. Morris discussed the size and unique
conditions of the site and the development challenges and their design response. Mr.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 607
Camelback East Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-69-23-6
Morris stated that there was a delay in bringing the case forward, but this was necessary to
properly address the concerns of the adjacent landowners. Mr. Morris said the list of
updated stipulations is the result of the meetings and input from adjacent landowners. Mr.
Morris noted that in the audience were many legal representatives whom he worked with to
address the issues and provide solutions. Mr. Morris noted that the site is currently
underutilized as a parking structure and the existing adjacent office building has available
parking. Mr. Morris stated the areas along Camelback Road have undergone significant
changes and the construction was in close proximity to the existing residential areas which
indicates redevelopment in the area continually occurs. Mr. Morris stated the site is
underutilized as a parking structure and is not frequently used. Mr. Morris expressed that
the development will have 60 residential units, which is a reduction from the initial proposal
and will promote walkability in the immediate area. Mr. Morris stated that with less units
there will be less parking and traffic issues and the design is complimentary to the adjacent
Hillstone restaurant. Mr. Morris stated a PUD was best suited for this project because of the
unique shape and its interior location and allowing specific development standards was the
best option for a quality project. Mr. Morris stated the project is consistent with the
CEPCSP and the developer has experience in the area. Mr. Morris stated that various
factors were considered for the project including cost, number of units and building height.
Mr. Morris stated that the design of the project reflects the existing adjacent developments
in appearance and includes redesigned walls, overhangs and balconies that respond to
heat patterns. Mr. Morris stated that the design details of the amenity space create a
responsive indoor-outdoor concept for residents. Mr. Morris discussed the placement of the
amenities and open space so they would maintain a level of privacy for residents and the
adjacent golf course. Mr. Morris displayed the landscape plan and noted they worked with
Hillstone to maintain parking but also include pedestrian access to connections for the
entire area. Mr. Morris discussed traffic access and circulation from Camelback Road and
26th Street and noted the proposal will have access from the north and south into the
building. Mr. Morris displayed a use and trip comparison table for the proposal to show the
parking demand and the number of available spaces on the site. Mr. Morris discussed the
building’s viewshed and concerns with privacy and provided pictures taken from a drone to
show the anticipated views to the adjacent properties. Mr. Morris stated that JDM, the
company that owns the adjacent golf course requested a block wall on the property line
with landscaping and replacement of the metal screen and acknowledgment to residents
that the golf course is private property. Mr. Morris discussed the construction plan and
displayed the proposed parking, storage and staging areas. Mr. Morris stated that with
constriction there would be concerns due to the size of the site. Mr. Morris stated they have
engaged with the adjacent landowners about access and staging and the discussion is
ongoing. Mr. Morris stated they would construct a solid temporary wall for construction
screening and a block wall to screen the golf course. Mr. Morris summarized the project,
the size, location, architectural quality, the enhancements and outreach they have engaged
in and concluded his comments.
QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE:
Committee Member Eichelkraut commented that the applicant had made a strong effort
to engage and accommodate the neighboring properties and asked what is the status of
the shared parking agreement, and with the decrease in number of units has there been a
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 608
Camelback East Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-69-23-6
change in the size of the units. Mr. Morris responded that there would be an impact on the
size of the units and most likely the smaller units will increase in size, but the overall square
footage should not change. Committee Member Eichelkraut asked with the change in
number of units will the available bicycle parking change. Mr. Morris responded that the
changes in units will be matched with bicycle parking, but they will move to increase bicycle
parking overall. Mr. Morris referenced a project at 24th Street and Camelback Road which
features a bicycle share program and there will be a strong possibility for this project. Mr.
Morris stated the lower-level parking area will include secured bicycle storage. Committee
Member Eichelkraut asked if there will be a bicycle fix it facility. Mr. Morris responded yes
one would be provided for residents. Committee Member Eichelkraut asked about the
status of the original reserved parking and now it appears there will be shared and covered
parking and what has changed. Mr. Morris responded that the shared agreement states
there are 23 parking spaces allocated to Hillstone which will increase to 27 and for the
residents the sublevel parking will be reserved, and the ground level spaces will be shared.
Committee Member O’Malley stated he had the same questions about the shared parking
and asked where the Hillstone reserve spaces would be located. Mr. Morris responded the
reserve spaces are adjacent to the restaurant and in the same location as they were
previously. Committee Member O’Malley asked if the traffic light on 26th Street would be
blocked off. Mr. Morris responded there will not be a barrier and there will be full traffic
access to 26th Street.
Committee Member Jurayeva asked if all the access points are through parking lots. Mr.
Morris responded yes because there is no direct access to the site from an arterial road.
Committee Member Jurayeva asked about traffic flow and cars backing out of spaces and
how will that be handled. Mr. Morris responded that based on the traffic demand there
would be enough parking and cars that traverse parking lots move slower and create a
natural response to allow movement.
Committee Member Paceley commended Mr. Morris on their presentation to the
Application Review Committee (ARC). Committee Member Paceley asked about sidewalk
access to the lobby, and it does not appear on the renderings. Mr. Morris responded that
the exhibits presented are the same as with ARC and there will be a connecting sidewalk.
Committee Member Paceley asked about construction timing with no work on the weekend.
Mr. Morris responded that scheduling and timing have been taken into consideration and all
associated interior activity. Committee Member Paceley suggest that for construction offsite
parking with a shuttle would be very effective for reducing construction parking.
Committee Member Guevar asked about the proposed walls and will there be access to
the golf course and hotel. Mr. Morris responded there is access from the golf course and
the hotel, but secure access is a concern. Mr. Morris stated over time they expect there will
be limited access to the golf course. Committee Member Guevar commented that with the
residential development there will be more interest in the golf course and the applicant
should continue to seek solutions to maintain a positive barrier. Committee Member Guevar
asked about traffic access from Camelback Road and the new development may increase
automobile congestion in the area. Mr. Morris responded that traffic in the area is a primary
concern, and, in the review, they evaluated the adjacent intersections and the traffic
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 609
Camelback East Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-69-23-6
generated from the residential development will be minimal compared to an office
development. Committee Member Guevar asked if they expect to build any speed bumps
for access routes. Mr. Morris responded that many of the drive aisle are narrow and
relatively short distances, and any traffic control measures will be installed after
consultation with the Hillstone representatives. Committee Member Guevar asked about
the building height. Mr. Morris responded that the proposal would be the same height as
the Embassy Suites hotel. Committee Member Guevar asked about the availability of short-
term rentals. Mr. Morris responded that the units will be prohibited from subleases and
short-term rentals.
Committee Member Whitesell commented that the committee had received
correspondence from Ms. Colleen Geretti in opposition and wanted to bring this to the
applicant’s attention and that the concerns were addressed. Mr. Morris responded that he
did meet with Ms. Geretti and discussed all the noted concerns. Mr. Morris stated that the
comments provided identify a separate adjacent residential project that is still under review
and may take more time to develop.
Chair Swart stated that he asked the applicant to meet with Ms. Colleen Geretti after the
information only presentation in January. Chair Swart stated the applicant and Ms. Colleen
Geretti met and provided information to the Homeowners Association.
Chair Swart commented on the concern regarding public access to the golf course. Chair
Swart suggested that signs be posted to deter trespassing with specific language to allow
law enforcement action. Chair Swart stated that without trespassing signs crime may
increase. Chair Swart suggested that signs be posted, and he can provide an example that
has been used in other developments. Chair Swart also expressed to the applicant that
certain measures be taken during the construction period to prevent any conflict with
workers, parking, and patrons in the area.
Committee Member Whitesell asked about building signage and reference page 16 of the
PUD Narrative. Committee Member Whitesell noted the CEPCSP has height limitation on
building signage. Mr. Morris responded that the development would abide by the more
stringent sign requirement for the proposal and the narrative would be revised. Committee
Member Whitesell asked about the expected price point for the units in the proposed
development. Mr. Morris responded that the proposal is a luxury development and with an
estimated cost of $3,000 to $4,000 per unit.
Committee Member Sharaby commented that the proposed number appears to be low.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Larry Lazarus, with Lazarus & Silvyn, PC introduced himself and stated he has been
involved with the negotiations representing Mr. Artie Moreno, a property owner adjacent to
the golf course. Mr. Lazarus stated he reviewed the information, and the area will become a
more active site and they are seeking to reduce any detrimental actions and they have
prepared stipulations which have been provided to all the committee members. Mr. Lazarus
stated they have negotiated many of the details that have been discussed but the level of
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 610
Camelback East Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-69-23-6
disturbance during construction has not been fully resolved. Mr. Lazarus stated that
construction at a site can last from 18 months to two years and there will be significant
effect on the adjacent properties. Mr. Lazarus expressed a stipulation to address noise and
staging for the construction period that should be located on the south side of the property,
but the applicant has located the staging on the north side. Mr. Lazarus stated that staging
would be optimal on the east side of the development where there is a parking lot. Mr.
Lazarus stated that the Embassy Suites has prepared a letter and does not support staging
on the north side, a copy of the letter was provided to Chair Swart. Mr. Lazarus stated
negotiations on the staging location will continue with the applicant.
William Lally, with Tiffany & Bosco PA introduced himself and expressed his gratitude to
Mr. Morris for working together on this project. Mr. Lally stated that the Hillstone restaurant
is the most impacted business in the area. Mr. Lally stated there had been a shared parking
agreement between the former restaurant and the office building since the 1990’s and there
are parking spaces that are dedicated to the Hillstone restaurant, and the provided
stipulations demonstrate an agreeable parking configuration. Mr. Lally stated they have
some solutions to the construction staging and they do not prefer activity on the south side
of the development as it would cause a major disruption. Mr. Lally stated they do support
the provided stipulations and support the proposed development, but some remaining
details do need to be resolved.
Chair Swart stated that as the units are leased or sold a brochure or statement should be
prepared and provided to the residents with welcoming information with a notification to
prevent trespassing on the golf course. Chair Swart stated this would be an ideal way to
inform residents about the development and the adjacent businesses. Chair Swart asked if
this could be considered as part of the development agreement in the negotiations between
the parties. Mr. Morris responded that they have considered some notification to advise
residents for parking and avoiding trespassing to the golf course. Chair Swart noted that
there has to be a way to prevent trespassing and preserve the privacy of the golf course
and the adjacent neighborhood.
APPLICANT RESPONSE:
Mr. Morris stated from the discussions the parties as represented by Mr. Lally and Mr.
Lazarus have worked extensively to negotiate and the results have been successful. Mr.
Morris stated the remaining issues with parking and staging will be resolved and that
represents the progress that has been made in moving the project forward. Mr. Morris
stated that with the presentation he is open to suggestions and comments from the
committee.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION:
None.
FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: MOTION, DISCUSSION, AND VOTE:
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 611
Camelback East Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-69-23-6
Committee Member Jurayeva stated she supports the proposal but would like to see the
correspondence provided on behalf of the Embassy Suites hotel. Chair Swart requested a
copy of the letter and directed staff to provide it to the committee.
Chair Swart commented this case has progressed from the first presentation and there
was a lot of work on all sides from the applicant, the attorneys, and the committee. Chair
Swart stated that the committee reviewed the narrative and information to get the project
moved to the Planning Commission.
MOTION:
Committee Member Paceley motioned to recommend approval of Z-69-23-6 with
modifications and additional stipulations as follows:
1) Include the draft stipulations from the applicant in addition to the staff recommended
stipulations.
2) Revise the narrative on page 16 to state multifamily residential buildings shall have wall
signs no higher than the top of the second story as required by the CEPCSP.
3) The narrative shall state the maximum number of units will be 60.
Committee Member Schmieder seconded the motion.
Applicant Proposed Stipulations:
1. Building height shall not exceed 56 feet.
2. The density shall be a maximum of 60 units.
3. Development shall generally conform to the conceptual site plan dated March 19, 2024,
Level 1 Plan dated March 19, 2024, Lower Level Plan dated August 31, 2023, and
elevations dates March 29, 2024 (attached Exhibit A consisting of seven (7) pages))
with specific regard to:
a. Parking structure entrances and the number and placement of structured and
surface parking spaces;
b. Dumpster location;
c. Location of only a maximum of two (2) dwelling units, neither with a balcony, on
the northernmost (northeast facing) portion of the 5th floor; and
d. Location of the 5th floor amenity deck on the south side of the building;
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 612
Camelback East Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-69-23-6
e. The parking lot landscape planters adjacent to the west side of the building.
These shall be a minimum of 5 feet wide and planted with 24” boxed Desert
Museum Palo Verde trees, or mutually acceptable species;
f. Main building entrance location on southern side of building and not
immediately facing the adjacent restaurant, no secondary or other entrances
facing restaurant;
g. Landscaping barrier between parking stalls for the exclusive use of the
restaurant and any adjacent sidewalks in order to prevent unauthorized
parking.
4. The developer shall provide no less than 27 parking stalls adjacent to the restaurant
parcel for exclusive use of restaurant customers and employees. The 27 parking stalls
shall be a minimum of 9 x18 feet in size.
5. There shall be no retail or commercial uses that are open to the public.
6. The developer shall work with the adjacent restaurant owner to determine mutually
agreeable colors, materials, and building design on the building facing the restaurant
parcel (western façade), and as outlined below:
a. Reflectivity of windows shall be limited to twenty (20) percent.
b. Reflective building materials are prohibited.
c. No paint colors shall be used which have a light reflective value (LVR) greater than
seventy-five (75) percent.
d. There shall be no more than 50% glazing or glass material along the western facing
façade.
e. There shall be no signage on the portion of the new residential building
immediately facing the restaurant.
f. Exterior lighting, specifically on the portion of the new residential building facing
the restaurant shall be minimized to avoid adversely affecting guest experience.
Lighting shall be a maximum of 3,000 Kelvin with no spot lighting directed at the
restaurant. New landscape island lighting shall match the existing restaurant
lighting. The adjacent restaurant shall retain the right to review and provide input
on plans for exterior lighting in efforts to minimize impact on guest experience.
7. Construction on the property shall be limited as follows:
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 613
Camelback East Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-69-23-6
a. Outdoor construction activity and exterior construction shall be limited to the hours
of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on weekdays unless notice is provided to RN Properties
at Attn: Jerel Campbell, 4455 E Camelback Rd, Ste C-140, Phoenix, AZ 85018
one (1) week before any deviation from this schedule;
b. No outdoor construction activity or exterior construction shall occur on weekends.
c. Interior construction shall be allowed only after the building’s exterior is completed
and only between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
d. Construction shall not begin on the Property before June 2025.
e. During construction, traffic, property access, loading, unloading, worker parking,
storage of construction equipment and staging shall conform to the plan specified
in attached Exhibit B staging exhibit, consisting of one page, and shall not occur
outside the hours defined above. The storage area noted on the northwest side
of the Property/existing parking structure shall be screened with a temporary wall.
f. Before commencement of demolition or construction on the Property, the
Developer shall install an 8-foot high, block wall along the north/northeast
perimeter adjacent to the golf course.
8. After issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the structure, the noise level shall not
exceed 55 dB (ldn) at the property line.
9. There shall be no outdoor live music on the site.
10. The residential building operator or manager shall, at the time of conveyance to
tenants or unit purchasers, mandate disclosures are provided that:
a. Designate assigned parking spaces for residents and identify adjacent areas
which are not to be used for resident and guest parking; and
b. Detail the rules and regulations addressing prohibited uses of balcony and patio
areas of the residential building.
11. The developer shall add covered parking along the north side of the office building.
12. Prior to final site plan approval:
a. Items 7, 8, and 9 shall be recorded against the property in favor of Maricopa County
APN 164-14-027A.
b. The developer shall provide a fully executed and recorded copy of the Amended
and Restated Parking Easement Agreement and Use Restrictions, amended and
restated from the previously recorded Parking Easement and Agreement,
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 614
Camelback East Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-69-23-6
recorded in the Office of the Maricopa County Recorder on May 18, 1998 as
document number 98-0412811.
VOTE:
16-0; motion to approve Z-69-23-6 per the staff recommendation with modifications and
additional stipulations passes with Committee members Abbott, Baumer, Bayless
Eichelkraut, Garcia, Guevar, Jurayeva, Langmade, Noel, O’Malley, Paceley, Schmieder,
Sharaby, Whitesell, Williams and Swart in favor.
VPC RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:
1. An updated Development Narrative for the Camelback Lakes Residential
reflecting the changes approved through this request shall be submitted to the
Planning and Development Department within 30 days of City Council approval of this
request. The updated Development Narrative shall be consistent with the
Development Narrative date stamped March 20, 2024, as modified by the following
stipulations:
a. Front cover: Revise the date information on the cover page to the following: City
Council Adopted: [Add Adoption Date]
b. Page 10, Development Standards Table, Maximum Density: Update the density
to 47.77 dwelling per acre.
2. The developer shall submit a Traffic Impact Study for this development, no preliminary
approval of plans shall be granted until the study has been reviewed and approved by
the City. The developer shall be responsible for any dedications, funding and
construction of all recommendations in the study.
3. Replace unused driveways with sidewalk, curb and gutter. Also, replace any broken or
out-of-grade curb, gutter, sidewalk, and curb ramps on all streets and upgrade all off-
site improvements to be in compliance with current ADA guidelines.
4. All streets within and adjacent to the development shall be constructed with paving,
curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands, landscaping and other
incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and Development Department. All
improvements shall comply with all ADA accessibility standards.
5. Only landscape materials listed in the Phoenix Active Management Area Low-Water-
Use/Drought-Tolerant Plant List shall be utilized, as approved or modified by the
Planning and Development Department.
Landscaping shall be maintained by permanent and automatic/water efficient
WaterSense labeled irrigation controllers (or similar smart controller) to minimize
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 615
Camelback East Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-69-23-6
maintenance and irrigation water consumption for all on and offsite landscape
irrigation.
6. Landscaping shall be maintained by permanent and automatic/water efficient
WaterSense labeled irrigation controllers (or similar smart controller) to minimize
maintenance and irrigation water consumption for all on and offsite landscape
irrigation.
7. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
8. Prior to final site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207 waiver
of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County Recorder's
Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning application file for
record.
9. BUILDING HEIGHT SHALL NOT EXCEED 56 FEET.
10. THE DENSITY SHALL BE A MAXIMUM OF 60 UNITS.
11. DEVELOPMENT SHALL GENERALLY CONFORM TO THE CONCEPTUAL SITE
PLAN DATED MARCH 19, 2024, LEVEL 1 PLAN DATED MARCH 19, 2024,
LOWER-LEVEL PLAN DATED AUGUST 31, 2023, AND ELEVATIONS DATES
MARCH 29, 2024 (ATTACHED EXHIBIT A CONSISTING OF SEVEN PAGES)
WITH SPECIFIC REGARD TO:
A. PARKING STRUCTURE ENTRANCES AND THE NUMBER AND
PLACEMENT OF STRUCTURED AND SURFACE PARKING SPACES;
B. DUMPSTER LOCATION;
C. LOCATION OF ONLY A MAXIMUM OF TWO DWELLING UNITS, NEITHER
WITH A BALCONY, ON THE NORTHERNMOST (NORTHEAST FACING)
PORTION OF THE 5TH FLOOR; AND
D. LOCATION OF THE 5TH FLOOR AMENITY DECK ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF
THE BUILDING;
E. THE PARKING LOT LANDSCAPE PLANTERS ADJACENT TO THE WEST
SIDE OF THE BUILDING. THESE SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 5 FEET WIDE
AND PLANTED WITH 24 INCH BOXED DESERT MUSEUM PALO VERDE
TREES, OR MUTUALLY ACCEPTABLE SPECIES;
F. MAIN BUILDING ENTRANCE LOCATION ON SOUTHERN SIDE OF
BUILDING AND NOT IMMEDIATELY FACING THE ADJACENT
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 616
Camelback East Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-69-23-6
RESTAURANT, NO SECONDARY OR OTHER ENTRANCES FACING
RESTAURANT;
G. LANDSCAPING BARRIER BETWEEN PARKING STALLS FOR THE
EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE RESTAURANT AND ANY ADJACENT
SIDEWALKS IN ORDER TO PREVENT UNAUTHORIZED PARKING.
12. THE DEVELOPER SHALL PROVIDE NO LESS THAN 27 PARKING STALLS
ADJACENT TO THE RESTAURANT PARCEL FOR EXCLUSIVE USE OF
RESTAURANT CUSTOMERS AND EMPLOYEES. THE 27 PARKING STALLS
SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 9 X 18 FEET IN SIZE.
13. THERE SHALL BE NO RETAIL OR COMMERCIAL USES THAT ARE OPEN TO
THE PUBLIC.
14. THE DEVELOPER SHALL WORK WITH THE ADJACENT RESTAURANT OWNER
TO DETERMINE MUTUALLY AGREEABLE COLORS, MATERIALS, AND
BUILDING DESIGN ON THE BUILDING FACING THE RESTAURANT PARCEL
(WESTERN FAÇADE), AND AS OUTLINED BELOW:
A. REFLECTIVITY OF WINDOWS SHALL BE LIMITED TO 20 PERCENT.
B. REFLECTIVE BUILDING MATERIALS ARE PROHIBITED.
C. NO PAINT COLORS SHALL BE USED WHICH HAVE A LIGHT REFLECTIVE
VALUE (LVR) GREATER THAN 75 PERCENT.
D. THERE SHALL BE NO MORE THAN 50% GLAZING OR GLASS MATERIAL
ALONG THE WESTERN FACING FAÇADE.
E. THERE SHALL BE NO SIGNAGE ON THE PORTION OF THE NEW
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING IMMEDIATELY FACING THE RESTAURANT.
F. EXTERIOR LIGHTING, SPECIFICALLY ON THE PORTION OF THE NEW
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING FACING THE RESTAURANT SHALL BE
MINIMIZED TO AVOID ADVERSELY AFFECTING GUEST EXPERIENCE.
LIGHTING SHALL BE A MAXIMUM OF 3,000 KELVIN WITH NO SPOT
LIGHTING DIRECTED AT THE RESTAURANT. NEW LANDSCAPE ISLAND
LIGHTING SHALL MATCH THE EXISTING RESTAURANT LIGHTING. THE
ADJACENT RESTAURANT SHALL RETAIN THE RIGHT TO REVIEW AND
PROVIDE INPUT ON PLANS FOR EXTERIOR LIGHTING IN EFFORTS TO
MINIMIZE IMPACT ON GUEST EXPERIENCE.
15. CONSTRUCTION ON THE PROPERTY SHALL BE LIMITED AS FOLLOWS:
A. OUTDOOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY AND EXTERIOR CONSTRUCTION
SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE HOURS OF 8:00 A.M. TO 5:00 P.M. ON
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 617
Camelback East Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-69-23-6
WEEKDAYS UNLESS NOTICE IS PROVIDED TO RN PROPERTIES AT
ATTN: JEREL CAMPBELL, 4455 E CAMELBACK RD, STE C-140, PHOENIX,
AZ 85018 ONE WEEK BEFORE ANY DEVIATION FROM THIS SCHEDULE;
B. NO OUTDOOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY OR EXTERIOR
CONSTRUCTION SHALL OCCUR ON WEEKENDS.
C. INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE ALLOWED ONLY AFTER THE
BUILDING’S EXTERIOR IS COMPLETED AND ONLY BETWEEN 8:00 A.M.
AND 5:00 P.M.
D. CONSTRUCTION SHALL NOT BEGIN ON THE PROPERTY BEFORE JUNE
2025.
E. DURING CONSTRUCTION, TRAFFIC, PROPERTY ACCESS, LOADING,
UNLOADING, WORKER PARKING, STORAGE OF CONSTRUCTION
EQUIPMENT AND STAGING SHALL CONFORM TO THE PLAN SPECIFIED
IN ATTACHED EXHIBIT B STAGING EXHIBIT, CONSISTING OF ONE PAGE,
AND SHALL NOT OCCUR OUTSIDE THE HOURS DEFINED ABOVE. THE
STORAGE AREA NOTED ON THE NORTHWEST SIDE OF THE
PROPERTY/EXISTING PARKING STRUCTURE SHALL BE SCREENED
WITH A TEMPORARY WALL.
F. BEFORE COMMENCEMENT OF DEMOLITION OR CONSTRUCTION ON
THE PROPERTY, THE DEVELOPER SHALL INSTALL AN 8-FOOT HIGH,
BLOCK WALL ALONG THE NORTH/NORTHEAST PERIMETER ADJACENT
TO THE GOLF COURSE.
16. AFTER ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR THE
STRUCTURE, THE NOISE LEVEL SHALL NOT EXCEED 55 DB (LDN) AT THE
PROPERTY LINE.
17. THERE SHALL BE NO OUTDOOR LIVE MUSIC ON THE SITE.
18. THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING OPERATOR OR MANAGER SHALL, AT THE TIME
OF CONVEYANCE TO TENANTS OR UNIT PURCHASERS, MANDATE
DISCLOSURES ARE PROVIDED THAT:
A. DESIGNATE ASSIGNED PARKING SPACES FOR RESIDENTS AND
IDENTIFY ADJACENT AREAS WHICH ARE NOT TO BE USED FOR
RESIDENT AND GUEST PARKING; AND
B. DETAIL THE RULES AND REGULATIONS ADDRESSING PROHIBITED
USES OF BALCONY AND PATIO AREAS OF THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING.
19. THE DEVELOPER SHALL ADD COVERED PARKING ALONG THE NORTH SIDE
OF THE OFFICE BUILDING.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 618
Camelback East Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-69-23-6
20. PRIOR TO FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL:
A. ITEMS 7 (15), 8 (16), AND 9 (17) SHALL BE RECORDED AGAINST THE
PROPERTY IN FAVOR OF MARICOPA COUNTY APN 164-14-027A.
B. THE DEVELOPER SHALL PROVIDE A FULLY EXECUTED AND RECORDED
COPY OF THE AMENDED AND RESTATED PARKING EASEMENT
AGREEMENT AND USE RESTRICTIONS, AMENDED AND RESTATED
FROM THE PREVIOUSLY RECORDED PARKING EASEMENT AND
AGREEMENT, RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE MARICOPA COUNTY
RECORDER ON MAY 18, 1998 AS DOCUMENT NUMBER 98-0412811.
21. REVISE THE NARRATIVE ON PAGE 16 TO STATE MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL
BUILDINGS SHALL HAVE WALL SIGNS NO HIGHER THAN THE TOP OF THE
SECOND STORY AS REQUIRED BY THE CEPCSP.
22. THE NARRATIVE SHALL STATE THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF UNITS WILL BE
60.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the following updates:
• Stipulation No. 9 should be deleted, as the maximum height listed in the PUD
narrative is already 56 feet.
• Stipulation Nos. 10 and 22 should be incorporated into Stipulation No. 1.b, which
addresses density.
• Stipulation No. 11.e and g should be incorporated into the landscaping
development standards within the PUD narrative.
• The first sentence of Stipulation No. 12 should be added to the parking
development standards within the PUD narrative, and the last sentence
regarding parking space width should be deleted. Section 702.B.2.b requires
spaces located in surface parking lots that are single striped shall be a minimum
of nine and one-half feet by eighteen feet. If the entire surface parking lot is
double striped, 50 percent of the spaces provided in the lot must be nine and
one-half feet by eighteen feet wide, while the remainder of the spaces may be a
minimum of nine feet wide.
• Stipulation No.13 should be incorporated into the PUD narrative.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 619
Camelback East Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-69-23-6
• Stipulation No. 14.a, b, c, d and f should be incorporated into the design
standards of the PUD narrative, Stipulation No. 1.e should be included in the
signs of the PUD narrative, and the first sentence of Stipulation No. 14 should be
incorporated into a new section of the PUD narrative that includes items agreed
upon by the developer and neighbors, but not enforceable by the City.
• Stipulation No. 15 should be incorporated into the PUD narrative in an
unenforceable section as noted, above as construction activity is not enforceable
at the time of site plan review.
• Stipulation No. 16 should be incorporated into the PUD narrative in an
unenforceable section as noted above as it is realistically not enforceable.
• Stipulation No. 17 should be incorporated into the PUD.
• Stipulation No. 18. should be reworded to require the disclosures to be provided
to future tenants or owners and recorded.
• Stipulation No. 19 should be deleted as it is not appropriate to stipulate an
improvement on a property not within the PUD request area and with a separate
property owner.
• Stipulation No. 20.a should be incorporated into the PUD narrative in an
unenforceable section as noted above.
• Stipulation No. 21 should be incorporated in the signs section of the PUD
narrative.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 620
ATTACHMENT D
To: City of Phoenix Planning Commission Date: May 2, 2024
From: Racelle Escolar, AICP
Principal Planner
Subject: ITEM NO. 5 (Z-69-23-6, CAMELBACK LAKES RESIDENTIAL PUD) -
APPROXIMATELY 125 FEET NORTH AND 450 FEET EAST OF THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF 26TH STREET AND CAMELBACK ROAD
The purpose of this memo is to recommend modified stipulations in response to the
Camelback East Village Planning Committee (VPC) recommendation and include
additional stipulations agreed upon by the applicant and neighbor.
Rezoning Case No. Z-69-23-6 is a request to rezone 1.57 acres located approximately
125 feet north and 450 feet east of the northeast corner of 26th Street and Camelback
Road from C-O CEPCSP (Commercial Office – Restricted Commercial, Camelback
East Primary Core Specific Plan) to PUD CEPCSP (Planned Unit Development,
Camelback East Primary Core Specific Plan) for the Camelback Lakes Residential PUD
to allow multifamily residential.
The Camelback East VPC heard this request on April 2, 2024, and recommended
approval, per the staff recommendation, with modifications and additional stipulations by
a vote of 16-0.
Staff recommends the following updates:
Stipulation No. 9 should be deleted, as the maximum height listed in the PUD
Narrative is already 56 feet.
Stipulation Nos. 10 and 22 should be deleted and incorporated into Stipulation
No. 1.c, which addresses density.
Stipulation No. 11.e and g should be deleted and incorporated into the
landscaping development standards within the PUD Narrative. This is addressed
in new Stipulation No. 1.e.
The first sentence of Stipulation No. 12 should be deleted and added to the
parking development standards within the PUD Narrative, and the last sentence
regarding parking space width should be deleted. Section 702.B.2.b requires
spaces located in surface parking lots that are single striped shall be a minimum
of nine and one-half feet by eighteen feet. If the entire surface parking lot is
double striped, 50 percent of the spaces provided in the lot must be nine and
Page 621
Z-69-23-6 Planning Commission Backup Memo
May 2, 2024
one-half feet by eighteen feet wide, while the remainder of the spaces may be a
minimum of nine feet wide. This is addressed in new Stipulation No. 1.f.
Stipulation No.13 should be deleted and incorporated into the PUD Narrative.
This is addressed in new Stipulation No. 1.d.
Stipulation No. 14.a, b, c, d and f should be deleted and incorporated into the
design standards of the PUD Narrative, Stipulation No. 14.e should be deleted
and included in the Sign Section of the PUD Narrative, and the first sentence of
Stipulation No. 14 should be deleted and incorporated into a new section of the
PUD Narrative that includes items agreed upon by the developer and neighbors,
but not enforceable by the City. These are addressed in new Stipulation Nos. 1.g,
1.h, 1.i, 1.j, 1.l, and 1.m.(1).
Stipulation No. 15.a through 15.e should be deleted and incorporated into the
PUD Narrative in an unenforceable section as noted above, as construction
activity is not enforceable at the time of site plan review. Stipulation No. 15.f
regarding the construction of an eight-foot high, block wall along the northeast
side of the property should remain as a stand-alone stipulation. These are
addressed in new Stipulation Nos. 1.m.(2) and 10.
Stipulation No. 16 should be deleted and incorporated into the PUD Narrative in
an unenforceable section as noted above, as it is not realistically enforceable.
This is addressed in new Stipulation No. 1.m.(3).
Stipulation No. 17 should be deleted and incorporated into the PUD Narrative.
This is addressed in new Stipulation No. 1.d.
Stipulation No. 18. should be reworded to require the disclosures to be provided
to future tenants or owners and recorded. This has been renumbered to new
Stipulation No. 11.
Stipulation No. 19 should be deleted as it is not appropriate to stipulate an
improvement on a property not within the PUD request area and with a separate
property owner.
Stipulation No. 20.a should be deleted and incorporated into the PUD Narrative.
The item related to the prohibition on outdoor live music should be incorporated
in the List of Uses Section and the remaining items should be added to an
unenforceable section as noted above. This is addressed in new Stipulation Nos.
1.d and 1.m.(4). Stipulation No. 20.b should remain but is modified for clarity and
renumbered to new Stipulation No. 13.
Page 622
Z-69-23-6 Planning Commission Backup Memo
May 2, 2024
Stipulation No. 21 should be deleted and incorporated in the Signs Section of the
PUD Narrative. This is addressed in new Stipulation No. 1.k.
The applicant has continued to with the neighbors and has requested to include
additional, mutually agreed upon stipulations. There are three modifications related to
the construction agreement. Additionally, staff is recommending that any reference to
the staging plan be updated to the Proposed Construction Plan, as that is the title of the
plan. These are reflected in Stipulation Nos. 1.b, 1.m.(2)(d), 1.m.(2)(e), 1.m.(2)(f), and
1.n. The applicant has requested three added stipulations regarding the construction of
wall with “Top Golf” type netting along the northeast property line, shrubs to be planted
on the Arizona Biltmore golf course property, and finally, providing rules and regulations
regarding golf course membership. These are addressed in new Stipulation Nos. 12,
1.m.(5), 1.m.(6)(iii) and 10, respectively.
Staff also recommends that the elevations referenced in the stipulations replace the
ones in the PUD Narrative to avoid any future confusion. There is no difference in the
elevations other than the specific date that was referenced. This is addressed in new
Stipulation No. 1.n.
Staff recommends approval, per the modified stipulations in bold font below:
1. An updated Development Narrative for the Camelback Lakes Residential
reflecting the changes approved through this request shall be submitted to the
Planning and Development Department within 30 days of City Council approval
of this request. The updated Development Narrative shall be consistent with the
Development Narrative date stamped March 20, 2024, as modified by the
following stipulations:
a. Front cover: Revise the date information on the cover page to the
following: City Council Adopted: [Add Adoption Date]
B. PAGE 4, TABLE OF CONTENTS:
ADD A NEW SECTION K TITLED “ITEMS AGREED UPON BY
THE DEVELOPER AND NEIGHBORS, BUT NOT
ENFORCEABLE BY THE CITY” AND RENAME “EXHIBITS” AS
SECTION L.
ADD THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION PLAN TO THE LIST OF
EXHIBITS.
b. C. Page 10, Development Standards Table, Maximum Density: Update the
density to 47.77 38.22 dwelling per acre, 60 UNITS.
Page 623
Z-69-23-6 Planning Commission Backup Memo
May 2, 2024
D. PAGE 10, C. LIST OF USES, 1. PERMITTED LAND USES: AMEND
STATEMENT A AS FOLLOWS:
USES ARE LIMITED TO THOSE ALLOWED IN THE PHOENIX ZONING
ORDINANCE SECTION 608 (RESIDENCE DISTRICTS) AND THE
MULTIFAMILY AND OFFICE USES FROM THE R-5 ZONING DISTRICT
(SECTION 618).
THERE SHALL BE NO OUTDOOR LIVE MUSIC ON THE SITE.
E. PAGE 11, D. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, 2. LANDSCAPE
STANDARDS TABLE, PARKING LOT AREA LANDSCAPE
STANDARDS: ADD THE FOLLOWING TWO SENTENCES AS
SEPARATE ROWS:
PARKING LOT LANDSCAPE PLANTERS ADJACENT TO THE WEST
SIDE OF THE BUILDING SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 5 FEET WIDE
AND PLANTED WITH 24-INCH BOXED DESERT MUSEUM PALO
VERDE TREES, OR A MUTUALLY ACCEPTABLE SPECIES.
A LANDSCAPING BARRIER SHALL BE PROVIDED BETWEEN
PARKING STALLS FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE RESTAURANT
AND ANY ADJACENT SIDEWALKS IN ORDER TO PREVENT
UNAUTHORIZED PARKING.
F. PAGE 12, D. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, 3. PARKING, A. VEHICLE
PARKING: ADD THE FOLLOWING SENTENCE TO THE FIRST
PARAGRAPH:
A MINIMUM OF 27 PARKING STALLS SHALL BE PROVIDED
ADJACENT TO THE RESTAURANT PARCEL FOR EXCLUSIVE USE
OF RESTAURANT CUSTOMERS AND EMPLOYEES.
G. PAGE 14, E. DESIGN GUIDELINES, EXTERIOR MATERIALS: ADD
THE FOLLOWING STANDARD AFTER THE LAST SENTENCE:
REFLECTIVE BUILDING MATERIALS ARE PROHIBITED.
H. PAGE 14, E. DESIGN GUIDELINES, COLOR PALETTE: ADD THE
FOLLOWING AFTER THE FIRST SENTENCE:
NO PAINT COLORS SHALL BE USED WHICH HAVE A LIGHT
REFLECTIVE VALUE (LVR) GREATER THAN 75%.
I. PAGE 15, E. DESIGN GUIDELINES, GLAZING: ADD THE FOLLOWING
AFTER THE LAST SENTENCE:
Page 624
Z-69-23-6 Planning Commission Backup Memo
May 2, 2024
REFLECTIVITY OF WINDOWS SHALL BE LIMITED TO 20%. THERE
SHALL BE NO MORE THAN 50% GLAZING OR GLASS MATERIAL
ALONG THE WESTERN FACING FAÇADE.
J. PAGE 16, E. DESIGN GUIDELINES: ADD A NEW ROW AT THE END
OF THE TABLE TITLED EXTERIOR LIGHTING AND ADD THE
FOLLOWING:
EXTERIOR LIGHTING, SPECIFICALLY ON THE PORTION OF THE
NEW RESIDENTIAL BUILDING FACING THE RESTAURANT SHALL
BE MINIMIZED TO AVOID ADVERSELY AFFECTING GUEST
EXPERIENCE.
LIGHTING SHALL BE A MAXIMUM OF 3,000 KELVIN WITH NO SPOT
LIGHTING DIRECTED AT THE RESTAURANT.
NEW LANDSCAPE ISLAND LIGHTING SHALL MATCH THE EXISTING
RESTAURANT LIGHTING.
THE ADJACENT RESTAURANT SHALL RETAIN THE RIGHT TO
REVIEW AND PROVIDE INPUT ON PLANS FOR EXTERIOR LIGHTING
IN EFFORTS TO MINIMIZE IMPACT ON GUEST EXPERIENCE.
K. PAGE 16, F. SIGNS: REVISE THE SECOND PARAGRAPH TO READ
AS FOLLOWS:
WALL SIGNS FOR THE MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES MAY
INCLUDE PROJECTING/BLADE SIGNS PERPENDICULAR TO THE
BUILDING FACADE AND PLACED NO HIGHER THAN THE TOP OF
THE SECOND STORY AS REQUIRED BY THE CEPCSP.
L. PAGE 16, F. SIGNS: ADD THE FOLLOWING AS A THIRD
PARAGRAPH:
THERE SHALL BE NO SIGNAGE ON THE PORTION OF THE NEW
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING IMMEDIATELY FACING THE RESTAURANT.
M. PAGE 21, K. UPDATE TITLE TO “ITEMS AGREED UPON BY THE
DEVELOPER AND NEIGHBORS, BUT NOT ENFORCEABLE BY THE
CITY” AND ADD THE FOLLOWING ITEMS IN A LIST.
(1) THE DEVELOPER SHALL WORK WITH THE ADJACENT
RESTAURANT OWNER TO DETERMINE MUTUALLY
AGREEABLE COLORS, MATERIALS, AND BUILDING DESIGN
ON THE BUILDING FACING THE RESTAURANT PARCEL
(WESTERN FAÇADE).
Page 625
Z-69-23-6 Planning Commission Backup Memo
May 2, 2024
(2) CONSTRUCTION ON THE PROPERTY SHALL BE LIMITED AS
FOLLOWS:
(A) OUTDOOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY AND EXTERIOR
CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE HOURS OF
8:00 A.M. TO 5:00 P.M. ON WEEKDAYS UNLESS NOTICE
IS PROVIDED TO RN PROPERTIES AT ATTN: JEREL
CAMPBELL, 4455 E CAMELBACK RD, STE C-140,
PHOENIX, AZ 85018 ONE WEEK BEFORE ANY
DEVIATION FROM THIS SCHEDULE.
(B) NO OUTDOOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY OR
EXTERIOR CONSTRUCTION SHALL OCCUR ON
WEEKENDS.
(C) INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE ALLOWED ONLY
AFTER THE BUILDING’S EXTERIOR IS COMPLETED
AND ONLY BETWEEN 8:00 A.M. AND 5:00 P.M.
(D) THE DEVELOPER SHALL, PRIOR TO DEMOLITION AND
CONSTRUCTION PROVIDE CONSTRUCTION
SCHEDULES TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY
DESIGNATED APN 164-14-027A.
CONSTRUCTION SHALL NOT BEGIN ON THE
PROPERTY BEFORE JUNE 2025.
(E) DURING CONSTRUCTION, TRAFFIC, PROPERTY
ACCESS, LOADING, UNLOADING, WORKER PARKING,
STORAGE OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT, AND
STAGING SHALL CONFORM TO THE PROPOSED
CONSTRUCTION PLAN DATE STAMPED APRIL 2, 2024
(CONSISTING OF ONE PAGE) AND SHALL NOT OCCUR
OUTSIDE THE HOURS DEFINED ABOVE.
THE STORAGE AREA NOTED ON THE NORTHWEST
SIDE OF THE PROPERTY/EXISTING PARKING
STRUCTURE SHALL BE SCREENED WITH A
TEMPORARY WALL.
THE PROPERTY OWNER SHALL REVIEW
CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC ACCESS ON A TRAFFIC
STUDY AND ALL POSSIBLE TIMES, USE ITS BEST
EFFORTS TO UTILIZE ALTERNATIVE ACCESS AWAY
FROM 26TH STREET.
Page 626
Z-69-23-6 Planning Commission Backup Memo
May 2, 2024
(3) AFTER ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR
THE STRUCTURE, THE NOISE LEVEL SHALL NOT EXCEED 55
DB (LDN) AT THE PROPERTY LINE.
(4) PRIOR TO FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL, ITEMS (2) AND (3)
ABOVE SHALL BE RECORDED AGAINST THE PROPERTY IN
FAVOR OF MARICOPA COUNTY APN 164-14-027A.
(5) THE DEVELOPER WILL PLANT A DENSE ROW OF SHRUBS
ON THE ARIZONA BILTMORE GOLF COURSE SIDE OF THE 8-
FOOT WALL FOR THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE WALL. PLANT
MATERIAL SHALL BE PRIVET, FICUS, FOTINIA, OR EQUAL.
THE ARIZONA BILTMORE GOLF COURSE WILL PROVIDE
IRRIGATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR THE SHRUBS.
(6) THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING OPERATOR OR MANAGER
SHALL, AT THE TIME OF CONVEYANCE TO TENANTS OR
UNIT PURCHASERS, MANDATE DISCLOSURES THAT INFORM
THE FOLLOWING:
(i) DESIGNATE ASSIGNED PARKING SPACES FOR
RESIDENTS AND IDENTIFY ADJACENT AREAS WHICH
ARE NOT TO BE USED FOR RESIDENT AND GUEST
PARKING.
(ii) DETAIL THE RULES AND REGULATIONS ADDRESSING
PROHIBITED USES OF BALCONY AND PATIO AREAS OF
THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING.
(iii) THE ARIZONA BILTMORE GOLF COURSE IS A PRIVATE
COURSE FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE MEMBERS
AND DAILY FEE PLAYERS AND IS NOT FOR
RECREATIONAL USE OF THE COMMUNITY AT ANY
TIME.
O. PAGES 21 AND 81, EXHIBIT J: ADD THE PROPOSED
CONSTRUCTION PLAN DATE STAMPED APRIL 2, 2024.
N. PAGES 40 TO 43, EXHIBIT E: REPLACE THE ELEVATIONS WITH THE
ELEVATIONS DATED MARCH 29, 2024 (AND DATE STAMPED APRIL
2, 2024).
2. The developer shall submit a Traffic Impact Study for this development, no
preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until the study has been reviewed
and approved by the City. The developer shall be responsible for any
dedications, funding and construction of all recommendations in the study.
Page 627
Z-69-23-6 Planning Commission Backup Memo
May 2, 2024
3. Replace unused driveways with sidewalk, curb and gutter. Also, replace any
broken or out-of-grade curb, gutter, sidewalk, and curb ramps on all streets and
upgrade all off-site improvements to be in compliance with current ADA
guidelines.
4. All streets within and adjacent to the development shall be constructed with
paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands,
landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and
Development Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA
accessibility standards.
5. Only landscape materials listed in the Phoenix Active Management Area Low-
Water-Use/Drought-Tolerant Plant List shall be utilized, as approved or modified
by the Planning and Development Department.
6. Landscaping shall be maintained by permanent and automatic/water efficient
WaterSense labeled irrigation controllers (or similar smart controller) to minimize
maintenance and irrigation water consumption for all on and offsite landscape
irrigation.
7. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
8. Prior to final site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207
waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County
Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning
application file for record.
9. BUILDING HEIGHT SHALL NOT EXCEED 56 FEET.
10. THE DENSITY SHALL BE A MAXIMUM OF 60 UNITS.
11. DEVELOPMENT SHALL GENERALLY CONFORM TO THE CONCEPTUAL
9. SITE PLAN DATED MARCH 19, 2024, LEVEL 1 PLAN DATED MARCH 19,
2024, LOWER-LEVEL PLAN DATED AUGUST 31, 2023, AND ELEVATIONS
DATES DATED MARCH 29, 2024 (ATTACHED EXHIBIT A CONSISTING OF
SEVEN PAGES included in the PUD Narrative) WITH SPECIFIC REGARD TO:
A. PARKING STRUCTURE ENTRANCES AND THE NUMBER AND
PLACEMENT OF STRUCTURED AND SURFACE PARKING SPACES;
B. DUMPSTER LOCATION;
Page 628
Z-69-23-6 Planning Commission Backup Memo
May 2, 2024
C. LOCATION OF ONLY A MAXIMUM OF TWO DWELLING UNITS,
NEITHER WITH A BALCONY, ON THE NORTHERNMOST
(NORTHEAST FACING) PORTION OF THE 5TH FLOOR; AND
D. LOCATION OF THE 5TH FLOOR AMENITY DECK ON THE SOUTH
SIDE OF THE BUILDING;
E. THE PARKING LOT LANDSCAPE PLANTERS ADJACENT TO THE
WEST SIDE OF THE BUILDING. THESE SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 5
FEET WIDE AND PLANTED WITH 24 INCH BOXED DESERT
MUSEUM PALO VERDE TREES, OR MUTUALLY ACCEPTABLE
SPECIES;
F. MAIN BUILDING ENTRANCE LOCATION ON SOUTHERN SIDE OF
BUILDING AND NOT IMMEDIATELY FACING THE ADJACENT
RESTAURANT, NO SECONDARY OR OTHER ENTRANCES FACING
RESTAURANT;
G. LANDSCAPING BARRIER BETWEEN PARKING STALLS FOR THE
EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE RESTAURANT AND ANY ADJACENT
SIDEWALKS IN ORDER TO PREVENT UNAUTHORIZED PARKING.
12. THE DEVELOPER SHALL PROVIDE NO LESS THAN 27 PARKING STALLS
ADJACENT TO THE RESTAURANT PARCEL FOR EXCLUSIVE USE OF
RESTAURANT CUSTOMERS AND EMPLOYEES. THE 27 PARKING
STALLS SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 9 X 18 FEET IN SIZE.
13. THERE SHALL BE NO RETAIL OR COMMERCIAL USES THAT ARE OPEN
TO THE PUBLIC.
14. THE DEVELOPER SHALL WORK WITH THE ADJACENT RESTAURANT
OWNER TO DETERMINE MUTUALLY AGREEABLE COLORS, MATERIALS,
AND BUILDING DESIGN ON THE BUILDING FACING THE RESTAURANT
PARCEL (WESTERN FAÇADE), AND AS OUTLINED BELOW:
A. REFLECTIVITY OF WINDOWS SHALL BE LIMITED TO 20 PERCENT.
B. REFLECTIVE BUILDING MATERIALS ARE PROHIBITED.
C. NO PAINT COLORS SHALL BE USED WHICH HAVE A LIGHT
REFLECTIVE VALUE (LVR) GREATER THAN 75 PERCENT.
D. THERE SHALL BE NO MORE THAN 50% GLAZING OR GLASS
MATERIAL ALONG THE WESTERN FACING FAÇADE.
E. THERE SHALL BE NO SIGNAGE ON THE PORTION OF THE NEW
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING IMMEDIATELY FACING THE RESTAURANT.
Page 629
Z-69-23-6 Planning Commission Backup Memo
May 2, 2024
F. EXTERIOR LIGHTING, SPECIFICALLY ON THE PORTION OF THE
NEW RESIDENTIAL BUILDING FACING THE RESTAURANT SHALL
BE MINIMIZED TO AVOID ADVERSELY AFFECTING GUEST
EXPERIENCE. LIGHTING SHALL BE A MAXIMUM OF 3,000 KELVIN
WITH NO SPOT LIGHTING DIRECTED AT THE RESTAURANT. NEW
LANDSCAPE ISLAND LIGHTING SHALL MATCH THE EXISTING
RESTAURANT LIGHTING. THE ADJACENT RESTAURANT SHALL
RETAIN THE RIGHT TO REVIEW AND PROVIDE INPUT ON PLANS
FOR EXTERIOR LIGHTING IN EFFORTS TO MINIMIZE IMPACT ON
GUEST EXPERIENCE.
15. CONSTRUCTION ON THE PROPERTY SHALL BE LIMITED AS FOLLOWS:
A. OUTDOOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY AND EXTERIOR
CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE HOURS OF 8:00 A.M.
TO 5:00 P.M. ON WEEKDAYS UNLESS NOTICE IS PROVIDED TO RN
PROPERTIES AT ATTN: JEREL CAMPBELL, 4455 E CAMELBACK
RD, STE C-140, PHOENIX, AZ 85018 ONE WEEK BEFORE ANY
DEVIATION FROM THIS SCHEDULE;
B. NO OUTDOOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY OR EXTERIOR
CONSTRUCTION SHALL OCCUR ON WEEKENDS.
C. INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE ALLOWED ONLY AFTER
THE BUILDING’S EXTERIOR IS COMPLETED AND ONLY BETWEEN
8:00 A.M. AND 5:00 P.M.
D. CONSTRUCTION SHALL NOT BEGIN ON THE PROPERTY BEFORE
JUNE 2025.
E. DURING CONSTRUCTION, TRAFFIC, PROPERTY ACCESS,
LOADING, UNLOADING, WORKER PARKING, STORAGE OF
CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT AND STAGING SHALL CONFORM TO
THE PLAN SPECIFIED IN ATTACHED EXHIBIT B STAGING EXHIBIT,
CONSISTING OF ONE PAGE, AND SHALL NOT OCCUR OUTSIDE
THE HOURS DEFINED ABOVE. THE STORAGE AREA NOTED ON
THE NORTHWEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY/EXISTING PARKING
STRUCTURE SHALL BE SCREENED WITH A TEMPORARY WALL.
F. BEFORE COMMENCEMENT OF DEMOLITION OR CONSTRUCTION
ON THE PROPERTY, THE DEVELOPER SHALL INSTALL AN 8-FOOT
HIGH, BLOCK WALL ALONG THE NORTH/NORTHEAST PERIMETER
ADJACENT TO THE GOLF COURSE.
10. BEFORE COMMENCEMENT OF DEMOLITION OR CONSTRUCTION ON
THE PROPERTY, THE DEVELOPER SHALL INSTALL AN 8-FOOT HIGH,
Page 630
Z-69-23-6 Planning Commission Backup Memo
May 2, 2024
BLOCK WALL ALONG THE NORTH/NORTHEAST PERIMETER ADJACENT
TO THE GOLF COURSE, AS SHOWN ON THE PROPOSED
CONSTRUCTION PLAN DATE STAMPED APRIL 2, 2024. THE WALL WILL
BE CONSTRUCTED WITH STUCCO ON THE NORTH SIDE.
16. AFTER ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR THE
STRUCTURE, THE NOISE LEVEL SHALL NOT EXCEED 55 DB (LDN) AT
THE PROPERTY LINE.
17. THERE SHALL BE NO OUTDOOR LIVE MUSIC ON THE SITE.
18. THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING OPERATOR OR MANAGER SHALL, AT THE
11. TIME OF CONVEYANCE TO TENANTS OR UNIT PURCHASERS, MANDATE
DISCLOSURES ARE PROVIDED PRIOR TO FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL,
THE PROPERTY OWNER SHALL RECORD DOCUMENTS THAT DISCLOSE
TO PURCHASERS OF PROPERTY OR TENANTS WITHIN THE
DEVELOPMENT(S) THAT:
A. DESIGNATE ASSIGNED PARKING SPACES FOR RESIDENTS AND
IDENTIFY ADJACENT AREAS WHICH ARE NOT TO BE USED FOR
RESIDENT AND GUEST PARKING; AND
B. DETAIL THE RULES AND REGULATIONS ADDRESSING PROHIBITED
USES OF BALCONY AND PATIO AREAS OF THE RESIDENTIAL
BUILDING.
C. THE ARIZONA BILTMORE GOLF COURSE IS A PRIVATE COURSE
FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE MEMBERS AND DAILY FEE
PLAYERS AND IS NOT FOR RECREATIONAL USE OF THE
COMMUNITY AT ANY TIME.
12. THE DEVELOPER SHALL ERECT AN 8-FOOT WALL AS A REPLACEMENT
FOR THE EXISTING PIPE AND CHAIN LINK STRUCTURE, ALONG THE
NORTHEAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH RESIDES ENTIRELY ON
THE DEVELOPER AND/OR SELLER’S PROPERTY.
THE 8-FOOT WALL SHALL BE TOPPED WITH A “TOP GOLF” TYPE
NETTING AS A COMPLETE REPLACEMENT FOR THE EXISTING PIPE
AND CHAIN LINK SAFETY SCREEN.
19. THE DEVELOPER SHALL ADD COVERED PARKING ALONG THE NORTH
SIDE OF THE OFFICE BUILDING.
20. PRIOR TO FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL:
Page 631
Z-69-23-6 Planning Commission Backup Memo
May 2, 2024
A. ITEMS 7 (15), 8 (16), AND 9 (17) SHALL BE RECORDED AGAINST
THE PROPERTY IN FAVOR OF MARICOPA COUNTY APN 164-14-
027A.
B. THE DEVELOPER SHALL PROVIDE A FULLY EXECUTED AND
RECORDED COPY OF THE AMENDED AND RESTATED PARKING
EASEMENT AGREEMENT AND USE RESTRICTIONS, AMENDED
AND RESTATED FROM THE PREVIOUSLY RECORDED PARKING
EASEMENT AND AGREEMENT, RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE
MARICOPA COUNTY RECORDER ON MAY 18, 1998 AS DOCUMENT
NUMBER 98-0412811.
13. PRIOR TO FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE DEVELOPER SHALL
PROVIDE A FULLY EXECUTED AND RECORDED COPY OF THE
AMENDED AND RESTATED PARKING EASEMENT AGREEMENT AND USE
RESTRICTIONS, AMENDED AND RESTATED FROM THE PREVIOUSLY
RECORDED PARKING EASEMENT AND AGREEMENT, RECORDED IN THE
OFFICE OF THE MARICOPA COUNTY RECORDER ON MAY 18, 1998 AS
DOCUMENT NUMBER 98-0412811.
21. REVISE THE NARRATIVE ON PAGE 16 TO STATE MULTIFAMILY
RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS SHALL HAVE WALL SIGNS NO HIGHER THAN
THE TOP OF THE SECOND STORY AS REQUIRED BY THE CEPCSP.
22. THE NARRATIVE SHALL STATE THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF UNITS WILL
BE 60.
Enclosures:
Elevations Dated March 29, 2024 and date stamped April 2, 2024 (4 pages)
Proposed Construction Plan date stamped April 2, 2024
Page 632
Page 633
Page 634
Page 635
Page 636
Page 637
ATTACHMENT E
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
May 2, 2024
* REVISED May 22, 2024
ITEM NO: 5
DISTRICT NO.: 6
SUBJECT:
Application #: Z-69-23-6 (Camelback Lakes Residential PUD)
Location: Approximately 125 feet north and 450 feet east of the northeast corner
of 26th Street and Camelback Road
From: C-O CEPCSP
To: PUD CCEPCSP
Acreage: 1.57
Proposal: Planned Unit Development to allow multifamily residential
Applicant: Hannah Bleam, Withey Morris Baugh, PLC
Owner: G&I IX CAMBELBACK LAKES, LLC
Representative: Withey Morris Baugh, PLC
ACTIONS:
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Camelback East 1/9/2024 Information only.
Camelback East 4/2/2024 Approval, per the staff recommendation with modifications and
additional stipulations. Vote 16-0.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the staff memo dated May 2, 2024.
Motion Discussion: N/A
Motion details:
Maker: Gorraiz
Second: Mangum
Vote: 9-0
Absent: N/A
Opposition Present: No
Findings:
1. The site is appropriately located within close proximity to the Village Core and with
access to an arterial street.
2. The proposal will develop an underutilized site and provide additional housing options
within the Camelback East Village.
3. The proposed PUD sets forth design and development standards that will facilitate
pedestrian-oriented design and promote a safer pedestrian environment.
Page 638
Stipulations:
1. An updated Development Narrative for the Camelback Lakes Residential reflecting the
changes approved through this request shall be submitted to the Planning and
Development Department within 30 days of City Council approval of this request. The
updated Development Narrative shall be consistent with the Development Narrative
date stamped March 20, 2024, as modified by the following stipulations:
a. Front cover: Revise the date information on the cover page to the following: City
Council Adopted: [Add Adoption Date]
B. PAGE 4, TABLE OF CONTENTS:
x ADD A NEW SECTION K TITLED “ITEMS AGREED UPON BY THE
DEVELOPER AND NEIGHBORS, BUT NOT ENFORCEABLE BY THE
CITY” AND RENAME “EXHIBITS” AS SECTION L.
x ADD THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION PLAN TO THE LIST OF
EXHIBITS.
b. C. Page 10, Development Standards Table, Maximum Density: Update the density
to 47.77 38.22 dwelling per acre, 60 UNITS.
D. PAGE 10, C. LIST OF USES, 1. PERMITTED LAND USES: AMEND
STATEMENT A AS FOLLOWS:
USES ARE LIMITED TO THOSE ALLOWED IN THE PHOENIX ZONING
ORDINANCE SECTION 608 (RESIDENCE DISTRICTS) AND THE
MULTIFAMILY AND OFFICE USES FROM THE R-5 ZONING DISTRICT
(SECTION 618).
THERE SHALL BE NO OUTDOOR LIVE MUSIC ON THE SITE.
E. PAGE 11, D. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, 2. LANDSCAPE STANDARDS
TABLE, PARKING LOT AREA LANDSCAPE STANDARDS: ADD THE
FOLLOWING TWO SENTENCES AS SEPARATE ROWS:
PARKING LOT LANDSCAPE PLANTERS ADJACENT TO THE WEST SIDE OF
THE BUILDING SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 5 FEET WIDE AND PLANTED
WITH 24-INCH BOXED DESERT MUSEUM PALO VERDE TREES, OR A
MUTUALLY ACCEPTABLE SPECIES.
A LANDSCAPING BARRIER SHALL BE PROVIDED BETWEEN PARKING
STALLS FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE RESTAURANT AND ANY
ADJACENT SIDEWALKS IN ORDER TO PREVENT UNAUTHORIZED
PARKING.
F. PAGE 12, D. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, 3. PARKING, A. VEHICLE
PARKING: ADD THE FOLLOWING SENTENCE TO THE FIRST PARAGRAPH:
A MINIMUM OF 27 PARKING STALLS SHALL BE PROVIDED ADJACENT TO
THE RESTAURANT PARCEL FOR EXCLUSIVE USE OF RESTAURANT
CUSTOMERS AND EMPLOYEES.
Page 639
G. PAGE 14, E. DESIGN GUIDELINES, EXTERIOR MATERIALS: ADD THE
FOLLOWING STANDARD AFTER THE LAST SENTENCE:
REFLECTIVE BUILDING MATERIALS ARE PROHIBITED.
H. PAGE 14, E. DESIGN GUIDELINES, COLOR PALETTE: ADD THE
FOLLOWING AFTER THE FIRST SENTENCE:
NO PAINT COLORS SHALL BE USED WHICH HAVE A LIGHT REFLECTIVE
VALUE (LVR) GREATER THAN 75%.
I. PAGE 15, E. DESIGN GUIDELINES, GLAZING: ADD THE FOLLOWING AFTER
THE LAST SENTENCE:
REFLECTIVITY OF WINDOWS SHALL BE LIMITED TO 20%. THERE SHALL
BE NO MORE THAN 50% GLAZING OR GLASS MATERIAL ALONG THE
WESTERN FACING FAÇADE.
J. PAGE 16, E. DESIGN GUIDELINES: ADD A NEW ROW AT THE END OF THE
TABLE TITLED EXTERIOR LIGHTING AND ADD THE FOLLOWING:
EXTERIOR LIGHTING, SPECIFICALLY ON THE PORTION OF THE NEW
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING FACING THE RESTAURANT SHALL BE MINIMIZED
TO AVOID ADVERSELY AFFECTING GUEST EXPERIENCE.
LIGHTING SHALL BE A MAXIMUM OF 3,000 KELVIN WITH NO SPOT
LIGHTING DIRECTED AT THE RESTAURANT.
NEW LANDSCAPE ISLAND LIGHTING SHALL MATCH THE EXISTING
RESTAURANT LIGHTING.
THE ADJACENT RESTAURANT SHALL RETAIN THE RIGHT TO REVIEW AND
PROVIDE INPUT ON PLANS FOR EXTERIOR LIGHTING IN EFFORTS TO
MINIMIZE IMPACT ON GUEST EXPERIENCE.
K. PAGE 16, F. SIGNS: REVISE THE SECOND PARAGRAPH TO READ AS
FOLLOWS:
WALL SIGNS FOR THE MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES MAY INCLUDE
PROJECTING/BLADE SIGNS PERPENDICULAR TO THE BUILDING FACADE
AND PLACED NO HIGHER THAN THE TOP OF THE SECOND STORY AS
REQUIRED BY THE CEPCSP.
L. PAGE 16, F. SIGNS: ADD THE FOLLOWING AS A THIRD PARAGRAPH:
THERE SHALL BE NO SIGNAGE ON THE PORTION OF THE NEW
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING IMMEDIATELY FACING THE RESTAURANT.
M. PAGE 21, K. UPDATE TITLE TO “ITEMS AGREED UPON BY THE
DEVELOPER AND NEIGHBORS, BUT NOT ENFORCEABLE BY THE CITY”
AND ADD THE FOLLOWING ITEMS IN A LIST.
Page 640
(1) THE DEVELOPER SHALL WORK WITH THE ADJACENT
RESTAURANT OWNER TO DETERMINE MUTUALLY AGREEABLE
COLORS, MATERIALS, AND BUILDING DESIGN ON THE BUILDING
FACING THE RESTAURANT PARCEL (WESTERN FAÇADE).
(2) CONSTRUCTION ON THE PROPERTY SHALL BE LIMITED AS
FOLLOWS:
(A) OUTDOOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY AND EXTERIOR
CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE HOURS OF 8:00
A.M. TO 5:00 P.M. ON WEEKDAYS UNLESS NOTICE IS
PROVIDED TO RN PROPERTIES AT ATTN: JEREL CAMPBELL,
4455 E CAMELBACK RD, STE C-140, PHOENIX, AZ 85018 ONE
WEEK BEFORE ANY DEVIATION FROM THIS SCHEDULE.
(B) NO OUTDOOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY OR EXTERIOR
CONSTRUCTION SHALL OCCUR ON WEEKENDS.
(C) INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE ALLOWED ONLY
AFTER THE BUILDING’S EXTERIOR IS COMPLETED AND
ONLY BETWEEN 8:00 A.M. AND 5:00 P.M.
(D) THE DEVELOPER SHALL, PRIOR TO DEMOLITION AND
CONSTRUCTION PROVIDE CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULES TO
THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY DESIGNATED APN 164-14-
027A.
CONSTRUCTION SHALL NOT BEGIN ON THE PROPERTY
BEFORE JUNE 2025.
(E) DURING CONSTRUCTION, TRAFFIC, PROPERTY ACCESS,
LOADING, UNLOADING, WORKER PARKING, STORAGE OF
CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT, AND STAGING SHALL
CONFORM TO THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION PLAN DATE
STAMPED APRIL 2, 2024 (CONSISTING OF ONE PAGE) AND
SHALL NOT OCCUR OUTSIDE THE HOURS DEFINED ABOVE.
THE STORAGE AREA NOTED ON THE NORTHWEST SIDE OF
THE PROPERTY/EXISTING PARKING STRUCTURE SHALL BE
SCREENED WITH A TEMPORARY WALL.
THE PROPERTY OWNER SHALL REVIEW CONSTRUCTION
TRAFFIC ACCESS ON A TRAFFIC STUDY AND ALL POSSIBLE
TIMES, USE ITS BEST EFFORTS TO UTILIZE ALTERNATIVE
ACCESS AWAY FROM 26TH STREET.
(3) AFTER ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR THE
STRUCTURE, THE NOISE LEVEL SHALL NOT EXCEED 55 DB (LDN)
AT THE PROPERTY LINE.
(4) PRIOR TO FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL, ITEMS (2) AND (3) ABOVE
SHALL BE RECORDED AGAINST THE PROPERTY IN FAVOR OF
MARICOPA COUNTY APN 164-14-027A.
Page 641
(5) THE DEVELOPER WILL PLANT A DENSE ROW OF SHRUBS ON THE
ARIZONA BILTMORE GOLF COURSE SIDE OF THE 8-FOOT WALL
FOR THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE WALL. PLANT MATERIAL SHALL
BE PRIVET, FICUS, FOTINIA, OR EQUAL.
THE ARIZONA BILTMORE GOLF COURSE WILL PROVIDE
IRRIGATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR THE SHRUBS.
(6) THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING OPERATOR OR MANAGER SHALL, AT
THE TIME OF CONVEYANCE TO TENANTS OR UNIT PURCHASERS,
MANDATE DISCLOSURES THAT INFORM THE FOLLOWING:
(i) DESIGNATE ASSIGNED PARKING SPACES FOR RESIDENTS
AND IDENTIFY ADJACENT AREAS WHICH ARE NOT TO BE
USED FOR RESIDENT AND GUEST PARKING.
(ii) DETAIL THE RULES AND REGULATIONS ADDRESSING
PROHIBITED USES OF BALCONY AND PATIO AREAS OF THE
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING.
(iii) THE ARIZONA BILTMORE GOLF COURSE IS A PRIVATE
COURSE FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE MEMBERS AND
DAILY FEE PLAYERS AND IS NOT FOR RECREATIONAL USE
OF THE COMMUNITY AT ANY TIME.
*N. PAGES 21 AND 81, EXHIBIT J: ADD THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
PLAN DATE STAMPED APRIL 2, 2024.
*O. PAGES 40 TO 43, EXHIBIT E: REPLACE THE ELEVATIONS WITH THE
ELEVATIONS DATED MARCH 29, 2024 (AND DATE STAMPED APRIL 2,
2024).
2. The developer shall submit a Traffic Impact Study for this development, no preliminary
approval of plans shall be granted until the study has been reviewed and approved by
the City. The developer shall be responsible for any dedications, funding and
construction of all recommendations in the study.
3. Replace unused driveways with sidewalk, curb and gutter. Also, replace any broken or
out-of-grade curb, gutter, sidewalk, and curb ramps on all streets and upgrade all off-
site improvements to be in compliance with current ADA guidelines.
4. All streets within and adjacent to the development shall be constructed with paving,
curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands, landscaping and other
incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and Development Department. All
improvements shall comply with all ADA accessibility standards.
5. Only landscape materials listed in the Phoenix Active Management Area Low-Water-
Use/Drought-Tolerant Plant List shall be utilized, as approved or modified by the
Planning and Development Department.
6. Landscaping shall be maintained by permanent and automatic/water efficient
WaterSense labeled irrigation controllers (or similar smart controller) to minimize
maintenance and irrigation water consumption for all on and offsite landscape irrigation.
Page 642
7. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-foot radius
of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the Archaeology Office
to properly assess the materials.
8. Prior to final site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207 waiver of
claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County Recorder's Office
and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning application file for record.
9. BUILDING HEIGHT SHALL NOT EXCEED 56 FEET.
10. THE DENSITY SHALL BE A MAXIMUM OF 60 UNITS.
11. DEVELOPMENT SHALL GENERALLY CONFORM TO THE CONCEPTUAL SITE
9. PLAN DATED MARCH 19, 2024, LEVEL 1 PLAN DATED MARCH 19, 2024, LOWER-
LEVEL PLAN DATED AUGUST 31, 2023, AND ELEVATIONS DATES DATED
MARCH 29, 2024 (ATTACHED EXHIBIT A CONSISTING OF SEVEN PAGES
included in the PUD Narrative) WITH SPECIFIC REGARD TO:
A. PARKING STRUCTURE ENTRANCES AND THE NUMBER AND
PLACEMENT OF STRUCTURED AND SURFACE PARKING SPACES;
B. DUMPSTER LOCATION;
C. LOCATION OF ONLY A MAXIMUM OF TWO DWELLING UNITS, NEITHER
WITH A BALCONY, ON THE NORTHERNMOST (NORTHEAST FACING)
PORTION OF THE 5TH FLOOR; AND
D. LOCATION OF THE 5TH FLOOR AMENITY DECK ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF
THE BUILDING;
E. THE PARKING LOT LANDSCAPE PLANTERS ADJACENT TO THE WEST
SIDE OF THE BUILDING. THESE SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 5 FEET WIDE
AND PLANTED WITH 24 INCH BOXED DESERT MUSEUM PALO VERDE
TREES, OR MUTUALLY ACCEPTABLE SPECIES;
*F MAIN BUILDING ENTRANCE LOCATION ON SOUTHERN SIDE OF
E. BUILDING AND NOT IMMEDIATELY FACING THE ADJACENT
RESTAURANT, NO SECONDARY OR OTHER ENTRANCES FACING
RESTAURANT.
G. LANDSCAPING BARRIER BETWEEN PARKING STALLS FOR THE
EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE RESTAURANT AND ANY ADJACENT SIDEWALKS
IN ORDER TO PREVENT UNAUTHORIZED PARKING.
12. THE DEVELOPER SHALL PROVIDE NO LESS THAN 27 PARKING STALLS
ADJACENT TO THE RESTAURANT PARCEL FOR EXCLUSIVE USE OF
RESTAURANT CUSTOMERS AND EMPLOYEES. THE 27 PARKING STALLS SHALL
BE A MINIMUM OF 9 X 18 FEET IN SIZE.
13. THERE SHALL BE NO RETAIL OR COMMERCIAL USES THAT ARE OPEN TO THE
PUBLIC.
Page 643
14. THE DEVELOPER SHALL WORK WITH THE ADJACENT RESTAURANT OWNER
TO DETERMINE MUTUALLY AGREEABLE COLORS, MATERIALS, AND BUILDING
DESIGN ON THE BUILDING FACING THE RESTAURANT PARCEL (WESTERN
FAÇADE), AND AS OUTLINED BELOW:
A. REFLECTIVITY OF WINDOWS SHALL BE LIMITED TO 20 PERCENT.
B. REFLECTIVE BUILDING MATERIALS ARE PROHIBITED.
C. NO PAINT COLORS SHALL BE USED WHICH HAVE A LIGHT REFLECTIVE
VALUE (LVR) GREATER THAN 75 PERCENT.
D. THERE SHALL BE NO MORE THAN 50% GLAZING OR GLASS MATERIAL
ALONG THE WESTERN FACING FAÇADE.
E. THERE SHALL BE NO SIGNAGE ON THE PORTION OF THE NEW
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING IMMEDIATELY FACING THE RESTAURANT.
F. EXTERIOR LIGHTING, SPECIFICALLY ON THE PORTION OF THE NEW
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING FACING THE RESTAURANT SHALL BE MINIMIZED
TO AVOID ADVERSELY AFFECTING GUEST EXPERIENCE. LIGHTING
SHALL BE A MAXIMUM OF 3,000 KELVIN WITH NO SPOT LIGHTING
DIRECTED AT THE RESTAURANT. NEW LANDSCAPE ISLAND LIGHTING
SHALL MATCH THE EXISTING RESTAURANT LIGHTING. THE ADJACENT
RESTAURANT SHALL RETAIN THE RIGHT TO REVIEW AND PROVIDE
INPUT ON PLANS FOR EXTERIOR LIGHTING IN EFFORTS TO MINIMIZE
IMPACT ON GUEST EXPERIENCE.
15. CONSTRUCTION ON THE PROPERTY SHALL BE LIMITED AS FOLLOWS:
A. OUTDOOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY AND EXTERIOR CONSTRUCTION
SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE HOURS OF 8:00 A.M. TO 5:00 P.M. ON
WEEKDAYS UNLESS NOTICE IS PROVIDED TO RN PROPERTIES AT ATTN:
JEREL CAMPBELL, 4455 E CAMELBACK RD, STE C-140, PHOENIX, AZ
85018 ONE WEEK BEFORE ANY DEVIATION FROM THIS SCHEDULE;
B. NO OUTDOOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY OR EXTERIOR
CONSTRUCTION SHALL OCCUR ON WEEKENDS.
C. INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE ALLOWED ONLY AFTER THE
BUILDING’S EXTERIOR IS COMPLETED AND ONLY BETWEEN 8:00 A.M.
AND 5:00 P.M.
D. CONSTRUCTION SHALL NOT BEGIN ON THE PROPERTY BEFORE JUNE
2025.
E. DURING CONSTRUCTION, TRAFFIC, PROPERTY ACCESS, LOADING,
UNLOADING, WORKER PARKING, STORAGE OF CONSTRUCTION
EQUIPMENT AND STAGING SHALL CONFORM TO THE PLAN SPECIFIED
IN ATTACHED EXHIBIT B STAGING EXHIBIT, CONSISTING OF ONE PAGE,
AND SHALL NOT OCCUR OUTSIDE THE HOURS DEFINED ABOVE. THE
STORAGE AREA NOTED ON THE NORTHWEST SIDE OF THE
PROPERTY/EXISTING PARKING STRUCTURE SHALL BE SCREENED WITH
A TEMPORARY WALL.
Page 644
F. BEFORE COMMENCEMENT OF DEMOLITION OR CONSTRUCTION ON
THE PROPERTY, THE DEVELOPER SHALL INSTALL AN 8-FOOT HIGH,
BLOCK WALL ALONG THE NORTH/NORTHEAST PERIMETER ADJACENT
TO THE GOLF COURSE.
10. BEFORE COMMENCEMENT OF DEMOLITION OR CONSTRUCTION ON THE
PROPERTY, THE DEVELOPER SHALL INSTALL AN 8-FOOT HIGH, BLOCK WALL
ALONG THE NORTH/NORTHEAST PERIMETER ADJACENT TO THE GOLF
COURSE, AS SHOWN ON THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION PLAN DATE
STAMPED APRIL 2, 2024. THE WALL WILL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH STUCCO ON
THE NORTH SIDE.
16. AFTER ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR THE STRUCTURE,
THE NOISE LEVEL SHALL NOT EXCEED 55 DB (LDN) AT THE PROPERTY LINE.
17. THERE SHALL BE NO OUTDOOR LIVE MUSIC ON THE SITE.
18. THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING OPERATOR OR MANAGER SHALL, AT THE TIME OF
11. CONVEYANCE TO TENANTS OR UNIT PURCHASERS, MANDATE DISCLOSURES
ARE PROVIDED PRIOR TO FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE PROPERTY
OWNER SHALL RECORD DOCUMENTS THAT DISCLOSE TO PURCHASERS OF
PROPERTY OR TENANTS WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT(S) THAT:
A. DESIGNATE ASSIGNED PARKING SPACES FOR RESIDENTS AND
IDENTIFY ADJACENT AREAS WHICH ARE NOT TO BE USED FOR
RESIDENT AND GUEST PARKING; AND
B. DETAIL THE RULES AND REGULATIONS ADDRESSING PROHIBITED USES
OF BALCONY AND PATIO AREAS OF THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING.
C. THE ARIZONA BILTMORE GOLF COURSE IS A PRIVATE COURSE FOR THE
EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE MEMBERS AND DAILY FEE PLAYERS AND IS
NOT FOR RECREATIONAL USE OF THE COMMUNITY AT ANY TIME.
*12. THE DEVELOPER SHALL ERECT AN 8-FOOT WALL AS A REPLACEMENT FOR
THE EXISTING PIPE AND CHAIN LINK STRUCTURE, ALONG THE NORTHEAST
SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH RESIDES ENTIRELY ON THE DEVELOPER
AND/OR SELLER’S PROPERTY. THE 8-FOOT WALL SHALL BE TOPPED WITH A
“TOP GOLF” TYPE NETTING AS A COMPLETE REPLACEMENT FOR THE
EXISTING PIPE AND CHAIN LINK SAFETY SCREEN.
19. THE DEVELOPER SHALL ADD COVERED PARKING ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF
THE OFFICE BUILDING.
20. PRIOR TO FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL:
A. ITEMS 7 (15), 8 (16), AND 9 (17) SHALL BE RECORDED AGAINST THE
PROPERTY IN FAVOR OF MARICOPA COUNTY APN 164-14-027A.
B. THE DEVELOPER SHALL PROVIDE A FULLY EXECUTED AND RECORDED
COPY OF THE AMENDED AND RESTATED PARKING EASEMENT
AGREEMENT AND USE RESTRICTIONS, AMENDED AND RESTATED FROM
THE PREVIOUSLY RECORDED PARKING EASEMENT AND AGREEMENT,
Page 645
RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE MARICOPA COUNTY RECORDER ON
MAY 18, 1998 AS DOCUMENT NUMBER 98-0412811.
13. PRIOR TO FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE DEVELOPER SHALL PROVIDE A
FULLY EXECUTED AND RECORDED COPY OF THE AMENDED AND RESTATED
PARKING EASEMENT AGREEMENT AND USE RESTRICTIONS, AMENDED AND
RESTATED FROM THE PREVIOUSLY RECORDED PARKING EASEMENT AND
AGREEMENT, RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE MARICOPA COUNTY
RECORDER ON MAY 18, 1998 AS DOCUMENT NUMBER 98-0412811.
21. REVISE THE NARRATIVE ON PAGE 16 TO STATE MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL
BUILDINGS SHALL HAVE WALL SIGNS NO HIGHER THAN THE TOP OF THE
SECOND STORY AS REQUIRED BY THE CEPCSP.
22. THE NARRATIVE SHALL STATE THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF UNITS WILL BE 60.
This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact Teleia
Galaviz at 602-291-2559, teleia.galaviz@phoenix.gov, TTY: Use 7-1-1.
Page 646
ATTACHMENT F
Page 647
Page 648
Page 649
Page 650
Page 651
Page 652
Page 653
Page 654
Page 655
Page 656
Page 657
Page 658
Page 659
Page 660
Page 661
Page 662
Page 663
Page 664
Page 665
Page 666
II
ATTACHMENT G
EMBA S SY SUI. TES
HOTELS '"
Dear Camelback East Village Planning Committee:
Embassy Suites management has been made aware of an exhibit (attached) showing the proposed
access, staging and parking during the construction activity planned on the garage site East of our hotel.
We are very concerned that this added traffic, noise, and activity will affect our hotel negatively and
bring significant financial harm to us. We don't believe that we should suffer for a development that will
provide no benefit to us. We would ask the Committee to require the developer to stipulate to
1. Using access off of Camelback
2. Parking on the North side of Camel back, South of the office buildings
3. Staging, loading and offloading in the area between the existing garage and the Westernmost office
building.
I apologize about not being able to attend in person. I had a previous engagement that I was not able to
cancel.
6���
Please contact me at the number below if you have any questions.
Zakee Jones
General Manager
Embassy Suites Biltmore
2630 E Camelback Road
Phoenix AZ 85016
602.388.6505 Mobile
Page 667
Page 668
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-84-23-3 - Approximately 675 Feet
West of the Southwest Corner of 20th Street and Campo Bello Drive (Ordinance
G-7269)
Request to hold a public hearing and amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section
601, the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix, by adopting Rezoning Application Z-84-23-
3 and rezone the site from R1-6 (Single-Family Residence District) to R-2 (Multifamily
Residence District) to allow multifamily residential.
Summary
Current Zoning: R1-6
Proposed Zoning: R-2
Acreage: 1.36
Proposal: Multifamily residential
Owner: 1851 E Campo Bello, LLC
Applicant/Representative: Joshua Ursu
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee heard this item, originally
as an R-3A request, on Feb. 5, 2024, and recommended denial, by a vote of 15-0. The
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee heard this item as an R-2 request on April
8, 2024, and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a vote of 8-4.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this item on March 7, 2024, and continued
the item to the May 2, 2024, Planning Commission hearing without fee, and remanded
it back to the Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee for recommendation, by a
vote of 8-0. The Planning Commission heard this item on May 2, 2024, and
recommended approval, per the Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
recommendation, by a vote of 7-1-1.
The Planning Commission recommendation was appealed by a community member
and a petition for a three-quarter vote was submitted on May 9, 2024. A three-quarter
vote is required.
Page 669
Location
Approximately 675 feet west of the southwest corner of 20th Street and Campo Bello
Drive
Council District: 3
Parcel Address: 1851 E. Campo Bello Drive
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 670
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE G-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED
HEREIN (CASE Z-84-23-3) FROM R1-6 (SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE DISTRICT) TO R-2 (MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE
DISTRICT DISTRICT).
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning of a 1.36-acre property located approximately
675 feet west of the southwest corner of 20th Street and Campo Bello Drive in a portion
of Section 34, Township 4 North, Range 3 East, as described more specifically in
Exhibit “A,” is hereby changed from “R1-6” (Single-Family Residence District) to “R-2”
(Multifamily Residence District).
SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to
modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification
change as shown in Exhibit “B.”
SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use
district applied for by the applicant, this rezoning is subject to the following stipulations,
Page 671
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:
1. The development shall be in general conformance with the site plan date
stamped March 21, 2024, as modified by the following stipulations and
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
2. The development shall be in general conformance with the elevations date
stamped March 13, 2024, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
3. A minimum 10-foot-wide landscape setback shall be provided along the east
and south property lines.
4. The landscape setbacks shall be planted with minimum 2-inch caliper, large
canopy, drought-tolerant, shade trees, planted 20 feet on center, or in
equivalent groupings, and drought-tolerant shrubs, accents, and vegetative
groundcovers to achieve a minimum of 75% live coverage, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
5. A minimum 5-foot-wide landscape strip shall be provided along the east side of
the driveway located on the west side of the site, as depicted on the site plan
date stamped March 21, 2024, and shall be planted with minimum 2-inch
caliper, large canopy, drought-tolerant, shade trees, planted 20 feet on center,
or in equivalent groupings, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
6. All uncovered surface parking lot areas shall be landscaped with minimum 2-
inch caliper, single-trunk, large canopy, drought-tolerant, shade trees.
Landscaping shall be dispersed throughout the parking area and achieve 25%
shade, as approved by Planning and Development Department.
7. Where pedestrian walkways cross a vehicular path, the pathway shall be
constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or other
pavement treatments that visually contrasts parking and drive aisle surfaces,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
8. All bicycle infrastructure and pedestrian pathways, including sidewalks, shall be
shaded by a structure, landscaping, or a combination of the two to provide a
minimum of 75% shade, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
9. Secured bicycle parking shall be provided at a minimum rate of 0.25 spaces
per unit. Guest bicycle parking shall be provided at a minimum rate of 0.05
spaces per unit. Guest bicycle parking shall be provided through Inverted U
and/or artistic racks located in open space and amenity areas and installed per
Page 672
the requirements of Section 1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance. Artistic
racks shall adhere to the City of Phoenix Preferred Designs in Appendix K of
the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan.
10. A bicycle repair station (“fix it station”) shall be provided and maintained on
site. The bicycle repair station (“fix it station”) shall be provided in an area of
high visibility and separated from vehicular maneuvering areas, where
applicable. The repair station shall include, but not be limited to, standard
repair tools affixed to the station, a tire gauge and pump affixed to the base of
the station or the ground, and a bicycle repair stand which allows pedals and
wheels to spin freely while making adjustments to the bike.
11. A minimum of 10% of the required bicycle parking spaces shall include
standard electrical receptacles for electric bicycle charging capabilities, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
12. A minimum of 5% of the required parking spaces shall include Electric Vehicle
(EV) Installed Infrastructure, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
13. A minimum of two green infrastructure (GI) techniques for stormwater
management shall be implemented per the Greater Phoenix Metro Green
Infrastructure and Low Impact Development Details for Alternative Stormwater
Management, as approved or modified by the Planning and Development
Department.
14. Natural turf shall only be utilized in required retention areas (bottom of basin)
and functional turf within common areas, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
15. Pressure regulating sprinkler heads and drip lines shall be utilized in any turf
areas to reduce water waste.
16. Landscaping shall be maintained by permanent and automatic/water efficient
WaterSense labeled irrigation controllers (or similar smart controller) to
minimize maintenance and irrigation water consumption for all on and offsite
landscape irrigation.
17. Only landscape materials listed in the Phoenix Active Management Area Low-
Water-Use/Drought-Tolerant Plant List shall be utilized, as approved or
modified by the Planning and Development Department.
18. A minimum 5-foot-wide detached sidewalk separated by a minimum 5-foot-
wide landscape strip located between the back of curb and sidewalk shall be
constructed on the south side of Campo Bello Drive, adjacent to the
development, planted to the following standards, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department.
Page 673
a. Minimum 2-inch caliper, single-trunk, large canopy, drought-tolerant,
shade trees, planted 20 feet on center, or in equivalent groupings.
b. Drought-tolerant shrubs, accents, and vegetative groundcovers
maintained to a maximum mature height of two feet to achieve a
minimum of 75% live coverage.
Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on an alternative design solution consistent with a
pedestrian environment.
19. All existing overhead utilities within the public right-of-way shall be
undergrounded, adjacent to the development. The developer shall coordinate
with all affected utility companies for their review and permitting.
20. Unused driveways shall be replaced with sidewalk, curb and gutter. Also, any
broken or out-of-grade curb, gutter, sidewalk, and curb ramps on all streets
shall be replaced and all off-site improvements shall be upgraded to be in
compliance with current ADA guidelines.
21. All streets within and adjacent to the development shall be constructed with
paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands,
landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and
Development Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA
accessibility standards.
22. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of the Deer Valley Airport to future owners or
tenants of the property. The form and content of such documents shall be
according to the templates and instructions provided which have been
reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.
23. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
24. Prior to final site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207
waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County
Recorder’s Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning
application file for record.
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the
Page 674
decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity
of the remaining portions hereof.
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 12th day of June,
2024.
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney
By:
_________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager
Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (1 Page)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
Page 675
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description
The East 181 feet of the North one-half of Lot Nineteen, ANDREW ESTATES,
according to the plat of record in the office of the County Recorder of Maricopa County,
Arizona, in Book 34 of Maps, Page 33 and being situated within the Southwest Quarter
of Section 34, Township 4 North, Range 3 East of the Gila and Salt River Base and
Meridian, Maricopa County, Arizona;
Except the South fifteen feet thereof; and
Except an undivided 1/4 interest in all oil, gas and other minerals as reserved in
instrument recorded in Docket 2245, Page 353.
Page 676
Page 677
ATTACHMENT B
*REVISED
Staff Report: Z-84-23-3
April 11, 2024
Paradise Valley Village Planning April 8, 2024
Committee Meeting Date:
Planning Commission Hearing Date: May 2, 2024
Request From: R1-6 (Single-Family Residence District) (1.36
acres)
Request To: R-2 (Multifamily Residence District) (1.36
acres)
Proposal: Multifamily residential
Location: Approximately 675 feet west of the southwest
corner of 20th Street and Campo Bello Drive
Owner: 1851 E Campo Bello, LLC
Applicant/Representative: Joshua Ursu
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations
General Plan Conformity
General Plan Land Use Designation Residential 10 to 15 dwelling units per acre
Campo
Street Map Classification Local 25-foot south half street
Bello Drive
CONNECT PEOPLE & PLACES CORE VALUE; OPPORTUNITY SITES; LAND USE
PRINCIPLE: Support reasonable levels of increased intensity, respectful of local
conditions and surrounding neighborhoods.
The proposal is a reasonable level of increased intensity considering there is existing
higher-density housing in the immediate vicinity of the site. Additionally, as stipulated, a
wider landscape buffer with enhanced tree planting standards will be provided adjacent
to abutting single-family residential to be respectful of the adjacent neighborhood.
CONNECT PEOPLE & PLACES CORE VALUE; BICYCLES; DESIGN PRINCIPLE:
Development should include convenient bicycle parking.
The proposal, as stipulated, will provide secured bicycle parking and guest bicycle
parking to encourage use of the nearby 16th Street and 20th Street established bicycle
Page 678
Staff Report: Z-84-23-3
April 11, 2024
corridors. This bicycle parking will provide residents and guests with an alternative
mode of transportation to the site.
BUILD THE SUSTAINABLE DESERT CITY; TREES AND SHADE; DESIGN
PRINCIPLE: Integrate trees and shade into the design of new development and
redevelopment projects throughout Phoenix.
The proposal, as stipulated, will provide pedestrian walkways shaded to a minimum of
75 percent, a detached tree-shaded sidewalk along Campo Bello Drive, and uncovered
surface parking shaded by drought-tolerant shade trees to a minimum of 25 percent.
Applicable Plan, Overlays, and Initiatives
Housing Phoenix Plan: See Background Item No. 6.
Tree and Shade Master Plan: See Background Item No. 7.
Complete Streets Guidelines: See Background Item No. 8.
Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan: See Background Item No. 9.
Zero Waste PHX: See Background Item No. 10.
Transportation Electrification Action Plan: See Background Item No. 11.
Phoenix Climate Action Plan: See Background Item No. 12.
Conservation Measures for New Development: See Background Item No. 13.
Surrounding Land Uses/Zoning
Land Use Zoning
On Site Single-family residence R1-6
North (across Campo Bello
Single-family residence R1-6
Drive)
South Single-family residential R1-6
East Single-family residential R1-6 (Approved R-2)
West Single-family residence R1-6
Page 679
Staff Report: Z-84-23-3
April 11, 2024
R-2 – Multifamily Residence District
(Planned Residential Development Option)
Standards Requirements Proposed
Gross Acreage - 1.36 acres
Maximum Number of Units 14; 16 with bonus 14 (Met)
Maximum Density 10.5 dwelling units per acre; 10.29 dwelling units per
(dwelling units/acre) 12 with bonus acre (Met)
Maximum Lot Coverage 50%, plus an additional 10% 16.6% (Met)
for an ADU and/or attached
shade structures; Total: 60%
Maximum Building Height 2 stories and 30 feet for first 2-story and 23 feet, 8
150 feet; 1-foot increase in inches high; 22 feet high
height for every additional 5- within 17 feet of a single-
foot increase in setback to a family zoned district (Met)
maximum of 48 feet high and
4-story; 15-foot maximum
height within 10 feet of a
single-family zoned district and
1-foot increase in height for
each additional 1-foot of
building setback
Minimum Building Setbacks
Adjacent to Public Street 20 feet North (Campo Bello
Drive): 58 feet (Met)
Adjacent to Property Line 15 feet East: 23 feet, 7 inches
(Met)
*South: 23 feet, 7 inches
(Met)
West: 50 feet (Met)
Minimum Landscape Setbacks
Adjacent to Public Street 20 feet North (Campo Bello
Drive): 20 feet (Met)
Adjacent to Property Line 5 feet East: 10 feet (Met)
South: 10 feet (Met)
West: 5 feet (Met)
Minimum Open Space 5% of gross area 6.96% (Met)
Minimum Parking 21 spaces required 34 spaces provided (Met)
1.5 spaces per dwelling unit
14 units proposed
Page 680
Staff Report: Z-84-23-3
April 11, 2024
Background/Issues/Analysis
SUBJECT SITE
1. This request is to rezone 1.36 acres located approximately 675 feet west of the
southwest corner of 20th Street and Campo Bello Drive from R1-6 (Single-Family
Residence District) to R-2 (Multifamily Residence District) to allow multifamily
residential. Upon initial filing of the rezoning request, the applicant requested to
rezone the site to R-3A (Multifamily Residence District). Since the request was
filed and received a recommendation of denial from the Paradise Valley Village
Planning Committee for the R-3A request, the applicant has modified their
requested zoning district to R-2 and was remanded back to the Village Planning
Committee by the Planning Commission for a recommendation on the R-2
request.
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION
2. The General Plan Land Use Map designation for the subject site is Residential
10 to 15 dwelling units per acre. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan
Land Use Map designation.
The General Plan Land Use Map designations surrounding the site to the north,
east, south, and west are also Residential 10 to 15 dwelling units per acre. The
proposal is also consistent with surrounding designations.
General Plan Land Use Map
Source: Planning and Development Department
Page 681
Staff Report: Z-84-23-3
April 11, 2024
SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING
3. The subject site contains a single-family residence and is currently zoned R1-6
(Single-Family Residence District).
To the north of the subject site, across Campo Bello Drive, and to the south and
west of the subject site is single-family residential, all zoned R1-6 (Single-Family
Residence District). To the east of the subject site is single-family residential,
zoned R1-6 (Approved R-2) (Single-Family Residence District, Approved
Multifamily Residence District). The proposal is compatible with the Approved R-
2 zoning to the east.
Zoning Sketch Map
Source: Planning and Development Department
PROPOSAL
4. Site Plan
The site plan, attached as an exhibit, proposes a new 14-unit multifamily
residential development with two buildings. Vehicular access is proposed along
the northwest portion of the site from Campo Bello Drive. The proposal includes
34 parking spaces, three of which are reserved for accessible parking spaces,
and two of which are reserved for electric vehicle charging spaces. Additionally, a
Page 682
Staff Report: Z-84-23-3
April 11, 2024
driveway connection to the property to the west, where there is an existing gate
to access the property, is planned on the southwest corner of the site, to allow
the adjacent property owner to continue to access their property through that
gate (via an access easement). Refuse bins are proposed to be located near the
center of the site, south of the six-unit building. Two common open space areas
are proposed with a total area of 4,096 square feet.
The site meets or exceeds lot coverage, building setback, landscape setback,
and parking requirements; therefore, staff recommends general conformance to
the site plan date stamped March 21, 2024. This is addressed in Stipulation No.
1.
To provide a larger buffer between the single-family residences to the east and
south, and to provide enhanced landscaping, staff recommends a minimum 10-
foot landscape setback be provided along the east and south property lines and
that the landscape setbacks be planted with minimum two-inch caliper, large
canopy, drought-tolerant, shade trees, planted 20 feet on center. This is
addressed in Stipulation Nos. 3 and 4 and is shown on the site plan and
landscape plan attached as exhibits.
To increase shade in uncovered surface parking lot areas and reduce the
amount of pavement in the direct sunlight, staff recommends that all the
landscape area on the east side of the driveway located on the west side of the
site be planted with minimum two-inch caliper, large canopy, drought-tolerant,
shade trees, planted 20 feet on center, or in equivalent groupings, and that
uncovered surface parking lot areas be landscaped with minimum two-inch
caliper, large canopy, drought-tolerant, shade trees, dispersed throughout the
parking lot area to achieve a minimum of 25 percent shade at maturity. This is
addressed in Stipulation Nos. 5 and 6.
To enhance pedestrian comfort, visibility, and safety, staff recommends the
following:
• Where pedestrian walkways cross a vehicular path, the pathway be
constructed of alternative materials or pavement treatments that visually
contrasts the parking and drive aisle surfaces.
• All pedestrian walkways, including sidewalks, be shaded by a structure,
landscaping at maturity, or a combination of the two to achieve a minimum
of 75 percent shade.
• The sidewalk adjacent to Campo Bello Drive be detached and include
minimum two-inch caliper shade trees planted 20 feet on center, or in
equivalent groupings, within the landscape strip located between the back
of curb and sidewalk.
These are addressed in Stipulation Nos. 6, 7, and 17.
Page 683
Staff Report: Z-84-23-3
April 11, 2024
To promote bicycling as an alternative mode of transportation to nearby 16th
Street and 20th Street, which are established bicycle corridors, staff recommends
the project include secured bicycle parking at a rate of 0.25 spaces per unit,
guest bicycle parking spaces at a rate of 0.05 spaces per unit installed per the
requirements of Section 1307.H of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, and a bicycle
repair station. To enhance bicyclist comfort, staff also recommends the bicycle
parking spaces and bicycle repair station be shaded a minimum of 75 percent.
These are addressed in Stipulation Nos. 7, 8, and 9.
5. Elevations
The building elevations, attached as an exhibit, proposes two-story buildings with
a maximum height of 23 feet and 8 inches to the top of the parapet, with a variety
of four different materials, including horizontal siding and trim, stucco, exposed
metal, and horizontal metal accent, and four varying colors. Staff recommends
general conformance to the elevations date stamped March 13, 2024. This is
addressed in Stipulation No. 2.
PLANS, OVERLAYS, AND INITATIVES
6. Housing Phoenix Plan
In June 2020, the Phoenix City Council approved the Housing Phoenix Plan. This
Plan contains policy initiatives for the development and preservation of housing
with a vision of creating a stronger and more vibrant Phoenix through increased
housing options for residents at all income levels and family sizes. Phoenix’s
rapid population growth and housing underproduction has led to a need for over
163,000 new housing units. Current shortages of housing supply relative to
demand are a primary reason why housing costs are increasing. The proposal
supports the Plan’s goal of preserving or creating 50,000 housing units by 2030
by contributing to a variety housing types that will address the supply shortage at
a more rapid pace while using vacant land in a more sustainable fashion.
7. Tree and Shade Master Plan
The Tree and Shade Master Plan has a goal of treating the urban forest as
infrastructure to ensure that trees are an integral part of the city’s planning and
development process. By investing in trees and the urban forest, the city can
reduce its carbon footprint, decrease energy costs, reduce storm water runoff,
increase biodiversity, address the urban heat island effect, clean the air, and
increase property values. In addition, trees can help to create walkable streets
and vibrant pedestrian places. Staff is recommending robust tree planting
standards, including planting minimum two-inch caliper trees 20 feet on center, or
in equivalent groupings, within the landscape setbacks, on the east side of the
driveway located on the west side of the site, and dispersed throughout
uncovered surface parking lot areas to achieve 25 percent shade at maturity.
Staff is also recommending that all pedestrian walkways and bicycle
Page 684
Staff Report: Z-84-23-3
April 11, 2024
infrastructure be shaded a minimum of 75 percent. This is addressed in
Stipulation Nos. 4 through 6 and 18.
8. Complete Streets Guidelines
In 2014, the City of Phoenix City Council adopted the Complete Streets Guiding
Principles. The principles are intended to promote improvements that provide an
accessible, safe, connected transportation system to include all modes, such as
bicycles, pedestrians, transit, and vehicles. Staff is recommending the sidewalk
adjacent to Campo Bello Drive be detached and separated by a landscape strip
planted with drought-tolerant shade trees. This is addressed in Stipulation No.
18. Additionally, to enhance pedestrian comfort, visibility, and safety, staff
recommends that where pedestrian walkways cross a vehicular path, the
pathway be constructed of alternative materials or pavement treatments that
visually contrasts the parking and drive aisle surfaces. This is addressed in
Stipulation No. 7.
9. Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan
The City of Phoenix adopted the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan in 2014 to
guide the development of its Bikeway System and supportive infrastructure. The
Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan supports options for both short- and long-
term bicycle parking as a means of promoting bicyclist traffic to a variety of
destinations. As stipulated, the project will provide secured bicycle parking
spaces at a rate of 0.25 spaces per unit, guest bicycle parking spaces at a rate of
0.05 spaces per unit and installed per the requirements of Section 1307.H of the
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, and a bicycle repair station. This is addressed in
Stipulation Nos. 9 and 10.
10. Zero Waste PHX
The City of Phoenix is committed to its waste diversion efforts and has set a goal
to become a zero-waste city, as part of the City’s overall 2050 Environmental
Sustainability Goals. One of the ways Phoenix can achieve this is to improve and
expand its recycling and other waste diversion programs. Section 716 of the
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance establishes standards to encourage the provision of
recycling containers for multifamily, commercial, and mixed-use developments
meeting certain criteria. The applicant’s submittal materials indicated that the
proposal would provide a separate dumpster for recycling.
11. Transportation Electrification Action Plan
In June 2022, the Phoenix City Council approved the Transportation
Electrification Action Plan. The current market desire for the electrification of
transportation is both a national and global phenomenon, fueled by a desire for
better air quality, a reduction in carbon emissions, and a reduction in vehicle
operating and maintenance costs. Businesses, governments and the public are
signaling strong future demand for electric vehicles (EVs), and many automobile
manufacturers have declared plans for a transition to fully electric offerings within
Page 685
Staff Report: Z-84-23-3
April 11, 2024
the coming decade. This Plan contains policy initiatives to prepare the City for a
future filled with more EVs, charging infrastructure and e-mobility equity, and
outlines a roadmap for a five-step plan to prepare for the EV infrastructure needs
of 280,000 EVs in Phoenix by 2030. One goal of the Plan to accelerate public
adoption of electric vehicles through workplace, business, and multifamily
charging infrastructure recommends a standard stipulation for rezoning cases to
provide EV charging infrastructure. This goal is addressed in Stipulation Nos. 11
and 12, which requires a minimum of 10 percent of required bicycle parking to
include standard electrical receptacles for electric bicycle charging capabilities
and a minimum of five percent of the required parking spaces to include EV
Installed infrastructure.
12. Phoenix Climate Action Plan
In October 2021, the Phoenix City Council approved the Climate Action Plan.
The Climate Action Plan will serve as a long-term plan to achieve greenhouse
gas emissions reductions and resiliency goals from local operations and
community activities as well as prepare for the impacts of climate change. This
plan contains policy and initiatives regarding stationary energy, transportation,
waste management, air quality, local food systems, heat, and water. Goal W2
(Water), Action W2.4, pertains to the implementation of the Greater Phoenix
Metro Green Infrastructure (GI) and Low Impact Development Details for
Alternative Stormwater Management to benefit the environment, promote water
conservation, reduce urban heat, improve the public health, and create additional
green spaces. This goal is addressed in Stipulation No. 13, which requires a
minimum of two GI techniques for stormwater management to be implemented in
this development.
13. Conservation Measures for New Development
In June 2023, the Phoenix City Council adopted the Conservation Measures for
New Development policy as part of a resolution addressing the future water
consumption of new development (Resolution 22129). This resolution addresses
the future water consumption of new development to support one of the City’s
Five Core Values in the General Plan which calls for Phoenix to “Build the
Sustainable Desert City”. The Conservation Measures for New Development
policy includes direction to develop standards for consideration as stipulations for
all rezoning cases that will address best practices related to water usage in nine
specific categories. This is addressed in Stipulation Nos. 14 through 17, which
addresses the following:
• Natural turf to only be utilized in required retention areas (at the bottom of
the basin) and functional turf areas within common areas.
• Pressure regulating sprinkler heads and drip lines to be utilized in any turf
areas to reduce water waste.
• Landscaping to be maintained by permanent and automatic/water efficient
WaterSense labeled irrigation controllers (or similar smart controller) to
minimize maintenance and irrigation water consumption for all on and
Page 686
Staff Report: Z-84-23-3
April 11, 2024
offsite landscape irrigation.
• Only landscape materials listed in the Phoenix Active Management Area
Low-Water-Use/Drought-Tolerant Plant List to be utilized.
COMMUNITY INPUT SUMMARY
14. For the R-3A request, before the case was continued by the Planning
Commission for the R-2 request, staff has received 89 letters of opposition, two
letters with concerns, and 25 letters of support. For the R-2 request, at the time
this staff report was written, staff has received 17 letters of opposition and two
letters with concerns. Many letters received were from the same individuals that
had previously sent letters. Concerns shared included density, traffic, parking,
crime, land use compatibility, sign posting location on the site, a private vehicular
access easement which allows vehicular access across the subject property to
the property to the west, property values, school capacity, political donations,
community character, and pedestrian safety.
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
15. Street Transportation Department
The Street Transportation Department requested the following:
• That all existing overhead utilities adjacent to the development within the
public right-of-way be undergrounded.
• That unused driveways be replaced with sidewalk, curb and gutter.
• That any broken or out-of-grade curb, gutter, sidewalk, and curb ramps on
all streets be replaced.
• That all off-site improvements be upgraded to be in compliance with
current ADA guidelines.
• That all streets be constructed with all required elements and to ADA
requirements.
These are addressed in Stipulation Nos. 18 through 21.
16. Aviation Department
The Aviation Department requested that the property owner record documents
that disclose the existence and operational characteristics of the Deer Valley
Airport to future owners or tenants of the property. This is addressed in
Stipulation No. 22.
OTHER
17. The site has not been identified as being archaeologically sensitive. However, in
the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, all
ground disturbing activities must cease within 33-feet of the discovery and the
time to properly assess the materials. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 23.
Page 687
Staff Report: Z-84-23-3
April 11, 2024
18. Staff has not received a completed form for the Waiver of Claims for Diminution
in Value of Property under Proposition 207 (A.R.S. 12-1131 et seq.), as required
by the rezoning application process. Therefore, a stipulation has been added to
require the form be completed and submitted prior to final site plan approval. This
is addressed in Stipulation No. 24.
19. Development and use of the site is subject to all applicable codes and
ordinances. Zoning approval does not negate other ordinance requirements.
Other formal actions such as, but not limited to, zoning adjustments and
abandonments, may be required.
Findings
1. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map designation.
2. The proposal is compatible with approved R-2 zoning to the east and is
compatible with other multifamily residential land uses and zoning within the
surrounding area.
3. The proposal will provide a transition from higher-density R-4A zoning to the west
to lower-density R1-6 zoning to the east and, as stipulated, will provide an
enhanced buffer adjacent to single-family residences.
4. As stipulated, the proposal supports efforts from various plans, policies,
initiatives, such as the Housing Phoenix Plan, the Tree and Shade Master Plan,
the Complete Streets Guidelines, the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan, the
Transportation Electrification Action Plan, the Phoenix Climate Action Plan, and
Conservation Measures for New Development.
Stipulations
*1. The development shall be in general conformance with the site plan date
stamped January 25, 2024 MARCH 21, 2024, as modified by the following
stipulations and approved by the Planning and Development Department.
*2. The development shall be in general conformance with the elevations date
stamped January 25, 2024 MARCH 13, 2024, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
3. A minimum 10-foot-wide landscape setback shall be provided along the east
and south property lines.
4. The landscape setbacks shall be planted with minimum 2-inch caliper, large
canopy, drought-tolerant, shade trees, planted 20 feet on center, or in
equivalent groupings, and drought-tolerant shrubs, accents, and vegetative
Page 688
Staff Report: Z-84-23-3
April 11, 2024
groundcovers to achieve a minimum of 75% live coverage, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
*5. A MINIMUM 5-FOOT-WIDE LANDSCAPE STRIP SHALL BE PROVIDED
ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF THE DRIVEWAY LOCATED ON THE WEST
SIDE OF THE SITE, AS DEPICTED ON THE SITE PLAN DATE STAMPED
MARCH 21, 2024, AND SHALL BE PLANTED WITH MINIMUM 2-INCH
CALIPER, LARGE CANOPY, DROUGHT-TOLERANT, SHADE TREES,
PLANTED 20 FEET ON CENTER, OR IN EQUIVALENT GROUPINGS, AS
APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
6. All uncovered surface parking lot areas shall be landscaped with minimum 2-
5. inch caliper, single-trunk, large canopy, drought-tolerant, shade trees.
Landscaping shall be dispersed throughout the parking area and achieve 25%
shade, as approved by Planning and Development Department.
7. Where pedestrian walkways cross a vehicular path, the pathway shall be
6. constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or other
pavement treatments that visually contrasts parking and drive aisle surfaces, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
8. All bicycle infrastructure and pedestrian pathways, including sidewalks, shall be
7. shaded by a structure, landscaping, or a combination of the two to provide a
minimum of 75% shade, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
9. Secured bicycle parking shall be provided at a minimum rate of 0.25 spaces per
8. unit. Guest bicycle parking shall be provided at a minimum rate of 0.05 spaces
per unit. Guest bicycle parking shall be provided through Inverted U and/or
artistic racks located in open space and amenity areas and installed per the
requirements of Section 1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance. Artistic racks
shall adhere to the City of Phoenix Preferred Designs in Appendix K of the
Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan.
10. A bicycle repair station (“fix it station”) shall be provided and maintained on site.
9. The bicycle repair station (“fix it station”) shall be provided in an area of high
visibility and separated from vehicular maneuvering areas, where applicable.
The repair station shall include, but not be limited to, standard repair tools
affixed to the station, a tire gauge and pump affixed to the base of the station or
the ground, and a bicycle repair stand which allows pedals and wheels to spin
freely while making adjustments to the bike.
11. A minimum of 10% of the required bicycle parking spaces shall include standard
10. electrical receptacles for electric bicycle charging capabilities, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.
Page 689
Staff Report: Z-84-23-3
April 11, 2024
12. A minimum of 5% of the required parking spaces shall include Electric Vehicle
11. (EV) Installed Infrastructure, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
13. A minimum of two green infrastructure (GI) techniques for stormwater
12. management shall be implemented per the Greater Phoenix Metro Green
Infrastructure and Low Impact Development Details for Alternative Stormwater
Management, as approved or modified by the Planning and Development
Department.
14. Natural turf shall only be utilized in required retention areas (bottom of basin)
13. and functional turf within common areas, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
15. Pressure regulating sprinkler heads and drip lines shall be utilized in any turf
14. areas to reduce water waste.
16. Landscaping shall be maintained by permanent and automatic/water efficient
15. WaterSense labeled irrigation controllers (or similar smart controller) to minimize
maintenance and irrigation water consumption for all on and offsite landscape
irrigation.
17. Only landscape materials listed in the Phoenix Active Management Area Low-
16. Water-Use/Drought-Tolerant Plant List shall be utilized, as approved or modified
by the Planning and Development Department.
18. A minimum 5-foot-wide detached sidewalk separated by a minimum 5-foot-wide
17. landscape strip located between the back of curb and sidewalk shall be
constructed on the south side of Campo Bello Drive, adjacent to the
development, planted to the following standards, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department.
a. Minimum 2-inch caliper, single-trunk, large canopy, drought-tolerant,
shade trees, planted 20 feet on center, or in equivalent groupings.
b. Drought-tolerant shrubs, accents, and vegetative groundcovers
maintained to a maximum mature height of two feet to achieve a
minimum of 75% live coverage.
Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on an alternative design solution consistent with a
pedestrian environment.
Page 690
Staff Report: Z-84-23-3
April 11, 2024
19. All existing overhead utilities within the public right-of-way shall be
18. undergrounded, adjacent to the development. The developer shall coordinate
with all affected utility companies for their review and permitting.
20. Unused driveways shall be replaced with sidewalk, curb and gutter. Also, any
19. broken or out-of-grade curb, gutter, sidewalk, and curb ramps on all streets shall
be replaced and all off-site improvements shall be upgraded to be in compliance
with current ADA guidelines.
21. All streets within and adjacent to the development shall be constructed with
20. paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands,
landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and
Development Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA
accessibility standards.
22. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
21. operational characteristics of the Deer Valley Airport to future owners or tenants
of the property. The form and content of such documents shall be according to
the templates and instructions provided which have been reviewed and
approved by the City Attorney.
23. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
22. developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
24. Prior to final site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207
23. waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County
Recorder’s Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning
application file for record.
Writer
Adrian Zambrano
April 11, 2024
Team Leader
Racelle Escolar
Exhibits
Zoning Sketch Map
Aerial Sketch Map
Site Plan date stamped March 21, 2024
Landscape Plan date stamped March 26, 2024
Elevations date stamped March 13, 2024
Correspondence (147 pages)
Page 691
MURIEL DR
R-2 *
Z-81-83
20TH PL
R-2 * Z-SP-11-83
19TH PL
19TH RUN
Z-54-95 E
M
NA
NO HELENA DR
CAMPO BELLO DR
R1-6
20TH ST
19TH TER
R-3 * Z-85-02
R-4A R-2 *
Z-74-01 DANBURY RD
HARTFORD AVE
C-2
HGT/WVR C-2 *
Z-229-83
C-2 SP*
C-1 DNS/WVR Z-SP-32-83
Z-SP-67-96
Z-71-00 Z-33-88
Z-SP-10-00
Z-32-04
I
DEER VALLEY DR
SR 101 Z-84-23
Miles UNION HILLS DR
A W P E A K PKWY (SR 51)
BELL RD
0.05 0.025 0 0.05
PARADISE VALLEY VILLAGE
GREENWAY RD
THUNDERBIRD RD
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 3 CACTUS RD
SCOTTSDALE RD
SHEA BLVD
QU
16TH ST 56TH ST 64TH ST
24TH ST S
TATUM BLVD
32ND ST
40TH ST
APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
Joshua Ursu
FROM:
R1-6 ( 1.36 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
12/12/2023
Z-84-23 REVISION DATES:
2/28/2024
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
QUARTER SEC. NO.
1.36 Acres QS 37-31 M-9 TO: R-2 ( 1.36 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
R1-6 7 9
R-2 13 16
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus Page 692
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2023\Z-84-23.mxd
MURIEL DR
R-2 *
Z-81-83
20TH PL
R-2 * Z-SP-11-83
19TH PL
19TH RUN
Z-54-95 E
M
NA
NO HELENA DR
CAMPO BELLO DR
R1-6
20TH ST
19TH TER
R-3 * Z-85-02
R-4A R-2 *
Z-74-01 DANBURY RD
HARTFORD AVE
C-2
HGT/WVR C-2 *
Z-229-83
C-2 SP*
C-1 DNS/WVR Z-SP-32-83
Z-SP-67-96
Z-71-00 Z-33-88
Z-SP-10-00
Z-32-04
I
DEER VALLEY DR
SR 101 Z-84-23
Miles UNION HILLS DR
A W P E A K PKWY (SR 51)
BELL RD
0.05 0.025 0 0.05
PARADISE VALLEY VILLAGE
GREENWAY RD
THUNDERBIRD RD
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 3 CACTUS RD
SCOTTSDALE RD
SHEA BLVD
QU
16TH ST 56TH ST 64TH ST
24TH ST S
TATUM BLVD
32ND ST
40TH ST
APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
Joshua Ursu
FROM:
R1-6 ( 1.36 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
12/12/2023
Z-84-23 REVISION DATES:
2/28/2024
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
QUARTER SEC. NO.
1.36 Acres QS 37-31 M-9 TO: R-2 ( 1.36 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
R1-6 7 9
R-2 13 16
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus Page 693
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2023\Z-84-23.mxd
Page 694
Page 695
Page 696
Page 697
CITY OF PHOENIX
OCT 04 2023
Planning & Development
Department
Page 698
CITY OF PHOENIX
OCT 04 2023
Planning & Development
Department
Page 699
CITY OF PHOENIX
OCT 04 2023
Planning & Development
Department
Page 700
CITY OF PHOENIX
NOV 11 2023
Planning & Development
Department
Page 701
Page 702
CITY OF PHOENIX
NOV 11 2023
Planning & Development
Department
Page 703
CITY OF PHOENIX
NOV 11 2023
Planning & Development
Department
Page 704
CITY OF PHOENIX
NOV 11 2023
Planning & Development
Department
Page 705
CITY OF PHOENIX
NOV 11 2023
Planning & Development
Page 706 Department
CITY OF PHOENIX
NOV 11 2023
Planning & Development
Department
Page 707
CITY OF PHOENIX
NOV 11 2023
Planning & Development
Department
Page 708
CITY OF PHOENIX
NOV 11 2023
Planning & Development
Department
Page 709
CITY OF PHOENIX
NOV 11 2023
Planning & Development
Department
Page 710
CITY OF PHOENIX
NOV 11 2023
Planning & Development
Department
Page 711
CITY OF PHOENIX
NOV 11 2023
Planning & Development
Department
Page 712
CITY OF PHOENIX
NOV 11 2023
Planning & Development
Department
Page 713
CITY OF PHOENIX
NOV 11 2023
Planning & Development
Department
Page 714
CITY OF PHOENIX
NOV 11 2023
Planning & Development
Department
Page 715
CITY OF PHOENIX
NOV 11 2023
Planning & Development
Department
Page 716
CITY OF PHOENIX
NOV 11 2023
Planning & Development
Department
Page 717
CITY OF PHOENIX
NOV 11 2023
Planning & Development
Department
Page 718
CITY OF PHOENIX
NOV 11 2023
Planning & Development
Department
Page 719
Adrian G Zambrano
From: Bodie Hull
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2023 4:18 PM
To: Adrian G Zambrano
Subject: Case# or application NO. Z-84-23-3
Please tell the city planner.
Adrian Zambrono
We ARE Opposed to any rezoning.
Case# or application NO. Z‐84‐23‐3
PLEASE KEEP THE ZOINING AS IS!!
With Gratitude,
Bodie Hull
*please excuse any grammatical errors* sent from my iPhone
Page 720
Adrian G Zambrano
From: Claudia Williams
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2023 12:21 PM
To: Adrian G Zambrano
Dear Adrian Zambranono, my name is Claudia.
I am writing in opposition to Case or Application No. Z‐ 84 ‐23‐3 rezoning on property. My partner & I believe this will
directly offect our neighborhood in a negative way. We are absolutely in opposing this happening now or ever with a 30
unit apartment complex.
Sincerly, Claudia Williams
Page 721
Adrian G Zambrano
From: Bryce Hull
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2023 4:51 PM
To: Adrian G Zambrano
Subject: Case # or application NO. Z-84-23-3
Adrian,
I am writing to oppose any rezoning on the 1 acre to add 30 apartments on Case # or application NO. Z‐84‐23‐3. This
would be detrimental for the neighborhood.
Best regards
Bryce
Page 722
Adrian G Zambrano
From: Bonnie Brommer
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2023 9:33 AM
To: Adrian G Zambrano
Subject: Case # Z-84-23-3
Dear Adrian Zambrono,
We are Opposed to any rezoning.
Case# or application NO. Z-84-23-3
Thank you,
Bonnie Brommer
Sent from my iPhone
Page 723
From: Brendon Zastrow
To: Adrian G Zambrano
Subject: 1851 E Campo Bello Case number Z-84-23-3
Date: Monday, December 18, 2023 2:02:27 PM
I am writing to support the Apartment project located at 1851 E Campo Bello, Case number Z-
84-23-3.
As Phoenix continues its unprecedented growth it is imperative that housing development
continues, especially from developers with integrity who have a lifelong commitment to
Phoenix.
Sincerely,
Brendon Zastrow
Chief Operations Officer
Dream City Church Phoenix Campus
13613 N Cave Creek Rd.
Phoenix, AZ 85022
bzastrow@dreamcitychurch.us
(602) 761-9470
[dreamcitychurch.us]
[facebook.com] [twitter.com]
[instagram.com]
--DreamCityChurch--
Page 724
Adrian G Zambrano
From: Curtis Mitchell
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2023 12:07 PM
To: Adrian G Zambrano
Subject: Campo Bello Case Number Z-84-23-3
Hi Adrian,
Wanted to let you know that I fully support the apartment complex project at 1851 E Campo Bello (case number Z‐84‐
23‐3).
Thanks so much!
Warm Regards,
Page 725
Adrian G Zambrano
From: Emily Alexander
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2024 12:48 PM
To: Adrian G Zambrano
Subject: Re: Case: Z-84-23-3. change zoning R1-6 to R3-A
Yes. I live just down the road north.
17435 N. 19th Place
> On Feb 12, 2024, at 11:18 AM, Adrian G Zambrano
>
> Hi Emily,
>
> Could you please provide your address for reference?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Adrian Zambrano,
> Planner II*Village Planner
> Phone: 602-534-6057
> E-mail: adrian.zambrano@phoenix.gov
>
> City of Phoenix
> ► Planning & Development Department
> Long Range Planning Division, 3rd Floor
> 200 West Washington Street
> Phoenix, AZ 85003
>
> Mission: Planning, Development and Preservation for a Better Phoenix
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adrian G Zambrano
> Sent: Friday, December 22, 2023 1:53 PM
> To: Emily Alexander
> Subject: RE: Case: Z-84-23-3. change zoning R1-6 to R3-A
>
> Hi Emily,
>
> Thank you for your email. I have saved it to the case file.
>
> Best regards,
>
>
> Adrian Zambrano,
> Planner II*Village Planner
> Phone: 602-534-6057
> E-mail: adrian.zambrano@phoenix.gov
Page 726
>
> City of Phoenix
> ► Planning & Development Department
> Long Range Planning Division, 3rd Floor
> 200 West Washington Street
> Phoenix, AZ 85003
>
> Mission: Planning, Development and Preservation for a Better Phoenix
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Emily Alexander
> Sent: Friday, December 22, 2023 12:28 PM
> To: Adrian G Zambrano
> Subject: Case: Z-84-23-3. change zoning R1-6 to R3-A
>
> Adrian,
> I am a neighbor of the property in question. My only real concern about these apartments being
built is parking.
>
> It seems to be fixed now but for a few years the ‘overflow parking’ from the apartments just west of
these proposed ones lined both sides of the street. It was difficult for two cars to pass without fear of
hitting a car parked on the street. Campobello sees quite a bit of traffic and that was just
unacceptable.
>
> These days every couple has two cars and maybe a child has a car as well. Any apartments being
built must be able to accommodate this.
>
> I would like to see the number of proposed units (30 I believe) reduced so that each unit has two
dedicated parking spaces and a third space for guests or a child’s car. Basically that would be three
parking spots for each unit.
> If this can be done so that no tenant is forced to park on the street, then I am fine with the
apartments being built.
>
> Emily Alexander
>
>
Page 727
Adrian G Zambrano
From: Kelly Kelly
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2024 10:05 PM
To: Adrian G Zambrano
Subject: Zoning Hearing Z-84-23-3
Hi Adrian,
I have a couple of concerns and called the number on the board that was posted on the property (602 262‐7131 #6) and
was told you were the person to direct my concerns.
In my opinion, the placement of the posting sign on the property is not visible from anyone driving down the
street. The sign is parallel to the street instead of perpendicular and is placed pretty far back off the street. I know the
sign is there because I happened to be at our property next door and heard the sign being put up. If I had not been
home at that time I would not know it was there.
Based on the Site Posting Requirements on www.phoenix.gov/pdd/planning‐zoning page 28 "Such notice shall be clearly
legible, double‐sided, and placed at a prominent location on the site, perpendicular to the street, generally adjacent to
the public right‐of‐way, unless otherwise directed." Is the sign placement incorrect or were they "otherwise
directed"? If "otherwise directed" what were their directions and why?
My next concern is the easement document recorded April 12, 1967 with Recording number 19670259200. The
easement runs over and across the West forty feet of the East one hundred eighty‐one feet of the North one‐half of Lot
Nineteen, ANDREW ESTATES, according to the plat of record in the office of the County Recorder of Maricopa County,
state of Arizona, in Book 34 of Maps, at page 33. This easement document states in part "The Parties to this Easement,
their successors in title and/or possession, all parties owning or in possession of the property on the south, east or west
side of the Easement, as well as any and all invitees of or successors to any of the above, shall have full access to, use of,
and enjoyment of this easement and any and all improvements thereto, including the roadway." We are currently, and
have been since 2000, the party owning the property on the west side of the Easement. We have used this easement as
the sole access point to enter and exit our property for almost 24 years now. An attorney representing 1851 E Campo
Bello, LLC sent us a QUIT CLAIM DEED on November 20, 2023 requesting that we execute within (20) days of the date of
the letter. The letter states "In doing so, you will relinquish all interest concerning any alleged interest of yours in the
Easement concerning the 1851 Property (other than for public utilities)." "If we do not receive the fully executed
original of the Quit Claim Deed from you by the stated deadline, 1851 ECB will be forced to proceed with the filing of a
civil lawsuit (or special action) for quiet title in the Maricopa County Superior Court." Someone also got Desert Winds
Estates Homeowners Association (the property to the south of the easement) to sign a document titled Abandonment
Of Ingress and Egress Easement Solely. 1851 ECB now claims the signing on September 6, 2023 and recording on
September 19, 2023 makes the easement document "null and void and invalid for some time." We have informed Josh
Ursu from 1851 ECB directly and through our attorney to his attorney we will not sign the Quit Claim Deed and asked
that they sign and return an Easement Acknowledgement or a civil lawsuit to quiet title to an ingress and egress
easement will be filed with the courts. Neither of us has filed a lawsuit yet however 1851 ECB has approached us asking
if we will meet with them and together rewrite the easement agreement making most of the easement narrower than
the current forty foot width. This past Friday, January 19, 2024 I replied by email to Josh Ursu "Hi Josh - There is no
need to meet about this matter. Because Jason approached me at the meeting asking to discuss
the easement I asked you for his name and email so I could respond to you both.
Jason asked me to discuss with Tim the possibility of narrowing the 40 foot width of the existing
easement in the area just north of our rolling gate up to Campo Bello Dr. We are not open to
making any changes to the dimensions or placement of the existing easement as written in the
Easement Agreement document dated and recorded with the Maricopa County Recorder's Office
in April 1967.
Page 728
Thanks,
Kelly
I now see on the site plan from 1851 ECB 19 parking spaces and what looks like curbing, trash dumpsters, a 3' screen
wall, sidewalk, and possibly other things (site plan is scaled do extremely small and very difficult to read) on the west
approx. 20' and a driveway on the east approx. 20' of the easement. The entire 40' of the easement is required be open
to drive upon.
Are you aware of this easement on the property and based on the site plan, the intent of 1851 ECB to try to
interfere with the easement that serves our property? If so, please explain why the city would even consider this
rezoning request.
Thank you,
Kelly Kelly
Page 729
Adrian G Zambrano
From: Aleks Nikolov
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2024 10:51 PM
To: Adrian G Zambrano
Hi Adrian
My name is Aleks Nikolov and I live near 1851 E Campo Bello Dr in Phoenix. I'm writing regarding the zoning case Z‐84‐23
and want to let you know that I'm excited about new apartments being planned at this location.
Thanks,
Aleks Nikolov
16647 N 19th st
Page 730
Adrian G Zambrano
From: Bryce Patrick
Sent: Thursday, February 1, 2024 3:49 PM
To: Adrian G Zambrano
Subject: Rezoning
I’m writing this in opposition of rezoning of 1851 e. Campbell dr
Page 731
Adrian G Zambrano
From: Dwn N Out Motorcycles
Sent: Thursday, February 1, 2024 3:14 PM
To: Adrian G Zambrano
Subject: Apartment issues
How do I help to make sure apartments do not go into 1851 E. Campobello dr.
The last thing we need in our area is another low end apartment complex.
Please let me know
Frank Estes
Sent from my iPhone
Page 732
Adrian G Zambrano
From: Johnny Estes
Sent: Thursday, February 1, 2024 3:20 PM
To: Adrian G Zambrano
Subject: Re-Zoning at 1851 E Campobello Dr
To whom it may concern,
Please be aware that I oppose the rezoning at or near 1851 E Campobello Dr.
It is important to understand that allowing this change will have an adverse effect on our property values.
Thanks for your considera on,
Johnny Estes
VP Operations
602.845.7037 | 800.528.1380
3800 N Central Ave, Ste 1100 | Phoenix, AZ 85012
CMIGS.com [cmi-gold-silver.com]
[instagram.com] [facebook.com] [linkedin.com]
[cmi‐gold‐silver.com]
Page 733
Adrian G Zambrano
From: Christie Shaffer
Sent: Friday, February 2, 2024 11:31 AM
To: Adrian G Zambrano
Subject: Opposed to 1851 E. Campobello Dr apartment complex build
Hello,
I am opposed to the 26 apartment complex on 1851 E. Campobello Drive.
Thanks for listening to my request
Christie Shaffer
Page 734
From: Claudette Gronski
To: Adrian G Zambrano
Subject: Fwd: Deb Stark--Planned Apartments
Date: Thursday, February 1, 2024 4:19:43 PM
Begin forwarded message:
From: "cgronski@cox.net"
Subject: Deb Stark--Planned Apartments
Date: October 20, 2023 at 1:12:09 PM MST
To:
Planned apartments are not affordable quality of life units. They are not
senior or vet friendly. They will also impact overcrowded schools. Is it true
that Mr. Ursu has said his political donations will allow this apartment
approval to be pushed through? This is not acceptable.
Page 735
From: Don & Thelma Hatton
To: Adrian G Zambrano
Subject: Do not rezone.
Date: Thursday, February 1, 2024 6:13:15 PM
We opposed to rezoning at 1851 E Campo Bello Dr , Phoenix, AZ 85022
This lot is not big enough to build a two story 30 unit apartments.
Already have too much traffic on this road from existing apartment and with them parking on
both sides of the street along Campo Bello Dr. because the apartment do not have enough
spaces of their own.
Please do not rezone.
Thank you.
Page 736
From: Jeff Daniels
To: Adrian G Zambrano
Subject: Fw: Campo Bello
Date: Thursday, February 1, 2024 5:14:00 PM
Subject: Campo Bello
Dear Josh:
I’d like to take this opportunity to inform you that my family STRONG OPPOSES the high density housing
project you propose at Campo Bello. We are a close community and enjoy an almost rural environment
on our little hidden gem of a street. A high density housing project is the exact opposite of what our
community “feels” like.
Should you wish to purchase the property and move in with your family, we shall welcome you with open
arms. My wife will bake you a pie. However, you should know that if you attempt to rezone the property
as you propose, we will fight you with every ounce of strength we have. We will pack the zoning hearings
with small children, elderly folks with walkers, probably a wheelchair or two as this is our community as it
currently exists. These hearings will be a spectacle to behold with standing room only and parking full for
blocks in every direction. I will bring popcorn for the crowd. You will not succeed.
We look forward to welcoming you as our neighbor. If you have other plans for the property, well, you
have been warned.
Have a great day!
Jeff
Page 737
From: Kevin P
To: Adrian G Zambrano
Subject: oppose rezoning 1851 e campobello
Date: Thursday, February 1, 2024 7:35:32 PM
To who it may concern that I am opposed to the rezoning of 1851 E Campobello to multi -purpose
Room
Thankyou
Kevin Patrick
Sent from Mail [go.microsoft.com] for Windows
Page 738
From: Radmanptr
To: Adrian G Zambrano
Subject: Oppose 1851
Date: Thursday, February 1, 2024 7:34:56 PM
I oppose the multi use rezoning at 1851 Campobello
Thankyou
Kevin Patrick
602-465-2232
Thank you
Page 739
From: Nicole
To: Adrian G Zambrano
Subject: No rezoning
Date: Thursday, February 1, 2024 5:32:40 PM
Keep Camp Bello a residential neighborhood! Apartment buildings in that area will create riffraff in the area
Nicole Hatton
Page 740
From: Go Go Performance
To: Adrian G Zambrano
Subject: Screenshot Oppose 1851
Date: Friday, February 2, 2024 2:40:29 PM
My response to OPPOSE Rezoning at 1851E. Campobello Dr.
I passed out 43 Opposed name tags at Josh's first meeting and know one, let Josh or Jason
speak about rezoning for high density Apartments, attendees were 100% OPPOSED
Josh's has told multiple Neighbors there is no reason to fight him, Josh can get this pushed
through, he has rezoning in his pocket. If this is passes, We will appeal.
Not in our neighborhood
Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device
Get Outlook for Android [aka.ms]
Page 741
Page 742
Page 743
From: zebko (null)
To: Adrian G Zambrano
Subject: Fwd: oppose rezoning at 1851 E Campo Bello Dr 85022
Date: Saturday, February 3, 2024 5:00:06 PM
To Paradise Valley Village Planning,
I oppose any rezoning at the address of 1851 E Campo Bello Dr in Phoenix.
It needs to remain R1-6.
NAME. STACY ZBYTEK
ADDRESS: 17224 N 19th Terrace, 85022
PHONE# or EMAL: zebko@aol.com
Page 744
From: Dan Lucas
To: Adrian G Zambrano
Subject: Campo Bello Dr
Date: Monday, February 5, 2024 5:14:09 PM
Attachments: image173748.png
image877976.png
image123138.png
image703000.png
image636240.png
image390032.png
I oppose Rezoning at 1851 E. Campo Bello dr.
My kids have friends in this neighborhood and I don’t want to see multi unit apartments/homes
here. There is enough traffic as it is.
Thanks
Dan
Dan Lucas
Trauma Territory Manager
Phone: 610‑930‑1800 | Mobile: 602‑332‑8977
Globus Medical, Inc.
2560 General Armistead Ave. Audubon, PA 19403
Confidentiality Note: This email is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. If you are not the
intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this
email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error please contact the sender. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of
the author and do not necessarily represent those of Globus Medical, Inc. Although this email and any attachments are believed to be free of any
virus or other defects which might affect any computer or IT system into which they are received, no responsibility is accepted by Globus Medical,
Inc. for any loss or damage arising in any way from the receipt or use thereof.
Page 745
From: Jose Mora
To: Adrian G Zambrano
Subject: Opposition
Date: Monday, February 5, 2024 2:47:30 PM
I’m opposed to reasoning at Campo bello dr
Enviado desde mi iPhone
Page 746
From: Richie C.
To: Adrian G Zambrano
Subject: Rezoning opposed
Date: Monday, February 5, 2024 1:01:51 PM
I completely oppose the Rezoning at 1851 E. Campobello .
Page 747
Page 748
Page 749
Page 750
Page 751
Page 752
Page 753
Page 754
Page 755
Page 756
Page 757
Page 758
Page 759
From: douglas mangum
To: Adrian G Zambrano
Subject: Campo Bello Dr Rezoning
Date: Tuesday, February 6, 2024 5:45:59 PM
Mr. Zambrano,
My apologies for the late email, I did not get your email address until last night's community
meeting. My hope is that I am not too late to have this put into record.
I am completely against any rezoning, especially to high density tenements, on East Campo
Bello Dr. Like many other people I have concerns about traffic, flooding, and parking. I also
have concerns regarding safety and crime which have barely been addressed.
This leads me to my biggest concern and that is the cultural shift within the neighborhood that
these apartments would bring.
Homeowners, whether they own single family homes, condos, or townhomes, are typically
regarded as respectable, hard working, and upstanding citizens that are rooted in the
community; while apartment dwellers move more frequently and care less about individual
municipalities. Having an increased number of apartments would create a higher density of
residents that wouldn't care about the community. Apartment complexes are additionally a
magnet for crime due to population density and oftentimes socio-economic levels. Even nicer
apartment complexes with high rents and a wide range of amenities do not generally display
the moral and social equivalency of a single family home neighborhood.
This cultural change would not only affect the current residents, but property values and the
social and economic demographics of future residents.
Thank you
Douglas Mangum
1936 E Campo Bello Dr.
Page 760
Page 761
Page 762
Page 763
Page 764
Page 765
Page 766
Page 767
Page 768
Page 769
Page 770
Page 771
Page 772
Page 773
Page 774
Page 775
Page 776
Page 777
Page 778
Page 779
Page 780
Page 781
Page 782
Page 783
Page 784
Page 785
Page 786
Page 787
Page 788
Page 789
Page 790
Page 791
Page 792
Page 793
Page 794
Page 795
Page 796
Adrian G Zambrano
From: shane sullivan
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2024 11:36 AM
To: Adrian G Zambrano
Subject: Re: 1851 E Campobello Rezoning
My address is
1834 e Anderson Dr. Phoenix AZ 85022
Sent from my iPhone
> On Feb 12, 2024, at 11:31 AM, Adrian G Zambrano
>
> Hi Shane,
>
> Could you please provide your address for reference?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Adrian Zambrano,
> Planner II*Village Planner
> Phone: 602-534-6057
> E-mail: adrian.zambrano@phoenix.gov
>
> City of Phoenix
> ► Planning & Development Department
> Long Range Planning Division, 3rd Floor
> 200 West Washington Street
> Phoenix, AZ 85003
>
> Mission: Planning, Development and Preservation for a Better Phoenix
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adrian G Zambrano
> Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2024 9:07 AM
> To: shane sullivan
> Subject: RE: 1851 E Campobello Rezoning
>
> Hi Shane,
>
> Thank you for your email. I have saved it to the case file.
>
> Best regards,
>
>
> Adrian Zambrano,
> Planner II*Village Planner
Page 797
> Phone: 602-534-6057
> E-mail: adrian.zambrano@phoenix.gov
>
> City of Phoenix
> ► Planning & Development Department
> Long Range Planning Division, 3rd Floor
> 200 West Washington Street
> Phoenix, AZ 85003
>
> Mission: Planning, Development and Preservation for a Better Phoenix
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: shane sullivan
> Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2024 5:49 PM
> To: Adrian G Zambrano
> Subject: Fwd: 1851 E Campobello Rezoning
>
> Hi Adrian,
>
> I wanted to send an email to have it in writing that I strongly oppose the rezoning attempts for 1851
E Campobello. This property backs up to mine and I wish to vote to keep it as it is currently zoned. I
will plan to attend any necessary meetings needed to make sure my position of opposing is known. If
there is any necessary information, dates, locations, meetings, etc that I need to be aware of please
let me know.
>
>
> Thank you,
>
> --
>
> Shane V. Sullivan
> Mobile: (210) 557-4125
> ShaneSullivanTT@gmail.com
>
>
> --
> Best Regards,
>
> Shane V. Sullivan
> Mobile: (210) 557-4125
> ShaneSullivanTT@gmail.com
Page 798
Adrian G Zambrano
From: douglas mangum
Sent: Thursday, February 29, 2024 4:23 PM
To: Adrian G Zambrano
Subject: Re: Campo Bello rezoning
Adrian
Thank you very much for the update and keeping us informed. Sadly, I will be out of town for work for both of those
dates but my views and opinions have not changed. I still oppose any rezoning of the neighborhood at this time.
On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 14:50 Adrian G Zambrano
Hi Douglas,
Thank you for your email. I have saved it to the case file.
FYI, the applicant is requesting a continuance from the March 7 Planning Commission hearing date
to the April 4 Planning Commission hearing date, and the case is listed on the continuance agenda
on the Planning Commission agenda, which is now posted on the Public Meeting Notices website:
https://www.phoenix.gov/cityclerk/publicmeetings/notices. The applicant has also amended their
application to request the R-2 zoning district instead of the R-3A district and is working on updating
their plans to decrease the density.
Best regards,
Adrian Zambrano,
Planner II*Village Planner
[google.com]
Phone: 602-534-6057
E-mail: adrian.zambrano@phoenix.gov
► Planning & Development Department
Long Range Planning Division, 3rd Floor
200 West Washington Street [google.com]
Phoenix, AZ 85003 [google.com]
Page 799
Mission: Planning, Development and Preservation for a Better Phoenix
From: douglas mangum
Sent: Thursday, February 29, 2024 1:58 PM
To: Adrian G Zambrano
Subject: Campo Bello rezoning
Mr. Zambrano
Please see the attached for opposing the revoking on Campo Bello.
Thank you
Douglas Mangum
Page 800
Page 801
Page 802
Page 803
Racelle Escolar
From: A Google User
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 5:49 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Rezoning Project Z-84-23
My comments to the rezoning:
A while ago, I was a consultant for traffic and traffic air quality studies for DRI's submitted to the Planning
Commission in Hillsborough County, Florida. It was common to almost guess the daily traffic (VDT) on a road in
small communities such as those along Campo Bello. It is a best guess answer based upon the traffic of nearby
roads, peak hour, and conditions not shown on a plat. Campo Bello, in my opinion, cannot handle the additional
traffic an apartment building will add not only to traffic movement but parking. There is an apartment on Bell Road
that has parking spaces on the property, but those with added cars must park on Campo Bello road. There are
many nights when everyone is home from work and the trip to the store, through the cars parked on both sides of
the road is very hazardous. I am surprised we have not had some serious accidents. With additional parking on the
east side of Campo Bello, the situation will worsen. We will be making sidewalks, already in need of repair, part of
the road itself.
Additionally, I have noticed many projects here in Phoenix have roads so narrow that by measurement, if cars park
on each side of the roadway or even if they park with one side on the embankment, fire trucks (trucks, not rescue
vans) will have a gauntlet to drive through to get to a fire. Narrow streets like this help the developer build more and
make a higher profit.
The character of the community will be changed as well. With a big apartment complex planned on 20 th and Bell, I
cannot see how an apartment building is justified in the name of inadequate housing for the area.
Respectfully submitted,
David L. Bortness
Page 804
Racelle Escolar
From: zebko (null)
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 4:35 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Opposed to rezoning case # Z-84-23-3
I am opposed to the rezoning of the property located at 1851 E. Campo Bello Drive in Phoenix 85022.
I live in Desert wind Estates right next‐door to this property. This project is nothing more than an investment for the
developer. The minute that you approve his project you are saying that his profit is more important than our peaceful
neighborhood and the equity in our homes. This project would no doubt lower our current property values. By approving
this project you are allowing the developers to make a profit, but you are stealing from those of us who live here. You are
stealing our equity in our homes, and you are stealing our peace. I 100% oppose this project. I’m speaking for myself, but
I’m sure I am not alone when I say my home is the biggest investment that I will ever make. Please put our community
wants and needs above the profits of a developer that lives in a big house on a hill and drives a luxury car. That is not the
case for most of us in this community. Please do not put his profits above our equity and peaceful neighborhood.
Thank you,
Stacy Zbytek
Desert Wind Estates
602‐616‐2458
Page 805
From: Tristan Gragg
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 4:59:45 PM
To: Adrian G Zambrano
Subject: Opposing Z‐84‐23
Hello,
My name is Tristan Gragg, and my family has lived at 1802 E Campo Bello Dr Lot 88 since 1984, and we vehemently
oppose the apartments planned for 1851 E Campo Bello Dr, as we fear the loss of our own home from the owner of the
Shadow Hills trailer park deciding to sell the land for redevelopment.
We also have major concerns about the street parking, as we already have a bottle neck slightly further down Campo
Bello from the Villa Milano Condominiums that have the rear exit on Campo Bello. This has almost caused a great many
accidents, as those vehicles obstruct the view of the west exit from the La Serena Apartments, almost causing head on
collisions of those traveling eastbound on Campo Bello multiple times a day. We fear that the proposed apartments will
begin to cause a similar issue.
‐‐
From:
Tristan A Gragg
Page 806
Racelle Escolar
From: Connie Gragg
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2024 3:17 PM
To: Racelle Escolar
Subject: Rezoning at 1851 E Campo Bello
Hello,
This email is regarding Case No. Z‐84‐23‐3.
I understand that the applicant has changed their zoning request to R‐2. In light of this change, I think that the case
should be sent back to Village Planning Commi ee to start the process all over again, including requiring him to send out
new no ces that include a site map and giving ample me for the neighborhood to review this before any mee ng.
Thank you,
Connie Gragg
1802 E Campo Bello Dr Lot 88
Connie.gragg@yahoo.com
OPPOSING ALL REZONING
Page 807
Racelle Escolar
From: STAN
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2024 3:40 PM
To: Racelle Escolar
Subject: Case#z-84-23-3
Case #z-84-23-3
Seeing that the applicant has made a totally different request, I believe that the only logical option is to go back and
start the process all over. Each of us will need a new sketch of the potential structures as well as an idea of how the
parking will be planned. Also the entrance and exit paths for first responder vehicles, especially for fire trucks. The road
in that area is very narrow and I am concerned about any tight turns the long fire trucks would have to make.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Stanley Dunn
Darnelle Dunn
1620 East Angela Drive.
Get Outlook for Android [aka.ms]
Page 808
Racelle Escolar
From: Kelsey Webb
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2024 3:04 PM
To: Racelle Escolar
Subject: Case # Z-84-23-3
Hi Racelle,
I just found out through a neighbor that the applicant for case Z‐84‐23‐3 has changed their rezoning request to R‐2. Since
this is a change from their original rezoning request, I think it should be reviewed by the Village Planning Commi ee
again with new no ces sent out. Since we weren’t no fied of this change through those original channels, it hasn’t given
the neighborhood enough me to review the new updates before the mee ng process starts.
Thank you,
Kelsey Webb
1850 E Anderson Dr., Phoenix AZ, 85022
Page 809
Racelle Escolar
From: Martha Joyce
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2024 12:42 PM
To: Racelle Escolar
Subject: Zoning
The applicant who wants to rezone property on East Campo Bello Drive has changed the rezoning Request to R‐2.
I believe the case needs to be directed back to the Village Planning Commi ee and start the process all over again. The
applicant needs to send out new no ces that include site map, giving plenty of me for the neighborhood to review
before the mee ng process starts.
Thank you
Martha Joyce
Sent from my iPhone
Page 810
Racelle Escolar
From: S G
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2024 4:14 PM
To: Racelle Escolar
Subject: Case # Z-84-23-3
Since applicant has changed their rezoning request to R‐2 send the case back to Village Planning Committee to start over
and send out new notices that include a site map, giving plenty of time for the neighborhood to review before the
meeting process starts.
thank you
scott gragg
1802 E Campobello DR
Page 811
Racelle Escolar
From: zebko (null)
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2024 3:03 PM
To: Racelle Escolar
Subject: Case # Z-84-23-3
regarding Case # Z-84-23-3
Regarding 1851 E Campo Bello Rd rezoning.
Since applicant has changed their rezoning request to R-2 I believe the case should be sent back to Village Planning
Commi ee and start the process over requiring the applicant to send out new no ces that include a site map, giving
plenty of me for the neighborhood to review before the mee ng process starts.
Thank you,
Stacy Zbytek
17224 N 19th Terr
Desert Wind Estates
602-616-2458
Page 812
Racelle Escolar
From: cubbietoddnphx@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2024 8:24 PM
To: Racelle Escolar
Subject: Case Z-84-23-3
Ms. Escolar,
Good morning.
Re: Case # Z‐84‐23‐3
Due to applicant’s change w/rezoning request to R‐2, please consider next course of action with return to Village
Planning Committee and start the process over requiring applicant to send out new notices which include site map,
allowing opportunity for the neighborhood to review before the meeting process commences.
Thank you in advance.
Mr. Todd Russ
Resident of neighborhood
Page 813
Racelle Escolar
From: Tristan Gragg
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2024 1:10 PM
To: Racelle Escolar
Subject: Regarding Case # Z-84-23-3
Since applicant has changed their rezoning request to R-2 I believe the case should be sent back to Village Planning
Committee and start the process over requiring the applicant to send out new notices that include a site map, giving
plenty of time for the neighborhood to review before the meeting process starts.
Page 814
Adrian G Zambrano
From: Joshua Thompson
Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2024 4:09 PM
To: Adrian G Zambrano
Subject: In Opposition to the zoning of 1851 East Campo Bello Drive
Hi Adrian,
I was hoping to make it to the zoning mee ng tonight but cannot, so I am wri ng this email instead. I live at 1942 East
Campo Bello Drive, Phoenix, AZ 85022 and I am opposed to the rezoning of the property located at 1851 East Campo
Bello Drive, Phoenix, AZ 85022. The street simply cannot handle any more cars/traffic on the street to include parking
down the sides of East Campo Bello Drive. The street simply isn’t big enough. This rezoning would make Campo Bello
even more dangerous to live on. I would be afraid for kids to walk to and from school on East Campo Bello and people
to walk their dogs on with all the extra traffic if this rezoning was approved. At the last hearing we also discussed the
issues with the building design itself including drainage issues, increased crime and the easement of the property next
door owned by Tim Kelly and his wife. I urge you to oppose the rezoning of this property. Please leave our li le
community alone and keep it safe. You have many residents that have lived here for years and years, do not destroy my
neighborhood with a new apartment building. If you need further tes mony or informa on from me, please feel free to
reach out via email or phone. Thank you for your me.
Joshua E. Thompson |Director – Operations |Partner
Cakeshop by LGO Hospitality • Grateful Spoon Gelato • LGO Bake Shop.
Cell: 602.363.7306
PH: 602.254.5440
gratefulspoon.com [protect‐us.mimecast.com]
lgobakeshop.com [protect‐us.mimecast.com]
lgocakeshop.com [protect‐us.mimecast.com]
Follow us @lgobakeshop and @lgocakeshop on Instagram!
Page 815
Page 816
Adrian G Zambrano
From: Bodie Hull
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2024 9:56 PM
To: Adrian G Zambrano
Subject: Case # Z-84-23-3.
Mr. Zambrano,
I can imagine this isn’t your neighborhood being rezoned!!!!
So Let me be very clear!!
I Oppose this and any rezoning at 1851 E. Campobello.
Case # Z‐84‐23‐3.
Make it a great day,
Bodie Hull
With Gratitude,
Click here to download my e‐card and learn more :) [linko.page]
Cell‐ 602‐315‐4859
*please excuse any grammatical errors* sent from my iPhone
Page 817
Adrian G Zambrano
From: douglas mangum
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2024 10:59 PM
To: Adrian G Zambrano
Subject: Re: Rezoning Case No: Z-84-23-3
Douglas Mangum
1936 E Campo Bello Dr, Phoenix, AZ 85022
717‐377‐4293
I oppose ANY rezoning from the R1‐6
Page 818
Adrian G Zambrano
From: Kelly Kelly
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2024 10:40 AM
To: Adrian G Zambrano
Subject: Fwd: Rezoning Case No: Z-84-23-3
Attachments: 1851 E Campo Bello Dr Recorded Easement.pdf
Good morning Adrian,
I have one more thing I would like to have included in the staff report if possible. I honestly think I have already sent this
to you but didn't want to take the time to see if I can find where I might have previously sent this and get this to you too
late.
Attached is a copy of the Easement Agreement as recorded with Maricopa County in 1967 and is still in effect for the
parcels to the east (1851 E Campo Bello Dr) and to the west (1841 E Campo Bello Dr). The land as stated included in the
easement is "The West forty feet of the East one hundred eighty‐one feet of the North one‐half of Lot Nineteen,
ANDREW ESTATES, according to the plat of record in the office of the County Recorder of Maricopa County, State of
Arizona, in Book 34 of Maps, at page 33."
The previous site map submitted by the party requesting rezoning showed them wanting to use the easement area as a
driveway and parking spaces for their tenants along with an area for trash receptacles. Parking and placing anything in
the easement area would impede our ability to use the entire easement area for its intended use as stated in the
Easement Agreement and is not permitted. As of the typing of this, we have not been provided with a new site map so
we don't know if they are still intending on trying to use the easement for anything other than what is permitted.
We have retained counsel and have had to wait for 1841 E Campo Bell LLC (Josh Ursu) to actually purchase the property
before filing paperwork to sue them over this easement if they still do not wish to sign and have recorded the
paperwork acknowledging the easement. This morning I was able to verify that the Warranty Deed transferring
ownership to 1851 E Campo Bello LLC, an Arizona limited liability company was recorded March 15, 2024.
Thank you,
Kelly Kelly
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Kelly Kelly
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2024 at 09:48
Subject: Re: Rezoning Case No: Z‐84‐23‐3
To: Adrian G Zambrano
Hi Adrian,
Thank you!!
Kelly Kelly
On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 at 09:22, Adrian G Zambrano
Hi Kelly,
Page 819
I can save these videos to the case file and can forward them to the VPC members, but it won’t save
as a playable video in my staff report since it would just be a PDF.
Best regards,
Adrian Zambrano,
Planner II*Village Planner
Phone: 602-534-6057
E-mail: adrian.zambrano@phoenix.gov
► Planning & Development Department
Long Range Planning Division, 3rd Floor
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Mission: Planning, Development and Preservation for a Better Phoenix
From: Kelly Kelly
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2024 2:37 PM
To: Adrian G Zambrano
Subject: RE: Rezoning Case No: Z‐84‐23‐3
Hi Adrian,
Here are the traffic videos we are hoping to have included in the staff report.
Thank you,
Kelly Kelly
Page 820
Page 821
Page 822
Page 823
Page 824
Adrian G Zambrano
From: Kelsey Webb
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2024 8:14 PM
To: Adrian G Zambrano
Subject: Rezoning Case No: Z-84-23-3
Hello,
My name is Kelsey Webb and I live at 1850 E Anderson Dr, Phoenix AZ 85022
I am opposed to the rezoning request at 1851 Campo Bello. We live directly behind the lot and
bought our home with the lot as is and feel that an apartment complex behind us would negatively
impact our property value and privacy. Not to mention causing parking issues on Campo Bello.
Thank you,
Kelsey Webb
Page 825
From: Susanna Davis
To: Adrian G Zambrano
Subject: rezoning case no. Z-84-23-3
Date: Wednesday, March 27, 2024 8:42:20 AM
This is to officer Brian Alvarado of city of Phoenix Police regarding the ongoing battle over vandalism and parking issues on Campo Bello Dr.
From: Susanna Davis
Date: March 27, 2024 at 12:16:50 AM MST
To: brian.alvarado@phoenix.gov
Subject: Lady & 2 men
Thank You Brian for getting these cars removed tonight from the non dust free area. All the neighbors up & down Campo Bello are revegetating the street to clean it up. Many folks in the condos have been parking in non dust free areas, & driving over trees & plants. After signs were put up to inform them these folks in the photos removed the signs. They removed & killed the plants that the neighborhood planted. The boulders were provided by the city and these folks pushed them back so they could continue to park in non dust free landscaped area.
This is a violation of city code
When I am able to get an address for these 3 folks I will seek an order of protection & have them served. Last friday as seen in these photos they approached me while I was unpacking my mother & sister threatening to hurt me and vandalize my home. They said they broke my locking mailbox (federal offense) and threw nails in my gated yard and double gate entry as well as throwing dog poop all over my work truck. Thank You for any protection you can provide me as I do live alone.
Thank You also for your help in continuing to keep our landscaped area free from parking.
Page 826
Page 827
Page 828
Page 829
Respctfully,
Susanna Davis
602-570-2224
susanna2160@gmail.com
Page 830
Adrian G Zambrano
From: Kelly Kelly
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2024 2:31 PM
To: Adrian G Zambrano
Subject: Fwd: Campo photos
Attachments: 20240216_184218.jpg; 20240322_162011.jpg; 20240217_094121.jpg
Sorry, I forgot to tell you this email is regarding Rezoning Case No: Z‐84‐23‐3
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Kelly Kelly
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2024 at 14:09
Subject: Fwd: Campo photos
To: Adrian G Zambrano
Hello Adrian,
Is it too late to have these photos and videos of our traffic and parking problems that already exist along Campo Bello
prior to Mr. Ursu's proposed development adding to it, included in the staff report?
The first picture was taken 2‐16‐24 and is in front of 1851 facing East.
Second picture was taken 3‐22‐24 and is the North side of Campo Bello across from the back exit of the apartment
complex.
Third picture was taken 2‐17‐24 is the North side of Campo Bello at the Northeast corner of 1851 property. This
stemmed from a welfare check on a female that appeared to be sleeping or passed out inside the car. When the police
arrived she was very combative and paramedics ending up coming. She was taken away and the car was towed a few
days later.
This email is just the three pictures. I will see if I can send you the two videos separately.
Thank you,
Kelly Kelly
Page 831
Adrian G Zambrano
From: Barry Noblitt
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2024 8:17 AM
To: Adrian G Zambrano
I would like to oppose any zoning change to 1851 E Campobello case # Z‐24‐83‐3 as will be to the detriment to our
neighborhood thank you for your attention to this matter.
Barry Noblitt
Page 832
Adrian G Zambrano
From: Brian A Trapanotto <1941vt@protonmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2024 8:42 AM
To: Adrian G Zambrano
Subject: Rezoning Case No: Z-84-23-3 (1851 E. Campo Bello)
To the Honorable Adrian Zambrano,
I am writing to express opposition to any rezoning in question as a property owner and
resident in close proximity to the land in question at 1851 E. Campo Bello in Phoenix as
a former law enforcement officer with extensive knowledge in what high desnity housing
will bring to an already overly conjested neighborhood suffering from growing petty
crime and related issues in regard to Title 10 (Criminal) and Title 13 (Traffic) codes in
Arizona Revised Statutes, and as a law abiding tax paying citizen. Changing zoning from
R1-6 will bring more conjestion and crime into a neighborhod of residents who are
overwhelmingly against any change in rezoning for the reasons listed and I am able to
provide substantial empirical support to my statement.
My personal information is as follows.:
Brian A Trapanotto
17404 N. 19th Run
Phoenix, AZ 85022
480 234-7070
1941vt@protonmail.com
I would be more than willing to provide any support should you feel the need to collect
data. Feel free to contact me.
Very Respectfully,
Brian A Trapanotto
Sent with Proton Mail [proton.me] secure email.
Very Respectfully,
Brian A Trapanotto
Sent with Proton Mail [proton.me] secure email.
Page 833
Adrian G Zambrano
From: Connie Gragg
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2024 6:50 AM
To: Adrian G Zambrano
Subject: Re: Rezoning Case No. Z-84-23-3
Hello,
My name is Connie Gragg, and I live at 1802 E Campo Bello Dr Lot 88. I am completely opposed to
ANY rezoning in this neighborhood.
Thank you.
Page 834
Adrian G Zambrano
From: A Google User
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2024 1:16 PM
To: Adrian G Zambrano
Adrian, please include this objection in your staff report.
My address is 17314 N 19th Terrace, Phoenix AZ 85022 east of the proposed property. My email address is
dbortness@gmail.com
I am opposed to the request to change to R2 and the proposed 14 units. In fact, I am opposed to any change to
the current zoning of R1-6 due to parking and peak hour traffic on Campo Bello.
Placing a traffic counter located in front of the parcel itself across Campo Bello for one day, as the developer
tried, does nothing to gauge the effect of peak hour traffic, nor does it demonstrate the problem of parking on
the street. The location of the placement was in the approximate middle of a roadway that has entry at both
ends. Traffic entering Campo Bello from 20th or 16th Street and entering homes or parking along the sides of
Campo Bello and before the traffic counters, is not counted. It is questionable whether a fire truck (not a rescue
van) can even traverse Campo Bello near where a townhouse complex on Bell Road has its parking, since one
side of Campo Bello at that point has a curb. There is no sidewalk at that strip of road to park even part of the
car.
In the evening and night, cars going either way on Campo Bello must pull to the side to let the car coming at
them go through. Just the decision as to who goes forward is a traffic hazard enough. We do not need that
problem all the way down Campo Bello. Assuming 2 occupants per apartment, at least 14 spaces will be
required in the complex. For any overage of 1 car, multiple cars in the family or visitors, they will have to park
in the street. Our group of homes has the same parking problem within the complex and outside of it. I have
measured the width of the roads here, and I doubt a fire truck can get through. I know a rescue van can but it
cannot put out fires. And we each have a two-car garage and driveway.
An apartment complex will not only change the character of the community, it will lower my property value.
One person’s “highest and best use” is mine also.
Thanks,
David Bortness
Page 835
Adrian G Zambrano
From: gilhatch32@yahoo.com
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2024 8:06 AM
To: Adrian G Zambrano
Subject: Rezoning
adrian
I Oppose any rezoning at 1851 E. Campobello.
Case # Z-84-23-3.
Thanks
G.R. Hatch
G.R.'s Pest Control
2306 N. Bullmoose Dr.
Chandler, AZ 85224
480-229-6341
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://Www.grspestcontrol.com__;!!LkjWUF49MRd51_ry!aI380MKLE4Lu
nXwJdq3VVcukCpRtqXT9Cg7THCwqZ_h-
rPdPoZ4ajKzf4Iol_BC4LSavxBc33W2oE59GpFfMqTpJvOg6$
Page 836
Adrian G Zambrano
From: Jose Loeza
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2024 1:03 PM
To: Adrian G Zambrano
Subject: Re: Rezoning Case No: Z-84-23-3
JOSE LOEZA
1945 E CAMPO BELLO DR, PHOENIX, AZ 85022
I opposed to the request to change to R2 and the proposed 14 units
Sorry, I just read this email. I hope it is not too late. Thanks!
Jose Loeza
Direct: 310-259-8313
Joseloezaremax@gmail.com
Page 837
Adrian G Zambrano
From: Martha Joyce
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2024 9:17 AM
To: Adrian G Zambrano
Subject: Re: Opposed to rezoning to R1-6
Z-84-23-3
Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 28, 2024, at 9:14 AM, Adrian G Zambrano
>
> Hi Martha,
>
> Can you please clarify the rezoning case number?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Adrian Zambrano,
> Planner II*Village Planner
> Phone: 602-534-6057
> E-mail: adrian.zambrano@phoenix.gov
>
> City of Phoenix
> ► Planning & Development Department
> Long Range Planning Division, 3rd Floor
> 200 West Washington Street
> Phoenix, AZ 85003
>
> Mission: Planning, Development and Preservation for a Better Phoenix
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martha Joyce
> Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2024 9:09 AM
> To: Adrian G Zambrano
> Subject: Opposed to rezoning to R1-6
>
> Martha Joyce
> 1622 East Angela Drive
> Phoenix. 85022
>
> Sent from my iPhone
Page 838
Adrian G Zambrano
From: Rikki Partin
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2024 8:35 AM
To: Adrian G Zambrano
Subject: Oppose Rezoning Case #Z-84-23-3
Good morning, Adrian,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to Case #Z-84-23-3 to the zoning request at 1851 E Campobello
In Phoenix.
While the local community may be unable to prevent development, that in itself will be detrimental to the
area, nearly all residents in the neighborhoods are completely opposed to the addition of housing that will
cause traffic and safety problems, create even more problems with schools that are already over-capacity,
destroy local wildlife habitat, and potentially lower the property values of the existing community.
I urge you to disapprove the proposed rezoning, and from recent meetings and discussions with my
neighbors, I know my opinions are shared by many who have not managed to attend meeting or write letters
and emails.
Thank you for your continued service and support of our community.
Best regards,
Rikki Brugueras
Page 839
Adrian G Zambrano
From: Susanna Davis
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2024 12:57 PM
To: Adrian G Zambrano
Subject: Reasoning case No. 84-23-3
Re: Rezoning at 1851 E Campo Bello
Susanna Davis
1701 E Campo Bello Dr
Phx 85022
I want to express my opposition of rezoning to R2 and strongly opposed to 14 units. Any change to
the current zoning is going to cause major traffic on Campo Bello Dr. The neighbors have called the
police at least 3 times because the city did not allow enough parking in the condos next to me. They
park on Campo Bello killing plants, removing landscape stakes and even pushed back boulders
installed by city. Any more traffic on our narrow street is not acceptable especially knowing there is
no entrance/exit to Bell. The neighborhood of 75 plus residents is currently revegetating our street
and any more folks parking in non dust free areas will diminish the work we are doing. The 2 car per
apartment allowance is not enough because this is what the condos have. Because of today’s
economy with high rental prices most folks I have talked to in the condos next to me have 2-3 room
mates creating as much as 4 cars per unit. My friends car was stolen from in front of my house some
5 months ago. My locking mailbox was broken into and my mail stolen last week. In fact just last
night the police came to have cars removed from parking along Campo Bello. This is an already busy
street with cars driving very fast, any change to rezoning is a bad idea.
Respectfully
Susanna Davis
602-570-2224
Susanna2160@gmail.com
Page 840
Adrian G Zambrano
From: cubbietoddnphx@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2024 1:38 PM
To: Adrian G Zambrano
Subject: Re: Case No: 2-8423-3
Good day.
Mr Todd Russ
17421 N 19th Run Campo Bello
Phoenix AZ 85008
Opposed to units and or any structurally recent development changes.
Please stop.
Thank you.
Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS [apps.apple.com]
Page 841
Adrian G Zambrano
From: Tristan Gragg
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2024 2:31 PM
To: Adrian G Zambrano
Subject: Re: Rezoning Case No: Z-84-23-3
My name is Tristan Gragg, living at 1802 E Campo Bello Dr Lot 88, Phoenix, AZ 85022 and I am vehemently against any
rezoning regarding 1851 E Campo Bello Dr. My family has been living here since 1984, being one of the first to move into
any of the mobile home lots. It is my, and my family's fear that the sale and rezoning of this property will open the
floodgates for other property developers to purchase the remaining properties on E Campo Bello Dr, leaving all of those
that own the mobile homes out of luck and on the streets.
‐‐
From:
Tristan A Gragg
Page 842
From: Shane Sullivan
To: Adrian G Zambrano
Subject: Re: Rezoning Case No: Z-84-23-3
Date: Thursday, March 28, 2024 6:38:17 PM
Hi Adrian,
This email is for records.
I wanted to send an email regarding the new rezoning changes that are trying to be pushed
through.
I live at 1834 e Anderson dr. Phoenix AZ 85022.
I oppose any and all rezoning efforts at this location.
Shane Sullivan
Page 843
ATTACHMENT C
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-84-23-3
Date of VPC Meeting February 5, 2024
Request From R1-6
Request To R-3A
Proposal Multifamily residential
Location Approximately 675 feet west of the southwest corner of
20th Street and Campo Bello Drive
VPC Recommendation Denial
VPC Vote 15-0
VPC DISCUSSION:
21 members of the public registered to speak in opposition to this item, eight members
of the public registered in opposition but did not wish to speak, and two members of the
public registered to speak in favor of this item.
Staff Presentation:
Adrian Zambrano, staff, provided an overview of rezoning case Z-84-23-3, describing
the location, request, surrounding land uses and zoning, and the General Plan Land
Use Map designation. Mr. Zambrano then described the proposal, discussing the
proposed site plan, landscape plan, and elevations. Mr. Zambrano noted that staff has
received 19 letters of opposition, two letters with concerns, and 25 letters of support for
this request, and summarized the concerns. Mr. Zambrano concluded by sharing the
staff findings, recommendation of approval and the recommended stipulations.
Applicant Presentation:
Joshua Ursu provided an overview of the request and regional context of the site. Mr.
Ursu shared the General Plan Land Use Map designation, surrounding land uses and
zoning. Mr. Ursu then discussed the proposed site plan and elevations. Mr. Ursu
concluded by summarizing neighborhood outreach efforts, concerns heard, and
revisions made to the site plan and elevations in response to feedback received.
Questions from the Committee:
Ana Bustamante asked how many parking spaces were proposed. Mr. Ursu
responded that there would be a total of 39 parking spaces.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 844
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-84-23-3
Vice Chair Anita Mortensen asked if the parking spaces would be covered or
uncovered. Mr. Ursu responded that they would be both covered and uncovered but
there was not an exact number of how many spaces that would be covered at the time.
Alan Sparks asked if Mr. Ursu could give a brief history of the site. Mr. Ursu responded
that the original property owner had lived at the site since 1974, and his son inherited
the property around two years ago when he passed away. Mr. Ursu stated that he
believes the original property owner had horses on the property. Mr. Ursu added that he
had went under contract for the property in June 2023, after the son had inherited the
property.
Abram Bowman asked about the property to the west. Mr. Ursu responded that the lot
to the west has a large workshop and mobile home in the rear of the property that was
built around 20 years ago.
Chair Popovic asked if a traffic impact study was conducted. Mr. Ursu responded that
a traffic impact statement was conducted by a registered traffic engineering firm. Mr.
Ursu added that the traffic impact statement discusses traffic volumes in the morning,
afternoon, and evening, noting that it concluded that there is sufficient capacity for the
additional traffic volume that would be created by the proposed development. Chair
Popovic asked if Mr. Ursu is the current property owner or is under contract. Mr. Ursu
responded that they went under contract for the property in June 2023 and were
supposed to close several times, but could not, due to flooding claims from the
neighbor. Mr. Ursu stated that they have extended their escrow until that issue can be
resolved.
Mr. Bowman asked what the issue with the vehicular access easement is. Mr. Ursu
responded that an ingress and egress easement was created in 1967 on the west side
of the property for the purpose of access to the property to the south. Mr. Ursu stated
that the Desert Winds Estates Homeowners’ Association, the adjacent property to the
east and south, abandoned their interests in the easement in September 2023. Mr. Ursu
added that the proposed site plan has a 26-foot-wide driveway on the west side of the
property and has a driveway entrance to the west property to allow the property owner
to access their gate near the southwest portion of the subject site, even though the west
property has full access from Campo Bello Drive. Mr. Bowman asked if the Villages at
Grovers development has access to Campo Bello Drive. Mr. Ursu responded that they
do not have access to Campo Bello Drive, only to Grovers Avenue. Mr. Ursu added that
there was a complaint from a neighbor that it is difficult to drive through Campo Bello
Drive due to vehicles parking on both sides of the street, noting that the Villages at
Grovers development does not contribute to traffic or parking on Campo Bello Drive. Mr.
Ursu stated that he and his partner, Jason Fronstin, have spent many Saturdays in the
neighborhood in November and December of 2023 and they had not noticed any traffic
or parking issues along Campo Bello Drive during the hours that they spent there.
Chair Popovic stated that it would have been helpful if the traffic impact statement was
included in the applicant presentation. Chair Popovic asked if the traffic impact
statement was provided to the City as part of the rezoning case submittal. Mr. Ursu
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 845
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-84-23-3
responded affirmatively. Chair Popovic asked if the traffic impact statement was
conducted by a registered traffic engineering firm. Mr. Ursu responded affirmatively,
noting that it was Dibble Corporation that conducted the traffic impact statement. Chair
Popovic asked if Mr. Zambrano has a copy of the traffic impact statement.
Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively, noting that it is part of the case file that is public
record, subject to public records requests.
Robert Gubser asked if Mr. Zambrano could provide a summary of the traffic impact
statement. Mr. Zambrano shared the conclusions and recommendations from the traffic
impact statement.
Mr. Ursu clarified that the traffic impact statement was for the original proposal of 30
dwelling units, which has since been reduced to 26 units.
Mr. Gubser asked for clarification that it was just a traffic impact statement that was
conducted and not a full traffic study. Mr. Ursu responded affirmatively, noting that it is
a multiple page report, using industry standards that traffic engineers use.
Karen DeMoss stated that in the folders that were provided to the Committee members
by the applicant, the majority of the letters attached were letters of support, and there
was only one letter of opposition. Mr. Ursu clarified that the folders were put together
with the materials that they had at the time. Ms. DeMoss asked if Mr. Ursu was aware
of the other letters of opposition that were sent to the Committee. Mr. Ursu responded
affirmatively, noting that many of the emails that were received within the last week did
not have any relevant information in them, such as what their reasons were for being
opposed to the project, nor their addresses in relation to the site. Mr. Ursu stated that he
believed many of the emails were from friends or relatives of a few neighbors that were
opposed. Ms. DeMoss asked for clarification that because many of the emails do not
have an address, those individuals may not even live in the area. Mr. Ursu responded
affirmatively, noting that he replied to each email asking for what their concerns were so
they could be addressed, and for their address in relation to the site. Mr. Ursu stated
that only some individuals replied saying that they lived in the neighborhood, but they
did not provide an actual address where they lived. Mr. Ursu added that they made
adjustments to the plans to address concerns that they heard as much as they could.
Eric Cashman asked who owns the property. Mr. Ursu stated that the son inherited the
property, and it is in a trust. Mr. Cashman asked if the current property owner was
present. Mr. Ursu responded that he did not ask him to be present, but he did sign an
owner authorization form to allow them to proceed with the rezoning request. Mr.
Cashman asked if the current property owner was the individual requesting the
rezoning. Mr. Ursu responded that the current property owner was not requesting it and
clarified that Mr. Fronstin and himself are the applicants. Mr. Ursu stated that they have
the right to request the rezoning which was given by the current property owner. Mr.
Cashman asked for clarification that Mr. Ursu’s interest was as the prospective buyer of
the property trying to rezone it. Mr. Ursu responded affirmatively, noting that they were
supposed to close on the property in August 2023, and they kept having to extend the
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 846
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-84-23-3
escrow. Mr. Ursu stated that they were currently under contract and the current property
owner had to resolve flooding issues with the neighbor before they could close. Mr.
Cashman asked if they were afraid to commit to buying the property until knowing the
results of the rezoning request. Mr. Ursu responded that they were not afraid, and they
are committed. Mr. Cashman stated that he was concerned with the access easement,
noting that easements are not abandoned very easily. Mr. Cashman asked if the
proposed community would be gated. Mr. Ursu responded that it would not be.
Anna Sepic asked if the flooding issue has to do with the grading of the current
property or if it would be addressed with on-site retention. Mr. Ursu responded that, to
his understanding, the flooding was occurring near the southwest corner of the site, and
he believed the current property owner had graded the lot to flatten it, which may have
caused the flooding issues. Mr. Ursu added that he had been at the site one day when it
was raining, and he had noticed the flooding was coming from the neighboring property
behind their wall. Mr. Ursu stated that he believes the flooding issue was a distraction
from the neighbor to try to slow him down in hopes of stopping the purchase of the
property. Ms. Sepic asked what types of walls are currently there or are proposed to be
there, where the flooding occurred. Mr. Ursu responded that there is an existing six-
foot-tall block wall and an existing gate. Ms. Sepic asked for clarification that the
existing gate is proposed to be kept. Mr. Ursu responded affirmatively, noting that the
gate is not theirs.
Chair Popovic asked if the gate would have access for the Fire Department or
emergency vehicles. Mr. Ursu responded that the west property has access from
Campo Bello Drive and the proposed site plan for their site has sufficient turnaround
radius for a fire truck.
Mr. Goodhue asked if the adjacent single-family homes are one-story or two-story. Mr.
Ursu responded that they are a mix.
Regina Schmidt asked what Mr. Ursu’s backup plan was if the rezoning request was
denied. Mr. Ursu responded that he was not sure if he should disclose their backup
plan, since it is more of a business decision, but they would like to proceed as-is, since
they have spent a lot of time on this request. Mr. Ursu stated that he has been working
on this proposal full-time since they went under contract in June 2023. Mr. Ursu added
that they would have to revisit their plan should this rezoning request not pass.
Mr. Gubser asked how the on-site stormwater was proposed to be managed. Mr. Ursu
responded that it would most likely be handled by an underground tank.
Chair Popovic asked if Mr. Ursu has an engineer working on the grading and drainage
of this proposal. Mr. Ursu responded that they do not have a grading and drainage plan
yet and they have only had a survey done.
Mr. Cashman stated concerns with stormwater retention, noting how much area would
be covered by hardscape and structures. Mr. Cashman added that the perimeter
landscape areas would have to be deep to allow stormwater to collect in there and the
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 847
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-84-23-3
City would not want the on-site drainage to flow into the street. Mr. Ursu responded that
their architects have worked on many multifamily residential projects and the
stormwater would be handled by underground water retention tanks.
Ms. Bustamante asked for clarification that a civil engineer conducted a survey of the
site. Mr. Ursu responded affirmatively. Ms. Bustamante asked for clarification that
there was not a grading and drainage plan yet. Mr. Ursu responded affirmatively, noting
that it is usually conducted later in the development process. Mr. Ursu added that they
would make progress on the more technical plans depending on the results of the
rezoning request moving forward. Ms. Bustamante stated that usually civil engineering
is done early on before an architect comes in.
Ms. Sepic asked why the applicant requested R-3A zoning instead of R-3 or R-2, which
would have been more compatible with adjacent zoning. Mr. Ursu responded that the
original request in the rezoning pre-application meeting was for R-4 zoning, proposing
30 dwelling units, and staff comments recommended a less intense zoning district, such
as R-3A, which would allow the original proposal of 30 units on the site. Mr. Ursu added
that the R-3A zoning would allow a maximum density of 36 units, but they did not feel
they needed 36 units, and they felt 26 units seemed to be a reasonable number of units
to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
Chair Popovic asked if the units would be for sale or for rent. Mr. Ursu responded that
all the units would be for rent.
Public Comments:
Clara Shaffer introduced herself as a nearby resident near 20th Street and Bell Road,
opposed to the project. Ms. Shaffer asked how many letters were sent out, if the letters
were certified, how many full-size parking spaces were proposed, and if the driveway
along the easement would be a permanent entrance into the apartment complex. Ms.
Shaffer also expressed concerns with on-site retention.
Bonnie Johnson introduced herself as a resident that had lived at the subject property,
opposed to the project. Ms. Johnson stated that she was the better half of the previous
property owner, Benny Lucero, for 30 years. Ms. Johnson stated that the late Mr.
Lucero would not have wanted apartments built on the property. Ms. Johnson stated
that she and the late Mr. Lucero had spoken several times about the late Mr. Lucero’s
wish for his son to build a house on the property. Ms. Johnson stated that she was
opposing the project for the love of the late Mr. Lucero.
Salma Tashijian introduced herself as a neighbor of 17 years from the adjacent Desert
Wind Estates subdivision, opposed to the project. Ms. Tashijian stated that there are no
sidewalks on either side of Campo Bello Drive and expressed concerns with pedestrian
safety.
Brian Trapanotto introduced himself as a neighbor across Campo Bello Drive,
opposed to the project. Mr. Trapanotto stated that there was a similarly large group of
people that attended the neighborhood meeting in October 2023 with a majority of those
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 848
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-84-23-3
who attended in opposition. Mr. Trapanotto asked why the applicant did not share the
list of those individuals. Mr. Trapanotto stated that he was a former law enforcement
officer, and asked if the applicant spoke to the beat officers about how the community
would be impacted by the project, which he recommended they do at the neighborhood
meeting. Mr. Trapanotto asked if any individuals in attendance received notice letters,
noting that only three individuals raised their hands. Mr. Trapanotto asked if anyone in
attendance were visited by the applicants going door-to-door, noting that only two
individuals raised their hands. Mr. Trapanotto asked if anyone in attendance does not
live in the neighborhood and if they are in support of the project, noting that there are
some individuals that do not live in the neighborhood that are also opposed to the
project.
Stacy Zbytek introduced herself as a neighbor from the adjacent Desert Wind Estates
subdivision, opposed to the project. Ms. Zbytek expressed concerns with traffic, parking,
and property values. Ms. Zbytek added that the letters of opposition are not all coming
from one person’s family. Ms. Zbytek asked those in attendance to raise their hands if
opposed to the project, noting the majority in attendance was in opposition.
Jeff Mucke introduced himself as a nearby resident, opposed to the project. Mr. Mucke
expressed concerns with traffic during peak hours and with parking.
Tanner Buck introduced himself as a neighbor from the adjacent Desert Wind Estates
subdivision, opposed to the project. Mr. Buck suggested that homes be constructed
using the existing R1-6 zoning and that the character of nearby horse properties be
maintained.
Aleks Nikolov introduced himself as a nearby resident, in support of the project. Mr.
Nikolov stated that new apartments would be great for the area and would increase
property values.
Lisa Gailey introduced herself as a nearby resident, opposed to the project. Ms. Gailey
expressed concerns with speeding on Campo Bello Drive and pedestrian safety. Ms.
Gailey stated that the applicant had harassed the property owners of Campo Bello
Drive. Ms. Gailey stated that the applicant was offered a land deal in California for five
acres and would not accept it because he could not do what he was trying to do at this
site. Ms. Gailey stated that Mr. Ursu had stated that he would not live in the area and
would not let his children go to school there. Ms. Gailey added that Mr. Ursu had stated
that he would get away with rezoning the property because he would pay off the City
Council which happens all the time. Ms. Gailey added that the neighborhood signed a
petition for speed bumps along Campo Bello Drive two years ago and they have yet to
be installed.
Kelly Kelly introduced herself as the adjacent neighbor to the west, opposed to the
project. Ms. Kelly expressed concerns with traffic, noting that Campo Bello Drive is a
narrow street, and lacks sidewalks along the street. Ms. Kelly stated that apartment
complexes usually have their traffic going onto larger collector or arterial streets. Ms.
Kelly also expressed concerns with maintaining the character of the acre properties
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 849
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-84-23-3
around the area. Ms. Kelly clarified that the vehicular access easement was only
abandoned by Desert Wind Estates, and it was not abandoned by them, noting that she
has a copy of the recorded document. Ms. Kelly stated that the easement runs along
the west 40 feet of the subject property and that the proposed parking spaces and
refuse bins cannot be located within the easement.
Tim Kelly introduced himself as the adjacent neighbor to the west of 24 years, opposed
to the project. Mr. Kelly provided Mr. Zambrano with letters of opposition from neighbors
in the community. Mr. Kelly expressed concerns with density. Mr. Kelly stated that Mr.
Ursu was suing him over the easement, claiming that they have no right to it. Mr. Kelly
stated that he has retained lawyers and spent a significant amount of money to fight Mr.
Ursu over the easement. Mr. Kelly stated they were fully opposed to the project and
echoed concerns with traffic and pedestrian safety.
Mr. Bowman asked Mr. Kelly for clarity that the easement was 40 feet that runs across
both properties. Mr. Kelly responded affirmatively, noting that it used to be one property
back in 1966 and it was divided into three lots. Mr. Kelly stated that the individual that
divided it lived on his property and made an agreement between the three properties
that there would be a legal easement for ingress and egress. Mr. Kelly added that his
property has never been accessed other than from the easement on the east side of his
property since 1967. Mr. Kelly stated that there were fences that look like gates in the
front of his property. Mr. Kelly added that he built his workshop on the property and he
has a mobile home on the property, which was a mile away from his home that he has
had for 40 years, so he could travel back and forth quickly.
Mr. Cashman asked if Mr. Kelly has a copy of the easement with him. Mr. Kelly asked
Ms. Kelly if she had a copy.
Ms. Kelly responded that she did not have a copy with her, but it is recorded with the
Maricopa County Recorder’s office, and she could look it up.
Mr. Cashman asked how many letters of opposition he handed Mr. Zambrano. Mr.
Kelly responded that there were approximately 43 letters of opposition, and he had
more in his truck that he wanted to make copies of before providing them. Mr. Kelly
added that individuals that did not want to sign a letter of opposition were renters, noting
that every homeowner was opposed.
Ms. Sepic asked for clarity about vehicular access from the easement. Mr. Kelly
clarified that he had two gates on the east side of his property. Mr. Kelly stated that the
proposed location of the refuse bins were where the other gate was located on his
property.
Mr. Gubser asked for clarity that Mr. Kelly is accessing his property by crossing over
the other property. Mr. Kelly responded affirmatively, noting that the access was from
the easement. Mr. Gubser noted that aerial images show a gravel pathway. Mr. Kelly
stated that he built the gates, put the gravel there, and planted trees, which were cut
down by the property owner.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 850
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-84-23-3
Steve Plumb introduced himself as a nearby resident, opposed to the project. Mr.
Plumb echoed concerns with traffic and parking. Mr. Plumb also expressed concerns
with privacy for the adjacent single-family homes with the proposed two-story buildings.
Allen Tigges introduced himself as a neighbor across Campo Bello Drive, opposed to
project. Mr. Tigges read the purpose of the R1-6 zoning district from the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance. Mr. Tigges stated that no one opposes the existing zoning, noting that six
single-family homes could be built on the property. Mr. Tigges expressed concerns with
density.
Barry Noblitt introduced himself as a nearby resident, opposed to the project. Mr.
Noblitt stated that he frequents Mr. Kelly’s property often and has never seen flooding
on his property until the subject property was graded. Mr. Noblitt stated that had asked
Mr. Ursu about the easement and Mr. Ursu had stated that he was unaware that there
was an easement. Mr. Noblitt added that they later found out that Mr. Ursu was offered
a discount on the property due to the easement. Mr. Noblitt shared the recording
number of the easement and echoed concerns with parking.
Sue Davis introduced herself as a nearby resident, opposed to the project. Ms. Davis
echoed concerns with traffic, parking, and density.
Susanna Davis introduced herself as a nearby resident, opposed to the project. Ms.
Davis noted that an individual that signed a letter of support does not live in the area.
Ms. Davis expressed concerns with traffic, noise, and parking. Ms. Davis added that
there is an individual that lives in a recreational vehicle and parks it on Campo Bello
Drive. Ms. Davis stated that the Village of Grovers does not maintain the trees planted
along their frontage on Campo Bello Drive.
Bradley Hart introduced himself as a nearby resident, opposed to the project. Mr. Hart
expressed concerns with traffic, school capacity and its effect on the quality of
education, parking, and existing density in the neighborhood.
Claudia Eckhardt introduced herself as a nearby resident, opposed to the project. Ms.
Eckhardt stated there are many vacant apartments nearby, noting that more apartments
are not needed in the area.
Kathy Fritsinger introduced herself as a nearby resident of 40 years, opposed to the
project. Ms. Fritsinger expressed concerns with water, density, property values, and
apartment dwellers lacking pride of homeownership.
David Bortness introduced himself as an adjacent neighbor to the east within the
Desert Wind Estates subdivision, opposed to the project. Mr. Bortness stated that he
was a traffic engineer in Florida and stated that he would like to see the daily volume of
traffic numbers from the traffic statement. Mr. Bortness expressed concerns with the
pavement width of Campo Bello Drive, noting that it seems too narrow. Mr. Bortness
stated that there was a fire in Scottsdale several years ago where a fire truck could not
get through the street, resulting in every curb along the street being painted red to
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 851
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-84-23-3
prohibit on-street parking. Mr. Bortness added that there would not be enough room for
one vehicle to let another vehicle going the opposite direction pass through Campo
Bello Drive if vehicles are parked on both sides of Campo Bello Drive.
Shane Gore introduced himself as a resident of Council District 3, in support of the
project. Mr. Gore clarified that the City requirements for mailing hearing notices are 600
feet from the site for property owners and 1 mile from the site for registered
neighborhood organizations, noting that if a resident did not receive a hearing notice
letter, it is likely because their property is not within 600 feet of the site. Mr. Gore
questioned if Mr. and Ms. Kelly, the adjacent property owner to the west, actually lived
on the property, since there was a dilapidated mobile home and a commercial building,
but no single-family residence on the property. Mr. Gore noted that he was in favor of
the project because there was a housing shortage, which was why housing costs were
so high, due to limited housing supply. Mr. Gore added that there are City processes
that residents can contact their Council District about to address on-street parking and
speeding issues, noting that the City cannot put that responsibility on a single developer
to solve those issues.
Chair Popovic asked members of the audience interrupting Mr. Gore to be respectful of
his speaking time and to keep comments to themselves.
Ms. Sepic echoed Chair Popovic, noting that Mr. Gore was quiet and respectful of each
speaker that was opposed to the project. Ms. Sepic asked the audience to be respectful
of Mr. Gore’s speaking time, just as Mr. Gore was respectful of their time.
Brandi Letterly introduced herself as a nearby resident, opposed to the project. Ms.
Letterly stated that she was a renter that has lived at the property for 12 years and she
just received a notice from her landlord that they will be demolishing the house that she
lived in and building five new homes on the acre and a half property she lived on. Ms.
Letterly asked the Committee to consider how they would feel if this project was being
built next to their home. Ms. Letterly echoed concerns with Campo Bello Drive and
asked the applicant to consider single-family residences instead of apartments.
Applicant Response:
Mr. Ursu stated that the perception of high-density housing being undesirable is a
stereotype and generalization. Mr. Ursu stated that questions related to the October
2023 neighborhood meeting could be answered through the Citizen Participation Report
which was provided to City staff. Mr. Ursu stated in regard to privacy issues for adjacent
single-family homes, there is an increased landscape setback to help increase privacy.
Mr. Ursu added that around 250 hearing notice letters were mailed, noting that they
increased the notice radius requirement from 600 feet to almost 700 feet for nearby
property owners. Mr. Ursu stated that the allegation regarding political contributions to
help push this request through was a lie. Mr. Ursu added that the Committee cannot
really verify that everyone in the audience that raised their hands to some of the
speakers actually live in the area, noting that many emails received were from
individuals that do not live in the area. Mr. Ursu stated that studies show that
apartments could actually help to improve safety. Mr. Ursu addressed concerns with
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 852
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-84-23-3
school capacity, noting that the Paradise Valley Unified School District responded to the
rezoning request that there was sufficient capacity for additional students from this
proposed project.
Mr. Cashman stated that one question asked was if the hearing notice letters that were
sent were certified. Mr. Ursu responded that they were not, noting that the City
requirements are to only send the letters out via US mail. Mr. Ursu added that some
letters were returned as undeliverable and that the mailing list and envelope labels were
submitted to the City. Mr. Cashman stated that another question was regarding
sidewalks along Campo Bello Drive. Mr. Ursu responded that they would be installing
sidewalks along their property frontage and connecting to the existing sidewalk to the
east. Mr. Cashman asked if the applicant has a copy of the abandonment of the
vehicular access easement for the west property and asked what gives the applicant the
right to build on top of the easement. Mr. Ursu responded that the Desert Wind Estates
subdivision abandoned the easement in September 2023, which was recorded. Mr.
Cashman stated that the easement would have had to be abandoned by all property
owners and asked if Mr. Ursu had a copy of that abandonment. Mr. Ursu clarified that
the easement was for the purpose of vehicular access for the property to the south,
which was abandoned by the adjacent subdivision.
Chair Popovic asked if Mr. Ursu had a survey that shows this information. Mr. Ursu
responded that they do have a survey that shows the easement was abandoned. Chair
Popovic asked if the survey was filed with the City. Mr. Ursu responded that the survey
was not filed. Chair Popovic asked for clarification if the easement that Mr. Ursu plans
to build the parking lot on has been abandoned. Mr. Ursu responded that his
understanding was that it had been abandoned.
Ms. Sepic asked who did the demolition and grading of the property that caused the
flooding issue. Mr. Ursu responded that it was prior to them entering into escrow. Ms.
Sepic asked for clarification that Mr. Ursu did not do the demolition or grading of the
property. Mr. Ursu responded that they did not.
Ms. DeMoss asked if Mr. Ursu was involved in cutting down the trees on the property.
Mr. Ursu responded that they were not, noting that they will be required to plant more
trees.
Chair Popovic asked if Mr. Ursu talked to the police precinct the property is located in
to discuss safety. Mr. Ursu responded that he did email the precinct and got an email
response a few weeks later but he did not follow up on the email because he did not
feel that they provided any valuable information.
Ms. Sepic asked if installing speed bumps along Campo Bello Drive was stipulated to
address speeding concerns. Mr. Ursu responded that the City did not stipulate that, but
they did talk to several residents when they went door to door, and some residents did
not want speed bumps.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 853
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-84-23-3
Marc Soronson asked if there were any plans for the City to make street improvements
to Campo Bello Drive to install sidewalks.
Chair Popovic stated that Mr. Zambrano could look into it to see if there were any City
projects planned to make those street improvements.
Mr. Ursu clarified that they will be installing a sidewalk along their property frontage.
Committee Discussion:
Mr. Goodhue stated that there will always be concerns with a multifamily residential
project adjacent to single-family residences. Mr. Goodhue stated that he felt that the
applicant had not done enough due diligence to mitigate issues for adjacent single-
family residences and other concerns that the surrounding neighborhood had. Mr.
Goodhue stated that he did not see that the project had a sufficient compromise
between the neighborhood and the developer to move forward at this time.
Mr. Soronson concurred that the applicant had not done enough due diligence. Mr.
Soronson echoed concerns with adjacent single-family residences, noting that he did
not believe it was an appropriate project for this neighborhood.
Ms. Sepic stated that she used to live down the street from the site and knows Campo
Bello Drive very well, including traffic along the street and the street being narrow. Ms.
Sepic echoed concerns with the applicant’s due diligence, noting that the proposed site
plan was not adequate. Ms. Sepic added that she believed the density was too high for
the area and that the R-2 or R-3 zoning district might be more appropriate.
Mr. Bowman stated that a full traffic study should have been done. Mr. Bowman
expressed concerns with traffic, noting that Campo Bello Drive is a smaller, local street.
Mr. Bowman added that other projects that have come before the Committee have been
stipulated to contribute funding to traffic control measures, such as speed bumps. Mr.
Bowman acknowledged that the applicant had extended neighborhood outreach efforts
by holding multiple neighborhood meetings. Mr. Bowman stated that it would take some
work to come up with a compromise with the neighborhood.
Mr. Sparks echoed Mr. Bowman’s comments.
Mr. Cashman stated that the mobile home park to the north has a private drive that is
wider than Campo Bello Drive, noting that the road is very narrow. Mr. Cashman
expressed concerns with drainage and acknowledged that it could be handled with
culverts underneath. Mr. Cashman noted that the apartment complex to the west has a
driveway to access Campo Bello Drive, but there is a gate over it, which is closed. Mr.
Cashman stated that the property was likely zoned what it currently is zoned for a
certain reason, because there was never meant to be a lot of traffic. Mr. Cashman
thanked members of the audience that sat quietly while others were speaking. Mr.
Cashman added that the Village Planning Committee is the first level of the rezoning
hearing process, noting that the next level will be with the Planning Commission, and
then the City Council. Mr. Cashman reminded members of the audience to be
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 854
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-84-23-3
respectful, noting that the Committee members are there because they are part of the
community and care about the community, and members of the community are all
exercising their same right to speak. Mr. Cashman stated that showing up in mass to
oppose a project says a lot more than being disrespectful to other speakers. Mr.
Cashman concluded that he was opposed to this request.
Mr. Gubser thanked members of the audience for their time and for attending. Mr.
Gubser stated that the Committee does take public comments into consideration, and
they do have an influence on the Committee’s decision. Mr. Gubser expressed
concerns with density, noting that there was not an adequate transition from the
properties to the east and south. Mr. Gubser suggested a lower density, such as the R-
2 zoning district, to create a more adequate transition between the existing
developments in the area. Mr. Gubser added that the applicant needs to work with the
neighbors, and he did not feel like he heard that there was much collaboration with the
neighborhood. Mr. Gubser concluded that he was opposed to the request as presented
to the Committee.
MOTION – Z-84-23-3:
Ms. Sepic motioned to recommend denial of Z-84-23-3. Mr. Goodhue seconded the
motion.
VOTE – Z-84-23-3:
15-0; motion to recommend denial of Z-84-23-3 passes with Committee members
Balderrama, Bowman, Bustamante, Cashman, DeMoss, Goodhue, Gubser, Knapp,
Schmidt, Sepic, Soronson, Sparks, Wise, Mortensen, and Popovic in favor.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 855
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-84-23-3
Date of VPC Meeting April 8, 2024
Request From R1-6
Request To R-2
Proposal Multifamily residential
Location Approximately 675 feet west of the southwest corner of
20th Street and Campo Bello Drive
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation
VPC Vote 8-4
VPC DISCUSSION:
19 members of the public registered to speak in opposition, 11 members of the public
registered in opposition but did not wish to speak, and five members of the public
registered to speak in favor of this item.
Staff Presentation:
Adrian Zambrano, staff, provided an overview of rezoning case Z-84-23-3, noting the
changes made to the application since the last time it was heard. Mr. Zambrano
described the location, request, surrounding land uses and zoning, and the General
Plan Land Use Map designation. Mr. Zambrano then described the proposal, discussing
the proposed site plan and elevations. Mr. Zambrano summarized goals and policies of
adopted plans, policies and initiates that would be furthered by this request. Mr.
Zambrano noted that for the original R-3A request prior to the case being continued by
the Planning Commission, staff had received 89 letters of opposition, two letters with
concerns, and 25 letters of support, and for the R-2 request, staff had received 19
letters of opposition, two letters with concerns, eight letters of support, and a petition of
support with 12 signatures. Mr. Zambrano added that many letters received were from
the same individuals that had previously sent letters and then summarized the
concerns. Mr. Zambrano concluded by sharing the staff findings, recommendation of
approval and the recommended stipulations.
Applicant Presentation:
Shane Gore, resident of Council District 3 representing the applicant, introduced
himself and provided an overview of the project team, noting that the developers are
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 856
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-84-23-3
white collar professionals. Mr. Gore provided a history of the project, noting changes
made to the proposal. Mr. Gore summarized updates made to the proposal and
displayed the proposed site plan, noting that approximately 2.5 parking spaces per unit
is proposed in order to address parking concerns previously heard, and that the units
would be platted individually as condominium units rather than rentals, to address pride
of ownership concerns previously heard. Mr. Gore reiterated staff’s recommendation of
approval per the staff report and pointed to notable plans and policies that would be
furthered by this request. Mr. Gore shared the proposed building setbacks, noting that
the proposal is above the minimum required setbacks. Mr. Gore then displayed and
discussed the proposed building elevations and landscape plan. Mr. Gore reiterated that
34 parking spaces, or 2.57 parking spaces per dwelling unit, are proposed, which is well
above the City requirement of 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit. Mr. Gore shared
voluntary stipulations proposed by the applicant to address speeding on Campo Bello
Drive and to address the lack of sidewalks on Campo Bello Drive between 16th Street
and 20th Street. Mr. Gore summarized the original purpose of the 40-foot private
ingress and egress easement along the west side of the property and noted that the
easement will be paved with landscaping along the sides of the driveway. Mr. Gore
stated that the property sale is complete, and the developers are now the legal property
owners, noting that the developers are committed to building a good project for the
community. Mr. Gore added that the flooding claims previously mentioned have been
resolved and settled between the previous property owner and the property owner to
the west, and that stormwater will be retained on site, either through landscape
retention areas or underground storage tanks, depending on the approved grading and
drainage plan following the rezoning process. Mr. Gore stated that school capacity,
infrastructure capacity, and Fire Department access have been confirmed with the
appropriate parties. Mr. Gore then summarized the character of the neighborhood,
noting that it consists mostly of multifamily residential housing, and that the
neighborhood is 96 percent occupied, according to the 2022 U.S. Census Bureau
American Community Survey. Mr. Gore shared that 71.3 percent of property taxes in
the neighborhood, which maintains the neighborhood’s infrastructure, comes from the
multifamily residential properties in the neighborhood. Mr. Gore added that home values
for the Phoenix-Mesa-Chandler metropolitan statistical area have continued to grow
over time, even as there has been a lot of construction that has happened over time.
Mr. Gore then displayed a map showing construction that has occurred in the
neighborhood between 1955 to 2009, noting that property values in the area have not
decreased due to multifamily residential housing. Mr. Gore concluded by displaying
supporting documents for the information shared in the presentation and added that R-2
zoning is a reasonable request and is compatible with surrounding land uses and
zoning, including the approved R-2 zoning directly to the east.
Questions from the Committee:
Mr. Goodhue asked if there has been any outreach efforts since the plans have been
revised. Mr. Gore responded that they did mail an additional hearing notice letter with
the revised plans attached and that they held a community engagement event at
Grover’s Basin Park and advertised the event to 1,500 homes via postcards that were
hand delivered to the homes. Mr. Gore added that there are many neighbors in support
of the project as well, but most cannot attend an evening meeting.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 857
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-84-23-3
Jennifer Hall asked how many people showed up to the event. Mr. Gore responded
that about 20 people showed up, noting that some attendees were residents of the
nearby mobile home park, and may soon want to change their housing situation. Ms.
Hall asked if the proposal was an affordable housing project. Mr. Gore responded that it
is not an affordable housing project meant for low-income individuals, but it is meant to
be affordable in the sense that condominiums are more affordable than single-family
residential homes in terms of maintenance. Mr. Gore added that there was an additional
goal to support bicycle transportation in the project through secured on-site bicycle
parking in an enclosed bicycle storage area. Mr. Gore noted that 16th Street and 20th
Street are both designated bikeways with the City, and that residents may be able to
live more affordably by not owning a vehicle, or owning just one vehicle for the
household, and utilizing the on-site and surrounding bicycle infrastructure.
Public Comments:
Stacy Zbytek introduced herself as a nearby neighbor to the east within the Desert
Wind Estates subdivision, opposed to the project. Ms. Zbytek stated that the residences
in the Desert Wind Estates subdivision are situated away from the surrounding higher-
density multifamily residential housing. Ms. Zbytek disagreed that the request was
reasonable and fit in with the area. Ms. Zbytek stated that the original property owner
wanted the property to go to his son so he could build a house. Ms. Zbytek added that
the property is currently zoned to allow up to six single-family residences and that none
of the neighbors would be opposed to that. Ms. Zbytek stated that the neighbors do not
want high-density multifamily residential housing next to their homes and that Campo
Bello Drive cannot support higher-density housing in this area. Ms. Zbytek expressed
concerns with the proposal negatively affecting property values and the character of
their neighborhood. Ms. Zbytek stated that there are many neighbors that are
passionately opposed to this proposal because this is where they live.
Claudia Williams introduced herself as a nearby neighbor, opposed to the project. Ms.
Williams stated concerns with child and pedestrian safety, noting that she did not see
any areas on the plans for children to play, and that they would have to come onto the
street to play. Ms. Williams stated that people that have sent letters of support do not
live in the neighborhood. Ms. Williams agreed that six single-family residences on the
property would be acceptable.
David Bortness introduced himself as a neighbor to the east within the Desert Wind
Estates subdivision, opposed to the project. Mr. Bortness stated that he had mentioned
at the last meeting that he would like to see the numbers from the Traffic Impact
Statement, which he has still not seen. Mr. Bortness stated that more than half of the
residences within the neighborhood are multifamily residences. Mr. Bortness stated that
he was a traffic engineer in Florida, and that the proposal would likely lead to much
more traffic congestion, given the mix of multifamily residential and single-family
residential uses in the neighborhood. Mr. Bortness reiterated that he would like to see
the numbers from the Traffic Impact Statement and would like to see where the
numbers came from.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 858
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-84-23-3
Lisa Gailey introduced herself as a nearby neighbor, opposed to the project. Ms. Gailey
stated that there is not enough space for this proposal, noting the lack of sidewalks
along Campo Bello Drive, and many vehicles parking on the street along Campo Bello
Drive. Ms. Gaily expressed concerns with traffic, odor from fumes of vehicles idling at
the traffic signals, crime, lack of space on Campo Bello Drive for first responder vehicles
to maneuver through to get to the place of the call, and pedestrian safety.
Todd Russ introduced himself as a nearby neighbor of 20 years, opposed to the
project. Mr. Russ expressed concerns with safety. Mr. Russ stated that this
neighborhood is not the right place for this proposal.
Allen Tigges introduced himself as a nearby neighbor across Campo Bello Drive,
opposed to the project. Mr. Tigges expressed concerns with the proposal negatively
affecting property values and character of the neighborhood. Mr. Tigges stated that no
one received a notice for the community engagement event that Mr. Gore mentioned
and that he believed the applicant was being deceptive. Mr. Tigges added that the
proposal was already having an effect on home sales, noting that a home directly
adjacent to the subject site had been on the market for more than 90 days, whereas a
home down the street sold within days.
Scott Anderson introduced himself as a nearby neighbor, opposed to the project. Mr.
Anderson asked if any Committee members had driven by the subject property and
looked at the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Anderson stated that there are large lots
with expensive residences on the north side of Campo Bello Drive and many single-
family residences on the south side of Campo Bello Drive. Mr. Anderson suggested that
if any Committee members lived in any of the single-family residences near this
proposal, they would not be supportive of it.
Tim Kelly introduced himself as the adjacent neighbor to the west, opposed to the
project. Mr. Kelly stated that he has faithfully fought the applicant since the day he
wanted to buy the property. Mr. Kelly stated that the applicant has been very deceptive.
Mr. Kelly stated that the applicant had always known about the private ingress and
egress easement on the west side of the property. Mr. Kelly stated that trees that he
had originally planted along the private easement were cut down by the previous
property owner and the applicant. Mr. Kelly stated that the surrounding neighbors are all
opposed to this proposal, and those that are in favor do not live in the neighborhood.
Mr. Kelly added that he and the previous property owner of the subject site had agreed
to oppose any future high-density residential proposals after the multifamily residential
project to the west of his property was approved. Mr. Kelly stated that all the new
development along Campo Bello Drive is ruining their neighborhood. Mr. Kelly
expressed concerns with not having seen the numbers from the Traffic Impact
Statement.
Charles Knox introduced himself as a homeowner in Phoenix and a resident of Council
District 3 for over a decade, in favor of the project. Mr. Knox stated that the only way he
was able to afford a home was because of the interest rates during the COVID-19
pandemic. Mr. Knox stated that he was speaking on behalf of all the residents of
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 859
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-84-23-3
Phoenix who cannot attend evening meetings due to long working hours to keep up with
the rising costs of housing. Mr. Knox stated that Phoenix needs more options for
affordable housing. Mr. Knox added that the bicycle amenities proposed support
alternative modes of transportation to reduce reliance on an automobile.
Erin Weems introduced herself as a nearby neighbor of over five years within the
adjacent Desert Wind Estates subdivision, opposed to the project. Ms. Weems
expressed concerns with traffic, safety, and crime. Ms. Weems stated that she chose
the home she lives in because of security. Ms. Weems added that she did not receive a
postcard notice for the community engagement event that Mr. Gore mentioned.
Alok Arora introduced himself as a resident of Paradise Valley Village, in favor of the
project. Mr. Arora stated that Phoenix is growing and needs to start planning for the
growth instead of debating on where the growth should occur.
Michael Lucero introduced himself as the previous property owner that sold the
property, in favor of the project. Mr. Lucero stated that he became the property owner
when his dad passed away two years ago. Mr. Lucero stated that at the last meeting,
Bonnie Johnson misrepresented herself as his dad’s ex-wife or prior resident of the
property, when she was neither. Mr. Lucero stated that no one likes change to occur in
their back yard, but change is inevitable. Mr. Lucero stated that when his father moved
to the property 50 years ago, Campo Bello Drive was a dirt road, south of the property
was open field all the way to Bell Road, to the east and west of the property were one-
acre horse properties, and to the north was mostly open desert. Mr. Lucero noted that
the neighborhood is very different now and a lot of change has occurred over the past
50 years. Mr. Lucero highlighted that nearby land uses surrounding the property are all
for higher-density housing and that the neighborhood is much more urban now. Mr.
Lucero stated that Phoenix is a big city with big problems, including a lack of affordable
housing. Mr. Lucero added that his son struggled to find somewhere affordable to rent,
reiterating that Phoenix has a housing crisis.
Susanna Davis introduced herself as a nearby neighbor on Campo Bello Drive,
opposed to the project. Ms. Davis expressed concerns with crime, noting that crime has
increased in the neighborhood. Ms. Davis shared that vehicles park on the street along
Campo Bello Drive, including within the landscape areas, noting that landscaping was
ruined. Ms. Davis stated that neighbors are working on a project with the City of
Phoenix to revegetate these landscape areas. Ms. Davis expressed concerns with
traffic and on-street parking. Ms. Davis added that Tim Kelly and Kelly Kelly do live at
the adjacent property to the west.
Barry Noblitt introduced himself as a nearby neighbor, opposed to the project. Mr.
Noblitt expressed concerns with density.
Brian Trapanotto introduced himself as a nearby neighbor across Campo Bello Drive,
opposed to the project. Mr. Trapanotto stated that he visited Benny Lucero every day
and Bonnie Johnson did visit and take care of him. Mr. Trapanotto expressed concerns
with crime.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 860
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-84-23-3
Prakshal Jain introduced himself as a resident of Phoenix in Ahwatukee, in favor of the
project. Mr. Jain stated that those who live in the neighborhood now live on property that
was developed and similarly changed the neighborhood for their neighbors adjacent to
them. Mr. Gain stated that the proposal is reasonable and is not very dense. Mr. Jain
stated more people in the neighborhood would bring more eyes on the street to help
reduce crime. Mr. Jain added that multifamily residential housing pays three times more
in taxes compared to single-family residential housing. which pays for public safety,
infrastructure maintenance, and other public services. Mr. Jain stated that 14 dwelling
units would not have a significant impact on traffic or crime.
Marc Trachy introduced himself as a resident of Council District 3, in favor of the
project. Mr. Trachy stated that there is a lack of housing, and that the proposal would
house 14 families.
Kathy Fritsinger introduced herself as a nearby neighbor, opposed to the project. Ms.
Fritsinger stated that her husband and she bought their three-acre property a few years
ago and had a very hard time going through the process with the City to build two more
residences on the property. Ms. Fritsinger stated that the applicant for this proposal
should not have a right to build denser that the current zoning allows, given how hard of
a time she had to build two more residences on her property. Ms. Fritsinger expressed
concerns with property values, vehicular speeds, traffic, and density.
Carla Ward introduced herself as a nearby neighbor, opposed to the project. Ms. Ward
acknowledged that there is a need for more housing in Phoenix and stated that there
are plenty of other locations for multifamily residential housing. Ms. Ward expressed
concerns with crime. Ms. Ward stated that higher-density housing should be located on
larger arterial streets like Bell Road rather than local streets like Campo Bello Drive.
Julio Torres introduced himself as an adjacent neighbor to the east within the Desert
Wind Estates subdivision, opposed to the project. Mr. Torres stated that the property is
meant for single-family residential density, just like his property is.
Marlene Torres introduced herself as an adjacent neighbor to the east within the
Desert Wind Estates subdivision, opposed to the project. Ms. Torres stated that they
have had their home on the market for over 90 days and they are seeing an impact on
the sale because of this proposal. Ms. Torres agreed that higher-density housing should
be located on arterial streets and not on a local street.
Ninos Mishail introduced himself as a nearby neighbor within the Desert Wind Estates
subdivision, opposed to the project. Mr. Mishail stated that those who spoke in favor of
the project do not live in the affected neighborhood. Mr. Mishail expressed concerns
with crime and integrity of the applicant.
Richard Eckhardt introduced himself as a nearby neighbor, opposed to the project. Mr.
Eckhardt stated that there is no shortage of housing around the neighborhood, noting
that there are 500 rental units within a square mile of the subject site that are vacant.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 861
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-84-23-3
Martha Joyce introduced herself as a nearby neighbor opposed to the project. Ms.
Joyce expressed concerns with vehicular speeds and pedestrian safety. Ms. Joyce
added that people from the apartment complex dump trash onto Campo Bello Drive.
Ms. Joyce stated that there have also been occasions when the police had to be called
for people sleeping in their cars on the street. Ms. Joyce then expressed concerns with
traffic and density.
Applicant Response:
Mr. Gore stated that 14 units on an acre may be considered medium density, but it is
not high density. Mr. Gore stated that the existing single-family residential zoning on the
property would allow a maximum of nine single-family residences in addition to an
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) on each single-family residential lot, for a total of 18
residences. Mr. Gore noted that given what the current zoning entitlement allows, R-2
zoning for 14 units is a reasonable ask. Mr. Gore stated that an individual developer
would not have control over pedestrian safety along the entirety of Campo Bello Drive,
noting that the neighborhood has the right to organize in order to solve these issues
along Campo Bello Drive. Mr. Gore added that there is no registered neighborhood
organization with the City, such as a block watch, for this area. Mr. Gore stated that
there is $15,000 available in grant funding per year for registered neighborhood
organizations to pay for improvements, such as speeds humps, to improve the safety
and security of a neighborhood. Mr. Gore encouraged those that are passionate about
safety and security in their neighborhoods to get organized and form a neighborhood
organization to apply for that funding. Mr. Gore added that the fact that there are no
registered neighborhood organizations in the community indicates that there is not an
appropriate level of engagement and organization in the neighborhood. Mr. Gore
reiterated that the proposal is a reasonable request, noting that there is approved R-2
zoning directly adjacent to the subject site to the east. Mr. Gore added that Tim Kelly
does not live on the adjacent property to the west, noting that the property has a
commercial building and a dilapidated mobile home that is over 50 years old, and that
Mr. Kelly’s address of record is on 9th Street in the Suggs Moon Mountain Estates
neighborhood. Mr. Gore highlighted that the community feedback heard previously
regarding pride of ownership has been incorporated into the proposal, which is now
proposed as condominiums. Mr. Gore stated that he believes in strong cities and strong
neighborhoods, and density is one of the ways to get there. Mr. Gore added that there
are a lot of factors that contribute to how long a house listing is on the market before it
sells, noting that the current average is over 100 days, and that the Torres family’s
house being on the market for over 90 days is not directly attributable to this proposal.
Mr. Gore stated that the spray-painted signs that are all over the neighborhood
opposing this proposal that are posted on utility poles probably has more to do with
scaring buyers away than the rezoning sign that was posted on the property by the
applicant does. Mr. Gore added that the Village Planning Handbook guides Village
Planning Committees to consider if community concerns can be mitigated through
incorporating different features into the project. Mr. Gore argued that this project has
gone through significant changes, including reduction in density, as a result of
community feedback.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 862
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-84-23-3
Committee Discussion:
Anna Sepic thanked Mr. Gore for his professionalism. Ms. Sepic highlighted that many
speakers claimed the property was limited to six homes, which is incorrect. Ms. Sepic
stated that she considered the R1-6 zoning in comparison to the R-2 zoning request
and is in support of the revised plan. Ms. Sepic complimented the developer for taking
into consideration the private ingress and egress easement and landscaping. Mr. Sepic
stated that she does not believe R-2 zoning is out of character with the area.
Chair Popovic clarified that the Village Planning Committee is the first step in the
hearing process, and that the Planning Commission could vote differently, and the City
Council could also vote differently. Chair Popovic added that as part of the process, the
developer is required to get sign off from all City departments, including the Street
Transportation Department, the Fire Department, and the Water Services Department.
Chair Popovic stated that he is in favor of this proposal.
Mr. Goodhue stated that he is not against the density, but he is opposed to what the
current site plan looks like. Mr. Goodhue stated that he is looking at it from the viewpoint
of an adjacent neighbor to the east and that he would not want a parking lot with 34
parking spaces or a two-story condominium building next to his back yard. Mr. Goodhue
commended the applicant for the amount of parking being provided. Mr. Goodhue
stated that he is not in favor of stipulating general conformance to the site plan and
elevations presented.
MOTION – Z-84-23-3:
Ms. Sepic motioned to recommend approval of Z-84-23-3, per the staff
recommendation. Abram Bowman seconded the motion.
VOTE – Z-84-23-3:
8-4; motion to recommend approval of Z-84-23-3 per the staff recommendation passes
with Committee members Bowman, Hall, Knapp, Mazza, Sepic, Sparks, Wise, and
Popovic in favor and Committee members Goodhue, Gubser, Schmidt and Mortensen
opposed.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 863
ATTACHMENT D
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
May 2, 2024
ITEM NO: 8
DISTRICT NO.: 3
SUBJECT:
Application #: Z-84-23-3 (Continued from March 7, 2024)
Location: Approximately 675 feet west of the southwest corner of 20th Street and
Campo Bello Drive
From: R1-6
To: R-2
Acreage: 1.36
Proposal: Multifamily residential
Applicant: Joshua Ursu
Owner: 1851 E. Campo Bello, LLC
Representative: Joshua Ursu
ACTIONS:
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Paradise Valley 2/5/2024 Denial. Vote 15-0.
Paradise Valley 4/8/2024 Approval, per the staff recommendation. Vote 8-4.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the Paradise Valley Village Planning
Committee recommendation.
Motion Discussion: N/A
Motion details: Commissioner Boyd made a MOTION to approve Z-84-23-3, per the Paradise
Valley Village Planning Committee recommendation.
Maker: Boyd
Second: Vice-Chairperson Busching
Vote: 7-1-1 (Gorraiz) (Matthews abstaining)
Absent: N/A
Opposition Present: Yes
Findings:
1. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map designation.
2. The proposal is compatible with approved R-2 zoning to the east and is compatible with
other multifamily residential land uses and zoning within the surrounding area.
3. The proposal will provide a transition from higher-density R-4A zoning to the west to
lower-density R1-6 zoning to the east and, as stipulated, will provide an enhanced buffer
adjacent to single-family residences.
4. As stipulated, the proposal supports efforts from various plans, policies, initiatives, such
as the Housing Phoenix Plan, the Tree and Shade Master Plan, the Complete Streets
Guidelines, the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan, the Transportation Electrification
Page 864
Action Plan, the Phoenix Climate Action Plan, and Conservation Measures for New
Development.
Stipulations:
1. The development shall be in general conformance with the site plan date stamped
January 25, 2024 MARCH 21, 2024, as modified by the following stipulations and
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
2. The development shall be in general conformance with the elevations date stamped
January 25, 2024 MARCH 13, 2024, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
3. A minimum 10-foot-wide landscape setback shall be provided along the east and south
property lines.
4. The landscape setbacks shall be planted with minimum 2-inch caliper, large canopy,
drought-tolerant, shade trees, planted 20 feet on center, or in equivalent groupings, and
drought-tolerant shrubs, accents, and vegetative groundcovers to achieve a minimum
of 75% live coverage, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
5. A MINIMUM 5-FOOT-WIDE LANDSCAPE STRIP SHALL BE PROVIDED ALONG THE
EAST SIDE OF THE DRIVEWAY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE SITE, AS
DEPICTED ON THE SITE PLAN DATE STAMPED MARCH 21, 2024, AND SHALL BE
PLANTED WITH MINIMUM 2-INCH CALIPER, LARGE CANOPY, DROUGHT-
TOLERANT, SHADE TREES, PLANTED 20 FEET ON CENTER, OR IN EQUIVALENT
GROUPINGS, AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT.
6. All uncovered surface parking lot areas shall be landscaped with minimum 2-inch
5. caliper, single-trunk, large canopy, drought-tolerant, shade trees. Landscaping shall be
dispersed throughout the parking area and achieve 25% shade, as approved by
Planning and Development Department.
7. Where pedestrian walkways cross a vehicular path, the pathway shall be constructed of
6. decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or other pavement treatments that
visually contrasts parking and drive aisle surfaces, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
8. All bicycle infrastructure and pedestrian pathways, including sidewalks, shall be shaded
7. by a structure, landscaping, or a combination of the two to provide a minimum of 75%
shade, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
9. Secured bicycle parking shall be provided at a minimum rate of 0.25 spaces per unit.
8. Guest bicycle parking shall be provided at a minimum rate of 0.05 spaces per unit.
Guest bicycle parking shall be provided through Inverted U and/or artistic racks located
in open space and amenity areas and installed per the requirements of Section 1307.H.
of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance. Artistic racks shall adhere to the City of Phoenix
Preferred Designs in Appendix K of the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan.
10. A bicycle repair station (fix it station) shall be provided and maintained on site. The
9. bicycle repair station (fix it station) shall be provided in an area of high visibility and
separated from vehicular maneuvering areas, where applicable. The repair station shall
include, but not be limited to, standard repair tools affixed to the station, a tire gauge
Page 865
and pump affixed to the base of the station or the ground, and a bicycle repair stand
which allows pedals and wheels to spin freely while making adjustments to the bike.
11. A minimum of 10% of the required bicycle parking spaces shall include standard
10. electrical receptacles for electric bicycle charging capabilities, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
12. A minimum of 5% of the required parking spaces shall include Electric Vehicle (EV)
11. Installed Infrastructure, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
13. A minimum of two green infrastructure (GI) techniques for stormwater management
12. shall be implemented per the Greater Phoenix Metro Green Infrastructure and Low
Impact Development Details for Alternative Stormwater Management, as approved or
modified by the Planning and Development Department.
14. Natural turf shall only be utilized in required retention areas (bottom of basin) and
13. functional turf within common areas, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
15. Pressure regulating sprinkler heads and drip lines shall be utilized in any turf areas to
14. reduce water waste.
16. Landscaping shall be maintained by permanent and automatic/water efficient
15. WaterSense labeled irrigation controllers (or similar smart controller) to minimize
maintenance and irrigation water consumption for all on and offsite landscape irrigation.
17. Only landscape materials listed in the Phoenix Active Management Area Low-Water-
16. Use/Drought-Tolerant Plant List shall be utilized, as approved or modified by the
Planning and Development Department.
18. A minimum 5-foot-wide detached sidewalk separated by a minimum 5-foot-wide
17. landscape strip located between the back of curb and sidewalk shall be constructed on
the south side of Campo Bello Drive, adjacent to the development, planted to the
following standards, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
a. Minimum 2-inch caliper, single-trunk, large canopy, drought-tolerant, shade
trees, planted 20 feet on center, or in equivalent groupings.
b. Drought-tolerant shrubs, accents, and vegetative groundcovers maintained to a
maximum mature height of two feet to achieve a minimum of 75% live coverage.
Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on an alternative design solution consistent with a pedestrian
environment.
19. All existing overhead utilities within the public right-of-way shall be undergrounded,
18. adjacent to the development. The developer shall coordinate with all affected utility
companies for their review and permitting.
20. Unused driveways shall be replaced with sidewalk, curb and gutter. Also, any broken or
19. out-of-grade curb, gutter, sidewalk, and curb ramps on all streets shall be replaced and
all off-site improvements shall be upgraded to be in compliance with current ADA
guidelines.
Page 866
21. All streets within and adjacent to the development shall be constructed with paving,
20. curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands, landscaping and other
incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and Development Department. All
improvements shall comply with all ADA accessibility standards.
22. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and operational
21. characteristics of the Deer Valley Airport to future owners or tenants of the property.
The form and content of such documents shall be according to the templates and
instructions provided which have been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.
23. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
22. developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
24. Prior to final site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207 waiver of
23. claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County Recorders Office
and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning application file for record.
This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact Teleia
Galaviz at 602-291-2559, teleia.galaviz@phoenix.gov, TTY: Use 7-1-1.
Page 867
NO 214-09-175
N
I 0
AM
E
21 4
214-09-434
214-09-175
-0
-1 7
214-09-175 6
Signed Petition Legend
214-09-775 214-09-716 214-09-719
Lots/Tracts/Condos Zoning Petition Area
214-09-776 214-09-715 214-09-717 214-09-718
214-09-019D
214-09-774 214-09-014G
214-09-720
214-09-773
Proposed Amendment Area
200 Feet
214-09-714 18TH WAY
214-09-772
214-09-771 214-09-721
214-09-726
214-09-770 214-09-713
214-09-906 214-09-727
CAMPO BELLO DR
214-09-769 214-09-722
214-09-768 214-09-712
214-09-019C
HARTFORD AVE
214-09-767 18TH TER 214-09-014J
214-09-766 214-09-711 214-09-723
214-09-765 214-09-725
ATTACHMENT E
214-09-710 214-09-724
214-09-764
214-09-507
214-09-763
214-09-490 214-09-441
214-09-501
214-09-762 214-09-435
214-09-504
Ma p prepared by City of Phoenix, Planning & Development Services Dept. 5/9/2024
214-09-761
214-09-491 214-09-492 214-09-493 214-09-494 214-09-495 214-09-496 214-09-497 214-09-498 214-09-499 214-09-500
214-09-440
214-09-442 214-09-443
214-09-489
214-09-760
VILLAGE DR
214-09-503 19TH TER
214-09-913 214-09-915
214-09-759 214-09-488 214-09-439
# of Lots/Tracts/Condos: 15/38 = 39%
214-09-758
3/4 VOTE REQUIRED
214-09-487 214-09-470
214-09-469 214-09-436
214-09-437 214-09-438 214-09-467
214-09-757 214-09-502 214-09-474 214-09-473 214-09-472 214-09-471 214-09-505
214-09-756 214-09-486 214-09-466
Petition Verification Map 19TH RUN
214-09-755 214-09-475
ANDERSON DR
214-09-754 214-09-485
214-09-753 214-09-476 214-09-018G
214-09-921
214-09-484
% Area = 2.31ac./6.19ac. = 37%
214-09-465 214-09-464 214-09-463 214-09-462 214-09-461 214-09-460
214-09-483 214-09-478 214-09-477 214-09-468
214-09-482 214-09-481 214-09-480 214-09-479
Page 868
214-09-752
214-09-033A 214-09-508 214-09-506 214-09-017E 214-09-017G 19TH PL
for Z-84-23-3
S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\Petitions\Z-84-23\Z-82-23_Three_Quarter_Vote_Map.aprx
CITY OF PHOENIX
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
FORM TO REQUEST PC to CC
I HEREBY REQUEST THAT THE CC HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON:
APPLICATION NO/ Z-84-23-3 (SIGNATURE ON ORIGINAL IN FILE)
LOCATION (Continued from opposition x applicant
March 7, 2024)
Approximately 675
feet west of the
southwest corner of
20th Street and
Campo Bello Drive
APPEALED FROM: PC May 2, 2024 1841 East Campo Bello Drive
Phoenix, AZ 85022
PC DATE STREET/ADDRESS/CITY/STATE/ZIP
TO PC/CC CC June 12, 2024 Tim Kelly
HEARING 602-576-1043
Opposerezoningat1851@gmail.com
CC DATE NAME / PHONE / EMAIL
REASON FOR REQUEST:
We would like to present the reasons for our opposition to the City Council and
appeal the Planning Commission’s recommendation to approve, since the agenda
item went past midnight at the May 2nd meeting and full attendance and attention
were compromised. Requesting a 3-quarter vote from City Council.
(See the attached petitions. Page 1 and 2)
RECEIVED BY: Julia Loewen RECEIVED ON: 5/9/2024
Alan Stephenson Camryn Thompson
Joshua Bednarek Paul M. Li
Tricia Gomes GIS
Racelle Escolar Byron Easton (for PHO Appeals only)
Sarah Stockham Vikki Cipolla-Murillo
Stephanie Vasquez Village Planner
Heather Klotz Applicant
REVISED 9/18/2023 vcm
Page 869
Page 870
Page 871
Page 872
ATTACHMENT F
Adrian G Zambrano
From: Joe Landis
Sent: Friday, April 5, 2024 4:01 PM
To: Adrian G Zambrano; PDD Paradise Valley VPC
Cc: joshursu@gmail.com
Subject: Z-84-23-3 Letter of Support - Joel Landis
Hello, Mr. Zambrano,
I am writing this letter in support of Z-84-23, a rezone from R1-6 to R-2 for the 1851 E. Campo Bello Drive
project. I believe the multi-family use is appropriate considering nearby developments are of a similar intensity
and the findings and recommendations made by staff in their report are reasonable.
I understand the concerns of those opposed to this project. Planning, as I'm sure you're aware, is not a zero-
sum game. In paring this down from 30 units to 14, the applicant has clearly worked on making this project
more appropriate in its context.
However, NIMBYism, such as that seen in the many letters of correspondence shared, is a grave threat. It
imposes an eternal entropy on our communities. I disagree with this idea that we must pack neighborhoods in
amber to never change. Is it imperative that as Phoenix continues to grow, that we limit new suburban
development outside of its core areas and allow older, established neighborhoods to transition towards higher
densities, as painful as that may sound to some. This is the only fiscally responsible way for the city to be able
to continue funding key services that we all take for granted.
Best regards,
Joel F. Landis
Page 873
Adrian G Zambrano
From: Reese Galvin
Sent: Friday, April 5, 2024 5:02 PM
To: PDD Paradise Valley VPC
Cc: Adrian G Zambrano
Subject: Z-84-23-3
Good evening,
My name is Reese Galvin. I am a Phoenix resident and would like to voice my support for Z‐84‐23‐3, rezoning from R1‐6
to R‐2 for the 1851 E. Campo Bello Drive project. I believe it is necessary that Phoenix prioritizes transitioning older
developments into higher‐density zones so as to facilitate the natural evolution of our city.
It is imperative that we do not allow entrenched landowners to refuse to allow the community to flourish because of
their personal disdain for multi‐family and mixed‐use developments.
As the city continues to expand into the Sonoran Desert, valuable ecosystems and natural landscapes are swallowed into
the endless suburban void, and this is ultimately unsustainable. We must continue to rezone lots as needed to improve
the housing crisis and to curb ecosystem destruction. This rezoning is a positive step forward and must be allowed to
continue.
Cordially,
Reese Galvin
Page 874
Page 875
CITY OF PHOENIX
APR 07 2024
Planning & Development
Department
CITY OF PHOENIX
Page 876 APR 07 2024
Planning & Development
Department
Page 877 CITY OF PHOENIX
APR 07 2024
Planning & Development
Department
Page 878
CITY OF PHOENIX
APR 07 2024
Planning & Development
Department
Page 879
CITY OF PHOENIX
APR 07 2024
Planning & Development
Department
CITY OF PHOENIX
APR 07 2024
Planning & Development
Department
Page 880
Adrian G Zambrano
From: Prakshal Jain
Sent: Monday, April 8, 2024 11:29 AM
To: PDD Paradise Valley VPC
Subject: Support for Z-84-23
Chair Zambrano & PV VPC Committee Members,
I'd like to express strong support for the upzoning case of Z‐84‐23 (1851 E. Campo Bello Drive project).
For centuries, people have continued to incrementally build housing up and this is nothing different.
Currently, SFH occupies disproportionate land and contributes less to the tax base compared to multifamily. Upzoning
will rectify this imbalance, increasing revenue while utilizing land more efficiently.
Here is some information about the census tract on which this parcel of land resides:
‐ The tract is below the average for the city of Phoenix
‐ Phoenix averages $11,852/acre; this tract is $11,706/acre.
Tax Contribution
‐ Multi‐family pays 3 to 1 tax/acre than single family homes (SFH) do
‐ Multi‐family pays $22k/acre while SFH only pay $7.5k/acre
Tax vs Land Use
‐ SFH tax contribution: 30%; land use: 45%
‐ Multifamily tax contribution 50%; land use: 27%
‐ Multi‐family housing is carrying this tract & preventing it from becoming a massive drag on the city
Tax per acre refers to the amount of tax revenue generated per unit area of land, typically measured in dollars per acre.
It's a metric used to assess the efficiency of land use and the contribution of different property types to the overall tax
base. Higher tax per acre indicates greater revenue generated from a given area of land.
Regards,
Prakshal Jain
Page 881
From: Amilcar
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2024 7:52 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Item 8 Z-84-23-3
Hello council, I write to you in support of this development to take place and improve the neighborhood.
Thank you,
Amilcar Cordova
Page 882
Rcvd 4/30/2024
Page 883
Rcvd 4/30/2024
Page 884
From: Corey Wittenwyler
Sent: Thursday, May 2, 2024 5:43 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Public Comment 05022024 Item #7 and #8
Hello,
I would like to express my opposi on for Item #7, Applica on #: Z‐SP‐6‐23‐8 and my support for Item #8, Applica on #: Z‐
84‐23‐3 (Con nued from March 7, 2024). Thank you.
Page 885
ATTACHMENT G
Adrian G Zambrano
From: zebko (null)
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2024 5:30 PM
To: Adrian G Zambrano
Subject: Rezoning Case No: Z-84-23-3
I am opposed to ANY change to the current zoning of R1-6, Campo Bello cannot support the traffic of
apartments in the area and a 14 unit low income apartment building would lower our surrounding
single family home values.
Stacy Zbytek
17224 N 19th Terrace
Desert Wind Estates
Page 886
Page 887
Page 888
Page 889
Adrian G Zambrano
From: Claudia Williams
Sent: Monday, April 8, 2024 9:37 AM
To: Adrian G Zambrano
Subject: Rezoning
Dear Adrian, I am emailing you in
Opposition of rezoning 1851 E Campo Bello, Phx. AZ.
Our reasons are as follows:
In our opinion the property does not support a 14 unit apartment complex. I have many personal reasons. Here are a
few.
The current empty rental properties within less then a 2 miles radius is over 500 units.
These units will only create traffic hazards on Campo Bello traffic it is
congested enough as it is. As a neighborhood we are clearing up the
unsupported parking along Campo Bello.
As I understand the proposed plan, there is not enough parking allowance for guests of said apartment proposal.
Hence overflow unsupported parking along Campo Bello.
This endangers children walking/ playing or adults walking along what
sidewalk there is along Campo Bello
in that section of the street.
That brings another thought what about the children these proposed apartments would bring where are they to play
safety? In the street?
There is a suggest area for guest bicycles. No where I could read play area.
I am very concerned that Mr Ursu
more concerned about the amount money per month to be made. Then
the residence of our neighborhood.
These are a few of my personal opinions why.We are completely opposed to rezoning of 1851 E Campo Bello
Thank you for your time
Sincerely,
Claudia Williams
17231 N 16th Pl, Phoenix, AZ 85022
Richard Eckhardt
Page 890
Page 891
Page 892
Page 893
Page 894
Page 895
Page 896
Page 897
Page 898
Page 899
Page 900
Page 901
Page 902
CITY OF PHOENIX
Planning & Development
Department
Page 903
CITY OF PHOENIX
Planning & Development
Department
Page 904
CITY OF PHOENIX
To Phoenix City Council and Planning Department:
APR 19 2024
A n: Andrian Zambrano
Planning & Development
Project: 23-076
Department
Rezoning Applica on for 1851 E Campo Bello Drive
As a property owner within Desert Wind Estates (DWE), adjacent to the property reques ng to be
rezoned, I DO NOT support the rezoning to allow a small apartment complex to be built.
The plans presented suggest there will not be adequate parking for those living in the apartment
complex, thus making it necessary for people to park on Campo Bello, further conges ng it and crea ng
a heart pounding concern for the safety of children and adults alike.
I would ask that you please help to keep our community safe by denying this applica on for rezoning.
Thank you,
Shane Sullivan
Name:________________________________________
1834 e anderson dr. Phoenix, AZ 85022
Address:_________________________________________
Phone Number & Email 210-557-4125 shanesullivantt@gmail.com
Address:_________________________________
Signature:___________________________________________
Page 905
CITY OF PHOENIX
APR 19 2024
Planning & Development
Department
Page 906
CITY OF PHOENIX
To Phoenix City Council and Planning Department: APR 24 2024
Re: Project: 23-076 Planning & Development
Rezoning Applica on for 1851 E Campo Bello Drive Department
As a property owner within Desert Wind Estates, adjacent to the property at 1851 E Campo Bello Dr. I DO
NOT support the rezoning to allow the poten al Apartment/Condo Complex to be built. The plans
presented suggest there will not be adequate parking, which will only increase the street parking and
traffic on Campo Bello, which is already a smaller side street than others in the area, crea ng a concern
for the safety of children and adults alike. This area does not need any more high density housing and it
does not fit in with the single family homes that surround this property. I ask that you please help keep
our community safe by denying the request to rezone this sec on of land.
Name: Eric Morton
Address: 17216 N 19th Terrace
Phone number: 602-653-5314
Email address: ericm@proforcesurvey.com
4/24/24
Signature:_______________________
Page 907
To Phoenix City Council and Planning Department:
Re: Project: 23-076
Rezoning Applica�on for 1851 E Campo Bello Drive
As a property owner within Desert Wind Estates, adjacent to the property at 1851 E Campo Bello Dr. I DO
NOT support the rezoning to allow the poten�al Apartment/Condo Complex to be built. The plans
presented suggest there will not be adequate parking, which will only increase the street parking and
traffic on Campo Bello, which is already a smaller side street than others in the area, crea�ng a concern
for the safety of children and adults alike. This area does not need any more high density housing and it
does not fit in with the single family homes that surround this property. I ask that you please help keep
our community safe by denying the request to rezone this sec�on of land.
Name: Stacy Zbytek CITY OF PHOENIX
Address: 17224 N 19th Terrace
APR 24 2024
Phone number: 602-616-2458
Planning & Development
Email address: zebko@aol.com
Department
Signature:_______________________
Page 908
Rcvd 4/29/2024
Page 909
Page 910
Adrian G Zambrano
From: Joshua Thompson
Sent: Thursday, May 2, 2024 4:14 PM
To: Adrian G Zambrano
Subject: 1851 East Campo Bello Drive - Rezoning hearing
Hi Adrian,
I am wri ng this email as I will not be able to a end the rezoning hearing tonight due to work complica ons. I am
wri ng again to oppose the re‐zoning of 1851 East Campo Bello Drive, Phoenix, AZ 85022. As stated in a previous le er
the traffic and parking on the street will be way out of hand and the street cannot support it. From what I can tell there
are only 27 parking spaces which isn’t enough for every unit to have 2 parking spaces as well as insufficient room for
visitors. We already have an issue with cars parking on the street with the adjacent apartment complex in addi on to
cars going very fast up and down Campo Bello. If I had children or family I would be very concerned with having them
play outside or close to the street. (I actually feel the city needs to install speed bumps all up and down Campo Bello
Drive for safety reasons). Also, from the le er that Mr. Ursu sent out I cannot tell if these new design of units is going to
be apartments, townhomes or condos as it isn’t clear in the proposed plan. As an owner in the neighborhood (and living
there) I feel that if something were to be approved it would need to be considerably smaller in terms of the number of
units and they would need to be owned/owner occupied and not apartment rentals. If you should have any ques ons
or need further clarifica on, please feel free to contact me at the number below.
1942 East Campo Bello Drive
Phoenix, AZ 85018
Joshua E. Thompson |Director – Operations |Partner
Cakeshop by LGO Hospitality • Grateful Spoon Gelato • LGO Bake Shop.
Cell: 602.363.7306
PH: 602.254.5440
gratefulspoon.com [protect‐us.mimecast.com]
lgobakeshop.com [protect‐us.mimecast.com]
lgocakeshop.com [protect‐us.mimecast.com]
Follow us @lgobakeshop and @lgocakeshop and @gratefulspoongelato on Instagram!
Page 911
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-SP-6-23-8 - Southeast Corner of
41st Street and Baseline Road (Ordinance G-7270)
Request to hold a public hearing and amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section
601, the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix, by adopting Rezoning Application Z-SP-6-
23-8 and rezone the site from C-2 (Intermediate Commercial) to C-2 SP (Intermediate
Commercial, Special Permit) to allow a self-service storage facility and underlying C-2
uses.
Summary
Current Zoning: C-2
Proposed Zoning: C-2 SP
Acreage: 3.84
Proposal: Self-service storage facility and underlying C-2 uses
Owner: Highline Investment, LLC
Applicant: SAFStor Real Estate Co, LLC
Representative: Mike Maerowitz, Snell & Wilmer, LLP
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Info: The South Mountain Village Planning Committee heard this item for
information only on March 12, 2024.
VPC Action: The South Mountain Village Planning Committee heard this item on April
9, 2024, and recommended denial, by a vote of 10-0-1.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this item on May 2, 2024, and
recommended approval, per the staff memo dated May 1, 2024, by a vote of 5-4.
The Planning Commission recommendation was appealed by a community member
on May 9, 2024.
Location
Southeast corner of 41st Street and Baseline Road
Council District: 8
Parcel Address: 4115, 4119, 4125, 4155, and 4175 E. Baseline Road
Page 912
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 913
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE G-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED
HEREIN (Z-SP-6-23-8) FROM C-2 (INTERMEDIATE
COMMERCIAL) TO C-2 SP (INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL,
SPECIAL PERMIT).
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning of a 3.84-acre property located at the southeast
corner of 41st Street and Baseline Road in a portion of Section 6, Township 1 South,
Range 4 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit “A,” is hereby changed from “C-
2” (Intermediate Commercial) to “C-2 SP” (Intermediate Commercial, Special Permit) to
allow self-service storage facility and underlying C-2 uses.
SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to
modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification
change as shown in Exhibit “B.”
SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use
district applied for by the applicant, this rezoning is subject to the following stipulations,
Page 914
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:
1. The development shall be in general conformance with the elevations date
stamped April 26, 2024, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
2. Where pedestrian walkways cross a vehicular path, the pathway shall be
constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or other
pavement treatments that visually contrasts parking and drive aisle surfaces, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
3. A minimum of one green infrastructure (GI) techniques for stormwater
management shall be implemented per the Greater Phoenix Metro Green
Infrastructure and Low Impact Development Details for Alternative Stormwater
Management, as approved or modified by the Planning and Development
Department.
4. A minimum of 10% of the required parking spaces shall be EV capable.
5. A minimum of one of the required bicycle parking spaces shall include standard
electrical receptacles for electric bicycle charging capabilities, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department
6. Four bicycle spaces shall be provided on the site through Inverted U and/or
artistic racks located near the building entrances or in a secure location inside
the building and installed per the requirements of Section 1307.H. of the
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
7. Bicycle parking spaces shall be shaded by a structure, landscaping, or a
combination of the two to provide a minimum of 75% shade, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.
8. All uncovered surface parking lot areas shall be landscaped with minimum 2-
inch caliper, drought-tolerant shade trees. Landscaping shall be dispersed
throughout the parking area and achieve 25% shade, as approved by Planning
and Development Department.
9. All public and private pedestrian pathways including sidewalks shall be shaded
to a minimum 75%, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
10. In addition to the landscape materials listed in the Baseline Area Master Plan
Plant List, Cercidium Hybrid (Desert Museum Palo Verde), Quercus Virginiana
Page 915
(Live Oak), and Pistacia X 'Red-Push (Red Push Pistache), may be permitted
as approved by Planning and Development Department and shall be utilized,
as approved or modified by the Planning and Development Department.
11. Landscaping shall be maintained by permanent and automatic/water efficient
WaterSense labeled irrigation controllers (or similar smart controller) to
minimize maintenance and irrigation water consumption for all on and offsite
landscape irrigation.
12. Prior to final site plan approval, documentation shall be provided that
demonstrates a commitment to participate in the Water Efficiency Checkup
program for a minimum of 15 years, or as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
13. The developer shall dedicate right‐of‐way and construct a bus stop pad on
eastbound Baseline Road. The bus stop pad shall be constructed according to
bus stop pad shall be spaced from 41st Street according to City of Phoenix
Standard Detail P1258. Trees shall be placed to provide minimum 50% shade
coverage to bus stop pad.
14. A 30-foot-wide multi-use trail easement (MUTE) shall be dedicated along the
south side of Baseline Road and a minimum 10-foot-wide multi-use trail (MUT)
shall be constructed within the easement in accordance with the MAG
supplemental detail and as approved or modified by the Planning and
Development Department.
15. A minimum 70-feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated for the south half of
Baseline Road, adjacent to the development.
16. The sidewalk along Baseline Road shall be a minimum of 6 feet in width and
detached with a minimum 8-foot-wide landscape strip located between the
sidewalk and back of curb and planted to the following standards, as approved
or modified by the Planning and Development Department.
a. Minimum 2-inch caliper single-trunk, large canopy, drought-tolerant,
shade trees planted 20 feet on center, or in equivalent groupings.
b. Drought tolerant vegetation to achieve a minimum of 75 percent live
coverage.
Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a
pedestrian environment for installing the required plants.
17. A minimum 5-foot-wide sidewalk shall be constructed on the north side of
Page 916
Highline Lane, adjacent to the development.
18. A minimum 5-foot-wide sidewalk shall be constructed on the east side of 41st
Street, adjacent to the development.
19. A minimum 5-foot-wide sidewalk shall be constructed on the west side of 42nd
Place, adjacent to the development.
20. Existing streetscape beginning at back of curb and median islands shall be
replenished with the approved landscaping and trees along Baseline Road, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
21. All streets within and adjacent to the development shall be constructed with
paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands,
landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and
Development Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA
accessibility standards.
22. If determined necessary by the Phoenix Archaeology Office, the applicant shall
conduct Phase I data testing and submit an archaeological survey report of the
development area for review and approval by the City Archaeologist prior to
clearing and grubbing, landscape salvage, and/or grading approval.
23. If Phase I data testing is required, and if, upon review of the results from the
Phase I data testing, the City Archaeologist, in consultation with a qualified
archaeologist, determines such data recovery excavations are necessary, the
applicant shall conduct Phase II archaeological data recovery excavations.
24. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
25. Prior to final site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207
waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County
Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning
application file for record.
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of
this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of
any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions hereof.
Page 917
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 12th day of June,
2024.
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney
By:
_________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager
Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (1 Page)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
Page 918
EXHIBIT A
Within a portion of Section 6, Township 1 South, Range 4 East of the Gila and Salt
River Base and Meridian, Maricopa County, Arizona, being more particularly described
as follows:
Lot 1, HIGHLINE SHOPPES, according to Book 935 of Maps, Page 29, records of
Maricopa County, Arizona. Exempt per ARS 11-1134 B9
Page 919
Page 920
ATTACHMENT B
Staff Report Z-SP-6-23-8
March 30, 2024
South Mountain Village Planning April 9, 2024
Committee Meeting Date:
Planning Commission Hearing Date: May 2, 2024
Request From: C-2 (Intermediate Commercial) (3.84
acres)
Request To: C-2 SP (Intermediate Commercial,
Special Permit) (3.84 acres)
Proposal: Self-service storage facility and
underlying C-2 uses
Location: Southeast corner of 41st Street and
Baseline Road
Owner: Highline Investment, LLC
Applicant: SAFStor Real Estate Co, LLC
Representative: Mike Maerowitz, Snell & Wilmer, LLP
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations
General Plan Conformity
General Plan Land Use Map Designation Commercial
Major
Baseline Road 60-foot south half street
Arterial
41st Street Local 25-foot east half street
Street Map
Classification
42nd Street Local 25-foot west half street
Highline Lane Local 20-foot north half street
CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS CORE
VALUE; HEALTHY NEIGHBORHOODS; DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Establish design
standards and guidelines for parking lots and structures, setback and build-to
lines, blank wall space, shade, and other elements affecting pedestrians, to
encourage pedestrian activity and identify options for providing pedestrian-
oriented design in different types of development.
The proposal, as stipulated, includes design features to encourage walking, bicycling,
Page 921
Staff Report: Z-SP-6-23-8
March 28, 2024
and transit use. These features include the provision of shaded sidewalks, bicycle
parking, shade within surface parking lots, and a multi-use trail that connects the
development with the existing multi-use trail along Baseline Road.
CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE; BICYCLES; DESIGN
PRINCIPLE: Development should include convenient bicycle parking.
The proposal, as stipulated, includes shaded bicycle parking to encourage bicycling
and transit use by leveraging its proximity to commercial developments,
neighborhoods, schools, and the multi-use trail along Baseline Road.
BUILD THE SUSTAINABLE DESERT CITY CORE VALUE; DESIGN PRINCIPLE:
Integrate trees and shade into the design of new development and
redevelopment projects throughout Phoenix.
The proposal, as stipulated, includes a detached sidewalk with landscape area along
Baseline Road that will be planted with shade trees, shaded public and private
sidewalks, and shaded bicycle and vehicle parking areas. These improvements will
create a comfortable pedestrian environment along Baseline Road, reduce the urban
heat island affect, and make the walk to nearby destinations safer and more
comfortable.
Applicable Plans, Overlays, and Initiatives
Tree and Shade Master Plan: Background Item No. 7.
Complete Streets Guidelines: Background Item No. 8.
Transportation Electrification Action Plan: Background Item No. 9.
Zero Waste PHX: Background Item No. 10.
Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan: Background Item No. 11.
Phoenix Climate Action Plan: Background Item No. 12.
Conservation Measures for New Development: Background Item No. 13
Page 922
Staff Report: Z-SP-6-23-8
March 28, 2024
Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning
Land Use Zoning
On Site Vacant C-2
Vacant, commercial,
North (across Baseline Road) single-family residences, C-1, C-2, and R1-6
and the Highline Canal
Vacant and the Highline
West (across 41st Street) R1-6
Canal
Water facility and fire
East (across 42nd Street) C-2
station
South (across Highline Lane) Single-family residences R1-6
South Single-family residences R1-6
C-2 (Intermediate Commercial)
Standards Requirements Met or Not Met
Minimum Building Setbacks
North (adjacent to Baseline Average 25 feet, minimum 20 25 feet (Met)
Road) feet permitted for up to 50%
of structure
West (adjacent to 41st Average 25 feet, minimum 20 25 feet (Met)
Street) feet permitted for up to 50%
of structure
East (adjacent to 42nd Average 25 feet, minimum 20 25 feet (Met)
Street) feet permitted for up to 50%
of structure
South (adjacent to Highline Average 25 feet, minimum 20 25 feet (Met)
Lane) feet permitted for up to 50%
of structure
South (adjacent to R1-6) 50 feet 50 feet (Met)
Minimum Landscaped Setbacks
North (adjacent to Baseline Average 25 feet, minimum 20 25 feet (Met)
Road) feet permitted for up to 50%
of frontage
West (adjacent to 41st Average 25 feet, minimum 20 25 feet (Met)
Street) feet permitted for up to 50%
of frontage
Page 923
Staff Report: Z-SP-6-23-8
March 28, 2024
East (adjacent to 42nd Average 25 feet, minimum 20 25 feet (Met)
Street) feet permitted for up to 50%
of frontage
South (adjacent to Highline Average 25 feet, minimum 20 25 feet (Met)
Lane) feet permitted for up to 50%
of frontage
South (adjacent to R1-6) 10 feet 10 feet (Met)
Maximum Lot Coverage 50 percent 45.5% (Met)
Maximum Building Height 2 stories and 30 feet 24 feet, 8 inches (Met)
Minimum Parking Mini-warehouses: 1 space per 19 parking spaces
35 storage units (Not met)*
Office: 1 space per 300 sf
734 units = 21 spaces
900 sf office = 3 spaces
24 parking spaces required
*Site plan revision or variance required
Background/Issues/Analysis
SUBJECT SITE
1. This request is to rezone 3.84 acres located on the southeast corner of 41st Street
and Baseline Road from C-2 (Intermediate Commercial) to C-2 SP (Intermediate
Commercial, Special Permit) for a self-service storage facility and underlying C-2
uses. The subject site is currently vacant.
Page 924
Staff Report: Z-SP-6-23-8
March 28, 2024
2. The subject site is
designated as
Commercial on the
General Plan Land Use
Map. The areas to the
west of the subject site
across 41st Street and
to the south are
designated Residential
3.5 to 5 dwelling units
acre and the area to the
east across 42nd Street
is designated
Commercial. The area
to the north is
designated Commercial
and Residential 3.5 to 5
dwelling units acre. The
requested C-2 SP zoning district is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map
designation of Commercial.
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
3. To the north across Baseline
Road is vacant land,
commercial, single-family
residences, and the Highline
Canal zoned C-1
(Neighborhood Retail), C-2
(Intermediate Commercial), and
R1-6 (Single-Family Residence
District); to the west across
41st Street is vacant land and
the Highline Canal zoned R1-6
(Single-Family Residence
District); to the south across
Highline Lane and immediately
adjacent to the site are single-
family residences zoned R1-6 Location Map; Source: Planning and Development
Department
(Single-Family Residence
District); and to the east across
42nd Street is city owned property developed with a water facility and a fire station
zoned C-2 (Intermediate Commercial) and R1-6 (Single-Family Residence District)
Page 925
Staff Report: Z-SP-6-23-8
March 28, 2024
to the southeast.
PROPOSAL
4. Site Plan
The proposal is for a self-service storage use with storage units accessed from the
interior of the building. The conceptual site plan, attached as an exhibit, depicts the
site layout including the location of the building, parking area, trash enclosure,
drainage easement along the east portion of the site, and multi-use trail along
Baseline Road. The site will have one point of ingress/egress on Baseline Road.
The applicant proposes to request a variance to reduce the required parking on the
site from 24 to 19 spaces, therefore staff does not recommend general
conformance to the site plan.
Conceptual Site Plan; Source: Scapegoat Design Studios
Staff recommends Stipulation No. 2 to require pavement treatment that visually
contrast with parking and drive aisles where pedestrian walkways cross a vehicular
path to improve pedestrian safety. To promote enhanced walking, cycling, and
transit-use staff recommends Stipulation No. 14 to require a multi-use trail along
Baseline Road, and Stipulation Nos. 5 through 7 to require shaded bicycle parking
and electric bicycle charging. Additionally, Stipulation No. 9 requires that all public
and private pedestrian pathways will be shaded to a minimum of 75 percent.
Stipulation No. 10 requires the use of plants listed in the Baseline Area Master Plan
Plant List, alongside three additional tree species, to maintain consistency with
nearby developments and in consideration of the subject site's proximity to the
Baseline Area Overlay District.
Page 926
Staff Report: Z-SP-6-23-8
March 28, 2024
5. Conceptual Building Elevations
The conceptual building elevations, attached as an exhibit, depict four-sided
architecture on the building with stone veneer, wood cladding, aluminum panels,
materials consistent with structures in the area, and glazing along the building
frontages. Staff recommends Stipulation No. 1 to require general conformance to
the conceptual elevations date stamped March 15, 2024, so the design of the
development is consistent with what is proposed and with the surrounding area.
Conceptual Building Elevations; Source: ARCO Design/Build
6. Special Permit
Self-service storage facilities are allowed in the C-2 district with a Special Permit
(Section 647.A.2.i), subject to the following conditions:
a) All storage shall be within a closed building except that within the grounds of
a self-service storage warehouse where trailers and motor vehicles may be
Page 927
Staff Report: Z-SP-6-23-8
March 28, 2024
placed in outdoor storage areas which are separate from view from adjacent
streets and property by walls, fences or landscaping. Outdoor storage areas
shall not exceed ten percent of the gross site area and shall not count
toward meeting parking requirements.
b) No auctions, sales, service or repair activities or anything other than dead
storage and the rental and supervision of storage units and such additional
uses permitted in the C-2 district that are specified through special permit
approval shall be conducted on the premises.
c) There shall be no storage [or] use of hazardous or dangerous materials on
the premises.
d) The premises shall abut or have direct access to a freeway or arterial street,
as designated on the street classification map.
e) Screening the perimeter of the premises of a self-service storage warehouse
may be required. All parts of the perimeter which are adjacent to a
residential zone shall be screened by a fence or wall with a landscaped area
at least ten feet wide, additional setback and the reorientation of buildings
may be required to ensure compatibility with surrounding properties.
f) A self-storage warehouse may be combined with a household moving
center.
The proposal meets the above conditions by proposing solely indoor storage on the
site, and it does not propose to store any hazardous or dangerous materials on the
premises. Access is provided via Baseline Road, which is a major arterial street.
STUDIES AND POLICIES
7. Tree and Shade Master Plan:
The Tree and Shade Master Plan encourages treating the urban forest as
infrastructure to ensure the trees are an integral part of the City’s planning and
development process. Sidewalks on the street frontage should be detached from
the curb to allow trees to be planted on both sides of the sidewalk to provide
thermal comfort for pedestrians and to reduce the urban heat island effect. The
development proposal, as stipulated, will create a comfortable streetscape
environment with detached sidewalks along Baseline Road, shaded bicycle
parking, shaded walkways, and shaded surface parking areas. These are
addressed in Stipulation Nos. 7, 8, 9, and 16.
8. Complete Streets Guidelines:
The City of Phoenix City Council adopted the Complete Streets Guiding Principles.
The principles are intended to promote improvements that provide an
accessible, safe, connected transportation system to include all modes, such as
bicycles, pedestrians, transit, and vehicles. The proposed development, as
stipulated, will support walking, bicycling, and transit-use by including shaded
bicycle parking on the site, electric bicycle parking, a multi-use trail along Baseline
Page 928
Staff Report: Z-SP-6-23-8
March 28, 2024
Road, and by constructing a detached sidewalk along Baseline Road. These are
addressed in Stipulation Nos. 5, 6, 7, 14, and 16.
9. Transportation Electrification Action Plan:
In June 2022, the Phoenix City Council approved the Transportation Electrification
Action Plan. The current market desire for the electrification of transportation is
both a national and global phenomenon, fueled by a desire for better air quality, a
reduction in carbon emissions, and a reduction in vehicle operating and
maintenance costs. Businesses, governments and the public are signaling strong
future demand for electric vehicles (EVs), and many automobile manufacturers
have declared plans for a transition to fully electric offerings within the coming
decade. This Plan contains policy initiatives to prepare the City for a future filled
with more EVs, charging infrastructure and e-mobility equity, and outlines a
roadmap for a five-step plan to prepare for the EV infrastructure needs of 280,000
EVs in Phoenix by 2030. One goal of the Plan to accelerate public adoption of
electric vehicles through workplace, business, and multifamily charging
infrastructure recommends a standard stipulation for rezoning cases to provide EV
charging infrastructure. This is addressed in Stipulation Nos. 4 and 5 which require
a minimum of one electric bicycle charging receptacles and a minimum 10 percent
of the required parking spaces to be EV Capable.
10. Zero Waste Phoenix PHX:
The City of Phoenix is committed to its waste diversion efforts and has set a goal to
become a zero waste city, as part of the city’s overall 2050 Environmental
Sustainability Goals. One of the ways Phoenix can achieve this is to improve and
expand its recycling and other waste diversion programs.
Section 716 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance establishes standards to encourage
the provision of recycling containers for multifamily, commercial, and mixed-use
developments meeting certain criteria. The applicant’s submittal states that
recycling shall be provided.
11. Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan:
The City of Phoenix adopted the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan in 2014 to
guide the development of its bikeway system and supportive infrastructure. The
Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan supports options for both short- and long-term
bicycle parking as a means of promoting bicyclist traffic to a variety of destinations.
As stipulated, the development will provide shaded bicycle parking, two electrical
bike charging receptacles, and a multi-use trail along Baseline Road. This is
addressed in Stipulation Nos. 5 through 7, and 14.
12. Phoenix Climate Action Plan:
Page 929
Staff Report: Z-SP-6-23-8
March 28, 2024
In October 2021, the Phoenix City Council approved the Climate Action Plan. The
Climate Action Plan will serve as a long-term plan to achieve greenhouse gas
emissions reductions and resiliency goals from local operations and community
activities as well as prepare for the impacts of climate change. This plan contains
policy and initiatives regarding stationary energy, transportation, waste
management, air quality, local food systems, heat, and water. Goal W2 (Water),
Action W2.4, pertains to the implementation of the Greater Phoenix Metro Green
Infrastructure (GI) and Low Impact Development Details for Alternative Stormwater
Management to benefit the environment, promote water conservation, reduce
urban heat, improve the public health, and create additional green spaces. This
goal is addressed in Stipulation No. 3, which requires a minimum of two GI
techniques for stormwater management to be implemented in this development.
13. Conservation Measures for New Development:
In June 2023, the Phoenix City Council adopted the Conservation Measures for
New Development policy as part of a resolution addressing the future water
consumption of new development (Resolution 22129). This resolution addresses
the future water consumption of new development to support one of the City’s Five
Core Values in the General Plan which calls for Phoenix to “Build the Sustainable
Desert City”. The Conservation Measures for New Development policy includes
direction to develop standards for consideration as stipulations for all rezoning
cases that will address best practices related to water usage in nine specific
categories. This is addressed in Stipulation Nos. 10 through 12.
COMMUNITY CORRESONDENCE
14. As of the writing of this report 25 letters of opposition have been received for the
request. Concerns raised were regarding the proposal's architecture, impacts on
adjacent home values, the number of existing self-service storage uses in the area,
impacts on traffic, and the obstruction of views. Two letters of support has been
received for the request.
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
15. The Street Transportation Department recommended that right-of-way be
dedicated for Baseline Road, that a detached sidewalk be built on Baseline Road,
and that attached sidewalks be built along Highline Lane, 41st Street, and 42nd
Street. This is addressed in Stipulation Nos. 15 through 19. The Street
Transportation Department also required the developer to replenish landscaping
within the right-of-way and construct all improvements in the right-of-way with all
required elements and to ADA standards. This is addressed in Stipulation Nos. 20
and 21.
16. The Public Transit Department required that a bus stop be constructed on
Page 930
Staff Report: Z-SP-6-23-8
March 28, 2024
eastbound Baseline Road. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 13.
OTHER
17. The site is located in a larger area identified as being archaeologically sensitive. If
further review by the City of Phoenix Archaeology Office determines the site and
immediate area to be archaeologically sensitive, and if no previous archaeological
projects have been conducted within this project area, it is recommended that
archaeological Phase I data testing of this area be conducted. Phase II
archaeological data recovery excavations may be necessary based upon the
results of the testing. A qualified archaeologist must make this determination in
consultation with the City of Phoenix Archaeologist. In the event archaeological
materials are encountered during construction, all ground disturbing activities must
cease within a 33-foot radius of the discovery and the City of Phoenix Archaeology
Office must be notified immediately and allowed time to properly assess the
materials. These are addressed in Stipulation Nos. 22 through 24.
18. Staff has not received a completed form for the Waiver of Claims for Diminution in
Value of Property under Proposition 207 (A.R.S. 12-1131 et seq.), as required by
the rezoning application process. Therefore, a stipulation has been added to
require the form be completed and submitted prior to final site plan approval. This
is addressed in Stipulation No. 25.
19. Development and use of the site are subject to all applicable codes and
ordinances. Zoning approval does not negate other ordinance requirements. Other
formal actions such as, but not limited to, zoning adjustments and abandonments
may be required.
Findings
1. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map designation of
Commercial.
2. The proposal, as stipulated, will create a strong pedestrian environment along
Baseline Road with detached sidewalks and a multi-use trail. These pathways will
convey individuals safely and comfortably to the nearby educational uses,
commercial uses, and residential neighborhoods.
3. The site is appropriately located along a major arterial roadway, and as stipulated
will be compatible with surrounding uses..
Stipulations:
Page 931
Staff Report: Z-SP-6-23-8
March 28, 2024
1. The development shall be in general conformance with the elevations date
stamped March 15, 2024, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
2. Where pedestrian walkways cross a vehicular path, the pathway shall be
constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or other
pavement treatments that visually contrasts parking and drive aisle surfaces, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
3. A minimum of one green infrastructure (GI) techniques for stormwater
management shall be implemented per the Greater Phoenix Metro Green
Infrastructure and Low Impact Development Details for Alternative Stormwater
Management, as approved or modified by the Planning and Development
Department.
4. A minimum of 10% of the required parking spaces shall be EV capable.
5. A minimum of one of the required bicycle parking spaces shall include standard
electrical receptacles for electric bicycle charging capabilities, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department
6. Four bicycle spaces shall be provided on the site through Inverted U and/or
artistic racks located near the building entrances or in a secure location inside
the building and installed per the requirements of Section 1307.H. of the
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
7. Bicycle parking spaces shall be shaded by a structure, landscaping, or a
combination of the two to provide a minimum of 75% shade, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.
8. All uncovered surface parking lot areas shall be landscaped with minimum 2-
inch caliper, drought-tolerant shade trees. Landscaping shall be dispersed
throughout the parking area and achieve 25% shade, as approved by Planning
and Development Department.
9. All public and private pedestrian pathways including sidewalks shall be shaded
to a minimum 75%, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
10. In addition to the landscape materials listed in the Baseline Area Master Plan
Plant List, Cercidium Hybrid (Desert Museum Palo Verde), Quercus Virginiana
Page 932
Staff Report: Z-SP-6-23-8
March 28, 2024
(Live Oak), and Pistacia X 'Red-Push (Red Push Pistache), may be permitted
as approved by Planning and Development Department and shall be utilized,
as approved or modified by the Planning and Development Department.
11. Landscaping shall be maintained by permanent and automatic/water efficient
WaterSense labeled irrigation controllers (or similar smart controller) to
minimize maintenance and irrigation water consumption for all on and offsite
landscape irrigation.
12. Prior to final site plan approval, documentation shall be provided that
demonstrates a commitment to participate in the Water Efficiency Checkup
program for a minimum of 15 years, or as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
13. The developer shall dedicate right‐of‐way and construct a bus stop pad on
eastbound Baseline Road. The bus stop pad shall be constructed according to
bus stop pad shall be spaced from 41st Street according to City of Phoenix
Standard Detail P1258. Trees shall be placed to provide minimum 50% shade
coverage to bus stop pad.
14. A 30-foot-wide multi-use trail easement (MUTE) shall be dedicated along the
south side of Baseline Road and a minimum 10-foot-wide multi-use trail (MUT)
shall be constructed within the easement in accordance with the MAG
supplemental detail and as approved or modified by the Planning and
Development Department.
15. A minimum 70-feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated for the south half of
Baseline Road, adjacent to the development.
16. The sidewalk along Baseline Road shall be a minimum of 6 feet in width and
detached with a minimum 8-foot-wide landscape strip located between the
sidewalk and back of curb and planted to the following standards, as approved
or modified by the Planning and Development Department.
a. Minimum 2-inch caliper single-trunk, large canopy, drought-tolerant,
shade trees planted 20 feet on center, or in equivalent groupings.
b. Drought tolerant vegetation to achieve a minimum of 75 percent live
coverage.
Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Page 933
Staff Report: Z-SP-6-23-8
March 28, 2024
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a
pedestrian environment for installing the required plants.
17. A minimum 5-foot-wide sidewalk shall be constructed on the north side of
Highline Lane, adjacent to the development.
18. A minimum 5-foot-wide sidewalk shall be constructed on the east side of 41st
Street, adjacent to the development.
19. A minimum 5-foot-wide sidewalk shall be constructed on the west side of 42nd
Place, adjacent to the development.
20. Existing streetscape beginning at back of curb and median islands shall be
replenished with the approved landscaping and trees along Baseline Road, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
21. All streets within and adjacent to the development shall be constructed with
paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands,
landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and
Development Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA
accessibility standards.
22. If determined necessary by the Phoenix Archaeology Office, the applicant shall
conduct Phase I data testing and submit an archaeological survey report of the
development area for review and approval by the City Archaeologist prior to
clearing and grubbing, landscape salvage, and/or grading approval.
23. If Phase I data testing is required, and if, upon review of the results from the
Phase I data testing, the City Archaeologist, in consultation with a qualified
archaeologist, determines such data recovery excavations are necessary, the
applicant shall conduct Phase II archaeological data recovery excavations.
24. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
25. Prior to final site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207
waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County
Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning
application file for record.
Page 934
Staff Report: Z-SP-6-23-8
March 28, 2024
Writer
Samuel Rogers
March 28, 2024
Team Leader
Racelle Escolar
Exhibits
Zoning sketch map
Aerial sketch map
Conceptual Site Plan date stamped March 15, 2024 (3 pages)
Conceptual Building Elevations date stamped March 15, 2024
Conceptual Renderings date stamped March 15, 2024 (2 pages)
Conceptual Landscape Plan date stamped March 15, 2024
Correspondence (66 pages)
Page 935
POLLACK ST R-2 * PARK ST
Z-27-02
41ST WAY
RIDGE RD
R-5 *
R1-6
40TH ST
Baseline Area Plan Z-SP-19-69
and Overlay District
DARROW ST
C-2 *
Z-27-02
S-1
C-1 *
C-1 Z-64-91
Z-24-11
BASELINE RD
C-2 CP/BP C-1*
PCD * Z-12-16
C-2 * R1-6
Z-116-81
R-2 PRD*
Z-112-04
PC
Z-15-07
42ND ST
41ST ST 42ND WAY
R-2 * 42ND PL 43RD
PL
Z-112-04
R1-6
R1-6 PRD
41ST PL DNS/WVR *
40TH PL
Z-15-07
RE-35 * RE-35 *
FAWN DR
Z-15-07
Z-15-07
R1-10
I
BROADWAY RD
Z-SP-6-23
SOUTHERN AVE
Miles BASELINE RD
0.06 0.03 0 0.06
SOUTH MOUNTAIN VILLAGE 75TH AVE
DOBBINS RD
67TH AVE
ELLIOT RD
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 8
59TH AVE
ESTRELLA DR
51ST AVE
27TH AVE
43RD AVE 35TH AVE
APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
SAFStor Real Estate Co, LLC
FROM:
C-2 ( 3.84 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
9/14/2023
Z-SP-6-23 REVISION DATES:
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
QUARTER SEC. NO.
3.84 Acres QS 01-37 D-10 TO: C-2 SP ( 3.84 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
C-2 55 67
C-2 SP 55 67
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus Page 936
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2023\Z-SP-6-23.mxd
POLLACK ST R-2 * PARK ST
Z-27-02
41ST WAY
RIDGE RD
R-5 *
R1-6
40TH ST
Baseline Area Plan Z-SP-19-69
and Overlay District
DARROW ST
C-2 *
Z-27-02
S-1
C-1 *
C-1 Z-64-91
Z-24-11
BASELINE RD
C-2 CP/BP C-1*
PCD * Z-12-16
C-2 * R1-6
Z-116-81
R-2 PRD*
Z-112-04
PC
Z-15-07
42ND ST
41ST ST 42ND WAY
R-2 * 42ND PL 43RD
PL
Z-112-04
R1-6
R1-6 PRD
41ST PL DNS/WVR *
40TH PL
Z-15-07
RE-35 * RE-35 *
FAWN DR
Z-15-07
Z-15-07
R1-10 Maricopa County Assessor's Office
I
BROADWAY RD
Z-SP-6-23
SOUTHERN AVE
Miles BASELINE RD
0.06 0.03 0 0.06
SOUTH MOUNTAIN VILLAGE 75TH AVE
DOBBINS RD
67TH AVE
ELLIOT RD
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 8
59TH AVE
ESTRELLA DR
51ST AVE
27TH AVE
43RD AVE 35TH AVE
APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
SAFStor Real Estate Co, LLC
FROM:
C-2 ( 3.84 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
9/14/2023
Z-SP-6-23 REVISION DATES:
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
QUARTER SEC. NO.
3.84 Acres QS 01-37 D-10 TO: C-2 SP ( 3.84 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
C-2 55 67
C-2 SP 55 67
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus Page 937
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2023\Z-SP-6-23.mxd
TSC-Civil-120 Jan 04 2023
W BASELINE RD
CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN FOR SITE
SAFStor SELF-STORAGE S 40TH ST S 41ST ST S 42ND ST S 42ND PL S 48TH ST
4125 E BASELINE RD
PHOENIX, AZ 85042
A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 4 EAST, GILA
AND SALT RIVER MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA.
W GUADALUPE RD (ALIGNMENT)
VICINITY MAP
E BASELINE RD ML/CL
2 1 2 2 3 3 CIVIL ENGINEER ARCHITECT
TERRASCAPE CONSULTING, LLC ARCO DESIGN/BUILD
645 E. MISSOURI AVE. SUITE 420 2100 S TYRON ST, SUITE 205
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012 CHARLOTTE, NC
CONTACT: SCOTT KROUS CONTACT: JOSH WARKENTINE
PHONE: (602) 297-8732 PHONE: (770) 508-3952
SCREEN WALL/ EMAIL: SKROUS@TERRASCAPE.US EMAIL: JWARKENTINE@ARCODB.COM
RETAINING WALL
S45° 07' 22"W 28.50' PROPERTY OWNER
25' BLDG & LS SB
DEVELOPER / APPLICANT
466.90'
10' S89° 41' 32"W 10 SAFStor REAL ESTATE CO., LLC HIGHLINE INVESTMENT, LLC
' 4111 N 39TH ST
10' 444 SEABREEZE BLVD, STE 840
N44° 52' 14"W 28.07' BEACH, FL 32118 PHOENIX, AZ 85018
30' 4'
100' CONTACT: CHRIS RUSS, P.E.
115' PHONE: (704) 578-3161
5' 4 EMAIL: CHRIS.RUSS@SAFSTOR.COM
6 30' RAMP
15'
SCREEN WALL/ RETAINING WALL 4'
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
75' PAVEMENT TO BE FLUSH WITH SW
70'
SCAPEGOAT DESIGN STUDIO
645 E MISSOURI AVE, SUITE 420
6' 6'
PHOENIX, AZ 85016
S00° 33' 12"W 178.25' 5 3 4
CONTACT: STEVE VOORHEES, RLA
25' BLDG & LS SB
PHONE: (480) 454-8015
70' OFFICE EMAIL: SVOORHEES@SCAPEGOATDS.COM
50'
160' 160' 25' BLDG & LS SB
55'
S 42ND ST
10' 5.7' 10' SITE DATA
JURISDICTION: CITY OF PHOENIX
ADDRESS: 4125 E BASELINE RD
TWO-STORY BLDG PHOENIX, AZ 85042
APN#: 301-19-108 SAFStor
BUILDING FOOTPRINT = 52,500 SF
S 41ST ST EXISTING ZONING: C-2 SELF-STORAGE
TOTAL GFA = 105,000 SF 15.8' CL TO PROP F/C EXISTING LAND USE: VACANT
4 PROPOSED ZONING: C-2 SP 4125 E BASELINE RD
Page 938
3 PROPOSED LAND USE: COMMERCIAL PHOENIX, AZ 85042
PROP RDWY WIDENING
CL 405' (WIDTH VARIES)
20' NET AREA: 2.65 AC (115,386 SF)
GROSS AREA (TO CL): 3.86 AC (168,124 SF)
CL
L=54.37' R=54.78' CONCEPTUAL SITE
N00° 34' 00"E 220.77'
LEGEND PLAN
N89° 22' 08"E 212.46' 10' LS SB
50' BLDG SB PROP VC&G PROPERTY LINE
20' CL 18' BOUNDARY LINE
N89° 27' 19"E 228.15'
CENTERLINE
SETBACK
E HIGHLINE LN PROPOSED ASPHALT EASEMENT
N45° 02' 20"W 27.99'
25' BLDG & LS SB
444 SEABREEZE BLVD,
73.3' SCREENWALL
STE 840,
PROP 25' R/W ADA ACCESSIBLE ROUTE z z z z z z BEACH, FL 32118
25' TA NUMBER OF PARKING STALLS PER ROW X
S 41ST PL
PER EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT
CONCRETE
DECOMPOSED GRANITE
ASPHALT
ABBREVIATIONS ZONING STANDARDS (C-2 SP) REQUIRED PARKING CALCULATIONS DATE DESCRIPTION
SCALE IN FEET
AVG AVERAGE MUTE MULTI-USE TRAIL MIN BLDG SETBACKS REQ'D PROV'D STANDARD PARKING CALCULATION REQ'D SPACES 0 30 60
B/C BACK OF CURB ESMT
ADJACENT STREET 25' AVG 25' 734 STORAGE UN (1 SPACE/35 UN) 21
BLDG BUILDING PUE PUBLIC UTILITY ESMT
ADJACENT SINGLE-FAMILY 50' 50' 900 SF OFFICE SPACE (1 SPACE/ 300 SF) 3
BOT BOTTOM PROP PROPOSED
CB CATCH BASIN PROV'D PROVIDED MIN LS SETBACKS ADA PARKING CALCULATION REQ'D SPACES
CL CENTERLINE REQ'D REQUIRED
ADJACENT STREET 25' AVG 25' STANDARD (1 TO 25 TOTAL SPACES*) 1
COMM COMMUNICATION RDWY ROADWAY
ADJACENT SINGLE-FAMILY 10' 10'
CONC CONCRETE R/W RIGHT-OF-WAY TOTAL REQUIRED PARKING 24
COP CITY OF PHOENIX SB SETBACK MAX BLDG HEIGHT 30' (2 STORIES) 30' (2 STORIES)
DWY DRIVEWAY SD STORM DRAIN * NUMBER OF ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES PER TABLE 1,
LOT COVERAGE 50% 45.5%
ELEC ELECTRIC SF SQUARE FEET SECTION 702.G.1.c PER CITY OF PHOENIX ZONING CODE
EOP EDGE OF PERMIT SP SPECIAL PERMIT LOADING REQUIREMENTS
ESMT EASEMENT SS SANITARY SEWER PROVIDED PARKING CALCULATIONS CHECKED BY: SAK
EX EXISTING SWK SIDEWALK REQUIRED NUMBER OF LOADING SPACES IS BASED OFF
PROVIDED PARKING CALCULATION PROV'D SPACES DRAWN BY: ICB
Plotted: 03/04/24 - 12:28 PM, By: nreichman
F/C FACE OF CURB SVT SIGHT VISIBILITY TOTAL GROSS FLOOR AREA PER TABLE A, SECTION
FH FIRE HYDRANT TRIANGLE 702.H.1.a OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX ZONING CODE. STANDARD VEHICLE PARKING (9'X18'*) 18 TITLE:
GFA GROSS FLOOR TYP TYPICAL ADA PARKING (11'X18' W/ 5' AISLE*) 1
AREA UN UNIT LOADING SUMMARY REQ'D PROV'D CONCEPTUAL
IRR IRRIGATION VC&G VERTICAL CURB TOTAL PROVIDED PARKING 19**
105,000 GFA 3 3 SITE PLAN
LS LANDSCAPE & GUTTER * TOTAL STALL LENGTH OF 18' INCLUDES A 2.5'
ML MONUMENT LINE SHEET No.
OVERHANG FROM THE F/C
** A PARKING VARIANCE WILL BE REQUIRED TO MEET 1 of 3
PARKING REQUIREMENTS AS OUTLINED IN SECTION
702(C) OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX ZONING CODE. PROJECT No.
File: M:\1515_W&A Eng_Baseline Storage_Phoenix\DWG\Preliminary\1515 PR_SIT.dwg, ---> 1 CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN
TSC-Civil-120 Jan 04 2023
1252 1252
TOP OF BLDG = 1247.67
HEIGHT OF BLDG = 24.67'
1248 1248
1244 1244
R/W R/W
℄ R/W
℄ 1240
EX 8' PUE
1236 25' BLDG & LS SETBACK 1236
25' BLDG & LS SB
EX 30' MUTE & DRAINAGE ESMT
EX 10' PUE
EX 1' VANE
EX 20' R/W
1232 1232
PROP 25' R/W
EX 30' R/W
1228 1228
PROPOSED
BUILDING
EX 4' SWK
1224 FFE = 1223.00 2' BENCH 1224
EX ROLL CURB
LANE
HIGHLINE
4 4
M :1
MA :1 AX
PROP 10' MUT PROP BLDG STEMWALL X
EX VC&G EX PAVEMENT
1220 PROP GRADE EX GROUND 1220
EX 4' SW 2' BENCH SWALE
BASELIN
E ROAD
1216 1216
EX PAVEMENT EX VC&G
1212 1212
SECTION 1
H SCALE 1"=20' V SCALE 1"=4' V
SAFStor
1252 1252 SELF-STORAGE
TOP OF BLDG = 1250.00
4125 E BASELINE RD
Page 939
HEIGHT OF BLDG = 27.00'
PHOENIX, AZ 85042
1248 1248
CONCEPTUAL SITE
PLAN
EX STREETLIGHT
1244 1244
℄ R/W R/W
℄
1240 1240
EX 8' PUE 444 SEABREEZE BLVD,
EX 60' R/W STE 840,
25' BLDG & LS SETBACK 30.3' BEACH, FL 32118
1236 EX 30' MUTE & DRAINAGE ESMT EX 10' PUE 1236
25' BLDG & LS SB
EX 10' R/W ABANDONMENT
EX 1' VANE
1232 1232
EX 21' R/W
DATE DESCRIPTION
EX 4' SWK
1228 1228
E LANE
HIGHLIN
PROP 10' SW PROPOSED
20' TRUCK LOADING BUILDING
FFE = 1223.00 2' BENCH EX PAVEMENT
1224 PROP GRADE 1224
EX GROUND EX VC&G
1 4
EX MEDIAN 4: XA MA :1
IES M X
VAR
PE
PROP VALLEY GUTTER SLO
1220 SWALE 1220
BASELIN PROP ASPHALT
E ROAD CHECKED BY: SAK
DRAWN BY: ICB
Plotted: 03/04/24 - 12:28 PM, By: nreichman
1216 EX PAVEMENT 1216 TITLE:
PROP CONC DRIVEWAY
CONCEPTUAL
SITE PLAN
SHEET No.
1212 1212
SECTION 2 2 of 3
H SCALE 1"=20' V SCALE 1"=4' V
PROJECT No.
File: M:\1515_W&A Eng_Baseline Storage_Phoenix\DWG\Preliminary\1515 PR_SIT.dwg, ---> 2 GRADING SECTIONS
TSC-Civil-120 Jan 04 2023
1252 1252
TOP OF BLDG = 1247.67
HEIGHT OF BLDG = 24.67'
1248 1248
1244 1244
℄ R/W R/W
50' BLDG SB
EX 30' PUE
1236 1236
EX 8' PUE EX 1' VANE
25' BLDG & LS SETBACK EX 60' R/W ABANDONMENT
EX PUE & ACCESS ESMT
EX 30' MUTE & DRAINAGE ESMT
1232 1232
10' LS SB
EX 18' PAVEMENT
1228 1228
PROPOSED PROP PAVEMENT
BUILDING EX GRADE
1224 FFE = 1223.00 2' BENCH 1224
1 4
4: XA
MA :1
X
EX MEDIAN PROP 10' MUT 2' BENCH M
EX SW PROP BLDG STEMWALL
1220 BASELIN 1220
E ROAD
SWALE
PROP GRADE
EX PAVEMENT EX VC&G
1216 1216
1212 1212
SECTION 3
H SCALE 1"=20' V SCALE 1"=4' V
SAFStor
SELF-STORAGE
1252 1252
4125 E BASELINE RD
Page 940
TOP OF BLDG = 1250.00
HEIGHT OF BLDG = 27.00' PHOENIX, AZ 85042
1248 1248
CONCEPTUAL SITE
PLAN
1244 1244
℄ R/W R/W ℄
1240 1240
444 SEABREEZE BLVD,
STE 840,
BEACH, FL 32118
1236 PROP 25' BLDG & LS SB 1236
PROP 25' BLDG & LS SB
EX 22' DRAINAGE ESMT
EX 8' R/W ABANDONMENT
EX 5' R/W ABANDONMENT
EX 5' R/W ABANDONMENT
1232 1232
EX 25' R/W EX 25' R/W DATE DESCRIPTION
1228 1228
PROP 8' SW
S 42ND ST
PROPOSED EX GRADE
BUILDING
1224 FFE = 1223.00 1224
PROP VC&G
EX PAVEMENT
PROP 4' SWK HWE PROP PAVEMENT
S 41ST ST PROP BLDG STEMWALL
1220 1220 CHECKED BY: SAK
PROP BLDG STEMWALL
X ROLL CURB
PROP GRADE
EX ROLL CURB DRAWN BY: ICB
EX PAVEMENT
Plotted: 03/04/24 - 12:28 PM, By: nreichman
BASIN
TITLE:
1216 1216 CONCEPTUAL
PROP GRADE SITE PLAN
SHEET No.
1212 1212 3 of 3
SECTION 4
PROJECT No.
H SCALE 1"=20' V SCALE 1"=4' V
File: M:\1515_W&A Eng_Baseline Storage_Phoenix\DWG\Preliminary\1515 PR_SIT.dwg, ---> 3 GRADING SECTIONS
%$6(/,1(52$'
6$)6725%$6(/,1(&2/256&+(0( (/(9$7,21 )5217
2)),&(
6(/)6725$*(
%8,/',1*
(/(9$7,21 6,'( (/(9$7,21 6,'(
.(<3/$1
6&$/(
) ( ' & $ $ (
7678' 7<3 7678' 7<3
6725$*( 6725$*(
6725$*( 6725$*(
(/(9$7,21 6,'( (/(9$7,21 6,'(
6&$/( 6&$/(
7678' +,*+
7678' 7<3
6725$*(
Page 941
6725$*(
(/(9$7,21 )5217
6&$/(
COMPOSITE WOOD CLADDING ALUMINUM COMPOSITE LOW ENERGY INSULATED EXTERIOR INSULATED FAUX GLAZING SYSTEM MANUFACTURED STONE
PANELS (ACM) GLAZING SYSTEM FINISHING SYSTEM (EIFS) WITH SPANDREL COATING VENEER SYSTEM
6&+(0$7,&
6$)6725%$6/,1( (/(9$7,216
(;7(5,25'(6,*1
,QWHUVWDWH1RUWK3NZ\6($WODQWD*$
6XLWH
%$6(/,1(52$'
3+2(1,;$= 'DWH
Page 942
Page 943
Page 944
10/4/23, 3:13 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Z-SP-6-23
Mike Davis
Thu 9/28/2023 4:59 PM
To: Samuel S Rogers
Hi Samuel,
I hope this email finds you well. I would like to share some comments about a proposed development (Z-SP-6-23)
of a self-service storage warehouse in a C-2 zoned property near my house. The notice I received from the
developer's attorney lists you as the City of Phoenix contact person.
The proposed vehicular access is not compatible with the adjacent residential district. Vehicular access is
proposed via 41st Street which is adjacent to the residential district to the west. 647.A.2.i.5 states that "All parts
of the perimeter which are adjacent to a residential zone shall be screened by a fence or wall with a landscaped
area at least ten feet wide, additional setback and the reorientation of buildings may be required to ensure
compatibility with surrounding properties." Adjacent property to the south and west are zoned R1-6 and
developer is obligated to screen the perimeter in these directions. The current plan includes unscreened
driveway to the west. Furthermore, 41st street is a local street (i.e. not designated an arterial or collector road on
the Street Classification Map). A better choice will be to utilize access from Baseline Road which is designated a
Major Arterial street
Also, access via 41st is problematic from a safety standpoint. The intersection at 41st Street and Baseline is in
close proximity to a unique intersection of 40th St and Baseline. 40th St and Baseline is unique because it is a T-
intersection of two major arterial streets, and the light patterns are non-standard. Access to my neighborhood is
via 41st St and I know this intersection well. I always warn guests/new neighbors that the non-standard light
patterns can give a false sense of when it is safe to turn on/off Baseline Rd. There will be serious accidents
involving moving trucks driven by inexperienced drivers at this intersection unless the access plan is changed.
Finally, the notice did not include any details about the location of industrial equipment (e.g. chiller system for
climate control) and I am concerned about the possibility of a large noise source in the neighborhood. I would
like assurances that no such noise source will exist. The Zoning Code gives a metric that applies all the way up to
A-2 Industrial Districts that I think makes sense to include as a stipulation. This stipulation has also been added to
other Special Permit uses. Please stipulate “The average noise level, measured at the property line, shall not
exceed fifty-five dB (l dn) when measured on an "A weighted" sound level meter and according to the procedures
of the Environmental Protection Agency.”
Thanks,
Mike Davis
Page 945
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAOkV0yMCIxhMpci%2FcgzU… 1/1
10/10/23, 8:48 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Comments on Case # Z-SP-6-23 Storage facility at 41st Street and Baseline Rd.
Laurie Pheil
Tue 10/3/2023 4:05 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
Hi Samuel,
Thanks for taking the time to talk to me about this project today. I am a spokesperson for the Baseline
Area Resident’s Association.
After a careful review of the packet sent to by Snell and Wilmer, here are my concerns about the
project as it stands now.
1. There are already several storage buildings in the area. There are 2 structures at 48th Street and
Baseline already and I was surprised to hear that they are at almost 90 percent capacity, plus an
additional one on 15th Street and Baseline. Do we really need yet another storage facility in our
neighborhood?
2. Traffic coming in and out of their facility at 41st Street is sure to cause back ups and accidents
on Baseline. New people visiting our neighborhood don’t realize that the lights at 40th Street
and Baseline are not timed the same, so when the west-bound traffic is stopped, east-bound
traffic is still coming, usually over 50 MPH. This will cause accidents in the beginning, especially
as people move in and out of a new storage facility. I would appreciate it if you could ask the
developer why they’re not using Baseline as the access point. Probably because it would reduce
their building footprint to do so or interfere with the wash on the east end of the property.
3. Additional traffic congestion will come from people wanting to turn left from 41st Street onto
Baseline Rd. This is usually not possible during normal business hours, so as residents, we turn
right and make a U-turn at 42nd Street. They won’t necessarily know that, so they will most likely
sit and wait for traffic to clear, or pull out and block people trying to turn into our community
from Baseline.
4. The building height is 24 feet which will definitely block the mountain views, as shown by their
own illustration. There are no other 2 story buildings in the area, especially not something with
such a big footprint.
5. There is minimal landscaping. It’s all gravel with a few trees. There’s a small wash on the east
side at 42nd Street that they are just going to put in gravel, so it doesn’t look like they’re going
to deal with the water run off from their own building as far as I can see.
6. The vision for the Baseline Corridor Master Plan was to promote community gathering. This type
of commercial use will not do that at all. Some possible alternative uses could be a
bookstore/coffee shop or a vet clinic, or even a bakery might be a good use for this site. They
could be a little more creative than just constructing a huge windowless building that does
nothing more for the community than a place to stash their un-used stuff!
If you have any questions for me, please feel free to contact me by email or the phone number below.
Thanks!
Laurie
Page 946
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAHuER0UWOAxOg8135iBGO… 1/2
10/10/23, 8:48 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Laurie Pheil
Creative Benefit Communications
Phone: 602-696-3800
E-mail: creativebenefitcommunications@gmail.com
Page 947
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAHuER0UWOAxOg8135iBGO… 2/2
10/10/23, 8:53 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Special Permit for 2 story Storage facility on Baseline and 41st Street
Cynthia Standage-Beier
Wed 10/4/2023 12:10 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
Cc:Laurie Pheil
Cynthia Standage-Beier
3633 E Highline Canal Road
Phoenix, Az 85042
Planning and Development Department
(submitted via email) Samuel.rogers@phoenix.gov
Dear Mr. Rogers
No Application number listed-
The "Special Permit for 2 story Storage facility on Baseline and 41st Street" is proposed at the
only entrance to our foothills neighborhoods.
Here are my initial observations-
This proposal is immediately next to a many stable foothills neighborhoods. The neighborhood
immediately south has been deed restricted to one story (and enforced) for many years.
The proposal is along the south side of Baseline Road at the eastern edge of the overlay
district. All development in the immediate area both residential and commercial including the
high two story warehouse is not consistent with the character of our area.
Many of my neighbors (South mountain residents) have represented this area for decades to
ensure we were not overrun by warehouses. It would be an unfortunate failing of long range
planning for one of the final remaining infill parcels to be approved for the very land use that so
many have worked to prevent.
This proposal utilizes queuing on 41st to operate. The proposed warehouse creates access and
exit problems on a residential street for the residents that rely on 41st as their only access.
Additionally, the site plan shows an additional access point on Highline Lane further in the
neighborhood. Traffic accessing Baseline Road is already a challenge with the closeness of
41st to the 40th st and Baseline intersection with a traffic light.
There is no way this application for a Special Permit is compatible with the surrounding area.
My family and I are opposed to this proposal at this location.
Sincerely,
Cynthia Standage-Beier
Standage-beier@gmail.com
Page 948
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAErRG5XtTdVMqKO%2BJSr… 1/2
10/10/23, 8:53 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Page 949
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAErRG5XtTdVMqKO%2BJSr… 2/2
10/10/23, 8:55 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Fwd: Special Permit
Olga Klem
Wed 10/4/2023 1:15 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
Date: October 4, 2023 at 12:24:09 PM MST
To: samuel.rogers@phoenix.gov
Cc: JEFF KLEM
Subject: Special Permit
To: Mr. Samuel Rogers
After a more careful review of the packet, here are our concerns
about the project as well as it stands now.
1. There are already several storage buildings in the area.
There are 2 structures at 48th Street being at almost 90
percent capacity, plus an additional one on 15th Street and
Baseline. Having another storage facility in our
neighborhood would be overkill.
2. Traffic coming in and out of their facility at 41st Street will
cause back ups and accidents on Baseline. New people
visiting our neighborhood don’t realize that the lights
at 40th Street and Baseline are not timed the same, so when
the west-bound traffic is stopped, east-bound traffic is
coming, usually over 50 MPH. This will cause accidents in
the beginning, especially as people move in and out of a
new storage facility. Will Baseline be used as the access
point? Does this reduce their building footprint to do so?
3. Safety! Additional traffic congestion will come from people
wanting to turn left from 41st Street onto Baseline Rd. This
is usually not possible during normal business hours, so as
residents, we turn right and make a U-turn. They won’t
necessarily know that, so they will most likely sit and wait
for traffic to clear, or pull out and block people trying to
turn into our community from Baseline.
Page 950
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAOdbDNqmHQJJj1C1rLojPdk… 1/2
10/10/23, 8:55 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
4. The building height is 24 feet which will definitely block the
mountain views. There are no other 2 story buildings in the
area, especially not something with such a big footprint.
5. The landscaping is gravel and littered It’s all gravel with a
few trees. There’s a small wash on the east side at 42nd
Street that they are just going to put in gravel, so it doesn’t
look like they’re going to deal with the water run off from
their own building as far as I can see.
6. The vision of the Baseline Corridor Master Plan is to
promote community gathering. How about a
bookstore/coffee shop or a vet clinic, or even a bakery
might be a good use for this site.
Sent from my iPhone
Page 951
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAOdbDNqmHQJJj1C1rLojPdk… 2/2
11/12/23, 10:57 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Case number Z-SP-6-23
Ron Bruce
Sun 10/22/2023 8:17 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
1 attachments (278 KB)
StorageBldng.jpg;
To: Mr. Samuel Rogers
Fm: Ron Bruce
I was playing around a little with my idea of mirror imaging the building. I don't have the dimensions
to make an accurate representation and the wash on the east side presents a bit of a problem. At the
meeting, I asked about installing a culvert and I was told the city objects because it would increase the
flow rate due to the smoothness. I assume they were proposing it for the full width of the property. I
don't think that is necessary. I would suggest just bridging about a 20ft width with abutments on each
end and using double tee concrete beams of maybe 50ft. They could install a retaining wall along the
sides of the wash if needed. This would eliminate the primary objection most people have to using
41st St. for access and avoiding 40th St. traffic control in that when west bound Baseline traffic gets a
red light, east bound is still green. Another problem is left turn traffic from south bound 40th St. often
switch lanes to the outside Baseline lane within the turn along with some red arrow violators. Also the
right lane east bound traffic on Baseline view is partially blocked by the canal arch, especially for
people with a long hood if you use the stop line. Most days Baseline traffic speed is above 45 mph.
See attached.
Page 952
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAHPlSFR9RWhJmMlpg%2FN… 1/1
10/25/23, 10:16 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Case number Z-SP-6-23
Jason Edwards
Tue 10/24/2023 2:34 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
Hello Mr. Rogers,
I understand that there is a review of a potential storage facility near 41st and Baseline Road. I am
concerned about this for a couple of reasons, however, the most important reason is that it is
proposed to have entry from 41st st.
This is a very hard location to get out onto Baseline from and even harder to get to west bound
Baseline. It’s already a dangerous intersection due to the proximity to 40th St where there is a stop
light. Increasing traffic coming in and out of that spot is going to cause congestion and likely many
more accidents (some of which will be fatal).
Please take this all into consideration before approving any business for that particular location.
Regards,
Jason Edwards
8243 S. 40th st
Phoenix, AZ 85042
Page 953
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQALn3a5hWwKdPhMtSTjV2jB… 1/1
12/18/23, 11:47 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
RE: Proposed development at 41st and Baseline
Eric Buskirk
Wed 12/13/2023 3:03 PM
To:Streets P STR
Cc:Samuel S Rogers
Sam,
I’m not sure if this is related to a zoning case or not around 41st St & Baseline, so wanted to make you aware.
Please see the resident’s comments below.
Eric Buskirk
Special Projects Administrator
Street Transportation Department
602.262.7580 (o)
480.915.4585 (c)
Please be advised I have taken a new role in the Street Transportation Department. David Goodman will assume
Team Leader responsibility for all projects I am previously assigned. Please include David, at
david.goodman@phoenix.gov, on all future correspondence as part of the transition.
From: Streets P STR
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2023 2:47 PM
To: Eric Buskirk
Subject: FW: Proposed development at 41st and Baseline
Good afternoon,
Is this something that Streets handles or should this go to PDD?
Thank you,
Toni Dueñas
Administrative Secretary
602-262-6136
Page 954
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAJVYmBwSn1xKt%2FprMoC… 1/2
12/18/23, 11:47 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
-----Original Message-----
From: Laurie Iosue
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2023 4:31 PM
To: Streets P STR
Subject: Proposed development at 41st and Baseline
I’m writing to say my husband and I oppose the Safe Store storage facility making their ingress and
regress on 41st Street. This is the only access to 80 plus families who live in this area. Please suggest
that developers make the ingress and regress on Baseline Road, with a bus storage lane to avoid the
congestion. Too many accidents are happening now with just the traffic on Baseline. We can almost
never turn west on Baseline, and instead have to make a u-turn. This will be much worse with so much
more traffic.
Thank you,
Laurie Iosue
Sent from my iPad
Page 955
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAJVYmBwSn1xKt%2FprMoC… 2/2
12/18/23, 11:43 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
FW: emdist8 - Form Submission
Council District 8 PCC
Fri 12/8/2023 2:53 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
Hi Sam,
I wanted to share this constituent comment and recommendation with you because I think this item is on the
agenda for the VPC meeting on 12/12.
Have a great weekend!
Sincerely,
Kalea Moore
Constituent Services Manager
Office of Councilwoman Kesha Hodge Washington
Phoenix City Council District 8
Main Office: 602-262-7493
From: no-reply@phoenix.gov
Date: Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 6:46 PM
To: Council District 8 PCC
Subject: emdist8 - Form Submission
FROM : Laurie Iosue
SUBJECT : Zoning exception for land at Baseline Road & 41st Street
MESSAGE : Dear Ms. Hodge-Washington,
I would like to state my disapproval of the 2 story zoning exception for the storage facility to be built
at 41st and Baseline Roads. Also, and more importantly, I would like to request that the builder provide
ingress/regress on Baseline Road, which would include removing part of the divider in order to keep
people from making u-turns in front of 41st Street. This is the only access that our neighborhood has
and there are many accidents in this intersection. The current plan is ingress/regress on 41st Street,
and there is no benefit to this other than to reduce costs for the developer/builder. If the 41st Street
plan goes forward, it's imperative that the developer add a 3rd lane on their property. There will be
moving trucks on the street daily, which will add to road congestion for homeowners. Please keep our
South Mountain Village a safe and beautiful place to live.
Best regards,
Laurie Iosue
Email : fiveofnine@cox.net
AREA : 480
PHONE : 2052396
Page 956
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAFwJuOQhxiBEkFYvMGAizX… 1/2
12/18/23, 11:43 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
ADDRESS : 8035 S 38th Way
CITY : Phoenix
STATE : AZ
ZIP : 85042
Submission ID: 6328bb4adc45401a91a9fb0fa8fca456
Form Submission On : 12/7/2023 6:46:56 PM
Referer: https://phoenix.gov/district8/contact-district-8
This is Not Spam - This message is sent on behalf of the City of Phoenix.
Please handle appropriately.
Page 957
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAFwJuOQhxiBEkFYvMGAizX… 2/2
1/18/24, 2:00 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
FW: emdist8 - Form Submission- Z-SP-6-23
Council District 8 PCC
Thu 12/28/2023 10:02 AM
To:Samuel S Rogers
Hi Sam,
I just wanted to forward this email to you to add to the case file regarding zoning case Z-SP-6-23, as I know this one is
coming up at VPC.
Happy New Year!
Sincerely,
Kalea Moore
Constituent Services Manager
Office of Councilwoman Kesha Hodge Washington
Phoenix City Council District 8
Main Office: 602-262-7493
From: no-reply@phoenix.gov
Date: Wednesday, December 27, 2023 at 9:40 AM
To: Council District 8 PCC
Subject: emdist8 - Form Submission
FROM : Chris Calacci
SUBJECT : Lot on 41st St. south of Baseline- zoning exemption
MESSAGE : Dear Honorable Councilman Washington,
My wife and I live on E. Pollock St., Phoenix, AZ 85042. Living a block north of baseline and 40th St. we
often travel to Highline Canal and the Hancock Park neighborhood which is just south of Baseline off
of 41st. street.
A law firm representing developers of the lot at 41st St. and baseline have proposed building a huge
storage facility on the lot. It would have no entrance off of Baseline. They propose entering a it would
have no entrance off of Baseline. They propose entering and exiting on 41st St. very near baseline. The
business would average at least 11 cars an hour entering and exiting this neighborhood/church street,
just south of baseline.
I fear this develop that would further adversely effect the safety of the intersection of 40th St. and
Baseline which is already a very dangerous intersection. It has more than its share of fatalities and
crashes potentially injuring children (Skyline School Traffic) and adult pedestrians and motorists. This is
a messed up intersection that on a school day has a lot of chaotic traffic. I’ve asked the street
department for the number of fatalities around the intersection of 40th and Baseline.
If you need to exit 41st street onto baseline west your life is in danger as the traffic lights you see
exiting appear red but on the other side ( to oncoming speeders) are green and the traffic is going 55-
60 miles an hour.
Page 958
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAIR8UAeIQd9Mghv0kKL2PZc… 1/3
1/18/24, 2:00 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Besides the concern of traffic safety, the Hancock park neighborhood character would be greatly
changed negatively and their views to the south significantly blocked.
In contacting the south mountain village planning group yesterday, 12/26/23, I received a response
from one of the board members a Trent Marchuck, suggesting my vigorous opposition of this
development wasn’t in line with my neighbors or the group working with the developers on a
“compromise”. I didn’t hear a lot of copper guys in the meetings I went to, so I’m a little confused.
Since there’s been no meeting on this matter by the Neighborhood group since before Christmas and
the December meeting of the South Mountain Village Planning Group was canceled. I’m not sure
what’s going on. In the two meeting I went to there was strong and vocal opposition to this
development. Yet it’s implied there’s a deal being struck.. Why? There’s been no update to the email
list by the group coordinator Catherine Napoli in this time.
There is this notion that the owner has a “right to develop” and a right to some sort of exemption or
compromise. No. This is not the case. The current zoning expressly prohibits storage facilities and
ought not be changed. The end.
Why are the laws for normal citizen put aside when big firms like these guys come into push us
around. They want to make our existence more perilous and negatively affect our property values and
neighborhood.
Please look into this matter. There's a meeting of the SMVP coming up that should be very well
attended.
Thank you for your representation and service to the community, Chris Calacci
Ps the traffic on baseline is too fast can we ever get it lowered to 40 from 45. A reduction to 40 mph
would save lives on baseline.
Email : chris.p.calacci@gmail.com
AREA : 480
PHONE : 5402652
ADDRESS : 3903 E Pollack St
CITY : Phoenix
STATE : AZ
ZIP : 85042
Submission ID: 9557779a6d3e45b2b3c2cf57643883f0
Form Submission On : 12/27/2023 9:40:39 AM
Referer: https://phoenix.gov/district8/contact-district-8
Page 959
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAIR8UAeIQd9Mghv0kKL2PZc… 2/3
1/18/24, 2:00 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
This is Not Spam - This message is sent on behalf of the City of Phoenix.
Please handle appropriately.
Page 960
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAIR8UAeIQd9Mghv0kKL2PZc… 3/3
3/11/24, 10:03 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Recap of meeting 2/12/24
Catherine Napoli
Fri 2/16/2024 1:34 PM
To:Brian Harvey
trentchristopher@gmail.com
mdellow@swlaw.com
Cc:Sina Matthes
Present at Meeting:
Marcia Busching, Michael Maerowitz, Maggie Dellow, Christopher Russ, Trent Marchuk, David Soltysik, Scott
Krous, Catherine Napoli, Laurie Pheil
Thank you members of SMVPC, Snell & Wilmer, and SafStor for meeting with Laurie and I as the representatives of
the neighborhood south of the proposed storage facility.
Working together, the building proposal has come a long way to fitting into our established, historical, unique
neighborhood. However, there are still several points that the neighbors feel must be addressed and solutions be
found before we are fully behind the project.
We want to acknowledge the positive changes to the original plan.
The new color palette and materials, including the wood and stone, are more in keeping with the feel of the area.
The palo verde trees are native and a better choice than the pines on the original plan. Also, Trent Marchuk
mentioned there are an additional 5 tree species that are native and very drought resistant. We look forward to
seeing how they will be incorporated into the design.
The entrance and exit on Baseline Road is one thing the neighbors really wanted and we are glad that worked out.
We thank you for getting with City of Phoenix Streets Department to clarify our misunderstanding about the left
turn lane on the westbound side of Baseline Road onto 41st Street. We also confirmed that lane will remain.
Because of no longer needing to add traffic to 41st Street, there is no reason the developer should restripe 41st
Street to create 3 lanes. As discussed, making the southbound lane narrower onto 41st Street will cause additional
problems because the turn is sharp and most people end up going a bit far over the line currently.
Per David Soltysik, the wash on the east side of the property will be dug out to provide a deeper wash and better
water flow to Baseline Road. Because of this, we understand the finished floor elevation (FFE) as measured on the
SE corner of the property will be 2 foot lower than the current elevation. As per the comment by Trent Marchuk,
lower would be even better, bringing it as close as possible to the elevation against Baseline Road.
We applaud the re-use of the current sidewalk along Baseline Road with the added feature of a mixed use trail
that meanders away from Baseline, giving people a choice where to walk.
The change of the entrance and exit onto Baseline Road brought its own issues. And we are still wanting
resolution on the views from Baseline Road up to the mountain and vice versa, specific to 41st Place.
The new layout of the building, with entrance/exit and parking on Baseline Road has brought the building far to
the west side of the property. This adds a new area of views blocked for everyone on 41st Street and for the entire
neighborhood because our only way in and out of the area is on 41st Street. We request that the building move as
far east as possible to preserve the views looking both north by the neighborhood and looking south toward the
mountain from Baseline Road. Moving the building east preserves the views along the Baseline Scenic Route by
not blocking the views up 41st Street.
Page 961
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAMqLVZUEEkBPvNMRYRIQ… 1/2
3/11/24, 10:03 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
While the original request of the neighbors was that the building be only a single story throughout, we
understand that is not economically feasible for the developer. We do request that the second story be taken out
of the area just behind the south end of the parking lot. That area, with some shifting, lines up with 42nd Place.
Lining up a view corridor of a single story, moving the units to the east end of the building, preserves views of the
neighborhood looking north and preserves the views from Baseline Road looking south.
At the time of the Baseline Area Master Plan and subsequent revisions, Baseline Road was designated a view
corridor. Moving the building east away from 41st Street and eliminating the second story from the area adjacent
to 41st Place will preserve the views.
These adjustments will also add interest to the building, breaking it up in the middle.
As a side note, in an earlier conversation, the possibility of a third story was brought up as a way to capture some
of the lost units if the second story was eliminated from part of the building. The neighborhood wants to be
extremely clear on this, under no circumstances will we accept a third story. That sentiment has been echoed by
numerous officials and volunteers.
We thank you for working with the neighbors and for the improvements already made.
We look forward to the last 2 updates that will correct a problem created (moving the building east) and address
the very first concern brought by the neighbors (the second story).
Thank you,
Catherine Napoli for the neighborhood
NOTE - I didn't have everyone's email address. Please forward as needed.
Page 962
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAMqLVZUEEkBPvNMRYRIQ… 2/2
3/11/24, 10:05 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Fwd: FW: Storage Facility in North Phoenix
Catherine Napoli
Wed 2/28/2024 12:12 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
Shane had your email address incorrect. I am including my response back to Shane below.
Catherine Napoli
602-295-3411
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Shane Gore
Date: Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 11:35 AM
Subject: Re: FW: Storage Facility in North Phoenix
To:
Bednarek
Cc:
Klimek
Hi Catherine—
I'm following up on my previous email to see if you had any updates on your community's feedback
and position overall on this project. I look forward to speaking with you!
Sam, Sarah, Josh—
Generally, I think self storage is already overbuilt in the city and this project would be a poor use of the
site. I've compiled the below map which shows existing storage facilities with red dots, with the subject
property indicated with a red X. The circles around the X represent 1, 3 and 5 mile radii around the
subject property.
Page 963
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAK4ILGR2ptlMm8GXG7jfZX… 1/11
3/11/24, 10:05 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Moreover, I have a few concerns about this project which I'll discuss in detail below.
Complete Streets
Reviewing the site plan for Z-SP-6-23 and looking at the existing streetscape, I noticed that
accommodations in the site plan for the existing bus stop on the south side of Baseline Road, just east
of 41st Street are essentially the bare minimum—maintaining the existing stop, but without any special
improvements or consideration for Complete Streets. The existing bus stop appears in the renderings
of the building, but is represented with what looks like the existing shade canopy and bench structure.
It's also worth noting—though this may be a minor discrepancy due to limitations of rendering
software—that the renderings do not indicate separated sidewalks or appropriate shade cover and
heat mitigation for sidewalk users. This point should be clarified and included as a stipulation in the
staff report for the project.
In reviewing the Adopted Complete Streets Policy Dated June 28, 2017, I believe there's a strong
argument to be made that the private developer has a responsibility to contribute much more
significantly to a true "Complete Street" adjacent to their project—especially when the project is a not-
especially-desirable commercial use such as self storage:
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
(A) While the Street Transportation Department will lead implementation of Complete Streets
for projects, transformation of the Phoenix street environment to be more inclusive of
pedestrians, cyclists, and transit-users will require coordination with and support of many City
departments and adjacent landowners. These departments may include, but are not limited to:
Public Transit, Planning and Development, Neighborhood Services, Water Services, Police, Fire,
and Community and Economic Development.
(B) The Planning and Development Department will provide guidance for privately funded
projects to implement the Policy, and will encourage coordination and support of private
landowners, developers, builders, city departments, and other stakeholders.
(C) The City will continue efforts to coordinate with adjacent municipalities and agencies to
encourage interjurisdictional connectivity.
(D) The City will work with builders, developers, utilities, and industry trade associations to
encourage the use of the Policy for privately funded projects and all relevant partners for
publicly funded projects.
Likewise, the Complete Streets Principles Ordinance S-41094 makes clear that projects should
contribute to Complete Streets by—among other things:
Page 964
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAK4ILGR2ptlMm8GXG7jfZX… 2/11
3/11/24, 10:05 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
WHEREAS, transportation improvements will include an array of integral facilities that contribute to
Complete Streets, including, but not limited to: street and sidewalk lighting; pedestrian and bicycle
safety improvements; accommodations for freight; access improvements including compliance with
the Americans with Disabilities Act; public transit facilities accommodation including, but not limited
to, pedestrian and bicycle access improvements to transit stops and stations; landscaping; drainage;
and street amenities like street furniture and shade accommodations;
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX as follows:
SECTION 1. City streets will be planned, designed, constructed, and maintained to support and
encourage walking, bicycling and transit use while promoting safe and effective operations for all
users in accordance with current design standards, to be supplemented by the Complete Streets
Design Manual upon adoption.
SECTION 4. The City will coordinate with persons over which Phoenix has permitting authority to
facilitate compliance with this Ordinance.
Should this rezoning application be granted, this property owner should be encouraged—if not
compelled—to create a more thoughtful transit stop that is consistent with the Complete Streets
objectives of creating safe, comfortable, and convenient transit access for pedestrians and cyclists. This
could include:
additional trees to provide heat mitigation and shade to the transit stop
bicycle lockers for transit users who may bike to the bus stop and wish to secure their bicycle
there before using bus transit to reach their destination
appropriate types and quantities of seating to accommodate bus transit users
This is something that seems to be a commonly overlooked item in many proposed projects—more
emphasis needs to be placed on expecting private developers to "do their part" for complete streets.
Separated sidewalks with a landscape strip is not sufficient.
Building Design
While I recognize that the renderings could be limited in their ability to accurately illustrate the final
appearance of the building—I would point out that although the application cover letter states that
storage units will only be accessible from inside the building and that no warehouse or bay doors will
be visible to the outside—the architectural treatments of the "front" elevation facing Baseline Road
includes tall gray rectangles that look like two-story high warehouse doors. This feature should be
modified as necessary to eliminate this appearance.
Building Height
The building's proposed height is likely to have the effect of negatively impacting views and vistas of
South Mountain Park to the south of the subject property for the existing residential properties on the
north side of Baseline Road. A two-story mini warehouse does not provide adequate "step down" to
the adjacent residential land uses. It is not clear how the proposed project would be compatible with
the adjacent land uses.
Traffic
The developer's traffic and parking statement indicates that the facility could generate 160 or more
trips per weekday, all of which will ingress and egress from 41st Street. It is important to note that
Page 965
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAK4ILGR2ptlMm8GXG7jfZX… 3/11
3/11/24, 10:05 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
residential properties south and west of the project have only one ingress and egress point for their
neighborhood, which is likely to be substantially impacted by the trips generated into the proposed
project.
Due to the proximity of a traffic signal at 40th Street, it's unlikely that another traffic signal at 41st
Street would be feasible or recommended, which raises important questions about how traffic to the
proposed project as well as existing residents to the south and west will safely enter and exit the
neighborhood.
Parking
The developer's traffic and parking statement indicates that on weekdays, the project will be
"underparked" by 1 space or 4%. This raises important questions about where potential overflow
traffic will park to visit the site or to load/unload, given the potential for "peak" days and the limited
possibility for the parking needs to "average out" onto non-peak days.
Conclusion
Based on my review of the available documents, I'm not sure this project is ready for the "prime time"
of being presented at the VPC on March 12. I believe my concerns above should be strongly
represented in the Staff Report, and communicated to the applicant so that the applicant isn't
blindsided by what will likely be substantial public opposition to their project.
Thank you and I look forward to your feedback.
Shane Gore (he/him)
FUTURE PHX
(602) 315-2734
shane@futurephx.org
www.futurephx.org [futurephx.org]
The People Shape The Future.
Catherine Napoli
to Shane, sam.rogers, sarah.stockham, Josh, creativebenefitcommunications, contact_me, Nick,
ago)
contact
Shane -
Thank you so much for all this information and research. I am including the information in an email to the neighbors
as we speak. I added you to the email list and as soon as all this is complete, go ahead and unsubscribe.
There are so many things the developer can do that would make the property more appealing without destroying
completely the views of 2 blocks of houses and the views from Baseline Road, a Scenic Corridor, up toward South
Mountain.
I am including the links you sent to me in the email to the neighbors. Brian Harvey, one of three neighborhood
residents asked to represent us (Laurie Pheil, myself, Catherine Napoli, and Brian) designs building and spaces for a
Page 966
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAK4ILGR2ptlMm8GXG7jfZX… 4/11
3/11/24, 10:05 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
living. He has created a beautiful design that preserves views, gives the developer all the units they want, and gives
character to the building.
Some of the changes we requested have been made, specifically taking the entrance off the residential street and
putting it on to Baseline Road. However, the redesign of the building blocks even more views! And again, Brian
created an amazing solution for the developer.
You are absolutely correct, the developer is doing nothing to improve the lot when it comes to the bus stop. We do
not know if the City is requiring a cut out for the bus stop. We hope they do.
I will look over the new information you sent and include it in my newsletter as appropriate. We have another meeting
with the attorneys for the developer on Friday.
Thank you again for all your hard work on our project.
Catherine Napoli
602-295-3411
On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 10:58 AM Shane Gore
Hi Catherine,
I am so glad you reached out to Nick and that Nick was able to connect us! I am not at all keen on
self storage in general, and it is especially upsetting when it is proposed in a location that has so
many other potential uses that can offer more to the neighborhood and strengthen our
communities.
Z-SP-6-23
I don't see that Planning has published a staff report yet for this proposed rezoning, so I went ahead
and filed a public records request for the application and any supporting or related documents so I
can get more information on what the developer is planning to do, and how they are framing it to
the village planning committee. I also googled SafStor and found on their website that they tend to
look at a 1, 3, and 5 mile radius around locations in their analysis—so I've put together a map that
begins looking at the area around their site.
Within 1 mile there are zero self storage facilities
Within 3 miles there are 8 self storage facilities
Within 5 miles there are 22 self storage facilities
Link to Map: https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/3/edit?
mid=1H8sjDEli230opXVqCnmzD9H1F0w1MV8&usp=sharing [google.com]
Z-32-23
Page 967
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAK4ILGR2ptlMm8GXG7jfZX… 5/11
3/11/24, 10:05 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
In the case of the self storage that I opposed in North Mountain Village, the proposed rezoning was
from R1-10 to C-3. We were able to argue that potential land for housing shouldn't be repurposed
for commercial use, and that C-3 was much too broad and would allow the property owner to pull a
"bait and switch" and build any number of undesirable things on the parcel if given the C-3 zoning.
In my research for this proposed storage in my area, I looked at a 1, 5, and 10 mile radius:
Within 1 mile there are 4 self storage facilities
Within 5 miles there are 42 self storage facilities
Within 10 miles there are 169 self storage facilities
This strengthened our argument against self storage because the area is already so saturated with
them.
Here is some of the written documentation I put together when opposing the facility in North
Mountain Village:
Fact Sheet: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/7nmszzdbe9s1pbnz9lnhw/FPHX_flier-case-
against-self-storage.pdf?rlkey=uhvx1dukawar81atkc03ttomt&dl=0 [dropbox.com]
Policy Paper: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/euzco4jau4y26rn8yb7ug/Policy-Paper-2-Self-
Storage-2023_reducedfilesize.pdf?rlkey=2rho05oxe4rnbree7hbm8rtzo&dl=0 [dropbox.com]
Policy Paper Addendum: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/bukh8adsuvkjxxldc6cr8/Policy-
Paper-2-Addendum-1-Additional-Background-Analysis-Commentary.pdf?
rlkey=voaupsc0f5rfxfmmvbjaz8k92&dl=0 [dropbox.com]
Your Goals
I would love to hear more about your thoughts on the proposed project on Baseline and what your
desire would be for the site instead of self-storage. The map link I shared above has toggles for
different layers including grocery, apartments, and restaurants to get an idea of what's in the area
around the project site and what might be lacking.
Admittedly I do not know the area very well myself, so I don't have a feel for what might be a good
use for it instead—generally, I think many of our communities need more density (housing) in order
to support quality restaurants, public schools, and grocery stores in the area.
Let's talk more about what you want for the area and how I can help you oppose this project. I
would be happy to put together a similar policy paper or fact sheet with infographics, and I can help
connect you with other civic activists who might be able to help show up at the village and speak in
opposition to the SafStor project.
Keep me posted on your neighborhood meeting and I'll try to be in attendance to share my
experience and give you guys whatever support I'm able to.
Shane Gore (he/him)
CO-CHAIR
SHAW BUTTE NEIGHBORHOOD ALLIANCE
(602) 315-2734
shane@shawbuttephx.org
www.shawbuttephx.org [shawbuttephx.org]
Page 968
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAK4ILGR2ptlMm8GXG7jfZX… 6/11
3/11/24, 10:05 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
linktr.ee/shawbuttephx [linktr.ee]
CIVIC PRIDE • PUBLIC SAFETY • COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT • INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT
On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 10:12 AM Nick Klimek
Hi Shane,
FYI – See the below correspondence between some neighborhood leaders and me. I passed along
your email address. I hope that’s ok.
And thanks for the message a few weeks ago about the PV VPC meeting! I shared your kind words
with Adrian Zambrano.
Nick
Nick Klimek, AICP
Acting Planner III – Transit Oriented Communities
Growth, Infrastructure, & Special Projects Division
Office: 602-534-7696
E-mail: nick.klimek@phoenix.gov
Planning & Development Department
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Online appointment scheduling is now available!
https://www.phoenix.gov/pddsite/Pages/Planning-and-Development-Online-Appointment-
Scheduling.aspx
Page 969
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAK4ILGR2ptlMm8GXG7jfZX… 7/11
3/11/24, 10:05 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Shape PHX Portal:
https://shapephx.phoenix.gov/s/
From: Nick Klimek
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2024 8:50 AM
To: Catherine Napoli
Cc: Laurie Pheil
Subject: RE: Storage Facility in North Phoenix
Good morning, Catherine –
Thanks for reaching out. I’ve cc’d my colleague and the current North Mountain Village Planner,
Chase Hales, to loop him in on the conversation.
I assume you are referring to Z-32-23-3 near Mescal Avenue and Cave Creek Road. This project
was recommended for denial by the Planning Commission in the face of public opposition. At this
time, the applicant has not submitted a new site plan or requested to proceed back to the City
Council.
You may be interested in talking with North Mountain VPC Member Shane Gore. Shane was the
primary contact for the opposition, and I bet he’d be willing to chat.
shane@shawbuttephx.org
The South Mountain Village Planner is my colleague, Samuel Rogers. If you and/or your neighbors
wish to provide written testimony in opposition to the proposal, I suggest you email
samuel.rogers@phoenix.gov and speak at the VPC Meeting.
Kind regards,
Nick
Page 970
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAK4ILGR2ptlMm8GXG7jfZX… 8/11
3/11/24, 10:05 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Nick Klimek, AICP
Acting Planner III – Transit Oriented Communities
Growth, Infrastructure, & Special Projects Division
Office: 602-534-7696
E-mail: nick.klimek@phoenix.gov
Planning & Development Department
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Online appointment scheduling is now available!
https://www.phoenix.gov/pddsite/Pages/Planning-and-Development-Online-Appointment-
Scheduling.aspx
Shape PHX Portal:
https://shapephx.phoenix.gov/s/
From: Catherine Napoli
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2024 8:17 PM
To: Nick Klimek
Subject: Storage Facility in North Phoenix
Nick -
My neighbors and I are faced with the prospect of a huge storage facility being built at the
entrance of our older (my home was built in 1949 and is not the oldest home in the
Page 971
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAK4ILGR2ptlMm8GXG7jfZX… 9/11
3/11/24, 10:05 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
neighborhood) mixed, residential neighborhood at the base of South Mountain Park on the
corner of 41st Street and East Baseline Road.
As the representatives chosen by our 85 home, one-way-in, one-way-out neighborhood (the
facility is at the corner of our only entrance to our neighborhood) we have been petitioning the
South Mountain Village Planning Committee, our Councilwoman, the attorneys for the developer,
Snell and Wilmer, and the developer, SafStor.
Of the four main things the neighborhood has been asking for, they gave us one, which created a
new problem, did a slight remodel on the look of the building so it isn't as warehouse looking.
However they have blocked a majority of the views from the residents by putting in a 2 story
building. Working tirelessly trying to reach a compromise, they have not given in at all, ruining the
views both from the mountain and from Baseline Road, a scenic corridor according to the City.
Laurie and Brian met with Grading and Drainage at the City of Phoenix today to get some
understanding of what can and cannot be done. It is there they learned North Valley denied the
application to put the building in a residential neighborhood.
Could you explain the resident's concerns and why the planning commission denied the storage
facility its application? A phone call or Zoom would be greatly appreciated so we can understand
how this process went.
Do you know if the developer is going to resubmit a revised site plan to the commission and
when so we can follow the progress.
This goes to Village Planning March 12. We are organizing a meeting the Monday or Tuesday
before to update the neighbors and create our position. Would it be possible for you to meet with
the three of us before our neighborhood meeting?
Feel free to call me or "reply all."
Thank you so much!
Catherine Napoli
Page 972
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAK4ILGR2ptlMm8GXG7jfZ… 10/11
3/11/24, 10:05 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
602-295-3411
Page 973
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAK4ILGR2ptlMm8GXG7jfZ… 11/11
Analysis & Commentary
in Opposition to Self Storage
Z-SP-6-23 SafStor 41st St & Baseline Rd
Page 974
Table of Contents
Introduction 2
Executive Summary 2
Relentless Growth 3
Housing Displacement 4
Permanence of Physical Infrastructure 4
Effect on Neighborhood Density 5
Economics of Self Storage 6
Conclusion 7
Appendix: Citations 8
03/10/2024
Page 975
Introduction
The purpose of this policy paper is discussion and analysis of broad self storage industry
trends to inform neighborhood leaders and residents about development trends that affect our
communities. This paper also discusses and responds to a specific proposal for new self
storage being proposed at 41st Street & Baseline Road in Phoenix.
Executive Summary
Self storage companies have been on a record growth streak for more than five years,
occupying key parcels throughout the city—which for all practical purposes permanently
precludes the possibility that those parcels might be developed into other land uses that
contribute to vibrant, livable neighborhoods.
Self storage isn’t something most people think about every day, but the presence of these
often benign-looking facilities in our city can have far-reaching consequences to the fabric of
our communities.
In terms of vibrancy and vitality in cities, one of the most critical issues is the vacuum that self
storage creates, where people and activity are—by design—low volume. Most facilities have
few employees, operate primarily during daytime hours, and “self-serve” systems are gaining
popularity with operators—leading to some facilities being completely unstaffed 24 hours a
day. While these facilities generally enjoy tall fences and security systems for their property,
the activity vacuums they create have ripple effects for the surrounding properties and
neighborhoods.
An often overlooked aspect of growth in the self storage industry are troubling lease terms and
a regulatory structure which allows facility operators wide latitude in the disposition of a
defaulting tenant’s personal property—leading to property loss. Operators can dispose of a
defaulting tenants’ medical or tax records, family ashes, heirlooms, etc. the same way they
would chairs or a bookshelf. People experiencing housing insecurity, or facing hurdles like
medical emergencies, job loss, or other financial hardship are among the most likely storage
users to default.
03/10/2024
Page 976
Lastly, while it’s not the most pressing neighborhood concern, we should be honest with
ourselves about the carbon footprint of an industry built almost exclusively from steel and
concrete—two of the most carbon-intensive building materials—and which is designed to
exploit the growing mountains of mass produced “stuff” which fills our homes.
Relentless Growth
The self storage industry has experienced significant growth across the U.S. and in Phoenix
since at least 2018. New self storage facilities are being built in close proximity to each other,
and to existing facilities—regardless of need or the presence of competitors.
For major self storage companies the purpose of overdeveloping new facilities is to capture
market share for the purpose of reporting positive growth metrics to their boards and
shareholders. Like many industries—they are flush with cash and morally bankrupt—so they
continue developing new facilities regardless of the impact to the neighborhood and local
community. They believe if they can only grow fast enough and large enough, they can
eliminate the competition.
As a result of the way “Big Self Storage” has pursued non-stop development of new facilities,
market research companies continue to breathlessly report record growth in the industry, which
has also drawn in “mom and pop” investors who may not be sophisticated enough to
independently evaluate market conditions and the need for additional new facilities. The big
self storage companies have no moral qualms about watching people sink their life savings
into expensive new facilities, because they know their companies have the power and leverage
to buy up any struggling independent self storage facilities in the future.
03/10/2024
Page 977
Housing Displacement
Due to relatively low overhead and the recent growth of the industry, self storage facilities
continue to proliferate in the city by buying up and developing any available piece of
land—regardless of location or the other potential uses a parcel could sustain.
Traditionally, self storage has been developed on unique, odd-shaped and/or physically
constrained parcels. The industry’s boom of the last five years has led major storage
companies to seek and obtain large or more traditionally shaped parcels for new facility
development.
Big Storage also buys up and develops long-vacant parcels into self storage facilities, betting
that neighborhoods typically won’t object to self storage uses because they are desperate for
any development that will convert a long-vacant parcel in their community to any productive
use.
Land in cities is a finite resource—self storage concerns itself with physical property, and
profits above all else. In the self storage arms race to capture market share—housing
developers—including affordable housing developers—are forced to compete with
well-capitalized storage behemoths who can pay virtually any price for properties they want.
Perhaps not legally—but morally, this is an outright theft from the city’s residents—theft of
housing units, theft of neighborhood density, and theft of the conditions necessary for vibrant,
livable cities.
Permanence of Physical Infrastructure
Self storage buildings are typically constructed primarily from steel and concrete—making
these buildings effectively permanent fixtures in our neighborhoods. While it can be useful and
convenient to have that reliable storage, the permanence of construction methods should be a
key consideration in the regulatory approval of self storage facility locations.
These facilities lack design features like sufficient utilities, windows, and other architectural
elements that make them largely incompatible with most common commercial building uses,
03/10/2024
Page 978
and because the design and materials are so permanent in nature—self storage facilities are
almost always poorly suited for future creative re-use or adaptation of the structure.
Effect on Neighborhood Density
Self storage facilities are typically low intensity industrial or commercial uses without
substantial second-order economic effects to nearby businesses or residences. They don’t
provide a significant number of jobs, or manufacture a physical product, or generate a
significant amount of vehicle or pedestrian traffic. They have minimal marketing needs and few
other opportunities to engage the local economy. And perhaps most detrimentally, they
contribute to lower densities in our neighborhoods which starves our communities of their most
important resource: the people.
03/10/2024
Page 979
Economics of Self Storage
The economic structure of a self-storage facility is variable, but due to low overhead facilities
can withstand significant economic pressures by varying the rates they charge for
storage—either to induce more customers, or to extract additional revenue from existing
customers.
Self storage companies know that the cost and effort barrier to a customer moving their
belongings from one self storage facility to another is prohibitive, and they can often take
advantage of that fact with significant and arbitrary price increases to their existing customers
with short notice.
Across the board, self storage companies are generating enormous profits, in part due to the
shortage of affordable housing units. The leading seven publicly traded firms listed below
earned more than $4B (billion with a B) in net operating income.
2022 NET
STOCK 2022 ANNUAL 2022 NOI
NAME OPERATING
SYMBOL REVENUE MARGIN
INCOME
NYSE:PSA Public Storage $3,946,000,000 $2,077,673,000 52.65%
NYSE:EXR Extra Space Storage Inc. $1,924,170,000 $921,156,000 47.87%
NYSE:CUBE CubeSmart $1,009,624,000 $291,263,000 28.85%
NYSE:UHAL U-Haul (self storage revenues) $617,120,000 $168,492,900 27.30%
NYSE:LSI Life Storage, Inc. $917,100,000 $358,128,000 39.05%
NYSE:NSA National Storage Affiliates Trust $801,569,000 $183,765,000 22.93%
NASDAQ:SELF Global Self Storage, Inc. $11,944,850 $3,527,190 29.53%
$9,227,527,850 $4,004,005,090
$4,004,005,090 is equal to—
53,687 people earning 2022 Real median household income $74,580
11,503 homes at the 2022 average U.S. home price $348,079
18,366,995 square feet of multi-family housing at the Phoenix multi-family
average construction cost of $218 per square foot
03/10/2024
Page 980
Conclusion
Self storage is a parasitic land use that preys on our collective obsession with stuff. It does not
provide substantial or meaningful employment. It does not contribute to active and walkable
communities. And it occupies key sites throughout the city and the purpose-built building
design and construction all-but makes them permanent fixtures which are unable to adapt to
changing cultural or economic conditions.
Even when a site or community is open to the possibility of self storage being developed, the
companies and their representatives frequently claim that the community’s desire for
appropriate building designs, necessary infrastructure improvements for pedestrians and
members of the community, and changes in size or scale of the facilities is simply not
economically viable—while these companies enjoy outsized returns that accrue and
accumulate significant wealth outside the community where the facilities are located.
Cities should carefully consider whether the net benefit of zoning changes or use permits to
allow self storage are worth the enormous costs that are borne by the communities where
these developments are allowed.
03/10/2024
Page 981
Appendix: Citations
1. Market Trends & Sector Outlook U.S. Self Storage H1 2023 - Cushman & Wakefield
https://melestoragegroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/CWSSAG_Self-Storage-Performance-Quarterly-Overv
iew-2023-H1_WEB.pdf
2. Four Property Wrongs of Self-Storage Law - Jeffrey Douglas Jones - Associate
Professor of Law, Lewis & Clark Law School; J.D., The University of Michigan Law
School-Ann Arbor; Ph.D. Philosophy, The University of Wisconsin-Madison
https://www.pnrc.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Four-Property-Wrongs-of-Self-Storage.pdf
3. Phoenix Self Storage Market Statistics: Rent Prices, Local Inventory and Development
Trends (June 2023) - StorageCafe
https://www.storagecafe.com/self-storage-industry-statistics/us/az/phoenix/
4. “Pawtucket looks to put limits on self-storage” - Ethan Shorey - Valley Breeze
https://www.valleybreeze.com/news/pawtucket-looks-to-put-limits-on-self-storage/article_3cc43784-4b0d-11ee-bd
69-835222c2a2b6.html
5. “Too many things to keep for the future?” - Sharon Macdonald, Jennie Morgan and
Harald Fredheim
https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv13xps9m.16
6. “Self-storage Market Revenues to Reach USD 72.15 billion by 2028 - Market Size,
Share, Forecasts, & Trends Analysis Report” - Mordor Intelligence - 07/26/2023
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/self-storage-market-revenues-reach-133000991.html
7. “The Fate of Oversupplied Self-Storage Markets and How to Pull Back From the Brink” -
Frank DeSalvo, David Perlleshi, Inside Self-Storage November 15, 2023
https://www.insideselfstorage.com/self-storage-investing-real-estate/the-fate-of-oversupplied-self-storage-markets
-and-how-to-pull-back-from-the-brink
8. 2022 Annual reports of Public Storage, Extra Space Storage Inc., CubeSmart, U-Haul
(self storage division), Life Storage, Inc., National Storage Affiliates Trust, & Global Self
Storage, Inc.
03/10/2024
Page 982
3/11/24, 10:06 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Concered resident - Baseline/40th St.
Clea M. Edwards
Thu 2/29/2024 4:48 AM
To:Samuel S Rogers
Dear Mr. Rogers,
As a resident and property owner in the neighborhood south of the proposed SAFStor Building, Z-
SP-6-23, I am concerned with the damage this building, as proposed by the developer, will do to my
neighborhood. Specifically, the extremely dangerous area around the intersection at Baseline
and 40th to 41st Sts.
Also, the building height has destroyed all views from my home to the city lights. And it has destroyed
all the views from Baseline Road up to South Mountain. Baseline Road is designated as a Scenic View
Corridor. In destroying the views, my property values go down immediately. This does not serve the
residents or the City of Phoenix and State of Arizona, who will lose revenue with lowered values.
In working with our neighbors, SAFStor has made some changes to their original plan. We commend
SAFStor on changes to the look of the building and on moving the entry from 41st Street, a residential
street, to Baseline Road.
However, our biggest concern, our property value reduction based on the destruction of our views,
has not only never been addressed, in changing the entrance of the parking lot, views on an
additional street have also been completely blocked.
Right now, there are far too many storage facilities in Phoenix and specifically our area.
Within 1 mile there are zero self storage facilities
Within 3 miles there are 8 self storage facilities
Within 5 miles there are 22 self storage facilities
Link to Map: https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/3/edit?
mid=1H8sjDEli230opXVqCnmzD9H1F0w1MV8&usp=sharing [google.com]. This map clearly shows
there are many storage facilities in the area already.
In addition, most storage units in the area are single story. On average, 85% of storage facilities build
a level as a basement. Yet SAFStor is looking for a 2 story building completely above ground with a
profile that will destroy all views for the neighborhood.
City light views are not just a "nice bonus." Our property values include our homes being on view
properties. Destroy the views, destroy the values, destroy the income to the City of Phoenix, Maricopa
County, and the State of Arizona. Building on this land as the developer has currently proposed will
NOT increase revenue in the form of taxes. It will decrease revenue because of lowered property
values.
Shane Gore of the Shaw Butte Neighborhood Alliance helped his neighborhood to get the City to deny
a zoning change that would allow an unneeded, property-value-decreasing storage facility in his
neighborhood. Mr. Gore was kind enough to review the case in our neighborhood and offered input
which has been forwarded to the City of Phoenix.
Page 983
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAMbbF5MkwBBGgpImraS5W… 1/2
3/11/24, 10:06 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
The neighbors of the South Mountain Gateway Residents Association are not asking for this building
to be built somewhere else. We are requesting that it be built in a way that does not destroy our
homes and property values.
Brian Harvey, a homeowner in my neighborhood, created a floor plan that includes some basement
units, bringing most of the building to only 1 story above ground. This plan would solve the biggest
issue still on the table, the destruction of our views and property values.
Accepting the development as it currently stands will be a detriment to our neighborhood and the City
of Phoenix. Keeping the building to one story above the ground/above grade by building a basement
level allows the development to come into our neighborhood without destroying our neighborhood.
With respect,
Clea Edwards
Page 984
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAMbbF5MkwBBGgpImraS5W… 2/2
3/11/24, 10:10 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
SAFStor Building Z-SP-6-23 Baseline and 40th St, Phoenix
Alberto Rodriguez <2015silver@cox.net>
Thu 3/7/2024 6:13 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
Sam Rogers, City Planner
Dear Sir,
I reside and I am property owner at 7649 S 41st Place, Phoenix, AZ 85042 south of the proposed
building. I am concerned with the damage this building will do to my neighborhood as proposed by
the developer.
1) Views will be destroyed...I will no longer be able to appreciate the historical views from the
airport as planes are landing or taking off. Not longer will I be able to see the Presidential planes
arriving or departing as well as other planes.
2) The property values in our homes will go down.
3) City of Phoenix and State of Arizona will lose revenue due to property values declining and
residents will be expected to accomodate any future tax increases.
4) As it stands today, too many automobile accidents have been experienced in this Baseline and
40th St corridor. The traffic we will encounter will create undesirable negative impact added to what is
presently in statistics.
5) Right now, there are far two many storage facilities in the Baseline Corridor. One more will take
away from our "Flower Garden", previously where we used to drive to admire the various flower
stores.
Do you in your respective situation, if you had a home in this area, will allow a developer to come in
and affect negatively your castle (home). Please, reconsider not allowing and not accepting this
project to go foward as proposed by the developer.
You depend on our vote, and we truly respect your positive endeavor in this matter.
Respectfully,
Carmen L. Rodriguez
7649 S. 41st Place
Phoenix, AZ 85042
602-510-3367
Page 985
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAHkULNzPEaVPvwuFoKHQW6A%3D 1/1
3/11/24, 10:08 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
safestor building Z-SP-6-23
cynthia harvey
Thu 3/7/2024 12:47 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
As a resident and property owner in the neighborhood south of the proposed SAFStor Building, Z-SP-
6-23, I am concerned with the damage this building, as proposed by the developer, will do to my
neighborhood. Specifically, the building height has destroyed all views from my home to the city
lights. And it has destroyed all the views from Baseline Road up to South Mountain. Baseline Road is
designated as a Scenic View Corridor. In destroying the views, my property values go down
immediately. This does not serve the residents or the City of Phoenix and State of Arizona, who will
lose revenue with lowered values.
In working with our neighbors, SAFStor has made some changes to their original plan. We commend
SAFStor on changes to the look of the building and on moving the entry from 41st Street, a
residential street, to Baseline Road.
However, our biggest concern, our property value reduction based on the destruction of our views,
has not only never been addressed, in changing the entrance of the parking lot, views on an
additional street have also been completely blocked.
Right now, there are far too many storage facilities in Phoenix and specifically our area.
Within 1 mile there are zero self storage facilities
Within 3 miles there are 8 self storage facilities
Within 5 miles there are 22 self storage facilities
Link to Map: https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/3/edit?
mid=1H8sjDEli230opXVqCnmzD9H1F0w1MV8&usp=sharing [email.mail.marketingsuccesspros.com].
This map clearly shows there are many storage facilities in the area already.
Please make note of my point of view about this developement,
--
Cynthia Harvey
Page 986
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAJuKot%2F%2FMF1HrF0NLFXRPo… 1/1
3/11/24, 10:14 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Input to proposed SafStor project: Z-SP-6-23
MARIE MITCHEL
Sat 3/9/2024 5:38 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
Emails and Calls
Send emails or letter to the following representatives. A sample letter is provided below.
Be sure to write to every person on this list and show up at every meeting. Only when we
show up in numbers and we write our concerns will our voices be heard.
Sam Rogers, City Planner
Phone: 602-534-4010
Email: samuel.rogers@phoenix.gov
Members of the South Mountain Village Planning
Committee Email: SouthMountainVPC@phoenix.gov
Councilwoman Kesha Hodge Washington
Phone: 602.262.7493
Email: council.district.8@phoenix.gov
Mayor Kate Gallego
Phone: 602-262-7111
Email: mayor.gallego@phoenix.gov
Michael Maerowitz, Attorney for the developer at Snell & Wilmer
Email: mmaerowitz@swlaw.com
To express your opinion, voice concern, or any comments on the case, use email or go
to Phoenix.gov and fill in the online form.
SAMPLE LETTER FOR Z-SP-6-23:
Page 987
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQANR7Xdsb8ShPvnSWFRZyarQ%3D 1/3
3/11/24, 10:14 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
As a resident and property owner in the neighborhood south of the proposed SAFStor Building, Z-SP-6-23, I am concerned with
the damage this building, as proposed by the developer, will do to my neighborhood. Specifically, the building height has
destroyed all views from my home to the city lights. And it has destroyed all the views from Baseline Road up to South
Mountain. Baseline Road is designated as a Scenic View Corridor. In destroying the views, my property values go down
immediately. This does not serve the residents or the City of Phoenix and State of Arizona, who will lose revenue with lowered
values.
In working with our neighbors, SAFStor has made some changes to their original plan. We commend SAFStor on changes to the
look of the building and on moving the entry from 41st Street, a residential street, to Baseline Road.
However, our biggest concern, our property value reduction based on the destruction of our views, has not only never been
addressed, in changing the entrance of the parking lot, views on an additional street have also been completely blocked.
Right now, there are far too many storage facilities in Phoenix and specifically our area.
Within 1 mile there are zero self storage facilities
Within 3 miles there are 8 self storage facilities
Within 5 miles there are 22 self storage facilities
Link to Map: https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/3/edit?mid=1H8sjDEli230opXVqCnmzD9H1F0w1MV8&usp=sharing
[email.mail.marketingsuccesspros.com]. This map clearly shows there are many storage facilities in the area already.
In addition, most storage units in the area are single story. About 75% to 80% of all storage facilities here in Phoenix build a
level as a basement. Yet SAFStor is looking for a 2 story building completely above ground with a profile that will destroy all
views for the neighborhood.
City light views are not just a "nice bonus." Our property values include our homes being on view properties. Destroy the
views, destroy the values, destroy the income to the City of Phoenix, Maricopa County, and the State of Arizona. Building on
this land as the developer has currently proposed will NOT increase revenue in the form of taxes. It will decrease revenue
because of lowered property values.
Shane Gore of the Shaw Butte Neighborhood Alliance helped his neighborhood to get the City to deny a zoning change that
would allow an unneeded, property-value-decreasing storage facility in his neighborhood. Mr. Gore was kind enough to review
the case in our neighborhood and offered input which has been forwarded to the City of Phoenix.
The neighbors of the South Mountain Gateway Residents Association are not asking for this building to be built somewhere
else. We are demanding that it be built in a way that does not destroy our homes and property values.
Brian Harvey, a homeowner in my neighborhood, took time out of his busy schedule as a designer, to create a floor plan that
includes some basement units, bringing most of the building to only 1 story above ground. This plan would solve the biggest
issue still on the table, the destruction of our views and property values.
Accepting the development as it currently stands will be a detriment to our neighborhood and the City of Phoenix. Keeping
the building to one story above the ground/above grade by building a basement level allows the development to come in to
our neighborhood without destroying our neighborhood.
Sent from my iPad
Page 988
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQANR7Xdsb8ShPvnSWFRZyarQ%3D 2/3
3/11/24, 10:14 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Page 989
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQANR7Xdsb8ShPvnSWFRZyarQ%3D 3/3
3/11/24, 10:16 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Re: Z-SP-6-23. Urgent Appeal: Please Preserve Our Neighborhood's Character and
Property Values
Patrick McGrorty
Sun 3/10/2024 3:20 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
Dear Samuel Rogers,
As longtime residents of Hancock Park, we are writing to express our deep concern regarding
the proposed construction of a large storage unit building in our community. This development
threatens to irreversibly alter the character of our neighborhood and significantly diminish
property values for current residents.
One of the most cherished aspects of living in Hancock Park is the breathtaking scenic views of
the city and surrounding mountains that we enjoy from our homes. These views are not only
aesthetically pleasing but also contribute to the overall sense of tranquility and well-being that
residents have come to appreciate. The construction of a towering commercial building would
effectively block these views, robbing us of one of the key features that attracted many of us to
this neighborhood in the first place.
Furthermore, the proposed development poses a serious threat to our property values. Studies
have consistently shown that the presence of commercial and industrial structures, such as this
proposed building, can have a detrimental impact on nearby residential property values.
Potential buyers are likely to be deterred by the sight of a large storage unit building looming
over the neighborhood, leading to a decrease in demand for homes in the area and a
subsequent significant decline in the value of our property.
We urge you to carefully consider the long-term consequences of allowing this development to
proceed. Our neighborhood is more than just a collection of houses; it is a community where
families have put down roots and invested their hard-earned resources. The current plans also
encroach upon a protected wash, which not only channels water from the mountain, but also
acts as a travel corridor for wildlife. Allowing this SAFStor building to be built here, as currently
designed, would undermine the sense of community that we have worked so hard to cultivate
and would have far-reaching negative effects on the quality of life for residents and native
animals alike.
In light of these concerns, unless SAFStor is willing to compromise on the building height by
placing the first story underground, we respectfully request that you deny the permits needed
for the construction of the storage unit building in our neighborhood. Instead, we urge you to
Page 990
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQACsq2yQEwN5Ko6TVaZHiVjw%3D 1/2
3/11/24, 10:16 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
explore alternative development options that are more compatible with the character of our
community and that will not jeopardize property values or the scenic beauty of our
surroundings.
Thank you for taking the time to consider our perspective on this important issue. We trust that
you will make the decision that is in the best interests of our neighborhood and its residents.
Sincerely,
Patrick and Lorina McGrorty
7635 South 41st Place
Phoenix, Az 85042
(480) 628-8911
pj.mcgrorty@gmail.com
Page 991
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQACsq2yQEwN5Ko6TVaZHiVjw%3D 2/2
3/11/24, 10:16 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
41st and Baseline proposed storage units for March 12 meeting
Renee Lufkin
Sun 3/10/2024 2:02 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
Cc:c.lufkin@outlook.com
Dear Mr. Rogers,
I have been a resident of Phoenix for 65 years and love this city. I’m a second-generation Phoenician.
However, I would like to express my frustration and concern about the storage building proposed for
Baseline and 41 St. I am aware that eventually something will go at that location. We need a turn lane on
baseline for the business and a bus turnout at the least. If the one-story structure could be lower ground
level so the view isn’t restricted. There are so many accidents and fatalities at the corner of Baseline and
40th St. We can’t have more congestion in this location.
Because Phoenix is continuing to grow, I can understand why this storage business would want this
corner, I feel this suggestion would be helpful. It should push the building south so when we pull out of
the homes and Church, we can see the traffic coming from the east.
I will be attending the March 12 meeting at South Mountain Junior College.
Thank you for your time.
Renee Lufkin
3854 E. Vineyard Rd.
Phoenix, Arizona
602-799-8101
Page 992
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAC4br1oPvUfwmYvxvgxE8d0%3D 1/1
3/12/24, 2:58 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Re: Opposition statements to Z-SP-6-23 Self Storage Facility
Debra McPeters
Mon 3/11/2024 6:36 PM
To:Laurie Pheil
Samuel S Rogers
Cc:Brian Harvey
Bednarek
Very well spoken. We agree with you 100%.
Debra and Bill McPeters
Highline Canyon
Get Outlook for iOS [aka.ms]
From: Laurie Pheil
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2024 5:02:57 PM
To: SouthMountainVPC@phoenix.gov
Cc: Brian Harvey
Subject: Opposition statements to Z-SP-6-23 Self Storage Facility
Chair Marchuk, members of the committee and planning department:
We have made an earnest attempt to meet with Snell and Wilmer, to give them educated input and
solid proposals for how they could modify their development to gain support from the surrounding
neighborhood. After many weeks and countless hours of our volunteered efforts, we have come to an
impasse on improving safety and preserving views for the area residents.
We are now withdrawing our support for this development and recommending the Village Planning
Committee deny their rezoning application Z-SP-6-23 for a self storage facility at 41st Street and
Baseline Road.
Attached are some of the talking points that I will be sharing with the committee on Tuesday. When
you finish hearing their informative presentation, as a neighborhood, we hope that you will ask the
developer the following questions…
Have done all they can to ensure that surrounding property values are maintained?
Have they improved the lives of the residents in the village with improvements to infrastructure
regarding traffic, the multi-use trail or maintenance of city and mountain views?
Will they connect our village with access to jobs, services or arts and culture?
Have they taken the connectivity to the environment seriously in order to preserve natural open
space, view corridors, or low environmental impact for the future?
Have they even tried to incorporate the South Mountain Village Character Plan, or the new
Phoenix General Plan being approved in the next few months?
Page 993
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAGcR3cjxu7ZInnkKA0IY12k%… 1/2
3/12/24, 2:58 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
We hope you will consider all of these neighborhood concerns, read over our documented talking
points and let the applicants know that there’s still work to be done on this project before anyone can
get behind it.
Thank you for your time and attention!
Laurie Pheil
Representative of the South Mountain Gateway Residents Association
Laurie Pheil
South Mountain Gateway Residents Association
Phone: 602-696-3800
E-mail: creativebenefitcommunications@gmail.com
Page 994
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAGcR3cjxu7ZInnkKA0IY12k%… 2/2
3/12/24, 2:59 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
SAFStor Building
Diego Munoz <40blockdesign@gmail.com>
Mon 3/11/2024 9:38 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
Mr. Rogers
As a resident and property owner in the neighborhood south of the proposed SAFStor Building, Z-SP-6-23, I
am concerned with the damage this building, as proposed by the developer, will do to my neighborhood.
Specifically, the building height has destroyed all views from my home to the city lights. And it has destroyed
all the views from Baseline Road up to South Mountain. Baseline Road is designated as a Scenic View
Corridor. In destroying the views, my property values go down immediately. This does not serve the residents
or the City of Phoenix and State of Arizona, who will lose revenue with lowered values.
In working with our neighbors, SAFStor has made some changes to their original plan. We commend
SAFStor on changes to the look of the building and on moving the entry from 41st Street, a residential street,
to Baseline Road.
However, our biggest concern, our property value reduction based on the destruction of our views, has not
only never been addressed, in changing the entrance of the parking lot, views on an additional street have
also been completely blocked.
Right now, there are far too many storage facilities in Phoenix and specifically our area.
Within 1 mile there are zero self storage facilities
Within 3 miles there are 8 self storage facilities
Within 5 miles there are 22 self storage facilities
Link to Map: https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/3/edit?
mid=1H8sjDEli230opXVqCnmzD9H1F0w1MV8&usp=sharing [email.mail.marketingsuccesspros.com]. This
map clearly shows there are many storage facilities in the area already.
In addition, most storage units in the area are single story. About 75% to 80% of all storage facilities here in
Phoenix build a level as a basement. Yet SAFStor is looking for a 2 story building completely above ground
with a profile that will destroy all views for the neighborhood.
City light views are not just a "nice bonus." Our property values include our homes being on view properties.
Destroy the views, destroy the values, destroy the income to the City of Phoenix, Maricopa County, and the
State of Arizona. Building on this land as the developer has currently proposed will NOT increase revenue in
the form of taxes. It will decrease revenue because of lowered property values.
Shane Gore of the Shaw Butte Neighborhood Alliance helped his neighborhood to get the City to deny a
zoning change that would allow an unneeded, property-value-decreasing storage facility in his neighborhood.
Mr. Gore was kind enough to review the case in our neighborhood and offered input which has been
forwarded to the City of Phoenix.
Page 995
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAO97nUqqcnBMr9%2FTSWt… 1/2
3/12/24, 2:59 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
The neighbors of the South Mountain Gateway Residents Association are not asking for this building to be
built somewhere else. We are demanding that it be built in a way that does not destroy our homes and
property values.
Brian Harvey, a homeowner in my neighborhood, took time out of his busy schedule as a designer, to create
a floor plan that includes some basement units, bringing most of the building to only 1 story above ground.
This plan would solve the biggest issue still on the table, the destruction of our views and property values.
Accepting the development as it currently stands will be a detriment to our neighborhood and the City of
Phoenix. Keeping the building to one story above the ground/above grade by building a basement level
allows the development to come in to our neighborhood without destroying our neighborhood.
Regards,
Diego Munoz
Page 996
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAO97nUqqcnBMr9%2FTSWt… 2/2
3/11/24, 2:10 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Opposing Z-SP-6-23 Self Storage
Shane Gore
Mon 3/11/2024 11:48 AM
To:PDD South Mountain VPC
Cc:Brian Harvey
1 attachments (175 KB)
Z-SP-6-23%20Analysis%20&%20Commentary%20Self%20Storage%2041st%20&%20Baseline.pdf.pdf;
Chair Marchuk and members of the committee:
Please vote to recommend denial of rezoning application Z-SP-6-23 for self storage at 41st St and
Baseline Road.
Self storage represents a terrible land use that is contrary to virtually every part of the South Mountain
Village Character Plan and the City of Phoenix General Plan.
Attached is additional analysis and commentary for your review.
Thank you for your support in opposing this project.
Shane Gore (he/him)
FUTURE PHX
(602) 315-2734
shane@futurephx.org
www.futurephx.org [futurephx.org]
The People Shape The Future.
Page 997
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQABbHpmkUYoBNmBcOpj4XD… 1/1
3/19/24, 12:59 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
SAFStor Building
Aaron Bernard
Tue 3/12/2024 4:34 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
Dear Samuel,
As a resident and property owner in the neighborhood south of the proposed SAFStor Building, Z-
SP-6-23, I am OPPOSED to this project. After the neighbors and neighborhood representatives met
with the developer and attorneys, the developer refuses to address the biggest areas of concern.
These concerns impact the beauty, property values, and safety of our neighborhood.
I am concerned with the damage this building, as proposed by the developer, will do to my
neighborhood. Specifically, the building height has destroyed all views from my home to the city
lights. And it has destroyed all the views from Baseline Road up to South Mountain. Baseline Road is
designated as a Scenic View Corridor. In destroying the views, my property values go down
immediately. This does not serve the residents or the City of Phoenix and State of Arizona, who will
lose revenue with lowered values.
In working with our neighbors, SAFStor has made some changes to their original plan. We commend
SAFStor on changes to the look of the building and on moving the entry from 41st Street, a
residential street, to Baseline Road.
However, our biggest concern, our property value reduction based on the destruction of our views,
has not only never been addressed, in changing the entrance of the parking lot, views on an
additional street have also been completely blocked.
Right now, there are far too many storage facilities in Phoenix and specifically our area.
Within 1 mile there are zero self storage facilities
Within 3 miles there are 8 self storage facilities
Within 5 miles there are 22 self storage facilities
Link to Map: https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/3/edit?
mid=1H8sjDEli230opXVqCnmzD9H1F0w1MV8&usp=sharing [email.mail.marketingsuccesspros.com].
This map clearly shows there are many storage facilities in the area already.
In addition, most storage units in the area are single story. On average, 85% of storage facilities build
a level as a basement. Yet SAFStor is looking for a 2 story building completely above ground with a
profile that will destroy all views for the neighborhood.
City light views are not just a "nice bonus." Our property values include our homes being on view
properties. Destroy the views, destroy the values, destroy the income to the City of Phoenix,
Maricopa County, and the State of Arizona. Building on this land as the developer has currently
proposed will NOT increase revenue in the form of taxes. It will decrease revenue because of lowered
property values.
Shane Gore of the Shaw Butte Neighborhood Alliance helped his neighborhood to get the City to
deny a zoning change that would allow an unneeded, property-value-decreasing storage facility in
Page 998
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAIyjrLpo0wBAmGIBRtpsQP4… 1/2
3/19/24, 12:59 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
his neighborhood. Mr. Gore was kind enough to review the case in our neighborhood and offered
input which has been forwarded to the City of Phoenix.
The neighbors of the South Mountain Gateway Residents Association are not asking for this building
to be built somewhere else. We are demanding that it be built in a way that does not destroy our
homes and property values.
Brian Harvey, a homeowner in my neighborhood, took time out of his busy schedule as a designer, to
create a floor plan that includes some basement units, bringing most of the building to only 1 story
above ground. This plan would solve the biggest issue still on the table, the destruction of our views
and property values.
Accepting the development as it currently stands will be a detriment to our neighborhood and the
Aaron Bernard
Page 999
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAIyjrLpo0wBAmGIBRtpsQP4… 2/2
3/19/24, 12:56 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Safe Storage Z-SP-6-23 - Letter of Opposition
Alberto Rodriguez <2015silver@cox.net>
Tue 3/12/2024 3:26 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
1 attachments (140 KB)
3.12.24 Baseline opposition points.pdf;
Page 1000
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQABVeKm3XbcJNrIxQVoB7PB… 1/1
Z-SP-6-23 Self Storage - 41st St & Baseline Neighborhood Concerns
▪ We are able to acknowledge that Snell and Wilmer did meet with the neighbors on two
occasions to present their proposed vision for their project.
▪ The tone of their presentation and in all future negotiations made it quite clear to the
residents that this building could be 30’ tall by right and if we didn’t get on board with their
project, something a whole lot worse would be placed there.
▪ Well, a 2-story warehouse style storage facility cannot be built there by right, no matter what
its height. Which is why they are requesting your approval of their special permit application.
▪ Both the City of Phoenix and the South Mountain Village have approved and implemented
their vision for the future character of our neighborhood. This village has indicated that it
values the rich agricultural heritage of the area as well as bordering on the nation’s largest
municipal park. The City of Phoenix has classified Baseline Road as a Scenic Drive.
▪ Furthermore, the Village embraces modern development that harmonizes with the character
of its open spaces and connected neighborhoods. This development falls short of being
compatible in scale, design and appearance.
▪ Since this property is adjacent to, but not included in the Baseline Area Master Plan, the
Village has requested that the developer include those recommendations when presenting
their proposal. Michael indicated that they did include a sloping roof, some additional
landscaping setbacks to the south and the continuation of the multi-use trail in their
development. However, the multi-use trail abruptly stops with a retaining wall at the wash on
the east side of the property and does nothing to improve bicycle and pedestrian safety
along Baseline Road.
▪ One of the most important requirements of the BAMP is to protect views of both South
Mountain and the City for those living on the south side of Baseline Road. This project will
block views for neighborhood residents.
▪ The revised masterplan for the City of Phoenix that is scheduled to be approved by the City
Council in April talks about “Planning Equity” which relates to ensuring that urban and
regional planning processes and outcomes are fair, just and inclusive, to provide all of us
with equal access to resources within our community.
▪ Connectivity to retail, services, recreation and natural open space is outlined over and over
again in the revised plan for our city. This project does nothing to add neighborhood retail,
healthy restaurants or healthcare facilities which are the number one challenges for the
South Mountain Village.
▪ Goals setting a strategic path to growth, preservation and investment supports development
that enhances neighborhood retail and restaurants while maintaining walking and biking as
access to these amenities. This project does not facilitate employment generating uses for
our village or promote outdoor recreation like walking, hiking or biking.
▪ This storage facility will most likely not be accessed by the surrounding neighborhood since
most of the properties to the south of are larger lots with the potential of having their own
onsite storage, or not be economically viable to the other residents in close proximity.
Z-SP-6-23 Self Storage - 41st St & Baseline Neighborhood Concerns 1
Page 1001
Z-SP-6-23 Self Storage - 41st St & Baseline Neighborhood Concerns
▪ We have repeatedly asked the developer to include a few small things that would support
the traffic congestion that the residents are currently dealing with. We’ve asked them to
notch a small corner of their building to allow for 41st Street to be widened enough to
include a dedicated right turn lane that will greatly improve traffic flow in and out of our
neighborhood. We’ve also requested a deceleration lane leading into their parking area to
reduce back up on Baseline. We can see how valuable that has been at the Lins restaurant
just to the west of their proposed development.
▪ Because the access to their property is right in and right out only, there is a very good
possibility that people wishing to access their site will first turn into our only neighborhood
access point on 41st Street, then either try to make a U-turn or turn around at Highline Lane,
further blocking ingress and egress to our neighborhood. Bicyclists along the sidewalk in
front of their development will have limited views of cars leaving the neighborhood or those
making a quick U-turn to enter the storage facility, furthering the potential for serious or fatal
accidents along Baseline Road.
▪ There is already an overabundance of storage facilities within a three-mile radius of their
proposed project, including 2 existing facilities less than a mile to the east. Over time, once
a development no longer meets their profit margins, most buildings can be repurposed to
better fit the needs of the local community. However, this project with its very defined interior
storage units will forever be a storage facility with even the possibility of a vacant storage
facility in the future should there no longer be a need for this type of retail.
▪ We realize that this particular property poses some unique development challenges, but the
residents feel that it’s better to wait for a more appropriate development that meets the
criteria of the City’s vision of The Connected Oasis that enhances our neighborhood instead
of diminishing its value.
So, in closing, the residents would like you to consider the future of our neighborhood and the
South Mountain Village and ask the developer if they have done all they can to ensure that
surrounding property values are maintained? Have they improved the lives of the residents in
the village with improvements to infrastructure regarding traffic or maintenance of city and
mountain views? Will they connect our village with access to jobs, services or arts and culture?
Have they taken the connectivity to the environment seriously in order to preserve natural
open space, view corridors, or low environmental impact for the future?
Speaking on behalf of the residents, we feel that this is not the best commercial use for this
property and wholeheartedly oppose their special permit request.
To learn more about the “Connected Oasis” in the Phoenix General Plan Update, visit
https://www.phoenix.gov/pddsite/Documents/121823_60-Day%20Draft%20PlanPHX%202025%20Update_8.5x11.pdf
Z-SP-6-23 Self Storage - 41st St & Baseline Neighborhood Concerns 2
Page 1002
3/19/24, 1:02 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Re: SAFStor Building, Z-SP-6-23 OBJECTION
aw50
Tue 3/12/2024 4:45 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
Anthony White
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
-------- Original message --------
From: Samuel S Rogers
Date: 3/12/24 3:03 PM (GMT-07:00)
To: aw50@cox.net
Subject: Re: SAFStor Building, Z-SP-6-23 OBJECTION
Good afternoon,
Thank you for the letter, can you please provide your name for my records?
Thank you,
Samuel Rogers, AICP
Village Planner II*
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Samuel.Rogers@phoenix.gov
602-534-4010
From: aw50@cox.net
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2024 10:07 PM
To: Samuel S Rogers
Subject: SAFStor Building, Z-SP-6-23 OBJECTION
Thx,
Page 1003
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAJTvKjcKOB5PrmjeszkvKKM… 1/1
LETTER FOR SAFStor Building, Z-SP-6-23 OBJECTION
As a resident and property owner in the neighborhood south of the proposed SAFStor Building,
Z-SP-6-23, I am concerned with the damage this building, as proposed by the developer, will do
to my neighborhood. Specifically, the building height has destroyed all views from my home to
the city lights. And it has destroyed all the views from Baseline Road up to South Mountain.
Baseline Road is designated as a Scenic View Corridor. In destroying the views, my property
values go down immediately. This does not serve the residents or the City of Phoenix and State
of Arizona, who will lose revenue with lowered values.
In working with our neighbors, SAFStor has made some changes to their original plan. We
commend SAFStor on changes to the look of the building and on moving the entry from 41st
Street, a residential street, to Baseline Road.
However, our biggest concern, our property value reduction based on the destruction of our
views, has not only never been addressed, in changing the entrance of the parking lot, views on
an additional street have also been completely blocked.
Right now, there are far too many storage facilities in Phoenix and specifically our area.
Within 1 mile there are zero self storage facilities
Within 3 miles there are 8 self storage facilities
Within 5 miles there are 22 self storage facilities
Link to
Map: https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/3/edit?mid=1H8sjDEli230opXVqCnmzD9H1F0w1MV8
&usp=sharing. This map clearly shows there are many storage facilities in the area already.
In addition, most storage units in the area are single story. About 75% to 80% of all storage
facilities here in Phoenix build a level as a basement. Yet SAFStor is looking for a 2 story building
completely above ground with a profile that will destroy all views for the neighborhood.
City light views are not just a "nice bonus." Our property values include our homes being on view
properties. Destroy the views, destroy the values, destroy the income to the City of Phoenix,
Maricopa County, and the State of Arizona. Building on this land as the developer has currently
proposed will NOT increase revenue in the form of taxes. It will decrease revenue because of
lowered property values.
Page 1004
Shane Gore of the Shaw Butte Neighborhood Alliance helped his neighborhood to get the City
to deny a zoning change that would allow an unneeded, property-value-decreasing storage
facility in his neighborhood. Mr. Gore was kind enough to review the case in our neighborhood
and offered input which has been forwarded to the City of Phoenix.
The neighbors of the South Mountain Gateway Residents Association are not asking for this
building to be built somewhere else. We are demanding that it be built in a way that does not
destroy our homes and property values.
Brian Harvey, a homeowner in my neighborhood, took time out of his busy schedule as a
designer, to create a floor plan that includes some basement units, bringing most of the building
to only 1 story above ground. This plan would solve the biggest issue still on the table, the
destruction of our views and property values.
Accepting the development as it currently stands will be a detriment to our neighborhood and
the City of Phoenix. Keeping the building to one story above the ground/above grade by
building a basement level allows the development to come in to our neighborhood without
destroying our neighborhood.
Page 1005
3/12/24, 3:03 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Storage Facility
Hartman, Chris
Tue 3/12/2024 11:16 AM
To:Samuel S Rogers
Subject: Storage Facility
As a resident and property owner in the neighborhood south of the proposed SAFStor Building, Z-SP-6-
23, I am NOT in agreement with the proposed site plan as it has been currently presented to us. I have
deep concerns with the damage this building will bring to our historic neighborhood.
Specifically, the building height has destroyed all views from my home to the city lights. And it has
destroyed all the views from Baseline Road up to South Mountain. Baseline Road is designated as a
Scenic View Corridor. In destroying the views, my property values go down immediately. This does not
serve the residents or the City of Phoenix and State of Arizona, who will lose revenue with lowered
values.
Our property value reduction based on the destruction of our views, has not been acknowledged or
addressed by the development team and Right now, there are already too many storage facilities in
Phoenix and specifically our area.
In addition to the views, the site development as is currently proposed adds a further danger to the
inflow/outflow of our street as it blocks the sightline to pedestrians and bicycles that currently use the
sidewalk traveling against traffic to access canal entrance and bus stop.
In summary, I do not believe this development is a value add to our community and as such I do not
support nor want this proposed development.
Sincerely,
Christopher Hartman
7647 South 41st Place
Phoenix, AZ 85042
cmhemail@icloud.com
chartman@sfgiants.com
602-670-9555
Sent from my iPhone
Page 1006
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAHoRCbjBTksUrOakfTmZZL8… 1/1
3/19/24, 12:55 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
FW: emdist8 - Form Submission- Z-SP-6-23
Council District 8 PCC
Tue 3/12/2024 1:32 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
2 attachments (29 KB)
Storage Facility.eml; emdist8 - Form Submission.eml;
Hi Sam,
Below is another email regarding Z-SP-6-23 and we received 2 more which I have also attached to this email.
Sincerely,
Kalea Moore
Constituent Services Manager
Office of Councilwoman Kesha Hodge Washington
Phoenix City Council District 8
Main Office: 602-262-7493
From: no-reply@phoenix.gov
Date: Tuesday, March 12, 2024 at 12:32 PM
To: Council District 8 PCC
Subject: emdist8 - Form Submission
FROM : Jesus Diaz
SUBJECT : Proposed Storage Facility (Baseline/41st St)
MESSAGE : Dear Ms Washington,
With regards to the proposed storage facility, while the building height and location will not affect any
of our views in Highline Canyon, our neighbors on 41st Street and the next street will be affected as
their views will be obstructed or eliminated. Being that an action by the city of Phoenix would be to
allow such a structure that is outside the zoning, it probably would open the City to an Inverse
Eminent Domaine action by those whose property values are affected. Should the homeowners take
such an action and are awarded damages, the cost of these damages are shared by all residents of the
city. I am not certain that all members of the planning and zoning or city counsel are aware, but their
approval of this project could expose the city to substantial monetary damages.
It is my understanding that the developer has made changes to ingress and egress so that is attained
off of Baseline Road instead of 41st street. If that is the case, the only other issue to resolve is the
height of the building. I think if the developer would keep it's height to single story, they would
resolve most of the issues most homeowners have. This could be accomplished by putting one level
below ground instead of building 2 stories. Seems to me that should be a reasonable compromise.
Otherwise, I'm sure there will be attorney's salivating over creating an action on behalf of the
homeowners most affected.
Inverse eminent domain is a legal concept and cause of action used by property owners when a
governmental entity takes an action which damages or decreases the value of private property without
Page 1007
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAGCFwzzc80ZBrlLJikD%2BE… 1/2
3/19/24, 12:55 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
obtaining ownership of the property through the use of eminent domain. Inverse condemnation is
initiated by the property owner when the government exacts a taking without following the eminent
domain procedures. This is often a land-use dispute in which a property owner challenges
development restrictions.
I sure hope this can be resolved to everyone's satisfaction and all can live in harmony as they have
over the years. Looking forward to meet you in person some day and look forward to doing so.
Best Regards,
Jesus & Gracie Diaz
Email : jesus.a.diaz@outlook.com
AREA : 480
PHONE : 467-9505
ADDRESS : 8020 S 38th Way
CITY : Phoenix
STATE : AZ
ZIP : 85042
Submission ID: 8b778bf8c19245b6b37e1237abf06170
Form Submission On : 3/12/2024 12:32:44 PM
Referer: https://phoenix.gov/district8/contact-district-8
This is Not Spam - This message is sent on behalf of the City of Phoenix.
Please handle appropriately.
Page 1008
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAGCFwzzc80ZBrlLJikD%2BE… 2/2
3/28/24, 3:53 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
SAFStor Building opinion
patricia ragbir
Tue 3/19/2024 1:54 PM
To:mmaerowitz@swlaw.com
Cc:dassa2009mama@gmail.com
My name is Patricia Ragbir and I am the owner of 7634 S 41st place Phoenix, Az 85042
As a resident and property owner in the neighborhood south of the proposed SAFStor Building, Z-SP-6_23, I am
OPPOSED to this project. After the neighbors and neighborhood representatives met with the developer and
attorneys, the developer refuses to address the biggest areas of concern. These concerns impact the beauty,
property values, and safety of our neighborhood.
I am concerned with the damage this building, as proposed by the developer, will do to my neighborhood.
Specifically, the building height has destroyed all views from my home to the city lights, and it has destroyed all
the views from Baseline Road up to South Mountain. Baseline Road is designated as a Scenic View Corridor. In
destroying the views, my property values go down immediately. This does not serve the residents or the city of
Phoenix and the State of Arizona, who will lose revenue with lowered values.
In working with our neighbors, SAFStor has made some changes to their original plan. We commend SAFStor on
changes to the look of the building and on moving with entry with 41st Street, a residential street to Baseline
Road.
However, our biggest concern, our property value reduction based on the destruction of our views, has not only
never addressed, in changing the entrance of the parking lot, views on an additional street have also been
completely blocked. Right now, there are too many storage facilities in Phoenix and specifically our area.
Within 1 mile there are zero self storage facilities
Within 3 miles there are 8 self storage facilities
Within 5 miles there are 22 self storage facilities
Link to map:
https://www.google.com/maps/search/storage+unit/@33.3853397,-112.0426803,13z/data=!4m2!2m1!6e6?
entry=ttu [google.com]
This ma5p clearly shows there are many storage facilities in the area already.
In addition, most storage units in the area are single story. On average, 85% of storage facilities build a level as a
basement. Yet SAFStor in looking for a 2 story building completely above ground with a profile that will destroy all
views for the neighborhood.
City light views are not just a “nice bonus.” Our property values include our homes being on view properties.
Destroy the views, destroy the values, destroy the income to the City of Phoenix, Maricopa County, and the State
of Arizona. Building on this land as the developer has currently proposed will NOT increase revenue in the form
of taxes. It will decrease revenue because of lowered property values.
Shane Gore of the Shaw Butte Neighborhood Alliance helped his neighborhood to the City to deny a zoning
change that would allow an unneeded property-value-decreasing storage facility in his neighborhood.
Page 1009
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAIj3jIHqRUPFpaOGxXDsXIE… 1/2
3/28/24, 3:53 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Mr. Gore was kind enough to review the case in our neighborhood and offered input which has been forwarded to
the City of Phoenix.
The neighbors of the South Mountain Gateway Residents Association are not asking for this building to be built
somewhere else. We are demanding that it be built in a way that does not destroy our homes and property
values.
Brian Harvey, a homeowner in my neighborhood, took time out of his busy schedule as a designer, to create a
floor plan that includes some basement units, bringing most the building to only 1 story above ground. This plan
would solve the biggest issue still on the table, the destruction of our views and property values.
Accepting the development as it currently stands will be a detriment to our neighborhood and the City of
Phoenix. We believe this proposal should be rejected in its entirety.
Sincerely Patricia Ragbir
Page 1010
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAIj3jIHqRUPFpaOGxXDsXIE… 2/2
ATTACHMENT C
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-SP-6-23-8
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting March 12, 2024
Request From C-2
Request To C-2 SP
Proposal Self-service storage warehouse and underlying C-2
uses
Location Southeast corner of 41st Street and Baseline Road
VPC DISCUSSION:
Committee Members Fatima Muhammad Roque and George Brooks joined the meeting
during this item bringing quorum to nine members (nine needed for a quorum).
27 members of the public registered to speak in opposition to this item, 16 members of
the public registered in opposition but did not wish to speak, and one member of the
public registered to speak in favor of this item. Seven members of the public donated
their time to Brian Harvey and three members of the public donated their time to Alberto
Rodriguez.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Mike Maerowitz, representing the applicant with Snell & Wilmer, LLP, presented the
proposal, outreach, subject site location, examples of by-right uses allowed in the C-2
zoning district, C-2 development standards, benefits of self-storage, and changes to the
proposal based on community feedback.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Darcy Thomas stated that she supports the project and stated the self-storage does
not produce much traffic.
Cynthia Standage-Beyer asked if the VPC had quorum. Chair Trent Marchuk
explained that the VPC needs one more member to reach quorum and stated that he is
hopeful another member will make it to the meeting.
Paul Sapio stated that he is opposed to the project, stated the neighborhood deals with
other uses, stated that the Baseline Corridor is nice but ends at 40th Street, stated
concerns about traffic, and stated that a child recently died on Baseline Road.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1011
South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-SP-6-23-8 Info Only
Bill McPeters stated that he is opposed to the project, stated that the project does not
provided benefits to the community, echoed Paul Sapio’s concerns about traffic safety
and the recent fatality, stated that there was an accident at 41st and Baseline earlier
that day, stated that Baseline Road has no traffic control at the intersection, stated
people will have to do U-Turns to access the property, stated that a nearby café built a
deceleration lane, stated that turning left onto Baseline Road is dangerous, that the
proposal does not address the dangerous left turns, and that the proposal makes
turning onto Baseline Road more dangerous.
Luis Enriquez stated that he is opposed to the project, stated he has been in area
since 1947, stated Baseline used to be two lanes and flowers, groves, farmland, and
citrus, explained he purchased a home in South Phoenix and stayed, explained that he
bought one of the first homes in the area, explained that District 8 has turned into
beautiful place, stated that District 8 used to be the a ghetto and where all the dumps
were placed, stated that the area has maintained the country architecture of homes,
stated that there will be four self-storage facilities in the area, and stated that another
self-storage facility is not needed.
Brian Harvey introduced himself, explained that he has 30 years of architectural
design, stated that he was asked by neighbors to speak about architecture, stated that
progress has been made on the refining the proposal’s traffic, safety, and design, but
explained that the preservation of view corridors had not been addressed, stated that
the proposal is massively out of scale, stated that the building positioning creates safety
risks, stated that the architecture does not reflect the history of area, stated that the
alternative designs from the community have been dismissed by the applicant team
without consideration, stated that he is in opposition to the project until the preservation
of view corridors is addressed, stated it feels like a large business rather than a local
business, and stated that other C-2 uses would offer the community amenities.
Laurie Pheil stated appreciation that the applicant team had met with her three times,
stated the applicant team’s tone in the meetings was always that things could be worse
if a by-right development comes to build, stated that the self-storage use is not allowed
to be 30 feet tall by-right, stated that building’s scale is not compatible with the
neighborhood, stated that the VPC requested incorporation of the Baseline Area
Overlay District (BAOD) and Mixed-Use Agricultural District design elements, stated that
the proposed Multi-Use Trail abruptly stops when it hits the wash, stated that the
proposal does not preserve view corridors like the BAOD requires, stated that Brian
Harvey produced drawings to build a basement while lowering the height, stated that
the applicant team has not given up any square footage of space since the initial
presentation, stated that City of Phoenix General Plan includes planning equity policies,
and stated that residents purchased properties with the belief that the BAOD would
protect property values and enhance the area.
Catherine Napoli explained that she has been a resident in the area since 1997, stated
that residents were told by the developer that the community should accept the proposal
Page 1012
South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-SP-6-23-8 Info Only
because the elevations had been updated and the ingress/egress had been moved to
Baseline Road, stated that the building’s proposed location will limit sight view triangles
when people are trying to turn onto Baseline Road, stated a U-turn will be required to go
westbound out of the development, stated that the development team refuses to bring
the height down, and stated that the development will create a potentially deadly
scenario.
Alberto Rodriguez explained his history in the area and background, stated that he is
opposed to the project, stated that other uses would support the Connect Oasis General
Plan Core Value, stated that the Circle K across Baseline is the only retail use that the
school to the north has access to, stated that an amenity that students could use would
be beneficial, stated that a proper crossing at 40th Street is needed, stated a need to
slow down traffic on Baseline Road, stated that self-storage will only employ two or
three people, echoed concerns about recent traffic accidents, and stated that the
development will make things more dangerous.
Julia Taggart explained that she had been through the same process in Sunnyslope,
stated that a HAWK costs $250,000 and requires a six month survey, stated that self-
storage did not help the community in Sunnyslope, stated that her community had been
dealing with traffic safety issues, stated that Cave Creek Road was approved for a
HAWK but it will not be built for 10 years, stated that law suits will happen, and
encouraged the community to attend the Planning Commission and City Council
hearings on the case.
Chair Marchuk stated that there had been some confusion on the role of the VPC and
asked staff to explain who the VPC members are and what they do. Mr. Rogers
explained that the VPC is voluntary committee made up of residents and workers in
South Mountain that are meant to represent the needs and wants of the South Mountain
community.
Brian Harvey explained some proposed design changes he had developed to provide a
more compatible and safer development, explained that 1/3 of the building could be a
basement and explained that he had sought out a quote for excavation, stated that
building setbacks will improve the design, stated that he had won a Tempe
beautification award on industrial building, stated that the development team had given
up zero square footage, stated that the development team needs to consider moving
somewhere else or changing the design massing, stated that when the building comes
in a whole block will have views blocked, and stated that the out-of-state developer is
unwilling to modify the design.
Shane Gore asked how the development will comply with the South Mountain Village
Character Plan and the General Plan, asked about the envisioned benefits for the
community, and stated that the top self-storage companies each made approximately 4
billion in profit and can afford to build a HAWK.
Page 1013
South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-SP-6-23-8 Info Only
Patrick McGrorty stated he has been in the area since 2005, stated that the building is
out of character with the area, stated that the building should be one story, stated that
other C-2 uses would generally be one story, stated that he lives just south of the
subject site, stated the project will block his views and inhibit him from sitting with his
daughter to watch planes land, and stated that the notched building elevation is the
least he is willing to compromise on.
APPLICANT RESPONSE
Mr. Maerowitz stated that in his experience you cannot please everyone, stated that
what is important is to invite the neighbors into the discussion, and stated that the
proposed self-storage use is low traffic generating use. Mr. Maerowitz explained that, in
response to community concerns, the development team had altered the proposal by
moving the ingress/egress to Baseline Road, spoke to the Street Transportation
Department to help with the timing of the intersection, changed the proposed building
materials and colors, changed the rooflines, and changed the landscaping. Mr.
Maerowitz explained that community outreach process is a negotiation, stated that
everyone needs to be reasonable, and stated that building a basement is not a
reasonable request because it is cost prohibitive. Mr. Maerowitz explained that self-
storage uses can benefit communities by providing extra space for storage, stated it is a
low traffic generating use, stated that there are no back-of-house functions that are
disruptive, stated that the proposal will provide certainty for the property, and explained
that the development team is planning to come back with a proposal that shows a
dedicated turn lane.
QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE
Committee Member Fatima Muhammad Roque asked for more information on the
traffic analysis conducted for this project and how many units are proposed. Mr.
Maerowitz explained that the applicant team had investigated the peak trip generation
and stated that during weekdays there will be approximately nine trips and on weekends
there will be approximately 20 trips, explained that the applicant team had worked with
the Street Transportation Department to fix the traffic light timing, explained that the
proposal is for 726 units, and explained that units are smaller interior units.
Committee Member Kay Shepard stated concerns about the building's aesthetics. Mr.
Maerowitz stated that the development team aims to create the most attractive self-
storage building possible and clarified that although the subject site is not within the
BAOD, the proposal has incorporated BOAD design elements such as the inclusion of
wood, stone veneer, and sloping roofs. Committee Member Shepard stated that the
design project aligns with a parking garage, stated that just because the proposal is
more attractive that most self-storage uses does not mean the proposal is desirable,
and stated that the development will block views. Mr. Maerowitz explained that the
building is lower than the maximum height allowed and stated that the City of Phoenix
says that view corridors are not protected.
Page 1014
South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-SP-6-23-8 Info Only
Committee Member Darlene Jackson questioned the use of words like "give", brought
attention to the history of South Phoenix, highlighted issues such as drugs, crime, and
family member deaths, emphasized the importance of community engagement, stated
that community outreach should be engaging rather than telling, stated disappointment
in not seeing the humanity in the project, stated the need to connect with the
community, stated that suggestions are not being considered, questioned whether the
project is useful for the community, and expressed a desire to hear more about the
human side of the project. Mr. Maerowitz stated that he hopes it does not to sound like
the development team are brushing off the community, mentioned significant changes
made in response to community feedback, particularly regarding traffic, design, and
landscaping, explained that the proposed building aligns with what is expected to be
seen in Baseline areas, and highlighted the human side of the project, mentioning that
four units would be reserved free of charge for the community.
Committee Member Lee Coleman inquired about the zoning that allows self-storage
by right. Mr. Rogers responded that self-storage facilities are allowed in C-3 and above
zoning districts.
Committee Member Tremikus Muhammad asked why the company wasn't
considering the alternatives the neighborhood has offered. Mr. Maerowitz explained
that that the team made a lot of requested changes, emphasized the need for
reasonable requests, mentioned that they looked into building a basement, but it was
cost-prohibitive, and discussed dedicated right-in/right-out options to move traffic off of
41st Street. Committee Member Muhammad asked if it is reasonable for the community
to accept a drop in property value. Mr. Maerowitz explained that being adjacent to a
vacant C-2 property negatively impacts home values and stated that the proposal for
self-storage will improve values by removing the possibility of a use that includes
loading and other nuisances.
Committee Member Greg Brownell emphasized the importance of the community
standing firm against threats of "something worse," highlighted the community's courage
in risking something else rather than approving something they do not like, and stressed
the importance of not being afraid of something unknown.
Vice Chair Arthur Greathouse III asked about the context behind the building's height
being lower than 30ft. Mr. Maerowitz explained that a higher building wouldn't be a
huge benefit and wouldn't impact views unnecessarily, while still being economically
sound.
Committee Member Muhammad Roque asked about the number of jobs and rental
rates and stated that four out of 726 units had been allocated to the community.
Mr. Maerowitz provided details on employment opportunities, rental rates, and
community units and explained that four units will be reserved for the community
Page 1015
South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-SP-6-23-8 Info Only
because Safestor will continue to own the property and wants to provide benefits for the
community. Committee Member Muhammad Roque asked about the standard
occupancy. Christopher Russ, with the applicant team, stated that the development is
expected to be 90% leased within two years. Committee Member Muhammad Roque
clarified that the vacancy rate would be around 10% and stated the four units reserved
for the community is much less than 10%.
Committee Member Coleman asked about due diligence in site selection and asked
why a C-3 site wasn't found. Mr. Maerowitz explained that if a suitable C-3 zoned
property were available, the applicant team would pursue it, and stated the benefits of
the site being next to residences. Committee Member Coleman stated that there are C-
3 zoned sites all over South Mountain.
Committee Member Brownell questioned the philosophy of picking a site with
opposition rather than settling for a site zoned C-3 and questioned the logic that the
self-storage use will be good for a neighborhood that opposes it. Mr. Maerowitz stated
that it is important that self-storage is close to residences and discussed the benefits of
the Special Permit process in showcasing the development to the community.
Committee Member Jackson summarized the discussion, emphasized the economic
benefits of further investing in the community, asked why they had not taken the hit and
invested in the community, and stated she believes the community is worth more than
just four units.
Committee Member Coleman commented on the need for the product but not in the
specific area and suggested that locating near a multifamily development would be
more beneficial than near an established single-family residential community.
Dr. Brooks asked for clarification that no decisions were to be made at the meeting.
Chair Marchuk stated that the meeting is for informational purposes only, emphasized
the importance of hearing the community and VPC perspectives, stated that more than
36 comment cards had been received, summarized various responsibilities outlined in
the Village Handbook, encouraged residents to not be afraid of the unknown, stated
residents should understand the risk, stated that the VPC are representatives of the
community, and stated that the process has multiple steps.
Page 1016
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-SP-6-23-8
Date of VPC Meeting April 9, 2024
Request From C-2
Request To C-2 SP
Proposal Self-service storage warehouse and underlying C-2
uses
Location Southeast corner of 41st Street and Baseline Road
VPC Recommendation Denial
VPC Vote 10-0-1
VPC DISCUSSION:
50 members of the public registered to speak in opposition to this item, five members of
the public registered in opposition but did not wish to speak, two members of the public
registered to speak in favor of this item, and one member of the public registered in
favor but did not wish to speak. Seven members of the public donated their time to
Brian Harvey and three members of the public donated their time to Alberto Rodriguez.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Samuel Rogers, staff, presented the request, the location of the subject site, the
surrounding context, the General Plan Land Use Map designation, the site plan,
proposed elevations, the staff recommendation, the staff findings, and concluded by
presenting the proposed stipulations.
Mike Maerowitz, representing the applicant with Snell & Wilmer, LLP, requested a
continuance to provided time to prepare plans that address community concerns.
Chair Trent Marchuk stated that in order to consider the continuance request there is a
need to consider the appropriateness of the proposed use. Mr. Maerowitz explained
that a development’s impact on a neighborhood is a function of the design, clarified the
difference between requesting a Special Permit and a C-3 designation, and stated that
one purpose of the Special Permit process is to address community design concerns.
Committee Member Greg Brownell stated that the request for the continuance needs
to be addressed before discussing the case. Chair Marchuk asked staff for clarification
on the process. Mr. Rogers stated that discussion of the land use is germane to the
continuance request. Chair Marchuk stated that the committee should discuss the land
use and continuance request.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1017
South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-SP-6-23-8
Committee Member Kay Shepard stated that if the motion to continue fails the VPC
will hear the presentation and make a recommendation on the case. Committee
Member Emma Viera stated that it is important to consider the case’s issues today out
of respect to the people attending the meeting. Chair Marchuk stated that if the land use
is not acceptable it is not necessary for the applicant to revise their plans.
Chair Marchuk discussed public comment, asked the community members to raise
their hands if they wanted to deny the continuance request, and stated the community
wants to deny the continuance request.
MOTION
Committee Member Kay Shepard made a motion to deny the continuance of Z-SP-6-
23-8. Committee Member Emma Viera seconded the motion.
VOTE
5-6, motion to deny the continuance of Z-SP-6-23-8 failed with Committee Members
Brooks, Shepard, Smith, Viera, Marchuk in favor and Committee Members Brownell, F.
Daniels, T. Daniels, Falcon, Jackson, and Greathouse opposed.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Mike Maerowitz, representing the applicant with Snell & Wilmer, LLP, presented the
proposal, outreach, subject site location, examples of by-right uses allowed in the C-2
zoning district, C-2 development standards, benefits of self-storage, and changes to the
proposal based on community feedback.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Darcy Thomas expressed her support for the project, stated that the project had been
improved through negotiation with the neighborhood, stated that the project would be
the best look large box retail store in the neighborhood, emphasized the importance of
quiet uses and expressed a preference for a lower building, and stated that some
neighbors support the project, but explained she had difficulty in rallying them to attend
the meeting.
Brian Harvey shared his recent interactions with the community, highlighting
discussions at a budget committee meeting where advocates for marginalized voices
were heartening. Mr. Harvey questioned the benefits of a C-3 use for the community
and raised concerns about the proposed design, likening it to a massive industrial
warehouse. Mr. Harvey also discussed alternative design proposals and the importance
of considering design aspects such as view corridors and stepped design.
Laurie Pheil provided a summary of work with the development team, stated most
residents do not want self-storage, stated that the neighborhood was told that building a
basement was not financially viable, but now a basement is proposed, stated that self-
Page 1018
South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-SP-6-23-8
storage will always be a warehouse type building and the neighborhood prefers a
commercial development, and stated it is better to wait for something more appropriate.
Cynthia Standage-Beyer stated that she sat through two hearing on this case, stated
that she used to serve on the VPC, and expressed concerns about the project's
alignment with long-range planning goals.
Catherine Napoli stated that the proposal will be the 12th self-storage use in the area,
stated that self-storage is an inappropriate use for this site, stated the proposal does not
align with the South Mountain Character Plan, raised safety concerns, stated that the
Village needs neighborhood retail, and asked VPC members to recommend denial.
Shane Gore criticized the project's design, stated that land is the Village’s most
valuable resource, and stated that the applicant team cannot get the design right
because the use is not appropriate for the subject site.
Mike Davis raised concerns about parking requirements, noting the need for a variance
and the additional parking spaces storage units would necessitate.
Bill McPeters expressed concerns about access to Baseline Road and the potential
impact of a large warehouse on property values and the neighborhood's aesthetic.
Carmen Rodriguez, explained her experience working in HR at a jail, likened the
project's design to a jail, and urged against its approval.
APPLICANT RESPONSE
Mr. Maerowitz emphasized the importance of community dialogue in zoning cases,
stated that the applicant has addressed all concerns raised by neighbors prior to the
meeting, highlighted alternative uses for the site would result in higher traffic volumes,
stated that the applicant team moved access onto Baseline Road and proposed
dedicated turn lanes on 41st Street in response to community concerns, stated that the
applicant team had added materials and updated the design in response to community
concerns, and highlighted the shifting perspectives on design and land use, noting that
despite efforts to address concerns, some community members now express opposition
to the proposed use. Mr. Maerowitz clarified that if the application is approved, the
specific proposal would be the only permitted project and highlighted community
benefits in landscaping, design, and traffic management that would accompany the
project.
QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE
Chair Marchuk noted the substantial opposition with 56 cards against and only two in
support.
Page 1019
South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-SP-6-23-8
Committee Member Tamala Daniels stated that the distributed map shows other C-2
and C-3 zoned properties and stated that it is disappointing to hear that other
communities deserve this use. Ms. Pheil explained that many of the listed sites already
host industrial and multifamily properties, making them more appropriate for storage
facilities. Committee Member T. Daniels emphasized the importance of considering the
entire village and avoiding the implication that some areas are less valuable.
Committee Member Emma Viera stated that she is in opposition to the development
because it lacks service to the community.
Committee Member Shelly Smith inquired about the variance on parking
requirements. Mr. Maerowitz explained that the Phoenix's parking ratio system is based
on the number of units, stated that the proposal includes very small units, and explained
that the development will not need total number of required parking spaces.
Committee Member Darlene Jackson urged unity among the community and
reiterated the need to focus on the request.
Committee Member Greg Brownell stated that the project should go on a C-3 zoned
property and stated that there are a lot of appropriate places in the Village for the
proposed use.
FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: MOTION, DISCUSSION, AND VOTE
MOTION
Committee Member Greg Brownell made a motion to recommend denial of Z-SP-6-
23-8. Committee Member Kay Shepard seconded the motion.
VOTE
10-0-1, motion to recommend denial of Z-SP-6-23-8 passed with Brooks, Brownell, F.
Daniels, T. Daniels, Falcon, Jackson, Shepard, Smith, Viera, and Greathouse in favor
and Chair Marchuk abstained.
Chair Marchuk explained that he abstained because there was not tie to break.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:
None.
Page 1020
ATTACHMENT D
To: City of Phoenix Planning Commission Date: May 1, 2024
From: Racelle Escolar, AICP
Principal Planner
Subject: ITEM NO. 7 (Z-SP-6-23-8) – SOUTHEAST CORNER OF 41ST STREET
AND BASELINE ROAD
The purpose of this is memo is to update a stipulation to reference updated elevations
submitted by the applicant on April 26, 2024, and to convey additional updated plans and
correspondence that has been received regarding this rezoning request.
Rezoning Case No. Z-SP-6-23-8 is a request to rezone 3.84 acres located at the
southeast corner of 41st Street and Baseline Road from C-2 (Intermediate Commercial)
to C-2 SP (Intermediate Commercial, Special Permit) to allow a self-service storage
facility and underlying C-2 uses.
The South Mountain VPC heard this request on April 9, 2024, and recommended denial
by a vote of 10-0-1.
Staff recommends updating Stipulation No. 1, regarding general conformance to the
elevations, to reference the updated elevations date stamped April 26, 2024.
Enclosed with this memo are updated plans submitted by the applicant, a letter of support,
and a petition and letters of opposition received after the publication of the Staff Report.
The letters cite concerns with the proposed use, height, limited job creation, building
design, property values, crime, number of self-storage uses in already in the area,
obstruction of view corridors, compatibility with the surrounding area, and the proposal’s
misalignment with the South Mountain Character Plan and the City of Phoenix General
Plan.
The updated plans submitted by the applicant reflect changes made based on community
input. Updates include the following:
Notched building design at the northwest corner of the site to improve site view
triangles;
The center of the building was reduced to one story to preserve view corridors (a
basement is proposed to keep the unit count the same);
Additional architectural variation and building materials; and
Modification of the roof line.
Staff recommends approval, per the modified stipulations in bold font below:
Page 1021
Z-SP-6-23-8 Planning Commission Backup Memo
May 1, 2024
1. The development shall be in general conformance with the elevations date
stamped March 15, 2024 APRIL 26, 2024, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
2. Where pedestrian walkways cross a vehicular path, the pathway shall be
constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or other
pavement treatments that visually contrasts parking and drive aisle surfaces, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
3. A minimum of one green infrastructure (GI) techniques for stormwater
management shall be implemented per the Greater Phoenix Metro Green
Infrastructure and Low Impact Development Details for Alternative Stormwater
Management, as approved or modified by the Planning and Development
Department.
4. A minimum of 10% of the required parking spaces shall be EV capable.
5. A minimum of one of the required bicycle parking spaces shall include standard
electrical receptacles for electric bicycle charging capabilities, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department
6. Four bicycle spaces shall be provided on the site through Inverted U and/or
artistic racks located near the building entrances or in a secure location inside
the building and installed per the requirements of Section 1307.H. of the
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
7. Bicycle parking spaces shall be shaded by a structure, landscaping, or a
combination of the two to provide a minimum of 75% shade, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.
8. All uncovered surface parking lot areas shall be landscaped with minimum 2-
inch caliper, drought-tolerant shade trees. Landscaping shall be dispersed
throughout the parking area and achieve 25% shade, as approved by Planning
and Development Department.
9. All public and private pedestrian pathways including sidewalks shall be shaded
to a minimum 75%, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
10. In addition to the landscape materials listed in the Baseline Area Master Plan
Plant List, Cercidium Hybrid (Desert Museum Palo Verde), Quercus Virginiana
(Live Oak), and Pistacia X 'Red-Push (Red Push Pistache), may be permitted
as approved by Planning and Development Department and shall be utilized,
as approved or modified by the Planning and Development Department.
Page 1022
Z-SP-6-23-8 Planning Commission Backup Memo
May 1, 2024
11. Landscaping shall be maintained by permanent and automatic/water efficient
WaterSense labeled irrigation controllers (or similar smart controller) to
minimize maintenance and irrigation water consumption for all on and offsite
landscape irrigation.
12. Prior to final site plan approval, documentation shall be provided that
demonstrates a commitment to participate in the Water Efficiency Checkup
program for a minimum of 15 years, or as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
13. The developer shall dedicate right-of-way and construct a bus stop pad on
eastbound Baseline Road. The bus stop pad shall be constructed according to
bus stop pad shall be spaced from 41st Street according to City of Phoenix
Standard Detail P1258. Trees shall be placed to provide minimum 50% shade
coverage to bus stop pad.
14. A 30-foot-wide multi-use trail easement (MUTE) shall be dedicated along the
south side of Baseline Road and a minimum 10-foot-wide multi-use trail (MUT)
shall be constructed within the easement in accordance with the MAG
supplemental detail and as approved or modified by the Planning and
Development Department.
15. A minimum 70-feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated for the south half of
Baseline Road, adjacent to the development.
16. The sidewalk along Baseline Road shall be a minimum of 6 feet in width and
detached with a minimum 8-foot-wide landscape strip located between the
sidewalk and back of curb and planted to the following standards, as approved
or modified by the Planning and Development Department.
a. Minimum 2-inch caliper single-trunk, large canopy, drought-tolerant,
shade trees planted 20 feet on center, or in equivalent groupings.
b. Drought tolerant vegetation to achieve a minimum of 75 percent live
coverage.
Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a
pedestrian environment for installing the required plants.
17. A minimum 5-foot-wide sidewalk shall be constructed on the north side of
Highline Lane, adjacent to the development.
18. A minimum 5-foot-wide sidewalk shall be constructed on the east side of 41st
Street, adjacent to the development.
Page 1023
Z-SP-6-23-8 Planning Commission Backup Memo
May 1, 2024
19. A minimum 5-foot-wide sidewalk shall be constructed on the west side of 42nd
Place, adjacent to the development.
20. Existing streetscape beginning at back of curb and median islands shall be
replenished with the approved landscaping and trees along Baseline Road, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
21. All streets within and adjacent to the development shall be constructed with
paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands,
landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and
Development Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA
accessibility standards.
22. If determined necessary by the Phoenix Archaeology Office, the applicant shall
conduct Phase I data testing and submit an archaeological survey report of the
development area for review and approval by the City Archaeologist prior to
clearing and grubbing, landscape salvage, and/or grading approval.
23. If Phase I data testing is required, and if, upon review of the results from the
Phase I data testing, the City Archaeologist, in consultation with a qualified
archaeologist, determines such data recovery excavations are necessary, the
applicant shall conduct Phase II archaeological data recovery excavations.
24. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
25. Prior to final site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207
waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County
Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning
application file for record.
Attachments
Conceptual Site Plan date stamped April 26, 2024 (3 pages)
Conceptual Landscape Plan date stamped April 26, 2024 (2 pages)
Conceptual Building Elevations date stamped April 26, 2024 (2 pages)
Conceptual Rendering date stamped April 26, 2024 (2 pages)
Correspondence (143 pages)
Page 1024
Page 1025
Page 1026
Page 1027
Page 1028
Page 1029
Page 1030
Page 1031
Page 1032
Page 1033
SUPPORT
Page 1034
From: Darcy Thomas
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 6:00 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Safe Stor z-SP 6-23-8
I am Darcy Thomas. I live at 7636 S 41st in Phoenix AZ.
I am in favor of the Safstor unit being built on the corner of 41st and Baseline. Safstor has made many changed
requested by the neighborhood. I definitely approve of their final plans for this corner.
The entrance being moved to Baseline was very important to keep traffic our of the neighborhood. There will be li le
traffic or noise added to the neighborhood. There might even be less noise from Baseline since it will block traffic noise.
I am pleased with the changes Safstor made to accommodate the neighborhood concerns.
I do not want retail shops on that corner. Traffic, trash, noise, strangers in the neighborhood.
Darcy Thomas
Page 1035
OPPOSITION
Page 1036
Page 1037
Page 1038
Page 1039
Page 1040
Page 1041
Page 1042
Page 1043
Page 1044
Page 1045
Page 1046
Page 1047
Page 1048
Page 1049
Page 1050
Page 1051
From: Catherine Napoli
Sent: Monday, April 1, 2024 6:36 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Z-SP-6-23 No more self storage facilities in South Mountain Village
Attachments: Self storage in the area.docx; 27th Ave to 48th St.jpg
Members of the Planning Commission
As a resident and property owner in the neighborhood south of the proposed SAFStor Building, Z-SP-
6-23, I am concerned with the damage this building, as proposed by the developer, will do to my
neighborhood. Specifically, the building height has destroyed all views from my home to the city
lights. And it has destroyed all the views from Baseline Road up to South Mountain. Baseline Road is
designated as a Scenic View Corridor. In destroying the views, my property values go down
immediately. This does not serve the residents or the City of Phoenix and State of Arizona, who will
lose revenue with lowered values.
In working with our neighbors, SAFStor has made some changes to their original plan. We commend
SAFStor on changes to the look of the building and on moving the entry from 41st Street, a residential
street, to Baseline Road.
However, our biggest concern, our property value reduction based on the destruction of our views,
has not only never been addressed, in changing the entrance of the parking lot, views on an
additional street have also been completely blocked.
Right now, there are far too many storage facilities in Phoenix and specifically our area. There are a
total of 11 self-storage facilities from 48th Street to 19th Avenue in the South Mountain Village area.
There are an additional 3 facilities north of the river and south of the airport.
From 19th Avenue west to the 202 (Laveen) there are 5 self-storage facilities. This makes our
neighborhood the "Self-Storage Facility Capital of the World!"
In addition, most storage units in the area are single story. On average, 85% of storage facilities build
a level as a basement. Yet SAFStor is looking for a 2 story building completely above ground with a
profile that will make entering and leaving our neighborhood at 41st Street, our ONLY WAY in and
out, dangerous.
City light views are not just a "nice bonus." Our property values include our homes being on view
properties. Destroy the views, destroy the values, destroy the income to the City of Phoenix,
Maricopa County, and the State of Arizona. Building on this land as the developer has currently
Page 1052
proposed will NOT increase revenue in the form of taxes. It will decrease revenue because of lowered
property values.
This neighborhood and South Mountain Village are in desperate need of real retail. Another
unneeded self-storage facility brings one or two jobs and no needed retail.
Neighborhood representatives have been meeting with representatives of Snell & Wilmer and SafStor
in an effort to create something that would enhance the neighborhood. Brian Harvey, a designer, has
even created an entire plan that would preserve views, give SafStor additional units, and preserve the
views. SafStor has not budged beyond changing the color of the building and moving the entrance to
Baseline Road.
The neighbors of the South Mountain Gateway Residents Association were not asking for this
building to be built somewhere else. We demanded that it be built in a way that does not destroy our
homes and property values.
However - SafStor will not compromise. We now want the City of Phoenix to deny this petition
so that real retail that will enhance our neighborhood and the Village can come in.
Accepting the special use permit and allowing self-storage facility #12 to come into South Mountain
Village will be a detriment to our neighborhood and the City of Phoenix.
Bring real retail into our neighborhood, NOT another box that will attract crime and be a blight to our
RESIDENTIAL community.
Catherine Napoli
Resident since 1996 & Neighborhood Representative
3928 E. Beverly Road
Phoenix, AZ 85042
602-295-3411
Page 1053
Page 1054
Page 1055
Page 1056
Page 1057
Page 1058
Page 1059
Page 1060
Page 1061
Page 1062
Page 1063
Page 1064
Page 1065
Page 1066
Page 1067
Page 1068
Page 1069
Page 1070
Page 1071
Page 1072
Page 1073
Page 1074
Page 1075
Page 1076
Page 1077
Page 1078
Page 1079
Page 1080
Page 1081
Page 1082
Page 1083
Page 1084
Page 1085
Page 1086
Page 1087
Page 1088
Page 1089
Page 1090
Page 1091
Page 1092
Page 1093
Page 1094
Page 1095
Page 1096
Page 1097
Page 1098
Page 1099
Page 1100
Page 1101
Page 1102
Page 1103
Page 1104
Page 1105
Page 1106
Page 1107
Page 1108
Page 1109
Page 1110
Page 1111
Page 1112
Page 1113
Page 1114
Page 1115
Page 1116
Page 1117
Page 1118
Page 1119
Page 1120
From: Catherine Napoli
Sent: Tuesday, April 9, 2024 2:46 PM
To: Samuel S Rogers; PDD Planning Commission; Mayor Gallego; PDD South Mountain VPC; Council
District 8 PCC
Subject: Letters against Z-SP-6-23
Attachments: Comment Card.pdf; Letter 1.pdf; Letter 1A.pdf; Letter 2.pdf; Letter 2A.pdf; Letter 3A.pdf; Letter 4.pdf;
Letter 4A.pdf; Letter 3.pdf; Letter 5.pdf; Letter 5A.pdf; Letter 6A.pdf; Letter 6.pdf; Letter 7A.pdf; Letter
7.pdf; Letter 8.pdf; Letter 9.pdf; Letter 9A.pdf; Letter 8A.pdf; Letter 10.pdf; Letter 10A.pdf; Letter 11
A.pdf; Letter 11.pdf; Letter 12.pdf; Letter 12A.pdf; Letter 13.pdf; Letter 13A.pdf; Letter 14A.pdf; Letter
14.pdf; Letter 15 A.pdf; Letter 15.pdf; Letter 16 A.pdf; Letter 17.pdf; Letter 16.pdf; Letter 17A.pdf;
Letter 18 A.pdf; Letter 18.pdf; Petition.pdf
Village Planning, Sam Rogers, Planning Commission, Councilwoman Hodge Washington, Mayor Gallego
At a recent neighborhood block party, a number of neighbors signed letters and a petition asking all of you to vote
against Z SP 6 23 and instead work on getting real retail, neighborhood retail, retail promised us over the last years,
retail that never happened.
I submit these letters on behalf of my neighbors and I will bring the originals to the South Mountain VIllage Planning
Committee meeting tonight.
Respectfully submitted
Catherine Napoli
Page 1121
Page 1122
Page 1123
Page 1124
Page 1125
Page 1126
Page 1127
Page 1128
Page 1129
Page 1130
Page 1131
Page 1132
Page 1133
Page 1134
Page 1135
Page 1136
Page 1137
Page 1138
Page 1139
Page 1140
Page 1141
Page 1142
Page 1143
Page 1144
Page 1145
Page 1146
Page 1147
Page 1148
Page 1149
Page 1150
Page 1151
Page 1152
Page 1153
Page 1154
Page 1155
Page 1156
Page 1157
Page 1158
Page 1159
Page 1160
Page 1161
Page 1162
From: Catherine Napoli
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2024 12:56 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission; Mayor Gallego; Council District 8 PCC; Racelle Escolar; Samuel S Rogers;
support@phxazdistrict8.zendesk.com
Subject: Z-SP-6-23
Members of Planning Commission -
SAFStor is requesting a Special Permit to allow a C3 use, specifically for the building of a self-storage facility,
on a C2 zoned property (Z-SP-6-23). As a resident of the small neighborhood south of Baseline Road located
to the south and west of this self-storage facility, there are a number of reasons to vote no on this special use
permit. However, the most compelling fact to vote no, in accordance with the South Mountain Village Planning
Committee with a vote of 10 to 0, is that this is not an appropriate use for this parcel.
From the beginning of this special permit request I, and the majority of my neighbors, have been against
having a self-storage facility at the corner of 41st Street and Baseline Road. Their proposal of a two story
building blocking both the views of my neighbors, that will result in bringing down property values and well as
the view up the mountain from Baseline Road, identified by the City as a Scenic View Corridor. The look of
their building, which is a massive box and, while changes have been made, it is still a massive box at the
gateway of South Mountain Village.
Even though I and other neighbors are very opposed, we listened to what the developer had to say. In fact, we
asked three neighbors, Laurie Pheil, Catherine Napoli, and Brian Harvey, to bring our concerns and requests
to the developer. We felt if we had to have this shoved into our neighborhood, we could hopefully make it as
non-offensive as possible.
Over the course of the past 5 months, the developer would say that our requests were impossible and then
create a slight variation of the request in the hope that it would appear as if they were listening to our concerns.
Our representatives engaged in good faith conversations, meeting with the developer and their attorney firm fo r
many hours.
The fact is, a special permit, essentially a C3 use in a C2 zone that is adjacent to a residential neighborhood is
not an appropriate land use for this site. The Baseline Area Character Plan, created by the residents of South
Mountain Village, with the City of Phoenix, set guidelines for what is needed in our Village. Strategic tools, in
the form of plans and codes, were created to guide the growth of this unique area. The Baseline Area Master
Plan and Baseline Area Overlay are in place to ensure we get what is so needed in our neighborhood. The
PhxCAN plan looks at creating Connected Active Neighborhoods. This special permit request fits none of
these guidelines.
Specific to the Character Plan, retail, something this area desperately needs is identified in the existing land
use. Retail that has long been promised the residents of South Mountain Village. As "South Phoenix," we were
told retail was not coming in until rooftops came here. We have the rooftops. We have a diverse mix of culture,
housing, socio-economics. Where is the retail? Allowing this special permit takes away yet another area slated
for neighborhood retail.
Jobs are needed in our Village. Other actual C2 uses that are permitted by right, including
neighborhood retail, would bring jobs. A self-storage facility may bring 2 to 3 jobs at most.
The aesthetics of building in the Village calls for an agrarian feel that protects views. creates a gathering place
for neighbors, and is sensitive to the residents. Protecting views both to the north and south of any new
development is part of the plan.
Page 1163
The types of businesses that can be built by right are far more appropriate land uses than a self
storage facility that needs you to approve a special permit.
Does this change positively affect the neighbors and area? No. Does it have a majority of the 39 points
in the South Mountain Village Character Map? No.
Is this special permit use going to bring more money and more jobs into the Village than what can
currently be built by right? No.
The recommendation by the Village Planner for South Mountain Village looks at this parcel in a vacuum. The
neighborhood's needs are not taken into account. The local opposition by the residents has not been
considered. The Character Plan, the Baseline Area Master Plan and Overlay are not considered. And the
PhxCAN plan is ignored. South Mountain Village Planning knows what the neighborhood needs. What can be
built there by right is far more in keeping with the City's own plans than a facility that requires a special permit.
As a concerned resident, I am asking you not to allow this special permit to pass.
Thank you for your consideration,
Catherine P. Napoli-Cohen
Resident since 1997 in a 75 year old house (built in 1949)
3928 E. Beverly Road, Phoenix 85042
602-295-3411
Page 1164
From: Alberto Rodriguez <2015silver@cox.net>
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2024 12:41 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission; Racelle Escolar; Council District 8 PCC; Mayor Gallego;
support@phxazdistrict8.zendesk.com
Subject: From Carmen L. Rodriguez Re: SAFStor-Request to Deny Special Permit Z-SP-6-23 from Carmen L.
Rodriguez
Respected Members of Planning Commission
SAFStor is requesting a Special Permit to allow a C3 use, specifically for the building of a self storage facility, on a C2
zoned property (Z SP 6 23). As a resident of the small neighborhood south of Baseline Road located to the south and
west of this self storage facility, there are a number of reasons to vote no on this special use permit. However, the most
compelling fact to vote no, in accordance with the South Mountain Village Planning Committee with a vote of 10 to 0, is
that this is not an appropriate use for this parcel.
From the beginning of this special permit request I, and the majority of my neighbors, have been against having a self
storage facility at the corner of 41st Street and Baseline Road. Their proposal of a two story building blocking both the
views of my neighbors, that will result in bringing down property values and well as the view up the mountain from
Baseline Road, identified by the City as a Scenic View Corridor. The look of their building, which is a massive box and,
while changes have been made, it is still a massive box at the gateway of South Mountain Village.
Even though I and other neighbors are very opposed, we listened to what the developer had to say. In fact, we asked
three neighbors, Laurie Pheil, Catherine Napoli, and Brian Harvey, to bring our concerns and requests to the developer.
We felt if we had to have this shoved into our neighborhood, we could hopefully make it as non offensive as possible.
Over the course of the past 5 months, the developer would say that our requests were impossible and then create a
slight variation of the request in the hope that it would appear as if they were listening to our concerns. Our
representatives engaged in good faith conversations, meeting with the developer and their attorney firm for many
hours.
The fact is, a special permit, essentially a C3 use in a C2 zone that is adjacent to a residential neighborhood is not an
appropriate land use for this site. The Baseline Area Character Plan, created by the residents of South Mountain Village,
with the City of Phoenix, set guidelines for what is needed in our Village. Strategic tools, in the form of plans and codes,
were created to guide the growth of this unique area. The Baseline Area Master Plan and Baseline Area Overlay are in
place to ensure we get what is so needed in our neighborhood. The PhxCAN plan looks at creating Connected Active
Neighborhoods. This special permit request fits none of these guidelines.
Specific to the Character Plan, retail, something this area desperately needs is identified in the existing land use. Retail
that has long been promised the residents of South Mountain Village. As "South Phoenix," we were told retail was not
coming in until rooftops came here. We have the rooftops. We have a diverse mix of culture, housing, socio economics.
Where is the retail? Allowing this special permit takes away yet another area slated for neighborhood retail.
Jobs are needed in our Village. Other actual C2 uses that are permitted by right, including neighborhood retail, would
bring jobs. A self storage facility may bring 2 to 3 jobs at most.
The aesthetics of building in the Village calls for an agrarian feel that protects views. creates a gathering place for
neighbors, and is sensitive to the residents. Protecting views both to the north and south of any new development is
part of the plan.
Page 1165
The types of businesses that can be built by right are far more appropriate land uses than a self storage facility that
needs you to approve a special permit.
Does this change positively affect the neighbors and area? No. Does it have a majority of the 39 points in the South
Mountain Village Character Map? No.
Is this special permit use going to bring more money and more jobs into the Village than what can currently be built by
right? No.
The recommendation by the Village Planner for South Mountain Village looks at this parcel in a vacuum. The
neighborhood's needs are not taken into account. The local opposition by the residents has not been considered. The
Character Plan, the Baseline Area Master Plan and Overlay are not considered. And the PhxCAN plan is ignored. South
Mountain Village Planning knows what the neighborhood needs. What can be built there by right is far more in keeping
with the City's own plans than a facility that requires a special permit. As a concerned resident, I am asking you not to
allow this special permit to pass
Respectfully,
Carmen L. Rodriguez
7649 S. 41st Place
Phoenix, AZ 85042
Page 1166
From: Alberto Rodriguez <2015silver@cox.net>
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2024 8:21 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission; Racelle Escolar; Council District 8 PCC; Mayor Gallego;
support@phxazdistrict8.zendesk.com
Subject: SAF Stor Z-SP-6-23-8 Request to not allow the special permit to pass
Phoenix Planning Commission pdd.planningcomm@phoenix.gov
Racelle Escolar with Planning Commission racelle.escolar@phoenix.gov
Councilwoman Kesha Hodge Washington council.district.8@phoenix.gov
Mayor Kate Gallego mayor.gallego@phoenix.gov
Members of Planning Commission
SAFStor is requesting a Special Permit to allow a C3 use, specifically for the building of a self storage facility, on a C2
zoned property (Z SP 6 23 / Z SP 6 23 8 Agenda Item 7). As a resident of the small neighborhood south of Baseline Road
located to the south and west of this self storage facility, there are a number of reasons to vote no on this special use
permit. However, the most compelling fact to vote no, in accordance with the South Mountain Village Planning
Committee with a vote of 10 to 0, is that this is not an appropriate use for this parcel.
From the beginning of this special permit request I, and the majority of my neighbors, have been against having a self
storage facility at the corner of 41st Street and Baseline Road. Their proposal of a two story building blocking both the
views of my neighbors, that will result in bringing down property values and well as the view up the mountain from
Baseline Road, identified by the City as a Scenic View Corridor. The look of their building, which is a massive box and,
while changes have been made, it is still a massive box at the gateway of South Mountain Village.
Even though I and other neighbors are very opposed, we listened to what the developer had to say. In fact, we asked
three neighbors, Laurie Pheil, Catherine Napoli, and Brian Harvey, to bring our concerns and requests to the developer.
We felt if we had to have this shoved into our neighborhood, we could hopefully make it as non offensive as possible.
Over the course of the past 5 months, the developer would say that our requests were impossible and then create a
slight variation of the request in the hope that it would appear as if they were listening to our concerns. Our
representatives engaged in good faith conversations, meeting with the developer and their attorney firm for many
hours.
The fact is, a special permit, essentially a C3 use in a C2 zone that is adjacent to a residential neighborhood is not an
appropriate land use for this site. The Baseline Area Character Plan, created by the residents of South Mountain Village,
with the City of Phoenix, set guidelines for what is needed in our Village. Strategic tools, in the form of plans and codes,
were created to guide the growth of this unique area. The Baseline Area Master Plan and Baseline Area Overlay are in
place to ensure we get what is so needed in our neighborhood. The PhxCAN plan looks at creating Connected Active
Neighborhoods. This special permit request fits none of these guidelines.
Specific to the Character Plan, retail, something this area desperately needs is identified in the existing land use. Retail
that has long been promised the residents of South Mountain Village. As "South Phoenix," we were told retail was not
coming in until rooftops came here. We have the rooftops. We have a diverse mix of culture, housing, socio economics.
Where is the retail? Allowing this special permit takes away yet another area slated for neighborhood retail.
Jobs are needed in our Village. Other actual C2 uses that are permitted by right, including neighborhood retail, would
bring jobs. A self storage facility may bring 2 to 3 jobs at most.
Page 1167
The aesthetics of building in the Village calls for an agrarian feel that protects views. creates a gathering place for
neighbors, and is sensitive to the residents. Protecting views both to the north and south of any new development is
part of the plan.
The types of businesses that can be built by right are far more appropriate land uses than a self storage facility that
needs you to approve a special permit.
Does this change positively affect the neighbors and area? No. Does it have a majority of the 39 points in the South
Mountain Village Character Map? No.
Is this special permit use going to bring more money and more jobs into the Village than what can currently be built by
right? No.
The recommendation by the Village Planner for South Mountain Village looks at this parcel in a vacuum. The
neighborhood's needs are not taken into account. The local opposition by the residents has not been considered. The
Character Plan, the Baseline Area Master Plan and Overlay are not considered. And the PhxCAN plan is ignored. South
Mountain Village Planning knows what the neighborhood needs. What can be built there by right is far more in keeping
with the City's own plans than a facility that requires a special permit. As a concerned resident, I am asking you not to
allow this special permit to pass.
Alberto Rodriguez
7649 S. 41st Place
Phoenix, AZ 85042
602 882 9271
Page 1168
From: Alberto Rodriguez <2015silver@cox.net>
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2024 8:28 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission; Racelle Escolar; Council District 8 PCC; Mayor Gallego;
support@phxazdistrict8.zendesk.com
Subject: SAF-Stor Z-SP-6-23-8 Request not to allow this special permit to pass.
Phoenix Planning Commission pdd.planningcomm@phoenix.gov
Racelle Escolar with Planning Commission racelle.escolar@phoenix.gov
Councilwoman Kesha Hodge Washington council.district.8@phoenix.gov
Mayor Kate Gallego mayor.gallego@phoenix.gov
Members of Planning Commission
SAFStor is requesting a Special Permit to allow a C3 use, specifically for the building of a self storage facility, on a C2
zoned property (Z SP 6 23 / Z SP 6 23 8 Agenda Item 7). As a resident of the small neighborhood south of Baseline Road
located to the south and west of this self storage facility, there are a number of reasons to vote no on this special use
permit. However, the most compelling fact to vote no, in accordance with the South Mountain Village Planning
Committee with a vote of 10 to 0, is that this is not an appropriate use for this parcel.
From the beginning of this special permit request I, and the majority of my neighbors, have been against having a self
storage facility at the corner of 41st Street and Baseline Road. Their proposal of a two story building blocking both the
views of my neighbors, that will result in bringing down property values and well as the view up the mountain from
Baseline Road, identified by the City as a Scenic View Corridor. The look of their building, which is a massive box and,
while changes have been made, it is still a massive box at the gateway of South Mountain Village.
Even though I and other neighbors are very opposed, we listened to what the developer had to say. In fact, we asked
three neighbors, Laurie Pheil, Catherine Napoli, and Brian Harvey, to bring our concerns and requests to the developer.
We felt if we had to have this shoved into our neighborhood, we could hopefully make it as non offensive as possible.
Over the course of the past 5 months, the developer would say that our requests were impossible and then create a
slight variation of the request in the hope that it would appear as if they were listening to our concerns. Our
representatives engaged in good faith conversations, meeting with the developer and their attorney firm for many
hours.
The fact is, a special permit, essentially a C3 use in a C2 zone that is adjacent to a residential neighborhood is not an
appropriate land use for this site. The Baseline Area Character Plan, created by the residents of South Mountain Village,
with the City of Phoenix, set guidelines for what is needed in our Village. Strategic tools, in the form of plans and codes,
were created to guide the growth of this unique area. The Baseline Area Master Plan and Baseline Area Overlay are in
place to ensure we get what is so needed in our neighborhood. The PhxCAN plan looks at creating Connected Active
Neighborhoods. This special permit request fits none of these guidelines.
Specific to the Character Plan, retail, something this area desperately needs is identified in the existing land use. Retail
that has long been promised the residents of South Mountain Village. As "South Phoenix," we were told retail was not
coming in until rooftops came here. We have the rooftops. We have a diverse mix of culture, housing, socio economics.
Where is the retail? Allowing this special permit takes away yet another area slated for neighborhood retail.
Jobs are needed in our Village. Other actual C2 uses that are permitted by right, including neighborhood retail, would
bring jobs. A self storage facility may bring 2 to 3 jobs at most.
Page 1169
The aesthetics of building in the Village calls for an agrarian feel that protects views. creates a gathering place for
neighbors, and is sensitive to the residents. Protecting views both to the north and south of any new development is
part of the plan.
The types of businesses that can be built by right are far more appropriate land uses than a self storage facility that
needs you to approve a special permit.
Does this change positively affect the neighbors and area? No. Does it have a majority of the 39 points in the South
Mountain Village Character Map? No.
Is this special permit use going to bring more money and more jobs into the Village than what can currently be built by
right? No.
The recommendation by the Village Planner for South Mountain Village looks at this parcel in a vacuum. The
neighborhood's needs are not taken into account. The local opposition by the residents has not been considered. The
Character Plan, the Baseline Area Master Plan and Overlay are not considered. And the PhxCAN plan is ignored. South
Mountain Village Planning knows what the neighborhood needs. What can be built there by right is far more in keeping
with the City's own plans than a facility that requires a special permit. As a concerned resident, I am asking you not to
allow this special permit to pass.
Carmen L. Rodriguez (Resident and Wife to Alberto Rodriguez)
7649 S. 41st Place
Phoenix, AZ 85042
602 510 3367
Page 1170
From: cynthia harvey
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2024 12:45 PM
To: Racelle Escolar
Subject: SafeStor Special permit application
Members of Planning Commission -
SAFStor is requesting a Special Permit to allow a C3 use, specifically for the building of a self-storage facility, on a C2 zoned property (Z-SP-6-
23 / Z-SP-6-23-8 Agenda Item 7). As a resident of the small neighborhood south of Baseline Road located to the south and west of this self-
storage facility, there are a number of reasons to vote no on this special use permit. However, the most compelling fact to vote no, in
accordance with the South Mountain Village Planning Committee with a vote of 10 to 0, is that this is not an appropriate use for this parcel.
From the beginning of this special permit request I, and the majority of my neighbors, have been against having a self-storage facility at the
corner of 41st Street and Baseline Road. Their proposal of a two story building blocking both the views of my neighbors, that will result in
bringing down property values and well as the view up the mountain from Baseline Road, identified by the City as a Scenic View Corridor. The
look of their building, which is a massive box and, while changes have been made, it is still a massive box at the gateway of South Mountain
Village.
Even though I and other neighbors are very opposed, we listened to what the developer had to say. In fact, we asked three neighbors, Laurie
Pheil, Catherine Napoli, and Brian Harvey, to bring our concerns and requests to the developer. We felt if we had to have this shoved into our
neighborhood, we could hopefully make it as non-offensive as possible.
Over the course of the past 5 months, the developer would say that our requests were impossible and then create a slight variation of the
request in the hope that it would appear as if they were listening to our concerns. Our representatives engaged in good faith conversations,
meeting with the developer and their attorney firm for many hours.
The fact is, a special permit, essentially a C3 use in a C2 zone that is adjacent to a residential neighborhood is not an appropriate land use for
this site. The Baseline Area Character Plan, created by the residents of South Mountain Village, with the City of Phoenix, set guidelines for
what is needed in our Village. Strategic tools, in the form of plans and codes, were created to guide the growth of this unique area. The
Baseline Area Master Plan and Baseline Area Overlay are in place to ensure we get what is so needed in our neighborhood. The PhxCAN plan
looks at creating Connected Active Neighborhoods. This special permit request fits none of these guidelines.
Specific to the Character Plan, retail, something this area desperately needs is identified in the existing land use. Retail that has long been
promised the residents of South Mountain Village. As "South Phoenix," we were told retail was not coming in until rooftops came here. We have
the rooftops. We have a diverse mix of culture, housing, socio-economics. Where is the retail? Allowing this special permit takes away yet
another area slated for neighborhood retail.
Jobs are needed in our Village. Other actual C2 uses that are permitted by right, including neighborhood retail, would bring jobs. A self-storage
facility may bring 2 to 3 jobs at most.
The aesthetics of building in the Village calls for an agrarian feel that protects views. creates a gathering place for neighbors, and is sensitive to
the residents. Protecting views both to the north and south of any new development is part of the plan.
The types of businesses that can be built by right are far more appropriate land uses than a self storage facility that needs you to approve a
special permit.
Does this change positively affect the neighbors and area? No. Does it have a majority of the 39 points in the South Mountain Village Character
Map? No.
Is this special permit use going to bring more money and more jobs into the Village than what can currently be built by right? No.
The recommendation by the Village Planner for South Mountain Village looks at this parcel in a vacuum. The neighborhood's needs are not
taken into account. The local opposition by the residents has not been considered. The Character Plan, the Baseline Area Master Plan and
Overlay are not considered. And the PhxCAN plan is ignored. South Mountain Village Planning knows what the neighborhood needs. What can
be built there by right is far more in keeping with the City's own plans than a facility that requires a special permit. As a concerned resident, I am
asking you not to allow this special permit to pass.
Regards,
Cynthia Harvey
816.868.3829
Page 1171
From: Paul Sapio
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2024 8:48 PM
To: Racelle Escolar
Subject: Save our neighbor
Members of Planning Commission -
SAFStor is requesting a Special Permit to allow a C3 use, specifically for the building of a self-storage facility, on a C2 zoned property (Z-SP-6-
23 / Z-SP-6-23-8 Agenda Item 7). As a resident of the small neighborhood south of Baseline Road located to the south and west of this self-
storage facility, there are a number of reasons to vote no on this special use permit. However, the most compelling fact to vote no, in
accordance with the South Mountain Village Planning Committee with a vote of 10 to 0, is that this is not an appropriate use for this parcel.
From the beginning of this special permit request I, and the majority of my neighbors, have been against having a self-storage facility at the
corner of 41st Street and Baseline Road. Their proposal of a two story building blocking both the views of my neighbors, that will result in
bringing down property values and well as the view up the mountain from Baseline Road, identified by the City as a Scenic View Corridor. The
look of their building, which is a massive box and, while changes have been made, it is still a massive box at the gateway of South Mountain
Village.
Even though I and other neighbors are very opposed, we listened to what the developer had to say. In fact, we asked three neighbors, Laurie
Pheil, Catherine Napoli, and Brian Harvey, to bring our concerns and requests to the developer. We felt if we had to have this shoved into our
neighborhood, we could hopefully make it as non-offensive as possible.
Over the course of the past 5 months, the developer would say that our requests were impossible and then create a slight variation of the
request in the hope that it would appear as if they were listening to our concerns. Our representatives engaged in good faith conversations,
meeting with the developer and their attorney firm for many hours.
The fact is, a special permit, essentially a C3 use in a C2 zone that is adjacent to a residential neighborhood is not an appropriate land use for
this site. The Baseline Area Character Plan, created by the residents of South Mountain Village, with the City of Phoenix, set guidelines for
what is needed in our Village. Strategic tools, in the form of plans and codes, were created to guide the growth of this unique area. The
Baseline Area Master Plan and Baseline Area Overlay are in place to ensure we get what is so needed in our neighborhood. The PhxCAN plan
looks at creating Connected Active Neighborhoods. This special permit request fits none of these guidelines.
Specific to the Character Plan, retail, something this area desperately needs is identified in the existing land use. Retail that has long been
promised the residents of South Mountain Village. As "South Phoenix," we were told retail was not coming in until rooftops came here. We have
the rooftops. We have a diverse mix of culture, housing, socio-economics. Where is the retail? Allowing this special permit takes away yet
another area slated for neighborhood retail.
Jobs are needed in our Village. Other actual C2 uses that are permitted by right, including neighborhood retail, would bring jobs. A self-storage
facility may bring 2 to 3 jobs at most.
The aesthetics of building in the Village calls for an agrarian feel that protects views. creates a gathering place for neighbors, and is sensitive to
the residents. Protecting views both to the north and south of any new development is part of the plan.
The types of businesses that can be built by right are far more appropriate land uses than a self storage facility that needs you to approve a
special permit.
Does this change positively affect the neighbors and area? No. Does it have a majority of the 39 points in the South Mountain Village Character
Map? No.
Is this special permit use going to bring more money and more jobs into the Village than what can currently be built by right? No.
The recommendation by the Village Planner for South Mountain Village looks at this parcel in a vacuum. The neighborhood's needs are not
taken into account. The local opposition by the residents has not been considered. The Character Plan, the Baseline Area Master Plan and
Overlay are not considered. And the PhxCAN plan is ignored. South Mountain Village Planning knows what the neighborhood needs. What can
be built there by right is far more in keeping with the City's own plans than a facility that requires a special permit. As a concerned resident, I am
asking you not to allow this special permit to pass.
Sent from
Paul Sapio
7620 s 40th pl Phoenix 85042
Page 1172
From: Debra McPeters
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2024 10:54 AM
To: Council District 8 PCC; Mayor Gallego; PDD Planning Commission; racell.escolar@phoenix.gov;
support@phxazdistrict8.zendesk.com
Subject: Z-SP-6-23
Members of the Planning Commission,
SAFStor is requesting a Special permit to allow a C3 use, specifically for the building of a self-storage
facility on a C2 zoned property (Z-SP-6-23). As residents of the small neighborhood south of Baseline
Road located to the south and west of this proposed facility, there a number of reasons to vote NO on this
special use permit. However, the most compelling fact to vote NO, in accordance with the South Mountain
Village Planning Committee with a vote of 10 to 0, is that this is not an appropriate use for this parcel.
From the beginning of this special permit request we, and the majority of our neighbors have been against
having a self-storage facility at the corner of 41st Street and Baseline Road. Their proposal of a two story
building blocking both the views of my neighbors, that will result in bringing down property values as well
as blocking the view up the mountain from Baseline Road, identified by the City as a Scenic View Corridor.
The look of their building, which is a massive box and, while changes have been made, it is still a massive
box at the gateway of South Mountain Village.
Even though we and other neighbors are very opposed, we listened to what the developer had to say. In
fact, we asked three neighbors (Laurie Pheil, Catherine Napoli and Brian Harvey) to bring our concerns
and requests to the developer. We felt if we had to have this shoved into our neighborhood, we could
hopefully make it as non-offensive as possible.
Over the course of the past 5 months, the developer would say that our requests were impossible and
then create a slight variation of the request in hope that it would appear as if they were listening to our
concerns. Our representatives engaged in good faith conversations, meeting with the developer and their
attorney firm for many hours.
The fact is, a special permit, essentially a C3 use in a C2 zone that is adjacent to a residential
neighborhood is not an appropriate land use for this site. The Baseline Area Character Plan, created by the
residents of South Mountain Village, with the City of Phoenix, set guidelines for what is needed in our
Village. Strategic tools, in the form of plans and codes were created to guide the growth of this unique
areas. The Baseline Area Master Plan and Baseline Area Overlay are in place to ensure we get what is so
needed in our neighborhood. The PhxCAN plan looks at creating Connected Active Neighborhoods. This
special permit request fits none of these guidelines. Specific to the Character Plan, retail, something this
area desperately needs is identified in the existing land use. Retail that has long been promised the
residents of South Mountain Village. As "South Phoenix", we were told retail was not coming until rooftops
came here. We have the rooftops. We have a diverse mix of culture, housing and socio-economics. Where
is the retail? Allowing this special permit takes away yet another area slated for neighborhood retail.
Jobs are needed in our Village. other actual C2 uses that are permitted by right, including neighborhood
retail, would bring jobs. A self-storage facility may bring 2 or 3 jobs at most.
The aesthetics of building in the Village calls for an agrarian feel that protects views, creates a gathering
place for neighbors, and is sensitive to the residents. Protecting views both to the north and south of any
new development is part of the plan. The types of businesses that can be built by right are far more
appropriate land uses than a self-storage facility that needs you to approve a special permit.
This change negatively affects the neighbors and area. It also not not have a majority of the 39 points in
the South Mountain Village Character Map.
Page 1173
Is this special permit use going to bring more money and more jobs into the Village than what can
currently be built by right? NO
The baseline Area Master Plan and Overlay are not being considered. South Mountain Village Planning
knows what the neighborhood needs. What can be built there by right is far more in keeping with the
City's own plans than a facility that requires a special permit. As concerned residents in the neighborhood
for over 25 years, we are asking you not to allow this special permit to pass.
Thank You,
Debra & Bill McPeters
8040 S. 38th Way
Phoenix, AZ 85042
Highline Canyon Residents
Page 1174
Page 1175
From: Lorina McGrorty
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2024 11:48 AM
To: Racelle Escolar
Subject: Z-SP-6-23. Urgent Appeal: Please Preserve Our Neighborhood's Character and Property Values
Dear Racelle Escolar,
As longtime residents of Hancock Park, we are writing to express our deep concern regarding the
proposed construction of a large storage unit building in our community. This development threatens
to irreversibly alter the character of our neighborhood and significantly diminish property values for
current residents.
One of the most cherished aspects of living in Hancock Park is the breathtaking scenic views of the
city and surrounding mountains that we enjoy from our homes. These views are not only aesthetically
pleasing but also contribute to the overall sense of tranquility and well-being that residents have come
to appreciate. The construction of a towering commercial building would effectively block these views,
robbing us of one of the key features that attracted many of us to this neighborhood in the first place.
Furthermore, the proposed development poses a serious threat to our property values. Studies have
consistently shown that the presence of commercial and industrial structures, such as this proposed
building, can have a detrimental impact on nearby residential property values. Potential buyers are
likely to be deterred by the sight of a large storage unit building looming over the neighborhood,
leading to a decrease in demand for homes in the area and a subsequent significant decline in the
value of our property.
We urge you to carefully consider the long-term consequences of allowing this development to
proceed. Our neighborhood is more than just a collection of houses; it is a community where families
have put down roots and invested their hard-earned resources. The current plans also encroach upon
a protected wash, which not only channels water from the mountain, but also acts as a travel corridor
for wildlife. Allowing this SAFStor building to be built here, as currently designed, would undermine
the sense of community that we have worked so hard to cultivate and would have far-reaching
negative effects on the quality of life for residents and native animals alike.
In light of these concerns, unless SAFStor is willing to compromise on the building height by placing
the first story underground, we respectfully request that you deny the permits needed for the
construction of the storage unit building in our neighborhood. Instead, we urge you to explore
Page 1176
alternative development options that are more compatible with the character of our community and
that will not jeopardize property values or the scenic beauty of our surroundings.
Thank you for taking the time to consider our perspective on this important issue. We trust that you
will make the decision that is in the best interests of our neighborhood and its residents.
Sincerely,
Patrick and Lorina McGrorty
7635 South 41st Place
Phoenix, Az 85042
(480) 628-8911
Page 1177
From: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: FW: Phoenix Planning Commission Agenda Item 7: Z-SP-6-23-8
From: Laurie Pheil
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 12:27 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Phoenix Planning Commission Agenda Item 7: Z SP 6 23 8
To the Planning Commission,
My name is Laurie Pheil and I am requesting a recommendation of denial for case number Z
SP 6 23 8.
This Special Permit requests is for a C3 or Industrial Use on a C2 zoned property. It is
surrounded by a Church, two schools, a Fire station, some small neighborhood retail and lots
and lots of housing.
A warehouse style storage facility does not fit into the local area in many ways. Based on their
last presentation to the Village Planning Committee in April of this year where the Village
Committee voted unanimously to deny their land use, their request falls short in several
ways
It does not preserve views for the adjacent neighborhood
The architecture does not reflect the areas agricultural heritage
It does not provide a good employment source for the Village for generations to come
Plus, it all but ignores the standards outlined in the Plan Phoenix General Plan for
Connectivity, Enhancing Neighborhood Retail, Healthy restaurants, or being a place
where neighbors can meet to have a cold drink, plan a hike or hike ride, or perhaps get a
bike tire repaired.
Thank you for your consideration!
Laurie
Laurie Pheil
Creative Benefit Communications
Phone: 602-696-3800
E-mail: creativebenefitcommunications@gmail.com
Page 1178
ATTACHMENT E
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
May 2, 2024
ITEM NO: 7
DISTRICT NO.: 8
SUBJECT:
Application #: Z-SP-6-23-8
Location: Southeast corner of 41st Street and Baseline Road
From: C-2
To: C-2 SP
Acreage: 3.84
Proposal: Self-service storage facility and underlying C-2 uses
Applicant: SAFStor Real Estate Company, LLC
Owner: Highline Investment, LLC
Representative: Mike Maerowitz, Snell & Wilmer, LLP
ACTIONS:
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
South Mountain 3/12/2024 Information only.
South Mountain 4/9/2024 Denial. Vote 10-0 (1 abstained).
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the staff memo dated May 1, 2024.
Motion Discussion: N/A
Motion details: Commissioner Mangum made a MOTION to approve Z-SP-6-23-8, per the staff
memo dated May 1, 2024.
Maker: Mangum
Second: Gorraiz
Vote: 5-4 (Vice-Chairperson Busching, Boyd, Jaramillo, Matthews)
Absent: N/A
Opposition Present: Yes
Findings:
1. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map designation of
Commercial.
2. The proposal, as stipulated, will create a strong pedestrian environment along Baseline
Road with detached sidewalks and a multi-use trail. These pathways will convey
individuals safely and comfortably to the nearby educational uses, commercial uses,
and residential neighborhoods.
3. The site is appropriately located along a major arterial roadway, and as stipulated will
be compatible with surrounding uses.
Page 1179
Stipulations:
1. The development shall be in general conformance with the elevations date stamped
March 15, 2024 APRIL 26, 2024, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
2. Where pedestrian walkways cross a vehicular path, the pathway shall be constructed of
decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or other pavement treatments that
visually contrasts parking and drive aisle surfaces, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
3. A minimum of one green infrastructure (GI) techniques for stormwater management
shall be implemented per the Greater Phoenix Metro Green Infrastructure and Low
Impact Development Details for Alternative Stormwater Management, as approved or
modified by the Planning and Development Department.
4. A minimum of 10% of the required parking spaces shall be EV capable.
5. A minimum of one of the required bicycle parking spaces shall include standard
electrical receptacles for electric bicycle charging capabilities, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department
6. Four bicycle spaces shall be provided on the site through Inverted U and/or artistic
racks located near the building entrances or in a secure location inside the building and
installed per the requirements of Section 1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
7. Bicycle parking spaces shall be shaded by a structure, landscaping, or a combination of
the two to provide a minimum of 75% shade, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
8. All uncovered surface parking lot areas shall be landscaped with minimum 2-inch
caliper, drought-tolerant shade trees. Landscaping shall be dispersed throughout the
parking area and achieve 25% shade, as approved by Planning and Development
Department.
9. All public and private pedestrian pathways including sidewalks shall be shaded to a
minimum 75%, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
10. In addition to the landscape materials listed in the Baseline Area Master Plan Plant List,
Cercidium Hybrid (Desert Museum Palo Verde), Quercus Virginiana (Live Oak), and
Pistacia X 'Red-Push (Red Push Pistache), may be permitted as approved by Planning
and Development Department and shall be utilized, as approved or modified by the
Planning and Development Department.
11. Landscaping shall be maintained by permanent and automatic/water efficient
WaterSense labeled irrigation controllers (or similar smart controller) to minimize
maintenance and irrigation water consumption for all on and offsite landscape irrigation.
12. Prior to final site plan approval, documentation shall be provided that demonstrates a
commitment to participate in the Water Efficiency Checkup program for a minimum of
15 years, or as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
Page 1180
13. The developer shall dedicate right-of-way and construct a bus stop pad on eastbound
Baseline Road. The bus stop pad shall be constructed according to City of Phoenix
Standard Detail P1260 with a minimum depth of 10 feet. The bus stop pad shall be
spaced from 41st Street according to City of Phoenix Standard Detail P1258. Trees
shall be placed to provide minimum 50% shade coverage to bus stop pad.
14. A 30-foot-wide multi-use trail easement (MUTE) shall be dedicated along the south side
of Baseline Road and a minimum 10-foot-wide multi-use trail (MUT) shall be
constructed within the easement in accordance with the MAG supplemental detail and
as approved or modified by the Planning and Development Department.
15. A minimum 70-feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated for the south half of Baseline
Road, adjacent to the development.
16. The sidewalk along Baseline Road shall be a minimum of 6 feet in width and detached
with a minimum 8-foot-wide landscape strip located between the sidewalk and back of
curb and planted to the following standards, as approved or modified by the Planning
and Development Department.
a. Minimum 2-inch caliper single-trunk, large canopy, drought-tolerant, shade trees
planted 20 feet on center, or in equivalent groupings.
b. Drought tolerant vegetation to achieve a minimum of 75 percent live coverage.
Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a pedestrian
environment for installing the required plants.
17. A minimum 5-foot-wide sidewalk shall be constructed on the north side of Highline
Lane, adjacent to the development.
18. A minimum 5-foot-wide sidewalk shall be constructed on the east side of 41st Street,
adjacent to the development.
19. A minimum 5-foot-wide sidewalk shall be constructed on the west side of 42nd Place,
adjacent to the development.
20. Existing streetscape beginning at back of curb and median islands shall be replenished
with the approved landscaping and trees along Baseline Road, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
21. All streets within and adjacent to the development shall be constructed with paving,
curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands, landscaping and other
incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and Development Department. All
improvements shall comply with all ADA accessibility standards.
22. If determined necessary by the Phoenix Archaeology Office, the applicant shall conduct
Phase I data testing and submit an archaeological survey report of the development
area for review and approval by the City Archaeologist prior to clearing and grubbing,
landscape salvage, and/or grading approval.
23. If Phase I data testing is required, and if, upon review of the results from the Phase I
data testing, the City Archaeologist, in consultation with a qualified archaeologist,
Page 1181
determines such data recovery excavations are necessary, the applicant shall conduct
Phase II archaeological data recovery excavations.
24. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
25. Prior to final site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207 waiver of
claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County Recorder's Office
and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning application file for record.
This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact Teleia
Galaviz at 602-291-2559, teleia.galaviz@phoenix.gov, TTY: Use 7-1-1.
Page 1182
ATTACHMENT F
CITY OF PHOENIX
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
FORM TO REQUEST PC to CC
I HEREBY REQUEST THAT THE CC HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON:
APPLICATION NO/ Z-SP-6-23-8 (SIGNATURE ON ORIGINAL IN FILE)
LOCATION Southeast corner of opposition x applicant
41st Street and
Baseline Road
APPEALED FROM: PC May 2, 2024 3940 East Beverly Road
Phoenix, AZ 85042
PC DATE STREET/ADDRESS/CITY/STATE/ZIP
TO PC/CC CC June 12, 2024 Laurie Pheil
HEARING (602) 696-3800
creativebenefitcommunications@gmail.com
CC DATE NAME / PHONE / EMAIL
REASON FOR REQUEST:
Opposition to the special permit land use on this property.
RECEIVED BY: Greg Harmon RECEIVED ON: 5/9/2024
Alan Stephenson Camryn Thompson
Joshua Bednarek Paul M. Li
Tricia Gomes GIS
Racelle Escolar Byron Easton (for PHO Appeals only)
Sarah Stockham Vikki Cipolla-Murillo
Stephanie Vasquez Village Planner
Heather Klotz Applicant
REVISED 9/18/2023 vcm
Page 1183
Page 1184
ATTACHMENT G
For additional correspondence, please see Z-SP-6-23-8 on the following website:
https://www.phoenix.gov/pdd/planning-zoning/pzservices/pzstaff-reports
Page 1185
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
138 item(s)