Articles, Blog

Phoenix City Council Formal Meeting – December 18, 2019

Phoenix City Council Formal Meeting – December 18, 2019


>>Mayor Gallego: NOW I WOULD LIKE TO CALL TO ORDER THE DECEMBER 18th, 2019 FORMAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING. WILL THE CITY CLERK PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.>>Clerk: DICICCIO.>>Councilman DiCiccio: [INAUDIBLE]>>Clerk: GARCIA.>>Councilman Garcia: HERE.>>Clerk: NOWAKOWSKI.>>Councilman Nowakowski: [INAUDIBLE]>>Clerk: PASTOR.>>Councilwoman Pastor: HERE.>>Clerk: STARK.>>Councilwoman Stark: HERE.>>Clerk: WARING.>>Councilman Waring: HERE.>>Clerk: WILLIAMS.>>Councilwoman Williams: HERE.>>VICE MAYOR GUARDADO: [INAUDIBLE]>>Clerk: GALLEGO.>>Mayor Gallego: HERE. THANK YOU. WE HAVE AN INTERPRETER HERE WITH US. MARIO, PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELF.>>NAH. MY NAME IS MARIO BARAJAS. I AM GOING TO BE MAKING A BRIEF ANNOUNCEMENT IN SPANISH FOR OUR SPANISH SPEAKERS. (SPEAKING IN SPANISH) THANK YOU, MAYOR.>>Mayor Gallego: THANK YOU. WILL THE CITY CLERK PLEASE READ THE 24-HOUR PARAGRAPH.>>THE TITLES OF THE FOLLOWING ORDINANCE NUMBERS ON THE AGENDA WERE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC AT LEAST 24 HOURS PRIOR TO THIS COUNCIL MEETING AND, THEREFORE, MAY BE READ BY TITLE OR AGENDA ITEM ONLY: ORDINANCES NUMBERED G-6617, 6650 THROUGH 6652, S-46228 THROUGH 46262, AND RESOLUTION 21800.>>Mayor Gallego: THANK YOU. COUNCILMAN NOWAKOWSKI, HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 17th, 2019?>>Councilman Nowakowski: I SURE HAVE AND I APPROVE THEM. MOTION TO APPROVE.>>Mayor Gallego: WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE. [ CHORUS OF AYES]>>Mayor Gallego: ANY OPPOSED? PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. TODAY’S EXCITING DAY FOR US IN THE CITY OF PHOENIX. WE JUST OPENED THE LARGEST — WE DEDICATED THE LARGEST FREEWAY PROJECT IN ARIZONA HISTORY, THE SOUTH MOUNTAIN 202 ED PASTOR FREEWAY. CONGRATULATIONS TO THE PASTOR FAMILY. TODAY IS ED AND VIRMA’S ANNIVERSARY. SO VIRMA HAS SET THE TOP BAR FOR ANNIVERSARY RECOGNITION. NONE OF US WILL TRY TO COMPETE. ALSO ABLE TO HAVE A GREAT CONVERSATION WITH ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIRECTOR ABOUT A PIPELINE WE ARE BUILDING IN THE CITY OF PHOENIX, AND HE SAID SOME VERY POSITIVE THINGS ABOUT MOVING IT INTO FREEWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY. SO I THINK VERY POTENTIAL GOOD NEWS IN THAT AREA. VICE MAYOR, DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE CITY COUNCIL AND MAYORAL BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS NOMINATIONS AS REVISED?>>Vice Mayor Guardado: YES, WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS NOMINATIONS AS REVISED.>>Councilwoman Williams: SECOND.>>Mayor Gallego: MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE. [ CHORUS OF AYES]>>Mayor Gallego: ANY OPPOSED? PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU TO THE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE WILLING TO SERVE THEIR COMMUNITY. I AM GOING TO ADMINISTER THE OATH OF OFFICE, AND THEN THE BOARDS AND COMMISSION MEMBERS WILL BE INVITED BEHIND THE PODIUM SO THAT THE COUNCIL MEMBERS CAN THANK THEM FOR THEIR SERVICE.>>Mayor Gallego: I, STATE YOUR NAME, DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR THAT I WILL SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA, THAT I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME AND DEFEND THEM AGAINST ALL ENEMIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC, AND THAT I WILL FAITHFULLY AND IMPARTIALLY DISCHARGE THE DUTIES OF THE OFFICE OF (OFFICE) ACCORDING TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY, SO HELP ME GOD. CONGRATULATIONS, AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. [APPLAUSE]>>Vice Mayor Guardado: AT THIS TIME THE MAYOR WILL ADMINISTER THE OATH OF OFFICE FOR PHOENIX MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGES WALTER JACKSON, JAMES SEPANS AND CYNTHIA GONZALEZ.>>Mayor Gallego: PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. I, STATE YOUR NAME, DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR THAT I WILL SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA, THAT I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME AND DEFEND THEM AGAINST ALL ENEMIES AND DOMESTIC, AND THAT I WILL FAITHFULLY AND IMPARTIALLY DISCHARGE THE DUTIES OF THE OFFICE OF JUDGE ACCORDING TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY, SO HELP ME GOD. THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO THE CITY OF PHOENIX. CONGRATULATIONS. [APPLAUSE]>>Mayor Gallego: CONGRATULATIONS TO OUR NEW COMMISSIONERS AND OUR MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGES. WE NEXT MOVE TO THE LIQUOR LICENSE PORTION OF THE APPLICATION. VICE MAYOR, DO WE HAVE A MOTION ON LIQUOR LICENSES?>>Vice Mayor Guardado: YES, WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEMS 4-31, NOTING THAT ITEM 7 HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN BY THE APPLICANT.>>Councilwoman Stark: SECOND.>>Mayor Gallego: WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE. [ CHORUS OF AYES]>>Mayor Gallego: ANY OPPOSED? PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. CITY CLERK, ARE WE READY FOR ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS, NEW BUSINESS, PLANNING AND ZONING?>>Clerk: STARK.>>Councilwoman Stark: YES, MAYOR.>>Vice Mayor Guardado: WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEMS 32-91 EXCEPT THE FOLLOWING: ITEMS 36, 39, 42, 48, 50, 53, 57, 63, 87, 88, 90 AND 91. ITEM 89 IS CONTINUED TO FEBRUARY 19, 2020. ITEM 62 IS BEING WITHDRAWN. ITEM — AND EXCLUDING THESE ITEMS FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS: ITEMS — ITEM 52 HAS BEEN CONTINUED TO JANUARY 29 OF 2020.>>Mayor Gallego: DO WE HAVE A SECOND?>>Councilwoman Williams: SECOND.>>Mayor Gallego: THANK YOU. ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS? ROLL CALL.>>Clerk: DICICCIO.>>Councilman DiCiccio: YES.>>Clerk: GARCIA.>>Councilman Garcia: YES.>>Clerk: NOWAKOWSKI.>>Councilman Nowakowski: YES.>>Clerk: PASTOR.>>Councilwoman Pastor: YES.>>Clerk: STARK.>>Councilwoman Stark: YES.>>Clerk: WARING.>>Councilman Waring: YES.>>Clerk: WILLIAMS.>>Councilwoman Williams: YES.>>Clerk: GUARDADO.>>Vice Mayor Guardado: YES.>>Clerk: GALLEGO.>>Mayor Gallego: YES. PASSES 9.>>>0. WE NEXT MOVE TO ITEM 36, SETTLEMENT OF CLAIM REYNOLDS V. CITY OF PHOENIX. DO ANY COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE COMMENTS? COUNCILMEMBER GARCIA?>>Councilman DiCiccio: DO YOU WANT ME TO GO FIRST? I’M GOING TO BE VOTING AGAINST THIS, MAYOR. I DON’T KNOW IF THERE IS A MOTION ON THE TABLE. IT’S $1.6 MILLION TO AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS A KNOWN FELON. THIS INDIVIDUAL WAS COMMITTING CRIMES. THE CITY OF PHOENIX DID DO SOMETHING WRONG, I AGREE, BUT THIS INDIVIDUAL IS GETTING $1.6 MILLION OF TAXPAYER MONEY WHEN WE HAVE POLICE OFFICERS BARELY MAKING IT IN THE CITY OF PHOENIX, BARELY MAKING IT, AND WE’RE STARTING TO SEE THESE EXTRAORDINARY FEES, AND IT’S NOT FEES, THESE EXTRAORDINARY SETTLEMENT AMOUNTS BECAUSE IT IS THIS DRIVE AT THE CITY OF PHOENIX TO PAY OFF INDIVIDUALS THAT I BELIEVE ARE COMMITTING CRIMES IN OUR COMMUNITY, AND I THINK IT’S WRONG, I THINK IT’S MORALLY WRONG, AND I’LL BE VOTING AGAINST IT. WHEN WE CAN VOTE TO GIVE OUR POLICE OFFICERS THE RAISE — I THINK ANY POLICE OFFICER WOULD DESERVE A $1.6 MILLION SETTLEMENT MORE THAN THIS INDIVIDUAL DOES. SO I WILL BE VOTING NO ON THIS, MAYOR. I THINK IT’S JUST WRONG. THANK YOU.>>Mayor Gallego: COUNCILMEMBER GARCIA?>>Councilman Garcia: I’M IN FAVOR OF THIS ITEM AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT AS A MATTER OF POLICY THAT WE NOT ONLY SETTLE THIS SITUATION BUT ALSO MAKE SURE THAT THIS NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN. I THINK WHAT HAPPENED, THIS WAS EGREGIOUS, AGAINST THIS PERSON’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, REGARDLESS OF HER PAST. THIS PERSON’S LIFE HAS BEEN SHIFTED FOREVER BECAUSE OF ONE OF OUR EMPLOYEES AND SO I HE HOPE THAT WE NOT ONLY MOVE FORWARD WITH THE SETTLEMENT, BUT WILL MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN BUILD THE PROCESS WHERE THIS DOESN’T HAPPEN AGAIN, AND SO I’LL BE VOTING IN FAVOR OF THIS.>>Mayor Gallego: THANK YOU. ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS? ROLL CALL. SORRY, WE NEED A MOTION.>>Vice Mayor Guardado: MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM NUMBER 36.>>Councilman Garcia: SECOND.>>Mayor Gallego: WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ROLL CALL.>>Clerk: DICICCIO.>>Councilman DiCiccio: YES. — I MEAN, NO. SORRY. WHOA. WHERE HAVE I BEEN?>>Clerk: GARCIA.>>Councilman Garcia: YES. I THOUGHT I CHANGED YOUR MIND.>>Mayor Gallego: YOU WERE SO PERSUASIVE.>>Clerk: NOWAKOWSKI.>>Councilman Nowakowski: YES.>>Clerk: PASTOR.>>Councilwoman Pastor: YES.>>Clerk: STARK.>>Councilwoman Stark: YES.>>Clerk: WARING.>>Councilman Waring: NO.>>Clerk: WILLIAMS.>>Councilwoman Williams: YES.>>Clerk: GUARDADO.>>Vice Mayor Guardado: YES.>>Clerk: GALLEGO.>>Mayor Gallego: YES. ITEM PASSES 7-2.>>COUNCILMAN DICICCIO: I THINK I’M JUST TRYING TO GET ALONG.>>Mayor Gallego: WE NEXT MOVE TO ITEM 39, THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT OFFICIALS DUES. CERTAINLY AN IMPORTANT ITEM AS WE TALK ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THIS COMMUNITY. DO WE HAVE A MOTION?>>Vice Mayor Guardado: YES — WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 39.>>Councilwoman Williams: SECOND.>>Mayor Gallego: WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY COMMENTS? COUNCILMAN DICICCIO?>>Councilman DiCiccio: THANK YOU, MAYOR. THANKS FOR YOUR COURTESY ON THAT. I’LL BE VOTING AGAINST THIS. THIS IS ANOTHER MEMBERSHIP DUES. THE CITY OF PHOENIX SPENDS MILLIONS OF DOLLARS EVERY YEAR ON MEMBERSHIP DUES, LOBBYISTS, PUBLIC RELATIONS WHEN THEY ARE COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY. A LOT OF THIS STUFF CAN BE DONE ONLINE AND IT’S STILL ILLOGICAL FOR US TO BE DOING AND SPENDING THIS KIND OF MONEY, THESE KINDS OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS WHEN WE HAVE SO MANY OTHER NEEDS IN THE COMMUNITY. SO I WILL BE VOTING NO.>>Mayor Gallego: THANK YOU. THIS ORGANIZATION HELPS US PROVIDE TRAINING TO OUR STAFF AND UNDERSTAND BEST PRACTICES IN FINANCING HOUSING, WHICH IS A KEY ISSUE IN OUR COMMUNITY. SO I WILL BE VOTING IN FAVOR. ROLL CALL.>>Clerk: DICICCIO.>>Councilman DiCiccio: NO.>>Clerk: GARCIA.>>Councilman Garcia: YES.>>Clerk: NOWAKOWSKI.>>Councilman Nowakowski: YES.>>Clerk: PASTOR.>>Councilwoman Pastor: YES.>>Clerk: STARK.>>Councilwoman Stark: YES.>>Clerk: WARING.>>Councilman Waring: NO.>>Clerk: WILLIAMS.>>Councilwoman Williams: YES.>>Clerk: GUARDADO.>>Vice Mayor Guardado: YES.>>Clerk: GALLEGO.>>Mayor Gallego: YES. ITEM PASSES 7-2. WE NEXT MOVE TO ITEM 42.>>Councilwoman Williams: MAYOR I MAKE THE MOTION TO AMEND PHOENIX CITY CODE CHAPTER 4 ON ITEM 1 INCREASING EXISTING NEW TRIP FEES FOR NON-RIDESHARE COMPANIES AND RIDESHARE COMPANIES KNOWN AS TRANSPORTATION NETWORK COMPANIES, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1st, 2020. THE YEAR 1 TRIP FEES FOR PICK-UP AND DROP-OFF WILL BE $4 FOR THE GT, FOR RIDESHARE FOR 1 TO 8 SEATS, $1.75, 9 TO 23 SEATS, $2.25. 24-PLUS SEATS, $5. 2, ESTABLISH A PROCESS TO ANNUALLY ADJUST TRIP FEES IN AN EFFORT TO MAINTAIN A LEVEL OF COST RECOVERY. ALL FUTURE TRIP FEE ADJUSTMENTS FOR NON-RIDESHARE AND RIDESHARE COMPANIES SHALL INCREASE AT THE GREATER OF 3% OR THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX TO KEEP UP WITH THE COST OF INFLATION. FOR NON-RIDESHARE COMPANIES THIS IS EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1st, 2021, AND FOR RIDESHARE COMPANIES, THIS IS EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1st, 2025. 3, PROVIDING THE FOLLOWING INCENTIVES TO DISCOUNT THE TRIP FEE RATES. A. 10% FOR EACH TRIP MADE BY ALTERNATIVE FUEL POWERED VEHICLE OR 20% FOR A ZERO MISSIONS VEHICLES AND B.30% FOR EACH TRIP THAT INITIATES OR TERMINATES AT THE 44th STREET OR 24th STREET PHX SKY TRAIN STATION. AND, 4, MAKE CONFORMING, CLARIFYING AND RENUMBERING CHANGES AS NECESSARY. OH, AND THE FIRST ONE, I GUESS I SAID FEBRUARY — FEBRUARY 1, 2020. SORRY.>>Mayor Gallego: THANK YOU, COUNCILWOMAN, FOR THAT IMPRESSIVE MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?>>Councilwoman Stark: SECOND.>>Mayor Gallego: THANK YOU. THIS ITEM WAS PREVIOUSLY PRESENTED BY STAFF AND DEBATED ON OCTOBER 16th, 2019 AT THE CITY COUNCIL FORMAL MEETING. THE RECORD OF THE FULL PROCEEDINGS FROM OCTOBER 16th MEETING WILL BE INCORPORATED INTO THE RECORD TODAY. WE WILL NOT REPEAT THE PRESENTATION BUT I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THAT STAFF COME FORWARD IN CASE THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM. WILL THE CITY CLERK PLEASE READ THE TITLE.>>Clerk: (READING OF TITLE).>>Mayor Gallego: THANK YOU. WE HAVE A NUMBER OF CARDS HERE TO ADDRESS THE PHOENIX CITY COUNCIL. WE’LL BEGIN WITH LEZIE KIM OF THE PHOENIX AVIATION ADVISORY BOARD.>>GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. HELLO AGAIN. I HAVE THIS INTENSE FEELING OF DEJA VU. AS YOU KNOW, I CAME BY LAST TIME TO SAY THAT THE PHOENIX AVIATION BOARD, WE BECAME VERY INVOLVED IN THIS ISSUE, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY PASSED BY MY AVIATION BOARD AT OUR FORMAL MEETING. TODAY I AM JUST HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF THERE ARE ANY SINCE THE LAST TIME WE MET.>>Mayor Gallego: DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? WONDERFUL. THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. RODNEY FALLBERG. RODNEY WILL BE FOLLOWED BY KURT MAGNUM.>>THANK YOU. AS A MEMBER OF THE WORKING CLASS PEOPLE OF THIS CITY, THE CITY OF PHOENIX, A CITY THAT I LOVE, I’M VOICING MY OPPOSITION TO THIS RIDESHARE TAX. WHY IS IT ONCE AGAIN THAT THE PEOPLE OF THIS CITY, THE WORKING CLASS MEMBERS OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX AND OF THIS COMMUNITY, ARE ONCE AGAIN BEING TOLD TO SHOULDER THE BURDEN OF PET PROJECTS FROM THE CITY OF PHOENIX? THE WORKING CLASS PEOPLE OF THIS CITY DO NOT NEED ANOTHER TAX PUT ON THEM. WE USE UBER AND LYFT AS A MEANS OF SUPPLEMENTING OUR INCOME TO MAKE MORE MONEY BECAUSE WE AS WORKING CLASS PEOPLE STRUGGLE AND GO FROM PAYCHECK TO PAYCHECK AND WITH RISING HOW COSTS IN THE CITY OF PHOENIX WHY IS IT ONCE AGAIN THAT THE CITY OF PHOENIX HAS DECIDED THAT WE, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, SHOULD SHOULDER THE BURDEN? I DON’T THINK THIS IS FAIR AND NOR IS IT RIGHT. I HAVE ANOTHER PROPOSAL INSTEAD. WHY DOES NOT THE MEMBERS OF THIS COUNCIL CONSIDER INSTEAD ANOTHER PROPOSAL TO LOWER THE SALARIES OF PHOENIX CITY EMPLOYEES WHO MAKE IN EXCESS OF $100,000, $200,000 OR EVEN $300,000 A YEAR. FOR EXAMPLE, IN 2018 CITY OF PHOENIX EMPLOYEE ZUERCHER, EDWARD MADE AN ANNUAL WAGE OF $314,999.36. I ASK YOU, IS THAT FAIR? NOT IN THE LEAST. ANOTHER CITY OF PHOENIX EMPLOYEE, DOHONEY, MILTON, MADE AROUND $243,000. I’M SORRY, BUT IF THERE NEEDS TO BE ADDED INFRASTRUCTURE TO THE AIRPORT OR TO ANY CITY SERVICE, THEN I ASK YOU THIS, WHY NOT INSTEAD CUT THESE EXCESSIVE SALARIES INSTEAD OF PUTTING THE BURDEN ON US, THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, AND I’M VOICING MY OPPOSITION TO THIS PROPOSED PLAN. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR HEARING ME OUT. THANK YOU.>>Councilman DiCiccio: MAYOR, TO HIS POINT, THOUGH, TOO, SO — THIS IS ONE OF THE THINGS I LIKE TO DO. LIKE TO WORK WITH NUMBERS. THAT’S JUST SALARY. THAT DOESN’T INCLUDE ALL THE EXTRA BENEFITS, THE CADILLAC HEALTH BENEFITS THAT EVERYONE GETS, THAT WE GET UP HERE, TOO, THE PENSIONS, THE 401(K)s, EVERYTHING ELSE. IF YOU ADD ALL THAT IN, YOU CAN ADD IN ANOTHER 35% ON TOP OF THOSE NUMBERS EASILY, AND THAT WILL GIVE YOU A TRUE NUMBER OF WHAT THE TRUE COST IS. AS A MATTER OF FACT, WE HAVE OVER 13,000 EMPLOYEES IN THE CITY OF PHOENIX WITH AN AVERAGE COMPENSATION OF $115,000 PER YEAR. AND IT’S ACTUALLY HIGHER THAN THAT THIS YEAR. THIS IS LAST YEAR’S NUMBER. THANK YOU.>>Councilwoman Williams: MAYOR?>>Mayor Gallego: COUNCILWOMAN.>>Councilwoman Williams: I JUST WANT TO MAKE THE COMMENT THAT SKY HARBOR IS AN ENTERPRISE FUND. IT HAS TO GENERATE ITS OWN FUNDS FOR OPERATIONS. THE SALARIES OF EMPLOYEES, NO MONEY COMES OUT OF GENERAL FUND FOR THIS, AND IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE MAINTAIN A QUALITY FACILITY, THAT WE MAINTAIN THE ROADS THAT YOU’RE DRIVING ON, BUT THAT MONEY IS TOTALLY SEPARATE. IT’S NO TAX MONEY AT ALL. SO I JUST WANTED TO CLEAR THAT UP.>>Mayor Gallego: COUNCILWOMAN PASTOR.>>Councilwoman Pastor: I WANT TO PIGGYBACK ON THAT. BECAUSE IT’S AN ENTERPRISE, IT’S A BUSINESS, AND WE RUN IT AS A BUSINESS, AND JUST LIKE ANY OF OUR ENTERPRISES, WE HAVE TO LOOK AT OUR INFRASTRUCTURE AND WE HAVE TO LOOK AT EVERYTHING THAT’S HAPPENING WITHIN THE AIRPORT. ON TOP OF THAT, PEOPLE ARE DRIVING AND USING OUR STREETS WITHIN THE AIRPORT, SUCH AS UBER AND LYFT, AND IT’S ALL PART OF A COLLECTIVE IN MAKING SURE THAT THE AIRPORT IS AT THE HIGHEST STANDARD THAT WE CAN HAVE. SO JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR.>>Mayor Gallego: COUNCILMAN WARING.>>Councilman Waring: SO THE SPEAKER SPOKE TO AN ISSUE NEAR AND DEAR TO MY HEART. I WAS THE ONE PERSON WHO VOTED AGAINST THE CITY MANAGER PAY RAISE BACK IN 2012, AND I WILL SAY THIS, YOU’D HAVE TO DO A LOT OF SALARY CUTTING TO SAVE THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT WE’RE TALKING ABOUT HERE. A LOT OF THIS IS DIRECTED TOWARDS THE SKY TRAIN. SKY TRAIN IS $300 MILLION A MILE. OUR ENTIRE GENERAL FUND IS, I THINK ABOUT $3.1 BILLION. SO IT’S A QUARTER OF OUR GENERAL FUND FOR EVERY MILE AND THERE IS FIVE MILES. SKY TRAIN IS MORE THAN A YEAR OF CITY GENERAL FUND SPENDING. I THINK MY NUMBERS ARE CORRECT. I VOTED AGAINST THE SKY TRAIN. SO I’M FAIRLY SAFE POLITICAL FOOTING THERE AS WELL. I WOULD SAY THIS, I HAVE TRIED TO BE CONSISTENT, WHEN YOU LOOK AT WHAT IT TAKES TO REPAVE A MILE OF A ROAD MY CAMELBACK. IT’S ABOUT A MILLION BUCKS, 1.1 MILLION. TO BUILD A ROAD LIKE THAT IS SOMETHING LIKE 11.5 MILLION. YOU CAN DO A LOT OF ROAD BUILDING IS MY POINT FOR $300 MILLION PER MILE FOR A BILLION-FIVE. WHEN YOU FACTOR IN THE CONCEPT OF RIDERLESS CARS — OR DRIVERLESS CARS MAKING THINGS MORE EFFICIENT, WE’RE NOT BEING PROACTIVE AND LOOKING TO THE FUTURE. WE BASICALLY BUILT DISNEYLAND’S MONORAIL. I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE MY KIDS TO THE MONORAIL THIS SUMMER. I HADN’T BEEN ON IT IN YEARS. THERE IT IS. BUILT IN LIKE 1954. I WONDER IF IT COST $350 MILLION A MILE. IT’S BIG, GOES AROUND, SEVEN YEARS OLD. AT SOME POINT I LOOK AT SOME OF THESE PUBLIC STRUCTURES, THE LIGHT RAIL AND THE SKY TRAIN IN PARTICULAR, AND I WONDER WHAT WE’RE THINKING. DO THEY GET ENOUGH BANG FOR THE BUCK? BECAUSE THEY’RE REALLY, REALLY EXPENSIVE. BASICALLY TO THE SPEAKER’S POINT, WE COULD PROBABLY CUT ALL THE SALARIES AND NOT AFFORD A MILE OF SKY TRAIN. WELL, THAT’S PROBABLY NOT. MAYBE TWO MILES WE COULD AFFORD. I JUST — AT SOME POINT, YOU KNOW, THAT’S NOT GOING TO GET DONE. I APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS AND I HAVE ILLUSTRATED MY AGREEMENT WITH THEM IN MY VOTES OVER EIGHT YEARS ON THIS COUNCIL, BUT THIS IS SUCH AN EXTRAVAGANT PROJECT THAT NOW WE’RE LEFT TO DO THIS, AND YOU’RE RIGHT, THE WORKING CLASS PERSON IS SUFFERING IN THIS CASE, AND THAT’S WRONG. BUT I’M VOTING NO. BUT AT SOME POINT IT WAS PROBABLY INEVITABLE ONCE WE WENT DOWN THE PATH OF THE SKY TRAIN. THANK YOU.>>Mayor Gallego: THANK YOU. KURT WILL BE FOLLOWED BY PIPER OVERSTREET.>>GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR GALLEGO AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL. PIPER OVERSTREET ON BEHALF OF UBER. I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME ME MAKE COMMENTS. I’M HERE ONCE AGAIN TO ASK YOU TO RECONSIDER APPROVING THIS INEQUITABLE TAX INCREASE PROPOSAL. WE HAVE ACTIVELY ENGAGED IN GOOD FAITH WITH THE AIRPORT STAFF, AVIATION ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS AND YOU THE CITY COUNCIL. UNFORTUNATELY, IT SEEMS THAT YOU CONTINUE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE TAX PROPOSAL THAT IS UNTETHERED TO THE YEAR-LONG BENCHMARKING FEE STUDY AND THAT UNFAIRLY PENALIZED RIDESHARE COMPANIES, DRIVERS AND RIDERS. THE TAX MODEL THAT RESULTED IN THE AIRPORT’S PROPOSAL WAS SHARED WITH UBER JUST 24 HOURS BEFORE THE FIRST PUBLIC MEETING OF THE ADVISORY BOARD. SINCE THAT TIME WE HAVE CONSISTENTLY VOICED OUR OPPOSITION. AS SUCH, WE HAVE NOTIFIED THE AIRPORT AND STAKEHOLDERS THAT WE WILL CEASE OPERATIONS AT SKY HARBOR IN JANUARY IF THIS PROPOSAL IS APPROVED. WE ARE AND ALWAYS HAVE BEEN SUPPORTIVE OF PAYING OUR FAIR SHARE. HOWEVER, THIS PROPOSAL FAR EXCEEDS WHAT IT COSTS THE AIRPORT FOR DAY-TO-DAY MANAGE OF TNC OPERATIONS AT SKY HARBOR. WHEN WE CEASE OPERATIONS NEXT MONTH, THERE WILL STILL BE THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE THAT NEED TO GET TO AND FROM THE AIRPORT. HOWEVER, THE AIRPORT WILL NOT BE RECOUPING ANY FEES FROM PRIVATE VEHICLES OR THE INCREASED TRAFFIC. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE AIRPORT HAS CUT OFF ITS NOSE TO SPITE ITS FACE. OVER THE PAST SEVEN YEARS WE HAVE INVESTED HEAVILY IN ARIZONA AND ITS RESIDENTS. WE ARE VERY PROUD OF OUR CENTER OF EXCELLENCE HERE IN DOWNTOWN PHOENIX AND THE OVER 600 EMPLOYEES WHO WORK THERE. WE’RE PROUD OF THE THOUSANDS OF HOURS OF VOLUNTEER COMMUNITY SERVICE WITH LOCAL NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS AND WE ARE PROUD OF OUR NATIONAL PARTNERSHIP WITH ASU. DESPITE THIS SITUATION, WE WILL CONTINUE TO BE A TRANSPORTATION OPTION FOR RESIDENTS AND VISITORS TO YOUR CITY. IT’S JUST UNFORTUNATE IT WON’T BE AT THE AIRPORT.>>Councilman DiCiccio: MAYOR?>>Mayor Gallego: COUNCILWOMAN WILLIAMS.>>Councilwoman Williams: IF I COULD ASK YOU A QUICK — YOU REPRESENT UBER, RIGHT?>>I DO.>>Councilwoman Williams: DO YOU PAY THIS FEE AT OTHER APPORTS?>>WE PAY FEES AT OTHER AIRPORTS, BUT THERE ARE DIFFERENCES, AND I WOULD CAUTION AGAINST AN APPLES TO ORANGES COMPARISON. I THINK IN THE LAST MEETING AND AT THE AIRPORT ADVISORY MEETINGS WE WENT THROUGH SOME OF THE FEES.>>Councilwoman Williams: IN COMPARISON OF FEES, WHEN WE WERE SHOWN THE LIST OF WHERE YOU’RE PAYING OTHER AIRPORTS, I MEAN, IN OTHER PLACES YOU OFTEN PAY $10 PER PICKUP AND DROP-OFF. I’M JUST WONDERING, DID YOU SAY YOU WERE LEAVING THOSE AIRPORTS?>>SO, SOME OF THOSE OTHER AIRPORTS, AND I DON’T KNOW SPECIFICALLY WHICH ONES, SOME OF THOSE OTHER AIRPORT FEES THAT WERE LISTED INCORPORATE OTHER FEES LIKE CITY TAXES AND OTHER THINGS. SO THERE’S — THERE’S — SOMETIMES I’VE SEEN IN THE PRESENTATION THERE HAS BEEN AN APPLES TO ORANGES COMPARISON. AND WE RESPONDED TO THAT. WE PROVIDED THE INFORMATION TO THE AIRPORT WITH REGARD TO THAT.>>Councilwoman Williams: OKAY. AND HAVE YOU LEFT OTHER AIRPORTS BECAUSE OF THESE FEES?>>WE HAVE. BUT NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE — NOT BOTH TNCs, BUT UBER YES. ONTARIO AIRPORT I BELIEVE IS WHAT YOU’RE REFERRING TO.>>Councilwoman Williams: THERE’S SEVERAL I HAVE HEARD, BUT I’VE HEARD YOU DIDN’T STAY IN THAT STATUS, THAT YOU WENT BACK AND SERVED AGAIN.>>YEAH, BASED ON THE ANALYSIS AND WHAT WE FEEL IS FAIR AND UNFAIR, AS I’VE MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY IN ALL OF MY PUBLIC TESTIMONY, THIS IS THE DECISION WE’RE FORCED TO COME TO HERE AT SKY HARBOR.>>Councilwoman Williams: THANK YOU.>>THANK YOU.>>Mayor Gallego: CAN YOU, PLEASE — WE HAVE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS.>>I’M HAPPY TO STAY HERE AS LONG AS YOU NEED APOLOGIZE.>>Mayor Gallego: DO YOU SERVE CHICAGO MIDWAY?>>WE DO.>>Mayor Gallego: FEES OF $11.20 –>>IF I COULD MAKE A NOTE, IN THE PREVIOUS MEETINGS THAT WE’VE ATTENDED I’VE HAD MY AIRPORTS EXPERT HERE. UNFORTUNATELY HE COULDN’T BE HERE BECAUSE OF A FAMILY MATTER. SO IF THERE’S REALLY SPECIFIC AIRPORT THINGS, I MAY NOT BE ABLE TO ANSWER.>>Mayor Gallego: SO YOU DO SERVE CHICAGO O’HARE?>>YES.>>Mayor Gallego: DO YOU SERVE DALLAS FT. WORTH.>>I BELIEVE SOP.>>Mayor Gallego: DETROIT? I BELIEVE.>>DO YOU SERVE SAN FRANCISCO? YES.>>Mayor Gallego: DO YOU SERVE HOUSTON.>>I BELIEVE SO.>>Mayor Gallego: DO YOU SERVE LOS ANGELES?>>YES.>>Mayor Gallego: DC NATIONAL?>>YES. DO YOU SERVE DC DULLES? YES.>>Mayor Gallego: SO PHOENIX THAT THE 12th LARGEST AIRPORT IN THE NATION LOCATED IN THE FASTEST GROWING CITY AND NATION IN THE NATION. THE NINE OTHER AIRPORTS HAVE SIMILAR OR HIGHER FEES THAN THE ONES BEING CONSIDERED HERE. FOUR OF THESE AIRPORTS DO NOT EVEN OFFER CURBSIDE RIDESHARE SERVICE AS SKY HARBOR DOES. IN FACT BOTH D.C. AIRPORTS JUST RAISED THEIR PICK-UP AND DROP-OFF AND PICK-UP FEES TO RIDESHARE COMPANIES TO $5 AND UBER AND LYFT HAVE NOT THREATENED TO PULL OUT OF THOSE MARKETS.>>I CANNOT GET INTO THE NEGOTIATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN. BUT I DO HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE NEGOTIATIONS HERE. WE HAVEN’T SAID WE’RE NOT WILLING TO SUPPORT AN INCREASE. THAT’S NOT WHAT THIS IS ABOUT, BUT WHEN WE GET NOTICE AFTER PARTICIPATING IN A BENCHMARKING STUDY THAT, OH, HEY, THIS FEE THAT WE’RE PROPOSING IS NOT IN ANY WAY TIED TO THIS, WE’RE ACTUALLY GOING WELL ABOVE THAT AMOUNT, THAT’S CONCERNING, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT’S TIED TO 80% OF THE SKY TRAIN, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE SKY TRAIN. SO I THINK THAT WOULD BE MY RESPONSE TO ANY OF THESE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOUT OTHER AIRPORTS YOU HAVE.>>Mayor Gallego: WE WANT TO HAVE A TOP AIRPORT IN THIS COMMUNITY. WE WANT TO PROVIDE CUTTING EDGE INVESTMENTS. WE WANT TO BE GLOBALLY COMPETITIVE AND SO WE WANT TO COMPETE WITH THE OTHER AIRPORTS THAT ARE INVESTING IN MANAGING THEIR CURBS. COUNCILMEMBER GARCIA.>>Councilman Garcia: IS THERE SPECIFIC REASON WHY THESE OTHER MARKETS MIGHT BE MORE IMPORTANT OR SEEM TO BE MORE IMPORTANT THAN PHOENIX SKY HARBOR?>>I DON’T THINK IT’S ABOUT IMPORTANCE, BUT NONE OF THE OTHERS HAVE AN O&M OF THEIR SKY TRAIN FEES INVOLVED IN OUR TNC FEES, OUR GROUND TRANSPORTATION OPERATIONS.>>Councilman Garcia: BUT ARE YOU SAYING IT’S NOT WORTH THIS INVESTMENT TO BE A PART OF OUR MARKET?>>NO, THAT’S NOT AT ALL WHAT I’M SAYING.>>Mayor Gallego: COUNCILWOMAN PASTOR.>>Councilwoman Pastor: MR. BENNETT, CAN YOU TELL ME THE PROCESS AND EXPLAIN TO ME THE PROCESS? BECAUSE WHAT I JUST HEARD WAS UBER WAS NOT PART OF THE PROCESS. I JUST NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHERE THE TRUTH LIES. 92.>>MAYOR TO COUNCILWOMAN PASTOR, IF I MAY, I WOULD ASK THAT JORDAN FELLED WALK YOU THROUGH THAT PROCESS BECAUSE HE WAS THE LEAD STAFF INDIVIDUAL THAT WAS ENGAGED WITH THE RIDESHARE COMPANIES FOR WELL OVER A YEAR THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS OF THE STUDY.>>Councilwoman Pastor: THANK YOU.>>THANK YOU, MR. BENNETT, MAYOR, COUNCILMEMBER PASTOR, APPRECIATE THE QUESTION. ALL OF THE EGT STAKEHOLDERS WERE INVOLVED ON THE FRONT END OF THE PROCESS, INCLUDING UBER, WHICH MEANT THEY DROVE THE SCOPE OF WORK THAT WE UNDERTOOK TO COMPARE THE AIRPORTS. UBER AS WELL AS OTHER STAKEHOLDERS ALL IDENTIFIED THE NEED TO CLARIFY IN OUR DATA COLLECTION WHETHER OR NOT THESE FEES WERE A PER-TRIP FEE OR INCLUDED A PERMIT OR OTHER TAX OR PROFIT SHARING AND SO ALL THAT INFORMATION IS DETAILED IN THE BENCHMARKING REPORT, BUT THE NUMBERS THAT WE USE TO SHOW THE COMPARISON TRIP FEE RATES ARE PURELY TRIP FEE RATES. SO — TO ANSWER THAT PART OF THE QUESTION. BUT THEN BACK TO PROCEDURALLY, STAKEHOLDERS LIKE UBER SPECIFICALLY WERE INVOLVED IN THE FRONT END, DURING THE PROCESS AND AT THE END OF THE PROCESS WHEN WE SHARED THE FINAL BENCHMARKING RESULTS. WE THEN QUICKLY DEVELOPED A RECOMMENDATION THAT UBER, THE REST OF THE STAKEHOLDERS, WERE ALSO INVOLVED IN REVIEWING AND COMMENTING ON. SO THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS FROM SOUP TO NUTS.>>Councilwoman Pastor: SO THEY WERE PART OF THE PROCESS, THEY WERE INVITED TO THE PROCESS, THEY COULD CHOOSE IN THE MIDDLE TO PARTICIPATE AND THEY COULD CHOOSE IN THE IN THE END — OR ANY PART OF THE PROCESS, BUT EVERY STEP OF THE WAY THEY WERE INVITED TO BE PART OF THE PROCESS?>>THAT IS CORRECT.>>Councilwoman Pastor: MY QUESTION IS DID THEY PARTICIPATE 100% THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS?>>MAYOR, COUNCILMEMBER, APPRECIATE THE CLARIFYING QUESTION. THEY WERE VERY INVOLVED AT THE FRONT OF THE PRAY ZEST AND VERY INVOLVED AT THE END OF THE PROCESS. THEY MAY HAVE CALLED IN FOR SOME OF THE MEETINGS DURING THE PROCESS BUT DIDN’T IDENTIFY THEMSELVES. SO I CAN’T TRACK THAT. BUT CERTAINLY INVOLVED IN THE FRONT AND END OF THE PROCESS.>>Councilwoman Pastor: COULD YOU PLEASE CLARIFY IF THIS IS A TAX?>>MAYOR, TO COUNCILWOMAN PASTOR, THIS IS NOT A TAX. THIS IS RENT. ALL OF THE BUSINESSES THAT OPERATE AT SKY HARBOR AIRPORT PAY RENT AND THAT RENT CONSTITUTES EITHER COST RECOVERY OR FAIR MARKET VALUE FOR ACCESSING THE COMMERCIAL MARKET AND USING THE AIRPORT FACILITIES THAT WE PROVIDE. THIS IS THE WAY WE CHARGE RENT FOR THIS CATEGORY OF USERS, GROUND TRANSPORTATION PROVIDERS. WE HAVE ROUGHLY 700 PERMITTED GROUND TRANSPORTATION PROVIDERS AT THE AIRPORT AND EACH OF THOSE 700 CHARGE — ARE CHARGED THEIR RENTAL THROUGH A TRIP FEE POLICY THAT WAS FIRST INSTITUTED IN 2016.>>Councilwoman Pastor: I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION. IF UBER AND LYFT WERE TO LEAVE THE MARKET, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THAT THERE ARE DIFFERENT ROUTES — OR DIFFERENT — I DON’T KNOW — VEHICLES — I DON’T KNOW WHAT EXACTLY TO USE THE TERM, BUT THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO GET TO THE AIRPORT AND CUSTOMERS WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO HAVE DIFFERENT CHOICES?>>MAYOR, TO COUNCILWOMAN PASTOR, THAT IS CORRECT, AS I MENTIONED THERE ARE ROUGHLY 700 PERMITTED GROUND TRANSPORTATION OPERATORS, AND I KNOW IT’S DIFFICULT BECAUSE WE’RE ALL USERS OF UBER AND LYFT. EVEN ALL OF US AS WE SIT HERE TODAY ARE ALL USERS OF UBER AND LYFT. HOWEVER, IT’S DIFFICULT TO REMEMBER THAT PRIOR TO JUNE OF 2016 EVERYONE WAS ABLE TO ACCESS THE AIRPORT BEFORE THE INTRODUCTIONS OF UBER AND LYFT, AND ALL OF THOSE MECHANISMS THAT WERE AVAILABLE THEN ARE STILL AVAILABLE TO PEOPLE TODAY, EITHER LIGHT RAIL TO THE SKY TRAIN STATION OR FAMILY MEMBERS PICKING UP AND DROPPING OFF, OR OTHER FOR-HIRE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES THAT ARE PERMITTED TO OPERATE AT THE AIRPORT.>>Councilwoman Pastor: THANK YOU.>>Mayor Gallego: THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER DICICCIO.>>Councilman DiCiccio: THANK YOU, MAYOR. SO WHAT YOU’RE HEARING IS GOVERNMENT SPIN ABOUT HOW TO LABEL THIS NOT A TAX. IT’S A TAX. WE ALL KNOW INTUITIVELY WHAT THIS IS. THERE ARE PEOPLE IN OUR COMMUNITY THAT LOVE YOU GUYS. I LOVE YOU. I LOVE UBER. I LOVE LYFT. I USE ON A REGULAR BASIS. THE IMPACT YOU’RE GOING TO HAVE HERE, PIPER, AND YOU HAVE TO DRAW A LINE SOMEWHERE, IS YOU CAN’T BE POUNDED, POUNDED AND POUNDED. WHAT’S INTERESTED IN GOVERNMENT IS YOU CAN POUND AWAY AT THESE INDIVIDUAL BUSINESSES AND SOONER OR LATER WE’RE NOT WORKING WITH YOU ANYMORE. THEY’RE GOING TO GO SOMEWHERE ELSE. BECAUSE IT’S A PORTABLE ECONOMY. SO THIS POUNDING YOU’RE GETTING TODAY, I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT, BECAUSE I THINK AS A BUSINESS OWNER WE RESPECT YOU, WE APPRECIATE YOU, WE WANT TO KEEP YOU, BUT I FULLY UNDERSTAND WHAT’S HAPPENING HERE. YOU JUST CAN’T TAKE IT ANY LONGER, AND I DON’T THINK WHAT THE PUBLIC REALLY UNDERSTANDS, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THESE 700, HOW MANY OF YOU, IN ANYBODY THAT’S LISTENING OUT THERE, HAVE HEARD OF ANY OF THESE OTHER 700? WHO HAS HEARD OF THEM? WHO IS USING THEM. OKAY. ONE. YOU’LL SEE IT UP HERE. BUT — ANYBODY OUT THERE? JUST A COUPLE? OKAY. WE GOT TAXI USERS. GOOD. THANK YOU. I LOVE THAT. SO AT THE END OF THE DAY, WHAT YOU’RE GOING TO HAVE IS — THIS IS A MIDDLE-CLASS SITUATION, AND THESE ARE THE INDIVIDUALS THAT USE THIS BECAUSE THEY CAN GET TO THE AIRPORT FOR 15, 16 BUCKS. NOW THEY’RE NOT GOING TO HAVE THAT ABILITY. AT THE END OF THE DAY THESE TAXES END UP GOING ON THE MIDDLE CLASS. THAT IS WHO IS GOING TO BE PAYING FOR THIS, THE PEOPLE WHO ARE WEALTHY AND RICH CAN ALWAYS AFFORD TO GET TO THE AIRPORT. GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS CAN ALWAYS FIND A RIDE OVER THERE. MOST PEOPLE WORK DURING THE DAY. THEY CAN’T RIDE WITH A PERSON OR NEIGHBOR OR FRIEND TO THE AIRPORT. THAT’S HOW A LOT OF PEOPLE GOT TO THE AIRPORT. ALSO INCLUDED IN THIS YOU HAVE THE ABILITY FOR THE AIRPORT TO INDISCRIMINATELY CONTINUALLY RAISE THIS. SO THIS WHOLE IDEA NOW THAT WE’RE CALLING IT RENT, IT CHANGES EVERY DAY, THE TERM. TUNE BELIEVE THE GOVERNMENT SPIN. DO NOT BELIEVE WHAT YOU’RE HEARING WHEN YOU HEAR ALL THIS B.S., BECAUSE THAT’S WHAT IT IS. IT’S A TAX ON THE PUBLIC, IT’S A TAX ON THE MIDDLE CLASS, AND IT’S LITERALLY DRIVING BUSINESSES OUT. WE’RE GOING TO BE THE FIRST CITY IN THE NATION WHERE BUSINESSES ARE GOING TO BE DRIVING OUT OF THE CITY AND IT’S MORALLY WRONG.>>Mayor Gallego: I GUESS OUR MESSAGE — AT LEAST MY MESSAGE IS THAT PHOENIX IS A GLOBAL CITY. WE WANT TO INVEST IN A FIRST-CLASS AIRPORT. WE WANT TO INVEST IN PHOENICIANS. WE WOULD ASK YOU TO INVEST IN YOUR DRIVERS JUST THE WAY WE INVEST IN OUR CITIZENS.>>AND WE DO, AND I THANK YOU FOR YOUR QUESTIONS, MADAM MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL AND THANK YOU AGAIN FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK.>>Mayor Gallego: THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ANDREW COHN WILL BE NEXT.>>THANK YOU, MAYOR, NAH COUNCIL MEMBERS. I’VE MENTIONED LAST TIME IT WAS THE FIRST TIME IN 30 YEARS I’VE STOOD AT THIS PODIUM. THIS IS NOW THE SECOND TIME ON THE SAME TOPIC. I AM GOING TO PRACTICE SOMETHING I CAUTION YOU ALL TO DO AND THE REST OF THE SPEAKERS, AND THAT’S TO PRACTICE WORD ECONOMY. I DO NOT HAVE A POLITICAL STAKE IN WHAT GOES ON HERE. WE DON’T NEED TO BE POLITICALLY EFFICIENT. UBER AND LYFT ARE GREAT PROVIDERS. I USE THEM. THE AIRPORT NEEDS THEM. IT’S IMPORTANT. THIS IS COSTING THEM NOTHING. IF THIS IS A MARKET-DRIVEN ECONOMY, THE MARKET WILL SETTLE IN. UBER AND LYFT PASSES THESE FEES ALL ON TO THEIR CUSTOMERS. WE NEED TO PROTECT THESE DRIVERS TO MAKE SURE WHAT THEY’RE GETTING.>>>I WROTE AND OP ED. I THIRD GRADE TEACHER WILL BE AMAZED I COULD COBBLE TOGETHER THAT MANY WORDS. THE RESPONSE I GOT WAS OVERWHELMING FROM DRIVERS. LOOK, WE APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS. IT’S IMPORTANT THAT THE CITY UNDERSTAND THIS. UBER AND LYFT PARTICIPATED IN A PROCESS OF OVER 12 MONTHS, WHETHER THEY WERE HEAVILY INVOLVED AT THE BEGINNING AND HEAVILY INVOLVED AT THE END AND PARTIALLY INVOLVED IN THE MIDDLE, THAT WAS AN ELECTION THEY MADE. I MADE THAT COMMENT LAST TIME. THEY MADE AN ELECTION TO BACK OUT. THEY DON’T PAY THESE FEES. THEY HAVE CAPTURED A GRATED PART OF THIS MARKET. SINCE THIS LAST HEARING, WE BECAME THE NUMBER 1 AIRPORT IN THE COUNTRY. YOU MEAN TO TELL ME A COMPANY WHO HAS A MARKET CAP OF X DOLLARS WHOSE CEO IS MAKING TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IS GOING TO PULL OUT OF THE NUMBER 1 AIRPORT IN THE COUNTRY. WE JUST OPENED A FREEWAY OF A BILLION 300 MILLION IN COST TO HELP MANAGE UBER TO GET AROUND THE VALLEY BETTER. YOU MEAN TO TELL ME THEY ARE GOING TO LEAVE THIS TOWN? IF THEY LEAVE, THAT SHOWS POOR DECISION-MAKING ON THE PART OF THEIR LEADERSHIP, WHICH WOULD LEAD ONE TO BELIEVE THEY’RE NOT GOING TO BE IN BUSINESS IN FIVE OR TEN YEARS ANYWAY, AND IF THEY WANT US TO DELETE THE APP AND NOT USE THEM, WE’LL DO THAT. IT IRRITATES ME TO NO END TO HAVE SOMEBODY STAND HERE AND TELL US WE DON’T COMPARE TO THE OTHER CITIES YOU MENTIONED. THIS CITY IS GROWING IN LEAPS AND BOUNDS WITH GREAT COMMUNITY, WITH GREAT EFFORT. I DON’T WANT TO HEAR ABOUT CITY MANAGER SALARIES. I DON’T WANT TO HEAR ABOUT IT. THAT IS INAPPROPRIATE, IN PLY OPINION. THOSE DECISIONS WERE MADE BY A FORMAL COUNCIL. LIVE BY IT, AND IF YOU DON’T LIKE IT, YOU FOLKS CHANGE IT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.>>Mayor Gallego: THANK YOU. JOHN DEPIPPA.>>HELLO AGAIN. HI, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL. SOUTHWEST FLIGHT ATTENDANT. I WAS HERE LAST TIME. I JUST WANTED TO THANK YOU GUYS FOR KEEPING OUR PARKING RATE CAPS AND OUR DISCOUNTS IN PLACE. THAT’S REALLY ALL I HAD TO SAY. THANK YOU AND MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL OF YOU.>>HE PRACTICED WORD ECONOMY. I LIKE THAT.>>Mayor Gallego: IS KURT MANGUM HERE?>>[INAUDIBLE].>>Mayor Gallego: OKAY. MICHELLE NEWCOMBE. AND MICHELLE WILL BE FOLLOWED BY DENNIS RIDLEY.>>GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL. MY NAME IS MICHELLE NEWCOMBE, AND I LIVE IN CORONADO DISTRICT, DISTRICT 4, AND AROUND 16th STREET AND McDOWELL. I’M AN AIRPORT OPERATION ASSISTANT, AND I HAVE BEEN IN THIS POSITION FOR 13 YEARS. I’M HERE TODAY TO GIVE THE INFORMATION REGARDING RIDESHARE VEHICLES. OUR DUTIES ARE TO ASSIST, RESPOND TO FIRE, POLICE, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, SECURITY, COMPLIANCE AND ANSWER CUSTOMERS’ QUESTIONS. OUR MAIN JOB IS TO KEEP THE TRAFFIC FLOWING IN AND OUT OF THE AIRPORT. THE TOP PRIORITY IS THE SAFETY OF OUR EMPLOYEES, PASSENGERS AND CUSTOMERS. MANY OF THE RIDESHARE DRIVERS DID NOT FOLLOW THE DIRECTIONS OF THE AIRPORT PERSONNEL. THE RESPONSES I DO NOT KNOW THE RULES FOR PICKING UP AT THE AIRPORT. I READ — I’VE READ AND HEARD A LOT OF RAPES, VIOLENCE, MURDERS BY RIDESHARE DRIVERS ACROSS THE COUNTRY AND I’M NOT SURPRISED WHEN I SEE DRIVERS ATTACKING EACH OTHER, HITTING OTHER VEHICLES WITH THEIR HANDS AND YELLING AT PASSENGERS BECAUSE THEY PULLED INTO THEIR RIDESHARE AREA. ALSO, THE DRIVERS ARE LOADING IN THE MAIN BOULEVARD. YOU’RE LOOKING AT A LOT OF SAFETY ISSUES, AND THANK GOD WE HAVE NOT HAD ANY MAJOR ACCIDENTS OR INJURIES. WE USE A LOT OF RESOURCES EACH TIME WE RESPOND TO RIDESHARE. WE HAVE WRITTEN CITATIONS, NOTICE OF VIOLATIONS, AND THEY’VE BEEN SUSPENDED. WHEN ONE RIDESHARE VEHICLE IS SUSPENDED, WE GET FIVE MORE NEW VEHICLES AND WE START ALL OVER AGAIN. AS I SAID BEFORE, THE MAIN CONCERN, AGAIN, IS SAFETY FOR PASSENGERS, CUSTOMERS AND EMPLOYEES. WE DO NOT HAVE CONTROL OF RIDESHARE AS WE DO WITH OTHER GROUND TRANSPORTATION. WE KNOW SOME OF THE DRIVERS BY FACE. ALSO, WE HAVE PERMITS, LICENSE PLATES AND VEHICLE NUMBERS THAT MATCHES WHO IS DRIVING THAT VEHICLE, AND I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR HEARING ME OUT, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.>>Mayor Gallego: THANK YOU. DENNIS WILL BE FOLLOWED BY JOYA CLARK.>>MAYOR, COUNCILMEN AND WOMEN, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. I’LL KEEP THIS SHORT. I AM FOR THE CITY NOT TO GET IN BED WITH THESE COMPANIES UNTIL WE TAKE CARE OF THE IMMEDIATE PROBLEM AND RESOLVE, WHICH IS DRIVER EXPLOITATION. CURRENTLY DRIVERS ARE UNDERPAID AND PUT IN HARM’S WAY DAY IN AND DAY OUT ON OUR ROADS AND THE AIRPORT. MOST DON’T HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE, NOR SAVINGS, AND ARE CAUGHT UP IN THE RENTAL CAR SCHEME THAT HAS SEEMED TO HAVE TAKEN OVER MORE LATELY. THEY PAID MUCH MORE IN TAXES AND ARE BEING ILL INFORMED EVERY DAY. AND THEY ARE CAUGHT UP IN THE SO-CALLED BUSINESSES. THE PUBLIC HAS — THE PUBLIC HAS RECEIVED DEEPLY DISCOUNTED SERVICES AT DRIVERS’ EXPENSES. IT’S EASY TO SAY QUIT IF YOU DON’T LIKE IT. I WISH IT WAS THAT SIMPLE. IF IT WERE THAT SIMPLE, WE WOULDN’T NEED LABOR LAWS OR UNIONS. I LIKE MOST DRIVERS SIGNED UP TO MAKE EXTRA CASH, MAKE EXTRA INCOME, SUPPLEMENTARY INCOME TO BRING IN TO TAKE CARE OF WHAT I NEED TO TAKE CARE OF AND TO LIVE. HOWEVER, A LOT OF DRIVERS LIKE MYSELF ARE THEN CAUGHT UP INTO BUYING OR RENTING A VEHICLE AND THEN TRAPPED FOR PAYING FOR IT. I NEVER INTENDED TO START AN ORGANIZATION OR TO BE INVOLVED WITH DRIVERS OR TO ADVOCATE FOR DRIVERS SUCH AS MYSELF, BUT AFTER WITNESSING THE EXPLOITATIONS FIRST HAND I COULD NO LONGER SIT IDLY BY AND I HAD TO SAY SOMETHING. I UNDERSTAND THAT RIDESHARE HAS OFFSET OTHER INDUSTRIES AT THE AIRPORT BUT I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THAT YOU PLEASE TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AT THE SHADY BUSINESS PRACTICES THEY ARE EMPLOYING BEFORE WE START TAKING MONEY FROM THEM. THANK YOU.>>Mayor Gallego: THANK YOU. MRS. CLARK WILL BE FOLLOWED BY JOHN RICHES.>>THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS JOYA KAISER CLARK. I’M SECOND GENERATION PRESIDENT AND CEO OF CASA UNLIMITED ENTERPRISES. MY FAMILY OWNED BUSINESS HAS BEEN DOING FAMILIAR BUSINESS AT SKY HARBOR AS CONCESSIONAIRES FOR OVER 30 YEARS. WE STARTED IN TERM FULL 4 IN 1990. I THINK AS — AS PART OF THE BUSINESS INFRASTRUCTURE OF THE AIRPORT PEOPLE THAT GENERATE INCOME FROM DOING BUSINESS AT SKY HARBOR, IT’S A PRIVILEGE, AND PART OF OUR RESPONSIBILITY AND PART OF THE UNDERSTANDINGS FOR THOSE OF US THAT COMPETE TO DO BUSINESS AT THE AIRPORT IS THAT THERE’S ADDITIONAL COST INVOLVED IN MAINTAINING THE INFRASTRUCTURE AS A WHOLE AS THE PLACE THAT WE DO BUSINESS AND MAKE A SUCCESSFUL LIVING FROM. SO I THINK THAT WHAT WE — WE GET TIED UP IN THIS MARGIN DISCUSSION, IF WE USE BUSINESS TERMS, IT’S LARGELY MADE UP BY VOLUME, AND THAT’S WHY WE WANT TO BE AT THE AIRPORT. THAT’S WHY BUSINESSES LIKE TO BE AT THE AIRPORT, THAT’S IT’S BENEFICIAL FOR TAXI, RETAIL, FOOD, THE AIRLINES. THERE’S A LOT OF PEOPLE THERE. SO THERE’S SOME LIMITATIONS IN THE BUSINESS DISCUSSION AROUND FAIRNESS AND WHERE THOSE FEES ARE GOING IF THE CUSTOMERS ARE EATING THOSE FEES VERSUS THE BUSINESSES ARE EATING THOSE FEES. SO I JUST WANTED TO THANK THE COUNCIL FOR OUR YEARS AND THE OPPORTUNITIES THAT THE AIRPORT HAS GIVEN US TO BE SUCCESSFUL AS A FAMILY AND AS BUSINESS OWNERS AND TO SHARE OUR EXPERIENCES WITH OUR CUSTOMERS AND WITH OUR CITY. THANK YOU.>>Mayor Gallego: THANK YOU. MR. RICHES WILL BE FOLLOWED BY GREG TORREZ.>>GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. I’M THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL LITIGATION AT THE GOLDWATER INSTITUTE. SETTING ASIDE ALL OF THE POLICY REASONS AS TO WHY THIS IS PHENOMENALLY BAD POLICY, AND THERE ARE MANY, FROM THE FACT THAT VISITORS OF THIS STATE, THEIR FIRST IMPRESSION WILL BE GETTING HIT WITH AN ENORMOUS FEE, TO THE DRIVERS WHO RELY ON THIS AS SOMETIMES SECOND AND THIRD JOBS, TO THE PASSENGERS WHO THIS IS THE MOST INEXPENSIVE AND EFFICIENT WAY TO GET TO THE AIRPORT, YOU’RE GOING TO HIT THEM WITH A FEE, SETTING THAT ASIDE, IF COUNCIL MOVED AHEAD WITH THIS PROPOSAL IT WILL BE DOING SO IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE ARIZONA CONSTITUTION. IT HAS NOT EVEN BEEN A YEAR SINCE VOTER OVERWHELMINGLY PASSED PROPOSITION 126. THE PLAIN AND UNAMBIGUOUS LANGUAGE OF THAT CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT STATES ANY CITY IN THIS STATE IS PROHIBITED FROM IMPOSING OR INCREASING ANY FEE ON ANY SERVICE PERFORMED IN THE STATE, END QUOTE. IS THIS A FEE? ABSOLUTELY. THE CITY ITSELF HAS CALLED THIS A FEE. IT’S CALLED A FEE IN THE MATERIALS IN FRONT OF YOU. YOU’RE SEEKING TO AMEND A PORTION OF CITY CODE LABELED “FEES.” THIS ARGUMENT IT’S SOMEHOW A RENT IS SO PHENOMENALLY FOOLISH IT HARDLY WARRANTS A RESPONSE. IF TWO COLLEGE STUDENTS ARE SHARING GAS MONEY AND ONE DROPS ONE OFF AT THE AIRPORT CURBSIDE, ARE THEY RENTING A CURBSIDE. IF I TOOK AN UBER HERE, AM I RENTING CURBSIDE SPACE? YOU MAY NOT LIKE PROP 6126. YOU MAY WISH THE LANGUAGE OF OUR CONSTITUTION WERE DIFFERENT. YOU MAY CLAIM TO REALLY NEED THIS MONEY. ALL OF THAT IS IRRELEVANT. THE LAW IS WHAT IT IS. THE CONSTITUTION SAYS WHAT IT SAYS. MAKE NO MISTAKE, IF YOU PASS THIS PROPOSAL, YOU WILL NOT ONLY BE PUTTING IN PLACE ONE OF THE MOST PUNISHING POLICIES THIS CITY HAS CONSIDERED, BUT YOU WILL BE BEHAVING ILLEGALLY. YOU’LL HAVE TO EXPLAIN TO THAT YOUR CONSTITUENTS, MOST OF WHOM ARE LOW AND MIDDLE INCOME, FIRST OF ALL, WHY YOU ARE CHARGING TO GET A CHEAP RIDE TO THE AIRPORT AND SECOND WHY YOU DID SO IN BLATANT DISREGARD TO THE CONSTITUTION AND YOU NO DOUBT WILL HAVE TO EXPLAIN TO THAT A JUDGE.>>Councilman DiCiccio: MAYOR, A COUPLE QUESTIONS. FULL DISCLOSURE, THE GOLDWATER INSTITUTE, WHICH I LOVE, IS LOOKING AT BRINGING A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE CITY OF PHOENIX. I WILL TESTIFY ON YOUR BEHALF, JUST PUTTING IT THERE, IF YOU WOULD LIKE THAT. I WILL ALSO WORK AT THE LEGISLATURE TO TRY TO GET THIS THING FIXED. I’VE DONE THAT BEFORE IN THE PAST. I’M GOING TO DO IT AGAIN. BUT, LET ME ASK YOU A COUPLE QUESTIONS. IF — DEALING WITH — BASICALLY 126, THE 1487 DEALS WITH STATE SHARED REVENUES, TELL US THE IMPACT OF THAT.>>THE ARIZONA LEGISLATURE PASSED WHAT’S COMMONLY KNOWN AS 1487, AND WHAT THAT ALLOWS IS ANY MEMBER OF THE STATE LEGISLATURE CAN SEND A LETTER TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WHEREBY ALLEGING A MUNICIPALITY HAS VIOLATED A PROVISION OF THE ARIZONA CONSTITUTION. THE ATTORNEY HAS 30 DAYS TO INVESTIGATE. HE CAN MAKE ONE OF THREE FINDINGS, YES, THAT IS TRUE, YOU HAVE VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTION, IN WHICH CASE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CAN DIRECT THE STATE TREASURER TO WITHHOLD THE CITY’S SHARE OF SHARED REVENUE. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ALSO HAS THE OPTION OF SUBMITTING THIS DIRECTLY TO THE ARIZONA SUPREME COURT FORD EXPEDITED REVIEW.>>Councilman DiCiccio: SO THEN WHEN YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT LITIGATION UNDER PROP 126, IT DEALS WITH A LOT OF THE NEWER FEES, THIS WOULD BE A NEWER FEE, CORRECT –>>SORRY –>>Councilman DiCiccio: THIS WOULD BE CONSIDERED A NEWER TAX THAT WOULD BE IMPOSED?>>IT’S YOU IRRELEVANT WHETHER IT’S A FEE OR TAX. 126 PEROT PROHIBITS THE IMPOSITION OF NEW FEES OR INCREASE OF EXISTING FEES.>>Councilman DiCiccio: WHAT HAPPENS WITH THE FEE THE CITY IS ALREADY CHARGING, THE $2.66?>>THAT — THAT FEE THAT’S CURRENTLY IN PLACE WOULD LIKELY REMAIN IN PLACE BUT ANY INCREASE ON THAT FEE WOULD BE SUSCEPTIBLE TO A PROP 126 CHALLENGE AND OF COURSE THE BRAND-NEW DROP-OFF FEE OF $5 BY 2024 IS A BRAND-NEW FEE.>>Councilman DiCiccio: IF UBER AND LYFT END UP LEAVING, DOES THE CITY OF PHOENIX COLLECT ANYTHING AT ALL AT THAT POINT? THEY DON’T EVEN GET THE 2.66?>>THAT’S A GREAT POINT. BY THE WAY, IF THE COUNCIL DECIDES TO PASS THIS, THIS WILL BE THE FIRST TIME THAT A MAJOR AIRPORT IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA HAD NO RIDESHARING SERVICES THAT WERE SERVING IT, AND IF THAT HAPPENED THE CITY OF PHOENIX WOULD LOSE A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF REVENUE THAT’S ALREADY PROVIDE FROM THAT 2.66, WHICH IS NORTH OF $5 MILLION A YEAR. BY THIS VOTE THE CITY COUNCIL IS NOT ONLY DEPRIVING ALL PHOENICIANS OF THE ABILITY TEE GET CHEAP AND EFFICIENT RIDESHARE SERVICES, THEY ARE COSTING THEMSELVES $5 MILLION.>>AND QUESTION TO AIRPORT STAFF, HOW DO WE IDENTIFY THE UBER AND LYFT DRIVERS, THE RIDESHARE TODAY, HOW DO THEY GET IDENTIFIED AND HOW DO WE KNOW WHO THEY ARE THAT.>>MAYOR TO COUNCILMAN DICICCIO, THE CURRENT CODE REQUIRES UBER AND LYFT VEHICLES TO PROPERLY DISPLAY TRADE DRESS. IN OTHER WORDS, KIND OF THE UBER AND OR LYFT EMBLEM IN THE WINDSHIELDS OF THEIR VEHICLES, AND THEN ALSO OUR OPERATIONS AGENTS RANDOMLY INTERACT WITH THE DRIVERS WHEN THEY PULL UP TO CHECK THEIR APP TO MAKE SURE THEY ARE, IN FACT, AN UBER AND/OR A LYFT DRIVER AUTHORIZED TO BE PICKING UP AT THE AIRPORT. SO WE DO RANDOM SPOT CHECKING ON THE INDIVIDUALS AS WELL AS INSPECTIONS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE TRADE DRESS IS APPROPRIATELY DISPLAYED IN THE VEHICLES.>>Councilman DiCiccio: SO — I WAS HERE AND I VOTED AGAINST THAT, TOO. SINCE THAT POINT, DO YOU HAVE CONTRACTS WITH THE UBER AND LYFT ENTITIES AT THIS POINT?>>MAYOR, TO COUNCILMAN DICICCIO, THAT IS CORRECT, WE HAVE WRITTEN AGREEMENTS WITH BOTH UBER AND LYFT AS WELL AS ALL OF THE OTHER PERMITTED OPERATORS AT THE AIRPORT THAT RESPOND TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR DOING BUSINESS ON THE AIRPORT PROPERTY.>>Councilman DiCiccio: I WOULD LIKE TO GET A COPY OF EACH ONE OF THOSE THINGS.>>MAYOR, TO COUNCILMAN DICICCIO, CERTAINLY.>>Councilman DiCiccio: THANK YOU.>>Mayor Gallego: THANK YOU. YOU MAY SIT — OKAY — WE DESERVE THE SAME FEES THAT EVERY OTHER AIRPORT GETS. WE ARE NOT A CITY RUNNING ON THE CHEAP. COUNCILMAN WARING.>>Councilman Waring: MR. RICHES, THE 1487 IS A RELATIVELY NEW TOOL FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD THAT THE LEGISLATURE CAME UP WITH A COUPLE YEARS. HAS IT BEEN USED BEFORE? HAVE CASES GOING TO THE SUPREME COURT? I GUESS I KNOW THE ANSWER BUT I’M CURIOUS FOR THE AUDIENCES INTEREST WHAT’S HAPPENED WITH SOME OF THOSE. NOT ALL OF THEM BUT EXAMPLES.>>YEAH, 1487 HAS BEEN BEFORE — 1487 COMPLAINTS HAVE BEEN BEFORE THE ARIZONA SUPREME COURT, THE ARIZONA SUPREME COURT HAS UPHELD IT. THERE HAS BEEN SITUATIONS WHERE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS FOUND AN OUT RIGHT VIOLATION OF STATE LAW OR THE STATE CONSTITUTION IN WHICH CASE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DIRECTED THE TREASURER TO WITHHOLD STATE SHARED REVENUE AND THEN THE CITY OR MUNICIPALITY HAD 30 DAYS TO DECIDE WHETHER THEY WANTED TO CHANGE THEIR ACTION. SO, YES, IT CERTAINLY HAS BEEN USED AND IN A CASE LIKE THIS WHERE THE LAW IS SO PERFECTLY CLEAR, I CAN’T IMAGINE THAT IT WOULDN’T BE.>>Councilman Waring: IF I COULD JUST FOLLOW UP WITH THAT. 1487, THAT’S ACTIVE. THEY’RE USING IT AND IT’S HAPPENING. SO IF A LEGISLATOR DOES FILE A COMPLAINT, MY RECOLLECTION — FOR EXAMPLE, A CASE THAT WENT TO THE SUPREME COURT, A GUN CASE OUT OF TUCSON, THAT MOVED PRETTY QUICKLY, IS THAT RIGHT? THEY EXPEDITE THAT. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, I THINK, SENT IT DIRECTLY TO THE COURTS AND IT MOVED ITS WAY THROUGH PRETTY QUICKLY, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, ASSUMING THAT WOULD BE THE CASE HERE, I DON’T KNOW WHY IT WOULD BE DIFFERENT, MAYBE THERE IS SOME LEGAL REASON, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO THE FEES THAT HAVE BEEN COLLECTED IN THE INTERIM? BECAUSE I ASSUME THERE’S THOUSANDS OF RIDES A DAY. IT’S RACKING UP PRETTY QUICK. IF IT CITY WERE TO LOSE — THE EXAMPLE YOU TALKED ABOUT — THE EXAMPLES THAT HAPPENED WHERE CITIES HAVE CHANGED THEIR POLICIES, DO WE PAY THE MONEY BACK, WHO DO WE PAY IT TO? IT’S PRESUMABLY BEEN PASSED ON TO CONSUMERS. HOW DOES THAT WORK? OR ARE WE DRIVING BLIND –>>I THINK IT’S DIFFICULT TO SAY WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO — ILLEGAL WILL HE COLLECTED FEES. I THINK THAT WOULD DEPEND ON HOW THE RELIEF WAS FASHIONED BY THE COURT AND WE JUST DON’T KNOW WHAT THAT WOULD BE AT THIS POINT.>>Councilman Waring: BECAUSE THAT’S — AND THAT’S BEEN — THE CAR RENTAL TAX CASE, I THINK THAT WAS AN ISSUE LIKE WHO DO YOU EVEN PAY IT BACK TO. SO IT GETS COMPLICATED, I GUESS I WOULD SAY, AND IT SOUNDS LIKE IF IT ONLY TAKES ONE LEGISLATOR OUT OF THE 90, YOU CAN PRETTY MUCH REST ASSURED SOMEBODY IS GOING TO DO IT, I WOULD THINK.>>COUNCILMAN WARING — IT CERTAIN LID COULD GET COMPLICATED. THE ONE THING THAT WOULD NOT GET COMPLICATED IS ONE — ONE OF THE REQUESTS FOR RELIEF WOULD CERTAINLY BE AN INJUNCTION AGAINST THESE FEES SO THEY COULD NOT BE IMPOSED GOING FORWARD.>>Councilman Waring: THANK YOU.>>THANK YOU.>>Mayor Gallego: COUNCILWOMAN STARK.>>Councilwoman Stark: THANK YOU. IF I COULD ASK A QUESTION OF OUR ATTORNEY. SO IF WE WERE TO HAVE A LEGISLATOR QUESTION WHAT WE DID, WE STILL HAVE THE RIGHT, THEN, TO CHANGE OUR VOTE? WE CAN GO BACK AND REEVALUATE AND THEN WE WOULDN’T HAVE ANY PENALTY OF STATE SHARED REVENUES, CORRECT?>>MAYOR, COUNCILWOMAN STARK, YES, PROP 1487 GIVES THE CITY AN OPPORTUNITY TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE. WE COULD THEORETICALLY STILL HAVE TO PAY SOME FEES AND SO ON, BUT WE WOULD NOT LOSE OUR SHARED REVENUE IN THAT CASE.>>Councilwoman Stark: THAT’S SOMETHING WE COULD THINK OF. QUITE FRANKLY, IF WE GET TO THAT, MAYBE WE SHOULD LET THE AIRPORT BE ITS OWN GOVERNING AUTHORITY AND JUST CHARGE THEM RENT. HAVE THEM RUN IT LIKE A BUSINESS AND JUST CHARGE THEM RENT. I WOULD BE FOR THAT.>>Mayor Gallego: THANK YOU. MR. TORREZ?>>MAYOR AND COUNCIL, GREGORY TORREZ. FAMILY BUSINESS HAS BEEN HERE FOR OVER 70 YEARS AND WE’VE HAD A COST OF DOING BUSINESS EVER SINCE AND CONTINUE TO THIS DAY. MY COMPANY [INDISCERNIBLE] INTERNATIONAL WAS LUCKY TO BE PART OF SKY HARBOR IN 1999 AND UNDERSTOOD CLEARLY THERE IS A COST TO DOING BUSINESS AT THE AIRPORT. BOILS DOWN TO, IN MY OPINION, TO WHAT’S FAIR AND REASONABLE, AND I THINK THE ITEM HAS BEEN DISCUSSED AT LENGTH. I BELIEVE MR. BENNETT AND HIS TEAM HAVE GONE ABOVE AND BEYOND. THREE YEARS AGO WHEN THEY WERE TASKED TO MAKE THIS UBER AND LYFT OR TNC MODEL FIT THEY WENT THROUGH A LOT OF WORK. THE GOOD NEWS THEY PUT A CAVEAT TO COME BACK AND LOOK AT THAT MODEL. AS YOU HAVE SAID, MAYOR, THERE ARE AIRPORTS CHARGING MORE THAN WHAT IS PROPOSED BY DIRECTOR BENNETT AND HIS TEAM. THE ONE THING THAT GOT OVERLOOKED, AT SOME OF THE AIRPORTS THEY PAY A PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL REVENUE. THE DIRECTOR AND TEAM DIDN’T GO THAT ROUTE. TNCs ARE HERE TO STAY. THEY’RE NOT GOING ANYWHERE. THEY PROBABLY REPRESENT ABOUT 70% OF THE MARKET NOW IN OUR CITY. SO THEY SHOULD PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE AND THROUGH THAT COST OF DOING BUSINESS AND OVERHEAD AND EVERYTHING INVOLVED AT OUR AIRPORT. I THINK IT’S A FAIR AND REASONABLE ASK. IT’S ACCEPTED BY THEM ALREADY ACROSS THE NATION. I SUPPORT YOU VOTING AND BRINGING IT FORWARD.>>Mayor Gallego: THANK YOU. RICARDO CARLO FOLLOWED BY STEVEN K.>>>>MAYOR AND COUNCIL, MY NAME IS RICARDO CARLO AND I AM THE PRESIDENT OF THE ASSOCIATION OF MINORITY CONTRACTORS IN ARIZONA AND IDEAL WITH SMALL BUSINESS CONTRACTORS YEAR IN AND YEAR OUT AND THEY ALWAYS HAVE TO INCREASE IN FEES IN DOING BUSINESS ON A DAILY BASIS. THEY DO A LOT OF WORK HERE AT THE AIRPORT AND THEY COVER THOSE FEES AS WELL. THE THING WITH THE AIRPORT BEING AN ENTERPRISE, IT CAN’T OPERATE AT THE SAME FUNCTION OF KEEPING THE COST THE SAME FOR THE NEXT FIVE OR 10 YEARS. THERE HAS TO BE SOME INCREASES, AND EVERYBODY ABSORBS THAT, NOT JUST THE AIRPORT ITSELF. THE OTHER THING IS IS THAT WE STILL HAVE TRANSPORTATION MODES OUT THERE WE COULD UTILIZE. BEFORE UBER AND LYFT CAME INTO TOWN WE UTILIZED THEM AND UTILIZED THEM WELL. OTHER THING IS IF YOU LOOK AT TAXI DRIVERS, TO BE A CERTIFIED TAXI DRIVER, YOU HAVE TO BUY A PLACARD. THAT’S $145,000 THEY HAVE TO BUY TO OPERATE THEIR VEHICLE. I THINK IT’S FAIR AND IN FAVOR OF PROP 42.>>Mayor Gallego: STEVEN WILL BE FOLLOWED BY JEFF GOLDEN.>>THANK YOU, COUNCIL. I’M A REAL ESTATE AGENT AND ALSO I DRIVE FOR UBER AND LIFT. JUST WANTED TO GIVE MY INPUT ON THIS PARTICULAR MATTER THAT’S SET FORTH. SO I CURRENTLY WORK AS A REAL ESTATE AGENT WITH LOW-INCOME FAMILIES. MY MAIN CLIENTS ARE REFUGEES FROM THE CONGO AND THEY JUST HAPPEN TO FIND WORK WORKING AT THE AIRPORT FOR MOST OF THEIR JOBS AND EVERYTHING. I CAN CAN’T SAY THEY TAKE UBER AND LYFT THE MAJORITY OF THE TIME BUT AT LEAST HALF THE TIME. SO THIS INCREASE IF THEY WERE TO TAKE IT FIVE DAY AS WEEK TO GET TO WORK IT WOULD BE AN EXTRA $200 A MONTH FOR THEM. SO THEN THE OTHER ALTERNATIVES TO THEM GETTING TO WORK WOULD BE TAKING THE VALLEY METRO SERVICES LIKE THE LIGHT RAIL AND THEN THE SKY TRAIN FROM THERE, BUT THAT — THAT PARTICULAR SYSTEM IS JUST WAY TOO LONG. IT WOULD TAKE THEM QUITE A FEW HOURS TO GET TO WORK, AT LEAST OVER TWO HOURS. SO I DON’T THINK IT’S FAIR FOR THEM. SO, YEAH, SO THEN THAT’S JUST ONE EXAMPLE OF MANY LOW-INCOME FAMILIES THAT MIGHT BE WORKING AT THE AIRPORT. SO THAT FEE WOULD BE PASSED ON TO THEM BECAUSE THEY’RE THE CONSUMER. SO THEN IF THEY’RE ABLE TO INITIATE THIS TAX AT THE AIRPORT, WHAT’S STOP THEM FROM INITIATING TAX IN THE FUTURE TOWARD RIDE SHARES FOR DROPPING PEOPLE OFF OUT THE OTHER CITY FOR OTHER LARGE CITY OF PHOENIX PROJECTS. I JUST DON’T THINK IT’S AN EFFICIENT WAY. MAYBE IF YOU WERE TO CHARGE PEOPLE, THEN YOU’D HAVE TO CHARGE IT FAIRLY, NOT JUST TO RIDESHARES, BUT ALSO THE SAME TAX TO TAXI CAB DRIVERS AS WELL. SO WITH THAT, I JUST SAY I HOPE YOU VOTE NO ON THIS BILL HERE. THANK YOU.>>Mayor Gallego: THANK YOU. MR. GOLDEN IS FOLLOWED BY JOE DIBAZAR.>>GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS JEFFRY GOLDEN. I’M VICE PRESIDENT OF THE ARIZONA LIMOUSINE ASSOCIATION. ARIZONA LIMOUSINE ASSOCIATION, WHAT WE — WE REPRESENT THOSE OTHER 700 COMPANIES — EXCUSE ME — BECAUSE OF THE UNFAIR PRACTICES, WE’RE LOSING SUPER SHUTTLE, THANK YOU UBER AND LYFT, FOR ELIMINATING A VERY GOOD PARTNER. WE’RE IN FAVOR OF 42. WE UNDERSTAND THAT WE ARE BUILDING AND IMPROVING AN AIRPORT. WE ARE A WORLD-CLASS CITY. I JUST CAME BACK FROM CHINA, AND WHAT I’VE SEEN OVER THERE IS UNBELIEVABLE. WE ARE BEHIND THE CURVE. WE NEED TO GO AHEAD AND RAISE THIS UP, A AND LET ME TELL YOU, OUR — EXCUSE ME — I FORGOT TO SAY THAT WE’RE NOT GOING TO EXTORT AND PROMISE YOU WE’RE GOING TO LEAVE IF YOU DON’T VOTE OUR WAY. I’M LISTENING TO THIS AND GOING, COME ON, FOLKS, THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT THEY’RE DOING. THEY’RE GOING TO HOLD THEIR BREATH UNTIL YOU CHANGE YOUR VOTE. NO, THEY’RE STILL GOING TO BE THERE. THEY’RE GOING TO PAY THEIR FAIRWAY AND SO ON AND SO FOR THE. BY THE WAY, THOSE 700 COMPANIES, WE HAVE BEEN PAYING A FAIR WAY LONG BEFORE UBER AND LYFT CAME INTO THIS AREA.>>I’M KEITH CLIFTON WITH ARIZONA LIMOUSINE ASSOCIATION, PAST PRESIDENT. JUST WANTED TO SAY WE’RE AGAINST IT AND HOPE YOU’LL SEE IT OUR WAY.>>Mayor Gallego: JOE WILL BE FOLLOWED BY KALIM JOHNSON.>>GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCILMEMBERS. MY NAME IS JOE, AND SINCE 1986 WE’VE BEEN WORKING UNDER THE DIFFERENT CONTRACTS. WE’VE ALWAYS FOLLOWED THE RULES, CITY CODE REQUESTED BY SKY HARBOR. WE CAME WITH NEW CARS. CNG. ALTERNATIVE FUELS. WE DID IT. AND ALSO SCREENING THE DRIVERS. BACKGROUND CHECKS. AND PUTTING THEM TO WORK TAKES ABOUT A WEEK TO PRESCREEN THEM. IN 2008 THE FEE WENT UP FROM THE $200 A YEAR TO THE $16,000 A YEAR. WE HONORED IT. THEY’RE TALKING ABOUT PULLING OFF THE AIRPORT. WE BRAG ABOUT THIS AIRPORT. IT’S A CLEAN AIRPORT. THEY’RE NOT THE ONLY TNC COMPANIES AT THE AIRPORT. THERE ARE MORE TNC COMPANIES AT THE AIRPORT. EVEN IF TODAY AIRPORT DIRECTOR OR THE STAFF THEY ASK US TO DOUBLE, TRIPLE OUR FLEET, WE ARE WILLING TO DO SO. AND THE LAST PART, WE DON’T DO THE SEARCH AND WE JUST GO OVER THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE SKY HARBOR AND THE CITY OF PHOENIX. THANK YOU.>>Mayor Gallego: COUNCILMAN NOWAKOWSKI — WE’LL GIVE COUNCILMAN NOWAKOWSKI A SECOND.>>Councilman Nowakowski: MAYOR, ABOUT 10 YEARS AGO WE WENT THROUGH A WHOLE CONTRACT WITH GROUND TRANSPORTATION FOR THE AIRPORT. TODAY — IT WAS ABOUT TWO DAYS THAT WE HAD HEARINGS FROM THE DIFFERENT TAXI COMPANIES, VAN SERVICES, LIMOUSINES AND ALL. COULD YOU RECALL THE RULES AND REGULATIONS, MR. BENNETT, FOR THE TAXIS THAT THEY MUST OBEY TO OPERATE IN OUR AIRPORT?>>MAYOR, TO COUNCILMAN NOWAKOWSKI, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT — WERE YOU REFERENCING THE CURRENT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE RIDESHARE COMPANIES AND THE TAXI INDUSTRY?>>Councilman Nowakowski: CORRECT.>>ONE SECOND HERE. SO THE PRIMARY — ONE OF THE PRIMARY DIFFERENCES THAT WAS MENTIONED IS THE FACT THAT OUR TAXI INDUSTRY, THEY’RE UNDER CONTRACT WITH THE CITY, AND WE DO A COMPETITIVE SOLICITATION, AND WE SELECT TAXI COMPANIES TO PROVIDE SERVICE, AND WITH THOSE CONTRACTS THERE BECOMES A RESPONSIBILITY. ONE IS THAT THE FEES THAT WE CHARGE TO THOSE COMPANIES WE DO NOT ALLOW THEM TO PASS THAT ON TO THE CUSTOMER. THAT’S THEIR RENT OR COST OF DOING BUSINESS –>>Councilman Nowakowski: SO WHAT IS THE FEE?>>THEY PAY A PER-TRIP FEE — CURRENTLY THEY’RE PAYING THE SAME FEE AS THE UBERs AND THE LYFTs BUT THEY’RE NOT CONTRACTUALLY ALLOWED TO PASS THAT ON TO THEIR CUSTOMERS. ALSO THEY’RE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE THE CITY WITH A LETTER OF CREDIT. THE RIDESHARE COMPANIES HAVE NO RESPONSIBILITIES IN THAT REGARD. AND ALSO ON THE FEES, THE RIDESHARE COMPANIES, WE DO NOT REGULATE HOW THEY HANDLE THE FEES THAT WE CHARGE THEM TO DO BUSINESS ON THE AIRPORT. WE REQUIRE THE TAXI COMPANIES BE A CONTRACT — VIA CONTRACT TO PROVIDE SERVICE TO THE AIRPORT 24 HOURS A DAY, SEVEN DAY AS WEEK, 365 DAYS OUT OF YEAR, AND THERE ARE NO REQUIREMENTS AS SUCH FOR RIDESHARE COMPANIES. WE ALSO HAVE A CONTRACTUAL REQUIREMENT THAT NO ONE CAN WAIT LONGER THAN FIVE MINUTES FOR A TAXI TO PICK UP, AND WE DO NOT HAVE THAT REQUIREMENT. THE FARES THAT THE TAXI COMPANIES CAN CHARGE FROM THE AIRPORT ARE SET BY CITY CODE AND THEY CANNOT ADJUST THOSE FARES WITHOUT US COMING BACK AND REQUESTING APPROVAL FROM THE COUNCIL TO MAKE THOSE ADJUSTMENTS. SO THEY DO NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO ANYTHING LIKE SURGE PRICING OR ADJUSTMENTS TO THEIR FEES ON A HOURLY BASIS OR DAILY BASIS. WE HAVE REQUIREMENTS ON LOST AND FOUND. SO IF YOU LOSE SOMETHING ON A TAXI, WE HAVE A TIME LYNN WHEN THEY’RE SUPPOSED TO BE ABLE TO RETURN THAT TO PEOPLE. WE HAVE REQUIREMENTS ON THE FLEET AGE OF THE VEHICLES, MAKING SURE THAT THE FEES ARE ADEQUATELY DISPLAYED IN THE VEHICLES. THEY’RE REQUIRED TO USE ALTERNATIVELY FUELED VEHICLES. VEHICLE INSPECTIONS. THEY HAVE TO HAVE A SUPERVISOR AVAILABLE TO RESPOND WITHIN 10 MINUTES. THE DRIVERS MUST PASS A TEST, INCLUDING INFORMATION ABOUT MAPS, THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE AIRPORT, AND THE AREA KNOWLEDGE, AND AS WAS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, UNDERGO A CRIMINAL HISTORY, FBI CRIMINAL HISTORY RECORDS CHECK, FINGER-PRINT BASED AS WELL AS A TRANSPORTATION ADMINISTRATION ASSOCIATION SECURITY THREAT ASSESSMENT, AND THEN, OF COURSE, WE HAVE PENALTY CLAUSES IF THEY VIOLATE CERTAIN TERMS OF THE CONTRACTS. NONE –>>Councilman Nowakowski: AND VEHICLES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES, TOO, RIGHT?>>THAT IS CORRECT.>>Councilman Nowakowski: MY PROBLEM IS THIS, IS THAT IT’S NOT APPLES TO APPLES OR ORANGES TO ORANGES. WE’RE NOT TREATING THE TAXI COMPANY FAIRLY AS WE ARE WITH UBER AND LYFT. UBER AND LYFT ARE ALLOWED TO BASICALLY HAVE OLDER CARS, MAKING SURE THAT OUR ENVIRONMENT IS CLEAN, THAT’S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE PUT INTO THE TAXI CONTRACT, IS ALTERNATIVE FUEL. THE UBER AND LYFT DOESN’T HAVE TO DO THAT. THE WHOLE SAFETY BACKGROUND CHECKS BASICALLY IS IN HOUSE. TAXIS ARE NOT. IT’S A CERTIFIED AGENCY THAT WE APPROVED. BASICALLY THE $5 FEE IS NOT PASSED ON TO THE INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE USING THAT SERVICE, TAXI SERVICE, BUT UBER AND LYFT COULD PASS THAT ON TO THE INDIVIDUALS. ALSO, IF IT HAPPENS TO BE A HOLIDAY AND THERE’S A LOT OF BUSINESS AND THERE’S A BIG DEMAND, THE FEE FOR A TAXI CAB IS THE SAME AS IT WOULD BE ON A SLOW DAY. SO YOU CAN’T ADD — WHAT DO YOU CALL THAT, A SURCHARGE OR WHATEVER IT IS? SURGE. OKAY. SO I THINK THAT WHAT WE’RE TRYING TO DO IN THE CITY OF PHOENIX IS TREAT EVERYONE FAIRLY. IF YOU’RE A TAXI DRIVER, WE’RE GOING TO TREAT YOU THE SAME WAY WE TREAT AN UBER AND LYFT INDIVIDUAL. THAT’S WHAT WE’RE ABOUT, FAIRNESS. I FEEL BAD. I FEEL BAD FOR ALL THOSE LYFT AND UBER DRIVERS THAT COME AND COMPLAIN TO US. WE CAN’T REALLY DO ANYTHING. YOU ALL HAVE TO GO BACK AND TALK TO THE COMPANY ABOUT THOSE RIGHTS THAT YOU ALL FEEL THAT I DON’T YOU DON’T HAVE. I KNOW THOSE INDIVIDUALS HAVE APPROACHED MYSELF AND SOME OF MY OTHER COLLEAGUES, BUT WE CAN’T REALLY DO ANYTHING, WE AS A CITY CAN’T TURN AROUND AND ASK THE COMPANY TO UP YOUR GUYS’ DRIVE TIMES OR WHATEVER — THE COST, WE CAN’T DO THAT. SO I THINK THERE — WHAT WE’RE TRYING TO DO HERE IS MAKING IT’S AN EVEN PLAYING FIELD, THAT EVERYBODY IS TREATED THE SAME WAY, AND IT’S — IF YOU’RE GOING TO DO BUSINESS AT THE AIRPORT, IF YOU’RE RESTAURANT, YOU’RE GOING TO PAY A RENTAL FEE. IF YOU’RE A STORE, YOU’RE GOING TO HAVE TO RENT A SPOT FROM THE AIRPORT. WE CAN’T JUST HAVE ANYBODY JUST DRIVING IN TO THE AIRPORT AND SETTING UP A STORE OR RESTAURANT. YOU CAN’T DO THAT. SO THAT’S WHAT WE’RE TRYING TO DO, IS MAKING SURE THAT THE RENTAL, IF YOU’RE GOING TO BE USING OUR AIRPORT, THAT EVERYBODY IS TREATED THE SAME, AND I THINK THIS IS ABOUT BEING TREATED THE SAME. WE HAVE INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE POOR INDIVIDUALS THAT DRIVE THESE TAXI CABS, AND WE’VE HEARD THEIR TESTIMONY 10 YEARS AGO, AND I HEARD THE TESTIMONY JUST THREE YEARS AGO WHEN WE RENEWED THE CONTRACT, AND WE’LL CONTINUE TO SUPPORT YOU ALL, AND WE UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU’RE GOING THROUGH, AND WE’RE GOING TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY IS TREATED THE SAME AT OUR AIRPORT AND IN OUR GREAT CITY OF PHOENIX. THANK YOU, MAYOR.>>Mayor Gallego: THANK YOU. COUNCILWOMAN PASTOR.>>Councilwoman Pastor: I HAVE A QUESTION REGARDING THE BACKGROUND CHECKS. BECAUSE WITH THE TAXIS AND OTHER VEHICLES THAT ENTER OF THE 700 WE HAD — OR WE REQUIRE THAT THERE’S A BACKGROUND CHECK SO THAT WE KNOW WHO IS COMING INTO THE AIRPORT AND WHO IS LEAVING THE AIRPORT. WE KNOW THAT FOR SAFETY PURPOSES WE WANT TO KNOW WHO IS ENTERING AND LEAVING, BUT ALSO FOR SAFETY PURPOSES OF THE CUSTOMER AND OUR CONSTITUENTS THAT USE THE AIRPORT. CAN YOU EXPLAIN, DOES UBER AND LYFT GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS, THROUGH OUR CITY PROCESS? BECAUSE I KNOW WE HAVE — WE HAVE A GREAT MECHANISM ON MAKING SURE THAT WE KNOW WHO IS DRIVING.>>MAYOR, TO COUNCILMEMBER PASTOR, THE COUNCIL MAY RECALL BACK IN 2016 THAT ISSUE OF BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS WAS THE CHALLENGE THAT WE WERE TRYING TO OVERCOME BECAUSE THE STATE LAW DOES NOT REQUIRE UBER AND/OR LYFT DRIVERS TO UNDERGO A CRIMINAL HISTORY RECORDS CHECK, FINGER-PRINT BASED, SUCH AS WE REQUIRE AT THE APPORT AND THEY DID NOT WANT TO COMPLY WITH OUR RULES AND REGULATIONS, AND SO IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE THEM AT THE AIRPORT THIS COUNCIL ADJUSTED THE CITY CODE REQUIREMENTS TO ALLOW THEM TO CONDUCT THEIR OWN BACKGROUND CHECKS, WHATEVER THAT MIGHT INVOLVE, FOR THEIR OWN DRIVERS. BUT THE OTHER PERMITTEES AT THE AIRPORT, THEY UNDERGO THAT CRIMINAL HISTORY RECORDS CHECK.>>Councilwoman Pastor: SO DO WE KNOW WHO IS ENTERING INTO OUR AIRPORT WITH UBER AND LYFT?>>MAYOR, TO COUNCILMEMBER PASTOR, NO WE DO NOT.>>Councilwoman Pastor: THANK YOU.>>Mayor Gallego: ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? MR. JOHNSON, YOU HAVE BEEN ENORMOUSLY PATIENT. THANK YOU.>>THANK YOU.>>Mayor Gallego: MR. JOHNSON WILL BE FOLLOWED BY DAN FAUX BEEN DAY.>>I WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME THIS TIME TO SPEAK. I AM CURRENTLY A PART-TIME DRIVER WITH UBER. I OWN MY OWN LIMO COMPANY. I’M ALSO A CUSTOMER. I USE THE SERVICE. I THINK THE SERVICE IS EXTREMELY CONVENIENT. BUT WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DEAL WITH SOME FACTS WE’RE GLOSSING OVER HERE. SINCE 2016 OF JUNE, THE GOING RATE TO DO BUSINESS IN THE AIRPORT FOR A DRIVER, IF HE WAS TO CHARGE A CUSTOMER, IT WAS ROUGHLY $2 A MILE. IF YOU NEEDED A RIDE OUT OF THE AIRPORT, THAT WAS THE GOING RATE. THE MARKET SET THAT RATE. CURRENTLY RIGHT NOW LYFT IS CHARGING AS LOW AS 22 CENTS A MILE. UBER IS CHARGING AS LOW AS 60 CENTS A MILE. THAT’S ON THE BACKS OF THE DRIVERS. IF THEY HADN’T SLASHED THE DRIVERS’ FEES OVER 150% OVER THE LAST THREE YEARS, THEY WOULDN’T BE IN HERE CRYING AND COMPLAINING ABOUT PAYING MORE TO DO BUSINESS IN THE AIRPORT. THE PROBLEM IS THAT THEY’RE JUST NOT CHARGING ENOUGH. I’VE HEARD A NUMBER OF PEOPLE COME UP HERE AND TALK ABOUT HOW CHEAP THE SERVICE IS. HOW CHEAP IT IS TO GET TO AND FROM. WE DON’T VIEW OURSELVES AS CHEAP. AND TO THE GENTLEMAN HERE, I DON’T THINK IT’S B.S. FOR US TO INCREASE OUR FARES AND EARN A FAIR RATE WAGE IN THIS TOWN. I DON’T KNOW IF YOU’VE NOTICED BUT IN THE MARICOPA COUNTY, THE PRICE OF HOUSES HAS DOUBLED IN SOME AREAS. THE PRICE OF RENTS HAVE DOUBLED IN SOME AREAS. SO FOR UBER TO STAND HERE AND COMPLAINT COMPLAIN ABOUT A MEASLY $4 INCREASE TO DO BUSINESS IN AN AIRPORT THAT’S WORLD-CLASS IS — NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT, PHOENIX SKY HARBOR IS A WORLD-CLASS AIRPORT. WHEN YOU GO THERE THERE ARE THREE LOTS THAT ARE DESIGNATED FOR THE DRIVERS WHERE WE CAN USE RESTROOMS, THERE ARE MICROWAVES. THERE IS EVEN A PRAYER SECTION FOR PEOPLE TO GO OUT THERE AND PRAY. WHEN YOU GO TO MESA GATEWAY, THERE’S JUST A DIRT LOT. THERE’S NO RESTROOMS. THERE’S NOTHING FOR THE DRIVERS. I SAY INCREASE THE PRICE TO DO BUSINESS IN THE AIRPORT AND LET’S CONTINUE ADVANCING THIS AIRPORT AS A WORLD-CLASS FACILITY.>>Mayor Gallego: THANK YOU. DAN PUENTE WILL BE FOLLOWED BY OUR FINAL CARD DAVE WARREN.>>MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS, THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. I AM THE FOUNDER AND CEO OF DP ELECTRIC. I’M AN ARIZONA NATIVE THAT STARTED MY COMPANY IN 1990 AFTER BEING IN THE FIELD LEARNING THE TRADE FOR 10 YEARS AFTER I GRADUATED HIGH SCHOOL. I AM HERE TODAY TO SUPPORT THE AIRPORT AND THE INCREASED FEE TO PUT PHOENIX IN LINE WITH OTHER MAJOR CITIES. I’M ALSO HERE TO VOICE MY OPINION AND DISPEL THE MYTH THAT THE AIRPORT IS NOT PRO BUSINESS AND, IN FACT, THE AIRPORT AND ITS CITY OF PHOENIX HAS SUPPORTED SMALL BUSINESSES IN THE MINORITY COMMUNITY FOR AS LONG AS I CAN REMEMBER AND STILL DOES TODAY. AS IN MY CASE I STARTED WORKING FOR THE CITY OF PHOENIX IN 1995 AS A SMALL MINORITY CONTRACTOR. THESE OPPORTUNITIES ALLOWED ME TO SHOW MY ABILITIES TO WORK WITH MY PARTNERS AND AFFORDED ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO BUILD TRUST WITH THESE FIRMS IN THE CITY OF PHOENIX. IN 2006 I GRADUATED FROM THE SBE PROGRAM AND TODAY WE CONTINUE TO WORK AT THE AIRPORT NOW AS A PRIME SUBCONTRACTOR EMPLOYING SBE COMPANIES AND MENTORING THOSE COMPANIES TO BE SUCCESSFUL. IT IS OPPORTUNITIES LIKE THAT THAT HAVE ALLOWED THE GROWTH OF OUR COMPANY TO BECOME WHAT IT IS TODAY, EMPLOYING 300 PEOPLE. THE CITY OF PHOENIX, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY THE AIRPORT, IS AN ECONOMIC ENGINE THAT EMPLOYS AND SUPPORTS MANY BUSINESSES TO THRIVE AND BE SUCCESSFUL. THIS INCREASE IS MERELY ALLOWING A GROWING AIRPORT TO BE IN LINE WITH OTHER AIRPORTS ACROSS THE U.S. AND ASKING THESE SHARE RIDE COMPANIES TO PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.>>Mayor Gallego: OUR FINAL REQUEST TO SPEAK CARD COMES FROM DAVE WARREN.>>HI. MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL, MY NAME IS DAVE WARREN. I OWN A COMPANY CALLED BLUE SKY AIRPORT PARKING LOCATED AT UNIVERSITY AND THE 143 IN PHOENIX. I HAVE BEEN UP HERE A BUNCH OF TIMES OVER THE PAST I DON’T KNOW HOW MANY NUMBER OF YEARS. IT’S NOT A NEW ISSUE TO US, TALKING ABOUT FEES THAT ARE CHARGED TO GROUND TRANSPORTATION PROVIDERS AT THE AIRPORT. AS MANY OF THE PEOPLE ON THE AIRPORT STAFF KNOW AND SOME OF THE CITY COUNCILMEMBERS KNOW I HAVE BEEN VERY VOCAL ABOUT THIS ISSUE. I WENT FROM PAYING, AND WE’RE A PRETTY SMALL COMPANY, PAYING FOUR, FIVE, $6,000 A YEAR TO SERVE THE AIRPORT TO THIS YEAR I THINK WE’RE 30ING 130 TO 140,000 A YEAR. THAT’S A LOT OF MONEY FROM MY COMPANY. IT COMES RIGHT OUT OF THE BOTTOM LINE AND THAT’S VERY NOTICEABLE. HAVING SAID THAT, THOSE FEES WE PAY, AND I WILL SAY THIS, YOU KNOW, THE AIRPORT AND US HAVE A DEEP RELATIONSHIP. IT’S BEEN ACRIMONIOUS AT TIMES. IT’S BEEN KIND OF DIFFICULT AT TIMES. BUT WE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN LISTENED TO, AND I THINK THE AIRPORT HAS WORKED WITH US. THIS PROCESS THAT WE’RE TALKING ABOUT HERE, THIS REPORT AND THE STUDY PROCESS, HAS BEEN A YEAR-LONG PROCESS, AND IT WAS A PROCESS THAT WE KNEW WE WERE ALL GOING TO BE GOING INTO. SO ALL THE GROUND TRANSPORTATION PROVIDERS, IF THEY WERE GOING TO PAY ATTENTION, THEY KNEW WE WERE GOING TO ENTER INTO THIS PROCESS, WHICH WAS A VERY INVOLVED PROCESS OVER THE LAST YEAR. I THINK THAT’S THE PERSPECTIVE I CAN SPEAK FROM BECAUSE I WAS VERY INVOLVED IN THAT PROCESS. EVERYTHING WE’RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY IS JUST AN OUTCOME OF THAT REPORT AND STUDY, AND IT WAS VERY, VERY DETAILED. THE CONSULTANT SELECTION. THE STAGE BY STAGE PROCESS THROUGHOUT THE STUDY, THE VARIOUS DRAFTS THAT WERE DONE AND CIRCULATED TO ALL OF THE STAKEHOLDERS, EVERYBODY HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS. I EITHER — IT WAS EITHER TIME WELL SPENT OR TIME WASTED ON MY SIDE. I DON’T KNOW WHICH IT’S GOING TO BE YET. BUT IT WAS A LOT OF TIME SPENT GOING THROUGH WHAT I THINK IS A FAIR PROCESS. AGAIN, I’M A BIT CONFLICTED ON THIS BECAUSE I DON’T LIKE PAYING THE FEES, BUT I WILL SAY, AND I CAN SPEAK TO FROM A PERSONAL STANDPOINT IT WAS A FAIR PROCESS AND AN OPEN AND TRANSPARENT PROCESS THAT THE AIRPORT WENT THROUGH AND THAT’S PROBABLY AS MUCH AS I CAN ADD. THANK YOU.>>WONDERFUL. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. AS YOU WILL OUR REQUESTS TO SPEAK CARDS. WE DO HAVE 37 CARDS MARKED IN FAVOR. MANY ARE AVAILABLE TO SPEAK IF REQUESTED, BUT PERHAPS WE WILL NOT REQUEST, AND THEN ONE OPPOSED.>>COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS. COUNCILMEMBER GARCIA.>>Councilman Garcia: I APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT WE ATTEMPTED TO BE BULLIED HERE TODAY AND THE TACTICS OF BOTH SAYING THAT — OR DISRESPECT SAYING OUR AIRPORT ISN’T WORTH IT IS NOT OKAY. THE OTHER THREATS OF LAWSUITS, THE THREATS OF THE STATE LEGISLATURE IS GOING TO COME AND TELL US WHAT TO DO AREN’T ALSO OKAY. I THINK FOR A LONG TIME WE’VE BEEN SUBSIDIZING THESE CORPORATIONS. THEY’VE BEEN USING OUR ROADS. THEY’VE BEEN USING OUR FACILITIES. AND IT’S TIME THEY PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE. THEY DON’T PUSH IT ON TO THE DRIVERS, BUT THAT THESE CORPORATIONS ACTUALLY PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE, AND JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER COMPANY AT THE AIRPORT, CONTINUE TO WORK WITH US TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR AIRPORT IS THE BEST. AGAIN, LIKE I DID LAST TIME, I URGE THE DRIVERS TO CONTINUE TO ORGANIZE, TO PUSH BACK ON THE CORPORATIONS SO YOU DO GET TREATED FAIRLY. I WAS VERY EXCITED TO SEE, TWO DRIVERS STAND UP HERE TODAY AND SPEAK TO THAT. I HOPE THAT CONTINUES. AND, AGAIN, FOR THE CORPORATIONS LYFT AND UBER, I HOPE THAT THEY FEEL SO STRONGLY ABOUT THIS THAT THEY ACTUALLY TAKE SOME OF THE FEES THEMSELVES AND MAKE SURE NOT TO PASS IT ON TO THE DRIVERS AND RIDERS. SO I’M IN SUPPORT OF THIS ITEM ONCE AGAIN.>>Mayor Gallego: COUNCILMAN DICICCIO.>>Councilman DiCiccio: THANK YOU, MAYOR. I PROBABLY COVERED SOME OF THESE ALREADY. I WANT TO BRING IT BACK TO THE BASICS. WE’VE HEARD A LOT OF THINGS. THE BOTTOM LINE IS THIS WILL HAVE A MAJOR IMPACT ON MIDDLE CLASS ARIZONA, NOT JUST THE CITY OF PHOENIX, BUT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE STATE OF ARIZONA. THE AIRPORT IS AN ECONOMIC ENGINE FOR THE ENTIRE STATE. IF UBER AND LYFT LEAVE, THIS WILL CREATE A NEGATIVE IMPACT NOT JUST HERE, TO THE INDIVIDUALS, BUT ACROSS THE NATION. IT WILL REVERBERATE ACROSS THE ENTIRE COUNTRY. PHOENIX WILL BE KNOWN AS AN ANTIBUSINESS, ANTI-WORKER CITY, BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT IT, THE INDIVIDUALS THAT USE THIS ARE THE PEOPLE THAT CAN LEAST AFFORD IT. YOU HAVE HEARD ONE INDIVIDUAL GO UP AND TALK ABOUT IT. THE PEOPLE THAT NEED IT, THE ONES THAT ARE — THAT ARE — THAT THIS IS IMPORTANT TO THEM TO BE ABLE TO GET THIS — THEY MAY NOT HAVE FAMILY MEMBERS AROUND, BUT THEY DO HAVE — THEY HAVE TO GET TO THE AIRPORT, EITHER TO WORK OR TO BE ABLE TO GET ON A PLANE, AND THOSE INDIVIDUALS THAT CANNOT AFFORD TO PAY OUR EXTRAORDINARY FEES AT PARKING OR TO PAY FOR A TAXI SERVICE ARE THE ONES THAT ARE GOING TO BE LEFT OUT. THE MIDDLE CLASS AMERICA IS GOING TO BE SCREWED WITH THIS VOTE. THE OTHER PART OF IT IS THAT IF YOU LOOK AT IT, WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO FEES AND WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS A FEE OR TAX, IT’S A TAX. IT’S A TAX. CALL IT WHATEVER YOU WANT. IT’S STILL AN IMPACT. WHEN THE CITY OF PHOENIX RAISED FEES ON INDIVIDUALS ON AFTER-SCHOOL PROGRAMS, AFTER-SCHOOL PROGRAMS OF $30 EVERY TWO MONTHS, PEOPLE LIKE MYSELF WERE PROBABLY LIKE THAT’S OKAY TO DO THAT, RIGHT? DO YOU KNOW WHAT ENDED UP HAPPENING IN 62% OF THOSE KIDS NO LONGER DID THE AFTER-SCHOOL PROGRAMS BECAUSE THAT EXTRA $30 OVER A TWO-MONTH PERIOD HAD THAT BIG OF AN IMPACT ON THEIR FAMILY INCOME. LOOK, A LOT OF THE INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE HERE I IMAGINE WE CAN AFFORD CERTAIN THINGS LIKE THAT. THERE ARE PEOPLE IN OUR COMMUNITY THAT CANNOT AFFORD THIS. THIS IS FOR REAL. THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED. AND SO IF YOU THINK THAT AN EXTRA $5 IS NO BIG DEAL TO SOME PEOPLE, IT IS A HUGE DEAL TO SOME PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO GET TO AND FROM WHERE THEY NEED TO GO. WE RESPECT THE FACT THAT WE LOVE UBER, WE LOVE LYFT, WE LOVE RIDESHARE, WE LOVE YOU TAXI DRIVERS, TOO. THERE IS A LOT OF ROOM FOR INDIVIDUALS TO BE PART OF OUR ECONOMY. WE WILL BE DRIVING OUT — THE CITY OF PHOENIX WILL BE DRIVING OUT RIDESHARING FROM OUR AIRPORT AND THAT IS A FACT. WHAT IS WHAT’S GOING TO HAPPEN WITH THIS VOTE TODAY. THE OTHER POINT IS THAT THIS IS AGAINST THE LAW. THE VOTERS PASSED OVERWHELMINGLY THAT PROPOSITION 126 OVERWHELMINGLY PASSED, NO TAX ON SERVICES. UBER, LIFT, TAXIS, SERVICE. THEY ARE A SERVICE INDUSTRY. AND THIS TAX IS ILLEGAL. IT WILL NOT HOLD UP IN COURT. THE CITY OF PHOENIX COULD LOSE STATE-SHARED REVENUES. DAVE WARREN, I LOVE YOU, MAN, YOU’RE A GOOD GUY. YOU STARTED AS A SMALL BUSINESS OWNER, APPRECIATE YOU DOING WORK IN THE CITY OF PHOENIX. JUST WANT TO LET YOU KNOW THAT. YOU’VE DONE EVERYTHING RIGHT YOUR ENTIRE LIFE AND YOU’RE AN HONEST, UPRIGHT GUY AND THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY. I AM GOING TO BE VOTING NO ON THIS.>>Mayor Gallego: FOR OUR CITY ATTORNEY, HAVE YOU LOOKED AT THE LEGAL ISSUES RAISED BY MR. RICHES AND WHAT DID WE CONCLUDE?>>City Atty.: MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, YES, LAW DEPARTMENT STAFF HAS LOOKED AT THESE ISSUES AT LENGTH AND RESEARCHED THEM. WE HAVE ALSO CONSULTED OUTSIDE COUNSEL WHO HAVE ALL COME TO THE SAME CONCLUSION THAT WE DID, AND THAT IS THAT THE PROPOSED TRIP FEES TO BE PAID WHEN RIDESHARE VEHICLES PICK UP OR DROP OFF PASSENGERS AT PHOENIX SKY HARBOR INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ARE NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER ARTICLE 9, SECTION 25 OF THE ARIZONA CONSTITUTION. THE TRIP FEES ARE A CHARGE FOR THE USE OF SPECIFIC PUBLIC PROPERTY. THE ROADWAY SYSTEM AT THE AIRPORT FOR COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY. THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT BAR MUNICIPALITIES FOR CHARGING A FEE TO ACCESS AND USE MUNICIPAL PROPERTY. MANY COMPANIES FROM GROUND TRANSPORTATION TO CONCESSIONS PAY FEES TO CONDUCT COMMERCIAL BUSINESS THAT PROVIDE SERVICES TO CUSTOMERS AT THE AIRPORT. NONE OF THESE FEES FOR USE OF AIRPORT PROPERTY IS A TAX, AND ALL OF THESE FEES ARE CONSTITUTIONAL.>>Mayor Gallego: THANK YOU. COUNCILMAN NOWAKOWSKI?>>Councilman Nowakowski: SO, MR. BEEN NET, IF SOMEBODY WANTED TO TAKE LYFT OR UBER AND BE DROPPED OFF AT THE SKY TRAIN PARKING LOT, WOULD IT BE ANY EXTRA FEES FOR THOSE INDIVIDUALS?>>MAYOR, TO COUNCILMAN NOWAKOWSKI, THANK YOU FOR VERY MUCH FOR THAT QUESTION. THE PROPOSAL THAT IS IN FRONT OF COUNCIL TODAY PROVIDES THAT IF PEOPLE WANT TO USE BEER AND LYFT TO DROP OFF AT THE SKY TRAIN STATION, CURRENT 44th STREET STATION OR THE FUTURE 24th STREET STATION AT 24th AND BUCKEYE, THAT THEY WOULD RECEIVE A 30% REDUCTION IN THE FEE THAT IS IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY. SO IT WOULD DROP THAT FEE DOWN TO ROUGHLY $2.80.>>Councilman Nowakowski: MAYOR, THE OTHER THING I HEARD, NOT SURE IF IT WAS RIGHT OR NOT, BUT THAT THE DRIVERS WERE GETTING 22 CENTS A MILE. IS THAT WHAT I HEARD –>>THAT’S LYFT. LOW IS 22 CENTS A MILE.>>Councilman Nowakowski: SO THAT’S SOME OF THE COMPLAINTS WE WERE HEARING, LIKE COUNCILMAN GARCIA SAID. YOU ALL NEED TO GO AND ORGANIZE YOURSELVES TO GET A FAIR WAGE. THAT’S THE PROBLEM WE HAVE HERE. IT’S THAT THESE JOBS ARE GOING FOR POOR INDIVIDUALS THAT AREN’T GETTING PAID A FAIR SALARY AND NOW THEY’RE TRYING TO CONDEMN THE CITY OF PHOENIX FOR BEING FAIR. WE WANT TO TREAT EVERYONE FAIRLY. WE’RE GOING TO TREAT THE TAXI DRIVERS, IF YOU HAPPEN TO BE A LIMOUSINE DRIVER OR IF YOU HAPPEN TO BE A LYFT OR UBER DRIVER, WE’RE GOING TO TREAT YOU ALL THE SAME. SO, MAYOR, I’M GOING TO BE SUPPORTING THIS. THANK YOU.>>Mayor Gallego: THANK YOU. IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE MAKE SURE OUR DRIVERS HAVE THE ABILITY TO LIVE IN THIS COMMUNITY AS WELL. THEY DESERVE A LIVING WAGE.>>Councilwoman Williams: CALL FOR THE QUESTION?>>Mayor Gallego: WITH THAT, WE ARE READY FOR ROLL CALL.>>Clerk: DICICCIO.>>Councilman DiCiccio: NO.>>Clerk: GARCIA.>>Councilman Garcia: YES.>>Clerk: NOWAKOWSKI.>>Councilman Nowakowski: YES.>>Clerk: PASTOR.>>Councilwoman Pastor: YES.>>Clerk: STARK.>>Councilwoman Stark: YES.>>Clerk: WARING.>>Councilman Waring: YES — NO.>>Councilwoman Pastor: ALMOST GOT YOU.>>Clerk: WILLIAMS.>>Councilwoman Williams: YES.>>Clerk: GUARDADO.>>Vice Mayor Guardado: YES.>>Clerk: GALLEGO.>>Mayor Gallego: YES. THE ITEM PASSES 7-2. THIS WAS A STRONG VOTE THAT THE CITY OF PHOENIX IS GOING TO INVEST IN SKY HARBOR. WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A TWO-MINUTE BREAK WHILE PEOPLE LEAVE THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS.>>Mayor Gallego: WELCOME BACK TO OUR DECEMBER 18th COUNCIL MEETING. WE MOVE TO ITEM 48, AUDIO/VIDEO EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES.>>Councilwoman Williams: MOVE APPROVAL.>>Mayor Gallego: WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND IN THAT.>>SECOND.>>Mayor Gallego: ANY COMMENTS? ROLL CALL.>>Clerk: DICICCIO.>>Councilman DiCiccio: YES.>>Clerk: GALLEGO.>>Mayor Gallego:.>>Clerk: GARCIA.>>Councilman Garcia: YES.>>Clerk: NOWAKOWSKI.>>Councilman Nowakowski: YES. KLAHR YES.>>Clerk: WARING.>>Councilman Waring: NO.>>Clerk: WILLIAMS.>>Councilwoman Williams: [inaudible]>>Clerk: Guardado?>>Vice Mayor Guardado: [inaudible]>>Mayor Gallego: ITEM PASSES 8-1. WE NEXT MOVE TO ITEM 50, ISSUANCE OF OBLIGATIONS TO FINANCE PUBLIC TRANSIT PROJECTS.>>Vice Mayor Guardado: WE HAVE A MOTION FOR ITEM NUMBER 50.>>Councilwoman Pastor: SECOND.>>Mayor Gallego: WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. LEONARD CLARK.>>THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS. THANK YOU FOR SERVING AS OUR LEADERS. I KNOW EVEN THOUGH I HAVE DIFFERENCES WITH YOU, I HAVE WATCHED YOU PERSONALLY. YOU’RE VERY CONSCIENTIOUS IN WHAT YOU DO. SO THANK YOU. DESPITE ALL THE — YOU KNOW, RHETORIC AND ALL THAT. ANYWAYS, RIGHT NOW I’M RESIDING IN EL MIRAGE. DON’T WORRY, I’M GOING TO FIND A WAY BACK TO PHOENIX. FOR RIGHT NOW WHAT I’M CONCERNED ABOUT IS WE HAVE A WONDERFUL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM. IT CAN ALWAYS HAVE IMPROVEMENT. YOU ARE DOING THIS BONDING ISSUE. IS THERE ANY WAY YOU COULD EXTEND, LOOK INTO IT, AND I’LL TRY IN TO CHECK IN WITH THE CITY COUNCIL OF MARYVALE AND MIRAGE, TO HAVE A BUS BESIDES THE GLENDALE AVENUE BUS AND EXPRESS. BECAUSE IT DOESN’T GO ALL THE WAY OUT THERE. PEOPLE ARE LOCKED IN. THEY CAN’T GET TO THE BEAUTIFUL CITY OF PHOENIX TO CONTRIBUTE TO OUR BUSINESS COMMUNITY AND WE CAN’T GET OUT TO EEL MIRAGE. IT SEEMS LIKE EVERYTHING IS GOING SO FAST BUT THERE IS NO PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION. I KNOW THIS IS OUR CITY WE CAN’T HELP EVERYBODY BUT I’M HOPING WHEN YOU DO THE BONDS AND YOU CONSIDER IN THE FUTURE PLEASE TRY TO FIND A WAY TO GET SOMETHING FARTHER OUT INTO EL MIRAGE BECAUSE THE PEOPLE THERE, A LOT OF PEOPLE WANT TO COME TO PHOENIX BUT CAN’T AFFORD TO DO IT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND I DO APPROVE OF THIS BONDING. THANK YOU.>>Mayor Gallego: THANK YOU. ANY COMMENTS? ROLL CALL.>>Clerk: DICICCIO.>>Councilman DiCiccio: NO.>>Clerk: GARCIA.>>Councilman Garcia: YES.>>Clerk: NOWAKOWSKI.>>Councilman Nowakowski: YES.>>Clerk: PASTOR.>>Councilwoman Pastor: YES.>>Clerk: STARK.>>Councilwoman Stark: YES.>>Clerk: WARING.>>Councilman Waring: NO.>>Clerk: WILLIAMS.>>Councilwoman Williams: YES.>>Clerk: GUARDADO.>>Vice Mayor Guardado: YES.>>Clerk: GALLEGO.>>Mayor Gallego: YES. ITEM PASSES 7-2. WE NEXT MOVE TO ITEM 53 TO AMEND THE CITY CODE RELATED TO CABLE TELEVISION LICENSE FEES. WILL OUR CITY CLERK PLEASE READ THE TITLE.>>Clerk: (READING OF TITLE).>>Mayor Gallego: THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE A MOTION?>>Vice Mayor Guardado: YES WE HAVE A MOTION TO YOU A PROVE ITEM 53.>>SECOND.>>Mayor Gallego: WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY COMMENTS?>>Councilman Waring: MAYOR. QUICK QUESTION, PROBABLY FOR JUST ED OR CHRIS. THIS IS TO COMPLY WITH STATE LAW?>>City Mgr. Zuercher: MAYOR, COUNCILMAN WARING, THAT IS CORRECT. THIS IS CONFORMING WITH STATE LAW.>>Councilman Waring: THANK YOU.>>Vice Mayor Guardado: AS A FOLLOW-UP, THIS IS A FEE AND NOT A TAX.>>Mayor Gallego: WELL SAID.>>SORRY.>>Mayor Gallego: ROLL CALL.>>Clerk: DICICCIO.>>Councilman DiCiccio: YES.>>Clerk: GARCIA.>>Councilman Garcia: YES.>>Clerk: NOWAKOWSKI.>>Councilman Nowakowski: YES.>>Clerk: PASTOR.>>Councilwoman Pastor: YES.>>Clerk: STARK.>>Councilwoman Stark: YES.>>Clerk: WARING.>>Councilman Waring: [INAUDIBLE]>>Clerk: WILLIAMS.>>Councilwoman Williams: YES.>>Clerk: GUARDADO.>>Vice Mayor Guardado: YES.>>Clerk: GALLEGO.>>Mayor Gallego: YES. ITEM PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. WE NEXT MOVE TO ITEM 57, THE ELECTION FUNDING DISCLOSURE DARK MONEY ORDINANCE. WILL THE CITY CLERK PLEASE READ THE TITLE.>>Clerk: (READING OF TITLE).>>Mayor Gallego: THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE A MOTION?>>Vice Mayor Guardado: YES, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 57.>>Councilwoman Williams: SECOND.>>Councilwoman Stark: SHE BEAT ME.>>Mayor Gallego: SECOND BOTH FROM COUNCILWOMAN WILLIAMS AND STARK WHO HELPED GET THIS STARTED.>>Councilman Nowakowski: MAYOR, I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU. I KNOW WHEN YOU WERE A COUNCILWOMAN THIS WAS ONE OF THE THINGS YOU WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE CITY OF PHOENIX WAS TRANSPARENT, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT CAME TO DARK MONEY IN OUR LOCAL ELECTIONS. SO I WANT TO THANK YOU AND I’M GLAD THAT WE’RE ABLE TO VOTE ON IT NOW.>>Mayor Gallego: THANK YOU SO MUCH. MR. LEONARD CLARK.>>THANK YOU SO MUCH, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS. NOW, IF THIS IS JUST THE BEGINNING. IF WE CAN FIND A WAY SO OUR CITIZENRY CAN BE UP TO DATE ON WHAT’S GOING ON. THIS DARK MONEY IS EVERYWHERE THAT THE CITY OF PHOENIX. CITIZENS GO ON THE YouTube, THEY’RE TOTAL THE EARTH IS FLAT, 2 PLUS 2 IS 5. I DON’T CARE IF YOU’RE DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN, SAY WHO YOU ARE. DON’T HIDE BEHIND THIS NONSENSICAL NEW RULING WHERE YOU CAN HIDE YOUR IDENTITY NONPROFIT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. WE NEED OPEN TRANSPARENCY SO THE CITIZENS PHOENIX KNOW WHO IS BACKING THESE THINGS THAT COME UP BEFORE US. THANK YOU SO MUCH.>>Mayor Gallego: THANK YOU. 85% OF OUR VOTERS VOTED IN FAVOR OF THIS DISCLOSURE AND IT’S EXCITING WE ARE MOVING IT FORWARD. ANY COMMENTS? COUNCILMAN DICICCIO?>>Councilman DiCiccio: THANK YOU FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP ON THIS. WE JUST WON’T AGREE ON IT, IF THAT’S ALL RIGHT. SEVERAL YEARS AGO, BACK IN 2013, I HAD DARK MONEY POUR IN AGAINST ME. IT WAS THE MOST EVER SPENT IN THE CITY OF PHOENIX. IT WAS $1.1 MILLION SPENT ON A CITY COUNCIL RACE. THEY FLYERED MY NEIGHBORHOOD. BECAUSE I DON’T KNOW WHO THEY ARE, THEY PUT MY WIFE ON TV, MY WIFE, WHO DOES THAT? THEY DON’T DO THAT IN EVEN SOME OF THESE WE CONSIDER BACKWARDS NATIONS. THEY DON’T GO AFTER SOMEONE’S FAMILY. IT WAS A HORRIBLE TIME. BUT AT THE SAME TIME I BELIEVE THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO DO THAT. PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO SAY WHAT THEY WANT TO SAY. THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO DO IT ANONYMOUSLY. THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO DO THOSE THINGS. DID I LIKE IT? NO. WAS I UPSET ABOUT IT? YES. WAS IT A HORRIBLE TIME FOR MYSELF AND MY FAMILY? IT WAS A MISERABLE TIME. AND THEY DROVE THEIR POINT. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO DO THAT. IT COMES DOWN TO SPEECH. IT COMES DOWN TO WHETHER OR NOT SPEECH SHOULD BE CONTROLLED. IT REALLY COMES DOWN TO WHETHER SPEECH SHOULD BE UGLY OR NOT. IT IS. THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO DISAGREE IN THIS ROOM TODAY AND IT COULD BE SOME OF THE WORST AND UGLIEST THINGS WE KNOW. BUT AT THE SAME TIME IT’S SUPPOSED TO BE FREE. PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE A RIGHT TO DO WHAT THEY WANT TO SAY AND AS LONG AS THEY DON’T THREATEN FOR LIFE, BUT THEY DIDN’T DO THAT, THEY WENT AFTER US, CALLED ME EVERY NAME IN THE BOOK FROM CORRUPT TO EVERYTHING ELSE, PUT MY WIFE ON TV. IT WAS JUST A HORRIBLE THING. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, SPEECH IS UGLY. AND SPEECH IS NOT ALWAYS SOMETHING THAT IS PLEASANT. AND THAT IS WHY OUR COUNTRY IS SO GREAT, IS BECAUSE WE DON’T TRY TO REGULATE OTHER PEOPLE’S SPEECH. AND ANONYMOUS SPEECH IS FREE. IT SHOULD BE FREE. AND PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE A RIGHT TO DO WHAT THEY WANT, WHETHER IT’S LABOR GROUPS, BUSINESS GROUPS, WHATEVER. I MEAN, I DON’T LIKE IT, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, THEY HAVE A RIGHT, I BELIEVE, CONSTITUTIONALLY, AND SO I’M GOING TO BE VOTING NO ON THIS, MAYOR.>>Mayor Gallego: THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN. THIS ORDINANCE ALLOWS PEOPLE TO SAY WHAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO SAY, BUT EVERYONE HAS TO PUT THEIR NAME ON IT. RIGHT NOW SOMEONE GIVING $50 HAS TO REPORT, AND THIS IS SAYING A LARGE NONPROFIT ALSO HAS TO REPORT. RESEARCH HAS SHOWN WHEN PEOPLE PUT THEIR MONEY ON IT THEY’RE MORE LIKELY TO BE ACCURATE AND THERE IS MORE ACCOUNTABILITY IN ELECTIONS. I LOOK FORWARD TO SUPPORTING THIS MOTION. ROLL CALL. COUNCILWOMAN PASTOR?>>Councilwoman Pastor: SO, I AM A LITTLE CONFLICTED IN A WAY BECAUSE I THINK SAL IS CORRECT IN THE SENSE THAT EVERYBODY HAS A RIGHT. HOWEVER, IT VERY MUCH REMINDS ME OF EMAIL OR SOCIAL MEDIA AND PEOPLE GOING BACK AND FORTH WILLING TO ATTACK ON SOCIAL MEDIA BUT YET WHEN THEY’RE IN PERSON AND YOU’RE RIGHT IN FRONT OF THAT PERSON THEY’RE NOT WILLING TO SPEAK THE TRUTH AT THAT MOMENT. AND SO I ALWAYS FEEL EVERYBODY HAS TO OPERATE WITH ETHICS AND INTEGRITY AND BE ABLE TO SPEAK THE TRUTH. AND I THINK THAT’S ONE OF THE DYNAMICS THAT HAS HAPPENED IN SOCIAL MEDIA, AND I RELATE THIS — THE REASON WHY I’M TALKING ABOUT THIS, BECAUSE I RELATE THIS TO DARK MONEY. IF YOU’RE WILLING TO PUT YOUR MONEY DOWN, THEN YOU SHOULD BE WILLING TO HAVE YOUR NAME RIGHT BY WHERE AS MUCH MONEY AS YOU PUT DOWN, AND I LOOK AT THAT AS BEING FAIR AND EVERYBODY KNOWS WHO IS PLAYING IN THE FIELD. SO I’M VERY MUCH SUPPORTIVE OF THIS. THANK YOU.>>Mayor Gallego: THANK YOU. ROLL CALL.>>Clerk: DICICCIO.>>Councilman DiCiccio: NO.>>Clerk: GARCIA.>>Councilman Garcia: YES.>>Clerk: NOWAKOWSKI.>>Councilman Nowakowski: YES.>>Clerk: PASTOR.>>Councilwoman Pastor: YES.>>Clerk: STARK.>>Councilwoman Stark: YES.>>Clerk: WARING.>>Councilman Waring: NO.>>Clerk: WILLIAMS.>>Councilwoman Williams: YES.>>Clerk: GUARDADO.>>Vice Mayor Guardado: YES.>>Clerk: GALLEGO.>>Mayor Gallego: YES. ITEM PASSES 7-2. AGAIN, THANK YOU TO COUNCILWOMAN STARK FOR HELP ON THIS. WE NEXT MOVE TO ITEM 63, TASER REQUIREMENTS CONTRACT. WE HAVE A MOTION?>>Vice Mayor Guardado: YES, WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 63.>>Councilwoman Stark: SECOND.>>Mayor Gallego: WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. WE HAVE ONE CARD FROM LEONARD CLARK.>>[INAUDIBLE].>>Mayor Gallego: THANK YOU. ANY COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS? ROLL CALL.>>Clerk: DICICCIO.>>Councilman DiCiccio: YES.>>Clerk: GARCIA.>>Councilman Garcia: YES.>>Clerk: NOWAKOWSKI.>>Councilman Nowakowski: YES.>>Clerk: PASTOR.>>Councilwoman Pastor: YES.>>Clerk: STARK.>>Councilwoman Stark: YES.>>Clerk: WARING.>>Councilman Waring: YES.>>Clerk: WILLIAMS.>>Councilwoman Williams: YES.>>Clerk: GUARDADO.>>Vice Mayor Guardado: YES.>>Clerk: GALLEGO.>>Mayor Gallego: YES. ITEM PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. WE NEXT MOVE TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING PORTION OF OUR AGENDA. ITEM 87 IS A PUBLIC HEARING ON INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING PLAN FOR IMPACT FEES. WE WILL WELCOME OUR PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR UP FOR A STAFF REPORT.>>THANK YOU, MAYOR, MEMBERS OF COUNCIL. ITEM 87 IS JUST OPEN FOR A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING OUR DRAFT INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING PLAN. THIS IS A PLAN THAT PURSUANT TO STATE LAW WILL BE OUR 2020 UPDATE THAT COMPLIES WITH OUR REQUIREMENTS TO UPDATE OUR IMPACT FEE PROGRAM. IMPACT FEES ARE COLLECTED IN NEW DEVELOPING AREAS AND HELP PAY FOR CERTAIN PUBLIC FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT. THEY’RE ABLE TO EXPAND CITY SERVICES TO MEET THE NEEDS OF NEW DEVELOPMENT. WE HAVE IMPACT FEES IN NINE CATEGORIES, FIRE PROTECTION, POLICE, PARK, LIBRARIES, MAJOR ARTERIALS, STORM DRAINAGE, WATER, WASTEWATER AND WATER RESOURCE ACQUISITION. THE IMPACT FEE STATE STATUTE REQUIRES THE CITY REVIEW AND UPDATE THE IMPACT FEES EVERY FIVE YEARS. THIS IS THE PROCESS WE ARE GOING THROUGH. THIS IS THE SECOND PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM. THERE HAS BEEN SIGNIFICANT STAKEHOLDER INPUT AND WORKING ON THESE ISSUES WE DO NOT HAVE ANY CURRENT ISSUES WITH THESE PROPOSALS. WE’VE MADE THE REVISED REVISIONS. THE NEXT STEP WOULD BE TO COME BACK IN JANUARY AND WE WILL THEN ASK THE COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE FEES. THIS IS JUST A PUBLIC HEARING TO TAKE ANY ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENTS. WITH THAT STAFF IS HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.>>Mayor Gallego: THANK YOU. WE’LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. COUNCILMAN DICICCIO.>>Councilman DiCiccio: THANK YOU, MAYOR. I’M SUPPORTIVE OF THIS. I KNOW IT SOUNDS — BUT DEVELOPMENT SHOULD PAY ITS OWN WAY. DEVELOPERS, THEY COME AND DEVELOP, THEY END UP — THEY NEED TO BE ABLE TO PAY THEIR OWN WAY AND PUT IN THE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THEIR OWN PROJECT, BUT NOT ANY MORE THAN THAT. IT NEEDS TO BE PROPORTIONAL. AT THE END OF THE DAY THE IMPACT FEES ARE DESIGNED TO DO THAT. I JUST DON’T THINK THEY’RE HIGH ENOUGH IN MY AREA, BELIEVE IT NOT. I UNDERSTAND ONE THE IMPACT FEE — IT’S GOING TO BE FROM ABOUT 6400 TO 7500. I JUST — KNOWING AMOUNT OF GROWTH WE HAVE OUT THERE, THE IMPACT WE NEED TO HAVE, THE ROADS THAT NEED TO BE PUT IN ALAN, I THINK WE OUGHT TO BE LOOKING AT THIS AGAIN, MAYBE INCREASE APPEAR BIT, TO BE ABLE TO MAKE SURE THAT IT’S AS CLOSE TO FULL RECOVERY AS POSSIBLE WITH SOME OF THE LANDS THAT ARE STILL OUT THERE. SO FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I THINK YOU’VE DONE THAN EXEMPLARY JOB AND I THINK THE CITY OF PHOENIX HAS CREATED A GOOD MODEL OF DEVELOPERS PAY THEIR OWN WAY BUT IT MAY NOT BE ENOUGH IN SOME OF THESE AREAS AND IN PARTICULAR MINE. SO SOMETHING I WOULD LIKE YOU TO REEVALUATE. SORRY TO BLINDSIDE YOU ON THAT. I WAS REEVALUATING SOME OF THESE FEES AND I DON’T THINK THERE IS AS CLOSE TO A FULL COST RECOVERY WHEN IT COMES TO THAT, AND — AGREED. SO I’M GETTING SOME HEAD SHAKING. SO I WOULD LIKE YOU TO TAKE A LOOK. I AM NOT GOING TO ASK THIS ANYBODY ELSE, BUT AT LEAST IN MY AREA I WOULD LIKE YOU TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT AND I WOULD LIKE TO GET AS CLOSE TO FULL RECOVERY AS POSSIBLE. THANK YOU, MAYOR.>>Mayor Gallego: COUNCILWOMAN STARK.>>Councilwoman Stark: THANK YOU, FIRST OFF GOOD WORK, ALAN, BECAUSE I HAVE NOT GOTTEN ONE CALL FROM STAKEHOLDERS. SO YOU MUST HAVE FULLY VETTED THE PROCESS, AND I DO APPRECIATE THAT. I DO AS A FOLLOW-UP TO COUNCILMAN DICICCIO, I DO AGREE DEVELOPMENT SHOULD PAY FOR ITSELF AND PAY ITS FAIR SHARE. THE PROBLEM IS, HAVE WE ALREADY POSTED THE FEES? SO IF YOU WERE TO REEVALUATE, WOULD IT BE TOO LATE?>>MAYOR GALLEGO, COUNCILWOMAN STARK, WE HAVE ADVERTISED AND POSTED THIS NEW DRAFT PLAN. THAT’S THE REQUIREMENT UNDER STATE STATUTE. THERE WAS A DRAFT PLAN THAT WE CAME TO THE COUNCIL WITH IN SEPTEMBER. WE ADVERTISED THAT DRAFT PLAN, TOOK PUBLIC COMMENT. THERE WAS A 60-DAY PUBLIC COMMENT OVER THE SUMMER PRIOR TO THAT. WE MADE SOME CHANGES WHEN THE COUNCIL APPROVED IT IN OCTOBER, WHICH BASICALLY WAS AN APPROVAL UNDER STATE LAW TO SAY WE’RE DONE WITH THE INITIAL PUBLIC GATHERING PROCESS AND NOW WE’RE IN THE FINAL STAGES OF ADVERTISE THE FEES AND THEN THAT IS WHAT — IT’S FOR ONE PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE ADOPTION IN JANUARY. SO IT WOULD DELAY THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FEES IF WE WERE TO GO BACK AND HAVE SIGNIFICANT DISCUSSION OR CHANGES. WE’RE HAPPY TO SIT DOWN WITH COUNCILMAN DICICCIO AND EXPLAIN IT. I THINK PART OF THE CHALLENGE, YOU KNOW, IN HIS DISTRICT IS THAT IMPACT FEES ONLY APPLY IN NEW LAND AREA AND SO WITHIN AHWATUKEE FOOTHILLS, FOR EXAMPLE, THE SOUTH MOUNTAIN 620 IS REALLY THE ONLY VACANT LAND WHERE THE FEES APPLY, AND SO WHEN YOU UPDATE YOUR FEES, YOU’RE LOOKING AT WHAT’S GOING TO HAPPEN IN THAT AREA AND WHAT’S THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT’S GOING TO BE PAID FOR AND BECAUSE THOSE ARE LARGELY BUILT OUT AREAS THERE’S NOT A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT WE COULD LEGALLY CHARGE FOR UNDER STATE LAW BECAUSE THERE’S NOT A LOT OF NEW DEVELOPMENT THAT’S HAPPENING IN THAT PARTICULAR IMPACT FEE AREA, WHICH IS AHWATUKEE FOOTHILLS.>>Councilwoman Stark: THANK YOU. I DO APPRECIATE COUNCILMAN DICICCIO THAT YOU’RE LOOKING OUT FOR AHWATUKEE NOW THAT MY DAUGHTER LIVES DOWN THERE. THANK YOU. IF, IN FACT — I DON’T MIND GOING BACK AND EVALUATING IT. JUST MIGHT — IT WILL EXTEND THE TIME LIMIT — I’M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IF WE DID IT.>>MAYOR, COUNCILWOMAN STARK, WE CAN GO BACK AND CERTAINLY HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH COUNCILMAN DICICCIO AND TALK ABOUT IT AND ANY ELSE OF YOU WHO WOULD LIKE TO, BUT IF WE WERE GOING TO MAKE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES, THEN THAT WOULD DELAY THE IMPLEMENTATION OF IT, AND AS IT SITS NOW UNDER STATE STATUTE, IF THE COUNCIL APPROVES IT AT THE END OF JANUARY, IT STILL IS 75 DAYS BEFORE THAT NEW FEE WOULD TAKE EFFECT BECAUSE THAT’S THE WAY THE STATE LAW REQUIRES.>>Councilman DiCiccio: MAYOR?>>Mayor Gallego: COUNCILMAN NOWAKOWSKI.>>Councilman Nowakowski: I’M OKAY.>>Mayor Gallego: COUNCILMAN DICICCIO.>>Councilman DiCiccio: WHAT ENDS UP HAPPENING IS IF YOU DON’T DO THIS IN MY DISTRICT, AREA, ALL OF YOU END UP SUBSIDIZING IT. REALLY THAT’S IT AT THE END OF THE DAY. I CAN’T BE UP HERE TALKING ABOUT ONE THING AND DOING SOMETHING ELSE EITHER. SO I THINK THE LEVEL OF EQUITY IS JUST NOT RIGHT HERE. IT’S NOT BECAUSE OF ANYTHING YOU’VE DONE. ALAN, I SWEAR I SHOULD HAVE DONE THIS WITH YOU EARLIER. I APOLOGIZE. YOU’VE DONE AN INCREDIBLE JOB. IS THERE A WAY TO PULL OUT MY AREA AND DO AN EVALUATION — I JUST DON’T THINK THAT THE REST OF THIS COUNCIL SHOULD BE SUBSIDIZING MY AREA. DON’T BELIEVE IT. IS THERE A WAY FOR US TO PULL PAST EVERYBODY ELSE’S IF THEY WANT TO DO THAT AND PULL MINE OUT AND DO A RE-EVALUATION. BECAUSE I WOULD LIKE TO GET US AS CLOSE TO COST RECOVERY AS POSSIBLE. IF I’M UP HERE PREACHING WE SHOULD BE DOING CERTAIN THINGS, I SHOULD BE DOING AS WELL IN MY AREA. WE’RE GOING TO END UP HAVING TO PUT IN THOSE POLICE STATIONS, THOSE FIRE STATIONS AND THERE’S NOT GOING TO BE ENOUGH MONEY TO DO THOSE THINGS WITH THE AMOUNT OF IMPACT FEES THAT ARE HERE TODAY. SO THAT’S WHERE I’M GOING.>>Councilwoman Williams: BEFORE YOU ANSWER, ALAN, THROW IN DISTRICT 1 WITH SAL’S BECAUSE IT’S GROSSLY UNDERDOLLARED — VALUED.>>MAYOR, COUNCILMAN DICICCIO, COUNCILWOMAN WILLIAMS, THIS ITEM IS NOT ON FOR ACTION BY THE COUNCIL TODAY. IT’S ON ONLY FOR A PUBLIC HEARING. THE ACTION ITEM ASSOCIATED WITH THIS WOULD BE IN JANUARY AS CURRENTLY SCHEDULED. WHAT I WOULD PROPOSE IS TO COME MEET WITH YOU AND TALK ABOUT IT, SPECIFICALLY ABOUT WHAT WE CAN DO AND WHAT WE CAN CHARGE, BECAUSE IT IS CLOSELY REGULATED BY STATE LAW, AND WE ARE CHARGING THE MAXIMUM EXTENT THAT WE CAN UNDER STATE LAW, YOU KNOW, FOR THESE VARIOUS CATEGORIES, AND SO WE’RE HAPPY TO COME AND EXPLAIN THAT AND WORK WITH YOU GUYS, AND IF WE NEED TO THEN ADJUST, THAT’S SOMETHING THAT WE WILL, WHEN IT COMES TO JANUARY’S COUNCIL MEETING WHEN WE’RE ON FOR ACTION, THEN WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WE’RE NOT ON FOR ANY ACTION TO PULL SOME PIECES OUT OR NOT DO ANYTHING ELSE. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING TO GET COMMENTS AND THEN WE’LL FIGURE OUT WHERE TO GO FOR JANUARY.>>Councilman DiCiccio: THANK YOU FOR THAT, ALAN. IF THERE IS A WAY TO DO THAT RE-EVALUATION EITHER ON MINE OR COUNCILWOMAN WILLIAMS’ AREA AS WELL, I THINK THAT’S THE RIGHT THING TO DO. AGAIN, WHAT ENDS UP HAPPENING IS IF WE DON’T COLLECT ENOUGH FEES IN ONE AREA THAT GETS THE SUBSTATIONS AND FIRE STATIONS AND ALL THAT, WHAT ENDS UP HAPPENING — LIKE IN MY DISTRICT, I HAVE A COMPLETELY BIFURCATED DISTRICT ARE WHERE YOU HAVE A NORTH AND SOUTH. YOUR INDIVIDUALS THAT LIVE ON ONE SIDE OF THE AREA END UP SUBSIDIZING THE OTHER AND IT BECOMES INEQUITABLE. SO FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, WE REALLY NEED TO LOOK AT — AGAIN, I’M NOT GOING TO TELL ANYONE TO DO ANYTHING IN THEIRS AND I APPRECIATE COUNCILWOMAN WILLIAMS LOOKING AT HERS, TOO, TO DO SOMETHING THEY DON’T WANT TO DO. I’M JUST SAYING I WOULD LIKE TO BRING A MORE EQUITABLE LOOK AT HOW WE FINANCE THIS AND HOW DEVELOPMENT SHOULD BE PAYING FOR ITSELF AND DEVELOPERS SHOULD BE PAYING FOR THEIR OWN WAY. SO FROM MY END I STILL THINK THAT THAT FEE IS REALLY LOW FROM WHAT’S PLANNED TO GO IN THAT 620 — NOW IT’S ABOUT 400 ACRES I THINK IT IS. SO I WOULD LIKE US TO DO THAT. I WOULD LIKE TO BRING IN A MORE — A NUMBER THAT’S CLOSER TO WHAT THE REAL COST IS GOING TO BE TO BE ABLE TO SUBSIDIZE SOME OF THOSE OTHER PROJECTS THAT WE HAVE OUT THERE. THANK YOU, MAYOR. I’LL BE DONE WITH THAT.>>Mayor Gallego: THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN. WITH THAT I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AS OUR PLANNING DIRECTOR MENTIONED THERE WILL NOT BE A VOTE TODAY. SO WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM 88, WHICH IS AN ITEM IN COUNCILMAN WARING’S DISTRICT OPINION.>>ITEM 88 IS A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE STREET CLASSIFICATION MAP. IT IS FOR AN AREA THAT IS THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF 56th STREET AND DEER VALLEY DRIVE. THIS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT SEEKS TO MOVE A PORTION OF A MINOR COLLECTOR STREET WITHIN THAT SUPERBLOCK AREA AND THAT IS TO ADDRESS SOME SECOND PHASE PLANNING THAT’S HAPPENING BECAUSE DR HORTON HAS PURCHASED A PORTION OF THAT PARCEL. STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THAT. THIS IS THE AREA IN QUESTION, AND YOU SEE THIS RED DOTTED LINE IS WHAT EXISTS TODAY AS A MINOR COLLECTOR, AND DR HORTON IS GOING TO BE DEVELOPING THIS AREA. THE PROPOSAL IS TO CHANGE THAT CONFIGURATION WHERE IT SAYS COLLECTOR A AROUND TO GO MOVE IT OVER TO THE EAST A LITTLE BIT AND THEN RANGER DRIVE WILL CONTINUE ALL THE WAY THROUGH. THE NEED IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA IS TO ENSURE THAT THERE IS A OPEN MINOR COLLECTOR STREET BETWEEN DEER VALLEY DRIVE AND PINNACLE PEAK ROAD. THAT’S RANGER DRIVE RIGHT HERE. THAT GOES THROUGH THE EXISTING PARTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND WILL CONTINUE ON IN THIS FASHION TO THE EAST AND THEN ULTIMATELY INTO THE PARADISE RIDGE AREA. AND SO THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS NECESSARY TO ACCOMMODATE DEVELOPMENT AND AT THE SAME TIME PRESERVE THE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC NETWORK OPPORTUNITIES WITHIN THIS PART OF THE DESERT VIEW VILLAGE. IT WAS APPROVED BY THE DESERT VIEW VILLAGE PLANNING COMMITTEE BY A 9-0 VOTE AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION BY AN 8-0 VOTE AS WELL. WITH THAT STAFF IS HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.>>Mayor Gallego: WONDERFUL. THANK YOU. I WILL OPEN OUR PUBLIC HEARING. WE DO NOT HAVE ANY CARDS FROM THE PUBLIC. DO WE HAVE ANY — WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. I WILL TURN IT TO COUNCILMAN JIM WARING FOR COMMENTS OR A MOTION.>>Councilman Waring: (OFF MIC).>>Mayor Gallego: COUNCILMAN WARING APPROVED –>>MAYOR, IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE IT’S A RESOLUTION BECAUSE IT’S A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT.>>Councilman Waring: WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO SAY IT AGAIN, ALAN? MOTION TO APPROVE PER THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION AND ADOPT THE RELATED RESOLUTION. AGAIN.>>SECOND.>>Mayor Gallego: WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ROLL CALL.>>Clerk: DICICCIO.>>Councilman DiCiccio: YES.>>Clerk: GARCIA.>>Councilman Garcia: YES.>>Clerk: NOWAKOWSKI.>>Councilman Nowakowski: YES.>>Clerk: PASTOR.>>Councilwoman Pastor: YES.>>Clerk: STARK.>>Councilwoman Stark: YES.>>Clerk: WARING.>>Councilman Waring: YES.>>Clerk: WILLIAMS.>>Councilwoman Williams: YES.>>Clerk: GUARDADO.>>Vice Mayor Guardado: YES.>>Clerk: GALLEGO.>>Mayor Gallego: YES. PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. WE NEXT MOVE TO ITEM 90 WHICH IS AN ITEM IN COUNCILMAN NOWAKOWSKI’S DISTRICT. SHALL WE BEGIN WITH A STAFF REPORT? 72.>>THANK YOU, MAYOR, MEMBERS EVERY COUNCIL. ITEM 90 IS A PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL FOR ABANDONMENT OF RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT IS FOR AN ALLEY BETWEEN THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF 1st AVENUE AND McKINLEY STREET. THE MAP SHOWS THE AREA IN YELLOW RIGHT HERE THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THE PROPOSED ABANDONMENT. IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE SHOWS THE ADJOINING PARCELS RIGHT HERE. TRUE NORTH DEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSING TO REDEVELOP THIS AND THE ALLEY ABANDONMENT WOULD ACCOMMODATE THEM BUILDING OVER THE TOP OF THE ALLEY, AS YOU’LL SEE. THIS IS THE PICTURE LOOKING DOWN THE ALLEY AND WHAT YOU SEE TODAY THERE. THE APPLICANT’S REQUEST IS OBVIOUSLY TO ABANDON THAT AND PRESERVE A UTILITY EASEMENT AND PUBLIC ACCESS THROUGH THAT ALLEY SO IT WOULD LOOK LIKE A — BE A ALLEY FOR THE MOST PART AND FUNCTION TO STILL ALLOW FOR PUBLIC ACCESS TODAY AS ITS USES. IT WOULD JUST BE PRIVATELY MAINTAINED AND OWNED WITH THOSE PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENTS AND UTILITY EASEMENTS TO ALLOW FOR TRASH PICKUP, UTILITIES TO GO DOWN THERE AND FOR RESIDENTS AND OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS WHO USE THE ALLEY TO CONTINUE TO HAVE ACCESS THROUGH THAT ALLEY. THIS SHOWS THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT. THE McKINLEY PARCEL IS RIGHT HERE. THAT IS BEING PROPOSED TO BE PRESERVED WITH A 30-YEAR — PERPETUAL CONSERVATION EASEMENT AS PART OF THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT. AND THEN BUILDING OVER THE TOP OF THIS WITH THE PROPOSED MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT AND AROUND. HERE IS THE MASSING FOR THE PARTICULAR PROJECT, AND THIS IS A RENT RING OF WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE LOOKING UP THAT HALLE FROM THAT SAME VIEW THAT WE SHOWED A FEW MINUTES AGO WHERE YOU WOULD BUILD OVER THE TOP OF IT, BUT THIS WOULD STILL FUNCTION AS A UTILITY CORRIDOR THAT PUBLIC UTILITIES COULD GO DOWN AS WELL AS THE PUBLIC HAVING ACCESS. IT WOULD JUST BE OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY TRUE NORTH AND ITS DEVELOPMENT INTERESTS. HERE’S ANOTHER RENDERING OF THE SIDE OF IT. STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS PER THE ABANDONMENT HEARING OFFICER’S DECISION WITH SOME ADDITIONAL STIPULATIONS THAT CAME OUT BECAUSE THE APPLICANT HAD BEEN WORKING WITH THE ROOSEVELT ACTION ASSOCIATION TO ADDRESS PRINCIPALLY THE FRONTAGE ALONG 2nd AVENUE AND IMPROVEMENTS DONE WITH THAT TO ENSURE THAT THE RESIDENTIAL THAT WRAPS AROUND IS THAT SIGNIFICANTLY IMPROVED AND LOOKS BETTER ALONG 2nd AVENUE THAN THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL. WITH THAT, STAFF’S HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, AND I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT AND MR. BILL SHIELD ON BEHALF OF THE ROOSEVELT ACTION ASSOCIATION ARE HERE WITH SOME QUICK STATEMENTS BUT THEY’RE IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROJECT PURSUANT TO THE STIPULATIONS IN A MEMO FROM TODAY.>>Mayor Gallego: THANK YOU. WE’LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. WE HAVE ONLY ONE CARD WISHING TO SPEAK, WHICH IS MARKED IN FAVOR FROM BILL SHIELD.>>THANK YOU, BILL SHIELD 301 WEST LYNWOOD STREET REPRESENTING ROOSEVELT ACTION ASSOCIATION. , WE STRONGLY SUPPORT THE CITY’S POLICY OF NOT ABANDONING ALLEYS. WE FEEL THESE CASES HAVE TO BE VERY MUCH SCRUTINIZED ON A CASE-BY-CASE LEVEL AND WE APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY WE HAD IN THIS SITUATION TO INTERACT WITH THE DEVELOPER TO IMPROVE THIS DEVELOPMENT. OUR MISSION WAS TO PROTECT THE HISTORIC STREETSCAPE ALONG 2nd AVENUE. WE APPRECIATE THE EFFORTS OF SHEPLEY BULLFINCH ARCHITECT THAT WORKED WITH US TO MAKE THE IMPROVEMENTS. WE ALSO ON BEHALF OF OUR COMMITMENT TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION VERY MUCH APPLAUD THE PRESERVATION OF THE McKINLEY CLUB AND LOOK FORWARD TO HAVING THAT DEVELOPED INTO PRODUCTIVE PART OF THE PROJECT AND SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR CONSIDERING THAT, AND WITH THE — WE VERY MUCH REQUEST THAT YOU APPROVE THE ADDITIONAL STIPULATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN SUGGESTED TODAY.>>Mayor Gallego: THANK YOU. NICK WOOD ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.>>NICKWOOD, SNELL & WILMER, 1 ARIZONA CENTER. WE REPRESENT TRUE NORTH STUDIOS. WE SPENT QUITE A BIT OF TIME WITH MR. SHIELD AND WITH ANDY [INDISCERNIBLE]. I THANK THEM FOR ALL THE TIME THEY SPENT. I GET PAID TO DO THAT, THEY DON’T. BUT AS USUAL WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME WITH THEM WORKING ON DESIGN AND DESIGN SOLUTIONS, WHICH TYPICALLY IS THE WAY THAT WE SOLVE THESE PROBLEMS. SO I WANT TO THANK BILL, I WANT TO THANK ANDY AND STAFF’S HELP AS WELL AND WE RESPECTFULLY YOU SUSTAIN THE APPROVAL BY THE HEARING OFFICER AND SUBJECT TO THE NEW STIPULATIONS THAT WE’VE ADDED. THANK YOU.>>Mayor Gallego: THANK YOU. WE HAVE TWO CARDS IN FAVOR NOT WISHING TO SPEAK AND SIX CARDS OPPOSED NOT WISHING TO SPEAK. I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TURN TO COUNCILMAN NOWAKOWSKI.>>Councilman Nowakowski: FIRST OF ALL, I REALLY WANT TO THANK OUR STAFF AND ALSO TRUE NORTH AND THE ROOSEVELT ACTION FOR COMING TOGETHER AND WORKING THINGS OUT. WITH THAT, MAYOR, MOTION TO APPROVE PER THE ABANDONMENT HEARING OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION SUBJECT TO THE STIPULATIONS OF THE MEMO FROM OUR PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATED DECEMBER 18th, WHICH IS TODAY.>>Councilwoman Stark: SECOND.>>Mayor Gallego: WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER COMMENTS? COUNCILWOMAN PASTOR.>>Councilwoman Pastor: I’M JUST GLAD TO HEAR THAT THE McKINLEY IS BEING SAVED. THAT WAS MY NUMBER ONE QUESTION. AND PROBABLY PRIORITY WHEN I WAS BEING BRIEFED. IT’S SUCH A BEAUTIFUL BUILDING. AND TO PRESERVE IT, IT — I JUST LOVE THAT SPACE. BUT THANK YOU FOR DOING THAT AND THANK YOU FOR BOTH BILL AND NICK AND THE COLLECTIVE WORKING OUT THE STIPULATIONS. BECAUSE THAT WAS THE OTHER QUESTION I HAD YESTERDAY AND I WAS HAPPY TO HEAR FROM ALAN LATE THIS AFTERNOON THAT IT HAD GOTTEN WORKED OUT. SO APPRECIATE IT.>>Mayor Gallego: ROLL CALL.>>Clerk: DICICCIO.>>Councilman DiCiccio: YES.>>Clerk: GARCIA.>>Councilman Garcia: YES.>>Clerk: NOWAKOWSKI.>>Councilman Nowakowski: YES.>>Clerk: PASTOR.>>Councilwoman Pastor: YES.>>Clerk: STARK.>>Councilwoman Stark: YES.>>Clerk: WARING.>>Councilman Waring: [INAUDIBLE]>>Clerk: WILLIAMS.>>Councilwoman Williams: YES.>>Clerk: GUARDADO.>>Vice Mayor Guardado: YES.>>Clerk: GALLEGO.>>Mayor Gallego: YES. PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.>>Councilwoman Pastor: WARING WAS THERE!>>Mayor Gallego: WE NEXT MOVE TO ITEM 91, PHOTO ENFORCEMENT. COUNCILWOMAN STARK?>>Councilwoman Stark: IF I COULD, IF I CAN JUST CUT TO THE CHASE AND MAYBE MAKE A MOTION, AND I REALIZE THAT AT SUBCOMMITTEE THEY CAME UP WITH A MOTION TO BIFURCATE THE ACTION, AND I APPRECIATE THAT, BECAUSE I KNOW THE ENFORCEMENT AT THE SCHOOLS ARE REALLY, REALLY IMPORTANT, AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE’RE TAKING CARE OF OUR SCHOOL CHILDREN, BUT I AM STILL CONCERNED ABOUT RED LIGHT ENFORCEMENT. I THINK WE HAVE THE REPUTATION OF BEING THE RED LIGHT RUNNING CAPITAL OF THE UNITED STATES, AND WE HAVE THE MOST FATALITIES BECAUSE OF RED LIGHT RUNNING, AND I KNOW THERE WAS SOME CONCERN WITH THE COMPANY THAT WE USE NOW AND I WASN’T HERE WHEN WE VOTED ON IT, BUT MY FEAR IS IF WE DON’T CONTINUE THAT CONTRACT WE’RE GOING TO INCREASE THE PROBLEMS FOR BOTH POLICE AND FOR FIRE. I KNOW THAT THEY ARRIVE AT THE SCENES OF THESE ACCIDENTS. SOMETIMES THEY ARE FATALITIES. AND IT JUST TROUBLES ME THAT WE NEED THAT TOOL TO HELP PROTECT. I REALLY SEE IT AS A WAY TO DETER ACCIDENTS. I HAVE LIVED UP FOR 30 YEARS IN THE AREA AROUND 7th STREET AND BELL. 7th STREET AND BELL ACTUALLY DOES HAVE RED LIGHT ENFORCEMENT. I WILL TELL YOU PROBABLY 25 YEARS AGO BELL ROAD, 7th STREET WAS ONE OF THE MOST DANGEROUS INTERSECTIONS IN THE CITY, AND I KNOW THAT THROUGH STREETS AND POLICE THEY HAVE DONE A MARVELOUS JOB MAKING THAT A MUCH SAFER INTERSECTION AND IT STILL CARRIES A LOT OF TRAFFIC. I THINK 40,000 VEHICLES A DAY. I REALLY JUST WANT TO PLEAD, THIS IS JUST A MONTH-TO-MONTH CONTRACT, AND I KNOW WE HAVE AN RFP OUT. I THINK WE CAN WORK TOGETHER AS A COUNCIL TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE THE BEST RFP SO THAT WE CAN ENSURE WE HAVE THE BEST COMPANY FOR RED LIGHTS, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT SUPPORTS BOTH THE RED LIGHT AND THE SCHOOL — THE SCHOOL SPEED VANS, AND AGAIN, IF IT FAILS, I WILL SUPPORT ANY SUBSTITUTE MOTION BECAUSE I DON’T WANT ANYTHING TO HAPPEN TO OUR SCHOOL DISTRICTS. WHEN WE DIDN’T PASS IT LAST TIME I HEARD FROM A COUPLE SCHOOL DISTRICTS, AND SO I JUST CARE ABOUT LIVES, AND IT JUST SCARES ME THAT WE DON’T HAVE THIS TOOL AND WE DON’T HAVE ENOUGH POLICE OFFICERS RIGHT NOW TO DO TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT. I KNOW WHEN WE HAD THE RECESSION WE LOST OUR MOTORS. AND SO WE HAVE A LOT OF PROBLEMS OUT THERE ON THE STREETS WITH REGARDS TO THE SPEEDING AND RED LIGHT RUNNING. SO I’D LIKE TO AGAIN MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT BOTH.>>Councilwoman Williams: I WILL SECOND THAT BECAUSE I TRULY BELIEVE THAT WE NEED BOTH, AND THIS IS AN EXTENSION. I THINK THE SAFETY OF OUR ENTIRE COMMUNITY AND THE NUMBER OF INTERSECTION CRASHES IS KNOWN NATIONWIDE. VERY POOR RECORD. AND I KNOW THEY TRULY HAVE MADE A DIFFERENCE IN THE FEW PLACES WE HAVE, BUT ACTUALLY I WOULD LIKE TO SEE US IN THE FUTURE DOUBLE THE NUMBER OF RED LIGHT CAMERAS. SO SECOND.>>Mayor Gallego: THANK YOU, COUNCILWOMAN. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ADVOCACY FOR A SAFER PHOENIX. WE HAVE NINE CARDS ALL IN FAVOR WISHING TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL. WE’LL BEGIN WITH P.J. DEAN FOLLOWED BY DEBRA GROSSMAN.>>Councilman Nowakowski: MAYOR?>>Mayor Gallego: COUNCILMAN NOWAKOWSKI?>>Councilman Nowakowski: I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A SECONDARY MOTION THAT WE GO WITH THE SUBCOMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDATION OF HAVING THE SCHOOL AREAS WITH THE VANS AND THAT WE LOOK INTO THE FUTURE OF COMING UP WITH SOME KIND OF A RHYME AND REASON WHY WE HAVE THE CAMERAS WHERE THEY’RE AT.>>Mayor Gallego: THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN. AND YOU SAID BY SECONDARY, YOU MEANT SUBSTITUTE?>>Councilman Nowakowski: SUBSTITUTE MOTION.>>Councilwoman Williams: I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS OF STAFF.>>Mayor Gallego: I APOLOGIZE, MR. DEAN. WOULD YOU MIND –>>Councilwoman Williams: AT SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING THERE WAS A QUESTION WHETHER MANY — WE ASKED DENISE TO RESEARCH THIS. I WONDERED IF THEY SPLIT IT, ARE THERE ADDITIONAL COSTS, HOW MUCH AND WHERE DOES THE MONEY COME FROM?>>THANK YOU. COUNCILWOMAN WILLIAMS, WE DID REACH OUT TO RED FLICKS AS DIRECTED BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE AND RED FLICKS HAS AGREED TO EXTEND THE CONTRACTS JUST FOR THE MOBILE UNITS. THEY DO WANT TO INCREASE THE PRICE 10% TO THE CITY, THAT’S CITY OF PHOENIX ONLY COST, AND THEY ALSO WANT TO HAVE A MUTUAL AGREEMENT ON ANY EXTENSIONS THAT GO PAST THE FOUR-MONTH EXTENSION.>>Councilwoman Williams: THANK YOU. AND WHERE IS THE MONEY COMING FROM?>>SO, MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, THE MONEY DOES COME FROM THE PROGRAM AND FROM THE GENERAL FUND.>>Councilwoman Williams: OKAY. THANK YOU.>>Mayor Gallego: THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE. MR. DEAN.>>THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE TODAY. MY NAME IS P.J. DEAN, A CAPTAIN WITH 25 YEARS OF SERVICE WITH THE PHOENIX FIRE DEPARTMENT. I’M ALSO THE SECRETARY OF THE UNITED PHOENIX FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION WHICH REPRESENTS NEARLY 2800 SWORN FIREFIGHTERS IN PHOENIX AND NEARLY FIVE OTHER AGENCIES ACROSS THE VALLEY. IT’S MY HONOR TODAY TO STAND BEFORE YOU IN REPRESENTATION OF OUR MEMBERSHIP AND ALSO TO JOIN OUR BROTHER AND SISTER FIRST RESPONDERS OF THE PHOENIX LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSOCIATION IN ADVOCACY OF MAKING OUR CITY A SAFER ONE IN REGARDS TO TRAFFIC INJURIES AND FATALITIES. ARIZONA CURRENTLY RANKS HIGHEST IN THE NATION FOR AMOUNT OF DEADLY RED LIGHT ACCIDENTS. AS THE LARGEST CITY IN ARIZONA, PHOENIX IS NATURALLY AT THE EPICENTER OF THIS PROBLEM. AS THE FIRST RESPONDERS WHO MUST DEAL FIRST HAND WITH THE INJURIES, DEATH AND SUFFERING THAT RESULT FROM THESE INCIDENTS, WE IMPLORE THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL TO TAKE ACTION TODAY TO HELP CONTINUE TO MANAGE THE ISSUE AND NOT EXACERBATE IT. AN INSURANCE INSTITUTE FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY STUDY FOUND RED LIGHT ENFORCEMENT CAMERAS HAVE PROVEN TO REDUCE RED LIGHT RUNNING CRASHES BY 21% IN LARGE CITIES. DESPITE THIS, PHOENIX ONLY CURRENTLY HAS 12 INTERSECTIONS PROTECTED BY THESE DEVICES. OF GREATER CONCERN IS THE FACT THAT WHAT FEW CAMERAS WE CURRENTLY HAVE NOW STAND TO BE REMOVED COMPLETELY WITH THE EXPIRATION OF THIS CURRENT LEASE. IT IS DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND HOW WE CAN WITH A CLEAN CONSCIOUS MAKE A DECISION THAT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO MAKE OUR INTERSECTIONS MORE DANGEROUS THAN THEY ALREADY ARE. WE CAN APPRECIATE THE FACT THERE ARE SEVERAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST RED LIGHT CAMERAS THAT REVOLVE AROUND CIVIL LIBERTIES. WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO THOSE THAT FEEL THAT WAY, WE FEEL THE SAFETY OF OUR CITIZENS MUST BE OUR PRIMARY FOCUS AND GREATEST CONCERN. FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE MEN AND WOMEN WHO ON A DAILY EXTRICATE OUR CITIZENS FROM MANGLED VEHICLES WE ENCOURAGE OUR CITY LEADERSHIP TO STICK WITH THE RED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM AND CONTINUE TO DO ALL WE CAN TO REDUCE THESE TRAGIC INCIDENTS. ONE CRASH, ONE INJURY, ONE DEATH IS ONE TOO MANY. PLEASE VOTE TO KEEP OUR RED LIGHT CAMERAS IN PLACE SO WE CONTINUE OUR PROGRESS OF MAKING THE CITY STREETS OF PHOENIX SAFER ONES. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.>>Councilman Nowakowski: I HAVE A QUESTION FOR HIM. SO I UNDERSTAND THE RHYME AND REASON WHY WE CREATE DIFFERENT AREAS FOR FIRE STATIONS. YOU HAVE THIS TRIANGLE APPROACH WHERE THERE’S A CERTAIN TIME TO GET TEE THAT INDIVIDUAL THAT NEEDS YOUR HELP. IS THAT CORRECT?>>THAT’S CORRECT, SIR.>>Councilman Nowakowski: SO THERE IS NOT A RHYME AND REASON FOR THESE RED CAMERAS. THAT’S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE’RE ASKING THESE QUESTIONS TO OUR STAFF. SO I JUST WANT TO PUT ON THE RECORD IT’S NOT THAT WE DON’T SUPPORT IT. WE JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHY THEY’RE IN THE LOCATIONS THAT THEY’RE IN. DOES IT MAKE SENSE? ARE THEY IN THE MOST DANGEROUS INTERSECTIONS? AND IS IT GOING TO REDUCE ACCIDENTS, ESPECIALLY FATALITIES, IN OUR CITY. SO THAT’S WHAT WE’RE ASKING FOR. IT’S NOT THAT WE DON’T SUPPORT IT. WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE UNDERSTAND THE REASONING WHY THAT INTERSECTION AND NOT ANOTHER.>>WE WOULD AS WELL SUPPORT ANY EFFORTS WOULD THAT MAKE THESE MORE EFFECTIVE. WE SIMPLY SUPPORT THEIR PRESENCE BECAUSE THEY ARE PROVEN TO MAKE OUR STREETS SAFER AND THAT’S WHAT WE’RE PRIMARILY CONCERNED WITH.>>Mayor Gallego: WITH WONDERFUL. THANK YOU. IN YOU ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR MR. DEAN? THANK YOU. I DO HAVE — I GUESS — WE’LL GET STAFF TO ADDRESS COUNCILMAN NOWAKOWSKI’S QUESTION. WHY DO WE PUT THE CAMERAS WHERE WE DO?>>MAYOR, MEMBERS OF COUNCIL, RED LIGHT CAMERAS HAS GONE BACK TO AT LEAST 2000, 2002 TIME FRAME. IT’S BEEN A LONG HISTORY OF WHERE THOSE LOCATIONS HAVE BEEN. WHAT WE’VE BEEN ABLE TO DETERMINE THAT’S BEEN KIND — THERE ARE SOME THINGS WE HAVEN’T BEEN ABLE TO DETERMINE, BUT WHAT WE FOUND IS CONSISTENT, WE HAVE HAD CONSISTENT COORDINATION BETWEEN STREET TRANSPORTATION AND POLICE DEPARTMENT ON LOOKING AT WHERE WE HAD CRASHES, INTERSECTION CRASHES THROUGHOUT THE CITY. WHEN WE LOOKED AT THOSE 12 LOCATIONS WE LOOKED AT THE CURRENT LOCATIONS THAT WERE INSTALLED IN 2015. THERE’S 9 OF THE 12 CAMERAS WERE LOCATED THERE IN 2015. WE FOUND THAT WE HAD 2012 TO 2014 CRASH DATA WE’RE LOOKING AT THROUGHOUT THE CITY AND ONE OF THE THINGS WE FOUND THROUGHOUT — THAT’S BEEN CONSISTENT THROUGH THE PROGRAM AS WELL IS THOSE RED LIGHT CAMERAS, WE DID HAVE AT LEAST ONE IN EACH COUNCIL DISTRICT. THAT’S SOMETHING CONSISTENT WE SAW THROUGH TALKING AND LOOKING THROUGH SOME OF OUR DOCUMENTATION AND ALSO TALKING TO SOME RETIREES AND PEOPLE WHO ARE NO LONGER HERE BUT PART OF THIS PROGRAM IN THE PAST. WHILE I CAN TELL YOU NOT EVERY SINGLE CAMERA THAT’S NET LOCATION NOW WAS THE HIGHEST CRASH LOCATION, THEY WERE ON THE LIST OF OUR HIGHEST CRASH LOCATIONS WITHIN EACH ONE OF THE COUNCIL DISTRICTS AND SO THE 12 CAMERAS AS THEY STAND RIGHT NOW, WE DO HAVE DATA THAT SHOWS THEY HAVE REDUCED COLLISIONS WITHIN THE LAST THREE YEARS AND ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO SERIOUS INJURIES AND FATALITIES, THAT THERE ARE NO SERIOUS INJURIES AND FATALITIES IN THOSE THREE LOCATIONS IN THE DIRECTION OF THE CAMERAS WE HAVE MONITORING. I WOULD AGREE WITH COUNCILMAN NOWAKOWSKI THAT I THINK LOOKING FORWARD WE CAN DEFINITELY DO A BETTER JOB IN HOW WE LOCATE THESE CAMERAS IN MAKING SURE WE’RE UPDATING AND LOOKING AT CURRENT CRASH DATA AND WORKING CLOSER WITH NOT JUST THE POLICE DEPARTMENT BUT ALSO WITH THE CITY COUNCIL AND BEING AUDIBLE TO COORDINATE ON THOSE LOOKING FORWARD CAMERAS ESPECIALLY WITH THE NEW REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL ON THE STREETS RIGHT NOW.>>Mayor Gallego: COUNCILMAN NOWAKOWSKI?>>Councilman Nowakowski: DURING OUR PUBLIC SAFETY SUBCOMMITTEE THERE WAS A LETTER FROM — A MEMO FROM THE STREETS DEPARTMENT TO SAL DiCICCIO BACK IN DECEMBER 6 BASICALLY STATING THE 10 INTERSECTIONS WITH THE HIGHEST NUMBER OF SERIOUS INJURIES AND FATALITIES, RIGHT? SO ALL 10 OF THEM, I NAMED THEM OFF DURING OUR SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING, AND NOT ONE, NOT ONE, HAS A RED CAMERA ON THERE. SO IF THESE ARE THE 10 HOT SPOTS WHERE WE SHOULD BE PREVENTING INJURIES AND FATAL COLLISIONS, WHY DON’T WE HAVE ONE OF THESE CAMERAS IN THOSE INTERSECTIONS? I DON’T UNDERSTAND THAT. I UNDERSTAND WHY WE PUT THE FIRE STATIONS WHERE WE DO. BUT I DON’T UNDERSTAND WHERE WE CAN HAVE 27th AVENUE AND BEARDSLEY, THAT’S IN DISTRICT 1, HAD 13 COLLISIONS THAT — IT DOESN’T HAVE ONE THERE. 43rd AVENUE AND NORTHERN WHICH IS THE SECOND HIGHEST, WHICH IS IN DISTRICT 1 AND 5 DOESN’T HAVE ONE. THE THIRD HIGHEST IS 51st AND THUNDERBIRD IN DISTRICT 1, DOESN’T HAVE ONE. 27th AVENUE AND CAMELBACK, WHICH IS IN DISTRICT 4 AND 5 DOESN’T HAVE ONE. 15th AVENUE AND INDIAN SCHOOL IN DISTRICT 4 DOESN’T HAVE ONE. 16th STREET AND BROADWAY, WHICH IS IN DISTRICT 8, DOESN’T HAVE ONE. CAVE CREEK AND GREENWAY IN DISTRICT 2 AND 3 DOESN’T HAVE ONE. 57th AND THOMAS, THAT’S IN MY DISTRICT, DOESN’T HAVE ONE. 43rd AVENUE AND McDOWELL THAT’S IN COUNCIL DISTRICT 4 DOESN’T HAVE ONE. AND 40th AVENUE AND PEORIA — 43rd AVENUE AND PEORIA IN DISTRICT 1 DOESN’T HAVE ONE. SO I DON’T UNDERSTAND THAT IF WE’RE PLACING THESE CAMERAS TO SAVE LIVES, WOULDN’T YOU WANT TO FOCUS ON THE TOP 10 AREAS IN OUR CITY WITH THE MOST ACCIDENTS AND FATALITIES? AND THAT’S WHERE I’M TRYING TO FIGURE THIS OUT, AND THAT’S AS THE CHAIR OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY SUBCOMMITTEE, I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE’RE GOOD STEWARDS, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO SPENDING TAX DOLLARS AND SAVING LIVES AND PREVENTING ACCIDENTS. SO THOSE ARE SOME OF THE CONCERNS I HAVE, MAYOR, AND THAT’S WHY WE WERE QUESTIONING WHY THE CAMERAS WERE PLACED IN THE PLACES THEY WERE AND WHAT WE FOUND OUT IS WE CRATED A LITTLE MAP WHERE BASICALLY THIS CAME OUT OF DISTRICT 6 AND IT SHOWS THAT TWICE AS MANY CAMERAS ARE IN THE MINORITY, LOW INCOME AREAS. IT DOESN’T MAKE SENSE. AND NOT IN THE TOP 10 AREAS WHERE THERE’S ACCIDENTS. SO I’M NOT SURE WHAT THE RHYME AND REASON IS, AND THAT’S WHAT I’M TRYING TO GET TO. THANK YOU, MAYOR.>>Mayor Gallego: THANK YOU. STAFF?>>ONE THING IS I KNOW THE DATA WE USED TO PRODUCE THE TOP 10 LIST CURRENTLY IS BASED ON OUR CRASH DATA FROM 2016 TO 2018. SO THE 12 CAMERA LOCATIONS THAT WE HAD PREVIOUSLY WE’RE LOOKING AT 2012 TO 2014 CRASH DATA. I WOULD AGREE WHERE WE HAVE THE 12 CAMERA LOCATIONS TODAY ARE NOT OUR 10 HIGHEST CRASH LOCATIONS AND I THINK THAT’S ONE THING THAT HAS BEEN CONSISTENT WHEN WE’VE TALKED TO SOME COUNCIL MEMBERS BUT ALSO I THINK — AND YOUR SUBCOMMITTEE EARLIER LAST SPRING WAS TALKING ABOUT POTENTIALLY INCREASING RED LIGHT CAMERAS TO ADDRESS THAT. I KNOW IN THE CURRENT CONTRACT, IF A CAMERA LOCATION IS MOVED WITHIN FIVE YEARS OF INSTALLATION THE CITY BEARS THE COST TO INSTALL — RELOCATE THAT CAMERA, INSTALL THAT CAMERA. I BELIEVE IT’S ABOUT $30,000 PER LOCATION TO INSTALL THOSE CAMERAS. BUT I AGREE, WE WOULD WANT TO, AS I WAS TALKING BEFORE, I WAS LOOKING FORWARD IN THE FUTURE WITH A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL, TO LOOK AT OPPORTUNITIES TO BE ABLE TO LOOK AT OUR HIGHEST 10 CRASH LOCATIONS AND BE ABLE TO INSTALL POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL CAMERAS AT THOSE LOCATIONS.>>COUNCILMAN NOWAKOWSKI: AND JUST A CORRECTION, IT WAS 2014 TO 2018, THE STATISTICS THAT WE HAVE HERE.>>Mayor Gallego: THANK YOU. AND WE PUT THE CAMERAS IN BEFORE THAT. SO THEY WERE ON THE TOP 10 LIST WHEN WE PUT THEM IN — OR THEY WERE ON THE TOP LIST PER EACH COUNCIL DISTRICT –>>CORRECT, MAYOR.>>Councilman DiCiccio: EXCUSE ME, BUT COUNCILMAN NOWAKOWSKI ASKED ME TO MENTION ONE OTHER THING WE DID ON THE RESEARCH. THERE WERE THREE ACCIDENTS OUT OF ALL 12 THAT WE HAD — CONSIDERED TO BE SERIOUS OUT OF ALL 12 PRIOR TO THAT.>>Mayor Gallego: SO THEY’RE WORKING?>>Councilman DiCiccio: WELL, NO, PRIOR TO. THE BOTTOM LINE, THEY CAN’T ANSWER WHY THEY WERE PUT WHERE THEY WERE. THEY REALLY CAN’T. THERE’S NO — YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO LOOK BACK AND SAY WE DID IT FOR THIS REASON IN THIS LOCATION.>>I BELIEVE FROM WHAT WE’VE BEEN ABLE TO DETERMINE THAT WE DID LOOK AT THE CRASHES AT THE INTERSECTIONS BUT AS FAR AS TYPE OF CRASHES, IS SERIOUS INJURY, FATALITY, I CAN’T DETERMINE WHETHER THAT WAS USED IN LOCATING THE CAMERAS WHERE THEY ARE CURRENTLY. I SAY GOING FORWARD IF WE LOOK AT ADDITIONAL CAMERA LOCATIONS THAT IS SOMETHING WE WOULD WANT TO HAVE DISCUSSION WITH BECAUSE THAT IS IMPORTANT. WE WANT TO REDUCE SERIOUS INJURY, FATALITIES, NOT JUST ACCIDENTS AT INTERSECTIONS.>>Councilman DiCiccio: SO THE POINT THAT COUNCILMAN NOWAKOWSKI AND OTHERS ARE MAKING, TOO ARE THE LOCATION OF THESE AND WHERE THEY ARE LOCATED AND WHO THEY’RE TARGET YOUNG. BECAUSE THAT’S WHO THEY ARE TARGETING. IF YOU ENDED UP WITH JUST 3 OUT OF 12, I MEAN 3 ACCIDENTS OUT OF 12, PRIOR TO THE SIGNALS BEING PUT IN THERE, THERE’S A PROBLEM. SO THE QUESTION I WOULD HAVE IS, HOW MUCH INFLUENCE DID RED FLICKS HAVE IN THE DETERMINING THE LOCATIONS. YOU WEREN’T HERE, KINI. DO YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THAT?>>MAYOR, COUNCILMAN DICICCIO, NO, I DON’T HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THAT THAT I DO KNOW WHEN WE WERE LOOKING AT SOME OF THE HIGH CRASH LOCATIONS, WHAT I’VE BEEN ABLE TO EARLY DID, SOMETIMES WE WEREN’T ABLE TO PUT THEM AT THE HIGHEST CRASH LOCATIONS BECAUSE WE MIGHT HAVE RIGHT-OF-WAY CONFLICTS, WE MIGHT HAVE OTHER OBSTRUCTIONS, BUT I CAN’T SAY FOR CERTAIN WHETHER OR NOT WHAT YOU’RE SUPPOSING IS TRUE OR NOT.>>Councilman DiCiccio: WHAT YOU’RE SAYING IS YOU DON’T KNOW. I GUESS THAT’S FAIR. BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, YOU KNOW, I’LL TELL YOU I HAVE AN ISSUE, TOO, WITH THE WAY THIS HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP HERE, TOO, BUT THAT’S ANOTHER ISSUE, WE’LL DEAL WITH THE CITY MANAGER SEPARATELY ON THAT, BUT THE WAY THIS WAS DONE WAS VERY DISRESPECTFUL OF THE COUNCIL. COUNCIL VOTED TWICE ON THIS THING. PLUS TO SAY SOME WILL SUPPORT THE MOBILE CAMERAS FOR SCHOOLS, THE WAY THIS THING HAS BEEN CONTRIVED UP HERE THERE’S NO WAY TO VOTE ON IT THAT WAY. I DON’T SEE EITHER ONE OF THESE PROPOSALS PASSING, QUITE FRANKLY, AND TO BE ABLE TO SAY — IT’S IMPOSSIBLE TO BE DONE THE WAY THE MOTION WAS DONE. IT’S IMPOSSIBLE TO DO THAT. SO UNLESS YOU’RE WILLING TO ADD THAT AND SAY ONLY MOBILE — ONLY IF YOU END UP FAILING IN YOURS, COUNCILMAN STARK. SO TEND OF THE DAY, THE WAY THIS IS PUT TOGETHER, THE WAY IT WAS CONTRIVED, THE WAY IT WAS PUT IN, IT OBVIOUSLY LOOKS LIKE IT’S TARGETING SPECIFIC AREAS OF OUR COMMUNITY THAT ARE LOWER INCOME THAT CAN’T AFFORD TO PAY FOR THESE THINGS BECAUSE PEOPLE WITH HIGHER INCOMES ARE GOING TO FIGHT SOME OF THEM. THE PEOPLE AT THE LOWER LEVEL THAT CANNOT AFFORD THIS THAT WORK EVERY DAY ARE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT, AND THERE’S NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THE LOCATION OF WHERE THESE CAMERAS WERE PUT IN. SO A LOT OF WHAT’S OCCURRING HERE IS AN INTERNAL STRUGGLE OF WE DON’T BELIEVE THAT SOME OF THE THINGS THAT STAFF IS PRESENTING TO US TO BE ACCURATE. THAT’S WHAT YOU’RE SEEING HERE. KINI, IT’S NOT YOUR RESPONSIBILITY. YOU WEREN’T HERE AT THE TIME. SO YOU’RE AN AMAZING DIRECTOR AND I MENTIONED THAT TO THE CITY MANAGER BEFORE, BUT THE WAY THIS HAS BEEN PUT TOGETHER, THE WAY IT’S BROUGHT UP TODAY IS MEANT TO EMBARRASS SOME MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL WHEN IN FACT WE HAVE THE FACTS BEHIND US. WE HAVE THE FACTS TO SHOW THIS IS WRONG, IT WAS DONE IMPROPERLY AND THIS IS WHAT AT THE END OF THE DAY THIS IS GOING TO BE ABOUT.>>Mayor Gallego: THANK YOU. COUNCILWOMAN WILLIAMS.>>Councilwoman Williams: MAYOR, COUNCILMAN NOWAKOWSKI, WHAT WAS YOUR MOTION.>>Councilman Nowakowski: SCHOOLS ONLY.>>Councilwoman Williams: SCHOOL ZONES ONLY. YOU’RE SEPARATING THE TWO CONTRACTS PER FINANCE –>>Councilman Nowakowski: I’M — WE HAVE AN RFP COMING UP IN THE NEAR FUTURE, THAT WE MAKE SURE THERE IS A RHYME AND REASON FOR PLACING THOSE CAMERAS WHERE WE PLACE THEM.>>Councilwoman Williams: PERHAPS WE COULD ASK THE MAYOR TO DO SOME TYPE OF WORKSHOP OR SOMETHING SO THAT WE THOROUGHLY UNDERSTAND — I MEAN, I HAVE BEEN LOBBYING FOR A YEAR OR TWO FOR ADDITIONAL RED LIGHT CAMERAS.>>Councilman Nowakowski: ME, TOO.>>Councilwoman Williams: I DIDN’T REALIZE THE TWO WERE CONNECTED. I FULLY SUPPORT KEEPING THOSE IN THE SCHOOL ZONES. I THINK IT’S CRITICAL. BECAUSE THERE ARE TOO MANY CARS AND IT’S TOO DANGEROUS. I DON’T LIKE IT, BUT I’LL SUPPORT YOUR MOTION.>>Councilman Nowakowski: THANK YOU.>>Mayor Gallego: AND I WOULD BE HAPPY TO SCHEDULE A WORK STUDY SESSION TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE THE BEST PRACTICES. COUNCILWOMAN STARK.>>Councilwoman Stark: I CERTAINLY WOULD SUPPORT THAT, TOO, BECAUSE WE HAVE TO — WE HAVE TO CONSIDER OUR SCHOOL ZONES. BUT GOING BACK TO THE CURRENT LOCATIONS, YOU SAID IT’S 30,000 IF WE WERE TO MOVE THEM? BECAUSE — MAYOR, COUNCILWOMAN STARK, YES, THAT’S WHAT THE COST IS TO MOVE OR TO INSTALL NEW ONES.>>Councilwoman Stark: I SURE WOULD SUPPORT SPENDING 30,000 AND GETTING THEM TO THE RIGHT INTERSECTIONS IF WE NEED TO, BECAUSE I THINK A LIFE IS WORTH A LOT MORE THAN 30,000.>>Mayor Gallego: COUNCILWOMAN PASTOR.>>Councilwoman Pastor: I HEARD THE METHODOLOGY ON HOW THE LIGHTS WERE PLACED. I DO KNOW THAT IN TORONTO THEY HAVE 125 RED LIGHTS CAMERAS AND ACCIDENTS HAVE GONE DOWN 60%. THERE IS DATA, DEPENDING ON HOW YOU LOOK AT IT, OUT THERE DEMONSTRATING THAT THE RED LIGHTS ARE EFFECTIVE. THE OTHER DYNAMIC IS THAT WE NEED SAFETY IN OUR ROADS. I HAVE THE HIGHEST FATALITIES, PEDESTRIAN FATALITIES, IN DISTRICT 4. I PROBABLY HAVE THE HIGHEST, AND I’LL ASK FOR THE DATA — OF RED LIGHTS, OF PEOPLE RUNNING RED LIGHTS. THERE HAS TO BE A WAY THEY CALCULATE, MAYBE BY THE ACCIDENTS. BUT I DO FEEL IT’S A SAFETY DYNAMIC THAT WE NEED OUT IN OUR STREETS. WE ARE STILL HIRING POLICE OFFICERS. WE’RE STILL NEEDING A DIFFERENT DYNAMIC OR SYSTEM TO HELP OUR POLICE OFFICERS AND PROTECT OUR CITIZENS. MY QUESTION IS, DENISE, IS IN SEPARATING THIS CONTRACT, THIS CONTRACT’S FOR, I BELIEVE, 325 — I THINK I READ THAT CORRECTLY — OR WE’RE GOING TO ADD ADDITIONAL FUNDS OF 325,000?>>THANK YOU, MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, COUNCIL — WHAT WE’RE DOING HERE IS WE’RE ASKING FOR PAYMENT AUTHORITY, COUNCILWOMAN PASTOR. SO THIS IS PAYMENT AUTHORITY FOR THE CONTRACT. SO THE 325,000 IS ADDITIONAL PAYMENT AUTHORITY WE WOULD NEED TO EXTEND THE CONTRACT FOR FOUR MONTHS AND THAT IS ONLY FOR THE MOBILE UNITS FOR SPEED ENFORCEMENT.>>Councilwoman Pastor: SO YOU’RE ASK YOUNG FOR AN ADDITIONAL 325,000 JUST FOR THE SCHOOL ENFORCEMENT?>>CORRECT. FOR THE EXTENSION PERIOD.>>Councilwoman Pastor: FOR THE EXTENSION FOR FOUR MONTHS.>>City Mgr. Zuercher: THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HAVING TOED AS MONEY TO THE BUDGET AND HAVING TO ADD MONEY TO A CONTRACT. THERE IS MONEY IN THE BUDGET, BUT THERE’S NOT — THE CONTRACT AUTHORITY DOESN’T EXIST. SO THAT’S THE DIFFERENCE. WE’RE NOT ASKING TO ADD MONEY IN THE BUDGET. I’LL LOOK TO THE BUDGET DIRECTOR ON THAT.>>CORRECT. THE CONTRACT — MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, THE CONTRACT IS CURRENTLY BUDGETED. THERE IS A FINANCIAL IMPACT, AS WE DISCUSSED, THOUGH OF GOING TO SPEED ONLY. SO, AGAIN, WE WOULD BASICALLY — RIGHT NOW AS IT’S SET UP THE EXISTING CONTRACT, ABOUT 60% OF THE TOTAL REVENUE COMES IN VIA THE FIXED CAMERAS AND ABOUT 40% OF THE REVENUE COMES IN VIA THE SPEED VANS. AND SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT ALL THE IMPACT OF GOING TO ONE ONLY, WE’RE ESTIMATING THAT FOR THE DURATION, THE LAST SIX MONTHS OF THE FISCAL YEAR, THERE WILL BE AN IMPACT TO THE GENERAL FUND OF ABOUT $140,000 FOR THE YEAR.>>Councilwoman Pastor: THAT’S WHAT I WANTED TO KNOW. I WANTED TO KNOW HOW MUCH OF AN IMPACT IT WOULD BE. AND THAT’S IN ADDITION TO WHAT WE ALREADY — WITH — WE WOULD HAVE SCHOOL ENFORCEMENT AND RED LIGHTS.>>YES.>>Councilwoman Pastor: WHAT I’M SAYING IS WED LIGHTS AND SCHOOL ENFORCEMENT VANS, ONCE WE SEPARATE IT OUT, THERE WILL BE ADDITIONAL DOLLARS ADDED TO THIS BECAUSE OF THE COST?>>THERE WILL BE AN IMPACT TO THE GENERAL FUND BUDGET OF ABOUT $140,000 BY GOING TO JUST SPEED ONLY. WE’RE NOT ADDING MORE MONEY TO THE BUDGET BECAUSE I CAN’T DO THAT. MY APPROPRIATION IS MY APPROPRIATION. WE WILL JUST BE SWALLOWING AND TRYING TO ABSORB THE $140,000 IMPACT OF HAVING LOST REVENUE FOR THE PROGRAM.>>Councilwoman Pastor: OKAY.>>AS CURRENTLY CONSTITUTED THE PROGRAM IS FAIRLY SELF-CONTAINED. THE REVENUE THAT COMES IN PAYS THE VENDOR AND ALL THE ANCILLARY COSTS THE STAFF INCUR.>>Councilwoman Pastor: SO I UNDERSTAND THE DYNAMIC IN THE SENSE OF THE RED LIGHTS, WHY IT’S NOT WHERE THE TOP 10 AREAS, WHY WERE THEY PLACE, AND THERE’S A WHOLE METHODOLOGY TO IT. WHAT I DON’T UNDERSTAND FROM MY COLLEAGUES IS THAT WHY WOULD WE JUST NOT EXTEND IT, GO INTO A STUDY SESSION, AND UNDERSTAND IN THE STUDY SESSION FURTHER HOW RED LIGHTS ARE CHOSEN OR WE BUILD A MODEL IN THE SENSE OF WHERE WE WANT TO PLACE THEM, AND IF WE HAVE TO, MOVE THE ONES CURRENTLY, THEN LET’S DO THAT. SO THAT’S WHERE I’M CONFUSED. I’M CONFUSED AS TO WHY WE JUST WANT TO GET RID OF THE RED LIGHTS AND WITH THE CONCERNS THAT YOU HAVE, WHY DON’T WE LOOK AT THAT AND MOVE THE RED LIGHTS, AND THEN AS THE RFP AND STUDY SESSION COMES ABOUT, THEN WE CAN GO ABOUT AND UNDERSTAND HOW IT CAME ABOUT FURTHER AND THEN MOVE TO THE RFP. SO THAT’S MY CONFUSION, AND I WASN’T PART OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE, SO I DON’T KNOW.>>Councilwoman Williams: MAYOR, WEREN’T WE TOLD THAT THIS NEEDED TO BE DONE AS OF JANUARY? AND THEY DIDN’T SAY TO DO THAT — DIDN’T GIVE US THAT TIMING. IT WAS — IN FACT, IT DIDN’T EVEN TALK ABOUT THE SCHOOLS BEING PART OF THIS CONTRACT UNTIL THE VERY — I THINK AFTER THE MEETING. SO I THINK IT’S A TIMING ISSUE MORE THAN A MONEY ISSUE, AND WE DIDN’T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE 30,000 MOVING FEE BECAUSE I AM DWIGHT SURE I WOULD HAVE SUPPORTED ANY TIME YOU CAME AND SAID, OH, THERE’S A BETTER INTERSECTION THAT NEEDS GREATER HELP, WE NEED 30,000, EVEN IF WE TOOK IT OUT OF CONTINGENCY FUND. I JUST THINK IT’S THAT IMPORTANT. I THINK IT SERVES SUCH A GOOD PURPOSE IN THIS COMMUNITY TO TRY TO KEEP US SAFE.>>Mayor Gallego: COUNCILMEMBER GARCIA.>>Councilman Garcia: I’M IN A DIFFERENT PLACE WITH THIS. I FUNDAMENTALLY DON’T TRUST RED FLICKS OR THE PROCESS IN WHICH THESE CAMERAS WERE SET OUT. I THINK THIS HAS BEEN PROFIT DRIVEN. I THINK IT’S A POOR TAX. I THINK WE’VE SEEN THE MAJORITY OF THESE CAMERAS ARE IN LOW-INCOME COMMUNITIES, AND WE CONTINUE TO WANT TO FIX PROBLEMS BY CRIMINALIZING AND PUNISHING PEOPLE. THERE ARE OTHER FORMS AND WAYS IN WHICH WE COULD SAVE LIVES, AND THERE’S THE HAWKs THAT ARE OUT THERE, THERE’S AN ENTIRE PLAN THAT WAS PUT FORTH EARLIER THIS YEAR TO TALK ABOUT PEDESTRIAN DEATHS, TO TALK ABOUT WAYS IN WHICH WE COULD TAKE CARE OF EACH OTHER AND SAVE LIVES. I JUST DON’T TRUST THIS PROCESS, AND WE’VE BEEN ABLE TO PROVE THAT THESE WEREN’T SET OR PUT FORTH WITH SAFETY IN MIND, AND WE HAVE NOW SINCE 2015 TAKEN FROM PHOENIX $5.3 MILLION THAT WE’VE CHARGED PEOPLE IN FEES, AND WE FORCED USE,487 PEOPLE TO TAKE A MANDATORY CLASS. THAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL, BUT WE HAVE NO INFLUENCE IN HOW THAT’S CONDUCTED AND WHERE THAT GOES, AND SO FOR ME I WOULD PREFER TO SHUT THIS PROGRAM DOWN AND FOLLOW THE RFP PROCESS THAT’S HAPPENING SO THAT WE CAN MAKE SURE TO PUT IN GOOD POLICY AND MAKE SURE THAT WE ACTUALLY DECIDE EITHER AS A COUNCIL OR AS A COMMUNITY WHERE THE RED LIGHTS ARE ACTUALLY THE THINGS THAT ARE GOING TO SAVE LIVES OR ARE THEY JUST FURTHER CRIMINALIZING AND PUNISHING PARTICULARLY LOW INCOME PEOPLE OF COLOR BY CONTINUING TO PUT THEM INTO THE CRIMINALIZATION SYSTEM. AND SO I WOULD BE IN SUPPORT OF THE SCHOOL CAMERAS, BUT I DEFINITELY WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE RED LIGHT CAMERAS GO AWAY UNTIL WE CAN FIND AN EQUITABLE PROCESS AND A WAY TO PUT THEM AND ACCOMPANY THEM WITH OTHER POLICIES, TOO, THAT CAN SAVE LIVES.>>Mayor Gallego: VICE MAYOR.>>Vice Mayor Guardado: I ALSO AM VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THE — OF HAVING THE VANS AT OUR SCHOOLS. I BELIEVE THAT WE MUST CONTINUE TO PURSUE MULTIPLE SOLUTIONS TO ENSURE THE SAFETY OF OUR CITY STREETS. I STRONGLY SUPPORT THE EFFORTS TO IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN SAFETY, ESPECIALLY FOR OUR CHILDREN. AS A MOM OF TWO, THAT’S INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT TO ME. I PARTICIPATED IN THIS YEAR’S INTERNATIONAL WALK TO SCHOOL EVENTS, AND I WANT OUR CHILDREN TO BE SAFE EVERY DAY. IT IS EXACTLY BECAUSE I SUPPORT SAFE STREETS FOR OUR KIDS THAT I SUPPORT THE MOBILE PHOTO SPEED ENFORCEMENT, VANS THAT THE CITY DEPLOYS TO OUR NEAR SCHOOLS, AND AFTER ALMOST 10 YEARS WITH RED LIGHT CAMERAS IN OUR CITY, I THINK IT’S TIME TO LOOK AT WAYS TO IMPROVE THE CURRENT RFP TO IMPROVE THE SAFETY. I BELIEVE THAT WE NEED TO TAKE A STEP BACK AND THINK ABOUT THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAYS TO CREATE SAFER STREETS, WHETHER THAT INVOLVES MAKING TRAFFIC LIGHTS MORE VISIBLE.>>EURBGS: IMPROVING INTERSECTIONS OR RETIMING TRAFFIC SIGNALS. I THINK THAT WE NEED TO TAKE HARDER LOOK AT WHAT WE CAN DO AS A CITY, AND AS OTHER — AS OTHER FOLKS HAVE MENTIONED, LOOKING AT THE NUMBERS, LOOKING AT THE INTERSECTIONS THAT HAVE THE MOST ACCIDENTS AND FIGURING THAT WE DO NOT HAVE RED LIGHT CAMERAS IN THOSE INTERSECTIONS, IT’S A LITTLE TROUBLING TO ME ON HOW I EXPLAIN THAT TO MY CONSTITUENTS. I DEFINITELY SUPPORT AND WILL BE VERY PROACTIVE TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHERE WE’RE PLACING THESE CAMERAS AND HOW DO WE HAVE BETTER SOLUTIONS FOR THIS ISSUE. IN THE FUTURE I WILL BE VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THE RED LIGHT CAMERAS, BUT ‘BELIEVE THAT WE NEED A FRESH START. THANK YOU, MAYOR.>>Mayor Gallego: THANK YOU. COUNCILMAN DICICCIO.>>Councilman DiCiccio: I DON’T THINK I COULD SAY IT MUCH BETTER THAN COUNCILWOMAN GUARDADO AND COUNCILMAN GARCIA. HE AND I REALLY DISTRUST THE SYSTEM THE WAY IT’S BEEN IN PLACE HERE. BUT SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT, TOO, KINI, I BROUGHT UP TO YOU, I SAID, WHAT ABOUT THE THOUGHT OF EXTENDING YELLOW LOTS? I REMEMBER THE CONVERSATION. YOU SAID, NO, WE’RE NOT GOING TO DO THAT. WHY NOT? WHY WOULDN’T — IF YOU LOOK AT DAYTON AND CHICAGO, DAYTON AND CHICAGO, THEY EXTENDED THEIR YELLOW LIGHTS JUST BY I THINK HALF A SECOND. BY EXTENDING THOSE YELLOW LIGHTS, WHAT ENDS UP HAPPENING IS CARS REALIZE THEY CAN SLOW DOWN. WHAT’S HAPPENING NOW IN SOME INTERSECTIONS, I’VE SEEN IT, IT HAPPENED TO ME BECAUSE I DIDN’T WANT TO GET A TICKET, YOU COME TO A CRASHING STOP BECAUSE THE YELLOW LIGHTS ARE SO FAST. YOU COME TO A QUICK STOP, AND IF SOMEONE IS RIGHT BEHIND YOU, THAT’S A PROBLEM. YOU CREATE AND PUT AT RISK EVERYBODY IN YOUR CAR. THAT IS A LOGICAL — DAYTON DID THIS. CHICAGO DID THIS. THEY LOOKED AT ALTERNATIVES, AND WHAT COUNCILWOMAN GUARDADO HAS ASKED FORD IS JUST LOOK AT SOME ALTERNATIVES THAT ARE OUT THERE. WE SHOULD HAVE EVERYTHING ON THE TABLE AND YOU SHOULD BE TESTING THESE THINGS OUT IN THESE INTERSECTIONS AND SEEING IF THAT WORKS AND SLOWS IT DOWN. I KNOW WHAT YOU’RE GOING TO SAY, BECAUSE WE HAD THIS CONVERSATION, PEOPLE ARE GOING TO GET USED TO THEM BEING YELLOW. YES, BUT AT THE SAME TIME THOSE INDIVIDUALS THAT HAVE TIME TO GET THROUGH THE INTERSECTION WILL BE ABLE TO DO THAT. THEY’LL BE ABLE TO DO IN THAT A SAFE WAY OF DOING IT. SO NOT TO LOOK AT THAT TELLS ME WE’VE GOT A PROBLEM. WE SHOULD BE TESTING THAT MODEL OUT TO SEE HOW IT WORKS. THANK YOU, MAYOR.>>Mayor Gallego: THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE. DEBRA GROSSMAN AND DEBRA WILL BE FOLLOWED BY JEFF HOLLAMS.>>MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, MY NAME IS JEFF HALLAMS. DEBRA GROSSMAN HAD TO LEAVE EARLIER, UNFORTUNATELY. I’M AN OWNER OF TRAFFIC SCHOOLS. I OWN 28 TRAFFIC SCHOOLS IN ARIZONA. I PARTNER WITH THE STATE OF ARIZONA. IN ADDITION WE ARE PARTNERED WITH PIMA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS AND WE OFFER CLASSES ON PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING SAFETY IN RESPONSE TO ARIZONA BEING NUMBER ONE IN THE NATION FOR PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLIST FATALITY DEATHS. THE REASON I’M HERE TODAY IS TO IMPRESS THE POINT UPON YOU THAT EDUCATION IS ALSO A VERY IMPORTANT PART OF TRAFFIC SAFETY. IF YOU SPEAK TO A TRAFFIC SAFETY EXPERT, THEY’LL TELL YOU THAT IT INVOLVES ENGINEERING, ENFORCEMENT, AND EDUCATION. AND THE COMBINATION OF THESE THINGS IS WHAT’S MOST EFFECTIVE. THE RED LIGHT CAMERAS, INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, INVOLVE ALL THREE. IT’S AN IMPROVEMENT IN TERMS OF TECHNOLOGY FOR ENGINEERING. THEY HAVE BEEN PROVEN TO BE EFFECTIVE. SO HAVE RUMBLE STRIPS, SIGNAGE. ADD TO THAT ENFORCEMENT AND YOU START TO CHANGE WITH EDUCATION PEOPLE’S BEHAVIOR. AND IT’S BECAUSE PEOPLE’S ATTITUDES CONTROL THEIR BEHAVIOR. THAT’S THE SAME WHETHER THEY’RE IN THIS MEETING OR IF THEY’RE BEHIND THE WHEEL OF A CAR. WHEN WE GET THEM, WE CAN TRY TO CHANGE THOSE ATTITUDES. IF YOU ELIMINATE THE CAMERAS, YOU ALSO ELIMINATE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THESE FOLKS TO LEARN MORE ABOUT DEFENSIVE DRIVING. AND TO CHANGE THEIR BEHAVIORS AND TO CHANGE THEIR ATTITUDES.>>Mayor Gallego: THANK YOU. AND WOULD YOU — DID MR. ROBERT GROSSMAN LEAVE AS WELL?>>HE DID AS WELL. YES.>>Councilman Nowakowski: MAY I ASK A QUESTION?>>Mayor Gallego: COUNCILMAN NOWAKOWSKI.>>Councilman Nowakowski: SO IT IS AN EDUCATIONAL PROCESS FOR MYSELF BECAUSE I WAS FINDING OUT IT’S MANDATORY IF YOU GO THROUGH A RED LIGHT THAT YOU TAKE A DRIVER’S ED CLASS, RIGHT?>>DEFENSIVE DRIVING CLASS. AN OPERATOR HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO EITHER PAY THE TICKET OR TO TAKE THE DEFENSIVE DRIVING CLASS. WE ALWAYS, OF COURSE, ENCOURAGE THE DEFENSIVE DRIVING BECAUSE THEY ALSO THEN DON’T PAY INCREASED INSURANCE COSTS, THEY DON’T GET THE POINTS ON THEIR LICENSE. RED LIGHT VIOLATION IS FOUR POINTS. IF SOMEONE RECEIVES TWO IN A YEAR’S PERIOD OF TIME THEY MAY HAVE THEIR LICENSE SUSPENDED.>>Councilman Nowakowski: ASSISTANT CHIEF, I THOUGHT IT WAS MANDATORY TO TAKE THE — IF YOU GO THROUGH A RED LIGHT THAT YOU HAVE TO PAY THE FEE AND ALSO GO THROUGH CLASSES, RIGHT?>>MAYOR GALLEGO, COUNCILMAN NOWAKOWSKI, THE OPTION IS THE PERSON COULD JUST PAY THE TICKET AND BE DUB WITH IT RIGHT THERE. I DON’T BELIEVE IT’S A REQUIREMENT –>>Vice Mayor Guardado:>>Councilwoman Pastor:, I KNOW THAT AND BECAUSE I RECEIVED A TICKET LAST YEAR. I CAN LET YOU KNOW. I RECEIVED A TICKET, AND I COULD PAY FOR IT OR I HAD TO GO TO CLASS.>>Councilman Nowakowski: SO WHAT WE’VE BEEN INFORMED IS THAT PEOPLE HAVE CALLED US SAYING THEIR LICENSE IS SUSPENDED AND THEY DIDN’T UNDERSTAND WHY BECAUSE THEY SHOWED US THE PROOF THAT THEY PAID FOR THE TICKET, BUT THEY DID NOT TAKE THE MANDATORY CLASSES. I’M NOT SURE — THERE’S SOME KIND OF MISCOMMUNICATION BETWEEN OUR COURTS AND WITH OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT.>>Councilman DiCiccio: CAN I ENGAGE IN THIS THING? I THINK I KNOW WHAT IT IS.>>Mayor Gallego: I THINK WE SHOULD WAIT AND SEE SINCE WE HAVE A QUESTION ON THE FLOOR –>>Councilman DiCiccio: THIS SHOULD BE SOMETHING THEY SHOULD KNOW AUTOMATICALLY, BUT GO AHEAD.>>MAYOR, COUNCILMEMBERS, I APOLOGIZE. I ADMIT I DON’T DO A LOT OF TRAFFIC ENFORCE. I’M TRYING TO EDUCATE MYSELF. WHAT I WAS JUST ADVISE BY OUR TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT CADRE, HERE IS THE DISTINCTION, IF YOU PAY THE TICKET, YOU MAY TAKE THE CLASS. IF YOU TAKE THE CLASS, THEN THE POINTS GO AWAY. THAT’S THE DISTINCTION.>>Mayor Gallego: AND WE THINK, WANT OUR ASSISTANT CHIEF TO NOT BEING OUT RED LIGHT RUNNING.>>Councilman DiCiccio: HOLD ON.>>Mayor Gallego: COUNCILMAN NOWAKOWSKI HAS THE FLOOR. ARE YOU DONE?>>Councilman Nowakowski: I’M DONE.>>Councilman DiCiccio: THE WAY THE LAW IS, CORRECT ME IF I’M WRONG, YOU CAN PAY AHEAD OF TIME, YOU STILL HAVE TO TAKE THE CLASS — YOU PAY FOR THAT, YOU STILL HAVE TO TAKE THE CLASS, YOU STILL HAVE TO PAY THE FINE. WITH THE RED LIGHT TICKET, IF YOU PAY, IF YOU GO AND YOU GET BASICALLY CONVICTED BECAUSE YOU DIDN’T PAY FOR YOUR — YOU DIDN’T PAY FOR YOUR — YOU DIDN’T PAY FOR IT AHEAD OF TIME, BEFORE THAT TIME FRAME YOU’RE SUPPOSED TO APPEAR IN COURT YOU HAVE TO TAKE THE CLASS AND PAY FOR THE FINE. YOU HAVE TO DO BOTH. AFTER THE FACT. CORRECT OR NOT?>>NO, SIR.>>Councilman DiCiccio: I JUST DID IT. I KNOW. I’M TELLING YOU.>>THERE’S TWO CLASSES YOU CAN TAKE WHEN YOU GET A CITATION FOR RUNNING A RED LIGHT. THE DRIVER HAS AN OPTION OF GOING TO DEFENSIVE DRIVING SCHOOL, WHICH IS A FOUR-HOUR CLASS AND THE TICKET IS DISMISSED AND GOES AWAY, I DON’T YOU’RE DONE. YOU DON’T HAVE TO PAY THE FINE.>>Councilman DiCiccio: AND IF THEY CHOOSE NOT TO.>>IF THEY CHOOSE NOT TO, THEY PAY THE FINE OR THEY WANT TO GO TO COURT AND THEY’RE FOUND RESPONSIBLE, THEN THEY HAVE TO GO TO AN 8-HOUR CLASS THROUGH MOTOR VEHICLE DEPARTMENT, HAS NUT WING TO DO WITH THE CITY OR THE COURTS, THAT IS A MOTOR VEHICLE DEPARTMENT REQUIREMENT.>>Councilman DiCiccio: WE’RE SAYING THE SAME THING.>>BASICALLY.>>Councilman DiCiccio: SO IF YOU PAY IT AFTER THE FACT, YOU STILL HAVE TO GO TO THE CLASS, BUT INSTEAD OF 4 HOUR CLASS IT’S AN 8 HOUR CLASS. FOR THE SAME TICKET, YOU STILL HAVE TO PAY THE FINE, THE TICKET, EVERYTHING.>>RIGHT.>>Councilman DiCiccio: SO — WE’RE ON THE SAME PAGE.>>YES, SIR.>>Mayor Gallego: COUNCILMEMBER GARCIA.>>Vice Mayor Guardado: SO IN THE SITUATION LIKE THE ONE THAT COUNCILMAN NOWAKOWSKI SPOKE OF, SOMEONE GETS A TICKET IN THE MAIL. THEY DON’T SEE IT. SOMEONE COMES AND SERVES THEM. AGAIN, IT’S CREATED A WHOLE INDUSTRY. THE PERSON THAT SERVES THEM SAYS MAYBE, YES, I GAVE IT TO THEM, AND THE PERSON POTENTIALLY COULD NOT KNOW THE TICKET IS OUT THERE, BECAUSE WE’VE HAD PEOPLE IT HAPPENED TO, AND THEY NEVER GET THE TICKET, AND WHEN THEY GET PULLED OVER AND LICENSE IS SUSPENDED THEY’RE MANDATED TO TAKE THE CLASS BECAUSE THEY NEVER TOOK THAT INITIAL DEAL — OR THEY NEVER HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE THE INITIAL DEAL BECAUSE THEY DIDN’T KNOW. I’VE HAD SIMILAR PEOPLE THAT I KNOW THAT HAVE GONE THROUGH THAT PROCESS WHERE THEY HAD ACTUALLY DON’T FIND OUT THAT THEY EVER GOT THE RED LIGHT CAMERA UNTIL THEY WENT THROUGH THAT, AND SO JUST — WHILE I HAVE THE MIC, I APPLAUD YOUR EDUCATION AND IT SEEMS LIKE YOU CARE, BUT THERE’S ALSO NO REGULATION TO THESE SCHOOLS, AND SO OUT OF 82,000 PEOPLE WE SENT TO TRAFFIC SCHOOL LAST YEAR, SOME COULD HAVE CAME TO YOU AND YOU WOULD BE A GREAT TEACHER, BUT THE OTHERS COULD HAVE GONE ONLINE AND CLICKED AWAY OR THEY COULD HAVE GONE TO SOMEONE THAT DIDN’T CARE AND SENT THEM HOME. AND SO THAT’S ANOTHER ISSUE I HAVE, THAT WE’VE CREATED THIS WHOLE INDUSTRY BOTH OF TRAFFIC SCHOOLS, THE PEOPLE THAT GO GIVE THE — DELIVER THE TICKETS AND SO FORTH THAT ARE NOT ACCOUNTABLE OR THERE’S NO POLICY TO MAKE SURE THEY’RE DOING THEIR JOB CORRECTLY THAT’S IN OUR HANDS.>>COUNCILMAN GARCIA, IF I COULD JUST RESPOND TO YOUR COMMENTARY. THE ARIZONA SUPREME COURT DOES THROUGH THE OFFICE OF SUPREME COURT, AOC, DOES HAVE SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED CURRICULUM. SO THEY SET A CURRICULUM THAT HAS TO BE STANDARDIZED AND THE SAME THROUGHOUT ALL TRAFFIC SCHOOLS. WE SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL ON A BIANNUAL BASIS. OUR CURRICULUM, WHICH THEN GOES THROUGH A FULL AOC REVIEW AND THEN IT GETS APPROVED BY THE DEFENSIVE DRIVING BOARD. ONLY THEN ARE WE ABLE TO THEN USE THAT CURRICULUM FOR THE CLASS. SO THEY’RE VERY STANDARDIZED, HIGHLY REGULATED BY COURT, AND I WILL ADD THAT SEVERAL YEARS AGO THE AOC ACTUALLY DID A STUDY ON RECIDIVISM AND FOUND THAT PEOPLE THAT DO TAKE THE DEFENSIVE DRIVING COURSES, THE REDUCES RECIDIVISM BY 20%. IF YOU CONSIDER THAT AN ACT ON THE ROAD, THAT’S AN ACT THAT COULD POTENTIALLY LEAD TO AN ACCIDENT OR AN INJURY ACCIDENT OR A FATALITY. THERE’S A SIGNIFICANT BENEFIT TO THE DEFENSIVE DRIVING SCHOOLS, IF I COULD JUST GIVE DEFENSIVE DRIVING SCHOOLS A LITTLE POSITIVE PLUG. WE DO DEFENSIVE DRIVING BECAUSE WE WANT TO GIVE BACK TO THE COMMUNITY. NO DIFFERENT THAN LAW ENFORCEMENT GOES INTO LAW ENFORCEMENT OR SOMEBODY GOES INTO PUBLIC SERVICE. WE DO IT BECAUSE WE’RE PASSIONATE ABOUT IT. A LOT OF US CAME FROM OTHER CAREERS, ET CETERA, AND — RETIRED TEACHERS, RETIRED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, ET CETERA. I DID JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THE STANDARDS BY WHICH THE ARIZONA SUPREME COURT REGULATES DEFENSIVE DRIVING SCHOOLS.>>Mayor Gallego: THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. BARBARA HOFFMAN FOLLOWED BY SANDY DORAN.>>I’M SHORT. MY NAME IS BARB HOFFMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF RED MEAN STOPS TRAFFIC SAFETY ALLIANCE. THIS IS A NONPROFIT IN THE VALLEY THAT’S BEEN WORKING TO REDUCE RED LIGHT RUNNING FOR MANY YEARS. IT STARTED IN 1999 BY THREE FAMILIES THAT WERE AFFECTED BY RED LIGHT RUNNING, AND I JOINED MYSELF WHEN MY SON MICHAEL WAS KILLED BY A RED LIGHT RUNNER IN MESA. THE REASON I GOT FIRED UP WAS BECAUSE THE MAN THAT KILLED MY SON ONLY RECEIVED A RED LIGHT TICKET, NOTHING FOR KILLING MY SON, AND I THOUGHT THAT WAS UNFAIR. WHEN I HEAR ABOUT PEOPLE NOT LIKING RED LIGHT RUNNING CAMERAS, I ALWAYS ASK THEM, WOULDN’T YOU RATHER JUST HAVE A TICKET FROM RUNNING A RED LIGHT THAN TO BE RESPONSIBLE OF KILLING SOMEBODY’S CHILD. THEY BEEN THEY STOP ARGUING WITH ME AND ACCEPT THEIR TICKET MAY BE A WARNING FOR THEM. WHEN PEOPLE WANT TO GET RID OF RED LIGHT RUNNING CAMERAS, I WONDER WHY. HOW MANY OF YOU GOTTEN TICKETS FOR RED LIGHT RUNNING AND DON’T WANT TO PAY THEM. IS THAT YOUR REASON FOR NOT WANTING THEM? YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT INTERSECTIONS THAT MIGHT NOT BE THE MOST IMPORTANT INTERSECTIONS PHOENIX BUT I LOOK AT YOUR EXHIBIT A AND IT’S TELLING HOW MANY CITATIONS AT EACH ONE OF THOSE INTERSECTIONS. YOU’RE TELLING 33071 PEOPLE GOT A CITATION AT 12th STREET AND CAMELBACK AND YOU’RE SAYING THAT INTERSECTION NAY NOT BE IMPORTANT. NOW, THOSE 3,000 SOME PEOPLE THAT RAN A RED LIGHTED ARE VERY DANGEROUS. MAYBE THEY WERE LUCKY THAT DAY AND DIDN’T KILL ANYBODY. BUT I’M JUST LOOKING AT ALL THESE STEPS. THERE WASN’T LIKE TWO PEOPLE RUNNING A RED LIGHT IN THOSE 12 INTERSECTIONS. THERE’S THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE. SO I DON’T KNOW WHAT YOUR PROBLEM IS ABOUT HAVING THOSE PARTICULAR INTERSECTIONS, WHETHER THEY’RE IN A POORER NEIGHBORHOOD OR A RICHER NEIGHBORHOOD. EVERYBODY SHARES THE SAME ROADS. I DRIVE THROUGHOUT PHOENIX AND SCOTTSDALE AND PARADISE VALLEY AND GILL PERT. IT DOESN’T MATTER WHAT INTERSECTIONS ARE DANGEROUS ARE THE ONES THEY’RE LOCATED AT, AND MAYBE THAT WAS A STUDY THAT WAS GIVEN TO THEM. AND ADOT IS A LITTLE BIT LAGGING SOMETIMES. I’M TRYING TO FIND STATS AND I SEE IT’S TWO YEARS OLD. SO I’M SURE THAT EVEN THE CITY COUNCIL — I MEAN, THE CITY MANAGERS MAY HAVE GOTTEN STATS THAT WERE A COUPLE YEARS OLDER AND THOSE INTERSECTIONS MAY HAVE BEEN THE WORST ONES AT THE TIME, AND LIKE THE MAYOR EVEN MENTIONED, MAYBE THESE LIGHTS ARE CHANGING THOSE STATS AND THOSE ARE IMPROVING AND THAT MIGHT BE A GOOD IDEA TO REEVALUATE AGAIN. I’M SURE EVERY — I THINK SHUTTING THEM OFF RIGHT NOW COULD TAKE SOMEBODY ELSE’S LIFE. I HAVE MET PEOPLE THAT GOT A TICKET FOR RUNNING A RED LIGHT AND THEY CHANGE THEIR BAD BEHAVIOR. I KNOW THAT MAY BE ONLY ONE METHOD. THERE’S PLENTY OF THINGS THAT CAN BE DONE. I ACTUALLY DID MY MASTER’S DEGREE AND MY THESIS PROJECT WAS ON CHANGING BAD DRIVING BEHAVIOR, AND ONE OF THE STUDIES THAT WAS DONE BY THE INSURANCE INSTITUTE OF HIGHWAY SAFETY DID MENTION ABOUT EXTENDING THE YELLOW LIGHT, AND IT DOES HELP, BUT IT USUALLY DOESN’T HELP FOREVER. IT’S A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME. PEOPLE TAKE VAC OF THAT LENGTH THAT YOU GAVE THEM AND THEY START RUNNING THE LIGHT AGAIN. IN PHILADELPHIA THEY DID A STUDY AND THEY SHOWED LENGTHENING IT DID REDUCE THE RED LIGHT RUNNING BY 36%, BUT THEY ALSO FOUND THAT THE ONES THAT WERE COVERED BY RED LIGHT RUNNING CAMERAS WERE REDUCED ANOTHER 96%. SO ONE THING ALONE IS NOT GOING TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM. NEED MANY DIFFERENT THINGS. I MEAN, GOING TO TRAFFIC SURVIVAL SCHOOL, SOMETIMES THAT’S ENOUGH FOR ONE PERSON TO CHANGE THEIR BAD DRIVING BEHAVIOR. SOMETIMES THEY HAVE TO LOOK AT MY SON AND THINK, MY GOSH, I COULD KILL SOMEBODY’S KILLED. I GOT TO QUIT DRIVING SO FAST. I HAVE TO FIND A BETTER ROUTE IF THAT ROUTE IS BAD FOR YOU. ANYWAY, I JUST THINK THAT IT’S RIDICULOUS TO TRY TO SHUT THEM OFF NOW WITHOUT PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE. I AGREE WITH — I FORGOT — YOUR COUNCILMAN — COUNCILMEMBER MENTIONED LEAVE THEM ON NOW AND DO A STUDY, DO A STUDY OF WHAT INTERSECTIONS MAY BE WORSE, KEEP THEM ESPECIALLY FOR THE STUDENTS. I KNOW –>>Mayor Gallego: THANK YOU –>>A LADY, HER GRANDSON WAS JUST KILLED, AND SHE’S PRETTY UPSET. SHE HAS TO GO THROUGH THIS HOLIDAY SEASON WITHOUT OUR FAMILY MEMBER, AND I LIVED A LOT OF CHRISTMASES WITHOUT MY SON AND I DON’T WANT TO SEE OTHER FAMILY GO THROUGH THIS.>>Mayor Gallego: WE’RE VERY SORRY FOR YOUR LOSS AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. I KNOW THIS MUST BE DIFFICULT. SANDY WILL BE FOLLOWED BY LENNY [INDISCERNIBLE]>>GOOD AFTERNOON. I’M HERE TO SUPPORT THE CAMERA SO THEY NOT BE TAKEN AWAY. IT’S A GREAT HELP FOR US AND FOR ALL THE COMMUNITY. THE MOBILE CAMERAS AT THE SCHOOLS ALSO, THEY’RE GOOD FOR OUR KIDS. THEY SAVE LIVES. THEY HELP THE COMMUNITY A LOT. IT’S VERY GOOD SUPPORT FOR US. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.>>Mayor Gallego: THANK YOU.>>Mayor Gallego: [INAUDIBLE] WILL BE FOLLOWED BY — SO FANNY IS NOT HERE? MISS HERNANDEZ IS NEXT FOLLOWED BY ED T. IS MISS HERNANDEZ HERE? IS ED HERE.>>[INAUDIBLE]>>Mayor Gallego: THANK YOU. AND YOU ARE MARKED IN FAVOR? LEONARD CLARK IS OUR FINAL CARD ON THIS ITEM.>>I WAS BORN IN THE CITY OF PHOENIX. TODAY I CAME FROM AN INTERSECTION, 35th AND McDOWELL. THERE’S A SCHOOL RIGHT THERE. IF YOU COULD SEE THE AMOUNT OF RED LIGHT RUNNERS JUST IN A THREE-MINUTE PERIOD GETTING THE CAMERA TAKEN, AND I, TOO, HAVE RECEIVED TICKETS. I’M GLAD. I WAS BETTER EDUCATED. BUT I ASK YOU, HOW DO YOU ASK A PARENT TO BE THE LAST PARENT WHOSE CHILD IS GOING TO DIE FOR A MISTAKE OF NOT HAVING A RED LIGHT CAMERA? THIS IS NOT ABOUT — AND I’M — YOU COULD CALL ME A TREE HUGGING PROGRESSIVE, BUT THIS IS NOTING TO DO WITH PROGRESSIVE, CONSERVATIVE. THIS IS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GOVERNMENT SPYING ON YOU. BECAUSE IF YOU WANT TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THAT, YOU COULD. THIS IS ABOUT BLOODY CRASHES, DEAD CHILDREN. WHAT IS IT, 132 FATALITIES OVER THE LAST 10 YEARS, ROUGHLY, IN THE CITY OF PHOENIX? THIS IS ABOUT PEOPLE WHO MAYBE ARE ANGRY THAT THEY’RE GETTING — HAVING TO PAY FINES. JUST AS THE LAST MAN DEMONSTRATED, THIS IS NOT ABOUT COLOR, THIS IS NOT ABOUT LOW INCOME. I GUARANTEE YOU I’M LOW INCOME AND I’M NOT BEING PAID BY ANYBODY. I’M HERE AS A CITIZEN — FORMER CITIZEN OF PHOENIX BUT I’LL BE BACK. WE CAN’T HAVE ONE MORE CHILD DIE. IN FACT, IF YOU REALLY WANT TO GO BY THAT PARADIGM, WELL, WHY DO THE LOW INCOME AND PEOPLE OF COLOR HAVE MORE CAMERAS AN THE ANGLO PEOPLE WHO ARE WHITE. ACTUALLY I THINK THE PEOPLE IN THE ANGLO NEIGHBORHOODS, THE WEALTHIER NEIGHBORHOODS SHOULD BE ASKING WHY DON’T WE HAVE MORE RED LIGHT CAMERAS BY OUR SCHOOLS TO SAVE OUR CHILDREN’S LIVES? YOU CAN’T TURN IT INTO THAT. THAT’S WRONG. THIS IS ABOUT — RIGHT NOW AS I’M SPEAKING, IF YOU TAKE AWAY THESE RED LIGHT CAMERAS, YOU HAVE NO TRANSITION, SOMEBODY IS GOING TO HAVE A LOVED ONE DIE. WE NEED MORE EDUCATION, I GRANT YOU THAT. WE NEED TO EDUCATE OUR CITIZENS. BUT, PLEASE, PLEASE DON’T TURN IT INTO THAT. SAVE THE LIVES OF PHOENIX CITIZENS. DON’T TAKE AWAY RED LIGHT CAMERAS. THANK YOU.>>Mayor Gallego: THANK YOU. WE HAVE ONE CARD IN FAVOR OF THE ITEM NOT WISHING TO SPEAK. THAT CONCLUDES OUR PUBLIC COMMENT CARDS. ANY COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS? COUNCILWOMAN PASTOR.>>Councilwoman Pastor: I HAVE A QUESTION REGARDING RED LIGHTS AND GETTING A TICKET FROM THE RED LIGHTS. CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE PROCESS TO ME? BECAUSE AS I WAS SITTING HERE, I WAS LOOKING UP, WHAT HAPPENS IF THERE’S A VIOLATION, AND THEN MY SECOND QUESTION IS IN THE PROCESS OF THE VIOLATION, IS IT STATE LAW SOAR IS IT — HOW ARE DETERMINING — YOU GO TO COURT, YOU SAY THAT IS ME, AND NOW ONCE YOU ADMITTED THAT THAT’S GUILT, AND THEN IT REQUIRES YOU TO GO TO SCHOOL. IS IT STATE LAW THAT REQUIRES US TO GO TO SCHOOL? IS IT THE CITY POLICY? WHERE IS THE POLICY COMING FROM?>>Mayor Gallego: AND IF YOU COULD INTRODUCE YOURSELF THAT WOULD BE WONDERFUL.>>COUNCILWOMAN PASTOR, DONTE LORE, CHIEF PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE PHOENIX MUNICIPAL COURT. I NOTICED — I CAME OVER BECAUSE I NOTICED THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION ABOUT THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE. ULTIMATELY I THINK IT WAS CLARIFIED. SO STATE LAW IN ARIZONA IS THAT ANYONE FOUND RESPONSIBLE FOR A RED LIGHT VIOLATION, EITHER BECAUSE THEY DECIDE TO GO AHEAD AND PLEAD RESPONSIBLE AND THEY DECIDE TO GO AHEAD AND PAY THE FINE OR BECAUSE THEY HAVE A HEARING ON THE ISSUE AND ARE FOUND RESPONSIBLE AT THE HEARING, IN ADDITION TO THE FINE THAT IS IMPOSED, HAS AN ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT IMPOSED BY THE MOTOR VEHICLE DIVISION THAT THEY NEED TO GO TO WHAT’S CALLED TRAFFIC SURVIVAL SCHOOL AND THAT IS THE 8 HOUR CLASS. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT HAPPENS FOR EVERYONE FOUND RESPONSIBLE ON A RED LIGHT. NOW THE CONFUSION COMES IN SOMETIMES BECAUSE RED LIGHT VIOLATIONS ARE ALSO ELIGIBLE FOR DEFENSIVE DRIVING PROGRAM DISMISSAL. SOMEONE CAN GO TO THE DEFENSIVE DRIVING PROGRAM ONCE A YEAR. SO THAT’S SOMETHING THEY CAN DO IF THEY GET THE TICKET AND THEY’RE ELIGIBLE, THEY CAN GO TO DEFENSIVE DRIVING, THEY PAY FOR DEFENSIVE DRIVING AND THEN THE TICKET ITSELF IS DISMISSED. SO SINCE THERE IS IN FACT NO VIOLATION THAT GOES ON THE RECORD, THERE’S NO FINDING OF RESPONSIBILITY, MVD THEN DOES NOT SEND THE REQUIREMENT THAT THAT INDIVIDUAL GO TO TRAFFIC SURVIVAL SCHOOL.>>Councilwoman Pastor: SO WHAT I’M HEARING IS IF I GET A TICKET, A VIOLATION, I CAN — I HAVE THE CHOICE TO EITHER PAY THE FINE OR GO TO DEFENSIVE DRIVING SCHOOL? IF I GO TO DEFENSIVE DRIVING SCHOOL, THAT WILL THEN KICK OUT THE TICKET AND I THEN NO LONGER HAVE THE TICKET AND I NO LONGER GET POINTS ON AN INSURANCE, CORRECT?>>THAT IS CORRECT.>>Councilwoman Pastor: IF I CHOOSE NOT TO GO TO DEFENSIVE DRIVING SCHOOL AND I GO IN FRONT OF THE JUDGE, THE JUDGE WILL THEN SAY, IS THIS YOU IN THIS PICTURE — FOR ME, IT WAS A PICTURE — AND I’LL SAY YES. AND THEN WHAT HAPPENS IS YOU PAY THE TICKET FEE, YOU PAY THE FINE, AND THEN I GO TO MOTOR VEHICLE SCHOOL — IS IT DEFENSIVE DRIVING SCHOOL? I DON’T KNOW IF IT’S THE SAME TERM.>>IT IS A DIFFERENT TERM. IT’S TRAFFIC SURVIVAL SCHOOL. YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. IF YOU — IF THERE IS A FINDING OF RESPONSIBILITY ON THAT TICKET FOLLOWING A HEARING OR IF YOU DO IT EARLY WHY YOU ARE IN THE PROCESS BY SIMPLY PAYING THE TICKET, THERE IS A FINE THAT’S IMPOSED BY THE CITY COURT, AND THEN WHEN WE NOTIFY MVD OF THAT ACTION, THAT’S WHEN MVD THEN SENDS THE LETTER DIRECTLY TO THE PERSON SAYING IT’S AN MVD REQUIREMENT NOW FOR YOU TO ATTEND TRAFFIC SURVIVAL SCHOOL AND AS YOU MENTIONED EARLIER, IF YOU DON’T, THEN MOTOR VEHICLE WILL SUSPEND THE LICENSE.>>CORRECT. AND THE LICENSE IS SUSPENDED AND YOUR INSURANCE IS NOTIFIED AND THEN IT BECOMES A WHOLE DOMINO EFFECT. OKAY. I JUST WANTED TO BE CLEAR ON WHAT HAPPENS IN THE PROCESS AND WHY THE PROCESS — WHERE THE PROCESS GETS TRIGGER AND WHERE IT BEGINS IN THE STEPS THAT WE REALLY DON’T — HOW I’M READING IS WE DON’T HAVE CONTROL OF THAT PIECE WAS MVD THEN, IT TRIGGERS IT IN THE SYSTEM AND MVD GETS NOTIFIED AND MVD THEN KIND OF GOES AND MOVES THE WAY IT MOVES. IF WE PAY THE FINE, OR IF WE GO TO DEFENSIVE DRIVING SCHOOL, THEN THAT WHOLE PROCESS KNOCKS — IS ELIMINATED BECAUSE WE GO TO TRAFFIC SCHOOL.>>YES, COUNCILWOMAN PASTOR, IF SOMEONE IS ELIGIBLE AND THEY ATTEND DEFENSIVE DRIVING SUCCESSFULLY, THEN THE TICKET ITSELF IS DISMISSED AND THERE NO FURTHER CONSEQUENCES.>>Councilwoman Pastor: OKAY. SO THAT’S WHERE — THAT’S WHERE I’M HEARING WHERE YOU PAY TWICE, WHERE YOU HAVE TO PAY THE TICKET AND THEN YOU’RE MANDATED TO GO TO SCHOOL. AND THAT’S WHERE YOU PAY TWICE.>>COUNCILWOMAN PASTOR, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THAT’S CORRECT, FROM WHAT I THINK YOU’RE SAYING. IF YOU ARE FOUND RESPONSIBLE THERE IS A FINE THAT GOES WITH IT. ADDITIONALLY MVD SAYS, BY THE WAY, BECAUSE OF THAT FINDING OF RESPONSIBILITY YOU HAVE TO GO TO TRAFFIC SURVIVAL SCHOOL.>>Councilwoman Pastor: WHICH THERE IS A COST.>>YES.>>Councilwoman Pastor: NOW I UNDERSTAND.>>Mayor Gallego: THANK YOU, COUNCILWOMAN. COUNCILMAN NOWAKOWSKI.>>Councilman Nowakowski: I JUST WANT TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR, I DON’T THINK THAT WE’RE AGAINST THE CAMERAS. WE’RE ALL ABOUT SAVING LIVES. IT’S JUST THE PROCESS. I MEAN, WE’RE GOING THROUGH A PROCUREMENT PROCESS, AND IT’S GIVEN TO US AT THE 11th HOUR AND THEY’RE ASKING FOR AN EXTENSION. SO WE’RE NOT ABLE TO ASK THESE TYPES OF QUESTIONS BECAUSE IT’S THROWN TO US AS A COUNCILMEMBER AND IT MAKES US LOOK LIKE BAD PEOPLE BECAUSE WE’RE ASKING THESE QUESTIONS. WE’RE ASKING QUESTIONS LIKE, WHY IS SOME YELLOW LIGHTS AT 3.6 SECONDS AND OTHERS ARE AT 5 SECONDS? WHY ARE THERE DIFFERENCES THERE? AND WHAT ARE — WHAT HAPPENS THERE? AND SO IF YOUR LIGHT IS A LITTLE SHORTER, OF COURSE YOU’RE GOING TO GET MORE RED LIGHT RUNNERS. SO THINGS LIKE THAT I WANT TO UNDERSTAND SOME AREAS ARE SHORTER THAN OTHERS, RIGHT? THE OTHER THING IS WHY THE CAMERAS ARE PUT IN THE POSITIONS THAT THEY ARE — THEY’RE PUT IN. IF WE UNDERSTAND THERE’S CERTAIN AREAS IN OUR CITY THAT THERE’S MORE ACCIDENTS AND THERE’S FATAL ACCIDENTS HAPPENING, WHY AREN’T THE CAMERAS THERE? THOSE ARE THE KIND OF QUESTIONS WE’RE TRYING TO GET FROM OUR STAFF MEMBERS TO UNDERSTAND IT, AND WE DON’T WANT IT TO BE THROWN TO US AT THE 11th HOUR WHERE WE’RE GOING TO HAVE TO EXTEND IT FOR ANOTHER SIX MONTHS AND THEN ANOTHER SIX MONTHS. NO. WE’RE TRYING TO BE GOOD STEWARDS HERE AND WE’RE TRYING TO MAKE SURE WE’RE GETTING THE BEST BANG FOR OUR BUCKS HERE AND THAT WE’RE SAVING LIVES AND IT’S ALL ABOUT SAFETY AND I’M FOR MORE CAMERAS AS LONG AS ALL THOSE QUESTIONS ARE ANSWERED AND THERE’S A RHYME AND REASON BEHIND IT. SO I’M GOING TO BE SUPPORTING THE — PUTTING THE VANS IN FRONT OF SCHOOLS AND IN HAVING A WORK SESSION TO REALLY IRON OUT ALL THESE QUESTIONS THAT WE HAVE.>>Mayor Gallego: THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN. FOR OUR STREETS DIRECTOR, HOW TO WE DETERMINE THE TIMING OF YELLOW LIGHTS?>>THE TIMING OF OUR YELLOW LIGHTS ARE WHAT WE CALL YELLOW CLEARANCE TIMES ARE BASED ON OUR CITY TRAFFIC HANDBOOK, WHICH IS ALSO BASED ON A CALCULATION THROUGH THE INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING — ENGINEERS TRAFFIC OPERATIONS HANDBOOK AND IT’S BASED ON THE SPEED LIMIT OF THE STREET. SO IF IT’S 3.6 SECONDS OR 4 SECONDS, IT’S BASED ON THE SPEED LIMIT OF THE STREET WHEN YOU’RE APPROACHING THAT INTERSECTION. SO IT’S NOT RANDOMLY 3 SECONDS OR 5 SECONDS. IT’S BASED ON THE SPEED LIMIT. SO WE’VE DONE THAT THROUGHOUT OUR CITY AND OUR 1150 TRAFFIC SIGNALS.>>Mayor Gallego: THANK YOU. ARE WE READY TO VOTE? ANY COUNCILMEMBER — COUNCILWOMAN STARK.>>Councilwoman Stark: I GUESS I’M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE VOTE. I THINK WE HAVE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION. AND WE HAD A SECOND, RIGHT? THANK YOU. I’LL SUPPORT THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION. I JUST WISH WE HAD THE 12 CAMERAS STILL ON SOMEWHERE IN OUR CITY TO HELP PREVENT RED LIGHT RUNNING. I’M NOT SURE WHY WE CAN’T KEEP THEM — MAYBE I DON’T UNDERSTAND THE COST, BUT I DO WANT TO PROTECT OUR SCHOOLS, AND I WANT TO PROTECT THE STUDENTS THAT GO TO THOSE SCHOOLS AND THE PARENTS THAT HAVE THOSE CHILDREN. BUT I JUST — I STILL CAN’T WRAP MY ARM AROUND WHY WE CAN’T JUST KEEP THE 12 LIGHTS IN OPERATION AS WE HAVE OUR STUDY SESSION AND WE START TO ASK THESE QUESTIONS, WHY CAN’T WE JUST KEEP THEM? BECAUSE AT LEAST THEY ARE PROVIDING A SERVICE. SO I — YOU KNOW, I’M JUST IN A DILEMMA, BUT, AGAIN, I’LL BE SUPPORTIVE OF THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION AND I’LL BE AT 7th STREET AND BELL JANUARY 1st WHEN YOU’RE TAKING THE CAMERA DOWN PROTESTING IT.>>Mayor Gallego: THANK YOU, COUNCILWOMAN, THANK YOU FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP ON THESE ISSUES. I CERTAINLY — I PREFER COUNCILWOMAN STARK’S MOTION BUT UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF SCHOOL CAMERAS. COUNCILWOMAN PASTOR.>>Councilwoman Pastor: LEONARD CLARK BROUGHT UP A GOOD SECTION ONLY BECAUSE I REPRESENT THAT AREA, AND 35th AVENUE AND McDOWELL. IT’S ONE OF THE MOST DANGEROUS STREETS IN OUR CITY. THERE WAS A BRIDGE BUILT, AND IT WAS INTENTIONALLY BUILT BECAUSE WE DIDN’T WANT TO SEE ANY MORE FATALITIES, SPECIFICALLY ISAAC MIDDLE SCHOOL, YOUNG KIDS CROSSING THAT STREET. SO THE BRIDGE WAS BUILT. THERE’S STILL FATALITIES. THEY’RE STILL RUNNING OF RED LIGHTS. IT’S JUST UNFORTUNATE. THE PIECE IS WE JUST RECENTLY — I WANT TO SAY THREE WEEKS AGO, SO FRESH IN MY MIND, THREE WEEKS OR FOUR WEEKS AGO, WE WATCHED A VIDEO — I WATCHED A VIDEO ON THE NEWS OF — I WANT TO SAY 43rd AVENUE AND McDOWELL — 53rd AVENUE AND McDOWELL — INDIAN SCHOOL? AND WHERE A COUPLE WAS WALKING WITH THEIR INFANT ACROSS THE STREET, AND YOU SAW SOMEBODY RUNNING A RED LIGHT HITTING A CAR, AND BY SHEAR SERENDIPITY SOMEBODY WAS WATCHING THEM, AND SOMEBODY WATCHED THEM AND MOVED THEM OR HAD THEM STAND STILL AND THEIR LIVES WERE SAVED. WE WOULD NOT HAVE SEEN THAT IF THERE HADN’T BEEN A RED LIGHT CAMERA. AND SO FOR ME THAT DEMONSTRATES A SAFETY ISSUE, AND IT IS — IT IS IN THE AREA OF A MINORITY AREA. SO IS 35th AVENUE AND McDOWELL. I FEEL LIKE MINORITY NEIGHBORHOODS TO BE SAFE, WE SHOULD LOOK AT ACROSS THE WHOLE CITY HOW WE PROVIDE EQUITY AND FAIRNESS. SO I BELIEVE IN RED LIGHT CAMERAS. I DO BELIEVE THEY’RE SAFE. I DO BELIEVE THAT THE STREETS — IT PROVIDES — ESPECIALLY ME NOW, WHEN I SEE THAT — SEE THAT YELLOW LIGHT COMING AND I SEE THAT CROSSWALK BLINKING 4, 3, 2, 1, AT 4 I BETTER START SLOWING DOWN AND NOT GUN IT AND TRY TO CROSS THE — AND MOVE QUICKLY. I LEARNED IT FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE AND UNDERSTAND IT. SO — AND I ALSO PAID FOR IT. SO I UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE WITH SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES, BUT I DON’T BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE TO GIVE UP SAFETY IN ORDER TO LOOK AT SAFETY, AND SO FOR ME IT’S ABOUT SAFETY AND WE CAN CONTINUE THIS CONVERSATION IN A STUDY SESSION AND CONTINUE TO KEEP OUR CITY SAFE. THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS.>>Councilwoman Williams: DOES THIS TERMINATE JANUARY 1st?>>MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, COUNCILWOMAN WILLIAMS, YES, THIS CONTRACT ACTUALLY ENDS DECEMBER 31st OF 2019.>>Councilwoman Williams: AND DO WE JUST MOVE THE CAMERAS OR SHUT THEM OFF OR — DO WE HAVE TO PAY TO HAVE THEM TAKEN OUT?>>NO, THE CONTRACT WOULD JUST END.>>Councilwoman Williams: OKAY. AND HAS THE RFP FOR NEW SERVICE GONE OUT?>>SO CURRENTLY WE HAVE AN RFP ON THE STREET, AND THE RESPONSES ARE DUE JANUARY 3rd OF 2020. JUST WANT TO STRESS WE STILL HAVE TIME TO AMEND THAT RFP.>>Councilwoman Williams: GOOD, BECAUSE I’M HOPING WE HAVE A WORKSHOP EARLY JANUARY, BECAUSE IF WE NEED TO AMEND THAT WE CAN MAKE THAT HAPPEN. THANK YOU.>>Councilman DiCiccio: MAYOR?>>Mayor Gallego: TO KEEP ONLY THE VANS THERE IS — BECAUSE WE’RE CHANGING THE CONTRACT, THERE WOULD BE A FINANCE IMPACT TO THE CITY?>>MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, THAT IS CORRECT. IF YOU KEPT THE PROGRAM INTACT, CAMERAS AND VANS THERE IS NO IMPAIRMENT AS THE REVENUE THAT COMES IN SUPPORTS THE PROGRAM TOTALLY. THE CITY DOES NOT MAKE ANY MONEY. THAT’S ALSO ONE CLARIFICATION I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE. THIS IS NOT SOMETHING WHERE THE CITY MAKES MONEY ON. I’M PROBABLY AT THE TABLE — MY HISTORY WITH PHOTO RED LIGHT PROBABLY GOES BACK LONGER THAN MOST. AS AN MA2, I’VE HAD POLICE AND FIRE AND I GO BACK TO THE INCEPTION OF THE PHOTO RED LIGHT PROGRAM AND AT THAT TIME THE COUNCIL PUT THAT PROGRAM IN PLACE THEY WANTED TO DIFFERENTIATE THEMSELVES FROM THE SURROUNDING CITIES WHERE THEY WERE MAKING MONEY. OUR PROGRAM WAS INITIALLY DESIGNED TO ACTUALLY LOSE MONEY BECAUSE THE IMPETUS AND THE FOCUS WAS ON SAFETY.>>Mayor Gallego: THANK YOU.>>Councilman DiCiccio: I WANT TO MAKE SURE THIS IS FOR SCHOOL VANS WHEN KIDS ARE IN SESSION, CORRECT? GOOD, THAT’S WHAT I SECOND. THE OTHER IS WHEN WE LOOK AT THIS IN THE WORK STUDY THERE NEEDS TO BE A STRONG LOOK AND TEST OF EXTENDING THE YELLOW LIGHT CAMERAS. SO WHAT YOU’RE HEARING UP HERE, TOO, THOSE OF YOU IN THE AUDIENCE, IS THIS LAST MINUTE THING. THE WAY THIS THING WAS MOST — THIS IS MY COMMENTS ON THIS — IT WAS MEANT TO EMBARRASS THOSE ON THE COUNCIL THAT WANT TO DO THIS RIGHT AND DO IT THE RIGHT WAY AND GET IT DONE CORRECTLY AND TO BE ABLE TO TEST OTHER THINGS. THINK ABOUT IT. THIS WAS A YEAR’S LONG CONTRACT. CAME TO US, WHAT IS TODAY, DECEMBER 18th, WE’RE VOTING ON THIS THING? THINK ABOUT THAT. THAT’S WHY THIS WAS DONE, LITERALLY DONE TO EMBARRASS US AND PUSH US INTO DOING SOMETHING. IT LOOKS CORRUPT, IT LOOKS BAD, AND IT LOOKS HORRIBLE, QUITE FRANKLY AND STAFF COULDN’T ANSWER WHY THE CAMERAS WERE ORIGINALLY, WHAT WAS GOING ON. WE ASKED A LOT OF QUESTIONS. WE EXPECT ANSWERS ON THOSE THINGS. SO I EXPECT STAFF, CITY — THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS, TO TAKE A LOOK AT EVERYTHING THAT’S ON THE TABLE AND JUST DON’T SAY THIS IS THE ONLY WAY WE WANT TO DO THAT AND INFLICT A PAIN ON THE PUBLIC THAT’S COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY, AND IT COULD BE A LOT SAFER. COULD BE A LOT SAFER. THERE ARE OTHER MODELS OUT THERE LIKE DAYTON, CHICAGO AND OTHERS HAVE USED. I AM GOING TO VOTING YES ON THE ONE FOR THE SCHOOLS. I APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU, MAYOR.>>Mayor Gallego: I’M DISAPPOINTED WITH COUNCILMAN DICICCIO’S COMMENTS ON THIS. WE CAN HAVE A LEGITIMATE DISAGREEMENT. PEOPLE CAN DISAGREE WHETHER OR NOT WE HAVE RED LIGHT CAMERAS BUT I DON’T THINK IT’S FAIR TO ATTACK OUR STAFF. THIS HAS GONE THROUGH A VERY PUBLIC PROCESS. IT WENT TO SUBCOMMITTEE MONTHS AND MONTHS AGO AND WE’VE BEEN HAVING THIS DIALOGUE. I RESPECT YOUR ABILITY TO DISAGREE ABOUT WHETHER RED LIGHT CAMERAS WILL SAVE LIVES AND WHETHER THAT’S A WORTHY INVESTMENT BUT IT’S NOT FAIR TO ATTACK OUR STAFF.>>Councilwoman Pastor: I JUST HAVE A QUESTION, HOW — I GUESS I HAVE A QUESTION TO COUNCILMAN DICICCIO ON HOW THIS IS BROUGHT HERE TO EMBARRASS US. WE VOTED ON IT. WE THEN SAID WE’LL THROW IT BACK TO SUBCOMMITTEE. THEN WHAT HAPPENS IN SUBCOMMITTEE, WHATEVER HAPPENS IN SUBCOMMITTEE, IT WAS GOING TO COME TO US. SO I’M NOT REALLY SURE HOW PEOPLE ARE EMBARRASSED.>>Councilman DiCiccio: I WILL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THAT. CITY COUNCIL VOTED NO. THEN IT GOES TO SUBCOMMITTEE. SUBCOMMITTEE COMES BACK AND SAYS FOR SCHOOL VANS ONLY BECAUSE WE WANT TO MAKE SURE KIDS ARE SAFE. AND THIRD THE WAY THIS WHOLE FINAGLING OCCURRED ON THE COUNCIL. USUALLY THE VICE MAYOR MAKES THE MOTION ON THESE THINGS. THE WAY IT WAS ALL SET UP, IT WAS SET UP FOR FAILURE. THAT IS MY — YOU KNOW, WE CAN — WE CAN DISAGREE ON THINGS. WE CAN DO THAT. BUT WHEN THINGS START HAPPENING BEHIND CLOSED DOORS AND — IN SECRECY, IT CREATES PROBLEMS. WE COULD ALWAYS BE UP FRONT ON THESE THINGS AND SAY THAT. SO THE BOTTOM LINE IS THE WAY THIS THING WAS SET UP IS PROBLEMATIC AT BEST, AND THE FACT THAT STAFF CAN’T ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT WHY THEY WERE PUT IN, THAT SHOULD BE SIMPLE. PEOPLE KNOW WHY THINGS ARE PUT INTO PLACES LIKE THAT. SO I APOLOGIZE FOR — ESPECIALLY BECAUSE OF THE STAFF HERE. 81 OF YOU HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH THAT. IT’S NOT THEIR FAULT. OKAY? I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. I WAS WRONG. IT WAS A LEVEL OF FRUSTRATION THAT HAS BEEN OCCURRING, THE CITY MANAGER KNOWS, I TALKED TO HIM LAST WEEK ABOUT IT, TOO. SO I DON’T LIKE THE WAY THINGS GET DONE HERE, AND THIS WAS ONE OF THOSE SITUATIONS WHERE I WAS NOT HAPPY WITH IT. WE CAN DISAGREE. AS LONG AS IT’S ALL ON THE TABLE. THAT’S ALL I WAS ASKING FOR. I’M SORRY, I DID THAT, MAYOR, AND IT’S GOOD FOR YOU TO CALL MEOW OUTS. I APPRECIATE THAT. IT’S RIGHT BEFORE CHRISTMAS. MERRY CHRISTMAS EVERYONE. SO THAT’S IT. THANK YOU, MAYOR.>>Mayor Gallego: THANK YOU. I DO WANT TO POINT OUT ON SEVERAL ITEMS TODAY, FOR EXAMPLE, ZONING CASES IN DISTRICT 2 AND 7, I TURNED TO THE COUNCILMEMBER OF THAT DISTRICT. WE HAVE AN ACKNOWLEDGED LEADER ON AVIATION, COUNCILWOMAN WILLIAMS, WHO MADE OUR AVIATION MOTION. COUNCILWOMAN STARK HAS BEEN A PASSIONATE ADVOCATE FOR PEDESTRIAN SAFETY. THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE TO HER.>>Councilwoman Stark: AND I’M SORRY THAT I CAME OUT WITH THE MOTION — COUNCILMAN DICICCIO. IT’S JUST — I’M SO TIRED OF GETTING TEXTS FROM OUR POLICE OFFICERS TELLING US ABOUT PEDESTRIAN FATALITIES, TRAFFIC FATALITIES. I’M JUST TIRED. SO — BUT I APPRECIATE THAT YOU WANT TO DO IT CORRECTLY. I GET THAT. BUT I — AGAIN I DO THINK WE NEED TO HAVE THESE RED LIGHT CAMERAS. I DO THINK THEY HELP DETER PROBLEMS ON OUR STREETS. THEY CAN SAVE LIVES. MA’AM, I’M HAVING A HARD TIME — I KNOW IT WAS YOUR SON. I KNOW. I WOULD NEVER WANT TO LOSE MY SON. BUT I APOLOGIZE THAT I CAME OUT MAKING THAT MOTION, BUT THAT’S HOW MUCH I FEEL ABOUT IT. SO I AM SORRY. I STAND BY MY MOTION, BUT I WILL ACCEPT THE SUBSTITUTE. I JUST — IT’S HARD FOR ME TO UNDERSTAND WHEN PEOPLE LOST LOVED ONES.>>Mayor Gallego: COUNCILWOMAN PASTOR.>>Councilwoman Pastor: NO.>>Mayor Gallego: READY FOR ROLL CALL? COUNCILMAN NOWAKOWSKI.>>Councilman Nowakowski: WHEN IS THE SUNSET FOR THIS CONTRACT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW?>>MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, AGAIN, THE CONTRACT EXPIRES ON DECEMBER 31st OF 2019.>>Councilman Nowakowski: AND THE RFP, WHEN WOULD THAT GO INTO EFFECT, THE RFP THAT WE HAVE ON THE STREET RIGHT NOW?>>SO RIGHT NOW THE RFP THAT’S ON THE STREET, WE HAVE — WE’RE EXPECTING RESPONSES TO THAT RFP ON JANUARY 3rd.>>Councilman Nowakowski: SIT THE NORM OF THE STIFF TO ACTUALLY DO AN RFP BEFORE A SUNSET OR WAIT UNTIL THE SUNSET HAPPENS AND THEN THREE MONTHS LATER WE ACTUALLY IMPLEMENT AN RFP FOR THAT SUNSET PERIOD?>>AGAIN, THE RFP WAS PLACED ON THE STREET PER THE SUBCOMMITTEE DIRECTION ON APRIL 10th OF 2019, IF I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION CORRECTLY.>>Councilman Nowakowski: SO BASICALLY NORMALLY WE WOULD HAVE THE RFP — THE PERSON GRANTED THE RFP IN PLACE JANUARY 1st, BUT FOR THIS REASON — FOR THIS CASE, WE DON’T HAVE THAT, AND THAT’S THE REASON WHY THIS CHAOS IS HAPPENING, AND THAT’S WHY WE’RE ACTUALLY LOOKING INTO IT IN A DEEPER WAY, AND THAT’S WHY IT BROUGHT UP RED LAGS FOR MYSELF AND THAT’S WHERE I START ASKING ALL THESE QUESTIONS. JUST FOR CLARIFICATION. IT’S NOT AN ATTACK ON STAFF. IT WAS JUST SOMETHING THAT WAS BROUGHT UP AND MADE ME LOOK INTO IT EVEN MORE SO. THANK YOU.>>Mayor Gallego: ARE WE READY FOR ROLL CALL? ROLL CALL.>>Clerk: DICICCIO.>>Councilman DiCiccio: YES.>>Clerk: GARCIA.>>Councilman Garcia: YES.>>Clerk: NOWAKOWSKI.>>Councilman Nowakowski: YES.>>Clerk: PASTOR.>>Councilwoman Pastor: YES.>>Clerk: STARK.>>Councilwoman Stark: YES.>>Clerk: WARING.>>Councilman Waring: NO.>>Clerk: WILLIAMS.>>Councilwoman Williams: BECAUSE HALF IS BETTER THAN NOTHING? YES.>>Clerk: GUARDADO.>>Vice Mayor Guardado: YES.>>Clerk: GALLEGO.>>Mayor Gallego: YES. THE ITEM PASSES 8-1. THAT CONCLUDES THE AGENDIZED PORTION OUR MEETING. WE WILL NOW MOVE TO CITIZENS’ COMMENTS. WE WILL BEGIN WITH KATHRYN ROXWELL AND KATHRYN WILL BE FOLLOWED BY WAYNE DOUDAY.>>>>>THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBERS. I LIVE IN THE CITY OF PHOENIX. I HAVE TWO PETITIONS THAT I’D LIKE TO GIVE TO THE COUNCIL. I TRIED TO MAKE COPIES FOR EVERYBODY AND FOR THE CLERK. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR HEARING US TODAY. SO THESE TWO PETITIONS RELATE TO A 48-INCH MAIN WATER PIPELINE AND A 66-INCH MAIN WATER PIPELINE THAT’S SCHEDULED TO GO THROUGH TWO OR THREE NEIGHBORHOODS AND THE PRESERVE STARTING IN JANUARY 2020, AND WE’RE ASKING THAT YOU STOP ALL WORK ON THIS. PETITION 1 — THIS IS ALSO CALLED THE DROUGHT PIPELINE. PETITION 1 TALKS PRIMARILY ABOUT WE’RE REQUESTING THAT YOU CONDUCT A COMPREHENSIVE WATER SUPPLY STUDY RELATED TO SPECIFICALLY NORTH PHOENIX BUT ALL OF PHOENIX, BUT SPECIFICALLY NORTH PHOENIX. IN OUR STUDIES, WE DO NOT BELIEVE THIS IS AN EMERGENCY. THERE’S PLENTY OF WATER FOR NORTH PHOENIX. PHOENIX HAS DONE AN INCREDIBLE JOB OF STORING WATER AND PREPARING FOR OUR FUTURE AND EVEN IF C.A.P. WATER STOPPED, WHICH IT WON’T, NORTH PHOENIX IS POSITIONED TO HAVE SERVED. THE PIPELINE IS NOT NEEDED. IT’S NOT AN EMERGENCY. IT’S NOT EVEN NEEDED. THERE ARE BETTER, CHEAPER WAYS TO DELIVER WATER TO NORTH PHOENIX. THIS IS A $300 MILLION PROJECT, AND THAT MONEY COULD BE MUCH BETTER SPENT. SO IT’S A WASTE OF TAXPAYER MONEY AND WATER BILL MONEY. PETITION 2 OUTLINES ISSUES THAT WE HAVE FOUND WITH THE ALIGNMENT STUDY AND WITH THE WAY THE PIPELINE IS BEING PUT IN. THE ALIGNMENT STUDY WAS BASICALLY A DESKTOP STUDY. IT DID NOT GO INTO SUFFICIENT DETAIL FOR A 48-INCH WATER MAIN AND A 66-INCH WATER MAIN PIPELINE. IT DIDN’T INCLUDE COMMUNITY INPUT. IT DIDN’T INCLUDE COMMUNITY SAFETY. IT GOES ON RESIDENTIAL STREETS. THERE ARE 38 — THEY’RE 38 FEET WIDE AND YOU’RE LOOKING TO PUT IN A 66 INCH AND 48-INCH PIPELINE INTO THESE STREETS. IT DOESN’T GO INTO BUILDING SAFETY NEARBY, WHICH WOULD ALWAYS BE DONE TYPICALLY ON JOB THIS SIZE. IT DOESN’T GO INTO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION SUFFICIENTLY. THE COSTS ARE UNDERESTIMATED. THEY HAVEN’T ESTIMATED CORRECTLY FOR BLASTING OR FOR GOING THROUGH HARD ROCK AND THEY’RE TALKING ABOUT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, THE HOUSES ARE HIGH BECAUSE IT’S HARD ROCK THERE. THE ALIGNMENT DOESN’T FOLLOW CITY ENGINEERING DESIGN STANDARDS. I’M SORRY, BUT I WANT TO TALK FOR JUST A FEW MORE SECONDS. FOR A 66-INCH OR A 48-INCH PIPELINE, YOU NEED 80 FEET OF EASEMENT, AND WE ONLY 38-FOOT-WIDE STREETS. IT’S UNCONSCIONABLE TO TRY AND PUT IN PIPELINES THIS SIZE IN A TWO-LANE STREET. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.>>Mayor Gallego: THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO REPEAT MY COMMENTS FROM EARLIER TODAY, WE HAD GOOD MEETING — GOOD CONVERSATION WITH THE DIRECTOR OF THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ABOUT PUTTING A PIPELINE IN FREEWAY — IN THE 51 RIGHT-OF-WAY. SO JUST WANTED TO REPEAT THAT COMMENT. I KNOW YOU HAVE BEEN HERE AND HEARD IT BUT I THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE RELEVANT. WAYNE WILL BE FOLLOWED BY JEANNIE SWINDLE.>>MY NAME IS WAYNE. I LIVE AT 7535 NORTH 21st PLACE IN PHOENIX. YOUR PIPELINE IS COMING UP FROM LINCOLN PAST MADISON MEADOWS SCHOOL AND CONTINUING ON TO THE RESERVE WHERE YOU’LL BORE A HOLE THROUGH THE RESERVE AND PULL ALL OF THAT MATERIAL BACK OUT OF THE RESERVE AND HAUL IT BACK DOWN 22nd STREET WHERE I LIVE. I’M 80 YEARS OLD. I’VE LIVED THERE 40 YEARS. I BUILT THAT HOUSE. ONE THING I HAVE LEARNED COMING HERE THIS MORNING, I HAVE NEVER BEEN TO ONE OF THESE MEETING BEFORE, AND YOU CAN TELL MAYBE THAT I’M A LITTLE BIT NERVOUS, BUT I’M ALSO A LITTLE BIT MAD, AND THE MAD HAS TAKEN OVER THE NERVOUSNESS, BUT ANYWAYS, THE ONE THING THAT I HAVE LEARNED IS EVERYBODY SAYS IT’S THE RIGHT THING TO DO. EVERYBODY UP THERE HAS MADE A COMMENT, BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN HERE ALL DAY, IT’S THE RIGHT THING TO DO. NOBODY SITTING THERE HAS EVER BEEN ON 22nd STREET THAT THINKS THEY CAN RUN A 66-INCH PIPE NORTH OF LINCOLN PAST MADISON MEADOW GRADE SCHOOL. FIVE-YEAR-OLD SCHOOL CHILDREN — MY GREAT GRANDSON ATTENDS MADISON MEADOWS. HE WILL BE SIX FEET, SIX FEET, AS CLOSE AS I AM THERE, SIX FEET FROM THE STREET, 22nd STREET, WHERE THOUSANDS OF TONS OF MATERIAL WILL GO BACK AND FORTH. NOW, I’M NOT WEARING AN ORANGE SHIRT LIKE MY NEIGHBORS, AND THE REASON I’M NOT IS WHEN I JOINED THIS ORGANIZATION THEY SAID, WELL, WE’LL PRINT FLYERS, WE’LL TALK TO THE CITY, WE’LL — WE’LL GET THIS STOPPED, I’M SURE, WE’LL CIRCULATE FLYERS, WE’LL PUT SIGNS IN OUR FRONT YARD. I’M SURE THAT WILL HELP. IT WON’T. THERE AIN’T NO CHANCE IN THE WORLD. I WILL NOT WEAR AN ORANGE SHIRT, BUT I WILL — I WILL TALK TO THE MAYOR, I’LL TALK — SAL KNOWS THAT IT’S NOT THE RIGHT THING TO DO. IF YOU PEOPLE RUN A 66-INCH PIPE UP A 36-FOOT WIDE STREET, WITH AN EXCAVATOR DIGGING THE THING AND PUTTING MATERIAL INTO A DUMP TRUCK, A SEMI DUMP TRUCK, I CANNOT IMAGINE THE GRIDLOCK THAT’S GOING TO BE THERE BECAUSE IF YOU EVER GO THERE IN THE MORNING WHEN THOSE CHILDREN ARE COMING TO SCHOOL THERE’S A LITTLE CIRCULAR DRIVE AND THERE’S A HUNDRED — A HUNDRED SUVs TRYING TO DROP THEIR CHILDREN OFF TO GO TO SCHOOL, 1st THROUGH 4th GRADE, LITTLE CHILDREN. I GUESS I’M DONE. BUT I ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY CANNOT BELIEVE THAT IT’S THE RIGHT THING TO DO.>>Councilman DiCiccio: MAYOR, JUST TO COMMENT TO STAFF ON THIS, THE IDEA THAT I HAD THAT WENT UP 51st — THE 51 IS MOVE IT ALONG CORRECTLY — CORRECT, IT’S MOVING ALONG? IT LOOKS LIKE THE STATE OF ARIZONA IS WORKING WITH US. WE JUST HAVEN’T GOT A COMPLETE “YES” OR “NO” ON THAT. BUT JUST SO THE PUBLIC IS AWARE, WE’RE PUSHING REALLY HARD ON AN ALTERNATIVE. I KNOW I CAN’T LEGALLY RESPOND TO THEM DIRECTLY, BUT WE ARE PUSHING REALLY HARD. I APPRECIATE STAFF MOVING FORWARD ON THE IDEA AND DOING EVERYTHING THAT THEY CAN, MEETING WITH THE DIRECTOR, DOING EVERYTHING RIGHT, AND THEY ARE TRYING TO DO THE RIGHT THING ON THIS ONE HERE, ESPECIALLY ALONG THE 51. THAT I DO KNOW. THANK YOU, MAYOR.>>Mayor Gallego: THANK YOU. JEANNIE WILL BE FOLLOWED BY CHRISTINA.>>THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE OPPORTUNITY, MAYOR AND COUNCILMAN DICICCIO. FOR ALL EFFORTS THAT YOU HAVE MADE AND HAVE STARTED TO TALK, WE GREATLY APPRECIATE IT I’M PROUD TO WEAR AN ORANGE SHIRT AND I THINK THAT QUITE HONESTLY PART OF THE ATTENTION WOULD NOT BE TO YOU — TO YOU WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY YOU HAD WE NOT HAD THE ORANGE SHIRTS AND THE VERBS — I’M NOT GOING TO SAY I’M SORRY FOR THE EMAILS AND TELEPHONE CALLS THAT HAVE COME TO ALL OF YOU. BUT WHAT WE ARE ASKING IS IN ESSENCE THAT YOU STOP UNTIL THE PLAN HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED, THE ALIGNMENT IS APPROPRIATE. WE DO NOT, AS YOU HAVE HEARD AND READ, WE DO NOT THINK THAT — WE THINK IT’S ILL CONCEIVED AND THERE ARE BETTER WAYS AND I KNOW YOU’RE PURSUING THAT AND WE HAVE SOME IDEAS WE WANT TO HAVE INPUT INTO THAT. THERE ARE TWO PIPES WE’RE TALKING ABOUT, A 48-INCH AND A 66-INCH PIPE AND ALL THE DETAILS YOU’VE HEARD IN TERMS OF ARTERIAL STREETS THAT ARE LARGER ARE WHERE THEY SHOULD BE BY THE STANDARDS MANUAL, BY ENGINEERING DESIGN. GRANADA PARK, THE AREA DOWN THERE, IS, WHAT, 300 HOMES? ALL RIGHT. THEN GRANADA PARK ITSELF IS GOING TO BE, WHAT, SURROUNDED, IF YOU WILL. COME ACROSS LINCOLN, DIG UNDER LINCOLN. HOLY-MOLY, I CAN’T WAIT TO SEE WHAT KIND OF TRAFFIC ISSUES THAT IS. ONCE YOU COME UP INTO WHAT IS MADISON HEIGHTS AND THE BILTMORE HIGHLANDS AREA, I LIVE ON 22nd STREET, SO I’M UP THREE HOUSES DOWN FROM THE TRAILHEAD, BUT ONCE YOU COME INTO THAT AREA, NOW YOU HAVE A SCHOOL. SO NOW YOU’VE IMPACTED A CHURCH, A GREEK ORTHODOX CHURCH ON THE SOUTHSIDE, A POLICE STATION, AND YOU NOW — WHEN YOU GET ON TO 22nd STREET — REMEMBER, THIS IS GOING UP AND BACK, UP AND DOWN WITH TRUCKS. SO IT’S NOT A, OH, WHEN IT GETS PAST MY DRIVEWAY IT WILL BE ALL RIGHT. NO, IT ISN’T THAT. IT’S GOING TO BE A CONTINUOUS MOVEMENT, IF YOU WILL SHALL. VIBRATIONS ON HOMES. YOU’VE GOT PROPERTY VALUES. YOU HAVE SAFETY ISSUES. YOU HAVE HEALTH ISSUES. MANY OF THESE FACTORS HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED AND WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE STUDY THAT WAS PRESENTED AND DECISIONS WERE MADE UPON. WE THINK IT NEEDS TO BE STOPPED AND PLANNED MORE APPROPRIATELY BEFORE WE GO FORWARD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.>>Mayor Gallego: THANK YOU. CHRISTINA WILL BE FOLLOWED BY CASEY GOLAB.>>HELLO. MY NAME IS CHRISTINA [INDISCERNIBLE] I’M SUBMITTING A PETITION FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE COUNCIL. MAYOR GALLEGO, COUNCIL MEMBERS AND CITY MANAGEMENT, TODAY I’M SUBMITTING A PETITION THAT MAKES A REQUEST THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE NUMEROUS TIMES BY CONSTITUENTS AS WELL AS MEMBERS OF 24 COUNCIL TO INCREASE THE PRACTICAL ACCESSIBILITY OF CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS BY ADJUSTING THE MEETING TIME TO ONE THAT STARTS AFTER STANDARD WORKING HOURS. AS AN ACTIVE CIVIC PARTICIPANT I DO UNDERSTAND AND ACKNOWLEDGE THERE ARE PRACTICAL CONCERNS ATTENDANT TO THIS REQUEST. HOWEVER, I WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT THIS PETITION IS NOT A SIMPLE “YES” OR “NO” REQUEST, BUT WHAT I HOPE WILL BE A STARTING POINT FOR SERIOUS CONSIDERATION OF THIS. I’M NOT GOING TO READ THE PETITION TO YOU DURING THIS TIME AS I EXPECT THE COUNCIL TO DO THEIR DUE DILIGENCE AND READ IT. IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO YOU ELECTRONICALLY TWICE. THERE IS ALSO AN ONLINE PETITION THAT DOES HAVE OTHER SIGNATURES FROM CONSTITUENTS. I REALIZE I AM NOT LEGALLY REQUIRED TO HAVE THOSE ADDITIONAL SIGNATURES BUT I THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT THAT THE COUNCIL KNOWS THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT IS IMPORTANT TO RESIDENTS OF THIS CITY. ALSO I WANTED TO SAY AS ONE OF THE LARGEST, FASTEST GROWING CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES THAT SPANS A SPRAWLING GEOGRAPHIC AREA OF 500 SQUARE MILES THE CITY OF PHOENIX CANNOT 234 GOOD CONSCIENCE HOLD MEETINGS AT A TIME THAT EFFECTIVELY EXCLUDES A VAST MAJORITY OF ITS WORKING PUBLIC. IT IS POSSIBLE TO STRIKE A REASONABLE BALANCE WHILE ALSO ALLOWING CITY RESIDENTS EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO DYNAMICALLY ENGAGE WITH THEIR ELECTED OFFICIALS. IN FACT, I WOULD WAGER TO SAY THAT’S THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THIS COUNCIL. THE PETITION I AM RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTING INCLUDES SEVERAL SUGGESTIONS I BELIEVE AT THE VERY LEAST AGAIN ARE A STARTING POINT FOR DISCUSSION. I HAVE EVERY CONFIDENCE THAT WITH SOME EFFORT AND A COMPROMISE WITH OUR MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT CAN BE MORE ROBUST AND WE CAN HAVE A MORE ROBUST CIVIC PARTICIPATION THAT’S FOSTERED BY BETTER MEETING TIMES. I DO REALIZE THERE ARE ISSUES WITH STAFFING AND THIS IS — THIS COULD POTENTIAL PUT AN INCREASED BURDEN ON UM IS OF THE CITY STAFF BUT QUITE FRANKLY MY ARGUMENT TO THAT IS IF YOU WANT BANKER’S HOURS YOU SHOULD WORK WITH A BANK. THERE IS A SACRIFICE TO BEING IN PUBLIC SERVICE, LIBRARY DISTRICTS, SCHOOL DISTRICTS. THEY ALL MEET IN THE EVENING. THAT’S NOT COINCIDENCE. THAT’S HAS TO DO WITH PRACTICAL ACCESSIBILITY. I ALSO WANTED TO MENTION THE STAFF IS IN TECHNICAL COMPLIANCE OF THE OPEN MEETING LAW BUT TECHNICAL COMPLIANCE DOES NOT MEAN IN PRACTICAL — I HOPE THIS BEGINS A FRUITFUL CONVERSATION ON CITY COUNCIL START TIMES. THANK YOU.>>Mayor Gallego: THANK YOU. CASEY WILL BE FOLLOWED BY ELIZABETH VENABLE. TO CONFIRM, CASEY IS NO LONGER HERE? CASEY HAS GONE? THANK YOU. ELIZABETH.>>SO I ASSUME YOU’VE HEARD THE BIG NEWS. SINCE THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS RULED IN DECEMBER 2018 ON THE CASE MARTIN V BOISE THE LEADERS IN THE CITY OF PHOENIX HAS BEEN INTRACTABLE IN THEIR SUPPORT FOR CRIMINALIZING OF CAMPING AND SLEEPING IN PUBLIC AREAS. YOU HAVE GIVEN NO EXPLANATION AS TO YOUR BEHAVIOR. I THINK YOU ARE WAITING ON A SUPREME COURT TO STRIKE DOWN MARTIN V. BOISE SO YOU CAN CONTINUE ARRESTING PEOPLE FOR BEING POOR. HOWEVER, THE SUPREME COURT DID NOT RULE IN YOUR FAVOR. THE SUPREME COURT HAS NOW SAID THAT THE NINTH CIRCUIT RULING STANDS. PHOENIX HAD A NO MORE EXCUSES. YOU MUST STOP CRIMINALIZING SLEEPING AND CAMPING. THE PAUCITY OF RESOURCES DEVOTED TO THE HOMELESS IN THIS STATE AND CITY IS DISTURBING. MORE DISTURBING IS THE IDEA IN THE ABSENCE OF MEANINGFUL PROGRAMS, WHICH YOU CAN’T EVEN ACCESS UNTIL YOU’RE SMI, FOR MANY OF LIKE PHOENIX CARES, WHICH HUMANELY HOUSE THE HOMELESS, YOU FEEL ENTITLED TO MAKE IT A CRIME TO LIVE. THE CITY OF PHOENIX MUST CHOOSE TO FOLLOW THE SUPREME COURT. I EXPECT NO LESS AND WILL HOLD YOU ACCOUNTABLE. WHAT IS YOUR CHOICE? I RESPECTFULLY ANTICIPATE THE ANSWER THAT IS REVIEWED MY YOUR COUNCIL AND IF IT IS INSUFFICIENT WE WILL TAKE FURTHER ACTION. AND I HAVE A PETITION.>>Councilman DiCiccio: MAYOR, MAY I ASK STAFF A QUESTION ON THIS? SO THE SUPREME COURT WAS PRETTY CLEAR IN THEIR RULING UPHOLDING THE NINTH CIRCUIT –>>Mayor Gallego: COUNCILMAN. WE HAVE TO STICK TO THE OPEN MEETING LAW.>>Councilman DiCiccio: I’M ASKING STAFF THIS QUESTION BECAUSE I THINK WE’RE GOING TO NEED TO HAVE A MEETING ON THIS, WHETHER IT’S AN EXECUTIVE SESSION OR POLICY MEETING. WE REALLY OUGHT TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ON THIS POINT. I’M GLAD SHE BROUGHT IT UP, QUITE FRANKLY, BECAUSE IT’S GOING TO HAVE A BIG IMPACT ON PRIMARILY THE INNER CITY. SO JUST LETTING YOU KNOW. WE SHOULD HAVE –>>City Mgr. Zuercher: I HAVE ALREADY SPOKEN WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY FOR ASKING FOR AN E SESSION.>>Councilman DiCiccio: THANK YOU.>>Mayor Gallego: THANK YOU.>>THANK YOU.>>Mayor Gallego: ALICIA IS NEXT FOLLOWED BY JEFF REED.>>HELLO. OKAY. HELLO, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. I HAVE BEEN HERE BEFORE. I’M BACK BEFORE YOU AGAIN. I’M HERE THIS TIME TO ASK A QUESTION THAT NEEDS TO BE ANSWERED ABOUT MY PROPERTY THAT WAS SUPPOSEDLY TO BE SUBMITTED FOR EVIDENCE, BUT I WASN’T TOLD THAT UNTIL WAY AFTER THE PROPERTY WAS TAKEN. I WAS HERE BEFORE. I WAS ONE OF THE ONES PROPERTY WAS TAKEN BY PHOENIX POLICE AND DUMPED INTO A BIG TRASH CAN. I’M HERE NOW WONDERING WHERE IT’S AT AGAIN BECAUSE I WAS TOLD IT WENT INTO EVIDENCE. EVIDENCE FOR WHAT? I WASN’T LOCKED UP. THERE WAS NO REASON FOR IT TO GO INTO EVIDENCE AND SEIZED BY THE PHOENIX POLICE DEPARTMENT. THEN THERE’S NO TRESPASSING SIGNS. I WAS AT THE BUS STOP SITTING THERE WAITING. OFFICER PULLS UP AND SAYS TO ME, ARE YOU WAITING FOR THE BUS? WELL, I HAD MY CART THAT I PUSH WHEN I’M NOT ON THIS CANE, AND HE ASKED ME, DID I HAVE A BUS PASS. I SAID, NO, I’M JUST SITTING HERE WAITING. AND I’M GOING TO WALK FURTHER ON. HE SAID, WHEN I COME BACK IN ONE HOUR I’M GOING TO TRESPASS YOU. THIS IS GETTING TO BE ANNOYING AND THEY’RE DOING IT ALL THE TIME. SO WE HAVE PEOPLE COMPLAINING WITH ELIZABETH, THE MEETINGS WE HAVE, AND THEY’RE COMPLAINING ABOUT IT. THEY ARE SAYING THEY’RE BEING TICKETED FOR SITTING SOMEWHERE WHERE A NO TRESPASSING SIGN IS, BUT THE NO TRESPASSING SIGN MEANS YOU CAN’T CROSS OVER THE GATE, NOT THE SIDEWALK. AND LAST BUT LEAST, I JUST WANT TO KNOW WHERE MY BELONGINGS ARE AND I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THEM BACK BECAUSE THEY’RE CONSTANTLY ON MY MIND. THERE WERE SENTIMENTAL VALUES IN THERE I NEED FROM PEOPLE THAT PASSED ON. I JUST WANT TO HAVE THEM BACK. I RECENTLY STARTED MY OWN TO GET MY BIRTH CERTIFICATE BECAUSE WHEN I WAS HERE BEFORE YOU TOLD ME TO GO TO CBI, BUT CBI IS MEDICAL. I WANT MY BELONGINGS. MOST OF THE PEOPLE HERE IN PHOENIX, ARIZONA, THAT I’VE TALKED TO IS SMI. BUT I DON’T HAVE THAT PROBLEM. SO I DON’T KNOW NEED TO SEE CBI. I JUST WANT TO NODE WHERE MY BELONGINGS ARE AND COULD I HAVE THEM BACK AND THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.>>Mayor Gallego: THANK YOU. THE CITY MANAGER HAS ASKED STAFF TO FOLLOW UP WITH YOU. HOPEFULLY WE CAN GET A GOOD RESOLUTION. JEFF REED. AND JEFF WILL BE FOLLOWED BY JOHN [INDISCERNIBLE]>>THANKS FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. I’M JEFF REED. I LIVER AT THE TOP OF NORTH 22nd STREET ABOUT A HALF BLOCK FROM THE NORTH 22nd STREET TRAILHEAD AT THE POINT WHERE THE PROPOSED PIPELINE WOULD PENETRATE AND VIOLATE THE PRESERVE. I’M OPPOSED TO THE WATER PIPELINE, AS YOU CAN TELL BY MY T-SHIRT, AND WE KNOW WELL THE ISSUES BEFORE YOU. BUT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SEVERAL POINTS. THE FIRST IS — (AUDIO CONNECTION DROPPED).>>I THINK WE’VE ALL HEARD MANY ARGUMENTS AND COMPELLING ARGUMENTS ABOUT WHY IT SHOULD BE MOVED OR CONSIDER TO BE MOVED BUT NO ONE SUMMARIZED THEM YET. SO I WOULD LIKE TO SUMMARIZE THOSE REASONS. SO, NUMBER ONE WOULD BE THERE’S A MAJOR DISRUPTION TO THE NEIGHBORHOODS ADJOINING LINCOLN DRIVE AND 21st AND 22nd STREETS. LACK OF DISH NUMBER TWO, LACK OF INGRESS AND EGRESS INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH — THE NEIGHBORHOOD NORTH OF LINCOLN DRIVE WHICH RELIES ALMOST ENTIRELY ON THE NORTH 22nd AVENUE STREET. THREE, LACK OF ACCESS FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES IF 22nd STREET IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION FOR THE PROPOSED TWO TO THREE YEAR PERIOD THAT THE WATER DEPARTMENT HAS PROPOSED. NUMBER FOUR, THE PROXIMITY TO MADISON HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL WHICH WAYNE I THINK HAS PRETTY WELL EXPLAINED HIS OPPOSITION. NUMBER FIVE, POTENTIAL DAMAGE TO AGING HOUSES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BOTH THE FOUNDATIONS AND SEWER AND UTILITY HOOKUPS. NUMBER SIX, DUST AND AIR QUALITY. THERE’S A POTENTIAL — INCREASED POTENTIAL FOR THINGS SUCH AS VALLEY FEVER, WHICH I ACTUALLY EXPERIENCED OVER THE YEARS LIVING THERE IN PHOENIX. SO THAT’S SOMETHING THAT COMES UP INTO THE AIR AND IS SORT OF AN UNDERESTIMATED DISEASE OR CONDITION THAT PEOPLE CAN INCUR. AS WELL AS THE FACT THAT DREAMY DRAW HAS — WAS THE SITE OF A MERCURY MINE IN THE DAYS OF — WHEN DREAMY DRAW WAS MINED AND SO THERE’S POTENTIAL FOR MERCURY POISONING IN THAT AREA. NUMBER SEVEN, THE DIFFICULTY OF EXCAVATING THE PIPE. WE TALKED ABOUT THAT EARLIER, KATHRYN DID, THE WIDTH OF THE RESIDENTIAL STREET, THE EXISTING GEOLOGY, HARD ROCK. PEOPLE HAVE HAD DIFFICULTY HAVING POOLS EXCAVATING AND HAD TO RESORT TO USING DYNAMITE IN THE PAST IN THAT AREA. THE WINDING STREETS THAT COME UP FROM GRANADA PARK. THERE’S SEVERAL STREETS THAT DON’T RUN IN A SEVERAL STRAIGHT LINE. SO IT’S NOT JUST RUNNING A PIPE STRAIGHT UP THE STREET. THERE’S GOING TO BE ADDITIONAL NEED TO EXCAVATE. NUMBER EIGHT, THE INCURSION INTO THE PHOENIX MOUNTAIN PRESERVE THAT WAS A CREATED AS A PROTECTED PUBLIC SPACE UNDER EARLIER CITY COUNCIL COMMITMENTS. THE LACK OF TRANSPARENCY, WE WERE ADVISED THAT THIS WAS GOING TO HAPPEN — WE HAD VERY SHORT TIME — RESPONSE TIME TO EVEN ACTIVATE AND RESPOND TO THE FACT THIS WAS GOING — THIS HUGE PROJECT WAS GOING TO GO THROUGH. AND THEN FINALLY, NUMBER 10, THE ALTERNATE ROUTE UP ROUTE 51 WAS INITIALLY REJECTED BY THE WATER DEPARTMENT BASED ON WHAT I THINK COULD BE VIEWED AS FLIMSY REASONING BECAUSE THEY DIDN’T WANT TO CONTEND WITH ADOT OR THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS. THEY JUST SORT OF CHOSE THE PROPOSED ROUTE AS IT STOOD BECAUSE THEY FELT THAT ADOT WOULD BE TOO DIFFICULT TO DEAL WITH. THANK YOU. HOWEVER, IN THE MEANTIME, WE’VE LEARNED THAT YOU HAVE BEEN IN DISCUSSION WITH THEM. SO I APPLAUD AND APPRECIATE YOUR EFFORTS ON THAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.>>Mayor Gallego: THANK YOU. JOHN WILL BE FOLLOWED BY SANDRA CANE.>>GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL. I’M JOHN. MY WIFE AND ARE PROUD NEW MEMBERS OF THE PIESTEWA WAS PEAK AREA. WE LOVE PHOENIX. WE LOVE PIESTEWA WAS PEAK. WE LOVE THE PHOENIX MOUNTAIN PRESERVE. WE’RE FIRM TO FIGHT THIS DECISION. WHEN WE WERE TOLD ABOUT THIS, WHICH WAS AT MADISON ELEMENTARY ON A LATE OCTOBER, MID-DAY WEEK, IT WAS — WE WERE TOLD SORT OF LIKE IN AN OH, BY THE WAY, KIND OF STUFF — IT’S SHOVED DOWN YOUR THROAT WAY. IT’S THIS WAY OR NO WAY. EVEN THOUGH THERE WERE APPARENTLY TWO OTHER OPTIONS. AND ALL OF US, OR MANY OF US, SUGGESTED ADOT AND YOUR STAFF SCOFFED AT US LIKE THAT’S CRAZY, YOU KNOW, THAT WON’T NEVER HAPPEN. THANK YOU FOR TELLING US TODAY THAT THAT MAY HAPPEN. THAT’S KIND OF NICE TO HEAR. IT WAS HOW THE MAJORITY OF US FOUGHT ON THAT LATE OCTOBER EVENING. I WAS AT THE COUNCIL MEETING TWO WEEKS AGO, DECEMBER 4th, AND THE LAST PUBLIC SPEAKER SPOKE ABOUT A 1991 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE PHOENIX MOUNTAIN PRESERVE THAT WOULD PREVENT ANY TRANSPORTATION OR UTILITY CONSTRUCTION HAPPENING. SO MY QUESTION IS, WHY WAS — WHY WAS OUR COMMUNITY OF 500-PLUS HOMES IN PIESTEWA PEAK TOLD THAT THIS IS HAPPENING? JANUARY WITH NINE WEEKS’ NOTICE? IT SEEMS LIKE IT’S ILLEGAL. I MEAN, IF WHAT THIS PERSON WAS SAYING IS TRUE, HE REFERENCED COUNCILWOMAN WILLIAMS AND THE T-SHIRT THAT HE BOUGHT FROM YOU OR YOU SOLD TO HIM 28 YEARS AGO. SO I HAD NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT WHAT WAS BEING SAID WAS NOT TRUE. SO I’M VERY CONFUSED WHY THE CITY IS DOING SOMETHING THAT IS AGAINST THIS 1991 AGREEMENT THAT ALSO IS POTENTIALLY REALLY HARMING THE PHOENIX MOUNTAIN PRESERVE, SOMETHING I HAVE LEARNED AS A NEW TWO-YEAR PHOENIX RESIDENT WE ARE VERY PROUD OF, AND I’VE ALSO LEARNED THAT MANY CITIES ACROSS AMERICA ARE ENVIOUS OF A CITY LIKE PHOENIX THAT HAS SUCH AN AMAZING NATURAL JEWEL AND TREASURE IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD. SO WE ARE VERY, VERY PROUD OF THAT, AND WE THINK THAT THAT 1991 AGREEMENT, IF IN FACT IT IS TRUTHFUL, SHOULD — IT’S A DONE DEAL. THERE SHOULD BE NO CONSTRUCTION THERE FOR THREE YEARS THAT AFFECTS OUR LIFE AND THE PRESERVE. THE CITY TOLD US ON THAT LATE OCTOBER MEETING AT MADISON ELEMENTARY THERE WERE TWO OTHER OPTIONS, EVEN THOUGH THEY WOULDN’T TELL US WHAT THEY ARE. PLEASE CHECK THOSE OUT, AND PLEASE, CONGRATULATIONS, BECAUSE THE OBVIOUS THING IS THE 51 AND TO TRY TO DO IT AS BEST AS POSSIBLE THERE. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.>>Councilwoman Williams: CAN I MAKE A COMMENT TO HIM? ’91 I THINK IS WHEN THE CITY OF PHOENIX BUILT THE 51. AND THAT COULD HAVE BEEN SOMETHING FROM BACK THEN. I DON’T KNOW IF THAT’S CURRENTLY TRUE OR NOT. I MEAN, I CAN’T CONFIRM THAT, BUT — THERE WAS NOBODY LIVING UP THERE AT THAT TIME. I MEAN, POPULATION WAS VERY SPARSE.>>[INAUDIBLE]>>Mayor Gallego: AND JUST TO CONFIRM, THIS WILL BE ON THE JANUARY LIVABILITY AND LAND USE SUBCOMMITTEE AGENDA SO THAT WE CAN HAVE AN AGENDIZED CONVERSATION. SO WE HAVE SANDRA CANE WILL BE OUR LAST SPEAKER. I WILL NOTE THAT NEXT TIME AND TRY TO MOVE THEM FORWARD.>>MY NAME IS SANDRA CANE AND LIVE IN THE MADISON HEIGHTS AREA. I HAVE LIVED THERE FOR 35 YEARS. I SENT AN EMAIL TO ALL OF THE MAYOR AND TO THE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL IN DECEMBER, DECEMBER 3rd, RIGHT BEFORE THE DECEMBER 4th MEETING LAYING OUT MY CONCERNS AND REQUESTING AT THE END OF IT THAT PLEASE PUT THIS MATTER ON THE AGENDA AND HALT THE IMMINENT CONSTRUCTION TO ALLOW COMMUNITY INPUT, CONSIDER FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES AND ACHIEVE THE BEST OUTCOME FOR PHOENIX. I HAVE NOW CONVERTED THIS INTO A PETITION BECAUSE WE ARE ALL CONCERNED ABOUT THE IMMINENCE OF JANUARY COMING UP AND CONSTRUCTION STARTED. I PERSONALLY LIVE IN A HOUSE THAT IS IN THE MIDDLE OF 22nd STREET AND 20th STREET WHERE THE TWO PIPELINES ARE TO COME IN. THE ONLY WAY WE CAN GET IN AND OUT OF OUR HOME IS GOING THROUGH 22nd STREET. RIGHT NOW TODAY, IN FACT, THERE ARE UTILITY WORKERS ON 22nd STREET, AND THERE’S — TRAFFIC HAS TO BE STOPPED. THERE’S ONLY ONE LANE THEY’RE LETTING PEOPLE IN. THERE ARE PEOPLE HOLDING SIGNS, AND YOU HAVE TO WAIT FOR ONE SIDE TO GO BEFORE YOU CAN GO. THERE’S JUST NO ROOM TO PUT A 66-INCH PIPELINE DOWN 22ND STREET, WHICH AS OTHER SPEAKERS HAVE TOLD YOU IS A VITAL METHOD OF INGRESS INTO OUR LANDLOCKED LITTLE COMMUNITY, WHICH IS BOUNDED BY THE 51, BY THE PHOENIX MOUNTAIN PRESERVE AND LINCOLN. THE ONLY WAY I CAN GET INTO THAT NEIGHBORHOOD IS 22nd STREET TO GET TO MY HOME, AND THERE’S HUGE TRAFFIC ON LINCOLN IN RUSH HOUR TIMES, AND IT’S JUST — IT JUST NEEDS TO BE SOMETHING LOOKED AT. WHEN I CAME TO THE MEETING LAST TIME ON THE 4th, I HEARD VICE MAYOR GUARDADO STATE, COMMUNITY INPUT IS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT. DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO HAVE COMMUNITY INPUT SO EVERYONE FEELS GOOD ABOUT THE DECISIONS WE MAKE. THAT’S WHAT WE’RE ASKING. I WAS AT THE MEETING ON OCTOBER 24th AT MADISON HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL WHERE WE WERE TOLD BY THE WATER SERVICES DEPARTMENT THAT THIS IS A FAIT ACCOMPLI ESSENTIALLY AND NOTHING WE COULD DO WOULD MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE AND NOBODY WANTED TO EVEN LISTEN TO ANY QUESTIONS WE HAD. THEY WOULD NOT TAKE QUESTIONS FROM THE APPROXIMATELY 300 PEOPLE THAT WERE SITTING IN THE AUDIENCE THERE AND WE’RE JUST LEARNING ABOUT THIS FOR THE FIRST TIME AND THEY WAITED — THEY SAID YOU HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL THE END OF THE MEETING AND GO IN THE BACK AND WE’LL HAVE A FEW PEOPLE THAT CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS, BUT NOBODY COULD INTERRUPT. I KNOW THIS ISN’T THE WAY THAT WE’RE SUPPOSED TO RUN CITY GOVERNMENT. I KNOW THAT’S — WHEN I SAW MAYOR GALLEGO RUNNING FOR OFFICE YOU WERE VERY POLITE LISTENING TO PEOPLE IN DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES AND WORKING WITH PEOPLE AND WHAT COUNCILWOMAN GUARDADO SAID. WE’RE ASKING FOR THE SAME THING, AND WE’RE HOPING, BECAUSE I WANT TO PUT THIS INTO A PETITION, THAT WE HEAR BACK BEFORE THE JANUARY CONSTRUCTION STARTS. THANK YOU.>>Mayor Gallego: THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. WE ARE ADJOURNED.>>Councilwoman Pastor: MAYOR –>>COULD I SAY ONE THING? WE WOULD REALLY LIKE TO HEAR THAT THIS JOB IS POSTPONED UNTIL COMMUNITY INPUT IS ALLOWED AND IT’S REALLY SOMETHING THAT IT’S SUPPOSED TO START IN JANUARY, IT WOULD BE WONDERFUL TO HEAR AN OFFICIAL MESSAGE FROM THE COUNCIL, FROM THE CITY, THAT THIS BOTH OF THESE PIPELINES WILL NOT BE STARTED UNTIL FURTHER EVALUATION.>>Councilwoman Pastor: ED, I HAVE A QUESTION TO YOU. MY QUESTION TO YOU IS JANUARY 1st IS CONSTRUCTION STARTING?>>WE’VE HEARD CONSTRUCTION IS STARTING IN JANUARY 2020. THAT’S WHAT WE’VE BEEN TOLD AND WE’RE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THAT. NO DATE. AND WE’VE ASKED REPEATEDLY TO HAVE IT PAUSED –>>Councilwoman Pastor: I’M ASKING THE QUESTION TO THE CITY MANAGER. THE MEETING HAS BEEN ADJOURNED BUT I’M STILL TALKING. SO GO AHEAD. EVERYBODY’S LEAVING.>>City Mgr. Zuercher: THE CONSTRUCTION DOES NOT START ON JANUARY 1st.>>Councilwoman Pastor: IT IS NOT STARTING — YOU JUST HEARD IT FROM THE CITY MANAGER AND FROM THERE WE CAN MOVE. THANK YOU.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

1 thought on “Phoenix City Council Formal Meeting – December 18, 2019

  1. uber driver's need to have a bulet pruff glass between the seets and a small speaker so the person can talk the need to be safe that gose for ever driver and to have polce butten

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *