Thank you.

I'd like to call this meeting an order.

Welcome to the November 5th, 2025 Public Safety and Justice Subcommittee.

First of all, I'd like to introduce our city attorney, Jennifer Vega.

Ms.

Vega, please explain the role of public comment.

Mr.

Chair and Committee members, during citizen comment, members of the public may address the subcommittee for up to three minutes on issues of interest or concern to them.

The Arizona Open Meetings Law permits the subcommittee members to listen to the comments, but prohibits members from discussing or acting on the matters presented.

Members of the public may speak for up to two minutes to comment on agenda items to be discussed.

Comments must be related to the agenda item and the action being considered by the subcommittee.

The city council and staff cannot discuss or comment on matters related to pending investigations, claims, or litigation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I would also like to introduce our interpreter.

I believe it's um Elsie Duarte.

Ms.

Duarte, could you please provide a brief comment?

Yes, thank you, Mr.

Madam Master Chairman.

My name is Elsi Duarte.

I will be providing Spanish interpretation during today's public safety and justice subcommittee session.

I will now take a moment to address our Spanish speaking audience.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you, Ms.

Duarte.

Okay, item number one is approval of public safety and justice subcommittee meeting minutes from September 3rd, 2025.

Do I have a motion?

Move to approve.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Chair votes aye, passes unanimously.

Thank you very much for that.

Item number two is consideration of judicial appointments.

So at this point, um, there are currently three vacancies.

Make sure I'm on the right page.

Yes, there are three current vacant seats on the Phoenix Municipal Court.

The public safety and justice subcommittee will be interviewing seven candidates recommended by the judicial selection advisory board.

Members of the subcommittee will ask each candidate one question.

Candidates will be required to limit their responses to two minutes for each question.

During the individual interviews, the other six candidates will be sequestered downstairs without audio or visual visuals to um to the interviews taking place.

We are looking forward to hearing from each of the seven candidates.

Once the interviews are complete, we will open the meeting for public comment.

Following public comment, the members of the subcommittee will convene in an executive session downstairs for deliberations.

And after the executive session, members of the subcommittee will reconvene in open session to recommend up to up to three individuals to the full city council for appointment as judges to the municipal court.

Thank you again to the candidates who are all downstairs for their interest in serving as municipal court judges.

Vice Mayor Um O'Brien will ask the first question.

Thank you, council member or Vice Mayor O'Brien.

When considering how to sentence someone, I think obviously the person's background has to be taken into consideration.

What is it that's causing them to be a repeat offender to continue to commit crimes?

What is it in their background that is compelling them to do that?

I think it has to be a whole holistic view of everything.

You can't just look at this person on paper, see that they have so much criminal history and not take into consideration why they have that.

But then of course, the community safety has to be a factor.

This is something that I have to do as a prosecutor when I evaluate cases and when I determine what to charge and what plea offer to give.

It's the same thing because you have to look at the person's criminal history, the effect they're having on the community, the effect they're having on community safety, the cost that they're costing their community.

But also the question is why?

How can we help this person stop?

What is it that's causing them to do this and what can we do so it doesn't keep happening?

What services can we provide that person so it doesn't keep happening?

Because that's really the point.

And if they stop, then that is a benefit to the entire community and a benefit to them to get them on a path where that doesn't happen again.

So in sentencing, I would look at the whole picture.

What is it?

Why or why are they doing it?

And how can we get them to stop?

What is it that they need?

What sentence could I give so it doesn't happen again?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilman.

What cases will be the most difficult to rule on and why?

Having worked in the area of domestic violence for six years, I think those cases are always difficult because you're working with, well, as a prosecutor, I was working with victims who oftentimes didn't want to go forward with testifying, didn't want to go forward with prosecution.

And I obviously understanding domestic violence, understanding the cycle of violence, it's difficult, difficult to get that person, get the victim to agree to want to go forward.

So as a judge, it would be difficult to have to sit through to know that this victim is either recanting or doesn't want to go forward for whatever reason, likely the domestic the cycle of violence, but having to preside over that and having to know a case might have to get dismissed because this victim is reluctant, and I know why they're reluctant.

On the other hand, also cases involving people with mental illness.

For the last eight years, I've been working in the white-collar cybercrimes unit where I handle primarily all the threat cases for the county, and people who commit acts of threat or stalking oftentimes do suffer from mental illness.

And it's difficult.

So I think when you're dealing with a person with mental illness, it's something that has to be considered, and it would be difficult to weigh that with obviously community safety, but it's important because both sides need to be met to make sure that community safety is met, but also the person's needs are met.

Councilwoman Gardado.

Thank you so much.

Thank you so much for being with us this morning.

My question is what role do you believe a municipal court judge plays in addressing systemic inequities in the justice system?

I think the judge is that role model for the spokesperson for that.

I think that that's why it's important to have diversity on the bench and to have representation on the bench, because when a person and individuals before you and they see that it's either a woman or it's someone that's a minority, then they can feel like they it would help them feel like they're being heard.

It's someone that they can at least have some sort of connection with and know that they maybe are being understood, and whether that's true or not, it's just that extra bit of connection that they would have with that person where they know that they're not being ignored.

And of course, the judicial officer's role is to make sure that everyone's heard, that everyone feels comfortable.

But just seeing someone that looks maybe a little bit more like you, or that represents you, I think that goes the extra step further to help them understand that that or feel comfortable in what they're saying and that they are being heard, that they're being respected, and that their voice does matter whether they're the victim or the defendant or any other person in that courtroom.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, I'll I have a last question.

Describe a time when you faced an ethical dilemma in your legal career, and how did you resolve it?

Um, as a prosecutor, I have to make all the charging decisions on my cases and then plea offers on my cases.

One case that has always stuck out to me is a case involving a very serious child abuse where a nanny was accused of causing harm to nine-month-old baby.

She was taking care of that baby.

She had indicated that the baby had um had some sort of seizure and struck its head on something, but all the medical reports we had back were consistent with the baby having suffered from shaking baby syndrome that the baby had been shaken, and that's what caused the injuries.

And the case went on for about a year.

There were expert witnesses.

Um I had extensive conversations with the parents who were victims.

They had given their baby to a nanny, so this wasn't a person that was a family member or father, it was a nanny.

So it was more difficult than that now, and their baby lived.

So they it was harder because it's a person they trusted with their baby, but their baby is alive now, was in a vegetative state, and it's hard for them to come around.

The ethical dilemma came in.

We the defense got an expert who had determined that the baby may have suffered or had the um had meningitis in its system that could have contributed to this, and very well probably did.

So I obviously, with that information, had to staff the case.

It's a serious child abuse case, and argue for a dismissal without prejudice.

The case couldn't go forward.

I couldn't go forward prosecuting this woman, knowing that it was there was at least some chance she didn't do it.

Um, but that included having to talk to the victims who had waited a year and a half for some sort of justice that their baby was never going to be better, and having to explain to them why I ethically could not go forward with the case anymore, and I had to dismiss it.

And uh I mean it was brutal.

They cried, it was awful, but that was ethically the right thing to do because I don't know that this person did what we accused her of doing.

Okay, thank you very much.

Thank you.

That concludes the series of questions that we have for you at this time.

So thank you very much.

I think Zach will escort you back downstairs.

Council members, thanks for thank you.

Good morning to all the council members.

Thank you for this opportunity.

Thank you.

Our next candidate is Pamela Dune.

Done, yes.

Done, thank you.

Um first question will come from Vice Mayor O'Brien.

Good morning, thank you for joining us this morning.

Good morning morning, Vice Mayor.

How would you approach sentencing in cases involving involving repeat low-level offenses?

Balancing public safety, neighborhood impact, and rehabilitation.

Well, first, of course, I'm guided by what the plea agreement contains, if in fact it is a plea agreement.

Um, so those sometimes uh set the parameters for what my sentence will be.

If it's after a trial, then of course um there is no plea agreement guiding the parameters, and so I always consider uh mitigation and aggravation.

Um, if there's a victim, of course, I consider victim input.

Um, I of course always follow the law on what the sentencing guidelines are.

And um I look to see what other sentences you say low-level offender have previously been attempted.

For example, uh, if he or she was previously successful on probation, um, then that would be a strong consideration for me.

Um so I take a variety of things into account, um, what the defense attorney is requesting, what the state's requesting, what's probation is requesting.

So I take a variety of things into account what the defense attorney is requesting, what the state's requesting, what's probation is requesting, and I weigh and balance all of it and hopefully come up with a just sentence.

Thank you.

Next question is by Councilman Waring.

What cases will be the most difficult to rule on and why?

Candidly, I've been on the bench so long.

I don't know that there's any particular case that is difficult for me to rule on.

But I believe that each case is its own case.

Each case, I look at it as people.

The defendant is a person, the victim is a person.

And I just weigh and balance everything before me, follow the law, consider mitigation and aggravation.

I will tell you to date the hardest case that I've had was when I was in juvenile, and I was asked to remove life support from a 14-year-old.

And personally, that was a very challenging case, but I follow the law and you know rendered the decision.

Thank you very much.

Next question is by Councilwoman Gordado.

Thank you so much.

Can we go to the next one and then it'll come back to me?

Okay, we'll do that.

I'll ask this next question.

Describe a time when you faced an ethical dilemma in your legal career.

And how did you resolve it?

Yes.

So back when I was uh an assistant attorney general, I ran the Medicaid fraud control unit.

It was a three-quarter federally funded position.

And so even though we were only three quarters federally funded, we had mandates that we had to comply with.

To which he said to me, Are you telling me that you're the telling the attorney general no?

And I said, Yes, I'm telling you that I have to tell the attorney general no, it would violate our grant, and I'm sworn to uphold the grant.

So candidly I hung up the phone and I thought, well, I probably have a job for about five more minutes.

Um, but thankfully uh they did not use my cars and I did not lose my job.

So I felt that I did what was right and let the consequences be what they may, but I followed the ethical guidelines of my grant and stood by that decision.

Thank you.

Councilman Gerdal.

Thank you so much, and sorry about that.

Um, thank you so much for being with us this morning.

What role do you believe a municipal court judge plays in addressing systemic inequities in the justice system?

I'm sorry, could you repeat that?

What role do you believe a municipal court judge plays in addressing systemic inequities in the justice system?

Systemic inequities in the justice system, yes.

Well, I believe that um as I alluded to earlier, um, every case isn't just a case, it's a person.

And um we must treat them with fairness, impartiality, dignity, respect.

Um, and so um, if there are um inequities present, we need to um address them.

So, for example, if someone is unhoused, um, I'm not going to assess uh the normal $65 per month probation services fee because they won't be able to afford it.

So I try to address um inequities in that fashion.

Um another way that I believe this the municipal court could address inequities is to make sure that we have a transparent system, one in which um everyone is treated fairly, um, one in which um everybody's due process rights are insured.

Um self-represented folks appear, and um they should never feel that they are at a disadvantage because they're self-represented.

Um they are treated um the same under the rules with regard to they should know the law, uh, and they're held to the same standards as a lawyer, but we judges are allowed to um give reasonable accommodations to them.

So, for example, we can explain legal terms.

We can explain foundational or edu um evidentiary requirements.

Um we are allowed to give them reasonable accommodations.

So if there were an equity there, I would want to make sure that they still have their opportunity to be heard and make those reasonable accommodations so that they feel that they're getting um a just result.

Thank you very much.

That was the extent of the questions that we have for you at this point.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

And I believe Zach will take you back downstairs.

Our next qu um candidate is Brett Hutchinson.

Um Mr.

Atchison, the first question will be asked by Vice Mayor O'Brien.

Good morning, sir.

Thank you for joining us.

How would you approach a sentencing in cases involving repeat low-level offenses?

Balancing public safety, neighborhood impact, and rehabilitation.

Well, I've listened very carefully to the subcommittee's September meeting, and I understand what they're expecting of their judges in the future.

Um I think that it's important to not prejudge cases.

So I can't tell you exactly what I would do in every given case, but generally speaking with repeat offenders, I need to I think they need to be held accountable for their actions.

I understand from what uh was discussed during your September subcommittee meeting that the community is concerned with people being arrested and then being released in a very short time.

I think that's not appropriate, and I think it's been shown that that's not something that should continue to go on.

Thank you.

What cases will be the most difficult to rule on and why I have significant amount of experience in Phoenix Municipal Court, so I can't say that there's a lot of cases that are still difficult for me to rule on.

I've been in my current role as a civil judge for almost eight years, and I was with the prosecutor's office for approximately 11 years before then.

So I understand the cases that occur in Phoenix Municipal Court backwards and forwards, because that's really been the bulk of my practice since I started with the city in 2007.

Um cases that I've had that were difficult in the past were some that I noted in my application where we had a large apartment complex that had been cited by several different departments of the city of Phoenix, and we had lawyers on both sides.

I encouraged them to work closely together to come with a community resolution that would solve the problem rather than just ha allowing it to linger and continue on.

What role do you believe a municipal court judge plays in addressing systemic inequities in the justice system?

I think that it's very important that everyone is treated with fairness and respect.

I have a great deal of experience with this.

I worked for the Arizona Justice Project when I was in law school and for a couple years right out of law school.

I'm familiar with tactics that have been employed by various prosecutorial agencies in the past that were essentially referred to as a trial tax.

I worked specifically on one case where the gentleman's offer pretrial was seven years.

No, I wasn't his attorney at the time.

He chose to go to trial, and after a two-day jury trial, he was convicted and sentenced to 20 years.

That seems to me very unfair.

Understand the purpose of pretrial offers and how they're lower than sentencing.

But senting since excuse me, sentencing a person to more than about three times what the pretrial offer was is not something that should be done.

It's not justice, in my opinion.

And I fought hard to against that in my career.

Describe a time when you faced an ethical dilemma in your legal career, and how did you resolve it?

Well, I'll tell you a story and then I'll circle back.

When I was a young prosecutor, I was coming downstairs to begin the second day of a jury trial that was a DUI.

As I approached the courtroom, there was a juror who was reading a newspaper.

And as I approached the door to the courtroom, he kind of lowered the newspaper and said something to the effect of, don't worry, we'll get them, or I'll make sure we get them.

I went inside the courtroom, I told the bailiff that I needed to speak with the judge and the defense attorney when the defense attorney arrived.

I advised the judge what had happened.

And correctly, the defense attorney moved for a mistrial, which was granted.

I tell you that story not because it was an ethical dilemma for me, but it's because what you get with me is somebody who's very ethical.

I've spent my entire life building my reputation, and I'm not going to destroy it over one case.

I had a professional responsibility teacher that taught us to learn where the ethical rules are and stay far away from them.

When I'm teaching judges in my mock hearing classes, I teach them to learn where the ethical rules are and stay very far away from them because our reputation is something that could be taken away if we make a mistake.

So it's very important to protect.

Okay, thank you very much.

That concludes the extent of our questions for you.

Appreciate your time.

Thank you, welcome, Mr.

Maybury.

Um first question is from Vice Mayor O'Brien.

Good morning, sir.

Thank you for joining us this morning.

Good morning, Vice Mayor.

How would you approach sentencing in cases involving repeat low-level offenses, balancing public safety, neighborhood impact, and rehabilitation?

It depends on the offenses that the uh defendant has committed, the recency of the offenses, and including uh any potential for rehabilitation, including uh educational background, any other set uh would take all those into consideration in determining what sentence according to guidelines I could set.

Uh, oftentimes um it's not cookie cutter.

Uh depends on the defendant, depends on the circumstances.

And um oftentimes uh there's facts that have not come out before that may come out uh before pre the actual sentencing hearing.

Uh and for that, we need to be uh more cognizant of those factors and evaluate them properly for each uh defendant.

Uh that's how I would approach that.

Thank you.

Councilman Warren has the next question for you.

What cases will be the most difficult to rule on and why?

Councilman Warring, thank you.

Um the most difficult cases are those involving uh children.

Um because there are varied offenses uh that affect uh children uh and how uh the children would be affected, um, including even the future uh conduct of those children or future of those children, period.

Uh, oftentimes events that come into play involving children uh may not have an immediate effect, but in the future uh could wind up being something traumatic or even drastic regarding uh children.

And so those cases would be the most uh difficult to deal with.

Um there's also a number of factors that uh always come into play.

Um the family background, um the family network, uh, to name a few.

Oftentimes uh there's um factors that we need to evaluate to determine uh what we're gonna do with these cases.

Uh mental illness may be an issue, uh past um uh trauma in the family that's not really connected to the individual child uh themselves, but trauma in the family, which can also play into the difficulty of dealing with the different cases.

Thank you very much.

Councilwoman Gardato has the next question.

Thank you, um, and welcome and thank you for being with us today.

What role do you believe a municipal court judge plays in addressing in addressing systemic inequities in the justice system?

Good morning, councilman.

Um in this society, um, growing up as a native son of South Phoenix, uh, there's some uh inequities that are not always spoken on.

Um this society and including in this uh city, um, there may be lack of awareness in dealing with certain inequities.

I believe my experience of being a native son, born and raised uh in South Phoenix and growing up in a project, I have a different viewpoint.

Um not only in civil but all cases, but in civil cases, um there has to be some type of awareness of how um individuals have come to be in these disputes, the level of power or availability of resources in these suits.

Uh, what is the end result being sought in these suits?

Um, a lot of times what may not seem to be a big thing to one party could be a monumental thing to another.

And so looking at that, um I would address those uh inequities or equities and view and balance them.

Um I think that's necessary when you uh look according to the law as it is, but also uh there is uh responsibility, I believe, in addressing uh inequities, especially if you are aware of them.

Um oftentimes uh folks are not aware of them.

But given my experience, both uh growing up in South Phoenix and as a federal prosecutor, and now as a judge, I have a different viewpoint than most.

Um thank you.

Thank you.

Describe a time when you faced an ethical dilemma in your legal career, and how did you resolve it?

Thank you, um, Councilman Robinson.

Um the one issue that I think comes up quite frequently is dealing with the situation where you have respondents who are represented by counsel.

Umtimes the respondents that I deal with or have dealt with have limited financial resources, and so the money they spent on uh obtaining legal counsel is a big deal.

Umy cases that come before me, um it is uh very important that the uh attorney represent that respondent, and in certain circumstances, they have not done what they're supposed to do.

And so I had an ethical dilemma on how to address the lack of um of uh action on behalf of that respondents council and addressing why they haven't done what they're required to do, and that is to represent their client to the best of their ability.

Uh sometimes there's an explanation, sometimes there's not.

But uh I had to deal with a situation where the respondents counsel did nothing in preparing the respondent for a criminal trial, and we were at the day of the hearing.

Um I had to sanction that attorney because that uh attorney had not met with that defendant prior to the trial date.

Um that's unusual, but I did give uh I continued the matter in order to allow for the uh defendant to get a different counsel.

Um when you have limited resources, that's about all I could do was sanction that counsel and give that uh defendant an opportunity to get another counsel.

Okay, thank you very much.

Thank you that's the center of the questions this group has for you.

Thank you all.

Thank you.

Mrs.

Christine Mulano, Ms.

Moleno, Vice Mayor O'Brien has the first question for you.

Good morning.

Good morning, and thank you for being here.

Thank you.

How would you approach sentencing in cases involving repeat low-level offenses, balancing public safety, neighborhood impact, and rehabilitation?

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

Excuse me.

This issue actually just recently came up in city court.

I'm currently a prosecutor.

I know that you know my background is as a commissioner.

However, I deal with very often in court uh criminal trespass in the third degree cases, so low-level misdemeanors.

We see repeat offenders for those types of offenses very often.

And I've actually recently taken a different approach on those cases.

If you look at it from the bench, it sounds like it's a low-level offense.

Perhaps time serve might be appropriate, and it might be in some cases.

But after speaking with police officers on the force that patrol this particular area, that repeatedly pick up the same offenders over and over and over, they have a different view.

So when I spoke specifically with Sergeant Chihos and Sergeant Mullen, who patrol the downtown area, they gave me an example where they've picked up criminal trespassers at the Fry's and one shift, an eight-hour shift 30 times.

Those people need to be treated differently.

So I asked them if they were the sentencing judge, how would they handle that?

They suggested perhaps one week in jail, the first offense.

Second offense, perhaps 30 days, because they constantly go to the same location.

I think there's a better way that we could handle that.

Recently I went to community court to learn what they do there.

I know there's the Office of Homeless Solutions that actually meet people on the street.

We could have access, if we could have access to how many contacts they make with particular individuals.

If the courts and the prosecutors had access to that information, perhaps we can make different sentencing recommendations to the court based on the number of contacts that they've been offered in the community.

Councilman Warring has the next question for you.

Yes, sir.

What cases will be the most difficult to rule on and why?

The most difficult cases from my experience to rule on are vulnerable populations, people that have mental health issues, people that have addiction, and quality of life crimes where people are committing crimes due to poverty.

Those are the most difficult because you're trying to balance fairness with accountability and public safety.

And it's a very delicate balance.

But the way that you reach that balance is more communication in those cases.

Thank you.

Councilwoman Garnado has the next question.

Thank you.

Thank you for joining us today.

Thank you for the opportunity.

What role do you believe a municipal court judge plays in addressing systemic inequities in the justice system?

Thank you.

The city court is the face of justice to our community.

Many times in our community, we're the only contact these people have had with the justice system.

We need to be calm.

We need to communicate clearly in plain language, apply the law equally to all people, and allow people to be heard so they feel that they've been treated fairly in the court system.

That's done by temperament with experience, ruling from the bench, which I do have, and commitment to public service.

Meeting our community where they're at, being involved in the community, being involved with community outreach to understand situations of different individuals, being familiar with cultural diversity, socioeconomic diversity, and linguistic differences in the community.

Thank you.

Okay, please describe a time when you faced an ethical dilemma in your legal career, and how did you resolve it?

Thank you.

An example of an ethical dilemma in my legal career is when a case has been charged that I find is not legally sufficient.

In my position as a line prosecutor, I don't charge the cases.

So the cases are brought to me already charged.

If I review the evidence, even if someone else in my office, a supervisor or another line prosecutors reviewed that, and the case has moved forward.

It's my job to ethically determine whether it's legally sufficient to move forward or if it's ethically sufficient.

Let me give you an example.

I recently had a case that was charged for an assault, in which the assailant was the victim in the case.

She threw eggs at a group of protesters who responded.

There was a physical altercation in the case.

Could the case have proceeded forward?

Yes.

Would it ethically be correct to do so?

No.

She instigated the situation.

And although she was listed as a victim in that particular case.

The case was dismissed.

Okay, thank you very much.

That is the extent of questions that this panel has for you.

Thank you, Councilmembers, for your time and the opportunity.

Thank you.

Next candidate is Mr.

Dane Paulson.

Mr.

Paulson, Vice Mayor O'Brien will have the first question for you.

Peggy.

Good morning, and thank you for being here.

How would you approach sentencing in cases involving repeat low-level offenses, balancing public safety, neighborhood impact, and rehabilitation?

Chairman Robinson, members of the council, uh, Vice Mayor O'Brien, thank you for your question.

Um, this is something that I feel strongly about, uh, as you may have uh gleaned from my past experience.

Uh I have a lot of experience in criminal prosecution, and what that means is that I have dealt with cases like that, uh, repeat offenders for a significant portion of my career.

The city court is in a unique position in the community to seek to balance the efforts of rehabilitation in a court and treating offenders with compassion and humanely, but also needs to always remember that there is an interested party that's not in the room, and that's the community.

Public safety is extremely personal to me.

I have spent 10 of the 14 years that I've been an attorney in criminal practice, five of those have been here at the City of Phoenix, and four of those were in the Phoenix Municipal Court.

I have handled every kind of case that you can handle in the city court, and I have seen firsthand the effect that offenses have on the community, and I'm familiar with that even more so given my last year in uh advising the Phoenix Police Department.

I'm aware of the challenges that the city is uh is under, and as a member or as a citizen of Phoenix, and I live in Phoenix myself.

I have a vested interest in seeing this city be what it can be, and I think that when you deal with repeat offenders, it is always important to remember to treat people firmly and apply the law carefully to those cases, and keep in mind their uh humanity and with compassion, but always remember that a primary responsibility of the court is to protect the community.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilman Councilman Warren has the next question for you.

What cases will be the most difficult to rule on and why?

Chairman Robinson, members of the committee, Councilman Waring, thank you for that question.

The most difficult cases that I think in city court that are presented to a judge are domestic violence cases.

And I say that for a couple reasons.

One has to do with the evidentiary challenges that come with domestic violence cases, and the other is the emotional toll that they can take.

Domestic violence cases present an especially challenging situation for judges because very often the cases come down to one person's word against another.

Domestic violence offenses often take place behind closed doors.

There isn't independent witnesses, there's no physical evidence.

And so assessing the credibility of the parties is a very difficult challenge for a judge.

I have tried dozens and dozens of those cases myself in the Phoenix Municipal Court in front of the judges that are there right now.

So I'm very familiar with those challenges.

And I worked very hard to make sure that I presented the best case that I could.

The other reason why they are especially difficult, I think, for a judge is the emotional toll that they take.

People that are in public safety first responders are known to sometimes internalize some of the difficult and uh situations that are presented to them and the violence that they see.

And so I think it's difficult for anybody, and especially for a judge to have that repeatedly be in front of them every day.

And so it's important for a judge to always act impartially, always keep in mind the duties of the court to protect the rights of all the individuals, but also recognize the gravity of those offenses and make sure that they apply the law evenly while also assessing the credibility of the parties to the best of their ability.

That comes with experience, and that's the kind of experience I would bring to the bench if I were appointed.

Thank you.

Councilwoman Granado has the next question for you.

Thank you so much for joining us today.

What role do you believe a municipal court judge plays in addressing systemic inequities in the justice system?

Uh Chairman Robinson, members of the council, and uh councilwoman guardado.

Phoenix has a very diverse community.

I have worked in numerous jurisdictions, and by far the most diverse one that I've worked in is the city of Phoenix.

As I said before, I've worked in this city court for four of the last five years.

And in my representation of the police department, that's been reinforced to me about the diversity of the community.

And it's extremely important that judges are aware of the inequities that certain communities have faced.

And it's extremely important extremely important for a person in my position to understand that I haven't experienced the kinds of inequities that others may have, that I won't possibly understand on a personal level what some people have gone through.

And so a judge needs to start by understanding that every single person that comes into the courtroom brings with them their entire history, that we won't know and understand all the things that they have been through.

And so a judge always needs to temper as far as they can their preconceived notions.

They need to be treating people with the respect and dignity that matter what their background is, and they need to make sure that the law cuts through all those biases and is evenly applied to every single person who comes in that courtroom.

As someone who dealt with unrepresented parties in the city court, as someone who spent time in the city court myself, I've seen that.

And the judges that are there are great at treating people with kindness and with respect and dignity.

That is the kind of uh behavior that I will emulate and I'll strive to uh to emulate on the bench.

Thank you.

Describe a time when you faced an ethical dilemma in your legal career, and how did you resolve it?

Uh, Chairman Robinson, members of the council, um, thank you for that question.

Um this is a question that comes up a lot in a person's career.

And uh what I will say is that I remember a time as a young attorney having a case in which uh the penalty for the offense uh would have been very severe for this person.

The circumstances of this person's offense um would seem to um would seem to not merit those, I think those those consequences, especially because this person's felony history included drug possession, uh, he had a drug addiction, uh, and I won't say more than that so to protect the identities involved.

But I got to a point in which the standard plea agreement or the standard policy that would apply to a case like this was something that I did not agree with.

And so in this particular case, this person was exposed to potentially 16 years in prison for stealing a drill from a vehicle.

And I didn't feel that that prison sentence and the plea agreement that would be applied to that would have been appropriate.

But as a young attorney, I wasn't confident in my ability to speak up about that.

And I had to consider if I let the case pass on to somebody else, whether somebody else would handle that case with the kind of care and attention that I wanted to bring to it.

So the ethical dilemma was do I continue to prosecute this case and how do I do that ethically?

And what I did is that I worked hard to talk to my supervisors, talk to my colleagues, and work hard to get an exception to what our policy normally would have been.

That person went and served a still a fairly lengthy prison sentence and would not will not know what I did behind the scenes.

But I felt strongly that in being a judge and a prosecutor requires using all your ethics and morals to bear on every case.

Okay, thank you very much.

That concludes the extent of the conversation.

Um questions that this particular group has for you.

Thank you.

So thank you.

Our final candidate for today is Shannon Peters.

Ms.

Peters, Vice Mayor O'Brien has the first question for you.

Good morning.

Good morning, Ms.

Peters, and thank you for joining us.

How would you approach sentencing in cases involving repeat low-level offenses, balancing public safety, neighborhood impact, and rehabilitation?

Thank you, Vice Mayor, for the opportunity to answer that question.

Approaching sentencing requires a holistic approach to examining what's better for the community, the safety of the community, as well as the aspects of the particular crime and the defendant involved.

The attorneys that are involved have the obligation to present mitigation to the to the judge as well as the prosecution.

I would balance those mitigating and aggravating factors as well as consider the safety of the public.

In cases where defendants are repeat offenders and have had opportunities to engage in our programming at the Phoenix Municipal Court.

Have they been through treatment courts?

Have they gone to domestic violence treatment counseling?

Are they actively involved in those processes or are they rejecting those processes?

And essentially, if jail is appropriate, then putting them in jail would be an appropriate response.

They've had the opportunity to rehabilitate.

If they've taken that seriously, that's something to consider.

But if they haven't, that's also important to consider.

And you know, you have to take all of those factors into consideration and sentence each defendant individually.

Ideally, I could also hear from the victim in the case and hear what they believed was necessary in order to protect their safety, what they wanted to see as an outcome in the case, and take that into consideration.

And it's my job as the judge to consider all of those factors, balance it out, and come to a conclusion regarding sentencing that is justice for the defendant, justice for the community, and also justice for the victim.

Thank you.

Next question comes from Councilman Warren.

What cases would be the most difficult to rule on and why?

Thank you for the question.

It would be difficult for me to rule on cases that were involved child abuse or um negli uh uh neglect of children.

Uh I am a foster parent and an adoptive parent of two little boys, and so I have extensive experience in the system as a foster parent and not necessarily as a litigant.

That experience has given me the opportunity to see how those cases play out from the other side of the bar.

Um, and the insight that being a parent to a child or children who have been severely abused or neglected gives me a perspective that would be difficult for me to set aside.

Uh, as a defense attorney, I have to represent individuals who are charged with difficult crimes.

I have to have the courage to represent everybody zealously.

However, um, you know, we can set those things aside, those personal parts of us aside, and be able to be the best kind of lawyer that we can.

I would be the same as a judge on the Phoenix Municipal Court.

I would be able to take those personal feelings and set them aside and be able to adjudicate each case adjudicate each case fairly.

But those cases would be difficult for me given the experiences that my children went through and the amount of time that I've spent working with children who have had traumatic pasts.

That would be something that would be difficult for me to handle.

But I am able to have the courage to set that aside and judge each case fairly and impartially.

Thank you very much.

Next question is Councilwoman Gardado.

Thank you so much for joining us today.

What role do you believe a municipal court judge plays in addressing systemic inequities in the justice system?

I believe that a judge plays a very large role in addressing systemic inequities in the system.

It's our job to be conscious of all factors that affect the community.

And with you know, when we're looking at a particular defendant who's walking into our building, there are it's that's the scariest part of their lives.

They've never usually been in that court before, they don't know what to expect, and we have to look at all of the circumstances of a person as a whole.

Um, again, harking back to the first question, what kind of opportunities have had that has that person had to rehabilitate?

What kind of circumstances did they grow up under?

Um there things that have happened in their lives that have affected their decision making, things that are outside their control, uh, like poverty, um, their access to education, choices that their parents made.

Uh, there are many, many factors that that contribute to why a person is in that courtroom that day that predate that being there that day for that matter.

And so, as an as a judge, we want to hear all of that information and balance it out and do so in a manner that brings justice for all.

That that person that is in the court feels like they were heard, their experiences were considered, their voices were important, that they are still treated with respect and dignity, no matter what kind of socioeconomic status that they have, no matter what their background is.

Phoenix is a melting pot of diversity, and so all of those experiences will come before you as a judge.

And when we have the ability to put individuals into treatment courts, that is a tool at our disposal that can also help address some of those inequities that we see.

Um we have a bunch of tools related to the CAP program, helping individuals be able to get their driver's license back, address financial inequities that have happened, and you do as a judge, you just have to know what tools are at your disposal and be able to use them.

Thank you.

Um describe a time when you faced an ethical dilemma in your legal career, and how did you resolve it?

Thank you for the question.

When I was a young attorney, I worked for a firm and I was their first associate.

And in my time with that firm, I was not the attorney that would do the initial intake, so I did not initially meet with the clients and decide what kind of cases that we would take.

Those attorneys would assign those cases to me, I would become competent, I would work those cases and have most of the interaction with the client.

There was a an individual that came in and did a consultation with the owners of the firm that had a driver's license issue related to their driver's license being revoked for multiple DUIs.

That is a statutory revocation or suspension.

That is not something that an attorney can just walk into MVD and undo.

During that consultation, it became evident that those attorneys had promised that individual a particular outcome.

His driver's license is revoked, and there's nothing we can do about it.

I approached my superiors and I said, I think we need to return this individual's money.

We cannot help him.

And they said, looked at me and they said, just earn the fee.

And I was a young associate new to Arizona, and I looked them in the face and I said, I won't, and I can't.

And I quit.

I didn't have a job lined up.

I didn't have a safety net, but in that moment, my ethical obligations to that client and myself overrode, and I had the courage and the bravery to tell them no.

And that has really governed and set the tone for my entire career.

I hold myself to a very high ethical standard.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

That concludes the interview of our candidates.

I think they're all coming up at one point.

As they get well, I'll wait till they all get here and thank all the candidates.

Then we will go into a public comment, and I'll explain that in a quick second.

Okay, all the candidates are here.

First of all, we want to thank you for number one having the interest to apply for the position, and that is greatly appreciated.

And having sat before this particular panel and answered our questions.

And at this point, we will open for public comment.

And I have five people for comp public comment.

And the first one being John Martinez.

Mr.

Martinus.

You'll step over here.

I believe you have two minutes for comment.

Good morning.

My name is John Martinez.

I've been a defense attorney for about 16 years.

I was a prosecutor for a few years.

Years ago, and for the last 15 years, I've been on the opposite side of Ms.

Bhatia.

She is a knowledgeable and fair attorney.

She knows the law very well.

She's smart.

She is understanding of different aspects of uh what happens in different cases.

Um she's more than willing to look at all sides.

Um we're able to present some mitigating factors or uh some things that go above and beyond the norm, she's able to really review that and is fair in all of her decisions.

Um she's somebody that when me and and most of my colleagues we see on the opposite side, at least we know we're gonna get a fair chance uh to work with her to try to resolve a case.

Um I think she's a great candidate, and I would fully support uh her being one of the judges here in Phoenix.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Next citizen for comment, Ed Leiter.

Mr.

Leiter.

Good morning, members of the council.

I've known Neha Batia for 18 years.

We started the Maricopa County Attorney's Office together.

Uh over the last eight years, I've been her uh supervisor and and now uh I am her division chief.

Uh she referenced this during her interview, but uh what the focus of her current practice is in the world of what we call threat assessment.

And it's that type of work that it differs from that of many prosecutors insofar as there is a deep understanding and analysis of underlying mental health and what lends someone to making a threat online, what lends someone to um directing potential violence toward uh public officials toward you know uh a store that has wronged them.

And in her practice, she is able to uh take the role of a prosecutor, that being a minister of justice and someone who looks uh holistically and and makes a determination that someone is perhaps not deserving of a charge, that someone that the best path forward for the community may be not to charge someone, it may be to give them diversion, it may be to um deviate from what we call the pathway to violence, someone who's who's planning an attack who wants to who's verbalized a desire to do bad things in so she would make a fantastic judicial officer, in my opinion, because of that discerning nature and uh and how she looks at cases, and I think that would translate uh very well to a judicial officer.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Good morning.

And thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of judicial candidate Shannon Peters.

I am honored to present um to the public safety uh and justice subcommittee this morning.

As the executive special agent in charge of a federal law enforcement agency that conducts ongoing criminal investigations across multiple cities in this great nation.

I appreciate and respect the significance of significance of judicial appointments.

As a career federal law enforcement executive and officer, most investigations that I've conducted or either supervised have been under the review of appointed justices who have completed similar proceedings.

As a public servant in the law enforcement profession, I understand the importance of selecting suitable candidates to serve as municipal court judges.

That is why I'm more than happy to say a few words on behalf of Shannon Peters.

I've known Shannon for approximately 13 years when I first transferred to the American Southwest.

Her husband and I are colleagues in the same law enforcement agency.

Unlike other defense attorneys who I've encountered throughout my career, Shannon Zolf often volunteered her expertise to assist law enforcement officers in my organization by providing best practices for success during evidentiary hearings, testimony, and constitutional rights of the accused.

Shannon's desire to both defend the rights of her clients and to provide legal training to law enforcement officers as a testament to her admiration and respect for the law.

If she were asked to choose between which side to take in criminal matters between the government or the defense, or in civil matters between the plaintiff, plaintiff and defendant, Shannon would maintain her impartiality and integrity.

She remains steadfast in her commitment and passion for the justice system by ensuring that all are equal before the law.

In closing, Shannon possesses one of the most beneficial traits for a municipal court judge judicial temperament, a treat that encompasses both the ability to apply the law before uh the facts and to understand how judicial decision will affect the very much.

Thank you.

Next speaker is Tyler Adol.

Allen.

Tyler Allen.

Good morning, counsel.

My name is Tyler Allen, and I'm here to speak uh on behalf of Shannon Peters.

Uh I have a little bit of a unique uh experience with Shannon.

Both of us started out our legal careers after uh during the recession, and we both graduated and had our initial jobs revoked.

Uh so it goes to show what Shannon has built on behalf of herself.

Uh I later had the opportunity, uh, and what I want to speak about is being her employer.

Uh it is a rare, it's a rare for an employer to have an employee who is uh more intelligent than them and able to tell you no.

It's a trait that I greatly admired with Shannon, and I will tell you I've had more compliments uh that from clients uh on behalf of Shannon than any other employee I've ever had.

I will tell you that Shannon always sees the person, and she always hears the person.

As a judge, that is so incredibly important.

She will see each person that comes in front of them, whether that's a prosecutor, a defendant, a defense attorney, or a defendant, and she will listen.

I've also never seen someone work a file as an attorney like Shannon does.

Every single page will be read, every single fact will be listened to, and that is so incredibly important.

And so it is obviously uh I give my full recommendation uh for Shannon Peters, and uh I appreciate you listening to me.

Thank you.

Thank you for Matt for that.

Our final speaker is David Allen.

Good morning, esteemed members of the committee.

Thank you for your time.

My name is David Allen.

I'm a judge with the city of Mesa, and I'm also a Phoenix resident.

I'm here in my personal capacity.

I have taken time off and made arrangements for my calendar.

I'm speaking as a resident of the city, but it's important that you understand that I'm a judge.

Uh Ms.

Peters appears in front of me.

I have recused myself from her cases.

She has no pending cases in front of me.

I felt it very important to come and speak on her behalf.

I was blown away by Ms.

Peters' interview and some of the comments that people have made.

It's nice to see the backside.

I only see Ms.

Peters when she appears in front of me in court.

Uh she's a professional.

She's an outstanding human being and an amazing attorney.

She's appeared in front of me for years in domestic violence cases, whether criminal charges or order of protections, which are civil in nature.

She's also appeared in front of me in DUI matters at the MVD, so I found very interesting the story she was telling.

I wasn't at her office, but that statement is true.

She appeared in front of me when I was a judge at the MVD.

When she came in, she spoke the truth.

She argued cases ethically.

When she appears in front of me in criminal court, and I can say this now because I recuse myself from her cases, I'm always impressed with her presentation, which strikes me, and which as a member of this community uh impresses me and would make me want Miss Peters as a judge in my community.

She is ethical.

I have seen her in court presenting a case, and when she finds that the information's not there, she backs off.

She does not ding in her heels just to be right.

When her position is attacked in court, she does not respond with further personal attacks.

She responds with the law and professionalism.

Whether she's representing the accused or the defendant, she treats everyone with dignity and respect.

I've seen attorneys attack Miss Peters in court.

And before I could speak up and say you don't treat someone like that in court, Miss Peters refends herself or presents her position, and she moves on.

That is what we as a community need as someone sitting on the bench in our community.

As other people have said, she sees everyone.

I respect respect, excuse me, request that you give strong consideration to point to Miss Peters.

My statements for her are my capacity.

We are co-workers.

I'm not here to speak as her friend.

She deserves to be a judge.

She's good at what she does.

That concludes the list of our um speakers.

I will now entertain a motion to enter into executive session for the subcommittee to comment deliberations.

All those in favor say aye.

All opposed say nay.

Chair votes aye.

We will um if everyone will excuse us for several minutes.

We're gonna go downstairs and um proceed with our deliberations.

No.

We will now reconvene the subcommittee meeting.

The public safety and justice subcommittee meeting at this time.

After deliberation, the panel has determined to recommend to the full city council appointments of two of the three vacant positions.

Is there a second?

Second.

Second.

All those in favor of recommending an appointment of Brett Hutchinson to a four-year term, please indicate by saying aye.

I chair votes aye.

Congratulations, Brett Hutchinson.

Is there a motion to recommend appointment of Christine Mulano for a four-year term as an as municipal court judge expiring on November nineteenth, twenty nine twenty twenty-nine?

Expiring on November nineteenth, two thousand twenty-nine.

All those in favor of recommending appointment of Christine Mulano to a four-year term, please indicate by saying saying I.

We have a motion and a second.

All those in favor of completing another process to fill the remaining vacancy for a municipal court judge within the next 12 months.

Say aye.

Aye.

The chair votes aye.

Thank you very much.

Motion passes.

Thank you very much for your attention and your presentation and your involvement today.

Thank you.

The subcommittee will move on to item number three.

Our final presentation today will be provided by executive assistant fire chief Tim Chrys and Assistant Fire Chief Rita Riddle Bigler, who will provide a presentation on the fire department staffing, hiring, and response times, as well as updates on the TPT tax plan process or progress.

Good morning, Chairman Robinson, members of the subcommittee.

Thank you for the introductions.

Starting out with the transaction privilege tax.

Um before the turn of last fiscal year, the council, thank you for your support.

Approved uh increase in transaction privilege tax from 2.3% to 2.8%, which will fund many of the positions that I'm going to discuss here in a moment with you all.

At the same approximately the same time, there's an excise tax bond sale and impact fees are being leveraged for the procurement of new fire apparatus and equipment to go along with the TPT plan, as well as funding secured for constructing two new fire stations, fire station 71, located in council district two, and fire station 93 located in Council District 1.

Specific fire department additions, we'll start to unpack those now.

With the TPT, there was a dedicated additional 25 million dollars to the fire department's budget.

And with those funds, we are bringing on 134 more sworn positions as well as 19 civilian professional staff positions.

And something else also to note, thank you to the council support.

Uh Mr.

Barton and assistant manager Lori Bays' leadership.

In the 2025-26 budget, we we were able to uh get support in in sustaining 32 safer grant positions that were awarded through the safer grant about three years ago.

So the funds were uh allocated to sustain those 32 positions, and then at this and what also happened in the for the fiscal year 2526 was 24 sworn positions to staff engine 915 and rescue 915.

Currently there's an engine company at station 15 and a rescue company at station 15 with the construction and the geobond of new station 15.

We will be doubling those uh resources in that area, and these positions are for that.

Specific fire department additions, just going a little deeper into this.

Uh battalion eight.

So this is a new resource funded by the TPT.

Uh battalions are command officer positions as well as safety officers.

They're essential for span of control, firefighter safety.

They manage fire incidents and large medical incidents and hazardous materials incidents, all sorts of major incidents out there.

So critical safety for us.

Battalion 8 is currently in service and operating out of fire station 30 on 27th Avenue Northern.

Uh another TPT resource was rescue 12.

Rescue 12 is also in service.

I'll get to some data on that in a second.

That's an ambulance company.

Their principal uh reason for existing in our system is to transport patients to the hospital, but they do other work for us as air staff with a both firefighter EMT and a firefighter paramedic.

Another TPT resource is ladder 10.

So station 10 is located just east of Thomas Road and about the I-17 just east of the I-17.

Uh station 10 is been for most of my career a station with a single engine company.

It's a very busy fire station.

So adding a ladder company that provides not only response to fire incidents and technical um extrication sorts of events, and they provide fire ground support operations, overhaul, salvage efforts on the fire ground.

They also respond to emergency medical call staff with four firefighters, captain engineer, two firefighters, or excuse me, two engineers and a firefighter, four in total, and they provide emergency medical services as well.

Uh rescue companies being added uh to station one.

Station one is located on Fourth Avenue and Van Buren, just downtown here, and it's a very busy fire station these days, so adding that transportation capability downtown will be a big increase for our service delivery.

We're also adding four medical response units, medical response units or four-person units that primarily go to emergency medical calls, but they also provide support on the fire ground because they are staffed with firefighters as well.

Medical response one will operate out of council district one around the station 33 and future station 93 areas.

Medical response two is going to go up in Council District 2 and around the station 45 area.

And we're hoping to get that resource in service very quickly here, possibly the spring of 2026, a 24 hour medical response running out of station 45 is our plan.

Medical response three, Council District 5 working in the area of Station 40, and medical response 4 in Council District 8, another busy area around the area of Station 39.

In addition to all of that, engine 71 and rescue 71 are funded with the TPT.

These are engine and rescue company, engine 93 and rescue 93, and then important staff positions, professional staff positions and resource management training, human resources, emergency transportation services, community risk reduction division, the emergency response staffing office, emergency medical services, the alarm room, our dispatch center, and our member services.

These professional staff positions are essential not only to implementing all these resources associated with the TPT, but also to sustainment.

Under Chief Duran's leadership.

We have formed an executive advisory committee and a core team that's made up of both labor and management on the Phoenix Fire Department.

We're working very closely together.

And the reason for that is because this is a lot is a significant amount of things here to manage.

So we created an infrastructure subcommittee that's focused on procurement of apparatus, focused on procurement of equipment, focused on securing property and building new fire stations.

We also have a human resource and training subcommittee that Chief Bigler will speak to these points more, and she chairs this committee for us with her labor counterpart, but this is focused on recruitment and hiring and training and paramedic training and firefighter entry training and all of those aspects, promotions associated with managing the transaction privilege tax and these increases in fire department resources.

We're pleased to present on things that have already been placed into service.

As a reminder, of course, all these uh resource editions we're discussing here came with the new fiscal year in July 1st of 2025 here.

Battalion 8 was put in service in July, as well as human resource staff being on boarded.

In August of 2025, we were able to staff up our member services program, some of the logistics positions and technical services staff positions.

In September of 2025, training staff was onboarded.

Proud to say that rescue 12 is now in service, brought in staff for the emergency response staffing office, started a new paramedic class and also a firefighter academy class.

Coming soon, this is a uh image of the station 74, which is located in West Awatoogie, down south there.

Um very proud of this station.

It's gonna be a great addition to our community, and it's coming along fine.

We anticipate that station grand opening the end of 2025, and having an engine 74 and a rescue 74 uh providing service to that community will be a great addition.

We anticipate ladder 10 going into service at about the exact same time, end of 2025.

Uh we'll hire and onboard more EMSHR, ETS, and facility staff.

We anticipate that to be done before the fall is over in 2025.

We're looking to get rescue one into service in 2026 and medical response vehicles, which I discussed in a previous slide, starting to go into service, prioritizing district two medical response two in the spring of 2026, and then Fire Station 15 opening sometime in in fiscal year 26-27, and the constructions moving along very well there.

I'm gonna pass the presentation over to Chief Bigler to discuss some of the staffing aspects.

Thank you, Chief Christ, and good morning, Chairman Robinson and members of the subcommittee.

I'll be presenting updates on our staffing, recruitment and retention efforts.

Recruitment, hiring, and retention are more important than ever.

And again, thanks to council's approval of the TPT and other increases to fire department capacity.

Here's our current snapshot of our hiring numbers.

Our authorized sworn position count is 2,027.

Of these positions, 134 of them are TPT and other excuse me, our TPT, which were assigned to the fire department in July, July of 2025.

To date, our sworn filled position count is 1,899, which includes our current recruit class of 48 on track to graduate January of 2026.

Our next hiring process is underway this week as we plan to hire 65 new recruits, our largest academy yet, and they're scheduled to start in February of 2026.

This chart shows separation data for the past six years.

The attrition rates that we are tracking are shown on this slide as retirements.

These are members who reach their actual retirement date.

The non-retirement category accounts for any unanticipated separation from the department.

At this time, the fire department is not experienced significant challenges related to member retention.

We continue to take proactive and strategic measures to support our membership, and I will outline those initiatives in the following slides.

We recently hosted our first online testing process using our vendor public safety answers.

This company is used by over 100 agencies across 29 states with 30,000 candidates using this platform.

Our online testing process consists of two different tests, one being content specific to the Phoenix Fire Department, and the validated PSA material consisting of cognitive and behavioral components, looking for fit for duty.

As one of the agencies using this platform, this creates a broader outreach to out-of-state applicants, including those that are in the military.

We were pleased to see 102 applicants from 24 states in our testing process.

And then lastly, the transition to online testing is considered an industry best practice, moving away from the traditional paper and pencil methods.

Online testing also resulted in an increase in applicants taking the firefighter entrance exam.

As previously noted, the fire department transitioned online testing for the first time in its history.

The red bars on this chart show applicant data from our last in-person testing cycle in February, which had 1,267 applicants, to our first online testing cycle back in August, which had 1,034 applicants.

The yellow bars indicate the number that actually started the testing process.

And while the total number of applicants were lower back in August, this number of test takers increased with 803 candidates taking the test, representing a 5% improvement.

The white bar graph illustrates the number of candidates who passed the firefighter entrance exams.

In the February process, 516 candidates passed using a 70% past threshold.

And our most recent online testing cycle, 405 candidates passed, a lower number, but with a higher pass point applied at 72%.

We plan to hire one class of 65 recruits from this candidate poll, and we'll open up testing again in January to allow more candidates to apply.

This data demonstrates the effect effectiveness and accessibility of the new online format, which will continue we will continue to improve upon in the near future.

Across the country, first responder agencies are actively competing for qualified candidates, and we recognize that.

Today's applicants have more options than ever and can choose the agency that best aligns with our goals and values, making recruitment a highly competitive process.

To remain the top choice, the Phoenix Fire Department prioritizes outreach through schools, athletic programs, college EMT classes, and career day events.

Our recruitment team also collaborates with strategic partners, including police to host impactful events such as the public safety experience, which was successfully held this past April, and it's noted in these pictures on this slide.

In addition to our robust recruitment efforts, the fire department is placing equal emphasis on member retention.

We recognize that supporting our current workforce is essential to sustaining a strong, healthy organization.

Our wellness programs continue to involve to evolve, offering progressive services that prioritize physical and mental health.

This includes comprehensive cancer screenings, annual physicals that monitor long-term health trends, and opportunities to participate in research studies focused on career longevity in the fire service.

We also remain committed to providing our members with state-of-the-art equipment and investing in clean and modern fire stations.

Many of these same initiatives that attract new recruits, such as wellness, safety, and professional development, are equally vital to retaining our experienced personnel.

And above all, we do understand that our greatest asset is our people, and we are committed to supporting them throughout their careers.

I'd like to hand this back to Chief Christ, and he'll discuss response times.

Thank you, Chief Begler.

So this uh chart you're looking at is our response time data for each council district, including citywide totals.

And for a second, I'll refresh on specifically what we're looking at.

If you see in the column on the left, critical EMS incident, that's a 90th percentile standard set by the National Fire Protection Association.

And that's a five-minute 90th percentile standard.

First arriving engine to a fire.

The standard is also 90th percentile at five minutes and 20 seconds.

First arriving ladder to a fire is also 90th percentile set by the NFPA of the ladder arriving within nine minutes and 20 seconds.

And then our ambulance response time for critical EMS transports is a 90th percentile standard set by Arizona Department of Health Services.

For citywide totals critical EMS incident, we're at seven minutes and 16 seconds.

First arriving engine to a fire, we're at five minutes and 48 seconds.

First arriving ladder to a fire, we're at 10 minutes and 11 seconds.

And for our ambulance response times, we're at 919 with a total of 180,380 calls for service.

And as a I don't think I said this, but if I did, forgive me.

Um, we're looking at numbers effective January 1st, 2025 to September 30th, 2025.

This this graph just seeks to demonstrate the increase in population and corresponding impact specific to critical EMS response times is a metric that we focused on here.

And we're looking at it for 10 years, and as we can see, steady population growth for much of this 10-year period, the fire department just did not see a corresponding increase in capacity to match that population growth.

And as a reminder, the 90th percentile response time standard for critical EMS set by the NFPA's five minutes.

Thanks to the beginning of major council investments in about the 2022 period and and and really major investments in recent in recent years.

Um we've seen uh some improvements.

And I also want to give credit not just to the council for their investment, but also to the leadership of City Manager Jeff Barton and assistant city manager Laurie Bayes, because about that 2021-22 period where those investments started to come in, what we're starting to see is a stabilization and even an improvement in critical EMS response times.

As far as patient transports, this data we're looking at is again from January 1st, 2025 to September 30th, 2025.

And for our averages back in 2023, we're averaging about 8,000 patient transports per month.

In 2024, that went up to 8,372.

And year-to-date average is 9,015 in 2025.

On this slide is showing the location of fire station 62, roughly there, uh just west of 91st Avenue and Lower Buckeye Road.

This is a new station that we opened almost a year ago now.

The yellow that's indicated on the map, the yellow shaded area is station 62's primary response area.

We opened station 62 with an all-hazards engine company and also a rescue company.

And the reason this is on on uh on the PowerPoint here for for us to share is just to demonstrate the impact of investment.

Station 62 again opening um almost a year ago, back in 2024, November of 2024.

The community there is experiencing critical EMS response times that are a minute and 38 seconds faster before that station was opened.

The ambulance response times are you getting ambulance service in that area, four minutes and fifty seconds faster.

Shifting gears a little bit.

I we had shared that we put rescue 12 in service, rescue 12 is about uh Indian school in 32nd Street, just kind of east east of downtown Phoenix.

It went into service in September of 2025, so not a lot of data here.

But since it's gone into service, ambulances are arriving in that community, three minutes and seven seconds faster.

And again, this is just to demonstrate the immediate and measurable return on investment uh for our community, and thank you for your support.

And with that, that concludes the presentation.

Be happy to answer any questions.

Okay, thank you.

Let me check with my colleagues.

Jim, do you have any questions?

No.

No question.

I I have one real quick question, and Chief Riddle Bigler, I think it's for you.

And it comes to let me find the slide I put my notes on.

Slide number 11.

It's just uh the number of recruits that are actually applying for the position and that are testing and then who have passed.

Can you quickly walk us through once?

Let's say I am a fire recruit.

I passed, you know, I'm at that point where I've passed.

What do I have to do next?

And usually how long of a timeline is that Chairman Robinson, thank you for the question.

So, for example, with online testing, um, it was an open application period of three weeks.

So you could take your test at your convenience 24-7, um, and finish that process.

Once that process concluded at the end of August, it took us about a month to compile our list, send notifications, and those that took the test back in August are going through their first round interview this week.

And then if they pass that, they'll have a week break and then they'll come back for their second round and be notified the following week, which would be right before Thanksgiving if they've been offered a job with Phoenix Fire.

Within the interview process, is there any of the physical agility that I that I would be responsible for?

Or is that I was just trying to figure out where is that in the overall scheme of things.

Uh thank you for the question, Chairman Robinson.

So, you all candidates are required to achieve their candidate physical ability test, and they do that on their own and prior.

So they're required to maintain that certification, and it needs to be current within six months of being hired.

Okay, thank you very much.

So, what you're getting at that point after the interviews is somebody who's ready to go, put them in the academy and go from there.

Yes, exactly.

Thank you very much.

Exceptional presentation, really appreciate it.

And if there are no additional comments from my colleagues, items number four and five are for informational purposes only.

Uh, any of my colleagues have any questions or comments on either of them.

That being the case, the last item today is a call to the public.

I do not believe we have any registered speakers.

So, that being the case, do I have any recommendations for any future um agenda items?

Doesn't so chairman.

I would like to see us just um having the police department maybe do a little bit of a presentation on the heat squad that we have um in the police department.

The heat squad, most definitely.

I see Chief Giordano is here.

Notes are being taken.

We'll put that down.

That would be great.

Okay, all right, everyone.

Thank you very much for your time.

The time is 11:50.

We are adjourned.

Thank you.

They were single screen theaters.

Paramount, Arizona hired a guy named Ralph Havert to design the uh Cinec Capri Theater.

They really want.