Good afternoon.

It is May 6, 2026, and we will begin formal meetings shortly.

We'll begin with an invocation today from police chaplain John Taylor.

Stand with me.

Please join me in prayer.

Dear Heavenly Father, on behalf of all who are gathered here today, we thank you for your many blessings, and we thank you for life itself.

Thank you for the freedoms we enjoy in this great nation.

You have established authorities to promote peace and order and justice.

And so today I pray for our Mayor for the various levels of city officials, and in particular for this assembled council.

I'm asking that you would grant them wisdom to govern, a sense of the true needs and welfare of our people, confidence in what is good, just and right, the ability to work together in harmony, personal peace in their lives, and joy in their work.

I pray for the agenda set before them today.

Please give them an assurance of what would please you and what would benefit those who live and work in and around our beloved city of Phoenix.

It's in your most blessed name I pray.

Amen.

Please join us for the pledge of allegiance.

I pledge.

Call to the order of the meeting.

Will the clerk call the roll?

Councilwoman Guardado here.

Councilwoman Hernandez here.

Councilwoman O'Brien.

Here.

Councilwoman Pastor.

Councilman Robinson.

Here.

Councilwoman Stark.

Councilman Waring.

Vice Mayor Hodge Washington?

Here.

Mayor Gallego.

Here.

Mario Barajas and his team are here to provide interpretation.

Mario, would you introduce yourself?

Yes, Mayor.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

My name is Mario Warajas, and I'm going to be working with uh Oscar Monroy and El Cil Duarte as Spanish interpreters.

I'll now take a moment to introduce ourselves to our Spanish speaking audience.

When I started, you know, that Mario Borajas Monroe y El C Duarte.

So let me think, so facilitar para proved la interpretation.

So they say evite distractions in fondo.

Muchas gracias.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, Mario.

Well, the city clerk, please read the 24-hour paragraph.

The titles of the following ordinance and resolution 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 number G7511 through 7514, S52698, 52810 through 52846, and resolutions 22370 through 22376.

Yes, thank you, Mayor.

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

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

General comments that go beyond the scope of the agenda item should be made during the citizen comment session at the end of the agenda.

Additionally, any member of the public who appears before the council in their capacity as a lobbyist must, as required by Phoenix City Code disclose this fact before addressing the council.

The city code states that speakers must express their comments respectfully and courteously.

Use of profane language threats or personal attacks on members of the public, council members, or staff are not allowed.

Such comments are disruptive and unrelated to the council's business.

Any person who violates these rules may lose their opportunity to speak further and could be asked to leave.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you so much.

We'll next go to item one meeting minutes.

Councilman Stark, do you have a motion on item one?

Yes, ma'am.

I move to approve.

Second.

Motion and second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, nay.

Motion carries.

Item two, Vice Mayor.

Do we have a motion on boards and commissions?

Motion to approve mayor and city council boards and commission nominations.

Second.

We have a motion and a second.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, nay?

Passes unanimously.

We have two individuals who will be joining us on our village planning commissions.

They could please come forward.

Can we just press both stand next to each other here?

Congratulations.

Thank you.

Please raise your right hand.

I state your name.

Scott McLean.

Do solemnly swear.

Solemnly swear.

That I will support the Constitution of the United States.

So 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.

But I will bear true faith.

And allegiance to the same.

And allegiance to the same.

And defend them against all enemies.

And defended against all enemies.

Foreign and domestic.

Foreign and domestic.

And then I will faithfully and impartially.

And I will faithfully and impartially.

Discharge the duties of the office of.

Discharge the duties of the office of.

Village Planning Commissioner.

According to the best of my ability.

According to the best of my ability.

So help me God.

Congratulations.

Thank you for serving our city.

Congratulations again.

The City of Phoenix provides an advisory role to the state of Arizona on liquor licenses.

We'll turn to that portion of our meeting.

Vice Mayor, do we have a motion?

Motion to approve items three through 26, except items 26 and noting that item 22 is being continued to the May 20, 2026.

And item 26 is as revised.

Second, okay.

We have a motion and a second.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, nay.

Carries unanimously.

Item 26 is in District force.

I'll turn to Councilwoman Pastor.

I want to turn myself off the meeting.

Sorry.

Um item number 26.

Uh is there somebody here?

We do.

Do you want to hear from staff or we have the applicant?

Okay.

Staff.

Members of the council, we have Leah Swanton with city clerk.

Mayor and Councilwoman Pastor.

Um this is a liquor license application for the Barracks Bar in District 4.

Um, it's a first series six, um, located at 4601 North Seventh Avenue.

Um there is a 60-day limit for processing the application, which is May 12th of 2026.

This request is for an ownership and location transfer of the liquor license for a bar.

This location was not previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit.

And originally staff had recommended recommended disapproval based on the police department recommendation for disapproval.

However, that has now changed, and the police department is now recommending approval because the original owner has removed themselves from the application and is no longer involved in the business.

So as to that, the City of Phoenix staff is recommending approval of this application.

Okay.

So I want to just add some clarity.

As of yesterday, after speaking with the city clerk, the removal of that applicant, which had some background issues, and uh issues where that was administered for a denial.

As of yesterday, the removal, then it became approval.

However, it did not remove all uh the complaints that I received or denial from neighborhoods that sit or neighbors that sit right up right near the property.

So I just wanted to put that on record.

Um so that people understand uh where I'm going with this.

Uh my recommendation is no recommendation and to allow the state to administer the liquor license and do what they need to do uh due to the fact that I did get protests and now approval.

So that is my vote, no recommendation.

That's my motion, second.

We have a motion and a second.

We do have three potential speakers.

We have um Matthew Moody in support, Andrea Lukowitz available to speak if necessary, and Matt Wolf.

Shall we start with Andrea?

Available to speak if necessary.

Do we have or do you want to start with the it looks like Mr.

Moody may be the applicant?

All right, Mr.

Moody, you have two minutes.

Uh thank you for your time.

I appreciate it.

Um, I know a lot of these choices are statistical facts, they're not emotional.

Um, but as most people who know me will tell you, I very much am.

This is my dream to do something like this because a bar like Barracks was what saved me, and it made me feel that I was allowed to be a gay man in the world because I never quite fit in.

I was a punk rock kid and in touring bands, but I was gay.

I was always half a one, not the other, and these places create homes for those of us who don't often feel that we have one.

Um, I understand my ex-business partner had some issues, and to trust me, I was terrified of them, and with his removal.

Um I feel that no, I know in my soul that I could be exactly the right person for this bar and a person who can protect the next generation and make the streets safer and give people a great night because gosh, isn't life hard enough as it is right now?

Who doesn't want to go dance it out?

Um I appreciate your time.

I uh I'm shaking in my boots literally, so thank you.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Mayor, council members.

We've been working with Mr.

Moody, and he has worked diligently with other attorneys with zoning staff to create a place that will be safe.

They have gone through uh a use permit process, the property does support the proposed use.

They've worked directly with neighbors and will continue to be a part of the community.

And of course, there's nothing worse than a community that doesn't get along.

So he is providing his contact information, email, telephone, anything they need so that they can let him know if there are issues for the operations at any time.

I know they're concerned with parking.

Uh, he did work through the city, and they have now approved permit parking for the street.

So that will restrict it from his guests, and we're hoping that with the cooperation of everyone, they will not have any issues.

Thanks so much for your consideration.

Our final speaker will be Matt Wolf.

Mr.

Wolf, if you could indicate you're here for this item, that would be helpful.

All right, I do not see Mr.

Wolf.

So will curve uh we have a motion on the floor.

Does anyone you wish any additional comments?

Leah, can you explain a uh a no recommendation and what that does for the state because really the state is the one who licensed the liquor license?

Yes, um, councilwoman pastor and council members and mayor.

Um, by issuing if the city issues um uh makes a no recommendation as as you have made your motion, um, the state can issue the license 15 days after council takes action.

If there's no other issues, um, or the item can be set for a hearing with the state liquor board if there are other issues.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Wolf.

No, no, we do not have Mr.

Wolf.

Okay, he is downstairs, so will he speak from downstairs?

No, Mr.

Wolf.

Okay.

All right.

Then councilwoman, are we ready for roll call?

Roll call.

Guardado, yes.

Hernandez?

Yes.

O'Brien, yes, pastor, yes, Robinson, yes, Stark, yes.

Wearing, Hodge Washington, yes.

Gallego, yes, passes 90.

All right.

Um City City Clerk.

Are we ready for ordinances, resolutions, new business planning and zoning?

Yes, Mayor.

Vice Mayor, do we have a motion?

Yes, we do.

Motion to approve item items 27 through 89, except for the following items 45, 49, 57, 65, and 67.

Note in that item 57 has additional information.

Item 63 is requested to be withdrawn from the agenda.

Item 87 is requested to be withdrawn from the agenda.

And can the clerk confirm?

Are there any other items that should be excluded for in-person public comment?

Yes, Mayor, Vice Mayor, also excluding items 37 and 42.

That's item 37 and 42.

All right, we have a motion.

Do we have a second?

Roll call.

Mordado.

Yes.

Hernandez?

Yes.

O'Brien.

Yes.

Pastor.

Yes.

Robinson.

Yes.

Stark.

Yes.

Wearing.

Hodge Washington?

Yes.

Gallego.

Yes.

Passes 90.

All right.

Item 37 is conduct of an election.

The election to be held on November 3rd.

Vice Mayor to have motion.

Motion to approve item 37.

Second.

We have one comment from Leonard Clark.

And Leonard, after you speak, if you could stay close, you're the next client as well.

Thank you, Mayor.

Council members.

Uh, born right down the street at Good Samaritan Hospital.

My name is Leonard Clark.

Uh, from this beautiful city of Phoenix.

I am deeply concerned, and I I'm because that's why I'm speaking.

I am a supporter of this measure, but I again I've spoken on this before.

Uh, that the election, that the safety of the citizens of Phoenix, all those who are uh uh constitutionally allowed to vote, not have their rights infringed upon.

I'm just concerned about the uh private domestic army known as ICE coming to our election station.

So I I hope that you have some contingency plans up there about what's gonna happen so that citizens aren't intimidated by just hearing about Mark Wayne Mullen, you know, sicking ice on our polling stations.

So please, I hope you have contingency pack uh uh options on this.

Uh we should have free and fair elections.

I know you want that, but we after all do have a uh private domestic army roaming our streets, threatening American citizens and our immigrant brothers and sisters.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Roll call.

Mordado, yes.

And on this?

Yes.

O'Brien, yes, Pastor, yes, Robinson, yes.

Stark, yes.

Wearing Hodge Washington, yes.

Gallego, yes.

Passes 90.

Next, we turn to item 42, which is an MOU between the city of Phoenix and Labor's International.

Vice Mayor, do we have a motion?

Motion to approve item 40 to second.

The motion and a second.

Leonard.

Thank you.

If the unions agree, uh, because my father was a carpenter for 15 years as a carpenter.

Um, I I strongly uh hope that you've worked with them and that they agree with it.

And if the union, our brothers and sisters in our unions who make sure that we have an eight-hour work day.

Uh, we're paid overtime, thanks to our unions, all of these things that we wouldn't have.

Our workers, even for people who aren't in unions.

I hope that you'll you'll pass this if they agree.

And thank you to our union brothers and sisters.

But we need to keep supporting them because there's a lot of our workers that are not being treated fairly and being paid a fair wage while billionaires are making so much money off of our government.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Roll call.

Guardado.

Yes.

Fernandez?

Yes.

O'Brien?

Yes.

Pastor?

Yes.

Robinson?

Yes.

Stark?

Yes.

Waring.

Hodge Washington.

Yes.

Gallego.

Yes.

Passes 90.

Item 45 is an MOU between the City of Phoenix and the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association.

Vice Mayor.

Motion to approve item 45.

Second.

Motion and a second.

We'll turn to Councilman Hernandez for comments.

Thank you, Mayor.

For me, this contract is truly not it.

The entire process on this specific contract is flawed, disappointing, and riddled with concerns.

It is lacking transparency, which is a huge flaw.

We are again being asked to deliberate and vote on a memorandum of understanding that governs one of the most powerful institutions in our city with limited public visibility, limited community input, and limited time for meaningful scrutiny, and that isn't acceptable.

We know that our police department takes up more than double of the amount of any other department in our city budget.

This is a department in which our sworn officers have the power to kill us and face zero discipline or accountability for it.

It is problematic to issue pay rate increases for sworn officers when we have a lack of proper containment for sworn officer overtime.

The increased funding for special assignment units, the air force, and the duties implied by the authorized representatives in the time bank system also pose major concerns.

This contract is at the heart of what allegedly experience my family lived after my little brother was killed by one of our sworn officers.

Many of the protections outlined in this contract are the reason why my family and other Phoenix families have not seen any justice or accountability for the crimes committed by Phoenix police sworn officers.

And I do not say that lightly.

Forget justice for a second.

We fail often at just providing answers to actions from our sworn officers.

We cannot continue to separate this contract from those lived realities.

They are inextrip inextricably linked.

We should be prioritizing and protecting our families, creating more mechanisms for accountability, transparency, and access.

Instead, I see a continuation of a status quo that prioritize institutional protections over police accountability.

Also, we have sworn officers in this association that are a hot mess right now in embarrassment.

So for those reasons, I vote no, I will be voting no on this MOU.

Thank you, Mayor.

Councilman O'Brien.

Thank you, Mayor.

I want to um thank the men and women of our police department who serve our community every day to ensure that our families, residents, businesses, and visitors feel safe.

Without that safety, we would not have people who want to live here or businesses who want to come here.

And every day, these men and women run towards danger instead of away from danger.

So as part of the overall group of employee MOUs, this is one of five, and they are all done in the same way.

So I will be supporting this, and I'm thankful every day for those men and women.

Roll call.

Guardado.

Yes.

Hernandez?

No.

O'Brien?

Yes.

Pastor?

Yes.

Robinson?

Yes.

Stark.

Waring?

Hodge Washington?

Yes.

Gallego.

Yes.

Passes 8-1.

We'll next go to item 49, and we'll begin by asking the clerk to read the title.

Item 49 is ordinance G7514, an ordinance amending Phoenix City Code Chapter 24, Parks and Recreation to add new section related relating to certain services in parks.

Thank you.

We'll begin with a presentation and I'll introduce our deputy city manager.

Cynthia, thank you for providing us with an update.

Sure.

Good afternoon, Mayor, members of the council.

I am here today with Assistant Parks and Recreation Director Brandy Barrett, and we will be providing you with an overview and update of the medical treatment and food distribution in City Parks Ordnance.

I wanted to start off by thanking our amazing city team who have been working alongside with me on these efforts.

We have representatives from the City Manager's Office, Parks and Recreation, the Office of Homeless Solutions, Public Health, Phoenix Fire, and Neighborhood Services.

And these individuals have either served in an advisory capacity or have been part of our working group and have been attending many of the in-person and virtual stakeholder meetings with me and are with us in the audience today.

Also, wanted to start off by doing a quick review and why do we need a medical treatment and food distribution and city park ordinance?

This is information that we've included and tried to take out in the community when we've conducted our stakeholder meetings, and we've tried to make it very clear that these activities are already taking place in city parks, and that parks are protected spaces under the First Amendment.

And that means that legally we cannot ban these activities, but as a city, we do have the right to establish time, place, and manner parameters, and that's really the foundation of this ordinance.

Currently, there is no park rule or city ordinance that addresses or provides parameters around these services in parks.

And how we got here is the parks and recreation department, along with many of your offices, continue to receive concerns from residents regarding the lack of regulation and the impact that these services have had on our parks throughout the park system.

I want to take you through some photos, and the photos are certainly photos that represent why we're here in terms of the challenges that are being found again in parks throughout the entire park system.

Well-intended individuals that come into the parks to provide care or services, but can leave unsafe conditions behind.

All of the photos are in a variety of different city of Phoenix parks, again throughout the park system.

And these individuals, this one in particular is not a licensed individual in the case of the photos that we've I've just shown you the first couple photos of.

This photo is intended to show that when it comes to food distribution in parks, it has proven to be an activity that can generate a large volume of people in a short period of time and really be impactful in a park.

This is just some of the trash and waste.

These are some of these are staff photos.

Some of these are photos that residents have submitted as well.

In this case, you see the name of a church that may have been involved in the activity itself.

These two photos were provided by a resident fairly recently, following a food distribution event in our Cave Creek Park system, where they reported to see individuals who were part of the activity who remained on park property, open drug use and finding open sharp container with needles inside.

Again, this, these are staff photos of things that our groundskeepers and other staff have come across.

The photos on the left, too, are in Roosevelt Park.

The one on the right was a collection of over 120 needles that were found in South Mountain Park as part of a cleanup.

These photos are photos of needles found in Homestead Park.

And these were drug paraphernalia needles found in Margaret T.

Hans Park.

And again, I'm going to turn it over to Brandy, but this is just a small sampling of some of the things that our employees are finding, and I will turn it over to Brandy to give a little more information on that.

Thank you very much, Cynthia.

Mayor, members of the council.

The images shown paint the picture of risks that not only the public encounter in city parks but also our staff.

Field employees across all divisions report frequent encounters with hypodermic needles, particularly in parks.

These situations often require staff to stop work and retrieve appropriate tools for safe disposal.

Although most encounters do not result in injury, they consume time and continue to pose a safety risk.

And this risk includes many of our different types of parks employees, such as groundskeepers, gardeners, or recreation employees, and park rangers who are in our parks daily.

The parks and recreation department safety team has emphasized proper procedures and provides training for identifying, handling, and disposing of needles.

In addition, staff received training on how to control exposure to bloodborne pathogens.

We felt it was important to note that the risks are not just to the public but also to all of the employees who work in our city parks every day.

I'll turn the presentation back over to Cynthia.

Thank you, Brandy.

And just to do a quick recap on the action and the efforts so far regarding the ordinance.

Back in December, City Council approved the safe medical care and city parks ordinance with the delayed effective date of March 30th and direction to staff to conduct stakeholder engagement.

That was followed by action on March 6th to further delay the effective date to June 1st, with the direction following that to add or incorporate food distribution into this ordinance as well.

After further work with Marin Council, we posted the revised draft ordinance that is being proposed today, and we conducted additional stakeholder engagement between March 27th and April 27th.

In terms of key components of the ordinance, as it's written today, it would entirely prohibit needle exchange distribution and distribution of needle intramuscular naloxone.

So those activities would not even be allowable with a permit.

It does require a permit for other types of medical treatment and food distribution activities.

We'll start with medical treatment activities.

The maximum number of permits issued for these services would be two permits per month per eligible park.

You can see in bold later when I talk about food distribution that it is a total of two between both activities.

So two services permits, not two for food and two for medical.

In terms of eligible parks, the eligible parks include neighborhood parks with parking lots, community parks, and regional parks, excluding sports complexes.

And the medical treatment activities must take place in an enclosed tent or a mobile medical vehicle in a parking lot or other hardscape area that is not an athletic court.

They must also be performed under the supervision of a licensed professional operating under the scope of their licensure, and permittees must agree to provide indemnification and insurance.

There are exceptions, and some exceptions, these are not all of them, include first responders, such as firefighters, law enforcement, paramedics, individuals who, in the course of their professional duties, are responding to emergencies would be an exception, as well as any person rendering aid to another person experiencing a sudden injury or emergency.

Additionally, licensed professionals who are acting within the scope of their license or licensure at an otherwise already permitted event would be an exception.

So, for example, when we host a large athletic tournaments in parks or fun runs, these are types of activities that go through the park special event process or permit process, and they may have a reason to have medical staff on site, such as an athletic tournament or a fun run.

Those would be an exception to this because they would go through an already established special event permit application process.

And then also the distribution of intranasal naloxone in non-emergency or emergency situations.

So what this is saying is that the nasal naloxone could be distributed.

And both types of naloxone, needle, intramuscular and nasal, can be administered when there's an emergency, but this is specific to distribution and handing it out.

So as written, only the intranasal would be allowed to be handed out.

In terms of food distribution, a food distribution event is defined as a gathering for charitable or humanitarian purposes that was planned, organized, or conducted to distribute food to any member of the general public at no cost or for a nominal charge.

And again, we have that maximum number of permits issued here, just as that reminder that we're talking two service permits per park in a one-month period.

Exceptions to food distribution, or that that this does not apply to any event that was not planned or intended to serve or distribute food to the general public.

So examples of this include family events such as celebrations, weddings, reunions, or other types of informal gatherings, and events that are not open to the general public or where the general public is not invited.

Something I also wanted to point out, because we've had some questions around this, things that will continue to be allowable without a permit would be things like outreach and education.

So people and organizations would still be able to walk into the park and conduct outreach and provide information about services.

They can connect and transport people to services, and they can still distribute water and electrolyte beverages as written in the proposed ordinance today.

That concludes our formal presentation, and we'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you so much.

We'll begin with council member questions.

Councilwoman Guardado.

Thank you, um, so I have some questions for you, Cynthia, and then I'm also gonna need is Rachel here, Rachel as well.

Thank you guys.

Cynthia, so per your presentation, so thank you so much for for leading us on this and the education that you have given.

When it comes to permits, how many times a month do you think that we deny permits for a soccer league or a baseball league?

Mayor, members of the council, councilwoman guardado, um, I don't have a specific number.

What I can tell you is that athletic fields are a good example of permits that get denied on a fairly frequent basis, and there's a variety of reasons for that.

One, the inventory of athletic fields, the um the demand outweighs the inventory that we have.

Other reasons that we might deny other types of permit have to do with other criteria like what we have already approved for activities and events going on in the park, the size of a parking lot, and whether or not it can accommodate additional people.

So there are other factors such as that.

Um, and so we try to accommodate as many people as possible, but there are certainly those types of reasons in which we would deny a permit, but we would also we always offer alternative.

If there's an alternative park date, time, location, we would try to do that as well.

And then other question, when it comes to our groundskeepers, when it comes to our park rangers, every time that they accidentally encounter a needle, what's the process that they have to go through in order for for them to get care?

Sure.

Mayor members of the council, councilwoman guardado.

There are protocols we work with HR safety to have an established protocol program, and so there is a process in place where they are to immediately notify a supervisor, they go to Consentra, and then it's voluntary for them to go through many months of optional training if they're actually exposed or poked by something like a needle.

So there is training on the prevention side to try to prevent that, and then there is training on what happens if somebody is exposed.

And if care is needed, how long, how long do they have to get care for?

It can be up to six months, councilwoman.

Okay, thank you.

And can permits be denied, revoked, or restricted if activities negatively impact surrounding neighborhoods or park operations?

Mayor members of City Council, Councilwoman Guardado, yes, that would be one of the factors similar to when we receive a special event application.

We're going to look at what that impact is to the park.

For much larger events, we're accustomed to community notification processes.

In the case of this particular service permit, if approved, there would be a web page where people would be able to get information on what activities and permits have been approved within the parks.

And can you walk us through if there were to be a violation from anyone, whether it's a soccer league, whether it's anyone that's asking for a permit, if they commit a violation, what are the different steps that need to be taken?

Sure, councilwoman, mayor, members of city council, we really strive to lead with education.

So unless it is an emergency, a crime, you know, that would warrant an immediate trespass or contacting PD, we're going to lead with education.

And so we're going to offer a warning.

That's what we do with many of our other park rules that are in the code of conduct, as well as some of the other rules that are listed in ordinances specific to parks.

Following that, following that education and warning that would be documented, and then we would move to a citation.

And so a citation would be able to be issued by a park ranger or a Phoenix police officer since this would be an ordinance.

And then they would forfeit any remaining permits for 120 days.

And if it continued, they would forfeit the ability to obtain permits for a one-year period.

The most comparable thing I can think of is our field allocation permit system, and we have a very similar process in place.

Most commonly with them, if they leave trash, alcohol, other things like that, we follow the same process or a similar process.

Great.

And this is true for anyone that requests a permit, right?

This is not just a specific for certain groups.

Mayor, members of the council, council and guardado, yes, we have this escalation of leading with education into warnings, trespassing, forfeiting permitting rights with other permits as well.

Okay, because we've heard so many concerns from different residents as we started this process.

It's been confusing for a lot of the neighbors out there.

And I guess for you, what message could you give to our neighbors that are a little concerned on the vote that we're taking today, given the confusion, given what people wish would happen in the parks and what they wish wouldn't happen in the parks.

Mayor, members of council, council and guardado.

I know through the stakeholder process, when we were engaging with residents with concerns, you know, as you can imagine, we've we've heard many opinions on this with people with who have different lenses on this.

There was some confusion.

Some were saying they were in opposition of the ordinance because they don't want to see these activities taking place at all in a park.

And we had to do educating like that, one of the first slides I showed to say these activities, it's not an introduction of new activities.

There was some confusion in the community about that.

That these activities have already been taking place.

They can take place, most of these activities, and this is really about putting parameters to help minimize the some of the negative impacts that we're seeing in the parks.

And that is kind of what our message has been out there to make sure they understand that piece and they understand that the intent, like other activities in parks that require permits, is to determine time, place, and manner.

So we know who are in our parks and when they're in the parks.

Great, thank you.

Thank you, Cynthia.

Um, Rachel, I just have a couple of questions for you.

Um I know when we establish um the Department of Homeless Solutions, the idea was to have people end homelessness and being able to give them a bed and a place to stay, and for them to be able to get back on their feet and and be more independent.

I know that was a goal when we did that, and I know that that continues to be the goal to be able to lead with services.

My question to you is will you be providing services during these distribution events?

Mayor, members of council, councilwoman guardado, that is something that we have requested in this year's budget, is an additional two positions specifically to work directly in parks, in addition to the two that we currently have, but to be present in when there are events, when a permit has been pulled, so that our team can be there offering the whole array of services that Office of Home Solutions offers and be there in support of those services to help end those individuals' homelessness and get them into an indoor indoor environment if possible.

Thank you.

And I know we've I looked, I was given some numbers, and we're looking that from April of 2025 till April of this year.

Majority of the care cases were outside of the parks, right?

Only 8% of those cases were in our parks.

Do you can you can you answer that?

Of why that is that we offered more services outside of the parks than inside our parks.

Sure.

Mayor, members of council, councilwoman Gardado.

Yes, we pulled some CARES data prior to this meeting.

We looked specifically at all of the CARES cases from April of last year to April of this year, just to do a quick analysis of where those cases are.

And as you stated, about 8% of those cases were in parks.

So that is the community giving us information that there is an encampment.

We received those CARES cases 24 hours a day on my Phoenix 311, as well as via the phone line, and eight per roughly 8% of those cases were in parks, correct?

So given that you guys see, you guys attend to these cases, you guys are out there every day, your team is out there, which which all of them are wonderful.

Are there ideas that you have of where these services could also take place given that only we only saw 8% success rate in the parks?

Mayor, members of council, so one of the things uh that the Office of Homeless Solutions has done over the last several years is create additional outreach teams to meet the needs of people experiencing unsheltered homelessness.

So we have a liaison team that solely works in alleys, for example.

We have a liaison team that only works in streets in the right of way.

We have a liaison team that only works in parks.

And so we are looking certainly to expand all those services and meet people where they are, provide the services, resources that will help individuals and their homelessness, and that could be many different things to many different people.

Most frequently we're offering shelter services, treatment services.

Right now, beginning May 1st, we've been offering heat relief services now that we have all of our extended hour heat relief sites open.

And I know that a lot of your liaisons have really good relationships now with a lot of the neighbors.

If residents report unsafe conditions, discarded needles, or sanitation concerns, what immediate response mechanisms will your office have in place?

Sure, mayor, members of council, councilwoman Gardado.

Um most community uh neighborhood groups are aware of our homelessness liaisons, which are our liaisons that are assigned to the different um areas of the city.

So neighborhood groups could certainly reach out to those liaisons, could create a CARES case, which would trigger not only office diploma solutions teams going out, but uh wide variety of city departments that respond to CARES cases, as well as our out our outreach partner, Community Bridges Inc.

And I guess this question is either for you or for Cynthia.

What safeguards are in place to ensure that activities involving needles do not create safety concerns for children and families using these parks?

Sure.

Mayor, members of the city council, councilwoman guardado.

Uh a parks and migration department does certainly have safety protocols when it comes to how we deploy our staff.

And so every morning we have teams of staff throughout the park system who are cleaning parks first thing in the morning to ensure that they are safe to the public before they open.

And then that overlaps with other hours throughout the day as well in uh parks where there are staff that are located on site or park rovers who go through later in the afternoon in terms of the exposure that we talked about earlier.

Then there are separate safety protocols specific to what employees are trained to do when they encounter biohazard potential, you know, emergency situations, by um bloodborne pathogen training, uh Sharps training.

So there is our daily maintenance procedures in the park, and then there are actual training protocols if exposed.

Great, thank you.

And this one's for you, Rachel.

Is the Office of Homeless Solutions working to expand indoor or facility-based service options that may be more appropriate than public parks?

Councilwoman Guardado.

So at each one of our city-owned shelters and our partner shelters, we are open to having as many partners as possible on site.

We currently have a great relationship with Circle of City.

They came to all of our city-owned sites, including our our heat relief sites this summer.

We're very much open to expanding that partnership to other groups.

We also partner with Street Medicine Phoenix.

They come to our safe outdoor space.

And last year, taros uh came to our heat relief sites, but we're more than welcome to to welcome additional groups to those sites.

They only will help enhance our services there.

Great, thank you.

Well, thank you.

Those were all my questions.

I just have some comments.

I wanted to start by acknowledging something that is very important.

This is not an easy issue.

It sits at the intersection of public health, community safety, and the lived experiences of our neighborhoods.

And I've heard clearly from my residents, loud and consistent concerns about needles and certain types of activities taking place in our parks.

Let me also be clear about something else.

By law, we cannot simply prohibit everything.

There are legal realities we must operate within, and we have a responsibility to respond in a way that is both lawful and responsible.

So the question before us is not whether these activities exist, they do.

The question is are we going to leave them unregulated, or are we going to put structure around them to protect our communities?

That is why I am supporting this ordinance, because without clear rules, without permits, without accountability, these activities can and will happen in ways that create greater risk for our neighborhoods.

This ordinance gives us tools, it sets limits, it creates oversight, it establishes expectations around safety and cleanup, and it allows the city to step in when things are not done appropriately.

At the same time, I want to be very clear about my values and my priorities.

Our parks are for families, they are for children, they are for our communities to gather safely.

And in District 5, those parks represent years of hard work by our residents.

During the pandemic, it was not easy for neighbors to be out there and reporting what was happening and for them to push for all the different resources that they now have.

Many of our Latino Black and working families have fought really hard to making sure that our parks are safe.

I carry those voices with me today in this vote.

That is why I will continue to push for strong enforcement, clear boundaries, appropriate locations within parks, and accountability when standards are not met.

As a mom of two young boys, I have I see the need of our parks of our spaces.

During the pandemic, that is what the pandemic taught us, is making sure that our children were out in the green spaces and our children were able to be out there safe.

My children encounter many times a lot of needles in the parks.

And as a mom, that was a very scary feeling to understand if they had touched the needles, if they had been poked by the needles, and I have health insurance that was able to get my children attended.

Not all of our residents have that luxury.

Because regulation must mean something and must actually is and must actually protect people.

I also want to say this supporting this ordinance is not the same as saying parks are the ideal place for these activities, and they are not.

But if these activities are going to occur, they have a responsibility to ensure they are done in a way that minimizes harm, protects children, and respects the communities that rely on these spaces every day.

Doing nothing is not an option, ignoring the issue is not an option.

This ordinance is about taking control of a situation that without structure creates even greater risks.

So I will be voting yes, not because this is perfect, but because it is a step towards protecting our parks while operating within the realities we face.

And I will continue working to make sure our parks remain what they are meant to be, safe, clean, and welcoming spaces for our families.

I know we have some residents here.

We will be hearing for from a lot of the children that play in a lot of these, and in a lot of these baseball leagues and the soccer leagues, and hearing from the moms themselves.

We go to the parks to make sure that our children are not using drugs, that our children don't get into gangs, and for them to show up in the park, show up to our parks and see the activities that they see in the parks.

That that is not the type of leader that I want to be.

I don't want to be that person that's sitting in the seat and having our children be facing that every single day.

And remember, for a lot of our working class communities, this is their only outlet.

They don't have the money to spend to go get private lessons or go into a private academy.

This is this is their only outlet that they have.

And it's my responsibility to be that voice for my constituents.

That's what I was voted to do, and that's what I will continue to do.

Thank you, Mayor.

Councilwoman Stark.

Thank you.

I just wanted to follow up on some of the councilwoman's questions.

So I got numerous pictures from constituents.

Some with regards to what's happens after a feeding or during a feeding.

I also got pictures of just of some of the insightly messes we see in our parks, but also I got pictures from residents who live next to washes.

And looking at a couple of these pictures, and this is directed towards you, Rachel.

You see, there are actually tents.

And this tent is right next to a park, Werner Park.

Um, I know that your uh OHS specialist for my district goes down to the washes a lot.

Would it be feasible if some of uh these medical treatment uh organizations wanted to go down in the wash?

Would you be willing to go?

I know it sometimes it's risky going down there, and you probably want to go together, but that would be acceptable, and that wouldn't be a violation of the this particular ordinance because the wash is not necessarily a park.

It may be county land, it could be for our flood control.

So is that something we could do so that we are rendering the care?

Because clearly, just looking at this picture, this one picture, it looks like it's a community down there, so that they could really serve a lot of people, mayor, members of council, councilwoman Stark.

Um, as you know, our OHS liaisons will do anything and everything to connect with an individual.

So, yes, they would definitely be willing to, and and as you know, your your um homelessness liaison assigned to district three is spends a lot of time in the washes, and that is certainly something that we would do in order to connect with that individual and offer resources, yes.

So I don't disagree.

Um, there is a need.

We need to serve the unhouse, and there are other areas besides parks where we can do that.

I think this particular uh ordinance provides a compromise so that they can still render services in the park, but I think we can team up and show them other parts of the city where we could definitely help folks in need, and perhaps if you go out, you could also assist and touch and try to get them into some of the shelters that we are funding, correct?

Councilman Stark, that's absolutely correct.

We've we find that when we coordinate our outreach efforts with other groups, we just brought them the number of resources and services we can bring to an individual.

Thank you.

I know we have a lot of speakers, so I'll just leave it at that.

I just wanted to do some follow-up from the questions that she had, and I know I have speakers here as well.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you.

Councilwoman O'Brien.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, one of the concerns I heard from some from some stakeholders in the community about is about unintended consequences.

So I'm curious what we'll be doing to track progress of this ordinance if it's implemented and how we would maybe intend to react to unintended consequences if there are some.

Sure.

Mayor, members of the city council, councilwoman O'Brien.

Some of the information that we're going to track is is specifically related to the permit itself, so we have an idea of volume and what's coming in, how many permits are coming in, how many permits are being approved, how many may need to be denied.

We're also going to have staff that are there to arrive when these groups are arriving to make sure that things are being conducted well.

We'll track successes, and we'll track if there continue to be challenges, if there are violations, if there are citations issued, if we are seeing a reduction in trash in the parks itself.

So those are some of the metrics that we'll be prepared to track.

Will you also work with the fire department?

I know that one of the concerns is that 911 calls might start going up, and that we'll have more trips to emergency rooms via our ambulances, which could impact emergency rooms.

So will you work with the fire department as well as our hospitals and emergency rooms?

Councilwoman O'Brien, mayor, members of the council.

So some of that data is not data that as a city we have historically collected in terms of emergency room visits specifically.

However, fire can provide statistics on calls for service to parks, just as police does.

So that is something certainly that we could work with them to track in terms of their responses to parks specifically.

Excellent.

I would I would appreciate that very much.

And I have just some comments that I'd like to make before we hear from others.

I do want to thank the parks and recreation department, our community groups and stakeholders, and all the residents who shared their input through surveys, emails, phone calls, and community meetings.

Actually, I'm going to interrupt that real quick because I apologize, Mayor.

I had two community members who've struggled with our system and they sent their statements to me.

One is Stan Bates, who fully supports the proposed ordinance, because it would limit food organized food distribution in the city parks to twice per month.

The goal of the ordinance is to ensure that parks remain accessible and usable for all residents.

Right now, these activities have significantly affected how the surrounding community is able to use and enjoy their neighborhood parks, and this ordinance helps provide a reasonable balance between supporting social services efforts and maintaining parks for general public use.

Another resident who's lived across the street from Deer Valley Park for 30 years, is in favor of this ordinance.

She's concerned about trash and needles that are left behind, and also promotion of more transit transients staying in the park.

I'm concerned for the children and community that use the park.

I've lived here 30 years and my kids would go and play there, but now I don't like taking my grandkids because of the safety issues.

Also, because of a home as a homeowner, property value is a concern, and it's because of the safety.

The homeless trash and needles.

She would actually prefer that we didn't allow any of these activities in our parks.

So I have heard from many residents who are frustrated and want safe, clean parks for their children and families, and I share that priority.

And this ordinance addresses these concerns.

I also want to address misleading rhetoric suggesting this ordinance prevents people from helping vulnerable populations.

Let me be clear: this proposal does not ban food distribution.

It does not ban medical care.

It does not prevent anyone from helping people experiencing homelessness.

What it does is require coordination, safety standards, and sanitation protocols for organized activities in our parks.

Some residents have asked why we allow these activities in parks at all.

And the answer is straightforward.

First amendment protections must be respected.

But respecting constitutional rights does not mean we cannot require safety standards and reasonable coordination.

In Phoenix, we have about 10,000 people experiencing homelessness in the region in the Maricopa County region.

But we have a city of 1.7 million residents.

Our parks serve everyone, and a permitting process ensures all uses coexist safely.

Some have suggested this ordinance is inhumane, and that is simply false.

What's inhumane is medical treatment without emergency backup or san estate sanitation standards.

What's inhumane is children encountering improperly disposed needles near playgrounds.

What's inhumane is families feeling their neighborhood parks are unsafe due to medical waste.

Residents have every right to expect safe, clean parks.

Parents who want their children to play without encountering needles or other hazards are not asking too much.

This ordinance ensures we deliver on that basic responsibility.

This ordinance establishes a permitting system for medical treatment and food distribution in parks with proper health, safety, and sanitation standards.

It does not impact emergency responders, it does not ban naloxone, it does not prevent people from helping others in emergencies.

What it does is create accountability and ensure organized activities happen with proper coordination and oversight that protects everyone using our parks.

This ordinance protects both constitutional rights and public safety.

It allows services to continue while ensuring our parks remain safe, clean spaces that families can constantly confidently use.

To residents frustrated about park conditions, I hear you.

And this ordinance is helps to address your concerns.

To those serving vulnerable populations, your work can continue with the support and coordination of city resources.

I will not apologize for supporting an ordinance that balances constitutional protections with residents' reasonable expectations for safe clean parks.

Today I will be supporting this ordinance.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilwoman Hernandez.

Thank you, Mayor.

I just have uh a few questions for um fire, police, OHS, public health.

Uh Gina and Cynthia got a couple for you and Brandy.

Um, probably will go in that order.

Chief Christ, thank you so much.

I'm gonna start with a couple questions for you.

Um, was your department consulted in any way about the impact of this ordinance on the fire department's workload?

Mayor Gaggo, members of council, councilwomanes.

Yes, the fire department was consulted involved in stakeholder meetings.

Okay, thank you.

Um, what increased cost um and additional work will the fire department see as a result of if this ordinance passes?

Mayor Gigo, members of council, councilwoman Hernandez.

Specific to 911 calls at parks, we go on about a thousand calls in these parks annually.

In 2025, we ran 240,000 calls citywide, and about 107,000 transports calls in these parks equal a fraction of a percent.

That said, it's extremely difficult to forecast the impact on 911 activity levels in our plan based on the decision today is to monitor those changes.

Part of that monitoring must include that 911 activity levels do increase a few percent over the years.

For example, in 2024, we ran about 236,000 calls.

20 last year we ran about 240,000 calls.

If our current trend line continues, we'll be at about 243,000 calls for 2026, given the low incident rate.

In addition to the monitoring, we rely on systems to get feedback from our responding personnel on impacts to our system.

Thank you, Chief.

Uh, my next question is uh what is the projected impact on EMS call volume?

Uh, specific to dehydration, malnutrition, overdose, and unmanaged uh chronic conditions.

Um, if access to these basic survival resources are restricted.

Mayor Gotta go, members of council, Councilwoman Hernandez.

It's a difficult question for the fire department to answer.

We're not a long-term care provider.

For example, if we go on an emergency medical call for a patient, let's say that's having a cardiovascular emergency, we treat and transport that patient to the hospital.

These critical and life-saving medical interventions are short-term by their necessity, and they are really absent insights into chronic conditions and otherwise detailed public health insights.

Okay, thank you so much.

And then my last question for you, Chief, is how will the increased workload that is a little unknown of this ordinance impact uh fire response time to other calls?

Thank you.

Mayor Gago, members of the council.

Because of the high number of system-wide calls that we get annually, and that this is about four percent of these parks that we're discussing.

Our plan is to monitor to understand if there are changes in our system depending on the decision.

Thank you so much, Chief Chris.

Um, Chief Giordano, uh, my first question to you is what is the projected increase in calls for service and officer time.

Um sorry, let me go back.

Was your department consulted in any way about the impact of this ordinance on the police department's workload?

Mary, oh members of council, councilman, and absolutely, we were part of the discussions from the beginning to look into this and see how it would impact uh our uh our service levels.

Much to the same as Chief Christ, it's hard to forecast what what that'll look like down the road, but we will continue to monitor that and adjust accordingly.

Okay, perfect.

Thank you so much.

Um, what is the projected increase in calls for service and officer time associated with enforcement of this ordinance?

You know, again, that's a really hard question to answer.

Um, you know, we will continue to monitor it, we'll watch what goes on.

We we will look at this almost like like traffic enforcement.

We'll start with education, we'll start with notification and look to gain voluntary compliance.

And those are not long-term, long hours of lots of uh engagement.

Um, and then ultimately, if we couldn't get voluntary compliance, obviously we would go with enforcement, but we would continue to monitor that, what that workload looks like.

Okay, thank you, Chief, because even with the leading with education, right?

That still takes an officer to be engaged with a resident or a community member, correct?

Not always, because there will be uh overarching communication as well in education, whether it's through social media, what whatever it might be, that would would not require individual officers to respond, but there would be occasions where we would have to respond and interact with members of the community just to educate them on the new ordinance.

Okay, thank you so much.

Um, what work will you pull your officers off of in order to respond to the increased calls that would likely be generated by this ordinance?

Well, it would start with our patrol officers would respond to calls for service.

We could also transition to using community action officers to go out and conduct education.

Some of our neighborhood enforcement teams could be called up to be to do make make those notifications and educational contacts as well.

But again, it's really hard for us to under to understand till we know what that volume of work will look like.

Okay, thank you.

And then my final question to you is just you know, um, I just want a reminder that one of the central issues that was highlighted in the Department of Justice investigation uh was the misconduct of Phoenix sworn officers, uh treatment towards individuals experiencing homelessness.

Basically, Phoenix officers were found to have violated the constitutional protected rights of homeless residents.

So, given that fact, what training protocols are in place uh to ensure officers can distinguish between prohibited activity outlined in this ordinance and the constitutionally protected rights of our homeless residents.

Mayor Gago, members council, councilman, that's a great question.

I know one uh Chief Ken and I have talked about as recent as this morning.

Um, if this ordinance is passed, we'll work very closely with our law department and our training unit to create a briefing for all officers that we would push out to all officers almost like an informational sheet on on what the what our our expectations are, because again, I believe in clear expectations on the front end, so it's not a guessing game of what we expect for our officers, but then also the uh description and explanation of the ordinance and then what we what enforcement or what educational um resources we look for them to give when interacting with members uh in the parks.

Okay, thank you so much.

That was all my questions for you both.

Um Rachel, I have a few questions for you, and then I'll have a question for uh public health and then um Gina and Cynthia.

Um Rachel, I'll start with you first.

Uh your department is tasked with supporting our residents who are experiencing homelessness.

And I would like to take a point of personal privilege to really thank you for all the work that OHS is doing now, especially our coordinators out in the districts, right?

They're connecting with folks every day and trying to bridge that gap and get folks the help that they need.

So thank you for that.

This ordinance will directly impact that work from your department.

How will your work change or increase if we push homeless individuals out of the parks and into our alleys and our streets?

Mayor, members of council, councilwoman Hernandez, thank you for acknowledging our hard work.

As you know, the Office of Homeless Solutions outreach our liaisons and our case workers as well as all our contractor partners really work tires tirelessly every day to connect people with services to help them end their homelessness.

We work all over the city.

We not only have the liaisons assigned to council districts.

I mentioned earlier we have liaisons specifically assigned to parks, but we also have liaisons that are assigned specifically to alleys and to streets, and those folks are paired with the streets department and the public works department, and in the case of parks with park rangers.

So we are working every day to help meet more people and connect them with resources to help them end their homelessness, and we will continue to do so throughout the city.

Okay, thank you so much.

Um care providers and you know, food food sharing providers, they I I really believe that they bridge a big gap that the city is unable to meet.

Um, what will be the impact on the needs uh for service from your department if we move forward with criminalizing these providers?

Mayor, members of council, councilwoman hernandez.

Um, we welcome additional partnerships with these medical providers.

I mentioned we already have a very close relationship with Circle the City, who comes to all of our sites.

We really would like to enhance that.

Um that relationship as well as other organizations.

We also recently, uh within the last few months have um began a program both at our safe outdoor space and the Phoenix Navigation Center where we can welcome groups who distribute food at those sites.

Um so we're really working to work with individuals at our current sites as well as the additional um positions that we requested in the budget this year, and that would be really to work um collaboratively with these groups out in the parks when there is a permit pulled, or um, or you know, doing outreach on a daily basis.

Thank you.

And Rachel, what is the capacity that our sites are at?

Like the city run sites, like SOS and Phoenix Navigation Center and the other shelters.

Sure, yeah, as Mayor, members of council, we deal with probably a handful of open beds at each one of our sites, and our outreach teams are coordinating those beds daily.

So every day we know exactly how many male beds, female beds, um spaces that are safe outdoor space that that we as a city have, and then we also additionally have other partners, um nonprofit-owned shelters, other treatment programs that that we coordinate with uh when our beds are full.

Okay, thank you.

But my understanding is that most of our shelters are near capacity.

Um, so even if we expanded more uh partnerships with organizations, that is still limited.

If let's say, for example, Phoenix Navigation Center is at 99% um uh full, right?

Even if we bring in other partners, it's still not going to address the concern for the folks that aren't able to get into one of our shelters.

Uh thank you for that clarification.

So, uh Councilwoman Hernandez, we do have a handful of beds.

We make sure those beds are filled by our outreach teams every day.

Uh, one of the partnerships that we recently began actually with the Circle of the City outreach team is they brought on board additional beds that we did not have access to.

They're medical respite beds.

So, yes, we make sure that we fill to capacity every day with individuals who are looking to get indoors.

Okay, thank you so much.

Um, and uh has your department looked into creating safe distribution zones?

Um, if so, or is there any findings around that?

Mayor, members of council, councilwoman Hernandez, we look at best practices at other cities all the time.

In fact, other cities come and look at us for best practices as well, and this is not something that we have recommended to to policymakers at this time.

We've really focused on ensuring we have indoor resources, building our shelter capacity, and building our outreach teams.

Okay, thank you so much.

And then just my final question for you is OHS prepared to meet the additional workload that these groups do, right?

I shared earlier, like I really believe they fill a big gap that we just can't meet.

We haven't been able to meet in the past.

Um, so are we now in a position because two additional positions through the upcoming budget?

Is that gonna be enough to meet the need that for the workload that could shift?

Mayor and members of council, Councilman Hernandez, we will continue to do the best that we do every day, and we are hoping to really coordinate with these organizations to collaborate and do more as we can.

Thank you, appreciate that.

Um Yanitsa, for my question for you would be from the public health perspective, uh, what will be the impact of this ordinance on the community?

Mayor, members of the council, councilwoman Hernandez, thank you for that question.

Really from a public health perspective, I do want to acknowledge how complex this issue is, as noted by councilwomen guardado.

This is a crisis that is uh compounding, right?

With uh substance use increasing, mental health uh issues that are increasing for our community, as well as decreasing access to health care for our neighbors, and uh in order to maintain and ensure that the significance of these compounding crises do not continue to impact our community negatively.

The Office of Public Health shares the priority of it of uh ensuring that access to these services, life-saving services are made accessible to the community.

Um the public health office also shares this priority with our fellow city colleagues, departments, and community agencies, and ensuring that all people utilizing the park spaces, including people who use drugs and people experiencing homelessness, continue to have access to services.

Okay, thank you.

And you know, thank you so much.

Um, what advice would you offer us as a council uh to consider in making this decision today?

Mayor, members of the council, councilman Hernandez, uh advice for council is to ensure that we're continuing to include a public health approach when decision making, ensuring that we're centering the voices of the community as we heard so well and eloquently shared at many stakeholder meetings we've engaged over the past several months, as well as ensuring that a public health approach that we shift from sort of the public health approach of the past, and that is when we have a um an issue and then a condition comes from that.

So the example I use is is substance use.

If an individual is using substance use, the condition thereafter might become a substance use disorder, and then ultimately unfortunately that might lead to mortality or death.

And instead, there's a public health framework that we can really challenge ourselves to consider using where we are uh ensuring that health impacts are considered at the beginning of any decision-making processes, and we're not only addressing uh, you know, the condition, the behavior, the condition and the outcome.

Instead, we're really addressing all of these additional environmental, social um impacts that you know are all of us face and in our most vulnerable communities face especially.

Thank you so much for that.

Gina, um, how about just one question for you?

Um, I know that the city of Phoenix has made commitments to support SSP through fast track cities.

Um, how do we support that and other harm reduction efforts if this ordinance passes now and going forward, how will this impact our commitment to support that work?

Or if someone else can answer that.

Thank you, Mayor, um, members of council, councilmande.

Um, in terms of as a city and where we go as a city, I think we continue to kind of evaluate each each issue as it comes up.

And um, as as Yanitsa mentioned, she she is embedded in in our work, and she has been uh working with Office of Home Solutions and other departments in terms of looking at the data, um, looking at the impacts of of you know things like heat, um, kind of advising how our our heat relief program and our um those sites are going.

She's embedded kind of in what we do as an organization.

And so I think the syringe issue is it is a very complex issue.

And so we are always balancing the impacts on the community as a whole, how the parks are able to be used by by all members of the community.

And so we'll continue to to look at how we can support the operations of those sites so that um so that all the residents um can enjoy them.

Okay, thank you so much, Gina.

That was my only question for for you.

Um Cynthia and Brandy, just a few questions.

So whoever wants to take take these.

First, um, you know, there's a lot of pictures uh included in the presentation.

How are we able to?

I want to provide some context to the public.

So how are we able to tell or to know what organizations these items were linked to?

Sure, absolutely.

Mayor, members of city council, councilwoman Hernandez, um, for some of the photos that you saw, as particular in district three in the Cave Creek system, we are familiar because that organization or who we believe it to be is someone that has worked with us to obtain approval to be there on a very regular basis.

Um, in some of those photos, what we find because there is no formal permitting procedure rule or ordinance currently, we don't always know who's leaving that behind, and oftentimes it's either shared by residents, reported by staff, but just simply unknown and how to contact the individuals that were doing those services.

Okay, thank you.

But I just want to kind of follow up a little bit, believing we know what the who the group is that left the trash and knowing for sure for a fact who left the trash are two completely different things, right?

Yes, Councilman Hernandez, there are certainly times where we don't know who is leaving it and who we either have had staff observed or had residents take photos of.

Okay, thank you so much.

Um I saw in the survey report, thank you for getting us all.

Also, let me make sure I thank you for, I know this has taken a lot of work uh for everybody for all of staff.

So just regardless of the decision that happens today, I just do want to take a moment to thank you for all the work that you've done on leading this.

Um I did see in the survey report that that we were given back that staff did research on what other cities have done in their parks.

Um, largely this research showed that uh these cities are not doing anything as harsh as this ordinance.

Um, did you talk to those cities to see how it's going or to get feedback on um the proposed on our proposed ordinance?

Mayor members of city council, councilwoman Hernandez, there was a team of us who certainly conducted the research in different ways.

So between parks department, the law department, I think Yanitsa and the public health office, we have certainly talked to different cities uh locally and across the country to help um get information that would be helpful in crafting the ordinance.

Okay, thank you so much.

I appreciate that.

I also went and did some of my own due diligence.

Um I did reach out and talk to elected officials from New York, from San Diego, from LA, um from Philly, and you know, bigger cities that are pretty comparable to Phoenix.

Um and honestly, the response I get was they were pretty shocked that Phoenix was moving in such a punitive way.

Um, and some of the ideas I got from them was not to lead with criminalization or prohibiting or restricting it was to try to find more resources to get folks housed or into shelter or provide um disposal bins in the parks, right?

Things like that.

Um that's why I was just curious to see what was the feedback that you all got in those conversations.

Um in which city parks have we heard complaints from residents about needles and food distribution?

Uh mayor members of the council, council and hernandez, we do have 189 parks, and there are many, many.

Um, I don't have an exact exact count, you know, but where we regularly encounter needles, trash, um, we probably have at least a list of at least 40 parks or more that are experiencing this on a very frequent basis.

Okay, thank you so much for that.

Um, and my next question is uh, are you able to provide data on the percentage of individuals that are currently accessing these services in the parks through some of the providers that that are out there doing this work?

Um mayor members of the council, Councilman Hernandez, because we have never had a formalized approval process, we don't have data on everyone who has been in the parks and how frequently they are through this process.

We've certainly engaged with organizations who say they are providing services regularly, but without a process, we haven't had a way to track that.

Okay, thank you so much.

And I'm assuming that that's we're gonna find a way to track that if this ordinance passes, and after a time we might be able to know what those percentages are.

Yes, mayor members of the council, Councilman Hernandez, that is correct.

So we will absolutely be tracking the number of applications that come in that are approved that are denied.

There'll be very specific data that we will now be able to track.

Okay, thank you so much.

Um, my next question is what empirical evidence do we have that restricting care um distribution will result in measurably cleaner parks.

Mayor members of council, councilwill and hernandez, we do not have data that is specific to that on park property.

Yeah, I got a couple more questions, y'all.

Let me let me get through them.

Um, okay, thank you so much.

Um, have you or have we as a city evaluated um any uh partnership models with harm reduction organizations that are already um conducting like routine cleanup and stewardship?

Um I know like in LA, there's uh a partnership that exists between LA and some organizations that have a agreement and they work together to keep parks clean.

Um did we do any do we know of any of that or do we look into that?

Uh mayor, members of the council, councilman Hernandez, we do not specifically do any work specifically with harm reduction groups.

We do have an established volunteer program where many different types of organizations are providing regular park cleanups, but I cannot think of any um specific harm reduction organizations we partner with to do that currently.

Okay, thank you so much.

Um I think those are all my questions for now.

Thank you, mayor.

And sorry, mayor, one more thing.

Uh again, uh thank you so much to Cynthia to you and to all of the city staff um for your candidness and answering uh my questions and trust that I understand the position you all have been put in.

Thank you, Mayor.

Councilwoman Pestor.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um right now we were talking about the questions were about data, and so I want to know how you're going to collect that data and how you're gonna distribute it to the public, um, so that we can monitor and watch uh what is happening.

Mayor, members of the council, uh councilwoman pastor.

We can certainly work on uh putting together information on the type of data that we're going to be able to track if approved now that we have a permitting process.

That is certainly information that we can share in a variety of variety of ways at the direction of the council.

We can report it to you, we can report it to the parks board, so we can work on that and come back with the recommendation.

And what I mean is I would like to know what data you would be collecting.

What have you thought about?

Yes, Councilwoman Pastor.

So right now we know that we will be able to report on data such as the number of permit applications we receive, the number of permanent applications that are approved that are denied, the number of uh permits per park will be able to be something that we track.

We'll be able to track if there's any um educations or contact made citations that are issued, um, success that we're seeing and challenges that we're still seeing.

Okay, and when you see the successes, but most importantly the challenges, how would you uh go about uh solving those challenges?

Uh mayor, members of city council, councilwoman Pastor, in terms of finding groups or individuals that are out of compliance, we would uh we have a process established where that would be a warning, a letter, so there would be an educational component to it.

I'm asking how would you confront the challenges?

If we are seeing that this ordinance is facing challenges, how would you notify any of us to possibly look at the ordinance and face the challenges?

Sure, Councilwoman Pastor, mayor members of the city council, at the council's direction, we can certainly establish a formalized way to bring that information back to the council or city council subcommittee.

And would it be the council or would it be the parks board?

Because that gets confusing at times, and sometimes it's thrown out, let's go to the parks board, not the council, and then sometimes it's thrown to let's go to the council.

So how would we give clarity to that?

Councilwoman Pastor, because this is an ordinance, council has authority over ordinances, the parks and recreation board does not, so it would be the city council.

Okay.

Um Rachel, how many beds do we have in total?

The city have so at our city-owned sites.

I'm just doing a quick calculation.

We have 280 at PNC, 200 at Washington, and 300 at the Safe Outdoor Space.

So about a thousand.

I'm just running.

And then we um have city controlled sites as well with Rio Fresco and North Mountain Healing Center, and then we partner with several other nonprofit organizations.

So the city has under 1,000, but some with with when we add in the city controlled sites, it's over a thousand.

So I'll I'll round up 1500.

About 1500.

I'm just rounding up.

Yes, so we're just gonna give a guess.

I'm gonna use 1500.

Let me just put it that way.

I'm gonna use 1500.

So the city has 1500 beds.

Um in our last uh briefing.

How many are facing homelessness?

So population total that we have in Phoenix?

Mayor, members of council, uh, there um the pick count is actually coming, the numbers are coming out uh very soon this week, I'm told.

Um, but it and at the last pit count, there was roughly in Maricopa County, 10,000, a little under 10,000 individuals, and roughly half of them in shelter, and half of them on sheltered in Phoenix or Maricopa County, I'm I'm particularly now laying into Phoenix, so I did not bring we're the largest city, and I'm assuming, and I don't want to assume, but um, I don't think we have enough beds in 1500 beds, so and I'm just putting this in context because we're we're kind of saying we have this, we have that.

Um, and I just want to put it in context in the sense of the fact that we are at this space because we don't have enough resources, and we need more resources, so I just want to lay it down.

And it's nobody's fault, okay, because we're all trying and we're trying to do what we gotta do to make it um in the sense of trying to put the resources that we need to do because other cities are not helping us.

Um, mayor, members of council, I do just want to clarify.

I apologize, I thought you were asking how many the city itself owns, but in our region, there are roughly 4500 shelter beds.

But I'm talking about Phoenix.

Yes, okay, and I'm talking about our Phoenix beds, and there are many more than what the city owns.

For example, I wasn't including Cass in that, so just I understand that.

Yes, you you will not get any argument from me that there are thank you.

We need more.

Yes, thank you.

You know where I was going, so yes.

Um I this is such a complex issue, and I think this has really been an emotional issue with not only community but with staff and even my colleagues uh because it is uh we are talking about human lives, um, and we are talking about people, and sometimes it's difficult to have these hard conversations when we speak about people.

Um, and this is not an easy vote.

I don't think it's an easy vote for any one of us.

Um what I have to say is that um I have heard from a broad perspective of community, and I have seen my colleagues also listen and hear from a broad perspective of community, and I've also have heard solutions from the community, and I believe that there are some solutions that we should consider, and in that space, um we have to open up as a city a little bit broader in dealing with an ordinance, um, and I want to thank my colleagues, and I want to thank staff for providing the the space to have these conversations because I was the one who made the the motion, the original motion in December, and I was the one who made the motion to ask for a 90 day extension, and I did that because I was thinking of community, and I was thinking of community not having a voice at that time, and we extended the 90-day extension, and there was voice given, and it's such it's such a we're in a space where we have to do balance.

There's balance with our parks, there is balance with what is happening in our parks, what people are seeing in our parks, and how does what does that look like?

And how do we keep everybody safe?

Quite frankly, it's safety, and so my point is that this as we continue and we will listen to community.

I do believe there are solutions within the community voice, and that's where I want to sit at this moment to hear some of the solutions of the community voice.

I believe, and I will ask, I want to look at the heat relief because you were talking about the heat relief that the space of our heat relief opens in May and goes to September.

There has been a request through some of the documents and actions was uh if we could open up uh more space in our parks or more um opportunity in our parks during our heat relief months.

I don't know if that's possible or not, but that's that's that is something that I think we should consider.

Um to the chief, you mentioned that you would treat this like a traffic citation.

Could you give me more context to that?

Mary Gagel members council, Councilman Pestoer.

What I was referring to is how we would address the issue holistically, we would look to address that through because ultimately we want is voluntary compliance with the ordinance, just like we do for trafficking violations, we want voluntary compliance.

So we would lead with education, and then we would ultimately result if we had to, we result in in uh enforcement.

So that's that's the analogy I was trying to make there.

So you're saying that if I I'm trying to figure out the analogy, and I don't even know how to um go there in the sense of uh you would for a traffic citation, you would first give me a um education, and then if I continue to uh speed, um, and I get uh you see me again, then I would get a traffic citation.

Is that what I'm hearing?

Correct.

Okay.

Is it traffic citation?

What type of test citation is that?

It's a civil violation.

Okay, all right.

Um I'm just I was curious because I didn't understand, and I was asking about the traffic um uh citation.

Thank you.

Um at the end of the day, what I wanted to also say is that the 90 days was also for to look at our First Amendment rights and our constitutional rights.

At the ordinance, and I heard that loud and clear.

Thank you, May I wanted the 90 days so that staff.

The City of Phoenix has a really been leading in this area.

So if we look at Maricopa County, we're about 36% of the population of Maricopa County.

We are 83% of the shelter beds.

We are stepping up in a way that our other cities are.

We are stepping up ahead of our population.

We since we spent 185 million dollars on new over the last four years, on new capital projects and homeless service operations.

I think we should contrast that with the state.

Could someone from government affairs please come up?

So we passed a budget this week, or I'm sorry, we had a meeting yesterday on our budget.

Should we move forward with that budget?

It will bring us Ed to 15 million dollars in our housing trust fund.

Mayor, that's correct.

It would be 15 million, just slightly over 15 million dollars for the housing trust fund.

Okay.

So the state passed a budget this week.

As I understand it, the state swept a similar amount, about 14.4 million from the housing trust fund that could have been used for homeless services.

Our budget, so the state budget that passed this week provides 3.5 million for coordinated homeless services for the entire state of Arizona, entire state.

Does our budget do more?

Mayor, I'll defer to Rachel, but just in the uh budget you discussed yesterday, there's all almost 20 million dollars additional that the city is adding to its budget this year for outreach in homeless solutions, in addition to what you mentioned, in addition to the staffing that Rachel has.

Mayor, members of council, uh once that budget is passed, if passed as as planned, um our budget in Office of Homeless Solutions without capital will be about 40 million dollars a year.

Okay, so let's contrast that.

The entire state of Arizona, 3.5 million for coordinated homeless services.

So we all agree we got to do more.

The current situation is not acceptable.

But the city of Phoenix is leading our region, eighty-three percent of the beds are in our community.

If other cities stepped up, we could address this much more quickly.

Overnight heat relief, entire West Valley.

How many facilities?

Mayor members of council, I do not have that information.

None, none.

There are many cities that don't have a single facility.

So we are stepping up at the city of Phoenix, and again, we got to do more.

We have not addressed this problem.

But I really think for folks who are doing advocacy in this area, you gotta acknowledge what we have accomplished.

We gotta show wins.

We gotta show the voters that this $885 million is making a difference.

If we want to keep going to the voters and saying we need to invest in housing and ending homelessness, we got to recognize where we have had success and that the city of Phoenix has stepped up in a big way compared to our regional partners.

All right, uh any additional council comments?

All right, we'll begin with council or um public comment.

And again, if you are a professional advocate, we do need you if you're being paid to identify that.

Uh we'll begin with Cleo Lewis followed by Kelsey Reid.

Good afternoon, Mayor and City Council.

My name is Cleo Lewis.

I'm I do a couple of things, but the I'm in charge of the Healthy Given Council.

We looked at this.

And there's two thoughts.

We have one group of people that says you can't do anything in the park, we're through with it.

We do education with that group.

We have another group of uh people that are service providers, and we do education with that group.

The balance of this ordinance, if it's approved, we promise that we will do the education in our part.

We're not looking at the enforcement of it, we're looking at the education.

I've got 10 years lived experience in this.

I begged for help in the middle of the night.

Some of my colleagues are in this room on both sides of this issue.

Trust me when I tell you this is the right way we need to go.

And additionally, we also in my nonprofit, I bring beds to the streets every night when I'm out working.

OHS is no problem, they get to come out where we're at.

Community bridges, some of my colleagues are no problem.

There's a lot of people that do this the right way.

That's about all I have to say.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Uh Kelsey Reed is next, followed by Mike Rellis.

Good afternoon.

I am the president of the administrative supervisory professional and technical employees of Unit 7 for the City of Phoenix.

One of my primary obligations is to keep those employees safe.

With that said, I want to talk about what's going to be happening if concentrating food distribution medical services and needle exchange activities in the public parks creates a higher risk environment, including exposure to biohazards and increased incidents requesting response, requiring response, excuse me.

These activities also intensify workloads in already impacted areas, placing an undue burden on parks maintenance staff, parks recreation staff, and park rangers.

Employees who are responsible for managing park operations, supporting public use, and maintaining and securing these spaces.

Unit 7 is composed of more than 200 parks employees who would be directly impacted by these conditions, underscoring the scale of both the safety concerns and the operational strain.

With that said, I'm respectfully requesting that you approve the proposed ordinance that both restricts and manages these formal activities in public parks and instead direct them to appropriate locations that are better equipped with the infrastructure sanitation oversight necessary to deliver these services safely and effectively.

I have a statement from one of my members that is actually working in one of the parks right now, and he asked me to read this on his behalf.

Distributing food needles and medical supplies in public parks can be can unintentionally signal that long-term habitation is permitted.

This often contributes to increased litter, human waste, and improperly discarded syringes.

Will you take a question?

I will.

Okay.

And then we got some feedback in the earlier process.

We didn't talk enough to our own employees about this.

Can you tell us some of the safety concerns our employees have raised?

Well, the needles is the number one safety concern, but we have had employees obviously get stuck by needles.

And for anybody that's familiar with that process, it's it's a lengthy process.

You end up at Concentra, you have to take a cocktail.

Um it makes them nauseous, they have to go back month after month after month.

So it's it's really stressful for these employees that are picking up these needles, but also the biohazardous waste.

So there's fecal material, there's there are bloody bandages, there's things left behind.

It's upsetting.

These employees are reaching out to me asking how what I can do to help them.

So here I am speaking out on their behalf.

Thank you.

Anyone else have a question?

Councilwoman Guardado.

Thank you, Mahair.

Kelsey, thank you so much for your um for your remarks.

Um, I know that in the past we have struggled, um, to hire um park rangers.

Can you tell us right now what is a turnover rate?

Women park rangers, or what is it that you're hearing from park rangers when it comes to morale, given given given what they're seeing today?

I couldn't speak to the turnover rate, but hopefully Cynthia can speak to that.

Um as far as morale, I don't know that it's impacted by this.

This is a more of a stress, you know, a work stress issue versus a morale at work issue.

So we haven't really discussed with the park ranger team specifically about that.

I um in unit seven, we have park rangers and foreman and recreation coordinators that all work at these parks.

So they're all directly impacted.

So it's not just the rangers.

And within all of the staff, um, do you think that they feel that this is um because they know that we have so many parks and we only have so many park rangers?

Like, how hard is it gonna be for them to move from park to park if they have to be at certain parks for a number, you know, for because they know they only come for certain times to the different parks.

How much more time do you think they're gonna have to spend at the parks?

And how does that work with the with being overworked?

Well, that they are already um overworked for lack of better description.

So, by limiting this with this ordinance, by approving this ordinance, it would um essentially support the park rangers, the parks foremen, and um it would help them complete their job effectively.

Right now, they're already, like I said, they already had limited have limited resources, so they're struggling as it is, keeping up with the number of cases that they have and the comp the number of issues and instances that they're having to respond to.

So once you start increasing that, it's gonna make it more and more challenging.

Great.

Okay, thank you.

Um, we'll go to I think Councilman O'Brien and then the vice mayor.

Would you please finish the statement that was provided by the employee who's working right now?

Yes.

Park employees have been accidentally stuck by needles during routine work requiring extensive medical testing and follow-up.

These encounters with discarded needles are not uncommon, creating ongoing hazards for staff during daily maintenance and operations.

These conditions raise legitimate health and safety concerns, not only for our employees, but also for members of the public who use these spaces.

While addressing homelessness and public health remains essential, these services are more appropriately delivered and settings specifically designed to provide care without compromising safety, cleanliness, and intended use of public parks.

Thank you so much, Mayor.

I have a follow-up question regarding you indicated uh when an employee has been um stuck by a needle, they undertake treatment, including a cocktail of uh of medication.

Can you talk a little bit more about that?

Very briefly, because I personally haven't been stuck, so all I know is that there are cocktails of treatments.

Um, one of them is for HIV, and it can cause nausea, and there are uh months and months of treatment to follow up.

And I know that there is a time frame, a short time frame that these employees can take these cocktails.

So I did a little bit of research on it.

My understanding is a treatment at the at least a cocktail is taken for a financial um 28 days, and some of the side effects include nausea, fatigue, headache, insomnia, diarrhea.

There's all types of consequences that come from this treatment from itself, not including the psychological stress sometimes of just having this unknown unknown exposure as a result.

Is there anything else you've heard from employees that you think should be mentioned when it comes to the impact from the needle bricks?

I don't have any other information other than what I provided.

Okay, thank you so much for that.

And I just want to say thank you to the employees.

I feel like this has become almost like an occupational hazard of the job, and we need to do something to respond to that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I think that is it for you.

And do we uh Jared or could the vice mayor's question like the a little bit more of the medical background on this?

What employees go through?

Sure, mayor, members of the council and vice mayor.

Um, it I know every situation is a little different, but the protocol itself does require an immediate visit, immediate notification to supervisor, an immediate visit to concentra, and an immediate diet or um prescription of a variety of medications, and then my understanding is on a minimum on a monthly basis up to as much as six months.

They return for additional testing and potential um adjustments or modifications uh that they are on, maybe an increase or a decrease in dose and determining if they're seeing any symptoms, is a big part of how that treatment would progress up through that six-month period.

Okay, thank you.

And um, just a clarification: who actually pays for the medic the medication and the medical treatment that would be incurred?

Sure.

Mayor, members of city council vice mayor, and so that would be um the city that pays for that.

Thank you.

So the residents.

Councilwinner.

Thank you, Mayor.

And super quick question, I promise.

Um, Cynthia, what is the number of employees and the parks employees that have been poked by needles in the parks?

Yes, Mayor, members of the council, councilwoman Hernandez.

Um, and so parks HR HR safety started tracking this information back in 2021.

And on average, depending on the year, I believe we've had anywhere from one to two employees that are actually uh receive a puncture that we would have records of.

Okay, thank you, appreciate it.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Mike is next, followed by Jonathan Bowersock.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Councilman.

I'm a labor representative for Layuna, representing approximately 350 parks field staff.

I'm here to speak on the proposed amendments to the safe medical treatment and food ordinance in our parks.

First, I want to acknowledge the direction this council has already taken.

The original ordinance and the decision to delay implementation showed in understanding that structure and accountability are important.

The question now is how to put the structure in place in place in a way that works.

Right now, services are occurring in our parks without consistent oversight, and the impact is being felt by both city employees and the public.

Our parks employees regularly find discarded needles along with other hazards, often early in the morning before the public arrives.

While that work helps prevent harm, it also highlights the conditions they're working in every day.

In some cases, employees have been sent to medical providers for testing after exposure.

That is not a one-time concern.

It is an ongoing reality.

It creates real health risks and adds stress for employees who are simply trying to do their job safely.

A permit process that is limited, predictable, and responsible offers a practical path forward.

For example, limiting permits to set a number per month will allow park staff to better understand when and where services are being provided.

This is not a new concept.

The city already requires permits for sports leagues and organized activities.

Applying a similar structure here help helps create accountability and allows the city to distinguish between organizations that consistently maintain safe and clean conditions and those that do not.

Food distribution presents similar challenges.

Without some level of coordination, it could lead to sanitation issues and leave parks employees responsible for conditions they did not create.

At its core, this is about ensuring our parks remain safe, functional, and accessible for everyone.

This is not about ending services.

I encourage you to approve the proposed ordinance and adopt clear workable parameters that support employees, park users, and the integrity of our spaces.

Thank you so much.

Jonathan is next, followed by June Berriford.

I will try to call the next speaker and the subsequent one, and often best to go run back and um come in.

So we sort of talk about an area behind the speaker desk that might be a good place for folks if you want to wait.

And if you have a need, there is also for accessibility reasonability to bring a microphone to people with mobility challenges.

All right.

Jonathan.

Hi, my name is Jonathan Bowersock.

I'm here as a volunteer with Food Not Bombs.

Uh we serve out of the Civic Space Park not far from here every Sunday night and have done so from that park for more than eight years.

I honestly didn't know what I came to say.

I have some concerns that I hear from a little comment to get out here.

That it seems so many of you not consider the homeless population as your constituents are part of your community.

What we do is not charity but build community, and we're meeting people where they are, another area where the city does not seem to have the resources to do.

Um we keep lists of all the publicly available resources, and when people are ready to make that step, we will help them find additional help, whether it be medical help, whether it be housing concerns, put there, but so many of them don't, and often tell us that we are one of the few people who treat them with dignity as people.

As far as it's a free speech goes, uh this is a clear violation of that.

The construction limiting permits to two times per month is a construction ban, it is not a regulation on it, and beyond that at Civic Space Park, we would have no opportunity for permits if we wanted to get them because there is no parking lot.

So apparently, if there's not a parking lot, there's not a problem, but also beyond the two per month limit.

That does not address that some areas have much greater needs than others.

Other than Tuber Park, we were saying great, you can have twice a month.

We feed four to five times a month at this park alone or will now be allowed none.

So apparently I have no First Amendment rights, and it seems like a waste of resources to have whether it's going to be Rangers, police enforcing this on something that we're inevitably going to lose.

Food not bombs across the country has won and established that this is a First Amendment protected right.

So thank you.

And in case it wasn't clear, I highly encourage everyone to not vote for this.

This is just unconscionable.

June is next, followed by Derek Tolano.

Events around medical care and food distribution are not a cause of the problems that already exist.

And restricting them is not going to resolve safety concerns.

If you're truly to coordinate with existing aid groups, there should be avenues of direct support opened up to their efforts, not penalization or financial barriers or babysitting over their professional care.

You don't mind if I go biblical today.

I'll summarize Matthew 25, verse 31 through 46.

Jesus said that he was hungry, he was thirsty, he needed clothes, he was a stranger, he was in prison.

Those witness to him either fed and quenched and clothed him, invited them in and visited, or they failed to do so.

They were either brought into heaven or cast into a lake of fire.

Y'all are grown.

You can use some face-based deduction reasoning over who went where.

I have been violently raped and assaulted and sold, and you defunded support programs and add barriers to those who would fill the gaps.

You restrict accessibility down to pipelines that are re-traumatizing.

I am isolated, and you tell me that I would have better support if I lose my voice and a chorus of others whose experiences differ greatly from mine.

I'm adult survivor of childhood sexual trauma and improved systems of support seek to pathologize and invalidate me while protecting enablers and enactors of such violences.

Where we are failed people who provide services in these spaces do the best that they can to accommodate our specific needs.

The city's response to a violent assault and sex trafficking survivor coming forward is negligent.

My ongoing experience is that it would arrest or find those helping people like me to get to a place where we can find our voice.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Derek is next, followed by Danielle J.

Thank you and good evening.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

My name is Derek Telano, and I'm here representing Cactus Youth Baseball League CYBO.

We are host to over 300 youth baseball players over the city of Phoenix.

We appreciate the work you're doing to support all the members of our community, and we recognize the importance of addressing complex social challenges with compassion.

However, we have concerns about portions of the proposed park ordinance, specifically allowing needle distributions in public parks.

Our parks are more than open spaces.

They are where children learn teamwork, discipline, and confidence.

They are where families gather and where young athletes grow in a safe and structured environment.

Organizations like ours, maintaining the environment is essential.

We are proud to be supported by organizations such as the Arizona Diamondbacks and Mexican Baseball Fiesta who share and promote the same commitment to providing a safe, positive environment for all youth and families.

That standard is something that we work hard to uphold every day.

Recently, our families and coaches have encountered discarded needles and related drug paraphernalia waste in park areas.

These situations create real safety risks, not just perceived ones.

Parents should not have to worry about their children's coming into contact with hazardous materials while playing baseball or simply enjoying the park.

We fully support efforts to help the vulnerable population, but we believe parks, especially those heavily used by youth programs and the local communities, should remain clean, safe, and clearly designated as family first environments.

This is not about excluding anyone.

It is about ensuring that spaces designed for children remain protected.

We are committed to continuing to be part of a constructive conversation and working towards balanced solutions that serve the entire community without compromising the safety of our youth.

We believe we can support vulnerable population while preserving the safe, dedicated spaces for children.

We thank you for your time and your consideration.

Mayor, thank you.

Councilwoman.

I have some Mr.

Dillard, I have some questions for you.

So in your in your conversations with the residents and do can you um tell us how many how many parks do you guys play in?

Oh, which parks, I'm sorry.

So we serve mainly in the West Valley.

We park at Oslo Park, Mary View Park, Maryville Park, and surrounding areas.

But it's not just the facilities that we obtain.

Our teams spread out throughout the entire city of Phoenix.

So even though our main games are held here in the community, we see the effects and impacts far across Phoenix from all these families.

You know, we have over 35 teams that participate in different parks around the Phoenix area, and they can all say without a doubt that they see the impacts.

And another question for you.

Any of your families that you serve, the families that you've been working with for a long time.

Could they afford to put their children in private leagues if the parks became unbarrable to use?

They cannot, no.

Uh, community parks and local parks are such a big impact to our league.

That's what makes it possible.

And keeping these community parks safe and clean is one of the big and utmost important factors in helping a league like ours that supports the youth run.

So you're saying you support the ordinance as is.

Correct.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

We'll go next to Danielle and then Karen Olson.

Hello, this is Danielle.

Can you guys hear me?

We can.

Okay.

I support this ordinance because I believe it creates safer conditions for residents and community members, especially children.

I live near the Cave Creek Park.

I'm a mother and I'm afraid to take my child there.

Something as simple as going to the park should feel safe and joyful, but instead I'm scanning the ground and playground equipment for blood-filled needles, drug paraphernalia, like used foils, used condoms, and anything that could seriously harm my child, if not lead to death, like fentanyl.

The services in the park are attracting members of the unhoused community who participate in illegal activity.

They're coming into the park and surrounding neighborhoods where they remain for an extended period of time, leave, and then return for the next event.

In my experiences, these services are not meeting people where they're at.

They are bringing them in from wherever they are into the park system and into the neighborhoods.

It's concentrating activity in a space that was never designed for it.

This has already led to the closure of features like the rock climbing caves due to unhoused illicit activity occurring in them, such as defecation, urination, sexual acts, and drug use.

As a result of the events, the city is spending taxpayer doctor dollars reactively modifying playground equipment, installing gates and alleys, addressing ongoing safety concerns rather than proactively addressing the root of the issue.

Parks are intended to be safe recreational spaces, not sites for ongoing medical services or food distribution.

My neighbors and I have witnessed open drug use at the parks, individuals passed out on our front porches after the events, erratic behavior along the street, people rummaging through our trash cans, banging on our doors after the events, theft from the backyard, drug-related altercations.

There's been multiple shootings, multiple fires in the park and wash.

And when these events don't occur, the issues seem to dissipate.

Let me be clear.

Outreach and medical care are important, but parks are not equipped for this.

They lack sanitation, proper medical infrastructure, follow-up care, coordination with long-term services, and delivering care this way is not just ineffective, it's also unfair to the people it's meant to help.

A study in the crime and delinquency in 2022 found that higher concentrations of homologous.

Councilman Stark, um, could you stay on?

I think Councilman Stark has a question.

Thank you.

Hey Daniel, you have been how long calling my office asking for help.

It has been about two years.

Yes.

And were you once approached by one of the medical?

I don't want to get you in an uncomfortable situation, but were you once approached by one of the medical users who would be forceful with you?

Yes, I have personally taken my child to the park in his stroller, been followed toward my house to where I've had to go a different direction, call my husband to come help me because I was scared to call the police because I didn't want to be targeted.

So yes, I have been personally because I've seen drug use at the park.

I tried to take a picture to call and report it.

They saw me taking a picture, they were like, oh, it's her that took the picture, and then proceeded to follow me.

So I have been scared of retaliation, but I'm also trying to stand up for my neighbors and my son.

And I thank you.

I know that she has been very nervous about approaching us for uh the past years, but I want to thank her for testifying today.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you.

Karen is next, followed by Brian Willingham.

Hello, can you hear me?

We can.

Hi, I'm back as of yesterday.

Uh my name is Karen Olson.

I am a resident here in Phoenix in District 4.

I live and work in District 4.

Um, and I am calling in to oppose the ordinance mainly because I think it is trying to take a symptom and call it the problem.

It is trying to um police an already over-policed city.

Um, and it's not actually looking for solutions.

It's looking to invisibilize people.

I believe that people who are in housed are our neighbors just as much as children are, and we should not use either of those people as shields or weapons or ways in which we justify statistics that we ourselves abuse.

In particular, in coming today, I was trying to think of what this made me feel.

And it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Self-fulfilling prophecies occur when a prediction brings about its own fulfillment.

In layman's terms, that means that if you believe something is true, you'll act as if it were true.

And your actions double down on your prediction to make it a reality.

Statistics and anecdotes have been used by all sides, to be honest.

And I'm here to say I see the human first and foremost.

I want parks to be available for unhoused and kept children alike, because we actually could take resources, such as our bloated police budget, and put this toward housing people, toward a city that doesn't take away ways in which we don't have enough trash cans, we don't have enough shade, we don't have enough of these resources.

And yes, while we may be the city that has the most of them now, we should not champion ourselves that that's enough.

I really hope.

Thank you.

Brian is next.

And Brian is followed by Amanda K.

Kaminsky.

Thank you, Brian.

Hi, mayor.

Well, thank you.

My name is Brian Willingham, president of the United Phoenix Firefighters Local 493, representing 2000 firefighters in Paramount serving the city, and 3,000 firefighters valley wide.

Oh, came an issue.

Many of the people living on our streets are struggling with mental health challenges, addiction, trauma, or simply just a series of bad breaks in life.

And I think we've all been there for that.

They deserve compassion, dignity, and access to meaningful services.

First quick sidebar, I'll share with everybody and have no shame in this.

I grew up outside of Oakland, California in Section 8 housing and reclamps, which is the only opportunity we had to eat my household.

We collected a government box of food every single month, and I'm not ashamed of that.

That's this circumstance that I grew up in, and I'm coming from a space of empathy, and I wanted to be very clear up front about that.

But we also have a responsibility to protect the safety of the entire community, especially children and families and vulnerable residents who use our parks, schools, sidewalks, and public spaces every day.

From a public safety perspective, firefighters are paramedics see the reality.

These encampments of these encampments firsthand.

We respond to overdoses, assaults, fires, medical emergencies, advertising, sanitation issues, and calls involving children and families who no longer feel safe in areas meant for recreation and community use.

This ordinance, in my opinion, assumes responsibility.

It is about establishing locations where public safety risks become unacceptable.

Schools, parks, shelters, and child care facilities should remain safe and accessible for the people they were intended to serve.

And that's everyone.

They're intended to serve everyone.

As firefighters, we understand that compassion and accountability are not mutually exclusive, exclusive, and in fact are both necessary.

Thank you so much.

Amanda, I did not say your name very well.

Is next, and then um Liliana Santoyo Proxima.

Thank you, Mayor and Council members.

My name is Amanda Kaminskis.

I'm speaking to you tonight from three time zones away while I'm supposed to be on vacation.

This is how deeply I care about what this council is about to do.

I am a medically retired paramedic, the assistant director of Tom's Palms, and the founder of the Red Heart Pantry, which now operates as a mobile outreach effort, serving people in West Phoenix, specifically Maryville.

None of this work is paid.

I do it because I believe it is what I am supposed to do on this earth.

I am Christian.

My faith teaches me to feed the hungry.

This is not optional to me.

This is a moral obligation.

And now this city wants to criminalize that compassion.

The state loves to talk about religious liberty, but apparently it only matters when it is politically convenient because now it is my religious liberty being targeted.

People are already in these parks.

Volunteers like me are not creating homelessness.

We are responding to human suffering that already exists.

People use drugs, whether we approve or not.

Harm reduction is about keeping human beings alive.

As a paramedic, I quickly learned that people that are dead do not recover.

And please do not say just call 911 is the solution.

Not everyone trusts that system, and many people have been traumatized by it.

Some people do not want the specific services the city wants to push, and they still deserve to stay alive.

So what exactly are we supposed to do when someone is hungry, medically fragile, or withdrawing, and it is not one of the city approved permit days.

Walk past them because compassion has been limited to twice a month.

Public parks belong to the public.

You may have the power to criminalize compassion tonight, but you do not have the power to make it wrong.

Thank you.

Liliana Proxima and then Alexis Garcia.

In this proposal, as a mother, I made a conscious effort to make uh to take my son to parks as a space for his development, recreation, and positive social interaction.

However, on several occasions, we found dirty needles, and I've witnessed increasingly concentrated situations of problems in places like University Park.

And frankly, it's been discouraging as a mother.

My intention has always been for my son to see parks as safe places where he can learn, play, and grow.

And unfortunately, the presence of these dangers and situations has affected this vision.

They've raised concerns about their safety.

For these reasons, I oppose allowing the distribution of needles and the distribution distribution of food in parks.

I understand the importance of supporting these people that are in need, but I firmly believe that these activities should be carried out in designated locations that can improve these services safely and appropriately without compromising the safety and well being of families who use these parks.

I respectfully ask you that you consider these measures and prioritize the protection of our parks as safe, clean, and accessible spaces for children and families in the community at large.

Thank you so much.

When you guys come to the parks, what's the situation that you guys see in the restrooms?

Usted is the family.

I'm sorry, go ahead.

Sorry.

So uh at the parks, uh, but the situation is that we've we found people doing drugs in the bathrooms.

We have to go with our with our children because we found uh syringes on the floor.

Uh they've been they're getting high.

So therefore uh these kids uh they don't want to go to the restroom.

Liliana, usted is a family los recursos para poner asuyho in una liga privada.

Do you and your family have the resources to put your son in a private league?

Desafortunadamente, you think of the desafortunadamente no puedo costar una institution privada.

50 dollars per mes.

So muchos niños, los que some muchos niños los que están gentiles practicas porque desafortunadamente no tenemos la possibilidad para pagar una escuela privada.

Unfortunately, I have I have a job, my husband has two jobs, and unfortunately, I can't afford a private institution.

So I take him to parks.

Uh uh the coach children, many children who are going to these uh practices because unfortunately we don't have the means to pay for a private school.

Una ultima pregunta, um puede hablar un poquito de la situation.

Um cuando usted tuvo que regresar al parque porque ubo algo malo que passó in el parque.

Talk about a situation that happened in the park recently where you dropped off your son and you had to go back and pick them up.

La segunda occasion, um, peleado, la police have been, pero los calman is.

You know, in contract loss de que van a dar comida, but in un parque.

Estamos viendo como se droga.

La ultima vez dos semanas, fue la organization of the comidas.

Los jueves que yo a mi hijo, la fila son interminables de las personas que se forman.

Pero aun así, no sé cómo arean las personas.

Okay, well, muchas gracias.

Gracias.

For me, there's been several situations where I've witnessed.

When I started taking my child, uh there was a lot of homeless there.

They do their business there.

I called the police, but they didn't come.

The second time, they have fought, the police has come, but they calm down and then they leave.

The last time the organizations uh go to give food, we as parents we're not against them going out to give food, but why in a park?

Being able to find a uh prime location for them, and it's churches that are giving out the food.

Why don't they give it at the church instead?

So I don't know.

I'm just saying I'm not against it.

I know the needs of that the people have, and I know all the problems that they have.

I'm just simply asking why.

We're we're in the park, we're taking our children there, and I personally take mine to keep them away from drugs and marijuana, but yet uh we go and we smell marijuana, and we are seeing how they're getting high doing drugs.

The last time uh two weeks ago, the organization went to bring the meals, they go there later every every Thursday.

They're they're there on Thursdays, and when I take my son, the line of people, it's an endless line.

I take them at 6 p.m.

and sometimes as early as eight o'clock.

When I come back, there's even ambulances there because the people get sick, they they feel unwell.

I don't know, but I just I've seen boxes of syringes, but even at that, I don't know how they do it.

They're throwing syringes away there at the park.

Thank you.

Alexis Garcia, followed by Lance Brace.

Okay.

Thank you.

So not speaking.

Okay.

Marked in support.

Okay, then we have Lance Brace followed by Dustin Byers.

Good afternoon, everybody.

My name is uh Bill Garcia.

And I live in the area of Aren't we looking for Lance Brace?

Is that which Garcia?

Peel.

Alexis Garcia and Lance Brace.

Because in the Army, there's millions of them.

Yeah, well said, well, so thank you.

Uh okay.

So the same thing.

Uh it didn't say the first name, but Oh, Alex Garcia.

Yep, sorry, not you, but we'll note that you are ready.

Um, so then are you Lance?

Okay, so Lance uh is next, followed by Dustin Byers.

Okay, hello, my name is Lance Brace, and I lead an outreach ministry called St.

Herman's Table.

Every Thursday evening we go to the Cave Creek Park at Cactus and we hand out food to feed people that are hungry.

This is not volunteer work for us.

This is a Christian ministry.

In the Orthodox Christian faith, feeding the hungry is called almsgiving.

It is not optional.

It is a core religious practice and has been carried out in public spaces for millennia.

When we do this, we are not just handing out food.

We are bringing the love of God to our homeless neighbors.

We are bringing the light of Christ into their lives.

We bring them to church.

We have we pass out Bibles and icons, we pray for and with them.

This ordinance places an undue burdens on our ministry, and we make it functionally impossible to continue.

It requires permits, it limits when it can happen, and it creates a system where small volunteer-led ministries like ours may not be able to continue at all.

And I want to be very clear about something.

No person of faith should have to need permit should need permission from the government to practice our religion in a peaceful helping way.

We should not keep me uh permission from the government to practice our religion in a peaceful helping way like the church has done for two thousand years.

At the same time, this ordinance does not burden secular uh activities in the same way.

It creates a distinction where feeding the hungry because of what it is and who it serves is treated differently.

The alt and ultimately this ordinance will not stop almsgiving.

It will not stop the church from feeding the hungry where they are.

It will only face people, it will only force people of conscience to choose between engaging with our faith and submitting to the law.

This is not a position the city should be putting its people in.

We all want our parks to be clean and safe.

This is important.

But our concerns, but those concerns can be addressed without placing burdens in front of people trying to help.

I ask you to reconsider this ordinance.

And if I had time, my eight-year-old daughter who uses a city uh city park every single day asked me to ask the mayor directly.

If you were a homeless person and the mayor of your city was trying to make it illegal to feed you, how would you feel?

Lance, it's okay.

Dustin Byers is next, followed by Justin Capaz.

Hello, um, my name is Dustin, and uh when I was 18, I enlisted in the army, hoping I could fight the war and care, and at the same time I could learn how to become a man that people would love and respect.

But unfortunately, I failed to meet their standards, and because of my asthma, I was discharged.

After only five weeks of basic training, I now find myself homeless with no place to go except for in the parks of Arizona.

I battle with addiction, hunger, and countless hours of isolation, no money, and often in and out of jail.

For the past five years, Billy East Way Home has consistently every Saturday showed up with nice hot home cooked meals for me and over 150 other of my family members experiencing homelessness.

They shower us with love and acceptance.

They shower us with love and acceptance.

They demonstrate massive amounts of patience and love and devotion.

And as a result, I have been sober for eight months and have been.

And now I have the strength to face my addiction head on and the courage to turn my pain into purpose.

Thanks guys.

Justin is next, followed by Tim Kenobi.

Madam Mayor, Council members, 379,000 to enforce a waste of public time and money.

These laws get struck down.

Fort Lauderdale lost.

Houston lost.

Tempe is losing.

You're making taxpayers pay twice.

First to police grandmothers with sandwiches, then to lose in court.

I modestly proposed the purchase of a poor melting beam device at Top Chase Tower, pointed at anyone causing discomfort.

No more bodies on pavement.

Property values would soar.

Drug needles don't disappear with a vote.

They must be collected by volunteers who educated their users.

Helping people does not create need.

Corporations spend unlimited cash as free speech.

A sandwich needs a permit.

Say you it's a billable hour.

937,000 for teens, trivial to the 1.086 belly for police.

3.15 million in crisis funds is not the 5 million we demanded.

Popular will ain't a suggestion.

We are here in solidarity with all communities you'd sooner melt than meet, rather let die than treat.

What is fear of need but need itself?

Is not dread of thirst when your well is full, the thirst that is unquenchable.

There are those who give little of the much which they have and they give it for recognition, and their hidden desire makes their gifts unwholesome.

And there are those who have little and give it all.

These are the believers in life and the bounty of life.

Their coffer is never empty.

There are those who give with joy, and that joy is their reward.

And there are those who give with pain, and that pain is their baptism.

And there are those who give and know not pain in giving, nor do they seek joy, nor do they give with mindfulness of virtue.

They give as in the yonder valley, the myrtle breathes its fragrance into space.

Khalil Gabron, Lebanese poet.

Tim is next, followed by Ann Ender.

Mayor, members of the council, thank you for your time.

My name's Tim Kenobi.

I'm with the United Phoenix Firefighters Association Local 493.

I'm here today in support of approving the uh parks ordinance to provide a framework and oversight for individuals and organizations helping our neighbors who need the extra support.

This ordinance ensures that individuals and organizations providing those services have the appropriate resources and regulation to more effectively help our community.

When these community partners are active and safety is prioritized, our community is safer, safer, positively affecting the safety of our firefighters and paramedics and reducing exposure.

And I'll say to the folks that were clapping at the statistics for needle sticks, I would encourage you to talk to those rangers and those parks employees who are stuck.

Okay, one or two.

Is that enough for you to talk to them and see what kind of stress that brings home?

Changing gears, changing hats.

I also am a proud resident of Council District 3 with three young kids who regularly use our parks, our pools, and our community centers.

And I'm supportive of this ordinance in an effort to keep all those involved safe, the volunteers, the unhoused, our vulnerable neighbors, and our parks and rec employees, park rangers, and the public safety workers.

I think we'll all benefit from common sense regulation and keeping our parks clean and safe.

Thanks.

And please, no personal attacks.

This is not appropriate.

This is a very emotional issue, and we get that, but we do not need to attack people who are speaking.

Anna is next, followed by Brandy Chard.

Mayor Gaygo, Vice Mayor Hodge Washington and Council members.

I'm grateful to be here today with some of my community advocates that I work with, and I am grateful for their work.

The beauty of going a little bit later in the meeting is that so many people have made such profound comments, as long as many of you have.

And running from security guards as a teenager being on the golf course when we weren't supposed to be.

Leonard, I think Councilman Hernandez has a question.

For Brandy, yeah.

For Brandy.

Brandy, do you mind coming back?

And Leonard, uh give us a just give me one second, Leonard.

Thank you.

Well, maybe a minute, but uh Brandy, thank you so much for just uh your your comments.

Um, first, you know, tons of respect for you for turning your pain into purpose and putting something back.

Um, when you you said that, you know, how you support um residents out there.

Can you expand a little bit on exactly what that support looks like?

Um, we care a lot about the neighborhood.

We don't want people living in the parks either.

We are trying to get them out of the parks, and we've had a lot of success just by doing it the way we do it.

Um, getting to know them, their names, their stories.

They're not just the homeless.

It's Dustin, Natalie and Justin and Corey and Jamie.

And like I said, I know about a hundred by name.

Um, they want to make us proud.

They run up to me and say, Mom, I'm going to detox.

Sometimes it sticks, sometimes it doesn't, but you have to stick with them to make it work.

We adopted the street right there where we go.

We do park cleanups, and as far as the needle thing, even picking up 18 huge bags, the big black ones of trash.

We never saw one.

Again, I'm not saying they're not there.

I think some of it's exaggerated.

We picked up a lot of circle K and QT cups.

We need some more trash cans out there.

Um, and one article of clothing.

We we care about the neighbors and see the blight.

I see both sides.

We're we're part of the solution.

All of us here, we we want to help.

That's why a nonprofit begins.

Yeah.

The city depends on us.

Thank you.

And how many volunteers come out to help you?

Uh, well, we have probably about 75 on our roster, but they can all come at once.

Um, I'm gonna say very six to eight on most weeks.

Um, and they are the community that all of the homeless have lost.

We are their community.

I could not ignore that and go home and say, what are we gonna do about the homeless?

Who's gonna solve this?

We are all of us, you guys, the neighbors, we all can solve it.

We really can.

But it takes being kind for one thing.

We it's a shared space, we're only asking for it a couple hours a week.

Thank you.

And just my final question outside of being able to, you know, you go to the parks and provide some of these services and support to to folks struggling with homelessness and and substance use.

Is there other areas that currently you're able to do like have you found other locations?

Because I heard you say, you know, if you find us a church, we'll go do it at this place.

So is there other places that you've looked into where you could provide these services?

We've looked into it.

We can't afford to, you know, rent a building or have something like that.

I only know of one church and one mosque that are in that area where these people already live.

And so I wouldn't want to be too far away.

We're trying to stay right there.

And when we get a permit every week for the last two years, we carry insurance.

We're not trying to be raggedy out there.

We want to do it the right way.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you.

Leonard is next, followed by Mr.

Garcia Peel.

Thank you, Mayor and Council members.

Yes, my name is Leonard Clark, and I want to acknowledge uh I want to thank people on both sides who actually do help the unhoused.

I know that inspired by all these people that I don't even do anything enough that is necessary.

So I'm gonna use them as my examples when I go home tonight.

You know, can I carry cold water?

I don't want to be a criminal when I'm in the city of Phoenix and I see uh just like the good Samaritan, you know, and I see somebody uh who doesn't have enough water that oh, am I gonna get a ticket from somebody who thinks this is again, you know, one of the uh law enforcement, but I would term this more as like, you know, you get this argument.

Well, the law is the law.

You know, the people who say just chop the baby in half that there are no extenuating, there are no mitigating circumstances.

Well, let me give you an analogy.

If you're walking down the road and you see the sign says private property.

There's a swimming pool or a pond, and you hear the child, you hear something help me, help me, I'm drowning.

You can see them, but the sign says no trespassing.

Well, that is why we're given wisdom.

Uh, and we we have to look at things in a different way, you know.

We have to look at extenuating and mitigating circumstances.

So if someone's drowning, you can say, Well, I'm following the law, and I'm just gonna let that person drown.

Now, you may say that's not really the same.

It's apples and oranges, but yes, it is because we do have an emergency because at least one or two of the council members uh in speaking with some of the officials here have acknowledged that there are not enough beds if we take all of our unhoused brothers and sisters and hungry and the impoverished, and the people who are currently afflicted with addictions, and suddenly just throw them upon the city of Phoenix.

Um that's an emergency.

Okay, so we are the analogy of the citizen walking down the road, hearing the child drowning.

The sign says no trespassing.

You know, just because and I acknowledge, I think the mayor, you know, City of Phoenix steps up, but I don't hear enough of you complaining about the state legislature.

That's what we need to do.

Did I do that?

Did I time myself out or it was just timeout?

Okay, timeout.

The two minutes had expired, yes.

Okay, all right.

So, um, all I'm saying is we can either be that person who uh PO is next, followed by Jeff Tizett.

Afternoon, everybody.

Uh, gonna be a short speech, it's gonna be a powerful speech again.

My name is P.

Garcia, and I just came to thank the honorable Miss Betty Gallargo and her staff for a tremendous job they do in District 5.

Amy, manual, uh, can't remember his name all the time, but your people I have dealt with them, and I have issues around the neighborhood, and I bring it forth to them, and they do prompt responses, and they very commuted communicate with me, how things are going, and they get the job done, and that's when basically came here and about the parks and stuff.

I live in the proximity of Washington Park.

I grew up there, went to Washington High School, Maryland School, and for a long time it was very sort of sweet, dirty, a lot of uh drug usage and everything else.

And now that I walk it, it's it's almost like 99% change, it's clean, I can walk, and I see families on Sundays and weekends playing volleyball, and I walk and look on the ground to see what's going on, and I don't see a lot of dirty needles or stuff like that.

So, I think it's also a community effort that it's gotten to where it's at now, and working with uh council meetings and everything else, and I would came to give thanks to every one of you in your responsibility.

So I'm sure you work hard.

And mayor, thank you very much.

You're doing a great job.

And thank you for being at the presentation at uh Washington High School Senior Center for that mural for our little presentation.

Super grateful.

There's very important testimony, but we do need you to speak on the agendized item.

So do you support what's in front of us?

Well, they put the mural up, and it was a little bit of uh Santa Rosa there, and that's my neighborhood, Santa Rosa.

Okay, thank you so much.

Everybody.

Uh Jeff is next.

Did you want to ask?

Did you?

Oh, did okay.

What?

Okay, Jeff is next, followed by Joel Cornell.

Afternoon, Mayor Council.

My name's Jeff Tissat.

I live up in Sunny Slope.

I'm retired military.

I have nine kids and 14 grandkids.

Fixing to be 16.

Oh, congrats.

Um, I've been coaching youth sports for over 30 years, 15 in Phoenix at all of our city parks.

Okay, we are out at these parks at least five days a week.

Okay, and I want to thank our city and our council for supporting parks, the community, and the homeless folks that we have out there.

This this ordinance is a very good balance.

Okay, we had a community meeting, I don't know, a month or two ago, uh, with the presentation up in Sunny Slope, and it was really good.

You go to these community meetings a lot of times, and what do you do?

You just hear people going off the deep and yelling and screaming at each other.

And we did have a couple people, but when you do that, nobody listens to you anyway.

You know, so so at this community meeting, and I want to say it first.

Our community, we really appreciate what all these service providers are doing.

Okay, last week we had a captain's meeting with 11 captains, and oh yeah, I run uh East Sunny Slope Community Group, which is probably one of the largest in Phoenix.

Last week we had a captain's meeting about this ordinance.

We had 11 of our captains and three of our board members there, and it was unanimous for our community to support this ordinance because of the balance of it.

Okay, at that meeting that I went to.

One of the things that I thought was a little disappointing and a little odd, was every one of the people that got up there and spoke about the ordinance.

You know, we acknowledge and appreciated, let's just use the word other side for lack of better terms, for what they're doing.

Not one of them said one word about our community, families, or our kids.

And that was really disappointing.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Joel is next, followed by Kim Depre.

Good morning.

My name is Joel Cornejo, and I'm with Semias Arizona.

And stop pretending this ordinance is about safety.

This city creates a conditions for our people to become unsheltered and creates the conditions for them to die.

You deny shade and extreme heat, you restrict water, you target food care and mutual aid, and you know exactly what those conditions do.

Over just this past week, many community groups and organizations audited more than 12 parks across Phoenix and many more to come to confirm the narrative the city's using to justify these policies.

We found zero needles.

What we did find was the lack of resources, lack of investment, and deeper neglect in black, brown, and poor neighborhoods.

We found communities already doing the work the city refuses to do, people feeding each other, protecting each other, keeping each other alive.

And now you want to prohibit our people from saving each other from the conditions you created.

You want the moral, you you want the moral authority to regulate survival itself after abandoning your responsibility to our unsheltered relatives.

That is brutality, and that is policy violence.

And we will post our findings publicly.

We will hold the city accountable for its lies, its malice, and its brutality towards our communities.

These words the city has waged against our communities predates all of you.

But today you have the opportunity to begin amending the harm the city has caused.

Do the right thing, not only reject this ordinance, but begin rolling back the policies and ordinances the city has pushed for years that have only found you ways to brutalize poor communities, black communities, brown communities, and our unsheltered relatives.

Our people deserve more than survival, they deserve to live, and it is your responsibility.

And it is our responsibility as people to make sure you do.

In chief, your department shoots people first and asks questions later during traffic stops.

We don't trust you with our most vulnerable community members, which in this case are unsheltered relatives.

And Betty, you're using the same logic ICE is using against migrant communities to target unsheltered relatives.

Thank you.

Mayor, one question for one question for you.

Thank you.

Uh you just said that a few weeks ago, you your group and other groups went out to basically audit our parks.

Why was this so important for you to take that work on?

It's very important because everybody that has done this work knows for a fact, right?

That the pictures and the arguments that they used with the needles, we don't see that.

We don't see that, right?

And it's also important for us to make sure that those parks are clean.

Most of the parks in black and brown neighborhoods had a lot of trash.

We didn't find one needle.

Uh yeah.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor.

That's only what I have a question.

Well, I have a question for you.

Maybe you can come back up, can you come back up?

So, just one question.

So, are you asking this council to ignore the voices of residents, largely Latino black and working families who have clearly said do not want to see needles in the park.

They have seen the needles in the park.

Liliana just testified and said all the needles that they find in the parks.

Are you saying that we should just ignore those voices?

No, you it's your responsibility as a city to make sure there's a safe way to dispose of those needles, right?

You're married, you have said in the past.

You have said you have said, you have said in the past that a hundred percent of your community in your district supports this ordinance.

We have a membership of around 5,000 people around our Arizona.

And I can tell you we know a lot of community members from district five that are against this ordinance.

Thank you.

Councilwoman O'Brien.

Sorry, I also have a question, please.

So how many parks did your members go to?

Over 12.

Okay.

12, 13, how many?

Around 15 problems.

Probably said over, that's why I asked.

So before today, there was 12.

So you went to 12.

In today's.

So you went, thank you.

You went to 12 parks out of 180 parks and determined that there's no needles in any of our parks.

And that, so sorry.

And so that is concerning statement to say that because you went to 12, that there were no needles, that there were no needles anywhere else.

Don't worry, we'll we'll post the the we'll post our findings.

Don't worry about that.

We'll post our findings.

Kim is next, followed by Dr.

Fower.

I would like to just start by saying my name is Kim Depre, and I represent Circle the City, and this ordinance is very one-sided and it's very short-sighted.

Um, the ordinance would not make Phoenix safer, it would make Phoenix sicker, more dangerous, and more expensive for all of us.

We had over a thousand health care professionals, outreach workers, and street medicine providers from across the United States and around the world, have signed a letter opposing this ordinance, and you all have received copies of those.

What blows me away is what we that we have representatives from Canada, Germany, India, Ireland, Italy, Kenya, Philippines, Netherlands, Uganda, and the United Kingdom, all have showed support of opposing this ordinance.

Street medicine exists because many people experiencing homelessness cannot safely access traditional clinics.

They face barriers like transportation, mobility issues, etc.

If this ordinance passes, those medical needs do not disappear.

They become emergencies.

We also received letters from over 105 organizations, international, national, state, and local.

In fact, outreach uh street medicine prevents crises before they happen.

In fact, outreach care has been shown to reduce emergency department use by up to 75%.

The international support comes from places like the Philippines, Germany, and organizations such as certified committee health specialists foundation.

Phoenix, this issue is literally life or death.

We're the hottest major city in America.

Every summer, hundreds of unhouse people suffer heat-related illnesses and death.

This ordinance also ignores the overwhelming consensus of healthcare experts, organizations across Arizona, including Valley Wise, Keys to Change, Sonor Prevention Work, Street Medicine Phoenix, Circle the City, and more all oppose this measure because we see firsthand what works.

And thank you.

One more thing.

One more statement, I'm sorry.

And I just want to say we all can't be wrong.

There's got to be some truth in all of these people across the world and what we believe.

So thank you.

Okay.

I know the question is.

Out of curiosity, what type of heat-related uh medical care do you believe is not going to be allowed?

Is not going to be permitted because of this ordinance?

There's a hydro IV hydration that we do that has prevented deaths in the parks.

And just so everybody's aware, we do not leave needles in the park.

So kicking us out is not going to make it better.

I understand.

So the only so the one you believe is the IV hydration.

I'm just trying to get an I understand.

We do vital signs.

If they have a obviously, if they have a wound, because they have burns on their feet from the heat, we'll take care of their wounds.

We'll do Ivy hydrations.

Um so there's probably more things than that.

And you do not believe that the uh okay, I just want to ask that question.

Um I think I just want to say this because I think what we are trying, what I'm seeing here is I'm seeing individuals telling us to ignore the information we're receiving from both sides of the equation.

We have I feel like we have an I have an obligation to believe the information I receive from both the resident side as well as a medical provider side.

I believe that there have been good actors and there have been bad actors in this, and I have met with a number of organizations trying to figure out what is the right balance, and I think continuing to pit us against each other and saying we don't care about our community, I just think that is not accurate.

I think we're having these conversations because we do care, and that's why I'm asking the question.

I don't want to go off on a tangent, but thank you for explaining what heat relief uh care you believe might be jeopardized in this circumstance.

And I want to say thank you because I know you do partner with our Office of Home Solutions in providing medical assistance to end of all I believe all of our residents are our constituents as well.

So thank you for that.

Actually, the ordinance is so restrictive, it is it the first one would have been better banning all medical care.

This doesn't provide anybody any ability to do anything, so it's it's not even it's not even part way of a compromise.

So I think that's why everyone's so.

So you believe the first one was the better one, the complete band?

To me, they're they're equal because the one is so restrictive, it just basically means we can't do it.

We nobody can is gonna be able to provide food or medical care.

It's so restrictive.

And if you all of us are feeling that way, and I don't think anybody's hearing that.

I wouldn't, I wouldn't say nobody's hearing that.

I think what we're hearing from all sides, but thank you for that.

I don't want to go.

I have a question.

Sorry, yes, Councilman O'Brien.

So thank you for the work you do in our community.

Um we have obviously are hearing lots about treatment and parks.

I'm curious, does your organization provide any treatment in the washes, the alleyways, or the underpasses where there are also many homeless um folks who have the same conditions of folks who you would find in the park.

We go wherever the unhoused unhoused are, anywhere they are, we are there.

So eight percent of our calls are in parks, but you go wherever.

So how often are you in those other locations?

Every day.

We have 10 teams that do outreach and street medicine total, and they go all over Maricopa County.

So every single day they'll go to a wash or park or an alley or a neighborhood or a parking lot.

Wherever, wherever there's a need, we will go there.

And it's not regulated.

We can't predict four months ahead who's gonna be sick, when, and what park, what day, what time?

Okay, thank you very much, ma'am.

Thank you.

Dr.

Fower is next, followed by Ramona Martinez.

I'm sorry, Ramona Marquez.

Robert Fower.

If you are Robert, could you signal?

All right.

Uh Ramona Martinez is next.

I'm so sorry I keep doing that.

Ramona Marquez is next, followed by Adrian Marquez.

Good afternoon.

My name is Miguel Angel, and I'm coming from 51st Avenue, Camel.

And we need more safer parks due to my due to my injury.

One day what I went down the slide and got hurt with the needle, and I was bleeding, and my mom had to take me to the hospital.

It's not safe that we need more clean part, cleans and safer parks.

That's why my mom don't take us to the park.

It is sad because we can't go to the park.

No more needles in the park.

That's it.

Councilman Guardado.

Thank you.

So can you answer a question?

Yeah.

So when was the last time that you went to a park?

And do you live close to a park?

Uh yeah.

I live close to a park.

I think it was like three months ago.

Um my whole family except my mom and some siblings.

Uh but there wasn't a doc there, and my little sister, she's five four years old, and she was talking to a stranger.

So we mostly.

Yeah.

It was three months ago.

And do you think that um and when you got stung with the needle?

Which people are saying that you're lying, that there's no needles in the parks.

So that's what I was missing.

We could always just call the question, but okay.

That's like literally what you just said.

Okay, so question for you.

When you got stung by the needle, um, what services had to be provided for you, and how much did that cost your family?

Okay, and Marybell Park.

Okay.

Okay, much.

Thank you so much for your statement.

You're very brave.

Yeah.

And thank you.

We don't get a lot of young people testifying in that.

That is very impressive.

And we'll pause for translation.

Mayor uh the interpreter is gonna do the second uh response.

Uh we can try to do the first one as well.

Um there's a question, and uh as far as taking him to the doctor, and the response was uh I take him every three months.

You had to get an HIV test, and it was a nightmare for us, and from there, uh the little one uh has him, and this has happened uh he was about uh when he was about five or six years old.

I haven't taken my children to the park since then.

And the second response was as far as the money, it's money that I don't have uh for those costs.

And so there was a question, did he have any side effects?

The response was uh no, just uh um uh we don't take them to the park anymore.

Uh something something has to happen.

Uh since uh there's homeless there.

Uh there they have their addictions, they need a lot of support.

We're not against them, uh them getting their help or whatever, right?

But something has to be done.

That way, my children and all everyone else's children can go to the park and have fun.

And we're waiting for additional translation.

Is that what?

Is that in everything?

That's everything.

We're ready for the next speaker.

Okay, thank you.

Uh Gavin Ferginson Ferguson is next, followed by Jack Fernandez.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council members.

My name is Gavin Ferguson.

I'm a PA in the state of Arizona, and for the last 10 years or so, I have dedicated my medical career to taking care of underserved communities here in the state, particularly in the Phoenix area.

And the groups that I work with, we are all in opposition to the original ordinance.

That as a reminder has already been passed.

So keep that in mind.

We don't want the revision either.

So we would like to reject and repeal the current ordinance.

And I'd like to remind everybody that the syringe service programs that we work with are the conduits that allow individuals to seek the services that they need for us to meet them where we uh where we can.

We go out on a daily basis and see people in parks in the washes that uh councilwoman Stark, you mentioned.

We go out there with backpacks full of supplies, and we see people where they are.

The expectation that patients need to come to us is unacceptable.

That is not the accepted science behind this.

That is not the anecdotal evidence across the world.

We need to be able to go to the individuals where they are and take care of them.

In the country, uh, overdose deaths are down 24%.

In the state of Arizona, they are rising by 21%.

And it has been shown across the world again that syringe service programs are the ones that reduce needle prevalence in these parks in these common areas.

So once again, I urge everybody here to reject and repeal the ordinance as it sits.

Thank you.

Mayor, thank you, Mayor.

Um, Gavin, thank you so much for for speaking.

I just have a quick question for you around the uh syringe uh, what'd you call it?

Sorry.

Syringe service programs.

Right.

Um, do you have data for drops in positivity rates for virus and hep C that you have seen in those using um harm reduction sites?

So we we keep a lot of data internally uh through the company I work for here, Venn Centers.

Um we keep a lot of data internally because we have an MOU with the state through access that we track this information.

Um with our street outreach, and we we separate it out in between like uh map programs, which is medication assisted treatment for uh things like substance use disorders.

We separated out by that um our street outreach that we do, and then specifically harm reduction with the syringe service programs, and our data shows that out of the street outreach programs, we've got about a 16% positivity rate for uh hepatitis C and realize this is just hepatitis E, and then with the harm reduction syringe service programs that we work with, the positivity rate is only 13%.

So there is a measurable difference in the positivity rates with individuals engaging with syrin Service programs having a lower positivity rate.

Thank you so much.

And then just one last question.

When you're going out um, you know, to the washes and other areas with supplies.

Are you taking all of your trash and needles with you?

Uh yes, all of our individuals, myself included, we carry sharps containers.

So we take the supplies that we're using, and you know, for our testing, we use uh uh landsets similar to a blood glucose test.

If we have to do a blood draw or something like that, we are taking the butterfly needles with us in our sharps containers.

If we are at a park or anywhere else that we meet an individual, we are picking up our refuse, our trash, our biomedical waste.

So that's not something that we leave behind, and it's not something that any of the Serena service programs leave behind either.

And when it comes down to it, uh, a lot of the individuals that are still active in their use, they are very conscientious.

They're humans too.

They are aware of how society views them, and they are doing their best not to be a burden to other groups because they don't want individuals like the young man experiencing what he and his mother went through.

Okay, thank you so much.

Thank you.

Jack Fernandez is next, followed by Connie Cabot, and I want to note we will break around 6 15 for 15 minutes.

People of Phoenix, Mayor, Council members, I live near parks.

I love attending permitted and non-permitted events at parks in the city of Phoenix.

I just want to understand what this ordinance is for.

Just two hours ago, we all heard city staff say they want to enhance their relationship with and work collaboratively with the people that serve our community.

So I just want to know from folks that are here if you're with an organization that provides care to people at parks.

Will this ordinance enhance your relationship with the city for the better?

Okay, so what's this ordinance for?

Uh, when we look at parks and streets and sidewalks and alleys and gutters as a whole, does anyone believe that this ordinance will reduce the amount of needles and trash in those spaces as a whole?

All right, so what's what's this ordinance for?

Uh, all the talking points in support of this ordinance that we've been hearing, they're structured around blaming service volunteers for the existence of trash and banana peels and needles.

We saw in those photos, but the reasoning and evidence for the overall impact of those services have not been provided.

If I find an egg in the park, do I blame the parents or the Easter bunny?

That's all I need.

Connie Cabot is next, followed by Shirley Dickman.

And I would just want to advise our speakers to address the city council, not the audience.

Parks 101.

Parks have been established as centers for recreation, picnics, playgrounds, community events, and athletics.

They were not established as social service agencies for troubled people in need.

There are other resources for non-emergency medical needs, alcohol recovery, drug rehab, food and hunger problems.

There are absolutely no solid reasons for needle distribution to be held in a city park.

This is, I want to emphasize the concept of proper resources at proper locations.

We need to limit medical attention to emergency situations, such as cardiac arrest, strokes, drownings, athletic injuries.

Parks should not be a food pantry.

Let's not forget that allowing medical and or food distribution approved by the cities in an ordinance would put the city in line for a potential lawsuit should things go awry, and things will go awry.

We don't need situations that enable troubled people.

Again, proper resources at proper locations.

This is not rocket science.

I live near Washington Park, a beautiful park with many problems.

Thank you.

Shirley is next, followed by Maria Vega.

Thank you, Mayor and Council Members.

My name is Shirley Deakin.

I am the leader of the Alhambra Neighborhood Association.

So I live right within Walking Leto Park.

Over the years, personally it has changed quite a bit.

Oh, I'm sorry.

I thought it was loud enough.

I'm pretty loud.

Um, but the purpose of the park is recreation, family fun, safe public enjoyment for everyone, including the ones that are handicapped or have issues or have drug.

You know, I've seen it all there.

But recently, I just feel like I need to share some personal things that have happened.

Um, you know, that really make this important to me that this ordinance passed.

Um, the large-scale distribution of food in the park, I have seen happen in big ways.

What really bothers me, and maybe this doesn't appeal to everyone that's here, is they bring the food and then they don't clean it up, and they don't try to help the people they gave it to clean it up.

And I've even seen the little boy decide to have one of the burritos that was half eaten because they were busy and the mom was not watching them.

So that's one of the reasons that people don't want to bring the kids to the park when they're feeding.

Now, I also know that um there's a church nearby that feeds in their church and they get quite a few people there, and they because I live in a community that's 80% Hispanic, um, and a lot of them work double jobs and two jobs, and so they do use the park services for all kinds of things.

So they that's really awful when um when there's human waste and there's all kinds of terrible things around, it's really awful, and more work for the park.

Oh, that was quick.

I'm sorry.

Well, I just wanted to tell you one other thing, and I'm this will be my last, and this has to be.

Apologies, unfortunately, we gotta stick with the time limit unless someone has a question.

Uh let's see, who do I call?

Maria Vega is next, followed by Michael Gaffney.

Hello, good evening, Mayor and members of the council.

My name's Maria Vega.

I am one of the directors of the Dr.

Alex Kim Foundation.

We are a medical nonprofit organization, and we've been working on this subject with the council with the different districts, not since December, but many, many months before that.

Um, we are very grateful to be here today because as medical providers and our organization being led by medical providers, um, we cannot provide care based on feeling or emotions.

And we all know that this room was full of emotions today, and when we have a patient in uh need, we can't let our emotions uh guide us, right?

We are here to serve, we're here to serve the community, our community deserves the best, but in the right place, and a lot of the districts are helping us connect every single day.

We have full-time outreach coordinators that are being paid fully payroll, covered by our private physicians who are reaching out to churches, begging them, asking them to open their locations so we can come out as medical providers and provide care at these different locations.

We do believe that the care is needed.

We definitely heard that the physicians' care is needed.

And we heard the community.

We heard the different uh districts and the needs, and we heard the people, and we want to bring this care.

We want to bring it with structure, and we want to give them the best.

So we are constantly out there collaborating and asking for networking in the different locations, different churches.

If anybody wants the care for the community, it is the medical providers because we have uh made an oath to serve the community, and we want to serve them right but in the right place.

Um we have tons of physicians.

Our last event was composed of 140 volunteers, and 65 of them were medical providers from prestigious clinics and private practices.

Thank you.

Uh Michael is next.

Michael Gaffney is next, followed by Michael Renow.

Mayor and esteemed council members.

My name is Michael Gaffney, and I'm here today to address the ordinance specifically as it uh addresses the food distribution in parks.

I'm a volunteer with Billy's Way Home and have been serving meals to the unhoused here in the Phoenix Parks.

I support these organizations and what they provide to the unhoused in the North Phoenix area.

These people, these residents of Phoenix are no different than any of us.

They are just trying to survive in a very unforgiving world.

Feeding and caring for people should not be a criminal offense here in Phoenix.

But that's what this ordinance does.

It does nothing to get to the root of the problem or the unhoused, it just vilifies them, making them seem less than human, less than any of us.

And this is just a myth.

There are human beings just like us.

They are our friends, our brothers and sisters.

They just need some help, just like these weekly meals that we provide do for them.

I'm sure most of us have had need have needed some help at some point in our lives, just getting through the day-to-day.

So please, I urge and appeal to your good human nature to repeal and rescind this ordinance, and let's all look for ways to partner together.

Everyone here to get to the root of the problem and help our brothers and sisters.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Um Mike is next, and then we'll go online to Ariane Reddy.

Reading, mayor's members of the council.

Um, mayor referred to me as Michael, which is what I get called when I'm in trouble.

So I'm worried.

Um, but there's been a lot of emotion, obviously.

There's been a lot of misinformation, there's been a lot of opinions.

Um, it was mentioned earlier the pandemic and the lessons that we've learned from the pandemic.

And one of those should have been let's listen to our public health experts.

Apparently we didn't learn that lesson.

Let's look at the facts without the emotion and the objections and all of the misinformation.

People don't belong living on our streets.

They don't belong living in our washes, they don't belong living in our parks.

Medical care is not ideally practiced in washes, in parks, on our streets.

It's unhygienic, it's not safe for anyone.

It doesn't belong there.

It costs approximately excuse me, approximately $16,000.

This is a national number for permanent supportive housing per person per year.

$16,000 for permanent supportive housing per person per year.

I think the math on that is somewhere around 65 million dollars.

So we've done a lot.

We have so much more to do.

Facts.

Over 5,000 people are living unsheltered on our streets, and we don't have the room for them to get care or treatment.

That's why providers are out there providing the care to where people are at.

Facts.

Your own staff admitted, and I have done the research.

There is zero scientific evidence that shows ordinances like this work to remove folks from parks.

Zero.

I feel brokenhearted for that little boy.

Just like you all do, but you're selling him smoking mirrors.

This ordinance will not work.

Councilwoman Hernandez.

Thank you.

Mike, just have a I'm not gonna call you Michael because you're not in trouble with me.

Excuse me.

Um, we all thrown off.

Just uh have a couple questions for you.

Um, what is the impact this ordinance could have on um your ability to recruit and retain providers and medical staff if this ordinance passes?

Yeah, it's a great question.

I've talked to numerous uh uh over 100 different medical providers, the social workers' counselors, we have those in our employee, and as we're recruiting providers, um, all of them that I've spoken to personally are shocked that this ordinance would even come from our city.

Thank you.

And I mean, we're also seeing a lot of loss in coverage, right?

For the everyday person, they're losing health care access through actions not of anybody on this council, but of the federal administration.

Like, do you think that that's a compound that's gonna be a compounding problem to this?

And is the this ordinance address any of that?

Yeah, that's correct.

This ordinance uh clearly does not address any of that, it actually harms that.

We we know that there will be at least 400,000 people in Arizona who lose some type of Medicaid uh coverage.

Uh and then when we're talking about people who are in the situations living in the park, they're largely, and I don't have the data on me today, but I know the data.

They're largely folks who are suffering from serious mental illness and a combination of that and opioid use disorder or just straight opioid use disorder, and those folks are not necessarily able to get themselves to a DES office to get all their benefits straight, right?

Which means they won't have coverage, which means they won't have access to mainstream health care, which means they'll be getting sicker on our streets, and then the cost is gonna go up for all of us.

Okay, thank you.

Um we've heard a lot about needles, right?

Because and and that's a very serious matter.

So I don't want anyone to think that any of us take sharps in the parks as a laughing matter or not a serious issue.

Can you speak a little bit to how your organization kind of works in around that?

Yeah, well, we are a healthcare organization, and I've been in healthcare for 26 years.

Needle sticks are some of the most severe and dangerous things that anyone can uh have as an occurrence.

It's unacceptable that people would get stuck in a needle in a park.

Totally unacceptable.

We agree.

This ordinance is not going to fix that.

There's this mythology that's out there that providers are coming and giving people needles, and then those needles end up on the ground.

That's not what happens.

People are using it at all hours, at all times, and every single day of the park, and they're disposing of their needles, however, they do.

In addition, the more time you use a needle, right, the dirtier the needle gets.

That's just science, bacteria, fungus, virus load, it all accumulates on that needle.

So if someone's been using the same needle over and over and over and over again, and then you step on that needle, your risk of acquiring HIV, hepatitis, all the other horrible things you don't want to get dramatically increases.

So clean needles actually protects people, dirty needles hurt people.

Thank you.

And my last question for you, um, the way the ordinance is written, if you decide to go buy a box of granola bars and decide to go to the park to hand those out.

What is your interpretation of what would happen to you?

That's a great question.

Uh we have teams that do this kind of activity uh all the time, and I have gone out with them multiple times myself, and they go where people are at.

That's another myth.

We're not bringing people to parks, we're finding them there, right?

And so when we're going out and doing these things, we're providing all kinds of care, and yeah, we have a care kit that probably has a couple of power bars in it that might have some bandages for the person later on if we're not around to help them.

I understand that we would now be charged with a crime, the same level crime as uh domestic violence.

Oh.

Thank you so much, Mike.

Thank you.

I don't think it is.

Um Mike, one more question.

And Ariana.

I knew it was in trouble.

Yeah, I just have uh one question.

Um, so I've curious, um, I've seen, for example, organization like Circle the City has done coordinated work with our Office of Homeless Solution.

Is there a reason why that would not be an option for yourself and other providers who do this work?

It's absolutely absolutely an option, right?

What is not an option is criminalizing.

I just want to make sure I I don't I understand your concerns.

I just want to make sure I understand that.

Thank you.

So it is an option, and there's uh is there anything that would dissuade you from from utilizing our partner with the Office of Homeless Solution if that is an option?

If this body were to criminalize care, then that would persuade me not to work with you.

Okay.

Thank you so much for that answer.

Ariane is ne Ariane Redding is next, followed by Michelle Perkins.

Great.

Can you hear me?

We can.

Perfect.

Hello, members of the council.

I urge you not to pass this ordinance amendment.

To start with food, I want to address the fact that there is already legal precedent showing that it is unconstitutional to deny an individual's first amendment freedom of expression to provide food.

This has been seen in the case of Thornton versus City of Bullhead, where an elderly woman named Norma Thornton was arrested for sharing food with people in a park.

That is in Arizona.

Now let's talk about medical care.

Treating someone or providing them with medical care does not automatically result in medical waste, nor should theoretical medical waste dissuade you from allowing people to provide medical care.

If my friend sprains their ankle, wrapping their injury will be a criminal action that I could receive the same sentence as assault for.

Maybe not immediately, sure.

Education first, then a citation, but still, assault.

I understand your fear about used syringes.

That is a fear I share.

And as far as I can tell, the only legitimate threat you've presented.

There is, however, no evidence that's been shown that community community organized medical care is responsible for the needles in the parks.

And while I think there is legislation that could be made to address those needles, I don't think that this is it.

It's difficult for me to see this ordinance as anything but an attack against the unshaltered population of our people of our city.

It's not these people's fault that they're unable to get the care that they need in a way that you may deem respectable.

They need to be in public spaces like parks because there's nowhere else to go.

This ordinance doesn't address their suffering.

All it does is place criminal barriers in front of their relief of it.

If you don't want food or medical care to be provided in public spaces by volunteers, then we need more holistic solutions rather than punishing those trying to address them.

I understand that your rebuttal might be that these act events and activities are still allowed so long as someone obtains a permit.

I don't think that's acceptable, considering there will only be two total per month, and there's no guarantee you'll even get them.

If someone's starving or injured in front of me, I would be required by law to leave them as is.

This is an ordinance which criminalizes the most humane of behaviors, care.

I urge you to care for your constituents and encourage them to care for each other by rejecting this ordinance.

Thank you.

Michelle Perkins is next, followed by Darlene Vallow.

Thank you.

Mayor Galego and members of the city council.

I accept and support the proposed ordinance.

Uh allowing needle distribution in parks is a serious safety and sanitation concern.

And there needs to be very strong regulation for this and the other activities associated.

I've grown up and remained in the area I support and have been involved in neighborhood preservation for almost 15 years.

I used to regularly use our parks, but over the years have almost fully ceased use due to the very negative conditions at the parks.

Many of the same sentiments were echoed by my neighbors and uh colleagues.

Transients, druggies, needles, human waste.

The list goes on and on.

I would often love to throw my dogs in the car and run up to the park for a quick dog or some playtime, the way that I used to, but I don't have the same feeling of safety I used to have.

And without strong regulation of this proposal, uh that safety is further degraded.

I know that many of our neighbors and leaders have worked very hard to start making our parks useful and safe again for our residents and families.

Please help us to continue by placing stringent regulations on on the with this ordinance.

Please make our park safe, clean places where our residents and families can go to enjoy, play, and relax.

Please do not further institutionalize our area.

Understand that I'm not speaking without experience.

Very recently, I was accosted trying to go into my own home by the exact people that this proposed ordinance would serve.

Somebody who was homeless and who was high on drugs.

The same people remained in my neighborhood for multiple days and came back to my home after the incident and approached me again more than once.

I support services for those in need, but our parks are not the appropriate setting for these types of activities without very stringent regulation.

This also brings legitimate concern as to where those brought in by such events will disseminate after and how this will be managed to ensure no negative influence on the surrounding neighborhoods and the community.

The example above for reference.

We work tirelessly to improve the safety of our area and plead with you to help us continue.

Thank you.

Darlene is next, followed by Catherine Miller.

Yes, we can.

Okay.

Um thank you, Mayor and Councilman and Council Warren for taking the time to um listen uh to my remarks.

Um we have lived in the Washington Park neighborhood in the historic Santa Rosa Barrio since 1999.

We love our neighbors and um neighborhood, and some of these families have lived in this area for decades.

For a period of time, we have experienced an invasive of large drug and vested homeless encampments in our park and neighborhood vandalism in our neighborhood, was rampant with the assistance of the Phoenix Police and the adoption of the camping ordinance by by you, the city council and mayor, we were able to take back our park and neighborhoods and got rid of all the homeless encampment.

We oppose the activity of the mobile medical care and food distribution organization in our community.

We have a sense of humanity in helping others in need, but when homeless individual trespass on private property, our neighbors later our streets and parts, take out the bus styles for personal shelter and openly use openly use our drugs, the sense of humanity's dimension.

This continues to be frustrating for our community members.

Medical, mobile care, and food distribution is not a cure for homelessness and only enables the homeless to continue to engage in illegal activity, knowing that they will face little or no consequence for their action.

The city adopted a camping ordinance which made a positive impact in getting uh dangerous drugs, infested homeless encampments out of our parts and neighbors.

However, this has not deterred the homeless from violating these ordinances and other areas of the city.

Mobile medical care and food distribution provide very little or no incentive for homeless individuals to get the help that they really need.

We have to we have a right to protect the quality of life in our community.

As a residents, I go out in the community daily do my Phoenix Day.

Thank you.

Catherine Miller is next, followed by Linda Blackford.

Hi, can you hear me?

We can.

Okay, thank you so much.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council members.

My name is Catherine Miller, and I am asking you today to reject this ordinance.

I coordinated and led street medicine phoenix out of the University of Arizona for three years before deciding that I needed to become a physician.

So I'm currently in medical school, zooming in between my cardiology classes, trying to plead with you today.

We all have a similar goal.

I've been thinking a lot about what is causing the tension between us all.

Everyone agrees that needle sticks are bad.

I think that is uh a primary reason that all of us are here today.

I think the reason that so many of us feel frustrated is we feel unheard.

I I'm trying to count how many times we've told you that we agree that needles needle sticks are bad.

We totally agree.

At the December 17th meeting, so many of us, including parents, you know, employees from nonprofits who provide medical care to people experiencing homelessness, told you that we agree.

We agree that residents should be able to bring their children to park safely.

We agree that children should never be in contact with needles at the park.

We agree that needle sticks to parks and recreation employees are unacceptable.

But we are telling you A and you're responding with B.

So I'll put this in medical terms.

We agree on the diagnosis, but we disagree on the treatment.

I also want to note that this problem upticked when the zone that consisted of 800 to a thousand people in downtown Phoenix was cleared without sufficient beds and extra shelters for all of those people who are cleared of the encampment.

And if you kind of look at the timeline of that 2023 clearing, I don't have the numbers on me, but I would bet you that the expansion of people who don't have shelter into parks and neighborhoods has increased because, you know, as demonstrated by some of the um the the numbers that we were talking about earlier.

It seems like there's basically not enough shelter beds to to house all the people who have been uh you know removed from the encampment by the 2023 lawsuit.

So I'm begging you to please, you know, scrap this ordinance and start from scratch, incorporating all the stakeholders from the Linda is next, followed by Sarah Gillen.

So Linda Blackford, followed by Sarah Gillen, followed by Ginny Ann Sumner.

Uh Linda, if you are here.

Oh she, I'm sorry.

I was looking in the wrong direction.

And feel free to move the microphone down for those of us who are vertically challenged.

Can you hear me?

I think it would be better if you move the microphone down.

Oh, okay, great.

Much better.

I've never done this before.

So here we go.

My name is Linda Blackford, leader of the West Palm Air Neighbors Block Block.

And I support this ordinance.

People need parks.

Allowing needles to be dispersed in our park along with finding used needles is unacceptable.

Oops.

Okay.

This is it, like I say, unacceptable.

We need to clean up this problem so our parks will be safe again for everyone.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Sarah is next, followed by Gini Ann.

Good afternoon, Mayor Gallego and members of city council.

My name is Sarah Gillen.

My family started the nonprofit Billy's Way Home in 2021 after my brother Billy passed away.

We do food distribution weekly near Cave Creek Park.

I'm here to mainly speak about the food distribution added to the amendment that would prevent our weekly outreaches from happening.

We do currently get permits from the city of Phoenix.

The rule of two permits is not enough.

Our nonprofit and organizations like ours are a bridge to services for the most underserved and needy part of our population.

We also work in combination with the city of City to provide heat relief several summers in a row.

That is a life-saving measure here in Phoenix.

We do work with the Office of Homeless Solutions as well.

Thank you for everything you do.

The relationships that we have built that make all the difference when people are ready to seek resources, and we have seen some amazing success stories.

Everyone we have served who gets clean and off the streets comes back to tell us what an impact our outreach has made in their recovery.

This ordinance does nothing to keep parks safe.

It skirts the issue and feels like an out of sight, out of mind solution that is not a solution.

The food distribution should have never been added to this amendment in the five years that we have been doing weekly outreach.

We have never once seen a needle at the park.

We leave the park cleaner than when we arrive.

We have children and families come volunteer with us, and never once have we had someone tell us that they feel unsafe.

We also have families that are housed that come to our weekly outreach because they need a meal.

We're serving not just the homeless, but our community and anyone who needs a meal.

I asked today that you reject this amendment and repeal this ordinance that will do nothing but cost human lives and shut out resources.

I'd also like to point out that my brother did not die of an overdose.

He was arrested in Fourth Avenue jail where he was begging for medical care for the months he was there.

And when he got out, he was septic and went to a hospital, passed away twenty four hours later.

This was a result of months.

So I find it ironic that we can't that Miracle Buchanan can't get medical care right in their own facilities.

Homelessness and drug abuse have become a lifestyle rather than guiding individuals toward OHS, you are being asked to perpetuate the growing problem of having no consequences for their behavior.

And the entire community has grown under the cloak of a nonprofit status.

While I support funding for the attendance of OHS representatives, it doesn't seem fair that as a federal and county taxpayer, I will also now pay city taxes to try and offset those enabling drug addiction and homelessness for individuals who are refusing services.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Thank you so much for being in the meeting today.

If you could please find your seats, we will begin very shortly, thirty seconds.

We will resume the Phoenix City Council meeting and we will continue with public testimony.

We'll begin with Cynthia Gonzalez, followed by Michael Gonzalez, followed by Stan Emery.

Cynthia, the floor is yours.

Cynthia Gonzalez, could you indicate you are present?

Michael Gonzalez, could you indicate if you are present?

Are you present?

Stan.

Erica Hendel.

Erica, please come forward.

Erica will be followed by Faith Kearns.

Mayor Council members, my name is Dr.

Erica Handel.

In addition to being a constituent of Director Eight, I'm a veterinarian and community organizer.

Many other organizers here have spoken to you about other factors.

I'm going to add on something to this that you have neglected to think about.

Our unsheltered neighbors also have their companion animals.

Shade is critical, both for human and animal health, and parks at times are the only places where these members can find adequate shade and water because not all heat shelters allow companion animals.

And there is not always sufficient shade in the other locations that you mentioned.

Meeting people where they are at food every day.

Who are receiving food, but also community members experiencing food insecurity.

The criminalization of feeding our neighbors as the equivalence of a domestic violence charge is unconscionable, and you should be ashamed.

Faith Kearns is next followed by Sabrina Sabrina Kernegis.

Faith, could you?

Good evening, everybody, mayor, council.

I am against this proposition.

I am with funds for empowerment.

We do help feed the homeless.

We also help inform them of what's going on in the councils.

I am against this proposition because not everybody, not all druggies, necessarily are using drugs in a park.

I have seen regular people use drugs in a park because they're diabetic.

And they have nothing to put their needles in.

So some of those needles aren't necessarily from drug addicts.

There are people out there that have health issues.

Where we have to carry surrender.

And I know that there are other ways around this.

And let's just hope that we can find one.

And with that, I close.

Sabrina is next, followed by Will Knight.

Good evening, Mayor and Council members.

My name is Sabrina Carnegie, and I am here today to urge you to oppose item 49.

At its core, this ordinance places new restrictions and permitting requirements on food distribution and medical services in Phoenix Parks.

Well, it is being presented as a matter of order and structure, the real world impact will fall hardest on our most vulnerable neighbors.

People experiencing homelessness, seniors, working families, and people surviving extreme heat.

To add, this is happening at a time when more than 400,000 Arizonans have recently lost access to SNAP and EBT benefits following program changes, including my family.

Families are already struggling to put food on the table.

For some parents, community meal distributions at local parks may be one of the few opportunities to provide their children with a hot prepared meal without having to choose between rent, gas, utilities, or medication.

Furthermore, every summer, Phoenix faces the unfortunate realities of people dying from heat exposure.

Community organizations and volunteers step in where systems have fallen short, providing water, meals, hygiene supplies, wound care, and life-saving support.

These acts are not nuances, nuances.

They are acts of compassion and survival.

This ordinance risks criminalizing care instead of addressing the root causes of homelessness and poverty.

Smaller grassroots groups may not have the resources, staffing, or formal knowledge to navigate complicated permitting systems.

That means fewer meals distributed, fewer people reached, and fewer chances for struggling families and unhoused individuals to access support.

We should be asking ourselves, what kind of city do we want to be?

A city that welcomes community care to where people are at, or a city that pushes suffering out of sight.

Thank you.

Will is next, followed by Becky Lutz.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, council members.

My name is Will Knight.

I'm an attorney with the National Homelessness Law Center, and I have a hard no sport coats on for 630 rule, so excuse me for that.

We, as an organization, fight for the civil rights and the human dignity of our unhoused neighbors all across the country.

But I'm also a resident of Phoenix.

I've lived here for the last 16 years.

I vote here.

I'm your neighbor.

And I'm really disappointed to be here today because of this ordinance.

The one that Phoenix has adopted and the proposed one that functionally accomplishes the exact same thing is one of the most extreme laws of its kind that I've seen across the entire country.

It is not simply a regulatory structure.

You've heard from the providers here today that it is a functional ban.

It is an outright barrier.

And as I've seen in my work, the worst of its kind around the country.

It was enacted with no feedback, with no consultation.

Even though you did see listening sessions that you did with the city, that timeline at the very beginning that you put up on that screen showed that no amendments were made after that.

Nothing that the providers in the community told you they needed to actually be regulated effectively was implemented to the ordinance as drafted.

So in my work, I've challenged laws like this around the country, in states like Alabama, New York, Florida, Oregon.

And based on my experience, I want to be clear, this ordinance is such an outlier that it will be stricken when it's brought in front of a judge.

Phoenix is not following proceeding.

By penalizing health care providers and outreach workers for delivering care, the city is infringing on people's constitutional rights.

Bottom line.

And it's not just free speech, it's a number of other constitutional rights at issue that the city attorney hasn't been able to consult with you on.

And the bottom line that you really need to consider as a city council is what you've heard.

Criminalization does not reduce the needles in the park.

Criminalization does not solve the underlying problem.

Thank you.

Mayor Councilman Hernandez.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you.

Well, just have a couple questions for you.

You know, you just just to confirm, your organization uh reviewed this ordinance and noted that it violated uh several federally protected constitutional rights of our residents.

Um, what rights would we as a city be violating if we pass this ordinance tonight?

So we've talked uh a bit today about the First Amendment's protection for freedom of speech and freedom of expression.

Uh I don't believe even as proposed in the revision, it protects that right.

That right would still be violated.

But more important than that, you also heard about how this ordinance violates people's expressive religious beliefs, their freedom to express their religion.

Uh people's deeply held religious beliefs compel them to provide charitable services to people.

That's not an option.

You've heard that from multiple people speaking today.

So the freedom of expression that it violates was never addressed by the city attorneys.

It was never addressed or contemplated during the drafting.

In addition to that, uh, as I said, there's their ADA issues.

You heard from providers and um volunteers today about how many of the people who need these services have mobility issues.

They can't simply go to a uh heat heat prevention site.

Uh, they can't simply schedule their heat stroke on the 15th of the month whenever one of these permits is enacted.

Uh so there are ADA issues that it it runs into.

There are also significant state preemption issues.

The state of Arizona has implemented a regulatory scheme that not only permits but protects syringe service programs uh and enables them to be functioning in our streets, in our cities, in our parks.

Uh this municipal ordinance interferes with that.

So there's gonna have to be some litigation challenging whether or those two are in conflict, and they are, in my view.

And finally, uh, I think it violates just the substantive due process rights of the human beings who are no longer going to be able to access these fundamental rights, these these basic human needs.

It shocks the conscience.

That's the standard under substantive due process.

It shocks the conscience to deny people access to life-sustaining medical care.

Thank you.

And my next question my last question is um, you obviously work nationwide and from you know your expertise in that area.

Um, can you tell us whether constitutional the constitutionality of this Phoenix policy is worse than what we've seen from Trump's administration at the federal level?

That's that's interesting.

Um, so last week, uh, Donald Trump's uh administration, this the substance abuse and mental health services administration, SAMHSA uh is the acronym.

Uh, that federal agency under this president issued what's called a dear colleague letter advising all organizations around the country that receive SAMHSA funding about how they need to um spend that funding if they want to continue qualifying for it in um in using syringe exchange programs, specifically banning syringe exchange programs from receiving that funding.

Bad.

Certainly, it's it's a bad program.

But interestingly, it's not nearly as bad as what the city of Phoenix is proposing.

Donald Trump's own agency is not as hard on street medicine right now than the city of Phoenix is, and that's staggering.

Uh the the federal program does not interfere with preventative medical care like this one does.

It certainly doesn't interfere uh with providing food, and it definitely doesn't put food charities and medical providers in competition with each other for an already inadequate number of permits.

Um, yeah, so absolutely the federal one is bad, but it's not nearly as bad as what you're trying to do.

And frankly, uh, if you haven't looked around online, there are in the extremist right-wing spaces of the internet right now folks praising the democratic leaders of this city council for what you're doing.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor.

Becky is next, followed by Arlene Mahoney.

Hey guys, most of y'all know me.

My name is Becky.

I was born in Phoenix.

My parents were born in Phoenix, my grandparents came to Phoenix in 1920.

My grandchild's family has been here for millennia.

Um, I'm very familiar with Phoenix, and this is not a new problem.

This is something that we have ignored for so long that it is now a disaster.

Um, I wanted to let you know that I'm not gonna repeat everything that I've been saying since December.

Um, I've met with a number of you, and I'm saddened to say I don't think it really made a difference.

Um, compassion is not a crime, but this ordinance directly makes it criminal with federal cuts and a 33% reduction in SNAP.

I was with Congressman Stanton the other day, and that's what he said.

Uh, just in Arizona alone, that means families like mine that have kids that play in parks are going to need additional food.

And you're saying now that I can't go get it if I know AZ hugs has food at the park.

Um, I work, I do all the things I'm supposed to do, but most of us are closer to homelessness than we are to being a billionaire.

I'm one paycheck away.

You know, and I think that most of us feel the same.

Um, this is an awful ordinance.

It only amplifies the needs of our community, the needs of our community.

This it this has been made in haste and is a way to hide away an enormous issue of mass homelessness in our city, but it won't just affect those individuals.

It's going to affect working families.

It's going to we're under more strain than we have been since the depression.

I'm buying my groceries on a credit card right now.

Food and medical support is a lifeline to so many individuals.

Reject this and uh repeal compassion for people uh going through struggles.

Thank you.

Arlene is next, followed by Stephanie Martinez.

Mayor and council members, my name is Arlene Mahoney.

I am the executive director of Southwest Recovery Alliance Soare.

I also hold a master's degree in social work.

Sware operates a syringe service program, also known as an SSP.

I'm very concerned about the public health implications that would result of banning SSPs and intramuscular naloxone.

I want to provide some background to council members on SSPs and Phoenix.

The majority of SSPs in Phoenix do not operate in parks, as we were pleased from these public spaces a long time ago.

The assertion that we are responsible for syringe waste due to our services is conflating a lack of this city's safe disposal options with our life-saving services.

SSPs serve as vital syringe disposal infrastructure.

A 2019 study in Miami shows a 49 decrease, 49 decrease in syringe litter after implementation of a syringe server program.

We are in the midst of this endemic of HIV, hepsi, and overdose.

And syringe service programs prevent overdoses and disease transmission.

It is not the time to ban spaces where we could expand our services and ultimately reduce syringe litter through our safe disposal options.

Yet I want to zoom in on the criminalization of overdose prevention, whether it be via SSPs or anyone providing overdose medication.

Naloxon reversed my opiate overdose on six different occasions.

Naloxon saved my life.

It saved my family from suffering and grieving the loss of me.

At a time when Arizona was one of four stages last year to have a rise in overdose deaths by 20%, and Arizona has the highest upward trend in overdose deaths currently.

Our city should actively be expanding efforts to distribute naloxone, not explicitly banning and criminalizing distribution of intramuscular naloxone and parks.

This will not make our parks safer, nor will it deter people who are already frequenting our parks who need access to naloxone.

I asked council members to follow me in a thought experiment.

What would you say to a mother who lives in a district whose daughter overdosed and dies in your park?

Stephanie is next.

Followed by Melissa Maybury.

I don't want to repeat everything that's already been said tonight.

You've heard the data, you actually have the data, the concerns, and the perspectives from both sides.

Sitting here, I feel both sadness and pride.

Sadness because of how divided this conversation has become.

When I truly believe many of us share the same goal, wanting to help our neighbors and wanting safer communities.

None of us want to, none of us want people living in the parks or needing services there.

But the reality is when resources are limited, people survive where they can.

And I also feel so much pride.

Pride in the brave young boy who came up here to speak tonight, but in front of him what was modeled was division instead of compassion.

As a mom who also spends four to six days of the weekend parks with my boys, I do not share the same fear-based perspective that's been described here tonight.

The values I teach my kids are kindness, compassion, and awareness, not fear and judgment.

I am proud that my boys offer a smile and wave a hello and understand how to be aware of their surroundings without losing their humanity.

At the end of the day, this is about people.

Hi, my name is Missy Mayberry.

I'm a native Arizona, having lived in Phoenix for over 20 years.

Helping people is something I'm passionate about, and I take very strong opposition to this ordinance.

When trying to solve a problem, it's best to break down why something is happening and come up with solutions that help everyone involved.

Being unhoused is becoming increasingly more criminalized, and this is a major failure on our city and society.

In a societal contract, we all agree to do things in the betterment of all people and take care of those in need.

When we jail the unhoused, they lose what little belongings they have, medication, paperwork, IDs, their beds.

We give them a criminal record, which makes housing difficult to find and requires payments of fines.

Aid programs are being cut rapidly.

All housing waiting lists are currently in the two to six months range.

Aid groups like AZ Hugs are seeing families removed from waiting lists for staying in a hotel for a night so their children aren't sleeping on the streets.

Andre House is feeding up to 700 people a night.

That's just one aid location.

The SNAP program in Arizona just saw 34% of people dropped.

Many programs have strict rules and guidelines that leave little to no autonomy for the people that they are meant to help.

There are people who may have families or jobs who are not able to get transportation to these large aid sites.

They slip through the cracks.

They are the ones that need direct action that smaller groups and individuals provide.

They need somebody to meet them where they are.

A common complaint I hear about is large charities that get so much funding and none of it makes it to the people it's meant to help.

That is because of laws like this, bureaucratic red tape, like insurance and licensing and permits.

We are creating the problem we are seeking to fix.

The only difference between someone feeding a large group of unhoused friends in a barbecue is housing status.

Why are we criminalizing that?

People say this law is to clean up the parks and make them safe, but there are already laws about sleeping in the parks, doing drugs in the parks, littering and committing violence in the parks.

So it seems it's less about solving those problems that should be solved with existing laws and more about inflicting punishment, further punishing people for being poor.

It's about hiding away our societal shame so the public isn't inconvenienced by viewing poverty.

I also want to make it known that arresting us will not deter any of us from doing what's morally and humanely right in feeding our community.

Kat is next, followed by Danielle Millard.

Hello, my name is Kat, and I'm with Black Lives Matter Phoenix Metro, and I'm here to negate the reformed or sorry, revised resolution for the parks ordinance, and as well as call for you all to strike down the original that has already passed.

This is in part due to the fact that this law does not address any of the systemic issues that lead to a disproportionate amount of homeless people that are in the parks.

Your own staff even admitted that you have no empirical evidence that would actually support this law passing, leading to a decrease in needles or decrease in waste.

This is yet another attempt by the city to continue to criminalize the most marginalized amongst us instead of leading with capacity and logical solutions in order to actually combat homelessness.

The whole point of paying taxes and abiding by the social contract is that public officials like you should be doing your job to alleviate these social issues instead of blaming those of us that are supposed to fill in the gaps that you've left with your name policy making that cause those of us that are policymakers that don't have these jobs in these comfortable seats.

We're the ones that are supposed to fill in the gaps that you've left to step in and help all the neighbors that you want to hide away.

I thank you for your time.

Danielle is next, followed by Sheanne Montoya.

My name is Danielle.

I'm currently the consumer board member at Circle of City.

Circle of City saved me at a time when I was at one of the lowest points of my life.

An ongoing medical crisis had kept me on the streets for over a year with no hope in sight.

I would have died alone in the heat and the elements without services provided by organizations like theirs.

The home I have now, the stability, the chance to heal.

None of that would be possible without them.

Restricting when someone can receive care just means that there will be times when we will be too late.

You aren't just preventing life-saving medical care and taking food out of people's mouths.

You're taking away people's futures, and our community deserves better than that.

Thank you.

Good evening now, Mayor and City Council.

My name's Cheyenne Montoya, and I oppose the city ordinance, making it a misdemeanor charge to any persons passing out food or harm reduction supplies to those in need.

Parks and recreation have the job and the duty to keep our parks safe.

Who's to say this ordinance is gonna do anything?

I do not believe this is going to stop or even help the safety help or even help.

Uh drug addicts will still be in the parks using drugs.

How can this pass with any with minimal data?

Your numbers don't add up.

You don't have answers.

Food and harm reduction supplies are essential items for those who already suffer displacement as well as addiction and likely other ailments that they have no way to get services for.

They already have little to no help.

The city ordinance could potentially be a death sentence to these people.

Those of you supporting it will have blood on your hands.

How do you expect how do you expect people to get the necessary help with outreach teams without the outreach teams working directly where there is a need without approval from, without approval, the parks, people will suffer and die in the parks.

This ordinance is harmful to both the vulnerable and those attempting to help.

This also will not change the fact that the homeless people will still be in the parks.

If your goal is to help teach people or give them a better way of life, please do not support this.

Lives are already in jeopardy coming into contact with harmful products such as needles, human waste, bodily fluids in daily life.

Anywhere you go, including the grocery store, parking lots.

I see active drug use and bus stops, as well as many other public spaces.

Thank you.

Shemika is next, followed by David Morgan.

Hello, city council.

My name is Shemika.

I'm a local massage therapist.

Some of you may know me.

I work like across the street.

Um I hosted a supply table for about a year on Grand Avenue.

So you may have seen it on your commute to here.

Um what I learned over that year is that the people that are homeless on our streets all have complex backstories.

Many of them are SMI, they're on access, they're on food stamps, and they do not trust the system because the system has let them down multiple times, and their mental illness makes it hard to trust the system, even if the system was perfect.

Um, if you fail to address the system that produces these cases of homelessness, you will continue to have to put these people in jail, take them to rehab, keep them from dying.

The way I see it is that us private citizens are filling in the gaps that are left between the government and these private agencies and churches because a lot of the homeless population do not want to sit through a sermon to get a sandwich, they just want the sandwich.

I cut the middleman, I gave them the sandwich.

The sad truth is they are still homeless.

That didn't fix the problem.

It didn't fix the root of the problem.

It's so big, it's so vast.

I talk about it all day.

I've had clients tell me I should run for city council because I'm so passionate about it.

But see, here's the thing.

I would rather just give them the sandwich and offer them a kind listening ear.

They trust me, they don't trust the system, they trust me because I'm outside of the system.

That's that's the hardest part.

I feel like I'm doing more good helping them directly.

And my table was technically illegal.

It was on private property at my apartment.

So every day I kind of looked out the window, hoping no one would cite me for it.

I want this problem to have a solution.

I don't know what it is, but I don't think this ordinance is how we fix it.

Thank you.

David is next, followed by Kylie Newgas.

I live in a shelter system.

You all know this.

I live at the SOS.

Uh have since September 2024.

I've lost 35 pounds due to the lack of nutrition provided as said sheltered.

I used to weigh one ninety-five when I got there.

Pretty stout and pretty healthy.

Not doing too good right now.

It's only been a year.

No.

You're not the needle programs, man.

I get it.

Okay, I'm not a drug addict.

Never used it in my life.

Got no use for needles.

But I live around them.

I don't want them getting sick.

I don't want to pick something up off the table just because I sat there.

I don't know if you understand what I mean by that, but I don't want no damn diseases I don't already got.

And uh taking away these programs is gonna subject me to a lot more further, closer contact, and I'd really like to be with them.

I have to live there.

I don't really have a choice.

See, when you have money, you have options.

When you ain't got no money, options are really limited.

I'm pretty limited.

Because I got a damn money.

So I'm hurt.

I can't work.

Can't put money on a table for my old lady and my dog and my bird and I can't put no money on the table in the bank for me.

I can so I gotta struggle.

I gotta struggle hard.

And I'm very dependent on the system right now.

System's letting me down.

Letting me down hard.

I'm begging you don't let this pass.

Repeal the damn thing, man.

It ain't worth it.

Thanks.

My name is Kylie Newgast.

I'm a mother, harm reductionist, daughter, drug user, activist, community member.

Whatever boxes are needed for my words to be heard and valued.

I'd stand here today alongside everyone in this room in different ways.

We represent care work at its core.