If individuals refuse to leave, security personnel shall warn them that they are trespassing, and that the next step will be arrest by a Tempe police officer.

Tempe officers may have to arrest if individuals refuse to leave.

Charges for trespass and disorderly conduct may apply, as well as other charges.

Should anyone be asked to be removed, the mayor will recess the meeting.

Okay, we're now going to play a video conveying the city of Tempe's native land acknowledgement statement.

We acknowledge that Tempe lies on the ancestral land of the Native peoples who have lived here since time immemorial.

The ancestral land of the autumn and people stretches far beyond the boundaries of our city.

The landscape is sacred to them.

Embodying cultural values that are integral to their identity and way of life.

The autumn and deposit continue to maintain a deep spiritual connection to this land.

We embrace the responsibility of caring for these places and vow to uphold this commitment in all our actions.

Councilmember Eberg.

Yes, thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

I move to approve the city council meeting minutes in item four A1.

Okay, it's been moved by Councilmember Amberg and seconded by Councilmember Keating.

Please vote.

And that item passes seven to zero.

Next up, item four B acceptance of board, commission, and committee meeting minutes.

Councilmember Amberg.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

I move to accept the board commission and committee meeting minutes in items 4B1 through 4B9.

I'll second.

It's been moved by Councilmember Amberg and I think seconded by Councilmember Hodge.

Please vote.

And that item also passes seven to zero.

Next up, item five, reports and announcements.

5A is mayor's reports and announcements.

So I'm going to go ahead and come on.

All right, first of all, item 5A1, Law Day Awards presentation.

So the wonderful artwis displayed in the council chambers that you can see here right up front today ushers in another year of celebrating law day.

The posters here are the winners of this year's Law Day Art Contest.

The 2026 Law Day theme, as designated by the American Bar Association, is the rule of law and the American Dream.

Twenty-four years ago, the Tempe Municipal Court first presented to students in elementary schools throughout the city of Tempe.

This year, presentations have continued to be offered in schools and kids on programs to educate students on the designated item.

So joining me to present the winners for the best artistic impression of the law day is our presiding judge, Kevin Kane.

So also, when your name is called, uh can you please come forward and uh receive your award and take a photo?

And at the end, we're gonna make sure to get a group photo with all of the kids.

So with that, I'm gonna turn it over to Judge Kate.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor, and members of the city council.

It's my honor to be here tonight with our city judges who are going to assist me and the mayor in delivering the awards to the winners.

Uh I want to give you a few statistics before we start.

This year uh we presented uh to a total number of 478 students in elementary schools and kids zones on the law day theme and the art contest.

The total number of school classrooms and kids zones that participated were 24.

And we had a total number of poster entries of 130.

So I'm very proud of everyone who participated.

And I want to especially thank I want to thank Alicia Major and also Casey Simmons from the court who helped get this all organized tonight and also organize our judges for the presentations.

First, Nicole Noten Knowlton, Judge Knowlton is here, and she is here with her son Nicholas, and she's going to be assisting, and also Judge Tara Fuller, who will be assisting, and Judge Tyler Steele, who will be assisting as well.

I'd also like to take the time at this point to introduce James Sampanes, our new presiding judge, as of close of business tomorrow night, and congratulate him and want you all to meet him, and he'll help carry on the tradition.

So without further ado, we'll begin with the presentations.

And the third place winners get $25.

And then we do have one honorable mention.

They all get goodie bags along with the teachers and certificates and ribbons.

And as you can see, all of the entries have been displayed tonight on a video slide presentation.

And they're also displayed at the Tempe History Museum from the 28th of this month through the 10th of May.

So go down if you haven't and look at all the entries.

And her teacher is Mia Vanzuela Ponce, if she wants to join us if she's here.

Yes, thank you.

I think we're gonna do a group.

I think we're gonna do a group picture.

By the way, I should mention that uh all of our judges that I introduced you to are the ones who went out and did all the presentations to the students, so I want you to know that and thank them for that.

Our third prize winners are first Alex Alvarado Perez, a fourth grader at Aguilar Elementary School, and Alex's teacher is Veronica Kolpa.

So if you both come down, congratulations.

Our second third place winner is a team.

It's Brooklyn Regalado and Delani Buck, and their teacher is Carla Nez.

If you'll all come down, congratulations.

Congratulations.

Okay, we're gonna go to our second prize winners.

Uh first, Delezu Salazar, a fifth grader at Frank Elementary School, and the teacher is Maria Patino.

Congratulations.

And our second second prize winner is Ava Curtis, fourth grader at Curry Kid Zone, and her teacher is Zach Bryan.

Congratulations.

And now our first place winners.

Both uh first place winners are teams.

We allow teams of two.

Uh first from Rover Kids Zone, fifth graders Casper Nosario and Eric Sanchez.

And their teachers Justin Bejar.

If you all come down, congratulations.

And our second first place team is Charlie Page and Kaylyn Joint, both fifth graders from Broadmore Kids Home.

And their teacher is Brian Romero.

Congratulations.

We also want to recognize Patricia Russell or Patty.

She uh coordinates uh Kid Zones and helps us every year with our La Day Art Contest.

So, Patty, will you come down too and be in the picture?

And then we want to take a group picture mayor at your direction.

Thank you all for being here.

It's all coming in the front.

Down there at the end.

So take a step back.

Take a step forward.

Come on.

There you go.

Okay.

And then you take a step forward, Wilshirt.

There we go.

And then you go that way.

And then we go back.

All right.

Oh, wait.

Because we blink from a step.

Did you get the mayor?

Oh, maybe just the mayor.

All right.

Sure, why not?

Hi guys, congratulations.

Great job, everybody.

There we go.

You can't see me.

I can't see you, but I can see everybody.

One, two, three, here we go.

Gotcha.

All right.

Judge, can you just blank?

Oh, it's not the case.

Okay, so um I asked Judge Kane before where was the microphone, and he put it over there.

I think he deliberately hid the microphone to probably avoid item 5A2, which is the Tempe Municipal Court presiding judge Kevin Kane retirement.

So, Judge, can you please come back and join me?

And if the council can join me down here as well.

All right, so this proclamation reads, whereas the honorable Kevin Cain has earned a reputation as a fair, thoughtful, and compassionate legal professional and judicial officer throughout his forty-four-year career.

And whereas for years, Judge Kane has demonstrated a deep commitment to public service and improving how courts engage with and serve their community, with a career including roles as a state supreme court law law clerk, public defender, and municipal judge, including service on the bench in Utah, as well as in Phoenix and Tempe.

In 2016, he was appointed presiding judge of the Tempe Municipal Court, a role he has carried out with distinction for the past decade.

And whereas under Judge Kane's leadership, the Tempe Municipal Court provided the community with an independent judiciary focused on serving the public with fair and impartial administration of justice, seeking to ensure interactions with the community, enhance the public's trust and confidence of the court system by making it easier for people to navigate the court system and connecting individuals with vital city services.

And whereas Judge Kane is especially recognized for his work advancing initiatives that bolster accessibility within the justice system, evident through his service as the presiding judge of the Maricopa County Regional Homeless Court and as chair of the East Valley Regional Veterans Court governing council.

Additionally, he presided over Tempe's mental health court, allowing him to have a clear understanding of the issues our residents face.

By implementing and supporting programs to address challenges such as post-traumatic stress, mental illness, or developmental disabilities.

Judge Kane's efforts have reduced barriers so all individuals can receive the care and support they need.

And whereas upon his retirement, Judge Kevin Kane leaves behind stronger institutions and a lasting positive impact on the justice system.

And the city of Tempe is proud to recognize his inspiring commitment towards compassionate, empowering, and respectful service towards others, extending gratitude for his contributions and wishing him the very best in his future endeavors.

Now, therefore, I, Cory Woods, mayor of the city of Tempe, Arizona, do hereby declare May 1st, 2026, as the honorable Kevin Kane Day in Tempe, Arizona.

Oh, Victor, picture.

Get in here.

All right.

Congratulations.

I'll say, Judge, before you go.

Any uh last things you'd like to say, since I know you're leaving your job tomorrow.

Anything you want to leave us with.

Well, Mayor, you've heard me say this.

I introduced Judge Sampanis.

Uh he's the new and improved presiding judge.

You'll be happy with with him, and he'll serve the city and the court well, along with a great uh court team.

Mayor Mitchell, I made my commitment to you when you first interviewed me that I'd be here for 10 years.

I never really believed it, but here it is.

Here it is.

Thank you all.

Thank you, Mayor.

All right, next up, item 5A3, 57th Annual Professional Municipal Clerks Week Proclamation.

And if I can get our folks from the clerk's office to come join me up front here.

Oh, Eric, now I understand why you are carrying that face with you.

You're all going to see what I'm seeing in about two seconds here.

See, if you're not here for the presentation, we'll just make a life-size head of yours and display it at the council meeting.

Oh.

All right, so whereas the office of the professional municipal clerk, a time-honored and vital part of local government exists throughout the world.

And whereas the office of the professional municipal clerk is the oldest among public servants.

And whereas the Office of the Professional Municipal Clerk provides the professional link between the citizens, the local governing bodies, and agencies of government at other levels.

And whereas professional municipal clerks have pledged to be ever mindful of their neutrality and impartiality, rendering equal service to all while acting as the information center on functions of local government and community.

And whereas professional municipal clerks continually strive to improve the administration of the affairs of the Office of the Professional Municipal Clerk through participation in education programs, seminars, workshops, and the annual meetings of their state, provincial, county, and international professional organizations.

And whereas it is most appropriate that we recognize the accomplishments of the Office of the Professional Municipal Clerk.

And we further extend appreciation to our city clerk's office for the vital services they perform and their exemplary dedication to our community.

Now, therefore, I, Corey Woods, mayor of the city of Tempe, Arizona, do hereby declare May 3rd through the 9th, 2026, as 57th Annual Professional Municipal Clerks Week in Tempe, Arizona.

And then what would we just say?

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Next up, item five, the city managers' reports and announcements.

Madam City Manager.

Good evening, Mayor.

I'd have one comment, and if you don't mind.

So good evening, Mayor and Council and our lovely residents.

Thank you for joining us tonight.

I would like to speak to and highlight probably one of the most important items on tonight's agenda, I would say, item 8A1, asking you to consider whether to send a 0.5% sales tax measure to the Tempe voters.

I said that not as a city manager, but as someone who has spent 33 years working for this city and this community.

And I've had the privilege of serving this community through strong times and very difficult times.

I was here during the Great Recession in 2008 and reductions thereafter, 2010, 13, and other years.

I saw firsthand what it meant to our city and our community when we were forced to take deep cuts to resident services.

When you're talking about services, the conversations I had with community members who are worried about the reductions in library services and community centers.

It wasn't just about the budgets, it was speaking to single parents who relied on those community centers and those libraries as after school areas and safe havens for their children until they got off of work.

It wasn't once again just about decisions about budget and meant some kids would possibly have nowhere else to go.

Those were really very striking decisions to make during that time.

All of us did that.

A lot of discussions, a lot of hope was occurring during those two years.

Well, that discussion ultimately led to no action.

Since then, the organization has done what TEMPE always has done well.

We've been responsible stewards of public funds.

Over the past two years, we've identified and implemented over 19 million dollars in savings without cutting core services to all of you.

Tonight we're going to hear clearly about the challenges we are facing in the next few years.

And it wasn't anything that we had done to ourselves.

Item 881 represents a path forward, another option.

Another option instead of just going straight to cutting services.

Depending on what you all decide tonight, and if it moves forward, the Tempe voters decide in November.

We will have important choices to make after that decision if it does move forward.

In partnership with our residents, with transparency and with a clear understanding of what's exactly at stake.

In closing, there are important distinctions from 2008 recession.

First, the circumstances we face today are fundamentally different.

While 2008 was driven by a recession, the challenge before us is a structural deficit that requires a long-term sustainable solution.

With the recession, we always knew the funding would eventually come back.

And it did.

Second, we are presenting an additional strategy that directly involves our residents and gives a meaningful choice on how to address the issue.

By placing a sales tax measure before voters, we are offering another path that could help resolve the structural deficit while preserving the community's quality of life and avoiding service reductions.

Importantly, this approach would not place the burden solely on our residents as sales tax is also shared by visitors, and we have quite a few of those in Tempe who visit our restaurants, stores, amenities while benefiting from all our city that provides.

And if in case this public doesn't know, we have about 64% daytime population increase, and that's a conservative estimate.

That's a lot of people who want to be here.

Alternatively, if the measure does not pass, we would then work collaboratively with the community to determine how best to implement necessary service cuts.

Simply put, we have brought this option forward early and responsibly, ensuring residents have the opportunity always with our residents to have the opportunity to vote in November and allowing the city to take appropriate action based on that outcome.

I'd like to finally thank Lisette Camacho, Robert Bear, Laura Calder, Chief Kyle Carmen, interim chief Kyle Carmen, Chief Ken McCoy, and Assistant Chief Dane Sorensen for your collaborative work on this issue and all the departments.

This has not been an easy one for us.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Appreciate the time.

Thank you, Madison Manager.

Greatly appreciate it.

All right, so that's gonna move us into item number six.

But before we do, uh I want to take a moment to address campaign related activity as we are now in the 2026 election season.

City council meetings are open to the public and are a vital forum for civic engagement.

We welcome all individuals, including candidates to speak on matters of public concern during the public comment portion of the meeting.

However, because this is an official city council meeting that is both televised and live streamed using city resources.

We ask all candidates, including any current council members, to refrain from electioneering or campaign related activity while participating in this meeting.

That means no discussing your candidacy, asking for votes of signatures, or displaying campaign materials such as signs, t shirts, or literature while speaking.

Thank you for helping us maintain the integrity and neutrality of our public meetings, which officially brings me to item number six public appearances.

According to the Arizona Open Meeting Law, the city council may only discuss, respond to, or take action on matters listed elsewhere on this agenda for discussion and legal action.

The purpose of the open call to the public is to allow individuals to address the city council on any issue within the jurisdiction of the city council.

No person shall speak more than once, and there was a limit of three minutes per speaker.

In the interest of allowing all members of the public to have an opportunity to speak, in the case that there were such a large number of persons intending to speak during the meeting that it may deprive other members of the public from the reasonable opportunity to speak, the mayor may limit each speaker to less than three minutes.

Speakers present at the podium must state their name and city of residence and provide a speaker card.

Members of the public shall refrain from making personal, impertinent or slanderous remarks, and for becoming boisterous while addressing the city council or while attending the meeting.

Speakers will be taken first come, first serve in the order in which the cards are received.

Speakers' visual aids and appearances by phone or recordings are not allowed.

The city council was prohibited by state law from discussing, responding to, or taking action on matters raised a rigor call to the public, even if asked to do so by a member of the public, so long as the subject discussed by the speaker is not listed as a specific agenda item for council's consideration for discussion and legal action.

Individual members of the council may respond to criticism made by speakers, asked after review matter, or request a matter to be placed on a future agenda.

And with that, I will get to my first speaker of the evening, who's in person is uh Deborah Zayak.

Please come forward, state your name and city of residence.

You have three minutes.

Thank you, Mayor and Council.

My name is Deborah Zayak.

I'm a North North Tempe resident.

And I wanted to talk about the commissions.

Um, I attended all five of the outreach meetings that were held by the subcommittee for community connection and engagement.

The first one was in my neighborhood, but I wanted to attend other ones because I pretty much know the people who are engaged in my neck of the woods, what their interests are.

But I wanted to see what was going on in the rest of the Tempe community.

I thought it was a great idea, but I was sad to see that it was very poorly attended.

I thought more people would get involved.

Can you move closer to the buttons the one that was most interesting was the one at the Tempe Library?

There was a little larger, so there were six, maybe seven people there, but out of that, four were three were current commissioners and one was a past commissioner.

And one of the women there mentioned how she's currently on the parks commission, that when the ordinance came up about the park permitting, um, she was surprised that it was not brought up to the parks commission.

And I was surprised at that too.

And a couple weeks ago or so, we had another outreach.

Craig Hayden did a presentation over at the multi-gen center, and there was a time for questions.

And I asked him about that.

I said, why wasn't the commission addressed?

And he said, That's the past.

We don't want to talk about that.

We're moving on to the in the future.

And that just the previous week, some of the commissions have been addressed.

And I thought that was a great idea.

But my point is why would it take so much effort?

Because the counts, mayor and council, you did a about face when it came to that ordinance.

And you know, a lot of people, I spent some time, but a lot of people work their butts off during the summer to create some kind of change.

And I was wondering why would it take so much effort for the council want to engage with their commissions?

And then I watched the work study program just last week, and one of the only people did a public appearance was someone on the transit commission, and he said how you know the funding that's going to happen for the transit fund wasn't brought up to them.

And Vice Mayor, you at the end of the meeting said maybe we should get more engagement with our commissions.

You know, these are volunteers, these are residents.

You know, they're not highly highly paid people, but they have important things, and they're people that you appoint.

So I would assume they're kind of on the same page as you, as opposed to the, and this really bothered me, the infectors or corruptors that our um consultant used to describe people who don't quite agree with you on all your policies.

I was very offended by those comments, but these commissioners are appointed by you on the same page.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you so much.

The next speaker I have this evening is Bruce Goldhorpe.

Please come forward, state your name and city of residence.

You have three minutes.

Let me define fight.

We observe, we understand, we rally interested neighbors, we make our positions known, we negotiate, we compromise if possible for a positive outcome.

Some years ago, when a large two-story gymnasium was planned at the Tri-City Baptist Church with a balcony right up against the alley wall, looking down into our backyards through negotiation with the help of the city, that large building was pushed back.

A win-win.

Some years later, uh the church decided to have a pastoral college with two two-story large dormitories.

I think 1618 to 25 year olds.

There, we now have the possibility of losing what was once a beautiful golf course.

We have the possibility of high density housing.

With that high density, the distinct possibility of a significantly increased traffic flow through our neighborhood.

Golf Avenue going to Price Road.

When this comes to you, we will need your continued support.

Property owners have rights.

There's no debate about that.

Perhaps there's a compromise that results in a win-win.

A golf course, a park, a beautiful, beautiful low-density housing that enhances or sustains uh Shalomar.

Let me let me conclude with a little bit of a slightly different uh topic, but highly correlated.

Waymo, driverless cars.

It seems that the Waymo's are programmed to miss or to avoid the intersection of price and southern.

Southbound price, uh past the off-ramp of the freeway hit southern.

Uh they want to avoid that.

What do they do?

They drive west on golf to get to southern a little bit further to the west.

They obey the speed limit.

That's not the complaint.

But when you have five to ten per hour all day long with lots of little kids around, it just it's it just seems risky.

Anyway, thank you.

Thank you so much.

Appreciate it.

Okay, the next speaker I have this evening is Evan Rogers.

Oh, yes.

Come on forward.

And if there's a button on the right hand side if you need to lower the table a little bit.

There you go.

All right, well, please state your name and city of residence.

Well, please state your name and city of residence.

You have three minutes.

Good evening, uh, Mayor and Council City members.

My name is Devin Rogers, and I live in Tempe, Arizona.

I've been here before to talk to you about wildlife and loss of community at Shalomar, but today I am a bit confused and a little frustrated too.

Since the golf course pond was taken away, the animals that lived here have nowhere else to go.

Every day, a male and female duck come to our backyard pool for water.

They're really cute.

Even if my bot even if my dog Bobby doesn't think so.

It's clear they're just looking for a safe space to nest.

But they shouldn't have to look for a home in a swimming pool.

It's sad to see them wandering through the neighborhood because their actual habitat has been dried up and ignored.

For a long time now, my neighbors and I have been told that things are changing.

We were told there would be a big development, but if you walk by the golf course today, what do you see?

You see a space that is being left to sit.

It is hard to watch a place that was once uh full of green and full of and life.

Just sit there while the owners and developers wait.

It feels like they are waiting for us to stop caring, but we aren't gonna stop.

I also learned about a new law that is being talked about called SB uh 1431.

From what I understand, this law could take away your power to decide what happens in our city.

It would let developers do whatever they want without listening to the people who actually live here.

I think that's wrong.

You are the leaders, you are the leaders and Tempe of Tempe because you know the city.

A developer who doesn't live here shouldn't get to override what's best for our neighbors just because they're waiting for a law to change in their favor.

Please keep fighting for us.

I believe in you.

Don't let our local don't let our local control be taken away.

And please help us find a better solution for Shalomard that actually helps the community instead of leaving us with a stalled project.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh 11 years old.

That's incredible.

Seriously.

I wish I could have done that 11 years ago.

Thank you so much.

All right, the next speaker I have this evening is Bobby Nichols.

Please come forward, state your name and city of residence.

You have three minutes.

I'm gonna raise the subject.

I figured that's where you could addition.

There we go.

Good evening, Mary and Council.

Thank you very much for your time today.

My name is Bobby Nichols.

I live in Tempe.

Each year, Tempe sends out a community survey to gauge interest on the priorities of our residents.

Our survey addresses a wide range of topics, including feelings of safety, satisfaction with city services, and priorities for the following year.

Tempe's residents are incredibly consistent on this final question.

For the last three years in 2023, 2024, and 2025, the top priority of Tempe's residents has been services for individuals experiencing homelessness.

As an advocate for the unhoused, I find this highly encouraging.

It means that Tempe residents empathize with our least financially advantaged residents, and we are committed to meeting their needs.

I bring this up because I've read the newly proposed parks and special events ordinance, and I'm a little disappointed.

Superficial legal changes have been made, but the core issues are untouched.

Constitutionally protected activities like mutual aid and homeless ministries receive no protections from arbitrary enforcement of the newly proposed laws.

The possibility of criminal prosecution for generous residents remains an issue.

And worst of all, new prohibitions of safe syringe exchange programs, which decades of research have shown to reduce the presence of improperly discarded needles in public spaces and more importantly, save lives have been added to the proposed ordinance.

I find that proposal deeply concerning.

But this council can still pick a new path by passing evidence-backed policies that are proven to address the crises of homelessness around the world.

I've spoken about these policies at great length, and my time is going to run short, so I'll conclude by urging this council to change course on the issue of homelessness in our city.

We should all remember that the way our city treats those in crisis today is how they will treat us when we face crisis tomorrow.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next speaker I have is actually virtual this evening, uh, Catherine Dorn.

Hello.

This is Katherine Dorne.

Hi, Katherine Dorne from Tempe, Arizona.

Um, and first, I briefly like to say I second to everything Mr.

Nichols just said.

Um, but the main topic that I plan to address you on is uh once again, flock safety cameras, um, or as I believe uh strongly misnamed flock, quote unquote safety cameras.

Um I am a subscriber to 404 media, and therefore I've been following their coverage of uh an increasing sort of steady drip drip drip of concerning stories about flock camera networks across the country.

Um, the most recent one, which I believe published this morning, uh, was about the city of Dunwoody, Georgia, which um residents found out that the Flock company was using cameras, including cameras inside a um a Jewish community center, including one in a children's gymnasium there and one focused on a swimming pool.

Uh the company Flock was using footage from those cameras to basically sell their products to other municipalities across the country.

Um, residents there were justifiably horrified and angry, but unfortunately, the city of Dunwoody, Georgia basically said, well, the company apologized, and uh, we didn't know they were doing this.

Um, no big problem.

Maybe we'll tweak the contracts, but we're not canceling it.

Um residents there are angry.

I I hope that you will see the parallels between the residents, including myself, who have come forward to you to say, please, we understand that you do not deliberately share the flock cameras footage with ICE.

This does not mean that ICE or other malicious agencies cannot access that footage.

The company flock has a history of malfeasance as well as extremely shoddy data privacy and security practices.

We do not need these cameras in our city.

They do not have a net security benefit.

I am afraid that, like the recently proposed park ordinance, they in fact prioritize security theater over the genuine safety and welfare of Tempe residents and visitors.

So please be better event on Vooti, Georgia.

Please cancel the contract with Flock.

And I do understand that you're doing the trial run um with Axon as possibly a replacement.

Please consider whether or not these cameras um basically outsourcing surveillance of video footage of our city to any company, whether that be Flock Axon or another player in that space.

Please consider whether it actually makes us safer overall or leads us to all lose a measure of privacy and be susceptible to malicious actors gaining access to the I'm sorry that's time.

Thank you so much.

Appreciate it.

All right, just I'll really quickly here for the next speaker.

Uh I saw he signed up for this item as well as 8A1.

Uh Joe Barba.

Do you want to the both items or just that other one later in the agenda?

Okay, sounds good.

This one of the big show.

Thank you so much.

All right, that brings me to the next speaker.

Uh, Jim Deltu.

Please come forward, state your name and city of residence.

You have three minutes.

Uh, Jim Delton, I'm a Tempe resident.

Uh you're gonna consider lowering speed limits on several Tempe roads in the near future.

And I reviewed the material the city sent out, and I've driven over all the proposed sections, and some of their proposals make sense and they're warranted, but some of the others do not.

The ones that don't make sense are 4A, 4B, 5, and 7.

Uh, the city likes to use data, and the city provided their 85th percentile speeds on those sections of roads, and their own data argues against the proposal.

The 85th percentile speed has been used for over 50 years to set speed limits, and it's been found to be an excellent way to maximize compliance.

When they're improperly set, what research has found is changing speed limits to something other than the 85th almost never has an effect on actual speech.

The federal government has studied this, it's been demonstrated over and over again.

You lower them by in any amount, they have to be a large amount.

So there's really not a problem.

And when I read the city's material, they don't actually show a problem.

The other main thing is the quality of data, which relates to accidents on them.

There's a tendency, and it's been demonstrated that when an officer doesn't really know what caused an accident, he'll put down it was speed related.

Even if it was below the speed limit, and there's really no indication of speed being an issue.

This was studied in 2017, and they found only 53% of what was listed as speed related actually was when they actually looked at the traffic accidents.

And in those cases, they found that speed was a contributing factor in only 19% of the cases where the drivers are at fault.

That's contributing.

It was the primary cause in only 7% of the accidents.

And yet they were looking at ones where the officer had said speed was a big deal.

So it's always over-attributed.

And so my concern is the city is saying 22% of the accidents on these proposed sections are speed related.

Based on other studies, it's likely the true percentage is less than 11%.

And based on the 85th percentile studies, it's likely the changes will have no effect of any meaningful amount whatsoever.

Okay, I'm sorry, that's time.

Thank you.

Okay, the next speaker I have this evening is Elpo Contero.

Please come forward, state your name and city of residence.

You have three minutes.

Good evening, Mayor Woods.

Each one of the city councils, city manager, and all of you beautiful people sitting up front.

My name is Selva Quintero.

I live in Tempe in the Shalomar neighborhood.

I am not here tonight to ask you for your vote of no resoning of Shalomar, because I know we already have your support.

For my family, and for the 623 homeowners that make up the Shalomar neighborhood.

And we keep giving us, we ask for you to keep giving us your support.

We have not less hope that soon Shalomar will be even better than what Shalomar was before.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

The next speaker I have this evening is David Cruham.

Oh, Crenshaw.

Oh, okay.

I'm sorry.

Yes.

Please come forward, state your name and city of presidents.

You have three minutes.

Hi, uh David Crunch.

I live in Tempe in Daily Park.

And the homeless are real problem, and they use my house or as a restroom.

They spill their drugs all over the place.

I support all the changes to the park rules.

I'd like to see them go further.

There's a church right next to me that tries to help the homeless, but they're bad at it.

And I'd really like to see some improvements as far as basically not abusing my property.

So that's sort of all I got.

So thank you.

The next speaker I have this evening is Garth Peterson.

Sarah?

I'm sorry.

This is so I got I guess Sarah.

I'm just Mike, we're gonna talk, we're gonna talk later.

I apologize.

I got some handwriting.

My apologies, Ms.

Patterson.

Might as well.

Good evening, Mayor and Council members.

My name is Sarah Peterson, and I'm a homeowner and a member of the Shalomar neighborhood community.

My family and I chose this neighborhood in 2017 when my son was just eight.

He is a rising senior.

And it's been exciting to see him grow up in this particular community.

We chose the neighborhood because of its unique character, historic homes, and its strong sense of place.

The former Shalomar Golf Course property is central to that identity of our neighborhood.

It's one of the last large green spaces in Tempe, and it's an iconic and beloved part of our community that helps define the character of our neighborhood, but also our part of the city.

This space is much more than open land to us.

It supports plant and animal life that are interconnected with the surrounding homes, and it plays an important role in the environmental health, livability, and social fabric of this neighborhood.

Just before the meeting started, my husband texted me a picture of a fox in our neighborhood that was visiting our garden.

And I know he doesn't live in our yard, so he's a he's a part of the ecosystem of our neighborhood.

As we head into another hot summer, top of mine for me is that we live with the urban heat island effect in this city, and green spaces like Shalomar provide cooling benefits and environmental balance that are increasingly critical to Tempe's livability.

Our community is committed to being part of the solution, and residents support working with the city, property owners, and all stakeholders to find a thoughtful and balanced approach that meets the needs of our community and the broader city goals.

However, rezoning that leads to the loss of this green space would cause irreversible harm.

Tempe shouldn't sacrifice one of its last remaining open spaces because once it's gone, we can't get it back.

Shalomar is worth preserving for our neighborhood and for all of Tempe.

I respectfully ask for you to continue your support of the community in opposing rezoning.

Thanks for your time and consideration.

Thank you so much.

Appreciate it.

Okay, the next speaker I have this evening is Anne Lecure.

Please come forward, state your name and city of residence.

You have three minutes.

Mayor and council, thank you for all you do.

I'm Anne Lequeur.

I live in Tempe.

Shalomar is a dreamy place to live, but it's worth noting.

We have ghosts.

For starters, the previous generations, the uncles, brothers, fathers, you've heard about in testimony each week.

Some are looking over us now, wondering why we would forsake what they work so hard to provide.

Also the earthly absences.

No dance classes and graduation gatherings in the clubhouse, no parties of four on the greens at a decent price.

No glow in the dark night golf, which was beautiful to watch.

No place for the Friday happy hours, local bands, food trucks, and fun.

No turtles and no fish anymore.

And a threatened habitat for trees and wildlife.

Boxes unchecked, all the life and life experiences that vanished last year.

How do we account for what we destroy in this never-ending standoff?

More profoundly, the Shalomar community has also lost our chance to dream, change, and progress on our own accord.

We have good ideas that have been ignored too long.

Having watched a thriving local business and a 44-acre green space die.

Now we are being ghosted by an owner and developers whose unwise proposal has stalled.

We need to move on.

And the Shalomar community needs to come alive again.

So next Tuesday, I'm hosting a morning stroll.

We'll start at 8 a.m.

at the clubhouse fence, walk the neighborhood, and end it my place for Anash.

I get my best ideas outside.

And I'm so curious about what we might find out there in the sunlight and the fresh air.

Let's walk and talk about the future of Shalomar next Tuesday at 8 a.m.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next speaker I have here is Carolyn Nelson.

Please come forward, state your name and city of residents.

You have three minutes.

Good evening, esteemed Tippy Council members.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

I don't want to repeat what everybody else up here in the effort to save Shalomar has already said, so I'll be very succinct and try not to be duplicitous.

But I too want to plead with you to continue your support to save Shalomar from rezoning.

If we rezone that 44 acre terrific, wonderful green space that we've all come to love, all of us that live in that neighborhood, and even others that have gone there to play golf.

I know that, in fact, I saw that the current development in a high density space, housing space, would translate into removing over 310 trees.

Again, this is one of the best green spaces in all of Tempe.

We need to preserve it.

We need to keep it that way.

Secondarily, it also, as Ann and others have stated, provides a tremendous sense of community.

And it's a great, it was always and has always been a wonderful place for the community members to walk over, have dinner, listen to a band, play golf, get to know our neighbors.

Without it, there's a tremendous loss of community.

Thirdly, high density dwelling space, as it is proposed, would add thousands of cars, literally, to the streets of that area in which we have three schools.

There's all kinds of safety issues with that.

And fourthly, I think the city of Timpe needs, I will agree, affordable housing, not more housing.

The current development will not be affordable to the common person living in Timpee.

It's high end.

And right now you will see a vacant property that's a two-story property on Country Club Way, in which I think the developer is having a horrible time selling those spaces because I understand that the price of that space of those condominiums is over 900,000.

That's not affordable.

And right now the development seems to have stalled, probably because they're running out of money because nobody's buying the spaces.

Anyway, I will conclude.

Thank you, thank you all for your continued support.

Please don't forget we really want to save Shalomar.

Thank you so much.

The next speaker I have is Megan Rekark.

Please come forward, state your name and city of residence.

We have three minutes.

Before I begin, I want you to do something for me.

I want you to imagine that you haven't slept, like really slept in over a year.

Every night you find a place to lay down, you set an alarm for 5 a.m.

and you pray that nobody finds you before that alarm goes off.

Then you start moving and you don't stop moving for fear of being harassed for city while homeless, or as like this city likes to call it urban camping.

I want you to imagine I want you to imagine it's been 24 hours since you've eaten anything.

Now I want you to imagine that in that state, exhausted, hungry, and scared, you need to get to a doctor's appointment, you need to drop your kids off at school, or you need to show up to work.

The policies the city is proposing are effectively looking at that person and deciding to make their life even more difficult than it already is.

You're making life and death policy decisions about people that you don't really know, people you have made no meaningful effort to know, and I want to be very clear about the difference between knowing someone and having a conversation with a stranger once in a while.

The people you are legislating against, the unhoused, the housing insecure, the food insecure, individuals and families are understandably a population that does not trust easily.

You don't earn that trust from a distance, you earn it by showing up consistently over time doing the work.

I don't think you all have done the work.

And because you haven't done that work, everything you think you know about this population is probably wrong.

You're operating on assumptions and stereotypes.

That's not governance, it is recklessness with human lives.

At Moore Park, the city removed bus stops.

You removed the grills.

You installed nearly half a million dollars worth of surveillance equipment.

And now you want to restrict the ability to feed people in parks.

People who are already hungry, people who are barely surviving the conditions that your policies have intensified.

And all of this when the state has removed over 50% of recipients from receiving SNAP.

I need you to answer this honestly.

What do you expect a starving person to do?

What decisions do you expect them to make?

Because I can tell you, you don't make any good decisions when you're hungry and you haven't slept.

Nobody does.

There's no textbook or memo that's going to teach you what these folks need.

The only way to get there is to show up, to sit with people, to listen, to earn the right to understand.

Until you're willing to do that, I don't believe you're qualified to make these decisions.

Thank you.

All right.

Okay, we can't have any clapping.

All right.

Yeah, that's all the cards I have under item number six, general public appearances.

Does anyone else uh want to speak to the council at this point?

Yes, sir.

Please come forward, state your name and city of residence.

You have three minutes.

Honorable Mayor Woods and members of our city council.

I'm Christopher Bain.

And I the first thing I'd like to say is there's a real confusion that exists about the need for those cards.

I have asked four times today, various people in the city, council offices, city offices, um, whether if we fill out the online form and indicate our desire to speak here, do we need to fill out the form in the back of the room?

And I have been told twice, no.

Even when I entered this room, I would not have to fill out that form.

So that's something that maybe could be straightened out.

As I said, I'm Christopher Bain.

My wife and I reside and have done for 20 years at the single family home, which is owned by us jointly and is at 347 East Solana Drive, just south of Daily Park.

Due to age and frailty, my wife and I hire caregivers who come into our home.

Their chores include taking garbage bags to the city's garbage container in the alley behind our home.

Wherever we have, wherever we have a new caregiver, I must warn them of disquieting and unsettling and um encounters that could occur when he or she approaches the garbage containers.

I experienced such an event.

I did personally.

In that case, an individual presumably affiliated with the unhoused population in the Daily Park neighborhood for whom we do feel compassion, emerged from a shanty building, construction behind the garbage container between the garbage container on the wall, where I had previously seen hypodermic needles, cigarette butts discarded, closed, dilapidated chairs, and sheets of cardboard.

Our conversation was calm and respectful.

This was handled in a sensitive, respectful, compassionate manner by city staff.

After the intruding individual had been relocated, a different tempe crew arrived and dismantled the shelter and took the parts away.

The place has been used again.

This was about a year and a half ago, that's what I've been talking about.

This place has been used again, though without construction of a permanent or semi-permanent shelter.

So my basic point is we residents should not have to advise outsiders, such as these caregiver helpers, of unappealing aspects of our neighborhood and our city.

And we should not be expected to experience the anxiety and uncertainty we must handle each time we enter the alley through gates on our properties.

It's most likely that the shanti had been broke by one or more individuals.

I think it was a joint project over some time from the population in Daily Park.

So as if I failed to take a photograph of it.

No, and thank you, sir.

Appreciate.

I was going to say too, um, I know you talked about signing up.

I know you signed up under item eight before, so you were definitely under that list for that specific item.

So that's so you were on the list.

It was just that this is general public appearances.

So apologize.

Not a problem.

We're just glad you're here.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Absolutely.

All right.

Is there anyone else wishing to speak under item six, general public appearances?

If so, can you please get my attention?

Okay, seeing then I will close that portion of the meeting, and I'm going to move on to item number seven, which is the consent agenda.

All items listed on the consent agenda will be considered as a group and will be enacted with one motion by the city council unless an item is removed for separate consideration.

Members of the public may remove public hearing items for separate consideration.

Public hearing items are designated as public hearing item at the beginning of the item title.

Council members may remove any item for separate consideration or to declare a conflict of interest.

If a council member would like to declare a conflict at this time, the city clerk will provide the council member with a disclosure form.

If you wish to speak on a public hearing item, please fill out a speaker card and submit your completed card to the city clerk prior to the agenda item coming forward for council discussion.

I will call your name when it is your turn for public comment.

The consent agenda this evening is listed as follows.

Uh, nothing under miscellaneous.

Uh award to bids and contracts items 7B1 through 7B 14 and resolutions items 7C1 through 7C6.

Once again, any agenda item designated as public hearing item can be removed by a member of the public for separate consideration.

If anyone would like to have a public hearing item removed, please get my attention now.

Okay, seeing that I'll close that portion of the meeting.

I'll look to my council colleagues.

Any items that you'd like to have removed from the consent agenda for separate consideration.

UK's been moved by Councilmember Hodge to approve the consent agenda.

Do I have a second?

Seconded by Councilmember Adams, please vote.

And that item passes seven to zero.

All right.

Next up.

The non-consent agenda.

All items listed on the non-consent agenda will be considered separately.

Agenda item scheduled for introduction and first public hearing will be heard but will not be voted upon at this meeting.

Agenda item scheduled for second public hearing and final adoption will be voted upon tonight.

Council members who may have a conflict of interest, may abstain from voting on a matter, and the city clerk will provide the council members with the disclosure form at this time.

First up here under 8A, miscellaneous items, bids, contracts, and resolutions.

Thereof.

One, a proposition for a new transaction privilege, which is sales tax and use of four cents of one percent, except for the privilege uh privilege tax on food for home consumption to enhance public safety and strengthen the overall security of Tempe's parks and neighborhoods, including funding for essential public safety infrastructure, operations, and services for police, fire, emergency operations, safety and security programs, and crime prevention through environmental design.

And two, a proposition for a one-tenth of a one percent increase of the transaction privilege tax and use designated for the improvement and operation of Tempe's public transit system and multimodal projects, except for the privilege tax on food for home consumption.

The city's current tax rate authorized by the voters is 1.8%, which is 1.2% general fund, 0.5% transit tax, and 0.1% arts and culture tax.

So I'm now going to invite our deputy city manager and chief financial officer, Lisette Camacho, to present on item 8A1.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Good evening, Mayor, members of the council or vice mayor.

Good evening, Vice Mayor, members of the council, Lisa Camacho, Deputy City Manager.

With me today is Chief Sorensen and Chief Carmen.

They'll be co-presenting with me.

I'm going to keep my opening remarks brief because we're going to go through the details in the presentation.

But at a high level, recent state legislative actions have significantly reduced revenues available to cities like Tempe.

These changes are outside our local control, but have direct impact on our ability to fund core services.

So we are making proposing proactive steps today to ensure the financial stability while continuing to serve our community and deliver the high level of service our residents expect.

We are focusing on long-term long-term sustainability over short-term fixes.

State legislative changes and the incorporation of Santan Valley have resulted in a measurable revenue loss for Tempe.

Collectively, these changes are estimated to result in approximately 25.7 million in annual revenue losses.

The largest impact stems from the repeal of residential rental tax at 21.7 million across the general fund, transit fund, and arts and culture fund.

These combined losses pose ongoing challenges to maintaining service levels and underscore the importance of proactive financial planning and identifying an alternative alternative revenue strategy.

In February, we presented the long-range forecast, and the chart you're seeing on this slide is the scenario for the general fund.

You've seen this slide before, but I'll orient you again on the information on this slide because there's a lot of information.

So the chart to the right is the chart of revenues and expenditures.

The red line is the expenditures and the blue line is the revenues.

And the chart to the right is our fund balance policy for the general fund, which states the fund balance to be at between 20 to 30% of the operating revenues in the general fund.

Going back to the chart to the left, as you can see that there is a gap in our financials for the general fund.

Expenditures are greater than revenues.

However, we are maintaining fund balance within the policy levels throughout the forecast period.

And without any action, we will face a structural deficit.

And you can see that in the middle of this slide.

This is a reflection of Tempe's longstanding commitment to sound financial planning and fiscal responsibility.

However, reserves are meant to be a bridge, not a long-term solution.

They can help us sustain services in the short term, but they do not support future growth or new infrastructure.

Over the last two years, the city has already achieved 19 million in savings from vacancies, supply reductions, and contract savings.

In fiscal year 2025, we had 9.3 million of savings through a mid-year budget reduction and freezing of 24 critical non-critical positions.

Looking ahead, we are estimating 15 million in estimated savings from fiscal year 26 and fiscal year 2027.

You can see the breakout on this on this slide.

This is also the second consecutive year that we've had no new budget additions except except for those required to meet contractual obligations.

Our resident population has increased about 166,000 to 190,000, and the ASU student population has also grown.

But the most significant change is in our daily workforce.

As you can see, this has grown from 130,000 to 230,000 annually, so 100,000 in growth.

Today, this is a substantial rise in the number of people who live, work, and use services in Tempe every day.

The first proposal is to establish a new four-tenths of a percent or 0.4% of local sales tax dedicated to public safety and strengthening the overall security of our neighborhoods and public spaces.

This proposal directly reflects feedback from our 2025 community and business surveys, where residents and businesses consistently identified police and fire services, quality and safety of homes and businesses, parks and neighborhoods, and fire prevention services as their top priorities.

This investment will help sustain Tempe as a community of choice where people were where people want to work, play, live, and play.

In the 2025 survey, 77% of our residents who responded reported being very satisfied or satisfied with the overall quality of city services, far exceeding the national average of 45%.

This proposal is generate is expected to generate approximately 40.3 million in local funding annually.

These are locally controlled dollars that can be reinvested directly into the city services and priorities.

The funding would be used to enhance and expand park ranger coverage.

This means that there would be greater visibility in parks and public spaces, more community engagement and programming, and improved response and presence throughout our parks.

We're also investing in crime prevention through environmental design.

This focus on making our making our spaces safer through design and upkeep and not just enforcement.

So what this means is that better lighting and open visibility so spaces are easier to use, activating the space for positive public use, keeping our spaces, public spaces clean and well maintained, and these strategies will help reduce opportunities for crime and improve how people how safe people feel in our city.

Overall, the funding would also address critical public safety needs and expand our capacity to keep up with the growing demand of our community.

This is about maintaining safety, service levels, and quality of life for our residents.

And I will turn over the presentation to Chief Carmen and Chief Carmen and then also Chief Sorensen later on.

They're going to talk about the needs in public safety.

And I've heard from them that there's definitely a gap from where we are now.

And when we compare ourselves back in 2005 and 2008, pre that pre-recession.

So they'll go over the information from for their departments.

And with that, Chief Carmen, if you know.

Can I ask one quick question, Lysette?

Actually, um, in sort of hearing from some residents during the course of the last week or so, one of the questions that was raised to be by a couple of folks, and I think you talked about this during the first presentation at the uh April 23rd work study.

But was is there another way to raise some of this revenue?

Like we know sales taxes are paid by both people who live here, but also people who are visitors here, and you talked about the huge increase in visitors over the last few years.

But you know, there was a conversation about the hotel bed tax as well that I had with several residents who said, hey, well, is there some way that you can actually raise additional funds through the bed tax?

Because that's basically then, of course, just hitting the people who actually stay here for business or for pleasure.

But my understanding is that we don't have the ability to raise the bed tax.

So that those funds are basically restricted, but I wanted to ask you just to make sure that my understanding was correct.

Mayor members of the council, the bed tax is specifically restricted in state law to be only be used for um tourism purposes.

Um, it can be raised, it does take an election to do that, but they are restricted and cannot be used for anything other than tourism.

And just as a note, too.

So short-term rentals as well, Airbnbs, verbos, those are now under state law text like hotels, correct?

Yes, Mayor, that's correct.

Okay, sounds good.

Thank you.

All right.

Chief Carmen.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Thank you, Deputy City Manager Camacho, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council members.

Let's see if I can switch this slide here.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening.

As the interim fire chief, I want to share with what our great people, firefighters, paramedics, and prevention staff are doing every single day.

Take a look at the first slide.

We've added 31 firefighters in over 20 years.

We have a total of 186 firefighters right now, sworn firefighters, 26 professional staff that we have not contributed any professional staff in over 20 years.

That includes our our fire investigators and other support staff to help run our department.

We've got seven fire stations, as you know, we added uh Tempe Fire Station 7 just a few years ago.

We added engine 278 back in 2008, which makes up about 16 of those additional bodies of the 31 that we added of the sworn firefighters for total of eight engines, two ladders, and of course, our six ambulances.

The ambulances, as you know, are funded through the enterprise fund.

In a moment, you'll hear from the police department.

They too are gonna echo that this is not just one person's story.

It reflects all public safety entities in this city fire, police, and park rangers.

For decades, Tempe Fire Medical Rescue has shown up for this community every single call, every single emergency, every single time.

Tonight I'm asking you to give the public an opportunity to show up for us because the reality is clear.

Tempe has grown and the demands on fire and emergency medical services have grown with it, but our system has not kept the pace.

Over the past 20 years, calls for service have increased by nearly 50%, which is shown on this first slide.

More than 10,000 additional emergency responses each year have been added.

Today we respond to 25,000, almost 25,000 incidents annually, and the vast majority are medical calls.

At the same time, the city has become incredibly more complex.

We're seeing higher density housing, vertical construction, and more high-rise buildings.

We support more than 350 special events every single year, and we are still in the middle of a long-term build-out plan that will continue to increase the demand on the fire department.

But our resources have not kept up.

In 2021, our expansion needs were identified in a station location study, which showed up the which showed the need for three additional fire stations station eight, station nine, and station 10 in the very near future.

Furthermore, a 44% surge in commercial occupancies since 2016 has significantly expanded our inspection workload, but staffing levels have remained unchanged, as I presented earlier.

86% of our occupancies in the city are going uninspected.

NFPA 1730 requires regular inspection intervals that we are not even close to meeting.

Today, only about half of our fire responses, showing on the graph to the right, meet the national standard for response known as NFPA 1710.

This is not what the citizens of Tempe deserve, nor do they want when their home is a part of that statistic.

This graph may feel just like a number, like we're just trying to get some type of good grade on our record on our report card, but that's not the case.

We know fire doubles every 30 to 60 seconds.

We also know that this is somebody's loved one, someone's possession, or someone's home.

This statistic is not a reflection of our effort, it is a reflection of our capacity.

And now we are facing even more pressure.

Recent decisions by the state legislature are reducing revenue that the cities like Tempe rely on to fund essential services, including fire and EMS.

That means fewer resources at the exact moment that the demand is rising.

This proposal helps stabilize that loss and protect public safety moving forward.

So, what is the funding going to do?

First, we're gonna stabilize operations staffing and response demands by increasing sworn personnel and infill units.

Second, we're gonna increase professional staff, as I mentioned before, in fire prevention and expand already existing community health programs.

Third, we're gonna support training for paramedics, hazardous materials technicians, technical rescue technicians with sustainable backfill support.

And lastly, we're gonna ensure reliable modern equipment and turnout gear with dedicated funding sources.

We need these additional training.

We need these additional personnel, training, and equipment, because right now the system is extremely stretched and we're operating at our maximum capacity.

And we are approaching a point where the demand will outpace our ability to respond the way that this community expects.

This is not about commitment.

Our people will continue to show up.

The question is whether the system is supporting them will.

On behalf of Tempe Fire Medical Rescue, I'm asking you to take that step tonight.

Put this on the ballot and let the voters decide.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chief.

Good evening, Assistant Chief Sorrington.

Good evening, Mayor.

Thank you, Chief Carmen.

Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council, thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight.

I want to also thank the men and women of the Tempe Police Department and the community for turning out for this important city council meeting and the debate that will likely come after this.

First of all, I want to direct your attention to the slide that's on the on the screen.

Currently, today we have 355 sworn police officers, and we have approximately 167 professional staff.

In 2008 and 2009, we had 362 police officers and 212 professional staff.

That's a change in seven less officers and 45 less professional staff from 2008 till now as the city has grown up around us, and the calls for service have not abated.

We still have four police stations.

We have 326 fleet vehicles, which also includes our professional staff, our forensic services, detention, also our community responders.

We're also supplemented by 25 marked motorcycles.

Now I want to talk about the fleet vehicles you have to look at.

We have approximately 500 employees in the police department.

We have 326 total cars.

That has had caused issues over the last couple years.

Over the summer, it is not uncommon for patrol squads to wait for vehicles to come in from vehicle from squads that are already on the street because there's no cars available during the summer months as we run from May through October, and vehicles run pretty much 24-7 just to stay cool.

Our men and women have done a great job of keeping up services, the high level of service that the city of Tempe asked for or requires in our community wants, but we're bending, and our we're at the point where bending turn to break.

We've changed our organizational structure.

We've added a real-time operation center to maximize our personnel.

And this is a thing that is not sustainable for the future if the city continues to grow, which we're likely gonna grow.

So I'm gonna give you an example of what the bend means.

So I want to direct your attention to the right side of the screen first.

Priority one calls are we'll call them emergency calls.

These are calls that would be homicides, aggravated assaults, drive-by shootings, the worst of the worst.

Priority two calls are urgent calls.

These are calls that would include misdemeanor assaults, domestic violence, vehicle collisions, and injuries.

An example of a priority two call would be a domestic violence incident where an assault may have occurred, and the suspect is maybe in the backyard and the victim is inside.

That's a priority two call.

Priority three response is routine calls, thefts, burglaries, welfare checks.

These are things that, for example, if you left for work and you came back and something was stolen off your front porch.

That'd be a routine call for us.

So I'm gonna direct your attention to the left side.

2005, we averaged five minutes and 28 seconds to respond to a priority one call.

We've improved to four minutes and 52 seconds this year, or in 2025.

Priority two, the urgent calls.

In 2005, we were able to respond in two minutes and 46 seconds.

Today it's eight minutes and 57 seconds.

Priority three calls, 2005, we responded six minutes and 24 seconds.

And today it's 47 minutes and 50 seconds.

For priority two, that's a 223% increase in response time.

For priority three, six hundred and forty-seven percent.

Additionally, the strain is not just felt on our detective on our patrol people, it's also felt with our detectives.

For example, our special victims unit, which investigates sexual sex crimes.

They have an average caseload of 35 to 40.

Industry best practices are about 15 to 20 of them, and these are the worst of the worst cases, but this is indicative of our entire detective bureau.

If you look across the bureau, we are handling more cases than we should be.

This is just a function of flat staffing in a growing city.

Additionally, the bend did not break.

In 2005, we did 80,000 officer-initiated contacts with the public.

Business checks, vehicle stops, security checks, those things.

Last year we did 44,000.

And our response time is going down.

This is the bend, and we're about to break.

So what would this public safety tax do for your police department?

The new revenue would fund the increase in officers and professional staff identified in our ongoing staffing study, as well as additional officers to serve the NOVIS development, which is going up around ASU.

Additional staffing would bring our detective caseloads closer to best practice levels and shorten patrol response times to lower priority calls.

We would establish a right-sized vehicle fleet with regular replacement cycles for patrol vehicles and critical equipment, including modernizing our less lethal capabilities and training to ensure our officers have the skill set to de-escalate on every call.

We would also expand the real-time operation center capabilities to strengthen traffic enforcement and advanced vision zero.

I'd like to give an example of what that would look like.

We solved the homicide, or people did an amazing job.

Detectives did a good job follow-up.

The next morning, our real-time operations center people came in because they work extended the it's open for basically extended business hours.

And we were able to track the suspects on foot using a real-time operations center as they fled the scene and got into a lift and left the scene.

We waited 24 hours for that to happen to get our people in because we're not staffed 24-7 in our real-time operations center.

If we were staffed in our operations center, there's high likelihood that both suspects would have been arrested that night or the next day.

Instead, they're both arrested, but one took two weeks and we caught them in Houston, Texas.

So these are some of the abilities that this tax could provide.

More officers, more visibility, better community connections, and a better chance to have good outcomes for our community.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chief.

The second proposal is a one-tenth of a percent or zero one point one.

Sorry, zero one zero point one percent increase to the transit tax to support 10-piece continued commitment to multimodal projects, including pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure.

This would generate approximately 10.1 million annually.

It will offset revenue losses in the transit fund from the repeal of the residential rental tax.

The proposed funding will be used to enhance transit services and mobility throughout Tempe.

Key investments include improving regional connectivity through the streetcar expansion to Tempe Marketplace and Mesa, supporting the grant funding to create a safer, more seamless pedestrian and cyclist crossing over the east bank of Tempe Town Lake, and expanding safe, convenient options for biking and walking citywide.

Additionally, funds will be so will support the development of continuous multi-use paths that better connect neighborhoods to jobs and key destinations, as well as as well as improvements to rider comfort, safety, and accessibility at transit stops.

The proposed strategies to replace lost revenues from state legislative actions are designed to reflect Tempe's economic activity while minimizing impacts on our residents.

Sales tax is a key revenue source that captures spending from visitors and non-residents, helping to distribute the financial burden beyond the local population.

More importantly, there is no proposed change to the grocery tax rate.

Recognizing the direct impact this costs have on residents and the rising cost of living.

Together, these strategies aimed to stabilize revenues, protect essential services, and support investments in a safe, connected, and resilient community.

If the voters approve the proposal, 10 piece total tax rate will increase from 1.8% to 2.3%.

We do have a chart here and a sample consumer impact.

The current tax rate is at 1.8%.

If you spend $100, the local tax that you'll be paying is $1.80.

At the new proposed tax rate of 2.3%, if you spend $100, that local tax you'll pay is $2.30.

So the impact for every $100 that you spend in 10P, you will spend an additional 50 cents in local taxes.

Also wanted to show how we compare to other cities.

As you can see, if the voters approve the proposed tax increase, 10 piece tax rate will be about in the middle compared to the other cities in the valley.

Also wanted to provide some information on what can happen if no action is taken.

The city is facing an ongoing structural deficit driven by permanent revenue loss.

And current service levels are not sustainable without new revenues.

Without action, we would need to consider service reductions, staffing impacts, and delaying critical investments.

This could mean fewer police officers and firefighters, leading to longer emergency response times.

Residents may also see cuts in programs and service hours, along with reduced transit access.

Internally, this will put strain on our workforce.

That would mean higher workloads, reduced service quality and challenges, attracting and retaining staff.

Also wanted to provide real life examples.

During that time, that the city took significant steps to reduce costs and balance the budget.

This included eliminating positions across the organization, including police officers, firefighters, and managers across the city.

Eliminating the park ranger program.

The city also made the difficult service decisions, like closing Clark Park pool.

It has remained closed until three years ago when it was rebuilt and reopened.

Departments were also consolidated, consolidated and furloughs, salary freezes, and reductions in employee health benefits were implemented.

In addition, we've had to delay or cancel critical capital and infrastructure projects.

The proposed measure would be on the ballot on November 3rd.

We plan on doing public outreach through May and May through October.

Early voting begins October 7th.

And if voters approve the tax increase, we will do an ordinance update in November and December, and the new tax rates would be effective January 1st.

That concludes our presentation.

We would be happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Thank you, Lisette.

Appreciate it.

Yeah.

Okay.

Thank you.

Councilor Brikeing has something.

One minute.

Oh, okay.

Yeah, I was okay.

So I was going to go to the public comment.

Do you want to go first, Council?

If that's okay with you, Mayor.

Yeah, absolutely.

Thank you very much, Mayor.

I just want to speak.

Thank you, Lisanne, for the presentation.

I don't think I have any questions for you.

Uh, but if I do, I'll call you back.

Thanks.

Uh, I did have questions last last uh week, as you know, and you know, one of my big um concerns was you know, kind of what's the rush on this when we talked about the the remaining fund balance and the monies that we have in we say uh unassigned fund balance is really just our savings account.

And we had years before we would reach a point where our own policies wouldn't allow us to spend any more money out of that.

So my perspective at the time was I don't understand why we're doing this now when we could do it years down the road and still maintain be in alignment with our council's own policies.

But then I had the opportunity to talk to uh Rob and Mike from PD and FIRE respectively, and I didn't know the presentation that we just saw about the 911 times, about the lack of equipment with the fire department, about uh making sure that we're meeting the immediate needs under um uh under the under the current budget structure, right?

That the fact of the matter is that 911 times have gone up, and if your house is on fire, it may be a larger issue than it necessarily needs to be outside of having the appropriate amount of funding.

So I do think uh Mike and Rob for their time in talking with me about this and in trying to come to a spot where I have a better understanding of what the urgency is now moving this forward.

So I do appreciate that.

One of the things I was thinking about over the weekend, Mayor, because I called you after the meeting, and I was I was you know, frankly concerned about the process, and I was frankly concerned about the urgency, and I was trying to think of other ways that we could address um some of the root um issues in public safety, but also knowing that we had um the the parks ordinance coming up, and we've had we had a private nuisance orders coming up, which are hot bud issues, which fairly or unfairly are being conflated uh with homelessness in the city.

And that's not I'm not saying one way or the other, I'm just saying that is happening.

Um I wanted to come up with a way that we could kind of address all these issues at a single time.

So I kind of went, you know, kicked it around over the weekend, talked to my aide quite a bit over the weekend to try to come up with some sort of proposal that I think would one be more palatable, but two also really kind of work downstream or excuse me, upstream from the from the problems that we're seeing with regards to public safety with regards to homelessness in the city.

And I thought this would be a good time to consider an expansion of Tempe's preschool resource program.

Now, Tempe Prefamilies, um, it people are well aware of the of the benefits that early childhood education has on a on a young child.

But what we don't often talk about is the economic benefits, the secondary and tertiary economic benefits of preschool in communities.

So I'd like to talk about that a little bit before moving forward, Mayor.

Municipalities and regions that have universal pre-K or something like it, Tempe cannot get to universal, unfortunately, but we can expand it quite precipitously with our sliding scale to make sure that based on your income in the city, every Tempe resident is able to send their child to a high quality pre-K center here in the city for what they can afford based on their income again on our sliding scale.

Municipalities have found that there's been nearly a 22% increase in wages in the family.

There's been a 12% increase in the labor force in those municipalities.

We also see from our own studies of Tempe Pre that almost two thirds of families are able to now both parents go to work.

They're able to secure more permanent housing to prevent homelessness, they're able to go back to school.

Essentially, their their child is being sent off to be educated during the day, and they're no longer having to pay the ridiculous burdens of child care.

I don't have any children, Mayor, but I have found out that to send your children to the preschool or in just an all-day child care can cost as much as your mortgage.

And as we talk about the affordability crisis in not only housing, but just in everything in life, student loans, everything.

To me, that is just such a such an injustice on the working poor and the middle class in the city of Tempe.

I also think about public safety.

Municipalities that have a universal or close to universal program, or what I'll call just easy access to early childhood education, see juvenile arrests down nearly 10% over their lifetime.

They see violent crime, not just with juveniles, but violent crime across the board down nearly 7%.

And high school graduation rates go up 11% in these communities.

So as we think about raising taxes to support public safety, and we think about other ways that we can improve our community.

Tempe Pre is an award-winning program nationally and locally.

I made the joke that I uh Tempe won the Bright Star for Educational Leadership Award.

Uh it is in my house, and you can have it over my cold dead body.

Uh so I like to feature that.

But um of the things that that we see moving forward is that this is something that we can say, hey, we are we are being preventative and we are taking direct action as opposed to just what could be seen as indirect or punitive action.

So, Mayor, with that, I'm going to propose an amendment to item uh, oh, excuse me, before I do that, I do want to say that I did talk to um staff and I've talked to the police and fire unions, and I know staff has had conversations with um both the fire and police leadership on this issue.

And my what I'm gonna propose here is something that they support and can get behind moving forward because they recognize too that the real value in public safety um starts at at a very young age, and it is investment in not only public safety, but again, but also in workforce and stability, familial familial stability.

So, with that, Mayor, I propose an amendment to item 8A1, a resolution ordering and calling for a special election to allocate 0.01% of the proposed public safety sales tax to expand and strengthen Tempe Pre as a high quality city supported early education program and to broaden access to income eligible Tempe residents.

Why am I doing this?

I want to strengthen Tempe Pre as a high quality city supported early education program while deepening partnerships with school districts, head start first things first, DES, quality first, and other nonprofit child care centers to maximize um outsized funding and avoid duplicate duplicating existing services.

I want to broaden Tempe Pre access towards a mixed delivery system beyond current age-range structures to serve even more children's infant children and families living in the city of Tempe.

I want to expand income eligibility to low to lower middle class residents of Tempe, prioritizing lower income households first with a goal to support those at or below 300% of the federal poverty level at 100%.

And I want to evaluate I want to introduce more flexible scheduling options for working families in Tempe.

And I want to evaluate a scholarship layer if within the city's bandwidth so that families in need could access approved preschool or child care services when Tempe Pre classrooms are full.

So that's my amendment, Mayor.

Um, once I know there will be some public comment and discussion, but after that, um, if I could, I would like to make a motion.

Sure.

Thank you, Council Burkey.

Appreciate it.

Let me make sure before we start talking about the amendment or the presentations that we get to the public, because I know there are a lot of people here who do want to speak this evening, so but thank you for thank you for offering that.

Thank you, Mayor.

I'm gonna now go ahead and then open up the public comment portion, and I will once again call your name in the order in which the cars were received.

And the first speaker I have this evening is Deborah Zayak.

You sure did.

You were number one tonight, so please uh once again state your name and city of residence.

You have three minutes.

My name is Deborah Zajak.

I'm a North North Tempe resident.

I'm gonna change something written out with some bullet points.

I might change it around a little bit after hearing what's been going on.

But I was watching the work study program, streaming it on YouTube on my TV, and um Councilmember Keating asked a question because he was told that someone told him that the money raised by this um tax increase is gonna be double the amount of money that was lost.

And that was question was directed to the CFO.

And when she started talking, she talked, she was talking about public safety, what we've all been hearing about today.

But he had a very specific question, and it was not answered at all.

And I'm like, I'm screaming at the TV, not screaming, I'm yelling, I'm watching it on, I'm saying it's right in the slides.

Just go back to look at the slides.

The information is right there.

And it bothered me, and all of you were you said you couldn't see it, Randy, but everybody else had eyes looking at it, and nobody else chimed in and said what the actual data was.

Well, the general fund is going to lose 18.1 million from the tax cut, but it's gonna gain over 40.3 million from the revenue of this new sales tax.

The transit fund lost six million from the rental tax revocation, but it's gonna gain 10.1 million from the new sales tax.

Easy math, 18 plus plus six equals 24, lost revenue, 40 plus 10 equals 50 increase.

That's the double that your friend was talking about, Randy.

And I don't know why it couldn't be answered directly.

It seems like a very, very simple question.

And I don't know, obviously, she's not incompetent, but I think the competency, she was quite competent.

And what I'm hearing here is the ability to tell a story that we're and I know there's some statistics about the length of time that to make us afraid or fearful.

And I just don't believe it.

Um I think we need to be able to communicate directly.

And a part of this telling us a story, there's other things we keep getting fearful.

So, oh, we'll have to cut services if we run into the negative.

Have you thought about any cuts at the administrative or bureaucratic level?

We talked about the flock cameras.

There's things that could be cut that may not be quite as necessary, not just you know, reducing bulk trash pickup.

No, people don't want to lose their services.

And we're stressing this um tax increase, but when we were talking about the salary bumps that happened a few years ago and the pension bumps increased by 50 percent, nobody was talking about the tax.

You know, how we lost tax money when we gave those bonuses and tax.

Thank you.

All right, the next speaker I have is Mario Martinez.

Please come forward, state your name and city of residence.

You have three minutes.

I live in Tempe.

Corey Woods, by your actions, you have defined yourself as a corrupt weasling coward.

Your illegal actions and vindictive police state operations are contemptible.

Concerning this tax proposal, by your mayoral administration, you and your corrupt cronies can take this Tempe sales tax scam and shove it.

Corey has always been a well-greased politician who implements socialism for deadbeat billionaires and his affluent developer psycho fans like Hugh Hallman.

Simultaneously, Corey increases the tax burden for working families like us who paid the bills.

During the coyotes election, the council advocated giving those coyote deadbeat billionaires hundreds of millions in tax breaks.

They also advocated up to 75% scab labor for the construction project.

During the coyotes election, according to the Arizona Attorney General, Corey's crew used public money to perpetrate three illegal meetings.

In one meeting, Corey, you were dumb enough to tape yourself.

Yes, and turn that tape member to me.

In contrast to his preference treatment of the coyote, Mr.

Martinez.

Councilmember Keating asked to speak.

I'm turning to him.

Council Burke.

Okay, I want my three minutes back.

Well, not three minutes.

Not three minutes.

You've been speaking for quite I can I'm the time is for council member Keating, please.

Um point of order decorum, Mr.

City Manager.

Mr.

City Attorney.

City Attorney.

Sorry.

Mr.

City Attorney.

Uh Mayor, the speaker is uh violating your rules of decorum, so you do have the right to uh instruct him to eat stop or leave the podium.

Sounds good, thank you.

I was mentioning the tape recorder, uh, and you would turn that over the tape to me.

Thank you.

In contrast to your treatment of us, okay.

Hold on.

Uh Mr.

Martinez, uh, we're asking for a point of order, which is what Councilmember Keating asked for.

You can talk about whatever you want, but it doesn't have to all involve me.

I'm not solely responsible for everything that goes on.

Um, me only I I'm the king of Tampe now.

Like, like like like I'm saying this we're we don't we have no problem with anyone coming here and voicing their opinion on any issue, whether it's on the agenda or off the agenda.

But you don't have to attack me to do it.

Just make it a lot of things.

I mentioned this is nothing personal.

You called me corrupt and a weasel and well greased.

How is that not offensive?

How is that not personal?

That's it's true.

That's a point.

That that's an insult.

Please let me continue McConverge.

If you can actually keep it on subject, you can continue.

Let me continue.

Okay.

Currently, our city is facing a three million dollar potential lawsuit because police chief Kenneth McCoy, who works under city min uh manager Big Money Rosa, claims a Tucson woman who threatened to blow up the city hall, and McCoy was too stupid to prove it.

Okay, point of order.

Enough.

Mr.

Martinez, I'm gonna say it one more time.

We are not gonna have this lack of decorum in the chambers.

Make the points you want to make, but you don't have you a counter.

Mr.

Martinez, I'm speaking.

You don't need to insult me.

You don't need to insult our police chief.

Can you make can you make a point about something without insulting people and their ethics and their integrity?

If you can't do that, you can sit down.

I was talking about his professional competence or lack of the.

Yeah, well, you know what?

If you insult him one more time or anyone up here, we're gonna cut the microphone and this is done.

So continue, but continue without insulting people if you can do that.

Corey, it is not insulting people to mention their lack of comp uh competence.

That's where you have a problem.

No, I you are taking it personally instead of professionally, which is professional.

I have been reviewed as a tag in your view, Mr.

Martinez many times as you can.

Take your taxes.

Mr.

Martinez, I'm speaking in the end.

Mr.

Martinez, you can make a point.

I think anyone in this room to a person, if you called them corrupt, well greased, and whatever else you called them.

I think you're not.

Did you violate the three times?

I think I think anyone in this room would call that insulting.

I think if I called you those names, you would say that I was insulting you.

So if I so is I Mr.

Martinez, so if I don't speak to you that way, don't speak to me that way.

People, but we can't call you corrupt.

Oh, I get it.

You know, Mr.

Martinez, I'm just saying, please feel free to make whatever points you like on a pertinent subject, but without insulting people.

To speak out on these issues.

You're you're being rude, quite candidly, and actually and violate and violating the rules of decorum, and we're not going to tolerate this anymore.

Actually, according to the city attorney, you are.

According to the city attorney, is it he the one that didn't host uh uh coyotes meeting?

No, he was not, he didn't work, he didn't work.

He didn't he didn't work for the he didn't work for the city at that time.

He was working in Scottsdale.

He was working on the city when he went delayed uh reporting it to the uh to the to the uh on site.

Mr.

Martinez just finish your remarks, but once again, if you do this, I'm gonna I'm gonna stop you.

Okay.

I'm calling this the Cora Rosie sales tax scam.

And I I hope that uh I look forward to defeating it.

And uh let's see, we know that there's gonna be a seven to zero rubber stamp council vote on this matter.

So just go ahead and do it and try to cheat us again.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Have a nice night.

Next up, um we have uh Joe Forte is the next speaker.

Is Joe Forte here?

He's on the oh, he's virtual.

Oh my god, I'm so sorry.

Is that Mr.

Forte in the virtual room?

Madam Clerk.

Yes, he is, Mr.

Mayor.

He should be able to unmute his mic.

Hey, can you hear me?

Yes, please state your name and city of residence.

You have three minutes.

Okay, Joe Forte from Tempe.

Good evening.

My name is Joe Forte, Tempe resident, small business owner, and chair of the Palmer Park Neighborhood Association.

I'm here tonight to ask you plainly and urgently to vote no on sending the sales tax increase to the November ballot.

This should be the last tool in the toolbox, not the very first one you pull out.

The budget pressure we're under right now is actually a rare chance to do something meaningful.

Go line by line, root out waste, heightened operations, and come out the other side with a leaner, stronger city than we had before the rental tax money disappeared.

Instead, this proposal jumps straight to asking voters for more money before we even tried the hard work.

Spending 250,000 of our tax dollars tonight, just to put this on the ballot, sends the wrong message.

That's real money.

Money that could have gone towards the very services we're trying to protect.

And if the tax passes, the pressure to truly fix the budget vanishes.

We'll simply add fresh revenue on top of the same old spending habits and call it balanced.

That's not leadership.

That's kicking the can down the road.

Many of you face voters again real soon, and others in less than a couple years.

This one decision will be remembered.

People will see that when times got tight, your first instinct was to reach for their wallets instead of rolling up your sleeves and doing the difficult work they elected you to do.

We all know the state took 25 million when it repealed the rental tax.

Businesses lose major revenue streams every day.

The ones that survive don't immediately raise prices on their remaining customers.

They get leaner, more efficient, and more competitive.

That's exactly what Tempe should be doing right now.

Raising our sales tax while Chandler and Scottsdale keep theirs lower, simply hand shoppers another reason to drive 10 minutes away, especially on big purchases at the autoplex.

And let's be honest, this won't mostly hit tourists, it will hit the very Tempe families who are ready choose to shop and invest here.

You were elected to lead us through tough times, not to take the easiest political exit at the first time of trouble.

And thank you all for your time and service.

Thank you so much.

Appreciate it.

Next speaker is next speaker is Tim Stringham.

Please come forward, state your name in city of residence.

You have three minutes.

It's a pleasure to be here tonight.

Uh, I'm gonna try and talk for 45 seconds, then I'm gonna go get tacos.

And when I go get those tacos, I'm not gonna check the sales tax.

Um, I'm fine with the city raising a half a cent tax if that's what's needed.

But I absolutely notice the traffic around here.

I think public transportation is a great way for people to save money.

And I also know people are gonna definitely notice if there's an emergency in the park and the services are late.

Um, I know it's not popular for politicians to talk about raising taxes at a time when a lot of families are hurting, but I think if we can do the right thing and address structural problems in our city, then this is something that hopefully all of you will be proud about doing.

I also appreciate that this isn't the end of the conversation, it's the start.

Um I I will really appreciate all of you.

I think I've disagreed with each of you at times, and you've been extremely cordial as I've harassed you about things like explaining the streetcar.

Um, and for the next six months while we have this discussion, I I truly hope that everybody, whether they agree or disagree with you, can do so with with the kind of love and charity that befits our neighbors here in Tempe.

So thank you so much tonight.

And I apologize to everybody speaking after me.

I'm not gonna wait to hear him.

I'm going to get those tacos.

Have a great night.

Thank you, Mr.

All right.

Next up, thank you, sir.

Uh, is Lori Foster?

Please come forward, state your name and city of residence.

You have three minutes.

Good evening.

Uh Lori Foster, Tempe, Arizona.

Um Good evening, Mayor Woods and Vice Mayor and Council members.

And Lori Foster, I'm the president and CEO of Downtown Tempe Authority, the Business Improvement District for Downtown Tempe.

I'd like to start by thanking Tempe Police Department and Tempe Fire Medical Rescue.

Their partnership has been critical to the progress we've made downtown.

And I'll be direct.

We are deeply concerned about any potential reduction in public safety resources in the downtown and lake districts.

We don't typically engage in matters like this.

We are a nonpartisan organization.

But this issue goes to the core of our mission.

Maintaining a clean, safe, and vibrant downtown.

And right now, safety is working.

Calls for service in the downtown district have been trending downward over the past three years.

That is not accidental.

It is the result of consistent, visible coordination between DTA safety patrol, Tempe Police, including the bike squad, park rangers, and overnight patrol and dispatch.

At the same time, the downtown businesses that responded to the city of Tempe's 2025 business survey tell a clear story.

Businesses reported higher satisfaction with satisfaction overall with overall safety perceptions and police services ranked among the top three priorities.

The takeaway is straightforward.

Public safety is not just important, it is paramount to sustaining positive momentum.

And that momentum has been hard-earned.

Downtown businesses and property owners have navigated several years of disruption from streetcar construction to the Mill Avenue Streetscape Project through the pandemic, and now a rapidly changing retail and hospitality landscape with increased competition.

They have adapted, they have been resilient, they are reinvesting.

And more businesses are on their way, choosing to invest their personal and professional livelihoods in downtown Tempe.

Now is not the moment to take our foot off the gas.

If public safety levels are reduced or cut, safety levels decline, perception follows quickly, and perception drives behavior.

It affects whether businesses choose to invest or expand, whether residents feel comfortable living here, whether employees return to offices, whether visitors spend time and money, and whether students from Arizona State University engage with and feel safe downtown.

Safety is not just a service, it is the foundation that everything else is built on.

We cannot we cannot afford to slide back to pre-pandemic conditions.

Once that confidence is lost, it is far more difficult and far more expensive to rebuild.

So while we understand the difficult budget decisions ahead, we are asking you to hold the line on public safety in downtown and the lake district.

Because a safe downtown is not optional.

It is the foundation for economic vitality, investment, and community trust.

Thank you for your time and leadership.

Thank you so much.

Okay, the next speaker I have this evening is Michael Martin.

Please come forward, state your name and city of residence.

We have three minutes.

Good evening, everyone.

My name is Michael Martin.

I live in Tempe, Arizona, and I've been with the Tempe Tourism Office now for about 35 years.

So I want to talk briefly about public safety.

I believe that public safety should always be a top priority for any community, and we appreciate the city's commitment to providing reliable police, fire, and medical services.

These essential services are easy to take for granted.

And yet they require significant time, resources, and planning to sustain.

We value the city's efforts to identify solutions that ensure public safety standards remain strong over time.

Tempe's residents and visitors deserve a safe place to live, work, and enjoy our city.

We're hopeful that residents will continue to have the opportunities to participate in this dialogue and that a workable solution can be found to keep public safety a top priority in our community.

Thank you very much.

Thank you so much.

Appreciate it.

Okay, the next speaker I have is Bobby Nichols.

Please come forward, state your name in city of residents.

You have three minutes.

Hello again, Council.

I have one question about this.

I would like to know whether these items, and assuming that Councilmember Cuting's um amendment is approved, would these be put forward as one item to vote on on the ballot, or would it be three separate items?

I'm not sure if we've made that decision yet.

Madam City Manager or Mayor, I think that's still for discussion right now.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

In that case, I would just urge that if this goes forward, these be put forward as three separate items.

I also would uh request that the city take another look at whether hotels and short-term rentals are actually classified as the same for the purposes of the restriction that is put on hospitality industry.

Uh revenues generated from that.

The research that I've done on it suggests that they are viewed differently, but there are restrictions on hotels, motels, restaurants, bars, etc.

Uh, all that to say, I think that we have everybody here should know that I don't really oppose taxes when they're put towards things that really help reduce the cost of living.

So I really do appreciate what Councilmember Cuting said just a moment ago.

I think that the transit tax is a good idea as well.

And I think that we should be putting these things forward in good faith and also looking at other ways to raise the revenue that we need to take care of these costs.

So thank you all very much for your time.

Thank you, Mayor.

Yes, if I may just a point of clarification.

As proposed on the agenda, they are uh couched as two separate questions.

So that's the way they were proposed in the draft resolution.

Okay, in the original one.

Okay, okay.

So I guess we'll have to discuss that then since it's being changed.

Okay.

Uh let's see.

The next speaker I have this evening is Joe Barber.

Please come forward, state your name and city of residence.

You have three minutes.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh Council, uh, thank you for the opportunity.

Joe Barber, I serve as a senior director of government affairs for first things first, Arizona State Agency on Early Childhood.

It's a pleasure to be with you all this evening.

Um I want to uh I want to begin by recognizing the leadership Tempe has already demonstrated through Tempe Pre.

The city uh recognized early on that child care and early learning are not peripheral peripheral issues.

They are essential public infrastructure.

They shape whether parents can participate in the workforce, whether employers can retain talent, whether children can arrive prepared for school, but most importantly, whether families can remain stable in the community that they call home.

That's why the proposal before you today and the consideration to dedicate a revenue stream for that includes child care is a strategic economic decision tonight.

Whether parents cannot find uh affordable child care, uh, the consequences uh of that are immediate and far reaching.

They miss work, they reduce their hours, they uh uh turn down promotions, and um and they leave the workforce or postpone education and training.

In a city like Tempe, where transportation, workforce mobility, public safety, economic competitiveness are a deep in are deeply interconnected.

Child care belongs squarely in the broader policy conversation.

This is also connected to public safety.

Stable families and stable communities are a part of the foundation of safer neighborhoods.

We know that public safety is not only about response, it's about uh prevention and stability.

And so smart upstream investments is the way to go.

When children have access to quality early learning, they build on social, emotional, academic foundation, and support long-term success.

When parents have reliable child care, uh, they are better, they're able to go to work and provide stability at home.

Tempe has already established a strong foundation through Tempe Pre.

The opportunity now is to build upon that success and consider a broader early childhood system, which the family which families depend on.

This is uh this also provides the opportunity to structure local funding to prioritize families with uh greater needs, coordinating with existing uh supports like DES, child care assistance, first things first scholarships, head start, and ensure that funding supplements rather than replace see replaces uh existing resources.

So I respectfully uh encourage the council to keep early childhood and child care at the center of the discussion, not only because it's good for children, because it's sound economic economic policy, it's sound workforce policy, and it's sound public safety policy.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, the next speaker I have this evening is Kendon Young.

Please come forward, state your name and city of presidents.

You have three minutes.

Howdy, y'all, Ken and Young, Tempe, Arizona.

And I'm excited to uh speak to you all today about the tax increase for the transportation uh infrastructure.

Uh I think it's remarkable that our city has had over uh 6.5 million riders in 2023, and that in the slide earlier mentioned that we have over 4.5 million visits uh in 2025.

This is across a very uh expansive multimodal system that Tempe is a leader in and has had the highest performance in this uh transportation infrastructure across the valley.

Transportation also advances sustainability.

Projects have accelerated urban urban shading, reduced extreme heat and CO2 emissions, and recovered water through incredible uh landscape uh techniques called bioswells.

Transportation also removes vehicles from the road, quite literally, uh clearing the way for our Tempe fire and medical to respond faster and reduce vehicle collisions that have contributed to that 223% increase in priority to police calls.

So, to Randy's point earlier of systems thinking and how uh pre-K can help to advance a lot of different goals, so too can transportation affect many of our uh goals that are not just transportation related.

Uh the last time that this fee was discussed was over 30 years ago, and uh Tempe was only 150,000 people at that time.

As you also saw on the slide earlier, that there is a projected 38 to 42 percent growth in our city's population.

That's uh what or that's 78,000 people, half of Tempe's population back in 1996.

So one a.1% increase is like let's keep this on the table.

But also I want to encourage you all to think about if our city is about to grow to half of what our population was in 1996, then a 0.1% may not cut it, but it's definitely going to help us.

So I encourage you to continue to keep this topic uh moving forward to support transportation in our city as it has so many interconnected benefits that Tempe residents need in their in their ability to live and thrive here in Tempe.

So thank you again and uh good luck.

Thank you so much.

All right, the next speaker I have this evening is Kendra Flory.

Please come forward, state your name and city of residence.

We have three minutes.

Hi, good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and council staff.

Thank you.

With your permission, I am going to address um the two agenda items that I had planned to speak on, and I'll be brief.

Um my name is Kendra Florey, I'm a Tempe resident.

I'm making comment regarding agenda items eight, A1, and 8, B2, the transit tax specifically, and speed reduction, respectively.

Um as a pedestrian and cyclist and bus rider in Tempe, I fully support the uh proposed transit tax.

It's long overdue.

Um I'm a huge fan of the orbit, and that's one of my favorite things about Tempe that we can provide free transit.

Not only do I enjoy taking the orbit, but that serves an entire community who needs free transit.

So thank you for that.

I I feel strongly that the voters in November will see the importance of this increase and they'll respond accordingly and support it too.

Um regarding speed as a cyclist and pedestrian, but most importantly, as a mom.

I urge your support uh to a speed limit reduction.

We in Tempe, we should follow data.

Everybody should follow data.

Opinions are fun, but um data is important, specifically um the data that the NTSB put out that rejects the 85th percentile based um on their safety study that is outdated.

We don't we we should not be following the 85th percentile um any longer to determine speeds.

Um, additionally, um NACDO put out uh data that shows that at 40 miles per hour, the likelihood of death for a person walking is 40 uh 46 percent.

But if we decrease the speed to 20 miles per hour, we can reduce the likelihood of death to 8%.

So we should be thinking about data such as this when we're addressing speeds um and tempee.

Additionally, I just hope that we can encourage that we do other infrastructure changes in TEMPE regarding making the speeds of this the streets less speed.

Worthy?

Yeah.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, the next speaker I have this evening is Hannah Moulton Balek.

Please come forward, state your name and city of residence.

We have three minutes.

Hello, uh, my name is Hannah Moulton Balek, and I'm from Tempe.

Uh I am the Tempe Bicycle Action Group's treasurer, and I'm here speaking today on behalf of our board of directors to ask you to support two things on tonight's agenda.

Uh, one, the 0.1% transit tax increase, and two, lowering uh speeds on our streets.

I'm grateful that earlier today the Transportation Commission voted to support the transit tax increase and clarify in the ballot language that bike and pedestrian efforts are part of what will be funded.

Ten commissioners voted yes, two abstained, and two voted no.

In previous conversations among the commission, the objections voiced that the 0.1% wasn't enough funding and that they didn't have much time to review things.

While TBAG would love more funding and more guarantees, we agree with the Transportation Commission that TEMPE needs to take action and allow voters a chance to plug this crucial funding gap now.

If we await till the next cycle, our services will suffer, bike and pedestrian improvements will be halted for years.

Lowering speeds is also on the agenda tonight.

T-Bag also strongly supports lowering speed limits on the suggested streets because we know that lowering arterials affects the speeds of vehicles in neighborhoods.

And because lower speeds makes things safer, not only for bikes and pedestrians, but also for drivers and passengers.

Slower speeds means fewer deaths and less serious injuries.

I'm especially interested in lowering speeds on Veterans Way and Roosevelt because those are particularly well traveled by bike in my family.

The Tempe Bicycle Action Group Board of Directors is strongly in favor of both the tax increase and lower speed limits.

We ask for you your support on both.

And on a personal note, you may be wondering if in this economy voters will support a tax increase.

As the chair of two recent Tempe Elementary Bond and Override campaigns, we face the same question.

And the answer was that Tempe voters have consistently supported initiatives such as this.

And I can tell you that I will support the campaign to vote yes on this increase if it's allowed to go to voters.

And I do believe this is a decision the voters should have the option to make.

Please vote to support this increase and please help us lower speeds and keep our streets safer.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, the next speaker I have is Mark Mitchell.

He left.

Okay.

All right.

The next speaker I have this evening is Don Hawking.

Please come forward, state your name and city of residence.

You have three minutes.

Good evening, Don Hawking, Tempe.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

I serve as the current chair of the Tempe Transportation Commission.

And I am here tonight to provide support for the proposed transit tax.

As a commission, we recognize the need to increase the transit tax to bridge the gap of the rising operational costs combined with the loss of funding due to the reversal of the rental tax.

We support the transit tax so we can continue making meaningful improvements across all modes of transportation while maintaining the reliable services our residents count on.

The commission supports this initiative based on the vote that we had this week.

On behalf of the Transportation Commission, I hope you choose to support this measure.

Thank you for your time and leadership.

Thank you very much.

Next speaker I had this evening is Sean Swisher.

Please come forward.

State your David City of Residents, you have three minutes.

Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council members.

My name is Sean Swisher.

I'm here tonight as a Tempian and a Daily Park resident.

I'm also a local architect and a sustainable design professional.

And I also serve you as the chair of the sustainable sustainability and resilience commission.

I'm here to speak about the transit tax and the measure that's being introduced in agenda item 8A1.

Please note that I'm speaking on behalf of myself individually, and I'll let my commissioners speak on their own behalves.

Over the years, you have heard me and members of my commission stand before this council asking for your support for our initiatives through adoptions of plans, hiring of staff, and building our programs from the ground up.

All of which requires stable funding to see those commitments through.

And we have all watched as the federal, state, and local funding landscape has shifted dramatically over the last few years, leading to the budget challenges that so many cities in our state and region are currently grappling with.

In this new world, the current transit tax appears insufficient to sustainably support our transit system in Tempe, and it is imperative that we secure this opportunity for additional funding if we are to continue making progress towards our climate action goals.

Investing in transit will not only make our community more connected, but it is also one of the few ways we can make real headway in our carbon emissions reductions goals, and I believe my fellow Tempians deserve the right to weigh those values.

As a resident of the value of the valley for nearly my whole life, I have watched the evolution of Tempe as it has transformed in relatively short time into the best city in the state for multimodal transit, a distinction earned in part through the transformational investment this city made for itself a generation ago.

The economic development we are seeing today is a direct effect of that wisdom 30 years ago when the first transit tax was adopted.

Studies have shown that for each dollar invested in public transit, it results in a return of investment of four to five dollars and perhaps as high as $8.50.

This tax would not only directly support improvements to our existing transportation system, like new multi-use paths and extensions of the street car, but it will also support many of my commission's uh other current priorities, such as increasing shade canopy, reducing urban heat island effects, and incorporating green stormwater infrastructure into our roadways.

To invest in our communities, we need to be investing in our infrastructure, and there are few ways to do it better than through our public transit.

Mayor, vice mayor, and council members, we have literally built the successes of Tempe on a foundation of transit investment.

As the chair of our Sustainability and Resilience Commission and a proud Tempian, I believe it is critical to give our community the opportunity to vote on the vision for the future of that transit system.

I recommend the council adopt the resolution to call for a special election on this important topic.

And thank you all for your time this evening.

Thank you so much.

Okay, the next speaker I have is uh Kirsten Pollett.

Please come forward, state treatment city of residence.

You have three minutes.

Good evening, Mayor Woods and City Council members.

My name is Kirsten Pollett.

I'm a resident of Tempe, Arizona, and I am a member of Chamber of Mothers, a nonpartisan advocacy organization composed of mothers working to strengthen support for mothers and families at various levels of government.

I'm here to support the proposed amendment by council member Katie on additional investment in early childhood.

My story starts as a love story, meeting my husband at ASU 13 years ago, building our life together in Tempe, where we bought our first home and eventually welcoming our first son Finn in 2022.

Like many families, when we began looking for child care, we were shocked by the cost and limited availability.

Even part-time preschool for my son right now for two days a week is over a thousand dollars a month, which is comparable to in-state tuition at ASU.

The difference, however, is that families can plan and save for child for college over time.

Families with young children don't have that same luxury.

We were fortunate to have family support in the early years, but we also knew Griffin would benefit from a high quality preschool environment.

Griffin has a speech delay.

And while he received services from a speech therapist, being in a classroom with peers and dedicated early educators has been transformative.

We've watched him grow, gain confidence, and truly thrive.

He gets excited to go to school, and he learns something new every single day.

Every child deserves that same opportunity, but the reality is that many do not.

That lack of access contributes to our state's education ranking and reflects a broader gap in public investment in early childhood.

When children miss out on these early learning opportunities, it has lasting impacts, not just for them but for our entire community.

At the same time, the cost of raising a child has risen nearly 30% in the last three years, with child care and preschool now the largest expense for many families, often exceeding housing, food, and other necessary necessities.

These costs are shaping major life decisions.

I know families who are delaying or deciding against having children because they simply cannot afford it.

Many mothers are also being pushed out of the workforce because child care is either inaccessible or unaffordable.

We are giving up our jobs, our dreams, our future financial investments because when child care is not within reach, it disproportionately impacts mothers.

As my family prepares to welcome our second child this fall, I think that about these realities daily and what my next son's future is going to look like when Arizona continues to fall in helping children and families.

This is why I commend the city of Tempe for taking meaningful steps to address this issue.

Investing in early childhood is not just support families today.

It's a smart forward-looking investment for our future.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Ken, I apologize if I get this last name wrong here.

It is uh Jessica.

Bjerke.

Okay.

I wasn't sure if I had another uh Garth moment on my hand.

Mike Sims on the top, we're gonna talk later.

Good evening, Mayor and Council members.

My name is Jess Bierkey.

I'm a proud native Arizonian ASU alum and South Tempe resident, and most importantly, a mom of two loving and wild toddlers.

I also serve on the leadership team of our local chamber of mothers, nonprofit.

We ensure we show up to local conversations that touch moms, making sure mothers have a seat at the table in conversations that impact local families.

For my family, child care isn't just a service, it's our village.

Our daycare teachers have become like family.

They've helped my once shy child come out of his shell and build friendships and truly thrive.

Every teacher knows both my children by name, they love it there, and they learn so much.

Because of that support, I've been able to not just work, but to grow.

Stepping into a vice president role, I might have otherwise declined, even with a spouse who works early hospital hours because I know my children are safe, supported, and cared for.

Today I'm here encouraging you to make Tempe a leader, an example.

Tempe has a wonderful opportunity to be proactive for families.

I'm asking you to invest in your hardworking Tempe families, Tempe children, and Tempe's future by supporting the amendment to fund early childhood child care and education right here through the proposed sales tax.

Child care isn't a luxury.

It's what allows families to continue to stay here, to work, have a dual-income household, to build a life in Tempe, and then to turn around and pour back dollars into our local Tempe economy.

I want other families to be able to raise their children here, my neighborhood mom friends to grow their careers here if they choose, and our local families to have real access to safe, reliable child care and to love Tempe as much as my family does.

Every family, every mom deserves a village like mine, not just the ones who can afford it.

Thank you all.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Are you coming up?

Ivy because you're uh I was like, hey, you you work here, you don't have to.

You could just come on up.

No.

All right, but just give it a hard time.

Uh the next speaker I have is uh James Grief.

Please come forward, state your name and city of residence.

You have two minutes.

Three minutes, excuse me.

Three.

Hello, mayor, vice mayor, uh, members of council.

My name is James Grafe.

I live and work at Cal de Sack on Apache Boulevard in Tempe, and I moved to Tempe from Pennsylvania because of the bike and transit infrastructure that Tempe has.

I think the best in the Valley.

I support putting the transit tax on the ballot because it's the next step toward better bike and transit infrastructure in Tempe.

I ride the light rail all the time, and making it faster would be the single most impactful thing you all could do to help how I and the other tens of thousands of light rail riders get around Tempe.

The transit tax will fund improved transit service.

I bike from transit from Cal de Sack to the Green Belt multiple times a week.

Every time I have to detail detour a mile and a half to Scottsdale Road and endure deafening traffic noise.

The upstream dam protect pedestrian bridge will shorten the trip and make it much more peaceful, not only for me, but for the four and eight-year-olds and the 40-year-olds and the 80-year-olds who are walking and biking on Rio Salado and the Green Belt.

The transit tax will help fund that bridge.

This is not the only step toward better transit and bike facilities.

Trust me, I have tons of tons more ideas, but it's a key next step to safer, more accessible, more peaceful Tempe.

Please allow Tempe residents to choose to fund a better Tempe.

And I'm seeing since I still have some extra time that I will take the lead of the other speakers and also speak on the I thought you might do that.

Go for it.

So I've heard lots of talk of data.

I also have some data and want to zoom out.

There are 40,000 people who die on roads every year in the US.

Almost 10,000 of those are fatalities of people walking and biking.

And that number is going up, not down.

Speed is the biggest factor determining whether someone who's hit by a car while walking a biking lives or dies.

And Arizona, out of any state in the US, has some of the most dangerous roads.

I found the data that's even more stark than the last speakers that when somebody is hit by a car at 20 miles per hour, they have a 10% chance of death.

And at 40 miles an hour, it goes down to a or it goes up to an 80% chance of death.

And so that's at 20 miles per hour, 10% of people die.

At 40 miles per hour, a full 80% of people die.

And so each five mile per hour change represents lives saved.

I get around Tempe on foot, bike, and transit.

I've been hit by a car before, and I have done dozens, if not hundreds, of close calls.

If I get a hit again, I could be part of the 80% of people who die because of speed, or the 90% of people who live because you've chosen to lower speed limits.

No matter how many seconds people lose lose when they're driving, I think the lives of the people who walk and bike in Tempe are more important.

In addition to fundamentally shifting how we design streets away from our standards, which are leading to high and growing fatalities and toward the standards of the vast majority of countries where fatalities are low and falling.

Please lower speed limits in Tempe and save lives.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, the next speaker I have this evening is Robert Maloney.

Is Robert Maloney here?

Okay.

Don't see him.

All right, the next speaker I have is uh Sergeant Rob Ferraro.

Please come forward, state your name and city of residence.

You have three minutes.

Rob Ferrero, Chandler.

Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council members.

As a Tempe police officer and the president of the Tempe Officers Association, my story is not unique.

It reflects what my fellow Tempe officers experience every day.

For nearly two decades, I've shown up to serve this community.

So have hundreds of Tempe officers.

We answer every call every time.

Tonight I'm asking you to let the voters show up for us.

Because this comes down to one simple reality.

Tempe has grown, but our police department has not kept pace.

In 2008, Tempe had 170,000 residents and a much smaller university footprint.

Today, we're at about 190,000 residents.

And when you include ASU's campus and our daily workforce, the number of people regularly served by this department approaches 500,000 people.

The demands on our officers have grown significantly, but staffing has not kept up.

In fact, Tempe has fewer sworn officers today than we did in 2008.

We lost positions during the Great Recession, and we never got them back.

At the same time, we have 45 fewer professional staff supporting our officers in the field.

The math is not complicated, but it is ugly.

More demand, fewer people.

And now we're facing even more pressure.

Recent decisions by the state legislature have slashed revenue that our city relies on to fund essential services, including public safety.

That means fewer dollars are coming in at the exact moment demand is rising.

This proposal helps stabilize that loss and protect public safety moving forward.

And it's important to understand what this actually means for residents.

The increase works out to four cents on a $10 purchase.

That's four cents the next time you stop at Subway for lunch.

That's the trade-off.

Four cents the next time you stop for lunch in exchange for faster response times, manageable caseloads, and a police department that can keep up with the city that it serves.

Because right now the strain is real.

From 2005 to 2025, priority two response times have increased by more than 200%.

Our special victims unit detectives, as Chief Sorensen mentioned, are carried are carrying roughly 35 to 40 active cases each.

That's about double what is considered best practice.

And our officers are under constant pressure.

We have been operating at a deficit for more than a decade, and we are close to breaking.

This proposal is not final, and it simply gives the public a voice.

Let the people of Tempe decide what level of public safety they expect.

You may hear opposition, and that's fair, but a small vocal group should not only be the voice in this conversation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next speaker I have this evening is Elvis Tasca.

Please come forward, state your name and city of residents.

You have three minutes.

Thank you, Council members.

And you can move not super necessary, you know.

I really wasn't going to talk on this this evening, but after listening to other residents and neighbors, I felt like it was important for me to say a few words.

I don't think anyone here is against funding police, fire, or the essential services that keep Tempe running.

That's not the question.

In my mind, the concern is how we got here and how we respond.

This deficit didn't appear overnight.

It's been visible, and now we are moving quickly towards raising taxes before showing what I believe could be internal adjustments.

I also remember not long ago hearing commitments about not raising taxes and about sharing the responsible the responsibility evenly across the city when this tough decision was going to come.

This doesn't feel like that.

This feels more like we're protecting the areas that understandably get the most attention while broader and hotter, harder conversations about shared sacrifice is still missing and will come.

Recently, I was a part of the Tempe leadership.

We donated a lot of trees, and I think about the urban forestry team and other teams within the city that may not have the protections that the police and fire and pre-K and other entities might get from this tax.

We're a university city.

Arizona State University is a major partner and beneficiary of our infrastructure and public safety.

What role can ASU play in helping stabilize this moment?

Before raising taxes, I believe I think there might need to be more discussion.

The public trust isn't built on what we protect, but it's a built by how fairly we make tough decisions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker I have this evening is Kelsey Files.

Please come forward, state your name and city of residents.

You have three minutes.

Mayor Woods, Vice Mayor Garland, Council Members Adams, Amberg, Chin, Hodge, and Keating.

My name is Kelsey Files.

I'm a lifelong resident of Tempe, Arizona.

And I serve as a vice chair for the transit commission.

I am here today to speak in support of the call for a special election to add a one-tenth of a cent to our transit sales tax.

Tempe made a strategic investment in its future in 1996 with the initial passage of the half-cent sales tax for transit.

In the 30 years since, Tempe has grown tremendously, enabled by investment in light rail, regular bus service, dial ride, bike lanes, multi-use pathways, pedestrian bridges, and more.

My favorite of these investments, the orbit are outstanding residential bus in Tempe.

These shuttles might not take you out of this world, but they take you where you need to go.

When the Mars route launched in 2007, I was one of the first young residents in Tempe to enjoy newfounded dependence from a little glue bus that took me from my neighborhood to the library in the museum.

I spent many long summers in their aisles.

Time that I think was very formative to who I am today.

It's one story among many that speaks to the power of investing in transit.

In the face of our city's present revenue challenges, we should not compromise the value of our past investments and scale back.

While I think we can invest much more, I think this is a modest addition that assures we can maintain our existing transit infrastructure into the future.

I urge you to vote yes and let Tempe voters make their support for continued advancement in transit be known.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Okay, next speaker I have this evening is Mike Scheit.

Please come forward, state your name and city of residence.

We have three minutes.

Thank you, Mayor.

My name is Mike Scheid.

I'm here to represent the Tempe Firefighters local 493 chapter.

And uh I'd like to say hello to the vice mayor, council members, thank you for your time.

As the president of Tempe Firefighters, I want to offer you a the plain truth and not give you more statistics as you've heard earlier this evening.

Let me start with the simple facts.

Most people in Tempe don't meet us on a good day.

They meet us when something has gone wrong, when a spouse can't breathe, when there's smoke filling their house, when a mom is waiting at the door for us to arrive and get there get there in time.

That's when firefighters and paramedics show up.

And with all due respect, what matters in that moment isn't policy, isn't budget, it's time, training, and resources.

How fast we get there, whether we have what we need, whether we can do the job the way it's supposed to be done.

Right now, our job is getting harder.

Not because of effort, not because of commitment, but because the ground has shifted under us.

We're answering more calls than we used to, nearly 25,000 a year now.

The city is denser, taller, busier, more complex in ways that don't show up on a map, but show up immediately when a call comes in.

A medical call on a high rise is not the same as it was 20 years ago.

A large public event is not the same as it was 20 years ago.

Our job has changed, but the system around it has not kept pace.

When that happens, you start to feel it in the field.

You feel when units are tied up and the next call is already waiting.

You feel when response times start to slip, even when everyone is moving as fast as they can.

You feel it when building inspectors are asked to cover more buildings than they can reasonably inspect.

Nothing breaks all at once, it erodes.

A little a little slower here, a little more strain there until the gap between the community expects and what the system can deliver widens.

That's where we are here in Tempe.

This conversation tonight about whether the gap continues to widen or whether we do something about it.

The proposal in front of you is not that complicated.

It's about giving the city voters a voice and how a voice in how safe our community is.

If they vote yes, it will replace, it will replace funding that the city has permanently lost.

It will give our department and Tempe Police Department the ability to keep pace with the city we're serving.

And for the residents, it comes down to a few cents on a routine purchase.

That's the scale of the ask.

I'll repeat that.

A few cents on a routine purchase.

It's about getting a response times to where they need to be.

It's about making sure our crews are available when the next call comes in.

It's about maintaining a level of service that people in the community have come to expect without having to think about it.

Because most people don't think about 911 until they have to.

And when they do, they assume someone will be there.

We intend to keep that promise.

The question is whether the city will keep up with that promise.

Thank you for the opportunity, and please put this on the ballot.

Thank you.

Quick question.

Um, is there a Mandy Everett in the audience?

Were you here for uh this item 8A1 or for 8v4?

For both.

Okay.

Well, yeah, you can you can come up and speak on this one too.

So all right, so uh I just give me your name and city of residence.

You have three minutes.

Okay.

Um yeah, so my name is Mandy Everett.

I am a resident of Tempe.

I live in an apartment on the south side of the city.

Um I'm here in opposition to this proposal as it stands.

Um I'm sympathetic to the need to fill a budget gap.

Uh and I do want to see more investment in public transportation.

Uh more faster, reliable, less expensive public transit would mean I could sell my car, and I could stop living paycheck to paycheck, and that would be really cool.

Um of my main concerns with it is that so like four times as much is being invested in public safety, and it's not super clear to me exactly what that would look like in practice.

Um to me, it seems that uh something like public safety infrastructure.

Does that mean like mass surveillance uh camera infrastructure like axon or flock?

That's something I wouldn't want to see my tax dollars go to.

Um I'm not aware of any tax cuts happening to um public safety.

Um I do think that um if we want to alleviate the stress on public safety, I think it would be more useful to spend our tax dollars on treating the root causes of crime.

Um I think it would be more fair to our officers to address again these root causes, which is why I would support amendments like one proposed by uh council member Keating.

Um but I do think that um maybe we should reconsider because this also doesn't reflect what Tempe residents have when they fill out the budget survey, their priorities are not police, it's been you know, services tests to those experiencing homelessness.

Um and some of that public safety budget is being used to surveil, or at least it's been reported that it's being used to surveil um homeless advocates.

Uh there was a whistleblower record data in the news.

Um, who said that the chief of police was reporting this information or sharing uh confidential data with the city manager.

Um I I wouldn't want my tax dollars going to something like that.

Um so I think I would uh I do want us to fill this gap and be able to support the community.

I just think we should rethink the the um how much of what is being attributed to because this is a reflection of our priorities as a community.

We're putting our money where our mouth is, and right now I don't think that where we're putting our money is matching what we say our priorities are.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, that's all the cards I have on item 8a1.

Uh is there anyone else in the audience wishing to address the council on that item?

Uh yes, sir.

Please come forward.

Please ask you to even again.

Yeah, yes, good evening, Tempe resident.

All right.

I didn't really plan to even speak on this, but after hearing some of the comments from Randy and uh Joe Forte, some thoughts occurred to me.

A lot of people talk about benchmarking, you know, response times, how many cars, trucks, fire stations we have and all that compared to other cities.

So it got me thinking.

Well, I'm let me see if I can do a quick back of the envelope benchmark on the city of Tempe's spending per capita compared to some of the other cities around here.

So Gilbert spends 8300 per capita per year.

Tempe spends $8,000 per capita.

Chandler spends $5,800 per capita.

Mesa spends $5300 per capita, and Phoenix spends 4,500 per capita.

So you guys are spending almost twice as much money as the lowest city on that group.

And significantly more than Chandler and Mesa spend.

So I'm not specifically opposed to the notion of what you guys are thinking about funding with this tax.

And I'm not necessarily opposed to even wanting to put it before the people.

After looking at this, my concern is maybe you need to go back and look a little harder.

And I think this goes back to what Joe Forte was saying.

Do you really need to increase taxes?

Or do you need to look at what you're spending your money on?

Because maybe you don't need to increase taxes.

Maybe you need to look a little more closely where your spending priorities are.

And I'm not saying you're gonna discover that you want to change your mind on this.

But when I look at these numbers, I have a real concern because when I've looked at my property tax numbers, Tempe is pretty high.

When I look at this spending per capita, Tempe is pretty high.

You may be relatively low on sales tax, but you're obviously not low on total spending.

And that's a concern to me.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else in the audience this evening wishing would arrest the council?

Yes.

Oh please state your name and city president for three minutes.

Hi, TJ LaRue.

Um a resident of Phoenix.

I grew up in Tempe.

Um I just had a question, I think probably for the city attorney.

Um I was told last week kind of the reason this came up quickly was because there was a deadline uh that was coming up soon that had to be hit in order for this measure to be included on the November ballot.

Is that true or the city?

Yeah, would you like me to answer that question?

Sure, yes, please, absolutely.

Um there are various deadlines that um in terms of publishing and stuff that with the county elections department who runs all this stuff for the city.

So yes, I don't I don't have those deadlines committed to memory, but they do exist, so um yes, it would have to be done um sometime within the next 30 to 45 days, I think, or I don't I don't want to quote on that because I just don't have those memory committed to the 30 to 45 days okay.

Okay.

That's long.

Now they think about it, it's it's already that's May 1st tomorrow already.

Yes, less than 30 to 45 days.

Less than 30 to 45 days.

Okay.

Sometime in the month of the May would be the okay.

Sounds good.

To meet the um deadlines for the ballot for the county elections department stuff.

Okay.

Sounds good.

Thank you.

And thank you for your question.

Appreciate it.

Um is there anyone else in the audience wishing to address the council on item 8A1?

If so, can you please get my attention?

All right.

Seeing none, I will go ahead and close the public testimony portion of the public hearing.

Um question, I guess.

Uh so uh Mr.

City Attorney, what do you need from us specifically on this item?

I know Councilber Keating had it had an amended proposal, and so one of the things I was sort of thinking about was you know, the proposal on the agenda this evening was you know, point four for public safety, point one for transportation.

And so, but we obviously didn't have the ability to we had a conversation very briefly about the tempe pre-proposal that council for Keating raised, but obviously that wasn't on the agenda leading up to this meeting because we that was not part of the agenda item until he spoke about it.

So what is your opinion about that in terms of whether we can move this forward this evening, or is there something regarding posting or you know, kind of public transparency?

What I think the discussion is probably within the realm of the the posting.

So and just for procedural point, I don't think council member Keating actually made a motion.

I think he said he was going to make a motion.

So um if if there was a motion though, the um we would need to work on some ballot language and stuff if if that motion were successful, because um we have to give a very precise ballot language to the to be the county deadlines.

So um that would take a little bit of time based on the discussion that we hear, and you know, if that's a successful motion or if there's any other motions and stuff.

So um that resolution would need to be revised.

We probably either um need direction from you to bring something back, or we I'd probably request a recess if you want to actually actually approve something tonight.

We'd probably need a little time to work with Lissette and modify if there is a motion to change things.

Okay.

The only thing, you know, regarding the recess here, I mean and I'm looking at my phone, and it's 8 55 p.m.

And my only concern about that is um you know, I want to continue to have a conversation amongst council, but at the end of the day, I also know there's a whole bunch of other speakers for another item 8 before.

So I want to make sure that they're able to speak and get back home to their families or to their homes, or maybe go get tacos, as uh as uh one gentleman said earlier, uh, would sound great right now.

Um so uh I I guess I guess let me turn to my colleagues here.

Are there any questions or comments from any of you uh before I carry on about something else?

Well, we have do we have to do it?

Procedurality.

Okay, so I guess the question I'm hearing up here, Mr.

City Attorney, is procedurally, what's the process?

Okay, so right now the the agenda is matter um has a um report and a resolution that was drafted uh attached as an exhibits to that resolution is the actual ballot language that was proposed.

So that was all encompassing.

Um if there's a modification to how the council would like to see that tax proposed, either I know there's been some talk of whether it should be consolidated into one question, should it be three separate questions, or right now it's proposed as two separate questions with very specific ballot language.

Um we would need either the council's direction to um modify and bring back you know actual ballot language, or we'd have to work on it tonight and have you approve it.

Or alternatively the third option, potentially you could tell us this is what generally what we want, and then authorize the city management to submit the ballot language in accordance with how you direct us tonight.

So I think the the one thing I want to add before I think councilber Keating has something as well.

The you know, kind of going back to my initial question.

You know, I I know you said that hey, this is sort of within the scope of you know what Councilmember Keating had actually suggested as a uh kind of a proposal.

At the end of the day, though, I guess my only concern is while it might technically kind of fall under that, and I agree that it absolutely does.

I know that there were members of the public who weren't aware that the Tempe pre-presentation was going to be a sort of recommendation made by Council for Keating, even though it's something that I think is a great idea, quite candidly.

Um, but I want to make sure, but in some sense, I'm a little concerned because I would want to make sure that the public at least has an opportunity to know if there's an amended proposal that that's out there before we actually would cast some kind of a final vote.

I guess is sort of my issue.

So in a sense, I mean, I would I know I'm not making a motion here because I'm frankly not even allowed to make motions, uh, but there's a part of me that would actually like to see if there's some way that we could figure out a way to draft some kind of language, um, but to have it out there for another couple of weeks so the public at least gets a chance to hear about what was discussed this evening and kind of they could kick it around and talk about it at home with their friends and family and kind of figure out what they think about it, as opposed to just saying we're going to go forward tonight when the public didn't know that council Burkey was going to bring this up, even as much as I support what he actually said.

Uh certainly that that's an option that's by and maybe not articulated very well, but that's one of the options we can certainly get um based on direction, which should um be formal direction from the council tonight if you want us to modify the uh language as it is, um, then you can give us directions and we can get that uh done uh expeditionally as possible, get it posted on the city's website and uh send it out for public comment.

Um I don't want to, it's not my place, but we can certainly probably do some public outreach uh and and that as well, and and then uh bring it back in a future meeting.

Um we do have a regular council meeting scheduled for May 14th.

There's also the option under your council rules and the charter, the mayor can call a special meeting as well.

Um either way, we just um we'd confer with the clerk's office and just make sure that we uh whatever you want to do as a council, we do it in time if there's gonna be a ballot measure to make sure we meet the county's deadlines, uh, which are somewhere around the end of the month, but I don't know the exact date or take.

Okay.

All right, uh Council Breaked.

Uh thank you, Mayor.

Do I need to read my um my amendment to AA1 again, Mr.

City Attorney?

Um I I think uh the clerk, we have a record of it, so if you want to just make uh a motion and consistent with what you you stated intent earlier, I think you can certainly do that.

Well, let me just just for the sake of reading one and then the other here.

Um, I propose an amendment to item A1, a resolution ordering and calling a special election to allocate 0.01% of the proposed public safety sales tax increase to expand and strengthen Tempe Pre as a high quality city supported early education program and a broaden access to income eligible Tempe residents.

I also make the motion that the questions of the proposed resolution shall be consolidated into a single question on the ballot, encompassing the public safety tax, the preschool tax, the transit tax at the percentages stated 0.1% to transit, 0.3% of public safety, and point one percent to tempe pre.

And before I make a motion, mayor, I do I want to explain my the reason why I believe that is the appropriate action here.

Because in my earlier comments, I I I married um didn't marry, but I I uh I put in a relationship, right?

The they're talking um public safety and early childhood education, and that's backed up by the statistics that I stated earlier.

I think that this isn't necessarily to be considered two uh questions, but two sides of the same coin.

We're taking proactive upstream measures here to increase public safety in the city of Tempe.

And that will this pay dividends next year, probably not.

But 10, 20 years down the road, it absolutely will.

We see uh lower writ crime rates, we see higher higher um high school education um completion rates.

So to me that they are one and the same.

If we're actually if we're talking about not only addressing the immediate need of public safety, but the future needs that that we're going to anticipate.

So, Mayor, with that, I would move then that we continue this item to a date certain of May 14th to address yours and others' concerns about um you know getting public feedback in amongst that time.

So um if there's a support amongst the council on that, then I would also be um be supportive of continuing this to a date certain of May 14th.

Thank you, Councilbaking.

Okay, so it's been moved by Council Burkey to continue this, and it's been seconded by Councilmember Chin.

Um, Councilmember Ramper, question or um I don't have I guess I don't have a question.

I guess what I would like to say and to go on record is I think all three of these taxes are they all have their individual merits.

I'm not a fan of log rolling all three of them into one question, though.

Uh it I think it violates the spirit of the single subject rule.

You're going to have some people, members of the public who are going to be in favor of one or two are all three of them.

Um, but you're going to be asking them, okay, if you don't like one of them, but you really like the other two, you're just gonna have to hold your nose and vote for all three.

And I I am not a fan of that.

So with that, I'm actually gonna vote no.

Okay, thank you.

All right, and uh anyone else any uh other comments or questions for new okay.

Mayor, can we um yes?

I'm sorry, I hate to interrupt, but I'm not sure what what motion are we the motion to continue?

Okay, so the other two uh the other two motions withdrawn then because they weren't seconded or anything.

They were amendments, uh there are amendments to eight.

Well, you motioned to amend, but I didn't hear a second.

Oh okay.

So no, no, it was second by council per chin.

Oh, I apologize.

Yeah, the motion was made by council keating, seconded by council perchin.

Um I want to be clear here.

So the are we voting on the amendments or the continuance?

Well, you have you have three motions that have been made, none of which have been voted on.

That's the so that's a clarity I'm looking for.

Okay, so we're gonna vote on.

Well, I made so we're voting on the first motion right now, which it would be then to introduce the point one percent to Tempy Pre, correct?

That I believe is the first motion, yes.

And uh if it's been set, it's been seconded, but it hasn't been voted on.

So um you would need to vote on it um to make it if that's if that's where you want to go.

Let me uh council hodge.

Okay, I'm confused.

We are just voting to add it, but not we're not voting tonight on sending it to the ballot right now.

Is that correct?

Right, yes.

Okay, just want to make sure.

Okay.

Okay, so there's been a motion by council member Keating to add the point one for Tempe Pre.

Um is there a second ones?

Okay, is there a second on that one?

Seconded by Councilmember Chin question, Councilmember Amber.

So I'm trying to get this straighter.

We just making an amendment to add one to because right now the way it reads, it's point four for public safety, it's point one for transportation.

So would this be number three point one for tempete pre, and then we're going to go on another motion and bundle all three together and then another motion to continue the actual vote until next week.

Is that what we're doing?

I'm sound like that.

I'm gonna have to turn to our city attorney again, I guess.

Uh it's council member key's motion.

If I will tell you what I think I heard um is that the um the intent was to reduce the public safety portion to by one tenth of percent, and then replace that one-tenth of percent with the uh new pre-K proposal.

But I'd ask Councilmember Keating to confirm I'm accurately stating his motion.

That is correct.

So you're so you're what you were saying, Councilbury Keating was 0.3 for public safety, point one for transportation, point one for temp E pre.

That's what I said maybe.

Okay.

Okay.

So it's been it's been by Council Breeding, it was seconded by Councilmember Chin to amend the language to that with a proposal of that.

Any other further comments or questions?

Okay.

I'm just gonna have to explain my vote again.

Um I think they should be three different questions.

So I'm going to vote no because you're adding it to the public safety tax.

Is is this is this vote on the bundling, or is it the vote just on changing the just on changing the okay?

Okay, I guess one of the big sure.

Okay.

Okay.

All right.

So the motion here is just about changing the percentages.

Once again, uh Councilmember Keating's motion was 0.3 for public safety, point one for transportation, point one for temp EP.

So that's the motion on the table, which has been made by Councilmember Keating and seconded by Councilmember Chin.

Uh, any further comments or questions on this item?

Okay, then please vote.

And that passes seven to zero.

All right, I guess no.

We're looking for another motion, Council Burkeating.

Yes.

Let me pull it up here.

Uh, because I have lost it now.

Uh unfortunately.

All right.

Thank you, Mary.

I found it.

Uh I motion that the three questions proposed in the resolution be consolidated to a single question for a ballot encompassing the public safety, the preschool, and the transit tax percentages as stated in my previous motion.

Okay.

Thank you, Councilmember Keating.

Uh, do I have a second on that motion?

Seconded by Councilmember Chin.

Uh, any comments or questions?

Councilmember Bramber.

I've said it like three times.

I am pretty adamantly opposed to uh doing that and asking our voters to uh vote on three separate things.

It's uh I'm I'll liken it to the bond election that you guys put on the ballot last time.

You had three separate questions because you understood that somebody may want to tax themselves to pave the street, but not must not necessarily want to tax themselves for affordable housing R4.

Um thank you.

I started preservation.

Okay, sounds good.

Um let me well I actually I can't ask that question because it's legal.

So I won't.

Uh anyone else any further comments or questions?

Okay.

Hearing them, please vote.

And that vote passes six to one with council member Amberg voting nay.

And is there another motion?

Mayor, I move we continue item eight a one as amended.

Right.

Oh, sorry.

That's what I sound like.

Apparently so.

Jeez.

Uh I I move we continue item uh A1 as amended to a date certain of May 14th.

Okay, it's been moved by Council Breating to move uh continue this item to uh May 14th, 2026.

Do I have a second?

Seconded by Vice Mayor Garland, thank you.

I thought that was the easiest of the three.

So yes, uh Vice Mayor.

So it's got first and second, so I can I can absolutely so I I have a few sheets of questions here regarding um our discussion and regarding the taxes.

So those are we'll have those at the next at the May 14th meeting, right?

Yeah.

Oh what's uh our city attorney?

Mayor, uh Vice Mayor, that's correct.

Uh we would bring it back on the formal agenda.

You would have to vote.

We'd have uh additional public hearing.

Okay, so thank you.

I'll save my questions.

Thank you.

Sounds good.

Okay.

All right.

So the motion has been made um for the continuance to the May 14th agenda by council for Keating.

It was seconded by Vice Mayor Garland.

Uh any other comments or questions?

Yes, Councilmember Hodge.

Okay, I just want to I want uh community to know that we're not voting tonight to go pass it on to the ballot.

This is just to get this count this one added and to continue it.

So I want to make sure that I'm saying it just to make it clear.

Yep, no, it's just a motion for continuance to the May 14th, 2026 for a final vote then.

Council Browns.

Um we're not okay.

So it's just no, we're just we're just voting on the continuance to move this item to five for a final vote on May 14th, 2026.

So that's it.

Okay, so once again, uh it's been moved by council Keating, seconded by Vice Mayor Garland.

Please vote.

And that item passes seven to zero.

Okay.

Let's see.

I'm gonna move up the next item here uh that has a lot of speakers here, which is item 8b4.

Let me see here.

And then we'll go back and catch up on the other ones.

Item 8 before is to introduce and hold the first public hearing to adopt an ordinance amending the Tempe City Code chapter 21 related to nuisances by adding a new subsection 213b 22 related to enumerated violations.

Um, Mr.

City Attorney, do you have a uh brief presentation on item 8b4?

I do, Mayor.

With your permission, I'll uh go up to the podium.

I think it's easier for sure.

Absolutely.

Please what number are we on?

Oh, eight feet four.

We went to the B's.

Went to the B's.

Well, that's where I have a shock of features.

So thank you, Mayor, members of council.

Uh I was asked to give a brief presentation on this.

Um, and I will confess I I drafted it, so I it's fair.

Um just wanted to give you a brief overview of what we're bringing for you here today.

Um we it's it's a very straightforward single definition that we're proposing to add to the city's nuisance ordinance.

Um screen here is a summary, it's not the actual language, just a summary, three things that would be, and these are um conjunctive, not disjunctive, so all of these things would have to be uh present for there to be a nuisance situation.

Uh first is a regular occurring distribution of whatever it's not targeted to anyone, it's could be food, beverages, merchandise, or anything.

Um second that there's a tie between that distribution, this regular distribution and criminal activities or other public type offenses that uh occur in the neighboring area, and that it substantially interferes with the use and enjoyment of the neighboring properties.

Um I apologize, that's a little bit of a legal language, but the reason that is is because we've taken this definition directly out of the court cases that have existed for uh over 40 years now in Arizona that have defined this type of condition as as a public nuisance.

Um the case for that.

Um of the things though, even though it's been recognized as uh what we'd call a common law or court recognized um situation.

Um one of the things though, even though it's been recognized as uh what we'd call a common law or court recognized um situation, our city enforcement people do not have the ability to enforce a common law uh code, not a code as a common law violation.

So by codifying what is already recognized in the law as a uh nuisance situation, what that does is that gives the city code enforcement and community development people the ability to um enforce the uh provision through the city court system, uh, and also use the other advantage of that is um they can also use their usual um procedures that they employ that um uh stop short before they get to court, they usually exhaust efforts to try and gain compliance.

That's one of the city's mantras.

So that's just a brief overview.

One of the things I I do want to point out, because I I've seen some comments that oh, you're just trying to target this one thing.

Um the case that is um this is patterned after from 1985, the armory park, I guess that was in relation to a food distribution.

But the court in that case actually defines or excuse me, identified several other instances where these type of things realized a nuisance.

So I want to point these out to you.

I have a list here.

These are the actual things directly out of the case that the court cited other cases that had occurred um in uh around in other states as you know, things that are common law nuisances.

So uh examples are there's even a cafeteria where a customer line blocked um the neighboring businesses, a drinking establishment where patrons were noisy, and then that kind of behavior spilled over into the neighborhood, uh cafe, even same thing, dance hall.

So, really what these the courts have said are is that a nuisance, even though your activity itself might be legal in um in and of itself, when there's a tie between what you're doing on your property that leads to you know a destruction of the neighborhood that can be actionable as a nuisance.

So that's a brief thing.

Um couple things why um from the legal perspective, why we're proposing this.

Uh we've all heard of proper preposition 312 allows the property owners to request fund.

But also, there's also been two very recent court cases around the state where um cities have actually been on the losing side of cases that um neighborhoods have sued the city for for maintaining nuisances itself.

So this is uh one of the things that's important, I think, for the code enforcement aspect of this to make sure it's codified, is um gives the ability to the city to proactively address problems.

Hopefully we don't ever get to the point like uh Phoenix or Tucson where they actually had and lost in court um for you know not addressing these conditions.

So that's uh just a kind of a brief summary for you.

Um happy to ask any questions.

I did uh because it's so short, I put the whole language uh that's the the one addition.

Um happy to answer any questions you might have.

So thank you, Mr.

City Attorney.

Um so just as a note, too, I know just one of the emphasize from the presentation that this is relating to private property, so not parks or public streets, but this is really about private property issues.

This is not uh there's been talk, and I know there is um ongoing uh public outreach as far as parks ordinance special events and stuff.

This is specifically um, and if you look at the first line, you'll see it's a main thing on private property, yeah.

So this is a specific scenario that it occurs from time to time.

Um, and that's one of the things that we added regularly to make sure that it's not overreaching necessarily, and if you have uh one party, a graduation party at your house and it happens to, that doesn't necessarily this is not going to be a code thing, it's a regular thing that that creates that.

And that's what the courts have said.

So, but yes, definitely made to answer your question, private properties.

Okay.

Yeah, I mean, and just as a note for those who are in the audience and people watching at home, I remember when proposition 312 was actually up for a uh sort of a referendum uh statewide, and I think it passed with almost 60% of support, but I was actually very publicly opposed to it in my own kind of private capacity because my general concern was I didn't think it was actually going to solve the issues that it was trying to address, and that I was concerned that it was going to open up the city to a lot of liability from people who are then going to come back and seek property tax relief from the city of Tempe or frankly any other city of town or town.

So I thought this was frankly when this was all being drafted in terms of the proposition 312, that it was bad public policy, and I've voted against it personally.

Uh at the end of the day, though, it passed overwhelmingly.

And so I the I say all this to say that unfortunately we now kind of find ourselves in the situation, even if it's something that, as an example, I know myself, you know, couldn't stand when this was on the ballot.

So right, I mean, my understanding of this is basically if I'm sort of breaking it down to let's even say myself, I don't want to use any of my colleagues as sort of my examples here, but it's the example of I have a party in my apartment as an example, and I invite people over to listen to some music, and I'm serving drinks and food or whatever else.

Pretty much as long as all of that happens, and then all of the guests go home at the end of the night, and there's no other issues, and it's not causing problems for the people in the apartment adjacent to me or something on the outside, that it basically I can do whatever I want.

It's only if for whatever reason I'm doing something on a consistent basis and it's spilling over and causing problems for people kind of in adjacent areas, that would be the only issue.

So it's basically just you know, kind of an accountability thing about making sure that you take care of your own kind of situation.

Certainly under under this amendment uh proposed amendment, that's correct, Mayor.

I and I trust you wouldn't have a nuisance party uh it's your boring to have a nuisance party, but that there are uh I I just want to acknowledge and make sure it's clear there are there's potential overlap.

So um this council adopted a uh nuisance party, some amendments to that uh not too long ago, uh, which are more of those singular addressed to the singular things.

This would have to be an ongoing and and regular occurrence to give rise to anything under this particular code.

And just as a note, too.

I mean, this would be you know, potentially very helpful in terms of dealing with short-term rentals, I would imagine.

I mean, and I'm not saying that everyone who has a short-term rental is a bad owner, but I mean, but we've definitely heard stories from plenty of residents about party houses and absentee owners, and it's not just a situation where one time there's a loud party that sort of disrupts their sleep at two o'clock in the morning.

It's the same house over and over and over again that's just sort of continuing to disrupt the peace and sanctity of the neighborhood for everyone else.

So I I imagine this would be very good at making sure that we can hold people who let as an example might be short-term rental owners, but they're absentee to be able to sort of hold them accountable and say you're allowed to own a short-term rental.

That's what the Arizona legislature has ruled.

But at the end of the day, you're not allowed to create a nuisance for the neighbors across the street of the neighbors next door.

Uh Mayor, that's absolutely correct.

And that's why one of the reasons I put this slide together to kind of point out that you know, these are there are a lot of scenarios, it's not just one scenario.

Um, your example of a short-term rental that turns into a party house where uh every weekend they're you know, they have even if it's different people that are renting, if they're having the same parties and their guests are spilling over into the neighbors' yards, um, you know, committing those, you know, kind of public offenses, defecation, urination, uh falling asleep on somebody's front lawn, for example.

Uh any anybody, and it's it's it's facially neutral, so anybody who's maintaining their private property in such a manner um is is going to be potentially subject to the nuisance.

Okay, great.

Sounds good.

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh, anyone else comments or questions for the council members?

Uh Vice Mayor Garrett.

I'm just gonna say um that I I really appreciate this.

This seems like something that we should have been thinking about when we did the nuisance ordinance at the first time.

So I'm glad that we're getting this clarified and set up now.

So thank you.

Vice Mayor, I apologize.

I I was at those meetings, and um, we did we did not bring that up, but yeah, this this was an ongoing issue.

It's been on my list that I've wanted to do it just because of you know, it's it's kind of a gap in the city's enforcement ability.

So I appreciate thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Councilmember Chin.

No.

No.

Oh, okay.

Oh, I don't think Prop 312 had passed by then when we were working on the nuisance ordinance.

So the timing was didn't quite so uh uh you I think you're correct, Councilmember Chin.

I I will point out that um the the Phoenix case that um I mentioned here um was actually this is the actual court of appeals decision.

It was working its way through the courts when um well before Prop 312, and many believe that was the genesis of Prop 312 or the motivating factor.

So this has been on uh you know municipal radar screen for years.

So council member.

Yes, thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Um I am it's not uh surprise, especially to uh Tempe police officers, not a big fan of our short-term rentals and not a big fan of our, I'm just gonna call them frat houses that are in the middle of our neighborhoods.

I will say whenever I walked uh when I was running for my well, my only term, my first term, uh that was probably the thing that I heard the most going into neighborhoods, and um that they were just tired of it.

Um so I am fully in support of this.

Okay, sounds good.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Uh Council Brach.

Okay, I know that um ASU has their own police.

Are we going to be able to work together?

Is this I know this is the city of Tempe, but is this going to be something can be conjoined it with ASU police too?

We can certainly we're in a and I know the uh there's already existing cooperative relationship between the respective police departments, and as you all know, there's uh it's kind of a jigsaw puzzle.

What's what university, what's what city exactly?

Um certainly we can work together um in terms of actual enforcement if it was related to you know, if the and this is an ASU wouldn't be private property, and and even then if if it's ASU campus property, our code enforcement probably wouldn't be able to enforce this on the ASU property, but there are a lot of other mechanisms, the weekly or regular meetings with the PD and stuff and cooperative.

And as I as I mentioned, there's these several other tools like the nuisance party and and things like that are potentially applicable, just depends on the situation.

So this is addressed to the long-term problem.

So thank you.

And I know as I understand the other thing is that ASU uh proactively takes an interest in its students' conduct off campus.

So off-campus properties, even if it's students renting those properties, it would certainly be applicable to those, correct.

And the other uh advantage here too is also allows uh us to address the property owner rather than the renters as well.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, anyone else?

Um, Madam City editor.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Mr.

Anderson, do you have information sessions that are you sharing with the public?

Um yes, I believe it's May 5th.

I don't know if Sean is Sean.

Sean is still here.

Um I believe we are going to do information sys on my calendar sitting over at my desk.

I believe it's May 5th at noon and is it 6 p.m.?

Yeah, May 5th, it's virtual and uh at noon and then 6 p.m.

at the pile center.

Okay, thank you for add.

That I neglected to mention that.

So yeah, we are going to do just kind of an information session.

Uh the noon one will be virtual.

Uh I'll be attending that, and uh as well as um uh someone from community development, I think will be there as well.

And uh I'm not sure anybody else, but we'll have city staff there with just some information and be able to provide some additional information if there are lingering questions.

So yeah, uh Council Baraj.

Yeah, and if and if if this passes, then we also need to work with Shauna Warner to get it out to all the neighborhoods.

Certainly, yeah.

And I'll just remind I know you all know just for the public benefit, this is an ordinance proposal, so there'd be a second hearing.

There will there won't be a vote tonight, there'll be a second hearing on May 4 14th.

So thank you.

Anyone else?

Okay.

Thank you, Mr.

Anderson.

Thank you.

Do I need to do anything?

We're killed this or you'll do it.

Okay.

So I'm gonna go ahead and open up the public testimony portion because this is also a public hearing, and I appreciate all of you hanging in there with us.

This has been a later meeting than usual.

Uh, but I'm gonna go ahead and once again start in the order in which I received the cards.

And first uh first person here is Michael Glazier or Glazier.

Please come forward.

State your name and city of residence.

You have three minutes.

Hello, I'm Michael Glazier.

My city of residence is Phoenix.

Uh, however, I am a very close proximity to Tempe.

Um, and as a result, find that most of my community work I do is yes, absolutely.

Um, as a result, I find that most of my community work I do is in Tempi, and a lot of my leisure time is spent in Tempe.

Um despite originally having other much more enjoyable plans for tonight, um, I'm here once again to have to sort of push back against what I feel is an overly broad provision, for which I suspect it's blatant.

Anti-homeless and anti-mutual aid addition to the nuisance ordinance.

Um this would directly punish churches and community groups that show so much humanity and goodwill towards their neighbors and demonstrate the true values of the Tempe community through their actions.

It would punish by labeling them and those that are assisting as they are assisting as nuisances.

This addendum is another action, the continuing trend of actions by the city council to, in my opinion, fail to address issues ethically as cooling centers and shelters are being shut down.

It's disappointing to see a proposal that would seek to suppress the activities of those who with their own resources, time and sweat are picking up the slack from the shortcomings of the city and state.

I know many in the community are also unhappy with the presence of homeless in proximity to these services, providing aid, but simply banning the aid doesn't fix the root issue.

Um I would like solutions to be focused on solving the issues at the route, not just shuffling them around.

In my opinion, this additional violations and just a thinly veiled attack on mutual aid services and the in-house is also short-sighted.

If any private property with sales or giveaways that can be can lead directly or indirectly to disorderly conduct is an offense against the ordinance, then this new addendum might as well be called like the anti-mill avenue provision.

I know that this isn't the intent of the end of this edition, but once tool is added to the toolbox, it's only a matter of time until it's used.

In conclusion, I would urge this council to change the course on this and work with the community to find a solution that treats everyone involved with dignity.

Tempe is rising to become amongst the wealthiest cities in our country.

If we want that trend to continue, we should focus on expanding support for our vulnerable and sharing that prosperity with everyone, because prosperity that includes everyone is what will truly last.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, the next speaker I have is Suzy Sharky Johnson.

Please come forward, state your name and city of residence.

You have three minutes.

My name is Susie Sharkey Johnson.

This one?

Okay.

My name is Susie Sharkey Johnson.

I'm a Daily Park native.

My parents, sister, and family have lived in the Daily Park neighborhood since 1970.

This is our home where we were raised, bought our homes, have raised our children, and now are entering the era of a fourth generation in Tempe.

Our father, my sister, and myself all have owned and operated our own businesses within Tempe for decades.

My husband, Jay Johnson, who will speak later, has also operated and owned two of his restaurants in Tempe for decades.

As a family, we have seen firsthand Tempe's vast changes over 55 plus years.

Yet the city of Tempe has managed to grow with the new issues faced and come up with resources and action plans, particularly for those in need.

We have always seen the homeless as part of our Tempe life.

They are not invisible to our family.

Their plight is often heartbreaking and need help in many ways.

The City of Tempe has done a good job in the investment of outreach with projects like TCAA, Hope, Care 24-7, Project Connect, the Suez Basio Shelter, IHelp and Together Tempe.

Council members.

After our neighborhood has kindly asked and even begged the community Christian Church, disciples of Christ to discontinue the Monday through Saturday food distribution, it is continued.

In the last 90 days, we have now been further negatively impacted with the University Presbyterian Church, a block south, having Aris host a Tuesday night feeding of approximately 200 homeless.

As a Christian, I am called to actionably love.

This is commanded in Romans 13.

But within that verse, Jesus then continues to say, along with loving your neighbor as yourself, love does no harm to a neighbor.

Therefore, love is the fulfillment of the law.

Care for the homeless, especially those addicted to fentanyl or meth, requires love coupled with wisdom.

My family can personally speak volumes on this topic.

We have dealt with addiction, seen the destruction, felt the tragedy and loss so deep it hurt to breathe.

But we've also been privileged to witness addiction being overcome and precious lives restored.

Addiction is an extremely difficult train to navigate.

There is no perfect path, but giving someone a bag of food and removing personal accountability from the equation is doomed to fail.

Real life changing in a safe, structured environment with trained professionals available to lean upon, is what has been proven best to serve generously.

I'm sorry that's a good thing.

Thank you.

The next speaker I have is Stephen Kisiel.

Please come forward.

State your name and City of Residence.

You have three minutes.

All right.

Mayor Woods, Madam Vice Chairman, Council members, good evening.

My name is Steve Kissle.

I'm a resident of Tempe.

I am also the chair of the Daily Park Neighborhood Association.

And behind me, I am supported by other Daily Park residents that have come here to listen.

Now, the reason we're here today is to support the code updates prohibiting free needles, free food being distributed in Daily Park.

This includes a nuisance ordinance 02026.20.

Here are the three reasons that we support these codes in this ordinance.

The church right next to us, which Susie just mentioned, uh next to our park, exactly right next to our park, supplies free food regularly to the homeless, which has brought in serious nuisances and crime in our neighborhood.

And by the way, there have already been three felons arrested in our park during police investigations.

Now we feel organizations like this church should deliver services in ways that are responsible to those who live and work and attend school nearby.

Now, a good ordinance does not ban compassion.

It structures compassion so that the children in the neighborhoods and the people being served are safe.

Now, right now, let me share just a small sampling of what Daily Park neighbors have had to suffer through from the free feedings that happen at our church.

There are multiple accounts of homeless sleeping and defecating in our alleys.

I hear stories all the time.

It's getting disgusting.

Drugged out addicts coming to and from Daily Park have been seen stopped over, uh stooped over, excuse me, and frozen in our front yards.

That happened to me.

Drug deals are happening right in our front, right in front of us because drug suppliers follow the free feedings since the homeless population are their customers.

Not all of them, but many of them.

Drug money.

And the females here hear unsolicited sexual comments while walking or jogging by the homeless.

Needles have been found hidden in the sand volleyball courts at Daily Park.

They're next to trees, they're also in the trees.

Because the homeless do not want to be caught with them in case they're searched.

Now we have found fentanyl tin foils on the ground in areas where children play.

I have found them on the baseball fields.

It's you touch them and you're in trouble.

With the homeless, many times come mean dogs.

These are just examples.

I have three more pages of this.

Fortunately, that's time though.

Okay, I do implore you to make these code changes and include these nuisance ordinances to make our neighborhood safe.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor Cory.

Okay, the next speaker I have is Timothy Appleton.

I don't know if he's here.

Please come forward, state your name and city of residence.

You have three minutes.

Spent time in our public spaces, and my parents trusted that we were safe.

That sense of safety is part of what makes Tempe special, and it's something worth protecting.

I support humanitarian efforts.

I support helping people who are struggling.

That's part of being a strong community.

But I also believe those efforts must be carried out in a way that is safe, sanitary, and respectful to the surrounding neighborhoods.

And that includes being thoughtful about where and how these activities take place.

Nearby, we found needles and drug-related debris, right in the same areas where children play and families spend time.

That's not acceptable.

And it's not an isolated incident.

We're seeing ongoing issues, trash, public urination and defecation, drug paraphernalia spilling out into the neighborhood.

These are the downstream effects of activities that may start with good intentions but are not being managed responsibly.

So this is where I stand.

I support the intent of these efforts.

But the current execution is failing both the people being served and the surrounding community.

That's why I support this ordinance.

It gives the city a necessary tool to address situations where activities on private property create real measurable harm beyond that property.

It recognizes that impact doesn't stop at a property line, and neither should accountability.

But I would ask you to go one step further.

As you move forward, I encourage you to clearly define expectations for event organizers around safety, sanitation, and responsibility for the full impact of their activities.

That includes not only cleanup and supervision of their activities, but also thoughtful consideration of location.

Holding these events in the middle of residential neighborhoods will inevitably create impacts on the families who live there.

I urge the city and organizers to prioritize locations where those impacts can be minimized or eliminated.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, the next speaker I have this evening is Cynthia Starkey feel sticker.

Please come forward, state your name and city of residence.

You have three minutes.

Mayor, Council members.

Thank you.

Did I get that right by No, it's Shark.

But that's all right.

My name is Cynthia Sharkey.

I live in the Daily Park neighborhood of Tempe, as do my parents, my sister, my son, my nieces, and nephews.

I am not an outsider coming in from another neighborhood, zip code or city.

What occurs in the neighborhood directly impacts me, my family, and my friends.

This is a notice and a plea for help to the city of Tempe in a public venue.

That the daily draw of the food pantry and feeding the unhoused transient population by the community Christian Church has created a dangerous situation, not only for myself and fellow residents, but those who visit Daily Park.

Its playground and also the children who attend Heart Prince Montessori Daycare, which shares a parking lot with the community Christian church.

Daily Park's playground is less than 250 feet from the community Christian church.

The Heart Prince Montessori Daycare, which is an open has an open-air playground, and open fencing is less than 300 feet from the church.

In the past 24 months, ending December 2025, Daily Park has ranked top three in the number of incidents, reported incidents 21 times by the park rangers.

It has had the most incidents five times.

We're looking at, we're number one.

21 out of 24 times, basically.

These incidents include drug paraphernalia, trespassing, dogs off leash, and conduct.

We have more incidents at a park that has roughly 50,000 visitors annually than Tempe Beach Park, which has over 2.4 million visitors annually.

We don't have an innings, we don't have an Iron Man, we don't have an art.

Oktoberfest.

What we have are problems.

Blocking or narrowing of Encanto by illegally parked vehicles from circle the city, sole kitchen, and street level occurs multiple times a month.

This is already a busy narrow road, and their actions put anyone in the park or the neighborhood at risk, making it difficult for emergency response vehicles to pass and reducing visibility in an already high pedestrian traffic area.

Our alleyways in the neighborhood in Daily Park itself are littered with biohazards, such as human feces, needles, and foils with fentanyl residue.

This is a particular concern with the Heart Prince Preschool Open Air Playground and the Daily Park playground itself.

Because small children have no tolerance for opioids, and even a very small amount of fentanyl could be fatal.

I'm citing the National Institute of Health.

Since 2016, there has been a dramatic rise in fentanyl exposure.

I'm sorry, that's that's all good.

You guys have a printed copy of it.

Thank you.

I need your help.

Okay, the next speaker I have this evening is Jay Johnson.

Please come forward, state your dayment city of residence.

You have three minutes.

Jay Johnson, Tempe, I have to pee, so I'll go fast.

Apologize for that.

Um I live a block from Daily Park, uh, and I've operated two restaurants in Tempe for over 20 years.

I urge you to support this uh nuisance code.

Those three condition conditions on the screen have been present in Daily Park for years and currently it's grown to a crisis level.

I appreciate your valuable time and the resources that have been spent on this and are going to be spent on it.

Um I believe all of this in in this room and online.

We have compassion.

Um we want to see the homeless taken care of.

I think we differ in how we think we can get there.

Growing up, I often went to school hungry.

It sucked.

However, I acknowledge we probably differ on our solutions, but many solutions have been tried across the country, and you don't have to wonder what happens.

You just look at history.

Portland, Seattle, San Francisco are in crisis mode.

Daily Park is just the tip of the spear if we don't do something in Tempe.

This nuisance code is a good first step.

As a business owner, one of them is on Broadway Road.

We deal with theft, vandalism, loitering, drug use on premise, around premise.

My employees have been harassed, yelled, spit at, had their vehicles broken into, and overdoses inside the building, and the list goes on and on.

Hiring and maintaining a stable workforce in that Broadway corridor has gone increasingly difficult, difficult over 20 years, and it's much different than my restaurant five miles south.

That area is the problem.

So why would you work in that environment when other areas don't have those issues?

My wife and I, we bike around the valley pedal bike about 70 miles a week.

We love to talk, see the beautiful sights.

There's little ducklings in the canals right now.

It's pretty awesome.

When we leave our neighborhood, we often, most every time, have to deal with drugged out people on the sidewalk, on the street, bus, stop or park, people using drugs, trash student around, abused dogs, not on lesions.

Oftentimes we'll get verbal taunts.

You know where we don't see that?

We don't see that in the parks we bike through in Mesa, Gilbert, Chandler, Scottsdale.

You know where we encountered again?

When we come back to our neighborhood.

It's just it's stark contrast you see.

But the most glaring to me is the feeding without a penalty programs that are offered by really well-meaning organizations.

The assumptions that the people that they're feeding are just hungry.

That's a false assumption.

They're drug addicts, they're pedophiles, and they're criminals.

Not all of them, but many of them.

Without accountability or solving the underlying problem, something giving food a drug out allows them to use their money they would have spent on food to buy drugs.

And the drug dealers know their customer is in their park.

Daily Park is known as a park where food is free and drugs are easy.

That's a problem.

We should all dive in and help those that want to participate in society.

We need them in society.

We are doing a disservice to those that are addicted to drugs or have mental issues by giving them a daily sandwich and then leaving them in their blight.

Appreciate your time.

Thank you.

Okay, the next speaker I have this evening is Bobby Nichols.

Please come forward, state your name and city of residence.

You have three minutes.

Good evening for the third and final time, City Council.

Thank you very much.

I'm Bobby Nichols, I live in Tempe.

So 2024 is Proposition 312, a statewide ballot initiative, which a majority of Tempe voters oppose, much like yourself, Mayor Woods, enables owners of private property to apply for the reimbursement of documented expenses incurred to mitigate the effects of public nuisance upon their personal property.

Importantly, any such expenses must have been paid to mitigate the actual effects of a public nuisance on the applicant's private property.

Applicants may not claim reimbursement for expenses paid to mitigate the effects of a public nuisance upon public property or upon another's private property, nor may applicants claim reimbursement upon witnessing a public nuisance that does not have any actual effect upon the applicant's own private property.

The language of Proposition 312 appears in fact to contradict the background information provided for this proposed ordinance, which would modify, as we know Tempe's nuisance laws to include the regularly occurring distribution of food, beverages, merchandise, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

The fact she prepared for this vague ordinance states that Proposition 312 imposes an obligation upon cities to address public nuisances even when occurring on private property.

That is an incomplete statement of law at best.

Proposition 312 does permit applicants to request reimbursements for uh expenses incurred to mitigate the effects of a public nuisance on their own private property, and reimbursements cannot be claimed in response to the existence of a public nuisance, which does not occur upon and or has no effect upon their own actual owned private property.

The proposed ordinance also appears, as was mentioned in the in the presentation, which I was not expecting, to implicate the owners of local bars and restaurants.

So does every business with a liquor license now, they would we expect them to be held criminally liable for the drunk patron who relieves themselves on the sidewalk?

Um and shall the city be then financially liable in turn.

The other side of this too is Arizona State University provides food every single day for the students who, as we've discussed here, have created some of these various situations.

Now, is ASU going to be able to be held liable for that in a criminal nuisance sense, and then would the city also be held liable from a financial perspective.

Beyond that, I really think that we should focus our policy making in this case on the data that exists.

And there are public policies that work to address homelessness, as I've discussed in other times.

Those policies require us to get people off the street and on their feet by providing public services like housing so that they're no longer living in parks, and people are able to have the experience that they actually want in those spaces as well.

I want to validate what's being said in this room today.

People are having an experience that is not what we are wanting for our city, but what we also need to consider is the humanity of these people, and when the city is not going to be providing those services, they are going to need to get food from somewhere, or else we're talking about deaths.

I think it's really realistic to note that these addiction crises, these poverty crises, these lead to people passing away without the support of the churches and other organizations.

So thank you very much.

Thank you.

The next speaker I have this evening is Mandy Epwitt.

Please come forward, state your name and city of residence.

You have three minutes.

Hello again.

Oh, yeah.

Can you hear me now?

Perfect.

Um my name is Mandy, I'm a Tempe resident.

Um I am a renter and a worker.

Um I'm not a property owner, I'm not a business owner, but I hope my opinion will still count for as much as someone like that.

Um I was in agreement with the mayor.

I also oppose Prop 312.

I think it opened up unnecessary liability.

And I also just uh thought it was unnecessarily cruel.

Um I know uh some of the examples used were regarding house parties.

Um, but personally this is not like the language uh is not how I would characterize a house party.

I don't characterize house parties as like regularly or frequently occurring uh events where food is distributed.

Um, and I think um it's clear that this is really more about mutual aid, and that's evidenced by the fact that even the supporters of this um are talking about mutual aid efforts that are taking place in churches.

So um I think we should talk about it on those terms.

And on those terms, um, I'm sympathetic to like feeling unsafe in your community, but I also don't think that stopping churches from doing community aid in their communities where they have every right to do it, uh, is going to solve the problem.

It's not going to make homelessness go away.

Um, the it might you know push it to a different area, but it's not gonna go away.

I see homeless people when I walk in my area.

It's not just because people are receiving mutual aid, um, although it might be attributed to that, maybe they're seeing a little more, but it's not gonna go away.

Um, I don't think this ordinance accomplishes what its supporters say it will.

Um, I don't think uh I think it's unnecessarily cruel, and I also think that if we really want to stop these sort of things, we should again go to the root.

We should use an evidence-based housing first approach.

You look at the data we see around the world, not just here uh and in this country, when cities take an evidence-based housing first approach, they spend less, and people actually stay housed, they're able to become functioning members of society, tax-paying members of society.

Um, I just think that if we're serious about this, uh we should take that approach and not take this more uh what I feel is a draconian approach.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker I have this evening is Jesse Kissle.

Please come forward, state tradition city of residents who have three minutes.

Hello, members of the council, Mayor Woods.

Okay.

How are you guys doing tonight?

Still hanging in there, hanging in there, cool.

My name's Jesse.

I live in Daly Park.

I'm actually a native.

I was born and raised here.

And so I've seen a lot of the a lot of Daily Park, a lot of the neighborhood.

There has always been a homeless presence.

I always remember seeing homeless at the park, you know, people getting some shut eye.

Not much of a bother.

But ever since, you know, there's been a lot of feedings at the at the park, you know, like uh food trucks will pull up, or of course the the church on the corner.

Uh there has been a lot more groups of homeless congregating together.

And I, you know, I do, I I walk a lot.

I walk with my mother, you know, uh, from Daily Park to uh to um um uh what's it called uh university estates through the neighborhoods and you know to get over to get there, you know, you kind of have to pass by the church and the the bus stop there.

There will be a large congregations of of homeless, and when you're walking through that, it's like you're kinda kind of got people on both sides, and it's just it can be very intimidating because you you know not everyone there is violent, a lot of them just keep to themselves, but a lot of them or some of them have you know been caught with uh here with felonies.

There's been violence, you know, some very aggressive dogs apparently as well, and it's just you know, it's not something you want to see in your neighborhood.

Um so we what we want as a neighborhood is to do away with the activities that are that are uh increasing the number of homeless population in our neighborhood.

I know it's not gonna eliminate it, but it's uh there's a clear correlation with when the when the feeding goes up, there's a lot more, there's a lot more uh people that show up and a lot more of course more felons, and then there's more uh like some others have said, there's more drug dealers that then start coming here, and there's not something I want to see increase here.

So uh just wanted to make this brief, but just please listen to the people who live in the neighborhood or directly affected by this.

I know it doesn't solve all the problems, but I really do feel that this ordinance is a good step in the right direction, allows us to be able to um uh be able to deal with some of the some of the issues at hand.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, the next speaker I have this evening is Mary Kissle.

Hi, my name is Mary Ann Kissle.

You can use the the button on the right hand side, you can lower it down there.

Sorry.

I was gonna say this type there's been more lowering and raising of that.

I said that I've ever seen.

So my name is Mary Ann Kissle.

Um my husband and I have lived in Daily Park since 1989.

We moved in.

Jesse is one of our offspring, the youngest.

We have three boys that were raised here.

And um, they all have participated at Daily Park and in the playground, etc.

Um, I would have to say when our two older boys were young, it was very calm at the park.

I could go there alone myself with two young boys, and they'd have a blast.

They'd be up in the trees.

There wasn't, you know, others congregating so much.

So Jesse came along a little later, and still pretty much the same.

You know, we're talking about in the he's born in I won't say that.

Um, but here in the last five years, I have to say this is the worst I've ever seen it.

And the issue really is the criminal activity.

Um, there's a lot of fear about this park is not safe anymore.

I used to run the park, the perimeter.

I can't do that anymore alone.

I do not feel safe doing that alone.

Um, especially as you come around to the church area, and it's um very disturbing.

I was at the park um uh a couple months ago with a young woman that lived that was raining at the time, three three children, three young ones, and um there were mostly men, homeless men walking around and they were congregating and around the tree very close to the um playground.

And I thought, boy, if I was a mom with three little ones like this, this is this is awful.

And so to me, we need to protect the children, the school buses that come in when they have ASU events that come in and the children are led out to play.

Um, if you have needles and you have um uh uh fentanyl foil, I mean who wants to bring their children here?

Even tonight I met a um a woman that was born in well, she was raised here, and she will not bring your children to Daily Park.

She says it's just it's not safe.

So I I see it not so much, you know.

I don't think anyone's really against the homeless.

It's more the criminal activity that comes from that and affects us directly.

And it's not okay.

It's not okay.

And I I really implore you to pass this ordinance on behalf of the children.

The 12-year-old boy that was approached for drugs on a neighbor on our street.

He ran home terrified, you know.

What's this guy doing?

Um we had three college girls students from ASU.

They're very concerned about going to the um uh bus stop uh alone.

You know, they're right off the Broadway Lane.

Um, but they just moved into this place this last fall.

And they're like, if we had known, like I don't know if we would have moved here.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Okay, the next speaker I have this evening is Brooke St.

George.

Please come forward, state your name in city of residence.

You have three minutes.

I have a lot to say.

I'll talk quickly.

My name is Brooke St.

George, City of Tempe.

The proposed amendment to Tempe's nuisance ordinance appears to be a broad overreaction to ARS 42-17451.

That statute creates a property tax refund process when a city fails to enforce certain public nuisance laws on public property.

It does not require cities to regulate private charitable activity, and it does not authorize cities to expand nuisance law into private gatherings, religious ministries, or community events.

Extending the statute's scope onto private property goes far beyond what the legislature enacted and creates significant legal exposure for Tempe.

The amendment is written so broadly that it would restrict the rights of every property owner in the city.

That means it could cover a church potluck, a school fundraiser, a business promotion, or a neighborhood yard sale.

This is a major expansion of municipal authority over normal, harmless activity on private land.

The language also holds property owners responsible for the actions of people they do not control.

If anyone who ever visited an event later trespasses, urinates in public, or engages in disorderly conduct, even off site, the property owner could be cited.

No bar, restaurant, or retailer in Tempe is held to that standard.

Structuring enforcement around the behavior of third parties creates a tool that can be applied arbitrarily and unevenly.

The ordinance relies on subjective terms like predictably and similar violations, none of which have defined thresholds.

Without clear objective standards, a statute becomes vulnerable to due process challenges.

Courts at both the state and federal level have struck down ordinances on exactly this basis.

Because the provision applies to any distribution of food, beverages, goods, or merchandise on private property.

It also encompasses activities protected under the First Amendment, including charitable outreach, religious ministries, political gatherings, and expressive conduct.

Federal courts, including within the Ninth Circuit, have recognized food sharing and charitable distribution as protected expressive activity.

Regulations that restrict these activities based on the behavior of third parties have not been upheld by higher courts.

The structure of the ordinance also creates a high risk of discriminatory impact claims.

The triggering behaviors listed, public urination, camping, drug use, are closely associated with homelessness and disability.

When enforcement disproportionately affects a specific population or those who serve them, it exposes the city to equal protection and ADA-related litigation.

The evidentiary burden is another major flaw.

Enforcing this would require the city to prove that a lawful private activity directly caused unlawful acts by unrelated individuals and that those acts substantially interfered with neighborhood pro neighboring properties.

An unusually complex, resource-heavy standard that all but guarantees legal challenges.

Finally, this amendment does not address the underlying conditions that lead to the behaviors listed in the text.

Without parallel measures that expand access to restrooms, services, or alternatives, enforcement alone will not resolve the issues and may instead eliminate the compute community-based support systems that help reduce harm.

For these reasons, it is important to pause, clarify the language, and ensure that any amendment is narrowly tailored, enforceable, and aligned with constitutional requirements and established case law.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker I have this evening is Catherine May.

Please come forward, state your name and city of residence.

You have three minutes.

Thank you, Mayor Woods.

Vice Mayor Garland and members of the council.

I am Catherine May.

In 1968, I moved to Tempe to be a freshman at Arizona State University, and I did not leave.

This is my home and has been for many decades.

And I love it here.

I am here to speak as a member as a citizen in Daly Park as a citizen of Tempe and also as a member of University Presbyterian Church.

Um that has already been mentioned this evening.

For my part, I'm concerned about the focus on some things that are really, really essential to human life.

That would be food, and that would be shelter, and that would be clothing, shoes, and other necessary merchandise that's mentioned in this.

We're focusing on something that is essential to human life, but we're not focused then on something that needs to get addressed in a very serious way.

We do definitely have a problem.

The loss of food and the loss of merchandise is a pretty heavy price to pay for individuals just because they I am a nuisance.

So here we are.

And here's what I'm going to suggest that we look at.

We are a city and we have concerned citizens.

And we are a city and we have concerned citizens.

And we aren't dealing with the real issues that we need to through this particular proposal.

And guests.

Thank you.

The next speaker I have this evening is Dan Abbott.

Please come forward, state your name and city of residence.

You have three minutes.

My name is Dan Abbott.

I'm I'm with that woman.

She's my wife.

This is really a hard issue, isn't it?

It brings up that whole NIMBY business, not in my backyard.

We don't want folks who are needy, who are helpless, who need food in our backyard.

I walk through Daily Park almost every day.

In fact, for about 20 years, I walked it every day.

You know, I call those people by name.

In fact, I feed them at University Presbyterian Church.

There's got to be, as my wife said so eloquently said, there's got to be a way in the middle where we talk together about what's best for our community, and not push those folk on to the next park to the next city building, to the next whatever.

And push them away.

And I'm reminded and um I had a whole thing here, but my wife said it so much better than I did.

I'm reminded that Martin Luther King said.

We've got to do a better job of coming together and talking with each other and spending time communicating about what makes sense in this search in this situation.

So I, as a member of the Daily Park area and as Tempe uh resident, am willing to do that with anyone who wants to join me.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Oh, I didn't say Mayor Woods and Dorian Garland and all that kind of stuff.

I was supposed to forgive me.

No, I'm I'm just so taken away by my wife's, you know comments.

Absolutely.

Thank you.

Thank you, Pistaff.

Appreciate it.

That's all the speakers I have on that item this evening.

Is everyone else who was what wants to address the council on item 8B4?

If so, could you get my attention?

Um, yes.

Yes.

Catherine Plug, please come forward, state your name and city of residence.

You have three minutes.

My name is Catherine Kuvilas Edic, and I am a resident of Gilbert, but I spend quite a bit of time in Tempe.

And every time I come to these meetings, I'm like, I'm not speaking.

And every time I come to these meetings, I end up speaking.

And I'm the emotional one of the group, so I'm gonna try to hold my comments.

But we've heard so from so many people who are affected by homelessness tonight.

And it is not the intention of any of the groups who are providing aid to make their neighbor make the neighbors angry or upset or have needles anywhere or people defecating.

That's not the intention, right?

We're out there to try and help.

We're out there to try and do what so many groups across the valley are doing.

And right now we're at at University Presbyterian Church, which is right down the street from Daily Park.

Um I have asked so many times that this is this is a time where we should be working together, not against each other.

This nuisance law is just it's just horrific, it's just awful.

Um it extends, it's so vague, and it extends to so many different areas.

Like you have a bar and somebody leaves, what are you gonna do?

You're gonna shut down the bar.

Um even even private private schools.

I mean, it's private property, right?

If those kids go and they vandalize somebody's somebody's property, you're gonna shut down the school.

It's it's clearly geared towards people who are mutual aid helpers.

Clearly.

I mean, I mean, it's it's verbatim, it's word for word, is the way it was written.

And it's not required.

I mean, everything that everybody has told me, 312, it's not required to to pass this down to the city.

So my my question is why can't we work together?

You know, there are people who are who are helping at the library, those homeless individuals are leaving the library, maybe they're crossing people's yards.

That's the hope team that's helping at the library, right?

You're not gonna shut down the hope team because that's your group.

So why would you shut down other people who are trying to do good work?

It doesn't, it doesn't make sense to me.

And for every one of those stories about people being accosted, not accosted, but like drug deals and this, that, and the other thing.

I could I could stand up here and give you a before and after of all the kids that we've helped get off the streets, and that's through consistency.

Five of the seven of you have been out on Tuesday nights, you've volunteered, you've brought goods, you've you've met the people, you've talked to them, you've learned their names, and that's what we need.

That's what we need more of.

And we're begging you literally to sit at the table and talk to us to try and help these people and not just push them away.

And it just is not working the way that it is now.

So, what I would ask you is come to the table, talk to us, work with us.

We are not trying to be a problem, we are trying to be the solution.

We we do this for free.

We we don't get paid, we're not out here.

This is not our job, but it's collectively our jobs.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else in the audience wish you'd address the council on item 8b4?

If so, can you get my attention?

All right, no, come on forward.

Sure.

And I can't remember if you guys so just please uh state your name and city of residence.

I'm Jennifer Jerpey.

I live at Daily Park with four beautiful children.

We have tried to speak to the members of the church.

We have been very terribly treated.

We have been treated with complete disrespect, complete disregard.

We have tried and tried and tried.

We have tried.

So for you all to come now and tell us that we need to come to the table.

We have been trying.

And we have been through a lot.

My I live on the corner.

I get a lot, I work outside.

You can tell by my tan.

I am outside.

I have been accosted more times in my front yard than I'm trying to earn a living.

And we have gone to the church and we have asked, and they have chosen to disregard everything.

So all of this talk about coming to the table, great.

Let's come to the table.

But let's actually have a conversation this time where we can hear you, and you can finally open up your ears and hear us.

We're tired and we need help.

And we've been asking for help.

And it just hasn't happened.

We just get treated like we're part of the problem.

We're not.

We're very sympathetic, loving people who want people to heal.

And we want people to be kind to each other.

We are we're the quiet ones because we're the empaths.

We're the ones that feel like we're not yelling and screaming.

We are just kind people who want to help, but we also want to be in a safe neighborhood.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yes.

Ma'am, please come forward, state your name and city of residence.

You have three minutes.

And you can lower it if you need to on the right hand side.

This goes.

Yeah, it's probably okay.

Yeah.