general information packet thursday, may 28, 2020 council meeting files/5-28... · general...

General Information Packet

phoenix.govThursday, May 28, 2020

1 Community Budget Questions April 20 - May 19, 2020

2 Review and Implementation Ad Hoc Committee Monthly

Report - May 2020

3 City Update on COVID-19 and the Coronavirus Aid,

Relief and Economic Security Act

4 For Transmittal, Minutes of the Policy Session Meeting

on April 21, 2020

5 For Transmittal, Minutes of the Policy Session Meeting

on April 23, 2020

Page 1

Page 3

Page 12

Page 14

Page 32

Page 43


City Council Report

Date: 5/28/2020, Item No. 1

Community Budget Questions April 20 - May 19, 2020

SummaryEach year, staff tracks comments on the City's budget. The City Manager's Trial Budget was scheduled to be presented to the City Council on March 17, 2020, with budget hearings scheduled to begin April 2, 2020. However, due to current restrictions on public gatherings, the City unfortunately had to cancel normal and customary community budget hearings and the Trial Budget is being revised due to the economic downturn.

Based on the revised budget adoption schedule discussed at the March 26, 2020 City Council Policy Session, staff returned with additional information on April 2 and April 6 to walk the City Council through four different budget scenarios modeling the impact of COVID-19 on our General Fund revenues. On April 13, staff presented the 2020-21 Revised Trial Budget, focusing on the City's proposed response efforts to the current economic downturn caused by the COVID-19 public health crisis. On May 5, staff presented the City Manager's Proposed budget and on May 19 the proposed budget was approved by City Council.

We very much value the feedback and community engagement received in our community budget hearings. Unfortunately, this year it will be necessary to use a different format and a compressed schedule to accomplish this goal. Once those decisions have been made we will update the calendar on the website. As always residents can continue to provide feedback by calling 602-262-4800 or email us at [email protected]. Additionally, Budget and Research continues to promote the FundPHX interactive budget tool, available at phoenix.gov/FundPHX.

Attachment A transmits a summary of the electronic and voice mail comments regarding the budget for May 1 - May 19, 2020.

In addition to the comments included on Attachment A, we also received 39 comments from Poder in Action. A summary of these comments can be found in Attachment B.

Attachment C contains voice mail comments left with the Budget and Research Department from April 20 - May 19, 2020.

Page 3

Date: 5/28/2020, Item No. 1

Responsible DepartmentThis item is submitted by City Manager Ed Zuercher and the Budget and ResearchDepartment.

Page 4

ATTACHMENT A

To: Ed Zuercher City Manager

Date: May 19, 2020

From: Jeff Barton Deputy City Manager

Subject: BUDGET QUESTIONS SUMMARY MAY 1 – MAY 19, 2020

This report transmits a summary of the electronic and voice mail comments regarding the budget from May 1 – May 19, 2020.

Residents can access additional information at phoenix.gov/Budget.

Page 5

SUMMARY MINUTES VOICEMAIL, ELECTRONIC, AND WRITTEN BUDGET COMMENTS

Responded to May 1 – May 19, 2020

1. Alexander Griego sent an email in support of funding more crosswalks.

2. Josh Finnson sent an email in support of funding arts and culture.

3. Elvia Baron sent an email in support of funding a budget that reflects thehealth of the community and not criminalization.

4. Alma Baron sent an email in support of a COVID-19 relief fund to support rentand service payments to all people in need, especially the undocumented,refugee and asylee communities.

5. Jeff Spellman sent an email in support of eliminating the PHXCARES programand transferring the funds to the Phoenix Police Department.

Respectfully Submitted,

Khala Stanfield Management Assistant II

Page 6

Attachment B

Person Question/ Comment

1 Juana Can police money be moved into low cost medical centers?

2 Raquel The City requires us to pay taxes but we don’t receive any aid.

3 Berta If the City doesn’t want to support undocumented people, can the City Council make a policy that undocumented people don’t have to pay taxes?

4 Noemi Why does the City want undocumented people to be counted in the census this year?

5 Marta A. Every year we never hear about the budget. Why is the Spanish-speaking community not included in these conversations and decisions?

6 Alondra Why are the police given so much money instead of putting more funding into head start or other programs that make us safe?

7 Arturo Escalera

In our community we do not see the police working to keep us safe, instead we see a lot of police violence.

8 Karen Why don’t they invest in our communities to have better streets, parks and free kids programs instead of so much money in the police department?

9 Betty What is the benefit of an undocumented person being counted if we do not receive help?

10 Noemi Garcia

Our community asks why they have to file taxes and clean up counting on the census, but when our community needs help they no longer want to count them.

11 Angelina If undocumented people didn’t receive federal aid, why isn’t the city of Phoenix helping them? They are also entitled to help because they contribute a lot to this country.

12 Lore Valdez How can you engage with the community to put pressure on other councilmembers who do not want to support a private relief fund for undocumented people?

13 Antonia medina Councilmembers, you can or have the power to put pressure on the governor and mayor to help establish a private fund for undocumented people.

14 Anabelle Will part of the money that Arizona received for COVID-19 be given to Police?

Page 7

15 Juan Lopez I want to thank the council for being here and answering questions and doubts from the community. This shows that you are interested in knowing the needs of our community, thank you.

16 Juanita I would like to thank you for committing to lobby other councilmembers to make a schedule change for later meetings. With the time change more people will be able to participate in meetings.

17 Humberto Does the council have the power to forgive payments for basic services such as water, electricity, gas for three months for everyone who lost their job?

18 Marcos I would like to know how you are going to engage with the most vulnerable to make Phoenix better?

19 Anita I would like you to be our voices and use your power to put pressure on the other councilmembers to stop investing our money in the police and to invest more into our communities to make them healthy and safe.

20 Beny Councilmember Nowakowski and Mayor Gallego, you are in your positions because many undocumented people supported you now we need you to help the undocumented people who helped you.

21 Iliana The City of Phoenix never takes into account the most vulnerable communities when deciding where our money should be invested and we cannot participate given the time of the council meetings, how can we participate?

22 Cristina Do you know where undocumented families who have been evicted from their homes for not paying rent can get help?

23 Crystal In this time of COVID-19 do you know what you are going to do to make children safe when they return to school? What measures will they take?

24 Josefina Invest in our communities, not in police.

25 Lali Mejia I am a single woman and I have the responsibility of raising my three grandchildren (Ages 2 months, 9 and 5). I don’t have a job or money to cover my bills and it is very difficult for me right now because of my legal status. You have the power to help people like me.

26 Luis During COVID-19, police don’t offer us any help instead they make our lives more complicated and we live in fear, depression and stress.

27 Omar I live in district 5 and I have not seen police make things better for our community. Do the rights of your community include undocumented people?

Page 8

28 Lidia Barragan Councilmember Nowakowski and Mayor Gallego we need your help with a private fund for undocumented people.

29 Maria Council can and should commit to fundraise funds for our undocumented community. We need you to vote on this publicly and figure a way to bring aid to our undocumented community.

30 Miguel Cornejo The migrant community and people living on the streets should be taken into account and relief should be provided to them during these times.

31 Diana Melendez Is it possible for the council to create a private fund for the undocumented community like other cities have done?

32 Elva Perez I am not undocumented but I think help should be for all. I also pay taxes when buying food. I cannot work and I have never wanted to qualify for disability but I have worked for many years and I didn’t have help. The government is unfair and the money from Trump and the CARES act should be used to help all.

33 Martha Flores Can the council help citizens who have children and did not receive federal aid?

34 Aleyda Zepol Can you help with rent, mortgage, and utilities for people without a job and those with young children?

35 Misa Amane Unfortunately there has been no support for the Latino community. We should organize private support with large companies that are willing to help.

36 Benny Ochoa I am a construction worker and my parks and street lights are in terrible condition. Why not put more money in these areas instead of into the police department?

37 Angel Maciel If undocumented people did not receive federal aid, doesn’t the city support a fund for those families?

38 Ana Maria Calderon

I would like you to be our voices and use the power you have to put pressure on the other councilmembers to stop investing our money into police and to invest more into our communities to make them safe and healthy.

39 Corona Enriquez Immigrants are also part of the community and we deserve the same rights as citizens.

Page 9

Attachment C

Date Person Question/ Comment 1 4/20 Sonny Rodriguez Does the city have a performance

management program? 2 5/1 unknown In support of COVID relief fund. 3 5/5 unknown In support of COVID relief fund. 4 5/7 unknown Include undocumented people in COVID relief

money instead of growing police budget. 5 5/7 Cristal Request a budget that reflects the health of the

community instead of the criminality/discrimination of the community. The budget should be inclusive of undocumented immigrants. Everyone benefits by having undocumented immigrants in our community and they play an integral role in all of our daily lives. Would like to see the police department budget cut instead of departments such as NSD, Human Services, Parks & Rec.

6 5/7 unknown Same as #5 7 5/7 unknown Same as #5 8 5/7 Daniela Quintana Same as #5 9 5/7 Kimberly Hernandez Same as #5 10 5/7 Fernanda Same as #5 11 5/7 Maria Sanchez Requests a budget that reflects a healthy

community and not one that increases more in the police budget. Requests COVID relief funding to include undocumented people.

12 5/7 Paris Moore Same as #11 13 5/8 Carmen Same as #11 14 5/8 Gia Ruby Vasquez Same as #5 15 5/8 unknown Same as #5 16 5/11 Cristal Same as #5 17 5/11 Josefina Same as #5 18 5/11 Italia Miranda Same as #5 19 5/11 Luke Black Prioritize funding for undocumented people

with a COVID relief fund. Community input to be part of budget process. Essential programs should continue and not be cut. Don’t use pandemic to remove funding for traumatic fund. No increase to police funding.

20 5/12 Angel Gonzales Same as #5 21 5/13 Gia Ruby Same as #5 22 5/15 Unknown Same as #5 23 5/15 Fernanda Same as #5

Page 10

24 5/17 Zach Dennis Didn’t leave question/comment 25 5/17 unknown Would like the city to provide assistance to the

community for help with paying for housing, food, and schooling/childcare because of the COVID 19 pandemic.

26 5/17 unknown Community over police. Community resources first.

27 5/18 Jeff Hawkinson Create a private based relief fund for undocumented people impacted by COVID and not more money to police. Wants money for housing, food, jobs, mental health resources, Office of accountability and Transparency and Traumatic Response Unit.

28 5/18 Hanna Heman Don’t cut funding for civilian review board. No more money for policing.

29 5/18 Paula Beady Create a private based relief fund for undocumented people impacted by COVID and not more money to police. Requests money for resources that will help during the pandemic.

30 5/19 Alissa Didn’t leave question/comment

Page 11


City Council Report

Date: 5/28/2020, Item No. 2

Review and Implementation Ad Hoc Committee Monthly Report - May 2020

This report provides the City Council an update on the Review and Implementation AdHoc Committee, created by Mayor Kate Gallego on July 22, 2019. The Committee ischarged with reviewing past and current recommendations made to the City Counciland the Phoenix Police Department related to strengthening the department and therelationship between the community and public safety officers. As a note, there was nomeeting in April and thus, no monthly report.

THIS ITEM IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY.

SummaryThis report serves as the summary of the work completed for the month of May by theAd Hoc Committee. Summary reports will continue each month until the Committee’swork has been submitted for consideration by the Mayor and Council.

May 21, 2020 - Ninth meeting was held and held via WebEx format

1. Information was distributed to members:a. Minutes from March 5th meetingb. Summary of Recommendations received to date, submitted by Ad Hoc members.

2. Executive Assistant Police Chief Kurtenbach presented a status update on thePolice Department’s response to COVID-19.

3. The majority of the meeting was devoted to reviewing and discussing therecommendations submitted by the members. The categories (i.e. CommunityEngagement, Policy and Oversight, etc.) were created to help sort/cluster the inputprovided by the members.

As a result of this discussion, the following schedule was provided during the meeting(and provided next day via email) to all members:· Tuesday, May 26 - Recommendations, either revised from Ad Hoc members’

original list or first version for those members who had not submitted list by theoriginal due date of May 15th.

Page 12

Date: 5/28/2020, Item No. 2

· Wednesday, May 27 - Complete list of recommendations submitted by Ad Hocmembers will be distributed via email to all members for their review.

· Monday, June 8 - As a means to begin prioritizing the group’s recommendations,each Ad Hoc member is to submit his/her top 2 recommendations for each category(i.e. Community Engagement, etc.)

· Thursday, June 11 - A complete list of recommendations showing everyone’s Top 2recommendations for each category will be distributed via email.

· Thursday, June 18 - Final Ad Hoc meeting where the recommendations will bediscussed, and consensus reached on items to move forward to Mayor and Council.

Next Steps· The intent for the final June 18, 2020 meeting will be to discuss the

recommendations, and reach consensus on items to move forward to Mayor andCouncil.

Responsible DepartmentThis item is submitted by Assistant City Managers Deanna Jonovich and MiltonDohoney, Jr. and the City Manager's Office.

Page 13


City Council Report

Date: 5/28/2020, Item No. 3

City Update on COVID-19 and the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act

This report provides the City Council with an update on COVID-19 expenditures and all known Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act Funding opportunities.

SummaryOn March 27, 2020 the CARES Act was signed into law to address the economic fallout resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. The bill is the largest economic bill in United States History totaling over $2.1 trillion. The purpose of this report is to provide City Council with a regular update on the city's efforts to track expenses related to COVID-19 and to provide updated summaries on all CARES Act funding that the city is eligible for, has applied for and has received to date. Due to timing, individual grant applications and requests for disbursement will be brought forward as necessary. Staff will also seek City Council direction and approval as needed. Below is a general overview of CARES Act funding to date based on information received from each of the respective departments.

Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF) for States and CitiesThe CARES Act provides different types of funding for which local governments can apply for funding to offset COVID-19 related expenses. Budget and Research, Finance, and Government Relations are providing guidance to departments on tracking expenditures related to the Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF) so that we may seek reimbursement from the City's allocation of funding, which was $293 million. The CRF is intended to cover only those costs that are necessary expenditures incurred due to the public health emergency with respect to COVID-19 and that were not accounted for in the budget. Attachments A and B from the U.S. Treasury Department provides some preliminary guidance as to what is allowable under this fund.

At the May 5, 2020 City Council Policy Meeting, City Council approved a plan to allocate the CRF on a number of projects related to the health and safety of residents, small business assistance, and other social assistance programs. Attachment C provides additional information on the CRF Strategic Plan as approved and revised by City Council on May 19, 2020.

Page 14

Date: 5/28/2020, Item No. 3

Attachment D illustrates the COVID-19 related expenses as of May 22, 2020. This information will be updated on a weekly basis. The "actual" column represents the amount that has been paid to vendors. The "purchase order" column reflects the total of all orders that have been placed. The City may or may not actually receive these orders If the orders are not received, the "purchase order" will be liquidated and not result in an actual expense. Currently, the Finance Department is aggressively placing orders for personal protective equipment so that staff will have the resources needed to safely perform their jobs. To date, the City has over $14.6 million in purchase orders related to COVID-19 and approximately $4.1 million has been paid for goods or services rendered or received.

AviationThe Aviation Department has been granted approximately $148 million in CARES Act Funding from the Department of Transportation (DOT). Per DOT guidance this funding is available to be used on any lawful airport purpose. Funds are currently available upon receipt of reimbursement request and required backup materials. **Update** The Aviation Department has also applied for $10.3 million in funds from the CARES Act Airport Improvement Program. The projects, already scheduled as part of Phoenix Sky Harbor operations, includes demolition of Terminal 2 and the reconstruction of the apron around the terminal. The application was submitted on May 18.

FireThe Fire Department has submitted a grant application for $1 million for the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) Program. The objectives of the AFG program are to provide critically needed resources that equip personnel to respond to the COVID-19 public health emergency and to support community resilience. Applications were due by May 15, 2020. Fire has also received approximately $131,000 in CARES Act Provider Relief funds from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. No application was necessary for these funds as it was based on Medicare billing from 2018.

HousingThe Housing Department has received approximately $12.3 million in CARES Act funding from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The funding is intended to provide Public Housing Authorities (PHA) with the funding necessary to maintain normal operations while the program is being impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. The department also received a supplemental allocation in the amount of$440K from HUD to increase the level of safe, stable housing for persons living with HIV/AIDS and their household members by providing rental and utility assistance and

Page 15

Date: 5/28/2020, Item No. 3

other short-term lodging assistance. On April 21, 2020 City Council approved a detailed Homeless Action Plan that outlined how these funds would be used to address homelessness, affordable housing and rent and utility assistance where applicable.

Human ServicesThe Human Services Department has received over $2.3 million in CARES Act funding from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Arizona Department of Housing (ADOH), the Arizona Community Action Agency (Wildfire), and the Area Agency on Aging. The funding received from HHS ($1 million) is intended to assist Head Start Aged children and families with educational opportunities or impairments resulting from COVID-19. The funding from ADOH and the Arizona Community Action Agency ($800K) is will be used to provide utility and rent assistance to individuals and families struggling to pay their bills due to COVID-19 circumstances. Funding ($500K) from the Area Agency on Aging is intended to provide assistance to homebound and disabled seniors.

Neighborhood ServicesNeighborhood Services has received approximately $9.8 million in Community Development Block Grant Funding from HUD. These funds are to be used to prevent, prepare for, and respond to the Coronavirus. On April 21, 2020 City Council approved a detailed Homeless Action Plan that outlined how these funds would be used to address homelessness, affordable housing and rent and utility assistance where applicable.

Parks and RecreationThe Parks and Recreation Department has applied for approximately $2,500 in funding from the Arc of Arizona with funds provided by the Arizona Developmental Disabilities Planning Council. The funds will be used to purchase 10 tablets for day program participants with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities to engage in virtual socialization activities. **Update** The Parks and Recreation Department received notice that their application was not awarded.

PoliceThe Police Department submitted a grant application to the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) for approximately $2.6 million on behalf of themselves and the Fire Department. Funds awarded under this grant will be used to pay for overtime, personal protective equipment (PPE), training and travel expenses. Applications were due by May 29, 2020.

Page 16

Date: 5/28/2020, Item No. 3

Public TransitThe Public Transit Department has received $99.5 million in CARES Act funding from the Department of Transportation (DOT). The entire region received over $188 million in CARES Act funding from DOT. The funding is intended to provide the resources needed to continue operations which are provided by external contractors. The funds can also be used to cover necessary security costs.

Responsible DepartmentThis item is submitted by City Manager Ed Zuercher and the Budget and Research Department.

Page 17

Coronavirus Relief Fund Guidance for State, Territorial, Local, and Tribal Governments

April 22, 2020

The purpose of this document is to provide guidance to recipients of the funding available under section 601(a) of the Social Security Act, as added by section 5001 of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act”). The CARES Act established the Coronavirus Relief Fund (the “Fund”) and appropriated $150 billion to the Fund. Under the CARES Act, the Fund is to be used to make payments for specified uses to States and certain local governments; the District of Columbia and U.S. Territories (consisting of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands); and Tribal governments.

The CARES Act provides that payments from the Fund may only be used to cover costs that—

1. are necessary expenditures incurred due to the public health emergency with respect tothe Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID–19);

2. were not accounted for in the budget most recently approved as of March 27, 2020 (thedate of enactment of the CARES Act) for the State or government; and

3. were incurred during the period that begins on March 1, 2020, and ends on December 30,2020.1

The guidance that follows sets forth the Department of the Treasury’s interpretation of these limitations on the permissible use of Fund payments.

Necessary expenditures incurred due to the public health emergency

The requirement that expenditures be incurred “due to” the public health emergency means that expenditures must be used for actions taken to respond to the public health emergency. These may include expenditures incurred to allow the State, territorial, local, or Tribal government to respond directly to the emergency, such as by addressing medical or public health needs, as well as expenditures incurred to respond to second-order effects of the emergency, such as by providing economic support to those suffering from employment or business interruptions due to COVID-19-related business closures.

Funds may not be used to fill shortfalls in government revenue to cover expenditures that would not otherwise qualify under the statute. Although a broad range of uses is allowed, revenue replacement is not a permissible use of Fund payments.

The statute also specifies that expenditures using Fund payments must be “necessary.” The Department of the Treasury understands this term broadly to mean that the expenditure is reasonably necessary for its intended use in the reasonable judgment of the government officials responsible for spending Fund payments.

Costs not accounted for in the budget most recently approved as of March 27, 2020

The CARES Act also requires that payments be used only to cover costs that were not accounted for in the budget most recently approved as of March 27, 2020. A cost meets this requirement if either (a) the cost cannot lawfully be funded using a line item, allotment, or allocation within that budget or (b) the cost

1 See Section 601(d) of the Social Security Act, as added by section 5001 of the CARES Act.

1

Attachment A

Page 18

is for a substantially different use from any expected use of funds in such a line item, allotment, or allocation.

The “most recently approved” budget refers to the enacted budget for the relevant fiscal period for the particular government, without taking into account subsequent supplemental appropriations enacted or other budgetary adjustments made by that government in response to the COVID-19 public health emergency. A cost is not considered to have been accounted for in a budget merely because it could be met using a budgetary stabilization fund, rainy day fund, or similar reserve account.

Costs incurred during the period that begins on March 1, 2020, and ends on December 30, 2020

A cost is “incurred” when the responsible unit of government has expended funds to cover the cost.

Nonexclusive examples of eligible expenditures

Eligible expenditures include, but are not limited to, payment for: 1. Medical expenses such as:

• COVID-19-related expenses of public hospitals, clinics, and similar facilities. • Expenses of establishing temporary public medical facilities and other measures to increase

COVID-19 treatment capacity, including related construction costs. • Costs of providing COVID-19 testing, including serological testing. • Emergency medical response expenses, including emergency medical transportation, related

to COVID-19. • Expenses for establishing and operating public telemedicine capabilities for COVID-19-

related treatment. 2. Public health expenses such as:

• Expenses for communication and enforcement by State, territorial, local, and Tribal governments of public health orders related to COVID-19.

• Expenses for acquisition and distribution of medical and protective supplies, including sanitizing products and personal protective equipment, for medical personnel, police officers, social workers, child protection services, and child welfare officers, direct service providers for older adults and individuals with disabilities in community settings, and other public health or safety workers in connection with the COVID-19 public health emergency.

• Expenses for disinfection of public areas and other facilities, e.g., nursing homes, in response to the COVID-19 public health emergency.

• Expenses for technical assistance to local authorities or other entities on mitigation of COVID-19-related threats to public health and safety.

• Expenses for public safety measures undertaken in response to COVID-19. • Expenses for quarantining individuals.

3. Payroll expenses for public safety, public health, health care, human services, and similar employees whose services are substantially dedicated to mitigating or responding to the COVID-19 public health emergency.

2

Page 19

4. Expenses of actions to facilitate compliance with COVID-19-related public health measures, such as: • Expenses for food delivery to residents, including, for example, senior citizens and other

vulnerable populations, to enable compliance with COVID-19 public health precautions. • Expenses to facilitate distance learning, including technological improvements, in connection

with school closings to enable compliance with COVID-19 precautions. • Expenses to improve telework capabilities for public employees to enable compliance with

COVID-19 public health precautions. • Expenses of providing paid sick and paid family and medical leave to public employees to

enable compliance with COVID-19 public health precautions. • COVID-19-related expenses of maintaining state prisons and county jails, including as relates

to sanitation and improvement of social distancing measures, to enable compliance with COVID-19 public health precautions.

• Expenses for care for homeless populations provided to mitigate COVID-19 effects and enable compliance with COVID-19 public health precautions.

5. Expenses associated with the provision of economic support in connection with the COVID-19 public health emergency, such as: • Expenditures related to the provision of grants to small businesses to reimburse the costs of

business interruption caused by required closures. • Expenditures related to a State, territorial, local, or Tribal government payroll support

program. • Unemployment insurance costs related to the COVID-19 public health emergency if such

costs will not be reimbursed by the federal government pursuant to the CARES Act or otherwise.

6. Any other COVID-19-related expenses reasonably necessary to the function of government that satisfy the Fund’s eligibility criteria.

Nonexclusive examples of ineligible expenditures2 The following is a list of examples of costs that would not be eligible expenditures of payments from the Fund.

1. Expenses for the State share of Medicaid.3

2. Damages covered by insurance. 3. Payroll or benefits expenses for employees whose work duties are not substantially dedicated to

mitigating or responding to the COVID-19 public health emergency.

2 In addition, pursuant to section 5001(b) of the CARES Act, payments from the Fund may not be expended for an elective abortion or on research in which a human embryo is destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death. The prohibition on payment for abortions does not apply to an abortion if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest; or in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed. Furthermore, no government which receives payments from the Fund may discriminate against a health care entity on the basis that the entity does not provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions. 3 See 42 C.F.R. § 433.51 and 45 C.F.R. § 75.306.

3

Page 20

4. Expenses that have been or will be reimbursed under any federal program, such as the reimbursement by the federal government pursuant to the CARES Act of contributions by States to State unemployment funds.

5. Reimbursement to donors for donated items or services. 6. Workforce bonuses other than hazard pay or overtime. 7. Severance pay. 8. Legal settlements.

4

Page 21

1

Coronavirus Relief Fund Frequently Asked Questions Updated as of May 4, 2020

The following answers to frequently asked questions supplement Treasury’s Coronavirus Relief Fund (“Fund”) Guidance for State, Territorial, Local, and Tribal Governments, dated April 22, 2020, (“Guidance”).1 Amounts paid from the Fund are subject to the restrictions outlined in the Guidance and set forth in section 601(d) of the Social Security Act, as added by section 5001 of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act”).

Eligible Expenditures

Are governments required to submit proposed expenditures to Treasury for approval?

No. Governments are responsible for making determinations as to what expenditures are necessary due to the public health emergency with respect to COVID-19 and do not need to submit any proposed expenditures to Treasury.

The Guidance says that funding can be used to meet payroll expenses for public safety, public health, health care, human services, and similar employees whose services are substantially dedicated to mitigating or responding to the COVID-19 public health emergency. How does a government determine whether payroll expenses for a given employee satisfy the “substantially dedicated” condition?

The Fund is designed to provide ready funding to address unforeseen financial needs and risks created by the COVID-19 public health emergency. For this reason, and as a matter of administrative convenience in light of the emergency nature of this program, a State, territorial, local, or Tribal government may presume that payroll costs for public health and public safety employees are payments for services substantially dedicated to mitigating or responding to the COVID-19 public health emergency, unless the chief executive (or equivalent) of the relevant government determines that specific circumstances indicate otherwise.

The Guidance says that a cost was not accounted for in the most recently approved budget if the cost is for a substantially different use from any expected use of funds in such a line item, allotment, or allocation. What would qualify as a “substantially different use” for purposes of the Fund eligibility?

Costs incurred for a “substantially different use” include, but are not necessarily limited to, costs of personnel and services that were budgeted for in the most recently approved budget but which, due entirely to the COVID-19 public health emergency, have been diverted to substantially different functions. This would include, for example, the costs of redeploying corrections facility staff to enable compliance with COVID-19 public health precautions through work such as enhanced sanitation or enforcing social distancing measures; the costs of redeploying police to support management and enforcement of stay-at-home orders; or the costs of diverting educational support staff or faculty to develop online learning capabilities, such as through providing information technology support that is not part of the staff or faculty’s ordinary responsibilities.

Note that a public function does not become a “substantially different use” merely because it is provided from a different location or through a different manner. For example, although developing online

1 The Guidance is available at https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/Coronavirus-Relief-Fund-Guidance-for-State-Territorial-Local-and-Tribal-Governments.pdf.

Attachment B

Page 22

https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/Coronavirus-Relief-Fund-Guidance-for-State-Territorial-Local-and-Tribal-Governments.pdfhttps://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/Coronavirus-Relief-Fund-Guidance-for-State-Territorial-Local-and-Tribal-Governments.pdf

2

instruction capabilities may be a substantially different use of funds, online instruction itself is not a substantially different use of public funds than classroom instruction. May a State receiving a payment transfer funds to a local government?

Yes, provided that the transfer qualifies as a necessary expenditure incurred due to the public health emergency and meets the other criteria of section 601(d) of the Social Security Act. Such funds would be subject to recoupment by the Treasury Department if they have not been used in a manner consistent with section 601(d) of the Social Security Act.

May a unit of local government receiving a Fund payment transfer funds to another unit of government?

Yes. For example, a county may transfer funds to a city, town, or school district within the county and a county or city may transfer funds to its State, provided that the transfer qualifies as a necessary expenditure incurred due to the public health emergency and meets the other criteria of section 601(d) of the Social Security Act outlined in the Guidance. For example, a transfer from a county to a constituent city would not be permissible if the funds were intended to be used simply to fill shortfalls in government revenue to cover expenditures that would not otherwise qualify as an eligible expenditure.

Is a Fund payment recipient required to transfer funds to a smaller, constituent unit of government within its borders?

No. For example, a county recipient is not required to transfer funds to smaller cities within the county’s borders. Are recipients required to use other federal funds or seek reimbursement under other federal programs before using Fund payments to satisfy eligible expenses? No. Recipients may use Fund payments for any expenses eligible under section 601(d) of the Social Security Act outlined in the Guidance. Fund payments are not required to be used as the source of funding of last resort. However, as noted below, recipients may not use payments from the Fund to cover expenditures for which they will receive reimbursement. Are there prohibitions on combining a transaction supported with Fund payments with other CARES Act funding or COVID-19 relief Federal funding?

Recipients will need to consider the applicable restrictions and limitations of such other sources of funding. In addition, expenses that have been or will be reimbursed under any federal program, such as the reimbursement by the federal government pursuant to the CARES Act of contributions by States to State unemployment funds, are not eligible uses of Fund payments. Are States permitted to use Fund payments to support state unemployment insurance funds generally? To the extent that the costs incurred by a state unemployment insurance fund are incurred due to the COVID-19 public health emergency, a State may use Fund payments to make payments to its respective state unemployment insurance fund, separate and apart from such State’s obligation to the unemployment insurance fund as an employer. This will permit States to use Fund payments to prevent expenses related to the public health emergency from causing their state unemployment insurance funds to become insolvent.

Page 23

3

Are recipients permitted to use Fund payments to pay for unemployment insurance costs incurred by the recipient as an employer? Yes, Fund payments may be used for unemployment insurance costs incurred by the recipient as an employer (for example, as a reimbursing employer) related to the COVID-19 public health emergency if such costs will not be reimbursed by the federal government pursuant to the CARES Act or otherwise. The Guidance states that the Fund may support a “broad range of uses” including payroll expenses for several classes of employees whose services are “substantially dedicated to mitigating or responding to the COVID-19 public health emergency.” What are some examples of types of covered employees? The Guidance provides examples of broad classes of employees whose payroll expenses would be eligible expenses under the Fund. These classes of employees include public safety, public health, health care, human services, and similar employees whose services are substantially dedicated to mitigating or responding to the COVID-19 public health emergency. Payroll and benefit costs associated with public employees who could have been furloughed or otherwise laid off but who were instead repurposed to perform previously unbudgeted functions substantially dedicated to mitigating or responding to the COVID-19 public health emergency are also covered. Other eligible expenditures include payroll and benefit costs of educational support staff or faculty responsible for developing online learning capabilities necessary to continue educational instruction in response to COVID-19-related school closures. Please see the Guidance for a discussion of what is meant by an expense that was not accounted for in the budget most recently approved as of March 27, 2020. In some cases, first responders and critical health care workers that contract COVID-19 are eligible for workers’ compensation coverage. Is the cost of this expanded workers compensation coverage eligible? Increased workers compensation cost to the government due to the COVID-19 public health emergency incurred during the period beginning March 1, 2020, and ending December 30, 2020, is an eligible expense. If a recipient would have decommissioned equipment or not renewed a lease on particular office space or equipment but decides to continue to use the equipment or to renew the lease in order to respond to the public health emergency, are the costs associated with continuing to operate the equipment or the ongoing lease payments eligible expenses? Yes. To the extent the expenses were previously unbudgeted and are otherwise consistent with section 601(d) of the Social Security Act outlined in the Guidance, such expenses would be eligible. May recipients provide stipends to employees for eligible expenses (for example, a stipend to employees to improve telework capabilities) rather than require employees to incur the eligible cost and submit for reimbursement? Expenditures paid for with payments from the Fund must be limited to those that are necessary due to the public health emergency. As such, unless the government were to determine that providing assistance in the form of a stipend is an administrative necessity, the government should provide such assistance on a reimbursement basis to ensure as much as possible that funds are used to cover only eligible expenses.

Page 24

4

May Fund payments be used for COVID-19 public health emergency recovery planning? Yes. Expenses associated with conducting a recovery planning project or operating a recovery coordination office would be eligible, if the expenses otherwise meet the criteria set forth in section 601(d) of the Social Security Act outlined in the Guidance. Are expenses associated with contact tracing eligible? Yes, expenses associated with contract tracing are eligible. To what extent may a government use Fund payments to support the operations of private hospitals? Governments may use Fund payments to support public or private hospitals to the extent that the costs are necessary expenditures incurred due to the COVID-19 public health emergency, but the form such assistance would take may differ. In particular, financial assistance to private hospitals could take the form of a grant or a short-term loan. May payments from the Fund be used to assist individuals with enrolling in a government benefit program for those who have been laid off due to COVID-19 and thereby lost health insurance? Yes. To the extent that the relevant government official determines that these expenses are necessary and they meet the other requirements set forth in section 601(d) of the Social Security Act outlined in the Guidance, these expenses are eligible. May recipients use Fund payments to facilitate livestock depopulation incurred by producers due to supply chain disruptions? Yes, to the extent these efforts are deemed necessary for public health reasons or as a form of economic support as a result of the COVID-19 health emergency. Would providing a consumer grant program to prevent eviction and assist in preventing homelessness be considered an eligible expense? Yes, assuming that the recipient considers the grants to be a necessary expense incurred due to the COVID-19 public health emergency and the grants meet the other requirements for the use of Fund payments under section 601(d) of the Social Security Act outlined in the Guidance. As a general matter, providing assistance to recipients to enable them to meet property tax requirements would not be an eligible use of funds, but exceptions may be made in the case of assistance designed to prevent foreclosures. May recipients create a “payroll support program” for public employees? Use of payments from the Fund to cover payroll or benefits expenses of public employees are limited to those employees whose work duties are substantially dedicated to mitigating or responding to the COVID-19 public health emergency. May recipients use Fund payments to cover employment and training programs for employees that have been furloughed due to the public health emergency? Yes, this would be an eligible expense if the government determined that the costs of such employment and training programs would be necessary due to the public health emergency.

Page 25

5

May recipients use Fund payments to provide emergency financial assistance to individuals and families directly impacted by a loss of income due to the COVID-19 public health emergency? Yes, if a government determines such assistance to be a necessary expenditure. Such assistance could include, for example, a program to assist individuals with payment of overdue rent or mortgage payments to avoid eviction or foreclosure or unforeseen financial costs for funerals and other emergency individual needs. Such assistance should be structured in a manner to ensure as much as possible, within the realm of what is administratively feasible, that such assistance is necessary. The Guidance provides that eligible expenditures may include expenditures related to the provision of grants to small businesses to reimburse the costs of business interruption caused by required closures. What is meant by a “small business,” and is the Guidance intended to refer only to expenditures to cover administrative expenses of such a grant program? Governments have discretion to determine what payments are necessary. A program that is aimed at assisting small businesses with the costs of business interruption caused by required closures should be tailored to assist those businesses in need of such assistance. The amount of a grant to a small business to reimburse the costs of business interruption caused by required closures would also be an eligible expenditure under section 601(d) of the Social Security Act, as outlined in the Guidance. The Guidance provides that expenses associated with the provision of economic support in connection with the public health emergency, such as expenditures related to the provision of grants to small businesses to reimburse the costs of business interruption caused by required closures, would constitute eligible expenditures of Fund payments. Would such expenditures be eligible in the absence of a stay-at-home order? Fund payments may be used for economic support in the absence of a stay-at-home order if such expenditures are determined by the government to be necessary. This may include, for example, a grant program to benefit small businesses that close voluntarily to promote social distancing measures or that are affected by decreased customer demand as a result of the COVID-19 public health emergency. May Fund payments be used to assist impacted property owners with the payment of their property taxes? Fund payments may not be used for government revenue replacement, including the provision of assistance to meet tax obligations. May Fund payments be used to replace foregone utility fees? If not, can Fund payments be used as a direct subsidy payment to all utility account holders? Fund payments may not be used for government revenue replacement, including the replacement of unpaid utility fees. Fund payments may be used for subsidy payments to electricity account holders to the extent that the subsidy payments are deemed by the recipient to be necessary expenditures incurred due to the COVID-19 public health emergency and meet the other criteria of section 601(d) of the Social Security Act outlined in the Guidance. For example, if determined to be a necessary expenditure, a government could provide grants to individuals facing economic hardship to allow them to pay their utility fees and thereby continue to receive essential services. Could Fund payments be used for capital improvement projects that broadly provide potential economic development in a community?

Page 26

6

In general, no. If capital improvement projects are not necessary expenditures incurred due to the COVID-19 public health emergency, then Fund payments may not be used for such projects. However, Fund payments may be used for the expenses of, for example, establishing temporary public medical facilities and other measures to increase COVID-19 treatment capacity or improve mitigation measures, including related construction costs. The Guidance includes workforce bonuses as an example of ineligible expenses but provides that hazard pay would be eligible if otherwise determined to be a necessary expense. Is there a specific definition of “hazard pay”? Hazard pay means additional pay for performing hazardous duty or work involving physical hardship, in each case that is related to COVID-19. The Guidance provides that ineligible expenditures include “[p]ayroll or benefits expenses for employees whose work duties are not substantially dedicated to mitigating or responding to the COVID-19 public health emergency.” Is this intended to relate only to public employees? Yes. This particular nonexclusive example of an ineligible expenditure relates to public employees. A recipient would not be permitted to pay for payroll or benefit expenses of private employees and any financial assistance (such as grants or short-term loans) to private employers are not subject to the restriction that the private employers’ employees must be substantially dedicated to mitigating or responding to the COVID-19 public health emergency. May counties pre-pay with CARES Act funds for expenses such as a one or two-year facility lease, such as to house staff hired in response to COVID-19?

A government should not make prepayments on contracts using payments from the Fund to the extent that doing so would not be consistent with its ordinary course policies and procedures.

Questions Related to Administration of Fund Payments

Do governments have to return unspent funds to Treasury?

Yes. Section 601(f)(2) of the Social Security Act, as added by section 5001(a) of the CARES Act, provides for recoupment by the Department of the Treasury of amounts received from the Fund that have not been used in a manner consistent with section 601(d) of the Social Security Act. If a government has not used funds it has received to cover costs that were incurred by December 30, 2020, as required by the statute, those funds must be returned to the Department of the Treasury. What records must be kept by governments receiving payment? A government should keep records sufficient to demonstrate that the amount of Fund payments to the government has been used in accordance with section 601(d) of the Social Security Act May recipients deposit Fund payments into interest bearing accounts? Yes, provided that if recipients separately invest amounts received from the Fund, they must use the interest earned or other proceeds of these investments only to cover expenditures incurred in accordance with section 601(d) of the Social Security Act and the Guidance on eligible expenses. If a government deposits Fund payments in a government’s general account, it may use those funds to meet immediate cash management needs provided that the full amount of the payment is used to cover necessary

Page 27

7

expenditures. Fund payments are not subject to the Cash Management Improvement Act of 1990, as amended. May governments retain assets purchased with payments from the Fund?

Yes, if the purchase of the asset was consistent with the limitations on the eligible use of funds provided by section 601(d) of the Social Security Act.

What rules apply to the proceeds of disposition or sale of assets acquired using payments from the Fund?

If such assets are disposed of prior to December 30, 2020, the proceeds would be subject to the restrictions on the eligible use of payments from the Fund provided by section 601(d) of the Social Security Act.

Page 28

1

ATTACHMENT C

City of Phoenix Coronavirus Relief Fund Strategic Plan Revised by City Council May 19, 2020

A. Community Investment - $75,000,000 B. City Expenses - $75,000,000 C. Reserve to Preserve City Services - $143,000,000

Community Investment ($75,000,000): Business and Employee Assistance - $15,700,000

- Small Business assistance (w/IDA) ($5,000,000) - Small Business Guidance ($100,000) - Restaurant Restart program ($1,000,000) - Airport small business assistance ($1,000,000) - Microenterprise ($6,000,000) - Arts & Culture ($2,600,000)

Utility & Rent/Mortgage Assistance - $30,000,000

- City water, sewer & trash, electric and natural gas utility (3 months) and rent/mortgage assistance (1 month) for individuals (up to 10,000 customers) affected by COVID-19 economic disruption ($24,000,000)

- City water & sewer assistance (3 months) for businesses affected by COVID-19 economic disruption ($6,000,000)

Distance Learning and Wi-Fi Access - $3,300,000

- Broader Wi-Fi access for students’ on-line learning o Public Housing Wi-Fi ($1,300,000) o Wifi and Digital Divide Expansion ($2,000,000)

- Community access to on-line city services & remote meeting access

Mitigation and Care for Vulnerable Populations - $10,000,000 - City Homelessness and Affordable Housing Strategy (approved 4/21) - Domestic violence impacts of COVID-19 - Refugee / Asylum seeker assistance ($3,000,000)

Food Delivery - $5,000,000 - Seniors, Schools, Food banks

Better Health Outcomes and Community Testing - $5,000,000

- Ensure broad testing, especially in underserved communities - Assist Maricopa County Public Health with contact tracing - Acquire Public Health expertise to inform City decision-making

Unallocated - $6,000,000

Page 29

2

City Expenses ($75,000,000):

Employee Testing for COVID - $6,000,000

PPE and Cleaning/Sanitizing Related to COVID - $20,000,000 - PPE for employees and customers - City facilities - Public Transit - Extra Street cleanups - COVID-19 jail costs or central booking facility expenses

Medical and Public Safety Measures for COVID - $5,000,000

- Emergency Medical Transport - Police / Fire response and enforcement of COVID-19 orders or illness - Parks & Recreation enforcement of park closures/restrictions

Payroll Expense Reimbursement/Management Oversight for COVID - $19,000,000

- COVID-19 Leave for employees - Police / Fire, Emergency Management - Human Services, Parks & Recreation, etc. - Management/accounting/Equity oversight

Telework / E-government Solutions for COVID - $15,000,000

- Telework expenses - Enhanced E-government capabilities (311 Center, video court, teleconferencing, virtual

public meetings, etc.) - 911 Telemedicine development

Public Facility Retrofit for COVID - $10,000,000

- Employee workspace and Public facility retrofit ($6,000,000) - Public Transit retrofit ($4,000,000)

Reserve to Preserve City Services ($143,000,000): To protect the City against program/employee cuts, hold for any change in Federal guidance on revenue replacement. Also available for added expenses from recurrence of COVID later in the year. Funds are available for re-assignment by the City Council to other COVID needs each month beginning in July. Follow up ideas raised by Councilmembers:

- Gated alleys / parks affected by displaced persons - Showers for individuals living near Human Services Campus - Non-profits/Refugee/Asylum seeker assistance - Assistance for city contractor employees – janitorial, airport, bus drivers, security,

landscape, convention workers - Ventilator donation - Health care navigation service - Resource center for displaced workers/ Job retraining for COVID-19 response

May 19, 2020

Page 30

Type Actuals Purchase Orders Total

Computer Equipment 507,141.70$ 1,237,312.04$ 1,744,453.74$

Gloves 37,987.49 1,881,641.33 1,919,628.82

N95/KN95 Masks 1,049,161.17 2,603,250.61 3,652,411.78

Comfort Masks 695,249.05 204,207.15 899,456.20

Disinfectants/Cleaning Supplies 486,003.57 3,469,054.89 3,955,058.46

Other PPE 75,166.90 310,558.51 385,725.41

Other COVID Expenses 767,588.20 760,478.38 1,528,066.58

Security Services 15,476.64 2,475.00 17,951.64

Labor 530,751.40 - 530,751.40

Total 4,164,526.12$ 10,468,977.91$ 14,633,504.03$

COVID 19 Expenditures by Type - 05/22/2020

Attachment D

Page 31


City Council Report

Date: 5/28/2020, Item No. 4

For Transmittal, Minutes of the Policy Session Meeting on April 21, 2020

SummaryThis item transmits the Minutes of the Policy Session on April 21, 2020.

The Minutes are attached for review as Attachment A.

Responsible DepartmentThis item is submitted by the City Manager's Office.

Page 32

City of Phoenix Meeting Location:City Council Chambers200 W. Jefferson St.

Phoenix, Arizona 85003Minutes

City Council Policy Session

2:30 PM phoenix.govTuesday, April 21, 2020

CALL TO ORDER

The Phoenix City Council convened in Policy Session on Tuesday, April 21,

2020 at 2:49 p.m. in the Council Chambers.

Councilman Sal DiCiccio, Councilmember Carlos Garcia,

Councilman Michael Nowakowski, Councilwoman Laura

Pastor, Councilwoman Debra Stark, Councilman Jim

Waring, Councilwoman Thelda Williams, Vice Mayor

Betty Guardado and Mayor Kate Gallego

Present: 9 -

CALL FOR AN EXECUTIVE SESSION

Vice Mayor Guardado made a motion to meet in Executive Session on April 23, 2020 at

1:00 p.m. and to change the time of the Policy Session on April 23, 2020 to 2:30 p.m.

Councilwoman Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously, 9-0.

REPORTS AND BUDGET UPDATES BY THE CITY MANAGER

There was no report for today's meeting.

DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION (ITEM 1)

1 COVID-19 Pandemic

A. Update on City's Response Efforts to COVID-19

Milton Dohoney, Jr., Assistant City Manager

B. COVID-19 Homelessness and Social Services Strategy

Deanna Jonovich, Assistant City Manager

Marchelle Franklin, Human Services Department Director

Spencer Self, Neighborhood Services Department Director

Cindy Stotler, Housing Department Director

City of Phoenix Page 1

ATTACHMENT A

Page 33

City Council Policy Session Minutes April 21, 2020

THIS ITEM IS FOR DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION.

Mayor Gallego introduced Assistant City Manager Milton Dohoney, Jr. to

present an update on the City’s response efforts to COVID-19.

Mr. Dohoney began by explaining the Phoenix Convention Center is

being used as a warehouse to store supplies and provide an organized

method for receiving shipments for the entire region.

Mr. Dohoney shared the new process for hosting virtual Planning and

Development Department meetings has been implemented. He then

displayed a tutorial video that explains how community members can

participate.

Mr. Dohoney explained the Police Academy has started to pilot remote

learning with the current class which has allowed training to continue.

Mr. Dohoney stated Arizona State University's (ASU) Biodesign

Department has offered COVID-19 testing for first responders. He

explained the voluntary test would determine if the individual has

COVID-19. He emphasized the testing, which is supported by both the

Fire and Police Chiefs as well as all three labor organizations, is being

offered at no cost to the City and will be available to symptomatic and

asymptomatic individuals.

Mr. Dohoney further explained ASU is offering COVID-19 testing to

public safety personnel as they are a high-risk group and the results

would offer insights into COVID-19 penetration into the broader

community.

Mr. Dohoney continued to discuss the City’s reopening strategy. He

explained a 13-member work group has been established to manage the

coordination, reopening guidelines have been issued and preliminary

discussions with departments have begun. He further explained the

prioritized implementation will be triggered by Council direction on topics

such as space redesign, social distancing and extended teleworking.

Councilman Nowakowski asked about the possibility of implementing

drive-through testing and additional health services in Laveen. Mr.


Page 34


Dohoney shared the City does not have the capacity to increase testing,

however staff could try to work with the healthcare system to set-up

additional testing services.

Mayor Gallego stated she has contacted Walgreens and asked them to

set up additional testing sites in Phoenix, specifically along public transit

routes.

Vice Mayor Guardado explained a letter was written to the Treasury

Department to advocate that COVID-19 relief funding have an allowable

use of revenue recovery. She invited interested Councilmembers to sign

the letter.

Vice Mayor Guardado asked who would be included in the 13-member

working group. Mr. Dohoney responded the 13 members would be

representatives from departments included in incident command that are

needed to devise the re-opening strategy.

Vice Mayor Guardado suggested that a re-opening advisory committee

consisting of doctors and medical professionals be created. Mr.

Dohoney recommended using the advisory committee to provide

suggestions on policy direction to the Council.

Councilman Nowakowski agreed with creating a task force of community

members and experts from each district to advise on re-opening policy.

He also thanked Community and Economic Development Department

staff and the Phoenix IDA for supporting small businesses.

Councilman DiCiccio shared there is not enough time to create a task

force due to the state of the economy. He advocated for opening the

entire economy on May 1, 2020 with appropriate social distancing

practices and then revaluating on June 1, 2020.

Councilwoman Pastor stated it is important to be mindful when opening

the economy and implement appropriate social distancing procedures.

Mayor Gallego provided an overview of homelessness efforts and

recognized City partners for combating homelessness. She introduced


Page 35


Assistant City Manager Deanna Jonovich to present on C.A.R.E.S. Act

funding and the proposed COVID-19 homelessness response plan. Ms.

Jonovich introduced Housing Director Cindy Stotler, Neighborhood

Services Director Spencer Self and Human Services Director Marchelle

Franklin to assist with the presentation.

Ms. Jonovich explained, due to COVID-19, the City will be receiving an

additional $26 million in Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Federal

funding sources, including Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG),

Community Development Block Grants (CBDG), Housing Opportunities

for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA), Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher

Program, and Public Housing Program.

Ms. Jonovich stated the COVID-19 homelessness response plan will

utilize $4.9 million of the additional ESG and $4 million of the additional

CDBG funding. She emphasized the number of unsheltered individuals

experiencing homelessness in the City has increased by 18 percent in

2020. Ms. Jonovich then provided an overview of the efforts by Maricopa

County and Circle the City to support homeless individuals.

Ms. Jonovich shared the homeless interventions of emergency shelter,

rapid rehousing, permanent supportive housing and Veteran Affairs

Supportive Housing (VASH) will be implemented across the homeless

populations of seniors, families, single women, single men and the youth.

She then described how the funding would be allocated to each of these

interventions in each population.

Ms. Jonovich summarized the proposed interventions would serve 200

families and 555 individuals. Additionally, the COVID-19 homelessness

response plan would cost $9.4 million and be funded with $8.9 million of

the additional CDBG and ESG funding.

Ms. Stotler explained $11.9 million of the additional HUD funding will be

allocated towards HOPWA, the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher

Program and the Public Housing Program. She then provided an

explanation of how the funding would be used within each program.

Mr. Self shared the additional CDBG funding granted to the City can be


Page 36


used to prevent, prepare for and respond to COVID-19. He expanded to

explain the remaining $5.8 million will be used to provide funding for

microenterprise grants and/or loans, non-profit grants and/or loans, low-

and moderate-income residents to shelter-in-place, and planning,

capacity building and technical assistance. He concluded by providing

details on how the funding would be used within each of these categories

and providing next steps.

Ms. Jonovich stated staff is seeking Council approval for COVID-19

homelessness response plan utilizing $4.9 million in ESG funding and $4

million in CDBG funding, and authorization to approve the remaining

COVID-19 funding and use as presented including $5.8 million in CDBG

and $11.9 million in HUD funding.

Councilwoman Stark asked if homeless individuals around Central

Arizona Shelter Services (CASS) will be offered a spot in the Maricopa

County lots and if handwashing stations and restrooms will be available.

Ms. Jonovich responded Maricopa County will begin by moving 38

vulnerable individuals to the lots, and will be able to serve approximately

150 individuals. Additionally, handwashing stations and bathrooms will be

available. Once individuals are relocated to the lots, a deep cleaning will

occur of the area around CASS.

Ms. Jonovich also explained the 100-room hotel shelter would be used to

move the most vulnerable individuals out of CASS and the area

surrounding CASS.

Councilmember Garcia advocated staff with public health expertise be

hired, and that greater sensitivity be used when conducting cleanups and

sweeps. He also asked if there is a specific population that homeless

LGBTQ, undocumented and domestic violence survivors are included in

as part of the response plan. Finally, he asked if the Section 8 vouchers

included in the plan are part of the City's original allocation or are

additional vouchers.

Ms. Jonovich responded staff can work with partners to identify additional

vulnerable populations in need. She clarified 100 would be the minimum

number of individuals that would be served in the hotel as services would


Page 37


be provided to the initial group, and after the initial group has been moved

to more permanent housing, additional individuals would be housed.

Ms. Stotler stated the VASH vouchers in the plan are part of the current

allocation, but the Section 8 vouchers came from a supply that was

previously set-aside via Council approval. Ms. Jonovich added staff can

look at COVID-19 funding to see if a public health expert can be brought

on board.

Councilmember Garcia asked for staff to investigate alternatives to using

the hotel that are long-term solutions. Ms. Jonovich responded staff can

look into additional opportunities and funding sources for long-term

housing solutions. Mr. Self added both the Neighborhood Services and

Housing departments are analyzing opportunities to acquire land to

increase the number of affordable housing units available. Ms. Jonovich

also added staff will return to the Council in June with a full plan to combat

homelessness.

Mayor Gallego shared she would be supportive of long-term solutions,

however there is a need for immediate solutions with summer coming.

Councilman Nowakowski asked if the funding for small businesses could

be allocated to areas in need, and specifically to individuals that have not

received any other type of support. Vice Mayor Guardado also shared

her support for microenterprise funding.

Councilman DiCiccio asked what happens when the funding for Section 8

vouchers runs out. Ms. Stotler responded the funding presented would

be a temporary addition as a result of voucher holder's income loss due

to COVID-19. She explained next year the program would return to

normal operations. Ms. Stotler clarified if there is a budget issue, the

vouchers would remain whole and new vouchers would not be leased.

Councilman DiCiccio asked if the program follows the Council's policy

goal of taking care of homeless veterans first. Ms. Jonovich responded

10 VASH vouchers have been allocated for single women and 40 VASH

vouchers will be allocated for single men in the plan. She shared if more

veterans are in need, additional VASH vouchers can be identified.


Page 38


Councilman DiCiccio responded additional vouchers need to be

identified as a goal of the Council was to ensure no veterans are

homeless. Ms. Jonovich shared the City will continue to identify homeless

veterans and work with Veteran Affairs (VA) to ensure that every eligible

veteran is offered a voucher.

Councilman DiCiccio requested a report on homeless veterans, including

a count and the City’s strategy to assist this population. He also

requested the motion include the directive for staff to create a phone

number in which individuals can donate. Mr. Zuercher responded staff

can create a phone number and return to Council with alternative donation

opportunities through local partners.

Councilwoman Stark made a motion to approve staff’s recommendation

in addition to developing a phone line or connection to receive donations

and to emphasize small businesses. Councilman Nowakowski seconded

the motion.

Mayor Gallego asked if the motion could include the allocation of an

additional $1 million to support shelter-in-place residents. Councilwoman

Stark and Councilman Nowakowski agreed.

Mayor Gallego asked if it is possible to work with the VA to have

additional staff members available to process VASH voucher requests.

Ms. Jonovich responded staff can investigate, however it appears

additional resources could be used.

Councilman DiCiccio suggested creating a web donation portal and the

Councilmembers could share the link via social media.

Councilwoman Pastor asked, once the plan is approved, how quickly the

interventions would be implemented. Ms. Jonovich shared the ESG

funding allows the typical procurement process to be by-passed.

However, staff is still waiting for approval of the waiver for the CBDG

funding procurement process. She stated staff is looking to return to

Council with contract amendments on May 6, 2020.


Page 39


Councilwoman Pastor asked if De Colores is one of the City’s providers.

Ms. Franklin confirmed De Colores is one of the City's domestic violence

shelter providers.

Councilwoman Pastor asked about the affordable housing initiative. Ms.

Jonovich responded staff will return to Council with the affordable

housing plan in the coming months.

Lisa Glow spoke in support of the proposed COVID-19 homelessness

response plan.

Marty Shultz recognized the efforts to support homeless individuals.

Karl Obergh provided an overview of the efforts of CASS during

COVID-19 and emphasized the importance of protecting vulnerable

homeless individuals.

Darlene Newsom discussed the efforts of UMOM and advocated that

rapid rehousing be used for families and single women.

Diana Yazzie Devine advocated for a focus on LGBTQ youth and Native

American communities.

Amy Schwabenlender emphasized the importance of housing in

healthcare and long-term strategies that reduce homelessness.

Barbara Lewkowitz spoke in support of the proposed COVID-19

homelessness response plan.

Elizabeth Venable expressed concerns regarding access to the County

lots and General Fund monies not being allocated to combat

homelessness.

Nico Howard advocated for the Council to support the proposed

COVID-19 homelessness response plan and asked for funding to

support the services provided at CASS.

Craig Tribken spoke in support of the proposed COVID-19


Page 40


homelessness response plan.

Elishyah McKinley advocated for additional housing for elderly individuals.

Angela Ojile inquired how the County lots will be staffed, regulated and

kept clean.

Chris Abert stated individuals need access to housing without barriers.

Bill Morlan urged for the Council to establish a place for homeless

individuals and suggested a shade covering be installed over the lots.

Christian Clark spoke in support of housing first programs.

Councilmember Garcia asked about shelter barriers, and if they could be

removed during COVID-19. Ms. Jonovich shared each provider has

different requirements to receive services. Ms. Franklin added the

requirements are based upon how services are delivered. However, she

clarified both the largest family and singles facility are considered

low-barrier shelters.

Councilwoman Stark made a motion to approve staff’s

recommendation in addition to developing a phone line or connection

to receive donations and to emphasize small businesses. Councilman

Nowakowski seconded the motion. The motion carried by the

following vote:

Councilman DiCiccio, Councilmember Garcia,

Councilman Nowakowski, Councilwoman Pastor,

Councilwoman Stark, Councilman Waring,

Councilwoman Williams, Vice Mayor Guardado and

Mayor Gallego

Yes: 9 -

No: 0

ADJOURNThere being no further business to come before the Council, Mayor Gallego

declared the meeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m.

For further information, please call the Management Intern, City Manager's Office, at 602-262-4449. City of Phoenix Page 9

Page 41


City Council Report

Date: 5/28/2020, Item No. 5

For Transmittal, Minutes of the Policy Session Meeting on April 23, 2020

SummaryThis item transmits the Minutes of the Policy Session on April 23, 2020.

The Minutes are attached for review as Attachment A.

Responsible DepartmentThis item is submitted by the City Manager's Office.

Page 42

City of Phoenix Meeting Location:City Council Chambers200 W. Jefferson St.

Phoenix, Arizona 85003Minutes

City Council Policy Session

2:30 PM phoenix.govThursday, April 23, 2020

CALL TO ORDER

The Phoenix City Council convened in Policy Session on Thursday, April, 23,

2020 at 2:35 p.m. in the Council Chambers.

Councilman Sal DiCiccio, Councilmember Carlos Garcia,

Councilman Michael Nowakowski, Councilwoman Laura

Pastor, Councilwoman Debra Stark, Councilman Jim

Waring, Councilwoman Thelda Williams, Vice Mayor

Betty Guardado and Mayor Kate Gallego

Present: 9 -

Note: Councilman Nowakowski joined the meeting during the first presentation.

CALL FOR AN EXECUTIVE SESSION

Vice Mayor Guardado made a motion to meet in Executive Session on April 28,

2020 and April 30, 2020 at 1:00 p.m. and to move the Policy Sessions on April

28, 2020 and April 30, 2020 to 2:30 p.m. Councilwoman Stark seconded the

motion which passed unanimously, 8-0.

REPORTS AND BUDGET UPDATES BY THE CITY MANAGER

There was no report for today's meeting.

DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION (ITEM 1)

1 COVID-19 Pandemic

A. Update on City's Response Efforts to COVID-19

Milton Dohoney, Jr., Assistant City Manager

B. Census Update

Frank McCune, Government Relations Director

Albert Santana, Census 2020 Director


ATTACHMENT A

Page 43


C. Update on Public Transit Operations

Mario Paniagua, Deputy City Manager

Jesus Sapien, Public Transit Director

THIS ITEM IS FOR DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION.

Mayor Gallego introduced Government Relations Director Frank McCune

to present an update on the 2020 Census efforts. Mr. McCune introduced

Census Director Albert Santana to assist with the presentation.

Mr. Santana began by stating the 2020 Census began on March 12,

2020. However, due to COVID-19, the 2020 Census now concludes on

October 31, 2020. He explained five reminders will still be sent to

residents by the end of April, however the Census Bureau has

suspended door knocking, office work and processing until June 2020.

Additionally, the delivery dates of the final count to the President and

redistricting counts have been pushed later into 2021.

Mr. Santana explained how to respond to the census via the internet and

phone. He also shared after April 8, 2020, paper forms were sent to

households that had not yet responded.

Mr. Santana stated the City currently has a response rate of 50.5 percent,

which is the third highest response rate compared to cities with a

population over one million residents, as well as presented data on the

response rates of other Valley cities. He explained the data can be used

to identify census districts with low response rates in order to allocate

additional resources where needed.

Note: Councilman Nowakowski joined the meeting.

Mr. Santana explained the current environment of social distancing,

postponement of grassroots efforts, remote working and low traffic

volume has resulted in census efforts pivoting. He provided an overview

of the media outreach and community engagement components of the

COVID-19 pivot plan.

Mr. Santana described the call to action requests the Mayor and Council


Page 44


advocate for census participation in their newsletters, on talk shows, at

virtual neighborhood meetings or town hall meetings, and on social

media. He explained staff will provide each Councilmember with a

census toolkit that contains information in multiple languages that is ready

to be shared with the public.

Councilwoman Stark shared there is a parade in Sunnyslope this

weekend and a census van will be participating.

Mayor Gallego shared a recent study found that approximately half of

Latino residents still believe there is a citizenship question included on

the census. She welcomed ideas from the Council on how to educate the

community that the citizenship question is not included.

Councilmember Garcia suggested including education on the importance

of the census in COVID-19 efforts. He also suggested another

brainstorming session or WebEx Ad Hoc Committee meeting be held.

Vice Mayor Guardado asked how many phone calls have been made to

residents and suggested placing more television commercials on

Univision or Telemundo as residents are at home more due to

COVID-19. She also suggested holding a telethon. Mr. Santana stated

staff will connect with Univision, Telemundo and other media partners to

educate the public on the confidentiality and importance of the census.

Councilman Nowakowski stated the importance of helping residents,

especially seniors, walk through the process to complete the census. He

also suggested reaching out to the City’s public housing residents to

increase response rates. Mr. Zuercher responded the City has

caseworkers who reach out to families and seniors on a weekly basis.

Within this outreach, the caseworkers can incorporate census messaging

regularly.

Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua introduced Public Transit Director

Jesus Sapien to present the Public Transit Department’s COVID-19

response and proposed next steps.

Mr. Sapien began by sharing enhanced cleanings of buses, light rail,


Page 45


dial-a-ride and transit facilities began on March 4, 2020. He also shared

the following Council-approved social distancing measures were

implemented: bus passenger limits; rear door boarding; driver’s area

separated with plexiglass on all buses; no seating next to light rail

operator's cab; contractors distributing protective personal equipment

(PPE) to all employees and hand sanitizer available on all vehicles.

Mr. Sapien displayed the COVID-19 passenger messaging in both

English and Spanish that has been used on websites, social media,

signage and on-board.

Mr. Sapien explained there has been a ridership decline across the entire

system and as a result, service reductions have occurred. On April 6,

2020, reduced frequency of RAPID and Express commuter bus routes

was implemented, and on April 11, 2020 Valley Metro modified light rail

hours.

Mr. Sapein then discussed additional changes to public transit that can be

implemented, including: mirroring the availability of the workforce;

ensuring bus trips can be assigned where they are the most needed;

tackling budget challenges and implementing long-term safety solutions.

Mr. Sapien presented the proposed reductions to bus operating hours of

suspending service after 11:00 p.m. and beginning the service day an

hour later. He explained the proposed reductions would impact the hours

with the least ridership, are supported by the operators’ union and

contractors, give contractors flexibility with their personnel and resources,

and save approximately $300,000 per week.

Mr. Sapien stated staff has researched adding permanent bus operator

shields to existing and future vehicles to provide a layer of protection for

drivers. He explained staff will continue to look into issuing a solicitation to

obtain equipment and installation services for the shields.

Mr. Paniagua concluded by stating staff seeks Council approval to

suspend bus service after 11:00 p.m. and shift the start time to one hour

later beginning on May 4, 2020, and to identify procurement options for

permanent driver safety shields.


Page 46


Councilwoman Williams asked if staff has found routes that have high

ridership after 11 p.m. Mr. Sapien responded declines in ridership have

occurred across the board.

Councilwoman Williams asked if newer buses could be retrofitted with

the safety shields before the older buses as the older buses may be

replaced sooner. Mr. Sapien confirmed this could occur.

Councilwoman Williams made a motion to approve staff’s

recommendations. Councilwoman Stark seconded the motion.

Councilmember Garcia asked about returning to regular hours, and if the

contract with the contractor will be affected. Mr. Sapien responded the

City pays for every mile that the contractor operates. However, he

explained the contractor is experiencing a high-number of staff

general information packet thursday, may 28, 2020 council meeting files/5-28... · general...

Documents