County now requires masks
Supervisors vote to mandate face coverings to stop growing spread of COVID-19
Maricopa County took the lead in sending a clear message to every resident in the county: Wear a mask no matter what city, town or unincorporated area you live in.
The County Board of Supervisors, which voted unanimously late Friday, said it acted because the number of reported COVID-19 cases continues to climb.
The supervisors and other local leaders across Arizona over the past week debated the practical issues of enforcement, the philosophical issues of individual liberty and personal responsibility and the reality that more people are
getting sick.
Many cities and towns across metro Phoenix already had enacted their own mandates requiring face coverings in public, but a few had not. Cave Creek, El Mirage and Fountain Hills had opted against a mask mandate. Mesa, Goodyear and Buckeye hadn’t acted yet, but were expected to in the coming days.
For cities such as Phoenix, Glendale and Scottsdale, which already had required face coverings, the county proclamation doesn’t change much.
The county’s mask ordinance, like the others, is designed to emphasize the need for face coverings and community collaboration. Punishments are minimal. If people repeatedly refuse to wear a mask, they can be fined up to $50, according to the county proclamation.
Meanwhile, COVID-19 continues to spread aggressively. There were 25,945 reported cases and 585 deaths in Maricopa County as of Friday, according to the county. In the past two weeks, the number of new cases reported each day has increased dramatically from 137 new cases reported on June 1 to 2,055 new cases on June 19.
Marcy Flanagan, director of Maricopa County’s Department of Public Health, which recommended that the county implement a countywide policy, told the supervisors that more people would die if the county did not take steps to mitigate the spread of the virus.
“The reality of what’s at risk is more lives lost of Maricopa County residents,” she said. “When everybody is not in this together and protecting our community as a whole, the spread is going to continue.”
Maricopa County Supervisor Clint Hickman said he usually is a proponent of local control and originally pushed for a mandate that would only apply to county land, but he felt the county needed to set an example for cities and towns that weren’t taking as strong a stance on the issue.
The order took effect at midnight Saturday and will remain in effect until revised or repealed by the board.
Pima County on Friday passed a similar countywide mask mandate.
What did the county mandate?
The county mandate requires anyone age 6 and older to wear a face covering while inside a “place of public accommodation,” including grocery stores and other retail shops, hotels, restaurants and bars, gyms and on public transportation. The mandate also requires masks in communal outdoor areas such as sidewalks.
Adults with children between the ages of 2 and 5 must take reasonable steps to cover their faces inside public accommodations.
Employees who interact with the public or other staff members must wear masks.
The mandate makes exemptions for children under 2 years old and people with certain health conditions. People exercising outdoors may go without a mask if physical distancing is maintained.
Public safety personnel are not required to wear a mask if it limits their ability to carry out their work, and anyone complying with directions from public safety personnel also are exempt.
Residents are encouraged to wear surgical or cloth masks and reserve medical-grade masks for health care workers and first responders. Valve masks, which include a small plastic cylinder on the front to help with breathing, do not comply with the county requirements.
County’s authority on public health
Maricopa County has broad authority to enforce measures related to public health and enact regulations to curb the spread of disease in the community under state law and the county charter, according to its proclamation.
County leaders, however, appeared to hedge their bets. The document notes that if a provision is deemed invalid or unconstitutional, other provisions in the regulation would stand.
The proclamation allows municipalities to enact stricter regulations, and encourages cities and towns to enact mandates. But the county measure would apply to communities that have not passed mandates, or passed less strict ones.
Maricopa County Supervisor Steve Gallardo said the county mandate is not intended for cities that already approved mask requirements; it’s for unincorporated areas and cities and towns that haven’t required face masks in public. It was passed to educate people on the importance of face masks and send a message to communities that shot down mask mandates, he said.
“They have come out and said they’re not going to have a mandatory policy. Well yeah, you are,” Gallardo said. “”We wanted to put a standardized policy, a very minimal policy, countywide … This is what, at the very minimum, should be happening.”
Gallardo said he would have preferred if Gov. Doug Ducey had implemented a statewide requirement, so Arizona communities weren’t left making a hodgepodge of rules that vary from county to county and city to city.
Ducey in a news conference on Wednesday stressed the importance of wearing a face covering as he noted the virus’s trend is moving in the wrong direction in Arizona. He authorized local communities to decide on mask mandates.
What local leaders have to say
Some city officials were aware that the county would discuss such a mandate, but others appeared caught off guard.
Local officials raced to understand how the county proclamation would affect their communities.
Fountain Hills Mayor Ginny Dickey called the Board of Supervisors’ decision a demonstration of “bipartisan leadership.”
“They took responsibility to safeguard their constituents by complementing Gov. Ducey’s order,” Dickey said. “Now both Fountain Hills employees and customers will benefit, helping the economy and health of our community members.”
Fountain Hills is a town of about 25,000 residents northeast of Phoenix.
Earlier on Friday, the Fountain Hills
Town Council had struck down a proposed mask requirement. The measure failed in a 4-3 vote after several speakers and some council members expressed concerns that the ordinance would be difficult to enforce and that it trampled on individual liberties.
Dickey had voted in favor of the mandate.
In Gilbert, with some 250,000 residents southeast of Phoenix, Mayor Jenn Daniels said the town was doing a legal analysis on the county’s new regulation. The Town Council approved an order earlier Friday that is less restrictive than the county’s.
While Gilbert’s mandate requires masks in public, there are no penalties for noncompliance. She didn’t yet know whether or how Gilbert would have to enforce the mandate.
“I don’t know what the county’s authority yet is, and I’m sure that we will be able to figure that out, we just need a little bit more time,” Daniels said.
In the end, she said Gilbert and county leaders want the same outcome. “I know for a fact that we want the same thing, which is to slow the spread of COVID ... I don’t fault them one way or the other, just like I didn’t fault the governor for kicking it to mayors.
“There’s no playbook for this. We’re all just trying to do the next right thing, and there’s going to be varying opinions on what that is.”
In Tucson, Mayor Regina Romero said on Saturday that she would revise her proclamation to align with Pima County’s recently issued mandate; her proclamation had exempted children age 2 or younger, the county’s exempts children ages 5 and younger.
She said civil penalties of $50 or five hours of community service for people who blatantly refuse to comply will remain in Tucson’s mandate. The Pima County Board of Supervisors’ order doesn’t include any penalty.
“There’s value in having a uniform policy,” she said. “At the end of the day ... people want their local governments to act for the benefit of public health. I think who does it is not important whatsoever.”
In Cave Creek, a more rural area of some 5,000 people north of Scottsdale, Mayor Ernie Bunch on Thursday had said he would not require masks, though he strongly encouraged residents to wear them to slow the spread of the virus.
He said on Friday that he’d made that call because his constituents are “fiercely independent.” Still, he said it
makes sense that the county would attempt to homogenize mask mandates throughout the region.
“It is indeed a public health issue,” Bunch said. “I’m not surprised at the actions the county has taken. It probably is the smarter move, because quite frankly, with every city doing something different, you end up with a hodgepodge of regulations.”
Not all local leaders were happy, though.
Apache Junction Mayor Jeff Serdy said he feels the county overstepped.
Serdy had said on Wednesday that the city that straddles Maricopa and Pinal counties would not adopt a mask mandate, saying “there are always going to be risks and illnesses out there” and that the decision should be “up to the individual.”
He said he was not aware that the county planned to issue a mandate, especially one that would impact other municipalities.
“I think it’s going to make tension,” he said.
He noted that every city, including Apache Junction, is different, and said multiple factors went into his choice to avoid a mask order.
“One of the reasons I didn’t make the decision was because I didn’t want to put the Police Department in situations,” he said. “This is going to set up possibly hundreds or thousands of domestic situations where they have to insert themselves just to question if someone has a mask or not. It’s going to make bad feelings.”
Serdy said he will begin to let his constituents know about Maricopa County’s mandate, although he does not agree with it.
Who will enforce this?
A county statement says “enforcement is the responsibility of law enforcement.”
County spokesman Fields Moseley said the Sheriff’s Office would enforce the regulations in unincorporated areas and in municipalities that contract with the Sheriff’s Office.
Maricopa County Sheriff Paul Penzone issued a statement that he would decide how to legally execute the county’s mandate “once we receive the language and a legal review of Constitutionality from the County Attorney’s Office ... Any enforcement will be contingent on complainant’s request, public safety priorities and availability of resources.”
Penzone said the main object won’t be enforcement, “but collaboration with the community and the best interest of public health.”
Most city mandates, as well as the county’s, focus on education.
Phoenix police Chief Jeri Williams said on Friday that officers will only respond to complaints; they won’t patrol the city looking for people who aren’t wearing masks. If a police officer sees a person without a mask, they will give them a flyer outlining the benefits of wearing one and will focus on educating them, she said.
After that, the officer is supposed to leave and the person must have an opportunity to comply, she said. If the person repeatedly refuses to wear a mask, they could be slapped with a fine up to $250.
The county’s goal also is to educate people on the importance of masks and give them an opportunity to wear one. If a person repeatedly refuses to wear a mask, they can be fined up to $50, according to the proclamation.
Gilbert was one of the few municipalities that mandated masks but included no penalties.
Enforcement and other community debates in AZ
Enforcement in Yuma County hit a few speed bumps.
The county on Thursday mandated wearing masks in public, but just hours later the county sheriff said he wouldn’t enforce the order, prompting county officials to amend it.
The clash highlights debates that played out across the state this past week. Even typically mild Chandler, a suburb southeast of Phoenix, saw intense