Header image alt text

Joyce Clark Unfiltered

For "the rest of the story"

Repeatedly Councilmember Alvarez’ mantra is “I am an honest person.” She says it publicly over and over, at council meetings, workshops and recently reiterated the sentiment in a Glendale Star story. It’s time for the Truth Meter.truth meter 1

  • Norma’s home is a two story structure yet County Assessor’s records do not show that improvement and her home is still valued without the addition of the second level. One would think that in the name of honesty this would have been corrected years ago when the improvement was made or at the very least, recently, as this issue came to light.
  • At the last council meeting on July 2nd which included the Coyotes discussion and vote Norma was cautioned about speaking about the Beacon bids because they were Executive Session material. She said she didn’t care what others told her to do and that she would speak her mind. Yet revealing contents of a council executive session is a violation of the state’s Open Meeting Law.
  • truth 2What about her “District Meetings?” In no way can her “district meetings” be considered open to the public. One must RSVP to an announcement of her meeting by calling her office and then, to add insult to injury, one must be approved by Norma, in order to attend.
  • Norma is a “double-dipper.” Obviously she receives a monthly Social Security benefit and for all we know, she may also claim disability making that monthly check even sweeter. She also worked for the City of Glendale for twenty some years and retired as its Administrator of the Community Action Program (CAP). CAP is the city department that is used as a pass-through for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding the city receives annually. She is used to giving away city money to the poor. That job earned her a sizeable pension and accounts for monthly check number 2. As an elected official when she retires she will receive another pension check from the state’s Public Safety Retirement System—check number 3. Not bad, eh? Her retirement pay is probably more than most of her constituents make. Norma is doing quite well for herself in retirement and it’s no wonder she can afford to say that part of her agenda is urging the city to give more to the poor.
  • Norma has been an avid supporter of the Tohono O’odham’s plan to build a casino in Glendale. Why? She will say she does not support the city’s discriminatory acts toward the TO but what she does not acknowledge is that the TO have heftily supported not only her election bid through political mailings and solicitations of campaign contributions but those of her allies like Sammy Chavira. At some point she has to “pay the piper” and pay-back can be a bitch. We have every right to question her motives in her avid support of the Tribe’s agenda.
  • truth 3Norma has spent more time failing to make council meetings than attending them. Norma has failed to be honest with her constituency with regard to her health. Since joining council she has had at least two hospital stays with long recovery periods that precluded her attendance at meetings and conducting city business. Her constituents had the right to know that she could not perform her duties as expected of her. She has also on numerous occasions refused to attend because she did not like what was on the agenda and she sometimes walked out of meetings when she did not agree with a majority of council. Like a petulant child who does not like the way the game is being played she picked up her marbles and went home. Norma’s leadership and representation has been woefully inadequate and her constituents deserve better.

What Norma has failed to realize that we are judged by our actions and not exclusively by our words.  Norma’s actions point to a repeated pattern of deception…failing to report a major improvement to her home that would have resulted in a larger tax burden; failure to follow the state’s Open Meeting Law because it didn’t fit her agenda; failure to hold real district meetings open to all of her constituency; failure to acknowledge the financial support of the TO made to her and her allies; failure to acknowledge her physical inability to perform her job as an elected official; and failure to acknowledge her “double-dipping.”

It’s not surprising that Norma’s public rhetoric of honesty are not backed by her actions and that Norma and honesty are not kissing cousins – in fact they are complete strangers.

copyright

cit mtg 2Wow, we just saw a window into council priorities. Since January and the new council began meeting, their meetings are conducted with lightning speed, usually lasting half an hour and on rare occasion because of the sheer number of items on their agenda it may go as long as an hour. Today, June 18, 2013 there were only 6 items on their workshop agenda and it took them over an hour to deliberate. Why? Because these were all items that have a direct impact on them and their business.

Here’s the lineup:

  1. Council has changed the voting meeting time from 7 PM to 6PM.
  2. The Vice Mayor’s position will follow a calendar year (Jan. to Jan.) rather than the fiscal year (July to June).
  3. Council subcommittees will remain annual appointments with a 2 year consecutive term limit. After serving 2 consecutive terms a councilmember must move to the other subcommittee (there are only two). After being off for 2 years councilmember may again sit on committee vacated.
  4. Response time for Council Items of Special Interest remains 30 days for staff response.
  5. Council has traded Moment of Silence for Prayer after they have opportunity to review suggested guidelines for conducting a Prayer.
  6. Workshop meeting location has moved from Council Chambers back to its old haunt, Room B-3, or the “basement” as Mayor Weiers likes to call it.

calendarInterim City Manager Bowers announced that at the June 25, 2013 meeting the Internal Audit will come forward. After the open meeting, Council went into Esession and it was an unusually long one for them, starting at 2:45 PM and ending at about 6:30 PM. The issues were substantive. From various statements made to the media by the City Attorney and some councilmembers there will be no vote on the Coyotes deal on June 25th. So look for June 28th or July 9th. However, Council has a vacation break in July so it makes more sense for it to become an agenda item at the specially called meeting for June 28th.

polling 1We know council was briefed on the PAD and SMG bids and council probably learned their asking price to manage the arena. It probably made Councilmember Alvarez’ heart beat faster and I imagine she offered an impassioned but hardly eloquent plea for acceptance of one of them. We know another topic of discussion was the Renaissance Sports and Entertainment (RSE) bid. Councilmember Sherwood publicly admitted that there were deal points that caused council difficulty. I would think the city’s guarantee of $15M (or X number—you fill in the blank) a year without any guarantee that there would really be the elusive $8M-$11M in enhanced revenue going to the city could have been a stumbling block. Whatever the issues were, council would have given direction to staff to go back to RSE and renegotiate those deal points. The ball in now in RSE’s court. If RSE is serious, it will have to make further concessions that demonstrate their skin in the game. Councilmember Sherwood also publicly acknowledged that the deal points need to be publicized one week before the vote. I applaud council for their stance on the side of reasonable and prudent public disclosure.

Councilmember Alvarez walked out of Esession in disgust, complaining that council was making “too many concessions” to RSE. The mere idea of entertaining the RSE bid is a “concession” in Alvarez’ mind. One other Alvarezism from the open meeting springs to mind. While discussing putting public comments at the beginning of the meeting she virtually accused her fellow councilmembers of not championing Democracy and the American Way by accusatorily saying, “We’re not dictators.”

copyright

agenda 1June 11, 2013 will be a regular Glendale City Council meeting. The agenda, however, is anything but regular. There are four items of special note. All but one item is under Consent Resolutions. Consent Resolutions means that unless an item is pulled by a councilmember for further discussion that item will be passed or rejected along with the 13 other consent resolutions and there will be no discussion – nary a peep out of anyone. The usual disclaimer prior to introduction of the consent resolutions is to say, “They are of a routine nature or have been previously discussed by council in a workshop session.”  Let me assure you two of the consent resolutions are not of a routine nature and have never been discussed publicly by this council. They are consent resolutions #13 and #14. Here is the link to council’s meeting agenda of June 11, 2013:  http://www.glendaleaz.com/Clerk/agendasandminutes/Meetings/Agendas/061113.pdf .

Both of these consent resolutions require doing business with the Tohono O’odham Nation. Item 13 is a grant request from the TO on behalf of the Aguila Youth Leadership Institute (http://www.aguilayouth.org/) in the amount of $112,100. The second item, item 14 is another grant request from the TO on behalf of Heart for the City in the amount of $100,000.

In the Staff Report, staff’s apparent rationale for doing business with the Tohono O’odham is that we have submitted for the same type of grants from the Gila River Indian Community.  So, if we could take grant money from the Gila River Indian Community then by golly, we should be able to take grant money from the Tohono O’odham. Between August, 2010 and June, 2011 the city received grants totaling $290,188 from the Gila River Indian Community. The funds were used by From the Heart, Boys & Girls Clubs of Metropolitan Phoenix and the Glendale Parks, Recreation and Library Department. The Gila River Indian Community have been one of our staunchest allies in the legal warfare with the Tohono O’odham since the issue of a casino IN Glendale (not near Glendale –darn it – but IN it) arose.

Is something missing? Have all legal issues between the City of Glendale and the Tohono O’odham been resolved? Are we suddenly buddies? Receiving grant money from a legal ally is far different than receiving grant money, no matter how well intentioned, from your legal enemy. It is the height of hypocrisy on Glendale’s part. I am ashamed that staff has brought these items forward. If I were on council and could take action at the meeting I would pull both items off of the Consent Resolution Agenda and speak directly to them and vote a resounding “no” on both – no matter how well intentioned they are. If council approves these two consent resolutions, where are this council’s principles?

Glendale City Council

Glendale City Council

Another Consent Resolution is more amusing in context. Item 8 calls for adoption of council’s Key Priorities for Fiscal Year 2013-2014. This one is a hoot! Council’s very first priority is, “Transparency internally and externally to assure the community that the decisions made for the well-being of Glendale are discussed openly with input invited.” Followed by their second priority, “Arena management, debt service, hockey agreement and enhanced revenues will play a large role in policy formation and financial strategy. The above noted transparency will be vital to gaining community support for decisions necessary to optimize the arena value to the Glendale community” (Italics mine). It appears that we all have missed something in council’s translation of transparency.  It looks like council’s definition of transparency is not what the general public assumes it to be. We certainly haven’t seen much transparency when it comes to the Beacon RFP process or Renaissance Sports and Entertainment Group’s discussions with city personnel or council.

greed 1Which brings up our last target of incredulity, Item 21, Fiscal Year Budget Amendments, as an Ordinance to be adopted. I love numbers. While most people won’t go to the numbers pages and really read them. I always do with gusto because they are so revealing. These amendments are transfers from one hand in the budget into a different hand in the budget. The transfer is from Contingency (you know, the “rainy day” account the city is trying to rebuild) to the City Manager’s Office.  In this case, did you know that this council is paying $500,000 for the Council Special Audit? Can you imagine it? Half a million dollars on a special audit – an audit whose primary purpose is to fix blame on somebody. Let’s hope they find a half million dollars worth of blame because they certainly are not going to find a half million dollar pot of gold at City Hall.

The council is also spending another $100,000 on the Arena RFP Process run by their hired consultant, Beacon Sports.  We all thought Councilmember Alvarez wanted to “get rid” of all the consultants? Not so. They must be OK if they are consultants that serve her purposes. Remember, this RFP process is the same one that NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman characterized as “silly.” All of this comes from a council which, when 4 of them were running for office, ran around wringing their hands, complaining about the previous council’s fiscal irresponsibility and vowing it would never occur again because their mission was to be fiscally accountable and transparent about it all. Looks like the joke is on you, Glendale voters.

copyright

On May 23, 2013 the Glendale Star ran a Letter to the Editor by Ms. Barbara Garland.  First, a disclaimer: I have known Ms. Garland for over 20 years. She is not just a former constituent of mine. She is a friend. She is not a gad fly who writes Letters to the Editor about anything and everything. She has been a positive contributor to our community. Her service on nearly every city board and commission as well as Glendale Civic Pride and the fire department’s Crisis Response Unit has occurred over that 20 plus year span. Ms. Garland works to better Glendale.

That the Glendale Star ran her Letter to the Editor despite their obvious positive bias toward Councilmember Alvarez’ agenda is surprising.

Norma Alvarez

Norma Alvarez

Ms. Garland made some interesting observations in her Letter as she refers to Councilmember Alvarez’ latest district meeting which was “by invitation” only. In my 16 years as councilmember I never, ever, held a district meeting “by invitation.” All of my meetings were open to one and all. If Alvarez was limiting attendance because she was holding it in her home then she should have changed the location to accommodate any and all who wished to attend.  It becomes more troubling if she was limiting attendance to screen participants and thereby ensure that only those who supported her agenda attended. It also calls into question Alvarez’ call for transparency and open meetings. Where is her outreach to those who do not share or support her point of view?

Ms. Garland calls for Alvarez’ resignation because, among other things, she has said, “She is ashamed to be on city council.” Ms. Garland has a point. Alvarez’ performance as a councilmember receives a failing grade. Her lack of attendance has been an ongoing issue. It was abundantly obvious that when Ms. Alvarez conference called into council workshops and meetings there was someone in the background coaching her. Ms. Alvarez will often state during council meetings that she doesn’t understand and then proceed to offer her opinion.

What is perhaps even more disconcerting is that once council has voted on a policy issue that becomes the public position of the city and is to be supported by its elected officials. If an elected official continues to hold an opposing position on a council majority decided issue, there are guidelines to do so. Either she hasn’t bothered to familiarize herself with the guidelines or she is deliberately ignoring them. A perfect example was her recent opinion piece in the Glendale Star. It was submitted and signed as “Councilmember Alvarez.” It was in direct opposition to majority approved city council policy on the issue of the proposed casino yet not once, did she say that it was her personal opinion or that she was writing as a private individual and not speaking for, or on behalf of, the entire council. That phraseology is standard when a councilmember is expressing a personal position rather than a city position.

Merely disagreeing with a councilmember’s position on the issues is not sufficient cause for resignation but lack of effective representation and leadership is. Is it time for Councilmember Alvarez to resign as Ms. Garland suggests? Yes, it is.

copyright

house 1Recently I received a question about Glendale Councilmember Alvarez’ home. It came from a person surfing the Internet who, out of curiosity, looked up various Councilmembers’ home valuations. I was asked whether I knew that Councilmember Alvarez’ home is listed by the Maricopa County Assessor as being one story in height. Like anyone else, the few times I have visited the Assessor’s site it has been to check the valuation of my property. Who would know an answer to a question like that? Not I. I was intrigued by the question and decided to do some follow up via the trusty Internet.

house 2In the past I have been to Alvarez’ home and it is most definitely a two story home. The County Assessor has it valued as a one story. It could be a very simple clerical error by the Assessor’s office and someone simply overlooked or forgot to check a box indicating the home as two stories. In bureaucracy that happens all the time.

building permitHowever, the situation does raise some questions. The home was originally built in 1972 as one story with the Alvarezes as the original and only owners. The second story was added sometime in the past 40 years. Were Glendale building permits requested and issued? Were inspections were made and passed by the City of Glendale? There should be Glendale records that show that permits were issued and major inspections for electrical and plumbing were passed.

approveIn calling the Assessor’s Office I learned that when permits are pulled at the city level for a home improvement such as adding a second story the city passes that information to the County Assessor’s office. If this occurred, those improvements would show up on the Assessor’s rolls the following year causing an increase in valuation. Yet apparently this did not happen. Why? As a long-term former city employee and now as a Councilmember I am sure Councilmember Alvarez would have followed city requirements for a major project to the letter.

internetI decided to do some more surfing of my own with some help from my grandchildren. (Grandchildren are far more inventive and skillful in the use of the Internet than I could ever hope to be.) Every home in Alvarez’ subdivision is listed as a one story home. We found a two story home within .08 mile of Alvarez with exactly the same square footage (the difference in SF between the two properties is 1 SF). It is valued at $10,000 more than the Alvarez property. There could be other variables that caused the higher valuation of the neighboring two story property but the fact that it has two stories creating additional living space and added value would a major factor.

The fact is the County Assessor has the Alvarez property listed as a one story home. The fact is that the only other two story home in the area has a higher valuation.  Is the valuation of the Alvarez’ property correct? Are the property taxes that have been paid and are currently being paid too low?

This all could be nothing but at the very least, don’t you think Councilmember Alvarez should be notifying the County Assessor that the information listed is incorrect and her home is two stories, not one?

copyright

Ned Norris Jr Tohono O'odham Nation Chairman

Ned Norris Jr.

I thought it would be an interesting exercise to list most, but certainly not all, of the reasons why a casino in Glendale is not a good idea. Last week Councilmember Alvarez had a meeting with 20 of her most avid supporters. She invited the Tohono O’odham’s Ned Norris Jr. to present another pitch in support of a casino in Glendale. The attendees heard nothing new and it was an opportunity for Norris to reiterate the TO’s position.

Norma Alvarez

Norma Alvarez

I am disturbed by her action. As a Councilmember one of the duties expected is that once a City Council position on an issue is adopted, one’s responsibility is to advocate FOR the city’s position. If a councilmember disagrees with that position, it must be revealed with the disclaimer that it is one’s personal position and not that of the city’s. It is also not allowable to use city resources in support of one’s personal position. If her Council Assistant was in attendance or if her Council Assistant used city time to order and/or pick up the refreshments it would be an express violation of city policy. To use one’s office and position to invite residents to a meeting to advocate against an adopted city position is morally and ethically reprehensible. There is also the propriety of advocacy for an opponent’s position when the city remains in active litigation.

 65 percent of businesses are hurt by the proximity of gambling. Decreases meals and room taxes away from other, traditional sources (shifts tax revenue away from hotels and restaurants in Westgate)

Visitors and residents spend money on gambling that would be spent on other local goods and services

Shifts workers currently in one industry to the gambling industry. Takes workers from other industries and moves them into the casino industry

Social costs increase related to increased crime and pathological gambling

Most patrons come from within 30 miles and participation declines exponentially as distance increases.

Traffic impacts experienced at all times of day. Casino traffic is not seasonal because the number of trips to and from casinos is relatively consistent from month to month. Casinos operate 24 hours per day; there is no peak travel period to and from casinos

Five years after a casino opens, robbery in the community goes up 136 percent, aggravated assault is up 91 percent, auto theft is up 78 percent, burglary is up 50 percent, larceny is up 38 percent, rape is up 21 percent and murder is up 12 percent, compared to neighboring communities.  Crime is low shortly after a casino opens, and grows over time, costing the average adult $75 per year

Each slot machine costs the surrounding community one job per year

Business and personal bankruptcies increase between 18 and 42 percent, while ‘impulse’ business transactions in the area decline by 65 percent.”

Every slot machine takes $60,000 out of the local, consumer economy

Gamblers spend 10 percent less on food; 25 percent less on clothing and 35 percent less on savings

For every one job that the casino creates, one is lost in the 35-mile feeder market

The Tohono O’odham ignored their promise to their fellow Tribal leaders to keep another casino out of the Phoenix Metropolitan area

It destroys the state-wide voter approved gaming compact and will cause casinos to be built in many other Arizona cities

All of these issues will directly and severely impact the 10,000 Glendale residents living the closest to the proposed casino

All of these reasons have been cited and attributed to the original researchers on the subject in my previous posts about the casino.

greed 1Opponents have said the Tribes that oppose this casino in Glendale are doing so purely out of greed, to protect their market share. Yet the Tohono O’odham wants to site this casino in Glendale for exactly the same reason, pure greed, for it would open a very lucrative market far, far away from their Tribal lands in southern Arizona.

copyright

Norma Alvarez

Norma Alvarez

At the May 7, 2013 City Council workshop during Council Comments and Suggestions, Councilmember Alvarez stepped up to the political plate once again. Her first suggestion was regarding the recruitment of a new City Attorney. She feels council should not recruit for a City Attorney but rather promote from within. She doesn’t want to spend the money. She remarked that Acting City Attorney Nick DiPiazza was doing “a good job” and that the City “should use him.” Now it appears that the city’s Human Resources department will take the lead on this search. Not a good idea. Agendas are rife within the city and will seep into the search parameters. I’ve seen it before. It’s also a bit like asking the fox to guard the hen house. This city needs a set of fresh eyes just as is needed for the City Manager’s position. Her initial thought seemed to spend all of her energy and she drifted off briefly – but wait! She wasn’t quite finished.

PMG 1In one final burst she opened the barn door for the Phoenix Monarch Group (PMG) horse. She has promoted PMG as willingly as her promotion of the Tohono O’odham. If you recall, she brokered a meeting in June, 2012 between this group and former Mayor Scruggs and former Councilmember Lieberman. At that meeting PMG made a pitch to manage Jobing.com for $7M a year while promising to bring 25 events (tractor pulls??). This time she wants council to look at outsourcing special events, marketing and the Civic Center. Obviously the criteria used in selection of a marketing and special events company will determine the Phoenix Monarch Group’s fate. It has been no secret that Alvarez thinks the money spent by the Marketing and Communications Department is wasteful and unnecessary. If there would be one department slated for oblivion it would be this one. After struggling to release her thoughts she mercifully slumped back into somnolence.

copyright

 

Trent Franks

Congressman
Trent Franks

Lately, Councilmember Alvarez has been pushing the Tohono O’odham agenda before Glendale City Council-to no avail. A majority of them are not biting. Perhaps it’s because they accept that the city is still in litigation with them and one does not fraternize with the opposing party of a lawsuit. That obviously does not bother Councilmember Alvarez. On May 2, 2013, our favorite non-newspaper, the Glendale Star, published Alvarez’ Letter to the Editor entitled Franks supports East Valley interests over will of West Valley voters…again. You can read the entire Letter to the Editor with this link http://www.glendalestar.com/opinion/editorials/article_36e063a8-b1ba-11e2-912b-001a4bcf887a.html

I dare to venture that my recent series of blogs about the casino may have prompted the TO to try to get out in front in an casino 1attempt to neutralize my comments. They certainly have been pushing on Councilmember Alvarez of late to try to get their message out, first at council meetings and now with this Letter to the Editor. The TO poured thousands of dollars into the recent election campaigns of Alvarez’ chosen candidates and now it’s time for her to carry their water.

Did she write the piece? That’s for you to judge and as you do so, reflect on her public comments at council meetings which have not been nearly as polished. If I were a betting person, I would bet that her Letter to the Editor was ghosted by one of the lovely ladies at TriAdvocates, a consultancy firm hired by the Tohono O’odham. It certainly provides TriAdvocates something to do for their $180,000 annual retainer.

Alvarez berated Congressman Trent Franks for doing what he should be doing for his West Valley constituency and that is protecting their interests as well as those of the State of Arizona by introducing H.R. 1410. He is also protecting the interests of a majority of the Tribal nations in this state that have publicly opposed the actions of the Tohono O’odham.

Alvarez cites the “overwhelming support for the project in this community, with polls consistently showing more than two-thirds of West Valley voters are in favor of the casino…”

polling 1Really? I could write questions for a poll right now that would demonstrate that two-thirds of West Valley voters are NOT in favor of the casino. Conveniently two factors are ignored. One is that a poll can be written and utilized to back up any point of view. In most cases, they are meaningless. Secondly, I know that a majority of those Glendale residents immediately impacted by the casino do not support it. The further away one is from it and especially if one lives in another town or city the resistance to this casino diminishes. For those who live in Sun City, for example, the casino is merely a convenience with less travel time. What does someone in Peoria care if it costs Glendale millions of dollars to support a casino? It’s not in their backyard and they will not bear the costs.

Alvarez then goes on to say, “The West Valley should currently be enjoying the 3,000 permanent jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars per year this project will bring to our community.”

If you had read any of my previous blogs, the professors and researchers I cited make very clear that the jobs created by a casino will be in man moneypart, “displacement” jobs. In other words, instead of someone working at a Denny’s that person will take a job at a casino. Keep in mind, 25% of the jobs will go to Native Americans. There is nothing wrong with that but now those alleged 3,000 jobs becomes 2,250. In my blogs I offered factual information that the number of jobs that will be created is vastly over stated. As for the hundreds of millions of dollars per year that will come to Glendale my question is from what? It can’t be from taxes because the TO will pay no tax of any size, shape or description to anyone. Perhaps Alvarez is referring to the 8% of the state-mandated 12% tribes must allocate through grants to non-profits? If so, it would take years and years and years to even come close to her “hundreds of millions of dollars per year.” So much for offering factual information.

Lastly Alvarez says, “Making matters worse is that H.R. 1410 seeks to re-write the voter-approved Arizona Gaming Compact, a document that was written and signed by 17 sovereign nations and the State of Arizona.”

Ned Norris Jr Tohono O'odham Nation Chairman

Tohono O’odham Chairman
Ned Norris Jr.

This statement earns a Woo Hoo for today. Prior to bringing the compact to voters all of the state tribes spent several years negotiating and approving among themselves the framework of a compact. It was a gentleman’s/gentlewoman’s agreement among the tribes. Did the TO agree with fingers crossed behind their backs? It appears so. It raises the question of, if you will renege on a promise to your fellow Tribes who else will you renege on?

That framework was then negotiated with the State resulting in Proposition 202 that the voters of the state approved. In an attempt to persuade voters to approve the compact it was clearly stated that the number of casinos in the Phoenix Metro area was limited to seven. That is the number of casinos that exists today without the proposed TO casino. Franks’ bill seeks to do the very thing the TO refuse to do and that is protect the intent of the Arizona Gaming Compact.

No, Councilmember Alvarez, your attack on Congressman Franks is misguided and seemingly managed by your “friends” who do not live in Glendale. The Congressman is to be commended for protecting our interests and we do live in Glendale.

copyright

savingsIn my posting the other day, “Saving grace,” I talked about the $17M allocated and reserved in Glendale’s Fiscal Year 2013-14 Budget for Jobing.com Arena’s lease management agreement. I suggested that saving that $17M would be prudent by placing it in the city’s Unappropriated Contingency Fund. It should not be spent at this time. Then should there be a lease management agreement the first year’s funding would be available or if not used in that manner, it would fatten the city’s bottom line, an attractive strategy for lowering interest rates on the city’s bond indebtedness.

Well, apparently everyone – from city staff to the council – is already placing dibs on that money as evidenced by the March 19, 2013 City Council workshop.  Ms. Sherrybargaining 3 Schurhammer, Executive Director of Finance, offered many ways to spend it. Some of the expenditures include:

  1. Paying for the special, outside audit mandated by the new council.
  2. Paying for the consultant (read Beacon Sports and its special ties to the Reinsdorfs) to write and manage the RFP for the arena.
  3. Miscellaneous city department overages or unexpected expenses.
  4. Repaying loans made from the water and sewer funds.
  5. Paying for fund transfers to and from the Risk Management Trust Fund and the Workers’ Compensation Trust Fund.

Add to that staff wish list Mayor Weiers’ recent comment about raising employees’ salaries. Also add Councilmember Chavira’s plaintive call for a Special Council Workshop to consider the issue of Public Safety employees’ compensation and Councilmember Alvarez’ desire to restore or increase funding for youth and the poor.

If everyone’s desires are fulfilled, you can say good-bye to that $17M at the end of budget workshop discussions. Then where will the funding come from if (are you listening, God?) there ever is a successful contract for the arena and its management.

tax increaseI also heard the first tentative feelers being thrown out there publicly about Glendale’s property tax rates and the fact that revenues from that source continue to drop. Don’t be surprised if there is discussion (and possibly) adoption of higher property tax rates in Glendale.

 

copyright

 

In my previous posting I reviewed the issue of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and their wish to use Jobing.com Arena. The other contentious issue of discussion on the City Council workshop of March 5, 2013, was the Tohono O’odham (TO) casino issue. At the end of every workshop councilmembers are asked if they have any “Items of Interest” about which they would like further staff information. All councilmembers, with the exception of Councilmember Alvarez, had no follow up items.

Norma Alvarez

Norma Alvarez

Councilmember Alvarez, for the umpteenth time, brought up the issue of the TO casino and questioned Glendale’s position and expenditures to fight the casino in court. She also made the astounding observation that she didn’t know why the city was fighting the casino. Really? Really? Does she live under a rock? Or do her blinders only allow her to acknowledge those issues with which she is in full agreement?

I especially appreciated her reference to the casino as a “resort.” Sounds so benign, doesn’t  it? Rather than a 1.2 million square foot casino with over a 1,000 gaming machines, 50 table games, 25 poker tables and a 1,000 seat bingo hall. On the other hand, the mayor called a spade, a spade and referred to the facility as a casino-resort.

Ever since the Tohono O’Odham appeared at City Hall in 2009 to announce they were coming and building a casino (on the very same day they issued a press release about same), the topic has been a hot one in Glendale. To say that she does not know the city’s position is the height of folly. It immediately hit the media big time. The city has had its position posted on its website for years. You can go to www.glendaleaz.com/indianreservation/ to see for yourself. A majority of council has given direction to continue to oppose this development and at countless council meetings Councilmember Alvarez and those of us who oppose the casino have openly debated the issue. She knows full well why the city opposes the casino and her claim that she does not is disingenuous.

TO Mailer Oct 26 2012 as pdf_Page_1jpg

Tohono O’odham campaign literature
October, 2012

Why did she bring it forward…again? Very simple, she’s hoping to garner more favorable publicity for the Tribe in addition to hoping that a majority of council will now support the Tribe. And why shouldn’t she? After all, the Tohono O’odham generously supported her campaign for her council seat and in this past election cycle it also generously supported her anointed candidates, Ian Hugh and Sam Chavira. She has hosted the TO at her campaign events and even had a TO representative at her home for a meeting that may have violated the state’s Open Meeting Law.  Is it just a matter of her definition of the” right thing to do” or does she owe them big time? You can decide for yourselves.

Another issue that may be of concern to you regarding Councilmember Alvarez’ actions is that the city is actively in litigation with the Tohono O’odham and has been since before her successful bid to become a councilmember. From listening to others who have been involved in litigation they have related that they are instructed to talk to no one about their case, especially their legal adversary. As elected officials representing the city in active litigation we have all been cautioned in that manner. Yet, Alvarez persists in meeting with representatives of the Tribe and has tried to raise their positive visibility in Glendale. Do the rules that the rest of council follows not apply to her? Or is it a case of when she has hears something she doesn’t agree with or like, she feigns ignorance? Again, you decide.

I’ll reserve a future blog for further discussion of the issues surrounding the casino. Who knows, it may even refresh Councilmember Alvarez’ memory.

copyright