Header image alt text

Joyce Clark Unfiltered

For "the rest of the story"

Apr 23

17

Alex Meruelo’s Folly

Posted by Joyce Clark on April 17, 2023
Posted in Arizona Coyotes • City Council Actions • City of Glendale • City of Tempe • Glendale elected officials • Phoenix Metro issues  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

Disclaimer: The comments in this blog are my personal opinion and may or may not reflect an adopted position of the city of Glendale and its city council.

Tomorrow, Tuesday, April 18, 2023, the City of Tempe will send out mail-in ballots seeking the voters’ decision regarding the Tempe/Coyotes election. Voters will have the opportunity to approve or deny three propositions, 301, 302 and 303, needed to move the Coyotes proposed development forward.

An economic impact analysis of the Tempe/Coyotes proposed deal was released today, April 17, 2023, by Dr. Dave Wells. Dr. Wells is the Research Director of the Grand Canyon Institute and has a doctorate in political economy and public policy. He has no axe to grind for or against the proposed deal. He looked at the facts presented in the City of Tempe’s and the Coyotes’ economic analyses and ran the numbers. Here is the link to his analysis: GCI_Policy_Economic_Analysis_Tempe_Entertainment_District_Apr_17_2023

What was the Coyotes’ initial response? How about the Coyotes’ attorney Nick Wood calling the critique “silly.” How’s that for an intelligent, well-reasoned response?

There are major takeaways from Dr. Wells’ study. However, one not mentioned was the pace and character of the proposed development. What will be built first? Yep, the arena and the concert venue because these are the two money makers for the Coyotes. They also happen to be the two facilities that benefit from the Tempe giveaway of tax breaks.

Let me share a lesson that the Tempe City Council would do well to heed. I can remember the presentation made at a Glendale city council workshop by Mr. Ellman and staff on expected revenues from its proposed arena and surrounding development. To this day, I remember the graphics showing buckets of revenue dollars flowing into the city’s General Fund to pay the cost of the bonds needed to be issued for construction of the arena. The whole deal was predicated on Ellman’s promise to deliver an estimated two million square feet of retail and commercial development. What did he actually deliver? One tenth of the promised development and then he filed for bankruptcy. Tempe City Councilmembers, heed this lesson. You are dealing with a developer that Dun & Bradstreet, a major financial rating institution, found to be a risk.

The major conclusions of the study are startling. Perhaps the most important finding is, just as in Glendale, the proposed development isn’t going to produce enough revenue for the city to pay back the city’s financial investment. The study’s estimate is that Tempe will only get back about a third of the revenue it invests in the project. The study reveals that for every $2.70 in new taxes, Tempe will earn just $1.00 in new revenue.

Some final thoughts. Just as the last recession (2007-09) caused Mr. Ellman to abandon Westgate and the arena, today’s economy is difficult for all, including people having to dip into their savings just to pay ordinary bills. These very same voters, ordinary people struggling financially, can look to Glendale to realize that this is not a good deal for them.

For years, Gary Bettman, President of the National Hockey League, has pledged to keep the Coyotes in Arizona but he is bucking headwinds these days. Rumors abound that the league’s hockey team owners are fed up with the continual drama of the Coyotes. At some point, if they haven’t done so already, they will pressure Bettman to clean up the Coyotes’ mess once and for all. I suspect Bettman is still a pragmatist and knows when “to fold ‘em.” Maybe it’s time for Bettman to take a serious look at Tilman Fertitta and the Toyota Center.

Beware of the hype coming from Coyotes’ fans. They are an avid group whose only mission in life is to make sure the Coyotes remain in Arizona. Keep in mind that although a percentage of them live in Tempe and can vote, most come from the surrounding communities of Scottsdale, East Phoenix, Chandler, Gilbert, etc. They will not bear the financial burden imposed on Tempe taxpayers.

I hope Tempe voters look to the lessons of Glendale and learn from it. This is not a development that is in their best interests. I hope they vote ‘no’ on Propositions 301, 302 and 303. Tempe can do better and has a proven track record of benefiting their citizens. This time they missed the mark.

© Joyce Clark, 2023     

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such material. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Mar 23

28

 Glendale Chamber President/CEO Heidt fires first shot in public war

Posted by Joyce Clark on March 28, 2023
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Downtown Glendale • Glendale Economic Development • Glendale elected officials  | Tagged With: , , , , | 1 Comment

Disclaimer: The comments in this blog are my personal opinion and may or may not reflect an adopted position of the city of Glendale and its city council.

For many years I have been a member of the Glendale Chamber of Commerce. For 22 years I believed in the mission and goals of the organization and to demonstrate that, I paid my dues from personal funds and not my City Council funds. I attended countless Chamber Ribbon Cuttings, Ground Breakings and events and have been supportive of the Chamber’s efforts.

My position changed dramatically last Fall when Mr. Heidt publicly solicited a candidate to run against Mayor Weiers. I support Mayor Weiers. I believe he and this council have done an outstanding job in managing the city and “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” I immediately resigned my membership and have not participated in Chamber activities since then.

It seems Mr. Heidt’s appeal for someone to run against Mayor Weiers was successful and former State Legislator Paul Boyer has answered Mr. Heidt’s call. Heidt is doing all that he can to support Paul Boyer by dragging him along to city events and trying to make him more visible by introducing him to every Chamber member possible. Paul Boyer is not good for the City of Glendale but more about that later. Make no mistake, Robert Height seems to be on a personal vendetta to get the Mayor out of office. Keep an eye on this situation.

Most of us assume that the Chamber is a 501C3 organization, but it is not. Rather it is a 501C6 organization. The distinction is that a 501C3 may have members that belong to all kinds of membership groups. But with a 501C6, it is strictly a membership organization where its members pay annual dues to belong. Both categories are non-profit. One of the differences between the two is in their ability to get politically involved. In a 501C3 there is an absolute prohibition from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, a political campaign (or opposing) any candidate for political office. With a C6 organization, lobbying is allowed as long as it discloses to its membership the % of their annual dues that is for lobbying as well as reporting it on its annual tax filing. While the Chamber may permissibly lobby for a political candidate or position if it has the common interests of its members, that lobbying must reflect the position of a majority of its members. Makes one wonder if a majority of all 1400 (publicly claimed) members want to get rid of the current Mayor and replace him with Boyer? I think not.

I checked the 2019 filing of the Chamber (the latest available online) and the Chamber declared no lobbying in 2019. What was more interesting was its 2019 declaration of salaries with the declaration of just one, Mr. Heidt’s of $144,992. Others have worked for the Chamber for quite some time but I could find no filing for their salaries. Hmmm…

Mr. Heidt’s war began when Covid hit. Mr. Heidt, in his position of President and CEO publicly berated Governor Ducey and the City for not adopting his position regarding mask mandates and the closure of local businesses by producing a video that he posed to Facebook. While Mr. Heidt was advocating for radically doing so, our Mayor and Council took a more measured position refusing to close local businesses. This was the first publicly open rift between the city and Mr. Heidt created by Mr. Heidt but it was not to be the last. Over time, in hindsight, not closing local businesses turned out to be the right course of action for our city.

In August of 2022 the Chamber’s Military and Veterans Affairs Committee (MVAC) had requested an audit of finances raised for the benefit of veteran’s causes which it was holding in a reserved account. At that time, the Mayor was an Ex-Officio board member of the Chamber and Co-Chairperson of the Chamber’s MVAC. Mr. Heidt balked but eventually produced an “accounting”, not an audit, at the follow up meeting in September. This accounting omitted several key fundraising efforts led by the Mayor for his two personal events, the Mayor’s Big Dog Run and the Annual Military Induction Ceremony. It also omitted key items that are seen in normal audits such as specific expenditures and where funds/monies came from, such as donations and sponsorships. A committee member motioned to have these funds moved from MVAC to the VFW Post 1433. This was rejected by Mr. Heidt as he stated the money belonged to the Chamber exclusively, even though two of those events were started by and belonged to the Mayor and were outside the purview of the Chamber. It should be noted that in the past, motions were made, seconded, and approved within the MVAC on financial issues many times before, but now Mr. Heidt claimed they must go to the Chamber Board to be approved. After the September meeting, the Mayor along with several key members who had supported this vote were removed from the committee by Mr. Heidt by not being invited back to any future meetings. Keep in mind the Mayor was the Co-Chairperson along with Mr. Heidt of this committee when this occurred.  Both meetings were recorded. Add another salvo in Mr. Heidt’s war.

Other signs of Mr. Heidt’s ongoing war with the city were not publicized by the city but I will mention one in very general terms. Both the City Manager and the Mayor served as members of the Board of Directors. Recently, when one of the usual monthly board meetings was scheduled, the day before the meeting, both gentlemen received an email saying the meeting was canceled. Only to learn in the ensuing days it had not been canceled. This action seemed to be a deliberate attempt to make sure that neither gentleman attended while specific city issues were being discussed.

There is also an incident that occurred at the city’s suite in the arena when Mr. Heidt appeared to have had too much to drink and acted inappropriately. As a matter of prudence, he was not invited to attend functions at the city suite for quite some time. That is all that I will reveal about the incident but note, it has never been publicly brought up, especially not to embarrass Mr. Heidt…until now.

The latest salvo, caused by Mr. Heidt, has been his support of a small group of downtown merchants expressing their displeasure over the city’s plans to renovate the city hall complex. Some of you may remember when the city installed the café lighting on Glendale Avenue, Mr. Heidt and a few downtown people showed up in “Save Murphy Park” shirts and when the Mayor spoke, they made a point of vigorously waving their signs with the same message.

Or what about the time last August at a council workshop when Mr. Heidt appeared with a few downtown people once again sporting their “Save Murphy Park” shirts. Mr. Heidt disappeared for a while apparently to talk to the press. Subsequently Mr. Heidt sent an email to the city council claiming one of the media characterized our city council as dysfunctional. Staff attempted to clarify Mr. Heidt’s assertion and the following day sent this email.

“Mayor and Councilmembers,

In an email you received yesterday from Robert Heidt, he said, ‘even the reporters said to us outside what a dysfunctional group of elected officials we have.’

We wanted to let you know that immediately after the email was sent, one of the reporters cc’d on the email proactively contacted our media relations team to deny having made any such remarks. They did not want the Council, who may have seen them at the meeting, to infer or attribute that comment to them.

Subsequently, this morning, all the other reporters in attendance who were not cc’d on the email but have now seen it communicated to our media relations team that they did not call the Council dysfunctional. Each of them reiterated their desire to report objectively on the issue and wanted you to know they did not and would not make such remarks.

We agreed to pass along their comments to you.”

Mr. Heidt lied. What else has he lied to you, the public, or to city council or even to his membership about?

In the past few days, David Mitchell, the same gentleman who spoke at the March 14th council meeting, on his Facebook page, posted an article recently in the media related to the Peoria and Glendale Chambers’ relationships with their respective Chambers. Heidt just couldn’t let it pass and the following exchange ensued:

Mitchell:

“This article doesn’t take sides but it gives the public information of the current situation between the Cities and the Business Centric Chamber of Commerce Organizations.

Glendale, Peoria battel local chambers”

Heidt:

“The reality is, Dave’s remarks pertaining to Glendale furthers how out of touch he is, and his lack of knowledge regarding everything, very disappointing to witness Dave adding to this nonsense rather than rise above, be a person who unites and a peacemaker of the very organizations which helped him to build his business.”

Mitchell:

“To Robert Heidt: First of all I thank the Lord for his many blessings to our 42+ years of business. Through the years our business has come thru many sources, one being the leadership of the Leadership Mayor Weiers, the people of Glendale, surrounding cities, including the Glendale Chamber, where we’ve been a member since 1994. We plan to renew our membership again with the Glendale Chamber of Commerce and will continue to support the Glendale Community. My comments and post is simply to uplift the Mayor who’s done a fantastic job. The article is public knowledge and we simply are being informative – where everyone has their right to their own opinion. We’ve proved over many years that Ideal Insurance Agency is a peacemaker and we continue to help our customers with their insurance needs.”

Heidt:

“Again, you certainly can uplift whomever you wish, however when it comes to the nature of these situations related to the Chambers, you are not informed and just because someone does something nice does at times does not mean they don’t do things harmful or bad. You really shouldn’t’ let yourself be a pawn in the mayors nonsense. But then again, you are free to do what you wish, very unfortunate if you ask me!”

Heidt then personally attacks his long standing, 30-year Chamber member by calling him “out of touch, lacking knowledge regarding everything, not informed, and a pawn.” Is this taking the high road as a leader of a major organization by publicly calling a member names? You be the judge.

Note that this has been Mr. Heidt’s war. In some instances, he has acted publicly to make known his personal and social grievances. Not so with the city. Some references I made to certain events have never been made public by the city…till now and only in very general terms. Over the many years of the relationship between the two entities, there have been occasional differences. But never has such a public display of animosity been made.

The Mayor and City Council made the decision to withdraw from the Chamber. It was generally felt that Mr. Heidt’s public comments and actions were not in the best interest of the city. It is ironic. When you look at the Chamber’s federal tax returns, under line 14, Activity Description, the response is “Promote the City of Glendale.”

In today’s economic climate, it would seem that the primary goal of Mr. Heidt would be the promotion of the interests of small, Glendale businesses, some of whom continue to struggle in this volatile economic environment. Rather, Mr. Heidt’s agenda seems to be focused on social issues which is fine in a healthy economy when your membership can afford to take stances that could alienate some of their consumers. It is never permissible as the visible leader of a large organization to air grievances in public especially those of a personal nature. It is simply not professional.

I have transcribed Mr. Heidt’s remarks made at the City Council voting meeting of March 14, 2023. Here they are in their entirety:

Robert Heidt transcript from regular council mtg of March 14, 2023\

35:53: “Good evening. Robert Height, President and CEO of the Glendale Chamber of Commerce. While heated discourse between the Glendale Chamber and the City of Glendale has sometimes occurred, this is the very process that has led to some of the most productive outcomes for both business and community.

“Most recently, it has become abundantly clear that Mayor Weiers has moved well beyond discourse. Instead he has intentionally engaged in tactics and behavior designed to damage me personally and to bring financial harm to the Glendale Chamber of Commerce Mayor Weiers has used his position and his perception of power to both craft and lodge a crusade of destruction. While his attempts to contact and negatively influence chamber members, investors, key partners, community members has (sic) largely failed.

“We will weather this storm. His intentional actions has (sic) impacted the good work of a nearly 100 year old institution. An institution that ultimately drives sales tax revenue for the businesses of our community…your budget.

“You may ask, how we know this. Quite simply, several of our members have reached out to me, our board of directors and other (unintelligible) partners after his attempts at sabotage. Furthermore, past attempts by Mayor Weiers to interfere with my personal employment contract have resulted in failure.

“As President and CEO of the Glendale Chamber of Commerce and as a representative of the business community there are times when opinions may differ. However, the Mayor’s underhanded maneuvers to jeopardize the stability of the organization I represent and my personal welfare are nothing more that the tactics of a bully. I would like to remind you of similar bullying situations where a parking attendant lost his job due to mayoral tactics The same attendant that later sued and prevailed. “After consultation with other professionals including those in the legal field, defamatory behavior such as this may jeopardize you personally, Mr. Mayor, or the city if we must take legal action. It is my desire and that of the Chamber Board of Directors, that bringing this situation to light, that further slanderous behavior will cease and desist. In closing, it is my hope that the safety and security of both me and the organization I represent remain top of mind of all of you here tonight. I remain optimistic. At the end, we are stronger together. And you know the saddest part, Mr. Mayor? I actually once believed in you. I no longer do.”

I should note that the parking attendant which Mr. Heidt referenced has been extremely nasty to me as well. When I attempted to get assistance to find a handicapped parking space, he refused to assist and made disparaging remarks. Others using the parking garage during his time of service have related similar instances to me. This person had no business working in such a publicly oriented position. So, it came as no surprise that the Mayor stood up to this bully. I would also clarify that Mr. Heidt left the impression that the city was sued. That is not true. Once again, he lied by omission. The parking attendant’s employer was sued, not the city.

Mr. Heidt’s remarks were highly personal and inflammatory. No specific facts were offered. Rather there is a lot of mudslinging and innuendo as well as threats of legal action.

Yet the same evening, other speakers came forward in a highly professional manner. Yvonne Knaack, former Glendale Councilmember and Vice Mayor, who has been with the Chamber for many years did direct her remarks to the city’s leaving the Chamber. She took the high road and cited the mutual benefits of both organizations working together and suggested that the city reconsider its position.  David Mitchell, a Glendale resident, and another respected, long-time member of the Chamber commended the city and Mayor Weiers, for past actions and long-standing participation in the Chamber. Both spoke without accusations or the use of inflammatory rhetoric. They are to be commended for their comments.

The worst part was Mr. Heidt’s closing. He claimed optimism and unity and then undermined that sentiment by rejecting the Mayor and any attempt to rebuild the relationship. It appears that Mr. Heidt joins the Mayor only when it aligns with Mr. Heidt’s personal agenda. It is not appropriate for such a publicly visible leader to use the organization to foster his personal, social agenda.

He has so alienated some Glendale business leaders as well as some former employees that they have simply left the organization. He has moved the goals and mission of the organization to one of a social and political agenda no longer in the best interests of his membership or the city he professes to promote. It makes one wonder, is he still the right person for this job?

© Joyce Clark, 2023     

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such material. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Dec 22

14

Did you miss the December Yucca District Meeting? Here’s a recap

Posted by Joyce Clark on December 14, 2022
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Desert Diamond Arena • Glendale Economic Development • Glendale elected officials • Heroes Park • Mattel Amusement Park • VAI Resort • West Branch Library • Westgate • Yucca district • Zanjero  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

Disclaimer: The comments in this blog are my personal opinion and may or may not reflect an adopted position of the city of Glendale and its city council.

I’ve wanted to write this blog since I hosted my Yucca district meeting on December 1st. Do you ever have times when other demands take priority? Well, that’s been the case for the past two weeks.

First, I must apologize to the residents of my district. Every year I send out Spring/Summer and Fall/Winter editions of my newsletter to every homeowner in the district. I planned for its mailing on November 15th because it announced the date, location and agenda for my Dec. 1st district meeting. Everything conspired against my plan. The printing company’s equipment went down and the mailing company had a lot employees out with Covid. Instead of mailing out my newsletter by November 15th, it was mailed on December 1st, the day of my district meeting. To say that I was upset would be an understatement. Suffice to say, I will be using a new printer and mailing company.

I still had excellent attendance of about 50 people as I had announced the meeting on social media. Nevertheless, I have heard from many that they wished they had known and were disappointed in not being able to attend.

I want to publicly acknowledge and thank Dale Adams, Manger of the Desert Diamond Arena (formerly Gila River Arena) and Nicole Jensen, Special Events Director for their generosity in providing the Dos Equis Lounge and the wonderful food. Even though it was outdoors on a frosty December evening, the lounge was warm and inviting with heaters throughout the area. The food was very, very good. Everyone was so pleased with the venue that I plan to use it again for my Spring District Meeting.

There is something you can do to make sure you don’t miss out on district or city-wide events. Subscribe to my weekly E Newsletter that comes out every Thursday. For three weeks prior to the district meeting, information about the meeting was offered in the E Newsletter. It’s ridiculously easy to subscribe. Take your phone and take a photo of the QR code below. It will take you directly to the subscribe page for my weekly digital newsletter. Fill out the form and submit. That’s it. It will take you less than 3 minutes to become a subscriber.

QR code for digital E Newsletter

Here’s a recap of what was discussed at the district meeting. City Manager Kevin Phelps presented information on the growth in the Westgate Zanjero area and the New Frontier area.

 1.The Westgate/Zanjero area is very complex so it is divided into 4 quadrants. The first  quadrant is north of Glendale Avenue from 91st Avenue to the Loop 101. All of the projects have either been recently completed or have been approved and will be complete by the end of 2023. It has 6 apartment complexes: Zanjero II, Zanjero III, Bungalows at Westgate, Mera at Westgate, Zanjero Assisted Living and Capistrano. There are 2 commerical areas: En Fuego which already has Raising Cane’s, Starbucks and Red Robin with more to come; and Northern Crossing with unidentified tenants to date. This area also has 2 new hotels, Cambria and Marriot.

2. The second quadrant is south of Glendale Avenue between 91st Avenue and the Loop 101. There are 6 apartment complexes: Glen 91, the District at Westgate, Broadstone at Westgate, Copper Falls, Acero, Urban 95 and Cardinals 95. There are 12 commercial projects: Bruster’s, Chicken N Pickle, Popstroke Golf, Eegees Salad and Go, Texas Roadhouse, MGM Sports Book at Sportsmans Park, Heritage at Sportsmans Park, Sunrise PreSchool, 91st Center at Camelback, Popeye’s, VAI Resort and Mattel Adventure Park.

3. The third quadrant is north of Glendale Avenue and west of the Loop 101. There are 4 apartment complexes: Springs at Westgate, Ariva Villa and Flats, Prose and Ridgehouse. There are 8 commercial projects: Northern Parkway Self Storage, Maplewood Cabinets, Rainbow Ryders, Westgate Medical Office Building, Desert River Mixed Use Planned Area Development, 99th Avenue Mixed Use Planned Area Development, Quik Trip and Cobblestone Carwash.

4. The fourth quadrant is south of Glendale Avenue and west of the Loop 101. There are 6 commercial areas: Vision 2 – a mixed use Planned Area Development that includes Ferge Ball Park Apartments, Main Street – a mixed use Planned Area Development that includes an unnamed apartment complex, Andrade Indoor Karting, Holiday Inn, Camelback Self Storage and Cornerstone at Camelback – a mixed use Planned Area Development.

Lastly, Mr. Phelps spoke of the New Frontier area. It includes projects such as Williams-Sonoma, Nestle, Red Bull, White Claw, Walmart and Amazon. These are just a few out of the two dozen projects in the area. To date there is 11+ million square feet either built, under construction, approved and in design review creating over 6,600 new jobs. Another 11+ million square feet is specutively under construction with no identified tenants to date promising thousands more new jobs. With the prospect of approximately ten to twelve thousand new jobs, the Loop 303 corridor has become an employment powerhouse in the Valley.

Not included in the presentation are at least 6 residential subdivisions under construction or in design review in the district. The largest of these subdivisions is called “Legacy” (450 homes) and will redevelop the Rovey cattle farm on Northern Avenue and 75th Avenue. Soon, the smells wafting from the cattle will be a distant memory.

After Mr. Phelps’ presentation, I presented several other topics. The first was the Beautify Yucca District Grant Program. Applications for 2023 will be available in January of 2023 and information will be available in my weekly digital E Newsletter. The winners of the 2022 Beautify Yucca District Grant Program are: Mike Zaremba’s project to do a make over of a dead end street in his subdivision; Edgar Hernandez’ 2 new benches in the Grand Canal Linear Park and Tom Traw’s monument sign construction for his subdivision. Below are photos of the projects. For more information, please contact Sbeck@glendaleaz.com .

Edgar Hernandez and his wife with one of the two new benches

Mike Zaremba’s new dead end

Tom Traw’s subdivision entry monument signage

 

 

 

 

 

 

I announced that construction of the sports fields will begin in 2023. This past Tuesday, city council approved an additional allocation of $4 million toward the project bringing the total cost of Phase I of the sports fields at over $11 million. Just some of the elements include: 8 lighted pickleball courts, 3 lighted soccer fields, a multi-use turf area, and walking paths.

I have revisited with staff the concept of expansion of a 75 person meeting space expansion at the library at a cost of  $1.7 million. I have decided that there is a better way to approach the lack of meeting space. I am asking that a portion of the $1.7 million be used to fund the design of the Recreation and Aquatics Center. Once the design is complete it will be easier to get the funding to begin construction. I will be asking that the balance remaining of the $1.7 million be used for the sports fields to add additional elements that would not be included in Phase I of its construction.

Constituents continually ask the status of 83rd Avenue between Glendale Avenue and Northern Avenue that I refer to as “Alligator Alley.” Here is the status. There are 16 property owners with right of way along both sides of 83rd Avenue. To date, 11 of them have agreed to cede right of way. There are 5 hold outs with which the city continues to negotiate. If the city is not successful then those rights of way will go through condemnation. Once all of the rights of way have been acquired, the city can do the final design of the street. Once that is done, funding will have to be allocated. This is a project with over a $2 million price tag and it may require being part of the bonding authority that the city will be asking residents to approve.

I have highlighted the significant portions of our presentations. Of course, there was more, but I don’t think you want to read a book!

The next time I promise my mailed district newsletter will be received by you with an announcement for my next district meeting and will be received in time so that you can plan to attend. It was a good meeting packed with information.

© Joyce Clark, 2022      

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such material. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Nov 22

1

It’s Halloween and here’s a Coyotes arena update

Posted by Joyce Clark on November 1, 2022
Posted in Arizona Coyotes • City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Phoenix Metro issues  | Tagged With: , , , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

Disclaimer: The comments in this blog are my personal opinion and may or may not reflect an adopted position of the city of Glendale and its city council.

For those rabid fans who become offended every time I post a blog on the Coyotes…sit on it.

The Coyotes played 15 seasons in Glendale and like it or not, Glendale (and I) are now part of their history.

Recently it was reported that the Tempe city council may very well approve the deal and then establish a referendum vote of its citizens to approve or deny the council decision. What does this mean? It appears the city council will approve the deal but it needs ‘cover’ for its approval. By having a referendum of the people on this issue, it offers the council an ‘out’ if its residents do not approve the deal.

There will be plenty of support from the business community who, bless their greedy hearts, are already hearing the cha-ching of their cash registers. Count on them to pour money into a slick campaign to convince voters that this proposed deal is the second coming.

What makes this possible referendum vote so interesting is that there are approximately 101,822 registered voters in Tempe out of a total population of 184,361 residents. In the last election, 21,338 registered voters voted. That’s about 20% or 1/5 of the total number of registered voters. I wonder how many of those 20,000+ of those likely voters are avid Coyotes fans willing to throw taxpayer dollars at yet another sports franchise? The purported 5,000 fans attending games at the Mullett Arena? Obviously, not all the attendees reside in Tempe. An interesting question is how many Tempe residents attended?

If there is a referendum vote it will come down to two issues:

  • MONEY

Make no mistake, this is all about money and who stands to gain and who stands to lose. Obviously, the Coyotes hope to make a ton of money utilizing public funding. It’s going to cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $70 million just to clean up the old landfill site. Muerelo will invest $40 million to clean up the site but where does the other $30 million come from? The City of Tempe will have to issue $30 million in bonds. That’s $30 million that could be used for parks, public safety, etc. Of the anticipated $430 million generated in new sales taxes, Muerelo would keep half (approximately $215 million) as reimbursement for cleaning up the site.

The Coyotes also want a 30-year property tax exemption on the arena, practice facility and theater. In addition, they want an 8-year property tax exemption on the hotels, office, retail and residential.

Arizona House of Representatives Athena Salman, representing Tempe, said these requests total $649 million (over half a billion dollars) in tax abatements for the Coyotes. While Moms see grocery bills skyrocketing and everyone sees gas at the pump hovering around $4.50 a gallon.

  • FLIGHT PATHS

There is concern on the part of Sky Harbor Airport about the proposed apartment complexes at the site. Recently the airport sent fliers to residents in Phoenix, Tempe and Scottsdale advising them that the airport may have to change its current flight paths. This move could end up shifting routes over currently unaffected neighborhoods. The noise from the aircraft will be nothing compared to the noise generated by affected residents.

To placate citizens Tempe is hosting a series of meetings. The first was hosted by, wait for it, the Coyotes, on October 15th at 11 a.m. I wonder how many residents took time off from work to attend this one. The next three meetings are hosted by Tempe at its Development Review Board meeting on November 15th, and two city council meetings on November 22nd and 29th. Residents’ time to speak is usually limited to 3 to 5 minutes. Not quite a fair fight.

It comes down to two basic questions for Tempe voters. Are Tempe residents willing to subsidize a sports franchise for $649 million dollars? Are residents willing to live with altered Sky Harbor flight paths that could destroy their quality of life?

If a referendum vote occurs, I guess we’ll find out.

As a side note, I heard from several people who attended the first several Coyotes games at the Mullett Arena. All said there were empty seats. One person revealed that actual ticket sales were around 3,000 out of a total of 5,000. Over 1,000 tickets were ‘comp-ed’. That would explain why there were empty seats. It’s one thing to plunk down $100 (or more) for a seat. You would make sure your money wasn’t wasted and would attend. Not so with free tickets. You may or may not, attend.

Make no mistake. Despite their hype, it appears that the Coyotes are losing money. I guess they can afford to do so if their pot of gold becomes a reality in Tempe. What if the deal falls through? Someone told me, they have a back-up plan. Oh, really?

© Joyce Clark, 2022      

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such material. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Oct 22

27

An RV park?

Posted by Joyce Clark on October 27, 2022
Posted in City Council Actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • VAI Resort • Westgate • Yucca district • Zanjero  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Disclaimer: The comments in this blog are my personal opinion and may or may not reflect an adopted position of the city of Glendale and its city council.

We are all familiar with the farm land wrapping around Walgreens and the small commercial center located on the southwest corner of 83rd Avenue and Glendale Avenue. The people that own the trailer park in this area also own this land.

Yesterday I received an Interested Parties notification letter inviting me to an Open House neighborhood meeting. Here is the link to the notification letter: RV proposal

Interestingly, my office, to date, has not been informed of this upcoming meeting. I suspect after the applicant’s representation reads this blog, my office will receive an invitation.

Since 1984, for nearly 40 years, this land has been zoned as R3. R3 zoning is multifamily zoning at 20 units to the acre. If it were to develop as R3 there could be a maximum of 340 units, probably 2 story. However, with extractions for streets, landscaping, buffering, open space and retention, my best guess is that there would be somewhere between 275 and 300 units.

What else can be developed on R3 zoned land? Here from the Glendale Zoning Code are the permitted by right uses: single residence dwellings, multiple-residence dwellings, boardinghouse and public schools, parks, and playgrounds.

The property owner, states that their only other option of choice, by right, is to put multifamily on this site and the city could not stop it. To do so would be a “property taking.” There is no consideration by the property owner of a single residence development. That option has been rejected.

However, multifamily is not what the property owner is proposing. If you read the letter which I offered in the link above, you would learn that they are proposing to develop a “high-quality, luxury RV resort.” The applicant states that 3 times on page 2 of the letter.

Here is an excerpt from the applicant’s letter: 

“Although two-story apartments could be built on the site under the current zoning, we believe views from two-story windows into the neighboring homes would raise concern by those neighbors. We believe there is a better use for this infill property given its location in Glendale.” Page 2, paragraph 1

Knowing how surrounding residents feel about apartment complexes, this statement could be perceived as a threat. In all fairness, Yucca district residents have not objected to all of the complexes being built in the Westgate/Zanjero area, west of 91st Avenue.  That creates a synergy of population mass that supports these entertainment areas. However, the suggestion of another apartment complex in our immediate area would be met with a great deal of resistance. Keep in mind this parcel is within the 83rd Avenue corridor where nearly all the district’s large lot developments are situated.

In the applicant’s notification letter, the amenities being offered are: on-site manager residence; high-end clubhouse, which would have a small convenient market for guests to purchase small necessities; and within it includes office space; fitness center; kitchen; activity and game rooms. The outdoor amenities they offer are: a large, resort style swimming pool with seating; BBQ; pickleball courts; and a dog park.

I did extensive research on what luxury RV resort parks offer as standard amenities and here is the list:

  • Cable
  • WiFi (All Sites)/Hardwired
  • Free Phone Jacks at Each Site
  • Heated swimming pool/spa – heated?? We don’t know.
  • Clubhouse with fitness center, business center, social hall, game room and activity area; big screen TV with new release movies; and a library area
  • Laundry facility
  • Resort store
  • Playground with tot lot and splash pad
  • Dog park
  • Picnic table rentals
  • Gas fire pits and fire pit rentals
  • Recreational activities as standard offerings: basketball, horseshoes, badminton, pickleball, bocce, putting green
  • Extra Cargo storage (for those needing additional space)
  • Full hook-up 20/30/50 amp
  • Water and waste disposal
  • Propane rental on site
  • Private restrooms with shower and toilet
  • Extended driveways
  • Casitas
  • Patios with propane grills and outdoor furniture
  • Grass lined concrete pads
  • Outdoor lighting
  • Shade trees at every RV site
  • Pull though spaces for RVs
  • Manager and activity coordinator on site every day
  • Age, pets and style of RV permitted are restricted
  • Gazebo style community kitchen
  • Handicap accessible

As you can see, they are a long way from meeting the list of amenities found at a luxury RV resort. I also propose a limitation on the length of stay as this is not intended to be a permanent living RV park but rather is designed to accommodate temporary visitors to the Westgate/Zanjero/Vai areas.

Although the numbers are difficult to read on their rendering of the proposed page 5 conceptual plan, it appears there will be 159 RV sites. Less than a third are pull in sites.

There are stipulations that must be incorporated along with amenities that will ensure that this is an upscale RV Resort Park:

  • An 8 foot perimeter wall on the west and south side of the existent shopping center as well as to the west and south sides of the proposed development.
  • Since there will be a constant turnover of patrons on vacation, it becomes critical to use enhanced and extended buffering adjacent to any nearby or adjacent single family residential use to mitigate any extraordinary partying resulting in noise or music. That would include to the west where there is the RV park and to the south where there is single family residential.
  • Enhanced and upgraded entry way yet with muted signage. RV users will not be the casual motorist along 83rd or Glendale Avenues but rather will have found this park through RV sites on the internet or by word of mouth.

Their letter invites you, the public, to a neighborhood meeting:

“We are hosting a neighborhood open house meeting to provide information and answer questions regarding these requests on November 7, 2022, at Towne Place Suites Glendale (Conference Room), 7271 N. Zanjero Blvd., Glendale, Arizona 85305. We know people have different schedules, so that is why we have set this up as an open house style meeting. The open house will run from 6:00 PM to 7:00 PM. Feel free to arrive and leave anytime during the 60-minute window.” Page 5

I object strongly to the concept of an Open House meeting. All of the neighbors attending do not hear the questions posed or necessarily receive the same response. They have scheduled this meeting for one hour (which I think may be too short). Their format should be a sit down meeting where the presentation is made at once to all attendees and questions/responses are made to all attendees at one time.

Yucca district residents from these neighborhoods not only need to pass out the word and become informed about this meeting but should attend as well:

  • Rovey Farm and Glen Eden (across the street from the proposed project)
  • Large lot development single streets of Cavalier, Montebello, Georgia and Orange
  • Residential subdivisions of Shalimar, Desert Mirage, Parkside, La Buena Vida, Missouri Estates and Missouri Ranch

If this land must develop as an up-scale, luxury RV resort park then it darn well should be one.

© Joyce Clark, 2022      

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such material. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Sep 22

9

Another commentary on the Coyotes saga

Posted by Joyce Clark on September 9, 2022
Posted in Arizona Coyotes • City Council Actions • City of Glendale • Gila River Arena • Glendale elected officials  | Tagged With: , , , , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

Disclaimer: The comments in this blog are my personal opinion and may or may not reflect an adopted position of the city of Glendale and its city council.

Today a friend sent me a link to an Arizona Republic Opinion column published on September 9th and written by State Representative Athena Salman. Representative Salman represents State Legislative District 26 which encompasses north Tempe and includes the area of the proposed Coyotes’ arena. Here is the link: https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/2022/09/09/arizona-coyotes-entertainment-district-raw-deal-tempe/8017122001/ . The title of the opinion column is, Arizona Coyotes gave Glendale a raw deal. And Tempe wants to repeat it?

In her column Representative Salman reiterates much of what I have already said about the proposed Coyotes deal. Here are some excerpts from her opinion piece:

  • “What they don’t share so openly is that they’re also requesting either a 30-year and an 8-year government property lease excise tax (GPLET), to the tune of more than $649 million in tax abatements, or a 65-year and an 8-year GPLET that would total over $1.1 billion in tax abatements.”

What this means to the Tempe taxpayers is that the Coyotes are seeking a handout valued at $649M to $1.1B in tax forgiveness. In other words, this represents a loss of money earned for Tempe taxpayers that could be used for all kinds of projects and programs for citizens. This belies their repeated mantra that they are financing the project totally.

Representative Salman goes on to say,

  • “And then there’s the Coyotes’ dishonorable fiscal track record under current owner Alex Meruelo, who took over the franchise in July 2019.”
  • “Is this really the kind of corporate behavior the city of Tempe wants to be rewarding for the next 30 to 65 years?”

This is a fair question.

Another issue Representative Salman did not mention is the intensity and height of construction, especially the apartment buildings and their effect on Sky Harbor’s operations. There is a 1994 agreement between Tempe and Phoenix designed to ensure both cities mutually protect the integrity of Sky Harbor. Phoenix has publicly stated that the Coyotes’ proposed project is in violation of the 1994 agreement which could result in court action.

I agree with Representative Salman’s take on the proposed Coyotes deal. She is merely saying what many others have said. There’s the adage, those that do not study history are doomed to repeat it. I suspect the Coyotes deal appears to be irresistible to some on Tempe’s city council. Are there enough councilmembers to approve the deal? I have no idea, but I hope they take the time to learn valuable lessons from Glendale’s experience.

There are a few avid fans who regularly feel compelled to berate me because I dare to write about the Coyotes. I guess it’s easy for them to forget that I was involved with the Coyotes in Glendale from the very beginning. I was at one time, heavily invested in the team and fought hard to keep them in Glendale through some very trying and turbulent years. After some time, it gets old when there are musical chairs regarding ownership, each successive owner with his own agenda that often did not coincide with that of Glendale. Why shouldn’t I blog about them?

I ‘ve earned the right to do so.

© Joyce Clark, 2022      

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such material. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Aug 22

20

Glendale’s city hall…new or renovated?

Posted by Joyce Clark on August 20, 2022
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Downtown Glendale • Glendale Economic Development • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances  | Tagged With: , , , | 1 Comment

Disclaimer: The comments in this blog are my personal opinion and may or may not reflect an adopted position of the city of Glendale and its city council.

At the August 9, 2022, apparently, I surprised the audience, comprised of about two dozen green shirted folk with ‘Save Murphy Park’ emblazoned across their chests. I asked our City Manager to investigate the idea of building a new city hall in some other part of our city and to report his findings back to council. I suggested the Westgate area where the city already owns land. How much would it cost, what would the project look like and what could the city realize from such an investment elsewhere?

We know that Goodyear recently spent $87 million to build its newly opened 7 acre Civic Square but that includes a parking garage, a two-story library and a 2 acre park. My best estimate, once the garage, library and park are eliminated, is the four-story city hall cost an estimated $50 million. What could Glendale save from the $70 million if it built new? $10million? $20 million?

This concept of building a new city hall is not a new idea. It has floated around city hall for at least the past five years. A majority of council never pursued the idea because, I suspect, they felt that such an investment would help to revive downtown Glendale. So, everyone marched to the downtown campus reinvestment initiative.

My suggestion was not born out of retaliation, as suggested by Vice Mayor Aldama. Rather it is an objective look as to where it is best to make a $70 million dollar investment. In other words, where does the city get the most ‘bang for its buck’ with such a major investment?

I have invested time and energy over the last twenty-five years to keep downtown Glendale moving forward. I was part of the “Miracle Mile” citizens’ group many years ago. It was the first citizens group to envision strategies to create a robust downtown. Over the years there have been several attempts strategizing to make downtown more viable. All have failed.

The reason for failure is downtown itself. A majority of downtown business owners have never been able to achieve cohesion and present their clear, unified goals on redevelopment. I contend twenty-four green shirted people, predominately Catlin Court business owners, do not represent the entirety of over 130+ downtown merchants. Their self-proclaimed validity comes from the fact that they are the only ones who are vocal.

They are aided and abetted by Robert Heidt, CEO of the Glendale Chamber of Commerce.

I am sharing the Chamber’s mission and vision taken directly from their website, “Mission – The Glendale Chamber serves the business community as the voice of commerce, provides programs and services to improve the economic environment for its members and supplies leadership for improving the quality of life. For area residents and newcomers, the Glendale Chamber is a reliable source for community information and a dependable resource for business referrals. Vision – For Glendale to have a prosperous business community.” Mr. Heidt seems to have strayed from his organization’s mission and vision. I think it’s fair to ask, is Mr. Heidt taking his organization in a direction that no longer benefits its membership?

Mayor Weiers said during council’s discussion about downtown that, “Our downtown, in case people haven’t noticed, is hanging by a thread, and has been for quite some time.” The Mayor, sadly, is correct. Despite the millions of dollars the city has invested in downtown over the years, the sales tax revenue downtown generates declines year after year and is now less than 1% of the city’s total sales tax revenue.

Glendale’s Economic Department gave this assessment which can be found on its website, in part, regarding the downtown, “High vacancy rates, prohibitive zoning, and aged infrastructure are some of the challenges that plague this district. Traditional retail will not support the future sustainability of this area, rather a mix of uses that increase consistent density in this area is needed.”

Steve Stockmar of the Glendale Independent interviewed Valerie Burner of Bears & More, a Catlin Court shop owner who said in response to the Mayor’s comment,  “I’m not sure where he gets his information. To be honest, I’ve only ever had a very minimal conversation with the mayor. So I don’t know where he gets his information.” This is not exactly a roaring denial of the Mayor’s view, is it? Since when is Catlin Court the voice of the interests of all downtown business owners?

The city council and senior leadership of the city are charged with being fiscally responsible and good stewards of taxpayer money. So, dear reader, I ask you. Would you continue to invest in downtown Glendale by renovating the city hall campus or would you say it’s time to move city hall?

© Joyce Clark, 2022      

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such material. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Jul 22

17

There is no pleasing some…

Posted by Joyce Clark on July 17, 2022
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Downtown Glendale • Glendale Economic Development • Glendale elected officials  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

Disclaimer: The comments in this blog are my personal opinion and may or may not reflect an adopted position of the city of Glendale and its city council.

I want to preface my comments in the blog. Many are aware that this is my last term in office as the councilmember representing the Yucca district. My term will expire in 2 ½ years in December of 2024. This circumstance allows me the luxury of speaking my mind.  Although if you know me at all, I usually don’t hold back and I do speak my mind often. At this point in my political career, it is a privilege that is held by no other councilmember. As elected officials we often hold our tongues so as not to offend. Now, I speak my truth and if the emperor has no clothes, I will tell you so.

This past Friday the city announced its selection for its new position of Downtown Manager. Daniel Sabillion, owner of a downtown Glendale coffee shop has been selected. Mr. Sabillion and the city have established conflict of interest requirements in recognition of his downtown business ownership, but you can be sure accusations of a conflict of interest will soon be flying about.

This Sunday afternoon a diatribe was emailed to the entire city council and attached was the city’s announcement of its selection of Mr. Sabillion. I suspect that this announcement prompted the current vitriol we received. Whose fingerprints are all over this crazy email? There are so many choices…let’s play a guessing game. It might be one or it might be all, or it might be none.

How about the Hysterical Downtown Merchants Association let by the Zomoks and Cheryl Knappes? Could it be instead of welcoming another entity that adds to building and promoting downtown Glendale, might they perceive Mr. Sabillion as a threat? Or how about Yvonne Knaack, former councilmember, and Vice Mayor? For years she lived in Glendale and had a successful, downtown business. She sold her business (although she remains a downtown property owner) and moved out of Glendale. Might this be pay back for being uninvited to speak at the downtown café lighting ceremony? She is still heavily involved with the Glendale Chamber of Commerce. What about Richard Vangalisti? He owns multiple downtown properties most of which remain vacant. He and the city have knocked heads often over the condition of his properties. Might he be offering sour grapes because of his relationship with the city? Add to the list of suspects, might it be the Glendale Chamber of Commerce and its CEO, Robert Heidt? The Chamber’s lucrative contract to supply a downtown manager terminated recently. Could it be retribution for the loss of the contract valued at over $100,000? I really don’t know, and you’re guess is as good as mine, but all these players have an axe to grind.

So, what did this infamous email say? Well, it accused the mayor, council, and city manager of: *corruption *backdoor deals *conflict of interest *bullying * being dirty *fear and intimidation *on a spending spree * wanting to get rid of Councilmembers Aldama, Tolmachoff and Turner *handpicking the city’s Chief Judge *killing the trees in Murphy Park and *destroying Catlin Court. I don’t think I missed anything. It’s quite a potpourri of accusations with not one shred of fact involved. I could say the sky is purple but without any fact to corroborate it, no one will believe it. It’s the same with this ridiculous email.

As long as I am on a roll, let me say this. For years downtown has been divided into two camps: those who are not pleased no matter what this council and city manager do and those (always silent) who quietly work to see their business succeed. Quite frankly, I am tired of the nay-sayers’ antics and their continual refusal to work cooperatively to make downtown the best that it can become. No matter what is offered, it is refused and bad-mouthed. If they spent half as much time growing their businesses and making them relevant in the 21st Century as they do nay-saying and putting up obstacles, they would be wildly successful.

This council is committed to revitalizing downtown. In fact, I, personally, go all the way back to participating in the “Miracle Mile” visioning sessions twenty years ago. Everyone would acknowledge that Glendale Glitters was a signature event, but it only brought people downtown for 6 weeks of the year. The rest of the time, downtown looked like a deserted movie set. Council welcomed the concept of Glendale Live! because it would bring people downtown for many, many nights of live entertainment in its Amphitheater. Instead of creating cross promotions, discounts, and special sales in conjunction with the live entertainment nights what did the merchants do? Zip. Nada. Sat on their hands waiting for customers without offering a single incentive. Instead, they used their energy to bad mouth the entire concept.

Now the council has approved the remodeling of city hall, council chambers, the parking garage, the amphitheater, and Murphy Park. Instead of offering constructive suggestions, all the nay-sayers can focus on is that the city council is determined to kill the trees in Murphy Park. How absurd. This council values Murphy Park and its ambience and is not going to deliberately destroy it.

Do any of the nay-sayers realize the result of the city’s announcement to invest $70 million in downtown? Since that announcement we have received numerous calls from developers wanting to explore buying the city’s excess properties in downtown and investing millions of dollars in redeveloping them. That is exactly what is needed, new life blood and new investment in creating a vibrant downtown. That means nothing to them. For you see, the nay-sayers have created the urban legend that council is going to kill all the trees in Murphy Park. I’m not making this up. This is how ridiculous it has gotten.

It’s time for the nay-sayers to give it up. Instead of accusing us of killing trees, why don’t you offer your concept of what a revitalized Murphy Park should look like? Instead of working to undermine Mr. Sabillion, why don’t you give him a chance? Don’t assume he is a puppet of a nefarious city council and city manager. If you don’t like what he is doing, tell him, enter a dialogue to make the relationship better.

This may be the last chance to rescue downtown Glendale. Don’t blow it. If I had had my way, the city would be building a new city hall for $70 million out at Westgate on city property and leave downtown to become that deserted movie set.

© Joyce Clark, 2022      

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such material. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Jun 22

18

Glendale’s Fiscal Year 2022-23 Budget

Posted by Joyce Clark on June 18, 2022
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Downtown Glendale • Glendale Economic Development • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances • Heroes Park  | Tagged With: , , , , | 2 Comments

Disclaimer: The comments in this blog are my personal opinion and may or may not reflect an adopted position of the city of Glendale and its city council.

For the second year in a row Glendale’s budget has topped a billion dollars. It reflects the current economic status of many other Valley cities such as Chandler, Tempe and Peoria, all showing a total budget of at least a billion dollars.

The city’s budget is based on several council-identified priorities. The first is Sustainability. We continue to invest in infrastructure. Just as we focused on our streets after years of inattention, we are employing the same philosophy to our parks as we make major investments in our parks to replace and maintain equipment in or serving our park system. Perhaps the most important focus in terms of infrastructure is maintaining our water capabilities and redundancy of systems. As we move into a Stage 1 drought declaration Glendale is in very good shape. No Valley City can exclusively rely upon Central Arizona Project (CAP) water which comes from Lake Mead and the Colorado River. Our portfolio includes Salt River Project water and SRP’s water reservoirs are about 77% full. But that is not all, the city has a portfolio of wells and it will be refurbishing 3 wells over the next 2 years. It also has been banking water underground. The city’s water doesn’t come from just one source. It is a blend of CAP, SRP, wells and ground water storage. We have also entered into Intergovernmental Agreements with Phoenix and Peoria and are now building interconnects so that should there be a water emergency among any one of the three cities, the other two will now be able to share water.

A second priority is Public Safety. Over half (61% or $158 million) of the city’s General Fund budget (total of $255 million) goes to Police and Fire. This city council is a strong advocate for Public Safety and is adding 10 new positions in Public Safety.

A third area is Economic Development. Continued growth of the city’s economic portfolio is essential as it provides funding for many of the amenities our citizens want and enjoy. One of the city’s trademarks has been its provision of “speed to market” for many developers. As our explosion of economic growth continues the city finds it must add new building inspectors, an architect, engineers, and project managers. The council continues to demonstrate its commitment to downtown Glendale by authorizing a $70 million investment in the renovation of City Hall, Council Chambers, the city hall parking structure, Murphy Park and the Amphitheater. As the city embarks on this project it is experiencing renewed interest by developers who are taking a second look at downtown and exploring development possibilities. Over the next few years expect to see the development of vacant parcels as well as new users of vacant buildings. All happening as a result of our investment in the downtown city hall campus.

The last, but certainly not least, priority is Neighborhoods. Sustaining and improving the quality of life for all residents. Projects that have begun or will begin after July 1, 2022 include improvements at the Main Library, replacement of playground equipment, irrigation and lighting at multiple parks, the addition of 8 splash pads and continued pavement management. There are 2 projects slated for Heroes Park. One is an expansion of the community meeting space at Heroes Library from accommodating 30 people to 75 persons. The other is building the ballfields in the northeast corner of Heroes Park.

Just as inflation is killing the family budget as the price of everything continues to increase relentlessly, so, too, is the city’s operating budget experiencing the same inflationary pressures. Everything is costing more from contract prices for all kinds of services, utilities, supplies and fuel. The city has been proactive in anticipating increased costs except for fuel. The prices rise dramatically week over week with no ceiling predicted. This will be one of the issues which council will have to address.

Another issue is the difficulty all Valley cities are facing in filling employee positions. In an attempt to attract well qualified employees, the city will give a 5% Cost of Living Increase (COLA) beginning July 1st. Currently the city is looking to fill 59 new positions, in every field from Public Safety to Parks personnel to Code Inspectors to Sanitation and Technology workers. We need you. If you want a good paying job with generous benefits you should be applying for a job with the City of Glendale.

Keep in mind that this is the single most important responsibility of the city council.  There are always competing needs between city staff and city council as well as between city councilmembers. Some needs are more compelling despite our advocacy for a specific project. For example, I did not get funding for the rehabilitation of 83rd Avenue between Northern and Glendale Avenues. However, staff is prepared to submit the project for federal funding should it become available.

I hope you have gained some insight with regard to the Fiscal Year 2022-23 budget which begins on July 1, 2022, and ends on June 30, 2023. If there are aspects that you think were missed or were not addressed, please take the time to offer a comment to this blog. It is a budget that council reviewed and amended for over 4 months. Discussions were detailed and council posed many questions.

It is a budget forged out of consensus.

© Joyce Clark, 2022      

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such material. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Jun 22

4

Coyotes’ fans…don’t count those chickens just yet

Posted by Joyce Clark on June 4, 2022
Posted in Arizona Coyotes • City Council Actions • City of Glendale • Gila River Arena  | Tagged With: , , , , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

Disclaimer: The comments in this blog are my personal opinion and may or may not reflect an adopted position of the city of Glendale and its city council.

I would remind Coyotes fans that in 2010 and 2011 the City of Glendale paid the NHL $25 million a year to keep the Coyotes in Arizona. I guess no one remembers that if Glendale had not paid the NHL the team would have been sold and probably relocated at that time.

During that time fans heaped praise on Glendale and there was no lamenting of traffic difficulties in getting to a game in Glendale. My, how times have changed. The most often heard refrain today has been that it is too difficult to get to Glendale. That seems to be the owners and fans rationale for moving out of Glendale.

The fans have traded $25 dollar tickets and traffic inconvenience for $500 tickets and equally vexing traffic inconvenience. They will trade traffic at the Loop 101 for traffic at the Loop 202.

There are three major issues that it is believed will have to be satisfied if the Coyotes hope to locate in Tempe.

The first is the Coyotes’ proposal that Tempe pay $200 million to clean up the site. They propose a Tempe Community Facilities District. In essence, Tempe bonds for the $200 million which would be repaid by using the sales tax generated on the site for approximately 20 years or until the bonds are paid. In essence, Tempe taxpayers see no new revenue from this development until the bonds are paid and are not benefitting from the sales tax generated by the proposed project.

I would also historically point out that Steve Ellman when seeking City of Glendale financing to build the Gila River Arena represented development of over 1.2 million square feet that would generate enough sales tax to satisfy the annual debt payment. After 5 years there was only about 1/5th of the proposed economic development and that did not generate enough sales tax to pay the annual debt payment. The same scenario could be repeated forcing Tempe to use General Fund dollars to cover the short fall in the annual debt payment.

There has been talk that if the Tempe Council approves the development there will be citizen referendum petitions. If that occurs and enough signatures are acquired, it will put the project on the ballot and the voters of Tempe would decide whether the project moves forward. If this were to occur, add another year of uncertainty.

A second issue is the Coyotes’ proposal to construct 1,600 residential apartment units on the site. These residential units would be directly under Sky Harbor’s flight path. Recently four former Phoenix mayors offered an OpEd on this issue. Here is the link: https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/2022/06/01/tempe-plan-arizona-coyotes-spells-trouble-sky-harbor-airport/9996700002/ . A little background is in order. In 1994, Phoenix and Tempe entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA). The purpose of the IGA was to stop residential development under Sky Harbor’s flight path. The concern was and is, that these new residents would complain about the noise generated by takeoffs and landings (at roughly one every minute). Residential complaints would most certainly have an impact on Sky Harbor’s continued and future development.

The four former mayors said, “For more than 25 years, Sky Harbor’s growth, expansion and development plans have been made with the IGA and adherence to its prescribed eastbound departure path in mind.

Tempe even appointed its own aviation commission to ensure that the terms of the agreement remain viable and enforced. All of this to protect Tempe neighborhoods from the life-altering experience of having a flight path directly over their homes.” They go on to say, “These residential units are proposed to be built directly under the very flight paths that were created by the intergovernmental agreement to protect Tempe residents.

As previously communicated by the Federal Aviation Administration, the Air Line Pilots Association, the airlines themselves and by the professional management of Sky Harbor, no residential development can be permitted in this area – less than 10,000 feet from the end of the two south runways – without compromising those flight paths and significantly threatening the airport’s continued operation and future growth.

As community leaders who embrace cooperation and compatible growth, it is essential, if the entertainment district proposal moves forward, that all residential development be removed from consideration.”

When you think about it, it won’t just be the 1,600 residences that will be impacted by the noise but really, everything on the site will experience the noise…people working in offices on the site and the fans while attending a game. Without the residential units, projected to earn income, is it still a viable investment?

The last and perhaps the most important issue to be considered is money. At the Tempe City Council’s June 2, 2022, meeting when approval was granted 5 to 2 to continue to negotiate with the Coyotes, one of the Tempe councilmembers publicly offered a slide depicting Dun & Bradstreet’s financial rating of the Coyotes, Alex Meruelo and associated affiliates. Here is that slide:

It’s not pretty. Tempe staffers circulated a Memo to the Tempe city council revealing staff’s rating of the proposed project. Here is the link: https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/tempe/2022/06/01/tempe-memo-gives-coyotes-proposal-low-marks-financial-strength/9973803002/ . In the Arizona Republic’s article about the memo it states, “On the financial front, a city memo released ahead of the June 2 City Council vote gave the team’s plan a 40% score for “financial strength/ability,” the lowest mark on the six-category evaluation completed by city staffers.”

To be successful and move forward the Coyotes will have to give up its ‘ask’ of $200 million from Tempe and its taxpayers, remove the 1,600 residential units to ensure continued viability of Sky Harbor Airport and ensure that a team that has lost millions of dollars year over year has the necessary guaranteed financial stability to successfully undertake a nearly $2 billion development. As Tempe has stated it will be months before the final decision is made and satisfactory answers to these three issues should be the basis for their decision.

© Joyce Clark, 2022      

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such material. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

« Previous Page — Next Page »