Header image alt text

Joyce Clark Unfiltered

For "the rest of the story"

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.

Worker Power is at it again. They keep trying to blow up VAI Resort, currently under construction and scheduled to open at the end of this year. VAI Resort is a billion dollar development expected to generate $32 million dollars a year in revenue to the City of Glendale. It promises to be the most impactful project in Glendale’s economic history. It will be the largest resort in the state and probably all of the Southwest. It includes nearly 1200 hotel rooms, an amphitheater that will feature live entertainment 100 times a year, a dozen restaurants, upscale retail, a water feature, a convention center and ample meeting space. Just to its south, as a companion piece, is Mattel Adventure Park. This is Mattel’s first Adventure Park in the country and will feature Barbie, Thomas the Train and other Mattel branded children’s figures.

Worker Power wants to unionize VAI Resort and if they cannot get what they want, it appears they are ready to kill the project all together. This is their third try. First, they obtained petition signatures to stop Glendale from using a GPLET (Government Property Lease Excise Tax) with VAI. That failed to go to an election when VIA and the city announced that there would be no GPLET used. That action erased the need for an election.

Their second salvo was to get enough petition signatures to force the question of mandating a minimum wage of $20 an hour for hospitality workers in Glendale exclusively. That question was defeated in the last general election by 56.6% of Glendale’s voters saying ‘no’.

Now they are at it again. They have successfully collected enough signatures to force a special election this May. City Council approved amending the VIA PAD (Planned Area Development) by including (as a formality) the use of 10 acres on the east side of 95th Avenue (across from the Resort’s hotels) for an office building and additional parking. It is important to note the building is nearly complete.

What is Worker Power’s compelling argument that drove them to force yet another election related to VAI Resort and their use of 10 acres for an office building and parking? Their spokesperson said, “We feel that the removal of landscaping may increase the urban heat island effect.” That’s it. An environmental crisis will occur if those 10 acres are not green space. Give me a break. That’s the best that they can do this time around to try to stop VIA Resort?

Adam Baugh is VAI’s zoning attorney. He is highly respected among his peers and those elected officials that have worked with him. I have worked with Adam on numerous projects in my district. I admire and respect him. His word is his bond. If he promised to work with his client to address issues that I felt needed attention on a development project, that is what he did. He was successful in getting many changes I sought on various projects.

Mr. Baugh said, “The project will not move forward”…”You need the 10 acres for the project to be successful still. If the referendum is successful … then the project doesn’t function the way it’s intended to.” (Arizona Republic) The nearly complete office building will support VAI’s management of the resort complex and offers parking for those employees as well as those who will be working on the resort site.

In essence, the project will grind to a halt which is exactly what Worker Power wants to occur.

It is important to note how Worker Power obtains its signatures for petitions. They go to apartment complexes to gather signatures. It is recognized that renters are typically transient and stay in an apartment complex for a few years and then move. They are not vested in the city in which the apartment complex is located.

Another source of signatures is low propensity (don’t often vote) registered voters, a significant portion of which do not use English as their primary language. It has been revealed by those who have been approached to sign what the petition gatherers say. It appears to be misrepresentation and misinformation of the facts. In other words, whatever it takes to get that signature.

Both of these groups often have no interest in city government and are not informed on the issues. When they are told by petition gatherers how bad the city and VAI are, they will sign. They typically don’t question and will believe what they are told.

Worker Power has a formula and has turned petition gathering into a fine art form. At what point will Glendale taxpayers get tired of paying for Worker Power initiated elections?

I urge Glendale voters to become informed about this issue. When they are they will realize what a frivolous election this is. Reject Worker Power’s latest attempt to go after the city and VAI Resort.

© Joyce Clark, 2025   

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.

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.

Recently Shawn Raymundo had an article in the Arizona Republic about the city council receiving stipends. Before I go into that issue, a word about Mr. Raymundo. He is a writer for the Arizona Republic which is part of the USA Today network. The Arizona Republic and USA Today are notoriously ‘progressive’ liberal news organizations. It follows that their reporters hold the same positions and most of them, not all, do. Both organizations have a few token conservative reporters.

Mr. Raymundo has become Councilmember Turner’s lapdog. All that Turner has to do is to call Raymundo and plant something designed to embarrass either the City of Glendale, the city manager, the mayor or city council. It appears that Turner’s other ‘go-to-reporter’ is Richard Smith of the Glendale Independent. Both of these gentlemen harbor a liberal bias seemingly evident in their reporting, especially when covering a council that is, in the majority, conservative.

Some history is in order. When I was first elected as the Yucca district councilmember in 1992, my salary was $24,000 a year. After tax deductions, I probably took home about $19,000 a year. This was my salary for over half of the 24 years I served as a councilmember. It wasn’t ever about the money then or now. It was about having the opportunity to serve the people of Glendale. I was and am still proud of having done so.

In the last portion of my time in office, the voters of Glendale approved a councilmember salary of $34,000 a year. That averages $16.35 an hour, about $1.65 more an hour than Arizona’s required state-wide minimum wage of $14.70 an hour. After tax deductions I earned about $28,000 a year.

What is a stipend? The dictionary defines it as “a fixed sum of money paid periodically for services or to defray expenses.” When I first came to the council the stipends offered to defray expenses were for monthly cell phone usage and car mileage. Receipts had to be submitted for a request for reimbursement (stipend). I chose at that time to not request reimbursement.

I paid for my home office computer, my cell phone and monthly bill, a printer, a scanner and all necessary supplies like printer paper and ink out of my personal funds. I paid for my car’s gas and maintenance personally. Also, I often paid my share or the entire bill for a working lunch in my capacity as a councilmember personally. I paid for my yearly dues to the Glendale Chamber of Commerce from personal funds.

I also paid for things that I never talked about until now. I’ll give you one example. A constituent of mine, in crisis, needed to gravel the front yard immediately. I explored having the city pay but city policy was and is, that no city funds can be expended to enrich a private citizen or that citizen’s property. So, I paid out of my personal funds to have the front yard graveled. That is not the only time over the years that I used personal funds to help a person in crisis. I know for a fact, that former Vice Mayor Ian Hugh has done the same.

Several years ago, when monthly stipends were offered, this time I chose to take them. Everything is far more expensive than when I started, and I found that I needed help to defray costs.

Councilmembers have always had two council budgets. One is for professional development that can include travel, hotels and meals. Rather than travel, I used my funds to send out two district-wide newsletters to every home in the district twice a year. I also used those funds for hosting district-wide meetings as well as numerous incidental items to reach out to constituents. I occasionally made donations for causes such as backpacks filled with school supplies for Glendale’s disadvantaged children or Christmas gifts for families in need.

The second council budget account is for infrastructure improvements within one’s district. Annually, I directed those funds to be used for park improvements not covered in the Parks and Recreation Department’s annual budget. Those funds were used for such things as repainting park ramadas or replacing park infrastructure such as benches. For example, the digital sign at Heroes Park was paid from my infrastructure budget.

Never once did I abuse either account or use those funds for personal expense or gain.

I believe the current stipend policy is warranted. Here’s why. Now that I have retired, my cell phone informs me that my daily usage of about five hours a day has dropped to less than an hour a day. That tells me that my cell phone was used, almost entirely, for city business. I used to fill up my gas tank once a week at about $45 to $50 a pop. In retirement, I can fill my car up once a month. My use of printer paper has dropped from two reams a month to one ream for several months. Laser toner, very expensive by the way, was replaced twice a year. Now it lasts the entire year. These items, among others, had 90% of their usage attributed to city business. Monthly expenses for meals, tickets, donations and events have dropped to zero.

I am typical of most councilmembers. These stipends have helped to defray the expenses I incurred. I am grateful as your councilmember that they were made available in the last few years.

As for Turner, he’s up to his usual tricks. If he doesn’t understand the use of stipends shame on him. If he chooses not to take them, that is his prerogative. Painting the rest of council as somehow underhanded for using them is a typical Turner move.

The nonuse of a stipend by Councilmember Turner does not make him an angel. It appears that he is far, far from that. The use of a stipend by the rest of the councilmembers, just because Turner and his cohort, Raymundo, write about it does not make us devils.

© Joyce Clark, 2025   

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.

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.

In preceding blogs you’ve learned about the Worker Power Super PAC, what facilities would be affected, the proposed minimum wage and the requirement to create a new Glendale governmental department.

The consequences for the City of Glendale and affected workers are quite consequential. Kamryn Brunner authored the following September 2024 report for the Common Sense Institute Arizona. It is entitled, The fiscal implications of Glendale’s Hotel and Event Center Minimum Wage Protection Act. Here is the link to the entire study: CSI_AZ_REPORT_GLENDALE_MIN_WAGE_SEPT_9_2024_FINAL (1)

Their conclusion is, “Common Sense Institute estimates the Wage Act would reduce Glendale’s economy by between $120 million and $1.9 billion. Associated job losses would be between 1,700 and 32,000; up to 47% of this is a dynamic effect on businesses indirectly supported by the city’s tourism sector.”

I have cited some excerpts from their study:

  • “An analysis of data from hotels.com and Expedia, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, VisitGlendale.com, and other public information sources, CSI estimates that 19% of Maricopa County’s events and accommodation industry can be found in Glendale alone.” 
  • “While Glendale has only 3.4% of the state’s population and 3.3% of state personal income, but approximately 15% of the state’s entire sports and tourism sector is found in Glendale.”
  • “CSI estimates that there are up to 4,954 employees in the City of Glendale who may be directly impacted by this proposal.”
  • “This initiative specifically targets the niche industry into which Glendale has heavily invested and is today heavily concentrated. Because of the significant costs the initiative could impose on targeted businesses, and the relative ease with which affected activity could move to other nearby jurisdictions while staying close to sports and event hubs, the potential negative impacts for Glendale are likely to be more significant than if this were either a more isolated community or a statewide initiative.”
  • “For Arizona to pass a $20 minimum wage for hotel and event center workers in Glendale, it could cost employers up to $10,756 per affected worker -through a combination of either direct increased wage costs or efficiency losses as employers mitigate the impacts by reducing staff, cutting hours, or moving business activity. Much of this cost will likely be passed onto consumers in the form of higher prices and increased fees (as has been the case in California). This may further incentivize both customers and operators to seek alternatives outside the city.”
  • “Ultimately, if enacted, the Act would have dramatic implications for the city of Glendale and its economy. Those implications would likely play out over a period of time, rather than immediately.”                                                                                             “There will be some combination of:
  • Employment losses and reductions in work hours among hotel and event staff.
  • Hotel and event cost increases in Glendale, including price increases.
  • The movement of hotel and event activity outside of Glendale and to nearby cities, particularly over time as part of normal business maintenance and expansion cycle.
  • An increase in the rate of unionization among Glendale accommodation and event staff.”

“Under all outcomes, the nominal wage increase implied by the Act for existing workers never occurs.”

© Joyce Clark, 2024    

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.

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.

In previous blogs the Worker Power Super PAC was explained and the types of venues that could be covered by this proposed initiative. Some aspects of this proposed initiative are vague and leave room for expensive interpretation, probably by a judge at some point, if it passes.

What is the minimum wage proposed? The initiative says, “Beginning thirty days (30) after the effective date of this ordinance, a hotel employer or an event center employer shall pay its hotel workers or event center workers, as applicable, a wage of no less than $20 per hour, not including tips, gratuities, service charge distributions, and bonuses.” There is more, “Beginning January 1, 2025, and annually thereafter, the minimum wage will increase annually to reflect increases in the cost of living. The cost-of-living increase shall be the greater of (1) three percent (3%) or (2) the percentage increase as of September 30, 2024, and as of September 30 in any subsequent year for further annual adjustments, over the level as of September 30 of the preceding year.”

In English, that sets the minimum wage for hospitality workers at $20 per hour with a cost of living increase every year. That $20 an hour does not include tips, gratuities, service charge distributions or bonuses. Currently, Arizona’s statewide minimum wage is $14.35 per hour. In January 2025, it will become $14.70 per hour. This initiative requires $5.30 per hour more than the minimum wage of any other Arizona city.

Wait, there’s more. If a hotel has less than 60 rooms, the room attendant who cleans more than 4,000 square feet in an 8-hour day gets a double pay rate of $40 an hour for the entire 8 plus hours. For example, the worker who cleans 3,999 square feet in an 8-hour day gets $160 ($20/hour). But if the worker cleans 4,100 square feet in 9 hours, that worker gets $360 for a 9-hour day ($40/hour). If a hotel is larger than 60 rooms (and nearly everyone is) anything over 3,500 square feet in an 8-hour day gets double pay.

All service charges are split between the event center and the hospitality worker but there is no specific proportion as to who gets what.

This proposed ordinance applies only to hospitality workers, not managerial, supervisory staff, bartenders, bellhops, valets, custodians, etc. It doesn’t apply to maintenance staff. You know, the people that keep the lights on, the A/C working and the plumbing from backing up…just hospitality workers. Is that fair? I think not.

In the next blog we will learn what requirements are imposed on Glendale if this initiative passes.

© Joyce Clark, 2024    

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.

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 am starting a series of blogs on a very complicated issue. Worker Power PAC (political action committee) successfully obtained enough Glendale voters’ signatures to, they hope, get a minimum wage of $20 an hour for hospitality workers on Glendale’s November 5th General Election ballot.

Glendale appealed to the Arizona Court of Appeals stating that the initiative language encompasses more than one subject. In 2022, Arizona required that all ballot measures must have one subject. The Court of Appeals upheld Worker Power’s position. Glendale has now appealed to the Supreme Court of Arizona, and we await their decision. Hopefully by next week.

Before there is an explanation of the Worker Power initiative, let’s find out more about this Super PAC. According to media reports, “The Worker Power PAC is a Democratic Party-aligned Super PAC founded in 2020 as the Working Arizona PAC that expanded to conduct activity in other competitive states in 2022 after changing its name. The PAC is closely aligned with organized labor and has received money from labor unions and other left-of-center advocacy groups including Unite HERE Local 11, the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the American Federation of Teachers, and the Arizona AFL-CIO.”

Worker Power in 2022 supported these Arizona candidates: Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs (D), Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes (D), and Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes (D). It also claims through its efforts, it was responsible for radical Democrat Raphael Warnock’s win against Herschel Walker for a Georgia Congressional Senate seat.

As of July 20, 2024, Worker Power had reported total contributions of $4,106,415 and total expenditures of $3,737,230. It may be assumed that “Dark Money” from such groups as George Soros has secretly made its way into Worker Power coffers.

Locally, Worker Power endorsed radical activist Democrat Lupe Conchas in his successful bid to become the next Cactus district councilmember in Glendale. You can be sure that Conchas has greater ambitions than that of a councilmember in Glendale. After all, failed Glendale mayoral candidate Jamie Aldama on his Facebook page congratulated Conchas on his win and referred to him as the next US Senator Ruben Gallego.

Getting back to Worker Power. Their target has always been VIA resort which will be the largest resort hotel in Arizona with over 1200 rooms. That is a target just too juicy for them to pass up.

Their first round of attacks failed as they attempted to kill the use of a GPLET between the city and the VIA Resort. When the city declared that there was no GPLET nor would one be used, they had to come up with another plan of attack.

Why Glendale? They assumed that Glendale would be too unsophisticated to fight back and would be easy picking. They also wanted a win with the largest hotel in Arizona. With unlimited money at their disposal, this would be their signature fight. Then they could use the same tactic with other cities picking them off, one by one.

If history repeats itself, Glendale voters will reject this initiative just as in Phoenix when its voters rejected Worker Power’s candidate, Carlos Garcia, a former immigrants’ rights activist. Instead, Kesha Hodge Washington, his opponent won despite their $300,000 investment in Garcia’s candidacy.

In part 2, I will start to unpack their initiative, concept by concept.

© Joyce Clark, 2024    

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.

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.

As you may be aware, Councilmember Jamie Aldama is running for mayor against the incumbent, Mayor Jerry Weiers and former state legislator, Paul Boyer. If and when Aldama turns in his nominating petitions he will be required to resign from his Ocotillo District council seat. The drop-dead date for turning in nominating petitions is April 1, 2024.

This could mean that Aldama is attending his last few city council meetings. As a mayoral candidate opposing the incumbent, Mayor Weiers, Aldama is desperate to position himself in opposition to the Mayor on every issue he can dig up.

It was evident that is exactly what he was doing at the February 27, 2024, City Council voting meeting. The last item on the agenda was seeking council approval for a garage construction agreement between the city and Fisher Industries, developer of VIA Resort, to build a city-owned, public parking garage.

Here is the verbatim transcript of Aldama’s remarks before voting ‘no’ on the agreement:

Starting at the 44 minute, 33 seconds mark: “Mayor, explain my vote. Yeah, I, uh, this is a data driven organization I, uh, and I have not yet to see any data that demonstrates a need for a parking garage for the VIA Resort. Absent the VIA Resort, Glendale does not require a parking garage. Uh, our City Manager shared with us awhile back that there was some area footage taken of Westgate and the, uh, stadium area and there was tons of parking left over. There ya go. We don’t need a parking garage. Um, our resident spoke very clearly, very concise about some of the issues I wanted to, uh, talk about. Uh, there’s no competitive process. There was no selection process. We spend more time on RFPs for lower dollar amounts than the $72 and a half million dollars. And I asked the question, was that a legal way of doing business and the answer is yes. Well, I don’t believe that it is. Um, and it should be a practice that the City of Glendale hold on the RFP process or any type of procurement process. Um, this has, in my opinion, have favor written all over it and, ah, I am not in favor of building a parking garage for the VIA Resort. We don’t need a parking garage absent the VIA Resort. I vote nay.”

Let’s take apart what he said. “I have not yet to see any data that demonstrates a need for a parking garage for the VIA Resort.” That’s because the parking garage is to be a public, city owned garage for anyone visiting the Westgate area. Yes, it will also serve VIA and the Mattel Amusement Park. With a projection of $32 million dollars annually in revenue earned by the city from these two projects, it is anticipated that the garage will be in constant use with the city earning a portion of the parking fees.

It is also important to point out that as Westgate develops the last vacant parcels it will result in no or very little on-site parking. That makes the need for a public parking garage all the more essential to keep the area thriving.

Another factor Aldama refuses to acknowledge is that VIA will have at least 2,500 parking spaces on site, either underground or above ground.

Aldama goes on to say, “Uh, there’s no competitive process. There was no selection process.”

Here is a portion of the packet of information relating to this agreement that was in every councilmember’s voting meeting  agenda packet:

“The City published a Request for Qualifications (RFQ), for design-build services of a parking garage at the City-owned Black Lot, in the Arizona Republic Newspaper on December 20 and December 27, 2023. The City held a mandatory pre-submittal conference on, Thursday, January 4, 2024, at 9:00am at the City of Glendale’s Adult Center. Twenty-four (24) firms attended the mandatory pre-submittal conference. Of those twenty-four firms, four (4) firms submitted statements of qualification for the RFQ.
A selection committee was formed, and each panel member reviewed the four submittals to score each firm according to the scoring criteria provided in the RFQ. The panel scored Fisher the highest scoring firm and agreed that Fisher demonstrated the capabilities to deliver this project according to the schedule and budget outlined in the RFQ.

Again, this information was provided to Aldama in his council agenda packet. Saying that there was no process does not make it so just because he said it publicly.

Aldama accuses senior management and city council of favoritism by saying, “Um, this has, in my opinion, have favor written all over it…” That is a serious accusation that is unfounded. As The information above provided to council shows that a selection process did occur.

Lastly, Aldama says, “And I asked the question, was that a legal way of doing business and the answer is yes. Well, I don’t believe that it is.” Aldama’s belief is not fact.

Aldama’s statement should cause you to ask several questions. Did he read the material in his council agenda packet? If not, he did not do his duty to become fully informed on the issues that he was to vote upon that evening. If he did read the material, why did he reject the staff report stating that the procurement process was followed?

The answer is simple. This is election season and Aldama wishes to become the mayor of Glendale. He picks any topic that he thinks will draw a contrast between himself and Mayor Weiers. This wasn’t the issue to use this tactic.

Was there political pandering on the part of Aldama? You bet there was.

© Joyce Clark, 2024    

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.

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.

On November 21, 2023, at city council workshop, the long-awaited revised Economic Impact Study for VAI Resort and Mattel Adventure Park was released. The numbers are just astounding and are shared here.

The project has grown considerably since it was first envisioned and presented to the city. The Applied Economics Study presented this project description:

“The development includes 10 mixed-use buildings. Buildings 5 and 8 will open at the end of 2024 and the remainder of the development will open in summer 2025.

  • VAI Resort Hotel

    Building 1 will include a 299-room luxury hotel with 17,000 square feet of restaurants, 18,000 square feet of retail shops and 130 underground parking spaces.

  • Building 2 will include 29,500 square feet of retail and restaurants, a 9,000 square foot spa, a 155-room hotel and 230 underground parking spaces.
  • Building 3 is a parking structure with 3,900 spaces.
  • Building 4 will include 47,000 square feet of restaurants and themed retail, an aerophile balloon, a 3,000-seat theater, an 8,000 square foot Barbie theater and a 19,000 square foot Barbie Dream House attraction.
  • Building 5 will include a 9-acre Mattel Adventure Park with 250,000 square feet of indoor and outdoor rides and amusements and 8,000 square feet of themed restaurants.
  • Building 6 will include a 311-roon hotel, 28,000 square feet of retail and restaurants, an 8,500 square foot kid’s club and 150 underground parking spaces.
  • Building 7 will include 70,000 square feet of meeting and convention space, a 20,000 square foot night club, a 10,000 square foot fitness center and a 10,000 square foot swim up bar.
  • Building 8 will include 318 hotel rooms, including the Amphitheater Tower with 27,000 square feet of sky boxes overlooking the 90,000 square foot concert venue. This area also includes 37,000 square feet of restaurant space, a 4,500 square foot retail/café area and 390 underground parking spaces.
  • Building 9 represents Konos Island in the middle of the swimming area with 40,000 square feet of island beach amenities, 10,000 square feet of restaurant space, and the elevated Aerobar attraction.
  • Building 10 includes 55,000 square feet of corporate office space occupied by the developer/owner.
  • Other Amenities include the beach and pool decks, service areas, and 1,060 surface parking spaces.”

In summary and please note that my numbers are estimated based on available information, there will be on the site including both VAI and Mattel Adventure Park:

  • 1,013 hotel rooms available in a 5-building complex
  • 5,860 parking spaces on site including 900 underground; 3,900 in a parking garage; and 1,060 surface parking spaces.
  • 100,500 square feet of restaurants
  • 108,500 square feet of retail space
  • 387,500 square feet of attractions

It should be noted that that estimates of development costs and revenues earned are conservative as can be shown by a conservative estimate of 4 of the hotels’ occupancy rate of 42% to 46% and one hotel at an occupancy rate of 66%. Please note in the Westgate area, hotels are averaging a 70% occupancy rate.

In total, there will be 2,346,523 square feet of development at a cost of over $900,000,000 (nearly $1 billion dollars). The magnitude and complexity of this development should not be underestimated. It is not like building a one-themed development such as a single, large manufacturing facility or a hotel or a retail center. Rather, it is building all these combined and more at once.

The project site is forecast to earn $2.2 billion dollars in new sales, property and bed tax revenues to the city, schools, county and state over the next 25 years. How is Glendale incentivizing this $1 billion dollar project? It will waive permit and plan fee waivers of up to $1 million dollars and enter a Government Property Lease Excise Tax (GPLET) agreement on the entertainment, recreation, and concession portions of the development. In total, all fee waivers and the GPLET is $107.4 million dollars over 25 years in return for a 25 year income of $2.2 billion dollars.

How does the 25-year revenue break down? Starting in the year 2025 Glendale is estimated to receive annual tax revenue of $29,318,615 and to receive $40, 289,165 by year 2049. That means each year Glendale will receive $29 plus million dollars escalating to $40 million dollars a year by 2049. That is more revenue than that earned by the city from the Arrowhead/Bell Road corridor per year. These revenues go a long way in making up for the state-imposed loss of approximately an annual $14 million in rental tax that cities can no longer collect.

With the GPLET the County and Schools will receive $7,833,554 in year 2025 annually escalating to $18,972,199 by 2025. The State is estimated to receive $45,768,687 in year 2025 annually escalating to $50,980,151. The current and potential revenues to school and county districts are:

  • Pendergast Elementary School District currently receives $55,452 in tax revenue. Even with a GPLET it will receive $2,906,600 annually.
  • Tolleson Union School District currently receives $51,883 in tax revenue and with the GPLET will receive $2,719,506 annually.
  • WESTMEC currently receives $1,765 in tax revenue and with the GPLET will receive $92,498 annually.
  • Community Colleges currently receive $11,121 in tax revenue and with the GPLET will receive $582,938 annually.
  • All other taxing districts (county) currently receive $32,997 in tax revenue and with the GPLET will receive $1,734,838 annually.

These statistics should give you a sense of the magnitude of this development. This development will solidify Glendale as THE Entertainment and Sports destination not only in the state but nationally.

I am so pleased and excited about this development that I have arranged to do a half hour “Beyond the Headlines” on each component, VAI Resort and Mattel Adventure Park. Taping of the videos will occur in January 2024. Expect them to be on air toward the end of February 2024.

© 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.

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 am so pleased and excited to give you an update on the Heroes Park sports fields. I expect construction to begin early next year (2024) and to be completed by December 2024. However, an additional hurdle will be to gain council approval for additional funding for the project. Due to continued inflation price increases for all components, it will require council approval for the additional cost increase. Council approval will be sought later this month (November).

I have included the final conceptual, but it may be hard to read so I will offer some of the more prominent elements for you. The sports fields complex’s location is to the northeast of the existent library and directly north of the existing ramadas. The main components are 3 soccer fields. There are 8 pickle ball courts with shade sails and 3 adjoining ramadas. A centralized, large ramada and restroom is just south of the soccer fields.

In between the 2 large open lawns is a children’s play area. South of the pickle ball courts is a shaded picnic area. South of the picnic area is a food truck court designed specifically to encourage food trucks to come to the park. Southeast of the picnic area and food court area is a 1.6-acre dog park.

North of the sports fields is a pollinator garden and a fitness loop with fitness nodes. There is a generous amount of landscape buffering between the sports fields and the homes to the north and east of the park. A generous and shaded pathway is provided between the library and the sports fields area as well as a raised intersection and crosswalk from the existing ramadas to the sports fields. Included are 390 parking spaces located to the east and west of the sports fields.

You know, this park was approved by the city in 1998, 25 years ago. During my years in office, I have consistently advocated for its completion. I have been successful in getting a library that can expand, a fishing lake and now the sports fields complex.

This area of Glendale warrants the park’s completion, including finally, the design and construction of the long-awaited Recreation/Aquatic Center. With all the new residential construction of single-family homes as well as 15 apartment complexes, the population of the Yucca district has exploded from 41,000 to an estimated 55,000 people. The tremendous population growth that has occurred is now seeking recreational opportunities.

It isn’t just the people of the Yucca district that will benefit from a Recreation/Aquatic Center at Heroes Park, but the residents of the Ocotillo and Cactus districts will benefit as well. Did you know that nearly 70% percent of all the city’s recreational programming occurs at Foothills Recreation/Aquatic Center? For all who live in south Glendale it’s a 10-mile trip, one way, to Foothills. That’s a long haul for many families. A Recreation/Aquatic Center at Heroes Park will redress this imbalance and provide programming for many families and children in south Glendale. It’s time…

I want to thank the councilmembers who have remained steadfast in the city’s pledge to finish this park. It simply would not have occurred without their support.

It would be wonderful if you would take the time to thank them as well and ask for their support in completing Heroes Park by approving the funding for the design and construction of the last element – the Recreation/Aquatic Center by emailing them at:

© 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.

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 am pleased to announce that Glendale citizens have approved both bond questions in yesterday’s election. Question 1 authorizes additional bonding capacity of $82 million for street and intersection improvements and Question 2 authorizes capacity of $78 million for public safety. In both cases, no new bonds will be issued until there is the city’s capacity to pay them off without increasing your property taxes.

Here are the results posted by the Maricopa County elections department.

  • On Question 1, streets, 21,279 or 17.87% of all Glendale registered voters voted.
  • There were 12,061 (57.03%) voters who approved of the question.
  • There were 9,089 (42.97%) who voted ‘no’ on the question.
  • On Question 2, public safety, 21,279 or 17.87% of all Glendale registered voters voted.
  • There were 12,699 (60.06%) who approved of the question.
  • There were 8,446 (39.94%) who voted ‘no’ on the question.

I am waiting for the Canvass of Votes to see how those numbers break down by district. I expect to see the total number of votes cast in each district as well as how many were ‘yes’ votes and how many were ‘no’ votes by district. When I have that information, I will share the data in another blog.

Over the next 5 to 10 years, I look forward to the construction of street and public safety projects that will benefit all of us. For Yucca district residents, passage of the street bonds means we can finally see the reconstruction of 83rd Avenue between Glendale Avenue and Northern Avenue, a street I have characterized as “Alligator Alley” because the road is so rough, and it zig zags from a single lane in each direction to a double lane and then back to a single lane.

These questions passed because of the tremendous support offered by ordinary citizens, Glendale’s Bond Committee and most importantly, the hard work of the firefighters’ and police officers’ unions. Their strong advocacy for passage of the bonds played a critical role in their passage. They recognized how much the anticipated projects would help them to be more effective in providing essential services to everyone in Glendale.

The Mayor and Councilmembers Hugh, Malnar and I were in total support of both bond questions. Councilmembers Aldama, Tolmachoff and Turner, not so much. Keep in mind that city councilmembers could not advocate for or against the bonds in their official capacities but privately, if asked, they could convey their support for or against the bond questions.

It’s a good day for Glendale as it continues to build a stronger and safer community for all its residents.

Thank you to the 12,000+ registered voters who shared their optimism and support for Glendale.

© 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.

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.

In Part III of this three-part blog, I offer the specifics of the Glendale GPLET and Worker Power’s public statements regarding their opposition to the GPLET.

In the Fall of 2020, Applied Economics submitted an analysis requested by and paid for by the city. Its purpose was to present future tax revenues should the city decide to incentivize the development of what, at that time, was called Crystal Lagoon (now known as VAI Resort). The report also presented two other development alternatives for the same site. Keep in mind that the information I cite from this report is based upon old numbers. Since that report Crystal Lagoon is now VAI Resort and the hotel portion of the site has doubled. In recognition of these facts, the city has commissioned an updated report from Applied Economics. It is not yet available.

The 2020 report concluded that, “The proposed incentive structure outlined here would include permit and plan fee waivers of up to $1 million and a 25-year Government Property Lease Excise Tax agreement (GPLET) on the entertainment, recreation and concessions portions of the development. The total value of the incentive is estimated at $29.7 million, in return for $700.8 million in new sales, property and bed tax revenues to the city, county and state over the next 25 years. These incentives are performance based and the amounts will be less if the project is not built in its entirety.” (Page 2, Applied Economics, August 31, 2020).

The report goes on to state, “In terms of precedent for including the lagoon, Tempe has included sections of the Tempe Town Lake in the parcels for several different GPLETs that also include various types of development along the shoreline.” (Page 6, Applied Economics, August 31, 2020).

Further, “In order to demonstrate that the proposed GPLET meets the economic and fiscal benefit requirement in A.R.S. 42-6206, it is necessary to isolate the portion of the development that would be part of the GPLET. This analysis considers the property tax impacts the GPLET relative to the amount of benefit to the property owner or prime lessee. During the 25 year term, the prime lessee would normally pay lease excise tax instead of real property tax, although the recreation, entertainment and related retail and restaurant concessions of the development are assumed to b exempt from lease excise taxes…The estimated public benefit, or value of the other tax revenues generated by the projects exceeds the property tax savings to the prime lessee from the GPLET by $176.2 million over the 25 year term.” (Pages 6-7, Applied Economics, August 31, 2020).

Lastly, “The Crystal Lagoon Island Resort could result in an annual increase in property tax revenues to schools of $2.8 million, and $3.7 million to all jurisdictions in total after accounting for the GPLET exemptions.” (Page 12, Applied Economics, August 31, 2020).

What the report said is that this property, incentivized with a GPLET earns more money per year over the 25-year period for the city, the schools, the county and the state than if it were allowed to develop sometime in the future as apartments, retail and office buildings with no incentive.

Why does Worker Power object? In an Arizona Republic story dated 7/28/2023, entitled Community group that fought Tempe’s entertainment district aims for Glendale’s VAI Resort, Jordan Greenslade, a Worker Power senior field director, claimed that this tax break was unnecessary, stating, “Greenslade explained that the tax exemption was likely an initiative that began as a means to bring growth and prosperity to an area that could benefit from the jobs and development. Though, as Greenslade noted, Glendale is not that. In fact, Glendale is booming with development.

With additions like the Cardinals’ stadium and Westgate Entertainment District, Greenslade does not see why a 25-year tax break was necessary to draw a luxury resort like VAI to a booming tourist destination.”

Let’s unpack Greenslade’s assumption. He obviously hasn’t done his homework and has no knowledge of the history of this site. Historically, it has been farmed. About ten years ago Michael Bidwill bought the site, called it Organic 101 and had planned to build a gazillion apartments and some office buildings on the site. Apparently, that was not to be, and Bidwill let the property go into bankruptcy.  About six years ago, IKEA had the property in escrow but never completed the sale, so it remained farmland.

It was obvious, despite the success of Westgate, no entity was willing to purchase this site and make a major investment in its development until ECL (now VAI) approached the city with its vision for development and asking the city to consider offering an incentive for such a massive project. The city commissioned the Applied Economics study in 2020 and based upon the facts presented in the study, entered into a development agreement.

The massive size of this development coupled with an investment of a billion dollars along with the revenue return of this project justified an offer to incentivize this project ensuring that this coveted project would come to Glendale and be a perfect fit for Westgate, the city’s sports and entertainment district. Glendale has never had a resort within its jurisdiction and its placement at Westgate on an underutilized piece of farmland made good, economic sense.

The Phoenix Business Journal on 7/28/2023, ran this story entitled, Labor group that opposed Coyotes’ arena wants Glendale resort incentives placed on ballot. The article states, “Brendan Walsh, executive director of Worker Power Institute, said in a statement that GPLETs should ‘not be used to subsidize luxury development that brings little or no benefits to working families already living in the area’.”

Mr. Walsh is offering the same brand of Kool-Aid as Mr. Greenslade. This massive development project will employ at least 1800 Glendale residents. Every possible kind of job from restaurant waitresses and bar tenders to hotel workers to retail managers to skilled tradesmen to maintain this massive property. Another 1800 jobs is nothing to sneeze at and certainly is a major benefit to “working families already living in the area.”

Worker Power on its website offer the following as its Economic Policy:

“A primary focus of Worker Power’s advocacy efforts has been to challenge the misuse of GPLETs (Government Property Lease Excise Tax) by local municipalities. GPLET is a tax abatement program used to spur development in Arizona cities. While these developments purport to bring new jobs and additional tax revenues to aid the economy, GPLETs can add up to hundreds of millions of dollars not spent on local schools and other community needs over time. In addition, GPLETs can contribute to gentrification, exacerbate the deepening housing affordability crisis in our cities, and push low-wage earners out of town.”

Where is the “misuse” of the GPLET in this case? There is none. The Applied Economics study of 2020 stated that all entities – the city, the schools, the county and the state, earn more revenue over 25 years with this GPLET than without.

In addition, Glendale is leading the forefront of Valley cities in creatively financing affordable housing within the community. In fact, Glendale’s homeless population has decreased year over year. There is no demonstration of fact by Worker’s power that Glendale is “pushing low-wage earners out of town.”

Worker Power is spouting phrases designed to gin up general citizen support with absolutely no fact to back up their baseless accusations. It’s as if just because they said it and they are a PAC, it must be true. They are looking for a cause where none exists.

The deadline for turning in their petitions was last Thursday at 5 PM. The signatures collected are in the process of being verified. They claim to have collected over 5,000 signatures but how many of them are good and can be verified?

Worker Power has no legitimate cause to follow in Glendale. Really…don’t be buyin’ their brand of nonsense.

© 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.