Header image alt text

Joyce Clark Unfiltered

For "the rest of the story"

Jan 14

21

Knaack to continue as Vice Mayor

Posted by Joyce Clark on January 21, 2014
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

The January 21, 2014 afternoon city council workshop session was another “in and out” session. The agenda order was reversed to accommodate someone…probably Councilmembers Sherwood and Chavira as they left the session early.  There were 4 items: Public Comment; Selection of Vice Mayor; Annexation Policy; and the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report.

Councilmember Sherwood started the discussion on Public Comment at council meetings by suggesting that citizen comment be moved to the end of the meeting and that the comment period be reduced from 5 minutes to 3 minutes. You can see the coalition forming. Councilmembers Martinez, Chavira and Knaack agreed with Sherwood but Alvarez and Hugh dissented.  Citizen comments will be moved to the back of the bus once again and there will be less time to offer them. So much for encouraging public involvement.

Knaack was nominated by Martinez to continue to serve as Vice Mayor. Alvarez nominated Sherwood who immediately declined. Alvarez would have supported anyone but the one person she has clashed with continually and considers to be the devil incarnate – Knaack. The majority had no problem keeping Knaack as Vice Mayor for another year.

Annexation Policy was presented by Executive Director Jon Froke. After he presented council unanimously agreed to continue the policy as it currently exists with no changes. It apparently was too much for Alvarez to understand and she remained silent.

Executive Director Tom Duensing presented the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFRA). Eyes glazed over and Vice Mayor Knaack thanked him for bringing this item forward. She was reassured that the city’s finances are being reported properly by the current auditing firm. This must have been another topic too deep for Alvarez as once again she remained silent.

Under Council Items of Interest Councilmember Alvarez requested that the Arizona Sports and Tourism Authority (AZSTA) be invited to present to council at workshop on the current status of Camelback Ranch. Won’t that be an interesting discussion!

In less than an hour…badda bing…workshop was over. Results?

  • Citizen comments moved to the end of council meetings.
  • Citizen comments reduced from 5 minutes to 3 minutes.
  • Vice Mayor Yvonne Knaack will continue as the Vice Mayor for another year.
  • City’s annexation policy remains unchanged.
  • CAFRA finds no major financial faults in city’s financial reporting.

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The 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 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 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.

Jan 14

21

What goes up, doesn’t go down

Posted by Joyce Clark on January 21, 2014
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances  | Tagged With: , , , , , | 3 Comments

On the morning of January 21, 2014 council began its first foray into budget discussions. Senior management consists of City Manager Brenda Fischer, who has been employed in Glendale for about 7 months; and Executive Director of Finance, Tom Duensing, whose time in Glendale is even less – about 4 months. Obviously there is little to no historical memory and that is not helpful. Did you notice that many strategy suggestions for addressing Glendale’s financial situation have been already used? There was nothing innovative or creative about the budget presentation made. Why? As Duensing said, “Glendale spends more than it brings in.”

For those who are interested in what’s happening to our money here is the schedule of upcoming budget workshops:

  • February 4     9 AM to noon
  • February 18   9 AM to noon
  • March 18       9 AM to noon
  • March 25       1:30 PM to 4:30 PM
  • April 8           9 AM to 5 PM
  • April 10         9 AM to 5 PM

There was a series of slides in this presentation and they can be found here: http://www.glendaleaz.com/Clerk/agendasandminutes/documents/012114BudgetWorkshop.pdf .

Where does your money go?

  • Personnel costs = 55% to 60%;
  • Supplies, Services and Capital Outlay = 15% to 20%;
  • Contractual Expenses = 20%;
  • and Contingency = 5%.

These are not hard percentages and Mr. Duensing did not have them available for the presentation.

What can be done about the debt? Apparently not much. There are no options available on the city’s debt payments for they were restructured in 2012. $10 million in capital lease payments could be prepaid if Glendale had the money to do so. The only suggestion to council and accepted by them was to make the interest rate on inter-fund loans variable rate. If you remember, $45 million was borrowed from the Landfill, Sanitation, Water& Sewer, IT Replacement and Vehicle Replacement Funds to cover $50 million paid to the NHL over 2 years to keep the arena open until a buyer for the team was found. Duensing said that by changing the interest rate paid back to these funds to a variable rate the General Fund will save $1.4 million the first year declining to $938,857 by the sixth year.

As for the city’s contingency fund, expediency ruled. Instead of council policy of reserving 10% of the General Fund it was reduced to 5% of the General Fund with no dissent from anyone on council.

Question. Why did no one ask for a historical look at the amount spent from Contingency over the last ten years? Instead of blindly accepting a subjective percentage it might have been better to peg the amount needed for the General Fund Contingency to a dollar figure. Maybe it’s only $2M a year or $4M a year. But, sadly, no one asked.

OK, dealing with the city’s debt will average an expenditure savings of approximately $1 million a year. That’s a far cry from the $17 million shortage projected for next fiscal year. That led council to look at other expenditure reductions in the form of alternate service delivery (read privatization). Keep in mind, Glendale employees, that every privatization of a servics comes at a cost…employee layoffs. Here’s a list of services under consideration:

  • Transit
  • Custodial
  • Parks & Median Maintenance
  • Libraries
  • Public Relations/Special Events
  • Web Site Management
  • Streets/Sweeping/Signals/Intersection Repair
  • Security
  • Recruitments
  • Sanitation
  • Landfill
  • Fleet Maintenance
  • Recreation/Civic Center Management
  • IT Applications Support
  • Payroll Processing
  • Risk Management
  • Plans Review
  • Arts
  • Training
  • Building Inspection
  • Engineering Review
  • IT Infrastructure Support
  • Business Licensing
  • Sales Tax Auditing
  • Glendale TV Channel 11
  • Cemetery
  • Facilities Management
  • Benefit Administration

Council was told that it will take some time to bring recommendations from senior staff back as to which of this smorgasbord of services will become a candidate for oblivion. There was council unaniminity on moving forward with this proposal. Even Councilmembers Hugh and Alvarez agreed to take a further look at the future staff proposals.

If expenditures are difficult to nonexistent to reduce then the next strategy is raising revenues. The euphemism for it is “revenue enhancements.” There are only 4 sources of income for the city:

  • local taxes = 52%;
  • State-Shared Revenue = 31%;
  • Fees, Licenses & Permits = 9%;
  • and “Other” = 8%. Typically, no one on council asked what the “other” consisted of.

Council had already approved increasing the Primary Property Tax Rate by 2% and they were asked to ratify their decision. They did unanimously. They cannot raise the Secondary Property Tax Rate because it currently satisfies the debt service on General Obligation Bonds. In other words they would not be able to make a case for that increase…Thank God.

That leaves the elephant in the room…the temporary sales tax increase. A majority of this council will make the temporary sales tax permanent and may even increase it. Each tenth of a percent earns the city an additional $3.4 million annually. Only Councilmembers Hugh and Alvarez demurred and wanted it to go to the voters.

There is a major question that no one on council asked…Why now? The temporary sales tax increase does not expire until June 31, 2017. There are several years to make this kind of decision. Oh, but if they wait until 2016, for instance, it will become the hot topic of the mayoral election of 2016. Kinda crass and cycnical…oops…it’s just politics.

After an hour and a half of presentation by senior staff and virtually no questions (there were a few but not meaningfully relevant) council agreed to:

  • change to a variable interest rate on interfund loans;
  • contingency was reduced to 5%;
  • council will adopt some form of privatization of service delivery which could result in employee layoffs;
  • your Primary Property Tax will increase by 2%;
  • and the temporary sales tax will become permanent and may even increase.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, Glendale residents…you just received your long overdue Christmas presents.

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The 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 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 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.

Jan 14

20

Sleeper session

Posted by Joyce Clark on January 20, 2014
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale and the Super Bowl • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances • Glendale zoning issues  | Tagged With: , , , , , | 2 Comments

The Glendale City Council meeting of January 14, 2014 was a sleeper despite there being noteworthy items meriting at least some discussion by the councilmembers. At the start of the meeting once again we agonizingly had to listen to the likes of Andrew and Darcy Marwick and Bill Dempsky as they regurgitated their litany of sins committed by the city. The Marwicks love speaking at Glendale Council meetings probably because it’s a lot easier than trying to speak before their own city council in Phoenix. They seem to feed off of the recognition and adulation they receive from their small circle of like-minded folk. Bill Dempsky merely appears to be embittered about everything. Later in the meeting Vice Mayor Knaack would suggest that it is time to move citizen speakers back to the end of the line. She opined that their “shtick” is to continually bring up the past grievances.

There were 19 items on the entire agenda and half of them were on the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Alvarez pulled item 7, Position Reclassifications, from the Consent Agenda but when it came time to speak to the issue, there was no sound and fury. She offered a few tepid and irrelevant comments and then, true to form, voted “no” on the issue.

Council continued through the items polishing off 3 Bids and Contracts just as if they were Sherman marching through Georgia. The same fate befell 5 Ordinances with the exception of one.  When it came to item 17, granting community development fee waivers/rebates, Councilmember Hugh objected. He felt that it is an inappropriate strategy at a time when Glendale in under financial stress and he objected to yet another move that reduces council authority over city finances. Both Councilmembers Hugh and Alvarez voted “no.”

Not so surprisingly there was no council comment on the last item, allowing the city to rent parking spaces from Westgate to satisfy the parking requirements for the Super Bowl. Even more surprising was Alvarez’ silence on the issue.  She did not rant or rave about spending city money for a hated sports event. Unless I heard incorrectly, she even voted in the affirmative for this item.

This Tuesday, January 21, 2014 for those with strong constitutions, there will be two city council workshops. The first, at 9 AM, will be a discussion of General Fund Budget Balancing by the Executive Director of Financial Services, Tom Duensing. Council will be asked to provide direction. The bottom line is that he will reiterate the fact that the city faces average annual deficits of $14 million and when the temporary sales tax expires in 2017 that number bumps up to $30 million a year. He will offer 3 options that can be chosen separately or combined: debt restructuring (nothing new here, we did that just before I left); revenue enhancements (new taxes? Will council make the temporary sales tax permanent and raise the property tax?); and expense reductions (nothing new here either, we cumulatively cut expenses by 25% or more).

It will be an interesting discussion absent Mayor Weiers who is on a trip to Canada with IceArizona’s Anthony LeBlanc. Let’s see if LeBlanc and crew return the favor when Weiers stands for reelection in 2016. Expect to see campaign contributions for Weiers from Mr. LeBlanc and his friends.

If your eyes are not glassy and your mind hasn’t turned to mush after the morning session you can view the second workshop of the day at 1:30 PM. If you have Cox cable and live in Glendale it is on Channel 11. If you are Cox-less, you can go to www.glendaleaz.com and watch it live. The topics of the afternoon’s discussion are the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, an annexation policy update, selection of Vice Mayor and discussion of moving citizen comments to the end of the meeting. I guess the love affair with this pilot program is over.

It is disappointing that there is very little questioning or meaningful discussion by some members of this council. Some only offer comments by way of thanking staff for, essentially, doing their jobs. When it is offered so often it can become meaningless. It should be reserved for outstanding performance, above the requisite level of competence. Diversity of councilmembers is most welcome in the form of age, gender, ethnicity, etc. It is less welcome in terms of intelligence and basic understanding of the issues and there are some on council lacking those essential attributes…sigh. Nevertheless, they have offered their service and there is always another election season around the corner.

If you would like to weigh in to the left of this column is my latest informal poll. You can choose which of the councilmembers should become this year’s Vice Mayor. If you would like to be notified of my next blog posting you can subscribe in the space provided to the upper right of this column.

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The 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 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 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.

Jan 14

16

Only the Shadow knows…errr, make that IceArizona

Posted by Joyce Clark on January 16, 2014
Posted in City of Glendale • Glendale finances  | Tagged With: , , , , , | 7 Comments

The other night I was surfing, trying to find the Coyotes/Blues game. I’m sure it was there but I simply couldn’t find it. The backup plan had me watching the Glendale City Council meeting. Now that council is allowing citizen comments at the beginning of the meeting we are seeing the usual citizen suspects resurfacing at the podium. Andy and Darcy Marwick, residents of Phoenix and dyed-in-the-wool Coyotes haters, opined on their usual complaints. Not to be missed was Glendale resident Bill Dempsky, a former City of Glendale employee, with his usual lament. Ken Sturgis, a Glendale resident, has also started to use this bully pulpit on a regular basis lately. Later in the council meeting Vice Mayor Knaack commented about these usual suspects and their constant references to past history. She felt it was time to stop referring to the past and she urged these citizens to look to Glendale’s future. She suggested that it was time to go back to the old agenda order and place citizen comments at the end of the meeting. We’ll see if that comes to pass.

Citizen Ken Sturgis offered some rather interesting comments. He referred to a “contract” between the city and IceArizona. He claimed that the city’s payment of $15 million dollars a year for arena management was going directly to Fortress and the NHL with IceArizona as merely a pass-through.. Those are the two groups who lent IceArizona the money to buy the team.

I decided to do some checking. Sure enough, I found the “contract.” Actually it’s a notification letter dated September 4, 2013 from IceArizona to the city declaring that as arena manager it had assigned its rights to Fortress and the NHL. Here is the link: http://www.glendaleaz.com/Clerk/Contracts.cfm  . It is C-8584. The letter is signed by Daryl Jones, Chief Operating Officer for the team.

In it IceArizona acknowledges that an assignment of the arena manager notice must be given within 30 days. The sale of the team was recorded on August 5, 2013 and we can assume the assignment of rights was executed the same day. IceArizona notified the city one day before the 30 notification period ended requiring Ice Arizona to formally do so.

What does it all mean? Well, Mr. Sturgis was correct. The assignment of rights, including the $15 million a year for arena management, goes to Fortress and the NHL. That raises other questions. If the $15 million a year is going to their lenders and not IceArizona, how is IceArizona earning enough revenue to cover the arena operations and maintenance costs? The money they borrowed from these two entities went to pay the purchase price of the team. That means IceArizona must rely on revenue sources of ticket sales, suite sales, a percentage of the concessions, the first $20K in every event’s parking revenues, NHL revenue sharing (which are rumored to be as much as $20M a year for the team) and media contracts. It will be difficult to plug in the numbers for these revenue streams as some of it is proprietary. We will not get a full picture until after the end of the Fiscal Year, June 30, 2014.  It is generally assumed that annual O&M costs are in the range of $20 million a year. Don’t forget that IceArizona also must come up with $9 million a year to be paid to the city. The city budgeted $6 million a year for arena management, not $15 million and IceArizona has pledged to cover the difference — $9 million a year. That $9M comes from the ticket surcharge, parking revenues after the first $20K per event and if necessary, the supplemental ticket surcharge. Are these revenue sources enough to cover IceArizona’s expenses? We, the public, don’t know. I suspect IceArizona knows.

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The 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 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 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.

Jan 14

11

Say what??

Posted by Joyce Clark on January 11, 2014
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale and the Super Bowl • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

The Glendale City Council meeting of January 14, 2014 has 19 items. A majority of the items are on the Consent Agenda and are ratifications by council of action items such as approval of an action with APS to relocate an overhead line. There are 3 items of special interest: council approval of final dollar amount to Beacon Sports Capital Partners, Inc.; council approval of position reclassifications; and council approval to rent parking spaces from Westgate, LLC.

If you remember, Beacon Sports was hired to prepare an RFP and seek bids for the management of Jobing.com arena. Council originally authorized an unbudgeted amount of $100,000. The final bill came in at $125,425.43. The cost was $25,425.43 over the stated figure. Well, that’s $125,425.43 down the toilet as the responses to the Beacon RFP were ignored as council pursued and accepted the IceArizona bid of $15 million a year to manage the arena. A management amount that is a far cry from the bids proffered to Beacon and ignored.

The Position Reclassification includes council’s acceptance of all of Management Partner’s recommendations most of which will become effective July 1, 2014. Two reclassifications that are effective as of January 15, 2014 (the day after this meeting) are reclassifying a Secretary’s position in Field Operations to Assistant City Manager as well as reclassifying a Senior Budget Analyst in Finance to a Purchasing & Materials Manager. If you recall, council approval of reclassification allows the Human Resources Director to reclassify nearly every position in the organization. The Director’s decisions are final and not appealable or grievable.

Did you know that the city will be renting parking spaces at Westgate for the Super Bowl? Well, we are this time around. This is to fulfill the city’s obligation to provide 6,000 parking spaces within the Westgate area. Spaces east of 93rd Avenue and west of 95th Avenue go for $20 a pop. Prime parking spaces between 93rd and 95th Avenues go for $30 each. Total cost for parking spaces for the Super Bowl will be between $34,721.72 and $52,082.58. The rental tax is 3.4% and it is unclear whether it is included in the figures presented.

Not bad for a night’s work. Council paid over $125,000 for nothing, took away some employee’s appeal and grievance rights and will spend between $35,000 and $55,000 to fulfill its contractual parking for the Super Bowl. It’s enough to make you scratch your head and say, “Say what??”

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The 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 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 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.

Jan 14

8

Rearranging the deck chairs

Posted by Joyce Clark on January 8, 2014
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances  | Tagged With: , , , , , | 1 Comment

At the January 7, 2014 council workshop session there were two items up for discussion and direction. Both were in Julie Frisoni’s, Interim Assistant City Manager, realm. One was municipal marketing and the other was restructuring the organization.

Municipal marketing is a strategy to raise money in a city by allowing corporations to pay for the right to advertise on city property, i.e., libraries, fire stations, police stations, vehicles and any other city asset deemed appropriate. It is used sparingly throughout the country and in the Valley.

Much was made of Mesa’s use of advertising inserts in its utility bills and the fact that since 2010 advertising has earned the city $250,000. What council failed to recognize is that it was not an annual $250,000 windfall but rather $80,000 a year. The cost to the city for implementing such a program will run anywhere from $40,000 to $75,000. Expect the higher cost rather than the lower. The options for payment of this new initiative were either (1) get the bidder to accept no upfront payment from the city. Rather there would be a reduction in the bidder’s first payment to the city to cover the cost; or (2) payment from salary savings. Salary savings are those revenues generated when a position remains vacant and unfilled for a period of time. The salary that would have been paid goes into a salary savings fund. That should be your first clue that there are still dollars to be cut from Glendale’s budget.

It was emphasized repeatedly that this would be a city-wide program. I wonder if Arrowhead residents are prepared to see their Foothills branch library renamed. It will be interesting to see their reaction should the library become, for example, the “Chick-A-Fill” Foothills Library!

All of the revenue earned will go into the General Fund. Will we see advertising revenue from the libraries, sanitation trucks or city buses go into the General Fund to pay for some inane project? Perhaps those assets that earn the revenue should benefit from it.

It was a positively “kumbaya” moment. Councilmembers Knaack, Chavira and Mayor Weiers falling all over themselves to thank Frisoni for the innovation and creativity used to raise money for the city during its current financial crisis. Martinez was part of the chorus as well but threw out the idea that councilmembers could use part of their council budgets to easily cover the cost. That idea met with stony silence. Councilmember Sherwood as well as some other councilmembers berated the previous council for not accepting this idea in 2004. Well, councilmember, it was a different environment at that time. Glendale was not in the financial morass it finds itself in today. In 2004 Frisoni presented very much the same scheme. The cost at that time would have been $39,000 and the no upfront cost idea was also floated. Even Councilmembers Knaack and Martinez though the idea of advertising on city property and assets was tacky. Especially opposed at the time was the former Mayor Scruggs. She turned up her nose and virtually declared the idea dead upon arrival. Councilmember Alvarez, whose mantra is “no” to everything and being true to form, refused to support this concept. She wanted more assurance that it would truly be a citywide program and that the Arrowhead area would not be able to opt out. She also was not happy that the revenue would be dumped into the General Fund to cover what she feels would be an inappropriate expense. Amid all of the congratulations council consensus was to move forward with this idea.

The second presentation on organizational review was presented by Frisoni and Andy Belknap, Regional Vice President and Cathy Standiford, Partner, of Management Partners, Inc. (MP). This initiative came strictly from City Manager Brenda Fischer who was able to hire this consultant without council approval because the cost was under the allowed $50,000 cap for a city manager expenditure.

This is yet another rearranging of the deck chairs. Former City Manager Beasley rearranged the organizational chart at least six times in a period of less than eight years. It is billed, as usual, as a means of improving efficiency and effectiveness but there was another goal not recognized or discussed by anyone. That goal was to physically consolidate the organization enough to free up some city property for sale or lease. Just another flag that indicates the financial stress the city is experiencing…raise revenue by selling corporate advertising rights and figure out ways such as this one, to sell or lease city properties.

What were the recommendations? There were some major ones:

  1. Reduce the number of departments from 14 to 10. Three current executive positions will be absorbed. Previously I said that no one leaves unless fired, retired or left the city for another job. Those expecting a reduction in the number of executive positions and subsequent salary savings will be disappointed.
  2. Centralize functions. One example is to lump capital improvement planning, engineering and project management together.
  3. Keep the two assistant city manager positions. One assistant city manager would supervise infrastructure and the other would supervise community programs. The second position appears to be tailored specifically for Frisoni, the Interim Assistant City Manager. Expect Jim Brown, Director of Human Relations, to have received direction to rewrite the qualifications for assistant city manager to accommodate Frisoni’s lack of qualifications for the position.
  4. Remove the title of Executive Director and reinstate the title of Director. With the inception of the Executive Director titles there was a commensurate increase in pay. With the removal of this title, all pay remains intact.
  5. No change to these departments: City Auditor, Police, Fire, Human Resources/Risk Management, Water Services, City Attorney and City Court. All other departments will be consolidated or moved.
  6. The City Manager will have direct control of the Office of Intergovernmental Programs (IGA), and the Office of Economic Development (ED). This is particularly interesting because the IGA will supervise the council’s and mayor’s offices.
  7. The City Manager will continue to receive direct reports from: Police, Fire, Finance and Technology, Human Resources/Risk Management, City Auditor and the two Assistant City Managers.  The two Assistant City Managers will supervise the departments that deal with city infrastructure and city programs.

One recommendation long overdue is to enhance the city’s use of technology. It is a concept for which I have advocated and welcome. Just one example is the use of GPS to maximize information about the city’s infrastructure and assets. The door was opened for council consideration of privatization of city service delivery. The suggestion was to look at sanitation, street sweeping, traffic signal maintenance, park and landscaping maintenance and custodial services. Last year council mightily resisted the idea of privatizing custodial services. Will this council embrace privatization?

Council’s reaction? The “walk around” performed by Management Partners did a great deal to staunch questions and criticism. A “walk around” is a tried and true technique to sell an idea to council on an individual basis and to quell any public negativism. After the usual chorus of thank yous Weiers, Sherwood, Knaack, Martinez and Chavira voiced their enthusiastic support. Councilmembers Hugh and Alvarez were glaringly silent. Alvarez was probably too stunned to speak.

This council should be commended for seeking new strategies to maximize the city’s revenue streams and to reduce expenses. The question is…do these two strategies achieve those goals?

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those 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, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. 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.

Jan 14

8

The pressure is on the NFL

Posted by Joyce Clark on January 8, 2014
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale and the Super Bowl • Glendale finances  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

The first item on the Glendale city council workshop session of Jan. 7, 2014 was a legislative update.  Council’s interest was in making a run on the state legislature to adopt a mechanism to reimburse host cities for major events. Reimbursement could be applied to anything major such as the Barrett Jackson Auto Show or a major NBA tournament. It’s an idea long overdue.  From the time Glendale hosted its first Super Bowl and lost money doing so, I have continually pressed for such action. Even in discussions with the Host Committee regarding Glendale’s second hosting of a Super Bowl their reaction in pursuing such legislation was tepid. In the past 7 years there has been no interest, except in Glendale, to create such a mechanism. Glendale’s Intergovernmental Director, Brent Stoddard, continues to sound less than enthusiastic about its successful adoption by the state legislature in direct contrast to Mayor Weiers who said several times that he was “optimistic” that this would be the year for such successful legislation to be adopted. I would prefer to believe that this is the year for its adoption. Let’s hope they suceed in obtaining some kind of legislation to remedy this situation. Glendale simply cannot afford to host events that, in fact, benefit the entire state.

That leads to something that the TV media has been reporting lately. Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., has filed a bill to end the tax exemption status of the NFL (granted in the 1940’s) on grounds that Americans are subsidizing a for-profit sports league. The NFL’s non-profit status was something I had highlighted in one of my blogs several months ago. Many were surprised to learn that it had a non-profit status.

Coburn’s bill, the Properly Reducing Overexemptions for Sports Act (PRO Sports Act), would do away with the tax break currently enjoyed by the league offices of the National Football League, the National Hockey League, golf’s PGA Tour, and the Ladies Professional Golf Association. Major League Baseball and the National Basketball Association have voluntarily given up their nonprofit status. Coburn has argued that if all the professional league offices were denied this exemption, Americans could recapture the estimated $91 million that goes each year for the subsidy. There is a group called the Rootstrikers, (http://www.rootstrikers.org), created in 2011 by Harvard law school professor Lawrence Lessig and political activist Joe Trippi to fight political corruption. They want to give momentum to this issue and have started an online petition to support Coburn’s bill. If you feel so inclined, check it out.

It is estimated that the NFL realizes $9 billion dollars annually and their top executives earn more than most corporate CEOs. For example, the NFL’s CEO is paid $30 million dollars a year. With that kind of revenue the NFL is a gorilla when it comes to congressional lobbying. In recent years it spent nearly $4 million dollars and at the same time contributed nearly $2 million dollars to congressional campaigns. It has a lot of clout and Senator Coburn will have an uphill battle to get his bill passed successfully.

Later today we’ll take a look at other council discussions at its recent workshop: one on municipal marketing and one on organizational restructuring.

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those 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, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. 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.

Jan 14

4

And so it begins…

Posted by Joyce Clark on January 4, 2014
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances  | Tagged With: , , , , , , | 5 Comments

A new year begins and council resumes its meeting schedule. January 7, 2014 will be the council’s first workshop of the new year. On the agenda are 3 items: a legislative update, consideration of municipal marketing and consideration of revamping the city’s organizational structure.

Two of the items are Julie Frisoni’s. One, municipal marketing is an idea she had floated previously in April of 2012. On its first go-round council rejected the idea but persistence pays off and it has resurfaced. It’s a simple concept. Allow corporations to buy advertising space on city properties — libraries, buildings, vehicles and assorted other assets. While it has been partially implemented by larger cities nationally its use in the Valley has been very limited. Mesa does allow advertising on its utility bills and the revenue generated pays for the printing costs of the city’s newsletters. Other uses in the Valley have been by school districts on their school buses and by independent fire departments like Daisy Mountain Fire Department on their fire trucks. I guess there are a lot of local municipalities who would prefer not to become tacky looking with corporate advertising running rampant.

The cost to issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) to seek corporate advertising bids is between $40,000 and $75,000. Frisoni ends her presentation with the cryptic, “The source of funding would have to be identified if directed to move forward.” In plain English that means she doesn’t know where the money would come from. You can be sure that some department will end up forking over the money to fund this idea, if adopted. The city’s financial condition makes the idea very tempting. Ask yourself the question: Do you want to see corporate advertising throughout our city, including Arrowhead? I can hear the screams of outrage emanating from North Glendale now. This idea is akin to the billboard fiasco in Arrowhead. If they can’t accept billboards up there what makes Frisoni think they will accept corporate advertising all over the place?

The third item on the agenda is a presentation by Frisoni and Management Partners, Inc. The company was hired by City Manager Brenda Fischer at a cost of $46,800 — just $3,200 under the $50,000 limit that can be independently spent by the City Manager. Could be it that Fischer thought she might not get enough support on council to move on this strategy and so she made sure the contract came in under $50,000?

To the outsider, you and I, it looks like further consolidation of the City Manger’s power base. Management Partner, Inc.’s (MP) primary task was to review the structure of the enterprise funds (water, sewer and sanitation) executives as well as all other executive positions down to the division level and to recommend a new organizational structure that would go into effect on July 1, 2014. Hmmm…before you have visions of a reduction in expenditures for executive level employees, remember this – no employee leaves employment in Glendale unless he/she leaves voluntarily for employment elsewhere, retires or he/she has been fired. They are simply moved around and offered a position somewhere else in the organization at the same pay level.

As for the presentation itself by Frisoni and MP, I guess we will have to wait for the council workshop as no organizational restructuring strategies were publicly released with this agenda. It must be problematical or MP’s recommendations would have been make public already.

Lastly, there are two citizen groups in Cave Creek that are mounting recall petition drives to remove all six councilmembers with the exception of the mayor. Although the two groups oppose one another, their reasons for recall are eerily similar: fiscal irresponsibility, misrepresentations to the public in the last election and lack of transparency. It could have been written about some of our newly elected councilmembers in Glendale for we have seen shades of some of the same shenanigans.

 

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those 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, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. 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 13

31

2013 Elected Officials Report Card

Posted by Joyce Clark on December 31, 2013
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances • Jobing.com arena  | Tagged With: , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

On January 15, 2013 the new Glendale city council had its first official meeting. It brought new players and new dynamics to Glendale’s power base. It is only fitting that after their year’s performance we take a look back and give each of them a grade. The big issues such as the Arena Management contract and the external audit as well as the small issues such as council guidelines saw shifting alliances. No one has emerged as the majority leader although there are some who believe that they are.

It takes some time to learn the ropes of their new roles. Brighter people get it within 3 to 6 months; others take longer – up to a year or more to figure it all out.

What criteria make for a good elected official? Having “been there, done that,” here’s my list in no order of importance:

Representation of one’s constituency. Some have taken the time to learn of or to seek the opinions of their citizens; others rely on a Ouija Board and think they know.

Outreach to citizens. Some host district meetings and attend neighborhood meetings; others do not. Being visible and accessible to citizens is not only good politics but provides good service.

Understanding the issues. To be effective an elected official has got to read and to understand material on an issue in advance of discussion, follow up with questions if necessary, do independent research if warranted. Some do not read their material until they open their council books at a workshop or meeting.

Representation of city at local, regional and national venues. Some embrace opportunities offered whether it is a local tree dedication or reading to school children to service on a regional/national board. It causes that official to listen to voices other than his/her own and offers an opportunity to learn and to network.

Follow city policies/procedures and council guidelines. Some elected officials are assiduous in adhering to formal and informal policies; others are not. Playing fast and loose by practicing personal interpretation of these strictures causes questionable issues such as giving your taxpayer dollars to non-profit organizations.

Representation of city policy. An elected official may have advocated for a position under council consideration prior to the policy being formally adopted by council. After the council has approved a position on an issue it is incumbent upon an official to publicly uphold the city position. An elected official’s personal position in opposition to a council approved policy should not use city resources to advocate for that personal opposition.

The siren song of elected officialdom. There is no question that an elected official receives perks and is treated differently. The trouble is that after awhile, some elected officials believe that they are special and that it is their due. Some believe their own press and expect special treatment from staff and citizens.

Lead or follow. This is an age-old debate. Does an elected official follow the dictates of his or her constituency? Or does he or she lead by establishing a different position and then working to educate the constituency to accept a different point of view?

Respect. An elected official must treat everyone with respect. I often witnessed elected officials smirk, raise eyebrows or treat a citizen without respect because he or she expressed an opinion differing from that of the elected official. We reap what we sow.  Disrespect earns disrespect.

Honesty, Integrity, Ethics and Values. This is the bedrock of character for everyone. An elected official must not violate basic ethical values and remember always that the money he or she spends or decides how to spend is taxpayer money. A reputation of honesty and integrity once lost is never regained.

That’s quite a list! Based upon the criteria above there is no shining star on Glendale’s city council.  No one earns a grade higher than a “C” and some have earned failing grades of “F” due to lack of performance in several areas.

It is one thing to run on a definitive platform of issues expressed repeatedly to the electorate. It is quite another to deliver on those promises after being elected. Some have not delivered on those promises. An example is that the Mayor and Council all took strong positions on the issue of arena management prior to or during the last election cycle in 2012. Some reneged on their positions. Yet another example is that all publicly recognized Glendale’s financial troubles and promised a new era of fiscal responsibility yet they repeatedly spent money that Glendale didn’t have on new issues. What happened to their pledges to be fiscally responsible?

For some, Councilmembers Ian Hugh, Gary Sherwood, Sammy Chavira and Mayor Jerry Weiers, it is their first year in office. Others, Vice Mayor Yvonne Knaack, Councilmembers Manny Martinez and Norma Alvarez, have served for at least one term. Yet all can and should do a better job of articulating and following through on insuring Glendale’s future. Someone needs to lead. Instead we seem to have a group of people putting their fingers to the wind and choosing popularity over principle. The grades for each are below along with at least one reason for that grade. This is admittedly subjective and I expect opinions about individuals to bounce all over the place. Everyone tends to grade their representative higher and take a more jaundiced view of the others.

Mayor Jerry Weiers – C.  He demonstrates a lack of clear leadership. Instead he relies upon his experience in the State House not realizing what worked there may not work on a local level.

Vice Mayor Yvonne Knaack – C.  Spends her time trying to appease everyone and favors downtown Glendale (where her business is located) over the priorities of her district (Barrel).

Councilmember Manny Martinez – C.  Unfortunately his age has caught up with him and there are times when he has difficulty understanding.

Councilmember Gary Sherwood – C.  His aggrandizement of power is quite obvious and his abilities to connect with and to understand the needs of the average citizen are lacking.

Councilmember Ian Hugh – C.  His silence is deafening. He fails to communicate his thoughts or his positions on the issues until asked directly to contribute.

Councilmember Norma Alvarez  — F.  She displays a real failure in her ability to understand the issues, is obstructionist and cannot get past the Ocotillo district’s rap as a “poor” district.

Councilmember Sammy Chavira – F.  He has shown himself to be unprincipled as witnessed by his flip flop on the arena management agreement and his failure to live up to his pledge to be fiscally conservative.

Lastly, this tidbit came from the 4th floor of City Hall recently. It appears that Vice Mayor Knaack will not run for another term. Perhaps she has decided that in 2 years, if she decides to run for Mayor, she will have distanced herself from some very unpopular council decisions yet to come. Word is that she will endorse Bill Toops, owner of the local newspaper, the Glendale Star, for her Barrel district seat. Hmmm…that could be difficult for Carolyn Dryer, the editor of the Star, when Mr. Toops takes a position on an issue not welcomed by the Star.

© Joyce Clark, 2013

FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those 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, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. 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 13

30

Happy 2014, Glendale!

Posted by Joyce Clark on December 30, 2013
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale and the Super Bowl • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances • Jobing.com arena  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

As we prepare to enter 2014 it’s a good time to look at the major issues Glendale will face. Here is Glendale’s Top Ten for 2014:

  1. The winner for the coming year is Glendale’s financial future. The City Manager and Executive Finance Director will offer a series of options, some critical, some not, to right the situation. Will the city council grow a backbone and adopt some stringent measures that are sure to be unpopular with the general public?
  2. Will IceArizona be able to deliver on its promise of enhanced arena revenues to recompense Glendale for its annual $15 million dollar management fee? The $15 million annual fee coupled with another $12 million in arena construction debt repayment contributes to Glendale’s heavy financial burden.
  3. The Camelback Ranch area has never delivered on its promise to perform. When the recession hit all development came to a screeching halt. Will the city create n incentive strategy for development of the surrounding area? Its annual $13 million dollar debt construction repayment is yet another major financial burden.
  4. Will the Attorney General’s office investigation into former City Manager Ed Beasley and deals cut with former financial consultant Art Lynch and former HR Director Alma Carmicle result in charges being filed?
  5. What impacts will the arrival of the first of 144 F-35 aircraft have on Luke Air Force Base, Glendale and the surrounding West Valley area?
  6. Will the Arizona Cardinals continue to seek its dream of a bubble tent practice facility on Glendale’s Youth Sports fields? What about their desire for Glendale’s long-promised parking garage as a means of fulfilling its parking requirements as vacant land diminishes at Westgate?
  7. Will the new City Manager Brenda Fischer continue to fire employees as her solution to any future irregularities? Will a new round of internal warfare erupt between police and fire over the severely constrained city revenue pot of money as her empathy toward fire (her husband is/was a firefighter in Henderson, Nevada) becomes more evident?
  8. With November, 2014 city election for councilmembers in the Cholla, Barrel and Ocotillo districts bring new faces and new agendas and another shake up in the fragile council coalitions?
  9. Will the temporary city sales tax increase become permanent as a solution to Glendale’s financial mess? How will citizens react to the broken promise of its sunset in 2017? Will citizens see increases in all kinds of local taxes while experiencing a decrease in the level of services provided?
  10. How will the city find the money to pay for its hosting of the Super Bowl in 2015? A figure of $1.7 million dollars is unrealistic and doesn’t equal the amount spent by Glendale on its last Super Bowl hosting gig.

Lastly there is the unknown. There is always a new, unforeseen crisis. What will it/they be for Glendale in 2014? Councilmembers will continue to combat and to abuse one another and all of us. The City Manager will continue to offer policies to strengthen her power and there is no one on council to guard against it. Departments such as police and fire will vie for shrinking resources. New players and power brokers will emerge. All that can be said with any degree of certainty is that it won’t be a dull year. Thank goodness there will be plenty of fodder for upcoming blogs!

© Joyce Clark, 2013

FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those 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, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. 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 »