Header image alt text

Joyce Clark Unfiltered

For "the rest of the story"

May 14

12

Houston, Glendale has a problem

Posted by Joyce Clark on May 12, 2014
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale zoning issues  | Tagged With: , , , , | 7 Comments

First I want to thank all of those who have taken time to read my blog. Fourteen months after its inception another milestone of over 115,000 reads has occurred. I am constantly amazed and very grateful for your support.

Houston,Glendale has a problem. In November of 2001 there was a Special Transportation Election held in Glendale. It would amend Chapter 21.1 of Glendale’s City Codes and become law. Voters passed the ordinance creating one half of one penny in a sales tax increase expressly for the following uses:

  • Intersection improvements
  • Street projects
  • Extension of existing bus service
  • Increased Dial-A-Ride service
  • Express bus service
  • Regional light rail connection
  • Pedestrian and bicycle improvement projects
  • Airport projects
  • Safety improvements

If you look at the illustration below entitled #3 Specialized Transit Service there is a map that was published within the ballot. There is also specific language underneath the illustration that reads as follows, “Light Rail in Glendale will extend from 43rd Avenue to Downtown Glendale and will be based on arterial streets, but will not be located on Glendale Avenue. Construction of light rail in Glendale is subject to completion of a light rail connection in Phoenix.”PROP402-2001BallotwithMaps

There appear to be three specific, voter approved ratifications that have been law in Glendale since November, 2001. One, light rail must be sited on an arterial street, i.e., Northern, Glendale, Bethany Home or Camelback. Two, light rail cannot be placed on Glendale Avenue. Three, light rail may not be sited in Glendale until Phoenix has light rail to Glendale’s border.

At city council’s last workshop there was a presentation by Valley Metro. Based upon their preliminary planning Valley Metro has eliminated consideration of Northern Avenue or Bethany Home Road. That leaves only Glendale Avenue and Camelback Road for further consideration of some form of mass transit, whether it be light rail, rapid bus transit or modern streetcar.

If there is to be further consideration of Glendale Avenue.There is a legal problem in that the 2001 transportation election changed Glendale’s City Code, its laws. Until the City Code section pertaining to light rail is again amended light rail cannot be placed on Glendale Avenue. The relevant section of City Code may be amended in one of two ways. City Council can approve any amendment to the City Code by a majority vote at its regular council meeting or there can be another special election and the voters can approve an amendment to City Code. Should there be a recommendation by Valley Metro to site light rail along Glendale Avenue; a majority of city council will have to amend City Code to allow it to happen.

This is what happens when a city loses its talented, experienced personnel with historical memory.

© 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.

May 14

8

A tax and spend city council

Posted by Joyce Clark on May 8, 2014
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances • Glendale zoning issues  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

The Glendale City Council Workshop of May 6, 2014 had 4 items: the 2035 General Plan Update; the West Phoenix/Central Glendale Light Rail Update; discussion of adding electronic voting to council meetings; and the ever present FY14-15 budget follow up.

The 2035 General Plan Update discussion was led by Jon Froke, Glendale’s Executive Director of Planning, joined by Celeste Werner and Rick Rust, VPs of the Matrix Group. The Matrix Group is the consultant hired by the city to conduct the 2035 General Plan Update at an unbudgeted cost of $110,000 to be paid over two years: $31,000+ the first year; and $78,000+ the second year (FY2014-2015). Here is the link to their presentation: http://www.glendaleaz.com/Clerk/agendasandminutes/documents/01A-Glendale2035GeneralPlanUpdatePowerPoint.pdf .

The city has put up a website for the General Plan Update at www.glendale2035.com. It’s in its infancy right now and there isn’t much to see when you visit the site. At some point there will also be Facebook and Twitter links. Perhaps the greatest take away from the presentation was the continual emphasis upon the Citizen Steering Committee’s role in the process which is advisory only. It was made clear that the final approval rests with council before it goes to the voters in a General Election on November 8, 2016.

As citizens what can you do? Get involved…learn as much as you can…voice your opinion, your vision for Glendale’s future… and concerns, if you have any. There is a natural tension between property owners of vacant land and citizens and their neighborhoods. Make no mistake. Property owners will work hard to maximize the designated zoning for their vacant property because when it is sold a more intense zoning designation means more money for them. Sometimes what they may want will be in direct conflict with what is compatible with your neighborhood. Be vigilant. Check what’s vacant around you and then find out what kind of zoning designation may be placed on that land. Make sure it works to the betterment of your neighborhood. As an example, a property owner may want a multi family (apartment) zoning designation. Your neighborhood might be made up of large or medium sized lot homes. Apartment zoning on vacant land adjacent to your neighborhood will inevitably create future problems and could lower your property value.

Next up was the West Phoenix/Central Glendale Light Rail Update. Cathy Colbath, Glendale’s Interim Executive Director of Transportation Services, introduced Stephen Banta and Benjamin Limmer of Valley Metro. Both men made an excellent presentation. Here is the link: http://www.glendaleaz.com/Clerk/agendasandminutes/documents/02B-LightRailUpdate-PPT.pdf .

Funding for mass transit will be generally along the lines of: 50% from the federal government; a large percentage from voter approved Proposition 400 administered by Valley Metro; an undetermined percentage by the cities in which the mass transit is sited.

Take aways were, in terms of cost per mile: light rail, as most expensive, at $60 to $90 million per mile; a modern streetcar system at $40-$60 million a mile; and bus rapid transit at between $2 to $20 million a mile.

Valley Metro is still in the initial planning stages identifying which of the 3 modes of service would work the best and identifying a corridor extension from 19th Avenue and Bethany Home Road, Phoenix into Glendale. The study area is from Northern Avenue to Camelback Road, including the use of Grand Avenue. Based upon their findings Valley Metro has excluded Northern Avenue, Bethany Home Road and Grand Avenue. It appears the final corridor will be either the Glendale Avenue or Camelback Road. Mass transit is becoming more and more of a necessity in the Valley as resources shrink and the costs of purchasing fuel continue to rise. Did you know that for every billion dollars invested in mass transit in the valley there was a return of $7 billion in economic development along the light rail lines?

Valley Metro will host a public meeting and present their latest information on the study and will offer the public a chance to comment and ask questions. The meeting will be on Thursday, May 22, 2014 from 6 PM to 8 PM at Glendale City Hall, Council Chambers. It’s worth it to attend and to share your opinion on what kind and where mass transit should be sited in Glendale.

Economic redevelopment is critical along all of Glendale Avenue. Redevelopment of Glendale Avenue has been planned to death for at least 20 years with no discernible results to date. I was on the Miracle Mile Committee years ago as a private citizen and was a councilmember when the latest plan, Centerline, was approved. I can’t even remember all of the iterations of planned redevelopment that occurred in between those two efforts. Glendale Avenue is our namesake street. All of it, from 43rd Avenue on the east to Sarival Road on the west, deserves special recognition in terms of development and redevelopment planning. Centerline, the current name for Glendale Avenue redevelopment, only targets 43rd Avenue to 67th Avenue. If I may be so bold as to suggest, a broader, long term vision is required for all of Glendale Avenue and perhaps it should be considered as a whole but in phases. Phase I could be the current 43rd to 67th Avenues. Phase II could be 67th to 105th Avenue (location of our airport and public safety training facility). Phase III could be 105th Avenue to Sarival Road. We should cherish this entire corridor and plan for its future now.

Most of council was receptive to the Glendale Avenue corridor with the exception of Vice Mayor Knaack. Her reservations are understandable. After all she owns property at 55th and Glendale Avenues. However, she is being short-sighted. She is thinking in terms of short-lived financial pain, in the form of relocation or construction, creating financial hardships for business owners such as herself. The long-term gain of finally securing a tool for the economic development /redevelopment of Glendale Avenue between 43rd and 67th Avenues is too important to Glendale’s future viability.

The third agenda item just boggles the mind. Vice Mayor Knaack, under Council Items of Special Interest, brought up the subject of electronic voting at council meetings. Someone on staff may have slipped her the suggestion. Chuck Murphy, Glendale’s Executive Director of Technology & Innovation, and Diana Bundschuh, Deputy Chief Information Technology Officer introduced Chris Voorhees and Thao Hill of Granicus, Inc. Granicus is the provider of the current system used at council meetings.

Two questions should have decided the fate of this idea in short order. Is it critical to the current operation of council meetings and what does it cost? Now, I’m a technology nerd. I love new technology but in the light of Glendale’s current financial crisis electronic voting is not a necessity…now, at this very moment. Yes, it’s sexy and new. Yes, some other cities already have the technology but we can do without it for now. It is not critical to the process of council meetings. What about the cost? Well, Glendale can have the new, sexy technology for a mere upfront cost of $23,000 and an annual cost of approximately $18,000. And that doesn’t include the cost of replacing hardware such as tablets on a periodic basis – perhaps every 3 to 4 years. Hardware is expensive and is used by all personnel including council. Of course this is all unbudgeted. Of course Glendale has no money for a Cadillac right now.

It didn’t faze a majority of council for one single minute. It didn’t bother Councilmembers Knaack, Martinez, Sherwood and Chavira who constituted a majority giving direction to move forward with the new system. Mayor Weiers was decidedly uncomfortable and observed that the cost equates to one position within the city. What was the point of Councilmembers Martinez and Knaack urging all councilmembers to give back a portion of their council budgets if they are all too willing to be imprudent about Glendale’s unbudgeted expenditures such as this one. It’s ridiculous. If they cannot control their spending on relatively small items, God help us on the really, really big ones.

The last agenda item was Fiscal Year 14-15 Budget Follow-Up Items presented by Tom Duensing, Glendale’s Executive Director of Financial Services. By the way, I keep waiting for City Manager Fischer to live up to her pledge to get rid of all of these Executive Director titles…still hasn’t happened…wonder if it ever will? Here is the link: http://www.glendaleaz.com/Clerk/agendasandminutes/documents/04-POWERPOINT-FiscalYear2014-15Follow-UpItems.pdf .

Following Glendale’s budget this year is like trying to find your way through the smoke and mirrors.  It’s the same pot of money no matter what new names are used. Now we have General Fund Sub-Funds, a Permanent Fund and an Internal Service Fund. Go figure. When you watch senior management discuss the budget this year you end up feeling confused,  down right befuddled and just as if you had been sold a bottle of snake oil.

The take aways are that your Primary Property Tax Rate will increase by 2%, the Temporary Sales Tax increase will become permanent and there’s a new strategy called Alternative Service Delivery. The least offensive of the two increases is the increase in the primary property tax rate. Glendale’s portion of your property tax bill is relatively small. Hence the increase in real dollar terms is also proportionately small.

What should be of concern is making the temporary sales tax increase permanent and eliminating the sunset provision that was to occur in 2017. In an attempt to avoid painful cuts to the budget council took the easy way out. It’s a promise broken. Instead senior staff ratified by this council continues to overextend Glendale’s finances and to spend more than is in the budget.

Alternative Service Delivery is the new buzz word for privatization of services Glendale residents receive. The problem is, that while senior staff implements this strategy, no one and most certainly the public or even council for that matter, have been told exactly what they are doing. Then again, it’s another refusal on the part of senior staff to share information. If you were to ask any councilmember about Alternative Service Delivery they would parrot the explanation they heard at this workshop meeting. That is, positions when vacant are being evaluated. If you asked what specific evaluation criterion is used and what jobs have been privatized, they would not be able to answer. After this article, they probably will.

Tentative budget adoption is scheduled for the May 27, 2014 meeting of council with final budget adoption scheduled for June 10, 2014. At the June 24, 2014 council meeting the increased property tax rate and the permanent sales tax increase will be adopted.  Glendale’s voters got what they wanted…a tax and spend city council.

© 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.

Apr 14

28

USA Pawn Shop…round 2

Posted by Joyce Clark on April 28, 2014
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale zoning issues  | Tagged With: , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

On Thursday, March 6, 2014 the Glendale citizen Planning Commission voted to deny a Conditional Use Permit for USA Pawn Shop. Thank you to the citizen members of the Planning and Zoning Commission for your decision.

Recently I received an email from a Glendale resident who told me it’s not over yet. USA Pawn, as is their right, has appealed the Planning Commission’s decision to the Glendale City Council. It will be heard before council at their Tuesday, May 27, 2014 meeting at 6 PM.

USA Pawn is asking to locate a mere 300 to 500 feet away from another pawn shop, Go Daddy Pawn at 59th Avenue and Bethany Home Road, in zip code 85301. It’s time to give south Glendale a break. There are at least a half dozen pawn shops within spitting distance of one another in the area.

Whether you live in the immediate area or not, you have the right to let your voices be heard. Share your opinion on the granting of yet another pawn shop in south Glendale by emailing the Glendale City Council. Here are their city email addresses:

You can let them know that you oppose the granting of a conditional use permit for the USA pawn shop and your reason(s) why you oppose it.

Or you can speak to the issue on the night of May 27, 2014 by appearing before the city council and speaking when it is presented on the agenda. Either means is effective but only when there are many voices. It doesn’t take many to persuade council. I have seen 20 or 30 people mount a charge on an issue and succeed. The danger is that you assume someone else will participate so your voice isn’t necessary. Never make that assumption for then no one comes forward. Silence indicates to council that there is tacit public approval. I am always reminded in these situations of a poem in which the author says, paraphrasing, they came for others and I said nothing. When they came for me there was no one left to speak for me. Public silence and apathy are the hallmarks of bad ideas that are allowed life. Another pawn shop in south Glendale is a bad idea that should not be given life.  

© 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.

Mar 14

26

Billboards 0, casino 1…

Posted by Joyce Clark on March 26, 2014
Posted in Casino • City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale zoning issues • Glendale's Fire Union  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

The Glendale City Council meeting of March 25, 2014 was reminiscent of many meetings I attended. It was one of those marathon sessions, lasting well over 4 hours, attracting many public speakers. The council approved a contingency fund transfer of over $6 million for the arena management fee and accepted staff’s recommendation that retirees will now pay the full liability for their medical insurance. Curiously current city personnel will remain heavily subsided by the city (read, you, the taxpayer).

However, the two big issues were billboards along the Loop 101 and Bell Road and the resolution to officially rescind city support for U.S. Representative Trent Franks’ legislation, HR 1410.

One could see a sea of yellow t-shirts in support of allowing billboards adjacent to the Loop 101 and Bell Road. Jordan Rose of the Rose Law Group delivered a strong, and very, very long presentation on behalf of Becker Boards. Yet speakers against the proposal outnumbered those supporting 2 to 1. It was assumed by many that it was a done deal and would win approval. After all, Councilmember Sherwood had publicly announced that he had the four votes needed for its passage. Can you say, “blind-sided?” The ultimate vote was 5 to 2 against. Only Councilmembers Sherwood and Alvarez voted in favor of Becker Billboards.

Sherwood’s advocacy for the billboards may be more easily understood as one of the speakers questioned his support in terms of the campaign contributions he had received from the stakeholders. A quick pass of his campaign finance reports reveals at least $1,960 received from members of the Rose Law Group and another $1,720 received from members of the Becker family. Approximately 1/5 of his total campaign contributions came from these two entities.  

As a side note, seeing the large campaign contributions from fire unions, fire PACs and union firefighters in Sherwood’s campaign filings has piqued my interest. Look for a future blog that details how much money these fire union entities poured into Glendale’s last election cycle in 2012 and to whom. I suspect it will surprise us all except for the fire unions who probably know to the penny.

Councilmember Alvarez, on the other hand, cast a spite vote in favor of the billboards. After all, if her district must suffer their blight, why shouldn’t North Glendale suffer too?

The other hot issue was a vote by a majority of council to reject Representative Trent Franks legislation (HB 1410) to prohibit casino construction in the Phoenix Metro area after August of 2013. Council’s vote on this issue was much closer this time, 4 to 3, with Councilmembers Alvarez, Hugh, Chavira and Sherwood (perhaps as payback to Chavira) voting in the affirmative. The result of this congressional bill would be to stop the Tohono O’odham in their tracks. You can be sure it will result in another court battle. In the meantime court decisions are not yet settled in the 9th Circuit Court and in the Supreme Court.

Plain and simple, the Glendale City Council should not have done this. It is a slap in the face of a supportive bipartisan congressional coalition made up of the likes of Franks (R), McCain (R), Pastor (D) and others—virtually the entire Arizona Congressional delegation is in support of Franks’ legislation. The State of Arizona has a law on the books—the voter approved Gaming Compact of 2002. Since when can a city council pick and choose which laws it will uphold? It is a premature action that can result in futility should the court cases be resolved against the Tohono O’odham or Franks’ bill become law.

Mayor Weiers read a letter from Representative Franks expressing his disappointment with this council’s action and his pledge to continue to move this legislation forward. The Mayor also expressed concern that should the Tohono O’odham prevail the State Legislature will move to allow gambling state-wide, no holds barred. Many neighborhoods, state-wide, not just in the Phoenix Metro area, may become victims of new casino construction, not just by state tribes but by gaming interests throughout the country.

I, the former Yucca district councilmember, along with many, many Glendale residents, especially in the district affected, the Yucca district, urge the Gila River Indian Community and the Salt River-Pima-Maricopa Indian Communities to stay the course. Continue to fight this deception perpetrated by the Tohono O’odham on you, its sister tribes.

I urge Representative Franks to also stay the course. The 4 current councilmembers who voted to pass this resolution do not represent the majority — Glendale residents opposed to this intrusion. They are misguided–swayed by the promises made to them by the Tohono O’odham. Yet how can we trust a tribe that used deception to buy the land and keep it a secret for 7 years? How can other tribes trust the tribe that used deception and secretly was planning to build a casino while advocating for a state compact that promised no new casinos in the Phoenix Metro area? Anyone who relies upon the Tohono O’odham’s word after having seen their deceptions is a fool. It looks like we’ve got at least 4 fools on the Glendale City Council. Sigh…

© 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.

Mar 14

19

Councilmember Gary Sherwood can’t have it both ways on the casino

Posted by Joyce Clark on March 19, 2014
Posted in Casino • City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances • Glendale zoning issues  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

March 18, 2014 was a “two-fer” in terms of council workshops. The morning session focused on the budget: General Fund budget balancing; Employee medical benefits; and fire staffing. The afternoon city council workshop also had 3 items of discussion: the Becker billboard request; a possible archery range at Heroes Park at 83rd and Bethany; and the Tohono O’odham casino.

I am going to discuss only one of those items here and now – the proposed Tohono O’odham (TO) casino. All of the other items will be covered in a subsequent blog.

In a prior meeting Vice Mayor Knaack requested an assessment of the impact of the proposed casino on the city and during the day’s discussion reminded staff of her original request that: staff (City Attorney Michael Bailey) bring back an assessment of the impact (fiscal and otherwise) of this proposed casino on Glendale; and that staff meet not only with the TO but with the tribes in opposition to the casino. Was Bailey too busy with his tablet and smart phone to pay attention because he fulfilled none of Vice Mayor Knaack’s request? He simply regurgitated former City Attorney Craig Tindall’s well-researched legal opinion on the matter. His actions could be construed as those of someone who is lazy and ill informed. He did not provide this council with Knaack’s original request: that of an assessment of the impact on the city.

Somehow or other the council discussion, at Councilmember Alvarez’ instigation (in person no less), moved to negotiating directly with the TO and opposing Franks’ bill. Chavira and Hugh immediately expressed their support. Mayor Weiers and Councilmembers Martinez and Knaack voiced their dissent. None of this was a vote, as council does not vote at workshop, but gives direction to staff through a majority support to move forward to investigate, plan and bring back information to be voted on in a council meeting.

Four councilmembers (a majority) gave direction to initiate negotiations with the TO and to express the city’s opposition to Congressional Representative Trent Franks’ bill, HR 1410. To what end no one knows because there are still lawsuits to be settled that will determine the proposed casino’s fate.

Councilmember Martinez, in opposition, quoted from a very eloquent article written by former Governor Rhodes of the Gila River Indian Community in the Arizona Republic on October 20, 2010.. The former Governor said, “There’s no literal translation in English that does justice to the tribal word, ‘himdag.’ As Governor of the Gila River Indian Community, himdag guides my every decision, my every action. Himdag, as passed down by our elders across hundreds of years, teaches us to respect for all things, including the value of a promise, abiding by the law and concern for the welfare of others.

Respect as a guiding principle feels old-fashioned in the 21st century, but it exists all the same – even when our community is compelled to sign its name to a lawsuit against the United States Department of the Interior.

You may have read about that lawsuit filed Spt. 16. You may have also read about Glendale’s lawsuit to stop the casino, filed this week. Out of respect, I believe that I must explain the reasons why my community to pointedly disagrees with Washington and with a southern Arizona sister tribe’s plan to build a casino on land they secretly bought in Glendale, 160 miles from their reservation headquarters.

My explanation can be summed up in a single sentence. We believe the TO Nation, with the assistance of the federal government, has disrespected the rule of law, the balance so carefully struck among Indian gaming tribes, our community, Glendale and every Arizonan.

At the crux of our lawsuit is clear evidence that the proper procedure for creating an Indian casino has been sidestepped. I’ll leave the legal wrangling to the lawyers, bit in the 21 months since our sister tribe surprised us with plans to build a casino on our aboriginal lands, our community has learned more than we would care to about legal loopholes, PR spin and shading the truth. The surprises have continues to come, and so have the disappointments especially where our sister tribe is concerned.

In the past, my community and the TO Nation have lived side by side and mutually benefited from our entwined cultures and interests. There’s no better example than the Indian gaming compacts ratified by Arizona voters in 2002. Proposition 202, supported by 17 tribes statewide, including the Gila River and TO communities, created a sound but delicate balance, a promise, that kept casinos out of urban neighborhoods, gave much needed revenue to the state and created an economic engine to lift every tribal community.

To see that balance upset and that promise broken – and to see one tribe use secrecy and legal maneuvering to benefit at the expense of every other tribe and our state – is difficult to comprehend, let alone stand for in silence.

Thus the Gila River Indian Community has taken our case to federal court. Our first goal is to force the federal government to apply federal gaming laws evenly. Never before has a tribe been allowed to “shop” for reservation land half a state away from its homeland, then open a casino on the newly created “pocket reservation.” That not only flies in the face of federal gaming law, but in the face of every Arizona’s vote for Proposition 202.

As for our sister tribe, I know our disagreement is temporary. Himdag has a place of supreme importance in their culture, too. I would like to believe that their leadership will rediscover their way soon enough. I believe we can achieve more together than apart and that greed should never be allowed to trump respect for all things.”

The deciding supporter of Alvarez’ plea was Councilmember Gary Sherwood. Mr. Sherwood can not have it both ways despite the rambling, confusing and often contradictory reasons for his decision. On one hand he says he still supports City Council Resolution 4246 that stated that the city is officially opposed to the TO casino.  It’s important to quote part of that resolution, “Whereas, the City believes that the Tohono O’odham Nation’s assertions and the basis upon which it makes these assertions are incorrect, poor public policy, in violation of the governmental rights, privileges, and authority of the State of Arizona, the County of Maricopa, and the City of Glendale, and are contrary to the best interests of the Citizens of the State of Arizona, the County of Maricopa, and the city of Glendale; and Whereas, the City of Glendale, consistent with the Indian tribes voicing opposition to the Tohono O’odham Nation’s application, opposes off-reservation gaming, including this current effort by the Tohono O’odham Nation to establish gaming on the Proposed Reservation Land, as contrary to the terms of Proposition 202 as presented to the people of the State of Arizona in 2002 and supported by, among other, the Tohono O’odham Nation.” Here is the link to Bailey’s (really Tindall’s legal opinion): http://www.glendaleaz.com/Clerk/agendasandminutes/Workshops/Agendas/031814-W03.pdf .

On the other hand, Sherwood then launched into a monologue stating, in essence, the TO casino will create “synergy” with Westgate and drive more business there. In a pig’s eye and he knows it. Subsidized food, drink and room rates at the TO proposed casino will undercut every restaurant, bar and hotel in the Westgate area. Despite his statement that he still supports opposition to the proposed casino and it will be “contrary to the best interest of the City of Glendale and of the citizens of the State of Arizona” he then supported moving forward with negotiations with the TO and opposition to Franks’ bill.  On one hand he says he opposes the casino because it earns not a penny of revenue for Glendale yet on the other, he is prepared to negotiate and facilitate their eventual presence.  His position is illogical yet he became the fourth councilmember needed to achieve consensus and direction.

Why? Sometimes things become clearer with perspective. Think back to the arena deal vote. Sherwood knew Weiers, Hugh and Alvarez were opposed to the arena deal and Martinez and Knaack already supported him and the deal. The vote was split, 3 to 3. He discovered those 5 members could not be dissuaded. Whether one agreed with or opposed their positions they had the principles of their conviction and could not be moved. He desperately needed that 4th vote of approval for the arena deal.

Who was left? Newly elected Sam Chavira — of course. Whispers of this scenario have circulated for months. If Chavira voted for the arena deal, in return Sherwood would support the casino. Is it true? I don’t know but it makes perfect sense and certainly seems to fit the known facts. Did each sell their souls? For what? Political back scratching? To be recognized in public hockey town halls as the saviors of the Coyotes? Reelection financial support from hockey and TO stakeholders with deep pockets?

But at whose expense? The citizens of Glendale locked into unsustainable arena debt of an estimated $27 million a year with a council unwilling to make the budget cuts that make the arena deal feasible? The Westgate area business owners who will suffer from unfair competition? The residents of West Glendale whose property values will decline with the advent of a casino while crime and traffic increases? The Westgate business owners who will suffer from unfair competition?  The Indian tribes who joined the State Compact in good faith? The voters of the State of Arizona presented with a plan to limit casino locations?

These politicians were just that –typical politicians, exemplifying the worst of the offices they hold. Sherwood delivered an irresponsible and dangerous signal to casino friends and foes alike. His flip flop on one of his campaign promises should be remembered when he runs for reelection. Given this, expect him flip flop again and to support the hated billboards proposed for North Glendale.  After all, he confessed that all of the fuss over the billboards was “baffling” to him and he was “pro-business.” There is no statesmanship here.

© 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.

Mar 14

3

Say it ain’t so…not another pawn shop

Posted by Joyce Clark on March 3, 2014
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale zoning issues  | Tagged With: , , , , , | 2 Comments

Recently the City of Glendale approved yet another pawn shop, Go Daddy Pawn, in south Glendale at 67th Avenue and Bethany Home Road, specifically in zip code 85301. Now USA Pawn wants to plant itself a mere 300 to 500 feet away from Go Daddy Pawn. Not another pawn shop! Give south Glendale a break. There are more than a half dozen pawn shops within shouting distance of one another in the area.

Not all residents, but many who live in zip code 85301 are poor. It is a socio-demographic area under stress. There are, at a minimum, 15 apartment complexes. Housing can and often will sell for less than $100,000. An obscene number of pawn shops, liquor stores, title loan shops and we buy gold & silver shops dot the landscape – far more than in any other part of Glendale. I won’t even get into the number of south Glendale billboards (ala the north Glendale situation that has residents currently fighting their placement along Bell Road).

85301 is a ripe and juicy target area for the non-profits of the world. Many wish to locate in 85301 to be close to their client base. After a while it becomes a “chicken and egg” situation. The non-profits are drawn there to do good. That in turn, attracts more people in need to the area which, in turn, attracts even more non-profits. It becomes a never ending cycle that drags down property values. These types of commercial/retail seek out areas such as 85301.

Pawn shops are not healthy for any community. In a University of Michigan Law School study (here is the link: https://www.law.umich.edu/centersandprograms/lawandeconomics/workshops/Documents/Winter2008/miles.pdf ) “…estimates indicate that a 10% increase in the rate of pawn shops raises the rate of robberies, burglaries, and larcenies in urban counties by between 0.8 and 1.1 percentage points.” It found that, “pawn shops increase the rates of robbery, burglary, and larceny…”

On Thursday, March 6, 2014 at 6 PM the Glendale citizen Planning Commission will decide whether to grant a Conditional Use Permit for USA Pawn Shop. The meeting will be in the council chambers of Glendale City Hall.

Whether you live in zip code 85301 or not, please plan to attend and to ask the Planning Commission to deny USA’s request. You don’t have to live in that zip code, or in Glendale for that matter, to have an opinion and to speak. The Planning Commission, similar to a city council, can be swayed by the numbers of people in attendance opposing or supporting an issue. Your neighbors need your help and your support more than ever. It starts with just one person who does not assume that others will do the job. Be part of the solution.

Why bother? Because negative zoning requests such as this know no bounds. They are like sludge, silently expanding their boundaries. While they are predominately located south of Glendale Avenue now, look for a future that moves these indicators of decline further north in Glendale – first to Northern Avenue and then beyond as they relentlessly move northward in our city.

© 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.

Mar 14

1

Billboard applicant pulls rabbit out of hat

Posted by Joyce Clark on March 1, 2014
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale zoning issues  | Tagged With: , , , , | 4 Comments

The Glendale City Council meeting of February 25, 2014 was contentious. Everything was truckin’ along until Item 19, the billboard issue. Whoa…not so fast! The council vote was tabled. It was widely assumed that Councilmember Sherwood had the votes to ram it through. It turns out that was not the case. Somewhere along the way he, Rose Law (applicant’s representative) and Becker (applicant) realized the votes were not there. Their fall back plan was to table, hopefully providing them more time to bring reluctant councilmembers into the fold. The vote to table and bring to a council workshop on March 18 and council meeting on March 25 was 5 to 2. Vice Mayor Knaack voted “No” and observed that this issue was “being pushed out until the answer changes.” Councilmember Martinez also voted “No” and said the move smacked of “desperate measures.” Weiers, Sherwood, Alvarez, Hugh and Chavira voted “Yes.”

There were at least a dozen or more citizens there to voice their opposition to the billboards. Sherwood, in the past, characterized the billboard opposition as “a minority.” Not so. It’s usually the case that every citizen that takes the time to get actively involved in an issue represents a large segment of silent citizens. 

Most of the public stayed until the end of the council meeting to express their dismay with council’s non-action. Michele Tennyson from the Cholla district expressed their collective sentiment quite well. Ms. Tennyson had served on a city council in Mill Creek, Washington and after locating to Glendale, served on various Glendale boards and commissions. She obviously knows how political games are played. She said she was “ashamed” by council’s conduct and decision to table the issue. She related the timeline and history of actions taken. She made it quite clear that there was no reason to delay an up or down vote. Ann Berman, a Sahuaro district resident, said “Sherwood seems to have made a decision” and alluded to the fact that it is not in the public’s favor. Others pointed out that the next scheduled council vote would occur during Spring Break when many people take the opportunity to go out-of-town. Clearly the residents of the Sahuaro and Cholla districts, directly affected by the erection of these billboards, do not want them.

During the council comment period at the end of the meeting those who spoke offered hints regarding their positions on the issue. Councilmember Sherwood attempted to explain why it was necessary to table the billboard issue. Councilmember Alvarez told the citizens that they need “to make the council accountable.”  Councilmember Martinez characterized council’s actions as “blatant” and “a slap in the face” to the decisions already made by the citizen Planning Commission and staff. Vice Mayor Knaack described it as “unforgiveable” to disregard the Planning Commission’s decision.

Others were silent about that issue but offered a wide range of comments on other topics. Sherwood, Chavira and Knaack voiced their opposition to SB 1062 (although Knaack cited the wrong bill number). Several thanked Executive Directors of Communication/Marketing and Transportation, Jerry McCoy and Jamsheed Mehta, for their service as they move to take positions with other cities. Mayor Weiers characterized it as a “brain drain.” That is exactly what it is. We continue to lose the best and brightest and their historical memory of previous city action. Jamsheed Mehta should have been appointed as an Assistant City Manager.  Councilmember Chavira, always reluctant to take a position on anything unless cleared by his handlers, thanked everyone for everything. During the Public Comment period Arthur Thruston spoke of Ken Jones’ contribution to Glendale via his activism on issues and asked for special council recognition for him.  Some of the councilmembers publicly thanked Ken Jones for his participation in Glendale’s civic life. Will he get a plaque for his activism? No. It would set a precedent and create untold controversy as to which citizens would merit such recognition.  I have never agreed with Mr. Jones’ positions on any Glendale issue but he has earned my respect and thanks for his avid activism. There should be more Ken Jones in Glendale, not necessarily sharing his point of view but willing to speak and stand for those things in which they believe. Thank you, Mr. Jones.

© 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.

Dec 13

4

No ghettos in Arrowhead

Posted by Joyce Clark on December 4, 2013
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances • Glendale zoning issues • Jobing.com arena  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

On the December 3, 2013 city council workshop there were 6 topics. This was not one of council’s short, one-hour, “whizz bang, thank you ma’am” kind of meetings. It seems whenever there is discussion related personally to council the discussion is intense and prolonged.

Let’s take a look at each one. First up was the issue of 2 hour downtown parking. Someone had complained to Mayor Weiers and so it surfaced as a Council Item of Special Interest. Since the parking restriction was not being enforced there was a question of keeping the signage up. Councilmembers Martinez, Knaack and Sherwood felt there was no problem but supported Weiers, Hugh and Chavira in their request to survey the downtown merchants about the issue. So there will be a second installment on this issue after the survey is completed.

Next item was the city suite policy and its use. This item was requested for discussion by Vice Mayor Knaack who explained that she wanted to disabuse the public of the notion that council had free and unfettered access to the city suites at Jobing.com arena and Camelback Ranch. This notion is widely held when the public sees Mayor Weiers and Councilmember Sherwood often and regularly in the city Jobing.com arena suite. The policy as I remember it allowed for 2 uses: for non-profit use and for city business use (economic development). Apparently there is now a third use allowing for city council city business.  Council finished by directing staff to make more use of the suites as a reward to city volunteers. A good idea. Sources have said that Interim Assistant City Manager Frisoni was able to rent the Jobing.com arena suite in the past for her daughter’s birthday party. If that did occur it most certainly violated stated city policy. Hmmmm…

The third item was allowing citizens to donate a greater amount monthly to the From the Heart Donation program — another Mayor Weiers topic. After much discussion council gave direction to increase the donation option from $1 a month to $2 a month on citizen utility bills. The thinking was that it would double the amount received monthly for the program. Maybe, maybe not. When the price is increased on anything the number of purchasers usually decreases. Let’s see how this works out.

Undoubtedly the hottest topic was the discussion of council budgets. Vice Mayor Knaack requested this item and made the point that she did not think the use of council funds (read your taxpayer dollars) should be given from councilmember budgets to non-profits.  Martinez and Sherwood agreed but it raised Councilmember Alvarez’ blood pressure by at least 100 points. She had been silent on all previous items and did not wake up until this topic came forward. Then she was off and running!

She made sure she cited every past transgression from Knaack benefiting from the city’s VIP (Visual Improvement Program) for businesses to the city’s decision to enter into the $15 million dollar a year management agreement with IceArizona to the absence of recreation programming for kids. She made sure she recited every past sin. She made clear she would not go along with any prohibition council might create regarding council budget donations to non-profits. Hugh and Chavira stood fast with her.

Councilmember Martinez, joined by Vice Mayor Knaack, once again asked that councilmembers reduce their discretionary and infrastructure budgets so that the funds could go back into the General Fund. There is no doubt that Martinez, Knaack and former Vice Mayor Steve Frate believed strongly in doing so. Here is the past history on council budget reductions;

  • Barrel district (Knaack)      reduction of $26,571 and district improvements of $197
  • Sahuaro district (Frate)      reduction of $24,729 and district improvements of $4,965
  • Cholla district (Martinez)    reduction of $23,796 and district improvements of $2,998
  • Cactus district (Lieberman) reduction of $2,563 and district improvements of $500
  • Yucca district (Clark)          reduction of $1,188 and district improvements of $15,445
  • Ocotillo district (Alvarez)    reduction of $0 and district improvements of $9,545 

Donations to non-profit/school districts:

  • Ocotillo district (Alvarez)              $22,134
  • Cactus district (Hugh)                  $11,849
  • Yucca district (Chavira)                $  8,000
  • Cholla district (Martinez)              $  1,000
  • Barrel district (Knaack)                $     609
  • Sahuaro (Sherwood)                    $     419

You can see from the figures above there are two competing philosophies regarding the spending of council budgets. There being no consensus on anything related to how they spend your taxpayer dollars there was no direction given and things will stay just as they are.

The next item was a topic generated by Councilmember Sherwood. Currently all councilmembers can offer a Council Item of Special Interest without having to get 3 other councilmembers to agree to the topic. Sherwood wanted to go back in time and reuse the policy that required 3 other councilmembers to support any Item of Special Interest. As he said, “It was better to have staff work with ‘real’ issues” and he summarily dismissed the value of any Item of Special Interest brought forward by a councilmember. His suggestion went over like a lead balloon and he received no council support for his latest idea.

The last item was city generated and was a presentation on the proposed financial policy on transfers. After the presentation by Tom Duensing, the new Director of Financial Services, he was thanked profusely (especially by Chavira who has become quite adept at thanking everybody for everything) but there was nary a question. The longest part of this item was the presentation by Duensing.

On another unrelated issue, lately there has been a fire storm of public discussion on the siting of billboards in the Arrowhead area adjacent to the Loop 101. I bring this up not to take a position on the issue but because of something I read recently. A Cholla citizen reacting to the billboards said, “How ghetto could that be, to put up signs like that?” This is not an aberration but the typical attitude exhibited by Arrowhead folk. So, billboards are ghetto-izing? It’s OK for billboards to be placed in the rest of Glendale along with pawn shops, loan stores, massive apartment complexes and liquor stores? I’m surprised that Arrowhead has not ceded from the city. It must be embarrassing for Arrowhead people to have to say they live in Glendale with all of its ghettos.

© 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.

Nov 13

19

Wishful thinking

Posted by Joyce Clark on November 19, 2013
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale finances • Glendale Municipal Airport • Glendale zoning issues  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

 

The Tuesday, November 19, 2013 Glendale city council workshop is jam packed and includes a Development Impact Fee update, the Fire Department Budget deficit, special project recommendations and the Ballpark Boulevard extension.

Since the Arizona Legislature changed the way all cities in the state can impose, collect and spend Development Impact Fees Glendale, like many other cities, has developed a new Impact Fee structure. Impact Fees are charged to new developments and the developers typically add these fees into the price of a home, apartment, office, commercial or industrial building. Tischler Bise is the consultant hired to prepare the study on Impact Fees. I would like to know the cost of the study for I assure you, as thorough as it is, it was not cheap.

The consultants divide Glendale into three zones. The East Zone runs the entire length of Glendale, north to south and from 43rd Avenue to 75th Avenue. It is a very large zone and is approximately 42 square miles.  The Loop 101 zone is the smallest running from Northern Avenue to Camelback Road, 75th Avenue to 115 Avenue. It is a very small zone and is approximately 13 square miles. The West Zone is all land within Glendale’s annexation boundaries and is approximately 36 square miles. Although very thorough the consultants provide no rationale for the establishment of the Zones that are essential to the study.

There is concern with the disparity of size of the zones for they comprise a “nexus.” By that is meant that development impact fees are collected and spent within each zone. With the Loop 101 Zone being the smallest there will be less opportunity to collect/spend fees to provide the same quantity and quality of infrastructure as enjoyed by the East Zone. As an equitable issue all land south of Northern Avenue from 43rd Avenue to 115th Avenue should form the Loop 101 Zone. That would remove approx. 12 square miles from the East Zone making it approx. 30 square miles and increasing the Loop 101 Zone to 25 square miles. The West Zone would remain static at 36 square miles.

The balance of the study is impressive. Their facts and figures are well grounded and formulas are used to determine what the new fee structure for state mandated infrastructure should be. Although the Development Impact Fee structure is no longer what Glendale and every other city used previously there is no choice but to work within the new state-mandated regulations. We will not see the kind of Impact Fees that helped to make Glendale what it is today but it is important that we make the best use of them possible. With the exception of the determination of the zone configuration this is exactly what this study does.

The second item of discussion is the fire department’s deficit. There is but one question to ask. Is the fire department being managed effectively by current Fire Chief Burdick? In juxtaposition the Police Department led by Chief Deborah Black is not facing this kind of deficit. What kind of deficit? How about $1,674,887 minus one-time savings netting a deficit of $1,328,070? In addition the on-going, annual deficit of over $800,000  goes to pay for overtime due to the department’s philosophy of “constant staffing.” It’s time for a study to demonstrate which brings more value to citizens – constant staffing which entails an enormous amount of overtime at time and a half pay or the hiring of more personnel eliminating the need for the constant staffing regimen and its requisite overtime pay.

That item will be followed by a presentation and discussion of recommendations that resulted from the half million dollar external audit.  The City Auditor’s and City Attorney’s roles will be part of that discussion as well as the Trust Fund Citizen Boards and departmental internal premiums for risk management.

The last item of discussion will be what to do about Ballpark Boulevard. The city in an agreement with the two baseball teams agreed to extend Ballpark Boulevard north to 99th Avenue and Maryland Avenue. The current, approved concept will cost the city $18 million to acquire land for right-of-way and construction. Mayor Weiers asked that two alternatives be considered that would come in between $6 and $8 million. Both of these alternatives would run adjacent to the city’s airport on either its west or east side. The only problem with the alternatives is that they will not replace the contractually mandated concept of connecting to 99th and Maryland. That will still have to be done. So the question is…does the city construct a stop gap measure costing $6 to $8 million now knowing that down the road it still must spend $18 million per its contract with the City of Phoenix and both baseball teams? The city has no money right now and without any demonstrated urgency it is something that can wait. Neither Phoenix nor the teams are demanding immediate action.

This is not going to be one of the council’s typical one hour or less meetings. The issues are complex and I would hope that council “has done its homework” and is prepared to ask meaningful and relevant questions on all of these complex issues…but then again, it could be wishful thinking.

© 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 »