Header image alt text

Joyce Clark Unfiltered

For "the rest of the story"

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

On September 29, 2020, Glendale resident Ron Short sent a letter to the Mayor and all Councilmembers regarding Glen Lakes. The entire council appreciates hearing from citizens and values their comments and takes them under consideration when making decisions. I have the utmost respect for Mr. Short. He is a valuable member of our community. In fact, he is a former employee of the city and worked in the Planning Department working on historic properties. Although at some time he may have, I don’t remember his working on any new development or redevelopment applications (unless they had a historical component). His area of expertise was that of historic property preservation.

In his letter he questioned whether the city is an appropriate applicant. Unfortunately, he ‘cherry picked’ the City Code, Section 3.803 – Authorized Applicant. He referenced A. 5., only one of the 6 permissive applicants listed, “5. The Planning Commission or City Council on its own motion at a public meeting; or.”

The complete Section 3.803 – Authorized Applicant., as follows:

“A. An application for an amendment to change the zoning on any property shall be one (1) of the following:

  1. The owner of the property;
  2. One (1) or more of several join owners of property who own individually or as a group, a majority interest in the property;
  3. One (1) or both of the property owners where property is held in joint tenancy;
  4. Seventy-five (75) percent, or more, of the owners of property in the area covered by the application when the application covers more than one (1) property;
  5. The Planning Commission or City Council on its own motion at a public meeting; or
  6. The Historical Preservation Commission, the Planning Commission or City Council on its own motion at a public meeting, may initiate an amendment to establish or amend Historic Preservation District Zoning.”

Fact:   The applicant for the amendment is the city, owner of record at the time the amendment was filed and meets number 2 of the above Section 3.803. Mr. Short refers to an agreement with Homes by Towne dated December 11, 2019. That was the initial agreement agreeing in principle to sell under certain conditions. The actual sale and close of escrow occurred at a much later date.

Mr. Short, within his letter, then makes reference to the required landscape area referring to Code Section 19-62, On-Site Landscaped Areas and quotes, All development projects covered by Section 19-4 here shall provide on-site landscaped areas located in accordance with the following standards and requirements: (3) For all development within other zoning districts, landscaped areas shall be provided on the site in an amount equal to or greater than twenty (20) percent of the net site area.”

Let’s see what Section 19-4 actually says and requires. “The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all development or construction, all building remodeling, alterations, additions, or expansions, and to all changes of occupancy in the use or development of land which requires the approval of a development site plan or subdivision plat by the city. Agricultural uses and single-family and two-family residences and their accessories shall be exempt from the requirements of this chapter.” Once again Mr. Short chose one sentence to make his case without bothering to review Section 19-4, his citation, to see if it applied to this development project comprised of single family residences.

Mr. Short also fails to recognize that city code with reference to a Planned Residential Development (PRD) allows for public open space to be a part of the development. The developer in required to build the park (on his dime) and then must dedicate the park to the city as public open space. The requirements for specifications and maintenance of the park area are the responsibility of the city, not the developer, which is his assertion.

Mr. Short refers to the ‘boom times’ the city is currently experiencing and therefore there is no need to sell Glen Lakes Golf Course. Boom times don’t last forever and are often followed by ‘bust’. When ‘bust’ does come, everything is on the table for consideration as to whether it is an essential component of city service delivery. Historically, the city has spent millions of dollars to preserve Glen Lakes Golf Course and if retained would continue to spent considerably more. A component of council’s decision was the question, is it fair and equitable to all city taxpayers to continue to subsidize this golf course? That is a complicated question that each councilmember must decide for himself or herself. Each will have come to a final conclusion when it comes before council for a vote this month.

© Joyce Clark, 2020         

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

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

I asked city staff to research a series of questions regarding expenditures for Glen Lakes over the years. Much of it was historical data which they could not provide. However, I am sharing the information I did receive.

I asked what the 1979 purchase price was for Glen Lakes. The amount the city paid in 1979 was $1,418,113. I would only remark that the 1979 price was remarkable considering that it was purchased over 40 years ago. It would be considered a remarkable amount of money today as well.

I asked if there were any expenditures required after the land was purchased prior to opening the course to the public. Staff could not find any information.

I assumed the course operations and maintenance would have been a line item in the city’s budget over the years but that was not the case. Costs of operation and maintenance for all city parks and facilities were lumped together so there is no method to determine what would have been expended on the course until 2019. In 2019 the city implemented a new financial software system that now enables the tracking of individual facility expenditures across all departments.

It is fair to assume the city did spend money on operations and maintenance of the course between its purchase date and 2019 when the city could actually begin tracking expenditures. We just don’t know how much was spent each year so I find it puzzling when supporters opposed to the sale of Glen Lakes claim the city deliberately underfunded the operations and maintenance of the course in recent years when they have no factual information to prove it. As can be seen below with regard to attendance figures available attributing the decline in attendance to lack of maintenance seems unrealistic when nationwide golf course attendance declined.

We do know the city paid Golf Maintenance Solutions $120,500 in 2018. We do know that city expended $394,537 in 2019; another $166,691 in 2020; and another $65,000 in 2020. I asked what the city has spent on course maintenance since its closure. That figure is $261,634.

Factually, it can be documented that between the purchase price and the expenditures identified since 2018, the city has spent approximately $3,164,841.00 plus whatever expenditures there were between 1979 and 2018. Over 40 years, it is fair to say the expenditures were considerable and could be considered in the millions of dollars but there is no means of verification.

I asked what the attendance at the course had been since 2005. I have heard Glen Lakes advocates say repeatedly that in 2005 the course was very popular. I asked staff if they had any data on attendance and they provided:

  • 2005 47,469
  • 2006 46,947
  • 2007 42,999
  • 2008 39,455
  • 2009 39,999
  • 2010 33,577
  • 2011 25,104
  • 2012 21,377
  • 2013 22,788
  • 2014 19,196
  • 2015 18,420
  • 2016 15,483
  • 2017 unknown
  • 2018 12,240

I discovered many 9 hole municipal golf courses throughout the country whose annual attendance is twice that of Glen Lakes at its peak in 2005.  By 2016 users of Glen Lakes had declined by 67% from the 2005 figure.

An article entitled Course Correction published in September of 2019 sums up the current issues associated with municipal golf courses, “But over the past 15 years, golfing participation has fallen by 20 percent, from 30 million in 2005 to 24 million today. Now, according to the National Golf Foundation, there are more municipal courses than ever—some 2,800 across the country—but they are serving far fewer golfers than they once did. As a result, course costs are cutting into city budgets. One-third of public golf courses don’t make enough to cover annual operations. That number goes up when taking into account other expenses, such as debt and employee retirement benefits.”(https://www.governing.com/topics/finance/gov-golf-courses.html).

There is another issue that has surfaced recently with regard to Glen Lakes and that is, the issue of the park space to be reserved for public use. Currently, other than the view provided to adjacent neighbors, to actually be on the golf course one would have to pay a fee to use it so consequently the only benefit to neighbors is the view.

It should be noted that there is quite a bit of established park space in this area. Close by are Butler Park and Manistee Ranch Park. A little further is one of Glendale’s premier parks, that of Sahuaro Ranch Park.

I attended the public meetings for neighborhood residents. At one of those meetings conceptual plans were offered for proposed park space and the amount of improved park land is to be + or – 10 acres. The attendees were the ones who chose the final conceptual plan and they made it quite clear that they did not want a park with active amenities such as basketball courts that would attract users from outside their neighborhoods. Now to hear complaints about the configuration of the park space is quite baffling.

The city council will be voting on this issue sometime in October. I have no idea how the vote will go. There are several issues to consider. Does the city need two 9 hole municipal golf courses? Is it cost effective to maintain a view for the adjacent neighbors? Should this course be preserved no matter the current and future costs to be borne by all of the city’s taxpayers? Would the funding to operate and maintain 10 acres of useable, neighborhood, public park space be a better investment for the city?

I understand the Glen Lakes advocates’ position. Their request is to restore the course. I represent all citizens of Glendale. Is it fair, just and equitable to ask every taxpayer in Glendale to subsidize millions of future dollars to completely renovate, operate and maintain this course? Even if the course were renovated, it is anticipated the revenues earned by players’ fees would not cover the annual costs of operation and maintenance. The reality is that this course will be a financial deficit to the city in perpetuity.

It is always jarring and upsetting to residents when they are confronted with the fact that a once vacant parcel of land nearby will be developed. Their first comment is on the loss of their unimpeded view enjoyed for many years.

As Planning Chairperson Gary Hirsch said at a recent meeting, if this were a parcel owned by a private entity wishing to develop, it would be recognized and acknowledged that the private entity has the right to so as it wished with its investment. He drew a line in the sand when it came to a public entity, namely local government, and its desire to develop or to repurpose land that it owns. I’m not sure I agree with his premise. Taxpayers constantly question whether its local government is making sound financial decisions and operating in the most cost effective manner possible. Doesn’t local government have the obligation to stop throwing good money after bad?

I understand the anguish of nearby neighbors and the loss of their view of 40 acres of green space but at what cost do the rest of the taxpayers preserve the neighbors’ view?

© Joyce Clark, 2020         

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

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

I haven’t written anything since early December when I announced that I would be running again in 2020 for the Yucca district city council seat. Then I enjoyed our holidays. Just like everyone else, I spent the time shopping, mostly on Amazon; baking annual Christmas treats; wrapping presents, decorating the tree and preparing a scrumptious Christmas dinner.  All the things with which we become preoccupied during the season occurred. The new year of 2019 has begun replete with traditional resolutions sure to be broken within the month. I wish all of you a Happy New Year.

City Council resumed its activities with its first workshop and voting meeting of the year on January 8th. One of the more high profile issues of that first voting meeting was city council’s approval of a distracted driving ordinance mirroring the one passed by Surprise. It takes effect on February 7th but staff has begun a six month education period that will delay ticketing of offenders. It is a primary offense and drivers can be stopped for using hand held devices resulting in a fine of $250. This action would not be necessary if the state legislature had done its job and passed a statewide law. That may actually occur this year after the untimely and unfortunate death of a Salt River Police Officer by a distracted driver. Arizona is one of a handful of states that does not have a statewide ban.

Another significant action to have occurred at that council voting meeting is the selection of Vice Mayor for 2019. It is a job that rotates on an annual basis. It is primarily ceremonial with the Vice Mayor acting only when the Mayor is unavailable to chair a council meeting or other event. I wish to thank the Mayor and City Council for selecting me for the position. It is an honor to serve in that capacity.

One of the upcoming issues on council’s January 22nd workshop meeting is that of motorized scooters. The birds, er, Bird brand motorized scooters, are popping up all over Glendale — especially downtown. While they serve a purpose for some residents in our community it has become abundantly clear that they, without any regulation, are becoming a nuisance to many others. Council will give direction on this issue at its workshop meeting.

Another problematical issue coming before council at its January 22nd voting meeting is a request to allow medical marijuana dispensaries to deliver marijuana to customers. Malcom Gladwell said in a recent New Yorker magazine article, “Permitting pot is one thing, promoting its use is another.” The general consensus in society seems to be that marijuana is pretty benign. Not so fast, there is a book out by Alex Berenson entitled “Tell Your Children: The Truth about Marijuana, Mental Illness and Violence.” It’s well worth the read and raises the issue that marijuana may not be quite as gentle as we have been led to believe. The voters of the state have spoken and approved the use of medical marijuana but it is up to local leadership to decide just how much they are willing to promote its use.

This year promises to be another busy one. In addition to the Business Subcommittee, which I chair, continuing its effort to enhance Glendale’s business friendly reputation, I will also serve on the Council Code Review Committee seeking reform of the operations of this department as well as looking for ways to strength those parts of Code that have not served the interests of our residents.

The creation of the annual budget is always a challenge. It shouldn’t be surprising to learn that when times are financially tough it’s very easy to create council consensus on allocations for limited resources but as the budget gets healthier there is bound to be more friction to secure funding for projects that have waited a long time to get funded.

Council is focused on job creation for our residents as well as rehabilitating infrastructure — something that could not be addressed during the years when the city concentrated on maintaining services and nothing else. There are sure to be issues that will arise that no one can anticipate or foretell. Could it be Glen Lakes development? the Thunderbird campus development? taking downtown Glendale in a new direction? or Loop 303 economic development opportunities? Who knows? But be assured that council will try to make the best decisions that it can for all of Glendale.

I announced last month that I will run for the Yucca district city council seat in 2020. This month I will file my campaign committee paperwork with the City Clerk in order to begin fund raising for the campaign. My goal is to raise $50,000 this year to position myself to mount a successful campaign against any candidate, especially one promoted and funded by the fire union, a very likely proposition.

Please join me this year by subscribing to this blog as I continue to offer my perspective on the issues Glendale will face. Simply sign up at the top of the column to the left of this article and every time there is a new post it will be emailed to you. As I enter the fifth year of writing this blog I am very close to having had half a million reads of my posts. Thank you all for not just following me but for continuing to take an interest in Glendale and its governance.

© Joyce Clark, 2019         

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

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

Tomorrow, Monday evening, November 19, 2018, at 6 PM in Council Chambers councilmembers will host a public forum to hear the voices of our community regarding not just the fate of Glen Lakes Golf Course but commentary regarding the city’s park system.

Council will not be there to respond or to defend any position but rather to listen to you. I believe this is a very consequential event. In my 17 years on city council I do not remember such a call to the people. As I said in a previous blog one either changes, adapts or dies. The city is changing in an attempt to become more open. Do we succeed all of the time? No, but we are trying. It’s an exercise akin to turning the Titanic. It’s a difficult and exceedingly slow process.

The issue before us is, of course, the fate of Glen Lakes Golf Course. There are equally valid arguments representing both sides. Perhaps the most compelling for those supporting the continuance of the golf course is the loss of major green space within our city. An equally valid argument for those opposed to keeping the course open is that the money required can be used throughout the city’s park system.

I would observe that when you speak on Monday evening it is unproductive to use your limited citizen speakers’ time to revisit history and cast blame upon the city for a lack of maintenance of the facility. Please do not squander your opportunity to share your opinion. I acknowledge that a lack of maintenance occurred. However, it was not the only city asset that suffered from a lack of maintenance. In addition to years of lack of maintenance of city facilities there were many projects deferred including the build out of parks and fire stations that needed renovation.

Council will be asked to decide whether to establish temporary facilities at the course with the goal of repairing permanent structures and keeping the course or whether to close the facility and sell the land using the proceeds for our entire park system. It is a difficult decision and one about which I continue to solicit information.

The opportunity to listen to the public representing all areas of Glendale is a very valuable chance for me to hear from those within the community with whom I might not have heard from previously. Citizens will have 3 minutes to speak. Think about the most important point you want to make. Prepare your remarks in order to be as effective as possible.

I received an email from a Glendale citizen that conveys the importance of this coming Monday evening and I share it with you:

“There is a group called Save Glen Lakes and they have been trying to avoid the For Sale sign going up at Glen Lakes Golf Course. This past Wednesday the Glendale City Council has given us, the citizens; a not very often granted Citizen’s Public Forum. Not only are they asking for input about the Glen Lakes Golf Course, but they want all citizens in Glendale to come forth and express their ideas about Glen Lakes and other projects having to do with Parks in Glendale.

I would strongly recommend attending the Monday night meeting just to show your concern and respect for the City we all live in.

Meeting is: Monday, November 19, 2018 at 6:00 P.M.

Location is: City Council Chambers. 5850 W. Glendale Ave., Glendale, AZ

If you are unable to attend the meeting please email your comments to parksfunding@glendaleaz.com

Or: Leave a message with your comments on the dedicated comment hotline at 623‐930‐2740.

Your comments will be included in the public record.”

© Joyce Clark, 2018         

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

%d bloggers like this: