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.
Well, the dark side is at it again. The other day I received a hit piece mailer urging voters to vote against Prop 424, city council pay raises. Let’s review their claims.
Claim #1 “Sold city property purchased for over $700,000 in 2008 to the City Manager Kevin Phelps’ neighbor for $25,000.” Here’s the rest of the story. The city bought the parking lot and building in 2008. St. Vincent de Paul rented it as a thrift store until 2015. There were no infrastructure improvements or any money invested in the building between 2008 and 2018. In the ensuing 10 years the building became a run down, dilapidated mess and certainly was no longer worth over $700,000. If it had remained in the shape it had been when purchased by the city then perhaps a sale at $700,000 would have been justified. The city always intended to sell but there were no takers but one and he was strictly an investor who owned other properties downtown that to this day continue to remain vacant.
The building needed a complete renovation with new flooring, a new roof, a new heating and cooling system and above-ground plumbing. The city did not want to sell the building to an investor that would sit on the property and do nothing with it for years.
The Albright’s approached the city’s Economic Development department about acquiring the building only—not the parking lot. Discussion about the offer occurred in council’s Executive Session several times. The purchase price was low because the Albright’s committed to rehab the structure to city code with new flooring, a new roof, new heating, cooling and plumbing at an estimated cost of half a million dollars.
If you wish you can refer to my blog from one year ago, October 18, 2018 entitled “St Vincent de Paul Building: A package-in-a-bow deal or down at the heel deal?”
Neither Councilmembers Turner nor Aldama expressed non-support of the offer until the night council was scheduled to vote to deny or approve. In fact, Aldama voted in favor. The Goldwater Institute said at the time, in 2018, that it was taking a look at the deal. A year has passed and Goldwater has not filed anything against the city.
As for selling to a neighbor of the City Manager’s, that statement implies because we have neighbors they must be close friends. With the schedule our City Manager has I would be surprised if he even knows who his neighbors are, much less have the time to become close friends.
Oh really? This is bunk and the authors of this hit piece know it.
Claim #2 “Gave City Manager Kevin Phelps a $20,000 pay raise and a lifetime contract that automatically renews.” As reported by the media here are the base salaries for city managers of the Valley’s 10 largest cities. The dark side didn’t mention that Phelps ranks 7th in base salary.
- Phoenix $315,000
- Scottsdale $261,622
- Mesa $260,666
- Gilbert $248,519
- Chandler $232,021
- Surprise $230,000
- Glendale $229,500
- Peoria $222,600
- Avondale $210,000
- Tempe $208,046
As for an automatic renewal, as with any other city in the Valley, either side can give notice and terminate the contract. All city managers serve at the pleasure of their city councils. If a city council is unhappy with a city manager’s performance the council gives the city manager notice and then terminates. No city manager expects to have his or her job in perpetuity.
Oh really? This is bunk and the authors of this hit piece know it.
Claim #3 “Paid over $65,000 for the new city logo. Yes, the city paid Catapult Consulting $65,000 to develop a branding manual and guidelines for the use of the logo but the logo itself was gratis. Catapult created all of the technical specifications (including size, placement, fonts or alternative colors) for every conceivable thing the city has or uses from garbage trucks to signage to stationary so when equipment or material is replaced over time the manual delineates how the logo may be used.
I publicly stated that city staff squandered a major opportunity to engage the public and develop something that would be truly iconic for Glendale and it was very disappointing. To this day I dislike the new city logo and I refuse to use it. Instead I prefer to use the city seal. I said at the time, it is a spinoff of the Google “G” and confusing at best. A majority of council reluctantly approved the expense because they felt going back and starting all over would cost the city even more money.
Oh really? This earns half a ‘bunk’ because the money did not pay for the logo itself as the mailer states but rather for the guidelines and manual that would be used to implement the new logo.
Who sponsored this blatant hit piece that contains a smidgeon of truth wrapped in a web of untruths? The mailer states, “Paid for by Arizonans 4 Fair Government.” I checked with our city clerk and this PAC has not registered with the City of Glendale to reflect the expenditures made for this very recent mailer. I also checked the state and county websites and could not find any reference to or a filing establishing this PAC. A simple Google search reveals that a Twitter page, Arizonans for fair government, was established in May of this year (with 42 followers) and is all about Paul Boyer and only Paul Boyer. Mr. Boyer is a state senator representing Glendale and North Phoenix. One of this twitter page’s followers is Mr. Josh Zaragoza who appears to be the representative for Arizonans for Fair Government (a very recently created political action committee??). Mr. Zaragosa’s self explained info about him states, “Negative Partisanship Rules Everything Around Me.” All of the tweets thus far are strictly about Paul Boyer and begin on May 17, 21, 22 and 24. There is a union printing label (a union bug) on the mailer and that seems to suggest the fire union as the financial backers of this mailer.
What’s going on? There are many in Glendale disappointed with Mr. Boyer’s insertion into what is a local, Glendale issue, not a state issue. He’s very angry with Glendale and seems to be running a vendetta. He gained media attention when he protested the issue of a Glendale fire fighter with cancer having been denied coverage by the appropriate state agency. Subsequently Glendale instructed its insurance company to cover all of the fire fighter’s claims. That wasn’t good enough for Mr. Boyer and so began his heartburn with the city. He is still so angry that he will introduce a bill in the state legislature when the legislature reconvenes to limit the pay of all municipal employees in the state to a cap of $95,000 a year. Apparently this is a blatant, open attempt to punish our city manager for perceived grievances regarding the fire fighter issue that were rectified by the city. Yet Mr. Boyer represents all of us in Glendale? Apparently he acquired the services of Mr. Zaragosa of the Arizonans for Fair Government PAC to design and mail the hit piece and secured funding from the fire union.
These ‘dark money’ mailers do a major disservice to you, the voter. Words are plucked out of context and the verbiage used is deliberately designed to inflame you. Debate is healthy but only when it is grounded in true and complete facts, not half-truths spun for the greatest effect. As with the scads of other mailers you will receive when the national Election Day rolls around, check the facts for yourself before you cast your precious right to vote.
© 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.
I was so angry when I received the hit piece that I am voting for Prop 424. I was on the fence, but that piece totally made me angry & backfired on them!
Joyce, as you know I live a block away from you yet have not received this mailer.
Aside from staying informed using legitimate, trustworthy sources what else can we do about these people or should we even waste any additional time on them?
I wish Congress would legislate some meaningful law. Without it we are doomed.
Well, all I can say is you did put a nice spin on things.. on Point 1, above, you say the buyers approached economic development. I’d like to be sure we give credit, where all the public credit was given.. It was publicly stated as many council members handed out praises during the city meetings, the downtown manager gets full credit for bringing this sweet deal to town. You know what, from that very moment I heard that story.. I knew it was dirty deal…only later did we learn who lives next door to who… A little “all too convenient” for me. To m, this is a dirty deal because it was done in the dark of night, behind closed doors, to the city managers neighbor. In the eyes of the public who read about this deal in the newspapers, saw it on tv, or heard this story over this past year.. it was a dirty deal. I can only hope the process for the sale of city owned properties changes significantly so it does not happen again.. And I am still not sure if that “relationship” was discussed in executive sessions, I guess they cant say? So, all I got to say about that is, if it was, then Council should have known how dirty that makes this deal look and, those running for re-election should have expected this time bomb to explode, it’s not going away.
This City Council was in a position to make it better (by delaying the vote and bringing the full deal to light before taking these actions) but instead, chose to continue. So that leaves the actions now in the hands of the voters-based on their perceptions. Don’t be fooled… the fact is this city Council majority sold a valuable piece of downtown property (stated as $245k in the council meeting) $700k of the tax payers money for an actual sale of $25k to the city manager’s neighbor. Those are the facts, this is the truth. Let’s not try to deny it.
Cheryl, I related the facts as I know them.
Cheryl, did you miss the part which stated that only PART of the property was sold? The larger piece of real estate was retained by the city. The actual building would probably have been demolished if someone had not pledged to bring it up to code, and a demo would have cost a pretty penny with the 1950’s and 1960’s era materials in that building. Please get your facts straight before you throw fuel on a trash fire.
The basic facts of this matter remain the same, and the PUBLIC will draw conclusions based on data provided. Without the proper process involving a certified real appraisal, we shall NEVER know the true value that was passed on. If it looks like a duck……
Glendale will continue to have problems in the eye of the public as long as they continue to sell publicly property without an appraisal and a public bid or auction. The fact of the matter is that no property in the middle of Glendale would loose that much value in 10 years but we will never know now. As for the insinuation of corruption by the CM I find that hard to accept.
Now on to the city manager salary the only thing I’ll say is that all those numbers you provide may be an accurate amount for the “salary” but it is far from the total compensation received by the manager. And that is where we the public distrust of our elected officials begins. How about the amount paid into things like 401 and 457 deferred plans, car allowance, executive level vacation plans etc.
I note with interest that this is the third blog you have devoted to the issue of Prop 424.
As a longtime resident of Glendale I will say that I am not happy with some of the decisions that have been made by the governing body of this city, one of which was bringing the NHL Coyotes here and building them a venue to play in – or more appropriately, to lose in.
Most recently I was very disappointed with the decision to pay $65,000 to the Tempe based company for the creation of “the G”. You have stated more than once that you didn’t like it – actually, you said you “hated” it. Yet when it came down to decion time you voted in favor of it. So, in effect, the Mayor and the City Council gave the City Manager a pass for doing exactly what he wanted to do without following procedure. The excuse you used for approving the “G” was that to go back to the drawing board would have cost the taxpayers more money. Weak excuse! That whole “G” project smacked of underhanded and a total lack of regard for the rule of law by Kevin Phelps! Period!
As far as the selling of city property goes, many of the sales lack transparency and it’s no wonder that the citizens of Glendale don’t trust their leaders – or are not in favor of voting for a raise.
It was only because of a major outcry by those of us who live in the Northwest/Arrowhead Ranch area that the sale of the Foothills Branch Library to Midwestern University didn’t materialize. Somehow the word got out before the sale went through, and that put an end to what looked to be one of those “backdoor” sales of city owned property.
Lack of trust in governing officials does not, and should not, result in rewarding them with increasing their income.
And speaking of income, I have a question for you, Joyce:
How many of you, the Mayor and all Council Members, have another source of income?
By that I mean either a current job – full or part time – OR a retirement income from a job you once held.
To the best of my knowledge none of you rely solely on the salary you are paid as Mayor or Council Members to survive. Am I correct in that assumption?
Obviously, I don’t expect you to name names, but I am curious about this.
One of the people who commented on the first Prop 424 blog spoke of “civic duty”.
I agree that being a member of the Glendale City Council is certainly time consuming – for some more than others, I imagine. However, it is your personal decision to run for office. If it becomes overwhelming, then it’s up to the individual to decide whether to run for office or not; and, it’s your decision whether the money you are paid for being a civil servant is worth it.
For what it’s worth, those are my thoughts and feelings on this issue.
Joyce, I know you say (and I believe you) that you do not get involve in the operations side of the city, but I am begging you for the sake of our district and the city to take a look. As long as the city continue to give these smoking deals to developers people will continue make these accusations. I think it’s time we hold the EconDev department accountable for some of these deals. Much the same way we hold the other departments accountable. For example when we approve a plan for development we make sure it’s built as was presented and major changes must come back to the council before they can be made. How about holding the EconDev department to the same standards. I am sure they told the council about the economic benefit the city will receive from the sale of the property. What was it and are they delivering? I see we are spending another $10 million on Ballparks Blvd on top of the $200+ already spent. How are we doing on the revenue side of that deal? Is Westgate paying it’s way yet? Do we collect enough to pay the debt and the arena management fees?
Until we get strength answers on these projects the public will continue to think someone must be getting a kickback.