Header image alt text

Joyce Clark Unfiltered

For "the rest of the story"

Jul 19

27

State legislature is no fiscal friend of cities

Posted by Joyce Clark on July 27, 2019
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale Economic Development • Glendale finances • Phoenix Metro issues  | Tagged With: , , , | 1 Comment

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.

The state legislature seems to have a love/hate relationship with every city in the state. Here are some of the more egregious examples. One is the state’s diminishment of the cities’ ability to collect Impact Fees; another is the state usurpation of every city’s ability to collect sales tax; and lastly the state’s reduction in the distribution amount of Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF) it is required to share with every city in the state.

In 2011, the Arizona legislature passed Senate Bill 1525. This bill restricts cities’ ability to collect Impact Fees from the development community. This diminishes the amount of money needed for libraries, community parks, streets and infrastructure, open space and trails.

So what, what do you care? Well, you should care because the restrictions on the collection of Impact Fees don’t mean that these things are not built. They still are…only now; you the taxpayer are paying for new growth in your town or city.

How does it impact you? It used to be in this state the mandate was “growth should pay for growth.” That no longer applies. Here’s a hypothetical. A developer wants to build a subdivision of 250 new homes on the periphery of your city. That developer would have to pay a set Impact Fee per house to help cover the cost of infrastructure to support and provide services to the new subdivision. Perhaps the arterial street abutting the subdivision would now require widening to accommodate the new traffic from the subdivision. Or perhaps the nearest fire station or library was pretty far away requiring a new fire station or library.  The Impact Fee charged by the city would help to defray the cost of widening the street or putting in a new fire station or library. The Development Impact Fee cost to the developer is added onto the price of each new home. The developer might raise the price of the new home by a $1,000 or $2,000. That money would go into the city’s accounts to help pay for the new infrastructure causing new growth to help pay for itself.

What happens when the Impact Fees have been reduced or eliminated by the state legislature? The city still needs to widen that street or to build that fire station or library. Where will the money come from? Why, the taxes you pay, of course. Now you are paying for that new growth.

There is one case when the loss of Impact Fees is not as detrimental to a city or town and that is with Infill Development. With Infill Development a developer takes a piece of land within an established area of a city and builds maybe 30 or 50 new homes on it. That land has been vacant for years but already has an adequate arterial street and a nearby fire station or library. There is no need to build new infrastructure. In that case the Development Impact Fees are used for any needed expansion of nearby infrastructure.

Yet in its heavy-handed way, the state legislature makes no distinction on the imposition of Impact Fees between an Infill Development in an established area of a city and new development that is sited where there is no city infrastructure. Why has this happened? Because the pro-development lobby is the 900 lb. gorilla with deep pockets that contributes to every state legislator’s election campaign (if the legislator is on the ‘right’ side of the issue). Taxpayers have no such lobby and therefore in a battle between the pro-development lobby and the taxpayer, guess who wins?

Another example of the heavy handedness of the state legislature is the mandate passed in 2016 requiring all cities and counties sales taxes to be collected by the state by January of 2017. To add further insult to this injury, cities must pay the state to collect sales tax…they must now pay the state to do what they did for a hundred years. Glendale paid over $650,000 this fiscal year to the state to pay for what it had collected on its own previously.

To make matters worse, in an audit of the state Department of Revenue released in June of this year it was revealed that the state does a lousy job of collecting sales tax. The department simply missed identifying businesses and erased a bunch of active businesses that were paying their taxes. After the department took over collection from the cities at one point just stopped checking to see whether all businesses were even licensed.

Cities are now forced to retain their employees that check payment of business sales tax. In other words cities have to double check the work of the state department to insure that not only the tax is being paid but that it is a correct amount. So much for a better state ‘mouse trap’.

Why would the state take over sales tax collection? The state says it’s in the name of efficiency and simplicity for businesses paying sales tax. If a business does business in more than one city, it has to file a sales tax return in each city monthly. Now the business, no matter where or in how many jurisdictions it does business sends all sales tax collected to the state who then distributes it to the appropriate jurisdiction.

But there could be another reason. When cities collected the sales tax they would send the state’s portion to the state in a day or two or perhaps even in a week. While the cities hold the sales tax funds the cities are collecting interest on that money. Obviously the amount of sales tax collected monthly is enormous. With the state collecting the sales tax, it puts the proceeds in an interest bearing account and now the state is receiving the interest until it remits the proper amount to each jurisdiction.  Now the state earns the interest on the funds it collects until it disburses it to the jurisdictions.

Some of the money every taxpayer pays to the state is known as state shared revenue. One is the Highway User Revenue Fund (the tax you pay on each gallon of gasoline and is known by the acronym HURF). There is a formula that dictates a portion of HURF must be distributed to cities based upon their population. When the Great Recession occurred the state unilaterally slashed the amount of HURF state shared revenue it distributed to each and every city to help cover the state’s shortfall in its budget. While that was a great move to keep the state budget whole, it hurt every city that relied upon HURF dollars for part of the revenue for their budgets during that same recession. The state is only now beginning to share all of the state shared revenue amounts with cities that it is mandated to do.

It often appears to city leaders that the state will favor the interests of their business or pro-development friends over those of cities. Often that means that you, the individual, pays for the state’s decisions that favor interests other than yours.  The state continues to demonstrate over the years that it is not always fiscally friendly to the city in which you reside.

© 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.

May 19

15

Say it ain’t so…Governor Ducey

Posted by Joyce Clark on May 15, 2019
Posted in City issue and actions • Phoenix Metro issues  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

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.

Despite being approved unanimously by the Arizona State Legislature, (60-0 in the House and 29-0 in the Senate), Governor Ducey vetoed HB2473 STATE LIQUOR BOARD; MEMBERSHIP.  This bill began with an idea I brought forward to the Glendale City Council in late 2017.  It was and still is a very reasonable solution to begin to address many of the critical issues of concern with liquor licenses in all of the communities in Arizona. I would like to provide some background and commentary on where the Governor’s actions leave us today.

There is a lot of frustration among cities and towns across the state from city councils who spend a lot of time reviewing, listening to their communities, residents and law enforcement officers in order to make a recommendation of approval or denial on liquor licenses for establishments that will be in their communities.

A council’s recommendation for approval or denial then goes on to the State Liquor Board and cities (most noticeably some of the smaller rural communities) have felt for a long time that the licenses are quickly approved by the liquor board often without any consideration or even discussion about any concerns raised by local city leaders. Cities that recommend denials are usually over ridden by the Board.

The Board’s long history is one of generally ignoring city recommendations. I guess the Board thinks a city can never have enough bars, package stores and convenience stores selling liquor. I know of several square miles within Glendale that have over a dozen of these establishments within them, often in very, very close proximity to one another. Just how many liquor establishments in a small geographical area are necessary “to serve the public’s need and convenience?”                                                                          

For several years now, cities throughout Arizona have started a rallying cry for major reforms to the State Liquor Board and how we deal with the proliferation of liquor establishments in certain areas of our cities.  Having been an elected official for many years, I have learned that you cannot introduce major reforms in one fell swoop at the Legislature. You have to take baby steps, particularly in an area like liquor.  Instead, you have to incrementally and strategically introduce ideas that can begin to address the underlying problems associated with the bigger issues.  It was with this wisdom that I introduced, as a Council Item of Special Interest, the idea of running legislation that would designate one of the 7 seats on the State Liquor Board as a municipal representative which could be a current or former elected official.                                                                                                                   

Currently there are 7 seats on the State Liquor Board, 2 of which are designated for representatives of the liquor industry, 1 that is designated for a neighborhood group representative, and 4 at large seats.  This bill would simply have designated one of these at-large seats for a current or former elected official, who would be nominated by the League of Arizona Cities and Towns (the League) and appointed by the Governor.                                      

The purpose was simply to ensure that municipal perspectives are clearly understood when the Liquor Board is considering license applications.  Having a municipal representative on the board would allow them to share information related to local operations as well as to answer questions from other board members from a local government perspective.  Since these businesses will ultimately be operating in cities, it is important that the board clearly understand the potential effects, both positive and negative, on cities when making a determination on a liquor license application. The industry has several dedicated seats and we felt it was appropriate that cities and towns also have a representative since we bear the burden of their decisions.                     

In my concept, the process of identifying a municipal representative that the Governor could consider was also very simple.  The Executive Committee of the League of Cities, which is made up of 25 Mayors from around the state, would forward 3 names to the Governor for his consideration for that dedicated at-large seat.                                                                         

This concept was modeled after the 2016 bill (SB 1428) that Governor Ducey supported and signed  allowing  mayors to forward at least 3 names to the Governor for the new dedicated municipal seat on the Public Safety Personnel Retirement System (PSPRS) Board of Trustees. It also allowed that if the Governor didn’t like the names he wouldn’t be forced to appoint anyone.  In fact, there are already two vacant at-large seats that have been left unfilled by the Governor for several years now. When that occurs the League’s mayors can submit additional names for the Governor’s consideration as an appointment.                                                                     

With unanimous support of the Glendale City Council, I worked with Glendale’s Public Affairs staff to have the concept introduced in 2018 into the policy making process of the League so that it could be considered by all cities and towns for inclusion in the League’s legislative agenda for this session.  Again, I was attempting to turn the temperature down on the larger rallying cry and calls to go to war on the liquor issue.  What I was proposing was a common-sense compromise.                                                                

 I attended the League Military and Public Safety Policy Committee and advocated for it to be approved and forwarded by the committee to the League’s Resolutions Committee for full adoption.  The Committee did so unanimously. Next, it went to the Resolutions Committee of the League which is made up of the Mayors from all 91 incorporated Cities and Towns in Arizona.  They unanimously approved it for inclusion into the League’s 2019 State Legislative Agenda.

Prior to the start of this current session, the legislative proposal was then brought to the liquor industry in an attempt to get it included in the annual “Liquor Omnibus” bill.  Essentially this is the bill that packages all of the liquor legislation for the upcoming session.  Here is the catch though, nothing can be included in the omnibus bill unless there is unanimous support from the liquor industry lobbyists and their attorney representatives. The industry, of course, declined to provide unanimous support even though they were unable to identify any concerns. They just wanted things to stay the way they are right now on the Liquor Board, meaning only industry reps should have dedicated seats. They were guarding their turf while doing a disservice to the state’s general public.

Having been rebuffed by the liquor industry, in consultation with staff, we approached Representative Anthony Kern, Republican from District 20 in Glendale to sponsor the stand-alone bill and lead it through the legislative process.  He agreed and did a fantastic job.

The bill was introduced in the first few days of the legislative session in January, 2019.  Over the next 4 months, staff, elected officials and neighborhood leaders reached out to their legislators and educated them on the issue all the while advocating for them to approve the bill in committees and on floor votes.  There were many conversations, meetings and work, but it paid off. 

The bill was well received by all legislators as it should have been. It had already been unanimously supported by all 91 cities and towns, which doesn’t happen very often.  The mayors of these cities are the mayors of the residents of their legislator’s districts. The legislative members unanimously supported it (which is a rare feat in a split party legislature), because they have consistently been hearing for years from their mayors and councils how upset they are with having no voice at the Liquor Board. 

This bill was a great opportunity to support a change that didn’t affect the balance of the board, didn’t threaten the liquor industry’s majority, and wouldn’t have any impact on the liquor businesses who many of the legislators also support.  It simply gave the cities a voice and someone they could talk to about their concerns.

So why did Governor Ducey veto this bill which had nothing but complete support and no voiced opposition?  In his veto letter he states; “this bill adds an extra step to the nomination of one of the seven seats on the State Liquor Board, resulting in the inconsistencies in the selection process and creating a new, burdensome hurdle for appointment. We should be focused on reducing red tape not adding to it.”

What is ironic is that this “new hurdle” was modeled after something he had already supported and which he approved in a previous PSPRS bill.  So tell us Governor, why was that not considered red tape when approving the PSPRS bill but its red tape as you veto the Liquor Bill? I suspect you can’t with a straight face.

It is also puzzling that he would say that it creates a burdensome hurdle for an appointment when the whole intent was to get one of the two seats that had been left vacant by the Governor for many years, quickly filled with a municipal representative.  Governor Ducey ends his letter by stating, “I am open to discussions to include a municipal representative on the Liquor Board, but adding a new step in the nomination process is unnecessary”. 

What the Governor is really saying is he wants to appoint who he wants to appoint, when and if he wants to appoint.  He is open to conversations, but he doesn’t want to have to consider a slate of names forwarded by the State’s mayors.  After all, the individuals they forward may not be liquor industry cronies.  In other words, if there is a former elected official that is in cahoots with the liquor industry he might be willing to consider them as they would fit into the “liquor industry only” qualifications that seem to make up the existing Board.  However, that would be worked out through “conversations” not state statute.  It’s unclear who the “conversations” he refers to would be with, but I have a pretty good idea.

While I am angry, I can’t say that I am shocked. What might not be so well known is that while Doug Ducey was pursuing a Finance degree from ASU, for four years (1982 – 1986) Ducey worked at the Hensley & Company, an Anheuser-Busch distributorship, now owned by Cindy McCain, widow of former U.S. John McCain.  He is well known within political circles to have very close relationships and ties to the liquor industry, their lobbyists and their well paid attorneys. 

Once the liquor industry lobbyists stopped this bill from becoming part of their legislative omnibus package, they obviously just sat back and said nothing during this legislative session. They offered no opposition to a common-sense package that would be impossible to oppose publicly under any circumstances.  They were able to take comfort in the fact that they had the ultimate backstop, their friend, Governor Doug Ducey.  All they had to do was whisper in the Governor’s ear, once it got to his desk, that things should remain as they are on the Board – “Liquor Industry Reps Only” – and out came the veto stamp and some ridiculous statements on the bill creating “red tape” as a red herring. 

If we really want to cut red tape here’s a novel idea.  I would propose that any liquor license denied by a city or town council should die right then and there with no advancement to the State Liquor Board.  Imagine the time, energy and resources that would be saved by the State Liquor Board only having to consider those licenses which have been recommended for approval by a city council.  After all, cities are the ones that have to deal with all of the public safety, human and neighborhood related costs of liquor establishments in their communities. It’s where the rubber meets the road.

So where does that leave us today? I wish I could say that we are back to square one. However, I fear we have taken two steps back from square one with this veto.  In an attempt to start solving the larger concerns, I introduced a simple, low hanging fruit solution. Cities were then told with this veto, that it was too much reform, that it went too far and that we should have “conversations” not “representation”. I don’t anticipate this Governor or his liquor friends will change their minds anytime soon.  If I am honored to be re-elected to another four-year term to represent Glendale’s Yucca District in 2020, I am committed to introducing this bill again, when there is a new Governor of Arizona sworn in on January 2023.

I want to especially thank Representative Anthony Kern for his hard work in getting this bill through the state legislature as well as the other 91 city councils and mayors in the State League for their unwavering commitment and all of the Arizona State Legislators for their leadership and unanimous support of this bill.

© 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.

Feb 17

3

Coyotes bill SB 1474 introduced and dead…courtesy of ASU

Posted by Joyce Clark on February 3, 2017
Posted in Arizona Coyotes • City issue and actions • City of Glendale  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

Disclaimer: I am presenting my views as a private citizen who blogs about Glendale issues. The thoughts and opinions expressed do not represent the Glendale city council or its leadership staff.

As I write this blog, news has just been issued that ASU has pulled out of the plan to allow the Coyotes to use property within their athletic district. Never the less, the information below may help shed some light on why legislation introduced on February 1, 2017 would not have passed. Here are links to stories just published: http://www.azcentral.com/story/sports/nhl/coyotes/2017/02/03/asu-pulls-out-plan-bring-arizona-coyotes-tempe/97460974/ and http://www.abc15.com//sports/sports-blogs-local/arizona-state-backs-out-of-tempe-arena-deal-with-arizona-coyotes?utm_source=SilverpopMailing

Don’t ya just love it? SB 1474 was introduced to the Arizona legislature this Tuesday, February 1, 2017. The media announced the proposed legislation today, Friday. Fridays are always good days to introduce anything controversial as this is sure to be. It gets buried amidst a weekend, filled with fun activities and is generally ignored by the media, much less noticed by the general public.

SB 1474 is a proposed amendment to well established state tax code. The amendment proposes the creation of a “community engagement district.” Here is the link to the bill’s full text:

https://apps.azleg.gov/BillStatus/GetDocumentPdf/447123 .  Who introduced this bill?

  • Senator Kate Brophy McGee, Republican, representing District 28 in Phoenix
  • Senator Sonny Borelli, Republican, representing District 5 of Lake Havasu City
  • Senator Karin Fann, Republican, representing District 1 of Prescott
  • Senator Frank Pratt, Republican, representing District 8 of Pinal County
  • Senator Bob Worsley, Republican, representing District 25 of Mesa
  • Representative Douglas Coleman, Republican, representing District 16 of Apache Junction and Pinal County
  • Representative Thomas Shope, Republican, representing District 8 of Coolidge
  • Representative Bob Thorpe, Republican, representing District 6 of Flagstaff                                                                    

Please note that with the exception of Senator McGee (Phoenix) and Senator Worsley (Mesa), all of these legislators represent areas outside Maricopa County…hmmm.

It proposes the establishment of a “community engagement district pursuant to Section 48-3802.”  What’s in Section 48-3802? It sets the parameters under which this community engagement district may be established. Under A. it says, “The governing body of a city in which a university athletic facilities district has been established (read ASU’s district) pursuant to Section 48-4202, Subsection C may also establish a community engagement district in the city pursuant to this section if the governing body (Tempe) determines that the public convenience, necessity or welfare will be promoted by the district’s establishment…but must satisfy both of the following requirements:

  1. On the petition of the owner or owners of all of the real property on which a public facility will be located, the governing body of the city in which the property is located, on or before December 31, 2018, must adopt a resolution as described in this section.”

Most interesting is, “The district board of governors must have received, from the municipality in which the district is located (Tempe) or from any lawful nongovernmental source (ASU? Coyotes?), a financial commitment in an aggregate amount equal to or greater than the total amount to be distributed to the district under this section…” That aggregate amount has been stated publicly as $200 million dollars toward a $400 million dollar facility.

Lastly, the district will levy and excise tax on business activity in the district of no more than 2%. This is in addition to regular, state, county and city taxes.

I’m no lawyer but upon reading this proposed bill it seems to call for Tempe to pass by resolution a community engagement district since it is the jurisdiction in which the Coyotes arena would be built. Tempe must hold a public hearing on the matter. Bring your seat cushions because that promises to be one heck of a long public hearing.

Under this proposed legislation it appears that if Tempe creates such a district, “…that the establishment of the district may result in the levy of taxes to pay the costs of improvements constructed by the district and for their operation and maintenance.” It seems as if Tempe could have the authority to levy taxes upon every resident in Tempe if there is an annual deficit in revenues produced by this community engagement district. Beware of those bearing gifts in Coyotes’ clothing…the team sold Glendale by promising that the “enhanced revenues” it would receive would cover the costs to the city annually. Never happened.

The proposed bill also seems to require some entity to put up a bond (sort of) to be held in a separate account equal to the $200 million dollars the Coyotes want from the taxpayers…you. Well, we all know it won’t be the Coyotes. So that leaves Tempe or ASU to put up the money. Most likely ASU’s money would come from private donations rather than the annual public subsidy granted by the state legislature to all 3 of Arizona’s universities. I suspect private donors expect their money to go toward improving student education. I’m not so sure they’d be happy to learn that their money is actually going to guarantee the development of a private, for-profit entity such as the Coyotes.

I believe there is a good case to make for why the Coyotes belong in Glendale:

  • The Gila River Arena was built in 2003…specifically for the Coyotes.
  • The arena is 14 years old and is still one of the best, state-of-the-art arenas in the National Hockey League.
  • Glendale has proven its loyalty to the Coyotes by paying the NHL $50 million dollars to run the arena after Jerry Moyes declared bankruptcy in 2009. That act of loyalty nearly drove the city into bankruptcy. You would think that NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman would be loyal to Glendale and stand behind keeping the Coyotes in Glendale.
  • The Coyotes pay $500,000 in rent annually and have the use of the arena for all practice games. This is a unique to the Coyotes. Most NHL teams own and operate their own separate practice facilities at their own expense.
  • The Coyotes have the second sweetest arena deal in the entire Hockey League. The team gets 100% of the parking revenue, merchandise sales, concession sales and ticket surcharges as well as 80% of the naming rights.
  • Between 2015 and 2050, the West Valley will have an estimated population of 1.2 million; Phoenix will have an est. population of nearly 700,000 and the East Valley nearly 650,000. Between 2000 to 2010, the West Valley added about 300,000 people, Phoenix added about 125,000 people and the East Valley almost 250,000 people. MAG predicts future population growth in the West Valley will be nearly equal to the combined population growth of both Phoenix and the East Valley.
  • Well respected economic analyst Elliot Pollack predicted that Glendale will become the geographical center of the entire Valley
  • The new loop 202 bypass route known as the South Mountain Freeway will be completed by 2019 providing a significantly improved connection between the East and West Valleys

Anthony LeBlanc decided to teach Glendale a lesson when the city cancelled the contract that included a direct subsidy to the team. He is not acting in the team’s best long-term interests. While he gets short-term revenge, he fails to acknowledge and recognize the tremendous long-term growth of the West Valley and that is where his customers will come from. How long before he decides that the East Valley was a mistake because a booming West Valley customer base doesn’t want to commute eastward? After all, that is, in large part, his rationale for trying to move to the East Valley.

There have been many chapters written in the on-going Coyotes’ story. Some of those chapters were written by the National Hockey League; some of those chapters were written by the City of Glendale. But the latest chapters of turmoil and uncertainty about the Coyotes’ fate were written by the Coyotes themselves. The team attributes its lousy attendance to East Valley fans unwilling to commute to the West Valley. Perhaps they should acknowledge that the team’s performance is driving the lack of attendance these days.

There is no doubt that the Coyotes should remain in Glendale, Glendale has paid the price to keep them (something that the most rabid of Coyotes fans and LeBlanc fail to acknowledge). The Gila River Arena is a Class A hockey facility. The Coyotes have a very good revenue deal. With the explosion of growth occurring in the West Valley, this is the best location…for now and into the future.

It’s time for LeBlanc to make peace…not war…with the arena manager, AEG, and the City of Glendale. Glendale has proven its commitment to the Coyotes. It’s time for the Coyotes to prove its commitment to Glendale.

© Joyce Clark, 2017        

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.

Dec 16

30

Another Friday’s tidbits…

Posted by Joyce Clark on December 30, 2016
Posted in Arizona Coyotes • Camelback Ranch Spring Training Facility • Casino • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Gila River Arena • Glendale finances • Glendale zoning issues • University of Phoenix Stadium  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

An alert for residents living along 83rd Avenue and 91st Avenue from Camelback Road to Bethany Home Road regarding the Planned Area Development application called Stonehaven. The applicant has submitted a revised Stonehaven development plan and has scheduled a formal Neighborhood meeting:

Wednesday, January 11, 2017 at 6:00 PM

Sunset Ridge Elementary School Cafeteria

8490 West Missouri Avenue, Glendale, Arizona 85305

The Glendale City Planner handling this case is the Glendale Planning Director, Jon Froke. He can be reached at 623-930-2585 or by email at jfroke@glendaleaz.com. Mr. Froke can answer your questions regarding the city review and hearing processes as well as the staff position once their report is complete. Below is a depiction of the Planned Area Development Land Use Master Plan. It is disappointing as the applicant is asking for more density while refusing to plan for large lots south of the Grand Canal and adjacent to Missouri Ranch (comprised of 10,000 SF lots). The largest lot size being proposed by the applicant is 7,000 SF. The applicant appears reluctant to listen to resident’s concerns about small lot sizes devaluing the property values of those who live near the proposed development.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I urge you to attend this meeting especially if you live in Missouri Ranch; 8300 to 8600 W. Cavalier Drive; Pendergast Estates; Camelback Park, and all areas on the east side of 83rd Avenue including Orange Drive and Montebello Avenue.

Casino Issue not settled as U.S. District Judge David Campbell denied the Tohono O’odham’s (TO) request that he rule in the tribe’s favor without going to trial. Judge Campbell said he needed more information about allegations of fraud on the part of the Tohono O’odham. The trial will be scheduled sometime between April and August of 2017 making it a full year since June of 2016 when the Tohono O’odham filed suit against the state for its refusal to grant the tribe a Class III gaming license.

In the meantime Governor Ducey attempted to settle the case out of court by proposing to grant the TO a Class III gaming license in return for its promise to build no new casinos in the Phoenix Metro area. That overture was rebuffed by the TO and seems to signal that the TO may have plans for another casino in the Phoenix area. Could they have once again purchased land secretly betting that they can get their Class III gaming license without promising to build elsewhere in the Valley? I would think any Valley city with county islands should be very, very nervous. Here is the link to a December 19, 2016 story in the Arizona Republic: http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/glendale/2016/12/19/dispute-over-desert-diamond-west-valley-casino-heading-to-trial/95634944/ .

Tax increment financing for the Coyotes new arena is by no means guaranteed passage in the Arizona Legislature. Rather than granting tax increment financing and incentives for the Coyotes the legislature would be well served to assist the Arizona Sports and Tourism Authority (AZSTA) in crafting new revenue streams for the sagging revenues it currently receives. The Authority has only paid out $49.2 million dollars in reimbursements toward a total of $220.7 million dollars owed to various Valley cities for their ballparks facility construction/renovation.  AZSTA has commitments to reimburse Surprise, Tempe and Scottsdale by 2007 and now estimates those repayments will not be completed until 2021. Mesa, Peoria, Phoenix, Glendale and Goodyear are not expected to receive their reimbursements until 2031 and beyond. Better the legislature develop a fix that enables AZSTA to meet its commitments for those facilities already constructed by a vast array of Valley cities struggling to find the money to pay off their debts for construction. Here is a link to the state’s latest audit of AZSTA: http://az-sta.com/downloads/files/financial/2015-special-audit-by-the-office-of-the-auditor-general-full-report.pdf . Below is a chart (page 23) from that AZSTA audit:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anthony LeBlanc, CEO of the Coyotes, acknowledged that the legislature is “essential” for their plan. You can be sure they are already lobbying members of the state legislature. However, in past years Valley cities have also lobbied for Tax Increment Financing (TIF) only to be denied repeatedly. One of the plans floated last year by the Coyotes involved capturing portions of sales and/or tourism tax revenue in a tax district created in the area of their proposed arena. The Coyotes will have a difficult time pushing to the head of a line that relies on tourism sales tax revenues. The legislature would be well advised to create a financial fix for those facilities already in existence rather than diverting scarce resources to yet another new sports facility. The subsidization of sports teams and their venues is not a popular public topic when people are still hurting financially and have not derived economic benefits from the national recovery. Here is a link to a Mike Sunnicks article in the Phoenix Business Journal about the Coyotes plan to have the taxpayers and tourists subsidize their proposed arena: http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2016/12/02/arizona-coyotes-arena-real-estate-group-eases.html . 

 © Joyce Clark, 2016        

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.

Mar 16

24

Arizona, a national embarrassment…again

Posted by Joyce Clark on March 24, 2016
Posted in City of Glendale  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

It has been 18 years and 98 days since the city’s pledge to build the West Branch Library.

The reaction to the Tuesday, March 22, 2016 presidential primary in Arizona has been deafening and swift. Arizona’s long lines were a national story and an embarrassment as was the clearly unequal dispersement of polling locations throughout the county. Some areas ofI voted the county probably had too many polling locations while other areas of the county had none.

Greg Stanton, Phoenix’s mayor, has asked the U.S. Attorney to investigate. A petition is circulating asking the Obama administration’s Justice Department to investigate. Governor Doug Ducey weighed in calling for future open primaries that would allow all registered voters, no matter what party they belong to, to vote in a primary election. Even the State House Elections Committee is getting into the act and holding a hearing.

There’s plenty of blame to go around and all of it does not belong at the feet of Helen Purcell, Maricopa County Recorder. Don’t read this as Purcell being blameless for the buck stops at her office. She made poor decisions and bad recommendations to the County Board of Supervisors. She decided that there would be more mail-in ballots cast than walk-in votes. Wrong.  In February, upon the recommendation of Purcell, the Board approved only 60 locations from its usual number of 120. Purcell said cost concerns and the belief that a majority of ballots would be mail-in drove her recommendation. This is not the only election where an erroneous Purcell decision caused problems during an election. She won’t resign but it is time for her to go. Don’t worry; there will be plenty of candidates vying for her position at the next election.

Wait a minute…the Board of Supervisors did not have to accept her recommendation. Where was their due diligence? Certainly the Supervisors’ staff should have researched the issue before accepting her recommendation. Then there is the State Legislature and the Governor. budget 3They are not blameless either. The state legislature created a budget cutting funding used to conduct elections in all counties, including Maricopa County. County officials protested but no one in the legislature listened to them. Governor Ducey signed the state budget that included the reduced funding for county elections. Now the very same people who approved skimping on elections want Purcell’s head. People who live in political glass houses should not be throwing stones.

With all of the light on the situation be assured there will be more places than you can shake a stick at, for the General Election in November.

I promised to include comments I received from my blog readers about Tuesday’s election and I share them with you now:

DiNaslo

“Yesterday I was upset about the loooooooooong lines at Hope Chapel on 63rd Avenue in Glendale.

Today, after watching the news coverage last night, I am FURIOUS!

In the past, I’ve preferred to vote in person rather than use an Early Voting Ballot; I just like to go to my polling place, cast my ballot, and watch them put it in the machine. (I’ve never had too long a wait.)

Thinking this time would be no different, I didn’t request an Early Voting Ballot.

Unfortunately, I have developed a mobility problem that prevents me from standing for long periods of time, and there was no way I was going to be able to stand for 3+ hours in line waiting to vote!

Who would have thought there would be this HUGE fiasco?!

The evening news reported that Maricopa County cut the polling places from 200 (in 2012) to a mere 60 for this very important election!

The news also reported that at some (not all) of the polling places voters who had an Early Ballot, who simply wanted to drop it off, were not told they did not have to stand in the looooooong line. There should have been a volunteer outside (with a bull horn) telling people to go inside and drop off their ballot – but apparently that never happened! Why wasn’t this done? Utter lack of communication!

Not to mention Hope Chapel had only ONE bathroom to accommodate voters who needed to use the facility! Or other polling places running out of ballots!

UNBELIEVABLE!!

In a televised interview with Helen Purcell last night, she made some weak excuse about the reduced number of polling places, and also “blaming” the voter’s lack of information on the resultant loooooooong lines. How dare she!

This morning she stated she would not step down from her position, but I don’t think that should be her decision. She should be removed from her job, based on pure and simple Incompetence! She screwed up, she should pay the price – – as should any of her staff who were compliant in the decision to reduce the number of polling places to be made available to voters!

Sadly, Arizona has made the news – and not in a good way! Once again, we are made to look like a bunch of ignorant, uninformed fools – thanks to the leaders of this State.

You asked for my opinion, Joyce. Well, there you have it!”

Carpenter

“I couldn’t believe there were no polling places in south Glendale. I had an early ballot but when I realized my time frame, I just needed to drop my ballot. Rather than going 10 or 12 miles to the Glendale polling places, I chose to go to the 51st Avenue and Thomas polling place to just leave my ballot. I was shocked that the line went all the way around the building at 10:00 in the morning. I would never have been able to stand there that long. I know of two people for sure that could not take two or three hours to stand in line to cast their ballots. What poor planning for an area that constantly talks about wanting people to get out and vote. I remember years going to vote and my car would be the only one in the parking lot. Sure hope they get this mess worked out before the November election.”

Shelly Honn

“I would not have been able to stand in a 3 hour line having arthritis in both of my knees. I am very glad that I am also receive an early voting ballot. I think this state needs to seriously look at at least two things providing the ability to do online voting ONLY during a certain time frame (like from 7:00 to 10:00 p.m. when most people are home) and also putting more polling locations in those areas where it is likely for individuals will not have a way to vote online. This is a complete embarrassment for our state.

It is also an embarrassment to our great country that these 5 individuals are who we have to choose from to become president, its disgusting.”

Tom Traw

“jOYCE, My wife was unable to stand in line for three hours so she did not vote and expect hundreds or thousand of voters who wanted to vote were angry and went home. Helen should probably lose her job over this fiasco. No common sense whatsoever. Our typical politicians for you. I wonder if it was planned by one party or the other????”

The Truth!!

“I am a young person but to stand in line ruined my already marginal feet even more. I was amazed how many people hung in there to use their right to vote.”

© Joyce Clark, 2016

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.

Jan 14

26

Help!!!…for the Super Bowl

Posted by Joyce Clark on January 26, 2014
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale and the Super Bowl  | Tagged With: , , , , , , | 2 Comments

The City of Glendale and the Arizona Host Committee have each submitted bills in the State Legislature to get the state to recompense entities for associated expenses. Here is the link to the story: http://www.azcentral.com/community/glendale/articles/20140116glendale-super-bowl-group-ask-funds.html?nclick_check=1 .

The bills differ from one another. Glendale’s is narrowly focused solely asking for support for public safety expenses incurred. The Host Committee bill is broader and asks for support in all areas related to hosting the Super Bowl.  My Daddy always said, “Ask for more and be happy with a little.” Glendale appears to be timid and perhaps would have been better served in supporting the Host Committee’s bill for there is more to hosting the Super Bowl than public safety expenses. Don’t overlook transportation heavily involved in any Super Bowl effort as well as sanitation, parks and recreation and marketing. So many city departments have a role to play in hosting an event such as this.

There is support in the legislature to pass some version of this concept. Something has to be done. At the last Super Bowl Glendale lost $2 million dollars. This time around it can ill afford to do so and if passage does not occur it may be the catalyst for its refusal to host in the future.

The legislature needs to step up to the plate on this one. Major events such as a Super Bowl, Barrett-Jackson or the TCP Golf Tournament attract visitors nationally and internationally. It cannot be denied that the entire state benefits from these events.

On another note, IceArizona’s Anthony LeBlanc hosted Mayor Weiers on a recent trip to Canada. Here’s what Glendale’s mayor did for grins and giggles. Expect to see Weiers sporting a Calgary Flames hockey jersey at a council meeting as the Flames beat the Coyotes.

In Calgary w @MayorWeiers and @seanchucalgary: loser of @phoenixcoyotes v @NHLFlames wears jersey at Council mtg! pic.twitter.com/nffikLUKJC

Calgary Weiers Jan 2014

Lastly, I submitted an application to serve on Glendale’s newly created citizen Planning Steering Committee that will shape the city’s next General Plan. Do you think I will be appointed to serve? Nahhh…

Check out my latest informal poll to the left of this column as well as your opportunity to sign up for future blog notices at the right of this column.

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

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

Jan 14

8

The pressure is on the NFL

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

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

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

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

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

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

© Joyce Clark, 2014

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

%d bloggers like this: