May 14

21

A coat with many pockets, Part III

Posted by Joyce Clark on May 21, 2014
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale finances | Tagged With: City of Glendale, debt burden, finances, G.O. Bond debt, secondary property tax valuation | 6 Comments

So far we’ve examined the contents of two pockets: Pocket #1, Enterprise Fund debt and Pocket #2, HURF and Transportation Bond debt. Their revenues come from specific sources; customer utility bills, State Shared revenue and a dedicated transportation sales tax. The uses of these monies are regulated and can only be used for utilities, streets and transportation projects.

Pocket #3 is different. The source of money that goes into this pocket is identified but the restrictions for the use of the money are petty general. In Pocket #3 is Glendale’s General Obligation (G.O.) Bond debt for this Fiscal Year of $22,729,785. This bond debt is 26% of this year’s total debt. The total overall G.O. Bond debt is $163,310,000.

G.O. bonds are direct and general obligations of the city. Glendale uses G.O. bonds to fund many large-scale projects in its Capital Improvement Program. It does NOT use G.O. bonds to pay for water, sewer, sanitation, landfill, many transportation related projects and professional sports-related facilities such as Jobing.com Arena and Camelback Ranch.

Capital Improvement projects are the infrastructure that all cities must have to provide essential, quality of life services to current and future residents, businesses and visitors. They also prevent the deterioration of the city’s existing infrastructure, and respond to anticipated future growth of the city. Capital Improvement projects can be almost anything as the list below demonstrates and this list is by no means complete:

fire and police stations
libraries, court facilities and office buildings
parks, trails, open space, pools, recreation centers and other related facilities
landscape beautification projects
computer software and hardware systems other than personal computers and printers
flood control drainage channels, storm drains and retention basins

Where does the money come from to pay G.O. bond debt? G.O. bonds are backed by “the full faith and credit” of the city. State statutes heavily regulate this form of municipal debt and require that secondary property tax revenue is restricted solely to paying General Obligation (G.O.) debt. G.O. bond issuance must be in compliance with the Arizona Constitutional debt limitation for G.O. bonded indebtedness to 6% or 20% of a city’s total secondary assessed valuation. G.O. projects in the 20% category are:

Water, sewer, storm sewers (flood control facilities) and artificial light when controlled by the municipality
Open space preserves, parks, playgrounds and recreational facilities
Public safety, law enforcement, fire and emergency services facilities
Streets and transportation facilities

G.O. projects in the 6% category are:

Economic development
Historic preservation and cultural facilities
General government facilities
Libraries

The list is endless in terms of city infrastructure paid for by G.O. bonds. Here are just a few:

Bethany Home Outfall Channel
Foothills Library
Relocation of Fire Station 151
Foothills Recreation & Aquatic Center
Field Operations Complex
Adult Center Facility

A Capital Improvement project must fit into either the 6% or 20% category. Note that these categories are very broad. Typically city staff will offer city council a list of CIP projects that they deem necessary. It is at this point that the process can, and often does become, subjective and political. City councils can move a lower priority project to the top of the CIP list and bump others down — often resulting in oblivion and extinction for the bumped project.

An illustrative case in point: In 2004 a majority of city council (Mayor Scruggs, Councilmembers Eggleston, Frate and Goulette) approved immediate construction funding for the Foothills Recreation & Aquatic Center. Suddenly it became #1 on the CIP project list that year. As a result the facility became fully funded for construction and opened in 2006.

Another example was that in 2006 the same majority of council stripped the CIP Western Branch Library project of $6 million dollars and diverted those funds to pay a portion of the construction funding for the Regional Public Safety & Training Facility. They made the training facility a priority that year and by removing designated funding for the west library relegated it to oblivion. To this day the library has never been built. These are examples of purely politically driven decisions.

We know where the money comes from for G.O. bond debt. It comes from secondary property tax. The only restriction on issuing G.O. bond debt for CIP projects is that they must fit into either the 6% category or the 20% category. But those categories are merely descriptive. What should be of concern is that CIP project movement up or down on the list by city council is often highly subjective and politically motivated.

At least there is a restriction on the amount of debt that can be issued for G.O. bonds as it is dependent on a specific formula of 6% or 20% of a city’s assessed secondary property valuation. The uses of G.O. bond revenue and the debt it creates has proven to be murky because council makes the final, and often political, decision as to what is funded.

The next blog will tackle Pocket #4. If you consider the use of G.O. bond revenue to be confusing and cloudy, just wait until the discussion of Municipal Property Corporation (MPC) debt.

2014 FAIR USE NOTICE

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

May 14

20

A coat with many pockets, Part II

Posted by Joyce Clark on May 20, 2014
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale finances | Tagged With: airport, city debt, City of Glendale, Highway User Fund Revenue, streets, Transportation Bond revenue, voter approved sales tax dedication | No Comments yet, please leave one

From the last blog we now know more about Enterprise Fund debt than we ever really wanted to know. It is important to remember that it has a dedicated source of funding – customer utility bills. Its debt is not paid with sales tax revenue. Since it is separate fund it does not impact the city’s General Fund. It is safe to say that it is not the primary cause of Glendale’s financial problems. Let’s dig into the next pocket and see what we find.

In Pocket #2 is the Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF) bond debt of $4,695,875 – 6% of Glendale’s total debt and Transportation bond debt of $7,331,080 — 8% of Glendale’s total debt. This is an easy one too.

When Glendale builds new roads or maintains and repairs them it uses HURF bonds. They are used to finance the improvement, construction, reconstruction, acquisition of right-of-way or maintenance of streets and highways of the city including traffic control devices as well as bridges and noise walls. Two examples of its use can be seen in the Arrowhead area along the Loop 101. The sound walls adjacent to the Loop 101 and the pedestrian bridge that spans it were paid for with HURF.

Where does the money come from to pay HURF bond debt? Every city in Arizona receives State Shared Revenue and one of the pieces of State Shared Revenue is HURF. For instance, when you fill up your gas tank, part of what you pay is a tax on a gallon of gasoline. It goes to the state. The state, in turn, gives back a small portion of that tax to cities based upon a specific formula. Glendale, as does every other city in the state, receives this money back as state shared revenue.

Transportation bond money comes strictly from Glendale’s voter approved dedicated portion of the city’s sales tax. After voter approval of this dedicated sales tax the city created a long term transportation plan for the money’s use and it is monitored by a citizen oversight commission. It is specifically dedicated and can only be used for transportation related projects from street repair to installing new traffic lights. The revenue is used to build transportation projects including design, construction and right-of-way acquisitions, roadway widening, intersection improvements, transit stops, bicycle connections, park and ride lots and airport projects. The bike lanes and bus stops throughout Glendale were paid for from the transportation sales tax.

We know where the money comes from for this pocket and when we take it out we know the narrow uses for this money. HURF money comes from state shared revenue and Transportation bond money comes from sales tax that can only be used for that purpose. Both of these funds can only be used for street and transportation projects.

In the next blog we’ll explore Pocket #3. Unfortunately things will become murkier as we move from the realm of specifically dedicated uses for bond revenue to the more discretionary uses found in Pockets #3 and #4.

FAIR USE NOTICE

May 14

19

A coat with many pockets, Part I

Posted by Joyce Clark on May 19, 2014
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale finances | Tagged With: city debt, City of Glendale, Enterprise Fund, finances | 6 Comments

Suppose you had a coat with many pockets…many, many pockets. You are allowed to put certain dollars into each pocket and you may spend, with restrictions, for only one specific thing from any one pocket. It would be complicated and problematical, eh? Well, the coat is Glendale’s budget and each pocket has a specific purpose and restrictions. Why bother to learn about Glendale’s debt? There is no doubt that Glendale’s debt burden is at the root of its financial mess.

We’re going to look at the pockets that handle debt…all kinds of debt; Enterprise Fund debt, Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF) debt, Transportation Debt, General Obligation (G.O.) debt and Municipal Property Corporation (MPC) debt. All of the facts, figures and information came from public sources such as Glendale’s Budget Book for 2014 and other public, official Glendale documents.

Glendale’s total debt for Fiscal Year 2014 is $89,228,314 out of the total of all revenues received from all sources of $576,000,000. Roughly 15% of all revenue received by Glendale goes to pay off debt. 15% is way too high. It should be under 10%. These five categories constitute the major sources of Glendale’s debt burden:

Enterprise Fund debt is $24,975,437……….28%
MPC debt is $29,496,137………………………….33%
G.O. Bond debt is $22,729,785………………..26%
Transportation Debt is $7,331,080………….. 8%
HURF debt is $4,695,875………………………… 6%

Let’s take the easier debt pockets first and get them out of the way.

In Pocket #1 is Enterprise Fund Debt of $24,975,437 – 28% of Glendale’s total debt. Water & Sewer Bonds are 27% of the city’s total debt and Landfill debt is another 1%.Enterprise Funds are water, sewer, sanitation and landfill. The Enterprise Funds were established by ordinance in 1986. Here is a portion of the text from the Sanitation Ordinance 1451: “The purpose of the sanitation fund is to accumulate all revenues and earnings received for sanitation services, to accumulate all interest earnings thereon, pay all administrative, operational and maintenance expenses, direct or indirect, of same, and accumulate contingency funds as an operational fund reserve to the sanitation fund. The sanitation fund shall be a separate and protected fund, to be used for no other purpose than expenses associated with sanitation services.” The other funds reflect the same language in their enabling ordinances. Note that these funds are protected and not to be used for anything else.

Enterprise Funds are accounted for in a manner similar to a private business. Enterprise funds are intended to be self-sufficient with all costs supported primarily by user fees. They are stand alone funds. Their revenue does not go into the city’s General Fund. What Glendale residents pay each month for city utility bills goes into these Enterprise Funds. When debt (in the form of bonds) are issued it is for infrastructure projects such as the new 91^st Avenue Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant, the Cholla Water Treatment Plant, the replacement and repair of water lines throughout the city and treatment plant upgrades to meet new federal regulations. Landfill bonds will be used to close the south portion of the city landfill and to open up the north portion.

This debt is issued based on revenues received from customers for service. In an emergency the city could use secondary property tax revenue but by habit and practice, it has never done so. We know where the money comes from for this pocket and when we take it out we know the narrow, restricted uses for this money.

The next blog will look at Pocket #2, HURF and Transportation Bond debt. It’s an easy one as well. Understanding a city’s debt burden is as dry as dust but in order to arrive at solutions for dealing with Glendale’s debt, it needs to be understood. Once we get a handle on it, let’s see if there are any solutions to bring it under control.

If Enterprise Fund debt is still unclear to you or you have a question related to it, please offer your question as a comment at the end of this blog. I will do my best to answer it. That way everyone will be able to see the question and answer.

FAIR USE NOTICE

May 14

16

It’s time for rightsizing

Posted by Joyce Clark on May 16, 2014
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale finances • Glendale's Fire Union | Tagged With: city finances, City of Glendale, emergency medical response, fire department, fire union, Glendale City Council, overtime, rightsizing | 4 Comments

Glendale is not the only municipality facing financial pressure. One has only to look at Phoenix’s $37 million shortfall. Many municipalities are adopting new strategies to cut their budgets. One area of a municipal budget that merits further scrutiny is the fire department. Let’s look at Glendale.

Public Safety consumes over two thirds (67%) of Glendale’s General Fund. Glendale’s proposed FY 2014-15 budget shows a total police department budget of $77,604,581 and a total fire department budget of $36,744,314 (roughly half that of police). The police department has total personnel of 537 and the fire department has total personnel of 267 (roughly half that of police). Everything tracks. The police department has twice the personnel and twice the total budget as that of the fire department. Except in one, major area – Overtime (OT), Hourly & Specialized Pays. You would expect the fire department expense in this line item to track at about half that of the police department. Not so. The police department line item figure for OT in the FY 2014-15 budget is $1,675,000 covering 537 personnel. Astoundingly, the fire department OT line item figure is slightly higher than that of police’s at $1,681,000 covering 267 people. Clearly, the fire department’s OT, Hourly & Specialized Pays is out of control.

So, we know the police department’s budget and personnel are twice that of the fire department’s with the exception of Overtime Pay in which they spend virtually the same amount. How can that be? The fire department’s practice of Constant Staffing requiring 4 people on each fire truck is creating unsustainable demands for overtime pay.

There is one other piece of information that is important to consider. In FY 2013-14 the Glendale Fire Department answered 30,040 EMS (Emergency Medical Service) calls; 3,570 fire calls; 2,238 miscellaneous calls and 619 special operations calls. Glendale’s medical calls have become the “elephant in the room” for the fire department. Its medical calls are ten times that of fire calls. Obviously the fire department’s mission has evolved over time. Its first priority is now medical response and fire suppression response, while still critical, has become its secondary mission.

Municipalities across the nation are recognizing the tremendous financial burdens placed upon them in covering the costs of fire department overtime as well as the costs associated with sending a large fire truck to a medical emergency. And they are beginning to act.

In Spokane, Washington as of January 2, 2013 the city decided that three fire stations and one ladder station would start using smaller vehicles on medical calls as opposed to the larger ladder trucks, which age quickly and operating and maintaining them was becoming more and more expensive. They decided it was important to spend their limited resources wisely taking into account that 78% of those three stations’ calls were medical.

Here’s another example: The Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue (TVF&R) near Portland, Ore., was one of the early adopters of a fire/ALS deployment model using smaller vehicles. The department initiated its “Car Program” in 2010 as the way to respond to the increasing demand for EMS in a more efficient and effective manner. With 80% EMS calls, the department searched for a way to effectively respond to lower-priority requests for service and still maintain readiness for major emergency incidents. Instead of deploying a four-person staffed $400,000 full-size apparatus, the department purchased a $31,000 Toyota FJ Cruiser and staffed it with a single fire paramedic to handle calls such as minor traffic accidents, community service requests and lower-priority medical emergencies.

Or… In August 2012, the city of Grand Rapids, Mich., received a report that highlighted the recent trend of fire department rightsizing. The ICMA (International City Managers Association) made 22 recommendations to Grand Rapids municipal leaders that included a variety of changes to the fire department’s EMS response. One of the first recommendations was to eliminate five full-size fire department apparatus and replace them with smaller, more cost effective RRVs. The result was an estimated savings of $2.1 million.

And this… The Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACoFD) began providing rescue services in the late 1950s with the use of panel vans that carried firefighters to the scene of motor vehicle accidents and other requests for non-fire suppression services. This model of prehospital care delivery was retained as the LACoFD became one of the nation’s first fire ALS providers in the early 1970s. Today, the department still delivers ALS care by way of quick-response squad trucks staffed with firefighter paramedic personnel. The primary benefit of this ALS model is that it ensures a better utilization of resources while maintaining a cost-effective response. When an LACoFD squad arrives, the paramedic can determine if ALS care is required and then either accompany a contracted ambulance transport provider or return to service for another response.

San Jose, California as well as other cities across the nation are considering or have already reduced the number of firefighters on each response truck. It has proven to provide fire departments with more flexibility and better coverage. Four people on each engine to answer a medical call, was impracticable. Neighboring agencies, like Santa Clara County Fire, already assigns just three people per engine. The reasoning was that since 94% of all calls are medical, the Santa Clara County Fire Department was over deploying.

The practice of responding to medical calls with full-size apparatus is proving to be an expensive and inappropriate use of equipment. One deployment concept that appears to be gaining as an option for the fire service to meet both a decrease in budget and an increase in the demand for organizational efficiency is the transition from full-size fire apparatus to smaller rapid-response vehicles (RRVs). Some departments have used this concept for years to deploy ALS personnel to the scene of a medical emergency and to work in conjunction with other apparatus on fire suppression incidents. Fire departments must embrace new approaches to the deployment of their EMS resources by using peak demand staffing and changes to apparatus.

The “right resource, right place and right time” model has become the key concept for the deployment of fire EMS first response resources. Adopting a clinical, financial and operational strategy; and changing and rightsizing EMS resources appears to be the answer to many of the challenges faced by fire departments today. The modern fire service is now expected to be innovative and able to change its business practices by recognizing evolutions in the response to the majority of service requests, especially as a majority of calls are now medically related.

As we move toward a change in the nation’s healthcare delivery system based on accountability and clinical outcome, the department that can adapt to new norms will be the most successful.

Models with reduction of personnel on response units and redeployment of those personnel to reduce overtime and the use of small, medical response units staffed with fire paramedics are being used successfully throughout the country.

It’s time to right size the Glendale fire department. Will the Glendale City Council have the strength of will to request that changes be made? Will the Glendale fire department and more importantly, the Glendale fire union, innovate and adapt to the reality of shrinking resources and the increased demand for more effective, reasonably priced medical response? Or will they use the buzz words of “diminished service and response time” to fight it?

FAIR USE NOTICE

May 14

12

Houston, Glendale has a problem

Posted by Joyce Clark on May 12, 2014
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale zoning issues | Tagged With: City Code, City of Glendale, Glendale Avenue, light rail, Special Transportation Election of 2001 | 7 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FAIR USE NOTICE

May 14

8

A tax and spend city council

Posted by Joyce Clark on May 8, 2014
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances • Glendale zoning issues | Tagged With: Alternative Service Delivery, budget update, City of Glendale, electronic voting, finances, Glendale 2035 General Plan Update, Glendale City Council, mass transit in Glendale, property tax rate increase, temporary sales tax increase | 2 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FAIR USE NOTICE

May 14

5

Coin of the City Hall realm

Posted by Joyce Clark on May 5, 2014
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials | Tagged With: City of Glendale, Councilmember Martinez, Councilmember Sherwood, former City Attorney Craig Tindall, Freedom of Information Request, Glendale senior management, information sharing, Vice Mayor Knaack | 1 Comment

One of the comments I received on my latest Tindall blog was in the form of questions. “If it (referring to Tindall’s advice) were legal advice given to the City, wouldn’t it be provided to the entire City Council? Does a subset of people on the City Council (fewer than would qualify as quorum) qualify as ‘The City’?” They are interesting questions raising a subject I have been thinking about for quite some time. One of the most precious commodities in local government is arguably, the power accrued from knowledge. There is an old saying, “that knowledge is power” and in government is it golden.

From the time I took my seat as a councilmember in 2000, Dr. Martin Vanacour, City Manager at that time, managed by the precept, what one councilmember knew, all councilmembers should know. Whenever I asked for further information on an issue or raised questions, my questions and the answers I received were always copied to all councilmembers and I received the same when other councilmembers asked. That practice was always followed under subsequent city managers until my retirement in 2013. That was the ethical thing to do.

So what has happened to the ethics quotient in City Hall lately? What caused an email request for legal advice to be sent by 3 councilmembers and former City Attorney Craig Tindall’s return response solely and exclusively sent to those 3 councilmembers? To refresh your memory about this specific email, here it is: An investigative cause of concern may turn out to be the legal advice he provided without benefit of a separate agreement permitting him to do so per his Severance Agreement. Legally it may prove troublesome to him at some point.

The greater issue that should be of concern to all Glendale city councilmembers, as well as to that of Glendale’s management, is one of morality and ethics. The three councilmembers that solicited Mr. Tindall’s legal advice were well aware of the terms of his Severance Agreement. I am sure those terms were discussed in at least one council Executive Session. They cannot plead ignorance. If they attempt to do so, shame on them. It is their responsibility to know and understand the terms of agreements such as these. Ignorance, if proffered, is no excuse.

Mr. Tindall was employed by the city for many years. He should have known better than to respond to only 3 councilmembers and not the entire council. During his tenure habit and practice dictated that he share with all of council. Was he advancing the agenda of the pro IceArizona councilmembers? A few months later he became General Counsel to IceArizona.

There is another underlying serious concern and that is, why were three of the four councilmembers who supported the IceArizona Management Agreement, asking Tindall about that very same agreement? They should have properly directed their question(s) to Dick Bowers, Interim City Manager or Nick DiPiazza, Acting City Attorney. Did they hope to gain some advantage over those councilmembers who did not support the IceArizona agreement? In any event, their motivation in seeking exclusive legal advice, not shared with others on the council, is suspect.

There is a separate, ongoing issue regarding ethics and that is the reluctance of senior staff to share all information with the entire council, whether it be helpful or detrimental to their agenda. There is a natural tension between senior management and the council about information sharing. It appears when it is information that furthers staff’s agenda they are all too willing to share but if it is information that does not, it is not shared readily or sometimes, at all, with council. There remains a culture of secrecy at the senior staff level, a walling-off of information that should be shared. It is all too apparent when a councilmember publicly asks for information that a senior staffer believes to be detrimental to his/her agenda. The request for information is stone-walled and a councilmember will frequently and publicly state that his/her previous request still has not been met. It is often obvious what staff’s position is on an issue simply by the way councilmembers’ questions are answered or ignored. It is senior staff’s duty to provide information on an issue, positive and negative, in a fair and impartial manner. It is council’s duty to make a policy decision based upon the provision of such information. It is not senior management’s prerogative to make a pre-determined decision on an issue and then manipulate the manner in which it is presented to council.

Over the years I occasionally asked for copies of a Freedom of Information (FOIA) request made by a member of the public. Sometimes staff would provide copies of FOIA requests when they thought it might be of particular interest to council. None of the copies provided ever contained redactions (blacking out of information). Lately that is no longer the habit and practice of senior management. Copies of FOIA requests have been provided with redactions. So much for transparency. It is not appropriate and the practice should stop immediately. Councilmembers must be fully informed about any situation and redaction of information does not serve them well.

Information is the coin of City Hall’s realm and councilmembers are not receiving their share. We are poorer as a result of this unethical practice.

FAIR USE NOTICE

May 14

3

Glendale Monthly Arena Report, March 2014

Posted by Joyce Clark on May 3, 2014
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale finances • Jobing.com arena | Tagged With: City of Glendale, finances, jobing.com arena, management agreement | 6 Comments

The Glendale Monthly Arena Report for March, 2014 is now online at the city website. Here is the link: http://www.glendaleaz.com/finance/documents/FY14MonthlyArenaReport-20140331.pdf . It tracks similarly to the previous reports with qualified ticket sales (of 14,061) being up slightly. April’s report will have the figures from the last 5 games. That report, also, will look quite similar. Here is the March Report:

I have also prepared a Summary of the last 7 months’ worth of financial information. Here it is: Take aways from the Summary show that all “enhanced revenues”, and I included the Supplemental Qualified Ticket Surcharge of $1.50 per ticket, to date have totaled $3,641,547. The city’s expenditures to date total $6,502,055.

Note that some items are prorated. The Agreement start date was August 5, 2013. It is one month and 4 days shy of a full fiscal year. As a result, the Base Rent for the first year is not $500,000 but rather $326,712. The Safety & Security Fee is not $174,122 for the first year but rather $156.948. The big one is the Management Fee the city pays of $15 million a year. The first year it is $13,750,00.

The extreme right column labeled “FY Est.” is an educated guess, based upon 7 months of fiscal performance to date, of the final numbers for the Fiscal Year. I have relied upon publicly available figures. The Fiscal Year estimated revenues to the city are $5,523,000 and the expenditures are $14,200,68.

The city has $6 million budgeted leaving it with a deficit for the year of $8,677,685. Add to that figure an annual construction debt payment of about $12 million a year. This year’s loss on the arena will come in somewhere around the $20 million mark.

The city’s Contingency Fund sits at zero as it was used to pay a portion of the management fee. If there is an immediate crisis the city will have to reapportion some regular line item amount to cover it. I’m sorry but I don’t see how the new senior management has done any better at managing the city’s money than the old regime. No matter what, the current situation is…Unsustainable.

FAIR USE NOTICE

Apr 14

30

Former Glendale City Attorney Craig Tindall…Act 2

Posted by Joyce Clark on April 30, 2014
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances | Tagged With: City of Glendale, former City Attorney Craig Tindall, Glendale City Council, IceArizona, Severance Agreement | 4 Comments

When I retired from Glendale City Council in January of 2013, Horatio Skeete was Interim City Manager and Craig Tindall was City Attorney. A new mayor and several new councilmembers were enough of a majority to shake things up. While a new search for a city manager took place Dick Bowers was appointed as Acting City Manager and Craig Tindall was asked to resign. Nick DiPiazza became Acting City Attorney. Tindall’s Severance Agreement was executed on April 1, 2013. Here is the link: http://www.glendaleaz.com/clerk/Contracts/8419.pdf .

In exchange for his immediate resignation, he continued to be employed by the City for six months. Council offered six month’s pay plus benefits totaling $186,378.14 which included pay, benefits, CLE, bar dues, IMLE conference, deferred compensation, and additionally, a joint press release. Mr. Tindall could approach Councilmembers and city officials for recommendations (references). He was entitled to keep the city phone and phone number and he remained in the system an additional six months and did not exhaust his vacation or sick time. For whatever reasons other than the publicly offered “time for change,” they wanted him gone immediately and were willing to pay nearly $200,000 to have it happen. It’s a sweet deal. For up to 5 hours of work in a 2 week period over 6 months he received over $186,000. I bet you wouldn’t turn it down.

As part of his severance package he would stay on board in a limited capacity as a Special Counsel. The agreement called for him to be available to respond to factual questions he had previously handled for the city. There was a requirement for a separate agreement to allow him to provide legal advice. Here is the exact stipulation: “Employee will be available for up to five hours per two-week period from the date of this Agreement to the Separation Date to respond to factual questions regarding matters Employee previously handled for the City; provided however, Employee will not provide legal advice to the City unless by separate agreement.”

The Severance Agreement was approved by city council on a 5 to 2 vote with Mayor Weiers and Councilmember Alvarez voting “Nay.” Mayor Weiers turned out to be correct in viewing Tindall’s stay for an additional 6 months as problematical.

Can we assume all of council read the agreement? Yes, as there was a great deal of discussion about its terms prior to the vote. They knew that he could respond to factual questions but not offer legal advice. So why did Councilmembers Knaack, Martinez and Sherwood, three of the four votes needed to approve the IceArizona Agreement, ask him for legal advice regarding the IceArizona Agreement? And why did Tindall respond by offering legal advice?

Did Mr. Tindall breach his Severance Agreement by offering councilmembers legal advice regarding the IceArizona Agreement without fulfilling a separate agreement allowing him to provide legal advice?

I received, anonymously, a copy of an email dated Friday, June 20, 2013 sent at 8:04 AM. Here is a copy of that email:

In Item 1 of his email, Tindall says, “First, in § 8.3.1 the exception for the 2013-2014 season should be removed. That was in the Jamison agreement for last season when the League faced issue sight he (sic) collective bargaining agreement. The year was changed, but it is not needed any longer.” The only recipients are Councilmembers Knaack, Martinez and Sherwood as they apparently asked Tindall for legal advice. The email is not copied to the Acting City Manager or the Acting City Attorney. Copying others is a usual and typical practice. I always copied my Council Assistant and on city matters copied the City Manager, Assistant City Manager and relevant department heads. It informs others and prevents blind-siding on an issue. It’s also a matter of professional courtesy. Since Tindall referred to the Acting City Manager in his email, he should have copied him as well.

It appears that the councilmembers were the only ones to ever see this email. Was the email offered with the “understanding of the City Manager” as Tindall stated? If that were the case it would be expected that he Cc the acting city manager and/or the acting city attorney formally for informational purposes at the very least.

Less than 2 months later, August 20, 2013, Mr. Tindall is hired as IceArizona’s (successful bidder for Jobing.com arena Management Agreement) General Counsel. His Severance Agreement retains him as Special Counsel to the city until October 1, 2013. For 6 weeks he continues to work for both the city and IceArizona. He could legally and he did despite appearances. I guess he forgot the old adage, “Perception is reality.”

Former Councilmember Phil Lieberman filed a complaint with the Arizona State Bar Association alleging among other things, that Tindall may have breached his Severance Agreement. Does this issue have the potential to become part of the Bar’s investigation? Despite many who view Lieberman as an old curmudgeon, you have to wonder what else he knows…and in this instance he appears to be right.

FAIR USE NOTICE

Apr 14

28

USA Pawn Shop…round 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FAIR USE NOTICE

« Previous Page — Next Page »

For "the rest of the story"

Categories

Archives

Recent comments from readers

Recent Posts

Archives

Spam Blocked

May 14

21

Share this:

Like this:

May 14

20

Share this:

Like this:

May 14

19

Share this:

Like this:

May 14

16

Share this:

Like this:

May 14

12

Share this:

Like this:

May 14

8

Share this:

Like this:

May 14

5

Share this:

Like this:

May 14

3

Share this:

Like this:

Apr 14

30

Share this:

Like this:

Apr 14

28

Share this:

Like this: