Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Land Transfers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public speakers question no-cost flood-control parcel transfer and raise conflict-of-interest concerns
Summary
During the flood control district segment, several public speakers opposed a no-cost transfer of a flood-control parcel to the City of Goodyear and raised transparency and conflict-of-interest concerns involving the board chair.
Public speakers during the Flood Control District portion of the Maricopa County meeting urged greater transparency after the agenda showed a proposed declaration of a flood-control parcel as excess and a transfer to the City of Goodyear by quick-claim deed.
Kristen Vale told the board the proposal "declares a flood control district parcel excess and then transfer[s] it to the city of Goodyear at no cost, though a quick claim deed," and said that raised multiple concerns: no appraisal, no public compensation and lack of clear terms. Vale said, "Calling it a remnant does not mean that it has no value."
Laura Weaver, speaking immediately afterward, compared that item to another flood-control parcel that was appraised and auctioned, and said the difference suggested a double standard: "When handled properly, they bring real return to the taxpayers. So why the double standard?" Weaver and other speakers also asked the board to explain the legal basis and public benefit for the transfer.
Several speakers also raised an appearance-of-conflict concern tied to Chairman Thomas Galvin. Vale stated in public comment that the chair "as a partner in the zoning law firm and chair of this board... creates, at the very least, an appearance of conflict of interest." The board did not take action on the allegation during the hearing; the transcript records the public comment and the board carried the flood-control package by vote.
County staff recorded that one speaker had registered on item 130; the record shows the board approved Flood Control District items 128'34 by unanimous vote. No county official asserted that the parcel had been appraised in the meeting record; staff responses on appraisal or valuation were not read into the public transcript for the item.
Speakers asked for appraisal, an open auction process and clearer written terms rather than a quick-claim transfer; they asked the board to treat all remnant parcels consistently and to publish valuation or process information for similar transfers.
