Under The Direction Of Vicki Cox-Golder And Her Campaign Chairman,The Amphi School District Bought Top-Dollar School Sites Without Having The Land Appraised. By Jim Nintzel VICKI COX-GOLDER would have you believe she's the right person for the board of supervisors seat currently held by Pima County's most notorious politician, Ed Moore. Cox-Golder, a Republican facing Moore and Democrat Sharon Bronson on the November 5 ballot, says she's proven her leadership abilities during her eight years on the Amphi School Board. Cox-Golder also boasts of her record as one of Pima County's best-known real estate brokers, heading up a firm in northwestern Pima County for two decades. Keeping all that in mind, we have only one question: If Cox-Golder is so frugal with taxpayer money and such an expert in real estate matters, why did the Amphi School District pay four times the assessed value for two school sites which were bought from insiders in the real estate industry? THE DEALS WERE brokered by Bill Arnold, who is now serving as Cox-Golder's campaign chairman. While district officials and Cox-Golder insist Arnold competed for the chance to represent Amphi, the job was never open to bid under a procurement process consistent with state law (see "The Wrong People, Part II," Tucson Weekly, October 10). Arnold, who dropped out of college in Pennsylvania to come to Tucson and try his luck in the land business, is quite the wheeler-dealer in the Southern Arizona real estate market. Employed by Genesis Real Estate and Development, Inc., he brokers land deals, appeals property values, teaches real estate classes and dabbles in politics. Given his credentials, you'd think Arnold was capable of negotiating a much better deal than the one he cut for Amphi in the spring of 1994, when he convinced the Amphi School District to pay $2,591,250 for two parcels, even though the land's full cash value at the assessor's office was $677,000. Neither parcel was on the open market. One, on which Amphi is building a new high school, was purchased for $1,775,723 from Edgar and Irene Romo. The Romo parcel's full cash value on the Pima County tax rolls was only $443,100, and just one year before the sale, Romo had appealed the value, arguing that it was worth only $147,000. About one-fourth of the property is prone to flooding. Representing the Romos was their son, Andy Romo, who split a $106,540 commission with Arnold. Andy Romo has since contributed at least $200 to the Cox-Golder campaign. The other parcel, on which Amphi built Wilson Elementary School, was purchased from a trust headed by Neil Kleinman, one of Pima County's best-known property-value-appeal consultants. Amphi paid $815,000 for the property, which had a full cash value of $234,000. That same year, Kleinman had appealed the value set by the county, arguing the property was worth only $170,000. Although he was a licensed real estate broker, Kleinman didn't ask Arnold to split the $45,000 commission with him. Pima County Assessor Rick Lyons says although values of raw land "tend to be on the low side...they shouldn't be 25 percent." OF COURSE, LYONS says the county's assessed value isn't the best yardstick for determining whether a fair market price was paid. An appraisal is the ideal method of determining a parcel's worth. Strangely enough, however, neither Cox-Golder nor Arnold--these experts in real estate--felt an appraisal was necessary for the purchase. Asked why no appraisal was done, Arnold passes the buck. "I don't know," says Arnold, who was paid close to six figures--$98,270--for his work brokering the deals. "You'll have to ask Amphi." Although Cox-Golder declined to be interviewed for this story, she said she concurred with the comments of Amphi School Superintendent Robert Smith, who would only talk to The Weekly via a written exchange of questions and answers. "Based on the number of parcels that were examined, the real estate market in terms of consistency of land costs, and specific site requirements for school use, we felt the prices paid for the land parcels were reasonable and appraisals were not required," explains Smith, who has contributed at least $200 to Cox-Golder's campaign. Lyons, who has seen his share of curious land deals during years in the assessor's office, is not an emphatic man, but discussing the Amphi deal does make him raise his eyebrows and, at one point, roll his eyes. "I have to say privately--and it's none of my business how to tell Amphi School District how to run their office--I am surprised they would do significant acquisition work without having an appraisal done, particularly given the relationships you're describing," Lyons says. Generally, without an appraisal, the best way to judge the relative value of a parcel is to come up with "comps"--comparable sales of similar properties. So we stopped by the assessor's office and did some research. It turns out that Amphi paid between $22,655 and $24,045 an acre for the school sites. Compare that to other sales in the area, which are laid out on the map on this page. (And keep in mind the Amphi purchases were cash transactions, which Arnold says brought the price down by 10 percent.): • A 96-acre property sold for $5,707 an acre in April 1992. • A 57-acre property across the street from one of the Amphi properties sold for $10,010 an acre in August 1992. • A 36-acre parcel on the northwest corner of Tangerine and La Cholla sold for $12,800 an acre in July 1993. • A 97-acre parcel that became the Desert Vista subdivision on Naranja Road sold for $17,754 an acre in February 1994. • A 79-acre parcel that became the Tangerine Hills subdivision sold for $12,620 an acre in December 1994. • A 36-acre parcel southwest of Amphi's Wilson School site sold for $16,317 an acre in January 1995. While Lyons doesn't say the district overpaid for the parcels, he does say the land seems to be at the high end of the market. RATHER THAN COMPARABLE sales, Cox-Golder, the Amphi Board and Arnold seem to have relied on an entirely different method for determining the value of the property: They simply relied on the asking price of the land. Lyons says it's not unusual to use listings to gauge the marketplace, but "only in the absence of sufficient or applicable executed transactions." At the time of the sale, Arnold reported "very high activity in the market." Lyons has another caveat when appraising property based on the seller's price: "You also need to remember that listings typically represent the upper end of the range, because it's what the seller wants to get, and it's also perfectly obvious that by the time transactions occur, the negotiated prices are typically under the listing prices because they've negotiated to some degree," he says. In a report filed with the assessor's office, Arnold claimed to have examined 25 properties and narrowed the field to three. The Amphi Board then approved two of the three sites. We asked Arnold if he would share that list of 25 properties, but he did not respond to our request for an interview. Smith also says the field was narrowed from 25 properties, but he did not answer when we asked him if Amphi still had the list. Smith insists the district cut a good deal. In fact, according to him, Arnold was such a skillful negotiator, he was able to talk Romo down to $24,044 an acre from an asking price of $25,000. Kleinman dropped his original price from $25,000 an acre down to $22,654. Excellent work, Bill. There's little doubt the Amphi School Board looked to Cox-Golder, with her knowledge of northwestern Pima County's real estate market, for leadership when it came to buying the land. In fact, on March 8, 1994, it was Cox-Golder who made the motion to go ahead with the deal on the two sites, which the board passed unanimously. WE HASTEN TO add that neither Cox-Golder nor Arnold appears to have done anything illegal. Indeed, the decision to pay so much for the property may have just been a bad business decision. Perhaps, despite their self-proclaimed expertise, Cox-Golder and Arnold were merely foolish when it came to this land purchase. Or perhaps the whole affair was an insider deal to use Amphi bond money to enrich members of the real estate industry. All this speculation would be unnecessary if Amphi officials had just had an appraisal done, as they did with the other deals Arnold brokered. Whatever the explanation, the deals demonstrate Cox-Golder is certainly less than frugal with taxpayer money, despite her many assertions to the contrary. If Amphi residents needed any more evidence, they merely had to look in their mailboxes last week. About 52,000 households in the school district received a 12-page tabloid highlighting the many accomplishments of the Amphi Board, including the purchase of these two top-dollar school sites. The paper cost more than $8,000 to print and mail. On the cover of this tabloid, Cox-Golder's picture appears no less than three times. Inside, her image appears twice more. Put simply, Cox-Golder--despite a campaign warchest that dwarfs her opponents--still finds it necessary to use Amphi District tax dollars to boost her campaign for the board of supervisors. We've said this before, but it bears repeating: The board of supervisors controls land use in Pima County. The decisions and policies of the Board directly affect the massive profits of the Growth Lobby, which is why developers and land speculators have taken such an interest in this campaign. They've poured tens of thousands of dollars into Cox-Golder's campaign. After reviewing her record at Amphi, we have to ask: Can we trust Vicki Cox-Golder?

		© 1995-97 Tucson Weekly . Info Booth