Header image alt text

Joyce Clark Unfiltered

For "the rest of the story"

It has been 17 years and 140 days since the city’s pledge to build the West Branch Library.

For the first time ever at the May 26, 2015 city council meeting the council will vote to set a recall election date of November 3, 2015. Councilmember Sherwood has got to be desperate. From the number of Sahuaro district registered voters willing and eager to sign a petition calling for his recall is a pretty clear indicator that he cannot win.

Instead of realizing his ambition to become Glendale’s next mayor he faces the humiliating prospect of a recall against him. Desperate people do desperate things. I am convinced that he, and most likely his strongest supporter, the Glendale Fire Union, will attempt some last ditch, legal maneuver to delay the election.  I wouldn’t put it past them. A legal effort to delay the election may cause some Sahuaro district voters to not participate if they know the regular election for that seat occurs in November of 2016. Sherwood hints of this prospect,“if there is this supposed ground swell of dissatisfaction with me, I’m up for reelection next nine months later in August ’16.”

Here is the link to the May 19, 2015 edition of the Glendale Star:  http://www.glendalestar.com/news/article_b6d4fd24-fe45-11e4-86a1-6f00d1c2d6ea.html

In an article written by Darrel Jackson entitled Sherwood faces recall, Sherwood states, “I’m very proud of my record and I have extended an inordinate amount of energy hoping to cover for the lack of leadership that has existed with my fellow policy makers these nearly past two and a half past years.” If I were the mayor or his fellow councilmembers I would be quite angry with Sherwood’s trashing of their performance. This is one seemingly arrogant fellow believing that he is Superman saving Glendale from 6 Jesters.

Sherwood in the Jackson article goes on to say , “he helped negotiate an agreement with the tribe (Tohono O’odham) worth more than $26 million for Glendale over 20 years.” He shouldn’t be quite so proud of that fact. That very same land had it not become a reservation and had been privately developed as offices, would have generated an estimated $4 to $5 million a year in various taxes. Since when is a little over a million dollars a year better than 4 or 5 million dollars a year?

Sherwood’s commentary in the Jackson article demonstrates that when Sherwood is backed into a corner, it seems he can be quite vicious as he blames the current council for the resignation of former City Manager Brenda Fischer (his buddy) and Assistant City Manager Julie Frisoni (another buddy). The current rumor is that Sherwood has hired Julie Frisoni’s new consulting firm as his campaign consultant. That shouldn’t surprise anyone as it appears that Sherwood met often with Frisoni on city business that met his agenda. We can add Frisoni to the list of supporters that appear to include the Glendale Fire Union, Mark Becker of Becker Billboards and Jason Rose of the Rose Law Group.

Look for Sherwood and his supporters to file something to delay the election before the council May 26th meeting and vote. How creative can they be? I expect we’ll find out shortly.

© Joyce Clark, 2015

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.

It has been 17 years and 139 days since the city’s pledge to build the West Branch Library.

The cost to host the Super Bowl is estimated at $3.4 million to $4.1 million dollars. Let’s take a look at the revenue earned by the city. The oft touted public mentioning of Glendale as the host city will not be considered. It is an intangible that cannot be quantified. It has been my experience as a councilmember when the city hosted its first Super Bowl in 2008 that whatever publicity there was did not attract any new business to Glendale. Public safety will not be considered. The costs and reimbursements to and for public safety have been related in a previous blog. Instead we will focus on any revenue earned by any Glendale department.

My Public Records Request generated the following information related to revenue earned by the city:

  • The Glendale Media Center provided figures that reflect both the Pro Bowl and the Super Bowl. It seems reasonable to attribute 40% to the Pro Bowl and 60% to the Super Bowl. Total revenue earned less expenses was $8,480.57. Attributing 40% of the revenue earned to the Pro Bowl revenue was $3,392.23. Attributing 60% of the revenue earned to the Super Bowl was $5,088.34.
  • Planning Review (all departments) submitted a figure of $23,297.94 as revenue earned.
  • Permits earned $36,129.39 in revenue to the city.
  • Total Airport earned revenue for the Super Bowl was $12,686.00.

Super Bowl revenue earned as reported by the city for the above areas totaled $77,201.67.

That leaves the burning question of sales tax revenues earned by the city. City provided sales tax figures for January, February and March of 2014 and 2015 are:

City Sales Tax Revenue

Category January 2014 February 2014 March 2014
Retail sales $9,972,625.07 $5,637,641.32 $6,051,941.00
Contracting 745,079.38 518,696.33 616,690.00
Rentals 1,288,183.21 1,231,427.59 1,198,958.00
Utilities 601,681.64 583,784.06 530,215.00
Telecom/cable TV 405,525.87 416,381.31 448,315.00
Restaurant/Bar 1,495,519.46 1,323,988.20 1,308,653.00
Amusement 273,379.62 164,735.96 **
Other 558,426.02 445,446.71 1,116,070.00
TOTAL $15,335,417.00 $9,905,713.90 $11,271,212.00
  January 2015 February 2015 March 2015
Retail sales $9,372,364.50 $5,907,360.87 $6,747,767.00
Contracting 875,261.45 364,980.35 313,977.00
Rentals 1,491,967.04 1,202,529.74 1,324,516.00
Utilities 550,498.45 652,889.28 533,143.00
Telecom/cable TV 413,887.84 399,566.79 378,533.00
Restaurant/Bar 1,672,493.84 1,470,676.34 1,795,488.00
Amusement 313,548.98 110,242.04 **
Other 626,308.30 648,248.08 3,702,783.00
TOTAL $15,316,326.00 $10.756,493.00 $14,796,226.00

Total revenues for 3 months (Jan. – Feb. – Mar.)

Year 2014 Year 2015
$36,512,342.90 $40,869,045.00

** You will note that the city supplied no figures for the Amusement category for March of 2014 and 2015. I requested the March 2014 and 2015 seperately and received the following with the figures provided: “The requested information is included below with the exception that the category of Amusements has been combined into the category labeled Other.  Due to laws regarding taxpayer confidentiality, the information on Amusements had to be aggregated.  Therefore, the Other category includes Amusements, Hotel/Motel, Use Tax,  Printing, Publishing, Advertising, Jet Fuel, and other small dollar categories.” When I asked for a further explanation of this new practice the explanation offered by Ms. Vicki Rios, Glendale’s Acting Finance Director (now that Tom Duensing has been named as Interim Assistant City Manager replacing Julie Frisoni) was: “Mrs. Clark, 

“Section 21.1-450 (a) of the Glendale City Code states in part, “Except as specifically provided, it shall be unlawful for any official or employee of the City to make known information obtained pursuant to this Chapter concerning the business financial affairs or operations of any person.” 

“We take our obligation to protect taxpayer information very seriously.  During the month of March 2015, the mix and volume of taxpayer transactions in the Amusement category was such that if we were to disclose that category separately it would compromise the confidentiality of one or more taxpayers.  Therefore, we had to aggregate the category with other items for that month.  Because the taxpayer base and volume of transactions changes monthly, we evaluate each request independently.  Therefore, we were able to provide that information in the prior months.” The Amusement category would include sales tax receipts related to the Pro Bowl and Super Bowl.

January sales tax reflects December; February sales tax reflects January; and March reflects February. That is because sales tax is reported and paid in the month following the actual sales.

At first blush, when looking at the total sales tax reported for Jan. – Feb. – Mar. in 2014 and 2015 the first inclination is to say the $4,356,702.10 increase year over year is due to the Super Bowl.

Not so fast. There are mitigating factors to be considered. Tom Duensing, in his May 19, 2015 presentation to the city council on sales tax, stated that much of the increase is due to growth within the city. He indicated that new businesses have located in Glendale and they contributed to the sales tax revenue increase. In fact, Tanger Outlets grew substantially. Since Glendale does not publicly further refine its sales tax receipts the assumption is that an estimated $500,000 of that sales tax increase can be attributed to Tanger Outlet growth. If $500,000 is subtracted from the $4,356,702.10 year over year increase the figure is now $3,856,702.100 in sales tax revenue that can be attributed to all 3 major events: the Fiesta Bowl, the Pro Bowl and the Super Bowl.

Using the 40%/60% assumption, 40% can be attributed to the Fiesta Bowl and the Pro Bowl arriving at a figure of $1,542,680.80 in sales tax revenue. The Super Bowl sales tax figure at 60% is assumed to be $2,314,021.20. Add to this figure $77,201.67 in direct revenue the city received for the Super Bowl and the assumed figure for revenue earned by the city for the Super Bowl is $2,391,222.87.

Mr. Duensing budgeted $2.2 million dollars for the Super Bowl. Under his scenario the city only lost $191, 222.87 to host the Super Bowl. However the assumption is that the Super Bowl costs ranged from a low of an estimated $3.4 million to $4.1 million dollars. Based upon the figures used in this and the previous Super Bowl blogs the estimated loss to the city to host the 2015 Super Bowl ranges from a low of $1,008,777.13 to a high of $1,608,777.13.

The city admittedly had no mechanism to track all costs associated with hosting the Super Bowl and while it may have the figures of sales tax directly attributable to the Super Bowl it does not publicly divulge them. It should be of concern to all Glendale taxpayers that the city does not track each and every Super Bowl related expense. Based upon available expense and revenue figures the city was able to provide an estimated loss of $1 million to $1.6 million dollars is a reasonably accurate estimate. If you accept that the city only lost an estimated $191,000 I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale.

The last Super Bowl blog will share some interesting information on Super Bowl credentialed Glendale employees and how much some Glendale employees made in overtime or time and a half working these 3 major events. Some of the figures will astound you.

© Joyce Clark, 2015

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 from this material site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

It has been 17 years and 132 days since the city’s pledge to build the West Branch Library.

According to the Maricopa County Elections Department the Stop Councilman Sherwood Committee (www.stopsherwood.com) has successfully submitted enough valid petition signatures to force a recall election of Councilmember Gary Sherwood of Glendale’s Sahuaro district. Look for the recall election to occur on or about November 3, 2015.

According to a story in the Arizona Republic by Peter Corbett (here is the link: http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/glendale/2015/05/12/glendale-councilman-sherwood-face-recall-election/27216077/ ) Sherwood said, “This is being funded by Gila River. This is a casino thing but they threw some other issues in there to try to make it legitimate.” Who do you think will be throwing money Sherwood’s way as he tries to beat back this recall effort? Just look at his campaign filings (here is the link: http://www.glendaleaz.com/Clerk/2014PoliticalCommitteeCampaignFinanceReports.cfm . Scroll down this page to “Friends of Gary Sherwood.” You can view all of his submitted campaign finance reports.)

Don’t be surprised to see the Tohono O’odham, Mark Becker of Becker Billboards and the Rose Law Group (Becker’s attorney of record) contributing to his campaign or making independent expenditures. Expect the Glendale Fire Union to call on their brother chapters to contribute money, time and manpower to prop Sherwood up. Remember, theoretically the local Glendale union must not be involved because of the Federal Hatch Act…wink, wink.

Sherwood misreads his constituency if he truly believes that it is simply the Gila River tribe’s attempt to get rid of him. People in his district are not very happy with him these days. He appears to them as arrogant and dismissive of not just their concerns but their positions on issues that are important to them. He has been publicly derisive of their comments at city council meetings. He continues to advocate for Becker billboards and has even tried a few billboard issue maneuvers at council meetings. Apparently his constituents’ opposition to the billboards may not be as important to him as pushing for the billboards. His motive may be payback for previous financial campaign support and anticipated support this time around.

He failed to inform his constituency of the possible sale of the Foothills Library. The perception was that he purposely dragged his feet on publicizing the issue because he supported the idea of a sale. After the library issue died he proudly announced that he was having a luncheon meeting with Midwestern University President Kathleen Goeppinger to offer Glendale’s support of other possible MU initiatives.

Then there’s the casino issue. Sherwood ran on a platform of opposition to the casino and then at the eleventh hour, flip-flopped and became its most ardent supporter. Many people, to this day, believe that Sherwood became pro-casino in return for Councilmember Chavira’s support for the Coyote deal with IceArizona. Each man was the deciding vote to create majority support for each issue.

Sherwood originally claimed that the reason he changed his position was that Councilmember Chavira brought new information to his attention but he has never said what that “new information” was. Now he says the reason he changed his position is, “he changed his mind about it once it was clear that Glendale could not stop the Tohono O’odham Nation project.”  Which is it, Mr. Sherwood? New information from Chavira or you were powerless to stop the TO? If Sherwood had adhered to his campaign promise and stayed the course with Councilmembers Martinez, Knaack and Mayor Weiers, those four would have constituted a majority keeping an anti-casino position.

Then there is Sherwood’s position on the temporary sales tax increase…excuse me…make that a permanent increase. With a proverbial wringing of hands, Sherwood supported making the temporary sales tax permanent while agreeing that it would be revisited in future council budget workshops with the intent to gradually reduce the tax.  During this council budget workshop cycle did you hear Sherwood fighting to gradually reduce the tax?

Sherwood has two options. He can as he puts it “stand by his record and intend to run in the election (2015).” That sets up an interesting scenario. He would have to defend himself this November in a recall election and then turn around and do the whole thing all over again in November of 2016 when his seat comes up for its regular, every four year council district election. Or he could resign and run for mayor against Weiers in the November election of 2016. By resigning he would instantly remove a lot of the current negativity from voters in his district. For now, the issue of his recall is relatively isolated within his district. Hmmm….

As an FYI: Mayor Weiers may face yet another challenge for his seat in 2016. Rumors are floating that even though Councilmember Jamie Aldama is a newbie he wants to run for mayor in 2016. Aldama and his supporters seem to think that the Hispanic vote can win the election for him. Sadly they fail to recognize that the Hispanic vote is concentrated in south Glendale (Ocotillo, Cactus and Yucca districts) and that historically north Glendale (Cholla, Sahuaro and Barrel districts) outvote south Glendale at a nearly 2 to 1 ratio. While Aldama feels that he may prevail in south Glendale his visibility and support in north Glendale is practically nil.

It may become a contest to see who has the greater chutzpah in vying for Mayor Weiers’ seat…Councilmember Sherwood or Councilmember Aldama. It will be interesting to see who wins this match up…Sherwood or Aldama.

© Joyce Clark, 2015

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.

mothers 4

It has been 17 years and 129 days since the city’s pledge to build the West Branch Library.

When it comes to determining the actual cost of hosting the Super Bowl it is almost impossible using the city’s current financial tracking system. As the city responded to my Public Information Request it noted for Pro Bowl and Super Bowl expenses, “It was not announced that the Pro Bowl would be held in Glendale until budget development already took place so there were not separate accounts created for Pro Bowl expenses. Everything was charged to fund 1010 National Events.” In terms of Public Safety costs the city also responded with, “There was not a separate reporting code for Pro Bowl. Pro Bowl public safety costs were subject to the provisions of the city’s contract with Global Spectrum for public safety services at the stadium and the city will receive a partial reimbursement for those expenses.”

I requested a list of all departments that contributed, by event, in any way. The city’s response was, “A list as requested does not exist, but the documents provided somewhat address the request. There were obviously other departments involved as issues arose that affected their service areas, but a list was not created for tracking purposes.”

Based upon city provided figures I arrived at police Pro Bowl figures of 5,486 hours and wages of $309,387.54 and fire Pro Bowl figures of 1,400 hours and wages of $90,000. The city received partial reimbursement from Global Spectrum and I have established an estimated reimbursement figure of approximately $70,000 for police and $45,000 for fire services. Obviously this does not include other departments’ employee time and materials. Based upon figures available it is estimated that the city spent a minimum of $300,000 for public safety in support of the Pro Bowl. Other department costs are estimated to be in the range of $200,000. The city spent an estimated range of $500,000 in non-reimbursable hosting costs for the Pro Bowl.

Based upon city provided figures I arrived at police Super Bowl figures of 7,321.89 hours and wages of $527,527.08 and fire Super Bowl figures of 2,900 hours and wages of $241,000. The city’s costs for public safety alone are approximately $768,000. Add the city identified travel expenses for the 2014 Super Bowl of $19,000, Building Safety costs of $40,000 and Transportation Department costs of $787,000. These city identified costs total $1.61 million.

Add the untracked, unidentified costs such as the Super Bowl Operations Planning Team, the Code Compliance Enforcement Teams and the PIO team. Now add the untracked, unidentified costs of many departments: Sanitation, Marketing, Streets, Parks & Recreation, Planning & Zoning, etc. These costs are easily estimated to total $1 million to $1.5 million. It is fair to estimate the city’s true cost for hosting the 2015 Super Bowl between $2.6 to $3.1 million dollars.

What have you, the taxpayer, paid to be identified as a Sports Mecca in 2015?

  • Fiesta Bowl non-reimbursable cost of an estimated $300,000 to $500,000.
  • Pro Bowl non-reimbursable cost of an estimated $500,000
  • Super Bowl non-reimbursable cost of an estimated $2.6 million to $3.1 million
  • Total cost an estimated $3.4 million to $4.1 million dollars.

Ka-ching…

Next up…some interesting factoids discovered and did the city earn any money while hosting these events?

© Joyce Clark, 2015

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.

%d bloggers like this: