Header image alt text

Joyce Clark Unfiltered

For "the rest of the story"

Dec 13

30

Happy 2014, Glendale!

Posted by Joyce Clark on December 30, 2013
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale and the Super Bowl • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances • Jobing.com arena  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

As we prepare to enter 2014 it’s a good time to look at the major issues Glendale will face. Here is Glendale’s Top Ten for 2014:

  1. The winner for the coming year is Glendale’s financial future. The City Manager and Executive Finance Director will offer a series of options, some critical, some not, to right the situation. Will the city council grow a backbone and adopt some stringent measures that are sure to be unpopular with the general public?
  2. Will IceArizona be able to deliver on its promise of enhanced arena revenues to recompense Glendale for its annual $15 million dollar management fee? The $15 million annual fee coupled with another $12 million in arena construction debt repayment contributes to Glendale’s heavy financial burden.
  3. The Camelback Ranch area has never delivered on its promise to perform. When the recession hit all development came to a screeching halt. Will the city create n incentive strategy for development of the surrounding area? Its annual $13 million dollar debt construction repayment is yet another major financial burden.
  4. Will the Attorney General’s office investigation into former City Manager Ed Beasley and deals cut with former financial consultant Art Lynch and former HR Director Alma Carmicle result in charges being filed?
  5. What impacts will the arrival of the first of 144 F-35 aircraft have on Luke Air Force Base, Glendale and the surrounding West Valley area?
  6. Will the Arizona Cardinals continue to seek its dream of a bubble tent practice facility on Glendale’s Youth Sports fields? What about their desire for Glendale’s long-promised parking garage as a means of fulfilling its parking requirements as vacant land diminishes at Westgate?
  7. Will the new City Manager Brenda Fischer continue to fire employees as her solution to any future irregularities? Will a new round of internal warfare erupt between police and fire over the severely constrained city revenue pot of money as her empathy toward fire (her husband is/was a firefighter in Henderson, Nevada) becomes more evident?
  8. With November, 2014 city election for councilmembers in the Cholla, Barrel and Ocotillo districts bring new faces and new agendas and another shake up in the fragile council coalitions?
  9. Will the temporary city sales tax increase become permanent as a solution to Glendale’s financial mess? How will citizens react to the broken promise of its sunset in 2017? Will citizens see increases in all kinds of local taxes while experiencing a decrease in the level of services provided?
  10. How will the city find the money to pay for its hosting of the Super Bowl in 2015? A figure of $1.7 million dollars is unrealistic and doesn’t equal the amount spent by Glendale on its last Super Bowl hosting gig.

Lastly there is the unknown. There is always a new, unforeseen crisis. What will it/they be for Glendale in 2014? Councilmembers will continue to combat and to abuse one another and all of us. The City Manager will continue to offer policies to strengthen her power and there is no one on council to guard against it. Departments such as police and fire will vie for shrinking resources. New players and power brokers will emerge. All that can be said with any degree of certainty is that it won’t be a dull year. Thank goodness there will be plenty of fodder for upcoming blogs!

© Joyce Clark, 2013

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.

Dec 13

16

Arena numbers confusion

Posted by Joyce Clark on December 16, 2013
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale finances • Jobing.com arena  | Tagged With: , , , , , | 5 Comments

My blog produced a raft of emails indicating that I wasn’t very clear in my recitation of arena numbers. Here’s an attempt to clarify:

We will not know about parking revenues until January 31, 2014 because that number is due quarterly per the arena management agreement and will reflect October-November-December (4th quarter of Fiscal Year 2013-14) parking surcharges.

However, there is a line item on these monthly reports that troubles me. In none of the monthly reports does it indicate that IceArizona is depositing Supplemental Ticket surcharge revenue ($1.50 per ticket) into an escrow account.  It is an escrow account designed to supplement revenues to the city (If needed) to try to make the city whole for $9 million dollars. You see, this Fiscal Year 2013-14, the city council budgeted $6 million for arena management (keep in mind nothing is budgeted for FY 2014-15 because the budget has not been set or approved  by council and will not be until June 2014). Since the city only budgeted $6 million dollars of the $15 million dollars needed to pay IceArizona the arena management fee, the idea behind the surcharges and fees was to earn an additional $9 million dollars for the city. That would hopefully make the city whole for the $15 million dollars a year to IceArizona. If the $9 million wasn’t generated the Supplemental Ticket surcharge of $1.50 per ticket was to be given to the city to cover the short fall.  Here is the exact verbage:

Supplemental Surcharge

“9.1.3 Supplemental Surcharge. In addition, throughout the Term, a Supplemental Surcharge of $1.50 per Qualified Ticket (“Supplemental Surcharge”) shall be imposed by the Arena Manager for all Hockey and non-Hockey Events. The Supplemental Surcharge shall be deposited by Arena Manager into one or more an escrow accounts in the name of Arena Manager and the City, and shall be the property of each Party to the extent each is entitled to such monies under this Agreement as determined by Arena Manager and the City jointly (the Supplemental Surcharge Escrow Account”): provided that such deposits shall be held in accordance with and subject to audit pursuant to the procedures described on Exhibit “N” attached hereto (the “Supplemental Surcharge Procedures”). City shall have the right to draw upon the Supplemental Escrow Account within 60 days following the last day of each Fiscal Year, to the extent City received less than $9,000,000 in total revenue from operations at the Arena pursuant to this Agreement during the immediately preceding Fiscal Year (the “Deficit Amount”), as further described in the Supplemental Surcharge Procedures and in an amount not to exceed the total funds available in the Supplemental Surcharge Escrow Account at the end of such Fiscal Year. The funds remaining in the Supplemental Surcharge Escrow Account following payment of the Deficit Amount, if any, to City shall belong to Arena Manager free and clear of all claims of City and shall be disbursed to Arena Manager such that said escrow account is reset to a zero balance following the reconciliation pursuant to the Supplemental Surcharge Procedures at the beginning of each Fiscal Year. The Supplemental Surcharge amounts imposed by the Arena Manager which are the property of Arena Manager pursuant to this Section 9.1.3 are pledged to the City, as more fully described in the Supplemental Surcharge Procedures, to the extent of the City’s interest, with the City claiming no interest in the balance of such account. The Supplemental Surcharge Escrow Account shall be held in one or more (FDIC insured) accounts of the Arena Manager and the City jointly, at one or more Third Party financial institutions agreed to by the City and the Arena Manager. To the extent of any inconsistency between this Section 9.1.3 and the terms of the Supplemental Surcharge Procedures, the terms of this Section 9.1.3 shall control.”

Where are the Supplemental Ticket Surcharge numbers per month? There should be $8,206 for October; $101,644 for November; and $96,758 for December for a total of $206, 608 to date. So, where’s the money? Why no accounting in the monthly report? Why is there no indication that these funds have been deposited in an interest bearing escrow account? Could this be considered a breach of contract?

According to the Monthly Arena Revenues & Expenditures, Arena Lease and Safety & Security Agreements, a public document that will be used by staff in its presentation at the December 17, 2013 city council workshop on this issue, here are the monthly ticket surcharge revenues that are to be paid to the city. These are public figures provided by the city based on figures  provided by IceArizona. Here is the link: http://www.glendaleaz.com/Clerk/agendasandminutes/Workshops/Agendas/121713-W05.pdf .

Month ending Sept 30, 2013:

Ticket surcharge Hockey ($3 per ticket)     $16,413 total revenue surcharge for 1 hockey game.

Divide $16,413 by $3 and attendance for this one game was 5,471.

Month ending October 31, 2013:

Ticket surcharge Hockey ($3 per ticket)    $203,289 total revenue surcharge for 7 hockey games.

Divide $203,289 by $3 and attendance total for all 7 games was 67,756.

Divide 67,756 by 7 games and average attendance per game was 9,679.

Month ending November 30, 2013:

Ticket surcharge Hockey ($3 per ticket)    $193,517 total revenue surcharge for 5 hockey games.

Divide $193,517 by $3 and attendance total for all 5 games was  64,505.

Divide 64,505 by 5 games and average attendance per game was 12,901.

Oops. I just checked the Coyotes website and it lists SIX games in November. Whose mistake is it? If it’s the city’s incompetence perhaps City Manager Fischer should fire someone else in the Finance Department. If it’s IceArizona’s mistake was it deliberate?

We’ve all heard the rumors about Anthony LeBlanc handing out 2,000 complementary tickets per game. Whether it’s true or not has no bearing on ticket revenues because they would be free tickets there would be no ticket surcharge. You attendance gurus out there better check your attendance figures because these are the numbers that come from IceArizona. After all, IceArizona wouldn’t low ball the numbers to the city only to exaggerate them for the media, would they? Nah-h-h-h-h.

By the way I ran into Mr. LeBlanc at a Coyotes game and had a few minute to quiz him on the numbers of the Coyotes deal. Mr. LeBlanc quite clearly stated to me that they needed attendance of 15,500 per game to “make it.” His number, not mine.

© Joyce Clark, 2013

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.

Aug 13

19

To pray or not to pray…that is the question

Posted by Joyce Clark on August 19, 2013
Posted in City Council Actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments

Instead of its regular meeting time of 1:30 PM the Tuesday, August 20, 2013 council workshop meeting will convene at 9 AM. The 64 million dollar question is will Councilmember Alvarez show up or call in? She’s on the injured reserve list once again. If she does show will pain medication affect her performance or lack thereof?

They will begin with an Executive Session to meet the candidates for the City Attorney’s position. Do we know how many finalists? Do we know who they are? At least when the City Manager’s position was up for grabs we knew a smidgeon about the finalists. This time there is a cone of silence.

prayerThe most interesting and possibly contentious issue for open workshop discussion is to pray or not to pray at the start of the evening meeting. FYI: Only Phoenix has prayer before its council meeting. The cities of Gila Bend, Winslow, Apache Junction, Litchfield Park, Benson and Florence have invocations before their meetings. What’s the difference between an invocation and a prayer? According to the dictionary an invocation is the act of asking for help or support from anyone or anything.  A prayer is a spiritual communion with God or an object of worship. Is it appropriate to start council meetings with a prayer? You can weigh in by participating in my unscientific poll to the left of this article. This issue could become a moot point of discussion as this fall the Supreme Court will take up the issue of prayer at town meetings as it hears the Greece, New York case.

After their discussion of prayer council will move into another Executive Session where once again they will receive information about the external audit. Apparently the audit has been completed. If that is the case, it’s time to let the citizens of Glendale review the result. After all, taxpayers paid a hefty price for it – a half million dollars. It should be presented to all on a gold plated serving tray! Come on, council, it’s time to give it up and direct staff to post the results on the city’s website.

The other item of note in Esession is discussion of the IceArizona management agreement. What could this be about? The council approved the contract with IceArizona with its public vote on July 2, 2013 followed by the sale of the team by the NHL to IceArizona.  Is the contract still under negotiation?  That is the only way it can be discussed in Esession. Here is the exact verbiage used: “Discussion and consultation with the City Attorney and the City Manager to receive an update, consider its position and provide instruction and direction to the City Attorney and the City Manager regarding Glendale’s position in connection with agreements associated with arena management, the Arena, and the Hockey Team, which are the subject of negotiations (bold emphasis mine). [A.R.S 38-431.03(A)(3)(4)(7)].” Note that discussion is permitted in Esession while the negotiations are in progress but negotiations were concluded with council’s vote on July 2nd. Hmmmm…

©Joyce Clark, 2013

FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has 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. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those 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.

Jul 13

1

Analysis of the Renaissance Sports and Entertainment bid…Part 3

Posted by Joyce Clark on July 1, 2013
Posted in City of Glendale • Glendale finances • Jobing.com arena  | Tagged With: , , , , , | 7 Comments

words 6bargaining 3I want to commend attorneys for both Glendale and RSE. When I received the original June 26th draft of the Agreement consisting of 93 pages it took me quite a few hours to review it line by line. I ended with 18 pages of notes and they have been quite handy and well worth my time. I had quite a few issues with the original document. In reviewing the latest version dated June 28th I am quite pleased to see that many – not all – but many of my issues have been addressed. One that made me laugh out loud was the provision that Glendale would receive 100% of the Naming Rights for a future theater/stage space to be constructed within the bowl. Further along in the original document it specified that Glendale must pay for its construction or the Arena Manager would receive the proceeds of Naming Rights and apply them as reimbursement for construction costs. That provision, thankfully, has been changed and it is no longer Glendale’s responsibility to fund its construction but it still has the right to receive 100% of the Naming Rights. It appears that cooperation and communication by both sides has gone a long way to resolve many of the issues.

contractHowever, there remain several major, outstanding issues. One of those issues is that of the Noncompetition/Non-Relocation Agreement. The original June 26th agreement refers often and specifically to the dual concepts of non-competition and non-relocation although the document was never provided publicly. So there was no companion document to review. This, in conjunction with the absence of any exhibits accompanying the release of the original version, is troubling but that is for another time. In the new version of the agreement reference is now made solely to a Non-Relocation Agreement. The concept of non-competition has been removed in its entirety. Is this positive or negative? There is no way of knowing since there is nothing with which to compare the current Non-Relocation Agreement.

threaten 1Another major shift from previous deals is the concept of mediation vs. arbitration. In previous deals arbitration was the “Dispute Remedy.” In all versions of the RSE Agreement mediation is the dispute resolution mechanism. There is a difference between the two procedures. In mediation a neutral third party acts as a facilitator but is not a decision maker. Neither party is required to complete the process nor is it legally binding. The mediation resolution can be appealed through the legal system. In arbitration the neutral party acts as judge and jury. The decision is generally binding and cannot be appealed, except under very special circumstances. Mediation can be more expensive because it allows for legal appeal as opposed to arbitration which is legally binding. So the question becomes why RSE’s insistence on mediation for it seems to be upon their insistence and not that of the city.

enter 3We now know that RSE used a figure of 23 non-hockey events with attendance of 15,000 per event. Those numbers are a component of their calculations in determining the revenues from the parking surcharge and ticket/supplemental surcharges. It appears to be over inflated but it is their number, not mine, not the city’s. That goal should be acknowledged within the Agreement by incorporating accompanying performance penalties and incentives. If RSE meets less than its self-proclaimed goal of 23 non-hockey events there should be a monetary penalty. It is a concept only used in the Agreement in conjunction with hockey games. If less than 41 games are played in the arena, there is a $150,000 penalty per game paid to the city. However, if RSE overachieves or underachieves in booking non-hockey events, it should be rewarded/penalized for doing so but there is no mention of such a concept within the Agreement. Fairness dictates that non-performance be penalized and success rewarded.

man moneyAnother interesting concept within the Agreement is language that exempts the Arena Manager from governmentally imposed lease taxes on the property. If, for some reason, the Arena Manager does have to pay them, that amount will be deducted from the City’s total annual revenue to be received. Hmmmm. Should there be lease property taxes imposed that have to be paid the city is required to pay them.

It also appears that instead of allowing the city’s contribution to the Capital Improvement Fund to accumulate year over year, the Capital Improvement Fund is set to “0” every year and the funds within it revert to the Renewal and Replacement Fund that is spent solely at the Arena Manager’s discretion.

The last major change to the document is the city addition of its own opt-out provision. The city views this action as entirely appropriate. Their assumption may be based on the notion that the city has more “skin in the game” than does RSE. $15M for each of 5 years equals $75M. It has been widely reported that RSE’s equity (or “skin”) is $45M. The proposal is that after 5 years, each side should have the option of deciding whether to continue, especially if one side or the other has accumulated over $50M in debt. That option, if it remains in the Agreement, would signal that RSE’s “enhanced revenue streams” did not perform as advertised. The city’s financial shortfall in this deal is of its own making. The current council will either be comfortable in its assumption that it can weather the effects of the shortfall or it will not. Continued insistence by the city on this provision destroys RSE’s ability to secure loans because it nullifies the very element they MUST have, which is a guaranteed $15M from the city.

agenda 1In my notes I have probably identified another two dozen minor issues that require further negotiation. Listing all would turn this blog into a book. I will not inflict that agony on you. It appears that with some further negotiation and communication this Agreement could work but it does not resolve Glendale’s fundamental issue of covering a monetary shortfall of $3M annually.

Many have asked me to reveal my position on this issue. That I will not do. I have provided you with financial information on the “enhanced revenue streams” as well as information on Glendale’s precarious financial position and Agreement points that need further resolution. Many of you reading this blog have expertise in business budgets and corporate negotiating. My role is to offer municipal expertise and to provide context to balance that.  It is up to you to decide if this is a good deal for Glendale.  This is exactly polling 1what every current councilmember is wrestling with. As leaders of this city they have the prime responsibility of insuring the continued financial health of the city. My feeling is that some are now struggling with recent decisions and recent votes and beginning to realize the effects of those decisions.

confusion 3Will this Agreement help or hinder Glendale’s continued financial health? Of course there is the overwhelming element of politics. Some councilmembers’ positions will be taken as a result of ego; others simply wouldn’t say ‘yes’ even if God invited them into the Pearly Gates; still others have only a partial grasp of the entirety of the deal. But it is not my call. I am no longer a sitting councilmember. Whatever their collective decision I will accept it and abide by it, as everyone should reasonably do.

Fasten your seat belts — if past history is any indication we are in for a bumpy ride. I hope that I am wrong but there may very well be challenges to this Agreement.

copyright

Jun 13

26

Troubling times

Posted by Joyce Clark on June 26, 2013
Posted in City Council Actions • Jobing.com arena  | Tagged With: , , , , , , | 9 Comments

A disclaimer: I have not made a decision on the Renaissance Sports and Entertainment bid to manage the city’s arena. It is not possible until I have read the document. To date it is not available to the public.

I don’t usually post 3 blogs in one day but this appears to be one of those days that demands it.

On June 25, 2013, Paul Giblin, a reporter for the Arizona Republic issued the following story online, Glendale still unsure about Phoenix Coyotes deal. Here is the link: http://www.azcentral.com/community/glendale/articles/20130625glendale-unsure-phoenix-coyotes-deal.html . Several aspects of his story are troubling. One issue is that a vote is still scheduled for hidden agendaTuesday, July 2, 2013. It is my understanding that the council has requested another Executive Session for Thursday, June 27, 2013. The city had better made sure that notice of another Esession on June 27th is properly posted 24 hours in advance. Which means that the meeting notice has to be posted on Wednesday, June 26th…today. However, even more worrisome is that with an Esession scheduled for June 27 the very earliest the deal points could be posted publicly would be on Friday, June 28th or even as late as on Monday, July 1st. Could the city post as late as 24 hours before a scheduled vote? Yes, they could but would they? I hope not as suspicions will shoot through the roof if the public is given one day to review and understand any deal between Renaissance Sports and Entertainment (RSE) and the city.

city hall 2

Glendale City Hall Complex

Now, about that second $25M the NHL has offered (at the 11th hour) to take payments on of $5M over each of the next 5 years. Great…too little, too late and it doesn’t solve the city’s problems. The $30M leaseback of City Hall was designed to replenish the city’s Enterprise Funds, Vehicle Replacement Fund and Technology Replacement Fund.  Glendale staff crafted a brilliant strategy. Now that strategy has been tabled by council until after the scheduled Coyotes vote on July 2nd… Hmmmm…The $20M the city has held in an escrow account for the NHL payment simply isn’t enough to cover all of the city’s needs. It will pay back some of the loans leaving $5M still outstanding.  While a generous offer on the part of the NHL, it could have been done a long time ago and in fact, I and several former councilmembers called for just such an arrangement. Why now? I suspect it is in reaction to what they perceive as a very negative story about the city planning to enter a leaseback of City Hall to pay back loans directly related to the $50M partially paid and partially still owed to the NHL.

To discover that councilmembers are not on top of the revenues derived from either the Westgate area (remember those revenues are already being used to pay off the original construction debt on the arena and are NOT new found money) or the arena is disturbing to say the least. At least one of them has touted himself as an expert on the entire RSE deal.

Norma Alvarez

Norma Alvarez

Lastly, good old Councilmember Alvarez and her statements have got to have you snapping your heads in double-take mode. Alvarez said, “I called them knuckleheads, because they don’t get it. They don’t get it. They don’t get it. They’re going to continue discussions. Discussions of what? We’re selling City Hall because of paying $50 million. C’mon. C’mon.” Factually she is incorrect. The city is proposing a leaseback arrangement not an outright sale of City Hall with visions of employees moving out after a sale. As for continuing discussions, they should continue but they don’t have to result in acceptance of the deal…not if RSE cannot or will not guarantee “enhanced revenue streams” for the city.

copyright

Jun 13

19

Non hockey management is not a silver bullet

Posted by Joyce Clark on June 19, 2013
Posted in City of Glendale • Jobing.com arena  | Tagged With: , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Some of those on council believe that all of Jobing.com’s problems regarding increasing its revenue can be solved by finding a management company that will book a ton of non-hockey events, especially major concerts.  I thought it would be interesting to take an Internet walk through the entertainment promotion industry. I don’t pretend to be an expert on this issue and I am sure somebody will correct me on something!

prop 202The gorilla in the room is LiveNation. In 2005 (last year for which I could find numbers) earned $1.3 billion dollars world-wide. It has relationships (contracts) with 135 venue sites world-wide and 92 of those are in the United States. It has relationships with Desert Sky Pavilion, Talking Stick, Comerica and Celebrity Theater (as of 2005) in the Phoenix Metropolitan area. It, like other promoters, also has a roster of national, well known artists that perform exclusively at LiveNation venues.

enter 1 The second largest is Anschutz Entertainment Live (AEG). In 2005 it earned $417 million dollars—only 20% to 30% of LiveNation’s income.  In September, 2012 AEG announced it was selling off its Entertainment Live subsidiary only to reverse that action in March, 2013. AEG is the company that currently manages Glendale’s Jobing.com Arena. The third largest company is the House of Blues Entertainment. In 2005 it earned $245 million dollars—about 10% of LiveNation’s income. But wait…the following year, 2006, LiveNation acquired the House of Blues and picked up Casino Arizona as another contract in the Phoenix area. There are many small firms (less than a handful in the Phoenix area) whose annual income is less than $20 million dollars a year.

Let’s look at the two most comparable venue sites to Jobing.com Arena. One is US Airways, home to the Phoenix Suns. It is run and events are booked by Phoenix Arena Development (one of the two bidders to be considered by Glendale). It is also the home of the Arizona Rattlers and Phoenix Mercury. In essence, it has 3 anchor tenants. Between June and December, 2013 there are 10 major concerts booked. The other comparable site is Chase Field, home to the Arizona Diamondbacks, its only major anchor tenant. SMG World manages this venue (and is also a finalist in Glendale’s bidding process) and uses Select Artists Associates of Scottsdale as its event promoter. It has 3 major concerts booked between June and December, 2013. It will be very interesting to see what each of these companies want in terms of an annual management contract. Will there be penalties in the contracts if a named minimum number of events is not achieved? Will there be an incentive if the company exceeds a mutually agreed upon goal?

As you can see, the Phoenix Metro area is a highly competitive market. There many venues from which to choose and LiveNation have contracts with many of them. You can be sure LiveNation, with a virtual monopoly in this country, dictates the terms and fees for the major events it books.

enter 3Just to give you an idea of how competitive our market is, here are just some of the sites that can and do host major concerts: ASU Gammage, Desert Sky Pavilion, Celebrity Theater, Chandler Center for the Arts, Chase Field, Comerica Theatre, Fort McDowell Casino, Herberger Theatre, Grand Canyon University Arena, Jobing.com Arena, Mesa Arts Center, Scottsdale Center for the Performing Arts, Orpheum Theatre, Talking Stick Resort, Tempe Center for the Arts, US Airways Center and University of Phoenix Stadium. This list is by no means complete and does not include dozens of smaller venues. This market is not an easy one. Steve Ellman, when he controlled Jobing.com Arena was highly successful in booking major concerts. When Jerry Moyes and the NHL took control of the arena that was not their focus and so we saw fewer and fewer major events at Jobing. This year the number of major events booked was so few that it is embarrassing.

What can a venue manager do in this highly competitive market of at least 17 major venue sites if there is no relationship with LiveNation or AEG? They host smaller, less lucrative events such as rodeos, religious groups and family events. That works well if your venue is small but large ones like Jobing.com Arena need large events to offset the costs associated with hosting. Note than even the UofP Stadium hosts RV and car sales nearly every weekend in addition to gun shows in an attempt to shore up its bottom line. I suppose a venue manager could undercut the big boys and offer the venue for rock bottom rental fees and hope to cover all or part of the loss with concession and parking revenue but that is risky on so many levels.

Hiring a non hockey arena manager has never been in the best interests of the arena or Glendale. A permanent team owner hired to manage the arena guarantees 41 nights of hockey with “butts in seats.” It will be in the owner’s best interest to mount a strong marketing campaign for the Coyotes and put even more butts in seats as well as to work to acquire as many non-hockey events as possible to increase the bottom line of profitability. This is not a difficult concept to understand and yet there are those on Glendale’s city council who refuse to acknowledge this concept—out of sheer stubbornness or because of another agenda?

copyright

Jun 13

13

Pick your poison

Posted by Joyce Clark on June 13, 2013
Posted in Jobing.com arena  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , | 16 Comments

jobing.com arena

Jobing.com Arena

Well, well,well…Glendale has offered a crumb to its residents by making public the names of the four bidders that responded to the Beacon Sports RFP (at a cost of $100,000) for management of its arena, Jobing.com. More to come about the bidding process in a future blog.

The contenders are: Phoenix Monarch Group, R Entertainment, SMG World and Phoenix Arena Development. Have you noticed who is missing? We see none of the expected and well known players in either the arena management industry or the entertainment venue industry – Global Spectrum, AEG and IFG. I suspect that when they learned that as part of the bid Glendale was seeking their investment (counts for 10% of bidding score) they probably said thanks, but no thanks.

Let’s look at the bidders. First up is R Entertainment. It is a privately held company registered with the Arizona Corporation Commission in August, 2006. It is located in Scottsdale with 1-10 employees. Its Statutory Agent is Kerry Dunne and according to the media, a partner. It manages one venue, the Pepsi Amphitheater at Fort Tuthill County Park near Flagstaff. By the way, the seating capacity of the Amphitheater is 2,750, not quite a 17,000 seat arena. I congratulate them for submitting a bid but I fear they are way out of their league (no pun intended). Investment counts for 10% of the bid score and this company is too small to make a major investment in Glendale’s arena. Experience is another 15% of the bid score and the company’s management experience with the Pepsi Amphitheater does not meet managing a similar sports facility. Personnel accounts for another 10% of the score. The current management staff of the arena numbers about 135, full time and part time. With a staff of 1-10 people R Entertainment is simply too small to manage a venue of this size. This company’s bid could lose about 35% of available points according to the bid criteria. Quite frankly, it should have been rejected as not meeting the basic criteria of the bid.

Next up is SMG World whose headquarters are located in Philadelphia, PA. It is a world-wide event and venue management company established in 1977. It has the personnel and experience to manage Jobing.com arena and advertises on its website http://smgworld.com that it has managed 230 facilities. So it certainly is a viable contender. One problematical concern revolves around an old saying that you are judged by the company you keep. SMG has a relationship with the Bidwill subsidiary, Rojo Event Management. Yes, the same Rojo that submitted a bid to the city to manage its Youth Sports fields adjacent to the stadium. Rojo’s bid for management is greater than the current Global Spectrum contract and offers way less revenue to the city. This is the Youth Sports field bid the city should reject unless it likes being taken to the cleaners once again.

Another bidder has indeed risen like the mythical Phoenix Bird and that is the Phoenix Monarch Group (PMG). It was registered with the Arizona Corporation Commission in August of 2012 and its managing member is Arturo Jimenez. In the one telephone conversation I had with Mr. Jimenez (at Councilmember Lieberman’s request) he indicated that an Alvarez (don’t remember the first name) and Tony Herrera were part of his group (more about them in a minute). This group should sound familiar to you. It the group that Councilmember Alvarez brokered a meeting for with former Mayor Scruggs and former Councilmember Lieberman. At that time they were asking for about $7M to host 25 events. Their experience is problematical. They ran an event for the Hispanic Fire Fighters Association (HFFA) which ended with HFFA paying vendors because PMG did not. The only other event (that they classify as ‘major.’ I do not) PMG hosted was a Hispanic Festival for a Peoria Councilmember. PMG easily loses 35% of bid points for lack of experience, personnel and investment. But once again the specter of relationships is troubling. I do not know if the Alvarez Mr. Jimenez referred to is a distant, or otherwise, relative of Councilmember Alvarez. Mr. Herrera, another PMG participant, has a close relationship with Councilmember Chavira with both listed as managing members of two companies, Cool Heads,LLC. and the McCoy Group, LLC. At least in terms of public perception, if no other, Councilmembers Alvarez and Chavira should recluse themselves due to a conflict of interest. They have no business advocating for or participating in discussions and votes on choosing a Beacon bidder to manage the arena.

Last up is Phoenix Arena Development Limited Partnership. It is headquartered in Phoenix but according to the Arizona Corporation Commission it is a foreign limited partnership. It is a privately held company and owned by the Phoenix Suns Limited Partnership. The general partner of the Phoenix Suns Limited Partnership is JDM Sports, Inc. and as of 1992 Jerry Colangelo was its president. This company was created for one purpose only and that is to manage the Suns basketball team’s venue. It crafted a sweet deal for itself with the City of Phoenix. Reminds me of the Ellman deal, Coyotes and Jobing.com Arena. It has experience in managing one venue exclusively and somehow or another; I don’t think they will be making an investment in Glendale’s arena. More likely is that, if chosen, Glendale will end up making a hefty payment to this company.

So there you have it – the four bidders that Glendale taxpayers spent $100,000 to find. Pick your poison. It’s the height of chutzpah for Beacon to even present R Entertainment or the Phoenix Monarch Group as viable bidders to the council. Clearly neither one is qualified by experience alone, to manage Jobing.com. Left standing is SMG World with ties to the Bidwills or Phoenix Arena Development with ties to Colangelo. To date, we have not seen the details of any of these bids and have no clue as to the management fee any of these groups is requesting.

Coyotes logoKeep in mind that NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman said the Beacon process was “silly” and it is. The same, major issue is before this council just as it was before the former council and that is, if you choose to keep the Coyotes in Glendale, Westgate viable and save the city’s third major economic area, you must pay the freight and use the team owner as the arena’s manager. The only issue for Glendale is what can it afford to pay to make that happen and will it be enough to keep the Coyotes long-term?

copyright

Jun 13

13

Verbatim transcript of Bettman/Daly 30 minute press conference of June 12, 2013

Posted by Joyce Clark on June 13, 2013
Posted in Jobing.com arena  | Tagged With: , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Below is a verbatim transcript of the Bettman press conference. I prefer to personally hear what is being said about important issues and to make my own verbatim transcript for reference. I did this often when I was on city council and made verbatim transcripts of the former mayor’s remarks as well as staffers and other councilmembers.

It begins with the end of Commissioner Bettman’s opening remarks. I have only transcribed those portions of the press conference relevant to the Coyotes issue but I have inserted time markers for unrelated reporters’ questions. The video is posted on many sites. I pulled it from the Coyotes team website.

Bettman

NHL Commissioner
Gary Bettman

Gary Bettman (GB): “Phoenix. No doubt we’ll get a question. Obviously, we’re getting to the point where some decisions are going to have to be made both by the City of Glendale and by us. I haven’t set a deadline but time is getting shorter. We’re looking forward to realignment for next season. We’re looking forward to the future. But as we look back on this season and take a deep breath before we look ahead to the Stanley Cup Final and then to next season, we find ourselves in a good, strong place. And we’re grateful to be there. And we’re grateful to be here with all of you. So, we’ll take your questions.”

4:55 Reporter question 1 (RQ 1):  What preparations for stormy weather in Chicago?

6:20 RQ 2: Why is Olympic process dragging on so long?

7:52 RQ 3: Question about realignment, names of conferences, etc.

RQ 4: “Bill, you mentioned that Phoenix somewhat impacts the schedule being released. Does that mean or suggest the team won’t be playing there next year?”

Daly

Deputy NHL Commissioner
Bill Daly

Bill Daly (BD): Yes. It’s certainly possible the team won’t play there next year. Look at the short strokes in Phoenix now. The ownership group we’ve negotiated a deal with has been negotiating with the City of Glendale. I think everybody knows kinda what’s on the table. I think the puck is pretty much in the City of Glendale’s end with respect to how they want to deal with that.”

RQ 5: “Just to go a little further on Phoenix. Time is short. How much time do you have left? Why not have a deadline at some point?”

GB: “No reason to. It’s been a complicated process. In our minds understand that we’re dealing with a time frame. But a specific day isn’t going to do it but time is getting short and as Bill said, this is really going to be a decision that the City of Glendale is going to have to make.”

9:27 RQ 6: Stanley Cup questions

RQ 7: “Bill or Gary, I’m sure you have a Plan B or even a Plan C for Phoenix. But if they’re not playing in Phoenix next year will Quebec City, might be a Plan B or Plan C for the league?”

GB: We’re still focused on making it work with the Coyotes staying in Arizona. I don’t wanna begin a process, particularly publicly, with, where there’s gonna be a lot of speculation where the team might go, if it moved because all that would do would be to unfairly raise expectation in places and I don’t want to do that to fans in these communities. So we’re just going to leave it that we’re still focused on the Coyotes in Arizona.”

10:52 RQ 8: how were revenue earnings in a shortened season?

11:21 RQ 9: officiating during the play offs

13:38 RQ 10: Original 6 final game?

14:42 RQ 11: despite loss of 42% of season is NHL impenetrable?

16:53 RQ 12: low scoring in playoff games

RQ 13: “Does the Phoenix issue affect realignment at all especially if they have to move somewhere?”

GB: “Since one’s hope is that they’re going to stay where they are it shouldn’t and if the team is forced to relocate then we’ll have a look at it and make a decision as to whether or not it is impacted.”

18:19 RQ 14: concessions

19:51 RQ 15: after lockout will there be better revenues in the future?

RQ 16: “Two questions on Phoenix that perhaps Bill could answer. If we understand that you’ve got an ownership in place who will only take control of the team once the city council of Glendale strikes a deal, it seems that we’re working off a timeline that is controlled by the city council of Glendale. Is that correct?”

GB: “No. I’ll answer the question. The answer is no. At some point we’re going to have to make a decision.”

BD: “In other words, delay could be a no decision. Or no decision could be a decision in this case. So they understand. There’s no misunderstanding with respect to when our time table is vis a vis the city of Glendale. They know what our decision time line is and what are the decisions we have to make. There’s no misunderstanding on the parties.”

RQ 17: “You’ve spoken of keeping the team there and relocation. Does a third option of having the franchise in hiatus exist?”

GB: “There are a myriad of options and we’re not prepared to engage in speculation as to what the optionality (sic) is. The focus, at least for the time being, remains on having the Coyotes in Arizona. Obviously, we’ll have lots of choices, options and decisions and at the time, if we get to that point, and hopefully we won’t, then we’ll focus on which one is the best.”

21:40 RQ 18:  has a series with two of original 6 teams been achieved?

22:44 RQ 19: results of investigation into deaths of 2 NHL players

RQ 20: “Do you need a decision on Phoenix by the Board of Governors’ meeting on June 27th?”

GB: “Maybe. Are you trying to get me to set a deadline?”

RQ 21: “I’m just curious.”

GB: Listen. There’s a Board of Governors meeting on the 27th. There’s a city council meeting on June 28th.”

BD: “June 25th.”

GB: “I’m sorry. June 25th. Stuff’s gonna happen.”

24:10 RQ 22: world cup hockey

RQ 23: “Gary, question #15 on the Coyotes, if I may. You mentioned that you don’t want to make expectations in other places. Are there that many markets out there available that you could turn around and go to?”

GB: “There are a number of markets that have been expressing an interest to us over the years and the phone keeps ringing more regularly the longer that the Coyotes situation stays unresolved and based on the dates we just happened to talk about with the previous question, it’s causing the phone to ring even more.”

26:01 RQ 24: will acrimony of lockout be present and will GB present Stanley Cup?

26:28 RQ 25: will players participate in future world championship?

RQ 26: “If the phone is ringing about interest from other markets why is Phoenix still the best option for the NHL and can the franchise not just survive but thrive with new ownership?”

nealy

Mike Nealy

Maloney

Don Maloney

GB: “That’s a great question. So let me answer it in two parts. The first is, we try to avoid franchise relocation. We try to do everything possible. We don’t think it’s fair to fans and we don’t think it’s fair unless you have to move, to do it to communities that build you buildings. And so we’re not going to get involved in a bake-off where we’re gonna say, you know, we’d rather be here than there. We’re gonna try to preserve what’s in place. That’s what we’ve always done even when it’s resulted previously in franchise relocation. That only happens when we’ve exhausted all possibilities. We’ve now operated this club for about three years indirectly. We’ve had ownership of it. We’ve had great support by the people on the ground doing there. Mike Nealy and Donny Maloney in particular, have done a particularly strong job. We actually believe that if you gave the community an owner, not the league, who said, I’m committed to being here, this franchise could actively be successful from a business standpoint. We’ve seen what the fan base will do with all the uncertainty. We understand the dynamics from the business community and the broadcasters and the media and the people who buy suites and naming rights and all that stuff. If there was certainty surrounding this franchise its fortunes would improve dramatically and immediately just by virtue of putting in a real owner.”

BD: “No matter how this plays out I don’t think anybody can accuse us of a kind of grass is greener type approach to this. We’ve been committed to this market. We’ve done everything humanly possible to make this franchise work in this market. And now’s the time we’re gonna find out if that works.”

Glendale City Council

Glendale City Council

GB: “And again, when the obligation that we take so seriously, it starts with the fans and the community but for those of you who have been to the arena in Glendale, you know, I worry about what’s gonna happen to the arena if the team isn’t there. I think it’s likely to get boarded up because they’re not gonna have enough events to sustain it. I worry about what happens to Westgate and all the businesses and people who are employed there. I worry about the impact it may have on the football stadium, having a situation on its front steps that may not be ideal anymore and so we’re taking, we’ve taken all of those things into account over the last three years as we’ve tried to make it work. That’s why ultimately it’s up to the City of Glendale to make the decision that they think is in the best interest of their constituents and whatever they decide, we’ll abide by but ultimately whether or not this team stays at this point is their call.”

END OF PRESS CONFERENCE

copyright

Jun 13

5

Did you ever wonder?

Posted by Joyce Clark on June 5, 2013
Posted in City of Glendale  | Tagged With: , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

nealy

Mike Nealy

Did you ever wonder who the real heroes of this whole Coyotes mess are? Everyone has an urban legend about the CEO and an administrative assistant who really ran the company. While everyone is running around trying to figure out who the new owner will be there has been a largely unnoticed cadre of people who have kept the team and arena functioning – and even thriving. Those are the people who run the arena and manage the team.

Maloney

Don Maloney

Ever since 2009 when Jerry Moyes declared bankruptcy there have been about 135 people (not counting the vendors and their employees) who have seamlessly kept the arena operating under extremely difficult conditions. Leading that list is Mike Nealy, President, Chief Operating Officer and Alternate Governor (of NHL Board of Governors). Add to Nealy, Don Maloney, Executive Vice President, General Manager and Alternate Governor; Brad Treliving, Vice President of Hockey Operations and Assistant General Manager; Jim Foss, Senior Vice President and General Manager; Rich Nairn, Senior Director of Communications; and Chris Wojcik, Senior Manager of Media Relations. The entire organization of over 100 people is to be commended but listing them all would simply take too much time and space.

Mike Nealy is a first rate COO. Without a bona fide owner other than the NHL, this man of integrity, honesty and little to no ego has skillfully managed to grow attendance last year-over-this year by 13% (social media has pegged attendance increases anywhere from 10% to 16%; 13% is an extremely reliable figure) and grown revenues substantially (double digit % increase). This occurred in a market where no one knows if and when the team will remain in Glendale, much less Arizona.

Any new owner, if even half-way intelligent, would keep this team intact recognizing that Nealy and his team have already proven themselves by fire. I’ve often wondered why anyone who is interested in buying the team has not enlisted Nealy as part of his negotiating team with the city. To date Nealy is an untapped asset.

Don Maloney adds to the success the arena and team have enjoyed. The man is a genius of a hockey general manager. His cobbling together of a competitive team on a shoestring budget is legendary. Add to these two extremely talented men the likes of Foss, Nairn and Wojcik. All of these men have added to the organization not knowing if any particular day would be their last day serving an organization that they not only work for, but love.

Then there are all of the other employees who genuinely love working for this organization and it shows. It includes maintenance to ticket sales and everything in between. Can you imagine going to work every day, giving 100% and not knowing if you have a job tomorrow? Did you ever wonder if you could do that?

copyright

Jun 13

4

So much for transparency

Posted by Joyce Clark on June 4, 2013
Posted in City Council Actions • Jobing.com arena  | Tagged With: , , , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

Glendale City Council

Glendale City Council

Today, June 4, 2013 Glendale council will conduct a workshop meeting. Here is the link to the agenda:  http://www.glendaleaz.com/Clerk/agendasandminutes/Workshops/Agendas/060413.pdf

Workshops are not like regular evening meetings. They are intended as a means of staff bringing forward subjects they believe are important or staff is responding to a councilmember’s request for further study on a subject. Unlike night meetings there is no opportunity for public comment.

The public agenda is short. There are only two items: an update on Glendale’s airport and council selection of its members for the two standing subcommittees, Government Services and Sustainability as well as selection of Vice Mayor. The airport issue is one that Councilmember Sherwood brought forward. For years the airport has been vexing as it has never reached its full development potential. That is a topic for another posting. We could see some interesting dynamics play out in the self selection of councilmembers to serve on the two standing subcommittees.

The more troubling aspect of the agenda is the Executive Session agenda. Executive Sessions are designed to allow council and staff to discuss, in a non-public setting, contracts, personnel and property leases/purchases. Its interpretation is often overly broad by a city’s legal department. There are 8 items on the Executive Session agenda. It is 4 times as long as the open session! Some of topics placed on the Esession agenda are questionable and were not decided in favor of the public.

One of the topics is the city’s external audit requested by this council. There have been several Esessions that included a secret discussion of this item. One would think that since this has been visited in Esession several times previously that a public update would be provided. Tsk…tsk, council. So much for transparency.

Another item that was previously discussed in workshop is the Cardinals training camp proposal. See this link to get more information from council’s March 5, 2013 workshop:  http://www.glendaleaz.com/Clerk/agendasandminutes/Workshops/Agendas/030513.pdf . The original proposal wasn’t so hot for the city. Since it was discussed in open session previously it probably would have been a good idea to bring this item forward publicly once again. So much for transparency.

jobing.com arena

Jobing.com arena

There are two more items that certainly deserve public scrutiny. Both relate to Jobing.com arena and the Coyotes ownership. The drop dead date for submissions to Beacon Sports, the city’s consultant, for arena management was May 31, 2013. Of course, at city discretion, it can accept bids after that date because of the disclaimer clause in the RFP. One Esession item deals with “potential agreements related to the management of the arena” and the other Esession item is to provide “instruction in connection with potential agreements related to the Hockey Team…”

Yet Mike Sunnicks in his story of June 3, 2013 in the Phoenix Business Journal quoting Glendale spokesperson Julie Watters, says, “Initial responses to the RFP have been received by Beacon Sports. The submissions are currently being reviewed by Beacon to determine completeness and if they qualify for further consideration,” Watters said. “We will follow up tomorrow (Tuesday) with Beacon to determine the status.” Sunnicks provides the reader with a rehash of old information — nothing new. This is the link to his story: http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/morning_call/2013/06/glendale-awaits-qualified-bids-for.html?ana=twt

Yet this is one of the secret items to be discussed by council at its workshop today (Tuesday). Methinks the council has been given a report by Beacon with those who have made bids (to date) to manage the arena. How else could council discuss this very topic?  So much for transparency.

Cardinals training camp proposal…external audit…management of city owned arena…the hockey team’s very survival in Glendale…all topics of extreme interest to the people of Glendale. Yet the only discussion to be had will be secret. So much for transparency.

copyright

« Previous Page — Next Page »