Header image alt text

Joyce Clark Unfiltered

For "the rest of the story"

One issue not so far discussed is the issue of Capital Repairs needed for the arena. Keep in mind, my best guesstimate is that there is maybe $200,000 or $300,000 in the Capital Repairs Account. Below I’ve included Newco, LLC’s “wish list” of Additions and Capital Repairs for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2014.

Newco capital repairs

Newco LLC proposed
capital repairs 2014

As you can see, the major issue is “Arena roof work” for $2M. The entire “wish list” comes to $5.6M. The roof is leaking. It needs work. Will it cost $2M? Maybe not. I heard that the city has called in an independent consultant to study the roof and report back (at what cost and this should be considered part of the tab to fix the roof). It may be a choice between a band-aid costing much less and major surgery costing far more.

billsThe point is that in addition to the $6 M a year, a figure to which this current council is wedded, they will have to find additional dollars to repair the arena roof. In addition  to asking the new arena manager to accept a figure of $6M a year blithely mandating that entity to be willing to lose $6M a year, they also want the new arena manager to participate in the cost of capital repairs based on the Beacon RFP.

This is from the Beacon RFP, “Investment. State the amount of a proposed investment in the Arena that the Respondent Manager is willing to provide (Please review the proposed Additions and Capital Repairs Schedule for Fiscal Year ending  June 30, 2014 for further details) [the very same document you see above]. Describe any restrictions/repayment requirements [read loan to be paid back by city] on any such investment. Also describe any additional fees, restrictions or incentives that may apply to any investment.”

How many prospective owners are out there willing to accept an annual $6M management fee knowing that the costs of operating the arena are double that amount? Then ask how many prospective owners will be willing to make a loan to the city to cover all or a partial list of capital repairs?

The time has come for this current council to understand the situation factually. They also need to understand that whether the Coyotes stay or go there is a substantial bill to be paid. Having the Coyotes as an anchor tenant helps the situation not hurt it. It guarantees 40+ nights of activity at Westgate and its attendant sales tax revenues. Surely they realize the significance of that and how much it helps their bottom line. Losing the Coyotes and going it alone on managing the arena, no matter how convinced they are that it will work is a recipe for further financial disaster.

copyright

Bag of Money ClipartEveryone is using a $6 million annual figure to operate Jobing.com arena. Where did this magical, mystical number come from? Paul Giblin in his article of May 5, 2013 states,”Scruggs said she changed her position after former City Attorney Craig Tindall sent a memo to council members last spring that advised them that the city had provided documents to the Goldwater Institute that showed the actual cost was about $6 million a year.” I saved all documents Coyotes related from my time on council. I even have the original agreements executed between the city and Steve Ellman. I searched through them all for former City Attorney Craig Tindall’s memo and do not have it. That does not mean that it doesn’t exist. I don’t remember it and apparently did not save it.

I can’t fathom where or how Tindall could have arrived at a $6M figure. In going back through the financial documents that I have – even the figures for Jerry Moyes (removing what he said his partners were owed) comes in very close to the Newco, LLC. numbers and that is $12+M annually to operate the arena; total revenues of $6M and total losses of $6M. Giblin in his article is willing to concede that, “…the arena-consulting firm International Facilities Group, of Chicago, told the city that a reasonable estimate to operate the arena without an anchor sports tenant would be in the range of $13.8 million to $14.7 million a year.” I have that study and can confirm what it says. There was also a TLHocking & Associates study done in January, 2012 entitled Comparison of Operating Costs for Similar Arenas, that compared 3 arenas with NHL teams with average operating costs of $15 million to $17 million.

During 2012 council participated in endless and continual public discussions (read polite arguments) about the cost of operating the arena. At some point, then Mayor Scruggs whipped out a figure of $6M. She said at the time, that she had done no research, had no basis for such a number and that she pulled it out of thin air. Somehow or another, probably because she used it incessantly publicly, it became the “real” number, so much so, that now Assistant City Manager Horatio Skeete used it as a “place holder” in the city’s current proposed budget. There is no basis in fact for a $6M annual operating figure for Jobing.com arena. If there is, I challenge anyone with that factual information to bring it forward for all to see. Show us all the money!

copyright

Paul Giblin wrote an article for the Arizona Republic on May 5, 2013 entitled True Jobing.com Arena operating costs are well below what Glendale as paid. In it he states, “The true cost to operate Jobing.com Arena ranges from $5.1 million to $5.5 million a year…” Really? It’s based on fuzzy math. Below are 2 pages from Coyotes Newco, LLC. Coyotes Newco, LLC. Is the entity created and owned by the NHL for purposes of managing Jobing.com Arena.

The documents below show the proposed annual budget for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2014. In it the total revenue figure is, to be precise (something others apparently failed to do), $6,931,477.00. Total expenses are $12,468,912.00. The net operating loss is projected to be $5,537,435.00.

Newco 2 pages_Page_1

Newco proposed
budget 2014

Newco 2 pages_Page_2

Newco proposed
budget 2014

Basic math says if you spend $12.4 million and you make $6.9 million, you are in debt $5.5 million per year.A net operating LOSS is not the same as the total cost to operate the arena annually. How can anyone can throw out a figure of $5 or $5.5 million and claim that is the cost to operate the arena? At best, it appears to be irresponsible and misleading to the general public. It provides erroneous fodder to the opponents of any fee paid whatsoever to operate the arena annually. Did I mention that this proposed budget includes very few non-hockey events? This budget is subject to change in an upward direction in terms of loss as more non-hockey events are added.

Has the NHL made money on operating the arena for two years at a total cost of $50 million? Yes, probably but since January, 2013 through the date of July 1, 2013 when a new manager is mandated to assume control of the arena the NHL has not been paid a single cent to operate the arena. So I think it’s fair to add another $6 million in expenses for these 6 months. While the city has paid the first $25 million the NHL has not, as of this date, called for payment of the second $25 million. It still, to this day, sits in a city escrow account, untouched.

Mr. Giblin also recites current rhetoric on the street that says that the LeBlanc/Pastor group are the frontrunners. They may be only in the sense that they are the FIRST group to have all of its ducks lined up for presentation to the NHL and the city. Are they first in the hearts and minds of the NHL? I doubt that. The NHL will accept the offer that is best suited to their needs. In an April 29, 2013 interview Mr. Daly said, “Yes. I mean, again, and I should clarify this. I mean, there’s no doubt that we’re dealing with Mr. Gosbee and Mr. LeBlanc and trying to work through and get to a deal with them but there are other interested people who continue, we’re working with at the same time as well. Nobody has exclusivity here (bold mine). Um, but obviously we’re getting close to having to make some decisions and sign some documentation and you know, we’ve got to work on it. I was on a conference call again last night. It’s something we’re working on”.

Despite the LeBlanc/Gosbee group’s effort to minimize others who are in the running to purchase the team, all others are still viable and not to be discounted no matter how much LeBlanc and Gosbee would like you to do so. Craig Morgan reported on May 5, 2013 that LeBlanc/Gosbee and the NHL would be in town on Tuesday, May 7, 2013 to meet with the city. Why Tuesday? Why not Monday or Wednesday? Tuesday is the scheduled City Council Workshop session. On its Executive agenda one of the items is a Coyotes discussion. This is typical Glendale. Who do you think the council will be talking to in Esession on Tuesday? You win! It will be the NHL, LeBlanc and Gosbee (or their representatives). At an upcoming Tuesday council Esession they could be meeting Pastor, Hulsizer, Reinsdorf, Kaites or Jamison. Take your pick.

copyright

 

Trent Franks

Congressman
Trent Franks

Lately, Councilmember Alvarez has been pushing the Tohono O’odham agenda before Glendale City Council-to no avail. A majority of them are not biting. Perhaps it’s because they accept that the city is still in litigation with them and one does not fraternize with the opposing party of a lawsuit. That obviously does not bother Councilmember Alvarez. On May 2, 2013, our favorite non-newspaper, the Glendale Star, published Alvarez’ Letter to the Editor entitled Franks supports East Valley interests over will of West Valley voters…again. You can read the entire Letter to the Editor with this link http://www.glendalestar.com/opinion/editorials/article_36e063a8-b1ba-11e2-912b-001a4bcf887a.html

I dare to venture that my recent series of blogs about the casino may have prompted the TO to try to get out in front in an casino 1attempt to neutralize my comments. They certainly have been pushing on Councilmember Alvarez of late to try to get their message out, first at council meetings and now with this Letter to the Editor. The TO poured thousands of dollars into the recent election campaigns of Alvarez’ chosen candidates and now it’s time for her to carry their water.

Did she write the piece? That’s for you to judge and as you do so, reflect on her public comments at council meetings which have not been nearly as polished. If I were a betting person, I would bet that her Letter to the Editor was ghosted by one of the lovely ladies at TriAdvocates, a consultancy firm hired by the Tohono O’odham. It certainly provides TriAdvocates something to do for their $180,000 annual retainer.

Alvarez berated Congressman Trent Franks for doing what he should be doing for his West Valley constituency and that is protecting their interests as well as those of the State of Arizona by introducing H.R. 1410. He is also protecting the interests of a majority of the Tribal nations in this state that have publicly opposed the actions of the Tohono O’odham.

Alvarez cites the “overwhelming support for the project in this community, with polls consistently showing more than two-thirds of West Valley voters are in favor of the casino…”

polling 1Really? I could write questions for a poll right now that would demonstrate that two-thirds of West Valley voters are NOT in favor of the casino. Conveniently two factors are ignored. One is that a poll can be written and utilized to back up any point of view. In most cases, they are meaningless. Secondly, I know that a majority of those Glendale residents immediately impacted by the casino do not support it. The further away one is from it and especially if one lives in another town or city the resistance to this casino diminishes. For those who live in Sun City, for example, the casino is merely a convenience with less travel time. What does someone in Peoria care if it costs Glendale millions of dollars to support a casino? It’s not in their backyard and they will not bear the costs.

Alvarez then goes on to say, “The West Valley should currently be enjoying the 3,000 permanent jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars per year this project will bring to our community.”

If you had read any of my previous blogs, the professors and researchers I cited make very clear that the jobs created by a casino will be in man moneypart, “displacement” jobs. In other words, instead of someone working at a Denny’s that person will take a job at a casino. Keep in mind, 25% of the jobs will go to Native Americans. There is nothing wrong with that but now those alleged 3,000 jobs becomes 2,250. In my blogs I offered factual information that the number of jobs that will be created is vastly over stated. As for the hundreds of millions of dollars per year that will come to Glendale my question is from what? It can’t be from taxes because the TO will pay no tax of any size, shape or description to anyone. Perhaps Alvarez is referring to the 8% of the state-mandated 12% tribes must allocate through grants to non-profits? If so, it would take years and years and years to even come close to her “hundreds of millions of dollars per year.” So much for offering factual information.

Lastly Alvarez says, “Making matters worse is that H.R. 1410 seeks to re-write the voter-approved Arizona Gaming Compact, a document that was written and signed by 17 sovereign nations and the State of Arizona.”

Ned Norris Jr Tohono O'odham Nation Chairman

Tohono O’odham Chairman
Ned Norris Jr.

This statement earns a Woo Hoo for today. Prior to bringing the compact to voters all of the state tribes spent several years negotiating and approving among themselves the framework of a compact. It was a gentleman’s/gentlewoman’s agreement among the tribes. Did the TO agree with fingers crossed behind their backs? It appears so. It raises the question of, if you will renege on a promise to your fellow Tribes who else will you renege on?

That framework was then negotiated with the State resulting in Proposition 202 that the voters of the state approved. In an attempt to persuade voters to approve the compact it was clearly stated that the number of casinos in the Phoenix Metro area was limited to seven. That is the number of casinos that exists today without the proposed TO casino. Franks’ bill seeks to do the very thing the TO refuse to do and that is protect the intent of the Arizona Gaming Compact.

No, Councilmember Alvarez, your attack on Congressman Franks is misguided and seemingly managed by your “friends” who do not live in Glendale. The Congressman is to be commended for protecting our interests and we do live in Glendale.

copyright

convention 2On Friday, April 26, 2013 the Glendale City Council had another special budget workshop. This time their agenda was to revisit the issues of police and fire requests for additional personnel and healthcare premium increases for employees and retirees.

Ms. Sherry Schurhammer once again presented the proposed budget and the cuts recommended for 2015 and 2018. Staff’s recommendation was to deny the police and fire requests for additional personnel and to accept the increased healthcare premiums. Her major take-away is that the city has a structural deficit and acceptance of this budget as proposed was the first step toward eliminating it.

Fire Chief Burdick came back with a revised request for an additional 8 positions and two  fire truck leases. Police Chief Black upped the police ante to 31 positions plus 6 non-sworn positions. Together these two departments requested a new ongoing expense for the General Fund of $5.5 million and a new one time expense of $1.2 million for the General Fund.

For most of the session there was a united front of 4 councilmembers willing to grant the police and fire departments their requests. They were Councilmembers Alvarez, Chavira, Sherwood and Vice Mayor Knaack. Later one of them will break from this pack and change the council consensus and direction to staff-but that’s for later in this blog. Let’s begin with the four’s reasoning for granting the police and fire wish list.

Norma Alvarez

Norma Alvarez

At least Councilmember Alvarez is consistent. She began with remarks like, “a business should be paying for their own” and “ they’ve (businesses) taken a lot.” Make no mistake. She was alluding to the city owned arena. She also suggested that we “forget festivals” and pointed out that Glendale Glitters will cost the city $759,000 to produce this coming year. She even suggested that the funding for Public Safety be taken out of the Enterprise Funds (water, sewer and sanitation). She made sure that everyone knew that “the past is what brought us here” and she’s “not gonna forget the past.” She became confused when talking about crime being up in Glendale. It depends on what kind of crime. Glendale’s overall crime rate is down but certain categories such as theft have gone up.  Apparently the bottom line was that she had received a complaint from a citizen (certainly not vast hoards of people) that a “suspicious activity” call was not answered for an hour. Obviously calls are prioritized. If there is imminent danger to life or a crime is in progress it receives the highest priority, a Number 1 and is answered within 4 or 5 minutes. A call such as she described would receive a priority of 3 or 4 and would be answered eventually when an officer was available. Apparently that is not good enough for her.  It was vintage Alvarez. She blamed others, protected her agenda in the guise of protecting the taxpayer and exhibited her usual amount of confusion.

Chavira photo

Sammy Chavira

We finally saw the true Councilmember Chavira as he stood in support of Alvarez’ desire for more police and fire personnel. He worried about “call degradation.” Bet he couldn’t define it for you. He literally blessed fire and police personnel. Solicitudes were oozing from every pore. He was clearly upset that the police department had asked for more personnel and funding than had the fire department.  Then he spoke the magic word, “parity.” Just to remind you, he is a Phoenix firefighter and is going to push his brother Glendale firefighters’ agenda. He and his brother firefighters positively bristled at the mere possibility that police could end up with “more” than they would. So he suggested that the police personnel request be reduced to 20 personnel thereby reducing the ongoing request to $4 million. Make no mistake. His agenda is to further the desires of the Glendale Fire Department. They own him. Not just because he’s a brother firefighter but because the fire union poured upwards of $50,000 into his campaign. That’s a lot of chump change that Sammy will be paying back for a very long time. What Chavira did was not helpful. He widened minor disagreements between fire and police into the size of the Grand Canyon. It has now surfaced like an unwanted boil on your backside.

Martinez photo

Manny Martinez

Councilmember Sherwood offered some well thought out questions and clearly supported the police and fire requests. He, at the end of the session, still felt that if the city paid less back on a loan it has with the Enterprise Funds, the city could pay the additional costs of these requests. Councilmember Martinez stuck to his guns and simply made the point that it was not appropriate to grant these requests and that they “were not in a popularity contest.” He also said it was not productive to continually go back to the past and to point fingers. Councilmember Hugh was silent until the end of the session.

Knaack

Yvonne Knaack

Vice Mayor Knaack made it clear she was in public safety’s corner when she said the defeat of Proposition 457 (would have allowed the removal of sales tax increase) was due to Public Safety’s efforts.  She said that voters defeated it because public’s perception was that its defeat would preserve Public Safety. I know that is the message that police and fire were using in their campaign to defeat Prop 457. All that I can say is that at the very least, Councilmember Martinez and I made it very clear, often and quite publicly, that its defeat would prevent the city from making draconian cuts to this year’s budget and buy the city time to make more temperate cuts over the next five years. We both repeatedly referred to the city’s structural deficit. We did not say it would save fire and police jobs. We said it would save the city from having to make major personnel cuts to any department but that cuts would still be needed.

The issue of the proportionality of public safety sales tax was initiated by Vice Mayor Knaack. The voter approved tax calls for proportionally 1/3 to fire and 2/3 to police.  This will surface again but I think council will find that changing the proportionality of the tax is far more complicated than they know. She also publicly acknowledged that the arena management fee could very well be higher than the $6M in this budget.

Perhaps the surprise of the session was comments made by the Fire Chief. He said $1.2M to $1.3M was needed to insure “constant staffing” within the department. One would think that would be his first priority within his department budget. He also indicated that he would have “no problem shutting down a truck” to cover his department’s overtime. He virtually threatened council with his observation that they will have to make policy decisions regarding fire next year. He followed that by saying he would close a fire station if fire was not adequately funded. The nut is the definition of “adequately.”

Weiers

Jerry Weiers

Mayor Weiers also offered some rather interesting remarks. He noted “the angst between the fire and police departments.” He also said that the previous council should have stayed with the 1.2% sales tax increase across the board rather than the 7/10s in place now.  He then called for council to express their final positions so that consensus could be achieved and direction given to staff. It broke Alvarez-Chavira-Sherwood-Knaack in favor of increased revenues to police and fire. Weiers-Hugh-Martinez were opposed and wanted to accept the staff recommendation. It appeared that fire and police had won the day but wait…

Bowers

Dick Bowers

Interim City Manager Dick Bowers responded with “there is no money to find” and the proposed budget as presented is a “sound and reasonable approach.” He indicated that if council gave direction to accede to police and fire requests, cuts to all other departments would be “surgical.” It was then requested that council identify which departments they would like to see eliminated to meet the police and fire financial requests. Council then spent 5 or 10 minutes reading the material related to departments other than fire, police or enterprise departments. It was embarrassing painful to watch but  reality set in when they realized how much would have to be cut. Vice Mayor Knaack finally broke and changed her direction in support of the staff recommendation. Chavira made one stab to try to get her back into the fold and she responded with, “I have the right to change my mind.” It was a tough decision to make but she did the right thing.

Two important lessons surfaced from this workshop. A majority of this council has not accepted that there is a structural budget deficit and expenses are outstripping revenues; and fire has bared its teeth with dire promises to delivery service if their demands are not met in the next year’s budget. Mayor Weiers, Councilmembers Martinez and Hugh are to be commended for holding the line and accepting that budgetary expenses must be pared and pared now.

copyright