Header image alt text

Joyce Clark Unfiltered

For "the rest of the story"

Aug 15

22

Glendale’s perfect city manager

Posted by Joyce Clark on August 22, 2015
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances  | Tagged With: , , , , , , | 7 Comments

It has been 17 years and 233 days since the city’s pledge to build the West Branch Library.

Slavin Management Consultants, the firm hired for the city manager search, should be presenting its list of finalists to the city council at any time. What should the Glendale city council consider in choosing finalists?

During my 16 years on city council I worked with various interim and permanent city managers, Dr. Martin Vanacour, Ed Beasley, Horatio Skeete and Dick Bowers. I never worked with Brenda Fischer which was probably a good thing. I think we would have butted heads from day one and I quickly would have been at the top of her *hit list.

What qualities did these city managers possess that served them, the city council and the people of Glendale well? One major quality was that of responsiveness to anyone and everyone. Under Dr. Vanacour it didn’t matter if a citizen was a ditch digger or stock broker. If a citizen called his office, without fear or favor, every issue received a quick and efficient response. Sometimes an issue was resolved to the citizen’s satisfaction…sometimes not but every issue got an answer…not in weeks but in days. The same occurred with councilmember questions and requests.

Another quality that stood Dr. Vanacour, and now Dick Bowers, in good stead there was, and is, no favoritism shown toward any councilmember. All were, and are, treated equally and with respect. Information provided to one councilmember was also provided to the rest of the council. Neither had or has a reporting system where employees are required to report every interaction with a councilmember to the city manager’s office.

Council requires a city manager that shares information willingly and openly and in a timely manner with city council and citizens. Many of council’s previous decisions during the tenure of Ed Beasley were made in either a vacuum or with ginned up information designed to get council to approve a specific outcome. Dr. Vanacour practiced sharing complete information and Dick Bowers is doing the same. If Dick Bowers were willing, Glendale could not do better than to hire Dick Bowers on a permanent basis. However, Mr. Bowers is retired. He graciously agreed to serve short term in Glendale’s hour of need. He wants to be retired once again and to spend time with his family and friends. He’s earned it.

The next city manager must show that he or she truly respects and values all employees within the Glendale governmental family. For too long Glendale’s employees have experienced a work atmosphere based upon fear and favoritism. The city manager must show no bias toward any specific department and make financial resource decisions and recommendations to council based upon the most effective use of taxpayer dollars.

The city manager’s fiscal philosophy should be a conservative one. He or she should believe, as a core principle, that a government’s fiscal decisions are not based on tax increases or growing the size of government. Glendale has learned the hard way that it’s not the size of government that determines the quality of service to its citizens. It learned that the same superior service delivery can be accomplished despite the reduction in the number of employees delivering the service. It’s an individual’s commitment to excellence that counts…not the number of employees on the payroll.

Council should look for a city manager with extended experience, intelligence and adaptability. The last thing the city needs is someone who has been a department head or assistant somewhere. The city needs a city manager with city manager experience and knowledge. The candidate has to have the requisite knowledge and flexibility to hit the ground running.

Lastly, the new city manager must learn to love Glendale. Dr. Vanacour did and still does to this day. Mr. Bowers, retired city manager of Scottsdale, has always exhibited a love for and genuine concern for Glendale. That is obvious in his commitment to serve as its Interim City Manager. Glendale owes Dick Bowers a great deal.

I would strongly suggest that the citizens of Glendale are offered the public opportunity to “meet and greet” all of them before the final selection. This is so important for Glendale and gaining public support at the outset will help smooth the transition to a new city manager. A “meet and greet” not just for stakeholders such as Chamber of Commerce folk or college presidents but for ordinary citizens who take an active interest in and participate in their local government.

In summary, it is my hope that city council will weigh and measure these qualities of the city manager candidates very carefully:

  • Responsiveness to all
  • Respect for all
  • Practices open government
  • Respects and values all employees
  • Conservative fiscal philosophy
  • Previous city manager experience
  • Intelligence and adaptability
  • Willingness to embrace the entire community

© 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.

Aug 15

20

Glendale First! backs down

Posted by Joyce Clark on August 20, 2015
Posted in Arizona Coyotes • City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials  | Tagged With: , , , | 2 Comments

It has been 17 years and 230 days since the city’s pledge to build the West Branch Library.

NOTE: Many have taken the opportunity to email me and berate me because my blogs have not been as frequent as usual. Personal matters have had me traveling out of state on a regular basis and have not allowed me the opportunity to write about Glendale issues on my usual schedule. Hopefully the end of August will provide some relief and I will be able to resume my normal schedule of blogs.

On August 14, 2015, Glendale First! issued a press release saying in part, “Today Glendale First has officially abandoned and withdrawn our sponsorship of recall efforts against Glendale, AZ Councilmembers Hugh, Turner and Tomalchoff.

We are satisfied the city has endorsed a new short term relationship with the Arizona Coyotes that is currently in the best interest of all involved. We’re hoping sincere efforts result in a long term agreement being reached between the City and the Arizona Coyotes in the near future.

These recall efforts shined a bright light on actions by councilmembers that negatively impacted public safety budgets and that put at risk the City of Glendale’s relationship with the Arizona Coyotes. We applaud the unanimous action taken by City Council on July 24th. We thank both the Coyotes and the City for striking a suitable arrangement.

We hope the pledge of the City Council to examine the needs and deficiencies in the two public safely departments bears fruit in the form of reduced response times.”

I contend, as I did originally, that Glendale First! used a public safety issue as a smoke screen for their primary anger over the action taken by a majority of Glendale’s city council canceling the original lease agreement with the Coyotes’ ownership. If they were really concerned about public safety issues they would have continued their recall effort. In this press release their angst over public safety is almost an after thought, easily dismissed now that the Coyotes are staying for the next two years.

We can assume that the Coyotes’ ownership counseled Glendale First! to cut it out and to quit its puny attempt to unseat the existing councilmembers as ownership seeks to mend fences with the Glendale city council as it enters a period of renegotiation of a new, more permanent lease agreement.

The Glendale citizens who have contacted me via email, to a person, want the city to issue an RFP for the arena’s management. They believe the city may get a better deal. While they want the Coyotes as arena tenants in the light of past history, they are not convinced it is in the best interests of the city to use the Coyotes’ ownership group for the arena’s management. They want city council as President Reagan once said, “trust but verify.”

The best way to verify what is a fair market price for Glendale’s arena management is to solicit bids. If the Coyotes’ ownership wants to continue to manage the arena they can respond to the RFP just as any other company. Competition is good for a city’s soul and competition for securing an arena management company is a win proposition for the city and its taxpaying citizens.

© 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.

Aug 15

11

Glendale city council meeting of August 11, 2015

Posted by Joyce Clark on August 11, 2015
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances  | Tagged With: , , , , | 1 Comment

It has been 17 years and 222 days since the city’s pledge to build the West Branch Library.

The Glendale city council’s summer break is over and they will be meeting again regularly. In this first nighttime voting meeting there are 29 agenda items. All but one, a final land plat application, is on the consent agenda. Expect it to be a speedy meeting, over before you realize it. Even though nearly everything will be voted upon in one motion, there are 3 items of interest. Will council pull these items off the consent agenda and ask questions about them? I doubt it.

One agenda item of interest is the final approval of 2 fire trucks. Remember the controversy they generated? One of the bidders complained basically that the fix was in and the company’s proposal was never considered fairly.  Each fire truck will cost the city $459,894.08 with vehicle taxes of $76,343.40 for a total of $996,143,56.00.  This figure represents the original, council approved price for the 2 vehicles. Not so fast. The two $996, 143, 56.00 vehicles now cost $1,027,344.78. Why, you ask? The fire department requested additional equipment of Blitzfire Monitors and Intake Adapters. These items were not included in the original bid price. Each truck, instead of costing $459 thousand now costs $513 thousand. Are these items essential? Oh well, it’s only taxpayer money.

Another agenda item of interest is the city’s contract with Westgate to rent Parking Lot 1, with 259 spaces, just northeast of the AMC Theater for $40,170.50. The rental of these parking lot spaces is to satisfy the city’s parking space commitment to the Cardinals for their 2 pre-season games and 8 home games.

The last agenda item of interest is a city contract with Citygate Associates, LLC., to “determine how best to staff the departments (police and fire) in order to meet their mission.” It promises to be a six month study and analysis of both departments with a “not to exceed” price of $161,152.00. Well, that “not to exceed” price doesn’t includes reimbursable costs of mileage, airfare, lodging and any associated travel expenses. In the future, expect a request to come before council with additional expenses.

This a California firm having done a great deal of work there and some work in Arizona – namely Surprise, the City of Maricopa and Goodyear. Their project team is heavy on Fire Chiefs and includes a Police Chief, a Human Resources Director and a Finance Director. They are heavy on the use of technology and the collection of data. I would hope that council would direct that there be interim reports issued prior to the final report submission.

Let’s tune in at 6 PM today and see what happens.

© 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.

Aug 15

5

How the mighty have fallen

Posted by Joyce Clark on August 5, 2015
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale  | Tagged With: , , , , | 4 Comments

It has been 17 years and 216 days since the city’s pledge to build the West Branch Library.

You remember Brenda Fischer, don’t you? She was the City Manager of Glendale briefly…in the historical life of Glendale it was over in the blink of an eye…a mere 18 months. So what has she been doing since?

She went back to Henderson, Nevada, started a public relations firm, is now selling real estate and, oh by the way, applied for the City Manager’s position. Drama seems to follow her wherever she goes. Eric Hartley reporting for the Las Vegas Review-Journal on July 13, 2015 described that day’s city council meeting and the council’s appointment of Robert Murnane, the city’s public works and parks director and an employee with Henderson for nearly 20 years, as Henderson’s new City Manager.

Apparently that did not sit well with Robert Craddock, Fischer’s husband. According to Hartley, “Monday‘s meeting was disrupted briefly when a city firefighter tried to speak, telling the council his wife was discouraged from applying to be city manager because of his position with the city. Mayor Andy Hafen repeatedly told him to sit down because the time for public comment had passed.

Robert Craddock, a 26-year veteran of the Fire Department, left the council chambers after a police officer and security guard approached and motioned him to leave. He later apologized for his behavior.

Outside City Hall, Craddock said he got up to speak in frustration after Councilwoman Debra March mentioned hearing that an applicant had withdrawn because of a connection with a city employee. Craddock and his wife, Brenda Fischer, said that was not true.

Fischer said she applied and was excited to compete for the job. She got a call from the search firm in late May, she said, and was repeatedly encouraged to withdraw her application, in part because of her husband‘s job as a firefighter.

Fischer said she refused and never heard another word about her application.

She hinted she might run for City Council: ‘Don‘t be surprised if you see me on a ballot coming up’.”

Ms. Fischer seems to practice the art of dissention wherever she goes. She clashed repeatedly with newly elected Glendale councilmembers who had forged a new majority with new directions. She exhibited a public temper tantrum at Westgate’s Yard House restaurant with Robert Heidt, Glendale Chamber of Commerce president. She aligned herself with, among others, Julie Frisoni, and appointed her as an Assistant City Manager earning disapproval from many within and outside of city hall. She inappropriately requested all of the emails of a selected number of councilmembers whom she perceived as being unfriendly to her.

What is most disconcerting is Ms. Fischer’s apparent disregard for the concept of nepotism. Nepotism is two or more relatives working for the same entity and the perception of (or actual) favoritism that can result. Applying for the city manager’s position in a city where her husband works would most certainly create the perception of favoritism if she, as city manager, had made any decision that appeared to favor the fire department and therefore, her husband. Apparently that was not an issue for her.

On her consulting website, http://www.fischerconsultingllc.com/about-brenda.html Ms. Fischer says, “As a communication professional, one of Ms. Fischer’s top talents is her open and honest communication at all times. She ensured transparency with City Councilmembers, employees, residents and business owners, as a means to develop long lasting, trusting relationships.” Would that Ms. Fischer had practiced what she preaches on her website. It seemed apparent to all who interacted with her that transparency and trust were not traits high on her priority list.

Now she is threatening to run for public office. It’s as if she were a child threatening parents after not getting her way. Let’s hope her seemingly ethical challenges and temperament are noted and considered by the voters of Henderson.

What’s with Glendale’s former City Managers, Ed Beasley and Brenda Fischer? Will their attempts to rehabilitate and resurrect their reputations succeed? It’s time to close the book on Ms. Fischer. Glendale has been there and done that. Her stint is a mini-chapter in the city’s history best forgotten.

© 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.

Aug 15

3

The Grand Compromise

Posted by Joyce Clark on August 3, 2015
Posted in Arizona Coyotes • City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Gila River Arena • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

It has been 17 years and 214 days since the city’s pledge to build the West Branch Library.

On July 24, 2015 at a special voting meeting the Glendale City Council unanimously passed Ordinance 2949 and the First Amendment to AMULA Final. With these actions the city and Ice Arizona agreed to dismiss all lawsuits and also settled the issue of the million dollars sitting around in a special escrow account as a result of the 2009 bankruptcy filing.

Before the Kumbaya vote Anthony LeBlanc, spokesperson for the ownership group said, “We’re not going to renegotiate…never, never, never.” Oops. The afternoon of the fateful vote in a radio interview with Roc & Manuch, LeBlanc was heard to say, “We haven’t been open with them (the city).”And, “We haven’t been good communicators.” And, “They’ve done well for the taxpayers. They’ve got a win.” When asked if Ice Arizona would consider buying the city’s arena, LeBlanc said about arena ownership, “That’s not the business we’re in.” Should we believe him in light of his long history of “erroneous” statements?

Councilmember Gary Sherwood, IceArizona’s staunch advocate, in an earlier, same day radio interview (July 24, 2015) with Roc & Manuch, said that he had publicly staked out a position that “he was not going to vote.” We can assume his action was to be a public display of disapproval for council’s treatment of his good friends, the IceArizona owners. In his traditional flip-flop fashion, he reversed himself with a little help from his friends. He revealed that the night before the vote “he had discussions with ownership” (presumably Anthony LeBlanc). His remark is interesting in and of itself for the only meeting council had prior to the vote was an executive session on July 20, 2015.  Did he share the conversations and results of that executive session with his good friend LeBlanc? Sherwood went on to say that “ownership wanted a 7-0 vote in support of the new deal.” Always willing to oblige his friends, Sherwood did a 180 and not only voted but voted in favor and made sure his pal, Councilmember Sammy Chavira did as well.

There has been considerable opining in the news media and on social media as to whether this is a good deal…for anybody. I contend that it is a good deal for Glendale if for no other reason than a $197 million dollar liability is gone…poof! That action should warm the hearts of the bond rating agencies. That figure represents the annual lease payments for the balance of the original lease management agreement.

The city gained in reducing the management fee to $6.5M from the original $15M annually. The actual language is: “10.1. Management Fee. Commencing on the Amendment Effective Date, and during the remainder of the Term, in consideration of the Arena Manager’s agreement to perform the management and other services set forth in this Agreement to pay all operating and maintenance costs associated with the Arena Facility (other than capital costs as provided herein), provided there is no breach by the Team Owner of the obligations under the Non-Relocation Agreement or a material breach by the Arena Manager of its obligations under this Agreement, the City shall pay to the Arena Manager, by wire transfer of immediately available funds to an account specified by the Arena Manager, the annual Management Fee in the amount of Six Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($6, 500,000), paid in quarterly (on a three calendar month basis) installments in arrears on or before each October 1st, January 1st, April 1st and July 1st during the Term.” The city was losing an estimated $8+M a year under the original lease agreement even with the shared revenue it received. This management fee is budgeted within the city budget for Fiscal Year 2015-16.

The city also won two important concessions. It now has its own “out” clause with this agreement which ends in two years, in 2017 with recognition that “19. Termination Date means June 30, 2017.”  It now has the freedom to choose its own arena manager in a year’s time as stated, “46. Change of Manager. Notwithstanding what may otherwise be proved in this Agreement or in this Amendment, the City shall have the option to replace the Arena Manager at any time after June 30, 2016…” Everyone hopes the city will craft an RFP immediately and put it out on the street in a time frame appropriate to exercising that option.

The city achieved what can be considered as payback. IceArizona will no longer use former City Attorney Craig Tindall or former Assistant City Manager Julie Frisoni in any capacity including as a consultant. It is in #4 of the Settlement Agreement which states, “No Other City Employee Involved with Arena Agreement. The Parties represent and warrant that, as of the Effective Date, to the best of their individual and collective knowledge, information, and belief, no other former employees of the City, other than Craig Tindall or Julie Frisoni, have become consultants to or employees of IceArizona, in any capacity, since July 8, 2013. Ice Arizona represents and warrants that neither Tindall nor Frisoni has, in any way and to any extent, no matter how substantial or insubstantial, been involved in initiating, negotiating, creating, drafting, or securing the First Amendment. In reliance on these representations and warranties and those in Section 6, the City, City Council, City Manager, and City Attorney, collectively and individually, represent and warrant that they will never in the future seek to cancel or void the Arena Agreement of the First Amendment based o the involvement of Tindall or Frisoni, no matter how substantial or insubstantial, in initiating, negotiating, crating, drafting, or securing the Arena Agreement or the First Amendment on behalf of Glendale, so long as Tindall and Frisoni are not employed or retained as a consultant by IceArizona or any of its affiliates, divisions, parent entities, or subsidiaries.” The language is quite specific. That is just plain Karma for Tindall and Frisoni.

Did IceArizona get anything out of the deal? It stopped a lawsuit in which ultimately the city would have prevailed. Note that the new deal contains a lot of verbiage enjoining the city from suing IceArizona, ever, for any reason, regarding Tindall and Frisoni. The major gain was that it bought IceArizona time…time to decide its future. If the owners cannot put a decent team on the ice this year their future is bleak and they know it. It’s not a matter of distance that fans must travel to a game. That rationale has been over used. When teams win people will eagerly travel long distances to watch the winner. A team that is a contender also fills seats in suites and attracts more expensive advertising dollars…the lifeblood of any team. Each extra playoff game earns in the neighborhood of a million dollars and can spell the difference between a bottom line in the black and a bottom line in the red.

Another important issue finally resolved is that of distribution of the bankruptcy Operating Reserve Account as follows: “10. The Parties acknowledge and understand that in the Bankruptcy Settlement, subject to approval by the Court, the Bankruptcy Lawsuit (the “Bankruptcy Court”), the Operating Reserve Account shall be distributed as follows: $350,000 to the City, $10,000 to the David Reaves, Chapter 7 Trustee of the Arena Management Group, L.L.C., and $640,000 to Ice Arizona.”

In the same radio interviews, Sherwood stated that he wants “to see a new contract (with IceArizona) in 6 to 9 months, by April of 2016.”  LeBlanc stated IceArizona “wants a contract extension immediately” to bring “certainty.” Obviously it is an option both parties will need to pursue. Let us hope they can be successful in crafting a lease extension that is not build on the backs of Glendale’s taxpayers. No one can object to a lease agreement that is fair and equitable.

Be advised it doesn’t matter what the action or situation is, municipal governments do not move quickly. While an immediate contract extension is IceArizona’s goal, the caution is to not become frustrated if the action is not completed quickly. I learned this lesson the hard way. When I first joined city council I had ideas for projects in my district. I mistakenly thought they could be accomplished instantly. Not so. I became satisfied if a project could be completed within a year. It’s the very nature of government. All action is slow, overly deliberate, and far more complicated than it often needs to be.

Everyone appears to be relieved the issue is resolved for now. Let’s hope this positive action leads to further positive outcomes for both parties.

© 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.

Jul 15

30

Love or money?

Posted by Joyce Clark on July 30, 2015
Posted in Arizona Coyotes • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Gila River Arena • Glendale finances • Westgate  | Tagged With: , , , , | 3 Comments

It has been 17 years and 210 days since the city’s pledge to build the West Branch Library.

Nearly all major battles we face seem to revolve around either love or money. In the case of the Coyotes vs. Glendale it’s definitely money. Before I post a blog on the current deal between these entities it’s important to understand the effects of the biggest driver — money.

Westgate and its sales tax revenue is an important component. It cannot be denied that the majority driver of retail sales tax revenue in Westgate comes from Tanger Outlets. Before Tanger’s opening in November of 2012 retail sales tax revenue was under a million dollars a year. Tanger, when it opened, was projected to earn $2M in sales tax revenue and in fact, from the start, has generated closer to the $2.5M mark.

As you can see from the chart below in calendar years 2013 and 2014 retail sales tax revenue was over $3.5M and almost all of it is attributable to Tanger. In October of 2014 Tanger expanded and the city can now expect an estimated $4.5M in retail sales tax revenue in 2015. Restaurant/Bar sales tax revenue has also increased over time and can be related to football games, hockey games and concerts held at the University of Phoenix Stadium and the Gila River Arena. This component is also attributable to the opening of new restaurants in Westgate. This sales tax revenue has grown as well and is estimated to earn some $3M. “Other” sales tax revenue is composed of bed tax, AZSTA stadium city sales tax, licenses & permits, etc. It is estimated to earn about $5M in 2015.

In 2015 estimated sales tax revenue from Westgate looks like this: Retail — $4 to $4.5M; Restaurant/Bar — $3 to $3.5M; and “Other” — $4.5 to $5M.

Westgate sales tax

The argument often used by Coyotes’ supporters is that the spillover effect from 42 nights of hockey games is essential to Westgate’s restaurants and bars survival and to the city. How much of that spillover is from 70,000 fans attending each of 10 football games? Admittedly it is substantial and could account for anywhere from 1/3 to ½ of the sales tax revenue generated from restaurants and bars annually.

The point is that Westgate has grown despite all of the drama and turmoil of the Coyotes and is strong enough to survive with or without them. If one looks at all of the factors that determine annual sales tax generation at Westgate the Coyotes (from hotel stays and restaurants/bars) are estimated at driving about $2M a year out of a total estimated annual sales tax revenue of a low of $11.5M to a high of $13M.

As long as we are on the subject of money there is another factor to consider. Many Coyotes fans are hoping that the Coyotes will move to downtown Phoenix or a new arena at Talking Stick. Dan Bickley in a recent July 26, 2015 Arizona Republic story entitled Coyotes not out of the woods – or Glendale – just yet said, “Sarver says his Suns pay $23 million a year just to play at US Airways Center: $12 million in debt service, $8 million in arena management costs and $3 million in rent. A new arena capable of housing a NBA team and a NHL franchise starts at $500 million, and that’s being conservative.” Kudos to Robert Sarver for publicly offering some expense figures (no revenue figures, mind you). That’s more than anyone has seen from the Coyotes. Any public figures associated with the Coyotes have been minimized or denied by Anthony LeBlanc, an owner and visible spokesperson for the ownership group.

The question for the Coyotes becomes can they afford to move anywhere? Sarver is not in the charity business and I suspect that the owners of Talking Stick are not either. All bets are off if the Coyotes move out of Arizona. Is there an entity out there willing to pay the Coyotes to play in a newly constructed arena? Who knows? The Coyotes will have to pay to play anywhere else in Arizona and as long as they continue to suffer losses of an undetermined amount their options are very limited. No one is offering any love to the Coyotes these days and their entire future is being driven by only one thing – money.

© 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.

Jul 15

27

Andre Anderson confirmed as Ferguson Interim Police Chief

Posted by Joyce Clark on July 27, 2015
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale finances  | Tagged With: , , , , , | 11 Comments

It has been 17 years and 208 days since the city’s pledge to build the West Branch Library.

Please note: It seems that when one takes a short vacation all hell breaks loose. Glendale and IceArizona have resolved their differences for now. I will be posting a future blog on that event. In the meantime, I noted that the Glendale Star reported that it had attempted to contact me for a comment for their story. Thank goodness for digital phones. Having checked all calls for the past several weeks I can confirm that I received no phone call from the Glendale Star.

On July 22, 2015 the Glendale Police Department issued a press release confirming that Commander Andre Anderson has been hired as Ferguson, Missouri’s Interim Police Chief. In my blog entitled Beasley may have company in Ferguson dated June 25, 2015 I announced that it was possible that he would take the job as well as issues that both Beasley (hired as Interim City Manager) and Anderson could face.

Several nagging questions remain. I had heard that Anderson was reluctant to take the job because of the pay disparity between Glendale and Ferguson. Ferguson is a much smaller community, about 1/10 the size of Glendale. I had also heard that that Glendale might make up the disparity in pay between Anderson’s current salary and what he was offered in Ferguson. Would Glendale do such a thing? The rational answer is ‘no’ but we have certainly seen Glendale do other irrational acts. It doesn’t seem that it would be legal. So…the question for Glendale officials is this…is Glendale subsidizing Anderson’s pay while he works for Ferguson? It is a question that deserves a public answer from Glendale because Ferguson isn’t telling.

Anderson is on a six month loan from Glendale. He will be using up all of his vacation time and when that runs out, he will be on unpaid leave from Glendale. However, that explanation doesn’t answer the question of whether Glendale is subsidizing Anderson’s pay.

Another question…what is the city’s reasoning in allowing Anderson to serve as a paid administrator in Ferguson? Was it a favor to Glendale’s former City Manager Ed Beasley? It’s eerily similar to Beasley’s allowing Alma Carmicle, Glendale’s former HR Director, to telecommute from Mississippi.

The Glendale Police Department has, in a fashion, loaned personnel to various state task forces. They remain on the Glendale payroll and their salaries are not subsidized. Although it may have happened I do not recollect in Glendale’s history a Commander taking leave to serve as a Police Chief or in the administration of another municipality. More answers should be provided by the city than has been offered to date. Come on Glendale, come clean.

© 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.

Jul 15

20

Desert Hockey Development may have some s’plainin to do

Posted by Joyce Clark on July 20, 2015
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale  | Tagged With: , , , , , | 1 Comment

It has been 17 years and 200 days since the city’s pledge to build the West Branch Library

On July 20, 2015, Sterling Fluharty of the Glendale Star posted an article entitled Hockey Charity broke the law, IRS told. Here is the link: http://www.glendalestar.com/news/article_0051679c-2f21-11e5-8407-7f8577c7a94f.html .

Someone has filed a complaint with the IRS regarding the funds raised by Desert Development Hockey in 2014 at a fund raising golf tournament. Let me be clear. I have no idea who filed the complaint. Nor did I know a complaint had been filed before I wrote my blog about Glendale First!

In one of my blogs entitled Justified that I posted on July 3, 2015 I made reference to the fact that I knew Desert Hockey Development through Glendale First! had repaid a political loan to George Fallar of Glendale First! Fallar is Chairperson of both non-profit groups and Bea Wyatt, Fallar’s significant other, and Larry Feiner, are spearheading the current recall of 3 Glendale councilmembers and are principals in Desert Hockey Development. I knew that Desert Hockey Development had made a June 30, 2014 payment to Glendale First! in the amount of $5,500 and that in turn was paid to George Fallar. That information was part of my Justified blog. I was not aware of the 2012 loan repayments to Fallar of $7,900 and $300 respectively or the 2014 loan repayments to Fallar of an additional $2,000.

I used the information I had learned about the $5,500 loan repayment to George Fallar because: 1. I thought it was wrong to use funds to repay a political debt rather than as publicly advertised as going to develop children’s hockey (even though on their Golf Tournament fund raising page there was a disclaimer stating the money would go to retire debt); and 2. The very same people who were accusing Glendale councilmembers of financial mismanagement may have done the very thing about which they accused these councilmembers.

I don’t know if any financial misdeeds occurred but you can be sure, if they did, the IRS will be all over them. I guess we’ll know in a couple of months.

© 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.

Jul 15

15

Glendale says, “no”

Posted by Joyce Clark on July 15, 2015
Posted in Arizona Coyotes • City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Gila River Arena • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances  | Tagged With: , , , , | 5 Comments

On Wednesday, July 15, 2015 Darrell Jackson, for the Glendale Star, posted a story online in which he reported two sources (not councilmembers but apparently city administrative staff) have confirmed my speculation that the Monday, July 13, 2015 city council executive session was to discuss an offer made by the Arizona Coyotes. Not a bad guess for a former councilmember.

It raises more questions other than answering only one — what was the subject of the e session? If Jackson’s sources are correct the Arizona Coyotes had offered to drop their management fee to $8M for the next 3 years.

Without knowing any more details of the purported offer, the first thought is, don’t the owners of the Coyotes realize they are virtually confirming they plan to exercise the opt-out clause in 3 years? The second thought is city council is absolutely convinced they have a solid legal case against the Coyotes. You can be sure we have not seen all of the city’s cards when it comes to the 2 former city employees, Craig Tindall and Julie Frisoni. I suspect we will not find out how much more there is to know until the discovery phase of the trial — which seems more certain to occur than ever.

Offering to pay a lesser management fee while keeping the opt-out clause does not sound like much of a win-win deal. The city pays the team $8M a year to play in its arena for the next 3 years and then the team leaves? Again, who is going to pay the Coyotes $15M or $8M a year to play in their venue? You can be sure the City of Phoenix and Talking Stick won’t. They have management companies. No, the only thing they will expect is a hefty rental payment from the Coyotes. It seems as if the handwriting is on the wall. No one, other than gullible Glendale has been willing to pay them to play and now, even Glendale has decided that it’s not such a great idea.

If the Coyotes owners are as committed to staying as they claim they are, the first concession they should have made to the city was to remove the opt-out clause but they didn’t offer that carrot. Why? Because they plan on exercising the provision in 3 years. For all those die-hard Coyotes fans out there, what will it take to make you believe that it is quite possible that the Coyotes are not here for the long haul, despite what the sometimes dubious truth teller Anthony LeBlanc has been saying? You know which Anthony LeBlanc I’m referring to. It’s the one who denied Andrew Barroway’s purchase of 51% of the team only to retract his denial. Yes, I realize Barroway is no longer the majority owner but he was for a brief time and LeBlanc originally denied it when it was first reported.

Jackson reported that several administrative staff would like to see arena management separate from the team. At this point in time, that seems to be an idea worth embracing. Hang on folks. This is a new chapter of Coyotes history, barely written and I suspect there is much, much more to come before this chapter is completed.

© 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.

Jul 15

15

Would Coyotes fans pay more?

Posted by Joyce Clark on July 15, 2015
Posted in Arizona Coyotes • City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Gila River Arena • Glendale finances  | Tagged With: , , , , , , | 14 Comments

It has been 17 years and 195 days since the city’s pledge to build the West Branch Library.

Recently ‘thevintageguy,’ one of the regular commenters to my blog posts, offered an interesting idea. He calculated that if every hockey ticket for every game had a surcharge of $24 it would generate $15M annually in revenue. If that surcharge were applied IceArizona would not need the City of Glendale to pay $15M a year for a management fee.

I decided to explore that idea but first, some history. The city owned arena opened in December of 2003. Let me remind you there was no arena management fee that the city had to pay. Steve Ellman led a group of investors who bought the Coyotes. Ellman may be many things to many people but he took immense pride in the arena, the Coyotes and the events he booked. Back then concerts were far more frequent. Bette Midler, Britney Spears, Elton John and U2, to name just a few performers, played at the arena in its early years. During the years of his ownership of the team the Arizona Sting (now defunct) also played all of its games at the arena. While the Arizona Sting was probably not a money maker during the years of its existence from 2003-07, each year it successfully increased its fan base. It certainly was not a deterrent to Jerry Moyes’ acquisition of Ellman’s interests.

Ellman realized how important it was to his bottom line to keep the arena busy all year long. Ellman’s downfall was his inability to develop a substantial amount of commercial and retail surrounding the arena quickly enough. To focus on that aspect of his business he sold his interest in the hockey team to Jerry Moyes. Then the national recession hit and he was unable to hold on to his interests within Westgate.

Under Moyes there was no arena management fee that the city had to pay. Moyes seemed not to be as committed to the health of the team and its bottom line as Ellman had been. Unfortunately Moyes ran the team’s finances into the ground. Apparently he diverted team revenue to his other businesses and subsidiaries. By 2009, Moyes asked the city to begin payment of a management fee of $12M a year. The city refused. Moyes declared team bankruptcy all the while working a secret deal with Jim Balsillie to buy the team out of bankruptcy. The court stopped that scheme and the NHL assumed control of the team. The NHL demanded an annual management fee of $25M knowing that the city needed to buy time until a new team owner was secured. It was precedent setting. From that point forward any potential owner of the team had a green light to require that the city pay a management fee.

In 2013, IceArizona bought the team with the NHL’s blessing and so the management fee scheme was retained with the city paying $15M annually. The IA management agreement has a revenue sharing component but the revenues generated annually and paid to the city have been approximately $8M short every year in covering the annual $15M payment.

Recently the city council voted to cancel the contract with IceArizona (IA) alleging a conflict of interest by two former city employees. IA immediately went to court and obtained a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). The judge required the city to make its quarterly payment of $3.75M on July 1, 2015 to pay for services already rendered and the city has done so. The court also required IA to post a bond of $1M and IA has done so. On July 29, 2015 both parties will be back in court and the judge will make a determination if the TRO should become permanent pending the outcome of the suit regarding the contract cancellation.

On Monday, July 13, 2015, the Glendale city council met in executive session. It is my strong belief that the subject of that meeting was the litigation between IA and the city. I suspect IA made an offer amending the existing contract and their offer was rejected. It appears as if the city council is convinced that its allegations are solid and provable in a court of law. Just think about it. If there had been a desire on the part of council to accept an offer from IA there would have been a press release issued after executive session. That has not occurred.

Back to the ‘vintageguy’s’ idea. Basic research reveals the following annual attendance figures for the Coyotes, courtesy of hockeyDB.com at http://www.hockeydb.com/nhl-attendance/att_graph.php?tmi=7450 .

“Phoenix Coyotes Yearly Attendance Graph. This is a graph of the home attendance of the Phoenix Coyotes, a hockey team playing in the National Hockey League from 1996 to 2015. Attendance is based on numbers from a team or league, either released as an official yearly per-game average figure, or compiled into an average from individual boxscore attendance. In some cases when boxscore attendance is unavailable for a small number of games, the attendance is computed omitting the missing games and annotated as approximate. Clicking on a season’s bar will bring you to a graph of all teams in the league.”

The average attendance figure for the Coyotes for the last 5 years is 13,133. Multiply that figure by 41 games a year and the average total attendance for a season of 41 games is 538,453. If you divide $15M (annual city payment of management fee) by 538,453 each ticket for each and every game would require an additional $27.85. If a hockey fan were to buy a ticket for each of the 41 games per year the additional annual amount he/she would pay would be $1,141.85. What do all of these numbers mean? If hockey fans paid more for every ticket IceArizona would not need the $15M a year from the city. Now that sounds like a plan.

Let’s look at it another way. Each year even with IA’s revenue sharing the city is in deficit for the $15M annual payment by about $8M a year. If revenue sharing were to remain and the same ticket increase scheme were used to cover the $8M a year deficit, each ticket would need to be increased by $14.85 which comes to a total increase for a fan attending all 41 games of $608.85 a year.

I believe my figures are correct but even if they are off a bit don’t get bogged down in the numbers. Instead consider the concept. If fans were charged more per ticket per game with or without IA revenue sharing there would be no need for the city to pay an annual management fee of $15M. That would surely solve the city’s annual Coyotes related deficit. Whether it is $27.85 or $14.85 per ticket per game the sixty four dollar question is are Coyotes fans willing to pay either extra amount to keep the team in Glendale? Is it possible for them to redirect their negative anger to a more positive action – that of paying more to keep their team?

© 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.

« Previous Page — Next Page »