Header image alt text

Joyce Clark Unfiltered

For "the rest of the story"

Jun 14

19

No light at the end of the tunnel

Posted by Joyce Clark on June 19, 2014
Posted in Camelback Ranch Spring Training Facility • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale finances • University of Phoenix Stadium  | Tagged With: , , , , , | 1 Comment

It appears that Glendale cannot catch a break financially. Camelback Ranch opened in 2009 as the new Spring Training home of the Dodgers and White Sox at a cost to Glendale of $158 million: The ballpark cost $121 million, plus $37 million for off-site infrastructure. Glendale knew that reimbursement from the Arizona Sports and Tourism Authority (AZSTA) would be a long time in coming but at least it knew that in the future it would be partially reimbursed for its investment (if I remember correctly, it was 70% of the cost) .

AZSTA utilized a 2000 voter approved tax on car and hotel rentals to pay for the construction of the University of Phoenix Stadium and various Spring Training facilities in addition to reserving a portion for youth sports. It issued bonds for stadium construction that are paid from the rental taxes.

On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Dean Fink ruled that the car rental tax was unconstitutional because the tax was being used for what he determined were impermissible uses. Here is the link:  http://www.azcentral.com/story/money/business/consumer/call-12-for-action/2014/06/18/judge-strikes-rental-car-tax-stadiums/10723905/ .

There is a hotel industry suit waiting in the wings claiming that it’s tax is also unconstitutional. No doubt there will be an appeal of all rulings related to this issue so it may be at least a year or more until there is final resolution.

If the car rental industry and the hotel industry finally prevail Arizona will be forced to rebate all of the tax it collected to those industries. It will be an amount way, way north of $150 million. This action raises a host of questions. Will AZSTA come up with another taxing mechanism to replace the unconstitutional one? Will it take it to the voters for approval? Will it renege on its obligations? Will cities with new, spring training facilities be able to sue AZSTA for breach of contract if it fails to reimburse them? The implications of such a ruling, should it be upheld, are breath taking.

For Glendale it is not catastrophic in the short term because it knew AZSTA’s reimbursement was some time off. But, if AZSTA does not fulfill its obligation to reimburse Glendale and it is solely responsible for paying off the construction debt of approximately $17 million a year, it becomes another financial obligation that bond rating agencies will take into consideration when rating Glendale’s ability to pay its massive debt. This result, if not reversed on appeal, provides no light at the end of Glendale’s long and dark financial tunnel.

 © Joyce Clark, 2014

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.

Jun 14

18

Neighborhoods thrown under the Glendale Bus

Posted by Joyce Clark on June 18, 2014
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials  | Tagged With: , , , | 3 Comments

The Glendale city council workshop meeting of June 17, 2014 had only 2 items. One was the issue of restricted access to and from Northern Parkway at some intersections. The upshot of the subject was that there are no solutions on the horizon for fixing the problem. I bet that was not such good news for commercial activities adjacent to Northern Parkway like the World Wildlife Zoo. Its funny how Glendale can be so accommodating to some businesses and to others, it’s the “back of the hand.”

The second item was senior staff’s recommendation to amend Glendale’s Noise Ordinance, Chapter 25, Article V.  Currently special events and large events (attendance over 500 persons) are subject to this ordinance which has 3 provisions: a) noise should not be heard more than 125 feet from perimeter of event; b) noise should not be heard off premises between 10 PM and 7 AM; and c) every 2 1/2 hours there must be an intermission of 30 minutes. Simple, common sense provisions designed to protect adjacent neighborhoods, No?

There were 3 options given to council: 1. Exempt permitted events during the entire year; 2. Exempt permitted events between December 26, 2014 and February 2, 2015; and 3. Do not change anything. Staff’s recommendation was Option 1 for in the name of all that is holy, it would fulfill their quest for greater city “competitiveness and marketability.” More likely this code amendment is pandering to the big boys, Super Bowl, Fiesta Bowl, etc., chafing under Glendale’s current noise restrictions. I see Assistant City Manager Frisoni’s hand in this effort to accommodate them.

To bolster staff’s contention that Glendale must still be in the “horse and buggy” days, a chart was used showing the cities of Chandler, Mesa, Peoria, Phoenix, Scottsdale and Tempe as permitting noise exemptions for city issued permitted events and special events.

Not one, not one bloody councilmember asked a single question. The first one should have been related to the cities chart that showed which permitted noise and that should have been, “How exactly does each city address the noise issue?” Yes, these cities may have granted noise exemptions but exactly what are they?

Senior staff went on to say that an applicant for an event would have to abide by the provisions of the city’s issuance of a special event permit. If you go online to the city’s website and enter “special event application” it will eventually direct you to Ordinance 2951, Article V, Large Special Events.  In that Article, the City protects its butt pretty well with indemnification, insurance and surety bonds. It also seemed pretty concerned about public safety and sanitation/garbage needs but not one single word about noise…not one. Again, not one single councilmember had the presence of mind to ask, “What noise requirements are included in the city permit process?” They would have been surprised to find there are none even though staff represented that there were noise requirements within the permit process that would have to be followed.

So council sat there like lumps on logs, never questioning anything and certainly not one displayed any sensitivity for the noise concerns of adjacent neighborhoods. They should have asked for the noise restrictions in other cities’ special event permit processes. But they didn’t. They should have asked for the noise restrictions in Glendale’s special event permit process. But they didn’t.

Instead we heard blather from the twins, Councilmembers Chavira and Sherwood who seem to vote in tandem these days. Chavira (representing west Glendale neighborhoods near Westgate) said the only option for Glendale was Option #1 without really saying why. Sherwood, in an attempt to be amusing, likened Glendale’s noise ordinance to an old, existent law that forbids putting “ice cream in one’s pocket.” Really?

This council threw adjacent Glendale neighborhoods under the “Glendale Bus”(someday when I am so inclined I will tell you more about the “Glendale Bus Club”) especially over 2,000 homes adjacent to Westgate, epicenter of special events in Glendale. I live a mile to the east of Westgate and there were times when even I heard the noise erupting from the Westgate area. My thought was always, OMG, what about those who live directly across the street from Westgate and the football stadium? If I could hear it, how badly were they affected by the noise? Sometimes, as councilmember, my question was answered as residents called me directly to complain. I had a direct phone number to the police officer in charge of the event and would call to let him know that the noise was getting out of hand. Thankfully, the officer was always able to get the event promoter to abate the noise.

At least I had the noise ordinance to back me up…now there will be nothing that residents can do when the noise is too loud or goes on too long. But that’s OK…those residents will hear the roar of the “Glendale Bus” as it runs over them.

© Joyce Clark, 2014

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.

 

Jun 14

16

Apathy wins every time

Posted by Joyce Clark on June 16, 2014
Posted in Camelback Ranch Spring Training Facility • City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances • Jobing.com arena  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

On June 12, 2014 Mike Kenny had an opinion piece in the Glendale Star entitled, Ring the alarm – city once again wants you to foot bill. Here is the link: http://www.glendalestar.com/opinion/editorials/ . Generally I do not agree with Mr. Kenny’s stance on many issues but this time I do.

One sentence stood out, “This current city administration banks on two things for survival, and they’re both yours: money and apathy.” The current city council simply cannot stop itself from spending money, your money. The latest example of their inability to reign themselves in is the expenditure, one-time and on-going, for an electronic voting system to be used at 24 council meetings a year. Why? Because they want to assure that you are confused as to who might be the deciding vote on any hotly contested issue…and to relieve Councilmember Chavira’s stress level.

What if there’s not enough in the budget to cover their willingness to spend your money? Not a problem. They will just create a new tax or raise an existent tax. Need money to cover the construction debt and annual management fee for the arena of approximately $27 million a year or the construction debt on Camelback Ranch of $18 million a year?No problem. Just make the temporary sales tax increase permanent. Need money to raise employee salaries? No problem. Just create a new annual licensing fee of $20 on your alarm system or make sure Glendale charges the highest fee in the state for driving school as you try to avoid those points on your record.

Why are 4 councilmembers led by the nose by senior management? Simple, it’s the easier way for them because you, the taxpayer in Glendale, never object. It’s called apathy. I can remember when a bunch of us tried to repeal the sales tax on food. Senior management put together a slick piece of propaganda asking citizens to decide what service(s) to cut if the sales tax on food was eliminated. It was a scare tactic and it worked beautifully. Glendale voters bought city rhetoric.

This time we heard the same scare arguments, i.e., half of Glendale’s staff would be terminated; services would continue to be cut. Those arguments only hold true if citizens allow this council to continue to spend beyond the city’s means. If citizens had demanded council adopt a phased plan of $5 million in cuts per year for 5 years there would be no need for the temporary sales tax to become permanent. Instead it was easier for them to accept Finance Director Duensing’s demands that the temporary sales tax be made permanent now…not in 2017 when it was due to sunset…but now.

This council, with the exception of Mayor Jerry Weiers, has adopted a budget that is not balanced as required by state statute. The budget starts with a $2.7 million deficit. But that’s OK according to senior staff. The money can come from $5 million in Contingency. If Phoenix demands a payment of over $3 million this October, that’s OK too…just take it out of Contingency. But wait…there’s not enough in Contingency to cover both obligations. Well, that’s OK too…just take it out of the Unappropriated Fund Balance (just a slick, new name for what is basically another Contingency account). They play games with your money and by now, you are so confused you can’t figure out what is going on.

Because of citizen apathy you, the Glendale taxpayer, will continue to be “nickled and dimed” to death until you have no more nickels and dimes. What many fail to recognize is that it takes so few of you to have an effect on this council’s financial decisions. Because so few citizens object to anything at council meetings when 20 or 30 citizens show up and speak to an issue council’s sensitivity radar kicks into high gear. Yep. That’s all it takes… 20 or 30 speakers to object. Are there 20 or 30 Glendale residents ready to scream, “I’m mad as hell and not going to take it anymore?” or will citizen apathy allow this council to spend beyond your means?

© Joyce Clark, 2014

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.

Jun 14

10

Pawn shops…enough already

Posted by Joyce Clark on June 10, 2014
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale zoning issues  | Tagged With: , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

Tonight, June 10, 2014 at 6 PM in Glendale City Hall Council Chambers the city council will hear an appeal for a Conditional Use Permit by USA Pawn at the southeast corner of 67th Avenue and Bethany Home Road.

I urge the city council to DENY the siting of yet another pawn shop in south Glendale.

When a governmental agency allows the concentration of this type of use in one area of its city it is applying “negative zoning.” Negative Zoning is the permitting of property uses that affect property values and quality of life of adjacent neighborhoods.

Whether you live in the adjacent area or not, I encourage residents of Glendale to attend the council meeting tonight and to speak to the council during the public hearing on this item. Please let them know that yet another pawn shop within spitting distance of nearly a half dozen other pawn shops in south Glendale is not something our community wants or needs.

Tuesday, July 10     6 PM City Council meeting

Glendale City Council Chambers

5850 W. Glendale Avenue

One of my blog readers sent me the following article about Craig McCall, owner of USA Pawn. I thought it worthy of posting. It relates Mr. McCall’s activites within the pawn shop industry:

 Craig McCall of USA Pawn is a Las Vegas Pawnbroker who came into Arizona after selling his Las Vegas pawnshops to EZCorp in 2008 for 34.5 Million Dollars.  Please see the article below:

EZCORP Acquires Eleven Nevada Pawnshops

PRNewswire-FirstCall

AUSTIN, Texas Sep 5, 2008

EZCORP, Inc. (NASDAQ: EZPW) announced today that it has entered into a definitive agreement to acquire the assets of eleven pawnshops located in Las Vegas and Henderson, Nevada that operate under the Pawn Plus and ASAP Pawn brands. EZCORP will acquire approximately $6.6 million of pawn loans, $2.2 million of inventory, $1.2 million of auto title loans and all other operating assets at the eleven locations for a total purchase price of $34.5 million. Half of the purchase price will be paid with the issuance of EZCORP’s Class A Non-voting Common Stock and half in cash. The acquisition is expected to close by early November. EZCORP’s President and Chief Executive Officer, Joe Rotunda, stated, “We believe this is an excellent acquisition in a very good pawn market and will complement our existing four Las Vegas locations. These stores have an average pawn portfolio of roughly $600,000 per store, almost three times our chain average, and on a proforma basis, generated approximately $5.5 million of EBITDA during the last twelve months.

In our fiscal 2009, we expect these stores to contribute five to six cents in earnings per share.” Rotunda continued, “In conjunction with this acquisition, we are pleased to announce that Craig McCall, the seller, will be joining our team in a long term consulting capacity. Craig has done an excellent job in building this business in the Las Vegas market and we see Craig as a real asset to our company as we jointly fulfill the commitments he has made in developing this quality operation. Craig also will be our landlord at eight of these locations.”

EZCORP is primarily a lender or provider of credit services to individuals who do not have cash resources or access to credit to meet their short-term cash needs. In 294 U.S. EZPAWN and 30 Mexico Empeno Facil locations open on June 30, 2008, the Company offers non-recourse loans collateralized by tangible personal property, commonly known as pawn loans. At these locations, the Company also sells merchandise, primarily collateral forfeited from its pawn lending operations, to consumers looking for good value. In 461 EZMONEY locations and 71 EZPAWN locations open on June 30, 2008, the Company offers short-term non-collateralized loans, often referred to as payday loans, or fee based credit services to customers seeking loans.

This announcement contains certain forward-looking statements regarding the Company’s expected performance for future periods including, but not limited to, the completion and anticipated benefits of an acquisition and expected future earnings. Actual results for these periods may materially differ from these statements. Such forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties such as changing market conditions in the overall economy and the industry, consumer demand for the Company’s services and merchandise, changes in the regulatory environment, and other factors periodically discussed in the Company’s annual, quarterly and other reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. For additional information, contact Dan Tonissen at (512) 314-2289. First Call Analyst: FCMN Contact: Laura_Jones@ezcorp.com  

Mr McCall then opened 12 Arizona pawnshops and again sold them to EZCORP.  Please see article below.  

EZCORP Enters the High Potential Arizona Market

EZCORP has also completed the acquisition of 12 USA Pawn & Jewelry stores in Tucson  and  Bullhead City, Arizona.  This investment marks the Company’s initial move into  Arizona  and its key markets.  The Company intends to grow its presence over time into a market-leading provider of instant cash, by expanding its storefront position, supported by both online and mobile channels.  

USA  Pawn & Jewelry represents the second set of stores that the Company has purchased from owner  Craig McCall, who continues to consult with and assist the Company in executing its multi-market growth strategy. Mr. Rothamel stated, “The  Arizona  acquisition demonstrates our continued focus on growing and expanding our core pawn business.  Not only will the addition of these 12 successful stores enhance our profitability in the near-term, it will also provide us with a robust base from which to expand further, through in-fill opportunities and possible additional acquisitions.  Craig is an extremely talented pawn entrepreneur and operator, and we look forward to continuing our relationship to develop further growth opportunities.  

Mr. McCall is on his third set of Pawnshops for sale to EZ Corp  To make his future deal even sweeter Mr McCall along with EZCORP and Cash America,another large public company, spent a huge amount of money having the interest rates pushed to a unconscionable interest rate that will take effect this summer.  Please read legislative report below:

 HB2537 – pawnbrokers; interest; military members – DO PASS   In the Arizona legislature Vice-Chairman Shope moved that HB2537 do pass. Jason Theodorou, Majority Research Intern, advised that HB2537 increases the interest rate a pawnbroker can charge and requires pawnbrokers to waive any unpaid interest and hold pledged goods for military members and their spouses for 60 days after returning from active duty deployment (Attachment 18).  

Vice-Chairman Shope, sponsor, stated that the HB2537 has two components.  The first allows pawn brokers to raise interest rates.  The second is a military member component, which he is working on with Representative Sonny Borrelli. 

Craig McCall, USA Pawn and Jewelry, representing self, testified in support of HB2537.  He said that the pawn industry is unable to raise interest rates on its own and the Legislature has not reviewed the cap rate in 16 years.  Surrounding states have much higher interest rates, i.e. Colorado has a 20 percent monthly cap rate, Nevada at 13 percent and Idaho and Utah have no monthly rate caps with market rates at 15 to 25 percent.  Mr. McCall cited the following reasons for increased business expenses:   Rental costs Building size – the pawn industry holds a large amount of collateral Healthcare insurance; Labor intensive process – the average pawn loan is $80; Municipality requirements for technology – daily transaction downloads to the police departments  to have taken the place of payday loans.

Question was called on the motion that HB2537 do pass.  The motion carried by a roll call vote of 6-3-0-0 (Attachment 19).    Without objection, the meeting adjourned at 11:45 a.m.

People who borrow money from pawnbrokers may soon have to pay higher interest. Current law caps pawnshop interest at 8 percent a month for the first two months and 6 percent for every month afterwards. HB 2537 would raise the initial rate to 13 percent, with an 11 percent cap for the third and following months. HB 2537, which was approved by the Senate 22-8, does require pawnbrokers to waive unpaid interest charges and hold pledged goods for members of the military who are on active duty until 60 days after that person returns from deployment. It now goes to the governor.

To get a 80.00 Pawn Loan for a TV for 30 days now cost  $25.80 in fees  There is a $5.00 service charge, a $5.00 storage charge, a $3.00 police ticket fee and $12.80 in interest.  The APR on this loan is 400.04% 

But Mr. McCall  who takes in Millions flipping pawnshops wanted to burden the residents of Arizona even more with increases to this already insane rate.  This summer when rates increase this loan will cost an additional 8.00 or a whopping $33.80 interest on a $80.00, 30 day loan. This is over a 500% APR  

© Joyce Clark, 2014

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.

Jun 14

7

Arizona Free Enterprise Club Initiative Packet confirmed

Posted by Joyce Clark on June 7, 2014
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale finances  | Tagged With: , , , , | 1 Comment

Another blog follower sent me copies of the paperwork filed with the Glendale City Clerk by the Arizona Free Enterprise Club on June 6, 2014. I was originally informed that it was a referendum packet but that information was incorrect. It is an initiative effort. Below are copies of the first page of the Statement of Organization of a Political Committee (PAC) and the Application for Initiative or Referendum Petition. The PAC has until July 3, 2014 to gather the necessary number of signatures, 10,434. I suspect they will have no difficulty in collecting not only the requisite number of signatures but many more. 

The text of the Initiative is as follows: “Adopting the Glendale Taxpayer Protection Act of 2014, which amends the Glendale City Charter, Article VI, Section 7, by decreasing the transaction privilege tax rate, as defined in the art, by seven-tenths of one percent (.7%), with such decrease taking effect August 1, 2017, and requiring a supermajority vote of the council to increase the transaction privilege tax, effective upon passage and proclamation of the act.”

The supermajority provision to increase the sales tax rate means that 5 out of 7 councilmembers would have to approve any increase.

The packet was taken out by Scott Mussi, Executive Director of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club and the Committee Treasurer is Timothy La Sota, an attorney with the firm of Tiffany & Bosco.

Applicationandlanguage_Page_1

Application for Initiative

Untitledattachment00020_Page_1

Statement of Organization

© Joyce Clark, 2014

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.

 

 

 

 

 

Jun 14

6

An Odds ‘n’ Ends Friday

Posted by Joyce Clark on June 6, 2014
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale and the Super Bowl • Glendale finances  | Tagged With: , , , , , | 5 Comments

One of my many followers sent me this link:  http://www.macrumors.com/2014/06/06/apple-others-2-million-each-super-bowl-50/.  Apple, along with other Bay area tech companies, Intel, Yahoo and Google, has given their Super Bowl Host Committee $2 million in cash and other unspecified services to offset San Francisco Bay area taxpayer costs of hosting Super Bowl 50.

Hey Apple…could you spare a little more and gift Glendale $2 million in cash to offset the taxpayer costs of hosting our 2015 Super Bowl?

The Arizona Free Enterprise Club visited Glendale City Hall today, June 6, 2014 and made a beeline for the City Clerk’s office. What for, you say? It seems they have taken out a referendum packet on the issue of council’s decision to make the temporary sales tax increase permanent. Don’t be surprised if Glendale’s voters get to weigh in on the issue this fall.

© Joyce Clark, 2014

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.

Jun 14

4

What’s a handshake worth?

Posted by Joyce Clark on June 4, 2014
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale finances • Jobing.com arena  | Tagged With: , , , , | 1 Comment

Caitlin McGlade, a reporter for the Arizona Republic, has a story on June 4, 2014 regarding a debt that IceArizona allegedly owes to the PR firm of Rose+Moser+Allyn (RMA). Here is the link: http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/glendale/2014/06/03/coyotes-owner-sued-deal/9942991/ . The PR firm has filed suit in Maricopa County Superior Court,”arguing that the team stiffed them on nearly a quarter of a million dollars.”

It seems that in August of 2013 after IceArizona had successfully secured the $15 million annual management arena contract from Glendale, it wanted to forestall any type of Coyotes referendum effort that would lead to an election on the issue. IceArizona hired RMA and promised to pay a base fee of $25,000, provide two front row tickets to eight hockey games per season and pay $250,000 over five years as a sponsorship fee to the Scottsdale Polo Championships (an event owned by the PR firm). It appears that the IceArizona check for the base fee of $25,000 bounced. It also appears that IceArizona is not disputing the facts of the deal but rather is claiming that there was a caveat that the polo sponsorship was supposed to bring value to IceArizona and it has not done so. That appears to be the basis of their reasoning for reneging on the $250,000 sponsorship fee.

What is interesting is that this deal was a “handshake” deal agreed to by all parties verbally and in email exchanges. Don’t you think RMA’s first clue that there might be problems with IceArizona would have been the bounced $25,000 check?

Didn’t RMA realize that IceArizona’s modus operandi appeared to be reliance upon everyone else’s money but their own? After all, the IceArizona owners put comparatively little of their own money up to buy the team. Instead they took out huge loans from Fortress Investment Group and the National Hockey League. IceArizona is in debt up to its eyeballs and the interest on that debt is being covered by Glendale every year in the form of the $15 million payment for arena management. Glendale has been directed by IceArizona to send the money directly to its lenders.

This suit promises to be fascinating but ugly. Rose+Moser+Allyn is a smart and saavy PR firm that has the capability to do a lot of damage to IceArizona’s reputation (such as it is). You would think IceArizona would settle out of court. If that happens RMA would be well advised to get a Cashier’s check or better still, cash.

© Joyce Clark, 2014

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.

Jun 14

3

Don’t be countin’ them chickens just yet

Posted by Joyce Clark on June 3, 2014
Posted in Casino • City issue and actions • City of Glendale  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

On May 27, 2014 the Supreme Court issued a ruling on a tribal immunity case, Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community. Here is the link to their decision: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/michigan-v-bay-mills-indian-community/ . 

It was a narrow case with a decision rendered on one specific issue. In a five to four decision the Supreme Court held that Michigan’s lawsuit against the Bay Mills Indian Community to stop a tribal casino operating outside of Indian lands was barred by tribal sovereign immunity.

Its decision appears be limited to the specific facts involved in this case.  Tribes that rely on this decision to engage in off-reservation commercial activity now know that they may not be able to rely on the Bay Mills decision for broad immunity, especially if an aggrieved plaintiff has no other remedies available. 

The decision reinforces the loophole that states can sue tribes for illegal gaming activity on Indian land but they can’t sue them for the same activity on off-Indian lands. Whether and how this decision applies to principles of tribal sovereignty involving future off-reservation commercial activities remains open, and one area that the Court purposefully left open.  Indian Tribes throughout the country did not gain an outright win with the Court’s opinion.

Michigan remains able to deny a license for an off-reservation casino. If the tribe went ahead with the project anyway, Michigan still retains the right to sue tribal officials to stop the gaming activity and, if necessary, invoke its criminal laws.  In addition, any state can still seek a waiver to allow lawsuits for off-reservation gaming activity as part of their compact with a tribe regarding on-reservation gaming.

This decision does not speak to the unique Arizona v. Tohono O’odham situation. It’s effect upon current litigation is questionable at best. In other words, this decision does nothing to advance or deny either side’s position on the proposed casino in Glendale. It is still expected that Rep. Trent Franks’ bill, HB 1410, will be voted up or down in the US Senate this summer.

© Joyce Clark, 2014

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.

May 14

30

City of Glendale April 2014 Monthly Arena Report

Posted by Joyce Clark on May 30, 2014
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale finances • Jobing.com arena  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

This is always a difficult subject because of all of the facts and figures that are presented. The numbers can be confusing to those readers who have not followed my other blogs on the monthly reports. Here is a link to the report:http://www.glendaleaz.com/finance/documents/FY14MonthlyArenaReport-20140430.pdf . Here is the report itself:

April 2014 MonthlyArenaReport 

This monthly report publicly released by Glendale will reflect the last of the hockey games for this season but does not capture the supplemental ticket surcharge which is due and payable 60 days after each fiscal year. The new fiscal year begins July 1, 2014 so this line item would not be paid to the city or reflected in this report until September 1, 2014.

The Interest Income-Escrow Account still sits at $4,620 and has not been updated since the first monthly report.

The agreement revenues to the city to date total $4,686,412 and reflect a prorated 11 month fiscal year begun on August 5, 2013. The total city expenditures to date are $10,252,055. In this first year all figures are prorated. The total management fee the city will pay is $13,750,000 and total capital improvement expenditures are $450,685.   The report reflects a loss to the city, to date, of $5,565,643.

For purposes of discussion let’s include as revenue the supplemental ticket surcharge. It comes in at $774,452. Let’s add that amount to the total qualified ticket revenue received by the city; and new ticket revenue figure is $2,323,357. The total management fee of $13,750,000 and capital expenditure requirement of $450,685 paid by the city this fiscal year is a total of $14,200,685. Subtract revenues received from fees paid and the loss to the City of Glendale in this fiscal year is the grand total of $11,877,328.

Consider this. Next fiscal year even if all 17,700 tickets per hockey game were qualified tickets the maximum amount the city would receive is $2,537,000 in qualified ticket revenue. For this exercise, let’s add to that figure another $1,268,500 in supplemental ticket surcharge. Add an additional million dollars more in parking revenues to the nearly $1 million generated this year and the maximum revenue 42/43 hockey games per season can generate is approximately $6 million.  

Global Spectrum and IceArizona would have to have approximately 100 revenue generating non-hockey events in order to earn an additional $9 million annually to be paid to the city to offset the $15,000,000 the city must pay as an annual management fee to IceArizona. They will be fortunate to host 25 non-hockey revenue generating events next year.

Some folks dismiss the $6 million portion of the annual management fee because it was already budgeted. It’s not to be dismissed because it’s in the budget. The money still comes from General Fund sales tax revenue. It still counts. It is still money the city has to receive from sales tax revenue to pay all required arena expenditures. 

I added the Supplemental Ticket surcharge to the total revenues to be received by the city. Even with that “enhanced revenue,” the fact remains that this year the city’s loss is $11.8 million dollars. There is no more money forthcoming to the city from any magical or secret source.

For purposes of this exercise, here is how this year and the next 4 fiscal years worth of loss to the city may very well pencil out. For this exercise I reduce the annual loss by an estimated $2 million a year by increasing revenue to the city by an equal amount annually:

  • This year, FY 13-14           loss of $11.8 million
  • Next year, FY 14-15          loss of $  9.8 million
  • Year 3, FY 15-16               loss of $  7.8 million
  • Year 4, FY 16-17               loss of $  5.8 million
  • Year 5, FY 17-18               loss of $  3.8 million
  • 5 Fiscal Years                   Total loss of $39 million

Add to the $39 million deficit in earned revenues approximately $12 million a year in construction bond debt for a total of $60 million. In five years I estimate the city will pay $99 million dollars between paying annual construction debt and covering annual revenue losses generated by the management fee.

My disclaimer is that these estimates are my best, educated guess based upon the numbers that are publicly available. The actual loss number for five years could be higher or lower than estimated.

What is ironic about this IceArizona contract is that the “enhanced revenues” (with the exception of naming rights and the supplemental ticket surcharge) are not really new revenue. Before IceArizona and the NHL’s two years of management, the city paid no annual management fee…none…nada. Yet it collected the very same revenues — a ticket surcharge and a parking surcharge. They were included in the price of every ticket. Those revenues: sales tax earned inside the arena and the ticket/parking surcharges were used to pay down the construction bond debt because the city didn’t have to also pay a management fee.

With this new deal the management fee consumes all of ticket/parking surcharge revenues (in addition to the other revenues like naming rights) the city was already getting and leaves the city struggling to cover some portion of the $15 million deficit every year. Oh, and don’t forget, IceArizona takes $20,000 off the top of parking fees for every game. That comes to $860,000 this year.

Another irony is that when IceArizona took over, it didn’t subtract the existent ticket and parking surcharges that were historically already included in the price of the ticket. Those charges were absorbed and became part of the base price of the new IceArizona tickets to which they added the new, qualified ticket surcharge. In essence, every fan’s ticket now includes the old ticket and parking surcharges within the base price and the new IceArizona ticket surcharge is then added.

The management agreement was and is good for IceArizona but it’s not so good for Glendale. Earned revenues once applied to the construction bond debt are now used to cover the $15 million annual management fee. Those earned revenues simply are not adequate to cover the management fee.

The argument for keeping the Coyotes as an anchor tenant was to benefit all of the surrounding businesses in Westgate. With the totality of Glendale’s excessive debt burden the question must be, is it worth it to keep the team and struggle to pay the annual management fee? Or is Glendale better off going back to accepting one of the Beacon bids solicited last year? You decide.

© Joyce Clark,

2014 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.

May 14

28

Restraint of trade?

Posted by Joyce Clark on May 28, 2014
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances • Jobing.com arena • University of Phoenix Stadium • Westgate  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , | 7 Comments

Caitlin McGlade had a story in the Arizona Republic of May 28, 2014 entitled Glendale to collect less than projected on Coyotes Accord. I found the spin by stakeholders fascinating. For instance, Monty Jones, of Global Spectrum and general manager of the arena, had the following to say about the non-hockey events booked into the arena this year, “it had a successful year.” Wow. They set the bar so low that no one can see it. Seven non-hockey, revenue earning events is embarrassing when the anticipated number of non-hockey, revenue producing events was in the 20’s. Jones went on to say, “The company hopes to book more events next year.” I hope to win the Pulitzer Prize next year but it isn’t going to happen. So far, it’s not looking so good for Mr. Jones, et.al., with 5 non-hockey, revenue producing events booked in the arena for next year.

Parking revenues continue to be a problem for IceArizona and the city with cheaper parking available at the Cardinals’ stadium and another 3,000 free spaces throughout Westgate. Who would have guessed? After all the ink on the management agreement was barely dry when  the Cardinals announced that they would undercut the Coyotes parking charge and the Westgate manager announced that there would be no change in their policy of keeping spaces free during hockey games.

The article went on to say Councilmember Sherwood’s solution was, “that the city consider blocking off a road to make it more difficult to access those lots (stadium lots) during arena events. Councilmember Martinez seemed to think it’s an idea worth considering and said of blocking access, “(it) probably crossed most of our minds.” Those minds would be the four councilmembers who voted for the arena management agreement: Sherwood, Knaack, Martinez and Chavira.

Sherwood’s cock-a-mammy idea of using governmental authority to directly impact a private business in competition with the city is akin to asking for a law suit. What are they thinking? Are they thinking?

© Joyce Clark, 2014

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 »