Header image alt text

Joyce Clark Unfiltered

For "the rest of the story"

Mar 14

13

Connections…

Posted by Joyce Clark on March 13, 2014
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances • Jobing.com arena  | Tagged With: , , , | 9 Comments

In the March 13, 2014 edition of the Arizona Republic there is a story by Paul Giblin and Craig Harris entitled Contract violated Glendale Policies. Here is the link: http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/glendale/2014/03/13/contract-violated-glendale-policies/6359209/ .

It reports that former City Attorney Craig Tindall may have used his influence to award a no-bid contract for the city’s external audit to a friend, Jose de Jesus Rivera of the firm of Haralson, Miller, Pitt, Feldman and McAnally. Apparently Tindall was close enough and comfortable enough to Rivera to send an email on his city computer soliciting tax exempt tuition funding for his son.

Typically contracts over $50,000 are required by city policy to go out to bid as a Request for Proposal (RFP). As a professional services contract that requirement may not have been necessary but there remains a question of undue influence. Surely for a contract of this dollar amount, while not required to go to bid, it may have been prudent to do so. Members of the Glendale City Council seem to be shrugging their shoulders while kicking the can down the road and alluding to “that’s the way it has always been done.” They don’t want any part of this latest debacle.

By the end of the external audit the cost would be over half a million dollars, ten times the amount required for an RFP. Rivera thought there would be an RFP and asked Tindall via email about its timing and release. Instead Tindall submitted a memo to then Interim City Manager Horatio Skeete recommending the use of Rivera and his law firm. Skeete wanted to put the contract out for bid and to issue an RFP but for reasons unknown that did not occur. The result of the external audit was to place blame on Skeete and to completely exonerate Tindall. Could it have been that Rivera, as Tindall’s friend, was well aware of the bad blood between Tindall and Skeete? As friends it appears plausible they may have discussed it. Did that knowledge play any role in the final outcome of the external audit? It seems to be worth your consideration and your decision.

Was the external audit result payback to Skeete by Tindall for having lost his bid to become Interim City Manager? It there a connection between Tindall’s failed attempt to become Interim City Manager and the audit conclusions? You will have to decide. It was a bloody battle for the position of Interim City Manager. Tindall’s supporters on city staff lobbied me and I assume, the rest of council, disparaging Skeete. No such effort occurred on the part of Skeete or any supporters he had. During this period Tindall apparently stalled contracts and other documents on his desk seemingly in an effort to further bloody Skeete’s nose. Council was evenly split between the two candidates and it was Alvarez who broke the tie in favor of Skeete. It appears that Tindall wanted the position far more than he was willing to admit publicly and was disappointed that he did not prevail.

The Republic story goes on to say that Tindall is under on-going investigation by the state Attorney General’s regarding the issuance of this no-bid contract. He is also under an on-going investigation by the state bar as a result of a complaint filed by former Councilmember Phil Lieberman regarding a presumed conflict of interest. Lieberman’s complaint alleges Tindall was employed by the city while he also was general counsel to IceArizona, successful bidders on the Jobing.com Arena management contract, constituting a conflict of interest. I do remember a conversation had with Tindall during the period of the Jamison bid for the arena management contract and his assertion that he was talking to other “serious” bidders ready to come forward if the Jamison bid failed. Was Anthony LeBlanc, of IceArizona, one of those “serious” bidders? How much information about the Jamison bid was shared with these “serious” bidders? Skeete alleged to me, and presumably other councilmembers, that Tindall appeared to be holding up negotiations as the Jamison contracts sat on his desk for inordinately long periods of time. When Skeete was queried as to his awareness of the most recent Jamison contract amendments, his response was that Tindall still had them and he had not seen them. Were these actions by Tindall more payback to Skeete or even worse, was it an attempt to railroad the Jamison bid in favor of these other “serious” bidders? I don’t know and don’t know if we will ever find out. All we know is that there are connections – between Tindall and Rivera; Tindall and Skeete; and Tindall and “serious” bidders for the arena management contract.  What part these connections played in the outcomes is yet to be discovered.

© 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.

Mar 14

10

Monthly arena revenues to date

Posted by Joyce Clark on March 10, 2014
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale finances • Jobing.com arena  | Tagged With: , , , , | 15 Comments

There are figures available for the first six months of the Jobing.Com management agreement covering from August, 2014 through January, 2014. No figures are available for February, 2014 even though we are in March of 2014. We can expect them at the end of March. Why it takes a full month to publish the figures is a mystery. After all, the city is directly reporting the figures supplied to it by IceArizona. The agreement took effect in August of 2014 and there were no ticket sales that month.

The monthly arena report reflects numbers supplied by IceArizona, manager of the arena. It reflects ticket revenues to the city on qualified ticket sales only. Non-qualified tickets could be anything from discounted to comped tickets. The qualified tickets per game do not reflect total per game attendance as reported publicly by IceArizona. The arena has a seating capacity of approximately 17,700. Some of the games were reported as sold out – standing room only. A portion of the ticket sales for those sold out games must have been discounted or comped and therefore not counted as qualified tickets requiring the surcharge of $3 per ticket.  It appears as if the city is not earning the revenue it could. Perhaps more of these tickets should be considered as qualified. Here is a summary of the qualified tickets that actually earned the city revenue month by month:

               # of hockey           Ticket Surcharge divided            Average number

                          events                  by $3 per game                        of Qualified tickets/game

August, 2013                0                             0                                                 0

September, 2013         1                       $16,413 ÷ $3                             5,471      (1 game)

October, 2013              7                     $203,289 ÷ $3                            9,680      (7 games)

November, 2013          6                     $193,517  ÷ $3                          10,751      (6 games)

December, 2013          4                      $153,975  ÷ $3                         12,831      (4 games)

January, 2014              10                    $355,135  ÷ $3                        11,837     (10 games)

A question that has never been answered satisfactorily is how come the Interest Income on the Escrow Account was posted at $4,620 as of September 30, 2013 and that number has not changed to this day? There is no posting of any accrual to that account in Oct.- Nov.- Dec. or Jan.

As of January 31, 2014 the city has spent $6,502,055 toward the $15,500,000 owed this year per the arena agreement. Offsetting revenues earned of $2.7 million have not covered the $6.5 million spent and to date the city has a loss of $3,705,324.

If there are no playoff games the total revenues for the city for FY 2013-14 which ends June 30, 2014 can be estimated at $6 to $7 million dollars. Add another approximate $1 million in Supplemental Ticket Surcharges ($1.50 per qualified ticket) for a total revenue estimate of $7 to $8 million dollars. The city will pay out $15.5 million this year. It is estimated that the loss will be somewhere in the neighborhood of $7.5 million dollars on the arena this year.

Then there is the annual arena construction debt payment at an estimated $12 million a year. It is offset by the sales taxes earned at Northern Crossing, Cabela’s, Tanger Outlets and the businesses in surrounding Westgate. It does not include sales tax earned inside the arena as that is counted as part of the arena revenue of $2.7 million to date. The estimate of the amount of annual sales tax earned from these sources is approximately $4million. That means the city will have to find an estimated additional $8 million to cover the shortfall on the arena construction debt.

The underperformance of both revenue sources: arena revenues and Westgate/Northern Crossing/Cabelas sales tax revenues will fall short and cause the city to pay an estimated $15 million this year over and above all revenues earned. The only ways the city can continue to subsidize arena expenses is to: raise the temporary sales tax and make it permanent; increase property taxes and reduce city services by eliminating some or privatizing. The question for every Glendale resident is, is it wise to continue to subsidize arena losses by raising taxes and reducing/eliminating city services?

© 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.

Mar 14

3

Say it ain’t so…not another pawn shop

Posted by Joyce Clark on March 3, 2014
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale zoning issues  | Tagged With: , , , , , | 2 Comments

Recently the City of Glendale approved yet another pawn shop, Go Daddy Pawn, in south Glendale at 67th Avenue and Bethany Home Road, specifically in zip code 85301. Now USA Pawn wants to plant itself a mere 300 to 500 feet away from Go Daddy Pawn. Not another pawn shop! Give south Glendale a break. There are more than a half dozen pawn shops within shouting distance of one another in the area.

Not all residents, but many who live in zip code 85301 are poor. It is a socio-demographic area under stress. There are, at a minimum, 15 apartment complexes. Housing can and often will sell for less than $100,000. An obscene number of pawn shops, liquor stores, title loan shops and we buy gold & silver shops dot the landscape – far more than in any other part of Glendale. I won’t even get into the number of south Glendale billboards (ala the north Glendale situation that has residents currently fighting their placement along Bell Road).

85301 is a ripe and juicy target area for the non-profits of the world. Many wish to locate in 85301 to be close to their client base. After a while it becomes a “chicken and egg” situation. The non-profits are drawn there to do good. That in turn, attracts more people in need to the area which, in turn, attracts even more non-profits. It becomes a never ending cycle that drags down property values. These types of commercial/retail seek out areas such as 85301.

Pawn shops are not healthy for any community. In a University of Michigan Law School study (here is the link: https://www.law.umich.edu/centersandprograms/lawandeconomics/workshops/Documents/Winter2008/miles.pdf ) “…estimates indicate that a 10% increase in the rate of pawn shops raises the rate of robberies, burglaries, and larcenies in urban counties by between 0.8 and 1.1 percentage points.” It found that, “pawn shops increase the rates of robbery, burglary, and larceny…”

On Thursday, March 6, 2014 at 6 PM the Glendale citizen Planning Commission will decide whether to grant a Conditional Use Permit for USA Pawn Shop. The meeting will be in the council chambers of Glendale City Hall.

Whether you live in zip code 85301 or not, please plan to attend and to ask the Planning Commission to deny USA’s request. You don’t have to live in that zip code, or in Glendale for that matter, to have an opinion and to speak. The Planning Commission, similar to a city council, can be swayed by the numbers of people in attendance opposing or supporting an issue. Your neighbors need your help and your support more than ever. It starts with just one person who does not assume that others will do the job. Be part of the solution.

Why bother? Because negative zoning requests such as this know no bounds. They are like sludge, silently expanding their boundaries. While they are predominately located south of Glendale Avenue now, look for a future that moves these indicators of decline further north in Glendale – first to Northern Avenue and then beyond as they relentlessly move northward in our city.

© 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.

Mar 14

3

What’s with the Coyotes?

Posted by Joyce Clark on March 3, 2014
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Jobing.com arena  | Tagged With: , , , , | 19 Comments

I have watched nearly every Coyotes game this season. The St. Louis Blues game on March 2, 2014 was positively painful as the team disintegrated in the third period and blew a lead. Does that suddenly make me an expert? Gosh, far, far from it. Yet even the most uneducated fan recognizes the team’s lack of consistency from game to game. In one game they are brilliant. In the next it’s as if they don’t know each other. What seems to be happening now is more than a lack of consistency. It’s as if a malaise has settled over the team destroying its chemistry.

Everyone has assumed since 2009 that stable ownership would offer certainty to the players and would remove the team’s collective anxiety causing them to play with more confidence. Yet in 2012 while under the ownership of the League’s front office and with no ownership surety the team made the play offs and won the divisional title. Is throwing money at the problem the solution? Don Maloney and Dave Tippett operated on a shoe string that year and pulled it off. They had no choice. They were magicians.

In the face of disappointing team play this year, the year of stable ownership, ffn the face of disappointing team play nce. Yetary 28, 2014 game against the Colorado Avalanched acquire new ones. hat was it wian chirping has begun – but in a subdued fashion as no one wants to anger or alienate the new owners. The collective fan solution seems to be to get rid of some players and acquire new ones. Candidates identified after the February 28, 2014 loss to the Colorado Avalanche are Schlemko, Stone, Riberio and Smith. The team’s core has remained intact throughout the years of uncertain ownership drama  – Doan, Hanzel,Virbrata, Bissonette, and Yandle, to name a few. Instead of removing and replacing players the real question is, what has happened mentally and collectively to this core? There is evident frustration and anger. Witness some of Doan’s public remarks about the team’s abysmal play. One would think it has spilled over into the locker room – oh, to be a fly on THAT wall.

It’s too late to right the ship this year. Maloney and Tippett have to identify the mental poison and apply the antidote. That takes time. Unfortunately this year’s poor showing will affect the bleeding bottom line of the owners and of the City of Glendale. How long can either entity sustain the financial loss? In the case of the owners they would have you believe it’s not a problem for them but it most certainly is for Glendale. Glendale entered into the ownership deal relying upon the new owners’ promise to partially reimburse (the estimate was $9 million) the city for the management fee of $15 million a year through “enhanced revenues.” All estimates are that this figure will not be met – not even close to it.

On a different note: The owners just hosted Jewish Heritage Night. Great. I would expect to see Christian, Muslim and Buddhist Heritage Nights as well. If there is no recognition of other faiths, don’t we call that discrimination in this country?

© 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.

Mar 14

2

An idea whose time has come

Posted by Joyce Clark on March 2, 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: , , , , , | 1 Comment

Glendale Mayor Jerry Weiers delivered his State of the City remarks to a packed audience at the annual Glendale Chamber of Commerce dinner at the Renaissance Hotel on Thursday, February 27, 2014. Although his news about Glendale’s finances was dire it was also a fair assessment. He is to be commended for his forthright speech. Here is a link to a recap: http://www.azcentral.com/community/glendale/articles/20140228glendale-arizona-state-of-the-city-mayor-financial-problems-real.html . Here is also a link to a Mayor Weiers You Tube video that visually explains Glendale’s debt and revenues: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2nBWBojUh0&feature=em-share_video_user .

He didn’t remark on how Glendale got to where it is today financially but I will because I was one of the council that got us there. Although I approved the arena I did not approve of Ellman’s plans for his development of Westgate. His “vibrant” building colors look like WalMart on steroids and his billboards are monstrosities. He also would not dedicate an additional land to place another eastbound lane on Glendale Avenue. I was more reluctant about Camelback Ranch but the deal called for future reimbursement by the Arizona Sports and Tourism Authority (AZSTA). I agreed because there were development plans in place for the surrounding land and an AZSTA reimbursement on the horizon.

Council knew we would never be a Scottsdale, the west’s most western town; or a Tempe, a college town; or a Chandler and Gilbert, with their high tech manufacturing. We believed that these facilities would create a niche, a branding of Glendale and that they would help to grow Glendale.  After approval of Camelback Ranch the city began negotiation to place a USAA basketball training facility in the area. It looked as if we were about to add another major sporting facility. Glendale’s future looked bright.

There are two major contributors to Glendale’s current debt burden: Jobing.com Arena and Camelback Ranch Spring Training Facility. At the time of these facilities’ approval it was clear that Glendale could sustain the debt. Deals were in place to develop commercial and retail around both. They would generate new sales tax revenues to cover the expected construction debt. The arena did not have an annual management fee. Glendale’s economy was surging as was the national economy.

There was no hint of the Great Recession that would lay waste to so many of Glendale’s plans. Glendale’s sales tax and property tax revenues sunk like a stone as did its state shared revenue.  Developers and their plans dropped like flies as one after another went into bankruptcy.

Suddenly the city’s debt had become unsustainable.

What was council’s plan back in the day? It was three fold. Pass a temporary 5 year sales tax increase to provide much needed revenue while other strategies took hold; restructure our debt; and embark on a 5 year plan of targeted cuts to expenses while rebuilding the city’s contingency fund. It was even suggested, at the time, by Interim City Manager Skeete that the city sell the arena. I was shocked by the thought at the time but over time, it has become an idea that has a great deal of appeal.

It is no coincidence that Glendale’s future debt burden is about $30 million. That is very close to the city’s annual arena debt: $12-13 million in an annual construction debt payment; $500,000 to $1 million annual payment to a capital repair account; and $15 million in an annual management fee. The solution of selling the arena at fair market value is now very appealing. While the city loses money already invested in the facility the bleeding stops. Suddenly there would be no more construction debt; no more annual management fee and no capital repair account to maintain. It’s an idea whose time has come.

© 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.

Mar 14

1

Billboard applicant pulls rabbit out of hat

Posted by Joyce Clark on March 1, 2014
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale zoning issues  | Tagged With: , , , , | 4 Comments

The Glendale City Council meeting of February 25, 2014 was contentious. Everything was truckin’ along until Item 19, the billboard issue. Whoa…not so fast! The council vote was tabled. It was widely assumed that Councilmember Sherwood had the votes to ram it through. It turns out that was not the case. Somewhere along the way he, Rose Law (applicant’s representative) and Becker (applicant) realized the votes were not there. Their fall back plan was to table, hopefully providing them more time to bring reluctant councilmembers into the fold. The vote to table and bring to a council workshop on March 18 and council meeting on March 25 was 5 to 2. Vice Mayor Knaack voted “No” and observed that this issue was “being pushed out until the answer changes.” Councilmember Martinez also voted “No” and said the move smacked of “desperate measures.” Weiers, Sherwood, Alvarez, Hugh and Chavira voted “Yes.”

There were at least a dozen or more citizens there to voice their opposition to the billboards. Sherwood, in the past, characterized the billboard opposition as “a minority.” Not so. It’s usually the case that every citizen that takes the time to get actively involved in an issue represents a large segment of silent citizens. 

Most of the public stayed until the end of the council meeting to express their dismay with council’s non-action. Michele Tennyson from the Cholla district expressed their collective sentiment quite well. Ms. Tennyson had served on a city council in Mill Creek, Washington and after locating to Glendale, served on various Glendale boards and commissions. She obviously knows how political games are played. She said she was “ashamed” by council’s conduct and decision to table the issue. She related the timeline and history of actions taken. She made it quite clear that there was no reason to delay an up or down vote. Ann Berman, a Sahuaro district resident, said “Sherwood seems to have made a decision” and alluded to the fact that it is not in the public’s favor. Others pointed out that the next scheduled council vote would occur during Spring Break when many people take the opportunity to go out-of-town. Clearly the residents of the Sahuaro and Cholla districts, directly affected by the erection of these billboards, do not want them.

During the council comment period at the end of the meeting those who spoke offered hints regarding their positions on the issue. Councilmember Sherwood attempted to explain why it was necessary to table the billboard issue. Councilmember Alvarez told the citizens that they need “to make the council accountable.”  Councilmember Martinez characterized council’s actions as “blatant” and “a slap in the face” to the decisions already made by the citizen Planning Commission and staff. Vice Mayor Knaack described it as “unforgiveable” to disregard the Planning Commission’s decision.

Others were silent about that issue but offered a wide range of comments on other topics. Sherwood, Chavira and Knaack voiced their opposition to SB 1062 (although Knaack cited the wrong bill number). Several thanked Executive Directors of Communication/Marketing and Transportation, Jerry McCoy and Jamsheed Mehta, for their service as they move to take positions with other cities. Mayor Weiers characterized it as a “brain drain.” That is exactly what it is. We continue to lose the best and brightest and their historical memory of previous city action. Jamsheed Mehta should have been appointed as an Assistant City Manager.  Councilmember Chavira, always reluctant to take a position on anything unless cleared by his handlers, thanked everyone for everything. During the Public Comment period Arthur Thruston spoke of Ken Jones’ contribution to Glendale via his activism on issues and asked for special council recognition for him.  Some of the councilmembers publicly thanked Ken Jones for his participation in Glendale’s civic life. Will he get a plaque for his activism? No. It would set a precedent and create untold controversy as to which citizens would merit such recognition.  I have never agreed with Mr. Jones’ positions on any Glendale issue but he has earned my respect and thanks for his avid activism. There should be more Ken Jones in Glendale, not necessarily sharing his point of view but willing to speak and stand for those things in which they believe. Thank you, Mr. Jones.

© 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.

Feb 14

28

Fire truck bid controversy goes on…and on…and on

Posted by Joyce Clark on February 28, 2014
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale  | Tagged With: , , , , , | 4 Comments

The Glendale Star in an effort to perpetuate the current feud between the Glendale Fire Union and Freightliner, Inc. recently ran two opinion pieces, one by Joe Hester, President of the Glendale Fire Union, and one by Tim Noeding, General Sales Manager of Freightliner of Arizona. Here is the link to the Hester op ed: http://www.glendalestar.com/opinion/editorials/article_80078e26-9d73-11e3-8f2f-001a4bcf887a.html . Here is the link to the Noeding op ed: http://www.glendalestar.com/opinion/editorials/article_ea857dd8-9a46-11e3-a4c4-0019bb2963f4.html .

Again, it is apparent that the situation is a “he said vs. he said.” The general public does not understand or appreciate the technical nuances both gentlemen have used without any published facts. Neither side has offered anything new that hasn’t already been said.

So what do we need to know to ascertain the truth? At this point the fire department (or perhaps Joe Hester??) should provide the original, time stamped or dated, original bid specifications provided to the vendors. It should also provide the ratings sheets/evaluations of each bid publicly. If they are unwilling or unable to do so publicly speculation will continue to grow over was there ever was a standard set of specifications.

Apparently no formal RFP was ever issued. That flies in the face of city policy. Chief Burdick and Joe Hester claim that they dusted off old bid specifications, unused because of a lack of funding. When the older attempt to buy a truck did not occur, that was a final action. It died. When grant funding became available a new bid process should have been initiated. That did not happen. Why? Until the truth is known this incident will fester like a wound that is infected.

© 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.

 

Feb 14

23

Citizens respected and valued?

Posted by Joyce Clark on February 23, 2014
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Jobing.com arena  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

The Glendale City Council flirted with Public Comments occurring at the beginning of their meetings. It was a pilot project. After several months council voted to move Public Comments back to the end of the meeting citing that it got in the way and delayed council’s real business which is certainly not hearing from the public.

The biggest gorilla in the Valley, Phoenix, just had its council voting on February 5, 2014 to move its Citizen Comment Session to the beginning of their meeting. The move was in response to a citizen petition which claimed citizen input was not respected or valued.

It seems ironic that Phoenix has now done what Glendale rejected. If Glendale citizens submitted a petition to move the Public Comment period to the front of the meeting again would council acquiesce as Phoenix has done? What do you think? You can weigh in by voting in my informal poll to the left of this column.

A coalition on Glendale’s city council has emerged. Look for Knaack, Martinez, Sherwood and Chavira voting as a majority. That puts Weiers, Hugh and Alvarez on the losing side of most issues. I bet Alvarez rues the day she helped Chavira to get elected as he has voted in opposition to her positions since he started in office. The biggest issue was the vote on arena management and Alvarez may never forgive him for that one.

However, this November is election time in Glendale with 3 council seats up for grabs. This newly formed, rather fragile majority may not last long. Will Chavira, et.al, work behind the scenes to defeat Alvarez and get someone who is more simpatico? It would be a good move on his part as it would get rid of a problem before he stands for reelection in 2016. All he has to do is throw his support behind Jamie Aldama, Alvarez’s opponent.

Don’t forget, Knaack and Martinez are retiring. Martinez has anointed Robert Petrone but candidate Petrone’s past financial troubles may get in his way. Knaack appears ready to endorse Bill Toops, owner of the Glendale Star. Toops will have his own problems explaining how his ownership of the local paper does not conflict with serving on council. Look for more candidates to emerge as it gets closer to the end of May when nominating petitions are due. Historically in recent times there have never been less than 2 candidates for every open seat. It will be interesting to see how this election shakes out. Stay tuned…

© 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.

Feb 14

22

Camelback Ranch

Posted by Joyce Clark on February 22, 2014
Posted in Camelback Ranch Spring Training Facility • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale finances • Jobing.com arena  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

On Tuesday, February 19, 2013 the city council’s afternoon workshop was devoted to an informational presentation by staff on the history of Camelback Ranch. It’s a good a time as any to review what happened and how did Glendale get into this financial sinkhole? For the record, I did support this project and voted in the affirmative.

Camelback Ranch was first discussed in the spring of 2006. Keep in mind, the national economy was booming. Glendale was earning record revenues. That was the character of the economic climate in which the decision was made to move forward. No one had a crystal ball foretelling of the Great Recession about to descend upon the country. There was no issue with the arena. Steve Ellman had just sold his interest in the Coyotes to Jerry Moyes who became the new arena manager. The city was not paying an arena management fee. It would be 2009 when Moyes declared bankruptcy and the national recession hit.

Council had commissioned an economic impact study by Economic Research Associates released in March of 2006 to determine the potential financial impacts of the proposed Camelback Ranch project. It said the potential estimated direct economic impact of the two teams would be $14.9 million a year if used only during the spring training season and $19.2 million if the facility was used year round. Part of that estimate took into account that Right Path Limited would be developing the land surrounding the actual ballpark facilities. It was against this backdrop that council moved forward with approval for the project.

It was a complicated deal. Glendale’s partners were or are: the City of Phoenix; the Arizona Sports and Tourism Authority; the Dodgers and White Sox teams; and Right Path Limited (as the developer).

Camelback Ranch is located physically within Phoenix. Glendale purchased the parcel on which the major league baseball facility (MLB) sits as well as several other parcels for commercial/retail development. Phoenix’s obligation in the deal is to pay 80% of the sales tax it received on this site for 40 years up to a maximum amount of $37 million. It was its contribution toward the development of the site. In return Glendale assumed the obligation of paying Phoenix for a specific right-of-way and land adjacent to that right-of-way. The deadline for that purchase in the amount of $3.7 million is October of this year. If Glendale reneges all terms of the Phoenix/Glendale Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) become null and void. From 2009 until 2013 Glendale received over $200,000 from Phoenix in sales tax revenues.

Ralph Burton, principal of Right Path Limited, was to be the developer of the land adjacent to the MLB facility. At the time Glendale had a great deal of confidence in him. He had been very instrumental in Cabelas locating in the Westgate area. He had purchased a substantial amount of land along the western side of Loop 101 named “Main Street” and there were plans in the works to site the Olympic basketball training facility and headquarters there. He had taken over the airport fixed base operation (FBO) and had performed major renovations. He unfortunately partnered with Danny Herndon (of Danny’s Car Wash fame and illegal immigrant workers) and Bob Banovach to develop the Main Street project. It wasn’t long before there was in-fighting between them resulting in litigation. In the meantime the recession factored into their development plans. All plans ground to a halt and ended in bankruptcy.

The Dodgers and White Sox agreement with Glendale stipulated that they would operate and maintain the facility. Capital repairs would be Glendale’s obligation. They were required to pay $1 a year for rent. There is no management fee obligation for Glendale. Glendale is responsible for providing public safety services but the revenue it receives appears to cover those costs.

The Arizona Sports and Tourism Authority (AZSTA) pledged to cover 66.7% of the project’s costs as it has historically done with other baseball spring training facilities in Phoenix, Mesa, Peoria and Surprise. Reimbursement was originally scheduled to begin in 2017 but again, the recession destroyed that schedule. AZSTA’s revenues dwindled and the new projection for payments to Glendale is now scheduled for 2025-2026.

The debt service for construction of the project range from a high of $17 million in FY 2014-15 to a low of $9 to $11 million in subsequent years. Glendale is obligated to contribute to a Capital Repair account with annual payments of $400,000 to $800,000.

The financial obligations of Camelback Ranch and Jobing. com Arena are substantial for Glendale. The annual financial requirements of these two city owned facilities are clearly unsustainable.  Camelback Ranch requires infusions ranging from a high of $18 million (debt service and Capital Repair account) to a low of $10 million a year. Jobing.com Arena requires an annual management fee of $15 million and annual debt service of approximately $13 million. Add to those figures the $5 million a year owed to the NHL, the annual contribution to the Capital Repairs account of half a million to a million a year and another million to repay the city’s Enterprise Funds and we’re looking at a low of $28 million a year to a high of $34 million a year. Combined these two facilities require cash infusions each year from a low of $38 million to a high of $52 million. A disclaimer is in order. Since I am no longer on city council I am not privy to current financial information and obligations related to these facilities that may be considered confidential. However, the underlying concepts remain valid. Some of the cash required by these facilities may be offset by revenues they generate. We simply will not know how much offset there is for the arena until the start of the next fiscal year on July 1, 2014.

Is there any solution available? Perhaps yes. The many partners and contractual obligations associated with Camelback Ranch do not lend themselves to a sale by the city of Camelback Ranch. However, Jobing.com Arena is not in the same situation and could be sold. In doing so it removes substantial annual debt service and management fee obligations from the city. It is an option that merits consideration. Personally, I would be sad to see the city lose the arena but sometimes ya gotta do what ya gotta do.

As a side note I am discontinuing my informal polls, at least for now. It is obvious that those for or against an issue are padding the results by voting repeatedly. The results of the poll have now become meaningless.

If you would like to receive an email advising you of a new blog post, simply insert your email address in the space provided on the top right side of this column.

 

© 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.

Feb 14

21

Joe Hester response to fire truck bid issue

Posted by Joyce Clark on February 21, 2014
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale finances • Glendale's Fire Union  | Tagged With: , , | 8 Comments

On the afternoon of February 20, 2014 Joe Hester, President of Glendale’s fire union posted the following comment on my blog post about the fire truck bid. I don’t just mouth that I believe in transparency. I act on it. That is why I am posting his comments in this separate blog along with my public, not private response to him. Below is Mr. Hester’s comment followed by my response.

Joyce,I am flattered on how much you have been writing about me; I had no idea until phone call today. I know you would want your son to be in the safest vehicle possible in the event he was in an accident while responding to a 911 emergency. I also believe you would want any firefighter to go home safe to their family. As you are aware Mr Lester Hillis Glendale Fire’s only line of duty death was a result of a vehicle accident; so I hope you can appreciate my position, putting politics aside.I will respond to Mr Noeding memo and provide my response to whoever would like to see it, including the media. I can also accommodate an exclusive over lunch with an old friend to provide you as much detail as you would like ;perhaps at your favorite lunch place Gordon Biersch and my treat?I would also like to thank you for your continued involvement with our firebase strategic plan.all the best,Joe

*********************************

Mr. Hester,

I prefer to respond publicly to your comment about my recent blogs about the fire truck bid. My blog comments on this issue have not been personal. Keep my family out of this discussion. They are not involved in my blog writing.

I find your comment about flattery to be disingenuous. Perhaps it was your attempt at humor.

I participated in your firebase strategic plan because it is critical that the department cut all but essential services and adopt new methods and strategies of operation to deal with Glendale’s financial deficit. I found the exercise to date to be informative to any citizens participating who have no knowledge of all of the services offered by fire.

I did not appreciate that all questions about budget such as, what is each unit’s current budget? were sidestepped and answered with, you can refer to fire’s current budget or can follow the council’s current budget discussions. How can one determine the value of a service offered or make a determination about it when no financial information is provided?

The current bid for the fire truck seems to reek of corruption. I am curious why you felt it was necessary to insert yourself into the discussion. I would think that would be Fire Chief Burdick’s responsibility. It is an issue and a bid process that is administrative and therefore best handled by the City Manager.

The fire union’s power disturbingly, has become more and more evident everywhere, especially at election time. Sammy, a Phoenix fire fighter, is obviously very much an advocate, as your councilmember, for fire’s ambitions. As the curtain parts more and more citizens (taxpayers) are learning of the union’s agenda and tactics and beginning to realize it does not always act in their best interests.

 It would serve you well to remember that the pen is mightier than the sword. Since my blog’s inception, a year ago, there have been over 95,000 views and my recent blogs on the fire truck bid are nearing 2,000 views. There are many people, especially Glendale residents, very interested in Glendale issues, most particularly at this moment, in this one.

As for a lunch meeting, bring it on. I’m game and not in the least intimidated by the fire union. I guess that’s why you all worked so hard and invested so much time and money in a local election. Feel free to shoot me some dates at: clarkjv@aol.com.

As you can see I have taken down my informal poll for the time being. It seems some people simply cannot play by the rules. Someone or several people decided to stuff the votes by voting repeatedly thereby making the poll meaningless.

By the way, if YOU have a question for the fire union president, take a moment to offer them to me as a comment to this post. Thanks.

© 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 »