Header image alt text

Joyce Clark Unfiltered

For "the rest of the story"

Mar 14

24

Not a pretty picture

Posted by Joyce Clark on March 24, 2014
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale finances • Jobing.com arena  | Tagged With: , , , , , , | 7 Comments

The Glendale Monthly Arena Report for February, 2014 is now available. The $3 qualified ticket surcharge for hockey events is reported by IceArizona at $163,082. Divide that number by the $3 ticket surcharge and the qualified ticket attendance for the month is 54,360. The number of hockey events for the month was 4. Divide the 54,360 by 4 and the average qualified ticket attendance per game is 13,590. The publicly announced attendance figures are higher. If a game was sold out at 17,750 that means that approximately 4,000 tickets would be non-qualified, either comped or sold at a discounted price and the city does not receive the surcharge.

IceArizona, by comping and selling discounted tickets, is not generating the revenue it needs. Publicly they have announced that some of the games are the highest revenue generators to date. True enough but if they had sold more qualified tickets their bottom line would be stronger. How long before its losses reach the $50 million figure? Five years? Three years?

Let’s look at the non-hockey events. There were two in the month of February. The qualified ticket surcharge reported by IceArizona to the city is $59,884. Divide that figure by $5 per qualified ticket for a qualified ticket attendance of 11,976. Divide that figure by the 2 non-hockey events and there was an average of 5,988 of qualified ticket attendance per event. Again, the publicly announced attendance figures were higher but again, the balance of the tickets were either comped or sold at a discount, making them non-qualified ticket sales.

Parking figures are only reported by quarters of the year so the next parking revenue statement will be available at the end of April, 2014. The city continues to show a total loss of slightly over $3 million to date.

As has been reported, council budgeted $6 million in this Fiscal Year toward the payment of the $15 million annual management fee. The council meeting of March 25, 2014 will have council voting to transfer $6,680,160 from its Contingency account to cover the balance of the arena management fee due this year. The total management fee for this year is $13,551,370. It is not the full $15 million because the management deal did not become effective until August, 2013. The lower management fee for this year reflects the proration starting date in August. The city pays out $13.5 million and receives $3.2 million in “enhanced revenues” (that includes sales tax inside the arena) to date.  It looks like the city’s arena loss to date is about $10 million. This figure will drop with the reporting of revenues from the games played in March and April. Hopefully there will be some playoff game revenue as well. It is estimated that the city’s loss for the year will be in the $7 million range. Couple that with the $12 million annual arena construction debt payment. It isn’t a pretty picture, is it?

© 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

21

Councilmember Chavira on the hot seat

Posted by Joyce Clark on March 21, 2014
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances • Glendale's Fire Union • Jobing.com arena  | Tagged With: , , , | 9 Comments

Today I received via snail mail an 8 1/2” X 11” mailer from the Arizona Free Enterprise Organization. Below are pictures of the front and back sides of the mailer.

AZ Free Enterprise and Chavira Mar 21 2014 jpg_Page_1AZ Free Enterprise and Chavira Mar 21 2014 jpg_Page_2

Presumably it was mailed to all registered voters in the Yucca district of Glendale. That is the district Councilmember Chavira represents. It also is the district that is home to Jobing.com Arena and the proposed Tohono O’odham casino, two perpetually hot topics. They sent a similar mailing on Councilmember Sherwood of the Sahuaro district. While councilmembers Martinez and Knaack are retiring and will not run again, Sherwood is up for reelection in 2016. This is the majority coalition these days.

Although Chavira does not stand for reelection until 2016 it looks like he is going to have a tough time politically for the next two years. It couldn’t happen to a nicer fella. Let’s hope he’s a one term councilmember. Chavira voted in favor of the arena management deal that requires the city to pay $15 million dollars annually. He also supports raising Glendale’s property tax rate by 2% and removing the sunset provision that would have ended the temporary sales tax increase in 2017. His decisions demonstrate that he is comfortable with raising taxes or keeping them high to satisfy the monetary needs of Jobing.com Arena at taxpayer expense. All of this from a guy who ran a campaign with considerable financial support from the fire unions and Councilmember Alvarez. I bet she’s biting nails because she supported him. To date he has not supported her on any major issue she espouses. He ran promising fiscal responsibility. That promise didn’t last long.

I really didn’t know anything about the Arizona Free Enterprise Club (AFEC) until I googled them.  I did know that they had joined with Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett in a suit about campaign funding. It went all the way to the Supreme Court which ruled in AFEC’s favor. Here’s the link if you are interested: http://www.azfree.org/ . They describe themselves as, “The Arizona Free Enterprise Club was founded in 2005 as a free market, pro-growth advocacy group dedicated to Arizona issues and politics.  Our mission is to promote policies and candidates that encourage economic prosperity and limited government for all businesses and taxpayers.  The Club is a 501(C)(4) and is not affiliated with any other group or organization.”

Stay tuned. It looks like the next several years are going to be very interesting in Glendale politically.

© 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

20

Taxes…are they worth it?

Posted by Joyce Clark on March 20, 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: , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

As promised here is the rest of the story on the city council workshops held on March 18, 2014. The morning session was devoted to money – the budget, the medical benefits plan and an increase in fire staffing.

The General Fund budget discussion yielded some important gems of information. Staff, for the first time ever, used zero-based budgeting. It is a methodology for which I advocated for years. It’s about time.  There will be $15.5 million in expenditure reductions and revenue enhancements. Most of the reductions are of the smoke and mirror variety and reflect internal movement of monies. The only exception is that all departments will make cuts totaling $4.75 million. The lion’s share of those departmental cuts is the result of eliminating unfilled, vacant positions. This is a strategy that has been used before reluctantly.

When council got to departmental budget cuts Councilmembers Martinez and Knaack again asked the rest of council to return a portion of their council budgets to the General Fund as a signal that they were willing to absorb some of the same pain other departments were enduring. Vice Mayor Knaack again expressed her concern and displeasure about Councilmembers Alvarez’ and Hugh’s practice of giving the lion’s share of their council budgets to non-profits. Once again, Alvarez dug in her tiny toes and said she would give up nothing.

The big budget take away is this: Glendale residents will experience a 2% increase in their property tax rates and the temporary sales tax increase will now become permanent. For one reason only. As Tom Duensing, Executive Director of Finance said, “The level of contractual obligations (Jobing.com Arena and Camelback Ranch Ballpark) is unique to Glendale.” If not for these two major debt burdens, “Glendale’s financial picture would look very different.” He went on to say according to the major rating agencies a city’s debt burden should be under 10% and most are in the 8% range. Glendale’s debt service burden is in the 25% to 28% range. Translating it means that the reason your taxes are increasing or in the case of the temporary sales tax increase remaining, is because of the debt created by Jobing.com Arena and Camelback Ranch Ballpark. That has been the elephant in the room that no one wanted to acknowledge. Glendale staff finally has done so. When will your councilmembers finally admit that these two city-owned properties are the reason?

How did the council fall on this issue? Councilmembers Martinez, Knaack, Chavira and Sherwood (a majority) gave approval and direction to remove the sunset provision from the temporary sales tax increase thereby making it permanent and to increase Glendale’s portion of your property taxes by 2%. Councilmembers Alvarez and Hugh wanted the sales tax issue to go before Glendale voters and silently gave approval to the property tax increase. Mayor Weiers wanted an additional week to confer with major stakeholders in Glendale. He didn’t get it but we can presume that he supports the majority council action taken. The next budget workshops are scheduled for April 8 and April 10, 2014.

One perplexing comment made by Mr. Duensing was that WITHOUT the temporary sales tax increase the ending fund balance is ONLY a positive 10% in 2017. If this is correct, One would think a positive fund balance of 10% seems to negate the need to make the temporary sales tax permanent.

Another issue taken up was the medical benefits plan. Retirees can expect another substantial increase to their monthly medical insurance payments while current employees will see no increase. Jim Brown, Executive Director of Human Resources (weren’t they getting rid of “Executive Director” titles??), said there would be no increase to current employees but retirees are an unfunded liability causing the increase in their premiums.

The last issue was an increase in fire staffing of 15 fire fighters as a result of a SAFER grant. As with a COPS grant there is a sliding scale and the SAFER grant will cover the first two years of fire fighter salaries. After that, the city will absorb the costs. Chief Burdick said that with the addition of 15 fire fighter positions there should be a savings of an estimated $400,000 in overtime pay. Let’s hold him to his word.

Lesson learned is that taxes are remaining or increasing because of the debt burden created by the city-owned Jobing.com Arena and Camelback Ranch Ballpark. Are they worth it to Glendale residents?

© 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

19

Councilmember Gary Sherwood can’t have it both ways on the casino

Posted by Joyce Clark on March 19, 2014
Posted in Casino • City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances • Glendale zoning issues  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

March 18, 2014 was a “two-fer” in terms of council workshops. The morning session focused on the budget: General Fund budget balancing; Employee medical benefits; and fire staffing. The afternoon city council workshop also had 3 items of discussion: the Becker billboard request; a possible archery range at Heroes Park at 83rd and Bethany; and the Tohono O’odham casino.

I am going to discuss only one of those items here and now – the proposed Tohono O’odham (TO) casino. All of the other items will be covered in a subsequent blog.

In a prior meeting Vice Mayor Knaack requested an assessment of the impact of the proposed casino on the city and during the day’s discussion reminded staff of her original request that: staff (City Attorney Michael Bailey) bring back an assessment of the impact (fiscal and otherwise) of this proposed casino on Glendale; and that staff meet not only with the TO but with the tribes in opposition to the casino. Was Bailey too busy with his tablet and smart phone to pay attention because he fulfilled none of Vice Mayor Knaack’s request? He simply regurgitated former City Attorney Craig Tindall’s well-researched legal opinion on the matter. His actions could be construed as those of someone who is lazy and ill informed. He did not provide this council with Knaack’s original request: that of an assessment of the impact on the city.

Somehow or other the council discussion, at Councilmember Alvarez’ instigation (in person no less), moved to negotiating directly with the TO and opposing Franks’ bill. Chavira and Hugh immediately expressed their support. Mayor Weiers and Councilmembers Martinez and Knaack voiced their dissent. None of this was a vote, as council does not vote at workshop, but gives direction to staff through a majority support to move forward to investigate, plan and bring back information to be voted on in a council meeting.

Four councilmembers (a majority) gave direction to initiate negotiations with the TO and to express the city’s opposition to Congressional Representative Trent Franks’ bill, HR 1410. To what end no one knows because there are still lawsuits to be settled that will determine the proposed casino’s fate.

Councilmember Martinez, in opposition, quoted from a very eloquent article written by former Governor Rhodes of the Gila River Indian Community in the Arizona Republic on October 20, 2010.. The former Governor said, “There’s no literal translation in English that does justice to the tribal word, ‘himdag.’ As Governor of the Gila River Indian Community, himdag guides my every decision, my every action. Himdag, as passed down by our elders across hundreds of years, teaches us to respect for all things, including the value of a promise, abiding by the law and concern for the welfare of others.

Respect as a guiding principle feels old-fashioned in the 21st century, but it exists all the same – even when our community is compelled to sign its name to a lawsuit against the United States Department of the Interior.

You may have read about that lawsuit filed Spt. 16. You may have also read about Glendale’s lawsuit to stop the casino, filed this week. Out of respect, I believe that I must explain the reasons why my community to pointedly disagrees with Washington and with a southern Arizona sister tribe’s plan to build a casino on land they secretly bought in Glendale, 160 miles from their reservation headquarters.

My explanation can be summed up in a single sentence. We believe the TO Nation, with the assistance of the federal government, has disrespected the rule of law, the balance so carefully struck among Indian gaming tribes, our community, Glendale and every Arizonan.

At the crux of our lawsuit is clear evidence that the proper procedure for creating an Indian casino has been sidestepped. I’ll leave the legal wrangling to the lawyers, bit in the 21 months since our sister tribe surprised us with plans to build a casino on our aboriginal lands, our community has learned more than we would care to about legal loopholes, PR spin and shading the truth. The surprises have continues to come, and so have the disappointments especially where our sister tribe is concerned.

In the past, my community and the TO Nation have lived side by side and mutually benefited from our entwined cultures and interests. There’s no better example than the Indian gaming compacts ratified by Arizona voters in 2002. Proposition 202, supported by 17 tribes statewide, including the Gila River and TO communities, created a sound but delicate balance, a promise, that kept casinos out of urban neighborhoods, gave much needed revenue to the state and created an economic engine to lift every tribal community.

To see that balance upset and that promise broken – and to see one tribe use secrecy and legal maneuvering to benefit at the expense of every other tribe and our state – is difficult to comprehend, let alone stand for in silence.

Thus the Gila River Indian Community has taken our case to federal court. Our first goal is to force the federal government to apply federal gaming laws evenly. Never before has a tribe been allowed to “shop” for reservation land half a state away from its homeland, then open a casino on the newly created “pocket reservation.” That not only flies in the face of federal gaming law, but in the face of every Arizona’s vote for Proposition 202.

As for our sister tribe, I know our disagreement is temporary. Himdag has a place of supreme importance in their culture, too. I would like to believe that their leadership will rediscover their way soon enough. I believe we can achieve more together than apart and that greed should never be allowed to trump respect for all things.”

The deciding supporter of Alvarez’ plea was Councilmember Gary Sherwood. Mr. Sherwood can not have it both ways despite the rambling, confusing and often contradictory reasons for his decision. On one hand he says he still supports City Council Resolution 4246 that stated that the city is officially opposed to the TO casino.  It’s important to quote part of that resolution, “Whereas, the City believes that the Tohono O’odham Nation’s assertions and the basis upon which it makes these assertions are incorrect, poor public policy, in violation of the governmental rights, privileges, and authority of the State of Arizona, the County of Maricopa, and the City of Glendale, and are contrary to the best interests of the Citizens of the State of Arizona, the County of Maricopa, and the city of Glendale; and Whereas, the City of Glendale, consistent with the Indian tribes voicing opposition to the Tohono O’odham Nation’s application, opposes off-reservation gaming, including this current effort by the Tohono O’odham Nation to establish gaming on the Proposed Reservation Land, as contrary to the terms of Proposition 202 as presented to the people of the State of Arizona in 2002 and supported by, among other, the Tohono O’odham Nation.” Here is the link to Bailey’s (really Tindall’s legal opinion): http://www.glendaleaz.com/Clerk/agendasandminutes/Workshops/Agendas/031814-W03.pdf .

On the other hand, Sherwood then launched into a monologue stating, in essence, the TO casino will create “synergy” with Westgate and drive more business there. In a pig’s eye and he knows it. Subsidized food, drink and room rates at the TO proposed casino will undercut every restaurant, bar and hotel in the Westgate area. Despite his statement that he still supports opposition to the proposed casino and it will be “contrary to the best interest of the City of Glendale and of the citizens of the State of Arizona” he then supported moving forward with negotiations with the TO and opposition to Franks’ bill.  On one hand he says he opposes the casino because it earns not a penny of revenue for Glendale yet on the other, he is prepared to negotiate and facilitate their eventual presence.  His position is illogical yet he became the fourth councilmember needed to achieve consensus and direction.

Why? Sometimes things become clearer with perspective. Think back to the arena deal vote. Sherwood knew Weiers, Hugh and Alvarez were opposed to the arena deal and Martinez and Knaack already supported him and the deal. The vote was split, 3 to 3. He discovered those 5 members could not be dissuaded. Whether one agreed with or opposed their positions they had the principles of their conviction and could not be moved. He desperately needed that 4th vote of approval for the arena deal.

Who was left? Newly elected Sam Chavira — of course. Whispers of this scenario have circulated for months. If Chavira voted for the arena deal, in return Sherwood would support the casino. Is it true? I don’t know but it makes perfect sense and certainly seems to fit the known facts. Did each sell their souls? For what? Political back scratching? To be recognized in public hockey town halls as the saviors of the Coyotes? Reelection financial support from hockey and TO stakeholders with deep pockets?

But at whose expense? The citizens of Glendale locked into unsustainable arena debt of an estimated $27 million a year with a council unwilling to make the budget cuts that make the arena deal feasible? The Westgate area business owners who will suffer from unfair competition? The residents of West Glendale whose property values will decline with the advent of a casino while crime and traffic increases? The Westgate business owners who will suffer from unfair competition?  The Indian tribes who joined the State Compact in good faith? The voters of the State of Arizona presented with a plan to limit casino locations?

These politicians were just that –typical politicians, exemplifying the worst of the offices they hold. Sherwood delivered an irresponsible and dangerous signal to casino friends and foes alike. His flip flop on one of his campaign promises should be remembered when he runs for reelection. Given this, expect him flip flop again and to support the hated billboards proposed for North Glendale.  After all, he confessed that all of the fuss over the billboards was “baffling” to him and he was “pro-business.” There is no statesmanship here.

© 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

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

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.

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.

Feb 14

20

Freightliner fire truck bid

Posted by Joyce Clark on February 20, 2014
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale finances  | Tagged With: , , , , | 3 Comments

Here is the letter Freightliner sent to Joe Hester, President of the Glendale Fire Union. Note that it was copied to the City Manager, the City Attorney, the Mayor and all Councilmembers and the Glendale Star. I apologize if the formatting is a little wonky. I am still not an expert on all things blog.

Image2

February 17, 2014

Joe Hester
Captain, Glendale Fire Department
Vice President, United Phoenix Fire Fighters Association
Glendale, AZ 

 Dear Mr. Joe Hester.

I am shocked that you are attacking Freightliner Arizona with baseless facts and trying to characterize our organization as not wanting to support the safety of the Firefighters in Glendale.

In your opinion piece, “Fire Truck Manufacturers Should stick to the Facts”, you point out that Freightliner of Arizona was offering an inferior product that lacked the Extruded Body and Cab, the Telma Auxiliary Brake in our proposal.  Maybe you never got a chance to look at our proposal, but it included those items at a price of $422,838, plus tax.

We spent a great deal of time trying to get specific information in written form so we could verify we were providing exactly what Glendale Fire wanted.  What we received were a couple of verbal “Must Haves”: Extruded Body and Cab, Telma Brake and Electronic Valves.  These items were all supplied in our proposal.  We even went as far as going to a Glendale Fire Station to measure the body and compartment dimensions so we could have Rosenbauer duplicate them and draw up the apparatus to best match the equipment being used by the department today.

It is insulting that you or any Fire Fighter might feel that Freightliner of Arizona would condone providing inferior or unsafe Fire Apparatus to any community, least of all Glendale Fire.  We know that there are severe budget issues facing the community and some of the “must have options” are very expensive and not widely used throughout the industry. Freightliner of Arizona’s proposal included all of these items, but communicated to the Department that there were less expensive more widely used options that could be provided; Thus, saving the Department and Glendale money so that these funds could be used for other purposes in the Department.

You claim that all of the communities around Arizona have these options.  I would ask that you investigate this claim, because you will find that 80% do not have Extruded Bodies and that 90% do not have Telma  Brake and about 90% do not have electronic valves.  These items are available on Fire Trucks and fit certain purposes, but the cost versus the benefit has been reviewed by most of your fellow fire fighters and they chose not to have these items on their apparatus.  I am sure that you feel that these are needed in Glendale, but the majority of fire fighters do not. There is no data that would indicate that these items improve safety for a fire fighter. If there was, the National Fire Protection Association, which provides governance over Fire Fighter Safety, would require these devices on all fire apparatus.

Freightliner of Arizona has been providing Fire Apparatus and parts, service and warranty to Arizona Fire Departments since 1998, and did not just return to selling Fire Trucks as you said.  We have participated with most of the major Fire Departments in bids and RFP’s.  We have never had to approach a City Council about how we were treated in the procurement process.  We have never suggested that Fire Fighters should ever be put in unsafe apparatus or conditions.  We believe quite the opposite!  We understand, probably better then most, the importance of fire fighter safety and how vehicle specification and design can insure it.

Joe, it is extremely unfortunate that you have been misinformed about what we provided to the Glendale Fire.  I am providing you a copy of what we submitted to Glendale so you can confirm what I am telling you is the truth.  I hope you realize that our objection on the way the procurement process was handled was not an attack on Glendale Fire Fighters, but on the people who were responsible to conduct themselves as professionals and fiduciaries of the community. 

I think that when all the facts weigh in you will see that Freightliner of Arizona was mislead and provided inaccurate information on which we provided a proposal.  The apparatus our competitor proposed to Glendale Fire was not the same design and more expensive resulting in the Council being asked to approve $484,000 plus dollars instead of the $422,838 we bid.  With tax that only comes to $ 57,934.  That leaves over $26,000 unaccounted for!  Doesn’t that concern you?  It sure did us!  Especially when we knew we included the “Must Have” components and told that our bid was high bid!  It just doesn’t add up!

Freightliner of Arizona is not the enemy of Glendale Fire Fighters.  That is not why we brought this issue to the Council.  We did it because the procurement process to purchase this new Fire Truck was broken. We want to participate in a fair and transparent process where the most competitive and responsible bidder wins the award! We look forward to participating in the new RFP that Glendale Fire will be issuing.  We hope the process will be fair so if we can provide the best, safest and most competitive Fire Truck, we hope Glendale Fire will want to do business with us.

Respectfully,

Timothy Noeding
General Sales Manager
9899 W Roosevelt   St.
Tolleson,AZ85353                                                                                                                       
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Cc: Mayor Jerry Weiers
Manny Martinez
Yvonne Knaack
Gary Sherwood
Sam Chavira
Ian Hugh
Norma Alvarez
Brenda Fischer
Michael Bailey
Glendale Star

Here is the Freightliner bid document. Freightliner represents Rosenbauer in Arizona:

Image3

Bid Price and Delivery Schedule For 

************ City of Glendale ***********

 Rosenbauer America, LLC is pleased to provide this bid proposal. The proposed apparatus has been tailored around the requirements of the fire service industry and we are confident that our proposal will meet and exceed the needs of the department. The proposed apparatus will be constructed utilizing only the highest quality materials and workmanship available in the industry.  The apparatus will provide the upmost firefighter safety and efficiency on the fire ground along with extended life and lower maintenance cost throughout the life of the vehicle.

   [1] Rosenbauer Commander pumper w/EXT body:      $422,838.00 plus tax and HCAC fees

    * See page 2 for prepayment discounts and page 3 for additional options

The specifications herein contained shall form a part of the final contract, and are subject to changes desired by the purchaser, provided such alterations are interlined prior to the acceptance by the company of the order to purchase, and are provided such alterations do not materially affect the cost of the construction of the apparatus. 

The proposal for fire apparatus conforms to all Federal Department of Transportation (DOT) rules and regulations in effect at the time of bid, and with all National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) guidelines for automotive fire apparatus as published at the time of bid, except as modified by customer specifications. Any increased costs incurred by the first party because of future changes in or additions to said DOT or NFPA standards will be passed along to the customers as an addition to the price set forth above.

Contract Terms

Delivery:

The proposed truck will be completed in no more than:   330-360 Days ARO

Price Terms:

This offer shall remain valid for thirty, (30) calendar days from the quotation submittal date of November  22, 2013

Payment:

Contract payment of one-hundred percent (100%) of the purchase price shall be paid upon delivery and acceptance of the completed unit.

Prepayment options:

As an option Rosenbauer is offering a prepayment discount should the City wish to 100% prepay for the apparatus at the time of order. This option will include a 100% performance to guarantee the production of the unit. The prepayment discount would be $5,707.00 and would drop the sale price to $417,131.00 plus tax and HGAC fees. The tax rate would drop from 8.3% to 5.6%.

 Original price                    $422,828.00 + $35,096.00 (8.3%) = $457,934.00 plus HGAC fees

Prepayment price               $417,131.00 + $23,359.00 (5.6%) = $440,490.00 plus HGAC fees

The prepayment option would save the City over $17,000.00.

I want to thank the City of Glendale for the opportunity to serve the needs of the department.       

Sincerely,

Chad Horne
 
Rosenbauer America

« Previous Page — Next Page »