Header image alt text

Joyce Clark Unfiltered

For "the rest of the story"

Feb 14

7

It’s only money

Posted by Joyce Clark on February 7, 2014
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances  | Tagged With: , , , | 1 Comment

The February 4, 2014 morning session of the city council workshop was devoted to budget issues. Here is the link to the presentation slides used by city staff:

http://www.glendaleaz.com/Clerk/agendasandminutes/documents/BudgetWorkshop-20140204.pdf .

It was a long and complicated presentation. I am not reviewing all the minutiae of the meeting but rather let’s look at the “take-aways.”

  • Take-Away #1: Council approved staff’s recommendation that the property tax rate float. The total property tax rate prior to the Great Recession was $1.5951 in Fiscal Year11-12. In Fiscal Year12-13 it was $1.9005. In Fiscal Year13-14 it is $2.2889. Solution #1 to raising more revenue increases the total property tax rate per $100 by $0.6938.
  • Take-Away #2: Council approved making inter-fund interest rates variable based on what the city receives as a return on its investments. Council borrowed money from the landfill, water/sewer enterprise funds as well as the technology replacement fund and the vehicle replacement fund. By floating the interest rate to the rate the city makes on its investments saves the city a considerable amount of interest debt on those loans. The current interest rate is 3.62% at a cost of $1.6 million. With adoption of a variable rate the interest becomes 0.40% next year at an interest cost of $178,640. Solution #2 to raising more revenue makes the interest rate on internal loans variable.
  • Take-Away #3: Council approved a series of 5 strategies to raise further revenue. They include transferring dollars out of the total arts fund balance of $1.066 million. Several years ago Council transferred a little over $2 million out of the arts fund. So it can be done. I don’t think anyone wants to see the arts fund be dissolved and it should retain a fund balance. Another revenue raiser is to audit companies that pay sales tax revenue to the city. Clearly Mayor Weiers (pro business) was uncomfortable with this concept. Staff contends that it will raise revenue for the city but could not project how much. Staff proposed that the amount the General Fund charges departments for support, i.e., legal, financial, human resources, be increased – modestly. Staff indicated that they are still working on a city asset list of properties for sale or lease back. Staff also proposed that the temporary sales tax become permanent, that the rate be increased and that the list of taxable items be increased. Solution #3 is to get blood out of a stone.
  • Take-Away #4: These expenditure items are still in discussion and will be brought back to council but include restructuring of the city’s inter-fund loans (already done) and elimination of the sales tax paid by the city for water use on its own properties (already done). Still on the chopping block is the reduction/elimination of retiree health subsidies; alternative service delivery to citizens; and adjustment (downward) of the city’s contingency fund.

The reduction or elimination of retiree health subsides is truly unconscionable. Many retirees are on fixed, monthly incomes (Social Security) and can ill afford to see their health premiums go even higher. Perhaps if it were proposed as beginning on July 1, 2014 for new retirees who understand that they will not be subsidized and can prepare for it, it could work. Alternative Service Delivery (elimination or privatization of services) should not include the Enterprise Departments of water, sewer or sanitation. These funds are not part of the General Fund deficit for they are stand-alone and rely upon the rate payers to bear the costs of those services. A reduction of those services will have no impact on the General Fund.

The concept of the Contingency Fund is more complex. What staff proposes is to rearrange the deck chairs. Historically, in Glendale, the Contingency Fund was pegged at 10% and all or part of it could be used for unexpected expenses that arose during the course of the Fiscal Year. It remained and often grew from year to year. Staff is proposing that Contingency be set at 5% and still to be used for unanticipated expenses. It will become a renewable line item in the budget that can be made larger or smaller. Now there is introduction of a new concept, Ending Fund Balance (EDF). The EDF would be the city’s savings account for purposes of demonstrating to the bond rating agencies that Glendale has a reserve other than Contingency. Staff wants the EDF to be pegged at 25% of the General Fund Operating Budget. That is an awful lot of money to come up with instantly. Yet that is part of staff’s plan. They want Glendale, in its worst fiscal crisis ever, to turn around instantly and mimic the practices of a Triple A rated city. The idea is sound but the instant execution is not. It is warranted that it took Glendale several years to dig itself into a hole and it stands to reason that it will take several years to dig its way out. There’s an old proverb, “Rome was not built in a day.” Glendale’s financial mess will take more than a day to right itself.

© 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

6

Glendale and the Super Bowl

Posted by Joyce Clark on February 6, 2014
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale and the Super Bowl • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

It all began when the Bidwill’s and the Arizona Sports and Tourism Authority (AZSTA) couldn’t find a home for their proposed football stadium. Sites were chosen and were either rejected by the voters of certain municipalities or their city councils or rejected by AZSTA and the Bidwills. Glendale was their last, best hope to make it happen. AZSTA and the Bidwills bought the land from the Pendergast family and the Rovey family. AZSTA and the Bidwills paid for the construction of the stadium. The Bidwill’s share of costs came from an NFL loan made at an incredibly low interest rate.

It was a rocky relationship from the start between Glendale and the Bidwills, in part because the Bidwills suffer from a grandiose sense of entitlement. They demanded various zoning concessions from the city that the city did not grant. So the Bidwills’ heartburn with Glendale started with the first time the city said, “No.” AZSTA and the Bidwills seem to forget that Glendale has some “skin in the game” having ponied up $35 million for infrastructure improvements in and around the stadium.

Glendale knew when the stadium came to town that the Super Bowl was part of the package. The thinking at that time was that Glendale would host its first Super Bowl, hoping to break even. Glendale embraced its hosting duties for the 2008 Super Bowl to make it the best ever. Judging from after-event comments, that is exactly what occurred. Kudos were bestowed on all partners: The Host Committee, AZSTA, the Bidwills and Glendale. Getting to the event and parking were painless thanks to the city’s Transportation Department. The weather was perfect thanks to God. The stadium was breathtakingly new and offered boundless amenities thanks to AZSTA and the Bidwills. Related NFL parties and events went off without a hitch thanks to the Host Committee. It was an unparalleled success.

There was one fly in the ointment – Glendale, the host city, lost money. Glendale had reserved over $2 million dollars for the event and spent over $2 million dollars (probably closer to $3 million) for public safety, transportation and traffic (helicopter rentals used to monitor traffic to the NFL Experience and on game day are not cheap), and sanitation (someone had to empty those pesky garbage cans every day). Those were just some of the costs associated with hosting. Be sure to add in the countless hours of staff time planning and preparing for the event.

Why didn’t Glendale make money? There are countless reasons. Some were that the city did not have the cache of Phoenix or Scottsdale or enough commercial amenities surrounding the site to cash in on. No one can deny that the rest of the state benefitted, from the Grand Canyon to Tucson. International and national visitors came to the state a week or better before the event or stayed for some time after the event. For some visitors to Arizona, it was a once in a lifetime experience and they made the most of their time here.

Is it any wonder why Glendale suffering a fiscal crisis (sports related debt) is asking for reimbursement this time around? It’s not a strange concept. The states of Texas and Florida already have systems in place for reimbursement of host cities. The first Super Bowl hosting was a test, a pilot project for Glendale. This time around it is not. I did not vote to support the bid for the 2015 Super Bowl until there was some replacement mechanism that could recompense Glendale for its hosting expenses.

Lately many of the ill-informed media have been dumping all over Mayor Weiers and Glendale for having the temerity to ask for such a mechanism. If they know the facts, they are ignoring them. Why would anyone volunteer to lose millions of dollars? Surely they must be aware that the entire state benefits from such an event. It just makes for good talky-talky but at the expense of public misinformation.

Michael Bidwill’s trashing of Glendale makes for great news also but does a disservice to everyone. If he thinks that will help to get Glendale’s hotels to cap their rates he is sadly mistaken. Those hotels are private businesses and cannot be made by Glendale to take an action that they prefer not to do. If the NCAA Final Four does not come here, thank Michael Bidwill for poisoning the atmosphere.

Let’s not leave the NFL out of this tirade. It has been reported that the NFL will earn $9 BILLION from the 2014 Super Bowl. They pay no tax on those earnings because they enjoy non-profit status granted to them by Congress. What a joke! If nothing else the NFL can surely afford the cost of making host cities whole. But it’s all about money, isn’t it? The NFL (read the football team owners who are the NFL) is not about to give up a penny. Greed is king. I am always reminded of seeing homes (mansions) with 28 bathrooms. Yet you can only use one at a time. When is enough money enough? Never, some will say.

If the NFL will not make host cities whole and there is no state mechanism to recompense host cities (other than Texas and Florida) then perhaps it is time for the host cities to form their own coalition. I have called for such action for years. If the cities got together, put some basic cost claims forward to the NFL and stuck together, the NFL would have to accede. Where would their event go?

One final word. After weeks of hype in anticipation of a super game instead we witnessed a super dud. It was disappointing to say the very least. The score was not even close. No one can, of course, control the outcome but one hopes that the scoring will be close to make the game entertaining. 43 to 8 is not entertaining. It is a blood bath. A few of the commercials were better than the game. Over 100 million tuned in but by the time it concluded you can be sure many of them had stopped watching.

My last informal poll on the question of the former Glendale City Attorney Craig Tindall’s questionable ethical behavior had 59% saying ‘Yes” his behavior was unethical to 41% saying “No.” My latest poll is to the left 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

5

Here come da Chief…with sound and fury

Posted by Joyce Clark on February 5, 2014
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale finances  | Tagged With: , , , , , | 1 Comment

Recently the Glendale Star ran an article about the “great fire truck mess.” Here’s the link: http://www.glendalestar.com/news/article_43959c72-8cf1-11e3-ace9-0019bb2963f4.html .

In one of my recent blogs, “Choices…so many choices,” we learned the proposal to be ratified by council was to buy a new fire truck for more money ($484K) than was granted ($424K) for the purchase and was pulled from the agenda. The reason for its removal was due to public comment offered by two gentlemen representing Freightliner of Arizona who reported on the RFP process and gave examples of why it was flawed. The City Manager, Brenda Fischer, always on top of every issue, indicated that she wanted to learn more and it would either come back to council as presented or a new RFP would be conducted. The Star reported that Fischer would be issuing a new RFP. How’s that for a demonstration of Fischer’s being on top of the very issues approved by the City Manager to go before council? She ought to be embarrassed.

However, the more interesting part of the story is what happened AFTER the council meeting. Fire Chief Mark Burdick confronted the two men, Freightliner’s Attorney Evans and Freightliner’s General Manager, Tim Noeding.

Burdick told Noeding that he was “shocked” that Noeding went public with his complaints about the RFP process and Burdick thought it was “unfair” because Noeding’s “side of the story” got out publicly first. Noeding shot back with perhaps Burdick needed to look at his people and their level of performance in handling the RFP process.

Good for Mr. Noeding. Too often the Glendale system is to try to waylay those who have a grievance, schmooze with them privately and then send them packing – all the while, they leave scratching their heads, wondering what had happened. It is a time-honored Glendale strategy used to prevent any negative from becoming public.

It raises some rather interesting questions, however. Who is running the Glendale Fire Department? The Fire Chief or the Fire Union? For many years it was John Holland, President of the Glendale chapter of the Fire Union. He was the power broker and if anyone wanted anything done they went to him. Alas, Holland was under investigation after having been caught with his hand in the Union cookie jar. Strangely, but not unexpectedly, nothing ever came of that investigation. It seems to have been buried deep within the bowels of the Union, never to surface again after Holland went quietly into the night. Others have assumed Holland’s mantle and may have just as much power.

In one of my many conversations had with the Fire Chief over the years, when questioned about certain policies and practices, he would shrug and refer to some concession the Union had been granted that allowed the policy or practice.

In some ways Chief Burdick’s hands are tied, especially in his efforts to control the fire department budget. It has become more and more difficult as the Union continues to stave off questions about overtime, the use of 4-man trucks or the use of big, expensive trucks answering medical calls which make up nearly 80% of the department’s Calls for Service. If those are sacred cows then Burdick must get a handle on his departmental budget and make cuts in other areas. It’s time for Burdick to manage more effectively and just like the City Manager, be knowledgeable about his employees’ decisions and actions. He and the City Manager should not be the last to know but rather the very first to know.

In other news, congratulations to Jerry McCoy on his promotion to Executive Director of Communications and Marketing. It is well earned and well deserved. But wait, you say, isn’t that Julie Frisoni’s position? Well, yes it is but apparently not any longer. It’s the signal that Fischer is about to make Frisoni permanent as Assistant City Manager, despite the fact that Frisoni does not meet Human Resources defined qualifications for the position.  But that’s just a minor roadblock. Fischer can certainly order Jim Brown, Executive Director of Human Resources, to change or modify the qualifications for the position. Hmmm…I thought the City was removing all those pesky Executive Director titles. Keep in mind, Frisoni was part of the former City Manager Ed Beasley’s “inner circle.” She knows where all the bodies are buried and may have even helped to bury some. Yet when faced with ethical issues such as former City Attorney Craig Tindall’s alleged email solicitation on a city computer for tax deductible tuition donations for his son she said nary a word. What exactly are her ethical standards? After all, she probably advised Beasley on how to handle the Alma Carmichael debacle when it became public knowledge.

I haven’t even commented on the February 4, 2013 city council budget workshop or regular workshop yet. It will just have to wait for the next edition of the blog. Burdick’s show of outrage was just too good to pass up.

© 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.

Jan 14

31

Heard around the water cooler…another edition

Posted by Joyce Clark on January 31, 2014
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale and the Super Bowl • Glendale finances  | Tagged With: , , , , | 1 Comment

Every once in awhile I collect all of the rumors and speculation and offer them to you, the readers, as such.

It appears that public safety union representatives may have briefed their rank and file to the possibility that Glendale could declare bankruptcy within 18 months. Add to that City Manager Brenda Fischer may have raised the same prospect to employees a few months ago. Looks like everyone within the organization has been forewarned of it as a possibility. Everyone has been told but you, the Glendale taxpayer. Which begs the question: Why the rush to make the temporary sales tax permanent and possibly raise it if it will not stave off a possible bankruptcy declaration?

Also heard around the water cooler is council learned – for the first time — a few months ago when they requested information from staff on assets that could be refinanced, sold or leased, that former City Manager Ed Beasley had already done a lease back for the Public Training Facility. So strike the Public Safety Training Facility as a candidate for refinancing of its debt. As we are all finding out there was a lot that Beasley did not share with city council or the public. This appears to be another in a long list of omissions by Beasley. It also appears that the current council and senior management are not above keeping secrets as well.

Several asked regarding the Tindall blog, “Friday is supposed to be a slow news day…” and it is a fair question to ask: If Frisoni and Burdick were recipients of the infamous Tindall “informational” email about state tuition tax credits for schools, why did they not report the email upon receipt? Tindall used city email for what was evidently a personal purpose. Wouldn’t it have been incumbent upon them to report the violation? Why didn’t they? Was it because they were reluctant to turn in one of their buddies?

The Arizona Republic presented a timeline surrounding Tindall’s activities. Here is the link: http://www.azcentral.com/community/glendale/articles/20140130glendale-city-attorney-email-timeline.html . It puts events in context and so it is offered here:

  • Jan. 23, 2013 — Then-City Attorney Tindall uses city e-mail to ask at least 40 people to contribute to his son’s private-school tuition.
  • March 26 — Glendale City Council formally selects the law firm Haralson, Miller, Pitt, Feldman & McAnally CQ to head an extensive audit of possible wrongdoing by city employees. Attorney Jose de Jesus Rivera, CQ who was one of the people Tindall e-mailed, leads the project.
  • April 1 — Tindall officially resigns as city attorney, with the provision that he receive full pay for six months for working up to five hours every pay period.
  • May 28 — National Hockey League executives announce Canadian businessmen George Gosbee and Anthony LeBlanc’s investment group as the preferred buyer for the Phoenix Coyotes.
  • July 2 — The City Council agrees to pay Gosbee and LeBlanc’s group $225million over 15 years to manage Jobing.com Arena.
  • July 30 —The Phoenix law firm Fennemore Craig announces that it has hired Tindall.
  • Aug. 5 — The NHL completes the sale of the Coyotes to Gosbee and LeBlanc’s group, IceArizona.
  • Aug. 20 — Tindall begins work as the Coyotes’ general counsel.
  • Aug. 21 — Glendale releases Rivera’s audit, which identifies several employees involved in wrongdoing, but spares Tindall.
  • Sept. 3 — Glendale hires former Peoria City Attorney Michael Bailey, who received Tindall’s e-mail on Jan. 23, to succeed Tindall as Glendale’s city attorney.
  • Oct. 1 — Tindall’s employment with Glendale officially ends.
  • Nov. 26 — Former City Councilman Phil Lieberman asks the state Bar to investigate Tindall for possible violations of ethics rules.
  • Dec. 20, 2013 — The Bar notifies Lieberman that it has launched an investigation.

Did you know Michael Bidwill is deliberately trashing Glendale? He thinks Glendale is “selfish” when it comes to hosting the Super Bowl. Why? Because the city hasn’t forced all Glendale hotels to join the NFL agreement to cap room rates. Really? What does he want Glendale to do? Hold a gun to hotel managers’ heads and say, “Join or else?” He knows that Glendale can ask and suggest but cannot make private companies bow to the will of the NFL. It must be embarrassing to him in front of other owners and execs in the NFL that he does not control everything but to trash the city for it is beyond ludicrous. I think we can assume that he is part of the reason that Glendale is not hosting any Super Bowl events. If he is trash talking Glendale publicly, my goodness, can you imagine what he is saying privately?

There’s more that comes across the transom but that’s enough for you to chew on for now. Try to enjoy your weekend!

© 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.

Jan 14

30

Choices…so many choices

Posted by Joyce Clark on January 30, 2014
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , | 7 Comments

Tuesday, January 28, 2014 was the regular city council meeting…and I had choices, so many choices. Go to a Coyotes game vs. the LA Kings, watch the President’s State of the Union speech or watch the Glendale city council meeting. Hands down, no doubt about my choice. I chose to go to the game and what a game it was! It was the Coyotes of old. They played with consistency, passion and fire. They couldn’t help but win, 3-0, with that kind of play. It reminded me of the very first games I attended several years ago. I hope the Coyotes are back.

The council meeting had two hot topics: the purchase of a fire truck and the move to move public comment to the end of the meeting and limit speech from 5 minutes to 3 minutes.

The fire truck issue arose when Andy Evans, an attorney for Frank Leonard, owner of the country’s second largest vendor, spoke during Public Comment. Both gentlemen alleged that the city’s procurement process was flawed and that different specifications were provided to different vendors. The budget for the new fire truck was $425K yet the final purchase rose to $486K. Hmmm…something is rotten in Denmark. Did fire make sure a crony received the contract? City Manager Brenda Fischer pulled the item from the agenda and said she had questions. Based upon the information provided to her she would either bring the item back or start over. As City Manager she should have had information about this item and should have been prepared to share it with council.  At the very least she should have received the necessary information through a Fire Department Memorandum. Who is in charge?

The item that drew extensive comment was item #11 which would change the public comment to the end of the meeting and limit speaking time. The usual suspects spoke against the proposal: Ken Jones, Gary Livingston and the Marwicks. What was truly eye popping was Andrew Marwick’s attempt to explain why they reside in Phoenix yet speak at Glendale council meetings. Marwick’s premise was he had once lived in a city similar to Glendale with the same kinds of issues and that he was merely sharing the benefit of his knowledge from that previous situation with Glendale. His attempt to explain himself resulted in a rambling dissertation which was brought back to earth by the Mayor’s and the City Attorney’s admonishment to speak to the agenda item. If nothing else and I assure you there is nothing else…the Marwicks have a lot of chutzpah.

Whether Public Comment is at the start or at the end of the Council meeting is not a critical issue. Glendale has always invited public comment and televised it as well. Council has always listened respectfully to citizen comment…some more respectfully than others. The former Mayor Scruggs would roll her eyes and purse her lips, virtually sneer, when she disliked or disagreed with the comments being offered.

What should be of concern is this council’s move to limit free speech by cutting public comment from 5 minutes to 3 minutes. Not everyone is a polished speaker and should be allowed the time some need to get to their point. The only occasions when speaker time has ever been an issue in the past were related to discussions of Coyotes’ ownership deals over the years. The truncating of speaker time to 2 or 3 minutes made sense on those occasions especially when the comments were repetitious. Mayor Weiers made a good point when he said the mike and TV were very powerful…and they are. They provide citizens with an opportunity to gain a wider audience for their point of view.

Councilmembers Knaack, Martinez and Sherwood all expressed the general opinion that they were not taking anything away from the right to public comment while ignoring the fact that they were indeed LIMITING free speech. Weiers and Alvarez defended the current practice. Weiers said he would give speakers 10 minutes each if he could and Alvarez said there was a sense of a “power play” taking place. Councilmembers Hugh and Chavira were silent on the issue. The votes were done by roll call at the request of the Mayor. Councilmembers Sherwood, Knaack, Martinez and Chavira voted for moving public comment to the end of the meeting and limiting speech to 3 minutes. Mayor Weiers and Councilmembers Hugh and Alvarez voted to keep the practice. It is very difficult to put the genie back in the box after it has been freed. The four councilmembers who voted to do so, Sherwood, Knaack, Martinez and Chavira, could find that this move comes back to bite them.  However, with Martinez’ and Knaack’s retirement, it may only be an election issue for Sherwood and Chavira.

Item #21 was the affirmation of Vice Mayor Knaack to continue for another year as Vice Mayor. As expected Alvarez was the only “no” vote.

During the Council Comments which occurs at the end of the meeting Vice Mayor Knaack used her opportunity to try to rationalize her public comment about the sales tax increase when she said that the sunset provision was adopted to “make it more palatable to residents.” It demonstrates a very cynical attitude. I was the councilmember who offered and succeeded in getting the sunset provision adopted because I fully anticipated that council would adopt budgetary cuts in expenses every year leading up to the sunset. A budgetary cut plan was proposed by former Interim City Manager Horatio Skeete and I expected council to follow through. If council had followed through as proposed, by reducing the budget by several million dollars each and every year, this council would not be taking such radical steps this year. If some councilmembers such as Knaack accepted the sunset provision to make it more palatable to voters they might have been better served to voice their concerns about the provision at the time. Instead it was accepted with nary a comment. This is a major issue and council’s decision to make the sales tax increase permanent by removing the sunset clause with a simple council vote and their intent to raise the sales tax increase is a not right. It is a major violation of public trust.

Last up was Mayor Weiers who admitted that he had not done a good job working with his peers, councilmembers. He said he was working to rectify the situation by meeting with them one on one to find ways to help them to succeed. Good for him. It’s a practice long overdue. God knows it was never an agenda item for former Mayor Scruggs who believed in keeping all power to herself.

Reminder the next City Council Budget workshop is Tuesday, February 4, 2014 at 9 AM to be followed with a regular council workshop at 1:30 PM on the same day.

My informal poll to the right of this column becomes even more relevant as council continues to shape next Fiscal Year’s budget. Also take the opportunity to sign up for email notices of upcoming additions to my blog. It is to the right 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.

Jan 14

25

Take a deep breath and wait

Posted by Joyce Clark on January 25, 2014
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale finances • Jobing.com arena  | Tagged With: , , , , , | 3 Comments

Caitlin McGlade has an article in the January 25, 2014 edition of the Arizona Republic. The information she provided is old news – stale. Must be a slow news day and therefore a good day to bash Glendale again. I would imagine Coyotes fans are in a dither while Glendale’s citizens are just shaking their heads. There is no need to become hysterical – just yet.

The information used has been up on the Glendale website for quite some time and the numbers have not changed. Do not expect to see any new numbers until after January 31, 2014 when the December 2013 Arena Monthly Report and the first quarterly (Oct-Nov-Dec 2013) parking revenue numbers will be posted. Here are the numbers as they are presented on the city’s website today:   

  Fund ID     Amount  
Arena Event Operations

$247,457.06
Arena Special Revenue

$1,947,103.03
   
Account

Amount
Arena Annual   Rent

$326,712.33
Arena Base Team   Fees

$48,681.51
Arena Naming   Right Revenue

$60,000.00
Arena Parking   Fees

$18,835.49
Arena Parking   Rev-Hockey Games

$309,898.94
Arena Parking   Rev-NonHockey

$91,719.49
Arena Ticket   Surchg-Hockey

$896,393.39
Arena Ticket   Surchg-NonHockey

$194,861.88

No where could I find what the city has spent to date in capital improvements to the arena. I am sure the numbers are there — somewhere. It may be labeled as Arena Event Operations although that may be the costs of providing public safety or it could be the first quarterly payment of the capital improvement bill. It’s hard to tell.

The picture as it stands today is incomplete and no one will have a good idea of revenues and expenses until after the end of the current Fiscal Year, June 30, 2014. If the current trend holds it will not be a pretty picture for Glendale’s financial health.

Glendale must pay IceArizona $15 million dollars a year for arena management. It is smoke and mirrors. IceArizona has assigned its entire rights over to Fortress Lending and the National Hockey League and that $15M is the payment on the interest on the loans it has with both entities. IceArizona has become a “pass through” for the $15M. In this current Fiscal Year the council budgeted $6 million toward the arena management fee. The remaining $9 million to cover the management fee is to come from “enhanced revenues” produced by IceArizona. As you can see it doesn’t appear that IceArizona will produce the much needed $9 million. What about the supplemental ticket surcharge of $1.50? It appears that it will come in under $1 million for the Fiscal Year.

Under a generous scenario it looks like this:

  •      $15 million to be paid each year to IceArizona for management of arena
  •    -$  6 million in city budget to pay management fee  
  •      $ 9 million not in city budget to pay management fee
  •     -$ 4 million received from IceArizona as “enhanced revenue” (approx. estimate)
  •     -$ 1 million received from IceArizona from supplemental ticket surcharge (approx. estimate)
  •     $  4 million shortage of revenues not covered by city budget or receipt of revenues from IceArizona (approx. estimate)

These figures are estimates and we will have to wait until the final numbers are available. The estimated $4M shortage could end up being lower or higher. Where will the payment of the shortage come from? There is only one place – the city’s Contingency Fund (rainy day fund). No wonder there will be little to no money in Contingency this Fiscal Year (the year end estimate is approx. $800,000).

Two other financial debts associated with the arena are the construction bond payments of approx. $12 million a year and the obligation of the city to pay for capital improvements to the arena. This year it is a million dollars and in the next few following years it is half a million. Then it cycles up to a million followed by another couple of years at half a million. 

Immediately some will point to Camelback Ranch as the 800lb. gorilla and it is. Keep in mind that the city does not have to pay annual operating and maintenance costs for the facility. They are paid by the two teams: the Dodgers and White Sox. What the city does pay in the construction bond debt annually and that too, is a substantial payment of approximately $13 million. The sales tax generated which is very small in the scheme of things does go toward the bond debt. The only light at the end of this tunnel is that in the future, way in the future, the Arizona Sports and Tourism Authority (AZSTA) has an obligation to reimburse Glendale for approximately 70% of the cost of constructing the facility.  In the meantime, it is another debt that Glendale can ill afford right now.

So, everyone take a deep breath, relax and wait until we have a complete picture of the numbers at the end of the Fiscal Year. 

There is a new poll to the left of this column asking if you believe that Glendale can straighten out its fiscal mess. To the upper right of this column you can sign up with your email address to subscribe to notifications of my upcoming blog post. Check them out!

© 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.

Jan 14

21

Knaack to continue as Vice Mayor

Posted by Joyce Clark on January 21, 2014
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

The January 21, 2014 afternoon city council workshop session was another “in and out” session. The agenda order was reversed to accommodate someone…probably Councilmembers Sherwood and Chavira as they left the session early.  There were 4 items: Public Comment; Selection of Vice Mayor; Annexation Policy; and the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report.

Councilmember Sherwood started the discussion on Public Comment at council meetings by suggesting that citizen comment be moved to the end of the meeting and that the comment period be reduced from 5 minutes to 3 minutes. You can see the coalition forming. Councilmembers Martinez, Chavira and Knaack agreed with Sherwood but Alvarez and Hugh dissented.  Citizen comments will be moved to the back of the bus once again and there will be less time to offer them. So much for encouraging public involvement.

Knaack was nominated by Martinez to continue to serve as Vice Mayor. Alvarez nominated Sherwood who immediately declined. Alvarez would have supported anyone but the one person she has clashed with continually and considers to be the devil incarnate – Knaack. The majority had no problem keeping Knaack as Vice Mayor for another year.

Annexation Policy was presented by Executive Director Jon Froke. After he presented council unanimously agreed to continue the policy as it currently exists with no changes. It apparently was too much for Alvarez to understand and she remained silent.

Executive Director Tom Duensing presented the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFRA). Eyes glazed over and Vice Mayor Knaack thanked him for bringing this item forward. She was reassured that the city’s finances are being reported properly by the current auditing firm. This must have been another topic too deep for Alvarez as once again she remained silent.

Under Council Items of Interest Councilmember Alvarez requested that the Arizona Sports and Tourism Authority (AZSTA) be invited to present to council at workshop on the current status of Camelback Ranch. Won’t that be an interesting discussion!

In less than an hour…badda bing…workshop was over. Results?

  • Citizen comments moved to the end of council meetings.
  • Citizen comments reduced from 5 minutes to 3 minutes.
  • Vice Mayor Yvonne Knaack will continue as the Vice Mayor for another year.
  • City’s annexation policy remains unchanged.
  • CAFRA finds no major financial faults in city’s financial reporting.

© 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.

Jan 14

21

What goes up, doesn’t go down

Posted by Joyce Clark on January 21, 2014
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances  | Tagged With: , , , , , | 3 Comments

On the morning of January 21, 2014 council began its first foray into budget discussions. Senior management consists of City Manager Brenda Fischer, who has been employed in Glendale for about 7 months; and Executive Director of Finance, Tom Duensing, whose time in Glendale is even less – about 4 months. Obviously there is little to no historical memory and that is not helpful. Did you notice that many strategy suggestions for addressing Glendale’s financial situation have been already used? There was nothing innovative or creative about the budget presentation made. Why? As Duensing said, “Glendale spends more than it brings in.”

For those who are interested in what’s happening to our money here is the schedule of upcoming budget workshops:

  • February 4     9 AM to noon
  • February 18   9 AM to noon
  • March 18       9 AM to noon
  • March 25       1:30 PM to 4:30 PM
  • April 8           9 AM to 5 PM
  • April 10         9 AM to 5 PM

There was a series of slides in this presentation and they can be found here: http://www.glendaleaz.com/Clerk/agendasandminutes/documents/012114BudgetWorkshop.pdf .

Where does your money go?

  • Personnel costs = 55% to 60%;
  • Supplies, Services and Capital Outlay = 15% to 20%;
  • Contractual Expenses = 20%;
  • and Contingency = 5%.

These are not hard percentages and Mr. Duensing did not have them available for the presentation.

What can be done about the debt? Apparently not much. There are no options available on the city’s debt payments for they were restructured in 2012. $10 million in capital lease payments could be prepaid if Glendale had the money to do so. The only suggestion to council and accepted by them was to make the interest rate on inter-fund loans variable rate. If you remember, $45 million was borrowed from the Landfill, Sanitation, Water& Sewer, IT Replacement and Vehicle Replacement Funds to cover $50 million paid to the NHL over 2 years to keep the arena open until a buyer for the team was found. Duensing said that by changing the interest rate paid back to these funds to a variable rate the General Fund will save $1.4 million the first year declining to $938,857 by the sixth year.

As for the city’s contingency fund, expediency ruled. Instead of council policy of reserving 10% of the General Fund it was reduced to 5% of the General Fund with no dissent from anyone on council.

Question. Why did no one ask for a historical look at the amount spent from Contingency over the last ten years? Instead of blindly accepting a subjective percentage it might have been better to peg the amount needed for the General Fund Contingency to a dollar figure. Maybe it’s only $2M a year or $4M a year. But, sadly, no one asked.

OK, dealing with the city’s debt will average an expenditure savings of approximately $1 million a year. That’s a far cry from the $17 million shortage projected for next fiscal year. That led council to look at other expenditure reductions in the form of alternate service delivery (read privatization). Keep in mind, Glendale employees, that every privatization of a servics comes at a cost…employee layoffs. Here’s a list of services under consideration:

  • Transit
  • Custodial
  • Parks & Median Maintenance
  • Libraries
  • Public Relations/Special Events
  • Web Site Management
  • Streets/Sweeping/Signals/Intersection Repair
  • Security
  • Recruitments
  • Sanitation
  • Landfill
  • Fleet Maintenance
  • Recreation/Civic Center Management
  • IT Applications Support
  • Payroll Processing
  • Risk Management
  • Plans Review
  • Arts
  • Training
  • Building Inspection
  • Engineering Review
  • IT Infrastructure Support
  • Business Licensing
  • Sales Tax Auditing
  • Glendale TV Channel 11
  • Cemetery
  • Facilities Management
  • Benefit Administration

Council was told that it will take some time to bring recommendations from senior staff back as to which of this smorgasbord of services will become a candidate for oblivion. There was council unaniminity on moving forward with this proposal. Even Councilmembers Hugh and Alvarez agreed to take a further look at the future staff proposals.

If expenditures are difficult to nonexistent to reduce then the next strategy is raising revenues. The euphemism for it is “revenue enhancements.” There are only 4 sources of income for the city:

  • local taxes = 52%;
  • State-Shared Revenue = 31%;
  • Fees, Licenses & Permits = 9%;
  • and “Other” = 8%. Typically, no one on council asked what the “other” consisted of.

Council had already approved increasing the Primary Property Tax Rate by 2% and they were asked to ratify their decision. They did unanimously. They cannot raise the Secondary Property Tax Rate because it currently satisfies the debt service on General Obligation Bonds. In other words they would not be able to make a case for that increase…Thank God.

That leaves the elephant in the room…the temporary sales tax increase. A majority of this council will make the temporary sales tax permanent and may even increase it. Each tenth of a percent earns the city an additional $3.4 million annually. Only Councilmembers Hugh and Alvarez demurred and wanted it to go to the voters.

There is a major question that no one on council asked…Why now? The temporary sales tax increase does not expire until June 31, 2017. There are several years to make this kind of decision. Oh, but if they wait until 2016, for instance, it will become the hot topic of the mayoral election of 2016. Kinda crass and cycnical…oops…it’s just politics.

After an hour and a half of presentation by senior staff and virtually no questions (there were a few but not meaningfully relevant) council agreed to:

  • change to a variable interest rate on interfund loans;
  • contingency was reduced to 5%;
  • council will adopt some form of privatization of service delivery which could result in employee layoffs;
  • your Primary Property Tax will increase by 2%;
  • and the temporary sales tax will become permanent and may even increase.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, Glendale residents…you just received your long overdue Christmas presents.

© 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.

Jan 14

20

Sleeper session

Posted by Joyce Clark on January 20, 2014
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale and the Super Bowl • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances • Glendale zoning issues  | Tagged With: , , , , , | 2 Comments

The Glendale City Council meeting of January 14, 2014 was a sleeper despite there being noteworthy items meriting at least some discussion by the councilmembers. At the start of the meeting once again we agonizingly had to listen to the likes of Andrew and Darcy Marwick and Bill Dempsky as they regurgitated their litany of sins committed by the city. The Marwicks love speaking at Glendale Council meetings probably because it’s a lot easier than trying to speak before their own city council in Phoenix. They seem to feed off of the recognition and adulation they receive from their small circle of like-minded folk. Bill Dempsky merely appears to be embittered about everything. Later in the meeting Vice Mayor Knaack would suggest that it is time to move citizen speakers back to the end of the line. She opined that their “shtick” is to continually bring up the past grievances.

There were 19 items on the entire agenda and half of them were on the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Alvarez pulled item 7, Position Reclassifications, from the Consent Agenda but when it came time to speak to the issue, there was no sound and fury. She offered a few tepid and irrelevant comments and then, true to form, voted “no” on the issue.

Council continued through the items polishing off 3 Bids and Contracts just as if they were Sherman marching through Georgia. The same fate befell 5 Ordinances with the exception of one.  When it came to item 17, granting community development fee waivers/rebates, Councilmember Hugh objected. He felt that it is an inappropriate strategy at a time when Glendale in under financial stress and he objected to yet another move that reduces council authority over city finances. Both Councilmembers Hugh and Alvarez voted “no.”

Not so surprisingly there was no council comment on the last item, allowing the city to rent parking spaces from Westgate to satisfy the parking requirements for the Super Bowl. Even more surprising was Alvarez’ silence on the issue.  She did not rant or rave about spending city money for a hated sports event. Unless I heard incorrectly, she even voted in the affirmative for this item.

This Tuesday, January 21, 2014 for those with strong constitutions, there will be two city council workshops. The first, at 9 AM, will be a discussion of General Fund Budget Balancing by the Executive Director of Financial Services, Tom Duensing. Council will be asked to provide direction. The bottom line is that he will reiterate the fact that the city faces average annual deficits of $14 million and when the temporary sales tax expires in 2017 that number bumps up to $30 million a year. He will offer 3 options that can be chosen separately or combined: debt restructuring (nothing new here, we did that just before I left); revenue enhancements (new taxes? Will council make the temporary sales tax permanent and raise the property tax?); and expense reductions (nothing new here either, we cumulatively cut expenses by 25% or more).

It will be an interesting discussion absent Mayor Weiers who is on a trip to Canada with IceArizona’s Anthony LeBlanc. Let’s see if LeBlanc and crew return the favor when Weiers stands for reelection in 2016. Expect to see campaign contributions for Weiers from Mr. LeBlanc and his friends.

If your eyes are not glassy and your mind hasn’t turned to mush after the morning session you can view the second workshop of the day at 1:30 PM. If you have Cox cable and live in Glendale it is on Channel 11. If you are Cox-less, you can go to www.glendaleaz.com and watch it live. The topics of the afternoon’s discussion are the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, an annexation policy update, selection of Vice Mayor and discussion of moving citizen comments to the end of the meeting. I guess the love affair with this pilot program is over.

It is disappointing that there is very little questioning or meaningful discussion by some members of this council. Some only offer comments by way of thanking staff for, essentially, doing their jobs. When it is offered so often it can become meaningless. It should be reserved for outstanding performance, above the requisite level of competence. Diversity of councilmembers is most welcome in the form of age, gender, ethnicity, etc. It is less welcome in terms of intelligence and basic understanding of the issues and there are some on council lacking those essential attributes…sigh. Nevertheless, they have offered their service and there is always another election season around the corner.

If you would like to weigh in to the left of this column is my latest informal poll. You can choose which of the councilmembers should become this year’s Vice Mayor. If you would like to be notified of my next blog posting you can subscribe in the space provided to the upper right 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.

Jan 14

16

Only the Shadow knows…errr, make that IceArizona

Posted by Joyce Clark on January 16, 2014
Posted in City of Glendale • Glendale finances  | Tagged With: , , , , , | 7 Comments

The other night I was surfing, trying to find the Coyotes/Blues game. I’m sure it was there but I simply couldn’t find it. The backup plan had me watching the Glendale City Council meeting. Now that council is allowing citizen comments at the beginning of the meeting we are seeing the usual citizen suspects resurfacing at the podium. Andy and Darcy Marwick, residents of Phoenix and dyed-in-the-wool Coyotes haters, opined on their usual complaints. Not to be missed was Glendale resident Bill Dempsky, a former City of Glendale employee, with his usual lament. Ken Sturgis, a Glendale resident, has also started to use this bully pulpit on a regular basis lately. Later in the council meeting Vice Mayor Knaack commented about these usual suspects and their constant references to past history. She felt it was time to stop referring to the past and she urged these citizens to look to Glendale’s future. She suggested that it was time to go back to the old agenda order and place citizen comments at the end of the meeting. We’ll see if that comes to pass.

Citizen Ken Sturgis offered some rather interesting comments. He referred to a “contract” between the city and IceArizona. He claimed that the city’s payment of $15 million dollars a year for arena management was going directly to Fortress and the NHL with IceArizona as merely a pass-through.. Those are the two groups who lent IceArizona the money to buy the team.

I decided to do some checking. Sure enough, I found the “contract.” Actually it’s a notification letter dated September 4, 2013 from IceArizona to the city declaring that as arena manager it had assigned its rights to Fortress and the NHL. Here is the link: http://www.glendaleaz.com/Clerk/Contracts.cfm  . It is C-8584. The letter is signed by Daryl Jones, Chief Operating Officer for the team.

In it IceArizona acknowledges that an assignment of the arena manager notice must be given within 30 days. The sale of the team was recorded on August 5, 2013 and we can assume the assignment of rights was executed the same day. IceArizona notified the city one day before the 30 notification period ended requiring Ice Arizona to formally do so.

What does it all mean? Well, Mr. Sturgis was correct. The assignment of rights, including the $15 million a year for arena management, goes to Fortress and the NHL. That raises other questions. If the $15 million a year is going to their lenders and not IceArizona, how is IceArizona earning enough revenue to cover the arena operations and maintenance costs? The money they borrowed from these two entities went to pay the purchase price of the team. That means IceArizona must rely on revenue sources of ticket sales, suite sales, a percentage of the concessions, the first $20K in every event’s parking revenues, NHL revenue sharing (which are rumored to be as much as $20M a year for the team) and media contracts. It will be difficult to plug in the numbers for these revenue streams as some of it is proprietary. We will not get a full picture until after the end of the Fiscal Year, June 30, 2014.  It is generally assumed that annual O&M costs are in the range of $20 million a year. Don’t forget that IceArizona also must come up with $9 million a year to be paid to the city. The city budgeted $6 million a year for arena management, not $15 million and IceArizona has pledged to cover the difference — $9 million a year. That $9M comes from the ticket surcharge, parking revenues after the first $20K per event and if necessary, the supplemental ticket surcharge. Are these revenue sources enough to cover IceArizona’s expenses? We, the public, don’t know. I suspect IceArizona knows.

© 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 »