Header image alt text

Joyce Clark Unfiltered

For "the rest of the story"

man moneyThere were several take-aways from the March 27, 2013 Glendale City Council budget workshop. Perhaps the most important was the Executive Director of Finance, Ms. Sherry Schurhammer’s quote of the day, “we have an ongoing operational deficit.” I’m not sure what about that statement some councilmembers refuse to understand. It’s really quite simple. The city spends more money than it takes in.  It’s almost as if members of this council expect manna from heaven or a sugar daddy to appear as a means of solving the city’s financial problems. Let’s hope this council grows a backbone and accepts that cost of service cuts are needed. The latest proposal from staff shows major cuts of $8M not now but in Fiscal Year 2014-15 and another round of cuts in Fiscal Year 2016-17. Quite clearly putting off the necessary cuts merely compounds the deficit and makes the future cuts to citizen services and quality of life more drastic and more painful.

Coyotes logoAnother interesting take away is the fact that staff is using $6M as a placeholder for an arena lease management fee. At least there was acknowledgement that this figure is merely a place holder. The final fee could be higher, lower or stay the same.  Or is that a place holder for the Phoenix Monarch Group, the good friends of Councilmembers Alvarez and Chavira? There remains a residual “blame the Coyotes” mentality. The first slide up presented by staff showed the city with a $3.4M deficit if it had had to pay the $17M arena lease management fee this year. I think that deficit blame deserves to be placed elsewhere. How about the $2.5M to repay the Water & Sewer Funds, and also used to make the Risk Management Fund and the Workman’s Compensation Fund whole? Or how about the $2.2M of newly created expenses: a $200K audit, a $100K Beacon contract, $1.2M additional to the Fire Department; an additional $370K in legal fees, an additional $370K in water costs in the Parks & Recreation Department or the unknown amount in salary and benefits for the newly hired Interim City Manager? These big ticket items come to nearly $5M in new costs that were unbudgeted when the current budget was approved and they will have to be absorbed this year.

hidden agendaAnother take away is there is certainly no doubt about at least one councilmember’s agenda. CM Chavira is “carrying the water for Public Safety.” It was obvious that his friends from inside those departments, especially Fire (don’t forget he’s a Phoenix firefighter), had prepared a series of questions for him to ask.  He read them quite nicely. Later when he was asked if he had more questions and apparently had used all of his prepared questions, he seemed to be at a loss for words. Chances are they will have prepared a new set of questions for him to read at the April 2, 2013 council workshop on Public Safety.

PolicemanWhile Interim Police Chief Black answered his questions directly and provided a realistic assessment based upon the city’s current fiscal condition, we didn’t see the same level of cooperation from Fire Chief Burdick. There definitely is a further agenda occurring on the Fire side. We heard the first salvo today when the Chief said calls for service had grown. Well, Glendale’s population has not grown per Mr. Craig Johnson, Director of Water Services, when he said new water hookups are flat. Those people leaving Glendale are replaced by others moving in but not in large enough numbers to create an explosion of growth in Glendale. The city is already planning for the fact that as Glendale’s population remains static, it will lose some of its state shared revenue to other, growing NW and W Valley cities.

Red Firetruck with Ladder ClipartSo where are the increased calls for fire/emergency service coming from? Have you heard of Automatic Aid? It’s a regional and cooperative program among most Valley Fire departments. If there is a call for fire service in Phoenix, Avondale, etc., and their nearest truck is busy on another call, the nearest adjoining city department will respond. I would certainly want to know the number of calls for fire service Glendale responds to outside the city versus the number of calls for service within the city. The increase in calls for fire service may well be attributable to population growth in cities surrounding Glendale.  If that is the case and the increase in calls is the result of an increased need to respond to Automatic Aid calls that is not a Glendale driven problem. We are not mandated to grow service or pay for it in Glendale to accommodate surrounding cities. While Automatic Aid is great in fostering regional cooperation in cases of extreme regional emergencies and for creating cost efficiencies in the use of specialized services such as water or mountain rescue, I am not convinced that it works in the best interest of a city with a stable population base whose resources are being used by surrounding cities with burgeoning populations.

copyright

External Audit coming…

auditAt the Tuesday, March 26, 2013 City Council meeting an agenda item will be a vote of approval to hire Haralson, Miller, Pitt, Feldman & McAnally (HMPM), P.I.C., a law firm, to perform the special external audit this council has been craving. It doesn’t come cheap. The cost of this contract is $200,000. HMPM will subcontract out some of the work to Butler, FFG, and ESI. It is not clear from the staff report what would be the scope or responsibility of any of these firms. It is also not clear what their specialties are.

The costs per hour range from a high of $400.00 per hour for a principal to $100.00 per hour for a paralegal/law clerk.  Simple math shows that the number of hours billable for this contract range from 500 hours (about 12 ½ weeks) to 2,000 hours (about 50 weeks). This exercise could be completed in 3 months to a year. I think we can expect it to be completed this summer.

This is not a budgeted item and is not included in the current Fiscal Year 2012-13 adopted budget. That means that the money will have to be allocated from somewhere in the budget. Look for the payment of this contract to come from the $17M set aside for an arena lease management agreement. By the time this council’s agenda is met we won’t see much of the $17M left to pay anyone to manage the arena.

Bowers

Dick Bowers
Courtesy of
Linked In

A new Acting City Manager…

Expect at this same council meeting the hiring of Mr. Richard Bowers, former Scottsdale City Manager, as Glendale’s Interim City Manager until the search and hiring of a permanent city manager is completed.

A new Acting City Attorney…

Expect the council to approve Mr. Nick Depiazza, current Chief Deputy City Attorney, as the Interim City Attorney, until a permanent City Attorney is found and hired.

Budget meetings slated for this coming week…

On Wednesday, March 27, 2013 and Thursday, March 28, 2013, council will participate in two budget workshopsbudget 3 starting at 9am each day. This year’s budget workshop book is a hefty 284 pages of reading guaranteed to entertain and delight. Just crank up your printer, go to the Glendale website, find the agendas under the City Clerk’s page and you can print your very own copy just as I did. If you know where to look you will be able to spot the shifts in policy based upon where this council allocates available resources.

coins 1Still looming is how this council will address the loss of $22M in revenue currently being earned by the sales tax increase slated to sunset in 2017. The general feeling among council is that the city will have recovered by then and will easily absorb the $22M loss in sales tax revenue. There appears to be no will to be fiscally prudent and continue with cuts in anticipation of that loss of revenue. If they do not have the will to make gradual cuts each year for the next four years, they will be forced by circumstance to make draconian cuts in 2017. It’s very simple; karma catches up to you every time.

copyright

GoldwaterBuilding

Courtesy of
Goldwater Institute

On March 14, 2013 the Center for Media and Democracy in conjunction with Arizona Working Families issued A Reporter’s Guide to the Goldwater Institute: What Citizens, Policymakers and Reporters Should Know. It can be found at this site:  http://www.prwatch.org/news/2013/03/12021/reporters-guide-goldwater-institute.

While I was serving on Glendale’s city council there were several lawsuits filed by the Goldwater Institute (GWI) against the city. The first dated back to June of 2009 and contended that the city was refusing to release documents relating to its negotiations with various entities wishing to purchase the Coyotes and to secure a lease management agreement. GWI felt every scrap of paper should be a public document. The final agreement was that the city would release all documents it felt would not harm its negotiating position and if that should be the case, a judge, in camera, would review them and make a final decision.

Then about two years later, in March of 2011, Goldwater having reviewed more than 1,000 of the city’s documents as a result of the previous court decision, filed suit to subvert the Hulsizer deal to buy the Coyotes. It contended that the city was offering a subsidy in violation of Arizona’s Gift Clause statute. There was never a decision in this case as the city and Hulsizer could not finalize a deal.

When this report was issued I was eager to read its findings. I suspect that the practices of GWI are not so different from other public policy non-profits whether they are liberal or conservative. These types of non-profits are often shielded by federal government regulations making it difficult to obtain a complete and accurate picture of their financial dealings.

I find that to be ironic. The same organization that sued the City of Glendale for a lack of transparency is habitually not so transparent itself. It seems they don’t mind letting the public know about some, not all, of their sources of funding but they certainly don’t want you to know too much about how they get their money or spend it.

Another irony is GWI’s persistent attack on only one sport venue in the state – Glendale’s Jobing.com Arena and its use by the Coyotes. Lord knows, there have been sweetheart deals aplenty with other sports venues. Yet Goldwater never raised an eyebrow. I have often wondered if the close relationship of some board members with the baseball industry was a motivator. Perhaps, in the minds of some, there are too many sports teams all competing for the same public discretionary dollar. Taking out a major sports team could benefit the remaining teams. When a team is weak, as the Coyotes have been for multiple years, that makes it a perfect target for elimination.

Briefly the findings of this report do highlight some questionable practices:

  •  The Goldwater Institute is a member of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). ALEC is funded by corporations and its sole purpose is to craft and advocate for bills favorable to big business interests exclusively. The relationship between these two organizations appears to be very, very close. Often the very issues that GWI is advocating for coincidentally happen to be part of ALEC’s agenda.
Darcy Olsen 2

Darcy Olsen
Courtesy of
Goldwater Institute

Clint-Bolick

Clint Bolick
Courtesy of
Goldwater Institute

  • Despite a very modest growth in GWI’s income it substantially raised its top executive’s salaries disproportionately to that growth in revenue. Darcy Olson’s Executive Director salary jumped from $180,000 to $268,000 by 2011; Clink Bolick’s Director of Litigation salary went from $126,000 in 2007 to $300,000 by 2011.

 

  • Up to $1.9M has been approved as a loan by the GWI board to one of its board members, Norman McClelland, a GWI founder and past president, for his private, for-profit company, Shamrock Farm Co Investing.
  • Goldwater claimed to the IRS in 2010 that it spent $0 on grassroots or direct lobbying. Yet is has two registered lobbyists, Starlee Rhoades, Vice President, and Lucy Caldwell, Communications Director. Gallagher & Kennedy, a Public Affairs firm, is representing GWI as an active lobbyist this year.
  • GWI does not publicly disclose its largest donors, although most public policy non-profits do.  A majority of GWI’s funding comes from and  its largest donors happen to be out-of-state foundations with specialized agendas.
Barry Goldwater

Barry Goldwater

Barry Goldwater  became the Institute’s namesake. Recently Susan Goldwater expressed public concerns in the media about the GWI by saying, “(W)hat he didn’t like was seeing it turn into a special interest, big-business lobbying group.” I suspect Barry Goldwater is rolling in his grave as he sees what the Institute has morphed into.

Perhaps this “big-business lobbying group” should add as an agenda item how it can advance the cause of big-business sports teams and their venues. After all, according to GWI, all big-business is good business.

 

 

copyright

savingsIn my posting the other day, “Saving grace,” I talked about the $17M allocated and reserved in Glendale’s Fiscal Year 2013-14 Budget for Jobing.com Arena’s lease management agreement. I suggested that saving that $17M would be prudent by placing it in the city’s Unappropriated Contingency Fund. It should not be spent at this time. Then should there be a lease management agreement the first year’s funding would be available or if not used in that manner, it would fatten the city’s bottom line, an attractive strategy for lowering interest rates on the city’s bond indebtedness.

Well, apparently everyone – from city staff to the council – is already placing dibs on that money as evidenced by the March 19, 2013 City Council workshop.  Ms. Sherrybargaining 3 Schurhammer, Executive Director of Finance, offered many ways to spend it. Some of the expenditures include:

  1. Paying for the special, outside audit mandated by the new council.
  2. Paying for the consultant (read Beacon Sports and its special ties to the Reinsdorfs) to write and manage the RFP for the arena.
  3. Miscellaneous city department overages or unexpected expenses.
  4. Repaying loans made from the water and sewer funds.
  5. Paying for fund transfers to and from the Risk Management Trust Fund and the Workers’ Compensation Trust Fund.

Add to that staff wish list Mayor Weiers’ recent comment about raising employees’ salaries. Also add Councilmember Chavira’s plaintive call for a Special Council Workshop to consider the issue of Public Safety employees’ compensation and Councilmember Alvarez’ desire to restore or increase funding for youth and the poor.

If everyone’s desires are fulfilled, you can say good-bye to that $17M at the end of budget workshop discussions. Then where will the funding come from if (are you listening, God?) there ever is a successful contract for the arena and its management.

tax increaseI also heard the first tentative feelers being thrown out there publicly about Glendale’s property tax rates and the fact that revenues from that source continue to drop. Don’t be surprised if there is discussion (and possibly) adoption of higher property tax rates in Glendale.

 

copyright

 

Saving grace

Posted by Joyce Clark on March 18, 2013
Posted in BlogsCity of GlendaleGlendale finances  | Tagged With: , , | 1 Comment

budget 3In a few weeks the Glendale City Council will begin a series of workshops to craft the Fiscal Year 2013-2014 budget. The temptation will be the unexpended $17M allocated for the Coyotes lease management agreement in the FY 2012-2013 budget and what to do with it. The temptation will be spend it now. I believe that is the worst move that this council could make.

On the March 19, 2013 City Council workshop one agenda item is The Fiscal Year 2012-2013 Financial Report Update and Fiscal Year 2013-2014 Revenue Projection.  The good news is that the temporary sales tax increase generated approximately $22M for Fiscal Year 2012-13. An insightful comment from the staff report states, “An analysis of spending habits in the community for these four months (Sept. to Dec. 2012) shows that the increase in the sales tax rate had no obvious impact on the spending pattern in the community.” All of those doomsday proclamations of “no one will shop in Glendale anymore” were flat out wrong. Shoppers, it seems, didn’t want to spend the extra money for gas to go further away or they simply did not want to leave their usual venues and venture outside their comfort zones.

Forget the Coyotes for a moment. The reason for the sales tax increase, ratified by the voters, remains the fact that the city spends more than it takes in. The Fiscal Year 2012-13 General Fund Budget is $155.3 million. Of that amount approximately $22 million (15%) comes from the increase in the sales tax rate that occurs each year over the next four years. What happens when the extra $22 million annual revenue from increased sales tax  is gone as it sunsets in 2017? That is the question.

There is a solution that began implementation in FY 2012-13 and that is a $5 million reduction in expendituresbudget cuts 1 each year from FY 2013 to FY 2017. If that course of action continues when the extra $22 million is gone in FY 2017 the city will not have to make any more draconian cuts. It will have a balanced budget whose expenditures are covered by existing revenues without having to dip into its contingency fund. The Glendale staff reports also states, ” Since the news sales tax rates are set to sunset in 2017, a long-term look at the city’s operational expenses must occur in order to plan for the eventual reduction of sales tax collections. The current financial position necessitates that the plan incorporate a phased approach and the FY 2013-14 budget will be a critical component of this plan.” In other words, get the job done and cut the city’s spending.

For the past six years during the worst of the recession, Glendale’s expenditures rose as its employee base grew and operating and maintenance costs also grew. Simply put, its expenditures have not met revenues. In the last two years, the city publicly acknowledged the problem and began laying off employees because quite simply, personnel costs represent about 70% of the General Funds’ expenses. That is the major expense and will require major cuts.

A city primarily produces one thing and one thing only – service to its residents. Yes, it produces one commodity as well, water, but that cost is borne by the people that use and pay for it. Service costs are built on two items: 1. buildings and equipment with their operating expenses and maintenance; and 2. employee wages and benefits. In the past several years, the former council purposefully began reducing personnel (wages and benefits) and  non-personnel expenses (operating and maintenance). The city has reached the point where non-personnel costs have been decimated and the only way to continue to cut them further is to reduce service areas or levels meaning that further personnel reductions will be necessary.

san_wrkr[1]Whether it is libraries, public safety or trash collection, they are all services offered to residents. The cost to provide services continues to outstrip the revenue the city takes in. The city must rein in the cost of services to have any hope of creating a balanced budget in FY 2017 when it loses the extra $22 million in annual revenue. The 2012 city council committed to the plan of cutting $5 million from the budget every year until 2017. To date the new council has been reluctant to follow through.

In an effort to avoid the pain of making another $5 million in cuts this coming fiscal year and each year for the next few years, this new council may consider the $17 million in this year’s budget as “found” money and spend every dime of it. Not a good idea. If they choose that course they are not solving the underlying problem of not enough revenue to cover costs. They are merely delaying the problem and compounding it. Saving the city’s money is not a foolhardy strategy but rather it is a grace to be nurtured and preserved.

savingsThe most prudent course of action is to place that $17 million in the city’s “rainy day” (unappropriated contingency) fund and to make the necessary $5 million in cuts this year. Increasing the city’s contingency fund is a signal that the bond market considers favorably and offers the city the opportunity to decrease interest rates even further on its current debt service load of $86 million (FY 2012-13). The debt service load is the annual amount paid in principle and interest on the city’s total debt.

Another reason to place the $17 million in contingency is that there may be another deal to keep the Coyotes in Glendale. Any deal will require a certain unknown amount as the annual lease manager fee. Having that money in reserve resolves the issue of where the fee is to come from.

A simplistic analogy is that you have a $1000 monthly mortgage payment but your income is only $900 a month. What do you do? I guess you could run up more debt on a credit card but that only delays and compounds your problem.  The best way to face the problem is to cut your monthly expenses.

Will this council do what you would do? Will it responsibility continue to cut its expenses over the next four years or will it spend “found” money now to avoid pain of making further, necessary cuts and delay the problem only to face a bigger problem in FY 2017?

copyright