Header image alt text

Joyce Clark Unfiltered

For "the rest of the story"

After I lost my reelection bid in 2012, I was offered several opportunities to work but I declined them. I had given 16 plus years to the city I love and I knew it was time to pay attention to my family and to take some time to “smell the roses.”

blog symbol 3Several people suggested that I write about what I knew best – the city of Glendale and its players, past and present. I have always enjoyed writing. I took a hiatus from my council duties in 1996-2000 to take care of my Mom and during that time I wrote opinion columns on Glendale issues for the Arizona Republic and was paid the princely sum of $50 per column. I got a kick out of it even though some of my subjects, I am sure, did not appreciate my skills.

I continued to think about the idea for several months knowing that writing nearly every day is a major commitment – but at least I figured I could do it at home while also doing the ordinary tasks of life. It also requires extensive research if one expects to retain credibility and that is something I learned how to do eons ago in college.  As I celebrated Christmas and New Year’s the notion was always there like the proverbial itch, waiting to be scratched. Yet, I continued to hold off.

I think what made me finally decide to write was watching the first meeting of the newly constituted Glendale City Council.  I saw people flying by the seat of their pants, offering no probing questions on any topic and holding personal agendas just waiting to be realized. We’ve all heard the story of the emperor with no clothes. Well, occasionally I feel that I get to be that little boy who made everyone realize that the emperor wasn’t wearing any clothes. No matter how much some may tell you the way things are, doesn’t necessarily mean that’s the way it really is  and that’s where I come in. I offer a different perspective on the very same situation or set of facts. I could be right. I could be wrong. Hopefully I will have offered you a different way of looking at an issue.

On March 11, 2013 I will celebrate the first month’s anniversary of my blog. I expect to have received about 9,000 hits by that time. I don’t know if that’s ablog symbol 2 good number or bad. I do know that as a result of my blog I am getting a lot of email-the good, the bad and the ugly. That’s OK because at least I know that people are reading and responding. I find that I am enjoying blogging and I guess that’s what counts, even if no one ever reads it.

I’ve decided that I will occasionally run one of the emails I receive in response to my blog. If you would like to respond directly to my commentaries I can be emailed at clarkjv@aol.com.  Who knows? In the coming months your comments may strike a chord and I email symbol 1may choose to use your commentary in a future blog posting. I don’t have to agree with your point of view but I do require that no profanity be used and that your comments are meaningful to the topic and as articulate as you can make it. This is the first commentary I’ve chosen. It comes from a Glendale resident living in the Cholla district (far north Glendale). I have never met this person. The name of the writer is being deliberately withheld upon request. I have contacted this person and found, to my delight, that this person has been following my blog since I started it.The following was emailed to me:

email symbol 2“I’ve watched many of the Glendale City Council meetings on Glendale’s channel 11 over the last few years. At  first, I was not really sure that I would have supported you if I lived in your district but as time went on, I saw that in many cases, you seemed to be a lot smarter than your fellow council members. During the last year, I came to enjoy the fact that there was someone on the council who would stand up to the Mayor when needed.

City Manager: I guess you can say we were charmed by the debonair Ed Beasley, the way he conducted Council business, he could speak and be understood. The first few meetings after Mr. Skeete was appointed interim City Manager, I had to keep turning the volume up on my TV and even that did not help in understanding everything he was saying. I watched him present information to the council that seemed only half done and missing information that most people would have included in the presentation. At the end of last year as the “what ifs” were being discussed regarding possible additional cuts to the city budget if the voter initiative for the sales tax was overturned, he seemed unprepared and then distanced himself from the other departments (that were technically reporting to him) when errors were discovered or procedures questioned. Horatio was definitely no Mr. Beasley.

City Attorney: Mr. Tindall seemed to be qualified for the position and prior to the new council being installed, always seemed to work well with the Council in providing legal direction as needed or answering the legal questions about procedures. I did notice that there seemed to be friction with Mr. Tindall and some of the new council members recently and was quite surprised to hear that he ‘submitted his resignation’.

Council Member Alvarez: For the longest time, I did not know who CM Alvarez was since she was absent from many of the council meetings and workshops. It seems that she has been around the City of Glendale operations for some time and is quite familiar with many of the departments within the city. Many of her comments and objections during the recent financial workshops made it sound like she was the council member representing the employees of Glendale rather than her district constituents.

Management Titles: I found it strange that a city like Glendale that was facing difficult financial challenges would have managers with some lofty sounding titles. Why does a director level position need to be called Executive Director? That department should have a Director and then one or more managers as based on the number of employees in that department. While the city is pinching pennies everywhere it can, it seemed out of place to have an Executive Director. (It also seems that many of the tactical errors that have turned up with city finances were done by these Executive Directors.)

I miss the spirit you brought to the Glendale City Council. Thank you for your commentary and insights into the happenings of our city.”

copyright

In my previous posting I reviewed the issue of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and their wish to use Jobing.com Arena. The other contentious issue of discussion on the City Council workshop of March 5, 2013, was the Tohono O’odham (TO) casino issue. At the end of every workshop councilmembers are asked if they have any “Items of Interest” about which they would like further staff information. All councilmembers, with the exception of Councilmember Alvarez, had no follow up items.

Norma Alvarez

Norma Alvarez

Councilmember Alvarez, for the umpteenth time, brought up the issue of the TO casino and questioned Glendale’s position and expenditures to fight the casino in court. She also made the astounding observation that she didn’t know why the city was fighting the casino. Really? Really? Does she live under a rock? Or do her blinders only allow her to acknowledge those issues with which she is in full agreement?

I especially appreciated her reference to the casino as a “resort.” Sounds so benign, doesn’t  it? Rather than a 1.2 million square foot casino with over a 1,000 gaming machines, 50 table games, 25 poker tables and a 1,000 seat bingo hall. On the other hand, the mayor called a spade, a spade and referred to the facility as a casino-resort.

Ever since the Tohono O’Odham appeared at City Hall in 2009 to announce they were coming and building a casino (on the very same day they issued a press release about same), the topic has been a hot one in Glendale. To say that she does not know the city’s position is the height of folly. It immediately hit the media big time. The city has had its position posted on its website for years. You can go to www.glendaleaz.com/indianreservation/ to see for yourself. A majority of council has given direction to continue to oppose this development and at countless council meetings Councilmember Alvarez and those of us who oppose the casino have openly debated the issue. She knows full well why the city opposes the casino and her claim that she does not is disingenuous.

TO Mailer Oct 26 2012 as pdf_Page_1jpg

Tohono O’odham campaign literature
October, 2012

Why did she bring it forward…again? Very simple, she’s hoping to garner more favorable publicity for the Tribe in addition to hoping that a majority of council will now support the Tribe. And why shouldn’t she? After all, the Tohono O’odham generously supported her campaign for her council seat and in this past election cycle it also generously supported her anointed candidates, Ian Hugh and Sam Chavira. She has hosted the TO at her campaign events and even had a TO representative at her home for a meeting that may have violated the state’s Open Meeting Law.  Is it just a matter of her definition of the” right thing to do” or does she owe them big time? You can decide for yourselves.

Another issue that may be of concern to you regarding Councilmember Alvarez’ actions is that the city is actively in litigation with the Tohono O’odham and has been since before her successful bid to become a councilmember. From listening to others who have been involved in litigation they have related that they are instructed to talk to no one about their case, especially their legal adversary. As elected officials representing the city in active litigation we have all been cautioned in that manner. Yet, Alvarez persists in meeting with representatives of the Tribe and has tried to raise their positive visibility in Glendale. Do the rules that the rest of council follows not apply to her? Or is it a case of when she has hears something she doesn’t agree with or like, she feigns ignorance? Again, you decide.

I’ll reserve a future blog for further discussion of the issues surrounding the casino. Who knows, it may even refresh Councilmember Alvarez’ memory.

copyright

Our grand plan

Posted by Joyce Clark on March 7, 2013
Posted in Koi pond  | Tagged With: , , | 4 Comments

So you want to build a fish pond. OK then. Let’s get started. Obviously planning is crucial. If you are like me, you’ve saved pictures and articles over the years. Time to pull them out and to list the elements you would like. Questions to answer as you begin to plan are how large will your pond be? What kind of pond construction do you want? Lined or concrete? What kind of filter system and how large? Perhaps the most important question is how large is your budget? That of course, will be the determining factor of your final pond construction and its features.

We had an acre (very rare in the urbanized Metro Valley of the Sun!) with which to play and plan. We immediately decided that we wanted the pond to be close to our patio and to become an extension of that area. We also knew that we wanted a rather large pond with a stream and waterfall feature. A large pond to eventually accommodate many fish and a stream and waterfall that would help to oxygenate the water.

Pond Shape 2

Garden hose layout

Pond Shape 1 Jan 2011

More garden hose layout

We started with garden hoses to lay out our dream project.

 

 

 

 

Pond Plan 2

Ground staking outline

Pond Plan 1

More ground staking

Then we graduated to marking the ground and using contracting stakes. Then we sat back and contemplated for at least a month. We fiddled here and there and modified the layout several times.

 

 

 

copyright

 

 

 

Note: I know I promised to relate the Council’s discussion of the casino next in Part II of What do these two things have in common? but this is such a timely issue and is now being reported widely I decided to post it before the casino issue.

On March 5, Paul Giblin of the Arizona Republic reported that, the Arizona Cardinals training camp would provide economic impact of $15.3 million, Glendale says. More business at Westgate City Center, Tanger Outlet mall.”

OK then. Joe Ferguson of the arizonadailysun.com on March 5, 2013, reported, The training camp is estimated to inject roughly $2.3 million into the Flagstaff economy annually, according to a study performed by the Arizona Rural Policy Institute at NAU — $1.6 million directly and $700,000 indirectly.

But those impacts, which are calculated according to a standardized economic model, might not be as great in practice. When the Cardinals went to Prescott in 2005 because of a virus outbreak at NAU, taxable tourist-related sales in Flagstaff showed no drop from 2004, nor were sales in 2006 much higher when the Cardinals returned.”

That’s quite a discrepancy between the $15.3 million Glendale says could be realized and the $2.3 million Flagstaff actually does realize. Who is right?  I don’t think anyone has a blinking clue but let’s take another look at the figures presented by Glendale City staffers to the councilmembers at their workshop meeting of March 5, 2013. Staffers said Applied Economics was retained to perform the study on economic impacts to Glendale if the training camp is located here.

westgate 1

Westgate

It reminds me of a City Council Meeting that occurred on November 27, 2001.  At that meeting council received information from the Arena Mixed-Use Development Agreement. Steve Ellman contractually agreed to this schedule for development of Westgate:

Deadline for Completion                        Cumulative Min. SF of Qualified Use Space

6 mos. after substantial

completion of arena                                800,000

 

30 mos. after substantial

completion of arena                                900,000

 

42 mos. after substantial

completion of arena                             1,100,000

 

54 mos. after substantial

completion of arena                             1,300,000

 

66 mos. after substantial

completion of arena                             1,450,000

 

78 mos. after substantial

completion of arena (by 2010)           1,600,000

 

Or this presented at the same council meeting, which was projected to produce these revenue figures for the city:

 

Tax Report Year    Qualified Tax Revenues     Min. SF Qualified Use SpaceBag of Money Clipart

 

1                                 $2,921,034                              800,000

2                                 $3,008,665                              800,000

3                                 $3,464,057                              900,000

4                                 $4,298,237                          1,100,000

5                                 $5,157,442                          1,300,000

6                                 $5,859,860                          1,450,000

7                                 $6,583,350                          1,600,000

 

It all looks so rosy, doesn’t it? Projections offered down to the dollar. Except it never materialized. Steve Ellman never met any of these development projections. In fact, if I remember correctly, today there is only about 600,000 SF of use space developed in Westgate.

Let this be a lesson. Projections and estimates can be anything and should not be relied upon as gospel. You know the old saying, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”

The city is saying there “could be an economic impact of $15.3 million in 2013.” For whom? The region…the state? It football field 2then goes on to say, “total direct revenue for the City of Glendale is $509,000; including fan spending, hotels and utilities.” I thought part of the reason the Cardinals’ training camp is moving to the Valley is to accommodate the existing Valley fan base and to grow it. Hotel nights won’t be a big factor if most of the fans are living in the Valley. Joe Ferguson of the arizonadailysun.com, in the same article cited earlier in this post, reports, “In addition, local merchants report that many of the Cardinals fans are day-trippers from the Valley who pack picnic lunches and spend relatively little in Flagstaff.”

City staffers on March 5, 2013, provided council with a Youth Sports Complex Fee Comparison:

                                                                                    Global Spectrum      Rojo Management

Management Fees                                                      $216,000.00              $285,000.00

Utility Costs (Water & Electric)                                    106,000.00                  40,889.25

Total  Cost                                                                      322,000.00                325,889.25

Revenue to City                                                                   50%                          20% (after $150K)

Net Cost                                                                        $322,000.00              $325,889.25

 

There are lots of questions about this staff presentation that were not asked by councilmembers. Without context it’s like comparing apples to oranges.  Global Spectrum’s contract calls for managing and renting out the sports fields all year Boy Playing Soccer Clipartlong for $216,000. We must assume that Rojo’s contract would call for the same yet their management fee is $69,000 higher.  Why? Do they need more people to do the same job that Global does?  Do they pay higher salaries to their personnel than Global does? What is their rationale for a higher management fee?

There are many youth sports leagues that rely upon the use of and rent these fields all year long – from soccer to football leagues. There is a major discrepancy between both contracts relative to utility costs. The $40K figure that Rojo cites, by assumption, does not seem to reflect the fields’ usage all year long. Is it their intent to only reflect utility costs incurred during training camp? Or was it a low-ball figure designed to make Rojo’s bid more attractive? I don’t know but these are questions that should have been asked. Rojo, by the way, is a Bidwell subsidiary.

Ice Skating ClipartAnother question not asked is, what was the revenue generated by Global Spectrum last fiscal year? The city receives 50% of it from Global. Should we not know what that figure is? Rojo is proposing revenue share of only 20% and that is after the first $150,000 is generated. I am sure staff in preparation for this presentation should have been able to supply an estimate of revenue it expected to receive under the Rojo contract. Council should have asked about revenue projections or staff should have provided this information to council.

On the face of it when comparing these two costs for operating the youth sports fields there is only a $3,889.25 difference. (I always love it when they offer costs down to the penny. How can they be so accurate on the smaller items and often miss the big picture entirely?) Is the presentation designed to make you say, well there’s such a small difference between the two, why shouldn’t we enter into a contract with Rojo and reap the rewards of having the Cardinals’ training camp?

But until the questions I posed are answered, I’m not buying it and neither should you.

copyright

Both the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Tohono O’odham were discussed at the Glendale City Council workshop of March 5. 2013.

jobing.com arena

Jobing.com Arena

Up first, the Jehovah’s Witnesses who would like to use Jobing.com, the city owned arena, for 4 weekends (or events) in July, 2014. Apparently the city is considering sponsoring this group’s series of meetings as a means of increasing bookings at nearby hotels and ginning up restaurant revenues in Westgate during the doldrum days of summer. It’s a good idea on the face of it. Now, I certainly have no problem with the Jehovah’s Witnesses using the city owned facility. Anyone and everyone are welcome to its use if they can afford to do so. Apparently this group cannot.

Let’s look back at the previous experience of hosting this group and take a moment to separate fact from fiction. The group did not pay all of the previous costs associated with use of the arena. It is my understanding that they paid only $5,000 in rental. That is the reason why this time the arena management contractor is requiring a rental fee of $30,000 to cover its costs of staffing, equipment usage and cleanup. It was also reported during previous city council discussions regarding this issue that usage of the restaurants by this group was minimal at best; the participants preferred to “brown bag” it for meals. I also doubt the claims of usage of the Westgate Renaissance Hotel, a 4 diamond hotel. Again, it was pointed out in previous council discussions that the participants used less expensive accommodations in the surrounding Metro Phoenix area.

So, what’s going on? Could it be a form of payback? The former mayor apparently wanted this group to use the arena as aquestion mark means of demonstrating that the arena could survive without the Coyotes. She may have assumed that hosting this group at the arena would generate oodles of sales tax revenue for the city, proving her assertion that the city does not need the Coyotes as an anchor tenant. She publicly endorsed the current mayor’s candidacy. Would he do a favor for the person responsible for his success in his election? I don’t know. You will have to judge for yourselves.

Let’s take another look at what constitutes an event, shall we? The city wants the arena manager to accept a weekends’ worth of days as a single event. The city’s interpretation of an event as being comprised of multiple days would allow the group to use the arena for four consecutive weekends.

event 1The Arena Lease Management Agreement signed in November, 2001, clearly is a contract that the city has relied upon to support its point of view on numerous occasions. Under Section 5.16 of the agreement it spells out that, “the City shall have the non-assignable right to use the Arena Facility (other than Exclusive Team Spaces) for not to exceed four (4) Events (each a “City Sponsored Event”) each Fiscal Year (i) which is sponsored or co-sponsored by the City; (ii) which may feature performers or performances which are normally booked in arenas comparable to the Arena Facility; and (iii) for which admission may be charged, all as determined by the City in its sole discretion (page 45).”

First question for discussion is what is an “Event” and is it defined? Well, yes it is. Under Article I. Definitions and Interpretations, page 10, “ ’Event’ means any revenue or non-revenue producing sports, entertainment, cultural or civic event or other activity (including related event set-up and take-down) which is either (i) presented or held in the bowl (main seating) portion of the Arena Facility, or (ii) presented or held in any other portion of the Arena Facility in a manner that precludes the use of the bowl (main seating) portion of the Arena Facility for other events or activities. If such an event or activity is presented in its entirety more than once during a given day, all such presentations during such day shall be deemed one Event. If such event or activity is presented in its entirety on more than one (1) consecutive day, each day on which such event or activity is presented shall be deemed a separate Event  (Italics and bold mine). For purposes of this paragraph, any event or activity that commences on a given day and is completed within the four (4) hours immediately following the end of such day shall be deemed to have been presented in its entirety on the day such event or activity commenced.”

It seems that the intent of this provision when it was written and accepted by all parties is pretty clear. The city can host 4 events a year. If an event consumes multiple days, each day is considered to be one of the 4 allowable days per year. It will be interesting to see how the city wiggles and tries to broaden this contract’s definition of an event.

The other issue associated with the city’s hosting of this group deals with the costs of the event. Also under Section 5. convention 316, it states the following, “The Arena Manager shall maintain separate records of all Community Event Expenses, and all amounts received for deposit and deposited into the City Parking Fee Account and the Arena Recovery Fee Account with respect to each Community Event. The Arena Manager shall, at the time the monthly financial report for the month during which such Community Event occurs is submitted to the parties hereto pursuant to Section 5.3.3(b)(i), submit an invoice to the City for reimbursement for the amount of such Community Event expenses. The City shall reimburse the Arena Manager for the amount set forth in such invoice within thirty (30) days after the date of such invoice (page 46).”

If the city can get past the vexing issue of what constitutes an event–one day or multiple days– it still must deal with the cost of hosting the event. During workshop council was told that the group can pay only $5,000 per event and they could not afford the $30,000 rental fee that would normally be paid. But the cost to use the arena still remains $30,000 per event. That means that the city would be billed for the difference and would have to pay that difference of $25,000 per event. For 4 events that totals $100,000 to the city as the cost of subsidizing four events. This can only work if the events bring in excess of $100,000 in sales tax from Westgate. I don’t believe that’s possible unless the group, quid pro quo, agrees to book all nights at Westgate hotels and to eat at only Westgate restaurants. That is not likely.

The city continues to experience financial difficulties and Councilmember Alvarez and others have called for more money to be expended on pools and libraries. Every city expenditure remains on the table for possible future cuts and has to be weighed as to its priority. So, Councilmember Alvarez, is your priority to spend up to $100,000 to subsidize this groups’ event?

As for the casino and the Tohono O’odham, another feisty topic of that council meeting, it will have to wait for Part II.

copyright

Glendale in exclusive club

Posted by Joyce Clark on March 4, 2013
Posted in BlogsCity of Glendale  | Tagged With: , , , , , | 3 Comments

Prudential Center Courtesy Business Insider/Adam Fusfeld

Prudential Center
Courtesy Business Insider/Adam Fusfeld

Glendale is not the only city to deal with financial woes related to hosting a hockey team. Newark, NJ and the NJ Devils have been at it for years. The Prudential Center opened in 2007 and is the home of the Devils.  The Associated Press reported on February 26, 2013 that Newark and the Devils had finally reached resolution through the use of an arbiter, “Last year an arbitrator ruled the city owed the Devils $2.7 million a year in parking revenue plus other considerations that totaled more than $15 million. That was roughly what the Devils owed the team in back rent, fees and other expenses. The team hadn’t paid rent since 2007 while the parking dispute dragged on.” The acrimony was so bad that “Mayor Cory Booker called Devils chairman Jeff Vanderbeek a “Grade-A huckster” and accused him of reneging on promises made to the city.”

nassau colesium

Nassau Colesium

Another case in point comes from Newsday Mobile in a March 2, 2013, article entitled, Nassau says Islanders/SMG owe millions in unpaid rent, utilities, fees by Randi F. Marshall. It states, “The New York Islanders and Nassau Coliseum’s management company, SMG, owe Nassau County as much as $3.8 million in unpaid rent, utilities and other expenses for the Coliseum dating back to at least 2011, records show.” Revenues received by the Islanders have declined since 2010. In 2012, Islanders owner Charles Wang announced that the team will move to the new Barclay’s Center in Brooklyn when the lease with Nassau County expires in 2015.

The financial tribulations of Newark and the Devils and the Islanders and Nassau County are a far cry from happenings in Glendale. It has, however, opened a window allowing the public to see exactly what financial arrangements were made in both of those cases.

Are there other cities and/or governmental entities that pay to keep their hockey teams or any sports venues? You bet Bag of Money Clipartthere are. Information available is spotty at best because of the propriety nature of the information. But it is known that the City of Bridgestone pays the Nashville Predators $8.8 M annually. In return the team pays rent of $200,000 annually.  In 2008, the Hornets received $5.3M from New Orleans. The team in turn, pays 60% of concession revenue received as annual rent. How much is that? We don’t know because it is proprietary.

So, what’s the point? It demonstrates that there are all kinds of arrangements between governmental entities and sports teams and in almost every case; it is to the benefit of the sports team. Many of the arrangements are not known because they are not available for public scrutiny. Glendale has been one of the most transparent entities to offer every element of any proposed deal to its citizens.

copyright

Weiers

Mayor Weiers

On Wednesday, February 28, 2013, several Glendale elected officials made comments worthy of note. Mayor Jerry Weiers delivered his first State of City address at the Chamber of Commerce Annual Business Appreciation Dinner. His remarks were more notable not for what he said but for what he did not say.

He recognized the need for West Valley cities to cooperate with one another on regional issues and extended the proverbial “olive branch” to them. Since he was speaking before many business interests his announcement of a Mayor’s Business Advisory Council hit the right note with the group. He also indicated his desire to bring more major events to downtown Glendale.

The two most pressing issues facing this council – the budget and the Coyotes- were absent. His lack of commentary on the council’s upcoming budget setting for the next fiscal year was an elephant in the room ignored. I’m sure he has his own agenda regarding the city’s budget and his failure to speak publicly to the issue should be of concern.

Sherwood

Councilman Sherwood

The second veil of silence was placed over the Coyotes issue. On the same afternoon, hours before the Mayor’s speech, Councilmember Gary Sherwood was interviewed off-air by the principals of the Roc and Manuch radio show. He told them that they should expect the mayor to make a “positive announcement” about the Coyotes. Didn’t happen. Was Sherwood sandbagged by the mayor? Or did he assume the “positive announcement” was related to the Coyotes? Either way, it was the first step in the destruction of Sherwood’s credibility.

Has Beacon Sports been hired to negotiate with potential buyers of the Coyotes? We don’t know because the mayor was silent. Are there “mystery buyers” as the mayor has claimed? We don’t know because the mayor was silent. Does the mayor still want to issue 4 separate management contracts for the arena? We don’t know because the mayor was silent. Does the mayor want to keep the Coyotes in town? We don’t know because the mayor was silent. Is time of the essence to settle the Coyotes issue? We don’t know because the mayor was silent.

Knaack

Vice Mayor Knaack

Last, but certainly not least, was Vice Mayor Knaack’s reaction to the resignation of City Attorney Craig Tindall. Paul Giblin, in an Arizona Republic article, reported that Knaack said she had no warning of the impending action and was surprised. She felt Tindall was doing a good job and she was blind–sided by the mayor’s action. Giblin goes on to confirm what I had surmised – that this council is split right down the middle, 3 to 3. Look for polite warfare between Knaack-Sherwood-Martinez vs. Alvarez-Hugh-Chavira with Weiers playing both sides against one another to his delighted advantage.

Weiers Auction

Courtesy@pjbreenphoto

By the way, the mayor at the end of the evening auctioned off Coyotes items. Wonder what they sold for? Let’s hope this does not portend the future of the team in Glendale!

For political junkies such as myself the mayor’s speech sent signals reverberating throughout Glendale. My advice is hang on. It looks like it’s going to be a bumpy ride!

 

 

 

copyright

Steak or hamburger?

Posted by Joyce Clark on February 28, 2013
Posted in BlogsCity of Glendale  | Tagged With: , , , | 4 Comments

steak 1Let me pose a hypothetical question. I will offer you two choices. I will give you a scrumptious steak dinner every day for one week. After that week I will give you nothing. You are on your own. Or I will give you a hamburger dinner every day forever. You will never have to worry about providing your food.

I think most of us would choose the certainty of knowing we would have an assured supply of food.hamburger 1 Of course, there will be the few who will choose the immediate gratification of that glorious steak dinner and worry about the consequences of that choice later.

Hockey fans are wonderfully diverse, men and women, toddler to septuagenarian, white to black, American to Canadian, Catholic, Jew and Atheist. They share one common theme and that is absolute devotion to the team of their choosing. In Arizona and beyond the team of choice is the Coyotes. The nearly four year saga to find an owner who is committed to keeping the team in Glendale has been trying for all and no more so than for its fan base.

The band of hockey brothers and sisters that fought off, as one cohesive group, a referendum and an effort to repeal a sales tax increase in Glendale has now dissolved into two groups of equally committed and passionate hockey fans. The steak and hamburger analogy is an apt way of describing the camps that have arisen. One group has decided on the steak, the other on the hamburger. The steak group wants the Coyotes to say, even if it’s only short term.  The hamburger group wants the assurance of permanency and wants the team for the duration. Is one group right and the other wrong? No, of course not.

I am in the hamburger group and I will tell you why after having been intimately involved as a councilmember from the time the decision was made to build the arena and the Coyotes played their very first game at Jobing.com arena until January 15, 2013, my last day as an elected official.

Jobing.com arena was built primarily, contrary to the former Mayor’s assertions, to host hockey. Of course there would be other non-hockey events held there as well. Witness the wonderful concerts that we have attended over the years. But its primary function was to serve as a hockey arena. History attests to the fact. Steve Ellman owned a hockey team and he was looking for a new home for the team.  Hockey is the lynch pin of Westgate. It attracted the UofP Stadium, Cabela’s, the Renaissance Hotel and a myriad of other commercial venues.

Courtesy Christopher B.

Courtesy Christopher B.

When it seemed as if the ownership issue was about to be resolved in 2012, a resurgence of Westgate development occurred with the opening of Tanger Outlet Mall, new restaurants like Chipotle arriving and Dignity Health Hospital’s decision to locate nearby. These development actions demonstrate that once permancey for the team as an anchor tenant is achieved, further development will explode – just in time for Glendale’s hosting of the Super Bowl.

Coyotes practice session

Coyotes practice session

Then there is the team itself. Imagine playing each and every game wondering if it’s your last in Arizona. As much as the General Manager, coaches and players try to ignore the implications, periodically another spate of media speculation ekes its way into their consciousness. No one can play their best under a perpetual cloud of uncertainty. This team deserves better. They deserve the assurance of knowing that this is their home not just for 5 years, only to relive today’s turmoil once again, but for the next 10-15-20 years.

Knowing that the Coyotes will remain for the long haul is so important for the team and for Westgate.  I choose hamburger forever.

copyright

 

 

Glendale City Attorney Craig Tindall

Glendale City Attorney
Craig Tindall

On Tuesday, February 26, 2013, the City Council held an Executive session for the express purpose of meeting with and discussing the performance of Craig Tindall, City Attorney. Oh, to have been a fly on the wall!

As with all E sessions we will never know exactly what took place and what was said. We do know that Tindall agreed orally to tender his resignation and we now await his formal letter of same. I suspect in the coming days leaks will pour from the City. It’s happened many times in the past and I expect it to occur this time.

Weiers

Mayor Weiers

Mayor Weiers announced that he had asked for Tindall’s resignation and today the Arizona Republic reported Weiers “citing a need to move in a different, more business-friendly, direction.” Weiers is trying to position himself as a strong mayor. Don’t be fooled. In Glendale the City Charter has established a Mayor-Manager form of government. It still takes four votes, or a majority, of the City Council to issue policy or to take any action, including that of asking the City Attorney for his resignation.  As much as Mayor Weiers would like to wave his scepter and make unilateral policy, he still needs to gather 3 more supporters from those pesky councilmembers.

Martinez Knaack Sherwood

Martinez-Knaack-Sherwood

Coalitions are forming among the City Council and their outlines are beginning to emerge. In the same news article, the Arizona Republic quoted Vice Mayor Knaack as saying, “Seriously, I’m going to cry.” One can read into that statement that the Vice Mayor was probably not in the coalition to boot Tindall out. It went on to quote Councilmember Gary Sherwood, “What I don’t like are the people who wanted him to be gone hiding behind a veil that said we’re going a different direction.” Hmmm…don’t think Sherwood was in favor of getting rid of Tindall either. Can we add anyone else to this emerging coalition? How about Councilmember Martinez? It’s no secret that he and Councilmember Alvarez have often clashed publicly. So Coalition #1 is comprised of Knaack, Sherwood and Martinez.

Norma Alvarez

Norma Alvarez

Hugh Chavira

Ian Hugh, Sam Chavira

Coalition #2, almost by default, is Alvarez, Hugh and Chavira. Make no mistake; Councilmember Alvarez is leading this coalition’s parade. Councilmembers Hugh and Chavira owe Alvarez for her marshaling of support for their successful runs, especially from the Tohono O’odham. Norma has said that Tindall “disrespected” her publicly. Why? Because he didn’t give her answers/opinions that supported her statements or her agenda? Which leads one to surmise that if one doesn’t support her point of view or agenda then one is being “disrespectful.”

What then about Mayor Weiers? Right now he’s in the catbird seat. Pick any issue and right now he has the luxury of jumping from one side to the other. He also has the luxury of furthering the animosity that already exists between the two coalitions. He can play both sides against the middle. Wow! All this from a guy who said he was a fence-mender and would work to create harmony on council.

I think what disturbs me about the situation as it played out is the absence of professionalism and the sense of urgency. Why? In four months Tindall would have faced his annual performance review by Council.  That time would have been appropriate for a parting of the ways and the avoidance of embarrassment to a Council appointed employee. Tindall, no matter your opinion of him, served this city for 12, almost 13 years and earned professional action regarding his employment.

I suspect the other Council appointed officials still standing, namely the Interim City Manager and the City Clerk, should be forewarned. A house cleaning appears to be occurring. Why only clean half your house when you can do it all?

copyright

In a previous blog I shared the speculation that,upon the recommendation of Michael Reinsdorf, Managing Member and Co-Founder of the International Facilities Group, LLC (IFG), the City of Glendale hired Beacon Sports to negotiate with any and all potential buyers of the Coyotes. George Fallar, in his blog, www.nebulousverbosity.com, has fleshed out a great deal of information about Beacon Sports.

It’s time to revisit Beacon Sports. We know that the City hired them to produce a report, Survey of Professional Sports Venue Agreements – January 2011. There remains speculation about Beacon’s involvement in the Moyes bankruptcy. It appeared that IFG did not want to get involved in the bankruptcy and Michael Reinsdorf may have suggested the use of Beacon.

Why does any of this matter? Well, in 2005 suit was filed against Beacon Sports, IFG and Michael Reinsdorf by West Coast Arena Ventures, LLC in the Superior Court of California. That is fact. Since I do not know the disposition of the suit, I will use “allegedly” liberally.

Two groups, The Schwartz Group and John Cambianica Associates Architects formed West Coast Arena Ventures, LLC and hired Beacon to evaluate the project’s potential and to assist in development of the project. Allegedly, Gerald Sheehan, Managing Director of Beacon, signed a confidentially and non-compete clause with West Coast in pursuit of the development of a sports complex “in the High Desert of Southern California” (from filed complaint, page 3).

The suit then goes on to allege that Beacon presented the project to Michael Reinsdorf and IFG Palmdale 1allegedly shared material confidential information without having Reinsdorf or IFG sign a confidentiality/non-compete agreement. In the complaint Reinsdorf is alleged to have met in person on behalf of IFG with officials from the City ofPalmdale 2 Palmdale to present what was essentially West Coast’s project. It is claimed in the suit that as a result West Coast lost a business opportunity with Palmdale as a result. All of this information is readily available.

So what does this have to do with the City of Glendale? We know that Glendale hired Beacon
Sports to do a study in 2011 to provide a positive rationale for the Hulsizer deal. That deal included the City’s purchase of parking rights for $100M. We know that Glendale already has a business relationship with Jerry Reinsdorf, owner of the White Sox and one of the tenants of Camelback Ranch, a city owned facility. We know that the City hired IFG to manage construction of Jobing.com arena. We know that, allegedly, Beacon Sports, breached a previous confidentiality/non-compete agreement in 2004-05.

Who is to say that if the City has indeed hired Beacon Sports to negotiate a sale of the Coyotes, whether Beacon Sports would share information with a Reinsdorf?? If the Coyotes end up being purchased by a Reinsdorf, it should be examined very carefully.  Based upon the original Reinsdorf proposal to buy the Coyotes, they wanted an “opt out” clause of 5 years. That is not enough time toTrianglef build the kind of fan base needed to make the team viable. From all appearances the Coyotes would be moved. How many dedicated fans are willing to invest financially and emotionally in a team that could move?

 

 

 

copyright