Header image alt text

Joyce Clark Unfiltered

For "the rest of the story"

Feb 14

8

There are two elephants in Glendale’s room

Posted by Joyce Clark on February 8, 2014
Posted in Camelback Ranch Spring Training Facility • City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale finances • Jobing.com arena  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

The afternoon workshop session of the Glendale city council of February 4, 2013 was a presentation by Stuart Kent, Glendale’s Executive Director of Public Works (there’s that pesky Executive Director title again!) and the consultancy firm of Rider Levett Bucknell, Ltd. (RLB) at a cost of slightly over $100,000. The presentation was a Total Life Cycle Cost Assessment of the city owned facilities of: Jobing.com Arena; Renaissance Hotel Convention Center & Media Center; Renaissance Parking Garage and Camelback Ranch. Here is the link to the slides used for the presentation: http://www.glendaleaz.com/Clerk/agendasandminutes/documents/01PPT-TLCCAssessment-FinalFinalWorkshopPresentation.pdf  .

The afternoon session was over in the blink of an eye, and lasted for about the half hour it took to make the presentation. Councilmembers eyes glazed over and there was only one question from Councilmember Martinez on a point on which he needed clarification.  Did these councilmembers read this report? Your guess is as good as mine but I would wager most of you would say they did not read it. Well, I did – all 150 pages plus. I even had to find one of my Dad’s magnifying glasses to read all the exhibits which were compressed into teeny, tiny print to fit on an 8 1/2” X 11” sheet of paper. That was no mean feat.

The city can’t catch a break. The financial news goes from bad to worse as contractual costs of maintaining these facilities contribute to the ever-mounting bills the city must pay every year. RLB uses a 50 year life cycle for these facilities. They believe these facilities will last for 75 to 80 years. While that may be accurate, it seems that in 20 years or so the tenants will demand facility updates to remain competitive. That issue was never asked and never addressed. Here are the more important “take aways” from RLB’s Assessment.

Take Away #1: From the Workshop Council Report, Page 1: “The facilities are managed by the current tenants, with associated costs for operation and basic maintenance the responsibility of the tenants. The cost for the capital replacement and repairs are the responsibility of the city in each of the facility agreements.”

Take Away #2: The chart below is an estimate only. The figures could be higher or could be lower than projected or council may decide to delay some improvements.

Capital Improvements: Budget Recommendations, 5-Year Summary

FACILITY

 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY                   FY 2018               2019                 Totals
Jobing.com   Arena $4.9M $3.1M $0.0M $0.3M $9.6M $17.9M
Renaissance   Convention & Media Center $0.3M $0.5M $0.6M $0.0M $0.2M $1.6M
Renaissance   Parking Structure $0.1M $0.0M $0.9M $0.0M $0.1M $1.1M
CamelbackRanch   Park $2.1M $0.1M $1.3M $0.7M $1.9M $6.1M
Totals $7.4M $3.7M $2.8M $1.0M $11.8M $26.7M

Take Away #3: Assessment Page 5: “The (arena) facility includes adjacent sitework, parking areas and a service road.” On Page 9 of the Assessment it says, “The City shall be responsible for capital maintenance of the arena Parking Area, which shall include but not be limited to striping, patching, and resurfacing. Section 8.2.1(d).” Yet the city only receives parking revenue after the first $20,000 per event goes to IceArizona. One would think there should have been some cost sharing  for repair and maintenance negotiated.

Take Away #4: Although on page 7 of the Assessment it says it provides the following, no attached facility condition assessment checklists were provided in the report. “The defective items are listed in the attached facility condition assessment checklists and evaluated in the attached facility condition assessment estimate.” It is an important omission. The NHL when managing the arena identified the roof as needing major repair at an estimated cost of $2 million. Without the defect list it is difficult to determine if immediate major roof repair of the arena is included. Defects are categorized under the following headings; 

  • Programmed Maintenance
  • Preventive Maintenance
  • Unscheduled Repairs
  • Emergency Repairs
  • Deficiency Repairs”                                                                                                                                                   

Take Away #5: Page 21 of the Assessment states, “Based on review of the information received to date RLB believes the current building related Sustainment, Operations and Maintenance costs are in the region of $10,000,000 per annum (for the following items):

  • Custodial
  • Energy
  • Grounds
  • Maintenance & Replacement
  • Management
  • Pest Control
  • Refuse
  • Security
  • Telecom
  • Water & Sewer”

It continues on Page 22 with, “In addition to the above noted items there are other additional event-specific related Operational costs (direct event labor and expenses) which currently cost up to $4,000,000 per annum, depending on the number of events being held at Jobing.com Arena. At the time of commencing this TLCC Assessment RLB understood that a portion of the event related expenses were being reimbursed by the National Hockey League (NHL).” To whom?

Take Away #6: From 2003 to 2013 the Projected Arena Income was a negative $43,319,000. When you think about it, it is logical. From 2003 to 2009, 6 years, the city paid no management fee. Since then the city paid the NHL $25 million a year for a total of $50,000 million. There were revenues earned during that period but not enough to cover that major expense. What should be of concern that from 2014 to 2018, the next five years, the projected revenue income is projected to be a deficit of $20,577,000.

Take Away #7: There are 910 parking spaces in the 4 level parking garage per page 7 of RLB Renaissance Parking Structure Assessment. On Page 13 it states that the Hotel has 460 garage spaces + 240 surface parking spaces. Jobing.com Arena Management is allotted 450 of the garage parking spaces. Those are premium parking spaces for which IceArizona charges $20 or $25 per space.

Take Away #8: On Page 28 of the RLB Camelback Ranch Assessment it states,  “As noted previously within this report, RLB did not receive any detailed, specific information pertaining to current Sustainment, Operations and Maintenance costs for Camelback Ranch Park. Based on RLB’s review of a 2011 Cactus Little League Facility Summary (as researched by Broughton/Heimstead) we believe the current facility related Sustainment, Operations and Maintenance costs may be in the regions of $3,800,000 per annum (for the following items):

  • Custodial
  • Energy
  • Grounds
  • Maintenance & Replacement
  • Management
  • Pest Control
  • Refuse
  • Security
  • Telecom
  • Water & Sewer”

What does all of this mean? Darned if I know. No, really, it demonstrates that there are two elephants in Glendale’s room. Check out this comparison.  It’s down and dirty because some of the numbers can only be estimated at this point but it gives one a feel for what is happening at each facility.

                                                        Jobing.com Arena           Camelback Ranch

 

Annual construction debt                    $12M                           approx. $25M

Average annual Capital                      $3.5M                                      $1.2M

Improvement Expense Est.

(over next 5 years)                          

Annual Management fee                      $15M                                           0 

Total average annual expense             $30.5M                                  $26.2M

 

AnnualEst. projected revenue            –  $3M                                      -$ .3M

Annual Est. projected deficit               $27.5M                                   $25.9M

                                        

As can be seen, the deficit numbers for each facility are pretty close to one another. Yet, I cannot begin to count the number of times that someone has said, “Don’t blame the arena for Glendale’s financial problems. Take a look at Camelback Ranch. That’s the real problem.” As you can see, each is a tremendous financial burden on the city at a time when the city faces financial crisis. There are, indeed, two elephants in Glendale’s room. 

© 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

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

31

Friday is supposed to be a slow news day…not this time!

Posted by Joyce Clark on January 31, 2014
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Jobing.com arena  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

When a politician or someone of note has a story about him or her on a Friday, he or she should thank the news media profusely. The general thinking is that a story run on a Friday before a weekend when readers are preoccupied by weekend fun will be rapidly forgotten. It’s a ploy that has been used for years. This time it may not work as well as expected. This story will not fade away and will continue to smolder much like a hay fire burning itself out.

Paul Giblin and Craig Harris wrote a piece in the Friday, January 31, 2014 edition of the Arizona Republic relating possible ethics violations by former Glendale City Attorney Craig Tindall entitled “Ethics questions hit ex-Glendale city attorney.” It relates that Tindall attempted to solicit a state income tax credit for his son’s tuition at a private school. He used a city computer to do so. Reportedly he sent his solicitation to at least 40 people. They included:

  • Former City Manager Ed Beasley
  • Former Deputy City Manager Art Lynch
  • Fire Chief Mark Burdick
  • Current Interim Assistant City Manager Julie Frisoni
  • Lobbyist Gary Husk (who recently received probation and community service from the court)
  • Chip Scutari, public relations
  • Lynne Greene, Renaissance Hotel General Manager
  • Peter Sullivan, University of Phoenix executive
  • Jim Foss, Jobing.com  executive
  • Attorney Aaron Cain, Fennemore Craig
  • Attorney Andrew Federhar, Fennemore Craig
  • Attorney Sharon Oscar, Fennemore Craig
  • Attorney Cathy Reece, Fennemore Craig
  • Attorney Sarah Strunk, Fennemore Craig
  • Attorney Christian Beams, Ryley Carlock & Applewhite
  • Attorney Michael Moberly, Ryley Carlock & Applewhite
  • Attorney William Wilder, Ryley Carlock & Applewhite
  • Attorney Former U.S. Rep. John Shadegg, Steptoe & Johnson
  • Attorney Jordan Rose, Rose Law Group
  • Attorney Nicholas Wood, Snell & Wilmer
  • Former Coyotes owner, Steve Ellman
  • Coyotes President Mike Nealy
  • John MacDonald and his wife, Dana Paschke, lobbyists for Glendale
  • Former U.S. Attorney for Arizona Jose de Jesus Rivera, Haralson, Miller, Pitt, Feldman & McAnally

Obviously this is not a complete list. Tindall contends that he was doing a public service by providing information about the state income tax credit for school tuition yet reportedly he happened to mention his son as a possible recipient several times in his “informational emailing.”

You should have problems with his actions if for no other reason than he used a city computer to send what was essentially a personal message/solicitation. One of the first “no-nos” that every city employee learns is that the city equipment, including use of a city computer is for city business only. Tindall and members of his staff taught city ethics to various employee groups and would be very conversant with this restriction.

Hackles should go up at the thought that his very selective recipient list included a lot of people with which Glendale did business. They were put in an awkward position. Would their non-responsiveness hurt them in securing further business from the city? Would their support garner them further business with the city?

Jose de Jesus Rivera, one of Tindall’s email recipients, just happened to secure the contract to conduct the external audit at a cost of over half a million dollars and in one Rivera email response even asked if the RFP for the contract had been released.  Hmmm.

Tindall’s questionable action serves to highlight the web of relationships within the City of Glendale before Ed Beasley’s retirement. Lynch, Burdick and Frisoni were all confidants of former City Manager Ed Beasley. Some of these people had no problem supporting Tindall in his quest to become Interim City Manager by trashing former Assistant City Manager Horatio Skeete who prevailed in securing the job.

It leads to another troubling issue regarding Tindall’s employment. From 2009 until IceArizona’s successful bid to secure the Jobing.com arena management contract Tindall was the city’s attorney. He was privy to the nuances of EVERY deal that came before the city. When he left city employ he spent a brief month at a private law firm before being hired as General Counsel for none other than…can you guess? IceArizona! Several people, including former Councilmember Phil Lieberman, have questioned whether his extensive insider knowledge led to the demise of the Greg Jamison bid and the success of IceArizona. Who knows? We may find out someday…but that “someday” could be just a smidge closer. Lieberman filed a complaint with the Attorney General’s office about the propriety of Tindall’s dual employment for several months continuing to advise the city while being employed by IceArizona. We will have to wait and see if it comes of anything but I’m not holding my breath on this one.

The media’s reporting of Tindall’s problematic judgment and self-serving actions brings into question everything he did, every decision that he made during his years as City Attorney. One that comes to mind is his decision to reject just enough voter ballots in the Goulette-Bohart contest for the Ocotillo council district seat resulting in Goulette’s victory. Or his decision to release the audit information about the city’s trust funds at the very same time he was vying to become Interim City Manager should give you pause. Or the extent of his involvement with pro-sales tax increase groups working to defeat the citizen initiative driven election to kill the temporary sales tax increase?

Tindall was viewed as smart, pleasant and competent by some but as the layers begin to fall away we may begin to see a different view…one not so smart, pleasant and competent.

I will be releasing another blog later today with some other interesting tidbits that have been passed on to me as well as the latest Bidwill blast.

I have posted a new, informal poll about Tindall to the left of this column and as usual, if you would like to know when my next blog is posted you can sign up via an email alert to the right of this column. 65% of the responses to my last poll regarding the health of Glendale’s finances said they did not believe that Glendale could straighten out its financial mess.

© 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

26

Help!!!…for the Super Bowl

Posted by Joyce Clark on January 26, 2014
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale and the Super Bowl  | Tagged With: , , , , , , | 2 Comments

The City of Glendale and the Arizona Host Committee have each submitted bills in the State Legislature to get the state to recompense entities for associated expenses. Here is the link to the story: http://www.azcentral.com/community/glendale/articles/20140116glendale-super-bowl-group-ask-funds.html?nclick_check=1 .

The bills differ from one another. Glendale’s is narrowly focused solely asking for support for public safety expenses incurred. The Host Committee bill is broader and asks for support in all areas related to hosting the Super Bowl.  My Daddy always said, “Ask for more and be happy with a little.” Glendale appears to be timid and perhaps would have been better served in supporting the Host Committee’s bill for there is more to hosting the Super Bowl than public safety expenses. Don’t overlook transportation heavily involved in any Super Bowl effort as well as sanitation, parks and recreation and marketing. So many city departments have a role to play in hosting an event such as this.

There is support in the legislature to pass some version of this concept. Something has to be done. At the last Super Bowl Glendale lost $2 million dollars. This time around it can ill afford to do so and if passage does not occur it may be the catalyst for its refusal to host in the future.

The legislature needs to step up to the plate on this one. Major events such as a Super Bowl, Barrett-Jackson or the TCP Golf Tournament attract visitors nationally and internationally. It cannot be denied that the entire state benefits from these events.

On another note, IceArizona’s Anthony LeBlanc hosted Mayor Weiers on a recent trip to Canada. Here’s what Glendale’s mayor did for grins and giggles. Expect to see Weiers sporting a Calgary Flames hockey jersey at a council meeting as the Flames beat the Coyotes.

In Calgary w @MayorWeiers and @seanchucalgary: loser of @phoenixcoyotes v @NHLFlames wears jersey at Council mtg! pic.twitter.com/nffikLUKJC

Calgary Weiers Jan 2014

Lastly, I submitted an application to serve on Glendale’s newly created citizen Planning Steering Committee that will shape the city’s next General Plan. Do you think I will be appointed to serve? Nahhh…

Check out my latest informal poll to the left of this column as well as your opportunity to sign up for future blog notices at 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

23

Winter…what winter??

Posted by Joyce Clark on January 23, 2014
Posted in Koi pond  | Tagged With: , , , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

For those of you who do not live in Arizona let me extend my heartiest condolences for the lousy weather you are experiencing. Here, we have had no winter. Today it is 75 degrees and sunny. That is the forecast until the end of the month, another 10 days or so. All flora and fauna are confused. Plants are either in bud or blooming and the Koi think spring has arrived. If there is, by some miracle, a frost in February it will kill all of the tender new growth – not a good thing. Below is a photo that I took today, January 23, 2014.

pond in winter

Arizona Koi Pond in Winter

The water quality remains fantastic. We can see the Koi and right now we only feed them occasionally so they are out sucking up residual algae on the rocks. Here are some photos of the Koi feeding. I put a hula hoop in the pond and throw the food within the ring. The Koi are trained to go there to eat. The white stuff in the photos is the food. We call the black/white/red Koi, Yum Yum. He or she is as wide as long and eats everything in sight. We call the orange Koi, Silky. It has the most beautiful flowing fins. Both are the largest fish we have and are easily nearly 2 feet long and each weighs a couple of pounds. We still lose an occasional fish. I have decided that when any variable in the pond changes, the weakest ones are affected and die off. The ones that are left are very hardy little dudes.

Silky and Yum Yum 25 fish 

I spent the past two weeks reinforcing the grommets on our shade cloth cover for the pond. During the monsoon season we can get some pretty strong winds. They put a tremendous amount of strain on the weakest points on the shade cloth  — the grommet holes. I purchased some duck cloth (under $8) and used a flexible pellon fusible cloth ($5) that I ironed on the shade cloth. It is now ready for another season. Here is a photo of the reinforcement.

shade cloth reinforcement

Since the pond was constructed I have had to slog through the dirt edging the south side of the pond. A few weeks ago we finally installed pavers in that section. It looks and feels so much better. Here’s a photo of the new pavers.

Pavers

New pavers around the pond

Soon we will do a water change and trim and fertilize all of the water plants. When that is accomplished we will be ready for the Koi breeding season as the water warms up. I read somewhere that cotton string mop heads are good havens for fish eggs and fry. I plan to get a couple and test that theory.

© 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 »