It has been 17 years and 96 days since the city’s pledge to build the West Branch Library.
On March 25, 2015 the Glendale Star ran a story on the elimination of the city’s General Fund debt payable to the city’s Enterprise Funds (water, sewer, sanitation and landfill). Here is the link: http://www.glendalestar.com/news/article_4fd7f4dc-d181-11e4-b56b-93c81bbb5cc5.html .
In an effort to buy additional time to secure a buyer for the NHL Coyotes who would pledge to keep the team at Glendale’s Gila River Arena, a previous city council approved borrowing $15 million from the city’s water and sewer funds, $40 million from its landfill fund and $5 million from its sanitation fund. The revenue was used to pay the NHL to manage the arena for two years while the process of finding a team buyer continued. At the time council also approved a repayment plan, using General Fund revenue to pay the Enterprise Funds back with interest. It was a solemn pledge and a commitment that the previous council never anticipated future councils would renege upon. The unthinkable is about to occur. At a recent workshop following the recommendation of Tom Duensing, Glendale’s Finance Director, a majority of council plans to do exactly that.
When Councilmember Tolmachoff asked what would be the consequences of such an action, Duensing replied, “You could do it a number of ways: you could do rate increases, you could defer maintenance, you could cut your operating costs.”
There were questions unasked that still demand answers:
- While this action might make the general fund balance sheet look better, what impact does it have on the balance sheets of water and sewer, the landfill, and sanitation?
- By recording the former “loan” to a fund transfer, doesn’t it reduce the assets on the balance sheets of those funds?
- How does the reduction in financial assets impact the bond ratings of the water and sewer fund and the landfill fund? While the proposed action may assist in the General Fund bond rating, doesn’t the converse action harm the Enterprise Funds ratings?
- Doesn’t this action reduce the funds available to water and sewer for maintaining and upgrading the water and sewer systems? Duensing in his answer to Tolmachoff implies that it does.
- If the Council approves this action, doesn’t that mean that a water and sewer rate increase will be necessary and supported by the Council? If a rate increase occurs, it looks like we can lay the evaporation of a pledge to repay the Enterprise Funds at the feet of retaining the hockey team as an anchor tenant at the city owned arena.
Duensing’s proposal is moving the pea underneath a different shell. It’s a magical, accounting trick designed to satisfy the rating agencies. The problem is that it sets precedent. Who, whether it’s a developer, a citizen or a company doing business with the city, will trust in the city’s word if it is willing to renege on paying a debt? If a water, sewer or landfill rate increase is proposed and adopted by this city council citizens will have every right to be angry for it will be driven by a broken promise to reimburse the Enterprise Funds. Glendale rate payers of the water, sewer, landfill and sanitation services will have every right to assume that any proposed rate increase is driven by money borrowed from these funds and paid to the NHL to run the arena for two years.
Duensing appears obsessed on building up the city’s reserve funds (contingency). While building the city’s reserve back up is necessary and critical his solutions are to keep the sales tax increase permanent and now, to raise Glendale’s property tax rate by 2%. He appears to have only two tricks in his bag.
Sterling Fluharty of the Glendale Star in writing an article entitled City decides not to cut taxes, in its online edition of April 6, 2015, reports, “Glendale City Council had few objections two weeks ago when the acting city manager and financial director announced they were abandoning plans to lower the sales tax rate and making preparations for raising property taxes.” Here is the link: http://www.glendalestar.com/news/article_b6c5e5e6-dc99-11e4-8961-4fb07a583a64.html#.VSNVhK1dGb8.twitter .
Last December Duensing was still pitching lowering the sales tax rate. Fluharty in his article states, “Duensing published a five-year financial forecast that month (December, 2014) that assumed the council would approve annual reductions, making the sales tax rate 2.85 percent in 2015-16, 2.825 percent in 2016-17, 2.8 percent in 2017-18 and 2.775 percent in 2019-20.” What information does senior management and the council have (not shared publicly) to cause them to not only reject a reduction in the sales tax rate but now to increase the property tax rate?
Since the new council was seated in January, 2012, adopting Duensing’s recommendations it has:
- Made the increase of 2.9% as a temporary sales tax increase permanent
- Approved a management agreement paying IceArizona $15 million a year
- Will approve construction of a parking garage at Westgate for $46 million + over 3 years
- Will approve a 2% increase in property taxes
Where is the council commitment to cut expenses and to live within the city’s means? It seems their only solutions to solving the city’s ongoing financial problems is to keep the increased sales tax rate and now to raise the property tax rate.
Over the next 3 years the General Fund will have to absorb an additional $46 million plus as brand new debt. That figure does not include the ongoing debt for the baseball park, the Westgate Media Center and is parking garage, the Westgate Convention Center, the annual $15 million payment to IceArizona and the construction debt on the arena and the Public Safety Training Facility…as well as other debt I have failed to include.
During council’s discussion of a property tax increse while the sales tax increase does not diminish Mayor Weiers said, “At least we’re giving our citizens something, certainly in the right direction, anyway.” What exactly are the Mayor and council giving to its citizens? A screwing? It appears the right direction for Mayor Weiers and this city council is to raise yet another tax.
©Joyce Clark, 2015
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.
My understanding is that the use of Enterprise funds require – by federal law – the borrowed funds to be paid back. Someone should look into this before the COG is in violation of federal law.
Where is the Goldwater institute when we need them? Are they tired of being outfoxed by the city of glendale staff? When I lived in San Diego a similar group sewed the city over miss use of the city water fund and won. The court decided that since the city did not need the money for providing water services they must return it to the people. This seem to be what the finance director seems to be saying to the city council. They collected the money and no longer need it for water or landfill improvements. I hope someone will take up this fight on behalf of the citizens of Glendale.
GWI has hardly been outfoxed by the COG..they won most of their battles with them, caused untold grief rightly or wrongly for the COG and any Yotes suitors. They just seem to know when they can’t win and they back away, just as they did with the IceAZ arena management deal. They are pretty canny whether you like them or not.
If you check back, the GWI won ONLY one court fight against the COG. Their bluff did cause the COG to back off of the parking deal. Many feel that if the COG had taken the GWI to court on the gift law, the GWI would have lost. That may have been the COG’s biggest mistake, letting the GWI bully them around with little legal standing.
I said they won the most of the battles, not Court fights. They know when they can push and how far. They also know the gift clause law inside out, because it was their win at the AZ Supreme Court that set the parameters for all future gift clause issues going forward. If anyone would know if they could win a Court fight over it, it is them. So if many feel the COG would have won the parking battle, then chances are many are wrong.
Your comment shows you no very little about the GWI and the gift law. The GWI won the CitiNorth case, but the judge refused to change the terms of the agreement. To be more factual, the judge DIDNT clear things up. What would be considered “equal” was not spelled out. There is still a lot of gray in the law and the ruling.
There were severaal other law firms that said the COG deal would not have violated the Az Gift Law, and not one that supported the GWI view. I will give the GWI credit for running a good bluff………but when push cane to shove, a deal was done and they disappeared in the night. The last time the COG and the GWI were in court, the judge seemed to belittle the GWI. You give those clowns to much credit.
Actually it is you that knows very little. The Judge only refused to change the deal because too much had already been invested to allow the enforcement of the newly won terms. GWI set the law for similar cases going forward whether you like it or not. And anyone can find law firms that will line up on both sides. It is exactly people like you that don’t give those “clowns” enough credit based on more hate than facts that allows them to be more successful than they might have been. I suggest you read the Judges decision again.
I was negligent on not also saying that the COG was called to task regarding their continued ignoring of a court order…and the sanctioning of that by the city lawyer who didn’t even take care to avoid sending the directive to city staff to ignore it to GWI. They would have lost that one as well if GWI didn’t agree to withdraw their action because the subject matter of the documents the city was to deliver had faded into the night.
Geoff….
With all due respect GWI did not set the law.
The Arizona Supreme Court determined that as long as there was no “disproportionate return” to a government entity, then there is no violation of the Gift Clause. The term “disproportionate” is exactly what the court used. That term in itself leaves the law wide open to interpretation. GWI wanted to lock the wording down to where governments ended up getting back exactly what they put in. So in reality… GWI failed miserably.
As for battles…. reps from GWI were seen advising Glendale resident Ken Jones during both of his referendum drives. Both drives failed miserably. GWI also sued Glendale once on the behalf of Mr. Jones over the arena lease negotiations and got laughed out of court.
The Arizona Free Enterprise Club is a group (who at the time was) made up of several GWI members who also jumped into the fray at least once, and they were also beaten back.
So in a nutshell…. You are giving GWI’s track record way too much credit here.
They failed to prevent the city from negotiating a new lease with the NHL and IceArizona.
They failed to force Glendale into making all negotiations between the city and any private enterprises public as was their intentions.
Where they succeeded… was in preventing the city from entering into what really was a bad agreement with Matthew Hulsizer. And maybe pushing Glendale to make their expenditures more available to the public.
I’d hardly call that winning most of the battles.
Legend, the AZ Supreme Court decision decided that returns can’t be grossly disproportionate to the money put in.. They also decided
that indirect returns can’t automatically be counted as a return. The Court let the Citinorth deal stand because the previous interpretation was confusing and that too much had been invested already to reverse it. So if GWI didn’t “set” the law they sure tightened it significantly. As for GWI, wasn’t their intervention related to Jones not filing his paperwork properly as opposed to the actual deal itself? As I recall they examined the deal and said they didnt believe it was a gift clause violation and they neve challenged it. Am I wrong in this?
“Grossly disproportionate” is still a vague description in legal terms, Geoff.
Given that the deal with Ice Arizona only promised a ~60% return to Glendale’s investment, it’s kind of ironic that GWI decided it wasn’t “grossly disproportionate”. Particularly when their original mandate was government entities should get a 100% return. I’d call it raising a white flag. The City North deal was no where near a disproportionate return compared to Glendale’s arena lease, and in the end it hurt the people who invested in that project far more than it did the city of Phoenix.
In the end GWI had gotten all the mileage out of it they could (ie donations from outside interests) and went looking for greener pastures.
sorry Legend, considering the original tender was 6 million for arena management from other bidders you need to subtract that as a service. Means IceAz gave 9M extra less whatever returns are realized. 60% of 15M is 9 million..so the totals are close when you subtract the service they are receiving in comparison to other bidders…hence at best a minor variance the way I see it.
Why do you fail to state the return that IceArizona returns to the COG? You know the net paid by Glendale isnt the full 15M. You also know that the COG would be on the hook for the maintenance of the Arena with or without the Yotes. You also know there ISNT close to enough events to replace the lost dates the Yotes provide.
So, in reality the COG will spend maybe 2-4M that they wouldnt spend if the Yotes had left…………..BUT, here comes the rest of the FACTS. What would the COG lose in tax revenue at Westgate w/o the Yotes? Isnt it funny Westgate seems to be growing AFTER the deal was done? The deal now is a good deal for the same reason the Jameson deal you supported.
I appreciate your loyalty to Jameson, problem was you and a buddy were sold on a dream. Little behind it. JAmeson had at least 3 times he could have closed the deal and he couldnt. It wasnt just money, he didnt have one person strong enough in his deal that could back the team……..they didnt have a Gossbee. When the lock out ended and Jameson couldnt close the deal, the NHL new it was over for him. Whatever you were being fed was, well…….horse manure.
If you want to keep railing on the city for a deal similar to what you supported, pleas be accurate in the amount the COG ACTUALLY pays when the dust settles every year. Stop grandstanding on the 15M. It also doesnt matter where the money goes to now does it?
Irish, I don’t agree with what you have said, but I respect your right to voice your opinion.
Ms. Clark has regularly commented in her blog on what returns IceAZ provides as per the Arena Management contract. You only have to look back at previous posts comes to mind, some as far back as April 2014. So to say she fails to state it and is grandstanding is just wrong.
Well, then why does she continue to speak of the 15M in posts like this and seem to forget to mention the amount repaid to the city?
Ok lets get off the GWI and the coyotes and back to the issue the city council (Joyce) included borrowed $45 million from the residents of Glendale and is now deciding they are not going to pay them back. Because the finance director wants to build up positive fund balance this seem to be his legacy project at the expense of the utility rate payers.
Agreed! But in humour I have to point out that it was you who brought GWI up!
Probably because the amount returned can be large or small and only exists because the COG committed to 15M. It is the elephant in the room
Afraid not Geoff. As was explained above by another poster…. Glendale is only out about $1.8M more than they would have been originally. Had they made the playoffs that number would have more than likely gone away.
But that’s a number that can get better, as IA adds more events to the schedule, both non-hockey and hockey. They’ve just added ASU Hockey into the mix.
The real elephant in the room for Glendale at this point is Camelback Ranch. So far they’ve been able to stretch out paying the bonds for it back but they can’t anymore, and the funds promised from the AZSTA to cover the majority of the cost may never come through now. This…. on top of the land surrounding the site is still locked up in bankruptcy and can’t be developed to provide the tax revue they were counting on to help pay off those bonds.
I will wait until the COG finishes their audit of rthe numbers to comment on this…I have an uneasy feeling admittedly not grounded in fact that what you believe isn’t reality.