Header image alt text

Joyce Clark Unfiltered

For "the rest of the story"

Mar 14

20

Taxes…are they worth it?

Posted by Joyce Clark on March 20, 2014
Posted in Camelback Ranch Spring Training Facility • City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances • Jobing.com arena  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

As promised here is the rest of the story on the city council workshops held on March 18, 2014. The morning session was devoted to money – the budget, the medical benefits plan and an increase in fire staffing.

The General Fund budget discussion yielded some important gems of information. Staff, for the first time ever, used zero-based budgeting. It is a methodology for which I advocated for years. It’s about time.  There will be $15.5 million in expenditure reductions and revenue enhancements. Most of the reductions are of the smoke and mirror variety and reflect internal movement of monies. The only exception is that all departments will make cuts totaling $4.75 million. The lion’s share of those departmental cuts is the result of eliminating unfilled, vacant positions. This is a strategy that has been used before reluctantly.

When council got to departmental budget cuts Councilmembers Martinez and Knaack again asked the rest of council to return a portion of their council budgets to the General Fund as a signal that they were willing to absorb some of the same pain other departments were enduring. Vice Mayor Knaack again expressed her concern and displeasure about Councilmembers Alvarez’ and Hugh’s practice of giving the lion’s share of their council budgets to non-profits. Once again, Alvarez dug in her tiny toes and said she would give up nothing.

The big budget take away is this: Glendale residents will experience a 2% increase in their property tax rates and the temporary sales tax increase will now become permanent. For one reason only. As Tom Duensing, Executive Director of Finance said, “The level of contractual obligations (Jobing.com Arena and Camelback Ranch Ballpark) is unique to Glendale.” If not for these two major debt burdens, “Glendale’s financial picture would look very different.” He went on to say according to the major rating agencies a city’s debt burden should be under 10% and most are in the 8% range. Glendale’s debt service burden is in the 25% to 28% range. Translating it means that the reason your taxes are increasing or in the case of the temporary sales tax increase remaining, is because of the debt created by Jobing.com Arena and Camelback Ranch Ballpark. That has been the elephant in the room that no one wanted to acknowledge. Glendale staff finally has done so. When will your councilmembers finally admit that these two city-owned properties are the reason?

How did the council fall on this issue? Councilmembers Martinez, Knaack, Chavira and Sherwood (a majority) gave approval and direction to remove the sunset provision from the temporary sales tax increase thereby making it permanent and to increase Glendale’s portion of your property taxes by 2%. Councilmembers Alvarez and Hugh wanted the sales tax issue to go before Glendale voters and silently gave approval to the property tax increase. Mayor Weiers wanted an additional week to confer with major stakeholders in Glendale. He didn’t get it but we can presume that he supports the majority council action taken. The next budget workshops are scheduled for April 8 and April 10, 2014.

One perplexing comment made by Mr. Duensing was that WITHOUT the temporary sales tax increase the ending fund balance is ONLY a positive 10% in 2017. If this is correct, One would think a positive fund balance of 10% seems to negate the need to make the temporary sales tax permanent.

Another issue taken up was the medical benefits plan. Retirees can expect another substantial increase to their monthly medical insurance payments while current employees will see no increase. Jim Brown, Executive Director of Human Resources (weren’t they getting rid of “Executive Director” titles??), said there would be no increase to current employees but retirees are an unfunded liability causing the increase in their premiums.

The last issue was an increase in fire staffing of 15 fire fighters as a result of a SAFER grant. As with a COPS grant there is a sliding scale and the SAFER grant will cover the first two years of fire fighter salaries. After that, the city will absorb the costs. Chief Burdick said that with the addition of 15 fire fighter positions there should be a savings of an estimated $400,000 in overtime pay. Let’s hold him to his word.

Lesson learned is that taxes are remaining or increasing because of the debt burden created by the city-owned Jobing.com Arena and Camelback Ranch Ballpark. Are they worth it to Glendale residents?

© 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.

Mar 14

10

Monthly arena revenues to date

Posted by Joyce Clark on March 10, 2014
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale finances • Jobing.com arena  | Tagged With: , , , , | 15 Comments

There are figures available for the first six months of the Jobing.Com management agreement covering from August, 2014 through January, 2014. No figures are available for February, 2014 even though we are in March of 2014. We can expect them at the end of March. Why it takes a full month to publish the figures is a mystery. After all, the city is directly reporting the figures supplied to it by IceArizona. The agreement took effect in August of 2014 and there were no ticket sales that month.

The monthly arena report reflects numbers supplied by IceArizona, manager of the arena. It reflects ticket revenues to the city on qualified ticket sales only. Non-qualified tickets could be anything from discounted to comped tickets. The qualified tickets per game do not reflect total per game attendance as reported publicly by IceArizona. The arena has a seating capacity of approximately 17,700. Some of the games were reported as sold out – standing room only. A portion of the ticket sales for those sold out games must have been discounted or comped and therefore not counted as qualified tickets requiring the surcharge of $3 per ticket.  It appears as if the city is not earning the revenue it could. Perhaps more of these tickets should be considered as qualified. Here is a summary of the qualified tickets that actually earned the city revenue month by month:

               # of hockey           Ticket Surcharge divided            Average number

                          events                  by $3 per game                        of Qualified tickets/game

August, 2013                0                             0                                                 0

September, 2013         1                       $16,413 ÷ $3                             5,471      (1 game)

October, 2013              7                     $203,289 ÷ $3                            9,680      (7 games)

November, 2013          6                     $193,517  ÷ $3                          10,751      (6 games)

December, 2013          4                      $153,975  ÷ $3                         12,831      (4 games)

January, 2014              10                    $355,135  ÷ $3                        11,837     (10 games)

A question that has never been answered satisfactorily is how come the Interest Income on the Escrow Account was posted at $4,620 as of September 30, 2013 and that number has not changed to this day? There is no posting of any accrual to that account in Oct.- Nov.- Dec. or Jan.

As of January 31, 2014 the city has spent $6,502,055 toward the $15,500,000 owed this year per the arena agreement. Offsetting revenues earned of $2.7 million have not covered the $6.5 million spent and to date the city has a loss of $3,705,324.

If there are no playoff games the total revenues for the city for FY 2013-14 which ends June 30, 2014 can be estimated at $6 to $7 million dollars. Add another approximate $1 million in Supplemental Ticket Surcharges ($1.50 per qualified ticket) for a total revenue estimate of $7 to $8 million dollars. The city will pay out $15.5 million this year. It is estimated that the loss will be somewhere in the neighborhood of $7.5 million dollars on the arena this year.

Then there is the annual arena construction debt payment at an estimated $12 million a year. It is offset by the sales taxes earned at Northern Crossing, Cabela’s, Tanger Outlets and the businesses in surrounding Westgate. It does not include sales tax earned inside the arena as that is counted as part of the arena revenue of $2.7 million to date. The estimate of the amount of annual sales tax earned from these sources is approximately $4million. That means the city will have to find an estimated additional $8 million to cover the shortfall on the arena construction debt.

The underperformance of both revenue sources: arena revenues and Westgate/Northern Crossing/Cabelas sales tax revenues will fall short and cause the city to pay an estimated $15 million this year over and above all revenues earned. The only ways the city can continue to subsidize arena expenses is to: raise the temporary sales tax and make it permanent; increase property taxes and reduce city services by eliminating some or privatizing. The question for every Glendale resident is, is it wise to continue to subsidize arena losses by raising taxes and reducing/eliminating city services?

© 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

22

Camelback Ranch

Posted by Joyce Clark on February 22, 2014
Posted in Camelback Ranch Spring Training Facility • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale finances • Jobing.com arena  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

On Tuesday, February 19, 2013 the city council’s afternoon workshop was devoted to an informational presentation by staff on the history of Camelback Ranch. It’s a good a time as any to review what happened and how did Glendale get into this financial sinkhole? For the record, I did support this project and voted in the affirmative.

Camelback Ranch was first discussed in the spring of 2006. Keep in mind, the national economy was booming. Glendale was earning record revenues. That was the character of the economic climate in which the decision was made to move forward. No one had a crystal ball foretelling of the Great Recession about to descend upon the country. There was no issue with the arena. Steve Ellman had just sold his interest in the Coyotes to Jerry Moyes who became the new arena manager. The city was not paying an arena management fee. It would be 2009 when Moyes declared bankruptcy and the national recession hit.

Council had commissioned an economic impact study by Economic Research Associates released in March of 2006 to determine the potential financial impacts of the proposed Camelback Ranch project. It said the potential estimated direct economic impact of the two teams would be $14.9 million a year if used only during the spring training season and $19.2 million if the facility was used year round. Part of that estimate took into account that Right Path Limited would be developing the land surrounding the actual ballpark facilities. It was against this backdrop that council moved forward with approval for the project.

It was a complicated deal. Glendale’s partners were or are: the City of Phoenix; the Arizona Sports and Tourism Authority; the Dodgers and White Sox teams; and Right Path Limited (as the developer).

Camelback Ranch is located physically within Phoenix. Glendale purchased the parcel on which the major league baseball facility (MLB) sits as well as several other parcels for commercial/retail development. Phoenix’s obligation in the deal is to pay 80% of the sales tax it received on this site for 40 years up to a maximum amount of $37 million. It was its contribution toward the development of the site. In return Glendale assumed the obligation of paying Phoenix for a specific right-of-way and land adjacent to that right-of-way. The deadline for that purchase in the amount of $3.7 million is October of this year. If Glendale reneges all terms of the Phoenix/Glendale Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) become null and void. From 2009 until 2013 Glendale received over $200,000 from Phoenix in sales tax revenues.

Ralph Burton, principal of Right Path Limited, was to be the developer of the land adjacent to the MLB facility. At the time Glendale had a great deal of confidence in him. He had been very instrumental in Cabelas locating in the Westgate area. He had purchased a substantial amount of land along the western side of Loop 101 named “Main Street” and there were plans in the works to site the Olympic basketball training facility and headquarters there. He had taken over the airport fixed base operation (FBO) and had performed major renovations. He unfortunately partnered with Danny Herndon (of Danny’s Car Wash fame and illegal immigrant workers) and Bob Banovach to develop the Main Street project. It wasn’t long before there was in-fighting between them resulting in litigation. In the meantime the recession factored into their development plans. All plans ground to a halt and ended in bankruptcy.

The Dodgers and White Sox agreement with Glendale stipulated that they would operate and maintain the facility. Capital repairs would be Glendale’s obligation. They were required to pay $1 a year for rent. There is no management fee obligation for Glendale. Glendale is responsible for providing public safety services but the revenue it receives appears to cover those costs.

The Arizona Sports and Tourism Authority (AZSTA) pledged to cover 66.7% of the project’s costs as it has historically done with other baseball spring training facilities in Phoenix, Mesa, Peoria and Surprise. Reimbursement was originally scheduled to begin in 2017 but again, the recession destroyed that schedule. AZSTA’s revenues dwindled and the new projection for payments to Glendale is now scheduled for 2025-2026.

The debt service for construction of the project range from a high of $17 million in FY 2014-15 to a low of $9 to $11 million in subsequent years. Glendale is obligated to contribute to a Capital Repair account with annual payments of $400,000 to $800,000.

The financial obligations of Camelback Ranch and Jobing. com Arena are substantial for Glendale. The annual financial requirements of these two city owned facilities are clearly unsustainable.  Camelback Ranch requires infusions ranging from a high of $18 million (debt service and Capital Repair account) to a low of $10 million a year. Jobing.com Arena requires an annual management fee of $15 million and annual debt service of approximately $13 million. Add to those figures the $5 million a year owed to the NHL, the annual contribution to the Capital Repairs account of half a million to a million a year and another million to repay the city’s Enterprise Funds and we’re looking at a low of $28 million a year to a high of $34 million a year. Combined these two facilities require cash infusions each year from a low of $38 million to a high of $52 million. A disclaimer is in order. Since I am no longer on city council I am not privy to current financial information and obligations related to these facilities that may be considered confidential. However, the underlying concepts remain valid. Some of the cash required by these facilities may be offset by revenues they generate. We simply will not know how much offset there is for the arena until the start of the next fiscal year on July 1, 2014.

Is there any solution available? Perhaps yes. The many partners and contractual obligations associated with Camelback Ranch do not lend themselves to a sale by the city of Camelback Ranch. However, Jobing.com Arena is not in the same situation and could be sold. In doing so it removes substantial annual debt service and management fee obligations from the city. It is an option that merits consideration. Personally, I would be sad to see the city lose the arena but sometimes ya gotta do what ya gotta do.

As a side note I am discontinuing my informal polls, at least for now. It is obvious that those for or against an issue are padding the results by voting repeatedly. The results of the poll have now become meaningless.

If you would like to receive an email advising you of a new blog post, simply insert your email address in the space provided on the top right side 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

10

Velvet glove or sledge hammer?

Posted by Joyce Clark on February 10, 2014
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

City Manager Brenda Fischer announced that effective March 3, 2014 Julie Frisoni and Jennifer Campbell will become Assistant City Managers in Glendale. Let’s begin this exercise by reviewing the Human Resources requirements for the position. As of July 1, 2008 the last time the position was reviewed it required a “Master’s Degree in Public Administration, Business Administration, Management, or a related field and ten years of progressively responsible administrative experience in a municipal government organization with five of those years being in a municipal management position. Any equivalent combination of training and experience that provides the required knowledge, skills, and abilities, is qualifying.”

Jennifer Campbell has a master’s of education degree with an emphasis in leadership and public administration from Northern Arizona University and a bachelor’s degree in recreation management from Arizona State University. Campbell has more than 16 years in municipal government positions at the Cities of Peoria and Goodyear and, most recently, at the City of Maricopa as community services director.

Frisoni holds a bachelor’s degree in communications from Arizona State University and since 2002 (12 years) has worked for Glendale rising to Executive Director of Communications and Marketing. You will note that a master’s AND a minimum of ten years experience is required. Frisoni may have the years but she has no master’s.

Some will make the case that they are qualified due to the numbers of years of experience each has accrued for it certainly won’t be due to their educational qualifications as neither has a master’s in the requisite areas of public administration, business administration or management. It will be argued that both meet the minimum qualifications with a combination of training and experience. They may or may not but the kind of experience that both have amassed is of consideration.

Their Assistant City Manager functions include:

  • Provides administrative direction to the Deputy City Managers for their areas of responsibility in working towards the achievement of goals for the individual department(s) and the City of Glendale.
  • Manages the daily operations for the City of Glendale.
  • Serves as a member of the City’s top management team in establishing and maintaining good management policies and procedures.
  • Reviews the activities of the general operation to determine efficiency; confers and assists the City Manager in formulating a business strategy.
  • Advises the City Manager of issues and operational progress through oral and written reports.
  • Interprets and implements policies received from the City Manager and the City Council.  Provides administrative direction and support to staff in analyzing, developing, implementing and evaluating policies, programs and procedures.
  • Advises staff on major projects and in resolving conflicts and problems.
  • Represents and supports the policies of the city to members of the public, press, and civic groups.
  • Represent the City Manager during his/her absence.
  • Reviews annual city budget and makes recommendations to the City Manager

 “With these two appointments, the city is continuing to embark upon a continued direction of stability in our senior management organizational structure with seasoned professionals who have demonstrated a dedication to serving the public,” said Fischer. “Both Ms. Frisoni and Ms. Campbell share my vision and approach to local government management, including fiscal responsibility, open and transparent government, collaboration and excellent communication skills.”

The stage is now set and the cast of characters complete. At the helm is Brenda Fischer from the Town of Maricopa. Directly under her is Jennifer Campbell from the Town of Maricopa and Julie Frisoni, a member of former City Manager Ed Beasley’s “inner circle.” To round things out Michael Bailey is the new City Attorney. Bailey had or has close ties to former City Attorney Craig Tindall who sent the alleged and now infamous email solicitation on a city computer requesting consideration of his son when making a school tuition tax deductible donation. One of those on his recipient list was none other than…Michael Bailey. Add to this mix the new Executive Director of Finance, Tom Duensing, who also comes from the Town of Maricopa. The consolidation of power continues. Fischer has surrounded herself with former allies from Maricopa and others with ties to former City Manager regime. Those who have demonstrated records of competence and expertise, such as Stuart Kent, Jon Froke and Erik Strunk, are ignored. Palace intrigue has a new home and off with the heads of anyone who dares to challenge their agenda.

More disturbing is that these actions signal the end of an era in Glendale. For the 46 years that I have lived in Glendale, even when it experienced tremendous growth, it still retained a small, intimate hometown atmosphere. A good example is citizen volunteerism for city Boards and Commissions. For years council had no problem filling those positions and often had a waiting list. Why? Because people felt that they had the power to actually effectuate change. Their councilmembers and senior management staff were accessible to them and very responsive. They were not necessarily satisfied every time but response was immediate. There was a genuine connection between those who ran the city and those who lived in the city. Senior management staff often had lived in the city for years and had developed strong roots and a genuine interest in their community. All of that is gone. Today we have citizens with no deep ties to Glendale, expecting to move on because of job circumstances, familial reasons or simply with an itch to go someplace new to them. There is no cultivation of appreciation for Glendale and what it means in their lives. There is no waiting list to serve on a Board or Commission any longer. In fact, some volunteer positions go unfilled for extended periods of time.

Today we have senior management in positions of leadership with no historical memory of Glendale. You can see it when Tom Duensing is asked about transfers in previous years from the arts fund into the general fund and he has no clue, responding that he will have to get back to council after he has done some research on the issue. Gone are the Charlie McClendons, Paula Illardos, Grant Andersons, Jim Devines, David Prescotts, Ken Reedys, Rodeane Widoms, Lillian Hamiltons…who had a genuine love of Glendale, deep roots and vast historical memory.

Now those running Glendale consider it a “business.” The bottom line is paramount without any genuine sensitivity for how their decisions will impact the quality of life of its residents. Yes, they will probably dig Glendale out of its current fiscal crisis but at what cost to the heart and soul of a once great city renowned for its connection to its residents?

What about the current city council? So far they have abdicated their leadership roles to senior staff as they appear unable to come to grips with the fiscal crisis. Mayor Weiers tailors his actions to a reelection bid. Vice Mayor Knaack attempts to appease all. Councilmember Sherwood embraces the new “business” model. Councilmember Chavira is silent. Councilmember Alvarez is full of bitterness and negativism. Councilmember Hugh damaged by his close ties to Alvarez is ineffectual. Councilmember Martinez, as a lone voice, has flashes of remembrance of the essence of Glendale. None question or challenge deeply allowing themselves to be swept by the tide of fear that engulfs them. After all, it far easier to let senior staff make the decisions and simply accede to their recommendations. Ultimately council is responsible for the demise of Glendale as long time residents have known it and loved it. It is sad and deeply disappointing to watch events unfold. That is not to say change should not be embraced for change is necessary to survive. Will it be done with sensitivity and a velvet glove or bludgeon the city with a sledge hammer?

© 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

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.

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

21

What goes up, doesn’t go down

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

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

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

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

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

Where does your money go?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Jan 14

20

Sleeper session

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Dec 13

30

Happy 2014, Glendale!

Posted by Joyce Clark on December 30, 2013
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale and the Super Bowl • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances • Jobing.com arena  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

As we prepare to enter 2014 it’s a good time to look at the major issues Glendale will face. Here is Glendale’s Top Ten for 2014:

  1. The winner for the coming year is Glendale’s financial future. The City Manager and Executive Finance Director will offer a series of options, some critical, some not, to right the situation. Will the city council grow a backbone and adopt some stringent measures that are sure to be unpopular with the general public?
  2. Will IceArizona be able to deliver on its promise of enhanced arena revenues to recompense Glendale for its annual $15 million dollar management fee? The $15 million annual fee coupled with another $12 million in arena construction debt repayment contributes to Glendale’s heavy financial burden.
  3. The Camelback Ranch area has never delivered on its promise to perform. When the recession hit all development came to a screeching halt. Will the city create n incentive strategy for development of the surrounding area? Its annual $13 million dollar debt construction repayment is yet another major financial burden.
  4. Will the Attorney General’s office investigation into former City Manager Ed Beasley and deals cut with former financial consultant Art Lynch and former HR Director Alma Carmicle result in charges being filed?
  5. What impacts will the arrival of the first of 144 F-35 aircraft have on Luke Air Force Base, Glendale and the surrounding West Valley area?
  6. Will the Arizona Cardinals continue to seek its dream of a bubble tent practice facility on Glendale’s Youth Sports fields? What about their desire for Glendale’s long-promised parking garage as a means of fulfilling its parking requirements as vacant land diminishes at Westgate?
  7. Will the new City Manager Brenda Fischer continue to fire employees as her solution to any future irregularities? Will a new round of internal warfare erupt between police and fire over the severely constrained city revenue pot of money as her empathy toward fire (her husband is/was a firefighter in Henderson, Nevada) becomes more evident?
  8. With November, 2014 city election for councilmembers in the Cholla, Barrel and Ocotillo districts bring new faces and new agendas and another shake up in the fragile council coalitions?
  9. Will the temporary city sales tax increase become permanent as a solution to Glendale’s financial mess? How will citizens react to the broken promise of its sunset in 2017? Will citizens see increases in all kinds of local taxes while experiencing a decrease in the level of services provided?
  10. How will the city find the money to pay for its hosting of the Super Bowl in 2015? A figure of $1.7 million dollars is unrealistic and doesn’t equal the amount spent by Glendale on its last Super Bowl hosting gig.

Lastly there is the unknown. There is always a new, unforeseen crisis. What will it/they be for Glendale in 2014? Councilmembers will continue to combat and to abuse one another and all of us. The City Manager will continue to offer policies to strengthen her power and there is no one on council to guard against it. Departments such as police and fire will vie for shrinking resources. New players and power brokers will emerge. All that can be said with any degree of certainty is that it won’t be a dull year. Thank goodness there will be plenty of fodder for upcoming blogs!

© Joyce Clark, 2013

FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those 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, democracy, 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 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 »