Header image alt text

Joyce Clark Unfiltered

For "the rest of the story"

Jun 13

18

Council news door opens a crack…

Posted by Joyce Clark on June 18, 2013
Posted in City of Glendale  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

cit mtg 2Wow, we just saw a window into council priorities. Since January and the new council began meeting, their meetings are conducted with lightning speed, usually lasting half an hour and on rare occasion because of the sheer number of items on their agenda it may go as long as an hour. Today, June 18, 2013 there were only 6 items on their workshop agenda and it took them over an hour to deliberate. Why? Because these were all items that have a direct impact on them and their business.

Here’s the lineup:

  1. Council has changed the voting meeting time from 7 PM to 6PM.
  2. The Vice Mayor’s position will follow a calendar year (Jan. to Jan.) rather than the fiscal year (July to June).
  3. Council subcommittees will remain annual appointments with a 2 year consecutive term limit. After serving 2 consecutive terms a councilmember must move to the other subcommittee (there are only two). After being off for 2 years councilmember may again sit on committee vacated.
  4. Response time for Council Items of Special Interest remains 30 days for staff response.
  5. Council has traded Moment of Silence for Prayer after they have opportunity to review suggested guidelines for conducting a Prayer.
  6. Workshop meeting location has moved from Council Chambers back to its old haunt, Room B-3, or the “basement” as Mayor Weiers likes to call it.

calendarInterim City Manager Bowers announced that at the June 25, 2013 meeting the Internal Audit will come forward. After the open meeting, Council went into Esession and it was an unusually long one for them, starting at 2:45 PM and ending at about 6:30 PM. The issues were substantive. From various statements made to the media by the City Attorney and some councilmembers there will be no vote on the Coyotes deal on June 25th. So look for June 28th or July 9th. However, Council has a vacation break in July so it makes more sense for it to become an agenda item at the specially called meeting for June 28th.

polling 1We know council was briefed on the PAD and SMG bids and council probably learned their asking price to manage the arena. It probably made Councilmember Alvarez’ heart beat faster and I imagine she offered an impassioned but hardly eloquent plea for acceptance of one of them. We know another topic of discussion was the Renaissance Sports and Entertainment (RSE) bid. Councilmember Sherwood publicly admitted that there were deal points that caused council difficulty. I would think the city’s guarantee of $15M (or X number—you fill in the blank) a year without any guarantee that there would really be the elusive $8M-$11M in enhanced revenue going to the city could have been a stumbling block. Whatever the issues were, council would have given direction to staff to go back to RSE and renegotiate those deal points. The ball in now in RSE’s court. If RSE is serious, it will have to make further concessions that demonstrate their skin in the game. Councilmember Sherwood also publicly acknowledged that the deal points need to be publicized one week before the vote. I applaud council for their stance on the side of reasonable and prudent public disclosure.

Councilmember Alvarez walked out of Esession in disgust, complaining that council was making “too many concessions” to RSE. The mere idea of entertaining the RSE bid is a “concession” in Alvarez’ mind. One other Alvarezism from the open meeting springs to mind. While discussing putting public comments at the beginning of the meeting she virtually accused her fellow councilmembers of not championing Democracy and the American Way by accusatorily saying, “We’re not dictators.”

copyright

Jun 13

17

In the best interest of the city

Posted by Joyce Clark on June 17, 2013
Posted in City of Glendale  | Tagged With: , , , , | 18 Comments

moyes

Jerry Moyes

It is time to review some previous ownership deal making history. Jerry Moyes threw the Coyotes into bankruptcy in late 2009. In 2010 Glendale and the NHL began to entertain offers for a buyer of the team. Everyone assumed that it would be a fairly quick process but that was not to be. One deal after another was rejected throughout 2010 and 2011. In order to continue the process the NHL held up the city to the tune of $25M a year. In 2012 Greg Jamison entered the picture and a majority of council (I being one of that majority) believed we had a solid deal that was in the best interest of the city.

In June 2012 a majority of council made two significant votes. One was to accept the Jamison deal after the management fee had been reduced and penalty/incentive clauses were added. During contentious council discussions Interim City Manager Skeete presented the council information about the financial impacts of keeping the Coyotes or losing them. One of the bullet points that I remember to this day stated that over the 20 year life of the deal Glendale was better off by some $20M by keeping the team. Skeete, at that time, had worked out a financial plan that called for budget cuts over 5 years. Many became confused and blamed those projected budget cuts on keeping the Coyotes. Not so. Those budget cuts were in anticipation of losing the sales tax increase in 5 years. His plan was solid, accommodated keeping the team and was in the best interest of the city.

That same month a majority of council voted to raise Glendale’s sales tax for a period of 5 years. A fire storm lasting 6 months erupted. Ken Jones, virtually single-handedly, although the Goldwater Institute was lurking about and seen helping Mr. Jones on occasion (later they would part ways), mounted a Referendum petition drive to reject council’s vote on the Coyote deal. He failed but it created unanticipated delay. Shortly on the heels of that effort another group began an Initiative petition drive to get rejection of the sales tax increase on the November, 2012 ballot. They were successful and the voters rejected their initiative in the November election. But it created further unanticipated delay. These folks were not working to further the best interest of the city.

Leblanc

Anthony LeBlanc

The city imposed a deadline of January 31, 2013 for Jamison. He failed to meet that deadline and that is a story for another time. In May of this year the NHL identified Renaissance Sports and Entertainment (RSE) as a buyer of the team and rejected the Pastor bid outright. Has it occurred to anyone that RSE is, in fact, the ONLY bidder the NHL has? To this day they have never made a formal announcement of RSE as the buyer. Is this deal in the best interest of the city?

There are some councilmembers who understand that keeping the team is vital to the city but they are having problems guaranteeing that $15M a year that RSE has said it must have. They are between “a rock and a hard place.” It reminds me of the original Ellman deal. At one point council was presented a “bucket list” graphically. One of the diagrams showed an enormous amount of revenue being literally poured into city buckets. Unfortunately those buckets filled with oodles of revenue to the city never materialized. “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.” Now the current council is being presented with another version of a “bucket list.” This time RSE had identified additional revenue streams that will reimburse the city for its guaranteed pledge of $15M a year for a lease management fee. Some have asked why doesn’t the city just pay the $6M a year and RSE keeps ALL of the additional revenue streams itself. It accomplishes the same thing. The assumption is that to satisfy its lenders RSE must show that it has an annual guaranteed source of $15M. Who better to guarantee that amount than a city? The problem is, will those additional revenue stream buckets fill up as assumed? No one knows. Those additional revenue streams could bring $4M or $5M a year to the city or (hallelujah chorus) they could earn $11M a year. Yet the city will guarantee $15M a year. Why is it the city’s responsibility to assume this financial risk on behalf of RSE? Is it in the best interest of the city?

Let me be very, very clear. I want the team to remain in Glendale but not if it does further financial harm to a great city that I love. My frame of reference for any deal has been in terms of whether it meets the best interest of Glendale. I have demonstrated my commitment by voting in the affirmative for the Jamison deal and subsequently losing my council seat. If not for my vote and that of 3 others, there would be no RSE deal to consider today. I want a clean deal that the city can afford to pay and I suspect some councilmembers want that as well. Can they make that happen? We won’t know until the deal is made public. I, for one, will be reading every comma, period and paragraph. Only then will we truly know if this deal is in the best interest of Glendale.

copyright

Jun 13

13

Before you buy…kick the tires and check under the hood

Posted by Joyce Clark on June 13, 2013
Posted in City of Glendale  | Tagged With: , , , , | 12 Comments

I wrote this blog on June 10, 2013 and have been sitting on it. Late this afternoon, June 13, 2013 Mike Sunnicks of the Phoenix Business Journal reported on Glendale’s concerns about the RSE bid. I share the city’s concerns. I see no reason to hold this back any longer.  Remember I am looking at the RSE deal having been a former councilmember. The fact that RSE is using borrowed money to finance this deal with very little of their own equity is disturbing. With such a small proportionality of investment it allows RSE a great deal of latitude to abandon Glendale and relocate in a few years.

I know how desperately fans want to keep the Coyotes here. I share that sentiment but not at any price. It’s time we all took an objective look at this deal before embracing it. There are those who will say if it’s not a Jamison deal I am against it. That is not true. If I were still on council I would have a fiduciary responsibility to make decisions that are in the best interest of Glendale based on the facts. Truthfully, if I were on council, I would not accept this deal based upon the facts that are publicly available about RSE’s deal at this time.

So please save your hate email and nasty tweets. I know that I have angered you but once you get past that initial anger, please take a hard look at this deal. Here goes what I wrote several days ago:

Everyone is well aware that the NHL blessed Renaissance Sports and Entertainment (RSE) as a legitimate contender for ownership of the Coyotes. They even chaperoned RSE’s first meeting with Glendale City officials. However, note that the NHL has NOT made a formal announcement to date stating that they are in fact, selling the team to RSE.

Coyotes logoMost of the Coyote fan base and the media seem enthralled with the news and are ready to embrace an NHL/RSE deal. But there are two factors that have so far been ignored. No one in the media has really “kicked the tires and looked under the hood” of this deal; and will Glendale be willing to pay a lease management fee greater than its budgeted and soon-to-be-approved $6M a year?

So why don’t you and I? Let’s take a closer look at this deal. RSE has raised $45M in equity ($10M coming from Gosbee). We will use these figures all of which have been widely publicized in the media and to date unquestioned by any journalist. RSE is getting $200M in loans. One loan from Fortress Investment Group is $120M. Sources say the interest rate is 8%. RSE is getting a loan from the NHL for another $80M. Sources say the interest rate is 5% and that payments start the first year – not in 5 years. The interest on these two debts could be as much as $13.6M a year. My goodness! $13.6M a year in interest! That’s WITHOUT any payment on the principle! Is it any wonder that RSE would like to get an annual lease management payment of $13M-$15M? This deal is heavily debt laden.

Let’s look at costs associated with Jobing.com. According to Coyotes Newco, LLC, the NHL entity that runs the arena, in their Annual Budget submission to the City of Glendale for Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2014, Total Annual Expenditures are projected at $12,468,912 and the Annual Net Cash Requirement as projected by the NHL is $9,088,193. Earned revenue from events will be in the $3.3M range. Based upon these figures submitted to the city by the NHL, the entity currently running the arena, RSE will spend a minimum of another $9M as a Net Cash Requirement. Who would know better what it costs than the NHL currently doing the job?

So we have $13.6M in annual interest payments and $9M in cash needed to operate the arena. Simple math says the minimum figure that RSE will spend every year is $22.6M. The $45M of equity that RSE raised will last almost two years. Where do they get the money to continue? Don’t say from the revenue generated by the arena events. That revenue will offset the total annual arena expenditures of $12M. Ok, tires kicked and the hood has been looked under.

Fortress is not in this deal out of the goodness of its heart. The reason Fortress has the option to purchase equity in the team is that they know darn good and well that when RSE flips the team, it will be much more profitable for them to be in the game and get their expansion check profits than just simply to be repaid at 8%. If RSE can get out of its lease in year 3 or 4 it’s a brilliant strategy. They will make a killing on expansion fees and will have essentially bought a team for only $45M in real equity.

Glendale City Council

Glendale City Council

That leads to the second question. Will Glendale be willing to pay a lease management fee greater than $6M a year? For the sake of argument let’s say Glendale is willing to go as high as $10M a year. How does it find the $4M it is short? Preliminary approval of the budget says monies within the budget may be reassigned to different departments/categories but overall budget expenditures are capped at the approved amount and may not be increased. One scenario could be that the NHL is willing to forgo the second $25M payment owed to it by the city. The city could then apply those funds and cover the $4M shortfall needed to pay a $10M annual lease management fee for 6 years. Or the city could ask for greater revenue sharing from the new owner in the form of a percentage of the concession revenue, a larger ticket surcharge, all of the naming rights revenue and have the team create a new revenue stream in the form of a parking charge. All seem counterproductive but could happen. Would it cover the $4M shortfall?  I am sure somebody somewhere will have created positive projections but there is no way to be sure until one sees the revenues generated in the first year of this scheme.

If the city were to agree to pay $10M a year that would cover RSE’s need for cash to operate the arena but obviously it does not cover RSE’s $13.6M (or thereabout) annual interest payment on their debt. It looks like RSE’s equity investment if used to cover only that debt would last about three years. Then what??

There are those who will be very unhappy reading this analysis because they will perceive the recitation of these facts based upon widely media reported numbers as “negative.” Why bother with facts and dash hopes of RSE becoming the new owner? These numbers are as reliable as possible using sources available. These concepts are known to the NHL and potential owners. Now the fan base should objectively analyze these numbers (or any other numbers revealed by the NHL, potential owners, the city or the media) as we hope and wait (not so patiently) for a final end to this misery of limbo regarding team ownership.

The obvious conclusion is that RSE will bleed money and that will be the rationale for their relocation of the team after a few, short years. Just the news no red-blooded Coyotes fan wants to hear.

copyright

Jun 13

13

Verbatim transcript of Bettman/Daly 30 minute press conference of June 12, 2013

Posted by Joyce Clark on June 13, 2013
Posted in Jobing.com arena  | Tagged With: , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Below is a verbatim transcript of the Bettman press conference. I prefer to personally hear what is being said about important issues and to make my own verbatim transcript for reference. I did this often when I was on city council and made verbatim transcripts of the former mayor’s remarks as well as staffers and other councilmembers.

It begins with the end of Commissioner Bettman’s opening remarks. I have only transcribed those portions of the press conference relevant to the Coyotes issue but I have inserted time markers for unrelated reporters’ questions. The video is posted on many sites. I pulled it from the Coyotes team website.

Bettman

NHL Commissioner
Gary Bettman

Gary Bettman (GB): “Phoenix. No doubt we’ll get a question. Obviously, we’re getting to the point where some decisions are going to have to be made both by the City of Glendale and by us. I haven’t set a deadline but time is getting shorter. We’re looking forward to realignment for next season. We’re looking forward to the future. But as we look back on this season and take a deep breath before we look ahead to the Stanley Cup Final and then to next season, we find ourselves in a good, strong place. And we’re grateful to be there. And we’re grateful to be here with all of you. So, we’ll take your questions.”

4:55 Reporter question 1 (RQ 1):  What preparations for stormy weather in Chicago?

6:20 RQ 2: Why is Olympic process dragging on so long?

7:52 RQ 3: Question about realignment, names of conferences, etc.

RQ 4: “Bill, you mentioned that Phoenix somewhat impacts the schedule being released. Does that mean or suggest the team won’t be playing there next year?”

Daly

Deputy NHL Commissioner
Bill Daly

Bill Daly (BD): Yes. It’s certainly possible the team won’t play there next year. Look at the short strokes in Phoenix now. The ownership group we’ve negotiated a deal with has been negotiating with the City of Glendale. I think everybody knows kinda what’s on the table. I think the puck is pretty much in the City of Glendale’s end with respect to how they want to deal with that.”

RQ 5: “Just to go a little further on Phoenix. Time is short. How much time do you have left? Why not have a deadline at some point?”

GB: “No reason to. It’s been a complicated process. In our minds understand that we’re dealing with a time frame. But a specific day isn’t going to do it but time is getting short and as Bill said, this is really going to be a decision that the City of Glendale is going to have to make.”

9:27 RQ 6: Stanley Cup questions

RQ 7: “Bill or Gary, I’m sure you have a Plan B or even a Plan C for Phoenix. But if they’re not playing in Phoenix next year will Quebec City, might be a Plan B or Plan C for the league?”

GB: We’re still focused on making it work with the Coyotes staying in Arizona. I don’t wanna begin a process, particularly publicly, with, where there’s gonna be a lot of speculation where the team might go, if it moved because all that would do would be to unfairly raise expectation in places and I don’t want to do that to fans in these communities. So we’re just going to leave it that we’re still focused on the Coyotes in Arizona.”

10:52 RQ 8: how were revenue earnings in a shortened season?

11:21 RQ 9: officiating during the play offs

13:38 RQ 10: Original 6 final game?

14:42 RQ 11: despite loss of 42% of season is NHL impenetrable?

16:53 RQ 12: low scoring in playoff games

RQ 13: “Does the Phoenix issue affect realignment at all especially if they have to move somewhere?”

GB: “Since one’s hope is that they’re going to stay where they are it shouldn’t and if the team is forced to relocate then we’ll have a look at it and make a decision as to whether or not it is impacted.”

18:19 RQ 14: concessions

19:51 RQ 15: after lockout will there be better revenues in the future?

RQ 16: “Two questions on Phoenix that perhaps Bill could answer. If we understand that you’ve got an ownership in place who will only take control of the team once the city council of Glendale strikes a deal, it seems that we’re working off a timeline that is controlled by the city council of Glendale. Is that correct?”

GB: “No. I’ll answer the question. The answer is no. At some point we’re going to have to make a decision.”

BD: “In other words, delay could be a no decision. Or no decision could be a decision in this case. So they understand. There’s no misunderstanding with respect to when our time table is vis a vis the city of Glendale. They know what our decision time line is and what are the decisions we have to make. There’s no misunderstanding on the parties.”

RQ 17: “You’ve spoken of keeping the team there and relocation. Does a third option of having the franchise in hiatus exist?”

GB: “There are a myriad of options and we’re not prepared to engage in speculation as to what the optionality (sic) is. The focus, at least for the time being, remains on having the Coyotes in Arizona. Obviously, we’ll have lots of choices, options and decisions and at the time, if we get to that point, and hopefully we won’t, then we’ll focus on which one is the best.”

21:40 RQ 18:  has a series with two of original 6 teams been achieved?

22:44 RQ 19: results of investigation into deaths of 2 NHL players

RQ 20: “Do you need a decision on Phoenix by the Board of Governors’ meeting on June 27th?”

GB: “Maybe. Are you trying to get me to set a deadline?”

RQ 21: “I’m just curious.”

GB: Listen. There’s a Board of Governors meeting on the 27th. There’s a city council meeting on June 28th.”

BD: “June 25th.”

GB: “I’m sorry. June 25th. Stuff’s gonna happen.”

24:10 RQ 22: world cup hockey

RQ 23: “Gary, question #15 on the Coyotes, if I may. You mentioned that you don’t want to make expectations in other places. Are there that many markets out there available that you could turn around and go to?”

GB: “There are a number of markets that have been expressing an interest to us over the years and the phone keeps ringing more regularly the longer that the Coyotes situation stays unresolved and based on the dates we just happened to talk about with the previous question, it’s causing the phone to ring even more.”

26:01 RQ 24: will acrimony of lockout be present and will GB present Stanley Cup?

26:28 RQ 25: will players participate in future world championship?

RQ 26: “If the phone is ringing about interest from other markets why is Phoenix still the best option for the NHL and can the franchise not just survive but thrive with new ownership?”

nealy

Mike Nealy

Maloney

Don Maloney

GB: “That’s a great question. So let me answer it in two parts. The first is, we try to avoid franchise relocation. We try to do everything possible. We don’t think it’s fair to fans and we don’t think it’s fair unless you have to move, to do it to communities that build you buildings. And so we’re not going to get involved in a bake-off where we’re gonna say, you know, we’d rather be here than there. We’re gonna try to preserve what’s in place. That’s what we’ve always done even when it’s resulted previously in franchise relocation. That only happens when we’ve exhausted all possibilities. We’ve now operated this club for about three years indirectly. We’ve had ownership of it. We’ve had great support by the people on the ground doing there. Mike Nealy and Donny Maloney in particular, have done a particularly strong job. We actually believe that if you gave the community an owner, not the league, who said, I’m committed to being here, this franchise could actively be successful from a business standpoint. We’ve seen what the fan base will do with all the uncertainty. We understand the dynamics from the business community and the broadcasters and the media and the people who buy suites and naming rights and all that stuff. If there was certainty surrounding this franchise its fortunes would improve dramatically and immediately just by virtue of putting in a real owner.”

BD: “No matter how this plays out I don’t think anybody can accuse us of a kind of grass is greener type approach to this. We’ve been committed to this market. We’ve done everything humanly possible to make this franchise work in this market. And now’s the time we’re gonna find out if that works.”

Glendale City Council

Glendale City Council

GB: “And again, when the obligation that we take so seriously, it starts with the fans and the community but for those of you who have been to the arena in Glendale, you know, I worry about what’s gonna happen to the arena if the team isn’t there. I think it’s likely to get boarded up because they’re not gonna have enough events to sustain it. I worry about what happens to Westgate and all the businesses and people who are employed there. I worry about the impact it may have on the football stadium, having a situation on its front steps that may not be ideal anymore and so we’re taking, we’ve taken all of those things into account over the last three years as we’ve tried to make it work. That’s why ultimately it’s up to the City of Glendale to make the decision that they think is in the best interest of their constituents and whatever they decide, we’ll abide by but ultimately whether or not this team stays at this point is their call.”

END OF PRESS CONFERENCE

copyright

May 13

24

Dominguez punishment…too severe?

Posted by Joyce Clark on May 24, 2013
Posted in City of Glendale  | Tagged With: , , , | 2 Comments

Dominguez 2

Commander Greg Dominguez
Glendale Police Department

Recently former Glendale Assistant Police Chief Greg Dominguez has been in and on the media…a lot. The internal Glendale police department’s investigation of his situation is sealed so the media does not know exactly and specifically what happened and can only report on it in a general sense. They do not have anything other than a non-specific Peoria complaint. We do know it was a situation in which no charges were filed.

What happened? We know a broad and general outline. Allegedly Assistant Police Chief Greg Dominguez on two separate occasions threatened a clerk at a Peoria smoke shop and told him to stop selling spice to his then drug impaired son. Dominguez claims he does not remember what he said to the clerk but the clerk, in his Peoria police report, alleges that Dominguez threatened to burn the place down and to kill the clerk. True? Not true? We can’t know because we are not privy to the results of the internal investigation.

As a result of that investigation Dominguez has been demoted from Assistant Chief to Commander and suspended for a week. The Arizona Republic, never willing to let what facts it reports stand in the way of stirring up more controversy, ran an article questioning the appropriateness of the punishment meted out to Dominguez.

Everyone will have an opinion. Was the punishment too severe? Just right? Too lenient? The union supports Dominguez’ belief that the punishment was too severe. I assume they have retained an attorney on his behalf to appeal the decision.

Before I go any further let me say that I, personally, like Greg Dominguez and his wife. They are not only both fine officers but good people and parents. Commander Dominguez was always very responsive to my questions, concerns and requests made as a councilmember on behalf of my constituents. He did his job and did it well.

But he was the Assistant Chief of the Glendale Police Department and as such is held to a higher standard than you or I. Is that fair? Probably not but life is not always fair. Throughout history police officers have always been held to a higher standard because they symbolize adherence to law for all of us. When they ignore or bend the law it is an action that betrays and erodes that supreme trust. There is also the issue of perception. If, as an Assistant Chief, he did not receive this level of sanction, you can be sure the rank and file as well as ordinary citizens would be saying he received lenient treatment because of his position. Quite frankly, newly promoted Chief Black was damned if she did, and doubly damned if she didn’t.

If anything, I was very surprised to learn of Commander Dominguez’ actions. If he were angry enough to threaten someone in that situation could he become angry enough to use similar threats in other situations? I suspect upon reflection, Commander Dominguez not only realizes that he made a dumb mistake but now realizes that there were other ways he could have handled the situation. As a civilian, I can think of a couple of things that could have been done. I can remember times when my kids were teenagers and they were in situations that had me nervous, down-right crazy or scared. I never once considered the threat of bodily harm as an option.

Black

Chief Debra Black
Glendale Police Department

Was the punishment appropriate? Yes. Chief Black had a very difficult decision to make and as a former Glendale councilmember I support her decision. She needed to send a message not just to every officer but to every Glendale resident that the actions taken by the second highest officer in the department would not be tolerated and that there is a strong ethic of responsibility for one’s actions.

 

 

 

 

copyright

May 13

20

Breaking Casino: 9th Circuit Court ruling today

Posted by Joyce Clark on May 20, 2013
Posted in Casino  | Tagged With: , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

Breaking from NBC News and the East Valley Tribune. Here is the link:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/51944465/ns/local_news-phoenix_az/#.UZqf-cpv-tMhttp://

gavelFinally a legal ruling that recognizes what I and others have been saying for years. This proposed casino is within Glendale’s boundaries. It will impact nearly 10,000 Glendale residents who live within a mile or less of the site.

West Valley casino opponents receive favorable court ruling

East Valley Tribune, from NBC News

updated 1 hour 37 minutes ago

A federal appeals court gave foes of a new Glendale casino new hope it could be legally blocked.

In a new ruling today, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said it may very well be that the site owned by the Tohono O’odham Nation, while in unincorporated area, is technically “within the corporate limits of any city or town.” That’s because the parcel is surrounded by land within Glendale.

So the judges sent the case back to the secretary of the Department of Interior to take another look at the question.

What the secretary decides — and whether that’s upheld by the courts — is crucial. The 1986 law that permits the tribe to buy the land requires it to be outside the corporate limits of any city.

More to the point, even if the tribe can own the property, it cannot become part of the reservation if it is “within” Glendale’s corporate limits. And without reservation status, there cannot be the casino the tribe has planned.

While two of the judges said the question is unresolved, a third judge on the panel disagreed. He said the land is definitely within Glendale’s limits, precluding a casino.

copyright

May 13

17

One story or two story?

Posted by Joyce Clark on May 17, 2013
Posted in Glendale elected officials • Musings over a cup of early morning tea  | Tagged With: , , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

house 1Recently I received a question about Glendale Councilmember Alvarez’ home. It came from a person surfing the Internet who, out of curiosity, looked up various Councilmembers’ home valuations. I was asked whether I knew that Councilmember Alvarez’ home is listed by the Maricopa County Assessor as being one story in height. Like anyone else, the few times I have visited the Assessor’s site it has been to check the valuation of my property. Who would know an answer to a question like that? Not I. I was intrigued by the question and decided to do some follow up via the trusty Internet.

house 2In the past I have been to Alvarez’ home and it is most definitely a two story home. The County Assessor has it valued as a one story. It could be a very simple clerical error by the Assessor’s office and someone simply overlooked or forgot to check a box indicating the home as two stories. In bureaucracy that happens all the time.

building permitHowever, the situation does raise some questions. The home was originally built in 1972 as one story with the Alvarezes as the original and only owners. The second story was added sometime in the past 40 years. Were Glendale building permits requested and issued? Were inspections were made and passed by the City of Glendale? There should be Glendale records that show that permits were issued and major inspections for electrical and plumbing were passed.

approveIn calling the Assessor’s Office I learned that when permits are pulled at the city level for a home improvement such as adding a second story the city passes that information to the County Assessor’s office. If this occurred, those improvements would show up on the Assessor’s rolls the following year causing an increase in valuation. Yet apparently this did not happen. Why? As a long-term former city employee and now as a Councilmember I am sure Councilmember Alvarez would have followed city requirements for a major project to the letter.

internetI decided to do some more surfing of my own with some help from my grandchildren. (Grandchildren are far more inventive and skillful in the use of the Internet than I could ever hope to be.) Every home in Alvarez’ subdivision is listed as a one story home. We found a two story home within .08 mile of Alvarez with exactly the same square footage (the difference in SF between the two properties is 1 SF). It is valued at $10,000 more than the Alvarez property. There could be other variables that caused the higher valuation of the neighboring two story property but the fact that it has two stories creating additional living space and added value would a major factor.

The fact is the County Assessor has the Alvarez property listed as a one story home. The fact is that the only other two story home in the area has a higher valuation.  Is the valuation of the Alvarez’ property correct? Are the property taxes that have been paid and are currently being paid too low?

This all could be nothing but at the very least, don’t you think Councilmember Alvarez should be notifying the County Assessor that the information listed is incorrect and her home is two stories, not one?

copyright

May 13

16

Reasons why a casino in Glendale is not a good idea

Posted by Joyce Clark on May 16, 2013
Posted in Casino  | Tagged With: , , , , , , | 12 Comments

Ned Norris Jr Tohono O'odham Nation Chairman

Ned Norris Jr.

I thought it would be an interesting exercise to list most, but certainly not all, of the reasons why a casino in Glendale is not a good idea. Last week Councilmember Alvarez had a meeting with 20 of her most avid supporters. She invited the Tohono O’odham’s Ned Norris Jr. to present another pitch in support of a casino in Glendale. The attendees heard nothing new and it was an opportunity for Norris to reiterate the TO’s position.

Norma Alvarez

Norma Alvarez

I am disturbed by her action. As a Councilmember one of the duties expected is that once a City Council position on an issue is adopted, one’s responsibility is to advocate FOR the city’s position. If a councilmember disagrees with that position, it must be revealed with the disclaimer that it is one’s personal position and not that of the city’s. It is also not allowable to use city resources in support of one’s personal position. If her Council Assistant was in attendance or if her Council Assistant used city time to order and/or pick up the refreshments it would be an express violation of city policy. To use one’s office and position to invite residents to a meeting to advocate against an adopted city position is morally and ethically reprehensible. There is also the propriety of advocacy for an opponent’s position when the city remains in active litigation.

 65 percent of businesses are hurt by the proximity of gambling. Decreases meals and room taxes away from other, traditional sources (shifts tax revenue away from hotels and restaurants in Westgate)

Visitors and residents spend money on gambling that would be spent on other local goods and services

Shifts workers currently in one industry to the gambling industry. Takes workers from other industries and moves them into the casino industry

Social costs increase related to increased crime and pathological gambling

Most patrons come from within 30 miles and participation declines exponentially as distance increases.

Traffic impacts experienced at all times of day. Casino traffic is not seasonal because the number of trips to and from casinos is relatively consistent from month to month. Casinos operate 24 hours per day; there is no peak travel period to and from casinos

Five years after a casino opens, robbery in the community goes up 136 percent, aggravated assault is up 91 percent, auto theft is up 78 percent, burglary is up 50 percent, larceny is up 38 percent, rape is up 21 percent and murder is up 12 percent, compared to neighboring communities.  Crime is low shortly after a casino opens, and grows over time, costing the average adult $75 per year

Each slot machine costs the surrounding community one job per year

Business and personal bankruptcies increase between 18 and 42 percent, while ‘impulse’ business transactions in the area decline by 65 percent.”

Every slot machine takes $60,000 out of the local, consumer economy

Gamblers spend 10 percent less on food; 25 percent less on clothing and 35 percent less on savings

For every one job that the casino creates, one is lost in the 35-mile feeder market

The Tohono O’odham ignored their promise to their fellow Tribal leaders to keep another casino out of the Phoenix Metropolitan area

It destroys the state-wide voter approved gaming compact and will cause casinos to be built in many other Arizona cities

All of these issues will directly and severely impact the 10,000 Glendale residents living the closest to the proposed casino

All of these reasons have been cited and attributed to the original researchers on the subject in my previous posts about the casino.

greed 1Opponents have said the Tribes that oppose this casino in Glendale are doing so purely out of greed, to protect their market share. Yet the Tohono O’odham wants to site this casino in Glendale for exactly the same reason, pure greed, for it would open a very lucrative market far, far away from their Tribal lands in southern Arizona.

copyright

May 13

10

Numbers don’t lie…

Posted by Joyce Clark on May 10, 2013
Posted in Jobing.com arena  | Tagged With: , , , , | 2 Comments

There has been a great deal of furor since Paul Giblin of the Arizona Republic came out on May 5, 2013 with a number that Glendale would have to pay to run the arena of $5.1 to $5.5M per year. See this link: http://www.azcentral.com/community/glendale/articles/20130502phoenix-coyotes-jobing-arena-costs.html .

jobing.com arena

Jobing.com arena

On August 8, 2012 (9 months ago), Lisa Halverstadt, a former reporter with the Arizona Republic stated, “If the team stays, the city estimates it will cost about $12.2 million a year, or $54 per resident, when costs and revenue are factored. That’s in addition to the roughly $13 million a year to retire the debt on the arena in about 20 years. But the city says it would face even steeper financial challenges without the Coyotes. If the team leaves, Glendale will still be on the hook for the arena debt. But the city also projects it will then need to come up with millions of dollars a year to pay an arena manager and other expenses if there is no anchor tenant for the arena. The city estimates that would cost $15.8 million, or $70 per resident. With that in mind, Glendale projects it would save about $3.5 million annually by keeping the team.” Here is the link: http://www.azcentral.com/community/glendale/articles/20120801glendale-few-options-jobing-arena.html .

Even the vaunted Arizona Republic is not consistent in the numbers it offers to its readers. Nine months ago $12M a year to operate the arena was a good number. Now, apparently $5M is the number you should believe.

Below are the numbers from 2006 and 2007 when Jerry Moyes owned the team. Annual revenues were $6.4M to $7.1M. Total expenses were $13.4M to $12.9M. Net loss was $6.9M to $5.7M.

The auditor’s report shows the following :

…………………………………………………………..2006                                   2007

Revenues……………………………………………. $7,142,000                    $6,499,000

Expenses:

Event…………………………………………………. $5,616,000                    $4,413,000

General and Administrative……………………. $ 7,303,000                    $ 9,052,000

Total expenses……………………………………… $12,919,000                  $13,465,000

Net Loss……………………………………………..  ($5,777,000)                ($6,966,000)

These numbers from 6 years ago track with the current NHL numbers of revenues of approximately $6M; expenses of approximately $12M; and loss of approximately $6M.

numberFor months  I have consistently used these very same numbers obtained under a Freedom of Information request from the city. Moyes’ numbers come from an auditor’s report and the NHL numbers were submitted monthly to the city. There is no doubt in my mind that it takes approximately $12M to operate Jobing.com arena annually with revenues of approximately $6M and debt of $6M. The numbers don’t lie.

 

 

copyright

May 13

9

Warfare erupting

Posted by Joyce Clark on May 9, 2013
Posted in Jobing.com arena  | Tagged With: , , , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

fightingMy goodness! It’s really getting nasty out there as the deadline swiftly approaches for responses to Glendale’s Beacon Sports RFP or someone is announced as the buyer-of-choice by the NHL.

twitter warThere are those who discount Twitter. Do so at your own peril. It has become one of social media’s behemoths. Lately the newly renamed Ice Edge, now known as Renaissance Sports, has been taking potshots via Twitter at Pastor’s group and vice versa. There is also the tried and true tactic of not saying something directly but retweeting someone else’s tweet. One of my recent favorites is this from KCD Public Relations, in support of the Pastor group. KCD recently retweeted the following, “@HedgeyeDJ Ice Edge fails for 3 seasons to buy #Coyotes, then rebrands to RSE so they can annoy serious buyers?” A while back Daryl Jones, @HedgeyeDJ, tweeted “Silence is a source of great strength,” quoting Lao Tzu. Too bad neither side is heeding that sage advice.

Two_Mad_Teenager_Boys_Now warfare seems to be erupting between the City of Glendale and the NHL. There is Twitter talk that the NHL could have as long as ten years to vacate the arena as well as the current gossip that the City has not just been paying operating expenses for the arena but team losses as well. This shot across the ship of state (er…city) could be because Twitterdom has shared that the City of Glendale is blaming the NHL for not being better stewards of Jobing.com Arena and allowing the roof to go into disrepair and leak-big time.

All in an effort to win the hearts and minds of the public’s perception…included in that mix are hockey fans taking sides with one group or another right and left.

What is even more amazing are the plans of various groups to meet with the Mayor and Council despite the Beacon RFP admonition that speaking to officials of Glendale could disqualify an applicant at their (or someone’s) discretion. Pure politics. If you are the current favorite, it’s no big deal but heaven help you if you are not. This admonition will be played like a violin to get rid of unwanted players.

copyright

« Previous Page — Next Page »