Header image alt text

Joyce Clark Unfiltered

For "the rest of the story"

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

On May 6, 2013 Dan Bickley posted a column on Arizona Central. Here is the link http://www.azcentral.com/insiders/danbickley/2013/05/06/coyotes-new-money-new-ownership-bid-new-problems/. It is entitled Coyotes: New money, new ownership bid, new problems. I typically do not read Mr. Bickley. He apparently is just as often wrong as he is correct in his reportage and now, as the Coyotes ownership saga comes to a head rumors are multiplying like rabbits and flying faster than a 747 jet.

Bettman

NHL Commissioner
Gary Bettman

What I did find interesting was this, “But the league wasn’t at all happy with Monday’s front-page story in the Arizona Republic, which listed the true cost of running Jobing.com Arena at less than $6 million.” Well, no one should be happy. Yesterday I posted facts and figures in three separate blogs, Fuzzy Math, A Magical, Mystical Number and There’s an Elephant in the Room. The true cost of operating Jobing.com Arena annually is about $12M.

Everyone is touting LeBlanc/Gosbee as the front-runners for ownership. Let me remind you that they are only the first participants in the parade of would-be owners. That does not make them sure-fire, guaranteed owners. Other parade participants are standing in line, Pastor, Jamison, Hulsizer, Reinsdorf and Kaites. Whoever was scheduled to meet with the current council first would have received the tag, “ front-runner.” That is exactly what it appears LeBlanc wants to happen. He would like to be declared the de facto winner of the contest and chase his other competitors away forever.

Leblanc

Anthony LeBlanc

Bickley goes on to say, LeBlanc’s group – Renaissance Sports and Entertainment “…is committed to absorbing $40 million in losses over the first four years, with an out clause if the economics don’t improve.” If Bickley’s reportage is accurate, this is a cause for concern. In the last go-round when LeBlanc was part of Ice Edge they wanted to play 4 or 5 games in Canada. I assume it was to dip their toes in the waters of the Canadian market to see if it was to their liking. A 5 year out clause, if LeBlanc is successful, may portend the Coyotes’ future. If we see another bid to play some regular season games in Canada that action will tell us more than mere words.

All of this conjecture becomes moot if there is no majority on council to support an annual lease management fee in the range of $10M to $12M. To date, it appears that this council is fixated on a $6M number. It’s a bogus number as I stated in my blog, A Magical, Mystical Number. It was created out of thin air and because it has been publicly stated ad nauseam, it is treated as if it’s a real number based on fact. What continues to amuse if it weren’t so sad, is that the current council really believes they can find an arena manger willing to take $6M a year, cover all operating costs (which means they begin by losing somewhere in the neighborhood of $6M annually) and float the city a loan to cover necessary capital repairs and replacements. Amazing! Stay tuned…Glendale’s version of the Amazing Race is not over!

copyright

One issue not so far discussed is the issue of Capital Repairs needed for the arena. Keep in mind, my best guesstimate is that there is maybe $200,000 or $300,000 in the Capital Repairs Account. Below I’ve included Newco, LLC’s “wish list” of Additions and Capital Repairs for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2014.

Newco capital repairs

Newco LLC proposed
capital repairs 2014

As you can see, the major issue is “Arena roof work” for $2M. The entire “wish list” comes to $5.6M. The roof is leaking. It needs work. Will it cost $2M? Maybe not. I heard that the city has called in an independent consultant to study the roof and report back (at what cost and this should be considered part of the tab to fix the roof). It may be a choice between a band-aid costing much less and major surgery costing far more.

billsThe point is that in addition to the $6 M a year, a figure to which this current council is wedded, they will have to find additional dollars to repair the arena roof. In addition  to asking the new arena manager to accept a figure of $6M a year blithely mandating that entity to be willing to lose $6M a year, they also want the new arena manager to participate in the cost of capital repairs based on the Beacon RFP.

This is from the Beacon RFP, “Investment. State the amount of a proposed investment in the Arena that the Respondent Manager is willing to provide (Please review the proposed Additions and Capital Repairs Schedule for Fiscal Year ending  June 30, 2014 for further details) [the very same document you see above]. Describe any restrictions/repayment requirements [read loan to be paid back by city] on any such investment. Also describe any additional fees, restrictions or incentives that may apply to any investment.”

How many prospective owners are out there willing to accept an annual $6M management fee knowing that the costs of operating the arena are double that amount? Then ask how many prospective owners will be willing to make a loan to the city to cover all or a partial list of capital repairs?

The time has come for this current council to understand the situation factually. They also need to understand that whether the Coyotes stay or go there is a substantial bill to be paid. Having the Coyotes as an anchor tenant helps the situation not hurt it. It guarantees 40+ nights of activity at Westgate and its attendant sales tax revenues. Surely they realize the significance of that and how much it helps their bottom line. Losing the Coyotes and going it alone on managing the arena, no matter how convinced they are that it will work is a recipe for further financial disaster.

copyright

Bag of Money ClipartEveryone is using a $6 million annual figure to operate Jobing.com arena. Where did this magical, mystical number come from? Paul Giblin in his article of May 5, 2013 states,”Scruggs said she changed her position after former City Attorney Craig Tindall sent a memo to council members last spring that advised them that the city had provided documents to the Goldwater Institute that showed the actual cost was about $6 million a year.” I saved all documents Coyotes related from my time on council. I even have the original agreements executed between the city and Steve Ellman. I searched through them all for former City Attorney Craig Tindall’s memo and do not have it. That does not mean that it doesn’t exist. I don’t remember it and apparently did not save it.

I can’t fathom where or how Tindall could have arrived at a $6M figure. In going back through the financial documents that I have – even the figures for Jerry Moyes (removing what he said his partners were owed) comes in very close to the Newco, LLC. numbers and that is $12+M annually to operate the arena; total revenues of $6M and total losses of $6M. Giblin in his article is willing to concede that, “…the arena-consulting firm International Facilities Group, of Chicago, told the city that a reasonable estimate to operate the arena without an anchor sports tenant would be in the range of $13.8 million to $14.7 million a year.” I have that study and can confirm what it says. There was also a TLHocking & Associates study done in January, 2012 entitled Comparison of Operating Costs for Similar Arenas, that compared 3 arenas with NHL teams with average operating costs of $15 million to $17 million.

During 2012 council participated in endless and continual public discussions (read polite arguments) about the cost of operating the arena. At some point, then Mayor Scruggs whipped out a figure of $6M. She said at the time, that she had done no research, had no basis for such a number and that she pulled it out of thin air. Somehow or another, probably because she used it incessantly publicly, it became the “real” number, so much so, that now Assistant City Manager Horatio Skeete used it as a “place holder” in the city’s current proposed budget. There is no basis in fact for a $6M annual operating figure for Jobing.com arena. If there is, I challenge anyone with that factual information to bring it forward for all to see. Show us all the money!

copyright

Paul Giblin wrote an article for the Arizona Republic on May 5, 2013 entitled True Jobing.com Arena operating costs are well below what Glendale as paid. In it he states, “The true cost to operate Jobing.com Arena ranges from $5.1 million to $5.5 million a year…” Really? It’s based on fuzzy math. Below are 2 pages from Coyotes Newco, LLC. Coyotes Newco, LLC. Is the entity created and owned by the NHL for purposes of managing Jobing.com Arena.

The documents below show the proposed annual budget for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2014. In it the total revenue figure is, to be precise (something others apparently failed to do), $6,931,477.00. Total expenses are $12,468,912.00. The net operating loss is projected to be $5,537,435.00.

Newco 2 pages_Page_1

Newco proposed
budget 2014

Newco 2 pages_Page_2

Newco proposed
budget 2014

Basic math says if you spend $12.4 million and you make $6.9 million, you are in debt $5.5 million per year.A net operating LOSS is not the same as the total cost to operate the arena annually. How can anyone can throw out a figure of $5 or $5.5 million and claim that is the cost to operate the arena? At best, it appears to be irresponsible and misleading to the general public. It provides erroneous fodder to the opponents of any fee paid whatsoever to operate the arena annually. Did I mention that this proposed budget includes very few non-hockey events? This budget is subject to change in an upward direction in terms of loss as more non-hockey events are added.

Has the NHL made money on operating the arena for two years at a total cost of $50 million? Yes, probably but since January, 2013 through the date of July 1, 2013 when a new manager is mandated to assume control of the arena the NHL has not been paid a single cent to operate the arena. So I think it’s fair to add another $6 million in expenses for these 6 months. While the city has paid the first $25 million the NHL has not, as of this date, called for payment of the second $25 million. It still, to this day, sits in a city escrow account, untouched.

Mr. Giblin also recites current rhetoric on the street that says that the LeBlanc/Pastor group are the frontrunners. They may be only in the sense that they are the FIRST group to have all of its ducks lined up for presentation to the NHL and the city. Are they first in the hearts and minds of the NHL? I doubt that. The NHL will accept the offer that is best suited to their needs. In an April 29, 2013 interview Mr. Daly said, “Yes. I mean, again, and I should clarify this. I mean, there’s no doubt that we’re dealing with Mr. Gosbee and Mr. LeBlanc and trying to work through and get to a deal with them but there are other interested people who continue, we’re working with at the same time as well. Nobody has exclusivity here (bold mine). Um, but obviously we’re getting close to having to make some decisions and sign some documentation and you know, we’ve got to work on it. I was on a conference call again last night. It’s something we’re working on”.

Despite the LeBlanc/Gosbee group’s effort to minimize others who are in the running to purchase the team, all others are still viable and not to be discounted no matter how much LeBlanc and Gosbee would like you to do so. Craig Morgan reported on May 5, 2013 that LeBlanc/Gosbee and the NHL would be in town on Tuesday, May 7, 2013 to meet with the city. Why Tuesday? Why not Monday or Wednesday? Tuesday is the scheduled City Council Workshop session. On its Executive agenda one of the items is a Coyotes discussion. This is typical Glendale. Who do you think the council will be talking to in Esession on Tuesday? You win! It will be the NHL, LeBlanc and Gosbee (or their representatives). At an upcoming Tuesday council Esession they could be meeting Pastor, Hulsizer, Reinsdorf, Kaites or Jamison. Take your pick.

copyright

BeaconToday the Beacon RFP for arena management was made public and is posted on the city’s website at  http://www.glendaleaz.com/purchasing/bidopportunities.cfm. You can read the entire document for yourself.

One of the most important elements of the RFP is the duties of the manager. There is one that is the most telling and confirms that the new manager perhaps may not be the owner of a team/anchor tenant, “Act as agent for the City in executing the operational requirements of any license/lease agreements with professional sports team(s) and/or anchor tenant(s) (i.e. manage day of game activities and interact with the sports teams regarding use of the Arena).”  As you can see, the city is seeking an entity to be its agent in dealing with any sports team that wishes to use the arena.

This manager would be responsible for booking all events, be a party to all marketing efforts and have control over the concessions.

In terms of qualifications, the manager must be a nationally recognized company (this banishes the very thought of the Phoenix Monarch Group forever); have three years experience in managing a facility with an NBA or NHL team; and “The Manager must have current experience in operating such a facility on behalf of a public entity, such as the City of Glendale.” Two entities immediately come to mind: AEG, which is managing the arena now for the NHL or Global Spectrum, which manages the University of Phoenix Stadium for the Arizona Sports and Tourism Authority (AZSTA).

The preferred term of the arena manager contract is 5 years with 2 options to renew for additional 5 year terms. It is up to the prospective candidate to bid on the cost the city would pay for such management. It is clearly understood that it contains an “at-risk” provision meaning any losses would be borne by the manager. The city is also asking for an alternative compensation plan that would enhance revenues that the city gets. The city is also asking that the arena manager plan to invest in the arena, “State the amount of a proposed investment in the Arena that the respondent Manager is willing to provide (please review the Proposed Additions and Capital Repairs Schedule for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2014 for further details). Describe any restrictions/repayment requirements on any such investment. Also, describe any additional fees, restrictions, or incentives that may apply to any investment.”

The evaluation criteria are as follows:

  • Business/Marketing/Transition plan worth 30%
  • Compensation price worth 30%
  • Experience and organizational structure worth 15%
  • Personnel worth 10%
  • Investment worth 10%
  • References worth 5%

All responses are due no later than May 24, 2013 at 5 pm EDT. But perhaps the most interesting element of the proposal is, “INQUIRIES OR OTHER CONTACT WITH ANY OFFICER, AGENT, OR EMPLOYEE OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE REGARDING THE ARENA AND/OR THIS REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL, INCLUDING CONTACT BY PROPOSER’S CONTRACTORS, AGENTS, REPRESENTATIVES AND CONSULTANTS, COULD RESULT IN A PROPOSAL BEING DISQUALIFIED.”  The very first question that occurs is why is Mayor Weiers scheduled to meet with Pastor and his group on Friday, April 19th? Either Pastor has no intention of managing the arena or he is not aware that such a meeting could disqualify him.

Well, there you have it. The RFP is pretty much what we expected it to be. Although at this point, Beacon and the RFP seem to have no relevance in an owner’s attempt to acquire the team. The NHL has staked out that territory and will let the city know whom it has chosen. With city council still holding fast to the notion of a $6M annual management fee to any prospective owner I dare say when they see current average annual revenues of $6M and current annual expenses of $12M, they may very well say Hmmmm.

Expect more commentary on this RFP after you and I have had more time to digest it. I thought it important to made public as quickly as possible so that it receives the widest public scrutiny and commentary as possible.

copyright

 

 

Coyotes financial history

Posted by Joyce Clark on April 12, 2013
Posted in City of Glendale  | Tagged With: , , , , , | 3 Comments

ellman

Steve Ellman

Through a Request for Information processed by the City of Glendale, I obtained information about arena management company finances over the years. I do not have a complete picture but I do have information that relates to 2006 to 2007, during the time when Jerry Moyes was the majority owner of the team and arena manager, and 2010 to 2013, the time that the NHL has been owner of the team and arena manager. From the time the arena opened in 2003 to 2006, Steve Ellman was majority owner of the team and the arena manager. Records for his period of management are as elusive as the man himself. When the national economy went south the two men responsible for bringing the team to Glendale left it, holding the bag. Is it karma that Steve Ellman declared bankruptcy regarding Westgate and Jerry Moyes declared bankruptcy regarding the team?

moyes

Jerry Moyes

In 2006 to 2008 the arena was managed by the Arena Management Group, LLC (AMG), a Delaware Limited Liability Company. The managing member and 100% owner of AMG was Coyotes Holdings, LLC (CH) and Jerry Moyes was the majority owner of record. Moyes was originally a minority partner in Steve Ellman’s ownership group, which bought the Coyotes from Richard Burke in 2001. On September 26, 2006, Ellman sold controlling interest in the Coyotes, Arizona  Sting, and the lease to Jobing.com Arena to Moyes. Independent Auditor’s Reports by BDO Seidman, LLP., an accountancy and consultancy firm, were produced that covered the period of 2006 and 2007, just prior to Moyes’ bankruptcy filing.

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)

 

Balance as of June 30, 2005                     Member’s Deficit ($9,641,000)

Net Loss                                                                                                             ($5,777,000)

Balance as of June 30, 2006                     Member’s Deficit ($15,418,000)

Net Loss                                                                                                              ($6,966,000)

Balance as of June 30, 2007                     Member’s Deficit ($22,384,000)

The managing member(s) had plowed over $22M to cover the losses incurred in 2006 and 2007. The general and administrative expenses appear to be disproportionately high during this period.

Bettman

Gary Bettman

In 2008, Moyes told Gary Bettman that he would stop funding the club and so, the figures for 2008 were not included in this request. The NHL was willing to provide funding on an emergency basis if Moyes would turn over his voting control. Their divisiveness became public in May 2009 when the League nearly sold the Coyotes to Jerry Reinsdorf. Moyes would have received very little, if anything, from the sale. Moyes immediately put the Coyotes into bankruptcy protection and announced a plan to sell the club to Jim Basillie. Moyes also filed a lawsuit against the NHL, alleging the league was an “illegal cartel.” Bettman, in return, argued that the league had been blindsided and that Moyes did not have the authority to put the club into bankruptcy protection. Financial records for 2009, during this period of turmoil were not provided from the city.

In the 3 years in which the Arena Newco, LLC., (NHL) has been managing the arena, and according to the documents that they submitted to the city, the costs and revenues have been pretty consistent. Revenues average in the $6M to $7M range and expenses average about $12.5M. The Net Operating Loss average is about $5.5M.

If you look the Moyes figures and the NHL figures they are pretty close to one another. I think it is safe to assume that the costs of operating the arena with the team as an anchor tenant will be in the $12M to $13M range. Revenues have consistently been in the $6M to$7M range with an annual operating loss of about $5M to $6M. Keep in mind these figures do not create any Return on Investment for any of the 4 groups and their investors vying to acquire the team. If the city council rejects all of these potential buyers it is safe to assume that they will be looking an annual expenditures of about $8M to cover the construction debt payment and another $12M to operate the arena. Undoubtedly that $20M annual expenditure will be offset by sales taxes collected on revenue but they should not expect revenue to be comparable to the current $6M to $7M range.

There is another issue to be considered and that is , Capital Repairs. There is a Capital Replacement and Renewal Account from which to pay these items. How hefty is it? None of the documents are clear. But it is known that apparently the roof is leaking and may require as much as $2M to fix.

Revenues have been low for a variety of reasons. In 2003, the team was sited in a new geographical location and it took time for fans to adjust their mindset to make the drive to Glendale. Moyes and the NHL have not had a particularly strong track record in booking other events into the arena. In fact, this year saw the least number of non-hockey events booked than in any previous year. Of course, the first lockout and the most recent lockout did not help. Add to this the fact that the team has not had an owner since 2009 and we have had a referendum attempt to get rid of the team and an election to void the sales tax increase. Throw into all of this mix, a national economy that took a nose dive. This team and this location have never had a fighting chance to realize its full potential.

My hat is off to all of the potential buying groups for believing that they have solutions to all of these issues and can turn the profitability picture around. No matter who succeeds they will have a lot of work to do to rebuild revenues as well as the fan base and confidence in this team. Can it be done? I believe… and I believe the answer is “yes.”

copyright

Late on Friday, April 4, 2013, Craig Morgan, who covers sports for Fox Sports Arizona among a growing list of other media, did an outstanding job of summarizing the recent Coyotes saga. To read his entire article, please go to http://www.foxsportsarizona.com/nhl/phoenix-coyotes/story/Coyotes-ownership-saga-hits-stretch-run?blockID=889001&feedID=3702.

board-gosbee

George Gosbee

Leblanc

Anthony LeBlanc

I have chosen some of the most salient snippets for further commentary. He said, “The group led by George Gosbee and Anthony LeBlanc has already submitted its purchase bid to the NHL, and Darin Pastor’s group submitted the paperwork for its proposal to the league on Friday. Greg Jamison’s group is still working on a proposal, but it is expected that they will submit it by the middle of next week, likely under pressure of an imposed NHL deadline.”

Image2

Darrin Pastor

Jamison

Greg Jamison

The latest rumors say the LeBlanc/Gosbee deal is for 15 years, with no opt-out clause and an option to buy the arena. There is no word on the kind of deal submitted by the Pastor group. That’s odd after his flurry of recent publicity. I am especially gratified to see that Greg Jamison is still a player. I must admit that I hope he prevails. I have met him and talked to him in depth and it is still my belief that this man is a perfect fit for the Coyotes. Morgan offers that Matt Hulsizer may still be in the hunt as well. Maybe…maybe not. Mr. Hulsizer, a successful businessman, married into a family of wealth. They were willing to support him on his first attempt to buy the Coyotes…and why not? A hundred million dollars would have come from the City of Glendale. Yes, the family investment was still healthy but not as much was on the line as the city’s investment under Hulsizer. My guess is that there is no will to continue on the part of the family. I could be wrong for I have proven so in the past but somehow or another, I am willing to write him off.

Mr. Morgan then goes on to say, “What is likely to happen soon is that the NHL will choose an exclusive buyer, then approach Glendale to negotiate the lease agreement. The Glendale City Council hired Beacon Sports Capital in late March to solicit bids from management companies to run the arena, as well as to handle negotiations with any prospective owners.”

Bettman

Gary Bettman

This confirms my assessment in previous blogs that the League is in the driver’s seat this time. They will choose the buyer and Glendale will either come to terms with that buyer or not. The option of relocation of the team is certainly not dead yet.  This council may have thrown good money after bad in hiring Beacon Sports Capital. It appears that Beacon will have no role in the process when the NHL selects the owner. There will be no one to vet. If, however, Glendale cannot or will not come to terms with the newly selected owner, Beacon will then have a role as council will most likely Mayor Weiers’ Plan B with the use of 4 managers for the arena.

In additon, Morgan states, “What that lease agreement will look like is anyone’s guess. Glendale City Councilwoman Yvonne Knaack said recently that the annual fee to the city could “be anywhere from $6 (million) to $10 million on operating, and then maybe another $9 million on debt.” 

Councilmember Sherwood publicly recognized a figure of at least $10M to $12M annually for a lease management agreement.  Vice Mayor Knaack acknowledged a similar figure as well. She is also correct about the arena construction debt of approximately $9M a year. This is where it gets dicey. Will this council accept a deal that requires a substantial annual payment along with the annual construction debt? Combining the two, the figure will be somewhere in the $20M range annually. greed 1But that requires this council to cut expenses elsewhere to absorb the costs of the deal and to continue to build a contingency reserve fund. To date there has been absolutely no will to cut by the new council. In fact, they are considering adding 15 firefighter positions and a new $650K truck and 31 police positions to this budget. They simply cannot do both – manage the annual costs associated with the arena while creating new budgetary expenditures.

Norma Alvarez

Norma Alvarez

We have heard enough from Councilmember Alvarez to know that she wants to pay nothing for the arena and I suspect she thinks there is some group out there that will pay the city for the privilege of managing the arena. Not even her beloved Phoenix Monarch Group was willing to fall for that. If you remember, their base fee was $7M for a limited number of events…read tractor pulls. Nevertheless, she stubbornly holds to that position and has even managed to elicit support from Councilmembers Hugh and Chavira. Councilmembers Martinez and Sherwood recognize the importance of keeping an anchor tenant at the arena for the future of a vibrant Westgate that attracts new development in and around it.

Knaack

Yvonne Knaack

Weiers

Jerry Weiers

That leaves two question marks, Vice Mayor Knaack and Mayor Weiers. Vice Mayor Knaack is on the horns of a dilemma. I suspect in her “heart of hearts” she knows that keeping the team as an anchor tenant would be the right choice. But her strongest backers, the fire union, will put tremendous pressure on her if they see their 15 additional firefighter positions and new truck evaporate in this year’s budget. Mayor Weiers, on the other hand, derided the deal the previous council had with Greg Jamison. He should be reminded that Anthony LeBlanc has said publicly that any deal with the city must be similar to the previous deal on the table with Jamison. Weiers is also looking for a deal on the cheap. It will be time for these two people to decide what is more important. Is it more important to send the team packing and leave the legacy of an uncertain future for the arena and Westgate because it’s what their supporters in their previous election now expect of them? Or is it more important to accept that for the sake of Glendale, of Westgate and of West Glendale’s future development potential that sometimes one has to make the difficult and unpopular decision? We will see…soon enough. We all hope that they realize the importance of keeping an anchor tenant at the arena.

I am pleased that this long, painful Coyotes ownership saga is coming to an end. I wish all theCoyotes logo potential owners well although I continue to root for Greg Jamison.  The Coyotes team has been beleaguered and beaten for too long. They, more than anyone or anything else, have earned certainty about their futures.

copyright

Skeete

Interim City Manager
Horatio Skeete

Several sources have related that Interim City Manager Horatio Skeete is resigning. No news on who will take his place while City Council continues search for permanent City Manager.  House cleaning by a majority of this council continues.

With resignation of City Attorney Craig Tindall and now possibly Interim City Manager Horatio Skeete it appears Glendale will be adrift for awhile. This is occurring as the council prepares to take up budget discussions for Fiscal Year 2013-14. The two persons most knowledgeable about crafting a lease management agreement for Jobing.com Arena and keeping the Coyotes in Glendale are now or soon will be gone.

 

copyright

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

jobing.com arena

Jobing.com Arena

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

copyright