Homeless in Arizona

Closed Glendale council-NHL meetings raise concern

By Paul Giblin The Republic | azcentral.com Wed Jun 12, 2013 10:32 AM

Glendale City Council members maneuvered around the state’ Open Meeting Law last week when they privately met with National Hockey League executives and potential buyers of the Phoenix Coyotes who outlined their desire to use and manage Jobing.com Arena.

The largely new council campaigned on bringing sunshine to City Hall, but there has been little public discussion about the Coyotes since the new leaders took office five months ago.

The dearth of public discussion comes despite a council-set deadline in three weeks to have the matter settled. It’s unclear when residents will hear details and get to offer opinions on an arena deal that is expected to cost the city millions of dollars a year.

The council members met privately with the hockey executives on May 28. They convened in groups of one, two and three during a series of back-to-back meetings.

The limited attendance of elected officials during the serial briefings was important.

If four of the seven council members had attended the same meeting, the Open Meeting Law would have required the meeting to be conducted in public.

Instead, the hockey executives repeated their presentation four times throughout the morning. All four meetings were private.

Councilwoman Norma Alvarez, residents and First Amendment experts questioned whether the serial meetings were legal and appropriate, but Mayor Jerry Weiers, other council members and the city attorney said the council’s actions were in accordance with the Open Meeting Law.

There’s reason to suspect that the council purposefully circumvented the law, depriving the public of its right to listen to deliberations, said David Bodney, a First Amendment attorney who represents The Arizona Republic.

“If meetings were scheduled to discuss essentially the same thing or things sequentially to avoid the requirements of the Open Meeting Law, then there would be a violation of statute,” Bodney said.

Glendale interim City Attorney Nick DiPiazza said there was no intent to circumvent the law, because the private get-togethers were not actual meetings.

“There was no meeting conducted. If there were a meeting, there would have to be an agenda, there would have to be a quorum. And there was no meeting,” he said.

DiPiazza believes that the gatherings scheduled four days in advance were merely occasions for polite introductions, he said.

“When you speak of a meeting, it sounds like something official. It sounds like something is agendized. It sounds like something which is intended for the conduct of business, and I don’t think that’s what was intended here,” DiPiazza said.

Weiers went to the first meeting at 9 a.m.

Interim City Manager Dick Bowers was next at 10.

Vice Mayor Yvonne Knaack and Councilman Ian Hugh followed at 11. Alvarez was invited, but didn’t attend.

Councilmen Sam Chavira, Manny Martinez and Gary Sherwood went at noon.

During the four meetings, NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman and Deputy Commissioner Bill Daly formally introduced the top principals of Renaissance Sports & Entertainment, the investment group that NHL executives selected to purchase the Coyotes, according to hockey executives and city officials.

The NHL executives also asked city officials to negotiate a deal with Renaissance’s executives that would keep the Coyotes at the arena and could pay Renaissance millions of dollars a year using taxpayer funds to manage the city-owned facility, according to the hockey executives and city officials.

Weiers declined to discuss the details shortly after the first private meeting when he was approached by several news crews that staked out the lobby of City Hall.

“I don’t have anything for you guys right now,” the mayor told reporters.

“The council is going to be briefed in separate meetings going on today and once we have all that together, we’ll give you a statement. But right now, we really don’t have anything to tell you,” he said.

When asked whether the format of the serial meetings was intended to sidestep the law, Weiers responded, “No, it doesn’t sidestep anything. The reason they’re doing that is because we can’t have a quorum. I want all the council to know what’s going on, but to stay with state law, we can’t have a quorum.”

Later that week, Weiers said Renaissance’s principals outlined their financial requirements in broad terms during the private meeting he attended.

Asking Renaissance’s principals to outline their requirements for the entire council in public would have put them at a competitive disadvantage to other facility management firms that are bidding to operate the arena, he said.

Weiers, Hugh and Sherwood said they were comfortable with the serial private meetings because they lacked a quorum of council members. The other council members who attended the meetings did not return calls seeking comment on the matter.

“You know what? There is no sidestepping the Open Meeting Law,” Hugh said. “You either abide by it or you break the law. There’s not a sidestep.”

Hugh is mindful of the law and he presumes that other members of the council are equally attentive, he said.

Alvarez criticized the council majority for participating in the carefully formatted meetings that kept the discussions out of the public domain.

“I promised that I was going to be transparent and I mean that,” Alvarez told the Republic. “I’m not going to break the Open Meeting Law.”

Just hours after the private meetings concluded, all seven council members and the city manager attended a regularly scheduled council meeting, which was open to the public, broadcast live on the city’s cable-TV outlet, recorded and posted on the city’s website.

The hockey executives didn’t attend the public meeting. And none of the council members discussed the day’s developments concerning the Coyotes and the arena.

Council members are permitted to raise any topic. In fact, just before ending every public meeting, Weiers invites each council member by name to speak about any subject he or she cares to address.

Sherwood used the open-microphone session that night to explain his vote against the proposed city budget; Knaack said she wasn’t totally pleased with the budget either. Martinez commended a person for his historic preservation work and a company for its volunteer work; Hugh seconded Martinez’s remarks. Weiers spoke eloquently about Memorial Day.

Alvarez and Chavira said nothing.

Glendale resident and government watcher Kenneth Sturgis noted their silence on the arena deal.

“In my opinion, a bigger downfall of this whole process is the lack of transparency in these types of separate meetings and the circumvention of the Open Meeting Law,” Sturgis said during the public meeting.

Sturgis read a passage from the Arizona Attorney General’s Agency Handbook that discusses splintering a quorum.

“Public officials should refrain from any activities that may undermine public confidence in the public decision-making process established in the Open Meeting Law, including actions that may appear to remove discussions and decisions from the public view,” he read to council members.

The state’s Open Meeting Law allows public officials to discuss certain topics, including contract negotiations, in private.

But according to Weiers, Hugh and Sherwood, no negotiations took place during the private meetings they attended.

During the third and fourth meetings, NHL and Renaissance executives merely expressed their desire to keep the Coyotes in Glendale and their hope to reach a deal with city officials concerning the arena, Hugh and Sherwood said.

Former Arizona Attorney General Bruce Babbitt addressed the topic of serial meetings in an opinion concerning the Open Meeting Law in 1975.

Governing bodies that participate in discussions, deliberations, considerations or consultations that may require final decisions must be conducted in open sessions, unless the discussions meet the standards for executive sessions, Babbitt wrote in the opinion.

“It should be pointed out, however, that such discussions and deliberations between less than a majority of the members of a governing body, or other devices, when used to circumvent the purposes of the act, would constitute a violation which would subject the governing body and the participating members to the several sanctions provided in the act,” he wrote.

The 38-year-old opinion remains valid, Bodney said.

“The X factor here is whether they discussed the same topics. It would be logical to assume that they did, but we don’t know for certain. If they did, there would certainly be cause to suspect a violation of the Open Meeting Law,” he said.

The council members clearly gave little thought about the perception they created by agreeing to the closed-door meetings, University of Arizona School of Journalism Director David Cuillier said.

“If I were a citizen of Glendale, I’d be irate that my elected leaders were hiding this from me in such a deliberative, sneaky way. I mean, that’s the appalling part — that they would be so conniving about it,” he said.

Dennis Wells, who heads the state Ombudsman/Citizens’ Aide Office, said no one has filed a complaint about the council’s private meetings. The agency is charged with investigating and recommending remedies for Open Meeting Law issues that involve state and local governments.

“We can certainly look into situations — and we do — along these lines, but something has to trigger it. A person has to complain, make an inquiry on it. That’s when we open a case file and look into it,” Wells said.

Wells said open meetings and public deliberations among elected officials are intended to promote accountability.

“It’s the whole move toward transparency and making sure that whatever a local government agency does, or a district board does, is open to the citizenry, so they can have an opportunity to be aware of what is going on,” Wells said.

“It’s really to make government more transparent,” he said.

Glendale likes to keep the public in the dark about corporate welfare to sports teams!!!!

Council to hear Coyotes options

Ownership, arena deal to be detailed

By Paul Giblin The Republic | azcentral.com Tue Jun 18, 2013 7:42 AM

The future of the Phoenix Coyotes likely will hinge on a complex deal that’s scheduled to be outlined to the Glendale City Council today in a private session.

The deal would guarantee the potential Coyotes buyers group lucrative terms for a long-term management deal to operate Jobing.com Arena, Councilman Gary Sherwood said. In exchange, the ownership group would give the city access to millions of dollars in revenue derived from events held at the facility, he told The Arizona Republic.

Acting City Manager Dick Bowers, who has headed discussions with Renaissance Sports and Entertainment representatives for weeks, is scheduled to present options to the full council in executive session today.

No vote can be taken in the non-public session.

Sherwood stressed that no deal is in place, and he was uncertain how quickly an agreement could be made. The next voting meeting is June 25.

The National Hockey League acquired the team in Bankruptcy Court four years ago and has been trying ever since to sell to private owners willing to keep the team at the Glendale-owned arena. NHL Deputy Commissioner Bill Daly said last week that the ownership dilemma must be resolved or the Coyotes may not play in Glendale next year.

The sale is dependent on the potential owners reaching an arena deal with the city.

Bowers did not return calls seeking comment. Renaissance principals Anthony LeBlanc and Avik Dey, who were in Glendale on Monday, said they are in discussions.

“We’re working very closely with the city to keep the team in Glendale and to find a way to make this deal work financially for the city and for our investors,” LeBlanc told The Republic before attending a meeting at the Coyotes’ headquarters in Glendale’s Westgate Entertainment District.

Renaissance’s principals appear willing to discuss giving Glendale revenue from ticket surcharges from hockey and other events such as concerts, parking fees and naming rights on the arena, Sherwood said.

The Coyotes have not charged for general parking, making the team one of the few in the National Hockey League that didn’t do so last season.

Such revenue could close the gap between the amount the city has budgeted for arena management and the amount the potential owners are seeking, Sherwood said.

The city has budgeted $6 million a year. LeBlanc told The Republic months ago that he was interested in about $15 million a year.

The revenue exchange likely is designed to assist Renaissance in getting financing from lenders by demonstrating guaranteed revenue from the city, Sherwood said.

The NHL’s asking price on the team has been widely reported as $170 million.

Renaissance must prove to council members that revenue the Coyotes generate would offset the steep management price.

Councilman Manny Martinez said he’d like nothing more than to see Renaissance make its case and provide the city with enough revenue to make the deal work.

“It’s critical that we keep the team,” Martinez said.

However, he’s aware of the city’s tight finances. “We don’t have any money,” he said.

Martinez is curious to see bids from the non-hockey firms to provide “some sort of baseline” on what the city must pay for arena management.

Along with reviewing the Renaissance proposal, the council is expected to review bids from two outside companies to manage the arena. Any decision to go with a non-hockey firm likely would lead to the Coyotes’ departure because Renaissance’s deal is contingent on managing the arena.

Councilman Ian Hugh said any deal remains speculative as he hadn’t heard any details as of Monday.

“Our city manager hasn’t told me about a proposal,” he said. “Nothing.”

Glendale arena deal always stank

Source

Arena deal always stank

Sun Jun 30, 2013 6:47 PM

The question I’ve asked of the Glendale City Council, that nobody has answered, is why the city just doesn’t sell the arena to the Phoenix Coyotes, the National Hockey League, or anyone who wants it, and then let the new owner keep all the money.

Our city has already sunk millions into this fiasco, so get what you can and minimize losses. This whole deal stank from the beginning, and was based on projections that were unsustainable.

When I asked at the council meetings back in 2002, it was evident there was no back-up plan should things not pan out. Too bad political leaders cannot be held financially accountable for debacles such as these.

— Tim Weaver, Glendale

Price of keeping Coyotes revealed

Price of keeping Coyotes revealed

By Paul Giblin The Republic | azcentral.com Fri Jun 28, 2013 2:09 PM

The financial burdens that come with keeping the Phoenix Coyotes in Arizona would be shared by Glendale taxpayers, the prospective owners of the franchise and hockey fans, according to a draft deal released Thursday.

The deal concerns the team’s use of Jobing.com Arena, a city-owned facility where the Coyotes have played since 2003.

The deal calls for the city to pay the prospective team owners an arena-management fee of $15million annually, which is far more than city officials had hoped to pay.

The prospective owners offered to soften the financial outlay by reimbursing the city with millions of dollars derived largely from fees collected from hockey fans who attend games.

Vice Mayor Yvonne Knaack and Councilmen Gary Sherwood and Sam Chavira called for a vote on the matter Tuesday, which is expected to seal the fate of the Coyotes in Glendale.

NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman emphasized the point during a news conference in New York on Thursday.

“If the council doesn’t approve it so that this transaction can close, I don’t think the Coyotes will be playing there anymore,” he said.

A backup plan hasn’t been ironed out, he said, but there are options.

In Glendale, Sherwood told The Arizona Republic that he was uncertain of Tuesday’s outcome.

“Do we have the votes to pass it Tuesday? I don’t know. I hope we do, but I’m not sure,” he said.

Mayor Jerry Weiers said he was disappointed with the short window to analyze the deal. The most recent proposal was received by the city at about 9 p.m. Wednesday. Yet the hockey executives expected a vote on Tuesday, less than a week later.

Weiers called for a public non-voting meeting today at 1:30 p.m. at City Hall so council members and the public can be briefed on the final draft concurrently.

“The very reason I’m calling this meeting is I want the public to see what’s going on,” he said.

IceArizona is the second name associated with the current prospective Coyotes ownership group. Originally, the group was called Renaissance Sports & Entertainment. The original four investors will remain as Renaissance and will serve as the managing partners of IceArizona, which will include a broader group of investors.

According to the deal points released by city officials, if the contract is approved, Glendale will pay IceArizona $15million a year to manage the arena, while IceArizona will reimburse the city an estimated $6.72million.

The reimbursements will be in addition to the city’s collection of sales taxes at the arena. IceArizona executives estimate that figure at nearly $637,000, using an “excessively conservative estimate.”

The draft agreement calls for the Coyotes to play at the arena for 15 years, but the prospective team owners could leave if their cumulative losses reach $50million or for any reason after five years.

Glendale noted the deal would not allow the city a similar out clause.

Glendale’s reimbursement would come through rent, surcharges on tickets, parking fees and naming rights for both the arena and a proposed theater within the arena. The reimbursements are intended to close the gap between the $6.5million the city budgeted for arena management and maintenance and the $15million the ownership group wants.

If the combined reimbursements and arena-related sales taxes fall short of $8.5million a year, the city could collect $1.2million, derived from a secondary surcharge on tickets at all arena events. If the reimbursements and sales tax cover the gap, the team would keep that money.

The guaranteed revenue from the city to the team is intended to provide assurances to IceArizona’s lenders, who are providing financing for a sizable chuck of the team’s $170million purchase price from the NHL, team attorney Nick Wood said.

“We hope that they approve it this week, and it certainly is the best deal they’ve ever seen or negotiated and certainly is the best for the city of Glendale and particularly the taxpayers of Glendale,” Wood said.

Glendale has been involved with an ever-changing list of potential hockey buyers since 2009, when the NHL acquired the team in bankruptcy. City officials see the Coyotes as generator for spin-off business at bars, restaurants and stores within the Westgate Entertainment District.

Wood said the team’s projected reimbursements are based on 12,630 fans attending 41 regular-season hockey games a year, which excludes preseason and playoff games. The attendance figure is based on average attendance the past four years.

Non-hockey event attendance was based on 15,000 fans for 23 events a year, which represents a historic low for the arena, Wood said.

The ticket surcharges would be $3 per ticket for hockey games and $5 per ticket for non-hockey events. All of the ticket surcharge revenue would be passed to the city.

Parking fees are based on $10 a car for regular-season hockey games and $15 a car for non-hockey events. IceArizona would keep the first $20,000 in hockey-related parking fees and provide the rest to the city. The team would keep 25 percent of parking fees for non-hockey events, Wood said.

The city owns most of the parking around the arena, so IceArizona would lease the spaces from the city, then hire parking attendants to collect cash from motorists arriving at events.

IceArizona would provide 20 percent of all naming rights from the arena to the city immediately. Currently, the city doesn’t receive a split from naming rights.

Furthermore, the hockey executives envision attracting smaller acts to the arena by using heavy curtains to close off about three-quarters of the seating bowl to create a theater within the arena. The city would get 100 percent of the naming-rights fees for the smaller theater.

The arena opened as the Glendale Arena, and it took about three years to secure the current naming-rights deal. However, Canadian Terry Burton, who wrote a book on naming rights, said it is a seller’s market because of the limited number of venues.

IceArizona’s attorney said it’s appropriate for Glendale to bear some of the risk of the team being successful at the turnstiles.

“Parties to an agreement should each have some risk,” Wood said.

However, Glendale acting City Manager Dick Bowers cautioned council members to be sensitive to the deal’s risk. The risk is coupled with uncertainty concerning IceArizona’s projections.

“My concerns could mean nothing or they could represent an existential question that must be considered. Will this work for the benefit of the City of Glendale and what makes us firmly believe that it will?” Bowers wrote in a letter to council members Tuesday.

Glendale resident and Coyotes season-ticket holder Larry Feiner said city officials should be willing to carry some of the financial risk involved with the venture.

“It would be unreasonable to expect the city to not have any risk in this type of agreement,” he said.

“If that’s what they expect, then they deserve to lose this team. And all the worst that you can think a city could possibly endure, they deserve the worst if they think they’re entitled to a guarantee. And I hope that you’re recording that because I think I just said that pretty well,” Feiner said.

Just how much is Glendale willing to pay to subsidize hockey?

Source

Posted on July 2, 2013 10:29 am by Laurie Roberts

Just how much is Glendale willing to pay to subsidize hockey?

The city of Glendale faces a doozie of a choice tonight.

Keep the Phoenix Coyotes and lose $12.9 million a year. Or let the team go and lose $10.9 million a year.

Vote to subsidize the team to the tune of $15 million a year in return for a guarantee that it’ll stay in the city’s arena – built with $180 million of the city’s money — for five whole years. If by then the team’s owner, Renaissance Sports & Entertainment, has lost $50 million, it can immediately skate out of town.

But if the city loses $50 million can taxpayers get out of this deal? Oh, no. That, apparently, is a “non starter” with the investors who own the team.

Shrewd negotiators, those city folks. Essentially what they’re doing is subsidizing the purchase of team so it can eventually move elsewhere.

Did I say shrewd? A big round of applause to the Renaissance guys for getting the city to even put this dog of a deal to a vote.

The City Council will decide tonight on just how badly it wants to continue as patsies to professional hockey. Pressure is massive as businesses in Westgate fear having to go it alone, without hockey to bring in the customers. They contend they’ll be able to make up the $2 million in sales tax receipts if the team stays. Meanwhile, hockey fans fear losing their team.

Which, I imagine, they will eventually lose anyway, given the team’s “out” clause.

Look for the key vote to be Councilman Sammy Chavira, a firefighter who defeated former Councilwoman Joyce Clark, one of the team’s biggest boosters. Chavira was thought to be leaning against the deal but he sided with two hockey boosters, Councilwoman Yvonne Knaack and Councilman Gary Sherwood, to put the matter to a public vote tonight.

Chavira couldn’t be immediately reached to explain what he’s thinking.

Or just how much he might be willing to sacrifice in the way of other city services to hang onto hockey. The city has already spent most of its reserves, cut employees and cut services. It’s even contemplating selling city hall to pay off the $30 million or $50 million it already owes the NHL as a result of an earlier shrewd hockey deal.

The city already has the highest sales tax in the Valley, so I’m guessing that piling more taxes on its citizens is out. Police and fire, which comprises the bulk of the city’s budget, have already been cut but I suppose you could always hack away some more.

Tonight should be telling as we learn where priorities lie in the city of Glendale.

Oh for the good days, when cities just picked up the garbage and fixed potholes…

Glendale has been the NHL's patsy for too long

Source

Glendale has been the NHL's patsy for too long

Our View: Council should stand firm on Coyotes counteroffer

By Editorial board The Republic | azcentral.com Tue Jul 2, 2013 7:35 AM

The National Hockey League is used to Glendale being its patsy. It sets the price for the Coyotes so high that the new owners have to exact subsidies from the city to make the deal pencil out.

It has worked before. Repeatedly. But not, apparently, this time. The Glendale City Council no longer wants to take all the risk. Good for it.

The team’s latest prospective buyer wants a locked-in $15 million a year for 15 years to manage Jobing.com Arena. It will reimburse the city what it estimates will be close to $7 million in ticket surcharges plus a portion of parking revenue and naming rights.

A guarantee? Not in the cards. Yet the buyers want to be able to walk away if they lose $50 million.

So Glendale asked for the same ability to scrap the deal if it loses $50 million. It’s logical, a hedge against the city having to pay for poor performance by the team. The city also wants more money per game should the team play fewer than 41 at home, reasonable given hockey’s labor history.

The buyers said no way.

It comes to a head tonight, when the council is scheduled to vote on its proposal.

The council should stand firm.

If the buyers and the NHL walk away, so be it.

You can only give away the store so many times before all that’s left is empty shelves.

Glendale City Council Screws Taxpayers

Source

City Council OKs multimillion-dollar deal to keep team in Glendale

By Paul Giblin The Republic | azcentral.com Wed Jul 3, 2013 7:30 AM

The Glendale City Council gave the Phoenix Coyotes a new lease on life, approving a complicated, multimillion-dollar deal Tuesday night that pays the hockey team to stay at Jobing.com Arena for at least five years.

National Hockey League executives still have to give formal approval to an investment group called IceArizona to complete their purchase of the team, but that’s expected to be just a formality. The group has one month to get that done.

The council approved the deal with a 4-3 vote.

Councilman Manny Martinez said he supported the deal after the potential team buyer offered more financial guarantees to the city, including a partnership with a successful events-management firm and repayment under certain circumstances if team revenue projections don’t pan out.

“These two things put an entirely different picture before us tonight,” Martinez said.

He was joined by Vice Mayor Yvonne Knaack and council members Sam Chavira and Gary Sherwood.

Mayor Jerry Weiers, along with councilmembers Norma Alvarez and Ian Hugh, were opposed.

Weiers said the city was still being asked to take too much of a financial risk.

“If things go south, we don’t have a way out of this,” he said.

The decision was critical as NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman had been clear in the weeks leading up to the vote that if the deal was rejected, the team would not play in Glendale next season.

Anthony LeBlanc, a principal with the buyers group, told council members ahead of the vote that General Manager Don Maloney, coach Dave Tippett, team captain Shane Doan and recently goalie Mike Smith had all agreed to remain with the team.

“They all took the leap of faith on staying in uncertain times and staying with this team and region,” LeBlanc said, asking council ahead of the vote to take the same leap.

Long-suffering hockey fans filled City Hall to plead for council members to keep the team. A Glendale resident held a sign outside that criticized the deal’s impact on the city.

The Coyotes had played under a giant cloud of uncertainty since 2009, when the NHL bought the franchise in Bankruptcy Court.

During the span, NHL executives and city officials negotiated deals with an array of potential buyers, but every deal fell apart, keeping the team in Glendale on a year-by-year basis.

Prospects for another deal heightened in the spring with the emergence of an investment group that came to be called IceArizona, under the leadership of Canadian businessmen George Gosbee and previous Coyotes suitor Anthony LeBlanc.

After securing a conditional purchase from the NHL, IceArizona executives approached Glendale leaders with a proposal that called for the city to pay them $15 million a year to manage the city-owned arena.

The hockey executives promised to reimburse the city millions a year based on revenue drawn from new ticket surcharges, parking fees and a split of naming rights for the arena and a new stage within the arena.

City Council members debated whether to align the city with IceArizona or go with other management companies that offered to operate the arena for closer to $6 million.

The other operators, though, couldn’t guarantee NHL hockey.

The proposal remained in flux on Tuesday.

Just hours before the council meeting started, IceArizona executives announced that they had partnered with Global Spectrum, an arena- and stadium-management company, to attract and promote events at Jobing.com Arena.

Global Spectrum is a subsidiary of Comcast-Spectacor, which owns the NHL’s Philadelphia Flyers and manages the Flyers’ facility, Wells Fargo Arena; and the Arizona Cardinals’ facility, University of Phoenix Stadium, as well as more than 100 other venues.

“As owners of an NHL franchise and operators of the arena in which they play, we are confident that they will do amazing things for us in Glendale,” LeBlanc said in a statement. “It’s difficult to imagine a better partner than Global Spectrum.”

The announcement likely was an effort to assure council members of the group’s ability to book non-hockey acts and attract arena visitors, bolstering confidence in revenue projections for the city.

At the meeting, IceArizona’s attorney unveiled a plan to offer the city some guarantees on the revenue streams it promised the city. If the team were to exercise an out-clause after five years, the buyers group would make the city whole on any losses stemming from the deal that reach beyond $6 million.

Attorney Nick Wood said IceArizona offered this concession because it could not accept the city’s demand for a five-year out-clause.

As recently as Friday, during the first public airing of the tentative agreement, council members announced that they had inserted an out-clause for the city.

The out-clause, which could be triggered after $50 million in losses or for any reason after five years, was fair, council members had said, because the hockey executives had a similar out-clause.

Gary Birnbaum, an attorney representing the city, called IceArizona’s effort to make up for potential excessive city losses a good concession.

However, any accumulated losses would be borne by the city and continue for the full 15 years of the contract if the team didn’t leave, Birnbaum said.

But that was a decision the council would have to make based on how much risk the city was willing to take.

Before the vote, the council amended the deal to remove the city’s out-clause.

The debate also focused on the Coyotes’ role as an anchor to the Westgate Entertainment District, which city officials envisioned as a catalyst to re-create the city’s image as a sports and entertainment mecca.

The team would be playing 41 nights at the arena each season, drawing crowds to the surrounding bars, restaurants, shops and hotels. No one could say with certainty how Westgate would fare without the Coyotes.

The proposal comes as officials have cut staff and services and increased the sales- and property-tax rates to balance the operating budget.

Acting City Manager Dick Bowers, who was one of the city’s top negotiators on the hockey proposal, cautioned council members in recent weeks that the proposal was fraught with risk. The city could not afford a failure, he wrote in a memo to elected leaders on June 25.

On Tuesday, he said the latest concessions from IceArizona ease some of the risk.

Before Tuesday’s meeting, Michelle Rider, president and CEO of West Valley business-advocacy group Westmarc, said the Coyotes are important to the entire region’s reputation.

“We do know that it’s a prestige issue,” she said. “We also know that it’s a foot-traffic issue and it’s an events issue. The more events we have — and the Coyotes are such a great team — and the more we can bring people to Westgate, the better we are in all kinds of areas.”

The team has been important to economic development by drawing attention and by demonstrating that the West Valley has major-league pull, Rider said.

Glendale denies unlawful ‘meetings’

Source

Glendale denies unlawful ‘meetings’

By Paul Giblin The Republic | azcentral.com Sat Jul 27, 2013 1:00 AM

Glendale’s interim city attorney responded Friday to the state’s investigation of possible Open Meeting Law violations by the Glendale City Council by saying no “meetings” took place.

Glendale interim City Attorney Nick DiPiazza called them “meet and greet opportunities,” rather than meetings as defined by state law.

The attorney general’s investigation focuses on a series of private back-to-back meetings on May 28 at City Hall among council members, National Hockey League executives and the prospective buyers of the Phoenix Coyotes franchise.

Six of the council’s seven members participated in the meetings in groups of one, two or three, which avoided a four-member quorum and the Open Meeting Law.

The Arizona Republic wrote about the potential violation last month.

Attorney General’s Office spokesman Doug Nick declined to provide details about the inquiry.

“That investigation is ongoing, and that’s all I can say right now,” he said.

The state launched the investigation in response to several complaints, according to a July 2 letter by assistant Attorney General Christopher Munns to interim City Manager Dick Bowers.

“The complaints allege that the council violated the Open Meetings Law by conducting sequential meetings of council members in a number less than a quorum in order to discuss official town business without needing to comply with the requirements of the law,” Munns states in the letter.

Mayor Jerry Weiers met with the hockey executives at 9 a.m. Bowers was next at 10 a.m. Vice Mayor Yvonne Knaack and Councilman Ian Hugh went at 11 a.m. Council members Sam Chavira, Manny Martinez and Gary Sherwood followed at noon.

Councilwoman Norma Alvarez was invited to the 11 a.m. meeting, but declined to attend and later criticized her colleagues for agreeing to meet with the hockey executives.

The group included NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman, Deputy Commissioner Bill Daly, other top NHL executives, and prospective Coyotes buyers George Gosbee and Anthony LeBlanc.

The meetings set into motion negotiations that resulted in the council approving a 15-year, $225 million contract with the prospective team owners to operate Jobing.com Arena, which is owned by the city.

The council approved the contract on a 4-3 vote on July 2, the same day the Attorney General’s Office opened the investigation.

DiPiazza, in his letter of response, said the separate meetings with small groups of council members were “to avoid the appearance that a meeting within the meaning of the statute was being conducted.”

State law defines a meeting as a gathering of a “quorum of members of a public body at which they discuss, propose or take legal action, including any deliberations by a quorum with respect to such action.”

Later in the letter, DiPiazza said the gatherings were “not serial meetings of Councilmembers in a number less than a quorum conducted to circumvent the law.”

DiPiazza said meetings were “simply for the NHL Commissioner and his Deputy to personally introduce (the potential team buyers) to city officials.”

He said no business was conducted: “Councilmembers knew to not to conduct any deliberations at the gatherings.”

Weiers previously told The Republic that the prospective Coyotes buyers outlined their financial requirements in broad terms during the private meeting he attended.

Following the meetings, the NHL issued a statement that said, in part: “Everyone involved in today’s discussion shares the desire and ultimate objective of transitioning the ownership of the Coyotes and safeguarding the franchise’s long-term future in Glendale.”

The crux appears to be whether the council splintered a quorum, a practice then-Attorney General Bruce Babbitt discussed in a 1975 legal opinion.

“Discussions and deliberations between less than a majority of the members of a governing body ... when used to circumvent the purposes of the Act, would constitute a violation,” Babbitt wrote.

That standard should be applied to all discussions among a majority of the members of a governing body when those matters may lead to a final action or final decision by the members, Babbitt wrote.

If violations are found, penalties could include removal from office, fines of $500 per person and assessment of the state’s attorney fees, the Attorney General’s Office said.

It appears Glendale’s sequential meetings were scheduled to keep the public in the dark, said media attorney David Bodney, of the Phoenix office of the law firm Steptoe & Johnson.

“It is difficult to know if any violation occurred because we don’t know what they discussed and whether they discussed the same things when they met sequentially with different members of the council,” said Bodney, who represents The Republic in First Amendment matters.

“If they discussed the same matters, albeit sequentially, then there would appear to be a violation of the Open Meeting Law.”

Source

State opens meeting law probe of Glendale

By Paul Giblin The Republic | azcentral.com Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:16 PM

The State Attorney General’s Office has launched an investigation into possible violations of Arizona’s Open Meeting Law by the Glendale City Council.

The investigation focuses on a series of private back-to-back meetings at Glendale City Hall among council members, National Hockey League executives and the prospective buyers of the Phoenix Coyotes franchise on May 28.

The Attorney General’s Office launched the investigation in response to several complaints, according to a July 2 letter by Assistant Attorney General Christopher Munns to interim City Manager Dick Bowers.

“The complaints allege that the council violated the Open Meetings Law by conducting sequential meetings of council members in a number less than a quorum in order to discuss official town business without needing to comply with the requirements of the law,” Munns states in the letter.

Munns asked Bowers to provide additional information about the serial meetings by July 26.

The Arizona Republic, which wrote about the potential violation last month, obtained Munns’ letter through a public records request.

Attorney general spokeswoman Stephanie Grisham declined to specify how many people filed complaints about the matter.

“It’s an ongoing investigation, so we won’t be making any comments about it,” she said.

In general, Open Meeting Law investigations take one to six months to complete, Grisham said.

If violations are found, penalties could include fines of as much as $500 per person, assessment of the state’s attorney fees and removal from public office, according to the Attorney General’s Office.

Six of the council’s seven members participated in the serial meetings, but in groups of one, two and three, which maneuvered around the Open Meeting Law by avoiding a four-member quorum.

The meetings set into motion negotiations that resulted in the council approving a 15-year, $225 million contract with the prospective Coyotes owners to operate Jobing.com Arena, where the team has played since 2003.

The council approved the contract on a 4-3 vote on the day the Attorney General’s Office opened the investigation.

Munns’ letter notes that no agendas were posted for the serial meetings, nor were minutes from the meetings made available for the public.

Councilwoman Norma Alvarez was invited to one meeting, but declined to attend. Later, she criticized her colleagues.

Glendale interim City Attorney Nick DiPiazza said he interviewed the council members who participated in the meetings and is preparing a response to the Attorney General’s Office.

“I don’t believe any meetings were conducted within the meaning of a meeting under the Arizona Open Meeting Law,” he told The Republic. “The meetings were — as described by council members — meet and greet. They were introductions and I don’t believe any business was conducted and I don’t believe any violations of the law were intended or occurred.”

Mayor Jerry Weiers previously told The Republic that the prospective Coyotes buyers outlined their financial requirements in broad terms during the private meeting he attended.

Glendale resident Ken Sturgis, who said he filed a complaint, believes the private meetings amounted to far more than introductory sessions.

“It’s hard to believe that this kind of contract that was put together and presented later wasn’t talked about. I find that very hard to believe,” he said.

Corporate welfare at Tempe Town Lake!!!!

Corporate welfare at Tempe Town Toilet!!!!

1) A large part of the time the park is not open to the public, but used for events to raise money for the royal rulers of Tempe. And these events are expensive to attend and most of the working class people that live in Tempe can't afford to attend the events, despite the fact that these people were forced to pay for Tempe Town Toilet with their hard earned tax dollars.

2) These events cause huge traffic jams and parking problems in the downtown Tempe area

3) When these events are concerts they routinely keep people awake late at night in the entire downtown area, and as far north as Roosevelt Road in Scottsdale which is also Continental Drive in Tempe. I am not sure how far south the concerts can be heard.

Also check out:

Source

Tempe to weigh revising Town Lake plan

By Dianna M. Náñez The Republic | azcentral.com

Tue Jul 30, 2013 12:10 AM

The Tempe City Council took a leap of faith more than a decade ago when it sank $44.8 million into building a 2 1/2-mile-long lake in the desert.

The council hoped that risking the debt to create high-profile waterfront property would pay off in the long run for Tempe, then a landlocked city desperate for new development.

But 14 years after the lake opened in 1999, city finance officials say Tempe is faced with a reality check that Town Lake is far from reaching the city’s development goals.

Tonight, the council is expected to consider revising a financing plan for Town Lake.

City finance officials have said the revised plan would give developers a financial break on their share of costs tied to the man-made lake [i.e. - stiff us taxpayers with the cost], make private development more affordable [i.e. stiff us taxpayers with the cost] and, ultimately, advance Tempe’s plans to secure sufficient lakeshore private development to ease the hefty public costs of maintaining Town Lake. [now the last phrase certainly is an oxymoron - give tax dollars private developers to lower the cost to taxpayers - now that's an impossibility - the more we give them the more it costs us]

But critics argue that taxpayers have long carried the financial burden for private lake development.

The new plan offers no guarantee that economic breaks for developers will actually spur construction, argue Joe Pospicil and Art Jacobs, two longtime Tempe residents who regularly question city finances and criticize lake expenses.

If approved, the revised plan also would shift the burden of paying for a new west-end lake dam, which the city has estimated will cost at least $37.4 million, to Tempe taxpayers, freeing developers from sharing the expense to replace the dam. [That a fancy way of saying give boatloads of our hard earned tax dollars out in corporate welfare rich corporations - the rich corporations that give bribes, oops, I mean campaign contributions to the members of the Tempe City Council]

Approval of the city proposal would mark the second time a Tempe City Council, aiming to drive development, has tweaked the original 1995 lake-financing plan in favor of developers. The first was in 1997.

Mayor Mark Mitchell said he believes the proposal merits more time in the public realm so that council members may gain sufficient community feedback. [Translation - he wants to make it look like the taxpayers approve of the members of the Tempe City Council giving boatloads of our cash to the rich corporations that gave the members of the Tempe City Council bribes, oops, I mean campaign contributions]

But it remains to be seen whether Mitchell’s colleagues agree that the council has a responsibility to arrange future forums for the public to question and comment on the proposal.

As of Monday, the proposed changes were included on the agenda for today’s council meeting.

The finance proposal is not set for a two-hearing process, which would have allowed for public comment at the first hearing and then required a vote and a second opportunity for public comment at a future council meeting.

That means the council could choose to approve the revised Town Lake financing plan with little opportunity for public input.

But before the council agenda was posted on the city’s website Friday, Mitchell said he still had questions about the financing plan.

“When we initially developed the lake, we had a plan, but it’s a working document,” he said. “We might change it, we might not. (But) we’ll have enough time to thoroughly review (any formal changes).” [translation - we know how to run your life better then you do, but if we screw it up don't blame us]

Mitchell said he expects staff today to merely explain the long-term impact of the proposed changes. [That pretty simple Mayor Mitchell, you and the other royal members of the Tempe City Council will be giving our hard earned tax dollars out as corporate welfare for years to come to corporations that give you bribes, oops, I mean campaign contributions]

The proposed finance changes were triggered by an economic reality check, Roger Hallsted, the city finance analyst for the Rio Salado Community Facilities District, told The Arizona Republic.

“From all of our original projections, (we were) thinking really by about this time ... the lake would be built out,” Hallsted said.

Tempe’s goal is for private development on 120 acres to generate assessment fees covering 60 percent of annual operations costs. [So us taxpayers will be forced to pay for 40 percent of the developers costs]

But a Republic analysis last year revealed that in the 13 years since the lake was filled, private development still only covered about 20 percent of operation and maintenance costs, well below the 60 percent envisioned in the original city plan. [So in stead of us taxpayers being stuck with paying 40 percent of the developers costs, we are stuck with paying 80 percent of the developers costs - if you ask me us taxpayers are getting screwed on this deal]

Tempe taxpayers have and continue to pay the majority of the $2 million to $3 million in annual costs for operations and maintenance as well as most of the bill for the $44.8 million in original construction costs. [translation - us taxpayers are getting screwed - also did you know that the city of Tempe spends more on Tempe Town Toilet, aka Tempe Town Lake then on all the other parks in Tempe combined???]

Private investment has spurred construction of about 24 acres of condos, high-rise office and commercial space around the lake. Town Lake supporters blame the recession for slower-than-expected development. [Well why didn't the freaking geniuses on the Tempe City Council figure out this??? I guess they were too busy taking bribes, oops, I mean campaign contributions from the rich developers]

The proposed changes to the financing plan are aimed at making land surrounding Town Lake more attractive to private development, Hallsted said. [yea, like giving then 10 times as much corporate welfare as originally planned]

If the council approves the changes, Town Lake developers would pay less toward their share of payments for the original construction costs. [And us taxpayers get screwed again and will have to make up the difference]

The proposal emanated from Tempe’s Enhanced Services Commission, Tempe Finance Manager Ken Jones said. [It sounds more like it came from the developers who will be getting the corporate welfare if you ask me!!!!]

The commission includes representation from Jones; Town Lake developers; Nancy Hormann, the president of the group that manages the downtown Tempe district; and Arizona State University, which owns and is attempting to develop acres of lakeshore property. [yes I was right, it did come from the developers who will are getting the corporate welfare!!!!]

A Republic review of public records from the commission meetings shows that commission members have spent the past year discussing development and maintenance plans for the lake.

At a January meeting, Jones asked for “the logic behind asking the council to cover the cost of replacing the dams,” according to public records of the meeting. [If you remember it was the idiots on the Tempe City Council who get screwed on the damn. The accepted a worthless ORAL 30 year guarantee on the damn, which failed after 10 years causing us taxpayers to get stuck with the replacement costs]

Hallsted said shifting the cost of the dams from being a shared debt with private developers to a taxpayer-only-funded cost is the result of the original rubber dam deteriorating years earlier than expected. [yea, like I just said]

“These new dams, at $38 million to $50 million, if we were to put that in at the true cost, just the (Town Lake) infrastructure replacement budget would have gone from $531,000 (annually) to $2 million,” he said.

The city had to face facts, he said, that it would have to shoulder the dam’s cost rather than “bankrupting every single (lake) property owner,” Hallsted said. [f*ck you!!!! bankrupt the developers for making dumb decisions, not the taxpayers. Or let the members of the Tempe City Council pay for the whole thing.]

The commission questioned whether it’s “more expensive to build at the lake than anywhere else in the Valley” and whether the city was “willing to offer an incentive to level the playing field,” according to public meeting records. [Well maybe the idiots on the Tempe City Council should not have build the lake, since it is a money losing experience]

The commission recommended a plan that would lower an annual “holding fee” of sorts that developers pay until they build on their lake property. [translation - make the taxpayers pay more of the developers expenses - i.e. more corporate welfare for the rich corporations building stuff on Tempe Town Toilet]

If the revised plan is approved, that fee would be reduced from the current 5 percent to the rate of inflation, which is currently 2.2 percent, Hallsted said. [which the Tempe taxpayers will pay]

The financing proposal also includes lowering the annual interest rate developers pay over the 25 years they are allowed to pay back their share of lake construction. [again, which the Tempe taxpayers will pay]

The current interest rate is 5 percent, and the proposal would lower it to 3.64 percent, Hallsted said. He added that the proposal calls for the council to make the rate reduction retroactive to July 1, 2009.

If the council approves rolling back the fee, developers that have built existing commercial and residential development at the lake would receive credits on biannual debt payments they are currently making. [and us taxpayers will be stuck with even bigger bills. Of course the members of the Tempe City Council will get to keep the bribes, oops, I mean campaign contributions they accepted from the developers of property at Tempe Town Toilet]

While critics worry that taxpayers are funding too much of the cost for Town Lake, Hallsted reasons that the revised plan will establish a realistic financing plan for the lake and encourage development that will help pay a greater share of the lake’s annual operations and maintenance costs. [why expect the developers to pay for their costs, when they can give small bribes, oops, I mean small campaign contributions to the Tempe City Council members who will stiff the taxpayers with the bill]

“The key thing,” he said, “is being fair to the citizens, but try to make it more enticing for developers to come in.” [translation - the key to this is SCREWING the taxpayers and forcing them to pay the developers bills]

For more articles on the millions of dollars the city of Glendale, Arizona is giving to the millionaire owners of the Phoenix Coyotes check out these articles