Part XV: Phoenix - the battle of evermore (UPD #443ff 14-Dec agenda/lease links)

[LadyStanley]

As Lady Stanley noted by law it's only 24 hours needed but generally for a Tuesday meeting they release the agenda the Friday before.

The agenda has to be out 72-96 hours in advance. But contracts (or some other things) they vote on only need 24 hour advance release.

 

[CGG]

The agenda has to be out 72-96 hours in advance. But contracts (or some other things) they vote on only need 24 hour advance release.

And there's no possible way anyone will be able to read through the entire lease in 24 hours, therefore complaints will be at a minimum. Way to go, COG. Think something might be unpopular with residents? Release a 3000 page legal document 24 hours before voting to approve $10's or $100's of millions of dollars in subsidies, all 11 days before Christmas. Awesome.

 

[AllByDesign]

And there's no possible way anyone will be able to read through the entire lease in 24 hours, therefore complaints will be at a minimum. Way to go, COG. Think something might be unpopular with residents? Release a 3000 page legal document 24 hours before voting to approve $10's or $100's of millions of dollars in subsidies, all 11 days before Christmas. Awesome.

You say this as if it were a unique scenario. Heck, legislator's rarely ever read the entire proposal at all levels of government.

 

[kdb209]

The agenda has to be out 72-96 hours in advance. But contracts (or some other things) they vote on only need 24 hour advance release.

Nope - under AZ Notice of meetings statute (§38-431.02) only 24-hrs notice is required, including the agenda.

2005 Arizona Code - Revised Statutes §38-431.02 Notice of meetings

A. Public notice of all meetings of public bodies shall be given as follows:

1. The public bodies of the state shall file a statement with the secretary of state stating where all public notices of their meetings will be posted and shall give such additional public notice as is reasonable and practicable as to all meetings.

2. The public bodies of the counties, school districts and other special districts shall file a statement with the clerk of the board of supervisors stating where all public notices of their meetings will be posted and shall give such additional public notice as is reasonable and practicable as to all meetings.

3. The public bodies of the cities and towns shall file a statement with the city clerk or mayor's office stating where all public notices of their meetings will be posted and shall give such additional public notice as is reasonable and practicable as to all meetings.

4. The public bodies of the cities and towns that have an internet web site shall post all public notices of their meetings on their internet web site and shall give additional public notice as is reasonable and practicable as to all meetings. A technological problem or failure that either prevents the posting of public notices on a city or town web site or that temporarily or permanently prevents the usage of all or part of the web site does not preclude the holding of the meeting for which the notice was posted if all other public notice requirements required by this section are complied with.

B. If an executive session will be held, the notice shall be given to the members of the public body, and to the general public, stating the specific provision of law authorizing the executive session.

C. Except as provided in subsections D and E, meetings shall not be held without at least twenty-four hours' notice to the members of the public body and to the general public.

D. In case of an actual emergency, a meeting, including an executive session, may be held on such notice as is appropriate to the circumstances. If this subsection is utilized for conduct of an emergency session or the consideration of an emergency measure at a previously scheduled meeting the public body must post a public notice within twenty-four hours declaring that an emergency session has been held and setting forth the information required in subsections H and I.

E. A meeting may be recessed and resumed with less than twenty-four hours' notice if public notice of the initial session of the meeting is given as required in subsection A, and if, prior to recessing, notice is publicly given as to the time and place of the resumption of the meeting or the method by which notice shall be publicly given.

F. A public body that intends to meet for a specified calendar period, on a regular day, date or event during such calendar period, and at a regular place and time, may post public notice of such meetings at the beginning of such period. Such notice shall specify the period for which notice is applicable.

G. Notice required under this section shall include an agenda of the matters to be discussed or decided at the meeting or information on how the public may obtain a copy of such an agenda. The agenda must be available to the public at least twenty-four hours prior to the meeting, except in the case of an actual emergency under subsection D.

H. Agendas required under this section shall list the specific matters to be discussed, considered or decided at the meeting. The public body may discuss, consider or make decisions only on matters listed on the agenda and other matters related thereto.

I. Notwithstanding the other provisions of this section, notice of executive sessions shall be required to include only a general description of the matters to be considered. Such agenda shall provide more than just a recital of the statutory provisions authorizing the executive session, but need not contain information that would defeat the purpose of the executive session, compromise the legitimate privacy interests of a public officer, appointee or employee, or compromise the attorney-client privilege.

J. Notwithstanding subsections H and I, in the case of an actual emergency a matter may be discussed and considered and, at public meetings, decided, where the matter was not listed on the agenda provided that a statement setting forth the reasons necessitating such discussion, consideration or decision is placed in the minutes of the meeting and is publicly announced at the public meeting. In the case of an executive session, the reason for consideration of the emergency measure shall be announced publicly immediately prior to the executive session.

K. Notwithstanding subsection H, the chief administrator, presiding officer or a member of a public body may present a brief summary of current events without listing in the agenda the specific matters to be summarized, provided that:

1. The summary is listed on the agenda.

2. The public body does not propose, discuss, deliberate or take legal action at that meeting on any matter in the summary unless the specific matter is properly noticed for legal action.

 

[peter sullivan]

am i wrong in believing that they have not created a CFD that includes the westgate development?....since to begin the process of creating a CFD on their own land they had to vote in a public council meeting. i assume to expand it they would have to do the same.

so...have they figured out a way to finance this deal without the westagte CFD contribution?

is a CFD not a creation of the state?.....if it is, it is likely that even the one on their own land would need to be voted on at the state level, which has not happened to my knowledge.

so...have they figured out a way to finance the deal without a CFD at all?

 

[Whileee]

am i wrong in believing that they have not created a CFD that includes the westgate development?....since to begin the process of creating a CFD on their own land they had to vote in a public council meeting. i assume to expand it they would have to do the same.

so...have they figured out a way to finance this deal without the westagte CFD contribution?

is a CFD not a creation of the state?.....if it is, it is likely that even the one on their own land would need to be voted on at the state level, which has not happened to my knowledge.

so...have they figured out a way to finance the deal without a CFD at all?

If the lease does include subsidization from a CFD that incorporates non-public landowners / businesses, and that hasn't been established, then I have the sinking feeling that this could be just the "beginning of the end" or the "end of the beginning".

 

[DeathToAllButMetal]

Are they just "working" here, or are they still negotiating over the CFD, lease terms, etc.? Hard to believe that they're just wrapping things up. If that were the case, then Glendale should know what the timeline will be here. That there is still a lot up in the air over timing seems to indicate that they're negotiating.

Be really interesting to see what they take public. If Glendale gets that far.

 

[peter sullivan]

that is the question for sure....coyote fans will hope that the verbal agreement 2 months ago had the negotiations finalized and the delay has been caused by them working on the financing mechanisms such as creating the CFD.

relocationists will hope that the lack of evidence from either the state, ellman or even glendale themselves that any progress has happened with a CFD will mean that they have been negotiating the lease this whole time and have not completed the real heavy lifting.

 

[Killion]

If the lease does include subsidization from a CFD that incorporates non-public landowners / businesses, and that hasn't been established, then I have the sinking feeling that this could be just the "beginning of the end" or the "end of the beginning".

When the drumbeats' along the Zambizi stop, get worried Whileee, really really really worried...

 

[pucka lucka]

am i wrong in believing that they have not created a CFD that includes the westgate development?....since to begin the process of creating a CFD on their own land they had to vote in a public council meeting. i assume to expand it they would have to do the same.

so...have they figured out a way to finance this deal without the westagte CFD contribution?

is a CFD not a creation of the state?.....if it is, it is likely that even the one on their own land would need to be voted on at the state level, which has not happened to my knowledge.

so...have they figured out a way to finance the deal without a CFD at all?

I read through the CFD statutes a while back, and if I am remembering correctly it's impossible for the CFD to have been created, unless everyone missed some events.

I just located the statutes. See section Article 6 : http://www.azleg.gov/ArizonaRevisedStatutes.asp?title=48

 

[Jesus Christ Horburn]

At the end of the day, COG is buying the team themselves IMO.

It looks to me like Hulsizer is nothing but a figurehead. After all, he has nothing at stake (aside from his 170 million deposit) and COG is the one will have to cover the losses. COG knew they couldn't legally buy the team themselves (I believe they even said they considered it in an interview), so they did the next best thing.

My guess is that they tried to make the same arrangement with Reinsdorf, but Reinsdorf demanded a out-clause to relocate the team after X years. They probably tried the same with Ice Edge, but couldn't close the deal because Ice Edge didn't have the money

 

[Killion]

that is the question for sure....coyote fans will hope that the verbal agreement 2 months ago had the negotiations finalized and the delay has been caused by them working on the financing mechanisms such as creating the CFD.

relocationists will hope that the lack of evidence from either the state, ellman or even glendale themselves that any progress has happened with a CFD will mean that they have been negotiating the lease this whole time and have not completed the real heavy lifting.

Possibly. However, speculating a bit here, it would seem to me that all parties concerned would know what they can & cant do with respect to any possible COG backed subsidies, lease arrangements etc; while the NHL itself is clearly jacketed with fixed-price/no-terms. Hulsizer (and the COG) have the failed bids of most notably Jerry Reinsdorf & to a lesser extent IEH's to provide a bit of a roadmap to securing a deal that'll pass muster, and they've also all had more than enough time to secure Ellmans signature & consult with Constitutional Lawyers & the Goldwater Institute to make absolutely certain the thing is Bullet Proof.

The delay could be & likely is due to financing, as it usually is in such situations, as Id be shocked to find, upon release of the AMULA, that the clauses & provisions included there-in repeats any part of recent history. If any one of the aforementioned conditions are absent then this thing goes down like the Hindenburg, and I for one will be screaming for Bettman & Dalys' heads, while the COG & Hulsizer are more to be pitied than prosecuted for being completely & utterly bereft of so much as even an ounce of common sense. So lets see what gets released tomorrow night for next weeks Council Meeting, as timing becomes yet another factor what with the Holiday Break approaching, bolt holes warm & welcoming to the characters involved should furor erupt.

We'll see, because its time to get real, get it done, or go away....

 

[MAROONSRoad]

I believe the CFD was created, but am not aware of any reports of Ellman's participation. From a story circa the IEH era:

Agreement with Ellman to include his property in a special taxing district. The council last week agreed to create a "community facilities district" that would use property taxes to pay off bonds that would finance Coyotes losses. Ellman's cooperation is key to the viability of the district.

http://www.azcentral.com/community/...es-ownership-saga-glendale.html#ixzz0sv90rGGH

GHOST

 

[pucka lucka]

I believe the CFD was created, but am not aware of any reports of Ellman's participation. From a story circa the IEH era:



http://www.azcentral.com/community/...es-ownership-saga-glendale.html#ixzz0sv90rGGH

GHOST

I think they only took the first step, "Resolution declaring intention to form district". THe second step are the notifications which require very specific public notification(s). Unless those notifications slipped by everyone, there is no actual CFD yet.

 

[ducks2010]

Nope - under AZ Notice of meetings statute (§38-431.02) only 24-hrs notice is required, including the agenda.

Isn't there also some sort of court imposed conditions specific to the Coyotoes/Arena deal as a result of the Goldwater/Glendale court wrangling? I seem to remember that Glendale was ordered to release any proposed deal early with some time period in order that Goldwater would be able react legally. In other words, the court will not allow Glendale to quickly release and vote without everyone having some reasonable time period to see what the deal is.

 

[OthmarAmmann]

meh. I'm still expecting no lease for another week. Just my guess.

 

[RR]

I think they only took the first step, "Resolution declaring intention to form district". THe second step are the notifications which require very specific public notification(s). Unless those notifications slipped by everyone, there is no actual CFD yet.

Not sure that is true. Since the resolution only involved city-owned land, it is possible there was no requirement to notify private property owners since it didn't involve private land. It might be that the CFD is indeed formed, and any adjacent private land owner can voluntarily request to the CFD board to opt in to the CFD. I would think the City Council would then have to vote to expand the boundaries to accommodate the land owners wishing to join the CFD.

Obviously need to look at the statute in more detail, as I'm simply speculating.

Isn't there also some sort of court imposed conditions specific to the Coyotoes/Arena deal as a result of the Goldwater/Glendale court wrangling? I seem to remember that Glendale was ordered to release any proposed deal early with some time period in order that Goldwater would be able react legally. In other words, the court will not allow Glendale to quickly release and vote without everyone having some reasonable time period to see what the deal is.

Again, not so sure about that. GI would have no reason to file UNTIL something is voted on. It could be reviewing the document at this very moment and will be at the Council meeting Tuesday to see what, if anything, is approved. Then if it finds the document objectionable, it could file an action in court.

 

[Whileee]

Not sure that is true. Since the resolution only involved city-owned land, it is possible there was no requirement to notify private property owners since it didn't involve private land. It might be that the CFD is indeed formed, and any adjacent private land owner can voluntarily request to the CFD board to opt in to the CFD. I would think the City Council would then have to vote to expand the boundaries to accommodate the land owners wishing to join the CFD.

Obviously need to look at the statute in more detail, as I'm simply speculating.

How would you define "adjacent"? Does a CFD have to be contiguous geographically, or can it just be "conceptual". So far, we have really only heard about Ellman and the Westgate properties, presumably because some of them would benefit from the Coyotes' presence. But what about the Westgate tenants that see little to no added value to the Coyotes. For example, I would think that any parking charges or levies on the movie multiplex would be a huge disincentive for them. Adding a parking charge to a movie ticket would make them much less competitive, I would think. The irony is that the movie multiplex is probably more important for other businesses in Westgate because the volume of patrons over a year would be as much or more than Coyotes fans, and they are perhaps more likely than Coyotes fans to patronize some of the other businesses because of the lower cost of a movie and the relative flexibility of timing (matinees, etc.). So, if you are Ellman and other Westgate businesses, can you afford to alienate the movie multiplex by adding parking and other fees? I expect that these sorts of calculations will need to be made, if they have not been already.

 

[kdb209]

I read through the CFD statutes a while back, and if I am remembering correctly it's impossible for the CFD to have been created, unless everyone missed some events.

I just located the statutes. See section Article 6 : http://www.azleg.gov/ArizonaRevisedStatutes.asp?title=48

A CFD on the CoG owned land was approved at the June 22, 2010 CoG Council meeting.

C&P from an earlier Roman Numeral thread:

Which CFD? I thought there were two on the agenda.

No. There were two agenda items related to the same CFD.

1. A vote to accept the petition to create a CFD.
2. A vote to actually create the CFD requested by the petition.

13. RATIFICATION OF PETITION TO CREATE COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT

Purpose: This is a request for City Council to ratify the filing of a petition pursuant to A.R.S. §
48-702 requesting the formation of a community facilities district that incorporates city-owned
land. The petition, which is signed by 100% of the landowners holding land within a district
area that has no residents, allows the city to adopt a resolution that creates the district.

Council Strategic Goals or Key Objectives Addressed: This request supports Council’s goal of
one community with quality economic development in our entertainment district.

Background: Arizona statutes have provided for community facility districts since 1988. These
entities are granted the ability to collect and disburse revenue, enter into contracts, issue debt
obligations, and conduct other business and operational activities. The formation of a district will
create a valuable development tool that will assist in assuring that public facilities are utilized to
the maximum extent, and support continued economic development in the area.

Previous Council/Staff Actions: Staff has discussed the creation of a community facilities
district with Council during workshop meetings and Council Meetings on April 13, 2010, May
11, 2010, and June 8, 2010.

The necessary petition and general plan for the district was filed with the City Clerk on June 11,
2010.

Budget Impacts & Costs: Ratification of the petition has no budget impact.

Recommendation: Waive reading beyond the title ratify the Petition for the Creation of City of
Glendale, Arizona Community Facilities District Number Two.

21. FORMATION OF THE COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT TWO

Purpose: This is a request for City Council to adopt a resolution to form a community facilities
district named the City of Glendale, Arizona Community Facilities District Two (CFD2), which
will initially incorporate city-owned land surrounding the Arena.

The funding mechanism for the CFD2 as an entity independent of the city will be new, userdriven
revenue sources that are directly related to uses benefiting the land within the district.

Council Strategic Goals or Key Objectives Addressed: This request supports Council’s goal of
one community with quality economic development in our entertainment district.

Background: Arizona statutes have provided for community facility districts since 1988. These
entities are granted the ability to collect and disburse revenue, enter into contracts, issue debt
obligations, and conduct other business and operational activities. The formation of the CFD2
will create a valuable development tool that will assist in assuring that public facilities are
utilized to the maximum extent, and support continued economic development in the area.
Revenue will be generated through activities at the arena and within the surrounding district.
Previous Council/Staff Actions: Staff has discussed the creation of a CFD2 with Council during
workshop meetings and Council Meetings on April 13, 2010, May 11, 2010, and June 8, 2010.

Budget Impacts & Costs: The CFD2 will be self-funding and rely on revenue generation from
fees, assessments, and contractual income related to activities that directly benefit the district.

Recommendation: Waive reading beyond the title and adopt a resolution authorizing the
Notification of Intent.

edit: agenda and minutes from the 6/22 Council meeting:
CoG Council Agenda/Minutes Page
6/22 Agenda
6/22 Minutes
6/22 Video

Resolution No. 4402 New Series was read by number and title only, it being A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, ORDERING AND DECLARING FORMATION OF CITY OF GLENDALE, ARIZONA COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NUMBER TWO.

It was moved by Martinez, and seconded by Frate, to pass, adopt and approve Resolution No. 4402 New Series as amended to reflect the amended petition and General Plan which has been filed with the City Clerk. The motion carried unanimously.

 

[peter sullivan]

Does a CFD not have to be approved by the state?

 

[RECCE]

Honestly, the CoG must have a money tree hidden somewhere.

Main Street project faces foreclosure


Glendale was counting on Main Street to generate sales taxes when it decided to build Camelback Ranch Glendale ballpark. That tax revenue was supposed to help pay off the city's $200 million investment in the spring-training stadium.

Without the commercial complex and with money from the Arizona Sports and Tourism Authority falling tens of millions below expectations, Glendale faces the daunting task of repaying its debt.

The city has been using borrowed money to pay for the ballpark debt, but that is expected to be depleted around 2014. A nearly $16 million debt payment is due that year. City officials have not unveiled backup plans.

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarep...01209biz-gl-mainstreet1209.html#ixzz17f0gT5dO

 

[dkehler]

Honestly, the CoG must have a money tree hidden somewhere.


Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarep...01209biz-gl-mainstreet1209.html#ixzz17f0gT5dO

"Falling tens of millions below expectations ..."

Who could've ever guessed?

 

[kdb209]

Does a CFD not have to be approved by the state?

No - see A.R.S. §48-702 - §48-708:

http://www.azleg.gov/ArizonaRevisedStatutes.asp?title=48

 

[Whileee]

A CFD on the CoG owned land was approved at the June 22, 2010 CoG Council meeting.

C&P from an earlier Roman Numeral thread:



edit: agenda and minutes from the 6/22 Council meeting:
CoG Council Agenda/Minutes Page
6/22 Agenda
6/22 Minutes
6/22 Video

So, the question remains: have they incorporated any landowners outside of the City-owned land into the CFD (i.e. Ellman and Westgate)?

 

[TheLegend]

And there's no possible way anyone will be able to read through the entire lease in 24 hours, therefore complaints will be at a minimum. Way to go, COG. Think something might be unpopular with residents? Release a 3000 page legal document 24 hours before voting to approve $10's or $100's of millions of dollars in subsidies, all 11 days before Christmas. Awesome.

You say this as if it were a unique scenario. Heck, legislator's rarely ever read the entire proposal at all levels of government.

And we just ousted quite a number of them who did just that a little over a month ago.