HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 9/12/2012 *PLEASE NOTE: Since the Glendale City Council does not take formal action at the
Workshops,Workshop minutes are not approved by the City Council.
pi
GLE E
MINUTES OF THE
GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL WORKSHOP
Council Chambers—Workshop Room
5850 West Glendale Avenue
September 12,2012
1:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Mayor Elaine M. Scruggs, Vice Mayor Steven E. Frate and Councilmembers
Norma S. Alvarez, Joyce V. Clark, Yvonne J. Knaack, H. Phillip Lieberman, and Manuel D.
Martinez.
ALSO PRESENT: Horatio Skeete, Acting City Manager; Craig Tindall, City Attorney; and
Pamela Hanna, City Clerk
1. BUDGET DISCUSSION
PRESENTED BY: Horatio Skeete, Acting City Manager
The purpose of this presentation is to provide the City Council with an overview of the five-year
budget projections for the City of Glendale, examining three possible financial scenarios and the
implications on the city's current Fiscal Year(FY) 2012-13 budget.
This meeting is for Council information only. Future Council Workshops will be conducted to
update Council and receive direction on these matters.
Horatio Skeete, Acting City Manager, presented an overview of today's objectives regarding the
sales tax initiative as well as the arena management agreement.
Mr. Skeete stated that on June 26th the City Council authorized and voted for a sales tax of two
levels with an expiration date of 2017. The City Council also approved an arena management
agreement with Mr. Jamison with a $17 million payment in this fiscal year and $20 million for
the next three years and $18 million in the next five years and so forth. He would like to focus
their attention on three possible scenarios that they can envision happening in the next two to
three months.
1
Possible Funding Scenarios:
1. City sales tax stays in place, potential successful renegotiation of the Arena Management
Agreement and debt is restructured.
2. City sales tax goes away; collections stop end of November 2012, potentially successful
renegotiation of Arena Management Agreement and debt is restructured.
3. City sales tax goes away, unsuccessful renegotiation of the Arena Management
Agreement; Coyotes leave Glendale, arena management fee adjusted to$6 million.
Councilmember Martinez noticed that in the first two scenarios, the debt is restructured. He
asked what would happen if they were unable to restructure the debt. Mr. Skeete explained that
if that happens they would be left with the third scenario.
Mayor Scruggs commented the only thing that maybe isn't there is that if the city sales tax goes
away, the restructuring is not successful, but the Coyotes stay.
Mr. Skeete noted that scenario would be as dramatic as scenarios two or three. However, he can
include that model as well. Councilmember Martinez said he would like that included.
Mr. Skeete said before moving any further he would like to discuss a matter that occurred
yesterday. He explained that as he was formulating these scenarios, it seemed clear that their
cash flow situation for one year was not going to communicate effectively the possible realities
that the city might be faced with. He said that model does exist and was posted online
temporarily. However, it was removed once he realized the facts of his evaluation. He said he
came to the conclusion that the better model to present was a one year scenario from a budget
perspective. This will allow for a better five year budget projection model. Therefore, today he
will be presenting a five year budget analysis.
Councilmember Clark asked if the information posted was incorrect or just in a format that did
not lend itself to today's discussion. Mr. Skeete stated the information was correct, however, it
does not lend itself for an easy conversation and a smooth transition for the purposes of this
discussion.
Mr. Skeete presented the first scenario: City sales tax stays in place, potential successful
renegotiation of the Arena Management Agreement and debt is restructured.
City collects an estimated additional $22 million in sales tax. Arena Management fee reduced to
$10 million for FY 13. Debt restructured resulting in $8 million annual savings in FY13.
Expenditures reduced by $6 million annually starting in 2013. He stated with these three
scenarios materializing over the next three months, they still have to make a budget reduction of
about$3 million this fiscal year.
2
Mayor Scruggs commented it says expenditures reduced by $6 million annually starting in 2013.
So the $3 million is one half of, okay, let's take a moment to look at this. Are the new MOU
expenses; are those an already approved contract or an assumed to be approved contract?
Mr. Skeete said it was an approved contract.
Mayor Scruggs asked on a three percent inflationary factor, why is there no inflation built in?
Mr. Skeete stated that this year's budget did not include any inflation.
Mayor Scruggs noted it's not in the revised budget either.
Mr. Skeete explained that the assumption was they would still have to make cuts at the beginning
of the year and on any inflationary increases and costs.
Mayor Scruggs asked is $13 million as low as you feel you can get Mr. Jamison to go on the
Arena Management fee. Because it was printed in the newspaper lower than that.
Mr. Skeete explained he and Mr. Jamison have had several discussions over the last two weeks.
However, they have yet to finalize the renegotiated agreement. He added they were considering
many options to the lease agreement. He noted their conversations have evolved into about a
$72 million payment over the first five years. He said the models for the arena management fee
run from $10 million to $17 million over the first five years. These numbers will be used until
they finalize the agreement.
Mayor Scruggs said but by the time we get through this, half the year will be gone and he gets a
full year's payment even though he hasn't owned the team. We are talking about FY 13. Why
would he get a full year payment?
Mr. Skeete explained those were some of the things that are still being negotiated. .
Mayor Scruggs said that if we are looking at FY 13 budget,to give him a full year payment when
he did not own the team nor manage the arena for a full year, does not make sense in any possible
realm. She did not think there was a way that could ever be justified. He begins with whenever
the agreement is signed until June 30`" of 2013. And we are talking about this current FY year,
right?
Mr. Skeete replied yes.
Councilmember Lieberman commented on the amount of debt the city has to renegotiate. He
believes it will be very difficult because of the serious problems the city was facing. Mr. Skeete
agreed it has been very difficult having those conversations with the financial market, however,
they will continue to move forward for a possible resolution. Councilmember Lieberman said
he hopes for the best and that the banks are willing to work with the city.
3
Mr. Skeete presented a five year forecast summary on scenario one: City sales tax stays in place,
potential successful renegotiation of the Arena Management Agreement and debt is restructured.
Five Year Forecast Summary
($'s in Millions)
Adopted Revised
FY 2013 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017
Beginning Fund Balance 2.0 2.0 6.4 8.5 10.6 15.0
Revenues 168.0 168.0 173.9 180.0 186.3 192.8
Total Rev & Fund Balance $170.0 $170.0 $180.3 $188.4 $196.9 $207.8
Expenditures
All General Fund Expenses 131.0 131.0 133.0 136.8 140.8 144.9
Expenditure Reduction (3.0) (6.0) (6.0) (6.0) (6.0)
New MOU Expenses 2.0 2.0 - 3.0 3.0
3% Inflationary Factor - - 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.3
Transfers 14.0 14.0 18.0 16.0 16.0 20.5
Arena Management Fee 17.0 13.0 14.0 14.0 15.0 16.0
Spring Training Facility - 6.6 9.0 10.0 12.0 13.0
Total Expenditures $164.0 $163.6 $171.8 $177.8 $181.9 $195.6
Ending Fund Balance $6.0 $6.4 $8.5 $10.6 $15.0 $12.2
Targeted Fund Balance $16.8 $16.8 $17.4 $18.0 $18.6 $19.3
Councilmember Martinez stated he hopes these projections prove to be correct. However,
looking at the revenues going from $168 million in 2013 to $192 million in 2017 seems to be
very optimistic.
Mr. Skeete noted that was a 3.5% increase in revenue projections. He commented on the
analysis that led him to that projection.
Councilmember Clark inquired if all general fund expenses reflect the 3% included for the
inflationary factor. Mr. Skeete replied no. Other increases will include inflationary costs such as
gas prices etc. He explained only the predictable increases are included. The unpredictable
costs include items such as healthcare cost.
Mayor Scruggs commented that she had spoken to Mr. Skeete previously and he said he would
cover this later but her questions were regarding the very high profile issue of unfunded pension
plans and that definitely goes into the unpredicted column. But her understanding is that he did
not account for that and that is something to be considered later and that is going to be a very
huge number.
Mr. Skeete noted that was discussed, but excluded since that discussion continues to vary
therefore it was not included in these numbers. He noted that if they are lucky and it was only
about 3%, however, he has not heard anything to suggest it would be less than 8%to 10%.
4
Mayor Scruggs pointed out that 3%will use up the entire general fund expenses by itself. So she
thought it was important while everybody looks at this that they understand that there is this other
huge issue looming out there. So Mr. Skeete was talking about he hadn't heard anything less
than 8% or 10%. Okay so if he took 8%from FY 2014, and it was over$10 million. Is her math
off?
Mr. Skeete said the math was not off; however, the 8% was not out of the total amount so it
would be less.
Mayor Scruggs said the only point is that there was an unresolved issue and an unresolved
expense that will have to be fit in with no choice.
Councilmember Lieberman questioned the growth on the chart. He said that 18% was a very
steep growth rate in the next five years. He hopes the growth rate was accurate so the city can
begin to receive the much needed revenue. Mr. Skeete explained that figure was driven by the $6
million reduction in expenses. He explained it was important to note that the percentage
calculation was not a growth rate projection but a cumulative change in the five year projection.
Mayor Scruggs asked for an explanation on the transfers line — the 4 1/2 million dollar increase
between FY 16 and 17. What would that be attributed too? Well that really bounces around a
lot. Mr. Skeete stated that was the model they used based on the debt structuring of the eligible
PFC and MPC debt. Another important factor in the remodeling of the debt restructuring is if the
sales tax goes away in five years that will be a$25 million reduction. Therefore, he suggests they
pay as much as they can on the debt within the five years they have the sales tax to level it out
and slightly reduce it.
Mr. Skeete presented the second scenario: City sales tax goes away; collections stop end of
November 2012, potentially successful renegotiation of Arena Management Agreement and debt
is restructured.
City collects approximately $8 million of the estimated $22 million sales tax revenue that was
included in the FY13 adopted budget.
Arena Management fee reduced to $10 million for FY13
Debt restructured resulting in $8 million annual savings in FY13
Expenditures reduced by$25 million annually, starting in January 2013.
Councilmember Clark noted that essentially what they had done was lose the $22 million dollars
in sales tax revenue that was included in FY13 and made that up by cutting$25 million out of the
budget annually. She noted this presupposes steep cuts. Mr. Skeete corrected stating it actually
projected pretty steep cuts.
5
Councilmember Clark asked what new MOU expenses were on this sheet. Mr. Skeete explained
the MOU expenses were not included in the $31 million of total expenses. Those expenses were
adopted and approved in this year's budget.
Mr. Skeete presented a five year forecast summary on scenario two: City sales tax goes away;
collections stop end of November 2012, potentially successful renegotiation of Arena
Management Agreement and debt is restructured.
He said this scenario showed they needed to reduce the general fund operation budget by $25
million in order to maintain the other components of the budget.
Five Year Forecast Summary
($'s in Millions)
Adopted Revised
FY2013 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017
Beginning Fund Balance 2.0 2.0 0.4 4.4 8.5 14.8
Revenues 168.0 154.0 156.3 161.8 167.4 173.3
Total Rev & Fund Balance $170.0 $156.0 $156.7 $166.2 $175.9 $188.1
Expenditures
All General Fund Expenses 131.0 131.0 133.0 136.2 139.7 143.1
Expenditure Reduction (11.0) (25.0) (25.0) (25.0) (25.0)
New MOU Expenses 2.0 2.0 - 3.0 - 3.0
3% Inflationary Factor - - 3.2 3.4 3.4 3.6
Transfers 14.0 14.0 18.0 16.0 16.0 20.5
Arena Management Fee 17.0 13.0 14.0 14.0 15.0 16.0
Spring Training Facility - 6.6 9.0 10.0 12.0 13.0
Total Expenditures $164.0 $155.6 $152.2 $157.7 $161.1 $174.2
Ending Fund Balance $6.0 $0.4 $4.4 $8.5 $14.8 $13.9
Targeted Fund Balance $16.8 $15.4 $15.6 $16.2 $16.7 $17.3
$8 million collected in the first year before tax repeal
Mayor Scruggs commented that the amount of sales tax that was estimated to be collected from
this new tax was $22 million but the amount to be cut out of the budget is $25 million if the tax
goes away. Why the difference?
Mr. Skeete explained that the $22 million in taxes was not a direct relationship between the
operating budgets that was presented. He said going back to scenario one, they still have to cut
$6 million even with the tax in place.
Mayor Scruggs commented the fund balance is a huge concern. Now on scenario two, the
revised 2013 budget shows us with an ending fund balance of$400,000. She was just talking to
Chief Black last night about the cost of the landfill search for Jhessye Shockley. She said it came
in at around $1 million. Those are the kinds of things that cannot be predicted. Just like the
6
time the gas tanks blew up a long time ago and maybe Councilmember Clark will remember.
Those kinds of things are the things that are really worrisome when you have no fund balance.
Mr. Skeete presented the third scenario: City sales tax goes away, unsuccessful renegotiation of
the Arena Management Agreement; Coyotes leave Glendale, arena management fee adjusted to
$6 million.
He said the $6 million was only an educated guess and not a true number.
City collects approximately $8 million of the estimated $22 million in sales tax revenue that was
included in FY 13 adopted budget.
Coyotes do not play the 2012-13 season resulting in $2.5 million loss of revenue that was
included in FY 13 adopted budget.
Unable to realize $8 million of savings through debt restructuring in FY13
Expenditures reduced by$23 million annually starting in 2013.
Councilmember Clark asked under which of these figures, would they include the cost of debt in
construction bonds for the arena. Mr. Skeete replied those are in the transfer number.
Mayor Scruggs said in this scenario where the city would be hiring somebody just to manage the
arena but they don't own a team - where does the difference between the operating expenses and
the operating revenue of the arena go because right now all of that goes to the team owner? So if
the team owner goes away, there are revenues and there are expenses for the arena in addition to
a management fee. Are those figured into the management fee or is that something that needs to
be calculated whenever you can get to see the books over there?
Mr. Skeete stated that was something that has not been factored into the equation as of yet until
he is provided with tangible numbers to work with. Therefore, for now he will use the $6
million figure as a place holder as his best educated guess.
Councilmember Martinez remarked that many people believe the arena fee was the root of the
city's deficit problems and these charts show that was not the case.
Councilmember Clark commented on the loss of revenue at Westgate without the Coyotes. She
asked if this fact was reflected in this chart. Mr. Skeete replied yes.
Mr. Skeete presented a five year forecast summary on scenario three: City sales tax goes away,
unsuccessful renegotiation of the Arena Management Agreement; Coyotes leave Glendale, arena
management fee adjusted to $6 million.
He explained in these slide shows that to maintain the same $10 million to $12 million of fund
balance at the end of the five years, they need to cut about $24 million. He said he did want to
7
point out that there might be a chance they might not be able to refinance any of the debt and that
was shown here as part of the scenario.
Five Year Forecast Summary
($'s in Millions)
Adopted Revised
FY 2013 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017
Beginning Fund Balance 2.0 2.0 (1.7) 0.4 1.8 8.5
Revenues 168.0 151.5 154.3 159.8 165.5 171.3
Total Rev & Fund Balance $170.0 slam $152.6 $160.2 167.3 $179.8
Expenditures
All General Fund Expenses 131.0 131.0 133.0 136.3 139.7 143.2
Expenditure Reduction (11.0) (24.0) (24.0) (24.0) (24.0)
New MOU Expenses 2.0 2.0 - 3.0 - 3.0
3% Inflationary Factor - - 3.3 3.5 3.5 3.7
Transfers 14.0 14.0 18.0 16.0 16.0 20.5
Arena Management Fee 17.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Spring Training Facility - 13.2 15.9 17.7 17.6 15.3
Total Expenditures $164.0 $155.2 $152.2 $158.4 $158.8 $167.7
Ending Fund Balance $6.0 ($1.7) $0.4 $1.8 $8.5 $12.1
Targeted Fund Balance $16.8 $15.2 $15.4 $16.0 $16.5 $17.1
$8 million collected in the first year before tax repeal
Loss in team revenues of$2.5 million
Mayor Scruggs commented that all the attention immediately goes to the whole Coyote situation
when really the inability to refinance the debt is probably the bigger problem. And in that debt
the city keeps saying the baseball stadium but she thought she had understood in an earlier
conversation with Mr. Skeete that he was looking at more than just the baseball stadium, he was
looking at the Channel 11 studio, parking garage, expo hall, and Glendale's portion of the
regional public safety training facility, right? But the conversation always goes to two things
only, the Coyotes and the baseball. And there is a whole lot more. And she was hoping that
would be in here but it's not. And she thought it needed to be understood that some of the other
assets that are not sports related are in here too. But that debt restructuring is the link to
everything. And that was one of the reasons she objected so strongly to the budget that was
presented. It assumed that there was going to be this huge savings and no reason to expect that
would actually happen. So she was glad that was highlighted.
Mr. Skeete introduced the FY 13 Operating Budget as shown on the slide presentation.
FY 13 Operating Budgets
8
a b c a +b +c
Descending$ Sort Salary Non-Salary Required
v , ' & w . . t _..s„x.w�. �nNb�.: r w . ...r��ar>a,. .� `3. w ? �., .):4_ � �w -w f ` ndE
Police Services 42,612 5,405 1,931 49,948 452.0 41.2%
City Court 2,837 686 48 3,570 37.8 3.4%
Fire Services 21,180 3,945 536 25,661 220.0 20.1%
Parks, Rec&Library 7,595 4,852 433 12,880 111.3 10.1%
Public Works 3,139 4,012 259 7,409 53.8 4.9%
Community&Econ Dev 3,337 1,094 74 4,506 38.0 3.5%
Financial Services 2,624 556 1,230 4,410 32.0 2.9%
Tech. & Innovation 2,637 120 738 3,495 28.0 2.6%
City Attorney 2,385 617 53 3,055 25.0 2.3%
Communications 2,238 287 253 2,778 25.5 2.3%
N'Hood &Human Svcs 1,728 375 74 2,177 21.0 1.9%
HR& Risk Mgt 1,591 100 31 1,721 17.8 1.6%
Mayor&Council 1,195 182 29 1,406 17.0 1.6%
City Manager733 85 10 828 5.0 0.5%
City Clerk 493 193 13 699 6.0 0.5%
Non-Departmental 50 595 - 645 0.0 0,0%
Intergovt. Programs 427 207 6 641 4.0 0.4%
Internal Audit 280 9 3 292 2.5 0.2%
GF Total 97,081 23,318 5,719 126,118 1,096.5 100%
77% 18% 5% 100%
HURF 2,434 3,901 407 6,742 36.0
GF/HURF Total 99,515 27,219 6,126 132,860 1,132.5
Mr. Don Bolton, Chief Budget Officer, explained the operating areas that comprise the largest
components of the city's GF operating budget are public safety (police and fire) and the city
court. Those three make up about 65% of the General Fund operating budget and FTE's, which
equates to about $79 million dollars and 810 FTEs. The rest of the departments totaled about
$47 million and represents about 35% of the remaining General Fund operating budget and
FTE's. He went through the rest of the departments and their percentages as it relates to the FY
13 budget.
Councilmember Martinez asked how many vacant positions they currently had. Mr. Bolton
noted that the last time he looked it was about 20 General Fund FTE's, however that figure can
change daily.
Councilmember Clark remarked if they continue to hold to their obligation to keep public safety
whole, the $25 million reduction would have to come out of the $47 million from the other
departments. Mr. Skeete said she was correct. Therefore the direction would have to be to cut
everything in half or eliminate some operations or a combination of the two approaches. Mr.
Skeete stated that was an accurate assessment of the situation, however not a practical one.
9
Councilmember Clark noted she was aware of that but wanted to make everyone aware of the
dire situation.
Mayor Scruggs said and taking that further, it's unrealistic to say you can take it out of all of
those other departments that comprise about 35%of the GF operating budget and FTEs. You can
look at public works, and see there is very little they can do. She said the same could be said
about the financial services department and others.
Councilmember Clark agreed and added there were departments already down to only two
people.
Councilmember Martinez commented on a speaker remarking that the city was using scare
tactics regarding the sales tax. He would like to remind everyone that this problem was very
serious and what the city was facing was very real.
Councilmember Alvarez remarked some areas that can be cut were in the city attorney's
department in legal fees, Chamber of Commerce, audits and possibly in the Mayor's office. She
offered other solutions where they can possibly cut. She offered that since the city was in dire
need at the moment, the city should consider questioning whether to pay fees to belong to these
organizations.
Councilmember Clark noted it was her understanding this meeting was for information and
considerations, not to provide detailed solutions.
Mr. Skeete agreed and offered the next slide of some of the options and considerations arrived
upon by staff.
Options and Considerations
• Elimination of portions of non-essential city operations while maintaining minimal
service levels where practical.
• Consolidation of city departments and elimination of any duplication.
• Eliminate all or a portion of the optional contractual obligations.
• Reexamine the MOU contracts
• Benefit Package(Furlough/Pay Adjustments/Hours of Operation)
• Privatizing services where possible
• Closing down or selling/leasing of facilities
• Other(Council Suggestions)
Councilmember Martinez asked what was considered non-essential services. Mr. Skeete stated
law enforcement in some of its broadest categories would be one to look at. This would entail
areas in community or code enforcement programs.
Councilmember Clark stated she would like the Council involved in prioritizing where they
should cut and not only be staff driven. This should be based on what the Council was hearing
10
from their constituencies and possibly match that up with staff identified priorities. She would
not leave Council out of identifying those core services and prioritize where they believe they
should be. Councilmember Martinez agreed with Councilmember Clark's suggestion.
Mayor Scruggs asked when early ballots come out. October the 11th, okay and this is, September
the 12th. She believes Council's goal is to give the public enough clear information that they can
make a good sound decision. So while some might want to engage in some sort of exercises, she
wished they had done it before they developed this particular budget. Her question would be, is
there really time to end up with something so that the public can make a clear decision? And the
other thing she would say is,just the fact that Mr. Bolton threw court in there, a little 3% in there
with police and fire because they're so intertwined—there is a difference between Council sitting
here and saying they don't think that we need this as much as that, but those folks out there are
saying—we can't do our job unless we also have this. Or if you take away this it affects us over
here. Council doesn't know those things. So may be do the core budget thing but she would like
to know how long that would take. And if the goal is to give the public good sound information
to make a good sound decision beginning 25 days from now, there may not be time to do that.
Councilmember Lieberman suggested eliminating some contractual obligations.
Councilmember Knaack said she felt like she was back at the budget meetings again. She noted
the problem was that no one wanted to make the hard decisions then and now they wanted to
start this all over again. She explained they had already nickeled and dimed this budget to death.
She believes that at this point, staff knows what they need to do. She realizes they cannot keep
sitting around and talking about this. This needs to be done immediately by staff and then come
back to Council. Councilmember Clark agreed. She explained that what she was referring to
was what should be done for the next budget cycle. Councilmember Knaack said they need to
start making some real tough choices. She noted citizen input had been to keep CAT and
libraries open. She said neither of those items were core services. Therefore the public needs to
be aware of what will occur if the city continues to have a deficit and what cuts need to be made.
Vice Mayor Frate believes if the sales tax does not go through, there will have to be layoffs and
personnel will need to be cut which will affect citizen services. He said this was the reality of
the situation facing them today. He noted this is what always happens in the private sector.
Mayor Scruggs asked when Mr. Skeete thought of these options and considerations, where did
his dealings with Mr. Jamison come in? And how long would the city allow him to keep us in a
state of suspension and uncertainty?
Mr. Skeete stated he would like to be able to present an agreed upon solution by the end of this
week. He noted he has instructed staff to be able to present suggestions regarding cuts by the
end of the week as well. He expects to have the major issues accomplished by the end of this
week.
Mayor Scruggs asked when will this come back to Council for the first look at what happens
under the three scenarios or however it was going to be presented. Well, however it was going to
11
be presented, it's anywhere from $22 million to $25 million a year in cuts. So what is the
timeline?
Mr. Skeete stated that assuming they receive all the information needed by this Friday, they will
spend next week putting that together and present it the following Tuesday.
Mayor Scruggs said that a special workshop would be called for it because the next workshop is
next Tuesday. If Council doesn't go next Tuesday, then it is into October and remember the
ballots come out October 11. Mr. Skeete stated he was very aware of the tight timeline and they
might have to have a special workshop.
Councilmember Lieberman remarked that these decisions have to be made immediately and
cannot wait until the new Council was seated. He hopes the new members learn to abide by the
decisions that have to be made at this time.
Mayor Scruggs said every single candidate for office is in the audience except for one. Most of
them are here paying a lot of attention to this, but one.
Councilmember Clark stated if the sales tax remains and is not be rolled back, then scenario one
kicks in and they will be looking at $6 million in annual cuts. Therefore, they were preparing for
the worst but there was the possibility it will only be$6 million.
Mayor Scruggs said that is why she has been saying let's just get this out in the open and let
everyone know what's happening. So there is no safe harbor anywhere and that is why there has
to be plans in place. So that's why there is urgency here.
Councilmember Alvarez asked why this would have to be done before the ballots come out in
October.
Mayor Scruggs explained so that people have an opportunity to see what their city government
would look like without that tax. People are going to choose, do they want to save taxes or do
they want to pay the taxes and have this other government that they don't have right now. So
there is going to be a presentation of what will be cut out. Council was not talking about $22
million to $25 million in cuts. So if you want to make a choice, you want to know all the
information on both sides.
Councilmember Alvarez asked if the Coyotes would be placed in the core service column or
where would they be placed on this issue. Mr. Skeete explained the Coyotes will not be placed
in core services. He explained everyone will be able to see the cost if the team stays or leaves.
Councilmember Alvarez asked if the public will be told how much money the arena has made for
Glendale. Mr. Skeete replied there has been no direct revenue generated from the arena to the
city. However, he explained the benefits and investments that were directly attributed by the
arena being developed at Westgate. He noted the arena had not been designed to make a profit;
12
it was designed to enhance the community and over the long term provide some systematic
growth opportunities that were still available to them but are not ready because of the economy.
Councilmember Knaack noted that Northern Crossing would not be there without the arena since
it was part of the arena. She explained people forget all the development and revenues that have
occurred because of the arena being built. She mentioned the economy crash and how it has
affected things today.
Mayor Scruggs said another point she would like to stress is, and she thought the employees need
to hear this as well as the public; scenario three, the most drastic scenario, can happen by a
decision of two other entities that have nothing to do with the City Council. The NHL can
determine they do not want to sell the team to Mr. Jamison and the Coyotes go away. Or Mr.
Jamison can determine that he cannot live with the terms that Glendale has to have in order to be
able to continue business with the City of Glendale. And he may go away and then we are at
scenario three. So she thought it was important for everyone to realize that that scenario is pretty
much out of the city's control. There are three entities that can cause scenario three to come into
play and Glendale was only one of them.
Councilmember Clark quoted Mayor Scruggs' comments a year ago, which cited the great
benefit of having the arena in the west valley. She noted these comments still hold true today.
Mayor Scruggs agreed it does hold true, but it has changed because Glendale can't afford what
Mr. Jamison wants in order to make all those things happen. Yes, all that holds true and that's
why she will never say no, no matter how many times she was asked by the media — she will
never say it was a mistake to enter into an agreement that resulted in Westgate and the arena
being built. Now what happened from then on by the decisions of the team owners to thrust this
team into bankruptcy when there was an opportunity to prevent that from happening, but that
opportunity was never presented by the then owners? So what Glendale had then was a spiraling
downward effect. They came here and asked for relief, but we were not given the opportunity to
give them that relief. It was presented in a totally different way but as soon as that bankruptcy
was declared, everything changed.
Mayor Scruggs continued the city was encouraged to keep that team here because no one wanted
to lose it and there was no time to make a decision. It was like make a decision now or the team
is gone. So Council was backed against the wall. She remembered being in this room, there was
no other decision. Now from then on, there should have been and could have been a clearer
representation of what this was doing to the city's financial structure. And Council might have
made different choices. Council was lead to believe that Glendale was different from every other
city. When other cities had layoffs and pay cuts, Glendale didn't. Everything went on
wonderfully for Glendale. So what has changed since those statements, she still believes all that,
definitely, but Glendale can't afford it now. That's the problem, you can want something now,
and you can believe something is right, but if you can't afford it, you can't afford it. And that is
where Glendale is today.
13
Councilmember Clark remarked that the Mayor said the city can't afford them, however, of the
three scenarios; the worst was losing the sales tax and losing the Coyotes. She said everyone
blames the Coyotes, but it was simply a function of a bad economy and nothing the city did.
Therefore, by looking at the information provided, she contends, they cannot afford to lose them.
Mayor Scruggs said there was one scenario missing and it would address this issue, because
Council could argue all day and all night. The four councilmembers approved this contract with
Mr. Jamison, but there isn't a five year projection of the budget with payments that have been
approved. Council only has a projection with what was hoped can be done in terms of getting
him to negotiate. The city doesn't have anything that shows 17, 21, 21, 21, and 18. So we are
talking here about we have to keep them here at all costs, but no, we cannot afford that. There is
no number anywhere that gets to $21 million. She asked if she was missing this projection that
shows that.
Mr. Skeete explained if they were to take the difference in the numbers presented in the
renegotiated possibilities and what is currently on the books and add $20 million or subtract $20
million from the three scenarios, they would have a an idea of a figure. He said that will be the
result they will see if they implement the current agreement of keeping the Coyotes.
Councilmember Clark said these numbers point to why direction was given to renegotiate since
they cannot sustain a negative fund balance for five years in a row using the current agreement.
Mr. Skeete stated it was imperative they renegotiate the agreement to where there could be some
benefit to the community. The current structure does not allow for that benefit.
Councilmember Clark asked if it was safe to say the negotiations were hopeful at this point and
more positive than negative. Mr. Skeete noted the fact that they were continuing to talk was a
good sign. However, if they cannot get to that place, he will immediately let them know.
Mayor Scruggs said speaking for herself rather than have somebody else speak for her, she 100%
supports the negotiations. She thought people may have heard her comment or maybe read in the
newspaper for many months that the numbers needed to change, that the numbers were not
sustainable, she didn't vote for it in June, she has been talking about this for over a year. She has
been mocked for using numbers which are pretty much like what is coming in right now — it's
what Mr. Skeete is proposing. Everything she said as to why the city entered into the venture in
Westgate with the arena in the first place—yes she 100% approves it and as she said, the city just
can't afford it anymore based on the negotiations, based on the arena lease agreement that was
approved in June. So the city has come full circle and said exactly the same thing. She was very
happy and thanked the majority of the Councilmembers who supported doing the renegotiations.
It's the only option; if the city was going to keep them here, it is the only option. And as she said
before, Mr. Jamison might say, I need your money, City of Glendale, in order to buy this team.
So he can't go with less than that and then he can walk away and the city was right back at
scenario three, right?
Mr. Skeete agreed.
14
Mayor Scruggs commented he has 4a choice, he can choose not to go further with the city, right?
But the city can't choose to continue with him with what was on the table in June. Is her
understanding correct?
Mr. Skeete replied yes.
Councilmember Lieberman agreed the city needed to renegotiate the deal with Mr. Jamison. He
read from an article which stated Mr. Jamison's inability to close the deal with Glendale. He
said he would have liked to see some options of leasing out the arena and what kind of profit was
attainable.
Councilmember Martinez hopes the city can reach an agreement with Mr. Jamison in order for
the team to stay in Glendale. He noted the arena extension with the NHL was coming to a close
with Coyotes games scheduled. He asked if the city needs to renegotiate the extended
arrangement contract with the NHL in order for the team to play in the arena. Mr. Skeete replied
yes.
Mayor Scruggs asked if there was anything on this option list that anybody would like removed.
No. Are there any other considerations or options that anyone would like to add? No.
Councilmember Lieberman noted the city needs to protect Luke's interest in the community.
Mayor Scruggs encouraged Mr. Skeete to fit in the pension number somewhere, it has to be done
Mr. Skeete agreed.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 3:44 p.m.
15