View Single Post
11-23-2012, 08:49 AM
Registered User
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,971
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by awfulwaffle View Post
I did see a tweet that without the Coyotes, there would be more money in the general fund than with the Coyotes.....if memory serves me correctly.
It's a bit hard to tell based on the scenarios presented by Skeete and staff, but here is my understanding.

There are two main differences between the "with" (Coyotes) and "without" scenarios. First is the cost for arena management is several more million per year, which would put more strain on the general fund. Second is the reductions in general fund expenditures (i.e. budget cuts). The scenario without the Coyotes would not have as much cuts in expenditures as the scenario with the Coyotes, and since those cuts are projected to be extended for 10 or 20 years, in the long run the general fund balance is higher with the Coyotes. So, essentially what the scenarios are illustrating is that if you cut expenditures substantially in the short term to accommodate the AMF to Jamison and maintain those cuts over the long haul, you end up with a better general fund balance in the long term than if you don't make the cuts and pay a lower arena management fee without the Coyotes.

Skeete's apparent reason for not supporting the deal (that he negotiated) is that he thinks that the immediate and short term cuts to staff and services would be too painful and would not be justified by potential benefits to the general fund 15-20 years from now.

The bottom line is that Glendale has no budget flexibility in the next several years, even with the increased sales tax, so any incremental increase in expenditures for something like the Jamison AMF would have to be immediately offset by staff and service cuts.

Whileee is offline