HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

Part V Phoenix Coyotes post bankruptcy UPD Reinsdorf out? IEH back in? else Winnipeg?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-03-2010, 03:43 PM
  #51
Pegger5
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 260
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSC2k2 View Post
Thomas, you're not suggesting that the City HAS to buy the team, are you? Are you simply suggesting that the city COULD buy the team?
No No,,,COG COULD buy the team. saying that, someone will be stuck with it if JR is able to invoke the 180 day notice clause as per the terms.

Pegger5 is offline  
Old
05-03-2010, 03:55 PM
  #52
CasualFan
Tortious Beadicus
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bay Area, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,293
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSC2k2 View Post
People have misread the MOU to say that such a provision is explicitly in the MOU. There isn't.
You misread the MOU and claimed that Ice Edge and JR "expressly stated" they didn't require an out clause in the MOU:
Quote:
GSC2k2 04-13-2010 09:11 PM All along, you have insisted that no one - NO ONE - would ever sign a deal without an out clause. Now we have two (again, two!!!!) parties who have expressly stated that in their MOUs.
Uh-oh. It's going to be awfully difficult for you to explain that one away. They "expressly stated" in the MOU that they didn't need an out clause? Here's the link so you can see that nothing is taken out of context: http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=761372&page=9

To your credit, you did go on to hedge in the next paragraph:
Quote:
"Is it possible that, notwithstanding the fairly straightforward statement in the recitals of JR's MOU that the parties intend to keep the team in Glendale for the term of the lease, that there might be an early termination clause. ... Yet, there sits JR's MOU, with nary a mention of an early termination clause."
There's nary a mention of anything regarding treatment of the lease in the event of a Reinsdorf sale. Yet, you are clearly trying to frame it as JR is not seeking an escape clause.

I don't see JR entering an agreement without a clear path out after the 5th year. To Fugu's point, the NHL controls sales and relocation. I'm only speaking about what I believe Reinsdorf will require from the City of Glendale in any new agreement. If he instead agrees to a new AMULA that prevents him from selling to the highest bidder, no matter where they are located, I'll be the first to admit my speculation was completely wrong. Mod: deleted.


Last edited by Fugu: 05-03-2010 at 07:31 PM. Reason: throw gasoline on a bonfire.... of vanities? :)
CasualFan is offline  
Old
05-03-2010, 03:57 PM
  #53
CasualFan
Tortious Beadicus
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bay Area, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,293
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrentSteele View Post
Makes you wonder what kind of long drawn out legal battles could come from all of this seeing as you guys have been arguing the exact same point, and quoting the exact same things for days. All for one small piece of a non-binding contract.
And we're not even getting paid !

CasualFan is offline  
Old
05-03-2010, 04:01 PM
  #54
cheswick
Non-registered User
 
cheswick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Peg City
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,248
vCash: 500
I think the back and forth is going nowhere and people just have to acknowledge the MOU for what it actually is:

"This Memorandum serves merely to memorialize the parties' discussions and is not intended to be a binding commitment in form or manner."

The MOU is a framework for the discussions going forward. The final AMULA could really be nothing like it. The only actual stipulation is the creation of the CFD's / LoC. As long as both parties are working in good faith then the inability of the city to create the CFD's would yield JR upto $200k and alternatively with the creation of the CFD's and JR walking he would pay cog's lawyer fees upto $200k. Anything besides that is speculation based on what the individual thinks was meant by the language of the MOU.

Even the language used for the case of losses after the 5th year is vague as it says "the following may occur"

Not to mention the two alternatives aren't mutually exclusive in the wording they use.

The city will cover the losses or Glendale hockey will provide notice.

Ok what if the city covers the losses and glendale hockey provides notice? Which takes precidence?

cheswick is offline  
Old
05-03-2010, 04:44 PM
  #55
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 23,149
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSC2k2 View Post
I get that. I thought you were going down the path suggested by another poster whereby the BOG members would somehow be jealous of JR getting his deal. Certainly, at some point, timing can be an issue. The NHL's actions to date would indicate that their rope is fairly long, but there must of course be an end somewhere. As to this deal being unprecedented, I continue to think people are vastly overshooting the mark about this being a sweetheart deal. Unprecedented? i dunno:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...6Ydp.0w&refer=

for that matter, one need only look at the original transaction, where the City built an arena for $180M, which is more than this proposed transaciton would cost in the worst case.
Jealous?. Not likely. Most would applaud his hutzpah Thanks for providing the link. Some interesting parallels to be sure. I dont think the NHL's rope will stretch much past June 30. Transfers, relocation, scheduling etc must be in place (& likely already are). If the formalized AMULA brings on legal challenges, I cant believe the NHL would hedge its bets on the COG/JR winning its case through what could be a lengthy trial with appeals & fund the team for, what, another 6mnths, a year, 18mnths?. Can the State Legislature find the time to vote the CFD through?. If not, what then?. Wait til the fall & keep our fingers crossed?. How much more of a hit does the league want to take on this, when reports indicate the highways clear clean up to Winnipeg with a wealthy buyer prepared to pay cash upfront instead of continuing on with this complex & complicated/challenged situation?... Gary Bettman has been clear about that not being an option past June 30th, though he did state recently that he "expected the deal to get done some time in the summer".

Killion is offline  
Old
05-03-2010, 04:46 PM
  #56
MAROONSRoad
f/k/a Ghost
 
MAROONSRoad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Maroons Rd.
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,069
vCash: 500
I wonder if anyone from the fixed income sales desk of a reputable investment bank on Wall Street or the City of London ever posts here? I kind of doubt it. Their loss I say. We are stuck with "lawyers" that have reviewed MOUs at the moment. We do our best.

I still maintain that the CFD-backed bonds are the key to this whole thing. Can anyone here answer these types of questions:

1) What ratings would such CFD bonds achieve from agencies such as Standard & Poors and Moodys?
2) Would the COG back such bonds with their general tax revenues?
3) If not, see #1 above.
4) If yes, would that violate the "gift clause" of the Arizona Constitution? (please read the most recent Supreme Court of Arizona decision on the matter which was a win for GWI.)
5) What is the market for these bonds and who will likely buy them?
6) What would the bonds be worth?

I.E., show me the money?

GHOST

MAROONSRoad is offline  
Old
05-03-2010, 05:22 PM
  #57
CasualFan
Tortious Beadicus
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bay Area, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,293
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GHOSTofMAROONSroad View Post
1) What ratings would such CFD bonds achieve from agencies such as Standard & Poors and Moodys?
I don't know what ratings the bonds would receive and I would never speculate

But, I can direct you to Arizona's Revised Statutes for CFD Revenue Bonds:

Quote:
C. If the bonds are to be sold in a public offering, no bonds may be issued by the district unless the bonds receive one of the four highest investment grade ratings by a nationally recognized bond rating agency. http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatD...48&DocType=ARS

CasualFan is offline  
Old
05-03-2010, 05:29 PM
  #58
GSC2k2*
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Jealous?. Not likely. Most would applaud his hutzpah Thanks for providing the link. Some interesting parallels to be sure. I dont think the NHL's rope will stretch much past June 30. Transfers, relocation, scheduling etc must be in place (& likely already are). If the formalized AMULA brings on legal challenges, I cant believe the NHL would hedge its bets on the COG/JR winning its case through what could be a lengthy trial with appeals & fund the team for, what, another 6mnths, a year, 18mnths?. Can the State Legislature find the time to vote the CFD through?. If not, what then?. Wait til the fall & keep our fingers crossed?. How much more of a hit does the league want to take on this, when reports indicate the highways clear clean up to Winnipeg with a wealthy buyer prepared to pay cash upfront instead of continuing on with this complex & complicated/challenged situation?... Gary Bettman has been clear about that not being an option past June 30th, though he did state recently that he "expected the deal to get done some time in the summer".
A couple of itesm:

1. I don't thik the State legislature votes on this matter. There was some confusion a while ago with a separate initiative that has nothing to do with this. The legislation to create this already exists, i believe.

2. One should not assume that anyone buys a sports franchise with all cash. Bank financing is universally involved, even for buyers with the requisite funds. It is basic financing principles.

3. One never knows, but the NHL has shown a propensity to stick things throough to their completion where they believe they are on firm ground.

GSC2k2* is offline  
Old
05-03-2010, 05:45 PM
  #59
GSC2k2*
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CasualFan View Post
You misread the MOU and claimed that Ice Edge and JR "expressly stated" they didn't require an out clause in the MOU:


Uh-oh. It's going to be awfully difficult for you to explain that one away. They "expressly stated" in the MOU that they didn't need an out clause? Here's the link so you can see that nothing is taken out of context: http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=761372&page=9

To your credit, you did go on to hedge in the next paragraph:
What's to explain? Recital E in the Glendale MOU is an express statement of intent to stay in Glendale. For that matter, not only did I "hedge in the next paragraph", I said this in the previous paragraph, in response to a CGG post:

Quote:
CGG: "You refuse to accept or even acknowledge the possibility that other things have happened in the wheeling and dealing that aren't in the MOU, like Jerry talking to Gary about relocating the team after 5 years. I think that conversation has already taken place. You prefer to believe that, since nothing is written in the MOU about terminating the lease in 5-7 years, that therefore the lease must be iron clad and will cement the team in Glendale until 2034. Is that really your position? No one would think to talk to the NHL about relocating the team if things don't improve?"

No, no, I certainly am prepared to acknowledge that possibility. In fact, I thought about it quite seriously.

THe difference, though, is that you have been stating for months your absolute conviction that no deal of this nature would ever come to pass, much less two (!!!!) such opportunities. All along, you have insisted that no one - NO ONE - would ever sign a deal without an out clause. Now we have two (again, two!!!!) parties who have expressly stated that in their MOUs. I completely understand the resistance, but at some point facts are facts.

Is it possible that, notwithstanding the fairly straightforward statement in the recitals of JR's MOU that the parties intend to keep the team in Glendale for the term of the lease, that there might be an early termination clause. If there was, though, that would be a pretty material term, and if I were JR's counsel I would insist that it be expressly so stated in the MOU so as to ensure that the COG did not back away from it in the final lease negotiations (the main purpose of MOUs are to set out the key terms of a deal). Yet, there sits JR's MOU, with nary a mention of an early termination clause.
That kind of speaks for itself, IMO. In fact, it is entirely the exact argument that i have been making for some time, which is (AGAIN!) that the AMULA will be whatever it will be, but the MOU contains no clause permitting for early termination? Might the AMULA contain such a clause? Again, as i have said repeatedly, yes it might. It also might not. To assert one way or the other would be speculation. I have declined to do so, and will continue to decline to do so. You can repeat my words as much as you want, but those words are still only about the MOU. they have always been about the MOU, and they will be tomorrow as well.

Interesting that you had to go that many posts back to garner even a sniff of words that you could brandish at me (or thought so).

Quote:
There's nary a mention of anything regarding treatment of the lease in the event of a Reinsdorf sale. Yet, you are clearly trying to frame it as JR is not seeking an escape clause.
Frame it? I have been commenting on the MOU. Since that is available to all, there is no need to "frame" anything.

Quote:
I don't see JR entering an agreement without a clear path out after the 5th year. To Fugu's point, the NHL controls sales and relocation. I'm only speaking about what I believe Reinsdorf will require from the City of Glendale in any new agreement. If he instead agrees to a new AMULA that prevents him from selling to the highest bidder, no matter where they are located, I'll be the first to admit my speculation was completely wrong.
You don't need me to tell you that you are free to speculate on what will be in the AMULA as much as you want. i will at least credit you for labeling it as speculation, unlike the other posters (to whom I was responding) who consistently and unequivocally state as a fact that there WAS an out clause in the MOU. i will stick to what is in the MOU at this time. When the AMULA comes, we can harp on that.

As an aside, even if the parties negotiate an out clause after five years, it is already heavily circumscribed by the conditions stated in the MOU (specifically, that the recourse provisions do not even apply if the CFD has complied with its funding obligations).

GSC2k2* is offline  
Old
05-03-2010, 05:51 PM
  #60
peter sullivan
Winnipeg
 
peter sullivan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,280
vCash: 500
that is a very important point casual fan

i amnot an expert in this by any means but it seems that logically the bonds would have to be guaranteed by something more than the parkinjg revenues to achieve a high enough rating for them to be acceptable to general investors.

maybe im wrong, but usually these things are paid for by the water or electric company and their revenues are pretty consistent...it seems that something as inconsistent as parking revenues for a private business that has already claimed bankruptcy is a questionable source.


Last edited by peter sullivan: 05-03-2010 at 06:12 PM.
peter sullivan is offline  
Old
05-03-2010, 05:56 PM
  #61
GSC2k2*
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter sullivan View Post
that is a very important point^^^

i amnot an expert in this by any means but it seems that logically the bonds would have to be guaranteed by something more than the parkinjg revenues to achieve a high enough rating for them to be acceptable to general investors.

maybe im wrong, but usually these things are paid for by the water or electric company and their revenues are pretty consistent...it seems that something as inconsistent as parking revenues for a private business that has already claimed bankruptcy is a questionable source.
Bonds can be insured as well, by the way. The Yankee stadium bond issue is insured, as but one example.

Also, in addition to parking revenues, the CFD can make additional assessments.

GSC2k2* is offline  
Old
05-03-2010, 05:59 PM
  #62
AllByDesign
Thomas who?
 
AllByDesign's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Location, Location!
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,299
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Gary Bettman has been clear about that not being an option past June 30th, though he did state recently that he "expected the deal to get done some time in the summer".
First day of summer is June 21st... 9 day window would you say?

AllByDesign is offline  
Old
05-03-2010, 06:22 PM
  #63
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 23,149
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSC2k2 View Post
A couple of items:

1. I don't think the State legislature votes on this matter. There was some confusion a while ago with a separate initiative that has nothing to do with this. The legislation to create this already exists, i believe.
2. One should not assume that anyone buys a sports franchise with all cash. Bank financing is universally involved, even for buyers with the requisite funds. It is basic financing principles.
3. One never knows, but the NHL has shown a propensity to stick things throough to their completion where they believe they are on firm ground.
I'm not so sure about point 1 above GSC. Yes, their was the initiative back in February for a Central Taxation Zone that lasted all of 24hrs, but this?. The sponsors of the original bill, which was for a construction project north of Glendale, have threatened to pull their support as the bill wasn't designed to assist sports teams. I'm pretty sure this thing has to get past the Legislature, but I could be wrong. Anyone?... As for points 2&3; lets just say the money, borrowed in part or not, would be forthcoming somewhat faster from north of the border, and yes, the leagues "propensity to stick things out", its stubbornness, is as much a hindrance as it is a help in this & other sticky situations, but I digress.


Killion is offline  
Old
05-03-2010, 06:24 PM
  #64
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 23,149
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllByDesign View Post
First day of summer is June 21st... 9 day window would you say?

Killion is offline  
Old
05-03-2010, 07:07 PM
  #65
AllByDesign
Thomas who?
 
AllByDesign's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Location, Location!
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,299
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
I'm not so sure about point 1 above GSC. Yes, their was the initiative back in February for a Central Taxation Zone that lasted all of 24hrs, but this?. The sponsors of the original bill, which was for a construction project north of Glendale, have threatened to pull their support as the bill wasn't designed to assist sports teams. I'm pretty sure this thing has to get past the Legislature, but I could be wrong. Anyone?...

I had read a link back in the archives in regards to this. This sorta got lost in the shuffle while we were focused on the competing MOU's. If I weren't so lazy I would pour over the posts to locate this link... but I yam what I yam.

I do recall that there were grumblings at the state level on CFD's being used in this fashion. There were threats to kill the legislation if the city goes ahead with this plan. Who knows how important this is to them though. Politicians have extremely short memories.... huh.. what were we talking about again? Where's my supper..

AllByDesign is offline  
Old
05-03-2010, 07:16 PM
  #66
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,641
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllByDesign View Post
I had read a link back in the archives in regards to this. This sorta got lost in the shuffle while we were focused on the competing MOU's. If I weren't so lazy I would pour over the posts to locate this link... but I yam what I yam.

I do recall that there were grumblings at the state level on CFD's being used in this fashion. There were threats to kill the legislation if the city goes ahead with this plan. Who knows how important this is to them though. Politicians have extremely short memories.... huh.. what were we talking about again? Where's my supper..
As I've pointed out several times in this thread - Community Facilities Districts already exist in AZ - and have since 1988. Others have posted links to the existing AZ CFD statutes.

The bills that were proposed in the AZ state legislature were to allow CFDs to collect add'l property taxes - and are completely irrelevant to the Coyotes' situation.

The Glendale Hockey MOU requires a CFD as currently exists in AZ law. There are no dependencies on any new legislation.

kdb209 is offline  
Old
05-03-2010, 07:26 PM
  #67
Pegger5
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 260
vCash: 500
There is a big difference between supporting an infrasturcture project and actually supporting the operation debt of a team with Bonds or CFD's

Pegger5 is offline  
Old
05-03-2010, 08:02 PM
  #68
peter sullivan
Winnipeg
 
peter sullivan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,280
vCash: 500
I think We decided that the legislation the senate was looking at didn't necessarily apply here. Although it is odd that they came out speaking against it if they were not related. There has still been no reasonable explanation Of how they plan to get around the issue of this existing Cfd legislation being specifically for infrastructure projects. Is it correct that the state must ok any municipalities decision to create a new cfd? I would assume so but please correct me if I'm wrong. If that is the case I can see that being another legality they will have to deal with. Even if the senate or whoever needs to pass judgement on the creation of cfd's likes the idea is it even within the current legislation to allow it for the use of direct payment to a private company instead of the creation of infrastructure as the law seems to have been intended for. Does anyone have any information on the wording of the cfd laws in Arizona?

peter sullivan is offline  
Old
05-03-2010, 09:04 PM
  #69
Tommy Hawk
Registered User
 
Tommy Hawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,605
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkMM View Post
The way I read it, the MOU is rather silent on whether the team is required to fulfill the 24-year lease, or whether there is an explicit out-clause. Casualfan speculated therefore that it will be possible that a move can be worked in, GSC2K2 said it couldn't.

Casualfan admitted he was speculating, and GSC2K2 insisted he wasn't, but they both were.

I think they both have a point, but both are speculating, with only Casualfan admitting as much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSC2k2 View Post
Incorrect. I stated that it is not in the MOU. At no time have i suggested anything regarding the AMULA. In fact, I explicitly said (about four times by now):

"As I said in my previous post and bears repeating here, if the City decides to do something that is not in the documents, c'est la vie. As many have noted, an out clause would negatively impact the CFD's ability to sell bonds."

First of all, the lease situation is not settled and, as I stated, has a June 30 deadline when the current lease can be rejected in bankruptcy court. Second, there is no AMULA. Third, the MOU does not speak to relocation AT ALL with the exception of INTENT to stay there.

And, GSC, you can sit here all you want and say it is NOT in the MOU but it is also not FORBIDDEN or restricted in any way by the MOU.


Mod: deleted.


Last edited by Fugu: 05-03-2010 at 10:14 PM. Reason: qdp
Tommy Hawk is offline  
Old
05-03-2010, 10:01 PM
  #70
billy blaze
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,480
vCash: 500
Bettman won't put deadline on Phoenix sale........yet

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL.../13812611.html

Quote:
At some point, I will, but not tonight, Bettman said of any impending deadline to complete the deal. The things take time, and time is not unlimited, but Im not yet ready to set a deadline.

billy blaze is offline  
Old
05-03-2010, 10:39 PM
  #71
Rob
Registered User
 
Rob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: New Brunswick
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,106
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by billy blaze View Post
Bettman won't put deadline on Phoenix sale........yet

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL.../13812611.html
I can totally see the NHL still running the team in September.

Rob is offline  
Old
05-03-2010, 11:07 PM
  #72
RR
Moderator
 
RR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Cave Creek, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 8,142
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
I'm not so sure about point 1 above GSC. Yes, their was the initiative back in February for a Central Taxation Zone that lasted all of 24hrs, but this?. The sponsors of the original bill, which was for a construction project north of Glendale, have threatened to pull their support as the bill wasn't designed to assist sports teams. I'm pretty sure this thing has to get past the Legislature, but I could be wrong. Anyone?... As for points 2&3; lets just say the money, borrowed in part or not, would be forthcoming somewhat faster from north of the border, and yes, the leagues "propensity to stick things out", its stubbornness, is as much a hindrance as it is a help in this & other sticky situations, but I digress.

The statute allowing for the creation of CFDs has been in place in Arizona since 1988. No action is needed from the Legislature.

RR is offline  
Old
05-03-2010, 11:17 PM
  #73
billy blaze
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,480
vCash: 500
As earlier evidenced- if this is strictly parking charges- not sure how they meet this requirement

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatD...48&DocType=ARS

Quote:
Under no circumstances may the amount of indebtedness evidenced by general obligation bonds issued pursuant to section 48-719 and revenue bonds issued pursuant to section 48-720 exceed the estimated cost of the public infrastructure improvements plus all costs connected with the public infrastructure purposes and issuance and sale of bonds, including, without limitation, credit enhancement and liquidity support fees and costs. The total aggregate outstanding amount of bonds and any other indebtedness for which the full faith and credit of the district are pledged shall not exceed sixty per cent of the aggregate of the estimated market value of the real property and improvements in the district after the public infrastructure of the district is completed plus the value of the public infrastructure owned or to be acquired by the district with the proceeds of the bonds.
what are the costs of infrastucture improvements for a parking lot that already exists?

billy blaze is offline  
Old
05-03-2010, 11:22 PM
  #74
billy blaze
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,480
vCash: 500
then there's this- report should be interesting

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatD...48&DocType=ARS

Quote:
48-715. Project approval

Before constructing or acquiring any public infrastructure, the district board shall cause a study of the feasibility and benefits of the project to be prepared by engineers and other qualified persons, which shall include a description of the public infrastructure to be constructed or acquired and all other information useful to understand the project, a map showing, in general, the location of the project, an estimate of the cost to construct, acquire, operate and maintain the project, an estimated schedule for completion of the project, a map or description of the area to be benefited by the project, and a plan for financing the project. The board shall hold a public hearing on the report and provide notice of the hearing by publication not less than ten days in advance in the official newspaper of the municipality or county or, if none in the municipality, a newspaper of general circulation in the county and by mail to the governing body of the municipality. After the hearing the district board may reject, amend or approve the report. If the report is amended substantially a new hearing shall be held before approval. If the report is approved, the district board shall adopt a resolution of intent which identifies the public infrastructure of the project, the areas benefited, the expected method of financing and an appropriate system of providing revenues to operate and maintain the project.

billy blaze is offline  
Old
05-03-2010, 11:27 PM
  #75
Pegger5
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 260
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RR View Post
The statute allowing for the creation of CFDs has been in place in Arizona since 1988. No action is needed from the Legislature.
CFD's are to support Infrastruture projects... and you know that it is not to support pro teams..


Last edited by Pegger5: 05-03-2010 at 11:41 PM.
Pegger5 is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:38 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.