CXL - UPDATE 12/9 - Coyotes settle bills after unpaid taxes come to light

[Mightygoose]

There's a late entry in the city of Tempe's calendar this year. A special council meeting on Monday December 20, with an executive workshop prior

Executive session

SIRE Public Access

Agenda item 1b

Discussion with attorney/legal advice and options on city owned land on Rio Salado Pkwy and Priest Drive. This is where the arena complex is I believe

Meeting Agenda

SIRE Public Access

Don't see anything directly referring to the project. It does say they can vote to recess or adjourn to the executive session 38-431.03.

So if there is an vote taking place on Monday. What could it be?

One angle could be the city is going to award the contract to Meruelo/Bluebird. I think that's unlikely since the consultant report is not complete and no public hearings have happened.

Another angle is the city has seen enough, this is an off ramp and reject the proposal. With all that's happened in the past week with the delinquent payments and continued public feud with Glendale, the city may decide they want no part of this.

A middle angle is they 'continue' on the current course with Meruelo but they also re open the RFP for other suitors, possibly those that don't need to be sports and entertainment related. This would be a significant delay

Could be a popcorn session

 

[The Lighthouse]

There's a late entry in the city of Tempe's calendar this year. A special council meeting on Monday December 20, with an executive workshop prior

Executive session

SIRE Public Access

Agenda item 1b

Discussion with attorney/legal advice and options on city owned land on Rio Salado Pkwy and Priest Drive. This is where the arena complex is I believe

Meeting Agenda

SIRE Public Access

Don't see anything directly referring to the project. It does say they can vote to recess or adjourn to the executive session 38-431.03.

So if there is an vote taking place on Monday. What could it be?

One angle could be the city is going to award the contract to Meruelo/Bluebird. I think that's unlikely since the consultant report is not complete and no public hearings have happened.

Another angle is the city has seen enough, this is an off ramp and reject the proposal. With all that's happened in the past week with the delinquent payments and continued public feud with Glendale, the city may decide they want no part of this.

A middle angle is they 'continue' on the current course with Meruelo but they also re open the RFP for other suitors, possibly those that don't need to be sports and entertainment related. This would be a significant delay

Could be a popcorn session

Like you mentioned, the "executive session," is only listed as a legal advice consultation with counsel, which is why there isn't any information regarding conflict of interest rules for that agenda. There won't be any vote or decision made based on the agenda, but there could be discussions as to the review process and where it's at, what factors should be considered, including recent news, etc, if in fact this is the same land under discussion. If there's no decision listed for the second session I'd expect nothing else on that front.

 

[Llama19]

Like you mentioned, the "executive session," is only listed as a legal advice consultation with counsel, which is why there isn't any information regarding conflict of interest rules for that agenda. There won't be any vote or decision made based on the agenda, but there could be discussions as to the review process and where it's at, what factors should be considered, including recent news, etc, if in fact this is the same land under discussion. If there's no decision listed for the second session I'd expect nothing else on that front.

The council...at any time...can vote to cancel the RFQ process...
without holding any additional public meetings...

 

[The Lighthouse]

The council...at any time...can vote to cancel the RFQ process...
without holding any additional public meetings...

The first meeting, the only meeting on Monday where the subject land will be discussed, is a legal consultation and advice meeting with the city attorney held pursuant to A.R.S. 38-431.03(A)(3), not a voting meeting. As an aside it is also not subject to public viewing and minutes must be kept confidential under 38-431.03(B).

As for the second meeting, the agenda does not list a vote regarding this project, and "[a]ccording to the Arizona Open Meeting Law, the City Council may only discuss matters listed on the agenda."

I'm talking only about the likelihood of a critical vote on the project occurring based on the agenda and meetings descriptions posted, which looks to be nil, not the authority to make such a decision.

 

[aqib]

Maybe. I really think they were deferred because the NHL knew the OVG was going to get the arena in Seattle and they had to leave room for Seattle.

Oak View Group didn't exist when they deferred the QC application. The only arena deal in play at the time was Hansen's SODO proposal and Seattle was budging on the street vacating. Hansen also had no interest in hockey. I also recall his agreement with the city required an NBA team first. So he would have needed an NHL partner to come in and say "OK I'll put up half of the cost let me put Mt expansion team in there while we wait for the NBA" and have City Council go along with it.

 

[hockeyguy0022]

You guys actually expect AM to spend XX million on some temp arrangement....? You have to shake him upside down for a measly 500K-1mil. If it's that tight already. There's 0 percent chance. Sorry to say.

I suspect a sale is already lined up, just depends if they're moving or not. Hence Bettman says to continue the Tempe negations etc.. but I don't see AM sticking around.

 

[Ernie]

Oak View Group didn't exist when they deferred the QC application. The only arena deal in play at the time was Hansen's SODO proposal and Seattle was budging on the street vacating. Hansen also had no interest in hockey. I also recall his agreement with the city required an NBA team first. So he would have needed an NHL partner to come in and say "OK I'll put up half of the cost let me put Mt expansion team in there while we wait for the NBA" and have City Council go along with it.

Actually the proposed SoDo arena wasn't really a thing yet, either. It was a proposed arena in Tukwila that was being focussed on.

 

[MNNumbers]

Oak View Group didn't exist when they deferred the QC application. The only arena deal in play at the time was Hansen's SODO proposal and Seattle was budging on the street vacating. Hansen also had no interest in hockey. I also recall his agreement with the city required an NBA team first. So he would have needed an NHL partner to come in and say "OK I'll put up half of the cost let me put Mt expansion team in there while we wait for the NBA" and have City Council go along with it.

Letter of the law vs spirit.

Point being that NHL was saving a spot for Seattle. And, they suggested that by commenting on the lack of a Seattle bid.

Also, there is another poster here who was discussing Bonderman and Vegas, and mentioned Leiwecke convincing Bonderman to wait for Seattle rather than investing with Foley in Vegas. Point being, again, that whatever the details were, Leiwecke and some other guys had some ideas about what to do with Seattle.

And, those of us watching Seattle at the time knew that Hansen's SoDo bid had zero chance, because SCC didn't want an arena that would compete with Key.

 

[Llama19]

The first meeting, the only meeting on Monday where the subject land will be discussed, is a legal consultation and advice meeting with the city attorney held pursuant to A.R.S. 38-431.03(A)(3), not a voting meeting. As an aside it is also not subject to public viewing and minutes must be kept confidential under 38-431.03(B).

As for the second meeting, the agenda does not list a vote regarding this project, and "[a]ccording to the Arizona Open Meeting Law, the City Council may only discuss matters listed on the agenda."

I'm talking only about the likelihood of a critical vote on the project occurring based on the agenda and meetings descriptions posted, which looks to be nil, not the authority to make such a decision.

A 'vote' is for public items...under Executive Sessions...it is by consensus...
so the proposal can be cancelled...

 

[TheLegend]

There's a late entry in the city of Tempe's calendar this year. A special council meeting on Monday December 20, with an executive workshop prior

Executive session

SIRE Public Access

Agenda item 1b

Discussion with attorney/legal advice and options on city owned land on Rio Salado Pkwy and Priest Drive. This is where the arena complex is I believe

Meeting Agenda

SIRE Public Access

Don't see anything directly referring to the project. It does say they can vote to recess or adjourn to the executive session 38-431.03.

So if there is an vote taking place on Monday. What could it be?

One angle could be the city is going to award the contract to Meruelo/Bluebird. I think that's unlikely since the consultant report is not complete and no public hearings have happened.

Another angle is the city has seen enough, this is an off ramp and reject the proposal. With all that's happened in the past week with the delinquent payments and continued public feud with Glendale, the city may decide they want no part of this.

A middle angle is they 'continue' on the current course with Meruelo but they also re open the RFP for other suitors, possibly those that don't need to be sports and entertainment related. This would be a significant delay

Could be a popcorn session

Just a reminder that Glendale held the same workshops on a regular basis over the years.

So I wouldn’t get too stuffed on the popcorn.

 

[TheLegend]

While I’m here…. Something else today in the local news. Not much new but interesting it came out after Shoalts lobbed his mud.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/sports/nhl/coyotes/2021/12/18/chase-field-considered-possible-temporary-home-arizona-coyotes/6495809001/

"The Coyotes aren’t going anywhere. They’re going somewhere else other than Glendale, but they’re not leaving the greater Phoenix area," Bettman said. "There are a lot of options, and my advice has been, let’s focus on the plan for the building that’s going to come. There are plenty of options to deal on an interim basis. I don’t want to get into them now and start having comparative speculative stories. We’ll deal with it. I am not concerned. There are options that will work." - Gary Bettman

 

[Mightygoose]

While I’m here…. Something else today in the local news. Not much new but interesting it came out after Shoalts lobbed his mud.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/sports/nhl/coyotes/2021/12/18/chase-field-considered-possible-temporary-home-arizona-coyotes/6495809001/

"The Coyotes aren’t going anywhere. They’re going somewhere else other than Glendale, but they’re not leaving the greater Phoenix area," Bettman said. "There are a lot of options, and my advice has been, let’s focus on the plan for the building that’s going to come. There are plenty of options to deal on an interim basis. I don’t want to get into them now and start having comparative speculative stories. We’ll deal with it. I am not concerned. There are options that will work." - Gary Bettman

What else is Bettman going to say? So on one hand, sure let's focus on the Tempe plan for now.

Let's see what comes out of their advise from Monday. They may or may not have that plan to focus on.....of course they can decide to stay the with the current plan

 

[The Lighthouse]

Just a reminder that Glendale held the same workshops on a regular basis over the years.

So I wouldn’t get too stuffed on the popcorn.

There wouldn't be any anyway. Even if let's say the council kicked things around with the city attorney and decides "this Meruelo guy seems too shady. Our best course of action would be to kill this RFP and start over," you'd still need a vote to confirm the decision at a public session.

38-431.03(D):

Legal action involving a final vote or decision shall not be taken at an executive session, except that the public body may instruct its attorneys or representatives as provided in subsection A, paragraphs 4, 5 and 7 of this section. A public vote shall be taken before any legal action binds the public body.

"Legal action" has a fairly broad definition under 38-431(3):

"Legal action" means a collective decision, commitment or promise made by a public body pursuant to the constitution, the public body's charter, bylaws or specified scope of appointment and the laws of this state.

Any decision reached in the executive session would need to be confirmed in a public vote, so you'd see it afterword, after the city council gives notice that a vote will be held regarding the RFP by listing it on an agenda.

As an aside, the council had the exact same item for discussion at an executive session on 10/5/21:

http://documents.tempe.gov/sirepub/cache/1207/vw4xj4zpjtbhfkmdhumzz3h1/2900256012182021042544118.PDF

 

[TheLegend]

What else is Bettman going to say? So on one hand, sure let's focus on the Tempe plan for now.

Let's see what comes out of their advise from Monday. They may or may not have that plan to focus on

You know I’ve been saying for weeks to wait and see how Tempe progresses with this. As I said above, Glendale had these sessions on the arena for years and nothing rarely came about it. But everybody kept dramatizing them. (As CasualFan put it “Megathread is going to megathread.”)

BTW…. It’s the cover story in today’s AZ Republic sports section. The AZR has never been enthusiastic about the Coyotes and their stories often get buried in the back of the section with the box scores. But they thought this one was significant. Personally I think this was just another shot back across Glendale’s bow.

 

[TheLegend]

There wouldn't be any anyway. Even if let's say the council kicked things around with the city attorney and decides "this Meruelo guy seems too shady. Our best course of action would be to kill this RFP and start over," you'd still need a vote to confirm the decision at a public session.

38-431.03(D):



Any decision reached in the executive session would need to be confirmed in a public vote, so you'd see it afterword, after the city council gives notice that a vote will be held regarding the RFP by listing it on an agenda.

As an aside, the council had the exact same item for discussion at an executive session on 10/5/21:

http://documents.tempe.gov/sirepub/cache/1207/vw4xj4zpjtbhfkmdhumzz3h1/2900256012182021042544118.PDF

Yes… that can certainly happen. It can also mean the city is making sure they have their asses covered going forward with the RFP.

 

[Mightygoose]

If Megathread is not Megathread then the world will be boring place

For sure Glendale has had these meetings, this is the first one with Tempe since the bid was submitted IIRC.

For sure let's see what comes out it though at the same time this is late entry in the calendar so there's something that can't wait until their next scheduled one in the new year.

Might end up being nothing but it's good to be open minded in case it's not

 

[The Lighthouse]

Yes… that can certainly happen. It can also mean the city is making sure they have their asses covered going forward with the RFP.

Yup. I'd put money on nothing dramatic happening, but hey, for the people thinking otherwise, I could end up wrong.

For sure Glendale has had these meetings, this is the first one with Tempe since the bid was submitted IIRC.

Just commented this above, but it's not. Exact item was discussed, also at an executive session, on 10/5/21.

http://documents.tempe.gov/sirepub/cache/1207/vw4xj4zpjtbhfkmdhumzz3h1/2900256012182021042544118.PDF

Edit: PDF is no longer available on the server, but it was an agenda for an executive session on 10/5/21, using the exact same language and citing the same section of the Open Meeting Law for the authority to discuss the subject. Is someone from City of Tempe reading HF?

 

[MNNumbers]

We're a strange bunch here. Last week....
"They hired a consultant. The consultant's report won't be ready for 2 months. Nothing will happen until then." And, everyone was fairly sure that was the truth.

Now, there is an executive session about the matter, and everyone is speculating, or trying to convince themselves of what is going to happen.

It's a really good lesson if you want to find out what you are actually hoping for, because this sort of thing exposes that....

 

[The Lighthouse]

We're a strange bunch here. Last week....
"They hired a consultant. The consultant's report won't be ready for 2 months. Nothing will happen until then." And, everyone was fairly sure that was the truth.

Now, there is an executive session about the matter, and everyone is speculating, or trying to convince themselves of what is going to happen.

It's a really good lesson if you want to find out what you are actually hoping for, because this sort of thing exposes that....

Well, I've spent my last few posts in here arguing there won't be a major decision reached during the session, and to do so would be violating the Open Meeting Law as the authority is limited to discussing legal advice with the city attorney. Could be as simple as the lawyer's opining on compliance with the criteria of the RFP, or if the City's review is still ok.

 

[MNNumbers]

@The Lighthouse

I think I agree that this is probably a fairly routine meeting. However, the meeting itself wasn't posted until yesterday. I'm not sure it that is common for Tempe or not.

I am confused here though. For example.....
Tempe put out an RFP
Bluebird was the only responder
Legally, what exactly does Tempe have to do with that?
I mean, in this sense.....
There is no MOU yet of any kind
The response by Bluebird was simply a response. I don't know (but I would like to know) just what that response obligates on the part of TCC.
Clearly, if this is simply a continuing matter, and the CC is seeking an update and counsel from their attorney, then the meeting is a big nothing.

But, just for kicks....let's say Tempe CC wanted to discard the response by Bluebird to the RFP. Just exactly how would they go about that? Do they have to vote on some sort of a motion in an open session? Or, since the matter has not developed very far at all, can the CC simply set the matter aside and reject it.

I don't know. But I would like to know.

 

[The Lighthouse]

@The Lighthouse

I think I agree that this is probably a fairly routine meeting. However, the meeting itself wasn't posted until yesterday. I'm not sure it that is common for Tempe or not.

I am confused here though. For example.....
Tempe put out an RFP
Bluebird was the only responder
Legally, what exactly does Tempe have to do with that?
I mean, in this sense.....
There is no MOU yet of any kind
The response by Bluebird was simply a response. I don't know (but I would like to know) just what that response obligates on the part of TCC.
Clearly, if this is simply a continuing matter, and the CC is seeking an update and counsel from their attorney, then the meeting is a big nothing.

But, just for kicks....let's say Tempe CC wanted to discard the response by Bluebird to the RFP. Just exactly how would they go about that? Do they have to vote on some sort of a motion in an open session? Or, since the matter has not developed very far at all, can the CC simply set the matter aside and reject it.

I don't know. But I would like to know.

A good question, and I can't say I'm 100% on this, but I think most likely the City Council will closely follow the RFP procedure:

An evaluation committee comprised of City staff and others will review the responses and make a recommendation to the
City Council. Acceptance of any response may be made at any regular meeting of the City Council within 120 days after
receipt of said proposals or within such longer period of time as may be deemed reasonable by the City.
The City reserves the right to reject all submittals at any time for any reason.

https://www.tempecenterforthearts.com/home/showpublisheddocument/91767/637662016119370000

I believe that once the committee makes their recommendation and in case the City will reject or accept, the Council will need to vote on it, since it constitutes an action. Since acceptance would occur at a meeting of the City Council, I'd expect rejection to be the same.

There is also another option - to slow walk it in hopes that the proposed developers will throw up their hands and walk away, which the city reserved for itself with the "reasonable" language in the RFP. It's not a 1 for 1 comparison since I don't believe Town of Hempstead put out an RFP, but rather Charles Wang submitted the Lighthouse Project for their consideration since it would involve zoning issues and major development, but that's what the TOH did to the LHP - took a long time and then proposed a very scaled down version of the proposal that it knew would likely be unpalatable to Wang.

As far as the type of discussion I think would be appropriate for Monday's legal consultation meeting if the City is following the Open Meeting Law, it should be along the lines of "If we accept, what are our options for making sure Meruelo pays his taxes? Can we require him to commit to something firmer?" Or "if we reject, what do we need to make sure we've done beforehand so we don't face a legal challenge based on the process?"

 

[MNNumbers]

A good question, and I can't say I'm 100% on this, but I think most likely the City Council will closely follow the RFP procedure:



https://www.tempecenterforthearts.com/home/showpublisheddocument/91767/637662016119370000

I believe that once the committee makes their recommendation and in case the City will reject or accept, the Council will need to vote on it, since it constitutes an action. Since acceptance would occur at a meeting of the City Council, I'd expect rejection to be the same.

There is also another option - to slow walk it in hopes that the proposed developers will throw up their hands and walk away, which the city reserved for itself with the "reasonable" language in the RFP. It's not a 1 for 1 comparison since I don't believe Town of Hempstead put out an RFP, but rather Charles Wang submitted the Lighthouse Project for their consideration since it would involve zoning issues and major development, but that's what the TOH did to the LHP - took a long time and then proposed a very scaled down version of the proposal that it knew would likely be unpalatable to Wang.

As far as the type of discussion I think would be appropriate for Monday's legal consultation meeting if the City is following the Open Meeting Law, it should be along the lines of "If we accept, what are our options for making sure Meruelo pays his taxes? Can we require him to commit to something firmer?" Or "if we reject, what do we need to make sure we've done beforehand so we don't face a legal challenge based on the process?"

The language there that says "The city reserves the right to reject all proposals at any time for any reason" seems to be quite wide open. It would seem that the city would have the right to short cut the committee, and simply say "We're done here." I mean, it would appear they have reserved that right to themselves. How they have to go about that seems a question to me.


ETA: Again, not taking sides here. Just wondering what might be happening.

 

[The Lighthouse]

The language there that says "The city reserves the right to reject all proposals at any time for any reason" seems to be quite wide open. It would seem that the city would have the right to short cut the committee, and simply say "We're done here." I mean, it would appear they have reserved that right to themselves. How they have to go about that seems a question to me.


ETA: Again, not taking sides here. Just wondering what might be happening.

I think they likely can bypass the committee, yes. But I think that decision, like the other decisions, would need to come in the form of a council vote. Some people here think they can meet Monday in an executive session, decide to simply scrap the RFP, and end the process that way, which I don't think is supported by any language or compliant with the Open Meeting statute.

 

[MNNumbers]

I think they likely can bypass the committee, yes. But I think that decision, like the other decisions, would need to come in the form of a council vote. Some people here think they can meet Monday in an executive session, decide to simply scrap the RFP, and end the process that way, which I don't think is supported by any language or compliant with the Open Meeting statute.

Do you know if they had to have a vote about putting out the RFP to begin with?

 

[The Lighthouse]

Do you know if they had to have a vote about putting out the RFP to begin with?

I searched through the Tempe municipal code and it's not clear to me that the City Council would have needed to vote to authorize issuing the RFP - the Procurement Department may have been able to issue it on its own, even if the Council ultimately has the authority to accept or reject any proposals.