SedonaEye.com financial columnist J. Rick Normand
Sedona AZ (August 19, 2014) – Sedona has only a week left before its Mayoral and Council primary election. By now, most all candidate’s campaign strategies have devolved into arguing over who has the greatest credentials and who best employs tactical camouflage discussion topics. Debate of this City’s most important issues is nowhere to be found, or heard.
The most common complaint regarding Sedona’s sitting Council is that, after promising to follow the will of the people, they didn’t. So, what’s the mantra of the new crop of people running for office in next week’s primary?
Same ole thing!
One candidate says, in her campaign promotional video, that her goal is to “…contribute and to build on what other Councils have done.” Does anybody know what that means? How is that done?
Another says, I’m for “Fiscal Responsibility & City Budget.” What does that mean? Opposition to Home Rule would constitute fiscal responsibility in the midst of a six year economic recession.
Most all of them say they’re for “Education.” That’s the function of the school district and the state. Education, as certain candidates promote it, is tantamount to the indoctrination of those willing to listen to the candidate’s political belief system.
City Councilors need to concern themselves with infrastructure design development and management; physical asset management; city debt reduction; proper and transparent accounting; controlled but permitted growth and public facility development; outsourcing personal service contracts and performance monitoring thereof; attracting resident benefactors who can finance essential projects privately; attracting corporate sponsorships and partners to generate non-tax revenues; developing non-tax revenue means and sources; acquiring city services from outside contractors at minimum costs which are measured against monitored performance benchmarks; and, elimination of less-than-arms length contract awards for services that most all other cities outsource. I don’t hear any candidates talking about dealing with these really critical issues in any depth at all. Instead what we get is self-serving debate and indoctrination to support the goals of candidates, as well as current Council and Staff…instead of the City’s real needs.
For instance, while not a single candidate is listening to the public outcry in opposition to Home Rule, the City, on its physical premises at City Hall, is handing out a glossy flyer entitled “Facts on Home Rule.” It represents a feeble propagandized attempt to explain the Home Rule Ballot Issue in a fair, unbiased and neutral presentation. It is, in fact, far from neutral! It is subtly biased, period!
Who is responsible for this unconscionable misuse of the City’s mandate and power to honestly disburse information? The answer is, the current Council, Mayor, Staff and City Manager and, most all of the current candidates for office, all of whom can only acquire more power with more money…your money!
What happens if the Home Rule Ballot Issue Fails, the handout asks? Says the City, “… it may result in the City’s inability to expend funds despite sufficient revenue to support a higher level of operations. Starting in Fiscal Year 2015-2016, the City would have to reduce its estimated annual budget by $9 million or 26%, regardless of the amount of revenue collected that year.”
Oh, cry me a river!
It implies, that if the Home Rule Ballot issue is voted down, all these terrible things are going to happen since the City would have to reduce its ESTIMATED annual budget, regardless of the revenue amount collected. This is the old shell game…it is what you don’t know that’s important, but not mentioned. If the City can’t spend revenue earned in excess of what the state of Arizona says is a fiscally conservative average amount, then the excess must go into a rainy day fund or reserves to be used to service the City’s basic necessities, if we should have an economic malaise fall upon us.
God forbid, what a terrible fate for the City (saving precious reserve capital and paying down a very high debt load)!
On the other hand, the City handout implies that voting against Home Rule could result in denying the City the ability to expend funds despite sufficient revenue to support a higher level of operations, as dictated by a Staff ESTIMATE of City operating expenses. What this means is that any Council will be perplexed over not being able to spend every cent in excess revenues it generates (over the cost of basic city services and replenishment of vital reserves as dictated by State of Arizona statute law) predicated on Staff cost ESTIMATES for past and present Council’s personal pet projects, like the defunct Cultural Center and Amphitheater, the collapsed Barbara’s Park performing arts dome, the Wetland’s Preserve injection wells, and maybe a Creekside Walkway, etc.
Are we all to feel badly for any City Council, which doesn’t believe in subsidizing rainy day reserves? Or should we, instead, laud them for believing and behaving as if there is no such thing as a severe recession (even though we’re already in one!).
It’s always so utterly astonishing that people, who have no knowledge in economics, are always the ones who never think they have to reserve for tough times. With all the current candidates, as well as the sitting Mayor and Council, in the face of all economic facts and overwhelming expert national and world expert opinion to the contrary, it’s still “LET THE GOOD TIMES ROLL!”
Let’s really keep this upcoming Mayoral/Council election positive by dealing with specific truths, instead of generalities, unabashed self-promotion, belief-system cheerleading, and, worst of all, employment of tactical camouflage discussion topics. Should not, and would not, all candidates with a degree of integrity be willing to answer these questions immediately, one way or the other? Who, if any, will evade answering these critical questions?
All of them will see this article. I would think that those who have the integrity to level with the public will answer these questions to this website.
Here are the essential questions of all:
1] Do you support or oppose Home Rule? If you support it, please explain, without any double-talk, why the reduction of the City’s estimated annual budget by 26% is a bad idea, considering what that really means is that the City would be forced to put approximately $9 million dollars a year into a rainy day fund or reserves or pay down debt, in light of the irrefutable fact that the U.S., AZ, and local economies are in a state of serious decline with no evidence of a turnaround on the horizon?
2] Do you support or oppose awarding the City’s Destination Marketing contract to the Chamber of Commerce without requiring that it be done so through a competitive bidding process (“RFP” or “RFQ”) to assure the best potential players, such as Roger Brooks International or Total Destination Marketing, get fair consideration at the lowest price charged to the City?
3] Do you support or oppose the beneficial financial support, with City treasury money from sales/bed taxes, of non-City of Sedona Chamber members such as the Hilton and Enchantment hotels?
4] Can you explain what the City’s revenue sources and non-tax revenue concepts will be, should the City’s tourist-generated tax revenues significantly decline in the near future?
5] Would you support or oppose property taxes to supplement City revenues if Home Rule is voted in again?
6] Would you support or oppose designation of the City of Sedona as an immigration “sanctuary” city?
For the best Arizona news and views, read www.SedonaEye.com daily!
Nicely done, Mr. Normand. Another unanswered question remains. How many registered voters in Sedona will vote in this election? How many have already mailed their ballots? If the voting percentage is as low as the turnout for the revised Community Plan, it will be another extremely small representation of Sedona’s “real” population. Didn’t more people opt out of Smart Meters than vote on the Community Plan?
Bottom line. Those who do not exercise their right to vote are part of the problem not the solution.
Your article, suggestions, evaluation, and questions are brilliant. It remains to be seen how many Sedona voters have been brainwashed by the controlling faction of this once upbeat, positive corner of the world called Sedona.
Talk about hitting a nail square on the head with a ball peen hammer.
Hello Rick,
Glad we could catch-up at the car wash.
Nice article. I wish Teddy Roosevelt would have made it to Sedona, or Se-donna, as she really pronounced her name. The whole area would be a lot better off, as a National Park. Shame on those who have ruined the beautiful and pristine forest. Pay back will be hell some day, I am sure of it.
Take care,
Wizard
After seeing RIO signs planted just about EVERYWHERE, I was surprised to discover that a business owner in Sedona since 1981 talking about supporting businesses just joined the Chamber of Commerce in June of 2014?? Please explain this to me….
http://www.sedonachamber.com/article/442
Being a candidate this year I wanted to explain my responses to your questions.
First, HOME RULE:
I have always felt, and still do, that the best scenario would be a vote FOR home rule AND elect a council that is willing to work towards a balanced budget (zero deficit not one where we draw on the reserves to balance it). HOWEVER, with the current council and the candidates to fill the open positions, there are not enough potential council members to adhere to this advice. Even if I am elected, I do not feel there will be more than one or two members that would work towards that goal. Thus if home rule fails, it will make my job easier as a councilman.
Several candidates claim they will be fiscally responsible but I view that meaning they are willing to focus spending money on things they feel are necessary and not what I want to do and that is spend no more than the revenues each year. There are only two reasons I would be willing to show a deficit for a year.
One is following a year of a surplus (or projected surplus since the budget is worked on prior to the previous year being closed), or should that be two years back, and then only to the amount of the surplus. Thus if in 2015 we have a 2 million surplus, then 2016 could have a 2 million deficit. That way our 40 million reserve is retained for years where revenues are not as large as expected or emergencies require us to spend money where it was not expected.
The second reason I would approve a deficit is to retire debt because that will reduce the interest expense for the following years.
If home rule passes, it will be there for 4 years, if it fails the city can put it on the ballot in two years and thus if it truly does not work to be under the state limits, it can be changed after two years, that is in the law as written.
The home rule documentation claims over 30 million would not be available to be spent and instead only 25 million or so could be spent. What is not being told is the estimated yearly revenue is projected to be near the state spending limit and thus it would force the budget to at or near a zero deficit for the year without using reserve funds.
As for putting our destination marketing up for competitive bid, I am willing to consider that idea even though I prefer to have it done properly by a local organization or the city itself. We should look at other successful destinations to see how they market themselves and follow those successful approaches, which I will admit I have not done the research to see which way is best. Using city employees is probably not the best because we would have to bring in experienced people thus using an experienced marketing company that will market just the city is probably the best option.
When I specifically asked the Chamber why they can’t at least list ALL businesses within the city limits (even if they are listed as non-members), the response was it would be too difficult because businesses change ownership, contact information, or close. I wonder how much different this is than their own members? If all those businesses did join the chamber, would that not be the same?
Why should the Chamber be recommending some business that does not contribute to the bed tax or sales tax? I’m sure they will say the money they spend on destination marketing is to market Sedona and show things such as the Verde Railroad to show the diversity of things in the area and thus increases the success they can have. Now when people look for places and things to do, their take is probably we highlight our members and not the non-members, no matter how good a service someone might provide.
The problem here is based on looking at their members, someone may decide to go with a member who is outside the city limits because that location does not have to charge the city sales tax or bed taxes. Thus if the Chamber wants to have city dollars available, they first have to show accountability as to how the money is spent and how successful that marketing has been.
What if we divided those funds between the Chamber and another marketing group and then based on success we provide funds to whomever is doing the better job.
If the tourist revenue drops, then where I can see us working on additional revenue is first on finding how we can charge time shares for their being in town and using its services. There are no bed taxes on those staying in the units, if they come here and just do hiking and other low cost activities, or even going outside the city limits for those activities, then we are not getting the necessary revenue to support that visitor. Another area we can increase revenue is relaxing the vacation home rental rules and charging the bed tax and sales tax on those locations.
I would also enact laws that would protect our resident citizens by having fines in place for validated complaints on a vacation rental and if say 4 or 5 validated complaints are made in a year then that location’s license to do vacation rentals would be suspended for a year. This would make the owners, wherever they live to be proactive in making sure only the best of renters use the location.
Lastly, I would be in favor of a property tax with a large exclusion for primary residents. This is like California where they give a ‘whole’ $7000 exclusion on property value for primary residents. My thought would be maybe a 50K exclusion for people who claim Sedona as their primary residence, vote here and live here at least 6 months of the year.
I would not support Sedona being an immigration sanctuary. People who want to live here should compete with anyone else to own or live here. If they are illegal, they should go through the proper channels to be in the United States legally. If they have immigrated to this country, let them work like the rest of us in order to afford what ever they desire, just like natural citizens.
I hope I have answered the questions and you consider voting for Robert O’Donnell for city council this coming Tuesday.
Robert
Too logical Rick. And unfortunately over most people’s heads. Many who do vote look at what’s in it for me, for my organization.
@ Robert O’Donnell
While I personally don’t agree with all your talking points, I am greatly appreciative and impressed that you were the first to offer a comment and clarify your beliefs. You’re an honorable man. Thank you very much.
@Eddie
I am “Asking Questions.” Having read your comment to my pseudonym, I just want to say this: I have no doubt that you’ve asked all my questions of the opposition and I will gladly admit that you did it first while standing almost alone. Nevertheless, I’m a firm believer in the old adage…”Tell ’em what you’re gonna tell ’em, tell ’em, then tell ’em what you told ’em.” If you and Mike and I are are ever going to get our message across, we have to keep pounding away at reminding likely voter converts of the same message, over and over. Eddie, you’ve been the great leader of the local recalcitrants for well over a year. I’m just trying to help you out. I am well aware that you’ve personally done and accomplished more than any of us relative to exposing the substantive issues of this upcoming election. Kudos to you!
@RIO
Yes, and I see after touting her longevity here, Angela LeFevre is now one of the Sedona Chamber of Commerce’s newest members. What an opportunist! I wonder what favors she and Jennifer Wesselhoff will exchange? Holy Moly!
There are no political or philosophical differences between Marxist LeFevre and the Capitalist Wesselhoff. Only the naive believe that the common man’s welfare is the concern of either. Power and greed always share the same bed and pots of gold.
Honestly Rick I was clueless about the “true identity” of “Asking Questions.” All the time it seems people are busy trying to tag real or imagined unfamiliar names with local residents. Quite frankly I’m more interested in the messages being sent, and J. Rick Normand aka “Asking Questions” brought up some excellent points.
Agreeing with you, I’m not in favor with all answers from candidate Robert O’Donnell, especially property taxes in any way, shape or form. However, I would much rather know up front what to expect and I commend Mr. O’Donnell from posting his positions in this public forum. Better than having both shoes fall off after these lads and lassies are elected, remove their masks, and take their seats behind that podium. Candidates, are you listening?
Your kind words, Rick, are appreciated although by no means do I feel alone in this crusade . . . and that pretty much is what it’s become, a crusade. Frequently I speak with and receive communication from very depressed and discouraged people, especially when those who disagree with the status quo are being tagged “flatlanders” or the “vocal minority.”
My only suggestion to them is to keep trying. Better to try and lose than to not try at all is the primary premise that keeps me plodding along. Then it’s suddenly a very good day when someone such as yourself adds to our lovely rain storm a shower of glowing words. Could it be there will be a rainbow to follow? Let us hope. (The presently imposed “politically correct” policy in Sedona prevented me from using the words “Let us pray.”)
@Rio
Very interesting.
My daughter works for the county and I asked her to check the voter history of each of the people running in Sedona. perhaps you will want to know that not only did Rio just sign up as a member of the chamber for this election, he just signed up to vote (not sure if its for the first time in his life) just before filing his application to run for office back in May.
Gee, and I was going to vote for him just to get that tax refund that he was offering in the RRN. LOL
I’m sorry folks, I’m moving to cottonwood where it seems that they have good candidates to vote for. I’m not seeing must talent in this race.
Just to clarify on property taxes. I would prefer to not suggest a property tax but the question was…what if our travel industry revenue began to dwindle. In my suggestion of some kind of property tax, what I was trying to get across is if it is necessary to create a tax that the lower cost properties not see much of a tax and that non-resident owners pay a higher amount of that tax since they are not living on that property (though they may own multiple properties and pay a higher amount on the investment ones, such as I would).
What I do know is a problem with my suggestion is a city tax is an additional tax and would be based on the state’s appraised value, and thus something would have to be done from the city to rebate some part of the fee. I presented some of my ideas so people could see I am not to be grouped with the rest of the candidates and I do come with new ideas plus think outside of the box.
Council Candidate JERRY FREY has asked me to relay his answers to my article’s six questions since he does not have a working computer. Ver Batim (no editing), here is his response:
Here are the essential questions of all:
1] Do you support or oppose Home Rule? If you support it, please explain, without any double-talk, why the reduction of the City’s estimated annual budget by 26% is a bad idea, considering what that really means is that the City would be forced to put approximately $9 million dollars a year into a rainy day fund or reserves or pay down debt, in light of the irrefutable fact that the U.S., AZ, and local economies are in a state of serious decline with no evidence of a turnaround on the horizon?
“No” if I’m not elected and ‘Yes” if I am elected. I guess it will sound pompous but I think that if I’m not there to raise a howl, the new council, including Hamilton if he’s mayor, would waste money on their fantasy, pet projects that do nothing to really help Sedona and solve any problems. The two plus million bucks spent on the wetlands that doesn’t do anything to solve our effluent disposal problem is a perfect example. If I am elected I’ll use available money wisely and be as tight with it as I am in my own business. And it sure doesn’t need to be spent just because it’s there. I’d make sure of that.
2] Do you support or oppose awarding the City’s Destination Marketing contract to the Chamber of Commerce without requiring that it be done so through a competitive bidding process (“RFP” or “RFQ”) to assure the best potential players, such as Roger Brooks International or Total Destination Marketing, get fair consideration at the lowest price charged to the City?
It should go out to competitive bid just like construction and capital projects. I have faith in Jennifer Wesselhoff but she’s directed by the Chamber Board and I think some of them have no idea what they’re doing. One thing I do know about them is that they don’t take a stand for the business community.
3] Do you support or oppose the beneficial financial support, with City treasury money from sales/bed taxes, of non-City of Sedona Chamber members such as the Hilton and Enchantment hotels?
No, and I think it’s illegal but have not had time to take that up with certain business think tank/foundations.
4] Can you explain what the City’s revenue sources and non-tax revenue concepts will be, should the City’s tourist-generated tax revenues significantly decline in the near future?
Tourism is the overwhelming, leading source of our revenue and there is no other source that even comes close. I don’t expect that to change and those who think it will are dreaming.
5] Would you support or oppose property taxes to supplement City revenues if Home Rule is voted in again?
I oppose city property tax.
6] Would you support or oppose designation of the City of Sedona as an immigration “sanctuary” city?
I would oppose.
Rick Normand: I always enjoy listening to your views. Sometimes you help me clarify or understand. Sometimes I change my mind after a good discussion with you. I appreciate the essay you submitted.
However, on one point I disagree. I strongly support Home Rule. I wrote about this the last time it came up for a vote and will not offer as much detail this time. Here are some major considerations:
1) Voting No does *not* reduce taxes. Collections remain the same, but the City is “not allowed” to spend the collections–EVER, unless Home Rule passes 4 years later, in the next election.
2) The exception is the bankroll can be used for emergencies. The same people who rattle against home rule also complain our Reserves are already too high. We don’t need to whisk away 1/3 of annual collections to pile onto the reserve fund.
3) Sedonans expect and appreciate a nice lifestyle in our little city. Not extravagant, but some amenities. Softball for adults, a shaded park for children, paved roads for the neighborhoods, sidewalks and crosswalks for the school children, snow removal when we’re blessed with snow, a city website, Internet streamed council meetings and much, much more. Even street signs–and LIGHTS!
The formula for state control of city budgets was created decades ago–before the statehouse sold its own building and leased it back. ;-) The state claims it is adjusted for inflation—using whatever factors they deem relevant. What it is not adjusted for are the demands of an ever more civilized and refined society, unwilling to walk through mud to get to City Hall.
4) And perhaps the biggest reason of all to vote for local control of the locally collected taxes is the source and disposition of those taxes. It is not true that tourism supports the city. Tourism about half supports the city. About half of the remaining tax is collected from residents. The hidden gem in this formula is that averaged over a year, Sedona’s population is not around 10,000 a day, but rather 20,000 a day, half of those (averaged to a daily rate) are tourists. Sedonans are paying our fair share, because if the bodies on the streets were cut by half, our sales tax contributions, portion of county taxes directed to city, etc., would pay for all our needs. But we have guests, effectively doubling our population.
The half (roughly) that tourists pay covers additional costs to the system–sewage fees subsidized by the city because resident and hotelier fees don’t ‘cover’ it; damage to roads and sidewalks; need for parking; need for uniforms and training for volunteers to shepherd tourists around; traffic snarls; need for lights and crosswalks; need for a visitors’ center (building and staff) many times the size of those in same size and even larger cities because of the flood of inquiries and demands upon that system…etc.
Without Home Rule, we cannot begin to keep our potholes filled, our lights on, and our books balanced. Look at the facts—not the rhetoric of people who claim to be so fiscally conservative that they never speak in favor of an additional expenditure, no matter what it is.
Show me just one of those people who never uses a city service, not a road, not a street or sidewalk, not a traffic light, not a not-for-profit that receives grants to allow us to all feel like we live graciously in a generous community….
You can’t just cut 1/4th off the street that person drives on. No, the 1/4th cut might be their sister’s or brother’s street or college roommate’s here for a visit…
It’s about people. Caring. Nice matters.
5) Three-fourths of the cities in Arizona vote *for* home rule. They don’t all support twice their official population, yet their voters prefer local control.
Sedona, too, needs local control of its budget. If you want to trim the budget, volunteer to work on it after we vote for Home Rule.
Thank you, Rick, for your email bringing your article to my attention. I won’t comment on the article itself, but I am happy to respond to your request that I answer your six questions in this forum.
1. I support home rule. This topic has been raised frequently at candidate forums, and the lack of debate among candidates on this issue is probably because all of them agree in supporting Prop 429. I’m well aware that some Sedonans disagree, often with great passion. And when they explain their reasons with logical arguments, they contribute to a healthy dialog that leads to better understanding by all. Such constructive arguments have helped make me aware of the financial concerns that most of our city shares, but they have not convinced me that the state imposed limitation is necessary to achieve fiscal restraint. Our city weathered the worst of the Great Recession in very good financial shape, and we still have about a year’s worth of reserves, which is twice as much as is considered prudent for a city like ours. We can always do better, but I do not believe most Sedonans desire help from the State to run a tight ship.
2. Although I’m in favor of competitive bidding for city services, I won’t second-guess the Council’s decision to award the destination marketing contract to the Chamber of Commerce directly. Performance on that contract will be regularly reviewed and/or audited, and it can be canceled if necessary. For an estimated $1.2M, we should have very high expectations. If elected, I certainly will.
3. I, like many others, have raised my concerns with the Chamber about the ambiguity in how their membership and support is managed with respect to City boundaries, and I believe they have been listening. The Chamber is working on clarifying its organizational structure and membership practices, and I’m eager to see if they can come up with a solution that clearly correlates the funding Sedonans provide with benefits Sedona derives. If not, I believe the Council should take appropriate action to see that this goal is achieved.
4. A more diversified economy, less dependent on tourism, is one of the six desired Major Outcomes in our new Community Plan. That doesn’t mean Sedonans oppose tourism, just that we’d like to see a more sustainable balance of revenue sources. An economic development manager position was carved out of the recent city staff reorganization, which is being actively recruited. An economic development plan will undoubtedly be a top priority of this employee, when hired, and I expect it will contain a number of ideas that can be proactively pursued to attract higher-paying jobs in industries that are compatible with the goals of our community plan. Health and wellness, education, and environmental services are just three examples I’ve suggested recently.
5. I am certainly opposed to any increase in taxes, of any kind. If someone had a great idea for restructuring our various taxes to achieve a more fair distribution while keeping the overall tax burden the same or reducing it, I would listen, of course, and seek community opinion. But I would be very surprised if anyone suggested adding a property tax during the next four years; support for that at present is negligible.
6. I’m not sure how this “sanctuary city” question relates to home rule, but I’ll answer. Not all sanctuary city ordinances are alike, but I see no reason for this designation for Sedona in any case. I believe that federal and state laws on immigration, discrimination, and profiling are satisfactory to execute good immigration policy, if they are enforced. So any city ordinance that intends to strengthen those laws is unnecessary, and any city ordinance that intends to undermine those laws is illegal.
@Lin Ennis
You comment several times about “street lights.” ADOT (thank goodness) still has jurisdiction over W89A, the only road in Sedona with traffic lights. As for the remaining reasons you will support Home Rule, it’s your choice but amounts to no more than the rhetoric from Steve Segner’s Lodging Council/Chamber and the gang who have attempted to scare the socks off folks who believe their meals on wheels will be discontinued without Home Rule or heaven forbid the disgraceful use of precious water at the Splash Pad will run dry.
The wasteful spending of this past city council on double-funding select special interest groups (Chamber, Arts Collaborative, and Film Festival to mention three) should be reason enough to put a temporary halt on this “local control.” Some might prefer the term “local out-of-control” spending.
However, we all have the opportunity to vote our conscience. My vote will cancel yours.
Thank you Rick for explaining what it really happening with the Council.. Great questions which need to be answered. Voting NO on Home Rule seems to be the only way to stop, or at least slow down, the exorbitant spending of an incredibly fiscally irresponsible City Council. Thanks again for all your efforts to waking people up to the challenges that the City faces..
@Lin Ennis,
As I said in my article, voters must beware of the old shell game wherein what’s important is the information that isn’t disclosed by proponents of an issue. Your comments above are excellent but still constitute a version of the old shell game. Think about this…
If Home Rule is not adopted by a majority of the qualified voters, the state-imposed expenditure limitation applies and no new home rule may be submitted to the voters for at least 2 years. Lin, are you saying Sedona couldn’t wait just 2 years to learn how to control the never-ending expansion of non-critical project spending as it pays down its excessive $56 million in bonded debt and $4 million in City Hall mortgage debt while building up rainy-day reserves/Enterprise Funds? Are you implying that it is necessarily beyond Sedona’s management capability to develop non-tax revenues such as the immensely fiscally successful resort City of Palm Desert, CA?
There are options you didn’t mention other than just “yes or no” on Home Rule. In the alternative, the City of Sedona may submit to its voters a Permanent Base Adjustment (only) Option …something you failed to mention when you should have.
Permanent Base Adjustment does away with Home Rule. If Permanent Base Adjustment gets voter approval, the city no longer has to put Home Rule on the ballot every four years. The city can still determine its own spending limitation based on its revenue. It’s a good thing! The Home Rule Option prescribes the liberal CAFR Federal METHOD the municipality will use to calculate its own expenditure limitation each year whereas the Permanent Base Adjustment Option requires the use of a more conventional State statue prescribed accounting method . Several West Valley (Phoenix area) cities have already approved Permanent Base Adjustment and Sedona should applaud them. Permanent Base Adjustment does not raise taxes or allow the city to spend with no discretion. All it does is allow the city to spend the revenue it brings in predicated upon a base point at the time it is voted in. Of course, to do this would require the City to do a much better job of generating realistic revenue and expenditure estimates in light of real current economic conditions instead of imaginary absurd “never-ending good times” predictions. The Permanent Base Adjustment, as does the Home Rule Option, provides for an annual inflation rate adjustment of nearly 3 percent when the Federal government says inflation is running nearer 2%. Surely the City can live with that. Permanent Base Adjustment offers communities more flexibility in budgeting but makes it harder to adopt special interest group pet projects or no bid Chamber contracts or Staff, Chamber and Council beautification wish lists. In other words, if a city is to adopt a Permanent Adjusted Base Rate Option it had better do realistic budget forecast estimates.
Anyway, certain revenues are specifically excluded from the state-imposed expenditure limitation. For example, revenues received from the issuance of bonds, revenues received from interest or dividends and certain non-tax revenues, revenue from Federal grants, and intergovernmental revenue already subject to another entity’s expenditure limitation, are all exempt from the expenditure limit under either option. If the state-imposed limitation does not allow for the expenditure of sufficient local funds (less the exemptions listed above) then State law provides four options to potentially solve this problem, as follows.
• Alternative expenditure limitation (local Home Rule option)
• A permanent base adjustment without Home Rule Option
• A capital projects accumulation fund
• A one-time override
All of the options require voter approval. If none of the options are approved by the voters, the state-imposed limitation will apply.
Lin, why don’t you digress with an in-depth analysis of the advantages/disadvantages of these other alternatives?
So Jerry Frye, on Home Rule, says: “No” if I’m not elected and ‘Yes” if I am elected.”
And just how does that work since it’s very likely new council members won’t be officially elected until the General Election in November.
What is it Mr. Frye knows that the rest of us don’t know?
Does he intend to delay the Home Rule ballot measure until AFTER the November election when he knows for certain whether or not he was elected and then can make up his mind on which way to vote?
Hey, if this guy has that much clout how about we change Sedona policy. Instead of electing a Mayor & City Council, let’s Crown a King?
@All Readers at the Eye:
You know, dear readers, the City’s Pamphlet entitled “FACTS on Home Rule,” as well as Lin’s Home Rule advocacy argument and the City media outlet aka RRN’s editorial support for Home Rule, are typical examples of how government at all levels, as well as our own local Chamber, propagandize an issue. Relative to any given issue, they first give the reader/viewer an avalanche of official information that has absolutely no probative value, then they string together these useless facts into an apparently valid logic string, then they give you an official conclusion derived from a logical deductive leap. This is a fancy way of saying they employ marketing wordsmiths who take bogus information that is either false, exaggerated, or unrelated and craft it into a persuasive argument targeted at the unwary which is intended to lead them to believe that if they don’t accept the promoter’s conclusion, life as we know it on earth will quickly end. A good example of this is “If we don’t have a regime change in Iraq by overthrowing Saddam Hussein, then we will have civil, religious and factional wars for years into the future.” Wrong premise leading to a conclusion of unintended consequences!
Meanwhile, in the Home Rule argument, for example, to say, as Lin Ennis has, “What it is not adjusted for are the demands of an ever more civilized and refined society, unwilling to walk through mud to get to City Hall,” or “And perhaps the biggest reason of all to vote for local control of the locally collected taxes is the source and disposition of those taxes,” or “Without Home Rule, we cannot begin to keep our potholes filled, our lights on, and our books balanced.” Lin, frankly, these are all extraordinarily deliberate prevarications and intended to be nothing more than scare tactics. I can easily prove every one of these ridiculous statements to be categorically false as well as about half of what you’ve said. Give it a rest!
Bravo Mr Normand
Thank you
Lin Ennis message translated: Spin, spin, brainwash, spin, scare tactics, and finally, most of important of all, ENTITLEMENTS!
Liked and shared this article on Facebook.
@ all sedona eye readers and @ Robert O’Donnell (Sedona Council Candidate) Sedona Business Association has a exclusive website for in City limits businesses, SedonaCity.com. It not that hard @ Robert.
They don’t take money from the city and they list businesses in the Sedona city limits for FREE. If you own a business in the city you can sign up online at http://www.sedonacity.com/SedonaListings.htm
Robert O’Donnell, candidate for Sedona City Council wrote, “When I specifically asked the Chamber why they can’t at least list ALL businesses within the city limits (even if they are listed as non-members), the response was it would be too difficult because businesses change ownership, contact information, or close.” There is no excuse in this technological age that the Chamber cannot produce a list of all businesses WITHIN city limits.
Why are some of you not using your real name? That way, I could tell if any of you have ever volunteered to work on the budget.
The proper way to address expenditure limits is to work ON the budget–get involved and vote in a committee.
Now.
Extremism does not work in a city of diversity.
Of course, you could move to one of the 15 Arizona cities that does not use the Alternative Expenditure Limit.
I personally don’t like to have judgment passed on me for expressing an idea. That is done in Sedona.
Economic development is the indirect implementation of Agenda 21.
I suppose diversity includes elitism. No problem.
See, I can go totally off subject too.
Back to you, J Rick
Lin….When you were on the Budget Oversight Commission, my observation was that you all voted not “IN a committee” – rather – you voted “BY committee.” It was expected that everyone be in agreement when you voted. And as the head of the Budget Oversight Commission, Peter Fagan, admitted to me, that was the case most of the time. You were expected to vote unanimously, dissension was frowned upon – no matter how wasteful the expenditure… Like the time I saw you and the others on the Budget Oversight Commission vote unanimously to fund $50,000 to a Co-op Dark-sky Lighting Program on 89A – a street that has street lights… and then, during the same meeting, you all voted unanimously to deny the Judge the money he was asking for to provide protection that would screen for guns during open courtroom hearings. Not one of you on the Commission said, “Hey, let’s give the Judge the protection he is asking for and obviously needs.” Not one of you on that Commission said, “Let’s NOT fund this ‘waste of money and time’ Co-op Dark Sky Lighting Program what will go no-where.” So, Lin, as much as I like you personally, I witnessed first hand the politics of a hand chosen Commission that walked in lock-step and unashamedly wasted tax payer money. (See my Letter to the Editor in the Red Rock News published Dec 7, 2012 titled “City should spend monies more wisely”).
The Chamber routinely submits false reports to the City Council. They report “in City ” membership numbers by zip code. These zip codes includes those outside the city limits along with PO Boxes. We all know Enchantment is outside City.
Chamber membership was approximately 80% NON City businesses. My Husband and I audited the list. They only promote those businesses who pay them. The more you pay the more promotion you get.
I spoke to Jennifer about this and asked her why? She stated “It is too difficult.” I offered to the report for her for FREE and she declined.
Sue the national & local chamber & its membership, period. Seems there is a problem with the chamber and fair trade & transparency required of all nonprofits whether 3s or 4s. It will open their books, it will prove where & who is getting the $$. Follow the money.
@RFP 4 Desintation Mktg. Needed
It should be a walk in the park for Jennifer/Chamber to provide a list of all business’s within City limits because their largest benefactor (the City) requires All city business’s to obtain a Business License. That’s a fact vs a spin of words.
@Lin Ennis says:
Lin, take on HOME Rule: “1) Voting No does *not* reduce taxes”
Lin, I really don’t believe anyone ever said that. All people who truly understand the Home Rule issue completely understand that all it does is put a (well deserved) cap on crazy expenditures that are not revolved in health, safety and welfare issues.
To your point #2 :” The same people who rattle against home rule also complain our Reserves are already too high.”
Are you just ignorant of the fact that people who have a different opinion than yours are NOT “rattle against home rule?” How much more disrespectful could you be?
Have you ever thought about a possible concept that those who you demean as “rattle against Home Rule? might just be correct in trying to override the concept of entitlement?
Lin, you continued to write:” It is not true that tourism supports the city. Tourism about half supports the city. ”
Are you actually serious with those words and where did you get the facts to substantiate your “concept”
From what I’ve learned- the last 3 months of all business, in Sedona, is they are All down in revenues. What I’ve also been able to check out is that the vast majority of revenues that comes into out City Budget and Bank Account from the B&B taxes, is sinking well below what they and the Chamber want to see.
The Reality is that the financial name of the game has changed for the biggest provider (lodging) is suffering and now it is time for all to get a grip on City Expenditures, dreams and wish lists.
While I do appreciate any and all concepts of how to find new sources of actual money revenue – I’m just dumbfounded at how easy people poop on the real source of our security = tourists, lodging, restaurants and etc. OMG
Doesn’t it bother any of you that business revenues are dropping; that lodging dollars and dropping; that in spite of this, Marriott and a franchiser (what an idiot that one is) plan on new properties? Who are the projected businesses now anticipated to close as a result of MORE BEDS that won’t be filled? What in-fill properties will be vacant? What is the anticipated loss of tax revenue to the city?
Lin is correct when she writes “It is not true that tourism supports the city.” These findings were announced during a meeting of the Budget Oversight Commission of yore by Chair Peter Fagan.
Attached to Ron Budnick’s “Budnick for City Council” letter is a “Sedona Tax Origins” breakdown. His research and data reveal Sedona residents paid 54.2% of City taxes in 2012 and 55.7% in 2011. Residential wastewater fees (taxes) tipped the scale, and they keep going up annually with no relief in sight. Even the 10% waived last year by the City Council was negated upon their approval of a FY 2013-14 “Cost of Service Adjustment” of 10% for residents. Naturally, Ron Budnick’s findings do not include the hefty taxes levied by the Fire and School Districts via county property tax bills.
By the way, the enormous number of commercial vacancies for a City with so small a population as Sedona’s is troubling and has ongoing loss of revenue consequences. As Mike brilliantly pointed out, two new Marriott properties are coming to town at a time when business revenues are dropping. This means additional business failures and loss of revenue to the City could become a bigger problem than it already is. Here are some examples of recent business failures: (1) The Sedona Art Supply with 30 years in Sedona closed its doors last fall, (2) The Iris Garden Inn on Jordan Road has had three owners and two name changes within the past year, and (3) both Bodacious Burgers and Studio Live couldn’t survive due to hefty front-end wastewater fees.
Separating Wheat From Chaff In This Election Campaign
“For instance, while not a single candidate is listening to the public outcry in opposition to Home”
We will see “public outcry” the vote will tell, the outcry will be for Home rule.
After elections what will you say you were correct and public wrong?
Well then Steve I guess we’ll just have to find another way to empty the trash and take out the garbage!!!!!
@steve segner,
Interesting that you can remain such an arrogant little guy while your industry, your hotel and you are on the economic ropes. You’re not fooling anyone!The only thing keeping you alive is the fact that you’re on the public dole for now, but…home rule or no home rule, the economy will nullify a vote in favor of it and nullify you as well.
@Jean
As I’ve followed your posts for quite a while – I truly believe you have the best take on the finances and City financial screw ups and manipulations of our quaint little town regarding same – but I will disagree with you on one very major issue: Taxes and what are constituted as Taxes.
Lets remember some old history of the Waste Water “FEES”.
Way back, in the early ’90’s, when we got a sewer system, we all knew we would be paying for the “privilege and necessity” of hooking up to it when it came into our neighborhoods……. As that was only the right thing to do, and many of us were simply required to do so. It was called a “User Fee” and NOT a “TAX”.
Since then the various Councils, with their short sightedness and perceived vast wisdom, have decided to continue to increase the Waste Water FEES.
Jean, My point is that a zebra is still a zebra and it’s strips won’t change colors and it is still a zebra —– just like Wastewater FEES are! Those fees were never intended as Taxes and were never called Taxes and never described as TAXES until just recently….when some folks decided to change definitions and without basis….is that more personal agendas? Reason it is not a Tax (in my mind) is that only those hooked up to a sewer line or those that have a sewer line runing in front of their property (even though they are not hooked up to it) are paying the sewer FEE.
So, our reality is that “our” Tourists continue to pay the hefty and largest part of our shrinking towns Tax Driven income revenues through increased Bed Taxes as they absorb (through lodging and restaurant and retail shops) the increased Sewer FEES as they pay their bills.
A more diverse source of revenue that doesn’t rely on Tourists has never been found but discussed at length. I think that if concept actually had merit it would have been accomplished years ago.
With all due respect to you Jean: if we remove the total income to the City from Wastewater FEES – the picture is oh so clear as to how lucky the locals are that our Tourists pay the bulk of revenues. Hope we can agree to disagree or just call a zebra a zebra….. Which ever Zebra it is.
Thanks so much for your great comments, Sharlett. But in all due respect, whether our ever-increasing WW charges are called fees or taxes, the findings of the former Budget Oversight Commission were that residents, not tourists, are paying the largest percentage of the City’s bills.
Perhaps I can ask an intriguing question. Was the wastewater fund allegedly an Enterprise Fund at the time the voters approved the bonded indebtedness back in the 90’s? Approximately three City Councils ago was when I first heard mention of a Wastewater Enterprise Fund.
@all readers,
CLIFF HAMILTON, candidate for Mayor of Sedona, AZ has sent to me his answers to the six questions I’ve posed to all Council and Mayoral candidates in the above article. Here are his answers, ver batim and without editing:
Rick, All 6 are there. Scroll to a second page perhaps. Also, I’ll add the whole thing to the body of this email to ensure you get it.
Cliff
1. 1] Do you support or oppose Home Rule?
Yes, I support it and I’ve been clear about that all along. What seems to be missing from the discussion is the recognition of how the “home rule” option came about. Way back in the 80’s, before most all of us were here in Sedona or even in Arizona and worrying about it, apparently some cities were getting way too extravagant with spending so the legislature put a lid on it with a formula centered around city population. That’s fine for cities that don’t double their population on any given day with tourists like Sedona does. Tourists are not free! Their needs and services cost the city money too. Sedona has a larger police force, larger sewer system, more wear and tear on all infrastructure, more regulatory staffing, etc. to handle this major increase in population that is not accounted for in the legislature funding formula. So how much should be allocated to take care of all these extra people in town? Start with the “residents only” legislature formula and then add how much? Right now it’s about 30% more. Or is the basic legislature formula too high also? That’s what we should be discussing in our budget debates. Unfortunately, it’s an all or nothing, yes or no vote regarding the home rule ballot.
2] Do you support or oppose awarding the City’s Destination Marketing contract to the Chamber of Commerce without requiring that it be done through a competitive bidding process?
Competitive free enterprise is one of the things that has made this country great. I’ve been clear about supporting a competitive process for the city’s destination marketing for a long time. Just writing an RFP to clearly describe what we as a city want in the way of destination marketing services is a major task. No doubt there will be many disagreements along the way regarding just what should and should not be in it. Simply deciding to go to an RFP approach is only the beginning of a long process with a whole new set of discussions (arguments?) and issues. It’s not the be all and fix all solution some may think, but I believe it’s still the best one and am eager to begin moving in that direction.
3] Do you support or oppose the beneficial financial support, with City treasury money from sales/bed taxes, of non-City of Sedona Chamber members such as the Hilton and Enchantment hotels?
Inevitably, any general promoting of “Sedona” will benefit all who have a Sedona address, even if they are miles away from the city. That’s just reality. However any specific mention of any business outside the city that is paid for by revenues generated within the city, without a reimbursement process is unfair. This issue extends to far more than just hotels. The city funds 70% of the Uptown Visitor Center (with the sales/bed taxes paid by the 2,000 plus businesses located in the city) but visitors are referred only to Chamber members, including those in Cottonwood, Flagstaff and beyond, even though similar (taxpaying) businesses operate in Sedona but are not members of the Chamber of Commerce. There are lots of things in this whole issue that need to be addressed.
4] Can you explain what the City’s revenue sources and non-tax revenue concepts will be, should the City’s tourist-generated tax revenues significantly decline in the near future?
First we diversify our economic mix by pursuing businesses that serve the needs of those of us who live here. Most of us are forced to go to Cottonwood or Flagstaff or even further away to buy simple clothing items, dry goods, electronics, appliances, etc. We are a city of 10,000 after all with another perhaps 3,000 part-time residents. That is enough market to attract product and service providers catering to us residents. In the larger realm of revenue, the city can gain by more active pursuit of grants for specific needs, courting medical service specialties and internet-based businesses. Some of this is already happening. A recent study shows local residents, not tourists, are now providing the majority of funding for the city’s operations. Yes, tourism is and will be an important part of the city revenue stream as far into the future as anyone can look, but it’s already declining in importance.
5] Would you support or oppose property taxes to supplement City revenues if Home Rule is voted in again?
I will work to keep Sedona on a sound financial path and will not support new debt, general obligation bonds or any city property tax.
6] Would you support or oppose designation of the City of Sedona as an immigration “sanctuary” city?
I’ll assume your question is referring to undocumented immigration, although you don’t say so. On that assumption, the answer is no. Immigration laws are not perfect and need public debate and adjustment, but for the moment, they are the law. The process of becoming a public official requires swearing an oath to uphold the laws and the constitution. That oath doesn’t say you get to pick and choose which laws or parts of the constitution you will uphold. It says all of them. Trying to circumvent the law is a violation of that oath of office and perhaps also illegal.
@Sharlett
tWhat the …….? Just when you think you’ve heard it all…..
“User fees” don’t count as a taxes? And what about the city franchise fees on certain utilities? Or business licenses, dog licenses, traffic or code violation fines?
Revenue definition, the income of a government from taxation, excise duties, customs, or other sources, appropriated to the payment of the public expenses.
Ronald Budnick, Lin Ennis, and Jean are all absolutely correct. Residents are contributing up to 55% of city revenue which doesn’t disregard the sales and bed taxes contributed from tourists. So let us, as Miz Sharlett writes, correctly call the zebra a zebra.
On the other hand maybe the City functions with voodoo as does the Chamber of Commerce indicated by the following:
Ms. Wesselhoff explained that none of the public money goes to operate any functions of the Chamber of Commerce. She claims her salary is solely derived from C of C membership dues. She went on to say the Tourism Bureau is privately and publicly funded and the Visitor’s Center is funded by City.
However, Michelle’s salary IS primarily derived from the private funding portion of Tourism Bureau funds but subject to being subsidized as, perhaps, is necessary.
However, in a recent “Chamber News” article (Sedona Red Rock News 5/24/13), Michelle Conway reported that: “The public funds from the city are combined with private funding through Tourism Bureau membership dues and advertising to create a total marketing, sales and public relations budget of approximately $500,000. This total budget includes operational expenses, salaries, and administration, in addition to the actual execution of promoting.”
SOURCE:
https://sedonaeye.com/curtain-falls-on-may-2013-city-council-performances
BOTTOM LINE: Taxes, fees, fines, licenses: all collectively are city revenue. At least that’s the way it’s supposed to be unless City practice is a reflection of the muddled and confused system of the Chamber of Commerce.
END OF REPORT!
@all readers,
RON BUDNICK, candidate for City Council of Sedona, AZ has sent to me his response to the six questions I’ve posed to all Council and Mayoral candidates in the above article. Here is his response, ver batim and without editing:
Ron Budnick
Aug 21 at 8:58 AM
Mr. Normand,
I would normally have responded to your questions already. I have made my position known on all these at several forums over the last two months. I had an email from Eddie Maddock a couple of weeks ago about a candidate issue and we spoke on the phone about it.
I will not respond as long as Sedona Eye takes the position that people can comment under pseudonyms. I stepped up publicly four years ago and volunteered for the Budget Oversight Commission, and this year have stepped up and put my name in as a candidate for City Council. I believe we need change in the Council and that is why I stepped up. I also put my time in to learn how things work, so that I can start to make a difference immediately.
I met Lin Ennis on that commission and I was dismayed at your response to her post. I believe Lin really cares about these issues and has also done her homework. What I have learned over the past two months, is that there are strong opinions in Sedona, and few people willing to compromise. We all complain about Congress, but I find that it starts here on the local level. If you are not with me, you are against me. I learned over the forty years of my business career, that the world is not black and white, it is gray. That is the only way things get done for the good.
I would be happy to meet you face to face and discuss any issues, but I won’t respond and be subject to cheap shots that someone hiding behind their computer wants to make.
Ron
J. Rick Normand’s email reply to Ron Budnick:
To Ron Budnick
Aug 21 at 9:06 AM
Thank you for responding Ron,
I hope you don’t think that I would take any cheat shops at you once you had submitted. If you’ll look at the responses of the candidates that I differ with, I only thanked them, told them I appreciated their courage. In fact, I may very well vote for them. Nevertheless, I do appreciate your email and I would like to meet you after all this is over.
Rick
@RBudnick says I will not respond as long as Sedona Eye takes the position that people can comment under pseudonyms.
@Me says: Hockey pucks, Budnick. What difference does it make whether a Name or Pseudonym? None. For anyone here to comment, they live & work here & are vested. They have a position & a viewpoint. They’re real people. They offer real opinions. Whether you know which of your friends & neighbors are saying what is written, it’s being said to your face & not behind your back. Be smart enough to hear it whether you like or know the person saying it or not. Disregard the BS, listen to the points.
To you Sedona Eye folks – – – keep up the good work. No matter where I go, you are spoken of with high regard & or contempt. Seems your people are smart enough to let the fools & wise ones have a public face. You’re providing this city with a long denied voice. It’s refreshingly honest.
@Ron Budnick Don’t swallow the Koolade. You’re smarter than those words written above which sound straight out of the RRN & City & a Personal Agenda playbook. I’ve heard the same things many times & mostly from my chamber friends – – – surprisingly it’s always someone with an agenda.
BTW @Ron, Lin Ennis has an agenda. Lin, a nice lady & good neighbor has frothed under the grip to have her opinions & writings known around town. If it wasn’t for this site less than a handful would know her name. Did Lin tell you @Ron she tried to compete with the Sedona Eye and failed & they continue to let her contribute? There’s your context @Ron. You decide credibility.
@Ron Remember, fake people don’t read & write city or city election opinions. Real people do. Who they are doesn’t matter – – – but what they say does matter.
PS: I voted for you. It was based on real names & pseudonyms read here. Never underestimate these readers comments & ability to persuade or dissuade. Your first exposure to hundreds (maybe thousands?) happened here – – – not those forums or fundraiser friends & family & synagogue Koolade get togethers.
PPS: @ Sedona Eye – – – Am donating $30. That @Steve Segner is cheap for this registered Democrat’s freedom of speech. Keep up the fine work. I encourage everyone participating in this election to donate & I encourage everyone real names or anonymous to KEEP ON SAYIN’…
@Ronald Budnick
The phone conversation we had was for personal reasons in order to obtain information to assist in confirming my decision to vote for you. Our discussion was then and remains confidential.
E. Maddock
@Mike
BTW just who is it you intend to be the recipient of your $30? It would be great if you meant Sedona Eye but it really isn’t clear.
It amazes me (as an observant citizen) that all the ad money is spent on the media that truly is biased and will not give equal opportunity to all opinions. Even a competitive online site seems to thrive on ads but quite frankly it detracts from articles. (or so I’ve heard).
And yes, for those who care, I am a real person but use different ID’S: Eddie Maddock, Eddie S. Maddock, E. Maddock. E.S. Maddock, Eddie, or Eddie M.
Note to publisher: Please notify me if you are suddenly swamped with ads and no longer have room for my humble contributions.:-) signed: Wishful Thinking
Agreed @ Mike, Sedona well said
I LOVE Sedona Eye and am very thankful they give us “Flatlanders” a voice
Thank you
@Sedona Eye Publisher
Wow, you are on the job and speedy. Speaking of names, maybe you should consider changing Sedona Eye to “Speedy Gazette,” (gazelle?); “Faster than Lightening?” “The Sedona Horn with a Fast Toot?”
Just kidding. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it! (Can’t apply that to Sedona City government.)
Cliff, you have my vote. I expect you to be vigilant with Chamber funds, I expect you to answer to accountability. Stand tall and be your own man because this will be a stacked Council if a few of those names get elected, Sedona deserves better than a LeFevre/Thompson/Jablow cabal. Nothing against any of them personally but they are disgusting politically.
Hamilton. Your positions on sanctuary city and Home Rule have me supporting you. Candidates responding here get my votes. Ignoring any segment of a community is arrogance and I don’t like or support arrogance when it can be helped.