Home » City Council, Community » The Here and The Now in Year 2013

The Here and The Now in Year 2013

SedonaEye.com columnist Eddie S. Maddock

SedonaEye.com columnist Eddie S. Maddock shares a series of emails with the City of Sedona Attorney and its Assistant Public Works Director and City Engineer

Sedona AZ (October 1, 2013)You will find no history contained in what is being presented here (unless, of course, anyone out there is able to connect the theory that history repeats.) 

What is offered is a direct e-mail exchange with City of Sedona Attorney Mike Goimarac. For comprehension the e-format has been reversed from the initial exchange to its conclusion. Other than that, the emails are presented as occurred.

Please keep in mind that this is public information which further substantiates my choice to submit it unedited so there is no question about anything being taken out of context. 

And so we begin. (Copies of this exchange went to all members of the Sedona City Council – the meeting of reference was on Tuesday, September 24, 2013.)

>>> “Eddie Maddock” 9/25/2013 8:01 AM >>>

Hi Mike:

For clarification, will you please address the following three questions:

(1) The portion of SR89A owned by Sedona was identified at last night’s meeting as extending south to L’Auberge Lane. This came up not too long ago (I believe when the uptown committee was studying parking and traffic flow) and it was confirmed that the city owned portion of the state highway only extended to just a short distance south of the stop light at Forest Road.

L'Auberge location on SR 89A

L’Auberge location on SR 89A

Recalling a time when a city council approved a sign for L’Auberge to be placed on the highway, it was later ascertained that wasn’t acceptable because it would have been on ADOT right of way. Is this information accurate?

My reason for asking is because why would the city commit to the expense of overlaying a portion of the highway they didn’t own?

(2) Brewer Road Property: At the meeting, usage of the property was questioned about the acreage after it had been acquired by ILX. Although this obviously isn’t applicable at this time, but didn’t ILX as part of a conditional use permit for additional timeshares agree to deed the property where the historic buildings are located back to the city? Is that true?

I mention this only as a head’s up when considering “partnering” in future projects. In other words, there are no guarantees that such agreements will satisfactorily come to fruition.

(3) Understanding that present funding from Development Impact Fees is earmarked for city land acquisition for parks and other specific public uses, isn’t it true that by action of the city council a new ordinance to reassign those fees would be a legal means to release them for other uses in the future? This question was asked and I believe your answer indicated the money must remain for its presently designated use forever. Information from former members of city councils advises me this is not the case.

Please clarify.

Thanks so much,

E. Maddock 

******

Sedona City Council in session

Sedona City Council in session

Eddie:

As to item 1, I am copying Andy Dickey, the assistant City Engineer and hopefully he can tell you where the southern boundary of the City’s portion of Hwy 89A is.

As to item 2, my recollection is that as part of a major amendment to the Community Plan, ILX was willing to have at least a portion of the property in question become a public park. They were going to add open space from the other side of the road to the mix too.

As to item 3, we are restricted by state law rather than by city ordinance relative to how we can spend impact fees. ARS Sec. 9-463.05(K) provides that any development fees collected before January 1, 2012 “shall be used towards the same category of necessary services as authorized by this section.” Later this same section states that if they were collected for a purpose not authorized by this new legislation, they “shall be used for the purposes for which they were collected on or before January 1, 2020.” Clearly the legislative intent requires that if we collected fees for park land acquisition we need to spend them for park land acquisition.

Sincerely,

Michael Goimarac

Sedona City Attorney.

******

>>> “Eddie Maddock” 9/25/2013 10:38 AM >>>

Thank you so much, Mike, for your prompt response in spite of your extremely busy schedule.

Regarding the Development Impact Fees, I do understand the fees now in reserve must be used as you explain. My question is can the designation for use of the funds be changed for future imposed Development Impact Fees?

state route sr 89a road signFor example, realistically is there any better use for such fees than to provide for adequate drainage since new development has, in fact, created many of the problems Sedona is now facing? The very term itself “Development IMPACT Fees” certainly cannot be disputed that using such funds to mitigate resulting infrastructure demands only makes sense. As I mentioned, two former city council members told me the use of future (not present) DIFees could be changed and legally accepted under the State code to which you refer.

As I recall, it was Charles Mosely who corrected and clarified the portion of SR 89A owned by the city as not extending to the intersecting roundabout of SR 179. It seems quite certain if that were not the case a highway L’Auberge sign would have appeared long ago as had been council approved but not by ADOT since council overstepped their jurisdiction.

Thanks again.

Eddie 

******

Eddie:

Just as with the current fees, the designation for how future funds can be used depends entirely on what they are collected for. And what they can be collected for is controlled by state statute. For example, state law allows us to collect impact fees for things like drainage improvements, police protection, parks and recreation, general government and transportation. When these fees are collected they are not put into one big pot, but instead are segregated and can be used for what they were collected for. We currently have impact fees that we have collected for drainage improvements and those fees can be spent only for drainage improvements. The same hold true for fees that we have collected for park land acquisition. They can only be used for park land acquisition.

We are currently doing a new impact fee study to assess the impact of future growth on each of the above-mentioned categories. This study will quantify the impact, for example that a new commercial development or a new single family residence has in placing demands on the need for more drainage improvements, police protection, park land per capita etc. It will boil that impact down into a dollar figure for each category. Those categories will be added together to come up with the total impact fee imposed on a new development.

sedona city planner

New state legislation enacted in 2011 has necessitated this new study and has created new parameters and limitations on the kinds of services that we can calculate impact fees for replies Michael Goimarac, City of Sedona Attorney.

For example, currently, a new low density single family home constructed in the Dry Creek Wash area of the city will pay a storm drainage impact fee of $2,248, a parks and rec impact fee of $5,932, a police impact fee of $313 and a transportation impact fee of $1,917, for a total development impact fee of $10, 410.00. Our new study will reassess each of these categories and it may be that some of these fees will go up and some will go down. New state legislation enacted in 2011 has necessitated this new study and has created new parameters and limitations on the kinds of services that we can calculate impact fees for.

Hopefully this explanation will help you understand the logic behind the fee and why it would be problematic to collect a fee for one purpose and then arbitrarily spend those funds on something entirely different. To do so would open the City to legal challenges that the fees are arbitrary and are not designed to do what they are represented to do which is to require new development to pay for the specific impacts that it creates.

Sincerely,

Michael Goimarac

******

Thank you, thank you! You have now answered my question and offered hope that a sensible and equitable re-evaluation might be forthcoming.

Eddie 

******

In addition to the forgoing, the following exchange with Andy Dickey ensued:

From: Andy Dickey

Date: 9/25/2013 4:13:15 PM

To: Eddie Maddock

Cc: Barbara Litrell; Dan McIlroy; Jessica Williamson; John Martinez; Mark DiNunzio; Mike Goimarac; Mike Ward; Rob Adams

Subject: Re: COUNCIL MEETING 9/24

Hi Eddie,

You are correct, the City right of way begins just north (away from the SR 179 Roundabout) of L’Auberge Lane.

Thanks,

Andy

J. Andy Dickey, P.E.

Assistant Public Works Director/ Assistant City Engineer

* * * * * *

Clearly this was an exercise in fact finding and that is my purpose in sharing it.

sedona chamber of commerceWouldn’t it be refreshing if we were able to so easily ascertain the reason for City Council and staff ramrodding the contract for Destination Marketing through the Chamber of Commerce without benefit of Requests for Proposals to professional advertising agencies…especially considering that, if approved, the increased bed tax will not be activated until January of 2014 and funds will not be released until sometime in January of 2014 after next year’s budget is determined?

The Chamber of Commerce presently has city funding in the current budget to devote to Destination Marketing. So, no need to use dire lack of funds to advertise Sedona during the (almost one year) duration as an excuse for bypassing RFP’s!

Realistically, money from the City does not promote Sedona – it promotes the Sedona Chamber of Commerce which is obligated to represent its members, within and outside Sedona City Limits.

Oh yes, does anyone know what will be the source of funding for improvements to the public park on Brewer Road after the City owns that property? 

And by the way, what’s the status of the collective multi-million dollar City reserve from Coconino County allegedly dedicated to drainage?

Looking at my own recently received property tax bill from that county, it includes a substantial amount indicated as “15000 Flood Control District.” Any answers to that City Council and/or City Staff?

Ah yes, three questions answered but many more pending.

For the best in Arizona news and views, read www.SedonaEye.com daily!

For the best in Arizona news and views, read www.SedonaEye.com daily!

44 Comments

  1. Ted says:

    Eddie Maddock wrote that it was confirmed that the city owned portion of the state highway extended to just a short distance south of the stop light at Forest Road.

    My question? How much has the city given ADOT to work on ADOT’s section of highway? Could the city please send a highlighted map here of what the City owns and then we can see what we didn’t know we didn’t own?

    Thanks, Ms. Maddock. Interesting questions and information.

  2. Susanna says:

    Is L’Auberge de Sedona technically city but really county? Does it charge city taxes but doesn’t have to? Wonder if their lawyers know this?

    By the way is this why the parade for St Patrick’s day isn’t on 89A because it doesn’t belong to Sedona but to ADOT and they won’t permit it?

    The roundabouts are county owned? How did Kim and Rowe get to put art on them?

  3. Brian says:

    I got a mass email that screamed about the republicans shut down the government and laughed my democratic ass off. first thing the republicans did that i say attaboy.

  4. @Susanna

    L’Auberge de Sedona is within Sedona City Limits, Coconino County, and State of Arizona. And yes, as a business within incorporated City of Sedona they are required to charge City taxes.

    ADOT at one time allowed the St. Pat’s Parade to extend through West Sedona from Stutz Bear Cat to Soldier’s Pass Road.They actually closed the highway to thru traffic during the duration of the parade. (oh for the good old days) You might check with the Chamber of Commerce about why the current location is where it is. They seem to know everything.

    The roundabouts are part of the State Highway System.

    Thanks for your questions. Good ones and I’m certain if my answers aren’t accurate I’ll hear about it. :-)

    @Brian:

    I say “attaboy” to you! :-) :-) (twice)

  5. Sharlett says:

    Susanna: where did you come up with all the County stuff? Don’t you understand the difference between City and County? Yes L’Auberge pays city taxes because they are IN the City!

    All the roundabouts are within the City and NO County ownership! Where do you get your information from??

    Only point you may have correctly brought out is the St Pat’s Parade on 89A was not making ADOT happy. Yet they always permitted it until the past City Police Chief Bob Irish (no pun intended) started saying it taxed his department tooooo much.

    Brian: do love and really enjoy learning that a Democrat finally gets the $$$ game going on in DC. You made my day!

  6. Wes says:

    What’s this about a new ordinance at Council level that could change how impact fees are collected and directed ? Is this for real? Are they really that savey and smart? Is that something that could happen?

    Do they (council) really care enough to get it done? Wow! Could be an early Christmas present to all of us waiting to get the drainage issues fixed as the elite council members keep talking about buying new land and how all of us pee-on’s need to suffer either property taxes or go-bonds or special improvement districts.

    From your article City Attorney Mike G states: “Our new study will reassess each of these categories and it may be that some of these fees will go up and some will go down. New state legislation enacted in 2011 has necessitated this new study and has created new parameters and limitations on the kinds of services that we can calculate impact fees for.”

    Well, that starts to make me think there IS a golden light at the end to a very dark tunnel this and previous Councils have taken us to: to where we can find the ways to stop collecting impact fees for non-necessary Parks and finally get back to the big basic issues of storm runoffs, drainage, streets you can loose your car in if you hit the right pot hole etc.

    Maybe happier days are on the horizon? I won’t hold my breath but maybe, just maybe some, or enough, of our elected will get educated and do the right thing.

    Hummmmm drainage fixed vs property taxes to fund a new park and other lands they want to own? Or drainage fixed and a new ordinance for no more impact fees for parks. Or….wow, the list goes on and on.

  7. Jean says:

    Just how new is the state legislation the City Attorney states necessitates a new development fee study if it was enacted in 2011? Perhaps complaints to City Council dredged this old matter up for possible consideration?

    I’m with Wes. No more impact fees for parkland purchases! Hey, this is only the tip of the iceberg. The City does not have the operating budget funds required to construct, operate and maintain a new park.

    With regard to condemnation of the old ranger station property on Brewer Road (matter tabled), between $750K and $1M in additional taxpayer $$$ was one amount thrown about during last week’s council meeting required to bring the three buildings up to code. It finally came to light they’ve got asbestos problems.

    Put all future development impact fees towards the storm water and street maintenance projects the Mayor indicated in his “Eye on the State of the City Address” required taxing options.

  8. Carl says:

    Reading both responses, if the roundabouts are state what special permission was given for the city art? Seems like clarity is needed. Jean, are you saying the regs & rules haven’t changed, just weren’t obeyed?

  9. Not Laughing says:

    This is to add agreement with EVERYONE who opposes the current assignment of development impact fees. It’s difficult to understand why, in the example cited by M. Goimarac, the largest portion was designated to Parks & Rec and NOT storm drainage master plan.

    Enough already. This nonsense MUST stop. Sedona residents do not deserve the current unspoken depiction as being mere “pawns” in the holier than thou attitudes of our decision makers. And yes, what about the flood control fees collected by Coconino County, at least a portion of which are assigned to Sedona. Have they, too, been transferred to Parks & “Wreck”?

  10. Joshua says:

    What? Art in the roundabouts? Is that a joke? Who the heck would have time to notice? It takes full concentration getting from point A to point B making those double maneuvers.

  11. Jean says:

    @Carl: I’m saying it has very conveniently taken too long for the City to get around to working on the new study the 2011 law required. I’m also wondering if doing this study was ever planned.

    If I understand what the City Attorney said, they did an analysis of what kind of fees would keep the same proportion of parkland to population going forward at the time the current Development Impact Fee Ordinance was enacted. Why were some critical infrastructure categories allowable under State law ignored? My opinion is that the manipulative City staff wanted parks.

    It’ll be a hard-to-win battle to get a new Ordinance omitting parkland purchase authority and mandating impact fees go exclusively to fix storm drainage problems. BTW, at present the former ADOT property at the “Y” and unspecified creek access land (an Executive Session secret) are under consideration.

  12. E. Maddock says:

    The following information comes directly from the office of the City Manager.

    The city works with ADOT via an Interagency Governmental Agreement. ADOT has very strict rules for anything the City wants to put in their rights of way, including the art in the roundabout. The city has been dealing with them for many months trying to reach agreement about the size of the pad, span of the art, and placement of the art for the Schnebly roundabout. There is nothing special about the deal with the roundabouts – City must jump through all of the same hoops and meet their very strict guidelines and rigorous permitting processes when it comes to the placement of artwork.

    “Permitting processes” perhaps are the operative words to answer those questioning the art in the roundabouts.

  13. Adele says:

    Appreciate the article!

  14. James Poole says:

    Great article. Thank you

  15. Wes says:

    Hey – the seemingly blind, deaf and runaway crazy wishes of this council to buy the land on Brewer and the gas station at the Y (roundabout) should indicate to all of us that these self defined sharks -living in our guppy pond – just think they are above and beyond any dreams and requirements most of us have for financial accountability!

    They seem to do it because they think they are anointed and can get away with continued bad judgment decisions as they spend our money.

    They do this as they tell us we have to suck up for new taxes to pay for drainage and streets costs they have not paid for? Give me a Break and give them brains.

  16. Jean says:

    DREAM ON if you would rather see a tree in the Schnebly Hill roundabout. Hey, the City has a long-standing Ordinance “requiring one percent of the amount of each capital expenditure for municipal construction projects….to be used for the acquisition or presentation of art in public places.”

    Incidentally, per the Arizona Revised Statutes, municipalities can charge Development Impact Fees for the following facilities that have a life of over three years or more: water, wastewater, storm water, streets, Police and Fire, parks, Libraries. Hmm, will the City decide to pursue bus transportation under the streets category?

  17. Max says:

    Ah yes, Jean, and let us not forget the questionable devotion council and staff have for the Chamber of Commerce. Maybe if they can make a deal w/ADOT we will eventually see satellite “chambers” at all roundabouts. This is sooo out of control.

  18. Just imagine how it would be if Sedona owned BOTH State hiways within City Limits. Praise the Lord that ADOT is still in control of at least one thing inconveniently untouchable by those controlling this dysfunctional joke called “city government.”

  19. The following sites are open and not affected by the government shutdown:

    Honanki heritage site
    All trailheads in the Red Rock Ranger District
    All USFS campgrounds are managed by Recreation Resource Management and are open today.
    RRM fee sites are open today: Crescent Moon Ranch/Red Rock Crossing, Grasshopper Point and West Fork Trail/Call of The Canyon
    All State Parks

  20. Jean says:

    OMG, just how insane are the City’s priorities? A Bike Skills Park is Agenda Item 9b for next Tuesday’s Council Meeting. Constructing this park is estimated to cost the taxpayers $111,100 in General Fund money. After it is finished in FY 2015/16, the operating cost will run $10,000/year. The City Council estimates it will be in the RED $4,654,900 by then (per 10-Year CIP).

    By the way, Agenda Item 9a is the Public Hearing on the Ordinance to increase the Bed Tax by .5% and to allocate 50% of total Bed Tax collections to destination marketing, etc. If rubber-stamped, the estimated annual expenditure of $1.075 million will be funded starting with the FY 2014/15 budget. The motion to dedicate this absurd amount was made by Vice Mayor DiNunzio and seconded by Mayor Adams.

    WHOA, whatever happened to eliminating non-essentials instead of fleecing the taxpayers $20+ million to pursue critical storm drainage and street maintenance projects?

  21. Glenn says:

    I read a lot of displeasure with the city government and have for a long time, yet the public keeps voting in these people. It is either people in Sedona don’t even bother to follow what the city government is doing or the majority is brain dead. Now I ask, which is it?

  22. Jean says:

    The Chamber of Commerce is working hard to get 55% of the City’s annual bed tax collections, estimated at $1.2 million, and packing Tuesday’s Council meeting. As is known, the Chamber has many members OUTSIDE the Sedona City limits, including the Enchantment Resort and the Hilton. The following was provided by a reliable source:

    “The city council will be voting to increase the Sedona City bed tax by .5% on Tuesday at 4:30 pm. At the last meeting, the council agreed to increase the bed tax by .5% and allocate 50% of the total collected taxes [$1.075 million] to the contracted DMO. You may be aware that we were just one vote away from the 55% that we requested.

    Since that meeting, we’ve convinced another councilor (DiNunzio) to support a 55% allocation to tourism marketing of the Sedona area. So, as of today, we have four (Williamson, Martinez, McIlroy and DiNunzio) votes for 55%.

    But, we need to show up en masse to illustrate our support.

    PLEASE ATTEND THE COUNCIL MEETING ON OCTOBER 8TH AT 4:30 PM. We should have a few prepared spokespeople and others to fill the audience and to stand when asked to support 55%. We need to FILL the room! We should try to have at least 100 people there. Will you volunteer to speak? Will you ask your friends and supporters to attend?

    * INVITE ANYONE YOU DO BUSINESS WITH OR ANY ORGANIZATION THAT RELIES ON YOUR GENEROSITY TO ATTEND. *

    It’s time to call in your favors. Let the people who rely on you for your generous donations know that you need them to be there.”

  23. WHAT??? says:

    Taken from Jean’s comment: “It’s time to call in your favors. Let the people who rely on you for your generous donations know that you need them to be there.”

    Just who is it that owes who favors and at the expense of public money?

    Is this even legal?

  24. Jim uptown says:

    If ever there was a reason to axe this million dollar give away to the chamber of commerce this is it. The greedy bunch isn’t willing to settle for 50% kickback? They’ve been soliciting council members for an extra 5%? Time to pull the plug city council AND staff. Do the right thing.

    Halt the deal presently on the table and all other negotiations until you seek Requests for Proposals, which is what should have happened in the first place.

  25. Reg says:

    Art in those roundabouts? Someone already wrote that nobody negotiating the roundabouts have time to appreciate the art work/s. My concern: what if there is a major accident and the driver or drivers claim that their attention was unfocused on the road because they were distracted by the art works. Who is liable? There will be litigation expenses and possible damages. Who has the “deep pockets” that the lawyers will target?

  26. THIS IS INCORPORATED CITY OF SEDONA TAX REVENUE ON THE LINE HERE.

    ——-Original Message——-

    From: Ralph Woellmer
    Date: 10/4/2013 7:29:13 AM
    To: Sedona Main Street Program (smsp@esedona.net); A Touch of Sedona (info@touchsedona.com); Almira Wagley (info@cozycactus.com); Ana Yates; Becky Nelson; Brad & Pauline Staub (info@adobe-hacienda.com); Chris Bird – Mii amo General Manager; Chris Bosselmann (Chris@junipine.com); Christina Stofko @Sky Ranch Lodg; Cindy Dean; Ed Conway (econway@sedonarouge.com); Ed Nelson (ed@sedonasuper8.com); Ed Varjean (info@lanternlightinn.com); Edd Zielinski (edward.zielinski@diamondresorts.com); Gary Dawson (info@rosetreeinn.com); General Manager – BW Inn of Sedona; Grace Mawkuszewski (info@gracessecretgarden.com); Jenn Wesselhoff; Jesse Alexander (jesseA@lauberge.com); Jim Matykiewicz (Jmaty@aol.com); Joanne Leone (touch@touchSedona.com); joe.emma@diamondresorts.com; Larry Galisky (galisky@usa.net); Les Belch (canvilla@sedona.net); Louis Thompson & Carolyn Crawford (webmaster@almadesedona.com); Mark Charlesworth (mail@creeksideinn.net); Mike & Melena Smith (info@canyonwrencabins.com); Paul Schwartz -casa@sedona.net; Pete Sanders; Phil & Dee Winkelstern (info@sedonadreammaker.com); Rob Holeman (rob@sedonareal.com); Ron Horwart; Sedona Metaphysical Spiritual Association; sedonaCMS@aol.com; Shelley@matterhorninn.com; Sheri Graham (sheri@sedona.net); Stephanie Sherwin (info@AppleOrchardBB.com); Steve Segner (steve@elportalsedona.com); Stuart Berman (info@adobegrandvillas.com); Stuart Berman (info@sedonasfinest.com); Wendy Unstattd (generalmanager@kokopellisuites.com); Edgar.Lozoya@hilton.com; Lonnie Lillie (lonnie@bwarh.com); Lori.Loduca@diamondresorts.com; Ralph Woellmer; Anne DiBattista (anne@sedonamainstreet.com); Bill Welter; Bobbie Surber (bobbie@esedona.net); Dennis Morrissey (dmorrissey@ilxresorts.com); Dick Dahl; George Tice (get@commspeed.net); Jodie Filardo (jfilardo@sedonaaz.gov); John L. Di Battista (JohnDiBattista@eSedona.net); Malachy Wienges; Patti Todd – Public Relations – PT/PR; Shirley Tolley (wilcoxwesternwear@esedona.net)

    Subject: City Council Meeting on Tuesday – October 8, 2013! We need you to attend!

    Good morning everyone.

    The city council will be voting to increase the Sedona City bed tax by .5% on Tuesday at 4:30pm. At the last meeting, the council agreed to increase the bed tax by .5% and allocate 50% of the total collected taxes to the contracted DMO. You may be aware that we were just one vote away from the 55% that we requested.

    Since that meeting, we’ve convinced another councilor (Dinunzio) to support a 55% allocation to tourism marketing of the Sedona area. So, as of today, we have four (Williamson, Martinez, McIlroy and Dinunzio) votes for 55%.

    But, we need to show up en masse to illustrate our support.

    PLEASE ATTEND the council meeting on October 8th at 4:30pm. We should have a few prepared spokespeople and others to fill the audience and to stand when asked to support 55%. We need to FILL the room! We should try to have at least 100 people there. Will you volunteer to speak? Will you ask your friends and supporters to attend?

    * Invite anyone you do business with or any organization that relies on your generosity to attend. *

    It’s time to call in your favors. Let the people who rely on you for your generous donations know that you need them to be there.

    Ralph Woellmer

    Ralph Woellmer – Member of the Board of Directors – Sedona Lodging Council

    Owner/Mgr. Partner

    Matterhorn Inn

    230 Apple Avenue

    Sedona, Arizona 86336

    Dir. Of Operations/General Manager

    Arroyo Roble Resort

    PO Box 2264

    (100 Arroyo Roble Road)

    Sedona, Arizona 86339

    ______________________________________________________________

    THIS IS CITY TAX MONEY SUPPORTED AND PUBLIC INFO. SPREAD THE WORD.

  27. Warren says:

    Darn! I don’t think I have any favors I can call in.

  28. Say What? says:

    Look at the email list. More hotels outside the City limits. Only proves the point that taxpayers money will be going to fund non tax collecting hotels. SPEAK UP PEOPLE PLEASE LET YOUR COUNCIL KNOW! They think it is okay with you, let them know. NOT OKAY! Now or never.

  29. Lesley H. says:

    Re: We All Deserve to Know

    This Folks is how Sedona is run “Call in the Favors”. I hope that everyone reading this understands what is going on here. And it’s Not about the betterment for the residents of the city where that extra .5% could go along way in our infrastructure.

    “…we’ve convinced another councilor (Dinunzio) to support a 55%…”
    “…we have four (Williamson, Martinez, McIlroy and Dinunzio) votes for 55%…”
    These two statements say volumes. So much for our free thinking city council. .

    And I would like to add, before voting your hard earned money away on a ‘yes’ vote for school taxes, please realize that basically the same thing is going on there, with the mismanagement of money, no accountability, and their hands out for more. Vote “No” .

  30. Sharon H. says:

    I am copying this to my contact list in the city. Everyone should attend this meeting!!!!!! If the Chamber doesn’t get funding our local economy will collapse and we’ll all be without jobs and businesses.

  31. Bob, Sedona says:

    The bed tax is needed. Kudos to everyone who supports it & to Ralph for getting the organized ball rollin’.

  32. Steve says:

    I support increasing the bed tax.

  33. Carol says:

    “It’s time to call in your favors.” Really? Well the true face of Sedona has now surfaced. No more “animated by the arts” but “animated by corruption” is more like it. Fabulous publicity for “destination marketing.” Planners of the revised Community Plan are you paying attention?

  34. Warren says:

    “Animated by the con arts”

  35. Say What? says:

    Come on folks, your really out there. If you increase bed tax to promote tourist then keep it to do that. The chamber has nothing to do with local business. They are membership based with a minority OUTSIDE the city. They HURT the local in town business. Drive around town stores are empty. Friends getting friends to steal city money for PRIVATE business. Nothing about this is fair. The City should keep 100% of the money and place their own ads. Enough. Speak up!

  36. I have a futon that sometimes serves as a bed. Do I need to claim that on my taxes?

  37. Sharlett says:

    Oh my – so many people I want to respond to and where to start?

    Lesley H. – Your point is Valid and should be a refresher course to Council (and Legal Staff) as to the legal issues of any elected person making a commitment to any issue well prior to a Public Vote. Looks like Ralph just sunk Councilman Mark D when he said Mark had agreed to the 55%? Isn’t that like breaking the law?

    And once again Lesley H – you’re correct about same tactics going on with the school district over-ride-hike-our-taxes-BS. along with the realizing of mismanagement of funds without accountability with both Public entities. (isn’t that called “self-serving?)

    Sharon – Hey – the Chamber has never funded the hard working business community owners who spend their own money vs City dole out funds. I don’t ever recall the Chamber offering to give a hard pressed business any money to get them over the hump? You know something I don’t?

    Bob, Sedona: You approve of Ralph calling in Favors to shorten his advertising budget on the backs of the tourists? Wow!

    Carol: yet the true face of the incestuous relationship between Chamber, City & Lodging group is know out in the open.

    I for one feel very offended and tired of all of this game the “players” keep playing as they think we are damn dumb dead and silent!

    to “Say What” – HUH? if you really believe what you wrote I’ve a bridge you might be interested in because I assure you it will bring you a huge return.

    Yep Warren —- the Con Artists!

  38. Reminder of old bumper stickers “KEEP SEDONA BEAUTIFUL. WHEN YOU LEAVE TAKE SOMEONE WITH YOU.”

    Suggestion for new bumper stickers “SEDONA ARIZONA – ANIMATED BY CORRUPTION”

  39. “It’s time to call in your favors.”

    ex·tor·tion
    ikˈstôrSHən/noun
    1.the practice of obtaining something, esp. money, through force or threats.
    synonyms: blackmail, shakedown.

    State Law Library, Law and Research Division 602-926-3948

    Information on Statutes 602-926-3948

    Statewide Toll Free 1.800.228.4710

    http://www.azleg.gov

  40. “SEDONA ARIZONA – ANIMATED BY CORRUPTION”

  41. Hal says:

    After watching parts of todays council meeting: Hats off to the Chamber for getting their 55% of a newly jacked up Bed tax of .05% and without a Business Plan anyone can see.

    looks like what I’ve read on this website and watched on line constitutes a call to the State AG as to how anyone will know how a particular Council Man will vote prior to a Council Meeting! And then Mark D voted just as predicted by Ralph from the Lodging Council

    Man, how I wish I could have pulled that feat off with my bankers (just like the city is the Chamber’s Bankers) back in the day when I needed to raise cash for my multiple business enterprises in order to grow them.

    One thing I learned bk in the day was raising my rates (same as raising bed tax) for product, never netted me more money as the production costs never were able to be reduced to improve the product maintenance or production costs.

    Time will tell all of us of the intelligence of these nefarious folks and their relationship. I for one hope they can pull off their grand huge revenue in “dream”.

    Otherwise our bed tax’s will go down and the sales tax will go down and then the “Bankers” will have to deal with their new contract that perhaps is ANIMATED BY CORRUPTION”

  42. Minnie Pearl says:

    Hi Harley McGuire. Even tho your just a doggie (I’m a kitty kat) it seems you are pretty smart and it would be a good thing if you and your friends would be on that city council thingie my people parents read about. I would join you but we live in this place called Calyfornia now so even tho theres problems not so bad as where you are. Oh yes, the snakey in the house wouldn’t have been a problem for me. I caught lizards all the time when we lived in Sedonya.

  43. hal says:

    Hey Minnie Pearl – are you on the wrong site?

  44. Minnie Pearl says:

    Howdy doody Mr. Hal.

    You are correct that my message should have gone direct to Harley McGuire. Wat happen was mah human parents were so dang involved in readin’ bout all Sedonya’s trubbles, stuff like the school and fire taxes and stuff from Jean and Rick and others it seems they put me to the wrong place to have my say.

    Not to matter tho cuz no doubt in my mind that Mr. Harley McGuire and his pals are way too smart to think ’bout getting into Sedonya political rat-nest. Just more local pests to deal with.

Leave a Reply

Copyright © 2008-2017 · Sedona Eye · All Rights Reserved · Posts · Comments · Facebook · Twitter ·