Sedona AZ (March 3, 2014) – The following is a letter to the Sedona City Council copied to the SedonaEye.com editor:
Hello Mayor Adams and Councilors,
As you know, I’ve written on this subject before. Drainage and Wastewater are “necessary public services” given short-shrift thus far that must be recognized and subject to Development Impact Fees. The Council must not approve the Notice of Public Hearing on Development Impact Fees, etc., until Drainage and Wastewater are very seriously considered for inclusion in the City’s DIF program.
DRAINAGE
It’s a given that FUTURE drainage problems will result from NEW development, there’s no way around it. History repeats itself, and the City of Sedona has a history of ridiculously expensive drainage problems resulting from approval of unsuitable projects in uphill areas by Community Development and P & Z. There’s also the not uncommon usage of either Alternate Standards or Administrative Waivers to relax standards. Their predictable use will add significantly to drainage problems from FUTURE development. Constructing retention basins won’t do much.
It was the Consultant’s discussions with City staff and his sucking up to them that resulted in Tischler/Bise’s absurd, unbelievable recommendation of no DIF for Drainage. This must be overturned.
Sedona City Council
WASTEWATER
The Tischler/Bise study is woefully inadequate in that it failed to include Wastewater in its analyses.
Did the City staff request this?
The Wastewater impact fee issue must be studied by Tischler/Bise, then recognized and considered for adoption by the City Council.
Sincerely,
Jean Jenks Sedona ResidentP.S. Page 18 of the City of Sedona Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2013, reveals an excess of expenditures over revenue in the amount of $1,470,182 for last year. It appears the group that wants to ‘Disincorporate Sedona’ is on the right track.
For the best in Arizona news and views, read www.SedonaEye.com daily!
From: jeanjenks
To: mgoimarac@sedonaaz.gov
CC: cmosley@sedonaaz.gov; dmcilroy@sedonaaz.gov; jmartinez@sedonaaz.gov; jwilliamson@sedonaaz.gov; kdaines@sedonaaz.gov; mdinunzio@sedonaaz.gov; mward@sedonaaz.gov; radams@sedonaaz.gov
Subject: RE: DIF Study Findings — AB 1713 (9/21/2013 Agenda Item 3.a.
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 08:23:12 -0700
Mike,
Many thanks to Mayor Adams for his kindness. Although you and I are not on the same page, I would respectfully request the information you have provided with regard to including Wastewater and Drainage as “necessary public services” subject to Development Impact Fees be included in an upcoming City Talk article.
WASTEWATER
I never mentioned capacity fees nor costs for connecting to the sewer system. NO, not what my email is about! As a matter of fact, I and others received an extensive education on capacity fees during the messy matter of the sewering of the Chapel area and know full well about property owners receiving capacity fee bills to pay therefor. For those in the dark, if any, the $9.12 million Wastewater portion of the City of Sedona Series 2007 bonded indebtedness pertains to the sewering of the Chapel area.
I am thinking more like Development Impact Fees for sewer line extensions connected with new development projects both inside and outside the “sewered area,” as well as any other possibilities I am unfamiliar with. I don’t know if I’m up-to-date, but the last I heard the City was not charging for sewer line extensions to new development. Better yet, why not bill the developers of new projects for this cost? Another consideration: what other City Councils will want to do DIF-wise during the next decade, hoops or no hoops.
DRAINAGE
I wrote: “History repeats itself, and the City of Sedona has a history of super-expensive drainage problems resulting from various projects in uphill areas approved over the years by Community Development and P & Z. Although these projects cannot be considered for DIF $$$, there will be millions more in FUTURE new growth that can.” I am still having problems using Windows 8. But, as can be read, I wrote in denial of the BS I am reading about “charging new development for drainage projects that address existing drainage demands and not demands created by new development.” Frankly, the paragraph in AB 1713 about the Consultant’s discussions with staff and their recommendation of no DIF for Drainage is some of stupidest reasoning I’ve read in a long time. Kindly do not attribute one word from it to me!!!!!!
I am well aware that the “drainage” impact fee issue was studied and considered. That’s the problem. I don’t feel the job was done adequately.
It’s a given that future drainage problems will result from new development. And there’s always the use of Administrative Waivers–not uncommon–to get around standards, thereby worsening the problem. No matter what TischlerBise claims as a result of his deference to the City staffs’ pet interests, Development Impact Fees are needed for Drainage.
I know perfectly well that CIP drainage projects are for existing drainage problems, not future ones–please get real. WOW, just how nuts is it that anyone could think the 7/30/2013 City Council educational session on both Special Improvement Districts and $20.9 million in GO-Bonds could possibly have been in order to address paying for drainage problems not yet in existence?
Jean
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 16:58:53 -0700
From: MGoimarac@sedonaaz.gov
To: jeanjenks
CC: BLitrell@sedonaaz.gov; CMosley@sedonaaz.gov; DMcIlroy@sedonaaz.gov; JMartinez@sedonaaz.gov; JWilliamson@sedonaaz.gov; KDaines@sedonaaz.gov; MDiNunzio@sedonaaz.gov; MWard@sedonaaz.gov; RAdams@sedonaaz.gov
Subject: Re: DIF Study Findings — AB 1713 (9/21/2013 Agenda Item 3.a.)
Jean:
Mayor Adams has requested that I respond to your e-mail. Let me first respond to your question regarding why no development impact fee is being imposed for wastewater. By statute, development impact fees are intended to pay for the costs of necessary public services that are created by the impacts of future development. As you have noted, currently, sewer service is only available to a portion of the City. The level of wastewater treatment capacity necessary to serve this portion of the city was determined when the treatment plant was constructed, and the plant was constructed with reserve capacity to cover future development in this sewered area. When development occurs in the sewered portion of the City, the developer/homeowner/business is then charged a one-time “capacity fee” that represents their “buy-in” cost for connecting to the system. This fee has a different statutory basis than a development impact fee, but you can be assured that as new development connects to our wastewater system, they are paying their proportionate share.
In order for the City to charge an impact fee for future expansion of our wastewater collection system, any new expansion of the City’s collection system and equivalent expansion of our treatment system would have to be part of an “infrastructure improvement plan” for sewering new portions of the City not already covered by our current system. Future expansion of our collection system is a policy issue that is the subject of future debate and public input. Because of the exorbitant cost of expanding our wastewater collection system given our rocky hilly topography, many undeveloped areas in the City may be better and more economically served by private septic systems or smaller private “package plants” rather than by expanding our existing wastewater collection and treatment system. Developers may opt to go this private route in the future. Until this policy issue is resolved and the City decides to actually expand its wastewater collection services, it is not feasible to charge a wastewater development impact fee for expansion of our collection system.
Regarding your question about the absence of a “drainage” impact fee, this issue was studied and considered. Again, by way of statute, cities and towns can charge a drainage impact fee for the cost of future drainage improvements needed to address increased storm water runoff created by new development. Currently, the City has, as a part of its capital improvement plan a large number of drainage projects. But these projects are intended to address existing drainage and storm water issues that are the result of existing rather than new development. Our building standards also require that new development install systems such as retention basins to insure that new development is not contributing to storm water runoff levels. Given these facts, charging new development for drainage projects that address existing drainage demands and not demands created by new development would not be in keeping with new state legislation governing impact fees.
Hopefully this answers your questions. Over the next few months the City will be conducting a number of public hearings on our proposed new impact fees. You are certainly welcome to provide input to the City Council on these fees. It is tentatively planned that the Council will be making a final vote on new impact fees in May of 2014 and they will become effective on or around July 31st of next year.
Sincerely,
Michael Goimarac
Sedona City Attorney.
work: 928-204-7200
fax: 928-204-7188
mgoimarac@sedonaaz.gov
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 11:59:01 -0700
From: MWard@sedonaaz.gov
To: jeanjenks
Subject: Re: Development Impact Fees, etc.; AB 1751 (3/4/14 Agenda Item 3.a.)
Jean,
On these issues, I very much agree with you, but the problem is in the state legislature not in Sedona. State politicians are elected as a result of political contributions and major contributions come from developers. As has been explained to me, Sedona is prohibited from using development fees for wastewater and is strictly limited in collections for storm drainage projects by state law enacted over the years. As a result, collections for drainage have never amounted to much for each of the five major drain ages of concern in the City. Future collections must by law be spent in a relatively short number of years as drainage projects go or returned to the developer.
As I do not recall the specifics and am away from my computer until next week, perhaps you might make an inquiry with our city attorney for details.
Sent from my iPad (shared by Jean Jenks)
From: jeanjenks
To: mward@sedonaaz.gov
Subject: RE: Development Impact Fees, etc.; AB 1751 (3/4/14 Agenda Item 3.a.)
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 14:08:58 -0700
Hello Mike,
Thanks very much for the information and the courtesy of a reply.
Last November I did respectfully request Mike Goimarac to provide the pertinent information with respect to Wastewater and Drainage DIFs via a City Talk article so that the public wouldn’t be kept in the dark.
According to an expert’s report I read on the internet:
“Necessary Public Services — The new legislation [SB 1522] requires that municipalities only charge Fees for the following facilities that have a life of 5 years or more: water, wastewater, storm water, streets, Police and Fire (does not include regional training facilities , administrative vehicles, planes, or helicopters), parks (less than 30 acres), Libraries (up to 10,000 square feet).”
Perhaps the devil is in the details about Wastewater development impact fees. I don’t feel upper echelon City staff has explained the matter of Drainage and Wastewater DIFs in an adequate, unbiased manner so that the public knows what’s what.
I am vehemently opposed to the City charging development impact fees for Parks. Sedona is surrounded by forest land. The Coconino National Forest has abundant amenities and a trail system par excellence. The City doesn’t need another disaster like the Brewer Road condemnation. I am appalled the City would condemn private property for a park. Then there’s the issue of the huge financial drain on the operating budget (around $1 M?) in order to rid the three buildings of asbestos and bring them up to code. After that’s done, there’s the matter of ongoing annual maintenance costs at a time when the U.S. economy’s going nowhere and the City has enough drainage projects for Phoenix.
I’m glad you are vitally interested in the City’s finances. In my opinion, the City Manager and his numero uno Assistant are out of touch and out of control.
Jean
But it’s far more fun for city management to play Santa Claus, build parks and fund tourist events with other peoples money. Many city employees do not even live in Sedona, so it costs them nothing.
Taking care of roads and drainage, well, that is far too routine and boring.
Odd, how city management can find ways to get around all kinds of limits on spending for stuff they are interested in. Roads and drainage, well, there are State Rules that limit them. Bull.
“When you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing; when you see that money is flowing to those who deal not in goods, but in favors; when you see that men get rich more easily by graft than by work, and your laws no longer protect you against them, but protect them against you, you may know that your society is doomed.” – Ayn Rand
Perhaps we should change “society” in the above quote to city.
Sedona disincorporation?
Tony,
By reading your posting, do I understand that you don’t take drainage serious? I guess that since you live on higher ground, that you have nothing to worry about so it’s not important.
While you may not be interested in having a strong infrastructure, there are some of us who are. I’m thrilled that city management consider our roads and drainage to be high on their list.
@Mrs. Roger Thomas: My interpretation of the comment from Richard Saunders (re roads and drainage) was the exact opposite of yours. Although perhaps sarcastic, Mr. Saunders’ statement “Taking care of roads and drainage, well, that is far too routine and boring.” was in direct reference to the city’s priorities to: “But it’s far more fun for city management to play Santa Claus, build parks and fund tourist events with other peoples money.” In my opinion he was spot on, facetious or not, about the foolish waste of Sedona tax dollars being frittered away.
I agree with @Dennis. Spot on….. all points.
Thank you @ Jean Jenks for all the posts. Thank you for being involved and speaking up.
On “Marathon Creates Issues for Sedona Residents” @Tom Bergen & @Molly Bachman had some interesting comments relating to finance. I am not sure who either one is. One sounds like a city employee to me. But their comments did get me to check into a few things.
It has to do with Cottonwood. They do many things themselves, for example the Marathon. Based on the statements by Tom & Molly I went and looked into Cottonwood along with our city. I was surprised and very impressed with Cottonwood. Here is the link http://cottonwoodaz.gov/finance.php
I think we need to look at the two side by side. Possibility learn from our neighbors.
Cottonwood has no City property tax same as Sedona. (We all pay property tax though the county, pay income tax though state, pay licensing fees though DMV.)
Cottonwood & Sedona populations are similar. (Cottonwood has grown and Sedona has shrunk.) I wonder why?
Cottonwood and Sedona have the same issue as zip codes and or name usage. There are many – more living outside city districts that use the same name.They are not in the incorporated city. Both in Cottonwood & Sedona.
We all think Cottonwood is bigger than it is, just like Sedona.
Bulk of revenues come from sales tax same as Sedona.
Sedona revenue 27M Cottonwood over 70m (more than double)
Mirror opposites. Cottonwood brings the business internal. Having control on items and building City of Cottonwood assets and revenue. They are building Cottonwood City business by buying assets that make money for them such as water companies. They have purchased four. The Cottonwood Chamber was a sponsor TO the Marathon supporting the City of Cottonwood to make money on the event.(Cottonwood City makes money on the event). Sedona is opposite the City sponsors the Chamber. ( the chamber makes money not the city)
Sedona outsources everything, pays everyone else and gets nothing in return. They throw money around at Non-Profits and don’t see any return on investment (ROI) nor do they own it. Performance reviews? Focus, target. review, improve, learn, and change. Responsibility.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see where and who are better managers. PR, Performance & Responsibility.
Cottonwood has shown us the way, passing us (sedona) up. Time to make changes.
Anyone want to look more? Can we together get our City Council to see we HAVE to make changes? Maybe if more of us speak up. Dreaming of a better Sedona.
Thanks as always Jean for your research and tenacity which allows we residents to see a little more light in the shadows.
Donna Joy I couldn’t agree with you more about Cottonwood, and enjoy watching their council meetings on TV (cable channel 2, the first and third Tuesday of every month at 6:00 p.m or online videos). Imagine 6pm when everyone is home from work and can watch. Love mayor Joens, she comes across as professional, ethical, respectful and seems to know how to handle a dollar, a real contrast.
Next week the council will be discussing raising our sewer rates. They’ve made such a mess of the treatment plant. Can you imagine if they owned the water company. Well an upside might be there wouldn’t be a shortage of water because none of us could afford to use it.
Thanks Ben for your imput. I think the key word is ethics. How can they talk about raising sewer fees. They are already so high that they have driven many restaurants out of business. I guess then we will all have to go to cottonwood to eat at a restaurant.
Donna Joy…I read your myopic comments re Cottonwood City Government. I suggest further reading at the Verde Independent website on any story concerning their City Hall, Council, Mayor, Water or Waste Water Department, Rec Center, road improvements, taxes and any others you might find there. The comments posted by their readers are just as bombastic and self-righteous as those posted here from the regulars. Their commenters don’t like their local government any more than you do. Using them as some beacon of hope for Sedona local government is a questionable pursuit.
“Myopic” (Josh Violette) is your negative definition and attempt to diminish another person’s ideals, research and knowledge or to negate them. A lot of people never/ever likes their local government yet there are many means to measure success and I simply have to agree with Donna Joy that Cottonwood has met and exceeded the financial obligation’s = quite unlike Sedona.
I’d like to know if this is you @Josh Violette?
National Public Safety Telecommunicators Appreciation Week Sedona Regional Communications Center (SRCC) telecommunications specialist Josh Violette SEDONA AZ (April 12, 2013) – Sedona Police and Fire Communication Centers will celebrate the week of April 14 – 20, 2013, as National Public Safety Telecommunicators Week. This week, sponsored by the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials (APCO) and celebrated annually, honors the thousands…
I am a real person, Donna Joy Varney. You misunderstood me. I am a “liker” and a supporter. I also am an entrepreneur, an innovator, a visionary, and a progressive thinker. Change is good, it helps us grow. I build and create things. Make “lemonade from lemons”
I passionately believe on building community from the inside out. I donate my money, time and energy to a non-profit group, Sedona Community Organization. Their signature event is the Sedona Bridal Fair which brings over 6 million dollars to the local economy. It is sponsored, hosted, and chaired by locals as volunteers..
The Sedona Bridal Fair has received ZERO funding from the City of Sedona. Sedona Community Organization has two big projects that they need help with. Would you like to help? Just give me a call. Thanks Josh.
Thank you Sharlett & Ben!
@Donna Joy Varney: You Rock and please keep rocking! and seems like you found out who Josh is and called him out. Problem is you probably called him out and he’s now not gonna respond. Typical of his type that does not provide fact and instead just provides rhetoric only to benefit his liberal stance.
So it’s looking like Josh is a paid public employee guy = no wonder his stance and his lame attempt at trying to ding you with the word “myopic” as any city employee has no clue about how tough it is to actually Own a business and use Your own money to promote or sustain Your business and how very tough it is to actually run a business to such a successful level whereby the city gets tax dollars from your business that they willy nilly spend – cuzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz – its all free money to them.
Josh has a right to speak his mind & where he works doesn’t matter when he does. He has a right to speak his mind period. Don’t attack the job he holds. Unfair. Besides I appreciate my public employees and I know most of you do too. Considering Josh’s job if he’s the man in the article (what great news that treats everybody fairly!!!) Josh above most here knows how little appreciate he gets for saving lives. Thanks to everybody commenting for sharing thoughts!!!
Everyone does have the right to an opinion. One thing to keep in mind is that most of the people who comment in favor of the city either work for the city or are the beneficiaries of city gifts, earned or not.
A 911 dispatcher is a necessary function. They also make $50-60,000, which is a living wage.
The city management, which for the most part makes over $100,000 and does little productive work also comments here mostly under alias. The 911 dispatcher you would miss, or the line could go directly to the fire department which is a whole other discussion.
One of our current city management personnel used to be the the business director for Sedona fire. After she vacated the position, it was left unfilled. The city management for the most part , you would not notice if they were gone. Just to give the readers an idea of the over staffing:
In the city managers office you have:
City Manager: Tim Ernster: (928) 204-7127
Assistant City Manager: Karen Daines: (928) 203-5067
Communications & Public Affairs Manager: Ginger Graham: (928) 204-7119
Assistant to the City Manager: Nicholas Gioello: (928) 203-5100
Administrative Assistant: (928) 203-5198
Arts & Culture Coordinator: Nancy Lattanzi: (928) 203-5078
Citizen Engagement Coordinator: Lauren Browne: (928) 203-5068
Human resources:
Human Resources Manager – Brenda Tammarine: 928-203-5189
Human Resources Specialist – Nancy Wilson: 928-203-5038
Then there are lots of staff that may actually do some work you would notice.
It’s your money. They are VERY good at spending it.
If the City of Sedona ceased to exist, the county would take over the functions. Those employees who actually did work would find jobs. The excess management, well, they are used to doing nothing productive anyway.
Oh how I would love to be as smart as Donna Joy and Sharlet!! If only every one would listen to these highly intelligent women the world would be great!! I would love to have there intelligence so I can point out to others how everyone else is doing it wrong and spending my hard earned tax dollars!! Boo hoo!! Complain, complain, complain!!
Bob…thanks for your comments and consideration. Sharlett…in my earlier posting, I referenced the bombastic and self-righteous regulars who post here. Your most recent comment certainly fits that description. If it means anything to you, I don’t work for the city. Also, I owned my own small business here until a few years ago.
Don’t waste the effort coming up with a new line of attack against me. I simply disagreed with an earlier posting and pointed out the faulty basis for it.
Hi Bob,Sedona,
We all have the right to speak our minds. That includes everyone. No one should ever feel that they can’t speak up even if that means speaking up when others don’t want you to. That does not make one “Myopic”
The only point I see is that one may be too close to be completely objective. We all have family serving the public sector, been touched by their service, and greatly appreciate them.
Janet,
Are you complaining because Donna Joy spoke up?
If you have an issue with whether the facts were correct or not than that is one thing. But if you’re complaining that Donna Joy is reporting those facts, then that’s another.Then it’s just your opinion.
If you have an issue with any of the facts that were reported we would love to here from you.