SedonaEye.com columnist Eddie Maddock
Sedona AZ (November 23, 2016) – This is an e-mail sent to the City Council which is self-explanatory.
TO: Members of the Sedona City Council
The following two comments were posted by Steve Segner, Chairman of the Sedona Lodging Council, under my most recent article on Sedona Eye. The subject related to the Council meeting held on Nov. 22, 2016:
Steve Segner says:
November 22, 2016 at 3:08 PM
Well Eddie see you at the meeting this afternoon want to hear what you have to say in public and the other 3 people that post using made up name,
ss
Steve Segner says:
November 22, 2016 at 7:28 PM
Ha, no one showed or sent in letter to the city council meeting Toni the?
So what’s up all you chamber haters you had your chance,
Great meeting, chamber offering to spend $1.200,000 of marketing money to buy a parking lot up town…..That’s right money take from advertising and spend it to help traffic and parking.
I can hardly wait to see how you all put a negative spin on this
have fun
* * * * * * * *
Without intention to minimize Sedona’s need for additional parking, my question is, if the information Mr. Segner provided is accurate, that the Chamber is offering to spend $1,200,000 of marketing money to buy a parking lot uptown, why wouldn’t the City purchase the property directly instead of going through the Chamber of Commerce? Does it mean the City authorizes support for the Chamber to enter into the business of real estate/property management on the City’s behalf? Will the City of Sedona be responsible for property taxes and other liability on such property(s)? Who will benefit from a potential commission on the sale/purchase transaction of said property(s)?
The same question remains unanswered as to why the City refuses to contract with a professional advertising agency, through the process of Requests for Proposals, as they do other city contracts?
Mr. Segner also refers in a comment dated 11/18 – 1:19 PM, to a contribution allegedly made by the Sedona Lodging Council of $5,000 towards the traffic study. In addition to funding for the USFS to assist in trail maintenance, that money was attributed as having come from the Chamber of Commerce as reported in the Red Rock News. Is the source of that funding from Chamber membership dues or does it represent a portion of the money allocated under the terms of the City’s contract with the Chamber of Commerce for the purpose of destination marketing? If it is, in fact, city revenue, then once again why wouldn’t the city follow their budget process and allocate the money directly?
Have you abandoned the commitment made during initial contract negotiations for the services of a professional outside audit to ascertain with certainty how this money has and continues to be spent?
What is the purpose of retaining a special interest, member driven organization as an acting agent for the City of Sedona? Do you have a written contract for that purpose? Does the Chamber of Commerce have a similar contract with the State of Arizona to act as an agent for them in order to justify authorized permission to function under the flag of the “Bureau of Tourism?” Do you ever intend to insist the legitimate businesses in Sedona City Limits, licensed and collecting city sales and bed taxes, be equitably represented at the Chamber of Commerce Visitors Center, allegedly 70% financed with city tax revenue, without being coerced into mandatory membership in the Chamber of Commerce?
Do you have an accounting of the number of employees the Chamber of Commerce has hired since the inception of the contract agreement? Do you know the source of revenue being used for their compensation?
Unless you have already determined the contract will be renewed, prior to a formal meeting to address that subject, why would you sanction for the Chamber to purchase real estate on the City’s behalf? Again, have you no intention to consider redirecting use of the unconfirmed return on the bed tax increase?
Do you ever intend to ascertain with accuracy what percentage of the increase in city revenue during the past two years is attributed to the upswing in economy? Have you ever considered that by having followed protocol according to other transactions entered into by the City of Sedona the community might have averted many, many suspicions and ill will?
The City of Sedona has essentially set forth a policy of meticulously scrutinizing other contracted partnerships, apparently with the desire for unquestionable transparency. What’s the reason for reckless abandonment of that protocol when participating in transactions with the Sedona Chamber of Commerce? Doesn’t logical analysis portray this scenario as one whereby it is the City of Sedona that continues to promote the Chamber of Commerce instead of the other way around?
Respectfully submitted,
(Ms.) Eddie S. Maddock
Read www.SedonaEye.com for daily news and interactive views!
@JJ and jj
It now appears obvious to me that I was not clear in my post that identified the information provided to Council.
I provided the link to see the Council packet of 11 Jan 2017. I believe there is confusion with the report provided by the CoC to Council on 22 Nov 2016.
Please take a look a the Council packet. There is information included of which I was unaware. I totally agree that at such a contract needs the benefit of independent outside “audit” and public disclosure of how tax dollars are
expended.
@Ron Maassen makes many valid points regarding the staff report. I am continuing to scrutinize that report and will comment in more depth later.
Will you all not be glad when this weather turns and do not have as much face time with my computer?
steve Segner says: “Walk out side to day and every day till may, it will not be traffic backed up and the town will be slow….. now and summer is the only time we advertise sedona.” So why did I see a commercial on TV this evening advertising Christmas in Sedona? Oops!
And in three years you have done NOTHING to market the down times you described. That is contrary to your phony, baloney sales pitch of Just Trust Us. Your deal was to market this time of year and the summer you mentioned. You have failed. You’ve proven nothing except adding to the nightmare of traffic congesting day trippers. And you know it. It will be insane if this city allows a member driven organization to invest in real estate, with public money, on behalf of the city. Certifiable – all of you. And to continue to allow such an obvious display of cooking the books and questionable return on what was supposed to have been 55% of only the .5% bed tax increase? Hardly would amount to over $2 million dollars – you know, city hall knows it… And just what is considered organized crime is what I would like to know?
And the nasty comment made agreeing with your policy of slander, mud slinging, guerrilla and smear tactics – be it Mr. Hamilton or anyone else – should be run out of town on a rail. Now that’s an idea – bring in a railroad so we can use it to run you bums out of here. Oh – forgot – you and your gang are the true hilltop folks. We flatlanders are the fallen folks. Used to be NAU students tagged Sedona as “The Holding Tank to Heaven” for those that chose to make it our home. No more. It’s now “Trial Life in Hell” as we hope there’s a better place in the hereafter since we are serving our time in THAT place NOW.
Sedona has its own basket of deplorables. And it isn’t the residents.
Thanks for reposting when ever you run out of answers, great marketing plan and worked , the flatlanders voted and we won, and the idea on the truck is used in almost every election. Thanks steve
@Steve segner lies again The State law is clear and the city can use it for planning, coordinating ect. ONLY because they raise higher by .5%. It can be used for MANY items
2016 Arizona Revised Statutes
Title 9 – Cities and Towns
§ 9-500.06 Hospitality industry; discrimination prohibited; use of tax proceeds; exemption; definitions
But if you look at the True return YOU are costing the CITY money. IT IS A NEGATIVE RETURN on their investment.
City increase bed Tax .5% totals $1,282,365.14 BUT they allocated $5,549,537.00 to the chamber. So your scam of raising bed tax cost the CITY $4,267,171.86 SO the CITY LOST MONEY!!!!!!! Over 4 MILLION
Brilliant CIty council members and Staff You just WASTED over 4 million dollars!!!!
@SSegner
If the chamber doesn’t receive the marketing contract you will still have -word of mouth, Enchantment will still market Enchantment, Hilton will still market Hilton, The Rouge will still market the Rouge, Tlaqupaque will still market Tlaquepaque, Pink Jeep will still market Pink Jeep,
L’auberge will still market L’auberge, and ELPORTAL WILL STILL MARKET ELPORTAL!!! Sedona do not waste your money on a rip off scam-Sedona Chamber of Commerce.
JJ all hotels have marketing programs for there hotels not for Sedona, first people need to want to come to Sedona, then what to do and where to stay.
Only 35% of traffic on any give day is hotel guests , 23,% locals.
No hotel markets Sedona, so much for your word of mouth….. The bed tax is the marketing money for Sedona as a place to come stay for several day and only in the off season…… Understand off season….. The city is happy with how the chamber handled the program, I am sure they will have some new ideas on how and what we should do with it, that is there job. But they also know that any new income to the city will come from visitors not Jean Jeans or visitor hating pals.
NO TAXES,NO VISITORS,NO CHAMBER, NO BONDS,NO WASTE WATER FEES,
NO NATIONAL MONUMENT what did I miss?
Jean If WORD OF MOUTH is so great then why is it that NO national brand uses ir as the corner stone of it’s marketing? Coke, Ford, IBM Utah, California, . all good but all spend millioms on advertising….
The Sedona Chamber is a non-profit 501 C6 which is a trade association membership based.
They lobbied the city of Sedona for money to use for their exclusive use their members by their directors who all are benefactors.
The Chamber falsified the information given to the City on Scottsdale. Falsified how much that .5% would bring into city. Along with their contributions to the City. The Chamber has done so for their own private members. Professional Businesses pay for their own marketing and the Chamber can’t take credit for every business especially since they only have around 25% of their members within the city limits.
By doing the above the Chamber Board has violated the law. The “conflict of Interest” clause required by the IRS along with they are operating with profits. They are required to annual sign the “Conflict of Interest” cause as reported on the tax returns.
https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/tools-resources/conflict-of-interest
In regards to any debate on this, all money received from the city is used to improve their members and directors. They have NO proof that others benefit.
Their Directors businesses benefit, therefore they violate the IRS Conflict of Interest by lobbying and taking the money.
Their bedroom relationship with the City.The city Council members partaking in their meetings has given the chamber inside information. The city enabling the chamber to infuse their business, a private 501 C6 membership base into City politics along with the city promoting on their website is discriminating against other Business Associations and businesses in the City limits.
The interface of the city with the Chamber gives them insider information to steal from the taxpayers in the city of Sedona IMO.
There was a previous comment from a J.J. (not JJ) which I no longer find due to new comments that have been posted but I intended to address. It was in reference to the sneaky revival of the Red Rock National Monument designation having been presented to President Obama for 11th hour approval. The comment I want to add, which quite possibly is just as appropriate here as under whatever article J.J. placed his own remark, since it’s highly speculated that at least two former members of Sedona City Council have been actively involved in this sneaky, ongoing plot to go against the will of 80% of the people. One of those council members resigned prior to fulfilling term. The other was highly instrumental in orchestrating, encouraging, and extending the destination marketing contract between the city and the chamber of commerce.
Any lingering questions about the extent of damage, evil, power, corruption, and backdoor maneuvering that has overtaken not only incorporated City of Sedona, but the entire region? Wake up.
In his 8:21 comment on January 5, Steve Segner refers time and again to JJ as Jean. How many times do I have to tell the nudnik that JJ and Jean are different people? Wise up and end the hooey, Steve.
The City entrusts the Chamber of Commerce, a membership organization that promotes itself, with 55% of the annual bed tax funds it collects–$2+ Million this fiscal year alone. Yet our roads are clogged with day-trippers, livability is under siege, and the City Manager brought up financial sustainability for a new priority.
According to the Arizona State Treasurer’s FY 2015/16 REPORT OF LONG TERM DEBT, at $3,680 the City of Sedona’s per capita debt is the 10th highest of Arizona’s 91 cities. Total indebtedness is $37,695,000.
It is WRONG to have submitted the proposal for a Sedona Verde Valley National Monument when 80% of the residents are AGAINST it.
SEDONA — The Steering Committee of the Coalition for Permanent Protection of the National Forest in the Sedona Verde Valley Red Rock Area announced Wednesday that it has submitted a proposal for national monument designation to the President’s Council on Environmental Quality and, as is customary, to the Departments of Agriculture and Interior, in Washington, D.C.
According to a news release from Peggy Chaikin, Media Relations, Steering Committee Coalition for Permanent Protection of the National Forest in the Sedona Verde Valley Red Rock Area, “This proposal requests that 80,000 acres of the Red Rock Ranger District of the Coconino National Forest (CNF) be designated as national monument. This action, under current law, exempts those acres from future land trades and leases for commercial development or resource exploitation. Easements for city/county/state infrastructure on Monument land would continue to be available under the local Forest Management Plan in effect. Recreational activities, individual or commercial enterprises including ranching currently allowed by the CNF would not be affected. Because all Monument land would be withdrawn from trade, sale, lease or other disposition, the 80,000 National Monument acres will have their resources (Cultural, Geological, Biological, Hydrological and Scenic) better protected and preserved than can be accomplished with the Forest Plan’s Amendment 12 — which was always intended as ‘a placeholder’ until more permanent protection could be secured.”
After the public process held last year, the Steering Committee analyzed the feedback and adjusted the Monument area to half the original size while ensuring all the protections, recreation and access in the CNF’s “Amendment 12” remain.
Chaikin’s news release state, “It is important to remember that a national monument designation (Designation) is our country’s most diverse and customized federal land classification:
National monuments can range from buildings to fossil beds, reefs, ruins, railroads, statues, parks, volcanoes, forests, BLM open space and natural bridges. By law, they must be on Federal land. They can be managed by a number of agencies, including the National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Energy, Bureau of Land Management or a historical organization. Since the 1970’s, for logistical and economic reasons, management of the monuments has remained with the agency responsible for the land or place before designation.
One common feature of monument designation of National Forest land is that land is withdrawn from trade, sale, and new leases to commercial development, mining or other extractive industries, whereas all other existing rights remain in effect. These withdrawals have historically created opposition from real estate developers, energy-extraction industries and the movement to transfer federal lands to State control (Western Lands Movement).
The National Monument designation process has been around for nearly 110 years; the process begins with local activity and culminates in the public asking the President to establish the proposed area as a national monument through the Antiquities Act. This Act, created by Theodore Roosevelt in 1906 and passed by Congress, grants any President the authority to designate National Monument status on public lands that have objects of historical, cultural, scientific interest and/or may possess unique scenic or educational value. The Act has an impressive track record of preserving some of the nation’s most beloved, iconic areas, although most Designations (like the Grand Canyon in 1908) were met initially with fierce opposition from real estate developers, mining industries and cattle ranchers.
Public & commercial recreational activities continue after monuments are established. These include but are not limited to: hunting & fishing, camping, backpacking, mountain biking, hiking, horseback riding, back country tours, target shooting, jeep rides and other motorized vehicles.
National Monuments do not create “inholders.” An inholder is a landowner surrounded by federal land — this means any property owner in Sedona, a city currently surrounded by National Forest and Wilderness Areas, is an inholder. Monument designations do not affect an inholder’s property and water rights, including access through federal land because inholding land is governed by county & city regulations. The Coalition could not find an instance of a National Monument designation affecting the property or water rights of an inholder when the resources and purpose of the land are consistent with the Monument’s resources and purpose — as is the Red Rock National Monument.
Once a designation is established, the managing agency (the CNF’s Red Rock Ranger District), local stakeholders and residents develop a long-term management plan for the area to protect and manage its natural resources. This process can take 3-5 years. during which the CNF’s management plan remains in effect.
More information and the proposal are now posted on the Coalition website: redrocknationalmonument.org.
NO NATIONAL MONUMENT IS NEEDED OR WANTED. What can we do to protect Sedona from this Federal Land grab?
Now I’m more confused. The comment made by just JJ (not J.J.) does relate to my own contribution but doesn’t sound at all like input from the JJ (without dots).
However, this issue is out there and the same as with the City/Chamber, millions of dollar deal, now S. Segner’s implying he supports the National Monument, it’s very likely there’s anything anyone can do. Clearly Sedona is in need of more than just a swamp cleaning. Toilets are overflowing and the stench continues to grow. Nice job, incorporation. And it isn’t only this city that’s ruined. All those donations given to valley-wide non-profits came with a price tag. And now you know what it is. National Monument Designation.
JeanJ says:
Yet OUR roads are clogged with day-trippers
JeanJ says: not your roads… get it you just live in Sedona the roads are owned by the state of Arizona and are for the use of all you are just a NIMBY… 8000+ make the living from the people that come to Sedona, and the dat trippers(people and customers ) support Sedona and the chamber marketing is not bringing them in Sedona is and the red rocks… all marketing is for hotel stays and in the off season
one more time off season
oh ya the day trippers pay most of our taxes…
According to the Arizona State Treasurer’s FY 2015/16 REPORT OF LONG TERM DEBT, at $3,680 the City of Sedona’s per capita debt is the 10th highest of Arizona’s 91 cities. Total indebtedness is $37,695,000.
oh please per capita works if “only”10,000 people in sedona paid for our bonds, it is paid by the 45,000 people a day that stay and travel through Sedona, using that number we are the lowest in the state.
Figures Don’t Lie, But Liars Do Figure
sedona is the only city that has a tourist or a travelor passing through. Right souphead.
@All Readers at The Eye and JJ:
Re: The latest rehashed version of a Red Rocks National Monument submittal to Obama and the press release published by Peggy Chaikin
The press release from the The Steering Committee of the Coalition for Permanent Protection of the National Forest in the Sedona Verde Valley Red Rock Area (hereinafter referred to as “the latest version the the Red Rock National Monument coalition” since there have been so many of these ‘coalitions’) is deliberately designed to mislead stakeholders and the public.
First of all, AZL has checked with the USFS and the NPS to find a “Steering Committee of the Coalition for Permanent Protection of the National Forest in the Sedona Verde Valley Red Rock Area” submitted boundary survey as well their related submission to the National Register of Historic Places of an inventoried antiquities list and have found that nothing has been submitted to either by the latest version the the Red Rock National Monument coalition.
Secondly, Arizona has 22 National Monuments. Not one is managed by the USFS, but rather, ALL are managed by the National Park Service (NPS) or BLM, both agencies of the Department of the Interior which ascribe to Draconian access and user activities rules, while the Department of Agriculture, of which the USFS is an agency, ascribes to access and visitor use rules that are lenient. That’s a monumental difference! The U.S. Forest Service will be the designated NM federal management agency according to the below press release. The odds of this are slim and none. Why? Again, to repeat, there are 22 National Monuments in our State of Arizona, more than any other state, and not one of them has the USFS designated as the federal agency manager. All are managed by the National Park Service or the Bureau of Land Management. This should lead an astute examiner of the latest version the the Red Rock National Monument coalition National Monument designation proposal to ask the question…why can’t the the latest version the the Red Rock National Monument coalition Monument Workgroup produce a written guarantee from any federal land and resource management agency to confirm that The U.S. Forest Service, as opposed to The National Park Service, will be the proposed National Monument’s federal management agency? Why would the NPS not be the designated Monument manager as more than 90 ninety of this nation’s 117 National Monuments are and as all are in Arizona if not for the few managed here by the BLM? And, why is this a huge, if not cataclysmic distinction, which the latest version the the Red Rock National Monument coalition knows…but won’t tell you?
The answer is that the USFS is an agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture which applies very lenient management rules of public access and activities within the confines of a National Monument, and whereas the “virtually always guaranteed” management of National Monuments is delegated to the National Park Service, an armed federal police force, which is an agency of the U.S. Department of the Interior, as is the BLM, both of which apply Draconian management rules of public access and activities within the confines of the National Monuments they manage. Moreover, the USFS was created to manage wildlands safety, as to fire and insect infestation, flood consequences, and animal overpopulation, and healthy vegetative growth while the NPS was created to manage human and corporate access, activities, revenue generation, and the uses of National Monuments and National Parks. There’s a big difference as to how this distinction will affect the lives of the residents of the Verde Valley notwithstanding that the latest version the the Red Rock National Monument coalition have gone out of their way to NOT disclose it to the public. If, as is always customary, the NPS is designated by the President to manage the proposed Sedona Verde-Valley Red Rock National Monument, the consequences will be extreme and stakeholders and the public need to know what they are.
Thirdly, and most importantly, the statement in the below press release from the latest version the the Red Rock National Monument coalition regarding the federal “inholder’s rule (derived from the Property Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2)” deliberately doesn’t mention that when deciding whether it is appropriate for federal agencies to regulate private, county and state property, to protect federal lands from external threats, the federal courts have consistently ruled in favor of the “inholder’s rule” which gives the federal government the right and power to assert its political and physical control over adjacent non-federal property (including municipalities,) in order to eliminate any threats to the objectives of the federal land management policy within the federal stewardship land.
Is it possible, then, that it could be interpreted under the above mentioned ‘inholding rule’ that the federal jurisdiction of the Sedona-Verde Valley Red Rock National Monument would extend into the Village of Oak Creek and the unincorporated environs of the Verde Valley and possibly into the incorporated municipalities of Sedona, Camp Verde, Cottonwood and Clarkdale that would be immediately adjacent to the proposed SVVRRNM designated boundaries?”
If the “inholding rule” can be applied to the extra territorial areas just mentioned, the fact of local self-governance could be impaired and we could find the place we live and love under indirect, or even direct, federal authority. At the minimum, if the inholding rule does apply in our case, if the subject National Monument designation is accomplished, this could give the Feds a choke-hold on our local economy, qualify-of-life issues, and our liberty. The below press-release from the latest version the the Red Rock National Monument coalition is designed to camouflage this risk to the Verde Valley region of this state.
Finally, let’s keep in mind that Congressman Gosar has resurrected the 1884 Anti-Deficiency Act {U.S. Code Title 31 Section 1341-Anti-Deficiency} which has never been rescinded by Congress or overturned by any federal court which prohibits federal agencies from obligations or expending federal funds in advance or in excess of a Congressional appropriation and from accepting voluntary services. In other words, any Executive Order by President Obama for the enabling of the latest version the the Red Rock National Monument coalition National Monument proposal will NOT be able to get any “enabling funding” requested by The National Park Service, the BLM, the USFS or any other federal agency without a formal U.S. House of Representatives approved appropriations bill which would, otherwise, NEGATE the President’s Executive Order. I have talked with Rep. Gosar’s office to discuss this and I will promise you the Republicans of Arizona’s Congressional delegation are thoroughly prepared to PREEMPT the latest version the the Red Rock National Monument coalition National Monument proposal to revive the Sedona Verde Valley Red Rock Area National Monument issue.
Furthermore and concurrently, Governor Ducey has signed Rep. Bob Thorpe’s bill, namely House Bill 2585, which is now law in our State, which requires the Arizona State Land Department to “determine whether the limits of a parcel comprising a national monument” in our state “are confined to the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected by the national monument.” Keep in mind that national monuments in the western U.S. average 175,000 acres in size whereas national monuments in the eastern U.S. average 50-100 acres that is not a misprint! Notwithstanding the latest version the the Red Rock National Monument coalition’s demonstrated inability to understand U.S. Constitutional Law, the State of Arizona does have the right and Constitutional sovereign authority to hold the federal government to the restrictive language contained within the very law that President Obama uses to create national monuments. Even the Arizona Game and Fish Commission has come out against the creation of more national monuments in Arizona.
J. Rick Normand for Arizona Liberty, Sedona, AZ
To the public voting in the new Red Rocks National Monument poll at the Sedona Red Rock News:
The Sedona Red Rock News is currently running another Red Rocks National Monument poll entitled “Online Poll-Do you oppose the rush for national monument designation?” BEWARE! This sort of poll can so very easily be rigged and this one evidences such dastardly rigging.
All that has to be done is for anyone who wants to rig the outcome in their favor is go to http://hide.me/en/proxy and select US and then, enter the link and then, vote again. Deselect cookies on the other drop down menu also. One can keep voting by changing his/her IP address using a proxy. It appears that the “favor the National Monument” pushers are already using a multiple proxies to unethically influence this poll in order to send the results to Tom O’Halleran so that he can show them to Obama. It’s astonishing that the Editor of the Sedona Red Rock News is unaware of how to use proxy sites to totally manipulate this kind of outrageous poll fixing.
More lies from Steve Segner (in quotes):
“The roads [in Sedona] are owned by the state of Arizona.” Hello! In his “City on the FAST track to paving” article, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Andy Dickey states “With incorporation the City inherited streets…the City will be repaving “four to five miles of streets per year with an approximate $1.5 million budget.”
“All marketing is for hotel stays and in the off season.” WTF? The Chamber has been advertising the Verde Canyon Railroad among many, many other non-hotels. Please note: The Chamber’s ads running on CBS and CNN on Sundays do not include hotels.
“The day-trippers pay most of our taxes.” Ouch. Among several other City taxes, naturally day-trippers do not pay bed taxes. According to ss, “…all marketing is for hotel stays”
Our bond debt “is paid by the 45,000 people a day that stay and travel through Sedona.” Sheer lunacy. Over 75% of the City bond debt is Wastewater debt, and the 60% of us on the sewer are stuck paying for it. “The 45,000 people a day that stay and travel through Sedona” are not liable for one penny of the City’s $37,695,000 bonded indebtedness.
ETC. ETC.
Conflict of Interest for IRS 990 reporting
A conflict of interest arises when a person in a position of authority over an organization, such as an officer, director, manager, or key employee can benefit financially from a decision he or she could make in such capacity, including indirect benefits such as to family members or businesses with which the person is closely associated.
https://www.irs.gov/instructions/i990/ch02.html#d0e4460
The Chamber is violating as they are lobbying for exclusive use for their private members ONLY. Board members lobbied for money. Indirect the board members businesses are benefiting. IMO
Thanks to the person that picked up on Segner’s uninformed statement about two state highways. Of course he wouldn’t be aware of subdivisions where county roads became city roads after incorporation because he lives in Oak Creek Canyon. It’s curious whether or not that chap knows which direction the sun rises.
Another point here with reference to this lunacy with the chamber of commerce ruling our lives, why is it USFS trail maintenance should preclude spending taxpayer money over legitimate city infrastructure? Let’s see how the little man spins that one.
This city should promptly disregard and disconnect their intimate attachment to a “regional” chamber of commerce, being allowed to promote ONLY their members. The increased bed tax should be appropriately allocated by and within the confines of this incorporated City of Sedona, and that includes purchase of property. Do you people not understand the meaning of metes and bounds? Consideration for a questionable non-profit to be given this authority is nuts. They just spent how many $$$$ of Sedona revenue for their annual celebration to a resort outside city limits that pays no city bed or sales tax and has no business license. Contrary to flimsy excuses of course there are resorts within City Limits (metes & bounds) that could have accommodated the event.
ARIZONA STATE STATUTES
9-101. Incorporation; definition
D. By whichever proceeding the incorporation of a city or town is accomplished, the order shall designate the name of the city or town, and its metes and bounds, and thereafter the inhabitants within the area so defined shall be a body politic and corporate by the name designated.
I’ve recently looked at the Council agenda for 10 Jan., and no Steve, it is not about hotels but a consultant presentation on the findings to date of the traffic master plan study.
I urge everyone to take a look at that Council package and see how it may impact you.
One of the recommendations is to extend Carruth Drive straight to the West. That would take it directly though my home. There are other homes that would be “destroyed” or severely impacted by the desire to construct an alternate 89Alternate to the both North and South
Damn, now I have to go to Council meetings on both the 10th and 11th.
(deleted by editor) you can’t help yourself can you. You can’t stand to see the success of others when you have failed so miserably maybe if you hadn’t been so offensive to others you’d still have your (deleted by editor)
Mr. Normand:
Is there a website or some other way to join your group to assist in stopping this madness? Who the heck does this Chaikin lady think she is?
@ Fraud
I also seem to recall that the funding was proposed to be 55% of the increase in bed tax. I have nothing to rely upon except my memory. Do you or anyone else have a record or link to the CoC proposal and the Council action??
Even a definitive date of when that action occurred would be useful. I do clearly recall that when queried by John Martinez regarding the measure of effectiveness of the propose funding that Jennifer Wesselhoff responded that we will be successful when you cannot get into your favorite restaurant and that there will be no parking at the trailheads.
Ron
Temper, temper @Pay Attention. Distasteful words that must be deleted and unfounded accusations will not change State Law. Live with it!
@to J. Rick Normand January 7, 2017 at 5:05 pm
Please go to Arizona Liberty’s website page dedicated to opposition to any Sedona Verde Valley Red Rock National Monument @
http://www.arizonaliberty.us/Sedona_Verde_Valley_Red_Rock_National_Monument.html
When the page opens, look about a third of the way down the right hand margin and you will see this (click on the link that says CLICK HERE):
We need
YOUR HELP!
Only YOU
can make a
Difference
CLICK HERE
Or, at the top of AZL’s opening page you will see this (Click on the blue Facebook link):
OPPOSE
Sedona Verde Valley Red Rock National Monument
In association with:
Join the discussion, go to Facebook and search for:
https://www.facebook.com/Petition Against SVV National Monument
Or, finally, look up in the left hand corner of AZL’s opening page and click on “Contact Us,” then fill out the form and an AZL partner will get back to you personally.
Thank you,
JRN
@Ron Maassen
ORDINANCE NO. 2013-07
“Section 2:…The City Council of the City of Sedona hereby adopts a policy that a minimum of 55% of all revenue generated from the new 3.5% bed tax rate shall be devoted to the promotion of tourism and allocated to a contracted destination marketing organization.”
Section 2 Effective Date: “After July 2, 2014, the provisions of Section 2 of this ordinance shall be effective and 55% of all revenue generated from the new 3.5% bed tax rate shall be devoted to the promotion of tourism. Future changes to this policy may be made by a simple majority vote of the Council without a need for further amendments to this ordinance.”
If my recollection is correct, former Councilman Mike Ward had proposed 37% of the 3.5% bed tax proceeds. Wasn’t it Barbara Litrell who urged for 55%?
State law requires the .5% tax increase be used exclusively for the promotion of tourism. Bed taxes in effect prior to April 1, 1990 don’t fall under this requirement. This law also states that “…expenditures by a city or town to promote tourism include:
1. Direct expenditures by the city or town to promote tourism…
2. Contracts between the city or town and nonprofit organizations or associations for the promotion of tourism…
3. Expenditures by the city or town to develop, improve or operate tourism related attractions or facilities or to assist in the planning and promotion of such attractions and facilities.
Maxwell (Max for short) January 7, 2017 at 10:09 am
Thanks to the person that picked up on Segner’s uninformed statement about two state highways
Max you are do funny you said it your self” two state highways” not yours, not sedona Sedona State highways… for all to use, Sedona is a tourist town plan and simple. Tourists pay most of our bills
@ JJ and All Readers at The Eye
Re: Latest Version of the Sedona-Verde Valley Red Rocks National Monument submission to Obama
Click on the weblink below to see the pictorial true results of federal land mismanagement…this is gruesome to say the least.
http://www.rightwaytobegreen.com/